Jewish Life January 1972 by Jewish Action

ON THE SILVER ANNIVERSARY OF JEWISH LIFE NEW DIMENSIONS OF ‘WHO IS A JEW?’ AMERICA’S PUBLIC EDUCATORS ARE FLOUNDERING REFLECTIONS ON WORKING WITH THE AGED * THIS IS AMERICA.. . SKETCHES FROM DACHAU - - 1971 * THE UNIQUENESS OF JERUSALEM THE DAY SCHOOL CRISIS * A MANUAL FOR BAALE BATTIM SHEVAT 5732 JANUARY 1972

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations o f America is privileged to announce the

SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE OF NATIONAL SYNAGOGUE ORGANIZATIONS AND RELIGIOUS COUNCILS

to take place, flw,K in

JERUSALEM im p n TJ>

on Teveth 22-25, 5732

January 9-12, 1972

Seqond World Convocation in History of the Torah Synagogue

Vol. X X X IX , No. 1/January 1972/Shevat 5732

THE EDITOR'S VIEW

fra

SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE....................... 3

SPECIAL FEATURE S aul B ern stein , E d ito r D r. H erb ert G o ldstein L ib b y K laperm an D r. Ja c o b W. L an d ynski R a b b i S o lo m o n J . S h arfm an E d itorial A ssociates E lk an ah S ch w artz A ssista n t E d ito r JEW ISH L IF E is p ublished q u a rte rly y . S u b scrip tio n tw o years $ 5 .0 0 , th re e years $ 6 .5 0 , f o u r years $ 8 .0 0 . F oreign: A d d 4 0 c e n t s p e r y ear. E d ito rial an d P u b licatio n O ffice: 84 F ifth A venue New Y o rk , N.Y. 10011 (2 1 2 ) AL 5 -4100 P ublished by UNION O F O R T H O D O X JEW ISH C O N G R E G A T IO N S OF AM ERICA Jo sep h K arasick P resident H arold M. Jaco b s Chairman o f the Board S am uel C. F eu erstein , H o n o r ary Chairman o f th e Board; B enjam in K oenigsberg, Senior V ic e P resident; N ath an K. G ross, H arold H. B oxer, David P o liti, Dr. B ernard L ander, L aw ren ce A. K ob rin , Julius B e r m a n , V ic e P re s id e n ts ; E ugene H o llan d er, Treasurer; M orris L. G reen, H onorary Treasurer; Jo el Balsam , Secre tary; D aniel G reer, Financial S ecreta ry

ON THE SILVER ANNIVERSARY OF JEWISH LIFE........................................ .....45

ARTICLES THE NEW DIMENSIONS OF ‘WHO IS A JEW?’/ J. Goldschmidt............................................ ...7 THE UNIQUENESS OF JERUSALEM/ Aaron R othkoff........................................... 26 THE DAY SCHOOL CRISIS/ Reuben E. Gross........................................... 33 A MANUAL FOR BAALE BATTIM/ Ralph Pelcovitz............................................ 37 THIS IS AMERICA/ Hillel Seidman.............................................. 65 REFLECTIONS ON WORKING WITH THE AGED/ Mollie Kolatch.............................................. 68 AMERICA’S PUBLIC EDUCATORS ARE FLOUNDERING/ Jacob J. Hecht.......... ....................................75

ART FEATURE SKETCHES FROM DACHAU - 1971/ David Adler........................

DEPARTMENTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR............................... 79

Dr. S am son R. Weiss E x e c u tiv e Vice P resident Saul B ern stein , A d m in is tra to r S eco n d Class Postage paid a t New Y o rk , N .Y .

AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS...........................2

C over b y D avid A d ler D raw ings b y N aam a K itov © C o p y rig h t 19 7 2 by U n io n o f O rth o d o x Je w ish C ongre g ations o f A m erica. M aterial fro m JEW ISH L IF E , in cluding illu stratio n s, m ay n o t b e re p ro d u c e d e x c e p t b y w ritte n p e r m ission fro m th is m agazine follow ing w ritte n re q u e st.

a m

As Chairman of the Legislative Committee of Israel’s K ’nesseth, D R. J.

G O LD SC H M ID T finds himself at the fulcrum o f the sensitive and historic issue

he discusses. No newcomer to JE W IS H L IF E pages, he says the enclosed article was “ prompted by the sometimes lively, sometimes bitter discussion of the same problem in these months and days.” . . .. R A B B I R A LPH P E L C O V IT Z has dealt with diverse social and communal questions in his previous contributions to our pages. In addressing himself here to the rabbi-layman relationship, he draws upon his years of experience in the rabbinate. He is the rav of Congregation

our

Kneseth Israel of Far Rockaway, New York, and a past president o f the Igud Harabonim .. . . D R. H IL L E L SEID M A N is of long tenure in the ranks o f men of

Jewish letters in the United States today. Columnist in the Yiddish Press, author of English volumes, and contributor to JE W IS H L IF E , he recounts herein a personal experience of anniversary significance... . M RS. M O L L IE KO LA T C H

0 n

writes from Long Beach, New York: “ I am in the midst o f pursuing a Masters degree in Social Work. My placement this past year, and through the summer months, is with the Jewish Association for Services for the A g ed .. . . I am

t too little recognition of its implications, and too little awareness o f the value our r Jewish tradition places on this part of the lifespan vs. the denial of aging in the American culture, as well as attitudes toward the aged themselves.” . . . . A pre 1 vious article in JE W IS H L IF E by R A B B I JA C O B J. H EC H T, “ Blockbusting,” was quoted by the Attorney General of New York State in a brief on that b subject. As Executive Vice President of the Lubavitch-sponsored-National Committee for Furtherence of Jewish Education, which conducts released-time u programs for public school children, public and Jewish education are both within his field of daily concern. His participation in the recent White House t Conference on Education prompted the present article . . . . D R. A A R O N

reviewing many aspects of the challenging area of the aged. There seems to be

r s

R O T H K O FF is teaching history and Jewish thought at Jerusalem Torah College, Machon Zev Gold, and Jerusalem College for Women. His biography of Dr. Bernard Revel is scheduled for publication this year.

Ihe EDITOR'S VIEW

SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE H E words “ World Conference“ and “ KinusO lom i,” and the equivalents in a variety of languages, are now on many lips in many lands. For a second time in history, representatives of orthodox synagogal and kehillah constituencies from across the world are to assemble in Jerusalem in a great demonstration of brotherhood in the Torah cause. The event, running from the 22nd to the 25th Teveth, 5732 (January 9-12, 1972), has been awaited with more than eagerness. The First World Conference, convened four years ago, left an unforgettable imprint, and through the past period the urge expressed on all sides to partici pate in the Second World Conference has mounted to an astonish ing pitch. The interest is now fully confirmed by the size of the delegations from each country, surpassing the very impressive numbers attending the initial assemblage.

It is thus obvious that the convening of the Second World Conference of National Synagogue Organizations and Religious Councils marks response to a need deeply felt by Torah Jew ry the world over. It is world Orthodoxy’s only means of filling a major gap in inter-community relations. In an era when instant commu n ic a tio n and around-the-globe-between-Shacharith-and-Maariv transportation have made the world one jumbled neighborhood, the interests of the Jewries of each land interlock closely with each other. There is paramount necessity for periodic joint delib-

JANUARY 1972

eration of mutual concerns, for occasion for the stronger community to aid the weaker community, and for all to discover and understand each other and find in personalized experience of inter-community fellowship new Chizuk and broadened vista. This, in essence, is the role and meaning of the World Conference. H E call to the World Conference was issued by the Chief Rabbis o f Israel, Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman and Rabbi Yitzhak Nissim . The convening bodies in clude, together with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions of America and the National Council of The Young Israel, the national orthodox synagogue CaH federations and kehilloth of Israel, Britain, France, H o lla n d , Ita ly , Belgium, Switzerland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Rumania. In addition, communities in numerous other lands will be represented. Constituted on a self-limiting basis, the World Conference does not and will not have permanent composition as a world organization or world union. This was precluded from the first, since the charters of some of its sponsoring bodies, including the British and French units, prohibit affiliation with permanent international organizations. Its ad hoc character notwithstanding, the Conference is a potent force for correlated endeavor. In its formal facets, the Kinus Olomi will deliberate an agenda of major practical problems and communal policy questions facing Jewish religious life today. A banner roster-of

Fount of Mind and Spirit

Torah luminaries, Israeli dignitaries, and eminent thinkers w ill be heard. General sessions dealing broadly with the central subjects will give occasion for ^ chosen spokesmen of each delegation to

voice the particular outlook of his community and for open-floor discussion. M ultiple commission units concentrat ing on assigned facets of the agenda topics will enable every delegate to contribute his views in intimate person-to-person setting. The wealth of sifted ideas and distilled experience brought together w ill form an invaluable resource for the ad vancement o f religious life in each national community, and the alignment of thinking on contemporary issues will undoubtedly have potent effect on the course of Jewish affairs. These practical rewards will be fully matched by the

JEWISH LIFE

emotional experience. To come together, in the most sacred place on earth, with like-minded and like-dedicated fellow Jews from wherever Jews dwell in number and from remote corners of the earth where but a staunch handful dwell — to meet and forge ties of friendship with these brothers from afar, to exchange thoughts, share each other's problems and achievements, to experience together the inspiration of a great movement in Jewish history — this is what gives the Kinus Olomi its underlying appeal. S before, the World Conference is an unwelcome develop ment to the forces o f heterodoxy and secularism. These see its influence on Jews everywhere, and especially in Israel, as countering their own aspirations. With the Reform and Conserva tive movements continuing their strained but strongly financed efforts to establish themselves in Israel, and with secularist forces more than ever determined to impact on retajn thejr grip on the Jewish State, they share a

common apprehension of the impact on the Israeli public of an event which will demonstrate the vibrant strength of Orthodoxy. The First World Conference was an eye-opener for many Israelis. They had been unaware that Orthodoxy is a rising force on the world scene. Israelis in large part had no idea, too, that the world Torah community includes in its ranks great numbers of men and women well attuned to modern life and of standing in the sciences, business life, the professions, the arts, government, and public affairs. They were similarly unaware that Orthodoxy in North America and else where has an extraordinarily rich resource of committed youth. The convening of the First World Conference brought these reali ties to the ken of Israelis at large as never before. The Second World Conference is bound to bear accumulated force; j t will have deep, positive, and enduring effect on attitudes towards Torah Judaism. The deprecation of the World Conference by non-orthodox groups is to be expected. But what can one make of opposition from within Orthodoxy's own fold? As before, some voices from within have been raised in strident opposition to the assembling of synagogue and community forces. And as previously, the objections cited are so specious as to impugn the intelligence of the intended audience.

JANUARY 1972

For all that their arguments and their methods are so questionable, the prompters of the agitation seem earnest. It is known that the opposition, confined to a small circle, was initiated by an individual figure in Israel, who has recruited, under duress in some cases, an odd assortment o f allies. N ot all of these are a source of pride to the Torah com munity. The propa ganda which has been disseminated is eloquent o f the motivating psychology, as indicated by the following: ¡1 . .A world conference was called to establish a World Synagogue U n io n .. . .[w hich] is no more than a cover for the real program of people who wish to alter the true form of the traditional synagogue... they would, as they have publicly declared, alter the prayers of the world's Je w s .. . They would unite all the world's synagogues in order to govern them and use them for the purposes o f the National Religious Party (Mizrachi-Hapoel Hamizrachi) . . . so that Zionism instead of Torah would come out o f the sacred ark . . . This union is not being formed — regardless o f what its planners claim - in order to strengthen religious life. The opposite is true. Their goal is the paralysis of thriving Jewish living in >ewish communities throughout the world . . . these organizers, who very well know what they are doing, have no compunctions about misleading innocent, good-hearted rabbis and communal leaders who are incap able o f believing that this cynical Union would have no peer in its power to destroy Traditional Jud aism .. . " and so on. There is no need for rebuttal o f this complex o f canard and calumny. Let it simply be said: it bears no element o f fact what soever; it \ssheker throughout. Saddening as it is to see this exhibition o f an inner blight, to the extent that it has been felt at all it has served only to underscore the creative worth

of the World Conference of

National Synagogue Organizations and Religious Councils. H IS is a time when the Jewish people is faced with critical decisions. The guidelines adopted now, the pattern to be shaped, w ill condition Jewish life long into the future. The World Conference, bringing concerted purpose and clarified view to the communities o f the Torah world, w ill be a beacon of light to guide the ranks of Jew ry to the right course.

- S .B .

JEWISH LIFE

Tlie

new W HO

dim ensions IS

JE W ? by J. GOLDSCHMIDT

H E foundation o f the State of Israel has been viewed by many as a kind o f terminus o f Jewish history — the termination o f that long period when the Jewish nation was devoid of

that supreme expression of political existence S I a sovereign state. But there can be no “ terminus” in history, and every chosen point in the stream o f history is at the same time the end of the past and the beginning of the future. True, the first impact of that great event was — that we have over come one o f the greatest problems of our past. But it also became soon apparent that the very same event created problems that were altogether novel. In the political sphere, the War of Independence, the following wars of 1956 and of 1967, the terrorist movements organized by the Arab states, and all the political problems down to this very day, are only too clear a proof of this: in solving one

JANUARY 1972

problem we have created another, o f a different nature, but severe and per sistent none the less. Sim ilarly, in the spiritual sphere, the founding of the state has created conditions which lead time and again to the confrontation o f widely differ ent schools of thought, which are also often bitterly opposed to one another. It is with the latter that we shall have to deal here in re-analyzing the crisis in Israel over “ Who Is a Je w ?” . These differences of opinion have been in existence for a long time, and they exist, no doubt, in most Jewish com munities in the Diaspora. But in the S ta te , the antagonism necessarily comes into the open, for in the absence of a compelling common political structure of Jewish society as is the case in the Diaspora, there is no need for a clash — each group is free to go its own way and live in accordance with its ideas and ideals. There may be

a sort of competition among such groups for a more favorable image in the eyes of the outside world. But the attitudes and practices of one group do not constitute a direct interference with the way of life or the ideologies of members of the other group. For citizens of the same state, which is run in accordance with one law, however, the situation is altogether different. Laws are passed according to the political power of the group or groups that want them, and once passed they are binding on all. There is no opting out of the state. The theoretically un limited number of legal situations which may thus develop in the course of time could be checked by funda mental legislation, as by accepting a constitution. In founding the State of Israel without a constitution that bound it to Torah or Halochah, there was ample scope for hopes that the new state would be or would become truly Jewish in the traditional sense.

But, there was no certainty that that was the course of development, and nobody has a claim against anyone else if this did not happen. Was religious Jew ry right in entering that partner ship beset with spiritual dangers and a deep uncertainty whether it would lead up to the “ eternal heights“ (Bereshith 49:26) o f our faith? The answer to this crucial question cannot be given here, and some will say it cannot be given now. Our position in reviewing the problem on hand is that our firm belief in the Providential meaning of the last hundred years of Jewish history in no way contradicts the need for a protracted political struggle for the bringing about of the desired state — albeit the outcome ultimately depends on Divine Grace. As with every other struggle, this one will bring its ups and downs, its tests of strength and of confidence. The question of “ Who is a Je w ?“ is a case in point.

WHAT MAKES ISRAEL A JEWISH STATE? T would be vastly overstating the case if one said that the State of Israel had no Jewish anchor age. The Declaration of Independence begins with an outline o f recent Jewish history which concludes:

Therefore we have assembled, mem bers of the People’s Council, repre sentatives of the Yishuv and of the Zionist Movement, on the day of the

termination of the British Mandate over Eretz Yisroel, and on the strength of our natural and our historical right, and on the basis of the decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations “ f we hereby proclaim the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisroel — The State of Israel.

This general statement on Israel being a Jewish state has expressed

JEWISH LIFE

itself in many ways —s; the character and content of Israeli life, as well as in such specifics as Hebrew being the dominant language, Shabboth being the day of rest, and the Jewish holi days exercising much influence on public life. In schools of all trends Tanach is taught and Jewish history is the frame of reference for general history. In legislation, as is well known, all matters concerning personal status have been delegated to the Rabbinical c o u rts, w h ich a ct according to Halochah. Accordingly all other laws are secular laws, whether they re semble laws of the Torah in name or in content or not. We cite as examples two such laws — the one on libel ( “ chok Loshon Hora” ), the other against delaying the payment of wages ( “ chok Halonath Hasochar” ). N ot withstanding their traditional names, the laws are secular, and their applica tion is governed by the usual rules of interpretation. This also applies to the “ Law of Return/’ whose first paragraph says: Every Jew is entitled to come and settle in Israel.

There can hardly be a clearer pronouncement on the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and the state that was founded on its ground: The State of Israel exists for the Jewish people, wherever its sons and daughters may be scattered. Every one of them has a

JANUARY 1972

share in this country, which he may never have seen, and if and when he chooses to live there, he is accepted by his birthright. Nevertheless, this is a secular law, and its interpretation is entrusted to the hands of whoever may be a lawfully appointed judge. And the government department or ministry that is to carry out the law is not bound by anything said in the law to define a Jew according to Halochah. But define it they must. For how is one otherwise to know who is entitled to the benefits under the law and who is not? Thus, the Law of Return cer tainly invites a controversy on who is a Jew . But, in fact, the crisis in the spring o f 1970 was not brought about by the Law of Return, but by the Law of Registration, which regulates the registration of all who are citizens of the country and of certain classes of temporary residents, the issuing of identity papers, etc. For amongst the items that must be specified in basic registration there are “ nationality” and “ religion.” Israel has several nationalities amongst her residents ^ Jews, Arabs (who may be Moslems or Christians), and others. For the undis puted Je w , “ n a tio n a lity” means Jewish, and religion means the same, although he may declare to be w ithout religion. He still remains a Jew . E said “ for the undisputed Je w ,” and by this we mean the one who is the child of Jewish parents, at least of a Jewish mother. But what of the child o f a Jewish father and a non-

Jewish mother, when both parents live in Israel, educate their child in a Jewish school, let him serve in the army and fight for Israel? What about the non-Jew who has been attracted to Israel and has come to live here? There are instances of such who want to throw in their personal lot with this new Israel society, ready to share all hardships and dangers, ready to bring all the sacrifices that may be de manded of them. The story was cited by all the papers of the Gentile Dutch boy who was accepted into a kibbutz, served in the army and lost a leg, who still clings to Israel and works its land. He feels himself to be a member of this community, he has learned the language and absorbed a measure of Jewish culture — is he not a Jew ?, the cry was raised. It is almost to be taken for granted that all of us who have grown up and have always lived under the guidance of Jewish law will shrug off those questions. Most will probably

d isp u te the very raising of such questions. It is so certain and selfunderstood that no non-Jew can join the Jewish nation by his own w ill and declaration alone, even if he has shown identification with the Jewish people or with the land o f Israel. But what is self-understood for us, who are held by the strong arms of conviction and habit, is not to the same degree self-understood for those who have lived far from the influence of Torah commitment and a Torahbound society. The rites which, to us, are the most definitive requisites for passage from the outside world into the Jewish people, Milah and T ’vilah, may seem to them archaic and mean ingless, at least in comparison to what they feel as a so much deeper identifi cation H S th e covenant of life and death. Only when you have grasped that such a trend of thought is possible — much as you reject it personally — are you prepared to enter the discus sion o f the Shalit case.

THE FACTS OF THE SHALIT CASE e n j a m i n s h a l i t , w ho ap p lied to Israel’s Supreme Court for an order nisi against the Minister of the Interior, is Israel-born of Jewish parents. A t various times he

a lady in England whom he described as “ o f British birth, daughter of a Scottish father and a French mother.” In the papers filled in at the time of entry into Israel in 1960 the w ife’s

declared his own nationality to be “ Hebrew” (Iv ri), “ Israeli,” or “ Jewish by education and national affiliation.” These varying statements were made between 1948 and 1967. In 1958 Benjamin Shalit married

status was described as “ of no religion and of British nationality.” That status was never asked to be amended, but in a letter written by Mr. Shalit in 1967

he claimed the nationality o f his wife to be then “ Jewish or Hebrew, or

JEWISH LIFE

Israelite.” A son was born to the couple in 1964 and a daughter in 1967. When the father in his notification of the birth of his son stated the boy’s nationality as Jewish, this was rejected by the registering clerk and amended to “ Je w is h fa th e r, non-Jew ish mother,” which is the formula pre scribed by the Minister of the Interior for such cases. In his protests and requests regarding the registration of the two children Mr. Shalit again used alternately the terms “ Jew ish” and “ Hebrew” but the aim of his applica tion to the Supreme Court was to o b ta in an o rd e r demanding the Minister of the Interior to register the tw o Sh alit children as of Jewish nationality. While we see from this casehistory that the applicant was groping for an adequate description of his own national status, wavering between the simple “ Jew ish” and such more un u s u a l term s as “ Is r a e lite ” or “ Hebrew,” he did come around in the end to the traditional term “ Jew ish,” claiming it for his children as their full right. What lies at the bottom of this struggle?

HE answer is to be found in the

relig io u s connotation of the term “ Jew ish.” Shalit had decided at some point in his development that he was not to belong to any religion. During the years of his search for the proper definition of his own and then his children’s nationality he picked once upon “ Hebrew” and some other JANUARY 1972

time on “ Israeli.” It seemed to him, as explained in support of his applica tion, that anyone who lived in Israel, spoke Hebrew, made himself acquaint ed with the rudiments of Jewish culture, did his duty as a citizen both in peace and war, was entitled to full status in the state. As far as he himself was concerned, whose Jewish status before the law was above challenge, these conditions filled the vacant place of Jewish religious allegiance, and he considered himself entitled to the term “ Jew ish.” But in the eyes of the law the whole argument was unnecessary in his case. This was not so, however, where his children were concerned. They could not be called Jewish by birth, but their father claimed the title for them because, he said, they were being brought up as Jews, and hence they felt themselves (or would so feel when grown up) to be Jews. In the absence of the formal conditions re quired (birth of a Jewish mother or proper conversion), Mr. Shalit de manded that the “ cultural affiliation” be accepted in lieu o f the religious affiliation or the link required by reli gious law. Shalit demanded, in effect, to separate the national essence of the Jew from the religious essence and to give a novel definition o f national affil iation to the Jewish people, which should be devoid of any of the criteria required by Jewish religious law — the Halochah. His prolonged search for the proper term gives true evidence of how clearly he was aware of the radical departure from hallowed tradition and how great a revolution he was about to 11

propose. It is this “ separation of n a tio n a lity from re lig io n ” that appeared to be the real problem in volved in Shalit’s struggle for the regis tration of his non-Jewish children as Jews on the strength of his declaration “ in good faith.” It thus seemed clear that the

Supreme Court would have to give a decision on the question “ Who is a Je w ?” in order to decide whether Shalit’s claim was admissible or not, i.e ,, whether the Minister of the Interior should be asked by the court to carry out the registration as re quired by Shalit or not.

THE ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE SHALIT CASE N the preamble to his defense of the Minister of the Interior the Attorney General said:

I ask the honorable court not to con clude from the attitude of the de fendant to the requests of the appli cant any intention to restrict the rights of the applicant and his wife. The defendant could not but observe that to concede to the requests of the applicant has a general significance far transcending the personal interest of the applicant. Moreover, while the refusal of the defendant to fulfill the request of the applicant does not leave the applicant’s family and others without any alternative solu tion, to fulfill that request must lead to severe and far-reaching results in the im portant question at issue before this honorable court, i.e., the m eaning o f the term “ Jewish Nation.” The defendant will not be able to prevent those consequences, and they will be projected onto the whole of the Jewish community, both in Israel and outside the state, and not onto the applicant and his family only.

T h e A tto rn e y General thus appealed in clear though measured words to the national and historic conscience of the judges of the High 12

Court, and in the words of some of the judges we find even more vivid expres sion of that same concern. Let us hear what Chief Justice and Vice President of the court M. Silberg had to say on this same point: The destructive consequences of the criteria (for Jewish nationality as requested) of the applicants are clear and severe. He who holds that a person can be of Jewish nationality without being at the same time of Jewish religion must admit, whether he likes it or not, that a Christian or a Moslem can also be registered as of Jewish nationality, if only he feels in his heart affinity to Jewish-lsraelite culture and values. True, the appli cants have not proposed to enlarge their thesis so as to include the adher ents of other religions. They them selves are not in need of this, and they have therefore limited their application to people without reli gion, or to children whose father at any rate is Jewish. But that conces sion is of no use to us. Other appli cants will turn up, who are wholly non-Jewish, Christians or Moslems both from their father’s and their mother’s side, and they will demand th a t the “ Shalit precedent” be applied to them — and they will be perfectly right. For there is neither reason nor logic in a distinction

JEWISH LIFE

between the two cases. He who says “ A ” in this discussion will also have to say “ B .” And if Jewish religious affiliation is not required for con stituting Jewish national affiliation, religious Christian affiliation cannot disturb us either.

Following this general introduc tion, the Attorney General reviewed the laws of registration and the author ity of the registering clerk to refuse to register as a Jew a person declaring to be Je w is h when that declaration appears to the clerk to conflict with other data known to him. But the main effort of the Attorney General was to prove that writers, thinkers, and statesmen alike — whether or not them selves personally observant — have always agreed that there can be

no Jewish nationality except as recog nized by Jewish religious law. The evidence was drawn from a wide circle of sources including Ahad Ha’am, Ben G u rio n , Sharett, the responses of Je w is h scholars to Ben G urion’s enquiry in the year 1958, and many others. Quotations from Conservative and even Reconstructionist writers, among the rest, agreed with those from orthodox figures that it is impos sible to find or define conditions for belonging to the Jewish people other than those prescribed by religious law. The Attorney General therefore pro posed not to admit the right o f regis tration as Jewish of anyone who obviously does not meet the require ments of Jewish law — as in the case of the Shalit children, whose mother was admittedly non-Jewish.

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT H E High Court sat in its maxi mum c o m p o sitio n o f nine judges, and the verdict was given in favor of the applicant by five against four votes. The majority opinion made the m ost of every possibility to interpret the law so as to deny the registering clerk all right and possibil

secular legislation. This, they said, was not required o f them in order to reach a just decision in this case. They did not take issue with the grave conse quences that such a practice as en dorsed by their judgement must invoke. Nor did they hint how such consequences might be avoided.

ity to reject a registration as Jewish nationality, provided it was requested by the citizen “ in good faith,“ even though it was in flagrant contradiction with Jewish law. The majority judges were careful to point out that they said nothing about the proper defini

The m inority judges stated that the existing legislation by no means allowed only the interpretation that the m ajority had given. Moreover, they felt that the decision was too fateful

tion of “ Je w “ and “ Jew ish“ in Israel

fo rm a lis tic

JANUARY 1972

for the Jewish nation as at present deployed and disposed for a dry and attitude

really

adequate and justified. But, in fact, the Minister of the Interior could no longer uphold his order to the depart ment to not register the Shalit children as requested by their father. The verdict of the Court came as a shock to the majority of Israelis. This included, besides all the respon sible religious groups — National Reli gious Party (N R P ), Agudah, and Poale Agudah — the bulk of the Labor Party (Mapai) and the right wing block of Gahal (Heruth and Liberals). There was a vociferous minority of various splinter groups, independent Liberals, Ben Gurion’s little group, Commu nists, and the Olam Hazeh party (2 members) who celebrated the victory of “ progress and enlightenment over the dark ages” and any connection with the Jewish tradition or Halochah. But let us hear at least two voices on the problem of those who spoke in the debate on the new law that was pro posed in order to fill the gap that the Supreme Court had discovered in the existing legislation — the voices of Premier Golda Meir and of Minister Menahem Begin o f Heruth. Said Mrs. Meir (from the verba tim record of the K ’nesseth, Feb. 10, 1970): On that morning, when the Minister of Justice called me to inform me that the Court had given its decision, I thought of two things. First of all, that this could be understood in the Diaspora as if Israel had thereby given permission for intermarriage. Then, I also thought, and quite

p a r t ic u la r ly , o f the Je w s o f Russia.. . None of us____had a rational ex planation for the fact that we are existing. There is no parallel to this u nder similar conditions — few among the many. And yet — here we are, the community of “ K ’nesseth Is r a e l” in an independent free country.. . . But we may not be quiet and tell ourselves that in the present time there is no danger for our existence. True, there is not at the moment a danger for our physical existence. O f course, there are in Arab countries Jews who are in such danger as individuals, as small groups or congregations. But this is not so for the millions of Jews in the world--- But a different danger has sprung up, and it is real, and that danger is very great. I do not go here into the causes, but it is a fact that under the conditions prevailing for the three-and-a-half to four million Jews in Russia there is a high degree of intermarriage. We are being told that now, since the awakening after the Six-Day W a r.. . the number of mixed marriages had declined. And there are large (Jewish) communities in the world — like the wonderful c o m m u n i t y in Am erica.. . . Just that community I know well. And it is a fact that dur ing the last ten to fifteen years mixed marriage have reached frightening proportions. Some say 18%, others say 20%, and some even 25% — but let it be 18%. Let the statisticians sit with pencil and paper and work out what will happen. We have already had one disaster: When the free State of Israel came into being, six million Jews were there no longer____ It is Just unbearable to think that just when there is a free Jewish state,

JEWISH LIFE

mixed marriage should so flourish, which means but that: a reduction in the number of Jews in the world.

A nd this is Minister Begins answer to the revolt against the defini tion of “ Who is a Je w ?“ as required by Halochah: They say that since for the Jew there can be no separation between religion and nationality, the definition of who is a Jew must be given by the Halochah. And there are people, who, on hearing the word “ Halo chah” uttered by anyone, fall down on their faces, get up and start con fessing their sins (“ Al Chet” ). This is reactionary, they say, those are rebels against enlightenment, who will never be accepted into the circle of real progressives.. . . I am sorry, but l am not shaken at all. What have you to

THE REMEDY

E T US now review the situation that the Supreme Court had

created with its decision in the Shalit case, and what means o f remedy were open to the Government and to the National Religious Party (N R P ). The obvious primary need was for filling the void regarding the defini tion o f “ Who is a Je w ?.” Since deci sions of the Supreme Court are final, the only way to replace the invalidated M inister’s order was legislation by the K ’nesseth. Hence the first item in the new legislation was to define the term “ Je w .” This was done by the new paragraph 4b of the Law of Return, which states:

JANUARY 1972

say against the Halochah, what com plaints dp you have that you deride and humiliate the Halochah? Is it not that. Halochah, which has planted the life eternal in our midst, which has kept us alive in trials of blood, fire, and ceaseless wandering? And there are such as do not hesitate to revile the Jewish Halochah as racial, as reminiscent of Nazism. Is this not a shocking thing to be heard? In these days when all our deadly enemies call the liberation of our land “ Nazi occu pation.” . . . . What do those people want? Do they wish our children to be ashamed to have been born Jews? Do they want us to flee from the land of our fathers so that we should not be Nazis or racists?— . Have we come here to be ashamed of our being Jewish, to be ashamed of our forefathers^- or to maintain their heritage?

LEGISLATION For the purpose of this law, “ Jew ” means a person born of a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, provided he has no other religion.

The omission in this paragraph of the words “ according to Halochah” will occupy us below. The clause “ provided he has no other religion” was made necessary years ago by the case of Brother Daniel (Ruffeisen) who claimed his birthright as a Jew under the Law of Return, although he had become a Christian and entered a monastery. But the definition of who is a Jew in the Law of Return could hardly alone suffice to prevent future trouble.

For this did not affect the application of the Law of Registration as inter preted by the Supreme Court. It might be argued, though, that once Israel law has defined who was a Jew , Mr. Shalit’s (or anybody else’s) declaration that his children, born o f a gentile mother, were Jewish could no longer be accepted as made “ in good faith ,” since it flagrantly contradicted the laws of the country. But this was not a compelling argument, and therefore the situation was further clarified by Par. 2 of the new amendment, which added the following lines to the Law of Registration: 3a. For the purpose of this law and every entry or certificate under it, “ Jew ” shall have the same meaning as in Par. 4b of the Law of Return *■' 1950. No one shall be registered as a Jew by nationality or religion if a statement under this law or another entry in the register or a public certificate shows that the person (in question) is not a Jew. Nothing in this paragraph shall deter from any registration carried out before its enactment.

H E two provisions mentioned so far contain the positive part of the amendment, in which the N R P saw an important improvement of the situation, except for the wording of the conversion clause, with which we shall deal later. It should be noted, too, that the wording of the above paragraphs, stressing “ this law,” makes it clear that the authority of the rabbinical courts in all matters o f per

sonal status is not affected by the new law. This includes conversion inside Israel and recognition of any conversion for the purpose of jurisdic tion o f the rabbinical courts of Israel. But the majority in the Governm ent insisted on additional provisions. In the debate on the Supreme Court decision, the Prime Minister had said that she at once thought of the Jews o f Russia and of the families o f mixed marriage who wanted to come to Israel to settle. Here, Mrs. Meir said, we shall at least not have to worry about their children remaining Jewish. By the latter remark Mrs. Meir referred to the frightening dimensions of intermarriage in Russia and in most countries of the Western world. Inevitably the m ajority of the offspring o f such marriages will dis appear from

the roll-count of the

Jewish people — everywhere, that is, outside Israel. Granted that the notion of “ remaining Jew ish” entertained by Mrs. Meir is not identical with the stipulations of Halochah for being a Jew . But one must admit that the prospects we may envisage for the offspring of mixed couples (about half of whom w ill be Jews by Halochah anyway) are infinitely better for those who settle in Israel. For, while there may be conversion (and in Israel this means proper conversion according to H aloch ah), there is little fear of marriage to non-Jews, and there are all the contacts with the Jewish nation and the participation in its fate, which life in Israel assures.

JEWISH LIFE

THE PROBLEM OF THE RUSSIAN JEWS UT we have to face up to the fateful question: do we, the reli gious Jews in Israel and the world over, want the immigration of Jews who concluded a marriage with a nonJew ish partner? Do we want them and their families? Do we want them on equal terms in all the material aspects o f their immigration and integration in the country? Or, do we feel it our

Israel shall be open for the immigra tion o f Jews and the ingathering o f the exiles.” True, the meaning of the attri bute “ Jew ish” to the State o f Israel has never been elucidated. And the question as to how much o f the Jewish religious and cultural heritage is to be preserved (and observed) in the Jewish State remains much debated. Bu t there can be no doubt that the State of

right and our duty to restrict their

Isra e l

coming here as far as is compatible

“ Jew ish ”

with the laws of the country, at least

decisive factor in its citizenry. B u t th e re is a vo cifero u s minority in the country which makes every effort to shake o ff the burden o f

by denying them, and in particular to the non-Jewish members of the immi grant fam ily, all the means of encour agement that we offer the Jewish immigrant? W hat are the trends in this respect in the general population? I do not know of any public opinion polls that were devoted to this question in particular, but if to judge from the attitude to the provision o f kosher food only in the army and other gover nment-co ntro 11ed estab I ish ments, we should think that far more than half the Jewish population of Israel is sensitive to the need and historic obligation to preserve the integrity of the Jewish people. This seems also to have been the understanding at the unanimous acceptance of the Declara tion of the State of Israel, which says in Par. 11: “ ____we herewith declare the founding of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel — the State o f Israel.” And in Par. 13 we read: “ The State of JANUARY 1972

could

never

be considered

unless Jew s formed

the

national allegiance defined by the bonds o f com m on descent and heritage. This is, indeed, but one of the items on the long list o f Jewish characteristics which these people wish to leave behind. These are the same people who repudiate the connection between nationality and religion, who demand the separation o f state and religion, call for civil marriage and divorce, etc. In the last analysis they propose to let Israeli citizenship re place Jewish nationality, and their demand that any gentile who “ throws in his lot with that o f the people of Israel” (a phrase much beloved by them) should in a minimum time and procedure become an Israeli in „every respect, with the right to marry any one who agrees to it, perhaps exclud ing some incestuous connections. Mrs. Shulamith A lo n i’s book liHa-hesder”

(The Arrangement) abounds in proofs and demonstrations of this attitude. This group may not count a great number of adherents, but they have a disproportionately great influence on the press, the radio, and T V , which magnify their weight far beyond their numbers.

title

Then there is the claim o f the of every Jew to come here,

whether or not he has observed, in the Golah, the Jewish law against mixed marriage. To this we might answer that the Jewish partner in the fam ily w ill indeed be accepted, but his non-Jewish partner and children w ill be allowed to

T would be unwise, on the other hand, to put much reliance on the quantitative relationship, as it may

acco m p an y him with a different status, and they will be given full rights after conversion only. Clearly this would be a strong deterrent for

stand to-day. But recently, the junior

this element to come here.

league of the Mapai Party endorsed a policy towards the assimilative goals mentioned above. When a private

Again, a distinction could be drawn between such families who come from the free Western world and those who corrie from Russia. The former acted as they did o f their own free w ill: if they took steps in the Diaspora that alienated them from Jew ry (and such their mixed marriage was surely evaluated there, too), the Jewish State o f Israel does not have to wipe out the consequences o f such steps. But what are we to say to Jews who come from Russia, all of them s e c o n d g e n e ra tio n o f c ru e lly suppressed Jews, and many of them third generation. Over fifty years have passed, during which the m ajority of Jews did not receive and could not secure Jewish education; they were not allowed to maintain a community

member's bill proposed (in Ju ly, 1971) to have civil marriage for such cases as the Rabbinate could not endorse, al though the marriage as such was tech nically valid and could only be dis solved by a formal divorce, the K'nesseth defeated the bill with a majority that resulted from strong pressure in the Labor Party on many reluctant members. The proposal is sure to be taken up again by someone else, and the opposition to coercion by the governmental coalition will grow. As regards mixed couples and their families, it is widely argued that most of them, once they have decided to come to Israel, will be loyal, devoted, and useful citizens who will strengthen the country and therefore Israel has no right to discourage them, the more so that there is no surplus of “ pure” Jews — religious or otherwise — who stand in queue to come to Israel. 18

life of their own; they were forced to mix with the surrounding non-Jewish population and share their lives. Is it not a miracle that the rate o f mixedmarriage is apparently “ on ly” in the neighborhood of 20%, while in some free Western countries it is supposedly JEWISH LIFE

higher? If we see now this amazing upsurge of the will to be and live as Jews and amongst Jews in the Jewish state, will it be right to reject them, or,

at least, to let them feel their in feriority, although they are hardly to be blamed for having acted as they did?

FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW H E answer that the law gives to these questions is this: mixed couples and their offspring will be accepted and treated under the Law of Return as they would be if they were all Jews, inasmuch as material help and the status as citizens is concerned. But nobody who is not a Jew as defined by the new law will become a Jew or be

registered as such. This is clearly and concisely stated in the introduction to the proposed amendment, which lists three objectives that guided Govern ment in introducing the bill into the K ’nesseth: a) To define the term “ Je w ” for the purposes of the Law of Return; b) To grant the right of immigration and the privileges that follow there from or are connected therewith to the family of a Jew, even though they themselves are not Jews by the said definition; c) To clarify that at registration of the population only persons who meet the requirements of Section a) above shall bç registered as Jews.

The N R P was by no means h ap p y about the demand of the m ajo rity

party

JANUARY 1972

in Government to

include this provision in the amend ment. Although it would have been hard to take and effectively defend a negative stand to all the questions mentioned above, it was felt that the Diaspora might interpret this lenient attitude as an encouragement to inter marriage, since the State of Israel granted equal rights to Jews and gentiles in the same mixed fam ily. Another consideration was that with the increase o f the number of such families in Israel, and inasmuch as co n versio n of all the non-Jewish members could not be effected soon after immigration, more and more conflicts must needs develop at a later stage, mostly when marriage was sought between a non-Jewish and un converted young man or woman of such a fam ily and a pure Jewish partner, which the Rabbinate could, of course, not condone. The other point, which aroused serious disputes inside the government coalition, was the dropping of the words “ according to Halochah” re garding the conversion, although these words had been part of the rules that the Minister o f the Interior had issued, that had now been declared invalid.

Let us hear what the Minister of Justice had to say on this point in the K ’nesseth debate: A lot has been said, and with a large measure of justification, that Par. 4b, which says: “ for the purpose of this law ‘Jew* means a person born of a Jewish mother or converted to Juda ism, provided he has no other reli gion,“ is virtually identical with the rules which the Minister of the Interior made on January 10, 1960. This is so, but not quite so, since t h e r e it read “ acco rd in g to Halochah,” and here these words “ according to Halochah“ are missing. And the intention is quite clear. There is a multitude of Jewish com munities. Certainly I do not know what communities we have in the East. Do we have, for instance, a great deal of knowledge about the Jewish communities in the Caucasus? But we do know that there are Liberal, Conservative, and Reform communities, and they all convert to Judaism. Therefore I do not wish to rule on Halochah, and I am not authorized to rule on Halochah. We therefore say (in the law) that who ever comes with a certificate of con version of any Jewish community, provided he is not of another reli gion, will be received as a Jew. Now what does this mean — “ will be re ceived as a Je w ?“ He will enjoy all the rights under the Law of Return, and he will be registered in his identity paper as a Jew. When he wishes to marry, then I am not the proper authority, the State is not the proper authority. Then the Law of Marriage and Divorce rules, the law which the honorable ministers of all parties agreed to. Som e o f the members of the K ’nesseth w ho oppose the bill claimed that we are interfering, G-d

forbid, in the matter of conversion, which is in the exclusive competence of the rabbis, that we infringe on the status of the rabbanim. Far from it! We have no such intention. But we are the Government of Israel, and we carry the responsibility for what is going on in Israel, and we are inter ested in having the procedure of conversion as efficient and as conven ient as possible. We as the Govern ment of Israel are entitled to request from the rabbanim what the heads of the Slutzk community felt entitled to request of the rabbanim of Slutzk &.:■ and perhaps even a little more. Indeed, why do / have to speak of shortcomings in the process of con version, when (M.K.) Rabbi Neriya admitted that there were shortcom ings? Moreover, I have heard this not only from Rabbi Neriya. I have also read and heard from the Rishon leZion (i.e., Chief Rabbi Nissim) that more could be done. Why, then, are we forbidden to do this? Surely, there is no religious coercion, and let no one worry lest we impose any thing on anybody.

The N R P was very much against the omission of the words “ according to Halochah,” and the reason for the Minister o f Justice being the one reply ing,

instead

of the

late

Mosheh

Chayyim Shapira, then Minister o f the Interior, was the latter’s disagreement with the two clauses criticized here. Nor was the reasoning of the Minister of Justice acceptable to the N RP. True, the exclusive jurisdiction o f the Chief Rabbinate and the rabbinical courts as to whom they were ready to marry as Jews, and how they were to convert a proselyte, was expressly recognized. But there was also an express admission o f the equal status JEWISH LIFE

of the various streams in world Jew ry in the eyes o f Israel. Since the demand for similar recognition inside Israel has been voiced with the efforts to develop Pro gressive and Reform communities, one could not but see in this admission a step in a direction that must greatly worry religious Jew ry in Israel and elsewhere. Who is to tell that the recognition abroad w ill not be made a strong argument for similar recogni tion in Israel? And, again, it is clear that this use o f a double standard, one up to the point of admission to the country, and the other for the exist ence in the country, is asking for a lot of trouble in many cases. Small com fort is to be found in the fact that the registration as a Jew in the identity papers can not form a legally valid proof for being a Jew , and therefore, does not oblige the rabbinical court to accept the bearer of such a paper as a Jew . Not only does this throw serious doubt on the truth of all identity papers in respect of Jewish status and sows a lot of confusion and un certainty, it also raises the question how the rabbinical court is to verify, years after the immigration, whether or not the person appearing before it is

rules of the Minister of the Interior: how could the rule be applied in practice? Persons applying for immi gration papers abroad, or after tempor ary resident’s status in Israel, are not subjected to any scrutiny as to their Jewishness. Nor has anybody devised a method how to do this. Looks and names are certainly no reliable guide. Recommendation by a rabbi or a Jewish community lead straight to the very quandary from which we seek an exit: which com munity, if not all of them, shall be authorized to issue such recommendations? In this generation of mass-displacement of Jews and the destruction of thousands of commu nities and their records in Europe, the sources for information have also been hopelessly scattered. Add to this the m illions of Jews behind the Iron Curtain, the Jews who were able to leave the Arab states and their allies, and we see that we cannot insist on testimonials, statements of witnesses, and the like w ithout causing unfair hardship to many deserving persons. And as to the proselyte, how is he to be identified, and for how many gener ations are we to go back in order to clarify his status? But, suppose the proselyte who

a Jew in the eyes of Halochah.

applies for immigration papers declares himself as such and produces his con

H IL E all these deliberations are well founded, the last-mentioned question actually laid bare a problem that had in fact been in existence all the time, when the words “ according to Halochah” were included in the

version certificate, how do we stand then? The only Israel authority that could endorse such a certificate for the purpose of admitting the applicant as a Jewish immigrant under the Law of Return is, of course, the Israel Chief

JANUARY 1972

Rabbinate. In order to fulfill such a function with a reasonable measure of e ffic ie n c y , in particular without causing the applicant undue delay and hardship, at least two conditions should prevail: 1) Conversion by Halochah — trustworthy rabbinical authorities and courts must be organ ized in the greater units of the world (perhaps all Western Europe one unit, and so forth) in a highly concentrated and controllable manner; and 2) the Israel Chief Rabbinate must be given suitable representation, permanent or ambulant, in the capitals of the states that form those units. The second condition seems the easier to realize, and, at any rate, one suitable decision by the Israel Govern ment would clear the way to its reali

zation. But w ill the Diaspora be able to muster the strength and the great ness o f soul to rise to the occasion and introduce such order in its varied and often discordant ranks? Is it realistic to hope that in one or two or three years the central authorities w ill be created, and disciplined subordination to those authorities secured? It is for those who so loudly accuse the failings of Israel religious Jew ry to give the answer to this question. Certainly, whoever has gone through the experi ence to attempt the clarification o f a single case in the ramified and dis org anized n e tw o rk o f orthodox Jew ry's institutions abroad, w ill agree that without condition 1) being met the exercise of proper and efficient control over conversions abroad is impractical.

MORE STRUGGLE AHEAD! H E difficulties we have outlined, that stand in the way of simple and efficient control of immigrant converts and Halachic evaluation of their status, in no way deter from the gravity of the reasons against the omission o f the criterion of Halochah

in the law. But the purpose of this paper being to promote an objective discussion of the whole complex, removed from blind zealotry and un tainted by party politics, it can only enhance the honest search for work able and viable solutions if the prob lem is looked at from all angles, and when miracle formulae are exposed for what they are.

In the same spirit it should be realized that Israel is heading for a fa r more intense ideological struggle than it has known until now. A new genera tion is pushing its way into power p o sitio n s in politics. The alleged aquiescence o f the veteran leaders in the influence of the religious section of the population on the image and the public life o f Israel is one o f the points of criticism that the rising groups direct against those they hope to replace soon. It is easy to say: “ If you can't secure your own conditions, better withdraw from the field and avoid sharing in the responsibility for what is being d one!" For the sharing

JEWISH LIFE

of the responsibility or avoiding this participation is not the only considera tion that conscience raises before us, and it should not always be the decis ive one. A state is not a voluntary asso ciation, and in a higher sense you have not avoided the issue of your personal responsibility by “ opting out.” A state is essentially a compulsory association, and whether you cooperate or sit on the fence, you are a partner. The way many in Israel see the likely developments of the coming decade, staying outside and letting things go their own way, unhampered by such influence that an insider can always exercise, seems fraught with great dangers for our cause. True, it cannot be proved that, had the N R P fought for its demands to the end, the other side would have let them go, breaking up the coalition. Nor can the opposite estimate of the likely de velopments be proved. The cheap accusation, heard so often in the recent discussion, that the personal interest of a few leaders tipped the scale in favor of the first assumption and made them give in, does not really contribute to an honest diagnosis of

the situation. It should be noted, in passing, that the conflict of conscience — whether to stay in or walk out — is characteristic o f Israel only, because of the enforced partnership o f all citizens in the state. In the Diaspora every Jew is free to choose his associates and to organize his religious services as he sees fit. This is indeed done in such matters as the synagogue and the local commu nity. When we come to education and rabbinical jurisdiction, religious Jew ry is split in many ways and there is much open and hidden competition among the groups. There is no con vincing reason why orthodox Jew ry could not establish amongst them selves all the world over institutions whose judicial acts would be recog nized by all. Certainly the Conserva tives or the Reformists could not in any way interfere with this, and the gain in status for the rule o f Halochah amongst those who accept it would be considerable. As was pointed out before, the possibility o f the Israel C h ief Rabbinate exercising control over immigration would be much more real then, too.

AWAY OUT? P A R T from breaking up the coalition, is there any other way of treating the problem o f registra tion? There is, indeed, the possibility to evade the issue altogether by strik

nationality of Jewish Israel citizens not as “ Jew ish” but as “ Israel.” O f course Israel nationality would then apply uniform ly to all citizens, and the identity papers would no longer show

ing out the item “ religion” from all registration forms, and describe the

the ethnic or religious affiliation of their holders. This possibility was

JANUARY 1972

rejected years ago by Mr. Ben-Gurion who was then Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, presumably for reasons of security. The idea was taken up again by the Supreme Court during the time the Shalit case was before the judges. All nine judges agreed to the suggestion, and they saw in its accept ance a way out of the difficulty. Again, the majority of the cabinet, including the religious ministers, de clined. What would be the practical con sequences o f this measure? The first result would be the revival o f the “ Religious Communities Ordinance” of the time of the British Mandate, in some adjusted form, and the keeping of registers of the adherents of each religion. O nly those who asked or agreed to be registered with a particu lar religious community would be subject to the religious courts of their creed. Obviously those who chose to not be registered with any religious community could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of religious courts, c iv il marriage and divorce would necessarily be introduced, and all matters o f personal status would go to the civil courts as a matter o f course. T h u s a m ajor step towards secularization of Israel would follow the abolition o f registering religion. The same would also express itself in the fact that virtually Israeli identity would then replace Jewish identity. A ll Jewish citizens o f the State would submerge their Jewishness in their Israelidom, stressing the primacy of

their bond with all other citizens of the State — Arabs, Druse, Gentiles of all manner of origin — over their bond with the Jewish people, if they at all care to uphold such a bond. Thus the Jews of Israel would, in name, cease to be part o f the Jewish people the world over, a development which is as para doxical historically as it is frightening from a national point o f view. Nor should it be thought that these are id le speculations. This ideology is the core of the attitude w hich characterizes the Cana'anite movement, which asserts that the present day inhabitants o f the land are nothing but the direct descendants of the p o p u la tio n in the time of Abraham. The movement denies that Jewish history and culture of nearly two thousand years that were spent outside Cana'an are of any relevance to the returning exiles. These simply take up the threads of history where they were severed thousands of years ago. And these ideas have their roots in the cultural philosophy o f Israel's secular leaders. If a man of the stature of Ben Gurion declares before an audience of Jewish leaders from the Diaspora that in order to bring up their children as Jews they must teach them three things — Hebrew language, Tanach, and modern Hebrew literature — wiping out all the treasures o f the Torah She B'al Peh, the roots o f the movement become clearly visible. It appears, therefore, that fore going th e registration o f Jewish

JEWISH LIFE

lems should be solved by standard procedures that were never intended for the complexities of our day and situation. This insight w ill prove, one may hope, a stimulus to the Torah E T me now re-summarize the world, to delve deep into the treasures o b je c tiv e s of this paper as of Halochah and of Jewish thought. Our indestructible belief in the eternal follows: validity o f Torah tells us that here, a) To show the depth and the too, “ more than I have read to you is complexity of the problems of Jewish written here.” and Israeli identity in the State of c) To disprove the false claim Israel. The better this is understood by that the amendment o f March 1970 all men of serious and honest concern provides for the registration of nonfor the future of Israel as a Jewish Jews as Jews. This is untrue, and such state of historic-religious significance, registration would be invalid in all the more fruitful all discussions will cases. A ll non-Jews who come to be. Israel, whether alone or with a Jewish b) To gain understanding for the head of fam ily, must be registered as unique, unprecedented situation of other than Jewish. Naturally, there ‘Ingathering of the exiles” in the have been errors, and there may have twentieth century. If it is agreed that been individuals who w ilfully gave a there is no precedent to the events of false declaration. The number of all this generation, to the magnitude of these cases is not thousands, most the population involved, and to the likely not hundreds. There may be human as well as national concerns tens, spread over many years. that are at stake, there will be more d) To provide material for open, hesitation to demand that these prob honest, disinterested public discussion. religion would be a deceptive measure. Instead of really solving the problems of Israel in this field, it would in tensify them.

JANUARY 1972

iniùuene**

J etwscAem by AARON ROTHKOFF E V E R did I imagine that I would have to check the Halachic sources to ascertain whether I could travel out of my city on a day that was neither Shabboth nor Yom Tov. However, this also became a reali ty when 1 became a resident of the Holy C ity. On Purim it was necessary to check during which part of the day it was possible to visit acquaintances in B ’ney B ’rak without becoming obli gated to read the Megillah on that day. O f course, it was essential to be back in Je ru sa le m that night so that Shushan Purim could be properly observed. Although the Mishnah states

are surrounded by ancient walls are today considered “ doubtful” in rela tion to this law and their inhabitants read the Megillah on both days. It is o n ly Jerusalem ites who celebrate Shushan Purim alone. This is just one of the many distinctions that charac terize Yerusholayim both in Halochah and Aggodah. Another contemporary custom which is unique to Jerusalem is that Shabboth candles are kindled by its residents forty minutes before sunset. While the rest of Israel lights the can dles at the customary twenty minutes before sundown, it has long been the

(Megillah 1:1) that all cities “ encom passed by a wall since the days of Joshua the son of Nun read it on the

practice of all segments of the Holy C ity's population to inaugurate the Sabbath at this earlier hour. During the Sholosh Regolim one can sense the

15th,” all the other Israeli cities which

JEWISH LIFE

glory that was Jerusalem’s when the Temple stood and the masses fulfilled at the Pilgrim Festivals the Divine command that “ three times in a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your G-d in the place which He shall ch o o se ...” (Devorim 16:16). During Choi Ha-Moed of Succoth and Pesach and th e w eek following Sh o vu o th , thousands of chartered buses and trucks converge upon Jeru salem from all over Israel. Many proudly bear signs declaring that this v e h ic le is from a specified city, moshav, kibbutz, or Nachal settlement co m m em o ratin g the Mitzvah of Aliyath Ha-Regel. While before the Six-Day War the goal of these pilgrim ages was Mount Zion and the view into the Old C ity from its vantage point, the Kothel Ha-Ma’arovi has been the destination of the masses since its liberation in June 1967. A ll roads lead to the Western Wall during these peri ods and its area is a constant hub o f activity and excitement. There are endless minyonim which often con clude with dancing to one of the lively tu n e s o f * ‘V e-So m ach tah BeChagechah.” Above all, there is the almost tangible feeling of the unity of Israel, achduth Y isro e l, as the various types of Jews join together in worship and joyful dancing. A ll barriers disap pear and Chassidim, Mithnogdim, Yemenites, North Africans, Am eri cans, and the inevitable tourists blend into one, united in heart and purpose before the timeless stones of the Kothel. During Succoth a massive

JANUARY 1972

Succah is constructed opposite the Kothel to accomodate the throngs who cannot simply picnic on the lawns of the Jerusalem parks as they do dur ing the Intermediate Days o f Pesach. Particularly during Succoth one can sense why the Torah and the Rabbis stress that the main Mitzvah of rejoic ing on the festivals is applicable to this holiday. U R IN G th e Temple period, when all Jews had to be ritually

pure so that they could enter the Beth Ha-Mikdosh precints, a number of laws were enacted to minimize the chance of contacting ritual im purity within the Holy C ity. Therefore no trash heaps were allowed there since they would attract reptiles which become a source of defilement upon their death. Neither was it permitted to raise chick ens which peck at garbage and might remove ritually impure waste (Bova Kamma 82b). Burial places were only allowed outside the walls of the city, and “ no existing graves were main tained except for the graves of the House of David and Huldah the pro phetess which have been there since the period of the Early Prophets.” In addition, there was an ancient tradi tion that it was prohibited to leave a co rp se o v e rn ig h t in Je ru sa le m (Toseftah Nego’im 6:2). During the Pilgrim Festivals the masses were trust ed in their observances of the laws of ritual purity, and the food and drink of even the am ha-aretz were then con sidered ritually clean (Chagigah 26a).

This thought was elegantly expressed by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi when he interpreted “ Jerusalem, that art builded as a city that is compact together” (C hubrah; Tehillim 122:3) to mean that all Jews possess the status of Chaverim (scholars) in the Holy C ity during the festival period (Talmud Yerushalmi Chagigah 3:6, 79d). This sensibility for the sanctity of the Holy C ity was so profound that when hu man bones were once found in the wood chamber o f the Temple and the Rabbis desired to declare Jerusalem unclean, Rabbi Yehoshua not only dis played why this was not necessary according to the Halochah but also declared: “ Is it not a shame and dis grace to us that we desire to declare the city of our fathers unclean!” (Zevochim 113a). H E special sanctity of Yerusholayim is also reflected in its unique status in other areas o f the Halochah. In the event that a person was found slain near the Holy C ity and the assailant was not discovered, its elders do not bring an eglah arufah (Devorim 21:1-9). Neither can Jeru salem even be declared an ir haniddachath (Devorim 13:13-18) nor

sidered proper for the visitor to leave the skins o f his sacrifices as gifts for the householder (Megillah 26a). A house sold in the Holy C ity did not become irredeemable after a year as should be the case with dwelling houses within a walled city (Vayikrah 25:29-30; Bova Kamma 82b). Neither gardens nor orchards could be cultiva ted in Jerusalem on account o f the bad odor o f withered grasses (Bova Kamma 82b). The area of the H oly C ity for the purposes of eating sacrifices of minor holiness and the second tithe could only be enlarged under specific conditions. Additions are not made to the C ity [o f Jerusalem] or to the Tem ple compartments except by the deci sion o f a king, a prophet, the Urim and Tummim, and a Sanhedrin of seventyone, with the bringing of two Thanks giving Loaves, and accompanied by singing. ‘T h e Court goes along with the two loaves of Thanksgiving being borne after them, and all Israel follow ing behind them” (Shevuoth 2:2). Since Yerusholayim was a meet ing place for the Jewish masses it served also as a central location for business transactions. The Rabbis declared that the hour must also be recorded on legal documents executed in the H oly C ity since many docu

co u ld its houses become defiled through leprosy (Vayikra 14:34-53; Bova Kamma 82b). Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes of Israel and its inhabitants were there fore not permitted to accept rental fees from pilgrims who came there for

know each other. Thus it would be possible to ascertain whose document was written first (Kethuboth 10:5, 94b). There was a Stone of Claims in

the festivals. However, it was con

Jerusalem and both those who lost and

ments were written by one person on the same day for people who did not

JEWISH LIFE

who found articles would go to that point. The finder would proclaim that he had found a specific item and the loser would submit his identification marks and receive it back (Bova Metzia 28b). The pious people of Jerusalem would not sign a deed without know ing who was also signing with them; they would not sit in judgement unless they knew who was to sit with them; and they would not sit at a table w ith out knowing their fellow diners (San hedrin 23a). It was related that there was a fine custom in Jerusalem which enabled uninvited guests to know when a meal was in progress within the house. A t the commencement o f the meal, a cloth was spread on the door. “ So long as the cloth was spread, guests entered. When the cloth was removed, no guests entered“ (Bova Bathra93b). N Israel of old, the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur were days of great joy, for on these days the daughters o f Jerusalem danced in the vineyards as the young men chose their wives from among them. The girls all wore similar borrowed white garments in order not to put to shame any one who had none (T a’anith 4:8). The men o f Jerusalem wrote explicitly into the Kethuboth which they gave their brides: “ You shall dwell in my house and be maintained therein out of my estate throughout the duration o f y o u r widowhood“ (Kethuboth 4:12). There was a custom in Jeru salem to train their young sons and

JANUARY 1972

daughters to observe the fast days; at the age of eleven to the middle of the day; at the age of twelve the full day; at the age o f thirteen the boy was taken around and presented to every elder, each of whom would bless him and offer prayer that he may be worthy to study the Torah and engage in good deeds (Sofrim 18:5). Jeru salem also possessed brotherhoods which attended upon the houses of mourning, marriage feasts, and circum cisions, and arranged for the reinter ment of the dead in accordance with the practice during the Talmudic peri od (Semachoth 12:5). On the Sabbath the inhabitants o f the Holy C ity would congregate at the gates of the Temple which were specifically designated for mourners and bridegrooms so that a p p ro p ria te expressions could be extended to these individuals (Sofrim 19:11). Jerusalem retained its sanctity and special Halochoth regarding it con tin u o u s ly observed even after its destruction. When praying one should face Jerusalem and if he is in the Holy C ity he should face the Temple site (Berochoth 30a). Nowadays it is for bidden to enter the sacred Temple mount area because of ritual im purity (Maimonides, Yad Hachazokah, Beth Ha-Bechirah 6:14-16). (To the right of the area designated for prayer in front of the Kothel there is now a small en trance to the Temple Court known as the Gate o f the Mughrabim. Above this gate the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has had a sign placed exhorting Jews

not to enter into the sanctified Temple area.) One has to continually mourn the destruction o f the city, and in addition to the fasts and the estab lished days of mourning, it was cus tomary not to eat meat or drink wine on the day in which one sees Jeru salem in its destruction (cf. Toseftah Nedorim 1:4). On seeing Jerusalem in its state o f ruin, one recites: “ Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee, is burned with fire and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (Isaiah 64:10) and rends his garment (Moed Katan 26a). Although one should constantly mourn the Tem ple’s destruction, the Sages confined the mourning practices applicable to Jews generally to given bounds. They therefore ordained the following behavior: when one’s house is painted, a small area should be left unfinished in memory of Jerusalem. One may prepare a full course banquet but should leave out an item or two. A woman may put on all her ornaments except for one or two. Likewise burnt ashes are placed on the head of a bridegroom so that the destruction of Jerusalem would be recalled even at the m om ent o f his “ chief jo y ” (Tehillim 137:6; Bova Bathra 60b). On Tishah B ’Av, since the libera tion of the Kothel, the masses ascend

Kothel on Tishah B ’A v eve are relayed to all in Israel by the country’s televi sion channel. The Rabbis constantly stressed and praised the desirable qualities and virtues of the Holy C ity. Ten measures of beauty descended to the world: nine were taken by Yerusholayim and one by th e rest o f the world (Kiddushin 49b). A person who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life (Succah 51b), and there is no beauty that can be compared to that of the Holy C ity (Ovoth d’Rebbe Nothon 28:1). Even Jerusalem’s lack of the delicious fruits and hot springs that were found in Ginnosar and Tiberias were explained in a complimentary manner. The fruits of Ginnosar were not to be found in the Holy C ity so that the Festival pilgrims should not say, “ Had we merely ascended in order to eat the fruits of Ginnosar in Jeru salem it would have sufficed us,” with the result that the pilgrimage would not be for its own sake. Sim ilarly, the thermal springs of Tiberias were not located in the Holy C ity so that the pilgrims should not say, “ Had we merely ascended in order to bathe in the thermal springs o f Tiberias, it would have sufficed us” (Pesochim 8b).

to this sole remnant of the Temple

Among the ten miracles wrought for our fathers in Jerusalem were

structure to mourn its destruction at the very spot where the swords of Nebuzaradan and Titus reaped their ultimate triumphs. The services at the

these: no man was ever injured, no man was ever attacked, no man ever stumbled, never did fire break out,

never did a building collapse, and no

JEWISH LIFE

man ever said to his fellow, “ I cannot find a bed to sleep on in Jerusalem” (Ovoth d'Rebbe Nothon 35:1). The fuel logs used in the Holy C ity were of the cinnamon tree, and when lit their fragrance prevaded the whole of Eretz Yisroel (Shabbath 63a). Brides in Jeru salem did not have to perfume them selves because of the odor of the incense which permeated the entire

heavenly counterpart - Yerusholayim Sh e l M a 'a la h . T h u s said Rabbi Yochanan: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “ I will not enter the heavenly Jerusalem until I can enter the earthly Jerusalem.' ” In response to the ques tion of whether there is a heavenly Jerusalem, Rabbi Yochanan declared: “ Yes, for it is w ritten: ‘Jerusalem,

city (Yom a 39b). There were three hundred and ninety-four courts o f law

pact together' ” (stressing the word chubrah to mean that Jerusalem has a

in Jerusalem, and an equal number of synagogues, houses of study for adults, and schools for children (Kethuboth 105a). The city's inhabitants were renowned for their wisdom, and when

Ta'anith 5a). That the heavenly Jerusa lem is located directly opposite the earthly Jerusalem is derived from the verse: “ Behold, I have graven thee

ever they travelled to the provinces,

upon the

seats of honor were arranged for them to sit upon so that the populace could listen to their wisdom. Many stories were told about the Athenians who came to Jerusalem and were impressed by the wisdom of its citizens. Sim ilar ly, Jerusalemites travelling in Athens surprised the natives by their brilliance

w a lls are continually before Me” (Isaiah 49:16; Tanchumah Pekudey 1); and this heavenly Jerusalem is known

(Eychah Rabbah 1). The young people of the Holy C ity were considered superior, and they were constantly sought in mar riage by those residing outside Jerusa lem. It was related that when a man o f one of the other towns of Eretz Yisroel married a woman o f Jerusalem he gave her her weight in gold; and when a Jerusalemite married a woman from another town he received his weight in gold (Eychah Rabbah 4).

H E Aggodah connects the future of the earthly Jerusalem with its

JANUARY 1972

thou art builded as a city that is com

companion or prototype in Heaven;

palms of M y hands; thy

as zevul (Chagigah 12b). N contemporary Jerusalem there is one day a year when its heav enly and earthly counterparts seem to totally blend into one, and all of its past and future history can be tangibly felt. Both the emotions of the attemp

ted sacrifice of Isaac and the future arrival of Messiah are all intrinsically part of the day's pervading spirit. Jo y and sadness, the exultation of miracu lous achievement and the pangs of supreme sacrifice, freely intermingle. This day is the 28th of lyyar, the anni versary of the liberation and reunifica tion of the Holy C ity during the SixDay War; the day on which the shofar was blown and prayers were once again recited at the K o th e l after a 31

pause of nineteen long years, and after as many centuries in which prayer at the Kothel, if permitted at all, was simply tolerated under the ever watch ful eye and constantly intruding hands of an alien government. From that moment on it became the intrinsic right o f a nation reborn to worship at its sole national shrine, a right exer cised under the protection of Tzahal — Israel’s Defense Forces ^ and under the aura cast by the blue and white flags, emblazoned with the Star of David, fluttering in the wind. The Chief Rabbinate is united in its ruling that on this day Hallel is re cited with its blessings, and additional unique celebrations have also become part o f the day’s observances. The eve of the holiday is marked by spirited dancing at the Kothel as hundreds of yeshivah students together with their Roshey Yeshivah rejoice at the Temple site. The apex of the holiday is reached at the public thanksgiving and Minchah service held at the Kothel that afternoon. By the time the service

begins at 5:00 P.M. more than fifty thousand Jews throng the Kothel area to davven Minchah as one large minyan led by a cantor and choir standing on a centrally located elevated plat form. The army officers who led the battle for the Holy C ity are honored by leading the congregation in the responsive reading o f selections from M oses’ Song of Redemption. The memorial prayer for the soldiers who fell in battle and the prayer for the State of Israel are recited. The high point of the service is the chanting of the words o f Tehillim (122:1-2;6-7) which so aptly describe the emotions of the massive crowd at the sacred spot on this memorable day: I rejoiced when they said unto me: “ Let us go unto the house o f the Lord.” Our feet are standing within thy gates, O Jerusalem .. . . Pray for the peace o f Jerusalem; May they prosper that love thee. Peace be within they walls, And prosperity within thy palaces.

JEWISH LIFE

The Day School movement, ripened into providential development, now finds itself faced with basic financial problems that critically endanger all that has been achieved. This article proposes a radical change o f approach to the problem. Written with the individuality o f view so characteristic o f its author, it poses a challenge to accustomed ideas on the Day School situation.

by REUBEN E. GROSS H E re c e n t decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Lem on and DiCenso cases, invalidating the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes in aid of parochial schools, has brought con sternation to the leadership o f the

Jewish Day Schools. The Orthodox Union has termed it a “ disaster.” H u rrie d

meetings

and

emergency

sessions have been called. Agudath Israel calls for “ war” for enlargement of permissable government aid. Torah Umesorah plans new demands upon the Federations. Roshey Yeshivoth interrupt their busy routine to consult on what to do. In truth and

in fact, govern

mental aid if permitted and expanded would at best have been a palliative.

JANUARY 1972

The New York statute which grants aid in the order of $27.00 per pupil per annum is now under attack by the Jewish secularists. If this statute is sustained it will be a great victory in principle but its meaningful ness eco nomically to schools that are spending about $1,000.00 per pupil per annum is dubious. Should this aid be doubled or trebled in the next four or five years to $50.00 and $75.00 per annum it will never catch up with spiraling costs which by then will have in creased by an additional $100.00 or more per annum. This palliative might ease the pains but would not fend off the mortal danger facing the Day School movement >#%if it has not al ready succumbed. Should anyone be surprised at this statement, and in

rebuttal point to the several hundred Day Schools throughout the country with their enrollment approaching the 100,000 mark, it would be my re joinder that these schools have ceased to be what they were designed to be. In large part, the Hebrew Day Schools have become the private academies of a p re stig io u s Jewish middle and upper-middle class. Most of these schools have enrichment programs with frills of one sort or another that cost more than what is involved in anticipated programs of aid. Five or ten years ago, when many of these schools were struggling along on budgets of $300.00 to $500.00 per pupil of which less than half was from tuition, any assist from outside sources would have greatly broadened their pupil-base. Today, however, the major part of the budget is from tuition so that all but the well-to-do among the parents are subject to critical financial strain or are altogether squeezed out. ITH the gate slammed by the Supreme Court against general support of the secular studies program,

and the Federations being even more clearly opposed to releasing any of their funds for such programs, it be hooves thoughtful Jewish leaders to radically re-examine the Day School concept as it relates to the mainten ance o f programs of secular studies. These programs are taught by gentile teachers in many instances and with text books supplied by the state. When taught by Jewish teachers there

is no recognizable difference in their content. W hy, then, do yeshivoth take on this weighty burden from the shoulders of the state which is more able to bear it? The original purpose was to give the yeshivah complete co n tro l over the programming of studies, thereby reserving the morning hours fo r Lim m udey Kodesh. A furth er objective was to maintain control over the total environment of the child, especially during lunch hours and play periods. A third objec tive was to maintain separation of the sexes, especially after the onset of puberty. (Mingling with gentiles, per se, presents no Halachic problem, so long as certain standards of decency and morality are maintained, which until recently were widely accepted.) In years gone by these objectives could be realized only within the walls of the yeshivah. Even there they were not fully realized. Budgetary limita tions often mandated split programs wherein half of the classes studied Limmudey Kodesh in the morning while the other half were occupied with general studies, switching over in the afternoon to the other type of study. Sim ilarly, budgetary limitations raised Halachic problems as to the permissability of co-ed classes in the early grades. Realizations of any part o f these objectives within the framework of the public school system as it formerly existed was completely out o f the question. The public school system was rig id and a u th o rita ria n , a

JEWISH LIFE

crustacean bed to which all had to conform. Today, however, it is flexible alm o st to th e p o in t o f being amorphous. It is malleable to the point of being supine. It is, therefore, quite possible to cast upon the present public school system the total burden of the general studies program without serious prejudice to yeshivah objec tives by asking for a general studies program th a t is tailored to the yeshivah’s needs. H E most desirable method, of course., would be the so-called Verm ont plan of sending teachers into the sectarian school. In a limited way, this has existed in New York for many years. Teachers on the public school payroll have been sent to sectarian orphan asylums, hospitals, and institu tions for the handicapped for many years. Expansion of this program to include yeshivoth would be a logically tenable position, fraught, however,

with legal and political problems. The same forces that were successful in Lem on and DiCenso will attack again and again with arguments even more specious than those that brought them that victory. Their real objective is the paganization of the minds of all children and no defense against them will succeed until this, their real objec tive, is exposed. A struggle for the V erm o n t plan, even if ultimately unsuccessful, is worthwhile if jointure is on the basic issue of freedom to enjoy a religious education and not on p erip h e ra l issues of child-aid or

JANUARY 1972

religio-state entanglements. L E S S desirable but viable solu tion is afternoon classes in the public school to which the day school

students can be bussed from the yeshivah. Sp lit sessions are becoming increasingly common and the basic ingredients for an accomodation in respect to hours o f teaching are al ready in existence. The rest is a matter of pressure and negotiation on the local level or city-wide level with legis lative leverage thrown in, if necessary. Whether the children should be dispersed to their homes after their p u b lic school sessions of general studies or bussed back to the yeshivah for a short period before dispersal, is a problem with which the educators would do well to wrestle. A demand for non-co-ed classes because of religious scruples is a legally tenable position. But matters of this sort are regrettably no longer deter mined by law and logic. In 1971, the visceral reaction to tz ’n iu th , by what ever name it is called, is decidedly negative. However, if such a demand is accepted at any one level ^ local, district-wide, or city-wide — it is not likely to be upset at other levels. No one has yet suggested that non-co-ed classes are unconstitutional. However, as the Pagan Imperative becomes more domineering, this, too, can come to pass. The National Jewish Commis sion on La w and Public Affairs (C O LPA ) in the last several years has

developed in Albany and Washington and other capitols a sensitivity to the religious needs o f orthodox Jews in public employment and in private em ploym ent, in schools of higher learning, and in business. May we not safely anticipate similar success in protecting little children in the public schools, if protection is necessary? H U C K IN G o ff the whole burden of secular studies will enable the yeshivoth to concentrate on their real business — Limmudey Kodesh — and to open their doors more widely to children of families unable or u n w ill

ing to pay the present high fees. This suggested change in format would also remove a claimed basic stumbling block to Federation support, thereby putting their good faith to the acid test. Acceptance of such support, if forthcom ing, would be much less problematical to an institution in vo lved o n ly in a straightforward Limmudey Kodesh program than it is to the current type of day school. On balance, it would seem that the overall effectiveness of such a yeshivah in propagating Torah would be greatly en h an ced , sp iritu a lly as well as materially.

JEWISH LIFE

by RALPH PELCOVITZ V E R Y fledgling rabbi, regardless of all the seforim he has accummulated since Bar Mitzvah, purchases a handbook such as “ Hamadrich” upon entering the active rabbinate. Be it a w edding, funeral, unveiling, B ’rith Milah, or Pidyon Haben, it is impera tive to have a handy guidebook which gives you the seder, the proper order fo r th a t particular service. Torah scholarship, Halachic knowledge, even proficiency in Talmudic pilpul are no substitutes for the organized, cata logued, properly-presented protocol one finds in a rabbinic manual or handbook. It insures against the in

The rabbi is well fortified and guarded against error and deviation thanks to his manual. But what of the innocent layman? Who shall protect the naive b a a lh a b a yis, who means well but is untutored and unversed in his responsibilities and ignorant of what is expected of him during the most important moments of his life. The time has come, it seems to us, to p resen t a “ Handbook for BaaleBattim ,” a manual for the layman set ting forth the procedure he should follow when planning a wedding, a B 'r it h , a Pid yo n Ha-Ben, a Bar Mitzvah, or ch o lila h when a funeral

advertent faux-pas, it guides the novice

must be arranged. The average layman

safely through the path filled with pitfalls, and guarantees that required rules and regulations w ill be correctly

often does not know how he should relate to his rabbi during these climac tic moments o f life, especially in larger Jewish communities where one may

observed.

JANUARY 1972

have a number of rabbis to invite, and where caterers determine availability of date and funeral directors the time best suited to their schedule. He does not know what is expected o f him or how he should conduct himself. The purpose of this article is to advise and guide him so he may avoid the more common pitfalls, and to help him conduct himself with propriety, derech eretz -Ir respectful conduct — and seder, correct procedure. Under standably, we w ill not be able to cover every eventuality or anticipate every problem, but we will attempt to address ourselves to some of the important moments of Jewish life and suggest the proper path to be pursued. U n q u estio n ab ly many rabbis and laymen who will read this article will have their own suggestions and advice drawing upon their own unique experi ences, which we will accept most graciously and in the same spirit of good-will that we write these lines. Our prime concern and purpose is to help prevent frictions in a community and avoid embarrassments which so often occur due only to lack of knowledge, oversight, and naivete. SIM C H A H in the fam ily is a hectic and exciting occasion. Some allow for long-range planning such as a wedding and a Bar Mitzvah, whereas others, such as a B ’rith Milah, do not. A wedding usually permits a period o f careful preparation and most people spend many months in attend ing to every detail so as to insure a

beautiful affair. The hall is hired, as are the musicians and photographers. The invitations are ordered and duti fully mailed out six weeks in advance of the wedding date. Now the rabbi may or — strange as it may seem to some % may not have been notified of the date before he receives his printed invitation. Simple courtesy dictates that he should not be notified of an impending wedding of a congregant through the invitation alone. Derecheretz for a Rav demands that he be called or visited by the parents and form ally invited to the wedding. This has ever been the traditional Jewish custom and it is most proper that this beautiful custom be continued. It is also most important for the rabbi to meet with the couple well in advance of the wedding date to discuss with them a number of vital items. During this interview, he will not only have an opportunity to become better acq u a in ted w ith them, but this intimate get-together w ill allow him to explain the significance of various aspects o f th e Je w is h wedding ceremony and above all, he w ill use this occasion to discuss the halochoth of Taharath Hamishpochah, Kashruth, and other laws which govern the Jewish home and fam ily life. Even though the Rabbi may have been properly invited to the wedding, how often, if ever, is he consulted before the date and time is selected? The caterer does not hesitate to inform his clients that their first choice, or even second, is taken and

JEWISH LIFE

the parents hasten to choose the first open date available to them. They do not question the right o f the caterer to be booked and hence unavailable. The Rabbi, however, is presented with a fait accompli, this is the date and time of our daughter's wedding! But what if he is not available on that date or at that particular time? The mood of meek acceptance demonstrated by the parents in the caterer's office now strangely becomes transformed into an angry and hurt reaction at the Rabbi's unwillingness or inability to fit into a schedule which conflicts with his prior commitments. This insensitivity to the Rabbi's position and role, which should merit p riority, is often compounded by those who do not find it necessary to invite the Rabbi to perform the cere mony or officiate in some way at the chupah. In New York, and doubtless in other large Jewish communities, far too often an agonizing game of chance is indulged in by congregational rabbis as they appear at the wedding wonder ing what part they are going to play. Basic respect for the Rav requires that the m echutan, the father of the bride or groom, speak to him well in advance of the wedding and discuss with him his specific role at the simchah. It is advisable that he be informed as to who will be participat ing with him so that he can guide his congregant in arranging an orderly and dignified ceremony. Traditionally the Rav of the groom is the Mesader Kiddushin. Other honors fitting for

JANUARY 1972

the Rabbi of the bride and other dignitaries are the reading o f the Kethubah, the brief sermon under the ch u p ah , and th e various Sheva B'rochoth as well as the Birchath Hamozon at the meal. N recent years we have been blessed with Roshey Yeshivah, Rebbeyim of the groom, and relatives who have Semichah, rabbinic ordina

tion.

has become customary to

honor the Rosh Yeshivah with the Siddur Kiddushin and to involve the Musmochim who are relatives most prominently in the ceremony. A t the risk of sounding heretical and shocking the sensibilities of B'ney Yeshivah, these practices are questionable at best and at times prove to be most insulting to the Kovod Ho-Rabonuth tfl the dignity and honor of the Rabbinate. Historically and traditionally, Siddur Kiddushin is in the domain of the Rav, not the Rosh Yeshivah and certainly not the principal, teacher, or business man who happens to have graduated from a yeshivah. Laymen must under stand that the rabbi of a congregation and community is apt to be far more experienced in the application of the Halochoth of Kiddushin to conduct a wedding in a proper and orderly manner. He may, of course, grant the honor of being Mesader Kiddushin to a Rosh Yeshivah or a colleague who is related to the groom or bride but it is his right and privilege, not that of the m e c h u to n im . A relation especially should understand, as should his

fam ily, that he comes to the wedding precisely in that capacity and it is dis courteous and disrespectful to relegate one's own rabbi to a secondary role in the wedding of his congregant. A Rosh Yeshivah (incidentally a title which should not be used as lightly and loosely as it is today) is worthy of reverence and respect but not at the expense of the Rav.

SON of thirteen years to mitz*

A voth” is reason enough for cele

bration, but what kind of celebration? The place, the setting, the character of the simchah is all important. The boy is becoming a son of mitzvoth, not marking his puberty rites. The central focal point of this event, the single major observance of a Bar Mitzvah c e le b ra tio n , is, o f co u rse, the Shabboth morning service. It is then that the young man w ill be called to the Torah, manifesting his newly acquired role as a “ godol,” an adult responsible Jew . He may be fortunate enough to have mastered the reading of the Torah, so he will read the Sedrah in addition to being honored with the Haftorah or an aliyah. He may deliver a D'var Torah or a pilpul depending upon his knowledge and ability. It may not even be a Shabboth but a Rosh Chodesh or any day when the Torah is read, but th is is the Bar M itz va h — not the kiddush, the lu n ch eo n , the breakfast, or the banquet. A conspiracy

enveloped the Bar Mitzvah ritual in the United States and even in orthodox circles many are guilty of treating the “ religious p art" as secondary to the primary one, namely the A ffair. The Talmud teaches us that “ the Torah is concerned for the money of Israel," not only for our souls but even for our pocketbooks! Generosity ahd openhandedness is to be commended when our means and possessions are used for proper purposes but is questionable whether a lavish kiddush and an even more extravagant affair on a Saturday night or Sunday enhances the true s p irit o f reach in g one's Jewish majority and accepting the yoke of Mitzvoth. Though caterers may cry out in protest and some children complain, it will be well for some brave souls to curtail the exhorbitant expenses of a Bar Mitzvah celebration and use the money for a better cause. T h is u n seem ly p ractice o f conducting elaborate affairs to mark a Bar Mitzvah is compounded by the nature and character o f some parties even among day school students. The non-Jewish spirit that pervades some of these affairs, the improper behavior and tawdry aspects, makes of the Bar Mitzvah event a travesty and mockery. To celebrate the reaching of the age of Mitzvoth by spending an evening in indulging in aveyroth is shocking and shameful. Blessed w ill be those who are courageous enough to call a halt to these practices.*

of silence

has

JEWISH LIFE

T is important to touch upon one other modern problem re» garding B a r Mitzvah celebrations. True, many o f the complexities o f a wedding and the resultant problems we discussed are not applicable to a Bar Mitzvah, but there is one special point unique to this celebration that p aren ts should ponder. Strangely, am ong observant Jews and B'ney Torah, more so than among non-ortho dox Jews, it has become fashionable to celebrate the Bar Mitzvah Shabboth away from home in a hotel or resort rather than in the shool where the f a m ily atten d s services e very Shabboth. There may be valid and legitimate reasons for this strange custom, such as the problem o f accom modations for visitors and prevention of c h illu l Shabboth, but even so in many communities it has become so widespread that one is almost ashamed to have to make his son's Bar Mitzvah in the shool. Common sense, the honor of the Beth Ha-K’nesseth, and a sense of

history should be of sufficient reason to c o n vin c e Torah Jews of the importance of marking this event in a synagogue and not in the makeshift shool of a hotel. The rabbi o f the congregation is also placed in a most embarrassing, delicate, and difficult position. He would like to share in the simchah of a congregant and friend but is it proper for him to leave the congregation in favor of a single con gregant? Firstly by so doing there is a depreciation of Kovod Ha-Tzibbur, the

JANUARY 1972

honor due a congregation. Secondly, and perhaps far more important, he is encouraging, or at best accepting, a practice which is detrimental to the stature and status of the Synagogue. The convenience and comfort o f a hotel Bar Mitzvah is not of sufficient import to outweigh the sanctity that only a Shool can offer, nor is it weighty enough to counteract the adverse lesson being given in Derech Eretz to the young lad. The place for this event is the Shool where the young man has been reared and where his parents daven every Shabboth. H E celebration of a B'rith Milah and a Pidyon Ha-Ben do not present the com plexity of problems which confront the planning o f a w ed d ing and a Bar Mitzvah. A comparatively shorter period of time for planning is entailed. Nonetheless, the laws and customs are in some ways more intricate and the layman should be made aware of some of these laws as well as the niceties and subtleties involved in the ceremony and the

honors. The Mohel obviously plays a most important role and where there is an option and choice in his selection the rabbi should be asked for his opinion rather than depending upon a friend's recommendation. There are modern methods used by Mohelim today, many of them questionable Halachically, and the Rav is the one to ch eck w ith before the mohel is retained. The honors available at a B'rith

are varied and permit for distribution among relatives and friends at the circum cision. The most important honor is that of Sandek, the one who holds the infanfon his lap during the circumcision. This honor is tradition ally given to the Rav, the Grandfather, or the Great-Grandfather, the latter being preferable to the former but neither taking precedence over the Rav. Here again in recent years, due to lack of knowledge or negligence, the Rabbi is often bypassed and not necessarily for the substitution of a grandfather but for any relative or friend. O nly one generation ago this was unheard of, that the “ Morah D'assrah” should not be invited to serve as the Sandek. Unfortunately, this is one more example o f the lessen ing of Kovod Ho-Rabonuth, due in many cases to the lack of knowledge of baale-battim. A P id y o n Ha-Ben does not normally present the special problems common to a wedding, Bar Mitzvah, or B 'r it h , b u t laym en should be cautioned that not every Kohen is conversant with the Halochoth or pro cedure of the Redemption of the First-born Son. The Rav should be consulted regarding any questions including the selection o f a Kohen and the exact order to be followed in the Pidyon.

and grief attendant upon death makes the planning of the funeral most difficult. It also means that the fam ily is vulnerable and in a state of disarray. It is therefore extremely important that in arranging a funeral proper procedures be followed and extreme care exercised. The widespread abuses and violations of Torah law and J ewish tradition by funeral directors, abetted by public ignorance and apathy, is well known by all sensitive and intelligent Jews. In addition to these religious transgressions, the American way of death with much of its vulgarity and lack of propriety and dignity has also permeated the Jewish community and must be combatted. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and other groups, rabbinic and lay, have in recent years faced up to many of these im proper practices and brought a degree of order into an area where anarchy reigned unchallenged for far too long. Nonetheless, no force is as powerful as that o f the public, or to be more specific in this case, the client. It is imperative that Jewish families resist the pressures o f friends, the persistance o f casket salesmen, and the subtle seductions of society which militate against the simple dignity of Jewish law and practice. The congregation that has an active Chevrah Kadishah is fulfilling one of the major functions of an

E have touched upon simchoth, the joyous moments of life, now

let us turn our attention to the final clim actic moment — death. The shock

orthodox synagogue. They w ill prove to be a bulwark of aid and com fort in this most trying time in a fam ily's experience. They w ill not only attend

JEWISH LIFE

to the necessary preparations but also act as a buffer between the fam ily and the professional funeral directors. The Rav is always a tower of strength at this moment, not only in bringing solace and condolence to the bereaved fam ily but in overseeing the Taharah, Tachrichim, and the Kashruth of the coffin. Not only are these basics to be treated with care and caution but so too are the funeral arrangements as well.

doubtless there are laymen who can help organize and conduct the daily minyon at the mourner’s house. In general it is the rabbi’s role to give direction and decisions in all matters pertaining to the preparations for a funeral and the Shivah period. It is the role of baale-battim to occupy them selves with duties such as Shemirah (watching), Taharah, the meal of con dolence, and arranging the services in the house of mourning.

The time set for the funeral is unfortunately often done arbitrarily and the Rabbi is expected to be avail able w ithout any consideration for his schedule, a conflict which could be avoided by consulting him before the time is set. Another delicate area, in larger communities, is the failure on the part of the fam ily to invite the Rabbi to officiate at or participate in the funeral service. Often there are others involved in the service and the Rabbi of the bereaved fam ily’s congre gation is* at a loss as to his role. Courtesy and Derech Eretz require the fam ily to ask their Rabbi to either conduct the service or to deliver one of the eulogies. A Rabbi may at times attend a funeral as a friend of the fam ily without participating but in their o ffic ia l capacity they will not appear at the Chapel unless invited by the fam ily. Nor is it the function of the rabbi to attend all services at the house o f the mourner if he attends regular services, morning and evening, at the synagogue. TheTzibbur is more important than the individual and

JANUARY 1972

H E division of labor and re sponsibility between rabbi and layman is not a clearly defined one. It certainly is not a rigid, inflexible one. However, there are, or should be, those which fall into the domain of the Rav’s authority and responsibility

while others are the responsibility of the layman. Above all let there not be the invasion of the former by the latter or the abdication on the part of baale-battim, in favor of the rabbi, w hen their fullest participation is essential. There are two areas which merit mention, for they have proven to be among the most troublesome in recent years — Kashruth and Taharath HaMishpochah. The rabbi obviously is charged to oversee these vital areas. He must provide leadership, guidance, and constant supervision. Nonetheless, the laity is not relieved from responsibility in these areas for they are not the exclusive domain of the rabbinate. They belong to K ’lal Yisroel. In far too many communities the budget, the

mechanics of operation, and the daily adm inistration of these important services fall completely upon the shoulders of the Rabbi. This is unfair and unjust and may eventually lead to the weakening and even disruption of these services. The baale-battim who care, must deem it a distinct honor and privilege to assume the burden of administering the communal program for these two fundamental mitzvoth that are so vital to the viability of a Jewish community.

H E R E are many other examples o f the relationship between layman and rabbi, as well as between the layman and the community, which we have not focused upon. Organiza tional protocol also at times require tact and taste. Should the Rabbi or his

w ife be approached to participate financially in certain congregational fu n c tio n s or serve actively on a committee? We have not chosen to discuss these and similar questions for we feel that there are no common guidelines. Discretion and good judge ment w ill doubtless dictate the correct and p ro p er b e h a vio r. W e have attempted

in this article to suggest

what we consider to be a correct mode of behavior on the part of baale-battim in certain areas which are common to many, if not all, kehiloth and which represent those moments o f life where the layman and rabbi are most apt to come into close, direct contact with each other.

The suggestions made are not Halochoth — they are not part of the four sections of the Shulchon Oruch. They do belong to the “ fifth ” one, which traditionally is the name given for the section (unwritten) that deals w ith common sense and common courtesy. In all human relationship life is made bearable and tolerable by mutual consideration and understand ing. This is true of families, the busi ness and professional worlds, and wherever the social contract is kept as p art of the unwritten law which governs and controls the society of man. It most certainly should be cheerfully accepted and scrupulously observed in guiding the relationship of baale-battim to their community, congregation, and rabbi. H E ways of Torah are ways of p leasan tn ess. D erech Eretz preceded Torah, hence it is the intro duction and the entrance to the ways of peace and pleasantness. The People of the Book must study the introduc tion to the Book and model their lives accordingly. There is a saying that when a true thought enters your mind it gives a light which allows you to see many other concepts which one never

perceived before. Hopefully the con sideration and practice of the simple but important rules of courtesy and Derech Eretz presented in this manual w ill help our fellow Jew s realize the importance o f acting with propriety and re sp ect in their responsible respected roles as baale-battim.

JEWISH LIFE

ON THE SILVER ANNIVERSARY OF JEW ISH L IF E

From the Editor W EN T Y - FIV E years have elapsed since JE W IS H L IF E first appeared. It was no light venture to project then a magazine of modern appeal to serve as “ a mouthpiece of positive Ju d a is m .... with its policy dictated by the T o ra h ... to present the traditional Jewish viewpoint intelligently and vigor ously.n Public response confirmed that the publication served a felt need. The need has not diminished. Through the years our magazine has mirrored the challenges of a momentous era. And through these years JE W IS H L IF E has sought to illumine contemporary perplexities with Torah light, and to offer Torah perspective on the world that Jews share with each other and the world Jews share with their fellow men. The challenges remain, and mount. The pur poses of our magazine are pertinent today as at first.

In the performance of its task, JE W IS H L IF E has drawn upon a reservoir of talent of whose existence few were previously aware. The sphere of orthodox Jew ry had seemed without capacity to address itself meaningfully to the con temporary Jew , or to communicate with him in mutually intelligible terms. The development of JE W IS H L IF E showed that what had been lacking was not the capacity but the vehicle. Through the years, the pages of this magazine have borne the lucidly expressed insights of men and women o f varying viewpoint and common dedication. Our contributors have enriched the lives of a generation of readers with percipient thought on many subjects of Jewish concern and with graphic probings of the Jewish experience. The gateways to self-understanding have been opened for many; Jews of diverse background and varying walks of life have been inspired with Jewish purpose. The literary — and in the case o f our illustrators, the artistic — work of our contributors has given this publication content of recognized worth, and a unique ta ’am. Collectively, their contribu tions have given the Torah community a broader contemporary dimension and to the extent — not insignificant — that JE W IS H L IF E has reached the wider Jewish fold, have implanted the view and values of Torah in minds that other wise might have remained closed to the eternal call. Equally, of course, we owe and hereby express gratitude to our readers. Not a few o f them have been devotees of JE W IS H L IF E since it first appeared and many are subscribers of long standing. Others, in encouraging growth of number, have discovered JE W IS H L IF E in more recent years and have shown the same disposition as our v a th ikim to fuse it with their own lives. There is a distinctly fam iliar relationship between this magazine and its readership. We

JANUARY 1972

belong to each other. The tie is emphasized rather than discounted by the occasional rapping of editorial knuckles. To its typical subscriber, JE W IS H L IF E is “ we,” not “ they,” with justifiable right for all embraced by that “ we” to a proper say in fam ily affairs. This the spirit of our readership is truly cherished by all who share in the makings of JE W IS H L IF E . To know that the publication has been the instrument for a unison of lives, a close kinship of Torah purpose — this is high reward, signal honor* and enduring inspiration.

MESSAGE OF AN ERA N the lifespan of this magazine to date, the world has known no surcease from explosive change. Turbulent, shapeless shift remains the hallmark of our era. Long-established patterns of human life have been shattered, but new patterns have yet to emerge with any definiteness of character or even outline. O f what lies in the future, we can but expect that it will be altogether different from what was before. Historical precedents offer unsafe guidelines and socio political criteria provide scant and undependable clues as to what kind of world the technology-triggered future may bring. Self-aware as never before, mankind

is fumbling and stumbling in the dark. With the world about him so directionless, the Jew no less than others is buffeted by uncharted winds of change. More so than others, in fact. His is a world within a world. If his inner bearings give way with the loss o f the outer world’s bearings, he is without even potential basis of existence. If, however, the Jewish world is doubly endangered, it is also within better reach of guiding direction. We were exposed earlier than most of mankind to the impact of revolutionary change, not because of chronological Direction priority but-because of the socially defenseless conditions under which Jewish life became subject to the experience. In the process, Jew ry has learned at hard cost that among many paths that beckon, but one is the path of life. The rest lead to destruction. To the extent that Jews have realized this truth, to that extent has Jewish life persevered. The story of the past twenty-five years re-echoes the message of all Jewish history: Am idst whatever change and whatever mortal predicament, Direction, true and sure, is eternally present. A generation ago, the Jewish people staggered out of the pit of death, its heart pierced by six million wounds. Thus had culminated an era of basic social transition, o f unceasing assault from without, o f continuous disorientation w ith in. The pulse of Jewish life beat low, its historic centers destroyed, its roots torn up and trampled asunder, its trunk hacked, its world-spanning branches wither ing. W hat hope for such a near-corpse? Y et since then, the Jewish people has

JEWISH LIFE

been brought to new life. “ Am Yisroel Chay” — the People of Israel lives, with renewed life force. The phenomenon defies explanation in the terms of recog nized natural forces. One hears much mention of the force of the Jewish w ill to live, drawing out o f a complex of events and circumstances the means of Jewish continuity. But, apart from the questions as to the fortuitous interlocking

$1ese objective factors, there remains the question: Wherefore the will to Jewish life, which was so strong as to surmount Answer an overwhelming array of destructive forces? W ithout recog nizing the primacy of this question, all discussion of things Jewish is mere chatter. And without perception of the answer, all action for Jewish ends is sheer fu tility. Question

and

IT H IN a twenty-five-year span, the Jewish scene has been transformed. The rise of Medinath Israel in the Holy Land, where before this was hardly more than an outpost of Jewish hope, the amazing development while under constant siege — this above all the wonders of our time bespeaks the essential question and its answer. O nly in lesser degree is the message expressed in the rise of a pulsating Jewish life in America, marked by such an effloresence o f creativ ity, of ripening Torah life, of communal strength and responsibility, as could never before be dreamed of. In countries of Western Europe and in newer lands of the Free World, Jewish resurgence again echoes question and answer. And from the vast domains under Kremlin tyranny, after not one but more than two generations of total supression of Jewish religious and communal life, unnumber ed thousands proclaim their Jewish identity and their will to a Jewish life and demand to be united with their people. Here question and answer resound with heart-shaking poignancy. More than the physical and social makeup of the Jewish scene has been transformed within this brief span of time. A radical change of outlook has spread through the ranks of Jew ry. Where, since the “ Em ancipation,” the mood o f accommodation to the ways and criteria of the non-Jewish world had gained wide rule, now the urge to be Jewishly authentic asserted itself. Assimilation as an ideology had lost its credence and assimilation as a life pattern lost its grip. Heretofore the current of Jewish fashion had derived its momentum from those most prominently identified with surrounding society. Now a contrary current

came into play, springing from the elements with deepest roots in Jewish life. The observant, orthodox Jew became the recognized prompter of the Jewish stance, albeit not, as yet, the governing force in Jewish affairs. A ll facets of the Jewish scene reflect Sp o sitively in some cases, negatively in others — confusingly mixed in still others — the impact o f this continuing revolution. JANUARY 1972

E EN in quarter-century perspective, this era of Jewish resurgence discloses providential opportunity for sweeping spiritual redemption. The oppor tunity has embraced the entirety of Jew ry, and all segments o f Jew ry have been stirred by it, even to the farthest fastness of entrenched assimiEpochai lationism and secularism. But the burden of generations of Opportunity disorientation and disintegration exacts a continuing toll.

While many have responded heart and soul to the message, far too many others, though impelled to move, know not how to free themselves from habituated fetters of mind and associations. They remain locked in inner struggle, straining to synthesize the obsolete with the eternal. And there are those, and they too are many, who just “ can't make it." Theirs is not a response but a reaction. Far gone in de-Judaization, they resent the pull of Jewishness and turn upon Jewish identity with sheer hate. Ironically, the unwilling Jew finds the non-Jew as unwilling to perman ently embrace him. Again and again, one sees the process repeated: In flight from Jewish identity, the defector offers himself body and soul to a movement that flies the banner of human emancipation and universal brotherhood. His eagerness is promptly exploited to the full; he is used, rung dry, and in due course contemptuously ejected. Our byways are studded with the bafflbd dis cards of shining causes, the devotees of the New Left succeeding the auxiliaries of the Black Revolution, these in turn succeeding the vassals of the Old Left, and so forth down the dismal trail. Each in succession now finds himself w ithout recourse but to re-enter, sullenly, the Jewish doorway from which he had fled. So, impelled, he brings with him the tattered rags of ideology. W ith this, he now proposes to refashion the Jewish domain; if he cannot be a non-Jew in the non-Jewish world, then must the Jewish world be de-Judaized in his image. T was the Torah community to whom the spiritual vistas o f our time held most meaning, and to whom the capture of epochal opportunity has most

immediate application. And it was this force, the very core o f Jew ry, that has done most — indeed, done all that was enduringly creative — for the spiritual redemption of the Jewish people. In Israel and Am erica alike, Torah Community Mission

and in other communities across the Free World, the upbuild¡ng of Torah-dedicated religious life has been a phenomenon that stands out amid the phenomena o f our time. The vessels

of Jewish eternity have been brought to vibrant new birth and, apart from the unprecedented institutional development, Orthodoxy's morale, and with that its entire position in the Jewish world — and the wider world too has been revolutionized. Y et for all this, the Torah community has fallen short of its greater potential and its ultimate trust. In sharp contrast to the areas of

JEWISH LIFE

vibrant upsurge, there remain broad areas of devastation where religious life once throve. And apart from neglect of these yawning craters, there has been a dis maying constriction of outlook. The Torah community too has not fully freed itself of the habituated stance of a past era. True, it has heeded historical call, but in limiting its mission to the role of exemplar to Jew ry and guardian of the Jewish heritage, it has failed of an equally binding assignment: that of manifest leadership in the total concerns of the Jewish people. The restriction of goal has cramped the range of accomplishment and impaired its quality. W ithin its own borders, Orthodoxy, lacking an articulated corporate program, has failed to weave the manifold strands o f grass-roots into a substantive whole. The sum of Torah community parts is less by far than the whole should be. Each component unit, as a result, achieves at best a modicum of its potential. Serious too is the hobbling of personality. When the vistas held forth focus on personal fulfillm ent and institu tional loyalties without equal emphasis on responsibilities for collective Jewish welfare and the good of society, those guided by them are apt to be correspond ingly selective in the range of their Shemirath Ha-Mitzvoth; and, too often, at a progressively declining level. The contention sometimes heard, “ Personal ob servance suffices — one is not m echuyov to shoulder K ’lal burdens,” is a mock ery of the Shemirath Ha-Mitzvoth concept and o f the role o f the Torah Jew . Though uncharacteristic, fortunately, of the attitude o f orthodox Jews at large, its presence in any degree is ominous. In relation to the wider compass of Jew ry, the Torah com m unity’s limited reach has obviously placed it at a marked disadvantage. There results painful incongruities. Thus, for example, for all that Torah forces have reached a high point of development on the American scene, with its numbers there so strongly augmented and with Orthodoxy in fact the dynamic force in American Jewish life, yet orthodox Jews still remain subordinate to the non-orthodox in the collective affairs of American Jew ry. It is surely absurd that the orthodox should permit the non-orthodox to continue to rule the central agencies of community endeavor, expression, and policy and the disposition of the community-wide funds. What a fantastic picture is presented when orthodox Jews beseech at the hands of the non-orthodox that a portion of the money derived in substantial part from orthodox Jews be allocated to the Torah schools upon which the very future of the American Jewish community depends. In Israel, the situation is even more preposterous. Here, where every inch of soil is holy ground, where all but a small **■but strategically placed - m inority are of Jewish belief and where the religiously observant are of such great weight by sheer number, not to speak o f communal development, here surely is where there should be no ambiguity about Jewish fundamentals. Y et it is precisely here

JANUARY 1972

that these fundamentals are subject to constant public attack, and that large segments of the public are swayed by these attacks. From Israel, o f all places on earth, comes one rabbinic voice that calls, not for Israelis to incongruities in Israel

rise to Torah standards, but for Torah requirements to be brought down — via “ updated reinterpretation” of Halochah — to the level that the disaffected w ill find palatable. And from

Israel, of all places on earth, are heard other voices that advise yielding to the agitation for “ separation of religion and state.” “ Disestablish ment,” this de'ah would have it, is the cure for Israel’s spiritual conflict. But one wonders: What was it that was “ established” that now could be disestablished? Surely not the identity o f Israel’s faith with Israel’s land and with Israel’s people. This was not “ established” # it was Divinely covenanted and is eternally indis soluble. If the concept of “ establishment” has any application at all here, it can only be to the State, and it follows that the “ disestablishment” proposition can apply, if at all, only to the S ta te d the Jewish State of Israel. So here we come to the pinnacle o f absurdity. HE Jew of Torah has become increasingly aware o f his mounting strength and influence. He senses, more and more, that the future o f the Jewish people is not only conditioned by what he is but, in the final analysis, is depend ent, and solely, on what he does. W ill he now rise to the full dimension o f doing? W ill he bring to the Jewish totality a total vista of Torah

society? Will he create out of the inexhaustable resources of Torah a fully conceived program for a fully conceived com munity? W ill he embrace in his Torah doing the entire gamut o f what makes for a Jewish life and the conditions that surround it? No less than this is entailed in the leadership mission. No less than this will permit the forces o f Torah to effectively address the Jewish world, freed of the harsh anomalies which now falsify the Jewish scene. No less than this will fulfill the message o f past and the hope, under Heavenly Direction, o f the future. Torah

Doing

•

JE W IS H L IF E

Grateful appreciation is hereby expressed to all who so graciously sent us messages on the occasion o f the 25th Anniversary o f JEWISH LIFE. Among them are the following , which we are privileged to share with our readers. - S.B.

From Rabbi Joseph Karasick President, Union o f Orthodox Jewish Congregations o f America A quarter-century of JE W IS H L IF E gives pause to ponder a quartercentury o f Jewish life. As Holocaust gave way to Statehood, the American Jewish community served as anchor and pivot for world Jewish effort, as indeed it serves today. For the Torah com munity, the challenge was a double one: Torah Jew ry the world over looked to Am erica for support, while at the same time the influence of Am erica’s Torah community had to be felt within the total communal effort. Both these challenges were met head on. And in this historic effort, the Ortho dox Union and JE W IS H L IF E not only recorded and reflected the epochal changes, but strongly influenced their pattern. The origins of the American Jewish community are well documented with the establishment in New York C ity over three centuries ago of a still-flourishing orthodox synagogue. This foundation and continuing presence of Orthodoxy became the bedrock of American Jew ry, and on it and with it was developed the largest and strongest Jewish community in the world. Two years before the turn of this century, representatives of orthodox congregations met and created the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America — and ever since, the communal voice of American Torah Jew ry, as channeled through its core institu tion, the synagogue, has been heard and seriously weighed in the forums of Jewish communal development. Throughout these years, and increasingly during the past quarter-century, challenges to the Torah community and the general Jewish community were faced and met accordingly. JE W IS H L IF E was such a response, coming at a time when “ tuning in” to the social environment brought the need for a high-quality Torah-oriented periodical in the English language* JE W IS H L IF E has earned a unique place in Jewish history. When it first appeared, the prevalent attitude within the Jewish community, even, alas, within elements of the Torah community, identified English as a medium o f expression for the W hite House, Wall Street, and the Ivy League, and not as a medium for Torah and Orthodoxy. Integration into the environment, it was felt, was desired, but required the King’s English, and since this did not include the message and teachings of Torah, then, so the reasoning went, Torah was to be left behind.

JANUARY 1972

JE W IS H L IF E set out to demonstrate that, on the one hand, the teachings and the preachings of Torah are at least as articulate in English as in any other language, and, on the other hand, that English can be used to articulate Torah at least as well as it can articulate any other message. And demonstrate it did, that the King’s English and the King o f Kings1Torah were not mutually exclusive. Hence, the channel was built for bringing Torah thinking even further into the policy chambers of post-war Jew ry in its process o f continuing integration w ith in modern American society. Today, in higher yeshivoth, in Kollelim , in pulpits, in scholarly journals, in books, and in academic debate, English is an accepted vehicle for Torah expres sion. Even at international councils of leaders o f the various Torah communities, English takes its place in the channels o f communication. This remarkable development is strongly reflective o f the unique impact JE W IS H L IF E has made in the enhancement and development o f Torah life in the post-war era. The process of JE W IS H L IF E as a developed medium for promoting the principles and practices of Judaism is reflective o f the general process of the Union o f Orthodox Jewish Congregations o f America. O f all the Torah-oriented communal agencies serving the North American Jewish community, and through it the world Jewish community, U O JC A is the oldest continually-functioning body. It has through its years witnessed the domestic spawning of other bodies, as well as the transfer from Europe and other countries to these shores of already-functioning agencies. It has throughout assisted all groups in establishing their places within the community, and then joined with them in cooperation in serving common goals. The Orthodox Union has sustained the goals o f eternity while developing, and redeveloping, the all-important methodologies for achiev ing these goals in an environment new to Jewish history — an ecological consult ant, as it were, in helping make timeless Torah likewise tim ely in a hitherto unknown social atmosphere. In the distinguished array of services to the community that U O JC A has provided, is providing, and w ill provide, JE W IS H L IF E takes its honored place. Today we take a moment, a silver moment, as it were, to record our homage to this venture o f outstanding achievement on the Jewish scene. However, all that we now praise is but prologue. New challenges to the Torah community and the general Jewish com munity, different from any faced before, are being thrust upon us. But these too shall be met. With the inspiration of accomplishment within, we address ourselves to the challenge from without. And to record and to influence, JE W IS H L IF E w ill, with the help o f the A l mighty, continue to fulfill its responsibility. •

JEWISH LIFE

From Rabbi Bernard L. Berzon President, Rabbinical Council of America Twenty-five years is a relatively short period when viewed against the backdrop of history. Certainly in the history o f our people, with its long and glorious past, it is but a brief moment. On the other hand, in the life o f a human it is a large span, for it marks more than a third of his proverbial three-score-and-ten. A ll are agreed, however, that a quarter-century is to be judged not only chronologically — the number o f days and years — but rather by what has taken place during that period. There have been quarter-centuries that have slipped into oblivion and in retrospect history has no recollection of any importance to identify them. The last twenty-five years, however, have been most momentous. We have seen more change, more violent overturns, more that is new and w ill eternally be remembered in history than any previous similar period o f time. If that is true of the world's history, it is many more times true o f our Jewish world. During the past two-and-a-half decades we have witnessed events that our forefathers did not even dare imagine. From the worst “ holocaust" in man's inhuman history, to renewed vital ity, to a reaffirmation o f our eternity as a people, to the revival after 1900 years of an independent State of Israel, to three wars o f independence won with heroism and miracles, to an uneasy armistice but to a seemingly unattainable peace — all this have we seen with our own eyes in this generation. But we have also been witness to a revitalization o f the spirit of the Jew and to a revival o f Torah and Torah values among large segments of our people. What had been barren American soil has become fertile and the results o f tilling are a new and beautiful flowering of Torah. It is in this quarter-century that JE W IS H L IF E was born and has func tioned. Its dedication to Torah values has been constant and unbending. Its editorials were ever advocates for maximal Yiddishkeit and for pride in our heritage. It demonstrated that a journal that was consistent in its loyalty to Torah Judaism could nevertheless be capably edited, topically interesting, and journalistically excellent. It has been an eloquent spokesman for Orthodoxy and has done all of us proud. No doubt the devotion of its editor has been the major factor in that excellence but we want to think that he has found an echo among countless o f our people. We of the Rabbinical Council of America S so many o f whose members have written for JE W IS H L IF E — join in offering our warmest felicitations both to the editor Mr. Saul Bernstein and the U O JC A on this anniversary. We pray that they who hope in the Lord w ill renew their strength and that the years

JANUARY 1972

ahead w ill witness continued vigor in defense of Torah Judaism and that the pages o f JE W IS H L IF E w ill ever be at the service o f the Alm ighty.

From Dr. Samuel Belkin President, Yeshiva University It gives me particular pleasure to extend greetings to you and your readers on the occasion o f the Silver Anniversary of JE W IS H L IF E . The past quarter of a century has seen a revitalization of traditional Judaism as a source o f inspira tion and strength in a troubled world of rapid change and uncertain values. Through the communications opened by JE W IS H L IF E for your thoughtful and concerned readers, your publication has been a significant force for the illumina tion and furtherance of the ideals of Torah. I extend my very best wishes for the continued growth and spreading influence of JE W IS H L IF E .

From Haham Dr. Solomon Gaon Chief Rabbi, Associated Sephardi Congregations of the British Commonwealth As JE W IS H L IF E approaches its twenty-fifth anniversary I want to send you as the editor o f this magazine, and all those connected with its publication, my warmest congratulations on the noble and pious aims which this magazine has fulfilled through its publication. JE W IS H L IF E has not only brought knowledge and given guidance to its readers but it has through the quarter-of-a-century represented w orthily and nobly the ideas and the ideals of orthodox Judaism. W ith these greetings I would also like to associate all the Sephardi Congre gations in the Commonwealth and all its rabbinic leaders. Your magazine has printed many articles of specific interest to the Sephardim, realizing that the life of your magazine coincided with greater awareness on the part o f all Jew ry of the contributions made in the past by Sephardi Jew ry to the treasure of Jewish teaching and of the problems, economic and spiritual, which face Sephardi Jew ry today. During its hey day Sephardi Jew ry gave our people inspired and inspiring spiritual leaders, such as Maimonides, Nachmanides, Abravanel, and others, who through their works have led their people throughout the centuries in the path o f true understanding of our Torah heritage and who in different

JEWISH LIFE

epochs o f our life have shown our people how to live according to the w ill of the Alm ighty in changing situations and in varying conditions. During the last two centuries, however, Ashkenazi Jew ry on the whole has kept up and developed those great traditions of Torah learning and interpreta tion initiated by the spiritual giants of ancient Sephardi Jew ry, thereby giving strength also to the Sephardim who in many countries showed some decline as far as the study and the propagation of the Torah are concerned. In many parts of the world, however, such as Morocco, Baghdad, Salonika, and even Israel, many Sephardi rabbis continued to labor in the vineyard of the Lord. But their works, owing to the isolation of those Sephardi communities, remained to a great extent unknown to the larger Jewish world. Today, when studying these works, we realize that also Sephardi Jew ry continued, on the whole, to make its contributions to the survival of the Torah although their endeavors could not be compared to those of the leaders o f the great yeshivoth in Eastern Europe. Today I believe it the duty of Ashkenazi Jew ry, who have achieved a superiority in numbers and in the religious status, to help the Sephardim to preserve and to propagate the results of considerable productive efforts of our Sephardi brethren during the last two centuries. Another reason that the Sephardim have become news is due also to the fact that they are today a majority in the State of Israel and also in the largest Jewish community in Europe, in France. Many yeshivoth also realize today that without Sephardim their number of students would be much smaller and that the Sephardim have still preserved their adaptability to the study o f the Torah and the ability to produce new guidance in our own age which needs a new “ guide to the perplexed.” Yeshiva University too, guided by its great leader Dr. Samuel Belkin, has established a Sephardi program which has already had a considerable influence on the Sephardi communities o f America and which I feel w ill produce young men who will be able, by their writings and their teachings, to bring new strength to the study and observance of Judaism. JE W IS H L IF E has faithfully mirrored these developments in the Sephardi life and for this we are all grateful to those who guide its destinies. May JE W IS H L IF E in the next quarter of a century achieve even greater and more positive results and may it bear in the future as it did in the past true testimony to the fact that the Alm ighty is and dwells among His people in the present as He did from the days when He showed to our forefather, Abraham, the true meaning of life.

JANUARY 1972

From Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits Chief Rabbi o f the British Commonwealth The progressing sequence o f volumes o f JE W IS H L IF E reflect, and reflect on, the events, hopes, problems, and challenges o f an era quite unparalleled in the annals o f the Jewish people, or o f mankind generally. Never before have twenty-five years witnessed such convulsive changes in every sphere o f human life. What is perhaps even more significant, never before have events so utterly belied the speculation o f prophets and crystal-gazers. In the desolate days o f 1946 — following the most devastating war in human history, and the bloodiest massacres inflicted upon the Jewish people — who could have foreseen the momentous developments unfolded during the past quarter o f a century? The present travail of America, not sparing even the once almighty dollar, which then trium phantly asserted its hegemony over the Free World, would have been as unthinkable as the rise o f China as a leading contend er for the exercise o f world-wide power and influence. The birth o f scores o f new nations to replace empires in liquidation, the universal pre-occupation with new problems ranging from pollution to the generation gap, from drug-addiction to commercialized pornography, from the closure of the Suez Canal to the expenditure of billions on the retrieval o f moon rocks these are but a few of the unanticipated happenings on the world scene. More startling still are the developments which have reshaped Jewish life during the past two-and-a-half decades. In 1946, still numbed by the full horror of the Holocaust just revealed, who would have dared to forecast that by now we would have a flourishing Jewish State, encompassing three m illion Jews, reaching from Tiran to Golan, with Jerusalem restored to Jewish sovereignty after 1,900 years? Who would have been so bold as to predict the national and religious reawakening within Soviet Jew ry, then prostrate and almost forgotten by Jews elsewhere, and now constituting the single most acute focus o f concern of Jews the world over? Who would have been churlish enough to proclaim that there would be vibrant Jewish communities in most European countries so soon after they were made virtually “ Judenrein” ? And who would have ventured to suggest that terms like “ ghettoes” and “ pogroms” would be transfered from the Jewish experience to other minorities, and that the fight for civil rights and the battle against racism would rally millions in the one crusade to unite people in all countries of the world? Still more remote from the visions o f the fortune-tellers was the wondrous renaissance of Jewish religious life. With the utter devastation o f the principal centers o f Torah learning and living, and the disproportionate losses suffered by the faithful in the martyrdom of their leaders, the sceptics as well as the scoffers 56

JEWISH LIFE

could be excused when they consigned the future o f traditional Jews to fossil ized exhibits in history books and archeological research. Subjected as a shrink ing m inority to the inexorable pressures o f secularist conform ity in the-then Palestine no less than in Am erica and elsewhere, they themselves scarcely re tained any faith in their survival, let alone in their resurgence. Their doom, all but sealed, was widely heralded, though none too widely bewailed. What a vastly different situation presents itself today, in both absolute and relative terms. With Orthodoxy now controlling a vast network o f day schools and yeshivoth throughout the world, plus two great universities, and with the strictly observant segment enjoying an appreciably higher birth rate and a signifi cantly lower defection rate than the rest, the prophets o f doom have been confounded with a vengeance. The massive flight from Judaism, by assimilation and intermarriage, from among the ranks o f the less committed continues; but side by side with this process o f disintegration we now witness a notable ten dency to greater intensification on the other side o f the spectrum. Indeed, in sharp contrast to the situation prevailing until twenty-five years ago, the ortho dox element is now the only section o f our people to show a marked excess o f gains over losses, numerically as well as in quality. A ll the indications are that these trends are likely to be maintained and even intensified in the decades ahead. Nevertheless, there is little cause for complacency. A s in the law o f physics, in religious relations, too, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction as exemplified by the sharpening religious conflict in Israel, the persist ent challenge to Orthodoxy even in hitherto stable traditional communities like England, and the growing m ilitancy o f the forces o f secularism and nonOrthodoxy in Am erica and other countries. Moreover, the increasingly embittered K u ltu rk a m p f w ill expose ever more glaringly the deficiencies still gravely weakening the position o f orthodox Jew ry. For instance, there is every reason to be seriously disturbed by the intolerably high proportion o f Jewish day school products who subsequently desert the Torah way o f life. Nothing short o f a radical review o f teaching aims and methods, combined with far greater emphasis on teacher-training (now but rarely provided for or insisted upon) w ill stop this costly drain. Equally wasteful is the deplorable rift between the “ yeshivah world” and the rest o f the orthodox community, whereby far too few products o f the former are prepared, and make themselves available, for service to the latter, as rabbis, lay leaders, or even members o f established congregations. The result is that the Torah community structure has not been strengthened in proportion to the phenomenal growth o f its educational institutions. As the Torah leadership, recovered from the trauma o f its near-extinction JANUARY 1972

caused by the Holocaust in the East and by assimilation in the West, regains its self-confidence, it should gradually feel secure enough to venture out beyond the barriers erected to insulate its followers from the wider community and from secular culture. Clearly, we cannot expect to assert the rule o f the Torah in modern life, and especially in the State o f Israel, unless we are ready to produce the thinkers, scientists, physicians, civil servants, and other highly trained per sonnel needed to influence, govern, and administer today’s complex and sophis ticated society. In order to open up proper communications with the large segments of Jew ry under secularist influence, and to render the encounter with them more effective, it w ill also be necessary to shift the principal emphasis from relatively peripheral issues to the major and indispensable contributions o f the religious community towards solving the great social and moral problems afflicting our age. Such questions as autopsies or even conversions, acute as they are, directly affect but a relatively limited number o f individuals, as compared with such all-encompassing menaces as the rising crime rate, the break-up o f fam ily life, the indignity o f poverty, or the indifferent treatment o f citizens by bureaucratic government and impersonal institutions o f learning and medicine. These are some o f the challenges to which religious Jews and their leaders w ill have to apply themselves with increasing concern if the Torah is to become relevant and dominant in the contemporary experience. I am confident that JE W IS H L IF E w ill continue to be among the leading literary agents stimulating the questions and searching for the answers meant to agitate and guide the perplexed o f our times.

From Rabbi Jacob Kaplan Chief Rabbi of France I am happy to extend best wishes to JE W IS H L IF E on the occasion of its 25th Anniversary. May your magazine continue to flourish and gain all the audience it merits, so that it may go M eychayil el Choyil in its religious work so needed in our time.

From Nash Kestenbaum President, National Council of Young Israel The ability to transcend time and geographic conditions is a cardinal 58

JE W IS H L IF E

principle o f the Torah, which speaks with equal relevancy to all men throughout the ages o f history and throughout the diverse communities o f the world. It becomes, however, the responsibility o f the learned and committed Jews o f any ^ge and o f any environment to expound on the verities o f Torah in the language and the idiom o f the age. JE W IS H L IF E , since its inception twenty-five years ago, represents a dynamic publication which brings to its vast membership con temporary problems in light of Torah principles. Through well thought out, deeply researched, and masterfully written articles, the American young man and woman sees in JE W IS H L IF E how Torah addresses itself to all aspects of man’s development. The Am erican Jewish community owes a debt o f gratitude to the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations o f America, the publishers o f JE W IS H L IF E , for this and many other great achievements for Orthodoxy. Behind every publication, there stands the human factor in the form o f an erudite and dedicated editor. We congratulate Mr. Saul Bernstein for his many years o f brilliant editorship. Mr. Bernstein’s selfless devotion and single-minded loyalty to the elevation o f JE W IS H L IF E is a prime factor in the consistent high level o f articles.

From Mrs. Meyer Karlin President, Women’s Branch U O JC A It is with deep pleasure that I extend on behalf of National Women’s Branch sincere congratulations to JE W IS H L IF E on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. If a silver anniversary is an important milestone for any publication, how much more significant is it for this magazine which reaches out to countless numbers of Jews, interpreting both events of the past and the present in the light of our tradition. As we look back upon the last twenty-five years, it is striking how much has changed. Never before in the history of our people did we face a tragedy as staggering as the annihilation of six million Je w s 11 a number almost beyond our comprehension. But then in 1948, only twenty-three years ago, the State of Israel was miraculously born and, despite its immediate struggle to survive, immediately uplifted our morale. As it grew in strength and influence, it gave birth to a whole new adventure for American Jews — the idea o f Aliyah. Meanwhile, American Jew ry was being rapidly enriched by the enormous growth of orthodox institutions and organizations such as Yeshiva University, Stern College for Women, more than 350 Hebrew Day Schools and countless

JANUARY 1972

Yeshivoth, orthodox summer camps and religious youth organizations on every level — all of which have important and necessary roles to play in American Jewish living. The same period saw drastic improvements in Kashruth facilities on college campuses, and, most im portantly, the enormous nationwide accept ance o f the €> certification (now extending to over 5,000 products) — hardly to be dreamed about even thirty years ago. While all these changes were happening, changes were also taking place in the life of the American Jewish woman. As the religious community and its institutions grew and prospered, they affected her thinking, her attitudes, and her actions. In comparison with her counterpart of twenty-five years ago, the religious Jewish woman of today is better educated both Jewishly and secularly. She is often a working mother and day school parent — involved in the PTA of her child's school as well as her sisterhood and Zionist organization. Therefore, her commitments are many and her time is very precious. So, though gains she has achieved as a kosher homemaker have brought her the improved facilities o f modern technology, and though she may drive her own car and is considerably more mobile than her mother, her obligations far out number her leisure moments and she must wisely assign her priorities. Thus far this is only one part of the picture. Now place this mobile, well-educated contemporary orthodox Jewish woman and her fam ily against the background of today's societal revolution ^ in behavior, dress, and moral codes B- and you can see that more than ever, Women's Branch has a formidable job to do. Our goal is to teach the application of our heritage and the value judgements of Torah and tradition to as many women as we can reach through our sister hoods, chapters, and regions throughout the country. We have to attempt to influence as many women as possible in the battle now being waged — to preserve the purity of the Jewish people and sustain our unique identity as a Holy nation. “ Every day G-d creates a new group o f angels who pronounce new praise and then disappear." May the next twenty-five years of JE W IS H L IF E be even more fruitful than the first, and may it continue to inspire us with new heights o f “ song and praise."

From Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky National Director, Torah Umesorah For Torah Umesorah and myself, I tender most heartily to JE W IS H L IF E and the Union o f Orthodox Jewish Congregations o f Am erica our sincere 60

J E W IS H LIFE

felicitations on the occasion o f the Silver Anniversary. JE W IS H L IF E has certainly been one of the great catalysts for the more dynamic orthodox Jewish community which has emerged — and is still emerging boruch Hashem — during the most eventful decade just passed. The many prophets of doom who forecast the demise o f Judaism and Jewish life in this country must be hiding their heads in shame in the face of the more articulate and virile Orthodoxy which now dominates so many of the organizational structures o f world Jew ry and which manifest such a great influ ence in communities all over this country and other centers of Jewish life. Certainly, the consistent growth of the Jewish Day School movement and the impact it has had on communities at large and upon families and individuals mystifies them. As a matter o f fact, not too many of us could have foretold or foreseen twenty-five years ago the great strides made — boruch Hashem — in unifying orthodox communities the world over in behalf of the universal acceptance of the Jewish Day School as the grand strategy best calculated to inculcate Jewish identity and guarantee Jewish survival. One dramatic instance o f this sense of unity, in which Torah Umesorah had the “ zechuth” to participate, is the impact our educational survey team from America had on the Jewish community in England vis-a-vis the intensification of Torah education and the expansion of Day Schools. The forces and processes which brought all this about are too many to describe in a short “ greeting.” But two factors do merit special consideration which I can best describe only in broad terms. One which has not, unfortunately, been adequately stressed or taken due cognizance o f is the amalgam which came about during these twenty-five years between the new immigrants to this country — the blessed and fortunate survivors of the Holocaust — and the native Americans who shared their ideals and convictions vis-a-vis the dynamic re-establishment of Torah chinuch and Torah living on these shores. An anniversary of great significance which slipped many of us by was May 10, 1971 - the 25th anniversary of the first “ refugee boat” to arrive in this country with the first group of survivors from Hitler's death-camps, “ The Marine Flasher.” There is little doubt that these newcomers were a great force in spurring us to set up Torah institutions in America to replace the great lighthouses of learning which were, tragically, extinguished in Eastern Europe. Another factor which helped in the process - and which this anniversary affords me the opportunity to publicly acknowledge — is the identification of the orthodox organizations with the destiny of the Day School movement, notably the U O JC A . As I review the momentous events o f the past twenty-five JANUARY 1972

years, I recall the innumerable occasions when Torah Umesorah was part and parcel of every major convention and regional conference convened by the Union. Through such “ integral” cooperation, we in Torah Umesorah could share our ideals and discuss our problems with the leaders of Orthodoxy throughout the country. In this process, of course, JE W IS H L IF E was on the job recording, reacting to, and suggesting the further growth of the Day School movement. An anniversary, however, serves more than recalling the lights and the shadows. It is truly a time for Cheshbon Hanefesh. What, then, are the tasks ahead? To me, there seems to be one major task facing all of us who call ourselves orthodox B B the indigenous generic term for all o f us who would see true commitment to Torah living. In this category, I include the more zealous who came before, with, or after “ The Marine Flasher,” the heads and students of our thriving Yeshivoth, and the leaders of the various orthodox organizations and their constituents. Whatever our degree o f commitment to Orthodoxy, the task which faces all of us is the further kibbush h a -ke h iiio th - the “ conquering” of more and more communities for Orthodoxy. For, although I am far from a pessimist or “ prophet of doom,” c/?as vechoiiiah, I am realistic enough to realize that the Day School movement — which is still, boruch Hashem, 90% or more under orthodox auspices — is at present tremendously handicapped in these smalfer communities by the lack of a dynamic Orthodoxy. We have, boruch Hashem, reached the stage where every community of 7,500 Jews or more now has a Day School. (Indianapolis, the one exception until this year, opened its Day School this September!) Yet, there are other smaller communities which want Day Schools committed to Orthodoxy but which are in a dilemma since they have no orthodox synagogue or virile ortho dox leadership. Shall we leave their fate to the “ deviationist” groups? Too, there are day schools which have long been under orthodox auspices whose spiritual and educational integrity is now threatened by the “ deviationists” and the pressures exerted upon them by the powerful secular Jewish educational organi zations which talk in terms o f “ trans-ideological” day schools. The dangers involved, I believe, are well known to careful observers of the Jewish scene. The time has surely come for greater unification of a ll orthodox groups to join hands in devising an overall dynamic plan for kibbush h a -ke h illo th — if our achievements o f the past twenty-five years are to be preserved and expanded. To be sure, such a process involves many complementary and supple mentary processes — such as more funds, more trained personnel, and closer guidance and direction from the central offices. Yet, the overwhelming need for the genuine unity of Orthodoxy to achieve such kibbush stares us in the face. This is the challenge which faces not only JE W IS H L IF E , the Orthodox Union, and Torah Umesorah, but all of us who are concerned with the further efflorescence o f Torah learning and living in the decade ahead. 62 JEWISH LIFE

sketches from dochsu -IS7I by david adler

when i entered munich i was told by the government tourist guide, "don't bother going to dachau. it's just a memorial." it was more than a memorial to those who came, for we were different when we left.

1 i

by HILLEL SEIDMAN W E N T Y - FIV E years ago, June of 1946, we, a group o ften men -^ remnants o f European Jew ry — were on the S.S. George Washington on our

In the early hours of one morn ing in June, on the third day of our vo yag e, Major Hertz Livazer, the

way from France to our new home^

chaplain on the ship, came to our cabin, where we were bedded in bunks, and announced: “ We are going b ack .. . ” This announcement caused no

I 0

I I

land, the United States. We were the fir s t group of former death-camp inmates seeking refuge in America after World War 11. T h e George Washington, the ship which brought President Wilson to the Paris peace conference after World War I in 1919, had been con verted to an army transport ship dur ing the Second World War. It was now bringing about ten thousand G .I.’s back to the U S . to be demobilized. We were the only civilians aboard the military vessel. (A t this time there was no civilian passenger transportation available.)

JANUARY 1972

Je w is h

hom ew ard-bound

arm y

little consternation among our group, as some of us had had to overcome great difficulties in obtaining visas to the United States. However, any apprehension was quickly put to rest by Major Livazer’s explanation. A soldier on an army transport on its way to Europe, where a new contingent was to replace the one being demobilized, had become seriously ill with appendicitis, and would have to undergo emergency

surgery. Since there were no adequate medical facilities for the surgery on the other ship, it was decided that the sick soldier would be transferred to the S.S. George Washington, where there was a well-equipped operating room. T h u s, both army transports speedily reversed their courses in order to meet at some carefully-chosen point in the middle of the ocean. After several hours o f sailing we caught sight of the other boat, coming towards us o ver sto rm y waters. After many complicated maneuvers, the two ships were brought adjacent to each other. Long nets were strung across the water between them. While the waves lapped at the nets and beat against the sides of the boats, the sick soldier was carried on a stretcher and transferred 'Igll with great care % to the George Washington. W h ile the doctors occupied themselves with their charge, each transport resumed its former direction to its respective destination. A fter witnessing this extraordi nary action, we returned to our cabin, where we pondered the incident.

tribe in the uncontrollable rage of the spur of the moment, but in cold delib eration

one of the most “ ad

vanced” of peoples — the “ people of p h ilo s o p h e rs and p o e t s ,I th e K u ltu rtra e g e r — the standard bearers of European culture - the Germans. Well-planned and implemented with typical German efficiency and organi zational skill, this monstrous crime was carried on day after day for four long years by all segments o f the entire German population. Now, as we stood upon the threshold o f a new life in the New World ^ even before entering those blessed shores — we were given a glimpse o f the essence o f the American way. We had come from countries where a human life was w ithout value, where the Jew had been degraded and h u m ilia te d even before he was murdered, where the satanic H errenvolk looked upon the Jew as one looks upon insects. Even their expressions reflected such an attitude — extermi nation, elimination, liquidation.. .(It seems unbelievable that these most revolting and degrading terms should be used even today by civilized men, in conversation, in the media — in rela

E R E we were, ten men just com e fro m countries where millions of Jewish men, women, and children — among them members o f

tion to the Nazi German killing of the Jews. So are the martyrs insulted and debased even in their deaths!)

our families — had been tortured and slaughtered in a mass killing unlike any other in the history of mankind. Furthermoret^r this unspeakable crime had been perpetrated not by a wild

Now, as we were on our way to America, we were shown the extent of the value our new country placed on a human life. We saw its people engaging in the highest efforts to protect a

JE W IS H L IF E

single citizen. We were aware that this operation involved expenses close to one million dollars, loss of three days of voyage, and costly change in the plans of schedules and timetables both in Europe and the United States. We knew that 20,000 soldiers and officers were directly involved in the change of plans. And we were greatly aware of the fact that all this was the result of

JANUARY 1972

the effort concentrated upon the saving of a single human life. Further more, this was not the result of some exceptional momentary decision; it was a matter of routine — how could one act otherwise? This is America. This was the welcome extended to the first remnants of the Holocaust by this country.'

R E F L E C T IO N S O N U /O R K IN Q U /IT H THE AG ED by MOLLIE KOLATCH I t’s nice sometimes to open up the heart a little and let some hurt come in. It proves y o u ’re still alive. H IS verse of Rod M cKuen’s is the point at which I can begin to discuss my experience with the aging. As I look back to a few short months ago, before I began my experience as a student caseworker with the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged,

I realize how ‘‘turned o ff” I had been in my relationships in this area. I live in a community with many “ senior citizen” residences. I was accustomed to seeing elderly people sit on benches, in what appeared to be a state of inanimate vegetation. Very o fte n som e o ld e r person would

wander, lost, in the streets, not know ing his own identity. Perhaps this represented a threat — something I saw as an inevitable concurrance with old age that might someday happen to me. I had an obsessive sense of reaching out to life quickly before it slipped from my grasp. This, in essence, is what determined my return to school several years ago. Tim e seemed to be gaining momentum and threatening to consume me. Old age was therefore the one area that I did not want to confront. By negating the aged I could negate that part o f the future that appeared threatening. ‘‘To open up the heart a little and let some hurt come in” turned out to be a rewarding experience, in terms of the aged. How does one approach

JE W IS H L IF E

this particular age group? Our Jewish tradition offers guide lines that I realize now are so humane, and sorely lacking in our youth-oriented society. I recall my sense of surprise at a sign in an Israeli bus when I first saw it several years ago. Quoting the Bible, it stated: “ You shall rise up before the hoary head and honor the face of an old man.” An important component of our tradition is respect for what the aged can contribute: “ W ith the aged there is wisdom and in length o f days there is understanding.” (Job ) This stands diam etrically opposed to the sense of abandonment and worthless ness that older people generally feel in our culture. I met my clients at a point in their lives in which simultaneous losses were stripping them of their remaining dignity: the loss of physical strength, of fam iliar contemporaries, financial independence, the loss of their place of respect in the fam ily unit. In some, there was an awareness of a deteriora tion of mental faculties and the sense of a loss of self that this implied. M etin g them at this juncture in their lives, what could I, as a human being,

o ffe r?

thought of

Rod

McKuen’s image of “ an outstretched hand.. . ”

Those o f us who walk in light must help the ones in darkness up. For that’s what life is all about and love is all there is to life .

JANUARY 1972

But there is an arrogance in the assumption that we are the “ all giving” ones, helping the less fortunate. I first had to learn to take what they were offering me, also out of their love and need — the dignity of a human life struggled through, obstacles overcome, hurts endured — and a sharing of some essence of themselves with me in the helping process. By bringing to them my respect for their individual unique ness, I received, in turn, a gift of a unique human being from whom I could glean some insight for myself. N E of my early encounters was with an 88-year-old man in a proprietory residence setting. When I first met him I had the sense o f a keen, alert mind trapped in a physically deteriorating body. Even with his walker, he moved with short, quick steps; his speech was rapid, and his mental alertness startled me. Prepared for the slower biological and mental pace of the aged, / had difficulty

keeping up with h im . As I learned to know him better, I was aware of a paranoiac aspect to his personality. He viewed the world as trying to take from him his last re maining treasure of money. He main tained an active correspondence with various banks to prevent this. He described in detail a plot among his fam ily, mainly revolving around his daughter-in-law, to rob him of his remaining funds. The facts did not corroborate his

s to ry . It was his daughter-in-law, unable to get through to him, who called our office for assistance. He would avidly describe the plot against him, and there was a sense o f fascina tion for me in listening to him describe th e intricate machinations of the supposed scheme. What he wanted from me was a recommendation of other settings to which he could move, in order to be accessible to his bank and vault. He couldn’t even weigh the differences of the Homes which he considered, since he limited himself to their geographical location and to the least expensive setting. I found myself genuinely fond of him, for he had endearing qualities in spite of the “ sick” part of his per sonality. He enjoyed reminiscing about his colorful life, and I enjoyed listen ing. T.H . Pear (1922), writing on the characteristics of reminiscing, stated: “ The selective factors in memory are determined prim arily by the person ality makeup. The mind never photo graphs; it paints pictures.” My 88-year-old friend told me his exploits in the Russo-Japanese War, in which he was captured and held prisoner. He described the intricate escape that he made, in which he used ail his wits and resources to mislead his pursuers. From his perspective, the world was filled with dangers and only by staying mentally alert and outw it ting those who schemed against him, could he survive. Although totally unprepared, I was not too surprised when I came to

visit one day and was told by an angry, indignant proprietor that my Mr. V had “ taken o ff” with only two hours notice, and had moved gp lock, stock, and barrel — to another setting. I secretly applauded this feat of an 88-year-old, physically limited person. I realized that in some strange, para doxical way his paranoia was the very elem ent that kept him alert and functioning. H E R E is a couple whom I visit, both living in their apartment although over 80 years of age. They are valiantly struggling to maintain their independence and to avoid public assistance. When I visit, they use the time to speak of their past accomplish ments — their place in the community, their pride in their children, and all of the constructive elements of their years together. I get the feeling that in relating this to me, they are reaffirm ing their own worth and identities. I, on the other hand, bring them infor mation that might be helpful, whether about food stamps, a summer camp program for older adults, the Pesach assistance program tg ways in which they can keep the fabric of their lives whole for yet a time longer. I respect their struggle for dignity and inde pendence and use every opportunity

to express this to them. One of my favorite clients is a woman who was first described to me as an “ oddball.” I saw a picture of her taken by the case aide. She looked almost childish, sitting on a bench,

JE W IS H L IF E

holding an ice-cream cone, wearing a

daughter, who, on

silly grin on her face. I remember my supervisor and I laughing at the picture. I was to visit with her at the home for adults in which she was living and move her in the direction of a m ore p rotective nursing home setting, since she was no longer able to care for herself adequately. When I met her, I was stunned by the innate dignity that this woman possessed. She was tall and gaunt with a tragic quality that came from her understanding of her situation: her p h ysica l lim ita tio n , rejection by

which she lives, could never stay penned into any area, but literally fought for her freedom of movement. I realized that as long as my client could still fight for her freedom to be different, she was still expressing some measure of her independent nature. We have a special relationship, she and I — she speaks to me feelingly of her difficult past separation from fam ily during her adolescence p | her children, scattered in distant places, somehow finding it always impossible to visit her — her dream to visit Israel and to see Jerusalem. I was awed, when on my last visit she told me she was angry with G-d and had lost her faith in Him, because He allowed children to suffer in the terrible period of the Holocaust. Her eyes filled with

children, loss of freedom to express her idiosyncratic, individual person ality. I was struck by her gesture of wiping away unshed tears and at the same time by her ability for rich, hearty laughter, much of the time directed at herself. I thought of M cKuen’s lines:

How can you say something new about being alone? Tell someone you }re a loner and right away they think y o u ’re lonely, I t’s not the same thing you know . She was a loner and was con sidered an eccentric. She was viewed as a nuisance because now, in her old age, she found it difficult to-“ stay put” and seemed restless in whatever setting she found herself. I realized, seeing her in the stifling setting of the Adult Home, how much she must be suffer ing in trying to adjust to this conform ity. In a strange way she reminded me o f m y litt le two-year-old grand

JANUARY 1972

the kibbutz in

tears as she detailed some of the horrors she had read about. I respected her courage to voice these doubts at a time in life when most people make their peace with G-d in anticipation o f the inevitable. We speak to each other in Yiddish, which seems to give our relationship a quality of intimacy. My respect for her individuality and the unique person that she is, has re warded me with a glimpse of a very special kind of human being. H E right to self-determination is basic to human dignity. Y et this right, where the aged are concerned, is hardly considered essential. True, the area of choice is by necessity more limited. But because this is so, the

freedom to choose is even more precious to the older person. Very often the home he may have had with children is no longer feasible. There must be an area of choice in some of the alternatives presented at this crucial point. If one has a choice in the change to be made, the adjustment becomes less traumatic. My 80-year-old client of long standing — I have visited with her the m o st — was in an “ in terim ** arrangement in a private proprietory home awaiting acceptance by an insti tutional home for the aged. She is unmarried, alone in the world, and could no longer stay in the residential placement setting that she had enjoyed for many years. She is also an epilep tic. Rather than detail the case, I will simply relate that she became adjusted to the small private proprietory Home setting which was intended as an “ interim ” arrangement, and refused to consider the more protective, bettersuited arrangement of institutional care. In a confrontation, she pulled herself up, tiny and frail though she is, and firm ly stated that she wanted to determine her own destiny, that she chose to remain here in spite o f the “ benefits” that the institutional Home offered her. She knew that her very life was staked on this decision, since there was no suitable care for her under conditions of emergency. This was quite a situation for me, inexperi enced as I was, but in truth I inwardly applauded her, although still trying to

prevail upon her to change her deci sion. She is still in the private Home and I visit with her on a weekly basis. On a recent visit, I was appalled to recognize that she was in a prepara tory state of seizure. She tried to maintain a facade o f composure, but the jerking, uncontrollable movements of her hands and her interrupted speech pattern were painful to behold. M y impulse was to encircle her with my love and protective care, but real istically there was very little I could do. There was no nurse on the premises. If an emergency were to arise, she would be taken to a hospital. (This was not considered “ emergency** status.) I stayed with her as long as p o ssib le and left her, after she promised to be careful, to stay in her ro om . H er roommate, not much younger than herself, would watch over her. This, I realized, was the con sequence o f her decision and I could not protect her from it. What I did not realize was that this frail woman, alone in the world, had learned to use her charming and appealing personality in such a way that people were genuinely concerned for her and were happy to give her the care and attention she needed, beyond what was technically required of them. This was the protective apparatus she had learned to develop in order to survive. H IS same woman* alert and delightful to be w ith, represents a repository o f historical data. She

JE W IS H L IF E

lived in New York at the turn o f the century; she remembers the assassina tion o f President M cKinley and the Teddy Roosevelt era. She js capable of recalling fascinating details o f histori cal memorabilia. I wonder that older people are not valued more for the memories they hold of a living history. Yes, society loses much by putting its older generation away into Homes, and into separate restricted dwellings. How wonderful for children to be exposed to people who can give first hand accounts o f periods that they have only read about. What a valuable generational interchange could take place. This is where the modern, nuclear fam ily is impoverished. Older people, as do all of us, need to feel needed. Their potential contribution is of a very special kind. In not valuing it, the loss is truly ours. There is something else that I have gained in my work with the aged. I see myself more realistically in the continuum of time as having a fuller, richer life than I had allowed myself to realize. Fearful of the passing years, I had already felt impoverished. Yet, here I am, enjoying the best years o f my life within a caring fam ily setting, with years o f fulfillm ent still ahead. I am engaged in a daily struggle of growth and self-discovery — the most marvelous way in which a human being can live. Although time passes, I see my identity as “ constant.” The “ I ” within me opposes time. Every stratum of my life is there for me to turn to and re

JANUARY 1972

examine. Time can never diminish the inner self. In old age, this identity within each person is what is most essential. From this we take our strength. We are in old age what weVe been all our lives, only more so. The patterns of old people in curious ways parallel the patterns of childhood. There are processes of selfprotective denial, of seeing the world in a different time continuum. There is a sp ecial language of non-verbal communication, often expressed in psychosomatic ways. There is a lifepreserving self-centeredness. I recollect that as a pre-school child, I had some kind o f a special relationship to some b o d y 's e ld e rly grandfather in a neighboring house. I remember de lightful hours spent in play with him. There must have been a confluence of patterns o f movement and interest. T this point I stand midway, relating to my own children who are growing into adulthood, and to my elderly clients. I am learning the pain

ful process of “ letting go” in relation to both areas. Again I quote Rod McKuen, who so well expressed it:

Watching children grow is like threatening the ivy to climb the garden wall. You wait fo r it to happen you hurry it along with love. But still y o u ’re disappointed at giving someone life enough to walk o ff on their own and not be carried in your arms. 73

I must not overprotect nor overpro ject. This requires constant self-aware ness. Part of letting go is to accept partings and farewells. When I awake at dawn and watch the colors o f the sky grow into pastel light and the seagulls weave their mysterious communion into the air, I feel an ineffable sense o f wonder

at the world — and give silent thanks that I am a part o f it. Each day is fluid and open — just as our human relationships — and each day brings its measure of surprise, sometimes pain ful, sometimes pleasant. For me, to be in the helping profession is something very special!

JE W IS H L IF E

A m e r ic a s P u b lic

E d u c a to r s are

F lo u n d e r in g

by JACOB J. HECHT T is no secret that our American public education system is in danger of collapse. The astronomical budgets required to finance our schools; the growing inability to main tain discipline in the classroom; the b itte r controversies between com munity groups and boards of educa tion as to who should run the schools; the endless arguments over what to teach and how — pressures are building on every side that threaten the very existence of education in the United

guidance American boys and girls so sorely need. I am sure such a statement will produce a prompt denial from our nation’s public education leaders. With charts and statistics, they will point to reading-level averages and curricula changes, and such new developments as open classrooms to tell us that no ed u catio n al system in the world approaches Am erica’s in excellence

States. Yet, a new problem has emerged which overshadows all others. It is the fact that our educators, the men at the

and performance. It is perhaps true that the basic three “ R ’s” - reading, writing, and arithm etic - are still impressively taught to American pupils, as well as hu nd red s o f m ore sophisticated

top o f th e country’s educational systems, are going around in circles, unable to provide the direction and

courses ranging from computer pro gramming to theatre dramatics. But what is now missing from today’s

JANUARY 1972

education is the fourth important “ R ” — teaching our youth the importance of responsibility. O W H E R E in the elementary school or high school curricula of a quarter century ago was given such a course as “ Responsibility.” Nevertheless, that is what teachers then taught. They phrased this part of the education they were giving as “ moulding better citizens” and “ help ing youth to become better adults and better citizens.” What they really were doing was — directly or indirectly — teaching students how to be respon sible.

B o y s and g irls then were expected to obey the rules; if not, they were punished. They were ex pected to take care o f their school books, and to keep their lockers clean. They were expected at certain times to keep quiet, and at other times to speak up. They were expected to respect the rights and property of others. They were expected to respect authority. And so on. Thus, when the young people co m p leted th e ir schooling, they learned not only the information and thinking processes that would help them make their way in the world, they also learned how to live in society, i.e., what was expected of them and what they could expect from others. Such teaching gave boy and girl a sense of responsibility. They had learned values and principles. And, also, for want of a better word, morality. 76

B y te a ch in g th e ir students morality, the educators of a quartercentury ago were playing out their ro les according to the traditional definition of education, which calls for moral teaching as well as intellectual teaching. But today’s teachers have forgot ten this role. When asked about it, they usually shrug their shoulders, and point out that the trend in education now is to let pupils “ do their own thing.” d u c a t o r s are quick to point out quite justifiably that child ren get most of their training in values from their parents, and that other groups in our society, such as religious groups, also play a role in this allimportant area. But so too do educa tors have a responsiblity here, and theirs in some ways is of pivotal im portance. A t home, the situation the child faces has only limited corre spondence to his future environment; here he is protected by his fam ily, and they are his chief social contact. In his

church or synagogue, the child is also in an unreal situation. Here everyone he meets is o f his own religion. But at public school, the child faces society as he will meet it when he becomes an adult. Here in his class room is the cross-section o f socio economic, racial, religious groups he will meet later in life. Here he can learn to cope and “ live” with others of dissimilar backgrounds and interest. It is here the child needs direc tion, so he will get off on the right JE W IS H L IF E

foot. Guidance, attention, explana tions — all these are necessary at this

teachers colleges, psychologists, paro chial school educators, etc.

time to be passed on from teacher to pupil. UT what is happening now? In stead of providing direction,

today’s teachers all too often run away from their responsibility, and tell us it is important for the teacher not to interfere. Such abdication o f responsibility could not come at a more critical time, for the plight of our youth is fast ap proaching a national tragedy. Trying desperately to find their place in society, caught in the whirlwind of a suicidal drug culture, dominated by feelings of alienation from every link to their past, demoralized by a seem ingly senseless war, they need guidance as at no other time in our history. Yet, it seems, rather than trying to rescue ou r drow ning youth, America’s educators dive into the sea of confusion with them. This shocking situation became clear to me last year when, as a dele gate representing a Jewish day school system, I attended the White House Conference on Children, which con vened in Washington, D.C. to plot the guidelines for the next ten years for the education of children 14 years old and younger. A ll those responsible for direct ing our national educational system were represented, the U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, state and city departments of education,

JANUARY 1972

OW I personally looked forward to this Conference! How I came to Washington, expectantly eager to learn what our nation’s top educators proposed in regard to attacking the problems of today’s children! How I hoped to come away inspired from this Conference! Bu t what a let-down the Confer ence turned out to be. Instead o f four thousand inspiring educators, I found that number of confused, direction less, and apathetic school function aries. Were these — without a plan, without goals and objectives, without any faith in what they were doing — the educators who were going to solve the problems of our youth? The particular panel to which I was assigned had the job of discussing “ Values” in education. Our assignment was to discuss and prepare appropriate recommendations and guidelines for

the next decade. It seemed to me that almost no educator in my panel had any code of moral and ethical values, or at least the values I had always thought were universally recognized as important to maintain. Regardless of what religion one is identified with, or even if one is of no religion, it would be supposed th a t he w o u ld deem th e T en Commandments a proper guide for moral behavior. Thou shalt not kill. They shall not bear false witness. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit

adultery. And so on. Adm ittedly, our youth today violate these commandments in whole sale quantities. One would have to be a recluse not tp know about the high in cid e n ce of pre-marital sex, the spread o f pornography, the increasing violence and crime in our streets, and all the other manifestations of our present social disruption. Quite possibly our educators, however hard they may try, might not succeed in repelling these trends characteristic of the life styles o f to day’s youth. But doubt as to such success does not give license to con done these practices. Unfortunately, condonation is precisely what was revealed during the sessions of the Value Panel o f the White House Conference on Children. A nd n o t only did the educators present not take a stand against the immoral actions o f many o f our youth today, they actually praised these actions. N E fellow panel member jolted me when she said that stealing today was “ perfectly all right” under

certain circumstances. S tealing per fe c tly a ll rig h t . . . not, as one was hitherto taught, a sin, for which there could never be justification. Sim ilarly, I was told by another fellow panelist that “ there is no such thing as im m orality.” N o such th in g as im m o ra lity --- from an educator supposed to plot the guidelines for our youth for the next ten years.

M y panel’s meeting reached its climax a little later when our proposals were being readied for final submission to the general conference. Several of my fellow delegates suggested that before we pass on our proposals, we first submit them for approval from some of the youngsters themselves. Fourteen-year and younger children approving the educational recommend ations of some of the nation’s most important educational leaders! The whole idea seemed too absurd to me to be believed. I came away from the Confer ence bewildered, the question refusing to leave my mind: How can we expect our youth to be taught values and principles if the educators supposed to teach them turn away from their responsibility? H Y o u r American educators abdicate this responsibility I do not know. Maybe their jobs are just too exhausting. Maybe, like many parents, they feel guilty about the world they have helped create, and hope by their inaction that youth will be able to put it on a sounder keel.

Maybe it is because they have been too strongly reared on the doctrine of permissiveness. But even if we find out what the real reason is for their failure in this area, the bald truth remains. Continua tion of the present situation can produce only one result: the sell-out by our educators o f the twenty million and more young people whose moral destiny is entrusted to them. JE W IS H L IF E

L e tters to th e E d ito r

‘D A Y SC H O O L E Q U IT Y ’ Los Angeles, California A careful study of the U O JC A posi tion on governmental aid to religious schools, as presented in the July-August issue of JE W IS H L IF E , provides one with some satisfaction that the representatives of orthodox Jewry are now pressing their demands for aid for our day schools. How ever, both the introductory note and the UO JC A statement, in their implied accept ance of the Supreme Court position as being both legal and valid, are seriously question able. The purported aim of the Court and of its supporters is to ensure compliance with the First Amendment dictum concerning “ an establishment of religion.” However, the implementation of the Court policy against furnishing any governmental aid to the institutions and practices of religion attacks only the traditional religions. In so doing the Court ignores its own written understanding and that of numerous secular scientists that secularism, and even atheism, are recognizable as modern religions. The current Court policy (let us remember that it was imposed relatively recently by a new Court interpretation) promotes secularism and its associated faiths, and by so doing serves to undermine the traditional faiths.

JANUARY 1972

An educational system by its very nature can not be truly neutral in modern times; to the extent that it forbids the pre sentation of traditional religious ideas and is otherwise silent on the subject, it leaves a void into which Liberal humanistic religion is injected as a substitute. The social and natural sciences, through sociological and psychological theories which exclude, by not considering it, the possibility of the Creator’s being, foster education of our young which is as dangerous to our spiritual existence as is current Soviet religious prac tice. The Soviet anti-Jewish policy stirs our violent objections; the equivalent death-wish of the American courts leaves us relatively apathetic. The validity of my comments are attested by the writings of many modern secular social scientists. A brief to support this contention could be readily prepared both for the legislatures and the courts, to support an effort to correct the course which this nation is now being forced to pursue. Vigorous action of this sort is essen tial to protect our day schools; it could even serve to correct the deficiencies of our pub lic schools and our institutions of “ higher” education. I strongly urge the U O JC A to undertake this effort. As a preliminary task, may I suggest that the UO JC A provide legal assistance to the Chinese in San Francisco,

Gefilte fish like mother

For the holidays, remember Mother's for any days, serve Margarine. And what Mother's Borscht. And knows best. Gefilte Schav. And Fish. (Traditional Matzo Balls. Old-Fashioned, New Sweet Old World, For salt free diets: Whitefish and Mother's new Yellow Pike, or all Unsalted Gefilte Fish, Whitefish.) Only Unsalted Borscht, the freshest fish. and Unsalted Soft or Just the right Stick Margarine. All amount of spices. Pareve and Kosher. Slow-simmered to bring out the delicate flavor. Now in jars with easy-open, twist-offtwist on caps. Or cans. And

Only if your mother made great gefilte fish.

T A L M U D IC P A T H W A Y S’ Staten Island, New York I m ust take exception to the conclusion of my dear and learned friend, Dr. Aaron Rothkoff (July-August 1971), that “ generally, the first volume of the Eng lish translation compares favorably with the firs t Hebrew volume of the Talmudic Encyclopedia,” and that “ it represents an earnest attempt to accurately present the material covered in the original edition.” His observation as to the uneven quality o f the work is certainly correct. On the one hand, there are some articles that are diamond-like in their clarity and preci sion of expression. Certain of these articles bring into sharper focus concepts with which their reader may have been familiar from his study of Talmud. Even more, they are esthetically delightful, like a well-stated mathematical theorem. On the other hand, the other articles are at times incomprehen sible and ungrammatical, being replete with fractured English and Yiddishisms. The reason for these extremes of quality is that the well written articles are the work of the late Isidore Epstein, z” l. They are readily recognizable from the felicity of expression that strikes the reader before he has read more than two or three sentences. His name is known to anyone who has had occasion to use the Soncino translation of the Talmud, as the Editor-in-chief of that superb and monumental achievement. That work, though written for the world’s most critical audience, and being one of the most d iffic u lt undertakings technically and editorially, aside from its scholarship and language demands, has stood virtually unflawed since its completion a generation ago. Yet, not until I read an Epstein article and a non-Epstein article in Volume I of the translation of the Talmudic Encyclopedia did I feel intense pain at the loss of this great scholar. Any Jewish scholar with a sen

JANUARY 1972

sitivity for proper English usage should mourn the loss of this great master of an extrem ely important but unappreciated craft. The choice of his successor, Rabbi Harry Freedman of Australia, was most unfortunate. His chief claim to fame is as the “ Orthodox” member of the committee for the new translation of the Bible by the Jewish Publication Society of America, a project from which all other orthodox rabbis abstained. His notes have a strong apologetic tone which creeps into and dis torts the translation. The article on Ahavath Yisroel includes a sermon on the love of mankind which appears nowhere in the ori ginal. Such clear factual inaccuracy is wholly unacceptable in an encyclopedia or in a translation. Anyone who feels that Talmudic ideas need perfume and cosmetics before being presented to the world would do best not to present them at all. During my Jerusalem residence I be came involved in this project in a more than tangential way and had occasion to point out the importance of a knowledge of the technical vocabularies of various professions — medical and legal terminology for exam ple — in a project of this kind, which is wholly lacking. A goodly part of Volume I is not a true translation. It is a word-forword substitution which fails to get across the underlying ideas. While the basic aims of this project are praiseworthy, its first fruits leave much to be desired, excepting of course those pieces that were written by the peer of Talmud translators. Great patience should be shown for the growing pains and difficul ties in getting a project of this kind off the ground. Truly, the quality of the first Heb rew volume is inferior to its successors. However, there seems to be a seminal prob lem in the translation project which growth alone cannot overcome. Reuben E. Gross

THE PENTATEUCH with T argum O nkelos, H aphtaroth and R ashi ’s commentary translated into English and annotated By R ev. M. R osenbaum and D r . A. M. S ilbermann The commentary of Rashi is the most popular of all Jewish commentaries on the Pentateuch. Rashi is distinguished by his simplicity and directness. His masterly use of brev ity, his skill to make clear the meaning of the most difficult passages, is unrivaled. The present edition, designed for teach ers and students as well as synagogue use, consists of the five books of Moses with Targum Onkelos, an English translation of the Torah, and the entire Rashi com mentary vocalized and translated into English. Five volumes $22.50 Padded Leather, g ilt edge $ 4 5.00

At your bookdealer or HEBREW PUB LISHING C O M P A N Y 79 Delancey St., N ew York

VICTOR VICTOR CORP. 79 Lorimer Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11206 EV 8-2396 Manufacturers o f® Quality Products © Soup Bases and Seasonings <Q> Gel-Desserts — Six Flavors <Q> Vanillin Sugar <Q> Low Sodium — Dietetic Soup Bases For Hospitals, Nursing Homes & Restricted Diets

Ma-kor in Hebrew means “The Source” . Makor Films means the source for motion pictures made in Israel. These feature films are now available for showing to your congregation or group. Write for our brochure, Makor Films, One Continental Avenue, Forest Hills, N.Y. 11375.

JEWISH LIFE

D R. R O T H K O FF R E P L IE S :

R A B B I RA C K M A N R E P L IE S :

I am happy to see that my dear friend, Reuben Gross, does not permit our friendship to impede his criticizing my review of the first volume of the English edition of the Encyclopedia Talmúdica. However, I believe that in this instance the difference between our viewpoints is more in style than in substance. I am more optomistic regarding the future volumes while Mr. Gross is more pessimistic. I agree whole heartedly regarding the vacuum created by the loss of the late Dr. Isidore Epstein, and obviously under his talented hands the final versions of the articles would have been on a much more acceptable level. However, I can not dismiss Rabbi Harry Freedman as easily as Mr. Gross does despite his involvement with the controversial new Bible translation. I still must acknowledge his masterful trans lations of the Kiddushin and Bova Metziah tractates for the Soncino edition which are certainly among the best of this series. Regarding the addendum to the Ahavath Yisroel article on the love of mankind it has already been established in a review in ano ther publication that this article was inad vertantly omitted from the original Hebrew edition. Nevertheless, I fully agree with Mr. Gross’ conclusion that the “ first fruits” of this project leave much room for improve ment. I am confident that if the suggestions made in my review and those made by others are accepted by the editorial board of the Encyclopedia, we will be much more pleased with the subsequent volumes.

Mr. Pollack’s position is a very tena ble one. But it is not the only one available to those who believe in Revelation. I would respectfully suggest, however, avoidance of the phrase “ Divine Inspiration.” Revelation is more than that — and too many who are not endowed with “ Prophecy” deem them selves divinely inspired.

M O RE ON ‘JU D A ISM * A letter to the Editor (July-August) from Irving Pollack comments on remarks In a previous issue o f Rabbi Emanuel Rackman.

JANUARY 1972

TO T H E E D IT O R Howard Beach, New York Your views on “ Priority Need: More Rabbis” (May-June 1971) merely attacks the evident lack which is beginning to be felt by many congregants. As a practicing pulpit rabbi, one of the younger men, 33-years-old to be exact, I can only give some of my reactions and per sonal impressions. Perhaps some of the opinions I ex press were never put into print but I feel that reading it as a layman, perhaps one will understand why this problem exists. Why are competent rabbis leaving the pulpit? Let me begin by saying that I too am a Y .U . Musmach, ex-Army-Chaplain, and at present serving a 500-membership congrega tion. The synagogue has a Talmud Torah of 300 children and a full scale of adult and youth activities, Men’s Club, Sisterhood, etc. To begin with, the more religious the membership, the more the question arises whether or not they need a rabbi altogether. After all, there are so many qualified baa/e battlm, even musmachim, that a rav to lead them is unnecessary. They can do it all by themselves. Assuming a congregation does decide they need a spiritual leader, many congrega tions are content to let the rabbi lead them

potato

cAlpo

Fine Quality Dairy Products

Air Conditioned and Heated

THE

l d

i r

i a

HOTEL

ON THE OCEAN AT 43rd ST.t MIAMI BEACH

N ow T hat You H ave T ried the R est “ Com e to the B E S T ”

CALL US FR E E . 800-327-8365 NEW ENLARGED SUN DECK AREA SUN ALL DAY SERVING GLATT KOSHER MEALS

under

N E W YORK OFFICE P H O N E :

supervision

JU2-2277 j

providing he leads them along the path they wish to be led. The demands are astronomical. The rabbi attends the daily minyan, morning and evening. He is the principal of the school, coordinator and lecturer of the Adult Education. The rabbi delivers ser mons, regular sheurim, one on Shabboth plus another one or two in the middle of the week. The rabbi makes hospital visits, unfor tunately shivah calls, officiates for a wed ding, B ’rith, Pidyon Ha-Ben, Bar Mitzvah, Bath Torah, funeral, unveiling. The rabbi is a free psychiatrist, mar riage eounseL/r, drug expert, has political connections. The rabbi is administrator of the synagogue, supervises the office staff, answers the mail and inquiries. The rabbi is active in local rabbinic groups, Kashruth, yeshivah, mikveh, civic and community matters. In short, the rabbi is the man you turn to when you have a problem. The rabbi is the all-around man. These are just a few of the demands. How is this individual treated and looked up tp? In time of need, day or night, the rabbi is the first one you call. Vet, unfortunately but true, the lay leadership feels that in the limited free time they spend in managing the synagogue, they have become the experts and it is they, the officers and board of trustees, who should guide and direct the rabbi on how to lead the congregation. Needless to say, this frus trates the rabbi. Imagine a business where the board of directors changes every year or two and one doesn’t even have to know the product the company makes in order to be eligible to serve on the board. Yet when it comes to the shool there are many who serve on the board and have no knowledge of what a shool is all about. Baale battim feel they have an inaneable right to criticize the rabbi at any time

JANUARY 1972

or in any manner they see fit, regardless whether or not the story or facts are sub stantiated. Truth, when it comes to critici zing the rabbi, is irrelevant. The rabbi, rebbitzen, and children are a family unit, the same as the members. They too have needs, the rabbi’s family needs food, clothing, medical, education, etc., the same as the membership. Yet when it comes to compensate the rabbi for his service to the community, it is made sure that his income remains below the standard of most of his congregants. The years spent in study and prepara tion, the tremendous responsibility, the unlimited hours, suddenly vanish. The eco nomic status of the rabbi must be kept below that of his baale battim. Why? The rabbi is treated as a combination of elected official and civil servant. The rabbi takes the abuse of an elect ed official but receives the low pay of the civil servant without the benefits of either. Just recently congregations are begin ning to recognize the need of fringe benefits for their rabbi. Job security is also lacking but it is getting better. Personal sacrifice is expected of the rabbi and his family. The rabbi can not mix with his baale battim for there often is a marked difference in religious standards. The rabbi and his family are isolated in a small community. This is just part of the story. Giving a young rabbi a choice of this type of life or a job in industry paying more money, shorter hours, less aggravation, and the opportunity of living in an orthodox community where on Shabboth and Yom Tov he is a baalhabayis, what choice is there really to a young man? Many rabbis after ten to fifteen years of the rabbinate simply have had enough of this type of life and just want to get out. The solution is simple: 1) Make the profession attractive. 2) Treat the rabbi as the rabbi and not as an employee of the

SCHECHTER & HIRSCH’S

CäRißBEAN

HOTIl

ENTIRE OCEANFRONT BLOCK — 37th t t 31th St. MIAMI BEACH • -.

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

D IA L

M IA M I

For Reservations Speak to SAM SCHECHTER

_ 327 -

8165 P R I V A T E P O O L

beach 8

0 0

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

Or Call N.Y. Off: PL 7-423B Evenings & S u n d a y FA 7 - 1 7 4 2

FREE!

F R E E P A R K IN G

AND SANDY BEACH

J A S O N

KOSHER FLAVORED or PLAIN -

HAVE YOU M O VED? Send us your new address and your old address clipped from your J e w is h L if e envelope.

BREAD CRUMBS® PAREVE GOES WELL W ITH VEAL CUTLETS, FISH, CHICKEN, MEA T L O A F A t the

A & Pf Food Fair, Hills, Daitch, Key Food & Kosher Butchers JASON D A IR Y PRODUCTS CO., INC. Brooklyn, N.Y. 11236

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

JEW ISH LIFE, 84 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10011 Send gift subscription, with gift card, to: Name Address C ity, State, Zip Code n . I . _ l • a* □ include my own subscription

□ New Q Renewd

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

fatigable search is it possible to see that an almost dying Swiss-Jewish, a kind of west ern “ Yiddish,” has been preserved. A most interesting item! 2) Mr. Beller tries to be objective by needs. mentioning the various “ branches” of Jewry existing in Switzerland as they do in other Morris Smith countries. J E W I S H L IF E readers who learn about Judaism in Switzerland should not ‘LAND OF have the illusion that in view of all good THREE CULTURES’ factors, such as the yeshivoth there (espe cially Montreux’s Etz Chayyim, mentioned Washington, D.C. by Mr. B e lle r) and Swiss Jew ry’s enthusi astic contributions for and close ties with Having read almost all of Mr. Jacob Israel, strong orthodox development is indi Belter’s 11Journeys’* through “ Jewish” areas cated. On the contrary it is quite ominous of the world, I can say most of them gave that ‘Liberals’ (of a somewhat not-too-leftist interesting and often new insights into good shading) have made unpleasant inroads due or not so good Jewish life in such countries. to a few “ spiritual leaders” who have in Mr. Beller is a keen and sharp ob creasingly exercised a strong “ Liberalizing” server. I, being familiar with Jewish life in influence, even bringing official congre Switzerland, was greatly interested in his gational services of their own into what, in descriptive analysis (July-August 1971) of some cases, were originally strongholds of Jewish life in that small, trilingual, tricul- Torah-true Judaism. Mr. Beller should have tured, “ neutral’’country. But I find a few not omitted such trends. flaws in it. 3) Mr. Beller mentioned the regret 1) The article failed to mention the table fact that there is still no permission to essential fact that most of the Jews in make Shechitah legal in Switzerland. The Switzerland (with the exception of those reader may ask how observant Jews can get mentioned by the author in Endingen and meat in accordance with strict Kashruth. To Lengnau) originate from fine, old, tradition mention that Italy, France, and perhaps al ly relig io u s villages in southwestern other countries provide this, would have Germany and in Alsace; these men and been important enough, as also the addition women steeped in inherited orthodox tradi al burden of such purchases of imported tions formed indeed the nucleus of many meat to those who do not belong to the families and communities such as Luzern, well-to-do families. Zurich, and Basel. May I mention, en pas Having said all this, let me emphasize sant, in this connection that while Mr. Beller that the author covered, as a good observer, mentioned some important, though hardly past and present of this land of “ three cul “ traditional,” Jews of importance it is re tures” very well. grettable that he did not learn, it seems, Since Jewish life and communities and about one outstanding woman, Dr. Florence institutions in the dark land to the north of Guggenheim, whose work, scholarly publica Switzerland do not really exist any longer, it tions, and research about the beginnings and is important to be informed about the few developments of Switzerland’s Jewry and remaining, even relatively small, fortresses her folkloristic, linguistic creative work, of Torah-true Judaism in that part of the deserved mention. Only because of her inde world. Karl D. Darmstadter

another minority which is facing homogeni zation by the secularists. Such an effort would provide a public platform to publi cize a realistic interpretation of our religious

JANUARY 1972

congregation. Assure the rabbi and his fami ly the same economic tranqui lity and security as the presi dent and board chairman. 4) Recognize the rabbi as a pro fessional who is well skilled and versed in his field. 5) Accept the rabbi as a human being, giving him the same love and warmth you want him to give the congregation. Then we will see more rabbis entering and not leaving the pulpit rabbinate. A s R ash i states on liKach eth Yehoshua” (Bamidbar 27:18): “Ashrechah s h e h -z o c h ith o h I ’h a n h ig b o n o v she/ M okom ” — Happy are you in that you are privileged to lead the children of the Omnipresent. 3)

the situation in Indianapolis. Many members of the Jewish com munity stand ready to assist potential new comers in any way possible. I urge interested parties to contact us for detailed information. Rabbi Ronald L. Gray Congregation B ’nai Torah

Rabbi Rafael Saffra

OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

IBITERIORS n SYNAGOGUES | for

Indianapolis, Indiana I would like to call to the attention of your numerous readers the emergence of a growing traditional community. Indiana polis, Indiana has a Jewish population of approximately 10,000. The city is centrally located and it is close to many large cities such as Chicago and Cincinnati. Indianapolis has three orthodox synagogues, a mikveh, availability of kosher meats and products, as well as a new progressive Hebrew day school. The city offers a pleasant suburban life, universities, museums, theatre, and the performing arts. The cost of living is rela tively low, and beautiful spacious housing is plentiful. Various liberal employers, such as E li Lilly & Company, are situated in Indianapolis and offer attractive employ ment possibilities. Big city life without the problems of big city living is descriptive of

ALBERT W OOD & FIVE SONS,« P O R I W A S H IN G T O N

W A

L-t- N E W YO R K

I N

M any clothing manufacturers have begun to produce garments with linen and wool combined in the material itself. T H I S IS S H A T N E S and is p ro h ib ite d to be w orn.

Look at the ticket giving the contents when buying your garment.

JE W IS H L IF E

NEW PAREVE COFFEE RICH FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH, DINNER AND IN BETWEEN

Great! Now y$u can h u H ig h t'so more coffee. flavor enjoy Coffee Rich^af every meah corfiesthrough. Luscibus on fresh Everyd ay. In eye ry way. ifVthe. tfyit.//$ypefb for* cooking. Nowuon-darry liquid, c ream er that yoUi- oan make ajl kinds of. tasty tastes better.than cream . And' meat,dishfes ^nd faAcy desserts s ta ys,deliciously fresh in your you couldti’f servo before. Get refrigerator „for. 3 whole weeks.. ■new Pare'ye Cuffed Rich® in your Afnfiost forever, in your freezer.- grocer’s frozenJ606 case.vEnjoy Tastes marvelous in coffee:, Rich it'everyday. f

AU these Heinz Foods bear the (y) Seal, i moo:

n l/tf- fc fìT

-fa /M o u 4 - l& te A u A :

•

'TkbâM uivnoti/

pm i

dr awl

Æk

HDCHUP

Jo m 'a to Ketchup

]/ U y U jlU A

Ô Ô ldziM U M —

fo M /e & U - b j^ Q u o d y U w tC to iu —

fa u b /ÿ ,' f i u l l ’ it o d / y f

^ ^ /U o J y '- ft) /U

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