Jewish Life Sept-Oct 1963 by Jewish Action

Heave t h e S u n d a y

law

cases been

overruled?

THE JEW ISH EDUCATION JUNGLE REPORT FROM THE NORTH WHY FIGHT FO R CIVIL RIGHTS ? DIALOGUE ; EDITbHIAL: ^B3E MISSIONARY MENACE IN ISRAEL

T ISH R I-C H E SH V A N 5 7 2 4 SEPTEM BER-O CTOBER 1 9 6 3

Books o f Enduring Worth

THE

S O N C IN O PRESS

wishes to announce th a t portions o f the SON CINO T A L M U D a n d SON CINO Z O H A R have been reproduced a n d are being sold a n d distribu ted w ithout its consent or permission The reproduction o f Soncino publications a n d their sale a n d distribution w ithout its authorization or consent is forbidden according to Jew ish la w a n d has been so declared by

The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada The Rabbinical Council of America The Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth and The London Beth Din L egal action has been commenced to restrain these activities

For complete list of the works of The Soncino Press and name of your nearest bookseller, you are invited to write to THE SO N C IN O PRESS LTD. AUDLEY HOUSE, NORTH AUDLEY STREET, LONDON, W.i

Vol. XXXI, No. 1/Sept.-Oct. 1963/Tishri-Ch8shvan 5724

n "3

EDITORIALS

Saul B ernstein , Editor M. M orton Rubenstein R euben E. Gross Rabbi S. J. Sharfman Libby K laperman

Editorial Associates Lila Silver

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. Editorial anc! Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York 11, N. Y. ALgonquin 5-4100 Published by U n io n of O rthodox Jewish Congregations of A merica

VISTA OF TRUTH .....................................................................

A FORWARD STEP IN FUNERAL STANDARDS...........

THE MISSIONARY MENACE IN IS R A E L ........................

ARTICLES HAVE THE SUNDAY LAW CASES BEEN OVERRULED? / Nathan L e w in .....................................

REPORT FROM THE NORTH / Henry Biberfeld . . . .

WHY FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: A DIALOGUE / Jacob S. C o h e n ..................................... 26 THE JEWISH EDUCATIONAL JU N G LE/ Isacque Graeber .................................................................

POETRY OUR FATHERS / Lillian O t t .................................................. 25

REVIEWS THE MYSTICAL DIMENSION OF PRAYER / Emanuel Forman .................................................................... 50 THE SOURCES OF THE JEWISH HERITAGE/

M oses I. Feuerstein

President Benjamin Koenigsberg, Nathan K. Gross, Samuel L. Brennglass, Harold M. Jacobs, Herbert Ber man, Vice Presidents ; Rabbi Joseph Karasick, Treasurer; Harold H. Boxer, Secretary; David Politi, Financial Secre tary. Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President

Ben Amittay ............................................................................ 54

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

LIVING WATERS: THE SYNAGOGUE AS A “ SMALL SANCTUARY” / Uri M ille r ........................ 46 LETTERS

......................................................................................... 60

Saul Bernstein, Administrator Second Class postage paid at New York, N . Y.

September-October, 1963

NATHAN LEWIN brings his informed background to bear in analyzing, in this issue, historic Supreme Court decisions on and relevant to the Sunday Law cases. Presently Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, Mr. Lewin spent the previous year as Special Assistant in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, when he participated in the recent trial of James Hoffa. Prior to that he served as Law Clerk to Supreme Court Justice John M. Harlan. He is a graduate of Yeshiva University and the Harvard Law School. In the field of Jewish education for many years, DR. ISACQUE GRAEBER has served as bureau head and educational director in various parts of the United States and as special consultant to prominent educators. Author of a number of scholarly studies, his most recent work, soon to be published, is “Ameri can Jewish Scholarship, 1930 to Date.” Dr. Graeber pursued his doctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania, after gradu ating Columbia University. His Jewish education was acquired at Yeshivath Chaim Berlin. He is a frequent contributor to learned journals. RABBI URI MILLER, the spiritual leader of Beth Jacob Con gregation of Baltimore, is also President of the Synagogue Council of America. He previously served as President of the Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Miller received his S’michah from the Hebrew Theological College of Chicago, and his B.S. from the Illinois Institute of Technology. Recipient of a National Defense Graduate Fellowship, RABBI JACOB S. COHEN is currently engaged in doctoral studies in sociology at New York University where he received his M.A. Formerly Assistant Director of National Conference Syn agogue Youth, Rabbi Cohen is spiritual leader for the newlyformed Congregation B’nai David in West Orange, N. J. He re ceived his S’michah from Mesivtah Chaim Berlin and studied at the Gur-Aryeh Institute for Advanced Jewish scholarship. DR. HENRY BIBERFELD is the editor and translator of “World of Prayer” (Vol. I) and “Kuzari” (Jewish Pocket Books) among others. His book, “David, King of Israel” is to be pub lished by the Spero Foundation. A lecturer on Biblical topics, Dr. Biberfeld is a professional chemist in charge of research and development for an industrial concern in Montreal, Canada. The drawings in this issue will introduce to our readers the work of a gifted young artist, ALAN H. ZWIEBEL, art direc tor at Young and Rubicam Associates, Inc. After graduating Yeshiva University High School, Mr. Zwiebel received his B.A. from Brooklyn College. He studied art at Pratt Institute and the School of Visual Arts. JEWISH LIFE

Vista of Truth HE new year now unfolding offers grounds for hope that mankind, in the period to come, will find a measure of surcease in the swift and stormy course of human events. For a generation and more, the entirety of human society, to its inner most recesses and to its farthest outposts, has been in upheaval. Illuminated on the backdrop of unparalleled opportunity, the de fects of man’s character, no less than his potential for achieve ment, have been revealed as never before. Again and again, it has seemed that the higher qualities, the truer vision, must be finally swept asunder by the drunken delusion that men can be masters of Creation. Delusion has bred calamity and this, in turn, cyni cism and despair. But as a flower rises after a storm to seek the rays of the sun, so does man’s spirit rise from chaos to seek the light of his Maker. Out of the travail of our time has come, to many, the truth that man’s role is to be not the master of Creation but the servant of the Creator.

Brought into being to manifest this truth, charged to personify it by example, the House of Israel has persevered through age after age, to this day. And this day, as ever, is the manifestation and example needed—needed crucially. In serving Him, with all heart, strength, and might, we reinforce the purpose of G-dseeking men among all the families of mankind and bring nearer the day when “All mankind shall invoke Thy Name.”

A Forward Step in Funeral Standards PROMISING step towards the redeeming of Jewish funerary procedures from prevalent abuse is to be seen in the arrange ment recently entered into between the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, together with the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Jewish Funeral Directors of America. The Theatricality Pu^ c welcome accorded this program, designed to strengthen y s observance of religious requirements with regard to funeral pracSanctity ^ ces’ testifies to the urgency of the need.

Through the ages, no facet of Jewish sanctity has been more reverently guarded than the rites pertaining to the deceased. The circumstances of contemporary American Jewish life, however, have occasioned a widespread and utterly lamentable falling away from Jewish standards in this regard. Ignorance of Jewish September-October, 1963

tenets has led to wholesale transgression. The laws pertaining to the purification, guarding, and shrouding of the meth are widely disregarded, while such forbidden practices as embalming, cos metizing, and viewing are rampant. In place of the k’riah we find a meaningless black ribbon. The simple wooden oron of Judaism is displaced by impermissible types of caskets. The reverent dig nity of the Jewish leviah is abandoned in favor of a show of pretentious ostentation, complete with viewing, flowers, and music. Final disrespect is paid to the deceased when the mourners depart from the internment without awaiting the filling in of the grave and completion of the burial mound. In view of the role of the funeral director in the present situ The Point of Imple ation, it is commendable that, through their national association, mentation the Jewish funeral directors have voluntarily undertaken to join with the national orthodox congregational body and its Rabbinic arm in a corrective program. They have agreed to implement the requirements and standards set forth by the Orthodox Union and to make these known to bereaved families through the distribu tion of a prepared “Jewish Funeral Guide.” This commitment is of major significance, but ultimate implementation lies ip the hands of the Jewish public, since the families arranging for the funerals have the last word. A major program of public edu cation is called for and in this task every congregation and com munity, every rabbi and lay leader, has a responsible share. *

EWS are by no means alone in the need to combat the abuses which have grown around funeral practices. All faiths are affected, and in fact the entire American community. The problem, the subject of many articles in leading magazines and Universal newspapers and of a recent “best-selling” book, has risen to the Problem forefront of public concern. Spokesmen of many denominations are as one in condemning commercial exploitation of a primary universal need, and the attendant theatrical vulgarity, extrava gance, “corpse-worship,” and profaning of religious sanctities. It is of special interest to Jews to learn that some noted church men frown upon the use of flowers and have denounced such practices as open coffins and the viewing of corpses, embalming, cosmetology, and elaborate caskets as pagan encroachments in compatible with their creedal teachings.

Spokesmen for the undertaking industry, on their part, assert that these practices have arisen in response to the popular de mand for colorful “ritual” and dramatic “sentiment.” It must, in fact, be recognized that the ultimate roots of the problem lie in the very soil of modern culture. The scene of the living as well as that of the dead offers unnumbered illus trations of the spiritual deficiencies of contemporary society, '

JEWISH LIFE

resulting in warped tastes, false values, empty standards, vain objectives. Confronted with the loss of a dear one, all too many, victims of these deficiencies, are more apt to interpret the sad duty at hand in the familiar terms of Hollywood-type show than in those of the elemental sanctities. It is in the nature of the modern era that there be no lack of those ready and able to cater to this confused inclination, and to indulge it to fullest commercial advantage. The fact that the ultimate remedy for this and so many other The Curb: Pr°blems must be found in the spiritual regeneration of society Religious ^oes not ru*e out tenability of action to curb the ailment. Action America’s religious communities collectively represent a vast body of influence and educational resource. Each commands the allegiance of at least its committed members. If the ranks of members be effectively alerted and informed as to proper stand ards of funeral practice, this alone will contribute in large meas ure to the raising of funerary standards everywhere in the country. And it may well be that the impetus of the movement will carry over from the scene of death to the scene of life, lead ing to the purifying of standards in many facets of social need.

The Missionary Menace in Israel E are indebted to a thoughtful reader for calling this maga zine’s editorial attention to the current pertinence of a news item which appeared in the New York Times nearly two years ago. Datelined New Delhi, India, November 22nd, 1961, the item reported that the convocation of the World Council of Churches being held there at the time was “mounting a fullscale attack on the word ‘proselytism’ and all that it connotes.” A commission report to the Council, the news story revealed, “described proselytism as witness that has been corrupted, when cajolery, bribery, and intimidation are used ‘subtly or openly’ to make converts.” The commission report—presumably adopted or approved by the assemblage—further declared that: “Any church action by which material or social advantages are offered to influence a person’s church affiliation or by which undue pressures are brought to bear on persons in time of helplessness or stress should be disavowed.”

The World Council of Churches is composed of most of the leading Protestant denominations and the Eastern Orthodox churches. The problem to which the report was addressed was the rise of “sheep-stealing” (as a delegate of the Ethiopian Ortho dox Church called it) between church and church. The moral premises set forth in the report apply precisely, however, to the September-October, 1963

policies of Christian missionary endeavor directed to Jews in Israel. Missionary work is a major motif in the programs of the Christian churches of all denominations, today as heretofore. In recent years, this field of activity has been much narrowed because vast areas of Asia and Africa that were formerly its principal centers have been barred, largely or completely, to missionary operations. Communist China brooks no missionary Narrowed work and the governing regimes of many of the newly inde Field, pendent African and Asian nations view the missionaries as Open instruments of “imperialism” and “colonialism,” to be checked Door accordingly. Thus, “all dressed up and no place to go,” the mis sionary forces have urgently sought new outlets. The abovequoted report indicates that a measure of inter-church raiding has been one result. Another result has been the concentration of missionary effort on Israel. RIGINALLY, when the Jewish State was first established, O Christian missionary circles appeared to have no expecta tion of finding there a wide-open field for proselytizing effort. To the contrary, they apparently assumed that as in the case of other newly-sovereign nations, and especially in view of all that had led to the birth of the Jewish State, its people would be zealously guarded against efforts to turn them from their faith and people. Soon, though, they discovered that Israel’s govern ment was extraordinarily sensitive to the attitude of Christian forces abroad. Obvious reasons are the political influence of the Christian churches in Western lands, and the fact that these churches—with their missions in Arab lands at stake—have been the constant objects of Arab anti-Israel propaganda. Seeing their opportunity, missionaries have flocked to the hard-pressed young state from all sides. They have exploited to the full their advan tages—Israel’s manifold problems, its commitment to religious freedom, their own church-based international political pres sures. M issionary Today, there are reliably reported to be no less than 1,200 Harvest missionary personnel in Israel. The harvest they have garnered includes at least 1,400 Jewish children who are officially regis tered in Christian missionary schools. These children, and in many cases their parents, are of course subjected to Christian indoctrination. The pattern and tempo of indoctrination varies with each missionary group and institution, but all share a com mon purpose—to secure apostasy from Judaism, conversion to Christianity. In Israel, unlike many other present-day nations, there are no. legal bounds to missionary activities. There are no restrictions. 6

JEWISH LIFE

such as are in force in various countries of the Western world, on the proselytization and “conversion” of children. And on the part of missionary Circles, there seem to be few moral restraints. Anything and everything goes. Some, such as emissaries of the older, larger denominations, proceed with carefully planned deliberation, while those of the rawer evangelical sects press forward in zealous haste. Each group seeks to outdo the other in pursuit of “sheep.” And so today, amidst the epochal reality of the Land of Israel redeemed for the People of Israel, the Holy Land is the center of all-out, intensively organized, heavily financed attempts to capture Jewish souls. The missionaries’ attentions, from the first, have been centered on the masses of new immigrants pouring into Israel in their thousands each year from lands of upheaval, suffering, and perseTarget: cution- Uprooted from their homes, bewildered in their strange Children new surroundings, destitute, often—coming as many do from of Privation backward, stagnant lands—lacking needed occupational skills, many lag behind amidst the enormous difficulties of integrating this great influx into Israeli life. It is those who are most exposed, most helpless and defenseless, who are the special targets of Christian conversion efforts. And among them, particularly their young children. ET the character of Christian missionary endeavor in Israel be spelt out without circumlocution in the phrase used at the New Delhi convocation of the World Council of Churches. It is proselytism “that has been corrupted, with cajolery, bribery, and intimidation used subtly or openly to make converts.” Cajolery is used without scruple, to entice helpless children, with sweetmeats and blandishments, into the missionary institu tions. Bribery is employed, without shame, to purchase the ac quiescence of poverty-stricken and usually unknowing parents Cajolery, to the spiritual abduction of their children or their entire famBribery, ilies. Intimidation is brought to bear on Israeli authorities, Infini i- with impunity, through threats of counter-measures endangering dation Israel’s very existence if their actions are impeded. And to this may be added such forms of gross deceit as the use of apostates to trick parents and children into the belief that the missionary institutions are Jewish enterprises, services that stimulate Jewish worship, “Tanach study” classes on Shabboth, even “Bar Mitzvah” ceremonies.

Th® programs of the different groups of Christian missionaries in Israel vary, but one and all are a mockery of any definition of religion. They debase the perpetrators and the victims alike; they besmirch the good name of the churches which sponsor them and the repute of Christiandom at large. September-October, 1963

The work of Keren Yaldenu stands in shining contrast to this sordid picture. A voluntary organization whose efforts have been spurred by the missionary menace, Keren Yaldenu has under taken a program directed to the needs of the families on the fringes of Israel’s economic and social life, those which are the focus of missionary effort. Manned by dedicated people from various walks of life, the organization has brought to bear a range of material assistance, social guidance, and vocational aid, and has established well-staffed and well-equipped clubs and other institutions for children and adults. Significant successes have been achieved and with mounting public support from wide Keren elements of the Israeli populace, further successes can be antici Yaldenu pated in the future. The Karen Yaldenu program has evoked from missionary circles in recent months an amazingly brazen reaction. They have actually had the effrontery to protest to the Ministry of Religion against the work of Keren Yaldenu as circumscribing their own potential, and to demand governmental subsidy to match the funds contributed by the Jewish public for the work of Keren Yaldenu! Be it parenthetically noted that Keren Yaldenu, as a voluntary body, is dependent on voluntary financial support, while the official organs of all religious communities in Israel—Christian and Moslem, as well as Jewish—receive governmental assistance in conducting necessary functions and constructive activities within their own constituencies. ACED by the prospect of a progressively diminishing supply of prospective converts, the missionaries have been moved latterly to further step up their efforts. And this in turn has brought Israeli resentment to the breaking point. Hence the sequence of public demonstrations against the organized seduction of the helpless children of families suffering from dire want.

Wave of Protest

It must be emphatically stressed that at no time and in no way have the protests been aimed at Israel’s established Christian communities or their institutions, nor has any element of Israeli Jewry, particularly including religious Israelis of any and all shades of ideology, at any time or in any way undertaken or entertained action of such kind. The most recent of the protest demonstrations, occurring simul taneously in Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Haifa, were the subject of sensational reports in American newspapers. Some of the re ports were curiously distorted, asserting—in marked contrast to more responsible accounts—that the demonstrators were “hooli-1 gan” mobs of “fanatics” and “zealots” who supposedly smashed JEWISH LIFE

wildly into various missionary institutions and committed whole sale acts of violence against the missionary personnel, the chil dren, and the premises. The truth, as is now established, is altogether at variance with this version. The demonstrators were students—some of them Americans— at various yeshivoth and universities, of a type notably not given to violence of any kind; they undertook no violence against persons or property, and in the Jerusalem and Jaffa demonstrations, no such violence oc curred; the charges of violence have finally narrowed down to one Haifa institution, which claimed damages to its office; the demonstrators confined themselves to parading with placards, chanting psalms as they marched, dispersing peacefully when Canard the police acted to break up the demonstrations. In short, the Exoosed demonstrators were exercising the right which all democratic P lands profess—the right of peaceful assembly. Eager though the police were to conciliate the missionary forces, the only charges they could bring against the student demonstrators were for trespass and parading without permit. Adding outrage to outrage, elements in this country ever in terested to avail themselves of opportunities to derogate tradi tional Jewry have joined in the public falsification of this episode. Responding instantly to the doctored reports, the national as sociations ol Conservative and Reform ministers rushed to the press a joint statement “deploring” the purported “acts of hooliganism and vandalism against churches and church schools in Israel. “With the same promptitude the New York Post, in an editorial, castigated the demonstrators as a “lunatic fringe” of “Jewish zealots,” and bemoaned shock “when Jews, who for so many years have been victims of oppression, turn oppressor.” These shameful expressions, compounding the distortion and implicitly offering servile obeisance to proselytization interests, must be retracted with public apologies. HETHER the protesting students were well-advised in the method of their protest is certainly questionable. But that their motives were meritorious is definitely beyond question, and for these motives, even if not for their actions in this case, they merit the salute of all. We call upon all who have at heart moral integrity and the good of religion to join with us in this sentiment. We address To Men t^ Q caq particularly to the leaders and members of those church denominations whose missionary representatives in Israel have Integrity descended to methods of “proselytism” that have been “cor rupted, when cajolery, bribery, and intimidation are used subtly or openly to make converts.” With basic principles of human decency at stake, we must rest confident that the call will not fail of response, and will find effective implementation.

September-October, 1963

Have The Sunday Law Cases Been Overruled? By NATHAN LEWI N

F the decisions with which the Sherbert v. Verner is its name. Its O Supreme Court, on June 17, 1963, heroine was Adell H. Sherbert, a brought its 1962 terms to a close, that Seventh-day Adventist who, until 1959, which resounded most loudly in the nation’s press was the anticipated echo of the 1961 term’s “School Prayer Case.” Close observers of the Court expected that, having taken the leap in the New York Regents Prayer Case (Engel v. Vitale), the Supreme Court would rule that Bible-reading and the organized recitation of the Christian “Lord’s Prayer” in public school class rooms violated the constitutional pro visions concerning governmental power in the area of religion. And so it did, with only Justice Stewart—-who had disagreed in the New York case— dissenting from the Court’s judgments. Submerged in the wake of the Maryland and Pennsylvania Biblereading cases was a religious-freedom decision which generated much less clamor but a great deal more surprise. This less notorious case, which was also decided on June 17, is of far greater significance to the Jewish com munity than the whole bundle of eight opinions which have grown out of the three prayer cases considered by the Court thus far. 10

was employed in a textile mill in Spar tanburg, South Carolina. When Mrs. Sherbert first began with the textile mill, her work week, like that of its other employees on the same shift, ran from Monday through Friday. But in 1959 the mill changed to a six-day week for all employees, and Mrs. Sherbert was informed that she would be expected to be at her job on Satur days. When she notified her employer that she would not work on Saturdays because her religious faith set it aside as a day of rest, she was fired. RS. SHERBERT then went look M ing for another job, but she could find none in the Spartanburg area which did not require her to work on Saturdays. So she filed a claim for unemployment compensation with the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. The Commission investi gated her application and learned the reason for her unemployment. It then consulted the South Carolina law which covers unemployment compen sation and found that it disqualifies any JEWISH LIFE

person who “has failed, without good cause . . . to accept available suitable work when offered him by the employ ment office or by the employer.” The words “without good cause” had been construed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina to mean that any per son whose reasons for refusing^ work were entirely personal was ineligible for unemployment compensation. For example, a mother of four children who could only work on certain shifts because she had to spend the rest of the day taking care of her youngsters had been held not to have “good cause” for turning down a job on a shift which coincided with the time when she was needed at home. Accordingly, the South Carolina Commission told Mrs. Sherbert that she was ineligible for unemployment compensation. Her rea son for turning down the job which she had held, the Commission said, was a personal matter of conscience 'which made her “unavailable for work” and put her into the “without

good cause” .category. Mrs. Sherbert then filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Spartan burg County against the Commission, whose chairman was Charlie V. Vemer. She claimed that the Commis sion’s decision had abridged her right to the free exercise of her religion, a right protected against interference from Congress by the first Amend ment of the United States Constitution, which, in turn, was implicitly made applicable to the States of the Union by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Common Pleas treated Mrs. Sherbert’s plea most commonly indeed by rejecting it out-of-hand. And the Supreme Court of South Carolina, to which Mrs. Sherbert next turned, did the same. So the spurned lady asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear her case and pass on her constitutional claim. On December 17, 1962, the Supreme Court issued a short order saying that it would hear argument and consider the case.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

T this juncture, it seems appro priate to take stock of the consti tutional questions around which the case revolved. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respect ing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Fourteenth Amendment has been read by the Supreme Court as invoking this prohibition not only against “Congress” but against any arm of federal or state government. So, for the purposes of Mrs. Sherbert’s case, the Constitution could, in effect, be read as saying: “Agencies of the State of South Carolina shall make no regu-

Ssptember-October, 1963

lations prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” The crucial question was: Did the action of the South Carolina Employment Security Commission pre vent the “free exercise” of Mrs, Sher bert’s religion—that of a Seventh-day Adventist? To consider this question in light of the precedents which were before the South Carolina courts and the Supreme Court, it is necessary to focus on the action taken by the state Commission. In other words, the fact that Mrs. Sherbert was discharged because of her religious convictions was of no consti tutional significance so long as the state did not do the firing. In various 11

States, including New York, anti-dis crimination laws prevent private parties from discharging an employee or re fusing to hire him on account of his race or religion. But in this regard the United States Constitution directs its commands only to governmental agen cies and prevents only government from interfering with the “free exer cise” of religion. So we are not inter ested in the effects of what Mrs. Sherbert’s employer did; our concern is entirely with what was done by the Employment Security Commission. HE Commission turned down Mrs. T Sherbert’s application for unem ployment compensation on the ground that her religious disability placed her in the category of people unavailable for work “without good cause.” That was the sum and substance of its action. To what extent did this official act interfere with the “free exercise” of her religion? Obviously its effect was economic— as a result of the Commission’s act, Mrs. Sherbert found that her religious practices carried un desirable financial consequences. While others who were not Seventh-day Ad ventists were eligible for compensation benefits, Mrs. Sherbert was disqualified because of conduct attributable to her religious scruples. So the Commission’s act was placing subtle pressure on her to forego the practice of her religion— at least insofar as it prevented her from working on Saturdays. When the constitutional question is viewed in this light, its similarity to the issue considered by the Supreme Court just two years earlier becomes appar ent. In two of the famous Sunday Law Cases the Court was confronted with claims brought by orthodox Jewish merchants, Shomrey Shabboth, who contended that Sunday Closing Laws 12

in their respective states (Pennsyl vania and Massachusetts) interfered with the “free exercise” of their re ligion because it put them at a serious economic disadvantage vis-a-vis com petitors who could keep their busi nesses open on Saturdays. (These cases are now known as Braunfeld v. Brown.) Their claim was strikingly similar to Mrs. Sherbert’s; in fact, it was stronger than hers in many re spects. HE basic similarity of the claims is obvious. In each case the state was not forbidding any particular re ligious practice in so many words, nor was it expressly compelling anyone to do anything which conflicted with a religious precept. This element—the “indirect effect” of the states’ action— is what differentiated these claims from those asserted in earlier cases involving claims of breach of religious freedom. For example, the anti-polygamy law (which the Supreme Court sustained in 1878 against a constitutional attack by the Mormons) and the compulsory' flag-salute regulations (which the Court held unconstitutional in 1943 as ap plied to the Witnesses) interfered directly with religious doctrines. The Mormons, under the teachings of their religion, were obliged to see to it that their women bore fruit, while the Witnesses regarded a flag salute as a violation of one of the Ten Command ments. In addition, the coercive effect of the state’s action was entirely eco nomic both in the Sunday Law cases and in Sherbert v. Verner. Just as Mrs. Sherbert felt the squeeze in her pocketbook when unemployment benefits were denied to her, so did the Shomrey Shabboth merchants find that being Jewishly observant was an expensive way to run a business.

JEWISH LIFE

And in many ways the Sunday Law plaintiffs had a stronger case. First of all, they were obviously faced with economic annihilation in a competitive market. Since their competitors could recover greater profits by being open six days a week while the Shomrey Shabboth were open five, the com petitors could undersell the Sabbathobservers and drive them out of busi ness. Mrs. Sherbert, on the other hand, could claim only twenty-two week’s worth of unemployment benefits even if she were eligible. In addition, no one was threatening Mrs. Sherbert with a jail sentence, but criminal punishment was a possibility for violation of the Sunday laws. A promise of a prison term can be expected to have greater in terrorem effect on the maintenance of one’s religious scruples than a dis qualification for twenty-two week’s worth of unemployment benefits. And finally, if Mrs. Sherbert thought of the pressure placed upon her by the Com mission to forego her religious prac tices, she could always balance it -against the possibility that a job not requiring Saturday work might become available. The orthodox Jewish mer chants were in no such flexible posi tion, and their Hobson’s Choice was to liquidate their businesses or to maim their consciences. N Braunfeld v. Brown the Supreme Court rejected the arguments pre Isented by the Sabbath observers, to gether with the related claims made in other cases by those who argued that the laws constituted an “establish ment of religion.” Four Justices of the Court, speaking through the Chief Justice, said that a Sunday Law “does not make unlawful any religious prac tices . .. (it) simply regulates a secular activity and, as applied to appellants, September-October, 1963

operates so as to make the practice of their religious beliefs more expen sive.” These Justices also observed that not all orthodox Jews were incon venienced “but only those who believe it necessary to work on Sunday.” Since the extent of the inconvenience was “some financial sacrifice in order to observe their religious beliefs,” and since any system of exceptions might be difficult to administer, the laws were sustained. Justices Frankfurter and Harlan agreed with this result on very similar grounds, emphasizing first the admin istrative difficulties of carving out ex ceptions for Sabbath observers and then noting that the effect of the Sun day laws was not to prohibit any act “which is itself prescribed by the duties of the Jewish or other religions” but merely to “create an undeniable finan cial burden.” The dissenters were Justice Douglas, who would have struck down the Sun day Laws as an “establishment” of re ligion, Justice Brennan, who observed that the effect of the Sunday Laws on Shomrey Shabboth was to “put an in dividual to a choice between his busi ness and his religion” and Justice Stewart, who called the alternatives stated by Justice Brennan “a cruel choice . . . which . . . no state can constitutionally demand.” It was with Braunfeld v. Brown on the books as very recent precedent that Mrs. Sherbert’s case was considered by the Supreme Court. Two changes of personnel on the Court (Justices White and Goldberg in the places of Justices Whittaker and Frankfurter) had oc curred in the interim, but the un equivocal language of the Sunday Law cases and their similarity to Sherbert v. Verner certainly held out little hope for Mrs. Sherbert. 13

THE VARYING VIEWS

HE case was argued on April 24, 1963. It was not until the last day of the term that it was decided. Justice Brennan then delivered the majority opinion, and he was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Black, Clark, and Goldberg. The Court unexpectedly decided in Mrs. Sherbert’s favor. Justice Brennan said first that it was plain that Mrs. Sherbert’s “conscien tious objection to Saturday work,” un like the Mormon’s conscientious duty to enter polygamous marriages, was not the sort of conduct which posed a threat to the welfare of South Caro lina’s citizens, so as to permit the State to regulate it. Consequently, the only questions remaining were whether what South Carolina had done inter fered with the free exercise of Mrs. Sherbert’s religion, and whether such interference, if any existed, was justi fied by a “compelling state interest.” As to the first of these questions, Justice Brennan found it “clear” that the disqualification for unemployment benefits imposes a burden on the free exercise of Mrs. Sherbert’s religion. “The commission’s ruling forces her to choose between following the pre cepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and aban doning one of the precepts of her re ligion in order to accept work, on the other hand.” He observed that the effect of the disqualification was the same as “a fine imposed against appellent for her Saturday worship.” He also found that no “compelling state interest” justified imposition of the burden, since there was no evi dence that fraudulent claims could be filed by people who feigned religious

objections. At this point Justice Bren nan attempted to articulate a distinc tion between Mrs. Sherbert’s case and that of the Shomrey Shabboth who were hurt by the Sunday Laws. He personally had dissented in Braunfeld v. Brown, but since three of the Jus tices who joined his opinion in SHer bert v. Verner had sustained the con stitutionality of the Sunday Closing Laws, they found it necessary to ex plain how Mrs. Sherbert’s case differed. Justice Brennan first called the Sunday Laws a “less direct burden upon re ligious practices.” He then said that although their effect was to make the practice of orthodox Judaism more ex pensive, the laws were saved “by a countervailing factor which finds no equivalent in the instant case—a strong state interest in providing one uniform day of rest for all workers.” He then adverted to the administrative difficul ties, discussed the Sunday Law cases and remarked that no such problems would result if Mrs. Sherbert’s claim were upheld. Justice Douglas wrote a short opin ion concurring with the result reached by Justice Brennan and stating similar reasons. Justice Douglas also noted that the Sunday Law cases, from which he dissented “and still dissents,” went part of the distance that South Caro lina asks us to go now. HE concurring opinion of Justice Stewart, who had joined Justice Brennan in dissenting with respect to the application of the Sunday Laws to Sabbath observers, was most interest ing. He first called attention to a logical inconsistency between the

JEWISH LIFE

Court’s view on Bible-reading, which it held unconstitutional as govern mental support of religion, and the Court’s decision in Mrs. Sherbert’s law suit. After all, he observed, if a mother who is unavailable for work on Satur days because she is unable to get a baby-sitter on that day is not consti tutionally entitled to unemployment benefits, is not the State in effect being forced to support religion, if it is re quired to give such benefits to a woman who is unavailable for work on Saturdays because of some religious conviction? Does this not mean “that the State must prefer a religious over a secular ground for being unavailable for work?” On the question which is pertinent here, Justice Stewart was far more blunt. He said simply that in his opin ion the Sherbert decision could not “stand consistently with” the Sunday Caw cases involving Sabbath observers. He made short shrift of Justice Bren nan’s statement that the Sunday Laws imposed a “less direct burden upon religious practices” by pointing out that they impose criminal penalties and were likely to close down the busi nesses of Sabbath observers, while South Carolina’s action did nothing more than cost Mrs. Sherbert twentytwo weeks’ worth of unemployment compensation. Nonetheless, Justice Stewart agreed with the result reached in Mrs. Sherbert’s case on the same grounds on which he dissented in Braunfeld v. Brown. He concluded, “I think the Braunfeld case was wrongly decided and should be over ruled, and accordingly I concur in the result reached by the Court in the case before us.” UT THE decision was not unani mous. Justices Harlan and White dissented. They said that the South

September-October, 1963

Carolina Commission had not dis criminated against Mrs. Sherbert because of her religion; rather it had even-handedly applied its non-discriminatory principle that personal circumstances, no matter how com pelling, could not justify an unem ployed person’s refusal of a job offer. The dissenters went on to consider the consequences of the majority’s decision, and their reasoning is most significant. They said, “despite the Court’s prot estations to the contrary, the decision necessarily overrules Braunfeld v. Brown . . . which held that it did not offend the ‘Free Exercise’ Clause of the Constitution for a State to forbid a Sabbatarian to do business on Sun day.” The dissenters’ reasons were similar to those expressed by Justice Stewart. They added their observation that the administrative difficulties pro duced by the majority’s decision were of the same degree as those which would have been produced by excep tions to the Sunday Laws. So Mrs. Sherbert’s case drew towards its close. The Supreme Court sent it back to the state courts with instruc tions that they vindicate her rights. But the principles announced by the Court in the process of decision are good for more than Mrs. Sherbert’s rights alone, and even for more than the rights of future men or women like Mrs. Sherbert who may claim unem ployment compensation after being fired for refusing to work on a re ligious day of rest. By deciding Sher bert v. Verner as it did, the Supreme Court illumined hitherto dark areas of constitutional law concerning the sub ject of religious freedom. And, what is of most practical and immediate significance, it cast serious doubts on the continued vitality of Braunfeld v. Brown, the Shomer Shabboth Sunday Law case. 15

SUMMATION AND PROJECTION

HE Supreme Court is ordinarily far too unpredictable to justify forecasts on particular cases or predic tions as to how Justices will vote. But the effect of SHerbert v. Verner on the constitutional validity of Sunday Laws as applied to Sabbath observers has been noted expressly by some of the Justices in their opinions, and other originally articulated views on the constitutionality of these laws. It might be interesting to count noses just this once to see how the Supreme Court now lines up: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black and Clark held the Sunday laws constitutional and distinguished them (through Jus tice Brennan) from Mrs. Sherbert’s case. Justice Douglas said originally that the Sunday Laws were totally un constitutional and still says so. Justice Harlan originally upheld the consti tutionality of the Sunday Laws as applied to Sabbath observers but is now on record that the Sunday Law cases were “necessarily overruled” by Sherbert v. Verner. Justice Brennan originally held that the Sunday Laws were unconstitutional as applied to Shomrey Shabboth; he also held that the State’s action regarding Mrs. Sher bert was unconstitutional and could be reconciled with the majority view on the Sunday Laws. Justice Stewart would have held the Sunday laws unconstitutional and, on the same grounds, agreed that Mrs. Sherbert was treated unconstitutionally. Neither Justices Goldberg nor White were on the Court for the Sunday Law cases. Justice Goldberg agreed, however, that Mrs. Sherbert was right, and Justice White, while dissenting, recognized

that Sherbert v. Verner necessarily overruled Braunfeld v. Brown. ET u s assume, for a minute, that. the Shomer Shabboth Sunday Law cases were considered again by the Supreme Court as it is now constituted. The lineup could conceivably be as follows:

Holding the Statute Unconstitutional as Applied— Justice Douglas—“still dissent” Justice Brennan—for the reasons given by him in Braunfeld Justice Stewart—Braunfeld “was wrong ly decided” Justice White—because Sherbert over ruled Braunfeld Holding the Statute Constitutional as ■ A pplied— The Chief Justice, Justice Black and Justice Clark—because Sherbert is different from Braunfeld. This lines seven of the Justices up 4-to-3 in favor of the Shomrey Shab both. A vote for unconstitutionality by either of the remaining two would be enough to invalidate the statute as applied. Mr. Justice Harlan noted in Sherbert that Braunfeld had been “necessarily overruled.” Accordingly, he would be faced with the choice of adhering to his earlier position in Braunfeld, which would be in direct conflict with the more recent precedent of Sherbert (and which was “neces sarily” repudiated by a seven-man majority in Sherbert) or accepting the Sherbert principle and voting to over rule Braunfeld. It is by no means im possible that he would resolve this dilemma by choosing the latter course. JEWISH LIFf

Mr. Justice Goldberg has not ex pressed himself as to whether Sherbert is consistent with the Sunday Law cases (except by joining Justice Bren nan’s opinion), and he is committed to no position on them. But if he is persuaded as Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White were, that the two are in consistent, his vote in Sherbert demon strates that he would hold the Sunday Laws unconstitutional as applied to Sabbath observers. The entire exercise is quite chimeri cal, of course. Neither Justice Harlan nor Justice White is forever bound by their observation that Sherbert “neces sarily overrules” the Sunday Law cases any more than Justice Brennan is bound by his less-than-satisfactory dis tinction between the cases. If the case * N THE field of religious liberty the Supreme Court has been known to do some sudden volte-faces. In 1940 the Court rejected the Witnesses’ claim that a flag-salute requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments; in 1943 it reversed its field and held that the Witnesses were constitution ally entitled to be excused from flagsalute exercises. In 1948 the Court held that a release-time program for the religious instruction of public school children was unconstitutional; in 1952 it upheld a similar program which differed only in certain minor details. It is not entirely impossible

September-October, 1963

is ever reconsidered, Justice Harlan may refuse to go along with Sherbert's implied repudiation of the earlier case and may adhere to his original posi tion. Similarly, Justice White, although not committed on Sunday laws, may find Sherbert untenable and vote to reaffirm Braunfeld v. Brown. Or, for that matter (and this seems less than likely), Justice Brennan may accept the authority of the majority decision in Braunfeld, consider his distinction of it in Sherbert to be adequate, and vote to sustain the constitutionality of a Sunday Law on the ground that there is (binding) precedent on the issue. All that the above discussion is intended to prove is that the constitu tionality of Sunday Laws as applied to Sabbath observers is again a live issue. * that in view of the crystalization of the issues which Sherbert v. Verner has produced, the Sunday Law cases, insofar as they apply to those who observe a day of rest other than Sun day, may be reconsidered. Indeed, in light of the outcome of Sherbert v. Verner, one cannot help but wonder whether the Sunday Law claims of the Shromrey Shabboth based on a “free exercise” argument might not have fared much better if the Court had not at the same time been concerned with the contentions made by those who are arguing not for freedom of religion but for freedom from religion.

Report from the North By HENRY BIBERFELD

LOT has been written lately in leading A m erican m agazines about the neighbor up north and the “longest unprotected border” in the world. But if the Quebec-bound visi tor from the U.S. thinks that the border will not be evident, he is in for a surprise. Especially so, if he is one of the many who drive via the new Thruway from New York City, an eight-hour trip. That this is the entrance to a “strange” country is very much apparent. It is not only the flag atop the Border station (a modified Union Jack) or that all signs are bilingual—English and French— and that the immigration officer who checks identification papers likely as not greets the arriving visitor with “Bienvenue au Canada.” American visitors find, often to their surprise, that the country they drive through, once past the border, is different too. Gone are the impeccable villages and townships of upstate New York, with their snow-white and green houses, smooth lawns, shady lanes of stately trees, up-to-date supermar kets and model cars. The villages of Quebec are not as prosperous looking as those south of the border, the farms look struggling, the cars chugging along the rural roads lack the sleek

chrome-shiny look of youthful new ness. But every village has one solid towering stone structure—the Church. Along the highway one can see every where on hilltops or snuggled in the dales large drab grey complexes of massive buildings with row upon row of curtainless windows, the “Colleges,” “Monasteries,” and “Retraites” of Quebec. For rural Quebec is almost solidly French-Canadian and Catholic. Its language is a French patois, implanted by the pioneers from 17th century France, who explored what is today Quebec. It is a dialect almost as hard to understand to one conversant with High School French only as to one speaking no French at all. HE domineering position of eccle siastic buildings is symbolic: Ca tholicism rules Quebec. Education, social life, politics, even economics, are determined by religious affiliation. But religious and ethnic ties cross. Since most Quebecers of French ex traction are Catholic, most (but not all) English Protestant alignments range themselves in accordance with this basic pattern. An uneasy coexistence of these two major ethnic groups making up the

JEWISH LIFE

population of Canada has lately been shattered by an explosive outburst of Quebec self-assertion. Modern means of mass communication and travel have at last penetrated into the sleepy —and for months of each year snow bound—backwoods villages of Quebec. The autocratic grip of the Church is challenged, a new wind is blowing even through the ancient halls of its institutions. It seems typical of that new trend that the large illuminated cross atop Mount Royal which used to dominate the skyline of Montreal is now overshadowed by a towering television antenna. The Quebec French, arch-conserva tive, clannish, and parsimonious, who traditionally had invested in real estate only, suddenly found that their prov ince’s vast natural resources are ex ploited by strangers willing to risk and to gamble. And by strangers, EnglishCanadians are meant just as much as Americans or Jews. Up went the cry: “Let us be masters in our own house!” A militant Quebec Nationalism (with a lunatic fringe planting bombs) views secession from the Canadian Confed eration as the only means to end what is regarded as oppression by the English, represented by the Federal Government in Ottawa. (While the English-Canadians, somewhat awed and frightened by the stupendous birthrate of Quebec, are not always too tactful in their attitude towards their French com patriots.) Anti-Americanism is merely one aspect of this muscleflexing of a new nationalism. How do Canadian Jews, the ma jority of whom live in the Province of Quebec (roughly 5 0% — 100,000 in Montreal alone), fare in this? OMEONE once said that in Que bec, English and French are so preoccupied with disliking each other

September-October, 1963

that there is no time left for the Jews. While this is a facetious oversimplifica tion it contains more than a grain of truth. By and large the Jewish com munity in Canada is left to itself to develop in accordance with its poten tials and aims. True, there crop up from time to time, especially in periods of national strain, antisemitic trends (such as Arcand’s during the last war or certain representatives of the queer Social Credit Party during the recent election), but they are usually quickly nipped in the bud by Canadian com mon sense, the energetic response of Jewish community organizations and —if needs be—by the vigorous de fence reaction of able-bodied boys from the Y.M.H.A. What are Canadian Jews like? Is there a “typical” Canadian Jew as distinctive as, say, the English, Polish, Israeli, American Jew? The question of a specific national Canadian identity has lately been discussed very widely and heatedly in magazines, newspapers, term papers, and lectures. And Cana dian Jews, in turn, are beginning to seek definition of the Canadian Jew ish identity. Canada has always occupied a special position within the British Em pire (now Commonwealth). No other of its members has been exposed to so intimate a contact with an outside power as Canada, with its 3,000 miles of boundary facing the United States. And while the traditional ties with Britain have been waning, economic, cultural, and political influences from the U.S.A. have been growing steadily stronger. Canadian Jews seem to reflect traits of both national spheres. If they are not quite as reserved as their British brethren, they are not as ebullient and extrovert as their neighbors to the south. It is not as easy to find access 19

to families or social groups in Canada as it is in the U.S.A. People who have moved up from “down south” have complained about this to the writer as, on the other hand, friends who moved south have expressed their surprise and delight at the open-armed welcome they found in their new domiciles. (Climate might have something to do with this lack of conviviality. It really requires sacrificial spirit to go visiting on a Canadian winter night. And since winter lasts from October to March and in summer “everybody” is in the Laurentian Mountains, the social sea son is short.) But if the Canadian Jew appears small-townish, especially if compared to the cosmopolitan New Yorker, then this is deceptive. Where it counts he shows just as much vision, scope, and enterprise. N FACT, there is one area in which Canadian Jews are way out in front. Samuel Bronfman, for example, who built an industrial empire on the thirst of Canadians, is one of the great philanthropists of our times. Nor is he an exception. The per capita con tribution of Canadian Jews is quite as impressive as that of American Jews. In professional circles they call Montreal the “Mecca of Meshulochim.” The familiar black-clad figures clutching a briefcase and scanning house-numbers are an inseparable part of the panorama of “Main Street” (St. Lawrence Boulevard), the nerve center of Montreal’s textile trade. An attempt once made to regulate the profusion of charitable collections was abortive. Montreal Jews just do not seem to like to accept the imposition of a restriction, however rational, on their charitative instincts. In other respects, organization has been established in a manner far more efficient than almost anywhere else.

Founded in 1919, the Canadian Jew ish Congress is unchallenged in its role as representative of Canadian Jews. It not only organizes the United Jewish Appeal but administers the distribution of its funds and acts as spokesman, champion, and prime mover for Canadian Jewry. The Con gress maintains its headquarters in Montreal, an impressive building on Sherbrooke Street (Montreal’s Fifth Avenue) which it shares with the Jewish Welfare Board and its agencies and the Baron de Hirsch Institute. The latter is a social organization which bears the name of one of its first major contributors. The Canadian Jew ish Congress also operates a network of committees and agencies across Canada. Some idea of its scope can be gained from the fact that it sup ports Jewish art, culture, education, and trade unionism, represents Cana dian Jews at Ottawa and Quebec, the United Nations, and the German War Claims court, attacks discrimination on every front; and is largely responsible for present Fair Employment Practices Acts in six provinces. The roster of the Canadian Jewish Congress reads like a “Who’s Who” of Canadian Jewry, although it seems to some a bit top heavy with names from Westmount, Montreal’s Westchester. UNIQUE institution is Montreal’s Jewish Community Council (Vaad Hoir), constituted of representatives of all major local synagogues, frater nal societies, and educational organiza tions. Through its Council of Orthodox Rabbis, the Vaad Hoir effectively con trols all Kashruth in the city. Natur ally this centralization, which is of the utmost benefit for Jewish Montreal, has not come about without cataclys mic birthpangs and is even today from time to time shaken by anarchic at-

JEWISH LIFE

tacks from individualistic meat pur veyors. But the Jewish Community Council persists, performing in addi tion to its expanding role as Kashruth supervisor, valuable work in legal arbitration (Mishpot Hasholom) and subsidizing Jewish education in the city. Through its recently launched publication, “The Voice of the Vaad,” the Vaad Hoir endeavors to create a communal spirit among Montreal Jewry. By and large Montreal Jews view their citywide and nationwide organi zation with what may be described as benevolent indifference. As long as they function efficiently they are tol erated and—to a degree—even sup ported. But they create an animated interest only if the community believes to have found them wanting in some acute challenge. Then the assembly chamber of the Jewish Community Council reverberates with the sounds of acrimonious recriminations reflect ing what is best in Anglo-Saxon free doms of parliamentary debate and East European Shtetl politics. Montreal Jewry is probably more traditionally religious than any other North American community of com parable size. A larger proportion of its youth receives, however rudimentary, a Jewish education; its public institutions and summer camps are today, due to the energetic efforts of the Jewish Community Council, observing Kash ruth. The overwhelming majority of its synagogues is orthodox, as far as organizational affiliation, internal struc ture, and worship services are con cerned. Yet the situation, gratifying as it may appear on the surface, is fraught with danger. The orthodox status quo maintained in these congregations is, in a number of cases, not based on the personal religious observance of the members September-October, 1963

at large. Often it is merely a matter of disinterest in communal affairs. A ca pable and popular rabbi supported by the more active and orthodox-conscious element of his congregants is usually able to hold the fortress in the face of such half-hearted opposition as may arise. But this situation is, of course, precarious; paradoxically, just in those cases where the rabbi was able to rouse, by herculean efforts, some of the members from their religious leth argy, it is often the first (noticeable) manifestation of an awakened interest in communal affairs on their part to demand a more “up-to-date” syna gogue, service, and spiritual leader. The large orthodox communal and rabbinical organizations in the U.S.A. could provide a good deal of help in this respect, and, as I understand, efforts are being made in this direction. F you wish to have a picture of Jew ish life in Montreal, imagine New York on a vastly reduced scale. New York from Williamsburg to Forest Hills is reproduced in miniature on the island of Montreal. There is the East End, where shtraimel-and bekesheclad Chasidim hurry to their Shtiebl, delicatessen stores dispense their spiced specialties, bakery trucks and milk wagons are managed by patriarchallooking drivers, and bearded bicyclists ride imperturbably through the busy streets. A few blocks west begins Outremont, a prosperous, bourgeois section of well-tended lawns and solid du plexes, the homes of well-to-do textile merchants and professionals. Its syna gogue is of that peculiar New World brand, its membership comprising all shadings from rather strict observance to a mere formal subscription to Orthodoxy as the traditional denomi nation. Around the Mount Royal to

the west lies Westmount, one of the most beautiful and luxurious residen tial sections in the world. Westmount has no orthodox shool. Its Shar Hashomayin Synagogue, however, al though Conservative-affiliated, has a Mechitzah and its services are prac tically untouched by innovations. Shar Hashomayim supplies many of the leading spirits of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Beyond Outremont, in what was practically wilderness a few years ago, on a hilltop, Young Israel of Montreal has erected its imposing complex of congregational buildings. Originally founded by a group of orthodox ybuths dissatisfied with the chaotic services in the old-type shools, a sec ond generation now spreads the spirit of Orthodoxy in modern-day idiom in bungalow suburbs and commuters’ colonies. There are, in the newer sections of Montreal proper, synagogues springing up almost monthly; and many an observer who visits these places of worship competing for a weekday minyon wonders wistfully whether the energy and expenditure lavished on these buildings could not have been more wisely invested in helping the educational institutions in their chronic and desperate financial plight. HE dynamic development of Jew ish Montreal is a quite recent one. Twenty years ago Montreal did not have a single yeshivah, only one dilapi dated mikvah, no orthodox day schools for boys or girls; there was no kosher milk or baked goods. Today there is an abundance of all of these. The waves of postwar immigration have virtually re-created the face of the community. You now find yeshivoth of all shad ings, from Hungarian Chassidic

(Satrnar) to Lithuanian (M ir). Some where in-between are the Lubavitcher, who recently dedicated their magnifi cent and up-to-date yeshivah building. There is now also a fair number of shtiebelach, where the uncompromis ing tradition of Chassidic Avodath Hashem is upheld and where muted repercussions of the schismatic feuds agitating distant Chassidic centers are felt. There is also a flourishing Beth Jacob School in Montreal, and, if for no other reason, it deserves special mention on account of the personality of the man who practically singlehandedly bears its burdens, Rabbi Hirshsprung. Blessed with a brilliant and encyclopedic mind, he would be outstanding at the head of any worldfamous yeshivah or kehillah; yet he prefers to devote his time—in addition to teaching at a yeshivah and serving as the de facto head of the Council of Orthodox . Rabbis—to the Beth Jacob School of Montreal. He has gained the trust and love of Montreal Jewry, and, in his unobtrusive fashion, Rabbi Hirshsprung is one of the most potent factors in the inner life of the community. ONTREAL’SJewish schools suffer M in common from a strange and anomalous situation. All public schools in the Province of Quebec are under the direction of two denominational School Boards, thé majority of course, under that of the Catholic Board, the remainder under the Protestant Board. They are financed by a tax levied on property. (For historical reasons, too involved to go into here, Jewish day schools are under the jurisdiction of the Protestant Board without, how ever, being represented on it.) This organizational set-up is stipulated in the “British North American Act” of 1867, often called “Canada’s ConstituJEWISH LIFE

tion.” A prime example of “taxation without representation,” as far as nonCatholics and non-Protestants are con cerned, it has, by and large, worked quite well in practice. Some “Protes tant” schools in Montreal and Outremont, however, have over 90% Jewish students, hence are, for all practical purposes, Jewish, or rather—nondenominational. This latter is, of course, the sore point from a Jewish outlook. There is no religious instruc tion in those schools and the Jewish education of the students is left to the make-shift arrangements of their par ents. If they are interested enough to do so, they send the children to after noon Hebrew schools or engage the services of one of the free-lance Hebrew teachers. The results, in either case, are far from satisfactory. Lately a Royal Commission on Edu cation has been called into being. Such commissions (another one on “Biculturalism”—English and French—has also been set up) are roughly equiva lent to Congressional Committees in the Ü.S.A. The designation “Royal,” despite its suggestion of regal pomp, does not mean that royalty is involved in their proceedings, but merely in dicates the commissions’ independence of the parliamentary party system. Their hearings are, for the most part, conducted in dignified amiability with out the noisy movie-set atmosphere prevailing at those of many of their U.S. counterparts. The question of financial support for Jewish schools has of late assumed great urgency in Canada as it has in the United States; although here, where denominational schools are the rule, the situation as far as ChurchState separation is concerned is quite different. Various memoranda reflect, ing the divergent views of organization and individuals have been submitted September-October, 1963

to the Royal Commission, and the Jewish community is looking forward with great expectations to the results of the commission’s deliberations. Meanwhile the new Liberal Provin cial Quebec Government has awarded substantial subsidies to all high schools, and four Jewish institutions have been recognized as recipients. The four, in a way, typify existing Canadian Jewish schools. “Herzliah” is the high school of the large Talmud Torah system, which has branches all over Montreal and the suburbs. Its educational program is vaguely “Hebraic” and Zionist, and even more vaguely religious. Then there is the Adath Israel Academy, the congregational school of the Outremont synagogue. Its program is similar to that of the Talmud Torah. The Lubavitcher Chasidim have built up a Yeshivah-school which has achieved an excellent scholastic record. Finally there is the aforementioned Beth Jacob School for girls, which this year is celebrating the successful matricula tion of its first group of high school graduates. In addition, there are the Peretz School and the Folksschule, two Yiddishist institutions which cater to those Jewish parents who, in nostalgic delusion, confuse “Yiddish” with “Jewish” and desire their children to gain some acquaintance with their cultural heritage. F most of these schools are finan cially in strained circumstances— still, they exist and expand. Their handsome buildings reflect the fact that Canadian Jews are sharing in the prosperity which the country has been experiencing in the post-war period. Rich in natural resources, but poor in industrial plant, pre-war Canada relied economically on the export of the products of its endless, rolling

wheat-fields, its immense forests, its inexhaustible mines. Spurred by the desperate need of the Free World for war supplies, a powerful impetus was given to industrialization. Oil was found in the western provinces, natural gas and uranium provided new sources of power for to-day and the future. Construction boomed to house new plants and the steady stream of im migrants flowing into Canada once restrictions were relaxed. Today Can ada ranks fourth among the exporting nations of the Free World*, and Jewish immigrants with their world-wide con nections have played a significant role in these economic developments. But—again like its U.S. counterpart —the Canadian Jewish community is faced with the vital task of developing its spiritual resources. The great Euro pean reservoirs of learning and piety have only partly been replaced by the new yeshivoth in Israel. New York and other U.S. centers of Torah study are attracting quite a few Canadian

youths, eager to complete their Jewish education. But just as there is a con tinuous movement of highly trained scientists towards the greater oppor tunities offered in the U.S., so also is there a steady drainage of competent Jewish educators towards the south. True, there are hopeful developments going in the reverse direction, such as the branch of Baltimore’s Ner Israel yeshivah, flourishing in Toronto; but all these are diminutive drops added to the trickle of Jewish education. The oft-cited phrase “A river a mile wide and an inch deep” has been applied to Canadian Jewish education too. Not until the leading forces in Cana dian Jewry recognize that efforts as powerful and sustained as those now directed towards alleviation of material suffering must be exerted to preserve and reinforce our spiritual values, so that the shallow river becomes “like the waters covering the sea,” can we Canadian Jews look forward with con fidence to the future.

JEWISH LIFE

OUR FATHERS By LILLIAN OTT Our Fathers, Without measured IQs and thinking computors Knew that not with the tangible touch of hand Does man grasp those enormous concepts That raise him up onto lofty heights. Unlike the generation that has learned To thrust men and machines into celestial corridors And orbits among the galaxies, They who begot us perceived in their depths That it was not the eye or the heart Or extra pereeptory talents That set ships to sail upon the seas Or to compose songs like Solomon’s and David’s. Unlike the carefully tutored Who sell science for profit, Our ancestral shepherds knew That it was not bodily thirst or hunger Or animal passions That taught men to light lamps and dig wells; That it was not the pangs of birth Or the throes of death That directed the human essence To envision The Light beyond light And the awesome beyond awe. They who permitted no vanity of vanities To expunge the gifted imagery That made some to appreciate the grace of gull Riding the high currents And others to thrill At the lithe leap of a gazelle in the forest, Knew that neither need nor want Nor sating nor surfeit decreed or repealed purpose Or the hope and zest of life, But that only the yearning of the soul To fulfill itself, Made man and his world meaningful. For when the spirit is aware of its Maker, The being mirrors His reflex and reflections. September-October, 1963

Why Fight For Civil Rights: A Dialogue By JACOB S. COHEN

A aron: Saul! Hello! What brings you down here to the South? Saul : Well if it isn’t . . . Aaron, hi! It’s good to see you again. I’ve just come with a group of fellows from up North to help out the Negroes with this vicious racial problem they’re having. . . . Hey, why the smile? Don’t tell me you’re on the other side? Don’t you think fighting for civil equality is important? A aron: I’m sorry, I . . . I didn’t mean to dampen your enthusiasm or even imply that it’s not an important cause. In fact, it’s one of the most important issues of our time. But, it just appears peculiar that you should be one of the people to come. It simply doesn’t fit your character at all. Saul: Come now, Aaron, what sort of talk is that? What do you mean? A aron: Well, we’ve been good friends for a long time. I know you pretty well. I remember the long, intense discussions we’ve had together. Yes, I recall how you continually at tempted to portray religion as a meaningless area of concern with no practical content for our modern age. Those were your beliefs and 26

you as an individual had a right to hold them. But, what appears incon gruous is that a non-believer in religion should serve as an aggres sive champion of Negro rights. Saul: This argument of yours is a real solid one, that is for a man living in the fourteenth or fifteenth cen tury. What kind of reasoning are you trying to pull on me? Are you maintaining that one who is not religious has no right to subscribe to or campaign for basic moral issues? Why, that whole concept went out of style a long timp ago. One belief has nothing to dp with the other. I’m downright surprised that a modern, educated person like you could ever make such an erro neous assumption. A aron: I see you haven’t lost your skill of debate. You’re still adept at turning defensive positions into of fensive ones. But, I’m serious and not interested in having a mere mental exercise wifh you. I realize that my previous words may appear strange and outdated. Yet, I know (mind you, I’m saying that I know, not I feel, not I think, but I know) that from a rational and logical JEWISH LIFE

point of view it is inconceivable that a negator of religion should fight for minority rights. The reason peo ple consider such a view to be antiquated is simply because they never seriously think about it. Now, since you’re so intent upon helping resolve the racial problem and have travelled so many miles to accom plish this feat, I think you should be quite clear as to what you are doing before you rush headfirst into this delicate matter. So, let’s discuss the basic issues. Perhaps we’ll find out who is right and who is wrong. Sa u l : I see you are serious and I would like to know what’s on your mind, so, O.K., let’s talk. Let’s dis cuss the entire matter. Though I doubt it, perhaps something inter esting will result. A aron : Let’s start at the beginning. First of all, I believe that for many reasons a terrible crime is being committed against the Negroes. But, my views should be of no concern to you at present. The crucial pres ent problem is—■why are you so incensed about the way the Negroes are treated in the South? What’s wrong with it? Sa u l : Aha, so that’s your game. For argument’s sake you want to take the role of the Southern white. Fine, that’s okay with me. I’ll tell you what irked me and why I came. It is my feeling that racial discrimination is a flagrant violation of all codes of ethics and morality. You know what’s going on down here. Why, no ethical person could be quiet when such brutality exists. Indeed, the morality of our nation is at stake if we allow people to be crudely deprived of their basic rights. A aron : This is a really altruistic an swer. Had you said that the Consti tution of the United States as well as September-October, 1963

the decisions of the Supreme Court are being violated, then I could un derstand your role quite clearly. You would have been an indignant citi zen seeking to assure that the laws of our country are being obeyed. But, that is not your argument. You’re too sophisticated for such a claim. You’d rather portray yourself as the embodiment of morality, the spokesman for ethical conduct. What right have you to do that? What right have you to put yourself on a pedestal and look down upon the ethical conduct of others? How do you even know that the Southern treatment of the Negro is unethical? What’s your guide? What’s your standard for ethics? S a u l : My standard? You ask for my personal standard of ethics? Why, I speak in the name of universal ethics. The idea that all men have an inalienable right to be treated de cently. No, no, this is not a standard that I dreamed up. This is the standard of humanity; the guide of all decent men. A aron : This is no answer. You merely state that the standard you use is not yours but that of some dubious group called humanity. Who made up this universal ethic? Which group of people had the audacity to make up a code by which all nations, all people may be judged? Secondly, who ever paid there’s a code of mor ality by which all may be guided? Sa u l : I’ll deal with your second ques tion, first. Yes, there is a universal ethic. There is a guide of morality overseeing all people. The proof of this is that we condemn the Nazis for tormenting, torturing, and killing Jews. This is not a theory. This is a basic fact. And had there been no universal ethic this would be impos sible. But, since we do condemn the 27

Germans we ipso facto recognize that all nations must abide by a universal ethic. Now, who created this code? Why, it’s society. Not mine alone, but the society of man kind. This is the group that made the ethics for all to follow. A aron : In other words, society creates ethics. Is this correct? Saul : Yes. Society as a whole estab lishes morality. A aron : This, my friend, is a most tenuous position to defend. If this be the case, I say we haven’t any rational right to condemn the Ger mans for brutally killing Jews. If society has the right to establish morality, then any code they create becomes, by definition, moral. It therefore follows that he who goes against society is unethical. Under such a situation during the Nazi regime, wherein it was decided by that society that Jews are harmful creatures and that a good Nazi citi zen must destroy them, it, again by definition, made such acts “moral.” Indeed, the German who was sym pathetic to Jews is actually, in those terms, “immoral.” Sa u l : Wait a minute, Aaron, slow down. You’re jumping to conclu sions. I said society as a whole, in cluding all of mankind, creates ethics. Not one individual nation or group. A aron : True, that is what you said. But, you also must know that each society establishes laws and mores for its own national interest. Each society assumes that its laws are correct. Now, Nazi Germany be lieved it was ethical to kill Jews; ancient Spartans considered it moral to rid themselves of aged people not productive to society; certain cul tures felt it correct to destroy young girls when they believed that their 28

society had sufficient numbers of them; Communist Russia, in the in terest of the state, massacred mil lions of people. These groups certainly believed they were correct. Can we condemn them? S a u l : Certainly. A aron : H ow? What right have we to impose our ethics upon them? How do we know that the moral code of the United States is correct and applicable for all nations? Maybe the Spartan, Communist, or Nazi system is correct? If society creates ethics the problem always revolves around the pivotal question of whether one society has the right to assume that its code of ethics is universally to be accepted. The Communists believe they are right. We believe our way is best. Yet, what right have we to say that our code should be the standard for the entire world? Every culture has the right to create a code to best satisfy its own selfish national interest. And every society should have the right to negate any standard which in its collective mind is detrimental to its perception of national safety. Basi cally the question is, how can we condemn a society for following its own conception of morality? How do we know that our way of life is best for all? Sa u l : I see age has sharpened your logic. But, there is a good answer to your problem. It is that all moral law is based upon a consensus of opinion of rational men. Look at the world, all rational, decent people condemn torture and cruelty. This consensus of opinion of men and women throughout the world estab lishes the code to judge all nations. A aron : I thought that you would come up with a better answer than that. It appears that you are implyJEWISH LIFE

ing that we count the decent people of the world and see what minimum ethical rules they have. And then, this becomes the guide for humanity. This, my friend, is a fallacious con tention. Allow me to explain why. There are two forms of theories. One is a factual theory and the other a normative one. A factual theory is exactly what it states. It is a theory that relates to a question of facts. For example, should one have a theory that there are 220 million people in the United States today, this theory may be shown to be correct or incorrect by amassing certain factual data. If, as a result of counting the people, the facts show that there are 220 million people, then my theory is correct. If, on the other hand, facts show that there are less than this sum, then my theory is incorrect. Sa u l : Of course, a factual theory is one that may be verified by resort ing to factual data. A aron : Right. Now a normative theory is one that relates to ques tions concerning how one ought to act, rather than how people actually do behave. Democracy, Commu nism, and Judaism are all normative theories. They are theories telling people how they ought to behave. One certainly cannot state that the theories of Judaism are incorrect merely because a census was made showing that people do not com pletely observe the dictates of these theories. One can’t say that democ racy is worthless because American people don’t fully practice demo cratic precepts. Indeed, all norma tive theories are by definition things not necessarily found in reality. They are ideas, principles holding forth patterns of behavior and goals to work for. They don’t describe the September-October, 1963

way people are, but, rather, outline the way they should be. Now, with this understood, one simply couldn’t determifie the correctness of any ethical code by resorting to a con sensus of opinion. One can’t say that if the majority of people believe that it is correct to kill and plunder, cheat and deceive, that these things are right and, therefore, should be come the standard morality for all. Isn’t it probable that the majority may be wrong? This is the crucial problem. We can’t logically estab lish a universal ethic by resorting to factual data or a consensus of opin ion, as just shown, and at the same time, we do, at least, emotionally and psychologically feel that the Nazi and Spartan system of ethics should be condemned. But, maybe they shouldn’t? Why doesn’t each society have the right to do what they want to? And if this point be granted, then it would appear almost impossible to construct a universal ethic. For any code established would always be open to suspicion. It may always be challenged by saying that it is good for the nation or society that created it, but not for any other. The question of personal national interest or orientation may be leveled at any moral guide. Sa u l : I see the problem. Yes, you’re right. I hadn’t really thought of this approach. I admit, I . . . I can’t answer you. In fact, I even see what you’re leading up to. You’re trying to make me realize that from an “ethical” point of view the Southern whites have the right to treat the Negroes the way they want to. Yes, now I understand your distinction between a constitutional approach and an ethical one. From the stand point of constitutional law, the Negroes must get a fair deal. This 29

fallacious. But, if ethics were created is the law and all, North and South, by something independent of society, must comply with it. But, from a independent of a selfish national moral point of view, the absence of interest, then it would be logically a universal ethic presents each cul possible to have a universal code of ture with the right to construct its morality. It would basically be a own moral guide. The Southern code that transcends all nations. society, therefore, has the right to formulate any system they want Saul : Well, whatever this “something” is, it certainly can’t be human. For and other groups have no justifica any individual or societal group, no tion to morally condemn them. Yes, matter how large, according to your the more I think about it the more logic is open to the charge of selfplausible it appears. Just as the interest or personal ethics. So what Communists establish their peculiar could this “something” be? brand of justice and morality, so too has any societal group, no matter A aron : You’re so right. This “some thing” certainly can’t be human. It how large or small, the right to must be free from all human faults create their own ethical patterns. and prejudices. In fact, there’s only But, why did you interweave the one thing that fits this description: concept of religion into this matter? G-d. Why should a religious person have the right to champion ethical values? Sa u l : G-d? How did you get Him in here? What distinction is there between the unreligious and the religious A aron : Well, the only thing I can conceive of that has no limitations, person? that has no human frailties, is G-d. A aron : You’re right. I was going to Only a G-d can construct a code lead up to the situation in the South applicable to all. Only G-d, who is and your logical conclusion is basi the Creator of all mankind, has the cally the one I wanted to present. right to judge all cultures. Think Now, concerning your question, I about it. With G-d as the criterion do believe that there is a vast dis for morality do we still have the tinction between the non-believer objections raised before? Certainly and the religious person concerning not. To the extent that He is not ethical judgements. Since, as we just the G-d of America or Africa, previously saw, no society or cluster but of the entire world, one cannot of societies* has the right to assume raise the question of national in that its code must be accepted by terest. Indeed, only a religious per all, the problem always remains as son who believes in a G-d who gave to the criteria for judging or con mankind a code, such as we Jews demning a society with an orienta believe happened on Sinai, can judge tion different from ours. But, we do, humanity from an ethical point of as you correctly said, condemn the view. We can say that the Nazis, actions of other groups. This implies Spartans, Communists, and South that we, at least, psychologically erners are wrong because they vio assume that there is a universal late the Divine code of morality—a standard of conduct. What is it? code that supersedes all patterns of Is our assumption correct? As long behavior, for it comes from G-d and as society is the guide for ethics, is therefore absolute justice applithen our assumption is completely 30

JEWISH LIFE

cable to all. We can say that no society has the moral right to de prive an individual of his rights. And we can base our statements on the Law of G-d that transcends all societal boundaries. Should one ne gate the validity of a G-d given Law, then one casts off all claims to a universal code of morality. In such a case anything goes. Now you must admit that religion, according to our arguments, is of great im portance. It is not just an abstract system of concepts for the pious or meek. No, far from it. Religion is a very practical and basic area of concern. It gives mankind a basis for morality and a standard for action. Sa u l : You’re getting to me, Aaron, but I still don’t think you’ve pre sented a clear total picture of the matter. You’re saying that if one accepts religion with its concept of a G-d given code then one has a valid standard for judging the ac tions of others. Yet, the opposite is not necessarily true. According to your theory, if one doesn’t believe in G-d then one has no standard for morality and life is simply chaotic. But, this may be shown to be false. Look at all the people who don’t accept the dictates of religion. Why, look at such men as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher. He doesn’t believe in G-d, yet he’s quite ethical. In fact, he’s just one of the countless people who do not believe in G-d and are extremely ethical in all their actions. A aron : I expected that question from you long ago and I believe it was already answered when we saw that if one doesn’t believe in a Torah M’Sinai, G-d given Law, then each group or individual is free to com pose his own brand of ethics. It may Septernber-October, 1963

happen that a multitude of people will come to the conclusion, for numerous reasons, that it is wrong to kill, torture, steal, and cheat. But, at the same time it’s quite pos sible that another group may estab lish a code exceedingly different from the one we normally consider to be ethical, and neither has a rational right to impose its standards upon the other. Thus, an individual may be supposedly ethical in his conduct without religion, but he has no justification to judge others. This means that without G-d all matters pertaining to ethics are personal and have no universal validity. Sa u l : In other words, we need G-d so that we can condemn people. Isn’t that a peculiar statement to make? A aron : I didn’t say that. You’re twist ing my words. Sa u l : Yes you did. You said that only a religious person has the right to condemn others for he has the G-d given standard for morality. It, therefore, appears that if you didn’t have G-d around no one would be able to denounce or condemn an other. Wouldn’t that be a better world? A aron : My, this is a switch. Weren’t you so intent about condemning the Southern community a little while ago? How did you now become so pacific? Sa u l : ItV not a question of pacifism. I just want a clarification of your ideas, for it seems strange that the goal of religion should be portrayed as the only code upon which one may condemn people. A aron : The goal of religion is not to condemn people, but, rather, to es tablish order in the world. It gives us a guide for praise as well as for blame. It shows what we can or

cannot do. In fact, there’s more need for such a code today than at any other time. The social distance of the world is shrinking. What happens in Africa or Asia has prac tical ramifications in the United States. No nation or societal group stands alone. We’re all intertwined in the fine fabric of a close knit general society. In this situation, more than ever before we need a universal ethic. We need to know how to judge actions—those of our own and those of others. We just can’t vegetate or scramble wildly to the moon. We need a code to tell us what to do and what we may aspire to attain. This is religion; this is Torah; this is its practical need for our modem age. This gives us the moral justification to fight for mi nority rights, this and nothing else. Sa u l : In other words, my cause is just but m y reasons for it are not.

A aron : Exactly. Maybe . . . Sa u l : I must interrupt you. My train

is leaving. I do. wish I had more time to talk with you. But, I’ll con sider what you said. I’ll think about it. Somehow I still believe that ethics has nothing to do with religion. There’s still several things I would like cleared up. But, your arguments are quite good. I don’t know. I don’t know. A aron : S o long, my friend. At least one thing I have proved. Sa u l : What’s that? A aron : That you have to think about

religion. That you just can’t push it aside as a meaningless area of con cern. That religion, that Torah, may be the only vehicle for the establish ment of a universal ethic. Sa u l : Yes, there is something to it. You have to think about it. Perhaps you’re right about the whole thing. Yes, you may be right.

JEWISH LIFE

The Jewish Educational Jungle By Isacque Graeber

HE past four decades have seen a remarkable growth in the num ber, size and variety of Jewish educa tional agencies, ranging through the entire gamut of Jewish life in America. The extent of this change in the char acter and complexion of the American Jewish community can be visualized only if we contrast the educational situation of 1963 with, say that of the nineteen-twenties. Forty years ago there was but one educational agency in the entire United States—the fledg ling Commission on Jewish Education, which the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the Central Confer ence of American Rabbis, Reform agencies, had founded in Cincinnati. Of course, there were sporadic at tempts at setting up “bureaus” of Jew ish education, but very few of these attempts resulted in the establishment of stable, continuing organizations such as we have today.* Contrast this situation with that of 1963. In place of the lone commission which serviced the Reform SabbathSunday schools, we now have what

*The first bureau of Jewish education was founded in 1910 by J. L. Magnes, Israel Friedlander, Mordecai M. Kaplan, Henrietta Szold, and Samson Benderley. Despite its short-lived career, it did much to dramatize the plight of Jewish education in New York and the country at large.

September-October, 1963

seems like a jungle. The facts of the modern educational situation docu ment the proliferation of formal Jew ish educational agencies and associa tions of diverse kinds. The range of interest and orientation represented by these organizations and systems is pro portionate to the variety of their structures. In truth, Jewish education in Amer ica represents a living “organizational fecundity,” better still a variegated mosaic of diverse Jewish groupings, ideologies, and orientations, ranging in interest as far apart as is Torah Umesorah from the Workmen’s Circle schools. HERE are today eight specialinterest non-local Jewish groupings directly involved in the promotion of their respective concepts of Jewish education: Merkos L’inyonei Chinuch, orthodox (Lubavitcher) ; Torah Ume sorah, orthodox; the National Council for Torah Education, orthodox (Mizrachi-Hapoel-Hamizrachi) ; the Com mission on Jewish Education, Reform; the Commission on Jewish Education of the United Synagogue of America, Conservative; The American Associa tion for Jewish Education, “nondenominational”; the Workmen’s Cir-

cle, Yiddish Socialist; Farband, LaborZionist. The American Council for Judaism has established its own de partment of “religious education.” COJO (the Council of Jewish Organi zations) has demonstrated an interest in the “global” state of Jewish educa tion. Finally, there is the Zionist Or ganization of America, which after years of fruitless talk and no tangible fruit, has again joined the bandwagon of the Jewish educational enterprise. Not only are there more “self-in terest” educational organizations and multiple educational associations, but there are also over a score of local “Bureaus,” “Boards,” and “Councils” of Jewish education that are more or less stable. These, collectively spanning the country, are located in: Atlanta, Ga.; Camden, N. J.; Miami, Fla.; New

Haven, Conn.; New York, N. Y.; Rochester, N. Y.; Syracuse, N. Y.; Essex County, N. J.; Boston, Mass.; Detroit, Mich.; Cleveland, Ohio; St. Louis, Mo.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Los Angeles, Cal.; Paterson, N. J.; St. Paul, Minn,; Milwaukee, Wis.; Chicago, 111.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Louisville, Ky.; East St. Louis, 111.; Providence, R. I. Even this brief sketch indicates the extent to which this fecundity reflects the diffuse, diverse, heterogeneous, and competitive character running through the total pattern of the American Jew ish community. What this means is that organizationally, religiously, and ideologically, the field of American Jewish education has been marked by the same freedom of action and “col lective individualism” as has charac terized all Jewish organizational life.

HAVE BUREAU OBJECTIVES BEEN ACHIEVED?

HE education bureaus, be it noted, were brought to existence as antidotes to chaos and fragmenta tion. They were conceived as instru ments of coordination, to check the miasma which had accumulated in the body of Jewish education; to intelli gently guide the restorative powers in Jewish education and to bring it to a higher level. These, in general, were the broad objectives of all bureaus and formations in Jewish education. More specifically, their aims have been to improve instruction, raise the content of Jewish education, give material aid and supervision to all schools in the community, raise the position, morale, and status of the Jewish teacher and the teaching profession, publish text books, pedagogical, and festivals ma terials, develop Hebrew high schools, inaugurate institutes of Jewish studies

and colleges of Jewish undergraduate studies, train and recruit teachers, build schools wherever those were needed, and in general stimulate and influence the Jewish community in the very heart of the process of Jewish con tinuity. , A point-by-point analysis of the aims and objectives of the bureaus indicates that their achievement has not kept up with their promise. Measured in terms of performance, the bureaus have not produced a net in crease of tangible fruit after four dec ades of continuous existence. Their preoccupation with the how, with organization, management, and administration, their concern with the quantitative phases, censuses, records, enrollments, have subordinated and obscured the ends and goals that Jew ish education should serve. JEWISH LIFE

Y OWN studies of the Jewish edu cational scene have shown that the bureaus, whose strength supposedly lay in the “grass roots” of the com munity, are in fact not representative, democratic organizations. The basic pattern of the organizational structure has become typical. A president is vested in office through appointment by a lay board. This lay board consists of a few influential Jews who are hardly representative of the entire Jewish community. A significant num ber of them study the lists of the local federations. Representation of the rab binate is least conspicuous. Local asso ciations of rabbis usually have no roles on the boards of the bureaus. Indi vidual rabbis, however, are ex-officio members. Rare is the bureau that has on its board representation from the academic community, or from the Jewish intellectuals, writers, and jour nalists working in countless local com munities. Theoretically, all members of the bureau shape and determine its poli cies. In practice, the bureaus are dominated by the directors and pro fessional staff, and led by a small coterie of men with limited objectives. No less influential is the “Jewish or ganization man,” who is a combination social worker, fund raiser, and public relations man. He is the counselor and “resource man” of the federation. The major source of income upon which the bureaus of Jewish education draw for their maintenance and sup port are the local Jewish federations and welfare funds, the Jewish com munity councils, and sometimes the local units of the United Jewish Appeal. In studying the economics of Jewish education, Uriah Z. Engelman has found that the latter agencies have contributed more than $4,000,000 an nually since 1959 toward the upkeep

September-October, 1963

of the bureaus and other “centralized” associations. This amounts to 75% of their combined budgets; the remainder being covered by contributors and schools. N THEIR early careers the bureaus’ principal function was that of fiscal agents—by allotting funds to schools and other special facets of Jewish edu cation provided by local Jewish fund federations or community councils. The highly scattered and ambiguous data of the bureaus’ material contribu tion toward the schools do not provide us with a quantitative scale of the extent of their support. “Jewish Edu cation in the United States”* credits the bureaus and educational associa tions with “operating” fourteen schools (classes twice weekly), all small-size units. The term “subsidy” in the lan guage of the bureau may mean as low as $250 per annum and as “high” as $1,000, hardly enough to pay the annual salary of one Sunday school teacher. Obviously, these “subsidies” are token payments, and among the recipients are as many self-maintained schools as there are those struggling for sheer survival. Some bureaus, mainly through their power to allocate funds, have sought to influence and in fact to impose their policies and stand ards upon their hapless beneficiaries. Recalcitrants refusing to conform have their allocations held up. Still focusing on the bureaus’ eco nomic and material contribution to Jewish education, the findings of Dushkin and Engleman in the above-men tioned Report fail to establish a direct

♦Jewish Education in the United States: “Report of the Commission for the Study of Jewish Education in the United States,” by Alexander M. Dushkin and U riah Z. Engleman, Vol. I (American Association for Jewish Education, 1959).

measure of the role that the bureaus play in the material workings of the local “systems” of education. Thus, the bureaus record “deficit budget ing” for twenty-six schools, with small communities predominating. There is no mention in the Report of the extent to which the bureaus in the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles go to sub sidize the education of children from indigent homes. There are thousands of indigent Jewish children still with us in the latter-named cities with large Jewish concentrations. The Dushkin-Engelman Report makes reference to “schol arships,” but their number is limited to two, one each for large communi ties. Despite the rise of many affluent Jewish suburbias and an increasing Jewish middle class, we have with us many marginal and declining areas wherein live “Jews without money.” The rundown Talmud Torahs in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Philadelphia, and Chicago, not to speak of the basement-located Yiddish schools, or the communal yeshivoth of early cen tury vintage, have not moved the bu reaus of the East nor those of the Midwest to renovate any of them. HE records reveal that a total of five loans had been made by bu reaus toward repairs of old buildings and an equal number of loans of un specified amounts had been made toward new buildings. I have searched hard for evidence of bureaus develop ing new schools wherever they are needed—one of the many announced

*It would be interesting to know what, if any thing, the Farband and the W orkmen’s Circle, have done for elementary Jewish education. Both of these Orders, passionate devotees of Yiddish instruction, are reported to have large funds in their treasuries, yet their schools pre sent drab, desolate pictures, reminiscent of the nineteenth century “little red school houses,” the exception being the Kinereth School.

objectives of the education bureaus and agencies.* It is hardly comforting to know that criticism has been directed at the bureaus for their failure to contribute materially and educationally to the small Jewish communities, even though these are geographically coterminous with the location of the bureaus. Ironi cally enough, these are the very com munities that are in direct need of material and educational assistance and guidance. In a similar vein, criticism is directed at those of the bureaus which refuse to service the “unaffili ated” schools. On the other hand, bureaus not infrequently favor the giant congregational schools, with im pressive educational establishments, trained staffs of teachers, and profes sional educational directors. We may point to Pittsburgh, Essex County, and Westchester, as examples among nu merous others. On the whole, it appears that the bureaus’ and associations’ share in “subsidizing” Jewish elementary edu cation amounts to an estimated $900,000 out of a total combined budget of nearly six million dollars. N 1962 there were nearly 500,000 students taught by 17,000 teachers at an estimated annual cost of 65 million dollars, inclusive of all day schools. Schools have multiplied since World War II, and enrollment has grown. The major responsibility for the support of Jewish education falls upon the parents. Tuition fees paid by parents amount to an estimated 55-65 percent of the cost of Jewish educa tion. Congregations contribute, from their own resources, another 20-25 percent of the cost. Interested individ ual donors in the communities at large contribute 12 to 15 percent, while the federations, welfare funds, community

JEWISH LIFE

councils and the local UJA’s contribute an estimated seven to eight percent toward the total budget. It is clear then that today, as throughout the past decades, the finan cial support of Jewish education is overwhelmingly local, congregational, and private. There is still no organized attempt, public and communal, for the support of Jewish religious education, resolutions of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds to the contrary notwithstanding. The prin ciple of public or communal support for Jewish education is not yet im bedded in contemporary American Jewry. It is still in the cocoon stage, awaiting maturation at the hands of the dispensors of federation funds who favor “Jewish Welfare” to the neglect of Jewish education.

This “grass roots” local autonomy has favored every conceivable organi zational formation and ideological variation; but it has also led to an uneven development of Jewish educa tion throughout the country. The ab sence of communication and the lack of properly defined goals and objec tives have led the various separate “systems” to move in dissimilar direc tions; and the contemporary result certainly merits the name of confusion and diffusion. Furthermore, it has favored and encouraged competition for trained Jewish teachers and educa tional directors, who tend to flow to the more affluent “systems.” Insofar as this process gives “better” education in certain “ideological systems” and areas, it creates for them a competitive advantage.

WHAT TO TEACH?

HILE the structures of the Jew educationalists, teachers, and rabbis W ish educational “systems” have alike, Orthodox, Reform, and Con been often and well described in the servative, are floundering in a “whirl proliferous surveys and in doctoral dis sertations, there is universal uncer tainty and confusion about what to teach the unformed plastic child, what content, intended and unintended, should be transferred and communi cated. In brief, there has been no con certed grasp of the need to give the Jewish child a foundation of positive Jewish belief, Jewish knowledge, Jew ish ideas, Jewish norms. Yet surely the function of Jewish education is to make the young generation safe for Judaism; unless such is the purpose and end, it serves no purpose at all. There is a literal babel of views, philosophies, definitions, interpreta tions, and meanings of what Jewish education should be. Bureau heads, September-October, 1963

pool of contradictory views and phi losophies,” to quote Dr. Eugene Borowitz. My own field report conducted during the years 1961 and 1962 re veals that concepts of Jewish religious education range from “developing a harmonious personality” and “personal adjustment”, to “personal religious commitment,” “mold the Jewish child into a shape or orthodox Jew for later years, if possible/’ and “prepare the Jewish child to live a Jewish life.” Local orthodox educators have begun to again use freely phrases that had for a time seemed outmoded. They thus describe the aims of Jewish edu cation to be: “developing a feeling of reverence,” “ethical character,” “a spirit of devotion to study,” “develop 37

the use of Reform history textbooks published by UAHC. Worthy of notice is the fact that the Conservative “ladder” of educa tion enunciating the movement’s goals, objectives, and standards is hardly more than two decades old. Yet, its “system” is not only more unified but wields much influence in the bureaus —and from thence to orthodox schools —through its textbooks and educa tional literature. The oldest and most elaborate of HESE diversities are further em the educative agencies is the Com phasized and encouraged by the mission on Jewish Education of the existing national educative agencies, Union of American Hebrew Congre which slant into the work of the bu gations, which since its inception in reaus at various angles. 1923 has serviced the Reform Sunday Thus the (Conservative) United schools and previously their SabbathSynagogue Commission on Jewish Sunday schools. Since the 1940’s the Education, which seems to have Reform system has run parallel to that achieved some degree of unity around of the Conservative movement—it now the “objectives and standards for the operates an impressive number of twoCongregational School,” drawn up in day-a-week schools—but like two par 1942, overlaps and duplicates the work allels they do not converge. The Re of many bureaus. In Philadelphia the form Commission operates the largest United Synagogue Commission con Jewish publishing house in the world ducts its own bureau. On the other and none excels it in the variety of hand, the bureaus of New York, Essex graded textbooks, school literature, County, Chicago, and Los Angeles verbal and educational aids, history have both favored and sharpened books, visual aids, and religious text diversities by conducting special de books intended for all age groups—• partments aimed at servicing and guid from nursery to the adult level. ing the Conservative two- or three-daya-week schools, though a significant r t h o d o x y is the only sector number of them have a need of neither. not to have established its own At the same time there is a strong tendency among the Conservative con central educative agency, to serve the temporaries to seek improvement and congregational schools, similar to those guidance from the movement’s cen set up by the non-orthodox groups. tralized educational agency. The Com The national orthodox agencies re mission’s textbooks, primary grade ferred to above have focused on the books, and junior high schools texts day schools, with no other orthodox seek to conduct the young into the body providing for the needs of the Conservative “system.” Yet, a number afternoon Hebrew schools and Talmud of these texts are widely used in ortho Torahs across the country. The Education Commission of the dox schools. Orthodox schools have more often than not also resorted to Union Of Orthodox Jewish CongregaJEWISH LIFE 38

a love for K’lal Yisroel, Israel, and the Torah.” These aims are only sum mary descriptions of extremely diverse tendencies in the whole of Jewish edu cation. An agreement on the philoso phy and ends of Jewish education, however, requires a more unified Jew ish community and such community we do not have. Short of an agree ment on the values of Judaism, Jewish educational aims are almost certainly to retain such confusion and diversity.

tions of America, the logical unit for the purpose, has not yet established an ongoing service program. Nor have orthodox Rabbinic bodies filled the vacuum. A 1949 report by Rabbi Harold P. Smith as the Chairman of the Rabbinical Council of America’s Education Commission, protested: “The Rabbinical Council . . . whose members pass annual resolutions about the orthodox textbooks that do not exist—cannot see its way clear to co ordinate its educational efforts and bring order out of chaos through a special office in education . . . with a full-time director, whose task it would be to feed our members with a stream of textbook material, brochures of techniques and guidance, satisfactory curricula for our schools, etc. But then, I am merely reiterating something con cerning which we pass resolutions each conference. The implementation seems as far from realization as ever though its urgency grows with succeeding minutes.” The R.C.A. Education Commission’s attempts to “develop common stand ards of education and practice” for schools which our ‘Chaverim head and serve,’ never came to fruition. The belated establishment in 1958/9 of the Metropolitan New York Com mission on Talmud Torahs was one of the reasons given by the Rabbinical Council for abandoning the idea of a centralized agenpy, from which Orthodoxy’s impressive constituency could profit in terms of direction, guidance, and common standards. The “development of curricular and edu cational aids by the local communi ties,” meaning the local bureaus, was another, as reported at a 1958 conven tion of the R.C.A. Actually, the Metropolitan New York Commission on Talmud Torahs is neither geared nor equipped to guide and service New York OrthoSeptember-October, 1963

doxy’s five-day-a-week Talmud Torahs with 130,000 enrollees. A creation of the Jewish Education Committee of New York (a “non-denominational” bureau), the Metropolitan New York Commission has had a minimum of one and a maximum of three consult ants to guide and supervise its “affili ated” Talmud Torahs, dotted through out the five boroughs of New York. It is indeed difficult to see how three consultants working during each of the thirty weeks of the school year could render beneficial pedagogic as sistance and guidance to orthodox Jewish education! This is no less true of the other local bureaus, where supervision is conducted on a “hit-and-run” schedule, with far too little time devoted to the specific problems in terms of teacher conferences, curricular work, and teaching. With a few exceptions—those of Minneapolis, Detroit, Baltimore, and Boston— the out-of-town Talmud Torahs, mostly small-size units, are sorely in need of supervisors or direc tors. And, to the limited extent to which these are available, thejr per sonal orientation often poses additional problems for the traditional school. Ideological clashes between the bu reaus’ personnel and the Talmud Torah staffs have not been infrequent oc currences, and traditional education has suffered accordingly. Significantly, it seems that not one bureau has even either approved or adopted “A Model Program for the Talmud Torah,” by Dr. Leo Jung and Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky, which the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions published in 1942. Viewed in forma Orthodoxia, the bureaus cannot be said to have bene fited the standards of religious Jewish education. 39

T appears that after more than three decades of improvisation and ex perimentation, the bureaus of Jewish education throughout the land have to date published very few textbooks, pamphlets, or meaningful educational materials. This, despite the fact that much of contemporary Jewish educa tional endeavor places heavy reliance on detailed textbooks rather than teach ers, and the fact, too, that the publi cation of textbooks and other vital educational materials has remained one of the major objectives of the bureaus. There is not one book, monograph, or volume on the Jewish religion, on Judaism, but there is a flood of typewritten material on “customs and ceremonies.” From this material one frequently gets the impression that Ju daism and the Jewish people have ac quired a vast accumulation of customs and ceremonies in the same way as have other religious or ethnic groups. Their pamphlets and photo-offset mate rials stop short of an interpretation of the G-d-idea and other theological ideas, so basic and unique to Judaism, as though they fear to rush into areas strictly prescribed for rarer spirits. We have textbooks on religion, of course,

but they, as a rule, are suitable for adults and teachers. The Biblical maxim, “The Torah is not in Heaven, but in thy heart and soul, to be prac ticed in this life and on this earth,” is a teaching of Judaism, which seems not to have come within the purview of the education bureaus. There have been isolated, sporadic, but minor efforts to publish textbooks. But mainly these have been confined to the Hebrew language and aids to the study of the Bible and prayers. This meager fare has come to us from the best of the bureaus—the Jewish Edu cation Committee of New York, the Baltimore, Chicago, and Los Angeles bureaus. The amounts all bureaus and associated schools have spent on pub lications is also of interest. Approxi mately a quarter of a million dollars of the total budget of $5,878,000 (1960) is reported to have been spent on “publication,” an omnibus term for holiday materials and manuals, bulle tins, children’s magazines, slides, news papers, reports, films, etc. It would have redounded to the bureaus’ credit and foresightedness had they pooled their resources and diverted threefifths of that amount toward the pub lication of vital educational items and a series of books in soft cover.

STATUS OF THE TEACHER

6 6 T JA IS E the status of the Jewish XV teacher and the teaching pro fession, train and place teachers,” has been a fixed, constant objective of all bureaus. The Jewish teacher transmits norms, beliefs, and values to the unformed child, thus engaging in the very heart of the process of Jewish continuity. Yet, in spite of the unanimous verbal acclaim bestowed upon Jewish educa40

tion in recent years, the practitioner, the Jewish teacher, the Jewish educa tor, has not received any prestige rat ing. The one fact that springs from my above-mentioned 1962/3, report overshadowing all others, is that the Jewish teacher’s rank is the lowest in the list of Jewish professions. Actually, his status is as depressed as it is pre carious economically. One should not wonder, therefore, why the motivations JEWISH LIFE

to enter the Hebrew teaching field are lacking. Secondary facts are that ap proximately 65 percent of the Hebrew teachers now engaged are non-licensed. The most striking example of the Hebrew teacher’s precariousness and insecurity is the lack of provision for his social security. Neither the teacher nor educational director is provided with old age insurance, unemployment insurance, or even health insurance. A relatively small number of congrega tions have made provision for pen sions under the promptings of the National Committee on Teacher Edu cation and Welfare of the American Association for Jewish Education. As yet, the trend in Jewish education is definitely of the laissez faire, individ ualistic 1920’s. All this, at the very time when the bureaus and national educational associations are intent on stimulating Hebrew teaching personnel. Wage and salary levels have been low in comparison with other Jewish professional or semi-professional oc cupations requiring equivalent amounts of training. Recruited as they are in larger numbers to meet the demands of an expanding school population, they have never had in any propor tion the bargaining power of an effec tive union or quasi-control over the distribution of jobs so consistently ex ercised by other crafts and professions. The Jewish teaching profession defies all the “iron laws” of trade unions. The Hebrew Teachers Union is weak and has been rendered impotent by the “open,” competitive market of the Jewish bureaus and the national edu cational agencies which recruit person nel for their “affiliates.”

with two or three children. He is a college graduate and had attended pedagogic courses in a Jewish semi nary. His salary varies from an aver age of $3,000.00 on a ten-months basis in New York, to $4,500.00— $5,000.00 outside New York for a 15-18 hour schedule of teaching. More often than not he holds on to another job to supplement his income. Significantly enough, the great majority of Jewish teachers do not consider Jewish teach ing as a profession. As of yore, Heb rew teaching has remained a vehicle for an occupation or profession other than Hebrew teaching. Now emerging in much larger num bers than before, however, is the type of teacher who teaches the young so that they may be trained for future roles in which the teacher has himself direct experience. Unlike many who teach about values, beliefs, and ac tivities, this teacher is himself actively performing the roles into which he is inducting others. This type is found particularly in the day schools which have sprung up in recent years. It is here, in the day schools, that classical Jewish education aims to inculcate Jewish learning, values, beliefs, and norms for their own sake. While this attitude toward classical Jewish edu cation has for long receded in other facets of Jewish educational endeavor, it has never disappeared so completely as some critics have claimed. Never theless, the “practical” and “minimal” curricula have contended in congre gational schools and Talmud Torahs and the struggle has been intense, partly because different groups have different views and interests in the outcome.

rJi HE typical teacher in the weekday school is a man past the middle thirties, non-native, and a family man

GAIN: To what extent have the bureaus of Jewish education A helped fulfill the specific educational

September-October, 1963

goals of Orthodoxy? The answer is: Little, both absolutely and relatively. There is no evidence that the bureaus have contributed in any meaningful way to the improvement of the or ganization, functioning, or standards of orthodox Talmud Torahs and Hebrew schools. While the religious knowl edge, awareness, and standard of the average product of the orthodox after noon school are undoubtedly higher than that of the product of the non orthodox school, there is no basis for assuming that the bureaus have con tributed to this differential. If any thing, their impact has been to the contrary. Few among the leadership and professional personnel of the bu reaus are orthodox in personal orien tation. Taking the presumptive constituency of the educational bureaus as a whole, have the bureaus made a beneficial contribution to the Jewish level of the schools’ products? From all indica tions, they have not. Among various sources documenting the painfully un satisfactory level of religious belief and knowledge among those who have been “exposed” to the various “sys tems” of elementary Jewish educa tion, particularly noteworthy is Prof. Edward H. Sargent’s “Religious Knowl edge of High School Seniors— Specific Facts Concerning Catholicism, Juda

ism, and Protestantism as Revealed by Tests” (Princeton University, 1956). From this study it is clear that Jewish students who are graduates of Talmud Torahs and congregational schools rank lower in knowledge and practice of their religion than do the Catholic and Protestant students. The students who had attended orthodox afternoon schools rank higher than those who had attended non-orthodox schools, but still fall below the level, in these basic criteria, of the Christian students. The situation does not re dound to the credit of the various schools and systems, and still less to that of the bureaus. Formal Jewish education as trans mitted in the congregational schools and the Talmud Torahs has not been dynamic. Their curricula are anti quated. The exclusive stress upon “ac tivity” and skills has dominated all “systems.” But the emptiness of this approach is becoming recognized. The process of progressive attenuation of Jewish commitment—most marked from the late twenties to the middlethirties and after—has drawn to a close. More recently, educational thinkers, non-orthodox as well as or thodox, have stressed “character build ing.” There is no doubt that the winds are veering to more positive directions in Jewish religious education.

THE DAY SCHOOL AND THE COMMUNITY

with this temper, there has developed a favorable attitude towards religious education among all elements of American Jewry. A beneficiary of the new attitude is the Day School, once the object of much disfavor in non-orthodox circles —not least of all among the local edu o in c id e n t

cation bureaus and the non-orthodox national educational agencies. The Day School concept has won wide accept ance, to the extent that the great array of day schools, of which all but a few have been established under orthodox sponsorship, is now viewed with envi ous eye by other elements. Although JEWISH LIFE

the day schools do in fact serve the Jewish community at large, those be latedly seeking to “move in” on the Day School movement have raised a cry for “communally controlled” day schools, not confined to any one “denominationalism.” By this is meant the stripping from present day schools of their Torah ideology or the estab lishment of competitive schools devoid of such commitment. In behalf of their purpose, those advocating “non-denominational” day schools have dis seminated the charge that “those who seek to educate their children in a rati fied atmosphere of ‘separation’ will in time reduce their children’s capacity to relate themselves to K’lal Yisroel.” The one aspect of this charge that war rants any comment is its direct lineal descent from the earlier denunciations of the Day School as “separating” their pupils from association with nonJewish children. The bogeyman of yesterday has been put into more upto-date garb. More worthy of consideration is the charge that a significant minority of day schools have not been made ac cessible to children of low-income families. Most day schools may not be subject to this charge—to the great credit of their devoted and generous sponsors and supporters who “give and get” the funds required to cover bur densome annual deficits resulting from the gap between operating expense and tuition income, compounded by a liberal scholarship policy. Others, how ever, feel obliged to make their in stitutions self-sustaining on the basis of tuition fees, supplemented by con tributions from pupils’ families. Since the costs of operating and maintaining day schools is relatively, and unavoid ably, high, the scale of fees and con tributions places such schools out of the reach of families in modest cirSeptember-October, 1963

cumstances. Except for the few chil dren who are granted scholarships, the pooling of diverse economic classes in the school rooms of these institu tions is a rarity. The obvious importance of the com munity role served by the day schools and the equally apparent concomitant obligation on the part of the fiscal agencies of the general Jewish com munity to help sustain the day schools should produce general acquiescence on the part of the Jewish federations and welfare funds to fulfill this obliga tion. Yet there is substantial evidence that the Council of Federations and Welfare Funds is still vacillating and has yet to work out a satisfactory formula. In its professed enthusiasm for Jewish education, it is time for the CJFWF to interpret in broadly conceived terms the educational needs of the Jewish community. _/V n D now back to the bureaus. To train and recruit teachers and to develop Hebrew high schools, as well as to raise the educational and cul tural level of the Jewish community, has been another principal function of the bureaus. Bureau in-service training programs expenditures probably total $600,000. This is the third major item of expenditures of the bureaus, the first being the salaries of the directors and professional and clerical staffs, with a total of $1,350,000.* At least four bureaus have connections with local colleges of Jewish studies in Chicago, Boston, Balitmore, and Phila delphia for both pre-service and inservice personnel training. Six others, not including the two sponsored by Torah Umesorah in New York and *As concerns the salary incomes of the directors and the supervisory personnel, these compare most favorably with salaries of chairmen of departments of richly-endowed universities.

Baltimore, operate Hebrew teacher training institutes. Yet, the total “out put” of the ten standard Hebrew teacher training schools is hardly im pressive, and applications for admis sion go a-begging. “The total output of these ten schools was 100 graduates in 1957, and 129 in 1958, of whom it is estimated 75 per cent went into the teaching profession. As against this is the estimate that at least 800 new teachers are needed annually to staff new classrooms and to replace teachers who leave the service,” con clude Dushkin and Engelman.** Bureaus conduct scattered and un coordinated cultural and educational programs for adults, with varied aims and community organizations, (com munity centers), slanting into the na tional programs of adult education and the local congregations at various angles. But there is no coherent pro gram. HE bureaus have done a more effective job in helping to intro duce in the cities with numerically large Jewish population the teaching of the Hebrew language and literature as one of the elective modern lan guages in the public high schools. What is not generally known, however,

**The gap is being largely filled by graduates of the teachers institutes of Yeshivah Univer sity, of the various major yeshivoth, and of the teachers institutes of the Hebrew Union College and the Jewish Theological Seminary.

is that Hebrew as a foreign language in high schools fares rather badly in the junior and senior years. At least 75 percent of the students drop Heb rew when they begin to think of col lege admission requirements. To be sure, the bureaus have fur nished a degree of supervision and guidance to schools, much-sought serv ices which, alas, they could not and cannot perform with effectiveness and adequacy. As was stated above, much of the supervision and guidance is con ducted on a “hit-and-run” schedule, with far too little time devoted to any one school, and especially those that need consultation most. There is sim ply no guidance and direction given “in depth.” The paucity of consultants, the infrequency of visits to the schools of their choosing—once or twice dur ing the school year of thirty-two weeks —in effect nullifies the beneficial effects of the consultants’ work. The refusal of some bureaus to service the “nonaffiliated” Hebrew schools has tended to increase the educational disparities in small and medium-sized school establishments. On the other hand, bureaus, for reasons of expediency, have made themselves available to the large urban congregational schools, in New Jersey, Pittsburgh, New York, and other cities. It is estimated that one out of each four Hebrew schools receives pedagogic assistance and guid ance, and that only in haphazard fashion.

NEEDED: COORDINATION

UR melancholy picture of the in solution. Actually, these reflect the O adequacies, ineffectiveness, criss- Scylla of anarchy to which the Jewish crossings of the multiple educative community is perilously close. The re agencies and “systems,” improvisation, and aversion to planning on part of the bureaus and associations, is not to be taken as an argument for their dis44

sult has been a scattered and un coordinated effort, characterized by “imbalances,” varied aims, fiscal inade quacies and lack of educational direcJEWISH LIFE

tion and ends. What we are advocating is coordination among these diffused “systems” and proliferous organiza tional structures. This is a basic con dition. But can these highly diversified sys tems, national and local, arrive at agreement upon common objectives and goals in Jewish religious educa tion, and a communal fiscal policy? submit that Jewish education, even more than Jewish philanthropy, which is now symbolized by the CJFWF and the UJA, is that strategic area in which laissez faire and volun tarism must not run rampant. This requires a “consensus,” a harmony created by mutual forbearance and consideration, and above all by a recognition of, and response to, the

September-October, 1963

timeless fundamentals of Jewish be lief, Jewish teaching, Jewish being. Jewish religious education and the problem of Jewish perpetuity in strength have a greater degree of “destiny” than has the field of Jewish defense and community relations— which today enjoys so high a priority in communal attention and support. It is this process of religio-cultural con tinuity that puts the entire community and the educative agencies and institu tions in a contractual rather than vol untary relationship. It remains to be seen whether the calls of Jewish education and per petuity in strength are strong enough to evoke that degree of concerted approach which will enable American Jewry to effectively transmit the heri tage of Israel to our children and the generations to come.

A R g ig ilif

^ s^ i

The Synagogue as a “Small Sanctuary” By URI MILLER

£ £ T N all their long history, the Jewish people have done scarcely anything JL more wonderful than to create the Synagogue. No human institution has a longer continuous history and none has done more for the uplifting of the human race” (R. T. H erford ) . These words of a noted non-Jewish scholar set the theme for this article on the Synagogue. For what Mr. Herford evaluates in terms of his insight, we, orthodox Jews, have noted in the very process of living. To the Jew, the synagogue has been, throughout the ages, a spiritual home. It has been a meeting place between the Almighty and himself. Here he has been nurtured by Jewish traditional values and has acquired the courage and the stamina to enable him to stand up under the bludgeonings of difficult times. Here has been fulfilled the Midrashic interpretation of the words from Tehillim: “Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations” as referring to the synagogue and the Beth Hamidrash. The synagogue has kept the Jew in life and served as a resource of strength and spiritual integrity. For the synagogue to have thus served the Jewish people, it was necessary for it to occupy a particularly lofty place in the edifice of Jewish sanctity. There was always the danger that the flood of assimilation would drown the synagogue too. Other institutions have been overwhelmed by the forces of assimilation. For the synagogue to have resisted these forces and to have served as a bulwark of strength, it is important to evaluate its particular status in thq eyes of the Jewish people. The synagogue has been able to serve the Jewish people as a fortress of holi ness, for it has.been equated in Jewish life with the Temple of old. Based on a passage in Ezekiel, Chapter 11, verse 16, in which we read “and I will be unto them a small sanctuary,” we find, both in Rabbinic interpretation and incorporated in Jewish law, the concept that the synagogue has the sanctity and stands on the level of the Biblical Mikdosh and Mishkon. This high spiritual level has never been violated, and it is precisely because of this status that the 46

JEWISH LIFE

synagogue has served as a beacon and guiding light to Israel, storm-tossed throughout the centuries. Comparison with the synagogue and the Holy Temple in terms of sanctity is taken for granted by the Rabbis of the Talmud and in Halachic literature. Rambam (Maimonides), the Rishonim, the Achronim, all of them assume this equation and base their Halachic decisions on this comparison. The equality in holiness is taken for granted; it need not be proved. An example of this basic assumption is found in the story concerning the rebuilding of the Temple by Herod in Baba Bathra 3-b. Here we are told that the Rabbis advised Herod to rebuild the Temple. The question is put “How did the Rabbis advise Herod to destroy and rebuild the Temple; have we not a rule ‘one must not destroy a synagogue before another is built’?” Thus, it was natural for the Rabbis to apply rules of the synagogue to the Temple and, conversely, rules of the Temple to the synagogue. Where the equation of Holy Temple and synagogue is made, it is not proved but accepted as natural. The Zohar tells us that “The synagogue has the rules of the Holy Temple” (Din Mikdosh). The Ramban (Nachmanides) tells us that “The arrangement of the synagogue was patterned after the Holy Temple.” The Talmud tells us (Berochoth 26-b) that the time of the divine services in the synagogue was determined by the time limitations of the offerings in the Holy Temple. Nowhere is it deemed necessary to ‘prove’ the equation and its Halachic application. Particularly is this equation used in terms of guarding the sanctity of the synagogue. In Megillah 28-a, we read “one must not eat, drink, or do other profane deeds in a synagogue.” The reason given is a verse that originally referred to the Temple. Again we find in a Mishnah in Chapter 4 of Megillah: “Moreover, Rabbi Yehudah said, if a synagogue be in ruin, yet they may not deliver a funeral oration therein, nor may they twist ropes therein, nor may they spread out nets therein, nor spread out produce upon its roof, nor make of it a ‘short-cut.’ As it is said: ‘and I will bring your sanctuaries into desolation.’ Their holiness remains even though they be deso late.” This verse, from Vayikra, originally refers to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. The Jew has throughout the ages been keenly aware of the sanctity of the synagogue. He may have felt ‘at home’ therein but this intimacy did not result in a loss of reverence. On the contrary the synagogue and Beth Midrosh ex alted the Jew and enabled him to acquire roots in the past and wings to soar into the future. No matter how humble the Beth Midrosh may have been, it was enshrined with the halo of the ancient and glorious Temple. It is in our times, when synagogues and temples are being built that rival the finest buildings in architectural beauty, that there seems to be a weakening of this psychological parallel that lends sanctity to the synagogue. Architec tural beauty is not enough. The spirit of a materialistic age seems to be creep ing into a time-hallowed institution. Instead of the synagogue sanctifying us we are tempted to ‘desecrate’ it. / The synagogue is needed today, as never before, as an uplifting force in Jewish life. It can so serve so long as it retains the aura of holiness of the Temple. This requires a conscious act on our part. We must ‘sanctify’ the synaSeptember-October, 1963

gogue, if we wish it to be a source of sanctification in our lives. Our attitude towards it must elevate it to its eternal status. The elements of this attitude towards the synagogue include: 1. Expressing the sentiment of reverence and awe when we are present in the synagogue. I need not point out that, were we in the Holy Temple in Jerusa lem, there would be no conversation and no act of profanation. We must seek to have these same sentiments as we enter the “miniature Temples” in our own communities. 2. We must refrain from permitting the “everyday secular influences” from entering into the synagogue. This applies, not only in terms of what is com mon, such as discussing mundane matters in the synagogue, but in general, of permitting life to influence the synagogue rather the synagogue to influence life. 3. We must, in all humility, refrain from bringing about changes in the struc tural arrangement or conduct of the synagogue. Bearing in mind that this has been compared to the Holy Temple, and the reverence and awe that must be ours in considering the Holy Temple, we must realize that we are not its designers. The Designer on High has given us rules and regulations, and it is our privilege to conform to them. I am certain that a realization of this fact, that the synagogue is based upon the Temple of old, and that its sanctity is equated with the Temple, would give us the kind of attitude that would enable us to find herein the inspiration that was the portion and blessing of our forefathers in Temple days.

K'uy Komij.

JEWISH LIFE

ITA LIA N “ C H R A IN ” What has Buitoni done to gefilte fish? Nothing, except*to .provide you with a unique and delicious alternative to old-fashioned horse-radish: Buitoni Marinara Sauce. This zesty and tangy Italian “ sauce of the sea" brings out all the subtle flavors of gefilte fish. And it never makes your eyes water! Next time the family gathers, heat a can of Buitoni Marinara. Serve it as a dip for tiny hors d'oeuvres or full-size fish balls. Everyone will love this perfect alliance between full-bodied Italian sauce and the traditional favorite. You can serve this delicious change-of-pace sauce, not only with fish, but spaghetti and other fine foods—and always with peace of mind. Buitoni Marinara is © Kosher and Pareve. It’s first ch o ice . . . in homes where quality is a tradition!

BUITONI

(Say BEyy-TONI as in Beauty)

means quality

September4)ctober, 1963

Booh

The Mystical Dimension of Prayer ** By EMANUEL FORMAN

THE WORLD OF PRAYER II: SABBATH AND FESTIVALS by Dr. Elie Munk. Philip Feldheim, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1963. 350 pp. $7.50. R. MUNK makes much use of Jew ish mystical doctrine and Kabbalistic thought in presenting the “inner world” of prayer. He does so because, in his own words, “vague philosophis ing about the nature and idea, origin and form of expression of the prayers is of little help. A more direct method of approach is required. Whoever has succeeded in penetrating the external shell of the formal prayer to its most innermost core, will comprehend the world of thought and feeling hidden deep ; in its central sphere. In this manper only, which the authors of the prayers outlined with their clear, prophetic vision, will a man be en abled! to find his G-d.” By thus exposing the modern mind to the mystical dimension of prayer and, for that matter, of all of Jewish law, Dr. Munk is able to reveal the

RABBI EM ANUEL FORMAN is spiritual leader of the Young Israel of Brookline, Mass. He is presently engaged in doctoral studies in Jew ish Philosophy a t Brandeis U niversity.

role that kavonah must play in prayer and ought to play in the performance of all mitzvoth. With this detailed treatment of the Jewish mystical tra dition, Dr. Munk has restored our attention to an oft-neglected area of Jewish thought. We may note, in this connection, that on| of the popular objections raised against Judaism in general, and orthodox Judaism in particular, is the one which identifies the ap proach of the Halochah as totally legalistic. This objection maintains that the Jewish halachic perspective is one which stresses external compli ance with the law while it seemingly disregards the importance of inner devotion. Jewish law, this objection continues, is based upon objective principles rather than subjective ones. It emphasizes laws, words, deeds. It takes great pains to describe the minutae of observance. It is most com cerned with the technical facts of religious behavior, rather than with subjectivity and personal involvement. The objectors bolster their argument by accusing Orthodoxy of adhering to a “theology of respect,” that is, observance of ritual merely out of JEWISH LIFE

Happy New Year from Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation Makers of Viceroy Cigarettes

Viceroy’s got—the taste that’s right ! Smoke all 7 filter brands and you’ll find some taste too strong—like they didn’t have a filter at all. Some taste too lightHthey take all the fun and flavor out of smoking. But Viceroy tastes the way you’d like a filter cigarette to taste. Not too strong. Not too light. Viceroy’s got— the taste that’s right!

IN FAMILIAR SOFT PACK AND NEW “ S LID E-TO P” CASE.

September-October, 1963

respect for the past. With this conclu sion, orthodox Judaism is dismissed as flat and two-dimensional. Depth, the personal dimension, it is claimed, is missing. S Jews committed to Orthodoxy, . we are quick to disagree. “RackA monah libah boi” “G-d desires the heart,” we retort, is a cardinal prin cipal of our faith. Yet, can the issue be dismissed that easily? Is it not true that often sheer punctiliousness in observing the law can make one oblivious to the inner content of the law? Is it not true that extreme emphasis on the externalities of per formance can often result in perfunc tory performance? Does not regulated ritual tend to become mere habit? Indeed, as orthodox Jews we are firmly convinced that it is only by means of the external, regulated, ob jective Halochah that Jewish life can be maintained and its inner content ever realized. However, must we not admit that, if Jewish law is to be completely valid, it must provide for the element of inwardness within its externalism, for spontaneity within its regularity, for subjectivity within its objectivity? Such a provision must be, and is, inherently present within the very structure of Jewish law. That provision is the oft-used but little understood concept of havonah (in tention) . If I suggest that the term havonah has been little understood it is be cause it has too often been confused with “comprehension.” The recent writings of many a modern Jewish scholar are marked with the aim of restoring “philosophic insight” and “intellectual depth” to Jewish law and lore. The general implication is, that were Jews only able to understand more they would do more, and even 52

more important, they would do more with havonah. In the opinion of this reviewer, this tendency misses the point. While no one can deny the contention that rational inquiry into the meaning and content of Jewish law can do much to restore respect for Jewish observance, such inquiry alone will not restore reverence. For reverence is predicated upon the con viction that particular religious acts will provide one with more than the opportunity of merely appreciating certain religious or philosophic truths. They must, as well, provide the oppor tunity of experiencing them. This is precisely the aim of havonah. Kavonah seeks to transform the G-d whom one encounters in religious ob servance, from an object of dogmatic knowledge into an intuitive and living experience. N a sense, the problem of modern man in confusing havonah with “comprehension” lies with his inabil ity to distinguish between allegory and symbol. While an allegory can be de fined as the representation of one expressible something (i.e. philosophic truth, historical event, religious con cept, etc.), by another expressible something (i.e. word, object, ritual, etc.), a symbol is an expressible rep resentation of the inexpressible, of something which lies beyond the sphere of expression and communica tion. And it is precisely this mysteri ous property of the symbol, which enables it to evoke reverence from the one exposed to it. If the American flag, for example, stirs feelings of reverence for our country, it does so because it represents more than par ticular ideas which make this country great (liberty, justice, etc.), but be cause somehow the flag shares and projects that inexpressible total real-

JEWISH LIFE

It’s a happy family affair

Gefilte Fish! From the smallest to the tallest... they all prefer M other’s grand Gefilte Fish! Made with freshest, kitchen-good ingredients Mom herself would use. Choose from three fine, festive flavors for happy holiday dining! KOSHER © PAREVE From the spotless kitchens of M other's Food Products Inc., N ew ark 5, N .J.

September-October, 1963

ity which is the United States of America. One might say, therefore, that every symbol is mystical, in that it aims at representing the reality of something mysterious. And if mitzvoth are indeed religious symbols, it is precisely because they do more than convey certain truths by means of allegory, but rather because they are expected to direct the participant to an awareness of the hidden reality of the Divine Presence. This latter awareness is the essence of kavonah. In “The World of Prayer,” how ever, Dr. Munk is careful to impress the reader also with the need of view ing the Jewish mystical tradition within the halachic framework. He is meticulous in presenting those rootprinciples which guided the formula tion of individual blessings and which underlie the overall structure of Jew ish prayer. While this attempt at pro jecting the Talmudic background of each prayer as it appears in the daily and holiday sequence often produces results which may prove meaningful

only to the advanced scholar, his gen eral introduction to Volume One offers the average Jewish layman invaluable source material from which to draw an intelligent perspective of the prayer format. Once having absorbed the principles offered in this grand introduction, the reader will find that he is able to keep his “head above water” even through the more com plex analyses which follow. One thing is for certain. Every Jew, regardless of background, will find Dr. Munk’s treatment of prayer to be a fascinat ing excursion into the classical depths of Jewish thought. By virtue of his unique ability in presenting the halachic premises of Jewish prayer in intimate merger with the Jewish mystical tradition, Dr. Munk has performed a service of inestimable value to the renaissance of Jewish life in our time. It is for this reason that the two volumes of “The World of Prayer” by Rabbi Dr. Eli Munk are so welcome an addition to the recent roster of Judaica.

The Sources of the Jewish Heritage By BEN AMITTAY

UNIVERSAL JEW ISH HISTORY, Vol. II, THE PATRIARCHAL AGE by Philip Biberfeld. Philip Feldheim, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1962. 254 pp., $4.75. HIS is a most fascinating book, though no easy reading. The author’s peculiar habit of appending

T 54

to each chapter a large amount of notes, the sum total of which is more voluminous than the text itself, com pels the attentive reader to keep on turning pages backward and forward continuously, a rather tedious exercise. Nevertheless, the study of this vol ume, the second of the author's ambi tious “Universal Jewish History,” is JEWISH LIFE

FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FRIENDS ■■■■■

A PRECIOUS GIFT

U n n ||a

two years for only $4.00 (twelve issues)

JEWISH LIFE, 84 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 11, N. Y. Send gift subscription, with gift card, to:

Name ............................................................................................................................................ A d d re ss.................................................................................................................................... .. C i t y .................... . .

...........................................Zone.................State ................................................

My N am e................ A d d re ss................... C it y .............................

5 . , . . ... □ Include my own subscription ; iu :

September-October, 1963

nL J New

Check enclosed for

□

$ ......... ......................

Renewal

a rewarding experience. The copious notes and addenda which follow each chapter contain a host of quotations from 170 authors. It makes one wonder at what to marvel more—at the author's painstaking diligence or at his wide range of cultural and scientific interests. This reviewer feels that the author could have used more discretion in selecting his corroborative evidence. In some instances, a little less might have meant much more. For instance, nobody would have missed the lengthy note on extra-sensory perception and parapsychology in connection with the discussion of prophecy. It leaves a slightly unpleasant aftertaste. The authorities quoted—aside from the classical sources of our sacred heritage—range from W. F. Albright and G. A. Barton and their ilk to S. R. Hirsch and Isaac Ha-Levi, from Chayim Tschernowitz and Nelson Glueck to Rabbi Jonathan Steif, from Ha-Maor to the Hebrew Union Col lege Annual and Reader's Digest, strange bedfellows indeed. Yet, taken all in all, the author has rendered an extremely valuable serv ice to all earnest students of ancient Jewish history who are becoming be wildered by the avalanche of apikorsische literature, of Jewish and nonJewish authoriship, dealing with the so-called “Hebrews” and their early historic experiences. OME years ago Theodore H. Gaster published “The Holy and the Pro fane” (Wm. Sloan Associates, New York, 1955), describing the evolution of Jewish folkways (i.e. dinim and minhagim) from the cradle to the grave in terms of imitations of uni versal customs which are observable all over the globe. Dr. Biberfeld may never have read this book—he does

not quote it in his bibliography—but his present work is the perfect anti dote to the devastating attacks made by Gaster on our sacred traditions and its saintly Masters. Biberfeld at tempts, and on the whole successfully, to counteract the current contention prevalent among present-day scholars that our forebears borrowed their cul ture, literature, and folkways from their neighbors, purifying and refin ing same in the process. Biberfeld’s main thesis is that the many similarities between our sacred heritage and the other civilizations in and outside of the Fertile Crescent are explicable by tracing both back to the very earliest religious experi ences of mankind—which means, to the prophetic revelations received by the F irst Man and by Noah, and their descendants. This common heritage eventually had become corrupted and distorted by different ethnic groups who were reproducing it in so many crippled versions of the original, while our Patriarchs preserved it in its unadulterated purity. Finally on Mount Sinai it was reiterated at the time when G-d's Word was revealed in its totality to Moses in the Torah. Already at the end of the first vol ume of this work the author had added an excellent discussion on the Noachide Laws in comparison with the ancient codes of Hammurabi and of the Hittites, etc. Those ancient legal systems are traceable to a com mon source and that source, Biberfeld maintains, is the divinely revealed legislation of the “Seven Laws of the Sons of Noach.” Those, in turn, were but a repetition of the mitzvoth com manded to Adam (Sanhed. 56 b.). N his present book, Biberfeld fol lows this train of thought, sup porting it by an impressive host of

JEWISH LIFE

A NEW PUBLICATION

ETHICS OF THE FATHERS Translated and Annotated by HYMAN GOLDIN The Hebrew Publishing Company is proud to present a truly new edition of the Pirke Abot. The translator and annotator, Hyman Goldin, a noted Tal mudic scholar and author, enriched the work with a wealth of notes and explanations. A new setting for the precious gems of everlasting value con tained in the pages of the Pirke Abot. Beautifully printed and bound

$3.00

A R eco m m en d ed T ex tb o o k

TORAH AS OUR GUIDE by W alter O ren stein and H ertz Frankel The most recommended textbook for teaching the laws and customs of the Jewish tradition. This new textbook w as written with a primary concern for presenting to youth the Jewish law s, customs and traditions without apologetics and rationale. It is a textbook that can be used from cover to cover without having to skip pages because of references that contradict the Jewish heritage and tradition. In addition to chapters on all the holidays and fast days, the book contains chapters on Yahrzeit, Visiting the Sick, the Jewish Calendar, and the Siddur. $2.50

HEBREW PUBLISHING C O . ‘ 79 D elan cey Street ' N ew Yo rk 2, N. Y .

Does yo u r Sy n a g o g u e n e e d . . . • • • •

A New Sanctuary — Social Hall Religious School — Auditorium M ortg age Redemption — Youth Center Renovation — ModernizationI

Let us tell you how our methods make the difference between a mediocre, struggling cam paign and an efficient " O v e r the Top" goal.

LOW ETHICAL FEE —

NEVER A COMMISSION BASIS

ADVISORY SERVICE FREE OF CHARGE Write or Call BERNARD S. KARMATZ, President

KARMATZ SYNAGOGUE FUND RAISING SERVICES OF AMERICA All communications to be directed to MAIN O FFICE: SUITE 1019-1021 BANKERS SECURITIES BUILDING, PHILADELPHIA 7, PENNSYLVANIA • PEnnypacker 5-3199-Klngsley 5-7356 NEW YORK OFFICE: 205 West 34th Street, New York 1, N. Y. • BRyant 9-1220 LOS AN GELES OFFICE: 743 South Cloverdale Ave., Los Angeles 36, Cal. • WEbster 9-0037 35 years experience • Charter Member: International Fund Raising Ass'n. The Oldest Exclusive National Synagogue Fund Raising Organization. A Thousand Campaigns for Reference.

September-October, 1963

source material. In this vein he at tempts to explain also the puzzling similarity of certain ethical and philosophical sayings in the ancient Wisdom Literature with traditional Jewish ideas, as well as the extraor dinary parallelism — in thought and structure — between Ikhnaton’s hymn to the Aton and Psalm 104. The author’s careful comparative study proves beyond peradventure that an original genuinely prophetic version close to the Hebrew Psalm was used as a model by the Egyptian poet. Rabbinic pronouncements concern ing the prophetic revelations to the F irst Man, anticipating much of what was later repeated in the Torah, are legion. In view of this thesis we are deal ing here with a very important book and orthodox readers everywhere should be most grateful that it was written. All the more do we hope that in subsequent editions some of its imperfections will be eliminated. I am thinking mainly—all this in the posi tive spirit of constructive criticism— of an impossible sentence in Page 24 where the author writes: “In a completely polytheistic en vironment it was indeed rather diffi cult to remain unaffected. Even Rachel took the teraphim from her father’s home.” Here we cannot refrain from ex claiming “chas v’cholilah” ! This sen tence must go before the admirable work of the eminent author can be wholeheartedly recommended. Every serious student of Jewish history cannot help but look forward to an additional output of the author’s industriousness and sincere devotion to the task of strengthening emunah, true emunah, in our doubting gen eration. 58

JEWISH LIFE

GREETI NGS AND BEST WISHES OF THE SEASON To Our Many Friends, Patrons and Employees

THE G R EA T A TLAN TIC AN D P A C IFIC TEA C O M P A N Y INC.

5724

Rosh H a sh a n a h

1 963-4

of th e

L’SH ANAH T O V A H TIK O SEV U ! TO OUR

PIN E V IE W

MANY FRIENDS . . .

. . . And to Jewish people everywhere we send

our

most

cordial

Rosh

Hashanah

greetings. We join in the hopes and pray ers that mankind the world over will enjoy the

blessings

Milk

•

New

THE LEBOWITZ FAMILY

Years

come.

Sour Cream

•

Butter

HOTEL

Fallsb u rg , N. Y . E x t e n d W is h e s f o r a H appy N ew

Year

Open Passover Through Succoth

Cream

•

Buttermilk • Eggs • Cottage Cheese Chocolate Drink

S E A L T E S T

F O O D S September-October, 1963

BRyant 9 -38 5 4

Letters to the Editor

IMPRESSIONS OF U. S. JEWRY Paris, France May I be permitted to convey to your readers some of the impressions which I formed during a recent visit to the United States. The most striking aspect of Jewish life in New York, to the Jewish visitor from Europe, is the strong position which orthodox organizations, institu tions, and congregations occupy there. On the religious level, the “tendency towards the right” seems very evident and is apparently becoming more and more manifest in all phases of Jewish public life. Influences emanating from the synagogues appear to inspire the direction of the centers of organiza tional activity. At the same time, the day schools and yeshivoth, increasing at so impressive a rate, are obviously generating, through their students, a strong influence upon the adult world and the congregations. The impress of the “yeshivist” spirit can be found among different social classes, shaping the way of life of families and com munities. In all cases, this spirit has brought new dimensions to Torah learning, and has led to the deepening 60

of Jewish knowledge and to a more elevated level of Jewish spirituality in all areas of Jewish study. When the direct and indirect impact of the thousands of present and for mer yeshivah students is taken into consideration, it is impossible not to admire deeply the wisdom and superi ority of the great Roshey Yeshivoth who have led in this achievement. These great Talmidey Chachomim, the visitor from Europe finds, exercise a powerful attraction upon American Jewish youth. Young American Jews have been much exposed to programs devoted to Reform, Conservative, and secularized interpretations of Judaism —without finding in them what they have sought. Now one finds a large and constantly growing part of Amer ican Jewish youth turning towards the authentic bearers of the Jewish spirit and learning, at their feet, the true countenance of Judaism. Here, in the very heart of America, one can see a glimpse of the triumphant future read of the Torah. Let me not fail to pay tribute to a unique aspect of American Jewry— its universalism. Here beats the heart of world Jewry, where all the disasJEWISH LIFE

CO N TIN EN TAL CHOCOLATES

t?rs, cares, and problems of Jewish communities across the world find re sponse. Having attended numerous meetings of different organizations, I heard the Jewish problems of the East and the West discussed and was en abled to see for myself the extraor dinary dynamism of this Jewry, con scious of its supra-national respon sibilities and always ready to come to the aid of less fortunate brethren in all parts of the world. The visitor from overseas cannot fail to remark the high standard of living of American Jews. Knowing the generosity with which they come to aid all ills, one can only view this high standard with the greatest of pleasure. There is, however, a gap in this impressive picture: the lack of a broadly organized communal life, the Kehillah, such as is conceived in Eu rope, th at is, a social structure incor porating all religious and communal institutions ranging from social wel fare service and public spokesmanship to Shechitah, Mikvah, Talmud Torah, Chevrah Kadishah, etc. One finds but rare examples of this form of collec tive Jewish life in New York and its absence is much to be regretted. The Kehillah offers the advantage of the entire community constituting one social family, and it offers to youth a permanent bond formed out of a spirit of solidarity, with all activities gravitating around a specific Jewish conception, towards which all aspira tions and objectives are directed. In the course of my visit, I had the opportunity to attend the Annual Na tional Dinner of the Union of Ortho dox Jewish Congregations of America. I must say th at this brilliantly organized event, bringing together many hundreds of the leading figures of traditional American Jewry from 62

all parts of the United States, pre sented eloquent proof of the high status and nation-wide role of Ameri can Orthodoxy. I was happy to have had the privilege at this occasion of presenting a message in behalf of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congre gations of Europe and to convey to those present that Torah Jewry in Europe and in America, and indeed everywhere in the world, are dedicated to identical goals. Now, with the im pressions of this memorable visit in mind, I should like to add that the strength of American Orthodox Jewry must increasingly be felt wherever Jews dwell and to voice the hope and prayer that this great force continue to flourish and grow, working hand in hand with the traditional Jewries of other lands for the advancement of our sacred ideals and the glory of the Torah. Rabbi D r. E lie Mu n k

SUPPORT SOUGHT New York, N. Y. Rabbi Pelcovitz’s article on college youth in your last issue indicates or thodox Jewry’s growing awareness of the intellectual and practical religious problems faced by college students. Unfortunately, this awareness is only recent and has not been accompanied by sufficient action on the part of the community. Yavneh, the National Religious Jewish Students’ Association, was started by college students themselves who realized the need to pursue re ligious studies on the same level as secular ones and who wanted to main tain their religious identity on cam pus. In the four and a half years of its existence Yavneh has grown to over eight hundred members in thirty chapters. We deeply appreciate the aid given us by the U.O.J.C.A. and JEWISH LIFE

RAISE FUNDS FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION THE EASY WAY WITH NEW 1964

Sug«r!n« Amato’s original and oldast calorie-free liquid sweetener

PMC GIFT CATALOG AND DELUXE BAR MITZVAH

INVITATIONS

S W E E T E R THAN SU G A R —Y E T NO FOOD VALUE Doctors recommend SU G A R IN E

ALL AT

for diabetics, overweights, lowcalorie diets

WHOLESALE PRICES!

PURE 1 HARMLESS • ECONOMICAL

Write today for FREE CATALOGS!

GUARANTEED N O N -F A T T E N IN G

4 Os. bottle Only 78c

PERSONAL MONOGRAM CO. Dept. JL, 2 E. 23rd ST., N. Y ., N. Y. 10010

HOT-AS-FIRE

SNOW-WHITE

HELP STOP DEATH ON THE HIGHWAY

BEET-RED

HORSERADISH H otter and thicker because it's made cold by our “ chillmill” process. Sold nationally. TulkofT’s Co.. Baltimore 2. Md.

NEW YEAR’S GREETINGS

WHERE TRAFFIC LAWS ARE OBEYED D E A T H SG OD O W N !

from

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SAFETY ORGANIZATION

BA-TAMTE PICKLE CO., INC.

Published as a public service in cooperation with The Advertising Council

September-October, 1963

by a number of the most outstanding orthodox rabbis in the country who have spoken to us and who serve on our National Advisory Board and Board of Overseers. I appreciate the kind things Rabbi Pelcovitz wrote about Yavneh, but fear that the full significance of its growth has not been properly as sessed. Only a fraction of Jewish youth in America attends yeshivoth and only a fraction of this number continues past high school. As im portant as these students are, ortho doxy will become a tiny minority on the American Jewish scene if they will be the only religious Jews of the next generation. Our only chance for size is to keep and to capture the college students. Yavneh has already succeeded in reversing the disastrous trend of yeshivah high school graduates being lost to the observant community; it has also begun to attract uncommitted students. But we need the help of the rabbinate and the community in the following areas: The rabbinate should produce re ligious literature in English on a level that can meet the intellectual chal lenge of western civilization.

Specific attention should be given to the uncommitted youth who has be come interested through Yavneh in yiddishkeit and has begun to return to its way ; we hope that rabbis will aid individual students in making the adjustment to their new way of life. The community must provide the financial resources so that Yavneh can increase publication of its Review, containing articled by students, and its Studies, in which only a small per centage of the talks given us by out standing religious leaders have been printed. Individual communities should sub sidize the bringing of speakers to col leges in their area so that our pro gram of classes and lectures can be expanded; each synagogue should take on a college in its vicinity, as the Elizabeth community did with Prince ton University, and help provide a kosher kitchen there. Yavneh has a dedicated student membership and the drive to realize its potential. Its full impact will occur only when the force of the entire Jewish community is mobilized on its behalf. Y osef B lau , President Yavneh-National Religious Jewish Students’ Association

JEWISH LIFE

CARE. . .

. ..

thebridge

of friendship is still open

One of the best and most appreciated gifts for any needy family in Israel is still a $10 kosher CARE food package. Non-profit CARE puts the best possible value into its food packages. Also available is a special Israel Family Food package at $18.25. All deliveries are guaranteed by CARE. Mail your order today!

® All C AREKosher food packages supervised and endorsed by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

F irst Avenue C A R E 660 New York, N. Y., 10016 or any local office of HI AS, a CARE member agency

Peace! With the coming of another year, we wish you and your loved ones the greatest of man’s a peaceful world in which to enjoy our health and happiness. 1‘M ay you be inscribed for a good year! ’’ H. J. Heinz

Company ^ ^ 7