Jewish Life Summer 1974 by Jewish Action

GRANDMA LIVES THE FRENCH DISCONNECTION FEEDING THE SOUL

SUMMER 1974/5734

E t.

75</

JOIN US at the

UOJGA 76th ANNIVERSARY BIENNIAL CONVENTION

$145 1

p.p.dblocc.

5 days in the world famous resort

BO CA RATON HOTEL & CLUB on Florida's Gold Coast Group air fare on Delta Airlines regularly scheduled flights available from most major cities (subject to minimum group of 40 each way).

November 27-December 1,1974 Kislev 13-17 5735 For reservations and further information write: ÜOJCA 76th Anniversary Biennial Convention 116 East 27th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016 Al H. Thomas, General Convention Chairman Marvin Herskowitz, Convention Co-chairman

V 'Ü 3

Volume 41 No. 3 Summer, 1974/5734 ARTICLES Grandma Lives

Editor Emeritus; Saul Bernstein

Editorial Consu liants: Dr. Herbert Goldstein Mrs. Libbv Klaperman Dr. Jacob W. Landvnski Rabbi Solomon J. Sharfman

Chairman . Publications Committee: Lawrence A. Kobrin

Published by:

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Diane B. Schulder ................................................ 2 Turning On To Torah Debbie Fruchter ................................................................11 The French Disconnection Ben G. F r a n k ...................................................................18 Dancing Through Israel Susan Luskin Puretz ............. ........................................... 20 Feeding the Soul Ronald G re e n w a ld .........................................................25 The Roots o f Intermarriage Chaim Uri L ip s c h itz ..................................................... 30 Paradoxes A ry eh K a p la n ....................... ... ....................... ... .3 8 FICTION The Waiting Wall

Ellen B lu m en feld .........................................................4 6 Come to Dinner, Mama Ann K. G lasn er .......................... 48

■^soirrt^ President:

Harold M. Jacobs Chairman of the Board: JOSEPH KARASICK Honorary Presidents: MAX J.'ETRA SAMUEL NIRENSTEIN Honorary Senior Vice President: BENJAMIN KOENIGS BERG 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

POETRY P(I)E(A)CE

Raphael Bing. ....................................................

Gossip

Thelma Ireland ........................................................ ... . 17 Prayer from Oblivion David Cohen ............. ... ...................... 29 Four Seekers Alan Martin Schwartz . ..................................................3 7 BOOKS The Survival o f Judaism in Israel Pinchas S to l p e r .......................... ... . , . . * . . . . .5 2 Archeology and the Patriarchal Narrative Bernard Rosensweig ....................................... .55 L E T T E R S .................... . . .............................................. 61

Honorary Treasurer: MORIS L. GREEN Secretary: SHELDON RUDOFF Financial Secretary: BERNARD LEVMORE National Associate Vice Presidents: NORMAN L. BRODY MOSES J. GRUNDWERG HERMAN HERSKOVIC AL H. THOMAS National Director: RABBI DAVID COHEN

Copyright 1974 by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Material from JEWISH LIFE, including illustrations, may not be 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 New York, N.Y. and at additional mailing offices.

GRANDM A LIVES

by Diane B. Schulder

There have been various articles recently which have attacked the Jewish culture as being one that belittles or ignores the woman, or at very least, relegates her to an inferior position. While this may appear to be true on the surface, and while it may be the case in certainfamilies, my experience and memories o f my own grand mother, who lived all her life within a traditional Jewish culture, convinces me that this is not the complete story. I f anything, it is the secular woman, robbed o f a culture and a heritage, o f a politics and a philosophy of life, who is the more oppressed, objectified and raped by her society, and going through life with a lower level o f self respect and dignity. I have recently conducted an interview with my father, Jacob J . Schulder, concerning my grandmother. Presented here are our memories o f the woman, her life, and her community.

BACKGROUND Q. What I wanted to ask you Dad, is about your memories of grandma. It’s in connection with my article on Jewish women.

A. Well, Diane, I’m glad that you asked me for this interview, because I only have loving memories of my childhood and my mother. As you know, I was bom on the East Side, at Ridge Street, comer of

GRANDMA LIVES

Broom. This was a three story building, and on the ground floor there was a store, with a sign in the window, “ A. SCHULDER AND SO N S.” “ A. Schulder’’ represented my grandfather, Abraham Schulder, and “ sons” were my father William and his brother Michael. My grandfather lived on the first floor, one flight up, and we resided on the top floor. We had no bathtub, and when we had to take a bath, we would go to my grandfather’s apartment, since he had a bathtub off the hall. Our toilet was also located in the hall, but it did not have a door, only a curtain that could be drawn across the opening. In the top floor apartment, the center room was the kitchen, which had a large coal stove. The bedrooms were on the periphery, and alongside the kitchen was the dining room. I know that you want to know more about my mother, and the mere mention of her name brings back many loving memories. She was beautiful to look at, and a delightful person with which to speak. She had a dulcet soft sweet voice, and did not know the meaning of malice. I think that she ac quired this trait from her father, who was also a soft spoken man. My mother lived an unhurried life, being an indi vidual who you would say had the trait of quiet efficiency. I remember Peasch time, which was when we all got new clothing. My mother took me to a store, and she would always get me a suit that was one size larger, saying, “ You’ll grown into

it.” I was so dressed up, everything was so brand new, that I was bashful about going into the street. On those spring days, I would peek up and down the block to make sure that there were no other children there who would see me with all my finery. We lived a wonderful life. My grandfather was president of the or thodox shul known as the Nein-undNeintziger. It was originally located at 99 Cannon Street, and “ Nein-undNeintziger” means ninety-nine. Even when they moved to another location, the shul still retained the name, and it is called that by the old timers, even to day. My maternal grandfather served as Chazan in this shul on the High Holy Days, and naturally, he would go to the Mikvah before he would go and pray before the Amud. Shabbos was the day that we al ways looked forward to during the week. If you would come into our home on Friday afternoon, the first thing you would see would be my father bathing the little ones in a large iron tub, with water heated from the stove. He would hand us over to my mother, who would dress us. Later in the afternoon, you would see an immaculate white tablec loth on top of the dining room table, with the candelabra, candles and plates Diane Schulder is a highly successful attorney, specializing in matrimonial law. A graduate of Columbia Law School, she conceived and taught the first course on “ Women and the Law” at the Uni versity of Pennsylvania and New York University. She is currently engaged to Bronx Borough Presi dent, Robert Abrams.

JEWISH LIFE

all set up for Shabbos dinner. Q. On Friday night, was there anyone at the table other than the family? A. Yes, we always had an Orech (guest)—that is, a poor boy or man whom my father would bring home from shul to have the Friday night din ner with us. Sometimes there were three or four such guests. Q. How did grandma know how much to cook? A. She really didn’t, but she always cooked extra, and there was enough for everybody. In those days, we were considered to be fairly well-to-do family. When we mo ved to Williamsburg, the number of Shabbos guests in creased. I’ll never forget my grand father’s admonition to my father that we were all going to become goyim when we moved from the East Side to Williamsburg—even though every body knows how religious the Wil liamsburg community is. When we lived in Williamsburg, we used to doven at Yeshiva Torah VoDaath. There were always out of town students who did not have any place in which to eat their Shabbos me als, and my father would usually bring home three or four for dinner. The other members of the congregation would do likewise, so nobody was ever left with out a Shabbos meal. Q. Do you remember any other inci dents from when you were a child? A. My mother liked it very much when her father, Moshe Shochet, would visit us in Williamsburg. He al

SUMMER

ways had a little satchel and would bring u sl goodies from the slaughterhouse, such as Kishkes and other interesting types of food. Even though he was a very poor man, he would always bring us children a few packs of gum. My maternal grandfather was a Shochet, and he would spend many hours immersed in study . He had many Gemorahs, and when we looked at him after his death, we saw that the pages that refer to the temple were filled with teardrops. THE MOTHER’S ROLE Q. Now I’d like to come to the main focus, which is the kind of person that grandma was. Naturally, every person is different, and just because she was a wonderful person does not necessarily mean that it was all due to the kind of culture and community in which she lived. Still, I believe that there was a certain relationship between the kind of community in which she lived and the kind of person that she was. I wonder if you could just describe here what she did every day, what was her work, and how she was regarded by the other members of the family. A. Basically, my mother was very much like most Jewish mothers. She took care of the children, saw that we were clothed, fed and that we went to school. In those days there were not many Yeshivahs, and I used to go to Cheder after public school. My mother would see to that, and when we were

1974

GRANDMA UVES

very young, she would accompany us to cheder and pick us up. When we got a bit older, my father registered us in the Shlomo Kluger Yeshiva on the East Side, and my brother and I would commute to school over the W il liamsburg Bridge. Q. Was it true that your father used to say that he would never discuss busi ness with a woman, even with his wife? A. I don’t know if he ever said it, but in fact it did work out that way. Busi ness was mainly my father’s province. Q. But do you think it was because he looked down on her, or thought that she didn’t have a good brain? A. Well, my mother was never in volved in any business, and therefore, she never had any business acumen which comes with experience and do ing. There probably wasn’t really any point in her discussing it. Q. One thing that I see about the rela tionship in those days is that the roles were very sharply defined. Your father had a certain role, and your mother had her role. You find many people nowadays who say that the Jewish religion places women in an inferior position, but as I recall the situation, this was not true. I was wondering if you had anything to say about this? A. Well, if you would say that it made any difference that she wasn’t appraised of my father’s business deal ings, that might be a point. But she worked hard and cheerfully. I recall that she used to rise before six in the morning, prepare breakfast for us, get

us ready for school, and have breakfast ready for my father, who used to leave the house by seven. The family re spected her role very much. Q. Would you say that one of the reasons for the respect that she enjoyed was the fact that your mother was a very hard working individual? Wasn’t she looked up to because she made an ac tual importrant contribution to the fami ly, being a productive member who had certain jobs which were very impor tant? A. Most definitely. MOTHER AND CHILD

Q. What was grandma’s relationship to her children? A. She thought that it was very im portant for a mother to deal with her children, as opposed to some current thinking. More and more women today want to leave their children with baby sitters and go out, playing cards and spending time at clubs. Some even have jobs and are in business. In my mother’s time, she spent most of her working day around the house, taking care of the children. And just like any thing else into which you put much time and effort, you enjoy and cherish it more. This is true whether it is an artist with a painting;* *a sculptor with his model—or a parent with a child. Q. But do you think that it’s possible for people to go back? Let’s say a per son wanted to live like your mother and father lived. Do you think that it would be possible in this day and age?

JEWISH LIFE

A. It’s a little more difficult today. Women want to be liberated and are asking for more rights. Q. But don’t you think that one of the reasons for this is in the days when you were growing up, your mother had a full time job taking care of the children? For example, she gave birth to eight children, of which six survived. Even taking care of the house was a much bigger chore. There were no dish washers or washing machines, and she had to make most of her own food, even baking her own Challah. It was a full time occupation. A. That is a very good point. Q. Nowadays if a woman has two children, has all these electrical appliances, and can call up and order her food from the store, she can get her whole job done in a few hours. She then has a whole empty day with nothing to do, and if she did not have any side interests, she would feel like an unpro ductive member of society. A. It’s true that my mother took her role most seriously. She never even let anyone else change a diaper. Even when people came to help, she only allowed them to help in the kitchen. By the way, I was bom at home, like most of us were. And on my birth certificate is the name of Sadie Drucker, who was the midwife. Q. Do you remember when any of the younger children were born? A. Yes, I still remember giving the usual grunts and screams when my younger brother Joe was bom. I was scared and didn’t know what was going

SUMMER

on. I didn’t know what it was about when I was a young child. Q. Do you think that it was helpful for children to be near the basic life functions? A. Yes I do. I remember when my father died. Dad was quite ill—in an oxygen tent at home—and he passed away during the night. My brother and I were crying, and instead of us consol ing her, my mother was consoling us. She told uSj “ Kinderlach, my mother had a mother, her mother had a mother, and her mother had a mother. That’s how life goes on. Papa lived a good life, so don’t cry.” Q. How do you account for the fact that she had such strength? A. I think that she derived a lot of it from her father, and of course, also from being such a deeply religious per son. If you are religious and do good, then you are not afraid of any eventuali ty. Q. Is it true that your mother encour aged a certain closeness among all her children? A. Yes she did. Also, she would al ways counsel us to speak well of people. She used to say, “ Nobody’s perfect, and if you want to tear people apart, you can do it to anybody.” Q. If someone said a bad thing about another person, what would she do? A. She would say, “ Don’t speak ill of that person. He has good qualities. Maybe he made a mistake, and you must be understanding and forgiving.’’ She was always a very forgiving per son. Another of her sayings was, 4‘All

1974

GRANDMA LIVES

A. At least thirty or forty, since not all of them were able to attend when tragedy struck. They all lived in the same neighborhood on the East Side, and visited each other occasionally. Q. Did your mother go to shul? A. Yes, and she sat in the women’s section. It was above the men’s section, and had an opening where they could peer down and watch the services. If a man was called up to the Torah, they would shower the Ba’al Simcha with raisens and nuts. Q. Do you think that your mother felt insulted because she had to sit in the women’s section? Did she take it as a THE COMMUNITY slight? Q. I would like to turn to another A. I wouldn’t say that it was an insult. topic and find out a little about the They felt that it was their role in life and women with which your mother as didn’t complain. sociated, and the kind of things that Q. And in some ways, it might have been helpful. She was able to get to they did. A. They certainly didn’t play cards or know the other women, so that she was belong to clubs. The only club to which not totally dependent on your father for my mother belonged was a group of all her emotional support and com women whose function was to take care munication. I feel that this is another of others in the event of sickness or part of my theory. One of the problems death. They would visit the sick, and in with modern marriage is that the the event of death, would form the woman is often totally dependent on Chevrah Kadisha and prepare the body her husband for everything. In societies where the women have their own com for burial. munities, they were not totally demand Q. Who’s in the Chevrah Kadisha, ing of their husbands for emotional women or men? A. They had both. Women took care support. of women and men took care of men. It A. It’s true that there was more of a was very important that only religious closeness among women then. They people should take care of their bodies met regularly, and would have ample time to communicate in the women’s and prepare them before burial. Q. How many women were in her section without disturbing the main service. group?

of us make mistakes in life, and if we just remember all the faults, we could tear down everyone.” > Q. Would you say that she was a happy person? A. Yes, a very happy person. She was also very charitable, and felt that the highest form of charity was to give where the recipient didn’t even know about it. I distinctly remember my mother bringing gift packages and leav ing them at people’s doors, and then going away so they wouldn’t know who was the donor.

JEWISH LIFE

SUMMER

Q. How did your parents meet? A. They both came from the same Q. How would you describe grand town. One of the parents went to the other and said, “ I have a nice child, and ma’s relationship with your father? A. It was one of mutual respect. I I think that you have a nice child. Why think a great deal of it was due to their don’t they meet?” adherence to the Jewish ethic, as well Q. Grandma told me that the two of as their observance of the Jewish code them sat on a bench one Shabbos after of Taharas HaMishpacha. (Under this noon, and after they had spoken for a law, husband and wife do not touch while, grandpa told his father, “ She each other during the wife’s monthly can cook, she can clean, she can period and for one week thereafter. sew—I won’t have to hire a maid. I’ll This structures a two week together and marry her. ’’ Her parents asked her what two week apart rythm, and this helps, she thought and she said, “ alright,” sustain a long term sexual relation and so they were married. A. Well, you know more about it than ship.) I do Diane. Grandma must have had a Q. What is the connection? A. The Jewish ethic taught them to great liking for you. Q. Well, she left m^her candlesticks. have respect for any person. Q. Do you think they had a good sex But seriously, one of the things that impressed me about grandma’s story is life? A. I wasn’t there when I was created, this. On the one hand, people in wo but I have a very strong impression that men’s liberation can get all upset and say, “ See, he married a woman to have they did. Q. How did she treat your father? Did a free maid!'’ But I enjoy the story she stand up to him, give in, or was because, first of all, grandma was tel there equality? Would you say that one ling it, and she was laughing—she knew how much she meant to your was bossing the other around? A. There was no bossing around of father. And she was saying, “ In those anyone. There was just great mutual days, I was so beautiful, I had such respect. My mother looked up to my pretty black hair and rosy cheeks, I father because he was a fine individual, used to dance so well.’’ What really impressed me, I and my dad had great respect for my think, is that they had a more realistic mother. Q. Did you ever see them kiss each view of life. They realized that mar other or express any physical affection? riage is more or less a mundane dayA. I don’t think that they ever kissed to-day type of thing, and that you have each other in front of the children. My to live with all the problems of daily father was never demonstrative in the life. Nowdays, I think a lot of young middle class people have the idea that presence of others.

HUSBAND AND WIFE

1974

GRANDMA LIVES

they are going to get married and live on a cloud, spending all their time in a pink negligee, going on trips of La Costa and Europe or watching TV. Your parents never expressed the fact that they were in love or that they were getting married for love. They seemed to be blase and nonchalent about it, talking about day-to-day things like cooking and cleaning. She said “ alright,“ not, “ I love him—he’s the most georgeous, the most beautiful, the richest, the handsomest.” They got married, and in fact they did love each other for many years and had tremend ous respect for each other as human beings. The kids all loved them and visited them, not out of obligation, but because they really enjoyed it. But nowadays, people are in “ love” and two years later, they hate each other. A. There was also another reason for this. My father was a deeply religious Jew, and he conducted his business life in the highest ethical fashion. He was therefore very highly respected in the community. My mother also conducted her life in a similar manner, and was also highly respected. This led to mutual respect, as well as the abiding respect on the part of the children. Q. Your parents would never ask you to do something that they wouldn’t do themselves. A. I would see how my father led the life he did, and I admired him. Even though we were frequently punished and my father demanded many things from us, we had the greatest respect for him until the day he died. The same was

true of my mother. Q. Do you remember any instance of how your father treated your mother on any particular occasion? A. My mother did her job, which was taking care of the house and children, and seeing that everything was run properly. She was a fine Jewish wo man, and when he saw that everything was being done just right, he had the greatest respect for her. Q. Did he ever say anything about it? Can you remember him expressing this verbally and articulating his feelings? A. I don’t think you have to articulate such thoughts. Q. Then how were you aware of it? A. You could tell by the way they looked at each other. Q. Can you think of anything with which to conclude? A. It was very joyous discussing this with you. I said at the outset that memories of my mother were always pleasant, and discussing it brings back times of great happiness. CONCLUSION Rose (Rachal) Schulder came to this country around 1892. She lived a good life, and her descendents are still trying to figure out how to preserve that which was good in her life in a world where a woman’s role is no longer what it used to be. We are engaged in educa tional endeavors, political activism, professional work, activities in the larger society, a multiplicity of rela tionships among diverse cultures, and

JEWISH LIFE

are increasingly self supporting. We wrestle with the problem of retaining a revolutionary spirit of change together with the peacefulness and stability of the white cloth and candles on Friday night. Grandma lived in a culture where people were bom and died at home, where they saw chickens slaughtered, where smells and customs gave rich ness to the fabric of life. The imper sonal hospital, funeral chapel, and as sembly line office job simply did not exist. It was an integrated life, where people formed part of a community where homes were open to those in need. An extended family situation, it

was a far cry from what has now de veloped into the isolation of the small nuclear family unit. Music, holidays, religion and ethics were all interwoven into a harmonious whole. Grandma and her husband shared a philosophy of life, a way of life, a ritual and an ethic for which they would probably have given their lives. These kind of bonds are not easy to come by these days. There was a concern— personal and social—warmth, human ness . . . . Acknowledge ment I would like to thank my assistant and cousin, Lynette Schulder.

P(I)E(A)CE by Raphael Bing

Give me a piece of bread to eat, Give me thè peace of mind to live, Give me a piece of love to dream, No war, but peace forever...

TURNING O N TO TORAH by Debbie Frachter

The behavior patterns of adoles cents have always been an enigma to the adult world. In our turbulent, technological, twentieth century American society, the problems facing adolescents are even more complex and overpowering. It might be true that the rate of assimilation and intermarriage among twentieth-century American Jews is rising sharply, but it is simul taneously true that in the past decade or so there had been a dramatic growth of

Debbie Fruchter, a graduate of Stem College and a Master’s degree candidate at Ferkauf Graduate School of Yeshiva University, has served as an advisor for NCSY Shabbatonim and conventions and for Yeshiva University Torah Leadership Semi nars. Formerly a Hebrew and general studies teacher at Yavneh Academy in Paterson, New Jersey, she now works at American Friends of the Hebrew Uni versity in New York City.

Jewish youth movements bringing many adolescents back to Judiasm. I personally have witnessed and advised many such young people make this step. Although the size and growth of these Jewish youth revival movements is very small in comparison to the rising trends of assimilation and intermar riage, their growth have still been too rapid and drastic to remain overlooked. THE PROBLEMS “ I would sum up the problems of adolescence in one word: indefinite ness,” writes Dr. Jerry Hochbaum, Professor of Sociology at Yeshiva Uni versity. Unlike primitive and tradi tional societies, today’s American soc iety does not present the adolescent with clear definitions of his rights and responsibilities. “ Clearly, the social

JEWISH LIFE

discomfort that the modem adolescent feels is not the result of his activity or behavior but is thrust upon him by soci ety,” 1 Considering the strains and insec urities of adolescence, religion can help provide the teenager with” faith in life and a feeling of security,” concludes Elizabeth Hurlock in Adolescent De velopment. 2 R. J. Havighurst considers “ the acquiring of a set of values and an ethical system as a guide to behavior’’ to be one of ten major development tasks in the adolescent’s “ growing up” process.3 Yet, at the very time when the adolescent needs religion so much, church and synagogue attendance are generally declining. Why? Perhaps be cause organized religion does not deal sufficiently with issues that are relevant and important to the adolescent; perhaps because the adolescent per ceives a coldness and doctrinaire in flexibility in religion, rather than con cern for the individual and discussion of ideas.4 But the adolescent often does find concern and acceptance within his peer group. These cliques, clubs, athletic groups, activist groups and the like are all forms of an “ adolescent society” in which the teenager can find meaningful roles and identities that the adult world does not provide.5 The peer group con sequently exerts a very strong influence on the adolescent’s behavior. Thus, for example, a study found that when both the parents and peers of a teenager did observe Kashrus, the teen generally did not. But surprisingly, when the teen

SUMMER

ager’s parents did not observe Kashrus and the peer group did, there was evi dence that the teenager would observe Kashrus, despite what he was taught at home.6 Thus, if the ‘I adolescent society’’ adopts norms and behavior patterns that go against the Torah way of life, a seri ous threat is posed to the survival of Judaism. Judaism has always depended on the transmission of Torah through a chain of tradition. Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, National Director of the Na tional Conference of Synagogue Youth (NCSY), states that “ the key to Jewish strength.. .has been the ability to bridge the generation gap. ” But since there is a general break in dialogue between the adolescent and adult worlds today, the teens themselves must be given a major role in teaching Torah to one another.7 As Hochbaum indicates, the unit for the teen’s religious and moral training must become his peer group.8 YOUTH REVIVAL MOVEMENTS Literally hundreds of chapter ac tivities, Shabbatonim and conventions are organized by NCSY throughout the year. Similarly, Yeshiva University runs several week-long Torah Leader ship Seminars in the summer and winter in a number of places in the United States, as well as many Shab batonim during the year. Although my experience has mostly been as an ad visor with these two organizations, there are many others operating similar programs, with their number steadily growing. It is highly probable that to a

1974

TURNING ON TO TORAH

large degree, the surprising success of these organizations stems from the fact that they structure their activities in ac cordance with recognized psychologi cal and sociological principles. Thus, for example, Rabbi Stolper emphasizes that the Torah program must be presented to teenagers “ within the context of their own teenage world...refusing to treat youth like children, respecting their maturity, their questioning and enquiring minds. ” The natural rebelliousness of youth can help give teens the courage to reject what is false in society as they become more aware of the values of the Torah way of life.9 The teenagers learn of these Torah values in study groups with rabbis and advisors, where the youngsters are en couraged to ask questions. Even those who have had the benefit of some Jewish education often find it difficult to discuss their inner questions about Judaism in class because of the usual formality of the classroom experience and fear of lower grades. These study groups thus provide an important en hancement of the religious school ex perience. In these study groups, efforts are made to emphasize the elements of Judaism which Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan stresses in “ Key 73 and The Vunerable Jew” : The depths of Torah Hashkafa (religious philosophy), G-d as basis of our religion, the spiritual and transcen dental facets of Mitzyos (G-d’s com mandm ents), the importance and methods of Teshuvah (repentance) to

help relieve the youth’s feelings of guilt and alienation, and the Kedusha and Tahara (holiness and purity) of the human being which is developed through the observance of Mitzyos, as opposed to the following of a hedonis tic life style.10 As finite human beings, we will never be able to completely understand every law of the Torah — or for that matter, of other divine gifts such as nature, the human mind or the body. But Jews, and especially teenagers, must be given the opportunity to learn whatever meanings and explanations of Mitzyos are known to us, either from the Torah, our Sages, or from our own personal experiences. This learning and questioning, which should con tinue throughout an individual’s life, leads to greater Kavanah (understand ing, proper intention) in doing Mitzyos. Ultimately, this understanding leads to deeper and longer-lasting commitment to a Torah way of life. Not only the intellect, but also the emotions of the teenagers are de veloped at Shabbatonim and Seminars. There is Ruach, fast and high-spirited singing of Hebrew songs and dancing, with boys and girls in separate circles (as required by Jewish Law) at every meal. At the Seudah Shlishis (the Third Sabbath Meal) as well as at campfires and Kumsitzes, the neshamah (slow “ soul” ) type of song is sung. Espe cially in an age of searching for emo tional satisfaction, singing and the set ting of an emotional atmosphere are of paramount importance.

JEWISH LIFE

The informal educational methods used can be considered to be adapta tions of thé classic Jewish concept of the rebbe-talmid (master-disciple) rela tionship. Rather than being concerned only with the transmission of subject matter, the rebbe is also concerned with molding the character of the student, and also serves as a living example of Torah.11 Knowing that teens are more likely to follow the living example of those close to their own age group, the advisors are young adults of college and graduate school age. Young enough to identify with many of the adolescent’s problems, the advisors are also old enough to serve as role models for emulation. Yeshiva University’s Torah Leadership Seminar’s educa tional staff likewise contains a high concentration of young rabbis who re late well with youth. The powerful impact of these Shabbatonim and Seminars on the teenager lies in their emphasis on ac tively experiencing Judaism, rather than passively learning about it. Halacha (Jewish Law) is observed as well as taught. Young see that Halacha is an in-depth system of principles and standards — not the hollow frame of hypocrisy that youth see in many modes of adult life. Through an emphasis on the posi tive aspects of Judaism, these youth revival movements help develop a pride in being Jewish. Undoubtedly, the founding and blossoming of the State of Israel has made it easier for the Jewish adolescent to identify with his

SUMMER

people and feel pride in it. There has also been an upsurge of ethnic pride in the United States in the past few years, as for example in the Black Power movement, and it is crucial that Jewish youth learn not to be ashamed, but proud of their heritage. A COMPARISON The Jesus movement is“ the most dramatic evidence of a broad and grow ing interest in religion among Am eri ca’s young people,’’ wrote U S. News and World Report.11 The movement came into being in 1967 in San Francis co’s Haight-Ashbury district, attracting formerly addicted and “ freaked out’’ youth. Although claims were made that over a million young people had con verted to the fundamentalist Christian ity of this movement, churchmen in close touch with it estimated that bet ween 100,000 and 300,000 converts had been made up to March, 1972. At trition rates ran high, especially when the conversion was a superficial ex perience of an adolescent caught on a “ bandwagon.’’13 Converts are mostly teenagers and junior high school students, coming from sources as varied as white radi cals, Black Panthers, drug addicts, dropouts and runaways. Still, a south ern California sampling, published in Society Magazine, confirmed the ex perts’ view of the movement as ‘‘largely adolescent, largely middle class, largely conservative, largely w hite,” 11 And rather then being “ turned on” only by professional

1974

TURNING ON TO TORAH

Christian workers, the youngster is often turned on to Jesus by his own friends — often the very same friends who previously turned him on to drugs.15 What attracts these youth to the Jesus movement? In a Saturday Review article, Peter Marin sees the move ments as evidence of “ the need to re duce the nightmare complexity“ of life in our multifarious technological soci ety to “ a manageable form.“ 11 To day’s youth “ are surrounded by adults who seem unable to live passionately or effectively in the world, unable to aid them,“ 17 while the youth are seeking a personal relationship With G-d and spiritual fulfillment. Thus, “ the Jesus revolution rejects not only the material values of conventional America but the prevailing wisdom of American theol ogy,” according to Time magazine.18 And since these youth often seek to forget their unhappy and sometimes self-destructive pasts, conversion sym bolizes a new life and a new beginning for them. “ The past is neither explored or analyzed. It is simply left behind, forgiven and forgotten, at the very moment one embraces Jesus.” 19 How do the goals and approaches of the Jesus movement compare to those of the Jewish youth revival movements? Although both religions teach about and require repentence, the Jesus people seem to place a very heavy emphasis on the forgiveness of the past. The Jewish movements, on the other hand, emphasize a meaningfulness and commitment to the present and future,

based on the historical Torah tradition. For Jews, repentance is not merely an instant forgiving of the past as the result of adopting a new life style, but is a deep process of self-evaluation that a Jew must experience daily as part of an ongoing relationship G-d. While the Jesus people do set guidelines for a moral lifestyle, the em phasis is more on belief in Jesus rather than on specific directions for living. While Judaism places great importance onEmunah (faith and trust in G-d), it is only valid when accompanied by moral behavior and the fulfillment of the specific life style embodied in the Mitzvos. The Talmud tells us that G-d proclaimed, “ If only My people would desert Me, but keep My Torah. “ 20 We are also taught that, “ Not learning, but doing, is the chief thing.“ 21 Although the Jesus movement exhibits fad aspects (Jesus shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, a Christ Cou ture of white pants and Mexicanpeasant style tunics, and catch phras es), there are still signs that it is more than “ a theological hula-hoop.” It at tracts teens from many different social, economic and religious backgrounds, and who joined in 1967, when the movement began, are still leading it.22 “ Whatever the excesses or shortcom ings of the Jesus revolution, organized religion cannot afford to lose the young in numbers or enthusiasm,” declared Rev. Robert Terwilliger of New York City’s Trinity Institute, “ There is a re vival of religion everywhere — except in the church.’’23

JEWISH LIFE

IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES If the Church cannot afford to ig nore the religious revival among American youth today, then the Jews, who are smaller in number to begin with, certainly cannot. Many Jewish adolescents have already been attracted #to the Jesus movement, and every effort must be made to stem this trend. Jewish youth are frequently seeking many of the same things as their non-Jewish counterparts, and in many, if not in most cases, it is simply a question of which movement reaches the Jewish adolescent first . It is understandable that a Jewish youth, especially if he is religiously naive and has never experi enced true Judaism, would respond to a Jesus movement of love, rather than to a cold Jewish community that makes no attempt to reach out to him according to his level and needs. To bring just one example from my own experience, I have been cor responding for almost three years with a teenage girl from Montreal. I was her advisor at Yeshiva University’s Central East and Canadian Torah Leadership Seminar in 1971. She had some Tal mud Torah background, but her parents do not keep kosher and are not ritually observant. After my long answers to her searching questions as well as strong positive influence on the part of her rabbi, her desire to learn more about Judaism increased. Then there was a period of about four months in early 1972 when she did not answer my letters — even thought I

SUMMER

kept on writing without receiving re plies. She later wrote me that she did not answer because she had almost been “ converted” by the Jesus people, and was therefore ashamed to corres pond. She had been taken to Christian revival meetings by Jewish friends from public school, and said that all the young people there were so very warm and friendly that they had strongly at tracted her. After much confusion and soul searching, she was finally able to grab hold of herself and opt for her Jewish identity. At my suggestion and with the encouragement of her rabbi, she applied and was accepted at Stern Col lege. Unfortunately, she did not attend Stern College because her parents would pot pay the high tuition costs of Stem in comparison to those of local public colleges. This is one case, but there are many others where Jewish youngsters are unable to resist the at traction of the Jesus people. The Torah teaches us that all human beings are created I ‘in the image of G-d.” Our sages teach us that all Jewish souls, of all future generations, were present when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.24 Jews therefore tradi tionally believe that somewhere in the soul of every Jew, even the most alien ated and uneducated in Torah,there is a memory of experiencing G-d’s pre sence and receiving His Torah. Many people, my self included, have seen that this inextinguishable Spark of Jewish ness — Dos Pintele Yid — can be re kindled and can bum with fiery en-

1974

TURNING ON TO TORAH

thusiasm. The challenge to the Jewish com munity now is to continue in the path of successful programs reaching out to Jewish youth. Our sages teach us that, ‘'When one comes to purify himself, he is helped by G-d. ” 25Life and Torah are meant to be a partnership between G-d and man, and it is now time for all of us to take a more active part in this role and goal. We can offer our time and financial support, open up our homes, and be living examples of the Torah way of life, at all ages and stages of our lives.

1. Jerry Hochbaum, “ Confrontation with the Adolescent World,” in Torah Leadership Seminar, Bar Mitzvah Yearbook, 19551957, ed. by Susan Schaalman (New York* Yeshiva Uni versity, 1967), pp. 42-44.

2. Elizabeth Hurlock, Adolescent Development (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1973), p. 227. 3. Ibid.p. 6. 4. Gene R . Medinnus and Ronald C . Johnson, Child and Adoles cent Psychology (New York, Wiley, 1967), p. 67. 5. Jeny Hochbaum, “ The Adolescent Society, ’’Jewish Life 36:4 (April, 1969), p. 8. 6. Hochbaum, “ Confrontations,” p. 45. 7. Pinchas Stolper, “ Youth’s Positive Revolt, ’’Jewish Life 36:3 (Feb.-Mar., 1969), pp. 10-11. 8. Hochbaum, “ The Adolescent Society,” p. 9. 9. Stolper, p. 14. 10. Aiyeh Kaplan, “ Key 73 and the Vunerable Jew,” The Jewish Observer 9:4 (June, 1973), pp. 8-9. 11. Stolper, p. 14. 12. “ The Jesus Movement: Impact on Youth, Church,” U.S. News and World Report, March 20, 1972, p. 61. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. p. 62. 15. Ibid. p. 60. 16. Peter Marin, “ Children of Yearning,” Saturday Review, May 6, 1972, p. 58. 17. Ibid. p. 59. 18. “ The New Rebel Cry: Jesus is Coming!” Time, June 21,1971, p. 56. 19. Marin, p. 60-61. 20. Yerushalmi, Chagigah 1:7 (6b) 21. Avos 1:17. 22. Time, p. 59. 23. Ibid. p. 63. 24. Shabbos 147a, Sh’mos Rabbah 28:6. 25. Shabbos 147a, Yoma 38a.

GOSSIP

by Thelma Ireland

NOTES

The hearth fire cackles As it bums, Like gossip of a liar That we know is false But it sends sparks To start another fire.

The French D isconnection by Ben G. Frank

France probably assimilates France, where the climate is warm, and people faster than any other country in the red roofs and green countryside re the world. These were the words of minded them of their lands across the Baron Elie de Rothschild, a leader of beckoning blue Mediterranean. Many others, however, flocked to French Jewry, which now numbers 600,000, and which is the third largest the large cities, especially to Paris and Jewish community in the world outside Marseilles, where they adjusted quite Israel. And it is just this fast assimila well. Too well, in fact, as many Jewish tion that worries not only French leaders fear. After all, Algerian Jews Jewish leaders, but world Jewish felt right at home because they spoke French. They supported and lived in an educators as well. The problem has been com environment of French culture, lan pounded with the large influx of North guage and fashion. They were French African Jews to France during the men in North Africa. These and other Sefardic Jews 1960’s. Many came to towns and cities which had no other Jews, and even have brought a new revitalization of where Jewish communitites did exist, French Jewish life. They demanded they did not have the institutions to Jewish religious institutions, Hebrew schools, community centers and kosher absorb the influx of new immigrants. Nearly 300,000 Jews came from butcher shops. But above all, they got North Africa to France in the 1960’s. along with their Ashkenazi brothers. Of these, some 130,000 were Algerian Considering the different backgrounds Jews, who were French citizens under separating Ashkenazim and Sefardim, the Cremiux Decree of 1871, and who there have been few tensions, and the poured into France when the Arabs two groups have cooperated and gener took over that North African country. ally agree on major issues. Of the 600,000 Jews in France, These Jewish newcomers to France set tled in towns like Avignon and Aixe, as some 225,000 live in and around Paris. well as in such Paris suburbs as Sarcel Marseilles and its suburbs have another les and Creteul. Together with many 100,000 Jews. In addition to the large Tunisian, Moroccan and Egyptian community of Lyon, the south-east south-west Jews they also settled in southern (Cote-d’Azur) and

THE FRENCH DISCONNECTION

(Toulouse and Bordeaux) now have more Jewish inhabitants than the east (Alsace and Lorraine), the most vital pre-war Jewish communities. But among both Ashkenazim and Sefardim, it is the fear of assimilation that causes parents to worry about their youth. Most Frenchmen are convinced the interm arriage,for instance, is higher in France than the 48% often quoted for American Jewry. Some even peg the French intermarriage rate as high as 80% in a number of areas. One way, of course, to hold the community and prevent it from being swallowed up by the environment, is a system of Jewish day schools. The French system of school enrollment ac tually favors private schools, and there are many Catholic schools in the coun try. It was recently reported that several million pupils attend Catholic institu tions in France. There are some 120,000 Jewish school children between the ages of 6 and 16 in France, but the best that can be claimed is that approximately three to five thousand full and part time stu dents attend Jewish schools. Noted French educators and writers such as Henry Bulawko wrote that the number of students attending Jewish schools could easily be doubled ‘‘if the neces sary means are available.” Although a number of groups have been actively organizing schools, the problem is still most acute. Towns such as Grenoble, Bordeaux and Toulouse did not have a Jewish school in 1972. The story is the same in many

other cities and suburbs. In Nice, for example, there are some 20,000 Jews, mostly from North Africa. Until 1971, there was one community center in this fashionable city on the Riviera, and a Talmud Torah, but no Jewish school. Finally, in October, 1971, a kindergar ten, primary school afnd a Talmudic Studies Center were created with the help of Ozar Hatorah, an organization devoted to this cause. In many respects, the French Jewish community has remained iso lated from Jews throughout the world. Jewry has not taken too much of an interest in this large Jewish communi ty. Many, perhaps subconsciously, may have disregarded French Jewry because of the attitude of the French government toward Israel. But nothing could be a more seri ous mistake than to isolate the French Jewish community, which has man aged to survive, and which, at the same time, has been very outspoken against their government for its anti-Israel pol icy — as indeed have many French Christians. For them, the survival of Israel is an issue that is vital to all French Jews. Politics is one thing, but it is im portant never to lose contact with an entire Jewish community, especially that ranks second only to the United States and Russia in Jewish population in the Diaspora. We need more groups who will remind American Jews of the French Jewish community — an impor tant community which deserves more interest than it now receives.

Dancing Through Israel by Susan Luskin Puretz

Combine a first trip to Israel with an intensive summer course in the folklore of Israeli dance, and one has the makings of a remarkable adventure. That was exactly the experience that I had during August of 1973. As an American Jew, I grew up doing Israeli folk dances at Jewish summer camps. When one dances an Israeli folk dance, even on as simple as the Hora, there is an instant kindred with one’s ancestors and fellow Jews. And so, it was for years that I was content with this visceral feeling of communication. As time went on, I reached a point where I knew that one day I would have to explore Israeli dancing at its source, and this occurred in May, 1973, with the accidental perusal of the summer catalog of Hebrew University. There on page 22 was the description of a course which had a message written in ink visible only to my eyes, “ This is for you — GO! NOW!” The description was of an intensive three week course

in the folklore (dance) of Israel, includ ing lectures, participation and field trips. I followed the invisible ink’s command and went. To truly discover one’s source, one should visit Israel. You cannot un derstand the feeling of comfort elicited by being surrounded by strangers and knowing that you have a common bond — your Jewishness. But for this author, thefe was the additional element of dis covering that the dances that she had danced all her life were actually not ancient. Israeli folk dancing is only as old as Israel. It is true that Jews have danced for thousands of years — but those dances were those of the Diaspo ra. In Israel, such dances are labelled ‘¿ethnic dances” — Yemenite, Kur dish, Druze, Moroccan, and the like — to distinguish them from the Israeli folk dance. These ethnic dances are true folk dances in the academic “ purist tradition,” whereas the Israeli folk dances are an academic paradox.They

DANCING THROUGH ISRAEL

have been choreographed by specific people who are, for the most part, still alive, as opposed to anonymous choreographers of the ethnic folk dances from decades or centuries ago. While it is true that these ethnic folk dances have influenced the style, spatial patterns and configurations of Israeli folk dance, they are only one of the sources drawn upon in choreog raphing new dances. Other sources are the Bible, current events in Israel (un fortunately including the Yom Kippur< War), and now, even American discoteque dancing. All these are visible in the folk dance’s name, music, ges ture, and foot patterns. v Once in Israel, I was able to wit ness, experience, and dance both the Israeli and ethnic folk dance through the ‘‘Folk Dance in Israel” summer course, This course met daily, except Friday afternoon and Saturday, on the Mount Scopus Campus of Hebrew University. In addition to being taught Israeli folk dance by such choreog raphers as Shalon Hermon, Ayelah Goren and Moshiko, there were oppor tunities for lectures and field trips relat ing to dance in Israel. Kadman. Gurit Kadman, the so called ‘‘Mother of Israeli Folk Dance, ’’ is a dynamo of energy. In her mid seventies and still an active participant in the folk dance movement, Kadman is largely responsible for preserving and encouraging ethnic Israeli dance. When the state was first established and was receiving thousands of ethnic im migrants, the major policy was “ im

mediate assimilaton.?” By 1949, Kad man recognized that this policy was threatening the destruction of ethnic arts and customs. She recognized at that time that once these arts and cus toms ceased to be an integral part of daily life, their existence within the fiber of the community would no longer be necessary, and consequently, they would not be used or practiced. Within two or three generations, these arts and customs would simply disappear out of benign disuse. Her remedy was to begin filming these ethnic dances and to encourage certain members of each community to continue using and dancing them in order to retain them for future use. Thanks to Kadman’s foresight, many of these dances have been retained, and now, with the awakened interest in ethnic heritage, are being taught both to members of the specific ethnic com munity as well as to other Israelis. Gurit Kadman made her presence felt frequently , although not frequently enough at our sessions at Mt. Scopus. In addition to the time spent on campus, however, there were several field trips. The highlight was a two-day trip to the Haifa area. Tamra. One of the side trips en route to Haifa took us to Shilo, where in Biblical times the women danced and were “ stolen” by the men of Benja min. At Tamra, an Arab village, we saw no females.The local Arab youths, however, were most pleased to de monstrate their dances and then teach

JEWISH LIFE

them to Us. Their dances are Debkas (line dances) and are performed in tight lines with very stong movements and loud foot stamping. The musician, a singer, stands alongside the dancing line with his hand cupped over his ear fp; enabling him to hear himself over the stamping feet of the dances. Many of the Debkas are answer dances, where the singer poses a question and the dancers reply, singing as they dance. That evening was a true demonstratrion of cooperation between Arabs, Israelis and. Americans. As I write this, a battle is raging in Israel, and I wonder what these “ friendly” Arabs are thinking and doing. Midrach-Oz. At Midrach-Oz, a Yemenite village, both men and women performed and taught us Yemenite dances: Prior to the dancing session, Saadia Gur-Esh gave us a guided tour of the Moshav. His pride in own and his fellow Yemenites’ efforts was obvious in Saadia’s speech and body language throughout the tour. At the age of fourteen, Saadia came to Israel with his wife in 1949’s Magic Carpet from Yemen. He explained that the Jews of Yemen discovered that an exodus to Israel was occuring by word of mouth. Yemenite Jews sold everything, and toward the end, because of time exigencies, just left their possessions behind, and travelled by foot, camel and donkey to centralized cities which serves as de barkation points. These deeply religi ous and very primitive people were not

SUMMER

the least bit afraid of boarding giant noisy airplanes, the likes of which they had never seen. Saadia explained that his people were aware, from Biblical references, that they would return to Eretz Yisroel on the “ wings of an eagle” — a plane! As these people boarded the plane, according to Saadia, they threw away their Yemenite money, not wanting to t>ring along any thing evil which might possibly hurt Israel. Given the conventional tiny house offered to immigrants in agricultural moshavim, Saadia had to enlarge and redecorate it himself. One of the newest and largest rooms has a skylight in the roof, becoming the Succah for Saadia’s family, as well as for the families of his two sisters, both husbandless as a result of the 1967 war. We danced with these Yemenites in their communal hall, and our class tried to follow the villagers of Midrach-Oz. Unfortunately, not one of the visiting Americans could imitate the unique Yemenite style of dancing; a style which involves the entire body in subtle Middle Eastern gestures. Zacharia. A striking contrast to the Yemenite dance patterns was found in a visit to Zacharia. This Kurdish moshav is located in the valley where, according to the Bible, David met the Phillistines and slew Goliath. What is so unusual for oriental Jews is that these Jews from Kurdistan dance together — male and female intermingling in the same line, but in accordance to Jewish Law, not touching. While it is true that

1974

DANCING THROUGH ISRAEL

the men cover more space and use stronger movements, the females add the elements of softness to Kurdish dancing while doing the same step pat terns. When the Kurdish Jews are wear ing their traditional costume, there ap pears to be long scarfs hanging between each person in the line. These long scarfs are actually sleeves, and are part of their “ under” shirt. When not in use as a dancing costume, the sleeves are tied in interesting variations. In many cases the males wrap the long sleeves around their arms, while the women tie the two sleeves into a knot and throw it over their heads, so that their hands are free to work. It is interesting to note that in Kurdistan, the only ones who man ufactured woven material were the Jews, and the material was used by Jews and non-Jews alike. Most Kurdish dances are com posed of one simple step pattern, which is repeated over and over, ad infinitum. The Kurds dance, not for exhibition, but rather for their own enjoyment. Thus, the simple step pattern, boring to an observer because of its repetitions, allows the participant to adapt his own stylization to the dance. Musical accompaniment is both vocal and instrumental. Musicians with a dola (a large double-headed drum) and a zurna (a reed-like instrument) walk along with the dancers, as is cus tomary in the case of many Middle Eastern dances. As the instrumentalists approach particular parts of the line, the movements of the people grow in inten

sity, and then subside as the musicians proceed to another part of the line. After our group had been shown and taught some Kurdish dances, we were invited to one of the homes to watch the preparation of the Shabbat meal. The hospitality ended with their giving us some fresh, straight-fromthe-vine grapes — an important pro duct of the moshav — and with the characteristic utterance of Shalom. Another side trip in the Haifa area was to visit Zvi Friedhaber, an unas suming man whose mishigos is to col lect and annotate any information on dance in Israel. This passion has led to a collection which Israeli officals now first recognize as valuable. Zvi’s work had been done without funds or encouragement for approxi mately twenty years. Currently, funds are being sought to provide Zvi with the proper facilities and a permanent home that the collection deserves. It is cur rently housed in one room of a fourroom house shared by the five members of the Friedhaber family. Zvi has also choreographed several Israeli folk dances. Chabad. Back in Jerusalem, a visit to the Chabad House in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City culminated a Monday morning which was spent at the Wall, watching families celebrate the Bar Mitzvahs of their sons. At Chabad House, we witnessed Chasidic dance, and the spontaneous expres sions of joy were accompanied by clicking sounds or hand claps, depend ing on the ethnic background. It was

JEWISH LIFE

explained that people dancing in re sponse to religious expression was a natural extension of the individual’s spiritual communication. “ All my limbs will say praise to You” is the ultimate communication -&* one loses complete control over one’s limbs and must dance. Because these dances are so per sonal, no record of them as “ folk” dances exists. Israeli choreographers,

however, have made wide use of Chasidic movement patterns, albeit al tered ones, as inspiration for many popular Israeli folk dances. I could write much more since there was so much — Dalia HaCarmel, a Druze village, the Jerusalem Forest, Inbal —the list is endless. The Israel odyssey continues in memory, but ahead lie additional voyages to Israel to continue this awakened consciousness.

David Adler

It was the eve of Yom Kippur in the synagogue. As the cantor was preparing to start chanting the Kol Nidre service, the rabbi noticed a young man in the rear, standing in a crouched position and appearing to be weeping. The rabbi approached him — getting close enough to hear the fellow sob; “ O dear G-d, please forgive me for failing to learn to read Hebrew, which would enable me to ask you to grant me forgiveness for all my sins and to grant forgiveness to my loved ones for all their transgressions; O dear Almightly in heaven, lift Robert Mann

LUXURY OR NECESSITY?

FEEDING THE SOUL by Ronald Greenwald

The minyan did not file in quietly. Some walked. Some hobbled in on three legs orfour, canes and walkers tapping irregularly toward the bookcase and then to the seats. A few wheelchairs were parked in back. Minutes later, pages began to rustle and voices began to hum. Suddenly, the serenity o f the Yom Kippur service was interrupted. “Tallis, tallis!” cried an elderly man. He could hardly walk, but he gestured in desperation to those around him. - ‘Tallis!” again, as attendants searched frantically for another prayer shawl. • The tallis is important to this man. He needs it in order to feel comfortable in his world. He is lucky that the nurs ing home in which he lives can provide it. •

The old man tolerated drop after drop of the solution, and the bits o f

mush placed on his tongue. Only a few carefully counted fractions o f a spoonful, only the very least the doctor had said he must have to remain alive, the most the rabbi said he might. On Yom Kippur, the important thing was to prolong life with prayer and repentance, not so much with food. •

But what of all the other days, when food is to be eaten and enjoyed? If the rabbi has a solution for special cir cumstances, how much more so for every day of the year. Kosher food is necessary because no other food will be eaten. Thereafter, it becomes the doc tor’s problem. •

•

Mashgiach. Running a nursing home is an expensive business. Most elements of care for the aged and infirm are general and universal, and therefore can, and often must, be met with the help of government subsidies. There is

JEWISH LIFE

SUMMER

no question that penicillin, dietitians people eat? Kosher food is only one of the and physical therapy equipment are the same and of equal importance in any many aspects of day-to-day care which old age home. How Important is a can strongly affect the disposition — physical as well as psychological of mashgiachl A mashgiach in the kitchen, a observant Jews. Some aspects and arti mezuzah on the doorpost, a collecion of cles of religious life are clearly matters Hebrew records instead of tum-of-the- of conviction alone, and as such, are century hits, can all be vital to the hardly candidates for government sub psychological health of an elderly Jew, sidies. But others may in fact fall within especially if his physical well-being is the areas which federal agencies readily in a precarious state. To the observant fund. Medicaid. In non-sectarian nurs Jew, such necessities as food and communal prayer are even more impor ing homes, the government can, tant. When availability becomes a through Medicaid, provide eligible pa problem, the choice is not “ kosher or tients with all their needs up to specified limits. If these limits are non-kosher,” but “ kosher or starve,” For some people, special diets ac computed fairly in relation to the actual commodate the tolerances of their cost of services, then Medicaid is actu bodies. Sugar-free or salt-free food are ally fulfilling its purpose by assuming necessities for those whose bodies have the bulk of the financial burden of nurs negative reactions to salt and sugar. But ing care for the medically indigent. An is a mind any less a part of the individu institution with a specifically religious al? Just perhaps the tolerances of a per affiliation, however, such as one which son’s psychological and emotional self provides kosher meals and other religi should also be given some considera ous services, must look more carefully tion. The choice not to eat, rather than at the specifics of the Medicaid prog eat non-kosher food, is at least as de ram, and see exactly how its guidelines bilitating and potentially fatal as any are to be interpreted and applied. The fact that rates are determined allergy or physical reaction, especially for people who face the situation be with an eye for the unique facilities of cause they are no longer able to exer each nursing home would seem to be a cise their own choice as to their envi boon to Institutions meeting special needs. In practice, however, this only ronment. Is a mashgiach, then, simply an tends to bring the problem of the kosher idiosyncratic luxury, or does he fill a nursing home more sharply into focus. definite need, psychologically, emo The home provides services which, tionally and physically? Is he an extra? while costing more than those of nonOr is he a special kind of dietitian, a specialized nursing homes, are specialist in the only kind of food some nevertheless vitally important to the

1974

FEEDING THE SOUL

emotional and physical health of the patients concerned. Yet, the added element of both service and cost is dis tinctly religious in nature. The basic question is an old and familiar one: separation of church and state. The First Amendment gives every American the right to freely practice his religion. But this protection also in sures total non-involvement by the government even when its involvement would aid proponents of certain religi ous practices who might otherwise be threatened because of them. The First Amendment protects the Jew’s right to kosher food and Jewish education. The same principle, on the other hand, also assures that no government funds or effort will be contributed to the mainte nance of these facilities. Only institu tions that can prove that parts of their activity is completely non-sectarian in nature can hope to be considered eligi ble for funding of those aspects of their service. Parochial. Another context in which a similar church-state question arose recently is with regard to gov ernment allocations to private schools. While non-sectarian schools pose no problem to the First Amendment guidelines, many needs of the parochial or community religious school are necessarily religious in nature. All tax payers are entitled to the benefits of the public education system. If they choose not to enroll their children in that sys tem, does that automatically cut them off from the benefit of taxes they con tinue to pay?

Complicated negotiations eventu ally determined specific areas in which private and even religious schools can receive the benefit of tax funds areas which, of course, are not in any way related to the sectarian nature of the institution. It was decided that text books for secular studies, bus service where it exists, and certain lunch sub sidies, could be extended equally to private schools without violating church-state separation. In the case of schools, this deci sion meant that private school pupils would not be denied the benefit of cer tain tax-supported subsidies simply be cause they were enrolled in non-public schools. Their attendance in private schools, even parochial and religious schools, could not stand in the way of their right to certain non-sectarian gov ernment services. Another area where church-state questions have come under considera tion has been in the distribution of gov ernment welfare payments. Recently, a case was brought to court by the Com mission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA) to clarify welfare guidelines in this area. Representing a poor Jewish family, COLPA argued that welfare payments, determined ostensibly to provide basic and vital needs, must be adjusted to account for higher costs to the recipient’s vitally important kosher food. In rebuttal, however, it was pointed out that a recent revamping of the welfare payment system eliminated the many variables once used to deter-

JEWISH LIFE

the first time in this context. All the mine the payment allotted to each case. Aid is no longer determined on an indi comparisons brought here were used to vidual basis, or according to any point out the unique nature of the nurs specific factors. In fact, the only vari ing home problem, in contrast to other able currently used in setting payment church-state questions which have al rates is rent; beyond this, welfare is ready been resolved in one direction or distributed as flat grants, determined another. By using such phrases as “ ac only by family size. Since welfare does tivities of daily lfe,” and “ to make the not make provisions for special diets of patient’s life more meaningful,” the any kind, kosher food could not be basic services agreement of the New given special accommodation either, York State Hospital Code (which de and the court ruling was not in COLfines Medicaid benefits) displays a cer PA’s favor. tain amount of sensitivity to the indi Life. Nursing homes* however* vidual, personal and human needs of do not fall into any of the categories those under its jurisdiction. In other already discussed. Many factors com segments of the population, such needs bine to make medical assistance diffe might be considered an embellishment, rent from other church-state issues. Un like welfare payments, reimbursements but in the case of a sick or elderly per under medicaid are evaluated individu son, they may be the only means of holding on to familiar reality. The ally and according to many variables. Medicaid pays for an individual’s par realization that spiritual guidance may ticular medical expenses, including all also fulfill a unique need in the lives of the things already enumerated. Since nursing home patients (how different special diets are recognized as legiti from chaplains provided in the Armed mate medical needs among the elderly Services for all faiths?) is another topic and infirm, it should not be difficult for that must be dealt with. All these topics, already raised in federal agencies to take the next step discussions with Department of Health and acknowledge the role of mental as officials, were recognized by them as well as physical health measures. valid problems which demand serious This, in fact, was the very essence consideration, and which quite possi of a series of discussions held recently with members of the New York State bly can be understood as vital to the Department of Health. After bringing care of the elderly and infirm.When to their attention the special position of only certain foods will be eaten, when kosher nursing homes, many possible only a chaplain and not a psychiatrist is a functioning link with reality, approp attitudes and solutions were explored. The serious nature of the Jew’s need for riate solutions to these problems be kosher food, especially in cases of the come matters not of church and state, sick and aging, was brought to light for but of life and death.

Life; death, eternity All but a passing, questing phantasmagoria equation of stark inanities Three distinct yet related states o f utter, unreconcilible nothingness.

PRAYER We do not live, we <i<9 not die we, to whom life is but a split moment of induced agony in the framework o f non-existence Solace me, my Creator with Your vision of constant, unimaginable ecstasy .

FROM Render me soulless, heartless, mindless Grante me non-recognition Do not design to take cognizance o f my defeat; nay of Your defeat By thé ravages o f Time, the destroyer.

OBLIVION A moment within a moment joy within sadness, grief within smiles A fantastic, unspeakable joke on that most pitiable o f Your creatures Man the sufferer.

by David Cohen

The Roots of Intermarriage

by Chaim Uri Lipschitz

A recent study of intermarriage between Jews and gentiles suggests that it involves at least 50% of all Jews in the United States today.1Even the most conservative surveys report that 30% of all American Jews intermarry.2 Nor is this occurrence restricted to America: At least three thousand Jews in Israel are married to Moslems.3 More than a half milion dollars has recently been spent by the Jewish fed erations to seek out the reason for this catastrophic rise in intermarrage. This money, however, could have been put to much better uses, since the reasons, as well as the solutions, are fairly obvi ous — if only we do not hesitate to trample a few Jewish sacred cows. Carefully reading the report of this Rabbi Chaim Uri Lipschitz is the Managing Editor of The Jewish Press and Director of the Community Service Bureau of Mesivta Torah Vodaath in Brooklyn. Widely active in Jewish commun ity life, he is best known for his interesting Jewish Press columns.

study, however, we see one important point. Even though the majority of the participants were non-orthodox, they often came up with the very same con clusions that orthodox leaders have been declaring for years. As long as the non-orthodox world could boast of even a modicum of success, they arrog antly jeered the words of our gedolim as being old fashioned and out of touch with reality. Now that the problem has gotten out of hand, however, they are both swallowing and echoing these very same words. All the unattributed quotations in this article are taken from the federations study . College. There is a widespread be lief, especially in more traditional cir cles, that the rising intermarriage rate is directly proportional to the record number of Jews attending college. There is considerable statistical evi dence to support this view, and even outside of traditional circles, it has a large number of proponents. National

THE ROOTS OF INTERMARRIAGE

Hillel Director, Dr. Alfred Jospe, notes that the number of college educated Jews wedded to gentiles is double that of Jews who never attended universi ty.4 Dr. Arthur Herzberg, President of the American Jewish Congress, has proclaimed that one of the major wor ries of the average American Jew is whether his daughter was “ sleeping with a goy on the college campus last night.” 5 At Brandeis University, funded and attended primarily by Jews, two-thirds of the students said the they would not object to marrying a Protes tant.6 A similar thought was expressed by 65% of the Jews at Harvard.7 There is, of course, another view point which does not place the blame squarely on college itself. This opinion is reflected by Allan S. Mailer, who concludes that “ secular education seems to have no influence at all.” 8 He suggests that it is the poor commitment and preparation that the young Jew brings to college, rather than the mere fact of actually being there, that leads him to marry out of the faith. Among the many factors exacer bating this situation is the fact that the very Jewish institutions who should be fighting for Jewish survival are often the ones who are doing the most to undermine it. Suffice it for the moment to note that many of these organiza tions’ chief concern regarding the Jew on campus has been that he or she not face any barriers in being admitted to a gentile-dominated fraternity or sorori ty. I wonder if anyone has calculated how many mixed marriages have re

sulted, directly or indirectly, from such “ victories.” In addressing one conclave on the problem, Joel Zion, a Long Island Re form rabbi, declared that “ the soul of American Jewish leadership is being fought for on the university campus. The Hillel Foundation has failed abys mally in this struggle for the soul of our youth, and I hope that this conference will examine the Hillel Foundation.” Since the time of his declaration, things have improved somewhat. More Hillel leaders are now orthodox rabbis, and Yavneh, an orthodox student organiza tion has expanded its program. The Na tional Conference of Synagogue Youth (NCSY) has been expanding to the col leges through its branch organization, College Youth for Torah (CYT), and Chassidic Chabad centers are available near a number of major universities. Mingling. I am not quite ready, however, to join the chorus of those who unconditionally blame college for the entire intermarriage problem. Even those who do not attend college -will eventually have to mix with non-Jews, and the ultimate effect is no different than that of the mingling that takes place on campus. Here again, the voi ces of the traditionalists have been echoed throughout the spectrum of Jewish thought. Dr. Nathan Perlman of New York’s Temple Emanuel notes that the acceptance of Jews in virtually every profession, for which American Jews have fought for so many years, has brought them to a peak of assimila tion, where intermarriage is a threat to

JEWISH LIFE

tjie future existence of the Jewish community.9 Noting their acceptance into areas where in former years there were quotas, or even complete barriers, against Jews, Milton Himmelfarb, in formation and research director for the American Jewish Committee, comp lains that “ intermarriage is the most inevitable consequence of a desirable state of affairs,” 10 The mad rush to break down the religious bar to unlimited social mix ing, even beyond the business and col lege world, has, to put it squarely, backfired. The Jewish rights groups who rushed to “ integrate” sororities are also the ones who scream inces santly that each Jew should face no barriers to joining his gentile friends at non-kosher country club tables, or for a tennis match on our holy Sabbath. As Dr. Nahum Goldman of the World Jewish Congress observed, “ In the 19th century, the Jew had to fight for the right to be equal, while today , in the 20th century, we have to fight for the right to be different.” Idealism. Daily participation in the routine of the academic and busi ness world would not be fatal to our future if we continued to remember and practice our differences. Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, newly elected President of the (Orthodox) Rabbinical Council of America, comments that, “ We or thodox maintain that the problem of intermarriage has come about because we have permitted our children to be enticed by other schools of thought, ’’ The reason that assimilation has be

SUMMER

come a problem to us Jews is precisely because religion has ceased to be im portant to us. The greatest problem is that our young Jews, in discarding the physical garb of Jewish ritual and spirit, have also discarded^the very de sire to remain Jews. In this context, it is interesting to note that the intermarriage rate among the orthodox-observant is virtually nonexistent. In many cases, our nonorthodox young have been presented with a motley collection of myths, cus toms and groundless mores in place of the deep truths of genuine Judaism, and our rebellious and searching young people almost naturally reject this. It is not the essence of Judaism that is being tested, but an almost new religion that has been passed off as the real thing. To a large degree, our children learn their attitudes from their parents. If a child perceives hypocrisy in the religion of his parents, there is a good chance that he himself will someday abandon it. Rabbi Bernard Klingfield quotes a child who observes that, “ My parents are very busy in the synagogue, but I know that even when they attend services, they never really pray. They never study. They have no religion.” Is it any wonder then that children do not understand their parents’ objection to intermarriage? Too Religious. Another impor tant problem is that many parents are very fearful that their children will be come “ too religious,” and in many cases this fear runs a close second to that of intermarriage itself. The result

1974

THE ROOTS OF INTERMARRIAGE

has been watered down curricula in our religious schools, where history, lan guage and customs are taught in place of true religious values. What is even worse, however, is when a “ liberal” parent actively opposes any latent religipus interest on the part of the child! Dr. Albert Goldstein of Boston has written of a case where a father would physically beat his daughter when he caught her clandestinely reading the Bible. Most situations are not this ex treme, but they arise all too frequently. Oddly, when confronted with in termarriage on the part of their own offspring, many parents seem to feel that they have done everything possible to prevent it. But there is much that parents fail to do,. especially in such areas as interdating. The Council of Jewish Federations survey noted that for every ten Jews who were not inter married, four had also never dated a gentile. There are some who claim that if a parent forbids interdating, his offspring will only find it all the more attractive, acting accordingly, and when necessary, clandestinely. This theory has long been disproven, and the decline of parental assertiveness in this area is certainly a separate and signific ant factor in the alarming number of intermarriages. Even among the orthodox, the traditional practice of sitting Shiva and mourning an intermarried child as if dead has begun to disappear.11 The far more common reaction is to believe that openly opposing what is a fait ac compli will merely futher widen the gap

between the child and Judaism, and they therefore reluctantly resign them selves to the marriage. Younger chil dren considering intermarriage have perceived this tendency quite well, and proceed with their own intermarriage plans with confidence and security. Temple. It is not only the parents, however, who are responsible for the lack of Jewish consciousness felt by their offspring in their march toward mixed marriage. The bagels and lox Judaism that they experience in their parents’ house is further reinforced by the local “ Temple,?’ Bernard Marks, a young member of the Federation panel, writes, If our spiritual leaders would stop giving us book reviews on Friday night, which I can read in the paper, if our spiritual leaders would stop being social workers, and be rabbis, and on Saturday morning give us the portion of the week, and teach us Judasim gfe? as I learned it when I went to school, and as I am learning it now — I think that most of these problems (of intermarriage and assimilation) would be solved.” • No less than in the home, watered do wn religion in the temple turns young people away from Judaism, and those who have continually diluted their re ligious practices have virtually nothing left after only a few generations. Dr. Morris Kertzer, a New York Reform rabbi, tells of the time that he was plan ning a television program based on the bicentennial of the Jewish community of South Carolina: “ We had the names of the community’s founders, but we failed to find one living descendent of

JEWISH LIFE

the Jewish faith. ” It is a popular axiom today that, “ there is no such thing as a fourth generation Reform Jew.” Centers. In distributing the blame for the assimilating Jew, a large portion of that reserved for alleged Jewish in stitutions must go to those nonaffiliated groups and leaders who are actually anything but Jewish. Dr. Vic tor Sanua, also quoted in the Federation Report, writes of the time he spoke at a Jewish Center, discussing one of the studies on the relationship betweeh re ligious education and Jewish identifica tion. “ The president of the board asked why I spent so much time on this sub ject. My only comment was: ‘Why have a Jewish Center at all?’ ’’ Ironically, it is not surprising to observe that many leaders of such in stitutions are themselves married to non-Jews. Dr. Benjamin Kreitman ad monishes these Intermarried Jewish “ representatives.” “ When you want to contribute, fine. But to be a leader, no, because you are helping to destroy the Jewish community. ” When Jewish federations and other major bodies are run by intermarried Jews, assimilation is a natural result. A friend of mine tells of having visited Jewish Community Centers in many cities and discovering that a very large percentage of their users were non-Jewish teenagers. Graenum Berger, a consultant for the New York Federation writes bitterly that, “ A Jewish girl away at college was keeping company with a gentile boy. Alarmed, her family brought her back and ar

SUMMER

ranged for her to work in a Jewish Center summer camp. There she fell in love and married the waterfront man, who was a gentile.” Somewhat along these lines, Rabbi Bernard Klingfeld has recorded “ an intermarriage case in which the worker assigned to the Jewish client was Catholic and she didn’t know what he was talking about. I say, therefore, that before we pro ceed, we fnust orientate our social workers in Jewishness and Jewish val ues.” In recent years, our Jewish com munity centers have opened their doors to all people, regardless of religion, and the amount of Jewishness in the centers has steadily declined. As a citizen, I believe in centers that service the com munity as a whole, but as a Jew, I believe that Jewish centers should be for Jews. As structured now, the Com munity Center actually contributes to intermarriage, since that is where youngsters meet people of different faiths on a social level, and where they make dates which in a good many cases lead to intermarriage. Malaise. Considering that Jews in America are outnumbered by more th&n 33 to one, it is a small miracle that far more Jews do not intermarry. This is especially true when we consider the secularizing influences and the greater number of non-Jews that the average Jews meets. They certainly have enough motivation to intermarry, with very little holding them back. Plainly, secularized Jewish chil dren see nothing wrong in marrying

1974

THE ROOTS OF INTERMARRIAGE

whomever they please. The (Conserva tive) United Synagogue’s Bernard Resnikoff calls this a “ reflection of malaise affecting the entire Jewish community. What are the commit ments of Jews in America today? What is the extent of their knowledge and their affiliation?” In slightly calmer but equally valid tones, Dr. Alfred Jospe points out that, “ as young Jews begin to question their background and fam ily values, the feeling arises that the barriers between them and non-Jews are meaningless. They begin to move out of the world of their parents, and possibly, into contacts which may lead to intermarriage, not necessarily be cause they reject their parents, but be cause they do not find much in their parents’ world that would hold them to Jewish life.” But the alarming intermarriage rate is the result of more then just a spirit of independence and rebellion. Many of Jewry’s most famous persons set the pace by intermarrying. When the Rothschilds began to intermarry, many of our people viewed it as just another privilege that position and money could buy, and as with every thing else, this innovation soon filtered down to the common man. In America, where there is no dynastic aristocracy, the rush for this infamous type of equality” became a stampede. Besides this, there is a certain mystical attraction in a person from another culture. Many young people actually go out of their way to deliber ately select a partner who is “ diffe

rent.” As Dorothy Rabinowitz, a popu lar feature writer succintly puts it, MThe differences may not simply be the traditional sort known to love, where he picks her because she is like no other girl in the crowd; this time, rather, he picks her because she is like no member of his family, and by extension, some times, his culture. She picks him for similar reasons.” 12 There is a common statistic that twice as many Jewish boys intermarry as do Jewish girls.13 It has been explained that this may be due to the greater mobility and independence of the male. But credit must also be given to gentile girls, who decide that Jewish men make the best and steadiest hus bands. Going along with them for the sake of argument, why shouldn’t Jewish girls have these fellow for them selves? How then should Jews react to the threat of an increasing intermarriage rate? The old parental threat of not showing up for the wedding does not carry the weight of bygone days. Per mitting premarital sex as an alternative to the greater evil of intermarriage, as Aaron Mailer suggests,14 would only annihilate any morality that we still have, in addition to the fact that it is directly contrary to Jewish Law. Conversion. The idea that mass conversions may be the answer must also be rejected, and is examined seri ously only because it is now so fre quently advocated. Mailer refers to a marriage between a Jew and a con verted gentile as a “ Mitzvah Mar-

JEWISH LIFE

SUMMER

riage,” but this is actually a gross mis Parents, teachers, rabbis and other nomer. He may be correct in describing Jewish leaders must stop showing by a Mitzvah as an act in accordance with their example that Jewish identity is the Divine Will, but converting to meaningless. Persons and institutions Judaism for the sake of romance does with Jewish money and facilities must not fall into this category. “ Unifying use them for things that are really the family through conversion,’’ rais Jewish. Hypocrisy and empty, non ing “ the proportion of Mitzvah mar spiritual value systems must be riages to 50%, ” and expanding the banished from our synagogues and number of conversion classes, as he Jewish organizations. Jewish leader suggests, is no way in which to main ship must take the lead in brinding the tain anything Jewish. generation gap, rather than spearhead According to Jewish Law, poten ing the drive to widen it. tial converts must be discouraged be If this is done, then and only then fore they are even considered serious will our idealistic Jewish youth believe candidates for the arduous task of be that the Judaism of their forefathers is coming a Jew. The only permissible worth preserving through the sanctifi reason for acceptance of a convert is cation of Jewish marriage and the prop love for the religion, and not for a po agation of committed Jewish children. tential spouse.15 I have no sympathy for Mailer’s NOTES 1. Alvin Chenkin, National Jewish Population Study, complaint that more gentiles do not at Council o f Jewish Federation and Welfare Funds Report, tempt conversion because our discour quoted in Lindsay M iller, “ Tricky Statistics, in Intermar riage,” New York Post, February 6, 1973, p 63 agement of their interest is interpreted 2. Ibid. as a lack of acceptance. If the realiza 3. Jewish Chronicle News Service story, quoted in the tion that a Jew has a rough life is Chicago Sentinal, November 29, 1973, p. 16. 4 Alfred Jospe, Federation of Jewish Philanthropies panel enough to keep a gentile from taking on on “ Intermarriage From a Religio-Ethnic Perspective,” held in New York City. Report issued December, 1964, p. 77. All the burden of true Jewish observance, unattributed quotations are from this Source. then we are more than happy to see him 5. “ Who’s Sleeping With Her Now?’’ Jewish Post and Opinion, August 10, 1972. remain a gentile, who we believe (un 6. Thomas B. M organ, “ The Vanishing Je w ,” Look like many other religions) has a share in Magazine. 7. The Lesson o f H istory,” a Jewish Press editorial, the World to Come.16 The few valid June, 1971. converts that we accept often turn out to 8. Aaron S. Mailer, “ Mixed Marriage: What Can We do it?” Ideas, Spring-Summer, 1973, p. 26. be among the most pious Jews in the About 10. Ibid. world, or as one Hillel rabbi once 11. SeeSefer Chasidim 190, that “ It is proper to mourn the of a body, and all the more so, at the loss of a soul. ” noted, “ our imports are better than our demise 12. Rabinowitz, op. cit. exports.’’ 13. Chenkin, op. cit. .

What then can be done? Let us sum it up in a few short sentences.

14. Mailer, op. cit. 15. Yoreh Deah 268:12. 16. Sanhedrin 105a, T osefta S a nhedrin 13:1, Yad, Melachim 8:11. Also see Sefer Toldos Adam of the Vilna Gaon, chapter 6.

Four reached into Paradise-Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, the Other, and Rabbi Akiba. Ben Azzai looked within and died. Ben Zoma looked within and lost his reason. The Other renounced the fundamentals o f belief. Rabbi Akiba alone went in and came out again unscathed. Talmud

FOUR SEEKERS by Alan Martin Schwartz

Come and learn: The eternal question seems to be, What did Rabbi Akiba see That turned the other white, or turned them all away From any further interest in G-d’s plan? Some say, ‘‘The universal insignificance of man.” Others say, ‘‘The blinding radiance of the Most High.” What is the difference between those two versions? How did one return whole, with unclouded eye? If you wish, I can answer simply: The two opinions are really one. As the delicate dew disappears in the sunlight, Humanity’s vanity melts in G-d’s Glory,If1' But Akiba alone understood that Creation Was more than a mere Cosmic joke on Man’s ego, But rather, G-d’s message for our translation: “ Seek not yourself in Heaven, but Heaven in yourself.”

PARADOXES by Aiyeh Kaplan

A favorite question raised by bright youngsters when they want to catch their teacher is “ Can G-d create a rock that He cannot lift?” At first thought the question seems unanswera ble, and the paradox is obvious. Since we say G-d is the omnipotent Creator, we cannot say that it is impossible for Him to create such a rock. Yet, on the other hand, we also say that G-d is absolutely omnipotent, and therefore, a “ rock which He cannot lift” simply cannot exist. Any serious student of Jewish thought quickly becomes aware that there are a number of paradoxes that seem to be built into the very structure of Jewish philosophy. In general, it is recognized that most of these paradoxes result from the inability of human intellect to ultimately grasp the true nature of G-d, and that even on a plane beyond our understanding. Even though the existence of unresolved paradoxes does not in any way diminish our faith, a deeper understanding of why such paradoxes must exist can give

us deeper insight into this entire area of thought. OMINSCIENCE AND FREE WILL Probably the most famous of these paradoxes involves G-d’s omniscient knowledge of the future and man’s free will. Briefly stated, it is a fundamental belief of Judaism that G-d has absolute knowledge of the future, and we cannot ascribe any ignorance to Him. At the same time, however, it is also a basic belief that man has absolute free will, and G-d in no way determines whether he will do good or evil. The paradox is most succinctly presented in the words of the Rambam (Maimonides):1 A very legitimate question may then be asked. We must either say that G-d knows the future, and therefore knows whether an indi vidual will be good or wicked, or else we must say that He does not know. If we say that G-d knows that a person will be good, then it is impossible for him to be other wise. If, on the other hand, we say

PARADOXES

that G-d knows that this person will be good, and it is still possible for him to be evil, then we must say that G-d’s knowledge is not abso lute. What the Rambam is saying here is that if G-d’s knowledge is absolute, then we cannot logically say that man has free will, and if man has free will, then we cannot logically say that G-d’s knowledge is absolute. The essence of Maimonides’ answer tp this is that man’s logic cannot apply to a domain that includes G-d’s knowledge, and that even though man’s intellect cannot resolve this paradox, it is, in fact, re solvable.2 This paradox is discussed in virtu ally every major work on Jewish philosophy. Although most authorities do not express it as clearly as the Ram bam, they are essentially expressing the same thought when they say that even though we do not understand how, G-d’s knowledge of the future in no way deprives the individual of his own free choice.3 Particularly ingenious is the ap proach of Rabbi Moshe Almosnino.4 He explains that G-d is the creator of time, and is therefore not in any way bound by it. Since G-d exists outside of time, His knowledge of the future is exactly the same as His knowledge of the past and present.5 Therefore, just as His knowledge of the past and present does not interfere with man’s free will, neither does His knowledge of the fu ture. Of course, all that Almosnino is

doing here is demonstrating that G-d’s omniscience does not interfere with free will. With a little thought, how ever, it becomes obvious that the paradox itself is not resolved by his approach. The paradox, as first expres sed by Rabbi Akiba, still remains, “ All is foreseen, yet free will is granted.’’6 IMMUTABILITY AND CREATION Another important paradox in volves G-d’s immutability and crea tion, and, as we shall soon see, this is actually related to the previous paradox. Briefly stated, one of our fun damental concepts of G-d is that He is absolutely immutable and unchanging, as He declares to His prophet (Malachi 3: 6), “ I am G-d, I do not change.” 7 On the other hand, we also know that G-d created the universe, and it is very difficult to imagine how He did so without some change on His part. At the very least, with the advent of crea tion, it would seem that He gained the attributes of Creator and Ruler of the universe. Most authorities who discuss this do not present it as a paradox, but sim ply that the act of creation did not in any way change G-d.8 Some try to resolve the difficulty by stating that G-d is the Creator of time itself, and therefore, the very concept of change was created by Him.9 This is true, but it still does not resolve the paradox completely, since we can still speak of the state of “ be fore creation” and that of ’’after crea tion.”

JEWISH LIFE

This entire question is actually very closely related to the concept of the Constriction or Tzimtzum, widely discussed by the Kabbalists. What this concept essentially says is that G-d’s essence originally filled all “ space,” and that in order to make a “ place” in which to create the universe, G-d con stricted His essence out of a certain area, bringing into being a “ vacated space. It was then in this “ vacated space that He created all worlds.10 The reason why “ space” and “ place” were placed in quotation marks is because most authorities agree that the reference is to conceptual, rather than to physical, space. This Constriction took place on a nonspacial spiritual level, where G-d’s es sence included every possible concept as part of His absolutely simple essen tial nature. The Constriction was necessary in order to allow a “ place” for the concepts that exist in creation, that is, to allow them to have a measure of independent existence.11 One thing that we immediately see is that the concept of Constriction apparently contradicts that of G-d’s immutability. How can we say that G-d constricts Himself, and at the same time say that He does not change? Ac tually, this is merely a reflection of the immutability-creation paradox, and to some extent, it elevates it to a higher plane. G-d creates within the “ vacated space” , and therefore, creation itself does not in any way affect His essence. The paradox is therefore transformed from creation itself to the concept of the

SUMMER

concept of Constriction. RABBI NACHMAN’S PARADOX The concept of Constriction itself, however, also contains its own paradox. This was first formulated, and is best expressed by Rabbi Nachman of Breslo v.11 This Constriction, which re sulted in the Vacated Space, canmot be understood or com prehended at all. (The only time that it will be understood will be in) the Ultimate Future. This is because we must say two contradictory things (about the Vacated Space), namely the pre sence and absence (of G-d’s es sence). The Vacated Space came into being as a result of the Con striction, when G-d (to the extent that we can express it) constricted His own essence. G-d’s essence therefore does not exist (in this Space). If His essence were there, this Space would not be vacated, and there would be nothing other than the Infinite Essence. If this were true, however, there would also be no place whatsoever for the creation of the universe. The actual truth, however, is that G-d’s essence must be in this Space. For (we know) for certain that nothing can exist without His Life Force. (Since this contradic tion exists) it is impossible to un derstand the concept of the Vac ated Space at all, except in the Ul timate Future.

1974

PARADOXES

The paradox, as elucidated by Rabbi Nachman, is actually very basic. Since G-d created all things in this Va cated Space, we must say that His crea tive power exists there. Since G-d is an absolute Unity, He cannot be separated from His creative power, and therefore, we must also say that He exists within the Vacated Space. This, however, contradicts the basic concept that this Space is vacated, and that by defini tion, G-d constricted His essence from it. Actually, Rabbi Nachm an’s paradox is directly related to the immutability-creation paradox. For it we say that G-d’s essence is in the Vac ated Space, then nothing has changed, and we have no problems involving G-d’s immutability. It is only when we look at the other side of the coin and say that the space is actually vacated that we find it contradicting immutability. As such, the resolution of Rabbi Nachman’s paradox would also most probably involve the resolution of thé immutability-creation paradox. IMMINENCE AND TRANSCENDENCE Closely related to this is another important dichotomy, namely that of imminence and trancendence. On one hand, we say that G-d is transcendental and ultimately removed and distant from all worldy concepts. On the other hand, however, we also say that G-d is imminent, and ultimately near and in volved with His world.13 These two concepts are obviously contradictory,

and they involve an important dichotomy and tension in our under standing of G-d. This dichotomy, however, is very closely related to Rabbi Nachman’s paradox. If we say that G-d is absent in the Vacated Space (which contains all creation), then we must say that He is absent from creation itself, and as such, is ultimately distant and transcenden tal. If, on the other hand, we say that G-d exists in the Vacated Space, then we can also say that He is imminent and close.14 Rabbi Nachman’s paradox therefore gives us additional insight into his well known dichotomy. Upon further examination," we find that Rabbi Nachman’s paradox also includes that of free will and G-d’s omniscience. As Rabbi Meir Simcha explains, the reason why man can have free will is because G-d constricts His knowledge from the future.15 He there fore acts as if He were indeed ignorant of our future free choice. In many ways, the constriction of G-d’s knowledge from the future is very much like the constriction of His essence from the Vacated Space, and Rabbi Nachman’s paradox applies equally well to this case. One one side, we cannot say that G-d is really igno rant of the future, and we must there fore say that His knowledge actually does exist there. On the other hand, however, the fact that we have free will implies that His knowledge does not exist in the future. Just as in the case of the Vacated Space, we must say that G-d’s knowledge (which, as the Ram-

JEWISH LIFE

bam points out, is equivalent to His essence)16 both does and does not exist in the future. This, however, is a pre cise temporal parallel of Rabbi Nachman’s paradox. THE RAMCHAL’S DICHOTOMY There is another important dichotomy, namely between G-d’s simplicity and His perfection. Briefly stated, we say that G-d’s essence con tains every possible element of perfec tion imaginable. On the other hand, however, we also say that He is abso lutely simple, containing no element of form, structure or plurality. This being true, then, how can we say that He contains every element of perfec tion? This dichotomy is expressed most clearly by the Ramchal (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto):17 There exist in G-d qualities that in a human being would be different, since He has will, wis dom and ability, and is perfect in every conceivable way. Neverthe less, the true nature of His essence is a single attribute — one that in trinsically contains and encompas ses everything that could be consi dered perfection. All perfection therefore exists in G-d, not as something added on to His exis tence, but as an integral part of His intrinsic identity, whose essence includes all types of perfection. By virtue of its intrinsic nature, it is impossible that His essence not in clude all perfection.

SUMMER

Admittedly, this is something that is far beyond our understand ing and imagination, and there hardly exists a way to express it and put it into words... The Ramchal’s dichotomy actu ally includes Rabbi Nachm an’s paradox as a special case. One one hand, G-d’s perfection implies that He has the power to create, and as a corol lary, He can constrict His own essence in order to allow a “ place” for crea tion. It furthermore allows us to speak of different concepts in relation to G-d, which in our case would be His essence and His power of constriction. Since we cannot say that any outside power constricted His essence, constriction must also be one of G-d’s attributes and an element of His perfection. G-d’s simplicity, on the other hand, does not allow for any structure whatsoever in His being, even concep tually, and therefore, we cannot say that the Vacated Space is devoid of his essence. By the same token, according to this side of the coin, we can also not say that His power of constriction is any different than His essence.18 The Ramchal’s dichotomy thus encompasses Rabbi Nachm an’s paradox. Since, as we have seen, Rabbi Nachman’s paradox includes the other ones under consideration, they are also included in the Ramchal’s dichotomy. We therefore see that most of the dif ficult paradoxes of Judaism are actually rooted in a single basic dilemma.

1974

PARADOXES

DOUBLE VISION If we look a bit deeper, we find that the Ramchal’s dichotomy, and hence, all our other paradoxes, are rooted in the fact that we actually per ceive G-d with a sort of double vision. This stems from the obvious fact that we cannot understand G-d directly, nor can we make any direct statements about His essence. Since we cannot make any direct statements about G-d, we can only, speak of His attributes. As a number of major Jewish philosophers point out, however, G-d’s attributes are divided into two basic categories, namely, negative attributes and attributes of ac tion. The negative attributes relate to G-d Himself, and tell us what He is not. Included in this category are such attri butes as His unity (non-plurality), eter nity (non-temporality), incorporality, omnipotence (non-impotence), and omniscience (non-ignorance). The at tributes of action, on the other hand, do not tell us anything directly about G-d Himself, but do tell us how He relates to His creation. Examples of this sec ond category are the attributes of G-d as Creator, Revealer, Redeemer, might and merciful. The concept of these two categories is discussed at length by the Jewish philosophers.19 If we think about this somewhat more deeply, however, we see that the fact that we perceive G-d by means of two types of attributes — negative at tributes and attributes of action—actu

ally causes us to see Him with a sort of double vision. It is very much like look ing at a single object through two diffe rent lenses ^ there may only be one object, but we might see two distinct and very different images. In a similar manner, the two categories of attributes are like two lenses, through which we peer at G-d. A very good analogy would be those trick glasses, where the right lens is red, and the left is green. Therefore, if a person wearing such glasses looks at a white paper, he sees it as red with his right eye, and as green with his left. If he looks at it through both eyes, he sees some psychodelic mixture of red and green, but under no condition can he perceive the color white. All percep tion of color is similarly distorted. The same is very much true of our percep tion of G-d through two different categories of attributes. Another good analogy would be the wave-particle du ality of our perception of the fundamen tal particles of matter. In many cases, the two images converge and there is no problem. In deed, as the Ikkorim points out, there are a number of attributes that come under both categories simultaniouly.20 Nevertheless, there are a number of important instances where the two im ages do not converge, and this is re sponsible for the paradoxes that we en counter when we speak about G-d. These paradoxes are built into the sys tem as a result of our double incomplete vision. We can immediately see how this

JEWISH LIFE

is responsible for the Ram chal’s dichotomy, and since this encompasses other important paradoxes, we can also preceive how it gives rise to them. One of the most important negative state ments that we can make about G-d is that He does not partake of any plurality whatsoever, and must therefore be ab solutely simple. G-d’s simplicity is therefore a basic nagative attribute. When we speak of G-d’s perfec tion, however, we are basically speak ing in terms of His attributes of ac tion.21 Since we see G-d’s perfection through the lens of “ attributes of ac tion,” while we see His simplicity through that of “ negative attributes,"’ the apparent dichotomy is merely a re sult of our double vision. The same is also true of Rabbi Nachman’s paradox. When we look at G-d through the filter of “ attributes of action,” we see Him as Creator, and therefore, we must say that He con stricted Himself from the Vacated Space in order to create the world. This is also implied by the attributes of ac tion which state that G-d is invisable and undetectable. On the other hand, when we look at G-d’s utter simplicity through the filter of “ negative attri butes, ’’ we see that He cannot have constricted Himself from the Vacated Space, and hence the paradox. Looking at Rabbi Mier Simcha’s presentation of the omniscience-free will paradox, we see that this results from similar double vision.

SUMMER

THE STONE DILEMMA This brings us back to the tricky question asked by our clever student: “ Can G-d create a stone that He cannot lift?’’ Here too, we took at both sides of the question through different lenses. Looking at it through the lens of “ attri butes of action, ” we say that G-d is omnipotent and can do all things, and therefore, He must be able to create such a stone. But then, we also look at this question through the lens of ‘‘nega tive attributes” which tells us that G-d cannot be impotent in any way, and therefore, that a “ rock that He cannot lift” simply cannot exist. Looking through this lens, we would say that He could not create such a stone. If we can only see red and green, we cannot answer a question in terms of black and white. Of course, there are a number of more sophisticated questions very closely related to this. Thus, for exam ple, we can ask questions such as: Can G-d produce another being like Himself? Can G-d destroy Himself? Can G-d change Himself? Can G-d corpify Himself? Also closely related to this question is the entire subject of Constriction. These questions are actually raised by the Rambam, who states that “ we do not ascribe to G-d the power to do what is categorically impossible. ” 22 Nevertheless, as Rabbi Aaron Marcus points out, this is not a definitive state ment, since we cannot ascribe any im potence to G-d.23 Rabbi Moshe Chaim

1974

PARADOXES

Luzzatto (the Ramchal) echoes this when he categorically states that G-d’s omnipotence is absolute, even with re gard to things that we would consider impossible.24 If we look carefully at these ques tions, however, we see that they all would involve a violation of G-d’s negative attributes. Therefore, through the “ negative attributes” lens, we see them as being categorically impossible, and pehaps the Rambam is taking this viewpoint. Looking through the lens of “ attributes, of action,” however, we must take the Ramchal’s side, and say that G-d’s omnipotence is absolute. Here again, the apparent paradox is merely a result of our double vision. It is interesting to note that in pre senting his paradox, Rabbi Nachman states that we will only learn the answer to it in the World to Come. In another place, he also makes the same state ment with regard to the paradox of om niscience and free will.25 Regarding the Future World, it is written (Isaiah 3 0:20)> “ Your eyes shall behold your Master,” We will no longer have to look at G-d through lenses, and there fore, all dichotomies and paradoxes will be resolved. NOTES 1. Yad, Tshuvah 5:5. 2. C f Moreh Nebuchim 3:20, Shemonah Perakim qo. 8. 3. Emunos VeDeyos 4:4 (65b), Kuzari 5:20 (47b), Chovos HaLevavos 3:8, Milchamos HaShem 3:106, Or HaShem 2:4, Ikkarim 4 :3 ,1-10, Akedas Yitzchok 21 (151a),BaisElokim 3:41, Tshuvos Rivash 119, Shnei Luchos HaBris, “Bais HaBechira” (1:43a), Pardes Rimonim 4:9,Asarah Maamaros, “ChokarDin” 4:9 (122a), “Maamar HaMidos” 4 (160a), Gevuras HaShem 2, Bachya on Exodus 15:18. Cf. Tosefos, Niddah 16b “HaKol.” 4. Quoted in Yesod HaEmunah (Rabbi Baruch Kasover), chapter 2, Midrash Sh’muel, Tosefos Yom ToV, on Avos 3:15, Sh’vil Emunah (on Emunos VeDeyos) 4:4:11. Cf. Tana DeBeiEliahu Rabbah 1,Ramasyim Tzpfim ad. loc 1:8;Kol Yehudah (onKuzari)

5:20 (47b) “K i,” OtzarNechemad (onKuzari) (lib ) “Kol.” Also see Tanchuma, VaYeshve 4. 5. Ikkarim 2:19. 6. Avos 3:i5, according to interperetation of Rambam, Rabenu Yonah, Bertenero, Tosefos Yom Tov, and Tiferes Yisroel. Rashi and Machzor Vitri, however, interpret this Mishnah somewhat differently. We find that the word Tzafuy is used to indicate the future inPirkey DeRabbi Eliezer 26 (61b), 36 (83a), 38 (88a), and 48 (114b). For further discussion, see my pamphlet, Free Will and the Purpose o f Creation (Young Israel, New York, 1973), P- 5. 7. Yad, Yesodey HaTorah 1:12, Moreh Nebuchim 1:11. 8. Shnei Luchos HaBris 1:6a (note), Cheredim no.5 (p. 40). Cf. Pirkey DeRabbi Elizer 3. 9. See Shomrei Emunim (HaKadmon) 2:16, 17. 10. Etz Chaim, Drush EgolimVeYosher 2,Movo Shaarim 1:1:1, Likutey Moharan 49, 64. Cf. Pardes Rimonim 4:9,6:3,Shefa Tal 6:1 (89b, 90d), 6:8 (101a), Bahir 14, Zohar HaRakia on Zohar 1:16a. The Constriction was in G-d’s light, and not in His essence, see Shaarey Gan Eden, “Orach Tzadikim” 2:1, Pelach Rimon 4:3, Derech Mitzvosecha (Chabad), “Emunas Elokus” 6 (51a), “Shoresh Mitzvas HaTefillah” 34 (136a). 11. Shomrei Emunim (HaKadmon) 2:49, KaLaCh Pischey Chochmah 24, Likutey Amarim (Tanya), Shaar HaYichud VeHeEmunah 7. 12. Likutey Moharan 64. For attempted resolutions, see Nefesh HaChaim 3:7,8, Likutey Amarim ibid. 13. Cf. Megillah 31a, Ibn Ezra on Psalm 113:5. See next note. 14. Rabbi Nachman himself recognized this relationship, speak ing of G-d as both filling and encompassing the world, and of the Vacated Space differentiating the two concepts. (Likutey Moha ran 64:2). Kabbalistic terminology expresses G-d’s imminence and transcendence respectively by saying that He ’’fills and sur rounds all worlds.” Cf. Zohar 3:225a, Nefesh HaChaim 3:4, Reshis Chochmah, “Shaar HaYirah’\A (9a). 15. Meshech Chochmah, Berashis “Naaseh” (p. 3). Cf: Or Someach on Yad, Tshuvah 5:5. Also see Or HaChaim on Genesis 6:2, Elemah Rabosai (RaMaK) ‘'Eyin Kol” 2:18. This is appa rently also the meaning of Rabbi ben Koicha’s answer to the Roman,' Berashis Rabbah 21:1. Also see Yerushalmi, Rosh HaShannah 1:3 (7b). 16. Yad, Yesodey HaTorah 2:10. 17. Derech HaShem 1:1:5. 18. See Pardes Rimonim 4:9. This also raises difficulties with the attempt of Nefesh HaChaim op. cit. to resolve Rabbi Nachman’s paradox by stating that Constriction (Tzimtzum) actually refers to “ hiding” and not to “ withdrawing.” The barrier behind which G-d hides, however, cannot be differentiated from His essence, and the paradox therefore remains. 19. See Moreh Nebuchim »1:58, Ikkarim 2:22, Chovos HaLevavos 1:10. 20. Ikkarim 2:24. 21. Even though we can speak of G-d’s perfection as a negative attribute, namely, the fact that He is devoid of imperfection, even imperfection is basically related to His attributes of action. Furth ermore, both perfection and its absenced are acutally undefinable in delation to G-d’s essence. 22. Mprech Nebuchim 3:15. Cf. Shefa Tal 1:3, Pardes Rimonim 2:7. Also see Yerushalmi, Taanis 2:1 (9a), from Numbers 23:19. 23. Keses HaSofer 9a. 24. KaLaCh Pischey Chochmah 30 (22b). 25. Likutey Moharan 21:4.

THE WAITING WALL by Ellen Blumenfeld

The wall is never the same, and kindled. yet it is always the same. It begins to glow, quietly, as the Its components are constant — the sun is setting, and those who are re huge, golden Jerusalem stones, the membering begin to come — clean and myriad crevices and indentations, the shining, dressed in joy and peace. grass that somehow thrives between its The glow brightens as more and awesome boulders, and most impor still more stream in — from Jaffa or tant, the infinitely comforting strength Damascus Gates, along the narrow, of its very being. winding byways of the Old City, down But that is all. Otherwise, it is the cool stone steps, across the open always changing — with the rain, or the plaza coming to be close as possi sun, or the hour of the day; with the ble... to the Wall. people who come — to search, to find, Brighter, brighter! The Yeshiva to test, to affirm, to laugh, and to cry. students are dancing down Mount Do you think the Wall is the same Zion. when a frail old man sways before it, “Shabbat Shalom! Shabbat alone in the hushed moments before Shalom!" dawn, pleading his’solitary prayers, With blessings of“ Shabbath and when a throng of thousands push Peace, ’’ they leap their way to the wall, and jostle, waiting impatiently , expec ten abreast, Tzitzis flying, white shirts tantly, for the searing shout of the gleaming. Shofar? Do you really think the wall And now the people are merging. does not change? Prayer-books find their way into the most awkward, unfamiliar hands, last-minute places are secured by late On Friday nights, the Wall is a comers, and Sabbath melodies waft and waiting ember, for Friday night is the glide to the wall...The flame is softly beginning of all beginning — the Sab burning. b a th — and just as two candles are kindled when the Sabbath Queen en ters, one for remembrance and one for One group of young people who carefully guarding, so too, the wall is arrived long after sunset remain behind

THE WAITING WALL

after the songs have seeped into the golden glowing stones, after the prayer-books have been carefully re turned to the tables, and after the plaza has been emptied of its swaying Sab bath guests. “Lecha dodi, likras kallah...Come my beloved to greet the bride — we will recieve the Sabbath Queen.” They are praying slow ly, carefully. Many of them have just begun to learn Hebrew, the language of their prayers. ‘‘Shamor veZachor — Remember and observe...” ; Their rabbi, the most gentle of fiery souls, has begun a new song. His sweet voice rings in the darkness, as the young people listen to the joyous melody, and soon lift their voices along with his. To the girls praying in small groups or singly on the women’s side of the partition, the singer is invisible. But his pure voice transcends the separa tion, and the group is one in song.

■ Jj Diane’s emotions interweave — touching and jostling like riders on a crowded subway. Pain — knowing that this is her last Friday night in Jerusalem, at the wall — but pain miti gated by the certainty that she will re turn, that this is home, by the memory of all that she has learned during these full few weeks, and by soaring notes of the prayer that awaken her whole be ing. “ Come on! Let’s dance!”

Four g irls.. .n in e.. .the circle widens and expands. Oh, the flow of the freedom! Long skirts swirling, arms outstretched, hand clasping hand — faster and faster! Suddenly Diane notices Michelle, and her winged feet falter. The French girl’s broad, pleasant, perpetually smil ing face is clouded. She sits huddled in her wheelchair, only yards away from the whirling dancers, and her eyes are filled with yearning. Diane’s mind leaves the joyful circle.“ What can I do? Should I go over and talk to her? What good would that do? It won’t give her new legs — it won’t help her dance.” And so, Diane continues, her body moving in the circle but the golden inner glow is smothered. The Wall is bathed in shadows. And now, as suddenly as she had noticed Michelle outside the circle, she now sees her amazingly in its very center! A girl had slipped out of the grace ful human chain, taken hold of the awkward wheelchair, and pushed the bewildered Michelle to the midst of her friends. The silver chrome glistened and sparkled, flashing like miniature light ening. Back wheels tilted, the wheel chair spun forwards, backwards, right and left — whirling in mad ecstacy. And as Michelle held tight and closed her eyes, she laughed and laughed. Diane felt the circle overflow with love, and knew that the Wall had be come a golden fire.

Come to D inner, Mama by Ann K. Glasner

Michael’s mother, scrupulously she shrugged. “ If a neighbor comes, neat, adjusted a net over her hair and it’s an emergency, I’ll refuse her a pot? assured him that she was all ready. It Kosher, not kosher, menschlichkeit — was obvious from her flushed face and that comes first.” quick movments that she was excited ‘‘And when you got it back, you’d —their first guest at the first dinner use it again?” Lilly was preparing. She shrugged ^gain, impatiently. “ I told L illy ,” she said to “ Let’s go. And watch out how you Michael, “ I’m bringing dessert. So be carry the cake.” careful how you carry. Oh wait, I also He bent down to sniff. “ Cheese have a little jar of relish.” cake?” “ Mama! You’re a guest. ” She nodded. “ With cherries.” “ Tut, tut...A guest.” She smiled Michael, looking straight ahead as happily. he drove, was aware of a gnawing sen He put down the cake box and the sation in the pit of his stomach. It jar to answer the phone, anticipating wasn’t hunger. No. It was sheer cowar that it was Lilly calling. dice. His parents had been quite religi “ Don’t h u rry ,L illy said. “ I’m ous, and he had gone to Yeshiva. But running a little late. Mrs. Murphy came then, in his college years, he had slowly in to borrow my chicken fryer. And slipped away it was so much easier stopped to chat. She’s having six for to conform. When he was planning to dinner and the handle of her frying pan get married, memories started invading came off.” his mind - ^ ‘he remembered his pious “ Our Christian neighbor,** father, and saw himself in the same Michael told his mother, “ is borrowing place. L illy’s new chicken fryer. That How many times had he started to wouldn’t be you, Mama. ‘Everything ask Lilly if she planned to keep a kosher you can have,’ ” he mimicked, kitchen? That would at least be a step ‘‘ ‘except my pots.’ ” back in thé right direction. But the “ You think you know what I do?” words had stuck in his throat. A nice

COME TO DINNER, MAMA

Jewish girl. Why couldn’t he ask? A delicate question, surely. He had not wanted to embarrass her. “ Oh, Michael! I wouldn’t know how to b e g in ...” What did she order in restaurants? No butter. Coffee black. “ You fell in love with me, Michael, when I was slim. I won’t let myself get fat.” He’d laugh, Lilly fat? Never! Evidently she was careful. He did not remember seeing her butter bread, nor order ice cream desserts. But then, how often had they eaten together? A whirlwind courtship. A new girl in the office that immediately had captivated him. After three dates he’d proposed. Within a month they were married. She’d recently lost her father. A simple ceremony in the rabbi’s study. “ So, ’’ he’d urged,“ what are we waiting for?” He stopped for a red light and turned around to smile at his mother. She preferred the back seat. He sus pected the packages she usually carried were safer there. The gifts invariably were of her own making. Cake. Cookies. Strudel. Noodle pudding... His friends were constantly angling for invitations to dine at his mother’s home. “ You marrying a cook as good as your mother?” one of them jibed. Others said pointedly that it was easier to find a wife than a good cook. Had the kosher angle ever entered Lilly’s mind? The bridal shower given by her friends had brought riches in kitchen equipment, several sets of dis hes.. Was she going to use some for

meat, others parevel While Mrs. Jacobs and Lilly greeted each other affectionately, Michael crossed into the dinette to stare at the table. A flower centerpiece. The cloth, napkins and dishes coordinated colorfully. At each setting a breadand-butter plate. Butter with meat? l “ M am a,” he said ,“ a little schnapps?’ii She nodded. Lilly shook her head. Michael poured a stiff drink for himself. “ Sit down, Mama,” Lilly said. ‘‘Michael, please carry in the platter. ’’ When he followed her into the kitchen, she handed him two mitts, ges turing to the oven. “ Baked flounder, Idaho potatoes, tomatoes topped with grated cheese... ’’ She broke off to look at him in surprise. “ Why that funny grin?” / “ Oh, the menu’s great. Fine. Lil ly.” He steadied the platter to kiss the top of her nose. A pareve meal! A per fect choice. He carried in the platter jauntily, holding it aloft like an experi enced waiter. Fruit cups were already filled. Fresh fruit, attractively and colorfully arranged. Scooping up the last grape, Michael, said, “ Tasty, isn’t it, Ma ma?” Mrs. Jacobs was staring at the fish platter. ‘‘Looks too good to eat, Lilly darling/’ “ I like decorative touches./ Lilly was flushed, bright-eyed, enjoying her first family dinner. She’d served his mother first. Watching her eat the fish slowly, daintily, he was eager to start

JEWISH LIFE

SUMMER

his own portion. After one bite, he Michael avoided his mother’s reached for a glass of water. Ugh! That eyes. The diplomat! So often he’d fish was salty. heard her insist, “ It’s not the coffee His mother was launched on an pot... First the coffee must be good, inexhaustible subject. Himself. When then you measure it right.” young. Lilly was an entranced listener. Lilly brought in the cake with a “ I can’t worm anything out of look of awe. “ Michael, I’ll never, in a Michael.” Her eyes swung from his lifetime, learn to bake like your mo mother’s face long enough to give him ther. ’’ an endearing smile. “ Don’t talk like a child, Lilly,” He scooped up a few pieces of his Mrs. Jacobs said. “ When I started to mother’s home-made relish. It caught cook I burned everything. While one Lilly’s eyes. “ Isn’t that relish simply thing cooked, I forgot the other.” sugar, Michael? Imagine making a de After one taste of the cheese cake, licacy from watermelon rind.” Lilly turned eagerly to Mrs. Jacobs. “ In a minute,” Michael said in “ You meant it? I could learn?’’ mock alarm ,“ you’ll have to write “ A smart girl like you? Why down the recipe.” not?” “ I understand,” Lilly grinned “ Because I think gourmet cook impishly, “ that you can’t rely on re ing like yours is a real art.” cipes — that people don’t like to give “ You’ll learn. I’m sure.” away culinary secrets. If they do, they “ Suppose you tell me just what to often omit an important ingredient.” buy,” Lilly said breathlessly. “ Then “ Well, not Mama’s. Hers are I’ll come to your place...” She broke famous. They’re in a book published by off and turned to Michael. “ What’s the our synagogue, Best Recipies fo r next holiday? I know your mother prac Jewish C o o k s/ ’ tically lives in the kitchen, baking f‘In that case... ” She reached for goodies to send her children. ” the platter. “ More fish, Mama?” Michael took a deep breath. Lilly Mrs. Jacobs was buttering a roll. buying foods for his mother? He should “ I’m already eating too much. I don’t have told his wife that every item is get rolls as good as these.” given close scrutiny. Kosher, only. Mrs. Jacobs was telling Lilly that “ Purim ,” he answered Lilly. she was a confirmed coffee drinker and “ Don’t tell me you’d like to help bake praising Lilly’s coffee, nodding when hamantachen?” Lilly offered a second cup. “ I guess “ I’d love to,” Lilly said ecstati you got the latest coffee maker?” cally. “ The best way to learn is by “ Yes,” Lilly said, pouring a sec doing.” ond cup for herself. “ A wedding pre Michael, eager to change the sub sent.” ject, related an amusing incident told

1974

COME TO DINNER, MAMA

by a colleague in his office. Lilly laughed appreciatively, but her mind was running on the other track. She was already facing his mother, her eyes bright with expectation. “ I’ve just made an important decision. I’m going to learn to keep kosher. And you know why?’’ Her voice softened. “ Because I want you to feel comfortable, at home, in my kitchen.’’ You’ve got a long, long way to go, Michael told Lilly silently. What’s an egg, fleischig or milchig? Her ques tion, with all ignorance of such matters it implied, struck him. But this could be the first step and who knows? Shabbos? Mikvah? He still might find his way back. “ Mama,’’ he said, “ you’ve got to hear our new stereo. I’ll show you our records and... ’’ “ Wait, M ichael,’* Lilly said. “ I’m having another piece of Mama’s cheese cake.’’ “ You’re going to ruin Lilly’s fi gure, Mama. She’s trying to keep slim.’’ “ I ’ll take my chances on this per fectly heavenly cake,” Lilly said. Not till Michael opened the door to his mother’s apartment did it occur to him that the dessert brought for Lilly’s

first dinner was made of cheese. Mil chig! Suppose Lilly had prepared a meat dinner? “ Mama...?” He had to satisfy his curiosity. “ Yes?” and after a moment, “ A m?”

He did not answer promptly. While helping her take off her coat, he remembered how cleverly she‘d evaded Lilly’s offer of a second helping of fish — praising the store-bought rolls. Not a word of fish, too salty, too peppery. In his mind’s ear, he could hear her,, “ Lilly, darling, I ate a big meal for lunch. I got into the habit of cooking for my husband. He always ate lunch home.” . „ How far, he wondered, would she go to win favor with Lilly? “ O h...? No, never mind, Ma ma.” Perhaps some questions were best left unasked. And unanswered. “ You got yourself a helper, Ma ma,” he said. “ Lilly means what she says. She’ll hold you to that promise to teach her to cook and bake — your style.” “ So??” The smile she turned on him was utterly without guile. “ For what else does a mother of a son pray when he gets married?’’p|

Boobs The Survival of Judaism in Israel by Pinchas Stolper

ISRAELIS AND JEWS: THE CON TINUITY OF AN IDENTITY, by Simon

ical problems o f Jewish life in the Diaspora,

N . Herman. N ew York, Random H ouse. $ 8 .9 5 .

that Zionist theory has com e to fruition in

and Herman clearly w ould like to believe Zionist reality. Still, he does not close his ey es to the fact that .experience now show s

There has long been a feelin g among secular Zionists that Orthodoxy in Israel is

that Zionism alone, withput religion, cannot solve the problems.

an anachronism, a thing o f the past that was

The basis o f Israelis and Jews is ah

totally redundant in a m odem state. It w as

attitude survey administered in 1964-65 to

stated that nationalsim and “ P eop lehood”

3679 junior year students enrolled in 117 Israeli high schools.

could take the place o f religion, and that Israel could remain a “ Jew ish state,” even

In general, the students were divided

without fostering Jew ish religious values.

into three main classes, R eligious 1D ati ),

To the proponents o f these theories, “ Israel and Jew s” w ill com e as both a

Traditionalist ( M esorati), and non-religious (Lo D ati). It is in the w idely contrasting

shock and a surprise. Its author, Professor

responses betw een the religious and non

Sim on Herman, is one o f the forem ost so

religious groups that w e see how futile it is

cial psychologists in Israel, holding an ap

to try to maintain a “ Jew ish State” without religion.

pointment in the Hebrew U niversity’s D e partment o f P sychology, as w ell $s in the

A lm ost every page o f the book offers

Institute o f Contemporary Jewry. It is a tri

evid en ce o f rejection o f Jew ishness on the

bute to H erman’s integrity as a scholar that

part o f the non-religious Israelis and at the

he presents his data as c ooly as he does.

same tim e, acceptance on the part o f the

A s a com m itted Zionist o f long stand

religious students. A core question is “ does

ing, Herman cannot be expected to be happy

the fact that you are Jew ish play an impor

with his ow n conclusions. C lassical non

tant part in your life ? ” O nly 7% o f the

religious Z ionism took upon itself the task

non-religious students answered that “ it

o f solving both the physical and psycholog-

plays a very important part,” in contrast

BOOKS with 62% o f the religious students. While 54% o f the non-religious declared that their Judaism p layed little or no pajudaism played little or no part in their life, on ly 2% o f the religiou s students w ou ld make a similiar reply. (Table 5 ) The value o f H erm an’s findin gs is further enhanced by in depth interview s with a small group o f his original sam ple. Here again, com m ents in relation to the above question are highly significant. R e marks by the religious students were typi cally: “ M y w hole w ay o f life is de termined by Judaism ” “ I am all the time a Jew and cannot con ceive m y self think ing oth erw ise.” “ It expresses itself in every detail o f m y l if e ...t o what school I go, what sort o f edu cation I receive... w hom I v is it, w ho are m y friends, every thing!’’ The typical non-religious response, on the other hand is given as: “ I am n o n -r e lig io u s , and Judaism appears to me to be m ainly a religion. Therefore, the fact that I am Israeli mat ters more to me than the fact o f being J ew ish .” Even more indicative o f these attitudes is the question “ I f you were to be bom again, w ould you w ish to be bom a J e w .” A m ong the religious students polled 94% answered “ Y e s ,’’ w hile only 6% said that it made no difference. There was not a single “ N o ” answ er am on g them . The nonreligious respondents, on the other hand, had an entirely different attitude. O nly 54%

responded to the affirmative, w hile 43% said that it w ould make no difference, and 3% answered negatively. (Table 7) W hen presented with the possibility o f living as a Jew outside o f Israel the negative feelin g s o f the non -religious were even more apparent. To the question, *‘If you were to live abroad, w ould you w ish to be born a Jew?” , only 37 % responded affirma tively, w hile fully 29% responded with a “ N o .” A m ong religious students, on the other hand, fully 84% answered with an unqualified “ Y e s ,” with only 8% giving a negative reply. A lth o u g h c la s sic a l Z io n ist theory w ould assum e a universal positive response to all the above questions, w e see that in practice, this is far from being the case. W hen the religious elem ent was absent, both the importance o f being Jewish, as w ell as the desire to be a Jew, is also absent. From this it becom es obvious that a “ Jewish State’’ without Jew ish religion has little viability indeed. An important corollary to this is that w hile the vast majority o f religious respon dents identified them selves as Jews rather than Israelis, the majority o f non-religious students considered them selves to be “ Is raeli” but not Jewish. Thus, when asked to evaluate them selves, 60% o f the religious stu dents con sid ered th e m se lv es m ostly ■-Jewish,” w h ile only 4% o f the non religious students did. On the other hand, only 7% o f the religious students considered them selves more Israeli then Jewish, com pared to 69% o f the non-religious students.

(Table 10) This same question seem s to have far reaching effects toward the feelings o f the respondents toward other Jew s o f similar persuasion. Fully 90% o f the religious stu dents felt “ very c lo se ” to other religious Jews in Israel, w hile only 72% o f the non-

JEWISH U FE

religious w ould the same statement with regard to their non-religious Israeli counter parts. W hen it cam e to tolerance o f other Israelis, the results were even more marked. W hile only 6% o f the non-religious felt very c lo s e ’ ’ to the religious Jew s, and only 33% felt any closen ess at all, fully 30% o f the religious Jews felt “ very c lo s e ” to their non-religious brethren, and a full 78% e x pressed som e feeling o f closen ess. (Table

64) The contrast w as even more apparent with regard to Jew s living abroad. Here, only 19% o f the non-religious Israelis felt “ very c lo s e ” to their non-religious coun terparts abroad, and only 9% expressed similar feeling toward the religious abroad. In contrast to this, fully 85% o f the religious respondents felt “ very c lo s e ” to religious Jews abroad, and as many as 22% expressed the sam e f e e lin g s , e v e n tow ard n o n religious Jew s abroad. (Table 65) One o f the m ost insidious problems facing the American Jew ish com m unity is that o f intermarriage. Although the question is more theoretical than practical in Israel, the answer gives us considerable insight into the viability o f a secular “ Jew ish State,” especially if Arabs and other nonJew s are to becom e integrated into its socie ty. W hen asked “ What is your opinion o f a Jew who marries a n on -Jew ,” only 43% o f the non -religious respondents expressed opposition, as contrasted to 91% o f the re ligiou s students. To the question “ would you be prepared to marry a n on -Jew ,” fully 50% o f the non-religious students replied “ y es, just as with a J e w ,” compared to only 3% o f the religious students. This is speak ing o f a non-Jew w ho has not converted to Judaism. (Tables 51-53) The lack o f Jew ish identity on the part o f the non-religious is equally apparent in their attitudes toward conversion. Here the

results were very close to their feelin gs re garding intermarriage. The question here w as “ What is your opinion o f a Jew who converts to another religion?” A s could al m ost be expected by now , only 5 ?/o o f the non-religious respondents expressed any opposition, compared w ith 91% o f the re ligious. If this book were read by the leaders o f Conservative and Reform , they w ould bet ter understand why Orthodox Jews are so concerned with the issue o f “ W ho is a Jew ’ ’ and why w e cannot take seriously their appeals concerning Jew ish unity. This should provide a deeper apprecia tion for our concern with Jew ish education and the survival o f traditional Torah values. Clearly Professor Herman has demonstrated that the only w ay to keep Israel and the J e w ish p e o p le a liv e is th ro u g h the strengthening o f religious observance and loyalty. It is becom ing increasingly apparent that Torah causes merit the support o f the Orthodox as w ell as the non-Orthodox. For this reason individuals w ho are not obser vant but who love the Jew ish people and are com mitted to its survival should take seri ously the need to shift values and priorities, so that traditional Jewish institutions w ill be strengthened. If Herman were an orthodox Jew, he might be smug about his results. A s a secu lar Zionist, he reluctantly draws the conclu sion that his findings are the logical result o f the disassQciation o f ethnicity from religion w h ich occu red w ith the rise o f secular Zionism . A s an individual who has never identified with the religious elem ents o f Is raeli society, Herman no doubt appreciates the irony o f his final recom m endation. For he now believes that an Israeli nationalism , separated from religion, constitutes a threat to the Jew ish people.

Archeology and the Patriarchal Narrative

by Bernard Rosensweig

T H E P A T R IA R C H A L A G E II, by Philip Biberfeld: N ew Y ork, F eldheim , 1974. $8.7 5 There w as a time in the not too distant past when the world o f Biblical scholarship w as practically unanimous in its rejection o f the historical authenticity o f the patriarchal narrative. Under the sw ay o f W ellhousen, w ho was to B ible Criticism what Darwin w as to Evolution, the critics consigned the story o f our first foretathers to the realm o f fiction. At best, it w as seen as nothing more than a backward projection into the distant past o f conditions prevailing in later ages. W ellhousen h im self has written, “ The nar ratives about the patriarchs in G enesis are bound up with ethnological conditions and cultic institutions o f the monarchic period, the origins o f w hich they attribute to an ideal prehistory, though in fact that prehistory is sim ply the reflection o f conditions in their ow n tim e.” H is disciples follow ed suit. W ithin our tim e, how ever, a dramatic

reversal has taken place and the archeologi cal discoveries w hich have been made in the last generation have forced a new consensus and evaluation upon the scholarly world. An enorm ous mass o f tests and documents has been, and is still being unearthed in the entire Near East region. W e now have liter ally tens o f thousands o f texts w hich are contemporary to the period o f the origins o f the Jew ish people. W e have over 20,000 Mari texts from the 18th centuary b .c .e ., Cappodocian texts from the 19th century, thousands o f docum ents from the first dynasty o f Babylon (19th to 16th centuries), N u zi texts o f the 15 th century, Alalakh Tab lets o f the 17th and 15th centuries, Ras Shamra Tablets and other docum ents o f the Egyptain M iddle K ingdom (20th to 18th centuries), as w ell as many others. From these douments, our knowledge o f the ethnography, geography and history o f the Ancient East is being extended. Pre cise parallels to the patriarchal narratives have been discovered, w hich can only be-

JEWISH LIFE

long to the period w hen the patriarchs are said to have lived according to B iblical trad ition. These parallels cannot be dated from the period w hen the “ traditions” were sup posed to have been finally established, nor can they com e from the tim e w hen the cri tics claim that they w ere purportedly com posed. The unw illingness o f the critics to assim ilate this new material into their histor ical construction (or reconstruction) o f the patriarchal period w as matched only by the tenacity w ith w hich they have refused to abandon their untenable historical p o si tions. The im plications o f the archeological tide, how ever, could not be stemmed. Led by the late Prof. W illiam F. Albright, who w as probably more instrumental than any one else in placing the findings o f the M id dle East archeology at the disposal o f the historian, the overw helm ing majority o f m odern B iblical scholars quite properly concluded that the picture w hich the B ibli cal texts presents is historical. The c o n sen sus opinion am ong contemporary Biblical researchers is that w e can assert with co n fi dence that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were actual historical figures. At the same tim e, w e are obliged to warn against the unqualified acceptance o f archeology and the interpretations o f ar cheologists in the final determination o f our attitude towards the Torah and its text. The u n c r itic a l a c c la im o f a r c h e o lo g y by traditionalists can be as dangerous as the unscholarly devotion to the critical theories long after their major prem ises have been su ccessfu lly refuted. A rcheology is a tool — not the essence — in our understanding o f the B ible and its text, and there are impor tant lim itations that are im posed upon ar ch eology in relation to the Torah. The fact is that Albright and his follow ers have their ow n theories regarding the text and its

SUMMER

transm ission w hich are no less unacceptable to the traditionalist than the documentary hypotheses o f W ellhousen and his follow ers w hich they attack. A rcheology obviou sly can provide us with no help in establishing the revelationary character o f the Torah, since the reality o f D ivine R evelation is beyond its scope. R evelation is just one unique historical e x perience that does not com e w ithin the framework o f archeological activity. But beyond that, it is important to make the point that archeology, as such, has not ‘ ‘proven’ ’ the truth o f the B iblical narrative, as normally defined. W e have unearthed nothing w hich testifies to the actual e x is tence o f an Abraham, Isacc or Jacob, or that the stories o f the patriarchs happen just as the Torah tells them. The great service w hich archeological research is rendering to Biblical science lies in the presentation o f evid en ce w hich de monstrates conclu sively that the picture o f the patriarchs presented to us in G enesis is accurate within the framework o f the tim es in w hich they lived. Our great forefathers are no longer view ed in an uncertain vac u u m , but th e y e x p lo d e a g a in st the background o f a higly com plex and de veloped civilization. “ That the evidence concerns the background o f the stories and not their con ten t,’’ w rites Prof. H .H . Rowley, ’’does not make it less significant. ’ ’ On the contrary, the late Prof. N elson G lueck stated categorically that no archeological discovery ever controverted a Biblical re ference. W hat is very m uch needed in Jew ish life today is a generation o f Jew ish scholars w h o are th o r o u g h ly v e rsed in J e w ish sources, and w ho w ould be able to synth esize and integrate that know ledge w ith the findings o f archeology. Unfortunately, we have very few such men in the field o f

1974

BOOKS

Biblical scholarship. O ne o f the few who seek to achieve this synthesis is Rabbi Dr. Philip Biberfeld, and the results o f his e f forts are reflected in the third volum e o f his

Universal Jewish History, w hich deals fully with the patriarchal age. Dr. Biberfeld has a thorough familiar ity with B iblical text, the Rabbinical litera ture, and both m ediaeval and m odem com m entaries. E ven authorities lik e Rabbi Yitzchok Elchanan Spector, Rabbi Chaim o f V olozin , Rabbi Joseph Chaim Sonnenfe ld , R ab bi E lch an an W asserm an , the Chafetz Chaim , and Rabbi Aaron Kotler, who are not normally associated w ith the world o f m odem Biblical scholarship as such, are utilized by the author in his notes in order to highlight or underscore som e point or contention. A t the sam e tim e, Rabbi Biberfeld is obviously at hom e in the world o f archeology and its discoveries, he has read exten sively and know s the field quite thoroughly. In his book, he has integ rated his know ledge in both fields quite e f fectively, and the result is an ingenious amalgam o f Torah scholarship and archeol ogy* Biberfeld tells us that Abraham was born in 1812 b .c .e ., and that he cam e to Canaan after 1730, w hen that country w as under Egyptian control. M any scholars, under the influence o f N elson G lueck’s dis coveries in the N egeb , date Abraham’s ac tivity in this reason in the 19th century. It should be noted, how ever, that Prof. A l bright, in an article published posthum ous ly, w rites, “ W hether Abraham h im se lf lived w ell into the 18th century w e do not know, but I suspect that he d id .” At any rate, Abraham w as the sem inom adic head o f his ow n clan, and he ow ned herds and flocks w hich were tended by herdsmen. A n alternative description o f Abraham w as offered by the late Prof. M .H .

Segel. He contends that Abraham w as an urban non-nomad. The fact that Abraham lived in tents outside the urban areas w as a deliberate attempt to avoid getting involved in the polytheistic life w hich governed these cities. The patriarchs, unlike Lot, were de termined to strictly preserve their separation from the inhabitants o f Canaan. W ith scholarly sk ill, Dr. Biberfeld leads us through Abraham ’s sojourn in Egypt, the various covenants, the confron tations in Gerar, the story o f Hagar and Ish m a e l, and the Sale o f the C ave o f M achpelah. A ll o f these are presented to us against a background o f both extra-Biblical discoveries and authentic Jewish sources. Dr. Biberrfeld takes us into Egypt with Joseph, and quite correctly em phasizes the accuracy o f contemporary details in the light o f archeological discovery. It is true that nothing has been found thus far that bears directly on the life o f Joseph. There are no monuments or inscriptions*which support the Biblical assertions that he be cam e the viceroy o f Egypt. The fact is, how ever, that scholars have com e to have a very high regard for the story o f Joseph because it reflects great com petence in mat ters Egyptian. From the shaving o f the head to Egyptian burial practices, the late Prof. A .S . Yahuda pointed out that the Biblical account accords remarkably w ell with con ditions at the time. The problem o f dating Joseph’s arrival in Egypt is, o f course, o f vital importance. M any scholars place Joseph in the period o f the H yksos rule over Egypt (circa 17001570). H ow ever, our author (and others) prefers a post-H yksos dating. Rabbi Biber feld asserts that Joseph arrived in Egypt in 1544, and Jacob in 1522. H is rejection o f the H yksos period for Joseph is based on the fact that when the fam ily o f Joseph cam e to Egypt, they Were introduced to the court as

JEWISH LIFE

keepers o f cattle, the reason being because every shepherd w as “ an abominaton to the Egyptians, ’ ’ and this w ould free them from service to the king. This ploy does not make sense under the H yksos, w ho were known as the Shepherd K ings, w h ile it is fully understandable under the kings w ho fo l low ed, and for w hom every shepherd must have indeed been an “ abom ination.” The late dating o f Joseph is not w ithout its problems, and it involves us in the dating o f the Exodus, w hich for som e scholars is around 1447 b .c .e . N evertheless, it pro vides the author w ith an opportunity to de vote a section to “ The H ebrew Influence on Egyptian Life and Iknhaton’s R eform s.” This is a novel approach. M any critical scholars, w ho are anxious to deny any orig inality to Jew s and Judaism, contend that the m onotheism o f the H ebrews w as derived from the “ m onotheistic reform s” o f Iknha ton, and even Albright speaks about an “ in direct connection. f| Dr. Biberfeld neatly turns the tables on the critics and contends that the “ fifteen year m onotheistic heresey’’ o f Iknhaton is due to the m onotheistic influence o f the H ebrews. The truth, how ever, is that it is intellectually dishonest to link Iknhaton’s reforms with real m onotheism . The god w hich Iknhaton worshipped w as Aton, the sun disc, a visible, natural phenom enon, and not a G-d who is outside and above nature. B eyond that, there were tw o gods worshipped during the reign o f Iknhaton. Iknhaton and his fam ily w orshipped Aton «*$*• and everybody else worshipped Iknhaton as a god. In the light o f this, it is som ew hat sur prising that our author does not lay su ffi cien t stress on the role o f Abraham in m onotheism . It is obviously not overlooked — it is assum ed and referred to but it is not em phasized. It .may be true, as the aii-

SUMMER

Eat in good health

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 ewish Life envelope.

GHORSERADISH o ld ’s £ Amm'simt f i l l

pulmd

1974

BOOKS

thor indicates in his second volum e, that Abraham did not discover m onotheism . The fact that he rediscovered it at a m oment when it w as on the verge o f extinction, how ever, is not an insignificant achieve ment. In effect, Abraham becam e the foun der o f m onotheism for his and for sub sequent generations. This concept is not only important as a vigorous historical response to those critics who have follow ed W ellhou sen’s H egelian th in k in g and h a v e p o s ite d I s r a e l’s m onotheistic conception o f G-d at the end o f an evolutionary process w hich concluded in the period o f the prophets. Even scholars like the late Prof. Kaufman, who reject the evolutionary theory o f m onotheism , and who see H ebrew m onotheism em erging full-blown and unique at an early period in Jew ish history, still tend to assign this period to the M osaic period. Y et the evidence is clear. Abraham, not M oses, is the progenitor o f Hebrew m onotheism . N ow here in Biblical literature is G-d designated as the G-d o f M oses. A lw ays, He is described as the G-d o f A b raham, Isaac and Jacob. In fact, when He appears to M oses in the Burning Bush, He does so precisely in those terms. There can be no doubt that the children o f Israel never associated their first know ledge o f G-d with the revelation at Sinai. The D ivine R evela tion w hich was vouchsafed to M oses and the Israelites at Sinai did not proclaim the e x is tence o f a new and hitherto unknown G-d, or even a new concep tion o f this G-d. T hrough M o se s w e r e c e iv e d a Torah; through Abraham w e received our concep tion o f the one, indivisible G-d o f Israel. Dr. Biberfeld builds his work on a series o f principles and assum ptions, some o f which are open to contention. There is one in particular w hich I find unsatisfac tory. He concedes that the Bible critics have

raised som e “ correct” questions, which obviously cannot be ignored. H is ow n solu tion, how ever, is to explain “ all the puzzl ing phenomna o f B ible texts” by positing m ystical structure based on numerical val ues giving expression to the D ivine Name. In other words, the particular structure o f the text, with the problems that it raises, is the result o f underlying numerical com bina tions w hich project the D ivine Nam e. “ The holy numbers 1, 13 and especially 26 — the numerical value o f the D ivine Name — play an important part in this respect.” It seem s to me that an otherwise valu able, scholarly work, in a very important but n e g le c te d area, is un derm ined by theories o f this kind. The divine character o f the Bible is not enhanced or strengthened in a historical work by the use o f mystical theories. The author latches on to a state ment, in a footnote, to the effect that 328 sentences are devoted to Abraham, 76 to Isaac, 345 to Jacob, and 284 to Joseph. On the basis o f his theory, he proceeds to point out that the sum o f the digits o f the sentences devoted to Abraham and Isaac, each being 13, adds up to 26, the numerical value o f the D ivine Nam e. In the case o f Jacob and Joseph, the sums are 12 and 14 respectively, and this also adds up to 26. D oes anyone seriously belie ve that this kind o f approach really enhances our under standing o f the sacred text o f the Torah? It seem s to me that the unparalled contribution o f the great kaleidoscopic scholar, Rabbi D avid Hoffm an, who met the challenges posed by B iblical criticism with penetrating scholarship and an uncompromising com mitment to the revelational character o f the Bible, is the kind o f approach that we should expect in this kind o f work. Our b elief in the authenticity o f the Torah and its resultant personal com m it ment are not conditioned by the problems

JEWISH LIFE

w h ich are raised by B ib lica l criticism . M any o f the problems, including that o f the historicity o f the Patriarchal period, w hich only a short tim e ago seem ed to defy solu tion, have been resolved to the satisfaction o f the traditionalist Jew , without im pinging upon our faith and tradition. If there are problem s w hich cannot yet be solved by secular know ledge, we should not be con cerned. W e can live w ith these problems and with our faith in the D ivine authorship o f the B iblical text.

Dr. Joseph H einem an, in discussing the problem o f Biblical criticism , provided the follow in g analogy: À man hears the tes tim ony o f a hundred trustworthy w itnesses regarding an event w hich w as supposed to have occurred, and is unable to avoid ac cepting this testim ony. There is only one exception to this rule — if the same man who heard the testim ony o f the hundred w itnesses was actually present at the time o f the reported event, and saw w ith his ow n e y es that it w as hot so. VeHamevin Yavin.

AUTHENTIC JUDAISM IN M ODERN ID IO M NCSY PUBLICATIONS THE RO AD T O RESPONSIBLE JEWISH A D U LTH O O D /Jew ish Insights into Love, Sex, Dating and Marrlage/56 pp./by Pinchas Stolper . . . . . . . . $ 2 L25 A S C IE N C E AND TORAH READER/How the Torah understands an d m e e t s t h e , c h a l l e n g e s of sdence/144 pp./Edited by Yaakov K o rn re ich .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3 . 5 0 A G U ID E T O B L ES S IN G S /A n alphabetical guide to blessings tor 600 foods and com binations/50 pp./by Mosad Eliezer Hoffner . . . . . . . . . $ 1 . 0 0 WHAT HAPPENED ON SINAI/An in* t r o d u c t i o n to th e c o n c e p t of revelation/64 pp./Edited by Pinchas Stolper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . $ 2 . 5 0 ERETZ IS R A E L : LAN D OF PRO M ISE/The m eaning of Jewish n atio n alism /1 1 2 p p ./b y M ich a e l Rosenack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 . 5 0 PRAYER: REACHING O U T TO G-D/48 pp./Edited by Zev Shostak ... . . $ 2 . 0 0 WHAT IS O RTH O DO X JUDAISM/42 pp./Edited by Baruch Litvin... . . $ 2 . 0 0

DAY O F DELIGHT/A Sabbath program* m ing m anual/138 p p ./E d ite d by Pinchas Stolper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 . 5 0

NEW FROM NCSY G -D , MAN AND TEFILLIN/Unusual, in cisive, revealing, covers every aspect of Tefillin/96 pp./by Aryeh Kaplan. $2.75 Prepublication Price $2.00 THE REAL M ESSIAH/jewish and Chris tian views contrasted/75pp./EdRed by Yaadov Kornreich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 . 5 0 M A I M O N I D E S ' PRI N C I P L E S / A n an th o lo gy of M a im o n id e s' ow n writings, newly translated and compiied/88 pp./by Aryeh Kaplan . . $2.75 Prepublication Price $2.00 (10 copies or m ore, 10% discount; 25 copies or m ore, 20% discount; 100 copies or m ore, 30% discount) A ll orders must be prepaid/Send remit tance to: NCSY Publications/UOJCA/ 116 East 27th Street New York, N.Y. 10016

Letters

Editor: M oshe H alevi Spero’s expressed goal in his article, “ Where W om en Created U n equal” (JL, Winter, 1974), was to consider the question o f what, if anything, is the foundation for w om en not being on an equal footing with men in sòm e o f the rituals and cerem onies o f Judaism. It is for Judaic scho lars to judge whether his considerations adequately presents the Jew ish view point. I would merely like to share m y responses to the nature o f the inquiry and the philosophy expressed. Essentially , Mr. Spero maintains that a male need to dominate (com pensation for his insecurity in not having human roots) and the lack o f such a need in the female (w ho has security derived from her human roots) are Jungian archetypal predisposi tio n s. Jud aism , , he c o n c lu d e s, is then “ com passion ate,” in adjusting the halachic status o f w om en, w hose basic nature is less dominant than m an’s. I applaud the author’s w illingn ess to seek philosophic support for Jew ish con cepts. But the theory o f archetypes is highly controversial, and the author has som e o b li gation also to consider ideas less friendly to his Views. M any psych ologists and theorists o f other scien ces challenge or refute the concept that personality patterns are geneti cally traceable through time. One rhight suggest that a sufficient

n u m b er o f d o m in a tin g w o m e n and dom ination-desiring men exist to challenge the applicability o f the arch-typal model to substantiate a superiority-inferiority posi tion. But even if men are in such a difficulty — genetically determined or not — why should the status o f w om en be adjusted to com p en sate? O ne m ight as reasonably argue that Jew ish m ovem ent should be re stricted if G entiles find offensive. This is backwards logic: the resolution o f male in security. should require male adjustments. At the m ost, w om en may offer loving sym pathy. In a final tw ist, the author states, “ ...th is dom inance is not so m uch part o f man’s basic personality, as it is the descrip tion o f the basic fem ale personality. ” If I read him correctly;; St is not that male insecurity-aggression lowers female status after all, but rather that the female repre sents a power vacuum and brings it on her self. This idea strikes me as semantic doub lethink. I suggest that the need to dominate or not is w idely distributed between the sexes, and is expressed differently in men and w om en among different peoples in cultur ally defined w ays -¡¡»or, in other words, that the basic personalities that the author prop o ses probably do no exist. Sylvia J. Feinman N ew York, N. Y.

JEWISH LIFE

Editor: M oshe H alevi Spero’s article is the greatest pilpul I have read in a long time. H is w hole premise seem s to be built on a very shaky foundation. To begin with, he repeats the same m istake that I have heard m any tim es, nam ely, that Yira means “ fear.” Nothing o f the kind. The tneaning o f Yira is rever ence, and reverence connotes respect, affec tion and honor. Mr. Spero quotes the noted psychiat rist Jung. Our forefathers were also w ell versed in the affairs o f the heart and knew quite w ell that feelin gs cannot be legislated. Fear and hatred go hand in hand. The Torah w ould not have asked us to hate father and mother, and certainly not to hate G-d. The author also states that the term Ish in Leviticus 19:3 refers to man as distin guished from wom an. That is absurd. This type o f usage is inherent in the Hebrew language. D oes this mean that w om en are exem p t from honoring their father and mother? In explaining the idea o f the archetype, w hy did the author choose the second o f the tw o stories o f creation. What is wrong with the first story w hich states (Genesis 1 :27 ), “ M ale and fem ale He created th em .” The Weltanschauung o f Judaism com es through so clearly in this story: Man and wom an were created equal and meant for each other. The idea o f m onogam y also shines in this story so beautifully. It is reiterated many tim es in the Tanach, but the m ost am using is in the story o f N oah where he calls the paired animals com ing into the ark (Genesis 7:2), Ish Velshto, “ a man and his w ife .” B y and large, there is no idea o f w o man’s inferiority in Tanach. O nly later on m ale legislators tilted the law in their favor. M ale or fem ale superiority or inferior ity are strictly results o f our upbringing. The

SUMMER

story o f creations, archetype or no, has no rftore influence on us than does the Story o f Little Red Riding H ood. Mr. Spero’s statement regarding w o m en’s inferiority is a com plete bafflem ent. He claim s that w om en fell inferior because they never had the need to assert them selves to achieve security. During the last genera tion in Europe, w ho w as it then w ho as serted herself in the field o f business so that her husband could becom e a Lamdan in the

Bais Midrash ? Margalit R osem an L os A n geles, California

MR. SPERO REPLIES: W ith regard to M s. Feinm an’s letter, I w ould like to make the follow in g points: 1. Jungain archetypes have been at tacked from many theoretical standpoints. I say “ th e o r e tic a l/’ since none o f the a r g u ments have ever m anaged to account, in their ow n term s, for the myraid crosscultural evid en ces o f archetypal sym bols, dreams, myths and thought patterns, that were so carefully gathered by Jung. It has alw ays seem ed easy to attribute the contents o f our im aginations and dreams to som e theory o f learning or imitation, but this has never amply explained the apparent univer sality o f archetypes. (Cf. Collected Works (N ew York, B ollingen), 9, i.) W ith regard to the question o f a genetic base for personality patterns, D .O . Hebb (“ A N europsychological T heory,” in S. K och (E d.), P sychology: A Study o f Sci ence, V ol. I, N ew York: M cG raw -H ill, 1959, pp. 622-643) entertains the p ossibil ity o f the existen ce o f “ c ell assem b lies” in the neural system . These cell assem blies are closed system s in w hich the neural activity, or thought pattern, can continute to reverb erate, even after the sensory event w hich caused it has ceased. H e feels that cell as-

1974

LETTERS

sem bly activity is the sim plest case o f an image or an idea. T his data su ggests that im ages are “ there” in the brain. One needs only the recent developm ents in research with the memory engram transmission capacity o f R N A (ribonucleic acid) to com plete the gap between a parent’s behavior patterns and those inhereted by his or her offspring. That is, w hile behavior itself is not inhereted, variations in protein structure due to be havioral variations can be transmitted. It is highly conceivable that m emory traces are coded inside R N A m olecules o f neurons just as patterns o f heredity are coded in the D N A m olecules o f the genes, Jung h im self said that “ .,. although our inheritance consists in physiological paths, it w as nevertheless mental processes in our ancestor that traced these paths.” (“ On P sy c h ic E n e r g y ,” par. 1 0 0 .) In other words, w hile experience as such is not in herited, the brain has been shaped and influ enced by the remote experiences o f man kind. One o f Jung’s favorite evid en ces was in cases o f certain kinds o f mental disorder where there would be an astonishing de velopm ent o f m ythological imagry w hich could never be accounted for by the indi viduals’s ow n experience, or be attributable to cryptomnesia. 2 .1 do not believe that the existen ce o f d om inatin g w om en or su b m issiv e m en changes “ the applicability o f the archetypal m o d e l to su b sta n tia te a su p e r io r ity inferiority p osition .” A n archetype and M s. Feinman herself em ployes the term is only a predisposition; it is not an inelucta ble determinant like Freud’s concept o f the Kairos. Thus, w hile homo sapiens have in nate leanings towards certain behaviors in certain conditions and circum stances, there is nothing that can totally prevent primordially secure w om en from wanting more

security, or to prevent primordially insecure men from seeking more dependence rather than asserting him self. 3. M s. Feinman asks, “ If men are in such d ifficu lty.. .w hy should wom en be ad justed to com pensate?” In truth, com pen satory m easures are prescribed for the m ale, as in the case o f the blessing, “ B lessed ... who has not created m e a woman. ’ ’ (Cf. “ N egativism and F em in ism ,’’ JL, July 1973.) M y basic position is that the Torah, in relegating roles to the sexes, evidently do so based on som e view o f w om en’s basic nature. This w as m y starting point. I offer m y theory as an attempt to understand what it is about the male and fem ale sexes which m ight have called, forth this differential treatment. A s I indicated in the last parag raph o f page 20 and 21, the Torah did not create the almost univerally encountered subm issive status o f w om en in society. This socially instituted defensive set-up had be com e deeply imbedded in society centuries before the giving o f the Torah. The Torah addressed its halachic norms to that reality. 3. M s. Feinman reads m e incorrectly *■— a margin o f error w hich may be properly allow ed. Throughout tim e, it is the female who has, primordially, the more secure roots, but who, at the same tim e, w ill rarely be as aggressive as the male. She does not, qua wom an, draw this upon herself; the defense m echanism described in the article is part o f the m ale’s personality. M s. Fein man seem s to see in the differential treat ment o f w om en by the Torah som e sort o f evaluative judgem ent, im plying inferiority or disenfranchisement. This m isleads her to see in m y “ final tw ist” the rationalization that w om en brought their present status upon them selves. M y point is simply that w om en have been, and are, different. In M s. R osem an’s letter, we find a

JEWISH LIFE

number o f popular m isconceptions prevelant am ong those w ith m inim al Jew ish ed u cation ip l and often re-enforced in non orthodox literature. They should be obvious to anyone who has ever studied Torah in any depth, and I w ill m erely point out the m ost obvious errors. 1. The word Yira m ost certainly has the denotation o f “ fe a r,” if on ly from the strictly lexicological standpoint. If, as M s. R osem an suggests, Yira im plies affection and honor, then w hy does the Torah so often speak o f having Yira o f o n e ’s enemies'? W hy also did Rashi in his com mentary feel com p elled to em p h asise the distin ction w hich the Torah itself m akes betw een Yira and K ovod (honor)? Indeed, if R ashi’s re sponse is that a son feels the em otion o f Yira towards his mother, and K oavod towards his father, then it seem s to m e that at least Rashi felt that there w as a sufficient differ ence betw een the tw o terms. Furthermore, Rashi is not merely expressing a personal opinion, but is reflecting the m eaning o f these verses as taught in the Talmud and Midrash. 2. It is sim ply not true that fear and hatred ‘ ‘go hand in hand. ’ ’ D oes every child w ho fears his teacher also consciously hate him or her? D oes the soldier-m acho w ho hates the “ en em y” also fear him? N ot in every case. To be psych ologically precise — and w e have no excu se not to be — fe a r is only an effect w hich signals danger in the presence o f the known cause o f that feeling. It is not the same as anxiety or hatred. Hatred, to be effective, does not require fear. 3. A s I m entioned in the article, the Torah is aware that w e are bom with a certain basic em otional predispositons to ward certain object-cathexisis. It uses such terms as “ fear” and “ honor” to correct or guide our personalities. And where does

M s. R osem an find that the Torah did not legislate feelings? Are w e not enjoined, “ Serve G-d with happiness, com e before H im with jo y ,” “ And you shall rejoice on your festiv a ls,” “ And you shall love G-d with all your heart,’’ and many more? 4. Again, it is Rashi — based on many classical sources MS w ho felt that Ish w as a strange term to use. M oreover, it is also he w ho asks w hy did the Torah not elim inate gender in com mandm ent. And, m ost impor tant, it is he w ho states that the term Ish here does intend a reference to the m ale alone. (I am assum ing, o f course, that M s. R osem an places credence w ith Rashi and our sages — if not, then w e have no com m on ground upon w hich to discuss this or any other issu e.) 5. I chose the so-called “ secon d ’’ story o f creation sim pty because, according to m ost o f our accepted authorities, it is no thing more than an expanded account o f the first. W e do not seriously consider the secu lar B ible “ scholars*’ w ho attribute these tw o accounts to different sources. The en tire Torah has but one source, nam ely, G-d him self. 6. R osem an does not find such Biblical law s as the menstrual taboos and the e x clu sive role o f m ales in the Mishkan and Tem ple services to im ply som e sort o f inferiori ty? Fine! M y Comments were only intended for those who felt that w om en’s role was inferior A® and it is to them that I offered m y psychoanalytical interpretation o f the facts. 7. I have stated over and over that inferiority, as used in m y article, does not necessarily mean below the norm o f nonsubm issive. W om en are inferior only in that they, existentially, do not feqilljpjieed to be more assertive than m en. I f l s then man w ho, due to his ow n w eakness, m ight push w om en into a deeper lastitude — one w hich very few w om en seek to em erge from.

FOR YO U RSELF AND YOUR FRIENDS A PRECIOUS G IFT two years for only $5.00, three years $6.50, four years $8.00. Foreign: add $.40 per year.

JEWISH L I F E , 116 EAST 27TH STREET • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10016 Name........................................... ......................................................... . Address....... ............................................. ................ ............................. City, State, Zip Code.................. ................. .................. ......................

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

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

□ New O Renewal

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

0 7 0 4 7 R O S E N 7 U E

ROSENBAUM

711 87TH N BERGEN

ST NJ

07047