Jewish Life May-June 1965 by Jewish Action

TH E N E W E D U C A T IO N LAW A N D C H U R C H -ST A T E R E L A T IO N S TH E P R O B L E M O F C O N V E R S IO N T O D A Y • H E LL O , F R A N K F U R T C H A N G IN G ATTITU DES T O W A R D S JE W IS H E D U C A T IO N F O R W O M E N TH E VULG ARIZATIO N O F TH E A M ER IC A N J E W IS H COMM UNITY • A JE W IS H A P P R O A C H TO JU V E N IL E D E L IN Q U E N C Y • M A N C H E ST E R ’S J O H N R Y L A N D S LIBR A R Y IYAR-SIVAN, 5725 M AY-JUNE, 1965

CARE .

the bridge. . . of friendship is still open

One of the best and most appreciated gifts for any needy family in Israel is still a $10 kosher CARE food package. Non-profit CARE puts the best possible value into its food packages. Also available is a special Israel Family Food package at $18.25. Or you may assist a needy Jewish family in Italy and Berlin with the gift of a standard kosher $10 package. All deliveries are guaranteed by CARE. Mail your orders today! ©

All CARE Kosher food packages supervised and endorsed by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

600 First Avenue C A R E New York 16, N.Y. or

anylocal office of HIAS, a CARE member agency

Vol. XXXII, No. 4/May-June 1 9 6 5 /lyar-Sivan 5725

let^isli

J l i f tem -

Saul B ernstein , Editor R abbi S. J. Sharfman L ibby K laperman P aul H. Baris Editorial Associates G abrielle R iback Editorial Assistant JEWISH LIFE is published bi-monthly. Subscription two years $4.50, three years $6.00, four years $7.50. Foreign: Add 25 cents per year. Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York 10011, N. Y. ALgonquin 5-4100 Published by U nion of O rthodox J ewish C ongregations of A merica M oses I. F euerstein President

ÎT 3

EDITORIALS THE ASPCA BILL: PIVOTAL ISSUE FOR SHECHITAH DEFENSE ............................................ 3

ARTICLES THE PROBLEM OF CONVERSION TODAY/ Melech Schachter . ......................................................... 7 HELLO, FRANKFURT/Ursula L e h m an n ........................... 19 THE NEW EDUCATION BILL AND CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS/William B ric k m a n .....................................22 THE VULGARIZATION OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY/Harry L o e w y ............................................38 CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARDS JEWISH EDUCATION FOR WOMEN/Raphael S. Weinberg . .4 2 A JEWISH APPROACH TO JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ Justin H o fm a n n ................................................................. 52 TRAGEDY ON THE HIGH SEAS— AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT/Arbie O re n s te in ............................................57 MANCHESTER’S JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY/ Harry Rabinowicz ............................................................ 61

B e n ja m in K o e n ig s b e r g , Nathan K. Gross, Harold M. Jacobs, Joseph Karasick, Harold H. Boxer, Vice Pres idents; J o e l S c h n e ie r s o n , Treasurer; Herzl Rosenson, Secretary; David Politi, Fi nancial Secretary.

AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS.............. ............................ 2

Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President

LETTERS TO THE E D IT O R ...................................................71

DEPARTMENTS

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

Artwork by Alan Zwiebel

May-June, 1965

DR WILLIAM BRICKMAN, Professor of Educational History and Comparative Education in the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education and the Editor of the magazine “School and Society,” has lectured throughout the country, and his descriptions of European Jewish community life and analyses of Jewish school sys tems for J e w i s h L if e are well-remembered by our readers. DR. JUSTIN HOFMANN, whose articles and reviews have appeared in numerous periodicals, has served for many years as Director of the B’nai Brith Hillel Founda tion of the University of Buffalo where he is also a faculty member of the School of Education. The ill-fated maiden voyage of the Israeli ship, Shalom, is the subject of passenger ARBIE ORENSTEIN’s first literary effort. Mr. Orenstein, an accomplished pianist, who at the age of fifteen performed at Town Hall, is a candidate for a Ph.D in Musicology at Columbia Uni versity and a recipient of a Fulbright Fellowship. RABBI MELECH SCHACHTER, author of the study The Babylonian and Jerusalem Mishnah,” is the Coordi nator of the Beth Din of the Rabbinical Council of Amer ica and an assistant professor at Yeshiva University. Rabbi Schachter has prepared for this issue a discussion of the historical attitudes and Halachic requirements which form the modern traditional approach to “The Problem of Conversion Today.” Although ¡¡he is the mother of three children and Editor of Chai, the publication of the Women’s Division of Chinuch Azmai, URSULA LEHMANN still finds time for writing features and short stories for many publications Mrs. Lehmann taught in Detroit and New York and is a former associate editor of the children’s magazine Olomeynu.” RABBI RAPHAEL S. WEINBERG is Assistant Professor of Jewish History and Biblical Literature at Stern ColEBSm E Women of Yeshiva University. A graduate of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanon Theological Seminary, Rabbi Weinberg received a Ph.D in Jewish History from the Bernard Revel Graduate School. The Principal of the Louisville Hebrew School, HARRY LOEWY is a past president of the Hebrew Educators As sociation of Pittsburgh. Mr. Loewy attended yeshivoth in Leipzig, Frankfurt and Montreux, and holds an M.A. de gree in Humanities from the University of Louisville. HARRY RABINOWICZ, spiritual leader of the Dollis Hill Synagogue in London, is the author of “The Slave Who Saved the City,” “A Guide to Hassidism” and many other works. His article on the little-known, valuable collection of Hebraica in “Manchester’s John Rylands Library will be of special interest to readers planning tours abroad this summer.

JEW ISH LIFE

D I

The ASPCA Bill: Pivotal Issue for Shechitah Defense T IS a curious circumstance that at the very time when legal safeguards to moral standards are being juridically demol ished as contrary to civil liberty, there has arisen the serious prospect of legal restriction upon the exercise of religious right. We have reference to the continuing drive for enactment by the several states of “humane slaughter” legislation circumscrib ing the practice of Shechitah. In the customary pattern of these legislative proposals, Shechitah as such is included among the methods of animal slaughter approved as humane. But these bills also prohibit the presently-used method of positioning ani mals for Kosher slaughter, thus sharply conditioning its actual practice. Many feel that, whether or not alternate means of pre slaughter handling are available, such legislation, of its nature, invades religious freedom. There is further apprehension, in the light of experience in other lands, that the bills now proposed would lead, via ongoing agitation and legislative amendment, to the ultimate suppression of Shechitah. These well-grounded fears are seen as applying no less to the bill now submitted to the New York State legislature under the sponsorship of the Ameri can Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals than to previous bills backed by other groups. In fact, there is the greater concern in this case. The State New Y ork of New York, with over 2,500,000 Jews, is pivotal for the “hu— P iv o ta l mane slaughter” movement. Once that strongpoint of Shechitah P o in t defense can be pierced, barriers everywhere else must fall. By lending its respected auspices to the New York State bill, the ASPCA has given it a status best calculated to win favor and disarm opposition.

NLIKE the numerous Humane Slaughter societies which have sprung up in recent years, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is an old-established or ganization with an important practical program of animal wel fare services. Hitherto, it has not been the banner-bearer of the militant humane slaughtering campaigns, which have frequently borne markedly anti-Jewish overtones. On occasion, ASPCA figures have even indicated opposition to the approach of the new-fledged societies. Again, the ASPCA gained wide commen dation within the past year by securing the rights to, and mak ing available without royalty, a newly devised holding pen pro viding an improved method of positioning larger cattle for both

May-June, 1965

kosher and non-kosher slaughter. Why then, one wonders, is the ASPCA now thrusting itself into the center of the humaneslaughter-legislation stage? Some may speculate that, with the humane slaughter societies capturing the public eye and achieving a popular fo llo w in g -r after all, who dares not to be in favor ox humane slaughter?—the older organization feels itself impelled to take the play away from them. Others surmise that the new groups may have been W hy This set into motion as trail-breakers, with the trail now being well Move? broken. Those holding this view point out that the ASPCA’s British counterpart, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has been a fount of virulent anti-Shechitah agitation, employing viciously anti-Jewish propaganda; and this, after the passage under its sponsorship of legislation similar to that now sponsored by the ASPCA, and after the adoption by British abbatoirs of holding pens approved as humane by the Royal Society. Certainly the ASPCA has not manifested any such character and purposes, and its efforts with regard to the proposed bill are to be taken in good faith. But however wellmeaning may be the intent of the sponsor, the bill must be judged on its own merits. ECOGNIZING the force of Jewish apprehensions, the ASPCA has made earnest efforts to allay doubts and to se cure support for the measure in the Jewish community. In ef fect, Jewish leadership has been urged: In your own interest, support this bill, for if it is defeated you will incur the hos tility not only of the man-in-the-street but of the liberal intel ligentsia; and what’s more, you will be confronted by a far worse bill—which will be passed finally. This line of argument, from this source, has been persuasive. The non-orthodox organiza tions, indeed, required but little persuasion. They are badly scared by the prospect of a popular, liberal-seeming movement with “the Jews are for cruelty” as its rallying cry. They are willing enough to imperil a religious fundament which itself Jew ish means so little to them, as the price of supposed good will. S u p p o rt Unfaceable to them is the thought that the humane slaughter Sought drive bears anti-Shechitah in its wake and that this in turn is an updated form of that antisemitism which ever haunts their minds. Within the orthodox Jewish community, a division of opin ion has arisen as to the policy to be followed with regard to the bill. An important element of Orthodoxy, including some major rabbinic leaders, has judged that the realities of the sit uation make a policy of opposition, in this particular case, un tenable. They are convinced that some humane slaughter bill will eventually be passed, that the only choice is between a greater and lesser danger, and that the present bill, sponsored as it is by the ASPCA, safeguards Shechitah and therefore rep resents the lesser danger. This is the position of the Rabbinical Council of America. However, other segments of the orthodox Jewish community,

JEW ISH LIFE

also including some major rabbinic leaders, consider this stand N o " In e v ita b le to be totally invalid. There can be, they hold, no “inevitability” B ill " as to the passage of a bill vitally affecting Jewish life in the

state containing the world’s largest Jewish community—if Jews do not permit themselves to be hypnotized by the planned chorus of “inevitability.” Nor, in this view, does the ASPCA bill pose a lesser, or less immediate, danger in its actual provisions than any other measure of this kind. T T N L IK E the Federal Humane Slaughtering Act, the ASPCA U Dill Dears no "Case Amendment clause exempting from its provisions animal slaughter performed in accordance with religious ritual. It does exempt from the bill’s requirements “any bona fide farmer who butchers his own domestic animals on his farm,” and similarly “the operator of a commercial estab lishment slaughtering no more than twenty beef animals per week.” Why, one is bound to wonder, is there compulsion in one case—the religious case—and unlimited exemption in the other—the material interest—case? Why, opponents of the bill wonder, are given methods banned while "a single blow or gunshot” is deemed a humane method of slaughter—yet any observer of the mechanically-operated hammer and the captive-bullet methods of slaughter can see that the slightest tremor by the animal, however carefully penned, causes the blow or bullet to miss the precise mark, leaving the animal writhing and thrashing in terrible agony in a major pro portion of the cases? And why is it, they ask, that “shackling and hoisting any steer, cow, or bull while such large animal is conscious, in the positioning of such animal for slaughter” (a core facet of the bill, directly aimed at pre-Shechitah handling) is declared inS f ran g e humane and forbidden accordingly, while on March 15th, 1960, C o n tra d ic tio n s Dr. Harold Smith, president of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (state unit of the ASPCA), testifying against a proposed Humane Slaughter bill then being considered by the New Jersey legislature, stated for the record: “There has been no method developed more humane than the physical shackling and restraining of animals in preparation for slaughter It is, of course, a fact that at the time the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals testimony in favor of shackling and hoisting was given, the ASPCA had not yet acquired the holding pen which it now sponsors. But Dr. Smith’s statement does not permit the slightest inference that the shackling and hoisting process is inhumane—quite the contrary. The question is then raised: If ASPCA spokesmen can pro claim shackling and hoisting as humane in 1960, and as inhu mane in 1965, might not the ASPCA, five years or so hence, Five Y ears declare Shechitah itself as inhumane after having, this year, H ence? declared Shechitah humane? If it can oppose the prohibition of shackling and hoisting in 1960 and demand such prohibition in 1965, might it not, in 1969, call for the prohibition of

May-June, 1965

Shechitah after having been the advocate of Shechitah (“in itself a humane act”) in 1965? EFEAT of the proposed bill, as a result of Jewish opposi tion, would bring added burdens to the Jewish community. D This is a factor not to be dismissed lightly. Reiterations of the age-old Jewish commitment to humaneness, of the fact that the very concept of animal welfare as it has emerged in modern society rests on Torah foundations, of the scientifically attested fact that Shechitah is the most humane method of animal slaughPrice That ter, and of the need to guard Shechitah and religious freedom Cannot be against legislative -danger—all this will go just so far in counPaid tering hostile agitation. But the sole alternative, opponents of this and other such bills maintain, is to permit Shechitah to be placed on the block as the price of momentary popularity— and this price shall never be paid. With the bill now in committee and with the New York State legislature scheduled to adjourn soon, the question may be re solved for the present by the bill not being reported out of committee. It is much to be hoped that this will be the case and that the proposed, measure, dying now, will never be revived.

JEW ISH LIFE

The Problem of Conversion Today

By MELECH SCHÄCHTER

HE daughter of one of the late renowned leaders of our metro politan community recently tele phoned our Beth Din with a desperate plea for advice. She is a widow. Her soldier son is about to be married to a girl of a different faith. They plan to have two wedding ceremonies—one at the church in the girl’s hometown out west and the other in New York City at a neighborhood temple. If need be, the groom-to-be told his mother, his fiancee will undergo a con version ritual before the wedding cere mony at the temple. Now the boy’s mother, heartbroken and bewildered, begged for guidance. A few days later a similar shaalah came from a Jewish girl originally from the South and presently residing in New York. She is about to be mar ried to a Protestant boy. They plan to have two ceremonies to “satisfy” both sets of parents. Her query was, “Which of these ceremonies should re ceive preference, and does the groom have to undergo an official ceremony of conversion in order to be married by the rabbi?” Nowadays, Christian partners to mixed marriages are apt to have few

May-June, 1965

scruples about undertaking a nominal conversion to Judaism (and to our great dismay the same holds true with the greater percentage of men and women of Jewish origin who convert to Christianity because of intermar riage). One changes his faith with the same ease as one changes his car. Re ligious doctrines have been watered down by the Reform and Conservative ministers to a point where those sub scribing to them feel no obligation *0 live in any way different from the non-Jews about us. Needless to say, conversion to Judaism without com mitment to observance has no validity whatever, and the spuriously convert ed person remains in the eyes of Halochah a non-Jew as before. A large segment of the American Jewish com munity is becoming increasingly vul nerable to the powerful assimilative forces from without and to the con tinuous increase of Goyim from with in. How long can such a community preserve its Jewishness? Take away traditional beliefs and observances, secularize the sanctities of the Jewish home and Jewish family life, and what you have left is total absorption and national suicide. 7

A S A result of the alarming increase in intermarriage, the problem of Halachically valid conversion has be come a pressing issue. What are the elements prerequisite to a valid con version to Judaism? Is it true that tra ditional Judaism is opposed to conver sion under all circumstances? What is the status of the convert in our midst? How is one interested in joining the Jewish fold to go about becoming a convert? The answers to these and many other questions can be obtained only through study of the original sources. I invite the reader to join me in the study of at least one Talmud text. If you wish to follow me in the original, please open the tractate of Yevomoth, turn to page 47a, 10th line from the bottom, continuing on page 47b. Tonu Rabbonon [our Rabbis taught— a term used preceding a quotation from a Tannaitic source, called Boraitha] when a man desires to be con verted to Judaism nowadays, he is asked: ‘What induces you to be con verted to Judaism? Do you not know that in these days the Israelites are persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed, and overcome by afflic tions?’ If he replies, ‘I know and yet am unworthy (of the privilege of membership in Israel),’ he is forth with accepted and is given instruction in some of the minor and some of the major commandments. He is informed of the sin of (the neglect of the com mandments of) Gleanings, the For gotten Sheaf, the Corner, and the Poor Man’s Tithe. [These are all the poor man’s share in the crop of every Jewish farmer. Vayikra 19:9, 23:22, 25:6, D’vorim 24:9.] He is told of the punishment for the transgression of the Mitzvoth. He is told: ‘Be it known to you that before you came to this condition, if you had eaten for bidden fat, you would not have been 8

punishable with kareth, if you had profaned the Sabbath you would not have been punishable with stoning: but now, were you to eat forbidden fat, you would be punished with kareth, were you to profane the Sab bath, you would be punished with stoning.’ And as he is informed of the pun ishment for the transgression of the commandments, so is he informed of the reward granted for their fulfill ment. He is told: ‘Be it known to you that the (glorious) future world was made only for the righteous, and that the Israelites at the present time are unable to bear too much pros perity or too much sufferings.’ He is not, however, to be persuaded or dis suaded too much. If he accepted (all the restrictions and disabilities pointed out to him), he is circumcized . . . and as soon as he is healed he is immersed in the ritual waters while two learned men must stand by his side and acquaint him with some of the minor and some of the major commandments. [Since im mersion completes the process of con version, it is necessary that at the mo ment he shall submit to the “yoke of the commandments.”] When he comes up after the immersion he is deemed to be an Israelite in all respects. In the case of a woman convert, wo men sit her in the ritual water up to her neck while two learned men stand outside giving her instruction in some of the minor and some of the major commandments. . . . r p H I S Boraitha is analyzed at length -i. in the Talmud. Some of the perti nent remarks to be found there are as follows: The reason the would-be con vert is informed of the difficulties in observing the Mitzvoth is “in order that if he desires to withdraw, let him do so, for Rabbi Chelbo said: “Prose lytes are as burdensome to Israel as JEW ISH LIFE

sapachath (skin disease). . . !” Why the emphasis on the various laws of charity to which the Jew in the old agrarian society was subject? Because the non-Jew of those days was merce nary. On learning of the Israelite’s fi nancial obligations to the causes of charity he would either resign himself to the inevitable or withdraw alto gether from his intended conversion. Why are we told not to dissuade the would-be convert from joining our ranks? Why not spell out all the laws and customs in their minute detail and thus perhaps convince the applicant that it is far too difficult to be an Israelite?

‘We are instructed to live in ac cordance with 613 commandments.’ ‘Thy people shall be my people.’ ‘Idolatry is prohibited unto us.’ ‘And thy G-d is my G-d.’ ‘Four modes of death [penalties for various offenses] were entrusted to the Beth Din.’ ‘Where thou diest I will die.’ ‘Two graveyards [for the serious of fenders who suffered the death penal ties] were placed at the disposal of the Beth Din.* ‘And there I will be buried.’ ‘When she saw that she was stead fastly minded to go with her she stop ped persuading her.’ (Ruth I, 18)

Rabbi Elazar said: . . . [in her at tempt to dissuade Ruth from her resolve to become Jewish] Naomi said unto her: ‘We are subject to many limitations on the Sabbath; for exam ple, we may not walk too far beyond the city limits on the Sabbath.’ [Whereupon Ruth responded] ‘Whither thou goest, I will go.’ [Naomi con tinued] ‘We are subject to stringent moral laws; just to be alone with a man is forbidden.’ ‘Where thou lodgest I will lodge.’

Since three, not two, learned men constitute the necessary Beth Din (Rabbinic tribunal) competent to sanc tion conversion to Judaism, the Tal mud emends the Boraitha text ac cordingly. After conversion the pros elyte is considered a full-fledged Jew. Should he later retract and then marry a Jewish woman, he is regarded as a non-conforming Israelite, and the wo man would need a Get in order to be released from the marital ties.

VALID CONVERSION N HIS all-encompassing Code of not ulterior, purpose. Those who are Jewish Law (Yad, Issurey Biah, prompted to embrace Judaism by the 14:1-6) Rambam reproduces the desire to contract an advantageous above conclusions with explanatory marriage, or by the hope of wealth and additional remarks based on oth or honor, or by fear or superstitious er sources of Talmudic lore. These in reaction to dreams, should be excluded turn are reproduced in the Shulchon from the Jewish fold. Halochah wel Oruch (Yoreh Deah, 268). The fol comes with open arms converts of the lowing are particularly significant in type of Ruth, whose genuineness our discussion: stands out beyond doubt, and frowns 1. The motive must be established;upon converts who have ulterior con Halochah insists upon sincerity. The siderations. It is not in numbers that wish to enter the Jewish fold must be Judaism finds its strength. Not quan motivated by conviction, by spiritual, tity;? but rather quality—a genuine

May-June, 1965

commitment to Torah—is the element of paramount importance. 2. Before the would-be convert is informed of some of the minor and major obligations, there must be ex plained to him, at length and with great thoroughness, the idea of the uniqueness of the one and only G-d as against the various forms of idol atrous beliefs, some of which even pa rade under the guise of monotheism. 3. The Israelites are meant by “the righteous” in whose behalf Olom Haba, the glorious World-to-Come, was prepared. The reason the Israelites suffer in this world is because they cannot withstand the trials of either abundant wealth or excessive suffer ings; in either case the Divine plan to have the Israelites inherit the World-to-Come would have been de feated. Parenthetically, Olom Haba, according to some, refers to the Mes

sianic Era while others take it to refer to the Hereafter. (Cf. Hamishnah b’Bavli Uv’Yerushalmi by the author of this article, Nos. 4 and 6370 The genuinely good among non-Jews equally inherit the future world, yet are apparently not singled out by Providence to fulfill the Divine plan as members of a group, as is the case with the Israelites. And finally: 4. In the case of a Wo man convert, the three rabbis stand outside while she, immersed to her neck in the water of the Mikveh, re ceives the final instructions regarding the minor and major obligations which she undertakes* As soon as this is completed, the rabbis enter and witness her complete immersion (under the surface of the water). They immediately turn and make their ekit so that they do not see her emerge from the water.

STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED ET US recapitulate the material other idolatrous concepts including we have covered thus far. The the scientific view of the dry imper L following are the steps leading to a sonal Power (sometimes called Na legitimate, Halachically sound con ture) behind the harmonious cosmic version: phenomena, b) The unique role of 1. An attempt must be made to disthe Israelites in thé unfolding of his suade the would-be convert from his tory—the people of Israel having béen resolve because of the difficulties in chosen specifically for this ultimate volved in the observance of Jewish goal, the Future World. The principle law. of Reward and Punishment, a corol 2. Sincerity of motive, the intent lary, should be elucidated. The impor to embrace Judaism for its own sake, tance of the Holy Land in the evolu must be established. tion of the Messianic goal should be 3. In preparing a proselyte for the emphasized, c) The chosenness of Is ultimate conversion ritual the funda rael involves the concept of the Divine mental principles of Judaism must be Law—the Torah in all its aspects: explained to him in detail. These are: Written, Oral, and continuous develop a) the Jewish concept of the unique ment to our own day. 4. A general knowledge of Jewish ness of G-d as against trinity and 10

JEW ISH LIFE

laws and observances must be ac quired by study prior to the time of the conversion ritual. Emphasis should be placed on a) the Laws of Charity; b) observance of the Sabbath (includ ing the Yomim Tovim); c) the strin gent laws of Morality (including the laws of Nidah and T ’vilah governing the relationship of husband and wife); d) a general idea of the many posi tive and prohibitive commands encom passed in the 613 Mitzvoth, to whose observance the proselyte must commit himself without reservation, with par ticular attention to the Dietary Laws, Tfillin, Mezuzah, Tzitzith, Grace after Meals, etc.; e) the prohibition of idol worship in any manner or de gree, such as to place the acquisition of money or the pursuit of fame above the Divine values promulgated in the Torah; f) the seriousness of violating purely religious law as well as civil law, the punishment for which may at

times be the death penalty. (Certainly no one will ever be executed for the desecration of the Sabbath, for exam ple. Even in ancient days, when there was a theocratic government in the Holy Land, the use of many legal provisions made capital punishment a great rarity. Yet, the seriousness of the transgression is measured by its theoretic punishment and to this ex tent it is to prey on one’s conscience.); and g) submission to penalties in case of willful disobedience, even to the extent of being humiliated after death. 5. The final procedure of conver sion consists of circumcision (for males), a further verbal commitment to observe all Torah commandments, enumerating some of the minor and some of the major ones, the immer sion in ritual waters—all in the pres ence of a qualified body of three rab bis constituting a Beth Din.

COMMITMENT TO TOTAL OBSERVANCE HE points enumerated are not all of equal importance. Some are vital to the essence of conversion, without which the entire procedure is inyalid, while omission of others, im portant though they be, would not in validate the conversion procedure. A sine qua non is the verbal commitment to observance, known in Halachic par lance as Kabolath Ol Mitzvoth, in the presence of the qualified Rabbinic Board. Without it the entire conver sion ritual has no validity whatsoever. (Cf. Yoreh Deah 263:3). On the other hand, omission of the specific enumer ation of the beliefs and of some of the minor and major commandments does not invalidate the ritual (ibid 268:12).

■

May-June, 1965

Let us not, however, be misled into the belief that going through every enumerated point automatically renders the ritual valid even when the convert has no intention of living up to the verbal commitment. Conversion is essentially a profound religious ex perience, a spiritual rebirth. The con vert is expected to be stirred in the inner recesses of his heart in the same manner as were our ancestors when they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the Divine proclamation of the Ten Commandments. It seems to me that it is precisely because of this deeply emotional experience that Halochah considers the convert as a II

newly born person. The outward pro cedures, while Halachically impera tive, are by comparison to the inner emotions like the body is to the soul; take away the soul and the body lies motionless— dead. Similarly, without an inward commitment to observance, the verbal commitment is spurious and, along with all the other formal ities, is meaningless and futile. In view of the foregoing, it is hard ly to be wondered that the overwhelm ing majority of supposed converts to day are still non-Jews in the eyes of Jewish law. In the first place, Reform and Conservative ministers and many so-called “orthodox rabbis” omit all or some of the elements that are categorically imperative. In the second place, even when genuine, duly quali fied rabbis perform the conversion in accordance with Jewish Law, it has no validity if the verbal commitment does not reflect an unequivocal inner intent to abide by it.

EOPLE invariably argue: Why P should the convert be expected to live up to all the Mitzvoth in a scrup ulous manner, when vast numbers of those born as Jews are only partially observant or are not observant at all? This is, of course, a spurious argu ment. Obviously there is a difference between one who is Jewish by virtue of birth and cannot relinquish Jewish status even when demonstratively em bracing another faith, and one who comes to us from the outside world and wishes to join our ranks. Even American law regarding citizenship in the United States accents this princi ple. One born in the United States is a citizen even if he is a renegade, a Communist, dedicated to the destruc tion of the Constitution and the Amer ican mode of life. However, a natural ized citizen may be integrated into American society only if his allegiance to the U.S. and to the Constitution is beyond any shadow of a doubt.

DISQUALIFYING AND NON-DISQUALIFYING ELEMENTS "Y^TOLATION of Biblical prohibi▼ tions for which the theoretic penalty is malkuth (lashes) disquali fies one from acting either as a mem ber of a Beth Din or as a witness (Cf. Yoreh Deah 268:3, Choshen Mishpot 7:9, 34:2). Hundreds of conversions are invalid because the officiating “rabbis” are not scrupu lously observant regarding Shabboth, Nidah, etc. (while thousands of wed ding ceremonies are likewise invalid, because the witnesses are not obser vant). Sincerity of motive, the urge to embrace Judaism out of conviction, while requisite for final conversion, is not a sine qua non in the initial 12

stage of seeking conversion. Once properly performed, all conversions are considered valid even when the original motivation was not the pure desire to come under “the wings of the Shechinah” but rather, the achieve ment of some personal goal. As a matter of fact several incidents are re corded in the Talmud citing the par ticipation of some Sages of old in conversions which had originated through interested motives. In one case the great Hillel converted a pa gan who had been fascinated by the glittering garments of the High Priest and had entertained the aspiration to attain that office. In another case JEW ISH LIFE

Rabbi Chiya converted a prostitute knowing that she sought to marry the son of one of his disciples. These cases are explained by the fact that both the foregoing became, in the process of seeking conversion, com pletely sincere in their complete di vorcement from their past and in their desire to be genuinely Jewish in every sense of the word. Even though originally attracted to Juda ism by an impure motive, yet in the course of time they came to appreci ate and embrace Judaism for its own sake. In the case of the one attracted by the grandeur of the High Priest hood, immediate discovery that his aspiration was unattainable, descent from Aaron being a prerequisite for this office, proved no deterrent to the zeal for conversion which had been awakened in him. In our days the objective of con

version for marriage is not to be classified in the same category of ulterior motive as in the past. Surely in former eras, conversion seemed to be the only way through which a couple from different faiths could be united in wedlock. Today, with the recourse of civil marriage, this is no longer the case. A desire to es tablish a home in a unified religious commitment and to bring up the prospective children as Jews obviously savors more of sincerity than of per sonal gain and advantage. Be the initial motive as it may, if the applicant demonstrates a sincere intent to abide by all the laws and tenets of Judaism and would presum ably pursue this course even should the marriage not take place or if it should eventually, for one reason or another, be terminated, then he or she should not be rejected outright.

THE STATUS OF THE CONVERT HE assumption that traditional Judaism is averse to converts should be radically modified. Rabbi Chelbo’s opinion that proselytes are as burdensome to Israel as sapachath has become a subject of many intepretations. Rabbi Abraham the Convert, who flourished at the end of the 12th century, maintained that a pro selyte is usually more attached to Judaism than those who are born into the Jewish fold. Consequently, he held, the Israelites suffer by com parison as one suffers from a skin disease. On the other hand, Rabbi Isaac the Elder, a great-grandson of Rashi and nephew of Rabbenu Tam, dwelt upon the importance of hered-

May-June, 1965

ity (yichuth), a matter in which the convert falls short. Maimonides held that most converts sooner or later lapse back into their old habits and thus become burdensome to Israel because they serve as bad examples for the naturally born Jews in whose midst they live. Each one apparently interpreted the statement in terms of his own experience. The most plausible interpretation is that offered by Rabbi Yecheskel Libshitz, author of Hamidrosh V’Harhaaseh. He points out that sapachath at times indicates a serious leprous condition which generates ritual un cleanliness (cf. Vayikra 13:2). At other times, however, it refers to a

healing infection and is indicative of ritual cleanliness (ibid. 13:6). Simi larly, there were times in the history of our people when the converts constituted an erev rav, a mixed mul titude, an undisciplined and undesir able element. There were occasions, particularly during the Hadrianic per secutions, when the converts displayed cowardice and treachery, and were a source of spiritual uncleanliness. On the other hand, there were converts whose genuine sincerity surpassed that of naturally born Jews. One need but think of Ruth, Aquilas, Onkelos, Shemaya, Abtalion, Count Pototzki, and a host of others! These contribut ed to Jews and Judaism in abundant measure. They were a source of healing and improvement. The status of a genuine convert is Halachically the same as that of a naturally born Jew. The fact that a woman convert cannot be married to a Kohen is not a sign of inferiority, no more than a divorcee, who is also

prohibited to a Kohen, is considered inferior. Unlike other religions, Judaism shuns missionary activity among nonJews. G-d created the world to be variegated in nature, and the peo ples of the world to be of diverse scope. If only the Jews would abide by Judaism and all other people by the fundamental Seven Noahite Laws, the Messianic Era would promptly be ushered in. This democratic attitude towards other people and their res pective values and cultures is not to be mistaken for an aversion to genuine converts, who embrace Juda ism truthfully. It is on behalf of the true converts as well as in behalf of the righteous and the pious and the elders of Israel that the thirteenth benediction of the daily Sh’moneh Esrey is dedicated. Not an aversion, but an abiding love do we Jews have for those of non-Jewish birth who loyally follow Jewish creed and Jew ish life.

A RE-EVALUATION OF CONVERSION the time come to re-evaluate sions for marriage would tend to HTheASourissue attitude towards conversion? encourage, even to open wide the at hand is not abstract doors to, mixed marriage, with all but rather one that is of immediate, everyday practical concern, with res pect to conversion for marriage. The entire fabric of American Jewish life is threatened alike by marriages out of the fold and by spurious conver sions; orthodox Jewry can in no way wall itself off from the problem, any more than it can avoid the moral responsibility to help the community as a whole meet the problem. On the one hand, it is obvious that a policy of leniency towards conver-

that that implies. Beyond this, experi ence shows that the giving of broad sanction to ulterior motive for con version, even though accompanied by seemingly sincere commitment to ob servance, would vitiate the force of the Halachic safeguards; doubtless in some cases the conversions would prove themselves to be genuine in substance as well as in form, but in far more cases the opposite would be true and the consequence would be only technically different from the JEW ISH LIFE

consequence of the Halachically in valid conversion. On the other hand, the question must be faced whether by rejecting applicants outright, we accomplish the exact reverse of what such rejections are intended to achieve. Do we, in stead of excluding insincere converts from our midst, declining them as converts, indirectly drive them to Reform $nd other non-orthodox min isters and free-lance practitioners whose conversions are invalid—and thus help multiply the number of Goyim in our midst? On several occasions I have been under necessity to inform female in quirers that they needed no Get from their “Jewish” husbands, who were converted by Reform ministers. On other occasions, when consulted by Jewish day school and Hebrew school officials regarding the status of pupils whose mothers were converted by Conservative ministers, my answer was that the children need to be converted together with their mothers in accord ance with Jewish Law. As pointed out, circumstances ap plying to the concept of “conversion for the sake of marriage” are different today from what obtained in the days of the Talmud and post-Talmudic periods down to our age. We must therefore make clear to the applicants the Halachic requirement of con version, namely total commitment to observance without reservation. It should also be pointed out to the applicants that under no circumstan ces are they to undergo a conversion which is invalid in Jewish law. As violently as we disapprove of mixed marriage, it is still the lesser evil than a spurious conversion, which has no significance in Jewish law and

May-June, 1965

only spells deception and self-delu sion. Each applicant for conversion must be urged to think the matter over, once, twice, and three times (as Na omi urged her daughters-in-law three times to return). If after due con sideration the applicant persists in his resolve and is ready to embrace Juda ism without reservation, the abovementioned steps must be followed. It is advisable to have the would-be con vert also prepare himself in the simple mechanics of reading the fundamental prayers in the original Hebrew. This emphasis on the original will go a long way towards forging psychologi cal ties to Judaism and its values. It is also advisable to have the Jewish partner join the would-be convert in the process of preparation, for it is inconceivable to have the converted member of the family scrupulously follow every precept while the Jewish-born partner flagrantly disregards all tenets. It is further in order to have the would-be convert habituate himself to genuine observance months, or at least weeks before the conver sion. (Sabbath observance on the part of an expectant convert is Halachi cally sanctioned by many rabbinic scholars). It should be considered a privilege on the part of religious laity as well as the local rabbis to create a Jewish atmosphere for these con verts that they may not lapse into non-observance. Every attempt should be made to help these genuine con verts to live up to their original com mitments that they may turn out to be replicas of the admirable Gerey Tzedek through the ages. N several occasions the Beth Din office of the Rabbinical Coun cil of America was approached by

representatives of the various groups of the self-styled Black Jews of Har lem regarding their integration into the Jewish fold. The status of these groups is radically different from and is not to be confused with that of India’s Bene Israel group. The latter are unquestionably of Jewish descent. Their status as Jews was never ques tioned. The problem which this group presents in Eretz Israel today is an internal and familial one, hinging on the legitimacy of children born of second marriages, since the Gittin severing the first marriages are not legally valid. However the “Black Jews” have no basis of claim to Jew

ish birth or descent. Consequently, in the eyes of the Halochah they remain non-Jews. Those of them who genu inely wish to join our ranks must each, individually, go through the above-mentioned steps; including the categorical imperative of total com mitment to genuine observance. They cannot expect to be considered Jews on the basis of their own assertion and their own chosen observances. It is either Judaism authentic and in toto, without reservation, or nothing at all. Obviously, the difference in color is of no significance whatso ever in Jewish law.

ADOPTION OF NON-JEWISH CHILDREN HE problem of adoption of non- intent and purpose until they embrace Jewish children has become very Judaism in the manner prescribed in acute. Non-Jewish children are adopt the Shulchon Oruch. ed by Jewish couples and are brought The Halachic question asserts it up as Jews. Some of the boys go self: Is it possible for adopted children through a bar-mitzvah ceremony, of non-Jewish natural parentage to and like all their Jewish friends they go through the entire ceremony of consider themselves full-fledged Jews conversion and be ushered into the —though never having undergone Jewish faith in their infancy? The proper circumcision and ritual im tremendous responsibility of a change mersion for the specific purpose of of faith obviously necessitates mature conversion. In some cases the children consent. How then could a minor, an even assumed their adoptive parent’s infant, be converted to Judaism with status of Kohen or Levi! These adopt out his consent? ed children later intermarry with The Talmudic answer to this ques children of Jewish parentage—all on tion is based on the assumption that the assumption that they are Jews. to be a Jew is a z’chuth, a privilege, It is hardly necessary to emphasize and one can perform a meritorious the paramount duty that develops deed in behalf of another without upon rabbis everywhere to bring this his knowledge. Hence, the minor’s issue to the attention of American consent in such case is not necessary. Jewry and to put an end to irrespon It is on this basis that many rabbis sible practice. Civil adoption does and sometimes only mohelim parti not constitute conversion. The adopted cipate in the circumcision of newly children remain non-Jews to every adopted non-Jewish children with the 16 JEW ISH LIFE

assumption that in due time the proper immersion will also take place. This practice should be severely cri ticized, because even on the basis of this Talmudic passage there is need of proper immersion in the presence of three qualified rabbis, and un fortunately this absolutely essential procedure hardly ever takes place. The very same rabbis or mohelim do not pursue the matter any further, and the adopted children are raised as full-fledged Jews without further ado. This practice could perhaps be followed in a well-organized Jewish community like the ones in Europe, in years gone by. In those days, every Jew was registered as such and the status of every individual was scruti nized and carefully followed. In Ame rican Jewish life this is impossible. Under no circumstances are we there fore to grant initial sanction to the adoption of a non-Jewish child with the expectation that in due time the Halachically proper immersion will also take place. ECAUSE of conditions nowadays, the entire Talmudic premise that conversion of a child is a boon to him has become practically inappli cable today, since the majority of present-day couples who adopt nonJewish children are non-observant themselves. The adopted children that are supposedly converted to Judaism are brought up in an atmosphere of total disregard for Shabboth, Kashruth, and all other precepts of the Torah. Can this kind of Judaism be considered a z’chuth, a privilege that would give us the right to perform the conversion ritual without their mature consent? Obviously, the way conditions are today, it is by far a greater z’chuth for such children to

May-June, 1965

remain non-Jews than to become Jews and violate every command ment. The question may still be raised in the case of genuinely observant Jew ish couple that wishes to adopt a non-Jewish child and have him or her converted in accordance with the above-mentioned principle. Are we justified in doing it at least under such favorable circumstances? The Talmud sets forth that when the non-Jewish minor who was con verted to Judaism matures, he can nullify the conversion ritual and go back to his former status as a nonJew. After all, there is also a moral issue involved. The z’chuth in being a Jew is not necessarily advantageous. There is a marked disadvantage in being a Jew from the viewpoint of convenience and practicability. As a non-Jew, the child would not be limited to the many restrictions of the Jewish rigid code of behavior, nor would he be subject to the hostility, and frequently also persecution, to which Jews are unfortunately sub jected. “Do you not know that in these days, the Israelites are persecut ed and oppressed, despised, harrassed, and overcome by afflictions?” Even in our democratic country, in the blessed U.S.A., we live in a world of prejudice and deep-seated antagon ism towards Jews. Indeed, it is a great moral responsibility to bring nonJewish children into the Jewish fold. It is for this reason that, upon ma turity, the converted child has the right to nullify the conversion. T must then be reiterated and stressed that unless consent is granted at the time the child reaches the age of thirteen in the case of a boy, and twelve in the case of a girl,

the conversion in infancy has no validity. If the child did not learn of its natural background until many years later, after attaining the afore mentioned age, he can. reject and nullify the conversion at that time. What assurances then does an ob servant couple adopting a non-Jew ish child have, that the adopted child will not nullify the conversion ritual later on in life? Halachically, there is but one way a non-Jewish child may be adopted by Jewish parents. The adoptive par ents must keep a kosher home, ob serve Shabboth and Yom Tov, com mit themselves to give the child a

Torah-true education, and raise him in the full knowledge of his nonJewish background, so that when the boy reaches the age of thirteen, or when the girl becomes twelve years old, and willingly accepts converted status, this affiirmation will assure that the conversion will never there after be nullified. * $ $ Let it be known that for subsequent identification the Beth Din sponsored by the Rabbinical Council of America registers every genuine conversion and every properly performed adop^. tion.

JEW ISH LIFE

Hello, Frankfurt By URSULA LEHMANN

evicted me and mine once, those of

is quite a number of years I participated in a debate us who were lucky, and my memory IofTsincereally high school students entitled is long. Nevertheless here was an “Should We Re-arm Western Ger many?” which was broadcast over one of the network radio stations. At that time, about 1950, it was still an unthinkable idea that we, the Ameri cans, could so forgive our erstwhile enemies, the infamous Nazis. My friend and I, on the negative side, acquitted ourselves well. It is always easy to play on the emotions of an audience, and in the question and answer period particu larly we could feel the studio audience swinging to our side. We ended with a feeling of elation which was only momentarily dampened by the words of one of our co-debaters on the opposing side. “You did a marvelous job,” he said, “You were really good. Too bad you were on the wrong side and were so mistaken.” The boy was a prag matist and a realist. I have not for gotten those words. They have come back to haunt me. It is easy for the words of realists to haunt the dream ers of this w orld. . . On a European trip I took recently to attend a family “simchah,” I had, of course, no inclination to go sight seeing in Germany. The people had

May-June, 1965

opportunity to visit the kever of my grandmother, and surely I could en dure my accumulations of mixed feelings for those few hours it would take to fulfill the Mitzvah of Kever Ovoth. I say “mixed feelings” because of course I was an infant when the unbelievable happened and having no memories of my own of Germany, I admitted to myself that I did have just a bit of curiosity mixed with my aversion; curiosity to see the land of my birth which, li^e Vesuvius, had vomited evil and spewed us forth. I was curious too, to see these peo ple who spoke my parents’ mothertongue, who had so degraded them selves that their humaneness was drowned and only twisted wreckage remained. Did they remember? Were they ashamed? Sorry? Had they changed? “The younger generation has surely changed,” said a German stewardess as we approached Frankfurt Airport. “They came in swarms to see the Auschwitz exhibits and were properly horrified at the deeds of their elders.” “Did older people come?” I asked. “Yes, the very old .. f9

“And the middle aged. ..? ” “W ell.. “But,” said the stewardess, “though my father was a soldier, I console myself that my grandfather helped three Jews to leave the country.. She paused a minute. “You know, when we (German youth!) ask our elders how they could have done it— they say they didn’t know. But I don’t believe that none of them knew,” she said gravely. “How could it be?” The conversation ended. My mother who traveled with me, was too upset. And I thought. Is this what they tell their children, the “new Ger mans?” They do not say, “I knew, but I had not the courage to protest; it would have meant my life.” This, although I could not forgive, I could at least understand. Not every one is born with guts. Am I? But no, they say, I didn’t know. I had no id ea. . . It had nothing to do with me— so I am not guilty and need not repent. “There is not even a lesson from which to learn anything. They didn’t know.” It is comforting for my stew ardess to know this. It means if, G-d forbid, „ it should happen again, she need not trouble herself. She just needn’t know. HE plane lands . *. Germany all around. . . It is convenient to be able to read the signs, though we try to deal with the officials in English first, and only revert to German when we must. We meet a girlhood friend of mother’s who arrived from Hol land and joins us for the ride to the cemetery. The city is prosperous. Mother can hardly recognize it. It looks like the rest of Europe—if anything, better. The highway from the airport was

the first road in Europe that reminded me of home. My initial reaction of looking at every older German and thinking, “Were you One? was wearing off. I was becoming an ordinary tourist* The cemetery was like any other, only older and therefore hallowed with the neshomoth of our great of long ago who are buried there. I stood before the grave of my grand mother and felt reverence and hum bleness and was surprised how many stones were placed on it. Who comes to visit it? I stood before the stone of Samson Raphael Hirsch just across the row and was awed. The stones left there were a small m ountain. . . We left. My mission in Germany was over. Suddenly I asked the taxi driver (our German was useful after all) to take us to the site of the old Friedberger Anlage Shool. I convinced Mother and her friend to take the time for me since I was leaving in a few hours, though they were stay ing overnight. “Is there still a wall standing?” Mother didn’t know . . . Suddenly we were upon it. There was no wall. There was only a slab in the ground . . . As I walked from the cab and read the inscription my breath caught: Here stood the Friedberger Anlage Synagogue, which was destroyed by Nazi criminals on the 9th day of November, 1938. I had never seen the shool while it still stood. Whose ghost or which ghosts were making me wipe my eyes and turn my back to the others. Why couldn’t I swallow? Why cry JEW ISH LIFE

they threw . . . ” Mother’s friend said nothing in words. Only her face look ed incredulous. She had been in the cam ps.. ♦ It was almost time to leave. A pleasant city, Frankfurt. A city of quiet, good-natured, well-behaved people. People who have killed their memories. It is very easy to kill one’s memory after all that other killing. It is, in fact, the only thing to do. Perhaps my pragmatic teammate of the radio debate was right. Frankfurt, a city of fashionable WAS a tourist no longer. We left stores and trade fairs and many, our bags at a hotel, a fashionable many new buildings. We returned to our hotel. hotel with carpeted halls and shiny On Mother’s previously shining brown doors, and visited a friend door was scratched a swastika. who was in Frankfurt on business. The hotel removed it with apolo I told the story of the stewardess; it was again troubling me. Our friend gies. In my mind it is still there. said, perhaps some Germans really didn’t know. Mother said, “I was there and saw and felt the rocks Goodbye, Frankfurt.

here? Why not the cemetery—my grandmother I remembered, at least vaguely. Of course! I know why. That was a natural death, cold words though they are. Her grave lies undisturbed, in dignity. But here, here was the death of a shool. The obliteration of an institution that too once lived, bore fruit, comforted and nurtured. And it died violently, in agony and degradation. November 9th, it was only the beginning . . .

May-June, 1965

The New Education Bill and Church-State Relations By WILLIAM BRICKMAN

N April 11, 1965, President V .J Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the first general legis lation of this type in our country’s history. As he officially transformed the Congressional action into law, the President remarked that it represent ed “a major new commitment of the Federal Government to quality and equality in the schooling we offer our young people.” Previous efforts to aid education on a broad scale have foundered for various reasons, among them the fear of Federal control and opposition by Roman Catholics be cause of the lack of provisions for nonpublic schools. In view of the fact that a milestone has been reached in American history, with most peo ple more or less satisfied with the provisions of this law, it will be interesting to trace the steps in the passage of the law and to analyze its relation to the perennial ChurchState question. The move for enactment of this bill got under way on January 12, 1965, when President Johnson sent to Congress a special message, “To ward Full Educational Opportunity,” urging an expansion of aid to edu cation without regard to the type of school—public, private, or parochial. Specifically, he proposed the spending of $1,505,000,000: a) to help public 22

school systems which educate econo mically underprivileged children; b) to purchase “books for school lib raries and for student use, to be made available to children in public and private non-profit elementary and secondary schools”; c) to organize within communities supplementary educational centers and services, such as courses in the sciences and the humanities, programs for the physic ally handicapped, common library and laboratory facilities for several schools ^r-to be planned and administered on a co-operative basis by “public and private non-profit schools and agen cies”; d) to establish “regional edu cational laboratories which will under take research, train teachers and im plement tested research findings”; and e) to strengthen state departments of education to improve the work of elementary and secondary schools. He also called for aid to smaller colleges, needy college students, library ex pansion, and other aspects of higher education. T IS significant that this package provided for some assistance to the private and parochial schools, which had hitherto received inade quate attention in proposed Congres sional legislation. The President real ized that the solution of America’s educational problems was dependent

JEW ISH LIFE

upon the raising of the level of in struction tor all pupils in all schools. If there lurked some Constitutional difficulty or a threat to the established order in the American school system, the President’s message yielded no tracé of it. If anything, the President more than bent backward to avoid any reference to religion, apparently to make it clear that he regarded his proposal as an aid to education for all the people of the United States. Thus, he referred to “private non profit” schools and nowhere in his message did he use such a term as “parochial” or “church-related.” Not that he wished to fool anyone; the New York Times’ page-one, righthand column headline stated bluntly, “Johnson Seeks $1.5 Billion for Edu cation and Urges Public-Parochial Sharing.” However, the President did not identify his suggestion with any religious issue. Also of interest are the opening sentences of the message. “In 1787, the Continental Congress declared in the Northwest Ordinance: ‘Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’ America is strong and prosperous and free be cause for one hundred and seventyeight years we have honored that commitment.” However, we should be aware of the fact that the President only quoted a portion of that declaration. The full relevant text, as passed on July 13, 1787 by the Congress of the Confede ration, states that “. . . religion, moral ity, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encour aged.” There exists a necessary re lationship between the first part and

May-June, 1965

the second part of the sentence. One might interpret the statement as fol lows: since good government depends upon a combination of religion, mo rality, and knowledge, the government should always encourage schools which are dedicated to these prin ciples. Thus the Northwest Ordi nance appears to be saying that the government should encourage reli giously-oriented schools, perhaps even parochial schools. If this be so, then America has not always honored this commitment. A LSO pertinent to this discussion -£*■ is an act by the same Congress on July 23, 1787, by which the sale of Federal land was authorized to the Ohio Company. The law stipu lated: “The lot N. 29, in each town ship, or fractional part of a township, to be given perpetually for the pur poses of religion.” This legislative action also throws light on the North west Ordinance insofar as the role of religion and religious education are concerned. By knowingly omitting the first part of the Ordinance, I believe that the President actually intended to convey the thought that, in the eyes of the Administration* no Constitutional question of Church-State separation was involved. What he was suggesting was merely a large-scale attack on poverty, ignorance, and inadequate educational service. However, in all fairness, one must quote the opinion of James Reston, the widely read political columnist of the New York Times. In the same issue which reported at length the Presidential message, Mr. Reston con tributed to the editorial page, under his Washington by-line, a column entitled “How to Be an Artful Dodger

in a Good Cause.” He called the education message “a masterpiece of evasive action, neatly designed to lift the lower levels of education in parochial as well as public schools without inflaming the Church-State issue in the process.” However, he felt that “there are times when a little artful dodging serves the na tion better than anything else.” This

is clever writing, but I do not believe that the characterization of the Presi dent as “an artful dodger” can be balanced by admitting that he was engaged in a “good cause.” If any thing, Mr. Reston seems to have ex cited the staunch Church-State separationists who later condemned the entire program of the President to relieve poverty.

CONGRESSIONAL BILLS N the same day that the President sent his special message to Con gress, several bills embodying his proposals were introduced into both houses of Congress. The bill concern ing which hearings were held, and which was ultimately passed (H.R. 2362, introduced in the House by Rep. Carl D. Perkins of Kentucky; S. 370, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon, was given percipient analysis by Dr. Mar vin Schick in his article “The Presi dent’s Education Bill: A Jewish Ap praisal” in the previous issue of J e w ish L i f e .) Here I shall treat of some points of special interest in this bill. There has been some controversy as to what constitutes a low-income family under Title I. Even now, with thè bill enacted into law, the point has not been resolved. However, it is to be hoped that some agreement will shortly be reached on a definition which would aid as many economi cally underprivileged people as pos sible. Of particular interest in Title I is Section 205 which makes it pos sible for a local school system to receive grants from the state if it determines “that, to the extent con sistent with the number of education ally deprived children in the school district of the local educational agency

who attend nonpublic schools, such agency has made provisions for in cluding special educational provi sions and arrangements (such as dual enrollment, educational radio and television, and mobile educational services) in which children can par ticipate without full-time public school attendance.” This provision appears to equalize opportunities for all underprivileged children, whether in public or in private schools. Title II authorizes “grants. . . for the acquisition of school library re sources and printed and published instructional materials for the use of children and teachers in public non profit private elementary and second ary schools in the State.” A state de siring grants under this title must, in addition to other requirements, “provide assurance that to the extent consistent with law such library re sources and instructional materials will be provided on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools in the state which comply with the compulsory education laws of the State or are otherwise recog nized by it through some procedure customarily used in the State.” Ac cordingly, pupils in nonpublic schools, in line with the decision of the United JEW ISH LIFE

States Supreme Court in Cochran v. Louisiana (1930), may enjoy free textbooks as do the children in public schools. ECTION 204(b) of Title II is of S considerable significance to those interested in nonpublic education. This provides for the distribution of library resources and text books to private schools in states which do not supply these materials to such institutions. In such cases, the U. S. Commissioner of Education “shall arrange for the provision on an equitable basis of such resources or materials, or both if necessary, for such use and shall pay the cost thereof for any fiscal year prior to July 1, 1970, out of that State’s allotment.” However, “the library resources and printed and published 'instructional materials made available pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to those which have been approved by an appropriate State or local educa tional authority for use, or are used, in public elementary or secondary schools of the State.” To put the matter in other words, wherever the state does not give textbooks to parochial school pupils, whether on the basis of law or other wise, the parochial schools can re ceive them directly from the U. S. Government. The state authorities cannot prevent the parochial school pupils from obtaining the textbooks directly from the U. S. Commissioner of Education. But it should be noted, the textbooks must be the same as those for, or used in the public schools; that is, they must be secular books only. Again, let it be remem bered that the Cochran decision by the United States Supreme Court au thorized states to provide parochial

May-June, 1965

school pupils with free textbooks, pro vided they were secular. Title III authorizes funds for a variety of educational centers, activ ities, services, and equipment “not available in sufficient quantity or qual ity in elementary and secondary schools and in the development and establishment of exemplary elementary and secondary school educational pro grams to serve as models for regular school program s. . . ” Section 304 allows a grant to be made “to a local educational agency or other duly constituted public or non-profit private agency or organization which has authority to establish, maintain, and coordinate a program of supple mentary educational services, but only if there is satisfactory assurance that in the conduct of such program there will be representation of, or partici pation by, a local educational agency (if not itself the grantee) and one or more of the following: institutions of higher education, the appropriate State educational agency or agencies, , and other public or nonprofit private agencies, organizations, or institu tions.” In brief, in this type of pro gram the Congress envisages co-opera tion between the public and the non public schools. Under Title IV, the U. S. Comissioner of Education may make grants for educational research and research training activities to public and pri vate non-profit universities and other qualified institutions, agencies, organi zations, and individuals. Again, we see the principle of equality and co partnership in the furtherance of American education. The laudable aim of Title V is to furnish grants “to stimulate and assist States in strengthening the lead ership resources of their State edu-

taken at face value, then there is an assurance that any act of interference or control on the part of the Federal government is illegal. State control is present, it is worthy of note, even without the funds. However, under this bill, the state would have no additional control that it does not already possess. Section 605 is likewise of great im portance and has apparently been overlooked, perhaps deliberately, by / ~ \ F crucial significance, in the light the critics of the bill. Here we read: V / of the charges and allegations “Nothing contained in this Act shall made later, are Sections 604 and be construed to authorize the making 605 of Title VI. The former reads of any payment under this Act, or as follows: “Nothing contained in under any Act amended by this Act, this Act shall be construed to au for religious worship or instruction.” thorize any department, agency, offi This is the only time that the bill cer, or employee of the United States mentions religion in any way. It to exercise any direction, supervision, is clear from this provision that all or control over the curriculum, pro aid mentioned previously in the bill gram of instruction, administration as authorized for private non-profit or personnel of any educational insti schools is for secular education only. tution or school system, or over the This should quiet the worst fears of selection of library resources or print those who are concerned with the ed or published instructional materials possible infringement on the wall of by any educational institution orA separation between Church and State school system.” Here is a direct pro which is implied in the First Amend hibition of any interference or con ment of the Constitution. The aid to trol by the Federal government in any secular instruction is fully consistent and all educational matters, whether with the U. S. Supreme Court deci in a public or in a nonpublic school. sion in the school textbook case, The inevitability of Federal control Cochran v. Louisiana (193Û). Significantly, not one of those has often been claimed by those who have opposed governmental aid to American Jewish agencies which have nonpublic schools. Very often, the come forward against the bill, in most threat of the loss of religious freedom cases with multiple statements and has been made to discourage private at great length, seems to have cited religious schools from accepting Fed- this key provision. Do they mistrust eral or State aid. If this bill is to be the American legislative process?

cational agencies, and to assist those agencies in the establishment and improvement of programs to identify and meet the educational needs of States . . . ” The final Title VI con tains definitions of terms, authorizes the appointment of advisory coun cils “to advise and consult with the Commissioner with respect to carry ing out his functions under this or any other law.”

THE HEARINGS BEFORE CONGRESS r p H E testimony given initially at A the hearings on H.R. 2362 be fore the General Subcommittee on

Education and Labor was described by the New York Times as “a kind of ecumenical chorale,” with spokesJEW ISH LIFE

men for Roman Catholic and Pro testant organizations praising the bill. Expressing support for the Perkins Bill were Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the Eisenhower cabi net, and at present the President of the University of Oregon, and the Right Rev. Monsignor Frederick G. Hochwalt, director of the Department of Education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Addressing the subcommittee as spokesman for the National Council of Churches which consists of thirty-one Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations, President Flemming asserted that the bill would “provide sound educational opportunities for millions of our young people who otherwise will not have them.” Furthermore, he stated that the bill would become “an instru ment of reconciliation” between the religious denominations which had disagreed for a long time over the issue of Federal aid to parochial schools. Even though he expressed some reservations about particular activities authorized by the bill, Presi dent Flemming nonetheless communi cated the approval of the National Council for the measure as a whole. Msgr. Hochwalt, too, found some fault with the bill, namely, that its “formula for participation quite ob viously is not based on equality of treatment” of public and nonpublic school children.” Reiterating the tradi tional policy of the National Catholic Welfare Conference that “any federal aid to education program provided by the Federal Government should in clude the children in private schools as a matter of justice,” he expressed pleasure that H.R. 2362 specified that “the benefits of the program are to be

May-June, 1965

provided to a notable extent to children in nonpublic schools.” Also testifying before the House subcommittee in support of the bill were Rabbi Morris Sherer in behalf of Agudath Israel of America, and the present writer, who read the official statement of Torah Umesorah (Na tional Society for Hebrew Day Schools). Rabbi Sherer, executive vice-president of Agudath Israel, ap plauded “the fact that basically this bill will not deprive the children” of the Hebrew Day Schools from “the major benefits of this program.” N approving the bill, Torah Ume sorah, which has organized and given educational service to more than two hundred of the 272 Hebrew Day Schools in the United States, stressed the point of the equality of all American children: “It surely is obvious that a child who is given inadequate educational opportunity is denied a basic American right. We consider it no less true that if reli gious conscience impels an American parent to send his child to a private school where he is given the equiv alent of public training, side by side with religious instruction, then the principle of equality entitles that child to receive no less favored treat ment in any government sponsored educational program, than any other American child.” The approval by Torah Umesorah represented the consensus of the deans of the ortho dox Jewish academies and theological schools, as well as of the close to three hundred elementary and sec ondary Jewish day schools all over the country. Thus, organized Jewish education of the intensive, traditional type was lined up solidly behind the

education proposals of President Johnson. The fact of support for the bill by Torah Umesorah was hardly a pro found surprise. But what must have shocked many within and/ beyond the Jewish community was the submittal by the American Jewish Committee of a statement of endorsement of H.R. 2362. In spite of some reser vations, this well-known secular orga nization lent its full support to what it regarded as an aid to public edu cation. It is significant that the Ameri can Jewish Committee favored the proposed legislation “so long as the state or Federal Government does not aid religion or religious educa tion or church-related institutions, so long as its grant of aid is extended to the protection and improvement of the welfare of the child.” Even though the American Jewish Com mittee did not express any particular concern for the welfare of the child in the Jewish day school, it did recog nize the sincerity of the President’s program of aid to all children—and this is to the good. Moreover, the Committee made it abundantly clear that it was convinced that the bill (Section 605) forbade the use of public money “for religious worship or instruction.” By frowning upon state or Federal aid to “church-related institutions,” it indicated a reserva tion toward a part of the proposed legislation, but this did not prevent it from approving the bill as a whole. PPOSITION to the Morse-Perkins bill was not long in com ing. As the New York Times stated, it came in the form of a “heavy at tack” by Dr. Leo Pfeifer (of the American Jewish Congress, but ap parently not officially speaking in

behalf in this instance), by Professor George R. LaNoue of Teachers Col lege, Columbia University, represent ing the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lawrence Speiser. Both Pfeifer, and the A.C.L.U. spokesmen specifically opposed the grant of text books to parochial school pupils and the joint public-private educational centers. They maintained that public funds for these purposes would con stitute an infringement upon the doctrine of Church-State separation and hence, must be considered un constitutional. These individuals were unimpressed by the constitution ality of giving secular textbooks of parochial school pupils, as decided by the United States Supreme Court in the Cochran v. Louisiana case. It is also of interest that the A.C. L. U. demanded changes in the bill or it “will be obliged to oppose the bill.” However, the attitude of the A.C.L.U. was perfectly clear: the bill as presented to the Congress was unacceptable to it. Also opposing the President’s pro gram were the Unitarian Universalist Church and the National As sociation of Evangelicals. Significant ly, both extremes of the Protestant theological spectrum—the liberal and the conservative— agreed that ¿he bill was undesirable. Such agreement has not been common. The attacks on the bill by Pfeifer were foreshadowed a day earlier by the official testimony of the American Jewish Congress submitted by Howard M. Squadron, chairman of its Com mission of Law and Social Action. The statement denounced the bill as leading to a “bitter rivalry’’ between public and parochial schools for a “fair share of the pie.” Then followed the customary argument that ChurchJEW ISH LIFE

State separation is violated by the provision of books to parochial school pupils and by any educational partner ship between public and parochial schools such as proposed in the bill. Mr. Squadron insisted that the Con gress favored Federal funds “both to strengthen education and to fight poverty,” but he opposed the inclusion of parochial pupils. The American Jewish Congress objected to all direct or indirect grants to sectarian schools for textbooks as “contrary to the constitutional principle of the separa tion of church and state.” Thus, it skirted the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court which allowed text books for parochial school pupils. Mr. Squadron maintained that, if public funds were to be granted to private schools, the American pub lic school system would be “gravely threatened” and “seriously jeopardiz ed.” He did not cite any supporting evidence. Nor did he mention that both the National Education Associa tion and the American Association of School Administrators, composed mainly of public school teachers and superintendents, had endorsed the bill. Neither group expressed any fear that the grant of Federal funds would in any way “threaten” or “jeopardize” the public school system. If anyone should be sensitive to any danger, it would be the leadership of these influential and representative organizations. They are not worried, but the American Jewish Congress is. This seems to be a case of being more Catholic than the Pope. r r i H E American Jewish Congress JL statement also raised another bogey, that of the “collapse” of the public school system of Holland as a foreshadowing of what would

May-June, 1965

happen in the United States if public funds were given to private schools. It cited the fact that, since the Nether lands government began to furnish funds to the religious schools, the percentage of pupils attending the state secular schools dropped from about eighty per cent to about twenty per cent. As usual, the American Jewish Congress statement drew upon the traditional argument of Dr. Pfe ifer, who has publicly admitted his limited knowledge of the Dutch school system and its function in the life and society of the people of the Netherlands. In the first place, let it be noted that gelijkstelling (equal ization of state and religious schools) is precisely what the Dutch people want. They regard all schools as be longing to their national system; hence, they subsidize them. They realize that these schools may differ in ideology, but all of them educate patriotic, well-informed Dutch cit izens. When the people obtain the type of education they want for their children, within the framework of basic governmental requirements, then we have an example of edu cational democracy in the full sense of the term. Consequently, the reference to Holland teaches us, if anything, not the collapse of the public school system, but rather the fact that all schools are part of the state school system. We might consider learning something from Dutch logic—to put the public and the private schools on the basis of equality. TILL another point in the Ameri can Jewish Congress presenta S tion might be subjected to analysis. The authors of the testimony admit ted an awareness of the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court had ruled in

the Cochran v. Louisiana case that the provision of textbooks to pupils in nonpublic schools was constitutional. They stressed, however, that “the church-state issue was neither raised nor considered in the Cdchran case, and that such a ruling today would be inconsistent with the church-state principles since then announced by the Court.” Now let us read the relevant por tions of the Cochran decision [281 U.S. 370 (1930)]: “The contention of the appellant under the Fourteenth Amendment is that taxation for the purchase of school books constituted a taking of private property for private purpose. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655. The purpose is said to be to aid private, religious, sectarian [italics added], and other schools not embraced in the public educational system of the State by furnishing text books free to the children attend ing such private schools.” This quotation contains evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court did consider the possible implications of the Church-State issue. Furthermore, it quoted with approval the Louisiana Supreme Court (168 La. 1030) as follows: I. “One may scan the [state] acts in P vain to ascertain whether any money is appropriated for the purchase of school -books for the use of any church, private, sectarian, or even public school. The appropriations were made for the specific purpose of purchasing school books for the use of the school children of the state, free of cost to them. It was for their benefit and the resulting benefit to the state that the appropriations were made. True, these children attend some school, public or private, the latter sectarian or non-sectarian, and that the books are to be furnished

them for their use, free of cost, whichever they attend. The schools, however, are not the beneficiaries of these appropriations. They obtain nothing from them, nor are they relieved of a single obligation, because of them. The school children and the state alone are the beneficiaries. It is also true that the sectarian schools, which some of the children attend, instruct their pupils in religion, and books are used for that purpose, but one may search diligently the acts, though without result; in an effort to find anything to the effect that it is the purpose of the state to furnish religious books for the use of such children... What the statutes contemplate is that the same books that are furnished children attending public schools shall be furnished children attending private schools. This is the only practical way of interpreting and executing the sta tutes.” Surely there is enough here to contradict the claim by the American Jewish Congress that in this U. S. Supreme Court decision “the ChurchState issue was neither raised nor con sidered.” One wonders whether the Congress experts read this decision recently or whether they choose to superimpose their own opinions over those of the highest tribunal of the land. That they regard themselves as prophets is evident from the implica tion in the official Congress testimony that the Cochran decision would be oyerruled by the present day Court. It is noteworthy that the U. S. Sup reme Court was unanimous in its decision in the Cochran case. E may well quote here also the ▼▼ Court’s conclusion that in furnishing textbooks to parochial school pupils, “the taxing power of the State is exerted for a public purJEW ISH LIFE

pose. The legislation does not segre gate public schools, or their pupils, as its beñeficiaries or attempt to inter fere with any matters of exclusively private concern. Its interest is edu cation, broadly; its method, compre hensive. Individual interests are aided only as the common interest is safe guarded.” The American Jewish Congress statement to the U. S. Congress thus includes an inexcusable distortion of a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court. Let the reader examine the AJC docu ment and determine for himself how many other distortions it contains. In another presentation, Mr. Richard

G. Hirsch, director of the Commis sion on Social Action of the Reform Union of American Hebrew Congre gations, argued that public funds should be for public schools only and “not siphoned off to Jewish, Catholic* Protestant, or any other schools under religious auspices.” Still another state ment of opposition to Federal aid to private schools was offered by the National Council of Jewish Women. The head of this organization, it might be recalled, was directly instrumental in preventing the Jewish philanthropic federation of Minneapolis from grant ing private funds to the local private Jewish day school.

JEWISH ORGANIZATIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT'S BILL N addition to the presentations made at the Congressional hearings, the Jewish organizations opposed to the non-discriminatory provisions of the bill issued varied statements along similar lines. Perhaps the earliest one of this kind was in the personal newsletter, January 18, 1965, issued by Shad Polier, chairman of the Governing Council of the Congress. Mr. Polier laid stress on the un constitutionality of the President’s bill and the danger to the public school system. His analysis was head ed by a “phrase from Genesis,” name ly, “A Mess of Pottage.” This is a familiar English expression, but it is news that it comes from Genesis.* It is odd for an influential Jewish leader to be careless about his Biblical quotation, but this lapse is in line with the looseness and subjectivity

evident in the argumentation, as when he includes Federal grants of secular textbooks as “illegal” and as “a viola tion of the First Amendment.” No where is there offered objective evi dence to support this contention. As pointed out previously, the American Jewish Congress experts, individually and collectively, are not at all cir cumspect in their references to au thority or evidence in Church-State matters. Their dogmatism makes for distortion. Nor is this practice the sole property of the American Jewish Congress; it can be seen in the state ments of other groups, including leading organizations in the Jewish community. To analyze in similar detail the statements and opinions of other Jewish organizations opposing Presi dent Johnson’s proposed educational

* It will not be found there in any of the Jewish translations, but rather in the Geneva (Proteestant) Bible of 1560 as the chapter heading of Genesis XXV. Both the Jewish and Protestant translations use the term “pottage of lentils’*! (Genesis, 25:34; in the most recent translations, “a dinner of herbs” ). The phrase “a mess of potage” does occur in Thomas Matthew’s Bible translation published in 1537, for aruchoth habosem, in Proverbs XV, 17.

May-June, 1965

program would be to indulge in spacewaisting repetitiousness. The argu ments are essentially the same. Some purpose will be served by a listing of the other groups in opposition: the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, which approved of “perhaps 85 per cent” of the bill’s provisions, but rejected “the use of public funds in aid to sectarian schools at the pri mary or secondary level”; the Jew ish Labor Committee, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, and the (Conservative) United Synagogue of America. The last-named three, together with the American Jewish Congress, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the (Reform) Union of American Hebrew Congre gations, issued a joint statement on February 14, 1965 in opposition to H.R. 2362. These six organizations upheld the principles of Federal aid to education, but rejected the pro posed law as including provisions violating “the constitutional prohibi tions of the use of public funds to support religious institutions and enterprises.” Instead, they suggested changes which would in fact eliminate the private and parochial schools and their pupils from the benefits of Fe deral legislation,

T ET US not inquire as to the cru-L i cial interest or competence of these Jewish organizations in edu cational matters. Their statement urged large-scale Federal assistance for the public schools. We have still to read a statement, joint or other wise, which calls for a large scale effort in Jewish education, particularly toward ensuring the existence and promoting the progress of Jewish day schools and Yeshivoth. It is these groups who advise proponents of 32

Federal aid that the Jewish commu nity agencies will aid the Jewish schools, but do nothing or virtually nothing to help secure community funds. The present writer has not seen any formal statement, or question there from, by the National Community Re lations Advisory Council, a co-ordi nating agency of Jewish agencies. However, spokesmen for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Philadelphia, an affiliate, disapproved of the education bill on the grounds of Church-State separation and proposed the same changes as the six orga nizations mentioned above. Accord ing to Sydney C. Orlofsky, chairman of the JCRC committee on religious freedom and interreligious relation ships, “there are sections of the Bill (Morse-Perkins Bill—S. 320 and H.R. 2362) which in our judgment, con stitute a danger to the public schools, and violate the constitutional prohibi tion against support from public tax funds of religious institutions and pro grams, thus threatening religious liberty and having the potential of fomenting interreligious tensions and controversies” (Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, March 12, 1965). Here, in a convenient capsule form, is a neat summation of all bugaboos and cli ches, for which objective evidence is rarely, if ever, adduced. r I ^HE program co-ordinator of the -i- National Community Relations Advisory Council, Philip Jacobson, engaged in a debate on February 15 with William B. Ball, General Counsel of the Pennsylvania Catholic Welfare Committee, before the American Association of School Administrators at the annual meeting in Atlantic City. Mr, Jacobson, a highly compeJEWISH LIFE

tent attorney, offered various criti cisms of the bill and predicted that “the blurring of the distinction be tween public and parochial schools will almost certainly result in a mushrooming of denominational systems of education, a shrinking of tax funds for public schools, the frag mentation of the public school, and a deterioration of the quality of American education,. . . [and] a serious setback for school integra tion.” His fears were in no instance buttressed by verifiable fact. Interest ingly, the Educational Supplement of The Times of London, by a special correspondent from Atlantic City, characterized Mr. Jacobson’s speech as ua fierce attack. . . against Presi dent Johnson’s recent education Bill with its aid to church schools” (Feb ruary, 1965). Of special interest was Mr. Jacob son’s characterization of the parochial school as “not just another public school with religion added,” but “a religious school, an adjunct of the church.” This concept of a religionoriented school is a notable example of misstatement and over-simplifica tion. He is not aware, or disregards the fact that the private and parochial scholars are under legal supervision and control, as a rule, by the several state departments of public instruc tion. He is not aware of the public purpose of the parochial school, of the fact that its graduates serve gov ernment, industry, and public edu cation without fiscal recognition from the government. The students of the parochial schools take the same state examinations as public school stu dents in New York and the identical College Entrance Examination Board tests. Thus, whatever else they might be taught, they receive the same in-

May-June, 1965

struction in the standard subjects as the pupils in the public schools. In short, a parochial school does what the public school does, with a diffe rence traceable to the desire of parents to have their children taught what the public school is not allowed to teach A-religion. ERY shocking was the opposi S tion by the American Association for Jewish Education, a group which is mainly concerned with afternoon Hebrew schools. According to its statement of March 3, 1965, signed by Isadore Breslau, president, Samuel Daroff, chairman of the Board of Governors, and Isaac Toubin, execu tive director, the bill was “violative” of the separation principle and “an tagonistic to the best interests of this country.” (An earlier version published in the newspapers, by Isaac Toubin—who recently began to iden tify himself as a clergyman—stated that the bill would not only be “vio lative of the separation of church and state but dangerous for both religious and public education in this country.”) With respect to Church-State sepa ration and the status of public edu cation in the United States, neither the AAJE nor Dr. Toubin can be re garded as authoritative. Regarding religious education, which is included within the purview of the AAJE, one can be equally dubious, especially when one realizes that the leadership heads of the orthodox rabbinical semi naries, and lay orthodox leaders are convinced that the bill will aid pupils of the Jewish nonpublic schools. Apparently, these religious leaders have no fear for the future of reli gious education if the President’s school program should be approved by Congress. It may not be too sur-

prising to find the AAJE presenting tion if it is really concerned even with itself as the organization which is elementary religious education. If it best equipped by training and ex can disregard the evidence of its own perience to disburse the public funds Dushkin-Engelman survey (see my ar to the day schools. From one stand ticle J e w is h L i f e , December, 1959) point, the AAJE may be right: if that afternoon and Sunday schools the day schools and yeshivoth flourish offer but minimal, or rather sub-mini as a consequence of Federal aid, then mal, religious knowledge, then one the usefulness of its constituent bu can hardly take seriously its protes reaus of Jewish education might be tations in behalf of religious edu greatly diminished if not eliminated. cation. The AAJE committed a gross mis To be fair to those professional representation when it claimed that educators working under the aegis of its objections to financial aid to pa the AAJE who understand and actual rochial schools and to the Dual En ly promote religious education, we rollment or Shared Time plan arose must mention the fact that the Nation “both from our solicitude for the al Council for Jewish Education, to welfare of Jewish religious education which they belong as professionals, and our vast national experience with joined the national educational groups Jewish religious schools of an all-day in supporting President Johnson’s bill. of after-school c h a r a c t e r (italics It is obvious that the so-called lay added). It is simply not true that leaders are the ones who are respon the AAJE was merely substituting its sible for the assault on Jewish day name for that of Torah Umesorah. schools in the document prepared for Surely, Congress and the American Congress. It is high time to question people deserve the whole truth. the grants of Jewish community funds The fact of the matter is that the to an organization which appears to AAJE seemed to desire the disappear be dedicated to the demise of the only ance of the day schools when it pre type of school which can ensure the sented an alternate plan to Congress: perpetuation and flowering of the Jew a public school for all pupils until ish community. 1:00 or 2:00 p.m., following which parents can enroll their children “in EADERS of the newspapers with religious schools of parochial or national coverage must have other character.” “There is ample ex been surprised, if not indeed Startled, perience in the Afternoon Religious to note the emergence of articulate School of the Jewish community to expresssion on the part of orthodox demonstrate that an intensive and Jewish groups. Statements in sup effective religious education can be port of the President’s program of provided by the church and the home education were made by the Union of during after-school h ours. . . ” Fortu Orthodox Jewish Congregations of nately, Congress did not heed this America, Torah Umesorah, Agudath suggestion. Israel, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis The AAJE, by this action, has for of the United States and Canada, feited any basis of claim to be a Poaley Agudath Israel, the National friend of day schools and yeshivoth. Council of Young Israel, and the It also forces one to raise the ques- Religious Zionists of America (Miz-

JEWISH LIFE

rachi-Hapoel Hamizrachi). Of these, funds, and resist support of yeshivoth Torah Umesorah and the Religious and day schools, either by giving them Zionists of America (through its miserable token allocations, or by Education Committee) are active in totally excluding them from any allo the founding and servicing of day cation.” The orthodox Jewish alignment in schools, while the other groups aid in many ways. Significantly, they do favor of H.R. 2362 seems to be solid not refer to the lurking danger of and complete. However, there is one infringements of religious freedom outstanding omission—the Rabbinical in the bill. The secular Jewish organi Council of America. No opinion of zations are constantly alerting ortho any kind has emerged as yet from dox rabbis and laymen to the po this today. tential loss of religious liberty, but somehow this fear is not shared by T ET US now consider the attituthose who are deeply committed to JL i des of the leading educational traditional religious values. bodies in the United States with To these orthodox Jewish state reference to the education bill. As ments must be added those issued in far back as November, 1964, the January and February, 1965, by the American Federation of Teachers, Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem which consists of 100,000 teachers, M. Schneerson, the head of a wide most of them in public education, network of day schools, yeshivoth, reversed its policy and announced and seminaries not only in the United its support for Federal aid to pa States, but throughout the world as rochial schools. The Federation, an well. For some time, the Lubavitcher affiliate of the American Federation Rebbe, a pioneer in rabbinical circles of Labor—Congress of Industrial in supporting the principle of Federal Organizations, thus brought its view aid to nonpublic schools, approved point into line with the traditional the bill “even though it does not approval by the A.F.L.—C.I.O. of yet satisfy all the justifiable demands public aid for all pupils. The reso of the secular departments of the lution stated that “Federal support Parochial schools for Federal aid.” must provide that the child shall He warned that, in the event of the have the benefit of such Federal sup passage of the bill, the vehement op port in any given educational situ ponents of Federal aid to parochial ation where he or his guardians elect schools should be prevented from to have him. Federal funds must pro making an attempt “to grasp the mote no special doctrine of private administrative end of the program, to institutional origin; should assist in make themselves the interpreters and securing qualified, certified teachers, distributors of the funds.” More either on a shared time basis or com over, he stressed that “the preponder pletely within a publicly supported ing majority of the Jewish antag institution.” onists of Federal aid to Parochial Another educational organization schools are those who are opposed which has a preponderant number of to the very idea of Parochial schools. Many of them have the main say in public school teachers and super the distribution of Jewish Federation visors, the 903,000-member National

May-June, 1965

Education Association, reversed its stand when it issued on January 12th a strong endorsement of President Johnson’s educational proposal. Ac cording to Robert E. McKay, chair man of NEA Legislative Commission, the President’s educational message to Congress was “one of the strongest commitments to meeting the urgent needs of the public [italics added] schools ever to come from the White House.” He went on to say that the President’s school program “has the wholehearted support of the National Education Association. Major finan cial support will be given by the President’s plan where it is most needed at the elementary and second ary levels, with special emphasis in areas of low economic ability and deprived cultural opportunity.” It should be noted that not even one member of the Legislative Com mission of the NEA represents non public education. Composed as it is of public school and college edu cators, and sensitive as it is to the needs of the public school system and to the dangers thereunto, this NEA commission was emphatic in its approval of the President’s edu cational program for all schools— public and nonpublic—and all pupils. Mr. McKay testified at the hear ings of the General Subcommittee on Education in behalf of the NEA and supported H.R. 2362 enthusiastic ally. He cited the NEA policy which “insists that legislation providing gen eral or specific aid be consistent with the constitutional provisions rèspecting an establishment of religion and with the tradition of separation of church and state.” However, he stated his belief that the proposed legislation would not violate the principle of Church-State separation.

According to the “NEA Reporter” for February 26, 1965, favorable testimony was also presented by four departments of the NEA, the NEAaffiliated Los Angeles Teachers Asso ciation and the Philadelphia Teachers Association, and “many school super intendents and other education ex perts.” The NEA Board of Directors gave its approval to H.R. 2362 on February 14 and urged “the Legis lative Commission to press for the successful passage of the proposed legislation.. . . ” Furthermore, 225 NEA leaders from 50 states visited all members of Congress during a three-day period in late February and early March. Sub sequent to the passing of H.R. 2362 by the entire Education and Labor Committee of the House of Repre sentatives, the NEA urged each mem ber to “wire or airmail your Con gressman. . . . This plea has never been more earnest nor the opportun ity for a breakthrough more auspi cious.” That the bill also aids paro chial schools did not frighten the NEA into opposition. Still another shift in position was recorded by the American Association of School Superintendents in February at the annual meeting in Atlantic City, attended by more than 21,000 superintendents and other administra tive officials, the vast majority of whom serve the public schools. In spite of some reservations about the proposed law, the AASA declared that it “will give superintendents of schools a special responsibility for assuming leadership in its imple mentation for the benefit of all children.” [italics added] While the organization reaffirmed its stand against public funds to nonpublic schools, it maintained that the bill JEWISH LIFE

would help the pupils rather than the schools. It is significant that nothing was said about the possible decline and fall of the public school

system. Instead, the public school administrators saw new avenues of leadership opening up for them through the passage of the bill.

THE BILL AS AMENDED The text of the bill as it emerged from the House and Senate Education subcommittees, from thence to their parent committees, and as it was fi nally brought before the House and Senate for vote contained various amendments, which are contained in the Federal Education Act as passed and signed into law. Essentially, the amendments required that a public agency shall retain title to property and administer the funds and property under Title I and have sole control and administration of the use of lib rary resources and textbooks under Title II; prohibit, under Title IV, grants or contracts to universities for sectarian instruction or for prepa ration of students for theological and religious vocations; not prohibit also, under Title IV, any research, training, surveys, or publications in the field of sectarian instruction. Even though Section 605 of Title VI of the original bill was explicit enough to bar public payments “for religious worship or instruction,” it was clear that it had no effect on those who opposed the bill on the grounds of Church-State separation. No doubt the testimony of the secu lar Jewish organizations and of the total separationist Protestant groups must have made a deep impact on

May-June, 1965

the legislators in the subcommittees because the prohibitions on subsi dizing any form of religious activity or instruction were multiplied. The amendments repeat in more words what Section 655 expressed with conciseness but with no less firmness. The Subcommittee sought a broad base of support for the bill and these amendments seemed to promise to guarantee such a base. Thus, the Subcommittees apparent ly capitulated to the criticism of the strict separationists. Moreover, they watered down the bill by amending the grant of textbooks to a loan. This means that the bill, originally a com promise, was compromised further as a concession to the opponents. Let us close our commentary on the school legislation with President Johnson’s identification of education as “the first priority in our country” and with his exhortation in his State of the Union Message that “every child must have the best education our nation can provide.” To these we may add the familiar admonition by the Talmud: “Take care (of the education and welfare) of the children of poor persons, because from them learning (Torah) will go forth”— Nedarim, 81.

The Vulgarization of the American Jewish Community By HARRY LOEWY

A S we all know, civic political strife often matches in intensity the party tug of war on state and national levels. Thus, a cause célèbre was recently featured in the second sec tion of the daily newspaper; the part which is set aside for news of local interest. According to that report, park rangers in one of the state parks ap prehended some men engaged in the pastime of deer hunting. The matter received extensive news coverage, ob viously not because of the gravity of the offense but rather on account of the fact that the men involved hap pened to be prominent politicians in the political party opposed by that newspaper. The matter itself was of little interest to me. However, there were two facts involved which caught my attention: Among the culprits was a prominent Jewish physician, a mem ber of our synagogue. Second, the al leged law violation was committed on Shabboth. In fact, I distinctly remem bered having seen Dr. Feldman’s wife and children in shool that very Shab both. The offense, being the concern of the authorities and opposing political parties, need not be discussed here. The shocking factor is that there are Jews who find delight in hunting! We thought that all this was done with after Ishmael and Esau. And there was also the matter of Shabboth in volved. Now, most of us will not con done either Shabboth desecration or

hunting, done singly. But the combina tion of both? This is a factor which is almost impossible to comprehend. Apart from Halachic considerations such as tzaar baaley chayim (causing suffering to animals), such a detestable pastime was just unthinkable to be of interest to a Jew. It can safely and curtly be dismissed with, “Es passt sich nit far a Yid.” Except for pikuach nefesh, there are no mitigating or extenuating cir cumstances modifying the laws about Shabboth observance. And yet, our parents could not suppress feelings of compassion for the poor Jewish ped dler, sweat-shop worker, or corner groceryman, who had to eke out a living for his family, and felt, albeit wrongly so, that this justified his chilul shabboth. Most often he managed to take a brief time off from his work, wipe his grimy hands on his apron, mumble a few prayers and retire to the backroom to make Kiddush. But even the saintly Rabbi Levi Yitzchok would have been hard put to cham pion the cause of the wealthy Dr. Feldman who brazenly put his leisure time to such unholy use. What is happening to American Jewry? is t o r ia n s ,

theologians, socio logists, psychologists, and anthro pologists will easily discover two trends and phenomena running through our entire history. One was the clamoring

JEWISH LIFE

to be “a nation like all the other nations.” This outcry usually achieved its purpose. Those who wanted to blend inconspicuously into their en vironment easily accomplished just that. The second, and redeeming fac tor, was that the saving remnant al ways managed to remain several notches above the general populace, in terms of ethical standards, culture, civilization, and breeding. One does not have to be a chauvinist to recog nize this. There was never, never a period in Jewish history when our collective or individual refinement was inferior to or even at par with our milieu. There was the eternal polariza tion between the “Ivan” and between the “Moshko.” Even during the heights of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civili zations “they” only had an elite whilst “we” were the elite. Nowadays, however, a startling and completely new phenomenon is be coming discernible in contemporary society. It is still somewhat nebulous and vague to the orthodox Jew living in the big city, whose social contacts with non-Jews are mostly confined to business and professional relations. But the truly orthodox Jew living in the smaller community is now facing up to a stark reality: Socially he feels more at home in the company of nonJews or perhaps the elite among Re form Jews (perhaps because of the fact that the latter have advanced so far in their desire for assimilation) than among his “own,” viz. the nomi nally orthodox, Conservative, or Johnny-come-lately Reform. There are very few who will have the courage to face up to the correctness of this observa tion. It all sounds so incongruous as to be hardly credible. How could such a thing be possible?

May-June, 1965

/" \U R Gentile friends, of course, are V / fully adjusted to their milieu and live in peace with it. If they are re ligious, they mean it. If they are not religious, why, then they mean it too and they see no need to take recourse to pseudo-religious affiliations. Like wise, the true orthodox Jew is not torn apart between what he is and between what he wants to appear like. The Gentile member of the steadily grow ing middle class has long ceased to be an “Ivan.” He is a cultured per sonality, most likely a college graduate, with an ever-growing appreciation for the finer things in life, such as good books, music, and the like. The urge for social climbing has n ot^as yet, affected him too seriously. Again, he is quite satisfied with his lot. He lives for and within his family and circle of friends, he pursues his profession or business ardently, though without any undue stress, and perhaps he has an innocent hobby or two. The or thodox Jew follows the same pattern, perhaps with the exception of the hobby, since the shool and the Beth Hamidrash occupy his leisure time. Not so with the non-orthodox Jew! He is constantly tormented by doubts whether he is really accepted by his Gentile friends, as witness his presentday preoccupation with and expendi tures for interfaith activities and his opposition to the day school trend for his children (ghetto schools!). His temples and centers become more palatable to him in direct proportion to their successful mimicry of church practices. He is overwrought and torn asunder in an eternal conflict be tween his past and his present. The future matters little. If he cannot find access to the country club by virtue of his creed or social standing then he will force it with his bankroll or

through the channels of the Anti-De famation League. He is gripped by a mild neurosis. A NOTHER* boon has been given to the orthodox Jew in our time. The keeping of mitzvoth need no longer remain a schematic pursuit. We are perhaps the first generation that can readily witness the beneficent effects of Torah and mitzvoth. More precise ly, by default we can observe the cor roding effects of non-observance. In short, we can witness the vulgarization of the Jewish masses, as exemplified by the Jewish physician who went deer hunting on the Sabbath. We ob serve the intellectual decline amongst our own. No longer Is it sine qua non that the only two Jewish high school students in a given class must rank first and second. The neglect of Torah education for two or three generations begins to take its toll. A quasi-Jewish university, named after an illustrious son of this writer’s present home, makes newspaper head lines because of sexual practices there. One of its students managed to sing an ode to sexual orgasm and finds a willing audience in a national Jewish publication. Divorce rates, both de jure and de facto, are skyrocketing. The Jewish Mamme of the 1960’s pushes her pre-teenager offspring to the cotillion (sponsored by the temple) instead of the Cheder (neglected by the synagogue). The same national Jewish publica tion gleefully reports the burlesque of a certain “rabbi” who does not believe in G-d. The “rabbi” himself could either be immeasurably more honest than his unctious colleagues who are forever mouthing pious bromides, or, and perhaps as well, he could have a clever instinct for a publicity stunt,

This in itself is one of the prere quisites for “How to succeed in the ministry of the^‘establishment’ without really trying.” Imagine the impact of a newspaper scoop to the effect that Russia’s present rulers have decided to attend mass in church regularly! Not to be beaten in the game, the Reconstructionists soundly castigated the “rabbi” for being so gauche as not to admit to a do-it-yourself-god as the Reconstructionists have been wont to do, beckoning to the pseudo-intel lectual with a work-bench in his base ment. The vulgarization of the American Jewish community did not begin in America. Its seeds were laid on the shores of Europe when so many of the vast masses of immigrants showed their determination to discard all that which labeled them as greenhorns, in terms of language, clothing, and re ligion. It was nurtured by the “Re verends” of the early 1900’s who sold cheap religion for hard-earned dol lars. It was fostered by the disintegra tion of the Jewish home via spineless fathers and frosted-hair-mothers for ever flitting between card games and beauty parlors. But, lastly, it is epi tomized in the development of the Jewish “stone-age” culminating in gaudy “temples” and suave “rabbis.” The old-time Reverend with his measly penny kaddish-and-kiddushin business has been driven off the market by the modern-age supermarkets of re ligion—our synagogues, with parking stalls and all. Confronted with the urgency of keeping the collective business going without the necessity of personal commitment, Synagogue Ad ministration has become a science. And all this is vulgar! Are synagogues of this kind and their officiants really that important? In his magnificent inJEWISH LIFE

troduction to the English translation of Samson Raphael Hirsch’s Horeb* Dr. Grunfeld refers to that monu mental work written in 1835: In an attempt to assimilate Judaism to the dominant faith, the GermanJewish reformers of the last century introduced the idea into modern-Jewish thought that worship of G-d in the synagogue is the central point in Jewish life, whereas in reality the law of the Torah should permeate and rule the whole of life. Against this fundamental error of ‘localizing’ G-d in the House of Worship, instead of allowing Him to become a central force in our life, Hirsch wrote some of his most trenchant essays, in one of which he had the courage to ex claim: ‘If I had the power I would provisionally close all synagogues for a hundred years. Do not tremble at the thought of it, Jewish heart. What would happen? Jews and Jewesses without synagogues, desiring to re main such, would be forced to con centrate on a Jewish life and a Jew ish home. The Jewish officials con nected with the synagogue would have to look to the only opportunity now open to them—to teach young and old how to live a Jewish life and how to build a Jewish home. All syna gogues closed by Jewish hands would constitute the strongest protest against the abandonment of the Torah in home and life.’ This dramatic passage throws into relief the wrong notion that synagogues in themselves are sufficient to perpetuate Judaism. The fundamental truth of these thoughts, brought to paper one hun dred and thirty years ago, is absolutely glaring. Not one iota of derech eretz will be diminished from those genuine synagogues in our days where Torah, Avodah, and Gemiluth Chasodim * Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb, (translated by Dayan Dr. I. Grunfeld), London; The Soncino Press, 1962, f. lxix.

May-June, 1965

have found a home, to the exclusion of everything else. Unfortunately, though, our age has given rise to osten tatious congregations where ostenta tious people congregate for bingos, dances, carnivals, and the like; but hardly for anything which reflects the true purpose of a synagogue. Thus in many instances the synagogue, or rather the pseudo-synagogue, has be come the disease carrier in our pre sent-day vulgarization of American Jewry. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch did not make these observations in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. Think! How would they affect us today? The ones who come to shool for the purpose of davening and learning—if there were no genuine synagogues in their communities-^would find ways and means to gather minyonim in private homes, as was done in countless instances in the history of our collective martyr dom. The bingo-players and New Year’s dancers, likewise, will be in genious enough to discover other, bet ter-suited locations. Thus nobody would really lose by it! There would also undoubtedly come about an abrupt end to the myth of the three wings in Jewry, orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. They would be reduced to a havdolah be tween the chol (secular) and between th q kodesh (holy); a process which in effect is going on now. Sooner or later, the Dr. Feldmans, the “Rabbi” Wines, the Reconstructionists, the Branded students like Helge Ronning, will disappear into the wings of our stage. “Apd if there be yet a tenth in it, it shall again be eaten up; as a tere binth,! and as an oak, whose stock remaineth, when they cast their leaves, so thp holy seed shall be the stock thereof.” (Isaiah 6:13)

Changing Attitudes Towards Jewish Education for Women By RAPHAEL S. WEINBERG

HE following principle is stated

TOPIC dealing with attitudes A toward Jewish education of T in the Mishnah: “All obligations women would naturally be significant of the son upon the father men are to a father of three daughters who teaches Jewish subjects in a women’s branch of a Jewish university. But the writer strongly feels that this topic and the problems connected with it are of vital and immediate interest to all orthodox Jews. A country strug gling for economic stability will pre sumably exploit to the fullest its na tural resources. A religious people try ing to withstand corrosion from with in must re-evaluate its educational system and investigate whether or not it is utilizing all its “natural resources.” For generations there has been a policy of ignoring the problem of higher Jewish education for the fair sex. There always was a latent feeling that , there is something strange and immodest about a scholarly woman. Cliches on the subject are numerous. Even today a young lady who can comprehend a Halachic discussion is “different.” In this article I shall attempt to trace this negative attitude to its roots, and to understand the reasoning be hind it. Was the admonition against educating women taken seriously? What of today and of the future?— This too will be discussed.

bound, but women are exempt.” (Kiddushin 1, 7) The difficult wording of this text* is explained by Rabbi Yehudah Ha-nasi thus: “All obligations of the son, which lie upon the father to do to his son, men are bound, but women (mothers) are exempt.” (Kiddushin 29a) The Gemora then pro ceeds to list these obligations. “The father is bound, as regards his son, to circumcize, redeem, teach him Torah, take a wife for him, and teach him a craft. Some say, to teach him to swim too.”** The discussion about the obli gation of a father to teach his son To rah centers upon the following two Biblical passages in D’vorim: “Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the laws and decrees that I proclaim to you this day. Study them (u-limad’tem) and observe them faithfully. (D’vorim 5:1); “And teach them (ve-limad’tem) to your sons,*** reciting them when * Tosefta, 11; Maimonides’ Commentary on the reading is: ;

n m n n’rpn D^aan p n

axn ms» ïs rrmos

**In the Yerushalmi we read: ♦D’&n ’as |S |j ie w m ÿM ^ *** The word which can mean “children” is here taken literally by the Rabbis to mean sons.

JEWISH LIFE

you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up.” (D’vorim 11:19) Since the command is directed “to your sons” and the verbs u-l’mad’tern and ve-limad’tem have masculine endings, the following conclusions are reached by the Gemora: 1—The mother has no duty to teach her chil dren for: “Whoever is commanded to study is commanded to teach; who ever is not commanded to study is not commanded to teach.” 2—The woman is not bound to teach herself. 3— Others are not commanded to teach her. This Talmudic discussion is the source for the subsequent Halachic conclusion that a woman is released from the positive obligation (mitzvath aseh) to study Torah. Throughout Talmudic literature we find consistency on this point. For example (Shabboth 33b): Our Rabbis taught, croup comes into the world on account of neglect of tithes. . . . Why does this affliction commence in the bowels and end in the throat? R. Shimon answered and said, ‘as a punishment for the neglect of study.’ Said they to him, Let wom en prove it (that your reasoning is wrong, since they suffer from croup and are not bid to study). We also find the following account (B’rochoth 49a): R. Zera said to R. Chisda: ‘Let the master come and teach us Grace.’ He replied: .‘the Grace after Meals I do not know myself, and shall I teach it to others?’ He said to him: ‘What do you mean?’ ‘Once,’ he replied, ‘I was at the house of the Exilarch, and I said Grace after the meal, and R. Shestheth stretched out his neck at me like a serpent, and why?—Because I had made no mention either of covenant or of Torah or of kingship.’

May-June, 1965

‘And why did you not mention them? asked R. Zera. ‘Because,’ he replied, ‘I followed R. Chananel citing Rav; for R. Chananel said in the name of Rav:If one has omitted to mention covenant, Torah, and kingship he has still performed his obligation “cove nant” because it does not apply to women; “Torah and kingship” because they apply neither to women nor to slaves. It should be obvious that even from indirect Talmudic discussion the absolvement of women from the command of learning Torah is con sidered a foregone conclusion. For this reason Rambam in the Mishnah Torah (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, 1) and subsequent Posekim codified this feeling into law.* HE question that must now be T raised is: granted that the Jewess is not commanded to study, but should she nevertheless study Torah? This in quiry leads us to the famous oppos ing statements of Ben Azzai and R. Eliezer. Ben Azzai declared (Mishnah, Sotah 3, 4): “A man is under the ob ligation to teach his daughter Torah.” R. Eliezer retorted: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her in decency {tifluth).** The Gemora natu rally asks: (Sotah, 21b) “Can it enter your mind that by teaching her Torah he actually teaches her indecency? Read rather: “As though he had taught her indecency.” R. Eliezer voicés this strong conviction time and again. He is the author of the following curt * There is also considerable discussion as to whether or not women should recite the morn ing benediction: “Blessed art thou . . . and com manded us to study the Torah.” See Shulchon Oruch, Orach Chayim 47. ** I have quoted the correct version as found in the Yerushalmi. The Bavli reads: “It is as though he taught her obscenity.” This is ob viously an emendation which followed thè Amoriac discussion.

remark: “Let Torah conversation burn and not be given over to women.” (Yerushalmi, Sotah 3, 4) A wise wom an asked R. Eliezer: “Since with re gard with the offense of the golden calf all were evenly associated, why was not the penalty of death the same? ’ He answered her: “There is no wisdom in woman except with the distaff.” (Yoma 66b) In general R. Eliezer is the author of many short, biting state ments while Ben Azzai is the easy going type. He devoted his entire life and being to Torah. The Mishnah tes tifies: (Sotah 9, 15) “When Ben Azzai died the assiduous students of Torah ceased.” His sayings fall into the cate gory of gentle “mussar.” Ben Azzai was the mystic—the sage who entered the far-off “Pardes” never to return. Let us not play the role of the analyst and try to draw upon psycho logical or sociological reasons for the

stands taken by these two giants on the “Torah for women” problem. However, as we proceed in our quest we may find elucidation of their ar guments. One point should be made clear now. Nowhere do we find R. Eliezer forbidding the teaching of Torah to women. He is merely strong ly suggesting that women should not pursue Torah studies. When the “wise woman” asked R. Eliezer an intel ligent question he did not shout “pro hibition”; he nonchalantly told her to go back to her weaving. He never rebutted Ben Azzai’s statement oblig ing a man to teach his daughter with a contradictory remark prohibiting a man from teaching his daughter To rah. He seems to be sarcastically mur muring (using a modern connotation) “Teach her Torah?—why that’s ab surd; that’s like teaching her in decency.”

W O M EN OF TORAH SCHOLARSHIP EFORE attempting to determine the reason for R. Eliezer’s sug gestion, I shall note some historical examples, in chronological order, of women who were extremely well versed in Torah, written and oral. This will serve a two-fold purpose. It will indicate that some of the most famous and learned families consid ered R. Eliezer’s statement as advice, and advice they refused to accept. It also will give the English reading pub lic its first glance at some very im portant source material on some very interesting Jewish women; women who are all but unknown, yet are highly noteworthy. Our survey must begin with the famous Beruryah, daughter of the martyr R. Chananyah b. Tradyon and

wife of the prolific R. Meir. The met tle of this woman can best be deter mined by the popular and moving sto ry, told in Midrosh Mishlay, of how her two sons died at Minchah time on Shabboth while their father was delivering a discourse; and how Be ruryah broke this tragic news to her husband by using a parable of a bailor demanding the articles left with the bailee. What is unfamiliar to most people is the fact that Beruryah was quite a Talmudic scholar. In the Tosefta (Kelim Bova Kama 4) we find the following testimony: When does the oven become ritually clean? R. Chalafta said: I inquired of Shimon b. Chananyah who asked the son of R. Chananyah b. Tradyon and he ruled, ‘when it is carried from JEWISH LIFE

its place.’ His daughter (Beruryah) says, ‘when the board is dismantled.’ When this was reported to R. Yehudah b. Baba he proclaimed: ‘His daughter said better than his son;’

In the Tosefta (Kelim Bova Metziah 1) we also find a three-way argu ment between R. Tarfon, the Rabbis, and Beruryah. R. Yehudah sides with Beruryah! Beruryah once discovered a student who was learning in an undertone. Rebuking him, she exclaimed, ‘Is it not written: ‘Ordered in all things, and sure’; if it is ‘ordered’ in your two hundred and forty-eight limbs (including your vocal cords) it will be ‘sure,’ otherwise it will not be sure.’*

Petachiah bar Yaakov of Ratisbon was a medieval Jewish traveler who left Prague in about 1180 to under take a “world tour.” He was greatly impressed with the Jewish community of Baghdad and with the Gaon Samuel ben Ali, head of the Academy there, who was also a leading opponent of Rambam. Petachiah informs us that “R. Samuel has no sons, and only one daughter, and she is an expert in Scripture and Talmud. She teaches Scripture to the young men from a window in the building, the students being in the court below, and they do not see her.” R. Samuel, the rightwing opponent of Rambam, is blessed with a daughter who is the epitome of Eastern modesty, yet she is a mistress of Jewish scholarship who teaches Scripture to young men; there is no apparent contradiction.” Eleazar, son of Yehudah of Worms, pupil of R. Yehudah Hachosid, wrote a most important Halachic-mystical work, Sefer Harokeach. In 1197 two * Eruvin 53b; 54a. See also Eruvin 53b; Berochoth 10a.

May-June, 1965

Crusaders attacked his home and murdered his wife Dolza and their two daughters, Bettette and Hannah. Eleazar composed a memorial poem which he based on the magnificent “Esheth Chayil,” acrostic poem from Proverbs. In this monument to his family he touchingly portrays his wife: She seeks out white wool for tzitzith, spinning with her willing hands . . . who is like the merchant ship to support her husband in order that he may study Torah. . . . Pleasantly she purified the dead and sewed shrouds for them. . . . She willingly followed the will of her Creator day and night. . . . She prays morning and evening; coming early to the synagogue and leaving late. . . . She opens her mouth with wisdom and is acquainted with all the laws of Kashruth; on Shabboth she sits and listens to her hus band’s discourse.. . . *

In the early part of the 16th century there was a famous yeshivah in the city of Mosul under the tutelage of R. Yaakov ben Yehudah Mizrachi. Sometime after the death of R. Yaakov, the following letter was writ ten by his widow: I have nowhere to turn and nothing left aside from the mercy of Heaven and your compassion. I live with the hope that you will be merciful for the sake of the grave of my Father, of blessed memory, and my husband, of blessed memory, lest their teach ings and their names be forgotten in these communities. I have been left alone to teach Torah and to argue and preach for ritual immersion, Shabboth, family purity, prayers, etc. . . . In my youth I never crossed from the threshold of my house. I was a king’s daughter— who are kings if not * Simcha Asaf, Mekoroth Letoldoth Hachinuch B’Yisrael, Vol. 4, p. 3.

the Rabbis? I grew up between the thighs of scholars. I was a joy to my father, of blessed memory. He taught me no work nor bccupation aside from the work of heaven in order to fulfill the verse ‘but thou shalt medi tate therein day and night.’ Due to our many sins my father had no sons, only daughters. He also made my husband, of blessed memory, swear not to force me to do menial labors. My husband honored the oath. In the early days my husband was extremely busy with his personal Torah study and he had no time to instruct the students. Therefore, I taught them in his place; I was a fitting helper for him.”*

In the Maayam Ganim of Rabbi Samuel Arkevolti of Padua, a famous grammarian of the early 17th century, there is cited this scholar’s responsum to an inquiry from an obviously wellread and well-versed woman named Dina Adina. She needed advice: A voice is calling me, arise, study, and you will understand and realize fear of the Lord. Strengthen yourself — be a man! An ignorant person can not be considered of the righteous. On the other hand a voice says: D o not approach the Torah. D on’t you know that the Rabbis have never ceased repeating ‘whoever teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he had taught her indecency’? Set your hands to the distaff— hold the spindle. Spin wool wisely but don’t dare show your face in the garden o f wisdom. And you, my master, teacher of righteous ness— teach me the right way and I will not falter from your command.

R. Samuel blesses the woman and says: If your heart longs for the holy Torah and you look down upon the * Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies I, pp. 507515, (Cincinnati) 1951.

vanities o f pleasure, let nothing stop you. If it were not for the fact that I am afraid of what people may say, I would state that you must original ly have been a man and you were then transformed into the feminine form. Women who choose of their own volition to become involved with the work of G-d will climb upon the mountain of the Lord arid dwell in His holy place; and from them will Torah go forth.’*

R. Aharon Berachyah of Modena compiled a manual for the behavior of the sick prior to death, acknowl edgment of Divine justice, funerary proceedings, and the period of mourn ing. The book was called Maavar Yavok, and it became very popular. R. Aharon in his preface mentions his grandmother “who never ceased studying Scripture, Mishnah, Posekim —especially Rambam and even the mystical Zohar, set aside time weekly for all these subjects.” Belah, the wife of R. Joshua Katz, author of the famous Sefer Meirath Enayim (Se-Ma) came up with new theories in Talmudic law which were discussed and analyzed by such no tables as the Mogen Avraham and the Nodah Be’Yehudah. In the 19th Century R. Dov of Bulichov, in eastern Galicia, wrote his memoirs. Among other things he states: Every Shabboth, after the morning meal, I was forced to go to the home of the Rabbi R. Mordechai of blessed memory. . . . His sister, Mistress Leah of blessed memory, the famous scholar, was sitting near him. When the Rav pointed to a law in the Gemora that I should read . . . and she observed that I didn’t understand it at all, she said to m e: ‘Why are you confused? Tell me which parts you * op. cit., Asaf, p. 26.

JEW ISH LIFE

don’t understand.’ I began reciting some of the Gemora or Rashi that was before me, and she began to quote, verbatim, the text of the Gemora or Rashi, in a clear voice with thorough explanation — and I learned much from her. E HAVE set forth here a few examples of the many “women of valor” in our history who were

home-made products of Jewish learn ing, and who in a completely unpre tentious manner made their mark in the scholarly world. These women would not have been permitted, nor would they have allowed themselves, to receive and hold high the torch of learning if it would have been con sidered a negation of the principles of the spirit of Halochah.

"W OM EN ARE FICKLE" ETURNING now to the declara tion of R. Eliezer, let us inves tigate the reason for his outburst. To this end we will observe how some of the pillars of Halochah understood the problem. Maimón ides states in the Mishneh Torah: “A woman who learned Torah has a reward but it does not compare to a man’s reward since woman was not commanded to learn . . . And even though she has a reward the scholars ordered (man) not to teach his daugh ter Torah. Because most women’s minds are not directed toward study they rather transform words of Torah into meaningless statements in accord ance with their low mentality. The rabbis said, ‘Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if he would teach her indecency.’ This statement was made in reference to the Oral Torah but as far as the written Torah is concerned it is better not to teach her, but if he did, it is not considered as though he taught her indecency.” R. Yehudah Hachosid comments: (Sefer Chasidim 13) “A person is duty bound to teach his daughters mitzvoth such as codified Halachic

May-June, 1965

conclusions. The statement: ‘He who teaches his daughter Torah is as though he would teach her indecency,’ refers to the depths of Talmud and reasons for mitzvoth and secrets of Torah— these must not be passed on to a wom an or a child. But she must be taught the laws, for if, for example, she is not instructed in the laws of Shabboth how can she observe Shabboth.. R. Yehudah goes on to prove his point by first mentioning the legend cited in Sanhedrin 94b that in the days of Hezekiah “search was made from Dan to Beer Sheba and no ignoramus was found, from Gabbath unto Antipus, and no boy or girl, man or woman was found who was not thoroughly versed in the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness.” He also adds credibility to his theory from the Scriptural command of “Hakhel”: “Assemble the people— the men and the women and the chil dren and the stranger that is within your gates—that they may hear and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God and observe to do all the words of this Torah.” (D ’vorim 31:12) This proves, according to R. Yehudah, that all were instructed in

the law “in order to be aware of what they may and mdy not do.”* R. Yoseph Karo, author of the Shulchon Oruch, quotes Rambam (Shulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah 24b). R. Dovid Halevi in his commentary Ture Zohov also mentions the verse “Assemble the people . . .” and rea sons that when the entire nation was assembled the king would probably not expound intricate Halachic mat ters but would rather treat of funda mentals, which were meant for women and children as well as for men. ROM these sources we find rein forcement for the common sense notion that women must be taught laws for which they are held responsible. There also seems to be tacit approval for unsophisticated Scriptural study. However, study of the Oral Law by woman is condemned. The reason for the disapprobation is best expressed by Rambam when he says that women’s minds are not directed toward study and they will transform Torah ter minology into meaningless statements. I understand this as follows: Talmudic scholarly achievement is reached and maintained only by a continual, un ending process of study. Men, being commanded by the Creator to study Torah, are wedded to a life of Torah achievement. Women, on the other hand— especially in the day of Ram bam—who do not have the religious incentive to learn, will never find time in their tedious daily schedule for con centrated mental gymnastics. There fore, a minimal exposure to Talmudic study will not be a foundation upon which to build, but it will give the

* It is quite surprising that none who discuss the problem refer to Mishnah Nidorim 4, 4: “He may teach him Midrosh, Halochoth and Agodoth but not Scripture. Yet he may teach Scripture to his sons and daughters.”

female student the terminology, the externals of deep things. And there is no point in this. There is evil in giving the women concepts which she does not understand, to be used and “thrown around” by her in parlor talk. There seems to be a second motive for the injunction, expressed by other Talmudists. R. Mosheh of Coucy, celebrated author of the Sefer Mitzvoth Godol (SeMag), writes: (Mitzvoth Aseh 12) “The statement (He who teaches his daughter. .. ) applies only to the Oral Torah, for the study of it will expose her to subtility.” R. Yaakov Molin (Maharel), following the same line, writes in a responsum (T’shuvoth Maharel 199): “We are concerned lest she become corrupt, for women are fickle.”** This “fickle” aspect is painfully brought to the fore by Rashi, (Avodah Zorah 18b) commenting on why R. Meir, the Tannah, ran away to Babylon. The incident is to the effect that when R. Meir’s wife, Beruryah, taunted him about the fa miliar Rabbinic adage “women are fickle,” he replied that one day she would herself testify to its truth. Sub sequently, she was enticed by one of her husband’s pupils and proved too weak to resist. She then committed suicide and her husband, for shame, ran away to Babylon. Is it feasible that Beruryah, the symbol par excel lence of scholarship and virtue, should have such a fall? But the legend in nocently explains everything—women are fickle. The fear of “exposing wom en to subtility” and “corrupting” them is directly bound to the concept of light-mindedness of women, which probably was assumed because women ** R. Jacob b. Moses Halevi of Molin was a 15th century Talmudist whose customs are often mentioned by Moses Isserles—Rama.

JEW ISH LIFE

were always guarding the home fires and missed the worldly interactions which matured and stabilized men’s minds. And it was thought that fickle ness combined with a little knowledge must truly be a dangerous thing. The subtilities of Talmudic logical argu

mentation might be used by women to rationalize or condone ignoble deeds. This corresponds to the notion in yeshivah circles that the ignoramus always follows the trodden path while the yeshivah bochur will find a short cut, a “heter.”

THE NEED TODAY E now shift our attention from the past to the present. It is as sumed that any reader glancing at an article discussing the education of women will have a preconception as to the conclusion—women must study! Of course, today you will find in al most all circles of orthodox Jewry, re gardless of country of origin, a minor ity attitude mitigating the educational standards of their daughters. This be comes manifest in various ways: Some give their daughters a university back ground with no religious education while their sons receive a Jewish edu cation with no time allotted for a secular education. This last category is the most interesting phenomenon of all. The daughter is restrained from receiving a formal Jewish education but is exposed to a high secular educa tion which is considered “t’refah” for the son. This is accentuating the nega tive and eliminating the positive! The vast majority of people, however, do at least pay lip-service to the impor tance of education for women. Our task now is to determine why it is so important and what should this educa tion include. If at one time women were fickle because they were the victims of a limited horizon, that fickleness has dis appeared together with the “man’s world.” If women were at one time

May-June, 1965

excluded from the halls of learning because it would be only a temporary abode, then today, may G-d help us, many students for the Rabbinate should not be taught the Oral Torah; we must be consistent. All Poskim agree that women must master the practical laws. In how many homes today will girls be confronted with a living Judaism, with an emanation of informal knowledge? In the best of homes we find only a reinforcement of that which is taught in the school. The notion that a wom an’s place is in the home has been displaced and misplaced. Modern woman is as much exposed to her non-Jewish environment as is her mate. How should we shield our young women from the glare and glitter of an enticing, all embracing world? The answer is obviously a sound Jewish education, but there is something less obvious, too: If a boy and a girl from an observant home go out into the lonely crowd of gen eral society, the boy finds it much more difficult to disappear into that crowd than the girl. . . The boy has a number of defense mechanisms— his yarmelkah, tzitzith, tefillin. There is a pang of conscience each time he discards another observance which has become part of his very being. This is a powerful check-and-balance mech-

anism. But what of the young lady? What but a strong religious convic tion gained and cultivated by years of study, will stand firm against the outgoing tide? From this perspective we may as certain that the education of our girls should be given a lot of thought. In most Western countries secular edu cation is compulsory for both boys and girls up to a certain age. Every day the female student is being ex posed to plenty of ‘•indecency” both in and out of the classroom. Should she not be taught at least as much for malized Torah as she is being taught formalized “indecency”? N the first chapter of Proverbs we find: “Hear my son the musar— instruction—of your father and do not forsake the Torah—teaching—of your mother.” ‘Musar’ here means forceful instruction, as we find further in Pro verbs 13:24; “He that spares his rod hates his son, but he that loves him shicharo mussar—often chastises him.” King Solomon is dividing the labor of parental education. The father acts and the mother reasons. This division was made with forethought, it is not simply a haphazard arrangement. To the child the father is a symbol of authority while the mother is the first and most important teacher. In our society the authoritarian method has become unpopular. This gives new perspective and added importance to the native role of the mother. She must be the religious logician in an age when logic is seemingly supreme. She can no longer rely on the nostal gic store of religious customs and pious tales in her efforts to nurture religion in her skeptical children. She must have at her disposal thousands

of years of knowledge in an organized fashion; and above all, she must her self be convinced! She needs then a well-rounded, basic, formal education. A candidate for motherhood in Is rael must know much. I envision an eight-year curriculum, after elemen tary school, which would cover the following: 1—Tanach with classical and some modern commentaries. (It is so disheartening to come across girls, and boys for that matter, who study Bible in an elementary school and subsequently remain with a nineyear-old concept of B’reshith, for ex ample. All they retain are a few of the well-chosen Midrashim incorpo rated by Rashi into his exegesis. When these students become “sophisticated university students” they are easy prey for the skeptic and the cynic. (After all, what is the Bible aside from in teresting fantasies of how the sun and the moon were originally the same size and when the moon complained about a dual monarchy over the heavens, it shrank!) In the eight years after elementary school, Chumosh, Neviim and Kethuvim must be re studied in a mature manner. 2-—All “practical” parts of the Shulchon Oruch should be covered. Wherever feasible the particular halochah should be traced. This would expose the student to some Talmudic literature. Wherever there are reasons mentioned for a particular mitzvah, they should be fully discussed. The literature of “Taamey Ha-mitzvah” must be dealt with. 3—Jewish History should be mastered. Whoever will know the her itage of our people and will study the currents and interactions in history, will eventually realize the truth of the hand of G-d in Jewish history. 4— Jewish Philosophy. Not just a survey of Jewish philosophiés but concenJEW ISH LIFE

trated study of the major philosophi cal works. A RE there any new, earthshaking xt L innovations in this plan?—basical

ly not. There are however certain im plications. Firstly, few parents, or educators for that matter, plan the Jewish education of their children with a goal in mind, and this is disastrous. A girl receives a secular education to broaden her horizons and in many cases, to attain a professional cover. If in high school she shows promise in mathematics, her parents will ad vise her to take as many math courses as possible in order to enter college with a good foundation, and so forth. But what about the preparation for the primary goal, that of rearing a Jewish family? Do parents try to in still in their daughters the importance of a Jewish education? Are they as upset when their young lady informs them that she considers her Jewish education at an end as they are when she states that she doesn’t want to go to college? Will they use the argu ments of “being well rounded,” “be ing a better wife and a better mother” in this case? No! Jewish education on the higher level for the girl is con sidered a luxury, a conversation piece, not a vital necessity. There is no thought of mastering the basics of

May-June, 1965

Judaism. Secondly our schools, being on two distinct levels, fail to realize that the whole must equal the sum of its parts. There must be full co operation between the high schools and the schools of higher education. There is so much to accomplish and so little time that we dare not make allowances for overlapping courses of study. There ought to be an eight-year all-inclusive program rooted in a strong elementary school system. The continuity of study found in the yeshivoth from the beginning of high school through the mesivta must be applicable to the more technically dif ficult program of the female student. *

IS up to every one of us to plan IWeTforhave the future of traditional Jewry. allowed too many opportuni ties to pass us by. If our average yeshivah bochur, wanting a secular educa tion, finds that his alloted time for Torah allows for Talmudic studies ex clusively, it becomes our task to make it possible for his mate to excel in the less tedious but equally important subjects of our religion. Let our young men wear the crown of Torah and our young women learn and teach admiration for and appreciation of that crown.

A Jewish Approach to Juvenile Delinquency By JUSTIN HOFMANN

ff^TTHE end of Judaism,” it has been -1- asserted, “is the sanctified life. Its purpose is to raise man from one level of existence to another.” The predominant feature of the life which Judaism seeks to realize, it has been alleged, is a spiritual orientation, “the infusion of the mundane with the quality of holiness.” But how can such a transformation be achieved? Does Judaism provide the individual with any aids that might facilitate this spiritualization of his life? More speci fically, does the Jewish tradition con tain any suggestions on how young people might be helped to avoid de linquent behavior and to turn unto a path of righteousness? The question has a ring of urgency today as it has rarely had in previous generations. America appears to be caught up in a strange paradox: The richer we become the higher does the delinquency rate climb. One would as sume that juvenile delinquency would decline in a prosperous nation. The U.S. Children’s Bureau finds, how ever, that just the opposite is true. In fact, in the last decade delinquent behavior is reported to have increased twice as fast as the child population. According to former Secretary of Labor Wirtz, it is “one of the most explosive problems in the nation’s his

tory.” Thus, more than ever before do we have to look to our religious tradi tion for help in solving this critical problem. That self-understanding is a para mount factor in moulding behavior is generally agreed today. To this self understanding Judaism has an impor tant contribution to make by way of its concept of man. Man is described in apparently contradictory terms. “What is man that Thou art mindful of him and the son of man that Thou thinkest of him?” (Psalms 8:5) is fol lowed in the very next verse with “Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels and hast crown ed him with glory and honor.” Man is thus both lowly and great, insignificant and significant at one and the same time. It is a description that fits the complexity and the paradoxical poten tial of man. For man is both a physical organism, sharing the needs, desires, and propensities of all such organisms, and the bearer of a soul. He is tied to his physical environment by the bonds of his physical needs. At the same time, however, he is able to set his sights beyond the realm of the physical and to escape subjugation to it. Suspended, as it were, between heaven and earth, he is capable of rising to the lofty heights of idealism JEW ISH LIFE

and spirituality and of sinking to the depths of physical self-gratification and depravity.

Rabah on Shir Hashirim, 1:4) The Jew exposed to such conceptions can not help but be impressed with the preciousness of children, and his re UDAISM, it may be concluded, of sponse is bound to be one of genuine fers an optimistic view of man. love and appreciation. Sinfulness is not considered to be in herent in his very nature. To be sure, T IS important to note that while he is exposed to the many temptations Judaism seems to counsel love for that beckon to him to follow the path children, it is not unaware of the need of evil. But there is nothing inevitable to accompany this love with discipline. in his situation and the responsibility To mind comes the often quoted verse for charting a course of righteousness in Proverbs: “He that spareth his rod is placed squarely on his shoulders. hateth his son; but he that loveth him Based on its understanding of the chasteneth him betimes.” Similarly, complex make-up of man, Judaism the fact that King David failed to recognizes the importance of meeting reprimand his son Adonijah has been his legitimate physical needs. It dis pointed to as the reason for the lat cerns in unfulfilled needs the poten ter’s open rebellion against his father. tial danger of delinquency. “He who At the same time, however, Judaism does not teach his son a vocation,” counsels against undue severity in the the Rabbis asserted, “teaches him to disciplining process. “If you must strike be a robber” (Kiddushin 30b). To a child,” the Rabbis suggested, “strike admonish people to act morally with it with the string of a shoe.” (Bova out prior provision for acquiring the Bathra, 21 A). In short, Judaism’s ad necessities of life by honest methods, vice amounts to a combination of Judaism considers an unrealistic and sensible love and discipline. It is in the vain undertaking. balance of these two attitudes that the Nor is Judaism oblivious to the psy Jewish tradition discerns the best hope chological needs of people. It senses, for raising the next generation. Sur almost intuitively, that youngsters veying some of the consequences of must feel wanted and loved if they excesses in either love or discipline, are to develop undistorted personali one cannot help but incline toward ties. This insight is not verbalized as the notion of a balance advocated in much as it is reflected in the esteem the Jewish heritage. in which young people are held in To the confusion of freedom with the tradition. “Children receive the license should probably be traced presence of the Skechinah”'"the Rab many an instance of delinquent be bis asserted. And when the Israelites havior. Youngsters often fail to under came to receive the Torah and were stand that there can be no freedom asked for a surety that they would without concomitant responsibility. To observe it, none proved acceptable this many college authorities attest until they offered their children. Nei when they suggest that on the basis ther their fathers nor their prophets of their experiences the limits of per were considered adequate guarantees. missiveness must be more explicitly Their children, however, did meet defined. Thus, Dr. Munter of Har G-d’s exacting standard. (Midrash vard calls attention to the need for

May-June, 1965

setting “ground rules.” Dean David Truman of Columbia urges the adult world to formulate “consistent defini tions of the behavior that is expected” of young people. It is in this area, too, that Judaism can prove to be of invaluable help. Ju daism represents a very elaborate sys tem of “do’s and don’t’s” of positive and negative commandments. It de mands a considerable measure of selfdiscipline from its adherents. It denies the notion that the individual may do as he pleases. Rather he is admonished to weigh the course of his action at every turn and to be cognizant of his responsibilities. Such training in selfdiscipline from infancy on is likely to leave an enduring mark on the child and will undoubtedly prove a steadying influence whenever he is tempted to give free reign to his desires of the moment. HAT Judaism attempts to do, in effect, is to provide the in dividual with a very definite system of values. Often it is to replace the hier archy of values held by the individual, with a Jewish value orientation. It is probably in this particular sphere that Judaism contributes most to the solu tion of the problem of delinquency. Frequently, a distorted sense of values absorbed from the social environment may be held accountable for socially unacceptable behavior. While the values verbalized by groups in our culture are generally in consonance with the Biblical view, the daily con duct of these groups tells quite a dif ferent story. Action reflects a set of values diametrically opposed to the ones professed. Is it any wonder that many young people are confused about what is good and what is bad? Or is it surprising that they adopt the values

that are practiced rather than those that are professed? The crucial point J:o keep in mind is that values are more often caught than taught. One rarely if ever be comes a mbral person from listening to lectures about morality. One usual ly does so from observing and emulat ing the behavior of one whose moral conduct is inspiring. In short, it is the moral example that is all important in this context. Thus, the reference by a recent Hillel Foundation speaker to the fact that the Director of the Peace Corps refuses to send any volunteers to those countries that reject some on the basis of religion or race, had a visibly electrifying effect on the au dience. This, the students felt, was true democracy not only in word but also in deed. This was an act worth emulating. Assuming this to be an accurate description of how values are trans mitted, we can the better appreciate that Judaism has placed its major em phasis on the home and the family. The recognition of the special role which Judaism assigns to the family in the area of values helps to illumine several emphases discernible in the Jewish tradition. The first has to do with the choice of a mate. Thus, a rabbinic statement counsels the young man in search of a bride, “Set not your eyes on beauty but fix your eyes on family; for grace is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who stands in awe of the Eternal she shall be praised. ” (Taanith 4, 8) In con trast to the prevalent culture, Judaism minimizes the importance of physical beauty and charm and stresses moral character—the refinement that comes from good family background. This is an understandable position to take for a tradition that charges the family JEW ISH LIFE

with a major responsibility in value transmittance. A SECOND point in view is a rabbinic interpretation, transmitted by Rashi, of the statute of the “rebel lious son,” the ben sorer u-moreh. In an attempt to explain the logical con nection of verses 10 to 21 in the twenty-first chapter of D’vorim, it is stated that he who takes unto himself a woman captured in war, whose physical beauty proves irresistible to him, will ultimately not only come to hate her, but the child of this union will turn out to be a “rebellious son.” In short, a marriage built on mere physical attraction is not likely to produce children of moral excellence. In presenting their rebellious son to the elders of the city, the parents make this declaration: “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he does not harken to our voice: he is a glut ton and a drunkard” (D ’vorim 21:20). The curious use of the singular “our voice” instead of the plural “our voices” prompts Rabbi Yehudah to re mark that if his father and mother do not speak with one voice, the statute of the “rebellious son” is not applied to him (Sanhedrin 21a). Although Rabbi Yehudah seems to refer to a similarity in the physical qualities of the two voices, a more figurative read ing of the comment would appear to be even more meaningful. When there prevails no basic agreement between husband and wife with regard to values, the errant son can hardly be blamed for his misdeeds. Under such conditions the possibility of absorbing the value commitment of the parents is virtually non-existent. The passage assumes added significance in the light

of the unique role which the family, according to Judaism, plays in the moral education of the young. Perhaps next to parents teachers are the most crucial influence in the transmitting of values. Children fre quently learn from their teachers much more than the subject matter which they are charged with teaching. They also emulate their attitudes and their value commitments. It probably was the recognition of this truth that prompted the rabbinic authorities of Judaism to prescribe a faultless moral character as a precondition for those who aspire to be teachers.* Only by insisting on the highest standards of moral conduct in the scholar, the potential teacher, could one hope to affect the moral behavior of students for good. Thus we can see how significant a contribution Judaism can make to the solution of one of the most serious and complex issues of our time. It is, one is almost tempted to say, charac teristic of Judaism that in its approach to delinquency it does not resort to instilling fear of impending punish ment. Its approach is rather a positive one. It is a message of optimism, a hope held out to every individual that he has the potential for good. Beyond that, Judaism does its utmost to in culcate the individual with a sense of discipline and with definite value com mitments which will stand him in good stead in moments of moral crisis. These, hopefully, will provide him with the inner stamina indispen sable to withstanding the temptations which are bound to arise in daily life. *

M a i m o n i d e s , M i s h n a h Torah, Hilchoth Deoth, Chapter 5, especially paragraph 1,3.

JEW ISH LIFE

Tragedy on the High Seas— An Eyewitness Account By ARBIE ORENSTEIN

HORTLY after 2 a.m. on Thanks is equipped with two sets of radar S giving day, November 26, 1964, and is thus the ultimate in safety as the luxury liner Shalom collided with a well as comfort. My reason for tak Norwegian tanker, the Stolt Dagali. The twenty million dollar pride of Israel’s merchant marine was on its maiden voyage to the Caribbean and the tanker was proceeding to New ark, New Jersey with a cargo of fats and solvents. In the dark early mor ning hours the two boats met, tragi cally, in heavy fog. In the ensuing hours I was privileged to witness bravery, courage, and true human brotherhood, I vividly recall the anx iety and drama of my trip aboard the Shalom, and wish to record the sequence of events as I saw them happen. I boarded the Shalom with my parents at 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 25. A festive mood abounded as champagne bottles popped and throngs of visitors crowded the staterooms and lounges. It was not surprising to see so many visitors, as a mere inspection of the Shalom is an experience in itself. Precious art works hang from its walls and the spacious staterooms feature wall to wall carpeting as well as many ultramodern conveniences. The ship

May-June, 1965

ing the cruise was quite simple: I was working on my doctoral disser tation for Columbia University and was looking forward to “getting away from it all” for ten days. HE Shalom left Pier 32 in New York shortly after 11 p.m. I ate a late dinner, and, deciding to get off to an early start the next morning retired at 1 a.m. Shortly after 2 a.m. I was awakened by the sound of falling dresser drawers and a closet door swinging wide open. My parents were also awakened by the noise. It seemed as if the boat had lurched. Feeling no cause for alarm, we dis cussed the matter for a few moments and soon went back to bed. At ap proximately 4 a.m. we were awakened a second time by a soft tap on the cabin door. Upon answering, we were told to dress, put on our life pre servers and proceed to one of the lounges on the upper deck. Quickly realizing that I would get a clearer picture of the situation if I spoke to the steward in his native tongue, I asked him, in Hebrew, to please tell

Order now for yourself

—

your friends

—

your congregation THE UOJCA

Fits In to P ocket o r Purse

POCKET CALENDAR-DIARY FOR 1 9 6 5 -6 6 /5 7 2 6 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 BLUE LEATHERETTE U O JC A /84 Fifth A venue/N ew York, N .Y. 10011 Please enter my order(s) for ................... UOJCA Pocket Calendar-Diaries for 19^5/66— 5726 as follows: ................. individual name gold-stamped at $1.00 each ......individual uninscribed copy at $.75 each f................inscribed congregational bulk order at $.70 each plus $3.50 per order, (Minimum order, 25 copies.) IMPRINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Send to;

N ame.,,.,,,,,,...,.............—................ ........ ................................... ................................ A ddress*.,................. ................................ .......................... ........................................ * City........... .

............. State............................... Zip Code........... A ll orders must be prepaid. Orders for in sc rib e d diaries must be received by JULY 29, 1965.

JEW ISH LIFE

me exactly what had happened. His dozing off,” he said, “when I heard reply was hushed and terse: “We an ear-shattering crash. I leaped out collided with another vessel.” “How of bed and saw water gushing into ever,” he continued, “this is strictly my cabin. Just as I slammed the door a precautionary measure and our ship behind me I saw all my belongings is not in any danger.” I immediately flushed out into the Atlantic Ocean.” conveyed the message to my parents Time seemed to stand still as I lis and in a few moments we were up tened, transfixed by his story. We stairs with our fellow passengers. talked for another few moments and The moments dragged on slowly parted with a warm handshake. and anxiously. Finally, the ship’s or chestra started to play a familiar A T 6 a.m. a magnificent sunrise melody and soon people were clapping began to spread over the ocean. and dancing. I will never forget the The fog had lifted and through my sight of a woman dancing in her binoculars I saw the rescue opera nightgown and life preserver, topped tion. Occasionally a helicopter soared off by a mink stole! overhead and ships of all sizes and The music magically helped to re types were seen on the horizon. Be lieve the high degree of tension. A fore my eyes I witnessed a great few endless moments later an official affirmation of the human spirit. Men announcement was made: “We have of different nationalities, races, re collided with another vessel. How ligions, and creeds were all gathered ever, there is no danger to the Shalom together for one purpose—to assist and at present we are rendering the injured and to save human lives. assistance to the other ship. Per For the rescued Norwegian sailors mission has been granted to return this was a true Thanksgiving day. to New York. Passengers may con At precisely 6:25 a.m. I heard the tinue to relax in the lounges or catch first news broadcast of the tragedy. up on some sleep if they so desire. We were only some forty-five miles Breakfast will be served, as scheduled, from New York, and for an instant from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.” it seemed as if I were at home, lis At a time like this—catch up on tening to a regular news program. But sleep! I rushed to my cabin, took my this was no ordinary broadcast for binoculars and went up on deck. me. For the first time the full mean It was still too foggy to see very ing of the tragedy was clearly under much. I had already talked with some stood: thirteen Norwegian sailors were passengers about the collision. Some dead and six were missing. An icy were dancing and were knocked silence gripped us as we stood hud down by the impact, but were re dled about the transistor radio. When assured that there was no danger. the news broadcaster changed the They continued to dance. One woman topic, the radio was immediately I spoke to slept through the impact! switched off. No one complained, for The most astonishing account of that at that moment no other news in the terrible moment came from a crew whole world seemed to matter. Every member I spoke to on deck. It was now and then the ocean was brilliantly now 5:05 a.m., just about three lit by a magnesium flare in a seeming hours after the accident. “I was just ly hopeless struggle to find more sur-

May-June, 1965

vivors, for no one could stay alive for more than a half-hour in the icy Atlantic waters. Although the Shalom was stationary, it seemed to be mov ing. The huge vessel slowly swayed from side to side, due to the ocean water locked in its hull. One particularly memorable aspect of the entire episode was the mag nificent behavior of the crew. They were efficient and courteous in spite of the tense situation. Incredible as it may seem, the result was that among the 1,200 people on the Sha lom, there was not one instance of panic To be sure, all the staterooms were supplied with life preservers for each passenger. But most of all, the crew radiated a spirit of calmness and assurance that permeated the entire ship. Y the time breakfast was served, about 8 a.m., the Shalom was on its way back to New York, proceed ing at a speed of about three knots. We arrived at Pier 32 at 3:10 p.m. and were greeted by the press, radio, and TV. Our sea saga had already made the headlines and now the op portunity had come for both crew and passengers to tell their story. Some of the facts were poignant, while many questions remained un answered. The Norwegian sailors plucked out of the ocean by the crew of the Shalom were not wear ing life preservers. They did not have time to protect themselves and were miraculously snatched from death’s dark hand. Nineteen of their col leagues were not as fortunate. Many questions were asked: At what speed were the vessels traveling at the mo

ment of impact? Was their radar manned and in proper working order? But the most important question was not, and has not yet been answered: how can tragic mishaps such as this be averted in the future? Not one person denied the greatness of the rescue operation. What must be found is the ounce of prevention to obviate what was in this case, a stupendous pound of cure. We left the Shalom at 5 p.m. and were greeted at the pier with coffee, sandwiches, pastry, and by anxious relatives and friends. One of my brothers had been waiting with his wife and children for almost five hours. I left the Shalom with mixed emotions; disappointed at the cancel ing of what surely would have been a delightful vacation, but very grate ful for being alive and well. I could not help thinking that as tragic as the collision was, many more lives would have been lost if, in those terrible moments, the Norwegian tanker would have struck the Shalom. This could easily have happened had the Shalom been traveling a bit faster, or the tanker slightly slower. There was, indeed, much to be thankful for. A fellow-passenger succintly summed up my own feelings when she said to a reporter, “We lost a vacation. Those sailors lost their lives.” As we returned to our homes and our loved ones, I could not help but think that an invisible bond now links the survivors of the Stolt Dagali and the crew and passengers of the Shalom. For all of us Thanksgiving day will have an added meaning of tragedy and hope, of grief and gratitude.

JEW ISH LIFE

Manchester's John Rylands Library By HARRY RABINOWICZ

C C ^ k N E man may acquire eternity V / in a single hour whilst another may acquire it only after many years.*’ This Talmudic adage comes to mind when visiting the John Rylands Lib rary in Manchester. Though only six decades old, it is now one of the great libraries in the world, possessing three thousand books printed before 1501, sixteen thousand European and Oriental manuscripts, four hundred and eighty thousand printed books and some two hundred and fifty thou sand deeds and Charters. Other libraries required centuries to accumulate the treasures that Man chester acquired in a handful of years. “The opening of this library,” declared the Rev. Dr. Fairbaim, Principal of Mansfield College, Ox ford, on October 7, 1899, “calls for national jubilation. It stands here fitly in a city where wealth is made to help to promote the culture, to enlarge the liberty, to confirm the faith, to illumine the ways of its citizens small and great. . . A centre of light and a home of learning.” It is particularly satisfying for the 28.000 Jews of Manchester, Britain’s second largest Jewish community that this great treasure-house of the writ ten word contains twelve Hebrew in cunabula, 2,250 printed books of rare Judaica, 400 Hebrew manuscripts, 12.000 Hebrew and Arabic fragments

May-June, 1965

from the Cairo Geniza, and 373 Sa maritan manuscripts. rT 'H E R E are several beautiful Ha-i- godoth in the John Rylands Lib rary. A sixteen-leaf fragment of a Pesach Hagodah (Hebrew Ms.29) is one of the oldest of its kind. It is decorated in tones of red, brown, green, and yellow, ornamented with red and black dotted lines. Exotic birds and beasts adorn initials and margins. Another highly prized acquisition is a Hagodah of the early fourteenth century executed in Spain. Among the illustrations are twelve pages of miniatures showing Biblical scenes, families celebrating the Seder, and the Four Sons, with the “Wicked Son” represented as a Moorish sol dier. Many of the pages have mar ginal decorations of floral motifs and such drolleries as centaurs. This rarity is even older than the Sarajevo Hagodah. It is interesting that no specific Jewish garb or hat is shown, since the edict of the Lateran Council of II November 1215 was not strictly enforced in Spain. The manuscript opens with a series of hymns not essentially part of the Seder service. It contains two hymns, rhymed laws for the Shabboth Hagodol preceding Pesach, and various hymns for the synagogue service. The

illuminator was undoubtedly familiar with rabbinic lore. One illustration de picts the rabbinic legend of the infant Moses removing the crown from the heád of Pharaoh, who is advised by his councillors to guard against this infant. Another fifteenth century Hagodah (Hebrew Ms. 7) consists of fifty leaves and contains pictures of such familiar creatures as the lion, the rabbit, the dog. The “Wicked Son” is shown as a knight. Jonah is por trayed in the mouth of the sea mon ster with the inscription “Jonah in the belly of the fish” and is covered by sea-weeds. Another Hagodah (Heb rew Ms. 38) by the well-known book illustrator Joseph ben David Leipnick, was completed at Altona (Hamburg) in 1710. Among the exquisite manuscripts is a seventeenth century Megilath Esther (Hebrew Ms. 22) consisting of twenty-nine columns written on ten sheets of vellum. Elaborate illustra tions portray many notable scenes

from the dramatic story of Esther. These illustrations throw much in teresting light on Jewish customs. Worshippers are shown wearing the talith in the traditional manner and they have their heads covered. The soldiers wear the helmets and armor of the late sixteenth century. An important fourteenth century manuscript (Hebrew Ms. 31) is Am udey Ha-golah or Sepher Mitzvoth Koton (“Small Book of Precepts”) by the French codifier Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d. 1280). This manuscript has seven full-page illus trations richly wrought in gold and other colors. The text itself is framed with ornamented hares, dogs, birds, and dragons and many of the margins are decorated with delicate pen work. The Library possesses, too, a fif teenth century commentary on the Chumosh by Rabbi Moses ben Nach man (Nachmanides, 1194— 1270), a vellum manuscript (Hebrew Ms. 8) with six elaborately illuminated pages in the Italian style.

THE ORIGIN OF THE LIBRARY Manchester, he collected a very fine

HE Library owes its existence to T Enriqueta Augustina, third wife library. It was the third Mrs. Rylands, of John Rylands (1801— 1888) mer chant and manufacturer. Together with his father and his elder brothers John Rylands started a manufacturing and merchandise business at Wigan, in his native country of Lancashire. In 1823 a branch was opened in Man chester. The business prospered and the firm Rylands and Sons branched out in many directions. In addition to supporting many charitable institutions John Rylands employed scholars to prepare a special edition of the Bible which he printed for free distribution. At his home, Longford Hall, near 62

who married this enlightened indus trialist when he was seventy-four years old, whose idea it was to perpetuate her husband’s memory by erecting a library in his name. The site chosen was on Deansgate, one of Manches ter’s principal thoroughfares. There the architect Basil Champneys erected a splendid structure, its facade pala tial yet ecclesiastical, a magnificent example of the neo-Gothic style of ar chitecture. The collection which formed the nucleus of the John Rylands treasures JEW ISH LIFE

has a fascinating background. In 1892 Mrs. Rylands acquired for the library the Althorp collection of 40,000 vol umes for which she paid 250,000. George John, second Earl of Spencer (1758-1834), owned an unrivalled col lection of invaluable books printed be fore the year 1501. It included the famous collection of the Hungarian diplomat Count Charles Reviczki. This was a repository comprising well-nigh everything that survives in letters of “the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome.” Lord Spen cer acquired the Reviczki Library in 1790 for a downpayment of £ 1,000 and an annuity of «£500. In August, 1793 Reviczki died and thus for a mere £2,500 this priceless collection became Spencer’s property. Spencer commissioned Dr. Thomas Frognall Dibdin to prepare a catalogue and the first part of “Bibliotheca Spenceriana” was published in 1814. Lord Spencer also acquired the libraries of the Duke of Cassano-Serra and, from Thomas Johnes of Hafod, that of Stanesby Alchorne. f I NHERE were a number of Hebrew JL books in the Althorp Library. Among the incunabula are such rari ties as the Book of Psalms in Hebrew, printed in Bologna in 1477. Only Psalms I, IV, and VI have the vowel points; the remainder of the text is without vowel signs and without ac cents. No fewer than a hundred arid eight verses are omitted. Editor, print er, and proof reader were probably all German Jews who had settled iri Italy. Another masterpiece is an edition of the Chumosh printed on vellum in Bologna in 1482, accompanied by the Targum of Onkelos and the Com-

May-June, 1965

mentary of RaShi. It consists of 219 leaves without pagination but with both voWel points and accents. The colophon reads: “And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Joseph ben Abraham Caravitâ. He engaged the most Skilled and experienced man . . . His name is Master Abraham the son Of Rabbi Chayyim de’ Tintori of Pesaro.” The Spencer collection has the first edition in two volumes of the Prophet ical Books printed in Soncino in 1485-86. Israel Nathan ben Samuel was a Jew of German descent who had emigrated with his family to Son cino in the Duchy of Milan. Assum ing the name of Soncino, he founded one of the oldest and most famous Jewish printing presses in the world. He was succeeded by his son Joshua. One hundred and thirty-seven Hebrew editions from 1484 to 1547 bear the Soncino imprint. Thé books printed in 1485-86 are accompanied by the Cornmentary of Rabbi David Kimchi, the Redak (1160-1235). A NOTHER rarity of the Spencer collection is the first edition of thé Hagiographa introvolumes printed in Naples in 1486-87 by Joseph ben Jacob Ashkenazi. One volume con tains the Book of Proverbs With the commentary of the Italian poet Im manuel b. Solomon b. Jekuthiel (Im manuel of Rome, 1270-1330), author of Machbereth Immanuel (“The Com positions of Immanuel”). The other, the Book of Job, has a commentary by Levi ben Gershon (Gersonides, 1288-1344). The Song of Songs is ac companied by Rashi’s commentary, and the Book of Lamentations is illu minated by the commentary of Rabbi Yoseph Karo (1488-1575). A valuable book, described by the

Barton’s makes very continental chocolates Paris. Vienna. Lugano. The flavors of the great candy capitals of the continent are in Barton’s chocolates. Rum-flavored cherries, nut-filled miniatures, exotic fruit cremes ■ i \ T A \ | rC ® -colorfully gift packaged. Come in for KAIcJi f l U \ our very continental Barton's candies. ® 9 UdwriWi NEW YORK • LUfiANO. SWITZERLAND

Jewish

life

THE N A M E BARTON'S IS Y O U R GUARANTEE IT'S KOSHER

FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FRIENDS A PRECIOUS GIFT two years for only $4.50 (twelve issues)

JEWISH LIFE, 84 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10011 Send gift subscription to: Name ........................................... Address ...................................... City, S ta te ................. ................. □ include my own subscription

□ New □ Renewal

Check enclosed for $ .............................. JEW ISH LIFE

Italian Christian Hebraist Giovanni printed the treatise Nopheth Zufim Bernardo de Rossi (1742-1831) as (“Drippings of the Honeycomb”) by “surpassing all Bible editions not only Yehudah ben Yechiel Rofe, better of that but also of later times in artis known as Judah Messer Leon. It was tic. and typographic beauty,” is the the first Hebrew book printed in the second printed Hebrew Bible by lifetime of its author. Joshua Solomon Soncino, brought out The Ferrara press is represented by in Naples in the year 1491 or 1492. the commentary on the Book of Job This copy has an index of the Haph- by Levi ben Gershon, which was print toroth. ed by Abraham ben Chayyim di TinThe third Hebrew Bible published in tori in 1477. Non-Biblical productions 1494 in Brescia was used extensively of the Soncino press in the Spencer by Martin Luther in his translation of collection include a Machzor printed the Scriptures into German. In his epi on vellum and completed at Casallogue the printer deplores the suffer maggiore in 1485-86. Hebrew print ings and poverty of his Jewish breth ing of non-Jewish character is also ren. Homeless exiles wandering from represented in the Spencer collection. place to place, they had no money to Among this category is Tractatus Con purchase costly Bibles nor could they tra Pérfidos Judeos, an antisemitic carry large volumes with them on their work by the German Dominican travels. Therefore he decided to print preacher Peter Schwartz (Petrus an edition “in so small a size that it Niger), printed in Esslingen in 1475 may be with every man night and day by Conrad Pyner. The book is supplied to study therein, that he may not walk with appendices containing the He four ells without the Bible, that he brew alphabet, rules for reading He may have it by him and that he may brew, grammatical rules, and the Dec read when he lies down and rises up, alogue in Hebrew. This volume con night and day, just as he carries about tains the earliest specimens of printing with him his tephillin.” from Hebrew type. Of Hebrew books printed after 1500 / " \ F THE Hebrew books printed in the Spencer collection has Robert Mantua, the library has the Yo- Wakefield’s Oratio de laudibus & util sippon, a popular history of the Jews tate triu linguar un Arabice Chaldsifrom the Fall of Babylon to the Fall cae & Hebraice atq. Appearing in Lon of Jerusalem, written by Yoseph ben don in 1524, this is the first book Gorion and printed in 1477 by Abra printed in England in which Hebrew ham ben Solomon Komat who, in the and Arabic characters were used. words of the colophon, “writes with many pens without the help of Wakefield was professor of Hebrew miracles, for the spread of the Torah at Louvain and later taught Hebrew in Israel.” That year Komat also at Cambridge and Oxford.

THE CRAWFORD AND GASTER COLLECTIONS N AUGUST, 1901 Mrs. Rylands acquired from the great collection of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres

May-June, 1965

a magnificent accumulation of six thousand manuscripts, including thirtythree in Hebrew.

R eprin ts

N ow A vailable

Our readers will appreciate knowing that reprints are now available ot the following articles and editorials from previous issues of JEWISH LIFE. THE JEWISH ATTITUDE TOWARD FAMILY PLANNING By Dr. Moses Tendler CAN WE NEGLECT THE TALMUD TORAH? By Zalman Dislcind W HA T DOES JEWISH YOUTH REALLY WANT? By Rabbi Pinchas Stolper THE DIVORCE PROBLEM By Rabbi Melech Schachter THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE: ANOTHER LOOK By Rabbi Norman Lamm THE PRESIDENT'S EDUCATION BILL: A JEWISH APPRAISAL By Dr. Marvin Schick JUDAISM AND FREE ENQUIRY By Rabbi Nachum L. Rabinovitch THE PLIGHT OF SOVIET JEWRY— H O W SHALL WE RESPOND? By Rabbi Bernard A. Poupko 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

JEWISH LIFE, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10011 Please send ............. copies of .......................................................................................... send ............. copies of .......................................................................................... NAME: ............................................................................................. ...................................... ADDRESS:................................................................................................................................... CITY:........................... STATE::.............. ZIP C ODE:.............. CHECK ENCLOSED: $.

JEWISH LIFE

The Hebrew manuscripts include ten Siphrey Torah, seven Megilloth, and three illuminated Hagodoth. Among them (Hebrew Ms. 12) is a fifteenth century Sepher Torah executed in Spain on no fewer than forty-six goat skins. Seven of the thirty-three manu scripts are undated. The other manu scripts range from a tenth century Hagodah to a treatise of Abraham ben Saul Broda (1640-1717) written about the year 1800. A rarity among the man uscripts is a nineteenth century collec tion of Benedictions (Hebrew Ms. 24) written on rice paper, which belonged to the Chinese Jews of Honan. He brew Ms. 5 is a compendium of treatises written by various authors between the years 1648 and 1667. The copyist’s name is Isaac ben Moses de Cordova of Amsterdam. One of the treatises, “The Soul of the Living” by Isaac de Fonseca (1605-1693), is a forty-four page work. There are also verses on the game of chess by Benzion ben Yakil; the apocryphal Book of Tobit in elegant Hebrew verses; Sepher Eldad Hadani, a treatise on arithmetic; and Aristotle’s Letter on Ethics to Alexander the Great. He brew Ms. 8 is Nachmanides’ com mentary on the Chumosh, written in a fine Italian hand and beautifully illuminated. It was acquired from Dr. Alexander, the late Bishop of Jeru salem, for £.100. Other manuscripts of note are a one hundred-and-sixtypage commentary on the Torah writ ten by a Karaite, Aaron ben Joseph, Maimonides’ Logica Hebrae dated 1576, and the Tree of Life (Etz Chayim) written by the Kabalist Chayyim Vital, also known as Chayyim Vital Calabrese (1543-1620). The Etz Chayim is a presentation of the Kabolah of Rabbi Yitzchok Luria.

May-June, 1965

Among additions made to the Craw ford collection have been Megilloth, marriage contracts, Torah scrolls, and a Tenach with Masorah and notes written on April 26th, 1726 by Johanes Vardi Hager. Particularly significant is a fragment of Deuteronomy, one of the oldest fragments of the Septuagint, Greek Bible version, in existence— dating back to the second century before the Common Era. Of similar importance are the oldest Palestinian Biblical fragments, containing parts of four teen lines of Vayikra 23:25-32, with superlinear Palestinian vocalization. The Cairo Geniza is represented by many thousands of fragments on parchment and paper, including a unique Yom Kippur piyut (liturgical poem) consisting of thirty-eight lines and eighteen verses, each containing three rhyming lines. It was probably composed at the end of the eleventh century in the Holy Land. Yet the poem is in Hebrew, not in Aramaic, since it was no doubt intended for the liturgy of Rosh Hashonah. It may have been inspired by Saadiah Gaon (892-942) who had many fierce con troversies with the Karaites. Leading Karaites of the tenth century, such as Daniel al Qumisi, Solomon ben Yerucham and Sahl ben Mazliah, had cen sured the rabbis for permitting the recital of piyutim, especially on Yom Kippur. ITH the help of the Pilgrim Trust, the John Rylands Library acquired some 350 codices in Hebrew, over 300 Samaritan manuscripts and some 12,000 Hebrew and Arabic fragments from the Cairo Geniza. In addition, the Gaster family presented a complete collection of Dr. Gaster’s writings, including both published and

unpublished works in English, Ru manian, German, Kalian, French, and Hebrew, numbering altogether three hundred printed items and about fifty manuscripts in his hand. Another gift from the Gaster family was a collec tion of five hundred letters in Hebrew (Samaritan script) and German which were exchanged between Gaster and Samaritan scholars and priests in Nablus. Historian, linguist, bibliographer, orator, folklorist, spiritual head of London’s Spanish and Portuguese synagogue, Hacham Dr. Moses Gaster was the “grand old man” of AngloJewry. An assiduous and versatile scholar, he ranged the whole wide world of Judaic knowledge. Between 1873 and 1939 he wrote two hundred and eighty-one studies and articles on such assorted subjects as “The Illumi nated Bibles of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries,” “The History of the Bevis Marks Synagogue,” “The Samaritan Book of Joshua,” “Rumanian Bird and Beast Stories,” “The Folk Literature of Rumania,” and “Example of the Rabbis.”' The John Rylands Library acquired Gaster’s Hebrew and Samaritan manu scripts including Geniza fragments. Among them is a ninth century po lemic (Ms. 1623) in Hebrew characters written in Arabic which mentions Jesus and Paul. The collection is rich in liturgical works exemplifying the rites of Provencal (Ms. 701), Italy (Ms. 74), and Corfue (Mss. 1460, 1635). There are many Hagodoth, il luminated Scrolls of Esther, Machzorim, ritual for the Eve of Rosh Chodesh, ritual for Havdolah, and piyutim. Of general interest is a 13th or 14th century Machzor (Ms. 255) in which the second part of the Kaddish is given 68

in Hebrew. The Amidah and the Alenu prayers have both been torn out, pos sibly through fear of the Inquisition. YSTICISM is well represented. An outstanding item is Kithvey M Kodesh (“Sacred Writings”) in eight een volumes (Ms. 1342-50) consisting of thousands of pages of Chasidic works. “These eighteen volumes” writes Dr. Gaster in his Catalogue, “all belong to the beginning of the nineteenth century, comprised of auto graphs made from the writings, speeches, sermons— all as far as I know unpublished and quite unknown —of the most prominent represen tatives of the Chasidic movement. Chief among them is R. Schneerson, I believe better known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe. One of the small man uscripts is signed by Dov Baer. They were all made by order of a certain Chosid. He lived near Riga. He died poor and the manuscript came over to England and Mr. Lutski bought them for me.” Mr. Lutski was a London book dealer who specialized in “orientalia,” and Gaster bought these books from him in 1931. Volume No. 351 is by Rabbi Dov-baer (1745-1812). Dov-. baer, known as the “Mittler Rebbe” (i.e., the middle one of the first three generations of the founding fathers of Chabad) was deeply concerned with the economic plight of his fellow Jews. “My own suggestion for the attention of the wise who understand the prob lem,” he writes in one of his letters, “is that strict regulations be intro duced in the Jewish communities whereby the women and the children, boys and girls, should learn some basic trades, such as the various types of weaving and spinning and all skills such as are employed in factories.” JEWISH LIFE

In all, the volumes written at the Adar, the Scroll of Esther was in behest of Chayim Jacob of Velitz, scribed on the Kethubah. Riga, hold over 5,000 pages represent In the Gaster collection there are ing every branch of Chasidic thought many Yemenite prayer books, books in the form of homilies, discourses, of healing, amulets, and charms as commentaries and pilpulim. Gaster well as copies of original manuscripts had a great deal of sympathy for from the Bodleian (over thirty copies), Chasidism. In a preface to “Leaders and nearly fifty copies from the Brit of Hassidism” by S. A. Horodezky, ish Museum, Beth Hamidrash, Monte(translated by Maria Horodezky) fiore collection, and the National published in London in 1928, Hacham Library, Paris. Gaster demonstrated that Chasidism A study of a Yemenite Tikhlal (Ms. had “brought hope and joy to the No. 4) of 408 folios reveals that the downtrodden, to the weak, to the Yemenites were influenced by Saadiah ignorant. It opened up a new outlook upon the world, a new feeling of sat Gaon and Moses Maimonides. The isfaction and happiness. It brought to many laws concerning prayer are them knowledge of the nearness of given in a mixture of Hebrew and Arabic. G-d, of his love for them and their longing for Him. They learned to HEN Mr. (now Sir) Isaac Wolfworship G-d with a fiery enthusiasm son acquired the firm John Rywhich seemed to break all the bonds of traditional ceremonial, aye they lands and Sons, he also “acquired” an danced when praying and prayed interest in the John Rylands Library, dancing, for the Tsadik danced to the and defrayed the cost of erecting tune of the heavenly spheres and com and equiping an annex for the ac muned with the angels. . . . Each one commodation of special collections has an individuality of his own, each and for a new photographic studio. On June 28th, 1962 the new one presents the story from a slightly different point of view, yet all united “Isaac Wolfson Annex” was opened in the same common conviction that by Lady Wolfson. “A merchant of this here was Heaven and here was hope, city,” said Sir Isaac, on that occasion, “does not have to justify or apologize and that here was G-d.” for his interest in art and scholarship. The many Kethuboth in the Gaster Collection range in origin from 1665 . . . One of the great characteristics of to 1894. No. 1677, is in the words of Manchester has been the city’s ability Gaster “the most beautiful copy yet to make all things part of itself. So it seen by me of a Kethubah.” It has is that . . . the library [is] just as rec beautiful illustrations portraying Lot ognizably and firmly part of Man with his two daughters, Potiphar and chester’s way of life as are the looms Joseph, the Angel and Monoah. The and benches of this, one of the great wedding took place on the 17th of est working cities in the world. It is Adar II 5578 (1818) between Monol not, therefore by accident, that this son of Yedidiah and Stela. The entire library was founded by a man of com Scroll of Esther is written very clearly merce and that the College from which in honor of Stela (Esther). As the the University sprang was also found wedding took place in the month of ed by a man of business.”

May-June, 1965

SUKKAH PREFABRICATED

Will Accommodate 10 Shipped Anywhere PRICE

$102

INITERIORS n SYNAGOGUES | fo r

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

ALBERT WOOD & FIVE SONS,« PORT W A S H IN G T O N

L 'l- N E W Y O R K

Publication date July 1st ANNOUNCING THE PUBLICATION OF THE y m d*p i r a V s? t t pd

minninsnp ny nDU

A completely new edition of The Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals, Nusach Sephard, with Torah readings and Haftoroth for Pesach, Shavuoth and Sukkoth. Translated and Annotated by Philip Birnbaum This Sephardic edition of the Prayer Book contains clarity of style with accuracy; it is provided with a running commentary that sheds new light on the Sephardic version of the prayers. Fine Print and Attractive Binding $4.00 Order from your Bookseller or The Hebrew Publishing Co. New York, N. Y.

Letters to the Editor A CONFLICT OF RIGHTS?

In the section where I live it is dan gerous to go out after dark. Bands of Brooklyn, N.Y. Negro youths parade with sticks and # Your editorial “Beyond ‘We Shall O ver| clubs. During the daytime, things are little better. A man was recently mugged come’ ” and Rabbi Gerald Engel’s article at 2:00 p.m. A woman who was seated “Breathing Freedom in Mississippi” in the Shevat-Nisan issue both were ad outside her house chatting with some neighbors was suddenly accosted by a dressed to the Negro’s struggle for civil rights. I recently read also that a com Negro man who dashed out of a car, grabbed her pocketbook, ran back to the mittee has been established by the Union car and sped away. Another woman was of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of followed into her neighbor’s hallway by America to help the Negroes in this a young Negro who snatched her purse, struggle. This is all well and good. It is ran to his car, and escaped. Both in a fine thing to fight for civil rights. But, cidents took place in the daytime. My have you given thought recently to the own apartment, and those o f my neigh rights of your fellow-Jews living here in N ew York City? bors, have been robbed. The police have been helpless. If such are the happenings N o doubt you have heard of a section o f the daytime, need I go on and describe like East N ew York, (where I reside) the fear when evening approaches? Brownsville, Crown Heights, etc. Each Last week as we were eating Shalosh one of these has been until recent years Seudah, a hail of rocks crashed into our a fine community. Stores and businesses synagogue window. Where are our civil flourished; Jews and other groups lived rights? harmoniously; streets were clean; avenues What are you doing for your own were filled with late shoppers. And now, blood brothers— those of the Jewish faith how things have changed! whose right to attend synagogue, to wear The majority of Jewish people have a yarmulke in the street, to walk the been chased out of these sections by acts street freely, during the day and at night, of terrorism, vandalism and the like. is being trampled upon by the same peo People have been robbed on the streets ple whom you are now vigorously de in broad daylight. Apartments have been fending. This is taking place right here burglarized without number. Scores of in N ew York city. synagogue windows have been broken, numbers of synagogues have been van •P v s m ’mt la w n dalized, some even have been set on fire. Yes, you and I are our brother’s keep Also, please bear in mind that many in ers, but let’s start out by protecting the cidents of vandalism are not reported. rights of our own people.

May-June, 1965

I, too, speak about the rights of all men— but not the right of one group to chase another from its community, then to proceed to wreck, break, damage and practically destroy each store that now lies vacant and make a shambles of the neighborhood. What about the parents of these children who say nothing about the rights of others as they watch their kids jump on cars, or take nails to scratch cars. On top of this the Negro then says that he is living in a ghetto, a slum. But he, himself, has created this. Why should the Jew go out and de fend the present-day “Amulake” whose hostility is mainly directed against the Jew? Though the Jew has devoted more time, effort, and money than any other group to help the Negro, he, more than any other group is the object of their hatred. This is typified by the vilification spread for the Jew by Muhammed and the Muslims, Malcolm X, and James Farmer. For once the Jews have outlived their usefulness to their cause. There are many fine, law-abiding, honest, hard-working Negroes just as there are in all racial groups, and just as there should be. But, if we are to im prove things and civil rights, lets start with the Jews for whom there is still much more to be done. E ugene Silkes

tion offered to the Negro, and the lack of proper opportunities for advancement, adequate housing, recreation, jobs, etc., have resulted in the harvest of acute social problems which we are reaping today in many lower-income mixed com munities. These problems, the by-products and end-products of generations of discrimi nation, cannot be solved overnight. What we urgently need is a new en lightenment—an understanding o f the problems and the causes— on the part of both white and Negro, and a determined effort on the part of both groups to ad dress themselves to the problems by im proving the conditions of the under-privi leged while at the same time removing the root cause of the social problems. In addition, proper education and un derstanding imparted to the Negro and white by their community leaders will result in greater mutual respect and un derstanding and sounder, safer, and more harmonious relations by the various ethnic and racial groups in the commu nity. Towards this end, the Union of Or thodox Jewish Congregations of America is working through its Committee on Human Rights. M ichael K aufm an Chairman, Committee on Human Rights

COMMENT: I have read your interesting letter in which you describe the conditions in East N ew York and discuss the serious social problems of changing neighbor hoods. Unfortunately, the results of a century of discrimination against the Negro fol lowing the supposed emancipation after the American Civil War, with the con comitant second- and third-rate educa

HAVE YOU MOVED? Send us your new address and your old address clipped from your Jewish L ife envelope.

JEW ISH LIFE

Don’t fiddle around... When it comes to gefilte fish, Mother’s knows best. Because vve don’t fiddle around w hen w e m ake gefilte fish! W e use only the plum pest, juiciest, young fish— fresh from icy N orthern lakes. W e add just the right pinch of s p ices . T h e n — ju s t like th e m o th ers of o ld — w e slo w sim m er our gefilte fish to bring out all its tender, delicate flavor. Result: M o th e r’s gefilte fish has that traditional taste and texture th at’s just like hom em ade. So for eve ry festive occasion — serve M o th er’s, the fish for com plim ents.

Kosher <3>Pareve From the spotless kitchens of M other's Food Products, Inc., Newark 5, N. J.

...a n d

don’t forget Mother’s Borscht

Heinz makes kosher soups*♦♦

|g |iM Í

wellas kosher

The © endorsement seal is on the labels. You’ll find the official © seal of T H E U N IO N OF O R T H O D O X J E W IS H C O N G R E G A T IO N S OF A M E R IC A

on the labels of six Heinz Soups! On Heinz Vegetarian Beans, too! Of course! The Kosher Soups: Vegetarian Vegetable (parye) Tomato (milchig) Tomato with Rice (milchig)

Cream of Mushroom (milchig) Cream of Celery (milchig) Cream of Pea (milchig)

The Kosher Beans (parve) In tomato sauce:— Individual size: J o z. Regular size: 16oz. Family .size: 20oz. In molasses sauce:— , Individual size: 7oz.