Jewish Life Spring 1965 by Jewish Action

T H E P R E S ID E N T ’S E D U C A T IO N BELT: A J E W IS H A P P R A IS A L IS R A E L ’S G E O PO L IT IC S: A N IS L A N D IN TH E S E A '0

A SY M PO SIU M -

TH E P L IG H T O F SO V IET J E W R Y -H O W SH A L L W E R E S P O N D ? B R E A T H IN G F R E E D O M IN M IS S IS S IP P I JU D A ISM A N D F R E E EN Q U IR Y J E W S A N D A R A B S : TH E H IST O R IC E N C O U N T E R

SPRING

M ake Y our Reservations N ow for the

ANNUAL NATIONAL DINNER o f the

UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA to be held

Sunday Evening, May 9, 1965 at the

NEW YORK HILTO N at ROCKEFELLER CENTER

MAX STERN—Guest of Honor $60.00 per reservation

For reservations and information, phone or write: H aro ld H . B o xer ,

Chairman

ALgonquin 5-4100 N a t io n a l D in n e r C o m m it t e e ,

UOJCA

84 Fifth Avenue, New York City

Vol. XXXII, Nos. 3-4/Spring 1965/Shevat-Nisan 5725

¡¡1 EDITORIALS DOES RECOGNITION BRIDGE THE GULF? ............... 3 BEYOND “WE SHALL OVERCOME” ............................. 4 S aul B ernstein , Editor

ARTICLES R abbi S. J. S harfman L ibby K laperman P aul H . B aris

Editorial Associates G abrielle R iback

Editorial Assistant JEWISH LIFE is published bi-monthly. Subscription two years $4.50, 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 n io n of O rthodox J ewish C ongregations of A merica M oses I. F euerstein

President 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. Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President Saul Bernstein, Administrator Second Class Postage paid at New York, N. Y.

THE PRESIDENT’S EDUCATION BILL: A JEWISH APPRAISAL/ Marvin Schick................... 6 JEWS AND ARABS: THE HISTORIC ENCOUNTER/Henry Siegman...................................16 JUDAISM AND FREE ENQUIRY/ Nachum L. ,Rabinovitch ...........................................44 BREATHING FREEDOM IN MISSISSIPPI/ Gerald Engel ..............................................................51 ISRAEL’S GEOPOLITICS: AN ISLAND IN THE SEA/Pinchas E. Lapide.............................. 56

4 SYMPOSIUM THE PLIGHT OF SOVIET JEWRY: HOW SHALL WE RESPOND? WITH LIFE AT STAKE/Bernard A. Poupko................29 DO NOT REMAIN SILENT/Erich Goldhagen................37 BOOK REVIEWS BIOGRAPHY OF AN INCONSISTENT MIND/ Arnold Blumberg....................................................... 63 THE GREAT AND THE GOOD/Morris Max..................67 VOICE FROM THE HOLOCAUST/Hillel Seidman........ 72 DEPARTMENTS AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS .................................... 2 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.............................................77 Cover and Inside Drawings by Alan Zwiebel

Spring, 1965

A graduate of the Ner Israel Rabbinical College of Balti more, RABBI NACHUM L. RABINOYITCH is the spir itual leader of the Clanton Park Synagogue in suburban Toronto, an instructor in Mathematics at the University of Toronto, and Associate Editor of “Hadarom,” the journal for Research in Rabbinics and Talmud published by the Rabbincal Council of America. Among Rabbi Rabinovitch’s previous contributions to J e w i s h L i f e are the well-remembered “A Visit to South Africa” (August ’61) and “The Total Synagogue” (April ’61). PINCHAS E. LAPIDE, a coordinator of an Interminis terial Committee on Pilgrimage in Jerusalem, trained in England with Youth Aliya and is the author of “A Cen tury of U.S. Aliya”;;; “The Pruning Hook,” written while he was in diplomatic service in Brazil; and “The Prophet of San Nicandro,” which has been published in six lan guages and won for him the literary prize of the Jewish Book Guild of America.

among our contributors

HENRY SIEGMAN is in charge of community relations aspects of international developments for the National Community Relations Advisory Council. An expert on Middle East affairs, he has lectured at various universities and has contributed articles to the “Middle East Journal,” “Muslim World,” the “New International Yearbook,” as well as to other publications in the field. Mr. Siegman, a Musmach of Mesivtath Torah Vodaath, in this issue traces the evolution of Arab-Jewish relations through the ages. DR. MARVIN SCHICK, whose article on “Some Aspects of the Presidential Campaign” (Sept./Oct. ’64) received enthusiastic response from our readers, presents now an illuminating analysis of the controversial Education Bill. A Musmach of Yeshivath Rabbi Jacob Joseph, Dr. Schick completed graduate studies in Political Science at New York University and is a member of the faculty of Hunter College. The article “Breathing Freedom in Mississippi,” which appears in this issue, is the work of RABBI GERALD ENGEL, who participated in the Council of Federated Organizations’ 1964 Summer Project in Mississippi, and has published research papers on Prejudice in psychologi cal journals. Rabbi Engel holds a Ph.D. in Education with special emphasis on Inter group Relations from Teachers College of Columbia University. Before assuming his pres ent position as Director of the B’nai B’rith Hillel Founda tion of Purdue University, Rabbi Engel served Hillel students at universities in Boston, Maine, and Florida.

JEWISH LIFE

Does “Recognition” Bridge the Gulf? VIEW of the circumstances which have prompted the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel IandNpending Germany, the development gives no cause for moral satis faction. The gulf between the two countries is vast. Real bridg ing of the gulf requires the moral rebirth of the people which begot Hitlerdom— and this is yet to be achieved. The fact that the exchange of diplomatic recognition is dictated by mutual security needs, rather than by mutual reconciliation, is a measure of the quality of our time. Israel’s situation being what it is, few will dispute the expe dient merit of linking the embattled young nation with a power ful ally. But few, too, can fail to see the bitter irony of this development. That the state which sprang into being out of the ashes of millions of martyrs should now* after the passage of but a few years, be joined by mutual need with the heirs of the guilt of this martyrdom—this is an irony which mocks human aspiration. This is not to deny that the Government of West Germany has, in the years since World War II, evinced its purpose to expunge from the German scene the evils of the Third Reich. A New To an extent, there seems now to be a new Germany—but the Germany? question in countless minds is: to what extent? How deep under the new surface lies the “old” Germany? Observers of Germany today—East as well as West—find scant evidence of true re morse among the German people. Apart from small groups and scattered individuals, Germans at large seem concerned with the world’s forgetting, rather than its forgiving the criminal past. Inculpation in or moral responsibility for past crimes is all but universally disclaimed; feelings of shame and guilt are sup pressed. The people of the “new Germany,” if not outright im penitent, are not penitent. The sin remains unexpiated. IVEN the attitude prevalent among the German people at large, it is not surprising that the above-cited commitment of the West German Government has had so limited an applica tion and has been felt so lightly in governmental and juridical processes. Detection and prosecution of Nazi criminals has gone forward at glacier tempo, and any number of the criminals re main undisturbed in well-established positions. Those found guilty of inhuman crimes incur sentences so nominal as to be often a caricature of justice. And not until the full weight of outraged world opinion was felt did the West German Govern ment undertake to demand of an unwilling Federal parliament an extension of the astounding statute of limitations on the prosecution of war criminals. In this same pattern falls the recruitment of hundreds of

Spring, 1965

German scientists and technologists for employment by the United Arab Republic to prepare weapons of destruction aimed Policy at Israel. Now, with relations between Bonn and Cairo at low Pattern ebb, the West German Government openly hints at withdrawal of this force—yet heretofore the same government has pro fessed itself unable to effect such withdrawal. If Bonn has the means to achieve such purpose now, did it not have the same means previously. . . ? And in the same pattern, too, falls West Germany’s breach, under Egyptian threat of recognition of East Germany, of its arms agreement with Israel. Bonn’s capitulation to Cairo having proven futile, the arms arrangement will per haps be restored, or some equivalent devised. But, one wonders, what if relations between Bonn and Cairo should presently be mended? As the experience of the arms agreement indicates, the dura bility of the diplomatic tie is likely to be conditioned by the duration of the situation that brought it about. Unless, that is-— and at the present time this “unless” covers a void which most victims of the Third Reich consider unbridgable—the German conscience is truly shaken. Unless the eyes of the German people are opened to the truth that they now refuse to face. Unless they, as a people, as a nation, as individual men and women, offer their penance—not to man, but to G-d. Failing this, the great sin of our age, unexpiated, will remain as a cancer in the heart of the modern world. But if the diplomatic relationship between Israel and West Germany does in fact open the gates to German penance, it will have served an end of profound worth.

Beyond “We Shall Overcome99 HE STRUGGLE being waged in Alabama and Mississippi, capped by the shocking events at Selma and the Freedom March to Montgomery, marks a culminating phase of the civil rights battle. Set as it is in a racial frame of reference, with close relation to the ferment among subject peoples all over the world and to the American Negro’s battle against economic as well as social disabilities, the race relations aspect of the strug gle tends to obscure the other great questions involved. President Johnson, in his memorable “We shall overcome” message to a recent joint session of the Congress, has rightly reminded the country that the issue now being determined is that of the fundamental rights not only of Negro Americans but of all Americans. These rights are necessarily indivisible as well as inalienable. If the Negro or anv other element of the populace, Birthright isr deprived of the franchise, it is the franchise itself, and not the of All Negro’s right to it, which is shattered. Thereby every American is robbed of his birthright and his freedom. Even those—a diminishing minoritv, fortunately—who are indifferent to the moral crime of racial injustice cannot escape this conclusion and the implications thereof. But there inheres in the present battle questions of still deeper

JEWISH LIFE

purport, and these are less widely recognized. Behind Selma and the Freedom March, behind all the epochal struggles of our time, lies the search for self-definition. Within a brief span of history, man and society and the whole human environment The Deeper have undergone metamorphosis. Amidst revolutionary change, Questions with the universe emerging in new form before man’s startled gaze, with accustomed landmarks swept away, mankind stands at a loss, bereft of a sense of clear identity. Powers such as man never before has known are now at his disposal. But how—that is, in what terms of binding moral reference—these powers are to be used, must remain a disaster-fraught riddle unless and until man’s essence and purpose be freshly perceived. Pending such fresh perception, rights, right itself, become a provisional proposition, with status in the scheme of things governed factually by relation to command of modern power positions. The striving for better status, whether national, group, or indi vidual, finds ideological expression which, for all its fluency, fails to give form or voice to the innermost quest. It is sig nificant that the posuk “And G-d created man in His own image” is so often drawn upon in support of the civil rights movement. The Torah word rather than the contemporary idiom bespeaks what lies deepest in human motivation today. T IS man’s vision of himself and of ultimate verities that is at stake in the turbulence of our times. This is not to be Igained through “modern resources”; rather, it can well be lost by their blandishments. Only in opening our eyes to a timeless Timeless resource, the vision of man as bearer of the Divine Image, can Resource man recognize himself and perceive the meaning and purpose

of his life, and only so can he know and do what is right and what is just. Once, long ago, our own people was brought forth from bondage to be vouchsafed this vision and to cleave to it and bear it aloft to the world. We relive this cosmic happening now and know, with renewed understanding, what great task is entrusted to us.

In order to rectify our publication schedule, this issue of J e w i s h L i f e combines the January-February and March-April issues. Subscriptions will be extended by one issue beyond the present expiration dates so that all subscribers will receive the full number of copies designated for the subscription terms.

Spring, 1965

The President's Education Bill: a Jewish Appraisal By MARVIN SCHICK HE long battle over Federal Aid of the First Amendment or what con T to religion-related schools was, in stitutes a breach in the wall separat effect, resolved several years ago when ing Church and State. A political ques the tightening financial squeeze on state and local governments and public education agencies made it certain that they must turn to Washington for help. It then became apparent that no program could get through Congress unless it included church-affiliated schools. The 1960 election of John F. Kennedy proved to be a temporary setback for the proponents of aid to all school systems. During the elec tion campaign, Mr. Kennedy had come out, on constitutional grounds, against extending financial help to parochial schools. It would have been impolitic to enact the first Federal program of grants to elementary and secondary schools during the Administration of the country’s first Catholic President. Yet it was in the Kennedy years that Congress, with the consent of the President, substantially broadened Federal assistance to institutions of higher learning, including those under sectarian control. Accordingly, the broad question of aid to parochial schools was al ready settled when Mr. Johnson as sumed the Presidency. What remained to be answered was the form that this aid was to take. In other words, the issue was no longer legal-constitu tional, revolving around the original meaning of the Establishment Clause

tion was now to be decided: At what point in the continuum of opinion on the subject could an accommodation be reached that, on the one hand, would give recognition to Catholic demands for fair treatment of their schools and, on the other hand, would make obeisance, albeit in truncated form, to the traditional opposition of major religious and education groups to any direct aid to church-supported schools? This was no easy task, since the public officials clamoring for help were hopeful of receiving Federal sub sidies to public schools for teachers’ salaries and school construction. But necessity was again the mother of in vention: In the present case, the “Ele mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,” conceived by President Johnson and his Commissioner of Education, Dr. Francis Keppel. They seem to have come up with a pro gram that meets the basic aspirations of most of the parties that have a stake in the issue. A new and very grand alliance has been formed and it sweeps aside the vehement but im potent protests of the pure Separationists. ’ But what has been created is an alliance based on a common need and not on a shared principle and, as such, it may prove to be of short life. The JEWISH LIFE

efficacy of the new program depends solely on whether it alleviates the fi nancial crisis in public education, which was the catalyst that forced a resolution of the Ghurch-State issue. Should the proposed infusion of Fed eral funds be inadequate, as some

education experts are already suggest ing, more direct subsidies will be de manded, and the present members of the alliance will once more have to decide whether their need will control their interpretation of Separation of Church and State.

THE PRESIDENT'S PRO GRAM

HE three major provisions of the such funds, local agencies must sat T education package known as the isfy certain requirements, including Elementary and Secondary Education guarantees that the money will be used Act of 1965 are explicit in their cov erage of public and non-public schools* Yet, the most striking thing about the legislation is that it is virtually im possible to forecast the impact that it will have on parochial school finances and on Church-State relations. It is hard to understand the enthusiasm for the program contained in the testi mony of spokesmen for the major re ligious organizations before Congres sional Committees. As an ardent sup porter of Federal Aid to religious schools, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, said recently: “The real merits of the pro gram will depend on its actual execu tion, how and by whom the program will be administered and how the funds will be distributed.” In terms of the size of the proposed appropriation, the most significant fea ture of the legislation is Title I, which sets up a program of financial assist ance for the education of children of low-income families, defined as fami lies having an annual income of less than $2,000. It is estimated that one billion dollars will be allocated for the first year of the program. Federal funds for the educationally deprived children are to be distributed by state educational agencies to the local school districts that contain lowincome families. To be eligible for Spring, 1965

primarily to improve the education of educationally deprived children and not for the general programs of the school districts. The money grants may be used in any way that meets the needs of these children, including the construction of school facilities. Another requirement is that the lo cal school districts must design special educational services and arrangements that provide for the underprivileged children who attend private and re ligion-related schools. These might in clude dual enrollment (more com monly known as shared time) systems, educational television, mobile educa tional units, remedial education, addi tional instructional personnel, and pre-school or after-school programs. While it appears that the choice of services is up to the local agency, there seems to be some feeling that shared time will be the most likely device for compliance with this re quirement. Title II of the Act estab lishes a five-year program for “the acquisition of school library resources and printed and published instruc tional materials for the use of children and teachers in public and non-profit private elementary and secondary schools in the state.” Where state agencies are not permitted by law to provide materials for church-affiliated 7

schools, they are to be made available to such schools by the Commissioner of Education, who would deduct the cost from the state’s allotment. Library and instructional materials purchased with Federal funds and made available to non-public schools may not be used for sectarian pur poses and must be the same as those used or approved for use in the pub lic schools of the state. HE third major provision of the President’s bill sets up a five-year program “to provide vitally needed educational services not available in sufficient quantity or quality in ele mentary and secondary schools and to develop and establish exemplary ele mentary and secondary school educa tional programs to serve as models for regular school programs,” An ap propriation of 100 million dollars would be authorized for the first year. Under this Title grants would-be made for educational planning, pilot projects, and the establishment and operation of programs offering a di verse range of educational experience to children and adults of varying tal ents and needs. These might include

guidance counseling, remedial instruc tion, and health and social work serv ices designed to encourage pupils to remain in school; assistance to adult education; exemplary educational pro grams; specialized instruction and equipment for handicapped or pre school children and for students of advanced scientific subjects, foreign languages, and other academic sub jects not taught in the local schools or “which can be provided more effectively on a centralized basis”; making available modern educa tional equipment and specially quali fied personnel “to public and other non-profit schools, organizations, and institutions”; developing and produc ing radio and television programs for educational use; and other special pro grams meeting the purpose of the Act. A second aspect of this Title is the provision for grants to supplementary educational centers and service organi zations created to establish and coor dinate the programs listed in the preceding paragraph. The governing boards of such organizations or con sortiums must include representatives of the ii^stitutions and agencies par ticipating in the supplementary pro grams, including religious schools.

C H U R C H AND STATE

HE last section of the proposed law provides that “nothing con tained in this Act shall be construed to authorize the making of any pay ment under this Act, or under any Act amended by this Act, for religious worship or instruction.” Despite this disclaimer it is appar ent that funds provided under Titles I, II, and III would ultimately pay for certain educational programs and services of religion-related schools that

are now privately supported and that children attending these schools will have part of their education subsi dized by the Federal Government. These direct and indirect grants to church-controlled schools will allow religious authorities to use the newlyfreed funds to improve religious in struction or to expand their schools to permit the admission of many addi tional children for whom facilities were previously lacking. In fact, the JEWISH LIFE

fear that this will be so constitutes one of the cornerstones of the argu ment against aid to religious schools. Shad Polier, of the American Jewish Congress, in attacking the President’s proposals wrote recently in his organi zation’s Newsletter: Finally, there is the serious danger of fragmenting the public school sys tem by encouraging proliferation of private schools. We might end up in many communities with a situation where all the important subjects needed for human relations are taught in a multiplicity of separate private schools and the public school is used as a common manual training insti tution, physical science laboratory, or gigantic gymnasium. This, and not the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, con stitutes the real Church-State issue posed by the new Federal education program. Even if it is a certainty that the contemplated grants violate the strictures contained in Supreme Court decisions on the separation of Church and State and unconstitutionally ex pand the “child-benefit” theory that now forms the basis for upholding public payments for school transpor tation of religious school children, it is improbable that the Supreme Court will reach a decision on the validity of the grants. This is because the leg islation does not include a provision allowing for judicial review of the appropriations made pursuant to it. Without such a clause the Supreme Court is unlikely to relax the policy of forty years standing that bars tax payer suits against appropriations from the General Treasury. The irony of this is that the advocates of strict sepa ration will be denied access to the courts and thus suffer a major defeat shortly after having won their greatSpring, 1965

est victories in the high court’s rulings on prayer in public schools. HE failure of the legal attack will T be salutary if it forces a discussion on the merits of the proposals ad vanced to aid parochial schools. Up to now the debate has been conducted in a non-programmatic vacuum; now that a program has been advocated it is necessary to relate the arguments to the political and social contexts that will condition the operations of the newly-conceived plan. After all, we are now in the experimental stage of a rapidly expanding Federal in volvement in educational programs and services, including some spon sored by religious institutions. The Federal Government is in the educa tion business to stay. What we now need is an unending dialogue on the issue of Federal Aid which will allow the proper authorities to constantly evaluate the programs that have been enacted. At the very least, this requires that discussion of Federal Aid to parochial schools be related to specifics and not be limited to broad condemnations or approvals. Federal Aid to religionrelated schools is, of itself, neither good nor bad. Should the programs now advanced by the President con tribute to a general improvement in elementary and secondary education, I take it that most everyone will favor their continuation and expansion. Should they result in church interfer ence in public education we can ex pect that formidable forces will be determined to see their termination. Thus, an evaluation of the legislation from the point of view of ChurchState relations must await its imple mentation. As I said earlier, the im9

pact that it will have on public and parochial education is uncertain. How ever, a discussion of some of the pos sible ramifications of the impending programs can serve to safeguard against dangers that the critics of the President’s proposals say will occur if the bill before Congress is enacted. The provisions for Federal grants for the education of children of lowincome families, purchase of instruc tional materials, and the establishment of supplementary educational centers and services include direct or indirect subsidies to religious schools. But it is not the financial aspect of the leg islation that raises the most funda mental questions of Church-State re lations. There is a strong feeling that it will be some time until Federal funds have a substantial impact on the finances of church educational sys tems. The deeper significance of the proposals is that they promote in creased contacts between public and non-public schools and that they give religious authorities some voice in the making of overall educational policy. Opinion as to whether or not this will prove to be desirable is divided, with the opponents of Federal Aid confi dent that only ill will come of the new partnership being forged in the field of education. ET US now turn to consideration of the possible effects of the sev eral programs. Since most of the al leged dangers involve the Roman Catholic Church and its educational system, the discussion centers around the impact on Catholic education. Moreover, the vast majority of “paro chial school” children are in Catholic schools: the total enrollment in the Jewish day schools is less than one

percent of the children in Catholic elementary and secondary schools. The special problems confronting the yeshivoth will be considered in a separate section. Under Title I, shared time systems might be set up for underprivileged children attending religion - related schools. The usual practice is for the parochial school students to enter the public school as a class from a sepa rate institution, rather than as indi vidual students. In terms of the edu cation of Catholic children this might mean that they would be subjected to the more democratic environment of the public schools and to the more liberal views of the public school teacher and that this experience would break down the alleged prejudices in grained through religious education. But this is not the view of the Ameri can Jewish Congress, whose spokes man listed the following among the reasons for its opposition to shared time: 5. The plan would necessarily blur the line which separates public from parochial education. In order for the plan to work it would be necessary for the public and parochial school authorities to coordinate their opera tions. This could lead in many com munities to joint operation of the public school systems by public and church authorities. . . I suggest that such a consequence would be fatal to the integrity of our independent secular public educational system. 6. Likely, too, would be efforts of church authorities not only to review but to censor even religiously ‘neu tral’ subjects in order to ‘protect* parochial school children in the pub lic schools. The provisions relating to grants for library resources and instructional JEWISH LIFE

materials raise similar questions. It has long been charged that in their general studies program Catholics often use specially prepared textbooks that contain materials that are dis torted and prejudiced. If this allega tion is true, the requirement that learn ing materials purchased with Federal funds be approved for use in state public schools is to be applauded. Yet, the critics of the plan charge that this requirement “might well tend to increase the pressure on public school authorities to approve only those ma terials that are acceptable to religious ly controlled schools.” The expectation of church pressure in this area gains support of a sort from the testimony of the representatives of Torah Umesorah: “. . . We would request that representatives of the private schools

participate together with the public school authorities in the specific selec tion of the text books and instruc tional materials available.” Without passing on the merits of this request, it may be noted that if the leaders of the Jewish Day School movement be lieve that they must have a say in the textbooks, we can certainly expect the Roman Catholic Church to demand a voice in this matter. The foregoing analysis also applies to the educational centers and services contemplated under Title III. How ever, the requirement that the con sortiums set up to operate the cen ters include representatives of religious groups makes the separationists dou bly convinced that the plan will be disruptive of public education in the United States.

THE N A TIO N A L REA CTIO N

HE response of the educational and Christian religious communi ties to the President’s proposals has been almost entirely favorable. This was to be expected, since before the message on education was sent to Congress the key organizations that had potentially the power to block adoption of the program were con sulted and gave their approval. Interest groups such as the National Education Association and the liberal-oriented American Federation of Teachers of the AFL-CIO, as well as the Protes tant National Council of Churches, announced well in advance of the message to Congress that they were abandoning their long-standing oppo sition to any governmental aid to pa rochial schools. Explanations of these policy rever sals are hot hard to find. While many of the members of the new alliance

Spring, 1965

favoring the Elementary and Second ary School Act of 1965 are not too comfortable with the provisions of the bill that give religious groups a voice in the planning and control of the re ligious centers, they recognize that they have little alternative other than to back the program. The NEA and Teacher’s Union, the various organi zations representing public education officers and administrators, (some of whom continue to reject the devices included in the new program), and the major Protestant denominations (though some Protestant evangelical groups oppose the bill) all have a major stake in public education. They know that the states are unable or un willing to enact tax increases to pro vide for the much-needed improve ment and expansion in educational programs and services, and that finan cial assistance can only come from II

Washington. The experience with aid to education legislation in the last two Congresses convincingly demonstrated the impossibility of getting any law through Congress that does not ac cede to the demands of the Catholics. Moreover, these erstwhile critics of aid to parochial schools believe that they can live with the new legislation because it does not provide for direct subsidies to church-controlled schools and, at least in the titles dealing with the education of children of low-in come families and library and instruc tional materials, it channels Federal grants through public education agencies.

parochial schools. It follows that the financial relief afforded to Catholic school systems, through the legisla tion, will not be great, at least not for the next several years. The Cath olics know this; but they have won on principle, and the program before Congress may be the opening wedge to broader and more direct Federal subsidies to all levels of education, public and private. In addition, the Catholics can take satisfaction in the requirement that they be given a share in the control and planning of the new educational services and centers that are to be established.

HEREAS the legislation has met W with the nearly unanimous ap HE Catholics have won a major proval of education circles, Protes

T victory in that the principle of tants, and Catholics, the Jewish parity of parochial school children with those attending public schools is accepted. Their argument has always been that equity and justice require that any formula for the disbursement of Federal funds for educational pur poses give equal treatment to all school children. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to assert that the Cath olics have gotten all that they hoped for. Application of the legislation will give the public schools a dispropor tionately large share of the monies appropriated. This is because the per centage of underprivileged children is much higher in the public schools than in the parochial schools. While the precise data on the distribution of such children according to type of school are not available, there can be no disputing that this is so. In this writer’s opinion, it can be conserva tively estimated that the percentage of children of low-income families in public schools is four or five times greater than the comparable figure in 12

community is badly divided on the subject. The orthodox camp is now almost solidly behind the proposals, indicating a major reversal by a num ber of orthodox groups. Some non orthodox organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, are now giving at least qualified backing to the programs. On the other side, the American Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Reform Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the Conservative United Synagogue of America remain steadfast in their op position to aid to religious schools and are the source of the most vociferous attacks on the education package. It is inconceivable that their opposition will deter passage of the legislation. It is doubtful that a united Jewish camp in opposition could materially affect the fortunes of the program. When the debate over Federal aid was ideological, the Jewish position reJEWISH LIFE

ceived considerable attention, if only because of its intellectual force; now that the issue is political, we must recognize that the Jewish position is less meaningful. Further shifts within the Jewish community may be expected. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, which has announced its quali fied opposition to the President’s pro posals, finds that a substantial number of its members and its program direc

tor are unhappy with this position. But what is needed are not shifts in one direction or the other to create a monolithic Jewish stance on the sub ject. Far more vital to the welfare of American Jewry is the need for all Jewish groups to forego bland ideo logical commitment or opposition to Federal aid to religion-related schools and to concentrate on the substance and the implementation of the legis lation before Congress.

THE O RTH O D O X DILEMMA

RTHODOX Jewry was put in a which provides for more or less direct O difficult spot by the President’s subsidies to non-public schools, can proposals. Some orthodox organiza tions had already been committed to aid to religion-related schools, while others, notwithstanding their concern over the precarious financial condition of many day schools, were doubtful as to the long-term merits of this pol icy. Once, however, a new approach was offered by the Administration in terms of child educational welfare, it was unthinkable for them to reject a program that included children attend ing religious schools. On the other hand, the immediate private reaction of both elements to the legislation must have been, “This won’t help us much.” It takes considerably less than a sophisticated familiarity with Amer ican Jewish life to realize that only a very small proportion of Jewish day school children are of families with income below $2,000—and the bulk of the money under this bill is for the education of underprivileged chil dren. Additionally, the funds to be granted to any one state for supple mentary educational services and cen ters will be far too little to establish more than a few centers by 1970, if not later. Even the textbook program, Spring, 1965

not be of much help unless it is ex panded to several times its original scope. This can be demonstrated as follows: By my own calculations, New York State will receive in the first year of the program between eight and nine million dollars for library resources and institutional materials. The He brew day schools in the state contain a little less than one percent of all of New York’s elementary and sec ondary school children. How much money will be available for textbooks to children attending the New York day schools? Whatever their reservations, ortho dox Jewish leaders were in no posi tion to reject the package. They had made a commitment and they could reason, as the Catholics have, that the program accepts the principle of parity and is likely to be the open ing to broader and more meaningful Federal assistance. Apart from the economic question, the substance of the proposals is like ly to pose many difficult problems for orthodox Jewry. Before examining these, it should once more be stated 13

that any analysis of future implica tions is highly speculative.

food program. This is also unaccept able because of often overt hostility of the J.E.C. and its administrators to Torah Chinuch and yeshivah per sonnel and, even more, because it should be unthinkable to permit a non orthodox agency to speak for the Yeshivoth Gedoloth and Yeshivoth Ketanoth in educational matters. There remains a final hope that the day schools and major yeshivoth, per haps through the good offices of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions of America or Torah Umesorah, will put aside their individualistic out look and ideological and educational differences and join the various states in associations which will make the re quired arrangement with the public authorities. If the past is any guide to future behavior, the prospects of such a step are not bright; perhaps the add ed stimulus of Federal Aid wil E n gender cooperation among the schools.

HE first difficulty is organization al. The programs will require vari ous interactions between the Jewish schools and state education author ities. At present there is no central body in any of the states to coordi nate day school and yeshivah policy on educational matters. Neither the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions of America, American Ortho doxy’s most representative body, nor Torah Umesorah, at present a service agency, is now in a position to present to the proper agencies a coordinated response to those features of the pro gram that are of significance to the day schools, and certainly no other ortho dox Jewish organization can do so. In the absence of any functioning central orthodox educational agency to deal with the government, there are three possible ways for the day schools to handle the new programs: SECOND problem confronting 1) Each day school or Yeshivah orthodox Jewish leadership is the Gedolah acting as an individual in danger that the new programs will stitution can attempt to get whatever lead to increased public involvement it can from the government. This ap in the secular affairs of the day proach is obviously undesirable or schools. I believe that we can safely worse. discount the fears of some that state 2) Schools of like policy (such as authorities will require the schools to the Chassidic yeshivoth or the use textbooks that are undesirable Yeshiva University high schools) can from the Jewish point of view. In fact, band together in a common effort to there is a problem today over text benefit from the programs. The im books, but it is caused by the choice plication of this is that there will be of books made available by publishers public division and competition among and not by regulations imposed by the states. orthodox-sponsored schools. 3) Non-Orthodox agencies, such as The more serious issue is that the Jewish Education Committee of through shared time and the educa New York, taking advantage of the tional centers, the day schools will vacuum in the orthodox community, lose control over the school program may claim to represent the schools, as and schedule or will no longer be able the J.E.C. noyv does in the surplus to regulate the total school program

JEWISH LIFE

to fulfill the basic purposes of these schools. To illustrate this point, ref erence imay be made to the situation in New York where the yeshivah high schools (those that seek a state char ter) have been under pressure by state education authorities to schedule sec ular classes in the morning in ac cordance with provisions of the State Education Law. We may ask, what will the public schools or the con sortiums controlling the education centers require of the Jewish schools in return for helping to educate Jew ish children? A final set of questions arises from the education of orthodox school chil dren outside of the yeshivah environ ment. Very likely the individual yeshivah’s or educator’s conception of a yeshivah will control the view that is held on this problem. However, from the point of view of the Roshey Yeshi vah—who after all are the genuine leaders of orthodox Jewry—the prob lem is real: In terms of the concept that is called Yeshivah, is it desirable to allow children still in their forma tive years who have been imbued with the notion of the primacy of a Torah education and a Torah approach to life to receive instruction in public schools and educational centers? What effect, religious or psychological, will this experience have on their selfidentification as yeshivah students? Or, looking at the subjects to be taught, will it matter any that history or sci ence are taught outside the yeshivah, with the yeshivah authorities having little or no say over the curriculum or the instructor? I do not wish to suggest that any of the problems described in the preced ing paragraphs will necessarily ma terialize in a manner detrimental to Spring, 1965

orthodox Jewry or that because of them we should not endorse the Presi dent’s program. However, I very much want to convey the thought that it is to these questions that the orthodox Jewish community must address itself in the coming years and not to the old question of Federal aid to parochial schools. *

E CONCLUDE by returning to the original point that the legal and ideological battle over separation of Church and State is ended, inso far as the school question is con cerned. The issues now are the effec tiveness of the President’s program in meeting the needs of public education and the impact that Federal Aid will have on Church-State relations in the field of education. As to these, we can only speculate. A consensus favoring at least cer tain types of governmental grants to religion-related schools is developing. Should the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 give meaningful assistance to public education without creating any new Church-State diffi culties, the new alliance of public edu cation and organized religion will flourish and, in time, some of the re maining holdouts will be won over. On the other hand, if public education officials come to believe that only more direct Federal grants can help them solve their problems, the soli darity of the new alliance will be severely tested and the Johnson Edu cation Program may prove to be only a temporary respite. If so, we shall be faced anew with the need to frame an education program that garners the support of both public education and the major religions.

Jews and Arabs: The Historic Encounter By HENRY SIEGMAN Through many centuries, over vast areas, Jews and Arabs have dwelt in close relation to each other. Surveying the long relationship, this article brings into new focus the situation of today.

T the time of the birth of Islam in presided over an important Jewish the 7th century, Arab-Jewish re academy of learning in Hira, the A lations already had a long history be Lakhmid capital, under the Arab hind them. When Mohammed came on the scene, he found Arabia—from Yemen in the south to Syria and Mesopotamia in the north—densely interspersed with Jewish communities. The first recorded Arab-Jewish con tact is an alliance that united King Ahab of Israel (Samaria) with an Arab King Jindibu in the battle of Karkara, which took place in Syria in 853 B.C.E. The spread of the Naba tean Arabs into southern and eastern Palestine and Babylonia had made the Arab a familiar, if not always a wel come, figure in Jewish settlements. Arab kings replaced Edomite rule in Petra during the Second Jewish Com monwealth, and they are mentioned in Jeremiah, Ezrah, and Nehemiah. There were intensive Arab-Jewish con tacts following Rome’s incorporation of Arabia into her imperial structure (ca. 100 C.E.). Jewish communities existed under the Lakhmids Arab vassal princes of Sassanian Persia. The Lakhmids, from the 3rd century on ward, dominated a large area close to the great centers of Jewish life and learning in Babylonia. Reb Hamnuna 16

King Imru al-Qais in the 3rd and 4th centuries (Eruvin 63 a, Shabboth 19b). Because the Arabs often appeared as raiders, these contacts were not al ways friendly. Early in the 3rd cen tury, Palmyra-Tadmor, an Arab king dom in the Syrian desert, checked the Persian armies that were advancing on Palestine, and Babylonian Jewry had to abandon its messianic hopes, blam ing the Palmyrenes for this failure (Yevomoth 17a). In Tadmor, which served as a crossroad of caravan sites, Jews played an important role during the city’s era of great commercial prosperity in the 2nd and 3rd cen turies. In Arabia proper, Jewish settlement goes back—according to the scholar Charles Torrey—to 550 B.C.E., at which time Jewish refugees from the wars of Nebuchadnezar made their way to the northern Arabian oasis of Teima. There is much clearer evidence of Jewish settlements in Arabia from roughly the beginning of the common era onward. This settlement progressed to a point where Jewish tribes domi nated the important city of Yathrib JEWISH LIFE

(Medina), and at one time occupied sixty strongholds covering practically the entire fertile countryside, includ ing Khaibar (from the Hebrew chever) Dedan, Al-Hijr, Teima, Taif, and Mecca. Bedouin Arabs were attracted to these agricultural settlements, where they were welcomed by their hosts. By the 6th century, Jews—a good many of whom may have been Arab con verts—may still have constituted the majority of the settled population in Arabia. Professor S. D. Goitein believes that the city of Medina, the main scene of Mohammed’s activity, was originally a community of Kohanim, priests, who organized themselves into compact priestly communities in order to be able to observe more readily the priest ly code. (Thus, Talmudic speculations about “/> shekulah kohanim”—a city that is entirely made up of priests— were based on actual situations.) With regard to southern Arabia, known as Himayara, which generally enjoyed a separate existence and civil ization because it was geographically and climatically separated from the rest of the peninsula, Jewish contacts go back to Solomon’s reign in the 10th cenutry B.C.E. There is a record of the entry of Jewish soldiers in 25 B.C.E. and Jews were to be found there in large numbers in the 4th cen tury C.E. The king of Himayara in the early 6th century, Dhu Nawas, adopted Judaism and ruled over a Jewish kingdom. However, caught be tween Byzantine and Persian conflict, as was much of the rest of the world in those days, the Jewish king was defeated by Christian Abyssinia with assistance in 525. When Abyssinian domination was finally overthrown after a half century, the leader of the liberation movement was a descendant Spring, 1965

of Dhu Nawas and likewise a profes sing Jew. There was thus in south ern Arabia an unbroken chain of Jewish settlement down to present day Yemenite Jewry. During the several generations of Jewish predominance in northern Arabia, they raised the level of civili zation of that area to what had al ways been the higher level of Himayaran civilization in the south. Jews introduced the culture of the date-palm into the region, and in the towns they were famous as gold smiths and artisans. Several impor tant oases and cities were entirely in their hands, including, as we have seen, Medina itself. Their poets and poetesses were famous, and are still remembered in the annals of Arabic literature. Their folklore became an integral part of the intellectual back ground of the country. Given this pervasive influence, one can speculate, as Salo Baron does, that had Dhu Nawas’ Jewish kingdom in southern Arabia not been overthrown by an outside power, it is not unlikely that the entire peninsula would have turn ed Jewish. In any event, “Jews had injected enough of their restless quest of religious values into the tribes (of the a r e a ) ... to help prepare the ground for a new effervescence of re ligious and cultural creativity” in the form of Islam.

T T is popularly assumed that Arabs and Jews enjoy common racial ties, both being members of a com mon Semitic race. Recently, President Nasser of Egypt found this assump tion useful in denying that Arabs are Antisemitic; how could they be, he exclaimed, when they are in fact fellow-Semites! Actually, the term “Semitic” was 17

first coined by a German scholar in 1781 to classify a group of languages that are closely related, including He brew, Arabic, and Ethiopic. This purely linguistic term quite mistaken ly came to be applied to a race— with distinct physical, psychological, and social peculiarities. There is in fact no scientific basis for the notion that all people who spoke Semitic languages have common racial origin. It is as if anthropologists a thousand years from now were to conclude that the forefathers of the American Negro and of the English at one time formed a single race, be cause they talked the same language. Another notion that should be laid to rest is that Jews and Arabs are “cousins” because Arabs stem from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Isaac’s brother. Actually, Ishmael was an ancient tribe that vanished from history. The mistaken idea that the

Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, a lineage that is taken for granted in the Koran, stems from Jewish sources. The designation Ishmaeli, though not at all in the sense of descendence from Ishmael, came to be used to denote a desert people of camel breeders who engaged in raids or overland transport. Thus, the Midianites whom Gideon fought are called Ishmaelites (Judges 8:24). Also, in the account of the sale of Joseph by his brothers, the terms “Midianites” and “Ishmaelites” seem to be used interchangeably. The Arab Nabateans were referred to by the Jews as Ishmaelites, and it is from this application that the Arabs received the idea of their origin from Ishmael. In the Koran, Mohammed has Ishmael help his father Abraham convert the Kaaba, the sanctuary in Mecca, into a shrine of the true religion, thus mak ing Abraham, the presumed physical ancestor, also the founder of Islam.

JEW ISH IN FLU EN CE ON MUSLIM BELIEF

EFORE we examine the Jewish Christians. These claims enjoyed no background of Islam, a few words notable success in Mecca. In 622, B must be said about the founder of this Mohammed and his followers fled to religion, its prophet Mohammed. He was born in Mecca, in ca. 570. When he was about forty years old he claim ed to have received transmissions from the angel Gabriel, in the form of re citations (in Arabic kuran, in Hebrew mikra). These recitations, he claimed, were the final and perfect form of G-d’s revelation, which had previous ly been communicated to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Tribes, Moses, and Jesus, all of whom are recognized by Islam as prophets. He regarded himself as the last, the Seal, of the prophets, whom G-d had sent to restore the purity of His religion, which had been defamed by Jews and 18

Medina, a flight, or hijrah, from which Moslems date their era. It was at Medina that Mohammed succeeded in welding his followers together into a community and a military power, which by the time of his death in 632 was ready to extend itself to mastery over much of Asia and Africa. Mohammed’s early efforts were directed at gaining support from the Jews as G-d’s messenger, and he did not see himself at that time as the bearer of a new religion. While there were some Jews among his early sup porters, something that is well under standable in view of messianic yearn ings that swept the entire area at that JEWISH LIFE

time, the overwhelming majority of Jews looked upon him with skepticism and even ridicule. One of the reasons for this was his illiteracy and his in accuracies in relating Biblical stories. (Thus, for example, Haman was Pharaoh’s vizier.) In any event, Mo hammed changed from ardent suitor of Jews to their harshest enemy. He wound up warring against the three Jewish tribes in Medina, who at first had admitted him hospitably following his flight from Mecca, and had even supported him against the opposing Meccan factions. Through shrewd political maneuvering, Mohammed drove them out of Medina. The third of these three Jewish tribes, the Banu Kuraiza, after having been betrayed in battle by their Arab allies, when offered by Mohammed a choice be tween Islam and the sword, all unhesitantly chose martyrdom. After thus brutally vanquishing the Jews of Medina, Mohammed turned on the Jews of Khaibar, who secured a nego tiated capitulation after a fierce battle, agreeing to pay tribute in return for Muslim protection. Similar treaties were concluded by Mohammed with Jewish communities throughout the peninsula. (These treaties formed the precedent for what was to be the legal status of “infidels” under Muslim do mination.) HE Koran contains a mass of ma T terial which is traceable to Jew ish and Christian sources. There has been a debate among scholars as to whether Judaism or Christianity served as Mohammed’s primary model. The fact that the driving force in Mohammed’s preaching in the be ginning of his career was the dread of an imminent last judgment has led some scholars to believe that MohamSpring, 1965

med drew his main and immediate inspiration from the Christian monas tic world. Other scholars, beginning with Geiger’s classic dissertation |W as hat Mohammed aus dem judenthum aufgenomen?” (1833) and followed by Mittwoch, Margoliouth, Guillaume, and Torrey, built a powerful case for the primacy of Jewish influence. Pro fessor Goitein, who wrote “Jews and Arabs, Their Contacts Thorugh the Ages,” argues that the absence of any reference to Jesus in Mohammed’s early writings precludes the possibili ty of Christian influence during his early period. By contrast, the name of Moses and stories about him per vade the entire Koran. In fact, in his early career Mohammed knew only this one Prophet, and therefore con sidered himself his immediate suc cessor. Be that as it may, there is no ques tion that profound Jewish influences are clearly discernible in the Koran. Mohammed’s monotheism was, as he never ceased to repeat, the monothe ism of Israel. He vigorously opposed and denied the divinity of Jesus and the trinitarian mystery. “Allah is one, the Eternal G-d. He begot none, nor was He begotten.” There was for Him no redeemer, no need for redemp tion, and no original sin. The Islamic profession of faith, the shahadah: “There is no G-d but Allah, and Mohammed is Allah’s messenger,” as well as the Koranic verse: “Say: Allah is One,” bear a striking resemblance to the Shema and maty have been modelled after it. The Muslim Sab bath was not, as is often said, changed to Friday, but rather the Sabbath as a day of rest was done away with en tirely. Instead, Mohammed made Fri day, the day Jews used as a market day 19

in preparation for the Sabbath, a day of public meeting for prayer. Prayer was recited at first facing Jerusalem, as the Jews have always done. It was only after Mohammed gave up on the Jews that he changed the direction of prayer toward Mecca. According to some authorities, the prayer posture of Muslims, the genuflections, pros trations and ablutions, resembled closely those practiced in the syna gogue, and even the five daily prayers of Islam have rabbinic usage behind them. (Five prayer services on the Day of Atonement; also, the Palestinian Talmud makes reference to Jews meet ing five times daily for prayer). The Muslim fast of Ashura, the tenth, is patterned after the Day of Atonement, the Tzom Ho-osor. (Mohammed mis takenly thought that this fast com memorated the Jewish victory over Pharaoh.) In the realm of social legis lation, respect for parents and alms giving have a Jewish origin. The latter, one of the five pillars of Islam, is Sadakah in Arabic, Tzedokah in He brew. Certain provisions of the in heritance and marriage laws, especial ly the restriction of marriage among blood relatives and the punishment for adultery, point to Jewish influence. In practicing circumcision, Islam pointed ly ignored the Christian New Testa ment. If there is a close connection be tween the Koran and Judaism, the affinity between the fully developed system, despite fundamental theologi cal differences, is even more intrigu ing: 1) Like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law minutely regulating day-to-day living. Called in Arabic Sharia, Islam’s process of law is its counterpart to the Halochah of Judaism, and the two words have an identical meaning, i.e., 20

the path along which to travel. 2) Again in echo of Judaism, Sharia is based on an oral tradition, called in Arabic hadith. This oral tradition in terprets and supplements the written law, which in Arabic is known as kitab. The correspondence to the writ ten and the oral law of Judaism, Torah Shebikthav and Torah Sheb’alpeh, is apparent. 3) Again following the Jewish pat tern of Halochah, and unlike that of the Christian churches, Sharia was de veloped by a non-hierarchical commu nity of scholars. Islam never had a hierarchy of religious dignitaries who decided questions while sitting in offi cial synods or councils, as was the practice in Christian churches. 4) In both Judaism and Islam, re ligious law took its final shape in the form of different schools or rites, which originally represented the most widely accepted decisions or usages of one country, like the Jewish rites of Babylonia and Eretz Yisroel, and the Muslim rites of Medina and Iraq. 5) The logical reasoning applied in the development of Islam’s religious law closely resembles the patterns of Judaism. There were a number of basic hermeneutical principles applied to Sharia that are comparable to prin ciples (e.g., the sholosh esrey midoth) which have regulated the development of Halochah. 6) The study of purely legal mat ters is regarded in both religions as a form of religious worship. The holy men of Islam and Judaism are not priests or monks, but students of sacred law. That the parallelisms make for an ap parent similarity of spirit was brought home to me when I heard an orthodox Jew from New York describe a visit he had paid to the A1 Azhsr seminary JEWISH LIFE

in Cairo. This was the first contact this person ever had with any Islamic in stitution. He stated that listening to the students studying their legal vol umes in a traditional sing-song he felt exactly as if he were in a Brooklyn

yeshivah. An unbroken chain from a yeshivah in Brooklyn and from A1 Azhar in Cairo thus goes back to neighboring Jewish and Muslim aca demies in Bagdad, Sura, and Pumpeditha.

ARAB IM PACT ON JEW ISH LIFE

HORTLY following the death of Mohammed in 632, his followers poured out of the peninsula and in a series of spectacular successes es tablished a great Arab empire that extended from southern France to Samarkand, from the Atlantic to the Indus. The legend of the spread of Islam by fire and by sword has long ago been proved untrue, except for Arabia itself, from which Jews and other unbelievers were ruthlessly eli minated. There can be little doubt that even outside Arabia there was great destruction and loss of life and pro perty in the wake of Arab conquests. In spite of this, however, to most Jews, particularly those who had suf fered under Byzantine suppression, the change was seen as an improve ment in their situation. Subjection rather than conversion was the ob jective of the conquering armies, and Muslims made no distinction between Jews and Christians. The special legal provisions that regulated the status of unbelievers were therefore necessarily less oppressive than those invented by their previous Byzantine rulers, be cause these provisions did not apply exclusively to Jews. They thus ceased to be an outcast community persecuted by the leading church and became part of a large class of subjects. In fact, during this early period of Arab conquests, the Arabs had to rely on Jews and other minorities to maintain the continuity of public and private life.

Spring, 1965

It is interesting to contrast the im pact of the new Arab order on the conquered religions during this first century of Muslim conquest. With all of Persia converted to Islam, Zoro astrianism almost disappeared from that land. In other lands which fell under Arab sway, the various Chris tian sects, having spent themselves in perennial sectarian conflict under By zantine domination, now largely gave up their inherited creed. Judaism, however, entered upon a new era of physical and intellectual expansion. Old centers of Jewish learning, in Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, and Spain flourished anew, while new ones— such as Fustat-Cairo in Egypt, and Kairuwan—competed with and even outshone their more venerable coun terparts. In spite of oppressive legal restrictions designed to keep the in fidel minorities in a degraded state, many Jews achieved great power, in fluence, and high public office. To be sure, the success and power of such figures were resented by many Mus lims, and their fall—which was in variably as meteoric as their rise— was generally followed by bloody mas sacres of the Jewish population. HE second and third centuries of T Arab rule witnessed a dramatic economic transfiguration of the Jew ish community. As a result of social and economic changes in the 8th and 9th centuries, Jews were transformed from a people engaged mainly in ma21

nual trades into one whose most characteristic occupation was com merce. The tremendous mobility of Jewish merchants, moving across the area between Spain and Morocco in the west and Central Asia and India in the east, contributed greatly to the unity of the Jewish communities spread throughout this area. Their great activity gave rise to a unique Jewish institution in this age, known as Pekid ha-Socharim, Representative of the Merchants. Such representa tives were to be found in every im portant commercial town. They were people of great wealth and influence who interceded with the ruler on be half of foreign Jewish merchants whose interests required such inter cessions. This, as well as various re lated roles that the Pakid assumed, made him, according to Goitein, the model of the Consuls of the Italian merchants who in turn were the fore runners of the modern consuls of foreign states. Another important institution dur ing this period—one that antedated Arab rule—was that of Resh Galutha, Head of the Jewish Community in Exile (Ëxilarch), whose seat was in Iraq. He was considered a descen dant of the royal house of David, and this alone gave him an honored posi tion in the Muslim state, which re vered David as one of the greatest prophets. The Resh Galutha was in stalled by the caliph in great regal splendor, and he had precedence over the Christian Catholikus in the ca

liph’s court, where he was addressed by the Muslims as “Our Lord, the son of David.” However, the great splendor of the Exilarch’s court was largely a matter of form. The Resh Galutha had little executive power, beyond the appointment of religious dignitaries in certain areas and the collection of certain revenues. Of far greater importance to the Jewish community was the office of Gaon, the title born by the heads of the two great Jewish academies in Iraq, those of Sura and Pumpeditha. They were recognized by Jews all over the world as the highest authority in all religious matters. Their responsa —written answers to questions submit ted to them from Jews everywhere— constituted the most characteristic lit erary product of Judaism during the first five centuries of Islam. While the Gaonate and the academies go back to pre-Christian times, the conditions created during the period of Arab rule, from the 7th to the 12th centuries, made possible the tremendous impor tance achieved by the responsa. With the decline of Iraq, beginning in the 10th century, and the ensuing political dismemberment of the em pire, other Jewish communities began to have heads of their own, known as Negidim, Princes. Such Negidim were to be found in Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, and even in Yemen. A famous example were the descend ants of Maimonides, who occupied this office in Egypt for nearly two centuries.

R EC IP R O C A L FO RCES

N considering Arab-Jewish cultural begin with, that the great majority of Iduring cross-fertilization that occurred Jews in the Muslim empire adopted this period, one must note, to the Arabic language, not only for secu22

JEWISH LIFE

lar purposes but also for religious writings. The acquisition of the Ara bic language by Jews meant also their adoption of Arab ways of thinking as well as Muslim religious notions. Using Arabic methods and terminol ogy, for the first time the grammar and vocabulary of the Hebrew lan guage were treated scientifically; He brew became a disciplined and wellorganized means of expression. One outstanding example of this linguistic literature is the Bible dictionary of David ben Abraham al Fasi (Fez, Morocco) who lived in Jerusalem in the 10th century. It is well known that Jewish phi losophy was deeply influenced by Muslim thought. Greek science and Greek methods of systematic thought entered Jewish life mainly via ArabMuslim literature. The problem that first created the earliest division among the Arabs was that of free will versus determinism, which gave rise to the Khadariya sect, who opposed the de terminism of the more orthodox Jabariya. From the Khadariya devel oped the school of theologians known as the Mutakallimun, the first Mus lims to accept reason as a source of knowledge in addition to revelation. While they were opposed by the or thodox Muslims, their purpose was to strengthen Islam, particularly against the philosophers, the Aristotelians whose teachings undermined tradi tional Islam. The influence of the Mutakallimun, particularly of the Mutazilites, the oldest sect within this school, on Jewish religious thought, beginning with that of the great Saadya Gaon and including such writ ers as Ibn Gabirol, Bachya Ibn Pakuda, Ibn Zaddik, and Moses and Abraham Ibn Ezra, was noted by the Spring, 1965

great Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides), himself an Aristotelian. In the 71st chapter of his Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam wrote: / “You will find in the few works of the Geonim and of the Karaites on the unity of G-d . . . they followed the Muslim Mutakallimun. It also happened that there arose among them a certain sect called Mutazilites. In certain things our scholars followed their theory and method.” That such influences are often re ciprocal and follow strange historical patterns is evident from the assertion of some scholars (e.g. Schreiner) that originally the Mutazilites were them selves under the influence of Jews in the city of Basra. The major doctrines of the Mutazilites, such as their op position to anthropomorphism, main tenance of the unity of G-d in its abso lute purity, freedom of will, and the notion that the Koran was created in time rather than being eternal, all have parallels in earlier rabbinic lit erature. What strengthens this thesis is that the Mutazilites developed among the ascetic sects, whose own literature, as we shall see, bears unmis takable traces of Halachic and Aggadic influence. Nevertheless, these doctrines received rational and syste matic development at the hands of the Mutazilites, who in turn deeply influenced Maimonides’ predecessors. Rambam, and with him Ibn Daud and Gersonides (Levi ben Gerson), rejected the Mutazilite doctrines in favor of those of the Arab Aristote lian masters Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes. Unlike their Arab counterparts, however, whose Aristotelianism led them to reject tra ditional Islam, their writings, particu23

larly Maimonides’ Guide of the Per plexed, became classics of Judaism which have not lost their significance even in our own day. To complete the circle, the anti-philosophical attitudes of Yehudah Halevi and Chasdai Cres cas, who opposed Maimonides’ Aristoteleanism on philosophic as well as traditional grounds, found their model in the great Arab theologian A1 Ghazali. HERE was much greater variation T among Jewish religious thought than among Muslim thought. One need only point to the differences be tween “the scholastic mind of Saadya Gaon, the pietist mood of Bachya, the synthetic thinking of the poet Yehudah Halevi and the original reasoning of the rationalist Maimonides” (Goitein). But with all of these differences, Jew ish philosophy constituted a body of thought distinct from its Muslim coun terpart in that it subscribed to the notion that in the final analysis man is free and in control of his destiny; he is therefore inescapably responsible for all he does. The prevailing mood of orthodox Muslim theology, by con trast, is one of fatalism. It is not commonly known, but scholars have come to realize that Islam’s greatest contribution was Suf ism, a pietist and mystic movement whose ultimate goal it was to renounce the world, to wipe out one’s own per sonality and to find oneself in the allembracing unity of G-d. The explicit borrowings from Jewish mystical sources by a second generation Sufi leader, Malik ibn Dinar, and the simi larity between early Muslim pietists and the Chasidim known to us from Talmudic literature, strongly suggests a connection between the two. The 24

influence of Sufism on Jewish thought is particularly in evidence in Bachya’s “Duties of the Heart” and even more so in Abraham Maimonides’ “The Complete Guide for the Servants of G-d.” In this work the son of Mai monides states that in some respects the Sufi masters preserved more faith fully the ways of the Prophets than Jews themselves. He was particularly attracted by their prostrations during prayer and the solemn, intense char acter of their worship services, for which he claimed authentic Jewish precedent. One cannot conclude a discussion of Jewish-Arab cultural symbiosis without mentioning Hebrew poetry, religious and secular, that was cre ated in Muslim countries, particularly in Spain, which followed Arab mod els. The names that immediately come to mind are Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Moses Ibn Ezra, and Yehudah Halevi. recounting the amazing social, Iof Ntheeconomic, and intellectual growth Jewish community under Islam, it is easy to forget that the relation ship between Jews and Arabs was one of “cultivated contempt,” to use Baron’s felicitous phrase. Great Mus lim minds devoted themselves to the task of devising codes that would in sure the legal and social inferiority and humiliation of Jewish and Chris tian minorities. On the other hand, unlike all other unbelievers, the Peo ple of the Book—Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians—had the right to prac tice their religion in accordance with a treaty which granted them protec tion. This is why minorities in Islam were known as dhimmis, people of the treaty, or covenant. The terms of this treaty were all designed to underJEWISH LIFE

score the subservient status of the in nign reign, suddenly grew suspicious fidel. They called for the payment of of Jews and Christians, destroyed Jizya, a special tax, which often was synagogues, and forced the conversion extremely burdensome and oppres of thousands of Jews to Islam. While sive. This symbol of subservience was he reversed himself eight years later as embellished by designing special pub suddenly as he had started his persecu lic ceremonies for the payment of this tions, this episode indicates the pre tax, such as stamping the tax receipt cariousness of subject status and the on the neck of the subject. The terms dependence of subject people on the of the treaty included discriminatory benevolence of the ruler. The Jews provisions affecting dress, the use of of Morocco and Spain suffered even animals, the size of private Jewish more severely under the ruthless Al homes and synagogues, the construc mohades, Muslim fundamentalists who tion of cemeteries, the holding of pub forced Muslim conversion on Jews. lic office, interfaith social contacts, a Maimonides’ father was one of those prohibition against the construction of who fled Almohade persecution in new houses of worship, and so on. Spain. But these two incidents were Within this setting, however, Jews, as the exception to the more general pat well as other minorities, received the tern of toleration and protection un protection of Muslim law. der Muslim law. In many instances, The mere fact of not being a sole as we have seen, Jews overcame ex minority, as Jews often were in Chris isting restrictions to rise to the high tian Europe, mitigated that oppressive est positions in government, in com feeling of being alone in a hostile merce, and in the professions. As world. Physical harm was the excep Baron points out, the majority of tion, not the rule. Interestingly, the Jews living under Islam undoubtedly worst persecutions took place under Muslim sectarians, in the 11th cen viewed their disabilities and even their tury under the probably insane Shiite humiliations as but a minor price for Caliph al Hakim and in the 13th cen their freedom of conscience and their tury under the Almohade caliphate right to live an undisturbed Jewish of North Africa and Spain. Caliph al life within the confines of their own Hakim of Egypt, after initiating a be community. THE SITUATION TO D A Y

HE destinies of Arabs and Jews the relationship between political T have once more converged in our power and faith in Islam, and second own times. The unhappy history of this modern encounter is known all too well. The question I wish to con sider very briefly is why modern Arab nationalism has been unable to come to terms with the State of Israel and —in my opinion—is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. The reason for this, I believe, has to do first with Spring, 1965

with the essentially Islamic character of Arab nationalism. In the Islamic concept of society, the political and religious organization are identical; the latter depends upon the former for its realization. Early Islamic law was essentially civil legislation by which Mohammed organized Medina into a political community. The spread 25

of this political community and the spread of Islam were one and the same thing. This made Tor the view that religion and politics were inseparable. While the real purpose of man's life in Islam is otherwordly, its fulfillment depends on the functioning of a body politic: . . . the Islamic community and their spokesmen realized from the very be ginning that Islam could not be per fected unless within an Islamic politi cal organization whose maintenance and advancement were, to say the least, the prerequisite to the service of God, if they did not in themselves constitute such service, Ibn Taimiyya d. 1328, the great Hanbalite theolo gian . . . declares it is a duty to con sider the exercise of power as a form of religion, as one of the acts by which man draws nearer to G-d.* This view, though modified in practice under thé impact of modern historical development, still underlies the Arab approach. The precursor to modern Arab na tionalism was the pan-Islamism of the late nineteenth century. It was a re ligious and a political revival at one and the same time. The backwardness and political impotence of Islam in the eighteenth and nineteenth centu ries created a profound crisis of faith. In Muslim conviction, power which comes from G-d is granted to His chosen community. Islam and politi cal impotence is therefore a contradic tion in terms, if Islam means what it is supposed to mean. Islamic back wardness implies that something has gone wrong not only with the Mus lim’s own development but with the Divine governance of the universe. * “Problems of Muslim Nationalism,” by G. E. von Grunebaum in “Islam and the West,” Richard N. Frye, editor (Cambridge, Mass. 1956), p. 10.

Jamal al-din al-Afghani, the remark able personality with whom the panIslamic movement is identified, saw in a reformed Islam the means for a re vival of ancient Islamic glory and power. It is sometimes remarked that “secu lar” Arab nationalism represents a break with this historical tradition. This is far from being the case. The old Muslim loyalties and ideology and the old hostility to western Christian ity which constituted the driving force of pan-Islamism were carried over into the pan-Arab movement. It can not be gainsaid that radical changes have occurred in the role of Islam vis-a-vis the state since the turn of the century. In spite of this, however, there is no doubt that the majority of the population feel themselves profoundly, even fiercely, Muslim. Throughout the Arab world, Islam continues to serve as the basis for minimum agreement between the members of the political community. is therefore in traditionally Mus ItheTlimChristian terms that the Arab relates to West and to the State of Israel. We have seen how important it was for the Arab Muslim to make explicit and to formalize the subservi ent status of the infidels so as to be constantly reassured of his own supe riority. Whether these efforts reveal a deep underlying insecurity going back perhaps to the disdain shown toward the Arab conquerors by the more highly civilized peoples of Byzantium and Sassanian Persia is a question that need not occupy us. The fact remains that the political and material subor dination of the Muslim to the “infi del” creates intolerable religious and psychological problems for the Arab, JEWISH LIFE

problems that to this day color the highly emotional relationship of the Arab world to the Christian West. It is this problem too that lies at the heart of the Arab’s difficulty with the State of Israel. The delusive insistence of the Arabs that they were not really defeated by Israel, and that they will show their superiority in a final round, must be understood in this light. It is one of the many myths the badly bruised Arab pride must cling to in a world that contradicts the Arab’s

Spring, 1965

traditional self-image. In this connec tion, nothing is as self-defeating and nothing galls an Arab as much as re peated assurances by well-meaning people that “Arabs could learn to much from the advanced Jew if only they were to make peace with Israel.” The normalization of relations be tween Arabs and Jews in our day will occur not in isolation but as part of an overall coming to terms—both spir itually and culturally—of the Arab with the 20th century.

The P lig h t o f Soviet Jewry: H ow Shall W e Respond? Year by year, day by day, the situation of the Jews in the Soviet Union worsens. Their religious life is silently (and not always silently) suppressed, their communal life is extinguished, their personal security is seriously endan gered. In the very land that most loudly denounces the evils of social and, na tional oppression, that most loudly proclaims its commitment to human rights, a people and its faith are being brought to extinction. In the Free World, Jews are determined that action shall be taken to relieve, if not to resolve, the plight of Soviet Jewry. But the question to be met is: What constitutes effective action? That no effort may be spared to save Soviet Jewry is universally agreed. All know that they are entrapped, in a trap of death. All realize that we must not permit ourselves to be caught in a like trap of either helpless, soul- destroy ing inaction or futile gestures. Wherein lies the key? We present here two articles which, from different points of view, assay the realities of the Soviet Jewish situation and, in the light of these realities, offer approaches to the treatment of this situation. The two lines of approach diverge markedly> yet we may hope that, out of the pressure of critical need, they prove to be complementary. RABBI DR. BERNARD POUPKO, the spiritual leader of Shaare Torah Con gregation in Pittsburgh since 1942, is co-founder of Pittsburgh’s Hillel Academy and Chairman of the Faculty Committee; a member of the community’s Beth Din; a visiting lecturer at the University of Pittsburgh; and President of the Tri-State Region of Mizrachi-Hapoel Hamizrachi of America. Russian-born, Dr. Poupko studied at Yeshiva and Columbia Universities, City College of New York, and the University of Pittsburgh where he received his Doctorate. He is the first Russian-speaking American Rabbi to have visited the U.S.S.R. and has lectured on Soviet Jewry to audiences across the country. DR. ERICH GOLDHAGEN will soon leave the political science faculty of Hunter College to become the Director of the Institute of Eastern European Jewish Studies which will open at Brandeis University in September, 1965. A former Fellow of the Harvard Russian Research Center, Dr. Goldhagen is the author of numerous articles on Communist ideology and social policy and is at present engaged in writing a political and cultural history of Soviet Jewry.

JEWISH LIFE

BERNARD A. POUPKO

With Life at Stake HEN Alexander II abolished feudalism in Russia in 1861 and emancipated the peasants from their wretched serfdom, the Russian poet and editor of the prestigious and in fluential Sovremenick, Nikolai Alex eyevich Nekrasov, wrote:

The mighty chain was broken, It was severed and it snapped It whipped with one end the landlord And with the other it hit the muzhik. Although Nekrasov felt most keen ly the sorrow and suffering of the Russian serf and was the idol of the reformers and the progressive element within Czarist Russia, he realized that Alexander’s proclamation, with its sudden and fierce economic impact, instead of alleviating the burden of the Russian peasant’s bondage would only cause even further deterioration of his intolerable condition. Likewise, the realities of the Revolution of Oc tober, 1917, which evoked premature enthusiasm and over-confident elation among liberal-minded people through out the world, re-echoed Nekrasov’s prophetic misgivings of decades be fore. Admittedly, the shackles of the Czar’s despotism and tyranny were smashed. A new regime came into being. Yet, the impact of the revolu tion was so violent that one end of Spring, 1965

the broken chain of autocracy struck the Russian people and the other dealt a devastating blow to the largest and intellectually most creative Jewish community in the world, the Russian Jews. During a recent visit, I asked a Jew in Leningrad, a Talmid Chochom with a serene, patriarchal appearance, how it was that the Czarist regime, during a 150-year-period of harsh restrictions and provocations against their Jewish minority—including residence limita tions, conscription of ten-year-old boys into the Army culminating with forced baptism, savage pogroms, and numerous ritual murder accusations— did not succeed in their diabolical scheme to obliterate Jews and Judaism from their midst, while the Commu nists in less than half a century have not only effectively and almost irre parably disrupted Jewish life within their borders gbut have virtually deJudaized the great majority of two generations of Jews within Russia. His answer was brief, factual, and un challengeable. As he looked with sad eyes upon the imposing monument of Peter the Great, referred to in Russia as the Mednii V’sadnik, the martyred scholar, he said: “Don’t you see, the victim of the Czar, although at times seriously stricken, had constant ac cess to medicine. From his synagogue, cheder, and yeshivah, which never 29

ceased to exist even for a moment even during the most brutal assaults of the government, the Jew drew new strength, hope, and vitality. The vac cine was there and the medicine was available for the afflicted and ailing patient. Now things have changed. The malady, admittedly, is milder but the prolonged illness without the bene fit of any medicine is steadily sap ping his strength and his condition has virtually deteriorated to the point of ‘no return.’ We Jews of Soviet Rus sia have been denied our spiritual medicine for almost half of a century; how do you expect us to survive or to recover?” This reflection of the venerable scholar needs no elaboration. It tells accurately and lucidly the story of Soviet Russian Jewry. The anti-reli gious program, efficient and ruthless, has engulfed the non-vaccinated, the un-initiated, and even many of those who had the privilege of crossing, decades ago, the threshold of a cheder or a yeshivah. HE unique meta-historical destiny of our people is reflected most glaringly by the almost unparalleled experience of our brethren in the U.S.S.R. “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” The elementary principles and time-honored theories of social and political evolution which may be applied to the historic devel opment of other peoples do not nec essarily apply to the descendants of the Patriarchs and the heirs of the Prophets. The general relaxation of the religious suppression in Russia at the end of World War II, which benefited substantially the Orthodox Church and the more than 100 mi

norities within the Soviet Union, had little or no bearing upon Jews and Judaism. While 540,000 Baptists in the U.S. S.R. still have some 5,005 churches, one church per 100 faithful, there were, in 1963, only ninety-six syna gogues, one synagogue per 23,000 or more Jews. Pre-Revolution Russia had more than 4,000 synagogues, of which only 459 were still functioning in 1956 and even this pitiful number declined to ninety-six in 1963—and is still fewer today! The Russian Orthodox Church, which did not have a patriarch for some three hundred years under the Romanoff dynasty, is now presided over by a patriarch who, together with government-recognized metropolitans of Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, etc., di rects the religious activities of their 30,000 clergy and 20,000 churches which cater to the religious needs of some fifty million worshippers. They are free to publish their religious Journal, Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhil, Bibles, and prayer books, and are given facilities, forty-seven years after the Revolution, to manufacture icons and other religious articles. Their nine seminaries and two academies with an enrollment exceeding 1,200 seminari ans, unhampered by the government, train their future priests. Their Synod, which is the governing body of the provincial and national levels of the church organization within the Soviet Union, maintains relations with their co-religionists and other religious groups in foreign countries. In April, 1964, I met in Moscow’s Metropole Hotel a young Orthodox priest from Lebanon who had come on a scholarship to study in the OrthoJEWISH LIFE

dox Ecclesiastical Seminary of Mos cow. He voiced enthusiastic praise of the Soviet authorities for the hospital ity extended to him and to other for eign seminarians who came to study in Russian Orthodox schools for the training of priests. Thus, it is not sur prising that forty-seven years after the Revolution, in spite of unabated athe istic propaganda and anti-religious in doctrination, 60% of the newly born children in Russia are baptized in the church and 55% of their marriages are solemnized by priests. When a Moscow Commissar told me about the recent death of his father, quite naturally I asked him

about the funeral, where and how it was held. In a most frank manner he replied: “My father was a religious person and I honored his wish. When he died I called the family priest who was a close friend of my father and he conducted the traditional religious funeral services of the Orthodox Church. I did not think of cremating my father because his religious con victions were strongly opposed to it.” “Did you pay the priest for conduct ing the services for your father?” I asked him. His reply was, “The priest is such a wonderful person and close friend of ours that he refused an honorarium.’^*

CO N TR A STIN G TREATMENT O F O THER FAITHS

HE Russian Orthodox Church emerged from the war in a privi leged position. The Soviet regime had found the role of this Church to be indispensable to the nationalist Rus sian sentiments which had weathered the ordeal of the German invasion and whose further encouragement was deemed desirable after the war. The Orthodox Church had for centuries been associated closely with the glor ies of Russian imperial expansion now being inculcated in the young in re written history books. The domes of some Orthodox churches were re gilded as a reminder. A competent observer of Soviet af fairs states:

As an instrument of the Russian state, free of suspicion of foreign or particularist ties, the Orthodox Church enjoys the position of a kind of un official department of the Soviet For eign Ministry, entrusted with foreign assignments better conducted in a cossock than a double-breasted suit. There Spring, 1965

are a number of Orthodox monas teries and other small religious com munities in the Middle East tradition ally affiliated with the Russian Or thodox Church of the Czars to which delegations of Russian churchmen, bearing Soviet passports hardly ever issued to members of other faiths, make periodic visits. The solicitude of the atheist Soviet state for the spir itual health of a few thousand Chris tians in the region puzzles the gov ernments of these countries. Some observers interpret the exchanges of religious visits with the Ethiopian Coptic Church to a Russian desire to build it up as an African com petitor to a more dangerous African rival of thé Soviet Union—Islam. The Russian Orthodox Church has also waged a struggle of many years to regain control of branches of the church in North and South America which became independent when the Church in Moscow fell under the control of the Soviet authorities. The Soviet regime’s pragmatic ap proach to religion is clearly illustrated 31

by the guidance given to Soviet propa own monuments, temples, and other gandists by the chairman of the Soci places of worship where they carry out ety for the Dissemination of Political their rites led by lamas . . . Monuments and Scientific Knowledge, M. B. Mit- and shrines are carefully preserved.” An authoritative source reveals tin, in Voprosi Filosofii: “In demon strating the anti-scientific character of th at: “The A rm enian O rthodox Islam, we must at the same time take Church is currently never criticized into consideration the part it is play by name, since it is the subject of an ing under present-day conditions, important Soviet campaign to induce when, under its banner, a number of Armenians to resettle in the U.S.S.R. movements of great progressive im and to gain control of Armenian portance are proceeding . . . From clergy abroad. In 1955, using the nu this it follows that our lecturers must merous obedient “votes” or Soviet Ar have great political insight, a profound menians, the Communists succeeded grasp of contemporary social proc in arranging the election, with the esses, in order to carry on a proper participation of non-Soviet Armeni fight against Islam.” (Emphasis sup ans, of a Soviet puppet priest in Ru mania as the new Katholikos, or head, plied.) The Buddhists of Russia are peri of the Armenian Church. His dead odically represented at international predecessor, though no puppet, was a meetings of Buddhists by the abbot of resident of the U.S.S.R. The Arme Ivalga Lamasery, the abbot of Aginsk nian Orthodox Church received a sub Lamasery, and Bandido Khambo stantial financial gift some years ago Lama Eshi-Dorji Sharapov, chairman from the Soviet Government for oper of the Central Buddhist Religious ating expenses and for restoration of Board. These ecclesiastical leaders the cathedral at Echmiadzin. Rich went to the fourth conference of the foreign Armenians, including Ameri world fellowship of Buddhists held in cans, have also contributed large sums Kalamandu, Nepal and attended the to the Soviet Armenian Orthodox ceremonies in New Delhi venerating Church. The favoritism shown the the 2,500th anniversary of the death Armenian Church is reflected in the of Buddha. Sharapov led a delegation fact that such donations in the past of Buddhists to Ceylon in 1960 and by rich foreigners to the Protestant extended his trip to Burma and Cam groups have been regarded by the bodia, reporting to everyone that “the Communists as signs of treasonable Buddhists of the U.S.S.R. have their connections.” IM PLICATIONS O F SOVIET JEW RY'S PLIGHT

contrast to these irrefutable facts, Jews and Judaism in Russia assumes ItheNwhich are conclusive evidence of extraordinary, deeply disturbing im preferential treatment accorded by plications. In the very same country the Soviet regime to all but one of the eleven recognized religious sects in the U.S.S.R., the critical plight of

where the Government has granted its national minorities facilities to live their own lives and to preserve their JEWISH LIFE

respective languages, cultures, modes of dress, and even religion, with their own schools and autonomous organi zations, Jews are denied the right of provincial or national organization, secular or religious, and any contact with their co-religionists in foreign countries. There are now less than eighty rabbis in the Soviet Union, and these have an average age of 70. At present there is not a single Jewish religious educational facility, elemen tary or advanced, in the Soviet Union. If in the U.S.A., a free and open so ciety, * with a colossal complex of Jewish communal and religious insti tutions, synagogues, and yeshivoth, there are serious misgivings about laxity in religious observance, mini mum personal commitment in reli gious life, intermarriage, and assimi lation, how much more precarious is the future of the second largest Jew ish community in the world, the three million Jews of Russia who live in a tense climate of active atheism, con stant hostility, vitriolic anti-religious propaganda and deliberate interference with religious observance — coupled with merciless attacks on grounds of divided loyalties, contact with West ern Jewry, and out-of-proportion eco nomic crime accusations. From July 1961 until August 1963 Soviet news papers reported some eighty-one eco nomic crimes trials in forty-eight ci ties. Of the 163 persons who were condemned to death during these trials at least eighty-eight, and per haps as many as ninety-six, were Jews. Although Jews are IV2 % of the general population they constitute 55% to 60% of those who were exe cuted for these alleged economic crimes! Admittedly I was quite depressed Spring, 1965

when I watched a line of some eight worshippers in a Russian synagogue waiting for a pair of tefillin, but I was even more depressed when I thought of many a pair of tefillin waiting for one Jew in Cleveland, Chicago, or Pittsburgh. Even as we are mindful of the ab sence of religious instruction of the Talmud Torah and Yeshivah levels in Russia, about the lack of Siddurim, Chumoshim, Talitoth, Tefillin, and other elementary religious articles, about the minimum number of B’rith Milahs and Bar Mitzvahs, we cannot overlook the heroic efforts of many of our brethren in striving to preserve their heritage. The future chronicler of post-revolutionary Russian Jewish history will relate a stirring tale of courage, steadfastness, martyrdom, and saintliness which will compare favorably with the Jewish experiences under the Roman Empire, in Spain, and in Europe of the Dark Ages. I could hardly restrain my tears when an elderly Jew of fragile physi cal frame came over to me in the synagogue in Moscow and said “atem b’nai chorin— avol anachnu avodim” —you are free but we are enslaved. At that moment there came to my mind the great painting of the Rus sian artist N. A. Yaroshenko, painted in 1888, which I had seen the day before in the Tretiakovskaya Galereya. This unforgettable masterpiece depicts six people in a prison cell looking out from behind the bars into the courtyard of the jail— a young mother with a child in her arms, around her an elderly, bearded man and three young men, all gazing poign antly from their cell, from behind the prison bars, watching birds fluttering with their wings and picking up 33

crumbs from the ground. The name of the painting in Russian is V ’seudu Zjizn—Life All Over. N the Russian Aeroflot plane which Ieventually took us from Moscow to Kiev and to Vienna, a high-ranking Western diplomat sat with his wife in the seats adjoining ours. We started a conversation and unavoidably the condition of Jews in Russia came up. Said this diplomat to me: “One of the things which I could not possibly un derstand while spending years in the Soviet Union is their hostility towards Jews. The frequency of Antisemitic

remarks, vulgar and: vitriolic, coming from the mouths of military officers and members of the foreign office or other government officials is beyond my comprehension. These remarks were especially heard at diplomatic receptions and other social events in volving high ranking government lead ers.” The diplomat continued: “The most difficult of all jobs in Moscow is held by the Ambassador of the State of Israel. In his functions and duties he is stepping on thin ice and is constantly vulnerable together with members of his staff to suspicion and abuse.”

STIRRING PRO N O UN CEM ENTS O R JU D IC IO U S A C T IO N ?

Kt~J~'HERE are three things which J- are too wonderful for me, Yea, four of which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; The way of a serpent upon a rock; The way of a ship in the midst of the sea. . . .” The student of Jewish life in the contemporary world must invariably be challenged by the fate of its three largest Jewish communities. Viewing the American Jewish scene, one sees the “eagle,” of imposing phys ical stature. On the ground, he moves with awkward hesitation—but once he spreads his huge wings he begins to soar upward. The initial steps of the Jewish community in America, reli giously and culturally, were uncertain and halting. Many wondered, with doubt, whether the New World could possibly become the home of great yeshivoth, dynamic Jewish communi ties, and observant Jews, enthusias tically and consistently involved in the fabric of Torah living. But the miracle happened. The “ eagle,” find ing its wings, began a swift and dar 34

ing ascent, spreading a chain of day schools, major yeshivoth, even sev eral Kolelim, a great university, strong organizations, vibrant synagogues, ris ing communities, a fructifying Jew ish life. Then the “ship” — with its heavy cargo and heterogenous passengers — a community headed towards port in spite of severe storms, the State of Israel, G-d’s greatest gift to our peo ple since the expulsion from our homeland. Surrounded though it is by warring, dangerous enemies, Israel is forging ahead, spiritually and eco nomically, towards Jewish fulfillment. Our historic “ship” has not only pro vided safety and new life to its own passengers but has also moved Jew ish life in the Diaspora to greater heights and nobler vistas. Now the foremost problem con fronting world Jewry is the nochosh aley tzur, the serpent engulfing the rock. To be sure, this serpent assures his victim that even if he will eat from his fruit, the dilaectic materialism of JEWISH LIFE

Marx, he will not die. But Jewish his tory knows otherwise. Even here the element of the miraculous has not been absent, for in spite of the ser pent’s fangs and mortal thrust, the Jew, sorely wounded and scarred, yet holds fast to life. The saintly Chofetz Chayim, whose profound comprehension of the Rus sian Jewish problem was attested not only by his moving prayers and by his constant discussion of this prob lem, but most significantly by his rul ing that a Jew may even desecrate the Shabboth in order to escape from Russia, maintained that efforts on be half of our brethren under Commu nist rule must be made with utmost cautiousness and a mature sense of responsibility. All recognize that our generation, which lost a third of its number through the Nazi holocaust, cannot remain indifferent to this tra gedy which is threatening the total ex tinction of Jewish life in the U.S.S.R. Now the time has come for judicious action— of a caliber which would be worthy of being written down in the annals of our people. It is difficult to believe that stirring pronouncements at national conferences, though fol lowed by sincere and moving resolu tions and even by public demonstra tions, will bring about a solution to this burning problem. The tragic plight of Soviet Jewry should be treated with the same measure of extreme cautious ness and moral sensitivity as is evoked by the sign “No Smoking and No Noise” on the door of a hospital room wherein a critically ill patient is con fined to an oxygen tent. We must not overlook the fact that the overwhelm ing majority of Jews who escaped their fate under the Nazis were saved through the quiet and effective efforts Spring, 1965

of the Joint Distribution Committee and the Vaad Hatzalah and not through public demonstrations or pro tests, however justifiable. Furthermore, mindful of the Halachic standards and qualifications for a Sh’liach Tzibbur, which emphasize deep piety and scrupulous personal observance, we must not incur the shameful blunder of permitting our course of action to be determined by those whose elo quent pleas for Kashruth or Tefillin for Soviet Jews are contradicted by the negation of these sanctities in their own lives and in the policies they pur sue in other areas of Jewish concern. Only a person who is himself thor oughly imbued with the life-giving and the life-sustaining aspects of the Mitzvah, as an integral part of his own being, can feel wholeheartedly the pain and the anguish of the Russian Jew who is being deprived of it. The saintly, martyred Rosh Yeshivah of Barnovitch, Reb Elchanan Vasserman^ during his last visit to the United States related the story about a decree issued by a Polish mu nicipality to burn the Talmud in the market place* When the aged rabbi of the community became aware of the decree, he asked a member of the Jewish community, a freethinking maskil who knew the Polish language, to accompany him to the mayor of the city in a plea to rescind the de cree. The rabbi and the maskil were informed that they would be received by the mayor on Saturday, and of course the rabbi eagerly consented to the appointment. When they were about to enter the mayor’s office* the maskil, in an effort to make himself more presentable to the city fathers, performed an act unlawful on the Sabbath. Upon witnessing this irrever35

ence, the rabbi told the maskil that the latter should remain in the ante room while he approached the au thorities alone. For he doubted whether even on the way to perform such a meritorious act as Laving the Talmud from the flames, one had a rightful reason, or better, to trans gress the law. As the rabbi faced the mayor he said to him in his broken Polish: “I have but one request to make at this moment, and that is that when you burn our Talmud in the market place tomorrow I want you to burn me together with the sacred books.” The mayor and the other au thorities were naturally moved by this startling request and one of them re marked: “This Jewish Talmud must be of special value if their teachings could cultivate in a human being a degree of devotion to the point of selfsacrifice. If it is so valuable and pre cious why not spare it and examine it so that we too may derive some thing valuable from it for our own lives and conduct.” First and foremost we must con vince the Soviet authorities that there is no incompatibility between their so cial experiment and the rights of Jews to live their own lives. The humane and fair treatment of Jews in Yugo slavia, Hungary, Rumania, Czecho slovakia, and Poland, where the Jewish minorities enjoy the status of a dis tinct community financed by govern ment budget, is excellent factual proof of the possibility and even the desirability of such an approach. HILE we must oppose immature, impetuous, and over-zeialous acts on behalf of Russian Jews, we must

W 36

at the same time insist that the issue should be kept alive on the interna tional scene. And always, we must see and protect the situation of Soviet Jewry as essentially a religious prob lem. Thus, in order to be effective and at the same time to convince the Soviet Russian authorities that these honest efforts are in no way related to the Cold War and the delicate in ternational polarity which it breeds, religious authorities of national and international stature should be our emissaries in a plea and confrontation with the Soviet government in Mos cow. It is not a simple matter to con vince a Soviet official that one who, though he be a Jewish leader, is not religious himself and does not eat matzoth on Pesach is justified in plead ing for the availability of matzoth in the Soviet Union for Jews. Such an official remains somewhat suspicious about the motives and the intentions of such an intercessor. Because of the extreme urgency and the critical reali ties of the problem, not a single stone should be left unturned in order to alleviate these intolerable conditions. Not a single day should pass by with out positive, mature, and responsible action. In our plea to the Soviet au thorities we must emphasize that the problem is not academic but rather that it is an issue of life or death. We must find the way, the right w#y, to convince the U.S.S.R. that all that is being asked for the Jews of the Soviet Union is that they be accorded the same rights and the same privi leges as are being extended to the other ten recognized ethnic religious sects in Russia. Until those rights are granted we must not rest.

JE W IS H LIFE

ERICH GOLDHAGEN

Do Not Remain Silent SHALL try to analyze in a very Russification of minorities living with 1 compressed manner some of the in the reaches of Russan power. Inter principal features of the state of So viet Jewry. Upon surveying the Jew ish scene in the Soviet Union, several questions naturally suggest themselves. What moves the Soviet leaders in their present attitude to the Jews? Why do they so adamantly persist in their re fusal to grant the Jews cultural insti tutions which they accord every other minority? What is the unique condi tion of Soviet Jewry from the per spective of Jewish history? And last, what can we do, if anything, to relieve the conditions to which the Commu nist authorities subject our brethren? Let us attempt to answer these ques tions. It is obviously the view of Soviet leaders that the future will see the extinction of all ethnic minorities as distinct cultural entities. Religion, they are convinced, will gradually evapor ate and the sense and forms of ethnic distinctiveness will grow weaker and weaker until all will merge into a homogeneous society of Communist men. This process of ethnic amalgama tion is known in Communist parlance as “internationalization.” The policies that issue, however, from this Marx ian vision, are an old Czarist aim—the Spring, 1965

nationalization is but Russification dressed up in respectable Marxian garb as a noble aim removing from within the human race the division from which so much evil had sprung. In this scheme of things the Jews occupy a perversely distinguished place. As a group they seem more advanced on the road to Russification than any other minority. At the last census three-fourths of all Jews de clared Russian as their native lan guage. Into no other minority has the Russian language made so deep an inroad. In the eyes of the Soviet lead ers the Jews are the pioneers of as similation. The desire to see Jewry dissolved is reinforced by the belief that it is an inherently reactionary force in which religion and national ism are commingled to form a perni cious and repellent culture. To yield to our demands and reverse what ap pears to be a process of assimilation would mean for the Soviet leaders to act contrary to their convictions and to what they deem expedient for the perpetuation of their power. I find it difficult, therefore, to resist the gloomy conclusion that as long as the Com munist rulers will be governed by the traditional Bolshevik outlook, the fet37

ters they have imposed on the Russian Jews will not be removed, although pressure from abroad may loosen them. Involuntarily, the question arises: Are we indeed justified in pinning the label of Antisemitism on the Soviet Union? To my mind it would not be very profitable to pursue the question of whether the Soviet Government could properly be called Antisemitic. The confusion generated by discus sions of that question could be easily dispelled by a precise definition of the word “Antisemitism.’’ But what is in a name? By imposing on the treatment of the Jews in the Soviet Union a com mon label, one obscures its unique ness, as unique as the Soviet Union itself. In some respects the Soviet Gov ernment may rank among the most severe regimes known to Jews through out their history, so rich in persecu tions. In others it is beyond reproach. Jewish history has known a few re gimes that have imposed a total ban on Jewish spiritual life. But none has succeeded as thoroughly as the So viet Government in paralyzing the cultivation and transmission of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish com munity under its sway. The atomization of Soviet Jews is without precedent in the experience of the Jewish people. The Jewish family in the Soviet Union is an island unto itself, bearing the pricks and stings of the outer world in solitude. Strong ties of common feeling, the awareness of a common fate, united the Jewish family with thousands of other islands of its kind into a fraternity, self-con scious, invisible, and mute. But except for an occasional Jewish concert and a few score synagogues, there is hard ly a public place in the Soviet Union 38

where Jews can meet for the purpose of common self-expression. The heavy and ubiquitous hand of the dictator ship isolates the Jews from one an other, thwarting their natural urge to coalesce into a coherent ethnic body. There are about two and a half mil lion Jews in the Soviet Union, but there is no Jewish community. The picture of the condition of the Soviet Jews would, however, be dis torted if these dark features were not complemented by some brighter as pects. In many aspects of their physi cal lives, the Jews are accorded equal ity of treatment with non-Jews. The Jewish aged receive the pensions due to them as Soviet citizens; medical treatment is dispensed to all without regard to ethnic origin; elementary and secondary education, though not university education, are provided for Jews and non-Jews alike. The Jewish spirit is more severely fettered than the Jewish body. It is a unique state of affairs which eludes conventional labels of the past. OW let us look at the internal N life of Soviet Jewry. We cannot conduct a Gallup poll among them, and what I am about to say will be, of necessity, very schematic and spec ulative. For the sake of brevity I will confine myself to the young gen eration. The young generation, born under the Soviet regime, is a very complex and elusive phenomenon. Young So viet Jews are not cut of the same spiritual cloth as their fathers. Broad ly speaking, three groups may be dis tinguished. The majority, it seems, accept their Jewishness thoughtlessly as one of the many inescapable attri butes of their selves. They cling to JEWISH LIFE

their Jewish identity from inertia, neither resenting it nor taking pride in it. To be a Jew is to them a fortui tous and uncongenial circumstance to which one adapts oneself. It generates within them no strong emotion, and it is not an inwardly disturbing preoc cupation. Secondly, there is a minor ity among whom a sense of Jewish heritage, spurred perhaps by stunted careers and suffered indignities, has bred an affirmative preoccupation with things Jewish. Their affirmation is an emotional linkage nourished in soli tude, seeking articulation. The young Jew of this group feels intensively Jewish but he has no certain knowl edge of what it means. In the absence of any Jewish institutions, of readily available Jewish books, he cannot eas ily satisfy his thirst for knowledge, his endeavor to translate his Judenschmerz into meaningful experience. Some of this group grope for a reli gious expression, others are vaguely Zionist, and all of them would be eager consumers of a Jewish literature in the Russian language. And last, there is a consciously assimilationist minority, anxious to cast off a mean ingless and burdensome identity and submerge itself in the Russian major ity. If you are a conscious Jew in the Soviet Union and you want to know about your heritage there is literally no public source from which you can derive this knowledge. Many of the books have been removed from the libraries, and only by a special dis pensation could one gain legal access to such knowedge. A group of Rus sian Jewish students of the University of Moscow undertook to translate the American best-seller “Exodus,” by Leon Uris, into Russian. The police discovered them, and they paid for Spring, 1965

their bold endeavor with severe prison sentences. Here is this atomized and invisible community, devoid of all Jewish sym bols, for even a Mogen Dovid is a tainted emblem which few Jews would feel safe in displaying in public. It is a mute community, for no one dares protest. He who in the Soviet Union is audacious enough to object to the treatment of the Jews runs the risk of being accused of slandering the Soviet regime which, as everyone knows, has foresworn all discrimina tion against minorities. Thus, the tradi tional way of shtadlonuth, of ap proaching the ruler in humility and petitioning him to relent his severity, cannot be followed by our brethren in Russia. This state of mute endur ance is often described by the Ukrain ian saying: “They beat us, but they do not allow us to cry.” It is this enforced silence that should be uppermost in our minds when we consider what course to follow. HERE is a school of thought T which may be called the “coun sellors of silence.” The adherents of this school urge us to refrain from public demonstrations and protests and to approach the Soviet authori ties through the discreet channels of invisible and inaudible diplomacy. The argument usually advanced in sup port of this approach is that public outcries are fraught with perils for the Russian Jewry; an angered Soviet Government will visit punishment on our brethren in Russia. This argument could be countered in two ways. The first answer is a Machiavellian one— there can be no struggle without sac rifices. True, it is easy for us in the United States to fight battles in which 39

the only sacrifices may be the Jews in Russia. Be that as it may, leaders who allow themselves ‘to be intimi dated by threats of retaliation are not worthy of that name. But the second and more powerful argument against the counsellors of silence is the fact that the Soviet Union has reached the limit of the rigors it can afford to im pose on the Jews in Russia. A post-Stalinist regime cannot re turn to Stalin’s methods. Some of the arguments of the advocates of silent diplomacy are reminiscent of what has been recently said by some defenders of Pope Pius XII—that his interven tion would have exacerbated the con dition of the Jews condemned to extermination. The Soviet Union is determined to obliterate the Jewish spirit. What worse punishment could they inflict—short of direct physical repression, to which Kosygin and Brezhnev could ill afford to resort? There is no evidence that loud pro tests have caused injury to Soviet Jews. On the contrary, they have borne some fruit, meager though it be. I greatly doubt that had we re mained silent the Soviet Government would have allowed the creation of a

monthly Yiddish literary journal; li censed this year the baking of matzoth in the major cities of Russia; with drawn last year the infamous Antisemitic tract by Kichko; permitted the Yiddish concerts to be performed in termittently; and published several Yiddish volumes. All these are, to be sure, crumbs on the emptied table of Jewish culture, but without them the Jewish scene would have been utterly desolate. Terror has muted the Jews of Russia; they can speak only through their brethren abroad. Madame Furtseva, the Soviet leader, once in a mo ment of candor told a Western visitor that, “If we do anything, it is only to quiet opinion abroad.” Publicly expressed concern in the West for the fate of Russian Jewry has yet another effect. It heartens So viet Jews in their isolation. It strength ens their consciousness of kind, reas suring them that they are a part of a world-wide community solicitous of them. In short, it would be difficult for us to justify ourselves before the bar of history if we failed to heed the plea so often heard from Soviet Jews by Western visitors: “Schweig nicht— Do not remain silent.”

JEWISH LIFE

This poem was Lillian Otfs final contribution to J e w is h L i f e , for a few weeks ago she came to her eternal rest. | Over the years, it has been our privilege to have published mqtiy of the poems of Lillian Ott. We and our readers have prized this privilege and wilt lastingly cherish the beauty of the lines she wrote and the perception she brought to us. Her poems rang true; it is our confident hope that her work, so rich in meaning ànd inspiration, will be treasured by many in the years to come.—Editor

W e Can Pretend... By LILLIAN OTT

What say the wisest men and their sons? Theirs is a counselling as was never heard before In the world of man, slave and master; They speak in a multiple of tongues, Exhorting in language old and new: Rub out the capacity of inquiry of the human mind, And breed out the knowledge of the Most High From the understanding of humankind, Then shall we be free. We shall be strong, We shall be mighty. But the simpler heart whispers thus unt<p itself: We can destroy the world if we want — To sate the roaring beast within the hidden chambers Of the baser nadirs of man’s nature, 3 We can cut off our noses and choke off the breath of lif£, We can reduce to dust the wondrous hills and trees, and grains and things that creep and grow and fly And die in a mad siege of passion and anger, Aye, we can perish and spill our own dust Beside the cinders of sights and scenes That once made us gasp with awe—

Spring, 1965

We can pretend a hydrogen bomb is a simple spade And still with it forever the throb of Being Under ember heaps of ruin and devastation, And extirpate and expunge and erase, erase, erase And erase pachaderm and flea and human spirit From the Writ of Time and Space, Leaving none and nothing to know or remember Or mourn, But, then, what? What, in our raging mood, shall we do with Him Who was here ere the universe was conceived And present ere the planets were born? What say the wisest men and their sons, For freedom must have order; What shall we do with Him Who built and made And created this Atom that is both missile and man, And fashioned flame and sea and life and death, How shall we dispose of Him? How shall we command Him to step aside? How shall we vote Him in or out, Or make Him to abdicate His sleepless watchfulness? We can, in a moment of frenzied reverence of ghoulish gods, In a siege of passionate adoration of gilded calves Or holy cows or sacred bulls, or most absolute sovereignties Summon up from the secret depths of our mortality The last measure of brute force and sacrifice to Mammon The totality of humankind on altars of wild And flaming pyres; on altars of burning, searing pyres. We can recast the creaturely forms of all living things On the savage hearths that leave no trace of bone Or sinew or muscle or sense; We can, if we so desire, do all that And redo the miniature image of man and beast And erase, erase, erase and erase Ken and vision and thought and sight From the Writ of Book and history, But* then, what?

JEWISH LIFE

What shall we do on the morrow, When the sun is where He hung it in the beginning, And the stars have lost not an eyewink of their twinkling, And the rains and winds and seasons Pause not an instance to behold our brave deeds, These gallant deeds of the wisest men and their sons, But continue to fulfill their purpose for their being? What shall we do on the morrow of the first day And on the eve of the second day, yea, unto eternity, When upon the Command that called things and being into Being The grass come forth, and the gnat and the aphid and the maggot To cleanse the earth of the putrescence Of the wisest men and their sons And, alas, the faithful and simple ones too, What shall we do? Nay, what can we do To make or build or assure, Or remake and undo and consign, even an inconceivable iota, If G -d Himself is not willing?

Spring, 1965

Judaism and Free Enquiry By NACHUM L. RABINOVITGH

ASHIONS change in philosophy and theology just as surely as they do in clothes. Nowadays, faith is in style again. The “leap of faith” is the newest of spiritual fads. Interest ingly enough, Judaism knows of David who sat before G-d, of Aaron who stood before the Lord G-d, and of Abraham who walked before the Al mighty. Leaping may be praiseworthy in its own right, as witness David be fore the Ark, but it does not belong in our vocabulary of faith. Why? Because Judaism is not just a set of doctrines or a creed. Neither is it just a poetic representation of the mysterious and ineffable yearnings of the soul. Npr is it even a general commitment to righteous action and ethical behavior, alone. Of course, these elements belong in Judaism. But they are only part of it. In fact, they are inseparable parts of it, in the sense that no one of them can be excised from the over-all struc ture of Torah and still form a selfcontained whole. Thus, Jewish ethics, for example, is an intellectual system and a mode of worship as well as a code of conduct. And much that is apparently concerned with conduct alone is meaningless when divorced from the other aspects. In our tradition, there is no word for “religion.” Rather we speak of

“Halochah.” The term “Halochah” comes from a root meaning “to walk” and is much more than “Law,” for it represents the idea of progress on the way of life. The Halochah is a con ceptual system that parallels the ma terial one which is man in the world. It, too, has a body—the text of the Written Torah. But the body is in spirited with a soul which is Torah Sheb’al Peh—the Oral Torah. The processes of life in all their ramifica tions are reflected in the processes of the Halochah. We believe that all of naturr’s diversities express its under lying unity and that this unity has rational characteristics that are intel ligible to the human mind. Similarly, the Halochah unfolds to us through the exercise of human reason and en dows every human situation with nor mative value. N many logical systems, far-flung Ideveloped and elaborate ramification are from few and seemingly simple premises. Thus every school boy for centuries has known that even the most troublesome of Euclid’s theorems can be traced back by more or less devious ways to the supposedly “self-evident” axioms. While modern mathematics has had to explicitly specify a few more axioms, which apparently were too self-evident for JEWISH LIFE

Euclid to notice, it has, of course, also tremendously expanded the superstruc ture resting on his foundations. In the same way, diligent inquiry and dialectical analysis produced the vast corpus of the Law. Although Revelation provided the raw material which is to be worked and reworked by the human mind, G-d himself will not ever interfere with the essentially human and rational process by which Torah grows. Jewish thought has al ways seen the Torah as completely given to man, and in the rabbinic metaphor, the Almighty himself smiles when He is overruled by a majority of the rabbis of the court, for it is written, “it is not in Heaven”; and Torah decisions are reached by Torah scholars and not by miracles or heavenly voices. Perhaps a word of caution is in order here. When we speak of human reason, we mean, of course, the faculty of rational thought which humans possess. But, in fact, the nature of rationality does not depend upon, nor is it defined by, human choice nor by any other human quality. Reason and logic have their own structure which is quite independent of what we, being after all only human, may like or not like, or may discuss or overlook. Thus, for example, given the axioms of arith metic, two and two are four, and no “human” considerations can change that. Similarly, the rational process whereby the Halochah is developed is human only by virtue of the fact that it is carried on by man. But man cannot, consciously or otherwise, ar bitrarily determine its outcome. Thus, Judaism has a great stake in reason. In fact it stands or falls with reason. For if we cannot trust rational methods to attain truth, then all of the Spring, 1965

Halochah rests on shaky grounds, and without Halochah, there is no Judaism. HAT of faith, then? Faith is the foundation upon which every thing else rests. It is not to be found at the end of a long quest, by leaping over the stumbling-blocks which reason cannot clear away from our path. Rather, it is the very beginning. “I have chosen the way of faith,” sang King David, the Psalmist, not the way that leads to or ends in faith, but rather the way which begins in faith and leads through the ceaseless and tireless search to acquire understanding of G-d’s world and G-d’s Torah, and the never-ending and dauntless struggle to impose the discipline of Mitzvoth up on a stubborn environment and the recalcitrant self, ultimately to G-d. Russell says somewhere that a god who lets little children suffer is not believable. But a world in which little children suffer without G-d, is not liveable. “The righteous lives by his faith.” Without faith, life is not even a cruel joke, for even a joke must mean something. Thus the Jew believes in order to live, and he lives because he believes. And because he believes in G-d, he also believes in G-d’s creature, man, and he takes man and man’s mind seriously; and because he trusts G-d’s wisdom, he also trusts man’s reason as far as it will go.

T TNFORTUNATELY, it is often \ J taken for granted that Judaism, like some other religions, imposes rigid limitations on free enquiry. Certainly, Judaism teaches some basic beliefs, and if it be true that reason can oper ate unshackled only by doubting all things, then the fundamental princi ples of our faith stand in the way of 45

the free and untrammelled pursuit of truth. But is this conclusion warranted? There is a dangerous fallacy here, be cause the most vital fact about human reason is here overlooked. If human reason could exist as a disembodied function, there might perhaps be some force to this argument. But a man can exercise his rational faculties only because he is alive, and as a living being he has needs and desires, and he is involved in relationships with himself, his fellowman, and his en vironment at large — relationships which imply duties and responsibili ties. A man’s attitudes and beliefs, whether or not they are supported by reason and logic, whether or not they represent ultimate truths, however de fined, are constantly affecting him and the world in which he lives. Thus, for example it is still a moot question whether a satisfactory ethics can be developed on the basis of hu manistic premises alone. However that may be, it is clear that a thinker who is committed to reject morality until he can discover its validation or a suitable substitute, will be a very dangerous companion indeed. What the philosophers mean by saying that the prerequisite of free enquiry is the rejection of all prejudg ments is only that judgment be sus pended, pending the outcome of the rational process. Judgment, insofar as it determines the objectivity of analy sis and investigation, can and should be suspended. But can life.be lived on indefinite suspension? The story is told of the Chasidic rebbe who explained the text of the hymn Eyn Kelokenu as follows: It begins by stating unequivocally “There is none like our G-d,” and then pro ceeds to question: “Who is like our 46

G-d?” Without the certainty of faith that there is none like our G-d, life would not be liveable. The tragedy of evil and of suffering would not be liveable. The tragedy of evil and of suffering would engulf us as in a sea of despair and cynicism, and with his mind clouded by despondency and an guish, what man can ask the right questions and find true answers? It is only by starting on the “way of faith” that man is free to allow his mind to contemplate all that is and to ask, “Who is like our G-d?” HILE it must be admitted that there have been times when, un der the duress and pressure of a hos tile world, some Jews have seriously limited the scope of their learning and the range of their intellectual pur suits, the critical approach never was in doubt. For it is the very life-blood of Halachic development. The structure of the Halochah is dialectical, and anyone who has ever studied in a yeshivah knows how fierce Halachic argumentation can get. Al ready in the Talmud it is reported that when two scholars get together they are as warriors engaged in combat, but they do not part before the issues are resolved in peace and love. In fact the secret ambition of every Talmud student is to find a “Kashya” — some real or apparent logical slip in a chain of reasoning. Naturally, there is a hierarchy of “Kashyoth.” To find some fallacy in the Rosh Yeshivah’s discourse or in a work by some recent author may not be too difficult for a wide-awake student, but a new Kashya on older and widely studied works is a real accomplishment. Even distinguished scholars speak with pride of having found a new Kashya on a text of Maimonides, for that has been

JE W IS H LIFE

principles in which we believe are so few and so simple that one can readily determine that they are not subject to proof or disproof. Although this is beyond the scope of this essay, it is worth noticing that ever since Kant proposed his antinomies, no one both ers to “disprove” the existence of G-d, for instance, since it is clear that no such attempt can be successful. And faith does not need a proof for its position. We believe in G-d and His Torah, says Maimonides, not because of mira cles. For miracles need validation themselves, and as such are poor proof HUS, the critical faculties are culti indeed. But we do not really need any vated through intensive Torah stu proof at all. The patriarch speaks of dies, and no text is immune to critical “G-d who cared for me from my youth until this day.” Does 6ne prove the analysis. Yet, his Kashya on the Torah notwithstanding, no one entertained existence of his father and mentor? The immediacy of the awareness of the idea that the young student might his presence makes prodfs rather ridi suspend his allegiance to Torah even for a moment, because of his Kashya. culous. The Kashya is part of the adventure F COURSE, besides belief in the of free enquiry and the investigation existence of G-d, the belief in continues until some decision or re Revelation is at the root of Judaism. solution of the difficulty can be made. But so great is our faith in G-d and Furthermore, for us it is not just re His Torah that in our rational pursuits velation in the abstract, but we have even while seeking Kashyoth on the a very specific Text to accept on the Torah, we remain completely free to source of our entire moral and legal test objectively all the arguments, to system. What of the so-called “Higher weigh the evidence unhampered by Criticism?” Are we really free to ac the inevitable emotional turmoil which cept its scientific conclusions? It is here that the fallacy we spoke would result if our living and emoting self would have no secure values to of earlier in the notion of “free en live by, all the while that our rational quiry” is most misleading. For have the “Higher Critics’* really proved self was busy seeking truth. But what if a difficulty be found anything? Certainly hot! They have that seems truly unanswerable? What merely seized upon apparent difficult if “positive proof” be brought that ties which have been well known for our tenets are “false?” Since there is centuries to all Torah scholars and so much misunderstanding of the ele have explained them on the basis of ments of our faith, this appears to be their a priori assumption that the Bibli cal text is not inspired. There is no crucial question. But is it really? The fundamental thing inherent in these “difficulties”

subjected to the closest scrutiny by generations of the most brilliant minds in Jewry; and to discover something that has eluded them is a task of no mean proportions. Of course, higher still in the aristocracy of Kashyoth is a criticism of a Talmudic text. An amusing incident comes to mind from my student days. A bright young fellow burst into the Beth Midrosh so excited that he could hardly stammer out the words, ‘T have found a Kashya on the Torah itself.” The older students smiled knowingly, but all con gratulated him for the attempt.

Spring, 1965

which cannot be explained, and more simply, too, if we assume the super natural origin of Revelation. Of course, the Bible critics reject this pos sibility at the outset. The believer, confident in his faith, is ready to in vestigate every possible facet of the problem. In fact, we are ready to con sider, nay, we search out every pos sible explanation, since only in so doing can we uncover all that is real ly hidden in Scripture. The Bible crit ics, on the other hand, immediately exclude from consideration any mean ing or significance of the texts which imply its revealed character. For the rest, they try to make plausible their own pet theories. But they offer no conclusive evidence. SIMPLE illustration will make A this clear. We find in Scripture different names of G-d. The traditional interpretation is that since the true nature of G-d must forever remain unknowable, we can describe Him on ly in terms of His attributes which He makes manifest to us through His actions in this world; and it is these “relational attributes,” which really refer to aspects of man’s relationship to G-d, that the different names of G-d represent. Thus, for example, Elokim designates G-d’s justice as it is made manifest through both the physical and the moral order of the universe, while the Tetragrammaton expresses the quality of mercy and love whereby the world is sustained. On the other hand, the Bible critics ascribe the various names to different literary sources, and see them as derived from assorted local deities. The vast difference between the two approaches appears, for instance, in the explanation of the following pas48

sage in the Song of Triumph at the Red Sea: The Lord is a warrior, the Lord is His name. Here the Rabbis see a profound les son. Since the name of Mercy is used here, they read this verse in this sense: Even while making retribution to the wicked, the fundamental love and mercy of G-d is not overshadowed. For even while He punishes trans gressors and appears as a warrior, His name is still merciful for He yet con tinues to provide for and sustain all things with grace and loving-kindness. Naturally, if we reject the traditional position offhand, the passage in ques tion is rather flat. Although we are indebted to many followers of the Higher Criticism for significant contributions in details to the understanding of the Bible and its times, the reasoning supporting their systems as a whole is such as would be dismissed as ludicrous if it were applied in the realms of the natural sciences. If there is anything in our tradition which is contrary to sound logic, the faithful Jew wants to discover it, so that the error can be corrected. In fact, it is a Halachic principle that a cogent argument carries equal weight with a prescription in the Torah. The seal of the Lord is truth and he does not want us to believe in lies. Through Thy precepts I get under standing; therefore I hate every false way. (Psalm 119:104) I hate and abhor falsehood; Because I love Thy Torah. (Psalm 163) VEN more important than the E discovery of old error is the per ception of new truths. Because we JEWISH LIFE

believe in the underlying unity of all Creation, the work of the one Creator, every added insight into the mysteries of the universe is relevant to man’s task and destiny in the world. Thus the Rabbis understood it as mandatory to “enquire . . . from the end of the heavens to the end of the heavens.” (B’midbor 4:32, Chagiga 116). From many similar passages we can conclude that Judaism not only toler ates but actually enjoins free enquiry. But there is one important reservation. We have seen that man’s rational faculty is truly free only when his emotions and his appetites are firmly under control. The discipline of To rah is required if reason is to be given free reign. In the words of the Halochah: One is not fit to engage in specula tion except if he has filled his stom ach with bread and meat, and bread and meat are the knowledge of what is forbidden and what is permitted and likewise all the commandments. Although these things were called by the Sages “a small matter,” (compared to speculative pursuits) nonetheless it is proper that they precede, for they settle a man’s mind first. (Mishnah Torah, Yesodey Hatorah IV-13) It is this settling of a man’s mind that is all-important. For the observant Jew, surprising as it may seem at first sight, really has no axe to grind, and need not force his investigations into any special mold. That G-d is, or for that matter, if He were not, is not subject to demonstration by reason. That the Almighty revealed Himself at Sinai and gave us His Torah is an historical event, which can be believed or not, but certainly no one can ask that any historical event be reproduced in the laboratory before accepting it as true. Thus the obligatory nature of the Mitzvoth is not subject to confirSnring, 1965

mation by any new investigations. Certainly the development of the Halochah, in all its ramifications, can and should be carefully and critically ex amined. In fact, this is the constant occupation of every Torah scholar, and as we have seen, if observation or reason, if science or discovery, can find errors, we are duty-bound to look for them. For in this way alone can we assure that our faith will be pure, that it will not become contaminated, as unfortunately some great ideals do, with idle superstitions and false be liefs. Judaism has everything to gain and nothing to lose from the greatest possible progress in general human knowledge. On the other hand, he whose mind is not settled by the “bread and meat” of the Halochah, and is therefore not quite sure what are his moral duties —he whose yearnings and desires are not firmly under control—he might be looking for release from the respon sibility through so-called new knowl edge. Rather than engaging in rational research, he may actually be search ing to rationalize his failings and moral insufficiencies. In our century, a pri mary example is the tremendous in fluence of Freudian doctrines, which spread far beyond the circles of serious scientific thinkers. How many of those who jumped on the Freudian band wagon were honest seekers after truth and how many were just interested in licence? And who can be a more ob jective judge of the validity of Freu dian principles—he whose personal code of sexual ethics is not immediate ly disturbed by his investigation or he who is chafing under the restraints of society, which he would fain cast off, but has not the courage to do so with out some measure of intellectual justi fication? 49

T is clear then, that genuinely free his mind is settled, not made-up by Iobjectivity enquiry is possible only when the any means, but settled and thus en of the investigator is as abled to function properly and stably. sured, when his motive is purely search for truth and no ulterior considera tions can tilt the balance of his judg ment; or to put it in other words, when

In this light, then, free enquiry is not only compatible with Judaism* but who knows whether it is possible at all without Judaism?

JEWISH LIFE

Breathing Freedom in Mississippi By GERALD ENGEL

HE rabbi moistened his lips as the bus entered the Jackson terminal before noon. He pulled his suitcase containing clothing and food down from the overhead rack and followed the crowd into the “White” waiting room. Toward the extreme left of this room, sandwiched in between the rest rooms, were several phone booths. The rabbi looked into his little black note book for the telephone number writ ten in Hebrew for security reasons. Then he dialed. A recorded voice re sponded, “You have dialed a discon tinued number.” He groaned, opened the phone booth door and then as abruptly closed it. This time he dialed very slowly. A pleasant feminine voice answered, “NCC.” The Na tional Council of Churches’ secretary explained that Reverend McKenna was out, but could she help? The Rabbi wiped the perspiration from his brow as he left the booth and walked over to the candy counter on the opposite side of the waiting room. He seated himself on one of the long benches facing the street, rapidly eating a peanut bar, chocolate, and a banana while observing those coming in and out of the doors of the street. He then got up again for more quick energy food. For a moment his eyes focused on the ticket booth which

Spring, 1965

separated yet served both white and black. He asked himself why he did not go beyond that counter and join those whom he ostensibly came to aid. He would not be breaking the law if he went on the other side of the par tition; this station was governed by ICC ruling. Discrimination was illegal even if it was being enforced by tough-looking policemen patrolling the station. Yet, he sat waiting. HE black sedan pulled into the driveway. The rabbi stood up and walked toward the door as a tall clergyman stepped out of the car and caught his eye. “Are you the rabbi?” The rabbi nodded and followed him. The stiff-collared cleric slammed the rear door and whispered, “Good luck” before disappearing inside the terminal. The driver up front, a short, stocky young Negro, sighed, “Boy, I just can’t wait. I’ve been here all summer. In one more week I leave this town and go back North to school.” They reached NCC headquarters in a few minutes. It was located a few blocks from the bus terminal. The shabby three-room suite was on the first floor of an old dilapidated wooden building in a Negro neighborhood, located there to discourage visits from hostile red-necks.

Reverend McKenna, a middle-aged, athletic-looking gentleman, demon strated how to take beatings in the non-violent fashion Civil Rights work ers were pledged to follow. The min ister covered his head with his hands, assuming a fetal position. The rabbi felt like puking. For years he had heard condemna tion of spineless Jews who refused to fight back against the Nazis. Now, with the United States Government stressing its civil rights position through added legislation in 1957, 1960, and 1964, freedom volunteers learn to passively endure blows from men violating moral law and federal statutes. Freedom volunteers are con sidered courageous men who will overcome racism through passive re sistance. The rabbi accepted the keys to the black NCC sedan and walked down the block with the two clergymen going with him to Canton, only twenty miles away. The two Negroes climbed into the back seat. Up front the rabbi turned on the ignition. They were travelling Jim Crow fashion, in a car belonging to an organization dedicated to fighting segregation. All three men were uncomfortable, squeamish about following rules that might save lives at the expense of personal dignity. OMING off the highway, built al C most in its entirety by Federal funds, the car entered downtown Can ton. The men in the rear asked several Negro men on a street corner the way to Freedom House. Dumb stares greet ed them. Mentioning names of streets produced sad half-shrugs. It was growing dark; the three men were worried. A young girl, about seventeen, smiled and climbed into the

front seat. ‘Til show you the way. You are close to Freedom House.” The men are afraid to direct you. You are being watched. This is a marked car. They’ve got your license number down on every White Citizens’ Coun cil’s list in this state. But, don’t worry, we’ll get there.” Several blocks from the main street she pointed with pride to the weather beaten wooden shack with a large bul letin board outside and a number of spotlights that were already turned on in the dusk. The building stood on a corner lot across from a block of red brick one-storey apartments. Inside the shack, Reverend McCree, a local Methodist minister who had re turned to the South to help his peo ple, greeted the men joyously. They were needed for voter registration and to carry on needed surveys. They could begin the following afternoon after orientation. If they followed the rules, they could expect a minimum of physical violence. They would do do everything in pairs, always sign ing in and out of the building giving destination and arrival times, A search would begin if they failed to arrive on schedule. After joining several out-of-state volunteers and some of the profession al staff at the local cafe, the rabbi and Tom, the taller of his two companions, were driven to the home of a family who had been boarding volunteers throughout the summer. T DUSK, in the secluded backyard A of the trim little house, the two men sat under a pear tree with their hosts and the couple’s eleven-year-old son. The man of the house explained that he was now unemployed after thirteen years at his factory job. His JEWISH LIFE

wife similarly was dismissed from her part-time job in a local factory mak ing life preservers for the Coast Guard. Their taxes had been doubled since the man joined the NAACP. The softspoken man explained. “We know things are going to get better. That’s why we are staying around. The Lord wants all his children to be brothers. But, meanwhile we reckon things are going to get just a little worse before they get any better.” Thè rabbi went inside for a snack to share with his hosts. He returned with a box of matzoth. Though Rosh Hashonah was less than a month away, he felt these people would ap preciate sharing food that was both the bread of affliction and the symbol of freedom. Those who feel they are to day’s slaves ate matzoth with relish and prayed aloud for their own de liverance. The following morning, the rabbi, to awaken his heart to t’shuvah before the New Year, completed his prayers with the blowing of the shofar. The shofar call delighted eleven-year-old Ernest, who shyly asked if he could learn to blow the trumpet. Around the breakfast table the darkness of the previous night was dissipated by friendly conversation. During the week that followed there were daily contacts with men and women who lived as free people even under trying conditions. There was the mother of four children, living in the red brick WPA project across from COFO headquarters, who spoke with pride of her husband who was spend ing his vacation in New York on Free dom business. Similarly, George Wash ington, while taking care of his trade at his grocery store discussed Freedom Party politics. He was more concerned about voting rights than about the Spring, 1965

wholesalers’ boycott instituted when he rented Council of Federated Or ganizations its headquarters oppo site his store. And, the radio-TV re pairman, self-taught, proudly reported he was already a voter when asked if he wanted to learn to pass the test. These plain folk, and the others like them, all want to improve conditions in Mississippi. They do not want to go North. The faraway cities hold only disease-ridden Negro slums, poverty, and sickness, creating self-consuming hate that destroys children before the eyes of parents. A few, such as the cook at the local cafe, had been North and had returned disillusioned. They dreamed of freedom and found only miserable Negro slums. George Raymond, the New Orleans Negro in charge of the COFO office, told the rabbi, “It’s different with you Jews. You don’t have to be a Jew. Nobody can recognize you when you go out in a crowd. We always remain visible.” The rabbi smiled, knowing how selfconscious some Jews are about “stand ing out.” Most modern Jews, he mused, live by the rule: “Be a Jew in your home and a man outside.” Some exclude every distinctive char acteristic of Judaism from home and temple. Even leaders of the homeland stood bare-headed before the visiting skull-capped Pope during his pil grimage to the Holy Land. The in visible “goy” is the gatekeeper, the censor living in the heart of every Jew, even as the white man inhabits the soul of every Negro. Yet, the eman cipated Jew’s forefathers wore fringes on outer garments to remind them selves they were a singularly holy peo ple. Similarly, the American Negro’s forebears once lived proudly as a peo ple in Africa. 53

ETURNING from voter registra tion one sweltering afternoon, the rabbi removed his hat and donned a yarmulka. He walked to the cafe, con scious of, but unconcerned by, his skull cap. In that moment he experi enced the development of Abram to Abraham. He became part of a multi tude of nations, when he recognized his own uniqueness. But, the rabbi again became acutely aware of the divisiveness of his Jew ishness when entering the courtroom of the Federal Judge in Jackson, to observe the trial of the registrar of Madison County. In the hostile court the rabbi was sorely tempted to efface himself by keeping his black skull cap in his pocket. But George Raymond was with him that morning. During the luncheon recess, in the crowded elevator, the judge’s stenog rapher asked, “What’s that little black thing you wear on your head?” Hard ly waiting for a response she grimaced, “Why don’t you go back to where you come from, and take care of your own people.” This woman was simply echoing the sentiments of her judge and all other white Mississippians who deuded themselves by thinking that out siders were stirring up all the trouble. The judge, in the initial phase of the trial, had in fact called the Congress for Racial Equality a : “bunch of pro fessional agitators.” But, George Washington in his grocery store was hardly an outsider. He could smile at the thought that that the white civil rights detective could believe that by beating him in the city jail until he became practically blind in one eye, he would give up the dream of freedom for himself and his grandchildren.

The tall, heavy-set supervisor at Magnavox could smile in the court room as he told his tale of failing the voter registration application test four times despite his high school educa tion because the questions related to the State Constitution required legal knowledge to answer. He could smile because on his last time around, he did pass, as the registrar was under pressure from the Justice Department investigating voter application in equalities. Several of the white wit nesses scowled as Justice Department lawyers showed that the witnesses could barely read the registration test they had passed. The children assembled out of doors beside their burned out church for their final day of Freedom School, could also smile. They identified with the rabbi as he spoke of his childhood when his father insisted that his chil dren were going to get all the educa tion their heads could absorb in order to overcome prejudice. In particular, two brothers, ordered out of the state, nodded their heads. It was not enough to prove they were free merely by staying on after the civil rights detec tives ordered them to leave the state. Now they had to amount to some thing. They would go on to college. Following services on Sunday their parents also nodded their heads as they were reminded that even those in bondage in Egypt or Mississippi could be free if they were free men in their hearts. An octagenarian, dressed in his Sab bath best, came up to the rabbi after wards and said, “I knew it. I knew it all the time that you must be Jewish. Only a Jew could feel the way we do about freedom.” JEWISH LIFE

HE rabbi returned to his midwestern college town. One evening he attended a meeting, sponsored by Quakers, promoting passive resistance as a way of life. The rabbi observed that the youthful Negro speaker was wearing a large, tight-fitting skull cap. Jim Bevel, co-founder of COFO, trust

Spring, 1965

ed aide of Dr. Martin Luther King, and an ordained Baptist minister, through his cap showed his kinship to the people of Israel. To the rabbi, Reverend Bevel’s distinguishing him self from his audience, by wearing the skull cap, exemplified that breathing freedom means being one’s self.

Israel's Geopolitics: an Island in the Sea By PINCHAS E. LAPIDE How the young state gears its defense program to prevailing realities.

A COUNTRY half the size of Den-TV mark with the population of West Berlin and the frontiers as strategically preposterous as those of Chile or Nor way, will soon prepare for its 17th birthday celebration. That Medinath Israel was born at all proved that a goodly number of theories of political science were wrong; the fact that it now reaches the age of seventeen years, with reasonable chances of further growth, flies in the face of all historical determinisms. A brief glance at the three main handicaps of the young state will suffice to convince the student of current affairs: a. Of all nations free today, Israel is the only one which has been at war, since its birth, with all of its land neighbors. b. Completely besieged on all fron tiers, it suffers from all the disadvan tages of isolation—without any stra tegic advantages of insularity. c. Unlike all other 114 UN mem bers, Israel is a political orphan: no one shares its language, religion, or history, or wants to share its geog raphy; therefore it belongs to no bloc, regional league, or international de fense organization. 56

The third Jewish Commonwealth still has to base its Foreign and De fense policies on these “facts of life.” O EVALUATE Israel’s position T realistically, we must briefly review the political and strategic background of the Middle East today: After the Second World War a rad ical change took place in the position of the Middle East as a whole, as a result of the weakening of the West ern countries’ hold on the area. France was the first to be dislodged; then Britain began to lose her major bases one after another, as a result of the Arabs’ struggle for national liberation. Secondly and simultaneously, the peoples of the Middle East entered into the final throes of their struggle for full independence; foremost among them Egypt, whose expansionist policy —-as old as the pyramids—was gov erned by principles which required her to wage struggle also against other in dependent Arab regimes. The struggle for independence which was waged against the West and Egypt’s ambi tions, which are opposed to the West’s interests—their ultimate achievement requiring the complete eviction of JEWISH LIFE

Western influence—made the U.S.S.R. her natural ally. Thirdly*—the Soviet Union, which until the middle fifties had taken no active part in the struggle between the Middle Eastern peoples and the West, stepped in just as the Arab states be gan to experience the results of the vacuum created by the expulsion of the West, and had become particular ly aware of their military and eco nomic weakness. This process was especially true of Egypt, which flung the gates of the Middle East open to Soviet penetra tion in June 1955. Egypt’s acceptance of the Soviet offer of military coopera tion served as the turning-point in the strategic-political position of the Mid dle East within the framework of the Cold War between the two world blocs. Not only did the Soviet Union ensure that the West would never be able to regain its former position in the Middle East, but she also estab lished for herself a bridgehead in an area which has today become the main scene of the battle for inter-bloc supremacy^lBlack Africa. The U.S.S.R. accorded to Nasser military and political assistance on a scale hitherto unprecedented in the Middle East. The Soviets also sent teams of instructors, taught their own brand of military doctrine, and trained thousands of Egyptian officers and technicians in the countries of Eastern Europe in order to assist Nasser in set ting up a modern army. The following figures will illustrate the extent of assistance received by Egypt alone: a. Air Force: More than 220 MIG-17 fighter planes (including two squadrons of allSpring, 1965

weather planes), Russian-type bomb ers, transport planes and helicopters are on active strength. Furthermore, two squadrons of MIG-19’s have re cently been added. b. Armor: While in 1955 the Syrian and Egyp tian armies were capable of jointly activating about 350 medium tanks on a battalion level at the most, the total number of modern Soviet tanks of all types in possession of the two coun tries at the beginning of 1965 reach ed the number of 1,650. This is more than both Rommel and the British Army had in the African campaigns of World War II. c. Artillery: The infantry, and armored forces are supported by artillery formations com prising 850 guns (not including heavy mortars). This force is able today to operate within the framework of artil lery groups with the purpose of lay ing down a concentrated fire of fifty guns of all types to every kilometer of frontline and attack, in accordance with the Soviet doctrine. d. Navy: The U.A.R. Navy now possesses eight modern ocean-going-type sub marines in addition to six destroyers of the Skory type and eleven other war ships. Egypt has thus the strongest navy in the Mediterranean, second only to the U.S. Sixth Fleet. N ASSESSING this formidable IIsrael array of ever-growing armaments, finds some solace in two his torical facts: Out of the 5,400 Egyptian prison ers-of-war taken by Israeli forces dur ing the Sinai Campaign of 1956 (against four Israelis captured by 57

Egypt!), less than 200 were officers. Since this is less than half of the cor rect proportions, it follows that over 50% of their officers ran away. An army can retreat; an army can be taken prisoners, but an army whose officers are the first to flee, is not an army that fights well. The second undeniable lesson to be drawn from the Sinai war was the test of Arab alliances. In October, 1955, Egypt concluded a military alliance with Syria and Saudi Arabia, which brought the number of inter-Arab mutual assistance treaties to seven. All seven pacts concluded between nine Arab states stipulate solemnly that if any one of the signatories was to be attacked by anybody— but by Israel specifically—the others were immediately to mobilize all their armed strength in order to assist the victim of aggression. According to Nasser’s statements, on the first day of the Israeli attack (29th October, 1956) he called upon all the Arab countries to mount a large- scale attack on Israel—yet not a single Saudi gunboat, Syrian plane, Jordan tank, or Lebanese cannon moved in response to his appeal. On the other hand, Israel cannot forget that the thirteen Arab states who are still her self-declared enemies, command a combined land area 240 times its size and have a joint popula tion outnumbering Israelis forty to one. To make sure he won’t forget these geopolitical realities, Premier Levy Eshkol keeps a large-scale map of the Middle East in his office in Jerusalem. Israel constitutes a geographical obstacle separating Nasser from those countries which he seeks to bring with in the sphere of his political authority. 58

HE fear of Israel’s reaction, should he take military action against one of the Arab states, such as Jordan or the Lebanon, constitutes an important factor in Nasser’s calculations. Thus, in order to attain his ambitions, Nas ser is confronted by a choice between two alternatives: to get control of the Middle East by bringing under his heel those Arab states which have so far escaped his hegemony and then utilizing his strategical advantage to destroy Israel; or to destroy Israel first in order to gain domination of the Arab states. The achievement of Arab unity un der his domination appears to Nasser today less fraught with danger than a direct military assault by the U.A.R. on Israel. Such efforts probably hold out more promise in view of the in ternal political weakness of the Hus sein regime in Jordan, which consti tutes the key to the present inter-Arab political set-up. A victory for Nasser in Jordan would lead to Iraq’s isola tion and eventually the downfall of the Aref regime. The overthrow of the Hussein regime does not neces sarily call for military action; the King’s assassination (like his grand father Abdullah’s) would suffice and the West is at present powerless to prevent such a coup d’etat. It would of course also mean the isolation and total encirclement of Israel. In the meantime, Nasser, helped by the Soviet Union and scientists from Germany, is amassing strength in the Suez Canal bases, building up a strong logistic deployment in Sinai, and is acquiring great quantities of modern equipment and much technical knowl edge. The moment he feels strong enough to overcome Israel, Nasser is likely to decide to attempt the second of the two courses of action open to

JEWISH LIFE

him, “the third round/’ which, though more dangerous, would yield more im mediate results and would open the way to the domination of the whole region. Military action against Israel,

if successful, would give him control of most of the Arab states and would subsequently result in the collapse of the few pro-Western states of the Mid dle East.

W AR, PEACE— O R CO -EX ISTEN CE

HAT can the David of Israel do tage: its territory is the only land W against the Goliath of the Arabs? bridge connecting Africa and Asia; on The State of Israel considers its main the other hand, Israel is completely task to be the consolidation of its eco nomic and social structure within the framework of its present boundaries. Israel does not require any additional territory outside of her present fron tiers to fulfill this aim. On the other hand Israel is unable to ignore the repeated declarations by the various Arab leaders of their intention to destroy Israel, nor of their growing capacity to translate these threats into reality. In case of war, Israel must over come its aggressors within as short a time as possible and with a minimum number of casualties to its populace in order to allow fulfillment of the basic constructive mission which is the very reason for Israel’s existence. Small in area, lacking depth—espe cially in the vital central part of the State—most of the country’s popula tion is concentrated in the coastal strip, near the two largest cities, Tel Aviv and Haifa. The third largest city, Jeru salem, is located right on the border, and, like Berlin, is divided between hostile nations. The distance between the frontier and the major centers of population is nowhere larger than forty-five kilometers. The problem of an effective defense is therefore one of the most crucial with which Israel is faced today. Israel has one geopolitical advanSpring, 1965

cut off from any overland contact with friendly states; the only means of maintaining such contact is by air or sea. The population of Israel is small in numbers (2,800,000) when compared with that of the U.A.R. (28,000,000) and the Arab states when considered as an entity (over 70,000,000). On the other hand, the average intellectual and technical level of Israelis is higher than that of the average Arab. This qualitative advantage is the main foundation upon which her military strength is based. Israel is severely limited in financial means, especially in view of the tre mendous development tasks which now- have been set. Progress in the seventeen years since statehood can be summed up briefly in these figures: fourfold increase of population; five fold increase of student-body (from kindergarten to university); industrial production grew sixfold; the agricul tural area under irrigation grew seven fold; under the afforestation program eight times as many trees were planted as grew seventeen years ago; total na tional production rose by 900%, and exports jumped twelve times: in value since 1948. Israel receives no military grants from foreign powers, nor is it a part ner to any international alliances 59

which would furnish a guarantee for its security and territorial integrity. Accordingly, Israel must fend for it self. It therefore follows that the primary defense concept of the State of Israel is the necessity of maintaining armed forces sufficiently strong to serve as an effective deterrent to any aggres sion. In case the Israeli deterrent force does not prevent the outbreak of war, it must be strong enough to achieve victory within a few days. Total lack of hinterland does not permit Israel to contain an enemy offensive by giving up ground to gain time for deploying her forces. Israel, therefore, must deploy her forces for rigid and strong defense and at the same time be capable of mounting a full-scale counter-offensive the mo ment she is attacked. Israel has based her static defense on the agricultural settlements along her borders. Every Israeli frontier village is built and or ganized as an outpost ready to with stand an enemy attack within a few minutes’ notice* Members of each vil lage are trained to operate as a mili tary unit under their own local com manders, enabling a smooth transition from a state of peace to a state of war by organic means and independent of any authority higher than that of the local defense chief. The second echelon for the counter offensive is provided by the standing forces of the reserves, called up in the main cities and the villages of the rear. INCE the resources at the disposal of the State of Israel do not per S mit the maintenance of a large stand ing army, the backbone of her military might are the reserve forces. The National Service law currently in

force provides that every male be tween the ages of 18 and 26 must serve two and a half years of com pulsory service, during which pe riod soldiers are so trained as to enable them to serve an additional twenty-five years in the Reserves. Un married women, who are also required to undergo two years of military serv ice, are employed in administrative and hospital duties, threby releasing men for service in combat units. Every reserve soldier serves thirty days a year and spends an additional day each month on active duty. All above the rank of private can be call ed up for thirty-seven days a year plus one day each month. By virtue of the system of basic training during the period of compulsory service, coupled with the annual reserve training, a large percentage of the population of Israel is permanently maintained at a high state of military readiness. Israel today is capable of mobilizing an army of 290,000 within seventy-two hours and can keep this citizen army combatrready or in combat for weeks with out disrupting the supply of essential services either to the armed forces or to the civilian population. The foundation of the national de fense upon the civilian pattern, through the twin principles of fortified settlements guarding the borders and an army based mainly on reserve forces, allows a small country of limit ed means to maintain a large and highly mobile army as an active de terrent. The technical advantage ac cruing from a high standard of man power allows constant improvements to be made in the means of warfare and in the utilization of these means by unorthodox methods. To sum up: the defense concept of JEWISH LIFE

Israel is based on the following three axioms: a. The existence of a strong mili tary deterrent aimed at preventing any aggression against Israel; b. In case the deterrent force is in

sufficient and war breaks out, to be capable of achieving victory within the shortest possible time; c. Therefore priority is given to the air force and armored and airborne forces.

PATTERN O F DEFENSE

A LL this would, of course, be unJlm. necessary if Arab-Jewish peace— the deus-ex-machina for all of Israel’s problems—could be attained. But can it? A recent survey carried out in Israel by the Public Opinion Institute show ed that eighty-one percent of Israelis desire a peace settlement with their Arab enemies, but only eight percent really believe there are the slightest chances for Israeli-Arab peace. Addressing a gathering of Southern Military Command Officers shortly after the successful 1956 Sinai Cam paign, former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stressed the fact that he did not believe in peace with the Arabs “in our lifetime,” and that “at least two more generations” must sur vive in the present climate of warlike tension before peace is possible, by the end of this century. There is not a single Arab leader today who admits the remotest possi bility of peace with the hated Jewish State. A careful study of the utter ances, speeches, and official statements made by all Arab leaders without ex ception, between 1948 and 1964, shows that they are committed to the physical destruction of Israel, on emo tional as well as on practical grounds. So let’s face it—talking of IsraeliArab peace is useless. The Arabs don’t want it—perhaps they cannot afford it; and even if they agreed, their conSpring, 1965

ditions would not be acceptable to Israel, which opposes giving up one inch of its territory, or letting the bulk of Arab refugees come back to their former homes. Israel’s adament attitude is simple—the Jewish State’s refusal to make any territorial or po litical concessions to the Arabs is re garded here as a dam preserving Is rael’s independence. Open the small est hole or crack, and the entire dam will burst. “If we take back any group of refugees, it will only be the open ing for additional Arab demands. If we give them any corridor through the Negev, they will come back asking for more. They may be interested in Oriental-bazaar bargaining, but only as a means of weakening us without re sorting to military action and of mak ing us ripe for the final coup de grace, when the time has arrived . . . the Arabs do not want, and cannot afford, any lasting honest peace with Israel as long as they have the lightest hope of ever winning a renewed war of destruction against us.” Thus spoke Mr. Menachem Beigin, leader of Is rael’s second biggest political party, the right-wing nationalist Cheruth. On the opposite extreme of public opinion is the attitude of Professor Martin Buber, Israel’s famous phi losopher, and his friend Professor Ernst Simon, who head the Ichud group of Arab-Jewish brotherhood idealists. They believe that love and 61

friendship can solve all outstanding Israel-Arab problems. Taking back all Arab refugees, changing Israel from a national Jewish State into a bi-na tional Arab-Jewish republic, refrain ing from military retaliations and ap pointing an equal number of Arabs as Cabinet Ministers—these will lead to a genuine peace, they claim. When asked whether love, friendship and turning the other cheek would have helped the Jews against the Nazis, the Ichud leaders reply that the Nazis were criminals and insane, while the Arabs are, in their opinion, honest, peace-loving people and imminently sane. . . . However, the majority of Israelis, including most political and military leaders, believe that future IsraeliArab relations will be based neither on war nor on peace, but on enforced ence Israel-Arab relations in one way co-existence. Whether such co-exist ence will be peaceful or belligerent,

depends on many ^world factors. But even if another war breaks out, the Israelis are confident of their ability to defeat the Arabs once again—until Lebanon or Jordan can afford the luxury of opening peace negotiations with their closest—and most useful— neighbor. In any case, no long-term forecasts are possible in our fast-changing world, where evolutionary processes which once required decades of time are now completed in a matter of months. Man’s flight to the moon, a nuclear holocaust, East-West relations, and a dozen other factors may influ ence Israel-Arab relations in one way or another. Only one thing is certain: Israel’s best guarantee of survival is its superior military technology, its true desire for peace and last, but not least, its being a “dangerous center of infection” for scientific, social, and educational progress for the entire Middle East.

YOUR FRIENDLY A&P EXTENDS PA'CfìVFR (ÌRFFTINfì'

WHERE MILLIONS SHOP WITH CONFIDENCE EVERY DAY

B ooh R eview s Biography of an Inconsistent M ind By ARNOLD BLUMBERG

ISRAEL ZANGWILL, by Maurice Wohlgelernter, Columbia University Press, New York, 1964, 344 pp. $7.50. HE author of this latest study of Is rael Zangwill has set himself a dif ficult task and has succeeded amazingly well in accomplishing it. The first ele ment of challenge lay in the author’s decision to make his work one of lit erary criticism, rather than biography. As he expresses it, “this study may be thought of as a sort of biography of Zangwill’s mind.” Nevertheless, it is ap parent that if such a critical work is to succeed, it must derive its form from references to the life and experience of its subject. Such is the validity of the author’s correlation of Zangwill’s life and his ideas, that future biographies of the man will have to draw sustenance from this vessel. The second element of challenge undoubtedly lay in the neces sity of being fair to a historical figure whose life and ideas were often so mark edly at variance With any religious or secular definition of Judaism. As an or-

Dr. Arnold Blumberg, whose articles have ap peared in historical journals and in Jewish lit erary magazines, is Professor of Modern Eu ropean History at Towson State College in Baltimore.

Spring, 1965

thodox rabbi, Maurice Wohlgelernter must have found it a tour de force to achieve not only objectivity but com passion for Zangwill’s serpentine odyssey in and out of the stream of Jewish life. Any secularly educated Jew will un derstand and sympathize with the plight of Zangwill as he struggled to fulfill a meaningful artistic role as a Jew and as an Englishman. The tug of war between Hebraism and Hellenism remains effec tively the only choice open to mankind, and touches not merely two ways of life, but philosophies of art, views of G-d and Man, and, indeed, concepts of the nature of the finite and infinite. For the reader, Zangwill’s struggle to achieve a synthesis of the best of both his worlds may well appear to have ended in com plete intellectual and personal failure. The title page and the dust jacket of this attractively-bound book describe the author as Assistant Professor of English at Yeshiva University and Rabbi of the Inwood Jewish Center of New York City. “Israel Zangwill” should be com mended to his colleagues in both pro fessions. In the course of surveying everything of note written by or about Zangwill, Rabbi Wohlgelernter has given us a series of essays which are worthy of study for their own sake, without 63

Don’t fiddle around... When it comes to gefilte fish, Mother’s knows best. Because w e don’t fiddle around when w e m ake gefilte fish! W e use only the plum pest, juiciest, young fish— fresh from icy Northern lakes. W e add just the right pinch of sp ices. T h e n — ju s t like the m others of o ld — w e sim m er our gefilte fish to bring out all its tender, delicate flavor. Result: M o th er’s gefilte fish has that traditional taste and texture th at’s just like hom em ade. So for a g lo rio u s beginning to th e P a sso ve r S e d e r — and fo r eve ry festive occasion — serve M o th er’s, the fish fo r com plim ents. Kosher for Passover ©Pareve From the spotless kitchens of Mother’s Food Products, Inc., Newark 5, N. J.

...a n d don’t forget Mother’s Borscht

JE W IS H LIFE

regard to their relationship to Zangwill. Especially provocative were the chapters entitled “Hebraism and Hellenism,” “of Tragedy and Comedy,” and “East or West.” The last of that trio is particularly valuable to the historian for some original thinking on the relationship of nation alism to Antisemitism. All of Chapter I, entitled “A Jew in England,” also commends itself to historians for its suc cinct yet profund survey of the role of the Jew in nineteenth century western Europe. the most shining vir IitsRONICALLY, tue of Rabbi Wohlgelernter’s work is worst defect. In a nutshell, he throws too much at his reader and taxes his patience. We might accuse the author of the same misdemeanor with which he describes an anonymous critic as having taxed Zangwill: There are only two courses in such a dilemma. One is to lay down the book and wait. The other is to skip. Both are difficult. The result is a halfdelighted resentment, a feeling that a man who is able to say so many good things, ought to love them enough to protect them from each other. And, indeed, it is a good deal to ask of a reader—that he shall do his own skipping. It ought to be done for him. Israel Zangwill’s relatively short and stormy life spanned the years 1864 to 1926. The only consistency of his life lay in his inconsistency. This fact, which the author constantly demonstrates, makes either sympathetic biography or meaningful literary criticism very diffi cult indeed. That the author succeeds as he does, speaks well for him. Still, the reader may find himself demandifig explanations for Zangwill’s fre quently bizarre points of view. Thus we ask Rabbi Wohlgelernter to psychoanaSpring, 1965

lyze his subject when it is no part of his claim to be able to do so. We watch with amazement as Zangwill moves through a conventional orthodox up bringing to an early career in teaching and his subsequent relatively rapid lit erary successes. We observe his pendu lum swing from the belief that the Jew is eternal and unassimilable to the opsite view that ultimately the Jew and Judaism will disappear from view, be queathing only the best portion of a heritage to a society and a new religion of the future. We follow Zangwill through his passionate support of Zion ism to his ultimate violent break with that movement. We ask ourselves wheth er the incidents of his private life, such as marriage outside the faith and rejec tion of B’rith Milah for his oldest son, are acts of consistent assertion or puer ile rebellion. His dramatic rejection of political Zionism merges into a support for Jewish Territorialism and finally meanders off into a conviction that the United States will solve the Jewish prob lem by merging Jews into a new and vastly superior breed of men, bred in the American clime. We are struck by the fact that Zangwill, at the end of his life, envisions a religious faith which rejects immortality of the soul, but con fers “sainthood” on Emerson, Swin burne, and Mazzini. The beatification of Mazzini becomes the more remarkable when we observe Zangwill’s rejection of terrorism as a tool, even in a morally worthy cause. He flirts with pacifism yet urges nations to arm to deter aggression. He loves peace, yet admires Napoleon. Zangwill’s future biographers have their work cut out for them in those very areas which this work refuses to touch. If he is worthy of the effort, and Rabbi Wohlgelernter convinces us that he is, Zangwill the man must be made whole 65

again. His kaleidoscopic iiickleness must be given a semblance of explanation. For the most part, the author care fully avoids expressing value judgements on ZangwilTs non-literary work or opin ions. He does, of course, attempt to place him in the spectrum of Great Brit ain’s writers. Asserting that in his own life time, Zangwill was considered to be the equal of Shaw, Chesterton, and Bel loc, Wohlgelernter would now rank him with the lesser figures of his age, far below Joyce, Yeats, or Hopkins. We may be confident of controversy over these conclusions. r p H E author evaluates Zangwill the JL Jew to be one of the three founders of modern Zionism, ranking slightly be hind Herzl and Pinsker. The author is guaranteed a generous share of challeng ing debate on that assertion. Is Wohl gelernter wrong or is he merely redis covering the place in history to which Zangwill would have been entitled if he had not been guilty of intellectual apos tasy and desertion? Columbia University Press has done an exceptionally fine piece of work in the mechanics of publication. The choice of both printing type and paper were de signed to make reading pleasant. A fine index seems to contain everything which the serious reader might want to find. This is particularly important since even the purely biographical sectors of the text do not adhere religiously to chrono logical order. Proof reading was appar ently also done with care since only one error was noted by this reader; a mis spelling of Mrs. Zangwill’s maiden name on page 38.

The valuable impediments of scholar ship are neatly tucked away in the rear, where they can be used for easy refer ence. The footnotes contain helpful tex tual comments which form a happy complement to the body of the discus sion. The present writer was pleased with the placement of the footnotes in the rear, since they form a distraction when placed at the bottom of a page of text. Precisely for this reason, how ever, it might have been better if foot note indices had been numbered con tinuously from 1 to infinity rather than separately for each chapter. This is a petty matter, however, since a serious scholar reviews the footnotes at his own convenience, in any case. The less se rious reader can enjoy the text without referring once to the documentation. The bibliography is extensive and appears to be as complete as careful research can make it. Beyond coverage of works in English, there is also a substantial se lection of Zangwillian sources in French, German, Hebrew, and Yiddish. The most recent work cited, appeared in 1964, the year that the book itself went to press. The oldest source there bears the date 1889. The author’s division of the bib liography according to the function and character of the works listed also bears the hallmark of common sense. The definitive biography of Israel Zangwill is still to be written. Perhaps this is the last serious effort which will ever be made to offer him his proper place in the literary history of the world. Suffice it to say, however, that in this present work, Rabbi Wohlgelernter has earned the thanks of those who follow him.

JE W IS H LIFE

The Great and the Good By MORRIS MAX MEN OF THE SPIRIT, by Rabbi Leo Jung, Kymson Publishing Company, New York, 1964, 739 pp. $5.00. NCE again Dr. Leo Jung has suc O ceeded in presenting to the Amer ican English-speaking Jews a panorama of Jewish leaders and scholars in the last 150 years spread over 13 countries of the world. In his eighth volume of The Jewish Library Series entitled “Men Of The Spirit,” the last of the three biographical books in the series, Dr. Jung has compiled 31 essays written by scholars in the United States, Eng land, Israel, Switzerland, and Italy about leaders and thinkers who have had a great share in the development of the modern orthodox Jewish communities. They represent a “very vital variety of rabbinic leaders, from patient saint to impatient pioneer, from the Tzaddik in Eastern lands to the Gaon in Central Europe, from the protagonist of Torah im Derech Eretz (the combination of the best in modernism with Torah knowl edge and practice) to the builder-up of spiritual waste places, the marks of thoughtless assimilation or ruthless per secution, or both.” Every active Zionist has heard of Leo Pinsker or Doctor Theodore Herzl as the forerunners of political Zionism but Rabbi Morris Max is the spiritual leader of the Queens Jewish Center and Vice President of the Mizrachi Hapoel Hamizrachi of Amer ica. He is the author of many pamphlets and articles on subjects of Jewish significance.

Spring, 1965

few have heard of the pioneering work of Rabbi Israel of Sklov (1770-1839) and Akiba Joseph Schlessinger (1838— 1922) whose love for Eretz Yisroel was rooted in Torah and whose determina tion to personally engage in the upbuild ing of the Land of our Fathers can match that of the pioneers of the Chovevei Zion. Mr. Benjamin Mintz, the late Minister of Posts in Israel, and Dr. Kal man Kahane are the authors of these revealing essays. Among the “spiritual lights of Israel” described in the book are the Sephardic scholar Hezekiah Medini, author of the “Sdeh Hemed” (1833-1904); Yitzchak Isaac Halevy Herzog, the late Chief Rabbi of Israel; Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, known as the Chazon Ish, who per sonified Daath Torah (Torah Wisdom (, defined as “the perception of one who was reared and trained all his life in the disciplines of Torah learning, whose mode of thought and intellectual proc esses were molded only by Torah and not by any other wisdom” (page 154); Yitzchak Zevev Soloveitchik (1880-1960) who arrived in Israel from Brisk in 1941; and the Mizrachi leaders Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan and Rabbi Wolf Gold. Three of these essays are translations of the Hebrew originals. In an excellent essay by Dr. J. J. Weinberg of Montreux, “the last Rector of the Hildesheimer Seminary of Berlin, one of the greatest authorities on Jew ish law,” the Mussar Hovement, ini tiated in Lithuania, is analyzed in a man67

for an unqualified experience in Torah living—we invite teenagers to attend an exciting and unforgettable convention weekend at the twelfth annual

N A T IO N A L C O N V EN TIO N AN D L E A D E R ’S S E M IN A R OF THE

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SYNAGOGUE YOUTH OF THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA NATIONAL CONVENTION

LEADER'S SEMINAR

—

Thursday, June 24 thru Sunday June 27, 1965 — $48.00 Sunday, June 27 thru Teusday June 29. 1965 — $25.00

at the Pine View Hotel, Fallsburg, New York

AN EXCITING RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERI ENCE FOR SELECT TEENAGERS. AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE NEW FRIENDS, THE PROGRAM INCLUDES TORAH SEMINARS, WORK SHOPS AND DISCUSSIONS, NCSY BUSINESS AND ELECTIONS ISRAELI SINGING AND DANCING, TALENT SHOW, PROMINENT GUESTS, YOUTH SERVICES, SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL ACTIV ITIES, OUTSTANDING INSTRUMENTALISTS AND ENTERTAINMENT. AWARDS, CONTESTS, SWIMMING, LEADERSHIP AND SKILL SES SIONS, THE FEE INCLUDES ALL EVENTS, TOP HOTEL FACILITIES, MEALS, GRATUITIES, AND MATERIALS.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SYNAGOGUE YOUTH EIGHTY-FOUR FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK I I, NEW YORK

JEWISH LIFE

ner that makes one feel that it was a religious movement “broad in scope, and deep in thought which strove to change the order of life and to bring forth a new type of Jew, to promote a noble creativity firmly based on the traditions of our forefathers” (p. 216). In the words of one of its spokesmen “not only must we observe the Divine Command ments but we must seriously consider the shape of our character and the im provement of our conduct.” This served to counteract the spread of Chasidism, which is briefly although touchingly presented by Rabbi David Shapiro in his essay on Rabbi Levi Yit zhak of Berditchev (1740-1809). Writ ten as a prolegomenon, it arouses in the reader a fervent desire to read more about the man who “will always abide in the annals of his people as well as in the hearts of every son and daughter of Israel as the man intoxicated with love, love for G-d and love for Israel, His people.” (p. 414). The German Jewish community is rep resented by an essay on Rabbi Michael Cahn of Fulda (1849-1919) and on Rabbi Hanoch Hacohen H. Ehrentreu (1854-1927), a favorite disciple of the K’thav Sofer of Pressburg, and the Rabbi of Munich from 1885-1927. HE changing Jewish community in T the United States is symbolized by the two essays dealing with Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz and Dr. Nathan Isaacs. The “multi-faceted personality” of Rabbi Mendlowitz, who insisted that he be called Mr. and not Rabbi, is depicted forcefully by two of his pupils, Rabbi Alexander S. Gross and Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky. Principal of the Yeshivah Torah Vodaath from 1921 until his death in 1948, Rabbi Mendlowitz was instru mental in raising the standard of Torah Spring, 1965

learning in this country because of his dynamic personality and the personal in terest he took in the development of everyone of his pupils. His founding of the Mesfita Torah Vodaath, which ex tended Torah learning beyond the ele mentary yeshivah; of the first yeshivah Camp in Mountaindale, New York, which expanded Torah learning through the summer months in an informal man ner while close to nature; his founding of Torah Umesorah and the Beth Medrash Elyon in Spring Valley, New York —all met with tremendous success be cause he inspired his pupils to carry on his life’s work of spreading Torah-learning to every segment of Klal Yisroel. In discussing careers with his students he would counsel them to pursue a liveli hood whereby they could best serve Klal Yisroel: “Your first concern should be not what you can get out of the po sition but what you can give” (p. 562). His love for Torah was matched by his love for the land of Israel. On the day of independence of Israel, May 5, 1948, shortly before his death he left this note for his son: “Until now the land lived within us; henceforth, we shall live in the land.” The second great light of the Amer ican Jewish community, depicted in this book, is that of Dr. Nathan Isaacs, de scribed by his brother Dr. Elcanan Isaacs. What “Mr.” Mendlowitz was in the religious scholarly field, Dr. Isaacs was in the American academic field. Born in Cincinnati in 1886 in a family that brought orthodox Judaism to the Midwest and preserved it, he rose to the rank of Professor of Law at the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration in 1924, a post which he held until his death on December 18, 1941. Endowed with a phenomenal ana lytic mind and a fantastic memory, he was not pedantic but warm and under69

Miniature chocolate matzos. Delicious rtDS^ > lEtt chocolate blended with chopped nuts and BMMca n a shaped into bite-size matzo squares. Indi vidually foil-wrapped. Box of 30, $1.29. Or choose from our large selection of Kosher for Passover candies and cakes. All made NEW YORK • LUGANO. SWITZERLAND from Old World recipes. © THE NAME BARTON’S IS YOUR GUARANTEE IT’S KOSHER nmovu

PA RKS

no on raurt mu minn

A Completely New Edition of the Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals with Torah Readings and Haftaroth for Pesach, Shavuoth, and Sukkoth

Translated and Annotated by PHILIP BIRNBAUM Dr. Birnbaum’s new edition of The Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals contains a lucid, modern English translation of the festival Torah readings and the Haftaroth. It is profusely annotated and em bodies the best results of liturgical and biblical scholarship. For con gregation purposes; this Prayer Book has no peers. Its contents represent a living force of beauty and knowledge. Superbly produced in large readable type, reinforced attractive binding, with no increase in price. A T A L L BO O KSTO RES— $3.25

HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY 79 Delancey Street New York 2, N.YLook for the “H.P.C.” when buying Hebrew Greeting Cards

standing in his attitude to his pupils. He was an inspiring teacher and creative thinker. With a thorough training in Jewish tradition which he augmented by wide reading and study, Nathan Isaacs remained throughout his life an obser vant orthodox Jew. The numerous ex amples of his loyalty to orthodox Juda ism during his college career, related in this essay, can not be mentioned in this short review. The following description of his personal influence upon students will suffice: “The home of Nathan Isaacs was a sanctuary of Judaism. Here he gave in formal courses in Jewish Law, the sig nificance of Judaism in Comparative Law, and the value of Jewish tradition. Here, on Sabbath Day, was open house to Harvard and Radcliffe students. Here, one could chat and drink tea with a gen ial host* Here, one could talk out one’s problems to a careful listener and a wise counsellor. Here, was a warm atmos phere of Jewish American life.” HE book closes with an essay by Dr. Leo Jung entitled “Love and Knowledge in Rabbinic Lore.” Utilizing his keen insight into the factors that make for a higher spiritual love be tween husband and wife, termed Kiddushin (sanctity), Dr. Jung shows how the love of Israel for G-d, and the love of G-d for Israel are based on a com

plete identification of the two. Comment ing upon the prayer recited every morn ing before the Shema, beginning with the words “Ahavah Rabbah Ahavtanu” —with great love hast thou loved us— he stresses that the word “b’ahavah”— with love—is the principal request of the Jew, namely, “to learn (Torah) with love, to teach with love, to fulfill in the love of G-d, to observe for the love of G-d. These are rare assets for which we need a special spirit of steadfast dedi cation. What we really ask for is the Divine help to aid us in the quest for complete identification with G-d’s name in order that whatever we say, do, or fulfill may be a true expression of this utmost devotion. If the supreme form of love is identification with the be loved, so the supreme love of G-d must be a similar identification.” This iden tification is expressed through justice, righteousness, and mercy in al lour deal ings with our fellow-men. HIS last essay is studded with bril liant gems of interpretation of wellknown passages of the Bible and Tal mud which mirror the love of G-d and of Torah-knowledge of the author, who has combined in his entire fruitful career of Rabbi and Scholar the best of Chassidic thought and of the philosophic systems of the men of the spirit so clearly pre sented in this book.

Voice from the Holocaust By HILLEL SEIDMAN THE HOLOCAUST KINGDOM, by Alexander Donat, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, 1965, 361 pp. $5.95. rriH IS book is an eyewitness account JL of the murdering of approximately half a million Jews of Warsaw by the Germans. The author of this remarkable memoir of his experiences from the time of the German onslaught until the time of the liberation combines two roles. He was deeply involved in the happenings as one of the intended vic tims, and these terrible experiences no man can forget. He is also a perceptive and intelligent observer. Graphic and well-written as is this book, the author is not a writer by profession. And this “non-professional” character con tributes to the fact that his book is an unembellished, honest, and accurate account. “The Holocaust Kingdom” gives a feeling of the immediacy of the events of which it tells, and at the same time brings into broad perspective the enor mous cruelty and the horrendous cri minals of the Third Reich. It is a personal memoir. Uncounted other in mates of the Ghetto could have recorded like experiences—had they survived. The author, however, was one of the few who had connections with the world Dr. Hillel Seidman, the American correspond ent for three Israeli newspapers, is the former Secretary of the Association of Jewish Deputies of the Polish Parliament and was the Director of Archives for the Jewish community of War saw from 1939-43. Among his books, published in Hebrew and Yiddish, is “A Diary of the Warsaw Ghetto/*

outside the walls, with the Poles. His only son was hidden for almost two years by a Polish woman, Maria Maginska. Thus, the book grants us a glimpse of the attitude of the Poles, which was, as the author reports—also inhuman. “Let the Germans do this dirty work for us,” said the Poles, and there were far too many cases of “willing, active, enthusiastic Polish assistance,” writes the author. The book contains descriptions of Warsaw Ghetto conditions; of labor camps where Jews were forced to work and suffer under inhuman conditions; of the concentration camps and the gas chambers and of the battlefields where Jewish heroes were overpowered and mercilessly put to death, and of the “private” shootings and killing of Jews by individual Germans. MONG many unique merits of “The A Holocaust Kingdom,” one of the most important is the demolishing of the supposed distinction between Nazis and Germans. The author discloses to us the real perpetrators of the monstrous cru elties committed under the Third Reich. He does not fall into the trap of calling every German murderer and sadist, “Nazi.” By calling the criminals “Nazis” —no doubt in justified anger—most writ ers and reporters unwittingly absolve the Germans of their guilt. Donat reports the facts without name-calling. There fore, he is true to the truth. Those few remnants of the Warsaw Ghetto who experienced, like the writer of this review, the same horrors, can testify as JEWISH LIFE

to how meticulously correct, how scrupu lously accurate, how true and perceptive is Donat’s account of this page of his tory. The author simply tells what hap pened; he does not evalute; he does not comment or draw conclusions. And wisely so, because there is no need for it. The conclusions emerge of themselves with the elementary force of truth. This force does away with all the myths, fictions, and conventional lies about two different Germanies engendered by the culprits and conveniently accepted by those who are dealing with them as allies. The fourteen nurses who killed thousands of Jewish children, recently freed by a Munich court, were nurses, not Nazis! These self-evident truths which emerge from this book reveal be yond any doubt that during all the cruel ties there was not apparent the slightest distinction between German and Ger man. This non-existent distinction, which was invented by the myth-makers and propagandists after the war, was no where noticeable in the days of their reign, as becomes apparent in the un adorned account of the facts given in this book. The now growing legend of German “resistance”, the fictional “underground,” the mythical “opposition” of the “good” Germans, did not manifest itself in a single instance of saving even one Jew ish child—one of a million murdered children—from torture and death! As one follows, with throbbing heart, the author’s portrayal of the deadly dangers which threatened the life of his fiveyear-old son, Wlodek, the question arises: Who are these cruel people bent upon killing little Wlodek? Are they the Nazis? No, is the unequivocal answer which emerges from Donat’s precise and exact account. Little Wlodek was Spring, 1965

sought to be murdered by the German, any German. During the years when the child was hidden by Mrs. Maginska, he was not hidden from the “Nazis”— nowhere in Mrs. Maginska’s own ac count is this name even mentioned. He was a fugitive from the Germans. They, all of them, astonishing as this may seem, were bent upon his destruction. It is not a futile guess to say that had Wlodek been by chance discovered by a “good” German, his fate would have been sealed. HE author describes very succinctly and accurately the inner attitude of the Jews toward their tormentors in this way: The feeling we had for the Germans cannot be oversimplified into hatred. Hatred we felt, but the main emotion was terror. We couldn’t think of the Germans as human beings. They were mad dogs unaccountably loosed from the chains of history and moral ity. You don’t hate a beast of prey, you feel loathing and terror. We feared the Germans with a dread ful, paralyzing panic, stronger than the fear of our own death. . . One day a German came to take a Jewish child from its mother. When she pleaded for its life, he said: ‘If you can guess which of my eyes is artificial, I’ll give you the child.’ She looked intently at him and said: ‘The right one.’ ‘That is so, but how could you tell?’ he re plied. ‘It looks more human than the other one,’ the Jewish mother an swered. (pp. 102-3) Mark that Donat, who is far from generalizing, or from the thought of collective guilt, speaks about the Ger mans. He reports the facts only. And these were the facts.

Describing the Revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto, the author also speaks about “German units” or simply “the Ger mans.” We read: “The Germans showed their heroic qualities in dealing with the defenseless inhabitants of the ghetto hospital . , “Dozens of Germans per ished . . . ” (pp. 146-7) He would be grossly inaccurate had he written, as it is the habit of news papermen and spokesmen who have not been there, that the crimes were com mitted by Nazis only. The truth is that the non-Nazis far out-numbered the Nazis, and fully equalled them in cruelty, as everyone who was there can testify. Killing Jews was for them an end in itself, but millions were moved also by the desire of robbing the victims. Donat tells us of the beginning of the muchpraised “German economic miracle” in these words: Looted Jewish property was a mag net which attracted millions brought up in the belief in the myth of Jewish wealth. Every single family in the Reich or in the occupied countries had profited either directly or in directly from looting Jewish pos sessions. (p. 231) Again, no mention of Nazis, only Ger mans. We read also how the same Ger mans “changed” overnight after the defeat:“Every one of them was antiNazi; and no one, of course, had ever known anything about the most horrible of Nazi crimes. . . ” The author, strand ed at the end of the war in Germany, reports: “At the bottom the Germans did not feel guilty of the suffering and devastation they had inflicted . . . Their conscience did not give them any tor ment for the enormous crimes they had perpetrated; at bottom they had only one complaint against Hitler: that he had lost the war/1 (p. 291) 74

EADING “The Holocaust King dom” in 1965, we are struck by a contrast which emerges of itself. It is the contrast between this fervent zeal, the ferocious vehemence, and the S a tanic ingenuity with which the Germans of that time pursued the innocent Jew ish child, and the remarkable clumsi ness and inefficiency with which the Germans today are now “unable” to find and punish the most horrendous mass-murderers in the annals of man kind. Some uninitiated people may be dumbfounded by the relentlessness of the pursuit of Wlodek, as compared with the leniency toward the murderers. But for us there is no contradiction. When we read * Donat’s memoir we re-live the death of our people. But the German who reads this book cannot but feel an identity with the perpetrators of these crimes. Therefore, there is a great deal of naivete and even more of igno rance at play when certain professional statement-manufacturers call upon the Germans to identify themselves with the victims while their past and their whole essence are identified with the murderers. On page after page of this book a kaleidoscope of various Germans passes before our eyes, all ordinary, “nice” people, former and present businessmen, professionals, farmers, and laborers, all following obediently, but with special ardor of their own, the same path of sub human cruelty. We see the kings of “The Holocaust Kingdom” ruling with the rule of horror. And we see an entire people deeply and inextricably involved in this reign of horror, each of them in his own in human way, each according to his op portunity. Most of these people who ravaged Warsaw, the greatest Jewish community in Europe, I saw at work.

JEWISH LIFE

They are now again respected citizens of the “new” Germany—East and West. HE author maintains that Warsaw Jewry was victimized because it was leaderless, “a body without a head,” as he puts it. He attributes this situation to the “September 1939 exodus and subsequent migrations to the East.-’ Here, I must disagree. The best leaders inside the Ghetto could be of little help in these circumstances. Speaking of the Jewish Council in the Ghetto, the author testifies that they were “in the main decent men who honestly hoped to serve the Jewish community.” Yet these men, he says, “were to lead us along the torturous road to disaster.” Donat also asserts that “no one was eager to serve on it.” (p. 5) The fact is that the Jewish Council included two former members of the Polish Parliament, one of them the former chairman of the Association of Jewish Paliament Members, one future member of Israel’s Knesseth, and several former members of the Jewish Council, duly and democratically elect ed. But all of them were helpless. They hardly deserved the title of leadership, for they all were condemned before hand, together with their dear ones and their community. Therefore the question “Where were the Jewish lead ers?” is wrongly applied to these un fortunate people. It should rather be addressed to the leaders outside occupied Europe, in the Free World, who miser ably failed in their duty. The book deals mainly with the hard struggle for survival—which certainly mobilized most of the efforts. How ever even in those most trying conditions there was a rich spiritual life in all seg ments of the population. There were courses and classes for various studies.

Spring, 1965

There were lectures and other cultural events. But the religious Jews were particularly active in preserving their spiritual values, in learning and ob serving Torah commands with the greatest sacrifices and in the most ex acting circumstances filled with danger. They did not lose the sense of G-d’s image in man. Yet, nothing of this comes to light in “The Holocaust King dom.” Another shortcoming: The author judges very harshly the role of the Jewish policemen. His judgment is cer tainly justified. But he fails to specify who those policemen were, from what environment they came, what was their background in normal life. The fact is that they came from the assimilated, or as we say here, “totally integrated” elements, from the intelligentsia with little love or even less understanding of Jewishness. Most of them were law yers or members of other intellectual professions. They came from various segments, environments, and parties, except—the orthodox! There was not a single policeman who belonged to a religious party, congregation, or school. This telling fact, which no one familiar with thè subject can deny, is entirely absent from the otherwise scrupulously recorded account. Donat mentions quite often Dr. Heinz Auerswald, the German Comissar of the Warsaw Ghetto. This man, respon sible for entrapping the Jews in the net of the Ghetto and specifically guilty of personally sentencing to death four teen Jews caught outside the Ghetto, is again today the successful and respected lawyer in Hamburg that he had been before. The irrefutable evidence of his crimes and the testimony by some sur vivors, including myself, before the German authorities, did not in the 75

slightest affect his success or reputation in the eyes of his fellow citizens. Donat’s “Holocaust Kingdom” is in itself the most telling testimony, because the book is written with lucidity, and what is rather amazing in the circum stances, with a deliberate detachment such as would rather be expected of research work on an ancient epoch, or of a legal brief. But, in a certain way this book, for all its inherent drama, is a “legal brief.” For it is a powerful “J’accuse” — not against “Nazis” but against the Germans. And, the irrefut able indictment is not “composed” by the author but by the facts themselves. These facts, rendered in the fullness of their grisly details, yet with anger and anguish kept in check, establish with

For Your PASSOVER TABLE

Miller’s ©

Kosher

shattering conviction the truth that the cruelties and killings were committed not by a group or segment or gang minning amuck in outbreak of mass madness, but by an organized nation implementing an agreed national policy in full awareness of its acts. Therefore, when you finish 'the last page of this report on Germany, 1942, under the impact of the first page press reports on Germany, 1965, you cannot avoid the conclusion to which Donat’s memoir so inevitably points: Times may change, circumstances may alter, moods shift and sentiments vary, but the essential Ger man character remains the same. Out of “The Holocaust Kingdom” there echoes a cry of agony which rings as a warning against the New Germany.

THE FINEST WINES CHAMPAGNES AND LIQUORS The only wines and liquors,>famous since 1882 , produced in Richon_ Le-Zion and Zichron

é.

C H E E S E S AMERICAN

MEUNSTER

SWISS

GOUDA SMOKED

Available at Your Neighborhood Supermarket and Foodstore

Imported by . CARMEL WINE CO., INC. 114 E. 40th St., N.Y., N.Y. 10016

JEWISH LIFE

L e tte r s to th e E d ito r ITALIAN OF JEWISH FAITH

ABOAB'S BLUEPRINT

Encinitas, Calif. I wish to compliment Mr. Jacob Beller on his interesting and informative article about “The Italian Jewish Community of Today and Its Rich Past” (Nov.-Dee. ’64). Mr. Beller states that the Jews of Italy bore many similarities to German Jewry, referring to the term, “the long-settled aristocracy.” However, he fails to bring out the reason why the Ebreo called him self an “Italian of the Jewish faith.” The Jew of Italy was a forgotten Jew. There are many Jewish families, includ ing my own, which have and can trace their family geneology in Italy for some two thousand years or more. Since the world recognized Italy as the cradle and mother of Catholicism, and since the population of Italy is some ninety-seven per cent Catholic, the com munity of Jews became a forgotten one, not only to the Christians, but also to the Jew elsewhere. The fact that the Italian Jew did not migrate is also rel evant. It is not uncommon for me to hear people exclaim, “What, you are an Italian Jew? I didn’t think there were any Italian Jews!” Yes, we did believe that we were Italians of the Jewish faith. However, it was the Holocaust of World War II that woke us from the two thousand years of dreaming and made us realize that we were nothing more than Jews living in Italy. Dr. Hezekiah Ben-Joseph Ha-Alessio

Bayside, N. Y. I especially enjoyed the article by Rabbi Victor Solomon (Sept./Oct. ’64) on Isaac Aboab’s “Blueprint for Good Living.” Ethics is a subject which never interested me before, because I always thought of it as prosaic and boring. Rabbi Solomon has opened my eyes to the fresh and lively message which the subject can convey. What is more, he has shown that the old message oh Jew ish ethics is meaningful for our day and age. It is to be deplored that the Jewish book shelf on this subject is so bare of volumes to which the English-speaking Jew can turn for guidance. Since reading the article I have searched in vain for an English translation of the Menorath Hamaor. Can I hope that Rabbi Solo mon is preparing such a translation? Wallace Einstadt

Spring, 1965

To the best of our knowledge, there is at present no existing translation of Menorath Hamaor. However, Rabbi Sol omon is now working on a translation.— Editor Winnipeg, Manitoba Rabbi Solomon’s fine article was en lightening and helped to strengthen my pride in the richness of our Jewish heritage. The modern-day relevance of older teachings should be brought con stantly to the attention of our more skeptical brethren. Jessica Miller 77

BOY'S SUMMER TOURING-CAMP

ISRAEL BAR-MITZVAH GROUP-. AGES 13-14 SENIOR GROUP

- AGES 15-17

• ROUND TRIP TRANSPORTATION N.Y.C .ISRAEL • COMPLETE BIBLE TOUR OF ISRAEL

6 WEEKS • “ LIVING EXPERIENCE” PROGRAMS FOR A LL CAMPERS

JULYAUGUST

• HOBBIES • SPORTS - OUR OWN SWIMMING POOL

$895 TOTAL COST

"A SUMMER HOME IN OUR OWN HOMELAND"

FOR APPLICATIONS - INFORMATION CALL A L 5-1902 CAMP DAROMAH 84 FIFTH AVE., NEW YORK U , N. Y. Sponsored by RABBINICAL COUNCIL of AMERICA lit Cooperation with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregation of America C O-SPON SORED by T O R A H -C U LTU fiE D E P T , of T H E JEW ISH AGEN C Y Endorsed by Religious Zionists of America and National Council of Young Israel Mizrachi Women’ s/ Organization • Women’ s Branch U .O .J .C .A .

CAMP DAROMAH 84 5th Awe., N. Y. 11, N. Y.

Gentlemen: Kindly send full information about your Boy's Summer Touring Camp in Israel. n a m e .................................................... -•v - r t

ADDRESS.............................................

.aft # - -

-r

PROPHETS OF DOOM

JL: PRO AND CON

New York, N. Y. Recently I read articles by so-called intellectuals prophesying the doom of Judaism. Intellectual honesty demands that a writer be well informed on the subject on which he writes. How much knowledge of Jews and Judaism do these writers have? I doubt that these prophets of doom ever studied Talmud, or whether they have studied the works of such giants of Jewish thought as Yehudah Halevi, Ibn Gabirol, Rambam, Ramban, Levi Ben Gerson, Yoseph Albo, or of the great Jewish teachers of later genera tions. If they have not, then on what au thority do they base their “prophesies”? In my opinion, these “Jewish intel lectuals” predict the doom of Judaism because their wish is father to their thought. Being Jewishly ignorant, they are ashamed of being Jews and hence want Judaism to disappear. Let me quote, in this connection, a noted scholar of non-Jewish origin who, after having studied for the priesthood, was drawn to Judaism, made a deep study of it and eventually embraced our faith—Emil Palliere. Addressing himself to Jews of the type of the prophets of doom referred to, Palliere says:

Baltimore, Md. We are planning to use J e w is h L if e extensively in our senior high school for the purpose of acquainting our students with current issues on the Jewish scene. We have always found your magazine highly informative and inspiring, and we believe that it will provide a worthwhile background in many areas of study, both religiously and intellectually. Rabbi Benjamin Steinberg Bais Yaakov School for Girls

You have a great treasure; either you do not know anything about it, or else you do not know how to make use of it, and not only do you leave it unproductive, but at times you are consciously closing your eyes not to see the hand of G-d in Jewish history. When are you going to become con scious of the great treasure that G-d has given you as a heritage from your ancestors? Dr. Abraham Lebow Spring, 1965

Margate, N. J. Your magazine is a gem. I wish every Jew would read it—it would be so en lightening. As a matter of fact, it would be a good idea for every non-Jew to read it too! Sylvia Slotoroff Brooklyn, N. Y. There is a need to make Orthodoxy more widely known. Our Jewish youth, unfortunately, are being bombarded con stantly with all sorts of alien ideologies and philosophies from their college pro fessors as well as news media. They are being misled and torn away from Juda ism, and they cannot be blamed, for how are they to know the meaning and teachings of Orthodoxy if they were never made available to them? Surely, Orthodoxy has something to offer these people, but unfortunately there is no publication in English which promulgates our message. What is needed is a magazine which will present Ortho doxy in an undiluted form, which will give the Torah approach and Torah an swers to current communal and world problems. J e w is h L if e , in my opinion (and this is the point of this letter), is sterile and barren of ideas and an79

swers. It seems to avoid all controversy (with exceptions, of course) and certain ly projects no image of any kind of Torah message. Surely Orthodoxy must have something to say about current is sues, but it would be impossible to deter mine what they are from J e w is h L i f e . Most of the articles are of general na ture and their messages are not specifi cally orthodox and are not particularly controversial. To remedy this I suggest: 1 ) Throw open J e w is h L if e to con

troversy. Let problems be discussed and remove the bland staleness from its pages. Let it come forth with boldness on all matters affecting our people. 2) The magazine must come out more often than once in two months. Why not once in two weeks? 3) The editorials of J e w is h L if e are good but comment on too few issues. Why not expand the editorials, allowing them to be more outspoken on many more issues? Abraham Frank

T H E A I R C O N D I T IO N E D

Waldman I H O TEL

I STRICTLY KOSHER CUISINE»

ALBERT WOOD & FIVE SONS.« PORT WASHINGTON I I* NEW YORK

ONLY G LATT MEATS Served in the WALDMAN Manner g under ( § ) Supervision

^ d a i l y per person double occupancy June 29 to Sept. 6

[fascinating "Information

INCLUDING MEALS S P E C IA L

| Machine" at IBM’s

HONEYMOON RATES *40 of 140 rooms

World’s Fair Pavilion p| 11

• WIENER ROASTS • MOVIES, ENTERTAINMENT • TV IN EVERY ROOM • PRIVATE BEACH • POOL

Counselor Supervised Programs for Tots & Teens

NEW YORK

JU 2 -2 2 7 7 «

or C O :5 -5 7 0 5 m

JEWISH LIFE

BEFORE THE SEARCH FOR CHOMETZ... USE THESE FINE PASSOVER PRODUCTS

and JOYOUS HOLIDAY WISHES TO ALL

from

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE

Certified Kosher-Parve for Passover by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

As Passover approaches, please rem em ber:-

We make this annual statement to clear up any misunderstanding that may arise as a result of our advertising of Varieties in this publication during the rest of the year. t------ z_

(0) A Happy Passover to you! * H .J.H e in z Com pany'^/