Jewish Life Sept-Oct 1969 by Jewish Action

JEWISH CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS AND THE VIETNAMESE WAR CHANGING JEWISH VOTING PATTERNS * KABBOLAH HEART AND OTHER ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION AND JEWISH LAW THE VANISHING JEW IN THE FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT

TISHRI-CHESHVÄN 5730

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1969

THE

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America cordially invites your participation in the

M ID C O N T IN E N T C O N C L A V E and NA TIONAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE at the AMBASSADOR HOTEL CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Kislev 17-20 5730 Thursday, November 2 7 - Sunday, November 30, 1969 (THANKSGIVING DA Y WEEKEND) Hosts:

Midwest, Central States, and Central Canada Regions, UOJCA

PLEASE RESERVE THESE DATES

mn^Tn Yinn #n>

pDOirSiN in ngon

DAVID M. L. OLIVESTONE

a m o

n g our

c 0

n t r 1

b u t o r

Having held high-level government posts for a number of years, NATHAN LEWIN can observe the changed and changing Washington scene on the basis of experienced insights. Soon after the Republicans came to the White House last year, he went into law practice in Wash ington after serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Before that, he was Deputy Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs of the Department of State, and before that Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Justice Department. A graduate of Yeshiva College and Harvard Law School, herein he shares with us some of his observa tions. . . From his vantage point as Chief Counsel to the Minority Leader in the New York State Assembly, C. DANIEL CHILL comes into close and steady contact with the boiler-room statistics that mark the election — or defeats- of candidates. A graduate of Yeshiva College and Yale Law School, he views here'emerging trends among the Jewish electorate which come into focus during this heated electoral period and which may bear deeply significant long-term portents. .. While the Jew has learned much of how to live under oppression, the experience of living under freedom and democracy has brought new problems. A rabbi tends to view these problems more from the moral aspect than the legal; the lawyer views it the other way around. RABBI BEREL WEIN, Rav of Beth Israel Congregation in Miami Beach, Florida, and a Musmoch of the Hebrew Theological College, came to his pulpit after practicing law for ten years in Chicago. This unique combination permits him to view a “now” problem with a blended perspective. .. As a practicioner of the healing arts, DR. FRED ROSNER, Assistant Director of the Division of Hematology in Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and Instructor in Medicine in the Downstate Medical Center of the State University of New York, finds that many advances in medicine create Halachic questions. Hence, his avocation as a student of medical Halochah. He is Chairman of the Publications Committee of the Rephael Society, the medical-dental section of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, and has written a number of a rtic le s on v ario u s such medical-Halachlc issues.. . DR. H. RABINOWICZ of London, England is well known to JEWISH LIFE readers. His studious pen again illuminates a little-known area of Jewish knowledge.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

Vol. X X X V II, No. 1/September-October 1969/Tishri-Cheshvan 5730

lewfeK

J Life

THE EDITOR'S VIEW OUR YOUNG REVOLUTIONARIES................................ 3

ARTICLES Saul Bernstein, Editor Paul H. Baris Libby Klaperman Nathan Lewin Rabbi Solomon J. Sharfman

THE VANISHING JEW IN THE FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT/Nathan Lewin........................... 6 CHANGING JEWISH VOTING PATTERNS/ C. Daniel Chill..............................................................14

Editorial Associates

Elkanah Schwartz Assistant Editor

JEWISH LIFE is published bi-monthly. Subscription two years $5.00, three years $6.50, four years $8.00. Foreign: Add 40 cents per year. Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York 10011, N. Y. (212) ALgonquin 5-4100 Published by U nion of Orthodox J ewish C ongregations of A merica J oseph K arasick

President

JEWISH CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS AND THE VIETNAMESE WAR/Berel Wein.............................. 22 KABBOLAH/ H. Rabinowicz...................................

¡32

HEART AND OTHER ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION AND JEWISH LAW/Fred Rosner............................. 38

POETRY LUNATIC SONGS/ Dov Benoni..............................................

BOOK REVIEWS NOTES ON A LOVE-LETTER/ Maurice Lamm...........................................................52

H arold M. J acobs

Chairman of the Board

CHAPTERS FROM THE CALENDAR/ Philip Zimmerman.....................................................54

Benjamin Koenigsberg, Nathan K. Gross, David Politi, Dr. Bernard Lander, Harold H. Boxer, Lawrence A. Kobrin, Vice Presidents; Morris L. Green, Treasurer; Emanuel Neustadter, Secretary; Julius Berman, Financial Secretary.

FROM HERE AND THERE................................................56

Dr. Samson R. Weiss

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR........... ................................... 60

Executive Vice President Saul Bernstein, Administrator

Second Class Postage paid at New York, N. Y.

DEPARTMENTS

AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS.......................................1 Cover and drawings by Naama Kitov © Copyright 1969 by UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA P R I N T E D B Y E A S T E R N S T A T E S C O R P .. N .Y .C -

JEWISH L IF E

the EDITOR'S VIEW

OUR YOUNG REVOLUTIONARIES of this country’s youth scene seem to be more OBSERVERS or less unanimous in seeing deep-rooted revolt against the world as the young generation finds it as root cause of the stu dent explosions which have shattered college campuses and rocked city streets. These observers likewise agree that it is the urge to escape the world as they find it that lures a massive segment of youth to the delirious din of “rock” and the dream world of drugs. As yet, the adult public remains frozen in a state of shocked bafflement, at a loss to account for the phenomenon, utterly perplexed as to how to deal with it. “ Look at all we’ve done for our children, given them the very best of everything, and now see how they’ve turned out!” is the wail heard on every side. But all too obviously, all that has been done is not all that should have been done, and what was given them was not the very best of everything; perhaps it was the very worst. No facile stock-taking of the component elements of the makeup of society, to identify and treat factors which make for social malaise, will get to the heart of the problem. It is no one subjective social factor, nor any combination of them, that brings the spreading sickness. More and more does it become apparent that the very nature and essence of modern life exacts the toll. No re-arrangement of the social structure, however far-reaching,

SEPTEM BER-O CTO BER 1969

will bring true remedy, but only the recomposition of human life itself. Through generations of concentration on the rational, the The Cost sensual, and the material, one part of man’s essential being has of been left to atrophy: the spiritual. Through the generations of Spiritual modern civilization, man has drawn from the spiritual reserves of Atrophy the preceding generations, without replenishing them. The deficit mounts and accumulates and now it can no longer be sustained. For the Jewish community, the basic problem has even more pressing immediacy than for others. Ours is, beyond all others, the community invested with the Divine spirit. We live within that realm of the spirit or else not at all. The atrophy of spiritual life in the surrounding world touches us with compound force, demanding ever more constant spiritual regeneration.

Upsurge Without Headlines

IT IS because so large a part of the Jewish community has ■failed to respond to this focal challenge of the modern world that we now witness, with such undue shock and bewilder ment, so many Jewish youths among the rampaging campus radi cals, the hippies and yippies, the votaries of rock and the acolytes of acid. The “best of everything,” their parents will testify, was given them from birth on; but that “everything,” tragically, did not include the best of Jewishness. What their nature as human beings, their souls as Jews, needed and craved was denied them and so, in blind search, they stumbled on strange paths. Fortunately for the Jewish community, an altogether dif ferent kind of Jewish youth has been coming to the fore at the same time. Far less visible than the other kind, they too are a force for revolution - in this case, the revolution of the spirit. The Torah world has given birth to a Torah youth, boys and girls, young men and young women fired with Torah purpose. They do not “make the headlines;” you will not see them portrayed on TV channels nor are they quoted in the press. But those who see and feel the work of, in particular example, NCSY, the Orthodox Union’s teenage arm, and Yavneh, the national religious college student movement, will know that they are forging the tools of a revolution that is a Kiddush Ha-Shem. During these past months, the newspapers, magazines, TV and all other mass media have reported and dramatized instance after instance of riotous student actions, all bespeaking youth revolt. Among names cited of leading participants, not a few have been Jewish. Not a line in any public organ, not a mention in any public medium, has taken note of the most truly revolutionary events involving Jewish youth of the U.S. and Canada during the

JEWISH L IF E

same period — the national conventions of^NCSY and Yavneh. Each limited, because of available facilities, to an attendance of less than a thousand, they each represented several times that number of active members and a broader range of contact involv ing far more. But it was the kind and quality of participation, rather the numbers represented, and the character of the conven tions themselves, that made them unique. Here, joined with warmest camaraderie, was nobility of ideal and purity of conduct, here was joy in Jewishness joined with the searching of mind, here was consecrated belief, true purpose; here was life. A REVOLUTION is indeed in the making among Jewish * * youth and these bearing the Torah banner are our true young revolutionaries. May their work, B’ezrath Ha-Shem, be felt to the full within the Jewish community, and in all the world beyond.

—S.B.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

T k e V a n is liiiig J e w

in ik e F ed eral Esf.akliskm.eii it

by NATHAN LEWIN HE announcement from the Summer White House on August 18 that the President will send to the Senate the name of Clement F. Haynsworth to fill the Supreme Court seat last occupied by Abe Fortas has put an end to calm speculation as to whether the tradition of having a “Jewish seat” on the Court would be continued. Newspaper stories on the appointment have given substantial coverage to the vigorous objections of civil rights groups to the Justice-to-be’s record on school desegregation. They have gener ally left to the concluding paragraph the observation B made dead-pan in the stories this writer has seen f l that the appointment of a non-Jew to this seat breaks the chain started with Cardozo and continued with Frank furter, Goldberg, and Fortas. (Contra ry to common misconception, the seat to be filled by Haynsworth was not held by the first Jew appointed to the

Court — Mr. Justice Brandéis. The seat vacated by Brandéis has been filled ever since Brandéis left it by Justice William O. Douglas.) Even New York’s Mayor Lindsay, hard-pressed for Jew ish votes to support his independent candidacy, has not dared criticize the choice on the ground of Mr. Haynsworth’s religious affiliation; an oblique reference to the unfortunate lack of the “ tradition of humanity of Bran déis, Cardozo, Frankfurter, and Gold berg” is as far as he has permitted himself to venture. If there is any single quality that identifies the Nixon Administration to date, it is caution and unwillingness to depart from established and known paths. It is curious, to say the leasts that a President who is so notoriously reluctant to break away from tradition has so readily taken this obvious prece dent-shattering step. “Curiouser” still is the fact that he was prepared to do

JEWISH L IF E

so in an appointment involving his own chosen field of professional competence - particularly after the exposure he must have had as a Wall Street lawyer to the highly capable Jews in the legal profession. This phenomenon cannot simply be ex plained as evidence of insensitivity to minority groups. Whatever may be said of the vigor of the present Administra tion’s actual enforcement of minority rights, the President and those around him £ave B at least until the incident of the thirty-three Mississippi school districts B followed the amenities. Just two weeks before the Haynsworth nom ination was announced, there were unfurled at the White House ^ with great flourish — new guidelines and principles to secure federal em ployment rights for racial and religious minorities. And, apart from school desegregation (where political pressure is the greatest), there has yet been no official pronouncement which has even admitted or hinted that this Presi dent is less committed in principle to minority rights than his predecessors. Indeed, appointments of Negroes and women have generally been accorded great fanfare, and Administration officials keep reiterating how hard they are trying to find qualified blacks and females. N the matter of the Supreme Court appointm ent^p and on that matter alone B the President has announced with pride that he feels obliged to disregard “ethnic considera tions.” In so doing, he may claim to be echoing the advice given publicly by a former government official who might be thought to know whereof he speaks

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

— the then-outgoing president of the A m erican Jewish Committee and former Supreme Court Justice Arthur G oldberg. Goldberg’s position — apparently also announced with pride — after the Fortas resignation was that there is no “Jewish seat” on the Court and that American Jews should not view the President as under any obliga tion to appoint a Jew to the position Fortas had vacated. There is bitter and sweet irony to Mr. Goldberg’s call for resolute reli gious blindness in judicial selection. It is hardly a secret that Goldberg was given Justice Frankfurter’s place when the latter retired after suffering a stroke in 1962 precisely because it was the “Jewish seat,” Had the vacancy been other than Frankfurter’s, Presi dent Kennedy’s more likely choice would have been Archibald Cox, then Solicitor General. Indeed, Goldberg was passed over — reportedly much to his distress —when, earlier in the same Supreme Court Term, Justice Charles Whittaker resigned and Byron White was appointed to take his place. And one cannot help but believe that Lyndon Johnson was well aware of Goldberg’s religion when he exercised his noted power of persuasion to have Goldberg trade his Associate Justice ship for the job of Ambassador to the U.N. In thus freeing the “Jewish seat,” Mr. Johnson was creating a place of honor for^his Jewish friend of many years^B whom he was prepared to make Chief Justice of the United States —Abe Fortas. Former Justice-and-Ambassador Golberg’s public assent to a non-Jewish nomination is, however, more than historic irony. It is also a graphic

dem onstration of the uneasy and dem eaning self-abnegation which Jewish success has produced in this country. For it is unlikely that there are many white men in the United States who could have felt more strongly than Arthur Goldberg that the nomination of a Negro to the Supreme Court was long overdue well before Thurgood Marshall became a Justice. Goldberg undoubtedly wel comed Marshall’s nomination — and not because it was a nondiscriminatory selection based on merit. The selection of a black man for the Supreme Court was symbolic of the nation’s awaken ing recognition of the Black commun ity. Nor has anyone ever thought it reprehensible for a President to struc ture the Supreme Court so that it reflects the diversity of America; indeed, the fact that many of the Court’s decisions turn largely on issues of' policy and not on pure logic is a strong argument for deliberate distri bution of its members so that they constitute a cross-section of the coun try’s population. Why then, if it is permissible to seek a Southerner, a Negro, a “law-and-order man,” or a Republican, is it not proper to pick a Jew? Is religious and national identifi cation more irrelevant than skin color or than the state of one’s birth? ET no one be misled by pom pous talk of “selecting the best man.” Not since Cardozo was forced, by overwhelming public opinion, on an unwilling President Hoover, has there really been an objective Presiden tial decision based on the merit of individual lawyers throughout the country. That is not to say that the

Court hasn’t had its share of brilliant men, many of whom are ranked with “the best.” But in each case, the major ingredient in the Presidential decision was political. One thinks of Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson — both astute, both brilliant, and, most importantly, both enormously helpful to Franklin D. Roosevelt. And one compares their ascent to the Supreme Court with the failure of leading mem bers of the bench and the bar who were their contemporaries. No more massive effort could have been under taken, for example, than lawyers, judges, and members of the Supreme Court itself took up on behalf of Learned Hand, recognized as one of the outstanding jurists of the century. Hand never made it. Granted there is no Jewish hen on the Cardozo-Frankfurter-GoldbergFortas seat. Granted, as well, there is no clausus numerus on the Court’s Jew ish membership (Brandéis and Cardozo served together). And grant ed, finally, in theory,; that Jewish membership on the Court may be none as well as it may be nine.* It does not follow that we should view with equanimity a Supreme Court which has not a single Jewish member. *In practice, of course, it is quite inconceiv able that there would ever be more than two Jews at one time on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Washington newspapers recently reported that there was substantial contro versy within the Democratic Party ranks in Maryland because it appeared that both Governor Marvin Mandel (who replaced Mr. Agnew) and the incumbent State Treasurer (Goldstein) are Jewish, and there was much opposition to having two Jews on a single ticket. If, in fact, there is to be a maximum on Jewish membership in the Supreme Court, why not a minimum?

JEWISH L IF E

Such an alignment, in this writer’s opinion, is an affront to the Jewish com m unity of the United States, which has its fair share of lawyers — and probably more than its fair share of outstanding ones. Southern Sena tors would not readily tolerate a Court on which the South was unrepre sented; the Court has always had its share of Catholics (and a healthy number of Chief Justices, including Taney — a far better jurist than his notorious Dred Scott opinion would indicate); and no one can believe for a minute that the Court will ever again be lily-white. Why, then, is it perfectly ac c e p ta b le for the Court to be Judenrein?

entitled to be represented by at least one Cabinet-level official. The absence of a Jewish Cabinet member (with a Jewish population of almost six mil lion) was noted by a few journalists; it was criticized by none, and the Presi dent and his staff were apparently not even conscious enough of the omission to go through a deferential scene of appeasement. So much for the Cabinet. What of the sub-Cabinet and the higher policy-making levels of the federal bureaucracy? It’s plain to this observer that Jewish visibility at these stations is rapidly diminishing. The slow pro cess of transition M which the Nixon Administration, to be sure, has not hastened — has gradually reduced the number of Jews in policy-making jobs. That does not mean that Jews have been deliberately fired — or that they have by some invidious means been relieved of jobs because they are Jew ish. The phenomenon which appears and re-appears is simply that of a Jew ish sub-cabinet official or a civil serv ant at a policy-making level leaving the government (for personal reasons or on account of policy differences) and being replaced by the stereotype Nixon Republican —4 a white, uppermiddle class Protestant who has been a politically active Republican in his State or local community.

HE question is really more troublesome than it appears. For if one looks around the Nixon Admini stration — as a Washington inhabitant cannot help but do — one is struck by the fact that the appointment of Haynsworth to replace the Jewish member of the Court simply, follows the pattern set by this administration throughout the Executive Branch. On the evening when his Cabinet was unveiled, the President thought it necessary to begin his presentation with the announcement that Walter Washington, a Negro, was being re tained as “Mayor” of the City of Washington. This was a blatant — albeit totally unsuccessful -Heffort to MOST striking illustration —and one with which I am intimately stave off criticism from those who might think (with some justification) familiar — is presented by the Depart th a t th e eleven-or-m ore million ment of Justice. That Department has blacks* in the United States were always had more than a fair share of

*The 11,000,000 figure is Mr. Nixon’s, from a press conference of several months ago. More realistic estimates place the black population of the United States between 20 SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

and 25,000,000, most of them missed by th e 1960 census by voter registration figures.

Jewish employees, possibly because law firms have practiced religious dis c rim in a tio n , and talented Jewish lawyers concluded that they could get a fair shake only in government em ployment. Whatever the reason,’7the su b -C ab in et appointments at the Department of Justice prior to this Administration have not lacked for Jew ish representation. (Curiously enough, however, there has never been a Jewish Attorney General.) In the waning days of the Johnson Admini stration, there were four Assistant Attorneys General (of the eight in the Department) who were Jewish. Today there are none. Nor is the phenomenon limited to Presidential appointees such as Assistant Attorneys General. In each of the eight Divisions or offices headed by an Assistant Attorney General, there are one or two Deputy Assistant Attorneys General who rank next in the bureaucracy and are not subject to Presidential appointment or Senate confirmation. Of thirteen jobs with that title or at that level, seven were held in January 1969 by Jews (the writer being one). Only three of these remain, and one more has very recent ly been appointed, all long-time civil servants who made their way success fully up the hierarchial ladder. The important statistic here is not, I should emphasize, the number who remain or who are presently in such posts. The phenomenon which cries out for explanation is the number who* have come on board H in each case none. For it is not surprising that a change from a Democratic President to a Republican one is followed by many departures B both willing and

unwilling — of policy-makers from government jobs. The critical question is, who replaces the departed? And in the Department of Justice at least, the record is that until a few weeks ago not a single one of the replacements was Jewish; and the recent unique in stance was simply a promotion -f|not an outside appointment. (An excep tion — there must be one to every rule — is an office which is off to one side of the Department of Justice’s usual functions — the Law Enforcement A ssistance Administration, which parcels out funds to local law-enforce ment agencies under a recent federal statute. The director of that office is apparently Jewish.) UTSIDE of Washington and else where in the Federal govern m en t, the same phenomenon has appeared. One need only peruse the weekly White House releases — which include nominations not nationally publicized — to find time and again that a United States Attorney with a J ewish-sounding name is being re placed by a non-Jew. In New York City (the “ Southern District of New York” in legal jargon) the battle is now raging over the retention of Robert Morgenthau as U.S. Attorney. The proposed Nixon replacements which have been most prominently m en tio n ed are Paul Curran and Whitney North Seymour, Jr. Is there no q u a lifie d Jew ish Republican lawyer? And is it only coincidental that of seven nominations made by the P resident to vacancies in Federal Courts of Appeal by mid-August, none were Jewish ¿."and that only one of eight United States District Court

JEWISH L IF E

ap p o in te e s has a Jewish-sounding name? Turn, too, to other executive departments. The Undersecretary for Economic Affairs is the only Jew in the top rank of the State Department — and the influence of his job and himself on diplomatic matters is just about nil. That’s quite a change from the days when Eugene Rostow was in the third slot —as the Israeli diplomats are discovering. The Jewish ranks at the Treasury have also thinned out. The “brain trust” behind the Admini stration’s tax legislative policy is still headed by a Jewish Assistant Secretary (Cohen for Surrey), but others ¡1 from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to a Special Assistant to the Undersecretary M i have followed the Justice Department pattern.. The same can be said for the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare, Housing and Urban Develop ment, and even Labor and Interior. (O f co u rse, th e Departments of Commerce and Agriculture and the Post Office have never attracted or sought Jewish personnel, so it is hard to make comparisons.) In each of these executive agencies, highly cap able Assistant Secretaries (or General Counsels or Solicitors) and deputies who are Jewish have, over the past several months, left their posts. The “new teams,” by and large (there are, of course, exceptions), have very little Jewish representation. O what? The President is an honorable man, and surely no one accuses him of overt antisemitism. Nor is it likely that John Mitchell, raised in New York City law practice,

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

and Robert Finch, who will need Jew ish support for future political efforts in California, are deliberately keeping Jews out of policy-making positions. (Indeed, Attorney General Mitchell did keep on a Jewish Executive Assists ant who had worked for Ramsey Clark, notwithstanding the custom of recent Attorneys General to treat that job as one calling for personal loyalty. Each of the Attorneys General since Herbert Brownell has moved in a new Executive Assistant upon taking office — even where there was no change in party affiliation.) The fact —which one can accept as true — that Jewish Republicans are harder to find than Jewish Democrats does not really explain the great dis parity in Jewish representation be tween the Kennedy-Johnson Admini stration and the Nixon Administra tio n . The poll-takers tell us that Republicans generally^Bregardless of religious persuasion^jp are harder to find in this country than Democrats. Yet Mr. Nixon is managing to find enough to fill the policy-making jobs he wants filled. And if he wanted Jewish Republicans, it would take little extra effort to enlist those so qualified for responsible jobs in execu tive departments. From my own per sonal observation and informal polls taken among friends and associates; I can only conclude that — at least out side of New York City — the Jewish vote for Nixon in the 1968 election was far larger than the news commen tators and analysts have allowed. The very least that can be said with absolute confidence is that no effort is being made by Mr. Nixon or his associates to see to it that Jews 4-

like Negroes or women ^ are repre sented at the visible policy-making level of the executive departments. This may reflect an unarticulated view that they were overrepresented in prior administrations; or it may be attributable to deliberate neglect H |o a feeling that the Jewish constituency needs no special favors and can be left to advance on the individual merits of its representatives. Neither of the above premises is particularly surprising or reprehens ible^ and the Jewish community in the United States can probably live with both. Neither, however, fully explains the very substantial reduction in Jew ish visiblity — nor does it explain another aspect of this phenomenon: HE President has, notwithstand ing th e absence of Jewish Cab in e t|i sub-Cabinet and sub-subCabinet officials, surrounded himself with a good number of White House advisers who are Jewish. The bestknown, of course, are Henry Kissinger, Arthur Burns, and Leonard Garment. Kissinger’s views are said to carry more weight than those of the Secretary of StatepBurns is reputed to have the power to overrule the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of HEW (and even to do vigorous battle with the au to n o m o u s Federal Reserve Board); and Garment has the Presi dent’s ear on civil rights matters and other domestic policy goals. Why are these highly qualified and very capable men kept close to the President for advice, but no Jews appointed to the Cabinet or to important sub-Cabinet jobs? And why no Jew on the Su preme Court?

One can’t help concluding that there is a certain disquieting similarity between the record of the Nixon Administration on the appointment of Jews to “visible” posts in the govern mental hierarchy and the attitude which prevailed for many years (and has still not been totally eradicated) on New York’s Wall Street — in the law firms, banking institutions, insur ance companies, and brokerage houses. Long after American Jews had firmly established themselves in the arts, in trade, and in a variety of professions (including, of course, law) the Wall S tre e t establishment remained an almost impregnable barrier. Jewish partners in Wall Street law firms were so few in number just a decade ago that they could B like Jewish majorleague ballplayers JJ be ticked off by name by aficionados. It was in my time in law school, for example (still less than ten years ago), that the single Jewish partner of a leading Wall Street firm (which had about fifty partners) died in an airplane that went down in the East River. And it was a subject of caustic humor among nearly all of my Jewish classmates that this sank the firm’s chances of attracting the Jewish Law Review editors; it no longer could point discreetly at the Jew who had “made it.” The point of it all was that the firms wanted the young Jewish law yers who had demonstrated talent and ability but not to put them in the front array B i n the showcase, as it were. The very same firm (which now has several Jewish partners) did cite the tragically submerged one as proof that it had erected no “bar” to Jewish advancement, but somehow I and my

JEWISH L IF E

capable Philadelphia lawyer who has spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort on the Association’s activi ties. But traditions and attitudes die hard — hardest, surely, among those like Messrs. Nixon, Mitchell, Rogers, Kennedy (the Secretary of the Treas ury), Stans, et al, who have spent thenadult lives surrounded by these atti HE short of the matter is that tudes, and who may well owe thenthe pattern in Wall Street P* personal success to the values which which is followed by banks and insur give rise to them. ance companies as well —was (and still HE role of the behind-the-scenes is, to some degree) to “use” the “Jew adviser to those who rule is, of ish brains” in the backrooms, to rely upon young Jewish lawyers as drones course, not a new one for the Jew. but never (or hardly ever) to dress Many celebrated figures throughout them in royal garb and give them our history have served in this capac access to the royal courtyard. The ity. But recent national Administra leaders of the bar have always been tions in the United States —including, perfectly prepared to seek the advice I think, those of Eisenhower, Truman, of Jewish attorneys and to pay them and Roosevelt, and particularly the well as consultants. But it was viewed Kennedy-Johnson Administration — as folly or (worse yet) boorish indis have seen the emergence of the “vis cretion to stick one of them in the ible” Jew in the Federal establishment. front ranks. There was a tacit under As one who was in the Johnson standing that, unlike children, Jews Administration in its last years, I can were made to be heard but not, if one testify to the fact that power and its emoluments were assigned, without could help it, to be seen. Things are beginning to change the slightest hesitation, to Jews. In this — though not as much in banking and area, as in other matters in the broad insurance circles as in the law. The spectrum of “ civil rights,” what the American Bar Association has even present Administration has done to gone so far as to elect a Jewish presi date can only be characterized as a dent — a highly respected and very step backwards. Jewish classmates were told by its representatives more often and point edly than others that if, after several years, the firm decided that our ad vancement to partnership was not possible, we could be ‘‘well-placed” with other small {read “Jewish”) firms in New York.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

CHANGING JEWISH VOTING PATTERNS

by C. DANIEL CHILL VEN the most casual and super ficial observer of the American political landscape will concede the obvious fact that profound and star tlin g changes are taking place in American politics today. In its most obvious aspect, this change may be discerned in the increased polarization of political commitment into extreme right and left positions and a concommitant disintegration of the moderate political center, which has tradition ally spanned the spectrum of both major political parties. Starting slowly in the early 1960’s, this realignment of our political system increased rapidly in recent years. The failure to con clude that most unpopular of wars in Viet Nam, rising black militancy, a restless and violent youth, increased crimes of violence, campus turmoil, and th e assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, all interacting with one another, have

provided volatile fuel to this process and hastened its acceleration. “Wallacites,” the “New Democratic Coali tion,” “The New Left,” “Confronta t i o n ,” ‘‘B a c k la sh ,” and “ Social A c tiv ism ” have become part of America’s new political lexicon. But what of the Jews? Has there been a change in their traditional left of center voting patterns? Have they ceased to become active partners in the famous Democratic Party coalition of labor, ethnic minorities, and the low er middle class working man, forged so dramatically by Roosevelt that, with the exception of the Eisen how er interregnum, this coalition wielded effective political power in this country for almost 40 years? Political pundits predicted that the coalition could not survive a Humph rey candidacy in 1968 and Humphrey was indeed hard put to hold tradi tional blue-collar Democratic labor

JEWISH L IF E

voters to his candidacy. Nevertheless, despite fears that even the Jews were going to desert Humphrey, some be cause of a flirtation with the New Left or others backlashing to the right, an analysis of the voting in the Jewish populated wards of Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Phila delphia pointedly indicated that most Jewish votes went to Humphrey, al though not to as overwhelming a degree as had been the case for past Democratic presidential candidates. Yet, while political polarization among the Jews did not clearly materi alize in 196&, there are steadily mounting indications that things are not the same politically with the Jews. While the evidence is inconclusive, the findings scant, and the statistics con fusing, it cannot be gainsaid that what was once a monolithically left-ofcenter Jewish vote is now becoming increasingly fragmented. N examination of New York City’s recent primary election for Mayor is revealing. Even though only 30% of the eligible voters voted in the primary, thereby making defin ite c o n c lu sio n s impossible some glimmer can nevertheless be gleaned from an analysis of that vote. The Jews constitute approximately 25% of the population of the City of New York and almost 40% of its total vot ing population. While the Jews, as in other cities, live in all geographic areas of the city, making a statistical sample in any one political unit open to some question, they do clearly congregate and predominate in some specific areas. For the purposes of our analysis, we will survey the political unit known

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

as the Assembly District, which is an arbitrarily drawn political unit con taining approximately 100,000 voters. There are 150 Assembly Dis tricts in the state and 76 in the City of New York. While disputes may arise as to certain other Assembly Districts, most knowledgeable observers would agree that the 44th A.D. (Flatbush, Brooklyn); the 48th A.D. (Boro Park, Brooklyn); the 19th A.D. (Far Rockaway, Queens); and the 65th A.D. (Lower West Side, Manhattan) are clas sically Jewish Assembly Districts. A brief description of the districts and a comparison of their voting patterns in the Democratic Party primary for Mayor in 1965 as opposed to the Democratic primary in 1969, proves enlightening. Helping our analysis is the striking similarity in the types of candidates running in 1965 and 1969*. The candidates in both of these New York primaries represented the full political spectrum as we know it, ranging from the moderate right to the extreme left. In 1965* the right-ofcenter candidate was Abraham Beame, while in 1969 it was Mario Procaccino. The moderate or centrist candidate in 1965 was Paul Screvane, while in 1969 it was his political mentor, Robert Wagner. Left-of-center was represented by Herman Badillo in 1969 and William Fitts Ryan in 1965, while the far left had Norman Mailler in 1969 and Paul O’Dwyer in 1965. The Sheuer voté in 1969 was statistically insignificant and had no 1965 counterpart. HE Flatbush section of Brook lyn is a district of moderately well-to-do, middle-aged, and upper-

middle class homeowners, successful businessmen, and professionals. It con tains a large number of orthodox, Conservative, and Reform congrega tions. The Conservative congregations

had a larger number of enrolled members than the pthers, but the area’s orthodox Jewish population is substantial also. The vote there was as follows:

1965 Bearne 6,045

Serevane 3,356

Ryan 2,690

O’Dwyer 569

Badillo 6,562

Scheuer 1,491

1969 Procaccino 7,546

Wagner 5,240

The Badillo vote, while substan tial, is not surprising. The district has traditionally been one of Brooklyn’s more liberal ones, with a number of active reform clubs. In 1968, candi dates for delegates to the Democratic National Convention, advocating a strong anti-war position and pledged to Eugene McCarthy, won one of the largest pluralities in any delegates’ race in the State of New York that year. M oreover, Jewish voters of more comfortable means have traditionally been more liberal in their voting habits. The real surprise however, was the Procaccino total. Procaccino was not expected to do as well as Abraham Beame did in 1965. Beame was Jewish, active in local charities and syna gogues, and had accumulated many personal friendships with residents of that district in over thirty years of prior public service. Procaccino, run ning for Comptroller on Beame’s ticket in 1965, ran far behind Beame in all of New York’s Jewish areas.

Mailler 1,162

F u rth er, traditionally, Italian-origin candidates running for public offices in Brooklyn do poorly in Jewish dis tricts when they are pitted against Jewish candidates. A case in point occurred in this primary election. Ruth Lerner, a political unknown who expended little funds on her campaign and had no organization, defeated the long time incumbent City Councilman-at-Large, Joseph Ruggieri, who was backed by the powerful Demo cratic machine in Brooklyn, by win ning overwhelmingly against Ruggieri in the predominantly Jewish Assembly Districts, including Flatbush. HE importance of being Jewish when running for public office in these Jewish areas in Brooklyn is nowhere more apparent than in Boro Park. A lower middle-class district of small shopkeepers, businessmen, and others in various middle- or lowerincome occupations, it is populated predominantly by orthodox Jews, a large portion of them Chassidic. Here,

JEWISH LSPE

Boro Park has a considerable number of Italian families whose votes helped to swell the Procaccino tally.) The large vote for Wagner in this primary was from the somewhat older resi dents, jvho recall Wagner and his father favorably, and who were reluc tant to vote for one like Procaccino, an Italian unfamiliar to them. The distribution of party primary votes in the two years was:

naturally the politics tends to be more ethnic-oriented and conservative than in Flatbush. In 1965 Beame, apparent ly only because he was a Jew, achieved one of his largest pluralities in gaining more than 60% of the vote of the district in the Democratic primary. Predictably, Badillo did very poorly, but as in Flatbush, Procaccino did amazingly well again. (It should be noted, however, that one section of 1965 Beame 6,043

Screvane 2,439

Ryan 701

O’Dwyer 192

Procaccino 6,498

Wagner .4,718

1969 Badillo 1,869

Scheuer 989

Mailler 441

Rockaway is similar to that in Boro Park, except that Badillo does expect edly a little better in Far Rockaway. Procaccino continued to do exceed ingly well under the circumstances:

Far Rockaway is a community similar in ethnic makeup to that of Boro Park, except that there is a some what larger preponderance of younger Jews, homeowners, and upper-middle class. Consequently the vote in Far 1965 Beame 7,942

Ryan 2,415

O’Dwyer 435

Badillo 3,321

Scheuer 1,000

Screvane 5,000 1969

Procaccino 7,244

Wagner 5,791

Manhattan’s Lower West Side is an upper-middle class district of apart ment dwellers with a large number of young people. Its diverse populace, now with many Puerto Ricans among them, includes a high proportion of Jews. The majority of these are un

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

Mailler 818

affiliated and of those with congrega tional affiliation, substantially more belong to Reform and Conservative temples than to orthodox synagogues. In political circles the district is known for its predominantly radical left-ofcenter political ideology. It was one of

the only Assembly Districts in the City of New York to vote in favor of the Civilian Review Board. Over ten years ago it elected New York’s first reform C ongressm an, State Senator, and Assemblyman. It was the birthplace of th e anti-war, dump-Johnson move ment, the political nurturing ground of many of the leaders of the new Demo

cratic Coalition and a hotbed of pacif ist sentiment. In 1969 the district continued to vote its traditional way in the Democratic Party primary, with Badillo gaining an impressive victory and Norman Mailler obtaining almost as many votes * as Procaccino. The comparative tallies here were:

1965 Bearne 2,454

Serevane 2,355

Ryan 4,412

O’Dwyer 383

Badillo 5,622

Scheuer 770

1969 Procaccino 1,697

Wagner 3,326

OWEVER, lost in the hulaballoo surrounding the 1969 mayoralty were two little noticed elections of profound significance. In a contest for a Democratic district leader in the Lower West Side district just dis cussed, a blatant right-of-center candi date with strong financial and manpow er b acking from the United Federation of Teachers defeated the radical left-wing incumbent candidate for district leader. The latter had led a city-wide lobbying effort in the State Legislature in favor of strong commu nity control of New York’s educa tional system. Here the race was clear cut, the

Mailler 1,529

issues dramatically posed, and the candidates of diametrically opposing views. The challenger was against con f r o n ta tio n p o litic s, com m unity control, social activism, and the racial quota systems in the city colleges demanded by blaçk militants and thenradical supporters^ The incumbent propounded with vigor the opposite positions on each of these issues. A lb ert Shanker, president of the U.F.T., wrote a passionate appeal for the challenger and ^sent scores of teachers into the district to defeat the incumbent. The challenger defeated the incumbent overwhelmingly, de spite vigorous backing of the incum-

JEWISH L IF E

Five separate but interrelated bent by the entire political structure factors will, I believe, influence the of the district, ranging from the Con gressman to the local precinct cap Jewish voting in the future far more tains, all of whom share her left-of- than in the past. These are: the indi center ideology and all of whom made v id u a l’s religious commitment or identification, his age, education, and a concerted effort on her behalf. Nor was this election aberration economic status. In the past;JJewish voters, no al. In part of an adjoining Assembly District, which is 80%?|jewish in matter what their economic status, makeup, the incumbent candidate for religious commitment, or educational district leader turned back by a mere level, would largely tend to vote in the thirty-six votes a strong challenge from same way. Today that near-monolithic another right-of-center candidate run vote is splintering. Those Jews with a ning on the same issues of community strong religious commitment or identi control, confrontation politics and fication will undoubtedly tend to vote social activism. If right-of-center candi for a more conservative candidate. dates in New York’s most radical left- Such a Jew could hardly be expected of-center political area can win even to support candidates attuned to the localized elections, the beginning of a New Left, which they see as a move major political upheaval in Jewish ment that echoes the Soviet line, is inherently anti-Zionist, and portrays voting habits is discernable. Added to this is the finding of Israel as an “imperialistic” power. Oliver Quayle, the professional poll- Similarly those Jews who own stores taker, who maintains that at least 50% in Negro areas, who compete with ris of the Wagner voters would have voted ing black demands for jobs as school for Proccacino as their second choice. teachers and social workers and who Consequently, were Wagner not to live in marginal slum areas with high have run, Procacdino’s vote would crime rates, undoubtedly tend to favor a “law and order - candidate more have been a decisive majority. readily than the Park Avenue Jew who N SPITE of this evidence, a lives in a lily-white cooperative and veritable flood of literature has who has no economic contact with the recently appeared in various journals Negro whatsoever. The more assimi of Jewish sponsorship, attempting to lated Jews and those of the younger rationalize these statistics by claiming generation who have become alienated that the primary results are misleading from Jewish life, are likely to be re and illusory and that there is no evi sponsive to the rising new Negro dence of any change in traditional awareness and militancy. If this thesis is indeed correct| Jew ish voting patterns. Although George Gallup proved in 1948 that districts like Boro Park and Far Rockapolitical prophecy is foolish, even way will m ore lik ely vote for when aided by scientific polling, the Procaccino than districts like Flatbush evidence, even though admittedly and Manhattan’s Lower West Side. But even in Flatbush, which Lindsay inconclusive, points the other way.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

almost won in 1965 and in Far Rockaway, which he did carry in 1965, and in M anhattan’s Lower West Side, w hich he won overwhelmingly in 1965, a substantial diminution in L indsay’s vote among the Jewish voters will not be surprising.

center, careful effort by national Republican candidates could reap a rich harvest of Jewish votes in critical big cky areas that could spell victory or defeat for large blocs of electoral votes which, in turn, could affect the outcome of a close national election. P erhaps high R epublican policy SSUMING Procaccino gains an makers in Washington have begun to unusually large number of Jew sense these possibilities themselves. ish votes in the November election, Contrast the forthright support of can one generalize even from- this? House Republican Minority Leader Would such a vote be a result not of Gerald Ford for continued American any love for Procaccino, but of anti arms sales to Israel with the neo-isola pathy to LindsayStriggered by what tionism of Democratic doves such as many have felt to be his insensitivity Senators Eugene McCarthy and Albert to Jewish problems and in particular Gore and the outright hostility to his inept handling of the antisemitic Israel of the Democratic chairman of manifestations in the Ocean Hill- the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-' Brownsville school controversy? tee, William Fullbright. Senator Hugh Further lid o these small and Scott, in his maiden speech as Acting localized but significant signs of a Senate Republican Minority Leader rightward shift in Jewish voting pat after the death of Everett Dirksen, terns portend a continued trend that claimed that if not for the sale of will manifest itself in future statewide Phantom jets to Israel, a full-scale war and national elections? Are Jewish would have broken out in the Middle voters truly in search of a new political East long ago. framework or is it merely that the Continued attention by moder entire political and social structure of ate Republicans to the sensitivities and society has polarized outward, leaving concerns of Jewish voters and the the Jews where they were but with no continued failure of , so-called liberal viable traditional political left-of- figures to assuage the fears and in center position to attach themselves securities of the Jewish community in to? America might yet yield the astonish These and other similar ques ing spectacle of Jewish voting for tions will be intriguing political pun candidates nationally far to the right dits for many months ahead and the of anyone they ever voted for pre long-range political implications are viously. At the very minimum^ we profound. For example, if there is might witness substantial numbers of really a possibility that Jewish voters Jews joining in the new political coali are willing to reattune their psycholog tion structured so. effectively by Nixon ical voting predispositions and readjust in the last national election, keyed to their political posture from moderate the white, middle class, midwestern, left-of-center to moderate right-of- suburban American.

JEWISH L IF E

For Jews to join such a coalition may be less wrenching than initially appears. Notwithstanding their partic ular problems, Jews have become very much a part of the American main stream. They are, largely , like the great heartland of America, white, middle class, suburban, still believing in tradi tional American middle class virtues of religion, family, morality, and patriot ism . To many, if not most, the American Dream still has meaning and the Ethic of success through hard

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

work is still the way to structure one’s life. Although Nixon’s margin was narrow and great reliance was placed on extreme Southern support symbol ized by Senator Strom Thurmond, adding a new partner to the coalition would not only increase the political power base of the Republican Party, but free it from unnecessary reliance on its more extremist elements, and enable it to maintain a more truly center position.

by BEREL WEIN MIDST the pall of gloom that the Vietnam war has cast on current society, certain dubious “bene fits” have also occurred. Moral prob lems that in previous wars were not as acute, or to put it more accurately, were less openly discussed, have now come into sharp focus. Thus, there has never been any war in American his tory that has brought with it the con tinuing and often violent protest that has accompanied our involvement in Vietnam. That this is an unpopular war goes without question. There are many who maintain that it is an unjust and immoral war as well. The problem of defining unjust and immoral wars raises the basic moral issues of war and peace, life and death. In the long his tory of civilization, the place of war and its philosophic and spiritual justifi cation has never quite been properly established.

During the long period of his tory when professional or volunteer armies were used almost exclusively, public debate or concern regarding the just cause of the particular war was at a minimum. However, when conscrip tio n and citizen armies, not to m ention World Wars, became the norm, the moral justication of the par ticular war became a matter of public concern and debate. In this century, America( has, until the Vietnamese war, been fortunate in not being engaged in a massively unpopular war. Keeping the world safe for democracy and other ideals of both nationalism and international responsibility served to justify our involvement in World Wars I and II and Korea. However, a sizable portion of the American population, especially of the draft-age population, feels no such justification for our participation in the Viet namese conflict. Hence, our current

JEWISH L IF E

painful moral dilemma. HE Congress of the United States, in the Selective Service Act> has made provision for those indi viduals who cannot in good conscience participate in actual warfare. The law specifies that local draft boards may exempt those who, “by reason of reli gious training and belief,’’ feel them selves unable. to participate in the active conduct of war. This exemption on behalf of conscientious objectors has been the battleground for bitter litigation in the past few years. Many “ doves” and dis sidents in the degree of American participation in Vietnam have claimed their right to exemption from the draft on the basis of conscientious objection to all wars. The courts have sought to meet this challenge head on by defining clearly the exemption of conscientious objection. The limits of the exemption have thus been explic itly marked in two landmark decisions. In U.S. v. Bowles (CCA3) 13IF (2nd) 818, the Court held that: This act [the Selective Service Act] does not require member ship on the part o f a conscien tious objector in a well-recog n ized relig io u s sect whose e x is tin g creed or principles forbade its members to partici pate in war in any form for a registrant to be classified as a conscientious objector, but a showing o f conscientious opposi tion upon religious grounds to participation in war is all that is required. And in U. S. v. Kauten (CCÀ2) 133F (2nd) 703 the Court defined the

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

exemption at length: In granting exemptions to con scientious objectors Congress intended to satisfy the conscien ces o f a very limited class, and not to give exemptions to the great number o f persons who might object to a particular war on philosophical or political grounds. In order to avail a regis trant o f his privilege as a consci entious objector, he must estab lish that his objection to partici pation in war is due to religious training and belief; it must be ex vi term ini a general scruple against participation in war in any form and not merely ah objection to participation in this particular war; moreover, the conviction that war is a futile means o f righting wrongs or o f protecting the State, that it is riot worth the sacrifice, that it is waged for base ^ends, or is other wise indefensible, is not neces sarily a ground for opposition based on religious training and belief It is therefore obvious from the above two decisions that, even though the c o n sc ie n tio u s objector need not belong to a group or religion that preaches pure pacifism, he must, nevertheless, base his objection to war on religious grounds and not on philo sophical or political grounds alone. UMEROUS instances have arisen in the Vietnam war draft where in Jewish young men have claimed exemption from the draft as conscien tio u s objectors. Though no exact statistics are available, it i t believed

that the instances of Jews who have claimed exemptions under the provi sion fo r conscientious objectors number in the hundreds. The Jewish Peace Fellowship which, according to its own advertisement, works “for the advancement of international peace and for the welfare of conscientious objectors within the American Jewish Community,” was founded in 1941. It was a small and insignificant group and even as late as 1965 admitted to a budget of only $1500.00 per year. It now has a small staff, a full-time executive director and a budget of $25,000.00 for 1969. The unfortunate involvement of many Jewish youtli in the~“New Left” must also be a contri buting factor to the current rise of Jewish conscientious objectors. Quite apart from these new political factors, love of peace and abhorrence of war are well known tenets of our faith and thus many a Jewish young man has been faced with a moral dilemma of great proportions when confronting his draft board. I am certain that this matter, like almost every other matter of Jewish law and tradition, must depend upon the indi vidual and unique circumstances of every case, and one must therefore be wary about postulating a general and binding rule as regards Jewish consci entious objectors. However, certain basic propositions can be advanced which will help in understanding the viewpoint of Jewish law on this pain fully acute matter. UMAN life is the most valuable of all earthly creations. Any cursory reading of the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud will point out that the

thrust of Jewish spirit is anti-war. We are opposed to the needless waste of human energies and resources, above all to the destruction of human lives. However,||it is fallacious to maintain that Judaism upholds a doctrine of pure pacifism. Such an understanding of Jewish tradition is not only super ficial but dangerously incorrect. The Torah, above all else, is realistic of the world we live in and the shortcomings of its inhabitants. Therefore, it is inconceivable to think of Judaism as a religion that advocates pure pacifism or continued submission to the vio lence of others. Pacifism is a realistic program in a world comprised of only pacifists. It ;is nonsense in a world where the forces of evil use every means of violence available to them to attain their ends. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that self-defense is not only permissible, it is mandatory . There are instances where war itself is permis sible, and the Torah even contains the concept of the commandment of “milchemeth mitzvah” B B an obliga tory war. In the imperfect world in which man finds himself, he must be the instrument of his own salvation and perfection. One-sided declarations of peace, (noble as they may intrinsi cally be, are not really effective in a world where evil and violence are ever-present. The Messianic vision of peace between man and nations pre supposes a basic change in human nature and appreciation, but until such a change occurs, the realities of human life cannot allow man, especially the J e w B t h e lu x u ry of one-sided pacifism.* *In the winter, 1968 issue of “ Shalom,” the organ of the Jewish Peace Fellowship, Dr.

JEWISH L IF E

There are numerous proofs that can be brought to substantiate this point. I will content myself with the following incident recorded in the Bible itself. When Jacob prepared to meet his brother Esau after spending twenty years in the house of Laban, our Rabbis tell us of his plan for this momentous encounter. They say that he adopted a three-fold strategy. He would attempt to mollify Esau with gifts and compromises, he would pray to the Almighty for heavenly interven tion, and if all else failed he would go to war in order to defend himself. Our Rabbis explain that Jacob was not only frightened of the annihilation promised him by Esau, but he was just as distressed at the prospect of having to kill and maim Esau’s cohorts. How ever, when all else failed, when Esau would neither accept gifts nor negoti ate reasonably, when Jacob’s very self-preservation hung in the balance, then there could be no doubt “that even violent and war-like defense was preferable to submission, one-sided pacifism, and eventual extinction. HIS application of logic is bind ing not only upon Jews but upon humanity generally. Though the law of the Torah teaches us that the nations of the world are forbidden,

Jacob Neusner maintains a defense of pacif ism based on the ideals and life of Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zakkai. One is shamed to see a^tholar of Dr. Neusner’s note distort Jew ish tradition and the life of one of the great est Tannaim in order to defend and justify a warped view of Jewish tradition. For a much more accurate and traditional rendi tion of Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zakkai’s life and his true position in opposing the war policy of the Zealots against the Romans, see Isaac Halevy’s famous work “ Doroth Horishonim,” Volume I.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

under the terms of the Code of Noah’s children, to engage in offensive or aggressive wars, they are allowed, and in fact commanded, to defend them selves against such aggressors, (The needless taking of human life is forbid den under the code of the Sons of Noah. This is true in the individual sense of murder and in the collective sense of war.) This rule also applies to cases where smaller or weaker nations are being persecuted and warred upon by o th e r co u n trie s. Responsible nations are then duty-bound to come to their aid in order to prevent the rule of the jungle prevailing in international affairs.* Thus, it is obvious that Jewish law and tradition, while opposing the waging of wars of conquest, expan sion, or aggression, condones wars of defense and self-preservation as neces sitated by the reality of human affairs. It is also obvious that this Halachic division of wars into those that are just and permissible and those that are unjust and forbidden, while negating the concept of absolute pacifism, also closes effectively the legal exemption of conscientious objection to adher ents of Judaism, For now, the only question that Judaism would raise regarding such a war as Vietnam, for example, is whether or not it is just and defensive in nature B protecting the South Vietnamese from aggression ^ B o r is it, on our part, aggressive, unjust, and therefore unnecessary. Under the rule of U.S. v. Kauten, we *The law of “rodef” B the saving of an in nocent victim from the hands of his murder ing pursuer —applies to nations as well as to individuals. See “ L’or Ha-Halochah” by Rabbi S.Y. Zevin, Pg. 17, for a review of this subject.

many instances when Jews had to choose between their civic duty and their moral feelings about a particular war that the country wherein they were living was then waging. Not being allowed the benefits of citizenship and political and social opportunity, they were also not obliged to bear the e v e r t h e l e s s , one cannot overlook the great moral prob responsibilities of such citizenship, at lem raised here, even if no allowanceleast is as far as military service was con made for it under the court’s interpre cerned. Over the last 150 years, how tation of the Selective Service Act. A Jewish young man called for induction ever, the situation changed. The com in o rd e r to p a rtic ip a te in the ing of Western emancipation, the Vietnamese conflict may legitimately founding arid flourishing of the great feel that particular war to be immoral American republic, and the growth of and unjust according to his moral conscription and citizen armies to scruples. What shall he do? Or rather, wage war upon a mass scale, all under Halachic principles, is he bound brought to the Jew the joy iand pain of to serve in the armed forces or is he full citizenship and hence full military bound to follow the dictates of his responsibility. Even then, the moral personal opinion and abstain from the dilemma of national loyalty versus moral conscience did not come to the fray? This cruel question does not fore in a striking fashion. It is interest raise many echoes injew ish history or ing to note that in the first World War, traditional responsa. Full and equal Jews participated on both sides of the citizenship in countries of their resi struggle, those of each side being dence is a relatively new phenomenon apparently convinced that the struggle for Jews. Jews in the Middle Ages and of their nation was just, defensive in even in most countries until the its ultimate nature, and hence war middle of the 19th century therefore ranted. The Second World War turned felt only a tenuous loyalty to then- grimly into an anti-Jewish war, which lords, masters, princes, and governors. annihilated European Jewry and left Persecuted and exploited, pillaged at no moral qualms about its resolute will often and discriminated against prosecution and painful necessity. The Vietnam war, however, pre always, they were not allowed to share in the national life or to participate in sents a different moral situation. any way in the formulation of national American society generally has split policy and goal. They were usually not very sharply on the matter, and Ameri called upon to serve in the armed can Jewish society reflects this deep forces of the country of their domi lational division. There are "many \mericans who feel this war to be cile, and when forcibly conscripted to norally unjustifiable and reprehensible do so, did not view it as their patriotic md among them are numerous Ameriduty to serve. Thus, we do not find

have seen that the Court does not recognize this question as a moral dilemma, but rather as a political one, and therefore insufficient in itself to render one an exempt conscientious objector.

JEWISH L IF E

can Jews. Naturally, the country can not allow random and indiscriminate withdrawal from the national war ef fort. No more as regards military ser vice than in fiscal and tax matters can such withdrawal be allowed. Thus, the jaws of the moral trap snap tightly shut. ROM all appearances, one must state that the general Halachic attitude toward the problem would be to place loyalty to country over one’s personal qualms in the matter. There are two basic reasons for this attitude. The first and primary reason is one of loyalty to the laws of the land, when such laws are not ob viously in conflict with the Torah’s standard of morality. The concept of “Dina D’Malchutha Dina” *' prevails here, if not in its technical legal sense, certainly in its outlook upon Jews’ responsibilities to the country in which they are citizens. We have shown already that such unpleasant realities as military con scription and defensive war are ac cepted in the Torah’s view of national policy. It cannot therefore be main tained that refusal to submit to such conscription is an act of Jewish moral conviction sanctioned by Jewish tra dition. As an incident to the privilege of American citizenship,** there is a

*Literally — “the law of the land is the law (of the Torah).” However, there are many commentaries that hold this to be true only in matters of civil and financial law. Never theless* the concept will apply even to other matters of national loyalty and policy when they are not in opposition to precepts and customs of Judaism. **In 1918, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Arven v U.S. that the author-

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

legal responsibility to abide by the laws of the land, when those laws are realistic and not patently immoral by Torah standards. We find nowhere in Jewish tradition or scholarship that the Torah declares military conscrip tion for the defense of the country (or of other countries now under aggres sive attack) to be immoral. It is un pleasant, discomforting, and, in the end, tragic, but it is not illegal or for bidden, and hence, Jews are as bound by the Selective Service law as are any other American citizens. This certainly would not be true if the United States embarked on an expansionist, genocidal war. Because such a war is forbid den by the Torah, Jewish participation in it would hence be prohibited. How ever, the reasonable and objective view of the Vietnam war is that it is not aggressive in intent or genocidal in pur pose, at least as far as the American involvement in it is concerned. The exemption of “ conscien tious objectors” cannot be applied to Jews categorically, for we are not absolute pacifists. Thus, each case must be decided on its own merits, according to the limits of the exemp tions as defined by the American judiciary. To say, after that decision has been rendered, that one is not bound by it because it is in opposition to Jewish moral teaching, is to distort Jewish tradition in this matter. The recent approval of draftcard burning by the leaders of the Reconstructionist movement’s semi nary is an example of this irresponsible bandying about of “Jewish moral values.” It is both,, interesting and ity to draft citizens for military service is “an incidence of sovereignty.”

ironic to note that most of the preach citizenship, there can be no doubt that ing regarding “Jewish moral values” in Jewish participation in radical causes the matter of the Vietnam war stems over the last half-century has not been from those who are least able, in term! beneficial to the Jewish community as of scholarship and Jewish responsi a whole. The bhndne|r of the Jewish bility, to speak for Judaism in this Left, a myopia which still exists today, country. It is another instance of has caused much harm and encouraged h e te ro d o x Jew s confusing actual latent hatreds towards us. Even today, Jewish thought and tradition, of which when the “ progressive and peaceloving they are mainly ignorant, with pro forces” in the world are the very ones fessed Christian ideals of love, non whose avowed purpose is to destroy violence, and submissively unrealistic Israel and the Jewish people, we con behavior. This substitution of liberal tin u a lly hear the same banalities Christian theology for authentic Torah mouthed by yet another Jewish gener views has plagued the American Jewish ation of “progressives.” What is most scene for the last three decades. The reprehensible is their continued use Vietnam issue is but another example and distortion of Jewish values and of this type of scholarship by people traditions in order to justify their who should by now have known bet basic political aims. Opposition to the ter, but apparently have not learned war in Vietnam may be justifiable on from their bad experience of the past. political and national grounds, but it is, The Vietnam war, unpopular as indefensible to make of this opposi it is, is still within the purview of wars tion a Jewish crusade. The Jewish of national interest and defense (cer people have paid too often and too tainly on behalf of the South Vietna dearly for the conversion of political mese) and thus Jewish law allows no goals into Jewish rnoral dogma. Viet flat exemption on the basis of the “im nam is only one more instance of the irresponsibility of those “branches” morality” of war.* and fileaders” of Jewry in' making HE second and perhaps more everything a Jewish moral issue with subtle reason for Jewish policy out realising the eventual effect that in this matter is loyalty, not only to such behavior will have upon the the United States generally, but to the majority of Americans vis-a-vis their Jewish community of the United fellow Americans who are Jews. He States particularly. Even though we who objects to service in Vietnam enjoy the full benefits of American merely because he is a Jew, casts re *An interesting disagreement arose between flection thereby upon the general Jewish scholars in England during World Jewish community which generally War I as to whether Kohanim (members of does not agree with such a formulation the priestly family of Aaron) could volun teer or be conscripted for military service of the exemption. This does not mean due to their being prohibited from contact that an individual Jew can, under no with the dead. For a review of the differing circumstances, object to service in opinions of Rabbis Herzog, Hertz, and Adler Vietnam, merely because of his re on this matter, see Rabbi *Zevin again in his sponsibility for the welfare of the “ L’or Ha-Halochah,” page 59.

JEWISH L IF E

general Jewish community. It does mean, that because of the welfare of th a t Jewish community, organized Jewish opposition to the war and encouragement of such “conscientious objectors,” is not in the best interest of the Jewish people and therefore should not be countenanced. Of pertinent reference here is Mishnah B’rurah, Section 329, para graph 17, where Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen (Chofetz Chaim) states:.

can n o t advocate its curtailment. Nevertheless, we must not prejudice that freedom of choice by giving one side added moral weight and respect ability which in reality it does not deserve. The concept of “ conscien tious objector” has been rather clearly defined by the courts of this country. To the extent that an individual Jew, following the dictates of his own per sonal conscience, falls into the limits of that exemption, he certainly is en titled to its protection. But Judaism generally, and Jewish moral tradition particularly, are not to be promis cuously used on behalf of what is in reality more of a political question and less of a moral issue than the propon ents of “peace?§; in Vietnam would have us believe.

A nd know that today when foreign nations attack and pil lage our country, we Jews are obligated to take up arms against them, even if their attact is to attain monetary gain alone, for so is the law o f the land, and where there is a possibility that the other citizens o f the land will be angry with us (in the E all hope for days of peace and event that we do not participate tra n q u ility . Jews, above all in the country’s defense accord others, have the most to gain from a ing to their standards), we must world free of tensions and the neces engage in this armed defense sity for scapegoats. The painful wound even on the Sabbath. of Vietnam must be closed and the The difficulty of the Jewish flow of blood staunched. Peace is the position in the world (Russian Jewry, only satisfactory solution to moral Israeli-Arab struggle, internal Ameri dilemmas such as the one posed in this can Jewish problems) has thus enor article. However, how to attain this mously complicated what might have goal that has eluded man for all of his otherwise been a more straight-for history, is not clear. What is clear, is ward decision. As in most matters of that all of our moral efforts and the human spirit, clear-cut answers are talents will be required in order to difficult to attain. Freedom of choice make the effort viable. It is in this and conscience is a basic postulate of effort that Jews can, should, and must Jewish thought and philosophy and we make their unique contribution. Editor’s note: The entire issue is again before the Supreme Court in a case o f a Vietnam war objector which the Court, on October 13, 1969, agreed to hear at the Government’s request The Court in 1965 also canvassed this subject in U.S. v Seeger (380US163) and substantially approved the reasoning in the Kauten case insofar as it is relevant here.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

C u n a tic

Songs by DOVBENONI Oh, man has scaled the heights, hurrah! Left footprints there and flown his bunting; And man has set new sights, tra la: He’s going planet-hunting! With lilting tune I sing man’s praises for conquering Moon in all its phases (And, truly-true, his feat amazes! For great is man that he could span the satellite that rules the night. So wondrous great! I kneel in awe: His rockets blast without a flaw!) “Yea, man is great,” In joy I cry, “His works elate . .

JEWISH L IF E

But then a sigh chokes down my chortle: “A single gust and man, the mortal, lies in d u s tp P | his hopes a bubble evanescent, his feats in rubble on the Crescent, his strivings battered with his skill, his straining tattered, his dreaming nil!” I sing to man a song of tears To all his lunatic emprises — Riding his moonbeams through the years, Playing at G-d in all His guises. I sing to man. I sing and weep,/ “Oh, earthling thrall, How dare to leap Ere you can crawl? Poor self-beguiled Unthinking child, How dare to reach beyond the sod Into the sole preserve of G-d, Beyond the earthbound overcast, Beyond . . . and past? I pray you, rein your madman flight To challenge G-d in all His might And conquer. You are not the first To build a Babel Tow’r and be accurst. Stay, earthling, stay. It is not time To hurtle to the Heavens’ clime And be a godling. Stay . . . until you can Learn first on earth to be a MAN.”

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

KABBOLAH by H. RAB1NOWICZ YSTICISM virtually defies verbal definition. Perhaps, it could be called the “flight of the Alone to the Alone.” In essence it represents man’s yearning to unravel the Divine mys tery. To some, mysticism is synony mous with the occult, with spiritual ism, clairvoyance, magic, visions, and revelations. To others, it is “experi mental wisdom,” “knowledge of G-d through experience,” or “the immedi ate awareness of the relation with G-d.” P h ilo s o p h e r S olom on ibn Gabirol (c.1021-1056) refers in his Tikkun Middoth ha-Nephesh (“Im provement of the Moral Qualities”) to the term Kabbolah. Yet it was not until the fourteenth century that it was generally accepted as signifying Mysticism. Kabbolah, deriving from the Hebrew root meaning “to receive,” means, literally, “tradition” or “ac-

c e p ta n c e .” A lth o u g h th e term “Kabbolah” is of medieval origin, the mystic tradition goes back to the very genesis of the Jewish faith. The pro pounders of monotheism were always concerned with Sithrey Torah ( S h e Secrets of the Torah”) and the Bible provided ample scope for mystical flights of fancy: thus, in the story of the Creation of the World (Ma’aseh Bereshith) contained in the Book of Bereshith (Genesis), Chapter I, there is the vision of the Prophet Ezekiel’s Divine Chariot (Ma’aseh Merkovah). Indiscriminately, but ingeniously, the mystics explored the many references and envisaged a whole complex of angelic beings. Around the very name of the Lord, the assiduous searchers wove layer upon layer of inspired con jecture as they meditated lovingly on the power and significance of the mighty and mysterious Shem Hame-

JEW ISH g lFE

Among the fabled masters of mysticism were Rabban Yochanon ben Zakkai and his disciples Rabbi Yehoe r r if y in g l y tortuous is the way of the mystic and repeat shua ben Chananiah and Rabbi Yose; Phinechas ben Yoir and Rabbi edly men are warned to follow Rabbi a smoother and straighter road. —Seek N ech u n iah ben Hakaneh. Rabbi not things that are too hard for you,” Oshaiah and Rabbi Chaninah ben counsels Ben Sira, the author of Ec- Dosa, we are told, created a threeciesiasticus, “and search not things year-old calf and Rabbi Yehoshuaben that are hidden from you.” The Rab Levi transform ed cucumbers and binic admonitions are couched in simi pumpkins into deer and fawns. lar terms. ^fMa’aseh Bereshith (‘The ET it should be noted that many Mysteries of the story of the Crea authorities regarded the mystical tion’),” rules the Mishnah, “ may not speculations as an integral element of be expounded in the presence of two, nor Ma’aseh Merkovah (‘The Mysteries Judaism. “On Judgment Day,” de clared Rabbi Yishmoel, ““the Great of the Celestial Realms in the Vision of Ezekiel’) in the presence of one un Judge will ask each scholar: ‘My son, since you have studied the Talmud, less he is a sage and therefore capable of understanding. Whosoever specu why have you not studied also the Merkovah and perceived my splen lates upon four things, what is above, dour.’ ” what is below, what is before, and ¡ » ‘The Kabbalists received thenwhat is behind, such a one were better tradition from the Prophet^! affirmed not to have been born, being one who the eighteenth century scholar Rabbi has not proper respect for the honour Y o na t han Eibeschutz (1696-1764). of his Creator.” This pious affirmation is not without 'Warnings did not discourage the fo u n d a tio n . Post-Biblical literature mystic pilgrims and many embarked abounds with mystical concepts and on the perilous passage towards the these are expounded in rich symbolism Great Unknown. Not all the voyagers by Philo Jglwho flourished from 20 could navigate the hazards of the voyage and relatively few arrived safe B.C.E. to 40 C.E., the philosopher whose aim it was to blend the Hellenic ly at their destination. We are told of and Jewish cultures. Philo’s Logos four noted Second Century sages who (which is the Greek for “word,” studied mysticism: “ Four men entered the Garden (Pardes, i.e. Paradise),” ¡jrspeech*” or “reason”) was the means to bridge the gap between the trans records the Talmud, “namely,^|Ben cendent G-d and the world. Azzai and Ben Zoma, Acher and Rabbi In Hebrew, mysticism is known Akiva. Ben Azzai cast a look and died. as C hokhm ath Nistorah (“Hidden Ben Zoma looked and became de Wisdom” ), or as Razzey Torah (“Sec mented. Acher mutilated the shoots rets of the Torah”), Yordey Merkovah (i.e. he became an apostate). Rabbi ( ‘‘Riders of the Chariot”), Yodey Akiva went up unhurt and went down Chen (“Knowers of Grace”), Ba’aley unhurt.”

forash (“Divine Name”).

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

Ha-Sod (“Bearers of the Secret”), Dorshey Reshumoth (“Searchers of Scriptures”), Chochmey Ha-Tushiah (“ Students of Profound Knowledge”)! Yodim (“Gnostics'), Anshey Ma’aseh ( “ Men of A ction”), and Ba’aley Avodah (“Masters of True Worship”). From the time of the martyred Tannah Rabbi Akiva (c. 40-135) to the writings of Rabbi Abraham Yitzchok Kook (1865-1935), Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land, Kabbolah has a library of nearly three thousand printed works and an equal number of manuscripts in private and public collections. ABBOLAH is divided into Conte m p la tiv e or T h e o re tic a l Kabbolah (Kabbolah Iyunith) and Practical Kabbolah (Kabbolah Ma’asiyith). Theoretical Kabbolah concerns itself not only with the nature of G-d and of the cosmos but also deals with the tenets of dogma and ethics. G-d is the En Soph (“The Infinite”), “The Endless,” “The most hidden of all Hidden,” “The Boundless,” and “The Transcendent.” How does G-d, who is perfec tion, deal with the world which is manifestly imperfect? The answer to this takes us back to the very dawn of Creation. For the world was created by Sephiroth (plural of sftphirah*' the Hebrew word variously meaning “to count,” “brilliancy,” or “luminary”). These emanations or agencies are Kether (“Crown”), Chochmah (“Wis d o m ” ), B inah (“ Understanding”), Chesed (“Lovingkindness”), Gevurah ( “ P o w er” ), Tiphereth (“Beauty”), N etzach ( “Victory”), Hod (“Maj esty”), Yesod (“Foundation”), and Malchuth (“ Sovereignty”). Since the

fall of Adam the Divine Presence^be came exiled from the En Soph. The aim of the mystics was said to reunite the En Soph with the Shechinah, The Divine Presence. Kabbolah is a child of the Holy Land. It was there that a number of tracts attributed to Talmudic teachers were written. The Hecholoth (“Pal aces”) literature, the mystical Midrashim written in the early Rabbinid and Geonic periods, describes the heavenly halls and palaces, the House hold of the Upper World (Pameliah shel Ma’alah), the Ministering Angels (Malachey Ha-Shareth), the Angels of Destruction (Malachey Chavulah), the Sheydim (“roving spirits”), Ashmodai (Evil Spirit, the king of the demons), Lilith (the demon of the night), and Dumah (the" angel who has charge of the souls of the nether world). Few books of mysticism have made as great an impact as the little book Sepher Yetzirah (“Book of Crea tion”). It contains only six small, chapters. According to legend it was written by the Patriarch Abraham, but there is reason to believe that it was in fact written between the third and the sixth centuries of the Common Era in E retz Yisrbel or Babylonia. Both Saadia Gaon of Sura (882-942) and Eliyah, Gaon of Vilna, «wrote com mentaries on it. The chief premise of this intriguing treatise is that the world was formed through the “thirty-two ways of wisdom” — the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the ten Sephiroth. Other topics are the Zeruf, combination of the letter-mys ticism, the Gematria (numerical value of the letters), Notarikon (acrostics), and Temurah (alteration of a word by

JEWISH L IF E

transposing its letters). CCORDING to Eleazar ben Y e h u d a h o f W o rm s (c . 1160-1238), the author of Sepher haRokeach (“The Book of the Spice Dealer”), it was Aaron ben Samuel of Baghdad who, in the Ninth Century, sowed the seeds of mysticism in Italy. His pupil, Mosheh ben Kalonymos of L ucca J j carried his teachings to Germany and, during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, the Chassidey Ashkenaz (“the pious men of Ger many”), as the German pietists were called, made their contributions to Kabbalistic lore: Samuel He-Chosid and Yehudah He-Chosid of Regens burg (d. 1217) in the work Sepher Chassidim (“The Book of the Pious”) dealt both with aspiration of the soul and the harnessing of the body for a life of devotion. This great ethical work has been described as “ a noble commentary on the verse ‘Love thy neig h b o u r as th y s e lf’ (Vayikra 19:18).” Some of its dicta equal the best moral utterings of all ages. Notable contributions to mys ticism were made by the pseudoMessiah Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia (1241-after 1291). After failing to convert Pope Nicholas III to Judaism, he journeyed to Sicily where he pro claimed himself the Messiah. Author of twenty-six works, the majority still in manuscript form, Abulafia pro pounded a “prophetical Kabbolah” (K ab b o lah Nevuith), stressing the mystical significance of the Name of G-d. The four-lettered name of G-d became the apex of his theology. For he believed that devout contemplation of the Divine Names would lead to a state of ecstasy. “They called me here

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

tic and unbeliever,” lamented Abul afia, “because I had resolved to wor ship G-d in truth.” “I thank G-d every day that I was not born at the time when the Zohar was not revealed,” said Rabbi Phinechas of Koretz (Korzec) “for it was the Zohar which knitted my very soul to Judaism.” For, apart from the Torah, no other book is as highly venerated by the Chassidim as the Zohar, which became as holy writ to Kabbalists. HE origins of the Sepher haZohar (“The Book of Splen dour”) are somewhat obscure. Dis covered by the Spanish Kabbalist Mosheh ben Shem Tov de Leon at the end of the thirteenth century, the authorship was attributed to the second century Tannah, Shimon ben Yochai. A Midrashie and Kabbalistic commentary on the weekly portions of the Torah, the Zohar was written in Aramaic, and it is an immense work which runs to 400 printed pages. There has been speculation on the authorship of the Zohar by schol ars throughout the ages. Yitzchok of Acco, Eliyah Delmedigo (1591-1655), and Yaakov Emden are among those who have m arsh alled arguments against the antiquity of the Zohar. They cite innumerable anachronisms such as references to the Crusades and to Islam, the use of vowels and ac cents, and the linguistic formations. Scholars of modern times deem it a composite work. “Every word of the Torah con tains many levels of meaning and embodies a sublime mystery. The nar ratives of the Torah are like outer garm ents. Alas fo r the man,”

comments Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, essence, a foretaste of the World to “who regards the Torah merely as a Come. With joy, with prayer, with love book of, -ta-leHand profane matters.’! and with song, the Kabbalists wel Among concepts discussed by the comed the Seventh Day. It would need Zohar is the transmigration of souls a Rembrandt or a Chagall to record (Gilgul): “All souls must undergo the scene when, on Friday afternoon^ transmigrations/’ says the Zohar, “and the sages robed in white, their faces lit men do not understand the ways of with holy joy, formed a procession the Holy One. . . They know not how through the winding lanes of the little many transmigrations and hidden trials p ic tu re -b o o k town, chanting the they have to undergo, nor do they Psalms and the Lechah Dodi (“Come, know the number of souls and spirits my beloved’’). Here in Safed lived the which enter into the world and which codifier Yoseph Karo who, in his do not return into the palace of the diary, published under the title Maggid Heavenly King.’’ M eshorim , recorded the mystical revelation which he states that he FTER the expulsion of the Jews experienced at night time, and Mosheh from Spain, in 1492, the Holy ben Ya’akov Cordovero (1522-1570), Land, birthplace of the Kabbolah, author of thirty works. His work became the scene of a remarkable Pardes R im m o n im (“ Garden of Kabbalistic renaissance. Nestling in the Pomegranates”) 'is a lucid exposition heights of the graceful Galilean hills, of Kabbalistic doctrines. It was, how looking across to lofty snow-capped ever, Y itzch o k Luria Ashkenazi, Hermon, lies the picturesque townlet known as the Ari (“The Lion”) or Ari of Safed which, in the Sixteenth H a-K odosh ( “ The Holy Lion”),. Century, became the home of illustri 1534-72, who made the most momen ous scholars. Here lived the far-famed tous contribution to the Kabbalistic masters of mysticism, • men whose cult. vision added new light and new dimen sions to every-day life. By means of ITZCHOK LURIA was probably self-affliction (Siguphim), fasts (Taaniborn in Jerusalem and lived for a yoth), ablutions (Teviloth), and devo time in Cairo.' He studied under Rabbi tional prayer, they strove to attain a Betzalel Ashkenazi (d. 1590), author deeper awareness of the nature of the of Shittah Mekubbetzeth (“Collected Divine Being and to achieve a closer Opinions”). JfTis spiritual mentor, the com m union with G-d. For them mystics believe, was none other than prayer was a means of ascent. For Shimon ben Yochai. Luria even felt them every word, every gesture, every that he was the Moshiach son of act, was fraught with significance. Joseph. In a letter to his son YeshiEvery blade of grass, every budding yahu Horowitz (1565-1630), better flower,jevery element of nature, was a known as the Sheloh, from the initials manifestation of the Creator. of his chief work Sheney Luchoth HaTo the mystic, the Sabbath was Berith (“Two Tablets of the Coven particularly precious for it was, in ant”), writes: “Three supremely great

JEWISH L IF E

men lived here at the same time - our teacher Rabbi Yoseph Karo, Rabbi Mosheh Cordovero, and Rabbi Yitzchok Luria, of blessed memory. These were veritable angels of the Lord of Hosts. The revered principals of the Academies on High, the Sages of the Mishnah appeared to them and even Eliyahu of blessed memory.9? It was Luria’s disciple Hayyim Vital of Calabria (1543-1620) who, in his works Etz Chayyim (“Tree of Life”) and Sha’arey Kedushah (“Gates of Holiness”),|i!both formulated and recorded the Lurian doctrines. Corner stone of the doctrine was the concept of T zim tzu m ( “ W ithdrawal’’ or “ Contraction”). According to this concept, G-d withdraws from Himself to Himself to enable the world to be created. The open space (Cholol) was illumined by a thin line of G-d. When G-d’s light re-entered this space, it did so by means of the Ten Sephiroth. The process was not without casualties. The lights (Oroth) of the Eyn Soph were shattered and scattered and this is known as the “breaking of the ves sels” (Shevirath Keylim) or “the death of the kings.” Holy sparks were scat

tered throughout all creation and the Divine light was trapped by Kelipoth ( “ isolating shells”), and since the “ vessels” and the “shells” are of paramount importance and at least are holy forces, these must be retrieved. It is the function of man, by prayer and by Tikkun (“perfecting”), to awaken, and to redeem the lost sparks. Only when all the Holy Sparks have been released will Moshiach come. REAT indeed was the power of w # Y itzchok Luria, for he was endowed with what we would call to d a y extra-sensory perception.^A man’s past was an open book to the Ari. Everything that a man does leaves its imprint on the world: his breath, thought, speech. This was the credo of Luria. He believed that man has the power to turn “evil spirits” into “good spirits.” Luria, too, advocated fasting and self-mortification. On retiring at night, a man should say: “Lord of the Universe, I forgive all who angered and injured me today, whether wittingly or u n w ittin g ly , whether in deed or thought. May no man be punished for my sake or because of me.”* >•

V’WTp;

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

lie a r t art d o tli e r o rg a n tra n s p la n ta tio n a n d je w isli law

by FRED ROSNER, M.D.

Recent advances in medical knowledge and technology have made possible the transplantation o f a human heart from a deceased person into another individual stricken with severe, advanced heart disease refractory to all other medical and surgical approaches. The life and health o f the recipient may thereby be prolonged consider ably. These operations have raised many moral, theological, legal, social, arid philosophical problems which seem to cry out for an swers. The present paper is an attempt to present the Halachic (Jewish legal) aspects o f heart and other organ transplantation pro cedures as derived from classical Biblical and Talmudic sources as well as the more recent Rabbinic literature on the subject. T would seem useful prior to embarking on the substance of this discussion to briefly outline some of the questions other than those of Jewish law revolving around cardiac transplantation in man. First, theo logical questions arise. For example: Is one interfering with G-d’s will by “artificially” prolonging a person’s life by providing him with a new heart when G-d may have ordained a shorter life span for this person? Is one inter fering with the patient’s right to die in dignity without extraordinary efforts to extend the duration of his life? Moral and ethical issues also

stimulate our thinking on this subject. Is the publicity surrounding heart transplants in excess of that dictated by usual medical practice and ethics? Is cardiac transplantation premature? Is it still in the experimental stages or have we reached therapeutic applicatio n ? W hat of the physical and emotional stresses on the family of the donor at the time of their bereave ment? Some of these moral issues have been discussed by Dr. Moses Tendler, E.D. Schimmel, apd others.* Social problems regarding heart transplantation too are self-evident. Who shall pay for the enormous ex-

*TendJ§r, M.D. and Schimmel, E .D .^ T rad itio n ”, Spring 1968; Hamburger, J. and Crosnier, J., “In Human Transplantation,” Edit, by F.T. Rapaport and J. Dajusset; Elkington, J.R., “Annals of Int. Med./’Feb. 1964 and August 1964; Appel, J.A.,“J.A.M.A.,” Aug. 12, ‘68; Reemtsma,K. in “ The Role of the Physician in Today’s Society*” Edit, bÿ E.F. Torrey; Wolstenholme, G.E.W. and O’Connor,M. inCiba Foundation Symposium, 1966; Ladimer, I. and Newman, R.W. .Editors, Clinical Investigation in Medicine, 1963.

JEWISH L IF E

pense of the procedure and the pre- eyes. Donation of a heart specifically and post-operative care? The patient? is not dealt with in the legal statutes of Society? Are only the rich entitled to any state. A Uniform Anatomical Gift benefit from this medical advance? Act reforming the current legal struc Who should select the recipients? ture relating to the donation and use Since there are many more potential of organs and tissue for transplanta recipients than donors available, who tion and other medical purposes has should decide “who shall live and who been formulated and endorsed by the shall die”? The physician? A group of American Bar Association. In Italy, a physicians? Society? Should not soci new law governing kidney transplants ety be investing billions of dollars in was recently adopted.* medical research to attempt to find the cure for heart disease and thus HE answers to some of the obviate the need for cardiac transplan above questions seem to be tation? These questions cry out for fo rth co m in g . Medical and ethical answers. guidelines for heart transplantation Philosophical questions also crop have been established by numerous up. The heart is considered to be the hospitals, states, medical societies, and seat of the soul. In removing the also by the prestigious American Medi patient’s diseased heart prior to im cal Association and National Academy plantation of a “newf^heart, has one of Sciences.** Recommendations in removed his soul? The famous expres these guidelines include the require sion of Descartes “I think, therefore, I ments that the surgical team shall have am” would take on new meaning. Who had extensive laboratory experience in am I? cardiac transplantation, that death of Finally, legal problems are of the donor shall be certified by an in great concern to many people. The dependent team of physicians, and donor heart in one instance of cardiac that the information and knowledge transplantation performed in Texas gained should be rapidly disseminated was derived from a 36 year-old sailor to the medical world. All aspects of who had been fatally beaten. The cardiac transplantation were con County Medical Examiner feared for sidered at a meeting held on Septem the possible legal problems involved in ber 29 and 30, 1968 at Bethesda, this homicide case, problems that Maryland under the sponsorship of the m ight affect the prosecution and American College of Cardiology. Pre a u to p sy procedures. Further legal sent at the meeting were surgeons, in stumbling blocks include the fact that ternists, biomedical scientists con only thirty-six states of the U.S.A. cur cerned w ith transplantation and rently have laws allowing the donation immunology, government representa of an entire body and five additional tives, private philanthropists, and states allow an individual to will his lawyers concerned with cardiac and

*op. cit., Medical NewsJSection, “J.A.M.A., ” Jan. 8, 1968. **Judicial Council, “J.A.M.A.,” Aug. 5, 1968; Cardiac Transplantation in Man, “J.A.M.A.,” May 27, 1968, and editorial comment in same issue.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

other organ transplantation. The proceedings of that conference have been published and cover the following subjects: scientific background of cardiac tra n s p la n ta tio n , procurem ent of

organs and their storage, tissue matchtag, and the “nature of the regional and national effort required for realization of the full potential of this new approach to heart disease.” ^ :

HALACHIC QUESTIONS IN HEART TRANSPlANTS HE problems in Jewish law con- transplants but applies to any organ cerntag transplantation of the removed from the body of a live human heart may be conveniently human being. Thus,,'{a gallbladder, subdivided into those which pertain to sto m ach , lung, or other diseased the recipient, those that concern the internal organ may require burial by donor, and those which primarily Jewish law (there is some dispute on affect the physician. this point) and so might the excised R e c ip ie n t: Is th e recipient “old” heart, allowed to subject himself to the A third Halachic question re danger of the operative procedure? We gardtag the recipient is the status of know from the Talmud (Bova Kamma his new heart after he dies. Does the 911jj) and R am bam (Maimonides’ new heart revert back to the original Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Shevuoth owner? 5:17;. Hilchoth Chovel Umazik 5:1) Another problem concerns the that it is not permitted for someone to recipient who happens to be a priest wound himself. Does this apply to the (Kohen). Does the question of avoidsurgical cut of an operation in general ance of Turn ’ah, ritual defilement and of a heart transplant operation in (Shulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah 369:1 particular? Furthermore, does the and 374:2) apply to the heart of the recipient transgress the Torah com- dead donor which is now to be immandment of “Take heed to thyself planted into a priest? and keep th y soul d ilig e n tly ” Finally, what Halachic priorities (Devorim 4:9) or “Take ye therefore are there in choosing a recipient? We good heed unto yourselves” (Devorim know, for example, from the Halachic 4 :1 5 ) w hich b o th th e Talmud sources, that a woman takes', prece(B erochoth 32b) and Maimonides dence over a man when both desper(Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Rotzeach ately need food because it would be Ushemirath Hanefesh 11:4) interpret less dignified and more shameful fo ra to mean the removal of all danger to woman to go begging than a man. A one s physical well being? woman is ransomed before a man if Another Halachic problem con- both are captives but a man takes precerning the recipient revolves around cedence over a woman if both are the need for burial of his “ old” heart, drowning because he is subject to This problem is not unique to heart more commandments.* Do any of

* Karo’s Shulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah 369:1 and 374:2, 251:8 and Mishneh Horayoth 3:7; Commentary of Rabbi Shabbtai Hakohen known as Sifsey Cohen (Shach) on Karo 251:8;

JEWISH S lF E

these priorities apply to heart trans Second, there is a prohibition of dese p la n t recipients? Should medical crating or mutilating the dead body. A criteria be used exclusively in the third problem regarding the donor is selection of recipients? the prohibition of delaying the burial Physician: After the recipient's of the dead and the positive command old heart has been removed and prioi ment of burying the dead. Another to the implantation of the new heart, Halachic consideration is that of ritual the patient is without a heart. Is he defilement for the Kohen in the same considered Halachically dead during room with either the donor or only this interim? If so, is the surgeon with the donor’s heart. Does this heart guilty of the Biblical prohibition of transmit ritual defilement? The final “Thou shalt not kill” as enunciated in and perhaps most crucial question con the Decalogue? cerns the establishment of the death of Does heart transplantation con the donor. Since the chances of suc stitute human experimentation or is it cessfully resuscitating a transplanted^ a therapeutic procedure? The former heart diminish with time following w ould o nly be sanctioned under death of the donor, it is imperative to specific regulations and conditions,* define the criteria for death in order whereas the latter would fall under the for physicians not to be accused of purview of the physician’s permissi “heart snatching” from donors prior bility to heal: “And heal he shall heal” to their demise. This would constitute (Shemoth 21:19), From this verse we an act of murder on the part of the deduce the physician’s license to prac physician who is bound to prolong life tice medicine (Talmud Bova Kamma but not to prolong the act of dying, as 85a; Shulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah the present writer has pointed out else 336:1). where.*** Regarding Halachic defini Donor: The major consideration tion of death it can be said, in brief, from the Jewish legal viewpoint in that a person who has stopped breath cardiac transplantation are the Hala- ing and whose heart is not beating is chic questions that concern the donor. considered dead by Jewish law. This These are five in number.** First, classic definition of death in the there is a prohibition of deriving any Talm ud (M ishnah Y om a 8:6-7; benefit whatsoever from the dead. Talmud Yoma 85a; Jerusalem Talmud Karo’s Shulchon Oruch Section Yoreh Deah 252:8 and Mishnah ^Horayoth 3:7; Com mentary of Rabbi David Halevi known as Turey Zahav (Taz) on Karo 252:8. Additional priorities are enumerated in the Talmud, Mishnah Horayoth 3:7 and the Talmud Horayoth 13a, 13b and 14a and mentioned by Rabbi Nachum L. Rabinovitch in “ Tradition,” Spring 1968. *Jakobovits, I., Proc. Ass’n. Orthodox Jewish Scientists, Vol. I, 1966. **The relevant sources are: Talmud Avodah Zara 29b; Sftulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah 349:1-2; Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ovel 14:21; Talmud Arachin 7a; Chullin l i b ; and Bova Bathra 154b; Talmud Sanhedrin 46b; Shulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah 357:1;/;Jerusalem Talmud Nozir 7:1; Talmud Sanhedrin 46b; Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ovel 12:1; Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Meth 3:1; Shulchon Oruch, Yoreh Deah 369:1. ***New York State Journal of Medicine, Sept. 15, 1967.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

Yom a 8 : 5 ) and Codes (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Shabbath 2:19; Shulchon Oruch, Orach* Chayim 329:4) would be set aside if prospects for resuscitation of the patient, even

re m o te , are deemed feasible, as pointed out in a personal communi cation to the writer by Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth.

EYE TRANSPLANTS OST of the Rabbinic Responsa it is permissible to paint it on the lite ra tu re concerning organ Sabbath because the eyesight is con transplantation deals with eye (cornea) nected with the perception of the transplants. The basic Halachic prin heart.” Thus, eye damage does seem to ciples governing eye transplants^ how constitute Pikuach Nefesh since one ever, are applicable to nearly all other may violate the Sabbath to save an organ transplants and will thus be con eye. Rabbi Unterman argues, however, sidered here. Kidney and heart trans that this case deals with preventing p lan ts involve several additional blindness whereas in eye transplanta unique questions and these will be dis tion** one attempts to restore vision, a totally different matter. cussed separately below. On th e other hand, Rabbi The classic responsum on eye transplants is that of the present Unterman does agree that blindness is Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, considered a life-threatening situation Rabbi Isaac Yehuda Unterman. Rabbi since the person so afflicted may fall Unterman states (Shevet Mi-Yehudah, down a flight of stairs or into a ditch Jerusalem 1955) that the prohibitions and be killed. Thus, since blindness of deriving benefit from the dead, constitutes a true Pikuach Nefesh, the desecrating the dead, and delaying the problems of desecrating and benefiting burial of the dead are all set aside from and delaying the burial of the because of Pikuach Nefesh H the con dead are put aside. sideration of saving a life. These pro What of a person blind in one hibitions would remain if there is no eye? The concept of Pikuach Nefesh threat to life involved for which the does not apply and thus on what transplant is being done. For example, grounds would corneal transplants be there is no Pikuach Nefesh involved in permitted? To answer this question, a bone or nose transplant. The ques the Chief Rabbi provides us with an tion then arises: is an eye transplant in enlightening and original pronounce th e category of Pikuach Nefesh? ment. Once the eye is implanted into AJJempting to answer this question, the recipient, it is not considered dead C hief R ab b i Unterman cites the but a living organ; Thus, the prohibi Talmud (Avodah Zora 28b) where it tions of deriving benefit from the dead states: “If one’s eye gets out of order,

JEWISH L IF E

and delaying the burial of the dead are not applicable since no dead organ is involved. Furthermore, the problem of ritual defilement is non-existent since Tum’ah relates only to a dead organ or a dead body. Confirmation of this last point can be found in the Talmud (Tractate Niddah 70b) where it states “The men of Alexandria asked R. Yehoshua . . . . was the (dead) son of the Shunnamith woman (revived by E lijah th e Prophet) unclean? He replied: ‘A corpse is unclean, but a living person is not.’” Thus, when the boy came back to life, the problem of Tum’ah was eliminated. NE problem remains, however, in Chief Rabbi Unterman’s dis sertation and that is the prohibition of desecrating the dead to obtain an eye for a person with unilateral blindness. One still ^as to make an incision into the donor and one doesn’t have the concept of Pikuach Nefesh to set the question of desecration aside. A bril liant answer is offered by Rabbi Unterman who states that since the eyes of a deceased person are always closed, removing one or both would not constitute a desecration. Only a visible incision into the body or the removal of externally visible or in ternal organs represents a true desecra tion and this would be permitted for a real Pikuach Nefesh such as blindness in both eyes or advanced renal disease requiring a kidney transplant. An exhaustive review of the Rabbinic literature on eye transplants is beyond the scope of this paper and would probably add little if anything to the Halachic principles enunciated in Chief Rabbi Unterman’s above-cited

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

book. However, the following addi tio n a l Rabbinic Responsa dealing primarily with eye transplants have been selected because each makes a new point. Rabbi Yekusiel Yehuda Greenwald (Kol Bo al Aveluth. Vol. 1, New York 1947) presents reasoning from which the conclusion can be drawn that one cannot remove the whole eye from a deceased donor for transplanta tion; only the cornea may be used since a whole eye represents flesh whereas the cornea alone is considered skin. Furthermore, one cannot over come the problems of desecrating and delaying the burial of the dead with out invoking the ^concept of Pikuach Nefesh. Thus, Rabbi Greenwald, as most authorities, would only permit eye grafts for a person blind in both eyes, Rabbi Itzchak Glickman in his article “ Regarding the Law of Grafting Organs from the Dead onto the Sick,” (Noam, Vol. 4, Jerusalem 5721) adds to Chief Rabbi Unterman’s theses de scribed above that one may only per form a transplant if the donor gave permission prior to his death. Other wise the donor is hindered from achieving atonement (kaporah) for his sins through his death, since one of his organs remains alive. If he gave permis sion, then he has voiced his acquiesence to delaying his atonement until his organ is later buried following the eventual death of the recipient. In the meantime, he has performed a charit able act (Gemilath Chesed). Most other Rabbinic responsa agree with the need for permission from the donor or his family.

HE problem of eye banks" is Rosh Hayeshivah of Mesivta Tifereth ^ raised by Rabbi Meyer Steinberg Yerushalayim . In jthis Teshuvah,* in the 5^20/1960 issue of Noam. I | t<,devoted exclusively to the prohibition the permissibility for corneal trans of deriving benefit from the dead, he p la n ta tio n only applicable to an draws the conclusion that it is permis immediate transfer of the cornea from sible for a Jew to use the eye of a donor to recipient or may one place an Gentile donor. R a b b i J a c o b y W einberg eye in an eye bank for later use? Since the permissibility of organ transplanta (Responsa Seriday Eish Yoreh Deah tion rests primarily on the overriding No. 120, Voi. 2, Jerusalem 1962) consideration of Pikuach Nefesh, it takes exception to nearly all of Rabbi would seem that the recipient would Unterman’sv arguments but concludes have to be at hand (lefoneynu, liter that since Rabbinic authorities that ally: “before us”). Rabbi Steinberg preceded him permitted eye trans answers that since the number of blind plants» he would also be in accord with people is so large» it is as if there is this ruling, providing, however, that always a recipient at hand. Britain’s the recipient is blind in both eyes. Most other Rabbinic responsa on C h ie f R a b b i , Dr. Immanuel our subject agree with Rabbi UnterJak o b o v its, also (in a personal communication to this writer) permits man’s ruling. One outstanding excep “organs or blood to be donated for tion is Rabbi Shmuel Huebner. Writing deposit in banks provided there is a in the Nisson 5721 (1961) issue of reasonable certainty that they will be Hadarom, the journal ‘ of Rabbinic eventually used in life-saving opera scholarship published by the Rabbini tions (including the restoration or cal Council of America, he admits that p re serv atio n of eye-sight).” Even most Rabbis permit eye transplants Rabbi Unterman had already stated at but he himself does not consider a the end of his remarks on eye trans blind or deaf person to be in the cate plants that blood donations to blood gory of a dangerously ill person banks are permissible for the same (Choleh Sheyesh Bo Sakonah). ThereforejBthe concept of Pikuach Nefesh aforementioned reason. The question of a non-Je wish cannot be invoked and thus, states donor for an eye-transplant is raised in Rabbi Huebner, the prohibitions of the course of a lengthy responsum by desecrating, deriving benefit from, and Rabbi Mosheh Feinstein, a foremost delaying the burial of the dead, cannot Rabbinic authority of today who is be set aside.

KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS LL the Halachic principles discussed above relating to eye transplants are equally applicable to

kidney transplants. In fact, many of the responsa deal with both eye and kidney transplants. A kidney trans-

*Feinstein M., Responsa Iggroth Moshe, Yoreh Deah, No. 229.

JEWISH L IF E

plant is only undertaken when both reinams: can one endanger one’s own kidneys of the recipient are so diseased life by donating a kidney in order to that life cannot continue without the save another’s life? removal of the body’s waste products HE answer is found in comment that accumulate in the blood. Elimina aries* on the classical codifica tion of such wastes can be accom plished by the intermittent use of an tions of Jewish law by Maimonides artificial kidney or its equivalent, or and Karo, and in later Codes in nearly by the definitive implantation of a identical language: “The Jerusalem healthy human kidney to replace the Talmud concludes that one is obli patient’s own non-functioning kid gated to place oneself even into a pos neys. All Rabbinic authorities would sible dangerous situation [to save an agree that such a case constitutes other’s life]. It seems logical that the Pikuach Nefesh and, therefore, the reason is that the one’s [death without prohibitions revolving around the dead intervention, i.e. the kidney recipient] donor would all be set aside for this is a c e rta in ty whereas his [the overriding consideration of saving a donor’s] is bnly a possibility.” Some authorities claim that since many of life. In addition to cadaver kidneys, th e authoritative Codes including physicians also employ kidneys from R a m b a m ( R a b b i M osheh ben live donors for transplantation. Here, Maimon, Maimonides), Alfas (Rabbi new Halachic questions arise. Is the Yitzchok Alfasi), Tur (Rabbi Yaakov donor allowed to subject himself to ben Asher), and Asheri (Rabbi Asher the danger, however small, of the oper ben Yechiel) omit this passage from ative procedure to remove one of his the Jerusalem Talmud, the final ruling kidneys in order to save the life of is not in accord therewith. However,* another? Does the donor transgress the based u p o n th is passage, Rabbi com m andm ent of “Take heed to Immanuel Jakobovits (in a personal thyself and keep thy soul diligently” communication) has stated the opin (Devorim 4:9) or “Take ye therefore ion that a donor may endanger his good heed unto yourselves” (Devorim own life or health to supply a “ spare” 4:15)? We have already mentioned organ to a recipient whose life would th a t the Talmud and Maimonides thereby be saved only if the probabil interpret these verses to refer to the ity of saving the recipient’s life is sub removal of all danger to one’s physical stantially greater than the risk to the well-being. We have also already stated donor’s life or health. This principle is that it is not permitted to intention applicable to all organ transplantation ally wound oneself. We also know that where live donors are used as a source one may not set aside one person’s life of the organ in question. Rabbi Eliezer Yehudah Waldenfor that of another. The question then

*Commentary of Keseph Mishnah (Rabbi Joseph Karo) on Maimonides Mishnah Torah. Hilchoth Rotzeach Ushemirath Hanefesh 1:14; Commentary of Me’eerath Enayim (Rabbi Joshua Valk Cohen) on Shulchon Oruch, Choshen Mishpat 426:1 ; Aruch Hashulchan by Rabbi Yechiel Michael ben Aharon Halevi Epstein, Choshen Mishpat 426:4

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

berg (in Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, 9:45, Jerus. 1967) discusses at length the question of whether a healthy person must or may donate ‘one of his organs for transplantation into a desperately ill individual in order to save the latter from certain death. Rabbi Waldenberg concludes that kidney transplants from a live donor are only permissible if a group of trustworthy physicians testify that there is no danger to life to the donor and if the donor is not coerced into consenting to the pro cedure. If one were to understand Rabbi Waldenberg literally, then it

would be impossible ever to use a live^ donor as a source for an organ for. there is always a very small risk in volved. Fortunately, anesthetic and surgical deaths in this type of opera tion are exceedingly rare but they do occur. Perhaps Rabbi Waldenberg means that one is noi> obligated to endanger one’s life to save another but one may do so on a voluntary basis. The majority viewpoint seems to be that a small risk may be undertaken by the donor if the chances for success in the recipient are substantial.

HEART TRANSPLANTS N the case.of transplantation of a human heart from a dead donor, the prohibitions dealing with desecrating the dead, delaying the burial of the dead, and ritual defile ment are all set aside by the overriding consideration of Pikuach Nefesh, sav ing a life. The major Halachic problem remaining \s the establishment of the death of the donor. Prior to death, the donor is in the category of a Goses (hopelessly ill patient) and one is pro hibited from touching him or moving him or doing anything that might has ten his death.* There are many types of death: mental death when a person’s intellect ceases to function; social death when a person can no longer function in so ciety; spiritual death when the soul leaves the body; and physiological or medical death. We are concerned here with the Halachic definition of death. The Jewish legal definition of death

based upon Talmudic and Rabbinic sources has been summarized earlier in this paper. Cessation of respiration and absence of a heartbeat represents the classical Halachic interpretation of death. Today, an additional Halachic criteria is the impossibility of resusci tation. N the assumption that the donor is absolutely and positively dead, many Rabbinic authorities permit heart transplants. Thus Britain’s Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits, in a per sonal communication to this writer, states: “An organ may never be re moved for transplantation from a donor until death has been definitely established. The prohibition of nivul hameth (desecration of the dead) would then be suspended by the over riding consideration of pikuach nefesh. Hence, in principle, I can see no objec tion in Jewish law to the heart opera-

*Mishnah Semachoth 1:2; Talmud, Shabbath 151b; Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ovel 4:5; Shulchan Oruch, Yoreh Deah 339.

JEWISH L IF E

tions recently carried out, provided the donors were definitely deceased at the time the organ was removed from them.” Rabbi Yitzchak Arieli is also quoted as having said that heart trans plants are permissible if the donor is definitely dead, but only with the family’s consent. A similar pronounce ment was made by Rabbi David Lifshutz of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva Uni versity. A published responsum dealing specifically with heart transplants is that of the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman* and represents remarks made in an address to the Eleventh Congress on Jewish Law in Jerusalem late in August, 1968. Rabbi Unterman begins by stating that consent from the family of the donor must be obtained. Otherwise, the doc tors and the recipient would transgress the Scriptural Commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” Then the Chief Rabbi, reviewing the Halachic definition of death, states that under ordinary cir cumstances, death occurs when respir ation ceases. However, sudden, unex plained death in young, otherwise healthy individuals should be followed by resuscitative measures. A hopelessly ill person with less than three days of life left (Goses) need not be resusci tated when respiration ceases. Touch ing briefly on the problem of organ banks, the Chief Rabbi states that freezing organs for later use is allowed provided there is a good chance they will be used to save a life. Then, the situation would be comparable to hav ing the recipient at hand (lefoneynu).

NOVEL pronouncem ent by Chief Rabbi Unterman (in the previously cited source) is that heart transplants may not be Halachically sanctioned until such time as the chances for survival from the surgery are greater than those for failure.%hat is, we invoke the requirement that the probability of success of the surgery shall be greater than the risk to the recipient. This ruling seems to be contrary to th e pronouncements of earlier Rabbis, as cited by Rabbi Jacob Reischer (Shevuth Yaakov 3,75) and Rabbi Chayi m Ozer Grodzinski (Achiezer Yoreh Deah, 16). These allow a sick person to submit to very dangerous surgery or a very dangerous medication if there is a small chance for cure even if the risk of the opera tion or the treatment is much greater than the chance for cure^ Rabbi Unter man explains, however, that the recipi ent of a new heart is in a different situation from all other desperately ill (but not necessarily dying) people. After his diseased heart is removed and before the new heart is implanted, the recipient has lost his Chezkath Chayyim (hold on life, or presumption of still being alive). Once he loses his Chezkath Chayyim, the heart trans plant recipient is no longer permitted to risk his life if the chances for suc cess are not greater than the chances of failure. A person apparently dying of cancer, on the other hand, never loses his Chezkath Chayyim and, therefore, may subject himself to any risk, however great, if there is a small chance for cure.

*Unterman, I.Y., Address to the Congress of Oral Law, August 1968.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

The d efin ition of Chezkath Chayyim is exemplified in the Talmud wherein (Gittin 28a) it is stated that if a messenger brings,a writ of divorce from a distant place and the husband was an old man or sick at the time the messenger left, he should still deliver it to the wife on the presumption that the husband is still alive. Thus, unless we have positive information to the contrary, a person retains his Chezkath Chayyim until he is pronounced dead. There are numerous other examples of Chezkath Chayyim in the Talmud. HAT the heart is the seat of life and that its removal causes one to lose one’s Chezkath Chayyim is ex emplified by the well known 18th century case of a chicken that was slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law and was found to have no heart. Two Sages of the time gave diamet rically opposing rulings regarding this chicken. Rabbi Tzevi ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, known as the Chochom Tzevi, decreed that the chicken is kosher because without a heart, there is no life and, since the chicken walked and ate in a normal manner, the heart must have been present; after the chic ken was opened, a cat must have snatched the heart away and eaten it. The Chochom Tzevi also cites the Zohar, in which it is written that with out a heart, life cannot exist for even a mo men t. F ur the rm or e , says the Chochom Tzevi, Rabbi Yoseph Karo, in his Commentary on the Mishneh Torah of Rabbi Mosheh ben Maimon, points out that Maimonides omits absence of the heart from his list of

animals with defects which cannot be slaughtered for food (Terefoth) be cause such an animal would not be viable. Finally, says the Chochom Tzevi, even if witnesses were to come and say that they saw the chicken at all times and nothing was removed from it, they are not believed since that is impossible afid against nature. The opposing viewpoint is that of Rabbi Yonothon Eiebeschutz, author of Keresi Upelesi. This Rabbi ruled that the chicken is not kosher and the witnesses are believed. He also claims that physicians in Prague assured him that another piece of flesh that did not look like a heart might in fact have functioned as a heart. Thus, without a normal heart, the chicken is a Terefah (non-Koshdr). In either event, we see from both scholars involved in this case that the heart is essential to life and life is impossible without it. Therefore, con cludes Rabbi Unterman, in the case of a human heart transplant recipient, removing the patient’s old heart re moves from him his hold on life, and thus the removal of the recipient’s heart can be sanctioned only if the risk of death resulting from the surgery is estimated to be smaller than the pro spect of lasting success. On the other hand, one must violate the Sabbath to rescue someone from under a col lapsed building even if the person may already be dead, because he retains his Chezkath Chayyim until proven other wise.* Similarly, a patient dying of an incurable illness may subject himself to a potentially lethal medication or operation on the sjnall chance that

*Mishnah Yoma 8:607; Talmud, Yoma 85a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Shabbath 2:19; Shulchon Oruch, Orach Chayim 329:4.

JEWISH L IF E

pure might be achieved, because this p a t i e n t never lost his Chezkath Chayyim. HIS original concept of Chief Rabbi Unterman regarding the loss of the presumption of being alive by the heart transplant recipient after his diseased heart is removed raises numerous questions. What is the status of this “lifeless” patient until the new heart is implanted? Is he legally dead? Is his wife considered a widow? Can she remarry? Are his children con sidered orphans and how do the inheri tance laws apply here, if at all? After he receives his new heart, he is certain ly alive again. Does he have to remarry his wife? All these questions have al ready been answered negatively by Rabbi Dr. Azriel Rosenfeld,past presi dent of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists Writing in the Fall, 1967 issue of Tradition, Dr. Rosenfeld discusses the case of a person who has just died of an incurable disease and whose body is stored at a very low temperature for eventual thawing out and revival when the cure for the disease will be found. If the answer to all the above questions is NO, as Rabbi Rosenfeld proves for a refrigerated person who “is certainly dead 3 by any ordinary definition m once he has been frozen,” then certainly a heart transplant patient who has only lost his Chezkath Chayyim temporarily should be considered not to have lost his status as husband and father. He might be considered lifeless during this int eri m period between heart ex changes but certainly not legally dead. Dissenting from Chief Rabbi Un te r man’s permissiveness towards heart transplants under the conditions

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

described above is Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss of Manchester, England. Answering an extensive inquiry from B ritish Chief R abbi I m m an ue l Jakobovits, Rabbi Weiss strongly con demns cardiac t r a ns p l an t s . Dr. Jakobovits had set forth that a trans plant operation may require artificial extension of the donor’s life by the use of a respirator until the recipient can be prepared to receive the new heart. As a result, the following Halachic question arises: Is it lawful to artificially prolong the life of the donor solely to preserve his heart long enough to effect the transplant and, having done so, is it lawful to then shut off the respirator thus, in effect, manipulating the life and death of the donor at will? (see Hamaor, Ellul 5728) While Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss had replied negatively to this question^, S which Rabbi Jakobovits believes is highly relevant to the whole problem - Rabbi Auerbach of the Kol To ra h Yeshiva in Jerusalem has offered an affirmative reply. NOTHER responsum dealing with heart transplantation is that of Rabbi Chaim Dov Gulewski of Brooklyn, New York. This scholar dis cusses ( H am aor, Tishri-Cheshvan 5729) the question of whether a per son can renounce his desire to live in order to give his heart to another and, if this is permissible, whether the potential recipient is allowed to accept this heart and whether the surgeon is guilty of murder if he performs the transplantation. Rabbi Gulewski fur ther offers legal definitions for a per son who is considered a Terefah (suf fering from a serious organic disease and who cannot live more than twelve

months’) and a Goses, a dying indivi dual. The law differs whether this per son T i dying by Divine decree (Goses Biyedey Shomayim)rsuch as from in curable cancer or old age, or by human intervention (Goses Biyedey Odom), such as an automobile accident or a homicide victim. At the end of his articlH Rabbi Gulewski offers a rebut tal to Rabbi Unterman’s responsum. Another unpublished responsum on heart transplants is that of Rabbi Aryeh Leib Grosnas of the London Beth Din (Court of the Chief Rabbi). Rabbi Grosnas writes (in a letter to Rabbi Gulewski) that- a person is still alive by Jewish law if his breathing |1 maintained either spontaneously or artificially even if all cerebral function has ceased. Such an individual is classi fied as a Terefah, upon whom one may not operate save to heal him but not to use his heart, even with his permis sion, to save another. Once a person reaches the status of a Nevelah as de fined in the Talmud (Chullin 21a), then one may remove his heart and transplant it into another. Rabbi Grosnas also discusses the status of the recipient after his diseased heart was removed and before his “new heart” is implanted. Although legally dead, if the operation is successful, then the matter becomes clear that the patient was never really dead at all. a b b i m o s e s f e in s t e in has added his voice (Hapardes March-April 1969) to those condemn ing heart transplantation. This leading Rabbinic authority considers this pro cedure, as does England’s Rabbi Weiss, to involve a double murder. However, a personal interview with Rabbi Fein-

stein by this writer *as well as careful reading of his lengthy unpublished re sponsum on this subject discloses the following clarification of his position. If the donor is absolutely and posi tively dead by all medical and Jewish legal criteria, then no murder of the donor would be involved and the re moval of his heart or other organ to save another human life would be per mitted. Concerning the recipient, when medical science will havè'progressed to the point where cardiac transplanta tion becomes an accepted therapeutic p r oc e du re wi th reasonably good chances for s u c c e ^ then the recipient would no longer be considered mur dered. Additional animal experimenta tion, continues Rabbi Feinstein, is ¿ssential to overcome major obstacles ® f|uch as organ rejection, tissue com patibility typing, and immuno-suprelj sive therapy 9 before heart trans plantation in man can be condoned. In the present state of medical know ledge, however, where chances for suc cessive miniscule and the recipient’s life is probably shortened rather than lengthened by this procedure, heart transplantation must still be con sidère d murder of the recipient. Another recent responsum on cardiac transplantation /is by Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni of Yeshiva Univer sity {Or Hamizrach, April 1969). The major concern of most, if not all, of the Rabbis attempting to give légal rulings in heart transplant cases is the establishment of the death of the donor. This is the identical problem that the medical and legal profession® are now wrestling with. The majority of Rabbinic opinion

JEWISH LIFE

expressed to date in regard to heart moved. Even Rabbis Moses Feinstein transplants is of a permissive nature and Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss, who voice provided the donor was definitely the most stringent opposition, might deceased at the time his heart was re- also agree under these conditions.

FINAL NOTE N December 3, 1967, Dr. Christian Barnard performed the w orld’s first cardiac transplant at Groote Schuur Hospital in Capetown, South Africa. Exactly one year and two days later, on December 5, 1968, Professor Morris Levi at the Belinson Hospital in Petach Tikva performed Israel’s first heart transplant and the world’s one hundredth. Because the donor’s name was not revealed, a furor of speculation and religious dispute emerged with reverberations through out the world press. The major con cern seemed to have been the possible lack of permission from the donor’s family to use his heart for transplanta tion, thus raising the issue of “organ stealing.” The operation itself was sanctioned by Chief Rabbi Unterman under the conditions described in his previously cited responsum. The Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yitzchak Nissim, said that transplants are acceptable “in the case of danger to life and as long as clinical death is insured.” Heart transplantation is prob ably Jiere to stay. As of the date of the writing of this paper, over 100 such operations have been performed

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

in South Africa, the United States, Canada, Fran ce, England, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Czecho slovakia, Japan, India, Spain, and the Soviet Union. Many medical problems such as availability of donors, tissue typing, and rejection control remain to be solved. However, just as answers to. the legaljVmoral, and religious issues seem to be forthcoming, so too, it is hoped, strict medical evaluation and careful consideration of the prere quisites before a transplantation is performed, will improve the likelihood of successes. S a motto to our survey of J ewish legal attitudes toward heart and other organ transplantation, we might cite the prophecy of Ezekiel (11:19 and 36:26) as promised by the Almighty: “And a new heart will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the strong heart out o f your flesh and I will give you a heart o f flesh. ” Although this Scriptural reference is obviously meant in a purely figurative and spiritual sense, it seems to vividly depict the present epoch of cardiac transplanta tion.

B ook

NOTES ON A LOVE-LETTER

by MAURICE LAMM WELLSPRINGS OF TORAH, by Alexander Zusia Friedman; edited by Nison L. Alpert and translated by Gertrude Hirschler; New York: Judaica Press, 1969, 2 vols., 549 pps., $12.95. OW should one read the Torah? This simplistic question calls forth a sharp and unforgettable analogy. The an swer, obiously, is that one should study Scripture with the intensity with which he would read his most important document. Now which literature does a man read most avidly? Is it suspense fiction? Poetry? Biog raphy? Philosophy? Science? Probably it is none of these. It is a love letter. One who receives a love letter reads every word, every sentence, notes every choice of phrase, the nuance of every description, the tone of every emotion, RABBI LAMM is Rav of the Hebrew Institute of University Heights in the Bronx, New York.

every pause. He reads the salutation and the valedictory and between the lines. By mere ly fingering the page he feels its warmth, and can conjure up the image and can feel the very breath of his beloved. When he fin ishes the letter he cherishes it, keeps it close to his heart, reads it and rereads it at every occasion, and preserves it for his posterity. This is indeed how one should read the Torah. “Wellsprings of Torah” is a selection of commentary on the love-letter of G-d to K’nesseth Israel. It probes with warmth the undertones, the unnoticed insights, and hid den meanings of the text in order to amplify and make relevant G-d’s sacred message to man. “Wellsprings of Torah” was written in Yiddish in 1937 by Alexander Zusia Fried man, a well-known Polish Agudath Israel community leader, educator, and antholo gist, who perished in the death camp of Travniki in 1943. The book covers the Chumosh and the Haftoroth and is arranged according to Sidroth, enabling the layman to make weekly use of the host of wide-

JEWISH L IF E

ranging traditional commentaries as he pre pares for the Sabbath Torah reading. The book found immediate acceptance (so much so that skilled rabbis today have already ex hausted most of the material), was trans lated into Hebrew and now, with this publi cation, appears in English, edited by Nison L. A lpert and translated by Gertrude Hirschler. RANSLATING such a work into Heb rew is an important contribution. Translating it into English is a landmark achievement. This represents a new genre in English Biblical commentary. We have ex-r tensive, in seriatum, commentaries in Eng lish, such as the Rashi translation. We have intensive, depth-probing commentaries such as those by Samson Raphael Hirsch. “Wellsprings of Torah” is neither extensive nor intensive. It is neither consecutive verse-byverse interpretation nor is there extended analysis of any one single theme. It is a cornucopia of small, sparkling gems which will serve to delight and absorb, and also to sharpen the reader’s understanding of ap parently uncomplicated verses. This book offers two bonuses in addi tion to the obvious value of the interpreta tions themselves. First, it is a brilliant dis play of the widely differing qualities and ap proaches of the homiletic interpretations of the very quotable rabbis from Rashi to con temporary sages. For example, the portion on the Sabbath (Shemoth 31:13-17) is com mented upon by Rashi, Ramban, the Rabbi of Miedzieboz, Yalkut Reuveni, and the Chofetz Chayyirn. One can detect the dif ference in style between the Chassidic repre sentatives and the Vilna Gaon, between Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Chossid and Rabbi Israel Salanter, between the Maharal of the late 1500’s and the ingenious annotations of the Pardes Yosef, between the Dubno Maggid and the Chothorn Sofer,Each, according to his own style, reveals half-tones of words and phrases that open entirely new thoughts and surprising deductions. Second, this book as few others scans

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

the incredible richness of Jewish traditional scholarship, a treasure which would be locked forever to English-speaking Jews and non-Jews. The commentators come from all climes and countries of the two-millenial Dispersion; from Lithuania and Galicia, Hungary and Romania, from the Middle Ages and modern times, from eras of perse cution and tranquility extending from the Talmud to the Holocaust. Merely to be able to remember and quote from one or another of these commentaries is to echo not only Jewish scholarship but Jewish history. These commentaries would surely not otherwise be available to American Jewry. Even though the sources are predominantly Chassidic, one could not glean these insights from any one of the many Chassidic anthol ogies. NE illustration of hitherto unavailable magnificent insights'’*should suffice to underline the magnitude of this bounty. On the Biblical portion which describes Moses’ anger and the breaking of the Tablets as he descended from Mount Sinai and saw the Israelites rejoicing around their home-made idol, there are the comments of Obadiah ben Yaakov Sforno and Joseph of Pavinitz, author of Pardes Yosef. Sforno asks why Moses was so shocked when G-d already warned him about what had happened? He answers that the key word is “dancing.” Be fore he saw the Jews dancing he thought he could retrieve the terrible situation, but when he saw they were rejoicing with their idolatry he realized suddenly that the sin was beyond redemption by him and that they really were not deserving of receiving the Torah. Pardes Yosef deals with a similar question and his answer, following Rashi, is that before Moses descended he was told by G-d that “thy people have dealt corruptly,” and he had assumed that they were imitat ing the pagan rituals of the other nations, an expected aberration that he could probably correct. But when he saw that they made their own idol “in the camp” and used the same “altar” and recited the same prayers,

substituting the calf for the Lord, rituafc disguised in the trappings of genuine Judaism to serve an idol and practice abomination, Moses broke the Tablets and cried out, ac cording to Rashi, “But the whole Torah is here” (it would appear they are keeping all the laws) “and all the Israelites are apos tates” (yet they are really worshipping a calf!). The selections from the original Yid dish thankfully were made with an eye to contemporary relevancy. The translation is superb. It is done in very good taste. The text does not suffer from slavish adherence to the original. There are no blatant archa isms. It reads very smoothly, a quality very desirable in such a text. One would have wanted to see more of an analytic approach, especially in regard to the well-known difficult and important sections of the Bible. Here and there it

would have been valuable to provide the dialectic of two contrasting opinions on the same verse. This would have added the ex citement and tension of intellectual battle to the trim and sweet and neatly-arranged single comments on selected sentences, and would have been more attractive to the alert youth whose alacrity yearns for such com bativeness. “Wellsprings of Torah” is truly a hitherto undiscovered source in English of the refreshing , sparkling, “living waters” of the Torah. Judaica Press is to be com mended for superb choice of material, superbly executed in editing, translating, and printing. The Torah is not a stern document of revelation. Read together with the “Wellsprings of Torah” one can readily perceive that it is, after all, a love letter.

CHAPTERS FROM THE CALENDAR by PHILIP ZIMMERMAN THE GLORY OF THE JEWISH HOLI DAYS, by Hillel Seidman, Edited by Moses Zalesky; Shengold Publishers, Inc.; New York City, 1969. R. HILLEL SEIDMAN, scholar, pub licist, and a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, has presented* us with a large and

*The book has been edited by Dr. M. Zalesky. We are informed by the publisher that Dr. Zalesky has also made contribu tions of his own to the work. If these were substantial, they should have been labeled; as the book now stands, the reviewer must regard the entire text as having come from the hand of Dr. Seidman. RABBI ZIMMERMAN, a former chaplain in the U.S. Army, is a chemist in New York City.

handsome volume in “The Glory o f the Jewish Holidays.” Dr. Seidman has covered the major and minor festivals of the Jewish year in a generally accurate and faithful manner. In addition to the author’s com ments, there are several excellent selections from noted authorities o f the past. The m ost original and strongest segment o f this book is contained in the au th or’s personal experiences with the Jewish Holy Days ,-b both in the tragic period w hen Germanic hordes turned Europe into a blood bath and in the glorious days when he first visited the liberated por tions o f the Holy Land. His tragic descrip tion o f the last Simchath Torah in the Warsaw Ghetto (1942) at the home of the sainted Rabbi Menachem Zemba is a heart rending classic. Dr. Seidman’s account o f his

JEWISH L IF E

escape from the Ghetto with the passport of a South American country (later revoked) serves as the most powerful sermon possible on the meaning of statelessness in the modern world as well as the need for a Jewish state. Dr. Seidman’s moving exper iences at the Western Wall show the deep outpourings of his religious spirit, and in deed the entire book is marked by a very profound love o f Zion. The author has leaned heavily on the religio-national interpretation of the Festi vals, stressing especially the stirring events of the Six-Day War. This may be a valid approach to the holidays, if not carried to extremes. Our Sages have told us that “Love (as well as hate) destroys the line (of normal behavior)” and this may be true of even so elevated a sentiment as love of Zion. To equate the “Bikkurim” ceremony (p. 184) as now practiced in certain Kibbutzim in Israel with such sacred institutions as the Seder and the Succah is a good example of such love carried too far. To further tell us that the Seder (p. 156) is held on “the first two nights of Passover (in Israel and among Reform Jews, the first night o n ly ).. . *’’ can be misleading to those of Dr. Seidman’s readers who do not know that Jews in the Golah are governed by a special set of reli gious laws which do not apply to those of our more fortunate brethren who are settled in Aretz. In several instances, a certain accept ance of the fragmented religious situation of Diaspora Jewry has, possibly unintention ally, crept into the text. It would have been more informative to have noted that unfor tunately Reform Jews (and now possibly Conservative Jews as well) have eliminated the second days of the Festivals in a move which has certainly not added to the glory of the Jewish holidays. In passing, it may be added that the Reform computation of the Second Day o f Rosh Hashanah (observed, of course, in Israel) proves that Reform did not model its observances on love o f Zion, to which it was a late-comer, but on love of

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

expediency. R. SEIDMAN’S book draws heavily on the great storehouse o f Aggadic (non-legal) treasures which deal with the Festivals. This important material is certain ly more picturesque and easier to handle than the Halachic (legal) aspects of these days. However, the backbone of the Yomim Tovim and indeed the hallmark of all authentic Jewish thought —is the Halochah, and one would have wished for a deeper treatment o f this aspect of the Holidays. Had Dr. Seidman included more Halachic background he would have made a good book better. Had he further successfully shown the deep and vital connection be tween the legal and non-legal aspects of the holidays, he would have made a better book great. The numerous illustrations, which do not appear to have been chosen by the author, mark a fine balance between the old and the new in Jewish religious art. One wonders, however, at the inclusion of sev eral examples of seven-branched metallic menorahs, the making of which is frowned upon by the Halochah (Yoreh Deah 141:8). This is especially so inasmuch as the sevenbranched menorah has become both an internal and external symbol for non-traditional Jewish houses o f worship in our time.

HE field of books on the Jewish holi days is not a scanty one, although many o f the most important works are avail able only in Hebrew. The present volume would have been improved by the inclusion of a bibliography - as well as an index. This would have enabled readers to enlarge their knowledge o f this vital area o f Jewish life, to which Dr. Seidman has made a valuable contribution. The knowledge and enthusi asm which he has put into this book should inspire readers to deeper study and, one hopes, more intensive observance o f our holidays.

ThERf^

A JEWISH EXPERIENCE IN VIETNAM There is no question that an orthodox chaplain can really perform great deeds for Torah. Such an individual is Rabbi Harold Wasserman, whom I never met until I went to Vietnam. Rabbi Wasserman spared no effort to see that every boy that kept Kosher was so supplied. Often this meant flying by helicopter to remote dangerous areas under fire to personally deliver not only Jewish Welfare Board supplies, but even giving of his own personal food, sent by his family for his own use. All this, and a Dvar Torah for a single “frum” soldier. His efforts to bring boys closer to Yiddishkeit are legendary among the Jews in Vietnam, who have met him. His efforts include giving out free Tfillin and getting Lubavitcher “shmurah matzos.” What we need are more Harold Wassermans. For the first Pesach seder we had 400 people from our area. We had just started “benching” after the meal. Suddenly the base came under heavy rocket and mortar attack, that unfortunately killed two, and wounded six, a small distance from our seder. Instead of getting up and running to the bunkers as we normally would have, we sat at the table, and continued to sing the Hagadah. At the end of the seder, we sang, “ Lishanah Habaa Biyerushalayim Habenuyah,” and without trying to seem melodramatic, tears were on the faces of many. —from an article by Dr. Mandel I. Ganchrow in the Young Israel Viewpoint

JEWISH LIFE

WhenBritain ruled the waves, Englishmen were inclined to be somewhat arrogant. Old-guard Anglo-Jewry assimilated this Blimp-like posture and Michael Wallach’s recent article on the London Beth Din is a typical example o f their attitude. What a touching picture he draws o f a characteristic Anglo-Jewish minister “devoted to an enlightened traditionalism, pious but tolerant, ever prepared to temper the strict letter o f the Law with the mood and spirit o f the times '7 The real truth is less pleasant. These carbon copy Christian clerics were largely responsible fo r the decline o f Jewish life. Anglo-Jewry, like the land o f its domicile, depends for its life on imports; were it not fo r the despised “foreigners” real Judaism would today be dead in this country. In 30 0 years this Great Historic Community has not produced a single indigenous giant o f Jewish learning; and - perhaps worst o f all m the “breadth o f outlook” which, accord ing to Mr. Wallach, “Western culture can bring”has on examination led back to S ’dom and Babel. Mr. Wallach has proved two things: first, that his “modem English Jew ” is a fossil; and second, that there is as much difference between a truth and a half-truth as between a wit and a half-wit. —from the JEWISH REVIEW of London

JEWISH ETHICS AS LIVED BY THE GREAT These minutiae of observances have developed in the Jew an unusual, high sensitivity to ethics. And so we find a story such as that of Rabbi Israel Salanter who visited, in a neighboring city, a Rabbi whose home was on the second story. Realizing that, in the absence of running water, the maid had to carry up the heayy buckets suspended from a beam across her shoulders, Rabbi Israel Salanter, in washing his hands for the meal, barely measured out enough water to wash his hands. When the host Rabbi, knowing that pious Jews always washed their hands effusively before eating, questioned Rabbi Israel about his doling out for himself so meticulously his share of water, Rabbi Israel answered: “I can’t see practicing piety on the back of that poor girl. As much water as I need to wash my hands I must use, but to use even a drop more would mean another trip for her. I will befrum at my expense, not hers.” —from an article by Rabbi Morris Bekritsky in Jewish Parent Magazine

SEPTEM BER-O CTO BER 1969

TEFILLAH B'TZIBUR It behooves the Talmid Chacham, (Torah scholar) to daven (pray) with the congregational minyan. I f he does not, then others will leant from him to deni grate the importance o f communal prayers, and synagogues will be disbanded. People will not judge this Talmid Chacham favorably, assuming that he does not daven with the congregation because he is occupied with the study o f his Torah, but will misinterpret his absence. The time fo r Torah is separate and the time for Tefillah is separate. Our Torah learning does not permit us to disregard Tefillah B’tzibur - communal prayer. Many hours o f the day are wasted. L et us therefore put aside our Torah learning fo r the hour o f prayer, and repay it from other hours o f the day. A nd in this manner we will fulfill our duty both to Torah and to Tefillah. (Teshuvoth HaRosh) 4:11) —from Di Yiddishe Heim

IDEOLOGIES AND VALUES American Jews hold conventional middle-class values in this country, only more so. Wealth, status, and the standards of the television tube loom very large. This is even true of our orthodox community, as you all know. In this context it is very difficult for Judaism to be deep and dedicated. Even for the orthodox, the Torah has not yet captured their minds, by and large —only certain of their practices. The ideas of Torah, as distinguished from the performance of the commandments, get short shrift among many of the orthodox. It is this absence of ideology, of an ideology which comes from the intellectual approach, which is the major lack of the orthodox community at the grass roots. This lack of ideology, this lack of the intellectual approach to Torah, is most evident in the day schools and even in the yeshivas. Orthodox high school students in my community do not have their own set of values, derived from Torah. They look to the current American values in every way. One example: yeshiva students who attend our college programs find the ideas just as new and unfamiliar and refreshing as the non-observant students. The fault is basically that of their parents, orthodox Jews whose standards are middle class American, whose lack of ideology is reflected in the kind of schools they demand. The ideological training in most orthodox day schools and yeshivas is almost non existent. —■from an article by Carl N. Klahr in INTERCOM published by the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists

JEWISH L IF E

ISRAEL'S LESSONS FOR AMERICA The people o f Israel come from nations o f every comer o f the globe, and a short walk in the streets o f Tel Aviv brings the visitor into contact with people o f all colors. Blue-eyed blondes and dark-skinned people mix freely without the hysterical color-consciousness we fin d among too many Americans. Their common bond is, o f course, that they are all Jews. But we are all Americans, and we would do well to emulate the Israelis in removing color as a barrier among people. Tolerance toward Arabs also surprised me. One would think that a nation surrounded by hostile Arab states whose guerillas inflict daily casualties on troops and civilians would develop deep hatred for the enemy. But it is not so, generally. A top Arm y general explained it to me. “Id o n ’t want m y children to hate,” he said. “Ify o u teach a child to hate Arabs, you are teaching him to fear them, for the two are linked, and I don’t want my children to learn fear. ” Think o f the energies and lives that are wasted on such fear and hatred here in America! —from a statem ent by Whitney M. Young, Jr. in the National Urban League newsletter

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

L e tte rs to th e E d ito r ‘SIZING UP PSYCHOLOGY’ New York, New York I read Dr. Samuel B. Weiss’ review of my “Judaism and Psychology” with interest and care. Any pioneering effort must an tick pate a strong reaction, and it is quite natural that a “good psychologist” should be dis turbed by the unorthodox views expressed in my book. Your reviewer did not in spite of the length of his review — present even a summary of the ideas expressed in the book. There is only a smattering of my ideas, mostly distorted or unclearly stated. Dr. Weiss creates the impression that I am alone in my disagreement with the “well-proven” psychological truths. He ignores the many leading authorities who fully agree with my views. O. Hobart Mowrer, former president of the American Psychological Association, sees the basic psychological doctrines in contradiction to the Judeo-Christian ethic, and views psychoanalysis as pernicious (p. 147). The noted British psychologist H.J. Eysenck laconically observed in I960 that “the success of the Freudian revolution seemed complete. Only one thing went wrong: the patient did not get better” (p. 146) . P. Bailey questions the existence of the unconscious as postulated by Freud (p. 147) . The great psychiatrist T. S. Szasz suggests dropping many widely-accepted theories o f psychopathology and psycho therapy because he sees mental illness not as a medical problem but as a moral problem (p. 195).

Dr. Weiss takelk issue with the tradi tional Jewish views I have presented, but with only few exception^, •he does not attempt to refute these sources .whicfr are the basis for my conclusions: Ignoring the views of other psycholdgists, he further ignores the fact that my views are based on Biblical and Rabbinic sources which are clearly documented. To suggest that our Sages were not perfectly -knowledgeable concerning the workings of the human mind goes beyond naivete. One need only scan the Aggadoth in Shas, the Midrashim, and the Mussar literature from the period of the Geonirn to the present time, to stand in awe of their insights into human behavior. To say that Jewish psychology is available but not as systematized or spelled out as secular psychology, is to admit lack of familiarity with the- corpus of traditional Jewish litera ture. How absurd to perpetuate the myth that Freud “discovered” the science of human behavior. There is one Freudian prin ciple which is consistent with Jewish belief: that there is no basic difference between normal and abnormal behavior 11 that they differ only in degree. ■Now we can turn to Dr. Weiss’ ques tions* Mÿ book demonstrates that one of the basic psychoanalytic-psychologic doc trines is the belief in “release from repress sions” as the cure for emotional disturb ances. Your reviewer suggests this is a distor tion, while admitting that many laymen and

JEWISH LIFE

some “wild analysts” subscribe to this view. In my own experience as a psychiatric social worker I have yet to meet a single psycholo gist, psychiatrist, or social worker who does not subscribe to this “wild” doctrine. Dr. Weiss takes me to task for not confining my attack to those therapists who are guilty of being “wild,” but he ignores what Mowrer has documented: that all theorists and practitioners base their work on Freudian doctrines which are contradictory to basic religious belief. Psychology rejects faith and trust in G-d which the Chovoth Hal’vovoth declares to be a prerequisite to peace of mind; it denies the concept of Free Will, without which Torah crumbles into nothing ness. At the meeting Dr. Weiss refers to, I presented my views to a group of orthodox Jewish psychologists, one o f whom de scribed the therapy he used for one of his patients. Here is what he said, almost verba tim. An East Side Jew was doing well finan cially H so well that he had established illicit relations with six women. When his wife became aware o f these relationships, the patient suffered a nervous breakdown, at which point our psychologist became his therapist. It became apparent, he said, that “the only way to help this man was to send him right back to his six women,” which he did not hesitate to do. Did this psychologist believe that the cure for this man was to release him from repressions, or was he just one of those “wild analysts”? Dr. Weiss attacks my approach to the Unconscious as contradictory, or at best ambiguous. He fails to see what has been gained by eliminating the Unconscious and substituting the concept o f habit formation, while retaining the concept of behavior without awareness. He claims that I vacillate between denial of the Unconscious and denial of the Freudian Unconscious. What escapes Dr. Weiss js that we are not simply playing with words. By accepting Freud’s concept of unconscious motivation, we deny Free Will, the root concept of Juda ism, and the purpose o f man’s creation.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

Freud believed that almost all human be havior — normal and abnormal — is moti vated by irrational unconscious motivation; that man has no rational control over his actions which are stimulated by forces beyond his control. Is this not a clear con tradiction to our belief in Free Will? Dr. Weiss suggests that my “Talmudic references to Free Will appear to be one-sided.” I f there is a valid contrary view in Jewish be lie f let him produce it. Maimonides clearly enunciates the doctrine of Free Will, and not a single authority — 1including the Ra’avad who frequently disagrees with him —disputes this axiom o f Jewish belief. I have posited the concept of habit formation because in spite of the difficulties it also presents, it leaves room for Free Will to operate. Of course it would be naive to propose that man never acts without full awareness. But the absence o f full awareness is hardly the same as believing that man’s behavior is forced upon him by a sinister force — the unconscious — which is beyond his control. If human behavior can be ex plained without the concept of “habit becomes second nature,” I am ready to modify my position, so long as the new theory leaves room for the operation of Free Will. This the Freudian view does not allow for, and it clearly is unacceptable within the framework o f traditional Jewish belief. It is of little consequence how Freud himself understood the Unconscious. What is significant is that the entire psychological school has understood his approach in a manner which makes man a slave, at the mercy of a tyrannical Unconscious. Dr. Weiss considers my view regarding the role of guilt in mental illness as “naive.” Yet all he can muster against this challeng ing view is that all psychologists differ with me, and that clinically we do find lots of guilt in many patients. Yet he fails to cite a single traditional Jewish source contrary to my view, and we are discussing the Jewish approach to psychology. The very nature of man inclines away

Order now for yourself

—

your friends

—

your congregation THE UOJCA POCKET CALENDAR-DIARY FOR 1969-70/5730

* ,nto Poeket or Purse"

Combines a wealth of Jewish information of every day usefulness. Con tains the Jewish and secular calendars, a full daily diary section, explana tions of the holidays, candle-lighting times, weekly Torah and Haftorah readings, Yahrtzeit date record, Teflllath Haderech, Sefirath HaOmer, Daf Yomi, Mishnah Yomith, Torah Studies, information on the program of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. HANDSOMELY BOUND IN BROWN LEATHERETTE UOJCA/84 Fifth Avenue/New York, N.Y. 10011 Please enter my order(s) fo r____ UOJCA Pocket Calendar-Diaries for 1969-70/5730 as follows: .......... individual name gold-stamped (one line only) at $1.25 each .......... individual uninscribed copy at $ 1.00 each ..........inscribed congregational, bulk order at $.85 each plus $4.00 per order, (Minimum order, 25 copies.) IMPRINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Send to: N ame ...........

f... r .r ..: -JSr.-.

A ddress............................. -....... •.....................................

.. .[ .1

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

.• ■

.............. ...............................State.... ......................... Zip Code. A ll orders m ust be prepaid« .

from feelings of guilt. Man, goaded by his yetzer horah, inclines toward self-interest, arrogance, and gross ambition. The Mishnah in Ovoth (4:28) tells us that “ Jealously, lust, and the desire for honor remove a man from this world.* It is the frustration of man’s self-interest I not guilt - which gives rise to severe and uncontrollable anxieties. Man is by nature self-righteous, always find ing good reasons for his behavior, no matter how anti-social it may be. His self-interest (negiah) makes him oblivious to his improp er behavior. Chazal tell us (Yoma 86b): “When a man transgresses and repeats his transgres sion, he deludes himself into believing that [what he has done] is permissible.” Weak impressions o f guilt remain buried in his mind, but they are too weak to create emo tional stress. Guilt, at best, plays only a secondary role in mental illness. Psychoanalysis teaches that the basic factor in mental illness is repression which ultimately leads to feelings o f guilt. Millions of Jews throughoutt the ages have practiced repression. The Sages urge us to be constant ly in a state of Teshuvah (repentance), recognizing our guilt. If fostering guilt breeds neurosis, we should long ago have become a race of neurotics. The question based on the tragic episode relating to Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is well taken: it has compelled me tp grant that guilt does have a secondary role in mental illness. The narrative is not explicit; it is somewhat shrouded in mys tery. Reb Yochanan’s illness results mainly n ot from his guilt feelings for having brought punishment on his beloved disciple, but rather because he could find no replace ment for his brilliant talmid. He was also plagued by the loss this meant for Torah. The insight offered by the Chidushey Geonim is most instructive in our under standing of the controversy between the Rebbe and his Talmid, which he shows to have been fundamental to the Jewish faith. It appeared to Reb Yochanan that Resh Lakish was disputing a Kabbolah (tradition)

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

of the Mesorah. I therefore see no reason to conclude that guilt is a primary cause of mental illness. Dr. Weiss feels that my categorical assertion that insanity is the result o f sin is the most dangerous doctrine of my book. I do not suggest that all insanity is the result of sin. In my introduction (p. 20) I make it clear that I refer only to acquired mental illness — not cases involving injury to the brain. What I am saying essentially is, that individuals who lack faith and trust in G-d, and who have not learned to accept their lo t, (even while attempting to better it), induce excessive anxiety which in turn can lead to emotional disturbance. If individuals sin in the realm of Middoth, not having acquired the ability to avoid excess in either direc tion, they will suffer emotional disturbance in proportion to their excesses. Your reviewer gives the impression that I maintain that this imbalance in Midoth is the only factor leading to mental illness; I have clearly stated that it is the main cause, while granting that overwhelm ing environmental pressures may also lead to insanity as is evident from the Tochacha (Devorim 28:29,34). Most people are not adequately equipped to ward off unusual traumatic factors which strike them. I have also noted (p. 193) that the Torah recog nizes the possibility that a person may be deprived o f Free Will as punishment for evil, and thus not subject to cure. Nor have I suggested that repression or guilt play no role at all in mental illness. In his search for some variation of the traditional doctrine of Free Will, Dr. Weiss brings into play the concept of “Mesorath Avotheyhem Biydeyhem” which is totally unrelated to the matter at hand. Nor is the co n cep t o f “ Tinok Shenishbah Beyn Ha’akum” related to the matter. Certainly there ate situations when an individual loses his freedom of will: natural instinct may at times negate Free Will. That man under compulsion may lose his Free Will, is, how ever, no proof that when man is not under compulsion he has no free choice.

Your reviewer is surprised? that I could omit discussion of the concept of “Tinok Shenishbah.” I refer him to my introduc tory remark (p. 21) that my book offers “the skeleton upon which the body is to be built.” But since this concept is certainly relevant, it would be profitable to note the illuminating observations of Reb Elchonon Wasserman in his Kovetz M a’a morim (pp. 11-20). It is evident from his discussion that the concept of “Tinok Shenishbah” (which frees from responsibility a person captured and raised by gentiles) applies only to Mitzvoth and not to Middoth (Shabboth 68a). Obviously a Jew totally unaware o f Shab both, for example, cannot be held respons ible for not observing it. But that same Jew cannot absolve himself for rejecting belief in G-d, since the capacity for such belief is implanted in every human being. If he does not believe, it is because he freely chooses not to believe. Such belief, Reb Elchonon tells us, is not an intellectual achievement, but results from warding off the inclination against b e lie f, which is why even a 13-year-old youngster is commanded to believe. The “Tinok Shenishbah” is there fore able to exercise his Free Will in the area of Middoth, and is obligated to do so. On the question bf compulsions, I cannot see this as a special kind o f behavior. It can be categorized under the heading of accumulated bad habits. It is conjecture to claim that the compulsive acts represent unconscious needs. On the question of p o st-h y p n o tic suggestion compromising Free Will, your reviewer claims an admission on my part which I never made. The acting out of post-hypnotic suggestion can as easily be explained by my system of habit forma tion. It is well known that if the subject is not willing to cooperate, the therapist will not succeed. If the subject does cooperate, the suggestions of the therapist create an impression on the patient’s mind so power ful that he follows them even after awaking. The patient has freely exercised his will so effectively, that he continues to do so even after awaking.

Dr. Weiss is critical o f my omission of the concept of ^sublimation. Groping for a traditional source for this concept, he cites the Tifereth Yisroel (Kiddushin 4:77). Let me summarize this beautiful passage. After the Exodus, the nations trembled before Israel and stood in awe o f Moses, the man of G-d. An Arab king who wanted to see this man for himself, sent artists to bring back a portrait of Moses. Twice they went, and twice the king was disturbed with the re sults: they had portrayed a man with the worst Middoth imaginable. The king jour neyed to the desert to see Moses personally. What he saw seemed to confirm the impres sions brought back by the artists. He asked Moses to explain. “Your artists did not deceive you,” Moses told him, “these bad Middoth were inherent in me by nature; but I repressed, conquered, and subdued them, to the extent that my nature is the precise opposite.” It is apparent that sublimation is a vital mechanism in fostering proper be havior and this is explicit in many Talmudic references: witness Resh Lakish, Rabba, and King David (Shabbth 156a). But what is more explicit in the case of Moses, is man’s need, and his ability, to subdue, control, and repress his inherent tendencies.: It is not explicit in the words o f the Tifereth Yisroel that Moses was unabla to subdue his evil tendencies and therefore had to sublimate them. Even if he did find it necessary to sublimate them it was certainly preceeded by his attempt at repression. It is clear then, from this narrative, that Judaism sanctions repression as the major dynamic in changing behavioral patterns. Chazal tell us, “Who is strong, he who conquers his inchnations” ^ not he who sublimates his inclinations. This is far removed from the psychological view that frowns upon conquering, which is equated with repression. In his discussion of sublimation, your reviewer refers to other defense mechan isms, such as reaction formation, apd thera peutic techniques. Suggesting that I have adopted Maimonides’ principle of “bending from pole to pole” as a cure-all, he parades

JEWISH L IF E

before the reader the discovery o f such one making an Halachic decision on the phenomena as ambivalent feelings of love basis o f Chumosh and Rashi. and hate. I have tried to make it clear in my Let us put aside, for a moment, the book — apparently it did not get through to scholarly apparatus, and come down to Dr. Weiss - that Freud did not “invent” the basics. Torah insists that ka’as (anger) be defense mechanisms, which are actually curbed K psychology counsels that we re negiyoth and peniyyoth, basic to the con lease our aggression. Torah frowns on azuth cept of the sh ’ney yetzorim - the good and (impudence) — psychology tells us to speak the evil inclinations. That feelings of love out without inhibition. Jews pride them and hate can exist side by side is implicit in selves as being bayyshonim (withdrawn and the conflict between the two yetzorim. As modest)| m psychology tells us that this is a the Chovoth Hal’vovoth puts it, “Man is serious behavioral problem. Far above the implications of this made up of natures which are conflicting and naturally antagonistic*” In every human conflict for each individual, is the destruc thought and in every human action, there tive influence psychoanalysis has exerted on are two drives operating, each drawing in our entire society. Psychoanalysis stands opposite directions. accused of decaying the moral standards of It is true that many patients reaching our society. It has fostered an atmosphere the consultation room claim to have trust, of permissiveness, aggression, violence, and but I have demonstrated that they are; irresponsibility. It has distorted the" thinking merely verbalizing this trust, which is not of modern man on every level, influencing manifest in their behavior. educators, legislators, and even the clergy. Dr. Weiss speaks of errors and omis How tragic that orthodox Jewish psycholo sions in my book. He regrets that I omitted gists should rush to the defense of doctrines Nachmanides’ view on sex, suggesting — which are undermining all religious faith. incorrectly —that it differs from the view of For nearly a decade, I have urged that Maimonides. the Jewish community attempt to find some Your reviewer distorts my statement clarity in this critical area o f human and regarding the continuum between neurosis Jewish concern. Certainly I have not found and psychosis. I did not say that “all” all the answers, but others must join in this psychologists hold this view; only that it is effort. We must demonstrate that the in the most recent thinking on the subject. sights of Torah in the area of human be Your reviewer states that I “built a havior are relevant to the treatment of skyscraper on a few p sy ch o lo g ica l mental illness, as we are convinced that they matzoth.” I saw no purpose in an inflated are relevant to normal, everyday life. We bibliography which is often an indication of cannot subscribe to belief in Torah, and pseudo-scholarship. The works cited were shut out that belief in treating the mentally intended to give a general overview of the ill. Jewish psychology must be Tor^h conflict inherent in psychological doctrine psychology, or it will suffer the fate pf and traditional Jewish belief. One need not other secular manifestations of Judaism. become enmeshed in detailed exposition of Abraham Amsel every aspect of pagan ritual, for example, to dem onstrate that paganism is Avodah Editor's note: A response by Dr. Zorah. It is unfair, to say the least, to com Samuel A. Weiss to the above letter pare my judgements on psychology to some will appear in our forthcoming issue.

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

s ™

■■ •

SPECIAL OFFER | $3.50 value only $2.00 A superb Collection of Twenty-six authentic and fascinating stories based on Jewish history by Salamon A. Halpern

216 PAGES HARD CO V ER L IS T PRICE $3.50 W HILE OUR SUPPLY LASTS O N LY $2.00 POST PAID WITH THIS O RD ER BLAN K PUBLISHED BY BO YS TOWN, JER U SA LEM

UOJCA/NCSY Publications / 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011 Please send me copies of “ Tales of Faith" by Salamon A. Halpern @ the special price of $2.00 including shipping and postage. [$1.75 in quantities of five or more copies]. Enclosed please find $ NAME ....................... AD D RESS C IT Y

ZIP

‘IDENTITY CRISIS’ Jerusalem, Israel In May-June 1969 JEWISH LIFE, Rabbi Lamm states that the formulation of a new world view of modern Orthodoxy is a “tall order.” Not so. Necessary equipment is but a Xerox machine and any volume of essays or sermons by Shechter, Kaplan, or Finkelstein. The argument that there was a Babylonian Judaism,^a Spanish Judaism, Lithuanian Judaism, Chassidic Judaism and now we will create an American Judaism is vaugely familiar. Wasn’t this the Conserva tive “line” forty years ago? I find Rabbi Lamm’s statement:

The challenge to our intellectual leadership is clear: to formulate the world view of Modern Orthodoxy,..-.

offered by Rabbi M. Weiss in his book “Sefer Beth Habechirah.”) But in “viewing the historical set ting,” there must be some mistakes in the article: 1) How does the author arrive at the year 2935 o f the Hebrew Calendar for th e dedication of the First Temple? If this were correct, we would now live in the year 5734? 2) But even more doubtful is the equa tion of that year with the year 1004 B . C .E.!! The destruction of the Second Temple would then have been in the year 104 B.C.E. which contradicts his own words and the generally accepted date for it: 70 C.E. Dr. Marcus Elias

is a shockingly demagogic conceit. I fear that Norman’s unquestionable native bril liancy has gone to his head! Come down off cloud seven, Norman!

RABBI KOPS REPLIES: Reuben E. Gross

RABBI LAMM REPLIES: No, Reuben. You come on up to cloud seven. The perspective is better and the vision is broader. And the rhetoric more restrained.

‘PRECINCTS OF HOLINESS’ New York, New York T read with great interest the article of Rabbi Kops on “The Precincts of Holi ness” in your May-June issue. It is indeed not easy for the student of Jewish history to reconcile the many different statements we find in the Bible, Mishnah, Gemorah, and Commentaries on this subject, which is the reason why Rabbi Kops did not “delve into the wide spectrum of dissenting opinions.” (The best study on the subject has been

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

The source for the date given in my article for the dedication of Solomon’s Temple is drawn from various scholarly sources and is to be found in such a work as “The Graphic History of the Jewish Heri tage,” an encyclopedic volume edited by Pinchas Wollman-Tsamir, and substantiated and authenticated by leading Biblical scho lars in the U.S., Britain, and Israel. The basis for the various chronological designations in that book is the equation of the year 3760 B.C.E. with the year One C.E. (3760 plus 1969-70 brings us to the present Hebrew Calendar year 5729-30 A.M.). A preliminary note attached to the table of Judges (in the aforementioned book) states that any inconsistencies in chronological data are of a universal nature, a “consistent system of chronology” never having been established due to uncertainties surrounding the establishment of the actual period of the Judges and of the Kings. To cite one example of scholarly disparity, the

JEWISH LIFE began publication in 1946....

NOW you can know what you missed -—and how to catch up Just published JEW ISH LIFE INDEX 1946— 1965/5707— 5725

by Author and Subject Main Index: 1946— 1960 5707 — 5720

Supplement: I960 — 1965 5721— 5725

Plus Record Review Supplement Prepared by

Micha F. Oppenheim UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA 100 pages—over 400 subjects—''see also” references handy size—attractive cover—price: $3.00.

Publications Department, UOJCA, 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, N .Y. 10011 Please send me ................. copies of the JEWISH LIFE IN DEX at $3.00 each. Name ....................................................................................................................................... Address ............................................... ..... ................................... ................ ......................... City .................................................... State ................................... Zip C o d e................

editor teUs us that the period of the Judges their treatment of our people. No nation on has been designated by A.A. Akavia in earth has been as destructive to Jewry as “Sidre Zimanim” at 356 years; at 334 years Germany, yet West Germany today is the by Samuel Arrowsmith in his “Bible Atlas;” most affluent state in Europe and even East and -‘more recently, at approximately 200 Germany leads all other Communist coun years. All of these dates, as conceded by tries in standard o f living. scholars, are conjectural, irreconcilable, and In addition, the essay proposes that abounding in discrepancies in both the A.M. the mere presence of Jews in a country is and B.C.E. calculations.” The editor pains greatly beneficial to the hosts. But is this takingly notes the existence of disparities always the case? In America at present, Jews even within his book as different chronolog are unfortunately found in the forefront of ical versions were used in dealing with the the moral corruption enveloping society. In different periods treated* He also notes the literature, theater, cinema, the leading tendency in recent studies to refer to the pornographers bear Jewish names. The most “general span o f the entire period rather' famous obscenity case to come before the than to specific dates.” Supreme Court is known as the Roth deci Naturally, since the dates of the sion. (The second most famous is called Judges (who preceded the Kings) cannot be after one Ginzberg). Moreover, as painful as authoritatively established, there must in it is to recall, the anarchists of the New Left evitably be discrepancies in the dates set for are also disproportionately Jewish. And all succeeding historical events. while it is true that Jews are also among those maintaining the highest standards of morality, these are the same orthodox Jews who have least contact with the general populace. ‘VIEW OF HISTORY’ These difficulties notwithstanding, I subscribe to Rabbi Schwartz’s analysis. The Elmhurst, New York fact that his conclusions can not be applied in every instance may be a good thing. It It was a thrilling experience for me to leaves room for having faith that they are read Elkanah Schwartz’s “A Jewish View of ultimately true. History” (May-June). The thesis presented Shmuel Alex Littmann therein is simply momentous. Realizing his critical role in the flow o f history, the con scious Jew responds not only with pride, RABBI SCHWARTZ REPLIES: but also with awe, almost a little fright, to the enormous responsibilities with which he Mr. Littman’s words are heartwarm was endowed. Indeed, it is regrettable that, ing and much appreciated. Regarding the as far as I am aware, there are no Jewish two questions: history texts overtly espousing the central 1) He writes: “Contrary to what was ity of the Jew in the course of all major suggested, countries hosting Jews human events. have not always been rewarded or Yet despite my enthusiastic accept punished in accordance with their ance o f Rabbi Schwartz’s thesis in general, I treatment of our people.” I am not was at first confronted by some disturbing aware that it was suggested other exceptions on which the article failed to wise, as I was not discussing a bi-lat elaborate. Contrary to what was suggested, eral system of reward and punish countries hosting Jews have not always been ment, but reward alone, and even rewarded or punished in accordance with then not necessarily limiting benefl-

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

TO BE PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 1, 1969 Ha-Siddur Ha-Shalem Nusach Sephard Newly Translated, Annotated, and Provided with an Introduction by PHILIP BIRNBAUM We are pleased to announce the forthcoming edition of the complete Daily Prayerbook Nusach Sephard with an entirely new, modern English translation; it is richly furnished with

footnotes containing concise, lucid, and clarifying explanations and references to biblical and talmudic sources. The major influences which have entered the Prayerbook from all branches of our classical literature are faithfully recorded in Dr. Birnbaum’s edition, sched uled to appear on November 1, 1969. The Hebrew text has been carefully vocalized, in the manner of Dr. Birnbaum’s famous Siddur Ha-Shalem Nusach Ashkenaz, and divided into sentences and clauses by the use of modern punctuation marks, so as to make intelligible the full meaning of the prayers. Dr. Birnbaum’s comprehensive Introduction is principally concerned with the development of the Siddur as the most popular Jewish classic, embracing the greatest variety of Hebrew style. A running commentary has been provided in the forthcoming edition of the Daily Prayerbook Nusach Sephard to explain many points of interest. For the convenience of worshippers and students, all recurrent prayers are systematically repeated in our forthcoming edition of Siddur Ha-Shalem Nusach Sephard. Each of the services is arranged as a completely integrated unit. All the directions here are explicit, brief, and to the point. Beautifully printed and bound, $4.50 in all bookstores. HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY 79 DELANCEY STREET NEW YORK, N.Y.

BACK COPIES of

ALBERT WOOD & FIVE SONS.* PORT WASHINGTON UP NEW YORK

JEWISH LIFE CANTATAS

will be welcomed

Mail to: Back Copy Dept. JEWISH LIFE 84 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10011

$2.50 each

HEROES AND HEROINES OF JUDAISM SABBATH DELIGHT THE 13 PRINCIPLES OF FAITH AND THOU SHALT LOVE JOHN KENNEDY, MAN OF FAITH Contains p rinted music and script for programs o f Jewish c o n te n t which are both entertaining and educational

Cantor Jacob Lefkowitz Congregation Ohav Shalom 1834 Section Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45237

cial conditions only to those coun premise as to the benefical effects of tries hosting Jews well. The seeming the Jewish presence in a country is to prosperity of Germany ^ which may be taken on an overall basis. It signi not necessarily be enduring in any fies, not that every activity o f every event® does not o f itself contradict single Jew is o f itself praisworthy, th e historical fact that countries but that in its essence and substance, which treat Jews well are likewise in its totality, the Jewish contribu treated well. tion is beneficial, even uniquely so. I find Mr. Littman’s assertion that Regarding “orthodox Jews who “Jews are.. . found in the forefront have least contact with the general popu of the moral corruption enveloping lace, . . maintaining the highest standards of society” a dangerous exaggeration. morality,” no Jew is so totally removed The unfortunate fact that individuals from his environment that there is no inter unworthy of the name of Jew are to relationship. Perhaps the less contact the be found among the vastly larger higher the standards, but contact there numbers engaged in pornographic indeed is, and this remains “beneficial to the traffic does not warrant this generali hosts,” even by our own definition. zation. But apart from this, my

SEPTEM BER-OCTOBER 1969

S C H E C H T E R & H IR S C H ’S

KOSHER l at

O mH

ENTIRE OCEANFRONT BLOCK — 37th to 31th St. MIAMI BEACH

... 9 DIAL MIAMI

is a

beach Q O O

FREE!

GREAT Kosher Hotel —you’ll it!

For Reservations Speak to SAM SCHECHTER

- 3 2 7 - 8 1 6 5

Or Call N.Y. Off: PL 7-4238 Evenings & Sunday FA 7-1742

FREE PARKING PRIVATE POOL AND SANDY BEACH

HAVi YOU MOVED? Send us your new address and your old address clipped from your J e w i s h L i f e envelope.

FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FRIENDS A PRECIOUS GIFT

two years for only $5.00 (twelve issues) JEWISH LIFE, 84 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10011 Send gift subscription, with gift card, to: Name

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

Address City, State, Zip Code . , , i . .. □ include my own subscription

□ New n Renewa|

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

A new book for young people by the Editorial Associate of JEWISH LIFE, in time for Hanukkah!

THE FIVE BROTHERS MACCABEE by Libby A/. Klaperman. A fic tionalized re-telling of. the Hanukkah , Story, dramatically portraying each of the famous brothers in an exciting, memorable book by the well -known author. Ages 9-13. $4.50.

Other new Sabra Books from Israel THE ISRAELIS: Profile of a People by Ruth Bondy. Describes the character, personality and way o f life o f Israel’s people. $5.95 THE NEW ISRAELI WRITERS, edited by Dalia Rabikovitz. Short stories of the First Generation. “Israel as it really is comes through quite clearly,” says Publishers Weekly. $5.95 ONE PEOPLE: The Story o f the Eastern Jews, by Devora and Menahem Hacohen. Profusely illustrated, story o f Jews o f North Africa, Asia and South eastern Europe of past 2,000 years. $9.95 THE DOG THAT FLEW AND OTHER FAVORITE STORIES FROM ISRAEL, edited by Uriel Ofek. Israel’s children’s favorite stories. Ages 8-12. $4.50 THE STORY OF ISRAEL IN STAMPS, by G. and M. Shamir. Story of Is rael, its major events and personalities, illustrated by numerous colorful enlarged postage stamps. All ages. $4.50 Sabra Books are available at your own bookstore, or direct from publisher. Write for a free descriptive brochure of all Sabra books.

Sabra Books . . from Israel 38 West 32nd St.

New York, N.Y. 10001

Meet the Ketchup branch of the Heinz (y) "mishpocho” sKetchup with Relish* (N EW !)-^ S * ketchup with Omoa$XWEV\A!)#4' i f Hot Ketchup^-Regular Hejn'i

Tdrhafo Ketftiup. •

Here are two new (0) soups by Heinz G reat A me r icanr3o u p^-'(b1ue

^ IStDel)—Velvety Creatn'of •> M-ushrqom and .Abundant 'V|'getarian Vegetable^ They^@ S ,SQ ’geod'you, can pretend ' •they’re homemade. Wafeh.fqr them fn your oomrnpbity.?'

The seal of approval of THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA.