Jewish Life Spring 1974 by Jewish Action

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE DID MOSES MEET AN ASTRONAUT? JUSTICE AND THE HOLOCAUST

SPRING 1974/5734

750

V 'tn Volume 41 No. 2 Spring, 1974/5734 CONTENTS JEWISH LIFELINE....................................................2 Oil, Providence and Israel Frank Wills Women ARTICLES Torah in Contemporary Israel Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff..................................... ..... 6 The Perushim Leah Abramowitz...................... ........................... 12 The Lonely Odessey of W.M.W. Haffkine Henry Edinger ..... M...... ......... . J ..........*........18 Eight Reflections on War Yaffa Ganz ....................... ..... ...,,.......... ............ .22 Editor Emeritus: Saul Bernstein

Editorial Consultants: Dr. Herbert Goldstein Mrs. Libbv Klaperman Dr. Jacob \V. Landvnski Rabbi Solomon J. Sharfman

Chairman. Publications Committee: Lawrence A. Kobrin

Published by: UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA President: Harold M. Jacobs Chairman of the Board: JOSEPH KARASICK Honorary Presidents: MAX J ETRA SAMUEL NIRENSTEIN Honorary Senior Vice President: BENJAMIN KOENIGSBERG Senior Vice Presidents: DR BERNARD LANDER DAVID POLITI Vice Presidents: NATAHN K. GROSS LAWRENCE A. KOBRIN JULIUS BERMAN JOEL BALSAM EUGENE HOLLANDER MARVIN HERSKOVITZ Treasurer: REUBEN E. GROSS Honorary Treasurer: MORIS L GREEN

ADVENTURE IN JEWISH LIFE: Potatoes for Pesach Gad Goldman .......................................................28 SPECIAL FEATURE: Man and Woman in Torah Life Leo Levi ........... ................................................... 36 FICTION Jonathan Chaim Segal Baruch Taub...................................

........32

POETRY The Rebbe’s Minyon Vera Perlman ....................... ...11 After Rabbi Yeudah Halevi Yaakjov L Homnick ............. ................. .................27 Two Poems Yacov Lipschutz..............

BOOK REVIEWS Justice and the Holocaust Berel Wein .............................. Did Moses Meet an Astronaut Joseph A. Feld ................. LETTERS...... .......................

58 ....61 64

Secretary: SHELDONRUDOFF Financial Secretary: BERNARD LEVMORE National Associate Vice Presidentsm o se s AjN g r u n ^d w e r g

National Director r a bbi d a v id c o h e n

Copyright 1974 by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Material from JEWISH LIFE, including illustrations, may not b e reproduced except by written permission from this magazine following written request. JEWISH LIFE is published quarterly. Subscription: Two years (8 issues) $5.00, three years $6.50, four years $8.00. Foreign: Add $.40 per year. Single copy $.75 Editorial & Publication Office: 116 E. 27th St.. New York, N.Y. 10016 Second Class Postage paid at New York. N.Y.

The Editor’s View

OIL, PROVIDENCE AND ISRAEL If a generation ago, someone would have suggested that the economies of the United States and the great European powers might depend on a Halachic question, he would have been considered mad. Yet, this past winter, this proved to be exactly the case. If size or population were the sole criterion, Israel would be counted as one of the more insignificant nations of the world. As the birthplace of the Bible, it might have- stirred some interest, but it would never be the focus of world concern. There is one factor that makes Israel the center of international politics—and that is the fact that it is surrounded by a veritable sea of oil. Since its birth, Israel has been at odds with the Arabs, who control a very large percentage of the world’s oil supply. Of late, the Arabs have been learning how to use oil diplomacy as a weapon. As a result, any conflict in the Middle East is felt by all the great oil consuming nations, who depend on the Arabs for the bulk of their energy supply. Therefore, any movement that Israel makes vis-a-vis the Arabs has reverberations throughout the industrialized world. During the past winter, the settlement of the Middle East stalemate, and hence the flow of Arab oil, was greatly dependent on Golda Meir’s ability to form a viable majority government. One of the major obstacles was the Religious Block (Mafdal), who would not join the government until the question of “ Who is a Jew” was cleared up in a manner conforming to Halachah. Until what was basically a Halachic question could be resolved, it seemed that the oil taps would remain shut, and that the great powers would have their thirst for oil unassuaged. Thus, in a

sense, the economies of the great industrial powers—for a while at least-—where dependent on a question of Halachah. We often say “ the Torah is the blueprint of the world,” and that “ the whole world depends on the Torah.” This is one time when we were actually privileged to see this in practice. Another teaching closely related to this is that “ Eretz Yisroel is the center of the world.” In ancient times, this was literally the case, since Israel was the only land bridge between the Eurasian and African conti nents. If one wanted to cross over from Eurasia to Africa by land, the only way to do so was to pass through Israel. In many ways, it was Israel’s geographic position at the crossroads of civilization, that put her in contact with every major culture of the ancient world. In modem times, this geographic position is no longer that crucial. As if in compensation, another factor has suddently come to the fore. It is the fact that Israel’s neighbors control the bulk of the world’s oil supply, which guarantees that every great world power will once again take a strong interest in events in that area. But the more we think about this, the more an important question comes to mind. Why is all this oil found just there? Why did Divine Providence—for this cannot be mere coincidence—place the world’s energy treasures right at Israel’s doorstep? Pondering this question is enough to convince even the skeptic that we are somehow witnessing a drama whose script was written a very long time ago. The question becomes all the more striking when one realizes that our century—the one in which the State of Israel was re-established— is, and will remain, the one which is the most dependent on oil as a source of its energy. A century ago, coal was the main energy source, while in the century to come, it will most probably be either nuclear or solar energy. It is precisely at the moment that the drama is being played that oil is playing its most important role. There may be some of William James’ proverbial “ tough minded” individuals who will fail to see the hand of G-d in all this, but they will have to be very tough minded indeed. FRANK WILLS Anyone who has ever seriously given any consideration to the tides of history knows of those pivotal events, often unrecorded, upon which the fates of empires and civilizations are decided. It is often a relatively minor decision on the part of an obscure individual that ultimately changes the world for centuries to come.

The prime example of this was the Egyptian slave who refused to be seduced by his master’s wife. He was falsely accused of attempted rape and, as a result, imprisoned. In prison, he came in contact with Pharoah’s butler, and thus, Joseph eventually became the prime minister of Egypt, and in this capacity , saved the greatest civilization of the ancientworld from being decimated by famine. Closely intertwined with this was the emigration of Jacob and his family to Egypt, leading to the drama of the Exodus and the birth of the Jewish people. All of this resulted from a relatively “ unimportant” decision on the part of a lowly slave. In the past year, the shape of national—and ultimately world—history, has been shaped largely by a decision of Frank Wills, a security guard at 2600 Virginia Avenue in Washington, D.C. If he had not noticed a piece of tape over a lock, or had neglected to report it, the country today would not be rocked by the national trauma named for the building he guarded: Watergate. Our sages teach us that every act that an individual does ultimately has reverberations that will effect mankind as a whole. Besides this, who knows which events will be pivotal in shaping world history. Providence has allowed us to be witness to one such pivotal event—the decision of Frank Wills—and the world is trembling at its outcome. As this is being written, the fate of the Presidency, and ulimately of the United States as a whole, is hanging in the balance. Whatever direction this ultimately takes, the government will remain scarred and disrupted for decades to come, it is a situation unprecedented in modem history, and for this very reason, no one can predict just how cataclysmic its effects will be. And as President Nixon himself has pointed out many times, we are also at a pivotal point in world history—with Europe, Russia, China and the Middle East in the balance—and therefore, the outcome of Watergate and the impeachment trial will have unprecedented effects on the world as a whole. Much of what happens in the next few decades—and perhaps for a much longer time— will depend on the decisions of one individual—President Nixon himself. At this most fateful time in world history—and ultimately in Jewish history as well—it would be well for us to ponder the verse(Proverbs21:1), The king’s heart is in the hands of G-d... He turns it wherever he wills.” WOMEN One of the most important issues this year, and possibly for many years to come, has been the status of women in Orthodox Judaism. Many

articles have been written in the secular press, which seem to give Judaism a black eye in this respect. Speaking out on this issue is very hazardous, putting one in the Talmudic position: “ Woe is to me if I speak, and woe is to me if I do not speak.” Unfortunately, until very recently, very little has been written about women per se. Of course, there are hundreds of references scattered throughout the Talmud, Midrash, and Halachic literature, but no in-depth classsical study exists. In light of recent developments, this is an area that requires very thorough exploration. It is for this reason that we have included Dr. Leo Levi’s article in this issue—even through its style and content may be somewhat different than what readers of JEWISH LIFE usually expect to see. This is one of the first good survey articles that we have seen in this field, written from an orthodox point of view. Of course it is not the last word, nor is it meant to be. Rather, it is more like the “ first word” which can serve as a reference and a guide to others who may wish to explore various concepts presented in this article, and here too, it can serve as a point of departure. In general, in printing this somewhat controversail article, we have felt that it will remain a standard reference for many years to come. In general, we are in no way apologetic for the Torah viewpoint regarding women, or for that matter, anything else. But we do feel that it is an area where very few studies have been made in depth, and where further probing can lead to a much deeper understanding of women’s role in Torah society.

Aryeh Kaplan

Torah in Contemporary Israel by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff

I recently bought a new suit, and brought it to be tested at Jerusalem’s Shatnez laboratory. This was the first time that I had used this particular laboratory, and when I came back for my suit, I was informed that it did not contain any Shatnez, the forbidden mixture of wool and linen. But when handed my suit, I stared in disbe lief at the condition in which it was returned to me. All the seams that had been opened up for the tests had not been resewn, and one sleeve was almost completely severed from the body of the jacket, I exclaimed, “ Yes, there is no Shatnez, but neither is there a suit any more!” As I walked home, I realized that this was also very true of the entire religious situation in Israel. There are many religious communities that can truly declare that they are free of Shatnez—but little attempt is

Well known to our readers as a biographer of sages, Rabbi Rakeffet-Rothkof now turns his pen to con temporary issues. He received his doctorate from Yeshiva University, and taught Talmud there until he settled in Jerusalem in 1969. Rabbi Rakeffet Rothkoff currently teaches in Jerusalem College for Women (Michlalah), Jerusalem Torah College (Beth Midrash LaTorah), and Gold College for Women.

made to dignify and enhance the entire framework of Torah life and commitment. The attitude of complacency, righteousness and self-vindication is widespread. “ We do not contain Shatnez, ” is a common cry of self-glorification, but little attention is de voted to the total Torah garment. What is sorely lacking in the contem porary State of Israel is a certain sensibility for enchancing Torah life. So that it will gain hold upon others. Instead, the sec ularist majority is often dismissed with scorn, derision, and the supercilious boast that, “ we have saved our souls, and that is all that is relevant to us. ” In reality, the average Israeli is the proverbial “ child who has been abducted” (Tinok SheNishbah), nurtured in a culture and milieu which do not admit the Torah way of life. Israel is the only country in the world where a person can never enter a synagogue and still retain his Jewish iden tity. His language is Hebrew, his history is that of the Jewish people, and his nationalis tic emotions are Jewish. Even without the guidance and inspiration of Torah commit ment, most Israelis are proud Jews. But still, a most important ingredient is missing. It was the need for this ingredient that might have provided the basis for the con-

TORAH IN CONTEMPORARY ISRAEL

troversy between Korah and Moses. Ac cording to the Jerusalem Talmud, Korah and his followes appeared before Moses clad in garments made entirely of blue wool (Techeles), —the “ thread of blue” —to such garments. Korah mocked Moses’ af firmative response by declaring, “ If one thread of blue is sufficient to fulfill the commandment, even if the garment is white, should not a garment which is en tirely blue meet the requirement, even with out the addition of the “ thread of blue.’ ’’ Korah similarly asked Moses if it was necessary to affix a Mezuzah to the entrance of a house filled with sacred scrolls. Once again, they decried Moses’ answer that such a doorpost also needed a Mezuzah, even though its passages were included in the scrolls, Perhaps the interpretation of this is that Korah was of the opinion that the Mitzyos (commandments) were no longer necessary in a culture that is entirely Jewish. Once the garment is totally blue, and the house filled with Hebrew scrolls, the Mitzyos are no longer relevant. Moses, on the other hand, knew that despite the benefits and blessings to be found in a purely Hebrew culture, there could be not ultimate fulfillment for the Jewish people without submission to the abiding word of G-d. The religious consciousness of the typ ical contemporary Israeli results from deci sions made decades ago. No other wave of immigration so shaped and forged the in stitutions and culture of the nascent Jewish community in Eretz Yisroel as much as the Second Aliy ah. This Aliyah, which began in 1905 and lasted until the outbreak of

World War One in 1914, laid the foundation for the secular labor movement that was to dominate the community and its institu tions. The percentage of observant Jews among these early immigrants was meager, since most of the vibrant European orthodox community chose to remain behind. The newcomers followed their own prerogatives, and developed the Yishuv in accordance with their own ideals and world outlook. Widespread insensitivity toward Torah, as well as the lack of understanding of its way of life, are among the inevitable results of the role played by the Second Aliyah in forming the current Israeli cultural climate. Today’s Israeli Jew is not to be dismis sed and faulted for his religious shortcom ings. He is rather to be approached with love and understanding. Perhaps no Halachic dictum is more appropriate in this area than M aim onides’ ruling regarding the Karaites:2 Their children and grandchil dren, however... who were raised in the erroneous doctrines of those who went astray, are to be considered as “ children who were abducted and raised among gentiles.’’ They are therefore not prompt to return to the path of Mitzvah observance, since their upbringing has alienated them from such a life. Even when they learn that they are Jews, and witness Jewish observance, they are not quick to come back to the fold. It is 1. Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 10:1 (50a). 2. Yad, Mamrim 3:3

JEWISH LIFE

therefore proper to inspire them to repent, and to influence them with words of peace, until they return to the strength of the Torah. M aim onides’ approach has been adopted in modern times by a number of great Torah leaders. One of the greatest of modem times, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, known as the Chazon Ish, declared that, “ we are to bring them back with ‘bands of love,’ and, to the extent possible, to inculcate them with the proper ‘ray of light.’ ” 3 Similarly, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchok Kook, the first Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisroel, held that this attitude was to guide us, even in our relations with those who were raised in observant homes and went astray. In a letter to a rabbinic scholar whose own children had left the path of Torah Judaism, Rabbi Kook wrote: ‘‘The ideologies of our times misled the young sters, and they are inadvertently influenced to go astray.” 4 Intrinsic to our dialogue with the sec ularists must be the acknowledgement of their efforts in rebuilding Eretz Yisroel. In the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer declared, ‘‘Whoever maintains his domicile in the Land of Israel lives without sin.” 5 Upon codifying this statement as law, Maimonides states: “ Our sages declared that the sins of the residents of the Land of Israel are pardoned.” 6 The inhabitants of modem Israel not only benefit from this Talmudic aphorism, but also enjoy the merits of their own posi tive deeds. They have sacrificed to help bring about the reality of the State of Israel.

SPRING

They have given their lives and limbs to protect the inhabitants of the Holy Land, as was once again manifested during the recent Yom Kippur War . The State has become the center for the ingathering of over one and a half millioh Jews since 1948, and has strengthened Jewish identity throughout the world. The present miraculous reawakening of Russian and other East European Jewry is the direct result of the impetus engendered by the State. Besides this, Israel has also become the center of the Torah world. Its large number of Yeshivos and advanced Torah institutions are guiding and educating youth from the world over. To dismiss all these manifold successes as the work of Satan, misleading and tempting the faithful re mnant of the Jewish people,” is a denial of the Divine Providence manifested to the Jewish people as a whole throughout all generations. Our sages queried why King David’s army was defeated at times, while the forces of the wicked Ahab experienced victories; They explained that “ even though the gen eration of David was entirely righteous, they did engage in evil speech... Ahab’s generation, on the other hand, may have worshipped idols, but did not slander and gossip. They therefore triumphed in battle.” 7 We see a very important point here. The sages of the Talmud did not dismiss the victories of Ahab’s armed forces as the .3. Chazon Ish on Yoreh Deah 2:16 4. Iggeros HaReyah 1:171. 5. Kesubos 111a. 6. Yad, Melachim 5:11. 7. Yerushalmi, Peah 1:1 (4b).

1974

TORAH IN CONTEMPORARY ISRAEL

work of Satan, but, rather, attributed them hatred breeds hatred.10 to the merits that his generation did possess. It may well be that one of the main As Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman points out, contributions that the English speaking im this approach is equally enlightening for us migrant can bring to Israel will be feelings as we attempt to analyze the momentous of tolerance and sympathetic understanding events of our own generation.8 toward our nonobservant brethren. Each Such a positive viewpoint does not Aliy ah has left its mark on the development mean that we are to approve all the of the Holy Land, and it is possible that this government’s decisions and dicta a priori. important service will result from the dedi Assuredly, we must maintain a sound dis cated efforts of the Western Aliyah. cretionary approach as we endeavor to ef Through such tolerance, it will be possible fectively infuse contemporary life with to follow Maimonides’ advice toward the Torah. We are obligated to agitate construc nonreligious, and “ influence them with tively for the revision of the law defining words of peace, until they return to the Jewish idenity so as to bring it into total strength of the Torah.” If they accomplish consonance with the Halachah. With pride this, the contribution of the Western Aliyah and conviction, we must declare that may be the greatest of all. Zionism without Torah is incapable of guid The spring festivals have marked the ing and inspiring a new generation. most important milestones in the Jewish Nevertheles, there is a vast difference nation’s march with destiny. Passover rep between such a critical attitude expresed resents the physical freedom brought about within a positive context, and a total feeling by the deliverance from Egyptian bondage. of negation and detestation toward the non This material liberty, however, only be religious element in Israel. Elijah was cer comes complete seven weeks later, with the tainly aware of the innumerable shortcom giving of the Torah on Shavuos. Physical ings of Ahab’s reign, but still, he ran before freedom only finds true expression when him as a mark of homage to the King of elevated by the spiritual freedom granted by Israel.9 the Torah. It is sad indeed to see so many of our In our times, two key dates marking finest Jewish youth being impressed with major happenings in modern Israel parallel nothing more than hatred and negative feel these Torah festivals. The Day of Indepen ings toward their non-religious brethren. dence (5 Iyaj) celebrates the physical free Negativism breed cynicism and pessimism, dom gained by the Jewish people in estab and aborts the creative instincts of youth. lishing their own homeland in 1948. Yom Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, the founder of the Yerushalayim (Day of Jerusalem—28 Iyar) Mussar movement, constantly stressed the represents the great spiritual awakening exundesirability of the trait of hatred. Al though it is legally permissable to hate the 8. Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman, inHaTzofeh, May 25,1973, p. 5. 9. I Kings 18:46. wicked, it is not proper to do so, since 10. Pesachim 113b, Toseffos ad loc. “SheRa’ah.”

JEWISH LIFE

perienced in the Holy Land with the redem ption of the Eternal City in 1967. Here too, the physical redemption was not complete without the spiritual. Between Passover and Shavuos falls the holiday of Lag BeOmar (18 Iyar). It is interesting to note that this also falls almost directly between the Day of Independence and Yom Yerushalayim. It is as if Lag BeOmar connects the days of physical im portance to those of spiritual eminence. Lag BeOmar, however, recalls the death of the disciples of Rabbi Akiba, “ be cause they did not treat each other with respect/’11 In his commentary on this pas sage, the Maharsha explains that “ they slandered and degraded each other.’’ On Lag BeOmar the plaque abated, indicating that this wrong had been rectified.

The main link between the physical and spiritual, is centered in the message of Lag BeOmar—that spiritual fulfillment can only come about when people “ treat each other with respect.” Perhaps this message of Lag BeOmar is the key to bringing about the total spiritual reawakening of the “ peo ple who dwell in Zion at Jerusalem.” 12 By extending love, understanding, and mutual respect to both our observant and nonobservant brethren, the message of Torah will be greatly enhanced. The total configuration of life sanctified by G-d’s word will become the norm, as the State of Israel continues its re-creation in the spirit of the Torah. 11. Yebamos 62b. 12. Isaiah 30:19.

The Rebbe’s Minyon They pray Witty muffled awe And fervent thoughtfulness, Each syllable

^ Vera Perlman

Destined straight to G-d. Ten old men On one side o f the room, Curtained o ff but audible, To all the Women gathered On the other side. The rebbe died Right there some years ago On his side o f the room. His spirit rose Directly up on high. His widow's wish To carry on his memory Throughout the year o f mourning Was heeded By the Ten old men. And now That year o f mourning, too, has passed. Yet still they come each Sabbath, To be counted as a minyan And to count!

THE PERUSHIM by Leah Abramowitz

They can be seen all over the Meah Shearim ing. On the basis of his interpretation of section of Jerusalem, wearing teh wide certain Biblical passages, as well as the brimmed flat “ beaver” hats, the flowing order of verses in the Book of Kaftans, as well as the beards and Peyos Deuteronomy, he calculated that the Mes usually associated with the Chassidim. sianic Era would begin in the year These people, however, are not Chassidim, 5600-1840 on the Western calendar. This and might even be insulted to be associated was bolstered by a statement in the Zohar with them, since they trace their origin from (1:117a) that in the year 5600, ‘‘the gates of the Misnagdim, the early opponents of wisdom, both on high and below, would be Chasidism. These individuals are knows as opened/’ in preparation for the Redempt the Perushim, and many of them trace their ion. roots in the Holy Land as far back as seven The Vilna Gaon maintained that the or eight generations. first stage would be tha. of “ physical Few adventure stories, real or im redemption.” For a hundred years, this agined, can surpass the account of the emig “ physical redemption” would be com ration of the first Perushim to the Holy Land pleted in a natural manner through “ hidden in the early 1800’s. These early settlers miracles” (Nissim Nistarim). Miracles were all disciples of the famed Rabbi would occur during this period, but they Eliahu, the Vilna Gaon, and it was largly his would be disguised as natural happenings. teachings that led them to take this fateful This would continue until 5700(1940), step. when the last stage of the “ Complete Re Rabbi Eliahu believed that the time of demption” (Geulah Shlemah) would begin the Final Redemption was rapidly approach- with miracles that would actually be recog nizable. These views are included in the writings of Rabbi Hillel of Sklove, a disci Originally from St. Louis, Leah Abramowits ple of the Vilna Gaon, in Kol HaTor, currently lives in the rennovated Jewish Quarter of recently reprinted and included in the Old City of Jerusalem, where she is a medical social worker. HaTekufah HaGedolah, by Rabbi

THE PERUSHIM

Menachem Mendel Kesher (Jerusalem, Although the Gaon himself never 1969). reached the Holy Land, he nevertheless di To hasten the Redemption, the Vilna rected his students to settle there, aiding and Gaon taught that one must build the actual supporting them toward this goal. An or nation in a mundane manner before the ganization called Chazon Zion was estab spiritual nation could be realized. One lished, with a central administrative com should therefore buy land in Eretz Yisroel, mittee located in Sklove, as well as numer build homes, and attain legal rights to the ous branches in the surrounding area. It was country. He often quoted the verse (Isaiah this organization that publicized the settle 1:27), “ Zion shall be redeemd with justice, ment and raised money for it. and those who return to her, with righteous The movement’s outstanding leader in ness, ’’ indicating that the initial return to the its early years was Reb Binyamin Rivlin, a land would come about in a legal, judicial staunch follower, associate, and relative of manner. It is therefore understandable why the Gaon. His unusual personality alone the Gaon’s closest associates and followers would make a fascinating study. Not only eventually left the relative comfort and was Reb Binyamin a renowned Torah scho spiritual richness of Vilna, Sklove and the lar and spiritual leader in his own right, but surrounding communities, to settle in the he had also amassed a substantial fortune, Holy Land. dealing in wholesale medicines (and What is not clear, however, is why the thereby acquiring a respectable knowledge Vilna Gaon himself never made this pil of medicine), real estate and lumber. grimage. From several sources, we learn Through his business contacts, Reb that he actually did set out on the arduous Binyamin came to know the elite of Polish journey to Eretz Yisroel, some say even àristrocracy, earning their respect and es accompanied by his daughter, but then re teem, and using it to good purpose in attain turned after several weeks, without offering ing certain political gains for the Jewish any explanation. One opinion concludes population. He was a vegetarian, as well as that the Gaon concluded that settling in the an advocate of living as closely as possible Holy Land would expose him to various to nature. Every morning, for spiritual Halachic difficulties, and therefore, he purification, he would immerse himself in never completed his journey. Another the river, even in the winter, when he first source maintains that at the last minute, had to break a hole in the ice with an ax. He Divine Permission to enter the land was had a vast secular education,unusual in witheld, much as in the case of Moses, who those days for a Talmid Chacham (Torah “ saw the Land from afar, but could not Scholar) of his stature. He was able to exe attain, to it. ” (The Vilna Gaon also believed cute a difficult passage in the Talmud with himself to be a direct descendent of Moses, equal ease as the sale of à forest to a Polish as well as a link in the chain leading to the merchant. Messiah.) Reb Binyamin, however, was to aban-

JEWISH LIFE

don all these occupations, and, either be cause of a dream or through the Gaon’s own influence, he was to devote the rest of his life to organizing Chazon Zion and arrang ing emigration to Eretz Yisroel. He travel led to communities in Russia, Poland, Lithuania and surrounding lands together with his son Hillel, raising funds and gain ing recruits for the groups that would even tually emigrate to the Holy Land. Even after most of the groundwork had been completed, actual emigration was de layed, mostly for political reasons. First, there was the French Revolution, then Napolean’s attempted conquest of Acre, and finally, trouble with the Turkish au thorities. Before any emigration could take place, the organization had to send rep resentatives to Constantinople, the seat of the Turkish Empire, in order to obtain per mission for them to engage ships and actu ally enter Eretz Yisroel. After all the preliminaries had been completed, plans were finally made for the first group to emigrate. In 1803, Reb Menachem Mendel of Sklove, the patriarch of the Chazon Zion Organization, set out to prepare the way with a small preliminary group. Reb Binyamin Rivlin was to have joined a later party, but he apparently died on the way in 1812. The first acutal emigration did not take place until 1807, led by Reb Hillel Rivlin, a son of Reb Binyamin. Along with him were Reb Saadiah of Sklove, Reb Avraham Zion, and Reb Yitzchak of Hislovitz^ all great Torah scholars who had been directly as sociated with the Vilna Gaon. The group began making preparations

SPRING

to leave in the late summer and early autumn of 1806. The weeks devoted to preparation for the first group’s departure was a time of great emotional elation and stress, espe cially for the families that would stay be hind. Several husbands, who were temporar ily leaving their wives behind until they were settled, arranged for their technical (conditional) divorce. This was necessary in case the men were to disappear, in order to allow their wives to remarry, and prevent tham from having the status of Agunah (unditerminable marital status). In those turbulent days, if a man was not heard from, it was impossible to tell if he had been captured or killed, or if it was due to the inefficiencies of mail delivery in those times. The first group finally set out on Sun day, January 18, 1807 (9 She vat, 5567). This party consisted of 70 individuals, in cluding a number of families. They were royally received by the Jewish communities all the way to the Black Sea port of Odessa. Celebrations were held in their honor, pub lic prayers offered for their welfare, and a general elation accompanied them from town to town. In Odessa, the group embarked on four sailing vessels, which kept close to the shore until their arrival in Constantinople. There, the ship captains demanded addi tional money as security against damages and losses on the difficult journey still ahead. The wealthy and well-organized Jewish community of the Turkish capital came to the party’s rescue, and provided the necessary additional funds.

1974

THE PERUSHIM

On the day before Pesach (April 22), HaShulchan (1810); Reb Gavriel Ralbag, the group arrived in Ismir, and they spent Reb Zalman Cohen Eisenstadt, and Reb the holiday with the Jewish families of that Peretz, Chief Rabbi of Pinsk (1826); Reb city. Shortly after leaving Ismir, their jour Naftali Hirsch Porush (1826); and finally, ney was rudely interrupted when they dis Reb Yosef Zundel of Salent, a student of the covered pirate ships closing in on them, and Vilna Gaon’s most famous disciple, Rabbi in panic, their vessels headed back to port. Chaim of Volozin (1838). These followers of the Vilna Gaon All of them offered prayers and fervently recited Psalms—and this apparently had the were known as the Perushim, distinguishing necessary effect, since no further mishaps them from the two other major groups that were encountered by this first group until lived in Eretz Yisroel, the Sefardim and Chassidim. The Sefardim had lived in Israel they landed in Beirut. From there, they had planned to travel for centuries, and were centered in overland to the Holy City of Safed in a Jerusalem. The Chassidim, followers of the caravan led by Bedouin guides. Unknown Baal Shem Tov, had first settled in 1777 to the group, the Bedouins were planning to under the leadership of Rabbi Menachem kill the members of the caravan and rob their Mendel of Vitebsk, and were centered in possessions. It was only at the last minute Tiberias. There are several theories regarding that the plot was discovered by the Jews of Beirut, and the group was prevented from the origin of the name “ Perushim.” Some say that it is an abbreviation of the countries setting out with their would-be murderers. Plans were rapidly changed, and the from which they originated: Poland and party continued to Haifa by ship, and from Russia. Others maintain that the name stems there, they travelled overland by donkey to from one of their early leaders, Reb Naftali Safed. They finally arrived at their destina Zvi Hirsch Porush. A third opinion states tion on Friday, September 11, 1807 (8 that the term Perushim, which in Hebrew is Elul), exactly eight months after they had literally translated as “ separated ones,” in dicates that they had “ separated” them left Sklove. Although most of the group settled in selves from the general public as well as Safed, a number of the immigrants subse from mundane affairs and had devoted their quently moved on to Jerusalem, Tiberias lives to holiness in Eretz Yisroel. In Jerusalem, the first Perushim joined and Hebron. Other groups followed, ex periencing similar adventures and mishaps. the Sefardic community, partaking of the These parties were led by numerous rabbis latter’s share of the Chalukah (distribution), who were the founders of the renowned the moneys distributed to the residents of families of the old Yishuv. Included among the Holy Land. There is an interesting these leaders were Reb Natan Nateh, son of reason for this initial affiliation. It is told that no Ashkenazim (Euro Reb Menachem Mendel (1808); Reb Yis roel Rivlin of Sklove, author of the Peyos pean Jews) had been allowed to live openly

JEWISH LIFE

SPRING

in Jerusalem since the early 18th century, Life in Jerusalem was also precarious, when the followers of Rabbi Yehudah especially during the first thirty years. It HaChasid had accrued huge debts from their was difficult to obtain living quarters in the Arab neighbors to build the original Churva overcrowded Jewish Quarter, and the few Synagogue and maintain themselves. In apartments available were small, dingy, 1720, when they failed to repay their debt, run-down and unsanitary. Frequent illness the Arabs rioted and burnt the was the rule, and several major plagues of synagogue—hence its name cholera and smallpox decimated the popula Churva—literally, the Ruins. They also tion. In times of drought, water was scarce, drove out all Jews wearing European dress, and had to be purchased, often for exhorbitand over the next hundred years, held all ant prices, from the Arab water-sellers out Ashkenazim responsible for the debt. side the city. The early Perushim therefore adopted Financially, the Jews were dependent the Sefardic mode of dress during their first Wholly on their share of the Chalukah funds years in Jerusalem. This accounts for the which came from Europe. When the flow of colorful striped Kaftans that they wear on money from abroad was interrupted, as for weekdays, as well as their golden ^Sabbath example, during times of war, people liter Kaftans. This, together with the flat ally starved to death. There were frequent ‘‘beaver” hats worn on weekdays, and the abuses from the Arab population, especially fur Sabbath Shtreimel, makes up the unique against the newcomers from Europe. The garb of the Perushim. corrupt, petty Turkish officials added to In 1816, the Perushim finally set up their indignations with taxes of every im their own congregation, under the leader aginary sort—on everything from birth and ship of Reb Menachem Mendel of Sklove. It marriage to burial and ritual slaughter was given the name Aderes Eliahu (Mantle —adding a general head tax for good meas of Eliahu) after their mentor, Rabbi Eliahu, ure. Bribes were required for everything, Gaon of Vilna. This was the first Ash and outright demands for money were fre kenazic congregation in the Holy City in quently made by government clerks. almost a hundred years, and they sent thenThus, even after an immigrant sur own representatives to Europe to raise vived the perils of travel to Eretz Yisroel, money for their maintenance. The Ash and was not drowned, captured, robbed or kenazic community of Jerusalem was murdered on the way, he was still prone to further strengthened in 1837 when its num the specific dangers listed in the Evening bers were augmented by refugees from Ma’ariv Service; ‘‘Enemy, plague, sword, Safed. A major earthquake in Safed, severe hunger, and grief. ’’ It is not surprising that drought, as well as serious riots by the during these first years more people Arabs against the Jewish population, had perished than survived. Many others were caused many deaths, great hardship, and an unable to take the hardships, and eventually intolerable situation in general. returned to Europe.

1974

THE PERUSHIM

Why then did these early followers of the Vilna Gaon endure all these difficulties? One reason, perhaps, was because they sin cerely believed that they were preparing a spiritual haven for their brethren who would follow them. Besides this, they believed, as

the Gaon has taught, that their settlement in Eretz Yisroel would hasten the “ End” and open the Gates of Redemption. Who today can help but to admire their tenacity? Who today can doubt the justice of their belief?

FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FRIENDS A PRECIOUS GIFT two years for only $5.00, three years $6.50, four years $8.00. Foreign: add $.40 per year.

JEW ISH L IF E , 116 EAST 27TH STREET • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10016

Name.....................................................................................••••••............ . Address..................................................................................................... City, State, Zip Code............................................................................

My Name...................Ä .............. ................. — ................................... *• Address.............................................................................. ....................... City, State, Zip Code...................................................... .......................

□ New □ Renewal

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

The Lonely Odyssey of W .M .W . Haffkine by Henry Edinger

The outbreak of cholera in Naples and neighboring cities last summer produced a virtually hysterical demand for cholera vac cine in Italy. What is not so well known is the fact that this vaccine was first developed eighty years ago by Waldemar Mordechai Wolff Haffkine, an individual who was to cap his brilliant career with a return to or thodox Judaism. Haffkine also discovered the vaccine for bubonic plague, another dread tropical disease, well known to stu dents of Jewish history as the pretext for a series of vicious pogroms against the Jews of sixteenth century Europe. The story of W.M.W. Haffkine is of interest to those Dr. Edinger attended Yeshiva University High School, received his Ph.p. from the University of Pennsylvania, and did postdoctoral research at the Rockefeller University. He is currently Assistant Professor of Physiology and Neurosciences at the New Jersey Medical School.

concerned with humanitarian, scientific, and Jewish causes, and it is hoped that some lessons can be learned from the religious odyssey of this lonely man. Haffkine (originally Chavkin) was bom into a Westernized Jewish family in Odessa in 1860. He received a primarily secular education, and entered Odessa Uni versity in 1879. It is reported that he was a member of the Russian revolutionary or ganization, Narodania Volia (Will of the People). He was also a member of the Jewish League for Self-Defense, and was, in fact, wounded in the head while defend ing a Jewish home during a pogrom. It was only through the intervention of the famed zoologist Elie Metchnikoff that Haffkine was saved from government prosecution and permitted to complete his doctoral work in zoology. After several years of productive re-

THE LONELY ODYSSEY OF W.M.W. HAFFKINE search at the Zoological Museum in Odessa, Haffkine left Russia, most probably be cause of the barriers placed in the way of Jews seeking advancement in the Russian university system. He joined Metchnikoff at the Pasteur Institute in Paris in 1889. At the Institute, Haffkine studied the cholera bacillus, and, using techniques dis covered by Pasteur in his quest for an anti rabies vaccine, finally developed a vaccine against cholera. After testing the safety'of the new vaccine on himself and some of his friends, Haffkine was asked by the British government to go to India to help eradicate the disease from that colony. Haffkine arrived in Calcutta in 1893, and began a program of mass production of the vaccine, as well as mass innoculation throughout India. His welcome, however, was far from enthusiastic, and his work met with oppostion from both primitive tribespeople and British officials. Despite absurd rumors, and even published accusations, tens of thousands of people were innoculated and protected from this epidemic dis ease. Haffkine carried out his work with un tiring self-sacrifice, without special fee or reward, and despite hardship and danger. In 1895, he contracted malaria and returned to Europe greatly debilitated. His devotion to humanity and science was recognized by governmental authorities, medical societies, and the great bacteriologists of the day. In 1896, the dread bubonic plague had invaded India and was raging unchecked. Haffkine returned to India, and the govern ment implored him to develop a vaccine against this epidemic disease. Haffkine immediately established a laboratory in

Bombay, and within three months, pro duced a vaccine which was effective in pro tecting rats and rabbits against the plague bacillus. Shortly afterwards, Haffkine innoculated himself with the fluid, and suf fered a severe reaction. This, however, in no way prevented him from continuing his work. Further tests on volunteer subjects were favorable. Haffkine had developed close personal relations with the Sasoons, the leading Jewish family of India, and even they volunteered as subjects for these exper iments. After thoroughly testing the vac cine, the laboratory was moved to larger quarters, and wholesale production and dis tribution of the vaccine was begun. The vaccine proved successful, reducing the mortality rate from the plague by 85%, and the epidemic began to recede. For his ac complishments, Haffkine was decorated with the Order of the Indian Empire by Queen Victoria. Once again, however, opposition to the new vaccine began to build. Accusa tions came from P.L. Simond (who had correctly hypothesized that the plague was transmitted by fleas), a French scientists whose anti-plague serum Haffkine had tested and found ineffective. Joining the invective were a number of British colonial officials, who suggested that Haffkine was a Russian collaborator, and that his vaccine made people susceptible to other dread dis eases. In 1902, disaster befell the innocula tion program. In Malkowal in the Punjab, eighteen men who had been innoculated with Haffkine’s vaccine died of tetanus. Al though historians of science now agree that the tetanus bacillus was probably intro-

JEWISH U FE

duced in the field by an assistant who drop ped the cork of a vaccine vial to the ground, colonial officials used this as an excuse to discredit Haffkine. An official inquiry was launched, based on the accusation that the tetanus contamination had resulted from carelessness in the laboratory. Haffkine Was suspended from the directorship of the plague laboratory which he had founded, and he returned to Europe. Although Haffkine was completely exonerated, and some intellectuals (notably John Maynard Keynes) charged the gov ernment with unfairly dismissing him, he was bitterly disappointed by the events fol lowing the Malkowal disaster. Despite the fact that his vaccine continued as the first line of defense against the spread of the plague, with millions of doses administered throughout the world, Haffkine became in creasingly introspective . In 1914, he retired and terminated his research. The psycholog ical scars remained even after the *plague laboratory in Bombay was renamed the Haffkine Institute in his honor, in analogy to the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Because of the demands of his research and humanitarian work, Haffkine never married, and lived a rather solitary exis tence. The last years of his life were devoted entirely to philosophic speculation, religi ous studies, and communal work. It was in these later years that Haffkine returned to Jewish religious observance. The central point of his perception of Judaism was the bond of tradition, suffering and faith that unites the Jewish people. This essentially nationalistic and mystical con ception was apparently forged in his youth, when he had served in the Jewish self

SPRING

defense forces in Odessa. The effects of the numerous professional and personal con troversies, as well as the consequences of the Malkowal disaster, heightened his sen sitivity toward his coreligionists. Deprived of contact with fellow Jews throughout most of his career, Haffkine turned to the specific laws and observance of Judaism for consolation and support. In an article entitled, “ A Plea for Or thodoxy,” published in 1916, he main tained that the Mitzvos served as constant reminders of the bond between members of a family or group. He decried the “ enligh tened” Jews, who avoided their kinsmen and mingled only with others—at the same time that these very others were seeking to preserve their own cohesiveness by exclud ing the Jew. He wrote that “ if we Jews are beaten to the earth in our work and strug gles, this is at least as much due to our being repelled by others as, I think, (much more still) to our not keeping to each other.” He opposed the introduction of the vernacular into the prayer service, since it was Hebrew that united the divergent mem bers of world Jewry. Haffkine’s sensitivity to this was a result of his experiences in Oriental lands, where the Hebrew of the prayers was his only link to the Jews of those remote regions. To the Jewish youth of the turbulent prewar era, he wrote that “ no man or woman need be ashamed to obey, on the faith in the wisdom and solicitude of their people, a rule of guidance the inwardness of which their own learning has not enabled them to penetrate.” The accumulated ex perience of a nation over many centuries, he felt, was of greater weight than the personal

1974

THE LONELY ODYSSEY OF W.M.W. HAFFKINE

experience of the individual. Human under standing of history and the laws of nature were described by Haffkine as “ a reminis cence of events and their sequence.” In his latter years, Haffkine devoted much effort to furthering the religious edu cation of the young. He aided financially many Jewish schools in Eastern Europe. H ltffklii'f* lonely odyssey ended in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1930, his years

of devoted service to the cause of humanity and science barely acknowledged by a world which has forgotten, almost, the ter ror of an epidemic disease. Further Biographical information on the life and work of W.M.W. Haffkine can be found in The Brilliant and Tragic Life of W.M.W. Haffkine: Bacterioligist, by Selman A. Waksman; Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J. (1964).

YANKY HAS NO PLACE TO GO! He's nine years old and his Mommy just died. His Daddy will need some time — maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months — tcf pick up the pieces of his life so the family can get together again and stay that way. Yanky has a brother and sister. They need a place to go, too. Can you help? Ohel needs Orthodox FOSTER PARENTS desperately for dozens of children like them. A happy, warm, secure home NOW can determine what kind of Jews, parents, and people they will be. Do you have that kind of home for a while? If so, call or write, OKU FOSTER CARE, 4907 14th AVI., BROOKLYN, N.Y. TEL: 851-6309

Eight Reflections on War by Yaffa Ganz

1. WAR October 15, 1973... ten days after Yom Kippur 5734. Ten days of nightmare which won’t disappear when I awake each morning—thinking “ I must have dreamt it. It can’t be real.” But even before I com pletely separate myself from the world of sleep, I know that it is real indeed—that I dreamt of what was real on and off all night long—and another day starts with jumping up to hear the morning news. The robe that I put on my dresser “ just in case” we would have to go down to the shelter during the night is still there. The drinking water that we prepared in contain ers in the kitchen is still there. The shutters are still tightly closed because of the black out during the night. I open them up to let in the light of the tenth unreal day. Unreal, yet everything goes on as usual. Yaffa Ganz was bom in Chicago, where she graduated from the Chicago Jewish Academy and recieved her BA from the University of Chicago. After her husband—also a Chicagoan—received his Semicha and M.A., they moved to Israel. Mrs. Ganz currently lives in Jerusalem, and in between caring for their five children, does free lance writ ing.

The children get dressed, eat, and after the initial squabbling, are off to school —the older ones bitterly complaining be cause the Ministry of Education opened the schools despite the fact that it’s now Sukkot vacation. The house has to be cleaned, the laundry folded, the shopping done. Yet all through the day—at the beginning of every hour—the country comes to a quick halt as people stop to hear the news. We are, again, at war. War. What an awful, awful word. War is what happens far away... in other coun tries. .. to unfortunate people you read about in the papers. You watch it on television and say, “ How horrible” —and then you turn it off to see something else. That’s what we grew up believing in America, even though we knew it could happen anywhere (but not to us). But we left America behind us years ago, and now, for the second time in six years, family, friends and neighbors are gone from their homes and are away some where.. . fighting. The tanks and planes that we see on television are real... and they are shooting at us... at our people... the young boys from down the street... the older men whose children play with mine.

EIGHT REFLECTIONS ON WAR

2. FEAR AND FAITH Do you know what a horrible sound an air raid siren is? It divides my body into two parts. My knees and stomach turn into jelly as I make my instinctive count to see if all five children are here. (During a siren alarm last Shabbat, they were all gone on a walk around the neighborhood. While I knew that they would immediately go into the nearest shelter, I felt as though someone had punched me in the stomach with a gigantic weighted boxing glove and I had caved in!) •Simultaneously, my head and heart seem to turn into something hard and im mobile. I hear from somewhere inside me, “ Damn, damn them! They aren’t going to wipe us out. We belong here. This is ours. They might mess us up a little, but we aren’t going anywhere. We’ll give them a run for their money...and some over!” All this while grabbing whatever we might need and hurrying down to the shelter. It’s a crazy feeling to be almost physi cally divided into two such conflicting halves... jelly and stone! Everyone gets into the shelter quickly, quietly, nonchalantly. And inside these quiet, seemingly nonchal ant people, there pounds a passionate prayer: *‘Dear L-rd... HaShem Elokenu. .. don’t let them get through to kill and de stroy. .. that which we have worked so hard to build and create. Don’t let them get through!” 3. CONFUSION We’ve heard that the news reports in America are so confused and conflicting that the Jews there, not knowing what to

believe, are terribly worried. So today, I listened to the Voice of America to hear for myself. “ Egypt says... Israel says... Syria says.. Iraq says...” Isn’t there any way for them to check at least some of the reports and see for themselves what’s happening, instead of giving equal time to all versions? After the news about tanks and bombs and killing, we are informed that the World Series is tied. The World Series! It was as if the commentator was suddenlty talking about Mars! 4. BABIES, WOMEN, LIFE It seems that half of the pregnant popu lation has either given birth or is due this week. Jerusalem’s two largest hospitals, Hadassah and Sharei Tzedek, have been turned into military hospitals, and there fore, the poor woman who chooses to have her baby now (or the baby who chooses now to arrive!) has exactly one day to spend in the third hospital, before she is sent home due to lack of space. My neighbor’s daughter had a baby girl the day after Yom Kippur, and the infant’s first “ outing” was to the shelter during an air raid warning five days later. What a way to start out! But the women are wonderful. A friend went to a beauty parlor in town and came back to report that it was overflowing with customers. She told us that the hair dresser finished with one customer and complimented her on how lovely she looked. The girl surveyed hereself in the mirror and said, “ Yes, isn’t it a pity that no one is left at home to see me now!”

JEWISH LIFE

But one keeps up appearances any way. It’s bad enough to sit home alone worrying without looking like a slob to boot. We go on and live and do what has to be done. If we must fight, we fight to live. 5. STARS

SPRING

6. JEWS The Six Day War and the month preceding it were so much lonelier for us than the present war. We felt so abandoned here in Israel—until the tidal wave of love and concern and help from the world’s Jews reached and enveloped us. The rest of the world was happy enough for us after our victory, but only the Jews really cried and suffered with us before David smote Goliath. I’m not sure why,* but this time, the feeling is different. We knew from the start that our Jews were with us.f, that they are our allies, our fellow fighters, our brothers... that we are not alone in the world. Israel has now fought the largest tank battle in the history of world warfare. The Egyptians have thrown more tanks at us than Germany used against Russia during the gigantic Barbarossa invasion in World War Two. Against us! Little tiny Israel! (Even in our enlarged 1967 version, we are still so tiny!) Egypt lined up 250,000 soldiers on the West Bank of the Suez Canal. One quarter of a piillion soldiers! I’m not sure if we even have three million people in the entire coun try. And this is just Egypt. Then we have Syria, Iraq, Lybia, Morroco, maybe Jor dan. Nothing like friendly neighbors.

Our neighborhood is high above the rest of the city , and from our balcony we can see all of Jerusalem—blinding white in the morning sun... mellow gold and pink as the sun sets in the late afternoon. . . shimmering with diamond-like lights at night. But now I look out and all is dark. The city is almost inked out in the blackout. The war started on Yom Kippur, the tenth day in the Hebrew lunar month of Tishrei, when the moon is filling out into a big circle. By the fifteenth of the month, the moon became a huge round blob of light in the sky, lighting up a city of dark houses and streets. It looked like a deserted ghost town... so empty and forlorn. But now the moon is shrinking again, and the blackout is thick and solid. You can’t even walk down the street without a flashlight. But look up at the sky! It is coming to life with myriads of twinkling stars, and the Milky Way is spread across like a long road into Heaven itself The sky never looked like this before because the glare of the city light hides so many stars from us. If the city is black, then at least the sky is full of lights. 7. LIFE Everyone remarks that during the Six Egypt continues to pour her troops into Day War there was also no moon, and then Sinai like garbage. They stream in and are too, the stars seemed to wish us well.

1974

EIGHT REFLECTIONS ON WAR

destroyed. It’s true that at the moment they are still holding most of the East Bank of the Canal, but it has cost them thousands of soldiers, and hundreds of tanks and planes. The Egyptians don’t seem to care about the soldiers, and the Russians don’t seem to care about the weapons. Of course, Sadat has said that he doesn’t care if he sacrifices a million "soldiers, so he still has plenty lee way to work with. In the Torah world, a human being is a world. He is of supreme importance. No thing takes precedence over a human life. And if one must sacrifice life, one does so in humility, in supreme sorrow. The Talmud tells us that “ he who saves a life has saved the world.” But the Arab is not of the west ern world, despite his western veneer. He is of the East, where life is cheap—where people are bom and die in great masses —unknown, not valued, and quickly forgot ten, Israel announced the number of her slain yesterday. There is as yet no official mourning. But in every house across the land we cried. Not because the number was so high, considering the battles that we fought for ten days, but because to us, a Jew lost is a world destroyed. Each one was a brother, a neighbor down the street— Chana’s cousin— M iriam’s brother-in-law. Each had a mother, a wife, children. Each one was a life... a precious, irreplacable life. The Jewish preoccupation with life ex tends to our enemies as well. I can’t forget the story a friend told during the Six Day

War, when his platoon was sent across the border into the West Bank of what was then Jordan. Wherever they went, they seemed to miss action with the enemy. Finally, they came across one lone Arab soldier on the road, who had somehow been left behind. They had finally encountered the enemy! But what in heaven’s name were they to do with him? A whole platoon couldn’t just shoot or kill one lone, fright ened soldier stuck on the road, and yet, they had no provisions for taking prisoners along with them. Still, they couldn’t just let him go loose—after all, he was an enemy sol dier. They finally tied him to a telephone pole, knowing that the troops who would follow them would take him prisoner. As they prepared to leave, one of the Israelis said, “ Wait a minute,” and ran back to place a hat on the Arab’s head—because “ It’s so miserably hot and sunny, and to leave him tied up out there in the sun for hours without protection just isn’t right!” And he left him a canteen too*. This started a discussion about what the soldier—or the Jordanians (and how much more the Syrians or Egyptians)—would have done to some lone Israeli that they came across. Everyone knew very well what would have been done—and without any remorse. But that was no reason for our people to act with any less humanity. The Jewish capacity for mercy, for Compassion, comes out in the oddest places. But we are proud that our soldiers are not

JEWISH LIFE

too soldier-like. You see, we fight, as I said, to live. We fight for life. We do not debase life... not even our enemies’ lives. 8. THE FUTURE The Hebrew daily Maariv is presently publishing an interesting series of articles by an Israeli reporter who had managed to tour Egypt. He told of how, in the Cairo Museum, he saw a carved inscription, over 3000 years old. It was from an ancient king, who after doing battle with Israel, proc laimed that he had smitten the Israelites and erased all traces of them from the face of the

SPRING

earth. I guess that he wasn’t very thorough—nor were his many successors, although they all tried hard enough. The way I see it (and I grant you that this is a very personal opinion—if you think you have a better explanation, go right ahead and nurse it), G-d is still keeping an eye on us Jews. We get knocked around or rapped on the head every so often, perhaps to remind us that we aren’t living up to His expectaions. But as long as He stays on our side—and we stay on His!—there’s a good chance that both the Jews and Israel are good for a few more thousand years.

RASHI'S TORAH COMMENTARY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH * By Rosenbaum and Silberman The entire Rashi commentary, vocalized and translated into English, designed for students and teachers.

Five volumes $2§.00 Padded, Leather, Gilt Edge $50.00 A t y o u r bookdealer o r Hebrew Publishing Company 79 Delancey St. New York, N .Y.

After Rabbi Yehudah

^ Yaakov I. Homnick

HaLevi

When will he come The annointed When will Ben-David come When Zion ’s sands We ’ll treasure My son Then will Ben-David come

When will he come The Messiah When will Ben-David adore When its stones We’ll adore My pious son Then will Ben-David come

When will he come Our redeemer When will Ben-David come When the pride o f man A t its dust Will crumble Then will Ben-David come When will he come Our beloved When will Ben-David come When the glory o f man Will yield To its stones Then will Ben-David come

ADVENTURE IN JEWISH LIFE

Potatoes for Pesach by Gad Goldman

It was the spring of 1945, just a few I mulled over the arguments in my months before the end of the war. After mind. Of course , in a case of life and death, surviving the Lodz Ghetto and Auschwitz, I it would be permitted to eat the bread on found myself in the Schotenberg Concentra Pesach—nothing takes precedent over life. tion Camp in Germany, along with 1350 But still... many of us felt that we should other Jewish men. keep Pesach—as a sign that we were still One of the men had meticulously been Jews—that the Nazi machine had not keeping track of the Jewish calendar. He is crushed our spirits completely. To be forced now faceless—intermingled among the to eat bread on Pesach would be a sign of our many lost memories of the Nazi horror—but total capitulation—that we had given up all at the time, he was indispensable. One day, hope of ever again celebrating this festival he came to me and said, “ It is only three of our freedom. days to Pesach, Something will have to be But what could be done? Would the done.” Germans even consider giving us a substi I immediately understood his mean tute for the bread? And if we dared to ask, ing. The main food in the camp was bread what would be our punishment? A few of us and soup. Not too much bread was given discussed it, and we decided that something —only one kilogram for each seventeen should be done. But who would do it? Who people, or about a slice per person per would dare confront the Nazis with such an day—but without the bread, it would be outrageous request? difficult to survive. As it was, the food Hesitantly, I volunteered for the task. ration barely warded off starvation, and if Breathing a Psalm to give me faith and we were to abstain from eating the bread courage, I walked up to the office of the during Pesach, we Would be dangerously Kitchen Commander, the SS man in charge weakened. of food distribution. As I approached his door, I felt a heavy weight in my chest—I Gad Goldman played a prominent role in the could be severly punished merely for leav ing the ranks. I knocked... He opened the rebuilding of Jewish life following the holocaust. He is currently (he Comptroller of the UOJCA. door, let me in, and asked what I wanted.

POTATOES FOR PESACH

The first barrier had been breached—I had not been reported or summarily punished for coming there. I took up cour age and told him that the Jewish holiday of Passover was coming in a few days, and that as Jews, we could not eat bread for the eight days of this festival. I asked if we could have some substitute for the bread, so that we could survive for the eight days of Pesach. I could see the Kitchen Commander’s face begin to turn red as I presented the petition. He cut me short, screaming at me, and shouting that he would not even listen to such an outlandish request. Telling me that I had tremendous nerve for even suggesting such an idea, he drove me from his office, emphasizing that he would not even con sider it. The next day , I saw the Kitchen Com mander looking up and down the ranks, as if he was searching for somebody . When he stopped in front of me, my heart sank—I was sure that he had singled me out for some special punishment, and deep down, I was frightened to death. He called me out of the ranks, and as I stepped fore ward, a strange calm seemd to descend over me. All at once, it seemed almost certain that G-d would be with us—if only we would trust in Him. The SS man stared into my eyes. He said, “ Give me a list of the people who won’t eat bread.” My momentary calm immediately evaporated. What if it was a trick? What if all those who put their names on the list would be marked for special punishment? Or even for death? What if the bread was

taken away, but no substitute given? I re plied that I did not have the list, but would give it to him the next day. That evening, after work, we discus sed what should be done. We had no idea what the Kitchen Commander had in mind—it was possible that he would grant our request, but it was equally possible that the list would be used against those who put their names on it. After considerable discus sion, we decided that “ what will be, will be.” We had begun a Kiddush HaShem (Sanctification of G-d’s Name)4, and we would end it. The rest would be in G-d’s hands. Messengers were sent to all the bunks to gather names for the list. Everyone in the camp was given a chance to sign up for “ not eating bread.” Out of the 1350 Jewish men in the camp, only 130 allowed their names to be marked on the list. The next morning, I went back to the Kitchen Commander. I was very much af raid, but I told him that I ’had the list. He looked up and replied with a single word: “ Good!” I then gave him the list, This occured two days before Pesach. The next day would be Erev Pesach—the day preceding Passover—when bread could also not be eaten all day. Gathering up cour age, I asked him if we could have the substi tute for the very next day—Erev Pesach. His face cracked with a smile—whether be nevolent or diabolical, I could not tell. He said, ‘‘Come with me.” He led me into the kitchen, and showed me a large bin. Opening the bin, he showed me that it was filled with potatoes, and said, “ This will be your ration instead of the bread.”

JEWISH LIFE

SPRING

I knew that I had succeeded. When I learned as a child. When Abraham was a came back and told the others, they would young man, King Nimrod asked him to not believe it. They asked all sorts of ques worship his idols. When Abraham refused, tions. Were the potatoes fresh or rotten? the King threatened that he would be thrown How large was the bin? Would it be enough into a burning furnace if he did not bow to for all who had signed up? the idol. Abraham still would not give in, One of the group was a whiz at and when thrown into the furnace, was mathematics, and he calculated the number miraculously saved. of potatoes in the bin. He announced that for Meanwhile, Abraham ’s brother, the 130 people who had signed up, the ra Haran, was looking on. He was trying to tion would come out to be from thirteen to make up his mind whether or not to emulate seventeen potatoes per day per person his brother. Finally, he decided that if Ab —this, compared to the single slice of bread raham was somehow saved, he too would that was our normal ration! We would be risk his life rather than submit to the idol. eating like kings! Our bodies would be After Abraham was saved, Nimrod asked strengthened, and we could survive many Haran to bow to the idol, and when he additional months because of this extra ra refused, he too was thrown into the furnace. tion. Since his faith was not complete, however, But what about the others? What about he was not saved. the 1200 people who had not signed up? It It seemed that the same was true with seemed almost criminal that we should fill us. The ones who had held back found that ourselves while they were almost starving. when they finally made their decision, it Would it not be better to share the potatoes was too late. Those of us who had faith and equally? there would still be enough were willing to take the risk, on the other —almost two potatoes per person per day. hand, had their faith rewarded. One of the other men went to the Kitchen Commander and asked of we could share the potatoes with the entire camp. The Commander was adamant: “ Only those The same Erev Pesach, we arranged who signed up will get the potatoes. All the for one of the men to smuggle some flour others will eat the regular ration.” out of the kitchen. Another man was given On Erev Pesach we got our first potato the task of smuggling out some beets. These ration. Our stomachs were filled, but we were to be used for what was to be the most were keenly aware of the 1200 pairs of hun daring part of our Pesach plot. gry eyes that were watching us eat. But the Later that afternoon, a few men used Kitchen Commander had given his orders, the smuggled flour to bake Matzos. This and there was no way that the food could be was done so secretly, that to this very day, I shared. have no idea how it was accomplished. All As I ate, I thought of a story that I had that I ever saw was the finished product.

1974

POTATOES FOR PESACH

— tiny M atzos, each about twice as big as a silver dollar. The beets were also processed into a sort o f “ w ine” that would be used for the “ four goblets” (Arba Kosos) o f the Seder night. This too was done in some secret enclave in the cam p, known only to those directly involved. A small group o f trusted individuals was invited to participate in the Seder that night. W e wanted to invite more, but the bunk where we w ould hold the Seder would only hold around fifty people, and besides that, we had to be careful not to arouse the suspicion o f the Nazis. ^ The people invited to the Seder were given special instructions how to get there. In general, there was a rule in the camp that no one was allowed to leave their bunks at night after roil call. There w as, however, one fortunate exception. The outhouses were some distance from the bunks, and we were allowed bathroom privileges, even after the final nightime roll call. The individuals invited to the Seder were given instructions to go to the out

house, and then, instead o f returning to their own bunks, they were to go .to the bunk where the Seder was held. They were to go one by one, at inervals, so as not to arouse suspicion. A lot o f people went “ o ut” that night (maybe we could blame it on the potatoes), and came to the Seder. The same procedure would also be used when they were to return to their bunks. They would leave the Seder to go to the outhouse, and then, from there, they would return to their bunks. A group o f us had put together our own han d -w ritten H agaddah from m em ory. Each person was given half o f a Matzah, to fulfill the M itzvah o f eating M atzah at the Seder. The beet “ w in e ” was likew ise rationed in tiny cups, for the “ four gob le ts.” All o f us had tears in our eyes— thinking o f the members o f our families w ho were not with us for this Seder— and who never again would be with us. The Seder eneded late that night. There was joy in our hearts for having successfully defied the Nazis— but it was a joy that was mixed with tears.

M an is like a bird. A bird can fly higher and higher, but only if it keeps its wings in m otion constantly. I f it stops flying for a m om ent, it w ill fall and crash to the earth. The sam e is true o f m an. RABBI YISROEL SALANTER

Jonathan Chaim Segal by Baruai Taub

You have no idea how much it bothered me that the only concern o f our flock was to have enough food stored away for a time of need, enough protection for a day of. war, and enough shelter from the b itter cold that often invaded us. “Sure these things are im portant” I thought to myself,“but there must be more to life than physical well-being. After all, I am a Siegal and that means I can fly if I want. It also means that I have some sort of spiritual purpose on this earth., My grand father before he died told me that the Siegals were chosen from all Seagulls thou sands o f years ago to bring the true message o f life to the gulls o f the world”. But these were mere words mouthed by a sweet old gull. They had no meaning to me since our flock of Siegals were living the same lifestyle as the other Seagulls I went to school with. Flying was something we knew our anscestors had done, b u t we found no meaning in it.

Many were the times I would wander off alone when I wanted to envision myself part o f the romantic past th at my grand father had tried to recreate for me. I would glide the length o f the bay, skimming the surface of the water’s spray. And then strange things would happen.... As if propelled by an uncontrollable force within me, I would soar upward and like a trained sky diver I would carve predetermined figures in the air. A six-point star was my favorite. I could not explain it but I always found myself shaping six-point stars. It was almost as if they were an expression of my heart. I really became quite proficient at flying. But I would not dare to discuss it with my friends, for they scorned flight as a waste of a Siegal’s energies. I could not resist for the higher I jetted the closer I, came to captur ing a moment o f truth. One windy day I was in the midst o f a gigantic six-point star, lowering my right wing

JONATHAN CHAIM SEGAL

first to give added momentum to my fall from the top point to the lower, when I noticed another gull—pure glistering white feathers—at my left wingtip. As I braced myself and plunged into a graceful nosedive towards the lower point on the star he was there at my side. My grace was only exceeded by his perfection in flight. He in fact sha dowed my left wing for the entire outline oft the star. It was only after we glided to my favorite resting spot, on top o f Modest Mountain (so named because it was the smallest in this magnificent grouping o f grandeous peaks) that he communicated with me.

“Fly with your head bowed”, he always repeated. “Flying is an expression of thanksgiving to our Maker for giving us life. We must make our most graceful flights at the three ap pointed times daily for this purpose. It is not necessary to speed either, just glide along. But always with your head bowed.” And when we were not flying, oh-the things I learned: We studied from sacred Siegal manuscripts preserved in scrolls. The more I learned the more there was to know. But through) the intensity of the studies emerged a definite theme: The Siegal has a purpose in life: to live, But, to live the way our Maker wants us to live. And to teach the world the essence o f life as described in the Sacred Writings. One night as we had just completed the evening flight and we were perched atop Modest Mountain I asked him something that had been bothering me for several sleepless nights. “Why are you and I the only ones who realize the responsibility o f the Siegals? What about the rest o f the flock? “Jonathan” he said softly “the tragedy of our people today is that they are looking everywhere in the Siegal world for meaning except within their own Siegal heritage, where it really exists for them.

“Do you know what we call your sixpoint star?” he querried. “no,” I replied sheepishly, “but I do know that they are me.” He called the six-point star the “ Shield of Asid” (Asid was an ancient Siegal king). He called me Jonathan as if he had known me for the longest time. “The reason you form them in your flight is because you are a Siegal and they are a part of your being. They are a symbol o f your her itage, your purpose.” His words were so simply communicated through the gentleness o f his manner. “His h e a rt must be as pure as the milkwhite of his feathers,” I thought. It was as if in a dream. All the answers to my yearning, to “There is a story about a certain Siegal who my flying for truth seemed to be before me. had a recurring dream. Night after night he “Teach me” I pleaded. “Teach me what it wduld envision a voice specking to him out o f means to be a Siegal” an image that he could n ot perceive. The “Do you want to learn?” He asked. voice would tell him to go to the bridge “Yes” I replied emphatically. which leads to the palace o f the king and that “Then let us begin to learn. Let us begin if he would dig a hole under the bridge he will to live”. find a treasure valuable enough to support The next several years were fulfilling ones. him for the rest o f his life. Because the dream He thught me flight skills th at had seemed kept repeating itself, he could no longer unimaginable to me before. We flew regularly resists One night he arose from his sleep and three times a day, morning, afternoon, and began the journey from his nest under the night. What Was so unique about my flying bushy overhang by the sea to the appointed now was the sense o f purpose he instilled into place at the entrance o f the palace. it. “When he arrived and began digging, the

JEWISH LIFE

palace guard approached him and demanded an explanation. After the gull described his dream o f hidden treasure to the guard the kingsman whaled with mocking laughter. “You are truly a fool of a gull. How many times have I dreamed that if I went to a certain Seigal nest under the bushy overhang by the sea I would find my fortune buried under the nest.” “Imagine how shocked the Siegal was to hear the guard describe the very nest where he lived. He quickly returned home and ex citedly began to dig and dig until he actually discovered a priceless treasure under his very nest.” “Within every Siegal’s heart lies meaning and purpost to life” he explained, He need not look elsewhere for it. He has only to take the Sacred Scrolls off the shelves and he will learn to fly again.”

“I have a dream Jonathan, That you will build schools for the Siegal flock. One by one you will teach them about themselves. “You can do f itj Jonathan. You must do it! Because now that you know the truth you must teach it to the other gulls. “They will listen to you because, you not only have the knowledge to the Sacred Scrolls, b u t you live the knowledge. You are a total Seigal and they will come to respect and love the truth you represent. “Now go. Go and teach. Go and touch.” I never saw him after that last encounter on Modest Mountain But I willed to carry out his every wish. I flew higher and higher each day, making his flight my flight. “1 am a Seigal” was my obsession. I would succeed because, in the words of our Sacred writings: “All Seigals are responsible one for another” ...

A THOUGHT

They that pass The boundries of G’d Seeking lands More fertile than Eden Trod only to wastelands Erroded by the serpent and Temptation

A MAN FROM VILNO I cannot forget the face I saw An image

Two Poems by

Y A A C O V LIP S C H U T Z

of tortured anger and despair A refugee who never escaped A mind yet trapped in the holocaust. And all he said was “I’m from Vilno” with saddened eyes a peer of pain And I was sure here was a refugee Whose memory still lives in the holocaust.

SPECIAL FEATURE

Man and Woman in Torah Life by Leo Levi

INTRODUCTION

There have been many misconceptions, often presented in print, regarding the respective roles of man and woman in Jewish life and thought. This summary is presented in the hope of broadening among our people the knowledge of their heritage, and perhaps, of stimulating some appreciation for its loftiness. The modem reader may have adopted con cepts which are broadly accepted in today’s cul ture, often without question. In this article, the reader is asked to question these assumptions, and to give serious consideration to the ancient concepts of the divine Torah. The reader may also find many of his pre conceived notions concerning the Torah’s posi tion regarding these matters demolished.here. Many such notions thrive on the false assumtpion that our Torah law must, somehow, be similar to other laws contemporary to it. Once such a spuri ous notion is adopted, it gives rise to a tendency to select as examples those elements of Torah law that can be bent to dispel such misconceptions where they exist. Dr. Leo Levi is the head of the Department of Physics and Electro-Optics at the Jerusalem College of Technology. He is the author of A pplied O ptics (Wiley, 1968); and Jewish Chrononom y (Gur Aryeh Institute, 1969).

This article does not only present legal data, but also attempts to demonstrate, at least par tially, the rational structure underlying and unify ing these data. We are well aware that the desire to demonstrate such a thesis is likely to result in a bias of its own, but we have honestly attempted to avoid this pitfall. We have attempted to be as non-selective as possible in citing Talmudical sources, except with regard to those which are rejected from Halachah (Jewish Law). Concerning postTalmudical sources, we have selected those which seem to be best in agreement with the above, as well as with actual practice as endorsed by the accepted Halachah authorities. We do not investigate to which extent practice agrees with the demands of the Torah, except when practice is cited as a test for the validity of a ruling. It is felt that if there is a gap between theory and practice, it should be closed.

MAN, WOMAN, AND THE FAMILY

Man and Woman Few will deny that men and women differ greatly, psychologically as well as physiologi cally. Whether the psychological differences are innate and tied in with the physiological ones, or whether they are the result of environmental dif ferences caused by these, is a moot question

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

which may be with us for a long time. But then, we have lived with it for a very long time already, and it need not disturb us. What should disturb us is any effort to deny the reality of these differ ences or to eliminate them. Before doing that, we should carefully determine whether they are in deed undesirable, and not actually essential fac tors in our society . If we would interfere with such fundamental human traits, then we must tread most carefully. We can take a lesson from the results of various efforts to tamper with and “ improve” thè ecological network, and their often disastrous consequences. Our aim here is to clarify the differences in the roles, qualifications, and privileges of men and woman as implied by Torah and its sages. In view of our basic belief that the Torah was the blueprint of the world,1 the roles that we find in the Torah are then identical with the roles to which their nature suits them. We will not be primarily concerned with deciding whether one sex or the other is considered superior or privileged, but we do hope that our results will permit the reader to conclude that, “ the Rock —His acts are perfect, for all His ways are just. ’’2 We will first briefly discuss how various forces in society interact to necessitate the as signment of different roles to the two sexes. This will be followed by a review of Torah material, both Halachic and Aggadic, concerning the roles of men and women, together with an attempt to ascertain the consistency of Torah law with the assumed division of labor.3

The Family When comparing the development of the individual among animals, we immediately note the protracted care required by the higher ani mals, both internal and external to the mother’s body. It should then not suiprise us that the human, who is incomparably higher than the animals (when viewed in spiritual terms and ethi

cal categories) requires so much more nurturing before he can be considered a mature individual. And, just as his superiority is most striking in the spiritual and ethical sphere, so is this care which is required primarily there. This is the reason why the family must play such a central role in the human social structre, and in Jewish society in particular. The rise and fall of entire cultures often depend upon the health of the family unit, and therefore, we should expect the Torah to protect and nurture a strong family—especially since Judaism represents a national code more than a private religion. In this context, the proper func tioning of the family, as the cell of the national body, is of utmost concern.

Man and Woman In the Family It seems that the differences that we find in the roles assigned to men and women by the Torah emanate from the need to guard and nurture this family unit. The n urturing of the family and intra-family relationships is one task, while the conduct of supra-family and international affairs is another. If these two tasks are to be divided between men and women, it is obvious that woman is better suited to the former. Practically, at least in part, this division is dictated by biological factors. It is possible that psychological qualifications also

1 Berashis Rabbah 1:1 2 Deuteronomy 32:4. 3 The Halachic practice has changed considerably since the giving of the divine Torah law. Changes were instituted by sages and Sanhedrins at various points in our history in accordance with the demands of changing conditions—often to compensate for the less than ideal prevalent ethical standards. Cf. Rabbi Samson Raphel Hirsch on Leviticus 25:14. The need for such changes in practice was forseen in the Torah, and the canges were executed in the manner specified there. Sifra on Leviticus 18:30. Both the originalTorah law and present practice yield insight into our topic.*In order to avoid contusion, the present practice yield insight into our topic. In order to avoid confusion, the present day practice is discussed separately, while the original Torah law is discussed in a separate section.

JEWISH LIFE

SPRING

point to such a division.4 ing them lest they slacken in their efforts in We should also note another factor that Torah. They teach (their children) to fear sin necessitates a strict division of tasks. In establish while they are still young. Thus, the righteous ing and maintaining the family, the most basic women are responsible for the continuation of force—both constructively and destructively—is the Torah and fear of G*d; and it is they who the sexual drive. It is a fundamental force in remind their husbands, when they return from establishing the family, but at the same time, work tired and weary, to study Torah and give when directed outward, it is its most dangerous charity. threat. There are some who believe that the Jewish It is therefore not surprising that we find v woman’s role is primarily to perpetuate the considerations of sexual drives, and their chan Jewish nation, biit that the fulfillment of the na neling, to assume a major role in the formulation tional mission is left almost exclusively in the of social guidelines in the Torah. Because of the hands of the man. In view of the above'descrip great power of the sexual drive when stimulated, tion as well as the following considerations, this the mingling of the sexes for purposes other than assumption must be rejected. If women were only familial, is potentially very destructive to the meant to play a secondary role, why would G-d formation and maintenance of the family unit. grant women ‘‘quicker insight,” 9 and why would These considerations therefore also demand that men be asked to follow their wives advice in supra-family activities be limited to only one of wordly matters?10 Why would Sarah be granted a the sexes. higher level of prophecy than Abraham, so that he These two considerations lead to a concent was enjoined to follow her guidance?11 How ration of the woman’s effort within the home, 4 Although the separation of biological from environmental factors laconically summarized in the Biblical motto in psychology is notoriously difficult, and one should not hope for absolute proof in such matters, there is strong evidence to support the (Psalm 45:14), “ All glorious, the princess is thesis that traditionally feminine traits are, indeed, deeply rooted in directed inward.’’ This verse is cited several the female physiology. In the secular Israeli Kibbutz, women have long enjoyed total equality with men before both the law and the times in the Talmud to account for the modesty economy—even the care of small chi kiren has there been transferred and reticence of women, Jewish and non-Jewish to the community, so that there was every opportunity to translate alike.5 The sages of the Talmud even feel compel this equality into practice. In addition, the deliberate isolation of the Kibbutz from the surrounding “ bourgoisie” culture helped prevent led to emphasize the fact that it is acceptable for a contamination of the fully liberal Kibbutz atmosphere by woman to be a wage earner and to take her claim traditionalist values. Nevertheless, a recent survey has fhown that to court, lest we reject these possibilités because the young third generation of Kibbutz women are still stronger than the men in sensitivity—while the men are stronger in rationality; that of the above motto.6 efforts to include women in the administration of the Kibbutz usually The woman’s task is described—somewhat fail (often as the result of the votes of other women who seem to. poetically, and yet concisely—in the verse oppose their sisters in that role); that, professionally, women tend to concentrate on the areas of education and other social services and to (Exodus 19:3), ‘Thus shall you speak to the shun political and administrative activity; and that young women still House of Jacob’’—to which our sages comment, put emphasis on beautiful clothing rather than on sports, and even “ this refers to the women.” 7 The author of tend to deride those few who are different in this respect. See M. Gerson, Chinuch U’Mishpachah BeMetziut HaKibbutz, Sifriat Menoras HaMaor elaborates on this:8 P o’alim (1068), pp. 44-48. Why was Moses commanded to speak to the women first? Because it is they who send their children to school, watch over them that they should study the Torah, and have compas sion on them when they come from school, encouraging them with kind words, and watch

5 6 7 8

Yebamos 77a, Nedarim 37b, Rashi ad loc. "Banos.” Gittin 12a, Shavuos 30a. Mechilta, Rashi, ad loc. Quoted in Reshis Chochmah, Perek Derech Eretz 4. 9 Niddah 45b. 10 Baba Metzia 59a. 11 Sh’mos Rabah 1:1, Tanchuma, Sh’mos 1, VaYikra Rabbah

29:9, Rashi on Genesis 21:12.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

could women accumulate so much merit that only because of their righteousness was Israel re deemed from Egypt and the Jewish people brought into existence?12 The equality of father and mother regarding honor and reverence due them also implies that their contributions to the child are equal. This will be discussed further in the section on “ Torah Study.” Another area where we see this is in the fact that the concept of mutual responsibility applies to women as well as to men. Thus, for example, a woman can pronounce the Kiddush (Sabbath Sanctification) for a man, even though she had previously pronounced it for herself, and was therefore no longer personally obligated.13 When other particulars are examined, it should become obvious that the “ divison-of-labor” hypothesis suits the facts better. Differences between the status of man and woman are most evident in marital law. In addi tion, there are minor differences in their respec tive financial status, as well as pronounced dif ferences in ritual law and in public functions, including the courts of law. We shall devote a section to each of these points, followed by a section on the personality differences between man and woman as presented in the Talmud.

MARRIAGE The Role of Marriage As we have already noted, in Torah, mar riage signifies the founding of a new unit of the Jewish nation. The most obvious and primary function is the continuation of the Jewish nation. This is epitomized by two essential command ments, the first being (Genesis 9:7), “ be fruitful and multiply,” and the second (Deuteronomy 11:19), “ you shall teach them to your sons.” Actually, however, the significance of the

marriage bond goes much deeper. Our sages hint at this when they say, “ man and wife—if they are worthy, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) dwells with them.’’14 A harmonious relationship bet ween man and wife can bring the Divine Presence down to earth. We also see a hint of this significance in the principle that ‘‘he and his wife are as one. ’’ There is a total emotional identification of the man with his wife’s person, a principle having important legal implications in a wide variety of areas.15 Women are exempt from the commandment of procreation . This is deduced from the wording of the commandment (Genesis 1:28), “ Be fruit ful and multiply, fill the earth and conquer her.” The commandment of procreation is associated with conquest, and since conquest is normally a man’s activity, the entire verse primarily con cerns man. Hence, it is concluded that the com mandment, “ be fruitful and multiply” primarily obligates man (even though the wording clearly includes both man and woman). Perhaps the underlying idea is that as a rule, man has the more aggressive character—it does not matter here whether this is due to biological or environmental factors—and that this psychologi cal difference is encouraged by Torah life. To demand that the woman take the active part in the formation of marriage would therefore be unfair, and possibly destructive, to this ideal. Rabbi Meir Simcha explains that the woman’s exemption from this commandment is based on the pain and danger that pregnancy and delivery impose on her. The humane Torah would not demand this of the woman—she should be subjected to these hazards only by her own choice.16

12 Sotah lib . 13 Tshuvas Rabbi Akiba Eiger 7 (end). 14 Sotah This is particularly true at the time of their union, cf. Cf. Maharal, Chidushey Agudos, ad loc. Rabbi Yaakov Emden, Siddur, Han hagas Leyl Shabbos 3:2. 15 Cf. Berachos 24a. Kesudos 66a. Minachos 39b, Bechoros 35b. 16 Meshech Chochmah on Genesis 9:7 “ P’ru.”

JEWISH LIFE

The commandment, “ You shall teach them to your sons,'* also obligates only men. This will be discussed in a later section. Before treating the marriage laws, we must look at them in their true perspective as a mere skeleton to the flesh, blood and spirit of the mar riage. It is perhaps in this sense that the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, the legal code dealing with marriage laws, begins by quoting the Talmudic passage, “ Anyone without a wife dwells without blessing, without Torah, without good, without joy, and without peace... and is no person.9117 The profound sanctity of marriage is also illustrated by the law that G-d’s holy Name may be erased to make peace between man and wife .18 We also see it in the dictum* “ When a woman is modest in her home, even as the altar (in the Holy Temple) atones for the nation, so does she atone for her household.“ 19 This elevated role of the wife places moral obligations on her husband. Our sages thus teach, “ A man should ever be careful of his wife’s honor, for blessing comes to his home only for her sake.“ 20 Along the same line, the death of a man’s first wife is said to affect him as much as the destruction of the Holy Temple—it dims his world, shortens his step, and makes his judgment fail.21 The Talmud teaches us that, “ A man dies only to his wife, and a woman dies only to her husband.’’22 Since the psychic bond between man and woman is so deep, it is no wonder that a man is Cautioned to be most careful in choosing a wife (the same obviously being true of a woman). He is forbidden to marry until he has met his bride,23 and if he marries for money, he is warned that his children will not turn out well.24 In his legal code, Maiomonides (Rambam) formulates this “ trans-legal” obligation:25 The sages command us that a man should honor his wife more than himself. He should love her as himself. If he has money, he should increase her portion. He should not cast too

SPRING

much fear over her. He should speak quietly with her, and not be melancholy or short tem pered. Similarly, they command the woman to honor her husband very much, and she should revere him, and do everything according to his demand. She should consider him as a prince or a king, follow his desire, and remove every thing hateful to him. This is the way of the holy and pure daughters and sons of Israel in their union, and in this manner, their sojourn will be beautiful and praisworthy.

The necessity of strengthening the emo tional bonds that sustain the marriage is what results in laws governing marital relations. These will be discussed later in the section. Other regulations aimed at strengthening these bonds included that of Ezra, who legislated that perfume dealers must visit every village to enable women to readily obtain the necessary cosmetics.26 Also included would be the law permitting a bride to wash her face on Yom Kippur, so as to appear comely in the eyes of her husband.17 All such laws encourage a wife to maintain her charm and thus remain attractive to her husband. According to the Talmud, the scrip tural regulation forbidding intercourse for seven days after menstruation also serves to ensure that the wife’s attraction to her husband remains “ as on her wedding day.’’28 This is the flesh and blood of the marriage. But just as a person needs a skeleton in addition to 17 Yebamos 62b-63a, Even HaEzer 1:1 in Hagah. 18 Succah 53b (cf. Numbers5:23),Shabbos 116a;Tanchuma, Vayishlach 19 Baba Metzia 59a 20 Sanhedrin 22a, b. 21 Ibid. 21 Yebamos 63a. £ Kiddushin 41a. 24 Ibid. 70a. W Yad, Ishus 15:19,20. 26 Baba Kama 82a,b. 272Yoma 8:1 (73b), Orech Chaim 613:10. 28 Niddah 31b. this, however, is not the only reason, and there

fore, the laws of Nidah apply equally well to the unmarried girl. See Sefer HaChinuch 95.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

his flesh and blood, so the Torah must provide —unromantic as this may sound—a dry and rigid legal code. Here too, we find hints as to the roles of man and woman in marriage. Before discussing these laws in detail, we should note a curious omission. Scripture seems clearly to assign dominance to man, and de scribes woman primarily as a helper to man.29 Nevertheless, this relationship does not seem to have been formulated in any legal manner. Leg ally, the Jewish man does not dominate his wife, even to the extent of demanding that she move with him from city to village, or vice versa, or from country to country, even for the most weighty reasons.30 This is just one illustration of how the Torah protects the personalities of the marriage partners, as will be discussed shortly. True, our sages say, “ a good wife does the will of her husband.” 31 But.even this has not found its way into the authoritative Talmud, ex cept indirectly, in the story which tells how Bava ben Buta blessed an exceptionally obedient wife.32 Although it is cited in the Shulchan Aruch, 33 it remains a mere recommendation —albeit a rather fundamental one. Perhaps we have here the ultimate expression of trust and confidence in the dedication of woman, or, perhaps, this omission emanates from the realiza tion that such submissiveness cannot be legislated without harming the party concerned. As we survey Jewish marriage laws, we find that, on one hand, man plays the more dominant role, and that, on the other hand, the economic aspects seem to favor woman. One reason for this may be the fact that the Torah obligates only man to procreate, so that he must persuade a woman to consent to marriage.34 This only applies, however,' to the formal state of affairs. In practice, usually neither of these differences turns out to be very significant. Let us now proceed first to the differences between man and woman in the initiation and dissolution of marriage.

Initiating and Dissolving Marriage The Jewish marriage is initiated by the act of Kiddushin (i.e. sanctification), in which the groom hands the bride a ring and says, “ You are herewith sanctified unto me according to the law o f Moses and Israel.” If the bride accepts it willingly in the presence of two valid witnesses (and she is not disqualfied from marriage to him by Torah law) she is then his wife. In Judaism, the formation of a family is an act of national significance. In order that the marriage blessings be pronounced, the nation must be present—in the form of a symbolic quorum of ten male Jewish adults, which gener ally symbolizes the nation.35 This is derived from the verse (Psalm 68:27), 4‘In the assemblies bless G-d, G-d from the source of Israel. ” 36 The foun dation of the family is here clearly identified with the source of the nation. To dissolve a marriage, the husband must transmit a letter of divorce (Get) to the wife, either directly or by means of an agent. He must, however, obtain the wife’s consent before doing so.37 In certain cases, the wife or husband may demand a divorce. In cases where the wife de mands a djvorce, the court will exert pressure on the husband to grant a Get, or in some instances, actually force him to do so.38 For instance, if the husband has been seriously crippled or suffers from certain disabilities which normally disgust Others, or if he has become morally depraved, the 29 Cf. Genesis 2:18. 3:16. 30 Kesubos 13:10,11 (110a,b), Even HaEzer 75. 31 Tana DeBei Eliahu 11 (end). 32 Nedarim 66b. 33 Even HeEzer 96:7, cf. HaGra ad loc. 69:13. 34 This may appear to be in contradiction to the fact that some rabbinic rulings are based on the observation that woman is the nore eager partner in the marriage, cf. Yebamos 113a, 1ISb, Kesubos 75a, Gittin 49b, Kiddushin 7a; Even HaEzer 102:3, 140:5. See note 3. 35 Kesubos 7b. 38 Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, "The Jewish Woman,” Judaism Eternal II, Soncino, London (1956). 37 Even HaEzer i 19:6. 38 ¡bid. 154.

JEWISH LIFE

wife may have the court force the husband to grant a Get. If the wife suffers from such disabilites, she too can be forced to accept a Get.39 Furthermore, a husband who does not fulfill the basic obligations he accepted on marriage —sustenance and conjugal relations—will be forced to divorce his wife on her request. If a wife refuses to fulfill her contractual obligations, then the husband has the right to withold those pertain ing to him. There is an interesting exception, which il luminates the entire Jewish approach to a woman’s sensitivity. It is the following ruling from the Shulchan Aruch, the authoritative code:40 A woman who left her husband’s house because of a quarrel, and who does not want to return to his house until he calls for her, does not therefore forfeit her sustenance (even during her absence). This is because she is ashamed before him, having left without his consent, and not having any indication of his forgiveness. If he would come to her, she would fulfill all her obligations.

Incidentally, there is no substance what soever to the oft-heard claim that the Jewish bride is acquired as a chattel. The word for betrothal (which is part of the marriage ceremony, and mere “ engagement” ) is Kiddushin, which means sanctification. There is no implication that the groom is “ buying” the bride. The only financial element in the Jewish wedding ceremony is the Kesubah, a contract handed to the bride, in which the groom obligates himself to a minimum of 200 Zuz, 41 an amount equivalent to one year’s living expenses.42 In many cases, much larger amounts are stipulated. This sum is payable to the wife in the event the marriage is dissolved, and it is guaranteed even with “ the shirt off his back.’* If anyone, it is the husband who indentures himself at the marriage. It is true that the Talmud describes Kiddushin as zKinyan, which literally translated

SPRING

means a “ purchase.” In the legal sense in which it is employed here, the term refers to the acquisi tion of certain legal rights, in this case, of con jugal (sexual) rights on the part of the man.43 In fact, however, these obligations are strictly mutual, and the husband is forbidden to exercise them, at any time, without his wife’s consent.44 This review of the laws concerning the for mation and dissolution of the Jewish family clearly shows that the dominant role is played by the man. This is consistent with our general hypothesis, since such acts are supra-family. It is also consistent with the fact that, according to Torah law, marriage is primarily a man’s obliga tion, and is more a matter of choice for the woman. On the other hand, however, the laws requir ing the woman’s consent, both in forming and dissolving the marital bond, makes this domi nance more theoretical than practical. A marriage is not valid at all without the woman’s consent. The significance of man’s dominant role here is limited to the case of a Get transmitted to the wife illegally against her will—presumably a rare event—and to the case of the Agunah. When the husband disappears, leaving no evidence of his death, or when he becomes per manently mentally incapacitated, there is no way of releasing the wife from her marriage bond. This is the tragic case of the Agunah. The prob lem of finding evidence and thus permiting the Agunah to remarry has given rise to a major section of Halachic literature. The possibility of a woman becoming an Agunah, remote and rare as it is, would seem to fully balance out the financial and other advan tages that a woman has in marriage, as indicated elsewhere in this article. 39 Ibid. 117:11. 40 Ibid. 80:118 in Hagah. 41 Ibid. 66:6. 48 Cf. Peak 8:8 43 R. Avraham min HaHar, Nedarim 15b “ Kofin.” 44 Eruvin 100b, Even HaEzer 25:2.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

Marriage Restrictions Sexual union, either outside of marriage or without it, is strictly forbidden by Torah law.45 The severity of the prohibition, however, varies for different unions. An incestuous relationship, or a union with a woman otherwise married, is a capital sin, and it is proscribed on penalty of death or Korais (being cut off spiritually from the Jewish people). Union with a man otherwise mar ried, while forbidden, is not a capital sin. In general, Kiddushin is valid even where a union is forbidden. The only time Kiddushin is not valid is where the union is forbidden as a capital sin, or where one of the partners is a non-Jew or a slave.46 Therefore, Kiddushin is valid if the man is otherwise married, but not if the woman is otherwise married. Indeed, accord ing to original Torah law, a woman is allowed to marry a man even though he is already married—but a man cannot marry a woman if she is already married.47

Laws Governing Man and Wife ‘‘When a man marries a woman, he assumes ten obligations toward her, and acquires the right to four obligations on her part.” 48 Among the husband’s obligations are his commitments to supply sustenance, clothing, conjugal relations, and, if the need arises, the basic Kesubah (the 200 Zuz mentioned earlier), medical care, ransom money, and burial. After his death, she is entitled to sustenance from his estate for the full extent of her stay in his house.49 The wife, in turn, relinquishes to her hus band the products of her labor (in return for her sustenance), objects that she finds (for reason of good will), the produce of property that she brings into marriage (in return for her ransom money), and her inheritance (i.e. if he survives her, he inherits her property in return for his obligation to bury her). The husband also has the right to void all his wife’s vows that cause her

deprivation, or that interfere with their mutual relationship.50 From this we see that the husband’s obliga tions are designed to provide the wife with sec urity, while the wife’s obligations are only for the purpose of good will, or as compensation for the husband’s obligations. This is evidenced by the regulation that the wife can unilaterally declare that she prefers to have the right to the fruits of her labor and to support herself.51 The husband, on the other hand, does not have the analogous right to deprive his wife unilaterally of her support by relinquishing his right to the fruits of her labor. His right to the fruits of her labor is also directed primarily at work within the home economy. “ He who looks to his wife’s wages, will not find blessing.” 52 Even conjugal relations are legally an oblig ation of the husband to his wife. She has the right to expect them to an extent carefully regulated by the Codes (Mitzva Onah), in accordance with the husband’s circumstances.53 Here, the husband’s rights are, in effect, similar to those of the wife.54 As mentioned earlier, by marriage, the husband acquires the right to conjugal relations with his wife. On one hand, she has no right to refuse these, and on the other hand, the husband does not have the right to exact them without her consent.55 Here too, however, the legal aspects are but a skeleton of the Mitzvah proper. The Talmud

45 Yad, Ishus 1:1,9. 46 Kiddushin 3:12 (66b), Even HaEzer 44:6. 47 For those who feel bound only by capital sins, it comes out that when unmarried, the man is more restricted in sexual freedom, and when married, the woman is more restricted. 48 Yad, Ishus 12:1-3, Even HaEzer 69. 49 The other two obligations involve inheritance on the part of the wife’s children. 50 Numbers 30:9, Nedarim 11:1 (79a), Yoreh Deah 234:55. 51 Kesubos 58b, Even HaEzer 69:4. 58 Pesachim 50b. 53 Even HaEzer 76. 54 Rashba, Nedarim 15b ‘‘VeAmar.’’ 55 See note 44.

JEWISH LIFE

devotes many passages to the importance of the emotional aspects. These are epitomized by the ruling which states that “ a man should gladden his wife with a ‘matter of Mitzvah’ ” —the Tal mudic expression for marital relations.56 This refers to his obligation to satisfy his wife’s sexual needs even beyond the extent demanded by the commandment of Onah and procreation. Even with his wife’s consent he should not absent him self for an unduly extended period, lest he cause her suffering.57 The post-Talmudic authorities merely follow in the footsteps of the Talmudic sages when they stress the concern that a husband must have for the emotional needs of his wife in this area.58 In surveying the Codes, one may easily get the impression that the woman is the one favored in this respect. Even Scripture seems to take a one-sided view. Concerning the newlywed man, it stipulates (Deuteronomy 24:5), “ He shall not go out in military service nor be impressed for any service; he shall be exempt for his home for one year, and he shall gladden (simach)Ws wife.’’ The Torah states that the man shall “ gladden his wife,’’ and not, as we might have expected, “ be glad (samach) with his wife.” He may be happy, but this is no obligation. The obligation is to make his wife happy. All this seems to favor woman. The apparent imbalance can be understood, however, when we realize that the nature of the sexual relationship places the initiative and control in the hands of the man. Thus, woman must be favored to a certain extent, in order to be ensured more equity. Incidentally, returning to the above scrip tural passage, we might ask how can personal sentiment, such as gladdening of a newly wed bride, take precedent over military service? The answer is simple: the Toundations of a healthy and strong family structure are laid during the first year of marriage. In viewing the family as the fundamental national unit, this, too, is a “ na tional duty” —and clearly one of even greater

SPRING

importance than military service. (The other ex emptions, such as having built a new house, hav ing planted a new vineyard, and having betrothed a wife, are not full exemptions, but only causes for less dangerous service.)54 In effect, it is the Torah which originated the slogan, “ Make love, not war.” But what a gulf lies between the sanc tity of this version, and the debauchery apt to lurk behind the secular version! Regarding change of residence, man and wife are essentially equal. Neither can forece the other to move from city to village or vice versa, or from country to country (except that either spouse can require the other to move to Eretz Yisroel).60 It may surprise the reader to discover that' the husband, who, after all, is responsible for the finances of the home and may feel obliged to move for economic reasons, has no greater rights than his wife, who may object for purely subjec tive reasons. Her purely social or sentimental desires carry as much weight as his considera tions of livelihood. If a man (by means of a vow) prevents his wife from borrowing and lending household arti cles, she can demand a divorce, because he is spoiling her reputation among her neighbors. « Similarly, if she (by means of a vow) pledges not to provide fine clothing for his children, she for feits her Kesubah, because she spoils his reputa tion among his neighbors.61 Up until modem times, wife beating was widespread among non-Jews, and our sages took special precautions to prevent this evil practice from infecting the Jewish home. Judaism abhors striking another human being—except as part of a 56 Pesachim 72b. Orech Chaim 240:1. 57 Kesubos 62a, Rashi ad loc. “ U r c h a E v e n HaEzer 76, Chelkas Mechokek ad loc , 76:10, Baer Hetiv 76:10. 58 Ramban, Iggeres HaKoseh 6; Tur, Orech Chaim '240; Rabbi Yaakov Emden, Siddure, Hana gas LeylShabbos 1 (Chulyd 2) 6-8. 59 Deuteronomy 20:5-7, Sotah 8:2-4 (43a), Yad, Melachim 7:9,10. 60 Kesubos 13:10,11 (110a, b), Even HaEzer 75. 81 Kesubos 72a, Yoreh Deah 235:5.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

court’s legal obligations—and even “ one who merely raises his hand against his fellow is called ‘wicked!’ ’’62 But one’s wife is even more serious an offense, since the husband is required to honor her, whereas, with regard to his general fellow man, he is only commanded to love him.63

Levirate Marriage (Yibum) If a man dies without offspring, the Torah requires that one of his brothers marry the widow (Deuteronomy 25:6), “ to maintain his name.’’ If the brother refuses to do this, he must undergo the Chalitzah ceremony, in which he is symbolically put to shame by his sister-in-law.61 On the other hand, she too is handicapped; she may not re marry until Chalitzah is performed. According to today’s practice, the Chalitzah is practically compulsory. 65

PUBLIC FUNCTIONS

Public functions encompass one area where there is almost total exclusion of women in Judaism. This is, again, in full accord with our hypothesis epnceming the “ division of labor’’ between man and woman. As we shall see, it does not deprive woman of all influence in public matters—-she may be called upon for guidance because of her superior knowledge-—but to be legal, the action must be performed by a man. Under public functions, we include the gov ernment, the courts, public divine service, and the conduct of war.

Government According to Torah law, women are prohi bited from holding any government office of an executive nature.80 The major challenge to this is the case of Deborah, who judged Israel (Judges 4:5), “ and all Israel went up to her for judgement. ’’ Among

the explanations reconciling this historical fact with the above Torah law are the following: This was a divinely ordained temorary injunction;81 she only rendered legal opinions which were vol untarily accepted by the parties concerned;82 es sentially , people came for instruction, a function which is fully consistant with woman’s role (see following section).83 It has been suggested that an occasional temporary functioning in an execu tive position may not contradict the above principle.84 The role of woman in appointing officials, such as, for example, by voting in elections, is not so clear-cut a question. True, one early au thority writes that the commandment to “ appoint a king’’ applies only to males, for whom “ it is appropriate’’85—and he is not contradicted by any other early authority. Nevertheless, there seems to be no foundation for this ruling in Tal mudic literature. In practice, however, it seems that women never participated in elections in an cient Israel, and, as we have seen, this fits with 62 Sanhedrin 58a, Choshen Mishpat 420:1. 63Tur, Even HaEzer 154, Bais Yosef ad loc. “M.K. BeShem Sefer Agudah.” Yam She! Shlomo, Baba Kama 3:21 64 65 66 87 68 69 70 7\

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Even HaEzer 165:1 in Hagah. Horios 3:7 (13a), Yoreh Deah 251:8. Yoreh Deah 354.

See note 66. Ibid. Yebamos 100a, Yad, Sanhedrin 21:6, Chosehn Mishpat 15:2. Baba Basra 8:2 (115a), Chosehn Mishpat 271:1. Baba Basra 9:1 (139b), Even HaEzer 112:11. Kesubos 68a, Even HaEzer 113:1. Even HaEzer 111:16. Ibid. 90:1, 108:3. R.A. Ankawa, Kerem Cherned II. Tshuvos Maharam Rothenber (Krimona) 159. See not 75. Tshuvos HaRosh 55:8. Kesubos 80b, Even HaEzer 85-13,17. Sifri on Deuteronomy 17:15; Yad, Melachim 1:5. Tosefors, Baba Kama 15a “Asher,” Niddah 50a “ Kol

HaKasher.” 82 Chidushey HaRan, Shavuos 30a “ VeLo BeNashim;” Sefer HaChinuch 77. 88 Tosefors, Niddah loc. cit . ! J 84. Rabbi Y.Z. Minzberg.ZosChukasHaTorah, Jerusalem(5680). 85 Sefer HaChinuch 497.

JEWISH LIFE

the general philosophy of woman’s reticence to participate actively in public functions. Turning to the contemporary situation, we find that this non-participation of woman may, perhaps, not be applicable to modem national elections. The Community-wide elections which gave rise to the practice of excluding women were not meant to appoint representatives for factional interests. Everyone was supposed to vote, ac cording to his understanding, for the greatest good of the community, and every voter knew that justice for his neighbor was as important as justice for himself. Under these conditions, the woman would lose nothing by not voting. The community might lose the benefit of her good judgement—but this would often be salvaged as she made it felt through her husband’s vote. Today, however, representatives are often elected for the express purpose of representing the interests and wishes of their electorate. Under these condtions, with her vote, a woman appoints an agent rather than a “ king,” and depriving her of her vote would seem to encroach on her economic equality with men.86

The Courts and Testimony In the courts, too, women are in general disqualified from acting as judges.87 (There are some opinions that permit women to sit as judges, but these have been rejected from Halachah.)88 Another important area where women are excluded from the courts is in their disqualifica tion as witnesses. This has, on occasion, led to the misconception that Torah law considers women less reliable than me*n. In fact, the Tal mud does consider women, as a rule, more easily persuaded than men, as will be discussed later, but this is totally irrelevant to their disqualifica tion from testimony.. To understand the ritualistic-legalistic nature of this disqualifica tion, we must go into some detail concerning the establishment of facts in Torah law.

SPRING

In Torah law, there are two distinct proce dures, whic may be termed “ determining” and “ validating” the fact, respectively. For the de termination of a fact, a single reliable witness, male or female, suffices.89 Validation of a fact, on the other hand, requires at least two unrelated Jewish males without “ criminal record.” Validation of a fact is generally required in court action, as well as in any action forming or dissolving a marriage. In the pirvate sector, on the other hand, determination of a fact is suffi cient. There is no implication endowing either of ^these categories with greater importance. Exact ing a single penny from a debtor requires4‘valida tion” of his debt, while for the determination of marital status, “ determination” suffices, even though a capital sin— a matter of life and death—may be involved.91 In some cases, the courts accept a woman as a witness, even in cases involving capital sins. One example of this is the granting of a presumed widow permission to remarry, where the court will act on evidence of her husband’s death pre sented by a single female witness.92 For all this, we see that the disqualification of women in mere monetary cases cannot reason ably be explained as emanating from lack of con fidence , but rather as a matter of legality. In terms of our hypothesis of woman’s exclusion from public functions, we readily understand this dis qualification. In court, the witness validating a fact is an esential part of the court’s functioning, entirely separate from the roles of plaintiff and defendant. As such, his testimony is a public

86 Rabbi Z.N. Goldberg, private communication. 87 Niddah 6:4 (49a), Yerushalmi Shavuos 4:1 (19a), Choshen Mishpat 17:4. 88 Ritva, Kiddushin 35a. Also see notes 81, 82. 89 Gittin 2b, Yoreh Deah 127:3. 90 Deuteronomy 19:15, Choshen Mishpat 33-37. 91 Yad, Edus 5:2, Sanhedrin 24:1; Choshen Mishpat 35:14 in Hagah. 92 Even HaEzer 17:3.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

function, whereas an individual’s clarification of the status of a certain person or object is in the private sector. Besides this, it may also be that women, because of their greater sensitivity, are ill equip ped to stand up to the stresses of tetimony and the concomitant rigorous examination in criminal and monetary cases. We cannot, on one hand, expect a woman to develop and nurture such sensitivity, and, on the other hand, expect from her the toughness called for in such testimony. Even if she were given the mere option to testify there, the moral pressure might readily turn the option into compulsion. We conclude by remarking that the Torah seems to have taken woman as the prototype of the reliable witness in fact-determination. The validity of a single witness in such matters is deducted from Scripture,93 which implies that a woman is believed concerning the permissibility of a sexual union which had been in question.94 The following incident illustrates the role of fact determination even in court, and, simultane ously, the full equality of woman with man in such matters. The Talmudic sage, Rav Papa, tes tified in the court of Rava to disqualify a certain defendent from his oath. Rava rejected the tes timony as being that of a single witness, and therefore unfit for the validation of the disqualifi cation. When reminded that, on another occa sion, he had accepted the testimony of his wife under similar circumstances, he replied that he had full confidence in his wife’s judgement. He was therefore able to accept her statment as de termining fact, while his confidence in Rav Papa did not measure up to this.95 There are certain ritual inspections from which women are disqualified as unreliable ac cording to an opinion cited in the Shulchan Aruch.96 Nevertheless, this ruling does not seem to have been accepted in practice.97 In the words of one of the greater later authorities: “ Indeed, nowadays one can rely more on the inspection of

women than of men, who hurry and are busy, and therefore are not so careful—and facts speak for themselves.’’98

Public Divine Service Public divine service plays a major role in Torah Judaism. Today, this expresses itself in public prayer and reading the Torah. Such service requires an “ assembly’’— a Minyan—which is constituted by a minimum of ten male Jewish adults.99 Women are also required to recite the prayers, but not in public—and they therefore do not contribute to the required quorum of ten. Indeed, there are some authorities who actively discouraged even the passive participation of women in public prayers.100 This law, again, is readily understood in terms of hypothesis. Prayer is obligatory, equally for men and women alike. But public prayer is a function of the community, and the community, as such, is obligated to maintain its regular func tioning. Hence this responsibility—and this qualification—must be limited to men.

Conduct of War Conducting war, again, is a public function, and, as such, women are exempt from all laws connected with it. Indeed, the scriptural injunc tion (Deuteronomy 22:5), “ A man’s attire shall not be upon a woman,’’ is interpreted to mean that a woman is not allowed to bear arms.101 Here, there is the addiional factor that the Torah seems to exempt women from all obliga tions demanding aggressiveness. This will be discused further in a later section.

Leviticus 15:28.

94 Kesubos 72a; Tosefos, Gittin 2b ' ‘E d.” 95 Kesubos 85a. 96 Yoreh Deah 127:3. 97 Yad Ephriam, Yoreh Deah 94:2. 98 Keresi U'Pelesi, Yoreh Deah 84:19. 99 Berachos 21b, Orech Chaim 55:1. 100 E .G ., Rabbi Eliahu, Gaon of Vilna, Testament. 191 Targum ad loc., Nazir 59a.

JEWISH LIFE

RITUAL LAW

The Mitzvos of the Torah, except those dis cussed in the preceding sections, apply to men and women equally—with certain exceptions. All prohibitions, when applicable, apply to women also, except for the shaving of the ‘‘comer of the head and beard, ’’102 and the law of the “ rebellious Son.”103 Women are also exc luded from prohibitions connected— even indirectly—with Temple service, with the courts, and with conduct of war. Among the positive commandments, women are exempt from two primary categories. The first such category is that of “ time caused” commandments, that is, commandments limited to certain times.104 The second category includes the laws of Torah study.105 These two categories will be discussed in detail.

“Time Caused” Commandments With only a few exceptions (Kiddush, Mat zah, Pesach, Hakhel, etc.) all positive com mandments tied to a certain time are not obligat ory on Women. The classical reason given for this is woman, because of her household obligations which persumably “ cannot wait,” cannot be ex pected to adhere meticulously to other, timebound obligations.106 Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch provides us with another explanation.107 He points out that these commandments are meant to tear us, from time to time, out of the absorbing routines of the struggle for a livelihood or the chase of day-today commercial activity—-struggle and chase which are apt to corrupt the morality of the unaw are man, unless they are checked. These Mitzvos are to remind us periodically of our real vocation as Jews. Women, who are usually not responsible for the family finances, do not, as a rule, become involved in this effort, and are consequently not subject to these corrupting influences. It is for this

SPRING

reason that women were not obligated to observe these periodic reminders. This explanation is in line with the concept formulated by the Maharal (Rabbi Yehudah Liva of Prague). He writes that women are closer to the calm state of the World to Come, and therefore, can earn it with less effort.108 In this context, it should be noted that a voluntary acceptance of such commandments, on the part of women, is not necessarily commendable.109 In practice, however, women seem have to accepted the majority of “ time-caused” com mandments. Thus, for example, the reading of the Sh’m a ,110 hearing the Shofar on Rosh HaShanah,111 eating in the Succah, and taking the Lulav on Succos,112 are all cited as having been accepted by women as if they were obligat ory. The major exceptions seem to be the Tallis and Tefillin, which may be in the category of “ men’s apparel” which women are forbidden to wear.111 Indeed, the Talmudic sources concern ing woman’s doning o f Tefillin appear to be contradictory.114 :

102 Kiddushin 1:7 (29a); Yoreh Deah 181:6, 12. 103 Sanhedrin 8:1 (78b). 104 Kiddushin 1:7 (29a). 105 Ibid. 34a; Yoreh Deah 246:6. 106 Cf. Abudraham, Seder Tefillos Shel Choi (Ed. Usha, Jerusalem, 5723) pp. 25, 41; Kol Bo 73. 107 Hirsch on Leviticus 23:43 (end). W Maharal, Drush al HaTorah 15b “ Shuv Amar.” 10ft “ Anyone accpeting an obligation from which he is excused is called ‘coomon’ ” cf. Yerushalmi Shabbos 1:2 (7a), Orech Chaim 639:7 in Hagah. For other citations, see Y. Levi, Mo rah 15:96-101 (Av 5733). This principle is applicable to spurious obligations “ which do not generate understanding, morality, improvement or humbleness.” ‘ ‘Shittah Mekubetzers, Baba Kama 87a. This princi ple restraining the voluntary acceptance of duties applies, for exam ple, to a person who interrupts his meal to recite his prayer when this is not obligatory, and to one eating in a Succah under circumstances which make this painful, such as while it is raining. 110 Oiech Chaim 70:1. 111 Chayay Adam 141:7.: 112 Aruch HaShulchan, Orech Chaim 70:1. 113 Targum Yonasan on Deuteronomy 22:5. 114 Eruvin 96a, Tosefors ad loc. “ M ichal.”

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

It is interesting to note that women are obli gated to fulfill most of the Rabbinic “ timecaused” commandments. Thus, for example, the lighting of the Sabbath lights,115 the Chanukah lights,116 the four cups of wine of the Passover Seder,117 and the hearing of the Book of Esther on Purim118 are all obligatory on women, as on men. (Passover, Chanukah and Purim all com memorate the most important redemptions of the Jewish people, and it may be worthwhile to note that all three redemptions are credited to women.)119 Men and women are equally obligated to recite the various blessings and prayers.120 There are, however, a few exceptions. One is the Sh’ma, which is a “ time-caused” commandment ordained in the Torah.121 Another exception is theHallel, and, perhaps, the Afnsa/prayer, which was instituted in place of the corresponding sacri ficial service, in which women did not participate,122 There is one blessing whose wording differs for men and women, and it is one that has been widely misunderstood. Men say, “ Blessed... who has not made me a woman,” while women say instead, “ Blessed... who has. made me ac cording the His will.” These formulations are expalined as follows. Man thanks G-d for not having made him a woman, since a woman is bound by less commandments.121 The wording used by the woman— “ who has made me according to His will” —can be understood in view of the Torah’s description of the creation of man. When man —the male —was made, G-d used the plural form, Saying, (Genesis 1:26), “ Let us make man.” As our sages com ment, this indicates that G-d consulted with His “ Entourage on high” 124 This is to be contrasted with the creation of woman , which G-d did alone, exactly according to His own will, and without consulting with others.125 In reciting this bles sing, the woman is expressing her thanks for this

exalted status. The negative wording in the men’s Version may be accounted for by the Talmudic decision that “ it would have been better for man not to have been created.” 126 A wording thanking G-d “ for creating me” would therefore seem inap propriate. In the woman’s formula, such a nega tive formulation whould be too awkward. Perhaps we are merely pentetrating to the deeper significance of the wording of these bles sings by explaining them as follows. The man expreses his gratitutde for his extra complement of Mitzvos. The woman, on the other hand, is thankful for the special qualification that she has received to fulfill her sublime task of moulding the souls of human beings. We also find a concept of “ division of labor” in the fulfillment of the commandments. Traditionally , the Mitzvos of Chanukah lights and Kiddush are executed by men, who thereby fulfill the woman’s obligation together with their own. The lighting of the Sabbath lights and the taking of Challah from the dough, on the other hand, are traditionally done by women, who thereby fufill the man’s obligation in these matters,127 Note that Chanukah lights are primarily to be lit out side, in front of the yard, while the Sabbath lights must be lit inside the home.

Torah Study In connection with Torah, the Jewish man is

115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Orech Chaim 263:2. Shabbos 23a, Orech Chaim 675:3. Pesachim 108a, Orech Chaim 472:14. Megillah 4a, Orech Chaim 684:1. Rashbam, Pesachim 108b “ SheAf Berachos 3:3 (20a), Orech Chaim 106:1. Ibid. Mishnah Berurah 106:4. Abudraham, Birchos HaShachar, p. 41. Berashis Rabbah 8:3, Rashi on Genesis 1:26. Yeshuos Yaakov, Orech Chaim 46:5. Eruvin 13b. Shabbos 2:6 (31b).

JEWISH LIFE

commanded to study it,128 teach it to his sons,129 teach it to others,130 and to write for himself a Torah-scroll.131 Women are exempt from all of these.132 Indeed the Talmud teaches that “ one who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he had taught her frivolity.“ 133 In practice, however, this exemption is far less sweeping, and the reservations far less se vere, than it might seem at first glance. The ^exemption seems to apply only to theoretical and advanced study. Furthermore, women are re quired to study the laws that are applicable to them.134 We cite verbatim a number of Halachic authorities on this matter. Rabbi Yisroel Meir HaKohen, author of the Chafetz Chaim writes: Even from the Oral Torah, (a woman) is obligated to study the laws applying to her... (Women) must be taught the Bible and the

SPRING

ment (D euteronom y 31:12), “ Assemble the people, the men, the women, and the chil dren.” It is also the significance of (Ibid. 29:9, 10), “ You are standing today—all of you— ...

your children and your women, and the prose lyte in your camp, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water” —in order that even slaves should know the laws bearing on the com mandments, what they must do, and what they must not do... We also find that the Shunamite woman went to hear Elisha lecture, as we may deduce from her husband’s words (2 K ings 4:23), “ Why do you go to him—it is neither

New Moon nor Sabbath.” From this, we see that on New Moon (Rosh C hodesh) and Sabbath she did go.

In the Perisha, one of the important com mentaries on the Tur (the precurser of the Shulchan Aruch), we furthermore find:137

ethics of our sages, such as the tractate of/4vas

(Although the sages forbade us to teach

and the M enoras M aM aor (“ The Candelebra of

women Torah) if they learn on their own, we see

Light” —a classical annotated anthology of

that they exclude themselves from the norm,

Talmudic and Midrashic sayings).

and therefore, (the Tur) writes earlier that they

In his Sefer Chasidim, the early codifier, Rabbi Yehudah HaChasid states:136 A man must teach his daughters the com mandments’ decisions in Jewish law. When the Sages say that “ one who teaches a woman Torah is as if he taught her frivolity,” they are

“ have reward” —that is, if they study Torah correctly, and do not take it frivolously,..

We also find that women say the morning Torah blessing. The classical commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, the Magen Avraham (Shield of Abraham) provides us with a reason:138

referring to the depth of the Talmud, the rationale of the commandments, and the secrets of the Torah. These must not be taught to a woman or a minor. But the laws of the com mandments should be taught to (women). For how can she keep the Sabbath if she does not know the laws of the Sabbath? The same is true of all the commandments, in order that they may kept and scrupulously observed. Thus we find that in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, men and women, adults and children, all knew even the (extremely complex) laws of purity and sacrifical service. This is the significance of the command

128 Kiddushin 29b, Yoreh Deah 245:1. 129 Ibid. 130 Sifri on Deuteronomy 6:7, Kiddushin 30a, Yoreh Deah 245:3. 131 Deuteronomy 31:19, Yoreh Deah 270:1. 132 Note 128, Yoreh Deah 246:6 and Hagah ibid. 133 Sotah 3:4 (20a), Yoreh Deah 246:6. In Yerushalmi Sotah 3:4, we find a story where Rabbi Eliezer silences a woman with the comment, “ woman is wise only with the distaff,” alluding to Exodus 35:25, and then defends his action with the statement, ‘ ‘better that words of Torah be burned than that they be given over to women. ” These statements, however, are not cited in the codes, and from the context of the story, it is evident that they may not have been meant as general statements. 134 See note 132. 135 Rabbi Yisroel Meir HaKohen, Likutey Halachah, Sota 20. 138 Sefer Chasidim 313. 137 Perishah, Yoreh Deah 246:14. 138 Magen Avraham 187i3.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

We say that the verse (Exodus 19:3), ‘ ‘Thus shall you speak to the House of Jacob, ’’ refers to the women, Why then should they not say, “ For the Torah that You have taught us?”

The laws of modesty that must be observed in this connection are illustrated by the case of Redel, the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Yisroel Isserlein. We find that she was taught “ by an el derly man, Yudel Sofer, in the house of the Gaon (Rabbi Yisroel), in a place where most members of the household were present. Furthermore, this elderly man was married.139 The Mishnah refers to teaching a daughter Scripture as a routine occurence.161 The Gemorah explains that, in the context under con sideration, this refers to the teaching of the musi cal notes traditionally associated with Scripture (these notes are a refined equivalent to punctua tion marks, and represent the first step in interpretation).140 This would seem to imply that even the interpretive notes were normally taught to girls as well as boys. Once a woman has become learned in Torah, she can render decisions in Torah matters.141 This is true even though she is. dis qualified from sitting in court, as discussed ear lier. Her opinion carries weight, and is counted to determine the majority opinion, exactly as a man’s.142 Thus, the prohibition against rendering decisions when under thé influence of alcohol applies to women as well as to men.143 We even find a woman disputing the opinion of the other sages of the Mishnah— with her opinion upheld!144 In order to understand why Torah study in depth is not required of women, we must note that the Torah is not a personal religion, but rather, a national constitution. A large portion of it is ad dressed to the nation as such, including major parts of the laws, promises of rewards and punishments, and the prophecies concerning our future. The laws addressed to the individual can

be understood as applying primarily to the indi vidual as part of the nation. When Abraham was chosen, he was chosen as the progenitor of a nation. The Torah was given to us as a nation. Even when G-d threatened to destroy the Jewish people after the episode of the Golden Calf, He promised Moses that He would make him into a nation in their place. The nation was given Eretz Yisroel, and it was the nation that went into exile—and it remained a nation throughout its exile, each small community as a miniature model of the nation. Any member who separates himself from the community is included in the category of those who have no share in the World to Come, even if he meticulously observes all the ritual laws.146 Of course, each individual Jew has the holy obligation of observing the Command ments, but he has this obligation as a “ Torah national.” Now, if the Torah is indeed a national con stitution, then its extension and development —the rendering of new decisions and the formu lation of guidelines—are clearly activities on the national level. Consequently, whereas study of the existing applicable decisions is an obligation of the individual, incumbent on men and women equally , theoretical study and study in depth re quired to guide the courts and decisors in novel decisions on novel circumstances, is an activity in the national sphere—and this is primarily the obligation of man. The fact that women must study the Torah material describing their obligations is not at all in contradiction to their exemption from the Mitzvah

139 140 141 142 148 144 145 148

Rabbi Yosef ben Mosheh, Leket Yosher II, p. 37. Nedarim 37b. Birkey Yosef, Choshen Mishpat 7:12. Minchas Chinuch 78 (end). Sefer HaChinuch 152. Tosefta Kelim 11:3.

Exodus 32:10, Numbers 14:12. Rosh HaShanah 17a, Yad, Tshuvah 3:11.

JEWISH LIFE

of Torah study. In such cases, their study is not a Mitzvah. Torah study as a Mitzvah in its own right, on the other hand, is part of the national judicial sector.147

Initiation into Commandments (Chinuch) In addition to formal Torah learning, there is the basic process of molding the child’s personal ity. Although this does not seem to be a formal requirement, it would seem to be primarily the woman’s task. In reference to the great rewards promised for Torah study, a Talmud sage asks, “ How do women share in this (since they do not study the Torah)?’’ and replies, “ By making their sons study Scripture and Mishnah.’’148 We also find that the Torah was given to the women first, “ in order that they should guide their children—their sons, too, will hear (Torah) first from their mothers. ’’149 But this, of course, does not free the father: “ Father and mother are obligated to help (their child) with their wisdom, and to develop his nature in his youth.“ 150 According to all the great commentaries, the Commandments to honor and revere one’s par ents are based on the contributions, physical and spiritual, that they have made—or should make—to the child. According to Torah law, father and mother are equal151 regarding the honor and reverence due them, implying that their contributions, too, are equally important. In a negative sense, too, father and mother must shoulder responsibility together— they share the sad task of bringing their “ rebellious son” to court.152 If either of them is physically handicapped, or if they do not act or speak in unison—as implied in the singular (Deuteronomy 21:20), “ our voice” —then their son cannot be judged.153 There is also a formal, rabbinic obligation of Chinuch—obligating parents to initiate the child into the practice of the Commandments as he becomes ready to fulfill them.114 According to many authorities, this Mitzvah is incumbent on

SPRING

both parents, but others exempt the mother.155 By way of understanding the opinion exempting the mother, we note that, in the codes, this excep tion is explicitly applied only to commandments from which women are exempt.150 If women were obligated to initiate their children into the practice of these commandments, we would have a situation where the mother demands of her son a commitment which she herself does not practice—a situation that may be pedagogically unhealthy. This might explain the exemption of the mother in such cases.

PERSONALITY FACTORS So far, we have based our discussion primar ily on Halachic (i.e. legal) material. But besides this, there is a large portion of the Torah that is non-Halachic (Aggadic). The non-Halachic parts of the Torah govern conduct in all circumstances where Halachah is silent—and this is by far the major portion of the day. This includes all com mandments regarding which “ no measure is specified’’—a category which embraces the most basic duties of the Jew: Torah study, divine ser-

147 The overriding majority of authorities discussing the purpose of Torah study state explicitly that its primary purpose is to enable the student to know the proper course of action. The writer knows of none in outright contradiction to this in theHalacha literature. Cf. Y. Levi, Noam II, 206-233. 148 Sotah 21a. 149 Sh’mos Rabbah 28:2. 150 Rabbi Y. Ettlinger, Minchas Ani, H a’Azinu “ VeNiftach.” 151 When their requests are in conflict, the child may give prece dence according to his choice, unless the parents are married and the mother’s services are due the father. When they are divorced, and presumably, when the mother has opted to own the word of her hands, there is no difference between them. SeeKerisos 28a, Yoreh Deah 240:14. 152 Deuteronomy 21:18-21. 153 Sanhedrin 71a. 154 Succah 42a, Chagigah 4a. 155 Rabbi Y.T. Yalis, Melo HaRo’im, Chinuch 1; Rabbi Y. Emanuel, HaRav S.R. Hirsch Mishnaso VeShitaso, (Ezra, Jerusalem 5722) pp. 158-161. 156 See note 154.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

vice, and acts of kindness.157 Here, we will re view the non-Halachic material concerning the differences between men and women and its im pact on the daily life of the Torah Jew.

lack of hospitality,165 does not apply to their womanfolk because “ it is not proper for a woman to go out,” 166 and, “ All-glorious, the princess is directed inward.” 167

Modesty

Sensitivity and Insight

We have already pointed out that the sexual attraction between man and woman, and espe cially the charm that woman exerts on man, is a major stiumulus toward the formation and maintenance of the family unit, and, at the same time, is a force potentially highly disruptive to the family tie. Torah establishes the rules of modesty in order to reduce the disruptive potential, and, simultaneously, to maintain the power of this attraction at a high level by avoiding its wasteful dissipation. Also, we have already noted to what extent the concept of modesty, as a concept gov erning the conduct of women with respect to men, has influencedHalachah. Its impact on everyday conduct is bound to be even greater. Thus, the Jewish woman will dress mod estly, and, unless a maiden, cover her hair in public.158 A serious offense against the customs of modest dress and conduct may be a cause for divorce without payment of the Kesubah—under the category of “ transgression of Jewish cus tom,” as contrasted with “ Mosaic custom,” which includes Halachah. 159 Woman’s prece dence in court as well as in the distribution of charity is likewise motivated by concern for her modesty, as discussed earlier. But requirements of modesty go beyond this. There should not be an excessive amount of conversation between men and women,180 nor should men and women indulge in banter with each other.161 A man must not gaze on any part of the body of a woman (other than his wife)-—even her little finger—for erotic satisfaction,163 nor even walk behind her.164 All this is expected to express itself in the very personality of woman . Thus, the ban on the nations of Amon and Moab, pronounced for their

In most social relationships, intuition and feeling must play a major role. It is within the family, however, that this role becomes truly dominant, almost to the total exclusion of legal and purely rational considerations. Whoever, then, is entrusted with nurturing the family, should be a sensitive person, gifted with intuitive insight rather than a sharp business sense or a rigorous, analytical mind. It is therefore not sur prising that insight and sensitivity are often de veloped in girls, who expect to become wives and mothers. This agrees well with the Talmudic evalua tion of women. For instance, according to the Sages, women are capable of greater compassion than are men.168 When the woman of Shunam said of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 4:9), “ Behold the man of G-d is holy,” the Sages deduce from this that “ the woman is a better judge of the guests than is the man.” 169 They say that the Creator endowed women with extra insight (Binah), implying that she matures earlier.170 “ If your wife is short, bend down to listen to her. ” 171

157 Peak 1:1. 158 Berachos 24a, Even HaEzer 21:1,2. 159 Kesubos 7:6 (72a), Even HaEzer 115:3. 160 Avos 1:5. 181 Ruth Rabbah 4:8. 162 Tanchuma, VaYishlach 5. 163 Berachos 24a, Even HaEzer 21:1,2. 164 Berachos 61a, Even HaEzer 21:1. **5 Deuteronomy 23:5. 166 Yebamos 76b. 167 Psalm 45:14. 168 Megillah 14b. 169 Berachos 10b. 170 Niddah 45b. 171 Baba Metzia 59a.

JEWISH LIFE

A man should follow his wife’s advice in worldly matters—though emphatically not in spiritual

SPRING

Aggressiveness

Man’s role, according to the Torah, is the matters. more aggressive. Of all the differences, this is the When the Academy of Yavneh offered the one most likely to have a biological Presidency—the most illustrious office in the foundation—in man’s greater physical strength. nation—to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, he ans Consequently, woman is freed from all laws re wered, “ I wish to consult with my wife.” 172 The quiring agression, such as legislation in connec matter-of-fact manner of this statment indicates tion with war, and is even freed from the com that it was typical and generally accepted—in full mandment to “ be fruitful and multiply,” which agreement with the high esteem the Talmud has in Scripture appears in conjunction with “ fill the of woman’s insight in worldly matters. The fact that a woman knows how to plan for earth and conquer her.” This has already been her own good is implied in the Proverb, A discussed in detail earlier. The other side of this coin is that woman is woman, while she chatters, she spins.” 173 The Sages quote this in reference to Abigail’s conver more peaceful, and therefore, closer to the bliss ful state of the World to Come. Consequently , it sations with David.174 This sensitivity is, of course, not all to the is easier for her to attain this bliss.180 good. The other side of the coin is, ‘‘Woman’s minds are ‘light.’ ” 175 ‘‘Light” in Hebrew im Other Traits According to the Talmud, women love plies quick response (as in the expression, ‘‘be light as an eagle.” )176 Here, the implication is beautiful clothing and ornaments, while men that woman respond more readily to persuasion or enjoy good food. Therefore, men fulfill the torture than men, and indeed, this is the context in Mitzyah to be joyful on the festivals by having which this expression is used. This is perhaps an good meals, while women do so by receiving new unavoidable concomitant of the desirable clothes.181 Women are also restricted in the or feminine sensitivity—perhaps it is impossible to naments that they may wear on the. Sabbath, be develop such sensitivity without simultaneously cause they may remove them to sljow them to a weakening resistance to persuasion. (Inciden friend— a restriction that was not considered tally, this must somehow be reconciled with the necessary for men.182 According to our Sages, women are more observation177 that women are more difficult to appease than men. Perhaps the feelings of hurt, economy minded than men.187 once provoked, run so deep that we have here Other generalizations concerning women woman’s sensitivity working in conflicting direc tions.) Woman’s greater senstivity also places extra obligations on man. ‘‘A man should ever be care ful about hurting his wife’s feelings, for, due to her ready tears, she is quickly hurt.” 178 Simi larly, he is asked to be sensitive to her needs in marital relations, which, in view of her inherent modesty, she will be loath to express overtly.179

172 Berachos 27b. 173 Ibid. 24a. 174 I Samuel 25:24:-31. 178 Shabbos 33b, Kiddushin 80b, Tanchuma Vayera 22, Rashi on Genesis 3:16. 176 Avos 5:20 177 Niddah 31b. 178 Baba Metzia 59a. 179 Eruvin 100b, Orech Chaim 240:1. 180 See note 108. 181 Pesachim 109a, Orech Chaim 529:2, 182 Shabbos 59b, Orech Chaim 303:18. 183 Baba Metzia 87a.

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

found in the Talmud include: They are talkative,184 fun-loving,185 lazy,186 and zealous in observing the commandments.187 Presumably, all the above generalizations were meant to be only statistical in nature, and not necessarily applicable to each individual. Furth ermore, they necessarily reflect the situation as it was at the time of the compilation of the Talmud—and in some instances, Halachah allows for changes in human nature since then.188

ORIGINAL TORAH LAW In many respects, today’s practice differs significantly from original Torah law. In accor dance with the divine commandment (Leviticus 18:30), “ you shall guard my charge,’’189 the Sages modified certain practices and established new ones. This was in accordance with the de mands of contemporary circumstances, as well as in accordance with the rules governing such mod ifications, as laid down in the Torah. In the previ ous sections, we discussed the law as it is prac ticed today. Now we look at original Torah law, which is timeless, and appropriate under ideal circumstances.

Marital Obligations According to original Torah marriage laws, the wife assumes no obligations toward her hus band, except regarding marital relations.190 The husband, bn the other hand, obligates himself to feed and clothe her, as well as to provide her with marital relations.191 This apparent inequity may be explained by the fact that it is only man who is commanded “ be fruitful and multiply,’’ and in order to obtain a woman’s cooperation, he must provide her with an attractive situation. Even nursing her own baby is not obligatory on the wife—according to original Torah law, the hus band would have to hire a wet nurse. This condi tion may arise even under present practice if the

wife opts to forgo maintenance by her husband in return for retaining the right to the fruits of her labor, or if she is divorced.192 It may be interesting to note how Western law has developed in a manner diametrically op posite to Torah law. In the Western world, the wife originally had very limited financial rights, and only gradually did she finally achieve practi cally total equality with men. Original Torah law, on the other hand, stipulated complete equality as the ideal. Only under the pressures of a corrupt “ reality,’’ in which the ideal was not workable equitably, were the Sages forced to modify the equality.191 Original Torah law permitted the husband to divorce his wife unilaterally, and also to marry several women. These assume, however, a to tally different significance when viewed in con junction with the fact that the wife assumes no economic obligations upon marriage, and that any woman desiring an exclusive relationship with her husband could ensure this simply by having this restriction included as a condition of her Kesubah.194 Aside from this, it is important to note that polygamy was the exception rather than the rule, and is deprecated by the authorities.195 The fact that man and woman were created as a single couple is brought as evidence for the desirability 184 Kiddushin 49b, Berachos 48b. 185 M oed Katan 9b. 188 Yerushalmi Pesachim 1:4. 187 Sh’mos Rabbah 28:2. 188 Cf. Even HaEzer 156:4, HaGra ad loc. 156:14. Also see note 98. 189 Sifra a d loc., Moed Katan 8a, Yebamos 21a. 190 There are some opinions that maintain that original Torah law requires a woman to honor her husband, but his seems to be tenable only with great difficulty, and majority opinion seems to oppose it. See Sedey Chemed, Kelalim: K a f 61. 191 Exodus 21:10; Kesubos 47b, 48a, Also see note 48. 192 Kesubos 59b, Even HaEzer 82:5. 193 Rabbi L. Carmell, “The Equality of Women in Judaism.” 194 Sedey Chemed, loc. cit. 195 Meiri, Kesubos 62b.

JEWISH LIFE

of monogamy.196 “ Two wives in the home means squabbling in the home.’’197 According to original Torah law, a father can give his small daughter in marriage (by ac cepting Kiddushin on her behalf),198 but this practice is deprecated.199 Similarly, he could ‘‘sell her as a maid-servant, ’’20° which again was a form of marriage in which the buyer retains the option of marrying her himself, or giving her in marriage to his son. If he refuses to do either of these, he must grant her freedom without any compensation on her part: (A boy cannot be sold in this manner.) It is difficult for us to understand these procedures, which were presumably ap propriate and fair under prevailing circums tances. All rights of the-father over his daughter’s marriage and finances cease when she reaches the age of “ independence’’ (Bogeress) at the age of approximately \2 lA years.201 On the other hand, sale as a servant for a period of six years, which occasionally was prac ticed voluntarily, or compulsorily in the case of a thief who was unable to repay his theft in any other way—is applicable to males only.202

Public Divine Service When the Temple Sanctuary was estab lished, service there was performed only by male members of the Levite tribe. Women were excluded—again in agreement with our general hypothesis. The public reading of the Torah may be performed by women as well as men, but this is considered “ not in accordance with the dignity of the congregation.’’203 Presumably, a woman doing the public reading is somewhat of a devia tion from the principles of modesty, and would never be done except where there were no men capable of doing it. It is the public demonstration of this lamentable fact which “ is not in accor dance with the dignity of the congregation. ’’ This would then be strictly parallel to the Mishnah:204 “ If a... woman... read to him, he recites after

SPRING

them what they say—and this is a curse’’—because ignorance of Torah on the part of the head of the family bodes no good for the household.

CONCLUSIONS We have seen a single tread running through all the varied differences in the roles of man and woman in Torah life. Woman is responsible for the internal family care, while man is to shoulder the supra-family and national tasks. Although the Torah clearly idealizes woman’s efforts within the family, it does not forbid her efforts outside it, whether these be business, profession or trade. This is important for those women, who for some reason, do not have the opportunity to be occupied fully, or even partially, within the family framework. Especially in the modem situation, such cases tend to become the rule, rather than the exception. On the one hand, young women are often ready to work before they get married, and, on the other hand, they are frequently far from fully occupied after the children are off to school. At the same time, the traditional home industries are no longer economically feasible, and it be hooves the community to be concerned about a fuller utilization of the great potential asset that women represent to its advancement and eleva tion. Although this may not yet be evident in the codes, practice has encouraged women to con centrate their endeavors in the areas which most closely parallel the familial tasks. Jewish women 196 197 198 199 200

Rabbi Yaakov, Melamed Talmidim 101. Tanchuma, Kit Tetze I. Kiddushin 2:1 (41a). Ibid. 41a, Even HaEzer 37.

Exodus 21:7-11. See note 198. 202 Exodus 21:2, Sotah 3:8 (23a). 203 Megillah 23a, Orech Chaim 282-3. 204 Succah 3:10 (38a); 291

1974

MAN AND WOMAN IN TORAH LIFE

have often gone into teaching and social work, or have dedicated themselves to charitable efforts. In these fields, woman utilizes those abilities with which she has been especially blessed. This should not prevent a woman from going into one of the more analytic professions, if that is the one for which she feels suited. Despite all these activités outside the home, however, Judaism still sees the woman’s ideal centered in the home, with man responsible on the outside. This difference in task gives rise to differences in privileges and benefits. In general, man is put into a somewhat more dominant posi tion, while woman is provided with greater sec urity. There will be men who begrudge women their “ unearned” security, and there will be women who chafe under the formal dominance of man, limited as this may be. But surely many women will feel that they gain more than they lose in this arrangement. Not the least of their gains are the love, loyalty, devotion, and admira tion of their husbands. Many a man will similarly feel happy to have ‘‘wife of valor, ’’ and to be able to live up to the Talmudic ideal to “ love his wife as himself, and honor her more than himself. ” 205 If we wish to evaluate the tasks of man and woman, we find that, in general, woman molds the character and personality of the individual in his childhood, while man molds and and guides the nation. Who is to say which is the more sublime task? Modem psychology believes that the more basic personality factors are determined—more or less permanently—in the small child by his mother’s words, attitudes, prasie, and criticism. If this is true, each leader personality is, to a great extent, the product of his mother’s nurture. Then who is to say whether man or woman is the more influential—even at the national level?

“ Torah laws have proved themselves over the centuries and millenia. Where they are fol lowed, they have succeeded in making Jewish family life the envy of the whple world. When they are not followed, but replaced by the stan dards of the surrounding culture, then Jewish life is subject to the very same disruptive influences as the surrounding culture. We are told that these standards and life-styles are progressive, liberal-minded, new and exciting. They may well be, but we Torah-Jews are practical people and tend to ask practical questions. When so-called progressive thinkers question the Torah’s chosen life-style on a priori grounds, we are entitled to raise an eyebrow and ask the critics whether their chosen life-styles have resulted in more or in less unity and.happiness in the family, lower or higher divorce rates, less or more juvenile delinquency ; and other awkward questions of this sort. The Torah is prepared to stand by its record; and this is a test which can be applied right now in this modem world. ” *01 If we look without prejudice, we will dis cover a beautiful harmony between Torah and world, and recognize that the One who gave the Torah is identical with the One who created the world-—as well as man and woman in it. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The invaluable discussions with Rabbi Carmell and his numerous suggestions have greatly contributed to this paper, and are herewith grate fully acknowledged. Special credit must also go to Prof. Nathaniel Leff, who suggested the writing of this paper in the first place.

205 Yebamos 62b, 63a. 208 See note 193.

Book Reviews Justice and the Holocaust by Berel Wein

FAITH AFTER THE HOLOCAUST, by Eliezer Berkovits: New York, Ktav, 1973. $7.50 ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN JUDAISM AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY, by Emil Fackenheim: New York, Basic Books, 1972. $10.00

Auschwitz is not merely the symbol of physical cruelty and destruction for the Jewish people. It is also the greatest spiritual dilemma of Jewish history. Even though destruction and death, even on a massive scale, were not unknown in Jewish history prior to our century, never had there been such a senseless, inexplicable slaughter of so many, with a world so highly civilized and cultured standing idly by as a disinterested spectator, as occurred in the 1940’s The legacy of Auschwitz has therefore been two questions: “ Where was G-d?’’ and “ Where was Man?” —or more specifically, where was civilized, Christian, modem, Western man? These two questions are also not new in Jewish history. Previously, those Jews who were troubled by the “ Where was G-d’’ question, found solace in their hopes and aspiration for the

advancement of man and his society. Those,who were troubled by “ Where was Man,’’ on the other hand, retreated quite comfortably into their traditional religious beliefs in a G-d of ultimate justice. The tragedy of the holocaust was so immense, however, that it forced Jews to ask both questions simultaneously, fully realizing that by so doing, they could escape neither to G-d nor to man, and therefore were doomed to the discomfort of doubt and dilemma wherever they turned. There have now appeared two books that deal with this problem of the Holocaust, albeit from different viewpoints. One deals with the questions of “ Where was G -d .’’ Eliezer Berkovits’ Faith After" the Holocaust is a strong philosophical encounter with traditional faith and ideals, which has, in fact, escalated the spiritual struggle by refusing to limit the doubts and questions to Auschwitz. “ The question therefore is not: Why is there undeserved suffering? But why is there man? He who asks the question about injustice in history really asks: Why a world? Why creation?” In a thought provoking, wide-ranging discussion, the author expounds the Jewish concepts of G-d in history, of Hester Panim, of free will, and its necessary corollary, that “ G-d’s presence in history must remain mostly—unconvincing/’

BOOK REVIEWS

The time-revered dimension of Kiddush HaShem is explored in all of its awful glory and intensity in one superior chapter. The covenant between G-d and Israel is analyzed in its deepest dimensions, and the role of Israel as the “ witness” to history is lucidly explained. Berkovits restates his conviction that we are already in a post^Christian era of civilization, and it would be self-defeating to identify our interests with those of Western Christianity. “ Judaism is intellectually in a far better position to develop a philosophy or theology which can meet the intellectual onslaught of secularism. This is not easy, but it will be easier without the burden of a common religious front.” One is not soothed after reading Berkovits’ book. One is troubled and upset, for the enormity of the problem of faith after Auschwitz has been brought movingly and painfully home. The question is still stronger than the answer. But the greatness of the book lies in the fact that it allows one to realize that faith and tradition and Jewish destiny are not necessarily dependent upon a successful answer to Auschwitz and its evil. “ Where was G-d” may yet remain a legitimate and troubling question. What Faith After the Holocaust accomplishes is to nullify any questions about G-d’s creative goals in forming man, and in thrusting upon Judaism and Jewry its unique mission. ‘‘Why man? Why Jews? Why Israel?” are no longer legitimate questions—they are merely excuses for one’s own mental and moral frailty. ‘‘But one thing we do know. If ever there was a time for the Jew to persevere, it is now. If ever it made sense for him to accept his role in history, it is at this hour of dusk and dawn. Never was he more truly a witness to G-d in history than at this juncture in history, when all this earth is in jeopardy.” Emil Fackenheim’s book, Encounters Between Judaism and Modern Philosphy, deals with the question of “ Where was Man?”

Fackenheim subtitles the book as being, “ a preface to future Jewish thought.” It is that only because it is a chronicle of past Jewish mis-thoughts. The sin Of Jewish letters of the past century is that it did not honestly come to grips with the challenge of philosophy. ‘‘(Judaism’s) thinkers failed whenever they appeared before the judgem ent of modern philosophy without examining the credentials of the judge.” Fackenheim’s initial paragraph in this volume of excellence illustrates the central theme that pervades this book: At high school in pre-Nazi Germany, I had a music teacher who loved Johann Sebastian Bach. He taught us Bach chorals. Sometimes, he would ask us to sing the words* and then, being a meticulous man, he would rarely fail to state that Jews, if so instructed by their consciences, had the right to abstain. On other occasions, he would just make us hum the tunes, and then he would let no one abstain. The music, it was his custom to declare, was neither Jewish nor Christian. It was impartial. It was universal. And I, then as now fond of Bach, would gladly join in. However, my old music teacher was wrong. Fackenheim comes to grips with the great philosophers of modem Western man. Hegel, Kant, Kierkagaard, Marx, Ruge, Bauer, Heidegger,HFeuerback, Block, Sartre, Barth and Tillich are all given their due. All of them personally, however, as well as all of their well-reasoned theologies and philosophies, come a cropper on that one hideous event in modem European history—the Holocaust. Modern European philosophy failed, because it never treated Jews or Judaism as its equal, because it shut its minds and doors to Jewish ideals and values, and because it smugly

JEWISH U FE

tolerated the abuses of hate and intolerance while professing the hope for a new world of justice and a brighter tomorrow. Thus it is on the Jewish question that modem philosophy was found bankrupt. The central question according to Fackenheim is therefore not “ Where was Man,’’ but rather, how could one have expected Western man to behave differently in the light of his history, philosophies and prejudices? In a brilliant and incisive manner, the author dissects the different trends in modem philosophy, and relates them to Jewish values regarding the same subjects. The chapter headings alone illustrate the point of the book: “ Elijah and the Empiricists,” “ Abraham and the Kantians,” “ Moses and the Hegelians.” The chapter on “ Idolatry as a Modern Possibility,” speaks in the most provocative terms to a generation that has confused relevance with modernity, and change with progress. It reasserts the dominance of the historic covenant between G-d and Israel, and correctly illustrates the futility of viewing Jewish history in any other light. It also clearly points out the enemy of idolatry yet present in our own times: “ The possibility of idolatry does not vanish in a society that suspects or spurns all absolutes, true or false.

Y o u B elong In Isra e l T h is S u m m e r

A ‘secularism’ may arise for which the Diviné is absent, irrelevant or dead: Man still must come to terms with what the Bible describes as the divine image. The idolatry still possible is the desecration of the image.” Both Berkovits and Fackenheim write about a dreary, dry and pessimistic subject with uncommon optimism. It is optimism that characterizes these two books as being uniquely Jewish. It is the commonly shared belief that there is a future— a glorious, exciting, transcendental destiny—for Israel, even after Auschwitz, that provides the emotional uplift that enables Jews to live and function, in spite of the gnawing, haunting doubts and unanswerable questions that are the legacy of Auschwitz. As Fackenheim puts it so well: “ A Jew after Auschwitz cannot and dares not give answers. He may and must give response. The core of every possible response is that just as Abraham, the mother of seven, Rabbi Meshullam bar Yitzchok, and countless and nameless others refused to abandon their Jewish post, so must he—but that after the martyrdom of Auschwitz, forever unfathomable and without equal anywhere, Jewish life is more sacred than Jewish death, even if it is for the sanctification of the divine name. ’’

Bar-llan invites you to join in a summer of study for college credit with off-campus participation in the exciting cultural t S A Q C O O and social life of Israel. ?lU S f v For fu ll info rm ation w rite:

Office of Admissions/Bar-Man University 641 Lexington Ave./N.Y./212-751-6366

B ar-llan UniversitV JF m m m

m m

JL m

JL B JL w

JL k / J L ^ j

Did Moses Meet an Astronaut?

by Joseph A Feld

CHARIOT OF THE GODS, by Erich Von Daniken: New York, Putman, 1970. $5.95 RETURN TO THE STARS: New York, Putman, 1971. $5.95 A pair of volumes by Erich Von Daniken has achieved considerable popularity in the past few years. In Europe, Chariot o f the Gods has sold millions of copies in several languages. In the United States, the book’s impact may be judged by the recent publication of Crash Go the Chariots, a fundamentalist Christian reply by Professor Clifford Wilson. Von Daniken presents the fascinating thesis that human life exists on other planets, that other beings have probably visited Earth in the distant past, and the primitive art and legend record as gods these visitors from outer space. Of specific interest to us is the fact that the author suggests that the Hebrew Bible supports his theory in general, and specifically, that the Biblical G-d is also to be seen as an astronaut. In order to support his theories, he presents masses of information, some of it quite interesting. Joseph Alan Feld is on the staff of the Spanish Portuguese Synagogue of London, and was a co founder of the Jewish Free School of Baltimore. He is working on his Ph.D. in European History at Johns Hopkins University.

As Von Daniken dabbles in fields as diversified as Mayan archeology and Persian architecture, with rto scholarly training in any of them, it would require a panel of competent scholars to evaluate his diverse sources of support. He makes a major point of lacking academic training—and therefore being free from scholarly bias. Unfortunately, he tends to compensate for his lack of credientials by wasting entire chapters trying to prove fairly obvious points. No one would seriously doubt the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe , or the possibility of interplanetary travel, yet the author makes the reader plod through innumerable pages in attempting to establish these points. The author’s skepticism of academic scholarship is unfortunately not the prelude to skepticism toward his own evidence. He shows little critical awareness in his presenations of a Persian map, which “ could only have been made from the air.’’ The prospect that this apparently ancient map may suffer the same fate as the bogus ape-man which once impressed even the the academic world, never occurs to Von Daniken. Another outgrowth of his avowedly amature approach is the author’s remarkable outlook in areas such as primitive art and math, both of which he accepts as records of what happened, in a completely literal sense. When he presents

JEWISH LIFE

pictures of men with circles around their heads as images of prehistoric space travellers, one is tempted to suggest that, by the same standard, the medieval pictures of the Virgin be renamed, “ Our Lady of the Space Ship” -—since she too is portrayed with a mysterious circle around her head. No serious anthropologist would see primitive art as an attempt to reproduce literally an image of the physical world. When he states bluntly that because all ancient literatures mention giants, therefore they must have existed, one wonders how Von Daniken would explain the half-men, half-animal creatures which also occur in most ancient cultures. What others have seen as man’s emergence from his animal nature into growing humanity. Von Daniken would probably take literally, as he apparently does elsewhere in his work, when discussing the Biblical prohibition of intercourse with animals. To return to Von Daniken’s basic theories, it is quite plausible to suggest that space men visited Earth. It is quite plausible that there are records of their visit. It is even plausible that some primitive gods are a memory of such visitors. If he had gone only so far, he would have been on safer ground, but would have sold fewer volumes. Where Von Daniken really displays his ineptness is in his atterhpt to use the Hebrew Bible to prove that the Biblical Diety was also an astronaut. In Chariot o f the Gods, he makes a few interesting points, such as the “ sons of gods” who intermarried with the daughters of man, the possibility of an atomic explosion at Sodom, and the much abused quote, “ Let us make man in our image.” Even in his first volume however, the author makes a rather fruitless and absurd attempt to see Ezekiel'S vision, the Bible’s most difficult metaphor, as a space ship landing. He also makes a number of those barren comparisons between Biblical phrases and ancient Middle Eastern platitudes, which ceased to be respectable

SPRING

academically at least a generation ago. In Von Daniken’s second volume, Return to the Stars, the sky is the only limit in his misuse of Biblical quotes and misquotes to support his theory. What can one think of a writer who knows enough to realize that some secular scholars dispute the traditional date of the exodus, but then proceeds to date the Exodus about 400,000 years prior to the dates documented by both the Torah itself,1as well as generations of archeologists. The author sees the forty years in the desert as an experiment by space men to transform ape-man into full intelligent human beings. It is here that he brings in the prohibition of intercourse with animals, as proof that Jews were otherwise in the habit of mating with apes. The most literal reading of the Torah, even if read “ imaginatively with the eyes of a man living in the age of space travel,” is still far from being a “ mine of information” for his theory. His striking question as to why G-d and His ang6ls always show themselves in connection with phenomena such as fire, smoke, earthquake, lightning, noise and wind, is all the more striking when one realizes that in fact, neither G-d nor His messengers normally appear amidst such accompaniment. Aside from the Burning Bush and Mount Sinai, the Biblical G-d tends to appear in visions. Viewed quite dispassionately, the Burning Bush has more resemblance to a burning bush than to a space ship. This leaves only Mount Sinai as a possible example of a space ship landing —but a jagged mountain top would hardly seem the most likely spot for such a sensitive maneuver. Von Daniken’s theory that the Torah was given by advanced visitors from outer space to develop an advanced race of earthlings is a good bit more flattering to Judaism than the long tendency on the part of secular “ scholars” to identify our laws with Babylonian superstitions. Nonetheless, no serious scholar can see his theory as being at all supported by his evidence.

1974

BOOK REVIEWS

Many of Von Daniken’s points are based on such an obvious lack of scholarship that a ten year old Cheder student would not be impressed by them. His theory, for instance, that Moses received radio messages from an astronaut, sounds like a borrowing from a science fiction comic book. His misuse of Biblical poetry and prophecy, taking everything and anything literally, is similarly obvious to even the casual reader. Even a generation which has grown up believing that with science all things are possible, will not abandon the canons o f academic scholarship in proving its hypotheses. Von Daniken has set out to present a monumental reinterpretation of all Biblical history, building an impressive looking edifice on the flimsiest factual foundation. In many ways, Von Daniken’s attempt is reminiscent of Stewart Cham berlain’s Foundations o f the Nineteenth Century, another work which fits the spirit of its times, and employing masses of impressive sounding quotations, made a serious and dangerous impact on may of its readers. C ham berlain’s pseudo-academic attempt to see the salvation of Eruope in the triumph of Teutonism over Semitism, contributed to the anti-Biblical thinking that was to no small degree responsible for the breakdown of humanism in Germany between the wars. Von Daniken’s pseudo-academic attempt to see G-d Himself as nothing more than a reminder of space travellers, will undoubtedly add a bit more fuel to the fire of atheism, which has consumed much of modem man’s sense of humanness. From the viewpoint of serious scholrship, Chariot o f the Gods and Return to the Stars, like The Foundations, are a monsterous regurgitation of ill digested secondary sources . They are more a monument of the popular mind’s willingness to believe what it will, than to modem man’s ability to dismiss G-d or find a substitute for Him.

Eat in good health K O SH ER

Empire P O U LT R Y

The Most Trusted Name in Kosher Poultry

Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc., Mifflintown, Pa. 17059.

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

Gold's HORSERADISH .4 m£MUL'S inoit

LETTERS

EMBRYOLOGY AND BLESSINGS Editor: I would like a clarification of one point in Moshe Spero’s article, “ Negativism and Feminism” (JL, July 1973). He states that “ all mammalian embryos are morphologically female unitl about the sixth week of development,” and that in the case of a male, “ the hormone androgen suddenly stimulates the necessary changes in the (formerly female) new male embryo.” In a foot note, the author then refers to a Mishnah in Teharos 3:1, “ which seems to indicate that the Rabbis were also aware of this developmental fact.” Upon looking up the source in the Mishnah, I failed to see any connection to Mr. Spero’s thesis. Could he please clarify where in the Mis hnah he saw the allusion to that topic. I was rather interested in the article, because after taking a course in embryology at Yeshiva University, I became aware of the same clue as being a reason for the wording of the blessing, “ Who has not made me a woman.” Mark S. Berkowitz Long Beach, New York

MR. SPERO REPLIES I thank Mr. Berkowitz for his comment, as it points out a typographical error, which no doubt disturbed other readers as well. The footndte cited should have read: Seder Teharos, Niddah 3:7. There, one will find the law that a woman who miscarries after forty-one days of pregnancy remains in a state of Niddah for the total number of days ordinarily ‘‘counted’’ upon the actual birth of a male, a female, and an ordinary state of monthly Niddah. My inference was only that this Mishnah might indicate that the sages were aware that at the prenatal age given, a fetus may be bisexual. I would also like to suggest one other possi ble explanation for the question raised in my article. During the neonatal period, both a male, as well as a female, share close contact with their mother. It is the male, however, who must make a break, as it were, in order to establish a male identity. This “ shift” may impair the relative strength of the male identification, and hence, the total personality of the male—as compared to the uninterrupted female-mother identification. Therefore, it would be the male who needs the fortification of personality provided by this blessing, rather than the female.

____