Jewish Life May-June 1964 by Jewish Action

TH E D IVO RC E PR O BLEM m TH E M ASK O F NEUTRALISM SE PH A R D IM O F SEA TTLE « TH E C A T H E D R A L L E A D E R S H IP IN J E W IS H ||» ÍF E : • P A T T E R N S O F MOR ALITI’ O VER TO TH E O F F E N S IV E

SI¥AM»TAMMU1 5724 MAY-JUNE 1964

A NNO UNCEM ENT

66th Anniversary Biennial N ational Convention OF T H E

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America will be held AT THE Shoreham H otel in W A SH IN G T O N , D.C. on W ednesday, Novem ber 25—Sunday, Novem ber 29, 1964 Kislev 24 to Kislev 28, 5725 • PLEASE RESERVE THESE DATES

Thanksgiving Week . . . in the Nation’s Capital.

Vol. XXXI, No. 5/May-June 1964/Sivan-Tammuz 5724

EDITORIALS CONFRONTATION IN ANGLO-JEWRY ..

ARTICLES Saul B ernstein , Editor R euben E. G ross R abbi S. J. S harfman L ibby K laperman P aul H. B aris

Editorial Associates G abrielle R iback

Editorial Assistant JEWISH LIFE is published bi-monthly. Subscription two years $4.00, three years $5.50, four years $7.00. Foreign: Add 25 cents per year. Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York 10011, N. Y. ALgonquin 5-4100

LEADERSHIP IN JEW ISH LIFE / Joseph Grunblatt ...........................

OVER TO THE OFFENSIVE Louis I. Rabinowitz..........................

THE DIVORCE PROBLEM / Melech Schächter...........................

PATTERNS OF M ORALITY / Ralph Pelcovitz ..............................

THE M A SK OF NEUTRALISM ^ Reuben E. G r o s s ............................. 40 SEPHARDIM OF SEATTLE / David R om e y................................. 47

FICTION Published by U nio n of Orthodox Jewish C ongregations of A merica M oses I. F euerstein

President Benjamin Koenigsberg, Nath an K. Gross, Samuel L. Brennglass, Harold M. Ja cobs, Herbert Berman, Vice Presidents; Rabbi Joseph Karasick, Treasurer; Harold H. Boxer, Secretary; David Politi, Financial Secretary. Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President Saul Bernstein, Administrator Second Class Postage paid at New York, N. Y.

THE CATHEDRAL / Harry Loewy ......... 36

POETRY M Y PORTION, M Y HERITAGE / Lillian R. Ott ................................ 45

DEPARTMENTS A M O N G OUR CONTRIBUTORS ..........

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ................... 57 Drawings by Moshe L. Zwang

May-June, 1964

among our contributors

sDR. LOUIS I. RABINOWITZ is the author of “Social Life of the Jews of North France in the 12th to 14th Century” as well as many other works. Before moving to Israel, Dr. Rabinowitz was Chief Rabbi of Transvaal, South Africa and Professor of Hebrew and Judaica at Witwatersrand University. DAVID ROMEY was reared in the community whose colprful history he traces in “Sephardim in Seattle.” A graduate of the University of Washington, he served as an officer of Seattle’s SBH congregation before coming to New York for study at Columbia. Now a member of the foreign languages faculty at Temple University, Mr. Romey has devoted much attention during the past ten years to the study of Ladino and all aspects of Sephardic folklore, history, and culture. The Rav of the “White Shool” in Far Rockaway, N.Y., RABBI RALPH PELCOVITZ has also served as president of the Rab binical Alliance of America and as Editor of its magazine “Perspective.” He is well known to our readers for his pre vious contributions to J e w is h L i f e , among them, “The Chal lenge of College” and “Wanted: An American Orthodox Image.” Rabbi Pelcovitz presents in this issue an insightful evaluation of the disturbing trends in modern morality. The pointed satire, “The Cathedral,” is the work of HARRY LOEWY, who is principal of the Louisville Hebrew School and an active member of the Hapoel Hamizrachi-Bnei Akiva Movement. Born in Leipzig, Mr. Loewy attended yeshivoth there, in Frankfort, and in Montreux, Switzerland, and he has an M.A. degree in Humanities from the University of Louisville. RABBI MELECH SCHACHTER brings the authority of his experience as coordinator of the Beth Din of the Rabbinical Council of America to the thought-provoking survey, “The Divorce Problem.” The author of the study “The Babylonian and Jerusalem Mishnah,” Rabbi Schachter is also an assistant professor at Yeshiva University. He is a musmach of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and holds a doctorate in Rabbinics from Dropsie College. Ordained at Mesifta Torah Vodaath, RABBI JOSEPII GRUNBLATT graduated magna cum laude from City College and is completing graduate work in political philosophy at McGill University. He is spiritual leader of Congregation Shevet Achim-Chaverim Kol Yisrael in Montreal, first vicepresident of the Montreal Region of the Rabbinical Council of America, and a member of the teaching staff of the Mon treal Institute of Jewish Studies. LILLIAN RESNICK OTT, who has contributed many fine poems to J e w is h L if e and other publicatipns, is a Chicagoan who now makes her home in California. REUBEN E. GROSS is an attorney in Staten Island, N.Y. and chairman of the Commission on Regions and Councils of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America A graduate of Yeshiva University and Harvard Law School, he served in the U.S. Army during World War II and ip the Israeli Air Force during the War of Liberation. Articles by him have appeared in J e w is h L if e on several previous occasions. JEW ISH LIFE

D I

T O

Confrontation in Anglo-Jewry r p H E Jewish community of Britain, long marked by internal stability, has been racked during the past few years by a religious controversy that has shaken the community s foundations. Recent developments have brought the struggle to a new and perhaps conclusive climax. The im mediate issue is the attempt by a group of religious dissidents to com pel Britain’s Chief Rabbinate to do its bidding. Serious as this is, there are larger issues involved, theological, moral, and practical. The con troversy represents a decisive confrontation between conflicting philoso phies of life, with significant implications not only for Jews everywhere but for general society as well. At stake are such basic questions as : © Is belief in the direct Divine Revelation and binding author ity of the Torah basic and mandatory in the Jewish religion, according to orthodox Judaism? Does orthodox Judaism grant the prerogative of designating some Mitzvoth of the Torah as man-made and non-obligatory? © Are those entrusted with ecclesiastical office in a given reli gious denomination morally free, while so serving, to disavow its historic beliefs and tenets and to profess and propagate in compatible beliefs? Is it ethically permissible for them to seek control of institutions of the denomination whose fundamental religious tenets they have rejected? The issues in this controversy have been brought into clear focus in a memorable summation given by its central figure, Dr. Israel H. Brodie, Chief Rabbi of Britain. Addressing a specially convened assemblage of that country’s Jewish religious leaders, he reviewed the situation in terms which, we believe, will long endure in Jewish annals, as the following excerpts m^y indicate: Why are we so concerned^ to safeguard the observances of our faith against attack? Why have Jews throughout the ages been prer«. t ■ parf d to, suffer opprobrium and even to give their lives rather than The Torah violate the laws of the Torah? The answer is obvious. Those laws Covenant of the Torah are of Divine origin with binding authority on all who are sons of the Covenant. . . They are mandatory upon us as being Divine commands explicit and implicit in the Torah as inter preted by teachers whose authority derived from the Torah and wlio enjoyed the complete trust of their respective generations. It being the Torah of life, it is constantly animated; its tradition is live and throbbing . . . At the moment we who hold the validity of the Torah are called backward, stagnant, mediaeval, and fundamentalist. . . This descrip* May-June, 1964 ^

tion, or rather distortion, of orthodox Jews . . . is made the justifi cation for interpretations of Judaism which are called ‘modern,’ ‘progressive,’ and even ‘orthodox,’ but which derive from, or are paralleled with, Reformist and certain brands of Conservative think ing, and thinking not particularly profound. This travesty of our traditional Judaism has been featured in our monopolistic Jewish press for some time. There has been a con sistent denigration of authentic Judaism and religious authority which has tended to create religious confusion and a spirit of divisive ness . . . The Chief Rabbi, as the ecclesiastical head of the United Syna gogue has, by its Deed of Foundation and Trust, authority to de cide all religious questions that arise. He regards himself bound, when making his decisions, by Jewish law as laid down in the Shulchan Aruch. His jurisdiction extends to the appointment of minis ters . . . No one can be appointed unless the Chief Rabbi certifies as to his religious as well as his moral fitness. . . It would be repugnant to the whole status and dignity pf the Chief Rabbinate were such decisions to be subject to public contro versy. . . Nevertheless, in the case of Dr. Louis Jacobs, I did give a reason for my decision in my letter to the secretary of the United Synagogue. I indicated that it was with the deepest possible regret that I was compelled, owing to the views of Dr. Jacobs—expressed publicly both by written and spoken word—to state that I could not grant my certificate. My decision . . . has sparked off a new controversy . . . which regrettably and irresponsibly certain ele ments have brought before the wider community through the press and radio, no doubt in the belief that in this way pressure could be brought to bear . . . Those who are appointed rabbis and teachers of communities must by their very vocations and by the terms of their ordination as rabbis be the exponents of the Revelation of G-d’s word embodied in the Torah, written and oral, with the sanction and authority attached thereto. That is what I would expect of Dr. Jacobs... But Dr. Jacobs repeats the well-worn thesis that parts of the Torah are not Divine but are man-made, and maintains that reaDr. Jacobs' son alone should be the final judge as to what portion of the Torah Views may be selected as Divine. His views on this subject were presented in a pamphlet published by the Society for the Study of Jewish Theology, entitled ‘The Sanction of the Mitzvoth’ . . . . If this were all that Dr. Jacobs teaches and preaches, it would be incongruous for him to occupy the pulpit of an orthodox syna gogue. Moreover, from his most recent written and verbal state ments on Judaism, which in the main are a repetition of the argu ments of earlier Reformers, and especially leftist Conservatives, it will readily be understood why I found myself unable to authorise his appointment as minister of the New West End Synagogue. Even a cursory examination of these views reveals how incom patible they are with the most fundamental principles of Judaism, and how they inevitably lead to a critical attitude to the observance of the mitzvoth themselves . . . 4

JEW ISH LIFE

An attitude to the Torah such as this which denies its Divine source and unity (Torah min Hashamayim) is directly opposed to orthodox Jewish teaching and no person holding such views can ex pect to obtain the approval of the orthodox ecclesiastical authority . . . For the record, I think it is important to affirm that . . . pres sures of one kind or another were ceaselessly exerted by the other Ruthless side. For example, I was told by one pressure group that if I did Pressure not approve the appointment of Dr. Jacobs, the Jewish press and the world press would be unleashed against m e . . . It has become apparent to me that there is much more involved in the present controversy than the pulpit of one synagogue. Regret tably, everything points to the fact that Dr. Jacobs has been used as a central figure by a few resolute individuals who have openly declared their intention of trying to bring about a new orientation in our community. As the spiritual leader of Anglo-Jewry, I know that the new trend is in conflict with basic Jewish belief and inimical to the spirit and sentiment in which our community has developed over the years. Clearly, in the face of this denial of traditional Jewish beliefs and the threat to the integrity of Anglo-Jewry, I have felt it my sacred duty to do everything in my power to strengthen the Jewish faith and to uphold and enhance our Anglo-Jewish tradition. . . Throughout the ages, traditional Judaism as enshrined in the Torah Unbroken has been assailed by movements which have attempted to influence Link and divert the mainstream of Jewish life and thought. They have failed to break our link with the Written and Oral Law as it was received at Sinai. Those who have remained loyal to the Torah have ensured Jewish continuity and the possibility of Messianic fulfillment. My prayer is that even amid the present-day secularised trends and tendencies, those who are concerned about the survival of true Judaism . . . will not be led astray. They will rather adhere to the faith of their fathers, the traditional beliefs and practices of Juda ism on which Anglo-Jewry has been established, on which it has been reared and which, with Divine help, it will pass oil to suc ceeding generations. * * * further comment may be added to Dr. Brodie’s summation. Heretofore, Jewish schismatic and heretical groups made it a point to dissociate their movements from “orthodoxy,” yet here we see the sponsors of Dr. Jacobs at great pains to proclaim him and themselves “orthodox.” Why do these people cloak themselves under the designa tion of the very ideology they wish to destroy? It is because they realize that—after more than a century of aggressive, organized heterodoxy, and notwithstanding the inroads of secularism—Jews at large can give their ultimate fealty only to the cause and banner of authentic Judaism. Their resort to dissimulation and misrepresentation testifies to the force of that which they reject—the enduring reality in Jewish life. Torah truth, alone, can and will prevail. May-June, 1964

Leadership in Jewish Life By JOSEPH GRUNBLATT

HE air is filled with the out apologetics, “we followed the lead T cries of those who claim to be er.” This was in the eyes of many leaders in Jewish life and of those political observers the shortcoming who contend that such leadership does not exist. Much of the bewil derment regarding leadership is the result of an unrealistic definition of it. For most people the word “leader” brings to mind the knight in shining armor; a man who can imprint upon a group his ideas, his will, and lead an indecisive, disintegrating society towards a clear and purposeful goal. Of course if “Moshiach” would come all our problems would be solved. If not, we dream in the interim of a great figure who would rally the Jewish community, one who would take charge and become “the voice of Jewry.”; There is one thing we fail to realize. Leadership does not mean something external or transcenden tal, superimposed upon a group. A leader cannot impose his ideas or himself upon a society; even brutal force must spend itself eventually. Neither a Machiavellian tyrant nor a political strategist of De Gaulle calibre could succeed without ad dressing himself to the ethos of his people. That is the flaw in German 6

of U.S. foreign policy in the under developed regions-that it concerned itself too much with external forms but did not relate itself to the true soul and the true aspirations of these peoples. When we look wistfully into our past and marvel at the leadership exerted by some of the “G ’doley Yisrael,” we fail to see that in addition to their personal stature they had another factor going for them—they were striking chords which, in fact, were the heartstrings of their soci ety. In spite of the ephemeral aber rations and minor defections, the Jewish community had an ethos or what Rousseau would call a “Gen eral Will.” The exclamation “Na’aseh V’nishma,” we shall do and we shall listen, uttered by our peo ple at the foot of Mt. Sinai in a unique moment of unanimity, be came the real essence of Jewish peoplehood. The breakdown of the monolithic society of old and the concomitant proliferation of branches, wings, and organization, has depressed the lowJEW ISH LIFE

est common denominator of Jewish ness, depressed it so low that uni fied leadership at that level becomes impossible. A community cannot be unified on such marginal issues as fighting Antisemitism and raising

money for hyphenated “Jewish” causes. As a result we have many leaders and “spokesmen” expressing the interests of their specific organi zations and claiming to speak in the name of American Jewry.

CRITERIA r r iH E community cannot look JL towards the so-called “Jewish in telligentsia” for this leadership. Let us firstly define what is the Jewish in telligentsia in America. The word “in telligentsia” seemed to have a clearer definition in Europe. There it some how signified the professional, as well as all of those who attained a high er level of education. In the United States, a more narrow definition is necessary. Firstly, we have reached a point where every Tom, Dick, and Harry can, and in fact does get a college education. The average pro fessional in the United States, with all due respect, cannot be compared with the European professional who was intelligentsia class-conscious. If for no other reason than his status symbol, he had to be a man of broader culture, not merely a spe cialized technician. The task becomes a little more complex when we at tempt to define Jewish intelligentsia, because then we are compelled to make some definitive pre-judgment, in order to justify this classification. Following the old Talmudic max im, “Let us hear what the people say,” we would venture the broad suggestion that the Jewish intelligent sia comprises two groups—the liter ary figures, who use the Jew or the Jewish community as their theme; and the literati, the scholars of JudaMay-June, 1964

ica, the historians, the scroll analysersS the philologists, etc. Generally speaking, neither group is equipped at this time to exercise leadership in the Jewish community. The first group is mainly iconoclastic, hammer ing away at the absurdities and in congruities of present-day Jewish so ciety. The second group serves as its scientific record or faithful tool. The first group does not have the posi tive conviction and program to lead; the second group does not have the temperament or vocation to lead. As a rule scientists do not lead. They are concerned with recording, an alysing* and organizing the facts as they observe them, not with pro viding inspiration and projecting val ues. (We must place the Associa tion of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, a growing and significant group, in a special category and we shall re fer to them later as to the role they can play.) The only secular movement and leadership which came close to re ceiving the popular support and uni versal commitment of the community once commanded by religious au thorities in pre-war and war years was that of Zionism. This movement contained some features in its man ifestation which simulated tradition sufficiently to become a temporary substitute ethos. The dramatic de7

cline of that movement with the ful fillment of its political goals and its desperate search for a raison d’etre has been a favorite topic in the Anglo-Jewish press for years. H P HIS analysis of the essence of JL leadership may serve to explain not only the pluralism and the ineffi cacy of “leadership” but something which is of great concern to the re ligious Jew. A perusal of the press throughout the North American con tinent reveals a great pre-eminence of the leaders and spokesmen of the sec ular organizations. It is the bigotry fighters, the fund raisers* the Israeli Bond sellers, etc. who command most of the attention, who receive the lion’s share of publicity, and in general seem to dominate the national scene. Religious leadership, whether rab binic or lay, does not seem to wield the influence their claimed strength would justify. The answer is obvi ous—the American Jew is a “secular Jew,” synagogue affiliation notwith standing. With the exception of small enclaves of practicing idealists, to the majority of people belonging to Syn agogues or temples the affiliation is without commitment. Let me clarify what I mean by “secular Jew.” I do not mean one who is not “religious.” In fact the common man in the “Jewish gass” looks upon himself as a Jew by vir tue of his religious identity. He is

bewildered by the pseudo-scientific definitions of the Jew preached by the professional secularists, and by the famous question,. “Who is a Jew?” What I mean is, he is not spiritual. This is not only a question of observ ance and non-observance, or what is the percentage of people with two sets of dishes. What is in question here is an existential commitment to the way of life taught by religion. (This, by the way, is not a specifical ly Jewish problem but a “makkath hamedinah,” a universal malady of man in western society, which the Jew shares.) Conservative and Reform leaders, blinded earlier by spectacular out ward successes, are only now begin ning to realize this; they are grasp ing only now, perhaps, that their successes were due not to a revolt against Orthodoxy but to a revolt against spirituality. The person who seeks spirituality must feel uncom fortable in the temple; the person who is aspiritual should feel uncom fortable in an orthodox synagogue. I say “should” advisedly. Unfortunately, there are many orthodox synagogues that have fallen prey to the Ameri can tradition of the “competitive so ciety.” In order to compete for the “unaffiliated,” and sometimes, in all fairness, in order to survive, the or thodox synagogue must show that it can “do everything as well as the others.”

PRINCIPLES A N D PRACTICES OW is the “successful” synagogue judged? It is the synagogue that boasts a large membership and a plethora of activities. What are most

of these activities? Successful build ing campaigns, fund-raising bazaars, etc. resulting in magnificent and opu lent edifices: and then there are the JEW ISH LIFE

choral groups, “Revues” produced by Sesterhoods and Men‘s Clubs, “so cial activities” for the teen-agers, thriving bowling leagues, gyms, etc. In other words the synagogue is successful to the extent it is able to incorporate within itself basically secular activities and make them at tractive and enjoyable enough so that it can compete successfully with other synagogues, or even with secu lar institutions created specifically for these activities. But, one may argue, the individu al has a choice of synagogues, and if he decides to stay or join with an orthodox synagogue, is not this very decision a measure of com mitment to Torah life? In many in stances the affiliation is not a “leap of faith” but a walk (or ride) of geographical convenience, or a senti mental attachment. This last, by the way, has created many “dual mem bers.” There are cynics who believe that choice of affiliation has become a matter of social status and display of financial prowess. Let us discount this unflattering interpretation. Let us think of those who make a gen uine preferential choice. I still am forced to maintain, in all honesty, that the decision is one of confirma tion; “religious” in the Christological confessional sense, not in the spiritu al, Judaic “na-aseh v’nishma” sense . . . and, that is why orthodox syna gogues feel compelled to be “secu larly competitive.” I do not advocate that the or thodox synagogue should withhold “secular activities” or should refuse to compete, and cholilah die of ideal ism. But, let us not fall into the same trap in which the “Liberal” wings have become ensnared. Let not “reMay-June, 1964

ligious” institutional successes ob scure “spiritual” inadequacies. Many a rabbi is keenly aware of this situation. We are not carried away by such pontifical designations as “spiritual leader.” Very often what we lead is not so spiritual. It is the rabbi who forgets this and is overwhelmed by his vestments and fatuous formalities, who becomes the caricature of the rabbi as seen by many honest and searching intellec tuals who conspicuously stay away from the synagogue. H P O what extent do national bodJ- ies, rabbinic or lay, who promul gate policy and formulate high and admirable standards, lead and direct their own constituent members, and to what extent are they forced to accept “reality” and close an eye to some of the malpractices of their member rabbis or synagogues? Un doubtedly, the national organization is confronted at its level with the same problem “writ large” which the rabbi faces at the local level—the compro mise between his personal profession and his “Profession” as Rabbi; be tween his own values and the syna gogue reality. I do not believe sta tistics are available by which one could gauge the gap between national principles and local practices. Judg ing from personal observation, from innumerable conversations with col leagues and laymen, from the many and varied synagogue bulletins I have read, it would seem that the gap is greater at times than we would care to admit. Not that the grass is greener on the other side. In spite of all preten sions, to what extent does organized Conservatism impose standards? I am not impressed by the much pub9

licized expulsion or threatened ex pulsion of several congregations for sanctioning bingo and kindred ac tivities. The Conservative movement has a flair for dramatizing the periph eral and beclouding the essential. So, for instance, sometime ago a Con servative minister made a big ado about the use of non-Jewish wedding music composed by Felix Mendels sohn and Richard Wagner. What he failed to mention was his double ring ceremony, his “amended” K’tubah, and all the other non-Halachic, anti-Halachic, and secularized trap pings of a ceremony which should

make the Mendelssohn and Wagner scores quite consonant with it. I do not wish to imply, chas vycholilah, that the position of the rab bi is futile or that national organiza tions do not have a vital role to play. This would be tantamount to saying, “The Torah should be abro gated because most Jews are nonobservant/’ What I wish to under line is the great need to appraise realistically what we can and ought to do. We must not live with illusions of grandeur, or be anesthetized by words uttered at conventions many miles away from home.

ROLE OF THE ROSHEY YESHIVAH HERE are those amongst loyal and observant Jews who exhort us to accept unequivocally the guid ance and leadership of the Roshey Hayeshivah, the “G’doley Torah” of our time since they are the only ones qualified to expound the Daath Hatorah. This argument is logical. If the Torah is to be the standard of our behavior pattern then the peo ple most proficient and erudite in, the study of Torah should have the final word. But again, what is the reality of the situation? The Rosh Hayeshivah has little communication with the secu lar American Jew, even with the one belonging to an orthodox syna gogue; he is so far beyond him. The two speak in different universes of discourse, in different worlds of val ues, goals, and aspirations. The only group with whom the Roshey Yeshivah can communicate with on their level of Torah commitment is their Talmidim, the rabbis and the laymen who take the teachings of their Reb-

beim into their own lives. I believe that most Roshey Yeshivah are keen ly aware of this and have rarely pro jected themselves into the community in matters of policy. It is up to the field men, the practicing rabbis, the talmidim of the yeshivoth, to act as a bridge between the Daath Hatorah of their Rebbes and the baaley-battim. This is not something estab lished in an interview with a maga zine reporter, but something that is familiar to a “yeshivah bochur” like myself who has lived with several recognized Roshey Yeshivah for many years, 1 listened attentively to their shiurim and mussar shmusin, and gleaned from their sichath chulin, their casual conversations. With the exception of one yeshivah and its Torah leaders who are strug gling along a tortuous road of syn thesis, the traditional yeshivoth and Roshey Hayeshivoth address the stu dent from a philosophical position developed over the past several cenJEWISH LIFE

turies in eastern and central Europe. From this position they must: a) re fuse to make any accommodation with the conclusions or even with the study of the modern disciplines of the Arts and Sciences; and b) take a negative attitude towards the com fort-orientated modern pattern of liv ing. This philosophy is reflected in the lives of these Torah leaders them selves, in the curriculum of the Yeshivoth, and in their counselling of their talmidim. For our purposes, suffice it to say that they look askance at college educations for their students, which at best they accept as a neces sary evil; they look upon the prac ticing Rabbinate not as a mission but as a tolerable profession under limited conditions; they advise the living within the “enclaves” of opti mum Jewish life, the Boro Parks and Crown Heights. I recall very vividly how I looked upon the “field rabbis” while I was engrossed in the subtleties of “Reb Chaim” and “Reb Boruch Ber” in Monsey, New York. I am equally aware of the disdain for me in my successors “on the bench.” r | 10 WHAT extent then do the JL yeshivoth and Roshey Yeshivoth wield influence upon and through their graduates in the active Rab binate and in organizational fields? From my observations in the Rab binate I would say this is a highly individual matter ranging from some who consult their elders at every step they take to others whose only connection with the Alma Mater is the annual contribution. Organiza tional leaders will from time to time consult Roshey Hayeshivah on mat ters of policy. The names of Roshey Hayeshivah do appear on the staMay-June, 1964

tionery of various organizations. It is very difficult to estimate the ex tent of leadership and influence ac tually effected. In the Rabbinate, with which I am more familiar, I would submit that the influence is limited; not because of the willful contumacy of the Rabbinate but be cause of a gulf in attitude and com munications which exists between the theoretical and the practical Rabbin ate. The Yeshivah will only assume the full guiding role of which it is capable and which it ought to as sume, when it will reevaluate its as sessment of the American Jew, de velop a missionary zeal of urgent responsibility vis-a-vis the mass of aspiritual Jewry, and adjust meth odology and curriculum to prepare its disciples for this momentous chal lenge. In this connection I must men tion again the Association of Ortho dox Jewish Scientists, groups like Yavneh, the National Religious Jewish Students Association, and a number of individuals who form a growing orthodox intelligentsia. Many of them are former yeshivah students who have achieved a measure of personal synthesis between the depths of Torah truth and learning absorbed in the yeshivah and the knowledge and modern disciplines acquired in the “outside world.” These are organic and viable movements which render a great service to the ortho dox organizations and the orthodox Rabbinate by their moral and intel lectual support, They may very well become the bridge between the old and new, or rather between the eter nal and the ephemeral; between the verities of the Torah and the cul tural climate of the time in which II

dered by S. R. Hirsch z”l and the Torah Im Derech Eretz Movement in western Europe is possibly being re created in an American context by this yet small but highly potent group which is being joined increasingly by the intellectual element of the Rab binate.

we live. The orthodox scientist, or professional, has chosen to leave the safe recesses of his inner self and his protected social position as sci entist to speak up to the confused, floundering, and spiritually starved Jewish community. The great and vital renaissance of Judaism engen

the task? How was he able to be come Israel’s leader? He became their teacher. He raised a people from the depravity of Egypt to “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” In our tradition, therefore, he is remem bered not as the leader but as “Mosheh Rabbenu, our Teacher.” The secret of his leadership was the fact that as teacher he shaped the ethos of his peoplef he helped them un fold their souls, he made their spir ituality flourish; he brought them to the spiritual level at which he could truly be their “spiritual leader.” We must resuscitate the souls of our people in order to become their leaders. We must confront the ma terialized, sophisticated American community and bring to it the teach ings of the Torah, in an idiom they can understand, with logic, erudition, and the fire of conviction. If we can succeed in developing Torah orien tation within the American Jewish society, the Torah authorities will automatically become its leaders.

JEW ISH LIFE

HIS brings me to the essential conclusion of my observations. Let Orthodoxy, at this time, not be overly concerned with leadership, with strength, etc. Let us not join the long line of “tumlers” and spokes men. Our true vocation at this junc ture of Jewish history is to be teach ers: “V’soff hakovod lovoh”—in the end the glory comes. It is a mam moth task in which all elements must participate, each in their own dimen sion of communication—the Yeshivah, the Rabbinate, the Orthodox Sci entist, the Organization, and the In dividual. It is one great task of re building the N ’shomah, the ethos, the N a’asseh V’nishma of our peo ple. In short we must become suc cessful teachers before we can be come successful leaders. We are confronted today with the problem that faced the greatest lead er we ever had—Moses. Moses had to lead a people that was “immersed in forty-nine gates of defilement” to the Holy Land. How did he perform

Over to the Offensive

By LOUIS ISAAC RABINOWITZ

1 1 TREMENDOUS, and unfair and JL biassed, publicity has been given to an incident which happened in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa some six months ago. Groups of yeshivah stu dents, by a concerted arrangement, entered the courtyards of the schools of the Christian missions in those cities and made a peaceful if vocal protest against the continued and growing activity of the various mis sionary organizations in Israel. The students were duly charged and found guilty of trespass, and fines of various amounts were imposed upon them, with the alternative of imprisonment. I was intimately connected with the 104 students tried and found guilty in Jerusalem. They opted to go to prison rather than pay the fines, and I had the honor not only to be one of those who addressed them, together with the saintly Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook of the Mercaz HaRav Yeshi vah and Rabbi Brooks of the Navardok Yeshivah, before they marched singing and dancing lustily, to serve their sentence. I was equally privileged to visit them in the Damon Yeshivah, as a notice outside the place of inMay-June, 1964

carceration proclaimed, and give them a Shiur. But it is not upon this incident, it self, that I wish to dwell, but upon its background. This has been gen erally overlooked, but against that background it constitutes a veritable revolution in the history and life of the yeshivoth. When I try to think of a parallel which will serve to convey this revolution, it is of the somewhat incongruous one of Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna, for the first and only time in his life, leaving his self-imposed vir tual seclusion in his study to protest against the contemporary rise and spread of the Chassidic movement! Absurd though the parallel may ap pear, and actually is, there is at least one point of comparison. Until re cently the whole philosophy of the life of the Yeshivah has been a com plete seclusion in an ivory tower in the sacred cause of Torah Lishmah. Yeshivah bachurim were expected to close their eyes and their ears and their minds to the hurly-burly of life outside, to confine themselves strictly to the “four ells of Halochah,” to 13

ignore communal activity and involve ment in public affairs.

A LL that now belongs to the past. -l \ . The Chever Ha-P’eylim, the idealistic group of yeshivah students who organized these demonstrations, were stung into activity some ten years ago when it came to their notice that hundreds of children of the im migrants from oriental countries, deeply, if simply religious Jews, had been brought under the influence of radically non-religious groups, who were actively engaged in weaning them from their religious loyalties, preaching to them the doctrine that the way of life in which they had been brought up belonged to the “bad old days” of the Goluth and that in the new Israel it was their duty to aban don them. These P ’eylim, “Activists,” almost forcibly penetrated into the closed camps, and saved many of these children for traditional Judaism. Since then, their activity has developed in innumerable directions. Part of it consists in acting almost as religious shock troops, swinging into action in time of emergency when, for instance, registration of children for schools in the settlements, which determines whether the schools will be secular or religious, takes place. In addition, however, they carry out continuous, less spectacular activities, publishing brochures for the use of immigrants, establishing yeshivoth in new centers, providing teachers, organizing Torah camps during the holidays, etc. And like shock troops it is their policy, when these activities are under way, to hand them over as “running con cerns’’ to the more official bodies, in order to be free to expand in other directions. In this they are for all the 14

world like the attacking units which hand over the places they have cap tured to garrison troops in order to be able to make further advances! Three aspects of the work of the P’eylim deserve to be stressed: They are completely independent of any political religious parties; in the main they finance themselves by voluntary self-imposed contributions from their meagre allowances; and all their ac tivities have the blessing and the active support of the Roshey Yeshi voth; and they do nothing without their approval. The Chever Ha-P’eylim is how ever but one sector of a tendency which is characteristic of the new spirit which prevails and is develop ing among orthodox youth in Israel, and if their activity has found its way into the press, there are many similar activities which are performed quiet ly and unobtrusively for the same sacred purpose. WAS invited some time ago to take 1 part in a symposium organized by a senior group of the Bnei Akiva on the question called in Hebrew Histagruth or Hithmod’duth, “Confine ment” or “Measuring Up.” In plainer words, the question discussed was wherein lay the duty of orthodox groups in the country, and which method was best designed to ensure the preservation and spread of Torah ideals—whether to form a closed group sealing itself off from non-re ligious elements to prevent be coming “contaminated,’’ or whether boldly to go out and influence these elements towards a better way of life. Thus the issue was put in terms of Whether to remain on the defensive or go over to the offensive. And the anJEW ISH LIFE

swer has been given, not in debate but in action. Orthodox youth has gone over to the offensive. A praiseworthy effort which failed deserves to be mentioned. Rabbi Kahaneman, the illustrious head of the Ponevez Yeshivah, conceived the idea of bringing groups of youngsters from non-religious kibbutzim to spend a Sabbath in the atmosphere of the Ye shivah in order that they might be come acquainted at first hand with the sanctity and beauty of life according to the Torah. After two groups came, the program was discontinued for reasons which are instructive. I was credibly informed that the parents in the non-religious kibbutzim refused to continue it. Their children were coming back with strange and disturb ing ideas and questions.. . . SPECIAL word must be said about the missionary work—a mission of Jews to Jews—undertaken by the youngsters of Chabad in Israel, as they have done in the Diaspora. During the yeshivah vacations they form themselves into groups and des cend upon the non-religious settle ments, bringing the Chassidic hithlahavuth of the joy of performance of Mitzvoth to those who are far removed from it. Their infectious cheerfulness, their obvious joie de vivre, causes them to be in great demand. They even car ry out their activity in the streets and public places. It is especially notice able on Sukkoth. In Tel Aviv I saw that outside the Great Synagogue they had erected a Sukkah, on the walls of which was a printed invitation to passers-by to enter, make the blessing both of the Sukkah and over the Arbaah Minim, and business was brisk. Returning to Jerusalem by

■

May-June, 1964

train, I saw two other youngsters of the same group, equipped with Ethrog and Lulov, walking down the length of the train. With a disarm ing smile, they invited the passengers who had not yet done so to “Bentsh Ethrog.” In the carriage in which I was riding only one man refused * and that somewhat shamefacedly. All the others, even those travelling bare headed, readily accepted the invita tion, a kipah being provided for them. On arrival at Jerusalem I asked the two where they were heading. “To Mount Zion,” they said. “Of the hun dreds of pilgrims who visit there, we are sure there are many who have forgotten to recite the blessing”—and off they went. Even if no permanent or immediate result can be expected from these sporadic activities, they nevertheless serve one valuable purpose. In the peculiar, and to me unfortunate, set up in Israel, the mere mouthing of the phrase “ani lo dati” (“I am not religious”) constitutes almost a war rant for the complete neglect of any and every religious duty. Either one is “Dati” and is expected to keep all the Mitzvoth, or “Lo Dati” and does not keep anything. The barrier thus set up between the two groups, by a kind of tacit consent, is regarded as unscalable. In the prevailing atmos phere observant Jews almost look askance at a “Lo Dati” engaged in any religious observance. Across that gap the first spars of a bridge have been erected by these movements, and its results, incalculable and imponder able though they be, can only be be neficial. And from these two examples, the militant activity of the P’eylim and the bridge-building on the part of 15

Chabad, I want to turn to a third instance of quiet unspectacular activi ty which I happen to know at first hand. N what is called the Jerusalem Cor ridor, from the capital down to the Shefelah and somewhat beyond, there have been established some forty-two settlements. Most of them are of recent origin, and almost with out exception they are settled by oriental Jews from North Africa, Per sia, and Kurdistan, as well as from Cochin in India. Their economic level is low; all of them are struggling, and they are largely neglected. The activity to which I wish to draw attention be gan with a scheme initiated by the Religious Department of the Ministry of Education, whereby these settle ments are visited weekly by young volunteer yeshivah students whose task it is to conduct Torah study groups both for adults and children. A number of these volunteers, if the truth be told, content themselves merely with carrying out their duties to the letter and returning to Jerusa lem. Most of them, however, enthu siastic and dedicated youths, have viewed their role against a wider per spective, and have made themselves responsible for all matters affecting the religious welfare of these settle ments. They deal with such questions as Eruv, Mikveh, and the laws con nected with agriculture; they visit the homes and have more or less adopted the communities. The settlers have learned to turn to them with their religious problems. I spent a Sabbath in Ma’oz Zion, a settlement of Kur dish, Persian, and Morrocân Jews, with one of these “visiting rabbis” and was impressed by the extent to

which he had gained the complete trust and confidence of these varied elements. From that came the next step. With out exception the schools in these set tlements of humble, pious Jews be long to the religious network, but they are elementary schools only. When the child passes through the school at the age of fourteen there are practical ly no facilities for higher religious education. Most of the children, un der the pressure of economic circum stances and of their parents who have no tradition of learning, go into blind alley occupations and in their leisure time come under undesirable inflences. For the few gifted ones who obtain an entry into the secondary schools, the only ones available are non-re ligious, whether the Bronfman Agri cultural School, a magnificent complex in Beth Zayith provided by Alan Bronfman of Canada, or ordinary schools. A program has been insti tuted to provide a two-year trade course at Noham near Beth Shemesh, with a religious atmosphere, but it is generally conceded by the educational authorities that the plan as a whole is a failure. Two years is not sufficient to provide even elementary skills. To the chagrin of those responsible, an American lady with a religious back ground has provided half a million Israeli pounds to erect a non-religious comprehensive school in Beth She mesh! fT lH E problem has been tackled in A two ways—by the establishment of religious youth clubs in the set tlements and by a project to establish a Trade Yeshivah in Beth Shemesh, which is the central town for those scattered communities. The clubs alJEW ISH LIFE

ready exist, though the premises in which they are housed are miserably inadequate, only huts and rooms in schools being available until someone will come forth to provide suitable buildings. As far as the yeshivah is concerned, all that has so far been achieved is the acquisition of a site. Plans are being evolved to finance the erection of the necessary buildings. Then came the most remarkable development of all. On their own in itiative, fired with a zeal and enthusi asm for the cause of true Judaism, a group of young married yeshivah stu dents decided on the unprecedented step of avoiding the traditional centers of learning and establishing a Kolel in the spiritual desert of Beth Shemesh. It is the first time that a pioneer ing step of this kind has been taken. The members were carefully chosen, one of the criteria being that their wives should be qualified school teachers. At the time of writing fifteen such couples are living in Beth Shemesh. Their wives have all been snapped up as teachers by the schools there and constitute a valuable con tributory factor towards a deepening of religious consciousness in the chil dren. The quality of teachers prepared to go to those development towns hitherto left much to be desired. The members of the Kolel spend the day in study, aided by a meagre subsidy, as in the case of all Kolelim, but with two striking differences. In the first place they devote two hours per day to servicing the religious clubs in the town. And, in addition, they have eschewed the convenience of forming their own Minyon. In Israel generally the tendency is

May-June, 1964

towards small conventicles for prayer, rather than large synagogues. This tendency is accentuated in these places by the desire of each group to main tain its own liturgical traditions, as explained in my previous article in this magazine.* Each of these young men attends a different place of wor ship in which he acts as honorary rabbi, guiding and influencing and teaching. Already the fruits are be ginning to be seen in the direction of a heightened religious consciousness and a greater pride and self-assurance, on the part of these humble immig rants, a conviction that the religious values which they brought with them have still a revelance to the bewilder ing new life into which they have been thrust in Israel, a stiffening of their resistance against contrary in fluences. For these young men and women are as modern as their non-religious brethren. They typify the spirit of the new Israel, its confidence, its straight back, its belief in itself—as much as those who associate these qualities with the abandonment of the Mitzvoth. Despite all distressing signs to the contrary, the overall picture in Israel is of an increase in religious observance and not a decrease, an ascent up the mountain of the Lord and not a descent down it. And the part which these young men and wom en are playing in going over to the offensive—without being offensive— is one which cannot be overestimated and for which the Jewish world will have reason to be grateful. * “Two Minhogim and One Torah,” Jan.-Feb. 1964/5724.

The Divorce Problem

By MELECH SCHÄCHTER

A RECENT applicant for a divorce to the Beth Din with which I am associated, seeking to sever a mar riage only a week old, had this start ling story to tell: Jewish boy met Jewish girl on college campus in New York. They became friendly and after a year’s courtship were married. On their honeymoon trip, they took in a tour, which included a visit to the largest Roman Catholic Church in the area. The groom looked on in heart sick disbelief as his bride of a few days climbed the ramp, knelt before the huge icon and crossed herself in the prescribed manner. To his unut terable consternation, she revealed that in her first year at college she had met a Catholic girl who persu aded her to attend services at the chapel. Under the influence of this girl, she found herself inexplicably allured by the church. Soon afterwards a priest devoted much time to instruct ing her. Finally she took up residence near the college, explaining to her parents that she needed the extra time, formerly consumed in travel, to devote 18

to her studies. Although she didn’t actually convert to Catholicism, the girl remained drawn to the church and fascinated by its atmosphere. The groom was so shocked by his bride’s story that he instinctively and tremblingly recoiled from her pres ence. He immediately demanded an annulment of the marriage in both civil and religious law. His presence in the Beth Dim was to arrange is suance of a “Get,” a writ of Jewish divorce. Usually, the Beth Din goes to every effort to reconcile the parties. In this case, however, the Beth Din felt that to attempt to make peace would be a violation of the spirit of the Law. We agreed with the distraught groom that a Get was in order. Another couple was sent to the Beth Din by the rabbi who had interviewed them prior to making arrangements for their wedding. The bride-to-be, who had been previously married, presented a document stating that she was duly divorced from her former husband. The document had a very JEW ISH LIFE

ornate and officious-looking seal on the lower right hand corner, but the “rabbi” whose signature appeared on it was a known charlatan. The disappointed bride learned that the docu ment which had cost her one hundred dollars wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. However, the couple was heartened to learn that a proper Get could be effected by the Beth Din and the couple would be permitted to mar ry after several months as planned. The foregoing incidents—the first untypical and the second all too typi cal-1—illustrate but two of the many facets of the divorce problem as it is reflected in Jewish religious life. There can be no avoiding the fact that, with American Jews sharing in the general pattern of American social life and standards, the sharp rise in the fre

quency of divorce on the American scene at large has its echo on the Jewish scene too. We may find some comfort in evidence that the divorce rate is a good deal lower among American Jews than among the Ameri can populace at large, indicating that the Jewish family, with its historic background of stability, is by no means overwhelmed by the influences and conditions which are taking such grave toll among many other segments of the populace. The fact remains, however, and must be properly faced, that the incidence of shattered mar riages is increasing among Jews too. It is in order, therefore, to take stock of the situation, reviewing some of the factors which contribute to this situation and examining its manifesta tions, with particular reference to Jewish divorce proceedings.

W H Y THE UPSURGE?

HAT are the reasons for the stantly advised by self-proclaimed shocking present-day frequency marriage counselors that the rearing W of divorce? Social studies reveal that among im portant factors are the population shifts during and after World War II, with vast numbers uprooted from their established patterns of social and fami ly life; the ease and popularity of travel, further contributing to social ferment; and the changes in the role and position of women in society, making them, among other things, less dependent on men for their livelihood. The influence of the “marriage counselor” is a serious factor too. Many couples who formerly remained together “for the sake of the children” or to “maintain status” are today conMay-June, 1964

of children in a charged atmosphere or in a visibly unhappy home environ ment is the sure way to develop neuroses which will leave deep scars on their children’s ¿“psyche”—and that the problem is soluble only by severance of the marriage. Such “pro fessionally diagnoses, in a startling number of cases, prompt the deci sion that divorce is necessary. Above and underlying all, though, is the profound change in moral cli mate that is the hallmark of modern civilization. The sundering of spiritual values as the basis of life, the deifica tion of the ego, have inevitably taken toll of family relationships. Pursue 19

“happiness”—for yourself: this is the creed which has become paramount today. Television, the movies, the popular magazines all grind out situations which glorify “romance,” which hold forth sexual desire as love, which dis tort the true goal of marriage. It is unfortunate indeed that mo dern civilization, with all its resources, has as yet produced nothing to offset these devastating influences; that with all the educational facilities open to us, there is little or nothing addressed to a fundamental and universal need of today: preparation of couples teaming up for the most important venture of their lives. Social studies reveal another notable truth: despite all the emancipation and the freedom of choice in selecting a mate, the overwhelming majority of those who are disappointed in mar riage maintain that now they wish that their parents had selected a suit able mate for them. With the hind sight of bitter experience, they now feel that parents have more mature judgement in recognizing the lasting qualities necessary for marriage and in addition best know the nature of the needs of their children. This leads us directly to the prac tice of a large segment of orthodox Jews, who do arrange “shidduchim.” The parents who seek a “talmid chochom” approach a Rosh Yeshivah and confide to him their objective and needs. Others approach the unofficial as well as the professional “shadchonim.” For the most part these mar riages work out just fine! ECAUSE of its prevalence, divorce has lost a great deal of the so cial stigma once attached to it. Young people feel free to enter into mar

B 20

riage without much forethought and with a light-headed attitude that if it doesn’t work out, they can always get a divorce. In his recent book, Samuel Kling, the noted lawyer, states that many couples who arrange “quickie out-of-town divorces” are not really divorced and, upon marrying again, are, even according to civil law, com mitting adultery. Among the many aspects to the problem of divorce, not the least sad is the shortsightedness manifested by the contentious couple. Husband and wife fail to realize that it takes time for even the best-suited couple to ad just to marriage. After all, they are each individual personalities, besides coming from different homes and dif ferent backgrounds. How can they suddenly be expected to merge into one harmonious unit? This ideal state comes about after much serious ef fort and self-discipline and with the nurturing of genuine respect for one another. The shortsightedness in rela tionship development is matched by shortsightedness in regard to the pain ful consequences which ensue when marital partners so easily resort to divorce. There are thousands upon thousands of divorced men and wom en who are lonely and to a certain extent lost in society, who look back with sorrow and guilt on their marital period, when with a little more effort they could have worked out their problems satisfactorily. In the many years I have served in the Rabbinate, I have found that the one great factor causing discord in marriage is immaturity. Too many people do not realize that those who are happy in marriage, work hard at it to achieve success. Such people are comparable to one who aspires to be JEW ISH LIFE

a great artist, yet wishes to skirt around the years of discipline, practice, and heartache. Many couples with widely divergent tastes do have

happy marriages simply because they have a healthy respect for each other and appreciation of each other’s work and goal in life.

C H A R LA T A N "RABBIS": CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

n p H E increasing frequency of di-I. vorce has attracted a veritable plague of charlatan-“rabbis” who have no respect whatsoever for the laws re gulating Jewish family life and ex ploit their victims without scruple. These “rabbis” advertise themselves widely and thus attract men and wom en ignorant of fundamental Jewish Law, and for a certain sum of money —whatever the traffic will bear—grant them supposed Jewish divorces with out a Get ever having been written. Even when a Get is written with the consent of both parties, it frequently fails to meet the requirements of Jewish Law and hence is invalid. In addition to these self-proclaimed “rab bis,” we have a host of “reverends“ and cantors, as well as non-orthodox clergy-men, who marry civilly divorced persons without their ever having ob tained a Get, and who perform mar riages of Jews with non-Jews who have undergone a spurious conversion. These assorted marriage practi tioners contaminate the House of Israel and cause a multiciplicity of “mamzerim” and of non-Jews identi fying themselves as Jews. From the traditional viewpoint, this accretion of charlatans, and unworthy or unquali fied practitioners of all kinds, consti tutes a cancerous growth upon the Jewish collective body that had through the ages, regardless of sacri fice, preserved its familial purity and May-June, 1964

sanctity. These practitioners should be ostracized and shunned. The time will come, one fervently hopes, when legislation will make it possible for such quacks to be taken to court and duly punished, as are misrepresenting butchers who sell T ’refah for Kosher. CHARACTERISTIC facet of most divorce cases is the sym pathetic attitude of relatives. This con cern, however, is usually demonstrated by the relatives only during the crisis; after it is all over, they all live their own lives. Sisters and brothers have their own families and their own so cial circles. But the divorced person is doomed to be alone. Mothers have, all too often, been proven to be responsible for the per petual bachelordom of son or daugh ter. Perhaps unknown even to them selves, mothers sometimes employ the most devious methods in finding fault with their children’s chosen ones. Some mothers break up one friendship after another, and when they cannot succeed before the marriage, they do it after the marriage. Under the mask of motherliness and supreme devo tion, such over-possessive mothers de stroy every possible vestige of marital happiness, and the outcome is divorce. Aside from these sad phenomena, we of the Beth Din often encounter the desire to take revenge and refusal to cooperate. On numerous occasions

the Beth Din is confronted with a problem of a civilly divorced couple, the husband asking to have their marital bond dissolved religiously as well, but the wife or her domineering mother dictating harsh terms: “Upon the payment of thousands of dollars, you will be set free!*’ On other occa sions the bitterness engenders a flat refusal by either partner to release the other by means of a Get. According to Jewish law, it is pos sible for a man, still technically mar ried, to obtain under certain circum stances, permission to remarry, while there is no such consideration in the case of a married woman. Often, in cases such as the preceding, when the woman, herself, eventually wishes to obtain the Get the man will not hear of it— an obvious reaction to her ob stinate refusal when he had originally asked for it. The woman remains an “agunah,” .„“chained“ for as long as the man lives, or until he relents. It frequently happens in such a case of acrimony and spiteful hate that the woman remarries without a Get. This constitutes a violation of the Seventh Commandment, the serious ness of which ranks next to murder, the Sixth Commandment. While the laws pertaining to such CoQimandments as Shabboth, Yom Kippur, etc., are superseded in the face of life and death, the observance of these Com mandments—not to murder and not to commit adultery^-are with few exceptions binding under all circum stances. It is not only the woman and her second spouse who live in sin, but her former husband, who spitefully refuses to release her by means of a Get, also bears a great measure of guilt. Such a man is most contemptible and deserves utter condemnation for 22

not preventing the Seventh Command ment from being violated. How true the dictum: “One misdeed leads to another.” Spiteful revenge is Biblically forbidden. When it becomes the cause for adultery it is criminal. What is particularly shocking is the fact that a spiteful husband such as this some times parades as an orthodox Jew. TJ7THY this inequality between husW band and wife in obtaining per mission to remarry? This is due to the fact that Biblically a man is permitted to practice polygamy while a woman is not. It was only about a thousand years ago that a special edict was is sued prohibiting Jewish men to prac tice polygamy. However, at that time the Rabbinic authorities who issued the edict (under the leadership of Rabbenu Gershon, the “Light of the Exile”) also stipulated the exceptions, whereas the Biblical injunction against a woman practicing polyandry has no exceptions. “But,” follows the persistent ques tion, “why did the Torah discriminate against the woman insofar as the prac tice of polygamy is concerned?” As a rule we do not ask for the reasons of Divine law as we do not question the reasons of natural law. It never occurs to us to ask, for ex ample, why water gravitates to the ground while fire ascends upward. With our limited understanding, we simply cannot fathom the whys and the wherefores of natural law. All our vast knowledge in the realm of science can only answer the question “how” ¡Sjlnever the question “why.” Since the laws of the Torah were given by the One who authored the laws of nature, they too cannot be fathomed by the limited faculty of human understandJEW ISH LIFE

ing, even when we presume to under stand them. The logical answer given regarding polygamy illustrates our contention quite clearly. It is reasoned that if a woman were to have more than one husband, the identity of the father of her children could not be ascertained, while the polygamous behavior of the husband does not affect in any way the identity of the mother. The ques tion of G-d’s justice still remains un

answered. Why indeed was the woman created so radically different that she should as a result be subject to dis criminatory laws? Faith in Divine wis dom, surpassing by far our limited rational capacity, is ultimately the only answer to all our questions. It is faith and faithful adherence to all Divine commandments that constitute the answer to the many social prob lems as well as to the theological problems.

W H EN N O REC O N C ILIATIO N IS POSSIBLE HILE the Beth Din is, according to tradition, duty-bound to make every attempt to effect a reconcilia tion, there are circumstances under which the Beth Din urges a Get even when the two parties are deeply in love with each other and even when ther are children involved. This pro cedure is followed when that relation ship is against the law. The following are several such examples: 1) A man and woman had intimate re lations before the woman had ob tained a Get from her former hus band. 2) The man who became enamored of his wife’s sister and lost interest in his wife. Even if he divorced his wife, civilly and religiously, he is forbidden to marry her sister as long as she lives. 3) Marrying a brother’s wife is for bidden even after the brother’s death. 4) A widow of a childless husband may not marry before obtaining “Chalitzah” from her brother-in-law (cf. Devorim 25: 5-10). 5) A Kohen may not marry a di vorcee (or even remarry his own former wife), or an immoral wom an, or a widow of a childless man even after she has obtained Chalitzah.

May-June, 1964

6) A man is forbidden to remarry his former wife if in the interim she was married to another man. TATISTICS on the divorce rate list the U.S. as highest among all countries, with the number of di vorces per year said to equal onefourth the annual number of mar riages (this statistic is very often mis stated as signifying that one out of every four marriages ends in divorce, which is incorrect. The situation is bad enough; no good purpose is served by such exaggeration). Teenagers bring the score up with their reputed record of three out of four marriages dissolv ing. The State of California is respon sible for increasing the incidence with its rate of half as many divorces as marriages per year. One may question the reliability of the published statistics. Disraeli is quoted to have said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, terrible lies, and statistics . . . One thing is certain, however: whatever the percentage may be, the divorce rate is staggering. It should be emphasized that the divorce rate among genuinely obser-

vant Jewish couples is negligible. There can be no doubt that this is due to the ennobling of all facets of life which is the hallmark of our faith, and which gives the truly Jew ish home its harmony, strength, and pervading love. And we must not fail to give proper recognition to that focal factor, Taharath Hamishpochah. More than eighteen centuries ago, Rabbi Meir pointed to the immeasur able value of the Jewish laws of men

strual separation and eager anticipa tion culminating in the immersion in the ritual waters, after which husband and wife experience a renewed, re freshed love experience. This religious observance of abstinence proves a potent factor in the continuous pre servation of the love relationship be tween husband and wife. No wonder then that the divorce rate of observant couples is at a mini mum.

ROLE OF THE BETH DIN

From the Jewish viewpoint, pre prior to their marriage. This includes valent conditions present, in one non-Jewish children who were adopted crucial respect, an even more grave by Jewish parents and were never problem than applies generally. It is a properly converted. Nor can we as sad commentary on our times that sume today that the son or daughter in contemplating marriage one must of Jewish parents was conceived in be careful that the marital partner purity and brought into the world is not a “mamzer” or a “mamzereth“ legitimately. Alas, the sins of the (illegitimate children forbidden Bib- parents are at times visited upon the blically to be married to legitimate children. As it is with venereal and offspring). In a shocking number of other hereditary diseases, so it is with cases, after the civil divorce has been spiritual diseases resulting from the granted, no Get has been issued. The violation of Biblical laws of morality. It is for this purpose that the Beth instances in which infractions of Jew ish Law are so compounded that they Din of the Rabbinical Council of render the marriages illicit and the America has now ventured on the children illegitimate, are constantly on establishment of a Registry, designed to obtain a detailed record of all reli the increase. No individual today can be con gious divorces, marriages, and con sidered Jewish on the basis of a Jew- versions performed by authentic, duly ish-sounding surname, because of pos ordained, and reliable rabbis. As the sibilities that the mother may not be moral stature of our community de Jewish by origin and was never con teriorates, this Registry assumes ever verted in accordance with Jewish Law. greater significance. As in the days of Judaism maintains that children of a Ezra, we have come to a point where mixed marriage follow the faith of each persons’s geneological identity their mother, regardless of the under must be clearly established. Furthermore it is the aim of the standing the parents may have had 24

JEW ISH LIFE

Beth Din to stem the tide in the pol lution of Jewish family life. In an attempt to reach couples before the divorce decree has become final, the Beth Din has published a brochure especially prepared for members of the legal profession, in which the lawyers are urged to advise their clients, prior to the completion of the civil divorce, to obtain a Get. Long experience has taught us that while the client himself may not be religiously inclined or the bitterness of the mo ment shuts out all thought of remar riage, in due time he or she finds that

the parents, or a future mate, or parents of such a future mate, insist upon a religious divorce. Since divorce usually presents difficulties such as financial settlements and ofttimes out right refusal to cooperate, it may leave both partners at an impasse. And the only choice open to them is lifelong loneliness and frustration. The Beth Din therefore urges all Jewish couples who are processing their civil divorces to contact its office and make arrangements for a Get, thus avoid ing the many tragic consequences.

PREREQUISITES FOR A JEW ISH DIVORCE

r I >HE prerequisites for a Jewish JL divorce are the consent of both parties and the husband’s direct au thorization for the writing, witnessing, and transmission of the bill of divorce to his wife. The divorce is written in the pres ence of a tribunal of three qualified rabbis, in accordance with specific regulations. The husband may deliver the di vorce document personally to his wife or through an agent properly ap pointed. The wife must receive the writ of divorce in her hands, either directly from her husband or from his duly appointed agent, and until this is done the Jewish divorce is not consummated. Jewish religious law does not make it necessary for both parties to be in the same city. The husband, in his May-June, 1964

community, may authorize the writ ing and witnessing of the writ of divorce. He may then appoint his agent ts deliver the document to his wife, who resides in another city. In such a case, the Rabbinic tribunal prepares additional papers certifying that an agent has been duly appointed. A specific procedure follows, with of ficial delivery of the bill of divorce to the wife, in the community in which the wife resides. A Jewish divorce may be sent to any Jewish community of any coun try. It is valid everywhere when pre pared and delivered by recognized, or dained rabbis. It permits either party to remarry in accordance with Jewish Law. The actual divorce proceedings are normally completed in about an hour and a half. The Beth Din was established by 25

tion corroding our collective Jewish body. When inquiries are made, even the parents or grandparents often fail to remember accurately their original Jewish names. For fear that the wrong name or an old antiquated forgotten name may render the Get invalid, English names are used. This is a sad commentary on some elements of Jew ish life in America. The name Abra ham was born proudly by President Lincoln. So were the names Noah and Daniel by the Websters, Nathaniel by Hawthorne, and so in the case of many other non-Jews, to the present day. Yet many Jewish families do not like to have their children bear such “strange” Biblical names. Tables have turned to our dismay, and the Beth Din is thus faced with an additional problem.

the Rabbinical Council of America in the interest of Jewish family purity. It has been set up as a national central agency at 84 Fifth Avenue, New York City. It is a non-profit agency to which lawyers and parties to a divorce may turn. This agency is nationally and internationally recognized and handles such matters expeditiously, with all possible tact and dignity. of the problems with which w the Beth Din is frequently faced is that of Jewish names. It has come to a point where many a Get contains no Jewish name at all. John, Peter, Jacqueline, Phyllis, etc., are written in a transliterated form while none of the traditional Jewish names are men tioned. This is unfortunately another product of the wide-spread assimila

young people on ways to achieve marital success, and at the very least to guard them against the most ob vious pitfalls. This is a task on which the country’s educational institutions and mass communications media, no less than its religious institutions, must concentrate—with a far greater sense of direct responsibility and with far more intensive effort than is presently the case. As for American Jewry, let us see to it, with every means at our disposal, that young couples receive the moral guidance they so urgently need. And when marriages are shattered beyond repair, let us see to it that the civil divorce be unfailingly accompanied by

JEW ISH LIFE

S has been indicated in the course of this article, the problem of divorce on the American Jewish scene is co-extensive with the divorce prob lem among Americans at large. The roots of the problem lie in the charac ter of modern social life, and in the final analysis, there can be no con clusive solution of the problem with out a radical reform of the standards, the values, indeed, the entire direction and moral pattern of contemporary civilization. Yet subject to this, it lies within the power, even as it is the urgent responsibility, of present-day society to take measures to combat the inroads on family life. Much can and must be done to better guide

Jewish divorce and that the religious divorce be authentic, be done in full accordance with Jewish Law by com petent, recognized orthodox Rabbinic authorities. Above all, it is imperative that com munity leadership address itself with full purpose to the nurturing of the traditional Torah values and standards

May-June, 1964

of Jewish life. To the extent that we Jews fruitfully preserve our true Jew ish character, to that extent are we able to successfully withstand the cor rosive influences of contemporary so ciety and thereby—among other cru cially important purposes—conserve the stability and happiness of the Jew ish home and family.

Patterns of M orality By RALPH PELCOVITZ

"We all know that everyone drinks too much. Every one knows that morality is going down the drain and there's nothing that can be done about it."

NE of the young defendents in the recent sordid Southampton case is so quoted in the daily press. This ambivalent expression of defiance and despair seems to echo the senti ment of the younger generation and in turn is eleborated upon in various magazine articles examining the pat tern of morality—or the lack of it— in our fair country. Attention has centered on the “new” moral code evolving on college campuses. There can be no doubt, however, that the college campus reflects conditions in society as a whole. The spirit of these studies of campus behavior and the conclusions drawn therefrom range from outraged condemnation, to res ignation, to the inevitable or sophis ticated acceptance. This objectivity and restraint exer cised in judging our young people would be quite commendable were the situation not so alarming and dan gerous. As Torah-oriented Jews, sexual immorality arouses in us not only in

dignation but apprehension, for we be lieve that the erosion of the moral foundations and fibre of a society will prove fatal to the strength, and even tually the existence, of that society. A disturbing factor revealed in these magazine pieces is the apparent forfeiture of responsibility on the part of college administrations in dealing with the deterioration of moral stan dards in their schools. Some deans have frankly stated that it is not in their province to give direction or exert influence in an area where in telligent, mature individuals must make their own private decisions. This amazing abdication of authority in the dubious name of freedom gives us pause to question just what a higher institution of education is committed to teach. To tolerate laxity in moral behavior through laxity in supervision and control would seem to be highly irresponsible and a debasement of the very ideas to which colleges and uni versities are dedicated. JEW ISH LIFE

A S already indicated, the moral revolution, as it has been called by some, or collapse and anarchy, a more suitable term chosen by others, is not the exclusive pursuit of col legians. It is a general condition of our times. The moral posture needs radical correction as it threatens to collapse in a climate of permissiveness, indulgence, and “hefkeruth.” An at mosphere of excessive liberty accom panied by a spirit of aimlessness un derlines the compelling need for direc tion, firm purpose, and the exercise of self-control. Indeed we must examine the devalu ation of morals and the vanishing standards of decency in a much broader context. We tend to associate immorality with sexual promiscuity. But what of other areas, for moral standards and ethical behavior go far beyond the narrow confined area of sex. There is the market place, the business and professional arena. Politi cal, fraternal, civic, and religious or ganizational life have their full share of unethical and immoral behavior. Nor can we ignore the simple, every day area of human relationship, for in our social contacts there are con stant moral issues confronting us and our moral condition determines our behavior and conduct in our relation ship with family, friends, and neigh bors. HERE is an urgent need at this point for some definitions. What do we mean by “moral” and “ethical“ behavior? “Conforming to generally accepted ideas of what is right and just in human conduct,” is the dic tionary definition of moral—which poses a perplexing problem. Who or what determines what is right and

May-June, 1964

just? Ethics is defined as “ideal con duct and a knowledge of good and evil.” This in turn presupposes a fixed, immutable concept of good and evil, which to many is debatable. In es sence, what yardstick is to be used in measuring moral and ethical stan dards? The area of morality and ethics has been described as that “area of human conduct which neither law or public opinion can really control.” A noble and eloquent thought, but here again there is a pre-conception of selfdiscipline and control which has not been too apparent or popular in re cent years. We are confronted then with an elementary but imperative need: to establish a source of moral authority, universal and timeless, which shall serve as guide and deterrent. A mem ber of the younger generation, echo ing no doubt the sentiment of his con temporaries, is quoted as stating, “We are searching, experimenting, and questioning to find our own answers.” But if each generation will establish its own code and standard of morality there can be no stability, direction, or purpose worthy of a civilized society. Some of the answers have apparently been found and are as disconcerting as they are debilitating. A progressive professor is most enthusiastic about one of them and he salutes the estab lishment of a single sta n d a rd ly this generation—equality of the sexes in sex—as a refreshing, honest rejection of the long-practiced and long-ac cepted double standard. If this be a new modern answer, in all fairness let it be said that Judaism long ago anticipated this attitude. We also have never condoned the double standard and constantly demanded a single one for all—namely, chastity! 29

n p H E search of the young general tion is doubtless a sincere one. It serves but to heighten the urgency of our responsibility in teaching the never-old moral code of Torah. Moral and ethical behavior in every human endeavor is the goal of Judaism—an aspect of Torah which few appreci ate. The observance of all mitzvoth is calculated to refine man, the com mandment pertaining to Divine Ser vice, Beyn Odom L'Mokom, no less than the ethical commandments, Beyn Odom L ’Chavero. It is not our intention to further bemoan and bewail the moral collapse of our age. Lamentation is of little value unless it leads to understanding and correction. Historically our lamen tation was never the useless “why” but the provoking “how” (eychah). The latter question leads to correction and rebuilding while the former is frustrating and futile. We must ex amine and analyze the desensitized moral spirit of our time and attempt to understand this moral retrogression so that certain concrete suggestions and proposals can be offered.

The search for a “new morality,” in our opinion indicates a loss of the old, not its rejection. One cannot re ject what one has rarely witnessed or has not even been taught. We have come to a period in our culture where a consistent, honest, properly motiv ated code of morality is rarely found in our adult society. How then can the younger generation discover its moral bearings? The lack of a moral code and ethical standards is unques tionably due to the fact that values determined by reason, without a su perior authority imposing this code up on mankind, is easily rationalized into oblivion. It is folly to expect adher ence to a moral code unless there be a fixed, established point, immutable and unquestionable, to which man can relate as the center of his standard of values, and from which radiates the code of behavior guiding his conduct and attitudes. We believe that there can be no moral code springing na turally from the heart of man without a discipline and authority superior to man’s own intelligence and inclina tions.

THE "N E W M O RALITY"

UDAISM teaches us that man alone cannot establish standards of good and evil without Divine instruction. He cannot formulate a structure of morality through speculative thought. It must be taught to him and related to a concept of Holiness, Beyond the good is the holy. This was demonstrated to us at the very be ginning of Creation. The first six days are “good,” followed by the Sabbath which is “holy.” The good life is both

formed and guarded by the concept of sanctity. The Jewish people was given a mis sion: to be holy. They were not ad monished to be good. Incongruous as this may sound today, holiness is still the Jewish purpose in life. The code of human morality to which the world has adhered in its saner moments de rives from what was taught by us. If man has become an ethical infant while growing into a nuclear giant, it

JEW ISH LIFE

is not because he has not found a and ethical values which we are so moral standard but because he has desperately seeking. Sanctity, not sup forgotten what he was taught. Much pression, holiness rather than haras of the guilt, however, lies with the sement, is the key to this problem. teacher as well as the student. Im morality has always existed, in every TUDAISM has never been puritanisociety and in every age. So we are t l cal or prudish. It has ever been told by many who would console us practical and candid about sex, plac in our hour of crisis. What they fail ing it in its proper perspective. The to appreciate is that today our in Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud are re creased knowledge and added sophis plete with the frankest discussions in tication have brought about a rational this area. What insures the good taste ization and justification of immorali of these passages and laws is the spirit ty. Deviation from accepted norms of purity and reverence which imbues and departure from traditional values every word. is not even looked upon askance but A newspaper ad for a recent “adult laboriously explained to us in techni movie” proclaimed “Sex is not a dirty cal language, giving them an aura of word!” Of course it is not! It is movies respectability. This is neither surpris such as the shoddy one whose lurid ing or unexpected. Morality, like na wares were advertised by this pungent ture, abhors a vacuum; the rejection phrase which have sullied and defiled of one set of values must be replaced what Judaism has always dignified and by another. Negation is not sufficient. sanctified when properly experienced. The “new morality” becomes a prin How ironic that art and literature, ciple promulgated in the name of which were meant to ennoble man freedom and liberty. The inviolate and bring culture and dignity to his rights of the individual are champion life, have become the instruments of ed, and the evil of a censorship is his vulgarization. In their eagerness to invoked, whenever attempts are made rebel against the “American puritani to curb excesses and establish an ele cal spirit,” the bearers of contempo mentary code of decency. rary literary and artistic expression Our antidote to this moral retro have succeeded in spreading a crust gression must be a unique, "Torah- of coarseness over the culture of the centered one. Any serious student of modern world. This has an increas the American scene will realize that ingly demeaning effect upon daily life we cannot combat this erosion through in light of the ever-increasing hours edict but through education, convinc of leisure and relaxation, which must ing rather than condemning. It is in be filled somehow. teresting to note that a number of None of us, unfortunately, is im writers have made the observation mune to this sex-saturated society. that there is a need for grace more The Torah Jew, together with every than for propriety in establishing stan one else, is constantly buffeted and dards for our younger generation. We pulverized by his surroundings, and would go beyond this and say that not finds it most difficult to withstand the through prudery, but through purity pleasant enticements and blandish will we be able to establish the moral ments of his environment. The probMay-June, 1964

lem therefore is as much ours, as Torah Jews, as it is ours as citizens of the American society. When the moral spirit is desensitized most of us are subjected to the tyranny of the commonplace. We live in servitude to public opinion. However, it may very well be that our salvation lies precisely in the banality of immorality. When the immoral be-

comes commonplace it also becomes a bore and man begins to seek different values and some disciplines as well. The time may well be ripe for a new revolution whereby virtue will suddenly become endowed with vitality and chastity will become the sign of courage. The vital question is, how we can best meet this challenge and opportunity?

THREE FORCES HE passage of time has in no way diminished certain verities. The development of our character and that of our children still revolves around three major forces—the home, the school, and the synagogue. These three forces must expend a maximum of energy, talent, and resources in coming to grips with the moral climate of our times. It is not too much to hope that as much time, effort, and energy be directed towards creating a proper moral and ethical climate for our communities as is spent in other endeavors to which we seem to be iriuch more sensitive. A wise man once observed that youngsters need models more than critics. To implant values, a moral code, and ethical standard, the home must create the attitude, Set the tone, and establish the norm through exam ple. Character is not endowed, it is built. The brick arid mortar lie in con stant conditioning. Chastity, modesty, honesty, and integrity are not epheme ral qualities without any real mean ing, if they are constantly practiced. Consistency in every phase of human endeavor, observed in the parents by

the child, is still the best teacher. The mode of dress of the mother estab lishes the pattern for the daughter. The social activities of the parents will set the standard for the children. The language spoken in the household, the ethical element fostered by deeds at home and at business, the ideas and ideals exalted by parents, create a con ditioning for character and attitude. Judaism has ever taught that restraint within is far more important than re striction without; that preaching is im potent whereas practicing is impres sive, and moral action far more ef fective than moral homilies. The second force in this program of character-building and creating a healthful moral climate is the school. Whether it be elementary, secondary, or university, the leadership and facul ties of educational institutions cannot evade their responsibility or abdicate their duty as educators of young minds and hearts. Yeshivoth have not placed sufficient stress upon character training. How much more so is this true of the secular schools. Knowl edge and skills have been imparted with little attention given to molding the ethical will and shaping _the moral JEW ISH LIFE

choice. The dean of a university may understandably be reluctant to impose a moral code of behavior for fear of appearing dogmatic. The dean of a yeshivah has no such impediment, nor any excuse for allowing moral teachings to be relegated at best to brief character-training lectures at in frequent intervals. The Miissar lecture can be of dyna mic value and yet is far too rarely utilized. Emphasis can be placed up on ethical and moral values inherent in every aspect of Torah, be it Biblical story, law, or Halochah, if our teach ers were to be properly oriented, there to and a concerted effort made to incorporate these lessons into curri cula. So much attention is given to the development of intelligence, knowl edge, and the accumulation of infor mation and data and so little to that of character, ethical behavior, and moral attitude. As important as tech nical tools is the implanting of good taste, and appreciation of balance, pro portion, and symmetry in human re lationship. The Torah certainly teaches us all this, but do we spell it out and translate it clearly to our students in our yeshivoth? In the structure of our society the Synagogue-Center has come to play an increasingly important ,role in its contact with people and especially with youngsters. A rare opportunity is being granted to the Synagogue and its leadership in molding and shaping the character of present-day young men and women, young boys and girls. The various activities and func tions sponsored by the Synagogue can be utilized in creating the proper moral climate. The central challenge of our time, perhaps, is to foster a program of activity for teen-agers and ivfay-June, 1964

young adults which would serve to counteract the incessant iinpingement of immorality upon the consciousness of these young people. Great courage and vision is called for if the Syna gogue is not to allow itself to become caught up in the very same stream of senseless, meaningless activity which our culture abounds. The ¡social activi ties sponsored by a synagogue can set a revolutionary pattern, which would no doubt be at complete divergence' with the accepted norm of the street and of Society, but which may very well have great appeal precisely beJ cause it cannot be found elsewhere. Lectures, discussions, and sym posiums, which come td grips with the moral erosion and collapse of our time, where chastity and modesty would be projected as a pattern vir tues which need not be looked upon as a lack of modernity, Would be wel comed. A call for return to an era of grace, sensitivity, and decency— feelings which are not alien to the in nermost emotions of teen-agers— would strike a responsive chord: The beauty of holiness can be developed and nurtured in young peoples’ minds, an appreciation of classical art dnd music, just as readily as other tastes, and fashions and fads, have been in culcated in them and to which they so slavishly conform. There is no reason why we cannot cash in on the bankruptcy of the past decade. There is a certain tyranny of conformity from which many young people would gladly escape if there would be offered to them a set of values in which they can believe and which they can practice. If these values would be observed in the adult sphere there is no reason to doubt that it would serve as a source of in33

with irony, that if the delights of the next world were visible and the plea sures of this world only imaginary— rather than the reverse—the job of our spiritual leaders would be much easier. The re-establishment of moral man in a moral universe guided by moral law can be realized only if the au thority of law and the sanctions which flow from it are impressed and im printed upon the mind and soul of man, thereby conditioning his charac ter and affecting his conduct. If this sounds strange and alien to modern man, it must not be rejected by the people entrusted with the historic mis sion of being a holy people. True, some of our co-religionists may even be in the forefront of those demanding increased permissive ness and the lowering of the few re maining moral barriers. Witness the recent two-day demonstrations by a few hundred students at Brandeis University protesting a new rule re quiring that doors of dormitories be kept open whenever a young lady is visiting a young man. Their cry was that “meaningful relationships between the sexes cannot be established with such restrictions.” This attitude must not be permitted to deter us from seeking a revolutionary change. Quite the contrary. Opposition should serve but to heighten the special respon sibility of the Torah Jew! Though we be aliens to fashion and strangers to fad we cannot ignore the still, small voice within us which demands that we give genuine grace to our lives.

spiration to the younger one. Experi ence has proven that programs of value and worth, properly planned and executed, are enthusiastically ac cepted by our youth. That they are proud to be identified with a syna gogue which sets high standards of morality and insists upon a standard in activities which are absent in other centers, clubs, or organizations. There is a certain prestige involved in being disciplined individuals, as long as the motivation is purity rather than pru dery, conviction rather than criticism of others, sanctity rather than sup pression. r |^ H E moral revolution for which -I- we are searching will be realized only when the home, school, and syna gogue will combine their efforts toward the goal of rediscovering the mission of Jewish people which so many of us have forgotton—to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” There is no doubt that the moral collapse is greatly due to the fact that science has reduced the fear of disease while skepticism has eliminated the fe^r of retribution. Pure reason, cul tured standards of civilized society, even the moral law within man (so dear to the heart of Kant) are inef fective barriers to the constant temp tations of a sex-saturated, successobsessed culture. There are deterrents developed by man himself, which are as weak and vulnerable as he is—this, time and history have proven. One is reminded of the wise statement, laced # / T U R environment abounds with V / cynics who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, 34

# Responsible leaders in their quest for popularity have been giving candied opinions instead of candid ones. Moral JEW ISH LIFE

cowardice rather than moral courage is manifested in the most important areas of our society. It is for those reasons that the Torah Jew must learn not to confuse rationalization with reason or theory with truth. We must commit ourselves to the basic prin ciple of our faith that morality is our full-time occupation and must not be used like a bus which we ride only when it is going our way. We have been charged with the great respon

May-Junfck 1964

sibility of teaching our children and our contemporaries that although character may be manifested in great moments it is made in the small ones. It is our historic responsibility to re place conformity with courage and retrogression with resolve, so that the voice of sanity be heard once again and disciplined ideals be stimulated. We who appreciate the value of every thing must be willing to pay the price for our convictions.

A Story The Cathedral By HARRY LOEWY

a cold, blustery day in the year 2004 the Jews of Ohio City had a double celebration. It was Janu ary 10th, the tenth day after New Year’s, and in accordance with the ritual of the times the Jews of Ohio City kept their holiest day, the Day of At-One-Ment. The date was well chosen. No bet ter day could be found for the dedica tion of the new sanctuary belonging to the entire Jewish community in Ohio City, the Cathedral of Mono theism. Four years prior to this, on the Jewish Rose-of-Sharon Day in the year 2000, which, of course corres ponded to January 1st, the first plans were laid. It was difficult to determine on whose initiative. For many years there had been considerable grumbling about the costs of maintaining half-adozen dilapidated synagogues, some of them dating back to the early 1950’s and 60’s. It was old Joe Haw kins, President of the venerable “House of Marduk” Temple, always proclaiming faithfully his adherence to the time-honored Reconstructionist movement, who called on his friend, Jim Patterson, the president of Ohio 36

City’s neo-Reform temple “Peace of Mind.” “Joe, it’s good to see you,” Pat terson said and motioned him to an easy chair. Hawkins took his heavy overcoat off, lit a cigar, and fixed his gaze on his host. “I am not a man of many words, Jim,” Hawkins began. “It’s time for us fellows to come to terms with the facts of life, namely that there is no place in our city for six ramshackle synagogues.” Patterson nodded, “Sure, sure, but why tell me? You know that I have always held that all this talk about six different wings in Judaism has a hollow ring. Never before was there so much unison within our ranks. Only religious fanatics, such us Lou Thompson from the Progressive-Con servative Jeroboam Temple, prevent a complete merger of all religious shad ings.” “Lou is not representative of our religious feelings,” Hawkins said, “I suppose he has never reconciled him self to the fact that we live in the twenty-first century; that religion has to move with the times. Why, he for bade his grandchildren to come to our JEW ISH LIFE

temple’s Pass-Over egg-rolling party. He insists on serving the traditional Pass-Over diet of Bagels-and-Lox.” Patterson become agitated. He shouted at Hawkins: “Look, Joe, we have the whole Jewish community in Ohio City with us. We cannot wait forever for bigots like Lou Thompson. Something has to be done. Thompson with his ridiculous bagels-and-lox PassOver gives us a black eye vis-a-vis our gentile friends. We have to move now.” HEY decided to invite the leader ship of all the Temples in town for a meeting. Letters were sent out to all the presidents calling them to a meeting to discuss the prospects of “Interfaith Without and Interfaith Within.” For courtesy’s sake, they also invited Lou Thompson, the Jewish community’s bigot. The conclave was held in the House of Marduk Temple in Meadowcroft Heights. Somehow, the old janitor had managed to dust the old benches. To their surprise Lou Thompson came also. Besides Patterson, Hawkins, and Thompson, the presidents of the Hebrew-Unitarian League, the Jewish Science Temple, and the Jewish Heart Society also attended. Hawkins was in the chair. After a few words of welcome he called upon Patterson to explain the purposes of the meeting. Patterson took a sip of water and began Slowly to address the small audience. “My fellow co-religionists! Some fifty and forty years ago our fathers and grandfathers moved to Meadow croft Heights, which, at that time was called suburbia. In the 1950’s and 60’s they built these temples with their limited financial and technological re-

M ay-June, 1964

sources. Why they built them, we youngsters could never understand. Our fathers certainly did not seem to need them. Why, my own father—may he rest in peace—used to tell me that he still had a bitter taste in his mouth from that ridiculous Junior Congrega tion grandmother made him to attend instead of watching television which was quite a novelty in those years. Now, my grandmother was a religious woman. She used to tell me that she never missed the rabbi’s book-review during Sisterhood meetings. She must have attended the temple regularly once or twice a week for her bridge club and the book-reviews. My grand father must have been a rabbi alto gether. When he passed away they found among his belongings a narrow, silken prayer shawl which he cherished so much that he draped it around his neck whenever he visited the temple during the old Jewish holidays they used to celebrate in the fall. “Anyway, you know what happened. The Koreans and the Nigerians moved into this neighbourhood and Meadow croft Heights became a slum. These temples have not been used for over a decade. Even Jeroboam Temple from the Progressive-Conservatives has served as a bowling alley for the past eight years. Isn’t that right, Lou?” Old man Thompson nodded some what reluctantly in agreement. Patterson paid scant attention to him. He continued: “Fact is, that there have not been any Jewish religious worship services in Ohio City for the past ten years or more. These temples are such in name only. They are rented out as dance halls and bowling alleys to the Koreans and Nigerians. And, yet, our gentile friends point at them, at the 37

broken windows and the crumbling masonry, and say ‘Here is where the Jews pray.5 This disgrace must stop. Let’s dispose of these grimy reminders of our backward past and let us erect a building which will truly reflect on us Jews as genuine citizens worthy of the twenty-first century.” Several hands went up. Out of de ference for his old age, Hawkins gave the floor to old man Thompson. HOMPSON spoke with that trem T ulous and high-pitched voice common to old men. “Friends,-you all know my family. We have lived here in Ohio City for over a century. My father Was Sidney Tomkoff and my grandfather, who was still born in the Old Country, was Leib Tomkoff sky. Not always were we called the fanatics. There was a time when my father, Sidney Tom koff, led the battle to free this com munity from backwardness and big otry. “It must have happened Tver fifty years ago, shortly after the end of the second—-or was it the third-S world war. Our old synagogue was still downtown on Peach and Ninth. At that time the state wanted to build an express-way to cope with the everincreasing use of gasoline-driven vehi cles, which were in vogue then. They needed the site on Peach and Ninth and paid us a cool $100,000 for it. My father, who was the president of our synagogue, set his sights on Meadowcroft Heights which at that time was a little more than pasture land. He knew that it was going to be developed and he wanted our syna gogue to be the first one there. That was the time when some wild-eyed fanatics from the East tried to talk us into using the $100,000 for the estab 38

lishment of a parochial school-r-a ghetto school we called it—where they wanted to teach the children some an cient superstitions garbed in a foreign tongue. They planned to segregate our kids from their gentile friends. They said to my father: ‘Sid, what’s the use of spending a lot of money on new, gaudy synagogues if you yourself don’t use them and if you don’t raise a generation of children who will want to go there.’ “All this got Dad’s gander up. He said, ‘Our Sunday School was good enough for me and it will be good enough for my children and grand children. What we need is a synagogue to show the gentiles that we can have just as fine buildings as they have.’ You see, Dad was a proud Jew. And he continued telling those agitators off. ‘Not one plugged nickel for your ghetto school: I shall no longer sup port the United Jewish Appeal if you waste money on this foolishness-—Jew ish education.’ Yes, my father was a strong-willed man. He won out. “We in Ohio City were fortunate enough, inasmuch as there never was a ghetto school in our town. But we did build a beautiful temple. True, thè Sunday School folded up in the early 1980’s. Then we also stopped having services. But remember, how much devotion, how much Jewish pride, and how much sacrifice went into that edi fice. “Friends, don’t abandon our old temple just because nobody needs it any more. Old buildings are just like old people—they don’t want to be abandoned,” Thompson’s voice broke and he sat down. Bruce Cox, the president of the Jewish Heart Society, patted him on the back. JEW ISH LIFE

HERE was little discussion. Lou Thompson had had his say and he meekly agreed when they decided to sell the old temples in Meadowcroft Heights to the Koreans and Nigerians. They voted to invest the money realized together with funds they were going to raise in a unique project. Right in the center of downtown Ohio City there would rise a tower to reach into the clouds. “Right up to the Heavens,” Joe Hawkins said. The interior would be one huge shell, illuminated only by six ever-lasting lights to commemorate the six temples of Ohio City. The vast interior Would be chained off to preserve the quiet and decorum of the place. The out side aisle would be open to the public and it would contain a permanent ex hibition of old Jewish ceremonial ob jects, such as Men’s Club Bowling trophies, Sisterhood tea sets, and a selection of yellowed Sunday school textbooks, starting with “When the Jewish People Was Young.” The whole structure was to be called the Cathedral of Monotheism, and, in the spirit of interfaith, was dedicated to the two great religions which sprang forth from the loins of Judaism.

May-June, 1964

N the Jewish At-One-Ment Day, the 10th of January 2004, the Cathedral was inaugurated in the presence of many dignitaries. The Governor cut the ribbon and twice pronounced the word “Shalom.” Fierce pride filled the Jews of Ohio City, hearing the Governor converse so freely in the supposedly ancient tongue of the Hebrews. To placate old man Thompson, who still grum bled about the splendor of his old temple, he was given the task of pro nouncing the blessing over the tem ple. Defiantly and haltingly, .Lou Thompson recited the “Hamotzi.” The Cathedral of Monotheism’s huge por tals swang open and closed again. The vast crowd left. Jim Patterson remark ed, “This was truly an inspiring and meaningful dedication.” Early next morning a police car screeched to a halt in front of the portals of the Cathedral. There were two huge stained-glass windows flank ing the portals. The right one depicted a crucifix and the left one the half moon of Islam. But the police officer did not pay any attention to them. He stared at the gigantic oaken portals. Across their length and their width was crudely painted a large, yellow, six-pointed star.

The M a sk of Neutralism

By REUBEN E. GROSS

INCE classical times two great world viewpoints have grappled for the soul of Western Man. The first, having its roots in Hellas and exem plified by Aristotle, viewed the world as being driven by a Prime Mover, which impersonally and mechanically meshed with and drove all the minor spheres and cogs constituting the Universe. Basically, this has consti tuted the philosophic point of view. Different philosophers have filled the Prime Mover concept with different content. In its most primitive form, it was simply the motion of a heaven ly sphere. In its modern and more sophisticated forms, the Prime Mover may be the hunger of the Marxian economic man or the libido of the Freudian man that makes the world go round. The basic similarity of all these different World-views is their denial of a guiding spirit relating to man in a personal way. A second point of view, having its roots in the people of Israel, viewed the world as created by an unfathom able Being, who nevertheless stood in a relation to his creatures that could be best understood in the vocabulary

of the highest form of existence—the language of Mankind, rather than the language of cogs and gears; or of physics and geometry. Broadly speaking, the first point of view is recognized as the secular out look while the second point of view is regarded as the religious outlopk. ROM the downfall of the Roman Empire, with the rise of Chris tianity, until the nineteenth century, the religious point of view held vir tually undisputed sway in public life. This was especially true in the field of education, which had been regarded as the special province of religious endeavor. In the nineteenth century, however, public education witnessed the ascen dancy of secular humanism as a con trolling factor. The reasons for this rise were manifold. Scientific progress, based on a mechanistic view of the universe, was impressive. More im portant, however, was the fact that Christianity, in attempting to meet the challenge of the new learning, had proliferated into numerous warring sects during the previous three cen-

JEW ISH LIFE

turies. These conflicts, both in the military and ideological arenas, pro vided the rising Humanist movement with the opportunity to pose as a neutral force, above the infra-religious conflicts, and, therefore, as most fit to assume the magisterial duties in the public schools systems of the rising democracies. Although the public schools system as it existed in the United States dur ing the latter half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century Was in no small measure Protestantoriented, the post-World War I schools, especially in the metropolitan areas, came under the secularizing in fluences of the teachers colleges of the large universities. Withal, some religi ous vestiges persisted in most local school systems in the form of prayers and Bible readings. In the last few years, however, we have witnessed at tempts to root out these remaining religious vestiges through litigation. These efforts achieved success in the notable decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Engel, Schempp, and Murray cases. In bar ring prayers and Bible readings, the Supreme Court has accepted the con tention that the public schools, as part of the governmental structure, must maintain a neutral attitude on religi ous issues. In so doing, the court ex pressly recognized the proposition that public education is neutral ground as far as religion is concerned. Professional educators have accept ed these decisions with great satisfac tion, because by implication they give high official sanction to the humanist contention that they are the impartial arbiters in a “struggle of one concept of Divinity against others; one con cept of man’s condition against others; May-June, 1964

one concept of possibility and the meaning of revealed truth against all others” and that the educators alone are capable of getting outside the con text of these warring religious con victions to a neutral position from which an evaluation of these claims could be made. CRITICAL examination of this claim of “neutrality” is obviously in order. Is secular humanism an im partial stand-point from which religion and religious claims may be judged? At first blush, there appears to be some merit to the claim, because the humanist is absolutely impartial in regard to the issues that divide religion from religion, faith from faith. How ever, his ability and right to set him self up as an umpire is impeached by the fact that he differs very sharply from all that the religious viewpoints hold in common. True “neutralism” implies not only an impartiality to the differences that separate conflicting parties, but also a sympathy with and understanding of that which they share in common. It requires, at the barest minimum, an impartial attitude towards that which they share in common. However, one does not select a mutual enemy to arbitrate family conflicts simply because he has no opinion preferences between the disputing parties. Indiscriminate op position to both, sides is not a high recommendation for a proper umpire. The truth of the matter is that secular humanism is a distinct World view that stands in diametric opposi tion to the religious world-view. It denies Creation and Revelation and it seeks to capture the minds of the masses by such control of the educa tional system as would render all who

are educated under it incapable of getting outside the context of secular ist pre-suppositions. That secular hu manism is a “religion” is a proposi tion that its adherents will at times deny when it is advantageous to them to deny it, but will also vigorously affirm when it is advantageous to af firm that claim. In other words, the secular humanist would claim the ad vantages of being a “religion,” but wants no part of the liabilities of that status.

tended to compel exemption from military service to conscientious ob jectors who object on philosophic grounds, so that they may have parity with those who object upon religious grounds.

HIS tricky gambit, which is now being played so successfully in public life, was first tried out with devastating effect on the Jewish com munal chessboards by the Jewish de fense and secular organizations. Com ing upon the American Jewish scene, T N demanding that public life be riven with institutionalized differences -*■ stripped of all its traditional re of degrees of commitment to tradi ligious overtones, the secularist poses tional religious values, they set them as a neutralist, standing outside and selves up, wrapped in the toga of above religious conflict, as the only neutralism as the spokesmen and ar proper instrument for the presentation biters of the American Jewish com of res-publicae. Since the public munity. Recreational halls with the schools system cannot be turned over modest designation of Y.M.H.A. were to any one denomination, the secular shrewdly renamed “Community Cen ist steps forward and says in effect, ters.” The argument as to whether the “Turn it over to me; and do not com professional leadership of the Com plain if I teach what all of you op munity Center shall be selected from pose”—like the lawyer in the French the orthodox, Conservative, or Reform fable who gave the disputing brothers seminary was usually “compromised*’ a half-shell each and took the meat by the installation of a social worker of the clam for himself as a fee. How whose philosophy of history was eco ever, when the issue is in an area nomic determinism and whose concept where religion and religious institu of the universe was mechanistic. tions are favored, the secularist is Maximal Jews were stripped of leader quick to make the claim that his faith ship and minimal Jews became the is also a religion— a non-theistic re authorized spokesmen, on the theory ligion. The American Jewish Congress, that the secularist Jew, being “neu which has consistently supported the tral” in regard to the orthodox-Con“neutralist” claims of the secularist servative-Reform issue, was most fit for control of the public school sys to represent all Jews. Thus Torah be tem, inconsistently supported the came a special interest in Jewish life, claims of a Humanist society for tax while civil rights and liberalism be exemption of its “temple” on the came a central issue; and the Ameri theory that it, too, is a religion, fully can Jewish attitude became increasing entitled to the tax exemptions afforded ly identified with the secular ahd to churches and synagogues. More atheistic posture. recently, this argument has been exHaving achieved a position of pow42 JEW ISH LIFE

er in the Jewish community under a mask of “neutralism,” the secularist Jew is now throwing away his disguise and insisting upon his right to assert himself as an independent force in Jewish life and to make of the “neu tral” Community Center a secularist temple dedicated to assimilation. In a current copy of the National Jewish Welfare Board’s official publication, The J.W.B. Circle, (February, 1964), a leading professional of that move ment is quoted from a paper entitled “The Jewish Community Center—An Instrument for Community Needs and Goals,” delivered before the last gen eral assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, to the following effect: We will not and cannot accept any thing less than complete freedom and integration into the general com munity environment despite the dan ger that assimilation might happen. In this paper he describes Sabbath openings by Centers in the teeth of communal objections as “responsible decisions” with an “affirmative view.“ In a previous issue (January, 1964), the National Director of the Com munity Center division of that or ganization pointed out that since 1948, it has been the official policy of N.J.W.B. to keep its Centers “open to all inhabitants of the community.” Noting Negro resentment at Jewish “groupism” on the one hand and the mood of Jewish “group preservation” on the other hand, he observes that: . . . the desire to welcome all ele ments of the community persists in all Centers and its expression is a matter of pride by most. Without exception, Centers view themselves as part of the total system of social services in the community and seek May-June, 1964

to make their facilities and programs available as broadly as possible. Since this is the thinking of the pro fessional leadership in the Center movement today, it is no wonder that these institutions, which were built with the intention of creating a bul wark against inter-marriage, have be come a focal point for intermarriage. URVEYING both the general American scene and the specific Jewish scene, we find congruent move ments with the following characteris tics:

(a) An indifference to the “differen tia” of religious practice within the respective community. (b) An underlying, but masked, an tagonism to the “genera” of the communities’ religious commit ment. (c) A demand for universal recog nition as an “impartial” and “neutral” force based on (a), (d) Finally, acquisition and control of communal institutional ap paratus and the preaching of secularism, not as a bland neu tralism, but militantly, as a new and dominant faith. These parallels hold true in yet an other important aspect—the results. In “cleansing” the public school sys tem of religious influence we see a general moral breakdown of the en tire system, marked by a rising tide of delinquency, lower scholastic stan dards, and a flight to the parochial and private school. Like the master in the fable who taught his horse to go without food by gradually dimin ishing his diet, so are the educators of the public school system achieving their ends by the gradual and com43

plete secularization of the public school. In the fable, the horse unfor tunately died when success was achiev ed! Anyone left with any illusion as to the “objectivity” of the public schools or of most of our schools of higher learning need, but to examine any his tory book or any text touching on the nature of man—psychology, anthro pology or sociology. The Spinozas, Roger Williams’s, Gallileos, Paines, Voltaires are all one hundred percent “good guys.” Ghetto Jews, Puritans, or medieval churchmen are stereo typed as unenlightened and superstiti ous “bad guys,” dwellers in darkness. Every science dealing with man pre supposes a mechanically determined universe. Man is viewed as merely a physio-chemical reactor, conditioned by environment and/or inherited genes, having drives and tensions which must be released. Is it any wonder that youths coming from re ligious homes, thrust into this antireligious environment of the schools, which educators are palming off to the courts as “objective,” become con fused, lose their moral standards and develop into a corrosive leaven in so ciety! Yet the justices who are running interference for these secularist edu cators are themselves sworn to uphold the law— a law which is predicated on a wholly different philosophy of man. The penal law and tort law which the

courts enforce every day are firmly based on the religious conception of man as a responsible, freely acting moral agent, capable of choosing be tween right and wrong. In Jewish life, the toll of accultura tion and secularization as measured by the barometer of intermarriage is soar ing. Except for the Day Schools and those areas where revived Orthodoxy has brought the life-giving touch of Torah, the picture is bleak. To continue to speak of neutralism in regard to a proposition that has a wholly distributed middle is sheer nonsense. Either one believes in G-d or one does not; there is no other al ternative. The answer to this question will definitely pattern one’s life and conduct one way or another. The chal lenge is inescapable. “Neutralism” is merely the Trojan Horse of secular ism. Secularism has its merits and cap able exponents. Let them openly and freely present their case before the bar of public opinion in the general arena and in the Jewish arena, as the neo-pagans that they are, with the candor of their Israeli counterparts— the Canaanites. If their position has any value in the struggle for the re finement of human ideas, they owe those whom they would persuade a greater measure of honesty than to hide behind a mask of “neutralism.”

JEW ISH LIFE

A Poem M y Portion, M y Heritage By LILLIAN OTT

In the sublime words of the ancient trust, A lesson was taught me Which echoes thus: G-d worked on the first day And there was Creation, G-d worked on the second day And there was Creation, And the third day there was Creation Because G-d laboured, And on the fourth day And fifth day And sixth day And then, when Creation was done And His work was finished, G-d rested. But on the morrow, When a first-day returned to reckoning, His spirit was my spirit, His vision was my vision, His breath was my breath, For even though my portion Is but an infinitesimal fraction of G-d’s one day, The labours of all the days of His infinity Are my personal heritage.

May-June, 1964

Order now for yourself your friends

—

your congregation THE UOJCA Fits Info P ocket or Purse

POCKET CALENDAR-DIARY FOR 1964-65/5725 Combines a wealth of Jewish information of every day usefulness. Contains the Jewish and secular calendars, a full daily diary section, explanations of the holidays, candle-lighting times, weekly Torah and Haftorah read ings, Yahrtzeit date record, Tefillath Haderech, Jewish populations of the major cities of the United States and Canada, information on the program of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

HANDSOMELY BOUND IN RED LEATHERETTE UOJCA/84 Fifth Avenue/New York 11, N.Y. M W my order(s) f o r ................ UOJCA Pocket Calendar-Diaries for 1964/65—5725 as follows: .............. individual uninscribed copy at $.75 each .............. individual name gold-stamped at $L00 each .............. inscribed congregational bulk order at $.70 each plus $3.50 per order, (Minimum order, 25 copies.) IMPRINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Send to: N a m e ............................................................................................... A d d r e s s .......... ................................................. ............ .................... C it y .............................................................. , ...........Z o n e ......... .

S t a t e ................................

A ll orders m ust be prepaid.

Orders for in scribed diaries m ust be received by JULY 9 , 196 4 .

JEW ISH LIFE

The Sephardim of Seattle By DAVID ROMEY

A MONG the numerous Sephardic -TjL communities of the United States, the one in Seattle, located in the north western corner of our country, is of special interest because of its distance from the vital Jewish centers of the East and because of its own mystique. In a locale that, in the first years of the community’s formation, must have been more analogous to a frontier situation than that experienced by the other Sephardic groups settling in east ern areas of the country, the Seattle community would have been on its own but for the direction and help offered by the city’s older Ashkenazic community. The relative isolation, dur ing those early years, permitted the community to cultivate and continue its individuality more vigorously and more tenaciously than the Sephardic communities which became established in New York, Rochester, Atlanta, Montgomery, and Atlantic City. Historically, Sephardic communities have always been equated with tradi tional Judaism. Not until recently, when these communities have come of age, so to speak, has the question of identification with a given ideology, orthodox or other, been of enough validity to discuss. Where faint indica tions pf such ruptures have come from some communities in parts of greater New York and Los Angeles, the Seat tle community is not only proudly traMay-June, 1964

ditional but it is building a cadre of young, knowledgeable leaders person ally conversant with the pressures and trends of this contemporary age. Though much has been written about the Sephardim, they continue to be a curiosity to many of their Ashkenazic brethren. This seems to be an interesting barometer of how the image of Sephardic Jewry has fared in the regard of the Jewish world at large. The story of this remnant of Israel, a designation so poignantly applied to itself by the founders of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish com munity of New York, is common to a great number of present-day Sep hardic communities. From zenith to nadir, from one end of the world to the other, from recognition to indif ference, from importance to obscurity, and from a limbo to a reestablishment, the story of the Seattle Sephardic com munity began on the soil of Spain and entered the contemporary scene on the shores of Puget Sound. HUNDRED years or so after the expulsion from Spain in 1492,;* the Jews residing within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire continued to speak Spanish as fluently as, and in some casqs, according to contemporary sources, better than the peninsulares themselves. The remnants that had escaped to the countries of

western Europe, having become more thoroughly integrated into their en vironments, adopted the national lan guages of those countries. Their Span ish was relegated to a few formula expressions or to a few prayers frozen, as it were, in their Spanish idiom and stubbornly kept as such long after the language had passed out of daily use. The awareness of their Spanish background was never forgotten, how ever, by these communities which had settled in the various lands of west ern Europe. Just as it was not for gotten among those who settled in eastern lands. This background was a hallmark of distinguished lineage, yichuth. It made each individual a recipient and a bearer of that illustri ous tradition of Jewish scholarship and secular preeminence in the arts and sciences that flourished in Spain, with varying intensity, from 950 to 1492. Concern with lineage was neither arrogance nor snobbishness. It was primarily an identification with a particular Torah tradition. It was the sum total of all the daily religious observances, whose scope and stress characterized them as Sephardim. Too, the historical fact must be considered that the immigrants came from a na tion that was the first power in all Christendom. For a century and a half Spanish policy, in Europe and the New World, was the arbiter and un disputed authority. Some of this pres tige rubbed off on the refugees that were expelled, by royal cedula, from all the Spanish realms. Even in their miserable situation they still repres ented, as a group, the eminence of Spanish hegemony. In no part were the exiles more welcome than in the Ottoman Empire, 48

the only potent rival of Spain. The door which was opened to the mass of exiles was not opened solely out of humanitarian concern. The Jews from Spain brought to Turkey their language and literature, their highly developed culture, their physicians and scholars. In the power struggle be tween the political giants of that cen tury, Turkey and Spain, the exiles were of immediate value to the Turks. Their knowledge of diplomacy, com merce and science was sorely needed by the Ottoman Empire. ITH the arrest of the political W and territorial aspirations of the Ottoman Empire, the fortunes of the Jewish communities in the East en tered into a period of decline and waning importance. The Levantine communities were in a position that favored retention of their “mother tongue,” as distinct from the liturgical language, Hebrew, always referred to as Lashon Hakodesh. So pervasive were the numbers of the Sephardim into these areas that the Ashkenazic Jews in some of these areas “converted” in language and custom to those of the Sephardim. One city, in particular, became an outstanding and perhaps exceptional example of such an extension of lan guage and influence. This was the city of Salonika at the head of the Aegean Sea. Until it was virtually devastated by the Nazis during the Second World War, Salonika was a focal point of study and culture for the Jews of the Balkans and the eastern Mediterra nean. The current languages of Salonika were Spanish, Greek, Turkish, and Hebrew. The bulk of the adminis trative and social responsibilities, JEW ISH LIFE

along with the commerce and industry characteristic of a port city, were in Jewish hands. Such autonomy and business activity could bring about the abuse of power, but instances of these were few. In keeping with the traditional love of Torah and respect for Talmidey Chachomim, the city bound itself to the decisions of a re ligious nature rendered by the chief rabbi. The extensive Responsa litera ture, Sh’eloth Ut’shuvoth, show that this was a system of long standing. Turkish cities usually had a Hacham Bashi, chief rabbi, whose decisions were binding and recognized by the secular courts of the Empire. The Jews of Salonika were at first often divided, but subsequently they benefited by a long line of capable re ligious and communal leaders. Schol arship was prized, and Salonika boast ed a rich library, some of whose volumes had come from Spain with the refugees. To maintain education the com munity established the Hebrat Talmud Torah, which conducted schools pro viding traditional Torah learning. Not many of the girls had a chance for much formal schooling. The boys, of course, invariably attended the Tal mud Torah. In areas where the Al liance Israelite Universelle had estab lished schools, there was an oppor tunity for all to gain elementary gen eral education. Many of the older generation of today’s Sephardic com munities owe the basic part of their education to these Alliance schools. Trade, commerce, and industry sup ported all the internal communal activity. The Jews, while becoming Turkey’s middle class, were much engaged in manual labor. They were farmers, artisans, oildealers, cheesemakers, preparers of salt fish, textile May-June, 1964

vendors, and makers of wine. Though they lived in their section of the city by design and necessity, their com merce extended far and wide. In the Greek islands, the Jews were often involved with the making of wine, while many of the women spent endless hours crocheting exquisite lacework that was exported to the mainland. With time, certain centers of Tur kish Jewry achieved some degree of distinction. These reputations became somewhat legendary because they en tered into the mainstream of common speech. In the same way in which Cyprus was famed for its wine, yen kafrisin, and Smyrna, for its figs, it was said that the island of Rhodes was a miniature Jerusalem, chuchuk yerushalaim, that Indirme produced the better chazonim, that Istanbul had the glibbest tongues and the most enter prising business men, and that the in terior towns of the Balkans had the edge in stubbornness. N retrospect, one might say that the hiost adventuresome members of all the Turkish communities were the Marmaralis, those who lived on the small island of Marmara, in the sea which crowds into the Bosphorus. For it was a handful of Marmaralis who started the Seattle Sephardic communi ty. They were its pioneers. Theÿ had heard of that faraway place in Ame rica from Greek friends who had been there. On the recommendations of these Greek friends, Mesârs. David Levy, Jack Policar, and Solomon Calvo, alehem hasholom, travelled to that edge of the world, found it to be as scenic and as pleasant a place as their own island, and decided it to be a good place in which to raise a fami ly. These men were followed in rapid

succession by Mr. Nessim Alhadeff, who in a few years became somewhat of a paterfamilias to the growing com munity. He was the main reason for the settling in Seattle of his family and other friends from the island of Rhodes. In this manner, through per sonal recommendation, through the recommendations of friends, and through the desire of the young bachelors to marry girls from back home, the Seattle community quickly grew, absorbing people from all areas of the Levant. Though many of those localities had differing customs, they had so many more things in common that the “family” bond was something person ally felt. The community of those ear ly years felt and practiced a unity as

sincere as it was unique. Mrs. Dora Cohen will always be remembered as the woman whose skill, tact, and warmth guided and helped the com munity in those most difficult early years. Her example will ever serve as an inspiration just as it has been, and is, a matter of pride for the Seattle community. In the teen years of this century, the Seattle community had grown large enough to afford itself the luxury of division. Depending to a large de gree on the city of origin, the com munity grouped itself into a congrega tion of Rhodeslis and a congregation of Tekirdalis. A third group, the Marmarlis, maintained a small synagogue for many years until it became neces sary to merge with the Tekirdalis.

LITURGY, LEXICON, AND KITCHEN HE city of Seattle now boasts of Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, and T two vibrant Sephardic congrega New York. This vital scholastic link tions. One is the Ezra Bessaroth, which with the eastern centers is the result continues the customs of the island of Rhodes. The other is the Sephardic Bikur Holim, which preserves the cus toms of the Levantine mainland. Though the Seattle community is the third largest concentration of Sephar dim in the United States, it does not seem any exaggeration to say that it is probably in first position as a vi brant and active traditional communi ty. It has produced two rabbis, one of whom, Rabbi Solomon Maimon, has been the rabbi of the Sephardic Bikur Holim for twenty years. The second rabbi is Rabbi Maimon’s nephew, Rabbi Chaim Benoliel, now of Bensonhurst. Showing that the scholarly tradition is firmly established, the Seat tle community has sent students, since the forties, to the major yeshivoth in

of an excellent rapport and continuous cooperation between the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities of the city. The two sister congregations of the Seattle Sephardic community each have close to 250 member families. In both congregations there is a devoted nucleus of regular Sabbath worship pers, approximately seventy-five at the Ezra Bessaroth synagogue and some 125 at Sephardic Bikur Holim. Among these, not all are fully Shomrey Shabboth. In common cause the two syna gogues run a joint three days-per-week religious school. Registration in the school is about 180. Parents who want their children to have a more inten sive and basic Jewish as well as secular JEW ISH LIFE

education send their children to the Seattle Hebrew Day School. The Sephardic community of Seattle sends fifty of its boys and girls to the He brew Day School, a high percentage of the student body when one con siders the proportion of the Sephardic to the Ashkenazic population of Seat tle. Kashruth is the responsibility of the community, and the Jewish communi ty of Seattle carries out its commit ments with a united front. The three kosher butcher shops of the city, how ever, are all Sephardic, in personnel and ownership. Interesting, too, is the fact that all t|ie butchers are mem bers of the same synagogue, Rabbi Maimon’s. Even as members of the same fami ly have individual personalities, the two Seattle Sephardic congregations, which are so similar in so many ways, do have their unique characteristics. These are differences of degree. In the overall picture the differences are significantly minor; but inter-familia they are of sufficient substance to fur nish the gist of friendly jibes whose point can only be appreciated, or en joyed, by the initiate. 1 11HE interesting peculiarities of the

l sister congregations and those which give each of them its colorful profile are found in the liturgy, in the lexicon, and in the kitchen. There surely are several explanations for these differences, many of which are due to linguistic and geographical en vironment. In the area of liturgy, one variation which comes to mind is the sequence of the reading of the Bame Madlikin, at the Kabolath Shabboth service. The custom in the S.B.H. is to read it be fore beginning the Lechu Neranenah May-June, 1964

and the ensuing psalms of the Kabo lath Shaboth. The E.B. reads it after the Lechu Neranenah. In this respect, the E.B. follows the same order as that of the Spanish-Portuguese ritual. The cantillation of the prayers is almost the same, yet different enough to be readily identifiable by any mem ber conversant with the synagogue prayers. If this difference could be referred to as one of “melgdy,” each congregant would consider his pizmonim or piyutim, for instance, to be the more melodious; and each would be correct, since the criterion for melo dy is a subjective one. The cantillation is aptly characterized as having an oriental waver or being melismatic. This is true of all the Sephardic litur gy in the communities having origin in the Levant. By contrast, the liturgy of the Spanish-Portuguese synagogues can be characterized as having some what more of an overall western tone. Some of the choral and responsive readings of the Spanish-Portuguese synagogues are reminiscent of Gregor ian chants. Of linguistic interest are the varia tions in the Ladino spoken in the community. These are variations of intonation and vowel timbre. These same variations have their exact coun terparts in the Hispanic world at large, and in the Iberian peninsula specifical ly. As similar as these variations may be to contemporary linguistic habits of the Latin world, it is only with Spain and its speech variations that, historically, a correct comparison can be made. A tendency which will be most emphatically denied by the speak ers of this community is the ever so slight nasalization of final vowels. Professor Navarro Tomás has pointed out that such a slight nasalization of 5I

The only Gefilte almost as good

in 3 tasty varieties Succulent fresh-water fish simmered in the same s-l-o-w, time-honored way. Careful blending, subtle spicing, and meticulous preparation makes MOTHER’S the glorious gefilte fish to highlight every meal, whether it’s a quick snack or a leisurely feast. From the Spotless Kitchens of Mother’s Food Products, Inc., Newark 5, N. J. Going to the N.Y. World's Fair?

Enjoy M other’s G efilte Fish, Borscht, and Schav —deliciously served in the exciting Hall of Ed ucation, Kosher Food Serving Center. Unisphere®

», (UsS) United States Steel © m i n. w Y«,k w o . i< r . im a m s ’ crpor*«».

final vowels can and does occur in peninsular pronunciation. The nasali zation, however, is in no way as evi dent as that of French, and perhaps that is why the speakers themselves do not hear it nor recognize it. Far more obvious is the pronun ciation of the final o’s (-o) as a u; e.g. todo sounds like todu and queso, like quesu. This elevation of the final o (-o) to a u (-u) is characteristic of E.B. members. Spanish dialectologists have noted that this is a speech pat tern found in the eastern and northern provinces of Spain. Other linguistic archaisms that exist in sporadic fashion in the commu nity’s Ladino, and which are of in tense interest to philologists and pho neticians are: 1) the rentention of the Latin initial f in such words as: fasta-hasta (until), fadas (fates), fierro (iron). 2) the retention of the voiced and unvoiced Old Spanish sibilants, which are represented in mod ern Spanish by the letters j and x, as in Mexico. In modern Spanish the old sounds have merged into an aspiration. NE of the more delicious aspects, literally speaking, of the Seattle Sephardic community is its unique, oriental-flavored cuisine. Anyone who has a gastronomic curiosity and who is willing or daring enough to indulge it, will enjoy dishes whose taste will rarely be excelled and whose piquancy will ever be a gourmet’s delight. It has pastries and dishes in common with Spanish, Greek, and Turkish cookery, but it has changed them to conform with the dietary laws and thus has given them its personal dis tinction. Take, for example, baklava,

May-June, 1964

a delicate pastry of thin dough and nut meats. It was once exotic enough to be known only to the cognoscenti. Now any restaurant with a name that hints of a geographical affiliation with areas along the Mediterranean to the Near East will regularly feature ba klava on its sweet table. The Greek and Syrian baklava is made with rich quantities of butter. The Sephardic baklava, more often called dibla, is made only with oil to keep it a pareve dessert. This alone makes for a noticeably different taste. One other feature that makes the dibla so much a flavorable treat is the way in which the pastry is built up by hundreds of paper-thin layers of fila dough, each one divided by a dense but thin layer of nut meats until it has reached a height from one to two inches. A far less ornate pastry, but one which is much more common and used for almost any occasion, is the panderica, the closest thing, lehavdil, the Sephardim have to a pretzel. The panderica is made of yeast dough, rolled, twirled into three loops, and baked. It is then toasted by capable hands until it has reached a point *where it is neither soft nor hard. The panderica is usually semisweet, coated with toasted sesame seeds. The art of baking pandericas, and it is an art, seems to be the province of the E.B. members. They excel in it, and they are renowned for their teaching of this skill to the other members of the community. Deservedly highly praised, too, are their pasta dishes, the enreinade dishes, and the meat pastries, pastelicos and dedicos, to name the first two that come to mind. What is surprising is that even with changing conditions that are so er53

rosive on communal cohesion in our United States, so many of these ex quisite recipes have been preserved in situ. In the culinary arena we find the sharpest delineation of the difference between Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities. The Sephardic counter part of gefilte fish is pexcado cocho, where, in essence, the only similarity is that both dishes center on fish. The pexado cocho cooked for the Sabbath meal can be made with a variety of sauces; egg and lemon (Greek style), tomato and lemon* | agra “green grapes/’ rhubarb or avramila “green plums.” Each of these sauces is a de light. The fish is boiled in the sauce and usually served cold. The recipe, deceptively simple, is not enough to assure success. The elusive combina tion of experience plus a dash of the Shabboth spice and know-how is what makes this dish the one that fittingly ushers in the royal repast. On the following morning, after the services, the Sephardic family sits down to a breakfast that is as expan sive and filling as a meal. They call

it desayuno. In modern Spanish desay uno simply means breakfast, but in Ladino this word is used almost exclusively for the Shabboth and Moed breakfasts; and, by extension, the word is applied specifically to the varieties of cheese pastry especially baked for these mornings. Borekas, hoy os, bulemas, using as filling de licious cheese mixtures of potato, onion, eggplant, or spinach, have their exotic counterparts in Greek and Tur kish pastry. The carefully prepared hard-boiled eggs are always on the table along with yoghurt or sour cream. The sour cream is evidence of the most recent influence on the Sep hardic menu, the Ashkenazic. Together with the sour cream has come the introduction to bagels, blintzes, homontashen, rye and pumpernickel bread, and even chopped liver. With all of the new additions, the Sephar dic cuisine continues to be aromatic and exotically itself. It is an invita tion, one of many, to a deeper knowl edge of and a familiarization with the Sephardic communities in the various states of our country.

TRENDS

the more widely known. New York’s community is unique and requires a study all to itself. The Rochester Sephardic communi ty was described within the context of the overall Jewish community in the very interesting published dissertation of Dr. Stuart Rosenberg. In miniature it reflects the beginnings and expan sion of other such communities. Ac cording to Dr. Rosenberg, the first Sephardim made their appearance in Rochester in 1906. They spoke Tur kish and Ladino. Because of language

JEW ISH LIFE

UST as the Seattle community grew rapidly from the unrestricted Im migration of the early 1900’s, so did the other Sephardic communities in crease in number. The Portland, Ore gon Sephardic group was an offshoot of the Seattle community. The com munity of Sephardim in Los Angeles received many families from Seattle, too. Among Levantine Sephardic communities in other sections of the U.S. are those in Rochester, New York, Atlanta, Georgia, and Mont gomery, Alabama, to name some of

barrier and differing customs this minyon of bachelors—for only later did they bring in the womenfolk— kept much to itself. Dr. Rosenberg calls this cohesion a “strong inner group sentiment.” In this instance, too, the established Ashkenazic community gave them immediate assistance. In 1916 a Sephardic youth married a Russian Jewish girl. There was great consternation in the community. Sub sequently, as in other communities, this became a frequent occurence and stirred no more comment. In one para graph a brief description of the com munity reads, . . . while mosj of the early arrivals worked as tailors, as the years went on, others became small shop owners, grocers, and vegetable and fruit deal ers. In 1925 they had not begun to 'move out of the neighborhood of their first settlement . . . It was not until ten years later that a few busi nessmen began to move to the north eastern parts of the city. By that time, however, outmarriage was al ready a much more common thing, and the solidarity of the Sephardic community was showing signs of weakening.* In much the same manner, the first arrivals in the Seattle Sephardic com munity worked in whatever employ ment was available. Fish and produce were two profitable areas of industry in which Sephardim soon showed in terest and talent. Until the first gen eration came of age, there was no one in the professions. The men work ed in small shops, shoe stands, gro ceries, and manual labor. Some work ed as longshoremen, tailors, barbers, and butchers. A few old-country * Rosenberg, Stuart E., The Jewish Community in Rochester 1843-1925, (New York, 1954) pp. 186-188.

May-June, 1964

touches survived in the Jewish coffee house and the Jewish candy maker, whose busiest season was the week of Purim. As the first generation com pleted its schooling some graduates en tered the professional schools. Today the Seattle Sephardic community is well represented in the fields of law, science, medicine, engineering, and education. HE communal cohesion is no longer the same. Ladino has al most been lost to much of the present and younger generation. The world has intruded visibly. Influences of urban America and its social mores have shown their mark on the community. Many, lured by the call of an “enlight ened” world, have left, whether out of conviction or persuasion, to find ac ceptance in a world of no differences, no minorities, and no “outmoded” re ligious obligations— a world that does not exist. Their inability to identfy with the community has been our loss, too. But now, as more sophisticated education emphasized intrinsic cultu ral values, as the interest of folklorists has centered on picturesque back ground, as the focus of civil rights touches upon the minority question, a reassessment is bringing a firm stab ilization to the community. As the Seattle Sephardic community con tinues to build and prosper, the Ladino will most probably disappear, the cuisine will generalize, the ties with the Ashkenazic community and the nation will multiply as more and more students receive higher Jewish educa tion in the East, but in the synagogue and in the home this Seattle communi ty will, b’ezrath Hashem, continue to enjoy its Sephardic traditions far into the future.

Just Published AN INSPIRATIONAL BOOK OF PERMANENT VALUE

A BOOK OF JEWISH CONCEPTS by Philip Bimbaum This book is written for those who want an up-to-date and easily intelligible account of basic Jewish concepts, a knowledge of which brings meaning to what may otherwise be empty phrases. The purpose of this work is to provide in a single handy volume the essential teachings of Judaism. Encyclopedic in scope and compact in content, easy to consult and convenient to use, this book has been designed not only for rabbis, teachers and students, but also for laymen who are interested in the uni versal message of Judaism. It is written throughout in a non-technical and simple style. We are convinced that Dr. Birnbaum’s A Book of Jewish Concepts, like all his works, will have a wide popular appeal by reason of its conciseness, ex tent, accuracy of information, scholarly simplicity and attractiveness. Beautifully printed in an attractive binding ■ — $6.95 HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY NEW YORK, N.Y.

YOUNG ISRAEL CAMP SHOR AURORA, INDIANA The Midwest Summer Camp dedicated to the advancement of tradi tional Jewish values — on Indiana’s rolling plains overlooking the Ohio River — thirty miles from Cincinnati. For BOYS and GIRLS ages 6— 14 Sabbath & Dietary Laws Strictly Observed CAMP SHOR provides luxury facilities under professional management 0 0 at in stitutional prices — luxury filtered pool . . . complete land and water sports program . . . regulation tennis courts . . . arts and crafts . . . and cultural and Hebrew-speaking programs . . . mature and dedicated staff . . . THREE SESSIONS: RATES: July 5 — August 2 4 weeks — $210.00, , August 2 ■— August 23 3 weeks — $155.00 July 5 — August 23 7 weeks — $350.00 Special discount for second child in family For information and literature write or call:

S f r StCni

YOUNG ISRAEL CA M P SHOR

Head Counselor

14141 Cedar Road, South Euclid, Ohio 44121 EY. 2-5740; Shubert Spero, Rabbi 56

JEW ISH LIFE

L e tte r s to th e E d ito r ON "TORAH YESHARAH " Brooklyn, N. Y. As the author of “Torah Yesharah,” the subject of a recent article in J e w ish L i f e , (Jan.-Feb. 1964/5724) en titled: “Another New Torah Transla tion: Some Observations,” permit me to add some observations of my own to those of the reviewer, Rabbi Isaac L. Swift. Somewhat in the manner of the “meraglim” of Moses’ time, Rabbi Swift began his review by heaping rather fulsome praises upon both T. Y. and its author. However, having made me blush with flattered embarrassment, Rabbi Swift now turns to the inevitable criticism. I will not delve into the unimpor tant criticism of the technical mis prints (let it be remembered that this was a work that had no lavish founda tion grants behind it.) Nor will I, moire than briefly, touch upon the superficial criticisms concerning the basic translation itself. Thus, the re viewer criticizes the departure from the translation in Genesis 7:1 of Hashem as the Merciful Eternal. If the reviewer had lookd into Ramban he would have understood that the May-June, 1964

change was necessary in order to con trast the attribute of Justice which Hashem evidenced toward the sinners and the attribute of Mercy toward Noah. Again, if the reviewer had read Rashi’s comment that the “man” who wrestled with Jacob was Esau’s angel, he would have been spared the fear that “Torah Yesharah” in Genesis 32:29 incites hatred against the Jew... All this is relatively T. Y.’s failure to follow the esthetics and sophistica tion of twentieth century culture. Thus, because of certain imperfec tions in style, T.Y. not only falls from its pedestal, but horrors, becomes “a disservice to orthodoxy!” It is this charge which I consider to be a truly serious flaw, but not as much in T. Y. as in the thinking of the reviewer. For, to him, it is ap parently not of great importance that our English-speaking brethren be taught that the “first day” in Exodus 12:15 really means “on the day pre ceding the festival” and that con sequently the removal of the Chometz is to be done prior to the first day of Passover. Likewise, it appears that a translation which tells the uninformed Jew of the prohibition of mixing meat with milk (which T.Y. mentions twice in the first volume and once in the 57

Reprints

Now Available

Our readers will appreciate knowing that reprints are now available of the following articles and editorials from previous issues of JEW ISH LIFE. THE M ISSIO N A R Y M EN A C E IN ISRAEL (Editorial) THE JEWS A N D THE E C U M EN IC A L C O U N C IL By Rabbi Norman Lamm THE EC U M EN IC A L C O U N C IL: THEIR PROBLEMS A N D OURS By Dr. Justin Hofmann THE JEW ISH ATTITUDE TOW ARD FAMILY PLA N N IN G By Dr. Moses Tendler C A N W E NEGLECT THE TALMUD T O RAH ? By Zalman Diskind W H A T DOES JEW ISH YOUTH REALLY W ANT? By Rabbi Pinchas Stolper PRAYER IN PUBLIC S C H O O L S* ( Editorial) JEW ISH IDENTIFICATION A N D THE SUPREME COURT D E C ISIO N * By Reuben E. Gross C H U R C H — STATE: REEVALUATION OR RATIO NALIZATIO N ?* By Herbert Berman (* These are included in one pamphlet.)

These reprints may be used to much advantage by study and discussion groups, as well as for distribution for public information purposes to people in your local areas. All reprints are 15 cents per copy; 10 cents per copy when 25 or more are ordered. Use order form below. Prepaid orders only, please

JEW ISH LIFE, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York II, New York Please send ......... copies of .............. ..................... ........... send ......... copies of .......................................................... . NAME: ...................................... ......................... ..... .................... ADDRESS: ...................................................................................... CITY:..... ............. ZO N E:.......... STATE:.............. C H E C K ENCLOSED: $.

JEW ISH LIFE

second) is not really a vitally needed thing. On the contrary, let us rather have the J.P.S. “Torah” with its proper outer garb, since T.Y., with its unique revelations, is a disservice to Orthodoxy. What the reviewer apparently sees as the answer to the strengthening of Orthodoxy is elegance of language, literary grace, and sophisticated style. Anything less than this—no matter how important its subject matter—is a disservice. There is of course, a Talmudic legend which gives us quite the con trary viewpoint. In Sabbath 89, the Sages tell us of the dispute between Moses and the angels at the time of the giving of the Torah. The angels pleaded with the Almighty to leave them the Torah. “Tenah hodcha al hashomayim,” they cried, “Set Thy glory upon the heavens.” The angels considered the Torah to be “Hodcha” ¿h a glory, an elegant literary book clothed in elegant lan guage. Moses, however, pointedly asked them: Will the Torah help you to live according to the Halochah ? Will it add to your ethical life? T.Y. speaks to the “Shool Jew” who does not bring a dictionary to the synagogue in order to search out a literary expression during the reading of the Torah. It is written in a lan guage simple and understandable to all. It speaks to the “Shool Yid;” to those who attend adult Chumosh classes; to the Hebrew school teacher in preparing his lessons. It is written so that the student will be able to answer the Bible critic. The attire of the bride's dress may not be according to the Parisian, Hol lywood, or New York fashion. But, I am sure that our people prefer May-June, 1964

modest and decent raiment for our Torah. I imagine that when the Onkelos translation reached Alexandria and Antioch, the orthodox intellectuals called it “Onkelos Hager ” it speaks with a foreign accent . . . it is out dated and outlandish. Nonetheless, the Jewish masses ac cepted it and it became a part of the divine Jewish literature. T.Y. may be a disservice to that Orthodoxy which stresses the overrid ing importance of being a Western Jew. I believe it is, however, a dis tinct service to collective, traditional Judaism, to the Jew who is interested in knowing that the Oral Law is in deed found in the Written Torah. In short, it aims at all Jews, in all ages, within all civilizations. Rabbi Charles Kahane New York, N. Y. With reference to Rabbi Isaac L. Swift’s review of “Torah Yesharah,” the eighth commandment is: You Shall N ot Kidnap (Sanhedrin 86). “Steal,” “cheat,” “embezzle,” “forge,” or “deceive” in no way convey this idea for which one is guilty with one’s life. It seems strange that Rabbi Swift completely omits any comment concerning this gross “mis interpretation of tradition.” Leslie L. Weis Rabbi Swift replies: (To Mr. Weis) Rabbi Kahane is in the good com pany of Ibn Ezra and Sforno in ren dering the Eighth Commandment as he does, except that they do very properly add the Talmudic interpreta tion forbidding abduction, while Rabbi Kahane does not. His is therefore less 59

SUKKAH PREFABRICATED

Will Accommodate 10 Shipped Anywhere PRICE

$102

Write for Brochure TRADITIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSN. 33 W. 42nd St., BR 9-1539 New York 36, N.Y. Inquiries invited from

individuals, and from fund raising committees of synagogues and yeshivos regarding prospective

shomer shabbos community, shomer shabbos hotel, dormitory mesivta — yeshiva, and camp to be developed at a lovely lake on 500 acres on top of the Pocono Mountains at

R A M O T LAK ES, L ong P o n d , Pennsylvania. For information write to: Louis Fisch, 152 W. 42nd St., N.Y.C.

Freyda Fisch, 1571 Sterling PL,

HELP STOP DEATH ON THE HIGHWAY

WHERE TRAFFIC LAWS ARE OBEYED

MATHSGODOWN! SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SAFETY ORGANIZATION Published as a public service in cooperation with The Advertising Council

Gold's HORSERADISH

'tòOitr IJR

piifjM

INTERIORS I SYNAGOGUES

Brooklyn, N.Y. Rabbi Zev Litenatsky, 1480 Edgecliff, Ottawa, Canada

ALBERT WOOD & FIVE SONS.« PORT WASHINGTON l/l- NEW YORK

a fault of commission than of ommission—serious enough, it is true. As to my silence on the m atter in my comments on ‘‘Torah Yesharah,” it was no part of my purpose to make any kind of catalogue of all the pas sages with which we may have cause to disagree, but rather to call atten tion to some specimen renderings which offend for one reason or an other.

tion to the latter to have been at the time of its appearance, its severest critic then and since would not hesi tate to concede that it was rendered in an Aramaic as flawless as any spoken or written at the time. I could wish that the same might be said of the English in which “Torah Yesha rah” is written.

(To Rabbi Kahane) To reply item by item to the points raised in Rabbi Kahane’s rather in coherent letter is to abuse the hos pitality of these columns, the more so as he makes reference to some pas sages which were not even mentioned in the article to which he takes under standable exception. My chief complaint against “Torah Yesharah” is that if it does indeed “speak to the shool yidden,” those whom it addresses do not include the highly important elements whom we would wish to see and whom we need to see in their ranks. Are we to ig nore, for example, the growing num bers of college students and graduates to whom elegance of language does matter, and who are repelled by poor grammar and shoddy prose ? The Oral Law is in truth embedded in the Written Torah—must we dim the lus tre of that truth with clumsiness of language and inelegance of style? Or do we not owe it alike to the Torah and to a new generation of potential fShool Yidden” to convey that im perishable truth in a manner that will satisfy even the most fastidious among them? Rabbi Kahane shows a surprising want of modesty in comparing his version with the Onkelos translation. Whatever he may imagine the reac-

Sheboygan, Wisconsin Your editorial in the March-April issue of J e w is h L if e seems to show a disregard for Jewish unity and for honest, differing views. In fact, by its language and slant, the editorial plays directly into the hands of the ex tremists in both camps. (Strangely, the editorial was followed by the sane and fair article by Dr. Jos. Gold schmidt, on essentially the same issue.) You must realize that many ideol ogically non-Orthodox are fully ob servant Jews. They believe deeply in the sanctity of Jewish tradition, and they seek maximum cooperation with all who genuinely seek the perpetua tion of Judaism as a religious way of life. However, intellectually, they are critical and non-dogmatic, and they believe that G-d reveals Himself through the process of time. Their non-acceptance of the Orthodox ap proach is due not to perversity or to the pursuit of the path of least re sistance, but to intellectual and spirit ual needs. To compel them (through non-recognition and disrespect) to live contrary to their convictions is to foster a cynical hypocrisy or spiritual apathy (as happened in monolithic countries, religious as well as po litical.)

May-June, 1964

"SEVEN-STAR PERFORMANCE"

for an unequalled experience in Torah Living— we invite teenagers to attend an exciting and unforgettable convention weekend at the eleventh annual

N A T IO N A L C O N V E N T IO N AND

L E A D E R S S E M IN A R OF THE

N A T IO N A L C O N FE R E N C E O F S Y N A G O G U E Y O U T H OF THE U N IO N OF O R T H O D O X JEW ISH C O N G R E G A T IO N S OF A M E R IC A

N A T IO N A L C O N V E N T IO N — Thursday, June 25 thru Sun day, June 28, 1964— $46.50 LEADER S S E M IN A R

— Sunday, June 28 thru Tuesday June 30, 1964 — $24.00

at the Pine View Hotel, Fallsburg, New York A N EXCITING RELIGIOUS, SO C IA L A N D EDUCATIONAL EXPERI ENCE FOR SELECT TEENAGERS. A N NEW

FRIENDS. THE PR O G RAM

OPPORTUNITY TO M AKE

INCLUDES TORAH SEMINARS,

W O R KSH O PS A N D DISCUSSIO NS, N C SY TIONS,

ISRAELI

S IN G IN G

AND

BUSINESS A N D ELEC

D A N C IN G ,

TALENT

SHO W ,

PROM INENT GUESTS, YOUTH SERVICES, SO C IA L A N D RECREA TIONAL

ACTIVITIES,

O U TSTANDING

INSTRUMENTALISTS

AND

ENTERTAINMENT, AW ARDS, CONTESTS, S W IM M IN G LEADERSHIP A N D SKILL SESSIONS. THE FEE INCLUDES ALL EVENTS, TOP © HOTEL

FACILITIES,

MEALS,

FOR A P P L IC A T IO N S A N D

GRATUITIES,

AND

MATERIALS.

A D D IT IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N

W RIT E

N A T IO N A L C O N F E R E N C E O F S Y N A G O G U E Y O U T H E IG H T Y -F O U R FIFT H A V E N U E N E W Y O RK 11. N E W Y O RK

JEW ISH LIFE

You describe the writers of the let ter to Prime Minister Eshkol as being afflicted with “self-degradation and self-d estru ctio n ,and with an “an tipathy to r$al Judaism.” You say that their words express “falsehood and distortion . . . that seems a dis tillation of hate literature—with an added ingredient—‘mesirah.’ ” This small sample of your descriptive ter minology for those who turned to the leader of Israel, because they were unable to obtain a respectful hearing from the official religious leadership, leads this reader to ask you. What alternative, effective course would you have suggested (aside from inaction) ? Why does their action (as a last re sort) differ from the alliances of the religious party with the non-religious ? Persons of good faith who differ should be able to find an amicable and mutually respectful way to achieve a modus vivendi. Israel allows freedom to its non-Jewish citizens; why not to its religious non-conformists ? Of course, marriage and gittin do present a serious problem for those who seek the integrity of the halochah as well as the unity of the Jewish people. But the problem could be solved more fairly and effectively through mutual respect and recognition of respective rights than through insistence on one’s sole possession of the truth. Rabbi Nathan A. Barack The Editor Comments: Characteristically, the foregoing let ter directs the charge of disregard for Jewish unity not at the blatantly divisive action of the presidents of the seven non-orthodox organizations but at our editorial, which took issue with this action. This is a case, familiar in issues between orthodox and non-orMay-June, 1964

thodox Jews, of the attacked rather than the attacker being held the of fender. It is saddening to find defense of those who demand free reign in Israel for sh’mad agencies coupled with as sertion of deep belief in the sanctity of Jewish tradition and concern for the perpetuation of Judaism. No less saddening is it to find the action of the seven presidents equated with “al liance of the religious party with the non-religious.” Into what a quag mire of moral confusion have fallen those who can justify alliance of Jew with anti-Jew on the precedent of al liance of religious with non-religious Jew. Our “descriptive terminology” de rived from the nature of the case. The character of the seven presidents’ missive is such that candid appraisal necessarily entails such terminology. Non-recognition and disrespect do not, of themselves, compel anyone to live contrary to his convictions. Nor is it apparent, from this letter, how the supposed compulsion manifests it self in the relations between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews. In fact, there is simply no warrant for this charge. If the seven presidents did not ob tain “a respectful hearing from the official religious leadership,” the rea son, without doubt, is that they did not seek one. Israel’s “religious non-conformists” have no less freedom than any other Israelis. They may personally profess, practice, and propagate such beliefs and observances-—or non-observances —as they wish, subject only, as is everyone everywhere, to the require ments of public law. What basically troubles the writer of the above letter, it seems, is the fact that Israel’s laws 63

with respect to Jewish religious rights in given areas of public life and mat ters of personal status such as mar riage and divorce do not apply to heterodox creeds, which Israelis at large do not recognize as the Jewish religion. Since Israelis are not disposed to voluntarily change their convictions in this regard, attempts are being made, through such means as are reflected in the missive of the seven presidents, to compel a change through external, grossly unscrupulous pressure. What, we are asked, is the proper alternative to such an unsavory tactic for the “ideologically non-orthodox?” One is moved to say, first of all: re consider the message of Jewish history and reckon with the havoc which achievement of their purposes would wreak among Israel Jewry—and then, in good Jewish conscience, have the courage to change course accordingly. Failing this, the only morally ten able alternative is to seek to con vince Israelis—honestly, without dis simulation—that the laws pertaining to the status of the Jewish religion should be repealed or changed; that is, that Israel should (chas v’sholom), no longer be the Jewish State but simply a state of Jews. New York, N.Y. Some time ago, a non-Jewish friend of mine who was reading J e w is h L if e , questioned me about the G-d which has come to be used recently in the various publications of the Union. He felt that it might unfortunately be misinterpreted, and the “d” might be taken to indicate the first letter of “damn.” Recently, I am told that at least 64

one well-known Orthodox Rabbi feels that this procedure does not make sense, and has no foundation in Jew ish Law. Perhaps you would print this letter, and obtain informed opinion and re action. Dr. Samuel Nirenstein [Even though some authorities in Jew ish law do permit the writing in full of the name of the Almighty, in the vernac ular, nevertheless we refrain from doing so where it is not used for prayer or any other sacred purpose, but just as a for mality. Some authorities consider the lat ter practice a definite obligation. Apropos of this question is the following excerpt from testimony given by Moses I. Feuerstein, President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, at a recent hearing before the Judiciary Com mittee of the House of Representatives on the proposed Becker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The remarks quoted were made in response to ques tions by Committee members on the written statement submitted in behalf of the UOJCA: Rep. Johnson: “I notice in your state ment, for example, in the second para graph of your resolution, the ‘o’ is left out of the word ‘G-d.’ Is there a reason for that?” Mr. Feuerstein; “Yes, because the in terpretation of our Sages of ‘Thou shalt not mention the name of G-d in vain’ has tended to make us very careful of the use of the name of the Almighty, and in every case where we do use His name, to try to infer the need for restraint. And we do this by the dash in the middle and that reminds us that we are dealing with a sanctity*” —Editor] JEW ISH LIFE

■

H i

I ”

Say “ess” or “eat"— either is absolutely good advice when you’re talking about Buitoni Spaghetti. Your family will love the flavor, especially when you serve it with hearty Buitoni Marinara Sauce. (Both are © K osh e r and Pareve, of course.) And you’ll be secure in the knowledge that the meal is just as nutritious as it is delicious. You see, Buitoni Spaghetti is highest in protein, lowest in starch of all leading brands tested! Such a “tahm”!

BUltOMl

ItJNBWH (S a y B E W -T O N l as in B eauty)

M HRa

The © seal of approval of THE UNION OF ORTHO DOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AM ERICA is on more than forty Heinz Varieties, including Heinz Vegetarian Beans, six Heinz Soups (Vegetarian Vegetable, Tomato, Tomato with Rice, Cream of Mushroom, Cream of Pea, Cream of Celery), Heinz Tomato Ketchup and many others.

H .J. HEINZ COMPANY