Jewish Life April 1972 by Jewish Action

DOES ISRAEL FULFILL THE EXPECTATIONS OF DIASPORA JEWRY? NOTES ON THE JDL EXPERIENCE * THE PRESENCE OF GREATNESS CRIME A N D PUNISHMENT * DEMISE OF THE “JEWISH MOTHER” IN A GIRLS’ YESHIVAH * R A V ELCHONON WASSERMAN THE YESHIVAH A N D THE M ILITARY IN ISRAEL

IY A R 5732 A P R IL 1972

A N N U A L N A T IO N A L D IN N E R of the U NIO N OF O R T H O D O X JEWISH C O N G R E G A T IO N S OF A M E R IC A S U N D A Y E V EN IN G , M A Y 7,1972 - 23 IY A R , 5732 at THE NEW Y O R K H ILTO N Guest of Honor and Recipient of the UOJCA K ET H ER SH EM T O V Award M O R R IS L. G R E E N

Recipients o f the 1972 U O JC A Presidents Award: Harry Bearman

Jack Hirsch

Louis Berkowitz

John Kamlet

Melvin M. Desser

Harry S. Klavan

Moses J. Grundwerg

David Politi

Marvin Herskowitz

Maurice S. Spanbock $75. — per couvert

F o r reservations and information , ph on e o r write:

National Dinner Committee, UOJCA 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011 "2 1 2 " A L 5-4100 JOSEPH K A R A S IC K President

RA B BI B E R N A R D BER ZO N Chairm an, Rab b inic D inn er Com m ittee LA W R EN C E A. K O B R IN , Chairm an

Vol. X X X IX , No. 2/April 1972/lyar 5732

THE E D IT O R 'S V IE W FOREST HILLS, AND B E Y O N D ...........................2

A R T IC L E S Saul Bernstein, Editor Dr. Herbert Goldstein Libby Klaperman Dr. Jacob W. Landynski Rabbi Solomon J. Sharfman Editorial Associates Elkanah Schwartz Assistant Editor JEWISH LIFE is published quarterlyy. Subscription two years $5.00, three years $6.50, fo u r years $8.00. Foreign: Adjd 40 cents per year. Individual copy: -.75. Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10011 (212) A L 5-4100 Published by UNIO N OF O RTH O DO X JEWISH CO NG R E G A TIO NS OF AMERICA Joseph Karasick President

DOES ISRAEL FULFILL THE EXPECTATIONS OF DIASPORA JEWRY?/ Samson R. Weiss...............................................7 NOTES O N THE JDL EXPERIENCE/ Elkanah Schwartz...........................................12 THE PRESENCE OF GREATNESS/ Morris Halpern................................................20 CRIME A N D PUNISHMENT/ Irwin S. Borvick............................................. 24 DEMISE OF THE “JEWISH M O TH ER ”/ Judith A. Liberman.........................................34 R A V ELC H O N O N W ASSERM AN/ Aaron Rothkoff.................

THE Y E S H IV A H A N D THE M IL IT A R Y IN ISRAEL/ Shmuel Littmann........................................... 45 IN A G IR L S ’ YESH IVAH / Ruth G. Freidmann........................................ 48

PO ETRY TWO B Y M IL IA N S ...............

Harold M. Jacobs Chairman of the Board Samuel C. Feuerstein, Honor ary Chairman o f the Board; Benjamin Koenigsberg, Senior V ice President; Nathan K. Gross, Harold H. Boxer, David Politi, Dr. Bernard Lander, Lawrence A. Kobrin, Julius B erm an, V ice Presidents; Eugene Hollander, Treasurer; Morris L. Green, Honorary Treasurer; Joel Balsam, Secre tary; Daniel Greer, Financial Secretary Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President Saul Bernstein, A dm inistrator Second Class Postage paid at New York, N.Y.

BO O K R E V IE W S CO M PANIO N TO THE SIDDUR/ Leo Jung.........................................................54 POETS A N D M ADMEN/ Mordechai Schiller..........................................55 TH E ESTHETICS OF TASH M ISH EY KODESH/ Michael Kaniel...............

D EP A R T M E N T S LETTERS TO THE E D IT O R ......... .........................64

AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS .. .inside back cover Cover and Drawings by Naama Kitov O Copyright 1972 by Union of Orthodox Jewish Congre gations of America. Material from JEWISH LIFE, including illustrations, may not be reproduced except by written per mission from this magazine following written request.

the EDITOR'S VIEW

FOREST H ILLS, A N D B E Y O N D HE American Jewish public is awakening, with unease, to the wider portents of the bitter controversy over a pro jected public housing development in the Forest Hills section of New Y o rk ’s Borough of Queens. New York C ity’s administration is insistent upon thrusting on this “middle class,” predominantly Jewish community an array of massive skyscraper apartment buildings to house low-income tenants including a large propor tion of welfare clients. Forest Hills was singled out as the site after another, mostly non-Jewish, community had rejected it. Forest Hills residents, like those of the latter community, cannot fail to foresee that, by familiar precedent, the project would sooner rather than later bring with its new influx the radical worsening of the character of their community. They have good reason to fear the introduction into their peaceful locale of the process of neighborhood deterioration accompanied by an up surge of crime and violence that similar projects have brought elsewhere, culminating in the exodus of the original residents. In this instance, the community concerned is not an aging neighbor hood but one of comparatively recent vintage, strong and vigorous and with a plenitude of young families. If such a com munity as Forest Hills is overborne, then, it is now being realized, the way will be cleared for like incursions on thriving centers of Jewish life throughout the metropolitan New York area.

JEWISH LIFE

With a whole series of Jewish neighborhoods in New York already dispossessed through high-pressure population shifts, the stability and security of the entire metropolitan Dispersion New y0rk community is at stake in the Present issue. Furthermore, as some see it, with the fall of Forest Hills fresh thrust would be given to the country-wide trend of forced dispersion of estab lished Jewish communities to make way for other groups. The entire composition of American Jewry can thus be fragmentized and its position in American society undermined, according to this view. In mobilizing to block the project, Forest Hills residents are determined that their community shall not fall prey to what has transpired in so many others. Within the past generation, and at increased pace during the last ten years, thousands of Jewish families have settled in this community of pleasant private homes and well-kept low-rise apartment houses. Many of them have come there because in their previous neighborhoods there occur red precisely the same kind of change which now again (ooms. They left behind all that had been built up, at immeasurable investment of Jewish purpose, endeavor, and resources, over decades and generations. They joined in building anew what has become, within a relatively short period, a major center of Jewish life. There have taken root and developed — again with an incalcuable investment of effort, devotion, and hard-garnered funds — synagogues large and small, major yeshivoth and day schools, mikvaoth, Shomer Shabboth stores, Jewish institutional, com munal, and social activities of every kind. Shall this now in turn be sacrificed to other, supposedly overriding, considerations? Pressure

E it noted that while the majority of Forest Hills residents are Jews, other faiths and ethnic groups are also well repre sented. Within its borders are flourishing churches of several denominations and there are sizable colonies of Chinese, Japan ese, Hindus, and Pakistanis, plus contingents of blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Latin American groups. All live side by side in un disturbed harmony. Racism is no part of the mentality of Forest Hills. Nor are the residents of Forest Hills, typical as they are of American Jews at large, insensitive to the obligation devolving

A P R IL 1972

upon all Americans to contribute to a solution of a vast problem: the effective integration, on a plane of equal Whr e right, dignity, economic consideration, and Falls communal environment, of the black, Puerto Rican, and other ethnic minorities. This prob lem now falls with particular weight on New York and the country’s other major cities. Year by year, millions of blacks and the others have migrated to these cities. Many have made the transition successfully and, together with their earlier-settled brethren, form the stable bases of their communities. But a great proportion of them, uprooted from their original environments, remain socially disoriented and without place in the economy. They dwell in festering slums, where crime, violence, and drug addiction take terrible toll and where, feeling themselves without stake in surrounding society, they are at war with it and con tribute to the progressive deterioration of their own surroundings. For many, public welfare has become not a final, unhappy re course but an accepted, even sought, way of life. If anything is starkly clear on the American scene, it is the imperative need to reduce this giant problem to manageable pro portions, if not to achieve a definitive solution. Every American, every city, every locality, has the duty both moral and practical to share in the task. The 1‘scatter-site” public housing concept, whereby low-income housing is distributed over diverse non ghetto neighborhoods instead of being mass-concentrated in selfcontained areas, may well be pointing in the right direction. The essence of this concept, though, is that the scatter-site develop ments shall be units of small size and of a character otherwise to blend with the character of the neighborhood and permit its residents to be absorbed into the existing community environ ment. The Forest Hills project seems a caricature of this principle. Rather than being one of a number of simultaneous under takings in as many different localities, it stands alone; its mass, height, and size would be in violent contrast to anc* w ou^ overwhelm its surroundings; its mass populace, far from being likely to assume the Scatter-site standards of their new neighbors and being inidea tegrated into the community, would at best remain locked in their prior pattern of life and at likely worst would carry this pattern to the streets of the whole Caricature of

JEWISH LIFE

neighborhood. In short, the Forest Hills project upon which New York City’s administration is so strangely obdurate would simply move a slum from one locale to another, and would devastate yet another community in which Jewish life flourishes while making no meaningful contribution to a solution of the problem at which it is supposedly aimed. In many sections of New York and in other cities, Jews have sought in earnest good faith and good will to accommodate themselves to the arrival in their communities of black and Spanish-speaking families. Again and again the pattern has been repeated: a friendly welcome to the newcomers and a determina tion to live side by side with them in neighborly amity. Am ong the initial arrivals, usually well established, stable families seek ing a better home and community environment, the spirit is fully reciprocated and all seems promising. But then follows an incur sion of newcomers of different type - and presently the neighborhood becomes unsafe. The Jewish families, strongly attached to their homes and local religious and educational insti tutions, hang on — until they can hang on no longer. And another fine Jewish community goes down the drain, to be replaced by another seething slum If Jewish community life is to endure in this country, this chain process of community devastation must be halted. And the outcome of the Forest Hills battle may well determine whether it will be halted.» HE Forest Hills issue thus brings to the fore a complex of hard questions. Will the world’s largest metropolitan Jewish community be forced to succumb to a process of repeated dislodgment? If so, what will be the ultimate effect on Jewish life not only in the New York area but throughout the country and indeed throughout the world? Is American Jewry to be con sidered expendible as an “easy mark” for the ostensible accom modation of social pressures and population shifts? And also: Is American Jewry morally or practically pro scribed from, or inherently incapable of, organized political action in its own direct behalf? From the inter-relation of these questions, it becomes clear enough what consequences can flow, in light of contemporary realities, from inaction or inadequate action. Forest Hills is a

A P R IL 1972

critical turning point in the story of American Jewry. For Americans at large, the Forest Hills controversy is of major dimension too. The questions posed above are entangled with others, such as: What means must be taken Questions to enable the multitude of black and SpanishsPea^‘n§ migrants to achieve a better life as Americans among Americans? Shall all elements of the country’s populace, and all localities, be equally required to share in meeting this need, or only those who are least able to “pass the buck?” Also, pending definitive solu tion of this problem, what must be done to preserve the character and secure the safety of America’s cities? What must be done to remedy the crime-breeding conditions to which are subject those uprooted from their original environments and without roots or place in their new environments? All of these questions are embraced in the Forest Hills issue. However the latter may be resolved, the related questions will remain, but the way in which it is resolved will have farteaching effect on approaches to these wider questions. National Dimension

—S.B.

JEWISH LIFE

by SA M SO N R. W EISS U R topic is a crlicial one, for it concerns the relationship be tween Israel Jewry and the Jewry of the Golah. That this relationship must be a strong one, a warm one, one of identification, is beyond dispute. How ever, identification cannot be a one sided affair. A s Israel rightly expects Golah Jewry to identify itself with Israel, so we in the Golah expect the self-same reciprocity of identification from Israel and her Jews. In which ways can this identi fication of Israel with the Diaspora express itself? Not in monetary or economic assistance but in the area of the spirit, by moral assistance and by living up to the Golah's ideological hopes for and expectations of Israel. The very partnership of Israel

and the Golah is based on the fulfill ment of our mutual expectations of each other. A s Jews, as sons and daughters of one people, we have the right to expect from each other not only the sharing of budgets, but also the sharing of visions. Should the hour ever come — I do not think it ever will — that our visions grow apart, the bond uniting Israel and Diaspora Jewries will be dangerously weakened. It is the vision we share and commonly hold which is the link between Jews everywhere. It is not only our common past and sufferings, but rather our abiding hope and view of the Jewish future and of the world's future which join Jew and Jew. We, the Torah Jews, have a clear notion of the Jewish purpose or, as you may

♦Based upon an address at the Second World Conference of National Synagogue Organi zations and Kehilloth, Jerusalem, Teveth 5732/January 1972.

A P R IL 1972

wish to call it, the Jewish destiny among the nations and for the nations. This notion flows from that core moment in Jewish history when we were chosen to become the people of the Torah and were told by the A l mighty that as carriers of the Torah we shall be a Mamlecheth Kohanim V 'G o y Kodosh, a kingdom of nobles, of spiritual aristocrats, and a holy nation, a nation different from all others in that we infuse this material, coarse, profane world with spirit, with Divine purpose, with sanctity. Vested in us is the potential to make all matter translucent by the direction we give it, by the use to which we put it, by the good we do with it. O W H E R E can our Goy Kodosh quality come to fuller fruition than in Eretz Israel, the land predes tined for our physical and spiritual existence, the land of our promise. By that term, we mean also the land in which everyone of us can rise to fulfill the promise of his own existence, to fill the matrix of his Divine potential, to walk this world truly as Tzelem Elokim, making Ha-Shem undeniable before the eyes of all, simply by being what we are. This may be the true meaning of “Elokey Yisroel,” that knowledge and concept of G-d which we, the Jewish people, bring to the nations of the world, each generation in its way, by being Jews, in spite of all. In our Holy Land, many of the obstacles of Golah life have disap

peared. We need not assimilate, we need not conform. We are masters of our own destiny, certainly in the spiri tual sense. Look what has happened here in the less than twenty-five years since the establishment of the State. What other Jewries have not accom plished in centuries, has taken roots here in two decades, not miraculously but quite naturally, for this is Eretz Israel, our land, the land of our return to our sublime source. There is in this country more Torah than in any other country, regardless of numbers. There is in this country more Taharah, more Kedushah, and more true Tzidkuth, more purity, sanctity, and personal saintliness, than in any other country. There is in this country more Jewish pride, Jewish heroism, Jewish courage, and also Jewish modesty than in any other country. And by modesty I mean the unassuming self-effacing per formance, the achievement towards perfection without looking for approv al or applause, finding all reward in the privilege of service to one's people and one's G-d. In this sense, Israel has begun to fulfill the expectations of the Golah where even the most secular Jew, in helping Israel, in sacrificing for Israel, in laboring for Israel, finds himself mystically united with his people. Let there be no mistake about it: for the Golah Jew, whether admittedly or otherwise, whether he articulates it or not, giving for Israel is a profound reli gious experience. And when Golah Jews come here it is the Kothel to

JEWISH LIFE

w hich they all stream, even the scoffers. And there, they are con fronted; there, they find the point of juncture and are touched at the inner most precincts of their souls hereto fo re u n to u ch e d b y an y oth er experience. E would be less than frank, how ever, if we were not to lift our voices in clear-cut, unequivocal rejec tion of some of the things superim posed upon Israeli society which jar our vision and our expectation, a vision and expectation without which we simply refuse to live and which we will not bargain away for any ephe meral profit or accommodation. For instance: there are now hundreds of industrial establishments w h ich have received for so-called e co n o m ic reasons and upon the authority of the Ministry of Labor alone, the permit to work on Shab both. Thus for tens of thousands of workers in Israel there is no Shabboth. But this is not all, for what of those who will not yield Sabbath observ ance? With so large a segment of Israel industry authorized by the Ministry of Labor to contravene the State's own Sabbath laws, the Sabbath-observing Jew is perforce disadvantaged and dis criminated against. He cannot find a job in these industries no matter how high his qualifications. His skill and knowledge are lost to this country, when this country clamors for the Aliyah of trained specialists! How tragic to read in the papers

A P R IL 1972

that even a simple porter was dis missed in Lod airport because he re fused to work on the Shabboth Kodesh. Read the excellent booklet of Jona Cohen published by Mafdal, the National Religious Party, which gives rather exact figures on this bitter paradox, or read the digest of this problem in the proceedings of the In stitute for Science and Halachah and its evaluation of the situation. Both are written, in the way of statistics, in a cold and detached manner and their impact upon the Jewish conscience is therefore even more shattering. In Israel, in an Israel of our own, in the sovereign State of Israel, a Jew shall be blocked from employment because he believes in the Torah and wishes to observe its precepts? He cannot make his maximal contribution to this country nor even earn a living because he clings to our faith and our tradi tions which alone have kept us a people, a people alive, through the millenia of our dispersion? And now that we have come home, he should abandon this faith and this tradition? In the United States, we have reached the point where a Jew can sue in the secular courts any employer who re fuses him a job because of his religious observances. But to whom can the observant Jew turn here? R take the recent, shocking in cident of the Georgian Jews. The entire press apparatus and all the flaks of the government cannot do away w ith one simple fact: the policy

decision to mix the immigrants with the rest of the populace and thus to promote their integration was deemed by the Minister of Absorption, by his own admission, sufficient reason to override the religious conviction and conscience of the affected immigrants. What a heart-break! They come from the Soviet Gehinom and now some of them want to return to that Gehinom, for even there, in the very face of totalitarian oppression, they kept their Shabboth, they could pray as they wanted, there their children were not fed forbidden and unclean food which we call T ’reyfah... and here? Or take the problem of personal status, with the unpleasant undertone of coercion exercised upon the Rab binate which is being told what deci sion is expected of them, a tragic novum in Jewish history. Foreign rulers attempted it and did not suc ceed, neither Napoleon with his San hedrin nor Nicolai and Alexander with their Commissions of Jewish Notables. But here, in our Holy Land, the sanc tity of our peoplehood and families is to be broken by ukase from above. Conversion is not a matter of a piece of paper, of a document applied for and then gotten through the admini strative process, even if a rabbi’s signa ture were affixed to it. For a Gentile to become a Jew is a creative transfor mation and a matter of deepest inner resolution, possible only in the manner and by the procedure the Creator Him self has decreed and declared effective. This is what we mean with the phrase

“Al Pi Halochah” — in keeping with Jewish Law. F the present unity between Dath and Medinah, between the Torah faith and the State of Israel, can be maintained only at the price and expense of Halochah; if the only tender current in the marketplace of this admittedly very difficult interplay are pieces of our Shulchon Oruch, then the most essential of all human freedoms are threatened, the freedoms of conscience and religion. One can hardly wonder that some feel that the time has come to rethink the entire issue and to decide whether Torah would not fare better cut loose from this strained union which in recent years has been so full of strife. With all due respect to the religious parties, they should now ponder whether it would not be better that they take the initiative in this direction, endeavoring to secure an untramelled autonomous, truly free Rabbinate protected, in the realm of Halochah, against interference by any state authority, judicial or otherwise, rather than have the secularists in Israel under the battlecry of “religious coercion” continue to inflict irrep arable damage upon the Rabbinate and the Halachic norm. Obviously, their aspiration is to sever the tie between Dath and Medinah, for no compromise will ever satisfy them. Have we not learned that the first compromise inex orably begets the second and the third and that no one can foretell the limits

JEWISH LIF E

of the ever-mounting demands? T hese issues as well as the grie vou s problem of unauthorized autopsies — and there can be no doubt that h u n d re d s o f unauthorized autopsies occur, as authoritatively and objectively reported by the Mevaker Ha-Medinah, the Comptroller of the State — are polarizing our people. So is the problem of official Sabbath ob servance.

Israel bereft of sanctity and just an other Levantine country, with venality and corruption in highest circles, with a crime pattern and crime rate threat ening to approach that of other Balkan countries? That is neither convincing nor attractive to them! A s Israel makes the desert bloom, by the heroic self-sacrifice of her sons and daughters and by the ingenuity of the Jewish mind and Let it be stated clearly for the heart, so Diaspora Jewry wishes to see record that we condemn in the strong the Jewish spiritual wasteland re est terms those who resort to violence conquered, rebuilt, and rejuvenated. and villifications in their fight against They came, so many of them, from abuses. To fight for the Torah by the lands of oppression where to re means not permitted by Torah, pro main a Jew, by whatever remnant or last vestige of Jewishness, and be it in scribed by Torah, and considered sinful by Torah, will not help Torah name only, was in itself heroism be one iota. On the contrary, it makes the yond description. Now they have re struggle for Torah by the decent, by turned. Now, they are home. Now, the constructive, by those animated by they can set out on replenishing their love for their people, much more diffi lives and souls with Jewishness, not in cult and sometimes well-nigh impos opposition to anyone, no longer in sible. We do not identify with, rather hiding, no longer in danger, no longer we reject, the stone throwers and the under persecution. “Acheynu Kol Beth Yisroel,,, writers of threatening letters, for they the entire House of Israel — we are debase our Torah and our sanctities. brothers, we share a Divinely set pur T IL L , the issues I raised mar the pose, for which state and nationhood image of Israel in the eyes of are but the vessel, but the vehicle. world Jewry and, may I add, in the True, sacred vessel, sacred vehicle, but eyes of the entire world whose politi demanding the even more sacred con tent. It ¡s this content which we to cal sympathies for Israel depend, I am gether, the Jewry of Israel and the sure, to a great degree on the Biblical Jewry of the Diaspora, must forever notions of the Return, at least in the western world. They know the Bible. safeguard and recreate and transmit to The idea of the People of the Bible in ou r coming generations, until our light, the Jewish light, will have illu the Land of the Bible is immensely mined the darkness of the entire logical to them, in spite of oil and Arab numerical superiority. But an world.

A P R IL 1972

N o tes o n h e JD L E

by EL KAN AH SCH W A RTZ F O R America’s Torah commuI nity, the Jewish Defense League experience thrust a new challenge and raised perhaps more questions than have even now been answered. This challenge was posed on three fronts: reaction to JD L itself; response to the reaction of the general Jewish community; and reaction to elements within the Torah community that offered positive response to JDL. Though JD L never identified itself nor was identified by others as a religiously orthodox organization, the constant propelling to the fore of its founder and chairman as an ortho dox rabbi, plus its continued mass projection into public view of the yarmulke not only on the head of its chairman but as well on the heads of

many of the rank - and - file, suc ceeded in lending an orthodox image to the group. T h a t orth od ox Jews should have been among the first with the most in JD L reflects two root causes: firstly, the religious discipline of the T o ra h ‘ Jew makes him geared to soon e r respond to a Jewish call (many have remarked, for example, upon the preponderance of the ortho dox presence in activities for Soviet Jewry); secondly, sociological reality makes the orthodox sector of the Jewish community more sensitive to what was J D L ’s initial public cry in response to the “urban crisis” : ortho dox Jews need more communal insti tutions and services, and being com mitted to do no travelling on the

JEWISH LIFE

Sabbath must live in greater numbers and in closer proximity to these insti tutions and services, so that they are the Jews closest to other minority groups and the last Jews remaining in an area undergoing change of ethnic composition.

aid to education while others oppose it, or opposing interreligious dialogue when others endorse it. In the state ment condemning JDL, U O JCA ab stained, while neither then, nor since, taking any position in favor. Later, after JD L involved itself in activities on behalf of Soviet Jewry, a public statement of condemnatory tone identifying JD L by name was issued by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Halachic sage whose moral influence on the orthodox Jewish community is great. Issued in Hebrew, the statement reads in translation:

r RO M the first, the essential reI sp on se o f A m e rica's Torah c o m m u n ity to JD L was one of measured silence. Evolving circum stances brought discriminate posi tion-taking. For example, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America was called upon to join in a Hereby, I wish to state my opinion based on the laws of the Torah, that p ublic statement by the National the actions of the Jewish Defense Jewish Community Relations Advisory League directed against governments Council condemning “extremism and and states are contrary to the Torah. vigilantism by any group." This it did. This is perhaps the only state But when a few months later the same ment from a major orthodox source U O JCA was called upon by the same N JCRAC , none of whose other mem that criticizes JD L by name. Two ber national agencies reflects a con aspects of it are particularly signifi stituency by definition orthodox, to cant: Following the Talmudic example join in a statement condemning the of Beruriah who explained to her Jew ish Defense League by name, husband Rabbi Meir that the Psalmist U O JCA abstained. A s a result, the pleads for the abolition of sins but not statement was issued in the names of of sinners (Berochoth 10a), the state ment condemns JD L actions, not JD L the other eight N J C R A C agencies, but, because of the U O JCA abstention, not as such; and even the condemnation of actions is qualified, applying only to in the collective name of N JCRAC. This abstention is of double sig those “ ag ain st governments and nificance: first, U O JCA normally joins states." Shortly thereafter U O JCA met N J C R A C position declarations, except in national convention. A resolution on such issues as government aid to religion-related schools, or interreli condemning Jewish extremism was gious dialogue; second, in such instan passed unanimously, but no names ces where it does not join, it advocates were spelled out. Some time later, the New York the reverse position, such as endorsing A P R IL 1972

Board of Rabbis called a press confer ence to condemn JD L for vandalism which it had perpetrated the day be fore at the Boards headquarters. Various orthodox organizations were invited to participate but all declined, a lth o u gh , o f course, all strongly opposed the vandalism. E A C T IO N to the Jewish Defense League during its embryonic stages reflected involvement by some individual orthodox Jews but almost no reaction of any kind by established leaders or organizations within the orthodox community. The measured silence was broken only in isolated instances such as the aforementioned statement by Rabbi Feinstein. And all this during a period of repeated con demnations by established organiza tio n s w ith in the general Jewish community of JD L by name. And if the public position of the orthodox community differed from that of the general Jewish community, so did its private position. During the first years of J D L ’s existence, its name appeared often and prominently on the agendas of Jewish communal agencies. Before long, delib erations assumed a predictable monot ony: “For this reason and that, JD L is a problem, and something must be done.” But what? For all the reams of newsprint and confidential reports, and countless executive and clerical hours, there was not even one sugges tion for even a basis of beginning dis cussion.

A t d e lib e ra tio n s o f “ roof agencies” representatives of the ortho dox community repeatedly offered the suggestion: invite Rabbi Meir Kahane to a meeting, not for the purpose of giving him a platform, nor for the purpose of pleading with him, but, aside from the moral obligation of let ting an accused respond, to confront him and question him to identify the need JD L appears to be meeting as preparation for effective counteract ing. Such open discussion is not to be feared by one informed and secure in his beliefs. Nevertheless, this sugges tion was repeatedly rejected. T h is su gge stio n was then brought before the Communal Rela tions Commission of UOJCA. Feelings even there were mixed about doing anything officially, until a compromise was reached: a sub-committee should arrange an off-the-record meeting. Two weeks later the sub-committee spent two hours with Rabbi Kahane in a relaxed, discussive atmosphere: no notes, no rhetoric, no accusations. Fie said it was the first time he was given an opportunity to meet in any manner with a Jewish communal agency - and six months later, he reported that this meeting remained the only time that anyone from the Jewish community gave him a chance to have his say. H A T was learned in that discus sion was: that JD L was quite unexpectedly drawing its strongest support, both in membership and money, from the rank-and-file of the

JEWISH L IF E

very same organizations condemning it York JCRC was accepted. But the publicly, and that every time another Queens AJ Congress never rejoined condemnatory statement was issued, QJCC. more members and money for JD L came from the ranks of the issuing H A T JD L apparently succeeded organization; that some of these con in doing was call the bluff of demning Jewish organizations, who much of the “establishment” by ex publicly pride themselves on their posing the wide and deep gap between extreme liberalism in defending non- “ le a d e rsh ip ” and m em bership. Jewish causes, circulated confidential Designed to attract the unaffiliated, memoranda to their chapters forbid JD L succeeded in attracting the alien ding them to invite JD L speakers, re ated and disaffected. Small wonder sulting in more invitations for JD L that there was solid resistance to giving speakers; and that applications by JD L JD L an airing, in spite of righteous fo r memberships in various inter- claims for a desire to seek a solution. organizational Jewish councils were Instead, this very resistance was the not even responded to. fuel upon which JD L fed and strength Shortly thereafter, the world ened through the increasing public was treated to a spectacle of Jewish attention. Rather than recognize and “liberalism.” The Queens chapter of take steps to fill the vacuum from the Jewish Defense League applied for which J D L arose and thrived, costly membership in the Queens Jewish efforts were misdirected at eradicating Community Council; at the same time the effect rather than the cause - and the QJCC applied for membership in failed. the Jew ish Community Relations B r u s s e l s was the perfect Council of New York. When QJCC exam ple. T h e official line was: accepted the JD L application, the “Naughty Kahane, coming to break up local chapter of the American Jewish a meeting.” Rank-and-file reaction Congress withdrew from this Queens was: “Had they given him ten minutes Council in protest. A t the same time, out of the four days, he would have this same organization’s Metropolitan been forgotten.” Support and sym New York Council, together with pathy for JD L picked up around the other members of the New York world - and JD L itself could not have JCRC, brought about the rejection of planned it better or hoped for more. the Queens Council’s application to Now the community witnessed a the New York JCRC. As tempers development which proved disgusting flared all around, Queens JD L volun to many: some Jewish organizations, tarily withdrew from QJCC “out of dedicated to defending the Jewish respect to the president.” Immediate community against attacks from with ly, Q JC C ’s application to the New out, and for which purpose they raise

A P R IL 1972

huge sums and hire expensive help to nor the general Jewish community on keep track of antisémites and other the other hand. W hy? enemies of peace and freedom, spent huge sums of money and thousands of M R S T of all, Torah think costly man-hours to keep track of ing does not encourage condem J D L , co m p ile and publish huge nation of Jews, and only in selected dossiers of data partly inaccurate, mostly irrelevant and generally in circumstances is condemnation of authentic, all in the name of protect g iv e n acts o f id e n tifie d Jews ing and defending the Jewish commu warranted. There is a consideration of nity! (“Investigators” worked from a takonath ha-shovim, of leaving room distance, refusing to come up close, for Jews to return, and condemnation may turn the condemned one against talk with people, ask direct questions. the condemning one forever, even if It was akin to a doctor diagnosing a there later be a change of heart. Then, patient on what he sees through a the Torah community is not now liv window, while refusing to apply a ing in a Torah society. The Talmud stethescope or take a pulse.) Few and the Shulchon Oruch are replete observers are of the impression that with directives of how a Torah society JD L at its best (or worst, depending should function, including the power on one’s view) ever took up cudgels of excommunication, but these apply against the Jewish community or con o n ly when enforceable by Jewish sciously worked against Jewish inter ests. Against given agencies of the courts. A s such, the orthodox com Jewish community, charging lack of munity usually limits its public state ments to issues deemed sensitive to the service to the community it claims to functioning of the Torah community serve, yes. But against the community in its limited scope. itself, never. There is also the dictum of “Be The American Jewish establish patient in the administration of ment itself prompted the rise of JDL, first by neglect - permitting the justice” (Ovoth 1,1). The challenge community gap in which the seeds of posed by the Jewish Defense League was constantly changing, with every JDLism were sowed; and then by treating the wrong ailment with the development turning supporters into wrong medicine -- the repeated con critics and vice versa. And since for dem nations gave JD L its greatest most the choice was whether or not to join or support JDL, the policy strength. T h ro u g h all this, America’s applied was shev v'al ta’aseh odif (it is T o ra h com m u nity maintained its better to sit and not do). Then, it was difficult to put measured silence, neither supporting nor condemning JD L on the one hand one’s finger on JD L specifics. Its pub-

JEWISH LIFE

lished statements of purpose reflected those of many another Jewish organi zation. Where JD L differed was in policy application, or programmatics. T h is to o kept on changing. For example, Torah’s thinking finds room for violence, but determination of where, when, and how is left to Torah authorities. That JD L did not consult such authorities is reason for not supporting it. However, it is not reason for condemning it, just as other organi zations which do not consult Torah authorities do not become condemned for it. Essentially, JD L did not gear itself to function as part of the Torah community. It became another one in a category of organizations that appeal to the broader Jewish community but within which orthodox Jews do not feel uncomfortable. JD L did not seek the support of the Torah community, nor did it address itself to any pur poses uniquely orthodox. But most of all, no one really asked. Those orthodox Jews who chose to join or support JD L did so of their own volition. To the extent the organized Torah community respected the published goals of JDL, it did not condemn, and to the extent it felt the JD L may not have violated the letter of Jewish law but did violate the spirit of Jewish law, it did not support. E x tremism, in action or reaction, was never part of the Torah complexion, especially when relating to other Jews. A s to criticising or defending the general Jewish community for its A P R IL 1972

condemnations of JDL, the Torah community never felt impelled to step into the fray, neither to defend JD L nor support the condemnation. O M E o rt h o d o x Jews were rubbed the wrong way by some JD L actions. For example, a JD L spokesman used Moshe Rabbeynu as a basis for violent retribution: “He saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of h is b re th re n. . . he sm ote the Egyptian” (Shemoth 2: 11-12). How ever, th is spokesman overlooked Rashi’s comment that Moshe saw no one in the Egyptian’s future becoming a proselyte, implying that if not for this, Moshe would not have smitten. And who in JD L or anywhere can see and judge the future of any man to say nothing good will ever come from

him? JD L denied responsibility for e x p lo s io n s in Soviet offices and automobiles while applauding whoever did it. The Biblical laws surrounding eg/ah arufah (beheaded calf) compel the elders of the city nearest a violent crime to not only declare their inno cence but to also state: “Forgive, O Lord, T hy people Israel... suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of T h y people Israel.” (Devorim 21:8) JD L defense of Soviet Jewry led to defiance of American laws, en tanglements with American peace offi cers, and appearances as defendants in American courts. The Soviet Embassy, UN Mission, and other installations are in America as guests of the American 17

governm ent, and Rabbi Chaninah Segan Ha-Kohanim said: “Pray for the welfare of the government” (Ovoth 3,2), not disrespect it. And when JD L publicly joined forces with the Italian-American Civil Rights League, many were reminded of the policy of Avrohom Ovinu, in his reply to the king of Sodom: “I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor anything that is yours, lest you should say: I have made Abram rich.” (Bereshith 14,23) A truly G-d-fearing Jew cannot so boldly proclaim “Never Again,” as if solely responsible for his status of co-existence with non-Jews: “A t the com m a n d m e n t o f the Lord the Children of Israel journeyed, and at the commandment of the Lord they encamped” (Bemidbor 9:18) — it is the Almighty Who determines the fortunes of His children. Nor can a G-d fearing Jew panic over Jewish survival, for the Almighty said to Abraham: “And I will establish M y covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a G-d unto you and to your seed after you.” (Bereshith 17,7) Even at the beginning, many believed JD L a passing phenomenon, a contem porary “Korach v1adotho.” O v e r s im p lif y in g the co m m u n a l picture, painting issues in black and white instead of the necessary gray, exploiting vulnerabilities, it would have to learn that the organizations it criticised were more active and un

equivocal when created, and only time would tell what JD L would look like years ahead. A cult of a personality passes on with the personality. M E T , in the long run, JD L made I its mark. It gave new status to the Jew on defense, and many a com munal institution now offers karate along with traditional programs. There has been an unadmitted change in the orientation of many an “establish ment” Jewish organization — from concern for the non-Jew to more emphasized concern for the Jew. This is not so much because of JD L influ ence on leadership as, rather, JD L influence on membership, who in turn influenced, if not changed, leadership. Even “superliberal” Jewish agencies are redefining Jewish issues in terms that are more Jewish. Sad, however is it that the “kochoth,” the forces, that JD L was able to generate, and the communal interest it succeeded to motivate, were aim ed at goals supported by Torah th in k in g , b u t were not channelled through Torah direction. JD L succeed ed not so much at correcting faults as at getting more people to recognize them and interested in correcting them. And for this, strange as it may appear, the community owes a debt of gratitude to Rabbi Meir Kahane and his following. He simply pursued the current mode of confrontation, intro ducing this tactic in Jewish affairs in an area where inertia withstood con sensus. Many before him identified the JEWISH LIF E

vulnerability of communal machinery developed in another time and another pace as too antiquated to keep up ‘with the quickened tempo of con te m p o ra ry developments. But till those at the helm would convince themselves of new patterns, and in turn tune in their constituents, a whole new agenda was pressing. A s founder and leader of the Jewish Defense League, Rabbi Kahane did the community the favor of expos ing its weaknesses before either the weaknesses grew worse or before someone worse could do the exposing. True, Kahane is guilty of being a radical. But he is a rational radical. We may be thankful at least that it was he who plunged into the vaccuum rather than an irrational radical who would

A P R IL 1972

have done worse.

E has flung the gauntlet with undeniable force. JD L has ob viously met certain unfilled commu nity needs in a manner that is some times irresponsible at best. It is for those who by default created this leadership vacuum to close the gap by addressing themselves more meaning fully and intensively to these same community needs in a manner more responsible than the J D L ’s and more responsive to grass roots interests. Should that occur, J D L will have neither need nor source for existence, and condemnations of all sorts will no longer be necessary.

While this article was being readied for publication, there came the sh ocking new s o f the untim ely death o f Rab b i M orris Halpern n " 3? ; at the age o f 42. T o J e w ish families throughout the greater M ontreal com m unity and to h is m any friends and adm irers elsewhere, as well as to his ow n congregants o f Congregation Beth Ora in suburban St. Laurent, the vibrant personality and creative m ind o f R ab b i M orris Ha/pern was a source o f inspiration. Readers o f this, h is second and final contribution to our pages, will share with m any a sense o f great loss.

by M O R R IS H A LPE R N i i T H E history of the world,” said I Thomas Carlyle, “is but the biography of great men.” With the advent of modern and instant commu nication media we have been ushered into the age of “instant greatness.” Television and the necromantic art of public relations have succeeded to the extent that the image of greatness can be portrayed instantly and simul taneously into millions of homes and minds. The much-abused and bandiedaboutterm “charisma” can actually be generated by the manipulation o f the right kind of opinion-makers. There is another kind of great ness, however, not the “born great” nor those who “have greatness thrust u p on th e m ,” from Shakespeare’s famous line, but those who “achieve

greatness.” On Sunday evening, May 5, 1968, more than a thousand people gathered at the Beth Ora Congregation in St. Laurent, Quebec, a suburb of Montreal, to be in the presence of just such a great p erson, Professor Abraham Kotsuji, of Tokyo, Japan. Why should a thousand people, mostly Jews born in Canada or in East ern Europe, gather in a Jewish syna gogue to listen to an aging Oriental p ro fe sso r w hose English is still touched by the particular lilts and twangs of his Japanese origin? Was this merely some gathering of the curious to gaze upon some new species of man? Who is Abraham Kotsuji and wherein lies his greatness? I first learned about this strange man about a dozen years ago when I

JEWISH LIFE

read a Yiddish volume published in Montreal by Rabbi Pinchas Hirschprung, the Dean of Montreal’s Beth Din. This book, entitled “ From the Nazi Vale of Tears,” tells the story of the Rabbi’s flight, together with many others, from Nazi-occupied Poland across Asia to Japan and from there to Canada. The section describing the stay of the numerous Jewish refugees in Japan is of particular interest. IA P A N , it will be recalled, was Uallied to Hitler and in Japan there dwelt a large and powerful German colony who sought to gener ate much influence upon Japanese thinking. Despite all this, the refugees were courteously treated by the Japanese officials and much was done within the official Japanese govern ment circles to ease the plight of these refugees whose status was not more than that of persons in transit. An unheard-of concession was granted to the refugees — the Japanese govern ment, Hitler’s allies, approved the establishment of two yeshivoth, two Jewish Torah schools, for the Jewish children! How did all of these strange and wonderful things come about? Accord ing to those who were there at that time, it was all due to the seemingly endless efforts and boundless dedica tion of one man, Professor Abraham S e tsu z o Kotsuji. Kotsuji was the descendant of a centuries-long line of Shinto priests who left his ancestral faith during his adolescence to begin a A P R IL 1972

life-long religious quest. His ensuing years as a scholar fulfilled the ancient Rabbinic pre diction of the scholar’s life (Ovoth 6:4): “A morsel of bread and salt shalt thou eat and water by measure shalt thou drink.” The hardships of a p e n u rio u s academ ic career were crowned with the Ph.D. degree at the P acific S c h o o l o f R e lig io n , in Berkeley, California in 1931, with Kotsuji’s successful defense of his thesis on “The Origin and Evolution of the Semitic Alphabets.” Dr. Kotsuji returned to Japan serving as a Presbyterian minister and as a university instructor. In 1936 he w rote a monumental book called “Dikduk Ivrith,” a Japanese-language lexicon of Hebrew grammar, in order to enable Japanese students to study the Torah in its original Hebrew. In the meanwhile his spiritual searchings moved him further onward, toward his ultimate goal. I/ O T S U J I’S particular talents and IV specialty of interest brought him to the attention of Japanese govern ment figures, who appointed him to advise them on the matter of the thousands of Jews who were fleeing Europe across Asia and were now se ttlin g, at least temporarily, in Manchuria and Japan. Kotsuji rose to the occasion with the inspiration of one who had studied the Scriptures of Israel for decades and could now be hold the descendants of the Abraham he admired so much in the Bible. With

h is knowledge of Hebrew, instant communication was established. From then on his days and nights were con stantly beset with Jewish problems of m ajor and minor significance. He sought to have Japan reject the anth semitism which the Nazi agents in the German community were fermenting. His own profoundly spiritual person ality thrust him into the world of the great and righteous among the world’s peoples. His was not simply the “leap of faith” but rather a translation of his faith into a “leap of action” ^ saving a life here, setting up a yeshivah there, extending the duration of a short-term transit visa for many, and so on through deeds innumerable. An anecdotal discussion is re corded by Rabbi Hirschprung in his book. In those days Dr. Kotsuji wrote the first name he had now assumed as “Abram ” rather than “Abraham.” One of the rabbis noted this and asked their Japanese savior why he chose this particular spelling. Kotsuji responded by saying, “ Rabbi, you know that the Abraham in the Torah also called himself ‘Abram ’ as long as he was a gentile and only upon his circumcision did he assume the full spelling of the name ‘Abraham’.” The rabbi continued by asking Kotsuji w hy he did not do exactly that and assume the faith of Israel. The professor answered, “I can help the Jewish people far more at the present time as a gentile than as a Jew.” Ulti mately, if predictably, his one-man crusade ran afoul of the Nazi-influ 22

enced government officials and Kotsuji found his own life and the safety of his family greatly endangered. After undergoing a merciless grilling at the hands of the Japanese secret police, the Kenpei-Tai, Kotsuji learned that his name was on the list of those scheduled fo r assassination. He escaped With his family to Manchuria. This was soon after captured by the Russians and he managed to survive the occupation with the help of some Jews whose lives he had saved earlier. His return to Japan after the war deprived him of his last means. None theless his spiritual quest continued until, in 1960, in the Shaare Zedek H o sp ita l in Jerusalem, Abraham K o tsu ji was in itiate d into the Covenant of Abraham in the presence of the religious, academic, and govern mental leaders of Israel. Abraham, bearing this name with its full spelling, now was welcomed as a Ger Tzedek, a righteous convert, a brother in the Covenant of Abraham. This noble human being, a man of the highest moral conviction for G-d and man, had traversed a religious quest which stretched out across the sixty years of his life to that point and across the globe from Tokyo, in the land of the rising sun, to Jerusalem, the city of peace. A B B I H IR S C H P R U N G had con cluded his book in 1944 with the disclosure that upon his arrival in Montreal he had heard that Kotsuji had been assassinated in Japan. The

JEWISH L IF E

The irony of the entire matter is same Rabbi Hirschprung in 1968 ex pressed the personal privilege of that a man who forsook material correcting his words of a quarter- comfort to fulfill a moral commitment century earlier by introducing Dr. to Jewish refugees is now all but for Kotsuji. The tribute of honor moved gotten by the community he saved and the audience so much that one later joined. Abraham Kotsuji lives a thousand people, thrilled at enriching life of meager subsistence in New their own lives by being in the pre York. His ailing wife and daughters sence of greatness, rose as one to give a still live in Japan. His primary source standing ovation to Abraham Kotsuji of livelihood is from the occasional and thereby offered their expression lecturing which he gives sponsored by of gratitude to this unique person and the Y e sh iv a U n iv e rsity Lecture to Almighty G-d that long life had Bureau. How sad that a man who been granted to Dr. Kotsuji. achieved the rank of Chossid Umoth H orace M an n , the famous Ha-Olom (“pious one from among the American educator, once said: “ If any nations of the world”) as well as that man seek for greatness, let him forget of Ger Tzedek shall have been so soon greatness and ask for truth, and he will forgotten. His book “ From Tokyo to find both.” Little Sutsujo Kotsuji Jerusalem,” as well as his message in asked all his life for truth and, as a person, deserve a very wide audience result, achieved both greatness and in our contemporary Jewish society. truth.

A P R IL 1972

by IR W IN S . B O R V IC K T T IC A and Rahway have alerted Americans to the problems of the country's prisons. The uprisings have made us aware of the terrible conditions within our penal institu tions. They have also made us con scious of the seemingly unsound penal philosophy which has contributed to a very high rate of recidivism. We have come face to face with the reality that m ost prisons do not rehabilitate. Prisoners return to society to commit the same crimes again and again. A serious attempt is being made by some concerned individuals to find a solution to this vexing problem which is plaguing our society. The Jewish experience and Torah Law offer them an avenue of approach fu n d a m e n ta lly different from all

others that are currently espoused. The Jewish viewpoint on penology is predicated upon a society whose members believe in the justice and morality of their legal system. They have committed themselves to a body of laws, Divinely ordained, outstand ing in compassion for the underprivi leged, and yet with every care for the security of society. This legal system is unlike all other, man-made, law which is apt to be too easily slanted in favor of the highly placed, the rich, or the otherwise powerful and influential. In America today some minori ties feel that the legal system of the land is unjust. Thus James Baldwin charges in a published article, “ It is my painful duty to inform you that scarcely one black man in ten believes

JEWISH LIFE

that black people are tried fairly in this country, and I do not think that you will be able to prove the contrary.” This mistrust has resulted in a b re a k d o w n o f respect fo r our country’s system of justice. There has developed a notable tendency for certain of those incarcerated in our penal institutions to portray them selves as “political prisoners” rather than criminals. According to them, it is society which is criminal and in need of rehabilitation. Torah Law is based on the premise that in a just society only the individual can be criminal. Thus we have a tradition of rebuke throughout the Torah and the Prophets to chastise dishonest and unethical individuals. In the Torah, an admonition to deter other individuals frequently accom panies the punishment of a crime. It is important to underscore, however, that in Torah law imprison ment was rarely used as a punishment and never used for rehabilitation. N the Torah we find two iso lated cases of imprisonment for the purpose of detention. The first, in Vayikra (Leviticus) 24:10-12, deals with the son of an Israelite woman who blasphemed the name of G-d. The Israelites did not know whether he was liable to the death penalty. The blas phem er was placed in Mishmar, temporary confinement, by the order of Moses pending Divine decree of sentence. The Almighty then pro nounced judgment, warning the rest of

A P R IL 1972

the nation not to imitate the blas phemer’s sin. The second incident of incarceration is found in Bemidbor (Num bers) 15:32-35. A man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. The B ’ney Yisroel knew he was liable to the death penalty, but they did not know what precise form the punish ment should take. Therefore this trans gressor was also temporarily detained u n til punishment was revealed ta Moses by the Almighty. I n the above two cases the criminals were temporarily confined'. There is no mention of rehabilitation in either case. Once judgment was passed for these grievous crimes, blas phemy and public desecration of the Sabbath, the death penalty was admin istered immediately. Israel is to be aware of the seriousness of crimes against the Torah. The most heinous crime dealt with in the Torah is murder. In numerous instances the Torah states the prohibition against homicide and declares emphatically that the inten tional murderer is to be given the death penalty. The Beth Din of twenty-three judges was to ascertain the guilt of the accused and implement its judgment. The Talmud, in Sanhed rin 41a, tells us that the court fulfilled this role until the exile of the Sanhed rin forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple. However, to protect the rights of the individual, the court was constrained from pronounc ing the judgment of death by numer o u s precautionary measures. These 25

precautions included the stipulations that there be two reliable witnesses to the crime, proper warning by these witnesses, and the pronounced inten tion of the accused to commit the crime even after being warned. The, precautions were so stringently en forced that if the alleged criminal faltered and did not state, after being warned by witnesses, “ I do this never theless,n he was not liable to the death penalty by the court. If the death penalty was pronounced — which the Talmud notes was a very rare occur ence iS t h ie murderer was punished immediately. In all cases of homicide the trial was always arranged expeditiously so that there was little or no detention of the accused. There are, however, two examples of detention cited by the Rambam (Maimonides) in his great c o d ific a t io n o f Jewish law, the M ish n e h Torah. If a night or a S h a b b o th passed before judgment could be pronounced, the accused would be held in a Beth Ha-Sohar, a prison. The second example of deten tion is found in Sanhedrin 78b. If a man strikes another causing serious injury, and the prognosis of the experts is that the victim's injury will prove fatal, the attacker is confined to prison to await the final outcome. If the victim dies, the attacker is sen tenced to death. If he recovers, the attacker pays damages and is set free. The imprisonment is simply detention until the court can make an informed judgment.

The rare use of detention in Jewish law is in stark contrast to its excessive use in America today, marked by the overcrowded and in humane houses of detention which incarcerate the accused for as long as a year, or even more, before trial. H E situ a tio n is completely altered in the case of uninten tional manslaughter. Here the one whose unwitting action has caused the death of another receives no punish ment but is exiled to a city of refuge. Maimonides considers it a positive Mitzvah to exile him. He is to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the incumbent High Priest. The “city of refuge" may be interpreted as a modified form of confinement for the unintentional slayer. It limits his free dom in order to achieve atonement, but it also protects him from the vengeance of the Goe/ Hadorn, the blood avenger. The manslayer was confined to the city but there were no restrictions placed upon him within its confines. On the contrary, provisions were made for the continuation of a normal existence. For instance, if a student were exiled, his teacher was sent with him to the city of refuge. In the case of a teacher who was exiled, his yeshivah would go with him. Thus we see how the Torah takes into account the worth and the dignity of the daily existence of each individual's life. A word should be said about the punishment prescribed in the Torah

JEWISH L IF E

known as Malkoth, flogging. Flogging was pronounced as punishment only after the same precautions were taken as are found in the case of murder. The offender was subject to this penalty only if he had been fore warned by witnesses, accepted the onus of guilt, and committed the mis deed notwithstanding. The court then questioned the witnesses and their testimony carefully. Once the court decided he was guilty, the punishment was meted out. After the laying on of lashes the individual was no longer treated like a criminal. The Mishnah in Makkoth 23a states: “All who are liable for Koreth (excision, Divine punishment), if they receive Malkoth, are exempt from their penalty of Koreth.” The Rambam tells us that the offender who received flogging “chozar le’kashruthoh”, returns to his non-criminal status. No stigma is attached to him as is the case with ex convicts today. N the Talmud we find several cases in which the court did employ incarceration as a penalty for wrongdoing. The Gemora in Kiddushin 43a cites the case of one who commit ted a murder by means of a hired killer. The Gemora stipulates that in this case it does not follow the usual rule that “One cannot send a messen ger to perform a sin/crime.” The principal is as guilty as his agent. Maimonides states that he who hired a killer is considered a murderer, and incurs the penalty o f murder and will

A P R IL 1972

be punished by Heaven accordingly. The court is enjoined by Maimonides to “smite him harshly, he is to be incarcerated and suffer hardships for many years, in order that the wicked shall not follow his example.” It was the intention of the court that none should feel that the criminal “got away scot free, so can I.” This im prisonment was certainly not rehabili tation. It was harsh punishment for a heinous crime that was to serve as a deterrent to others. A s the Rambam specifically states, “His deed shall not be a stumbling block to others.” The Mishnah in Sanhedrin 81b introduces the concept of Kipah, prison cell: “Whoever received flogging for an offense whose penalty is exci sion, and repeated the same offense again and received the punishment of flogging, if on the third time he com mitted the same offense, the court puts him into a Kipah and feeds him barley until his stomach bursts.” The Gemora makes the point that this criminal is taken to the Kipah to die since he has the chazokah, the vested character, o f being incorrigibly wicked. He is referred to as a Bar Ketola, one destined to death because he has knowingly forfeited his life. Another case as to which the M ishnah states that Kipah is the proper punishment is that of the one who has murdered a fellow human being, but there were ho witnesses. The court puts him into a prison cell and feeds him with sparing bread and scant water. The Gemora asks, how

Shevuthy a Rabbinic prohibition. Since at this time Greek rule was stifling and demoralizing Jewish observance, the court under such circumstances felt it must pronounce an unusually stringent penalty. And so the man was put to death. M aim onides, in discussing Hora’ath Sh o’ah, specifies that the court has the right to put a known wrongdoer in prison and punish him there harshly in order to make a fence around the Torah. Our classic codifica tion of Jewish law, the Shulchon Oruch, in section Choshen Mishpot, reiterates the position of Rambam. The fence is to deter wrongdoing and sim u lta n e o u sly strengthen Jewish observance and increase respect and honor for the Torah. In v e stig a tio n o f T a lm u d ic sources for imprisonment indicates that prison was never viewed as an institution for rehabilitation. It was a p u n ish m e n t fo r the incorrigible HE court is given a great deal of criminal and it served as a deterrent to latitude in punishing individuals the wicked who might anticipate who by the law of the Torah would committing similar offenses. It is inter not ordinarily receive a penalty. Under esting that an expert in penology, special circumstances, referred to as Gilbert Geis, recently wrote in an Hora’ath Sho'ah the court punished an article in Saturday Review, “Benign offender who could endanger the treatment — even if our prisons were whole fabric of society. The Talmud in to provide it — would probably be no Sanhedrin 46a tells us that there are more effective and perhaps less so, cases where the court meted out the than outright brutality... No reput penalties of either death, flogging, or able authority in penology today imprisonment. These penalties were enacted to make “a fence around the would dispute the proposition that a Torah,” a safeguard against infringe large proportion — perhaps as much as two-thirds of the present inmatement of the law. The example which population could, in good conscience, the Gemora cites is of a man who rode on a horse on the Sabbath, which is a be allowed to lead supervised lives

can he be imprisoned if there were no witnesses? This question is resolved with the explanation that there were in fact two witnesses but their testi mony was disqualified. For example, each saw the murder from another window. Since they stood at different locations their testimony is not reli able enough for the court to pro nounce the death penalty. The court feels that the witnesses are telling the truth but because of an irregularity in the testimony, the Beth Din cannot put the murderer to death. And so they order him to the Kipah. This form of imprisonment is c e rta in ly not rehabilitation. The wrongdoer can only anticipate death as the end of his punishment. Maimonides in the IVlishneh Torah viewed such harsh punishment as a deterrent to others.

JEWISH LIFE

outside... these moves would result in prisons emptied of all but those per sons who constitute a serious threat to life and property.0 HE Torah never set forth prisons as a penalty or a deterrent in cases involving theft of personal pro perty. Instead, Torah law sought to rehabilitate the criminal ^ either by having him restore the stolen property plus an indemnity equal in value, or if the thief was too poor and could not even pay the original value of the theft, he was sold by the court as, in effect, an indentured servant, to repay the principal. In the case where the value of his labor exceeded the value of the stolen property, he could not be sold. His wages were used instead to pay for the stolen object. If, however, as a last resort, the thief had to be sold as an Eved Ivri, a Hebrew servant, he was taken into a Jewish household to be treated like a paid employee. He was to be treated with dignity as “your brother,0 and not as a slave, and he was to be freed at the onset of the seventh year from the commencement of his servitude. Thus his term was limited to a maximum of six years but even this would be foreshortened if a Jubilee year occurred, for at its onset he was freed regardless of the length of time he had served until then. He was an Eved because he had no other means of restoring what had been stolen, but for all other purposes he was an Ivri. The terminology of Eved Ivri would appear to denigrate the

A P R IL 1972

individual, to lower his status and reduce his dignity, but the Mechiltha explains that the Torah calls him Eved unwillingly, but to his master he is always an Ivri, a fellow Jew. Though this thief has injured the social order by stealing another’s property, still we must do all in our power to avoid humiliating him in any way and destroying his spirit. This attitude is first displayed at the pur chase o f the Eved Ivri who, as Maimonides tells us, is not sold on the block in public view. The purchase must be transacted privately. He then enters his master’s household with his wife and children who will be sup ported there throughout his (maxi mum) six years of service, but will not in turn be required to serve the master in any way. In contrast, in American society today we witness prisoners separated from their families for long periods of time leading often to the deterioration of the family unit and to deviant behavior within the prison. The families are left in destitute condi tion since the prisoners have no means of supporting their families. In the case of the Eved Ivri the master may assign him only work associated with his former occupation. The Eved Ivri cannot be forced to do meaningless work just to fill up the hours of the day. The type of senseless drudgery commonly associated with the Southern chain-gang is foreign to the Halochah. Too, the Eved Ivri cam not be ordered to do demeaning work of a personal nature for his master. 29

For example, Maimdnides specifies that he may hot tie his master’s shoe laces or carry his personal articles to the bath house. Lodging, clothing, food, and drink must be provided for the Eved Ivri and it must be equal in quality to that of the master. A s the Gemora says in Kiddushin 22a, whoever acquires an Eved Ivri, it is as if he acquires a m aster fo r h im se lf. Maimonides stresses that the whole relation of the master to the Eved Ivri must be based on Achvah, brotherly love. The essen tial meaning of this is that the Eved Ivri is capable of being loved and this is the key to his rehabilitation. When he is treated with dignity and love by a master who could just as easily mis treat, harrass, and humiliate him, then we have the perfect setting for rehabil itation of the criminal. He will be re habilitated out of gratitude to a just and compassionate society where he feels he will be ultimately accepted. E see, then, that the Torah per spective on penology precludes incarcerating any criminal unless he be proven a clear danger to society. For lesser offenses, the Torah prescribes other measures of punishment that do not deprive the offender of his free

dom. It was clearly recognized that rehabilitation could not occur in a penal institution where the prisoner was isolated from normal contacts with society. In the cities of refuge, those con victed of manslaughter could be fully integrated into the normal existence of the community. In the cases of crimes against property the penalty of im prisonment was never imposed. The offender had to make restitution. In the case of a thief unable to pay, six ye ars of service as an Eved Ivri per mitted the indigent person to restore the value of his theft while he pre pared himself for his return to society, with his family, as a free man. American society will also have to discover alternatives to imprison ment, and be willing to experiment with new modes of rehabilitation. Arthur Waskow, a Fellow of the Insti tute for Policy Studies, in addressing this problem, has written, “The only full alternative is building the kind of society that does not need prisons... and a decent sense of community that can support, integrate, and truly reha bilitate those who suddenly become filled with fury or despair, and that can face them not as objects — ‘criminals’ - but as people who have committed illegal acts.”

JEWISH L IF E

by B E R N A R D D. M IL IAN S A m om ent in eternity: A nother you Joined with the spirit soul The Jew — Bound in a nexus-knot no Age can rend, N o Eon end. Ever. Forever. A yester-risen yore Young without years, though flecked with hoar, Speckled with centuries A nd lore That time A nd clime Can never Sever. You are a m om ent — you, as l — A timeless trice A tick A flick A wink A blink o f eye A gleam o f dream Im m ortal, That lives Because we are The M om ent —you and I That gives Eternity to L ife , and worth To Earth.

A P R IL 1972

I MUST BELIEVE When I was twelve-and-two, or so, A fleeting span o f life ago, I knew that I could vault the skies, But now. . J do n ot know. I lived a dream, then, none could share; A mission mine, uncomm on rare; I rode the m oon! B ut lo, the dream Is vanished p ff in air, A nd I am but a tiny i: A speck one hardly can espy, A nothing in a human garb, A whisper bom to die. I turn the hours and glimpse my dream: A hope-tossed mote, a jaded beam Enwrapped in iridescent lies — and life Is n o t what life did seem. A nd I reach fo rth to snatch a ray. . . The flush and fire o f yesterday, The song, the laugh, the heart’s exulting A re taken wing, away. . . I reach, I clutch, but can n ot fin d — Gone is the dream once youth designed, Gone is the purpose, lost the goal, Lost. . .in the time-dulled mind. I reach, but it is near-forgot: Gone with the span the Books allot. Gone on a tear, a sigh, a sob And. . .1 know n o t what! Gone. . .

JEWISH LIF E

A nd I would shout: “Is this the whole O f life? The prod? The nobling goal? Is this the meaning poets sing? Is this m y role? T o be a nil-thing, decked in sheen? A pin-burst, shrunken might-have-been? A eulogy to emptiness: The void and waste o f man’s demesne? I t can n ot be! How can it be? I am a spangle o f Eternity — A sparklet o f the Spark, The One Endued in me! There m ust be some thing ( Lord, there must Oh, tell it me, f o r Thee I trust!) A star away, high, unattained, To raise my purpose fro m the dust: A dazzling, luring, driving spur, A flam e no chillness can deter, A will to seek, to dare, to fin d That keeps the soul astir. . There is, I know. A n d creeping night Can n ot unwing the spirit’s flight. There is, and I shall fin d it This I vow T o set my dream aright. Yes, I shall find. F o r how conceive That dreams can die beyond retrieve? L ife is no bubble. . .can n ot be. . . I must believe!

A P R IL 1972

DEMISE of th e

"JEWISH MOTHER”

by JUDITH A. L IB E R M A N S a consequence of present-day s o c ie t y ’s preoccupation with vogue rather than value, a current favorite subject of discussion has be come the dissection, evaluation, com p ariso n , and justification of the “Jewish Mother.” The following is neither an attack on nor a defense of the Jewish Mother but rather a eulogy — for the Jewish Mother is dead. She has ceased to exist. Whether her demise was by natural causes or suicide is a conclusion that the reader will have to form based on the evi dence presented. T h is u n iq u e creature who achieved her distinction and fame and more often notoriety through popular fiction, has suffered in translation — the translation from Yiddishe Mamme

to Jewish Mother. The distinction between and the relative influence of these two individual and almost unre lated characters has been a potent factor in shaping Jewish behavior. The simple and apparent differ ence between the Yiddishe Mamma and the Jewish Mother is the differ ence between Chalah and Kneidlach on one hand and Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches on the other. The factors that gave rise to each is a basic cause of their inherent character, the permanence of one and the transient nature of the othfer. HE Yiddishe Mamme was not a product of a particular place or time or set of circumstances but a universal personality created whole

JEWISH LIF E

out of one basic, motivating, nonnegotiable factor — her Yiddishkeit. It was her religion which dictated her role as not only mother, but as wife, community member, and factor in all the various facets of her public and private life. It was the unquestioning adherence to this Jewish code of be havior that provided her with her sense of security and her strength. The co hesiveness of the family unit was an integral part of the religion and the Yiddishe Mamme was a pivotal, clearly established link in the chain of con tinuity which bound family, commu nity, and religion into a coherent and functioning unit. The mother provided a male-oriented society with compas sion, patience, and support. The head of the house was the father, the authority; the child was sent early to Cheder which was also male-domi nated. There was no question of sexual competition or resentment, no issue of aspiring to equality, for the religiously motivated woman never felt herself unequal or inferior. It was the repeti tion, generation after generation, of this pattern of behavior which sur mounted dispersion and persecution. H E evolution of the Jewish M o th e r, in contradistinction, was a peculiarly late 19th century and 20th century development. The basic factor which gave rise to this person ality was not the obvious one, of ease of assimilation — since assimilation is in part a consequence rather than the source of her emergence. What pro

A P R IL 1972

duced the Jewish Mother was the break with habit and pattern, the dis carding of tradition and observance, in short the removal of religious adher ence. With the influx into America of European Jewry many, suddenly freed from the physical habitat of before, were sundered also from their Torahgrounded cultural habitat also. The lack of sophistication of the immigrant masses, the disruption of community and the exposure to temptations, served to break down the barrier that was simultaneously their defense and their security. The fact that the ortho dox Jewish way of life and social improvement were not mutually ex clusive did not seem to curb the per vasive attitude of rejection of the inherited pattern. In an attempt to free themselves of their traditional values in order to adapt to their new environment they found themselves in the unenviable position of unchartered transition. In the process, by the very nature of man as a social being, they had to find substitute for the dis carded values and therefore seized upon those encountered in the new environment. The influences to which the hard-pressed immigrant genera tions were exposed were commensur ate with their position at the bottom most rungs of the seconomic and social ladder. O ascribe to the Jewish Mother the creation of the role ascribed to a type of American woman as

domineering male subjector and over all tyrant is an injustice. She did not create these traits but merely accepted them from the environment in which she found herself. The plays of William Inge are as far removed from the Jewish ethic as possible — taking place in an established and overtly stable Midwestern U.S. Protestant culture — and their depiction of the W ASP mother is of one who is an in distinguishable counterpart of Sophie Portnoy. The transition from Yiddishe Mamme to Jewish Mother did not occur precipitately. The first genera tion of each of the successive immi grant waves did not act as a whole or in premeditation or collusion to abandon their past; but as the new and e xtra n e o u s influences became ac cepted and established they, by logical consequence, became the norm. And unfortunately to condone something is very often to encourage it. The pre vious pressures were no longer pertin ent, ostracism as a punishment lost its meaning when one could establish himself so readily in a more permissive and conveniently available society. Where self-discipline and self-control were considered virtues and inherent in Judaism’s attempt to elevate man above his environment, it now became a failing to deny oneself the pleasure and satisfaction provided by this new world. Rather than maintaining the ancient values and deleting from the new environment those factors of appeal and refining and improving

them in terms acceptable to the standards of orthodoxy, these people surrendered their basic structure and frame of reference in order to experi ence fully and immediately personal gratification. The stability of the individual as of the society depends on that indi vidual’s or society’s commitment. Commitment to the past, a past regu lated by religion, was now gone and with it went the Yiddishe Mamme’s security and stability. She was now in a vulnerable position, her sphere of influence being jeopardized by the loss of her former identity. The urge to adapt to the new norm led to “over compensation,” and out of this came metamorphosis: the Yiddishe Mamma gave way to the Jewish Mother. Where for example formerly learning had been an end in itself (the most respected and revered member of the community being the Rabbi and Scholar), there was now in the outlook of the Jewish Mother not so much a deemphasis on learning but a displace ment of that learning as being merely a means to an end. Where previously learning was an experience to elevate the spirit and enrich the mind and a tribute to G-d, learning now became view ed as a method of material advancement and a tribute to selfaccomplishment. HE dissociation from Yiddishkeit concomitantly carried with it a loss of awareness of the heritage of the past and the absence of a sense of

JEWISH LIFE

1 i

responsiblity and obligation to the most responsible for this revolution in future. The Yiddishe Mamme had now thought, attitude, and behavior were completed her transition to Jewish of Jewish extraction: Freud, who pro Mother. She earned the title Jewish vided the excuse for a reassesment of Mother only because she was not emotional behavior, and Marx, who Gentile. To those who survived the predicated a society based on a G-dless tra n sitio n intact and are today’s foundation. Both, barely read and Yiddishe Mamme’s, the designation greatly misinterpreted by the masses, Jewish Mother does not apply. In fact were, nevertheless, seized upon as there is a greater distinction between justification and rationalization for a the contemporary Yiddishe Mamme New Society. The theories of these and the Jewish Mother than between two have, even within this, the time of the Jewish Mother and her Gentile their contemporary vogue, been rede counterpart. Therefore, it appears safe fined, reassessed, and reinterpreted, to assume that the Jewish Mother does and eventually in large part discarded by adherents who have found in them not even exist in fact. She has blended no absolute stability, no unmitigated, into non-Jewish society not so much by active assimilation but by passive enduring grain of truth. And so the “Jewish Mother,” in neglect of her former identity. Philip fulfilling her new role of emancipated, Wylie’s “Generation of Vipers” was so p h istica te d standard-bearer of not about “Jewish” mothers but about society’s whims, transmitted to her “Mothers,” thus confirming the lack progeny all the inconsistencies of her of distinction in traits and qualities experience and received in return attributed specifically and particularly measures of both recognition and re to the “Jewish Mother.” jection from a truly alienated, de Thus, the loss of commitment to a specific and predefined code of tached, and floundering generation. behavior which engendered an aware This generation of youth is, when all ness and tribute to something greater the superficial manifestations are than the “Self” now in its absence left stripped away, in search of a truth, a the uncommitted with a vacuum, G-d. Behind the infantile manifesta tions lies an elemental search for faith. which by nature’s laws had to be filled If perhaps too much damage isn’t done and was filled by an emphasis on the “Self.” With this new standard of per in their gropings they may find and sonal satisfaction came all the vagaries embrace the religion which was denied and t ra n sito ry values and styles them. And perhaps too, from the ashes imposed on a society of man-made of the “Jewish Mother” may rise again, like the Phoenix, the ‘'Yiddishe standards as opposed to G-d-given Mamme.” laws. It seems ironic that two of those

A P R IL 1972

RAV ELCH O N O N U/AS5ERMAN

by A A R O N RO TH KO FF EW sacrifices offered on Hitler's altar of infamy equalled that of the noble soul of the Baronowicze Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman. Acknowledged as the successor to the Chofetz Chayyim in the Yeshivah world, Rav Elchonon was a pre-emi nent leader of orthodox Jewry until his murder during the Holocaust which he had previously predicted would come upon the Jewish people because “the abominations to which we have bowed down strike back at us." Born in 1875 in the Lithuanian town of Birsh, he later moved to the Latvian community of Boisk with his parents after reaching Bar Mitzvah age. A t the age of seventeen he entered the famous Volozhin Yeshivah where he soon gained acclaim for his prodigious

abilities. Afterwards he spent over four years at the Telshe Yeshivah where he studied with its heads, Rabbis Eliezer Gordon and Shimon Shkop. He was also greatly influenced by Rabbi Chayyim Soloveitchik when the latter spent the summers of 1897 and 1898 in a L a tv ia n re sort area near Rav Elchonon's home. In 1899, he married the daughter of a leading Lithuanian rabbinic personality, Rabbi Meir Atlas of Salant. Rabbi Wasserman continued his studies in his father-in-law's home until he accepted a position as the Rosh Yeshivah in the city of Amzislev in 1903. Here Rav Elchonon's skill as a dedicated pedagogue were first re vealed as he succeeded in transmitting both knowledge and feeling to his students. However, sensing that the

JEWISH LIF E

community’s rabbi wished to himself head the local yeshivah, Rabbi Wasserman resigned in 1905 and returned to the home of his father-in-law. In 1907 came the turning point of his life when he decided to join the “Kollel Kodoshim” in Radin of Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan, famed figure generally referred to, from the title of his classic work on ethics, as the “Chofetz Chayyim.” This was a unique Kollel which the s a i n t l y C h o fe tz C h a y y im had organized solely for the purpose of studying those sections of the Talmud which dealt with the sacrificial ritual. Feeling that the Messiah’s arrival was imminent, Rabbi Kagan wanted to be certain that there would be qualified scholars to guide the Kohanim in their duties once the Temple was rebuilt. H E personality of the Chofetz Chayyim made a profound im pression upon the young student, who moulded his own character traits after those of the master. The same pro found, consuming, but simple faith that epitomized the Chofetz Chayyim now typified Rabbi Wasserman as well. He not only intensely studied with Rabbi Kagan but also constantly ob served his deportment and manner in both his private and public affairs. The Chofefz Chayyim perceived his dis ciple’s extraordinary abilities and he related to Rav Elchonon as a colleague rather than only as a student. By the time Rabbi Wasserman left Radin three years later he had become in part a perfect reflection of the Chofetz

A P R IL 1972

Chayyim. In 1910, Rabbi Wasserman ac cepted the position of Rosh Yeshivah in the community of Brest-Litovsk (Brisk). Here Rav Elchonon was once again in close contact with the com munity’s illustrious spiritual leader, Rabbi Chayyim Soloveitchik. Rabbi Wasserman also continued to return periodically to Radin to consult with the Chofetz Chayyim. Following the outbreak of World War I, the Russians expelled the Jewish inhabitants of Brisk in 1914, and Rav Elchonon and his family sought refuge in Radin. When the front line of the war drew close to Radin, which was in Poland, the Chofetz Chayyim and many of his disciples escaped to the Russian city of Simelowicze. The Chofetz Chayyim later left this city and left Rav Elchonon in charge of the contingent of yeshivah students who remained in Simelowicze. For the next five years Rabbi Wasserman conducted a yeshi vah in this community under the most try in g of wartime conditions and despite the constant interference of the local atheistic Communists. T the conclusion of the war, Rabbi Wasserman succeeded in returning to Poland where he became the Rosh Yeshivah of the Ohel Torah Yeshivah in Baronowicze, a city lo cated on the Russian-Polish border. This school had previously been established in 1907 by Rabbi Yoseph Horowitz, the head of the Novohrodok Yeshivah and the founder of a

unique approach to the ethical teach ings embraced in the Mussar doctrines of Rabbi Yisroel Salanter. During the war, the city of Baronowicze experi enced much difficulty and destruction since it was located at an important road juncture. The Ohel Torah Yeshivah barely managed to survive this trying period, and thus in 1921 its heads turned to Rav Elchonon in the expectations that he would be able to revive the school. Under Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman’s guidance the Ohel Torah Yeshivah soon became one of the leading Torah institutions during the interbellum period and a byword in the Jewish world. He enlisted a dedicated faculty of young scholars for the sch o o l, including Rabbi Shelomo Heiman, a beloved disciple of Rabbi Boruch Ber Leibovitz, who was later to be the Rosh Yeshivah of New Y o rk ’s Mesifta Torah Vodaath. There were soon six classes in the school along with a kibbutz of older students. R a b b i Wasserman taught the two eldest classes and his lectures became renowned for their clarity and succinct explanations of Talmudic concepts. Each lecture lasted about forty-five minutes and generally one page of the Talmud was covered. Rav Elchonon presented the viewpoints of the early and latter rabbinic scholars, and ex plained and analyzed their teachings in accordance with his approach. In addi tion to the daily classes in Talmud, a chapter from the Mishnah Berurah of the Chofetz Chayyim was studied after 40

the morning prayers. Generally this selection from his master’s writings was also taught by Rabbi Wasserman. L T H O U G H Rav Wasserman was overjoyed with the progress of his school and his leading students, his own financial situation remained diffi cult. Since he would accept only the barest sum from the yeshivah for his salary, his family had to subsist on a substandard budget. In 1926, after the death of his father-in-law, the Rabbi of th e d i s t i n g u i s h e d L ith u a n ia n community of Shaveli, the heads of the community invited Rabbi Wasser man to become their new Rav. His wife was extremely anxious that he accept the offer since it would relieve their own financial difficulties and also guarantee that the community would continue to provide for her mother, the widow of Rabbi Meir Atlas. How ever, Rav Elchonon steadfastly de clined to accede to their offer, refusing to leave his beloved Baronowicze yeshivah. His wife was so upset by his decision that she decided to travel to Radin and ask the Chofetz Chayyim to intercede with her husband. She pre pared for the trip and ordered a coach to take her to the railroad station. But just before she was to depart, she noticed that Rav Elchonon stood weeping in a corner, in fear that the Chofetz Chayyim would urge him to leave the Yeshivah and accept the rabbinate of Shaveli. Realizing now how deep-rooted was her husband’s attachm ent to the Yeshivah, she

JEWISH LIF E

cancelled her trip, and never men tioned the offer to him again. Rav Elchonon was like a father to his pupils, and despite his own manifold preoccupations, he always found time to listen to their problems and to advise and encourage them. Although his Yeshivah was desperately in need of funds, he kept on delaying a projected fund-raising trip to the United States and Great Britain due to the ardent pleas of his students that they did not want to be separated from him. Finally, in 1933, he made his first visit overseas and again re turned to the United States in 1938. U R IN G these v isits Rabbi Wasserman's saintly personality and u ncom prom ising attitude on Torah requirements made a deep im pression upon American orthodox Jewish youth. Characteristic was an incident that occurred one Sabbath afternoon in Brooklyn. He was being accompanied by a group of yeshivah students to their school, where he was to speak at the Seudah Shelishith. On the way to the yeshivah they stopped at a street crossing for a red traffic light. There being no cars in sight, the students immediately desired to con tinue. However, Rav Elchonon ex plained that they could not do so since the “laws of the land are binding” and it was not permitted to cross against a red light. On another occasion a wealthy contributor to his Yeshivah honored Rabbi Wasserman with the Siddur Kiddushin at his daughter's

A P R IL 1972

wedding. Following the conclusion of the ceremony, the newlyweds kissed under the Chuppah as was then cu sto m a ry even among orthodox youths who had been influenced by American practices. Rabbi Wasserman became angry at this indiscreet act. In response to those who claimed that it was permissible since they were now married, Rav Elchonon explained, “The final words of the Torah are ‘wrought in the sight of all Israel' (Devorim 34:12). There are certain per missible acts which if done in the sight of all Israel will bring about the end of Torah observance.” During his United States so journs, Rabbi Wasserman greatly en couraged the intense Torah spirit which was then germinating at Mesifta Torah Vodaath. This school had been organized as an elementary yeshivah in 1917 in the Williamsburg section of B r o o k ly n . In 1921 Shraga Feivel Mend low itz became its principal and in 1926 he organized a senior division which became known as Mesifta Torah V o d a a th . R a b b i Wasserman en couraged the Mesifta to continue the tradition of both the Lithuanian and Chassidic yeshivoth in discouraging college level secular study. He later penned a responsum to Reb Shraga Feivel which clarified this attitude. This responsum, which afterwards was appended to Rav Elchonon's Kovetz He-Oroth (pp.146-148), reads: There is the mistaken notion in your country that just as Torah must be studied intently for ‘its own sake*

(T o rah lishm ah)t so must secular study be studied for its own sake; even if these studies are not needed in order to earn a livelihood. The proof that this is true is that they encourage ad van ced secular study for their rabbis, and it is not the state that requires that each rabbi should possess a Ph.D. degree. According to the Torah viewpoint it is just the oppo site. Torah study must be for ‘its own sake/ but secular study is only per mitted when it is required for selfish reasons such as being able to earn a living. The result of this tragic error in equating secular study with sacred study has been that students for the rabbinate..... have to attend college. When will they have the time to be com e proficient in Torah study? .....The Torah mourns because they have placed its adversary under the same roof with it, in order that it should decay the Torah. Today... a new spirit seems to be awakening in your land that wishes to see a return to the path that our parents have always walked upon. The first reform you should institute is that regarding rabbis.... instead of in sisting that they should attend uni versities, you should insist they should not attend. They should be praised for their proficiency in Torah and their high level of fear of G-d, and pro ficiency in secular knowledge should not be praised... abbi w asserm an was also active in the Agudath Israel movement which had been organized at the Kattowitz conference in 1912. He participated in its K ’nessioth Gedoloth in 1923 and 1929 in Vienna and in 1937 in Marienbad. Following

the death of the Chofetz Chayyim, he assumed a more central role in the deliberations of the organization’s M o e tz e th G e d o le y Hatorah. Rav Elchonon’s viewpoint was crucial in the ruling of the Moetzeth in 1937 against support by the Agudath Israel of the report of the Peel Commission which advocated the partition of Eretz Yisroel into a Jewish and an Arab state. Rabbi Wasserman and his col leagues held that the boundaries of the Holy Land have been established by the Creator and recorded in the Torah for all times. The Jewish people, they held, is not permitted to ever compro mise these borders or to negotiate the destiny of the Holy Land, which was the possession of the entire Jewish nation. D u r i n g t h i s p eriod , R a v Elchonon authored a pamphlet in Yiddish, which was later to be trans lated into Hebrew and English under the title “Epoch of the Messiah.” In it he vehemently criticized Jews for advocating all types of new ideals such as Enlightenm ent, Socialism, and Communism, while neglecting Torah Judaism. Above all, he attacked secular Zionism whose aim he de scribed as setting up a new Hebrew people which will know how to “shake off from itself the dust of the preced ing generations” and to proclaim “Hush! Do not mention the name of G-d.” He saw the conflict between the Divine teachings and secular Jewish id e o lo g ie s reaching its Messianic climax. With almost prophetic insight

JEWISH L IF E

he described its ominous consequences - intolerable human pain and suffering which will engulf the Jewish people in the days before the coming of the Messiah. He wrote: N o w a d a y s, the Jew s have chosen two “ idols” to which they offer up their sacrifices. They are Socialism and Nationalism. The new gospel of Nationalism can be defined very briefly as “ Let us be like the nations.” All that is required of the Jew is national feeling. He who pays the Shekel and sings Hatikvah is thereby exempted from all the pre cepts of the Torah. It is clear that this idea is con sidered to be fundamentally idol-wor ship from the point of view of the Torah. These two forms of idol-wor ship have poisoned the minds and the hearts of Hebrew youth. Each one has its tribe of false prophets in the shape of writers and speakers, who do their work to perfection. A miracle has happened: in Heaven these two idolatries have been merged into one - National Socialism. There has been formed from them a fearful rod of wrath which hits at the Jews in a II corners of the globe. The abominations to which we have bowed down strike back at us. T h y sin shall punish thee.’ The Prophets warned that a disaster would come upon Israel the like of which had not happened since their becoming a nation. The Gaon of Vilna writes: The sufferings of the Goluth are likened in Scriptural verses to the pains of pregnancy of a woman. The era of the pre-Messianic sufferings are likened to the birth pangs them selves. Just as the pains during preg nancy cannot be compared to the pangs of childbirth themselves, so

A P R IL 1972

cannot the ordinary sufferings of the Goluth be compared with the sus tained agony before the coming of the Messiah. (English edition of David Cooper)

Rav Elchonon also published many of his Chiddushey Torah. His most famous work was his afore mentioned Kovetz He-Orothy annotat i o n s to the T a lm u d tractate Yevomoth. This first appeared in 1932 and was subsequently reprinted a number of times. After the Holocaust, a n u m b e r o f vo lu m e s o f his chiddushey Torah were issued by his students. The most well-known are the two volumes of Kovetz Sheurim which were published by his son, Rabbi Ela ze r Simcha Wasserman of Los Angeles. The first volume consists of Rav E lc h o n o n ’s lectures on the Talmud tractates Pesochim, Betzah, Kethuvoth, Kiddushin, Bova Kamma, and Bova Bathra. The second contains a selection of his writings which had previously appeared in various Torah journals and publications. Also in cluded was Rav Elchonon’s Kuntres Divrey Sofrim which he originally published in 1924. PON the outbreak of World War 11, Rav Elchonon moved to Vilna together with his family. Here he aided its illustrious spiritual leader, Rabbi Chayyim Ozer Grodzenski, in sustaining the hundreds of yeshivah students and rabbis who had fled there from many points. Vilna had then once again been annexed to Lithuania

subsequent to its seizure by the Poles in 1920. Many felt that in Vilna they would somehow succeed in escaping from the Communists and the Nazis. However, on July 17, 1940, the Soviet Arm y entered Lithuania and the Baltic countries, annexing them to Soviet Russia. In June o f 1941, one day before the Nazis marched against Russia and con q u e red V iln a , Rav Elchonon travelled to Kovno to visit acquaint ances there. He now remained in Kovno which was shortly afterwards crushed by the Nazis. Here he found refuge in the home of Rabbi Avrohom Grodzenski, the last spiritual director of the Slobodka Yeshivah. Together w ith tw elve o th e r rabbis, Rav E lc h o n o n continue his studies in Rabbi Grodzenski’s residence. Sud denly, the Nazis entered this home.... A ll thirte e n scholars were later murdered in the Kovno square desig

nated for the implementation of the Hitlerite “Final Solution.” F ro m one who miraculously escaped as a solitary survivor, we know that shortly before his end, Rav Elchonon exhorted those around him to prepare for the final moment in purity since they were chosen to atone w ith their bodies for the Jewish people. “Therefore we have to com pletely repent and return to G-d.... We have to realize that our sacrifices will then be more acceptable and we will thereby save the lives of our brothers and sisters in America.“ Rabbi Wasserman concluded his last words, in the very face of death, by declaring that the fire that would consume their bodies would be the same fire that would reestablish the House of Israel. A moment later, the Baronowicze Rosh Yeshivah joined Israel’s eternal list of Martyrs.

JEWISH L IF E

Tke

Y est ie

i y o

I ol

and

M i lifa ry

Isra e l

by SH M U EL LITTMAIMN HE once popular image of the y e sh iv a h b o c h u r p pallid, stooped, and le a n ^ J is no longer as current as formerly, due, in part, to improvements in the dietary offerings of yeshivoth. Nevertheless, long hours of daily “lernen” in the Beth Medrosh hardly lend themselves to the produc tion of athletes or, for that matter, of outstanding soldiers. It was, therefore, with some surprise that I surveyed one of my paratrooper chavruthoth in Yeshivath Sha’alvim — one of the half dozen of the type in Israel where the students serve simultaneously in the a r m y — w ho se w ell-d evelo pe d p h y siq u e typified the toughened so ld ie r rather than the bookish scholar. And while it is true that our people treasure the achievements of

A P R IL 1972

the mind over those of the body, since my chavruthah could out-“learn” me in Gemora as well, I was justified in feasting my eyes upon him. Yeshivah students, in general, are deferred from military service in Israel, a necessary condition which some short-sighted persons periodi cally and senselessly challenge. Numer ic ally , the number thus deferred hardly makes a strategic difference®1 altoge the r it amounts to a few thousand souls ^ "a n d such distin guished figures as Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres are themselves opposed to them being drafted. Moreover, upon completion of their formal studies, the former yeshivah students very often perform abbreviated military service. * The Israeli religious eighteen-

year old completing a yeshivah high school or a yeshivah ketanah (without secular stu d ie s) has three basic choices: He can enter the regular army as do boys his age from other back grounds; he can continue in a regular yeshivah and receive a deferment while studying there; he can go to a “Hesder Y e sh iva h ,” one like Sha'alvim or Y a v n e h , w here he firs t studies Gemora, then enters the army for basic training (a four-month period), returns to the yeshivah for more studies, followed by periodic call-ups for duty with his military unit. The program lasts from four to five years, with about one third of the time in the army, the rest in the yeshivah. Normal ly, service lasts for only three years. O the chagrin of Torah educa tors, most of the yeshivah high sch o o l students choose the first option, straight army service. It is re gretted because at late adolescence they are frequently not religiously strong enough to withstand the per vasive emptiness of secular culture with which they come in contact. On the other hand, entering a regular yeshivah, while spiritually and other wise most desirable, is often a most difficult choice since it entails great financial sacrifices. (An able-bodied man cannot obtain a worker's permit in Israel without previous army serv ice.) The compromise solution is the “Hesder Yeshivah.” But there are positive reasons for choosing the latter as well. One of

them obviously is the obligation that is felt to defend the country, especially in a time of danger, without neglecting Torah learning at the same time. In addition, there is also the possibility of raising the religious level of army life. (Hesder Yeshivah students perform religious functions, such as officiating at High Holy Days services and kashering vessels for Pesach, as part of their m ilita ry obligation.) Lastly, it is claimed that in order to be an integral part of the general Israel society today to exert communal influence — military service is a pre-requisite. H E R E are those who argue in favor of a different solution, one of entering a regular higher yeshivah for a period and then proceeding to regular army service. It is thought that the introductory time spent in a clas sical yeshivah forges a “ben-Torah” that will be prepared for the dangers of the secular influence. To this view R av M e ir Schlesinger, the Rosh Yeshivah of Sha'alvim, answers that it is more effective to be in the army as a yeshivah student, one who is still hearing sheurim and is just interrupt ing his learning, than to be in the service as an ex-yeshivah student whose formal Torah studies are behind him. In Sha'alvim, at least, this has been to a large extent true. The amount of time devoted to “learning” there in an average day by the typical student compares favorably with the input in standard yeshivoth. Moreover,

JEWISH L IF E

w hile admittedly few continue in Torah fields after finishing, what is produced often are religious “menschen” who can be of positive influence in general Israel society. Despite these facts, let it not be thought for a moment that the regular yeshivoth, which constitute the great majority, should convert to the Hesder program . Indeed, that would be disastrous to Torah in Israel. The reasons are simple. In the first place, the yeshivah boy with his Torah learning defends the security and welfare of Israel just as much as, if not more than, the soldier in uniform. We Jews are not like other peoples who believe in the might of the sword alone. Our Father Y a ’akov not only prepared against E so v strategically, but essentially relied on G-d for his family's defense. The thousands of yeshivah bochurim in Israel constitute the vital battalions in the armies of Am Yisroel. It is for their occupation — Torah le arn ing^ that the fight is predominantly worth while. This point was illustrated to me by an acquaintance from Slobodka Yeshivah, paraphrasing a Rav from K ’far Chassidim. Generally, desertion is thought of as abandoning the army unit entirely. But one who transfers from the infantry corps, let us say, to the tank corps, is also a type of de serter. The same applies to one who leaves the “yeshivah brigade" to the

A P R IL 1972

regular army corps. The maintenance of the classical yeshivah is further essential for the production of Rabbonim and “gedolim,” Torah greats. With all its virtues, the Hesder Yeshivah tends to produce “ b a ’aley-battim," religious laymen, who discontinue regular Torah studies after their departure from the yeshivah. The army service, even in such a favorable framework, is spir itually disrupting as the routine of all day Torah is suddenly replaced with all-day training to fight. (In basic train ing almost no time at all is left for study.) After returning from their first trip to the army last year, all the new bochurim in Sha'alvim seemed weak ened in their devotion to “learning," though all but one more or less re covered in time. A final justification for the classical yeshivah is that in “Yirath Shom ayim " — G-d-fearingness — their products are said to be generally superior to those of the Hesder Yeshi voth. S R A E L thus has several armies, the army of Torah learners being the most important of them all: a fact to remember when contributing to various causes in Israel. Only when the “safra" (The Book) accompanies the “sayfa" (the sword) do we achieve the irresistible combination which in the end w ill secure peace for our people.

In A

Girls'

Yeshivah

by RUTH G. F R E ID M A N N S a former public school teacher, once a strong believer in the virtues of public education and oppon ent of public aid to religious schools, I found that two years in the general studies division of a girls’ yeshivah gave me a whole new perspective on the issue. After a long career in the New York City public schools, much of it spent teaching social studies in a voca tional high school for girls, I taught the same subject to girls on the same level at the yeshivah. The differences in the students, school administration, and my own reactions were so sharp that it seemed at first a totally differ ent job for which my experience and qualifications had hardly prepared me. Eventually I adjusted to the new situa-

tion, and when I had to leave, at the end of two years, it was with great regret. In contrast, I had left the public school system joyfully at the first opportunity and at great financial sacrifice. I discovered quickly that the students in my classes were far more capable and conscientious than those I had been accustomed to teach. This was a great pleasure but it was also a great responsibility. They learned so quickly and so easily that I worked harder than ever before preparing material for them. What I had under taken as a part time job was consum ing all my time. But the results were so gratifying that I could not begrudge the time and effort.

JEWISH L IF E

UT there were other differences arising from the students’ special experience and education. These I had not anticipated and they required adjustments in my approach. In teach ing European history, for example, I had been able to draw on the back ground of polyglot, predominantly Christian classes for the kind of infor mation which was totally absent from the experience of yeshivah girls. On the other hand, their Jewish studies gave the yeshivah girls a much richer background for the study of ancient history and the Moslem world, as well as greater interest in the past. I found superfluous an introductory lesson on the reasons for studying history, which was essential for my voactional high school students; these students never questioned the “relevance” of history. Because many of the students were so bright and well informed, I was sur prised to discover how little?they knew o f the arts; but, of course, their long school hours and extensive religious obligations left little time for such activities as music lessons and museum visits. Although mastering a course of Hebrew studies in addition to the public school course of study requires a fairly high degree of academic apti tude, we did have some poor students. But all had attained a minimum level of literacy. In my public school service I frequently encountered total illiter acy in my regular social studies classes; appeals to guidance counsellors met w ith com plete indifference. Here

A P R IL 1972

stu d e n ts with difficulties received special attention, special classes were set up, and special programs arranged. I was impressed with the way these things were done. In setting up the organization for the following year, the principal decided to divide a class with an unusually wide range of ability in order to separate a half dozen who were doing very poorly. He said of these students, “ I think they’re holding back the others,” which was true, and that was the decisive consid eration. It worked well for both groups; the poorer students received the attention they required, while the bright students raced on at their rate. In a public school there would have been endless theoretical discussions on the relative merits of homogeneous grouping versus heterogeneous group ing, and in the end the decision would have followed the latest pedagogic fa sh io n . F u rth e rm o re , I cannot imagine that they would set up a special class for as few as six students, however necessary it might appear. More students would be added to fill out some numerical quota even if that was sure to defeat the whole purpose of the class. This small school, which could not afford much that public schools deem essential, could some how afford to set up a class of six when that seemed the most beneficial course for the students. HE whole school, I at once dis covered, centered about the needs of the children. In the public

schools this is a cliche, but untrue; public schools center about the needs of administration. The principal, who had been there for some years, knew every pupil by name, was acquainted with her parents, and could tell her strengths and weaknesses without hav ing to refer to her record. He never asked for lesson plans or reports (although we were expected to have lesson plans) but he did ask about indi vidual pupils frequently. When he asked how I was getting along, I could see that he genuinely wanted to help. The secretarial staff, too, was invari ably helpful. It may seem trivial to mention that they never made me feel that I used too many stencils or im posed by asking them to run off copies, but public school teachers are assailed by a constant stream of petty restrictions. There were very few rules, and these were set aside when they conflicted with the needs of the stu dents. Numerous pupils, I discovered, were related to members of the staff — professional and secretarial — and many were related to trustees; the principal himself had two daughters and a niece at the school. In part, no doubt, this explains the overwhelming concern with the welfare of the child ren, but it also shows the confidence of the staff in the excellence of their school. Few, if any, public school teachers or principals that I know of could demonstrate confidence in their schools in such a concrete, personal manner.

It soon became apparent to me that the school was run by the staff for the benefit of the pupils, and that was all. There was a board of trustees, but in two years I had no contact with them except, perhaps, for the signa ture on my salary check. For the first time in my teaching career I was free from the burden of bureaucracy: there were no non-teaching chores to dis tract my attention from my students; clerical tasks were minimal, just enough to keep track of attendance and to record and report marks. After so many years of teaching, it was a novel experience to be able to concen trate all my attention on my classes. I don’t think anyone who has not been through it can conceive of the extent to which teacher time is diverted from teaching in the public schools. E C A U S E the school was small and financially lirfyited, and be cause there were no bureaucratic re quirements from above, I was also free from supervision. This would appear to be a disadvantage, because a depart ment chairman could have been very helpful, especially as one of the courses of study was new to me, hav ing been introduced after I left the public schools. However, in my own experience, which matches that of most teachers with whom I have dis cussed this, supervision hinders more often than it helps. For once, I could c o n d u c t m y classes in whatever manner I found best, without an ear to the whims and preferences o f my

JEW ISH L IF E

supervisors. I turned out to be a harder taskmaster than any supervisor, but the results more than compensated for the added effort and, I believe, vindi cated the correctness of my judgment. The one outside requirement which I could not escape, alas, was the New York State social studies course of study, which I consider illogical, unscholarly, impractical, and essential ly unteachable. But I think we did as well as possible with it, and I think that even the best students could not have accomplished as much under public school conditions. Another novelty for me was the presence of younger children. The school included all the elementary and secondary grades so that the pupil population ranged from kindergarten to twelfth year levels. This seemed to me an advantage. I believe it is a mistake to concentrate large numbers of children within a narrow age range in one building, especially if they are adolescents. It seems more normal and natural and less institutional to have a broader range. Schools operate best when they are human and worst when they are impersonal. A wide range of ages and a small enough pupil popula tion for teachers and pupils to know each other are necessary, I think, to avoid the cold, impersonal atmosphere which prevails in so many of our public schools. EST I give the impression that all was sweetness and serenity, I must explain that I was most discon

A P R IL 1972

certed by the poor discipline. Not that I was unfamiliar with discipline prob lems; but those arose among students with poor ability and motivation as well as deprived and unwholesome family backgrounds. Here were stu dents, largely bright and motivated, all from good Jewish families, and I could not understand why, having reached high school, they were not quieter, more orderly, and better mannered. After a time, as I got to know the students better and discovered the causes and pattern of misbehavior, I minded it much less. I noticed that whatever the apparent disorder, the students were never malicious or destructive, and would never wilfully hurt another person. Problems which so disturbed teachers in public high schools, drugs, violence, immorality, were altogether unknown here. When parents sent their daughters to this school they could rest assured regard ing their safety; their concerns were limited to strictly educational matters. I began to feel we were working to gether in some specially privileged ivory tower. To some extent I found that the failure to maintain good discipline could be traced to financial causes. Because of poor salaries the turnover of general studies teachers was con stant. You cannot maintain a welldisciplined school without a stable faculty. Another factor was the easy going East European Jewish attitude toward behavior in contrast to the

West European tradition which at one time dominated our public schools and dem anded conformity with strict standards of conduct and decorum. When I was a child this was very plain and it was common knowledge that children who misbehaved at home and in Hebrew school, toed the mark in public school. I have heard from many quarters since I’ve been interested in the matter, that relaxed standards of b e h a vio r prevail in most Jewish schools. Somehow it does not prevent the children from learning a good deal. Besides, in view of recent criti cism of rigidity in our high schools, and of the new emphasis on infor mality, an unstructured environment, and advocacy of open classrooms, our Jewish schools must have climbed to a high point of pedagogic fashion. With all the youthful girlish high spirits bubbling over into the corridors, what cause have we to complain? Another matter which dismayed me was the great emphasis on marks and on tests. I heard this also from teachers in public high schools with Jewish pupils. A single percentage point in a test mark would often pro voke a heated argument. Whether this is a Jewish characteristic, or whether it is a more general result of competition for college entrance, I do not know. Even more distressing I found the readiness and ingenuity with which students copied on tests. Although they seem to have absorbed strict reli gious and moral standards, tests seem to be quite another matter. 52

HE yeshivah was by no means an ideal utopia but, with all its shortcomings, it was a viable school which performed its function. The problems which confronted me were m y stu d e nts, and the minuscule administration cooperated to the limit of its resources. The situation is re versed in the public schools: the main problems stem from the administra tion, which ingeniously devises hurdles and obstacles for teachers as if what they fear most is that teachers might indeed tackle pupil problems and, who can tell, perhaps even solve them! Then someone might think to question the need for so many administrative positions. It was a great relief to be free of these hindrances and to go about my business without the need to vent my frustrations in a constant flow of gripes and complaints. A s id e from the professional aspect I found special personal satis factions in a Jewish school. Although I am not of orthodox background, l am devoted to my Jewish traditions and enjoyed the Jewish atmosphere in the school, and all the holiday observ ances. Also, flavorsome incidents such as this: A seventh grader mentions, in an examination essay, the possibility of an accident and adds, to my delight, "Chass vesholom. ** Even April Fool greeted me with a special Jewish twist. Some of the classes devised ingenious tricks for their teachers and one of my classes decided to baffle me by speaks ing only Hebrew. They were a bit dis appointed to find that - having

JEWISH LIFE

studied Hebrew and having visited Israel many times — I understood. I allowed them to continue and we had our history lesson, conducted by me in English as usual, while the students re sponded in surprisingly fluent Hebrew, slowed occasionally by the need to find translations for such terms as “ com m unism ,” “nationalism,” and “imperialism/* I I Y experience in this school conlllvinced me of the unique impor tance of such schools; their value to parents and pupils; their contribution to the Jewish community; the special kind of experience they offer to

A P R IL 1972

teachers. I greatly appreciated the government subsidy which enabled us to order excellent textbooks for our classes, and regretted the absence of funds for much needed audio-visual materials. Teacher salaries are abysmal; better financing should enable such a school to secure a well qualified, stable faculty for its general studies division. A t this time, with the public schools in a deplorable state of disrepair, it seems essential for the public to support schools which promote scholarship in a secure atmosphere and meet, as well, the special requirements of a segment of the community.

Booh Beviews COMPANION TO THE SIDDUR by LEO JUNG T E F IL L O T H Y I S R O E L U ’M U S S A R H A -Y A H A D U T H , by Paltiel Birnbaum; New Y o rk : Shulsinger Bros., 1971, 282 p. H E genius of the Men of the Great Synod (the authors of our original stan d ard p r a y e r s ), by the well inexhaustible wisdom of their text, invested every word and phrase, every combination o f apparently surplus outpouring, with enough challenge and promise to stimulate the noblest minds and hearts of our millen nial people. Pietists, poets, men of research, and philological devotees followed each other in a history of interpretation, of addi tion to, and elaboration of, our Tefilloth. The result is a living treasury of ancient and modern wisdom, of Israel’s heart and soul. Just as the Shulchon Oruch, the authoritative Code of Jewish Law , is ever unfinished (the last Vilna edition consists of seven tomes, while the new one, the Otzar Ha-Poskim, will number at least fifty), the encyclopedia of interpreters of the Siddur similarly will grow in numbers and nuances,

as well as in intuitive and rational commen taries, for years without end. No Jewish community may be said to have reached blessed maturity before some of its scholars have m ade their contribution to this treasury. nigh The last two hundred and fifty years have brought us three such works generally acclaimed, two of which in toto and the third in wise selections are included in the three meritorious volumes under review. Simplicity, clarity, and profound reverence distinguish all of them. T h e tw o -v o lu m e “ D e r e c h H a C hayyim -A vodath Yisroel” contains the prayers for the whole Jewish year as com piled by Rabbi Shelomo Ganzfried, author of the Kitzur Shulchon Oruch, tpgether with Rabbi Yaakov of Lissa’s compendium of the laws pertaining to personal life and Rabbi Meir Simchah Ha-Kohen’s commen tary on the prayers* Added to these classics is a summary of Israel minhogim by Rabbi Tukatsinki, and biographies of four great authorities by Dr. Philip Birnbaum.

DR. JUNG is Senior Rabbi of The Jewish Center in New York City.

JEWISH LIF E

N the companion volume, “Tefilloth Y is ro e / U 'M u s s a r H a - Y a h a d u t h (Prayers of Israel and Ethics of Judaism)”, Dr. Philip Birnbaum, the highly respected author of standard works on Jewish Law and Lore, has added to his laurels. This anthology offers the noblest fruits of ex egesis, straightforward and clear, of many centuries of Jewish literary devotion, from the time of the Tannaim to our own century, including Ovoth d’Rabbi Nothon, Saadya Gaon, Rambam, and Abudraham, to the blessed Chofetz Chayyim | | in wise selections of their versions and animadver sions, their rationalistic as well as mystic

thoughts. One hopes that a subsequent edition will include excerpts from the writings of two most significant commentators: Rabbi Sam son Raphael Hirsch (among many others, his brilliant interpretation of Milah), and Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz, whose masterly opus contains a world of gems. Dr. Birnbaum’s volume will acquaint its students with a vital set of ideals, prin ciples, and methods to provide them with the Torah’s philosophy of life, a code of

conduct at once noble and practical. The array of sublime hearts and minds will open a new vista, encouraging, through classic examples, a life in Torah. The short biog raphies (and surely the few larger ones) are bound to stimulate sufficient happy interest in further study. This book will serve at once as an eye-opener and a heart warmer. The gnomic wisdom, the compelling proverb, the indelible impact of prize stories, in their totality will help build up a new worthier, happier Jewish personality among the countless readers we wish him. T h e various minhogim and local counsels, fruit of vicissitudes in the milieus of our historic migrations, convey a colorful spiritual, intellectual, social history of the world’s most significant minority. It is scholarship, blessedly free of long-winded clauses; presentation without se rm o n iz in g ; a b oo k to be studied, treasured, and recommended to friend and foe. Vivant sequentes! A translation into English would prove a boon to countless Jews and even tually to a wise, bold publisher.

POETS AND MADMEN by M O R D E C H A I S C H IL L E R S T A R E T E R N A L , by Ka-tzetnik 135633; New Y o rk: Arbor House Pub. Co., 1971, $4.95 O N E G EN E R A T IO N A F E R , by Elie Wiesel; New Yo rk: Random House, 1971, $5.95 A n d when they would prophecy, their limbs would tremble, their bodies’ strength would be sapped, and their ow n thoughts numbed, that their minds m ay be freed to MR. S C H IL L E R of Far Rockaway, New York, studies in a Jerusalem kollel.

A P R IL 1972

understand what they will see, as it says b y Abraham: “and behold, a great fear and darkness fell upon him .’* (Bereshith 15:12) — Maimonides: Laws of the Fundamentals of the Torah, 7:6 R A S H I tells us that this verse preceding ¡IA b rah am ’s vision is an allusion to the sufferings and darkness of Exile. O n ly a prophet could reveal the mystery of the Holocaust. And, as we are children of the Holocaust, living in its shadow, it is our burden to pierce the mean-

ing of its truth so as to find the meaning of our own lives. Thus, in the absence of a prophet we must rely on the bits and pieces we put together out of the visions of poets and madmen. While they might not form a whole as slick and coherent as a history text, they are the meat of which history is made; and they form the source-book from which the texts are derived. Besides, an im p e rs o n a l, scientific-historical account would be completely beside the point, for the truth of the Holocaust lies, not with the facts, but behind them. It is a truth that cannot be* simply stated, but must be evoked from the depths of the psyche. The facts, themselves, remain hopelessly ab stract, almost meaningless. As a friend, Lary Dovid Gross, put it, “ Count, if you can, from one to six million.” Elie Wiese!, whose books are peopled with beggars, madmen, blind men, and mutes, is the madman’s poet. He is no prophet, but a witness, a witness who has turned his like into a mission of testimony. Yehiel DeNur turns the reader into the Poet’s madman forcing him to be witness. From the outset, De Nur, who writes under his concentration camp number — Ka-tzetnik 135633 (Ka-tzet, K .Z . stands for Konzentration Zenter), brings the reader in and turns him into the central character. “ Behind y o u .. .the chrom e.. .glitters in the light of the sun.” The reader is taken, more entangled than involved, and turned into a visionary in the mysterious world illumined by the poet. Your eyes are turned on the day: a long carpet of gold, incandes cent over the sea, unrolling to an open gate of flame. The marching women of the Kommando bear it furled on their shoulders. In a little while they will reach the shore. They’ll lower day like a coffin from shipboard. All eyes will see it off on its last journey into the land of freedom Till the gate of fire comes down on it.

A t times, the seeming simplicity, the judicious use of words in “ Star Eternal” reminds one of haiky poetry. Here, too, succint phrases and vivid images are used so as to involve the reader, presenting him with a situation to react to, rather than give the author’s reactions. The nightmare is sketched with a child-like awe, a tableau of vivid horror. C h ild r e n push against their mother’s belly, as if seeking to get in sid e once more. Their scream, embryonic, unuttered, howled out of the mothers’ eyes. Why did they do it? “ Heil Hitler!” Heil Hitler! Two words. A slogan. Is it possible that a whole nation — iE N UR brings out the hellish irony |and the anguish without the heavy, consciously metaphysical paradoxes that Wiesel is so fond of. However, he is not unaware of the paradoxes inherent in living the nightmare — Digging one’s own grave, hesitating for a moment, only to see a worm hurrying across the gaping hole.

Here it is: life! Crying out at you from your own grave: Live! It is all here: the deportations, the being reduced to seeing a bowl of soup as more precious than life itself; the selektions, the crem atoria, and the obscenity of reparations. There is man reduced, and yet there is man transcendent — in a strange covenant, the giving of “ the most precious offering of Auschwitz,” a crumb saved from the morn ing’s bread ration “ in holy trust for my beloved.” There is also man transcendent in the fin e s t expression of what Viktor Frankl* calls the freedom in any eventuality *Dr. Viktor Frankl, world famous psychia trist, was himself an inmate of Auschwitz.

JEWISH LIFE

for a man to create meaning out of chaos by the attitude he chooses to take toward his destiny. A young man, on his way to the crematorium, mourns the life he has not and will never taste; and that he will never realize the goal to which he had dedicated whatever life he did have, to settle in the Land of Israel. He stands now next to the Rabbi who, back in the ghetto, thwarted his attempt to start a revolt, insisting that it would be suicide, and one is not permitted to take his own life. All hope gone, he berates the Rabbi: “Confess now; we have sinned by not rising up against the Germans!” The Rabbi, full of understanding, turns to him and replies,

beauty and depth of feeling in its portrayal. “ One Generation After” is at once a departure and a terminal point. It is a collec tion of miscellaneous pieces rather than the integrated whole we have learned to expect from him. (Even a previous book of small pieces — “ Legends of Our Tim e” S was essentially integral in effect.) In a sense, it seems like a collection of Wieselia, the type of thing usually published posthumously, a fte r ransacking the deceased author’s private writings. Consequently, the book is a mixed bag, and as such reflects some of the best qualities and worst faults of Wiesel’s writing. The faults, here, become more clear than ever before. The too facile paradoxes,

the self-righteousness and moral posturing are all here. Two pieces in particular stand out as Can’t you s e e .. .G-d’s spirit hovering the type of things that could only be put here above this Destruction and Crea out by a successful author who is sure of his tion? Can’t you feel that Jacob — in audience, and is confident they will lap up our bones now wrestles with the anything he dishes out. One, a small vignette Angel? We are the sinew of his thighabout a girl who, after professing love for vein in this struggle! Be strong, my everybody but herself, throws herself out a son, at this moment you must be window, seems like an exercise from a strong..... morbid, sentimental student in an under Hope and meaning are rescued from graduate creative writing course. “The End despair and chaos in a vision of destiny: of a Revolutionary” sounds like the same “ From the very blackness of this night student, now turned bitter and cynical, try Jacob will bring forth the name ‘Israel.’ ing to out-Camus Camus, bringing a stranger Before that, the morning star will not rise.” even a few rungs deeper into absurdity. The reason these pieces stand out is H E R E “ Star Eternal” falls short is in that they are beneath Wiesel, who is, in fact, its very conception of Jewish destiny. a master craftsman and should not allow Perhaps in striving for immediacy DeNur such second rate efforts to be published. limited his religious and historical perspec Wiesel is at his strongest describing tive. The weakness here is precisely Wiesel’s scenes from his shtetl Sighet, or relating old strong point. Wiesel’s familiarity with the and new Chassidic tales. He is the storyteller Talmud and Jewish History, and his own supreme, mystifying and, at one and the same time, dazzling and agonizing. Allow Chassidic background, impart a spiritual him to bring you under his spell, and you quality and timelessness to his work that is will not come out unchanged. lacking in “ Star Eternal” for all its stark The story of his teachers in “ Legends His insightful account and interpretation of Our Tim e” is perhaps the most stirring can be read in his book “ Man’s Search for thing I’ve ever read. And, in “ Gates of the Meaning” available in a Washington Square Forest” he brings together tales and testi Press paperback. mony in the consummate work in the

A P R IL 1972

id io m , evoking childhood memories of ancient, unspeakable evil from the edges of consciousness. The tales are here, too, and it is clear that the master has not lost his touch. Weaker, though still formidable, are the journalistic pieces, most defending Israel’s honor, and calling to account her d e tr a c to r s , both m alicio us and well meaning. H A T the book is a terminal point is evident from many of the pieces, and explicitly stated in the end. It seems as though Wiesel has taken out of his note books every expression he could find of frustration and the futility of trying to communicate. The witness is weary of his long testimony, and, where in the past he attempted to judge as well, he seems now to have given up the attempt, no longer trying to understand. He prays;

I no longer ask You to resolve my questions, only to receive them and make them part of You. He does seem to have come to a resolution of sorts, now seeing the questions as ends rather than means. “ There is no answer. If with the holocaust G-d has chosen to question man, man is left to answer with a quest having G-d as an object.” This stance, itself, must come into question, however, for just as his own questions have not been resolved, so too, the issues and ideas raised throughout his work, rather than being resolved, wind up a distorted reflection, like an image in a fun house mirror. Reb Chaim Brisker had a student who left the way of Torah, and no longer kept its precepts. Having occasion to meet the student one time, Reb Chaim asked him how it was that he had turned away. “ I was plagued by questions and doubts,” the student said, “ and finally gave in.” “ Y e s,”

Reb Chaim replied, “ but did you give in after or before your doubts?” W iesel “ loves and admires” the Chassidim in the small house of prayer near his M anhattan apartment. “ Miraculous survivors of another age who have remained steadfast in their fight against oblivion and sadness.” However, he cannot bring himself to emulate them, preferring to romanticize them from a distance; as if they exist in a world far removed from his own, rather than being men of essentially the same background. Or was it his stay at the Sorbonne that changed everything? In Chassiduth, what is essential is not the question or the answer, but the action the one or the other elicits. Wiesel himself indicated that he is aware of this. He tells the story of Reb Pinchas Koretzer to whom a disciple came filled with despair. His doubts were destroying him, leaving him with faith in nothing. When the disciple was told to go and study, he said that he had tried, but to no avail. Whereupon the Rebbe replied that the same thing had once happened to him. The same doubts, anguish, and immobility had plagued him too. Until one day when he heard that Reb Yisroel Baal Shem-Tov had come to the town, and, out of curiosity, went to see him. The Baal Shem finished praying, turned around, and the intensity in his eyes overwhelmed me. I knew he was not looking at me alone, yet I knew that I was less alone. Suddenly, with out a word, I was able to go home, open the Talmud, and plunge into my studies once more. “ You see,” said the Rebbe Pinchas of Koretz to his d is c ip le , “ the questions remained questions, my doubts were still as heavy with anguish, but I was able to continue.” Chassiduth is not a body of inspira tional tales and aphorisms. Neither is it a religion unto itself. It is an attempt at a re-

JEWISH L IF E

vitalization of Yiddishkeit through new expression of, and within, the Mitzvoth, not instead o f th e m . W ithout Halochah, “ Hasidism” remains form without content. HE Talmud says, ‘‘Great is learning, for it brings to action.” The lesson must be actualized, but the action is in Mitzvoth, not a mystical nationalism and humanism. Thus Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, embodied love for the land and its people, saint and sinner alike, found his expression only through Torah, and was staunchly opposed to any desecration of the Law. I saw a published letter of his, in which he vehem ently decried mixed dancing on Kibbutzim; and his first published work was a pamphlet on proper placement of the

Tephillin shel Rosh. Wiesel sees Jewish destiny being ful filled in a non-religious Israeli Army Cor poral, whose tale rings of ancient legend; but he seems unaware of thousands of young people in Israeli and American yeshivoth trying to realize that desfiny within the framework originally set forth to support and maintain it. He sees it in Russian Jews who, risking freedom, sent letters to Golda Meir and the United Nations announcing their wish to go to Israel; but he seems unaware of a man in Russia who risks his life daily providing a hidden Mikvah for Jewish women to be able to keep the laws of family purity. He speaks of a world that

A P R IL 1972

is no more; and seems not to see a new, thriving world of young people who are, even now, trying to make sense midst the chaos and, through Torah, be true to them selves, their G-d, their people, and the world. Unlike DeNur, Wiesel rebels at the idea of ‘‘an intrinsic link connecting the national resurrection of Israel to the era of Auschwitz,” especially when juxtaposed ‘‘as a compensation or process of cause and effect.” He gives two reasons: one, that it would be unjust to put such a burden of guilt and responsibility on the children of Israel; and the other, that Israel cannot answer the Holocaust because by its very nature and magnitude the Holocaust negates all answers. Reb Elchonon Wasserman, one of the acknowledged Torah leaders of the last generation to perish at the hands of the Nazis, was in America near the beginning of the war. He was begged to remain, but said that he could not leave his disciples alone there. He returned, and was in the middle of holding a discourse when the Germans entered the study hall. He told his disciples to purify and prepare themselves, for now they will be offered as a sacrifice for the Jews of America; that they might survive to realize the destiny of Torah and greet the Messiah. The responsibility is awesome. Is it not?

S C H E C H T E R & H I R S C H ’S

G5RIBBEM

KOSHER GLATT

ENTIRE OCEANFRONT BLOCK — 37th to 3«th St. M IA M I BEACH • * •

is a GREAT Kosher Hotel — you'll love it!

D IA L

M IA M I

For Reservations Speak to S A M SCHECHTER

beach 8 0 0

FREE! ..............

- 3 2 7 - 8165

O r C all N .r . O ff: PL 7 -4 2 3 8 Evenings & Su n d ay FA 7 -1 7 4 2

FREE P A R K IN G P R IV A T E POOL AND S A N D Y BEACH

Fine Quality Dairy Products

ALBERT WOOD&FIVE SONS.« PORT WASHINGTON L I- NEW YORK

JEWISH LIFE

THE ESTHETICS OF TASHMISHEY KODESH by M IC H A E L K A N IE L JEWISH C E R E M O N IA L A R T AND R E L I G IO U S O B S E R V A N C E , by Abraham Kanof; New Y ork: Harry N. Abrams, 1970, 253 pp., $25.00 IE W ISH A R T has become popular ■I among American Jews in recent years. There was a time when the late Cecil Roth — who, incidentally, did a great deal to popularize interest in Jewish art — would cry out, seemingly in the wilderness, for greater interest in the subject, for research in various aspects of Jewish art, and for specialized books discussing Jewish cere monial art. Publishers are business men, and so long as there was little interest in Jewish art they were not going to invest in publish ing books which, they believed, would not be bought by the public. In recent years, however, there has been increasing interest in the subject on the part of American Jews. An awakened inter est in Jewish self-identification has resulted in a rash of second-and third-rate paintings by Israeli artists flooding America, all being eagerly acquired by American Jews anxious to decorate their living rooms and dens with the worst of what is being manufactured in the Holy Land. The “ Jewish A rt” may have been acquired on a frenetic fifteen-day all expense tour of Israel, or, quite likely, at an Israel art show held in the local synagogue or temple, now an annual event in many American cities. For many spiritual and lay congregational leaders seeking to provide a means of Jewish identification for their congregants while adding to budgetary resources, “ Jewish A rt“ looks like just the MR. K A N IE L of Bayit Vegan, Jerusalem used to be Mr. Kaufman of Far Rockaway, New York.

A P R IL 1972

thing. Consequently, some institutions are building or planning additional wings which could serve as art galleries, and there is hardly a large synagogue or temple which does not have its show case or lobby filled with ritual objects, old or new - some even have museum rooms devoted to Jewish cere monial art, and rooms, offices, lounges, and lobbies are decorated with the latest in Israeli art. Since, it would now appear, Jewish art is good business, publishers are now produc ing books on the subject, with varying degrees of success. Jewish Ceremonial Art by Abraham Kanof is probably the first major attempt by anyone to produce a popular art book on Je w ish cerem onial objects in English. Lavishly illustrated with black and white and color photographs, the book is pub lished by one of New York's leading art book publishers, Harry Abrams. Its author, Abram Kanof is a collector of modern Jew ish ceremonial objects, and is the founder of a workshop in the basement of the Jewish Museum of New York which pro duces modern Jewish ceremonial objects. He has close ties with the Jewish Museum which, although few would know it from seeing its displays of op art, etc., and the sparse display of Jewish ceremonial art, contains the finest public collection of Jewish ceremonial objects in the world, and thus Kanof had access to the museum’s excellent collection in preparing the book. H E S P I T E the comprehensive title, IJJew ish Ceremonial Art does not pre tend to be all-embracing — whole categories are not included or discussed; others are briefly passed over — but represents, rather, an attractive introduction to the subject.

a n

' p i

Ethics of the Fathers T ra n s la ted a n d A n n o t a t e d b y H Y M A N

G O L D IN

The Hebrew Publishing Company is proud to present a truly new edition of the Pirke Abot. The translator and annotator, Hyman Goldin, a noted Talmudic scholar and author, enriched the work with a wealth of notes and explanatipns. A 'New Setting* for tho precious gems of everlasting value contained in the pages of the Pirke Abot. One

h u n d r e d a n d f o r t y -f o u r p a g es

b e a u tifu lly

p r in t e d

th r e e

and

—

bound.

d o lla rs

HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY NEW YORK CITY Look For the H,P.C+ When Buying Hebrew Greeting Cards

FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FRIENDS A PRECIOUS GIFT two years for only $5.00

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

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

A d d r e s s.......................................... ................. .. * . . . . . . . City, State, Zip C o d e ............ ............... ............................ . „ . , , l □ include my own subscription

□ New q penewa|

Check enclosed for $

JEWISH LIFE

In such chapters as “ Judaism and Art,” “ Jews and A rt,” “ Motifs and Symbols in Jewish Ceremonial A rt,” and in others discussing the various festivals and the ceremonial objects used in their observance and in chapters on the Jewish Life Cycle, the Jewish Home, and the Synagogue, Abrams provides a well-researched, wellwritten text for the layman on the subject while appropriately illustrating the text with photographs of old and modern Jewish ritual objects. Part of the problem appears to be with “ the modern” objects. With so little room to illustrate ceremonial objects in the book, it would have been preferable for the modern pieces to be illustrated in a separate book — although we can understand the author’s desire to juxtapose the old and the new to illustrate the continuity of Jewish tradition — since many categories of Jewish ceremonial objects are skipped over com pletely, and others are just covered by the illustration of a couple of objects. In addition, unfortunately and this is a subject for a whole study by itself — the overwhelming majority of new Jewish cere m onial objects being produced cannot compare artistically with much of what has been produced by craftsmen creating Jewish ceremonial art over the years.

APR IL 1972

There is a certain imbalance in the book’s coverage. While categories such as S h o f r o t h , a m u le ts, Chevrah Kadishah objects, Chalitzah shoes, and Adar Tablets are completely and inexplicably omitted, and important Jewish ceremonial art cate gories such as Kethuboth, Shivithi, and Mizrach tablets are represented by very few illustrations, Simchath Torah flags are illus trated by four examples filling two pages! On the other hand, old Torah ornaments T o ra h C ro w n s, Rimonim, Breastplates, Pointers — the central and most significant Jewish ceremonial art objects, are illustrated by only one or two of each of the categories (although there are a few modern represen tations of these illustrated in the book). The book contains a certain amount of mislabelling — e.g., p. 190, Tallith Con tainer “ from the Mediterranean area, early 18th century,” should be Morocco, circa 1930; p. 125, “Spice Container, from Rome (?) circa 1750,” should be a Turkish (nonJewisH) incense box, early 20th century; but these errors are more the responsibility of the staff of the Jewish Museum than that of the author or publisher. However, this is quibbling. The book is an excellent introduction to the subject of Jewish ceremonial art, with a good text and fine illustrations.

Letters to the Editor T O T H E E D IT O R Bronx, New York I am just taking the opportunity of sending a personal note of congratulations on your very distinguished Silver Anni versary issue. The issue obviously reflected much love and thought on your part. I know your readers share my pleasure. Since JEWISH L I F E is such a distin guished publication I was sorry to see it reduced now to a quarterly. After you whet our appetites with the Silver Aniversary issue, why disappoint us by announcing a reduced publication schedule? Ronald L Rubin, Ph.D.

Brooklyn, New York I wish to congratulate you on a won derful issue of JEW ISH L I F E Shevat 5732. The articles were all timely and pragmatic. I ’m sure that most of your readers share my views. I especially want to draw your atten tion to an article by Rabbi Ralph Pelcovitz, “ A Manual for Baale Batim” . It is a unique and marvelous approach which should be made mandatory reading for every shoolgoer. I’m confident that if all the recom mendations for Baale Batim outlined in the article were followed the lot of the rabbi would be greatly improved. In addition the rapport between Rav and Baal Habayith would change immensely resulting in the ennoblement of the Rav’s position and in the elimination of much un wanted and unnecessary confusion and lack of respect. I humbly suggest that this article be rep rin te d as a separate booklet for distrib ution at a very nominal fee to all congrega tions. It should be the decision of the rabbi and e xe cu tiv e committee as how to best publicize its contents. I believe that it is one of the finest, most practical pieces ever to hit the Jewish literary desk. Rabbi Abraham B. Hecht

JEWISH LIFE

DR. SAM SON R. WEISS, Executive Vice President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations o f America, has announced that this summer he will relinquish the post, which he has served with such distinction for the past seventeen years, to settle in Israel. A musmoch of Mir Yeshivah, Dr. Weiss is one of orthodox Jewry’s leading thinkers and ideologists and is much in demand as a lecturer. His published writings include the famed series of “Hashkofah” essays on Jewish concepts which appeared over several years in JEWISH LIFE. . . JUDITH A. LIB E R M A N of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, is a graduate of Boston University in Economics currently attending evening law school, and the mother of four children and editor of her synagogue’s bulletin. Her contribution to this issue is her first published article. . . RABBI IRW IN S. BO R VIC K appeared twice before in the pages of JEWISH LIFE, writing of the Amish (Sept.-Oct. 1966) and of Jewish identity (May-June 1967) while rabbi in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Currently the Rav of Lido Beach Jewish Center in Long Beach, New York, he again focuses upon a social concern from a Halachic perspective.. . From Jerusalem comes this letter from SHM UEL L IT T M A N N : “I am currently ‘learning’ in Yeshivath Hebron. Last year I was in Yeshivath Sha’alvim where I gathered the informa tion for the article. Once a week, I also teach history in the new yeshivah-high school that has been opened in Kibbutz Sha’alvim. I have not been in yeshivoth all my life (I began after my receiving an M.A. from N .Y .U .), but as I see the Israeli scene from here in Jerusalem, I am convinced that it is only because of the Torah study that goes on in these citadels that the Almighty defends this land from its many enemies.” Mr. Littmann appeared in JEWISH LIFE as a book reviewer in the Feb.-March 1969 issue. . . As Director of Communal Relation for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, R ABBI E L K A N A H SCHW ARTZ navigates currents and cross-cur rents in the diverse panoply of Jewish public affairs. He has contributed various articles and stories to this magazine, which he serves as Assistant Editor. . . R U TH G. F R E ID M A N N of Forest Hills, New York writes: “Prior to my retirement in 1965 I taught social studies at Jamaica Vocational High School for twenty-five years. Before that I had served in several elementary schools, including one in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area. For the two years 1969-71 I was on the General Studies faculty o f Torah Academy for Girls in Far Rockaway. I have written articles and book reviews for professional publications.” . . . When DR. A A R O N ROTHKOFF submitted his initial offer ing to this magazine, back in 1966, we thought well of the way he portrayed a Torah luminary of recent times. So, it developed upon publication, did our readers. They and we asked for more. Thus has followed the succession of incisive biographies of rabbinic sages and leaders of the past generation with which Dr. Rothkoff has enriched numerous issues of JEWISH LIFE. The product of his original research, his work has brought to light much that was previously not known or not available to the present-generation Jewish public as well as placing these figures in clearer historical focus. Dr. Rothkoff now lives in Jerusalem, where he devotes himself to teaching and writing.. . The rare quality of the verse of B E R N A R D D. M ILIAN S was much marked by our readers with the publication of his “Lunatic Songs” in the issue of September-October, 1969 and again with “Why Have You Chosen Me?” in May-June 1970. His present contribution invites a similar response.

CometoMother’s for theHolidays. W hen it comes to the tradi tion al foods, M o th e r’s knows best. Mother’s makes delicious Old-Fashioned Gefilte Fish, Whitefish and Yellow Pike, All-Whitefish, Unsalted, Old-W orld (its a little sweeter like mother used to make). Some in jars, some in cans. Also regular borscht and schav, unsalted borscht and low calorie borscht. Also, Mother’s has the only soft marmarine for Passover plus stick margarine, '¿M ||S | &