Jewish Life Jan-Feb 1967 by Jewish Action

ORTHODOX i ,VEL MITT STEIN SB0EVA1 JVUÀRY-FEB]

Please Reserve the D ate for the

A N N U A L N A T IO N A L D IN N E R of the

U N IO N OF O RTH O D O X JE W ISH CO N G REG ATIO N S OF A M E R IC A to be held 1 M

Sunday

E venig;M ay

, 1967

at the H O TE L A M ER IC A N A

$60.00 per reservation

M arvin H erskowitz , Chairman

For reservations and information, phone or write: N ational D inner Committee, UOJCA

84 Fifth Avenue, New York City ALgonquin 5-4100

Vol. XXXIV, No. 3 / Jan.-Feb. 1967 / Shevat-Adar 5727 J

le t^ is h 1 -n l | | e

I ■ 1

Saul

B e r n s t e in ,

R abbi

TH E E D IT O R ’S V IE W

Editor

A R TIC LE S

S. J. S h a r f m a n

L ib b y

iT 'n

K laperm án

THE PRIVATE LIVES OF PUBLIC FIGURES/ Norman L a m m ...................................................................

Paul

H. B a r i s Editorial Associates

ENCOUNTER IN BUCZACZ/Hillel S e id m a n .................. 17

D v o r a M in d e r

AGNON’S IMAGE OF JEWISH HISTORY/ 0 . Feuchtwanger ............................................................ 26

Editorial Assistant JEWISH LIFE is published bi-monthly. Subscription two years $4.50, three years $6.00, four years $7.50. Foreign: Add 40 cents per year. Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York 10011, N. Y. ALgonquin 5-4100

THE NEW STYLE OF AMERICAN ORTHODOX JEW RY/M arvin Schick .................................................. 29 AMERICAN A RRIVAL/Zalm an D is k in d ........................... 4 8

F IC T IO N THE SECRET LIFE OF VELVEL M ITTS TE IN / Cyril Domb ........................................................................ 37

Published by U n io n

PO ETR Y

O r t h o d o x J e w is h C o n g r e g a t io n s

Jo seph

o f

A m e r ic a

A CROWN OF SONNETS/M . M e i r ..................................... 4 4

K a r a s ic k

President H a r o l d M. J a c o b s Chairman of the Board B e n ja m in K o e n ig s b e r g , Nathan K. Gross, David Politi, Dr. Bernard Lander, Harold H. Boxer, Vice Presi d e n t s ; M o r r is L. G reen , Treasurer, Dr. A. Abba Walker, Secretary', Michael Kaufman, Financial Secretary. Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President

BOOK R E V IE W S HAUSNER’S RECORD OF THE EICHMANN TR IA L/ Nathan Lewin ................................................................... 59 DAY SCHOOL BOX SCORE/Bernard Goldenberg . . . 63 I M T H A H I in T I A R I

X I If"

1 i r * n n i “l l l

M AW TI

INTRODUCTION TO THE HEBREW NOVEL/ Libby K la p e rm a n .............................................................. 67

JEWISH HOSPITALS IN VIGNETTE/Theodore F in k .. 69

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

January-February 1967

among our contributors

RABBI NORMAN LAMM, who holds the Jakob and Erna Michael Chair in Jewish Philosophy at Yeshiva Uni versity, is also Associate Rabbi of the Jewish Center in New* York City. A prolific writer, his “A Hedge of Roses” has won wide acclaim during its first year in print. DR. HILLEL SEIDMAN is the author of “A Diary of the Warsaw Ghetto” and former Secretary of the Asso ciation of Jewish Deputies of the Polish Parliament. He is currently the correspondent for three Israeli newspapers. Born in Antwerp and educated at yeshivoth in Frankfort, Telshe, Mir and Kamenitz, RABBI O. FEUCHTWAN GER has been spiritual leader of England’s Letchworth Congregation for the past sixteen years. He is the author of “Righteous Lives” and while in Israel contributed to the “Encyclopaedia Talmudith” and “Otzar ha-Poskim.” CYRIL DOMB, professor of Theoretical Physics at King’s College, University of London, is the president of the British Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. Among articles he has written on subjects of topical Jewish in terest are several on the theme of Science and Religion. Prof. Domb tells us that his “excursions into fiction have been rare,” and that, as our readers will not be surprised to know “the present sketch was written in the first place for a Purim celebration.” The illustrations appearing with his story are by his cousin, Erica Canton, a free-lance artist and writer. M. MEIR, the gifted authoress of “A Crown of Sonnets,” is a lady resident in a small Maine community whose pro found inner experiences brought her to the Jewish faith and fold. She writes: “I converted to Judaism because . . . I have never been able to get past the first phrase of the first verse of the Bible: ‘Bereshith bora Elokim’ (In the beginning G-d created!). I have the same problem with that phrase as one of the Chassidic rabbis had with ‘And G-d said’—he went all to pieces, so do I.” DR. MARVIN SCHICK teaches Political Science at Hunter College. He received his Ph.D. degree from New York University and was instrumental in founding, and now serves as president of, the National Jewish Commis sion on Law and Public Affairs. ZALMAN DISKIND, who previously served as principal of the Hebrew Academy of Atlantic City (N.J.), is now working on his doctoral dissertation entitled “The Jewish Orthodox Congregational Afternoon School in the United States.” His previous contributions to J e w i s h L i f e include “Can We Neglect the Talmud Torah?” (October 1962). JEWISH LIFE

THE EDITOR S VIEW The Right to Assent HE cannonade of propaganda against the course of U.S. action in Viet Nam has taken strong toll of American public opinion. Always an unmilitaristic people, Americans by and large are instinctively averse to war, and especially to involve ment in conflicts abroad. From the first, American intervention in the Viet Nam war ran sharply counter to this instinct. Many, probably most, share the view of the country’s leadership that events have permitted the United States no other choice but to pursue the path it has followed, unwelcome and repugnant though it is. But this realization does not lessen public unhappi ness over the situation. Domestic and foreign opponents of the Administration or of its Viet Nam policies have found advan tage in the state of affairs and have exploited their opportunity to the utmost. Inherent in either of the original alternatives—to uphold the American commitment or to abandon Viet Nam and ultimately all of Southeast Asia to Communist conquest—-was an inexhorable chain of consequences profoundly affecting American and world welfare. With the first alternative perforce adopted, effort on whatever scale might be required to fulfill the mission be came inevitable. On their part, the Communist powers deemed themselves similarly impelled. But in their case, with all of North Viet Nam’s people and a large proportion of South Viet Nam’s people in their grip and, in Communist terms, expendable, recourse to troops from outside Viet Nam could be avoided. Militarily as well as in world public relations, this has given them superior power of maneuver. They have held fast to it. Only by commitment of more and more American troops and arms might the balance be redressed. Thus escala tion has proceeded all along the line, on both sides. And thus the issues have remained frozen, the conflict has taken on dimensions that daily become vaster and more horrifying, Amer ican unease has mounted in proportion, and the exploitation of this sentiment has more than kept pace with all.

In e v ita b le Sequenee

r | i h E pressures that have been unleashed have reached into

'**■ every segment of the American populace, touching each with in its own frame of reference. This applies no less to the Jewish

January-February 1967

community than to others. And certainly to no lesser degree than applies to others is it apparent that American Jewry, as such, should not permit itself to be exploited for the benefit of partisan interests in the determination of its own response to the situation. An agitation has been mounted and is sweeping the country that dwarfs the “America First” campaign of the evil-memoried Hitler era. Then, isolationists and pacifists found common cause with Nazis and their supporters and—during the time of the pact between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia—Com munist and pro-Soviet elements in opposing American interven" A m e ric a tion in a “foreign war.” Once America entered the war, the F ir s t " America First campaign collapsed. Today, an equally strange P re c e d e n t assortment of forces decries American intervention, but this time the campaign, in contrast to its World War II predecessor, has waxed with the military engagement. It far overshadows the rival campaign of the “hawks” who would extend the Viet Nam conflict to an “all-out showdown” with Red China. Masterful use of propaganda technique and the backing of highly placed and highly influential sources are linked with curbside fanatic virulence. With deadly effect, the character of American Viet Nam policy, military objectives, and combat methods is impugned. The country’s Administration is defamed and its voice all but drowned out in a chorus of condemnation that captures the public ear and mind. In an unprecedented reversal of the usual wartime situation, not opposition to but support of the national leadership is subject to outright intimida tion. More and more fear to voice such support lest they incur the storm of villification which “ dove” advocates readily pour forth. Never before was the accusation of challenge to the right to dissent from the national policy more patently bogus; never before, in American history, has the challenge to the right to assent to it been more startingly real. The unlikely-named “doves” have been hard at work on the organs of the Jewish community as upon all other circles of American society and, as elsewhere, with marked effect. Almost alone among the major American Jewish organizations, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, its assoIm p a c t ciated Rabbinic body the Rabbinical Council of America, and on the Jewish War Veterans have withstood these inroads, each J e w r y publicly voicing support of the Administration’s policies and confidence in its endeavors to achieve peace. Some organizations have remained silent, while others have issued or joined in pro4

JEWISH LIFE

nouncements dissenting, in one degree or another, from the country’s Viet Nam actions and calling upon the United States —but not the opposing side—to unconditionally cease hostilities. those Jewish groups which give their assent to the SINCE U.S. policy and those which give theirs to the opposing pol icy alike profess, and can alike be credited with, devotion to peace and abhorrence of war, the divergence must stem either from differing applications of moral considerations or from considerations of another kind. It is to be noted that the groups challenging U.S. policy have not abjured resort to armed force by anybody under all circumstances. Their objection, it appears, is only to its use by the United States, in the present circum stance. This bears the presumption of American guilt. To what extent, if at all, is this presumption drawn from purely moral premises, independent of the influence of other, subjective, con siderations? The same question arises also with regard to the only pos sibility which has emerged as alternative to outright victory by one side or the other—peace on mutually agreed terms. It the implicit or explicit discrediting of the U.S. Government’s pursuit of this possibility derived from independent moral judg ment—or is it prompted by pressures from interested parties? The doubt, if there is any, is resolved by the consistent echoing of key points of the anti-U.S. line, such as the insistence upon P ressu res the inclusion of the Viet Cong, as a prior condition, in any R e fle c te d peace negotiations between the opposing parties. Such insistence, with all the implications it bears, self-evidently cannot be squared with the premise that cessation of hostilities is the sov ereign consideration. If an end to slaughter is made conditional upon payment of ransom—one which would give the Commu nists a substantial measure of the victory they could not achieve on the battlefield—the claim of peace as the sovereign goal is forfeited. In short, the involvement of certain Jewish quarters with the “dove” agitation marks the impact of powerful partisan pressures. It is to be borne in mind that they and the organi zations of contrary view have been impelled to speak as units of the Jewish community in pronouncing their respective judg ments on their country’s policy. While the man-in-the-street may well be confused over the issues at stake, it is deeply disturbing to find leadership echelons of segments of Jewry permitting themselves to be taken in tow

January-February 1967

by externally partisan interests. One would expect such leader ships to be alive to the realities land implications of the world power struggle of which the Viet Nam war is an aspect. Have not yet the events of this era educated every thinking Jew to these realities and implications? How depressing it is to find figures in responsible positions serving as phonographs for recorded propaganda against American military ruthlessness while detecting no relation between this propaganda and CornSound munist terrorization and butchery of South Viet Nam civilians, a n d the slaughter—to which the world has been mute—of hundreds S ile n c e of thousands of Tibetans by the Chinese Communist invaders, the day-by-day suppression of Finland’s independence—again, before a mute world—as but the most recent in the successive stages of conquest by that vast and only remaining colonial empire, Communist Russia. How unbelievable it is to see such figures compliant even before charges identifying the objectives and methods of American military forces with the annihilation of European Jewry in the death camps and incinerators of Nazi Germany. And this, at the very time when the prime source of the charge proceeds remorselessly with the extinction of its own three million-strong Jewish community. . . . "17TET NAM today is a shambles, a scene of horrifying human ▼self-destruction. In all its stark horror, it tells us, every one of us, every human being on earth, that the query “Red or Dead?” is not hypothetical, it is not to be talked away, dis sembled, or swallowed in Aesopian doses. But we must not permit ourselves to be hypnotized into the belief that the query cannot be expunged from the agenda of world affairs, that the Free World is incapable of projecting a yet more compelling option, one of life and freedom. The moral, spiritual, intellect ual, and material resources of the Free World assure that the " R e d or wherewithal is there. Employing this resource with purpose and D e a d " wisdom, the power struggle can be rested from its Red-or-Dead ------ Or? battlefield context to that of the field of ideals and ideas, a field in which the call to life and freedom will prevail. In the coming years, the struggle. between the powers and the struggles within the powers will surely take on diverse forms. Strategies will shift, tactics will change, alignments will alter. We Jews, like everyone else, will be buffeted by the mov ing currents. Let none of us again mistake our course. Of all people in the world, we can least afford to do so. ----- S. B.

JEWISH LIFE

The Private Lives of Public Figures A Jewish View on the Kennedy-Manchester Controversy

By NORMAN LAMM

HE assassination of President Ken nedy family tacitly approved the text T nedy was a traumatic event in the before publication. In recent days and collective consciousness of the Amer weeks, it appears that the American ican people and, perhaps, of the entire world. The profound psychological consequences of this senseless tragedy have yet to be experienced in their entirety. But in recent weeks all the emotions, private and public, that have adhered to the assassination and the personality of the martyred Presi dent have been aroused in the con troversy that has developed about the publication, in book form and in mag azine serialization, of William Man chester’s ‘‘The Death of a President.” Mrs. Kennedy and her family have attempted to stop publication of this book, or at least to delete certain passages they regarded as offensive or in bad taste; the author and publishers have pleaded freedom of the press and the right of the world to know his tory in all its significant and intimate details. To a great extent, the controversy turns on the determination of certain facts, such as whether or not an au thorized representative of the Ken-

January-February 1967

publishers have come to an agreement with Mrs. Kennedy, but that German, and possibly Formosan and other, publishers will print the uncensored text of Mr. Manchester’s book. Such questions of fact and of con tractual obligations shall not concern us in this essay. More important for the sake of the light it may shed on related issues in the present and in the future is the larger question of—as a national news-weekly put it — the rights of privacy versus the claims of history. Which of these two should take precedence: the right of a person to his own privacy and to guarding any information about himself from the prying eyes and ears of his neigh bors, or the right of all mankind to know the details of the great events that shape the bistory of our times and possibly of generations to come? What we shall here attempt is a Jewish view on what might be called the ethics of information, especially as it concerns the two competing

claims of personal privacy and world history. It is understood that this is but a preliminary effort to derive a judgment from authentic Jewish sources. Naturally, I cannot make any claim to comprehensiveness; I present this essay primarily as the basis for further discussion.

Before proceeding to the essential question, let us dispose of the prob lem of the one versus the many, i.e., whether the rights of the individual are subordinate to the rights of the public when the two come into con flict with each other.

THE ONE A N D THE M A N Y T IS the glory of Judaism that, un to death. Now, the Halachah does not Istresses like certain other religions, it require him to leave his refuge, and the obligations of the individ risk his life, even if all Israel needs ual to the community, and gives these duties much more prominence than the individual’s striving for personal salvation. Man is part of the commu nity, the Jew identifies himself as part of a living organism called Israel, and the responsibilities of the one to the many are given their legal formulation in the Halachah, or Jewish Law, which constitutes the bulk of both Biblical and Talmudical literature. Nevertheless, when the life and the integrity of the individual come into conflict with the demands of the group —whether community or nation— Judaism does not sanction the invol untary sacrifice of the individual in favor of the collectivity. Thus the Tosefta teaches (Terumoth 7:20): If heathens said to a group of men, ‘Surrender one of you to us and we shall kill him, otherwise we will kill all of you,’ let them all suffer death and not surrender one soul from Israel. Similarly, one who murdered by ac cident is, according to Biblical law, condemned to be exiled to one of the cities of refuge, there to be protected from the blood-avenger. If he leaves the city of refuge, he exposes himself 8

him. The life of the individual, once again, is not subordinated to the claims of the entire people.* Of course, this does not mean that it is a virtue to ignore the safety or well-being of the community, that it is forbidden for a man to lay down his life for his people or faith. Abra ham risked his life for Lot, Moses for his brethren, and all of Jewish history is replete with luminous illustrations of martyrdom. It does mean that the community cannot coerce an individ ual to yield his life for its sake. The Halachah considers voluntary selfsacrifice on behalf of others as ad mirable piety (midduth chasiduth), but it does not obligate the individual to surrender himself for the sake of others. (See the comprehensive and fascinating treatment of this problem in Rav Kook’s Mishpat Kohen, No. 143.) This principle, denying to society the right to sacrifice the individual in order to preserve itself or enhance its welfare, applies not only to the life * So Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Rotzeiach, 7:8—kol Yisrael; our regular edition of the Mishnah, Makkoth 2:7 reads only Yis rael, but the Munich edition reads kol Yisrael —“all Israel.”

JEWISH LIFE

of the individual, but to his dignity and honor as well. Thus the Mishnah teaches (Terumoth 7:20): [So too] women who were told by the heathens, ‘Surrender one of you to us and we will defile her, otherwise we will dishonor all of you,’ let them all suffer defilement and not sur render one soul from Israel. HE Halachah is based upon the fundamental Jewish conception of man as created in the “image of G-d,” i.e., possessing certain resemblances to his Creator. The Creator, being not only One but also Unique, that is, incomparable and incommensurate, endows each of his human creatures with uniqueness. That which is unique, by definition, cannot be compared with anything else. The value of one human being cannot, therefore, be assessed as greater or lesser than that of any one or any number of other hu man beings. Quantity is irrelevant when judging human life. “Whosoever destroys one soul, Scripture considers it as if he had destroyed the whole world and whosoever saves one soul, Scripture considers it as if he had saved the whole world” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5). The human soul, possessing infinite worth and G-d-like uniqueness, cannot be subordinated to the needs of any other being or group of beings. Hence, the problem which concerns us, that of the privacy of the individ ual as it comes into conflict with the desire or the right of the many to know history, cannot be reduced to a mere question of numbers. Although the claims of privacy are certainly less consequential than the claims of sur vival, the same principle is relevant:

January-February 1967

the integrity of the individual person ality may not be overwhelmed by the demands of the many. We may add, en passant, that oh the basis of this principle Jews ought to protest vigorously any attempt to perform medical experiments on patients whose consent has not been obtained in advance. Recent charges, in New York, that physicians have been performing such experiments on the poor and the mentally retarded, are alarming. Such deeds are out rageous, they scandalize the most ele mentary sense of morality, and no possible benefits that may accrue to society from such experiments are suf ficient to permit us to risk the life or limb of a single individual. Equally intolerable is the situation which prevails in many states in this country, and in a number of other civilized countries, whereby unclaimed bodies are considered res nullius and are released for anatomical dissection. The poor, the forsaken, and the lonely are thus submitted to post-mortem mutilation, while the rich and the comfortable may not be dissected without prior permission from the family or the person concerned before his demise. Judaism takes exactly the opposite view: the body of a person unclaimed by any relatives or friends must be buried immediately, and this obligation devolves upon the entire community, including the High Priest of Israel who otherwise may not de file himself even to his next of kin. Even in death, according to Jewish Law, the individual’s rights are pro tected against all other claims; cer tainly no impersonal bureaucrat can ever be empowered to dispose of un claimed bodies at his own discretion.

THE CLAIM S OF HISTORY KNOWLEDGE of history is in of the slain President’s widow, is dispensable to the full and proper nothing more than rumor-producing A use of the special advantages which curiosity about a family that came a democratic society confers upon its citizens. The essence of a democracy is the freedom of men and women to choose between as many alterna tives as are available to them in de ciding the course and the conduct of their government. But “choice” is meaningless if it is unlearned. The more the voter knows about the al ternatives, the more intelligent a choice can he make. In a sense, then, his freedom is directly proportional to his knowledge of the issues and the personalities amongst which he must decide. Now “history” may be more than just a record of “the facts,” but certainly whatever interpreting and ordering the historian does must be done with events that occurred and people who lived and acted in a cer tain manner. Perhaps Ambrose Bierce was right when he defined history as “an account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant . . ,” but surely the more accurately events are known, the more we can keep the account straight. To know what occurred at a time of great national crisis, how the principals reacted and thus revealed their underlying character, what the relations were between various fac tions of government, what subtleties proved significant and what did not— this is the stuff of which good history is written, and which intelligent citi zens of a democracy consider when they choose their leaders. Undoubtedly, a good part of the desire of the public to ferret out in formation about every aspect of the Kennedy assassination^ including the most intimate and unspoken feelings

nearest to American royalty, com pounded by a prying political voyeur ism. But it is more than that; it is also a desire to know how great men measured up to the tfst in moments of rare crisis, where they failed and where they succeeded, what underly ing motivations came to the fore in this emergency, and hence whether some of these same people can be trusted to guide the nation and its destiny in a future that no doubt will continue to subject them to great stress and trials of all sorts. In a democracy, the people have a right to such infor mation, a claim to the histoiy of their own nation. From the Jewish point of view, a similar claim can be made for the right to a knowledge of the past, though not in such strictly political terms. Maasey avoth siman Vvanim— the biographies of the patriarchs are the paradigm for the history of their descendants. Far from being a collec tion of folk-tales, mythical epics, or Scriptural gossip, the Biblical narra tives are the stuff of which Jewish ethics and morality are constructed. History, for the Jew, is Heilsgeschichte, sacred history, the record of the Divine Will intersecting the tem poral order, the account of significant events leading to where the “finger of G-d” points. Israel has always been short on geography and long on his tory. As the account of the Divine quest for man, the response of the au thentic saint and the elected people to that Divine challenge, and the chronJEWISH LIFE

icle of G-d’s involvement with man, history occupies central importance in Judaism. In the Amidah prayer, the one benediction which requires full kavvanah, such that if one fails to con centrate properly the blessing is void and the entire prayer must be re peated, is the first, Avoth—the one blessing which recapitulates Jewish history and speaks of the Divine en gagement with Abraham and his decendants. Concerning communal leadership, the Talmud suggests that only such people be appointed leaders who have

“a basket of reptiles hanging on their backs,” i.e., unsavory pasts, for only thus will they retain a measure of hu mility; should they turn arrogant, one can tell them, “look back!” (Yoma 22b). Obviously, then, even unfavor able facts about leaders and poten tial leaders must be known in order to make appointments of communal re sponsibility. The Torah itself is un sparing in reporting the flaws of its most cherished heroes and exposing them to criticism. In Judaism too, then, a good case can be made for reporting history honestly and fully.

THE RIG HT TO PRIVACY TUDAISM has always recognized

J the right to privacy, as we shall later show from both Halachah and Aggadah. But as society becomes more complex, as people become more in tertwined with each other, and with increasing urbanization, privacy be comes more precarious and the need to protect it all the more urgent. A thousand years ago, the Rabbis already sensed a need for additional safe guards to secure the right to privacy, and Rabbenu Gershom, “The Light of the Exile,” enacted a ban on the reading of another’s mail.* In the great cities of modern times, privacy is even harder to come by. Yet without it, a decent social, psy chological, and domestic life would be impossible, so many are our daily con tacts. Perceptive observers have seen in the characteristic impersonality and * This takkanah is nowhere quoted in full, and it might well be older than Rabbenu Gershom; see L. Finkelstein, “Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages,” pp. 171 if., 178, 189.

January-February 1967

anonymity of apartment-house dwell ers in our great urban centers, a vital defense-mechanism against the en croachment on their privacy. (See, for instance, Harvey Cox, “The Secular City,” pp. 29-46; one may approve of his social analysis while taking strong exception to his theology.) Technol ogically, man now has the ability to destroy privacy completely and for ever. Electronic snooping and eaves dropping have now been developed to a high art and constitute a grave men ace. A news columnist has recently reported that, despite assurances by the F.B.I. and the C.I.A, President Johnson believes his own office and telephone to be “bugged,” and the Congress is presently considering strong legislation in an attempt to out law such activities except in matters of national security. Clearly, if the right to privacy was always recognized, it is now absolutely vital to the safety and sanity of modern man.

THE H A L A C H A H HE source for the right to privacy in the Halachah is the principle of hezek re'iyah sh’meh hezek (“viewing —or prying—is considered a substan tial damage”), as developed in the first folios of Bava Bathra. Basically, this means that if two partners jointly acquired or inherited a tract of land, and decide to divide it and thus dissolve their partnership, each has the right to demand that the other share the expense of erecting a fence at least four cubits high, i.e., high enough to prevent each from spying on the other and thus violating his privacy. Interestingly, the Halachah does not simply permit one of the erstwhile partners to build a fence for his own protection, and then require his neigh bor to share the expense because he too is a beneficiary, but demands the construction of the wall so that each one prevents himself from spying on his neighbor. Thus, R. Nachman said in the name of Samuel that if a man’s roof adjoins his neighbor’s courtyard— i.e., the two properties are on an in cline, so that the roof of one is ap proximately on level with the yard of the other—the owner of the roof must construct a parapet four cubits high (Bava Bathra 6b). In those days, most activity took place in the court yard, whereas the roof was seldom used. Hence, without the obstruction between them, the owner of the roof could see all that occurs in his neigh bor’s courtyard and thus deprive him of his privacy. This viewing is re garded as substantial a hezek or damage as if he had physically in vaded his premises. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the owner of the

roof to construct the wall and bear all the expenses, and so avoid damaging his neighbor by denying him his pri vacy. Thus, the Halachah insists upon the right of privacy, and holds the viola tor of another’s privacy guilty of in flicting a substantial damage. It is the responsibility of each individual not to pry into his neighbor’s personal domain. It should be added that while the discussion in the Talmud concerns visual access to a neighbor’s domain, the principle may be expanded to cover eavesdropping as well. Thus, Meiri (p. 6 of the Sofer edition) de cides that while we must guard against hezek re'iyah. visual dam age, we need not worry about hezek sh’miyah, aural damage. Hence, the wall the partners can demand of each other must be solid enough to prevent overlooking each other’s affairs, but need not be so strong that it prevents overhearing each other’s conversa tions. But the reason Meiri gives is not that eavesdropping is any less heinous than spying as an invasion of privacy, but that people normally speak softly when they think they will be overheard. Where this reason does not apply, such as in electronic “bugging,” then obviously hezek shemiyah is as serious a violation and a damage as hezek re'iyah. Even more relevant to the particu lar controversy under discussion is the specific question of the propriety of revealing a confidence. This certainly constitutes an invasion of privacy. I do not merely put my ear to the wall and overhear the idle chatter of a neighbor; I am entrusted with specific JEWISH LIFE

information, and I then violate my trust and betray the secret. Here, the acquisition of the information was proper, but my publishing of this in formation is in question. How does Jewish law consider this? Our ethical instinct tells us that this act is immoral. The Halachah codifies it as an illegal act by spe cifically including it in the prohibi tion of lashon hara, gossip. “If one tells a friend something, he may not tell it to another unless he has re ceived permission” (Chafetz Chayyim, 10:6); and “if the speaker warned the listener not to reveal the information, then even if the speaker himself mentioned it publicly, the lis tener violates the law of lashon hara if he thereafter reveals it even cas ually” {ibid.y 2:7). Thus, whether one encroaches on the privacy of another by acquiring information without permission, or by revealing it without permission, he is culpable according to the Halachah. E HAVE established, then, that the right to privacy is a legally actionable right, and that the victim can sue for damages. But when we move out of the realm of the Halachah’s civil law, we find that the Halachah considers privacy not only a legal right, but also a moral duty. We are bidden to protect our own pri

vacy from the eyes and ears of our neighbors. The Talmud (Yoma 86b) quotes Rav as pointing out a con tradiction between two verses. David says, “Happy is he whose transgres sion is concealed, whose sin is cov ered” (this is the Rabbinic interpre tation of Psalms 32:1), whereas Solomon states, “He that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper” (Proverbs 28:13). The Talmud offers two solutions, the first of which is that David discourages the revealing of sins not publicly known, whereas Solomon encourages confession of sins that are already widely known. What is not known to others I may not reveal about myself. A man has the moral duty to protect his own pri vacy, to safeguard his own intimacies from the inquisitiveness of his neigh bors. The Talmud {ibid.) records an opinion that once a man has con fessed his sins to G-d on Yom Kippur, he should not confess them again on the following Yom Kippur—and applies to one who does so the verse, “as a dog that returneth to his vomit” (Proverbs 26:11). These are strong words, and reveal to us the contempt of the Rabbis for the in dignity inherent in the loss of pri vacy—even one’s own privacy, and even before his Maker only. What is at stake here is nothing less than tzeniuth, modesty in its broadest and most sublime aspects.

THE TH EO LO G Y OF PRIVACY Tzeniuth means more than modesty in the moral or sexual sense. By ex tension, the term comprehends respect for the inviolability of the personal

January-February 1967

privacy of an individual, whether one self or another, which is another way of saying respect for the integrity of the self. Man is fundamentally in-

scrutable, in that, according to Juda ism, he is more than just natura but also persona: he is possessed of a mysterious, vital center of personality which transcends the sum of his na tural physiological and psychological properties. But not only is he myster ious, he also should be, and the ex tension of this free and undetermined center of personality constitutes the boundaries of his selfhood and hence his privacy. It is this privacy which we are called upon to acknowledge as an act of tzeniuth. Wherefrom the obligatory nature of tzeniuth? In the Jewish tradition ethics is founded on imitatio dei, the imitatibh of G-d: “as He is compassionate, so must I be compassionate; as He is gracious, so must I be gracious” (Mechilta, to Beshalach, 3). Thus, such ethical norms as the visitation of the sick and the burial of the dead are regarded as an imitation of the ac tions of G-d. Now, we may speak of the privacy of G-d in many ways. In both the philosophic and Kabbalistic traditions, the knowability of G-d by man, or His relatedness to His creatures, is but one aspect of Divinity. In His es sence He transcends man; in His abso luteness He is infinitely remote from and beyond the concerns of mortals.* This unknowable Essence or Absolute ness is the inner boundary of His pri vacy. In his resistance to and limita tion of man’s metaphysical and theo logical curiosity (“in what is hidden from the Thou shalt not inquire”), G-d is asserting His exclusive Divine privacy. Even Moses may not gaze * For a fuller explanation, see my article “G-d is Alive” in the March-April 1966 issue of JEWISH LIFE.

upon the source of the voice which addresses him (Shemoth 3:6). Moreover, even prayer is considered an encroachment on Divine privacy, and hence would not be permitted were it not for the specific dispen sation to pray implied in the attributes of praise uttered by Moses and con firmed by the Men of the Great As sembly. Rabbi Haninah thus scolded a man who, in leading the services, was overly prolific in his praise of the Almighty (Berachoth 33a). “It hath been told thee, O man,” says the prophet Micah (6:8), “what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G-d.” The Hebrew for “walk humbly” is hatz’neia lecheth9 the first word de riving from the same root as tzeniuth. Man must tread the path of reverent privacy “with thy G-d”—for it is from Him that we learn this form of con duct and Whom we imitate in practic ing it. G-d, according to Prophetic im agery, even weeps in privacy: “My soul shall weep in secret” (Jer. 13:17). By the principle of imitatio dei, we must accord the same right to human beings. We may not violate the right of a woman, even if she be the widow of a major figure of world history, to her private anguish, her secret sighs, her intimate resentments and bitter ness and tears and fears, the privilege of keeping her broken heart and her wounded life to herself. The expres sion of these feelings by Mrs. Kennedy to the author of “The Death of a President” was privileged information, and until and unless it was released by her, it must remain inviolately pri vate. JEWISH LIFE

PRIVACY A N D HISTORY T should be evident from the fore disgraceful identity) while you ex going that the protection of privacy posed him; and if not, you cast a is a greater good in Judaism than the stigma upon a righteous man!” (Shabknowledge of history. The paucity of bath 96b). source material on the latter, and the Zelophehad is a mysterious figure abundance of both halachic and in Biblical history. We wonder why aggadic teachings on the former, lead he attained fame in the first place. us to conclude that the rights of pri His daughters’ description of him in vacy take precedence over the claims trigues us, and raises more questions of history. But while this is already than it answers. Likewise, the gatherer evident generally, we may yet point of the sticks arouses our curiosity: to one more passage, an Aggadah, who was this man who, so soon after where the two are juxtaposed more Sinai, publicly scandalized all of Is explicitly. rael? R. Akiva’s answer is revealing; Our text deals with Zelophehad, it may be the source of much ethical who died in the desert and left only information. Zelophehad had been daughters who inquired of Moses as dead for centuries. He had no sons, to the disposition of their father’s and there were probably no contem estate. We know little of this man poraries of R. Akiva who knew who other than what his daughters told were his descendants. What harm Moses: “Our father died in the wil could come from such identification derness, and he was not in the com of the two historical figures? pany of them that gathered them Yet no didactic value, no moral ad selves together in the company of vantage, can excuse this violation of Korah, but he died in his own sin” the privacy of a historical personality (Bemidbar 27:3). All we know, then, long dead. The great R. Akiva is ad of this man whose daughters’ inquiry judged guilty by his colleagues—for brought him Scriptural immortality, | what the Torah concealed, we may not was that he was not part of the rebel reveal. The claims of history, though lion but “died of his own sin.” R. they serve the loftiest and noblest Akiva, however, identifies him as the ends, remain subordinate to the right anonymous transgressor who “gathered to privacy of one long gone. Better sticks” on the Sabbath, thus violating that there be blank pages in history, it publicly and incurring death by than that they be besmirched by the stoning (Bemidbar 15:32). shattered reputations of those whose This identification of Zelophehad as privacy has been trespassed. the infamous violator of the Sabbath The right to privacy is a sacred one. earned for R. Akiva the following Unless G-d has decided to suspend rebuke from his colleague, R. Judah it, by recording it in the Torah, we b. Bathyra: “Akiva, in either case you have no right to encroach upon it in will have to give an account (before the name of history or morality. Of the Heavenly Court) for your state course, the right of privacy is not ment. If you are right, then the Torah absolute—in the case of litigation, shielded him (by not disclosing his where I have relevant information

January-February 1967

about one of the litigants, I am com manded to testify about it. But no more than that. Privacy must yield to the demands of justice (otherwise it might be used as a tool to injure others), but it supersedes the claims of history. * * * HE current Kennedy-Manchester T controversy will soon pass away from the center of the attention of the public. But the larger issues it has raised are ethical in nature, and, given the nature of the times in which we live, will return again and again in many forms.

In our treatment of this problem from Jewish sources, we have seen that the individual and his rights may not be sacrificed on the altar of the pub lic interest, and that the claims of the nation, of even all mankind, to more detailed historical information about the tragedy in Dallas^ cannot over weigh the sacred right of the Presi dent’s widow to her personal privacy. To decide otherwise, it seems to me, would be to diminish the innate dig nity of man, which he possesses by virtue of the Divine Image in which he was created, and which teaching is one of Judaism’s major contributions to all mankind.

JEWISH LIFE

Agnon: Encounter in Buczacz

By HILLEL SEIDMAN

Y sheer good fortune I met Sh’muel Yoseph Agnon in Bucz acz, his native city and mine. My parents had moved from there when I was only a few weeks old. Living far away, I did not see Buczacz again until one summer in the thirties. At that time my Granduncle Reb Hersch Turkel and his wife, Aunt Lea, in vited me to spend my vacation with them—in Buczacz. Having heard so much, from my mother, of her native city, and having read quite a lot about it in Agnon’s tales, I was eager to see this much-written-about town. I also intended to do a little research there on its history. So I came gladly. From the very first days of my fourweek visit I became immersed in tales and reminiscences of the great and near-great native sons of Buczacz, some of whom became world-famed. Among them were rabbis of the com munity whose authority on Talmudic law was accepted in the whole country and even in far away lands, the latest of them being Rabbi Sholom Mordecai Hakohen Shavadron, later of Berzhan,

January-February 1967

who had served as Dayyon there, and Rabbi Meir Arak, later of Tarnov. Among the secular celebrities were Sigmund Freud, the founder of psy choanalysis, whose parents came from Buczacz, Professor David Heinrich Muller, the orientalist, and A. Femhof, the writer. The one most frequently spoken about, however, was Agnon, whom my newly-met acquaintances called by his former name, Czaczkes. He was men tioned with particular pride. The rea son for his outstanding place in the hearts of his countrymen was simple: he had never deserted them. Though living in far away places in Germany, in Eretz Yisroel, Agnon never really left Buczacz. This city was the main background, theme, and focus of his writings. The residents of Buczacz even of long bygone generations lived in his works. He revived the past of the city and immortalized it. He lived among the rabbis, Talmudic scholars, and ordinary people of Buczacz— and even the ordinary Jewish folk of Buczacz were extraordinary. It has

been said that even the load carriers were well versed in Talmud, Maimonides, and the like, and in intervals be tween one load and another they used to discuss passages of the Rambam. I had the feeling of living among spir itual heroes whose past glory was still alive albeit as history or legend. NE of the living legends was Agnon himself. I felt his presence as very real in his native city. Then early one morning the door of my uncle’s house, which faced the market place, opened, and in came a man of ordinary appearance. Being a stranger myself, I did not even know that the visitor was a stranger too— but was he? He asked for my uncle. Upon my replying that he was attending morning services in the synagogue, the visitor said “Don’t mind, I merely wanted to say ‘Good Morning’. . . .” When he left I observed that he looked at the signs above the stores at the market place and visited some of the houses. When my uncle came home and was told of the visitor and his wanderings around the market place, and I de scribed him as best I could—my uncle said “This cannot be but Sh’muel Yoseph Czaczkes . . .” He had guessed right. On my way to the Czortkover Klaus I met one of my new friends, Fishel Gaster, who told me the big news: Agnon is in town. We went immediately to the hotel where the author stayed as a “Way farer For the Night,” as the book which was the result of this visit is called. He received us warmly. Be stowing on me special friendship due to his father’s friendship with my

grandfather, Agnon invited me to ac company him on walks in and around the city and its surrounding hills and woods. He told me later that when he used to study in the Chassidic Beth Midrosh, the Czortkover Klaus, he often sought and received help and ad vice from my grandfather, Reb Velvel Turkel, the great Talmudic scholar, on difficult passages in the Gemora. There was another reason for sing ling me out for his companionship. Buczacz, once famous for the Torah learning even of its ordinary people, was then in decline. The old Beth Hamidrosh where Agnon had spent his youth, once humming with the voices of young boys discussing Tal mudic problems, was now deserted. The Nobel laureate-to-be used to talk, even on everyday topics, in Biblical, Talmudic, or Midrashic terms and ex pressions. During this visit he searched for spiritual environment and atmos phere of the past. I was almost the only young man there whose preoccu pation was learning Torah, and even I was not a resident of Buczacz. He found a common language with me and an attentive listener for his mono logues, which I soaked in like a sponge, satisfying my insatiable curios ity in a state of constant reverence and even awe—for the raconteur and the content of his talks alike. Some of the local young and not-so-young Zionists came to him with plans for a reception they wanted to arrange in his honor. They also invited him for a lecture or recitation from his works. But he showed little interest. Since his early youth in this city when he was active in Zionist affairs, especially dur ing the elections to the Austrian Parli ament in 1907, when the Zionist can didate was Dr. Nathan Birnbaum, a JEWISH LIFE

visible change occurred in him. Not that his love for Zion was cooled off. On the contrary it deepened and be came even more ardent. But it took on other dimensions, and became more

and more close to the love of Zion of the great figures of the Rabbinic and Chassidic realms, especially of those who translated their longings into aliyah to Eretz Yisroel.

A L O N G THE PATHS OF THE PAST N our walks along the paths in the surrounding woods and on the bank of the River Stripa, Agnon tried to retrace the direction of his walks of years before, along with the inner struggles and dreams of those years. He recounted reminiscences, narrated past events, depicted persons, with all the craftsmanship which is the mark of his epic novels. It was a real de light for me to listen to his monologues —these were our “conversations”— full of tenderness, humor, and interest ing information. His talks, as his be havior, were adorned with gracious ness and kindness. His brilliance did not shine with impressive fireworks but was hidden in his genuine humility. In these conversations he never used high-sounding words—which he shuns also in his writings. He spoke calmly and softly, like one who is thinking aloud and makes clear some thoughts and things to himself. He was striving to revive the past in order to live it again. Through the force of his yearn ing he refreshed pale images and resur rected ancient happenings, so that these appeared in their fresh splendor of years before. He brought back to life heads of the community, teachers, scholars, Chassidim, spiritual leaders who had peopled his youth and now reverberated through his dreams and beliefs. Once we entered the old Beth Medrosh for the Minchah servioe. After we, his companions and the

January-February 1967

other congregants, had finished our Sh’moneh Esrey he still stood enwrap ped in deep contemplation for a long time. Another time we had lunch to gether and afterwards reciting the Birchath Hamazon, he did so with great, although restrained, fervor, as if counting every word, accentuating some with special emphasis. Listening to him I fully realized the meaning of the saying in the Talmud, “From the way a man says his B’rochah we rec ognize whether he is a Talmid Chochom. I confess that I was somewhat sur prised to see a Hebrew writer so dif ferent from his kind, since modern Hebrew writers have not been exactly renowned for their piety and religious observance. But is Agnon a modern Hebrew writer in the accepted sense? One who has seen Agnon, as I have, in his native town, in his old Beth Hamidrosh, in deep prayer, and who has read some of the more religious of his books, of which some are like prayers too, is bound to come to the conclusion that it is here, in the house of study and prayer, that his roots are implanted. Agnon, in contrast to most of his fellow-writers, is far from being uprooted even in the changed and changing times through which he has lived and the changing scenes amidst which he has dwelt. He has remained true to his beginnings and to the sources of his spiritual being and crea tion.

“Here,” for Agnon, embraces the many epochs of Jewish learning which were embedded layer upon layer in the sacred soil of the spiritual Buczacz, based on the very foundation of Jew ishness. Therefore, you cannot enjoy

the delight of Agnon’s works if you don’t know Buczacz—in the broader sense of “a town and mother in Is rael.” But let the author himself de scribe the town of his youth, dreams, and tales:

AS HE S A W IT UCZACZ lies on a mountain, and Buczacz in material and spiritual ruin. it seemed as though the stars Agnon had fallen into a melancholy were bound to her roof-tops. Sud mood. He told me with great sorrow denly the moon came out and lit up of the irreparable loss of the manu all the town. The River Stripa, which had previously been covered by dark script of his great novel—at that time ness, suddenly gleamed silver, and the and perhaps altogether his life’s work market fountain overflowed in silver —during a fire in his house in Homrivulets. One of the company said, burg, a resort near Frankfurt-on-Main I never in all my life knew that this in Germany, while he was sick in a town was so pleasant. It seems to me hospital. He never got over this loss. that there is nowhere in the world a But even more painful was the loss town as pleasant as ours. Every city, of his Buczacz—as he remembered it. remarked Reb Alter, the Shochet, in He faced then the disillusioning con which pleasant people live is pleasant. trast between the town alive in all its (“In the Heart of the Seas,” English translation, Schocken Books, New glory in his memory, imagination, and books, and the post-WOrld War I York, 1948). reality of decline, decay, and desola We took long walks in the streets tion. He was even more distressed by of this town, on its surrounding hills the hopelessness and lack of purpose and on the banks of the River Stripa. and future in this town and its younger And “walking” in Buczacz means generation. He was very pessimistic as climbing. The city was built on the to the whole East European Jewry. I was greatly influenced by his vi slopes of hills. You could either as cend or descend. From afar the town sion and by the only ray of hope presented an impressive panorama. It which he saw—Eretz Yisroel. looked like a storming sea. The roofs N the major novel “Oreach Nata of the small houses appeared to be Lalun” (“A Guest for the Night,” climbing one over the other. The whole town gave the effect of a pilpul to be published soon by Schocken sculptured in stone and concrete. Its Books in English translation) which appearance reflected the soul of its was born of that same last visit of which I have told, he expressed an un spiritual life. For me the town was new. But for characteristic pessimism, and captured Agnon it presented a confrontation the feeling of impending doom short with the past. And the confrontation ly before the Holocaust — notwith was very painful. After an absence standing that he did not, as no one of many years he came back to satisfy did, foresee the bestial cruelty of the his yearning for it. But he found Germans.

JEWISH LIFE

Agnon escaped from the doomed city into the new life abuilding in Is rael and—into the past of the same Buczacz. And so he retained in his words and tales the authentic image of the destroyed world of his, and our, child hood and youth. He sees the Jews of Buczacz, of everyone’s Buczacz, not only in the aura of the sublime but also through the delicate veil of his subtle irony which lightens the pro found seriousness of his stories. I re call how he described how Chaim Choker in Buczacz castigates his son Berish with these words: “Berish, my son, what will become of you? You are already eighteen, Franz Joseph at your age was already Emperor of Austria—and you? . . OST writers have their Archime M des point in outer space, outside their own life. Agnon—his whole be ing, his thoughts, his experiences and environment, and most of all his na tive town, like similar villages of Jew ish learning and piety—was the sum of many centuries of spiritual and liv ing creativeness accumulated in the ancient books, traditions, and in the way of life in vibrant and complete Jewish commitment. As the Jews of Buczacz studied the different sacred sephorim—as dis tinguished from books in the usual sense—stemming from epochs far apart, and as they forged them into one entity which in turn formed the completeness of their Jewishness—so

Agnon in his writings welded the language of the Bible, of Mishnah and Midrosh, of the Rabbinic codes, together with the style of the Chassidic tales of the 18th and 19th centuries. He captured their flavor and their pre cision and perfection. He absorbed the resonance of their melodies, the syn tax and cadence of the voices of Tal mudic Rabbis and Chassidic Rebbes, and those of their pupils and follow ers, so that you hardly can tell when these cease and Agnon takes ovei*, He so absorbed the ancient sources that they became part of himself. Even what is his own he owes to them. His style became undistinguishable from theirs. His tales are a continuation from where they left off. There is completeness in his writ ings as there was wholeness in the way of life of his heroes, an echo of which he preserved in several of his tales, a timeless echo of the ancient and yet vital civilization which was destroyed when the Germans killed its bearers. In his memorable acceptance speech at the ceremony of receiving the Nobel Prize, in the Swedish Royal Academy, Sh’muel Yoseph Agnon said: “I will try to make clear from whom I got what. First of all from the Tanach, then from the Mishnah, Gemora, Midrashim, and Rashi’s Commentary on the Chumosh. Be sides this, from the Codifications of our Law, the Poskim, and from our saintly medieval poets and thinkers, with our teacher Maimonides on the top. And from the nights spent with the Chassidim and pious men.”

G U A R D IA N OF THE SACRED HERITAGE H PH IS great heritage he enshrined JL particularly in two of his books which seem to be no more than com-

January-February 1967

pilations. “Yomin Nor aim” (English translation, “The Days of Awe,” Schocken Books, New York 1948, 21

or perusing them, particularly in the Days of Awe during the intervals in the long services on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. Knowing the au thor, J £m sure that he must consider this as one of his great achievements and most gratifying rewards. What can be more rewarding for a man of Buczacz than that a sepher of his should be worthy of joining the com pany of the Books of “Men of Buc zacz” (a bibliographical compilation by S. Y. Agnon, Jerusalem 1958). GNON is a most fascinating and A at the same time complicated phenomenon in the world of literature.

Sh'muel Yoseph Agnon

1965) and “Atem Raitherri’ (“You Saw”) . Here you find the very quintes sence of Buczacz and of Agnon, who is an integral part of it more than of the world of letters to which he be longs through his art. Through the prisma of this writer these two works reflect the authentic spirit of many centuries. To me, they rank as sephorim, works fashioned of Torah sanctity, rather than as mere books. Through these Sephorim, into which he poured his entire being, Agnon achieved the greatest of his, probably unconscious to himself, ambitions— to become part of the Sephorim cases and shelves of the Old Beth Hamidrosh and by the same token of the true Jewish home whose centerpiece is the Sephorim case. Those two Sephorim of his were timeless already as they were written. Increasingly, they have become a com panion to the Machzor, with more and more synagogue worshippers studying

His writings as well as his personality are both composed of different and often contrasting elements. His gen uine simplicity is joined with refine ment, his naivete with sophistication. It is hard not to detect traces of deli cate irony even in his most serious writings. His deadpan earnestness is mingled with mild sarcasm. The nat ural humor and good-natured mockery —of which the subject is often the author himself—is part of his charm and endows with a special, pleasant flavor even his tragic tales, such as “Two Tales,” “The Bridal Canopy,” and “Edo and Enam.” Clear as is his language and simple as is his style, yet most of his stories have an am bivalence that appears also in his say ings and doings. Some of his novels are darkly mystic. They have always more than one meaning, and conceal more than they reveal, and even what they reveal is not always easy to grasp. Agnon’s handwriting is notoriously difficult to read. His letters, hand written, always require effort on my part to “decode”— (but it is well worth the effort—they are always richly meaningful). The late Mizrachi leader JEWISH LIFE

and Israel Minister of Religions Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon once quipped: “Agnon’s handwriting is ^o illegible that even when printed I have diffi culty to read it!” Not surprisingly, this ambiguity opened a lasting field day for many interpreters and commentators, pene trating analysts, and scholarly critics. Some of them have created strange and complicated structures on the foundations of his ambiguous stories, so simple yet abundant in hidden sym bols. They operate on the theory that it cannot be that simple. . . . Agnon himself reacted to this ava lanche of interpretations in his typi cal manner, saying: I write just a simple tale—then comes Professor (Baruch) Kurzweil and explains to me what I really want to say. . . . Not only is Sh’muel Yoseph Agnon different from other contemporary Hebrew writers—his writings actually constitute an indirect rebuke to most of them, particularly to those who saw and depicted only or mostly the shadows of the Jew’s life in the Golah. He penetrated behind the outer cover to the core of the Jewish soul. He made shine the invisible light in the Eastern European Jew. He saw, and revealed, not only the light of Judaism but also the light in the Jew. If the Jew is likened in the Talmud to a sacred Torah Scroll, Agnon put the Kether, the Torah Crown, on the head of the Jew. Or perhaps one should rather say that the Crown was there, but invisible, and he revealed its hid den splendor. EADING his novels, some may succumb to the superficial notion that in content and in form they are parochial, provincial, narrow-minded.

January-February 1967

They contain, however, basic human elements which are timeless. The world has become aware of the time lessness, the universality of Agnon’s works, as manifest in the universal recognition expressed by the awarding of the Nobel Prize to this most Jew ish writer. The honor bestowed on Agnon, a resident of Jerusalem for about forty years, naturally reflects honor also on the State of Israel and its literature. But Agnon is not an Israeli writer in the strict sense. He is far from the currents governing the modern Israeli literateurs who are trying hard to ac commodate themselves to the modern trends of world literature—whatever they may represent at the moment. What is more, only a small part of Agnon’s works deal with the present Israeli reality as it appears in the daily life of most Israelis. He is, therefore, rather unrepresentative of contempo rary Israeli literature. No wonder then that many writers there, and some also in this country, received the news of the award of the Nobel Prize to Agnon with mixed feelings. Some of them could not suppress their chagrin even amidst the general elation. Agnon’s apartness from the mainstream of modern Hebrew literature was also emphasized in his acceptance speech in Stockholm, written in that Torah language which he so absorbed that it became part of himself. Individualistic writer as he is, he typifies rather the Talmid Chochom and believing Jew of Eastern Europe than the Israeli literateur of today. This is not the lan guage of the streets, of the office, of the press, or even of the schools of Israel. He captured and preserved the rhythm and cadence of the timeless Sephorim and registered the voices and sighs of thé Goluth Jew living

his own life in an alien and often hos tile environment.

tant secularism and destructive ni hilism. His writings constitute a revolt Agnon does not even try to bring against the revolt of the modern He together the Jew of Buczacz with the brew literature aimed at the ancestral present generation of Israel—a san beliefs and sacred values. His works guine undertaking anyway. Instead he are an implicit protest against the re makes the Jews of Buczacz join their jection of the Jewish heritage, against brethren from another exile, Sura and undermining the very foundations of Pumbeditha, the ancient centers of the Judaism and leaving a blank void. Babylonian Diaspora. He will begin While most of his contemporary with one style, th at of the Mishnah colleagues fixed their gaze, as if in a and Midrosh, pass on to another, that trance, outside their own culture; of the Rabbinic responsa and com Agnon concentrated his vision on his mentaries, and then go over to the own. Like Reb Yudel of his novel language of the Chassidic tales, bring “The Bridal Canopy” who covered his ing together generations centuries eyes with a scarf in order not to be apart in a dialogue on contemporary diverted from his inner Jewish topics. As a matter of fact almost all world into a foreign one, so did of Agnon’s characters speak in dia Agnon. Like Marc Chagall’s vitrages, logues, and in the same Loshon Hako- Agnon’s windowpanes are not de desh and in the same idiom. He thus signed to let outside light in, but to manages to conjure identical images, depict and illumine the content of the manners, and mannerisms of persons inner Jewish life. He realized a long of far away and present epochs—most time ago that in all the movability and of them of the Diasporas and only a diversity of ideas and trends, and in few from Israel. all the changeability of literary fash ions, the Beth Hamidrosh remains, as A GNON’S novels, beginning with it always was, the rock of strength. “And the Crooked Will Become N his “A Guest for the Night” Straight” and “Agunoth,” and finish Agnon symbolically lost the key of ing with “Days Gone By,” are not merely nostalgic reminiscences. Nor is the old Beth Hamidrosh of Buczacz it yearning only for the lost paradise— —which was anyway emptied of its which was no paradise at all—but a Talmudic students. He spent all the conjuring of the past and conquering years since in search of the lost keys. lost worlds with their spiritual treas Did he find it finally? ures. At the same time he is the lit His latest works, speeches, utterances erary archivist of the destroyed civili and his way of life, gives the clue to zation of Galician Jewry, its traditions the answer. And not less his whole and creativeness, all framed in undis behavior and attitude toward this great turbed piety and simple faith. Rab adventure—the winning of the Nobel binic Responsa and Chassidic lore, Prize and the ceremonies around it homiletic brilliance and Talmudic which appeared to the author like scholarship— all reverberate in his “a tale by Agnon,” as he summarized world which confronts a world of mili the events. He travelled through many

JEWISH LIFE

countries with only Loshon Hakodesh on his tongue, and the Yarmulke on his head, while we saw “a man handy in his craftsmanship as he appeared before kings.” He did not accom modate himself, as he did not his pen, to the glitterings and demands of the outer world, and did not try to

January-February 1967

imitate, to be other than he always was. He remained himself. And by his representing a Jew strong in his faith, true to him self and the sacred values and tradi tions of his people, Agnon showed that he had found the key to the Beth Hamidrosh.

Agnon's Image of Jewish History By O . F E U C H T W A N G E R

SRAEL AND WORLD JEWRY may justifiably be proud that a believing, observant Jew, Sh’muel Yoseph Agnon, has been awarded a Nobel Prize for Literature, the first Hebrew writer to be so honored. Agnon, dean of Hebrew writing for decades, received in the course of his career all available Literature awards in Israel. He has been translated into most world languages. And now the Nobel Prize has been given to him specifically for being the acknowl edged master of contemporary He brew literary achievement. What makes Agnon the outstand ing Hebrew writer of our time? His fiction mainly depicts pre-World War I life as it pulsated in the “Shtetl,” the characteristic Jewish township in the lands between the Baltic and the Black Sea. Agnon himself is a product of one of these, Buczacz in Austrian Galicia, where he was born in 5648 (1888). We must not however look in Agnon’s tales for an idealization of the “Shtetl.” He presents it to us with all its warts, its shortcomings, problems, imposses, quarrels, preju dices, jealousies, pettiness, and help-

lessness against persecution, but on the other hand never ignores—unlike many sceptical authors of earlier gen erations—its basic homogeneity, its spiritual outlook and search for ideals, its inner self-sufficiency, its power of transcending physical limitations and of regenerating itself even from utter chaos. Many of Agnon’s avid readers of course find themselves transplanted by his themes to the realm of their youth to which they always look back nostalgically. Agnon himself may have wanted to probe through his works into the nature of the soil in which he had his roots and which gave him strength and stamina for life. But in order to understand Agnon, his crea tions and the spell he casts on his readers, we must delve a bit deeper into Jewish history.

I N our generation we have witnessed JL a major turning point in the des tinies of the Jewish people. This is the shift of the cultural center of gravity of World Jewry away from Europe where it had resided for pracJEWISH LIFE

tically a thousand years. For the first half of this period it was concentrated in the countries bordering the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, but for the last 500 years until World War II its center had become Poland. Polish Jewry, aware of its responsibilities and potentialities, organized itself in the “Synod of Four Lands” from the 16th to the 18th century and thus was spiritually as well as politically au tonomous. It therefore had a chance to evolve a purely Jewish culture, un tainted by alien influences. Chassidism with all its creativity was one example out of many of its attainments. The fact that this culture, already shattered by the ravages and aftermath of World War I, was destroyed by Hitler’s Holocaust, made Agnon and many like-minded thinkers won der about the spiritual future of the Jewish people. Whether it is at all possible to re-create such a noble and vital culture outside Europe is very problematic but an author’s secret weapon is always his capacity to bring the past back to life in the present by means of literary creations. This is precisely the solution which Agnon attempted. His writings ever proclaim and maintain the continuity of Jewish his tory. He aims at uncovering the fabric and even the seams of East European Jewish society, the collective body which had been capable of sustaining the Jewish spirit in its richest manifes tations for so many centuries. Its very weaknessses Agnon shows, are paradoxically proof of the great strength elsewhere which enabled East European Jewry to produce such a unique culture. If ever the typical Jewish common man who makes up the Jewish people has been described as such, it is in Agnon’s tales. This

January-February 1967

is what makes them so popular, they are so thoroughly and exclusively Jewish. One of Agnon’s ways of convey ing his message was his adoption of pure Midrashic Hebrew as his vehicle of expression. He has thus made this strain of Hebrew current once more as only a supreme and accomplished artist can, but fundamentally he used the specific language of one most creative era for resuscitating another. Just as the Shtetl was able to tran scend space, time, and circumstances, so too has Jewish history at large ever done—this is symbolised by Agnon’s choice of language. Present-day Israel must look for its cultural roots in a soil which has al ready given ample proof of its rich and nutritious ingredients. These roots are being traced and pinpointed by Agnon in the description of his heroes. His art unites past and present in order to produce a future worthy of either. Agnon’s symbolism, however, often goes much deeper. Many figures and incidents in his writing present archetypes of Jewish character and human inter-action. The decoding of their full symbolic meaning may take centuries but the message is there for those capable of receiving it. In conclusion a short story, subtly but forcefully elaborating Midrashic motives and laden with symbols, will be rendered here in English, although its almost tangible beauty bound up with its wonderful Hebrew can ob viously not be translated. It is left to the reader to gauge the infinite depth and lasting significance of the tale. Its concept of the divinely creative nature of true selfless spirituality, an everrecurring feature of our past, has been endorsed by no one less than the Maharal of Prague.

YISSACHAR AND ZEVULUN By Sh'muel Yoseph Agnon Translated by O. Feuchtwanger When Yissachar went to claim his due portion in Paradise his account was checked and read as follows: “Yissachar studied the Torah for two days.” Yissachar was perplexed, he said: “Is it possible that I who all my life never left the tent of Torah Study and who willingly submitted to its yoke should not have been credited with more than two days of study”? He was asked: “Yissachar, how did you live in the world you have come from?” He answered: “I had a brother named Zevulun who made me his partner. He lived near the sea, travelled overseas on business and earned money. He maintained me so that I could sit and learn Torah.” He was told: “If so, the Torah you learnt belongs to Zevulun, since but for him engaging in commerce you could not have studied and thus you have reaped your reward in life. The two days credited to you are those on which your brother was late in providing your livelihood and notwithstanding you did not give up but continued to study hard.” Yissachar now asked: “And what is Zevulun’s reward?” They brought the ledger and found written there: “Zevulun studied Torah all his life but for two days.” They checked the date and found these were the very two days on which he had delayed providing for Yissachar. Yissachar sighed so heavily that it was heard throughout the whole of Paradise. Zevulun said: “This sounds to me like my brother Yissachar’s voice, I will go and see.” He found him in distress. Zevulun now said: “If any reward is due to me it is solely thanks to my brother Yissachar studying Torah. Thus I did not maintain him but he maintained me, and now ought moreover to grab his portion in Paradise?” Yissachar however answered: “Do you really think I would occupy your place in Paradise? Would I allow your table to be empty and mine full?” But Zevulun said: “It is your portion, not mine, as everything good awaiting me here accured only from the Torah you learnt.” Zevulun never returned to his place in Paradise, as he would thus have pained Yissachar, nor would Yissachar take his beloved Zevulun’s place. Now the Almighty himself said: “Yissachar and Zevulun, you effaced yourselves for each other. For the sake of your mutual love I will extend your portion.” At that instant Zevulun’s place in Paradise stretched and provided space also for Yissachar. Up to this very moment Yissachar and Zevulun both dwell in Paradise and study the Torah together, enjoying at the same time the splendour of the Divine Presence and the Almighty crowned them with His Glory. As Zevulun had sup ported Yissachar’s hands and Yissachar had supported Zevulun’s reward, the Almighty supports His Glory upon them. THE END

JEWISH LIFE

The New Style of American Orthodox Jewry By MARVIN SCHICK

T IS common knowledge by now that orthodox Jewry in this country is making rapid advances and is, in a real sense, the healthiest segment of American Jewry. It is often remarked nowadays that the gloomy predictions of certain extinction of a generation ago have given way to a new spirit and buoyancy; even lifelong detractors of Torah Judaism would agree with the conclusion of an important recent study by Professor Charles Liebman that “there is a recognition and anima tion for Orthodoxy as the only group which today contains within it a strength and will to live that may yet nourish all the Jewish world.” So al tered is the mood within the commu nity that it is sometimes necessary to advance a corrective to those who see only the happier side of recent devel opments; after all, in a population es timated at 5.5 million, estimates of the numbers of Shomrey Shabboth range from 200,000 to, at most, 500,000, and the combined enrollment of ele mentary and high school level day schools is some 65,000 with about an other 4,000 attending the major yeshivoth and the kollelim. Still, the evidence of success and

January-February 1967

growth is not to be denied. If the agenda of unfinished business is long, we can take satisfaction from the exist ence of a list of our problems, for this suggests that there are people of talent and resources who are committed to their resolution. Almost unnoticed in all of the recog nition of this new vitality are the in evitable behavioral by-products that are implicit in any situation of dy namic growth. To believe that Or thodoxy’s style and institutions re main static is to fail to grasp much of the true meaning of the unfolding revolution. Certain changes already manifest themselves in the emerging of new organizations and the chang ing roles of some of the older ones and in relations within the orthodox community and between the orthodox and non-orthodox and non-Jewish worlds. This article is an attempt to ex amine some of these behavioral pat terns. The ideas expressed here are tentative and may be undermined by subsequent investigation or develop ments (which is not to say that the writer does not regard them as valid). The hope is that they will suggest avenues of inquiry to those who are

seriously concerned with trends in the Torah world. HE locus of vitality within the Jewish religious community today is found in the Yeshivah sphere and the Chassidic groups. This is an* em pirical judgment, not a normative one. In recent years these sectors of Amer ican Orthodoxy have had profound in fluence on the tendencies and practices of the entire Jewish community, and these sectors are the nurturing sources of what is popularly labelled the “right wing” of Orthodoxy. The “new or thodox left”—whose newness is more a matter of personalities than of ideo logical development—is an interesting and often challenging phenomenon. But it has received its prime recogni tion from outside the traditional com munity and has made minor impact on the rank and file of observant Jews, even including those who are regarded as “left-wing.” On the other hand, the rightist forces have had a wide effect in many areas. This is most apparent in the field of Chinuch and in the articulation of issues that are regarded as relevant to the community, and also in what can be called the style of orthodox Jewish activity. The aggres sive confidence of the one element, with its lesser involvement in the wider

Jewish community, stands in marked contrast to the increasingly defensive posture of the part of the community that traditionally has maintained cor dial ties with non-orthodox elements within Jewry. In fact, the most significant by-prod uct of orthodox Jewry’s new status in America is the aggressiveness with which it is moving towards a selfdetermined course on the Jewish scene. Corollary to this is the incessant pres sure on the left flank to choose be tween smoother relations with the mil itants of the right, on the one hand, and the non-orthodox agencies, par ticularly those of Conservatism and Reform, on the other. This develop ment emerges as a sub-theme of Pro fessor Liebman’s work. The Rabbini cal Council of America (R.C.A.), he writes, “has moved to the right in recent years, though not as far to the right as its separationists would like”; or, on the Young Israel movement: “Another factor accounting for the changes in Young Israel has been the general move to the right within Or thodoxy.” And, overall, he finds that “Orthodoxy today is defining its role in particular and differentiated terms and more than ever before sees itself as insulated from other Jews.”

PRESSURES O N THE "ESTABLISHMENT" HESE are cruel pressures and de mands for decision that confront much of what may be called the Amer ican orthodox Jewish establishment. The position of the forces typified by the R.C.A. is increasingly uncom fortable. This is not as true of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions of America, which by its nature

embraces a broader diversity of the elements that make up American Or thodoxy. These organizations have achieved a major role on the Jewish scene. Yet they see that groups with little experience in communal affairs are exercising increasing influence over the social and political attitudes with in the community. With reluctance JEWISH LIFE

they “move to the right” while seek ing to retain ties with the rest of the Jewish world. Already their strategic position with respect to the Synagogue Council of America (S.C.A.) is mark edly affected. The issue of participa tion in S.C.A. symbolizes more than anything else the tendency pervading Orthodoxy to disengage from associa tions with the heterodox movements. The Synagogue Council’s orthodox members, UOJCA and R.C.A., more determinedly than before refuse to per mit the S.C.A. to enter into internal Jewish affairs, restricting it to its orig inal sphere of inter-religious and com munal relations. This condition satis fies neither the Reform and Conser vative groups nor those who demand complete withdrawal of the orthodox agencies from the Synagogue Council. When the “establishment” yields to these pressures it does not become much more acceptable to the Right or successful in relating to the rest of the community, if only because the past record of discord is not conducive to smooth relations. Additionally, the ability of the rightist forces to get what they want may spur new militancy, in which case the movement to adjust differences is offset by the escalation in demands and the gap is as great as ever. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the pressures so far have been generated ¿mostly by the Yeshivah world. This is less insulated from the broader currents of commu nity life than are certain Chassidic groups. Thus, the Yeshivah world is itself subject to unique pressures wThich may require it to make its own accom modations. LLUSTRATIVE of this situation is Young Israel, where, according to JLiebman, “the general move to the

January-February 1967

right was more pronounced . . . than elsewhere”—and, yet, is no more favored today by the products of the Yeshivah world (not to mention Chassidism) than it was a dozen or more years ago. Ironically, too, competent observers believe that Young Israel is less successful now than it once was in projecting an image as an impor tant force in orthodox Jewish life. When the establishment forces move farther to the right they are likely to find that their situation is somewhat similar. It should not be thought that this condition is due to deficiencies in leadership; two reasons have al ready been given to account for the phenomenon. There is a more basic one, which makes the position of the left wing so difficult. Movement to the right is usually conceived of in terms of issues and this alone, without more meaningful organic associations with the sources of orthodox militancy, which are not easily attained, can not bring about acceptance by the right wing. The communities and social institu tions which give sustenance to the one element are obviously not the same as those that serve the same function for the other. These root social forces—e.g.: yeshivoth, rab binical positions, synagogues-rtpold the positions of the several types of orthodox groups. When the left-wing reverses position, what essentially oc curs is that the leadership shifts views; for at least some time there will be dissonance between the atti tudes of leaders and of members, and the activities of the root institutions do not reflect the new leadership po sition. Actually this is what has occured within the Young Israel move ment; and so. long as the basic unit of the R.C.A. is the practicing rabbi (at-

tached to a synagogue) and that of the UOJCA the congregation, their experience will be similar to that of the young Israel. The leadership of these groups may move closer to the leadership of the Yeshivah forces, and this no doubt will facilitate commu nications with right-wing leaders. It will not, however, insure that their or ganizations will be, fully accepted by the right-wing ranks. From the socio logical standpoint, in the context of American orthodox Jewry (circa 5727), an element rooted in yeshivoth cannot avoid being to the right of or ganizations whose core is the syna gogue or the rabbi—and in turn the Yeshivah element cannot avoid being to the left of that which is rooted in the Chassidic domain. T IS apparent that deep frustrations await those groups that seek to “ap

pease” the militants to the right of them when they find that their accom modations have not materially en hanced their relations with the latter. It is of the nature of militancy that success, at least at first, does not mod erate demands. It is catalytic to further assertiveness. The lessón that the mili tant group is cagâble of attaining its objectives is rapidly converted into a rationale for the establishment of new goals that not long before were regarded as unreachable. But how are forces which have attempted to ac commodate and still find themselves pressured, to react, except as hurt and surprised? Thus the White community, the people who are pro-Negro rights, cannot understand increased Negro militancy after so much progress has been made. The Whites are right, of course, but they do not understand the process of revolution.

C LIM ATE OF INTERACTION A LONG with the vitality and milijltL tancy, there is another character

istic of the current orthodox Jewish scene that affects relations among Torah groups and must add to the un ease of certain responsible circles. In creasingly, it seems, the tone of com munal interaction is shrill or strident; positions are articulated in terms of demands; relations are power strug gles; there is almost no grace or calm ness of mind when the business of Orthodoxy is transacted. Stridency and belligerency are im plicit in a revolutionary situation, which is what we have in orthodox Jewish life today. (The several words should not be taken as implying a crit-

icism of the conduct of traditional Jewish affairs.) This style sharply con ditions intra-orthodox relations. It makes the choices now confronting the left-wing groups more painful because they are being asked to curtail rather sophisticated and friendly relations with the non-orthodox by what they regard as, at times unknowledgeable right-wing leaders who are insensitive to the need to retain viable channels of communication with the non-re ligious Jewish world, with its larger public dimensions and greater power. Whatever else contacts with non-orth odox agencies—through such units as the National Community Relations Advisory Council, Conference of PresJEWISH LIFE

idents of Major Jewish Organizations, Synagogue Council of America, or on an individual basis—are usually cor dial. Certain fundamental amenities are adhered to, the culture pervading these contacts promotes calm bargain ing, compromise, consensus, and unity, so much so that overt and public dis agreement is almost deviant behavior. Such an atmosphere is so conducive to agreement that given agencies may be induced to support positions to which segments of their constituencies are strongly opposed. Thus, for example, the Orthodox Union successfully pre vailed for years upon the other organ izations in the NCRAC, and also, to gether with the R.C.A., those in the Synagogue Council of America, to ad here to its position on Humane Slaughter legislation, notwithstanding a powerful groundswell of opposition on the part of constituents of the non orthodox organizations. On the other hand, on the issue of governmental aid to parochial schools, the Orthodox Union did not diverge from the posi tion of the other NCRAC agencies until the “Child Aid”—keyed Federal Education Act of 1965—won its sup port. F form and style contribute to con tinued relations between the left wing and non-orthodox, they also serve as barriers to intra-orthodox communi cation. Plainly put, rational people, when they can do so, eschew contact with people or groups that are re garded as hostile or disagreeable. They seek relations with those whose style they regard as similar to their own. Quite a few leaders of the orthodox left seem more uncomfortable at meet-

January-February 1967

ings with belligerent right-wingers than they are when they get together with non-orthodox leaders who eat with un covered heads, etc. One facet of orthodox Jewry’s cur rent style may not be an outgrowth of the ferment in the community but does, however, affect its relations with non-orthodox groups and the nonJewish world. This is the non-intel lectual and even anti-intellectual re sponse to Jewish issues. This phenom enon is perhaps the expected result of the past feebleness of American ortho dox Jewry. If so, it will doubtless prove to be transient, changing as Orthodoxy in this country matures. At present it must at least be noted for, on the one hand, it accounts for both the total unawareness of so many and the lack of analysis of the dimensions and ramifications of such key issues as relations with other religious groups, attitude to Jewish Federations, govern mental assistance to religion-related schools, the situation of Soviet Jewry, and the state of Torah education, to name some of the more pressing ones. On the other hand, even where the issue is penetrated and considered, there is lacking the degree of concep tualization which would lead to at least the attempt to establish frames of references conditioning responses on the several issues. For example, on the aid to education question, where Or thodoxy has detached itself from the historic church-state position of Amer ican Jewry, there has hardly been any articulation of an alternative standard which would serve as a guide to posi tions on the whole range of issues sub sumed under the concept of separation of church and state.

UN IFYIN G A N D DIVISIVE FACTORS HE trends discussed to this point may be thought to darken the prospects for unity within Torah Jew ry, a subject that is viewed with great urgency by some of the more (Compe tent leaders of Orthodoxy. Actually, unity of sorts will be significantly ad vanced by the internal processes that have been described, although unity of a different kind will be impeded by the same processes. This is possible be cause in a social system unity can op erate on any of several levels—per sonal, policy, functional, organiza tional, communal, etc. While social forces may promote coalescence in some of these areas, divisive tendencies may appear in others. The pressures on Orthodoxy’s left-wing result in movements to the right which increase the range and agreement of issues con fronting or, more accurately, consid ered relevant to, traditional Jewish life. On the other hand, inevitably in creasing involvement in public affairs and the varied concerns facing Jewry as a whole have an educational effect on the right-wing forces. On such mat ters as Synagogue Council, Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, Fed eral Aid, Russian Jewry, relations with the non-orthodox, Israel issues—in short, on policy questions where Or thodoxy has been divided—we will see more agreement and concerted action. This will be an important develop ment, but a limited form of unity. Actually, it will be more in the form of cooperation, suggestive of bargain ing and agreement among different groups, and the organizational struc ture promoting concerted action will be ad hoc. (Moreover, as was ex plained, it will neither close the gap between Orthodoxy’s polar groups nor

make the one wing more appreciated by the other.) Real unification is pos sible only through the highest level of unity possible in orthodox life, dissolv ing all notions of right and left wings, and that is communal unity. This level is still far away. Only time, the im pact of a shared American experience over a period of years, can make it a reality. Communal unity is not merely the expression of accord on issues or strat egies by Orthodoxy’s overt superstruc ture. It is to be derived only from the oneness of the social substructure. It cannot be without the coming into being of organic relationships, struc turally and functionally, determining the overall pattern of orthodox Jewry’s behavior. So that, for example, the functions and structures of Chinuch are organically related to the functions and structure of synagogue activity or Kashruth or Gemilath Chesed. “Com munal unity” is another term for “community” where the concept of community presupposes the existence of a culture and a style pervading all of the institutions of the community. These conditions are not now present in traditional Jewish life, and this is not surprising, given the limited ex perience of Torah Jewry in this coun try and the differentiated experiences of differentiated American orthodox groups. ONTINUED internal discord will initially complicate but may ulti C mately facilitate the development of a common, soundly based orthodox Jew ish attitude and response to the non religious community. Relations with Conservatism and Reform constitutes an issue on which pressures will proJEWISH LIFE

mote greater integral solidarity. More generally; these pressures will make definitive the area of disagreement and non-cooperation between traditionally religious Jewry and the rest of the organized Jewish community. Like wise, they will result in more disci plined and more effective participation in fields where cooperation is found requisite and justifiable. It will be a matter of the greatest import to see how this increased iso lation will affect contacts between or thodox Jews and non-orthodox Jews. It should not be thought that a reduc tion in interactions with non-orthodox leadership and groups will further alienate the religious from the non religious. Left-wing orthodox groups, in defending certain of their policies, have argued that they demonstrate their concern with the fate of the wide ranks of American Jews who have become estranged from their religious heritage. This is a misstate ment of the true relationship; mem bership in mixed agencies may be re garded as just and beneficial, but this is not a meaningful manifestation of orthodox responsibility for all of Jewry. Such cooperation or identifica tion cannot extend beyond the formid able organizational structure to the non-religious masses.

At the same time, much of Torah Jewry has been notoriously delinquent as regards recognition (much less ful fillment) of their responsibilities in this regard, so much so that there is almost total refusal to acknowledge that there is a problem. In the past, perhaps, this was because Orthodoxy was so severely lacking in internal strength and confidence in its own sur vival and had to employ its feeble re sources for the preservation of au thentic Judaism, without externalizing any of these for the benefit of all of Jewry. Too, it may have been thought that Zionist fervor would give many of the irreligious a committment of sorts to Judaism, thus preventing their total alienation. With the decline of Zion ism, there is now lacking a force that could bend those who have rejected (or have never been taught) the tradition of their religion. Intermarriage is at epidemic proportions; the vanishing American Jew is more than a maga zine headline. In the face of what should be a most disturbing picture, orthodox Jewry—more confident and vigorous than ever—cannot merely in ternalize its efforts. The development of modes of personal contact with non-orthodox Jews is a major chal lenge to Orthodoxy and a test of its maturity and rationality.

EXTERNAL RELATIONS N a real way, orthodox Jewry’s re lations with the rest of organized Jewry rresemble the situation in intra orthodox affairs. Reform, Conserva tive, and secular groups, more aware of orthodox assertiveness, are more desirous to accommodate orthodox in terests. They are more concerned with

January-February 1967

the problems of Sabbath observers in public and private employment, in creasingly recognize the financial pres sures on yeshivoth, and in the roof agencies they often are willing to mod erate positions so as to receive ortho dox support. Yet, these moves are not likely to 35

counteract the tendencies that foster of orthodox Jewish interests; as a re orthodox rejection or cooperation with sult of the evaporation of intellectual non-orthodox. Perhaps, as a result of ity a further narrowing of the frame their failure to be understood or ac of reference occurs, so that the interest cepted properly, the non-orthodox will context comprises short-term needs, decide on a go-it-alone approach to excluding longer range goals and chal Jewish affairs. lenges. Paralleling the inner dynamics The orthodox revolution, manifested of the orthodox revolution, the success in current trends and style, also affects of demands on government breeds relations with the non-Jewish world, further militancy and demands. More particularly in political matters. Ac over, the style hardly varies with the companying the right-wing pressures, issue; every problem is regarded as stridency, and non-intellectual ap very urgent and advanced with great proach there appears a more ethnic re intensity. The refusal of public of sponse to public affairs. Issues and ficials to accede to a particular de personalities are perceived in terms mand is regarded as evidence of hos of Jewish content and identification, tility, no matter how they may have certainly more so than previously. acted on other questions. Moreover, Within this narrower context, there is there is growing tendency to support much less acceptance by orthodox Jewish candidates qua Jews, and or Jews of the historic American Jewish thodox Jews running for office are to commitment to liberal principles and be preferred above all others. programs of the conventional stamp. In sum, in the area of political life Questions that do not affect Jewish in orthodox Jewry is now evolving into terests are often not perceived and or an ethnic pressure group, much the thodox organizations are at times re same in character as other ethnic luctant to take positions. When issues groups whose style and demands have arise affecting the interests of other been deprecated by orthodox and non ethnic groups whose demands are re orthodox Jews alike, This behavior is garded as hostile to Jews, there is a another by-product of the orthodox sharp negative reaction. Recently, in revolution; in common with the other New York City, there was obvious characteristics described in this article support among many orthodox people it can be defended both as rational for positions on certain public ques and warranted. tions that were also supported by the Conservative party. HAT is needed, however, is not This is not merely an orthodox (re normative evaluation of the or lated to a more important Jewish and thodox revolution. It is far more im non-Jewish) backlash against the portant that we have competent exami Negro revolution. What is occurring is nation of the processes and dynamics more fundamental and broader; (po of orthodox Jewish life so that leader litical “illiberalism” among orthodox ship will have a clearer understanding Jews covers a range of social issues. of what is happening and thus be able There is a tendency to conceive of gov to make their decisions more con ernment in terms of internal needs. sistent with their own conceptions of Demands are articulated in the context Jewish affairs.

JEWISH LIFE

The Secret Life of Velvet Mittstein A brief moral tale, from a short story by Jdmei Thurber, with apologies to the la tte r-----By CYRIL DOMB (Any similarity to any known persons in this or the next world is purely coincidental.—C.D.) Illustrated by Eri4 a Canton HEN the Almighty granted a male descendant to Reb Moishe Mittstein it was natural that he should be called Velvel, after his illustrious grandfather. Who in pre-war Eastern Europe had not heard of the famous Reb Velvel Mittstein, the formidable Talmudist and Halachist, and author of the outstanding Sepher “Z’ev Yitroph.” Rev Velvel was an outspoken and militant Mithnaged. He had lit tle patience with Chassidic Rebbes— he immediately engaged them in halachic discussions about the latest time for davening Minchah, or eating in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzereth. Above all he believed that the com mandment f You shall not fear any man” was not merely a passive injunc tion, but needed to be practiced ac tively. And he demonstrated this in the title and content of the aforemen tioned work wherein he fearlessly tore down all those who dared to oppose his arguments. When Reb Velvel passed on to the True World, his eldest son, Reb Moishe, carried on the family tradi tion of Torah learning with a zeal that the cataclysm of war, when it came, could not crush. Arriving desti-

January-February 1967

tute in England just after the war, Reb Moishe was compelled to devote most of his energy and tinfe to earning a livelihood. He therefore resolved that if the Almighty saw fit tb grant him a son, he would take thè lame name as his father and would bfe trained to fol low in his footsteps. Réb Moishe’s first four children were all gitls. In despair he began to examine his deeds and actions, since he seemédj to have been doomed unworthy of thè great honor. And then the great dà Jr arrived. To the B’rith Milah Reb Moishe invited every Talmid Chochoitt within reach (and many even beyond reach). Times had changed after the terrible Churbon, and Reb Moishe felt obliged by social pressure to invitte some Chassi dic Rebbes. But he sefcretly regretted that he had not the stflngth of char acter to take the firm find consistent line of his late father land he hoped that young Velvel would grow up with a firmer disposition. F ir many hours there were Torah disccjiifses, most of them based on the Chldushim of the great Reb Velvel, and -several of the older Rabbonim recalled in anecdotes how he had reduced ^illustrious op ponents to the status of Cheder boys.

young Velvel grew up, no op about this time his teachers began in A Sportunity was missed of pointing troducing him to Gemora Bova Kama; and it was all about oxen goring and

out what was expected of him. Nat urally he was sent to the best Jewish other types of damage, and he felt more and more school (best in the lost. On rare occa Torah sense) and sions there was a his Torah teachers passage of Agodah. were eager to focus His eyes would their attention on a light up; he would pupil with such a drink in the won distinguished back derful thoughts. ground. But alas, But more often in his first years at than not the teach school young Vel er would skip over vel produced no the Agodah, leav evidence of any ing Velvel with a sharpness of intel feeling of frustra lect. When there tion and disap were stories or pointment, as his Midrashic embel lishments he lis brighter school tened with rapt at mates delved more tention and could and more deeply reproduce every into the laws of detail. He was Nezikin. Velvel quite happy during had to escape, and the whole of B’reshe escaped into the shith and the first world of books— half of Sh’moth. Jewish books of But when it came course. He read to Mishpotim and avidly, everything hard thinking was needed, he got he could lay hands stuck. He could on: Bible stories, gather no enthusi Talmudic stories, asm for the laws Jewish history, pertaining to an ox Chassidic stories goring another ox, (there were so or goring a servant, many stories about or a man, or a woman. He had no Who in pre-war Eastern Europe had not Chassidim that you interest in “shomer heard of the famous Reb Velvel Mitt- couldn’t keep clear stein, the formidable H alachist and of them). chinom” r>or “sho Talmudist! mer sochor” and T WAS probably at this stage that could never remember the details of Velvel first began to escape into their various obligations. And unfortunately for Velvel, just day dreams. As the Rebbe went

JEWISH LIFE

through the Gemora, some word or where we are in the Gemora— dina phrase would set his mind off at a hi d’azel Reuven. Do you know what tangent and he would lose himself in it means?” A puzzled look came over the romantic world of Jewish history, Velvet’s face. “Reuven didn’t bring his own imagination supplying the Dinah back. It was Shim’on and Levi!” The class burst into laughter embellishments. They were studying Bova Kama in and the teacher sighed. How could class. “Said Rova: Reuven sold all his you teach anyone who brought Yaafields to Shim’on, and Shim’on subse kov’s daughter into a Sugya on quently sold one field to Levi. . . .” n’chosim m’shubodim? But the mention of Reuven, Shim’on, HUS the years went by with little and Levi transported Velvel into Eretz improvement in Velvel’s Talmud Yisroel at the time of Yaakov Ovinu, knowledge but with and he lost contact excellent progress with buying and in his daydreams, selling of fields and which became in creditors and their c re a sin g ly vivid rights. He could and detailed and see the pastoral he began more and scene in the beauti more to appear as ful sunshine, the the central figure aged father at in them. home studying and “Our Rabbis the young sons at taught: ‘The saint their tasks in the ly of former times fields. Suddenly the used to hide their one and only thorns and broken daughter is abduct shards of glass by ed! The sons come burying them in back home and their fields. . . .’ ” there is a family Thus the voice of conference with Velvel’s Rebbe, ex heated discussion. pounding the day’s What is to be done? Final triumph . . . s h i u r of B o v a Reuven counsels Reb Moishe's fifth offspring. Kamma. But Vel caution but Shi vel didn’t get be m’on and Levi ad vocate action. The clever dialogue yond the Chassidim Rishonim and takes place with Sh’chem and Chamor didn’t bother about the details of the and then at the appropriate time, with particular practice under discussion. courage and Mesirath Nefesh Shim’on He was in a cave in the hills of Judea and Levi go into action and restore at the time when the accursed Romans Dinah to her home. He could see them had forbidden the study of Torah. And bringing her home. “See father, we’ve there in the cave a secret group of pious Jews were in turmoil, confusion brought Dinah back to you!’’ “Velvel!” came the interrupting and fear. A Roman soldier had ac voice of the teacher. “Do you know cidentally stumbled on their hideout

January-February 1967

and had just moved off, probably to report to his superiors. What was to be done? Should they risk staying on? Or should they try to find a pew ref uge, But who was this, coming along the road? A tall, dignified, bearded figure walking slowly and deliberately. “Sholom Aleichem, my brethren!” he calls. “Why are you so disturbed?” Quickly they explain the situation. Calmly he assuages their fears. “Let us first go back and

f 1 MD THE relief of all the teachers, A the time arrived for Velvel to leave school, and Reb Moishe decided to send him full time to the Yeshivah. Reb Moishe went personally to talk to the Rosh Yeshivah; of course his yichuth needed no intro-

with important news: a Roman soldier has been found dead about a mile from the cave. He had been savaged by a wolf. The eyes of all fasten on the stranger. “May we enquire what is your name?” “Cer tainly. My name is Z’ev.” A gasp went around the cave. This must be the famous Reb Z’ev Ha-avni, so called because he, like a wolf, had no fear of the Romans. Reb Z’ev Ha-Avni! “He had placed his stone and his knife and his load on the roof and

Yeshivah. OnePurim, when the whole Yeshivah was assembled and the Rosh Yeshivah was dealing with the laws of reading the Megillah, he paused at one stage and said: “On this point there is a great Chiddush of the Vilna Gaon__ ’’ But before he had time to outline the Chiddush, Velvel was away in Vilna in the Beth Hamedrosh of the Vilna Gaon. It^was not Purim, but Shabboth Choi Hamoed Sukkoth and the Gaon was very scrupulous about

they fell into the public street . . M— breaks in the teacher’s voice. “What is the P ’shat, Velvel?” . . . asleep again.

JEWISH LIFE

reading the Megillah of Koheleth immediate reply. In a hushed atmos from a parchment scroll with its spe phere the young man strode confident cial tune and preceding benedictions ly to the Bimah, pronounced the just as others read Megillah on Purim. B’rochoth in a firm voice and pro But this year a worried look was ap ceeded to read Koheleth smoothly and parent on the faces of the Gabboim. easily, from beginning to end, every Reb Sh’lomo’s wife had just brought word with the correct neginah, every a message to say that her husband k'ri and k’thiv duly taken into ac had developed a high fever during the count. A mighty Yiyoshor Kochacha night and would be unable to be in roared out from the whole Beth Hashool. But Sh’lomo was the Baal medrosh and. the Gaon himself beck ICoreh especially selected by the Gaon oned to the Gabbai. . . . “Who-is this himself^ who had standards of his own young man?” Velvel Mittstein?^ From in accuracy of Scripture reading. now on he is to be under my personal Given some warning, several other care. I am sure he will develop into worthy Baaley B&ttim could have pre a giant of the generation . . ;J@ki a pared, but Reb Sh’lomo had been in Godol Hador. . . . shool last night, The Rosh Yeshivseemingly as healthah interrupted: “I ty and vigorous as am pleased to see ever. Who should you like the Vilna be called upon to Gaon’s Chiddush. undertake this task? But he doesn’t One might normal really need Velvel ly have appealed to Mittstein’s Hascothe Gaon himself, mah to establish but his voice had him as a Godol been very hoarse Hador. for some days and he dared not put nd t h e n additional strain on there was the it. Looking around occasion, one Fri the Beth Hamedday night, when a rosh, their eyes visiting rabbi was lighted upon a tall, The young man proceeded to read giving a shiur on and easily from be distinguished - look Koheleth smoothly the Sidrah with the ginning to end. ing youth of eight commentary of the een or so, Velvel Mittstein. People Ramban. It was Parshath Vayishsaid he was a genius with a photo lach and they were discussing the graphic memory. But to read in pub phrase “And they were still some way lic without preparation, in the pres to come to Ephroth” with the commen ence of the Vilna Gaon. . . , Very tation of the Ramban: “And now that gingerly the senior Gabbai approach I merited to come to Jerusalem, ed the young man and explained the thanks to the good Lord, the Bestower position. “But have not our Rabbis of Goodness . . and Velvel remem said ‘In a place where there are no bered how Rabbi Mosheh Nachmamen, strive to be a man?,’ ” came the nides, the great Ramban, had been

January-February 1967

forced into a public disputation with in Velvel’s ear: “The Rosh Yeshivah Christians, and had been so successful has invited you to Sholosh S’udos to that he was forced to leave Barcelona morrow. . . At S’udah Sh’lishith Velvel first and had settled in Jerusalem. But who was left now to defend the Jews of came across Chanele, the Rosh Barcelona against subsequent attacks? Yeshivah’s daughter* who was serving The Jewish community was full of at the table. And thereafter all his anxiety. The Meshumad had persuad historical daydreaming stopped and ed the authorities to organize another was replaced by daydreaming about public disputation and had cunningly Chanele. But could it ever come to a and pervertedly woven his attack on tachlis? To stand a chance with the Rosh Yeshivah’s daugh Judaism and the Jewish ter you needed to know people. When the turn at least fivq tractates of came of the Jewish rep the Talmud thoroughly, resentative, Reb Naftali, with all the Shitoth of to reply, he seemed to the Rishonim. Velvel have lost his nerve. He sighed, knowing that the remained silent, glued to task was far beyond his his seat! Who would step powers. into the breach? Instinc tively all eyes turned to OUR WEEKS later, the aged Z’ev ben Moon a Motzoey Shabsheh, the Rambam. But both, came terrible news Reb Z’ev was now 85 of Reb Aaron, the broth years old, a frail and er of the Rosh Yeshivah, bowed old man with who had been on a mis a f l owi ng w hite sion in Albania. Reb beard. Slowly Reb Z’ev Aaron had been seized rose to his feet and made by the police, his pass his way to the front plat port confiscated, and he form. To the amazement was flung into prison. A of all, he quoted verba mass of false accusations tim passage after passage had been trumped up from the accuser’s speech, analyzed them, against him and nobody and showed clearly to all had been allowed even to visit him. What was to be the ¡faulty assumptions done? To send Yeshivah and faulty ; reasoning. representatives to Alba And as Reb Z’ev sat nia to intercede for him? down, the whole audi This itself was highly ence, Jews and non-Jews, dangerous. Their fate rose to its feet tp con might be no better than gratulate and acclajm his. The more learned of Reb Z’ev. . . . In the midst of this Thereafter a|| his day- the Bachujrim looked up accolade came a whisper dreaming was of Chanele. one of the last chapters

JEWISH LIFE

of Shulchon Oruch Choshen Mishpot dealing with “Man is obliged to rescue his neighbor by his physical ability,” but they noted that the commentary pointed out that a man should not endanger his own life to save another. Velvel knew nothing about this con sideration, but all his daydreams came back to him. Like Shimon and Levi, the sons of Yaakov, he must show Mesiruth Nefesh. Like Reb Z’ev HaAvni, he must have no fear. Like the aged Reb Z’ev ben Mosheh, he must be prepared to argue. Without asking anybody’s advice he set oif for Al bania.

January-February 1967

Within two weeks he was back at the Yeshivah, with Reb Aaron. Vel vel had drugged the prison officials, released the prisoner, purchased a false passport, taken an unconvention al route home, and above all had prayed constantly for Heavenly Prov idence. Three months later he married Chanele. “After all,” said the Rosh Yeshivah, “doesn’t the Mitzvah of Pidyo Sh’vuyim, redemption of captives, take priority over even the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, learning Torah?”

A Crown of Sonnets By M. MEIR

TIME Naked, the night crept darkly through the void Until the first warm rays of light enveloped it And time became dimension to submit Itself to holiness—till then devoid; And in that hour did He-Who-Is create An interval that man might sanctify One moment sacred in time—might qualify One now, and blest for man to celebrate The seventh day: a season hallowed by The mind, the tongue, the hand—the climax to The week of work in space; the fountainhead That measures enterprise and does deny Significance to all save that which through Submission to the holiness of G-d is fed.

JEWISH LIFE

SPACE Submission to the holiness of G-d is fed Into the black absorbing emptiness Questing frorti chaos to the completeness Of the white light reflecting—and the waters red; G-d cried out: “It is enough! No more!” And the Sabbath of time reigned in space, Light and dark divided—to their place, The waters receded from the formless shore; A bound was set delimiting each created force To its own pursuit—to liberty Within the Law: and He-Who-Is set shape And substance, size, intent, and did endorse Each responding thing with property Possessing limits only man can rape.

MAN Possessing limits only man can rape When confronted with alternatives of choice Existing but within the human voice Of seductive reason—and assuming shape; G-d Himself gave man dominion of The worlds of now and here, with option of dead: To select the blessing or the curse—to heed The scorners at the gate, or, probing love To recognize the right to rule as caring for And not destruction of the trusting things: To cruelly crush their souls and tear their lives; Once in the now and here to option or Elect the tortuous path discernment brings— To be not wise in man’s own erring eyes.

January-February 1967

THE JEW To be not wise in man’s own erring eyes He trusts not in man’s understanding and looks not out Upon the world of space with ought save doubt Of its significance— and, sorrowing, sighs; The pagan acclaims the “thing,” the prophet the “deed” : And in his soul the Jew lays terraces To holiness with prayer and boldly embraces Care, and teaches canon to his seed; He has been duly warned: with not the eye Of mind perceive the harlot’s wily heart, The froward mouth, the swiftly running feet, The tongue that soweth strife—wherein do lie Idolatry; aware that all of art Is artifice— and of the devil’s due defeat.

PESACH Not artifice, but the devil’s due defeat Is hallowed by the virgin voice of spring In its secret hour of resurrection—and does bring Renewal on its winter-weakened feet; In that time He called: “In thy blood arise!” In the darkest midnight hour at every door The Guardian sought for those which wore The blood upon their lintel—to shield the wise Who rest within; Pesach is the sage Examining, Matzah—bread of slaves reborn, Moror—bitter herbs of bittered lives; These are the ceremonials and the gage That ruthlessly destroy the barren thorn Of pride when the eternal spring arrives.

JEWISH LIFE

SHAVUOTH Of pride when the eternal spring arrives We speak no more, for sorrow follows spring Until the granting of the Law comes to bring Delight—and with the harvest man contrives To relate his Pesach-given liberts To this fertile seed implanted in the soul Of Israel: the Torah is the quest and goal, The purifying fire, the piety And guardian of its life; this magnitude Revealed and honoured by the bringing of Twin leavened loaves of barley bread: Symbols of the debt of servitude, The all-consuming awe, and relying love, That is the well-worn path of the Torah-bred.

SUKKOTH That is the well-worn path of the Torah-bred Preserved through centuries of wandering And comforted in our ingathering By the symbol of the Sukkah: to dwell in booths instead Of sound and solid shelter, to be sustained There by the Providence Who guides, supports, And nourishes the soul and thereby thwarts The harsh pretentious pride that holds man chained; To unite the lulov, ethrog, hadass, and Arovah, tokens of the harvest time: The unity among our folk enjoyed With the waving of the dedicated hand, The sacred lesson learned in pantomime Naked—as the night creeps darkly through the void.

January-February 1967

American A rrival

The Attitude of American Jews Toward the Immigrant Influx of the 1880's— And Its Echo Today

By ZALMAN DISKIND

others of the Ashkenazic Jewish com munity who because of their prior ar rival at these shores had attained the status of “Deitch,” even though not of German descent. They had been pre ceded by mainly, but not entirely, Sephardic Jews whose settlement in America had begun in early colonial days. The much more numerous Ger man Jewish settlers soon achieved dominance in American Jewish life over their predecessors and thus were in command of the scene when the influx from eastern Europe began. As long as the Russian Jewish im migration to this country was a mere trickle, then the leadership iii the American Jewish community of the time helped these immigrants to settle here. But when the trickle developed into a mass migration, the attitude changed and presently the leadership strove to cut off the influx of those who were destined to supplant them in dominance within a half century. Most of the evidence pointing to the

JEWISH LIFE

HE American Jewish community today is predominantly of eastern European derivation. Many leaders in American industry and the profes sions, and important figures in gov ernmental fields, are the sons or grandsons of Jews of Russian or Pol ish birth. Likewise, the American Jew ish community leadership today is composed largely of men and women of the same origin. We should realize that the main Jewish immigration to this country from lands of eastern Europe began only seventy years or so ago, and in that relatively short pe riod the Jews of this origin have been transformed from a position of sub servience and inferiority to one of predominance in the community. This is indeed a remarkable saga of as cendancy. The dominant group in the Jewish community in the 80’s and 90’s of the last century were the products of the immigration from Germany which had begun in 1848, together with those

unfriendly feelings of the older-settled Indeed, the evidence indicates that American Jews towards the newcom the first immigrants were awaited with ers is dated in the vicinity of the friendship. Moses Freeman, who came 1880-1890’s. This seems to indicate to this country as an immigrant from that the problem of hostility towards Russia before the 1880’s, writes in his the newcomers did not become acute memoirs (“Fifty Years History of until there was the mass influx of Jewish Life in Philadelphia 1879immigrants in the 80’s and 90’s. Prior 1925”) of the welcome in Philadel to that period, the comparatively phia for the first transport of 325 iim smaller number of immigrants reach migrants, which arrived via England, ing these shores did not cause much February 23, 1882: anxiety amongst the settled Jews here. We find one Jewish historian mak They came toward us, by the shore there assembled a big crowd, amongst ing the observation: “The Anglothem many Christians; They wel Jewish press of those years [the 1840’scomed the immigrants with brother 1850’s], the Occident, Asmonean, liness and arranged for everything American Israelite, Jewish Times, Jew This day should be written down in ish Messenger, was generally sympa the ledger of Philadelphia Jewry as a thetic toward Polish and other East holiday. ern European Jews, frequently dis cussing their problems and defend More evidence of this favorable at ing them against attacks from outside. titude to the newcomers is seen in a Some even pointed out the affinity be letter which a member of this group tween German and Polish Jews.* landing in Philadelphia wrote to his wife, and which was printed in a Rus URTHER evidence of the original sian Jewish periodical: genuine concern for the new im They cared for us as for children. migrants is seen when in August 1881, They clothed us with new clothes so in New York, a public call was issued that we now look like real Americans, for aid and sympathy for the Russian and you would not recognize us. When Jewish immigrants. The public dec we sat down to eat, there came wom laration, which was signed by Meyer en and men, and served us food Isaacs and D. Zeligman, states: and asked us to tell what we lived “. . . The eyes of the Jewish Russian through in Russia. In the dining hall, refugees are looking toward America. they let people in with a ticket to be able to look at us, and the admission We are awaiting them here and we fee was five dollars (Naturally, the hope that they will bring with them money going for the committee). . . . spirit and knowledge of trades.”** In the next mail I will send you money for the holidays and a pass * B. D. Weinryb, “East European Immigra port. tion to the United States,” Jewish Quarterly

Review, Tercentenary Issue. ** E. Tcherikower, “History of the Jewish Labor Movement in the United States” New York, 1943, Vol. 1.

January-February 1967

This attitude of friendship did not prevail much longer.

HOSTILITY TO THE NEW IM M IG R A T IO N ASICALLY, the pattern was one

RESENTLY the Russian Jewish P immigrants became depicted as B of the later immigrant being an “poor people who have not the men object of derision to the earlier im tal or physical means to earn their living. The Russian Jewish immi grants are ‘lazy and shiftless.’ Very few were able or had the inclination to do a hard day’s work.”* These are some of the stereotypes applied to the immigrants; they indeed sound fa miliar, as applied to other minorities in our own age. What seemed to bother the older settlers particularly was the ways of the immigrants, which differed from their own intellectualized versions of themselves as emancipated, free citi zens of a free country. Oscar Handlin, in his “Adventure in Freedom,” writes: . . . The romantic victims of religious persecution, on closer inspection, proved to be poor and ignorant, slum dwellers and sweatshop workers, conspicuous in long gabardines and beards, their women disfigured by the oriental shaitel (wig). In the first re vulsion it was hard to tell which was worse, the long-haired anarchist or the side-locked Chasidic rabbi . . . This shock no doubt was in part the shock of recognition. The outraged ‘German’ Jew saw, shuffling down the gangplank, himself or his father, stripped of the accessories of respect ability. This was what he had escaped from, being Americanized away from; he did not like its catching up with him. In part, the shock came from measuring the newcomers by the standards of the new world, which the native Jews had by then entirely adopted. * Pajhs (Pamphlets American Jewish His torical Society), XL (1951).

migrant, who may have himself have come just a short while previously. Weinryb states the governing princi ple, thus: “All such tendencies be came cumulative through the differ ent waves of Jewish immigration, with each preceding wave both look ing down upon those who followed and regarding them as if a lower spe cies, while at the same time, trying to force upon them the patterns which they believed would generate a mini mum of anti-Jewish prejudice. Thus, the conflict between the older and newer immigration was continually re newed.” Consequently, we find settled immi grants advising against further immi gration. “For you respected reader in Russia, Poland, and Hungary I de voted this chapter . . .you may have thought to come here and seek your luck . . . (but my advice is to) . . . stay home.” (Moses Weinberger, “#nyehudim V ’hayahaduth B’New York ” 1887.) This anti-immigration sentiment is reflected in the official statements and actions of Jewish fraternal and reli gious groups in this country. . . . At that time apparently it was not consid ered unrespectable, as it is today, to oppose alien immigration. Some typical statements of Jewish organizations in America regarding immigration, are these: “Send no more immigrants.” “America is not a poorhouse.” “We would not be made an asylum for the paupers of Europe.” JEWISH LIFE

‘•Emigration must pease. We will not receive another refugee.”* The Inde pendent Order of B’nai B’rith, the largest and most authoritative Jewish fraternal organization of the time, Widely distributed a circular on Octo ber 11, 1891, as quoted at the time in the magazine, The Menorah, in which it was stated: The rapid growth of immigration, that does not know the language of the land and has habits and manners totally different from those that pre vail in the American society, raises judgments against continued immigra tion. We cannot deny, that the noncontrolled rush of these victims of re ligious intolerance, makes it very dif ficult for them to assimilate with the American people. This is a severe problem for our diplomats and for the government. Further confirmation of the class distinctions between the members of B’nai B’rith and the Russian immi grants is found in the literature of the tinae. B’nai B’rith refused to allow a number of Jews from Poland and Russia to establish a lodge, declaring them unfit to belong to the organiza tion, since they were anxious for re ligious orthodoxy and were “too un civilized” (Hamaggid, March 2, 1881). E ALSO FIND leaders of the Reform fold in America casting dark shadows on the new immigrants. In the Boston Herald in early 1891, a Reform-Rabbi Schindler of Boston printed a bitter attack against the Russian Jews. He charged that though having lived so long in Russia yet “they remained strange to the land, do * Zosa Szajkowski, “The Attitude of Ameri can Jews to East European Jewish Immigration, 1881-1893/’

January-February 1967

not want to serve in the Russian mili tary, and do not want to carry the duties of citizens.” Similarly, at the convention of the (Reform) Union of American Hebrew Congregations in July 1891, the Board of Delegates pre sented a report in which it was stated that: In the United States, there has been allowed to enter a number of Jewish immigrants of all kinds, who are not capable of adjusting to the American way of life and habits. Because of the severe tribulations that they went through, they are simply not capable of assimilating themselves with our population. We do not have in our means to eliminate the causes which have caused a big proportion of them to be cast amongst the lowest strata of society . . . The Reform movement at the time felt it to be their task to “humanize” these Russian immigrants. Thus, Isaac M. Wise asserted in 1897 that the Reform movement represented “the sentiment of American Judaism minus the idiosyncrasies of . . . late immi grants. And Handlin notes: “They conceived of their task as that of iron ing out those idiosyncrasies and saw a particularly attractive field for work amongst the immigrant youth.” HE American Jewish journals of T the period were no friendlier to the immigrant than were the organized Jewish fraternal and social groups. Their attitudes were basically the same. They looked down upon the im migrant from eastern Europe, viewing him as unfit for participation in Amer ican life. Thus, for example, we find the Jewish Messenger in May 1881 warning of the danger that: “A wave of Russian Jews in the United States can lead to the Russification of Ameri51

can Jewry . . The same issue of the Jewish Messenger writes: “We advise the Jewish agencies in Europe that they should warn the Russian Jews against mass emigration to America.” At the same time, the American He brew, which had written a year earlier that America has room for everyone, now came out with a demand that the stream “must be stopped.” The He brew Leader, which had previously written of the usefulness of the awaited hundred thousand immigrants, now de manded that the immigrants be sent to Palestine. The communal press was quick to pounce on the refugees when they could find something with which to discredit them. In the well known “Schiff Refugee Case” on October 14, 1882, there arose an argument between the immigrants and officials on Ward’s Island, the temporary immigration cen ter in New York Harbor. The scene took place during the distribution of the food to the immigrants. When the officials tried to throw out one of the troublemakers, the other immigrants took up for their fellow sufferer. A battle royal ensued, policemen were called to quell the riot, and in the struggle numerous were injured among officials, police, and immigrants alike, one of the latter being removed in critical condition.* American Jewish circles and their press were horrified by the behavior of the immigrants. The American Hebrew wrote in its issue of October 20, 1882: “The immigrants staged an uprising which surpassed a scene of the Paris Commune . . * Hamelitz, November 30 and Dec. 7, 1882; Hamagid, Nov. 15, 22, 1882.

Other American Jewish organs char acterized the incident as an uprising in the “Russian style.” Especially violent was the attitude of a German Jewish organizational publication, which was published in Chicago and Milwaukee, the Zeitgeist. An article in its May 25, 1882 issue by Adolf Moses asserts: “The Russian Jews, just like the old Russian people, to whom they belong . . . are semibarbaric. The filth of lowly barbarism has attached itself to them . . . The Jewish aristocracy, the rich and the educated, remained in Russia . . . We would be committing an injustice if we would compare the Russian Jews with the American or with a west-European yardstick. We must not compare them with the German, French, or British Jews—their ways are not our ways, their customs and manners are not ours and even the language is not our language . . . Had the ancestors of the Russian Jews once remained in Ger many, they would have now had much different appearance.” It was apparent that the Russian Jewish immigrant had few friends in the dominant circles of the American Jewish community. He met with op position from all directions. Had this opposition been merely the expressions of individuals without the sanctions of legal and quasi-legal powers, it would have been sufficient for the friendless refugees. However, as we shall see, this anti-immigration sentiment on the part of German-American Jews also took the form of overt and positive action on the part of American Jewish groups to prevent the refugees from coming to these shores.

JEWISH LIFE

Q UASI-LEG AL OPPOSITION TO RUSSIAN-JEW ISH IM M IG R A T IO N A LL of the established, influential Jtm.- American Jewish philanthropic committees in existence in the 1880’s were opposed to the mass influx of these refugees. It should be understood that these committees were controlled by the German settlers, who harbored no friendly feelings toward the Russian Jews. Many of the annual reports of these philanthropic committees were written in the German language. One of the chief offenders was the “Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society.”* The director of the immigration of the society, one Moritz Ellinger, in an official report to his organization in 1882 characterizes the immigrants as: “ignorant people, who are strange to our language and our civilization.” Mr. Ellinger was no torious for his dislike of Russian Jew ish immigrants. Letters to their fam ilies from Russian Jews mention him with scorn, and claim that he was afraid of the immigrants and hence al ways carried a revolver with him. In the “Schiff Refugee incident” men tioned above, the report of the Emi grant Aid Society for 1883 had this to say about the immigrants: “A number of immigrants, who recruited them selves from the scum of the immigra tion, of people who are incapable or unwilling to do any sort of work . . . and of individuals with a shady back ground . . .” As published in the same report, the leaders of the Emigrant Aid Society, when organizing the help for the im migrants, set as their goal: “To stop the immigration of elements who are not capable of work, to provide for * Not to be confused with HIAS (the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), established at a much later period.

January-February 1967

them agricultural colonies, prevent them from pauperism and to help them settle in industry and agricul ture.” The official leadership of these cir cles of American Jewry, and especially the “Board of Delegates,” were cate gorically opposed to immigration, un less it were to consist of agricultural workers allowing themselves to be col onized in far-off states, so that they should not be conspicuous. It is inter esting to note that on October 16, 1882, two days following the cele brated “Schiff Refugee incident,” the Wilmington (Del.) Morning News carried the following item: “The He brew Emigrant Aid Society of New York will notify the London, Paris, and Berlin Societies to forward no more refugees to this country.” Under lying all the rationalizations of the German-American Jews was the feel ing that: “. . . immigration jeopardizes the well being of the American Jews.” “America is not a poorhouse, and we should not be made an asylum for the paupers of Europe.” And the secretary of the Russian Immigrant Relief Fund in New York wrote to the Alliance Israelite Universelle in 1881, that “. the position of the Jews in America is not such that they can well afford to run any risk of incurring the ill feel ing of their fellow citizens.”* OLLOWING the liquidation of the Emigrant Aid Society in 1883, all the work |o r the assistance to immi grants was transferred to the philan thropic society, Uhited Hebrew Char ities. This organization set as its pur pose not to allow the concentration of

* PATHS, XL (1951).

Jewish immigrants in the large cities, especially New York, and because of this goal they began “distributing the immigrants to Europe”—on “cattle steamers.” Despite protests against this inhuman treatment of the refu gees, this practice of returning Jews on cattle ships continued. Thus we find in a report of the United Hebrew Charities: “Sent away with cattle steamers 1204 persons . . An indi cation of the immigrant’s attitude to Hebrew Charities is seen from the following: “The majority of Jews in New York considered Eighth St. (That is how the Jews called the United He brew Charities which was located on Eighth St.) as a gentile society, from whom it is a ‘mitzvah’ to get out of them as much as you were able.” (Ab Ehrlich in the Jewish Gazettan, De cember 12, 1890). This same Hebrew Charities sent a circular to the Jews of Europe, in 1884, wherein: “We re mind you again that it is not right to send here into America all the paupers who do not want to work and who when they come here, wander around in the streets; and not fit for Ameri can living and cannot assimilate them selves.” The head of the United He brew Charities in Philadelphia, one E. Kleinsmith, wrote a letter to the Sec retary of Interior and later to the Secretary of Treasury, asking their assistance in “detecting these paupers, who are illegally entering the city of Philadelphia.” (Jewish Exponent, Phil adelphia, August 5, 1887). In a sim ilar vein, the Conference of Managers of the Associated Hebrew Charities in 1886 went on record with the follow ing resolution: “We condemn the transportation of paupers into this country . . . all such as are unable to maintain themselves should be forth

with returned to whence they came” (Szajkowski, op. cit.). When it came to the matter of of ficial legal, government restriction of immigration, the Jewish groups were not averse to backing such legal dis qualification. Thus when the State of New York passed restrictive immigra tion laws in 1884, the American Is raelite, in its issue of March 15, 1884, suggested that these laws should be used to turn back some 200 Russian immigrants who were to arrive on the steamer California. The above-men tioned United Hebrew Charities of ficially informed the European Com mittee that the laws would be strictly enforced against the “assisted” poor arriving. NE is tempted to conjecture O whether we are witnessing a rep etition of history in the American Jewish community. The original Ger man settlers in the 19th century in America, once so powerful and domi nant, have by now all but disappeared, through a process of acculturation and intermarriage. Filling the vacuum of leadership resulting therefrom was the Russian and Polish Jewish group, hav ing been nurtured on tradition and be ing devoted to the cultural and relig ious heritage that they brought with them. By unstinting hard labor and industriousness, they in turn assumed control of organised American Jew ish community life. Today, much of the generation of Jews of Russian and Polish mass-im migration Extraction has travelled far along the path of cultural assimilation which had been followed by their predecessors of an earlier generation. The forces of assimilation are stronger than ever before in America, notwith standing the large increases in synaJEWISH LIFE

gogue memberships throughout the country. The successful doctor, lawyer, and businessman progeny of Russianimmigrant parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents did not display the same identification with the Jewish way and pattern of life as did their immigrant forebears. Material and so cial advancement, rather than the Jew ish heritage, have become the focus of their interests. Numerous research

studies published in recent years on at titudes toward religious beliefs and practices amongst compared groups of American citizens and of comparative adherence to those values considered distinctively “American,” consistently show the Jewish group as being strong ly attached to the “American” values and very weakly attached to religious beliefs and practices. Where then can we look for our future leaders?

THE CYCLE REPEATED? ANY feel that the future leader lie school combination. Thus, a child M ship of the American Jewish com in the Day School theoretically re munity will come from the ranks of ceives his general education and his the Day School. The advocates of the modern Day School are confident that from these schools will emerge the “future saints, scholars, and students.” As yet, it is not possible to substanti ate this claim with empirical data. Be it noted that the intensive communal Talmud Torahs of previous genera tions, in which the student spent more hours in Jewish studies than does the student in the modern Day School, did not produce a truly committed, leader ship generation. The home and com munity environment of the Day School student of today is in many cases less conducive to positive Jewish attach ment than was the environment of the “old” Talmud Torah student. This must be borne in mind when viewing the Day School as the fountainhead of the committed Jewish leaders of tomorrow. On the other hand, one cannot gainsay the advantages and promise of the integration of the Jewish and secu lar studies in the Day School as against the conflicting environments and values of the Talmud Torah-pub-

January-February 1967

Jewish religious education in a harmo niously synthesized fashion, and ac cordingly receives a unified, total ori entation. In few cases, however, has this ideal situation been fully achieved. The reasons are varied. For example, there are as yet few Jewish studies teachers who are prepared for or are actually teaching in the English stud ies program of the day schools and yeshivoth. The programs are taught by two separate faculties. And in those out-of-town day schools (out of New York City) where there is some de gree of integration between the two departments, the English studies are generally taught by non-Jewish teach ers and others who are retired or who are on leave from the local public school system. These teachers—gen erally are not schooled in the philos ophy of integration, as propounded by leading Day School educators. Thus, while the American-Jewish Day School is expected to bring forth students to whom the mantle of lead ership of the Jewish community should fall, because of their at-homeness both 55

in the “American” and in the “Jewish” ways of life, this ideal situation does not yet obtain in substantial measure. Though there is ample proof of the effectiveness of the dual programs of Studies of the Day School in making for superiorly “knowledgable” Jews and superiorly “knowledgable” Amer ican citizens, one must look for more evidence of that real integration of Jewish and general studies which would assure the ultimate development of a totally committed American Jew ish generation. Again, the home and the community environment become the crucial determiners of the ultimate “Jewish” destiny of the child. N one degree or another, all seg Iversing ments of American Jewry are tra the road of cultural assimila tion. Affluence and acceptance in an egalitarian society has taken its toll in American Jewry. There is, however, one group of Jews in this country which has many of the characteristics of the Russian and Polish Jewish im migrants of the 1880’s and 1890’s. Just as the East-European immigrant of that era was accused of “too much orthodoxy,” so does the contemporary East-European immigrant of postWorld War II vintage who has settled in Williamsburg and Boro Park stand accused of too much orthodoxy. Just as the Russian Jew of the 1880’s was derided for maintaining his religious distinctiveness in the unlikely Ameri c a n setting, so is the Hungarian Jew ish community of Williamsburg charged with the fault of maintaining its religious distinctiveness in an as similated urban society. Just as the distinctively garbed Russian Jewish immigrant persisted as a source of embarrassment for his acculturated German Jewish brother, so does the 56

sidelocked, bearded Hungarian Jewish element today cause embarrassment to his brother of today. The American Jew of East-European descent who has for years been fighting for equal status is taken aback by these newcomers to our country who bring with them the very same spiritual and cultural bag gage which his own forebears brought with him to this country at the turn of the century. Thus, after two gener ations, the Russian Jew has completed the cycle full-turn. He has attained sta tus and acceptability in American so ciety as did those who came before him, and looks askance at those who followed him—although fortunately, not looking upon the latest arrivals with any such hostility as marked his own arrival. Will these circumstances lead to the ultimate ascendancy of the^ newer im migrant group in the Jewish commu nity? This question we shall leave to the seasoned judgments of the profes sional Jewish historiographer and so ciologist. There are enough guideposts in the present and past periods of American Jewish history to enable them to make reasonable predictions. /^ k N E cannot help but ponder, too, as to whether this latest immi grant group will in turn undergo the same acculturative process as their predecessors. As of the moment, adher ence to Jewish law and tradition is much more intense than among any of the earlier-settled groups. There are, however, some indications that while the original Hungarian (and Polish and Czechoslavakian) Jewish immigrants of the post-World War II era and their children are maintain ing their character undiminished, the young “third generation,” Americanborn or reared, are not as rigidly conJEWISH LIFE

stricted in such areas as the choice of a marriage partner and in their style of dress. These progeny of the Hun garian Jews have had the opportunity to come in closer contact with the non-Chassidic orthodox Jewish com munity in this country and have thus been able to develop a more “liberal” view of the latter. No longer are the American orthodox Jews of previous immigrations looked upon by them as assimilators and as “having done noth ing during the last fifty years for Yiddishkeit in America.” In sum, there seems to be a process of acculturation

January-February 1967

at work in the Hungarian Jewish com munity of Williamsburg and Boro Park. It is as yet too early to de termine the extent of this process of acculturation, and to what extent, if any, it is controlled by the elders of the Chassidic community. Hopefully, one may perhaps look forward to a process of fusion wherein the “new” and the “old” strata of American Jews will each make a fructifying contribution to the needs of the other and thus lay a new, surer foundation for an enduring American Jewry.

Announcing the Publication of T O W A R D A N U N D E R S T A N D IN G O F JE W IS H F U N E R A L A N D M O U R N IN G PR A C T IC E S

By R ab b i M arvin B . P ach in o Published by the Publications Commission Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America This new, comprehensive guide to Jewish funeral and mourning observances meets the long-felt need for an exposition that will enlighten as well as inform the present-day Jew of every background. TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF JEWISH FUNERAL AND MOURNING PRACTICES sets forth, step by step, the what, why and how of traditional requirements including care of the body of the deceased, the role of the Chevrah Kadishah, procedure for the Onan and the Avel, the funeral serv ice and interment, Shiv’a, Sh’loshim and the year of mourning and other basic facts. Included also are the texts, in both Hebrew type and transliteration, of the deathbed prayers, graveside Kaddish and the Kaddish Avel, with transla tions of each. Expertly written in concise, lucid style, TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF JEWISH FUNERAL AND MOURNING PRACTICES will be welcomed as an indispensable source of guidance, reference and enlightenment for every family. Rabbis and lay leaders will want to arrange large-scale distribution of this attractively printed handbook in their communities, thereby assuring under standing and observance of cherished Jewish sanctities on occasions of bereave ment. 4 8 pages

$ .8 5 per copy

In quantifies o f 2 5 -9 9 copies, $ .6 5 per copy. In quantities o f 100 or m ore copies, $ .5 0 per copy.

Mail this coupon to: U nion o f O rthodox Jewish C ongregations o f America 8 4 F ifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011

Kindly send me ...................... copies of TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF JEWISH FUNERAL AND MOURNING PRACTICES. Prepaid orders only. Name

....*v," ___________________

Address__..._________ ______ _________ ___ City_....__ ____ __________________„..State...

Zip

B ook R eview s Hausner’s Record of the Eichmann Trail

By Nathan Lewin

JUSTICE IN JERUSALEM. By Gideon Hausner. Harper & Row, New York, 528 pp., $12.50. ORE than four years have passed M since Adolf Eichmann was hanged in Israel after having been found guilty of crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The judgment of the District Court of Jerusalem in the case of Attorney General v. Eichmann is recorded history; the only relevant question today is history’s judgment of the proceedings. The five years that have elapsed since the trial foreshadow, sadly enough, history’s re turn of a split verdict. The fault may lie with a handicap which the trial had from its inception, from the very day in May, 1960 when it L e w i n , a graduate of Harvard Law School, is an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General in Washington, D.C.

N athan

January-February 1967

was officially announced that Eichmann had been found and brought to Israel for trial. A legalistic brouhaha, whose echoes reverberate even today, ensued. The cadre of legal purists which had raised a noisy but futile clamor against the Nuremberg trials on the ground that the defendants there had been doing what was legal in their country (under Nazi law) banded together again to the rhythm of the legal maxim nulla poena sine lege (“no punish ment without a law”). The Eichmann case was worse than Nuremberg, the purists argued, because the defendant was not even being tried in the jurisdiction where his crime had been committed; the Israeli law was not merely ex post facto but was being applied extraterritorially. And the kidnapping aspect of the case was another drum banged heartily by those who characterized the whole ven ture as a lawless affair. A court has no right to try a defendant, they said, if the prosecutor’s agents have forcibly brought

him across the border into the court’s jurisdiction. There are answers to these arguments, and the answers are sound ones. For the purposes of this discussion, it suffices to say that the principle of nulla poena was plainly never intended to put beyond the reach of the law anyone who could perp etrate a crime so horrible that it ex ceeded the imagination of those who drafted the laws; that certain crimes like piracy have always been recognized as so abhorrent to universal principles of jus tice that anyone who can catch a pirate may try and sentence him—no matter where his piracy has been committed; and that in some of the most civilized and enlightened legal systems (including the United States) a defendant gets no where by establishing that he was ab ducted by the prosecutor’s agents and thereby brought before the court. HE District Court of Jerusalem and the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal) patiently heard and considered each of the legal arguments, all presented in open court by the German attorney chosen by Eichmann as his legal counsel. The judicial opinions in which the arguments were re jected exhaustively canvass precedent from all over the world. The opinions regrettably possess, in great abundance, the formalism and disjointedness which are the universal curse of judicial prose. To lawyers with open minds, however, they persuasively refute the array of le galistic objections. It is one of the minor misfortunes of the whole Eichmann affair that those who challenged the morality and legality of the trial were heard so much more clearly, more loudly, and more often than those who were able to speak persuasively in its behalf. The result of it all has been that the

legal wrangle has dominated the con temporary memories of the trial. Men tioning the Eichmann trial to a non-Jew in America today is like mentioning the Suez campaign or the recent attack on Jordan—each is considered typical of Is raeli chutzpa, of a boldness which must be rebuked in the very same breath which admires it. It would be devastatingly ironic if that ambivalence, instead of its deserved page in infamy, were the historical fate of the name of Eichmann. Gideon Hausner, once Attorney Gen eral of Israel and chief prosecutor of the Eichmann trial, has apparently done what he can to remedy matters in “Jus tice in Jerusalem.” The book purports to be an account of the trial, but the first 261 of its 454 pages of text are devoted to a detailed account of the unspeakable horrors attributable to Eichmann and those working with him. The trial and Eichmann’s execution appear almost as an epilogue, as an inevitable and fitting and proper last chapter to the stark his tory recounted in the preceding pages—1 a history which must be as incredible to those who read it as to those who lived through it and to those who died be lieving it could not happen. HIS suggests a second reason for the less-than-satisfactory public view of T the Eichmann trial which now walks abroad. One of the great paradoxes of the Eichmann affair and, indeed, of the whole story of the Nazi devastation of European Jewry, is that the very enor mity of the crime has carried it beyond the recognition of ordinary human emo tion. The systematic murder of millions, for some reason best known to the psy chologists (if to them), has less emo tional effect on a remote witness than the death of one or a handful. The whole non-Jewish world—including Germany herself—was prepared to weep for Anne JEWISH LIFE

Frank, but it took a Yevtushenko to stir up some measure of anguish over Babi Yar and it is unlikely that Auschwitz could ever be made real enough to the public to evoke a single sting of honest sorrow. One need only compare the resounding success of “Exodus”—a bad novel and an even more tasteless movie —with the recent failure of “The Investi gation”—a serious dramatization of the Auschwitz trials—to gauge the difference between the public’s identification with an isolated victim and its indifference to the suffering of the multitude. The more the mind boggles, the less the heart re ponds. Gideon Hausner reports that it was in order to succeed in Jerusalem where Nuremberg had failed—to have “the pro ceedings . . . reach the hearts of men”— that he decided not to rest his case on documents alone but to call witnesses to the stand to testify regarding their per sonal experiences in Nazi deportations, ghetto living, Einsatzgruppen massacres, and the unbelievable horrors of the ex termination camps. Hausner’s decision was a wise one because it was the live testimony which, albeit for a fleeting few days, captured the attention of the world. When the individuals who had endured the ghetto and camp conditions testified, the astronomical statistics began to take on human shape and a shiver of compas sion swept across those who were follow ing the trial. Soon, however, even what these witnesses said became impersonal; the enormity of the horrors engulfed the individuals. The discomforting awareness that the atrocities were the work of hu man hands was there, and observers were plainly conscious of the humanity of the victims. But the trial failed to produce a wave either of anguish or of guilt, and these were plainly what the Israeli au thorities had contemplated.

January-February 1967

T WAS a curious trial in yet another respect—it did not have the dramatic tensions which accompany the most com monplace of criminal trials. Hausner’s narrative itself lacks the drama, suspense, and excitement which are always associ ated with murder prosecutions. In part this was due, of course, to the fact that the proof was overwhelming and Eichmann’s defense—that he had acted on superior orders, as a mere cog in the ma chine—was, to borrow Hannah Arendt’s much-abused term, banal. Even if the defense had been supported by evidence —which it was not—and even if it were an adequate legal justification for the acts committed by Eichmann—which the Israeli courts conclusively refuted—no one could take seriously a disclaimer of responsibility by an individual who was so instrumental in formulating the genocidal policies from which the “superior orders” for the Final Solution emerged. Indeed, one may wonder what right any German citizen who supported the rise of the Nazi regime, with full awareness of its outspoken antisemitism, would have ever to invoke “superior orders” as an excuse for personal participation in the Nazi massacres. In short, the adversary proceeding titled “The Attorney General versus Adolf, the son of Karl Adolf Eichmann” had neither the doubts as to guilt which marked the Sacco-Vanzetti or recent Sheppard trials (to cite two notorious American illustrations which come im mediately to mind) nor the moral un certainties of celebrated trials of litera ture ranging from “Billy Budd” to the “Caine Mutiny Court Martial.” Eichmann’s legal and moral guilt were clear from the outset, and Israel obviously did not go to such great effort and expense to establish either. Its purpose was to educate the world and to awaken con-

TORAH AND TRADITION by WALTER ORENSTEIN and HERTZ FRANKEL This Bible textbook for religious schools of all trends has a new and creative approach to the teaching of CHUMASH by emphasizing the ethical teaching? of the text, while laying due stress dn the understanding of the Hebrew. The authors have received much acclaim for their volume TORAH AS OUR GUIDE, which is used in hundreds of schools. TORAH AND TRADITION is the textbook Jewish teachers have long been hoping for. It is highly recommended by prominent educators who have seen advance copies of this unique tool for the effective and enjoyable teaching of CHUMASH.

Bereshis— $2.50 Shemos — $2.50 O ther 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

This Summer give your child the 1111111 GOOD L IF E at Wmm

CAMP HiLI [ I

“Experience Counts" WHITE LAKE, H. Y .1

ttrtifw, 7

b o y s and GIRLS 5-16

In the heart of the Catskills on beautiful White Lake and Amber Lake, offering the ultimate in good camping. All land and water sports. Arts & crafts, music, dramatics under the supervision of a dedicated and mature staff. Special instruc tion in SCUBA, water skiing and sailing. Unique teenage leadership program. Comprehensive Hebrew Studies program. Strictest Kashruth standards. Resident medical staff. Attended by children from 60 yeshivos in U.S.A., Canada and South America.

HILI *a

‘

Owned and operated by

waof Lifo

HEBREW INSTITUTE OF LONG ISLAND 1742 Seagirt Blvd., Far Rockaway, N.Y., (212) FA 7-6500 Rabbi Jacob I. Nislick, Exec. Dir.

Illustrative material sent on request

sciousness of guilt where it had long lain dormant. Unfortunately, however, a trial in the best common-law tradition is a poor vehicle by which to achieve these ends. Over the course of centuries criminal trial procedures have been refined to the poiiit where nothing is relevant or per missible but evidence bearing on the le gal guilt of the defendant. It is obvious from his account that Hausner found himself stràitjackéted by these restrictions and that they prevented him from leav ing for posterity the detailed trial record Which he and the Israeli authorities en visaged. NOUGH has been said about “Jus tice in Jerusalem” to indicate that it is not a personal reminiscence of a participant in a historic trial, a la Louis Nizer. In fact, Mr. Hausner may be faulted for disclosing too little about

the pressures and counter-pressures which must have been at work during the pro ceeding. His description of the problems of preparing for trial are so vague and so universally polite and complimentary that they could have been written by someone who was not present but was given a list of acknowledgments. And there is much too little in the way of personal anecdotes, of descriptions of the prosecutor’s tribulations in the glare of the spotlight which world opinion di rected On Jerusalem in April 1961. It may be unfair to tax this book for these failings, however, because Hausner plainly believed that his duty in pub lishing it was to set out the evidence for posterity—not to belabor how it Was presented in court. “Justice in Jerusalem” makes a substantial contribution in that respect. Tragic and devastating and in credible as it may be, it is history as all should know and remember it.

Day School B ox Score By Bernard Goldenberg

THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL IN AMERICA. By Alvin I. Schiff. Jewish Education Committee Press, New York, 1966. $5.00. N a book replete with tables, sum maries, documents, and footnotes, Dr. Alvin Schiff gives us a well organized and exhaustive history of the Day School

R a b b i B e r n a r d G o l d e n b e r g , an authority on Jewish education, is the Director of School Organization and Professional Services of To rah Umesorah.

January-February 1967

movement. A notable educator, Dr. Schiff appears in this volume in the guise of a historian and wears with a measure of distinction the mantle of the reporter and the garb of the objective analyst. The volume treats the Day School movement from Colonial times through 1964. The book’s four parts—Growth, Essence, Impact, and Challenge—form a neat frame of reference for a review of the many aspects of Day School growth on the American scene. Within this frame

The Air-Conditioned

Waldman ®

Supervision

STRICTLY KOSHER CUISINE Only GLATT MEATS Served in the* WALDMAN Manner $ n B B S g j id a il y per person,double occupancy H Mar. 12 to Apr. 23 *3 0 of 133 rooms * IN C L U D IN G M E A L S W rite Direct or Cali

I private Beach, Pool Cabana

1112-2277 I 1Club, 21" TV in Every Room N V. T .(IFFU r r .a u * it’s always «SHOW I T IM E ” a t WALDMAN's

OCEANFRONT AT 43rd STREET. M IAM I B E A C H T

Gold's HORSERADISH p U ffiM li

Jm w M d U k

INTERIORS ISYNAGOGUES ALBERT W OOD & FIVE SONS.« PORT WASHINGTON L-l- NEW YORK

,® ©

@ ®

® ® © ®

The ONLYemblem o f KOSHER certification

sponsored by a NATIONAL communal organization as a public service.

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

JEWISH LIFE

of reference we get a dizzying, though plete. Lacking is the daring of those men necessary, array of facts as well as a such as Mr. Mendlowitz, Z7, and others run down on such “controversial” topics, who fashioned the dream of a network of among others, as language of instruction, schools West of the Hudson and who in Federal aid to non-public schools, and practical fashion created the tools for separation of boys and girls in the upper such expansion and what is even more grades. In essence, Dr. Schiff has given important—gave it the needed inspira us a much-needed source book on the tion and thrust. Day School movement. Little, it seems, This history of Day Schools from has escaped his attention—and all future Colonial Times through 1964 is albeit a scholars, research people, and historians most needed and necessary one. But it will owe him a sizable vote of thanks is not a meaningless caveat if one winces and gratitude. In addition, the volume is at the thought that this broad canvas well written, efficiently organized, ba doesn’t catch the fire and the vision of sically honest and at times fairly ex the spiritual revolution caused in many haustive. a home by a Day School student or grad There is no doubt that Dr. Schiff’s vol uate. This, too, belongs on the canvas, ume misses nothing (or precious little) and objectivity is no excuse for its omis that can be tabulated, or put into a neat sion. A historian may be exhaustive and box score or summary. scholarly but such olympian heights do What do you do, however, with these not rob him of his right to fill in such items that can’t be tabulated or “put into” colors or phenomena as spell out vision a statistical form? How do you tabulate and vividness, color and agony. Else, how a miracle, give a statistical summary of can one discuss reliably the impact of an agony, or document enthusiasm, pain, the Day School on the American scene? and anguish? The volume finds room for The author also misses the home nineteen statistical tables and copious school perspective in his rather limited footnotes but nary a deep breath that treatment of Parent Teacher groups and will catch the excitement and the vivid the National PTA movement which gives inspiration that marked the early days of it scope. This is a most wonderful grass the Day School movement in the 40’s. roots phenomenon—a rarity in Jewish The reviewer remembers these days education. Yet, in thè author’s perspec of agony and excitement. He looked for tive this receives a rather drab notice. an echo of these days in the Schiff vol If the author’s attempt to “play it cool” ume. He didn’t really find it. The Day in other facets of his reporting was due Schools were not built by robots or IBM to his perhaps justified fear of becoming computers. The early builders met a imbedded in political mire—surely with great deal of conflict, many closed doors, the National PTA movement this should much apathy (the reviewer was once not have been the case. In this instance nearly “railroaded” out of a community there is no need to “take a bow” to only sixty miles from New York City). all sections of the grandstand. Tight-rope Very little of this saga—and a heroic walking is no substitute for thorough re porting of honest facts. saga it is—finds its way in this book. Admittedly the author is a fair chron-, HE volume by Dr. Schiff gives us a icier but not yet a significant “town needed parade of names, dates, and crier.” The volume under review iS; places. This story is fine but not com- rather silent on the threat of the Con-

January-February 1967

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 g ift subscription to : Name A d d re s s ........................ C ity, State, Z ip Code Name ........................ A d d re s s ...................... C ity, State, Zip Code Name ..................................................................................................................... A d d re s s .................................................................................................................. C ity, State, Zip C o d e ......................................................................... ; 2 • > ? • M y Name ............................................................................................... .............. A d d re s s ................................................................................................................. C ity, State, Zip C o d e ................................................................................... • • . . □ include my own subscription 66

□ New q p enewa|

Check enclosed fo r $ ............................... J E W IS H LIFE

servative movement to “take over” ex isting schools or to compete with such schools. If the past two decades were years of growth and pride—the next dec ade may very well be one of suspicion and of being ever on the alert. Lacking in the volume is also some cognizance of the fact that by and large communal and central agencies of educa tion played an almost non-existent role in the growth of the Day School move ment. There were even cases of outright opposition and attacks in the daily press.

A history of the past 20 years should have included this cognizance for a fuller perspective of the amazing Day School phenomenon. For history is never cob webs and dust if one but learns from it for the future. We welcome this volume. I can’t see anyone in the future writing on this sub ject who will not be indebted to Dr. Schiff. In the ultimate analysis, however, statistics may wither. Blessings behind the statistics, however, do remain. Thank G-d for the blessings.

Introduction to the Hebrew Novel By Libby M. Klaperman ABRAHAM MAPU: The Creator of the Modern Hebrew Novel. By David Patter son. East and West Library, London, 1964, 167 pp. ITH the announcement of Sh’muel Yosef Agnon as the winner of the W 1966 Nobel Prize for Literature, there is hope that a revival of interest in Hebrew literature generally will take place with in the ranks of our people. The study of the works of Abraham Mapu, regarded as the father of the Hebrew novel, is a logical starting point, and this volume, compiled by David Patterson, a lecturer of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, can serve as an excellent introduction to Hebrew letters generally. In comparison with Yiddish fiction. L i b b y M. K l a p e r m a n is noted for writing many stories for Jewish children. She also serves as an Associate Editor of J e w i s h L i f e .

January-February 1967

which had a large following among the masses of Jewish people, Hebrew writing began as a “coterie literature,” which even today does not have a mass base. The Haskalah writers who utilized He brew were essentially emancipation-ori ented, seeking political and social lib eration for the Jewish people. Literature for these early writers was primarily a tool by which they could educate and in spire the masses to greater social aware ness. Despite these shortcomings of the genre itself, Mapu, who lived from 1808 to 1867, left a considerable influence on modern Hebrew literature as we know it today. The modern reader may be dis appointed by Mapu’s naivete, by his didactism, by his stilted and artificial language and superficial characterization. But Mapu must be viewed in perspective, as a key thread in the tapestry of his times, the first to conceive of a novel

H ave You M et Jeremy? T h ou san d s o f ch ild ren h ave grow n up w ith th e JE R E M Y & J U D Y ,b o o k s. N ow , a n ew gen eration o f youngsters is ready to b e in trod u ced to th is d elig h tfu l pair.

The books come in sets of four: JE R E M Y L E A R N S A B O U T G-D S A B B A T H IS SPE C IA L JE R E M Y & J U D Y S A Y T H E S H ’M A JE R E M Y ’S & J U D Y ’S H A N U K A H P riced at $ 2 .7 6 p er set p lu s 15^ postage. 5^ ad d ition al postage for each ad d ition al set. A sk for th em at you r synagogue sisterh ood g ift shop or order d irectly from

W O M E N ’S B R A N C H U O JC A 8 4 F ifth A v en u e N ew Y ork , N ew Y o rk 1 0011

J E W IS H LIFE

in Hebrew, and the first writer to develop the concept of a Biblical historical novel. The magnitude of this achievement is more evident when we remember that Mapu was reared and educated in an im poverished ghetto village, removed from the mainstream of life. It was by his creative imagination alone, without any prototypes to emulate, that Mapu in flamed the minds of: a generation starved of life and hap piness. The novels were read in cel lars and in attics, furtively and in stealth, and never without a quicken ing of emotion and the gleam of a new and unexpected hope. Mapu’s novels are in the romantic tradition, all ending happily with virtue triumphant and villainly exposed. His characters and situations are not de veloped in depth, but he makes alive Biblical epochs and eras, capturing the Jewish past so vitally that he is credited with helping to create an emotional

climate for the growth and development of political Zionism. For the novice, Mr. Patterson’s mono graph, the first in a projected series, is a fine book, giving as it does glimpses of 19th century Jewish life, describing the impact of the Haskalah movement, its advantages and deficiencies, and limning Mapu’s achievements in clear and un complicated style. All who read it will emerge with a deeper understanding of Mapu’s place in the growth of the He brew novel. Mr. Patterson has divided his study into two sections. The first part presents, together with a brief socio-historic back ground and biography, a literary evalua tion of Mapu’s three novels, Ahavath Tziyon (Love of Zion), Ashmath Shornron (Guilt of Samaria) and Ayith Zavua (The Hypocrite). The second half of the book contains a summary of these works and representative selections from each of them.

Jewish Hospitals in Vignette By Theodore Fink ISLANDS OF COMPASSION. By Tina Levitan. Twayne Publishers, New York, $5.00. In “Islands of Compassion” Miss Levitan has presented a series of vignettes covering each of the thirteen voluntary Jewish hospitals of New York City. At a time when Jews and non-Jews alike, in New York, are utilizing the faT h e o d o r e F i n k is a medical doctor with offices in New York City.

D r.

January-February 1967

cilities provided by these institutions without questioning the tremendous effort put into their founding and in their con tinued operation, Miss Levitan has sought by means of these thumbnail sketches to portray some of the difficulties which both the founders and physicians who run the institutions are facing. Since the work does not pretend to be a scholarly one, no attempt is made to present a complete historical analysis of each insti-

THE “TORAH CLASSICS LIBRARY” We proudly announce the publication of M esillat Yesharim (T h e Path o f the Ju st) by R abbenu M oshe Chayim Luzzatto

Newly prepared, complete, with Nikkud. Source references and English translation by Shraga Silverstein. This beautiful “Torah Classics Library” edition is a publishing milestone, marking the first time that a Jewish Classic of this nature has appeared complete with vowel mark ing in a page-facing-page English translation. J 352 pages clothbound $5.50 In Press: SHAAREI TESHUVA—The Gates of Repentance by Rabbenu Yonah ben Avraham of Gerona Newly prepared according to the first edition. Complete with vowel marking and source references. English translation by Shraga Silverstein. 4161 pages clothbound $6.50 AHAVATH CHESSED, by the Chofetz Chaim English translation by Rabbi Leonard Oschry In Preparation: MENORAH HAMAOR, by Rabbi Isaac Aboab English translation by Rabbi A. H. Rabinowitz. In 3 volumes. Previously Published:

ran« nsoi sn»n nso da'Mnrrt m in nwa

Translated by Rabbi Dr. Moses Hyamson.

vneon pnn ”m nm na»

2 vols. $10.00

¡¡¡¡§

Translated by Rabbi Dr. Moses Hyamson. 5 parts, in 2 vols. $10.00 Other Recent Judaica in English: THESE AND THOSE, a frank dialogue dealing with the subject: Torah Education and secular studies. An objective evaluation by Rav Simon Schwab. Paperback. $1.40 PROCEEDINGS of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, Vol. I. 11 essays by outstanding men in their particular fields on Torah and modern life. With a Hebrew section. 112 Pages Paperback $2.00 WORLD OF PRAYER, a guide through our prayerbook, combining popular approach with erudition and scholarship, by Rabbi Dr. Elie Munk. Vol. I, The daily Prayers $6.50. Vol. II, Sabbath, Festivals and High Holidays $8.50. Both volumes boxed $15.00 THE PSALMS, with the translation and commentary of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. This classic commentary which Hirsch considered one of his most important works is now available for the first time in English and also contains the Hebrew text fully vocalized. Vol. I books 1 and 2, $7.50. Vol II books 3 to 5 $8.75 THE GOLDEN HERITAGE, An Inspiration Treasury of Jewish Thought for Young Adults of All Ages, by David Hausdorff. An anthology of selected excerpts from tradi tional Jewish sources . . . a span of some thirty-four centuries. It contains essays of such vital topics as Circumcision, Mezuzah, Talis, Tefillin, the Jewish calendar, Temptation and Conscience, and other matters of daily concern in the Jewish attitude towards life. “The Golden Heritage” is written in language which the teenager can understand yet is not “juvenile” to the adult. 260 pages Clothbound $5.95 MEDITATIONS ON THE SIDDUR. Studies in the Essential Problems and Ideas of Jewish Worship, by B. S. Jacobson. An English translation by Leonard Oshry of the original Hebrew edition Netib Binah. This book is an attempt to provide the Jew of today with the opportunity to deepen his appreciation of the Siddur, and to in crease his understanding and devotion as he engages in Divine Worship. $5.50

PHILIPP FELDHEIM, Inc. 66The House of the Jewish Book 99 96 East Broadway

New York, N.Y. 1 0 0 0 2

T elep h on e: W A 5 -3 1 8 0

tution, nor is any attempt made to give an entire picture of the trials and tribula tions these institutions are undergoing. Miss Levitan does attempt to illustrate her points by means of biographical ma terial on some of the physicians and surgeons who have made these institu tions world famous. The author seems to have done her research work in a thorough manner and the errors of fact detected in the review of the book are few and inconspicuous. Some sixty photographs, some old, some new, are included in the book. One has to note with sadness that though Miss Levitan attempts to cover the spiritual factors known to help the cure of disease, she finds little space in her book to describe them. This is not due to any shortcoming of hers but to the fact that, alas, at the present time the Jewish hospitals of New York, with very few exceptions, pay too little heed to these factors. Only three of the hos pitals mentioned have an exclusively kosher kitchen, none attempt real Sab bath observance. All, of course, pro vide the solace of a visiting chaplain, in most cases one supplied by the New York Board of Rabbis. These hospitals differ from their sister institutions in the city only in that their founders were Jewish and that most of their staff is Jewish. In several cases the overwhelm ing majority of the patients who utilize their services are non-Jewish, as indeed was the desire of their founders. At a time when the voluntary efforts of our citizens are beginning to take a secondary role in medicine, this book re mains the only historical account of the Jewish hospitals of New York. Until such time as a definitive history of these insti tutions is written this remains the only generally available book which gives an account of the Jewish attempts at com munal care of the sick of New York.

January-February 1967

HOSPITALS, HOTELS and AIRLINES ARE NOW SERVING KOSHER MEALS When you tra v e l...w h e re you s ta y ...o n Land, Sea or in the Ai r be su re to ask for Sch reiber Frozen Foods...

Available in a fine variety, ready for heating and serving. Home-recipes prepared by a

famous name in catering his tory. Distributed in more than 50 areas in the U.S. and also in international service...

GLATT KOSHER Under strict Rabbinical Supervision of the Union of Orthodox congregations of America... Government Inspected.

for information call or write

CATERERS, INC. 9 0 2 4 Foster Ave., B rooklyn, N .Y . 11236 Phone: 2 1 2 27 2-9 184

passengers: Teenagers Only destination: Israel, Switzerland, France, Italy The excitement and adventure of seven weeks of sightseeing and special events / Two weeks in Rome, Paris and Geneva / Meet ings with European youth / Five full weeks in Eretz Israel / Featuring: tours to all parts of the country / special educational seminars by leading personages / Social, cultural and recreational activities / See Israel from “Dan to Beersheva”; including historic Jerusalem, modern Tel Aviv, scenic Haifa, beautiful Bnei Brak, Sefad, Tiberias, Eilat, Massada, the Dead Sea and the enchanting Negev / Visit an army camp, archaeological finds, a bedouin tent, the new Jerusalem Museum / Shop on Tel Aviv’s boulevards Meet Israel’s leaders, study contemporary problems, feel pride in Israel’s accomplishments / A stimu lating, fun-packed, adventurous, educational, enriching summer vacation / Professional American leaders, Israeli madrichim and licensed English-speaking guides. Registration is limited, apply early. Full, all-inclusive cost, including round-trip jet transportation only $1,195.00

EUROPE AN-ISRAELI SUMMER SEMINAR For Applications and Additional Information Write

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SYNAGOGUE YOUTH of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Eighty-four Fifth Avenue New York 11, New York ALgonquin 5-4100

w w r

AN UNEQUALLED SEVEN-WEEK EXPERIENCE

NCSY Summer Seminars 84 Fifth Avenue New York, N. Y. 10011 Gentlemen: Kindly send me complete information and a preliminary application. D ate of B ir th . . . . .7 ......................

N ame . . A ddress C ity . . .

S tate

Z ip

D on’t fiddle around! W hen it comes to &

M o th e r s knows best.

I Mclhef’s

Metheris

hitef ish *lJ lY e llo w P ik

Because we don’t fiddle around when we make gefilte fish! We use only the plumpest, juiciest, young fish—fresh from icy Northern lakes. We add just the right pinch of spices. Then—just like the mothers of old—we slow simmer our gefilte fish to bring out all its tender, delicate flavor. Result: Mother’s gefilte fish has that tradi tional taste and texture that’s just like homemade. So for glorious dining— and for every festive occasion—serve Mother’s, the fish for compliments. Kosher © Pareve

and don’t forget Mother’s Borscht

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

ThélCk'seal of,approval of THE U N IO ftO F ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA Vs'on the labels of H einz Vegetarian* Beans; Hefhz Tom ato Ketchup and six of the Heinz Soujbs (Vegetarian Vegetable, Tom ato, Tom ato with Rice, Cream of Mushroom, Cream of Pea, bream of Celery). Look for these Kosher foods of quality at your favoriffe food stores.

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY \ ^ /