Jewish Life Sept-Oct 1966

■ H E O R T H O D O X R E N A I S S A N C E : C R IS IS A N D C H A L L E N G E T H E C A M P U S C L IM A T E

j

T H E Y D A R E TO B E D IF F E R E N T

T H E P O S T -M O R T E M IM P A S S E IN I S R A E L I L A N D O F P R O M IS E , F U L F IL L M E N T , j^N D F R U S T R A T IO N R E T U R N V IS IT .T O S O U T H ¡§ ¡¡§ ¡¡1 A

TISHRI-CHESHVAN gi SEPTEMBER-OCTQBER 1966

Announcement

68th Anniversary Biennial N ational Convention OF T H E

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America will be held

mx

AT THE Shoreham H otel in W A SH IN G T O N , D.C. on W ednesday, N ovem ber 23—Sunday, Novem ber 27, 1966 Kislev 10 to Kislev 14, 5727 • PLEASE RESERVE THESE DATES

Thanksgiving Week . . . in the Nations Capital.

Vol. XXXIV, No. 1/September-October 1966/Tishri-Cheshvan 5727

n "3

THE EDITOR’S VIEW THE ONE-NESS OF JEWISH LIFE . ................................. 3 Saul B ernstein , Editor R abbi S. J. S harfman L ibby K laperman P aul H . B aris

Editorial Associates

ARTICLES THE ORTHODOX RENAISSANCE: CRISIS AND CHALLENGE/Michael K a u fm a n ............................................. 6

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

THE POST MORTEM IMPASSE IN ISRAEL/ Aryeh Newman .................................................................27 RETURN VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA/ Nachum L. R ablnovitch.................................................. 31 IN THE CAMPUS CLIMATE/Ellhu Jacob S te in h o m .. .36 LAND OF PROMISE, FULFILLMENT, AND FRUSTRATION/Ralph Pelcovitz ..................................43 THEY DARE TO BE DIFFERENT/Irwln S. B o rv lc k... .53

Published by U nion of O rthodox Jewish C ongregations of A merica M oses I. F euerstein

President Benjamin Koenigsberg, 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.

J Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President

BOOK REVIEWS BARON GOES ON .................................................................60

DEPARTMENTS AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS.......................................... 2 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ...................................................69

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

Cover and illustrations on pages 26, 59 and 67 by David Adler.

Drawings on pages 42 and 52 by Alan Zweibel.

©Copyright 1966 by UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA

September-October 1966

I

among our contributors

MICHAEL KAUFMAN, one of Orthodoxy’s rising young lay leaders, currently serves as chairman of the Commisr sion on Community Development and the Commission on Human Rights of the UOJCA and on the Board of Di­ rectors of Torah Umesorah. A resident of Far Rockaway, Mr. Kaufman attended Mesifta Torah Vodaath and the Telshe Yeshiva. He was graduated from Brooklyn College.

As spiritual leader of Cong. Degel Israel in Lancaster, Penna. over the past AV2 years, RABBI IRWIN S. BORVICK comes into contact with the distinctive “Pennsylvania Dutch” groups of the surrounding com­ munity. Of special interest among these are the Amish folk of whom he writes in this issue. Rabbi Borvick, a musmoch of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, previ­ ously served as Chaplain in the United States Army.

RABBI ELIHU JACOB STEINHORN was recently ap­ pointed Executive Director of Yavneh, the National Relig­ ious Jewish Students Association. He was previously Head­ master of the North Shore Hebrew Academy in Great Neck, Long Island. Rabbi Steinhorn received Semichah and degrees in Hebrew Literature and Religious Education at Yeshiva University. He is studying for his Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Education at New York University.

Well known for his articles on problem^ confronting the Yishuv, ARYEH NEWMAN analyzes here the issue raging in Israel over the problem of autopsies. Mr. Newman re­ sides in Jerusalem where he lectures at the Hebrew Uni­ versity in addition to his duties at the Jewish Agency Torah Education Department.

RABBI RALPH PELCOYITZ, who has written for us previously on various topics, turns his attention in his “Land of Promise, Fulfillment, and Frustration” to the religious situation in Israel. His observations were de­ veloped in the course of a recent extended stay there, fol­ lowing several shorter visits. The Rav of Cong. Knesseth Israel in Far Rockaway, Rabbi Pelcovitz is a past presi­ dent of the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

RABBI NACHUM L. RABINOVITCH has contributed several previous articles to J e w is h L i f e , the most recent being “Torah and Science: Conflict or Complement,” and “Judaism and Free Enquiry.” A musmoch of Ner Israel Rabbinical College, he is the Rav of the Clanton Park Synagogue in suburban Toronto. Rabbi Rabinovitch also lectures in Mathematics at the University of Toronto and serves as the Associate Editor of “Hadarom.”

2

JEWISH LIFE

THE EDITOR S VIEW The One-ness of Jewish Life rriW E N T Y years ago, this magazine made its first appearance.

J- The occasion gives opportunity to offer, together with our wishes that the year 5727 may bring blessing to all, grateful appreciation for the reception accorded J e w is h L if e through the years. The response testifies that the program of this maga­ zine, in portraying Jewish life and projecting the Jewish view in Torah terms, serves a widely felt need. Many, we therefore be­ lieve, share the hope that, B’ezrath Hashem, the message of J e w is h L i f e will reach an ever-broadening circle of readers through the years to come.

Those years to come, we may be sure, will pose unceasing challenge to the Jew. No less than the past period, the one ahead seems marked for continuing, profound world change. The major shifts in the pattern of world society since World War II have impelled changes of corresponding proportion within the Jewish scene. Aspects of these historic developments are discussed else­ where in this issue, and additional facets will be viewed in like M e e tin g focus in coming issues. Looking ahead, none can doubt that the W o rld ongoing process of world ferment will bear great impact on the C hange conditions of Jewish life and on its internal character. This above all is clear: Jewish effort must be centered on the forging of a viable, enduring basis for Jewish life amidst a world in flux. unanimity on this point among thinking, concerned Jews THE makes it seem a truism. Would, however, that there were like unanimity on what constitutes such a basis, and how \t should be developed. The most formidable fact in the Jewish world is its spiritual fragmentation. To an extent, the divisions have taken on institutionalized form, but they lie far deeper thap the disparate interests among organized bodies. Jews havp become basically differentiated from each other—in the essentials of belief, in concept of life and concept of the Jew, in mentality, in orientation, in total life-pattern. The differentiation of Jew from Jew has crystallized to the point of seeming finality. Among many, the situation seems an immutable fact of life, shrugged off with: “That’s the way it is. . . .’^ j That may be the way it is, but no Jew of conscience can let it rest at that. The inner one-ness of the Jewish people is an es-

September-October 1966

3

sential condition of its existence, inseparable from its uniqueness R equisite: as a people. Spiritual fragmentation inevitably becomes physical

One-ness disintegration, as is so evident today. External pressures may

press the fragments together, but this, of its nature, can be no enduring bond or source of vitality. Wholeness of being rests on wholeness of purpose. The stuff of Jewish peoplehood is shared conviction of the Divinely ordained role of the Jew as its sovereign purpose in life. All lacking this commitment—whether individuals or groups—must, if not eventually redeemed, be lost to Jewry.

Hence the quest for spiritual unification is a constant and primary motif in Jewish affairs. But too often, nowadays, it is nullified by translation into theories of intra-communal relation­ ship. If some device, some mechanism be found whereby this, that, or the other segment of the community can bridge their differences under some common code, then the road to Jewish unity is found—such is the facile assumption. This approach is M is d ire c te d keyed to the condition that the bridging process will not diminish S earch the institutional roles of the bridgees, and that, while some masterpiece of synthesis will enable the parties to speak a com­ mon creedal Esperanto, the prevailing pattern will be undisturbed. rj^ H IS misdirected hunt for inter-group togetherness rises from -i- the relicts of movements whose doctrines have lost meaning.

Born from the cluster of synthetic philosophies which found currency in the era culminating in the Holocaust, these move­ ments in their varying ways alike subordinated Jewish to nonJewish tenets and values, alike rested on evanescent ideas and illusory conditions, and alike sought acceptance by the non-Jewish world on terms which proved to be a death sentence.

Churbon Europa marked their end as relevant philosophies.

Their institutional complexes remain with us, persisting under the momentum of social function and professional apparatus.

They multiply traffic in the Jewish street hurrying from nowhere to nowhere in search for existence.

Among the several animate survivals', particularly con­ spicuous examples are the Conservative and Reform groups.

While the doctrinal cadavers which they enshrine are moulder** ing to dust, the organizational and institutional apparatuses of these forces have thriving appearance. But the void within is felt. There is a certain poignance to the hapless search among Conservative and Reform circles for new theological syntheses. In all earnestness, if without seeming realization of

4

JEWISH LIFE

the essential absurdity of the undertaking, they are in pursuit of some kind of conceptual basis, some living foundation, for In Pursuit the existence of their institutions, without which, it is realized, o f M eaning these cannot endure.

The intellectual leaders of these materially flourishing but morally defunct complexes are among the chief theorists of Jewish ecumenism. The problem they seem to be wrestling with is how to share the vitality of orthodox Jewry without em­ bracing orthodox Judaism. Resourceful though these thinkers be, this feat of magic seems beyond their scope, or anyone’s. n p f J E vitality of the orthodox Jew does not derive from ■*- participation in a “movement” possessed of some mysterious and perhaps transferable formula. It comes from the flow of Torah within his own life. This does not lend itself to a process of simulation, nor can it be synthesized and packaged as an “dlogy” or an “ism.” Nor, for that matter, would some trick reformulation of theological doctrine by non-orthodox move­ ments have any appreciable impact on the lives of their con­ stituents. If they are constituents, it is precisely because of the implicit understanding that matters of doctrine shall not be intruded upon personal life.

The road to spiritual wholeness is not to be found through the forces which personify fragmentation. It must be sought th e One in the direct reaching out of the healthy to the sick, of the S ource o f strong to the weak. Let us not, out of misplaced courtesy, fail Onewness to state the case in plain terms. That belief which today is called orthodox Judaism has sole claim to Jewish allegiance; it, alone, has vital Jewish force; it, alone, gives life to Jewry; it alone can unify Jewish life and the Jewish spirit, can provide basis for Jewish life amidst epochal change.

In stating the case in plain terms to Jews at large, the orthodox Jew must not fail to be as plainspoken to himself.

As bearer of Torah Emeth, there falls to him, inescapably, the task of bringing fellow Jews to its fold. He is responsible for all Jewry. The responsibility cannot be discharged by making Shabbos far zich. His planning, his efforts, his whole concept of life-task must be scaled and addressed to the totality of Jewish need. Is the Torah Jew capable of so far-reaching a program? The achievements of the past period point to an affirmative answer. That which will be done in the period to come must prove that the Torah Jew has risen to the fullness of his potential in meeting the fullness of his task.

S. B.

The Orthodox Renaissance Crisis and Challenge

By MICHAEL KAUFMAN sumed to be of the normal order of

HE typical orthodox Jew of today T is apt to take for granted the pres­ things. All of this has become the ent status and equipment of Ortho­ everyday setting of traditional Jewish doxy in this country. Especially is this the case with those of us who grew to adulthood after World War II, that great watershed in Jewish and world history. Taken for granted is the abundance of thriving, well-program­ med orthodox synagogues, joined to­ gether as a national force, the array of great Yeshivoth, Mesivtoth, and Kollelim, the hundreds of day schools that span the country, the vibrant youth and student movements. Similarly taken for granted are the numerous modern, well patronized mikvaoth, the profusion of authoritatively certified kosher food products, the many sukkoth in private homes and apartment buildings, the orthodox sections of modern urbia and suburbia, Shomer Shabboth summer colonies and resort hotels, the effloresence of periodicals and books, the scores of thousands of families, fully integrated in the American scene, among which observ­ ance of Shabboth and Mitzvoth is the norm. The powerful role of orthodox Jewry in general Jewish affairs and its influence in public life, its articulate­ ness and mobility, likewise are as6

life, to the Extent that its presence is hardly remarked.

To the younger American ortho­ dox Jew the components of this famil­ iar setting are not “developments”— they are just there, they have always, more or less, been there, just as are and have been the streets and build­ ings and automobiles and the rest of his visible environment. It is only when struck by the deficiencies of Orthodoxy’s current apparatus that some sense of its purposeful origin in recent history is evoked in him. And even then, as a rule, with a feeling that the preceding generation was culp­ able in not having done much better rather than of wonder for what was accomplished under the circumstances.

Yet it is perhaps the most impres­ sive achievement of the elder genera­ tion of American orthodox Jewry, and of those who went before, that things scarcely conceivable a couple of decades ago are not merely realities today—they are so interwoven with the fabric of existence as to be taken for granted. The force of this fact is the more remarkable when counterJEWISH LIFE

posed to the pessimism, to the point of demoralization, that formerly char­ acterized the orthodox Jewish scene.

F the question “Whither American Orthodox Jewry?’4 were asked of knowledgeable leaders a generation ago, the response, if candid, would well have been a gloomy one.

Indeed, a realistic appraisal of Or­ thodoxy’s posture at that time would adjudgUit at best “survival oriented.”

“The odds are helplessly against us . . . what can one do? . . . let’s hold on to what we can, but after our time . , . ?” Such was the mood.

Behind that generation lay several previous generations of attrition as one immigrant influx after another had struggled against hardships to find a foothold in American life and to reach an accommodation with an utterly strange, powerfully compelling envi­ ronment. Amidst chronic chaos and fragmentization, such efforts as had previously been made to organize a Kehillah had proved futile. Many voices called to the Jews of America, each with its message of seduction, while the Torah voice struggled for expression and was yet to become ar­ ticulate in the idiom of the land and the era. Among generation after gen­ eration of youth born to the masses of immigrant parent# themselves deeprooted in Jewishness, great numbers were severed from the shools and loyalties, the concept of life and the pattern of living, of their forebears.

At the onset of World War II, Amer­ ican Jewish religious life had reached its nadir.

It was at this very time of spiritual depletion that American Jewry was shaken to its innermost depths by the horrors of the Nazi onslaught, was stirred to its fibre by the struggle for

I

September-October 1966

the State of Israel. As never before, the American Jew awoke to a sense of historic role. We were spared, we were spared . . . why? for what purpose . . . who are we . . . what are we . . . why are we . . .?

This was a moment when, had Torah forces been such in an effective sense, the hearts and minds of multi­ tudes of American Jews might have been won there arul then for Torah.

But Orthodoxy was neither equipped nor attuned to the momentary oppor­ tunity. There was not, in fact such an entity as Orthodoxy in terms of col­ lective consciousness, not to speak of collective organization. The compo­ nents only were there—uncorrelated, each fragment struggling and striving alone.

NE of these components was per­ sonified in the visionary and pro­ phetic Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz.

To “Reb Feivel,” a founder of the Yeshiva and Mesifta Torah Vodaath, what American Jewry lacked above all things were the vital institutions of Torah chinuch which had been the guarantors of the continuity of the Jewish people since Sinai. With pro­ found insighti he reasoned that if every city and town in America with a sizeable Jewish population had a day school or yeshivah, the orthodox Jew­ ish community would be transformed in a single generation and the continu­ ity of Torah Judaism in America would be assured. The Jewish young, he realized, must receive a unified fullday education, integrating Jewish and general studies in a positive Torah set­ ting.

In undertaking this monumental task by organizing Torah Umesorah, the National Association for Hebrew Day Schools, and staffing it with some

O

7

moved by inner stirrings. Up to that point, defeatism had reigned as the ranks of the observant had waned, synagogue memberships steadily de­ clined, leadership aged without re­ placement, organizational forces atro­ phied, and younger families yielded to the lure of “modernized” creeds that offered a combination of more fashionable associations and programs attuned to American ideas. But now, impelled by great events, defeatism be­ gan to give way to the imperative need for creative effort to save Torah life.

However sluggishly and slowly, Ortho­ doxy was beginning to respond to the call of the time.

But the creative urge had to contend with entrenched negativism, with de­ fensive rather than positive attitudes.

Orthodox synagogues were still mostly “downtown,” physically and psycho­ logically, a downtown that had shrunk and decayed as masses of Jews had moved, again both physically and psy­ chologically, “uptown.” The orthodox organizations of the period were alto­ gether unequipped to cope with so overwhelming a situation.

The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada (Agudath Harabbanim), the country’s se­ nior orthodox Rabbinic body, while proclaiming the all-too-evident crisis, was in no position to mount planned, constructive effort. Among its mem­ bership, European-born and Europeantrained, some exceptional personalities could deal with, or at least meaning­ fully address themselves to, the situa­ tions of their respective communities.

The rest, preoccupied with day-to-day THE EMERGENCE OF cares and duties, could not come to AMERICAN TRAINED RABBIS grips with the basic problems.

True, a new orthodox Rabbinate HE freshness of spirit and outlook of the new force came at a time was emerging, American-reared and when the “old” Orthodoxy too was trained and attuned to the American

of his most talented talmidim, Reb Feivel started the wheels rolling in a movement which was destined to change the direction of the American Jewish community in the next two decades.

If the day school movement was the locomotive in the orthodox Jewish renaissance, men and women through­ out the country who rose to the call of Mi LaShem Eylay made up the fuel which powered the locomotive and en­ abled the train to move. This influx of “new” orthodox Jews—some reared in orthodox homes, others with no back­ ground at all in Torah life, some of them previously far from Jewish be­ lief, most of them previously of little or no religious observance—had a vi­ vifying effect upon Orthodoxy. Com­ ing as they did almost in spite of, rather than because of, the corporate character of orthodox Jewish life of the period, they brought fresh, posi­ tive purpose; they had chosen ortho­ dox Judaism and brought to its service the volition of their sense of mission and the perceptiveness of their experi­ ence with other ways of life. They were ready for the revolution in their own lives which their response to the call of Torah was destined to bring.

They brought, often in unassuming ways and without formal office, the quality of leadership and were a vital factor in the organization and revitali­ zation of these institutions and move­ ments in orthodox Jewish life which make up the renascent orthodox Jew­ ish community of today.

T 8

JEWISH LIFE

environment. Over the preceding dec­ ades, yeshivoth had been implanted in New World soil and were now bear­ ing fruit in these young musmochim and in a Torah-nurtured laity too.

They were the products of trail-blaz­ ing Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary—which had bloomed into Yeshiva College and was to blossom further as Yeshiva University — of Torah Vodaath, of Tifereth Yerushalayim, of the Jacob Joseph School, of Chicago’s Hebrew Theological College and Baltimore’s Ner Israel, and of such newer yeshivoth as Chaim Berlin, Chofetz Chaim, and Cleve­ land’s Telshe. All of these institutions rising to greatness were the creation of dedicated pioneers and now the presence of their graduates was be­ ginning to be felt in community after community. They were finding a role, as laymen, in communal life, as rab­ bis, in the leadership of congregations, as teachers and educators, in the day schools and Yeshivoth Ketanoth.

gregants and prospective congregants valued and would respond to. But this was not what the young rabbi’s yeshivah had trained him for, nor had it prepared him for a hundred problems and tasks that faced him. Bewildered and beset, the new-fledged rabbi was all too often pressed into a stance and pattern which reflected the confused values of a confused era.

In one facet of orthodox Jewish ef­ fort two decades ago, a far more vig­ orous picture was presented—that of religious Zionism. While overshad­ owed by the then dynamic role of the major secular Zionist organizations, Mizrachi was a focus of orthodox in­ terest and participation in scores of Jewish communities throughout the land, inspired by the objective of Medinath Israel built on Torah foun­ dations. And attracting a younger, per­ haps more militant orthodox element was Hapoel Hamizrachi, uniting with the Mizrachi ideology that of Torah Vo-avodah. Being, however, neces­ sarily addressed to the upbuilding of the Yishuv, the impact of these move­ ments on internal Jewish life in Amer­ ica was limited.

Agudath Israel, on the other hand, with but a small following in this country, and occupied as it was with relief work in the displaced persons camps of war-ravaged Europe, was making a strong impression on the burgeoning yeshivah world, but could make but little impress on the total American Jewish communal scene of the time.

UT this emerging force was as yet little aware of its own potential or of the potential of Orthodoxy’s embattled and fragmentized forces. If the older, European-trained rabbi suf­ fered from a sense of impotence, his younger American-trained colleague suffered from a sense of social inferi­ ority vis-a-vis his Jewish counterpart in the non-orthodox domain. The lat­ ter preached from his well-endowed pulpit to an expanse of empty seats at congregational services, but occu­ pied himself busily the rest of the week with a gamut of popular social ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSES functions and played a prominent role in civic affairs. This, it seemed, not f I NHERE was one organization which shiurim, not davvening and Torah A did bear within itself the muchstudy, not the life of mitzvoth, was needed potential for centralized effort what was in demand, what con- and direction in American orthodox

B

September-October 1966

9

Jewish life—the Union of Orthodox again, resorted to a policy of com­ Jewish Congregations of America. promise, aspiring to preserve orthodox With the synagogue as the natural commitment while yielding on points centerpoint of communal life, the Or­ most exposed to attack. The classical thodox Union, as the national syna­ symbol of such compromise was gogue body, could be looked upon to abandonment of the Mechitzah sepa­ play a corresponding role on the na­ rating the men and women at religious tional level. But between function in services, in favor of the church-style principle and implementation in actu­ mixed seating which marked the tem­ ality there remained a wide gap. The ples of heterodoxy. The Mechitzah Union of twenty years ago, although became the touchstone of unwavering already functioning as a central ad­ fidelity to Torah and Halochah as dress for the acculturated, English- against the doctrine of subordination speaking orthodox community, was of Jewish tenets to Jewish standards.

In the sanguinary scene of that era, just beginning to emerge from long years of near-dormancy as an organ­ the distinctive role of the Young Israel ization. There were few signs of the movement had exceptional signif­ growth and strength that were to icance. Earlier, this youth-attuned come. Its program was as yet minimal, movement had been looked upon it enjoyed but small support from its askance by traditional synagogue constituency, its public role as ortho­ forces as ideologically radical. But dox spokesman was in minor key, and now, with synagogue standards under the organization seemed helplessly wholesale attack, it was the Young embattled as movements bent on Israel synagogue with its special elan establishing a hegemony of anti-tra­ that stood firm. In the Young Israel ditionalism mounted an onslaught that synagogue, marked by an indigenous exploited to the utmost the spiritual American climate, the Mechitzah was confusion of American Jewry and the beyond challenge, Shemirath Shabboth not merely a requisite for the presi­ structural weakness of Orthodoxy.

Amidst an incessant barrage of dential office but the unquestioned vicious propaganda, the very word norm. Already a proven force for the “orthodox” was being made a term of nurturing of a grown-in-America or­ derision and all associated with it por­ thodox manpower, Young Israel trayed as unseemly relics of a dead served as a demonstration of the capa­ past. With the drumfire of propaganda city of the Torah Jew to flourish on and agitation went a heavily-financed American soil.

Not least of all, Young Israel was program of infiltration, penetrating communities solidly orthodox from a prime producer of distinguished lay­ their foundation. Synagogues whose men who, if they did not always ex­ bewildered leaders and members ercise leadership within the Young scarcely knew what was happening to Israel movement as such, were to play them were captured outright. Often important roles in the development of enough, fortunately, leadership was orthodox institutions and organiza­ sufficiently alert and determined to tions in the years to come. Up to this repel the attack. The great majority of time, the movement was confined to. synagogues, however scarred, re­ narrow bounds, but its impact was sub­ mained religiously intact. But others, sequently to be felt in scores of ortho10

JEWISH LIFE

dox Jewish communities that were to rise in the era ahead.

ERALDING this new era was a growing response by the Union H of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America to the challenge it presented.

Despite its utter paucity of means and weak organizational makeup, the Union now succeeded in advancing various forms of service which had previously been initiated. These were designed to guide and strengthen the hands of synagogue leadership across the country, to inform the rank-andfile American Jew, in terms meaning­ ful to h'm, of the what and how of Jewish concepts and practices, to bring congregations a strengthening sense of their common ties and their shared role in American liff^ and to reawaken the morale of Orthodoxy.

Together with this went a phenome­ non as unique as it was unexpected-— the rise of the Union’s Kashruth cer­ tification service, the celebrated;© pro­ gram.

It was with no deliberate intent of achieving what ultimately came about that the Orthodox Union had earlier undertaken to bring a measure of order into the chaos in which Kash­ ruth supervision had fallen. With Hechsherim of food products become a field for private enterprise, standards of certification had fallen to such a low as to become a public mockery.

Kashruth observance, pivotal among the sanctities of Jewish life, was being completely undermined, and with this shattered, what other Jewish founda­ tions could stand? If, in other respects, Orthodoxy was being mortally at­ tacked from without, in this regard it was a matter of self-destruction. No other communal agency being able or willing to do anything meaningful,

September-October 1966

UOJCA, which had not heretofore considered Hashgochah as its direct responsibility, had found itself obliged to enter the fray.

This move came at a time of revolu­ tionary advances in the production, processing, marketing, and merchan­ dising of foodstuffs and related house­ hold products. The consumer at large was now presented with countless new offerings—and the Jewish homemaker with as many baffling new question marks. The new demands on Halachic research and decision, the newly mag­ nified problems of multiple-plant su­ pervision, the changed conditions of Kashruth identification, made manda­ tory a system of Kashruth certification geared to the revolutionized circum­ stances. Only a central national organ­ ization, representative of the commu­ nity and applying the requisite rab­ binic and administrative resources on a nation-wide scale, could serve. And only the applied power of the Kashruth-observant Jewish public could en­ able it to serve. This combination of factors fortunately, is what came about. And this, in essence, is the story of the Orthodox Union’s ©.

What transpired was not merely a matter of mass producer or distributor and specialized consumer finding a way to meet, via the inconspicuous © insignia. It was more, even, than evi­ dence of the readiness of American Jews of all ranks, despite the wide spiritual confusion, to respond to re­ sponsible leadership in a key area of religious need. The all-important ikkur of the story is its exemplification of a basic premise of orthodox Judaism: that the Jew can deal with his sur­ rounding environment on Torah terms, and shape the conditions of life ac­ cordingly.

Intimately involved in this pregnant 11

development has been the Rabbinical Council of America (Histadruth Harabbonim), the Union’s associated Rab­ binic body and Halachic authority. An important contribution has been made also by the Women’s Branch of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega­ tions.

RIGINALLY, as the Rabbinical O Council of the Union, a unit of the internal UOJCA structure and subsequently launched as an autonom­ ous body, the R.C.A. was assigned the Rabbinic facets of the Union’s Rashruth service, with the overall jurisdic­ tion and business administration re­ maining with the parent Union.

Through the years which followed the Rabbinical Council, while performing this function with distinction through its member rabbis serving congrega­ tions in communities across the United States and Canada, has entered upon many areas of community service.

Today it occupies a major position in the entire rabbinic world and in the realm of American Jewish aifairs.

The Women’s Branch of the Union, also a fledgling in the World War II period, has since done much to aid member sisterhoods and to advance the interests of religious Jewish wom­ anhood. In this regard it might be mentioned that the women’s groups affiliated with Mizrachi, with the Young Israel, and with Agudath Israel have also played significant roles in the developments of their movements and in Orthodoxy as a whole.

FINDING ARTICULATE VOICE A further harbinger of new vitality within orthodox Jewry was the intro­ duction by UOJCA, just twenty years ago, of the magazine in which this 12

article appears. Reflecting and gener­ ating this fresh spirit, Je w i s h L i f e brought to the scene an articulateness and literary and technical quality of which American Orthodoxy had pre­ viously been supposed incapable.

Equally distinctive was its policy of projecting the Torah point of view in positive terms, free of apologetic and polemic, while presenting a broad pan­ orama of creative Jewish interest. Win­ ning a wide and influential audience over the years, J e w is h L i f e , under the stewardship of editor Saul Bern­ stein—who has at the same time served as the Administrator of the Orthodox Union—has become the rea­ soned voice of the Torah Jew on the American scene.

Signalling as it did that for orthodox Jewry to flourish on American soil it must communicate effectively with American-nurtured, f Englishspeaking Jews, publication of this mag­ azine presaged the development of an entire group of English-language Jew­ ish publications devoted to the Torah viewpoint. These were to make their initial appearances or, if previously launched, to show radical improve­ ment in content or form, during the ’fifties and ’sixties.

Whether in this case the chicken or the egg came first one can not be sure, but this is clear: without J e w is h L i f e and the English-language media which followed, the orthodox Jewish resurgence now in process would have been seriously constricted. As evi­ denced by the religious Jewish period­ icals of Europe, beginning with the Ladino Gazetta D ’Amsterdam first published in 1678, and including such outstanding and influential publications as Der Israelit which made its first appearance in Frankfurt in 1860, a vital religious Jewish community reJEWISH LIFE

quired vital Jewish publications in the vernacular to give it voice.

Reflective of the different emphases of the organizations which publish them, the National Council of Young Israel’s Viewpoint, the ably-edited Jew­ ish Horizon of Mizrachi-Hapoel Hamizachi (prior to the merger of these two organizations, published by the latter), and the lively, well-produced Jewish Observer of Agudath Israel, all have made significant contributions to the rebirth of American Jewish Orthodoxy. Exceptional distinction has been won by Tradition, quarterly jour­ nal of orthodox Jewish thought pub­ lished by the Rabbinical Council of America, which within the few years in which it has been published has won international prestige. Perspective, published by the Rabbinical Alliance of America, also gained favorable note during its brief career, which one hopes will soon be resumed. Of in­ teresting potential, too, is the pri­ vately published weekly tabloidC the Jewish Press. Recent issues of this widely circulated if strident paper have given indications of a much-needed improvement in editorial quality, giv­ ing it better prospect of achieving a favorable following in the orthodox Jewish community, which has long and still sorely needs a good news weekly.

When shrinkage of the Yiddishreading public compelled the amalga­ mation of Yiddish dailies, the Morn­ ing Journal being absorbed by the Day, orthodox American Jewry was left without independent representa­ tion in that area of journalism. A soli­ tary Yiddish weekly, Der Y id, be­ speaks in loud and emphatic tones of Williamsburg’s Satmar community, Agudah’s Dos Yiddishe Vort, on monthly schedule, effectively presents

Sepfember-October 1966

the outlook of its sponsoring organiza­ tion as does, to a lesser extent, M/zrachi Veg of the Religious Zionists and likewise the Yiddish section of the Mizrachi Woman. Two Hebrew Journals, Hadorom, published by the Rabbinical Council of America, and Hapardes, published by members of Agudath Harabbanim, both serve a valued role in the field of Halachic scholarship.

ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION N 1946, Yeshiva University, then consisting of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary — always its most important division—-and Yeshiva College, at the time the country’s only degree-granting Jewish liberal arts col­ lege, was in the early stages of a major expansion. Under the far-seeing presi­ dency of Dr. Samuel Belkin, successor to the late Dr. Bernard Revel, there was created, stage after continuing stage, a complex of undergraduate and post-graduate schools and preparatory high schools which within less than two decades made this institution, unique from the first, certainly one of the most significant Je wish-sponsored enterprises in the world—and as cer­ tainly one of the most powerful centers of orthodox Jewish strength in the United States. Its influence, both direct and through its thousands of graduates trained in the Torah Umadah—Torah and worldly learning— philosophy which is the university’s guiding policy, has been and continues to be immeasurable.

Some important elements of the Torah world still look askance at Ye­ shiva University’s concept and struc­ ture, and view its massive develop­ ment with a critical eye. Yeshiva Uni­ versity’s Einstein College of Medicine,

I

13

a vast enterprise in itself, is prominent among particular targets of the univer­ sity’s critics, who see it as exemplify­ ing objections in principle and practice to combining a major yeshivah with schools of secular studies. The impres­ sive functional success of the medical school, and the similar success of the various other post-graduate as well as undergraduate schools, have height­ ened rather than modified this criti­ cism.

While other motives perhaps come into play, the essential issue prompt­ ing the disparagement of Yeshiva Uni­ versity’s development is one of basic import to the Torah world, one inher­ ent in the situation of the Jew in the modern world. All hold in common that Torah is the all of Jewish life, but opinions divide sharply on whether the Jewish student, at least on the higher yeshivah level, shall be exclusively oc­ cupied with Limmud Torah or shall be prepared at the same time for a role in the general world by study of Chochmath Ha-olom. The diverging views represent more than merely dif­ fering pedagogical concepts. The one view holds that if the Ben Torah is to retain that character throughout life, in the formation of his mind there must be division of neither energies or values; to divide is to dilute the Torah concept and to subordinate it to non-Torah values. Another view sees the need for secular studies as simply inescapable in the society of today; and, well knowing this, the yeshivah bochur of today will in any event seek a secular education—as in fact most yeshivah bochurim today do.

Better, it is argued, that he obtain that general education under Torah aus­ pices than under other auspices likely 14

to confuse his mind and to undermine his Torah attitude. And aloiig with or in extension of this is the view which stresses that the Torah is the life force of the world, and the world, which man is bidden in the Torah to subdue, is by Divine ordinance subor­ dinate to the Torah by the laws of which the world exists; Nature and its laws must be probed and studied in the light of the Torah so that the Jew may fulfill his designated role.

This issue, which confronted the orthodox Jew immediately on his en­ try into contemporary society, has pressed upon him with multiple force in the past generations of response to the challenge of a threatening yet promising environment. In one degree or another, in one form or another, it affects the stance and policy of every orthodox organization and institution.

It is reflected in the pattern of life of the individual, especially in that of the yeshivah graduate, and perhaps will find its resolution in what that pattern, still in flux, ultimately comes to be.

Whatever its form, content, and di­ rection, the ultimate character of the yeshivah graduate will certainly de­ termine the eventual character of American Jewish life.

N analyzing the transformation of American Orthodoxy in twenty short years, from a seemingly dying remnant of a community which began with the founding of American Jewry’s first congregation in New York over three hundred years ago, to what his­ torians may well see as an authentic, rejuvenated continuity of the ages-long chain of great Diaspora centers, sev­ eral factors, some of which were al­ luded to earlier, should be considered.

The role Torah Umesorah has played

I

JEWISH LIFE

is undoubtedly one of major propor­ tions. Thrusting out in all directions, with a small staff and less than a mini­ mum of the funds required to do a proper job, Torah Umesorah has, in the past two decades, helped found the great majority of the 250-odd ele­ mentary and high-school-level day schools organized in almost every American community with a sizable Jewish population. Its president, Sam­ uel C. Feuerstein, has given dedicated leadership throughout. In its national director, Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky, Torah Umesorah has had a man whose personality and spirit have given both life and direction to the character and development of day schools in scores of Jewish communities through­ out the country. Moved by an almost messianic zeal, the Torah Umesorah staff organized school after school throughout America and staffed them with the products of the burgeoning yeshivoth gedoloth.

Meaningful contributions to the growth of day schools and Torah edu­ cation have also been made by the Lubavitcher movement’s Merkos L’inyoney Chinuch, ahd by the Mizrachi National Education Committee.

In the larger metropolitan commu­ nities, there is no doubt that sizable numbers of the students of the new day schools came from the families of newly arrived post-World War II im­ migrants, delighted that all-day schools were available to meet the educational requirements of observant Jewish fam­ ilies. This was in striking contrast to the Jewish immigration of 1890-1940, when afternoon Talmud Torahs were practically all that were available to Jewish immigrants to provide an edu­ cational base for the continuity of authentic Judaism in America.

September-October 1966

IMPACT OF CHASSIDIC WORLD T WAS the immigration of large numbers of Chassidic Jews from Eastern Europe which gave a vital new dimension to the “new” orthodox Jewish community that emerged postWorld War II. At first Chassidic settlement was limited to previously established ortho­ dox communities, primarily in Brook­ lyn—the sections of Williamsburg, Crown Heights, and Boro Park. Build­ ing synagogues and schools for thou­ sands of children at a rapid pace, some of the Chassidim of Satmar, Vishnitz, Bobov, Skver, Pupa, and Klausenberg and many others began to branch out, and their influence be­ gan to be felt, even among the stu­ dents of the non-Chassidic American yeshivoth. Within a short time, some of the Chassidic groups mapped plans to establish distinctive communities of their own “in the country.” Soon “New Square” was built by the Chassidim of Skver near Monsey, New York, which was already an orthodox community which grew up around Reb Feivel’s Beth Medrash Elyon. Satmar and other groups have planned to do like­ wise.

Even in the great American Jewish “hinterland,” in such communities as Boston, Milwaukee, and Denver, as well as in such major cities as Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, Chas­ sidic rebbeim have begun to radiate a marked influence, surprisingly draw­ ing many of their adherents from the ranks of college-educated young Amer­ ican Jews.

It is Lubavitch, as a distinct move­ ment within Chassidism, however, which has made the greatest impact of any Chassidic group on the Ameri­ can Jewish scene during the past two

I

15

decades. The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s pol­ icy of actively pursuing a “missionary” course to the non-observant American Jew—especially the collegiate youth— has reaped rich rewards. Its outerdirected brand of Chassidism expound­ ed by cadres of dedicated Americanborn youngsters, imbued with the spirit of Torah and Chassiduth and pre­ pared to go anywhere they are sent by the Rebbe to spread Torah, brought the warmth and vitality of a living Orthodoxy to large numbers of Amer­ ican Jews to whom the relevancy of a Torah way of life had never been projected in such compelling manner.

IDE BY SIDE with the growth ol the Day School movement during S the past two decades, the Yeshivoth and Mesiftoth experienced a growth period of major proportions, providing higher Torah education for the nu­ merous graduates the Yeshivoth Ketanoth were turning out.

With the establishment of Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women as a result of a grant by philanthropist Max Stern, an intensive program ot advanced Jewish studies was available to young women as well while they pursued their collegiate studies. Stern College soon won distinction, its grad­ uates doing credit to the training they received there.

The major yeshivoth other than Yeshiva University, as indicated above, provide a program of Torah studies exclusively on the post-high school level. Most of their thousands of stu­ dents have pursued their secular high­ er education at the evening colleges in the large metropolitan areas, while studying daytime at the yeshivoth.

In most cases, this is done over the nominal objections of their Roshey Yeshivoth. !6

A phenomenon in its own right is the Kollel movement. The establish­ ment of the Kollel, either as an ad­ junct of the Yeshivah Gedolah or as an independent entity, influenced the direction Orthodoxy was to take far out of proportion to the relatively small number of its full-time married students who have devoted an impor­ tant portion of their lives to advanced study of Torah. The movement was effectively started on these shores by Reb Feivel Mendlowitz with the estab­ lishment of Beth Medrash Elyon in Monsey, New York, and by the great Rav Aharon Kotler, who shortly there­ after founded the Beth Hamedrash Govoha in Lakewood, New Jersey.

Still in its early stages, the Kollel movement has already succeeded in establishing a higher standard of Torah scholarship than existed heretofore in this country, and has thus, measur­ ably altered the goals of aspiration and achievement of the Torah student, scholar, and rabbi.

Indeed, in inspiring the young Torah student with the ideal of devoting further years of his life to the pure study of Torah as a goal for its own sake, the Kollel has given effective demonstration of the viability of Torah, and of this movement in itself as a guarantor and safeguard of the Torah way of life in America. Its in­ fluence has thus radiated down to the Yeshivoth Gedoloth, Mesivtoth, Ye­ shivah high schools, and elementary day schools.

The greatest achievement of the Kollel, however, is the projection of the principle that the training of fu­ ture genuine gedolim in Torah is a primary concern to American Jewry, as it has historically always been to the Jewish people, and must by defi* JEWISH LIFE

nition always be to any Torah commu­ nity.

HE suburban-type orthodox com­ munity in its more advanced stages of development, with large and small shools and Battey Midrosh, frequently RISE OF 'TORAH TOWNS* a choice of day schools and yeshivoth on all levels, mikvaoth, communal or­ A CORRESPONDING development within Orthodoxy in recent years ganizations and branches of national has been the development of the dis­ movements, religious youth groups, tinctive orthodox suburban-type com­ and stores catering to the specific munity, especially in the metropolitan needs of observant Jews, provides the New York area. Exemplified by such orthodox Jewish family with an en­ communities as Monsey and Far vironment eminently conducive to Rockaway-^but also including such proper observance of the mitzvoth by urban and suburban sub-communities young and old, and the opportunity as Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, and for the enjoyment of a full Torah life Kew Garden Hills, Laurelton, Bayside, together with other families similarly Long Beach, West Hempstead and, if motivated.

Despite the obvious plusses, the you will, Elizabeth, New Jersey—this type of community with a large con­ suburban orthodox community as it centration of observant Jewish fam­ is presently constituted is not without ilies, is almost a Jewishly self-con­ critics. Some have felt that it has fre­ quently had a parah adumah effect tained unit.

In Los Angeles, the past two dec­ upon its residents. That is, like the ades have witnessed a period of ortho­ ashes of the Biblical red heifer, which dox growth and development which while purifying the one who is has roughly paralleled that in the sprinkled, simultaneously makes un­ country as a whole, and which has clean the one who sprinkles the ashes. also benefited from the outstanding Those who come to suburban ortho­ population growth of Southern Cali­ dox communities from environments fornia in general during this period. where the degree of observance may A distinctive figure in this scene, be somewhat less pronounced than Rabbi Simon Dolgin, has demonstrated that in existence in their new areas, that in such a location as Beverly frequently find that the spiritual air of Hills, Torah Judaism can not only the orthodox suburbs imbues in them exist, but can develop into a viable the desire for a higher level of ob­ powerful force. The iconoclastic, pur­ servance of mitzvoth and of Torah poseful Rabbi Dolgin has created a study. The opposite effect is purport­ substantial and influential kehillah, edly experienced by orthodox laymen with its center a large synagogue, its —and their rabbis—who come to the 400-student Yeshivah Ketanah and orthodox suburban community from well-attended afternoon Talmud backgrounds where Torah study and observance are on a higher level than Torah, and a variety of adult and is prevalent in their new environment. youth groups, classes, and activities A significant part in the resurgence which make up a Torah world in mi­ story has been played by the German crocosm for the Beverly Hills com­ orthodox community headed by the munity. venerable Rabbi Joseph Breuer. Spirit-

September-October 1966

T

17

ual descendant of the famed austrit gemeinde founded by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in mid-nineteenth cen­ tury Germany, the distinctive “Breuer Community” has exercised an influ­ ence upon the American orthodox Jewish community far out of propor­ tion to its numbers.

The philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz—first expounded by Hirsch to counter the inroads Reform was mak­ ing on 19 th century central European Jewry—has experienced a striking transplantation from the banks of the Main to the banks of the Hudson and beyond. From its headquarters, a (naturally) well-organized, tightly knit Kehillah of several thousand orthodox Jews in the Washington Heights sec­ tion of New York City, consisting of synagogues, yeshivoth for boys and girls at all levels, an exemplary Jew­ ish teacher’s seminary for women, a modern mikveh, highly organized adult education classes, and a fine Kashruth supervision organization, it is serving as a model and inspiration to other American orthodox commu­ nities. From Washington Heights, its influence radiates out to many cities where Jews of German background reside. a major participant in and BOTH a major beneficiary of Ortho­ doxy’s renaissance, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America has come to occupy a prom­ inent position within American Ortho­ doxy. Much of the Union’s momen­ tum is attributable to the stimulating personality of its president during the past twelve years, Moses I. Feuerstein.

Such figures as Nathan K. Gross, chairman of its Kashruth Commission, 18

Youth Commission chairman Harold H. Boxer, and Regions Commission chairman Joseph Karasick, and Harold M. Jacobs, Internal Jewish Affairs Commission chairman, have contrib­ uted much to the strength of its lead­ ership. The Orthodox Union has been notably fortunate too in its executive staff, including such personalities as Executive Vice President Dr. Samson R. Weiss and Rabbi Alexander S. Rosenberg, Rabbinic Administrator of the Kashruth Division. With these and other lay and staff figures at its disposal the Union has gone forward on many fronts, developing regional units in all sections of the U.S. and Canada, heightening the morale of orthodox forces near and far, improv­ ing synagogue standards, and giving strong voice and representation to the Torah cause.

Undoubtedly, one of the Orthodox Union’s major contributions to the re­ vitalization of American Orthodoxy has been the establishment of the Na­ tional Conference of Synagogue Youth. A vibrant national movement of orthodox Jewish teenagers, the ma­ jority of whom lack the intensive Jew­ ish education of a yeshivah or day school, NCSY, under the guidance of its national director, Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, has created an allegiance to Torah Judaism of thousands of Jewish youngsters with a program which has stressed the halachic duties, respon­ sibilities, and obligations of the young Jewish man and woman, while imbuing them with the spirit of Torah and a love for Torah, authentic Judaism, and complete Jewish living as Torah Jews. Hundreds of youngsters have gone on from NCSY to Yeshivoth Gedoloth and to Yeshiva University.

JEWISH LIFE

ORTHODOXY FOR THE YOUNG INTELLECTUAL FORCE of rich potential which has emerged during recent years is Yavneh, the national campus or­ ganization of orthodox Jewish collegiates. This self-organized student force was a response to an intellectual ferment moving orthodox Jewish col­ legiate youth. Out of search for spirit­ ual guidance, ideological direction, so­ cial companionship, and a cohesive movement governed by the discipline of Torah Judaism during their forma­ tive years on campus, there emerged a dynamic, creative new factor on the organizational scene. Aided by the Orthodox Union, Yavneh has grown and branched out steadily, with chap­ ters on many campuses and a program of extraordinarily high and rewarding caliber.

Yavneh is but one vital organization of several which have sprung up within the Orthodox community dur­ ing the past two decades which typify and exemplify the changes and de­ velopments which have been taking place within American Orthodoxy.

The Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, also aided by the Orthodox Union, is another. How unlikely it would have seemed but two decades ago that as intellectually acculturated and yet fervently Torah-committed a group as this should appear on the scene! Bound together by common Torah purpose—many of them among the nation’s leaders in scientific fields, ranging from nuclear physics and space science to the biological sci­ ences—the AOJS is an increasingly potent asset to Orthodoxy and a stead­ ily growing influence in the Jewish community at large. Today, numbers of orthodox synagogues have sprung up

»

September-October 1966

with a high proportion of scientists and academicians in their member­ ships, in cities like New York, Boston, Washington, and Chicago.

Further striking testimony to the new vitality of Orthodoxy was pro­ vided by the organization a year ago of the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, undoubtedly one of the most fascinating and prom­ ising of many recent developments within the orthodox community in the United States. Founded by attorney Reuben E. Gross and social scientist Dr. Marvin Schick, COLPA is com­ posed primarily of young orthodox Jewish lawyers and political scientists.

Its prime goals are to represent the interests of American religious Jewry in the courts on issues affecting ortho­ dox Jewish interests and to aid in pre­ senting the position of religious Jewry on matters before state legislatures and in Washington. In the year since its organization, COLPA, frequently in cooperation with the national orthodox Jewish organizations, has already filed amicus curiae briefs in several pending court cases, made known the position of orthodox Jewry in various state capitals on a number of issues and pending bills, and caused new legisla­ tion favorable to Sabbath observers to be initiated in one state.

HILE orthodox synagogues have grown so notably in strength and influence during the past twenty years, this period has also found “shtibelach” and Battey Midrosh coming into their own, especially in larger communities. The average shtibel member—frequently a former yeshivah bochur—justifies his abstention from a role in the major community synagogue on the grounds that the standards of the large shool frequently

W

19

constitute violation in letter or in spirit of those standards which he understands are proper. He will leave the larger synagogue, or not enter into it in the first place, because of his in­ capacity or unwillingness to change the synagogue pattern from within, and his simultaneous desire to retain his own uncompromising pattern as a fully observant orthodox Jew. Those who do not accept this explanation at face value infer that the ex-yeshivah bochur’s marked preference for the shtibel is because of his desire to davven among kindred spirits in an atmos­ phere reflecting that of the yeshivah, or, less charitably, attribute it to an unwillingness to assume the communal responsibilities that participation in the life of the “big shool” might entail.

Will these Battey Midrosh with, in many cases, elite memberships, come to exercise the kind of leadership with­ in the orthodox Jewish community for which its members are eminently qual­ ified? This may depend, to a large ex­ tent, on the farsightedness of the rebbe or rav to whom they look for leader­ ship. It may also be determined by whether they achieve a measure of inter-shtibel cohesion. That this will take the form of banding of the shtibelach and their members together into a viable organization of their own seems improbable.

RABBINIC AND LAY ACTION ERHAPS reflective of one of the major directions which Ortho­ P doxy has taken during the past two decades is the growth in number and influence of the Rabbinical Council of America, as the largest and most ac­ tive orthodox rabbinical body in the country. Composed primarily of rabbis who are American-born college grad­ 20

uates, most of them musmochim of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary but with complements or­ dained at various other American, Eu­ ropean, and Israel yeshivoth, its 900odd members occupy most of the ma­ jor orthodox rabbinic pulpits in the United States and Canada.

White acquiescing in a gradual al­ teration of the traditional image of the orthodox Rabbi to the extent that at least superficially it bears more re­ semblance to the American pastoral view of American religious spiritual leadership than to the classical image of the Rav as Morah Horoah (decisor and teacher of Torah), R.C.A. rabbis have succeeded at the same time in providing a dignified vehicle for more sophisticated expression of orthodox Jewish thought. They have attracted to their synagogues large numbers of the non-observant who otherwise could hardly have found their way to Ortho­ doxy.

Though a segment of this Rabbinate is often blamed for yielding to the de­ viation of some American congrega­ tions from traditional Orthodoxy as it was practiced for so many years, Rab­ binical Council rabbis in many areas can be credited with “holding the line” of halochah in their communities.

Men such as the latter, not permitting changes abbrogating halochah and tradition to take place in their syna­ gogues, at the same time have at­ tracted many young people to the syn­ agogues who could more readily com­ municate with their^American-style” rabbis.

In an impressive number of cases, member rabbis of the Rabbinical Council of America, and of the other Rabbinic bodies too, have led congre­ gations to reinstate Halachic require­ ments such as the Mechitzah from JEWISH LIFE

which they had formerly deviated, and in other instances to institute such re­ quirements where they had never pre­ viously been observed. UOJCA has played a significant educational role in this steadily developing trend.

Particular note should be taken too, at this point, of the decisive contribu­ tion to this trend made by that dedi­ cated lay figure, Baruch Litvin of Mount Clemens, Michigan. Standing in almost solitary opposition to a move to violate Halachic requirements in the seating arrangement in his local syna­ gogue, his unshakable determination to battle to the end culminated in a celebrated court decision. This set forth the ruling that a synagogue orig­ inally established and subscribed to as orthodox is bound by the require­ ments of Jewish law as defined by rec­ ognized Halachic authorites. The vic­ tory, achieved by Mr. Litvin with UOJCA guidance, proved a turning point in this issue.

There have been various instances where groups of laymen became in­ spired to elevate the Halachic stand­ ards of synagogues while the rabbis tacitly or actively acquiesced to a sub­ standard status quo. Upon occasion, where the rabbis did not provide the leadership for such efforts, presumably out of apprehension that the projected changes might endanger the continued allegiance of important segments of the congregation to the orthodox syna­ gogue, there has resulted in establish­ ment of new, Halachically observant congregations, and sometimes accom­ panied by day schools.

In one southern community, for ex­ ample, where two dedicated laymen imbued with the spirit of the Orthodox renaissance tried unsuccessfully for several years to have a mechitzah in­ stalled in a synagogue where it had

September-October 1966

not existed for several dedades, they finally left the congregation in which they had been active, to form an “austrit” Orthodox community. The two virtually alone, built a new syna­ gogue, day school, Talmud Torah, and mikveh, which attracted a substantial following as a direct result of its un­ bendingly honest approach to Jewish tradition and Halachah. As a post­ script, it may be added, that a new young orthodox rabbi was hired by the original congregation, who insisted upon a mechitzah in the synagogue as a condition for taking the rabbinical position. If a rift still exists in this orthodox community, the groundwork has nevertheless been laid for the eventual development of a truly ortho­ dox kehillah in this Southern town.

URING the past two decades the Rabbinical Council and the Or­ D thodox Union have forged a close working relationship. The congrega­ tional body and its associated Rabbinic body have frequently taken similar po­ sitions and have worked together on issues facing American and world Jewry.

Not all American-born orthodox rabbis have joined the R.C.A., how­ ever. Many rabbinic graduates of such yeshivoth as Torah Vodaath, Chaim Berlin, Telshe, Tifereth Yerushalayim, Ner Israel, Chofetz Chaim, and Lubavitch, feeling out of sorts with both the generally liberal orthodox tenden­ cies of the Rabbinical Council and the European outlook of the Agudath Harabbanim, formed their own rab­ binic organization, the Rabbinical Al­ liance of America (Igud Harabbanim).

The Igud, while of increasing stature, has not yet proven itself a potent force in the American Jewish scene, primar­ ily, perhaps, because its members have 21

not yet been welded into a truly cohe­ sive organization.

Of note also is the organization of Chassidic rabbonim, the Agudas HaAdmorim, which although very loosely knit, acts as a spokesman for Chassidic thinking on various issues.

Although Orthodoxy had lost a con­ siderable number of synagogues during the thirties and forties, an appreciable number have been regained, many others have been strengthened, and the last two decades have seen an un­ paralleled growth in over-all orthodox synagogue membership. The sheer amount of money spent during this period on the construction of orthodox synagogues, especially in the suburbs, is staggering. The National Council of Young Israel too has benefited from this growth, as its member branches rose from 50 to 106, a rise of 112%.

What is more, there is evidence that the standards of practice of the indi­ vidual branches have been raised in many instances during this period.

While Young Israel has yet to cap­ ture mass allegiance to its distinctively “American-style” congregations, it has had a significant impact upon many young, primarily non-yeshivahtrained, orthodox Jews, who have been attracted to this cohesive, almost fra­ ternal movement. Young Israel’s In­ stitute of Jewish Studies, conducted at its headquarters in midtown New York —incidentally, a meeting place for many orthodox groups-—-has each year provided New York Jews with a rich program of adult education, featuring lectures by outstanding scholars, lead­ ers, teachers, and rabbis.

The last two decades have had a twofold effect upon the Mizrachi-Hapoel Hamizrachi, combined as the Re­ ligious Zionists of America. With the establishment of the State of Israel the 22

religious Zionists have seen the realiza­ tion of the Zionist dream, and with it the adoption of their point of view by the bulk of the American orthodox Jewish community. The R.Z.A., how­ ever, like the secular Zionist organiza­ tions, has experienced an erosion of in­ fluence on the American scene since 1948, in contrast to the role which the many institutions, kibbutzim, and po­ litical work it supports have won for the religious Zionist movement in Israel.

Unable to attract large numbers of young people to its membership ranks despite the merger of the general re­ ligious Zionist group with the younger more vigorous religious labor Zionist body, the R.Z.A. presently plays a lesser role than formerly in the Amer­ ican Jewish community. The Mizrachi Women’s Organization, on the other hand, which in some aspects bears considerable resemblance to the much larger and totally secular Hadassah, has shown undiminished vitality, and has continued to attract Jewish women to its program of aiding its highly re­ garded religious institutions in Israel.

The youth movements affiliated with both groups, however, B’nai Akiva and Mizrachi Hatzair, have been suf­ fering from attrition and a lack of in­ spired adult direction in recent years.

Agudath Israel has never had a large popular following among the ranks of American orthodox Jewry, and although it has benefited from Jewish immigration since the late 40’s, has made few changes in its policies and philosophy as a militantly inde­ pendent orthodox movement in the past two decades. With its strength as a movement derived from thousands of older yeshivah students and yeshivah graduates, Agudah has provided youth activities for thousands of youngsters in JEWISH LIFE

the American yeshivah world through its Pirchei and Z’erei youth groups, and has been an influential factor in the important Beth Yaakov girls’ school movement. Under the direction of its able, articulate executive vice-presi­ dent, Rabbi Morris Sherer, Agudah has played a notable role in projecting its point of view in Washington and in state capitals, and in lobbying for the passage of legislation affecting ortho­ dox Jewry, frequently in opposition tc the positions of the American Jewish “establishment,” notably the rich and powerful American Jewish Committee and American Jewish Congress.

Of special significance is Agudah’s demonstration of the importance Or­ thodoxy attaches to the recognition of the Gedoley Hador as the voice of Torah authority, at the same time widening the scope of the Rosh Yeshi­ vah from the confines of the yeshivah world into the broad area of Jewish public affairs.

UNIFYING AND DIVISIVE FACTORS OW have all the groups which make up the orthodox Jewish H community interacted? Twenty years ago, it would seem, there was a greater feeling of areyvuth, or inter-organiza­ tional responsibility—although, per­ haps less actual consultation and mu­ tual contact than there is today. Al­ though the state of beleaguered embattlement in which Orthodoxy earlier found itself was certainly a contribut­ ing factor to this sense of areyvuth, it is primarily because of increasing po­ larization in ideology, purpose, and goals within orthodox Jewish commu­ nity that its component elements are farther apart today. Chassidism, for

September-October 1966

example, was no great factor as a movement within American Orthodoxy in the mid-40’s, while the American yeshivah graduates of the time exerted as yet little influence on the thinking of the orthodox leadership, or on the course of direction the orthodoxy community was taking.

Today, Chassidic Jew7s and a Torahobservant yeshivah-educated genera­ tion exercise an important and, quite frequently, a dramatic role in the formation of orthodox Jewry’s policy and point of view. Orthodox Jewish lead­ ers who are graduates of American Yeshivoth Gedoloth are no longer a rarity. At the other end of the ortho­ dox spectrum are those elements of Orthodoxy who put primary stress on the obligation to reach out to and in­ fluence the Jewish community at large.

Straining to bridge both is the Ortho­ dox Union.

Although by and large the positions taken on key policy issues and shaping the philosophies of the organizations by the UOJCA reflect this “bridging” approach, the ideological blocs within Orthodoxy have been moving far­ ther apart. It is for this reason, for example, that the diverse ele­ ments composing the orthodox “right,” including the “yeshivah world,” the Chassidim, and the organizations rep­ resenting this vital—and m ilita n tforce, have tended to challenge the leadership of the Orthodox Union and its role as representative body, or spokesman, for the orthodox commu­ nity as a whole. Less vocal is the at­ titude in this regard of the orthodox “left,” whose philosophy is oriented to winning over the non-observant through de-emphasizing Orthodoxy’s distinctiveness and strengthening rela­ tions with the general Jewish commu-

23

course. Union-RÇA membership in the Synagogue Council, however, is specif­ ically singled out for criticism. Critics feel that such membership constitutes acceptance of the concept of three “wings’ in Jewry and by inference grants recognition to Reform and Con­ servatism as legitimate expressions of Judaism, The orthodox “right” is backed on this issue by a Halachic p’sak din signed by eleven Roshey Yeshivah in 1955, twentymine years after the establishment of the Syna­ gogue Council. The Orthodox Union does not consider itself bound by the p’sak din, since its Halachic authority, the Rabbinical Council, has indicated that its own continuation of Syna­ gogue Council membership is to be taken as its response to the shaalah PRIMARY issue which has been submitted on the matter some eleven dividing the orthodox Jewish years ago. The Union has taken the community in recent years is that of position that orthodox Jewry’s interests “independence” or “separation,” i.e., necessitate continuance of member­ the degree and means of cooperation ship in the Synagogue Council (al­ between orthodox Jewish organizations though there are strong sentiments and their non-orthodox Jewish coun­ within the Orthodox Union for sev­ terparts. This has focussed mainly on erance of affiliation) at least until a membership in the Synagogue Council viable orthodox alternative to the SCA of America, to which the UOJCA and is organized. Such an agency would the RCA belong as the representatives constitute a kind of orthodox Jewish or Orthodoxy, together with the Re­ “address” to which the Christian and form and Conservative congregational other non-Jewish bodies with which and clerical bodies. the S.C.A. now deals could turn when The Orthodox Union and the Rab­ seeking consultation with the religious binical Council participate in several Jewish community. “umbrella” agencies with non-orthoVirtually all orthodox Jewish groups dox Jewish organizations and individ­ publicly favor the creation of a council uals, such as the National Community Relations Advisory Council and the of orthodox Jewish organizations, and Conference of Presidents of National the Orthodox Union took the lead in Jewish Organizations while some of proposing the formation of just such the orthodox organizations critical of a body with a decision reached at its the Union-RCA position themselves national convention in Washington in participate in mixed groups and meet November, 1964. Steps in that direc­ with non-orthodox and non-Jewish tion have been taken, with interesting groups and individuals as a matter of prospects in view.

nity. Under UOJCA influence, this ele­ ment has, in recent years, substantially modified its “leftism,” but the inclina­ tion towards “going their own way’: is by no means spent.

The differences between these camps have been highlighted in recent years by major issues which have divided them, such as support for govern­ mental aid to parochial schools. (Par­ enthetically, the Federal Aid to Educa­ tion Act of 1965 was backed by vir­ tually the entire organized orthodox Jewish community, including the Or­ thodox Union and the Rabbinical Council which on principle are com­ mitted to church-state separation in America.)

«

24

JEWISH LIFE

THE CHALLENGES ESPITE Orthodoxy’s gains in re­ cent years, there is no doubt that it still has many problems to solve, and that it is in the midst of a number of serious crises.

Assimilation and intermarriage have become serious factors threatening the entire fabric of the American Jewish community-—not just in the American hinterland but also in the major metro­ politan areas boasting large Jewish populations. To reports of thousands of young Jewish men and women anually being absorbed into the majority culture, resulting in many mixed mar­ riages, the usual reply of the orthodox Jew is: This is the natural conse­ quence of the basically assimilatory tendencies of non-orthodox religious movements with their central feature the concept of the “reform” or the abrogation of halochah, assimilation is a built-in characteristic, intermar­ riage inevitable, and their reductio ad absurdum the production of “rabbis” who proclaim they do not believe in G-d. Another reply is that the Jewish center movement is a major contribu­ tor to the assimilatory process with an “open membership” policy which fosters assimilation and intermarriage by providing the acceptable and ap­ proved means, and the sanctioned place for young Jews to meet and mingle socially with non-Jews, in the form of “Jewish activities” at the “Jewish” centers.

Both of these replies, however true, are just that, replies—not orthodox responses to this critical problem.

Then, too, Orthodoxy shares a meas­ ure of responsibility and blame for the problem, for not having been “with it” a generation sooner, with day schools, yeshivoth, and the entire ap-

B

September-October 1966

paratus of orthodox communal life available today.

ORE than two decades after the birth of the Day School move­ M ment, its mother, Torah Umesorah, is undergoing new labor pains. The rapid growth of the movement did not al­ ways permit the laying of proper fi­ nancial and ideological foundations for the new schools—and today the price is being paid for this, with many schools throughout the country em­ broiled in veritable battles for survival, both as stable institutions and as Torah bastions.

Many have felt that the panacea for all of the ills which plague the day schools is generous fund allotments from the community-wide Jewish wel­ fare fund drives, which to date have allotted day schools mere pittances of their enormous budgets, with funds aplenty for everything but Jewish con­ tinuity. When, however, such funds are actually granted in a substantial manner by these groups, dominated as they are by secular-minded, Jewishlyignorant, frequently anti-day-schoolprejudiced Jewish communal leaders, new problems arise. The control of the program and goals of the day schools — an inevitable corollary of substantial welfare fund allocations—may pose far more serious problems for the day school leaders than their financial dif­ ficulties now. Some see a parallel prob­ lem rising out of governmental aid to day schools, an apprehension which few if any day school leaders now share.

Day schools are also suffering from severe shortages of adequately trained, adequately motivated personnel. The Yeshivoth Gedoloth, which were ex­ pected to train large numbers of welltrained and well-prepared teachers and

25

educators for the day schools, have but inadequately fulfilled their prom­ ise in this area. In most cases, too, they have failed to imbue their students with the motivation to devote large periods of time in cities and commu­ nities distant from the large urban centers.

Then too, the yeshivoth which have been graduating rabbis have been turn­ ing out fewer highly qualified, prop­ erly motivated practicing rabbis in re­ cent years, as the best qualified have turned to other areas of endeavor.

While the yeshivah graduates have been becoming good businessmen and professional people and, at the same time, devout orthodox laymen, smaller orthodox communities have suffered as a result of the lack of really highly qualified spiritual leaders.

entity in America was at stake. Today, the crisis is one of a living vibrant, dy­ namic organism which has experienced a spiritual regeneration and is in the beginning of a historic spiritual renais­ sance—and there is no doubt that Orthodoxy will overcome this crisis, as it will many crises, A d Sheyovoh Hamoshiach, Bim’heyrah, V ’yameynu, Amen.

HE increasing polarization within T Orthodoxy, if left alone, may pro­ duce, chas Vsholom, an irreparable schism within the large community of those who accept the concept of Torah min Hashomayim, and may result in the breakaway of the orthodox “right­ ists” on the one hand and the ortho­ dox “leftists’’ on the other, and the setting up of new religious movements in the Jewish community. The sign, of course, would be a major ideological rift— and, in recent months, there have been disturbing foreshadowings that the ideological base for just such a development might be in the making.

Though Orthodoxy may well be in a crisis situation today, as it was two decades ago, there is one all important, decisive difference: In 1946, the crisis was one of survival—the very life or death of Orthodoxy as a recognizable

26

JEWISH LIFE

The Post Mortem Impasse in Israel

By ARYEH NEWMAN r I ''HE continuous advances in human A knowledge have never posed in­ superable problems to the staunch be­ liever in Judaism. The Torah, from its inception, has been a law of life—• “that ye shall live by them, and not die by them’— commented our Sages. No revolution in human knowledge could possibly render the laws of the Torah obsolete. This is not to say that Juda­ ism is not without its problems of adjustment. But these problems are not those originating in the Torah but in our inadequacies, in the failure of Jews, sometimes even of Jewish lead­ ers, to grasp the true significance of a situation and its lessons. Never has this been truer than today and particu­ larly in Israel where physicians and rabbis find themselves on opposite sides of the barricades in a contro­ versy over the performance of post mortem autopsies. It is not a new problem, as a glance at the history of our responsa literature may tell us.

Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits of New York, the present Chief Rabbi-elect of Britain, has summed it up in his ad­ mirable work on medical ethics.

September-October 1966

On the one hand, we have explicit Torah prohibitions of bal talin and bal tetammey (see D ’vorim 2 1 :2 3 )-^ not to allow the corpse to remain overnight or to defile the land. The relatives and Chevrah Kadishah are charged with the task of burying the dead as speedily as possible. The strin­ gent mourning laws of aninuth remain in force so long as even one organ of the deceased remains unburied. And yet from the very outset, when mod­ ern anatomical and pathological tech­ niques demanded post mortems for both diagnostic and study purposes, ways and means were found by emi­ nent rabbis wherein, providing certain safeguards were adhered to, objections to such procedures could be waived in given cases and situations, on the basis of pikuach nefesh— saving the living.

The Talmud itself, long before the days of modern medicine, had justi­ fied nivvul hameth—degredation of the corpse—to save another human being from death (see Chullin l i b ) .

In Eretz Yisroel, the question of the relation of autopsy to the tenets and requirements of Jewish faith took on

27

particular immediacy with the estab­ lishment of a Yishuv medical school.

TU ST over twenty years ago an J agreement was signed between the then newly opened Hadassah Medical School and teaching hospital in Jeru­ salem and the late Chief Rabbis Her­ zog and Frank, laying down rules with regard to autopsies and dissections.

Here is the outline of this historic agreement: The Chief Rabbinate does not object to post mortems in the following four instances: (1) When demanded by law (e.g. by police and coroner); (2) Where the physician is not able otherwise to determine the cause of death. A certificate countersigned by three physicians had to confirm that this was true; (3) Where the saving of a life was involved (pikuach nefesh). This category included cases where post mortem might benefit an­ other patient in the hospital or out­ side; (4) In cases of hereditary dis­ ease where it was essential to give guidance to the family.

The hospital undertook to keep a careful record of all cases and to fur­ nish the Chevrah Kadishah with a copy as well as to notify the latter as soon as possible before the funeral of the necessity for an autopsy. The hospital likewise undertook to conduct all au­ topsies with the utmost propriety. Or­ gans required for medical examination were to remain in the pathological institute so long as they were required and at the termination of the examina­ tion be handed to the Chevrah Kadi­ shah for burial, the hospital bearing all the burial expenses involved.

In 1953 the terms of this agreement were incorporated in a rather vague anatomical and pathological bill passed by the K’nesseth. The main clause 28

bearing on the problem read: “An autopsy may be performed to deter­ mine the cause of death or to use any organ or tissue for the healing of another person.” This fact had to be certified by three physicians—namely the patient’s and the department and hospital head respectively.

UT, notwithstanding the agree­ ment, the problem was far from B alleviated. That outcry against post mortems in Israel grew in intensity, so much so that in 1961, a govern­ ment committee of enquiry was set up and the religious parties incorporated in their election platforms a demand to change the law, and, in particular, to give the patient, his relatives, and guardians the right to object a proviso not included in any previous legisla­ tions. The coalition set up after the elections pledged to amend the ana­ tomical and pathological law. Eventu­ ally the committee of enquiry, which included rabbinical authorities and eminent physicians, produced a num­ ber of unanimous findings which were agreed to by the religious parties and were submitted to the K’nesseth, Briefly, these amendments gave the patient, the next of kin, or guardian the right to object and obliged the hospital to wait five hours (Sabbaths and festivals not included in the cal­ culation of the waiting period) before proceeding with a post mortem. Their objection could be overruled only if the three authorized physicians certi­ fied that: (1) there were reasonable grounds for assuming that death was caused by an unknown medical factor or an error and that ignorance of this factor might be fatal to other patients; (2) determination of the cause of death might prevent a danger to the health of the public or an individual; JEWISH LIFE

(3) that a part of the body was re­ quired for a transplant. Eyes could be placed in refrigeration for that pur­ pose. Furthermore, heavy penalties were prescribed for doctors making false declarations.

Against a background of heightened controversy, public indignation, fasts, and mass meetings of the pious, fur­ ther legislative action on these amend­ ments was postponed till after the summer recess. Rabbinic authorities, headed by the Chief Rabbis and Roshey Yeshivoth, issued a statement which read: “Owing to the increasing abuses in post mortems we maintain there is no room for allowing them in any shape or form except in the case of pikuach nefesh and that only with the agreement in each and every case of an authorized rabbi.” Thus the statement superseded the findings of the late Chief Rabbis Herzog and Frank as well as their own earlier agreement. The National Religious Party acted to postpone legislative ac­ tion, noting in an official statement that “all religious parties voted for the amendments, but in the present pro­ test campaign, both accurate and in­ accurate statements have been made and even rabbis have been misled by unreliable information.”

HAT had happened to bring about the present impasse? There had been a tremendous lack of com­ munication between medical and spir­ itual authorities. Post mortems had become more and more frequent, to the point, it was charged, of having become a regular routine—with the authorization signed in advance by the physicians. Bodies were again and again returned to the Chevrah Kadishah with organs missing, with no explanation. A crate of discarded or-

W

Seplember-October 1966

gans was found unattended. Protective groups sprang up, led by militant yeshivah students who watched over the dying and snatched them from the hospitals before post mortems could be performed. Outraged relatives, upon finding that the body of their dear one had been mutilated, in contra­ diction to information given by a doc­ tor on duty, invaded a hospital and attacked doctors and staff personnel.

Pictures of “mutilated” bodies ap­ peared on hoardings and roused pas­ sions even higher.

No religious authority had a good word to say for the physicians. A number of orthodox doctors presented to Chief Rabbi Unterman, at a dia­ logue convened at his initiative, views echoing a statement issued by the re­ cently formed non-party religious group headed by Professor Urbach of the Hebrew University. They main­ tained that it was up to rabbinical authority to take the initiative in ex­ plaining the pikuach nefesh involved in the performance of autopsies. They themselves should will their own bodies for study purposes. Physicians, they declared, were not eager to cut up bodies, but only did it out of con­ sideration for their sacred task of healing. These physicians, however, fully agreed that every care should be taken to perform their “necessary” operations with due reverence, with all organs, “as far as possible,” buried after use. But they would not agree to rabbis being the judge of pikuach nefesh. Halochah, they asserted, had always left this to the doctor, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. They would welcome the presence of a religious supervisor in the pathological institute to ensure that regulations were ad­ hered to, but could not, on any ac­ count, allow any outside person or

29

body fto judge when a post mortem was necessary.

The gulf between rabbi and doctor had grown. In earlier times the Shulchon Oruch trusted the doctor. The Rabbi still trusted the physician—but only with regard to treating the living, but with regard to the use of the dead, the basis for trust had been shattered.

Truly a paradox. But perhaps light can be thrown on it from another source.

In the course of an article on the problem of “Physicians and the Sab­ bath in Israel,*?:an eminent authority, Rabbi Moshe Findling, writes in Noam —a forum for clarification of contem­ porary Halachic problems—that one of the most delicate problems today is that of relying on the physician for his determining of pikuach nefesh. Where he is non-observant of and even an­ tagonistic to Judaism it may well re­ sult in misleading fellow Jews and causing them to violate the Sabbath.

He adds: Had we been worthy and had there been sufficient religious doctors, nurs­ es and religious hospitals, the problem would have been much easier since we could either be treated by them or at least consult them. . . . Admit­ tedly the same problem has arisen in the U.S. but it is much more acute here where all the medical personnel are Jews. Some observant physicians did indeed emigrate to Israel from Germany trained in the Torah im Derech Eretz school, but they are now on the brink of retirement or are no longer with us. The emigration of observant Jews versed in these fields is very rare. It is our duty to tackle this problem with the utmost urgency who study medicine and those who study Torah in Israel THOSE

30

live in two mutually exclusive worlds.

There is no Rambam whose findings would have equal authority in the worlds of medicine and faith. In addi­ tion there is a large public from Ori­ ental lands whose acquaintance with modern medicine is most recent and who cannot easily be persuaded that it can ever be justifiable to tamper with the body after death.

This may well be one of the fields in which the Diaspora, particularly the American, has a great deal to con­ tribute. The combination of Torah and science is one being brought to Israel by graduates of American institutions.

Perhaps one day we shall be granted the vista of Roshey Yeshivoth in Israel encouraging their disciples to take up medicine as a religious duty, and of leaders of medical science as incul­ cating in their students at least ele­ mentary respect for? if not understand­ ing of Jewish sanctities. No doubt Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, the brainchild of the late Dr. Pinchas Churgin of Yeshiva University, will play an important part in this develop­ ment. In the meantime we shall have to depend on the bridge of understand­ ing being built between representatives of the medical profession, on the one hand, particularly the handful of ob­ servant ones, and the rabbinical schol­ ars who feel it their duty to consult them in order to reach informed deci­ sions in matters where faith and medi­ cine confront each other.* *An ideal product of such a partnership is the handbook of Sabbath laws recently published in Jerusalem (Shemirath Shabbotli K ’hilchotha) by Feldheim of New York, compiled by Rabbi Chaim Neuwirth. Such concepts as pikuach nefesh, and serious and non-serious illness, are related to up-to-date medical terminology and treatments and the author acknowledges his debt to the medical profession.

JEWISH LIFE

Return V isit to South Africa

By NACHUM L. RABINOVITCH EFORE you land in Johannesburg, have been Jewish. Later, during my B the airplane stewardess gives you travels throughout the Republic, I a form to fill out and hand to the was received by Jewish mayors of immigration officer on arrival. Having filled out a similar form on my first visit to South Africa five years ago, I noticed a change this time. Then, in the space for “race,” Jews were not included in “White.” Today I guess we have been promoted. Of course, the question on religion still gives you ample opportunity to identify your­ self!

Not that Jews seek to hide their identity in the Republic of white supremacy. Far from it! The Jewish community as such and individual Jews as well, play a significant role in the economic and cultural life of the coun­ try as a whole, and in municipal gov­ ernment they are very strongly repre­ sented though hardly at all on the national level.

As the guest of the Federation of Synagogues of South Africa at its na­ tional conference, I was accorded the honor of a civic welcome by the mayor and council of Johannesburg.

At a Kosher luncheon in City Hall under the supervision of the Beth Din, the guest list included various digni­ taries in addition to the leading Rabbis and laymen of the Federation of Syna­ gogues, and of course the city coun­ cillors.

A number of councillors are Jews and several mayors of Jphapnesburg

Spptember-Ocfober 1966

Cape Town, the diamond capitol Kim­ berley, and other cities.

At the Kimberley City Hall wel­ come, I was particularly impressed by the mayor’s explanation that the food was prepared in his own home under the supervision of the mayoress, since the Beth Din has no Hashgochah in town.

A LTHOUGH South African Jews assert their Judaism naturally enough, nonetheless assimilation takes its inevitable toll. In Kimberley, small town though it is, they have a very beautiful synagogue. It was built to­ wards the end of the last century by the early diamond mining pioneers.

Marble tablets celebrate the names of the founding families, especially Op­ penheimer and Schlesinger. Now, a few generations later, the same fami­ lies still bearing the same names still dominate the diamond industry (and others as well) but they are no longer Jewish . . .

From the rabbis of the Beth Din, 1 learned that the number of inter­ marriages is constantly increasing as is the number of applications for con­ version. They struggle valiantly with this challenge and try to set reasonable minimum standards, consistent with Halochah, for accepting converts. But

31

it is so difficult to hold the line when people can travel abroad (often to America) on a pre-honeymoon and come back with a certificate of Geruth.

Later, I was to hear the same la­ ment in England too. Occasionally the complaint was in the nature of an indictment of the American Rabbinate.

Well-known names often grace these ‘‘quickie” conversion documents.

“Can’t you in America do something about establishing some measure of discipline at least among rabbis who claim to be orthodox?”

On the other hand, though,?-one finds a surprisingly large number of people who have chosen to remain unmarried. Naturally, it is hard to generalize as to the reason for this phenomenon. However, mindful of my experience in the small towns of the American South, where one sees a good deal of the same thing, I should imagine that it has much to do with the unwillingness of these people to marry out of the faith ^nd their in­ ability to find a suitable mate within it.

TW7HEN one speaks of the Syna▼T gogue in South Africa, the refer­ ence is of course to the orthodox shool. Conservatism does not exist and Reform is a small splinter group rid­ den with internal dissension. A few years ago, an American Reform min­ ister was imported to Johannesburg.

Apparently, he didn’t understand that only in America, because of special historical circumstances, could there exist the anomaly of Reform and then Conservative figures undertaking to act as spokesmen for Judaism while a large orthodox element remained passive. “He tried to raise a rumpus but quickly got his come-uppance,” I was told.

In South Africa the orthodox syna­

32

gogue, at least insofar as the shool proper is concerned, is the genuine article. There as here urban popula­ tions are on the move, and new neigh­ borhoods require new synagogues* As in America, these generally turn out to be vast and impressive monuments, if not to our people’s piety, at least to their generosity. However, the norms of synagogue architecture— the women’s gallery, the central Bimah, etc.,, are carefully maintained.

Quite a few South Africans who had visited in America confessed to me their surprise and dismay on finding that even some orthodox synagogues here settle for a token Mechitzah and give up those features which are the distinctive mark of a Jewish house of worship and create Shool atmos­ phere.

The status and importance of the individual synagogue is reinforced in great measure by the Federation of Synagogues. This body acts on behalf of all the synagogues in areas of com­ munity-wide concern and through its Beth Din exercises guidance and con­ trol over the entire gamut of religious activities. The extreme independence of the individual congregation which we in America know only too well as making for Hefkeruth and irrespon­ sibility is effectively bridled by the Federation, and the energies of the separate congregations are channeled into cooperative endeavors, such as the Ministers’ Training College, the Kashruth program, the Youth Move­ ment with its camps and year-round activities, and others.

HE acknowledged head of the community is the Chief Rabbi.

Since my last visit, the then Chief Rabbi Professor Louis I. Rabinowitz retired to Israel and was succeeded by

T

JEWISH LIFE

Rabbi Bernard Casper. The efficient organization of the Federation of Syn­ agogues and its effectiveness as a cen­ tral instrument for Jewish life is, with­ out doubt, mainly the accomplishment of Rabbi Rabinowitz. The concrete representation of this strength in a Religious Center is due to the initia­ tive of the incumbent Chief Rabbi.

This building, soon to be completed, will house the offices of the Federa­ tion, the chambers of the Beth Din, a Mikveh, a chapel, a library and other facilities.

While the South African Jewish community as such is officially ortho­ dox, the level of personal observance probably differs little from that which prevails in America. There are, of course, some who are dedicatedly ob­ servant. In Johannesburg, with its sixty thousand Jews, Congregation Adath Jeshurun, which formed around a nucleus of several families from Germany, and whose members are all Shomrey Shabboth, still remains a distinctive force.

The Jewish loyalty of South Africa’s Jews finds testimony in their children.

This is especially manifest in the army.

The military establishment recognizes the religious needs of Jewish personnel by providing for Kosher food and Shabboth observance. (J.W.B. please note!) These privileges are extended only to Jewish young men who sub­ mit attestation by their Rabbi that in civilian life they are observant as well.

With universal conscription, such con­ sideration is an essential factor in maintaining the Jewish soldier. The young men from Adath Jeshurun can often be seen on Shabboth in syna­ gogues near army installations. The presence of these soldiers is an influ­ ence for Torah amongst the local youth.

September-October 1966

The community is fortunate in its choice of lay leadership. The Chair­ man of the Federation, Dr. I. Bersohn, is a distinguished research cardiologist of international repute. Although his official title is, according to the Eng­ lish usage, Honorary Chairman, he is not honorary at all, in the American sense. He is a driving force in South African Jewish life.

NTERESTINGLY enough, medical men are prominent in South Af­ rican Jewish affairs. The president of the Durban congregation, Dr. Taitz, is a thoracic surgeon with a world reputation. He devotes a great deal of his time to a hospital for chest dis­ eases for African patients. He took me on a tour of the huge hospital, Really, it is rather a hospital town.

It even has a school for children who live there for extended periods up to many years. Discussing with me the problems of bringing the white man’s medicine to the natives, most of whom are suspicious and some still patronize the witch doctor, Dr. Taitz found analogies in the problem of bringing Torah to Jews. He wondered aloud, almost accusingly: “Why can’t we in Durban, ten thousand Jews, with mag­ nificent synagogues, a full day school from kindergarten through matricula­ tion, our own Shechitah, etc., etc.,— Why can’t we find a Rabbi willing to teach us Torah?”

In city after city, I saw the same crying need for rabbis and teachers.

That the yearning for Torah is there is evident from the system of Jewish day schools in every larger commu­ nity. But alas, the shortage of teachers often makes the day school almost totally ineffective insofar as imparting Jewish knowledge is concerned.

As for rabbis, even in the last five

I

33

years there has been a drain through retirement, emigration, and unfortu­ nately, death. Replacements have been few. Certainly the material rewards for a rabbi in South Africa are at­ tractive enough. Where else do rabbis live in homes boasting private swim­ ming pools and tennis courts?

The critical shortages notwithstand­ ing, the tenor of Jewish life has im­ proved appreciably, at least, in the larger centers. In Johannesburg, the Yeshivah College, patterned after American yeshivah high schools, sends between ten and twenty graduates a year to yeshivoth in Israel and Amer­ ica. With additional faculty its pro­ gram could be extended to a full ye­ shivah and thus perhaps help to al­ leviate the lack of manpower.

Public Torah study has increased as well. Sparked by Adath Jeshurun, a program of Sh’urim several evenings a week, three hours at a time, attracts a large and enthusiastic group. Lec­ tures and discussion circles flourish.

When an American rabbi newly under­ taking the spiritual leadership of a Johannesburg synagogue called upon his congregation to turn out on Shevuoth Night to learn Torah, he had a full house.

HE obvious question is: Why are T not more men attracted to go to a community such as this? The answer brings us to the deeper underlying problems of South Africa, which, though never far from people’s aware­ ness and conversation, are yet some­ how fenced off by a wall of resigna­ tion and acquiescence, if not guilt and evasion.

Staggering difficulties are inherent in attempts to bridge the gap between the civilization of the native tribal groups and that of the highly indus­

34

trialized white society of the cities. In fact, all of the newly independent countries of Africa are struggling with this task. However, South Africa’s government is openly and avowedly racialist. No doubt there are some sin­ cere men who believe that separate development for whites and blacks is feasible, and if it is that it is also just.

No doubt, too, though, there are many who care not a whit about justice and who would stop at nothing to humili­ ate and oppress the natives in the name of baskaap—white man’s rule.

They know that the white man’s economy and his burgeoning pros­ perity would dry up if the stream of African labor were diverted, and they mean to keep the black man in his place. They do not shrink also from making the unconvinced whites, as well, see things their way. Thus while parliamentary democracy and civil liberties were to be retained for the white population, they have had to be progressively curtailed even for them.

The Jews find themselves a minority within the English-speaking group which is itself a minority of the white population of three million confront­ ing a black majority of ten million.

In such an exposed and precarious po­ sition any kind of political activity is dangerous and the moral issues be­ come confused and perplexing.

Thus, for example, the government announced a project to transfer the colored and Indian population from the old part of Capetown to new, seg­ regated areas. The mayor joined in a protest against arbitrary uprooting of the population. On the other hand, a Jewish engineer proudly showed vis­ itors the new housing units he had helped plan for the colored.

Is it right to force people out of their homes in areas they have occuJEWISH LIFE

pied for a century or more? Obviously not. But is it wrong then, to clear a rundown slum area and provide de­ cent, albeit minimum standard, hous­ ing for the slumdwellers? Again, cer­ tainly not! Clearly the moral problems run much deeper, (e.g. The new de­ velopments are many miles away from the city where the people work. It is all part of the master plan of racial separation.) But, it is frustrating when even if you knew what to do you could not do it. So, many simply close their minds and shy away from politics, as if that way the problems will dis­ appear. Meanwhile, the fact is that the government maintains order, and the only alternative, under present conditions, is chaos. Moreover, not only has the government achieved internal stability—there is an unpre­ cedented boom going on now with for­ eign investments coming in at a fan­ tastic pace. All the more reason, therefore, to swallow one’s fears and proceed with “business as usual.” r 11HUS the greatest civic virtue be-1- comes non-involvement. In a coun­ try where every manifestation of non-conformism is suspect, where the Minister of Justice is not beneath ban­ ning folk-singing because it has sub­ versive potential, one learns to wear non-involvement as a badge.

An amusing incident which hap­ pened to me personally is illustrative in this connection. During my pre­ vious visit (as on this trip also), I had talked at length with Bernard Sachs, a leading journalist and author of several important and thoughtful books. At that time he wrote a profile on me which appeared in the S. A. Jewish Times. He mentioned that he had asked me about religious parties in Israel and the argument that the

September-October (966

cause of religion can best be furthered through political activity. He quoted my remark: “Help to build the correct spiritual climate and things will auto­ matically come right,” and described my general belief that the hustings of politics are not for the man of religion and even when we agree with the aims and aspirations of the politician our way must be different. When, on this second visit, I spoke on the campus of the University of Pretoria (the capital of S.A.) my subject was Sci­ ence and Religion, certainly apolitical, I was surprised that the President of the Jewish Student Society in intro­ ducing me pointed out the fact that I believe clergymen should not engage in politics. How did he know and why was this relevant? It turned out that the press officer of Federation had dug up the article about me of five years ago and in the pre-arrival pub­ licity had featured this item. And this is what seemed so important that it overshadowed anything else even when my topic was quite remote from politics.

With South Africa’s problems and pressures being what they are, the question naturally arises: Is there emigration from South Africa to any appreciable extent? The answer, which may seem surprising, is—No. Perhaps the reason was expressed most aptly by a native chauffeur who seemed quite willing to talk freely. When I asked him if he would like to leave South Africa and go to Canada, he replied, “No, certainly not. This is the best country i;n the world. It has every­ thing — good climate, good food, everything you want. Only the laws are bad. But they’ll change. One day they’ll change and we’ll all have all the good things.”

35

In the Campus Climate

By ELIHU JACOB STEINHORN

ID-CENTURY America is wit­ ness to one of the great revolu­ tions of social history—the emergence of the assumption that all high school graduates are entitled to obtain a higher education. College and Univer­ sity education is thus increasingly be­ coming part of the general American experience; the projection is that within the next decade college attend­ ance will be as universal as high school training is today.

Present-day institutions of higher learning cover a gamut from night schools to small colleges to the giant “multiversity.” It is the university proper, however, which sets the stand­ ards and pace against which all other institutions of higher learning may be measured. “At the most, there are no more than eighty true universities.

(Many that use the title are colleges with a few graduate departments.) Ex­ cept for the older private universities, they are indescribably big, diffuse, and specialized.”

Clark Kerr, president of the Univer­ sity of California, in his book “The Uses of the University” popularized the term “multiversity,” indicating the most startling aspect of higher educa­ tion today. It is a term which describes the reality of universal higher educa­

36

tion: that the university today is no longer the leisured, timeless haven of the sons and daughters of the well-todo who are being “cultivated to rule.”

It is where the thousands, the ten thousands, come to be trained for the tasks relevant to a modern society.

The term “multiversity” suggests that the once prevalent philosophical notion of the ultimate unity of ideas and knowledge has been superseded by a concept indicating the folly (to the secular mind) of searching for the illusive unity. The “multiversity” en­ courages the separation and diversi­ fication of the knowledge and method of the various intellectual and artistic disciplines. Inherent in such an ap­ proach is the underlying assumption common to great portions of the aca­ demic world, that the purpose of learning today is to control and master the environment without asking the reason why or for what purpose the mastery and control.

OX, the author of the now widely read “The Secular City*’ has stated that “The University, like thç culture it influences and is influenced by, has become a secular institution, a center of clashing ideas, enormous dan­ gers, and fantastic possibilities.” As

B

JEWISH LIFE

the center of the emerging secular world recognizing only man’s central­ ity in the scheme of creativity the uni­ versity poses a threat to the old order.

As Cox puts it: “The University like all institutions of the culture, partici­ pates in the process of secularization.

In fact, at certain points it even takes the lead.”

The university, once establishing the secular notion that man is alone in the world, becomes the originator of new ideas; moral and ethical as well as in­ tellectual, academic and pragmatic.

Secularization has established the no­ tion that man alone must assume full responsibility for his world. “He can no longer shove it off on some relig­ ious power.” With man in complete control of his environment and his ultimate well being, the university as the leader has a distinct obligation to experiment with and suggest new ap­ proaches not only for the detection of the secrets of science but also in the moral scheme of things. To accept ab­ solutes, whatever their source, is thus to the “university mind,” an act of cowardice. Man, in this secularistic approach, must be able to determine the moral and ethical as the need arises without recourse to a priori ab­ solutes.

Alfred North Whitehead, the great modern scientist and philosopher, claims that each generation of intel­ lectuals has a distinct “climate of opin­ ion” indicating its philosophical ob­ jectives. Carl Becker of Yale, the emi­ nent historian, portrays and pictures for us this “climate of opinion” (the term was coined by Whitehead). It is an approach to the Universe and life itself that commences with chaos and disorder. From this disorder man the thinker discovers how to control and master his environment never asking

September-October 1966

as to its nature or its oiigin. Man is concerned, according to Becker and his fellow intellectuals I vfith the prag­ matic: Does it work, is it useful? The relationship between one element and another is unimportant and wasteful of human endeavor. M ai masters and controls, He does not ask why. Kerr intimates that the tend “multiversity” is somewhat indicative of this concept.

T IS OBVIOUS thkt such an ap­ proach to the worlds life, and man’s Iplace within this schemers in polarity to Jewish elements. Whatever ap­ proach to Judaism we #aiht to espouse, there are the basic absplutes of our faith. It is clear that this conflict and antagonism between the “intellectual climate of opinion” and “Yiddishkeit” is real and dangerous. I The challenge posed to Yiddishkeit by the university goes deeper than the intellectual alone. University students as a rule, are eager ifiore so than adults, to live their espduied philosoph­ ical and ideological bositions. Thus the social climate is of major concern in the challenge to iJidaism. Very often the student with a yeshivah background will remaih Staunch in his acceptance of absolutes in opposition to the climate of opiniol. However, it is most difficult for efen the com­ mitted Yeshiva bochuf to remain im­ pervious to the social pressures of the university. Democracy ahd very often, unfortunately, its lack df personal re­ sponsibility and confoinitant rebel­ liousness threatens Jewish values more perhaps than the philosophical notions of Nietzsche and Sartre* As the most potent factor shaping American life today it ii essential that we recognize the nature of the univer­ sity—its power, structure, and prob­ lems. The challenge It presents ter

37

Torah Jewry and the varied responses possible ffrom the bases of this article.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

young man eager to enter the business community in the thirties and forties did not feel compelled to attend col­ lege. To enter the areas of the busi­ ness world available to the Jew, one did not attend college, one be­ gan working starting at the bottom.

The scholars and professionals went to college. We have, of course, over­ simplified but the truth remains, that to advance or even enter business one did not need a college education. A popular quip of the time£ *‘It is who you know not what you know that counts” indicates the widely prevalent attitude.

Amongst the college bound students the professional objectives were the common ones of medicine, law, and teaching. The exclusion of the Jew from the ranks of the broader profes­ sional world forced him to consider only those professions that he could control and operate on his own.

a n d m o y n ih a n m “Beyond the Melting Pot” tend to over-simplify the reasons for the multipresence of the Jew on the cam­ pus by attributing it to the “passion for education.” It is true that the Jew has always valued education and learn­ ing but it is doubtful as to whether this can serve as the primary or all-inclu­ sive reason for the Jewish push for University education. It is most dif­ ficult for us to conceive of “University education” as being primarily an ex­ tension of “Talmud Torah lishmah.”

Were the thirst for knowledge the an­ swer, Jewish learning and the growth of yeshivoth in the 30’s would have at­ tained a higher and more popular level. It is obvious that other factors, sociological, economic, and psycholog­ A S other professions began to open ical, were operating in American Jew­ jlj L their doors to the Jew, so the Jew ish life.

The technological revolution is a responded by training himself for these fact today. Our objective in this analy­ opportunities. One must note the re­ sis cannot be to decry or pass judg­ markable growth of Jewish students in ment on what has happened to the na­ schools of engineering in the past ten ture of work and to men in the newly years in comparison to the number in emerged “technopolitan” era. To hope attendance during the thirties and for a return to a non-technological forties. This acceptability by the world past is as ridiculous as it is unattain­ of the Jew and the Jewish response able. “The cybernetic society simply attracted many students to higher edu­ requires a larger percentage of highly cation who perhaps would otherwise educated and technically adept peo­ have rejected college in favor of busi­ ple. Making it possible for all quali­ ness.

Socially and psychologically too, the fied young people to go to college is not just a handout by the welfare state. Jew began to feel more at home in the It is a desperate necessity. Numskulls world of higher education. Tradition­ cannot manage an automated society” ally it is the middle-class that is eager for the results of higher education in (Cox).

The nature of the American econ­ all of its facets, viewing education as omy has undergone rapid changes the key to social acceptance. As a ma­ since the thirties and forties. The jor proportion of American Jews en-| lazer

B

38

JEWISH LIFE

tered the middle class, eagerness for the “sheepskin” waxed amongst them.

Today the Jew is so accepted that the most popular novels and short stories are those featuring Jewish characters and situations. This social acceptance of the Jew secured for the student a socially accepted place in the univer­ sity world.

One must point out the psychologi­ cal and ideological differences char­ acterizing the Jewish student of today in contrast to his college-trained fa­ ther. Whereas the father, having fought for a place in the university, was concerned with his co-religionists and general social issues, the son is unconcerned and apathetic. The father was vitally concerned with making the grade not only as an individual but also as a “Jew.” The son, if concerned at all with his Jewish identity, is pri­ marily interested in securing a place for himself in the American world strictly as an individual.

The student today is concerned with his own selfish needs for status and position, whereas, the father although concerned too with personal accom­ plishment, was concerned with issues.

The sociologist has a new word to de­ scribe this new student. The term “meritocracy” indicates the orientation of students toward a career to the ex­ clusion of all else. The students are seeking “occupational identity” and if not immediately forthcoming feel the beginnings of anxiety. Many sociolo­ gists have described the rapid change from the good-old-Mr. Chips, liberal arts education to the institution preoc­ cupied with career training. Instead of the scholar who studies for study and knowledge sake we see emerging ca­ reer-obsessed young men and women who worry about marks and entrance into graduate school.

September-Oc+ober 1966

Professor Jacob of the University of Pennsylvania, in his 1960 volume “What College Students Think,” pic­ tured the modern student as flaccid, politically irresponsible, pleasant but without conviction, half bum, half boy scout: “They are gloriously contented both in regard to their present dayto-day activity and their outlook. The great majority of students appear un­ abashedly self-centered. They intend to look out for themselves first and expect others to do likewise.” (Con­ sider the great shortage of rabbis and teachers in the Jewish world.) This “playing it cool” in 1965 had its re­ action bursting forth rather hotly; with demonstrations in Berkeley and Yale portraying open hostility to the administration; with demonstrations on civil rights, freedom of speech, war in Viet Nam. This activism, however, is not indicative of the College genera­ tion as a whole but of a small minor­ ity. The activist on the campus has an opportunity but the inertia and dis­ interest of the majority is very great.

The university student today, with his career objectives primary, views his secular studies very often from the “pigeon-hole.” He attempts to place his education in one compart­ ment and his “other” life in a dif­ ferent compartment. He fails to realize that this anti-intellectualism often leaves the door open to the influence of everything in the university, except “knowledge.” Perhaps the greatest challenge to Torah Judaism is in this regard. It encompasses the yeshivah bochur and the day school graduate, as it does the “illiterate” Jew. This pigeon-holing without interaction and discussion distorts reality and pro­ duces a mechanic non-thinking indi­ vidual. The university Jew of two and three decades ago gambled with the

39

problems of unifying and synthesizing his secular studies with liis tradition.

Perhaps*we lost a few souls here and there, but we also developed leader­ ship. The compartmentalized student, even if he be a devoted Jew, cannot think and thus cannot lead. Existing in both worlds but truly living in neither subtracts from the good that might result from each. The student thus neither develops into the classic “Talmid Chocham” nor into an intellect­ ual.

THE RESPONSE ^ ■''HE problem as posed has elicited JL responses from the Torah world; more verbal perhaps in recent years because of the growing nature of thè problems.

The Chassidic world and elements of the Yeshivah world simplify their problem by responding negatively.

Symbolic of this response is “Rejoice O Youth,” a volume by Rabbi Avigdor Miller, which not only neg­ ates the value of secular higher edu­ cation, but sees in it the seeds of Jew­ ish destruction. This negation in toto of the university and secular knowl­ edge is extreme, but has its positive aspects. If by eliminating secular edu­ cation, we develop a group dedicated solely to Torah learning and research the negation might be justified.

However, it is obvious that the ma­ jority of Jews, the dedicated and com­ mitted included, will not set their career and intellectual objectives in light of this response. One cannot argue that the approach is shortsighted or wrong. Certainly a core of special­ ized Talmudists is needed in every generation. We must however, indicate that for the student not thusly gifted, 40

it can bring irreparable harm in the loss of career and livelihood.

Rabbi Bernard Weinberger, in a re­ cent article in the magazine Jewish Observer, indicates the pragmatic re­ sponse. Many like-minded Jews will agree to the necessity of a higher edu­ cation as a means to an end, citing the modern technological era, as the mo­ tivating force for such training. Uni­ versity training, if it could be avoided, e.g., a father’s business that one could enter, should be so avoided. However, if one needs the training in order to “make a living” it can thus be toler­ ated. There is much vocational value to such an approach, and institutions that teach diamond cutting and book­ keeping, and other trades should per­ haps be under Jewish auspices. How­ ever, commendable as it may be, this is not what is meant by higher education or university training. Rabbi Wein­ berger proposes in the same article the revolutionary idea to establish a college under the constant surveillance of Roshey Yeshivah for such a pur­ pose. This is an excellent proposal—3 one to be seriously acted upon.

Rabbi Norman Lamm in a superb essay in “Gesher,” the student publica­ tion of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (Y.U.) traces thè thought and subsequent pragmatic realization of the two modern giants of Jewish thought—Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rav Kook. He indicates that the relationship between the holy and the secular knowledge in Hirschian-thought seeks a co-existential sit­ uation. They do not act on each other but rather exist in a practical sense side by side. The student thus has “Torah im derech eretz”—Torah and worldly knowledge. This Hirschian ap­ proach is thus not greatly different from the approach suggested by Rabbi JEWISH LIFE

Weinberger. Secular learning is ac­ commodated when it can be of help and can serve Torah. Dr. Lamm how­ ever presents with penetrating insight the position of Rav Kook who envi­ sioned, as did the “Shiah” many cen­ turies ago, the merging of the secular into the sacred. This goal, the ultimate unity of all knowledge is more than synthesis. It indicates the elevating nature of Torah. All true knowledge has its source in the ultimate unity— G-d himself. As a partner with G-d in the creative process, and in the name of “yishuv” and “tikkun olom.” Man is bidden to use his knowledge to this end. This daring response to the uni­ versity and secularism seeks to house under one roof and aegis, the sacred and profane in order to sanctify the profane and elevate it. Examples of this striving today are Yeshiva Univer­ sity and the Hebrew Theological Col­ lege of Chicago, It is for the brave to attempt and for American Jewry to hope for. From this unity, with its in­ evitable failures and sacrifices will come the needed leadership in the “technopolitan age.”

THE SECULAR CAMPUS r INHERE are many Jewish souls who A by reason of occupational objec­ tives or by dint of intellectual curiosity will seek their fortunes on the many college campuses throughout the coun­ try. What of them? Are they to be considered lost to Torah Judaism?

Undoubtedly many will be lost to tradi­ tion because of their previous inade­ quate background and for social rea­ sons. However there is much to be optimistic about. Existing on many campuses are agencies for the Jewish student, mainly Hillel and Yavneh, the

September-October 1966

National Religious Jewish Students Association.

The relationship of Hillel to the re­ ligiously observant student, deserves a full treatment in its own right—suf­ fice it to say that it is in the very nature of a pluralistic organization re­ lated to the establishment to be some­ what inept in dealing with one group.

Hillel serves the Jewish student by very often offering compensation to those unable or not inclined to lead in the broader university. Those who cannot meet the financial or social standards of fraternities and sororities very often find their place in the Hillel house. The greatest problem facing Hillel is similar to that facing the many synagogues. The synagogue has become the “establishment,” with its need for self perpetuation, whether right or wrong. Hillel too, because it is the “establishment” involves itself with the problem of self perpetuation to the exclusion of more vital interests.

Hillel as a professionally run organiza­ tion is colored in its programming and attitude by the local director, who is autonomous. Dependent on the caliber of the man is the very essence of the role Hillel plays in the Campus Com­ munity.

Yavneh, the newly emerging and powerful force in orthodox Jewish life, is student run and administered.

Yavneh on any given campus is of necessity a small group, combining discipline in observance and commit­ ment to Torah; intellectually open with the idea of absorbing the best of the University. This knowledge is judged by the standards of Torah and Jewish life. Yavneh, if we may use the term, is an example of what is called today “creative disaffiliation.”

Harvey Cox defines this term as “the focusing of energy on what is im-

41

portant at the cost of denying what is less important.” Yavneh in its creative disaffiliation, on all levels—the Uni­ versity as well as the organized Jewish community—is engaged in responsible criticism. This criticism differs from “pot shooting” in that Yavneh is a willing participant for constructive purposes. Yavneh thus serves a pro­ phetic purpose primarily in the uni­ versity world, but at times in the broader Jewish world; it constantly re­ minds the enlightened Jew of his real task—to be “a nation of priests— a holy people.” For the educated Jew, Yavneh sponsors study groups and

42

conferences^They attract students, for the programs are of the students and not foisted on them by their all-know­ ing elders. This student groping for the unity of secular studies and Judaism, is one of truth and sincerity, drawing dedicated students to its ranks.

H»

H*

H*

HE CHALLENGE of the Univer­ sity is with us and will remain con­ stant. The tension created by the clash of the secular with the sacred is posi­ tive and will lead, with G-d’s help, to an enlarging of our knowledge of Him and our dedication to His ideals.

®

JEWISH LIFE

Land of Promise, Fulfillment, and Frustration

By RALPH PELCOVITZ

IT* HE old European saying “A guest JL for a while, sees for a mile,” like many epigrams, does not always hold true in real life—-especially as ap­ plied to an American tourist visiting Israel on a whirlwind trip. The tourist setting of modern hotels* air-condi­ tioned special buses, guided tours, and selected sight-seeing is not necessarily conducive to an insightful, perceptive understanding of a land, its people, and its problems, If, however, one is able to spend a few months in the Holy Land, living, more or less, as a regular Jerusalemite, and experiencing the daily normal activity pf an inhabi­ tant, then the possibility of gaining an understanding and appreciation of Israel is far more feasible. This writer was fortunate to have been afforded such an opportunity and by absorbing, observing, and above all, listening, he was in position to gauge the temper and tempo of the times in the Land of our Fathers. Although not claiming to see a mile, nonetheless it is the au-

September-October 1966

thor’s feeling that he was able to see a kilometer—using Israeli standards.

In a land of such varied topography and ever changing scenery as Israel, where within a single day one can travel from mountain to valley to sea­ shore, from lush green land to desert, variation and contrast are in the nat­ ural order of things. And nowadays the diversity of Israel’s populace fully equals* and perhaps surpasses, the va­ riety of its physical scene. Coming as they do, from so many different coun­ tries with disparity of background and divergent points of view, the popula­ tion is extremely heterogeneous. Their differences are not easily overcome and certain tensions and conflicts are felt in many facets of society—politi­ cal, cultural, and above all in social life. All this being so in areas which lend themselves to eventual compro­ mise and solution, how much more so is it in the area of religious practice and observance.

One could discuss at great length

43

the problems of the political arena, the enigmas of an emerging society, and the tension and strife between con­ flicting elements of this new commu­ nity in Israel. We will, however, direct our attention to three areas which are often discussed but deserve more thoughtful and thorough examination.

These are areas which affect not only the religious community in Israel and abroad, but which perforce have im­ pact upon the totality of K’lal Yisroel.

One of the great deterrents to a proper understanding of the Israeli community today, is the tendency to isolate problems of religion and quar­ antine them from the mainstream of the Jewish community. We shall at­ tempt here to relate each of these chal­ lenging problems to the total picture of Israel—the State and the Nation.

HE three areas are: the condition of the religious community in Israel, its composition and leadership — and its perplexities. Secondly, the relationship of the Torah community to the non- and anti-religious elements, with emphasis upon the lines of com­ munication between the dati and sec­ ular society. Finally, we will analyze the attitude of the Israeli toward thé American Jewish community— with some suggestions as to strengthening our ties with Israel and above all en­ lightening our brethren there.

There is a tendency to evaluate the strength of any given community, quantitatively, using the yardstick .of numbers and relying heavily upon sta­ tistics. The numbers of synagogues, students in religious schools, and votes for religious-oriented parties in r na­ tional elections are the normal means, by which most observers judge the strength and vigor of the Torah com­ munity in Israel. Although these are

T

44

important elements and can certainly be utilized as criteria of potency and influence, nonetheless there are other, perhaps more accurate ways of evalu­ ating the strength and position of the Israeli religious community.

One cannot spend time in Israel without sensing the vibrancy and ex­ tent of Torah living regardless of the city or community in which you choose to spend your days or weeks.

The number of schools is increasing, a sense of lively participation in Torah activities is apparent and above all the involvement on the part of youth is obvious, There is no hesitancy on the part of the younger generation to iden­ tify themselves with religious forces.

The climate is certainly conducive to Torah loyalty and even the opposition to Torah observance serves to spur on its adherents lending added spice and vigor to their allegiance and loyalty.

A member of the K’nesseth was most candid in confiding to the writer that whereas years ago when he delivered fiery speeches in the K’nesseth affirm­ ing his faith in the future of Torah Jewry, he himself was plagued by self­ doubt. The opposition had almost con­ vinced him that the future belonged to the non-Torah forces and the new generation would certainly abandon the disciplinesAand demands placed upon them by Orthodoxy. Today, how­ ever, when he delivers similar talks, he does so with firmness and certitude buttressed by the fact that so many of the new generation have retained their loyalty to the Torah cause while the offspring of the secular-oriented par­ ties have turned their back on the ideas and ideals which were so precious and meaningful to their pioneering fathers.

The lament, heard in non-Torah intel­ lectual circles far more than that of Torah circles, is that the youth of the JEWISH LIFE

country has lost its bearings, and ob­ scured its goals, thus channeling its energies toward material comfort and financial success.

The bright side of this picture should nevertheless not blind us to the many problems which beset the religious community in Israel today.

It would be incorrect, for example, to assume that there is an authoritative voice of Torah in Israel accepted by the observant and respected by the non-observant. It also would be fal­ lacious to give the impression that there is an upsurge of religiosity in the land and a wave of return to the sources of Judaism. The interest in Torah works and the lessening of hos­ tility toward the traditionalists does not mean a spirit of teshuvah has ap­ peared. Rather it is indicative of an unrest and ennui which has, as yet, not found a way, goal, or objective.

THE LEADERSHIP GAP ITHIN the religious community itself the by-now well known dichotomy between the yeshivah world and the synagogue, the B’ney Torah and the lay community, is very real and at times quite acute. In Israel; it is perhaps even more radical than here in the United States. The number of yeshivoth is greater, as are the number of young men at the kollelim and their attitude toward the larger religious community is one of the greater sus­ picion and antagonism since they iden­ tify them with political compromises, self-interest, and cupidity. The Rab­ binate is unfortunately largely impo­ tent and incapable of exercising the strong leadership which might bridge this gap between the products of the higher yeshivoth and the majority of the religious community.

W

September-October 1966

A word at this point regarding the position of the Rabbinate in Israel.

Although in some ways the authority and power of the Rabbinate is far greater than that of the Rabbinate in Goluth, since it has State sanction and support, nonetheless this same source of support and sustenance is the seed of its weakness, as well. The Rabbi in most instances is considered and func­ tions as a religious officer of the State.

He is a religious functionary. He per­ forms weddings, officiates at funerals, and participates in certain simchoth.

He does not however guide or lead and at times does not even teach or instruct. Too many Israeli rabbis are dependent upon other sources of in­ come, in order to subsist, and although serving officially as rabbis of neighbor­ hoods are not involved with their peo­ ple except in a peripheral fashion.

Communication with the shool Jew is meager and contact with the non-re­ ligious element is reduced to those in­ frequent moments of life when a rabbi must perforce be used. In our history as a people we were privileged to en­ joy strong and meaningful rabbinic leadership when rabbis were chosen to serve and lead the community at large.

In modern society this fruitful and meaningful leadership is to be found even where a rabbi is chosen only to serve and lead a given congregation.

It is unfortunate that in Israel, where the rabbi is appointed with the con­ sent and backing of the State through the instrument of the Ministry of Religion and the sanction of the Chief Rabbinate, that his role as leader, teacher, and man of influence has be­ come so weakened and debilitated.

This enervation of the Rabbinate is not to be attributed completely to the mechanics of appointment and the en­ tire structure of a State-supported

45

clergy. The position and power of the Rabbi is shaped by the layman and the role he plays in the community. Un­ fortunately, the' vast majority of re­ ligious laymen in Israel show no ten­ dency to exercise responsible leader­ ship in religious communal fields. To a great extent this is due to the fact that there is no great need to exert oneself and invest time, money, and energy in the establishment of relig­ ious institutions—be they Synagogue or School. Ironically, the assistance lent by the government in obtaining land, building synagogues, and in building and maintaining schools has drained the initiative and sense of self­ dedication on the part of baaleybattim, who under other circumstances must give so much of themselves in order to build these institutions and organizations. The special relationship and responsibility created when baaleybattim retain the services of a rabbi for their congregation and community is also woefully lacking in Israel since the Rabbi, as already mentioned, is an officer of the State and assigned to the community. Although it is true that the community accepts him upon themselves as their rabbi, nonetheless that special relationship and rapport is lacking. In general, the prestige and status of the Rabbinate is not as high or revered as it is in the United States. *I CITE a glaring example of the JL deplorable state of the Rabbinate in Israel, one need only point to the almost incomprehensible fact that the Yeshurun Synagogue in Jerusalem, one of the largest and most prestigious synagogues in the land does not have a Rabbi: to appreciate the incongruity of this lack, picture if you will, Thavdil, St. Patrick’s Cathedral minus a priest or bishop. It is interesting to

46

note that when-the writer asked two leading members of this synagogue, one an official in the Ministry of Re­ ligion and the other a former New York rabbi, to explain this strange situation—the former was a bit em­ barrassed while the latter reassured him that at every Bar Mitzvah either he or some other rabbi does the hon­ ors . . .

The large number of small shtibelach and Battey Medrash — ranging from Mizrachi to Chassidic and Neturey Karta orientation-4also mil­ itates against any influential and strong Rabbinate and certainly does not help to foster knowledgeable and respon­ sible laymen. What must be stressed is that the entire condition of the Rab­ binate and the sad situation of the synagogues does not encourage incip­ ient rabbis to pursue this profession.

The only hope for a degree of dignity and status in the future will be a rad­ ical retooling of the Synagogue struc­ ture and of the institution of the Rab­ binate.

To conclude our observation in this area, let us but relate a little incident of a man who after many years of alienation from Yiddishkeit decided to return to the Synagogue. Shocking as it may sound, this resident of Jeru­ salem, a serious and sincere man, after exploring and visiting many houses of worship in Jerusalem, came to the sad conclusion that he had “no place to daven.” This may be an ex­ treme case but nonetheless should give us a pause for reflection and re-exam­ ination of the ways and means to reach out and attract many Jews in the State of Israel who would welcome a Synagogue and a Rabbinate within the framework of Torah—true Juda­ ism who can reach and touch their Jewish hearts and souls.

JEWISH LIFE

FACING THE NON-OBSERVANT rWTHE relationship between the reJ . ligious and the secular communi­ ties is most aggravated and a source of sincere concern. Tension and strife gives way at time to cautious watchful­ ness and controlled restraint, but none­ theless the undercurrent is there. In recent years the more flagrant antireligious attitudes have subsided, flar­ ing up from time to time, when an ex­ posed nerve is touched such as the recent autopsy question and the ever recurrent Shabboth public transporta­ tion issue. What is of paramount im­ portance is that we must appreciate that opportunities now present them­ selves to challenge the imagination of the non-religious and even gain their admiration and respect for Torah prin­ ciples and beliefs. When one speaks to the average young non-religious indi­ vidual he will find not necessarily an antagonism to Orthodoxy but an abys­ mal ignorance and distorted idea of what Torah is and teaches. One must not be misled by the knowledge of the average Israeli, who speaks Hebrew, knows all the expressions, is aware of all the holidays and customs. Yet, he has so often a completely incorrect understanding of the basics of Judaism and certainly of Torah hashkofah. To dispel these misconceptions is our greatest task and mission.

An amazingly large number of Is­ raeli youth identify and equate re­ ligion with naught but restrictions and restraints—many of which do not even exist. They bring to mind the re­ mark of the octogenarian who said he had lived many years and seen much trouble, much of which never hap­ pened. To them, the image of Ortho­ doxy has been presented as a condi-

Se ptem ber-Oc+o ber 1966

tion of life that is stultifying and suf­ focating. They have also become an­ tagonistic, because they are convinced that the religious community is impos­ ing its will upon the total community.

They are convinced that political maneuvering and trading have resulted in the passing of legislation which has no meaning or significance to them and is not effective—since there is no true motivation on the part of the populace to adhere to these laws— such as Sabbath observance, Kashruth and even the marriage and divorce laws.

It is not difficult to understand these complaints. We in this country have learned that it is nigh impossible to superimpose disciplines and re­ straints where there is no firmly found­ ed deterrent or motivation based upon education, knowledge, and commit­ ment. Above all, if there is a lack of respect for death combined with a de­ gree of fear, the promise and hope of regaining this element, which is not necessarily non- or anti-religious but rather neutral and confused, is quite weak. Without judging the virtues or shortcomings of the religious political parties, it is a fact that much of the violent opposition to religion per se is tied in with opposition to the religious party as a political force. Much of the opposition, for example, to religious schools in new settlements is not based upon ideological hostility to religious training of immigrant children. It rises rather from concern that religiously trained youngsters may grow up to be potential voters for religious political parties. It is this power struggle that unfortunately hinders and obstructs the possibility of bringing many Jews closer to an understanding of Torah

47

values, unbeclouded by political con­ siderations.

TOWARDS MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

r | ^HE present situation in Israel is A marked by an atmosphere of frus­ tration and spiritual emptiness. There prevails among large elements of the populace a sense of dissatisfaction and non-fulfillment which will either be channeled into a materialistic direction or can be capitalized upon to create a positive and sympathetic attitude toward authentic Jewish values. Since there is so much in the environment of Yiddishkeit, folkways and customs, which are absorbed almost through osmosis, a well-planned and properly organized program of public educa­ tion and enlightenment have maximum prospect of success. In dispelling the distortion of orthodox Jewry’s image and replacing it with an attractive and magnetic one, many could be won over to the Torah ranks.

Without emasculating the religious parties, which in the opinion of this writer have accomplished much through legislation and in their activ­ ities in the political arena for the bene­ fit of Torah Judaism, there is room in Israel today for a non-political relig­ ious force which could reach out and attract a large element of the noncommitted. Many of the activities sponsored by American synagogues and developed by the American Rab­ binate could be effective in Israel.

Once the Rabbinate and political re­ ligious leadership in Israel could over­ come its prejudices and self-interests and cease to place so much stress on external garb and appearance, the American Rabbinate and intelligent laity, could be of great help and assist­ ance in demonstrating how to reach people and capture them for Torah.

T this point, let us direct our at­ tention to the attitude of Israelis to the American Jewish community in general, and the many misconceptions under which both the religious and non-religious communities labor. One could sum up the Israeli’s point of view and grasp of the American Jewish con­ dition in one simple succinct phrase: “They do not know us.” One is also tempted to suggest that the greatest challenge confronting us in the area of Israeli-American relationships—can be summarized with the song title “Getting to Know You.” Religious Jewry in Israel, with few exceptions, has a distorted picture and image of thé American Jewish com­ munity. They have conjured up a pic­ ture of fully or partially assimilated Jews while even those who may have remained loyal to the faith of their fathers are woefully unlettered and un­ tutored, Jewishly speaking. To be quite blunt about it, the American Jewish community represents to them a res­ ervoir of affluence and prosperity, fortunately generous with their wealth, but as far as Yiddishkeit is concerned, they are either “sh’kutzim” or “ammey ho-oretz.”

The secular-oriented Israeli, uninter­ ested as he is in the religiosity of his American brethren, still has in com­ mon with his orthodox Israeli neigh­ bor a distorted and oblique image of American Jewry. His contact is pri­ marily with tourists and American rel­ atives and he is convinced that we are simple, naive, ingenuous, with a resi­ due of idealism still operative and fortunately a great love for the Land of Israel. They imitate what they con­ sider to be American culture (mov-

48

a

JEWISH LIFE

ies, songs, dances, fashions, and styles) without really admiring it and their knowledge of the American Jewish community — its problems, promise and progress — is unknown among them. The common denominator of most Israelis in regard to understand­ ing of American Jewry is a view both negative and absurd. There is crying need for clarification and education in this vital area of mutual recognition between the American and Israeli communities. It is ironic and almost paradoxical that in American schools — be they Yeshivoth or Talmud Torahs, or even Sunday Schools—sub­ stantial time, effort, and energy are expended in teaching our youngsters everything possible about Israel—the land, its people, its history, and its current problems. This is as it should be. Would it not however be equally important, and certainly equitable, to reciprocate in Israeli schools by teach­ ing the children something of the his­ tory, development, problems and prog­ ress of the largest Jewish community in the world today—the American Jewish community? Not only in our school system is such stress placed upon Israel, but also in our adult pro­ gramming. Our writings, our sermons, and our lecture platforms alike con­ centrate much attention upon Israel.

It would be inost advantageous for Israelis to be exposed to us, through similar media, so as to become ac­ quainted with the American Jewish community. Although there are occa­ sions when Americans are given the opportunity to present themselves to the Israeli public from lecture plat­ forms, at school assemblies and the medium of newspaper interviews, they áre far too infrequent and inadequate to present a complete picture of the U.S. Jewry to the Israeli public.

September-October 1966

ORAH forces in Israel would cer­ tainly find it to their advantage to know and understand us as we really are. Would it not be a source of great satisfaction and, more important, would it not strengthen their own mor­ ale, for them to know that there is a strong, vibrant and viable orthodox Jewish community in America? Would it not be to their good to realize that, though modern-garbed, economically successful, and an integral part of America, yet this is a community deeply observant and totally com­ mitted to Torah ideals and way of life? Would it not, further, strengthen their own position for this fact to be brought home to Israelis at large? Al­ though one suspects, it may be a bit shocking and ego-deflating for the Israeli to recognize and admit it, it would be good for their souls and en­ couraging to their morale to realize that there are flourishing Yeshivoth in America j thousands of b’ney torah and many lomdim among its Rabbis.

This writer came to realize that it was difficult for many Israelis to dif­ ferentiate between the various denom­ inations which exist in our midst, thereby causing them to reach an over­ simplified conclusion. Since the ortho­ dox, Conservative and Reform clergy­ men are seen by them alike, unbearded and in modern garb, and since in most cases conversations revolve around prosaic and non-Torah topics, they are convinced that the American Jewish spiritual leader is a “Rabbiner”—intel­ ligent, personable, competent, success­ ful, and a very limited scholar whose piety is also suspect. It is difficult for the Israeli to appreciate the vast dif­ ference in belief and yirath-shomayim, let alone scholarship, between the or­ thodox Rabbi and his deviationist counterparts. An intelligent instructor

T

49

at one of the leading yeshivoth in Jerusalem, who has lived in Israel for the past forty y^ars, had occasion to spend a few pleasant hours at a pri­ vate Kiddush with a young American orthodox rabbi. After exchanging a number of divrey torah and discussing various present-day Torah problems, he exclaimed “I never knew that a young American rabbi zul kenen lehrenen.” Another Jerusalemite, who is the head of a fine Talmud Torah (here, it would be called a Yeshivah Katanah) asked the writer whether he spoke to his congregation or gave any classes to them. He was most in­ terested in knowing whether a sermon could include a quotation from the Torah and whether the audience could understand or appreciate it if the rabbi would be so bold as to include it in his remarks. He found it quite difficult to believe that an American congrega­ tion could consist of men who are well versed in Torah, highly apprecia­ tive of profound divrey torah and who attend Talmud sh’urim grasping the intricacies of the Daf and all the com­ mentaries.

AMERICAN EXAMPLES NE example of the Israeli’s abys­ mal ignorance of our American Jewish community was manifested very recently when the head of a well known yeshivah in Tel Aviv remarked that he had heard of two yeshivoth in the United States — Lakewood and Telz. He found it difficult to believe, when so informed, that there were many more great yeshivoth in our country where thousands of young men study Torah and observe the mitzvoth with fervor equal to that of Israelis. These examples and episodes

O

50

are cited to indicate how uninformed and misinformed are individuals, not of the masses, but men in educational fields, who should certainly know bet­ ter. One gets the feeling at times that there is an iron curtain between us.

What is even more disquieting is the feeling that they do not want to know.

It is imperative that we exert our ef­ forts in enlightening our Israeli breth­ ren and in supplying them with data and information that they in turn can use to elucidate and educate the Torah community in the Holy Land.

The enlightenment of the Israeli public in understanding the true story of American Jewry would serve not only to strengthen the spirit and sense of optimism of the religious Yishuv, but it also would have a wholesome, salutary effect upon the secular com­ munity. Many American visitors to Israel find that their non-religious rel­ atives in the Holy Land are amazed to learn that the well dressed, well educated young man and the chic young lady are American cousins who observe the Torah, send their children to yeshivoth and are sincerely com­ mitted to the Torah way of life. This revealing lesson is helpful in altering their distorted concepts and attitudes toward Torah Jewry. How much more so would this be true if a concerted campaign would be instituted to ac­ quaint the entire Yishuv with the ex­ citing and inspiring story of American Orthodoxy during the past few dec­ ades?

E HAVE attempted to show that there is much to be done and gained in establishing a two-way street of communication between ourselves and Israel, in revealing our religious posture and the effect of this revela­ tion upon the Israeli community.

»

JEWISH LIFE

There also is much that we can share with them, equal in importance to our financial assistance, which they so readily accept and gratefully acknowl­ edge. One could be so bold as to sub­ mit that the future of the Israeli re­ ligious community depends upon how well they will understand the para­ mount role we have to play in the Holy Land.

The three areas we have discussed have one thing in common—the need for a well organized, imaginative pro­ gram approach which will reach out and strengthen the religious forces in Israel and project a true image of Torah values which will capture the hearts and minds of the vast noncommitted Israelis. We have been suc­ cessful to a substantial degree in doing precisely that on the American scene and can be extremely helpful in the Land of our fathers as well.

The American orthodox Rabbinate has demonstrated its effectiveness and proven its leadership qualities. The Israeli Rabbinate has as yet not done so. The American synagogue has man­ ifested its strength and accomplish­ ments—the Israeli synagogue has yet to do so. The American orthodox yeshivah graduate and Torah-trained young generation has demonstrated how one can live in the modern world successfully while retaining all Jewish teachings and observing the principles of Torah. The Israelis have yet to demonstrate this in equal proportion to our experience.

For all these reasons it is imperative that we impress upon the Israelis, and especially in Torah circles, that an ex­ change program which is meaningful be instituted whereby Americans who are knowledgeable be invited to spend time in Israel so as to acquaint them

September-Oc+ober 1966

with the true picture of the American Jewish community. The Rabbinate especially should be asked to share their vast experience with the Israeli Rabbinate and not be merely tolerated and looked to as a source of financial support for Israeli institutions and Yeshivoth which may well repeat the errors of the past without attempting to solve the problems of the present.

We appreciate that the Israelis have their “taines,” grievances, complaints, and criticisms regarding us. They sin­ cerely feel we are not in a position to advise and guide them. We, in turn, feel that we have much to share with them. Churchill once said to Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon, that one or the other of them had al­ ways been right, since they had al­ ways disagreed. This wry witticism is not necessarily apropos, insofar as “we” and “they” are concerned. There may be a time when both are wrong or when both are right, and areas of agreement can be found. The impor­ tant factor to remember and never dis­ regard is that we are all part of the same K’lal Yisroel, responsible for and to one another. Our plea and program is simply to institute a two-way street which will include not only tourists and visitors but ideas and experiences as well.

UTUAL RESPECT and regard M will serve to establish a meaning­ ful dialogue which will in turn be beneficial in promoting western aliyah —the prime guarantee of Israel’s fu­ ture.

Our affection and love for the Land of Israel was not diminished as a re­ sult of our added depth of understand­ ing, perception and insight—the fruits

5!

of a lengthy stay in the Holy Land. If anything, our love of Eretz Yisroel was increased. It is wise to remember, that while love is the end of indiffer­ ence, it is also acknowledgement of differences. The two are not mutually exclusive;7 they are complementary.

We recognize the differences of the

American and Israeli communities.

We shall never, however, become in­ different for Israel is our Land, its people our people and their destiny is ours as well. The frustrations will, with G-d’s help and our sincerity and wis­ dom, be transformed into fulfillment —as befits a Promised Land.

They Dare To Be Different

By IRWIN S. BORVICK

Y FIRST encounter was on Rosh Amish life one will find that the sim­ M Hashonah at the very beginning ilarity between the Chosid and the of my rabbinate in Lancaster, Pennsyl­ Amishman is not limited to beard and vania. Walking to Synagogue Yom Tov morning I was startled to see a car draw up filled with bearded gen­ tlemen dressed in black suits and crowned by broad black felt hats. The car stopped, a gentleman alighted, and as I approached him I stared at his venerable bearded face which lacked only a mustache, and at the straight hair which protruded all around from under his hat. His jacket was without buttons or pockets and his pants were reminiscent of the old sailor’s style. I then realized that my first impression was wrong and “they were not who I thought they were.” And so I met my first Amishman.

My reaction to the Amishman was not unique, for whenever Jewish tour­ ists visit the Pennsylvania Dutch Coun­ try they remark on the similarity in appearance of the Chosid and the Amishman. Upon careful study of

September-October 1966

dark clothing. They both face, each in his unique way, the problems of per­ severance through separation.

It must be noted at this point that early Chasidism in eastern Europe did not want to isolate itself from society and life. Rather, it was the Chosid’s desire to be part of the society and as­ sert a strong influence on his milieu and his fellow Jews. However, on this continent, because of the widespread assimilation, Chasidism has followed the path of separatism and isolation in order to assure its survival.

The Chosid has kept separate by settling in self-contained communities within Brooklyn and, in its purest form, Squaretown. It is here that the Chosid shuts out American culture, whether in the form of higher secular education or of television in the home.

Within the confines of his community he perpetuates Torah U’mitzvoth with

53

the aid of his Shtibelach and Yeshivoth. He also retains the mores and garb of the now extinct Chasidic com­ munities of eastern Europe. This is the solution of the Chosid to the prob­ lems of acculturation and assimila­ tion. Most other segments of Jewish life have rejected this approach of complete separation.

In the Protestant world there is also a grave concern for the survival of the traditional teachings of its churches.

The Amish, a unique Protestant sect, has separated itself from the outside world of the 20th century and con­ tinues to live in isolated rural com­ munities in order to preserve the teach­ ings of its 17th century founder, Jacob Ammann. Ammann, originally a Mennonite bishop, lived in Switzer­ land where he preached the need for man to draw himself away from the “this worldliness” of life and separate himself from the desires of the worldly person. He was an Anabaptist who felt that the Reformation of Luther had not gone far enough.

Ammann draws heavily upon the New Testament to support his convictions.

PLAIN AND FANCY A MMANN preached the return to i l a plain way of life and laid down the rules for conformity of dress, hair, and beards. To this day the Amish of Lancaster County dress in the iden­ tical garb of their European fore­ bears. “Amish seek to show that they are not of this world with its changing fashion.”* The men dress in their black suits and black hats in the winter, and bright colored shirts, black * Bachman, Calvin George, “The Old Order Amish of Lancaster County,” Voi. 60, Penna German Society, 1961, page 89.

54

vests and broad straw hats in the sum­ mer. Large black bonnets are pre­ scribed for the women and are worn over the white organdy prayer cap.

This white cap covers the head at all times, based on a New Testament source (2 Corinthians 11:5). Amish women wear their hair parted in the middle and combed tightly into a bun.

The women’s dresses are of plain cut and solid color and are much longer than today’s fashions. A young mar­ ried Amish woman told me, “the style of my dress is traditional. It is a mod­ est way for a woman to dress,” Black stockings and low-heeled black oxfords complete the women’s costume. The children are dressed almost identically to their parents. Many times I have seem little Amish girls in long dresses and prayer caps walking on the coun­ try roads with their barefoot brothers in their “broadfall” pants.

An Amishman will not seek to offer a teleological explanation for his dress but is apt to say, as quoted by Bach­ man, “So sehna mir die Sache, un so maena mir sedda mir du.” (So we see things, and so we think we ought to do.) While visiting an Amish farm, the head of the household told me, “Our clothing is traditional, this is the way my grandparents dressed and this is the way we dress. It’s tradition.”

John A. Hostetler, a former Amish­ man, remarks in his sociological study “Amish Society” that, “Dress keeps the insider separate from the world and also keeps the outsider out.”

N Sunday morning in the Amish O countryside numerous horse and buggies filled with Amish families travel to attend their Sabbath service.

At this point we must mention that Amish are restricted from owning or operating an automobile, though they JEWISH LIFE

may travel in a non-Amishman’s vehi­ cle. Varied reasons are given for this restriction, one of which is simply that the horse is traditional, not so the automobile. Another argument offered is that the automobile is not consistent with “plain living.” A third and more prevailing explanation is that the horse and buggy constrains the Amish, and especially the young people, from fre­ quenting the cities and the secular in­ fluences of the outside world.

My Amish friend, Mr. Stoltzfus, explained to me that the prohibition against owning or driving an auto­ mobile is necessary like all good laws.

“Just as there are signs on the road— 35 miles an hour, 50 miles an hour— we also need laws. It just wouldn’t be Amish to have a car.”

There is also a prohibition against the use of tractors and all electric farm and home machinery. The typi­ cal Amish farm can be identified by the tall wind mill which operates the pump to draw water into the farm house and barn. In a typical Amish farm where I visited, I noticed a gasoperated refrigerator, running water at the sink, and a kerosene lamp.

Cooking was done on a black stove which operated on bottled gas. And it was then that I asked my host, “How do you cope with these new inven­ tions, which came after Jacob Ammann?” He replied that each gen­ eration deals with these problems as they come up.

And so we see the evolution of an unwritten oral tradition which is passed from generation to generation.

All new matters are judged by two principles. Is it in the spirit of the Bible (New Testament)?, and second­ ly, does it conform with the spirit of Plain Living? The decisions rest both with the bishop and the laity.

Sep+ember-October 1966

The Amish do not pray in churches but rather in neighboring homes. Each family takes its turn at hosting the “Congregation” at its farm house.

For this reason the homes must be suitable for the Sunday service and for the meal that follows. The entire downstairs of an Amish home is con­ nected by folding dopble doors so as to permit maximum seating. Each dis­ trict owns its own backless benches and hymnals which are transported from house to house.

UNDAY isn’t all somberness for S the Amish young people. It is their custom to get, together socially in the evening for the “Singing.” The official purpose is for the singing, in their distinctive German dialect, of lively hymns but the unofficial and more important function of this social gathering is to allow young, single men and women of marriageable age to meet. The Amish are prohibited from marrying outside of their faith.

Thus the singing is an important in­ stitution for the preservation of the Amish sect.

Another occasion for meeting one’s prospective mate is an Amish wed­ ding. After the wedding dinner the young people sit together in couples with the bride and groom and par­ ticipate in singing hymns and songs.

The wedding is a very significant religious and social event in Amish life. The Amish have an extremely low divorce rate and separation is almost unknown.

All brides the world over are beau­ tiful but each dresses in a different fashion. The Amish bride wears a. plain dress, a black cap, a white cape and apron. The white cape and apron are put away after the wedding not to be used again until her death. Bridal

55

veils are unknown and wedding rings are not used, as all jewelry is pro­ hibited. No photographer pops up to mar the ceremony, as all photographs and “likenesses” are prohibited. The ceremony itself is lengthy and con­ sists mainly of sermons drawn from the Book of Genesis. A favorite illus­ tration used by the Amish preacher, of the need to choose a partner of the same faith, is the instruction of Abraham to Eliezer to choose a wife for Isaac from among the relatives of the family.

The Amish do not practice birth control but there is no law, as we know it, to forbid marital relations during the menses.

AMISH W AY OF DEATH HE “plain living” of the Amish T people is best illustrated by the Amish way of death. The dead are dressed in white clothing and placed in plain, unvarnished wooden coffins.

The Amish forbid embalming, lower­ ing devices, artificial grass, flowers, cemetery tents and other such modern innovations.

The family and their many friends and relatives are present at the in­ terment. The friends willingly help the bereaved family in many ways.

The men bring benches for the service in the home of the deceased, prior to the interment, and are responsible for digging the grave. The women prepare the meal served after the service. Death brings forth strong community feeling and illustrates, as Bachman puts it, ■■the desire of these people to con­ tinue in the traditional practices of their faith, with no regard for the changing fashions of the world around them.”

56

REAT reverence is shown to parV F ents and grandparents in the Amish family. The command to honor father and mother is one of the cru­ cial themes discussed by the preachers at the Sabbath service. With the pass­ ing of years the regard for parents becomes even more intensified.

The Amish family is a patriarchal family. The father is the source of authority for both his wife and his children. While I visited an Amish family I watched as the father told his seven-year-old child in “Pennsyl­ vania Dutch” to behave himself. The child immediately obeyed and re­ mained seated respectfully for the duration of my visit. I also noted that the wife always let her husband an­ swer my questions and only spoke up after he completed his reply. She was very careful never to contradict him.

If a child leaves the Amish sect, not only is it considered an offense against the faith but it is a very grave sin against his parents.

The esteem and respect shown to the old people is expressed in both religious and family life. The elder bishops are regarded with high respect and have more authority than the younger bishops. When, parents be­ come elderly they retire to a special home on the farm, the Grossdaadi Haus. The responsibility of the farm now falls upon the shoulders of the children. The presence of the aged grandparents on the farm has a very beneficial influence upon the young people. The older couple keeps check upon their religiosity and prevents changes from the old way. Parentheti­ cally it should be noted that the Amish do not participate in Social Security and disapprove of Government aid to the destitute and disabled. They conJEWISH LIFE

sider it their responsibility to care for the aged and for all who are in need.

Amish mutual aid can take the form of barn raising for a neighbor after a fire, or it might be the exchanging of services such as butchering for wood­ sawing. The women exchange their labor at quilting and sewing bees. Says Hostetler: “It is a society which pro­ vides for the symbolic needs of the people in a cradle-to-grave arrange­ ment.”

NE of the primary methods used by the Amish to retain their re­ O ligion and culture is limiting the edu­

tralized schools and are able to limit the curriculum to the 3 R’s.

It must be generally understood that the Amish believe in the limita­ tion of education not only on a secular level but on a religious level as well.

There are no religious study schools of any kind. Religious education is what is taught in the home and ex­ perienced at the worship service. The child is taught to read German from the New Testament. He is instructed to read Bible but not to study Bible.

On the contrary, Bible study is strongly discouraged.

cation of their children. Amish chil­ dren rarely pass beyond elementary THE MEIDUNG school. In this manner the young people are not exposed to divergent OVERING over the Amish so­ cultures and the scientific develop­ ciety is the threat of the Meiments of the 20th Century. The Amish dung, or Shunning. The Meidung is contend that their children are needed the term describing excommunication on the farm and for this reason the of an Amish man or woman who has children do not attend high school. deviated from the faith. This heavy The Amish were opposed to the penalty is enforced if the offender re­ erection of consolidated school build­ fuses to repent and mend his ways. ings in the townships where they live. The Meidung is always put into effect They found objectionable, on religious if an Amishman leaves the Church to grounds, the fact that Federal funds join another and in the case where were used for the construction. Per­ one marries outside of the faith. The haps the major reason for their oppo­ Meidung involves the prohibition of sition was that the consolidated schools buying and selling from the excom­ means the closing of the rural one- municated individual. It is prohibited room school houses* These time-hon­ to join at the table to eat and drink ored school houses were in keeping with the excommunicated. If either with the spirit of plain living. The the husband or wife is shunned the furnishings were meager and simple, couple may not have marital relations. the toilet facilities were outside. Now “With set limits to the amount of that most schools are in the consoli­ knowledge a young person can acquire dated system, the Amish have taken to on one hand, and with the dread of opening their own one-room school censure (and of excommunication) on houses, using their own girls, who the other, one can scarcely find a more have not gone beyond elementary effective way of bounding the little school, to serve as teachers. Thus they community,” Hostetler states. avoid exposing their children to the However, there are those who have “other-worldly? luxuries of the cen- left the fold and rejected the strict-

H

Sep+ember-Oc+ober 1966

57

ness of Amish teaching, the Ordanung.

It is interesting to note that the de­ fectors generally do not stray far afield but become members of the Mennonite Church. Sorpe leave in order to partake of the harvest of technological advancement. The husband wants to drive a tractor and use chemical fer­ tilizers to increase his crop yield; the wife wants an electric kitchen replete with the modern equipment which most women now take for granted.

However, according to John Hostetler, the main reason for those who break with the past is the desire for learning which is antithetical to Amish religion.

My Amish friend disagrees with him and feels that the main reason is rejection of plain living and its re­ strictions.

IN PERSPECTIVE OOKING about us on the Amer­ ican scene we see mass conform­ L ity, in dress, in material possessions, in life style, and in ultimate goals.

The Amish community is a constant reminder that America is a pluralistic society wherein each religious and ethnic group brings its own distinctive cultural pattern and way of life. Each minority that retains its unique iden­ tity adds splendor to the character of our nation and reinforces the principal of freedom for all. We as Jews are cognizant of this fact and should en­ courage every religious group and eth­ nic minority who wishes to retain its own identity and life style.

We can view with particular appre­ ciation this small Protestant sect, which has demonstrated its moral strength amidst a world of disinte­ grating morality, even as it has shown its capacity to survive intact, separate

58

from the main stream of modern civi­ lization which surrounds and presses upon it. The rules and regulations which place so many restrictions on the Amishman are stalwart guideposts which he upholds even as they uphold him. We Jews can understand why they take great pride in their distinc­ tiveness and unique way of life.

The simplicity of the Amish way of life and death strikes a responsive chord with the traditional Jew who has always insisted upon the Halachic re­ quirement for simplicity. Their mutual aid, the care for the aged, the sense of responsibility for their fellow Amishman are reminiscent of the Jew­ ish concept of Gemilath Chasodim.

The modesty of dress of the Amish woman is encouraging as we observe the decline of standards of modesty to the point that they have “gone as far as they can go.” These traits and qualities of the Amish folk we can appraise as something more than “picturesque” and “quaint.” We can appreciate their devotion and loyalty to their unique way of life; they have earned our high respect.

However, we must make one quali­ fying observation. The complete nega­ tion by the Amish of the value of education, whether secular or religious, is something no Jew can see as meri­ torious. In this respect they are worlds apart from the attitude toward reli­ gious education of every segment of Jewish life, including the Chasidic tradition.

In Judaism the stress is placed upon the intellectual quest in seeking G-d through the study of Torah. The hero of Jewish life has traditionally been the Talmid Chochom, the pious scholar whose main preoccupation is Torah study. In contrast, the Amish JEWISH LIFE

hero is the thrifty, prudent, pious farmer who diligently preoccupies himself with the output of his farm and plain living.

Amish plain living is a refreshing contrast to the very materialistic so­ ciety in which we live. These people

September-Ocfober 1966

lend a sobering influence in a time when the overriding concern is the pursuit of pleasure, status, and selfaggrandizement. The uniqueness, per­ severance and loyalty of the Amish should elicit our continued interest in the destiny of these people.

59

B ooh R eview s Baron Goes On

By RAPHAEL S. WEINBERG

A SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS HIS­ TORY OF THE JEWS—Volumes IX and X. By Salo W. Baron. Columbia University Press, New York, 1965, 350 pp. (Vol. IX), 432 pp. (Vol. X), $8.50 each.

An Israeli historian, chatting with me over coffee, was informing me that Amer­ ica has not produced any serious Jewish historians. Then, pausing for a moment, he hastened to qualify his remarks with “Salo Baron is not a product of an American culture.”

T is often said that a man drives as Professor Baron is most celebrated for he lives. This assertion is equally true his ten-volume (plus an index to volumes with regard to a man’s writing. We can­ I-XIII) work, “A Social and Religious not evaluate Prof. Salo Baron’s writings History of the Jews” of which Volumes without some words about his impact IX and X have now appeared. Most of upon his contemporaries. I would like my appraisal will be directed toward the to illustrate this point by citing two total collection since the last two vol­ human, irrelevant conversations that this umes are an integral part of the incomwriter had prior to this review assign­ pleted whole (at least two more volumes ment. are projected) and since Baron’s format On a New York subway I met a stu­ and style has not been altered in these dent of Jewish history who began to “talk volumes. shop” about current books in the field.

Dr. Baron’s work begins at the begin­ He suddenly turned and emotionally ning: “Ancient; Times,” proceeds, in the said: “I really chapp hispaalus from course of Vols. I and II, through the Baron, he’s a genius!” Now, I can’t at­ first centuries of the Christian era, then tempt to translate the feeling of “chap­ in the next six volumes covers the High ping hispaalus”—of “grabbing enthusi­ Middle Ages (500-1200). The two cur­ asm,” but it’s the highest form of com­ rent volumes discuss the Late Middle pliment that can be mouthed by the Ages and the Era of European Expan­ bicultured prodigy. sion (1200-1650). Any student of Jewish history can explore almost any remote D r . R aphael S. W einberg, Assistant Professor topic of the vast field until 1650 by sim­ of Jewish History and Biblical Literature at ply referring to the bibliography found Stern College for Women, is a musmoch of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. in Baron’s notes. To my mind the notes

I

60

JEWISH LIFE

that constitute at least one-third of each volume are the prime legacy that Baron bestows Upon us. When a student asks for advice concerning a research project in Jewish history I invariably suggest that the student refer to Baron’s Index vol­ ume. This will lead to places in the vol­ umes where said topic is discussed which in turn will direct attention to the notes.

If a bibliographical list is compiled from those notes and if similar lists are de­ duced from the notations to be found in the proposed books, one may assume that the field has been satisfactorily covered.

This leaves the student with the limited task of searching for material produced subsequent to the publishing of Baron’s work. To give but one example: Chapter 39 of Volume IX is entitled “Spirited Apologist.^ This chapter deals with the various disputations between Christians and Jews during the Middle Ages. The chapter in and of itself is quite interest­ ing. But the notes are a true gift! Note 4 begins:

though at times a bit awkward, He­ brew translation. . . . More directly aimed at Jews were the polemic trea­ tises by the following leading con­ troversialists: . . . .

And Baron proceeds to list and discuss sixteen of the works aimed at the Jews.

Then in Note 6 he discusses six anti-Jew­ ish polemical works that were written by Jews who apostatized to Christianity. In Note 7 Baron gives us, in chronological order, the Jewish side of the coin, with twenty-one entries. Anyone interested in Jewish-Christian polemics, any student of the “Dialogue” between the Church and the synagogue, has all the salient material at his finger tips. To my mind this is the contribution of a great teacher. He leads us all to the storehouse of historical knowledge and allows us to manipulate the tools of scientific digging with our own hands.

The tone itself is naturally a significant contribution although it is overshadowed by the superb notes. Professor Baron Many of these writers merely in­ weaves the details of Jewish history into cluded expositions of their anti-Jewish his voluminous narrative but regretfully views in treatises of a broader nature. in the last analysis he does not exhibit Thomas Aquinas wrote a small tract a pattern. His historical outlook and on die Jewish question; this was but theory are vague. He chooses not to em­ a minor essay, hastily composed in phasize in his evidence the features that reply to an urgent inquiry from the permit meaningful generalizations. Of Duchess of Brabant. The various ref­ course, this might be a point of convic­ erences to Jews scattered through the tion or a modest whisp of integrity with Summa Theologica are generally of a him. True, A. J. Toynbee rejects the no­ more tolerant nature. Only in his tion that history is “a chronic, disorderly, Summa de veritate catholicae fidei fortuitous flux, in which there is no pat­ contra gentiles (better known as tern or rhythm of any kind to be dis­ Summa contra gentiles) did the “an­ cerned” (“An Historian’s Approach to gelic doctor” undertake to present the Religion”). But Baron can quite ade­ Catholic faith in a positive fashion quately stand up to Toynbee and cherish with numerous polemical aides against an opposing theory. However, this is not all unbelievers. This presentation ap­ the case.

Dr. Baron does envision an historical peared so persuasive to Bishop Joseph Ciantes that in 1657 he republished a pattern. Only recently his students pub­ large part of it with a readable, lished a collection of his essays in order

September-October 1966

61

Reprints

Now Available

Our readers will appreciate knowing that reprints are now available of the following articles and editorials from previous issues of JEWISH LIFE. THE JEWISH ATTITUDE TOWARD FAMILY PLANNING

By Dr. Moses Tendier THE STATE OF THE JEWISH SCHOOL IN AMERICA

By William Brickman THE DIVORCE PROBLEM

By Rabbi Melech Schachter THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE: ANOTHER LOOK

By Rabbi Norman Lamm CAN WE NEGLECT THE TALMUD TORAH?

By Rabbi Za!man Diskind JUDAISM AND FREE ENQUIRY

By Rabbi Nachum L. Rabinovitch THE PROBLEM OF CONVERSION TODAY

By Rabbi Melech Schachter NATURE—CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

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

JEWISH LIFE, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 1001 I Please send ...... .

copies of ....................................................................................

send ............ copies of .....................................................................................

NAME: ............................................................................................................................

ADDRESS: ........................................................ ...............................................................

CITY:........................ STATE::............. ZIP CODE:...... ......CHECK ENCLOSED: $......

62

JEWISH LIFE

to further “the understanding o f Salo Baron’s m ethod and o f his conception of Jew ish H istory.” * I think that Prof.

Baron w ould accept the beautiful concept penned by the late M arc Bloch: “Hum an time w ill never conform to the im plac­ able uniform ity o f fixed divisions o f clock time. R eality demands that its m easure­ m ents be suited to the variability o f its rhythm and that its boundaries have wide marginal zones. It is only by this plasti­ city that history can hope to adapt its classifications, as Bergson put it, ‘to the very contours o f reality,’ w hich is prop­ erly the ultim ate aim o f any science.”** But whatever Baron’s preference m ay be, the fact rem ains that the reader is forced and this is often o f the unprofessional to search out his ow n historical pattern “hom e-spun” type.

H E R E is another precipice confront­ ing the reader, how ever, w hich is m uch m ore problem atic and w hich ought to be stressed here. F or certain notions to be found in Baron’s work jeopardize, according to tradition, n ot the life but the after-life o f the Jew, his cheylek

T

I’olom haba.

Prof. Baron, like m ost Jewish histori­ ans, does not seem to accept, in his writ­ ings, certain basic postulates o f Judaism including the cornerstone o f the entire Jew ish structure, the concept o f D ivine R evelation— Torah min Ha-shomayim.

This last nonchalant sentence o f m ine is a simple, cold, earthshaking fact. I have had occasion to review the work o f an­ other giant o f history*** and then too m y “Jew ish sensitivities com pelled m e to be brazenly blunt and to take issue with the author “whenever I found his state* “History and Jewish Historians,” Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1964. **“The Historians Craft,” New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1959, p. 189. **»Solomon Zeitlin’s “The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State.” “Tradition,” Fall, 1965.

September-October 1966

m ents to be based on m odernistic inter­ pretations w hich could just as easily have been explained in accordance with my conservative view s.” It is unfortunate in­ deed that m en o f the caliber o f Prof.

Baron, m en about w hom we sincerely “chapp” an intellectual “hispaalus,” m en w ho are rooted in tradition, should dis­ regard in their writings basic tenets of Judaism. These m en w eigh and measure each word before allow ing the univer­ sity press to flow. They consider the opin­ ions o f all serious scholars and they ever so cautiously dissent. W hy then do they simply ignore the preachments and con ­ victions o f the very sam e people about w hom they write? The entire cast, or at least the stars, w ho shaped Jewish history suddenly evolve into punitive dreamers who really m eant w ell. . . . It is equally unfortunate that our intellectual leaders allow the allegations to go unanswered; only the young reviewers w ho have not yet proven them selves “take on” the sea­ soned giants.

B

A RO N states on page um e I:

5 o f V o l­

It is w ell known, for instance, that the ancient Israelite festivals were taken over from the earlier oriental cultures o f Canaan and Babylonia. But in each case ancient Judaism changed the fundam ental m eaning o f the festival first by adding to it, then by substi­ tuting for its natural and historical interpretation.

Thus the sholosh regalim, the three great holidays of the year, originally natural holidays of agricultural production, becam e for the Jews, holidays com m em orating great historical events. Passover, the ancient Spring festival, becam e and remained the festival o f the Exodus from Egypt, or o f the origin o f the Jewish nation. . . . Pentecost, still

63

/ H

\

A cordial welcome to

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

We look forward to hosting your meeting in the nation's capital

Q ^ S horeham HOTEL AND MOTOR INN C o n n e c t ic u t A v e n u e at C a lv e r t S t r e e t , N .W .

W a s h in g t o n , D .C .

‘the day o f the first fruits’ in the Old Testam ent, was transformed by the early Pharisees into a m em orial chiefly o f the giving o f the Torah, that is o f the foundation o f the Jew­ ish religion. N ew Y ear’s D ay is es­ sentially a m om ento o f the w orld’s creation. H aving the choice between tw o Babylonian N ew Years, Judaism selected the autum nal date, although the one in Spring, reflecting nature’s annual rebirth, was m ore ‘natural’. . . .

The exclusively historical sanctions at­ tached during the Second C om m on­ w ealth to C hanukah and Purim have so thoroughly succeeded in obscuring the original natural backgrounds o f these ancient oriental holidays that m odern scholars have experienced great difficulty in their attempts at identification.

Frankly I could find a m uch simpler reason for the difficulty experienced by modern scholars in “unm asking” ¿Chanu­ kah and Purim. . . . There is nothing basically incorrect in the contention that the sholosh regalim were international natural holidays. T hey still are! A sk any seven-year-old yeshivah student to supply “another nam e” for Pesach, Shovuoth, and Sukkoth and you w ill find out. There was no substitution here. In fact the only word m issing in the preceding quo­ tation is G-d. There is no getting away from the fact that the Israelites w ho were preparing to leave Egypt were a slave nation w ith a slave m entality. G-d, possibly, decided that the natural joy o f the Spring rejuvenation w ould aid in their self-em ancipation. Y es, the festivals do coincide w ith natural eyents, by G -d’s w ill, and the contrast betw een the Jewish m ode o f celebration and the “original” procedure had the greatest educational value for a world void o f proper direc­ tion.

September-October 1966

N page 46 we arrive at the sub-head­ ing “The W orks o f M oses” w hich has a very different connotation from Torath Mosheh. In this section the au­ thor states: “T hat this H ebrew G-d re­ m ained a single G-d was due to the com ­ bined influences o f a w eighty tradition, o f the singular needs o f the day and o f M osheh’s creative personality.” A nd further:

O

M osheh, conscious o f the dem ands o f tradition and the hour, had also a vi­ sion o f the future. H e linked G -d w ith the fate o f Israel in history in an in­ separable way. The im ageless cult purposively established by M osheh was o f a decidedly different order, how ever.

It does not matter at w hat period the D ecalogue received its present w ord­ ing. It m ay n ot be authentic w ord by word as an historical docum ent, but it renders a poetic truth, insofar as it em bodies a set o f ideas w hich should have been voiced in precisely this way by a person like M osheh in the per­ iod o f M osheh. T hus M osheh, by per­ sonal experiences and still m ore by his peoples’ experiences, was led to form ulate his historical m onotheism , centering chiefly in Israel.

It w ould serve no purpose to sim ply quote all the “anti” Torah min hashomayim passages in the text. There can also be no scientific rebuttal. It is evi­ dent that reasonable m ortals w ould find it easier to deny R evelation than to ac­ cept it. A denial is simpler and ever m ore convenient. Torah min Hashomayim should be based on “blind faith.” A nd even the expression appears to denote that the criterion for faith is blindness.

In fact, D ivin e R evelation is so irrational that Jew ish historians o f this school might w ell ask in perplexity: H ow was the theory accepted for so m any m illenia? W as everyone blind? W ere Sa-

65

le w isli J I:* L ie

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

JEWISH LIFE, 84 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10011 Send gift subscription to: Name ...................................................................................................... ..........

Address ............................................................................................................

City, State, Zip Code.......................................................................................

My N am e............................................................................................................

Address..............................................................................................................

City, State, Zip Code.......................................................................................

i • i• □ include my own subscription

MBKSum

66

□ New D Renewa|

Check enclosed for $ ............................

JEWISH LIFE

adiah, Y ehudah H alevi, M aim onides, Y oseph A lbo, and scores o f others mere sentim ental fools? It m ay be m ore un­ reasonable to brand these m en as dream­ ers, and less rational to assume so, than to accept the irrational theory o f Torah from H eaven. This is not the place to debate the entire issue. M ay I just add that I for one w ould m uch rather choose the com pany o f our eternal great think­ ers.

V olum e IX o f Prof. Baron’s work, en­ titled “Under Church and Em pire,” deals with the attitudes o f the Church and the various monarchs toward the Jew. A m ong the topics covered are: toleration, conversion, segregation, heresy-hunting, thought control, disputations, the notion o f “serf o f the cham ber”*—that the Jew is the private financial fountain o f the king— and others.

m aterial into its geographical location even at the expense o f repetition.

Dr. Baron has righteously earned his place am ong the greats and we can only hope that his facile pen etches on for m any years— that this master o f the record o f Jewish history realizes the sim ­ ple fact that the Jew survived throughout history because o f his faith in and love for G -d’s Torah.

The study is exhaustive and exhausting.

The author was faced w ith the unique problem o f Jewish history and that is the reality that a Jewish historian is re­ lating events concerning Jews dispersed to the four corners o f the earth. In deal­ ing w ith “stubborn dissenters,” for ex­ ample, we are exposed, in just a few pages, to: Pope Innocent III in Rome; The C ouncil o f T oulouse, France; the C ouncil o f Tarragano and James I of Aragon, Spain, Berthold o f Ratisbon, Bernard G ui o f Southern France, Charles o f A njou. On the other hand, V olum e X , entitled “On the Em pire’s Periphery” un-: folds through a geographic form at unlike the topical division o f V olum e IX . Baron discussed the history o f the Jews of: Switzerland, the L ow Countries, H un­ gary, Poland, France, England, Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy> Italy, and the V enetian Republic. There actually is no way to escape from the staccato presenta­ tion since it is based upon a natural phenom enon. H ow ever, one m ight sug­ gest an integration o f the pertinent topical

Septomber-October 1966

67

TORAH AND TRADITION

by WALTER ORENSTEIN and HERTZ FRANKEL T h is Bible textbook for religious schools of all trends has a new and creative approach to the teaching of CHUM ASH by emphasizing tho ethical teachings of the text, w hile laying due stress on the understanding of the Hebrew.

T h e authors have received much acclaim for their volum e T O R A H AS O UR GUIDE, w hich is used in hundreds of schools.

T O R A H AND T R A D IT IO N is the textbook Jewish teachers have long been hoping for. It is highly recommended by prom inent educators who have seen advance copies of this unique tool for the effective and enjoyable teaching of CHUMASH.

Bereshis— $2.50 Shemos — $2.50

Other volumes in preparation AT ALL JEW ISH BOOK STORES

— or —

HEBREW PUBLISHING CO. 79 Delancey Street, New York 2, N.Y.

Look for the H. P. C. When Buying Hebrew Greeting Cards

YAVNEH ISRAEL INSTITUTE AT BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY A YEAR O F T O R A H STUDY IN ISRAEL FOR CO LLEGE STUDENTS For information write:

YAVNEH ISRAEL INSTITUTE 84 Fifth Avenue New York, N. Y. 10011 (212) WA 9-5434

68

JEWISH LIFE

L e tte r s to th e E d ito r ESTABLISHED SECULARISM N ew York, N .Y .

Let m e congratulate you on the article in Jew ish L ife on the de facto establish­ m ent o f secularism in public schools and elsew here (M ay-June 1 9 6 6 ). This is be­ com ing increasingly apparent to sensitive and advanced thinkers in academ ic and other circles and I believe this w ill be­ com e a m ore and m ore crucial issue. U n ­ less this can be spread w idely w e w ill continue to subsidize the great under­ m ining o f religious values and com m it­ ment. Y ours is a pioneering and im ­ portant contribution. If it is properly taught and publicized m uch can be done and saved.

Yitzchak Greenberg Rabbi, R iverdale Jew ish Center

ETHICS AND LOGIC N orfolk, V a.

The article in the J ew ish L ife M ayJune issue “Jew and Jew, Jew and nonJew ” by the learned Rabbi A aron Soloveichik was indeed very beautiful and thought-provoking, and we all ow e him a Y iyoshr K ochacha.

The difference betw een concern for the w elfare o f the non-Jew, w hich should be fully accorded, and intim ate social con­ tact, w hich should be avoided, is quite clear to everyone. A lso is it not too dif­ ficult to understand that “K ol Y isroel

September-October 1966

A revim Zeh L ozeh” is applicable only to the Jew since Jews share together a com ­ m on religious fellow ship to w hich this principle m ainly applies?

H ow ever, general hum an w elfare is seen by the distinguished author as based on logic. The very question is whether, in this case, w hich deals with ethics, m athem atical logic is adequate. A lso we m ay ask, can religious ideals w hich aim at ennobling the hum an being and im ­ proving social relations be reduced to a cynical logic o f pure reciprocity w hich is as cold and calculating as the blind, selffish, abortive political philosophy w hich guides international relations.

There is a certain logic in acting in a restrained and dignified and even kind manner toward those w ho err and m ay not deserve it, as the case m entioned, when a man consistently refuses to lend his object to a neighbor. This logic is to reduce anim osity, hostility, and hatred w hich if kept alive w ill grow in intensity, lead to further deterioration in relations and ultim ately to overt action and vio­ lence.

W here the action taken against one is o f a m ore aggravated nature or is crim inal, necessary steps in a m ore persuasive way m ust be taken to check the wrongdoer for the sake o f his rehabilitation and the protection o f society, since kindness can­ not rem edy the situation. This applies too to Jews. Unwarranted com passion in this respect, as M aim onides points out in the

69

Yours for 1 the asking Delicious STRICTLY KOSHER Break­ fast, Lunch, Dinner served to you by most Airlines at no extra c o s t . . .

When arranging for your next air trip be sure, request "Schreiber Kosher Air Meals.” Available in over 50 cities.

M IL L E R 'S Kosher ©

Cheeses

American

Gouda

Swiss

Smoked

Muenster

Di-et

Prepared under Rabbinical super­ vision of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. U. S. Govern­ ment Inspected.

For the TOPS in Quality On Your Table Look for the cheese with the Miller Label

ZC«^*** R H

Gold's HORSERADISH

AmjviMts writ

Kosher Airline Caterers 9024 Foster Ave., Bklyn, N.Y.11236 Phone: (212) 272-9184

pwfjituiJti

I®

d

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

ALBERT WOOD & FIVE SONS,« PORT WASHINGTON

70

L-l- N EW YORK.

JEWISH LIFE

Moreh, would be tantamount to cruelty toward society. Love is in certain in­ stances simply more effective than hatred and vindictiveness, a better answer than harshness and malice. This is the very psychology behind the kindness of a Jew to a non-observant Jew in the case of P’rikah which Rabbi Soloveichik him­ self quotes later (Tos’foth P’sochim 113).

We should not forget either that hatred brutalizes those who are subject to it.

Ve’ohavta L ’reyacha Komocha, to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, is hardly an emotional and torrid love-affair. From this injunction we deduce that a condemmed criminal should be put to death in the most humane manner. Nor does the same maxim compel us to give up all our possessions and distribute them to the poor. It is a principle that bids us to treat others with the same consideration we would have them treat us had we been in the same situation. It tells us to establish a society where all have the op­ portunity to achieve well-being and where the poor are properly provided for by the rich. Thus opportunity and success go hand and hand with a commensurate so­ cial responsibility. This to the Torah is a fair and just society, as Maimonides points out in the Yad. Even though a wealthy man may grumble when he is made to contribute toward the support of the poor, he is, in an ideal sense, sat­ isfied with the arrangement. For should the wheels of fortune turn in his and his children’s disfavor they will enjoy the same protection as other unfortunates.

It is not what a given man is feeling in any given position at a certain time in society that determines our attitude but the arrangement viewed objectively by an unrealized person not yet born into so­ ciety. V’ohavta L ’reyacha Komocha seems to be this principle. It is the law of self-preservation for society and every-

September-October 1966

one in society under the noblest form of self-government.

V’ohavta L ’reyacha Komocha is there­ fore neither blind nor self-destructive.

One should only love the other as much as one’s self, not more. This is clearly brought home to us in the case when two friends have only one jug of water suf­ ficient for survival for one of the two.

The one who has it should preserve him­ self. V’ohavta L ’reyacha Komocha can be applicable to Jew and non-Jew without being absurd or suicidal.

Even in respect to Jew, where the Rabbi claims our love is blind, It is, as the author himself indicates later, not so blind as to be self-defeating. Close asso­ ciation with those whose behavior would adversely affect us is not permissible. The Talmud tells us that it is a Mitzvah to hate those who perpetrate evil and (P’sochim 113b) nevertheless to be help­ ful to them. It is evil as such which we are to recognize and battle (yitamu chatoim min ho-oretz), not the person.

The man should be purged of his evil and rehabilitated. Kindness in action toward such a person may save him from evil and us from harboring hate to the man himself (Tos’foth P’sochim 113b).

The version of the Midrosh cited by Rashi says only halochah hi bayodush she-esov soneh I’yaakov. Even halochoh I’moshe mi-sinai makes little difference since we are dealing with Hagodah, where it at most could be accepted as a general observation.

The case it is applied to in the Midrosh is the relationship of the two brothers Esau and Jacob. Any projection of this to the relation of Jews and non-Jews is allegorical. Were it even applied to Jews and non-Jews we are perfectly at liberty to make a decision when to apply it and when not. The instances of devotion of non-Jews to Jews at the peril of death abound in history and need no verifica-

71

tion. As a native of Denmark I was in crime through neglect. Why this on the 1943 the victim of German racism and ethical level should be limited to Jews at the same time the recipient of Danish only is difficult to understand. As beauti­ benevolence and humanism. ful as the various references are, the Masaryk’s reply is not a test case of thesis advanced does not seem to be con­ whether a non-Jew always harbors pred- clusively proven. The impression one is judice towards Jews. Masaryk was a pro­ left with is that according to Rabbi duct of a prejudicial society. No matter Aaron Soloveichik it is not of Jewish how much he grew above it he could concern as to whether the non-Jew is ed­ not completely eradicate the residue of ucated or not educated, cultured or not emotional prejudice. When whole so­ cultured. How can we improve the world cieties will become more understanding without such an obligation? Would it be and tolerant toward each other, individ­ against the Torah to make our concern uals will be able to face each other with­ for the non-Jew on the ethical and moral out prejudice. level more inclusive, extensive, positive, Masaryk’s periodic ambivalence is of arid specific?

It is to Gedolim of Rabbi Aaron Sololittle concern. Which human being does not suffer from it, even toward those who veichik’s stature that we look for advice are dearest and closest to him? What we and guidance. The essay “Jew and Jew, really are concerned about are deeds and Jew and non-Jew” lends itself to impres­ actions expressing a man’s general at­ sions which, in my humble opinion, can­ titude and philosophy in his dealings not lead to improvement in the relations of Jew to non-Jew; only to further suspi­ with his fellow man.

There is a very serious question of cion and deterioration. The entire idea whether taking for granted that all non- that I have to assume that my next-door Jews must be hostile to Jews is not a American neighbor carries &T virulent form of Jewish prejudice and a deter­ hatred to me in his heart and that it is rent to the establishment of better rela­ on this premise that I live with him, I tions between the two groups. Is this think is, to say the least, very strange type of logic not exactly what a non-Jew both to Jew and non-Jew alike, especially argues when he seeks to justify his pre­ since it is not only intended to confirm judice against Jews? Does he not say realities, but also to shape them and in­ that all Jews consider non-Jews inferior fluence them. A clarification in precise and unequivocal terms of what the rela­ or less deservant of a Jew’s love? tions of Jew to non-Jew should be in To what extent a man shares the guilt America on the ethical and moral level, of another man if it was in his power to prevent his depravity or downfall is in­ in friendship as the Rabbi terms it, in deed something which can only be meas­ the year 5727, in the light of Torah, ured by the Almighty himself. The chap­ would be greatly appreciated.

Israel B ornstein, ter of Egla Arufah deals with the ques­ Rabbi, B ’nai Israel Congregation tion of society being an accessory to a

72

JEWISH LIFE

G ettin g R e a d y F or The

HOLEDAYS? Put these quality products o f Colgate-Palmolive on your shopping list ... the finest o f their kind fo r use in Jewish homes.

Now with Borax, NEW HEAVY DUTY FAB

“ BAGGIES Plastic Bags keep meat redder, fresher longer. And because they come in extra big sizes, BAGGIES let you keep the kosher A JA X

DOUBLE

BLEACH

iéibìmìi

N E W A JA X A LL P U R P O S E

SgtSSSS

“ROSE LOTION V E L -try it for dishes and

—

______ LIVE SOAP is one soap that keeps its

The (y) seal of approval Of THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JtWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA ¡son the labels of Heinz Vegetarian Beans, Heinz Toma’to Ketchup and six.of the Heinz So^ps (Vegetarian Vegetable, Tomato, Tomato with Rice, Cream of Mushroom, Cream of Pea, Cream of Celery). Look Tor these Kosher foods of quality at your favorite food stores.)

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY