Jewish Life Sept-Oct 1967 by Jewish Action

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America is privileged to announce the WORLD CONFERENCE OF ASHKENAZI AND SEPHARDI SYNAGOGUES D ^ T lS D l' DV’UlJtS'K nDJD T D W . ’» ‘715?

i/ 3# ; V 1

■

m&sMi-Am HH

to take place, “"’S , in JERUSALEM tmprt T’y on

Teveth 7- 12, 5728

January 8~13, 1968

First World Convocation in History of the Torah Synagogue

Further information in center pages.

Gefilte fish like mother used to make.

For the holidays, for any days, serve what Mother’s knows best! Gefilte Fish. (Traditional OldFashioned, Whitefish and Yellow Pike, or all Whitefish.) Only the freshest fish. Just the right amount of spices. Siow simmered to bring out the delicate flavor. Now in jars with easy-open, twist off-twist on caps. Or cans. And remember Mother’s Mar garine. And Borscht. And Schav. And Matzo Balls. All Pareve and .Kosher. • •

Only if your mother made great gefilte fish.

For low sodium diets-—be sure to get M other’s new unsalted Gefilte Fish!

Books of Enduring Vforth

Maimonides Soncino announces

The Commandments Translated with commentaries by Rabbi Charles B Chav el PhB M A LL.B D H L Complete in two volumes Sefer H a-M itzvoth. The Book o f Commandments, is one o f the major works o f Moses Maimonides the famous Jew ish philosopher and writer o f the 12th Century. This vast w ork brings together the Commandments recorded in the Pentateuch. W ith extensive invaluable commentary Maimonides explains the principles upon which the 613 Biblical precepts are included according to their division into 248 Positive and 365 Negative Commandments. This entire w ork o f such importance to the'study o f the very fabric o f Judaism is n ow available for the first time in the English language.

T he Soncino Press Ltd 17 5 Fifth Avenue N e w Y o rk , N .Y . 10010

Pre-publication privilege ends 30 November 1967

Please send m e..........' sets o f T H E C O M M A N D M E N T S at the pre-publication price o f U S $22.00 per set instead o f the regular price o f U S $25.00 for which I enclose check for a total o f U S $ ...............

nam e................... address

The Main Institutions of Jewish Law

By Dr. Isaac Herzog former Chief Rabbi of Israel regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the Talmud as well as a scholar of jurisprudence in its widest aspect. Volume I : The Law of Property. Volume II : The Law of Obligations.

Dr. Herzog has provided an almost inexhaustible supply of material... THE SC O T SM A N

Pre-publication U S $12.50 Regular Price U S $15.00

Tractate Pesahim Volume 6 of the Hebrew-English Talmud

Tractate Pesahim as its name implies treats all the laws of Passover exhaustively from every angle. The Tractate contains a considerable amount of Aggadah providing valuable material for a study of the social, religious and cultural life of the ancient Jewish community.

These Tractates in the Soncino Hebrew-English Talmud provide the Hebrew-Aramaic text with the English translation side by side Tractates already published in this series; Berakoth, Baba Mezia, Gittin, Baba Kamma, Kiddushin.

Pre-publication U S S15.00 Regular price U S $17.50

The Soncino Press Ltd 175 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10010 Pre-publication privilege ends . 30 Novem ber 1967

Please send me..........sets of THE M A IN IN ST IT U T IO N S OF J E W ISH LAW at the pre-publication price of U S $12.50 an d..........copies of TRACTATE P E S A H IM at the pre-publication price of U S $15.00 for which I enclose check for a total of U S . N a m e .......................................... ......................... A d d r e s s .................................................................

The first magazine for Jewish Youth

lEMIIfH VOIITH

H igh

School

MONTHLY ATTRACTIVE / ENJOYABLE 7 FAST MOVING INTERESTING / COLORFUL / LUCID STYLE DIGEST SIZE FORMAT □ ten issues each year / features / articles / stories / interviews photos / letters / reviews / commentary holiday and Torah insights / a lot to think about

You will gain new insights and discover new vistas by reading the magazine that views the world through the eyes of timeless tradition in lucid, attractive, enjoyable style that’s as modem as tomorrow. Brighten and enrich your own life by joining our thousands of devoted readers.

FREE GIFT TO ALL CHARTER SUBSCRIBERS a copy of the acclaimed, authoritative, handy easy reference pocket alphabetical guide to brochos for 563 foods free with each subscrip tion—you be the expert GUIDE TO BLESSINGS

Published by the National Conference of Synagogue Youth of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. SU BSC R IPTIO N O R D E R FORM

(Please enclose payment)

JEWISH YOUTH MONTHLY, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011

Kindly enter my subscription to JEWISH YOUTH MONTHLY for: □ 1 year at $2.65 □ 2 years at $5.00 (save $2.00 over single copy price)

City.......................... ........ ............State.............. . _____ _-.__.__j JEWISH LIFE

L e tte rs to th e E d ito r GAP AND REVOLUTION Brooklyn, N.Y. “Negroes are lazy and shiftless.” “Jews are crooks and smugglers.” There is as much truth in these statements as “He has a beard, therefore he has never adjusted to America,” or “He is beardless, therefore he is ipso facto a well-adjusted American yeshivah bochur,” or “He learns Gemora in English—he must be ‘modern’ ” or “He wears no kapota, he is a swinger.” All these state ments share a common deficiency—they are broad flights of fancy, having no basis in fact. Unfortunately, these bland generalities about yeshiva students are glibly pro pounded by Elkanah Schwartz in “The Gap and the Revolution” in the JulyAugust issue. I do not wish to debate his central thesis nor take sides as to whether the old ways or the new ones should prevail. This is a matter of opin ion, and one is entitled to his views. What he is not entitled to do, however, is to twist facts to suit his theory. To say that Rav Aharon Kotler, zatzal, a man who fought college and set up his yeshiva outside New York for the specific purpose of being remote from the city’s influence, to say that he was “modern” and had integrated his yeshivah into American ways is absurd. Rav Aharon’s life work was to establish an institution whose ideals are the very negation of American society, ethics, mores, and values. That his students learned in English and were beardless is a blatant superficiality upon which Rabbi Schwartz should not attempt to hang his indictment of other yeshivoth which did not “adapt” readily to the New World. September-Oc+ober 1967

Rabbi Schwartz may be able to prove his point—but certainly not by citing Lakewood Yeshiva as an example. Lakewood was and is the bastion of those who would carve out a mode of life un hampered and, as far as possible, un impeded by an American culture which might debilitate it. It is true that Rav Aharon did not try to graft the form of Kletzk upon his yeshivah in Lakewood—he was concerned rather with preserving its essence. It seems to me that Rabbi Schwartz has fallen into the familiar trap of judg ing a book by its cover. This fallacial reasoning is so prevalent among com mentators of the Jewish scene that it warrants a retort. Why should we judge the Orthodoxy of a shool and its congre gants simply by the height of the mechitzah? Too many people jump to the conclusion that any woman who wears a sheitel is automatically a tzinuah, or assume that the reverse is also true. Those who eat Glat Kosher often consider themselves absolved of most other obligations and are above reproach. Elkanah Schwartz classifies bearded or kapota-clad Jew as a “Euro pean sect” whose standards are unac ceptable to American Jews. Are not all these value judgments based on trivial superficialities? I believe we may rather say that Rav Aharon did not encourage beards, not because he had accepted the American mode but perhaps because too often a person concentrates on his external garb to the neglect of his inner development. The true aim of a yeshivah is to stimulate inner growth, regardless of outward ap pearances. Rav Aharon realized that too often strict adherence to a “uniform” 5

Modern English and Hebrew Names

THE NAME DICTIONARY by ALFRED J. KOLATCH Although the primary purpose ot THE NAME DICTIONARY is to serve as a guide to Jewish par ents seeking an appealing English and Hebrew name tor their off spring, the book is much more comprehensive in scope. It con tains thousands of English names together with an analysis of their meanings and origins. In addition, it suggests Hebrew names, based

upon a similarity in meaning, that can be used with each English name. The present volume updates the original work of names by the author entitled, THESE ARE THE NAMES, which was first published in 1948, adding more than 2,000 new Hebrew and Eng lish names. $7.95

“R abbi A lfred J . K o la tch 9s These Are The Names has served in n u m erable paren ts over th e years as a g u id eb o o k fo r fin d in g H ebrew and E nglish nam es fo r th eir ch ild ren . . . . A lth ou gh this new book certain ly does not ren der th e o ld ed itio n u seless , it is h igh ly recom m en ded fo r its com p l e t e n e s s LIBRARY JOURNAL

JONATHAN DAVID PUBLISHERS 131 East 23rd Street

New York, N.Y. 10010 JEW ISH LIFE

may actually hinder or retard the indi vidual’s spiritual development by divert ing his energies to extraneous aspects of his growth, placating his need for selfimprovement. The Talmud tells of two great yeshivoth in Babylon. One consistently pro duced a higher caliber of scholar. Why? The students of the other yeshivah were always better dressed—their striving for self-improvement had been channelled into a superficial plane, to the detriment of their scholarship. The sainted Rav Aharon wanted his students to be different in character, dif ferent in stature, outstanding in moral fiber. He wanted them to make their mark on the world through their manner, not by their dress. Rav Aharon knew that although we must adapt to modern times we must always remain cognizant of our unchanging duties to the Al mighty. In Lakewood, Rav Aharon sought to create a replica of the true Kletzk. R ab b i A l f r e d C o h en

New York, N.Y. On behalf of the National Conference of Synagogue Youth (youth arm of the Orthodox Union) I wish to compliment you on the contents of the July-August issue which was read by many of our 14,000 members. I feel the need to comment on Elkanah Schwartz’s statement (page 49) that it is “too soon to judge the relationships NCSY’s graduates will enjoy with the senior organization.” Although NCSY was established only in 1954, the past few years have seen graduates of NCSY move into positions of responsibility in orthodox Jewish com munities throughout the country, partic ularly in the area of youth work. One would also point to the role that Sep+ember-October 1967

former NCSYers are playing in filling adult leadership positions within the UOJCA and also its Women’s Branch. Just this past month, for example, Mrs. Alex (Arlene) Gross of Staten Island was appointed National Youth Chair man of the Women’s Branch. Arlene served as a national officer of NCSY in 1961 and 1962, and helped found and shape the award-winning Upper New York State Region. A mere five years after she ‘graduated’ from the ranks of NCSY, she has been asked to undertake one of the most im portant tasks in UOJCA Women’s Branch. While the most outstanding example of service to the Orthodox Union clear ly has been in the area of youth work it is only because our alumni are acting to aid the Jewish community in that area in which they relate best. The loyalties built during years of NCSY member ship have remained viable and vibrant even following graduation. The new magazine Jewish Youth Monthly, published by the Orthodox Union’s Youth Division, is being written and prepared by former NCSYers re cently out of their teens. Alumni serve as volunteer directors of entire regions, as staff members, and participants respec tively at NCSY and UOJCA events. Even the newly formed “National Junior NCSY Council” is being headed by Miss Rivka Singer of Buffalo who acquired her skills as NCSY’s Junior NCSY Chairman. I could go on and list dozens of ex amples. In closing allow me to observe that Rabbi Schwartz is quite correct in declining to compare the problems faced by other orthodox Jewish organizations in recruiting leaders from the ranks of their youth movements, with those of NCSY and the Union. Such comparisons cannot be made, not as he contends be7

Order fo r yourself your friends

—

your congregation

THE UOJCA

Fits Into Pocket or Purse

POCKET CALENDAR-DIARY FOR 1967-68/5728 Combines a wealth of Jewish information of every day usefulness. Contains the Jewish and secular calendars, a full daily diary section, explanations of the holidays, candle-lighting times, weekly Torah and Haftorah read ings, Yahrtzeit date record, Tefillath Haderech, Jewish populations of the major cities of the United States and Canada, information on the program of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

HANDSOMELY BOUND IN GREEN LEATHERETTE UOJCA/84 Fifth Avenue/New York, N.Y. 10011 Please enter my order(s) for ........... .......... UOJCA Pocket Calendar-Diaries for 1967/68—5728 as follows: .............. individual name gold-stamped (one line only) at $1.00 each ...............individual uninscribed copy at $.75 each ..............inscribed congregational bulk order at $.70 each plus $3.50 per order, (Minimum order, 25 copies.) IMPRINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Send to: N a m e ....!:£H-.1e L .........££............... H B p . .............. ...................................A . A ddress................................................................"

.....- . . . . . wt.—--4j ™

C i t y ..££......._________________................... St a t e .....................:||iL ZiP C ode.

A ll orders m ust be prepaid.

JEW ISH LIFE

cause of the relative newness of our or ganizations, but rather because the NCSYer knowns no “generation gap.” To us, men such as Harold H. Boxer (the Chairman of the UOJCA Youth Commission and vice president of the UOJCA) and Lawrence Kobrin (viceChairman of the Youth Commission) are very real NCSYers just as the new est thirteen-year-old member of an NCSY chapter somewhere in the Mid west or the South is very much a part of the UOJCA. We are not a youth movement divorced from the problems and programs of the adult organization; rather, we are the “youth arm” of the Orthodox Union. S t e v e n B il l a u e r ,

National President National Conference of Synagogue Youth ELKANAH SCHWARTZ REPLIES: Rabbi Cohen and I essentially agree, and from Mr. Billauer I am better in formed. To explain: Rabbi Cohen states that Rav Aharon Kotler zatsal “did not try to graft the form of Kletzk upon his yeshivah in Lakewood—he was concerned rather with preserving its essence” (italics his). This is precisely what I tried to imply, but perhaps unwittingly created a wrong impression. Never would I attempt to im ply that Rav Aharon desired no beards on his disciples. I do feel that while he undoubtedly encouraged it, he never made it felt as a requirement for the achievement of ethical scholarship, while the “Plotsker” do appear to have made the beard a condition for such achieve ment. Through his avoiding to make a beard, or Yiddish, or other such desir able accoutrement a requirement, Rav Aharon allowed such students who might have at first been discouraged to enter September-October 1967

and judge for themselves, and retain an atmosphere conducive to individual de cisions. To Mr. Billauer I owe many thanks for an education, as well as my apologies to him and his organization, in calling my attention to this important bit of information.

FORGOTTEN SOLDIERS Staten Island, New York, The problem raise by Dr. Sorscher’s “Orthodoxy’s Forgotten Soldiers” (JulyAugust issue) is indeed acute. Rabbi Harvey Spring recently wrote about the same subject, “The Problems of the Orthodox Jew in the Service of his Coun try,” in the Jewish Observer of May 1967. Both writers have accurately and perceptively described the dilemmas fac ing the orthodox Jewish serviceman. Rabbi Spring facilely charges mass in difference and immediately solves that problem by simply demanding that local rabbis take a greater interest in the nearest military installation and that some unnamed national orthodox or ganization guide and co-ordinate their activities. Naive as that sounds, it is practicable, except for one obstacle:the NJWB. With more depth and sophistication, Dr. Sorscher suggests two possibilities: (a) an independent orthodox chaplaincy, or (b) orthodox independence within the status quo. He sees “financial burdens” as the snag to solution (a) and “acknowledge ment by the other branches of the uniqueness of the orthodox Jewish po sition” as the difficulty to solution (b). Actually the financial requirements are much less than he imagines. Another NJWB need not be created. Ninety per cent of its budget is sheer waste. Virtual9

ly nothing is presently spent on unique total Jewish community. This, too, is no ly orthodox needs. Furthermore, separat problem. Their monopoly could easily ing the masses from money is much be disputed and disaffirmed except for easier than separating established organi one fact—that there are elements within zations from its basic principles. Dr. Orthodoxy that find their relationships Sorscher’s suggestion of “orthodox pres with NJWB and other roof organizations sure at high NJWB leyels” for achieving more congenial than with their fellow solution (b) indicates an unawareness of orthodox Jews. It is feasible to by-pass who and what functions at that level. the NJWB in order to achieve the results NJWB, being officially dedicated to “re Rabbi Spring and Dr. Sorscher so de sistance to pressures for traditional Jew voutly desire, but if we are going to ish practices,” will never concede any be under-cut by our own people, it is primacy to Orthodoxy within Jewish barely possible short of a “nes” to ranks, since it regards Orthodoxy as a achieve success. This is the crux of the barely tolerable “vestige of tribal ob problem: to neutralize those orthodox rabbis who have a stake in the NJWB solescence.” The problem of the serviceman is status quo. R e u b e n E. G ro ss merely another facet of orthodox con frontation to the general community, the total Jewish community, and the Torahtrue community, Herein we run up against the same drama and the same DR. SORSCHER REPLIES: plot, regardless of whether the players The major problem raised in “Ortho are the Synagogue Council, the Amer doxy’s Forgotten Soldiers” is the fragile ican Jewish Congress, the NCRAC or the NJWB. The cast, too, is often the and unpredictable structure of today’s same, even though the costumes are dif Jewish chaplaincy. Any solution to this problem must be twofold: first, the re ferent. These organizations appeal to the ves cruitment of many more orthodox Jew tiges of “greenhomism” left in us. *Zey ish chaplains to serve in the Armed kennen redn tzu a policemanri’—they Forces; simultaneously, the orthodox claim that they can represent us to the Jewish community must train these public authorities better than we can do chaplains to cope with the myriad of by ourselves. Their claims of “know complex situations that will confront how” or of an “in” still impresses many them on active duty. With these aspects of our “m’raglim”-minded orthodox fulfilled, higher goals might then be leaders who tremble before the “anahim” achieved, among them the mandatory at Albany, Washington, and the Penta assignment of orthodox chaplains to gon, and who are still fearful of disen those military installations where their gagement from having the “roof” organ presence would be most beneficial (e.g., basic training centers). izations as spokesmen. Certainly, of the two solutions re In reality the representation of the orthodox Jewish servicemen vis a vis thé ferred to by Mr. Gross, the Torah Pentagon would raise no difficulty ex community stands to gain most by cre cept that we have given the NJWB a ating an independent chaplaincy. Like power of attorney to appear for us. The Mr. Gross, I too believe that we would NJWB claims the right to represent the have no difficulty with Government or 10

JEW ISH LIFE

military channels. Unlike Mr. Gross’s interpretation, however, I never claimed finances as the major obstacle to this solution, but rather disunity within our

.... ........ ................111.....

Yours for the asking Delicious STRICTLY KOSHER Break fast, Lunch, Dinner served to you by most Airlines at no extra c os t . . . When arranging for your next air trip be sure, request “ Schreiber Kosher Air Meals.” Available in over 50 cities. Prepared under Rabbinical super vision of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. U. S. Govern ment Inspected. ____________

ireiver

Kosher Airline Caterers

9024 Foster Ave., Bklyn, N.Y.11236 Phone: (212) 272-9164

Septem ber-October 1967

own community. Moreover, I fail to see how “neutralizing” the N.J.W.B. ortho dox rabbis would overcome this dis unity and create for us an independent orthodox chaplaincy. Major segments of the orthodox Jewish community barely recognize that the orthodox chaplain or soldier really exists, one example being that one chaplain a year (or less) is found to be a graduate of a yeshivah other than Yeshiva University. In terms of the referred-to second solution, I believe I presented an ac curate picture of the pros and cons of the Chaplaincy Commission of the N.J.W.B. Although its administrative personnel are not sympathetic to ortho dox needs and desires, this is totally ir relevant, for a chaplain, once in the mil itary, is completely independent. He may scorn N.J.W.B. aid and their small sti pend, if he so desires. This is rarely done since N.J.W.B. services are quite useful in the normal routine of chap laincy programs. The executive body of the N.J.W.B. Chaplaincy Commission has “equal” representation, but the orthodox rep resentatives, as I originally indicated, have proven themselves somewhat inef fectual. Nevertheless, on occasion, these same “ineffectuals” speak for the others (the non-orthodox), as when the chair man of the commission is an orthodox rabbi. Even more significant are many cases which have proven N.J.W.B. ame nability to orthodox pressure, when ap plied. Strengthening our voice on the N.J.W.B. and at the same time begin ning our own sub-structure seems to be the best short-term solution. If the nec essary orthodox unity can be achieved, this sub-structure can blossom into a full-fledged body, and Orthodoxy will yet remember young men in uniform. II

The Day Yerusholayim W as United We express appreciation to Mrs. Joseph Karasick, wife of the President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, for enabling our readers to share, through this letter sent by her husband from Yerusholayim Ir Hakodesh, the experience of a profound moment in history.— Editor J er u salem

Sivan 21, 5727 June 29, 1967 My Dear Ones, I’m exhausted, but I must write down my impressions while they are still fresh in my heart and in my mind. We left New York City at 10 p.m. and arrived here non-stop at 2:15 p.m. local time. At Lod Airport we took a car for Jerusalem—and here the story begins. Instead of taking the regular road to Jerusalem we went by way of Latrun, which used to be Jordan. Everywhere you go the contrast between Jordan and Israel hits you in the eye. In one week the Israelis have paved part of the road already—and when you reach the unpaved (formerly) Arab roads, they are primitive, rocky, dusty, and terrible. All along the road you meet trucks of soldiers— all singing, laughing, happy. The motorists you pass on the road are all in wonderful humor, and all are in a state of euphoria. The young soldiers look 10 feet tall—sunburned, handsome, strong, and very formidable. The cab driver tells you of this miracle and that experience ------ and the entire populace keeps pinching itself to make sure it’s true. “Two weeks ago this was Arab, and now it’s ours,” he says. “Look to your left and see how the Arabs have kept their country—dry, rocky, barren; and look to the right and see how we have transformed the land,” he shouts. “Here is where a bloody battle took place, and our boys fell,” and he becomes sad for a minute, “but, we annihilated them over there!” And finally we arrived on the outskirts of Jerusalem and the streets are packed. Today is the day! Today, Jerusalem is formally united into one city, the Old and the New, and not only are the streets full of Jews from all over Israel, but a remarkable sight hits yop—the streets are full of Arabs by the thousands; on foot, on mule, and in cars with Jordan license plates. For the first time Jordanians are streaming into the New City, and on the faces of the adults you can see surprise and envy at what they see—and the children look around as if they are on another planet. And on the streets are co-mingled modern Jew with old-fashioned Arab, and Jews with beards and peyoth to gether with modern Arab, who seem to be on a holiday. What a stunning sight! The eye is assaulted by movement and color and you don’t know where to look first. I finally get to the hotel about 5:15 p.m. and can’t wait to check in and unpack. I must get to the Kothel Ma’aravi for Minchah. I rush to a cab 12

JEW ISH LIFE

about 6 p.m. but the streets are packed, as the Arabs have a 7 p.m. curfew and they are all rushing back to the Old City. He finally gets me to the Mandelbaum Gate, but the guard tells us it is closed. (In the meantime we pass a fenced-in area full of captured tanks, cannon, trucks, and guns. I want to photograph them, but in a split second I’m surrounded by a dozen Israeli soldiers who stop me. Boy, do they look young, tough, and handsome!) Finally, he says I must walk and I walk to the Jaffa Gate, which is the beginning of the Old City’s bazaar and marketplace, and I am transplanted back into history. The streets are narrow, dark, smelly, and dirty. They are literally crawling with Arab children who are filthy and stunted. And in the midst of the Arab crowds walk thousands of Jews—young, old; men, women, children; with yarmulkes and without; boys, girls; soldiers and yeshivah-leit with peyoth, bekishes and knickers. The Jews are all proud and fearless; the Arabs are afraid to look at them. We walk through the winding streets— streets where a Jew hasn’t stepped for years, and where a Jew hasn’t stepped without fear for 2,000 years. We walk up and down the winding, narrow streets and suddenly we come to an open space full of rocks and boulders. The Israel Army had knocked down entire blocks to make room at various points. My shoes are all white from the special Jerusalem dust. My suit is powdered with dust—but, who cares. The road becomes more and more difficult to walk, and finally I meet a “Meah-Shearim” Jew and ask him if he’s going to the Kothel. He answers, yes. I ask him if I can go along with him, and he agrees. Finally, we reach the place, and before my eyes stands THE WALL! In front of it all the houses have been knocked down and it’s difficult to walk. A whole platoon of soldiers are there. Israeli flags are flying from many heights. I rush up to the Wall and kiss the stones. They are smooth from countless of kisses and touches. They are cool, like cool, comforting, living flesh. And I begin to daven and I talk to the stones, and I know they listen. I place the kvitlach that I have in the cracks. Before I know it, I am friends with the Wall, and I remain there for about three-quarters of an hour to daven Ma’ariv also. I kiss the Wall goodbye, and I realize that it is dark. How am I going to make it back to the hotel in the dark, on foot, through strange roads, through Arab streets and quarters? I meet two Meah-Shearim yeshivah-leit and I ask them the way out. They tell me that they’re going my way and I can walk with them. We are in a wonderful mood and they are so friendly. These young men would probably not even have said hello to me last month, and now we’re wonderful friends, and almost brothers. They talk about “our army,” “our soldiers,” and only last month they were isolated in Meah-Shearim. I just pray to G-d this spirit lasts and is not dissipated too soon. I return to the hotel about three hours after I started out—physically and spiritually exhausted. I didn’t sleep the entire night before in the plane —but I don’t care, for this was a moment to be captured and never to be lost.

,nm All my love, Joe September-October 1967

President Johnson’s declaration of war on poverty by the Great So ciety has brought many "people into the fray, if not into battle itself, then as more-than-interested spectators. RABBI BE R N A R D W EIN

BERGER,« spiritual leader of the Young Israel of Brooklyn, offers

some observations from his vantage point in Williamsburg. . . . The idea of a Kehillah in America, often discussed through the years, is

again coming to the forefront. H A R R Y LOEWY, Principal of the

g Hillel Day School in Rochester, New York, brings us some fresh insights. . . . Ecumenism, ecumenicism, any way you spell it, to

our

some it spells trouble. RABBI JACOB REINER, spiritual leader of Congregation Rodphey Sholom in Holyoke, Mass., observes some of

its implications. . . . With the plight of Soviet Jewry continuing to command world concern, DR. BE R N A R D A. POUPKO’s report on

his third visit to his native country sheds clear light on the current situation. . . . How representative of the full Jewish community are

our federations and welfare funds? RABBI M E N A C H E M RAAB

of Trenton, New Jersey, director of the Dr. Herzl Zion Hebrew School, offers some timely comments. . . . The Six-Day War brought many changes, not least of which is the return of the Jews to their

b 11

beloved Western Wall. DR. H. RABINOW ICZ of London, England, versatile writer on Jewish topics, gives us some background on its history.

o r s 14

To our readers and to all the House of Israel, we extend best wishes for a

PH BBS m*>ro JEW ISH LIFE

Vol. XXXV, No. 1 /Sept.-Oct. 1967/Tishri-Cheshvan 5728

.Ta

THE EDITOR’S VIEW

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

ARTICLES JEWS AND THE WAR ON POVERTY/ Bernard W einberger..............................................................18

Editorial Associates E lkanah S chwartz

Assistant Editor 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 WESTERN WALL/H. Rabinow icz.................................25 VIKUACH AND DIALOGUE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE/Jacob R e in e r ..............................................29 THE FEDERATION BAR/Menachem R a a b .........................36 BACK IN THE SHADOW OF THE KREMLIN/ Bernard A. Poupko ................................................................ 42 THE CASE FOR A KEHILLAH/Harry Loewy.........................64

BOOK REVIEWS

Published by U nion of O rthodox J ewish C ongregations of A merica

PEREK WITH VERVE/Maurice Lamm .................................72 SHTETL IN AMERICA/Bernard Merling.............................. 77

J oseph K arasick

President H arold M. Jacobs

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

DEPARTMENTS CASES FROM THE RESPONSA LITERATURE/ David S. S h a p iro ......................................................................70 AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS.................................................14 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.......................................................... 5

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

September-October 1967

the EDITOR'S VIEW To Serve Him MIDST an anarchic world scene, the Jew enters upon a New Year in a re-affirmed fealty to the King of all. The sense of Divine Sovereignty pervades his being. Never was it more difficult to attune this sense to the climate in which he now lives, He is part of a world in which, as never before, what happens to one, anywhere, affects all, everywhere. But that world recognizes no Sovereign. Man, reaching with technology for control of the forces of Nature, sees himself as his own master. For this egoist philosophy and the culture in which it is embedded, modern mankind is paying a mounting price. The gap between the outlook of contemporary society and that of the believing Jew is wide. Can it be bridged? There are still those who cling to the idea of accommodating Jewish belief In R elation to the concepts which govern the surrounding world. But expeto th e K in g rience has shown that this idea is as unworkable in practice as it is fundamentally wrong in principle, and their confidence wanes. The Jew’s relationship to surrounding society cannot be resolved in those terms. It must be projected in terms consistent with the Jew’s relationship to the King of the Universe. Can we, in bold reversal of the “accommodation” process, seek to make the world climate compatible with Jewish belief? In the ultimate sense, that is what we are charged to do as the Kingdom of Priests. In the pragmatic sense, that is what we do in every projection of affirmative Jewish endeavor, in every interaction of the Torah Jew with the world about him. The challenge before us is to translate our spiritual vocation into deliberate program and to place our individual actions into the context of that program, whose objective is to bring nearer that day in which “All the world shall come to serve Thee and Bless Thy glorious Name.”

■

From the Four Corners of the Earth OR THE first time, the Torah Synagogue is to manifest itself as a mobilized world force. This is the central signif icance of the World Conference of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Synagogues, to take place, im yirtzeh Hashem, on Teveth 7-12

JEW ISH LIFE

of the coming year (January 8-12, 1968). Fittingly, it will convene in Yerushalayim Ir Hakodesh. In the setting of Jerusalem united under Jewish rule, in the aura of the miracles which bespoke the intervening Hand of the Almighty, the representative forces of the Torah Synagogue —Sephardi and Ashkenazi alike—will foregather from the four corners of the earth to chart the future of the world Torah com munity. What a saga of history, what a vista of Jewish purpose, is encompassed in this unprecedented convocation. . . . ITH ITS roots in the days of the Prophets, the Synagogue has been pivotal to Jewish life through the centuries to the present day. Yet, not until modern times did it gain recogni tion as the representative of the collective Jewish self which it O rgan o f embodies. This development has entailed a de-localization of th e Jewish vista and venue. In most leading countries, orthodox congreS elf gations—the overwhelming majority of Jewish groups the world over—have formed strong national federations. But for long, inter-synagogue ties stopped at national boundaries, with only loose contacts between the national bodies. This has been a costly anomaly. Many voices have undertaken to speak for— and to—world Jewry; its most integral voice, that of the Torah Synagogue in its world dimension, has been unheard. Today, the Torah Synagogue is at grips with epochal chal lenge to the soul of the people. Historic upheavals, climaxed by the Holocaust and the rise of the State of Israel, have U nfolding changed the shape and the character of the Jewish world. RevE pic olutionary social change has had shattering impact on Jewish spiritual integrity. Yet Jewish life has gone forward. The Torah Synagogue has stood at the center of this unfolding epic that spans the continents. Several years in the making, the World Conference of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Synagogues has been forged out of the manifest need to place global function in global format, to address worldwide problems with worldwide capacities. The need, at belated last, is being met, against the inevitable, in numerable obstacles. And thus, Jews steadfast in the Torah faith coming from the four corners of the earth will join hands, minds, and efforts in United Jerusalem, and address the world as a unified force. This will be a unique moment in the 4,000-year span of Jewish history. -------S. B.

September-Oc+ober 1967

Jews and the W ar on Poverty By BERNARD WEINBERGER URING the summer of 1967, the grams at $34,000; and in Boro Park, D City of New York spent 26.3 one program at $8,000. Thus, in the million dollars in a variety of summer entire City of New York, Jewish pro poverty programs. Of this total, 16.3 million was in earmarked funds— 10.5 million for Neighborhood Youth Corps and 5.8 million in Head Start programs. The other $10,000,000— eight million Federal money and two million City Tax-Levy funds—were applied to Community Action Funds which were distributed to twentynine areas in the entire city. Of the ten million dollars spent on New York’s Community Action Funds, it would be interesting to determine how much was spent for programs address ed to the needs of the appropriate segments of the city’s Jewish commu nity. An analysis of funded programs re veals that in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn ten Jewish client pro grams were funded for approximately $118,000. Outside of Williamsburg, however, Jewish participation in the Poverty program was almost totally non-existent. In the Bronx, one Jewish program was funded at $19,000; in the Lower East Side, a small insignif icant program was funded at $3,000; in Bedford Stuyvesant, one program at $19,000;- in Crown Heights, two pro 18

grams were funded in total for ap proximately $200,000, or 2% of all Community Action funds spent. The foregoing statistics indicate the low level of involvement of the Jewish community in the War on Poverty. But why are Jews so sorely neglected in vital programs from which they can profit so much? In truth, the blame is two-sided. The Jewish community is at fault for not involving itself in such a forward looking program. But, the leaders of the Poverty program are equally to blame for not en couraging Jewish participation. I should like to examine here both sides of responsibility in this sad omission. TEW S have kept their distance from

J the Poverty program for a variety of reasons, much of which I suspect is a lack of understanding of what the program seeks to achieve. It is a well-known fact that many Jews who live in poverty and are eligible for public assistance do not, in fact, avail themselves of these benefits and re fuse to accept welfare assistance. There is a certain pride the Jew possesses which does not allow him JEW ISH LIFE

to accept a dependent status. He is ashamed to become a public charge and is more apt to rely on the benefi cence of the Jewish community which has a built-in tradition of helping its own impoverished. This reluctant at titude has been transferred to the Poverty program as a result of an erroneous impression that it is noth ing more than a glorified welfare pro gram. Moreover, there is the fear that any acceptance of government funds entails a whole series of bureaucratic red-tape entailing investigative pro cedures that tend to further embarrass the recipient. Again, this is based on misinformation and misunderstand ing. It is true that the general public views the Poverty program merely as a riot-preventing stop-gap measure that is intended solely to keep the militants amongst the non-white mi norities at bay. As a result, the poor whites do not see themselves as legiti mate beneficiaries of the Poverty pro gram. This view Jews share together with the poor amongst the Italians, Polish, and Irish. While it is a fact that poverty funds help prevent riot ous outbreaks, such concomitant re sults are not to be confused with the ultimate objectives of the program. A corollary of the above view is the interpretation of the Poverty pro gram as an aid to Civil Rights groups who are seeking equality for the dis advantaged non-whites and thus offers little for those whose problems are not rooted in racial or ethnic prej udice. Quite obviously any attempt to help the Negro overcome poverty will of necessity entail some action to wards the removal of racial inequal ity. This, however, does not mean that the Poverty program is a Civil Rights program. September-October 1967

Jews also tend to be politically sophisticated and hence more skepti cal. There is a tendency to view the War on Poverty as a politically mo tivated gesture that is destined to be short-lived. There is a growing feeling that should the next election bring a change of national Administration, the program would be shelved at once. Accordingly, it is thought, there is danger in developing reliance on government funds that are destined to be curtailed or cut entirely in the near future. Support for this appre hension is seen in the current discus sions in the Congress indicating that some Republican legislators are seek ing to reorganize the administration of the War on Poverty, to cut its ap propriation, and to scuttle the Office of Economic Opportunity. The fact that a few poverty workers were found to be involved in some of the racial riots this summer has given added thrust to the drive to cut the program. In New York State, a Re publican administration has withheld contributing one cent to the Poverty program and has thus far managed to avoid serious trouble at the elec tion booths or elsewhere. A sober look at political realities reveals, however, that the government is too deeply committed to risk an abrupt end of this program, regard less as to who is in control. Perhaps changes will be made, but, the basic commitment to it cannot be altered in the foreseeable future. Moreover, should the war in Vietnam cease—a highly unlikely prospect at this point —or even if deescalation is achieved, the enormous funds thus saved would most naturally be transferred to social welfare programs of this kind. As more and more people continue to move to the large urban centers across 19

the country* and urban living be comes more and more complex, fed eral funds will have to increase father than decrease if the cities are to re main manageable. It is, therefore, a* safe prediction that the poverty pro gram will be with us for quite a while, at least for a decade. While it is true, as indicated, that the Jewish community in New York —and the same applies in other cities of large Jewish populace—has not sought deep involvement, it is more emphatically the fact that the city’s administration has so organized the Poverty program as to discourage im poverished Jews, and other poor, from taking full advantage of its benefits. Let us, therefore, examine the nature of the program, its objectives and or ganizations to determine its strengths as well as its weaknesses. NDER the now famous Svirdoff report, implemented by the ad ministration of Mayor Lindsay in 1966, the Poverty program in New York City is organized under the Human Resources Administration. The theory of this structure is to in corporate all city agencies that seek to help the poor and disadvantaged into a centrally controlled and con certed effort. Thus, the Welfare De partment and New York City Youth Board are part of the Human Re sources Administration. However, the Poverty program, as such, is divided into two components: the Manpower and Career Development Agency (MCDA); and the Community De velopment Agency (CDA). The former (MCDA) deals with all forms of employment problems, creating job opportunities for the poor both in government and in the private sector. It incorporates the Neighborhood

Youth Corps, Job Corps, Job Train ing Centers, and all programs relating to employment. The latter (CDA) deals with what is called Community Action Programs (CAP Agencies) which seeks to involve^ the poor in recognizing their problems and devis ing the means to solve them. The Faulknerian concept of “pull ing oneself up by the bootstraps” may be an oversimplification, but it none theless reflects on the essential objec tive of CAP programs. The city has been divided into fourteen poverty areas already designated, and twelve more new areas that are scheduled to be funded in the coming 1967-68 fiscal year. Under the Svirdoff con cept each of the fourteen areas is to have a community corporation that will in effect determine how all monies allocated to its area are to be spent. The community corporations (which at this writing have already become so incorporated) are to con duct local elections through which process residents of the area are elect ed to take control of the corporations, and thus determine the manner in which the funds are to be spent. These elections are currently taking place under the initiative, guidance, and supervision of CDA staff. Ac cording to guidelines set forth by the Federal Office of Economic Oppor tunity (OEO) at least one third of the members of the board of each corpo ration must be from the target popu lation, i.e., the poor themselves. The policy-making body for the Human Resources Adniinistration is the New York City Council Against Poverty, a 28-member council ap pointed by the Mayor. Fourteen are direct appointees of the Mayor and fourteen are recommended by the re spective community corporations and JEW ISH LIFE

then appointed by the Mayor. I might add that this writer is the only ortho dox Jew on the Council, while three other Jews serve as city-wide repre sentatives appointed by the Mayor di rectly. The Council, in theory, has authority over all poverty funds, al though in practice it has less control over MCDA and almost no control over the Board of Education pro gram, which is presently a source of serious contention between these two city agencies. One of the major policy decisions of the Council Against Poverty thus far has been that all funds should be allocated on the basis of poverty in dicies. The three basic indicies used to determine poverty in any area are 1) Number of persons receiving wel fare per 1,000 total population; 2) Live births on General Services (hos pital wards) per 100 population; and 3) Juvenile delinquency offenses per 1,000 population between the ages of 7—20. Corollary indices which the above three are assumed to reflect are the incidence of venereal diseases, infant mortality rate, and family in come under $4,000 per annum. On the basis of this fundamental policy decision to use poverty indices to de termine allocations, the following are the areas in accordance with their percentage of poverty: Bedford-Stuyvesant 10.8%, Brownsville 9.2%, Central-Harlem 7.3%, Hunts Point 7.3%, East Harlem 7.0%, Williams burg 6.3%, Morrisania 5.6%, Lower East Side 5.5%, South Brooklyn 5.1%, South Bronx 4.3%, East New York 3.5%, South Jamaica 3.3%, Upper West Side 3.2%, Tremont 3.2%. While the Council has accept ed the concept of “poverty pockets” —that is, that there may be people living in poverty in localities that are September-October 1967

not designated as poverty areas and that funds should be allocated to these pockets—when hard-pressed for funds such as Headstart programs, the Council has favored the area-in dices concept. HIS superficial sketch of the mechanics of the Poverty program in New York City is sufficient to point out some of the strong points of the program, as well as its weaknesses. The basic assumption in Community Action programming is that to wage war on poverty one cannot merely give the poor a larger welfare grant, but, one must get the poor sufficiently aware and aroused about their prob lems to want to do something about it. In the ultimate sense this assumes that the poor will seek better educa tion, better housing, better social co hesiveness and relatedness, and above all better family ties. At this point, it must be conceded, the program has only provided the arousal aspect which has led to agitation, demonstra tion, and, alas, riots. The leadership of the Poverty program has not shown the poor how, in their quest for better education, they can achieve their goals in pushing the Board of Education towards providing better schools in slum and ghetto areas, ex cept through sit-ins, strikes, and vocif erous demonstrations or actual riot ing. There seems to be inherent a naive assumption that the poverty program can surmount or circumvent the political structure of our society. In a sense, the indications in both the City Council of New York and in the legislative corridors of Congress al ready reveal that any decisive com munity action programs are going to face the ever-present threat of budget ary cuts that will render the program

ineffectual. Quite obviously, any pro gram emerging from the legislature of the city, state, or federal govern ments cannot hope to upset the po litical balance or equilibrium of that government. Hence, an effective CAP program for education will invariably be opposed by the established Board of Education. There is an inherent paradox in the concept that “the establishment” is to provide the funds and the ability for those who want to dethrone this very “establishment.” Thus, it would appear that as the CAP programs become more and more effective they are bound to meet with greater and greater opposition. From the axiomatic premise that the poor are to be helped to help themselves, there follows naturally the principle that the local poor groups should have control over what direc tion the Poverty program should take in their respective areas. The idea of a local autonomous corpora tion that has full control over its funds also suffers from extreme naivete in failing to recognize that in any given area one ethnic, religious, or racial group can seize control of the corporation and disenfranchise all the other poor. The very notion that economic guidelines that define poverty in Ap palachia are equally suited for an urban center like New York City is in itself an appalling oversight of the Federal Administration. More signif icant, however, is the underlying the ory that the poor themselves are bet ter equipped to solve the problems of poverty than the trained professionals of the various social agencies of the area. This has given the poor a new status symbol which has fostered ap prehension and distrust of the profes sional who has labored for years in

the voluntary agencies to help the disadvantaged. It has given “the poor” their own bureaucracy from which they can shut out the more fortunate. Again, there seems to be an in consistency in the assumption that it is best to plan an attack on poverty from a geographical area perspective, in order to relate all rehabilitative programs into a cohesive all-embrac ing plan; and then to insist that the “target population” is best suited to achieve this. Furthermore, it still has not been demonstrated that so-called “grass-roots” organizations do not themselves become “establishments” where the militant and zealous work ers dominate and the programs are not actually projected to the poor of the community. Finally, serious ques tions must be raised about a system that penalizes a poor person who has made some progress and is able to move away from a poverty area to a non-poverty area but thus loses the services he might otherwise benefit from. In a sense, we are thereby per petuating slum living rather than combatting it. A still more serious by-product of the locality-based poverty programs is the fact that it has led to a competi tive relationship between the various areas. This is particularly manifest within the deliberations of the Coun cil Against Poverty. Here, one might gain the impression that the Negro of Harlem is fighting his brother in Brownsville, or that the Puerto Rican in Hunts Point is against his brother in East Harlem. But, this is unavoid able when the Poverty program is structured in a manner in which the crucial question of whether a program is funded becomes the question of what area it is emanating from. It is true that the Council Against Poverty JEW ISH LIFE

has funded some city-wide programs, but, here too the Council has insisted that the programs be channeled through the local groups in which they are to be operated. Furthermore, I think it can be argued that as the in dices of poverty grow arithmetically, the projected solutions may require geometric multiplication of efforts and funds; simply retaining the same “fair share” formula may not be adequate.

A S PROBLEMATIC as the Pov-lV erty program may be in general, in terms of the Jewish community the problems it poses at this point seem insurmountable. First, it must be said that the general impression shared by the leadership of the HRA as well as the average person involved in the program is that Jews don’t really have poverty. They are merely seeking to get in “on the gravy.” The image of every Jew being a Rothschild, a Leh man, a Guggenheim, or a Kaufmann is still allowed to go unchallenged. It is, of course, undeniable that Jews do not have the kind of abject mass poverty, or the high-visibility poverty, as do the non-white minority groups. Our percentage of welfare recipients is undoubtedly smaller than that of other groups, although here too there is a tendency to understatement, but, nonetheless, we do have, alas, too large a group of such welfare enrollers. The Jew who, because of strong family ties and a high sense of re sponsibility, may put in a sixty-hour week to earn his four or five thou sand dollars annually is being penal ized for his industriousness, since his non-white counterpart who works 3540 hours weekly and earns only three thousand is considered in poverty. But, is there any real difference be tween unemployment and underemSeptember-October 1967

ployment? Moreover, the religious factor which causes the observant Jew to provide day-school education for which he must pay (sometimes for four or five children) is too glibly and summarily dismissed by OED officials as a “self-imposed” poverty and thus not “treatable” by the War on Pov erty. The fact that the median number of people per family is highest amongst poor Jews is too easily over looked and not dealt with. Moreover, the indices of poverty as developed by CDA happily do not apply to Jews because of inherent cul tural and religious values. Because Jews do not have, as indicated, high rates of welfare recipients, live births on General Services, or high rates of juvenile delinquency, are they, there fore, to be relegated to a second-class citizenship in terms of the Poverty program? It may well be that Jewish poverty is of a different kind, but, it is not necessarily of a different de gree. One other reason that the Poverty program thus far has not received adequate attention from the Jewish community is that the emphasis has thus far been placed in the area of community action programs. While the image of the Jewish community as a highly sophisticated and well-organ ized group is terribly exaggerated, it is true that the need among Jews is not so much for community organizations as for employment opportunities and training. A corollary factor of this emphasis is the lack of orthodox Jews on the staff of CDA or MCDA. In fact, with the exception of one cler ical intern engaged for the summer in the fiscal office, I do not know of a single orthodox Jew on the entire staff. Of course, there are many Jews on the staff, some very highly placed, 23

but none of these people have any ties to, or for that matter any first hand knowledge of, the Jewish com munity, and certainly not of the tra ditional Jewish community. HE present structure of the Pov erty program worksr towards the tremendous disadvantage of the Jew ish community. The area concept, as well motivated as it is in its emphasis on decentralization and local auton omous control, has totally dissipated Jewish strength in relation to the pro gram. In no corporation, with the possible exception of that in Williams burg, do Jews have any voice, let alone influence or control, in where funds are to go. Thus, in the Lower East Side, with a high concentration of Jewish poor, the Mid-West Side, or the Bronx, Jews have neither repre sentation on the corporation nor any influence therein. And thus, in the year-round programs now being con sidered for funding not a single Jew ish program has emanated from any of the areas mentioned. The few iso lated programs that were funded dur ing the summer (as listed above) were only so fortunate because they did not have to go through the local corporation but were submitted di rectly to CDA. In Crown Heights, which may have an active Jewish majority, one waits eagerly to see how that corporation, which is presently organized, is going to emerge. It should be noted, that despite many shortcomings as outlined above, the current leadership of the Poverty program is making remarkable prog ress in a Gargantuan and perhaps un attainable task. It has demonstrated a sense of consecration and dedication, a perserverence and fortitude, that

one wishes were present in all govern mental agencies. To suggest that the structure is inadequate does not imply that we should seek to scuttle it and try to find another panacea. This is too risky in terms of human energy expended and hopes nurtured. We are going to have to Jive with it for a while and simply attempt to make evolutionary changes as we go along. If this puts the Jews at a disadvan tage, it is lamentable and sad, but, if at this point it is unchangeable, it is by no means insurmountable. We can still be involved and reap many ben efits for the amelioration of the Jew ish poor. HE writer is not an advocate of ... “Jewish Power” as one might un derstand this term in modern-day parlance. Contrarily, I am vigorously opposed to any such movement with in the Jewish community. But, I do think that the collective voice of the Jewish community should be heard on the need for servicing the Jewish poor. A Jewish youngster roaming the streets in the summer is potentially the same problem as any other. The fact that we send these children to country camps does not absolve New York or any other city of its respon sibility to help sustain and expand such services. And to boot, if we can achieve the goal of treating the poor of all ethnic groups equally, we would thereby render an invaluable service in divesting the Poverty, program of its greatest shortcoming, the perpe trating of the “apartheid” inherent in a policy that sets the non-white mi nority groups separate from the total community. It is the responsibility of Jewish organizations to mobilize suf ficient strength to rectify an apparent injustice.

JEW ISH LIFE

The Western W all

By H. RABINOWICZ

¿4TO LESSED art Thou, O Lord our JLf G-d, King of the universe, who hast kept us in life, and hast preserved us, and hast enabled us to reach this season.” These were the words that Brigadier Shlomoh Goren, Chief Chaplain of the Israel Defense Forces, uttered in overwhelming joy and gratitude as he stood surrounded by jubilant young Jews at the holiest site in all of the Jewish world, the Kothel Maaravi, the Western Wall, on 28 Iyyar, 5727—June 7, 1967. This was a day that will go down in Jewish history, one which the victors, out numbered 50 to 1, had culminated not in a demonstration of militaristic triumph but in a display of spontane ous and intense emotion that moved even witnessing non-Jews to awed sympathy and exhilaration. Israel’s valiant young soldiers, facing this re markable reminder of their ancient heritage, wept openly as they wor shipped the orriniscient G-d of their fathers. The Western Wall is known among non-Jews as the Wailing Wall, for here far centuries Jews have shed Sep+ember-October 1967

bitter tears in the dark corridors of their cataclysmic chronicles. It is an impressive sight as well as a hallowed site. About 160 feet long and 60 feet high, it is made up of layers of im mense, uncut grey stones. The lower courses, each over three feet high, probably date from the time of Herod (37-4 B.C.E.) Buried beneath the sur face are many layers of stone which are said to go back to Solomon’s magnificent Temple, about 950 B.C.E. In the fateful year 70 C.E., the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans. In the year 135 C.E., the Jews took up arms against the mighty Roman Empire. When the Bar Kochba revolt, which Rabbi Akiba himself supported, was crushed, the Romans were determined to eradicate all traces of Jerusalem, hallowed capital of Judea. On the site of Jerusalem they built a new city named Aelo Capito lina, in honor of Aelius Hadrian. The Jews were forbidden on pain of death to approach the site of the Temple, and this decree was enforced for a considerable time. By the fourth century, however, 25

Jews were allowed to visit once each year, on Tisha B’av. “All Jews come once a year to this place,” wrote the Pilgrim from Bordeaux in the year 333, “weeping and lamenting near a* stone which remained of the Holy Temple.” The Christian theologian Jerome in his commentary to Zephaniah (1:15-16) notes: “Until this very day the faithless inhabitants are forbidden to enter Jerusalem, and that they may weep over the ruins of their state that they pay a price.” At about this time Jewish literature begins to refer to the sanctity of the site. “The Divine Presence has never departed from the Western Wall,” says the Amora Acha who lived in the first half of the fourth century, “The Western Wall,” say our Sages, “will never be destroyed.” (Midrash Rabah Bamidbar 11, 3) During the first Moslem occupation of the Holy Land (637-1099) the Jews were even allowed to enter the sacred area “to make rounds of the Temple gate and to pray there with a loud voice.” They were even per mitted to build a house of prayer nearby the site. From the 10th cen tury onwards regular services were held not only on Fast Days and Fes tivals but also every Friday afternoon. Here generations of pilgrims would chant the sorrowful verses of the Book of Lamentations. Many medieval travellers corrobor ate this ancient Jewish usage. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) who visited Jerusalem in 1165 wrote: “I entered the great and holy house and prayed there on the fifth day of the week the sixth of Cheshvon.” The famous traveller Benjamin of Tudela writing in 1167 notes: “Upon the site of the sanctuary, Omar ben al Khataal 26

erected an edifice with a very large and magnificent cupola into which the Gentiles do not bring any images or effigy but they merely come there to pray. In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and thither come all Jews to pray before the wall of the court of the Temple.” Five hundred years later in 1686 the Karaite Benjamin Yerushalmi ben Elijah wrote: “Afterwards we went to the Western Wall to pray there. It is of the time of King Solomon. It is built of large stones about ten spans long and eight spans wide. There we prayed. If anyone desires to go every day to the Western Wall to pray there the Ishmaelites permit him to go and pray. . . . The Ishmaelites however do not permit any gentiles, i.e., Chris tians, to go near the streets close by the Western Wall to see it.” In 1699 a certain Rabbi Gedaliah from Poland wrote: “When we go to the Western Wall to pray we stand behind our wall close to it and we go at New Moons and on the Ninth day of Av.” A prescribed ritual was already in use at that time. The first printed “ritual” is dated 1601. It indicates that a Jew would take off his shoes as he approached the Wall, kiss the stones and recite a special prayer. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has a copy of such a prayer book printed in Venice in 1702. The ritual “Prayers to be recited before the Western Wall where the Divine Presence has never departed” appeared in Constantinople in 1740 and 1743, Amsterdam, 1758, Jerusalem 1849 and 1861, and Salóni ca in 1890. The Beth Hamidrash Li brary, London, has a manuscript of the Western Wall ritual dated 1725. JEW ISH LIFE

Rabbi Gershon Kittover (1741), brother-in-law of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov (1700-1760), the founder of Chassidism, used to read Lamenta tions at the Western Wall until he achieved spiritual ecstasy. In the 19th century there is a plethora of evidence regarding the Western Wall. Sultan Abdul Mejid is sued in 1841 a decree (Firman), ad dressed to Rabbi Chaim Gagin, reli gious leader of the Yishuv, according the Jews the right to pray without interference. Sir Moses Montefiore in his report to the Board of Deputies of British Jews in 1866 stated: “The Governor of Jerusalem, Izzet Pasha, kindly gave me permission to erect an awning for the wailing place, the Western Wall of the Temple, so as to afford shelter and protection from rain and heat to pious persons visit ing this sacred spot.” A sad incident occurred in rela tively recent times on the Day of Atonement, 5689 (September 24, 1928). A simple canvas had been set up by the Rabbi of Radzmin to sepa rate the men from the women as is customary among orthodox congrega tions. The Moslem authorities com plained that the Jews had violated the status quo. Police Inspector Douglas Duff, on duty at the Western Wall, ordered the worshippers to remove the screen. When they refused to do this, the Police Inspector ordered his men to remove the screen forcibly. The worshippers resisted and the screen was torn in the ensuing struggle. In protest against this sacrilegious act, Eretz Yisroel Jewry observed the fol lowing 12 Cheshvan-October 26th as a fast day. At a meeting in the Kingsway Hall on October 22nd Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz declared: “This September-October 1967

action is far more than a humiliation to the Jew. It is a blot on the British name and diminishes the moral pres tige of Great Britain.” A White Paper (Command Paper 3229) issued by the British Govern ment in November, 1928 stated that the Jewish community has “a right of access to the pavement for the pur pose of their devotion, but may bring to the Wall only those appurtenances of worship which were permitted un der the Turkish regime. It will be seen that the intervention of the police was caused by an act of the Jewish authorities which was regarded by the Palestine Government as con stituting an infraction of the Status Quo.” The Wall once more was the sub ject of bitter contention and the Arab “Society for the Protection of the Moslem Holy Places” kept the fire simmering, spreading rumors that the Zionists intend to take possession of the Mosque El Aksa. The Jews, too, formed a group “Liga L’maan haKothel” to protect their rights and privileges. The Arabs rioted repeatedly, attack ing their Jewish neighbors. The vio lence culminated in the murderous week of August 23 to 29, 1929, in which 133 Jews were killed and 339 wounded. In Hebron the Arabs slew over fifty people “in circumstances of unspeakable savagery.” The Sir Walter Shaw Commission (Command Paper 3530) investigating the riots recom mended that “the rights of both par ties at the Wailing Wall should be determined by a special commission.” This Commission was appointed in 1930 by the League of Nations under Elioh Lefgren of Sweden, formerly a Minister for Foreign Affairs of that 27

country. The Commission held twentythree sessions in Jerusalem between June 19 and July 19, 1930, and fiftytwo witnesses were examined. The Commission’s formal report was is sued in December, T930. This Report accorded possession of the Western Wall to the Moslems, with the pro vision, however, that “on the Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement and also on certain Holy Days that are recognized by the Government as such days on which it has been cus tomary for the Ark containing the Scrolls of the Law to be brought to the Wall. . . . Jews have full rights of religious worship there except that the ram’s horn must not be blown in the vicinity.” The Commission con firmed the rules enacted by the Man datory Administration against the bringing of screen, benches, and other appurtenances of worship to the Wall. The third Pan-Islamic Congress which met in Jerusalem in 1931 un

der the Presidency of Haj Amin El Husseini declared that the Moslems were not bound by the findings of the International Commission concerning the Western Wall in Jerusalem. They professed to regard the Jewish claim to pray at the wall as a Jewish threat to the Mosque of El Aksa. In 1948, when Jerusalem was divid ed between Israel and Jordan, the Old City and the Western Wall fell to the Jordanians. According to a para graph in the Israel-Jordan 1948 Armistice Agreement, Jews were to be afforded access to the Wall. But this provision was never honored by King Hussein. On 28 Iyyar, 5727 (June 7, 1967), the Jews returned to the Western Wall “never to leave it again.” Let us hope that Yerusholayim Ir Hakodesh will finally, after three thousand tempestuous years, be allowed to ful fil the promise of its evocative and apocalyptic name, City of Peace.

JEW ISH LIFE

Vikuach and Dialogue: A Historical Perspective Connotations of the marked change in the character of today's Jewish-Christian " confrontations"from those of past eras.

■ By JACOB REINER

OME years have already passed an am k’shey oref. As soon as the S since the initial announcement invitation was issued for ecumenical was issued that the Vatican Council was to discuss and reappraise the posi tion of the Jew and Judaism in Chris tian thought. The turbulent winds of emotion have subsided. The over whelming enthusiasm with which the announcement was received in some Jewish quarters was subsequently dampened with disappointment. The open opposition within the Church to any drastic change in approach, the reworded and diluted text of the schema, and the superficial and mean ingless Vatican proclamation caused even the most ardent enthusiasts for Jewish-Christian ecumenism to be come disillusioned. Strangely enough, however, this disappointment was shortlived. Sen sitivities seem to have become dulled, and one begins to wonder if we still possess the temperament that charac terized our people from the time of its inception, the stubborn pride of September-October 1967

dialogue to be held between Jews and Christians, the smile of satisfaction reappeared on the faces of some of our people. The shattered hopes were quickly forgotten. The embarrassment of the Council debates was overlooked. And now once again there are those among us who joyously acclaim this new proposal for inter-religious dis cussions as an effective avenue toward better relations and mutual under standing.

URING the course of the lengthy Council proceedings many ques D tions presented themselves: What, if any, should be the nature of the Jew ish response? Should Jews authorize a spokesman to attend the Vatican conferences? Should an attempt be made to influence the Church leaders to delete the anti-Jewish references from their sacred literature and to free our people from the “guilt” of 29

deicide? Were we to offer alternate suggestions to the Council particip ants, presenting our views, our wishes, our suggestions? The orthodox Jewish approach was explicit and unequivocal: the Council agenda concerned itself with certain problematic areas existing in Catholic thought and doctrine. If the Church leaders are pained at the consequen tial development of their historic ap proach, if they have become cog nizant of the evils that they fostered and permitted to be perpetrated in the name of faith and justice, and if, as a result of this awareness, they wish to institute certain changes in their liturgy and religious doctrine, these expressions must come from them, and from them alone—without Jew ish direction, interference, pressure, or suggestion. Needless to say, this approach was not acceptable to certain of the Jew ish agencies and persuasions. How could they ignore this potentially im pressive opportunity to assert them selves as the representatives of the Jewish people? How could they ne glect the chance to usher in a novel historical phenomenon—a propinquity between Christian and Jew? Non-or thodox educational institutions and

fraternal organizations dispatched their emissaries to Rome. Widely pub licized audiences with the Roman pon tiff were arranged. Statements of poli cy and concern were released to the major communication media, head lined in the popular tabloids, and con sumed by the reading public. As far as the world was concerned, they were “spokesmen” for Jewry and we were “well represented.” All this clamor, however, proved to be of no avail. The superficiality of the Vatican announcement, which failed even to include a strong con demnation of antisemitism, was frus trating to many sincere Christians; but in view of our over-reaction and an ticipation, the result was especially embarrassing to us. Today we rarely find a reference made to this “defeat,” nor do our overly zealous agencies attempt to analyze or isolate the cause for this set-back. It has become an element of our past that is filed away and willfully forgotten. In this state of forgetfulness, another question now divides us: shall we or shall we not accept the Vatican invitation to in dulge in a Jewish-Christian “dialogue” —the purpose of which still evades us?

C H A N G E D CO NTEXT, C H A N G E D T A C T IC

ERE again the orthodox Jewish approach is emphatic. There is no theological dialogue possible between the two religions. Al though the members of the respec tive faiths should cooperate in a common endeavor to eliminate ex isting social and political ills in our society, discussions between them of a religious nature are impossible and

undesirable, for both religious de velopments and experiences are dia metrically opposed to each other. As Rabbi Norman Lamm has expressed it in a recent essay discussing the serious philosophical and theological ramifications of such proposed con versations, “. .. each of us must look into his own collective soul, and be gin groping for a more genuine diaJEW ISH LIFE

logue with G-d Himself . . . Any other dialogue is just a distraction.” Abstention from “dialogue,” how ever, is frowned upon by those who would rather join the bandwagon of such “distractions.” And once again the newspapers are replete with re ports of a Jewish response—interfaith services are jointly sponsored and well attended, the exchange of pulpits with ministers and priests has become an attractive temple sport, inter-religious meetings of all shapes and forms are announced—all dramatically proclaim ing the glories of ecumenism. When confronted with a trouble some situation, when seeking to cope with an existing threat, the committed Jew often turns to the wealth of ex perience preserved in the history of his people, seeking guidance and pre cedent. There is no doubt that the questions pertaining to “dialogue” warrant a serious probe into the re cords of the Jewish past. The March-April issue of J e w i s h L i f e records one such attempt. Rabbi Berel Wein, in his article, “Ecume nism and Dialogue— 1263 C.E.,” seems to have found a parallel be tween the proposed “dialogues” today and the historical debate of Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman (the Ramban, Nachmanides) in Barcelona, in 1263, who so dynamically defended the Tal mud and Judaism against the allega tions and accusations of the Dominic ans. “.. . The idea of a ‘dialogue’ be tween Jews and Christians,” writes Rabbi Wein, “is not a 20th century thought but was already explored cen turies ago, albeit in a different en vironment and under other circum stances.” After a discussion of the historical background of the debate, its contents and effect, the article con cludes with the admonition that “those September-October 1967

who presume to speak in today’s dia logues would do well to read the re cord of this dialogue seven centuries ag o . .. Both Jew and Christian would profit by a study of that record from Barcelona before plunging head-long into any new dialogues or ecumenical discussions. The issues and the world itself have changed little from the days of James I of Aragon. Neither has the people of Israel.” A closer comparison, however, shows that the issues and the strategies have changed. The proposed “dia logues” of today represent an en counter radically different from any Jewish-Christian exchange recorded in our history. It is a phenomenon unique to the 20th century. And this uniqueness is accompanied with a threat to the Jewish principles of faith and to the people of Israel far more profound and serious than ever be fore. HERE is no doubt that our his tory records numerous confront ations between Jews and Christians. The Vikuach, the compulsory religious disputation, was a common event in the life of our people in the Middle Ages, bearing in its train terror and inevitable disaster. Prior to the debate between the Ramban and Pablo Christiani, discussed by Rabbi Wein, there was the disputation between Rabbi Yechiel of Paris and the apostate Nicholas Donin, held in the palace of Louis IX in 1240. Additionally, in 1399, Rabbi Yom Tov LipmannMuhlhausen, the author of Sefer Hanitzachon, a refutation of Christianity and Karaism, another example of a brilliant disputant, represented his people and argued for his faith against the apostate Peter. Later, in Tortosa

in 1413-1414, twenty-two rabbis and scholars participated in a lengthy pub lic debate, consisting of sixty-nine ses sions, answering to charges levelled by the apostate Joshua Lorqui (Geronimo

de Santé Fe). In 1430, in Granada, Yoseph ben Shem Tov and Chayyim ibn Muse were frequent participants in religious disputations with Chris tians.

IN V IT A T IO N TO . . . ?

ONFRONTATIONS between Jews consequences were always suffered. and Christians are, indeed, not Rabbi Yechiel’s eloquent presentation C novel to us, but to speak of these Vikuchim in terms of “ecumenism and dialogue” is a serious misinterpretation of history. The Jewish leaders of the Middle Ages never enjoyed the privilege of being able to decide whether or not to participate in these debates. They were summoned by the ruling powers of the day to submit to the embarrass ment of public disputes, held before antagonistic audiences, consisting of a biased royalty and a fanatically missionizing clergy. The only freedom allowed them was the choice of a scholar to defend them most effective ly. The purpose of the Vikuach was never hidden under guise of “ecumen ism”; it was often explicitly stated— either reply to the charges efficiently or submit to conversion. It was never the aim of the Jewish delegation to negate or minimize the differences be tween the faiths, but rather to define them and to make them more ex plicit. The Vikuach was always accom panied with fear and tension on the part of the Jewish community, for no one could predict the results of these encounters. Fasts were pro claimed. The synagogues were filled with worshippers, invoking the com passion of G-d and His hashgochah in the face of the impending peril. When the Vikuach took place dire 32

was followed with the burning of twenty-four wagonloads of Talmudic tractates. Despite the Ramban’s force ful and scholarly response, his person was endangered and he was compelled to leave Spain, while the Talmud was submitted to the severe erasures of a government censor. Yom Tov Lipmann’s literary genius and eloquence were followed by the ruthless execu tion of eighty Jews. The debates in Tortosa resulted in a papal bull for bidding the study of the Talmud. The annals of history may record the numbers of Jews that were killed and tortured as a result of these dis putations, but nowhere do we find a listing of those who were influenced by the arguments to embrace the prin ciples of another faith. The Vikuchim were not gentle philosophical “dia logues,” where theological principles were freely discussed and ideas ex changed. The scholar who represented the Jewish community was always put to answering the nonsensical allega tions, levelled by apostates, that the Talmud and the liturgy undermined Christian principles and mocked at Christian ritual and ceremonial. The disputations were part of a program to oppress and to convert the Jews. Their purpose was to widen the schism between the Jewish and Christian populations, to instigate a more in tensive hatred of the Jews, to rationJEW ISH LIFE

alize the persecutions perpetrated upon them, and to strengthen efforts for forced baptism. The life and the well being of the Jew may have been threatened, but his spirit was rein forced by the very threat itself. HE situation today is of a com pletely different hue. The Vikuach is a thing of the past. Today the Jewish community is not summoned by a ruling government or ecclesiasti cal authority to partake in an interreligious disputation; today we are in vited to take part in “dialogue,” in religious discussion and conversation. “Since the spiritual patrimony com mon to Christians and Jews is so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect, which is the fruit, above all» of biblical and theological studies as well as of frater nal dialogue”—so reads the text of the Vatican’s bid for a 20th century Jewish-Christian encounter. Amidst an avowed spirit of liberalism, and under the guise of an ecumenical in terest in fostering “mutual understand ing and respect,” the Church recom mends that Jews and Christians, the ologians as well as laymen, join, not in religious debates, but in theological dialogue. For the first time in our his tory we have the privilege, or rather the problem, of deciding: shall we or shall we not indulge in this exchange of theological ideas? Not only have the conditions changed from those in Barcelona in 1263, but the issues involved are to tally different ones. Whereas the Vikuach of the Middle Ages concerned itself with the differences between the faiths, today the emphasis is placed upon the “spiritual patrimony com-

September-October 1967

mon to Christians and Jews.” Today the Vatican proclaims that .. the beginnings of her faith and her elec tion are found already among the Pat riarchs, Moses and the prophets . . . and likewise that the salvation of the church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage.” This text is in troduced to the Christian masses with an explanation and elaboration: “Here the Church draws attention to your spiritual heritage in Judaism, to the spiritual ties which bind the Christian and Jewish peoples together. It is this heritage which brings a special broth erhood between you and your Jewish neighbors. . . So your bond is not just of faith but of people, of the spirit and of the flesh.”* The purpose of today’s “dialogue,” as opposed to that of the Vikuich, is not to stress the variants between Judaism and Christianity, but rather to capitalize upon the principles “they have in common;” not to explain their differences, but to explain them away. And herein lies the very potent danger that threatens the essence of our faith and the uniqueness of our people. For as a result of this superfi cial stress upon a “common heritage,” the fundamental principles of Judaism that are, unfortunately, already en veloped in so much confusion and misunderstanling, stand in jeJpailly of becoming even further diluted. * This quotation is taken from a pamphlet en titled, “The Declaration on Non-Christian Re ligions,” a part of the Heritage Sériés, pub lished by the John XXIII Center of Fôr&hâm University. It has the imprimatur of Bishop Russell J. McVinney of Providence, R.Ii^âhd is under the editorial directorship of Rev. Èdward Flannery, the Secretariat for Catholio-Jewish Relations of the American Bishop’s Coifimittee for Ecumenism and Inter-Religious Affairs. Rev. Flannery is the author of “The Anguish of the Jews.” -

T W O -SID ED M O N O L O G U E

HEREAS the Vikuach and the main a Jew,” was deemed worthy for open threat that was associated publication in the Fall, 1965, issue of with it served to strengthen the iden the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. tification of the Jew with his faith and After a lengthy discussion in which heritage, today’s bid for “dialogue,” he equates the teachings of Christian expressed in terms of good-will and ity with those of rabbinic Judaism, fellowship and mutual understanding, suggesting that “he (Jesus) is a finds our people off-guard, susceptible teacher, a prophetic figure and a mar to the introduction of an esh zarah, tyr in the best of Jewish traditions; to the infiltration of ideas that are for there is an almost complete agree alien and contrary to Judaism. One ment between his teachings in the still shudders at the Reform leader’s Sermon on the Mount and the best initial recommendation that the Jews, of rabbinic halacha ” Prof. Barth em in response to the Vatican’s liberalism, phatically states that “.. . every Jew accept Christianity’s Messiah as a who, with a burning heart, yearns for “prophetic spirit in the stream of the Messiah to come in some way be Jewish tradition.” It is true that this lieves in Jesus;” With tongue-in-cheek blasphemous suggestion met with a he footnotes this comment, stating violent reaction even from the most that “In Chicago in the spring of Reform circles, but ‘'dialogue” provides 1962, to the surprise and joy of a the opportunity for similar expressions group of Jewish scholars, K. Barth to be made in more refined subtleties, made an explicit affirmation in that bearing the hechsher of a temple at sense.” Should such a suggestion have mosphere and the presence of clergy been made in the course of a Viku men, enjoying the applause of so many ach it undoubtedly would have been of our people who, unsuspectingly, immediately denied, and the Jewish are being weaned away from Judaism. concept of the Messianic Era, in con This is not mere conjecture. Al tradistinction to the Christian prin though we still read eloquent words ciple of salvation, would have been of debate as to whether or not we elaborated upon and defined; but in are to indulge in this inter-religi- “dialogue,” in the spirit of ecumenism, o u s “d i a l o g u e , ” m a n y g r o u p s it remains unanswered, and it is de throughout the country have in fact voured by an audience that suddenly decided to participate, and the nature forgets our daily expressions of praise of these encounters can be examined. to G-d, “Who has not made us as Markus Barth, formerly the minister worldly nations, nor set us up as at the Evangelical Reformed Church earthy peoples; Not making our por in Bubendorf, Switzerland, and now tion as theirs, nor our destiny as that Professor of the New Testament at of their multitudes.” The inherent danger in “dialogue” the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, addressed a brotherhood dinner at is alluded to by Prof. Barth himself the Tree of Life Reform temple in as he writes: “But Rabbi Steven Pittsburgh on February 24th, 1965, Schwartzwald is right when he ob and his lecture, “What Can a Jew serves that I do ‘not really abandon Believe About Jesus— and Still Re the desire to bring Israel to Jesus—

JEW ISH LIFE

no believing Christian could.’* But since I can only speak out of my con victions, I have to respect the faith and the convictions of the Jews. I will not pressure them to betray the faith of their fathers. Witness given in dialogue rather than mission is called for.” The Vikuach represented an exerted pressure to convert the Jew; the “dialogue” seeks to dilute the Jew’s concept of his uniqueness and individuality, clearing away the obstacles toward assimilation and preparing the avenue to “bring Israel to Jesus.” * Dr. Schwartzwald’s comment is quoted from his article, “Judaism, Scriptures and Ecumenism,” in “Scripture and Ecumenism” (Pittsburgh: 1965), pp. 116-117.

September-October 1967

A N analytic study of our past is A of vital importance, for history is, indeed, a magistra vitae, a guide to the perplexities of our own day. At times we may discover a parallel in the annals of yesteryear having direct relevance to a contemporary situation. But it is not only from similarities and parallels that we learn. Contrasts, too, have their educational values. The historic Vikuach may not be analog ous to the suggested “dialogue” of today, but, upon comparison, it cer tainly offers us the opportunity to gain a more profound insight into the nature of and the threat inherent in the 20th century Jewish-Christian con frontation.

The Federation Bar Do focal Jewish welfare fund federations make good their claim to represent and serve all segments of the Jewish com munity? The prevailing pattern of welfare fund leaderships, attitudesf and allocations yields a revealing answer.

By MENACHEM RAAB

WAS recently asked by an active of Directors or Executive Committee, member of a Jewish community whichever name is given to the body fund federation why it was that or that wields the power. Often an in thodox Jews seem to be opposed to dividual who may nominally belong the local Federations and Welfare to an orthodox synagogue, though he Funds. He was much taken aback may also be a member of another when, in rejoinder, I pointed to the non-orthodox congregation, is con fact that orthodox Jews contribute sidered “the” orthodox Jewish repre their full share to local Federation sentative. Too often he is not religi fund campaigns as ample proof of the ously observant and cannot by any untruth of this widely circulated con means bespeak the opinion of observ ant Jews. tention. There are, however, a number of e d e r a t i o n s will argue that circumstances and facts that tend to their leadership does not represent give this impression and do create a negative feeling among orthodox Jews any one segment or faction of Jews towards these agencies. This negative but rather the total Jewish community. feeling, as I prefer to call it, is not Technically this may be so but in re opposition. If there were opposition ality when a man sits at a meeting it would manifest itself in active ob and is called upon to express his jection to and non-support of these opinion and cast his vote he does not take a survey of the Jewish commu funds. This is not the case. The truth is that orthodox Jews nity and vote accordingly. He votes feel left out of these agencies, with according to the dictates of his own exceptions too few to be of any sig conscience which is in effect a reflec nificance. It is a case of taxation with tion of his own thinking. Since he is not orthodox-oriented, his decision out representation. In most communities you will find will not reflect the views of orthodox not one orthodox Jew on the Board Jews, but of others. Consequently, Or-

JEW ISH LIFE

thodoxy has no one to speak for it in most Federation circles. A look at allocations of Federations and Welfare funds will indicate that very little money if any at all is al located to community institutions which orthodox Jews consider a must, while non-orthodox Jews relegate them to minor or no importance. Take, as an example, the matter of Mikveh. Jewish law states that the Mikveh takes precedence in allocation of communal funds over even educa tion. Since, however, it is recognized that only observant Jews accept this view and the non-orthodox feel no need for the Mikveh except when one of their religious leaders undertakes to perform a conversion, then the Mikveh is looked upon as an orthodox institution to be supported by ortho dox Jews alone. It is understandable that Federa tions do not support synagogues. Sup posedly, they are for segments of the community. A Mikveh, however, is not “denominational.” It is a commu nity institution. The Day School is another example. Because most people in the Federa tion leadership, for whatever reasons they may have, are opposed to the Day School movement, these educa tional institutions are labelled as “or thodox” and do not get their share of community funds. Anyone in the Day School movement knows that in most day schools a large proportion of the children come from non-orthodox homes. But since it was the orthodox Jews who founded these schools and who struggled and sacrificed to main tain them, they are viewed as institu tions of the orthodox Jewish commu nity and do not get allocations. Some communities are beginning to give nominal support to day schools but September-October 1967

only because of the tremendous pres sure exerted. More often than not, the allocation is meager and is given begrudgingly. NOTHER point in question is the A support of Yeshivoth and higher schools of Torah learning in the United States and Israel. Most Federa tions, designating them as religious institutions of the orthodox Jewish fold, refuse them any support. Some Federations were obliged, years ago, to agree to grant allocations to some Torah institutions in order to prevent separate appeals by these institutions to the community at large. Now that these private appeals and campaigns have been virtually eliminated in their communities, the Federations in ques tion are gradually reducing the size of the allocations to these institutions and apparently aim to eventually abolish them completely. Why an educational institution which teaches traditional Jewish values becomes a “sectarian” religious insti tution which cannot be supported by a Jewish community fund Federation, while Community Centers and Y’s which often desecrate hallowed Jew ish principles and are certainly not “religious” institutions may receive al locations, is beyond one’s comprehen sion. The Federations give massive finan cial support to the so-called commu nity relations and “defense” agencies such as the American Jewish Com mittee and the American Jewish Con gress and what is even more signifi cant, echo the opinions of these agen cies in their public pronouncements. It is well known that these agencies also are very rarely representative of the entire Jewish community. They are not elected democratically by the 37

Jewish communities though they pro fess to speak in their behalf. The point of view of orthodox Jewry is usually disregarded or neglected. The Federa tions which give these agencies finan cial support also support their policies and advocate adherence to them. At times these policies and courses of action are offensive and outright in sulting to orthodox Jews. O CITE one example among ma ny, a public hearing was held recently in New Jersey on a proposed bill that would give bus transporta tion to children attending parochial and private schools similar to that provided for public schools. This kind of bill is unanimously supported by orthodox Jewry, who do not feel it is a breach in the principle of separa tion of Church and State. It comes as no surprise to anyone that the Federations followed the lead of the community relations agencies in op posing this and all other such bills and it goes without saying that they were well represented at the hearing. Of interest is a report issued to the leadership of one of the Federations describing the hearing. I quote it here in its entirety.

amation League, to alert them to oui interest in the legislation. It was a strange sight indeed to find Rabbi Pinchas Teitz, leading N.J. orthodox leader, and Monsignor Thomas Frain, head of Trenton’s Catholic Schools, on the same side in approving this bill. Then again, it is not so strange in view of the stand taken in the last few years by the leading orthodox groups on Federal aid to education at the local level. I observed enough of the hearings to see that passage of the bill is probably a foregone conclusion but it was important for public hearings to be held on this controversial subject. By my attend ance, as suggested by the Executive Committee, I was able to observe the proceedings at first hand. I heard presentations made by the AJ Com mittee, AJ Congress, and ADL. I shall give a report on the hearings at the Board meeting.

It is noteworthy that the “Big Three” were consulted prior to the hearing for their points of view. The leaders of the day schools, which were directly affected by this bill, were not even given the courtesy of a tele phone call to get their opinion even if it were going to be disregarded. Decency dictates that the people who are involved directly with the bill should at least be brought into the Sound Community Relations In discussions if democratic procedures volves a “Watchdog” Role by Feder are to be followed. Who represented the views of the supporters of day ation This past Wednesday, I moni schools when the Federation leaders tored the hearings conducted by the consulted with American Jewish Con State Legislature’s Committee on Ed gress, American Jewish Committee, ucation for proponents and opponents Anti-Defamation League to discuss of the pending legislation which would approve bus transportation for what their stand should be? Was there, children attending private schools, in fact, any attempt at deliberation? including parochial schools. I had Could it be that the decision was previously contacted the New Jersey merely an outcome of the telephone state offices of the “Big Three” of conversations between executive di the community relations agencies, rectors of these agencies? American Jewish Committee, Ameri Aside from the question of reprecan Jewish Congress, and Anti-Def

JEW ISH LIFE

sentation, the tone of this character istic article is highly revealing. It seems that the community is fortunate to have a “Watchdog” monitoring the activities of traditional Jews. The article, in pointing to the fact that Rabbi Teitz and Monsignor Frain were on the same side in approving the bill, seems to hold this forth as a tragedy. It would not be very difficult to find examples of occasions when non-orthod®x religious leadership as well as the executives of the “Big Three” were on the side of Christian leaders and opposed to traditional Jewish leadership. As a matter of fact, in this particular bill they are opposed to all revered and nationally honored orthodox leadership. Does not that matter at all? HE most significant aspect of the article, for our present purpose, is the way it typifies the Federation attitude towards orthodox Jews. The implication is that orthodox Jew ry is one thing and the rest of the American Jewish community is an other. That Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy both are parts of the Jewish community, and that the former no less, surely, than the latter, has its distinctive viewpoint to which it is en titled and which is to be heard—this seems beyond the conception of the Federation apparatus. Federations use the argument that orthodox Jews do not participate and are not actively engaged in the affairs of the community. Be it noted, in this connection, that Federations, like all other organizations, have to solicit workers. They seek especially those that seem to have leadership poten tial and try to gain their support and to involve them actively on the leader

Septem ber-October 1967

ship level. To what extent do they seek out orthodox people in such capacities? True, they will occasionally call upon orthodox Jews to participate but more often than not it will be in an insignificant area or they will be as signed to committees where they just fill the seats. Rarely are they placed in policy-making positions and still more rarely on the Executive Boards where the real power and authority are vested. These problems seem to be univer sal with local Jewish Federations. In every community observant Jews are reaching out for recognition and their rights as members of the community. In very few places does this pattern not hold true, and in very few local communities does it not hold true that Federations and Welfare Funds re buff these efforts and relegate the or thodox to a position where they can exercise no influence on policy. S there any question, then, why or Inegative thodox Jews have what I call a feeling towards Federations? It is not opposition and not lack of cooperation. It is a negative feeling resulting from being left out. It is a feeling of not being welcome in the non-orthodox-controlled areas of the collective Jewish community and not being given a voice in its deliberations. This situation can be easily rectified in those communities where the prob lem is recognized and honest efforts are taken to change the status quo. Orthodox Jews are ready to do their share. All they want is an opportunity to be represented as they should be if we are to have a democratic Jewish Community structure. 39

FIRST WORLD CONFERENCE OF ASHKENAZI AND SEPHARDI SYNAGOGUES

T Jerusalem January 8—139 1968

Teveth 7—12, 5728

W ill b e c o n v e n e d in t h e d is t in g u is h e d p r e s e n c e o f th e w o r ld le a d e r s o f T o r a h J e w r y a n d th e le a d e r s o f th e S ta te o f Is ra e l

Under the auspices of National Synagogue Bodies and Kehilloth of countries across the globe including Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e W o r l d C o n f e r e n c e is r e s e r v e d t o m e m b e r s o f t h e o f f ic ia l d e le g a t io n s o f th e c o n v e n in g b o d ie s .

JEW ISH LIFE

T o s h a r e in a h is t o r ic e x p e r ie n c e

FIRST WORLD CONFERENCE OF ASHKENAZI AND SEPHARDI SYNAGOGUES

T* I B i BBi

E n r o ll th r o u g h y o u r c o n g r e g a t io n in th e

WORLD CONFERENCE PILGRIMAGE o f th e

UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA____________ The UOJCA World Conference Pilgrmage Tours and attendance at the World Conference are reserved exclusively for those accredited to the UOJCA Delegation as submitted by their congregations. December 26—January 16 Pilgrimage Tour $715 22 days January 1—January 15 Pilgrimage Tour $625 15 days January 7—January 21 Pilgrimage Tour $625 15 days January 6—January 16 Pilgrimage Tour -$525 11 days (All rates based on fares to and from New York) Fares to New York in connection with the World Conference Pilgrimage Tours enjoy special rates. World Conference Registration: $25 per person, $40 per couple. For en ro llm en t , reservations and fu ll details C ontact yo u r local UOJCA-affiliated C ongregation

or write to:

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Dept. WCJ, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011 September-October 1967

jy Back in the Shadow of the Kremlin By BERNARD A. POUPKO

NCE exposed to the faces of before the military confrontation in Russian Jews, you can never blot the Middle East. Executed with regu O out their memory from your heart. larity, these inflammatory columns, Even when you leave them behind, no matter how far you go, they follow you, they speak with \ you and they plead with you. For theirs are faces which reflect the anguish of a Jewry, the second largest Jewish community in the world, cut off from the living organism of the House of Israel for half a century. The impressions and the expressions which one accumulates during a visit with Soviet Jewry be come indelibly engraved on one’s heart. Their suffering and incredible endurance haunts you months after you have departed from their presence. Thus, three years after an initial visit, and two years after a succeed ing visit as one of the delegation of the Rabbinical Council of America to the Soviet Union, I felt an overwhelm ing urge to see once again how our brethren in Russia were faring and what could possibly be done to allevi ate their lot of lonely isolation and ruthless suppression. My yearning to embark on this journey was spurred by the vigorously renewed attacks in lzvestia and Pravda, which I receive daily, upon the State of Israel weeks 42

editorials, articles, and caricatures castigated with heightened viciousness the “military clique in Tel Aviv which is instigating provocations and aggres sive action against their helpless and peace-loving Arab neighbors.” Whereas previously the effect of this propaganda was apparent enough, the perennial question then addressed to the visiting American was: “What are you Americans doing in Viet Nam, why are you killing defenseless women and children thousands of miles away from your homeland?” But this time the popular question was: “Why is Israel provoking war with the Arabs, why is Israel taking orders from the U.S.A. and England to resume the ugly policy of colonialism and im perialism in the Middle East?” How shocked I was when even some co religionists in Moscow, Leningrad, and Charkov asked me to clarify to them Israel’s “war-mongering policy and military actions against its Arab neighbors.” Can any one of us appre ciate the spiritual agony of the Mos cow Jew who reads on the front JEW ISH LIFE

pages of his newspapers the cynical attacks upon the State of Israel com pounded of sinister falsifications, dis tortions, and innuendos? These paral

lel all too closely the form and con tent of the antisemitic propaganda of Goebbels and Streicher of evil memory.

L E N IN G R A D

S we stood at the main entrance and I don’t see any hope for the A of Leningrad’s Yevropa Hotel the future. Can you imagine how hungry evening of our arrival, I noticed a we are for a Jewish word or song? man in his forties observing me with special interest. Without much deliber ation I approached him and extended my hand with a “Sholom Aleichem.” He responded warmly with “SholomZdravstvoote” and turned back the lapel of his jacket, displaying with pride a pin bearing the Star of David, then asked my wife and me to take a walk with him. The breath-taking magic of the Leningrad summer white night with its clear and starry skies did not at all harmonize with the words of this lonely orchestra con ductor. “They resent us and they don’t trust us and I simply cannot under stand why my own father, a reputable engineer, who performed his duties with loyalty and devotion, was exe cuted during the dark days of Stalin. My mother, overwhelmed by grief and sorrow, died a few months later. I beg of you, come with me tomorrow morning to the cemetery and help me recite some prayers upon their graves. I want you to know that I and many of my friends and acquaintances carry with pride this pin with the Star of David upon our lapels. We Russian Jews have become tired of living con stantly in fear.” Although he spoke in Russian, occasionally he injected here and there, with some difficulty, a Yiddish word. Then he continued: “We here are all going to the abyss September-October 1967

As soon as a Jewish artist arrives in town and a concert is announced all available seats are sold out virtually within hours. The more enmity they show to us the more we are deter mined to remain Jews, and I speak to you now especially of the younger generation. Do you know what it means for us to have an opportunity to speak and to unburden our hearts the way I am doing at this moment? You must believe me when I tell you that we are loyal to our government and are serving it with all of our talents but it seems to have little im pression upon them because they hate us and we don’t know why.” Descending the stately staircase of the hotel on the following afternoon, we met a young couple dressed as bride and groom, the girl carrying a bouquet of flowers, followed by an entourage of smiling men and women dressed in holiday clothes. It was ob vious to me that the bride and the groom and many of the people that followed them were Jewish. Ap proaching the bride and groom, I said to them in Russian, “I am a rabbi from the U.S.A. and would like to congratulate you upon your marriage and wish you a very happy life.” They responded with words of gratitude and then one of the party, a middle-aged man, introduced himself as the father 43

of the bride, thanked me for my good wishes and invited my wife and my self to join them at the wedding which was to take place soon in one of the larger rooms of the hotel. We were prompt to accept. Over one hundred and fifty people, men, women, youths and children, sat around festive tables laden with drinks and refreshments and decorated with flowers. The parents of the bride and groom, who welcomed us at the door with an outburst of joy, insisted that we occupy seats at the head table and asked me to address the newly married couple and explain to them the Jewish significance of marriage. I can hardly remember another occasion which found me so overwhelmed by con flicting thoughts and emotions. As I rose to my feet I asked the audience whether I should speak in Yiddish or in Russian—and the loud reply to my question was “Po evreiskomoo— we want to hear Yiddish.” As soon as I started speaking I noticed several of the men covering their bare heads with handkerchiefs. After my talk, one of the uncles of the bridegroom came over to me and with tears in his eyes said: “Rabbi, I really don’t know whether this is real or just a dream. This is the first time in my life that I have heard a rabbi at a Jewish wedding. Please be lieve me when I tell you that all of us here are loyal and proud Jews. We all ate Matzah during Pesach and some of us had even something similar to a Pesach Seder.” His wife came over quickly to him as he was speak ing to me and took him by his hand and pleaded with him in a lowered voice: “Have mercy upon us. Stop talking, don’t say a word.” Presently, some in the room called 44

on me to “please sing for us a Jewish song.” Soon these were joined by other people who moved to the head table where we sat and together we sang “lomir alie in einem dem chosonkalah mekabel ponim zein . . .” and then we concluded our singing with the beloved words and melody from the seven marriage benedictions: “May there soon be heard in the streets of Yehudah, In the streets of Yerushalayim, the sound of joy and gladness, The voice of the groom and of the bride. .

Afterwards other guests at the wedding surrounded us and in a most moving and intimate manner unburdened their heavy hearts. They went out of the way to assure me of their loyalty to their heritage and their people, and their longing for association with their brethren in other lands. What a memorable occasion! Joy and agony, hope and fear, anxiety and pride, alienation and longing mingled with one another in an atmosphere where reality and fantasy became in distinguishable. A Jewish wedding— without a Rabbi, without a Kethubah, without the Seven Benedictions or Halachah and tradition, even without a broken glass—yet with warm Jew ish tears, with a broken Jewish heart and with eternal Jewish longing. n p H E Baron Ginsburg Synagogue on X Lermantovskaya Street in Lenin grad has a special dimension of spiritual charm. Memorable chapters of Jewish history in Czarist and post revolutionary Russia were written in the spacious offices of this enormous and magnificent edifice, which I had originally visited as an eight-yearold boy. The huge Talmud Torah JEW ISH LIFE

building which the Baron built ad jacent to the synagogue is now used as a state bakery. Nowadays, as one enters the grounds of the Synagogue; he meets men and women with white aprons over their clothes looking with curiosity upon visitors to the Syn agogue. Thursday morning, the second day Rosh Chodesh Iyyar, I found a few hundred elderly people worshipping with different minyanim in the Beth Hamidrash and its adjacent chambers. In fact, services are held continuously each morning from six o’clock to twelve noon. I was received warmly by the worshippers, who referred with gratitude to the visit of the Rabbinical Council delegation two years before. I noticed during this visit a slight relaxation of the tense restraint and fear which was prevalent during my two previous visits. People mingled somewhat more freely and spoke with less reluctance to me and to one an other. Some of the worshippers were even eager to assure me of the pend ing release from jail of the former president of the synagogue, Dr. Perchersky, who, accused of some alleged contacts with foreigners, is serving his eighth year in a labor detention camp. Upon leaving the synagogue we en countered an elderly man walking rather briskly, carrying a shopping bag

in his hand. He responded to my “Shalom Aleichem” salutation and after conversing a while he turned around in all directions, made a thorough study of the “condition” around us, and quickly opened up the bag to display its contents for me. “I was fortunate in getting this kosher head of a calf for Shabbos. Please do not ask me where and how I got it for it is more advisable that such things should not be revealed.” News was current in Leningrad about the burial of deceased Jews on the Russian cemetery. I was told that a committee representing the Jewish community met with one of the com missars and presented a petition for cemetery grounds to be made avail able for the Jews of Leningrad. The commissar asked them: “Show me a source in your Bible where it is ex plicitly written that there must be an exclusively Jewish cemetery?” When a committee member referred him to the Biblical account of our Patriarch Abraham’s acquisition of the Meorath Hamachpeylah as a burial place for his wife Sarah, the commissar re sponded: “Abraham acquired this ex clusive burial plot not because of a religious injunction in your Bible but rather because he was of the privi leged bourgeois class and he did not want to mingle even in death with the ordinary poor masses.”

SV ET LA N A

XCEPT for Nikita Khrushchev’s daughter. Three or four people out epoch-making de-Stalinization of of every ten to whom we spoke of E Russia, hardly any other event during this development expressed sympathy the last fifty years has made such an impact upon Soviet society as the defection to the U.S.A. of Stalin’s September-October 1967

with her and a personal desire to follow her example. A university student told me how the news of her 45

defection virtually electrified both the faculty and the student body of his university. The first flash of news about this event was received with incredulity. Hardly anyone was ready to believe it. Yet, although the Soviet regime did not publish anything about it in the daily newspapers, the news spread like lightning through foreign broad casts and by visitors from abroad. Standing with us in the lobby of the university, one student cautiously turned in all directions and with a distinct but soft voice said: “I and my friends are envious of Svetlana. How fortunate we would be if we, too, could follow her example and make our way to freedom! But we are not misled about conditions and about such possibilities. We know quite well that we are trapped. This, of course, does not mean that we have given up hope to eventually achieve a better day.” Another student, from the Re public of Georgia, spoke most frankly and open heartedly to us, emphasizing that many of the young generation, especially university students, are totally disenchanted with Communism and the Kremlin policies. “Revolu tionary tactics and Communist ideol ogy which suppresses personal free dom was probably necessary to over throw the despotic Czar but it hardly has any use or relevance for our own day,” he said to us. And then he con

cluded: “Our generation desires more than anything else, freedom, as people have it in other countries. Svetlana has shown great courage and a con sistent adherence to this idea.” Yet most of the people, and they represented various levels of the oc cupational and intellectual spectrum, with whom we discussed the Svetlana affair, criticized her as irresponsible and as a mother without any sense of love for and loyalty to her own chil dren, usually suggesting that she was lured by the C.I.A. and hypnotized by the American dollar. However, it should be noted that this was the first time during our three visits that so many complaints about the govern ment and so much criticism against the Communist ideology were to be heard. The aspect of Svetlana’s defection which Russians found most astonish ing was expressed by a waitress in a Leningrad hotel. Said this intelligent and well-educated woman in her for ties: “What I cannot understand about the Svetlana story is how it was possi ble for faith in G-d and religious awareness to penetrate the massive walls of the Kremlin, from which G-d was banished half a century ago. How was it possible for the daughter of Stalin who from her very infancy was brought up in the tradition of atheism to suddenly turn to religion?”

M E E T IN G W IT H VERGELIS

HEN, upon arrival in Moscow on May 12th, we came to the main entrance of the new and truly magnificent Rossia Hotel, we were taken aback by the elegantly attired

and attentive manner of the porters who took care of our luggage. It ap peared to me as if Ivan was not fully comfortable in his new western attire. Our rooms pn the eleventh floor of JEW ISH LIFE

this new hotel were in no way in ferior to the accomodations which one receives in the hotels of the leading capitals in the Free World. About half-past-two I met with Aaron Vergelis, Editor of Sovetish Heimland, poet, and principal apolog ist of the Kremlin regarding Jews in the Soviet Union. The spacious head quarters of this controversial commis sar of Jewish affairs and his Yevseki collaborators, situated in the center of Moscow on Kirov Street, do not necessarily comply with the claimed standards of Communist austerity. On the first floor are numerous offices with Yiddish writers and journalists, men and women, sitting at their type writers and turning out their latest masterpieces. Upon being informed by his secretary of my arrival, Vergelis opened the door of his office from which some six or seven writers came out, seemingly from a conference. He approached me with a correct wel come and asked me to enter. The first confrontation with the number one Jewish Communist of Russia was tense and marked by mixed feelings. In my mind were the images of his forerunners whom I still remember from my childhood in Veliz who desecrated synagogues, arrested He brew teachers and shochtim, and end lessly tormented my own late father and grandfather, both of blessed memory, and all other rabbis through out Russia. I could not help but re call, as I sat with Vergelis on the comfortable sofa in his office, the Sabbaths and Yomim Tovim made dark and bitter, the forced chometz meals on Pesach and the perverted, vitriolic dramatic presentations on Kol Nidrey night to which the youth of our community were exposed by the September-October 1967

Yevseki zealots. My hands were trem bling during the initial moments of the conference. My only justification for this meeting was a perhaps naive desire to keep open as many lines of communications as possible, lines which may be very fragile and even dubious, in order to alleviate the tragic fate of our tormented brethren in the Communist “paradise.” Vergelis opened the conversation with: “I want you to know that we here in Moscow are making honest efforts to solve the Jewish problem here, but it is the interferences of yourself and other American Jews and Jews of other countries, your criticism of our government and protests against the U.S.S.R., which renders our work futile. If none of you would interfere, this problem would have long been solved.” Quite astonished at Vergelis’s admission that there is a Jewish problem in the U.S.S.R., I promptly replied: “Finally you, Mr. Vergelis, are ready to admit that there is such a thing as a Jewish problem in the Soviet Union although until now you have consistently and cate gorically denied it in New York, Lon don, and other places. I am moved to hear this statement here in Moscow from your own mouth, but if your thesis is to be credited it must be accompanied with concrete acts which will prove that you are ready and willing to sincerely cooperate in this matter. As you are probably aware, your government has never fulfilled its promise to the delegation of the Rabbinical Council of America here in Moscow in July, 1965, regarding the publication of the prayer books and the re-opening of the yeshivah. There has been some expansion of matzah baking facilities and other 47

improvements, but as yet there is no Siddur and there is no Yeshivah for three-and-a-quarter million Jews of the U.S.S.R. We have even heard something of a promise allegedly made by your government to permit Jewish young men of the U.S.S.R. to travel abroad for the purpose of study ing in foreign yeshivas. The fact re mains,* however, that what was prom ised to us two years, ago was never implemented and the promises of a month ago are now being categorically denied by responsible people here in Moscow. Therefore, if you desire to establish a relationship of faith with Jews abroad, please implement the publication of at least twenty-five thousand Siddurim at your Sovetish Heimland publishing house where the facilities are appropriate for such a project.” Without hesitation, Vergelis replied: “Rabbi Poupko, I do not need to get permission for this project from any one. Please be assured that your re quest will be fulfilled in the very near future. You must, however, ask Rabbi Levin to supply me immediately with a copy of a complete Siddur which will be used in our offset process for the reproduction.” Subsequently Vergelis repeated to me his promise in the presence of Rabbi Levin and the lay leaders of the Central Synagogue, the Marina Rostcha Synagogue, and the Tcherkizova Synagogue, on Monday, May 15, 2:45 P.M. in the Israeli Embassy during the celebration of Israel’s Independ ence Day. During the conversation I expressed appreciation to Vergelis for the pub lication, in the April issue of the Sovetish Heimland, of an article by S. Y. Agnon and an essay on the 48

“Duties of the Heart” by Bachya Ibn Pekuda and voiced the hope that fu ture issues of Soviet Russia’s only Jewish literary publication would in clude more material of Torah-religious content. When I pointed to the fact that 80% of the copies of the Sovetish Heimland are distributed abroad, with only a fraction remaining available for Russian Jewry, Vergelis made no effort to deny this. Upon my stating deep concern about Belenky’s new book “Kritika Iudeiskoi Religii” (“A Critique Of Judaism”), a gruesome, crude distortion of the teachings of the Bible and the Talmud, especially notable for its inflammatory attack upon the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Vergelis took from a drawer of his desk a manuscript in Russian which was a critical review of this book, written by a well known Jewish pro fessor of Moscow University. After reading the nine-page manuscript I told Vergelis that the article was not enough to counteract the vicious hatred and scandalous distortions of Belenky’s work. Vergelis’s reply was: “We too are very unhappy with Belenky’s work against Judaism but we are not equipped with sufficient knowledge of the Bible and the Tal mud to criticize it. Would you sit down and write an article on it, and submit it to me? I assure you that I will publish it in the next issue of Sovetish Heimland.” We parted on a friendly note. And now I was more convinced than be fore of the need to maintain contacts even with the controversial Vergelis and his colleagues, however far fetched the possibilities of benefit may be, in order to alleviate the plight of our brethren. When a person is drowning he will hold on even to a JEW ISH LIFE

straw. To rescue three and one quarter million Jews from spiritual extinction, one may even hold on to coat

tails of the Soviet Union’s chief apologist for their mistreatment of our brethren.

THE M O S C O W S Y N A G O G U E

NTERING M o sco w ’ s Central Synagogue Friday evening, prior to the Sabbath services, we were soon surrounded by worshippers who recog nized us from our previous visits, some offering eager words of welcome, others voiceless, all staring with sor rowful eyes from sensitive Jewish faces, staring at us as if we were messengers from a different world.. . . One among them burst forth with: “We are a lonely and condemned tribe of Israel. At times we are driven to cry out, O G-d, why hast Thou de serted me? Until now they accused us of black market speculation, disloyalty to the government, and other trumpedup charges. And now they are em barked on a merciless program of villification against the remnants of our people who were spared destruc tion in the Nazi concentration camps. Their merciless campaign of distor tions and falsifications has no limit. Rabbi, how will it all end? . . . It seems that they are determined to snatch from us our last outpost of hope and expose us even to destruc tion. . . .” As I write these lines I have in front of me the most recent issues of Izvestia and Pravda. It is simply un believable to read the front page sixand eight-column feature articles castigating the State of Israel with such Venom and hatred accompanied by Nazi-style caricatures of the Jewish face. Beyond exaggeration, these arti cles, some of them three full pages

September-October 1967

out of the four of the Izvestia or Pravda, are inflammatory proclama tions inciting politicide and genocide. Nedelia, the Sunday supplement maga zine of Izvestia, carries a feature arti cle by K. Vishnevetsky, informing its millions of readers, among other such charges, that during the last nineteen years Israel was fully guilty of all border violations, infiltrations into Arab lands for the purpose of sabotage and murder, and the con flagrations in the Middle East. The caricatured faces of Eshkol, Dayan, Eban, and Israeli soldiers remind one of Nazi pornography at the height of its efforts to instigate pogroms against Jews. Upon receiving me in his cramped and modest office which adjoins the Bimah of the Synagogue, Rabbi Levin embraced me with heartv/arming joy. The first moments were marked by a silent communication of hearts and minds. The silence was broken when the venerable rabbi, with his charac teristic, sad expression, remarked: “How good it would have been had peace reigned throughout the world and men would not have taken up arms against fellow men. People like you and many others should influence the American government to abandon its futile war in Viet Nam and instead should become an instrumentality for peace together with the Soviet Union throughout the world. As long as there is war in this world it is impossible to pay attention to other matters, how49

ever urgent they may be. You know I am always happy to talk with you, and all foreign visitors, because it gives me another opportunity to plead for peace.” When questioned* about the report circulating in America that the Soviet Government might permit Jewish youth of Russia to study in yeshivoth abroad in order to prepare for the Rabbinate, Rabbi Levin said: “This is a childish fantasy; we do not even have a single applicant who expressed any desire to go abroad for such a purpose. Only a locally established yeshivah can adequately prepare young men for the responsibilities of the Rabbinate, Shechitah, and other religious functions in our country. Furthermore, I for one have never heard of such permission being granted to anyone!” In response to my inquiry about some Moscow Jews who had been permitted to leave for Israel, he said: “I receive letters from them in which they complain about the climate in Israel, the unemployment, and the difficulty to adjust to a new life.” In contrast to this, let me note that a number of Russian Jews who settled in Israel during the current year, whom I was fortunate to meet in the Holy Land, spoke with great enthusi asm and boundless joy about the new life which they found in the State of Israel. They did not in any way casti gate their former homeland, but in stead could not find enough words of praise and gratitude for their new opportunities. It seems that in their effort to halt the flood of applications from Jews for passports in order to emigrate to Israel, the Soviet Government planted among groups of immigrants “reliable 50

comrades.” After spending a few weeks in Israel, these well-trained agents would bombard Russian daily newspapers with letters to the editor complaining about unemployment, in adequate housing facilities, social evils, etc., prevalent in Israel. These letters of woe were also sent to families whose applications were pending at the passport offices. The climax of this mischievous plan was reached when the “disillusioned immigrants” would return to the U.S.S.R. where, upon their arrival, they would be inter viewed on radio and TV and expose millions of people to their “tragic error” of having left their Rodina— homeland for the unforseen hard ships and difficulties of the Promised Land. Some of these trained agents would go out of the way to emphasize during the interview how utterly sad dened they were by the “mistreat ment” of the Arabs by the Jews in Israel and the latter’s “military provo cations” against their innocent and peace-loving Arab neighbors. OME two hundred and fifty people S filled a small part of the enor mous but poorly lit Central Synagogue during Kabbolath Shabboth services. The talented chazon, Reb Zisel, chanted the service with extraordinary feeling. Spiritual ecstasy mingled with mystical pathos. After the service we followed Rabbi Levin into one of the rooms adjacent to the shool where we found a Shabboth table bearing challah, wine, and some of the traditional Sabbath foods. It is difficult to believe that fifty years after the Russian Revolu tion, in a country which has the rich est natural resources in the world, part of which was once referred to as J E W IS H

L IF E

the “bread-basket of the world,” a foreign guest should be under strain to partake of the food in order not to hurt his gracious, well-intentioned host. Even in singing the traditional joy ous Shabboth Z’miroth Rabbi Levin could not hide the anguish of a tor mented soul. In spite of the presence of “the uninvited guests” at the Shabboth table, Rabbi Levin’s eyes were wet with tears as his head sank upon his arms reciting the petition to G-d “Rebuild Jerusalem the Holy City speedily in our days. . . .” None of us will ever understand the raging storms in the heart of this martyred shepherd under the constant surveil lance of the Kremlin agents! On our way back to the Rossia Hotel after midnight we heard a voice calling us. As we stopped, a middleaged man about five meters away from us gestured with his hands and with a somewhat raised voice pleaded: “Please wait—I wish to speak to you.” Catching his breath as he overtook us, the man said: “I beg of you, have mercy upon the Moscow Rabbi and upon yourself. You are being watched from many directions. Be careful with every word, gesture, and deed. This time they wish to straighten out their account with you for everything you spoke and wrote after your previous visits. I shall not reveal my name to you and you shall never see me again—but I beg of you, watch your self. Before I leave I want you to know that we had more matzah this Pesach than ever before and many more Jews asked for matzah this year thari during previous years. Some other marginal improvements in other areas are also noticeable. It seems to me that no one cherishes the idea of September-October 1967

being criticized and thus efforts are made to diminish justifications for such criticism. Please excuse me for disturbing you and don’t ask me for my name as I must leave you at this moment.” He at once sped away, swallowed up by the darkness of the Moscow night like a mysterious dybbuk. HE brilliant and colorful Israeli diplomat, Avraham Kohen, a Gerer Chossid by birth, temperament, and conduct, met me Shabbath morn ing in the lobby of the hotel and we walked together to the Synagogue. The streets were crowded with people rush ing in and out of the Metro subway, buses, ' and streetcars on the way to work. As we observed the multitudes moving on the broad sidewalks our attention was drawn to the expression engraved on each face: tense serious ness, worry, and anxiety, a deep, Dostoyevskian melancholy. This observa tion holds equally true for the after noon and evening crowds. The natural relaxation, the smile and good humor evident upon the faces to be seen in the Free World are absent from those whose lives are constantly regimented and restricted. As we entered Archipova Street where the Central Synagogue is situated, we met a mutual friend from abroad who had returned two days before from a two-week visit to Kiev. My companion and I were startled and moved with the news which he brought from there. It seems that the Jews in the Kiev synagogue could no longer tolerate the reign of terror im posed upon them by the notorious in former and collaborator Yona Gondelman, government-appointed gabbai of the synagogue who, together with his

ment imposed upon him on the basis of trumped-up charges. Throughout his years in the prison, a labor deten tion camp, he had categorically re fused to work on the Sabbath or to violate the Jewish dietary laws, even at the cost of extra years of imprison ment. His immovable loyalty to his principles stood him by during those long years and he completed and sur vived his sentence an observant Jew to the last. The entire congregation rose when, following the Reading of the Torah, Rabbi Levin invoked the elaborate blessing for the government of the U.S.S.R., the “center of peace and goodwill in the entire world”—whose tanks, airplanes, guns, and missiles, valued at billions of dollars were either destroyed or captured by the gallant defenders of Israel in the Sinai peninsula. Rabbi Levin had invited me to ad dress the congregation before the Musaph service, but had gently and cautiously asked me to confine my message to a brief greeting to the Jews of Soviet Russia from the Jews of the U.S.A. Introducing me from A MONG the two thousand wor- the pulpit, he referred to me in the i x shippers who filled to capacity course of his remarks as “Vicethe enormous Central Synagogue on President of the Religious Zionists, Hamizrachi, of Shabboth morning there were notice Mizrachi-Hapoel ably more younger faces than we had America.” My friends and I were ever seen there during our previous startled by the fact that the Moscow visits. During the Reading of the Rabbi did not hesitate to mention the Torah, as I sat in the pulpit next to word Mizrachi, the name of a Zionist Rabbi Levin, an elderly man, gentle organization, from his pulpit. He con faced and with patriarchal bearing, cluded his introduction with words of approached Rabbi Levin with a warm praise of the Rabbinical Council of greeting. The two embraced and both America and its delegation which had wept. Eager to learn what was behind visited the Soviet Union two years this moving reunion, I discovered that before. After expressing gratitude to Rabbi the man, a revered Talmid Chochom, had just returned from an imprison- Levin for his gracious hospitality and

cohorts, carried out their grim assign* ment with utmost zeal and resource fulness. Gondelman had finally pushed his terrorization beyond the limits ot human endurance, and the proud Jews of Kiev were driven to revolt. They appeared on the grounds of the Kiev synagogue, attired with Tallith and T’fillin, and declared to the govern ment *authorities their determination not to set foot in the synagogue as long as Yona and his confederates re mained in their posts. The demonstra tion went on for two weeks. Embar rassed by the questions of the tour ists and realizing that their agents had overplayed their hand, the authorities yielded. Gondelman and his associates were deposed and a new gabbai and new officers were appointed. Our friend concluded his report with: “Do you realize that this is the first time, to the knowledge of reliable observers of Soviet Jewish life, that such a thing has taken place — an open revolt against the Establishment? Neither under Stalin’s nor under Khrushchev’s regimes could such an open and courageous revolt have taken place.”

J E W I S H L IF E

citing the regard felt for him through out the entire Jewish world, I said: “I wish to take this opportunity to ex press felicitations to your government upon the observance of its 50th anni versary. As I am expressing these greetings to your country I am also mindful at this moment of another country which is observing its 19th anniversary, the State of Israel, an oasis of democracy and progressive human living in the entire Middle East. The founding of the State of Israel is the single most important and most sacred fact in the history of our people during the last two thousand years.” As soon as I uttered the word “Israel” a number of people in the congregation cried out “Slava gosudarstvoo lzraila—Long live the State of Israel!” Some even applauded quite demonstratively. At this moment I heard a commotion behind me in the pulpit. Rabbi Levin and the gabboyim who stood near me and behind me during the sermon exchanged agitated remarks with one another. Someone even demanded that I should not be permitted to continue. However, order prevailed and in spite of my concern about the open demonstration and the restlessness of those around me I pro ceeded with the sermon, stressing the thought that however challenging and difficult conditions may be, a Jew must never surrender his hope for the future, nor give up the determina tion to endure through seemingly in surmountable difficulties; the Jew who recognizes that the world rests upon the three pillars of law, truth, and peace knows quite well the difference between that which is temporary and that which is permanent. I concluded with the words “ ‘Thou September-October 1967

art One and Thy name is One; and who is like Thy people Israel unique on earth’—a distinct people, a united people with no power in this world strong enough to separate us.” The audible response that followed the sermon was unchecked by the commo tion and whispering on the Bimah. One of the government-designated gabboyim reprimanded me harshly, threatening me with serious repercus sions. The worshippers, however, sur rounded me warmly and gave free vent to their emotions. A visitor from abroad who was present said to me: “I am told that this is the first time that such words were heard within these walls during the last fifty years.” Rabbi Levin remained seemingly absorbed in the text of the Sidrah. When we sat down near each other he turned towards me and said: “Rabbi Poupko, I expected you to say something about the war in Viet Nam with an emphasis upon the urgency to restore peace throughout the world. Our government, you ought to know, will do everything and anything to assure the peace of the world.” The gabboyim Kaplan and Michalovitch joined us for the Shabboth meal with the Rabbi. Both went out of the way to praise their government, the Rus sian people, and the great achieve ments of Communism, while another guest at the table heaped insult upon insult upon the State of Israel. r r i HE Sholosh Seudoth with the i sweet and moving Z’miroth sung by Reb Israel Noach, the shammosh, was again a memorable experience. The bright rays of the sun gave way gradually to the shadows of the night. Stars were seen through the narrow windows of the Beth Hamidrosh and 53

the enormous red neon star over the highest steeple of the Kremlin was fully illuminated. Rabbi Levin con cluded his Torah discourse with an exhortation to the people who sat around the Sholosh Seudoth table and the many others who surrounded it with the words of Pirkey Ovoth, “Which is the right course that a man should choose for himself? One which is creditable to the person adopting it, and on account of which he gains respect for man,” to remain loyal and devoted to the regime and to its policies. Each of the lonely faces of the people who sat with us at the Sholosh Seudoth revealed a story of suffering and of hopelessness.

As we left the table one man told me in a hushed voice: “Believe me when I tell you that all of us are good and loyal citizens. We honor the laws of the government. Our chil dren are among their best mathema ticians, physicists, engineers, and doc tors. But all of this is of no avail. They permit us to live as human be ings, although with occasional dis criminatory tactics. As Jews, however, they are determined to supress us. When one Jew recited the prayer of ‘Rebuild Jerusalem the holy city speedily in our days’ with deep emotion and tears in his eyes, he was forced to spend some two years in jail for it.” .

ISRAEL C ELEB RA T IO N IN M O S C O W

HE celebration of Israel Independ ence Day at the Israeli Embassy in Moscow on Monday afternoon, May 15, colorful and yet contrastfilled, was an experience never to be forgotten. The block on Bolshaya Ordinka Street where the Israeli Em bassy is situated was filled with hun dreds of people who stood on the sidewalk facing the Embassy. The police roped off the sidewalk so that none of the viewers would enter the Embassy grounds. Hundreds of Jew ish men, women and children watched the various ambassadors and other diplomats arriving at the stately man sion. When my wife and I emerged from our car, we remained standing as if frozen as we confronted the hundreds who stood on the sidewalk under the surveillance of the police, their faces a picture of longing, melan choly, pride, and hope as they gazed out of the darkness of their own world upon the bright world of Jewish

sovereignty which at the moment was both near and very distant from them. Some of the men and women who stood on the sidewalk behind the rope even dared to motion to me and plead: “American Rabbi, take us along with you, we would like to toast the State of Israel and say L’chayim together with our brethren and wish the Medinah long life and good luck!” And one of them called out: “Rabbi Poupko, we listened to your sermon in the Synagogue last Sabbath, but lo hamidrosh ha’ikar ela hamasse—it is not so much the preached word as the actual deed that counts!” The large reception room of the Embassy and the adjacent rooms were filled to capacity with the representa tives of many foreign countries. The Afro-Asian ambassadors with their wives and diplomatic staffs attired in their colorful native dress attracted special attention. The Kremlin dis tinguished itself by its absence while J E W IS H

L IF E

In front of the Israeli Embassy in Moscow, May 15, 1967, watching the Israeli Independence Day celebration.

U.S. Ambassador Llewelyn Thompson impressed all of us with his natural refinement, fluent Russian, and dis creet remarks. A number of ambassa dors, especially of the under-developed countries, spoke words of praise to us about Israel’s phenomenal progress and the technical and scientific assist ance which it is rendering to their respective countries. A diplomat from an African coun try expressed satisfaction with his son’s studies at the Hebrew Univer sity in Jerusalem. His son, he said, cannot find enough words of praise for the treatment he and his friends are getting in Israel. Another diplo mat from Africa remarked carefully in a hushed voice: “I do not know whom they resent more in this city, you or us with our colored faces.” I personally have heard on numerous occasionsJ the sentiments of citizens in this “raceless Marxist paradise” re garding students from Africa and other African visitors in the U.S.S.R. September-October 1967

Their expressions of resentment do not fit the printed word. Rabbi Levin and some of the lead ers of the Moscow Synagogue were seated in a room adjacent to the re ception hall. We greeted each other without any restraint and we joined Israeli diplomats in a toast to the State. A Moscow Jew, an intellectual, holding his glass of vodka and radiat ing with joy said to me: “ Rabbi, all of this is simply unbelievable to me. I actually do not know whether it is a dream or reality. . . . A State, a Jewish government, an embassy, a celebration! . . . White, black, brown —all mechutonim at a Jewish celebra tion! Truly ‘when the Lord brought the exiles back to Zion, we were like those who dream.’ Some of our breth ren are languishing in Siberia and in other detention camps and we here are drinking a toast to a Jewish State together with the diplomats from some seventy foreign countries!” 55

A MONG the diplomats of the United States, England, Holland, Norway, France, the Congo, Cam eroon, Madagascar, Nigeria and Togo, the strange images of» the Russian Jews were moving as if in a rythmical dance. Even here in the Embassy they were not entirely free from the eager eyes and ears of the N.K.V.D. A cer tain diplomat from a European coun try jokingly said to me: “In the old Israeli Embassy one could not speak freely. Here in the new Embassy one cannot even think freely!” As Rabbi Levin and I expressed our toasts to the State of Israel together with Metropolitan Nikodim, the young, ex ceedingly alert and physically impos ing head of the Russian Orthodox Church said: “Gospodin Rawin, this is Moscow ecumenism.” He stretched both of his hands to the Moscow Rabbi and to me in a gesture of friendship. In the presence of some jlV

Western and Afro-Asian diplomats he was queried as to how many theologi cal academies and seminaries were available to the faithful of Russia to train their priests. When he told of the impressive number of these schools in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, and other cities, and of the generous stipends offered to the seminarians which exceed even those for Moscow University’s students, and the various activities of his church in the areas of religious publications and their associations with their co-religionists abroad I said to him: “Do you think it is fair for the Jewish religious minority of three-and-a-quarter mil lion people to be denied these privi leges by the Soviet regime and to be the only one to be singled out for such unjust and discriminatory treat ment as compared to the other ethnic and religious groups in the U.S.S.R.?” After some moments of reflection

Metropolitan Nikodim and Chief Rabbi Levin in the Israeli Embassy during the celebration.

J E W I S H L IF E

1 .to. r*: EPhraim Kaplan, Gabbai of the Central Synagogue in Moscow ; Minister \ig a l Allon of Israel; Rabbi Levin; Rabbi and Mrs, Poupko.

Metropolitan Nikodim replied: “If somebody desires something in life he must keep on asking, asking and ask ing for it until he gets it.” To which the rejoinder was: “We have been pleading and begging now for some fifty years and we get hardly any thing in return* Occasionally we re ceive a promise which is never kept.” The Metropolitan smiled as he sipped some more vodka and said: “G-d has much patience with the sinners and awaits their ultimate return to Him. We mortals should follow His ex ample.” As the Metropolitan left us a dip lomat from the Free World remarked: “It is rather difficult to argue with a committed Communist. It is, however, infinitely more difficult to communi cate with an ecclesiastical apologist for Communism attired in a cassock.” UCH was added to this celebra M tion by the presence of Israel’s Minister of Labor Yigal Allon, who had come to the U.S.S.R. with a group of Israeli delegates to the In ternational Conference on Social Security which was held during the previous week in Leningrad. Another September-October 1967

delegation of Israelis arrived in Mos cow during our stay in the city to represent Israel at the Household Ap pliance Exposition which opened on May 16. At this Household Exposi tion something happened which sig nalled Russia’s subsequent unleashing of its barrage of insults and accusa tions against Israel. Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers Mikoyan de livering greetings in behalf of his government at this Exposition, greeted by name all the participating foreign states—except Israel, deliberately omitting mention of its presence. It was of course an open and mischiev ous violation of the elementary inter national code of propriety. As a foreign diplomat put it, “The Israeli diplomats here in Moscow must indeed be most gallant people if they can swallow all the hostility and all the pressures which are heaped upon them.” It ought to be emphasized that this climate of unabated hostility towards the State of Israel was already preva lent in Moscow prior to the eruption of hostilities in the Middle East. Seemingly impressed with the re ception at the Embassy, even jovial 57

and relaxed, Vergelis participated with Rabbi Levin and myself in another toast to the State of Israel and, as mentioned earlier, voluntarily repeated

in the presence of others his pledge of the publication of the twenty-five thousand Prayer Books by the Sovetish Heimland publication house.

A TAXI DRIVER

r p H E taxi driver who brought us

M. co the truly magnificent Lenin Library building in Moscow was ex tremely polite. He even offered to wait for us until we would be ready to leave the place. He kept his promise. One hour later, when we stepped down the steps of the Lenin Library, he was still waiting for us. Meanwhile the meter registered some seven rubles, not an insignificant sum by Russian standards. As we were ready to leave him in front of our hotel I handed him eight rubles with words of gratitude for having waited for us. He categorically refused to accept the money and returned it to me. All of my effort to induce him to accept that to which he was rightfully entitled failed. However, this was not the end of the story. As we were about to leave him he asked me what time we planned to leave the hotel for our next destination. I told him it would be late in the afternoon. Promptly he said: “I will be here on time and it will be my pleasure to take you to your next appointment.” And several hours later as we came out of the hotel entrance, the taxi driver was there waiting for us. As we were traveling he began to unburden his heart to us. He told us about his job during the day as a taxi driver and his evening studies in a technological institute in Moscow. He said to us: “The young generation in our country

is disenchanted with our government and our society. There is an emptiness in our lives and a stifling monotony and in a way a purposelessness. We are tired of the constant regimenta tion, mental and physical, to which we are being subjected by the political structure of our country. We are fed up with the parades, the propaganda, and the police surveillances. Commun ism of 1917 cannot solve human prob lems of 1967. We, the youth of Rus sia, would also like to enioy life even as the youth of the United States of America and other Western countries. When these visit us we see how differently dressed they are and how they act as free and happy people which we are not.” At times this young Russian’s eyes were wet with tears as he spoke without any pause and be wailed his ‘‘senseless life” in the shadow of the Kremlin. As we reached our destination I pleaded with him to accept a personal gift as a modest expression of our gratitude. Again he refused with the moving remark: “I owe you much more than you owe me. You foreign ers are the only people to whom we can speak our mind and to whom we can express our pain and our sorrow. I should pay you for listening to me. You don’t owe me anything at all.” He disappeared from our sight into the Moscow night. J E W I S H L IF E

KHARKOV

~W7‘ HARKOV in the Ukraine, Soviet -IX- Russia’s fourth largest city, had a pre-war Jewish population of 150,000. The notorious Nazi occupation governor, Von Hildorf, who instigated pogroms against Jews in Berlin, Ham burg and other German cities, was instrumental in the tragic destruction of Kharkov’s Jewry. He laid waste to 65% of the city’s residential quarters. A preview of the lamentable condition of the present Jewish community in Kharkov was given to us by a passen ger in the plane which took my wife and me from Moscow to that city. The civilian and military passengers viewed with a great deal of curiosity the yarmulka on my head and our American attire. Across the aisle from us, I noticed one of our own sitting and gazing at me. He turned his face in all directions and examined in a thorough manner the “condition around him.” Speaking in Yiddish in a whispered voice he said: “I think you are only wasting your time by visiting our community in Kharkov. You will find very little there in Kharkov of Jewishness. Only a few of the eighty thousand Jewish resi dents know who the Rabbi is and consult him on religious problems. They shut down our last synagogue and religious services are occasionally held in some parts of the city in private residences. A very fragile flicker of light still remains within our hearts. Kosher meat and circumcision are most rare. The soil of the Ukraine including our own city is saturated with Jewish suffering, with Jewish blood. Our fear and insecurity prevail amongst us. True, we had more mat zah this year than any other year in September-October 1967

the past, but some of us paid a heavy price for daring to bake it even in our own homes.” His entire face was a mask of pain and suffering, of resig nation and hopelessness. Unfortunately his introduction har monized with the realities which we encountered a few hours later. HE aggressive and zealous Intour ist representative who met us at the airport indulged in an almost end less song of praise to the regime. She spoke with particular pride about the phenomenal progress which was achieved in Kharkov since the defeat of the Nazis. She glorified the Gorki University and other nineteen ad vanced academic and technological centers of learning in the city. From the window of the taxi she pointed out to us the new Pavlov residential complex and the Opera House and extolled the eight hundred scientific, adult and juvenile libraries of the city. When I asked her to take us to the synagogue she resorted to all kinds of incoherent subterfuges in order to avoid the issue. Realizing that I was persistent and would not change the theme, she suggested that we should rather proceed to the hotel to rest up from the journey. When I assured her that the hour-and-a-quarter flight from Moscow to Kharkov did not tax us physically in any way, she pointed out that the synagogue was far away in a different section of the city and that she would have to consult the Intourist office in order to locate it. After our half-hearted tour of Plostchad Ozerinskovo which is even larger than the Moscow Square, the Kharkov University, and Gorki Park,

we went to see a family whose uncle from Chicago asked us to convey to them his regards. Having reached the old two-story building in which those people resided, we were told by neigh bors that they had left their apartment only an hour ago. In spite of the fact that the* Intourist agent kept her watchful eyes upon us—my first such experience during my three visits to the Soviet Union—I succeeded in communicating with an elderly man who came over to us as we stood in front of the building. Without any forethought my newly-acquired friend offered to accompany me to a house on the same block where “you will be able to meet him so that he will inform you about all the matters which you are interested in knowing.” My eager desire to see “him” ignored obvious realities which surrounded me at this moment. Pointing out to the Intourist guide the small and primi tive shoe shop which was near my desired destination, I assured her that I would return in a few moments. I suggested that she should wait to gether with my wife for me. As soon as I was able to enter the door of the yard which was to lead me to “his” house I felt the presence of someone behind me. “I think you have lost your way,” the loyal guide said to me. “The shoe shop is right here in front of you in the courtyard.” My elderly companion’s face became pale. Trembling, he said in Yiddish: “Now you see with your own eyes the dark Gehinnom in which we are compelled to exist. I assure you, how ever, that all their efforts will be futile. The more they will interfere with us the more firm will be our resolution to remain loyal to our 60

Torah and to our people. I want you to know that even here we need not be ashamed of our youth. Every time they write the word ‘Yevrei’ (Jew) on our passports and every time they invoke this name with scorn and sinis ter laughter, this word becomes more firmly and more indelibly inscribed within their hearts . . . Oosvidaniye, farewell! If you are going ‘there’ to the Medinah give them our greeting and tell them that all the lies and all the libel accusations which the authorities here spread about them are well-known to us. Even many nonJews in our country are impressed with their courage and achieve ments. . . .” EANWHILE the couple we were M waiting for arrived. They in vited us to join them in their “apart ment” on the second floor. I excused myself to the guide and told her that I would not stay long with these peo ple/conveying to them regards from their uncle in Chicago. Much to my astonishment the guide insisted on ac companying us. Of course the couple went out of the way to ignore the presence of the non-invited guest. We sat in the modest one-and-a-half room apartment and conversed in Russian. The husband offered a long and elab orate song of praise to the govern ment and endlessly extolled life in Kharkov. He insisted that they had much more than they needed and spoke with pride about their colorful leisure time. He even expressed his anxiety and concern about his family in Chicago and asked me how could he possibly help them. The “act” con tinued for about an hour. The parJ E W I S H L IF E

ticipants played their roles like pro fessionals and acquitted themselves most admirably. A next-door neighbor Who joined us during the visit suc ceeded in getting my attention for a moment as he handed me a glass of water and whispered: “How do you like our act? In our country we even develop the skill of being accom plished actors . . .” Late in the afternoon we heard a knock on the door of our hotel room. “He,” accompanied by two men, one middle-aged and the other elderly, en tered our room as soon as I opened the door. His face betrayed his ad vanced age, two sharp and expressive eyes in a facade of deep agony and constant fear. “Well, most likely you have already heard the ‘good tidings’ about our synagogue. They compelled some of our own to sign a petition pleading with the authorities to close down and liquidate our only existing synagogue. We are being consumed here in a flame. How is it in your country, in America? We are told that you are free to do as you wish. Tell me, how is your youth?” I told him and his friends both with a feeling of pain and pride, about Jews and Judaism in the United States. He and his friends followed my story with deep interest. When I concluded he said: “Not enough. You Jews of America must pray, learn, and ob serve mitzvahs also for us Russian Jews. Perhaps taking into account our special circumstances there will be dis pensation of the law to permit an agent, a Sholiach, to perform the Commandments for us.” After a momentary pause of sighSeptember-October 1967

ing and reflection he continued: “It would be helpful if some one could convince our authorities that it is quite possible to be a religious, ob servant Jew and at the same time be loyal to the Soviet government.” As he and his friends were getting ready to leave he took my hand and with a sudden tone of strength and hope he remarked: “It is now half a cen tury that we are being suppressed. Yet, not everything is lost. Something still remains within us. As long as two Jews recite the same Shemoneh Esreh, however formidable the wall separating them from one another may be, they still remain united and together . . During our final moments with her our guide said to us: “I must tell you something before you leave our city and we part from one another. My occupation brings me in contact with many foreign tourists from various countries who come to see our coun try and visit our city. Not one of these, however, shows such a genuine interest and deep concern for their co-religionists as the Jewish tourist. As soon as a Jewish tourist arrives in Kharkov he immediately wants to know how many Jews there are in Kharkov, what are their occupations and how many synagogues there are in the city, and how they are treated in our community. You are much different from other peoples and per haps because of it you are misunder stood by so many.” My reply to her was: “I agree with you. We are in deed different from other peoples of the world. We are very proud of it. It is the reason of our survival.” 61

N O T A LL D A R K

can encounter in Moscow or the wronged Jewish minority within ONEin Leningrad not only the Ivan their own land. A cultured official in Leningrad,

the Terrible image of a Nikolei Federenko but also the refined and gentle idealist of the Tolstoy type who is permeated with nobility and love of fellow-man. During the agonizing hours when the Israeli diplomats were packing and getting ready to leave Moscow as the Kremlin’s outburst of hatred reached its climax, numerous anonymous people, citizens of Mos cow, called the Israeli Embassy and expressed their sympathy and assured the Israeli diplomats of their friend ship. Even prior to the outburst of the Kremlin’s condemnations of the gal lant defenders of the State of Israel against an enemy who openly pro claimed his intention of total annihila tion of the Jews of Israel, there were many Russians who, with human kindness and understanding, expressed in word and deed their solidarity with

occupying a responsible position, said to me: “You Jews of foreign countries must understand that the human weakness of jealousy and prejudice is universal. It is not confined to any one place alone. Be patient and have faith in the future and ultimately things will change for the better. You must not forget that the Russian at mosphere was infested with strong antisemitic feelings during the cen turies of the Czarist regime, and the Nazis with their all-out war against your people have not contributed much to improve the situation.” I responded: “I regret that your office is not in the Kremlin.” His reaction was: “I am convinced that the walls of the Kremlin are becoming more and more thin and eventually they, too, will admit new rays of human compassion and righteousness.”

EXIT

the airport upon departing, I lated his own incredible stories of in A Tentered into a conversation with timidations and punishments which one of three families who were amongst the very few lucky ones to start out on their journey to the Land of Promise. As soon as this family signed an application for a passport to leave the country they became a target for unpleasant and even seri ous penalties. Another passenger re62

followed his declaration of intention to leave the country for Israel. As we left the Russian Aeroflot plane at the Vienna Airport a woman, a member of this small group of immigrants who were on their way to Israel, burst out into a hysterical cry and fainted. Upon being revived she asked: “Are we free?” J E W IS H

L IF E

N the plane which took us from Moscow to Vienna, I met a highly-educated Communist, a pro fessor of mathematics at the Moscow University. When, in the course of conversation, I asked her about the status of Jews and Judaism in her country she replied with harsh deter mination: “Religion is a poison for society and must be combatted always and everywhere. Even when our ef forts to abolish religion are occasion ally accompanied with excesses, it is still justifiable because the eradication of religion is indispensible for the pro gress of humanity.” A passenger seated across the aisle from us who seemingly had overheard her came over to me while I was alone and, identifying himself as a medical doctor in charge of a group of tourists on the plane, said: “I want you to know that what you heard here from her is not representative of our society. Many of us are aware of the outstanding talents of the Jewish people and we know what their presence means to our country. Even as many things are changing now in many countries so in our country, too,

September-October 1967

things will change. I am an atheist but I do believe that we must make it possible for those who do believe in G-d and religion to live according to their convictions. Every person must be free to choose for himself whether he wants to believe in G-d or not. No one has a right to interfere with this basic human right.” With the eyes of a man of sensitive con science, this doctor spoke with rare sympathy and deep understanding of Babi Yar, the Stalin tyranny, and the current anti-Israel propaganda in his country. My conversation with him and with others of his kind convinced me that we cannot ignore or under estimate the steady undercurrent of restlessness and discontent prevalent among the Soviet intellectuals. It may be simple, perhaps even convenient, to sink into an abyss of resignation regarding Soviet Jewry. Historic re sponsibility, however, demands tenaci ous faith, abiding hope and imagina tive statesmanship which ultimately will help to redeem the second largest Jewish community in the world, Soviet Jewry.

¿¡1 Cuo

The Case for a Kehillah '

W B £x<M X i

?f A

TYPICAL European institution such as a Kehillah will not take to American soil. In religious matters Americans resent three things most, namely: over-centralization, co ercion, and taxation. Those three are the pillars of a Kehillah.” The timid questioner who originally offered the Kehillah as an alternative to the current anarchy and inefficiency within the realm of community or ganization in America, in the light of such categorical argumentation, will now be more than ready to change the subject. While the timid questioner yields, his persistent friend will fortify himself with the facts and stubbornly continue to prod this vexing question: A Kehillah in America—now—why not? It is of course true that the inherent diversity in the American organiza tional structure does not lend itself easily to shortcuts. Government func tions are jealously guarded on their respective federal, state, ¡county, and municipal levels. Most countries pro vide telephone and telegraph services as a part of their post office facilities. To protect free enterprise, America maintains hundreds of individual rail 64

y#W

By HARRY LOEWY roads on a downhill course whilst countries such as Canada have man aged to maintain railroads as an effec tive alternative to other growing means of transportation. Occasionally adherence to the “American way of life” is motivated by hypocrisy, to wit the A.M.A.’s stand against “socialized medicine” notwithstanding the everexpanding breaches which institutions such as Medicare and Medicaid will make. Poker-playing Americans will vote against state lotteries and bingo. With all recognition of the import ance of contemporary American char acteristics, it is necessary to recognize also an all-important question: Are we permitted to sidetrack the better interests of Yiddishkeit for the sake of conforming with national trends? Does not the preservation of Yiddish keit have priority over the trends of time and place? Is this not in itself the essence of Torah—Timeless Torah? Let us then proceed to marshal the arguments in favor of establishing the practicality, feasability, and urgency for providing Kehilloth as the only alternative to chaos. JEW ISH LIFE

HE last two decades have seen the American orthodox Jewish community emerge out of its past stagnation to face its challenges squarely. American Jewry has been undergoing metamorphosis. To gain proper perspective on this, we must choose our terminology with utmost caution in appraising the so-called three wings in American Jewry, Re form, Conservatism, and Orthodoxy, as well as in an examination of Ortho doxy itself. From the theoretical, as well as from the empirical, point of view there is, of course, no justifica tion for this arbitrary division. Torah is a goal of perfection. Only one road leads to it—the path of Mitzvoth. There are no other goals, no other summits, no other objectives. The goal is essentially keyed to personal fulfil ment. It leaves no room for collective “wings” which circumscribe or curtail this individual fulfilment. Since Juda ism de-emphasizes theology vis-a-vis personal deed (lo hamidrosh ha-ikkar ella ha-ma’aseh) our standards are the yardsticks of deeds. Since these “wings,” though of German origin, have remained by and large peculiar to the American scene, it would be more correct to designate them as American sociological phenomena than as bona fide theological divisions. We need not look far to see the truth of this. Reform and Conservatism ob viously appeal to certain socio-econo mic strata. Within Orthodoxy itself there is a vast range of differentiation, running the gamut from Satmar to some Midwestern “traditional” con gregations. Notwithstanding that, and despite our firm refusal to accord “de jure” recognition to the wings in Juda ism, we shall, for the sake of intelli gent discussion, be compelled to make

September-October 1967

use of the “orthodox, Reform, Con servative” nomenclature. HUS we witness two noteworthy T phenomena affecting American Jewry. First, we see a strengthening of Orthodoxy in the large cities and a weakening thereof in the smaller towns. Perhaps this is something in the rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-getpoorer pattern. The second factor would seem, on the surface, to have no bearing on the first, yet there is a close cause-and-effect relationship be tween them. This second factor is the emergence of Orthodoxy during the past twenty years, as previously stated, as the most dynamic and youthful seg ment of American Jewry. As so many are noting nowadays, all the dire prophecies were proven wrong. Those who only a few years ago were ready to lay the ghost of American Ortho doxy to rest together with the demise of the older generation, now find to their astonishment a vigorous revival of Orthodoxy among teenagers and young married couples, with many of the latter possessing impeccable cred entials from American colleges and American industry. Remember when the cry went forth that we have to liberalize our religious standards and modes of worship to appeal to the youth? Today we find the pews in the Reform Temple occupied—when they are occupied—by the elderly and at the same time we find, again, and again, militant young orthodox couples pressing demands for higher—not lower—standards of observance in the shool. And these same young men and women are in the vanguard of those striving for better Kashruth, Chinuch, Taharath Hamishpochah, etc. 65

Admittedly, among some teenagers of the traditional community, the word “Yiddishkeit” is bandied about with little discrimination and frequent ig norance as to its true meaning. In the big cities it has become “groovy” to give a “Yiddishkeit” accentuation to everything from kosher pizza to hav ing one’s Tzitzith hanging out. A cer tain jargon based on “GemorehLoshen” is in vogue. The latest disks of Chassidic chants have become the songhits of our younger generation. But all this only underscores the reality of ideological ferment among the younger generation. On the other side, this elan is en tirely lacking in the Reform and Con servative movements. Through their persistent opposition to Mitzvoth Maasiyoth, the Reformers have pushed themselves into a corner where there is little left for them except Interfaith, Civil Rights, and Viet Nam. Conserva tism on its part had become the creed of the Babbits and of Suburbia. As the G.I.s of World War II, their reser voir of strength for many years, have reached middle age, they, too, have reached their zenith of expansion. HY, then, this “young-orthodox explosion,” especially in the big urban centers? Obviously, it is due in large part to the effect of the prolifera tion of day schools, the waxing of the major yeshivoth, and the massive influx of European orthodox elements in the postwar years. We must, how ever, caution that these vast resources of energy and enthusiasm are subject to the laws of depletion. Eventually, the wave of European immigrants of the ’40s and ’50s will follow the lead of all previous waves of newcomers

and become Americanized. More seri ous yet, the day school and Yeshivah movements will not carry the day alone in maintaining orthodox Juda ism. This is a cardinal error made by many. To expose the young yeshivah bochur to the vacuum of the present chaotic community structure is to nullify his years of diligent learning. Sooner or later he will yield or else become a cynical lone wolf. Hence, it behooves us to think seriously of the future of American Orthodoxy once the present momentum has run its course. It was never easier to be a “Yid”! Indeed, perhaps never before in the history of our dispersion has the be lieving Jew, both individually and col lectively, found so few obstacles to the living of a Torah life. Contrary to previous generations we are not called upon to struggle with external hostility and, amidst social and eco nomic restrictions, with internal pov erty. In the open American society, both the right and the means to Jew ish living are unimpeded. Most of the factors mitigating against Shabboth observance, for example, are removed. Never before, as another instance, was there such a proliferation of kosher foods, and at prices not materially in excess of non-kosher foods. Hand some orthodox synagogue buildings have risen in community after com munity, though usually without the exaggerated ostentation practiced by the others. Yet in this era of affluence, even among orthodox Jews, we find only such nerve centers of Jewish liv ing as Yeshivoth, Day Schools, and Mikva’oth clawing for economic sur vival. There must be something radic ally wrong with such a society. JEW ISH LIFE

N HIS perceptive and incisive essay administration. How ridiculous would I1967), in (July-August it seem if a city’s services would be “The Gap and the Revolu J e w is h

L if e

run by voluntary organizations such as a “Society for the Furtherance of Public Hygiene,” “Association for the Promotion of Elementary Education,” “Justice Club,” and “Alliance for the Maintenance of Public Security.” This is no jest. The functions of the Jewish community, that is, the sum total of Jews dedicated to Torah life in one particular locality, run parallel to the across-the-board functions of all citi It is not our task now to examine zens of the municipality. the nature of those horizontal pat The civic administration has a wide terns. What’s more, their effects on range of obligations, such as public the “precinct level” are not easily dis security, administration of the judici cernible and even then only in a most ary at least on the lower level, educa indirect way. We are concerned—and tion, sanitation, and countless others. most deeply so—with the maintenance In the same vein, the Jewish commun and furtherance of Yiddishkeit in the ity must assume the responsibility for particular localities of America. Here providing all the means which are it must be stated most categorically: requisite for Jewish living. This in Torah Community Organization is in cludes, but not exclusively so, Torah divisible! It cannot be chopped up study institutions for young and old, into various functions, nor can it be places of worship, depositories of relegated to sundry organizations or Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim, as institutions, may they ever be so well as copies of the Talmud, for pub worthwhile, to devote themselves to lic use (Orach Chaim 150:1), Kashthe furtherance of these functions. In ruth maintenance, Mikveh, Chevrah other words, we can no longer afford Kadisha, services of a Mohel, Tzedo to saddle the congregational Board of kah and Free Loan funds, and a reli Directors with the worship functions, gious judiciary (Beth Din.) That these the Day School administration with should be the responsibility of the the Chinuch functions, the Vaad entire community is not merely an ex Hakashruth with the Shechitah func pediency for the sake of greater effi tions, the Taharath Hamishpochah ciency. This is Jewish law, hallowed Society with the Mikveh functions, by the uninterrupted tradition of and the non-orthodox Jewish Federa thousands of years of Jewish history tion with óur Tzedokah functions. Is —up to the advent of American any proof required to show that this Jewry. road has led nowhere? It will be much easier to under *T1HE present-day mainstay of the stand the whole scope of the prob i American orthodox Jewish com lem if we compare it with the tasks munity is the congregation—the omni of the ordinary American municipal present “Agudath Achim.” From Porttion,” Elkanah Schwartz speaks of horizontal and vertical patterns in the area of community services: Vertically, there is service to the immediate area: the synagogue, the day school, the mikveh, etc. Horizon tally, there is service to the broader society: the rabbinical seminaries, the national organizations, the commu nity agencies, etc.

September-October 1967

land, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, there is an amazing uniformity to these institutions. It would be idle and perhaps unfair to criticise Agudath Achim. It has .served a vital pur pose and has often served it well. In earlier years it ministered to the immi grants of one particular region of Europe in their social and religious integration in America; that’s why it is still often called the Rumanian shool, the Russian shool, etc. But we also call it Elm Street shool and Jefferson Street shool, perhaps long after Agudath Achim has pulled up its stakes on Elm or Jefferson; because it once was the neighborhood syna gogue. Today this is no longer rele vant in most communities. Yet, even today Agudath Achim performs yeo man service to the cause of Yiddishkeit by carrying on a day-by-day valiant struggle to maintain a place where one can daven in compliance with Halochah. Alas, since so many in the communities they serve have little care for this lofty objective, a fever ish program of other activities, such as Sisterhood, Men’s Club, Couples Club, and so forth, must be sustained in order to uphold the synagogue’s true and fundamental purpose—to provide a place for worship. All this leaves Agudath Achim in a constant struggle to keep its head above water and precludes it as a base for serving Yiddishkeit on the horizontal level. The congregation’s inbreeding can be stemmed by the Rabbi’s vision, imagination, and his dedication to the totality of the Torah community. More often than not, he arouses the consternation of his officers, who, despite all the lip-service to the con trary, see in him a paid official of the congregation and not a spiritual 68

leader. This will explain the all-toofrequent cases of perpetual friction between the orthodox Rabbis in one particular community. The Kehillah, if nothing else, would immediately restore the image of the Rabbi as a true scholar and spiritual leader in stead of an ecclesiastical technician hired out to his Board of Directors to perform sundry duties, like con ducting membership drives, building campaigns, and—services. The most disastrous, nay outright tragic, effects of the congregationcommunity division can be seen in the sphere of education, particularly Day School education. We have seen before that never before has the Jew ish community been blessed with so much prosperity. Nonetheless, yeshivoth and day schools, still in many cases, have to occupy debt-ridden ramshackle buildings, are behind in salary payments (often little more than starvation wages) to their teach ers, and have to engage in hundreds of degrading gimmicks to meet at least part of these obligations. Is it not because of the fact that day schools are maintained by a handful of individuals without the weight of an organized community behind them? Let us merely consider two facts which can be perceived on the width and breadth of this continent. Many synagogues have added modern school rooms to their plants which are often used for but a few hours a week. The day school meets in a run-down build ing. Yet, there would be an outcry from the congregational board if somebody would suggest to take in the day school classes as “tenants.” The second example is even more flagrant. It concerns those many conJEW ISH LIFE

gregations, mainly orthodox ones, which found themselves in the path of Urban Renewal and were often handsomely reimbursed by the gov ernment. Surely, many millions of dollars were realized through these means in the past decade or two. What happened to them? In many in stances they are left in the bank or invested for a future “rainy day” by a congregational board—without con gregation. In other cases the money was used to relocate the congregation by building a new expensive edifice in another part of town—without con gregants. How many congregations had the vision to truly perpetuate their old synagogues by infusing these funds into existing day schools and yeshivoth? Surely, a veritable wind fall of money was lost to American Orthodoxy because of the lack of a central responsibility. The congregation in its present shape as a monolithic institution on the American scene has served its purpose during the years of adjust ment. But now let us realize that it is an anachronism to Jewish thinking and must give way to the traditional form of Kehillah.

they know how much money is squan dered because of a lack of planning and because of duplication. Another word of caution: A Kehillah is not a “Council of Con gregations.” Such councils are in existence in a number of cities but they have not yet proven a decisive force for preserving community-wide Yiddishkeit. The organizational re orientation of American Orthodoxy must be a radical one. We dare not permit the tail to wag the dog. The congregation must be the instrument of the Kehillah and not vice versa. A major aspect of the Kehillah would be also in the field of public relations. Nowadays, the Jewish com munity’s address is the community welfare fund federation—-ruled by secularists, with little influence from the orthodox sector. A tightly knit and well organized Kehillah would imme diately emerge as a powerful challenge to this. It would dispense with a hyphenated and secularist community structure, and instead would present the Jewish community as what it has to be: A Torah-centered entity.

A the transformation from the nar row congregational outlook to the wider Kehillah approach will be most difficult. It will have to combat a lack of imagination and stagnancy in our thinking which will always prefer the status quo no matter how unworkable it is. Too, some will complain of the costs in trying to assume all these obligations under one roof. Little do

will shrug their shoulders in an ex pression of stoical resignation. All this will only prolong the present state of gross ineffectualism and inter-con gregational cannibalism, leading even tually to . . . ? A visionary view must by necessity include the establishment of Kehilloth now. Why not?

O DOUBT, some readers of these N lines will react to them with con rriH E R E can be no denying that descending eyebrow-raising. Others

September-Oc+ober 1967

¿ k m k <6e

teàfetotM, Utenatme By DAVID S. SHAPIRO bM t>

)(m .

We introduce here a feature planned to appear regularly in J e w i s h L i f e . The writer, Dr. David S. Shapiro, has earned distinction in Jewish

thought, scholarship, and letters. The Rav of Congregation Anshe Sfard in Milwaukee, he is on the faculties of the Graduate School of Hebrew Theological College, Chicago, and the Department of Hebrew Studies at the University of Wisconsin.

The Broken Promise (From C havoth Y air by Rabbi Chayim Yair Bachrach, Responsum 60)

1636, an earthquake struck Worms in Germany, resulting in a plague IofNitswhich spread through the city afflicting young and old, including many famous Jewish community. One of those affected was the only daughter of a wealthy leader of the community. She was very beautiful, well educated, and highly regarded by all who knew her. The father, of course, was deeply distressed at this development, as was likewise the rest of the family. To get a nurse, male or female, to take care of the ailing girl was impossible, as so many were likewise ill. There was a tall and handsome young man of the city who had been deeply in love with the girl. He was, however, of lowly station, a hired man 70

JEW ISH LIFE

at a butcher shop. He approached the father of the girl and requested per mission to serve without compensation as a nurse to the daughter because he loved her so deeply, asking that upon, regaining her health he be permitted to marry her. For assurance, he demanded a pledge (tekiath kaff) , promising to take care of the young woman with all his heart and strength. The father agreed and gave his pledge. The young man and the girl also made a hand clasp agreement to marry. He then took care of her with great devotion till she became well. In the interim the young man himself became .afflicted with the plague (apparently the cholera) and the girl now took care of him in turn until he recovered for she also loved him as he loved her. When the time came to honor his pledge, the father went back on his word. He was embarrassed to have his beautiful and educated daughter* married to an ordinary butcher boy, and he claimed that the handclasp had been given under compulsion by both him and his daughter, since that was the only way to save her life. The daughter, however, insisted against her father’s wish on fulfilling the pledge and threatened to run away with the young man. The father said that should that occur he would not give his daughter a full dowry, only a trous seau. And that is what happened. The girl and the butcher-boy were married, but she did not receive her dowry. What occurred afterwards is not recorded. 1VT ANY years later, the great Gaon, Rabbi Chaim Yair Bachrach of Worms -*-^**- (1639-1702), was asked his opinion about the behavior of the parties involved. He answered that no justification can be offered for abrogation of the handclasp pledge. As to whether the father should have given the daughter the dowry, this would depend upon his intention at the time of the handclasp. Most probably he had in mind that like any other father he would give his daughter in marriage and give her the dowry, and if so was required at the time to do so, unless his intention had been otherwise. Where an oath is given, Rabbi Bachrach explained, a person is responsible for whatever inter pretation he gives to his oath. If the father claimed that his giving his daughter to the butcher-boy was sufficient fulfilment of the commitment, we may take his word for it. If, however, his intention was not so, then he would certainly have to suffer the penalty imposed by G-d, Who alone knows the thoughts of men. The fact that the girl nursed the young man back to good health in no way invalidated the pledge, because at the time the pledge was made it had not been stated that it would be waived if in return she would be serving him. As to considering her services to him as payment for having nursed her earlier, it should be remembered, the Gaon noted, that his danger had been greater than hers, for when she served him she wqs already immune. Nor could this oath be considered as having been made due to coercion, since the father was not later compelled to violate the pledge. Rabbi Bachrach main tained that there was therefore no reason to fail to keep the pledge.

September-October 1967

B ook R eview s Perek, w ith Verve By Maurice Lamm

ETHICS FROM SINAI, vols. II and III, by Irving M. Bunim; New York: Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1967, $5.50 and $7.50. POPULAR yet definitive work on Pirkey Ovoth for the Englishspeaking layman simply did not exist prior to the publication of “Ethics from Sinai.” Irving Bunim’s text is a pioneer effort in a beautiful but uninhabited and difficult frontier. The field was barren primarily because the work required an author familiar with original sources, who has a sensitivity for the pragmatic, a flair for direct, unostentatious writing, and one who is personally committed to observing the principles he elucidates. The blend of these characteristics in one man, added to his desire to benefit the community, has resulted in the work under review, the second and third vol umes of which have now appeared. A

J \.

R abbi M aurice L am m , spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of University Heights, Bronx, New York, is Dean of the Akiba Hebrew Academy there, and lecturer at Stem College for Women. He is the author of a forthcoming book, “The Jewish Way of Death.”

The teaching of the Ethics of the Fathers by modern preachers, for the most part, cannot avoid Homer’s deadly alternatives, the scylla and charibda of Perek#- namely, obscure pedantry on one hand and pedestrian, unimaginative popularization on the other. Many rab bis succeed only in obfuscating what is readily understandable with a cloud of abstruse, entangled, sometimes sterile in terpretations that surely could not have been the intent of the authors. Others simply apply relevant passages to homey situations and betray a lack of sophisti cation, a happy unawareness of the depth and breadth of the multi-layered, multi-faceted aphorisms, and a prosaic, all-too-flat approach to today’s percolat ing globe, the cataclysmic nature of modern society, and the incredible com plexities of modern life. Thankfully, Irving Bunim offers dif ferent fare. What is served up for intel lectual accompaniment of Sholosh Seudoth on Shabboth afternoons is not an untreated, indigestible bone-network of salt-herring, nor is it the super-sweet, artificially flavored, warm fizz of soda JEW ISH LIFE

______THE ONLY PREFABRICATED______

PACKAGED SUKKAH The Lifetime Easy-To-Assem ble Portable Sukkah D esigned By Sp e ro Foundation SIZE: Seven and one quarter feet long by Five and one half feet wide by Seven and one quarter feet high. Will accom modate up to 10 persons

DECORATIONS: Eshpizon - Kiddush (Prayers) are silk screened on upper four walls as per photographs. Will not fade. LIGHT: We furnish you with 30 ft. water proof wire—socket— plug and plastic re flector, wired and mounted on a wooden strip 2" x 2 " which you place across the top of Sukkah. PRO TECTIO N : Against wind and storm. We furnish you with two heavy cords 12 ft. each, slides and Hy pegs to fasten Sukkah to ground or wall.

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

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

ONLY

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

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

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

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

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

September-October 1967

j Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America i 84 Fifth Avenue 1 New York, N.Y. 10011

j Gentlemen: | q Please ship me one Packaged Sukkah designed by the Spero Foundation. Check for the amount of $102 is enclosed. j j~j I also want 80 bamboo sticks, which will cover entire Sukkah, and I am enclosing an additional $18.00.

i Name........................................................................................................

j Address................ .................... .............................................................. ! City and State..........................................................................................

water. “Ethics from Sinai” is truly a verbal and conceptual banquet. FT1HE main course, the substance of X this work is the solid meat of Jew ish ethics, not the ethical preachments that float above conceptual clouds, nor yet the folksy advice of a Jewish Polonius. It is, as it was meant to be, practical and profound, brilliant in the ory and beautiful in practice, Here are slices of wisdom clarified by intricate analyses of Biblical texts, elucidated by the ruling of the Halochah and the an ecdotal passages of the Aggodah, expli cated by the greatest thinkers in Jewish history, and finally brought into sharp, practical focus by the penetrating in sights of the Chassidic greats. This surely calls for proof-texts. Here is a random selection from the elaborate menu: On the twenty-ninth mishnah of the fourth Perek, explaining the verse “Per force you were formed, perforce you were born, perforce do you live, and per force do you die,” the author quotes the little-known perceptive insight of Elijah Gaon of Vilna: The Gaon of Vilna derives the same thought [Perforce do you live, perforce do you die] from a ruling in Talmudic law. This is the case: Reuben owns a field, and Simeon has three fields that border on Reuben’s property on three sides. Thereupon Simeon erects fences on one, two, and then all three borders, to sep arate his fields from Reuben’s land. The Mishnah rules that Reuben can not be ordered to pay any part of the cost—even though he benefits from the fences; for he can argue that the three fences are of no use to him; or he can claim that he is not interested in fences at all—for, do you see?—his field is still open on its fourth side. If, however, Reu 74

ben of his own accord then erects a fence on the fourth side of his field, the duty is imposed on him to share in the costs of all the others. For (as Rashi explains) he thus shows clearly that he welcomes the fences which his neighbor set up. The human condition, says the Gaon of Vilna, is analogous. Brought before Heaven’s court of justice to have his whole life reviewed, a man may 'surely argue, “Who asked of Thee to create me? Had I not been created I would not have sinned; but I was born against my will.” And yet, when a person falls ill, what will he not give to continue living? Only against his last fibre of will does he die. Thus man shows clearly that he welcomes life— and so he must in turn undergo judgment and answer for his life. This (says the Gaon of Vilna) is the meaning that lies in our text. Three fences were built about us, so to speak, without our knowledge and consent: “perforce were you formed, perforce were you born, perforce do you live.’’ But we ourselves add the fourth fence: “perforce do you die.” Thus we show that we accept the other three conditions, and so must meet the obligations. P e r fo r c e d o y o u d ie ; therefore are you perforce des tined to give an account and reckon ing. Another illustration is found on the twentieth mishnah of the fifth Perek which refers to controversies that are not for the sake of Heaven and that, therefore, cannot endure. To iden tify this genre of controversy the Mish nah points to “Korah and his assem blage.” But the question begs: The con troversy was between Korah and Moses, not between him and his own cohorts? To this Bunim suggests the reply that Moses had no hand even in generating the conflict and thus could not even be listed as a party to it. Clearly it could J E W I S H L IF E

not be indicated that Moses’ deeds were not for the sake of Heaven. Evil inten tions were one-sided and hence only that side is listed. But he adds the following illuminating response of Rabbi Elimelech of Lizensk: In such a case, where a group at tacks its teachers and leaders, and claims it acts for the sake of Heaven, we can find the truth by examining the group. If it is harmonious, and its members are genuinely bound in unselfish friendship, we can accept that they meant their action for the sake of Heaven. But if apart from this controversy which unites them, they are divided, their hearts raging with envies and hates, we have a clear indication that their action here is not for the sake of Heaven. Therefore the mishnah lists only Korah and his assemblage: they are the proof that they cared nothing for Heaven in this quarrel. There were 250 of them, and every single one wanted to become Kohen Godol. Among themselves there could have been little serenity. Hence there was nothing “heavenly” in their argument with Moses. This leads us to the answer of the Hatham Sofer: The Mishnah is quite consistent, for Korah and his motley crew of followers were antagonists. Korah’s intentions and hopes were quite unlike the ambitions of the 250. Many a quarrel must have blazed and smoldered between him and them. UT a main dish does not a banquet make. There are delicacies in B “Ethics from Sinai” that make the mind bristle. They are Chassidic vertlach, Rabbinic insights, modem applications that are pungent, direct, and unmistak ably accurate. They are drawn from common experience of daily living, from industry and the professions. They scan September-Oc+ober 1967

commentary from elucidating p’shat, simple explanation, to complex, distant extrapolations of gimatriyaoth. They employ curious historical tidbits and re vealing biographical anecdotes. All of them are told with warmth, spiced with wit, and in good taste. Illustrations abound. Thus, the bio graphical vignette that should remain for a permanent memorial: Jacob Schiff was one of Reform’s illustrious mem bers, but would not ride on the Sab bath and therefore stayed in a hotel room near Temple Emanuel! But, where are his children? Have they survived as Jews? “Or was their Jewish identity ex tinguished in the ‘Judaism of beauty’ into which Reform has deformed our Torah?” Bunim’s style is well-suited to his material. He is neither technical nor simplistic. He is lucid, writes with the verve, frankness, color, and directness that characterize his speaking. The book consequently conveys a warmth and per sonableness that is rare in the field of Jewish publication. There is one major item that is want ing in “Ethics from Sinai” which, while it does not detract from the great value of the book, would have added consider ably to its usefulness. That is a more elaborate, sophisticated, and informed analysis of at least some of the enor mous ethical problems that confront the orthodox Jewish community today. While these crises are touched upon, they are not dealt with. In any book on Jewish ethics published in this era there must be, so it seems to us, an attempt to relate the traditional ethic to the complexities of such matters as modern secularism that is rampant and almost unchallenged on the campus, the grow ing influence of Ethical Humanism which preaches ethics without Sinai, the contagion of moral relativism that ex75

THE HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY in cooperation with THE RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA are happy to announce the publication of

A TREASURY OF TRADITION Edited by—

Norman Lamm & Walter S. Wurzburger This anthology of major essays by exponents of Orthodox Jewish thought is culled from the volumes of Tradition, the quarterly journal of the Rabbinical Council of America. The essays are grouped under the following headings: Religious Experience and the Halakha; Judaism! Confronts the World, Theo logical Perspectives; Halakah and Contemporary Society; Biblical Studies; Criticism. 462 pages — $4.95 At all Jewish book stores or order directly from HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY 79 Delancey Street, New York, New York 10002

JEW ISH LIFE

eludes the validation of any single eth ical code and, more especially, Situation Ethics, which enthrones man as the new divinity empowering him to make his own moral decisions, and deifies love and makes it the final arbiter in every eth ical situation even to the point of per mitting permissiveness. A confrontation with such matters which convulse our Jewish world would have multiplied the worth of this valuable book. Perek dis cussions too often attract the elderly, sometimes the middle aged, less fre quently the young marrieds. It is a par ticular rarity to find the thinking college

student, no matter the intensity of his belief, at Perek class on Shabboth after noon. The inclusion of these themes in the setting of a Perek discussion at Sholosh Seudoth would be unusual, perhaps unrealistic, surely daring, but nonetheless vital, challenging, and val uable. All things considered, “Ethics from Sinai” is a fertile oasis in the otherwise forbidding desert of Jewish literature in English on the subject. It is a unique contribution to the education of the American Jewish layman and is to be highly recommended.

Shtetl in America By Bernard Merling

AMERICAN LIFE: SHTETL STYLE, Stories and Sketches by Elkanah Schwartz; New York: Jonathan David Publishers, 1967, 190 pp., $5.95. A NEW sub-culture has been develop-Tj L ing under our very noses, and we’ve hardly taken notice. A uniquely indigenous form of orthodox Judaism has been growing in New York and its environs over the past twenty or thirty years. It is unlike any American ortho dox Jewish life, personal or communal, B ernard M erling, a Musmach of Mesivta Torah Vodaath and a graduate «of the City Col lege of New York, has previously appeared in Jewish L ife (Dec. 1958, Jan./Feb. 1966).

Septem ber-Oc+ober 1967

of earlier years. It bears no comparison to any form of pre-war European Jew ish life, Eastern or Western, of recent or distant past. It is certainly different from the “style” and “texture” that tra ditional Judaism has taken on in the farflung communities of the world, such as South America, India, the Middle East, etc. I do not refer to variations of commu nity structure or gradations of religious observance. I speak only of the modes of Jewish living, the interests and pre occupations of observant Jews, the pat terns of existence that orthodox Jews have assumed at this particular time, in this particular place. 77

YAHRZEIT PLAQUES are steady Fund-Raisers.

Dignified tablets of bronze and aluminum attract im pressive contributions. New illustrated Catalog of plaques and tablets tells all. Write for it today. UNITED STATES BRONZE Sign Co., Inc. Dept. JL, 101 W. 31st St.y N. Y., N. Y. 10001 Servingthe nation’s Synagogues for40years

N e w B o y s T o w n - Je r u s a le m P u b lic a t io n s

TARYAG by Abraham Hirsch Rabinowitz A study of the origin and historical development from the earliest times to the present day, of the tradition that the written Torah contains six hundred and thirteen Mitzvoth. $3.75

HEAR MY SON A collection of aphorisms by Shraga Silverstein.

$3.75

JEWISH LEADERS 1750-1940 edited by Rabbi Dr. Leo Jung Twenty-five biographies and an appraisal of the lives and works of great Jewish sages of this period. This best selling book was out of print for several years and has recently been republished. $6.00

DUTIES OF THE HEART by Bachya ben Joseph Ibn Paquda Hebrew text and English translation by Rabbi Dr. Moses Hyamson. Written in the eleventh century, this work has always been one of the most beloved of the great classics in the field of Jewish Ethics. This book can add new dimensions to your spiritual life. 800 pp. two volumes $10.00

MAIMONIDES 1. The Book of Knowledge

2. The Book of Adoration

These are the first two volumes of Maimonides’ monumental code of Jewish Law. the Mishna Torah, also known as Yad Hachazakah. Complete Hebrew text with English translation by Rabbi Dr. Moses Hyamson. two volumes $10.00

We supply the best of Israeli Esrogim at reasonable prices. We extend to all our friends and patrons our heartiest and best wishes for

mitt rurnm m^ro PHILIPP FELDHEIM, INC. 66The H ouse o f th e Jew ish B o o k 99 96 East Broadway, New York, New York 10002

JEW ISH LIFE

The two major influences on this con temporary brand of orthodox Judaism are, of course, the laws and traditions of Torah and the values and mores of the American social fabric. The admix ture of these two potent forces has created, willy-nilly, a strange and exotic blend. It has produced, for example, the American yeshivah bochur, the likes of which has never been seen before, nor anywhere else: a boy who, let us say, will not shave in the “three weeks” but who is also versed in the batting aver ages of most major league baseball play ers; a young Talmudic scholar who can hold his own in discourse and debate with some of the best of the “old-timers” but will also be sitting in a boys-andgirls pattern in his classes in Brooklyn College (wearing a yarmulka) . This sub culture has also given birth to the “fash ionable” sheitel adorning the head of a very religious woman who nevertheless dresses as if she just stepped out of Vogue. To us, these vignettes do not seem strange at all, for this is our way of life. But let us imagine, if it were possible, that my grandfather (from Eastern Eu rope) or my wife’s grandfather (from “modern” Western Europe) were sud denly to reappear and view our version of “orthodox, * Torah-true” Judaism. They would flip! UT why go on? All I really want to say is that Rabbi Elkanah B Schwartz, in the book under review, draws a quick sketch of this particular slice of Jewish life. Surely, others have observed the phenomenon, but he is the first, to my knowledge, to have written about it in this form. Such stories and sketches as “The Physical,” “A Summer Away,” “The Shaytl and the Braytl,” September-October 1967

“Raphael’s Matchmakers,” “Got a Cig?,” and “The Drink’s on Me” could have happened only in America, and the author is to commended for preserving these charming vignettes between the covers of a book. And “The Orthodox Establishment” is an especially good one —a bitingly incisive portrait of a socalled pillar of the community, whose type many of us recognize but never dissected so mercilessly. Of course, not all is glittering gold. Some of the pieces are overexpanded anecdotes, which could stand shrinking. Others (“Once a Rabbi, Always a Rab bi” or “The Believers”) are too rabbinic or sermonic to belong in this book. Still others (“The Metamorphosis of Zelig Schnureman” and “The Unbreakable Bond”), dealing with the young boy brought up in a traditional home, who strays as he matures but can never fully break with his past, have been done bet ter by others. As a writer, Rabbi Schwartz leaves something to be desired. His persona are types, not individual characters. His style is loose and rambling where it should be pithy and precise. His choice of words would dismay an English pur ist (the “woop and warf” on page 74 really hurt!) Perhaps I am being overly critical (but what is a Jewish critic if he can not carp?). Considering the quality of American writing today, in general, one should be grateful if he only finds a simple declarative sentence that hangs together. Besides, the value of this book lies not in its literary quality but in the mirror it holds up to us, the opportunity it gives us to view ourselves as we really are and not as we think we are. And this it does with clear insight, good humor and a healthy point of view. Get it . . . and read it! 79

THE FINEST WINES CHAMPAGNES AND LIQUORS T h e on ly w in es and liquors, fa m o u s s in c e 1882 , p r o d u c e d in R ic h o n L e - Z io n a n d Z tc k r o n Jacob, Israel.

_ a v

CH IEF RABBI YEHUDAH

Certified. Strictly Kosher by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel

ISSER UNTERMAN CHIEF RABBI YITZCHAK N IS S IM

Imported by

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

HAVE YOU MOVED? Send us your new address and your old address clipped from your Jewish Life envelope, am erican cancer society 80

JEW ISH LIFE

nron rrnta s i l l SHARON TRAVEL ASSOCIATES, INC. official agent of the Orthodox Union for the forthcoming First World Conference of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Synagogues an d agent fo r th e

Rabbinical Council of America, National Council of Young Israel and Mizrachi Women’s Organization of America ex ten d to you h eartiest New Y ear’s g reetin g s .

Shoshana and David Weingarten and Family

CA ULM ADDRESSt TOURSHARON

N ew York

a r o t l travel associates, inc three west sixteenth street, new york, n. y. 10011 (2 1 2 ) W A 4 -8 5 8 5

“(¿May you beinscribed Jbr a good year!” H. J. HEINZ COMPANY ^¡5 ? / Among the 57 Varieties of the House of Hôinz are many that carry the @ seal of approval of THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEW ISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA.