Jewish Life July-Aug 1966 by Jewish Action

fifflliS

A SYM PO SIUM : IS T H ER E A N E E D F O R R E L IG IO U S, P A R T IE S ? A N O N -P O L IT IC A L RE L IG IO U S M O VEM ENT IN ISR A E L — IS IT D E S IR A B L E ? TH E IM M INENCE

•

W ITH A N A M ER IC A N A C C E N T

SC IE N C E A N D O UR S A G E S

•

AV-ELUL 5726 JULY-AUGUST 1966

TH E M OCATTA LIBR A R Y

Announcement

68th Anniversary Biennial N ational Convention OF THE

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America will be held AT THE Shoreham Hotel in WASHINGTON, D.C. on Wednesday, November 23—Sunday, November 27, 1966 Kislev 10 to Kislev 14, 5727 • PLEASE RESERVE THESE DATES Thanksgiving Week . . . in the Nation*s Capital.

Vol. XXXIII, No. 6/July-August 1966/Av-Elul 5726

lei^nsh

rra THE EDITOR’S VIEW THE WJC WORD FROM BRU SSELS...................... 4

S aul B ernstein , Editor R abbi S. J. Sharfman L ibby K laperman P aul H. B aris

Editorial Associates

ARTICLES A NON-POLITICAL RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT IN ISRAEL— IS IT DESIRABLE?/Samson R. Weiss 9

D vora M inder

Editorial Assistant JEWISH LIFE is published bi-monthly. Subscription two years $4.50, three years $6.00, four years $7.50. Foreign: Add 25 cents per year. Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York 10011, N. Y. ALgonquin ¡5-4100 Published by U nion of O rthodox Jewish C ongregations of A merica

IS THERE A NEED FOR RELIGIOUS PARTIES?/ Walter S. Würzburger ............................ SCIENCE AND OUR SAGES/Samuel W. Spero

... .21

WITH AN AMERICAN ACCENT/Bernard Knieger .. .31 THE IMMINENCE/Elkanah Sch w a rtz................... 36 THE MOCATTA LIBRARY/Harry Rabinowlcz ..........43

BOOK REVIEWS A TWO-CONTINENTAL RABBINIC PERSPECTIVE/ Gilbert Klaperman ......................................51

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; Joel Schneierson, Treasurer; Herzl Rosenson, Secretary; David Politi, Fi nancial Secretary.

DEPARTMENTS AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS

....................... 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ............................... 55

Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President Saul Bernstein, Administrator

Cover and inside illustrations by Alan Zwiebel. Drawing on page 16 by David Adler.

July-August, 1966

Order

now

fo r yourself

—

your friends

—

your congregation

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

HANDSOMELY BOUND IN RED LEATHERETTE UOJCA/84 Fifth Avenue/New York, N.Y. 10011 Please enter my order(s) for ...................... UOJCA Pocket Calendar-Diaries for 1966/67-5727 as follows:

.............. individual name gpld-stamped at $1.00 each ...............individual uninscribed copy at $.75 each .............. inscribed congregational bulk order at $.70 each plus $3.50 per order; (Minimum order, 25 copies.) IMPRINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Send to: N a m e ..... .................... ......................................... jj.......,......... ................................... L .J ji A ddress.............;........................i .........................r ....................

......

C ity ............................................ .......... .................^ tate ...........................Z ip C ode.

All orders must be prepaid.

JEWISH LIFE

RABBI WALTER S. WURZBURGER, spiritual.leader' of

Congregation Shaarei Shomayim in Toronto, is also Editor of Tradition, distinguished quarterly published by the Rab binical Council of America. His articles have appeared in both philosophic and Anglo-Jewish periodicals. Rabbi Wurzburger received his Master’s degree and Doctorate in Philosophy from Harvard University and is a musmach of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. One of orthodox Jewry’s outstanding thinkers and ideolo gists, DR. SAMSON R, WEISS is the Executive VicePresident of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions of America. Reared in Europe, Dr. Weiss received Semichah at the historic Mir Yeshivah in Poland and served as Dean of the Jewish Teachers College in Wuerz burg, Germany, before coming to the United States in 1944. His writings include the oft-quoted “Hashkofah” series of essays which appeared in Jewish L if e . DR. HARRY RABINQWICZ has brought to our readers

among

our contributors

the fascinating histories of various archives and libraries in England. After taking us through the British Museum, Bodleian and John Rylands Libraries and the Sassoon Treasures, our readers will explore in this issue the valu able Mocatta Library. A resident of London, Dr. Rabinowicz is a musmach of Jews’ College and received a Ph.D. degree from London University. SAMUEL W. SPERO substantiates his thesis that an ortho dox Jew has a role tq play in the field of science in his “$cience and Our Sages.” After studying at Yeshivath Telz in Cleveland, Mr. Spero pursued his secular studies at Case Institute of Technology. He holds a B.S. degree in Physics, an M.S. degree in Applied Mathematics, and an M.A. degree in the History of Science from that school. RABBI ELKANAH SCHWARTZ marks his second ap pearance in Jewish L ife with another personal experience article, “The Imminence.” His work has been published in several periodicals. Rabbi Schwartz is a graduate of Mesivta Rabbi Chaim Berlin and of Brooklyn College and is pursuing doctoral studies at New York University. DR. BERNARD KNIEGER is a native of New York City

and moved to Israel in 1963. He is a lecturer in English and American Literature at the Haifa University Institute and the author of various articles in the field of literature. A recent work on symbolism in the poetry of George Hubert appeared in ‘‘Studies in English Literature.” Dr. Knieger holds a Ph.D. degree from Harvard University. July-August, 1966

THE EDITOR S VIEW The WJC Word From Brussels HE Brussels assembly of the World Jewish Congress, re cently concluded, has further enhanced the repute of this influential “umbrella” organization for earnestness of commit ment. Reports of returned participants and the proceedings ma* terials make evident, too, the high intellectual level of the delib erations. As an international forum for widely representative Jewish opinions, the WJC assembly has again demonstrated its worth. In doing so it has underscored the potential of WJC for collective Jewish spokesmanship. Beyond that, the Congress offers promise of serving as means of collaborative effort in creative Jewish work on the world scene. It is in fact the present aspiration of WJC leadership to re fashion the Congress into a central medium, perhaps the medium, for the regeneration of Jewish life throughout the world. This is a large ambition indeed. Such a purpose must not only be geared to widest vistas, it must be charged with the very fire of the Jewish spirit if it is to bear fruit. What emerged from the Brussels assembly, however, though broad in scope, was suggestive of raked-over embers rather than of living flame. As epitome of its searching of mind and soul, the assembly finally proferred the Jewish world a call for “the launching of a cultural offensive to face up to the spiritual dilemmas of our days.” In view of the composite makeup of the World Jewish ConOld Stancef gress and of the character of its able leadership, it was hardly Changed to be expected that this gathering would be the birthplace of a Format transcendent vision, or of great new ideas, or of a profoundly evocative approach to Jewish needs and goals. The idea-patterns for which the Congress has hitherto been the vehicle have been superseded by history; the situations to which they were ad dressed have been annulled by events. The idea-patterns are obsolete, the situations are gone, but the impress of both re-

JEWISH LIFE

mains. Human limitations being what they are, it could be an ticipated that in seeking a fresh approach the WJC should strive rather to update attitudes born of a past era than to free itself from them. And this, apparently, is what has transpired. OW illustrative of the very malady to which it is addressed is the WJC prescription for its cure. Whatever the World Jewish Congress may envisage as the “culture” they propose to engender, it seems to have overlooked the fact that culture, however defined, is the product, not the producer, of life. The Jewish “spiritual dilemmas of our days” are all too clearly those resulting from severance from the roots of Jewish life—Torah, Emunah. With the most laudable intent, the WJC has grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is not difficult to understand why the proposed refuah is conceived and formulated in “culture” terms. The more Jewish life is drained of living content, the more those who are Jewishly deprived seek to fill the spiritual void from other sources. Cul ture, modern culture, becomes the prized goal. And surely cul ture, bespeaking a higher, a more enlightened quality of life, is a fine thing. What Jew may be so benighted as to oppose cul ture? Whoso has his meed of culture merits esteem. And if Popular culture as such is a fine thing, then Jewish culture is a fine thing Prescription too. And when you view the Jewish scene, as the World Jewish Congress so percipiently does, and see wide areas of sheer blight, seeing too that countless Jews have no vestige of Jewish culture at all, then the conclusion is clear that Jew minus Jewish culture makes Jewish zero. It follows, by the same logic, that Jew plus Jewish culture makes—“survival.” Then surely the task at hand is to bring on the Jewish culture, pour it on with a will, stint not of effort and means, use every channel. On with the cultural offensive! But—culture, any culture, may be no more made to sprout without living roots than hair can be grown on a bald head. A peoplês’ culture— “the complex of distinctive attainments, beliefs, traditions, etc., constituting the background of a racial, religious, or social group,” as one dictionary definition has it— emanates from that people’s source of being. It is distilled from living waters. The culture of the Jewish people is not, cannot be, other than the fructification of its inner life, springing from its essential self. This essential self was begotten, not acquired; and it is unique. To be, it must fulfill its unique purpose. Its culture is the conscious, creative expression of that purpose.

July-August, 1966

n P H E R E is the possibility to be considered that in characterizing its program as cultural offensive the World Jewish Congress has resorted to euphemism. Perhaps pareve terminology is being employed—in view of the diversity of outlooks which must be catered to—to give neutral garb to authentically Jewish terms of reference. In favor of this “perhaps” is the Congress promise of stress on Jewish education, including day schools, yeshivoth, and other Torah institutions, of focus on youth, of a spiritual drive. But unfortunately the context of this promise does not offer much encouragement for the supposition that behind the cultural label lies a fundamental approach to the fundamentals of Jewish life. It is all too apparent that in the present Congress formulation of values, the Judaism of the Torah is but an aspect-—one among many—of Jewish culture, rather than its substance. The order of values is inverted. The order of priorities, in actual practice, follows suit! That this is the case is evidenced from the activities of am Memorial agency integral with the World Jewish Congress—the Memorial Foundation Foundation for Jewish Culture. Headed and fully controlled by Pattern the same figure who heads the Congress* the indefatigable Dr. Nahum Goldmann, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture is in effect the fiscal arm of WJC. Successor to the Claims Con ference—also headed by Dr. Goldmann—the Foundation has at its disposal an initial nest egg of ten millions of dollars of reparations funds, and further funds, on at least equal scale, are planned to be brought to its disposal. Since its establishment in 1964 the Foundation has established a pattern of allocations unmistakably parallel to that of the Claims Conference, and in this, as is so well known, the Torah world Was the scorned step child. During the past year the Memorial Foundation has dis tributed allocations totalling over $1,000,000. Pittances of trif ling amounts have been given to Torah institutions and causes. The rest of the money—the great bulk of it—has gone to various newly conceived agencies and institutions, Reform semi naries, and “culture” confections. If this is to be the way in which the cultural offensive is to be translated into action, there can be little grounds for belief that it really Constitutes a pro gram to generate Jewish life from the roots up. OMPELLING reasons can be adduced for wider participation by Torah forces in both the World Jewish Congress and the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture. Should these reasons prevail, it is essential that the participation be on a basis 6

JEWISH LIFE

which will assure the effective Reversal of the order of values and priorities which presently prevail in these two key agencies Orthodox of world Jewry. Failing this, the presence and the weight of Participation Orthodoxy in these councils will be at best a matter of garnering crumbs, at worst a sanction for grand-scale dissipation not only of Jewish resources but of Jewish purpose. Though opening a wider door for Orthodoxy’s participation, the Brussels assembly of the World Jewish Congress failed to go beyond what could be expected from its current direction. But what is, reasonably, to be expected is one thing and what is, less reasonably but humanly and Jewishly, to be hoped for is something else again. Realism could not extinguish the hope that in this age of soul-shaking experience such an assemblage of clear voices would find higher voice. The hope is dashed, yet it persists. The World Jewish Congress is too great a potential ity to remain locked within the conceptual compass of “cultural offensive.” Its opportunity, its responsibilities, are too historic to be expended on anything less dr anything other than the key task of our time. It must perceive Jewish truth and mount a pro gram that will bring the truth of Jewish life to Jewish lives everywhere. Therein the Congress will fulfill the role which Divine Providence has offered it.

— m

July-August, 1966

b .

Establishment of the Jewish State made mandatory a resolution of the question thrust upon Jewry by the modern era: Is the Jew Torah man, or is he just man among man; are Jews the People of the Covenant, or just people among people? In its varied manifestations, the question has conditioned Jewish life and af fairs the world over through the past two centuries and more. In its Eretz Yisroel dimension, the question finds no room for equivocation. There, it must be dealt with definitively. Each passing day, then, brings new eruptions of this primary issue. Awakening to the categorical imperatives of the concept “Jewish State” some Israelis feel that they got much more than they bargained for and strive to dilute the concept or reduce it to non-Torah terms. But categorical imperatives can be neither evaded nor diminished, nor yet expunged. The issue facing Israel is not one of finding “the role of Torah” but of finding the role of the Jew. These being still the formative years of Medinath Israel, the pattern of life now being shaped will determine its ultimate character. Too, it will have decisive influence on the direction and content of Jewish life everywhere. The issue is fundamental for every Jew. How, within these terms of reference, can Torah objectives best be pursued in Israel? What of the role of the religious parties? Shall religious forces focus all effort on them? Or, is a new medium, completely divorced from the political arena, needed for an effective approach to Israelis at large? These and related questions are examined from given points of view by Dr. Samson R. Weiss and Dr. Walter S. Würzburger in the two articles appearing in the following pages. Symposium presenta tionsjj on the same topic were given at the recent national con vention of the Rabbinical Council of America by the afore mentioned,who at our invitation then further developed their theses for publication here -------Editor

JEWISH LIFE

A Non-Political Religious Movem ent in Israel—Is It Desirable? By SAMSON R. WEISS

HE political struggle in Israel is not merely a conflict between the protagonists of different political or economic systems, as in other demo cratic countries such as the United States or Great Britain. In these lands the political parties compete for votes and power in order that the nation’s civic order and its relationships with other states shall be regulated in ac cordance with their respective views and tenets. However, the national pur pose and the national essence are not part of the political conflict. On the contrary, all political parties claim to bespeak this essence and to serve this purpose best This is not so in Israel. There, the ongoing struggle deals with political and economic issues merely on the surface. While these issues are impor tant and while decisions on them have far-reaching consequences for the lives of the individual citizens, for commerce and industry, for foreign relations and the security of the State and its inhabitants, they are not the sum-total of the political debate. The conflicting views expressed in this de bate are the consequences and the

July-August, 1966

outgrowth of one crucial, underlying issue, often obscured yet always pres ent. It is on this underlying issue that the Israeli citizen in reality casts his vote. This issue is the definition of the concept of Jewish peoplehood. Every subsequent choice of political nature inexorably flows from and is condi tioned by this core decision, f t per vades and substantially alters the at titudes of men who are outwardly and quite erroneously subsumed under the same political denominator. An Is raeli Socialist remains essentially un defined by this name, as remains an Israeli Liberal or Conservative. Cer tainly in other countries too shades and variations of doctrine are found among Laborites and Socialists, among Conservatives and Liberals. However, one can correctly state that these shades and variations are minor in comparison to the basic ideological delineation implied by these terms. Not so in Israel. N ISRAEL, these differences are not merely variations on the same theme. The religious Socialist is

farther apart from the secular So cialist than he is from the religious capitalist. In the inner, essential pre cincts of hi& soul and of his freedom, he is much closer to the observant Jew, of whatever political denomina tion, than he can possibly be to his a-religious or anti-religious fellowSocialist with whom he is outwardly identified by this political or economic term. Still, he may vote for him under the pressure of political or economic problems affecting Israel, disregard ing in the voting booth the deeper and more decisive issues at stake. And precisely therein lies the dilemma of religion, of Torah, in today’s Israel. Under the stress and strain to which the young State and its inhabitants are exposed, internally and externally, it is not easy to decide against today’s tangible benefit for the sake of an idea, of a concept. Jobs and job security, shelter and food for the family are the immediate concern. To opt on the basis of an ideological divergency against those who are in a position to provide them, is demanding an al most super-human sacrifice. Also, a great number of votes tend to go to the party whose leadership is believed to be best equipped to deal with the constant threat of Arab hostility. The average Israeli voter is likely to con sider Israel’s protection and security the overriding issue, as long as this threat persists. Under the compulsion, then, of the tangible and immediate needs surface identities become the norm. It is on them that the public debate centers, and whenever religious demands be come part of this debate they are treated and dealt with in the political manner. That means that they are ex posed to the political rough and tum ble in which political leverage, coali 10

tion considerations, and the number of votes in the Knesseth become de cisive. They become equated in the public mind with, for instance, de mands for higher wages or shorter hours by labor groups, demands for protective tariffs by industry, and more favorable export exchange rates by commerce. And such an equation is fatal, relegating, as it does, the sphere of religion and its compelling postu late to a framework of thought and action which can neither do it justice nor possibly contain it. The loss of the conscious adherence to a concept ual position and identification is the direct consequence. OWTragic to observe this pattern H which has reduced adherence to Torah to a political position and the three religious parties in Israel to not much more than special interest groups whose power depends in the main on the political constellation. No one can deny that this power would be further reduced were there no need to bolster the Knesseth majority by a more comfortable margin. There can be little doubt that this unfortunate posture of religion in Israel’s public life is responsible to a high degree for the specter of a footloose youth bereft of idealism and higher purpose, filling the emptiness of their days with shallow pleasure, engaged in a shallow imitative pattern utterly foreign to what was heretofore universally re garded as the Jewish spirit. Many Israeli non-religious educators and political leaders sensitive to the changing texture of Israel’s social fab ric have come to recognize that the a-religious or anti-religious programs of the ruling parties do not provide the inspirational basis on which alone youth can build lasting loyalties. NaJEWISH LIFE

tionalism without national traditions and national values is meaningless. Ben-Gurion’s leap from the T ’nach to the declaration of Israel’s inde pendence, negating two-and-a-half millenia of Jewish creative and heroic existence, is a preposterous absurdity. The fascism of the K’naanim, denying the brotherhood of the Jewish people to all those living outside of the State of Israel, is a bitter blasphemy, a de nial of all the factors of Jewish en durance. The attempt now going on to re-write Jewish history, in order to provide Israel’s non-religious schools with textbooks in which this endur ance is made plausible in purely sec ular terms, is a sinister manipulation. Substituting for the classic heroes of the Jewish spirit and for the motiva tion of faith and other figures and other motives, it brings to mind meth ods engaged in by totalitarian regimes. Last Chanukah, a leading non religious Israeli journalist, Shmuel Schnitzer, writing for the non-religious daily Maariv, entitled his column A l Hanissim V ’al Hasinah— “for the mir acles and for the hatred”—speculat ing on what would happen to an ex ponent of the Maccabean spirit in to day’s Israel. How, in modern Israel, would a Matithyohu fare battling for the Temple and its worship, for Kashruth and the Sabbath, fighting against the idol and the swine and against the hedonism and the moral license of contemporary civilization? He stated there is no country today in which the observers of the Torah tenets are ridiculed and persecuted with the exception of Russia and— Israel. T IS a dry fact that Shomrey Shabboth workers are disadvantaged in many industries which, by decision of

July-August, 1966

a small government committee and without any rabbinic permission, keep their plants operating on the Sabbath. Fresh in our minds is the scandal of the Port of Ashdod which was idle for many months in the wake of a wage dispute but where work on Shabboth was declared “essential.” With one exception, when a fatality oc curred, the religious parties were un able to bring about any meaningful discussion of police brutality against Sh’mirath Shabboth demonstrators* in spite of facts beyond any dispute. However, there was an immediate in quiry when a small measure of this brutality was displayed against stu dents protesting the recent Adenauer visit. The inference of this juxtapo sition is painfully clear. Likewise, the political parties have been unable to effectuate any change of the official permissiveness which alone makes possible the free sway of missionary activities in Israel. The Keren Kayemeth has given valuable tracts of land to the missions. Is it for this purpose that we redeemed it? Jewish children enrolled in mission ary schools, not officially recognized by the government and not abiding by the curriculum which the Ministry of Education imposes upon all Israeli schools, somehow escape the truancy law. Beyond that, some of these schools receive government stipends on a per capita basis per enrolled child. That children educated in these schools will not develop into loyal Israeli citizens, is obvious. That they will form a festering sore on the body politic, is inevitable. That members of some missionary sect, calling them selves “Messianic Jews,” are per mitted to retain their official registra tion as members of the Jewish faith, in spite of the fact that they venerate II

the trinity, bespeaks a frightening in sensitivity to the danger of internal corrosion, even abstract from all re ligious considerations. All this symptomic of this one great issue at stake, namely the definition of Jewish peoplehood. Can there be a Jewish people with out Torah? Are the State and even the nation ends in themselves or are they to be the vessels fof a specific spiritual content whose loss would render valueless these vessels them selves? Is Yisroel the “Am Nivra,” a Divinely created entity distinct and apart from all other nations, chosen to be a “Goy Kodosh,” a depository of Divine sanctity, and a “Mamlecheth Kohanim,” a kingdom of spiritual no bility in whose very existence the Di vine Presence becomes undeniable? Is this concept of “Knesseth Yisroel” to be verified or denied by independence/ and statehood? Will this independence and this statehood reflect the “Malchuth Shomayim,” the Kingdom of Heaven, which Torah calls upon each Jew to represent? Or shall we find fulfillment of Jewish destiny in becoming the “Belgium of the Middle East,” a Mediterranean state groping for a new soul and a new purpose, playing a new instrument in the sym phony of nations, discarding the soul which sustained us and made mean ingful all our sufferings until now, and sweeping aside our age-hallowed in strument? Shall we be satisfied to sal vage from our previous cognitions and sanctities just those which do not com pel us to the performance of any clearly defined, obligatory individual and collective deeds, a few remnants which we can easily accommodate and combine with the prevalent values of what is commonly referred to as Judaic-Christian civilization? Or shall 12

we rather endeavor to retain both our meta-physical and meta-historical iden tity vouchsafed by Torah? Can there be any continuation of Jewish history by a Jewish people giving up this identity? Has one left the Jewish people by embracing Chris tianity or Islam or Buddhism? And, conversely, can one become a Jew by declaration, without the acceptance of the discipline and the obligation of Torah? Can we think of a Jewish peo ple and of a Jewish State the religion of whose members and citizens is no longer of any moment and any con sequence to this people and to this State? The furor created on both sides by the “Who Is a Jew” inquiry of Ben-Gurion should indicate that these are not idle questions and bring home to all of us the impending threat. FTTHERE can be no doubt anymore JL that the secularization of the con cept of Jewish peoplehood is the pro grammatic intent of the non-religious parties. Until they and their programs appeared on the Jewish scene, the covenantal relationship o f the people of Israel with the G-d of Israel was unquestioned as the essential, basic, all-permeating substance of Jewish existence and Jewish peoplehood. We conceived of ourselves as “Thy peo ple, the sons of Thy Covenant,” a Covenant binding upon us and our progeny and all those who choose to join us. Dating back to the origin of our people, to Abraham, and reaf firmed on Sinai, this Covenant was heretofore disputed and rejected only by our enemies and persecutors and by the Church which theologically could npt digest the fact of Israel’s choice and therefore declared itself its successor. However, the Jewish people always knew that neither failure nor JEWISH LIFE

transgression, be it of the few or of the many, has ever terminated this Covenant with Israel’s G-d Whose Oneness we manifested in the glory of existence and the martyrdom of death. Shall millennia of our steadfastness in the crucible of hatred and unspeakable sufferings now come to nought?—for we are told that what is being written now is not a new chapter of Jewish history but rather a new book, and being written by a new Jewish people which has cut the umbilical cord with the Jewish past. These are the awesome alternatives for which thfe Israeli citizen must opt, obscured as they may be by the sur face issues presented to him at elec tion time. And the heartbreaking truth is that all too few are possessed of the requisite knowledge to exercise an intelligent option. All too few have ever been spoken to in these terms on the essence of our peoplehood. They are ignorant of the reality of a Torah existence built on this essence. To them, the Halochah is all stricture, chain, and burden. No one has ever transmitted to them the sense of joy, of freedom, of vision, the M ’eyn Olom Haba of Dveykuth Ba Shem, of iden tification with the Almighty. Un known to them is the radiance of a life of observance, a life of Ve’holachto Bid’rochov, of walking in His ways. They have never experienced the soul-soaring elation and the bliss of Avodah, of service, which per meates all the minutiae of existence. O many a young man or woman who has grown up in modern T Israel, in a Mapai or Mapam kibbutz or even in a city, observance and superstition are well nigh identical. They have seldom, if ever, entered a synagogue. The Jewish ritual is to July-August, 1966

them a mystery filling them with atavistic fear, fear which often turns into hatred. They identify Halachic Judaism with the Goluth, with the darkness from which the Jewish peo ple has now finally emerged and from which it must shake itself loose, at any price, to join the family of na tions. Thus, a young Israeli of this type, having spent his formative years in the atmosphere of the young State in which religion from the very begin ning has been a political issue, is lack ing the fundamental ingredients for the knowledgeable and intelligent ex ercise of this option which is so de termining for the future of the State and the people. A generation or two ago, even those who rejected the dis cipline of Torah and Halochah moved within an authentic Jewish terminol ogy, Their idiom was that of the Shtetel whence most of Israel’s “Vatikim” came. Their minuth, their apikursuth, was, so to speak, indig enous, “Yiddishlech.” They, at least, had some knowledge of and a feeling for what they rejected. This is no longer so today. The present genera tion of Jewish secularists is profoundly ignorant of the aspirations and the mentality of the Torah Jew and of his concept of Jewish peoplehood. The Torah Jew believes that every Jew, and not only he and his family and his party, must live by Torah and that only as a people of the Torah shall we bring about the ultimate Re demption for the House of Israel and the entire world. Therefore we must address ourselves to the problem of these lost souls who are bereft of any Torah concept. We must do so not only in self-defense, but primarily be cause they are our obligation, our burden, and, indeed, our failure. Be13

lieving, as we do, that a Jew gains the merit of life in this world and the immortality of soul in the World to Come by the study and the practice of Torah, our obligation to them is in escapable. Their “rejection” of Torah (as the Chazon Ish, of blessed mem ory, points out in a classic footnote to Maimonides’ Yad Hachazokah, Hilchoth Mamrim, 3, 3) does not constitute minuth in the halachic sense because rejection presupposes knowledge. Therefore, we are bidden to extend to them all possible love and guidance. NQUESTIONABLY, without the religious parties in Israel the sit uation would be much worse. The relevance of Torah to contemporary existence would lack that measure of manifestation which these parties, their kibbutzim, and their institutions provide. To demonstrate this relevance and to evidence the ability to apply the eternal principles of the Halochah to the effervescent reality is of para mount importance, especially in the young State which is experimenting and groping for new patterns in so many areas. A kibbutz and an institu tion, run efficiently and productively while strictly adhering to the Halo chah, have an unexcelled persuasive ness. The grandeur of the halachic existence finds fullest expression in that it relates itself compassionately to the reality, that it masters and directs this reality, seeking neither to deny it nor to escape from it. The eternity of an idea, within the human frame of reference, is proven by its pertinence to the “now” and not by its expected impact on the unknown tomorrow. Even the Messianic future is attain able in the now. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as the Talmud relates (Shab-

both, 98a), is told upon his inquiry that Moshiach will come today and Elijah the Prophet refers him to the verse of Scripture “Today—if you but hearken to His voice” (Psalms, 95). It is Bileam who speaks of the Redeemer and the redemption in the terms of the dim future: ^T see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh” (B’midbor 24:17). True, we are not too well prepared, in spite of the religious parties, to manage a modern State and society in uncompromising adherence to the Halochah. If the religious parties were suddenly to gain the majority in the next Israeli election, Torah Jewry in Israel would face tremendous problems. However, without the re ligious parties, these problems would be substantially enlarged and aggra vated. Would that these problems were already upon us! There is within the orthodox Yishuv of Israel and among the orthodox Jewrys in the Diaspora enough talent and enough perseverence to perform quite credit ably and, to say the least, on a par with the present leadership of the State which, by the way, must also still draw considerable manpower for key positions from the Diaspora com munities. The importance of religious parties in Israel cannot reasonably be argued. Their loss of influence or their abol ishment would be a veritable calam ity. One may speak for or against par ticipation of religious parties in a co alition government. One may criticize a religious party or all religious par ties in certain aspects of their re spective programs and activities. How ever, the voice Of Torah and its in fluence on the political life of Israel and its citizenry would be gravely im periled, if not stilled, were it not poJEWISH LIFE

litically represented through the in strumentality of political parties. UT the point at issue is whether any religious party can bring about a solution to the problem out lined above and perform the inexor able duty of Torah Jewry to gain the acceptance of its concept of Jewish peoplehood by the masses of those who are utterly estranged from it. And to this the answer is “no.” They cannot. By their very nature, by their very function, by their very activity in the political arena they suffer this limitation. Israel’s religious parties necessarily approach a person as a voter. He is either for or against them. He is either ally or foe. Even were they to attempt to propagate the cause of Torah free from any ulterior party motives among the non-religious ele ment, under the prevailing political climate they would be suspect and consequently the effectiveness of such efforts would be minimal at best. They can propagate Torah concepts only by indirection, by their example and their performance, by being on the scene, but not by any systematic and sus tained program directed at the un committed. The very party label af fixed to such a program would miti gate against it and prevent the in tended beneficiary from an objective examination and consideration of its contents.

N THE last Israeli election, approx imately 80% of the voters did not vote for a religious party. A great number of these voters nevertheless belong to the Torah camp. They keep the Sabbath. They would not touch non-kosher food. And* most impor-

JuSy-August, 1966

tant, they give their children a Torah education by enrolling them in relig ious schools and sending them to yeshivoth. However, these personally observant non-religious voters con stitute hardly any religious force and do not impress themselves upon the State as any religious factor. They have no voice and no spokesmanship, neither on the municipal nor on the State level. Still, we cannot possibly accept the proposition that this group, whose numerical strength exceeds the total of all religious voters as every body in Israel agrees, should be con demned to that kind of spiritual impo tence. Torah Jewry also cannot possibly accept the proposition that the non observant voters and their families must, forfend, be declared as lost for Torah. If the religious parties cannot reach them, we must find other ave nues for their approach and ready other vehicles for the transport and the transfer of Torah values to them. Clearly, then, the need of Israel’s hour is the establishment of a suprapolitical instrumentality, of a non-po litical movement which would consti tute the bridge between the Torah and the large masses of Israeli citizens. This movement must have no other purpose than to foster and to culti vate Torah life, to articulate the defi nition of Jewish peoplehood in Torah terms and to postulate the Jewish pur pose for the individual and for the Jewish society. Such a movement would provide the means for meaning ful activity and expression for all observant Israeli Jews regardless of their political vote and affiliation. It would also provide an entry, now so sadly lacking, into the camp of the non-observant. 15

VK7TSDOM would dictate that the tt leaders of the religious parties not oppose the creation of such a movement but on the contrary give it all possible support. They must, however, exercise great self-restraint and bring to bear the necessary mea sure of unselfishness to desist from the attempt to gain any control over this movement, lest it suffer the dis abilities of their respective political parties. While obviously a decade or two of non-political activities of such a Torah movement could result in a great increase of the religious vote, this ought to be considered only as a by-product, important as it may be. The overriding aim of such a move ment, to be retained in unchanged and pristine purity, must be exclusively one: to reunite the individual Jew with his G-d, to bring him into the shelter of His Shechinah and to ac quaint him with the requisite knowl edge for a life of Torah and Mitzvoth. The efforts to inspire him to this life will be successful if every facet of

the program of this movement be speaks an unconditioned, unselfish Ahavath Yisroel. Who shall organize such a move ment and who would form its nucleus? Should it possibly center around the thousands of Battey Knesseth and Battey Medrash, the synagogues of Israel, and thus add to them a new and vital dimension? What program of activities shall it engage in to best achieve its aims? n P H E answer to these and other questions on the specifics of the organization and of the program of a non-political religious movement in Israel go beyond the topic and the purpose of this article. Here, it is merely intended to elucidate the need for such a mqvement and to show that a call for Torah identification is mandatory in today’s Israel. Such a call will find resonance among Israel’s inhabitants, for there will always be left on every Jewish instrument those strings which will reverberate to it.

Is There a Need for Religious Parties? By WALTER S. WÜRZBURGER

N RECENT years it has become increasingly obvious that large segments of religiously committed Israelis have become disillusioned with the religious political parties. Striking evidence of this mood was supplied by various elections which clearly re vealed that members of religious kib butzim frequently refused to cast their ballots in behalf of the very parties with which their own kibbutzim were so closely linked. Even more dramatic was the launching of a non-political religious movement by a number of influential intellectuals who previously had been prominently identified with the religious parties. Many observers view these signs of disillusionment as an ominous handwriting on the wall, spelling the inevitable end of the era where the religious political parties could function as effective instruments for the advancement of Torah values. Religion— so it is charged—is bound to be discredited when it allows itself to become the object of political maneuvers, pressures, and manipula tions. Under such circumstances Torah often becomes the veneer to cover up what amounts to a naked quest for political power. And, it is argued, since religious parties must necessarily be interested in political advantage, their strategy and tactics are bound

July-August, 1966

to reflect partisan considerations rather than religious idealism. By a strange twist of irony, the re ligious parties have become the vic tims of their very success. Achieve ments such as the observance of the Sabbath in public institutions, of Kashruth in the army, a State-supported religious educational system, and rabbinic jurisdiction of all mat ters pertaining to marriage and di vorce, have provoked considerable hostility on the part of secularists who raise the “red herring” of clerical control. Because of the resentment engendered by these measures, some over-sensitive religious Jews feel that far too heavy a price was paid for these accomplishments. Religion, so many feel, would command a far more effective and respected position if it would dispense altogether with the at tempt to utilize the machinery of the State to bolster religious observance. The marriage of convenience between two allegedly incompatible partners such as religion and politics, it is widely held, has sapped much of the vitality of religious forces. It has been painfully noted that in exchange for certain concessions in the realm of religious observance, the religious par ties felt constrained to permit weighty matters of state—such as the treat17

ment of Arab minorities or the recog nition of Germany—to be decided on purely pragmatic grounds of expedi ency, while the religious and moral dimensions of these issues were com pletely overlooked. Moreover, some of the compromises made on so-called religious issues to which the various parties consented, have created the impression—especially aided and abet ted by an unfavorable press—that at times face-saving was deemed more important than the attainment of sig nificant religious objectives. N THE light of these developments it is not surprising that one en counters such widespread agitation among religious circles to dispense with the religious parties and to adopt a completely non-political form of organization. It has been pointed out that it is precisely this pattern that has enabled religion to flourish in the Western democracies, especially in America. There are those who maintain that shortcomings of the religious parties are not just incidental occurrences but are organically con nected to the very nature of political parties, which qua parties are bound to compromise idealistic principles for the sake of political expediency. The charge that—-as it is put so bluntly—“Religion and politics do not mix,” cannot be answered simply by pointing to the remarkable record of achievement wrought by the reli gious parties. The issue is npt whether these parties were necessary at a cer tain stage in the development of mod ern Israel. No one in his right mind will deny that the religious parties have rendered valuable pioneering service to the cause of Torah. The issue at stake today is not whether the parties are entitled to our gratitude

for their past performance but rather whether under present conditions the continued existence of the parties will enhance the cause of Torah in modern Israel. To cite a well-known parallel, most Englishmen felt indebted to Win ston Churchill for having saved Great Britain during the World War. But they nevertheless felt that his retire ment from active leadership would be in the best interests of their country. It might well be that in the process of historic development an institution will not only become obsolete but, by the dialectic of the historic process, will actually contravene the very pur pose for which it was originally founded. Hence all appeals to grati tude for past accomplishments are by themselves completely worthless as an argument for continued support. H PH E CASE for the religious parties X rests upon completely different considerations. For one thing, it is not at all certain that the public recog nition accorded to Halochah would not be withdrawn once religious Jewry would be deprived of its political in strumentalities. Will the Israeli army continue to serve only kosher food to its personnel, or Would perhaps special kosher units be introduced, thus forc ing observant Jews to be segregated into religious ghettos? In the absence of political pressures, would sufficient funds continue to be channelled into the religious school system? Moreover we should realize that many of the objections that are advanced against the parties reflect not so much au thentic Jewish values but rather what should be described as “Jewish Protestantism.” Is it really so objectional to stimulate religious observ ance through political means? The Halochah never dismissed as comJEWISH LIFE

pletely worthless a religious act which was not inspired by the highest and noblest motives. Fof an Immanuel Kant, following in the Pauline tradition, an impure motive completely invalidated an ethical or religious act. But for us, compliance with the provision of a revealed law is of paramount impor tance. Jews have never subscribed to a vicious perfectionism which refused to see any good in any act that fell short of the ideal standard. Instead, we have maintained that a religious practice which is originally performed for selfish reasons may eventually be undertaken with nobler motives. Bas ing ourselves on this premise, it fol lows that without advocating religious coercion, we should utilize every means within our command to create the kind of conditions in which re ligious observance would be as “na tural” as possible. Hence, the argu ment that religion cannot be foisted upon individuals by legislative fiat is completely irrelevant, for there can be no doubt that legislation can help to create the kind of conditions which are conducive to halachic observance. And from a Jewish point of view, in creased adherence to the law, irre spective of the underlying motiva tions, represents a significant step for ward towards the attainment of our religious objectives. Those who clamor for the complete cessation of all political activities on the part of organized religious groups seem to overlook the essential differ ence between Judaism and other reli gions. As an ethnic religion, our con cern is not limited to the individual Jew and his personal relationship with G-d. Far from being so com pletely individualistic, we are oriented towards Jewish people as a whole. It July-August, 1966

is in all the facéts of our collective life that the sovereignty of the living G-d must be acknowledged. Natural ly, amidst the dismal conditions pre vailing in the Goluth, we had to be content with eking out a form of Jew ish existence, where we subsisted on what amounted to purely personal faith and observance. It was one of the tragedies of the Goluth that for all practical purposes we were deprived of the instrumentalities, the resources and the power to establish a truly re ligious community, which infuses its political economic and social life with an all-pervasive religious ideal. But what had to be accepted as a tragic necessity amidst trying Goluth con ditions, must not now be imported into Israel as the ideal norm to be followed. What may be suitable for Jews in the Goluth of America is not necessarily the pattern appropriate for life in Israel where we now have op portunities to live as a people that we did not enjoy for the last 2,000 years. Can we be satisfied with a State ot Israel that merely permits individual Jews to practice Judaism without un due hardship? Don’t we want a Jewish State in the sense that the State itself reflects the values for which our peo ple lived (and even died!) throughout history? If this is our real aim, we must strive for a national life which does not idolize the State. Absolute sovereignty must be reserved for G-d alone. Hence, it is our responsibility to insure that the State of Israel qua State acknowledge the supremacy of the Kingdom of G-d by submitting its total collective life to the authority of the Torah. . . . But how can we strive for the estab lishment of a society which collec tively acknowledges the sovereignty of 19

G-d, if we shy away from involve ment in the political arena? Since the political domain must not be relegated to purely secular powers, Jews have never condoned the kind of dichotomy that is implicit in the Christian adage “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto G-d what is G-d’s.” Reli gious directives must be supplied not only to the individual but also to the community as a whole. It is significant that Maimonides, in compiling his famous code, began with the elements of personal faith in G-d but ended his magnum opus with a description of the laws governing the community. It would be therefore, highly imprudent to surrender the very instrumentalities through which religious values, under contemporary conditions, can be effectively brought to bear upon the determination of communal policies. As long as large segments of the population reject the authority of the Torah, the religious elements have no choice but to con tinue to maintain and even to expand the type of organization through which the cause of Torah can be championed in the political arena. This however, must not be misin terpreted as a blanket endorsement of the existing religious parties. Like all human institutions, they are beset with all sorts of limitations and imperfec tions, and are constantly tempted to emphasize party interests at the ex pense of ultimate religious objectives.

UT the situation calls not for the B abolition of the parties, but rather for their reform, regeneration, and rejuvenation. After all, one does not cure a headache by cutting off one’s head! Even the formation of a religious movement of completely non-political character is fraught with grave hazards. While a non-political religious movement could perform a variety of vital functions and thus strengthen the religious fabric of mod ern Israel, extreme care must be taken lest such a non-political move ment drain off completely the ideal ism and vigor that should be injected into the religious parties. Such a spiritual drain would be most in jurious to the cause of religion. At this stage of Israel’s development, a non-religious movement can serve only as a supplement to but riot a substitute : for the religious parties which are still necessary to create the conditions that will enable Torah to flourish in the Holy Land. It would be pitiful if idealistic and dedicated individuals were to maintain a dis dainful “holier-than-thou” stance to wards the parties. Instead they should be reminded that, in the words of the famous Russian poet Yevtushenko, “Politics also is bravery and honor, when carried out in the name of con science and ideals.” And it is obvious that for the foreseeable future much of the work for a religious body pol itic will have to be carried out within the framework of the religious polit ical parties.

JEWISH LIFE

Science and Our Sages By SAMUEL W. SPERO

ENERALLY when science and religion are the topic of an es say or lecture, the first thought is that a discussion on the age of the universe or evolution will follow. It is undoubt edly important to understand evolu tion and to be able to reconcile the scientific age of the universe with Creation; yet the supposition that this is the only area in which science im pinges on the Halochah is altogether unjustified. To the contrary, the main stream of science as we conceive of it today—physics, chemistry, biology, and all their subspecialties—has al ways been and still is intimately re lated to Torah. Illustrating this rela tionship will be the purpose of this article. To begin we might examine briefly the science contained in the Talmud, the basic formulation of Torah Sheb’al Peh (the Oral Torah). In the tractate Shabboth (75a) we read:

Said Rabbi Yonathan, how do we know that it is incumbent upon the Jew that he know how to calculate the seasons . . . as it says in the Torah (D’vorim 4:6), ‘So guard them and fulfill them, for that is your wisdom and insight in the eyes of the nations?’ July-August, 1966

It would seem that this is the calcula tion of seasons . . . Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Yitzchaki, c. 1040-1105) in his classic commen tary to the Talmud states with refer ence to this passage that calculation of the seasons, i.e. astronomy, is knowl edge that lends itself to independent verification in that the predictions can be checked by simple observations. Since the dates of our Holy Days are based on these calculations, a miscal culation would lead to a chillul haShem. The same passage in Shabboth, continuing, states that if a person ca pable of making these calculations does not do so, he is not to be trusted to make any other types of calcula tion. M. FELDMAN pointed out in • his recently re-published work “Rabbinical Mathematics and Astron omy” (Herman Press, 1965) that the many laws of Kiddush Hachodesh (Sanctification of the New Moon) and I bur Hashonah (Passing of the Year) involve implicitly a great many astro nomical and mathematical concepts. Among the rabbinical astronomers

mentioned in the Talmud are the fol lowing: Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkay, the founder of the Yeshivah at Yavneh. The Talmud (Sukkah 28a) in discus sing the various subjects which he had mastered includes astronomy and mathematics, Rabbi Gam’liel the Elder, the grandson of the illustrious Hillel. The Mishnah, in Rosh Hashonah (24a), states that Rabbi Gam’liel had dia grams of the moon’s crescent on the wall of his upper chamber, which he apparently used as an observatory. Mar Sh’muel, a student of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi the compiler of the Mishnah, was also called “Yarchinay” which means “lunar expert” or as tronomer. In B’rochoth (58b) Mar Sh’muel boasts that he was “as per fectly familiar with the roads of the skies as he was with those of his own native town of Nehardea.” Rabbi Eliezer Chisma, from whom we have the quote in Pirkey Ovoth (Ch. 3, Mishnah 23), “astronomy and geometry are appetizers to wisdom.” UR Sages were not only interested in astronomy but also in such branches of mathematics as geometry and arithmetic. In 1862 Moritz Steinschneider discovered the text of an old Hebrew geometry book called Mishnath Hamiddoth hidden away in the Munich library. Subsequent investi gators have concluded on the basis of internal evidence as well as through references by Commentators that the manuscript represents the Tosefta (a compilation contemporary to the Mishnah) to the tractate Middoth. Its purpose was ostensibly to enhance the understanding of the structure of the Holy Temple. In the Mishnath Hamiddoth we find mathematical formulas and equations which, for that period, are very ad-

vanced. It is in this source that we find the value of pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diami eter) as 3m instead of 3 which is the value used elsewhere in the Talmud. (The former value is considerably more accurate.) It is also in the Mish nath Hamiddoth that the noted his torian of science George Sarton found the first reference to decimal fractions — an important mathematical mile stone. In many places throughout the Tal mud we find mathematical theorems being invoked either explicitly or im plicitly in the resolution of specific halachic problems. For example", in tractate Sukkah (8a) the problem of calculating the minimum dimensions of a circular Sukkah is brought for ward. In the Gemora the discussion reduces to calculating areas of circles and areas of circumscribed and in scribed squares given a diameter. In reference to this gemora there is a question which has bothered many of the Commentators of the Talmud. The Gemora in Sukkah states: “Where the circumference of a circle is three handbreadths, its diameter is one handbreadth.” Also in the same dis cussion we read: “If thè side of a square is a cubit, its diagonal is one and two-fifths cubits.” These state ments are in error by a significant amount, as many of the commentators point out. The solution to this contradiction lies in realizing two principles: a) rather than being concerned with sci entific development per se, our Rabbis are interested in science only insofar as it implements their halachic deci sions, and b) science as a whole is an everchanging process. Our Rabbis al ways use the science of their time for JEWISH LIFE

the p’sak din, the legal decision, since it is only through the science of their time th^t the p’sak can be imple mented. When a science changes the p ’sak may be reevaluated by the G’doley Hador, the recognized rab binic authorities of a given generation. Thus the above-mentioned state

ments in Sukkah reflect the mathema tics of the time, the mathematics of the Romans. In the Mishnath Hamiddoth and other places in the Mishnah itself more accurate values are used for calculation, reflecting the more accurate Alexandrian mathematics in use during Mishnaic times.

VERSED IN A L L B R A N C H E S O F S C IE N C E

FURTHER example of science in the Talmud may be drawn with reference to the biological knowl edge of our Sages. Consider the trac tate Chulin from the point of view of a zoologist. Recalling that printing as we conceive of it today was not in vented until the fifteenth century, it is obvious that there were no well-illus trated textbooks available to yeshivah bocherim as there are today. Yet even a cursory reading of the mishnayotb in Chulin will reveal the extensive vocabularly and detailed anatomical and physiological knowledge that must have been at the fingertips of every student of the Law of that time. To illustrate this point consider the Mish nah in Chulin (42a). The Mishnah there lists those physiological dis orders which make an animal a terefah:

■

A perforation of the gullet and the cutting of the windpipe; if the mem brane of the brain is perforated; if the heart is perforated into its cavity; if the spine is broken and its cord is cut; if the liver is absent and nothing remains of it; if the lung is perforated or its substance missing—it is not terefah until it is perforated as far as the place of the tubes; if the maw is perforated; if the gall bladder is perf orated; if the bowels are perforated; if the inner stomach is perforated or most of its outside . . . if the dissolvJuly-August, 1966

ing-one (omasum) and the-house-ofthe-cups (reticulum) are perforated on the outside; etc. Implicit in this mishnah is an un derstanding not only of the names of various organs in the animal but also of their location and appearance both when healthy and diseased. This un derstanding could only have been achieved as a result of clinical experi ence under a wide range of condi tions. This is standard operating pro cedure even today in the field of vet erinary medicine. We can assume that our Rabbis encouraged their students along these lines in order to insure ac curate halachic decisions. The term Torah Sheb’al Peh or Oral Torah implies a code transmitted from generation to generation by word of mouth—not written down or in scribed on any tablet. It was only his torical expediency that drove Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi to set down the Mishnah. That being the case, the greatest economy was used in the list of topics included in the Mishnah. A precedent having been established, subsequent generations were led to set down more and more of their studies, even those not immediately applicable to the Halochah. While we have no scientific works as such which we can ascribe to the Rabbis of the Talmud, even though they were cap23

able of writing them, we do have a considerable number of scientific works composed in the centuries fol lowing compilation of the Talmud. In addition to their impâct on Judaism, many of these works played a crucial role in the secular history of science. It is a matter of historical fact that the Jews helped preserve sci ence in Medieval times when the Christian Church hid even the rudi ments of scientific study from its peo ple. Translations from Greek into Arabic, from Arabic into Hebrew, and from Hebrew into Latin made avail able to the West the works of Galen in medicine, Aristotle in physics and logic, and Archimedes in mathematics and mechanics. These might have been permanently lost had it not been for the Ibn Tibbons, Ibn Ezra, Avrohom bar Chiyya, Yaakov ben Makir, the Kalonymos family, and many others.

T F this were all that could be said A in regards to the Jews and Science during the Middle Ages, it would be impressive but not relevant to the re lationship between Science and Halochah. What is relevant is the stature of the authors of these scientific works. In George Sarton’s ‘‘Introduc tion to the History of Science” (Balti more, 1927-47, three volumes) there are biobibliographies of some of the most famous Jewish contributors to the science of this period. Amongst these were Abraham ibn Ezra (12th century), Maimonides (12th century), and Levi ben Gershom (14th cen tury), who are better known to us for their contributions to Biblical com mentary and the Halochah. While it is not possible without further study to assert that they made their con tributions to science because they were G’doley Torah, there is no ques24

tion that the very age in which they lived made them Jews first and scien tists second. R abbi A vrohom ibn E zra was born in Toledo, Spain between 1089 and 1092 and he died in 1169. In ad dition to his famous commentary on the Tanach which is included in the Mikraoth G ’doloth—testimony to his importance as a Biblical commentator —he wrote books on mathematics, as trology (considered a science in his time), on the calendar, and on the astrolabe, an instrument used by as tronomers for determining the posi tion of the heavenly bodies. In addi tion he translated many scientific works from Arabic into Hebrew. Ibn Ezra’s Jnfluence was widespread both in the Jewish world, through his trans lations and Bible commentaries, and in the secular world by way of Latin translations which were made of many of his works. In 1158 he wrote a treatise on religious philosophy called the Yesod Moreh in which he ex presses his notion of the relationship between science and Halochah: Only he w ho knows physics w ith all its proofs, logic . . . astronom y with the clear proofs from arithm etic, geometry, and proportion, can ascend to the heights of theology.

R abbi M osheh ben M aimon (Rambam, Maimonides) was born in 1135 in Cordova, Spain and died in Cairo, Egypt in 1204. This man about whom it is said “from Moses to Moses there has not arisen one like Moses” has become immortalized to us because of his compilation of the Halochah which he called Y ad Hachazokah and also as a result of his Commentary on the Mishnah. He gained for himself a distinguished place among Jewish philJEWISH LIFE

osophers by writing the controversial Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Per plexed) TRambam also made his mark in the area of science. As physician to Saladin, the Muslim ruler, he came to write many works on medicine which were subsequently translated into Latin and used by Christian doctors. These were composed in the last twenty years of his life. As a young man Rambam wrote a book on astronomy which he subse quently expanded and included in that section of the Yad which deals with the sanctification of the New Moon. His respect for mathematics and the experimental sciences is clearly seen in his famous letter to the rabbis of Montpellier in which he criticized as trology as “not a matter of science, but sheer stupidity.” In the same let ter he writes: It behooves man to believe only in one of three things. The first is that for which there is a clear proof from man’s reason such as mathematics . . . ; the second is that which is perceived by man through one of the five senses . . . ; the third is that which is received by man from the Prophets or the Sages. . . . It is said of him who believes in anything which is not one of these three, ‘a fool believes anything’ (Mishley). R abbi L evi ben G ershon (Ralbag, Gersonides) was born in 1288 in Provence, France and died in 1344. Sarton (mentioned above) considers him the greatest Jewish scientist, next to Rambam, of the Middle Ages, yet his commentary on the Tanach is also considered amongst the most impor tant. Ralbag’s famous philosophical work Milchomoth Ha-Shem contains a major astronomical treatise. In addi tion Ralbag wrote major works on mathematics which included books on

JuIy^August, 1966

arithmetic, algebra (in which he used mathematical induction, a method of mathematical proof generally attrib uted to the philosopher Pascal, who lived in the 17th century), geometry, ¿nd trigonometry. These works were all translated into Latin and used by Christian mathematicians. It appears that Ralbag knew little Arabic or Latin so that his knowledge of astronomy and mathematics was primarily derived from Hebraic sources— an interesting sidelight which further attests to the thesis of this es say. In addition to these, Ralbag in vented the Cross Staff, an astronomical instrument used by astronomers and sailors until the middle of the 18th century. He also popularized the cam era obscura which was of the utmost importance for the development of the science of optics. Even R abbi Shelomo ben A dret (Rashba, 12th century), and R abbi A sher b en Y echiel (Rosh, 12th century), who were amongst the more “conservative” of the rabbis of their period, had respect for science as it related to Halochah. We know that the Rosh encouraged his pupil Rabbi Yitzchok ben Yosef Yisroeli to pub lish his Yesqd Olom (1310, Toledo, Spain) one of the outstanding astro nomical and mathematical works in Jewish history. The Rosh’s interest in this sefer was its treatment of the laws of the Jewish calendar. The Rash ba in his Responsa (Vol. I #772, Vol. IV #74 and #102) permitted the reading of science texts on Shabboth because these enhanced the under standing of Torah. It is true that Rash ba forbade the study of philosophy and metaphysics for the young, but this was because philosophy and meta physics did not impinge on Halochah. Their study, he felt, could only lead 25

to apikorsuth and heresy; medicine and the sciences, on the other hand, were important for Halochah and he therefore did not discourage their study. (I must add at this point that in this case we do not follow the

Rashba—-see Shulchon Oruch, Orach Chaim, #307-17 and #308-50; also the Beth Yosef in the Tur, Orach Chaim, #307 at the end under K’thav Shetachath Hatzurah and #308 at the end under Kathav Harashba.)

N O T A B O O O N SC IE N T IFIC STUDY

HE advent of the Inquisition in the fifteenth century curtailed Jewish contributions to secular sci ence. Within the halachic context, however, there was no cessation of interest in questions whose solutions required scientific knowledge. Prob lems in Shechitah and Taharath Hamishpochah were considered which in volved anatomical and pathological concepts; also the astronomical prob lem of positioning the International Date Line for halachic purposes first occurs at this time. While these questions in Halochah may not have entailed concepts on the frontiers of science, they did involve considerations which were not con tained in the classical halachic cod ifications such as the Tur or the Shulchon Oruch. The rabbis of the time, out of necessity, did consult scientists or scientific texts in order to provide accurate and consistent de cisions. A problem such as whether or not it is permissible to eat sturgeon* led Rabbi Ezekiel Landau (the “Nodah Biyehudah”), Chief Rabbi of Prague, to bring a specimen of this fish far inland to Prague in order to conduct experiments to determine whether or not it has the necessary qualifications for a kosher fish. Al though the question at hand pertained

*Our present-day rabbinic authorities consider sturgeon non-kosher—Ed.

only to a small group of people far from Prague, Rabbi Landau and his colleagues still took great pains to ascertain that the scales on this fish were truly scales. In more recent times rabbis have consulted icthyologists and biologists in attempting to resolve questions of a similar type. Because a posek, a decisor of Hal ochah, must go to such lengths in order to resolve a question in Jewish law, there are times when he must have access to scientific information not contained in the sources normally found in yeshivoth. In the 18th Cen tury there were no public libraries, nor did yeshivah students have the secu lar education to use the libraries had there been such. This problem led the Gaon of Vilna (c. 1720-1797) to make the follow ing charge to his student Rabbi Baruch of Shklov, as quoted by the latter in the introduction to his own transla tion of Euclid’s geometry into He brew: According to how much is lacking a man knowledge of the sciences, correspondingly he will be lacking a hundredfold in Torah because Torah and science are intertwined . . . And he commanded me to translate whatever possible to our holy lan guage from the sciences in order . . . to increase knowledge amongst our nation. JEWISH LIFE

HILE we have not shown that voth Pekudath Elozor, Orach Chayim, all of our Rabbis were scien 22-23) disagree for the following two W tists, Ive have demonstrated that there reasons: first, since the filament con has always existed a mainstream of thought amongst them which has en couraged study of the sciences. Cer tainly every decisor of renown has had the rudiments of mathematics, astronomy, and biology at his finger tips for answering the halachic ques tions posed to him. Today we generally do not think of our rabbis as scientists or even as necessarily conversant with science, yet a perusal of the responsa of our poskim—those of our own generation and of the past fifty or a hundred years—reflects a breadth of knowl edge which encompasses even modern science and technology. Let us cite one case history which is typical of the modern relationship between Science and Halochah. Con sider the following problem in the Law: Can an electric light bulb be used to fulfill the mitzvah of kindling the Shabboth lights? Rabbi Yitzchok Yehudah Schmelkes, who first con sidered this problem in the late 19th century (Sh’eloth Ut’shuvoth Beth Yitzchok, I, 120:5) answered “yes” —because the electric light is like any light that is generated from within a wick or from burning oil, since it emanates from a filament. Rabbi Avrohom Steinberg (Machazeh Avrohom, Orach Chayim, 41) and Rabbi Eliyahu Kletzkin (D ’var Halochah, 36) agree with Rabbi Schmelkes. Rab bi Kletzkin in fact maintains that the electric light is even better than other types , of light because its purpose is to light the entire house and a good part of the mitzvah of kindling the Shabboth lights involves lighting the house and making it joyful. Rabbi Elozor Lev (Sh’eloth ZJt’shuJuly-August, 1966

tains only enough light for one in stant, should there be a power failure the light would fail and disrupt the joy of the Shabboth. Second, “kind ling” the electric light entails only the flicking of a switch; this, he feels, can be compared to opening a “closed gate” and is not kindling in the sense of the Halochah. Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel, the Rishon L’Tzion (Mishpatey Uziel, Orach Chayim, I, 7) initially agrees with Rabbi Lev, proposing to compare the electric light to the case of tfitran” (tar) in the Talmud which is for bidden for use on Shabboth for the lights since it is so easy to extinguish. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzif Eliezer, I, folio page 131b) answers this objection by pointing out that itran is considered easy to put out because of its foul smell and therefore we are afraid that it will be put out. The electric light is, on the contrary, an honor for the Shabboth and it is un likely that anyone will turn off the switch. He also points out that since turning on the light in association with the blessing gives rise to a light specif ically for Shabboth, this “kindling” is in the sense meant by the Halochah. Rabbi Waldenberg does specify that if the electric light is to be used, it should be used with a special electric lamp designated for the Sabbath. Rabbi Yosef Henkin (Kuntras Luach Ha-Yovel Shel Ezrath Torah) con curs with this ruling. Rabbi Shmuel Yudelvitz (Sefer Hachashmal L ’or Hahalochah) raises an interesting point. If there is a Jew working at the power station where the electricity is generated, then you should not be permitted to recite a 27

b’rochah on the electric light since the Jew working at the power station is violating the Sabbath. This would bring your fulfilling the mitzvah into the category of “mitzvah haba b’averah.” In the United States this is probably no great problem; in Israel it is! Rabbi Yudelvitz also raises the question whether we could use a fluorescent bulb for the mitzvah. He decides that since the light comes from phosphorescence which gener ates little heat, it is not in the cate gory of “ner” and is therefore not permitted. Rabbi Chaim Yitzchok Halberstam and Rabbi Sholom Weider (Sefer Shearith Hapleytah 6-7) both use the fact that the electric power is gener ated outside of the home to prohibit its use for kindling the Sabbath lights. Rabbi Halberstam wishes to compare

lighting the Shabboth lights by elec tricity to the mitzvah of Tz’dokah. Just as no b’rochah is made when per forming an act of Tz’dokah because the intended beneficiary may refuse the gift and the blessing will be in vain, so also here by the electric light there may be a power failure just after Ihe b’rochah, thereby making the blessing invalid. In both these cases the action is not in the hands of the doer of the mitzvah. Rabbi Wieder takes a slightly dif ferent tack. We have a rule that when two people are involved in the per formance of a mitzvah and one of them is disqualified from the perform ance of that mitzvah, then we view the mitzvah as performed totally by the latter and disqualify it. Here, as regards use of electric bulbs for the Shabboth lights, we have a similar sit-

JEWISH LIFE

uation. On the one hand the house wife kindles the lights; yet her per formance is dependent on the aid of a technician at the power station who is disqualified from the mitzvah. Since the actual performance is dependent on both of them, the mitzvah is in valid for the reason cited above.

Rabbi Sholom Mordecai Schwadron did not quite see the situation in this way (Sh’eloth Ut’shuvoth Meharosham II, 247) and felt that at any given time there was sufficient current in the circuit to permit fulfilling the amount required for a blessing even if there should be a power failure.

S O L V IN G M O D E R N PROBLEM S

n P H IS discussion is but an outline of m. the actual responsa. Not only have I not gone into the sources for the various decisions, but also I have not attempted to explain the technological elements involved. The poskim do both. This is only a very small part of the literature reflecting the relation ship between electricity and the Halochah. The electric light itself is in volved in other questions such as hav ing a light turned on or off on Shabboth even with an electric timer. The question of the nature of the electric current has encountered extensive treatment, most recently with refer ence to the design of an elevator per missible for use on the Shabboth in a high-rise apartment building in Wil liamsburg. There is a rather complete discussion of the pertinent issues by Rabbi Samuel Hubner in Hadarom (No. 19, Nisan, 5724). The use of the refrigerator on Shabboth has also been the subject of many responsa and as each new gadget is added new questions arise. For example there is some question as to whether it is permitted to make ice op Shabboth. There are now re frigerators on the market which make ice automatically even to the extent of pouring in the water. What does the Halochah make of this? While we are not permitted to turn July-August, 1966

on electric appliances during Shab both, may we set timers to do the work for us? May we by this means turn on fans, lights, electric stoves, etc? Each of these is treated separately since each involves a different pro hibition. What they all have in com mon is the fact that the poskim and the Halochah do deal with them.

r a THERE are countless other probJL lems too numerous to mention in the confines of this essay: problems with radios and television, hearing aids and microphones, telephones and intercoms, and all of their ramifica tions and applications including the significance to the Halochah of the transistor and other non-heating semi conductors. Electricity also enters the domain of Halochah in the area of Kashruth. But one case in point is: Can one broil unsalted meat in an electric broiler? Other technologies also enter the domain of Halochah in the area of Kashruth and Shabboth. One ex ample very much in the news is the new shackling device being proposed to be used in the states which pro hibit conventional shackling. The many new synthetics used in foods and clothing pose problems for both Kashruth and Shaatnez. Advances in medicine have opened countless new 29

areas of the Halochah for examina tion; questions of birth control and the extension and curtailment of life are crucial issues involving medical science and technology. To further enforce the intimate re lationship between science, technol ogy, and Halochah which exists today, one need only make mention of re cent discussions entitled “The Robot and Halochah” and “The Astronaut and Halochah.” In Israel there has re cently been established an Institute of Science and Halochah which is seeking to apply the latest advances in science to Israeli industry in order to implement Sabbath observance. To date a major sugar factory has agreed to cooperate fully with the Institute in

finding means of eliminating viola tions of Shabboth in its operations. rp O D A Y , as never before, the very -i- nature of our society intensifies the relationship of our rabbinic au thorities with science, in their on going task of helping all Jews deal adequately with the new situations which must be met in the terms of the Eternal Law. As it was in the past, so it will continue to be in the future—the Halochah will confront every new application of science and absorb it into the framework of the Law. By studying science and dem onstrating its relationship to Torah, we enforce once again the adage: “Turn it once and turn it again for everything is contained in it.”

JEWISH LIFE

W ith an American Accent By BERNARD KNIEGER

EFORE I came to Israel from they spoke. Conversely, accents are America, a colleague— a student what I thought other people had: I and teacher of the French language would not have believed that for me —told me that Israel had made a mis to be identified as an American I need take in choosing Hebrew as its na only pronounce one of the most com tional language. Because of its asso mon words in Hebrew as tov instead ciations with German, Yiddish (he of tuv (“good,” “all right.” ) And if granted) could not have been so there is any doubt^-there isn’t—all I chosen; but French or English, both need do is to pronounce the Hebrew world languages, might have been, he word meaning “yes” as keyn instead argued. But if my colleague had re of ken. Or how explain my reaction to the membered his history of languages, he would have known that a nation does BEA advertisement on the highway not choose its language but rather just north of Tel-Aviv? This adver has its language chosen for it by his tisement urges the traveler to “fly torical process and necessity. If per- BEA,” followed by the Hebrew let chanqe he never knew this truth, a ters tethy vov, and sam ech . Instead short residence in Israel would con of realizing that I was reading the Hebrew for fly, especially since both vince him of its validity. My colleague has no monopoly on fly and toos appear in similar white naivete in the field of linguistics: in squares, in vain I tried to reconcile spite of having a doctorate in English these three letters with BEA. Since literature, having taught the English such, then, is the linguistic naivete of language for over a decade, and hav a college professor of French and one ing audited classes in linguistics, I of English—what (vanity prompts me really believed for example that na to add) must be the level of linguistic tive-speakers of French sounded like naivete of the general population, a Charles Boyer—“Eet iz not thees kees naivete ridiculed by the following He I want,” et cetera—because they were brew joke: A native-speaker of French trying to speak English. It simply had was criticizing the lack of beauty in not occurred to me that they would Hebrew sound-formations; he declared reproduce the sound-patterns of their that he had heard but one word which native tongue in whatever language was an exception to the sombreness of

July-August, 1966

Hebrew speech—oomlalah, a word which communicated a sense of gaiety. The point of the joke is that oomlalah is the feminine-singular form of the adjective meaning “wretched.’* A MERICAN linguistic naiveté sureJ \ . ly is related to the fact that ours is essentially a mono-lingual culture. Being the child of immigrants, in my youth I heard my parents speak Yid dish (and occasionally Russian, when they wanted to be sure that I didn’t understand what they were talking about) ; also I studied French four and a half years, Latin two years, and German one year. Nevertheless, in itially I was secretly outraged that more Israelis did not know English or, if they did know it, still preferred to speak Hebrew. (As in the Bill Mauldin cartoon of the two G.I.’s walking through an Italian town: “This would be a nice place,” says one to the other, “if it weren’t for all the foreigners.” ) In contrast to America, Israel’s is as yet a multi-lingual culture. If noth ing else, in the forseeable future the adult Jewish communities will con tinue to be divided into what is called the two nations: the Ashkenazi Jews of the Western world, whose common language is Yiddish, and the Sephardi Jews of the North African and Ori ental lands, whose common language is Arabic. Several times I have waited my turn to speak on the public tele phone and noted that all of the pre vious callers spoke a different lan guage. At least one of my Israeli rel atives knows Russian, Polish, Yid dish, German, and Hebrew; Yiddish is the language most often used in his place of employment, a government office. Once at the Jewish Agency I overheard a South African girl speak ing with a relative from Rumania in 32

Yiddish; also, she had picked up some Rumanian. The one group which is predomi nantly mono-lingual in Israel is, of course, the young children. As a then non-speaker of Hebrew, I first became aware of the language barrier when I could not read the signs in the shop windows, and when I could not com municate with the children. By con trast, one of my first victories in the use of thé Hebrew language took place when I told two children who were blocking my path “lazooz!” (move) and they did. This little incident helped to convince me that in fact a relationship existed between the strange sounds I was learning at the Ulpan and environment-control. SRAEL is the right country in Itween which to learn the relationship be language and environment-con trol. One couple of my acquaint ance, accountants in Rumania, hav ing suffered defeat in their effort to learn enough Hebrew to pass a licens ing examination are now selling pa pers in the street; they specialize in Hungarian publications, since they speak that language. But aside from employment, one needs a knowledge of Hebrew as self-protection in one’s daily pursuits, such as—and perhaps not least of all—any involving stand ing in line or awaiting one’s turn. It has been said (not with strict truth) that Israel is the one country in which the lines grow bigger from the front. Certain it is that one needs a knowl edge of the language of the country to protect one’s place in line. And no one is inclined to wait in a long or even a short line at the grocery if all he wants is half a loaf of bread, but he will be forced to do so if he can’t ask loudly for that half a loaf. J E W IS H LIFE

Thus it is the immediate purpose of the Ulpanim, the centers for intensive Hebrew-speaking instruction, to en able their students to order a loaf of bread, to buy^ stamps, to ask direc tions, to argue with a government of ficial, in short to function in the com munity by speaking Hebrew. To this end, first lessons are organized around practical activities, such as going to the post office. Thus pne learns the words for “post office,” “postman,” “regular letter,” “registered letter,” “airletter,” “stamp,” and so on. The teachers at the Ulpanim are usually quite good at drill, and soon most be ginning students are speaking a simple daily Hebrew fluently in those areas in which they have been drilled. Naturally, one learns at the Ulpan the denotations and not the connota tions of words. That is, one learns, for example, the Hebrew for “dog” but does not go on to learn “cur” or “hound”—for one thing, one is far too busy trying to remember “cat.” Thus it seems odd, for instance, to hear Le Coq D ’Or translated as hatarnagol hazawhawv since tarnagol has none of the romantic associations of coq but rather reminds one of the imperfectly-plucked chicken hanging in the butcher’s shop, whose dead chickenness has not been concealed by American-style pre-packaging. On the other hand, many words are in evitably strong in emotional content, “concentration camp” for one (to be distinguished from “annihilation camp”). I can’t recall that in my study of other foreign languages that I ever learned the words for “concentration camp,” proof (if any is needed) that the words which assume importance in a given language reflect the history of the culture which produced that language. July-August, 1966

/ ^ |N E characteristic of other lanV / guages that Hebirew does not have is class pronunciation. So much is this the case that a colleague (a Hebrew writer and critic) condemned the Hebrew translation of “My Fair Lady” for using a fake Hebrew to represent Liza Doolittle’s Cockney pronunciation. The reason for a class less Hebrew is clear: the lower classes mainly consist of Jews who migrated from Arab countries, and because of their prior knowledge of Arabic (an other Semitic language, after all) and because of their religious back grounds, these Orientals learn oral Hebrew quickly. By contrast, the Western immigrant will have much more difficulty in learning the lan guage, and he will never have the “authentic” pronunciation of the Sephardim, and be able,I for example, to distinguish between aleph and ayin in his pronunciation. It has frequently been remarked that American children of foreignborn parents are ashamed of their parents’ foreign-accented English. The source of shame, of course, is not in the imperfect knowledge of English but rather in the perception of a dif ference in the speech of the parents, a difference from the native popula tion. In Israel an imperfect Hebrew and a foreign accent do not auto matically single the speaker out for scorn for the good reason that a large percentage of the adult population (immigrants all) have this imperfect command. True, I once heard a Ger man Jew ridiculed in the following terms: “In the country thirty years and she can’t even distinguish between mah sh’lomcha and mah sh’lomech,” that is, between the masculine and feminine forms of “HoW are you?”. But here the woman was ridiculed not 33

because she knew Hebrew imperfectly but because she made no effort to learn and to speak the language. In general, the Israelis patiently en courage all efforts, however faltering, to speak their language. Since aliyah from the West is desired, an Ameri can accent is more welcome than not. But how do the Israeli children feel if their parents have an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew? On this point, I have received conflicting opinions. I have been told that the children will not feel shame because, as stated above, even with an imperfect knowl edge of Hebrew, the parents are like much of the rest of the adult popu lation. On the other hand, I have been told that children are reluctant to in troduce their friends to parents who cannot speak Hebrew well. As one might expect, a main factor in im migrant-youth’s learning to speak He brew reasonably well when their par ents cannot is their sensitivity to the ridicule of their peer-group. In any event it seems obvious that if the par ents do not know Hebrew well, then their native language must be the lan guage of communication within the family if communication between the children and parents is not to break down: clearly families, like nations, need a common language. HE average native-speaker of Eng lish will have difficulty in learning Hebrew. For one thing, there is lit tle connection between Hebrew and any other language he is likely to know. Thus, he cannot connect the new words to words he already knows: that is, in effect he lacks neumonic devices to help him master the new language. During a year’s study of modern Hebrew, I have been able to establish only two associations:

zoozi, the feminine-singular impera tive of move, with “Suzy”; and p'gisha, “meeting,” with “geisha girl.” Another student associated boker, “morning,” with “bucket.” These three examples will surely demonstrate how we had to strain to establish even such artificial neumonic devices. The only neumonic device which is at all helpful is a knowledge of other He brew words, many Hebrew words being related to each other on the basis of common three-letter roots. Thus, for example, the letters coph, tov^and beth produce a cluster of words centering around letter-writing: “letter-writer,” “letter,” “to write,” “to correspond,” “to dictate” “corres pondence,” ^“dictation,’’ and others. A knowledge of the language truly begins only when one becomes ac quainted with these root-clusters, that is to say, with the structure of the language. Above, in discussing the learning of a Hebrew vocabulary, I have ignored the existence of international words which have been incorporated into Hebrew — problemah (problemoth, plural) is the best instance, since any one living in Israel will quickly have problems. If you say problemah to an adult Israeli with a knowledge of European languages, you will cer tainly be understood. Unfortunately, if you say it to a Sabra who knows only Hebrew and has perhaps an im perfect knowledge of English, he probably will not understand you. I have sometimes thought that if I have not learned much Hebrew at the Ulpan, I have learned Esperanto. More than once, for example^ the teacher has said “hakawl yachasi,” and then, fearing that we did not understand, <(hakawl relativi,” which it certainly is. The psychological factor is of J E W IS H LIFE

course crucial in determining whether a native-speaker of English will mas ter Hebrew. For unlike most immi grants to Israel— among others, the North African, ¿he Egyptian, the Jew from Communist East Europe—the Anglo-Saxon (as he is designated) comes to Israel from free choice, and he has a country to which he can freely return if he is dissatisfied in Israel. If his is a representative ex perience, he need not wait very long to have cause for dissatisfaction. (“He will not thrive in Israel who is both ered by every little thing,” is a gener alization I quickly arrived at.) And so, when he has difficulty learning this very difficult language, he will wonder “would it have been worth it, after a l l . . . ” Many conclude with Prufrock that it would not be. N SHORT, the revival of ancient Hebrew as a modern language has made Israel, in more ways than one, a fascinating laboratory for studying the cultural, sociological, and psycho logical aspects of language-function ing and language study among people of diverse national origins, educa tional level, age, occupation, and even religious commitment (ranging from skeptic to orthodox Jew.) This paper, of course, is an amateur report of a very complex situation. Even as I was writing it there came over the radio a description by a one-time British Mandatory Government official of the riot caused by the first theatrical showing in Tel Aviv of a Yiddish film. This had taken place thirty years ago, when the rioters saw in Yiddish the main enemy to the establishment

July-August, 1966

of a Hebrew culture. By contrast, CBS Records (Israel), has just recorded, together with the successful musical “Fiddler on the Roof,” “The Megillah of Itzik Manger,” a Yiddish musical treatment of the Purim theme. If “Fiddler on the Roof” is in Hebrew as translated from the English, it is based on Sholom Aleichem tales in Yiddish, and Sholom Aleichem in turn is the author of the most successful non-musical play of the current Isra eli season, Arncha. Furthermore, a former immigrant from Austria—who characteristically speaks Hebrew, writes German, and reads English—told me that she had decided to bring up her young child to be exclusively Hebrew-speaking with the thought that thereafter he could learn other languages. Because of the lack of connection between Hebrew and the \yestem languages which makes it very difficult for him to learn any other language, she now thinks she may have erred. However, she admits that when she first came to Israel she could not stand the sound of German. She is not alone: Kol Israel, the state-owned radio station, frequently plays German songs in English translations. In a related area of concern: the exclamation “A Yid dish child that understands not a word of Yiddish” is an everyday joke, but a mournful one that communicates a sense of loss among the Ashkenazi Jews. Even as I can speak such He brew as I can only if I remain calm, it is said that the current Prime Min ister of Israel, Mr. Levi Eshkol, re verts to Yiddish when he becomes excited. Indeed * language-functioning is a complex matter in Israel.

The Imminence By ELKANAH SCHWARTZ

fTTHE room was packed. Not that J- it was a large room, for it was built to hold a limited group. And that evening the audience attending a hearing before the New York Board of Education was far larger than the room’s designers had envisaged. The issue before the Board was governmental aid to non-public school education. With the passage of the Federal Education Act of 1965, large sums of money were now avail able for given categories of elemen tary education projects, such as cor rective programs, library services, and art and music appreciation. Projects for children attending non-public schools, as well as those at public schools, were eligible. Given qualifi cations were established for those ap plying: no individual school might ap ply but only a school district; accounts must be kept of all funds; those re ceiving salaries or fees must sign loy alty oaths, etc. In a way it seemed absurd: money available for the very asking. So, the Board of Education had convened to consider whether to ask for it. Even if the situation might seem absurd, it was not a simple, and cer tainly not a funny, one. Formal pro cedure was adhered to: due notice was given to the public so that one and all might come to voice opinion; minutes of every word were taken, 36

even taped; parliamentary procedure prevailed. No decision was to be made that evening. The meeting was design ed “to give the Board of Education an idea of how the public, to whom the Board is responsible, feels about the issue:” Everything was open and above board—almost. don’t just happen. Every society possesses vested in terests and a democratic society al lows them to be expressed. Were an issue to be one-sided (as a number are destined to be) then the hearing room would prove too large for the small audience, if any. But many issues arise which are two-, three-, and even more sided. Every opinion has partisans who have friends. Each feels that by filling the seats his opinion will prevail. Even before the hearing, countless confi dential conversations and soundings take place. The formal hearing is al most anti-climactic. As a rule, this country’s non-public schools come in two categories: pri vate and religion-sponsored. Private schools are usually financially stable and therefore beyond government handouts. The “parochial” schools are maintained by religious denomina tions. This raises the specter of sepa ration of Church and State. That this axiom is honored in the breach more than in the practice is an open secret e a r in g s

J E W IS H LIFE

that must never be publicly acknowl edged. Officially it exists and must be deferred to. That is why the crowd that eve ning overflowed. There were other items on the agenda, but no one re members what they were. The Chair man of the Board of Education dis patched these matters with efficiency, and proceeded to the explosive issue. He called first upon the Superinten dent of Schools. ONNING his glasses and leaning D forward to draw attention, the Superintendent began in a low voice. He explained the law and the quali fications to be met. He indicated, in a voice that grew stronger, that the Board was entitled to ask for the money, that all problems could be overcome, and the program would serve society well. I had been standing on the side (1 had come on time for the hearing but not for a seat) feeling that everything was pat. Frankly, being new at ex ploring public issues, and this being my first occasion to attend a public hearing, I was, well, awed. After all, anyone was allowed to walk up to the microphone and tell this powerful group of men and women what he thought they should do and how he

thought they should go about their business. In fact, I came to learn that every time a legislature wants to pass a law, a committee must conduct such a hearing, and with patience too. Sometimes even the Chief Executive, before he signs it, must conduct such a hearing. Now here is this Board that is considering something worth a million dollars or more and even a person like myself could step up to present an opinion. How do you like that! But of course I didn’t step forward, because I have no interest in wasting anyone’s time. I was simply fasci nated. But my friend, who had brought me (I wouldn’t otherwise have known about the whole thing) was an old hand. He knew everyone who was lining up to talk, and even told me what each was going to say, and how he would say it. He turned out to be right. It was almost like a script, but as I found out later, if it isn’t acted out, the results would be drastic for somebody. To make sure you weren’t that somebody, you came and played your role. My friend didn’t speak up either. He came to watch, listen, and learn. I’m glad he brought me. Not because I enjoyed myself. To be frank with you, I didn’t. But I did learn a great deal from the experience.

O N T W O SIDES

V7" OU could have walked in to that JL hearing room and known at a glance the character of those attend ing. Only a nun dresses like one and there were a lot of people there dressed like nuns. Usually only ortho dox Jews walk around with yarrnulkas in public, and there were a lot July-August, 1966

of yarmulkas there that evening. I was one of them, and was especially proud of it. The others present were also recognizable types. My readings in history have taught me that the Roman collar and the yarmulka have not often lined up side by side. I was witnessing one of those 37

fare occasions when the two symbols peared they were against religious appealed for the same response. Men people. They were not against chil wearing one cloth or the other in one dren attending religious schools (so place or another stood before the they said) , but were annoyed at the Board rostrum to appeal for applying idea that such children might get the for and accepting the government same educational opportunities as grants. The language was the same, their own in the public schools. And the reasoning the same, the appeals so on, champions of liberty all. the same, one might almost say that one was a recording of the other. But T ISTENING to them all became then something happened that jolted JLJ trying. We had arrived, my friend and I, at 9:00, and it was now me. My friend told me afterwards that 11:30, the chairman having twice he wasn’t really surprised, because, as asked the speakers to limit their re I said before, he called all the shots, marks, which most misconstrued as What jolted me was the line-up of an invitation to repeat everything al speakers who spoke against asking ready stated. We began to leave, when for or accepting these grants. Each a thought struck me: not one op spoke at length. (I was surprised to ponent of the measure was a non-Jew. find that no time limits were set.) I looked back. Not even one! The only Each spoke as if he alone bore the ones who spoke up at all against such message of truth, and was responsible aid to religious schools’ students were to educate the Board as to its respon Jews. No Catholic dared to stand up sibilities. Some appeared in the name and express such an opinion. No of groups that had the word “United” Protestant took the floor to register or “Association” in them, as if rep a “nay.” No Gentile of any belief, resenting the whole wide world, and or of any unbelief, rose to voice his others from groups that had the word opposition. The non-Jewish speakers “Jewish” in their name, as if repre were unanimous in expressing one senting the whole Jewish people. The favorable opinion, and it could not hardest thing to swallow was the elo be called diametrically opposed to a quence of these non-yarmulkaed Jewish position; many yarmulka-wearspeakers. The chips on the shoulders ers spoke up vociferously in support of these patrons of justice were a mile of the same opinion. It was just that there were two wide. Each bore the pseudo-confidence of a Jew who gains wisdom by drop Jewish opinions. And only among the ping his Judaism. The ecstasy of eman Jews were there two opinions. But cipation was apparent in the buoy this wasn’t a demonstration of the old ancy of their step and in the exu joke about two Jews having three berance of their applauders (acting opinions. There were far more than contrary to the rules of the Board, two Jews for each school of thought, and each such school was solidly uni but who was to care?). These people spoke of the danger fied. The Jews with the yarmulkas, to democracy, humanity, society, civ who pinned their hopes for the Amer ilization, and all held holy by secular ican Jewish future on the day school standards. They weren’t against re children who stood to gain from these ligion, they claimed, although it ap government grants, spoke strongly for 38

J E W IS H LIFE

them; the Jews without the yarmulkas, to whom Church-State separation is the overriding criterion of social welfare, spoke even more strongly against them. They either spoke in the names of Jewish groups or in the names o f non-sectarian groups, such as of teachers and parents. If there were non-Jews in these non-sectarian groups, they did not come forward to present their cases. No, only my brothers split openly and articulately before the eyes and ears of all. The nuns in their habits and the priests in their clerical col lars and the ministers in their mufti gazed and listened and observed and took due note of how Jews were inter nally segmented. The ones who most needed solidarity and unanimity could find no common ground of under standing. . . . And, what irony in the fact that it was the segment unshakably committed to Torah which

found itself aligned with the position of the non-Jews, while those to whom the non-Jewish world’s values are supreme were arrayed against the bearers of these values. What a re versal of the usual situation! Here were Jews whose governing concern is Christian acceptance and good will pitting themselves against a key church objective, and here were Jews typify ing unyielding Jewishness side by side with Christian spokesmen. There came to my mind a marked ly different alignment of a couple of years before. There appeared at that time, amidst world-wide controversy, a dramatic play that brought to the forefront of the public mind the ques tion whether the silence of people in high places contributed to a frightful chapter of Jewish history. At that time all Jews, with or without yarmulka, stood as one in the discussions that play evoked.

THE RIDDLE

fT 'H E full seriousness of that eveJL ning’s observations did not hit me until later. The experience took days and nights to take full effect, like a drug that slowly oozes through the bloodstream until it runs its full course. Back in the yeshivah we had been taught that understanding a question is half the answer. Try as I would though, an understanding of the perverted scene in the hearing room seemed to elude me. My mind recoiled from it. I was struck, as mentioned before, by the strangeness of the company we share on different occasions. To put it mathematically, there were three groupings: the yarmulka Jews, the non-yarmulka Jews, and the non-Jews. July-August, 1966

On the issue of the aforementioned drama about alleged disregard of Jewish safety during World War II, the yarmulka Jews stood with the non-yarmulka Jews on one side and the others opposite. On this issue of education, the yarmulka Jews stood with the non-Jews on the one side, with the non-yarmulka Jews on the other. In each case, the non-yarmulka Jews stood opposite the non-Jews. In one case, the yarmulka Jews stood with the other Jews; in the other, with the non-Jews. Why? Why did we orthodox Jews stand with the other Jews on one issue, and against them on another? Why, if we must stand contrary to them on a pub lic issue, did it have to be on this 39

fingers may be pointed in certain di rections, but the fact remains that the number of non-Judaic Jews has risen to large proportions. Can the Almighty —I shuddered as this thought passed through my mind—-allow for this ma jor deviation among His children? After all, no matter whose fault it may be, why does He allow such a spiritual T WAS while holding on to half a catastrophe to happen? The question, as it emerged in my subway strap one tired evening late the next week that the pieces of ponderings, was not one of siding the puzzle suddenly fitted into place. with one faction or another. The Why is it, I asked myself, that the Torah Jews understand the lifelines non-Torah Jew has reached a position of existence and act in each situation today of influencing the destiny of accordingly. Why did we stand apart the Jewish people? We know that the from the non-Jews in the discussion ignoramus, the non-believer, and the over the drama of the Holocaust? non-observing always existed among Because in that issue, our position Jews, and sometimes reached positions was dictated by cardinal principles. to do harm to Jewry. However that Why did we stand together with the was only when here and there an in non-Jews in the discussion over the dividual came into a position of in government aid to education? Because fluence. But the Jewish people col in that issue, too, our position was lectively was always represented as dictated by cardinal principles. In fact, an observing and traditional one. If we showed we carry no prejudices a group of Jews stood forth as a rep against others or ourselves. Our posi resentative body of the Jewish people, tion in each issue is dictated by prin that group was composed of practic ciples, not by who is standing on the ing, religious Jews. The non-observer other side. Why did we stand together with the was the exception. Another point: ever since the de non-orthodox Jews in the issue over struction of the Holy Temple, it was the war drama? Because that issue re rabbinic authority that brought our lated not to Judaism but to Jewish dispersed people national direction. identification. Happy to note, the non As the Talmud states it: “Since the orthodox still identify themselves as destruction of the Holy Temple, there Jews. In this vital sphere of existence, remains to the Almighty only the four the yarmulka is not a partition. Why cubits of law.” While here and there did we stand against the non-yarmulka splinters fell from the solid mass that Jews in the issue over aid to educa was a Torah people, that mass itself tion? Because the issue of government remained imbued throughout with the aid to education did relate to Judaism, spirit of the Torah. Yet today the and here the yarmulka became a par non-believing, non-observing sector of tition. We did not find it necessary to the Jewish people, the element reject bend over backwards to prove our ing rabbinic authority, has unfortu integration into Western civilization. nately grown large. True, accusing We didn’t judge our position accord-

issue of education? And why, if there was a so-called “universal Jewish posi tion,” were we the ones to shift our positions in different cases? But this was only on the surface of the problem. Instinct told me that further depths must be searched if the key was to be found.

J E W IS H LIFE

ing to who was of the contrary opin ion. We of the yarmulkas felt suf ficiently in favor of this aid to speak out strongly for it,even though it put us into an ironic situation of leaving the side of our brothers to stand at the side of those of other persuasions. OW, however, the new question N remained: why the greater num ber and role of the non-observing Jew? Why has that element which once consisted of individual dissidents while standing in the shadows of his tory now come forth in numerical mobilized strength to influence the course of Jewish history? There must be some Divine reason and I was more than anxious to know it. At this point, I must admit, I al most regretted having pursued the query. But presently I found what I believe is the answer and will offer it to the reader. Among my cherished collection of books and booklets is a pamphlet by the Chofetz Chaim entitle^ Tzipisah UYeshuah (“Have You Watched for the Redemption?”). The title is from the Talmud where we are told that this will be one of the six questions to be asked of every Jew by the Heav enly Court. The Chofetz Chaim, him self a Kohen, was deeply concerned to prepare himself for service in the Rebuilt Temple, for every Jew is re quired to live with the expectation that today is the day that the rebuild ing will take place. As such, he was a passionate advocate of public con sciousness on that score, and sought to motivate the ranks of Jewry to study the laws of Temple service thorough ly. Hence the pamphlet, a concise, three-chapter thesis with a punchline. Some instinct led me to read it now. July-August, 1966

IS very opening paragraphs shook me out of confusion into the harsh grasp of reality. Viewing the growing scope of Jewish ignorance and its concurrent religious deviations, (And this was in Radin, fifty years ago) he sought the meaning of the growing segmentations among the Jewish people, and from our Torah, came up with the answer. (That’s why he was THE Chofetz Chaim!) He found an apparent contradic tion. The Scriptures, on the one hand, paint a rosy picture of the era of the Messiah. “The Lord will turn thy cap tivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples . . . and He will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and He will do thee good, . . (D’vorim 30:3). But the Talmud, re ferring to the same era, paints a totally different picture: “In the era of the Messiah, impudence will be great. Youngsters will cause shame to the elders, elders will arise before the young, the son will profane the fa ther . . .” (Sotah 9,15). How are the two diametrically opposite portraits reconciled, asks the Chofetz Chaim? And the conclusion he draws—he, the Chofetz Chaim, no zealot or splinterer by any means, this same Chofetz Chaim whose actions of humility and peace are legendary—is that the era of the Messiah will witness a segmen tation of the Jewish people into two distinct groups, each with its own pat tern of living: the smaller group, as told in Scripture, will deprive itself of opportunities for worldly luxuries in order to dedicate itself to total service to the Almighty, and whose de votion will cause the Almighty to bring the Redemption; and the larger group, portrayed through the bleak

he might have gone back to Heaven with a report that we’re not really waiting for him. After all, he had sent his calling card into the hearing room, and we paid no attention to it. Logic and rationale cannot still the motions of history, nor upset its time table. Through the eyes of a Chofetz Chayim, we can learn to recognize seemingly isolated events as markings on the perspective of eternity, and to come to know such occurrences in Jewish history as touchstones of Jew ish destiny. The yarmulka brigade per sonifies the whole stubborn minority of the Jewish people and the underdog existence it represents. We are the minority among peoples and the mi nority among our own people, but we OR ALL I know, Eliyohu Hanovi are the guard of honor to receive was sitting in the back seat of the Elijah and the Messiah. limousine I passed on my way out, Can we hear their footsteps coniing Waiting for someone to come out and welcome him. Since none of us did, closer . I .?

expressions of the Mishnah, will be far removed from traditional Jewish living. The Chofetz Chaim does not advo cate this segmentation. He bewails it. He calls upon every G-d-fearing Jew to make himself part of the staunch fold of true servants of the Lord. His words are not words of divisiveness, but of unity for Divine purpose. They are the searing words, strong in their honesty, of one with profound Jewish perception. He is analyzing history, and my evening at the Board of Edu cation, fifty years and three thousand miles removed from the Radin of the Chofetz Chaim, only proved how pro foundly right was his analysis.

J E W IS H LIFE

The M ocatta Library By HARRY RABINOWICZ

THOSE who remember the Mocatta Library as it was prior to war-time destruction, a visit to the present library evokes mingled emo tions of joy and sorrow. In October, 1940 this renowned institution housed at University College in London was destroyed by Nazi bombs. The entire building and with it the library’s cherished collection of Judaica, con taining many rare and unique items, was reduced to ashes. All that re mained of the Mocatta Library’s treas ures were those which had previously been evacuated to Aberystwith—the manuscripts, the Lucien Wolf collec tion, and the early editions of Josephus. Fourteen years later, in September, 1954, the Mocatta Library was reborn in a new structure in Gower Street, designed by Professor Sir Albert Richardson. It was rededi cated by Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie in a ceremony which movingly conveyed the spirit of Jewish indestructibility. Immediately following the bombing the leaders of the Jewish Historical Society of England had taken steps to re-establish the library. Under the chairmanship of Owen E. Mocatta (d. 1957) and with the help of Dr. Cecil Roth, a new collection was July-August, 1966

soon in being. In 1947, in response to the appeal of Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach, President of the American Jew ish Historical Society, 800 volumes were presented by the widow of Cyrus Adler of Philadelphia. 400 books were received from the Holy Land. These donations were supplemented on March 3, 1941 by the entire Hebrew collection in the Guildhall Library. T WAS in December 1846 that Philip Salomons wrote to Sir George Carroll, Lord Mayor of Lon don, offering the Corporation of Lon don about 400 ancient Hebrew works which had been collected by his fa ther, Levy Salomons. In 1873 Sir Da vid Salomons (1793-1873), one-time Lord Mayor of London, and brother of Philip Salomons, bequeathed the sum of <£1,000 for “the Guildhall Li brary to be applied in part to augment ing the collection of Hebrew books presented to it by my brother Philip and in part to purchase books on com merce and art.” In 1891 the Rev. Albert Lowy (1816-1908), one of the ministers of the Reform Synagogue in London, published a “Catalogue of Hebraica and Judaica in the Library of the Corporation of the City of

London.” The collection consisted of Bibles, commentaries, editions of the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrosh, works on Kabbolah, philosophy, history, geog raphy, belles-lettres, and bibliography. Among its rare books was David Nieto’s Mateh Dan, printed in London in 1714. With the support of the philan thropist Sir Louis Sterling, the Jewish Historical Society purchased the Asher Isaac Myers collection and presented it to the Mocatta Library. Asher Myers, who died in 1902, was the editor of the London Jewish Chrom icle. He was at one time Burial Rabbi of the Hambro’ Synagogue and for many years Sexton of the United Synagogue. He patronized the well known group designated as “The Wandering Jews,” so called because the members were in the habit of wan dering from their subject. They met once a week at Myers’ home in Kilburn, London, among the members being Joseph Jacobs, Israel Abrahams, and Israel Zangwill. Myers collected many rare books and prints and ac quired the library of Alfred A. New man, who died in 1887 at the age of 35. Being deeply interested in AngloJewish history he had accumulated a unique collection of rare books, pam phlets, and prints. The Myers collec tion was displayed in the Anglo-Jew ish Historical Exhibition in 1887.

from Angel Lyon, to the Right Hon ourable Lord George Gordon, on wearing beards; with Lord George Gordon’s answer and reply from Angel Lyon,” printed in London in 1789. Lord George Gordon, son of the third Duke of Gordon, a champion of Protestantism, became a convert to Judaism. On the charge of printing “two very scandalous and very sedi tious” libels on the Queen of France he was imprisoned in Newgate prison, London. To him a beard was the hall mark of a Jew. In the words of the Morning Herald: “His Lordship made both in dress and aspect an appear ance truly Mosaic. His beard extended a considerable way from his chin and his countenance seemed solemn and sanctimonious.” When a poor Jew, Angel Lyon, was refused admittance to Lord Gordon in Newgate because his beard was not long enough, he wrote him:

A MONG particularly noteworthy xm. items is Joanna and Ebenezer Cartwright’s “Petition of the Jewes for the repealing of the Act of Parlia ment for their banishment out of England. Presented to his Excellency and the generall Councell of Officers on Fryday, January 5, 1648. WTith their favourable acceptance thereof,” Lon don, 1649. Another rarity is “Letter

Lord George Gordon was adamant, he replied:

My Lord, although I was unfortu nate not to meet your Lordship‘s ap probation, on account of my beard being short, yet I trust, your Lordship, when you consider the sending of Samuel to the house of Jesse, to anoint a king, and his being surprised that seven of the finest princes should pass before him unapproved, that G-d told Samuel, ‘People see with, the eyes, but I see the heart.’ Just so, my Lord, is my situation.

My answer is that I will not admit thee. I have given a general order to the Turnkeys of the prison, to let pass no Jews without beards, and I can see no reason to make thee an exception. Let it be (sufficient at pres ent to remind thee, that the practice of cutting off the beard, among the J E W IS H LIFE

Jews, is itself sinful. . . . Tarry there fore in Fenchurch Street, until thy beard is grown. Lyon had to submit and in his reply stated: I beg leave to declare for myself, that owing to your Lordship’s few words and personal example, on the tenth of June, when I had the honour of waiting upon you, I took the reso lution not to shave any more, which the bearer can personally testify. Another interesting item records one of the first Anglo-Jewish breach of promise cases entitled: “Proceedings at lairge in the Arches Court of Can terbury, between Mr. Jacob Mendes

da Costa and Mrs. Catherine da Costa Villa Real, both of the Jewish religion, and cousin Germans. Relating to a marriage contract and published in London in 1734.” Mrs. Catherine (or Kitty) Villa Real, as a child, was promised in marriage to Philip (or Jacob) Mendes da Costa. However, at the age of 17 Kitty married Joseph da Casta Villa Real. After three years Kitty was widowed and became en gaged to Philip Mendes da Costa. Kitty’s family objected to the mar riage and Philip sued his ex-fiancée for breach of promise claiming £100,000 damages. The case was dis missed.

V A R IO U S B EN EFAC TO RS

A MONG special orders of service -L*. are ‘‘This prayer used at the opening of the Great Synagogue, in Luke’s Place, 29th August, 1766. Composed in Hebrew by Rabbi Nahum Joseph Polak; and made Eng lish by J. N.,” London 1766, as well as “Song and praise to be performed at the dedication of the Great Jews Synagogue, St. James’s, Duke’s Place, London, on Friday, March 26, 1790. Composed . . . by David Solomon Shiff . . , translated into English . . . by David Levi” and printed in 1790. Of Anglo-American interest is the order of service in Hebrew and Span ish on the revolt of the American col onies: “Orden de la oracion . . . liecha en la Synagoga de la nacion Portuguesa y Española . . . Londres . . .1 3 de Deziembre, 17761’ There are two copies printed in silk of the Hyman Hurwitz poem: “Tears of a grateful people, A Hebrew dirge and hymn . . . on the day of the funeral of . . . King George III etc. July-August, 1966

Translated into English verse, by a friend, London, 1820.” Hurwitz was appointed Professor of Hebrew at Uni versity College in 1828 at a salary of £100. His friend Coleridge spoke of him as a “pious, learned, strong-mind ed single hearted Jew, an Israelite in deed and without guile.” The Mocatta library also acquired selected books from the Reverend Morris Rosenbaum (1871-1947), Minister of the Borough Synagogue. Rosenbaum’s works included an Eng lish translation (in collaboration with A. M. Silbermann, A. Blashki, and L. Joseph) of Rashi’s commentary on the Chumosh. He was also a calendarical expert and for many years edited the calendars of the Jewish Year Book and the Valentine Alma nack. He was an authority on AngloJewish genealogy and Honorary Arch ivist of the United Synagogue. HE Jewish Historical Society pre sented to the Mocatta library

Distinguished correspondents in shortly after its re-opening in 1954 cluded Dr. Chaim Weizmann and the entire library of Albert Montefiore Hyamson (1875-1954), editor of the Nahum Sokolow. On February 28, Dictionary of Universal Biography 1924, Dr. Alexander Marx, the Li and co-editor of the Vallentine’s Jew brarian of the Jewish Theological ish Encyclopaedia. The library has Seminary of America, wrote regret Hyamson’s index to the obituaries in fully: “My time is entirely taken up the Gentleman’s Magazine and an un with library work at present and I published guide to entries of Jewish find it impossible to finish the edition of a few interesting texts which I have interest in Notes and Queries. In 1960 the Gaster family pre started to work on.” Gaster was a sented the voluminous literae scriptae forthright letter writer. “I had the mis (22 cases holding over 360 bundles) fortune,” he writes on February 19, of their father Moses Gaster, famed 1924, “of receiving a prolonged visit scholar who was Haham of the Span from Dr. A. Oko” (Librarian of the ish and Portuguese community of Brit Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati). ain. Some of the correspondence is The correspondence reveals that Dr. of communal importance, dealing with Gaster applied for a chair at the UniZionist Congresses, Jewish Colonial versity College. On September 24, Trust, Jewish Territorial organization, 1898 the University acknowledged Rumanian Jewish emigration, the Al his application. However, Solomon banian Committee, Ukranian Jews, Schechter was appointed Professor of Federation of Polish Jews, B’nai B’rith. Hebrew by the University. Other papers are biographical: con gratulatory letters making the celebra rw iH E bequest of Sir Thomas GolyerA Gergusson (d. 1951) brought the tion of his twenty-fifth year as Haham, a Hebrew poem written by library a valuable collection of Anglohim as a boy, 80th birthday telegrams, Judaica, including a quantity (two notes of sermons, desk diaries, pocket boxes) of Jewish book plates mostly diaries, the record of his journey to mounted on loose leaves and arranged the Holy Land in 1907, illuminated in alphabetical order. In 1962, 500 volumes arrived from addresses, Diplomas, letters to emi nent scholars, an account of the inter Montefiore College, Ramsgate. Among view between Gaster and the King of them were several printed before 1650 such as De Rossi Meor Enayim Rumania in 1902. A letter from Chief Rabbi Hermann (Mantua, 1573), Yaakov ibn Haviv’s Adler, dated January 21, 1889 con Eyn Yaakov (1603), and the works tains a note of censure: “I regret to of the Kabbalist Mosheh ben Yaakov learn that you have sanctioned the Cordovero (1522-1570). Interesting, appointment of a Shohet to the Man too* are about 300 addresses and testi chester Portuguese Congregation as monials presented to Sir Moses and this act is counter to the understand Lady Montefiore in Berdichev, War ing at which we had arrived that you saw, Vilna, Odessa and other cities. would not give your authority until In 1962 the Jewish Museum pre we would have had an opportunity of sented the Mocatta Library about conferring upon the subject in Man 1,000 volumes on “permanent loan.” chester.” 46

J E W IS H LIFE

Tlaese books had been presented by “Charles de Sola and Elizabeth Louise Mosely to the Jewish Central Library in memory of their father Rev. Aaron David Meldola de Sola of Montreal

(1853-1918), son of the Rev. Abra ham de Sola of London and Montreal (1796-1860) and great-grandson of Haham Raphael Meldola of London (1754-1828).

RARE B O O K S

'V ^ IT H IN two decades the Library had thus succeeded in gathering not only a working library of AngloJudaica but also some very rare and valuable publications. Cecil Roth’s “Magna Bibliotheca Angle-Judaica, A Bibliographical Guide to Anglo-Jewish History,” based on the Mocatta Col lection, lists 268 items under the section “Political and Social.” Out of the 268 destroyed items, over 200 have been replaced in the post-war years and there are even twenty-one items not listed by Roth. Rare publications include William Prynne’s “Short demurrer to the Jewes long discontinued barred re mitter into England. Comprising an exact chronological relation of their first admission into, their ill deport ment . . . oppressions . . . and their . . . final banishment 1 . . out of Eng land . . . collected out of the best his torians and records. With reasons . . . against their readmission into Eng land,” London, 1656. Taking an op posite view to Prynne, Henry Jessey wrote: “A narrative of the late pro ceeds at White-Hall concerning the Jews: who had desired by R. Manasses, an agent for them, that they might return into England, and wor ship the God of their fathers here in their synagogues, etc.” London, 1656. Jessey, a Baptist, sponsored a revised translation of the Bible. Not only did he advocate the readmission of the Jews to England but in 1677 he colJuly-August, 1966

lected £.300 for the benefit of dis tressed Jews of Jerusalem to whom he sent the money with “Good wishes for their conversion.” Among the 18th century items is “Form of prayer per formed in the Synagogue of the Por tuguese and Spanish Jews residing in London, on Friday, the 13th Decem ber 1776. . . . Being the Fast-Day, appointed by . . . King George, to humble ourselves before the Supreme Being, imploring pardon for our sins . . . also the sermon preached on that day,” London 1776. Noteworthy among the 18th cen tury “Orders of Services” is the 15page “Order of Service for the Fun eral of the Lamented Chief Rabbi Rev. Solomon Herschell, Wed. 29 Cheshvon 5603” printed by J. Wert heimer in London in 1843. Another rarity is the seven-page “Form of Service at the Great Syna gogue London on Wed. the 9th July 5605 at the Installation of the Rev. Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler” printed by J. Wertheimer in 1845. Adler’s Rab binate lasted from 1844 to 1890. Among the many Orders of Service that he composed was “Service of prayers and thanksgiving of the Brit ish Empire at the celebration of the jubilee of her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, 21st June 1887.” FTEN a story of high passions and low intrigue will lurk be hind a piece of polemics. So it is with

Haham David Nieto’s “De la Divina Providencia ” London, 1704. Nieto became Haham in 1701. On Novem ber 20, 1704 he delivered a sermon, saying that “God and nature and na ture and God are one and the same.” He was thereupon accused by Joshua Zarfati of subscribing to the panthe istic doctrines Of Benedict Spinoza. The Warden of the London Synagogue wrote to Haham Zevi: “Since we have the good fortune to be amply informed of the incomparable good qualities which are united in the worthy per son of your Reverence and is no cause to wonder that we have come to seek your reverence for our judge in the certainty that you will accompany the decision that we seek with your cus tomary candour and integrity.” Ha ham Zevi decided in Nieto’s favour. “Seeing that it is the very opinion of Rabbi Jehudah Halevi,” he writes, “in his Cuzari and of the commentaries thereon . . . I say therefore that he has done well; and that everyone who raises objections against him after seeing this our answer will be ac counted as a transgressor.” Rabbis in high office, in fact rabbis in any office, are constantly subject to attack and Chief Rabbi Herschell was not immune to censure. Solomon Hers chell, son of Hart Lyon, became Chief Rabbi in 1802. “The congregation of the German Jews in London,” de clared The Gentleman’s Magazine, “have elected after a vacancy of ten years a High Priest of their nation.” His bitter opponent was Solomon Bennett. Born in 1761 in Polotzk, White Russia, Bennett studied at the Danish Academy of Art in Copen hagen. In 1795 he was awarded the patent of R. A. of the Academy in Berlin for his life-size portrait of Frederick the Great. He settled in 48

London in 1799. His first work was published in London in 1809 entitled ‘T he Constancy of Israel.” It is a harsh condemnation of “the fishers of men” as he terms the rabbis, “who though in holy surplice and though Talmudists yet are very little orthographists and Etymologists.” Later Bennett became more specific in his accusations. In 1818 he pub lished a 66-page pamphlet entitled “The Present Reign of the Synagogue of Duke’s place Displayed.” “Why is Herschell so serotinous of the sup posed conduct of one individual, and yet so indifferent to the bulk of his synagogue, the followers of his stand ard,” he demanded rhetorically, “see ing that the Royal Exchange, the Stock-exchange and the coffee-houses are all filled with the Jew merchants transacting business on Sabbaths^and Holy Days quite publicly . . . I have often seen myself the Jewish picturedealers of pretended piety, furniture and cloth-sellers attend public sales on the Sabbath Day, all without blush ing before the Christian community. What sort of respect can the gentiles have for us when they see such relig ious degeneracy and such public con tempt for every thing Jewishly sacred? And yet our pious Grand Rabbi never rebukes them—either individually or collectively. And why? We have suf ficient reason to conjecture because it would not answer so well to his pur pose, or because his followers would look upon him with a frown.” A more personal grievance moti vated Levy Alexander, son of the first Anglo-Jewish typographer, to pen a pamphlet entitled: “The Axe laid to the Root; or ignorance and super stition evident in the character of the Rev. S. Herschell, High Priest of the Jews in England, in several letters to J E W IS H LIFE

him on occasion of his having ordered the trees to be felled in the old burialground at Mile End Road.” Herschell

had expressed preference for a prayer book published by a rival printer, E. Justin.

M A N U S C R IP T S

MONG the unusual liturgical the year 1757, when disputes with the manuscripts in the Mocatta Li Beth Din led to his resignation. brary is a Pesach Haggodah of 58 There are papers relating to the leaves, on vellum written in square communal workers Sir Oswald John characters of various sizes and illu Simon (1855-1932), Israel Zangwill, minated in gold and other colors. It Dayan Bernard Spiers (1829-1901), contains excerpts from the Midrashim Albert Haymson; a two volume man as well as the Hebrew text of the uscript of Louis Golding’s (1895Song of Songs, Ruth, and Ecclesiastes, 1958) “Magnolia Street”; and sixty and also contains Azharoth. A Mach- pamphlets written ©n the “Jew Bill” zor for the whole year, according to (Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753). the Italian rite, written on 392 vellum The Mocatta Library collection in pages with headings and key words, cluded four volumes of the Bible pub is richly illuminated. The title page lished in London in 1852 inscribed bears the coat of arms of a Kohen. February 6, 1867, from the library of The text is vocalized throughout. On Charles Dickens. In 1860 Dickens the two last leaves are signatures of sold his Tavistock House to James P. a number of censors. Another manu Davis. Three years later Mrs. Eliza script is “Zeh ha-Shar Ladoshem Davis wrote to him: Zadikim Yebuhu Bo”* (“This is the It has been said that Charles Dickens, Gate of God, let the righteous enter the large-hearted, whose works plead therein”) London, 1811, a Hebrew so eloquently and so nobly for the op manuscript on vellum written by pressed of his country and who may Nahum Sopher, with twelve lines to justly claim credit as fruit of his the page. Another manuscript by the labour for the many changes for the same scribe contains all the benedic amelioration of the conditions of the tions for daily use. There is an 18th poor now at work, has encouraged a vile prejudice against the despised century Italian manuscript entitled Hebrew. Fagin I fear admits of only “Sephirath ha-Omer” (“Counting the one interpretation. But while Charles Omer”)^ written by Judah Samuel Dickens lives the author can justify Sinigalia; a 12-page manuscript en himself or atone for a great wrong titled “Seder Abodat Cohen Gadol pn a whole scattered nation. beYom ha-Kippurim” (“The Order of Her touching plea was answered. Service of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement”) written by On July 10, 1863, Dickens wrote: Haham Isaac Nieto (1702-1774) in I must take leave to say that if there be any general feeling on the part of intelligent Jewish people that I have * Transliteration of title here and elsewhere done them what you describe as ‘a in this article as given in the handwritten cata logue of the Mocatta Library. great wrong’ they are far less sensible

July-August, 1966

and far less just and far less good tempered people than I have always supposed them to be. Fagin in ‘Oliver Twist’ is a Jew, because it unfortu nately was true of the time to which that story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew . . . I have no feelings towards the Jewish people but a friendly one. I always speak well of them whether in public or in private. In “Our Mutual Friend” Dickens depicts Riah as a Jew of superb com passion. In appreciation Mrs. Davis sent Dickens a copy of Benisch’s “He brew and English Bible” with a spe cial inscription: “Presented to Charles Dickens in grateful and admiring recognition of his having exercised the noblest quality a man can possess, that of atoning for an injury as soon as conscious of having afflicted it . . . by a Jewess.” / “\ F educational interest is the. Con'V r stitution of Jews’ College printed in London in 1852. This was “the col lege to be established in London for the purpose of affording a liberal and useful Hebrew and English education to the sons of respectable parents and training Ministers, Readers, and Teachers. Boys between the ages of nine and fifteen, who can write and read English and read Hebrew to be admitted as day scholars.” A com mittee under Arthur Franklin of Jews’ College recommended the estab lishment of a Training College for

“the systematic training of teachers . . . neither the machinery nor the training is available at the College.” A minority report by Dr. Radcliffe Salomon, Sir Robert Waley Cohen, and Robert Sebag Montefiore advo cated that the College should be re^ moved to Oxford or Cambridge. Documenting only 20th century de velopments is the typewritten diary of the Paris Peace Conference written from January 14, 1919 to October 12, 1919 by Lucien Wolf. A diversity of views disrupted the Jewish delegations and the divided Hpuse of Israel pre sented a sorry spectacle. Eventually some semblance of unity was estab lished with the formation of the “Comité des delegations Juive” (Com mittee of Jewish Delegations) with representatives and emissaries from the Holy Land, U.S.A., Canadá, Rus sia, Ukraine, Great Britain, and Po land. The work of this Committee led the Supreme Council to formulate “ special provisions” Which became known as the “Minority Rights.” Today the words of Lord Meston spoken in 1932 once again ring true: “The Library is open to all who wish to enter; students may avail them selves of the various collections; the Museum, with its antiquities is for the delectation of all; and the Lecture Theatre is at the disposal of the Col lege.” The Library throws light upon the “story of Israel in Britain and her daughter nations*”

J E W IS H LIFE

B o o k R eview s A Two-Continental Rabbinic Perspective By GILBERT KLAPERMAN JOURNAL OF A RABBI. By Imman uel Jakobovits. Living Books, Inc., New York, 1966, 466 pp. and notes, $6.95. ROM the writings and involvements of a rabbi and public figure there F emerges here a wonderfully human and readable word portrait. “Journal of a Rabbi” is an anthology of lectures, ser mons, letters, and halachic interpreta tions culled by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobo vits from his rabbinate which has span ned two continents and twenty-five years of active service. Since the shutting down of mass im migration to the United States and the almost complete destruction of the Euro pean rabbinate, the Continental rabbi who is a talmid chochom—and in Rabbi Jakobovits’s case, who is also endowed with the grace of felicitous American The

spiritual

leader

Congregation

Beth

Sholom in Lawrence, Long Island, R abbi G ilbert K laperman serves on the faculty of Yeshiva College. He is co-author, with his wife, of “Jeremy and Judy,” a popular series of books on Jewish history for young people.

July-August, 1966

fluency—has, sadly, become a rarity in our country today. As the one-time rabbi of a London congregation, as the past Chief Rabbi of Ireland, and as the pres ent rabbi of the prestigious Fifth Avenue Synagogue in New York City, the author has ministered to two distinct types of Jewish communities in different secular contexts. And, therefore, his experiences as expressed through his writings are doubly interesting. The position of a rabbi in England or Ireland is considerably different in terms of official governmental recognition from what it is in our country. And being the only rabbi in an entire country, as in the case of the Irish pulpit, makes for an even more unique office. The author gives us a provocative insight into such a rabbinate through the reproduction of selected statements made at state recep tions, letters written to newspapers and journals, and lectures delivered at public functions. While, under these circumstances, the nature of the Rabbi’s position may be 51

F O R Y O U R SE L F A N D Y O U R FRIENDS A P R E C IO U S GIFT two years for only $4.50 (twelve issues)

J E W IS H LIFE, 84 FIFTH AVEN U E, N E W Y O R K , N.Y. 10011 Send gift subscription to: Name ................................................................................

Address

.............................................................................

City, State, Zip Code

M y Name

Address

City, State, Zip Code

_ .... □ include my own subscription 52

□ New q Renewa|

Check enclosed for $ .................... . J E W IS H LIFE

different, one cannot escape the fact that Jewish communities, wherever they may be situated, have an identity of struc ture and a similarity of problems. For those who cherish a nostalgic picture of the East European shtetl as being some how sui generis> Rabbi Jakobovits’s de scription of “The Jews of Erin” furnishes the revealing sociological conclusion that given the minority status, the religious requirements, and the economic similar ity, a shtetl is a shtetl regardless of its location, a conclusion that is reinforced by the observers of small-town Jewish life even in the United States. HE Journal contains eleven sec tions, the longest of which is de voted to the author’s specialized interest in the relationship between medicine and Judaism, so excellently explored in his “Jewish Medical Ethics.” Although the remarkable steps in transplants and con traceptive techniques that have been taken in the last few years have already dated some of the material in this sec tion, it is nevertheless of great value to the layman and to many rabbis. It is especially helpful to those concerned with the answers of Halochah to the problems thrust upon Judaism today in these areas by new scientific break throughs, the population explosion, so cial pressures, and the newly emerging concern of Christian theologians with these issues. Rabbi Jakobovits, who has not been in this country for too long a time, also brings a fresh look to many of our reli gious problems froin the vantage point of a European rabbi within the frame work of an “established” synagogue. How more succinctly and clearly can an

July-August, 1966

evalution of Orthodox life in America be described than the following: . . . the main weakness of the Ortho dox position seems to stem from its preoccupation with relatively insignif icant side issues. In the public mind the principal differences with its rivals concern the use in the synagogue of microphones and English prayers, the separation of the sexes and the height of the partition between them, and often the distance from the synagogue at which cars are parked on the Sab bath. Very few on either side of the conflict have any idea of the real issues at stake: the belief in Revela tion, the binding character of Jewish law, the place of Judaism outside the synagogue, and the distinction be tween vague moralistic preaching and a strict moral discipline pervading the whole gamut of Jewish life. The bat tle is being fought out on largely ir relevant ground—to the greatest dis advantage of the traditionalists. Despite the author’s modest disclaimer in the preface, the “Journal of a Rabbi” is not merely a record of words written or orally expressed, but a biographical study of a sincere and devout scholar and public servant. As such, it is also by extension a chronicle reflecting the gamut of experiences and challenges to which all contemporary orthodox rabbis are exposed. Rabbi Jakobovits sums this up in a classic Kol Nidrey sermon on “The Burdens of the Rabbi’s Labor.” Perhaps a focal sentence from that ser mon may be applied to an assessment of the Journal. “A Rabbi never labors in vain so long as he preaches and practices the word of G-d.”

Reprints

Now Available

Our readers will appreciate knowing that reprints are now available of the following articles and editorials from previous issues of J E W ISH LIFE. THE J E W IS H ATTITUDE T O W A R D F A M ILY P L A N N IN G By Dr. Moses Tendier THE STATE O F THE J E W IS H S C H O O L IN A M E R IC A By William Brickman THE D IV O R C E PROBLEM By Rabbi Melech Schächter THE J E W IS H -C H R IS T IA N D IA L O G U E : A N O T H E R L O O K By Rabbi Norman Lamm C A N W E N E G LE C T THE T A L M U D T O R A H ? By Rabbi Zalman Diskjnd J U D A IS M A N D FREE E N Q U IR Y By Rabbi Nachum L. Rabinovitch THE PROBLEM O F C O N V E R S IO N T O D A Y By Rabbi Melech Schächter N A TU RE— C R E A T IO N O R E V O L U T IO N ? By Robert Perlman These reprints may be used to much advantage by study and discussion groups, as well as for distribution for public information purposes to people in your local areas. All reprints are 15 cents per copy; 10 cents per copy when 25 or more are ordered. Use order form below. Prepaid orders only, please

J E W IS H LIFE, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10011 Please send .......... copies of ............ ......... ................................................. send .......... copies of .................................... ................................... N A M E : |........................................................................................................ A D D RESS: ...................... ....... | . . . . . . . . . . . . |. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .

..........

C IT Y :.................... STATE::........... ZIP CO DE:........... C H E C K E N C LO SE D : $......

J E W IS H LIFE

L e tte r s to th e E d ito r UNITY FOR DAY SCHOOL SUCCESS

As a matter of fact, every now and then someone at these conferences would voice the reaction: Is this a Day School New York, N.Y. convention or is it a Synagogue conven The editorial entitled “The Perils of tion? We in the Day School movement Day School Success” which appeared in do likewise attempt, at times, to bring the last issue of Jewish Life indicates the Synagogue, as such, into central great perception of the problems facing focus at our own conferences in the hope Hebrew day schools in this country. that similar individuals would voice a You are also to be complimented for corresponding reaction. Perhaps we bringing certain “undercover” issues into should do so more consistently. All of the broad daylight where they belong. this only underlines the need to over The call for a “total concept” regard come the “divergence of orientations” ing the day school situation is one which resulting from the “undue measure of has been heard often, but perhaps not separation of effort and interest” as be as dramatically as it should be presented. tween Synagogue and Day School of I think that many of us do have a total which your editorial warns. concept and have urged our friends to There are some points in the editorial adopt it. But what is hampering us is— which are perhaps debatable and I could as the editorial so well put it—“its trans particularly take issue with your state lation into total approach.” ment that the Day School movement has There is no doubt that the Synagogue failed to “share and profit by the hardarid the Day School have many basic in earned lessons of the Orthodox synagogue terests in common—and certainly do on the American scene.” But why argue those synagogues and day schools which one or two of the niceties of an editorial are committed to total Orthodoxy. It is which speaks with so much seychel? just that we have not yet found the way With the National Biennial Convention to fuse them together. In projecting the of UOJCA coming up in November, it Day School into the central themes of is to be hoped that the question of many of its regional conferences, the achieving this “total concept,” at least Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega in the Day School field, will be given tions of America has moved in the right centrality in the program. The trouble direction. The response has shown that with the cries for unity is that we try many in synagogue work feel an iden to bite off too much at one time. Let us tity of interest with day school forces. concentrate on getting some kind of total July-August, 1966

concept of work and activity concerning doubt is flawed in more ways than one, the Day School, at least. Even at our I do not believe that Mrs. Tendler, de own Torah Umesorah conventions I find spite the undisputed credentials of her that not too many people are taking seri anonymous authorities, is correct in the ously enough the threat of the deviation- specific errors she has purported to dis ist groups which are not only infiltrating cover. our day schools but are going about First, the halachic distinction between building their own with great gusto. The the prohibition of niddah and the tum’ah situation must be approached and dealt of niddah is no doubt valid—but largely with in the dramatic terms which are irrelevant to the point I made. The fact called for. remains that the term tum’ah is used to The Union of Orthodox Jewish Con describe the prohibition of niddah even gregations of America is nearest of all in post-Temple times. Even a cursory organizations to being a total group or glance at the laws of niddah in Yoreh ganization for Orthodoxy. Its coming De’ah, beginning with the very first para national convention should provide occa graph, will confirm this usage. Further sion for synagogue and day school lead more, the question of whether or not ers to meet together and once and for the technical law of tum’ah is operative all take effective action on the problems for niddah today is not germane to the which your editorial, in its quiet and psychological problem one encounters in dignified style, discussed so concisely and trying to persuade a person to abide by yet so thoroughly. these laws. If the classification is derog If the editorial will contribute to de atory—^which, of course, it is not—then finite steps to the solution of the prob the principle remains objectionable re lems to which it was addressed, it will gardless of contemporary halachic inap have rendered great service to the Jew plicability. A legal nicety may appeal to ish community. one trained in halachic dialectics; it has little effect on the psychological and phil Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky National Director, Torah Umesorah osophical difficulties which we are called upon to deal with. The reviewer’s objection to my foot RABBI LAMM CLARIFIES note (p. 85) on the difference between New York, N.Y. “natural” and “artificially accumulated” I am grateful for the flattering re water is another example of being overmarks about my “A Hedge of Roses” by technical. The note begins with the com your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler, (May- ment, “Interestingly, there is a difference June, 1966)—sufficiently grateful to . . .” Quite obviously, I did not try to break the unwritten rule about an author “sell” mikvah on this basis. It was just, responding to a reviewer. as stated, an “interesting’’ observation While I appreciate Mrs. Tendler’s grac that distinctions insisted upon by the ious comments, I do wish to react to her Halochah are relevant in completely dif assertion that the work contains a num ferent contexts. Again, the same may be ber of errors of fact. Her charge is au said of Mrs. Tendler’s rejection of my thenticated by her in a footnote averring translation of metzora as “leper.” I am that she Consulted competent halachic aware of the fact that tzaraath is not authority before offering the criticisms. leprosy, but I did not write this book for While no book is perfect, and mine no dermatologists; the “ordinary” reader, 56

JEWISH LIFE

THE ONLY PREFABRICATED

PACKAGED SUKKAH The Lifetime Easy-To-Assemble Portable Sukkah Designed By Spero Foundation SIZE: Seven and one quarter feet long by Five and one half feet wide by Seven and one quarter feet high. Will accom modate up to 10 persons

D E C O R A T IO N S : Eshpizon - Kiddush (Prayers) are silk screened on upper four walls as per photographs. Will not fade. LIGHT: We furnish you with 30 ft. water proof wire—s o c k e tplug and plastic re flector, wired and mounted on a wooden strip 2" x 2" which you place across the top of Sukkah. PROTECTION: Against wind and storm. We furnish you with two heavy cords 12 ft. each, slides and Hy pegs to fasten Sukkah to ground or wall.

FRAME and FITTINGS: Made of an alloy of alu minum and magnesium, three-quarter inch diam eter pipe which will not rust or corrode. No tools necessary with our pat ented fittings to assemble or dismantle, other than one small wrench which we furnish. WALLS: Made of yel low DURA-HUE DUCK. Weight 10 oz. per square yard. Mildew Resistant and Water Repellent.

PACKING: We pack and ship entire Sukkah in heavy corru gated carton which is 7 and a half feet long by 8 inches square and this carton is used for stor ing your Sukkah.

ONLY

$102 F.O.B. Factory Check With Order

ASSEMBLING: With each pur chase we furnish you with a very detailed assembly instruction sheet, which makes it very simple to put the Sukkah together in about 30 minutes.

COMMUNITY SIZE SUKKAH . . . accommodating up to 24 persons, 14% ft. lo n g # - 10 ft. wide — 7% ft. high.......... $212.00 F.O.B., Factory

S’CHACH We will also supply you with 80 bamboo sticks 1 inch in diameter by 6 feet long to cover entire Sukkah. ADDITIO NAL.. . . $18.00

COMMUNITY SIZE ALL OTHER FEATURES AS ABOVE. ADDITIONAL FOR S’CHACH, $36.00.

July-August, 1966

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America 84 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10011 Gentlemen: P Please ship me one Packaged Sukkah designed by the Spero Foundation. Check for the amount of $102 is enclosed. p I also want 80 bamboo sticks, which will cover entire Sukkah, and I am enclosing an additional $18.00. Nam e.............. Address........ .. ! City and State.

who has read the Biblb in English, if at all, considers the metzora as a “leper,” and the Talmud relates this disease to death. This was all I was concerned with—an exposition of Family Purity, not quibbling with the King James’ trans lation (whose source was probably the Greek version’s rendition of tzaraath as lepra) over medical terminology. My most important objection is to the reviewer’s contention that giluy aroyoih should not be translated as “un chastity,” because, she suggests, the halachic term refers exclusively to adul tery, i.e. relations with a married Jewess, which is the “only” aspect of Giluy Aroyoih for which martyrdom is de manded. This iSi of course, a serious error. The term giluy aroyoth, at the very least, comprehends incest, and according to one opinion of Rishonim, even relations between a Jew and an unmarried nonJewish woman. (See too Sanhedrin 75.) Hence, my use of “unchastity” to cover a variety of prohibited relationships without enumerating a detailed list. 1 wish to emphasize that my refuta tion of certain of Mrs. Tendler’s criti cisms in no way detracts from my appre ciation of her generous recommendation of “A Hedge of Roses.” Rabbi Norman Lamm

such. But Hebrew words in Latin char acters leave me blank-—I don’t know what they mean, nor find a resemblance to the Hebrew source. But I’m not com plaining, just explaining. Sidney Nemet

FUNNY MISSION Levittown, N.Y. Just a note to let you know that I thought the article “Mission of Humor” (May-June 1966) by Abraham Shulman was a superb piece of writing. It was ex tremely funny. I congratulate its author. I might add that your other articles are equally top-notch. Nathaniel Steinberg

PUBLIC SCHOOL RELIGION

Los Angeles, Calif. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the fine calibre of your publication. It is truly the out standing Jewish magazine. I might sug gest that it could well come out as a monthly; I for one would consider an increased price in order to see it more often. I found Mr. Gross’s article concerning the new “religion” in the public schools most interesting; I hope that it will re sult in UOJCA undertaking a more posi HEBREW IN HEBREW tive attitude in this area. Even if all Jewish parents wished to send their chil Los Angeles, Calif. Jewish Life affords me a great deal dren to day schools the financial strength of enjoyment and edification. But there to achieve this goal is lacking. The is one slight change I would appreciate. largest percentage of our children must What advantage is there in spelling out perforce attend public schools, and are Hebrew words in Latin script? Myself— subjected to influences which weaken the I am only a struggler in reading Hebrew teachings which they receive in the home but I’ve learned to pronounce what I see and in the synagogue. If we adults blindly written in Hebrew and if I see a Hebrew accept the dictum that education can and phrase out of a Siddur, I recognize it as should be provided to our children with58

JEWISH LIFE

VBDi

awn ntna

M AHZOR HA-SHALEM Translated and Annotated

By Philip Birnbaum THESE HIGH HOLYDAY PRAYER BOOKS for the New Year and Day of Atonement have been carefully edited and arranged so that each service for each part of the day is complete in itself. Dr. Birn baum has translated the ancient prayer into clear and simple English which gives them all the meaning, dignity and significance of the orig in31 Hebrew. His running commentary and explanatory footnotes, de signed for the ordinary reader, are concise, informative and instructive. Tastefully printed and bound.

Mahzor Ashkenaz in 2 vols.— $5.00 in 1 vol. $3.00 Mahzor Nusach Sephardi in 2 vols. only.................$5.00

HEBREW

P U B L I S H I N G

CO.

79 Delancey Street, New York, N.Y. 10002 Look for the Hebrew Publishing Company When Buying Hebrew Greeting Cards.

INTERIORS I SYNAGOGUES ALBERT WOOD & FIVE SONS.« PORT W A S H IN G T O N

l/ L N E W Y O R K

Gold's HORSERADISH ;4 h10LU!Ä,'S W t

JmMMhdiik

July-August, 1966

RESERVE NOW FOR Rosh Hashonah, Yom Kip pur and Sukkoth.

Rubenfeld’s MONSEY PARK HOTEL Since 1930 LUXURIOUS EXTRAS

Plus © Glatt

Gallery of Fine Arts — Magnificent Indoor Pool — Health Spa Out door Olympic Pool — Meeting Rooms — Lounging Areas — Tennis, Card Room — Plush Suites — Cock tail L ounge---- Day Camp. Mr. Howard Winett: Banquet Mgr. 50 TO 1000 PERSONS Banquet • Luncheon • Brunch • Business or Club Event • Convention • Meeting • Outing • Wedding • Bar Mitzvah • MONSEY, N.Y. • % hr. or less from NYC, Jersey or Westchester. Tel.: (914) 356-3400 (212) 562-6181

out any spiritual content, then we must bear the obvious consequences. I am fully aware of the arguments of those who wish to keep religion out of education; their writings are more pro lific than profound. Secular humanism need not be the religion our children absorb in the public schools. This subject invites our deepest consideration. M o rris S m ith

IN SUPPORT OF SYNAGOGUE DECORUM Brooklyn, N.Y. The article by Dr. Raphael S. Weinberg which appeared in your March-April 1966 issue was informative, indeed well written. It was most refreshing to find the “scholarly” technique of substantiating a biased theory employed by one of our own orthodox brethren to disprove the Reform and “enlightened” concept of synagogal decorum. In the manner that has ofttimes been the trademark of the notorious Bible critics and their ilk, Dr. Weinberg proceeds to force his personal opinion of what the synagogue should be upon his unsuspecting readers. With the convincing title “Measuring the Syna gogue with a Jewish Yardstick,” our au thor first “proves” that his opinions are authentic Jewish ones, and then proceeds to measure the Synagogue in broad day light with the yardstick formerly covered by several centuries of dust and ashes and now brought to light by Dr. Wein berg. The various primary and secondary sources cited, can, of course, be used to prove the very opposite of the “sound conclusions” at which Dr. Weinberg ar rives. The first source pertinent to our discussion, Sukkah 51b, wherein the glory of the Synagogue of Alexandria is compared to the Holy Temple itself, 60

surely is a description of a synagogue of great decorum. Here the people are seated according to a definite system and are restricted in their movements. Strict decorum is maintained. The waving of the sudar (to signal the points of the service) was an additional means of maintaining decorum. Because of the vastness of the Dioploston the voice of the cantor was not audible in every part of the synagogue. Without the waving of the sudar, people seated at some distance from the cantor would respond with Amen as they heard Amen from their neighbors, and those in greater proximity to the cantor would hear a continuous “echo” of Amen throughout the recital of the following Benediction. This ill was prevented by the sudar. I have been present in a large synagogue where the cantor had a weak voice and the chaotic result was Alenu recited in five separate groups reminiscent of a canon or round. In addition the waving of the sudar was a reflection of the practice in the Beth Hamikdosh in which the Segan would wave the sudrin as a signal for the Levites to commence reciting the Psalm of the Day. In other words, the dignity of the Holy Temple was trans planted to a synagogue in a foreign land.i It is obvious that this synagogue was a place of decorum many years prior to the emergence of Christianity. Referring to the interruption of syna gogue services for the purpose of com pelling a litigant to appear before a court, Dr. Weinberg states “this last province of the synagogue accentuates the fact that the awe and reverence which our social interactions seem to dictate for the house of worship is qualified in Jewish practice by the circumstances that the synagogue evolved more from the r’chov boir than from the Holy of Holies. The fact that a person could actually rise and halt the service seems JEWISH LIFE

OPPORTUNITIES IN ISRÂEL Are You Interested In: Employment: Israel’s rapidly growing industrial complex will require more than 120,000 additional work ers by 1970. More than 20,000 job openings are available for professional and highly skilled technical workers. The Israel Aliyah Center offers employment programs for engineers, chemists, computer pro grammers, actuaries, architects, product design ers, systems analysts, accountants and business management graduates. Positions are also available for physicians, paramedical personnel, registered nurses and clinical and educational psychologists.

Teaching: Numerous positions are available in Israel’s rapidly growing educational system. Teachers of Math, English, Talmud, Physics and other subjects are being sought by Israeli institutions. Salaries are commensurate with educational background and teaching experience.

Learning Hebrew: The Israel Aliyah Center enables individuals to learn Hebrew through the “Ulpan” method. Hebrew language courses are available in city centers and at Kibbutzim. The course of instruc tion includes: conversational Hebrew; reading and writing; culture; and various aspects of liv ing in Israel. Two programs are offered: 1. THE KIBBUTZ ULPAN—Young people (between 18-30) are eligible for a six-month Ulpan program conducted in Kibbutzim throughout Israel. It combines a half day of language instruction with a half day of work in the Kibbutz. There is no charge for this program. 2. THE CITY ULPAN—Professional, skilled workers, and other qualified individuals are eligible for a five-month Ulpan program. City Ulpanim are located in several of Israel’s major population centers. Individuals may attend the Ulpanim either as residential or external stu

dents. Classes are conducted on a full-time basis with adequate opportunities for prepara tion and individual study. The Ulpan fee is $185 for the entire five months’ course includ ing room and board.

Pursuing Your Education: Israel’s multi-faceted educational system of fers a wide range of programs for students who wish to continue their studies. The Israel Aliyah Center advises students on the possibilities of attending Israel’s educational institutions.

Purchasing An Apartment: Americans and Canadians may now purchase apartments in any one of the 18 suburban com munities being constructed by the Jewish Agency in Israel. Th0 program features low down payments and long-term (20- 30-year) mortgages at interest rates averaging 7%. Pensioners (up to the age of 65) may now purchase apartments in the aforementioned housing projects. Retirees are eligible for tenyear mortgages of up to I£ 10,000 ($3,333). Monthly payments average I£ 100 ($33).

Investments: Individuals interested in investment oppor tunities in Israel may avail themselves of expert advice available through the Israel Aliyah Cen ter representatives. The Center has detailed in formation on many aspects of the Israeli econ omy.

Lîyîng In A Religious Community: The Israel Aliyah Center has been instru mental in forming several religious commu nities in Israel. The Center encourages the for mation of additional projects by religious com munal and fraternal organizations, offering these groups information on building construc tion, land procurement and other pertinent de tails.

— ------------------------- FO R IN F O R M A T IO N THE ISRAEL A L IY A H CENTER IN C .

“1

515 PARK AVE., NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022 Gentlemen: Please send me information on: □ Employment Opportunities □ Housing □ City Ulpan ■iÿjjl Kibbutz Ulpan □ Retirement Opportunities

□ □ □ □ □

Teaching Investments Religious Communities Educational Opportunities Others (please-specify)

Name

Profession or Trade

Address

Years of Experience

City

State

Zip Code

Age

strange only if we assume that the syna our author's contention. Anyone unfa gogue served as a ceremonial function miliar with the Simchath Torah celebra exclusively, and this is simply not the tion in a particular locale would be a case.” The idea of rechovah shel ir as the little taken aback at the extremes to origin of the Synagogue is preposterous. which it is carried. But Pepys w&s The Mishnah (Taanith 15a) says motziin equally ignorant of the original celebra eth hatevah lir’chovah shel hoir. If we tion of All Fools’ Day in the medieval assume that Tevah is synonymous with Catholic church, which makes our Sim the Oron Hakodesh, then the Tevah is chath Torah celebration appear more naturally a Synagogal Ark and the Mish like Tisha B’Av. Actually some of their nah tells us that they took the Ark out customs were, to be polite, revolting. of the Synagogue. Therefore, the pre Any Jew entering a church on that day, cincts of Main Street for public worship unaware of its significance, would have evolved out of the Synagogue and not been equally shocked. Of course, Dr. vice-versa. The Main Street was only Weinberg would label this, “measuring a used as a final and urgent place of wor church with a Jewish yardstick,” and as ship when the Synagogue had failed (to I shall show below, this would be ab crystallize the religious concept behind solutely correct. Now in the quotation from Gilman, the special action taken when no rain was forthcoming) to invoke Divine the non-Jewish observer is aware of the fact that the “highly respectable elder” Mercy. Moving on to the “conclusion” that was only trying to create the impression the ‘‘Synagogue evolved more from the of being “a polite and hospitable enter r’chov . . . than from the Holy of Holies” tainer” even though “we know he really —on the contrary, the similarities of syn was, a devout fellow worshipper.” In agogal and Holy Temple architecture and other words, we have a Jew who ordi ritual are such that only one who is un narily did not converse in synagogue, but familiar with one of the two could fail wishing to impress' upon his non-Jewish guests his hospitality, he sat next to to see them. Interrupting the Synagogue service them and engaged them in an interest does not seem strange when one recalls ing conversation. The argument for and against de meim mizb’chey tikachenu. (see Makkoth 12a, acc. to Rav) Then there is the corum in the synagogue is in itself rep principle of meth mitzvah dochah resentative of that diversity of purpose avodah. (see Megillah 36) In the light of and constituency to which Dr. Weinberg this, ikkuv t’fillah is not so strange a alludes on page 55. Of course the Syna concept, having its origin in the laws of gogue was never meant to replace the the Temple service, and is certainly not Holy Temple. The latter was a symbol a green light for eliminating decorum. of the One G-d. The synagogue was Assuredly our author will admit that never meant to be this symbol, but was ikkuv ffillah was a rare occurrence; always a mikdosh m’at. Doesn’t the word maintenance of decorum on the other m’at seem strange here? Wouldn’t koton hand, is a situation which one must face have been more appropriate? But what is meant is that a small amount, a rem daily. Moving on to theijf Christian yard nant, of the mikdosh is transplanted to stick” as exemplified by the quotations the Synagogue. Of course, local color and individuality from Pepys and Gilman, neither proves JEWISH LIFE 62

THE AIR CONDITIONED

a ld iJ È

tÌ HOtlL

STRICTLY KOSHER CUISINE O N LY G LA T T M EATS Served in the WALDMAN Manner under ( y ) Supervision

ANY TWO WEEKS ^ June 24 to Sept. 6

$ |

0 9 75‘PerEPersonK Ofc.

■ ”

If you smoke, chances are your kids will too

Double

IN CLUDES ROUND TR IP JET TRANSPORTATION Transfers to and from Hotel, | Luxurious Room & Meals *30 of 133 rooms «km *3( * daily per person doublé occupancy ' June 24 to Sept. 6 *30 of 133 rooms

Don’t fool, yourself: they'll follow your' example. You certainly don’t want your kids to smoke. Then see our new film “Who, Me?" It’s available through the local unit of your American Cancer Society. It's about people like you. And kids like yours. And cigarettes. A fter that, maybe you'll give up sm oking...if not for yourself, for the kids. .

INCLUDING MEALS Wiener Roast?, Movies, lovies, Entertainmer Entertainment, TV in Every Room, Private Beach, Pool, Counselor Supervised Program for Tots & Teens Supervised Children’s Activities W rite D ir e c t o r C a ll

New York Off: JU 2-2277 or CO5-5705 ON THE OCEAN AT 43rd ST. M IA M I BEACH

amencan cancer society

IMPORTANT NOTICE The restaurant Flambaum in Paris is no longer under my religious supervision. R abbi E . M unk

are vital factors in every synagogue. I do n o t deny this. B ut I shall always deny that decbrum is C hristian in origin. On the contrary— all pagan w orship was characterized by a lack of decorum . Let us, recall the awe w ith which the Rom an consul M arcus visiting the H oly Temple on the 14th N isan describes the dignity and decorum w ith which the elaborate rites were perform ed by the p rie sts:;“. . . A ll this is beautiful and glorious,” as his w ords are quoted in the Shevet Y ehudah. T hus a non-Jew disgusted w ith the lack of decorum in his own house o f worship is enraptured w ith his discovery of Jew ish decorum . M aybe we Jews are so self-conscious th at we think everyone is m ore decorous than we are. O r perhaps we feel guilty fo r n o t being decorous, and seek to justify the guilt feeling. A s D r. W einberg calls fo r limiting the notions of competitiveness, so I say v'shovu vonim lig’vulom— “let us go back to our own b order”— let us restrain o ur selves and once m ore gain distinction and adm iration for ou r observance of that Divinely ordained principle of Vhigbaltah eth ha-am th a t harks back to Sinai, w hen we stood in awe and de corum as the Alm ighty gave H is T orah to us.

DAYS OF YORE New York, N.Y. T he January-F ebruary issue of Jewish Life contains two articles w hich deal

w ith situations in w hich I was personally involved. One is “Rabbi Jacob Reines— T o rah Statesm an and Educational Trailblazer” and the other is “E ast Side C hronicle.” I am surprised th at the author of the article on R abbi Y aakov Reines does not m ention th a t Rabbi Reines estab lished his new type of yeshivah while he was Rabbi of the tow n of Sweazian, in the G overnm ent o f V ilna, and th at he transferred it after a few years to Lida, w here he becam e the R abbi of the Jew ish com m unity there. It was in m y p a r ents’ hom e th at the yeshivah had its be ginning. By the time I outgrew my in fancy the yeshivah had m oved to larger quarters. M y father, R abbi Israel K ap lan, of blessed m em ory, was a talmidchover (a student-colleague) of Rabbi Reines who tried to have him accept a rabbinic position w ith one or another comm unity. In tim e I m et Rabbi Reines personally. T h at was when in July 1908 in Frankfort-on-the-M ain he gave m e a thorough exam ination in Rabbinics and granted me Hatorath Horoah, which led the N ew Y ork Congregation K ehilath Otto Neuman Y eshurun to change my status from th at of “M inister” to th at of “R abbi.” It was on th at occasion th at the first question which Rabbi Reines p u t to me was: D R. W E IN B E R G R EPL IE S: I am afraid th at M r. N eum an mis “D oes your m other still rem em ber w hat she overheard from the Y eshivah stu understood the basic them e of my arti dents as she stood in the doorw ay of the cle. H e is confusing “hushed solem nity” classroom ?” My father, by the way, was w ith “decorum ;” the latter is of Jewish one of the three dayonim associated with origin, the form er is C hristian. I too the late Rabbi Jacob Joseph who had w ant decorum in the synagogue. I am as been called by the newly form ed V aad bitter about frivolity in Shool as he H ak ’hilloth of which the Beth M edrash seems to be. B ut I am equally irked H agodol congregation was the m ain con when I observe a w orshipper “shushing” stituent. a fellow w orshipper whose prayer has Mordecai M. Kaplan become audible or even stereophonic.

JEWISH LIFE

Don’t fiddle around! W hen it comes to g< knows best. M o th e rs,

MfttherS

hitef ish anl J [ Y e llo w P ik

B ecau se w e d o n ’t fiddle a ro u n d w h en w e m a k e gefilte fish! W e u se o n ly th e p lu m p e st, ju iciest, y o u n g fish— fre sh fro m icy N o rth e rn lakes. W e a d d ju s t th e rig h t p in c h o f spices. T h e n — ju st like th e m o th e rs o f old— w e slo w sim m er o u r gefilte fish to b rin g o u t all its te n d e r, d elicate flavor. R e su lt: M o th e r’s gefilte fish h as th a t tr a d i tio n a l ta ste a n d te x tu re th a t’s ju st lik e h o m e m a d e . So fo r glo rio u s d in in g — a n d fo r ev ery festiv e o ccasio n — serve M o th e r’s, th e fish fo r co m p lim en ts. K osher (y) Pareve

and don’t forget Mother’s Borscht

From the spotless kitchens of M other’s Food Products, Inc., Newark 5, N . J.

•as. «

■Hi

SB H E IN 2

M iS EnHBHSi

v.Cpi^b.eNSfi>| CREAM O f i

iMUSHROOM] 1 1

“CREAM' B h m

P E / II SOUP j:

i f U

M fp p S g i

VESETftRlANl

TOMATO, IKetchup/

VE0ETABUJ SO UP

«SO**

¿-J

■31.

The ® seal of approval of THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CO NGREGATIONS OF A M ER ICA is on the labels of Heinz Vegetarian Beans, Heinz Tomato Ketchup and sjx of the Heinz Soups (Vegetarian Vegetable, Tomato, Tomato with Rice, Cream of Mushroom, Cream of Pea, Cream of.Celery). Look for these Kosher foods of quality at your favorite food stores.

H.J. HEINZ COMPANY