Kislev 1970

' j 0

r'r-

t i

t

L

m

ill

THE

IS:::::::::

. • ■ • • A a i i l M M ............

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

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

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

..........

■ ••••••••••••a*

: : : : : : : : : : .............. ............

::::::

i••

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

::::::::::::::::

Vol. 8. No. 4

1DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

n"3

2s. 6d.

CONTENTS Editorial

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

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

1-2

Judith, by S. K.

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

3-5

Viewpoints

Chanucah and Purim. by Rabbi M oshe Cohen

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

5-6

Djann oiuru nin n^n cnrnpn

Our Elite, by Rabbi O. Feuchtwanger

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

7

Who Divides Us? by R abbi M. Smith

Torah-Life

and

Modern

Dr. J. E. Ehrentren

...

Thought — 6,

by

R abbi ...

7-11

Shticklach und Breckiach, by R abbi Dr. Chain] J. C ooper 11-14

Books

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

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

... 14-15 ... 15-16 •••

... 16-17 ... 18-19

Obituaries

... 19-20

Reports

... 20-23

Poem, We Have Our Reasons, by G.L.S. ...

23

THE CHANUCAH MESSAGE

C

HANUCAH and Purim, the two “minor festivals" in our calendar, are celebrated with joy and enthusiasm by all strata of our people in various ways, despite the fact that our Sages did not find it necessary to declare it a Mitzvah, a duty, as is the case with Purim.

In the text of “A1 Hanissim”, in which we express our deep appreciation to G-d for the miracles he wrought with us in those days, we stress and emphasise above all the fact that our enemies did not succeed in making us forget the Torah and the possibility of performing Mitzvot and of living our unique and traditional way of life.

Ever since we Jews became a people — actually, since our father Abraham, the first Jew, appeared in the world — we have always, in ail periods of our history, been forced to fight on two fronts.

On the one hand, we have always had, throughout the gener­ ations, our physical enemies, who have always set them­ selves the aim of achieving the physical destruction (Heaven forbid) of our people, whose perpetual clarion call has been: “Let us cut them off from being a nation!" for, from the beginning of our history, we have been a thorn in their flesh. Abraham had Nimrod; Isaac had Avimelech; Jacob had Esau and Laban; the Tribes and those who left Egypt had Pharaoh and, later, Amalek, Moses and Joshua had the thirty-one kings; the Judges and Kings had the Philistines, Edom, Ammon

FIIk y; \

w

and Moab, Sennacherib and Titus. So the tale has unfolded throughout the centuries of our Exile, right up to the present day. Even now, unfortunately, we can see no sign among many of the nations of the earth that there has been any change of heart.

On the other hand, we have had and still have today, to fight on a second front — to wage a more bitter battle — an external as well as an internal one in the spiritual sphere, against those whose avowed aim is to make us forget our Torah and Mitzvot, who want to transform the character and image of our people. The Sadducees and Karaites were the first, followed by the Hellenists and pro-Greeks in the time of the Maccabees.

In turn, their successors, “under other names", are doing the same in our own day, and they are exerting them­ selves by every means at their disposal, to extirpate the belief in Torah and Mitzvot from the hearts of our young people, to tear asunder the golden chain which binds us to Mount Sinai and to turn us into a people like all other peoples.

Our hearts bleed and our souls are torn when, in the situation in which our people finds itself today, when hatred for the People of Israel, especially in the Land of Israel, is growing and extending, when we have unfortunately — very few good friends among the peoples of the world, we Orthodox Jews are forced to fight a bitter war of seif-defence against certain sections

Page Tw o

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

of our own brethren in various countries, even including Israel itself.

We do not do this, Heaven forbid, out of hatred for our own flesh and biood. We do it because we are deeply convinced and really believe, that the path on which they wish to iead our people will result in the disappearance, G-d forbid, of Judaism as we know and understand it, as we have inherited it from our parents, and which we feel it our sacred duty to hand on to our children. It is a battle they have forced upon us, one we have not sought, and it would be an unforgivable sin on our part to remain silent when we see before our very eyes how our own brethren, whom we love, are tearing apart the Jewish soul and putting our entire existence at hazard.

The physical existence of our people is assured, be­ cause the Guardian of Israel does not sleep, nor does He slumber; and because we have the promise, confirmed by our history, that the Jewish people will never be destroyed. But in the fight for our soul, for our identity, we must fight alone. We cannot rely upon anyone else or on miracles. The miracle of Purim came in its entirety from the Ruler of the World, while the miracle of Chanucah occurred because of the great spiritual dedi­ cation of the handful of Maccabees, and with it they showed us a lesson for generations — that it is not enough to fight the spiritual enemy by exposing him or by calling him names. He must be fought with his own weapons, and when this enemy’s aim is to make us forget the Torah, then our reply must be to teach them our Torah. When they spread darkness, we must spread light; when they exert themselves to put out the light of faith, Torah and Mitzvot, our duty is to do everything possible to kindle the pure young souls with the light and fire of the voices and lightnings of Mount Sinai, for even a little light defers the onset of darkness.

May the festival of Chanucah be transformed into a festival of Chinuch, a call to stronger and intensified activities by our respective Orthodox Kehillot in the sphere of educating our youth, so that the miracle of Chanucah which happened in those days should happen again in our days.

11

nn n

indemnified by ransoming the holy Sabbath by paying a sum of £210,000.

The Acting Rav Rashi of the Federation of Syna­ gogues felt it his duty, together with his colleagues on the Federation Beth Din, to send a protest telegram to the Israeli Ambassador in Britain against the pro­ posed Chillul Shabbat. What could be more suitable for the religious representative of an Orthodox Kehilla than to send such a protest telegram? It appears, how­ ever, that a certain gentleman hiding behind the name of “Ben-Azai" in the Anglo-Jewish press, did not like the wording of the telegram : “Anglo-Jewish community deeply disturbed prospect public Shabbat desecration in Ashkelon . . . and wrote angrily: “One can understand the Acting R av Rashi’s feelings in this matter, but to speak in the name of Anglo-Jewry was a ridiculous presumption”.

We would like to draw this gentleman’s attention to the fact that there is more than one organised Orthodox community in London, and that they have their own ecclesiastical authorities, their own Batei Din and other institutions a Kehilla ought to have, and that not one of the religious leaders of the respective Kehillot is in a position to speak in the name of all Anglo-Jewry without prior consultation and agreement with the others. But anyone who knows English well should have noticed that the telegram did not say “in the name of Anglo-Jewry ’, but “Anglo-Jewry", and we consider that the acting Rav Rashi can also evaluate the opinion of Anglo-Jewry in the question and express his opinion that this was the way the overwhelming majority of Anglo-Jewry felt about it, even many in non-Orthodox circles.

We would also iike to give the above-mentioned writer some good advice for the future: when he writes about religious leaders of Anglo-Jewry, he should write with more derech eretz and in more guarded language. Other­ wise, he will become the court jester of Anglo-Jewry, for whom we would like to suggest a more suitable name than Ben Azai— Ben Nanas. We believe, that who­ ever he is, he knows what “Nanas” means in Hebrew.

THE JEWISH WELFARE BOARD A WORD OF ADVICE Orthodox Jews throughout the world breathed more freely when they learnt that the proposed motor racing Grand Prix at Ashkelon, which had been due to take place on the Sabbath, had been cancelled after a storm of protest in the Orthodox Jewish world, perhaps main­ ly because the damage caused by the cancellation was We apologise to our readers for the delay in the appear­ ance ol the ( hanucah issue of hamaor , caused by power cuts and other difficulties beyond our control.

We print in this issue a report on the activities of the Jewish Welfare Board.

The Board is the major social welfare agency in the community and is entitled to the community’s unstinted support.

We feel it our duty to draw attention to the fact that, at present, the Board’s institutions and homes are not supervised for kashrut by any recognised rabbinic authority, and this causes anxiety and distress to many individuals for whom the Board’s facilities are provided.

This is a matter to which the Executive of the Board and the communal authorities should give urgent atten­ tion.

THE

DECEMBER, 1970

L IG H T

WHO DIVIDES US?

By RABBI M. SMITH At the time of writing this article, there appears to be a fluttering of dovecotes in the United Synagogue. Some of its leading members attended a special service held by a Reform Synagogue, and the Chief Rabbi protested against this, thereby creating some resentment on the part of those who attended.

The self-styled organ of Anglo-Jewry seized on this opportunity to deliver a scathing attack against the Chief Rabbi, calling his attitude “an abuse of power”. How dare he break up the unity of Anglo-Jewry!

It is no uncommon phenomenon among anti-Semites to stir up discord and then protest against the very discord they them­ selves have created. Thus originated the infamous “May Laws”, passed by the Russian Government in 1881 when, after organising pogroms in the country, they protested against these pogroms by restricting the Jews to certain areas. And so with this periodical. For years it has attacked Orthodoxy and its leader­ ship, has given exaggerated prominence to the Reform move­ ment in this country, helping to swell its ranks, and now it protests against this so-called attempt to break up the unity of the community. Has not this organ itself created this schism?

Some time ago, when controversy ran high about a certain non-conforming Anglo-Jewish minister, I met a fairly intelligent person who told me he thoroughly agreed with the views of this particular minister. I asked him if he had read any of the publications of this individual. His reply was in the negative, but he had read quotations in the press. One would have thought it only right and correct for an organ claiming to be represen­ tative of the community, to content itself with its true function, namely, to report on the various trends of thought in the com­ munity, not to attempt to mould those thoughts..

There is an old saying, “The first quarrel is the best quarrel”.

Perhaps the early attempts at reconciliation were responsible, but the real fault is the failure on the part of the leadership of Anglo-Jewry to create a truly representative organ of AngloJewry. The cost, we are told, would be well over a million pounds. But surely this is more important than the importation of Principals of Jews' College, or even of experts to report on the state of Jewish education in this country, for which money is found. One is reminded of the verse, Kings I, ch. 20, v. 42: “And he said unto him, thus saith the L-rd, because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter des­ truction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people”.

The real danger to Orthodoxy in this country is the ignorance of what Reform stands for. 1 recall an incident during hospital visitation work. A patient I approached told me he was a member of the Reform community. My reply was “But you are a Jew, I visit all Jewish patients”. He then proceeded to tell me that he observed kashrus very strictly. It is obviously not advisable for a visiting chaplain to cause a patient any distress, but I could not control the urge to ask this patient whether his “so-called” rabbi also observed kashrus.

His reaction was one of righteous indignation: How dare I accuse a 4rabbi’ of not keeping a kosher home! After I had gently convinced him that his "rabbi" did not keep kashrus, he asked me why we Orthodox rabbis did not publicise this. I told him that to do this would give them undeserved publicity.

When the Pope bans a book it becomes a best-seller.

It is related of a certain Orthodox rabbi who once lived in South Africa, that every attack he launched against the Reform brought them added membership. And yet one can hardly con­ demn rabbis lor attacking Reform. The writer of this article lrequently commits such an error. I remember, however, the words of a chairman of my former congregation. He himself

KISLEV, 573!

Page Three

was very far from being an observant Jew, but like so many South African Jews, was opposed to Reform on nostalgic grounds. It is something they feel to be “un-Jewish”, and South African Jewry is strongly “Jew-conscious”. During a discussion at which the rabbi was criticised for his implacable hostility to Reform, he remarked: "How can a conscientious rabbi be other­ wise than hostile and outspoken against Reform, when he sees all his most treasured principles flagrantly violated? Rabbis are human beings, and must give vent to their outraged feelings”.

But to return to our main theme of the widespread ignorance of what Reform stands for. At a conference of Reform Jews in America as far back as 1895, it was decided that converts to Judaism would be accepted without the Abrahamic covenant.

Claude Montefiore, the arch-priest of the Liberal movement, is alleged to have declared that circumcision was a barbaric custom that should be abolished, but that this abolition must be gradual, as the ritual is too deeply engrained in Jewish psychology.

I have no doubt that this is behind the recent agitation for the employment of doctors to perform circumcision. The occasion was an unfortunate mishap on the part of a mohel. which was seized upon to advocate doctors in place of mohelim. The writer of this article sent in a verbatim quotation from Herman Wouk’s one-time best-seller, This is my G-d, in which he pro­ ceeds to give a number of reasons, including medical ones, why the mohel is in every way preferable to the doctor and that even doctors themselves recommend the use of mohelim. This letter never saw the light of day. Why? Because it was their policy to substitute the use of doctors in place of mohelim, thereby reducing a sacred ritual to the level of a surgical operation, which is exactly what Montefiore advocated, or would have preferred to introduce.

Some ten years ago, the then Chief Rabbi of the Transvaal Hebrew Congregations wrote a powerful article on the possibility of arriving at some understanding with Reform Judaism that would hammer out some form of practical co-operation between this movement and the general body of Orthodox Jewry, thereby creating harmony in the community. This proposal was based on what is actually a reality in Israel with its powerful and vociferous anti-religious elements.

The paramount interest of the State is to create, as far as possible, a state of unity among its subjects. A vital con­ sideration in maintaining unity is for all members of the State to be able to intermarry freely without any statutory laws pro­ hibiting this. Whether or not Israel is a religious State is not at the moment under consideration, but on one point there is complete unanimity, namely that Israel is a Jewish State.

Furthermore, whatever definition we apply to the word "Jew” does not substantially or materially affect the essentially Jewish nature of the State.

I his is undoubtedly at least one of the major considerations that have induced a government of a heterogeneous religious nature (if the word "religious" can in any way be applied to what is in every sense a secular body including even militant anti-religious elements) to agree in practice to leave matters of personal status, including the marriage laws, in the hands of religious courts. AM marriages in 'Israel are thus “according to the Law of Moses and of Israel”. Without this condition, there would be the danger of Israel being rent asunder with one section of the population unable to intermarry with another.

The laws of legitimacy in the eyes of Jewish law are on the one hand extremely lenient, but on the other hand very severe and, unfortunately, harsh on the innocent victim, more than on the culprits. The lenient aspects of these laws are simple, logical and based on nature. An illegitimate child by Jewish law is purely the outcome of what we may describe as an unnatural union, such as an incestuous one. Whatever modern trends, supported even by Acts of Parliament, have done to regularise certain forms of hitherto forbidden unions — in the widest sense

, !'

A. Ar

Page Four

DECEMBER, 1970

of the term they can still quite rationally be considered to be “unnatural unions”.

In this sense, too. marrying a deceased brother's widow, though legalised many years ago in this country and more recently even in South Africa (where the Church plays a more powerful role in the political sphere than in England) it is still, in the eyes of many conservative-minded people, an unnatural union. Here however, we must stress the term “conservative-minded people”.

There is in this permissive society, seeking as it does complete moral abandonment, an ever-growing voice that claims no wrong is done in acts hitherto considered obnoxious and morally sub­ versive. It is maintained further that the sense of guilt associated with such acts arises from outdated and outmoded ideas on sex. originating from biblical sources.

There is, however, reason to believe that the vast majority of well-balanced individuals, devoid of unnatural obsessions, are still prepared to accept the idea that incestuous unions, if only because of their — in the main — consanguineous nature, are unnatural.

In this category we may include even adulterous unions, since it may be considered “ unnatural” for a woman to be faithless to her husband.

In the eyes of Jewish law. only a child born out of such union may be considered illegitimate. Jewish law needs no legislation to legalise a child born to an unmarried mother. One must distinguish between “immoral" and “unnatural”.

And so the child born out of wedlock is legitimate.

Only in the cases mentioned is the child considered illegitimate.

Here we have the lenient aspect referred to.

On the other hand, Jewish law is harsh and severe, in that this child may not marry one of pure Jewish descent. This is the Jewish law, found together with all those other laws that have created traditional Judaism, that the overwhelming majority of Jews still recognise and adhere to.

All this leads us one step further. What is the definition of an "adulterous” union? Is a woman eternally bound to one husband, as in the case of the non-Jewish Church? Though C laude Montefiore considered it an act of undying shame on the part of Hillel. who sanctioned divorce, and was full of reverence for the founder of the dominant faith, who forbade divorce, yet our Torah, which is practical, realistic and down to earth, does allow divorce when life between two married partners becomes intolerable. This tearing apart of marital bonds is, however, a grave and serious act and can be done only under certain ditficult conditions embraced in the laws appertaining to a "G e t”. Until all these conditions have been fulfilled, the parties are still husband and wife, their marriage vows are still binding and any act of disloyalty is considered to be an act of adultery. The child born from such an act would be considered illegitimate and subject to the full rigour and harshness associated with this stigma.

It must be borne in mind that the marriage vow is the declaration pronounced under the Chupa: “ Be thou my wife according to the laws of Moses and Israel”. These laws contain no provision for the annulment of such a marriage by a decree nisi in the civil court of law. Hence a couple who remarry after such a decree nisi without fulfilling the conditions required

by Jewish law are effecting an adulterous union and the children born are illegitimate in the eyes of Jewish law.

It is because of all this and to ensure unity among its citizens and the avoidance of one section of the population being reli­ giously forbidden to intermarry with the other, that all parties in Israel have agreed, however reluctantly, that marriage laws be unified and under sole rabbinic control.

It is on the basis of this existing state of affairs in Israel that the former Chief Rabbi of the Transvaal Hebrew Congregations made the proposal mentioned earlier. The proposal was this: let us agree to one common marriage and divorce procedure, and for the rest, work in harmony. Such an agreement would

KISLEV, 5731

n h nn

have effected complete recognition between all elements of the community.

It would have recognised the right of each to worship after its own fashion, it would even have overlooked such vital practices as Shabbos and Kashrus and created a united community with differing interpretation of what is entailed in the practice and observance of Judaism.

Naturally, this would have entailed schisms and distinct reli­ gious communal organisations: there would still have been enmity and bitterness, these would have been unavoidable.

There would even have been a measure of ostracism on the part of the Orthodox, for fear of “contamination”, but all this would have represented relatively surface cracks, not deep-rooted cleavages. And behind all this, there would have been the unifying force of such deeply vital matters as marriage and divorce, to hold together all elements and possibly bring about ultimate mutual respect of each other's viewpoints. Such a situation would certainly produce Paisleys and Devlins, but the Jewish people is not a people prone to violence.

It all sounds Utopian, but this proposal would certainly have partially blunted the sharp edges of the controversy. In any case, it was a proposal that was deserving of consideration.

What was the response to this approach? A bitter, virulent attack against Orthodoxy, ending with an insolent, contemptuous riposte: "As for your offer of recognition, we don’t need this recognition, we are getting on well without it”.

It is not without interest to mention that an opportunity to ease my personal outraged feelings came a few days later. The occasion was a wedding in a neighbouring synagogue when I was called in to officiate. It appeared that the bride had some connections with the Reform movement, and when I was pressed to attend the reception that followed the ceremony, I found a crowd of Reform people, including their so-called rabbi, the writer of the aforementioned reply to the proposal to work together.

Suddenly, very much to my surprise. I was called upon to speak. In a few words I related an incident which happened to be true. It was that of a young woman who was experiencing certain domestic troubles and who approached the Chief Rabbi of the Cape for help and advice. He listened to her problems and asked who her own rabbi was. She replied that she belonged to Temple Israel. Why then, he asked, did she not approach the minister there? Her reply was: “This is no joke, this is a serious m atter'. The audience nearly exploded with laughter, very much to the discomfiture of this so-called rabbi.

Though shaming ones neighbour is a despicable act. ! had no pangs of conscience here. First, his insolent reply to our approaches justified some action, and secondly. I believe that satire is the most effective weapon.

The reason they were getting on well without our recognition became clear to me a little later, when I lost three members of my community to the Reform because they wanted me to marry them to non-Jewesses after some form of conversion.

Many other Orthodox rabbis are faced with deeply moving human tragedies. The fruits of Reform marriages, the children of such unions wanting to marry Jewish partners and suddenly discovering that this is impossible. What a traumatic experience for young people who have been brought up in an Orthodox Jewish environment, with a love for the Orthodox way of life, attached to Orthodox synagogues and then to be told that we cannot marry them. It is just as agonising for the rabbi as it is for them. And this problem is becoming more acute, growing in frequency and in intensity.

With the growth and spread of the Reform movement, there will be created an unbridgeable gulf between two sections of the Anglo-Jewish community. There will be a situation where Jew and Jewess, both members of the community, are unable to intermarry. It is a terrifying thought. To crown all this, (C ontinued at fo o t o f colum n 1, page 5)

i

*»

it*.* /

s

r-

f L

I

THE

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

LIGHT

CHANUCAH AND PURIM

By RABBI MOSHE COHEN Within our calendar the above outstanding “Zemanim differ in many ways from the “Moadim' — Festivals. The Moadim are inaugurated by Kiddush and work is forbidden, except work necessary for the preparation of food, and in this exception lies the only difference between Festivals and the sanctity of Shabbat, when all work is forbidden. On the two Zemanim, however, it is customary only to refrain from work while the Chanucah lights are burning, and also to refrain from general business activities on Purim. There is no prohibition.

Neither of these Zemanim is mentioned in the Torah. Purim was established by Megilat Esther; the Chanucah events which occurred 237 years before the destruction of the Beth Hamikdash, after the closure of the scriptural writings, are recorded in the apocryphal Book of Maccabees, but there is no statutory reading of it. Nevertheless, these two Zemanim have become rooted in the Jewish historical consciousness and, as such, are included in the Shulchan Aruch.

It is noteworthy that these two Zemanim are celebrated by large numbers who fail to observe the three Festivals, and by some who know nothing of the Torah. Chanucah in particular, has become almost universally honoured, in the most exemplary form, for the full eight days.

There is a parallel in these two celebrations, in that they result from Israel’s confrontation with the greatest powers of those periods, both intent on the destruction of our people.

The methods on the two occasions were, however, entirely opposite. The sages in commemorating Chanucah by H alid and Hada'ah — praise and thanks — and Purim by the reading of the Megillah and joyous festivity, underline the differences, and also teach us that the aims and methods of the powers will repeat themselves throughout history, as we see, alas, in our own time.

Haman left a heritage of pathological hatred which was handed down to the barbaric Germans of our generation.

Haman's desire to destroy utterly the whole of Jewry was to a large extent fulfilled by these Nazi barbarians, and if we examine carefully the wording of the Megillah and the com­ mentaries thereon, we may perhaps find the reason.

Chanucah, however, we celebrate for an entirely different reason, and the lesson is easier to learn. Here we find the first attempt by a Great Power to achieve the spiritual destruction of our people. Antiochus was the first to force a strange culture and a disreputable way of life upon a vanquished nation.

The philosophy and logic of the Greek thinkers remained in the hands of a few outstanding personalities.

But the people were carried away by the sensual delights and orgies bound up with the worship of many gods and idols and the Greek ideal of beauty. To the Greeks, beauty of form became

(Continued from page 4) we Orthodox rabbis will be blamed. We will be accused of bigotry and intolerance because of a situation created by our opponents.

It is essential that the public be informed that the difference between Orthodoxy and Reform is not merely one of praying in a different tongue or even of combined worship, but goes much deeper and affects the vital principles of Judaism and Jewish thought. It is the duty of every Orthodox Jewish minister to make this point quite ciear and unmistakable, and now is the time.

c

■,• ks

If

Page Five

holiness, the antithesis of Jewish teaching, which teaches of the beauty of holiness (hadrat kodesh) in accordance with the command: “You shall not be influenced by the desires of your heart and eyes” (Shema).

As a result of the baneful influence of Greek worship, whose gods were even invested with sensual desires, young people were enticed by the emphasis on sport and games, on physical culture and the arts. It was left to an ageing priest to raise the flag of rebellion against Greek domination.

This deliberate intent to destroy the Jewish soul, the spiritual entity of our people, the sages highlighted in the Chanucah prayer, “A1 HaNissim”.

In the well-known treatise on the festivals, B'nei Yisaschar, the scholarly author explains in some detail the terms used in this prayer. Outstanding is the phrase, “And for Thyself hast Thou made a great and holy Name in Thy world”. This universal aspect of the result of the Chanucah miracle has been verified by history. The Gentiles regard the Maccabees as saints, thus acknowledging that these Cohanim not only saved our people and our faith from destruction but, in essence, saved the whole of humanity.

The Western world, that is, those peoples who have accepted our Torah, the “Bible”, as their basis for civilised life, owe their social and humanitarian institutions to the Bible they read and honour above all values. In the words of one wellknown Gentile scholar, “We Gentiles owe our life to Israel — Let us remember that all we have and all we are, we owe under G-d to what Judaism has given us”. And similar declarations will be found in the writings of many Gentile writers.

We should remind ourselves continually of the words of our Prophet Isaiah (42, 6-7): “ I the L-d have called thee and kept thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations, to open the blind eyes, and to bring . . . them that sit in the darkness, out of the prison-houses”. We should not desire to imitate our neighbours, rather should we, Israel, become the trend-setters in fashion, character and civilised behaviour.

On the command (Vayikra 18, 3), “And walk not in their statutes”, Rashi comments: “Do not attend their theatres or circuses”. This is what the Maccabees refused to do, that is, to join in the pleasures that led eventually to complete assi­ milation and destruction of the spirit of Israel. “When the soul dies, the body disintegrates.” Onkelos translated “their statutes” as “nimooseihen”, which is a Hebrew term denoting character, manners and behaviour. When, however, he translates “And My statutes shall ye keep” (ibid 4), he uses the word “kayamai”, which means “permanence” or “duration”. Thus, Onkelos, who was himself a proselyte, understood the difference between the inherent, deeply engraved* characteristics of the Jew, which are never changeable because they are Divine decrees, and those of the pagan, which are ephemeral and transient.

Our chukim such as the prohibitions of blood, sha'atnez, chelev (meat with milk), niddah and so forth, are the binding cords between the Creator of the universe and Klal Yisrael.

They are the roots of the eternal contract declared in the command, “Be ye Holy, for I the L-d am Holy”. Our ancestors implanted the eternal, permanent qualities into the Jewish character based on Torah, Avodah and Gemillat Chesed.

It is on record that a famous European philosopher stated: “Where there is no reverence for the Bible there can be no true refinement of manners", which again emphasises the difference between “good manners” and true Derech Eretz.

From this it follows that the Gentile “manners” are not our manners, for their fads and fashions flow originally from false worship and empty ideology.

The Greeks invested the “gods” they invented with the basest desires and lusts, for when humans create gods they see in them their own natural characteristics. The mythical

J

.

1»<

■

o

•

w

1 %

jt rA Mi

0>

Page Six

D ECEM BER, 1970 — KTSILEV, 5731

n N T in gods the Greeks worshipped were, in fact, the images and projections of Greek thought and behaviour.

As opposed to this, when Abraham, in his appeal to save Sodom demanded. “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?" it was because, as the Torah tells us, G-d said: “For I have known him, that he will command his children and household after him to do righteousness and justice”. There was a certainty and assuredness that Abraham and his decendants would at all times be in the vanguard as champions and defenders of righteousness and justice. This may be seen in the prophetic writings and throughout the life of our people to the present day. Abraham realised, from his own desire for these ideals in human life, that the Creator of life must be the very essence of righteousness and justice.

The difference between the inherent character of the descend­ ants of Abraham and that of the Gentiles is illustrated in the on Moses' words in his closing blessing (Devarim 33, 2): "The L-d came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them ; He shined forth from Mount Paran” .

The Torah, before being given to the Children of Israel, was offered to Seir, “the descendants of Esau”, and then to Paran, “the descendants of Ishmael”, and to the other nations.

Seir said, “We cannot accept the sixth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; our whole heritage is bound up with the sword — death and destruction — for Isaac’s blessing said.

You will live by the sword’. This is rooted inour character and 1S unchangeable Hence the preoccupation of humanity with the manufacture of weapons and the arms trade.

The other Gentiles refused the Torah because of the seventh and eighth commandments, that prohibit adultery and theft In today’s permissive society these three forces: war, sex and acquisitiveness, account for the major part of the industry and economy of nations.

To us, these motivations were anathema, an abomination and a degradation. For us, holiness

and peace were the basis of living; hence the Maccabees, and vvith them the whole Jewish people, fought strenuously against the Greeks and their culture, which was closely entwined with military prowess, licence and greed, the factors that occupy the minds and energy of most peoples to this verv day.

3 . To .return to the wording of “ A1 HaNissim”, it is interesting to note that the miracle which is based on the finding of a small cruse of oil with the seal of the High 1 nest is in itself an ‘’unnecessary” miracle, for there was no need lor the oil to be under the care of the High Priest There were special overseers responsible for all appurtenances used i_ • | was, then, a “speciaV miracle to emphasise the power of the Divine intervention.

On the term Jpms the revered author writes that this being simply the Aramaic translation of as found in the Targum Onkelos, is to teach us that help comes from Heaven clothed in a natural physical form for all to see. Then, the verse, They kindled lights in Thy holy courts”, that is outside the Temple, is meant to teach us that it is not sufficient to kindle the light of Torah education within the Temple — the Synagogue — only, but to carry the lights of Jorah to the people outside, into the courtyards.

To elaborate on all the author's notes would require a treatise.

Suffice it for us to appreciate that the Chanucah story has its lesson for us today, that the Hellenistic temptations are as prominent as of old in the Galut,and in Eretz Israel.

It is tragic that the name of the glorious Maccabees is now used by those who are, and to propagate ideas that are, entirely devoid of Jewish teaching or content and follow the Greeks in sanctifying “sport” as a way of life.

Let us devote ourselves to the true message of Chanucah, dedicatin g ourselves to spreading afar the light of Torah teaching and living.

FOR KASHRUS AND QUALITY

F I N E S T

VIENNAS - SALAMI - TINNED SOUPS, ETC. M . IIL O O M

Manufactured by (K O S H E R ) & S O N L IM IT E R

U N D ER T H E S U P E R V IS IO N O F T H F I.O N n n N

rfth

nn

THE

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

L IG H 1

OUR ELITE

By RABBI O. FEUCHTWANGER Our Sages of blessed memory tell us that the Torah was the blueprint according to which the Al-ty constructed the Universe. We are not going to concern ourselves here with the physical aspect of this statement, which is far from insignificant, bui will try to outline the implications of what our Sages have said with regard to the image of the Jewish nation they thus envisaged.

Israel has for the last 4,000 years been assigned a key role in the development of mankind at large. Our mission has been all along to sow the seeds of other-worldliness in this world. Providence looks after the mechanics ensuring and promoting this process, but it has been left to us as a duty as well as a privilege to press the button — as it were — and provide the spritual ferment and its ensuing values. Our path here is clearly charted by the Torah, whose precepts we must bring to life.

The Al-ty ideally wants a world governed by the Torah all round. Before this Messianic goal can be reached, at least one nation — Israel — is enjoined to accept and proclaim the supremacy of Torah law. Thus, humanity can always see Torah law operating within Israel on a laboratory scale, so to speak. The reaction of the Gentiles to Torah law as applied by Israel is the concern of Providence, as said before, but it is our duty to make Torah life as full, rich, satisfying and attractive as possible. Had such ideal conditions ever prevailed, say for a thousand years, Jewish and world history would have taken different turns.

Unfortunately, we have most of the time not fully lived up to our expected image. There have been and still are internal schisms.

Assimilation, intermarriage and outright apostasy have similarly taken their considerable toll. There has been more than one spiritual holocaust. .In what way, then, have we played our assigned part as the moral ferment of mankind? At all times a faithful nucleus has remained active in the Jewish nation. Thus, even if our nation in its entirety or majority would not serve as a challenge to mankind, this nucleus did and still does today. It always represented authentic Judaism at its purest and finest. Its names and shapes varied throughout our history from the Pharisees of old via the mediaeval Raibbanites to the yeshivah-inspired Judaism of our day.

Our contemporary yeshivot therefore discharge for our generation our whole nation’s duty to play its assigned part in history. They are our elite, those fully conscious of the duty imposed on our nation by our sacred heritage. As we exist and survive solely for playing our part in history, it would incidentally be an unpardonable crime against the very life of our nation to interfere with the established educational pattern of the yeshivot in Israel, the leading ones in the world of today, by withdrawing their students’ deferment of military service and thus jeopardising their whole delicately balanced programme.

By adding a small number of recruits from the yeshivot to Israel’s Defence Forces, whose reputation in no way derives from their sheer size, we would deprive them of their very raison d'etre, i.e., the spiritual bastions they are meant to defend, without which Israel could never survive.

Luckily, the responsible circles in Israel's defence establishment are aware of this complementary relationship between the yeshivot as they function now and the Forces. But since, from time to time, ignorant attempts are made to change the status quo, continuous alertness and vigilance on our part are imperative.

Now, crossing from Asia to Europe, we find that in this country nowadays yeshivot attract representatives of an in­

Page Seven

creasing number of sectors of British Jewry. It has become common practice for undergraduates and post-graduates of Cambridge and Oxford and many other universities to spend their holidays as full-time yeshivah students. Similarly, public and grammar school boys can be met there in no small numbers, not necessarily exclusively from Orthodox homes.

Thinking youngsters in justified revolt against parental com­ placency simply want to know why they are Jews and must remain such. Unless they can absorb our authentic values at their source, they rightly feel that their Jewish existence would be pointless.

As we have seen, an active part in history can be played by a Jew in our days only from the vantage point of a yeshivah, and this realisation is penetrating more and more of the younger generation, who want to transcend themselves and shape history rather than remain shapeless.

The various training colleges and seminaries in London, Manchester and Gateshead provide equivalent facilities for girls who wish to gain first-hand experience of historic Judaism at its very source. If nothing else, they will become mothers qualified to teach authentic Jewish values to their children and thus safeguard Jewish survival.

It is not commonly realised that County Education Grants are available for attending such seminaries, as well as yeshivot, some of which, like Gateshead, offer facilities for teacher training as well. Prepar­ ation for a rabbinical or ministerial career in a yeshivah equally qualifies for such a grant. It may require a little arguing with local authorities, but in the end they are bound to accept, as many have already done, a youngster's choice of a yeshivah or seminary as the training institution for a future career.

It is for parents, teachers, ministers and rabbis to encourage them in expressing their preferences and having them endorsed at county level by approval of the grants applied for. Our student rebels thus aim beyond the material universe, ancl this is another lead the Jewish nation can give in trying to save from self-destruction our present day, progressively disintegrating, dope-ridden, permissive society.

TORAH-LIFE AND MODERN THOUGHT—6

By RAB.BI DR. J. E. EHRENTREU The World o f the Gan Eden Let us now return to the time — to the beginning of time — when the world was created.

Man was placed into Gan Eden “to dress it and to keep it" (Bereshith 2:15). This refers to Mitzvah-life, which includes work (Avoth derabbi Nathan XI).

The Jewish world of thought does not know of Paradise as a place for people of pleasure and ieisure, oif self-indulgence and sensuality. And when Gan Eden was lost, the work continued outside though under quite different conditions.

It was said to man: “Cursed is the ground for your sake.

In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you. . . . In the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, till you return to the earth from which you came; for dust you are and to dust you shall return" (Bereshith 3:17-19).

We ask: Is this really the true picture of life? Are we not happy to say that a considerable part of mankind has been living in all generations a life far removed from that gloomy picture? How should we understand the words of the Torah? In the following way, it seems: In Gan Eden's conditions all the work of hand and head, of body and mind was blessed; it was successful. The world gave its fruit in

Page Eight

DECEMBER, 1970

proper proportion to the toil and devotion which was put into its cultivation. This was no longer the case.

Since Gan Eden's gates were closed, there have been for all men much waste and frustration in their work; many things were unsuccessful, though attempted by hardest toil.

This was the type of the new life. It was, and still is, a hard life.

But it was not meant that this kind of frustrating life-work must always be with us, and must apply to everybody, at all times, in all circumstances.

The curse seems to be that it can happen to everybody, at all times, in all circumstances. And this fact of uncertainty, and the fear of frustration and lack of success connected with it— this is the curse. This curse, however, should in reality mean finally — blessing. Man's mind and soul are thereby directed from this world of Matter — of struggle and im­ perfections — to the world of Spirit — of peace, harmony, and perfection.

By translating the result of this reflection into the practice of everyday life — by obeying the Divine Law which is Perfection — man helps to build a world of Spirit; he paves for himself (and others) the way towards his Gan Eden of Eternity. And Adam, indeed, recognised this. “‘And to the woman He said: ‘I will multiply your pain and your travail; in pain you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband; and he shall rule over you’.” Adam, after having heard the words spoken to his w ife, realised fully the meaning of the words spoken first to him . Apparently without any connection and yet in reality in the most profound association of ideas, he calls his wife “the mother of all living”.

Adam realised that the true life must fashion itself out of the life of disappointment, privation, endurance, pain, suffering, resignation. And thereby spiritual life is created. The physical seed of pure material, physical, bodily power in the male — if it is wasted, it accounts to shame, disgrace and crime of man; but if it is used and utilised in the manner as Divine Nature demands, it creates the purest, eternal, spiritual essence a human soul. As often as a human being is born, we realise the wonder of how Matter creates Spirit.

Now a world was waiting for man that looked dark, because it was weighed down by the curse. M an’s task now was to lift it up to blessing. The knowledge of what is n ot the way to success was shown to all generations to come by the event in Gan Eden and later, on a world-wide scale, in mankind's early history — in the generation of the Flood and that of the Dispersion.

Mankind had to learn, how the material ground on earth, and of the earth, must be constructively cultivated so that it serves the world of Spirit.

This is seen in the ways and means, the method by which the Mitzvoth of the Torah deal with the Material World around us, to lift it up into the higher and highest regions.

We read in the report of the Creation that, after G-d had formed man out of the dust of the earth, He placed the Soul in him “and man became a living soul” (Ber. 2 :7 ).

What this Soul actually is, or rather, what we should know of this Soul, is revealed only later, after mankind had failed to live up to the Spirit of this Soul. We hear the following utterances

by G-d Himself: “From childhood, the Yetzer of man is b a d ’ (Ber. 8 :2 1 ) and “. . . and all the Yetzer of thoughts of his heart is only bad, the whole day” (Ber. 6 :5 ).

What is the meaning of the word “lev"?

According to Rambam (More Nevuchim 1:39) this word has six meanings, one of which is physical life. There are a number of cases in 1 anach where it definitely has this meaning: Ber. 1 8 :5 ; Bemidb. 1 5 :3 9 ; Shofetim 1 9 :5 , 1 9 :8 ; Tehillim 2 1 : 3 , 103:14, 1 0 4 : 5 ; Mishley 6 : 2 5 , etc., Rambam (More Nevuchim X V I) goes so far that he explains the word lev a v ech a in the second Passuk of Shema “with all your heart”, as meaning “with all the powers of your bodily life”.

KISLEV, 5731

n nn n

And, indeed, the word “lev” in the two Pessukim under discussion seems to mean the p h y sical life. And their Torahteaching — of the widest consequence for the understanding of ourselves seems to be as follows: The material essence of man’s nature is of such a manner that it leads finally to Evil. This tendency of man's nature is called “Yetzer” — physical, bodily, sensual as it is.

Its nature is, to satisfy and gratify all its urges, desires, appetites — absolutely — without any regard to anything else. Thus, eating, drinking, sex, leisure, fighting, bodily exercise and the like are instincts. It is truly a material world.

The character of the Yetzer, which is inborn, is primitive, bold, rough, raw, crude, vulgar, shameless — not to speak of being totally uneducated and untrained for anything else or anything higher than animal instinct.

Many and varied are these urges. If these urges go berserk and mad with fury, if they run their course uninhibited, unchal­ lenged, unguided — it means that they run and run deeper and deeper into the abyss of self-destruction and world-destruction.

If the people should have the chance to observe themselves in the state of being dominated by this Yetzer, they would admit that they sink more deeply than animals in their instincts. “And the pre-eminence of man over the beast is nought . . .” (Passage after Birchoth Hashachar).

The Jewish thought-world does not know of original sin.

But we may speak of — what we would like to term — the O riginal Y etzer".

This Yetzer has two components: the Drive of the physical constitution towards bodily gratification; and secondly, the Drive of the physical constitution towards m en tal gratification, orginating in man’s physical nature, v ek o l y etzer m ach sh ev oth lib o (Bereshith 6 :5 ).

It is remarkable.

The latter is so much Matter-bound, Matter-oriented, Matterconditioned, that in its original and instinctive form it dis­ believes in the existence of things b ey o n d Space and Time; it thinks only in Spatial and Temporal categories; it believes basically only in its Self — shown in its furthering only of itselt and its disregarding of everything else's rights and claims: and on the other hand, its Self feels easily hurt in its own essence. You may call this tendency selfishness, egoism, egotism.

Or you may call it an excessive degree of self-assertion. seM'-will, self-love, self-importance, self-righteousness.

Actually, there are restrictions; they are built into the human physique as a warning system.

It is a mechanism which creates pain; if, e.g., too much or unsuitable food is consumed, the result is stomach-ache, or even the refusal of the body to take in more food or drink. This is a lesson to discipline physical life for the sake of physical life, nothing more and nothing else.

The term "Yetzer” occurs in the following Pessukim of Tanach: Devarim 3 1 :2 1 ; Tehillim 103:14, 112:8; Yeshayahu 26:3, 2 9 :1 6 ; Chavakuk 2 :1 8 ; Divrey Hayyamim I 28:9, 29:18; etc.

The term “Yetzer” also occurs frequently in the other authoritative literature.

In our Siddur, within the Birchoth Hashachar, in addition to the phrase “Yetzer Hara” we also mention separately the “Yetzer”. In the Talmud the following sources may be mentioned at random — Avoth Mishnah 4; Berachoth 61a; Sukkah 52b (and Kiddushin 30b, there twice); C hagigah 15; Moed Katan 17b; Avodah Zarah 17; Kiddushin 80b and 81a; Sotah 47a. And the cases referred to, in these sources are typical cases of the power which the natural, Original Yetzer, in its allurements and ensnarements, exercises, even over learned as well as old people. See also Yerushalmi, Kethuboth l ; Rambam, Iiilc h o th M e'celak VIII, 8; and Rashi on Y ech ezkiel 2 2 :2 5 , etc., etc.

T he Y etzer H ara an d the Y etzer H attov The usual translation of “Yetzer Hara” and “Yetzer Hattov'' is: Bad Inclination and Good Inclination respectively. From

THE

LI GHT

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

a linguistic viewpoint this is incorrect. If this translation were correct, the noun Yetzer must have the “He” of the definite article. Therefore, we must not take “ra” and “tov” as adjectives; they are nouns, and the proper translation is “the Inclination of (to, towards) the Evil" and “the Inclination of (to, towards) the Good”. This fits well into the exposition which we made the basis of our definition of the Original Yetzer.

The terms “Yetzer Hara” and “Yetzer Hattov” occur only in the later language, in that of our Chachamim and in popular speech. While the term “Yetzer” is used exclusively for the Original Yetzer — its verb-root means “create” — the terms “Yetzer Hara” (and “Hattov”) are also used in a far wider sense.

While “Yetzer” refers to the natural, physical, bodily force without a bad intention, the term “Yetzer Hara includes also, and perhaps predominantly, bad intention.

It is a case of “Yetzer", when man is being driven — objectively — by natural force towards an action which is forbidden; it is a case of “Yetzer Hara" (in its particular, additional meaning), when man is driving h im self— subjectively — towards an action that is forbidden.

That terms like “Yetzer Hara” and “Hattov” are also used in a wider sense, is not strange at all. First, in actual life the borderline between the cases of the Yetzer and the Yetzer Hara is very often difficult to define, to see, to recognise, and to observe. Furthermore, we may mention here an observation of general importance. In all languages, many words, especially abstract ones, have quite a number of meanings, particularly various shades, degrees, and nuances of a concept. This is all the more true of old languages whose vocabulary is not rich. This refers also to Hebrew. Though it is possible that Hebrew possessed more words than we have, in Tanach, there is no other ancient Hebrew literature at our disposal.'

It is a fact that the more human thoughts are developed, the more words are created, mostly from existing roots. This is the case with the terms “Yetzer Hara” and “Yetzer Hattov”.

(For instance, in the Torah itself, the very word “Torah” is used in various meanings.) In many cases where our Teachers use the general, popular term, “Yetzer Hara”, they actually refer to that Yetzer which we have characterised as the “Original Yetzer , the Natural Drive, guided by, and heading towards material-based aims — in bodily as well as mental things.

We must have this in mind, when we now try to analyse a number of remarkable Rabbinic sayings. a) We read (in Chagigah 6a, Moed Katan 17a, Kiddushin 40a): "If a man sees that the Yetzer overwhelms him, he should go to a place where he is unknown, and dress himself and enwrap himself in black, and do what his heart desires. But he must not profane the Name of Heaven in public.” Is it not admitted in this drastic and realistic statement of our Teachers, that the natural forcefulness of the Original Yetzer, in some people, in some circumstances, makes it virtually impossible physically not to be dominated and overwhelmed*?

(The special preparations, which he is advised to make, may perhaps be a final attempt to calm down the violent urge.)

The physical urge can sometimes be so strong that there is an immediate danger of life. Thus, in matters of food there are religious concessions, for instance in the case of ravenous hunger — hulmoss — see Yoma VIII, 6 (83a). How­ ever, in cases where the sexual urge concerns another person even if the strongest primary urge was put down to the lowest level (“only to speak to her behind a fence”) — the dictum of our Teachers is: Let him die (Sanhedrin 74b). b) We read (in the Mishna, Berachoth IX, 5): “ ‘You shall love Hashem, your G-d, hechol levavecha (with all your hean). . . . This means, with both your Yetzers — the Yetzer Hattov as well as the Yetzer Hara”. The obvious question

Page Nine

is: How can one love G-d with the Yetzer Hara? Rambam in his commentary, loc. cit., explains: . . to love, even at the time of an Aveirah, of anger and wrath”. (See also Rambam’s translation of the word “levav” in this Passuk, which we have mentioned above.) A further consideration may lead to the following explanations: Love, genuine love, is a sentiment, and as such it is of a lasting nature. Generally it does not arise suddenly of itself, but is the climax and the end-product of a long development and working-process. In a life of Torah-study and Mitzvahdeeds, individual feelings of love are being built up to the status of the emotion of love, which in the course of time are crystallised into a permanent attitude and tendencies of the sentiment of Love. Its characteristic is that it becomes firmly based in the human soul.

Now suddenly, unexpectedly and unprovoked, the Yetzer enters the person. A strong urge for forbidden things in sex, food, money, comes over him. Actually, he has long ago overcome such appetites for the forbidden. What has happened? It is the Original Yetzer which in all its shamelessness and nakedness appears. Often, it springs from the unconscious life with its remembrances of repressed, suppressed and oppressed feelings, thoughts, tendencies, deeds in an earlier period of life. This can also be the case in the old age when, as is wellknown, childhood experiences and impressions enter man’s mind in a vivid way. These are often belated or re-awakened emanations of bodily and mental drives and urges of the past. It is the Original Yetzer that breaks through from its original location in the past. It seemed to have been buried long since. It was buried but not dead.

There is now the danger that this status of the Original Yetzer will gradually grasp one personally and lead one back to the original uneducated state. Our Teachers advise us to regard this unlawful action as an unpleasant episode of a relapse into time conditions that were actually long since overcome and overwhelmed. Do not indulge in the status of sinfulness by foolish excuses and attempts to explain away the truth and reality of your responsibility. Confess and do Teshuvah. And return back to your Love towards Hashem, as He returns His Love to you. Do not let yourself be fixed in the state of sinfulness. (Educational psychology advises not to let children hear time and again: “You are a naughty child”, but "To do these things is naughty”, or similarly.)

In the relationship between parents and children cases happen that children act against the parents’ wish, though the love is not disturbed in its sincerity and depth. They are deeply distressed that they “felt themselves be forced” to act in this way.

As the father has pity towards his children, likewise Hashem has pity towards those who fear Him, because He knows our Yetzer (Original Drive); it is remembered that we are dust” (Tehillim 103: 13 and 14). c) We read in Yerushalmi Sotah V, 5: ‘“ You shall love Hashem, your G-d’ (Devarim 6:5), and later it is said ‘Hashem, your G-d, you shall fear’ (Devarim 6:13).

How shall we understand this? Act out of Love and act out of Fear. ‘Act out of Love’ : If you come (into a position) to hate, know that you are loving, and the one who loves does not hate.

And act out of Fear’ : If you come (into a position) to rebel, know that you are fearing, and that the one who fears does not rebel.”

I he difficulties in this saying are obvious, and the following clarification is suggested.

This saying — in contradistinction or rather in addition to the previous saying — refers not so much to the physical Yetzer, but to the mental, intellectual Yetzer implied in human bodily nature — yetzer m achshevoth libo (Bereshith 6:5).

After a bad experience and a deep disappointment, man slips

P age Ten

DECEMBER, 1970

back into the state of the Original Yetzer's mental attitude of indifference, disregard, disbelief in tasks of a positive attitude towards the Divine in obedience, reverence, love. This comes suddenly, what seems to be expressed in the phrase sh'eem bata lisnci . . . sh'eem b a la liv o t . As it is predominantly a matter of the mind, the mind in its better and truer condition has to be called upon to speak up: “ Be aware that you actually love, and that one who loves, does not hate.

How can your sentim ent of love be impaired by a tem p orary , floating feeling of hate, due to some occurrence?” And if a rebelliou s spirit comes suddenly over man, the proper remedy is not so much a talk to the sentiment of L o v e, but an appeal to the sentiment of Y ir a h , Reverential F ea r: “The one who fears does not rebel. How can your sentiment of fear be impaired by a temporary, floating impulse of rebelliousness.”

One might ask, how the term Fear comes in the Midrash, as the Passuk actually speaks of Love.

While we suggest that the relationship between Love and Fear of G-d should be analysed in a later section, it may already be stressed here that in Ahavath Hashem — in the wider sense — Yir'ath Hashem is included.

The sublime universal teaching, “You should love Hashem your G-d with all your heart . . loses nothing of its highest general meaning, if detailed consideration leads to the concept of Love towards G-d in a state o f sinfulness. On the contrary, this is one of the greatnesses of Jewish traditional religious life and thought that one does not indulge in high-flown ideas and in lofty style b ey o n d reality, but idealism and realism are blended in a unique form; lofty ideas as well as trivia of everyday life are made the subject-matter of earnest con­ sideration with the purpose of including them in a positive religious life. The hard and harsh facts of life have to be faced with honesty, frankness, candour: and they have to be solved with deep, warm-hearted idealism as well as with high, cool-headed realism.

In fine we may say: According to the Rabbinic view (Sanhedrin 91a), the Yetzer H ara enters human life at its birth; and only at 13 the Yetzer H attov enters. This view is the opposite to the usual general assumption of the “child's innocence”. And, is it not really hard and harsh to speak of the Yetzer Hara as dominating the child's life?

And of a new-born's life?

It would, indeed, be so, if we were to understand the term Yetzer Hara in its usual popular meaning.

If, however, we understand the term Yetzer Hara in this context (as in many other Rabbinic sayings) as the Original Y etzer, the Rabbinic statement is justified.

The Natural Drive in the newly-born child shows at once the urge and the knowledge for self-preservation; and this urge gradually develops, in the course of time, all the powers of the Original Yetzer, as described — if it is not checked.

Indeed, it is vital to distinguish between an action under violent pressure o f hum an nature and an action where hum an intention an d volition is the driving force. The fact that man in his actions is often the victim of human frailty as regards the original animal-like lustfulness and sensuality or child-like obstinancy and rebelliousness — this fact, of course, could give man easy excuses; but we do not speak here of cases where man wants to deceive himself and the Highest Authority.

Indeed, it is important that man himself should see and recognise this distinction, sincerely and truly.

And he has to learn to train himself not to be dragged into the world of sinfulness by negligence, indifference, inertia; clear and cool thinking must stimulate his awareness, intention, and volition towards the Jewish life-aim.

T he “G o o d ” an d the “ V ery G o o d ” in the accou n t o f the C reation “And G-d saw that it was good”, we read a number of times.

And once we read “. . . that it was very good” (Bereshith 1 :31).

Is it not self-evident that everything G-d created was not

KISLEV, 5731

n nT] n

only good, but very good? On the Passuk which speaks of “Very Good”, the Midrash (Rabba 9 : 8 ) says: “. . . this is the Yetzer Hara . . . Yissurim . . . Gehinnom . . . the Angel of Death . . . Punishment”. The association of the term “Very good” with things which are very bad, requires, of course, an explanation. We concentrate here on the “Yetzer Hara ', and from its interpretation the explanation of the others may be derived.

Indeed, many things and many happenings in the created world look bad. It is up to man to make them Good. This may be indicated in the fact that the Torah uses this word several times. The term “Good” may refer to the things which appear at first glance neutral or bad. The term “Very Good" — as the Midrash says — refers to the things which are very bad, like the Yetzer Hara that comes from ourselves, and the Sufferings, the Yissurim, that come from outside.

This term “Very Good” was said on the sixth day — the day on which man, with his Yetzer Hara and with his potential Yissurim, was created. Thereby, on this last day, the climax and the whole purpose of the Creation were marked out and designated. And, when on one day, the second, the term “Good” is missing, it may be, among the other reasons, a hint that not every day and not everything as such, isolated, has inherent and implicit the character of potential Good, but in its con text with the w hole C reation — perhaps on a cosmic scale — it serves the Good of the Universe, indeed, the Very Good — illuminated by the “ Light that was stored up for the Tzadikim”.

In the concept of the Creation and the Destiny of man on earth, there is inherent that he should be able to live what is called a civilised life — such as “to build a house, to marry, to have children, to do business” (see the Midrash).

The driving force in him to achieve this, is the Yetzer, the natural human will and drive: to live. I f this drive an d will is not guided it will lead to E v il: — one covets, and one continues to covet, other people's houses; one longs for other people's wives; one intends to do business by infringing on other people's rights.

In this “quite natural'1 development, the natural Yetzer develops into the Yetzer Hara, or rather, identifies itself with the Yetzer Hara. If, however, man makes all efforts to avoid all the pitfalls which the Yetzer Hara creates, and not only removes its obstacles, but uses them for his advance to the Good and Very Good, we fully understand our Teachers' first enigmatic saying, “Very Good" points to the Yetzer Hara.

By fighting and overwhelming the latter, the best human values are created.

Man's natural endeavours, as to house, family, etc., will carry their blessings in themselves, because they are not built on sinful actions.

N eutrality The view could be maintained that the Natural Drive in man, especially in childhood, is not bad but neutral. Indeed, the concept of neutrality requires and deserves some thought and explanation. There was one small city; not many people lived there. Since it was isolated, the inhabitants lived their cosy life and believed in Neutrality: to remain insulated against the storms that lashed the other, outside world. How­ ever, a great king came, and he had nothing greater to do than to besiege the little city with great modern military works. Now there was in the city a poor, wise man who saved it with his wisdom.

He advised Teshuvah and good deeds. (See Koheleth 9 :1 4 -1 5 ; Nedarim 32b; and Midrashic explanations.) Who was this king? It was the Yetzer Hara.

The good people, with their provincial outlook, did not prepare against attack. They believed in neutrality, since then, “nothing dangerous can happen”; they were mistaken.

“Nobody remembered that same poor wise man ’. It does not matter whether this remark refers to the situation before

0

T-

( l

4

^

THE

LIGHT

DECEMBER, 1970 — lUSLEV, 5731

the event or also to the future. We have to take the lesson.

Nobody must say: Let our children and our youth enjoy life by satisfying their “innocent” pleasures. After all, they have no bad intentions. Even in cases where there are no bad intentions, the Yetzer — the dynamic of the Natural Drive — leads body and mind, if unchecked, into the under­ world, whence a return is very difficult, and sometimes physically even impossible, without a special act of Grace by G-d. The people of the little city in Koheleth had to learn: you cannot live your cosy life without considering the dangers from outside, which threaten the most peaceful people. Man be­ comes a victim of the world of Matter, if he does not let himself be guided in time by the Yetzer Hattov. What is the way of achieving this guidance? It is the Torah-way.

Escapism

Man, being mortal, is drawn down by the weight of material forces. The more he descends — by pure nature, accident, incident or design — to earth, the stronger becomes the effect of its force of gravity.

Man must resist these material forces; for, although he lives in the world of Matter, the true purpose of his life is to serve the world of Spirit.

What way, then, leads from the Material to the Spiritual?

How is man, in whom the Will towards G-d is awakened, to overcome the material physical world, his physical self, in order to develop his spiritual nature?

It seems apparent that the Material and the Spiritual are diametrically opposed. From time to time, the former attempts to ensnare the latter with temptations and enticements whose unmistakable aim is the service of this world. The Material arouses an infinity of sensuous urges, sensual desires, which demand absolute obedience and complete satisfaction, despite the — often — loud and clear warnings of the voice of conscience.

What would now be more normal for the man who is bent on serving the Spirit, than to take refuge from this world; to choose for himself a life, which reduces to the minimum the needs and the importance of worldly things, in order that he may develop to the maximum his Spiritual Life?

SHTICKLACH UND BRECKLACH

By RABBI DR. CHAIM J. COOPER In the course of the practising rabbi's daily routine, subjects and situations frequently arise which stimulate thought and prompt the urge to delve and to probe below the surface of matters generally accepted at their face value. Even though the subject may be familiar, there is the constant possibility of a new angle, some novel facet, that may come to light.

Questions posed by congregants, a chance remark or observation, an oft-repeated error, and even contact with our “chederyinglach may well be the cause of such a desire to look deeper into what may at first sight appear to be plain and self-explanatory. Did not Rabbi say that, much as he had learnt from his teachers, he had learnt even more from his fellow-students, but most of all from his pupils? (cf. Ta unit 7b; M akkot 10a).

In entitling this article Shticklach und B recklach, I have had in mind some of these “bits and pieces”, as it were, culled fiom my memory, which have cropped up in this maner from time to time in the past.

Perhaps few of our prayers are better-known or more often recited that the Birchat HaMazon. Towards the end of this series of benedictions — a Grace which has been Pentateuchally ordained cf. Deuteronomy viii, 10 — we give expression* to the hope that “He Who is all-merciful may bless u$.. . (,• and all that is ours, as our forefathers Abraham,a Isaac ,aml

Page Eleven

But the Creator of the Universe did create the Material World. Can He who is pure Spirit have created a Material World? Can He who is infinitely Good, have put mankind into a World of Evil? Can He, who is All-Righteous, infinitely just, wish to punish mortal man, for failing to throw off the fetters in which He himself placed him?

In reality, Judaism does not recognise the acute antithesis, the dualism between the material and the spiritual world, which has appeared in other philosophies of life since the most ancient times. Matter is like the fruit of the tree which, though at first uneatable, bears within itself the true vital juice, which develops until the skin and the kernel gradually become detached, and finally, on the day of maturity, the skin opens, and the fruit — redeemed, free — falls to the ground.

Matter contains a spiritual core; its true life is the Spiritual.

Matter is not in (absolute) opposition to Spirit, but, by overcoming and transcending itself, is shaped into something Spiritual. Matter is an early stage of the Spiritual; in the same way, it has its root in G-d. Matter is a transformation, another aspect, of the Spiritual; and it was in this sense that it was created. And man's task is to return it to G-d, trans­ formed back into a spiritual entity. To achieve this, he must make the Material in the world a source of Good.

The Jewish people calls what is religiously forbidden, assur, meaning “bound”; and what is religiously permitted, muttar, meaning “unbound”. Therein actually lies the idea that the religiously negative is not absolutely negative, but, when released from its bonds, becomes directly, religiously positive.

Judaism educates man to master his instincts, to the end that he can allow them to be active in permitted and demanded actions; it awakens positive powers by providing the opportunity to be active in the form of fulfilling the authoritative Command­ ments and the other positive religious practices, in which he engages out of free conviction, whose number in the final' count is and must be unlimited. Not negativeness but positive­ ness, not passivity but activity lets man mature into a civilised, free personality.

(To be continued)

Jacob were blessed ‘with all’, ‘of all’, ‘all* — so may He bless onq bsvil us, all of us . . .” (cf. Berachot 21a). )rn The specification of the three patriarchs whose names are immediately followed by the terms “bakol”, “mikol”, “kol”, is an allusion, as is known,* to the occurrence of each of 11 |V » | | these three terms in the life of each of them. Thus of, Abraham it is said, “And the Lord had blessed Abraham \lith a l l —1 bakol (Genesis xxiv, 1); of Isaac, “and I ate df a ir — mikol (Genesis xxvii, 33); and of Jacob, “for 1 have all things” — kol (Genesis xxxiii, 11). vlzuoivdo am (laymq smneve The term “bakol” in this connection is clear enough; our petition is that, as G-d had blessed Abraham with everything, so may He bless us likewise. But how can such a petition be deduced from the words bf Isaac, who had eaten “of all” that Jacob had brought him? How do these indicate any blessing, that we should ask G-d to blCSs us as Isaac was blessed — “mikol”? all ttle^'fBbd had brought?

It may be thought that the words’ which follow in that “. . . and I blessed him, and he shall also remain blessed”, have reference to the blessing which w-e supplicate. But that can hardly be so, for w(e ask to be blessed as Isaac was blessed.

Yet, in the verse mentioned, it was Isaac who did the blessing of Jacob; it was not Isaac himself who was blessed. In the ease of Jacob, whose statement that he had “all”, the prayer is fairly obvious, since what he owned was solely due to the hlessjng of G-d upon him, and we therefore petition a similar Messingmpon ourselves; <r,b orli Jo luorl rhnoJ orl) m balBoia

>

. t

S.

Page Tw elve

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

At the conclusion of the first perek of B a b a B atra (17a. top of the Amud) an aggadatha uses these three Biblical references to arrive at three exegetical deductions. First, that G-d granted a foretaste of Olam Haba to our three patriarchs on the basis of the three verses quoted. This removes the above-mentioned difficulty, for the Talmudic interpretation ob­ viously explains Isaac's statement, “and I have eaten of all", to mean that he had “tasted" everything — even Olam Haba.

This was the blessing enjoyed by Isaac (cf. Rashi a d loc.).

The other rabbinic interpretations of these verses are that the patriarchs were immune to sin, and that the Angel of Death wielded no power over them — in all of which blessings we pray to share.

In the Midrash B ereshith R a b b a h , Parshat Lech-Lecha, Chapter 43, the lesson of the three verses is derived from the blessing which the royal priest, Malchizedek, pronounced upon Abraham, following the latter's return from the triumphant rescue of his nephew, Lot. Abraham acknowledged the ministrations of Malchizedek by giving him a tithe of all the spoil — “and he gave him a tenth of all" (mikol — Genesis xiv, 20). On this R. Judah bar Simon commented that, by virtue of that blessing, the three great pillars of the world, Abraham. Isaac and Jacob, enjoyed prosperity, as the three quoted verses indicate.

Similar reference is made to this exegesis in the Z oh ar, Parshat Ekev.

Mention of the patriarchs brings to mind the Talmudic attribution to them of our three statutory daily services, as is recorded in B era ch o t 26b.

R. Jose b. Chanina held that the patriarchs instituted the Tefillot, while R. Joshua b. Levi ruled that they were ordained to correspond with the sacrifices.

The Rambam, H ilch ot T efillah , I, 5 inclines to the latter ruling, that the Tefillot were instituted according to the daily sacrifices — a ruling which gives rise to comment by the Kessef Mishnah and the Lechem Mishnah, who ask why Maimonides did not accept that our patriarchs originated our three daily services.

In this connection it is perhaps relevant to cite the passage in Y o m a 28b where R. Safra ruled that the afternoon prayer of Abraham is due when the walls begin to grow dark (i.e., are completely covered in shadow).

Upon which R. Joseph questioned, Shall we learn our laws from Abraham?

The question is explained by the Aruch to mean that Abraham lived prior to the Sinaitic dispensation, and it would therefore appear incongruous to base a definite law' upon the conduct of the patriarchs. Maimonides therefore preferred to attribute the three daily prayers to the post-Sinaitic times of sacrifices.

Incidentally, on the subject of the daily services, there is an interesting Tosafot in P esachim 107a in which the question is raised. Why is the third prayer of the day called “ Minchah"?

Both Shachrit and Ma'ariv (or "Arbit" as the Sefardim call the evening prayer) are obviously so called because of the time of day at which they are recited, Shachar meaning “morning”, and Erev “evening”. But Minchah does not mean “afternoon” ; it means “gift", for example, that sent by Jacob to Esau (Genesis xxxii, 14). If, therefore, Minchah is so called because of the afternoon sacrifice, a form of “gift'’, as it were, then, so Tosafot argues, a Minchah offering was also brought in the morning — the Minchat Tamid.

Indeed, the daily morning sacrifice is actually called "M inchat haboker" (Numbers xxviii, 8).

Tosafot replies by referring to B erach ot 6b that Elijah was answered at the time of the Minchah prayer (cf. I Kings xviii, 29 — "alot haminchah" — the time of the evening offering) — hence the Tosafists understood the term Minchah in this con­ nection to mean “G-d's gift to Elijah" — since which time that hour of the day has been considered one of special favour for the offering of prayer.

Abudraham refers to the Midrashic statement that Adam was created at the tenth hour of the day and sinned at the same

non

hour, after which he heard G-d walking in the garden at the cool of the day (“leru'ach hayom”). This phrase, “leru'ach hayom" is translated by Targum Onkelos by the words, “minach yoma” — hence Minchah.

I would suggest that, in common with Shachrit and Ma'ariv, Minchah likewise refers to the state of Nature at that hour of the day. The basis of the root “nu'ach" is the notion of rest, hence lowering, decline, as in the case of Moses lowering his hand at the battle with the Amalekites (“ ka'asher yani'ach yado” — Exodus xvii, 11). So, the time of the afternoon prayer has been fixed for the hour at which the sun begins to low^er. to decline, to “go to rest", as it were, preparatory to its sinking below the horizon.

While it must be conceded that “ Minchah" does not derive from the root “nu'ach”, yet Hebrew grammarians and lexico­ graphers postulate the grammatical phenomenon of “cognate roots", whereby roots of similar orthography bear related con­ notations. Examples of this relationship between Ayyin-Vav and Lammed-Hey verbs may be cited as the following: “dooch" and “dachah"; “ koor" and “karah"; “gooz" and “gazah"; “kootz" and “ katsah"; “chootz” and “chatsah", etc. (cf. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, edition Kautzsch-Cowley, p. 100, parag. 30 g-h). So we may possibly connect the two roots “nu'ach" and “nachah”.

The Mem of Minchah would then be the Nominal Mem. frequently prefixed to the triliteral root as the means of trans­ forming the verb to the noun, e.g., “ ma’achal" — “food" — from root “achal” ; “ mafte'ach" — “key” — from root “ patach": “mattanah" — "gift” — from root “natan"; (cf. ibid. p. 236, parags. 85 e-1).

It appears to me likewise that the term “erev" may perhaps be connected with the root meaning “to mingle", as in the term “ ta'arovet” (“ mixture”), since it connotes the time of day at which light and darkness appear to “mingle" prior to nightfall.

Talking of the three daily services raises the halachic significance of the figure three — the thrice-repeated act or occurrence. The most obvious instance is that of C hazakah. whereby legal title to real estate is established by three con­ secutive vears of undisputed possession (cf. the first Mishnah. perek Chezkat HaBatim, B a b a B atra. 28a).

But the figure three as establishing a Chazakah is not unanimous among the Tannaim. There is in effect a dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel (cf. Y ev am ot 64b-65a).

Rabbi held that twice established a presumption, while R. Simeon ben Gamaliel insisted that a threefold occurrence is essential for the establishment of presumptive status.

The underlying concept here is one of habituation that is to say, the successive repetition of an act confirms the presumption that such a manner of behaviour has become habitual, on the basis of which it m ay be presu m ed to continue. The concept is based upon the Biblical injunction concerning the goring ox, in relation to which the Torah states, “ But if the ox was wont to gore both yesterday and the third day past . . .” (Exodus xxi, 29), upon which Rashi commens, “This means it had already been guilty of three gorings '.

It is in such circumstances that it ceases to partake of the nature of “tarn", or “innocuous", and becomes “muad , or “forewarned". Since the Torah specifies "days", the Gemara deduces that the gorings must have occurred on separate days, but that any number of gorings upon one and the same day w'ould not impose the status of “muad" {B a b a K a m m a 23b). The two words “t’mol" and “shilshom" connote two separate days, while the following clause, "v’lo yishmerenu — “and he hath not kept watch over it" — implies a third day or goring.

The Gemara in B a b a K a m m a thus rules that the status of “muad" is imposed upon the fourth, not the third day of committing the offence, in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, as is stated by Rava (Y ev am ot 64b, lower part of the Amud) and ibid. 65a.

THE

LIGHT

DEOEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

So. indeed, the poskim decide. This is the view of R. Judah, as opposed to that of R. Meir, who holds the view that “muad'' is that which has been forewarned three times, irrespective of when such were administered. Even three times in one day would, according to Rabbi Meir, bring about the status of “muad”. Nevertheless, while we hold according to R. Judah in the case of the “tarn" becoming “muad”, we hold according to R. Meir in the reverse process — that is, the regaining of the status of “tarn" from that of “muad”.

This difference in ruling may well shed light upon the difficulty which many acharonim have raised in their con­ sideration of Orach Chaim , Siman CXIV, Se'if 9. where the Mechaber rules that if on the first day of Pesach one were to recite ninety times the portion of the Amidah from “attah gibor” to “mechalkel chaim”, each time omitting the rubric “mashiv haru'ach”, he would then have acquired the Chazakah, the presumptive status, of habituation to such omission, so that if he should on any subsequent occasion be in doubt as to whether he had omitted “mashiv haru'ach” he need not repeat the passage. For, having omitted it on the one day ninety times, corresponding to thirty days’ recital (three Amidot each day) he had thereby acquired the status of habituation upon which reliance may subsequently be based.

Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg accounts for this ruling by drawing an analogy with the “shor hamuad”, thus appearing to imply that three occasions of goring are all that are required for the status of “muad'’ — even on the one day — just as the ninety omissions are mentioned by the Mechaber as taking place on the same day. This aroused strong objections against R. Meir of Rothenburg on the part of later scholars, who object that he appears to hold according to R. Meir. while all are agreed that we follow R. Judah, namely, that three separate days are required.

From the difference above-mentioned it is clear that the objections against R. Meir of Rothenburg are invalid. The comparison he drew is that between the omission of “mashiv haru'ach'' and the returning of status from “muad'’ to “tarn*’, in which case all are agreed that three times in one day would suffice (i.c., children touching them three times in one day and no goring results), for the Halachah in that case is in fact according to R. Meir. From “tarn'* to “muad'' we decide according to R. Judah — i.e., three separate days: in the reverse direction, we decide according to R. Meir — i.e., one day is enough. But R. Meir of Rothenburg did not invoke the analogy of “shor hamuad'’ in relation to the insertion of “mashiv haruach” from Shemini Atzeret onward, for there he would certainly not have ruled that recitals in one day would suffice, since the insertion of “mashiv haruach” would be analogous to the transition from “tarn” to “muad”, and would require separate days. It was the omission, not the insertion, that R. Meir of Rothenburg was talking about, and the analogy is with the regaining of "tarn'' from “muad”, not the other direction.

And from "muad” to "tarn” the Halachah is according to R. Meir, that only one day is sufficient.

It is therefore surprising that R. Moses Jsserlis, in his gloss on this passage, ruled that if one recited “mashiv haru'ach” ninety times on Shemini Atzeret, then a subsequent presumptive habituation of recital has thereby been established, and doubts can thereby be set aside. I he negative and positive cannot thus be equated, for we rule according to R. Judah in the change of status from “tarn' to "muad'’, but according to R. Meir in the reverse direction.

The Gemara in Yevamot 64b-65a, above referred to, cites a number of instances in which threefold occurrence constitutes a presumptive status upon which subsequent reliance is permis­ sible. Cases quoted are those of circumcision (i.e., cases of successive deaths caused by Millah, following which the male infant born subsequently is absolved from the rite); the recur­

Page Thirteen

rence of widowhood (i.e., where successive husbands die the case of the “katlanit”); and that of the regular recurrence of the menstrual period in the monthly cycle of menstruation (i.e., the establishment of the “vesset niddah " — cf. Niddah 2a).

Other instances of the operation of this threefold occurrence may be found in the Yoreh Dealt. Siman LXXXIV , Se'if 9, concerning the stewing of fruits which become prohibited if three worms are found therein, the figure three providing a basis for assuming that many more have infested the fruit, the consumption of which w'ould therefore contravene the law forbidding any swarming thing as food (Leviticus xi. 41); similarly in the cooking of vegetables (ibid., Se'if 10): see also Yoreh Dealt 100, 4. Reference may also be made to an interesting Tosafot on Chullin 14a. s.v. “hashochet”, wherein a “mumar” in relation to Shechitah is not regarded as such at his first act of slaughter — whereby Tosafot appears to consider two recurrences as constituting Chazakah — like Rabbi. It may also be mentioned that R. Moses Isserlis, in his gloss to the first Siman of Yoreh Dealt, explicitly states the requirement that a prospective shochet shall perform the act of slaughter three times before a “chacham umumchah ".

The subject of numbers causes one to think of the requirement of ten adult males as constituting the statutory quorum for public worship. This requirement is deduced from Numbers xiv.

27, where the term “edah”, congregation, is applied to the ten of the twelve spies who had reported unfavourably following their reconnaissance of the Promised Land (cf. Sanhedrin 74b.

Avot, iii, 6). The various rituals, including prayers, bene­ dictions, reading Ifrom the Torah, etc., which are considered public worship, as distinct from private or individual devotion, and which cannot therefore be observed other than in a congregation comprising at least ten adult males, are listed in a Mishnah in MegiUalt 23b.

The Gemara on that passage, in providing the Biblical passage for such a ruling, has recourse to a double gezcrah shavah.

First the verse in Leviticus xxii, 32, is quoted: “And I will be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel”, which obviously means the public sanctification of G-d by means of congregational worship. The term “in the midst of” is a form of the construct noun “toch”. which occurs again in Numbers xvi. 21. where it is used in connection with the term “edah'' — congregation. “Edah” again occurs in Numbers xiv, 27, where it necessarily means ten adult males. So the Gemara concludes that the public sanctification of G-d's Name, as enjoined in Leviticus xxii, 32. requires such a quorum (a similar exegesis occurs also in Sanhedrin 74b; cf. also Berachot 21b).

The Yerushalmi deduces the ruling from an alternative passage, namely, Genesis xlii. 5, which states that the sons of Jacob came to Egypt to buy food among (“betoch”) those who came. Since Jacob's sons who came to Egypt for that purpose were ten in number, so, by means of a gezerah shavah. the preposition “betoch'’ in Leviticus xxii, 32, likewise denotes ten (cf. Yerushalmi Berachot vii, 3). T his is neater than the corresponding passage in the Bavli, for it accomplishes its purpose in a single step (of. Orach Chaim, Siman LV, Se'if 1, Taz ad loc.).

In general terms, then, it may be stated that the Chazal defined “public” (the term used is “parrhessya”) to mean ten or more adult males. This, however, appears to apply to worship; in other connections diverse other figures are required.

Thus, in K etubot 7b, Shemuel asked R. Hanna of Baghdad to assemble ten men in order to make public pronouncement of his ruling concerning the legal capacity of an embryo, or foetus, to acquire.

The figure ten is similarly used in M cnachot 40b to referto public announcements.

Yet, in the ceremony of Chalitzah, five judges were required in order to deem the occasion a public one (Y evam ot 101b), from

Page Fourteen

DECEMBER, 1970 — KTS'LEV, 5731

uhich it would appear that the number live suffices to constitute publicity.

Elsewhere, the figure three is considered sufficient to provide publicity. 1 hus, in relation to the re-marriage of a wife previously divorced because of her addiction to vows which she habitually assumed in public. R. Nachman defines “public” in this connection to mean three, although R. Isaac insists on the figure ten (cf. Gittin 46a — v. Rashi on Gittin 35b s.v. “barabinV ); in B a b a B ath ra 39b. publicity in relation to a protest is held to be constituted by the presence of three; in defining a vain oath Rava states as the criterion one who swore to a fact which is contrary to that known to men in general, e.g., that a pillar was of gold when it was of stone, l o which Lilia added the qualifying provision that it had already been known to three men that it was of stone, and that only under such circumstances could the knowledge be considered “public”, and the oath taken be vain (cf. S hevu ot 25b).

Rashi comments a d loc. that anything known to three men is thereby public knowledge. Obviously, “parrhessya” is three in this connection.

How is it, then, that diverse criteria are given for the definition of the term “parrhessya”? It appears to me that the figure ten is required when the publicity is of a nature such as is intended for people as a whole — e.g., a communal matter, such as a halachic ruling, or announcements intended for the community; anything, that is to say. which may at any time affect people in general.

But where a private individual is concerned, a lesser number such as three is deemed sufficient publicity. Subjects such as C halitzah, vows, oaths, protest, and the like are involved in situations affecting individuals, not the community as a whole. The attendance of ten to constitute public worship is clearly indicated by the possuk “venikdashti” — “and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel”

JUDITH

By S.K. The traditionally favourite dish for Chanucah is, of course, potato latkes (perhaps because the oil used in the preparation of this delectable dish might help in directing our thoughts to the miracle of the oil commemorated at this season).

The Rema, however, mentions that there are those who main­ tain that it is cheese that we should eat on this occasion, because of its association with one of the minor Chanucah miracles wrought through milk fed to the enemy by Judith The Hagaoth Mordecai vouchsafes the additional information that this Judith was the daughter of Yochanan. the High Priest, and very beautiful! She promised the king that she would lie with him and fed him cheese (Pinchiver?) in order that he should be thirsty and drink enough milk to fall into a deep slumber. She then cut off his head and brought it to Jerusalem.

1 he result was that, when “the captains of the army saw that their mighty one was dead, they fled”.

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch’s version is that the miracle was performed through a woman. The daughter of Yochanan. the High Priest, was a fair looking maiden and the cruel king requested that she lie with him. She told him that she would fulfil his request, and she made him eat dishes made of cheese, ci nc1 drank much wine and became drunk and fell asleep.

I hen she cut off his head and brought it to Jerusalem. When their generals saw that their king was dead, they all fled. 1 herefore it is customary to eat dairy dishes on C hanucah. in memory of the miracle performed by means of milk”.

I he slight variations in these accounts of the incident will have been noticed. In the circumstances, therefore, we should

n o

n

for public devotions are open to the whole community, who are required to participate therein. rIn somewhat lighter vein, the passuk in the chapter con­ taining the Decalogue. Exodus xx. 25: “ In every place wherein I will cause My Name to be mentioned I will come to thee and bless thee” — an obvious reference to public worship — has sometimes been adduced as the reason for the attendance of ten at public prayer.

The word “avo” in this verse has the numerically equivalent value of ten. and so, by means of gematria, the figure ten is arrived at in relation to the mention of G-d’s Name, or public worship.

But it is perhaps not without some significance that when Abraham interceded with G-d for the preservation of Sodom and Ciomorrah, his pleadings took the form of successive diminutions in the number of possible righteous men residing in the cities concerned, for whose sakes the remainder of the population might be spared. He began this line of argument with the figure fifty, and ended with the number ten. The Divine undertaking to spare the total population if ten upright men could be found among them may be interpreted to indicate that ten form a congregation, with whose righteousness the others might be associated, and in whose merit they might share. But Abraham did not go below ten, because he was obviously convinced that any lesser figure no longer constitutes a congregation, but merely single individuals — each for himself, as it were — and who are in consequence unable to extend their bounds to include others. For the way of life of individuals is less likely to exert influence or evoke response from others not of their number. If there is any significance in Abraham’s ceasing to p*iead at the figure ten, then the practice of Minyan dates back to the very origin of our faith as observed in the behaviour of the originator of our people. — “ the rock whence we were hewn, Abraham our father” (Isaiah li, 1-2).

compare these versions of what actually happened with the story contained in the Book of Judith in the Apocrypha.

It is true that most observant Jews fight shy of studying this collection of literature, which was composed during the Second Temple period. It is known in Hebrew as “Sefarim Genuzim”, i.e., hidden books, either because they were kept separate from the Tenach, or because the Chachamim would never select any passages from them for public reading (unlike the Sidrah from the Chumash. the Haftarah from the Neviim and the Megillot from the Ketuvim).

Jewish tradition has never ascribed to the Apocrypha the same degree of sanctity as to the books of the Tenach. and many will admit that there are parts of the former the authen­ ticity of which is highly suspect.

Nevertheless, there is no official ban on reading the Apocrypha privately for the sake of the valuable moral stories, ethical rules and those elements of the narratives which are historical rather than fictional. Even before Rashi's time, the renowned R. Moshe Ha-Darshan. for instance, felt no qualms about quoting from the Apocrypha in his writings.

In other words, the “Sefarim Genuzim” should not be confused with the “Sefarim Chitzonim” alreadv viewed with such disfavour in the Mishnah. After all, the Gemara itself quotes only Rav Yoseph as opposing a study of the work of Ben Sira (which is only one of the books of the Apocrypha) and his arguments are refuted on the spot (Sanhedrin 100b).

No such discussion is recorded about the Book of Judith, and it would, therefore, be interesting to have a look at the tale recounted there.

We will note first of all that the historical background is given as the time when Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians

THE

Page Fifteen

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

LI GHT

(not Babylonians) and the Jews had newly returned from the captivity! (The author seems to possess a most contused chronological sense.)

Nebuchadnezzar sends Holofernes, his chief captain, to avenge himself on the countries of Western Asia, including Judea, for refusing to comply with his order to furnish men for his army.

(Elsewhere Holofernes is depicted as one of the generals in the army of Nicanor sent by the Syrian king to capture Judah the Maccabee, a little after he had rededicated the Bet Ha-Mikdash and had regained religious freedom.) The High Priest, Joachim, organised the resistance in Judea and “wrote to them that dwelt in Bethulia . . . charging them to keep the passages of the hill country, for by them there was an entrance into Judea”.

The reaction of Holofernes is immediate. His army of 170.000 men of war and 12,000 horsemen besieges Bethulia, and, on the advice tendered by Edomites and Moabites, seizes the fountain of water which is the source of supply to the city. When the crisis there reaches its peak, the citizens murmur against the governors, who then promise to yield the city to the enemy within five days if no salvation be forthcoming from G-d in that period.

When this promise reaches the ears of a widow named Judith, daughter of Merari, she indignantly reproaches the governors for their lack of faith and, without disclosing her full intentions, asks to be allowed to leave the city that night, together with her maid.

When permission is granted, she prays that her purpose may prosper, attires herself in a manner that would “allure the eyes of all men that should see her”, fills a large bag with bread and

CONGRATULATIONS 4

The Editorial Board of hamaor extend congratulations to: Rabbi and Mrs. M. Frydman on the birth of a grandson.

Mr. and Mrs. I). Goodman on the birth of a grand-daughter.

Mr. and Mrs. S. H. Harris on their son's barmitzvah.

Mr. and Mrs. M. Weintroub on their son's barmitzvah.

Mr. and Mrs. S. Kramer on the engagement of their daughter.

Rev. and Mrs. I. Nodel and Mr. and Mrs. N. Leifer on the engagement of their children, Geraldine and David.

Mr. and Mrs. S. Pizer on the engagement of their daughter.

Mr. M. Silverstone on his son’s engagement.

Rev. A. Rosin on the occasion of his marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. J. Singer on the marriage of their son.

Mr. W. Singer on the marriage of his daughter.

Mr. and Mrs. M. Woolf on the marriage of their son.

Mr. and Mrs. .1. Fierstone on their Silver Wedding Anniversary.

Alfred D. Bermel, J.P., F.C.C.S., on the occasion of his seventieth birthday.

Mr. and Mrs. E. Clianan on settling in their new house in Natanya.

Mr. and Mrs. J. Shafran, on their son's engagement.'

CONDOLENCES I he Editorial Board of hamaor extend sympathies to: The family of the late Mrs. Blitz.

Mr. M. Carr on the death of his father.

Mr. S. Cohen on the death of his sister.

Mrs. B. Fersht on the loss of her husband.

Mr. R. M. Ilirsch on the death of his wife.

The family of the late Mr. M. Janovitch.

Rabbi B. Lapian on the death of his father.

The family of the late Mrs. Malina.

Mr. B. Narod on the death of his mother.

I he family of the late Rev. G. Rosenberg.

The family of the late Mrs. R. Rotenberg.

other victuals, and asks her maid to carry with her a bottle of wine. They go forth into the valley and are conducted by the Assyrian guards to the tent of Holofernes, Judith declaring that she had fled from the Hebrews and would show their leader “a way whereby he shall go and win all the hill country, without losing the body or life of any one of his men”.

Holofernes is struck by her beauty and listens carefully when she avers that the Hebrews cannot be overcome by the sword “unless they sin against their G-d”.

She asks only one favour of him — that she should be per­ mitted to leave the camp every night to purify herself at the well in the valley and pray unto G-d that “He will tell me when the Hebrews have committed their sins. Then will l come and inform you and you will go forth with all your army and there shall be none of them that shall resist you”.

Her voice carries conviction and Holofernes gives orders that the camp guards should not hinder her going out at night. She stays in the camp three days, following which Holofernes cannot contain his desire any longer and invites her in the evening to make merry with him. After a long drinking bout, the waiters are dismissed. “Judith is left alone in the tent. Holofernes lying alone upon his bed, for he was filled with wine”.

She prays that G-d might give her strength, takes down the falchion from the pillar at the head of the bed and cuts ofl his head with two strokes. She emerges from the tent with it and hands it to her maid waiting outside. The latter puts it in her bag of victuals and both leave the camp as on the previous nights.

On this occasion, however, they by-pass the well and approach the gates of Bethulia. The watchmen are shown the head of Holofernes, which is hung that night upon the highest place of the walls facing the enemy.

In the morning, a panic falls upon the Assyrian army and they flee in disorder pursued by the triumphant Hebrews. Judith is garlanded and feted by the townspeople of Bethulia.

The last chapter in the Book is devoted to the words of the Song of Thanksgiving composed by our heroine and to her other acts of piety.

This, then, is the tale as related in all its details in the Apocrypha. It is, of course, dissimilar in many respects to the versions mentioned earlier, but the core remains the same.

In passing, it may have been noticed that the Apocrypha makes no mention whatsoever of cheese or milk being fed to the adversary. Is it because of this that, for Chanukah, "latkes' have replaced “cheese'’ in popular esteem, or is it because the former are considered a better “nosh”?

VIEWPOINTS This column holds the unpopular opinion that newspapers generally aie not an unmitigated blessing to society. News­ papers, even when they print the truth, which sometimes hap­ pens, are prone, 'because they are not just newspapers, to emphasise and sensationa'iise those events which give rise to strong feelings among their readership. The pen is mightier than the sword and the journalist's pen is the sharpest sword of all. It has caused personal heartache, embarrassment and distress and led nations to crisis and disaster.

The leading article in the very first issue of the Jewish Chronicle stated that the purpose of the publisher was “to endow it with a character at once religious, moral and instructive”.

The attitude of today's Jewish Chronicle to communal and religious questions is touched upon elsewhere in this issue of hamaor. It has become painfully obvious during the last decade that the Chronicle — whose influence should not be under­ estimated — has adopted a partisan view in religious questions, tending to give encouragement and support to the “Conserva-

Page Sixteen

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731 n

tive'* and “Progressive” wings, while denigrating the Orthodox community and its leadership, sometimes subtly, often damning with iaint praise, and occasionally by crude mockery.

I he Jew ish C hron icle, forever calling for unity in the com­ munity, is itself a divisive factor. By undermining the authority of the establishment, the Orthodox rabbinate, the synagogal bodies, the Board of Deputies and so on, it has effectively helped to cause disruption, discord and alienation — and thence assimilation. The effect would not be so harmful had there been an alternative weekly newspaper, representing a more balanced view.

In a recent editorial in the Jew ish C h ron icle, the writer com­ plained that the Federation of Synagogues did not publish sufficient information about its own affairs. What he meant was that the information was not disseminated through the medium of the Jew ish C h to n ic le . The fact is that members are kept informed about the affairs of the Federation by means of regular reports to the General Council and through the columns of hamaor .

More recently, Ben Azai rudely attacked the Acting Rav Kashi tor his telegram to the Israeli Ambassador, (reprinted elsewhere in this issue) declaring that Dayan Fisher had no claim to represent the Anglo-Jewish community. Had Ben Azai read the telegram carefully, he wouid have seen that Dayan Fisher makes no such claim, but he certainly has a greater claim to represent the Anglo-Jewish community on a religious issue, being undoubtedly one of the religious leaders of the community, than the Jew ish C h ron icle has to call itself “The Organ of British Jewry”, which it manifestly is not.

A correspondent to hamaor , Mr. Rudolph Stern, takes issue with Dayan Fisher, who was quoted in our last issue as saying “ ■ • • ° ne often h^ r s people say that the Rabbis of today are not like the Rabbit we used to have in years gone by. but those people seem to forget or deliberately want to forget the la d that neither are the Ba alei Batim of today the same as we Rabbis used to have in the past . . .”

Mr. Stern takes the view that “ the Ba’alei Baiim of today are what they are in consequence of what their Rabbis made them”. The truth is, of course, that both Rabbis and daymen are the product of their environment and their heritage, in diverse mixtures. The low educational and cultural level of the Anglo-Jewish masses today cannot be blamed on the Rabbis of yesterday or on their contemporary flock, though it is per­ haps true that the leaders were not equipped to deal with the massive problems that faced them in their new surroundings and at the same time lay the foundations of a proper educa­ tional system for the future.

I he Talmud Torah system, excellent as it was, could not compete with the secular and Christian influences of the day schools. And while the environment in most homes was intensely Jewish, parents on the whole had neither the time, the energy, or the capability, to invest the traditions they adhered to with enough meaning to satisfy a generation of enlightened little Englishmen o>f the Jewish persuasion.

Anglo-Jewry has of late been called upon loudly and clearly to Stand Up and Be Counted among those adhering to the Jerusalem Programme of the World Zionist Organisation. We are told that we must identify ourselves with the aims of the Zionist vision, and that we are duty-bound to support the State of Israel in its struggle for physical and economic sur­ vival. Whether we are Zionists by affiliation or not, every Jew supports the call in his heart and regards the safety and security of the State of Israel as his personal concern.

But we in the Golah also have demands to make. We have the right to demand that the State of Israel should concern itself with our interests — which it does to a great extent — and that in matters which concern Klal Yisrael as a whole, the State and the Golah must learn to act and work in accord'

r

nn

nR moan ,dwrpn mmpi&n p inx boo npnn mrx ,nmrvi btbon x,\m ayn tmpn mp^n pa m&n&n mn -wpn n:nr nmx bw rwn^no xbmti mvn -win ni rbw mm&^n .rntfin 'imtttrto byw Dip^n ntrnp ay mtypi w p * n-vovno w nmn ■ >« by np^yn 00020^1 ,n»D nairw rrsix1? nunpn t o rmpTO rmi^ys nx nmyb blob bow '□ "no nmm raa mrrn imra mmp m r mo w m nrnxi nmu >1*1 *)bp rmtry rua nmyr mmtyyn ix w is n pw n b 'o m

byi y w nxro rmowb n-no» ,p£o abb ,nnsm -mr> pirn man □ ^x ,rrmov7 mao»n p r^bnb mnn nma mpm *?bo anp.& □ npaft ntynpi nxntmm rvnrmnn axya y>rp x1? nt .pimm D^n mppw ,nmxis,& w p nvvxto iv y nmob 22b ivnrab ■’□ ’"no Dm pm tr p /Hi^x jma (mmsx) mtrym minm ^0202 -rinan mp22 by jin a nnrr uto (!) mmmn onmn nxn 22b wax p npnm Kan nan nx y2ovh ion -ppn 'oy Qnny /immaxi noixa minty non umxT nxin •onfrty Ttnaa u n ta nwyb ion xn .22THb nniDOM too non xn mtynpn nmpon nbm □ m,-p bm nnn nntyy ^yu,y:aty m^xjm mnyon nnx nomn ipn-nn m'bynw nip '20 im p by psnnnb mnaa *rnty DPiya n&7 xa ntymnan unnyrn npm$n^ m m xvi yntn maa irnx mb mnK m anrcpn nx prwrin pmb nrny xn nrntrx □ 3 o'bnnb n*’^ ^ nnx ,nxtr nnn n^x ntrx ,nv2bx2\o; *'by nsinn nnnpn mm nnnn* nnxon nx v pnio 't nann mrpa,^ anyn nx nn*? nanon anoonn nnonn by by .no i^ytr noim nnrn nonx nnmr n^m bv n^yo nmy1? nyoitnnn ’’^yai □ ,,o^onn nnono nmn nnmn noon mymn ^0 no -pn ^0 n n ynn1?! n fbnn22 n x 0 ay nnm nvy» t o pao ,myb y^ob onwym .□ nnn ^nm mfrrn nwtr,» ^x-*^ mrta nno nnn ii^on notion ‘rtr nfrnon nnon □i.pin n^nn nxn^m nmn non^ ono^sm D^unipn mmp^n n^ix^ .bxn^ n x ^ nnnxsn nnoyo ?n ^.^0 Dnonty^n ^xno^ nyb While Golah Jewry must not attempt to interfere in the politi­ cal or strategic decisions the State has to make — though we have every right to express an opin ion — the State must take into account the feelings and opinions of world Jewry, and weigh in the balance the effects on world Jewry of any decision if might take.

The Government of Israel, in its handling of the question of Jewish identity, caused great anguish and anxiety to many Jews in Israel and the Golah. All the more to be deplored therefore was the refusal of the Government to interfere in the controversy over the threatened public Shabbat desecration in Asbkelon, despite appeals from the highest religious authori­ ties in Israel and throughout the Diaspora. The Israeli Govern­ ment cannot continue to ignore the wishes of the Golah if it wishes the Golah to respect the decisions of the Israeli Govern­ ment.

In the event, the motor race was postponed to Sunday, despite the non-intervention of the Israel Government, but the race was abandoned because spectators, not members of ihe religious community, swarmed on to the track. According to the D aily T eleg rap h , one of the G erm an organisers of the race said afterwards, “ I had never seen such uncivilised human beings” .

A sorry ending to a sorry story.

H am ash kij

THE

LI GHT

[Jage Seventeen

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

pmx omm p taa .;Dm,Tn "rya mpan npmy n«vn birr yap □x nbix .]mnn mrrx :"b"bn bx,, "anyn n:oaa bbsinnb awna mpmn mm jmxb nxm nxn by n^pfinn mbyan nx mnrrb rpnsp nrirrxm m i x"mrr "nn ,myboi mnanxa o n w na nxsn mr&nx mmaia ia s,"ay .mrrr da nmab pm maboiai "mzmp/, nmxb ny:airrai rnn mny D^Ami mnsiPn birr nypian nirnp nmx imnb;i n n n ^ mairrpa mpn "ry mrnaomn m"pb mrrax hd pmrr / it nitrrnp nmx birr a:n bai p"p: baa n*myn maan xian pnn: nbmtrrm mbyi r»n nairr .nrsan r n n ba mabx nyanx pah nayn annas birr iw a /p"by ’imp prnnaxa p-ixmn Dwnn "ab xb dx mma nap nrxai .mn mm nyi niirr n o r ma>,m ""nxn rvnap nx bw&b ,nxm mrrx "P ynanb bxioa imxb onrnn napn n ^ n nx mbnan "abx nbxa bnanbi mesa ""nxn birr npama nx n n r mrrxa ix .irrniipn my mbimmn r»xn

.mb nano bai ,bman ybs by mmxan "trrnpp,, ay bn □m: amx ba birr naimwn onm ,(piaa ,mm px Dmap xb ,ii»m m pppn nasyan xm xbi p-"by nymirra nrx ab "bny m m b □•’mam m"irr,yan mnysn baa trp:ba mmaa *iax px ana -pranxn m:mn nrnaa □: mrrnpn pxnx birr wiayn naras .mp"y nxnab msnx nx masyan mpm

pnaxn nax* misai m"pb mman nyirr nypn xb paxnn nanab □ ’am mnnn by anpmbx nx □ man mrr nay mrrx maipan ba nx □ na / p i "Dmnara nx onsnr .pyn py ba nnm myaon by: "iTxmxBi* v/y pxnx birr (ryba 'Ta,"X) rann nx lpnb pnm □ "bn: mrrmp "bama anxm ma m:a,nx birr nana bura : naiba -wsnxa mirrnpn maipan baa mppirr anxisaa mbaio nbiai ,na"bya nmxa mmna nabir a^irmpn maipan an v/aim nap ina onairr awiaan lb^x nr bbaa ma’ai mn^D noinri .nnaaa on bya mxa nn napn fimaa xm pn man .nnbix^b iraa a^sisan □ "imp maipa i^b w> obix "T»b nairr mrrx ,D’’bmT’ birr npnyn m»yn ba amp .ana nnnx na n:a"irr; ^ab my) n^xar ,)amm mbi miizr a^abx nnx /bxrnrr'’ □ biya nxiaam bvnn mn^irr noaa n"ab Oman nnnaa p^ama .□■’binma □ ,»,’p^ na ba by nxsn maaa nby^im ibn maxn nnap by nn b"bai nna an noaa n"a mnb iv? p na bir anmnap nnyab mrrsxn baa max ,]nana mrrx nbsaan nmrra .□ •'impn maxn na^irra >aaip n’lnan ,nbx a^rana D’irrnp maipa mirr naba □ "piprn oun □ "imp maipa ma^p .bxnirr^ nbx maanb D"n"anr2 /□ airra pnxn nor nap nbx bbaa .nm airrnai pama pann nbix^b .□ na □ "xxra □ "am nana nmaa X"aan bxiair* nap □ "irmpn maipaq inarn ■’ban n ay nnmai maam maxao xb nmayi nmn mar’b birr o^n □ "ppiirr □ nana nmna xbx ,mb im □ y "bbn,/ birr nmanaa nbim na"irr" ana nnx ba v/y mpnb irr^ /n "irrjxi bbian nnbnb mn mmn" nxaa b"amrr ,D"nma nmtr? □ ipan "nanir,, birr nmann nx nn"a nn" nurx ,nmairrn birr □ "mmrrn 4rrnpn mma nx yxa"i pan" mrrx nnva nm nmab bxmrr" nbirraa by naa" xn) maaxan nx moab bai" nir .b"3a □ "impn maipan ix m"irr"xb □ "irrnpn maipan ]a nnx ba by ("naurr,, ix "laxa* nx o""^b iaxy by bap" mrrx ,^nxn ix nbmn "mm paa "max nnb mrryab yxa"i /mnnxm m"ba"nnxn mpann nx panb ,n"yxaxn nbirraan nvmn "sb ,ib noa^irr nnxn birr nxisan mnn mmay nx ,bxnir"a n"irrxnn nmanm

o ’a m p n

m » ip a n

n ? is j7

ojgnn Dion; nm m r\ x"»n .bxmrr" ay birr n"nxan nnbian ,m""n n"a x"n bxnirr," pnx □yn birr inmaa mna mrrmpam -n"irrxna "a" mmrra mrrnpn nxn manx "by nmmn ynxn ,mnp "im mna nabaa nvnb nna^ nrx nxnan nmnn rnx .nnab nb ma""irrn ,mnm"a nrixa nb nmn^irr □n’ymyai on"mxa ^nx a"xmax bm □"xann birr nxnx .unpan". mrrx pnxn .□"a>irrn nym □"pnbx n"a .mmnn baa bxnirr" "p"nx birr xb mmnn baa □"mm mmp na mmsa bxnirr" bur )"bnn "m dj ]i>a nmn b.im □mrai mam "ra baa nnrx irairr ny naanba irr .myi. "nnan pnx// /'irrmpn pnx,/ ,Mn nbra^ □y birr imima mmnn baa nirnpn mxnx nnxirra nnm irar ib .□maym "xnp"irr.n nan "b"bx mxaiaa nmx nma mrrx ,bxmr*" □""mn .aiim amrr mby labmrm □""mn nrn irar xbirr mrrayi □anbisb pnao nmx lyap ^nnimp mbuoa iirrpnn mrrx /□"trraian npia nmpjb nmx lasn iaai ,nnxn"b nxa pma na ia"pn n^*> .n"aixbma n^anay mr"bxb mxnx birr nbnrn ny"apa amrrn "imbia nmib nnn nx it xmny □"ny .mmaona mmirr msipna nxa "irrya "ia"a "n"b xa mrrx np"na mabnirrna □"nyi ,ma"bx "anna imma mna-ab /abx "yoaa ,yima ,bna ova .nman "mprn„ by maanon a^x mmaibm □"biirraa aiama n"nxmn moian "anp nxirr birn ipmn bn* ipbn nnpaai ,bxnirr" pnx by pmman nnaan inna aP"D baa □mrpi in nr nmpa on nx mbxia □bo"xn "anp .n"bimmb ya.na.irr naa mna ],m nmaa nama nn "raxa nxm any pa bur na"xn "ia"ba maba ibnix "a ,p"xb ]"iya .mmxbma mmT by "□aiba"n pym uoPB'i pna nbp by nnmi xb n"a""a*on n"om bir* n"sam yirrnn nmxa /nirrmpa nP"on/» birr naya nbya b^n no"nn nnaan birr ,nr birr D"irrmpan ma(ipan by nnanrrn ,n"abo"anan moaan nnbir*a .bxnirr" pnxa mmnn mown nxana "na nxba mmpn pxnxirr- ,a"xaan opy axab any p x na .irrmpn n"y □"bimn"a .□n"rab nvom mnna nnrxa □""ay bm mmpn pxnx "anna nxir*ai banaai mana .□"n"Tfr nnai ivx nna .nxirr": nyan ba byn niaa n.n ba by maipan birr □"xnym mnp"a omnao-a nx ia"pn Q’anyn □: □n:oai n"an nna nxpx'bx n:oai ybon naa laa ,pxnxa □"irrnpn .□"imnpn P"max mnap nipa — nbaaan nnya byir* □""bxmmnaopx □"nairr nirryab -onna nbx mm nn mnma nn"nm bpn "moa nnn onpaa D"ir*air'ar bxmr*" nrna "aama mb"ys birr "ri"bx:bm,/ nbanpan nnnn naba u"ann "ra baa pn:: nnn nmxa prna nrnab n:my mb"ys nryab xnir* .mnmma □np bna:b mrrp paxnn- nanab .bxmr,? nn m nmaan mb"ys pit* n"n inp nxa nann "a dx naixbran pnaya iaob "baa nr pnnn nbirraa bxnirr"b nnm ib ,D"n:ro"an mbiys nposn pvaa mirryb .a""na asamrr "sa n"maom nrnnx nbyai ns "ax nn"xb nimnpn psnxai pa y:is nr m r:y axair* naba it xb abix nnraai ."na: p"as bxnirr" pnxb inp ximrr xbx ,mirrya nrnaa psnx nx mnb mxan D""nsiPn □"mmn "ra .amt birr aana nmp:a birr mrr,npn nnnbiaa bxnirr" ^nx nn""a^a np""bs "x irrsp mnuab msipnn ba pa ,ma"imai □"bn: D""nsp nxn" ma nxban nmsan mna ynxa mm (inp"ya pib"n ny) D"mmn ib"xn ,D":rqn baar nx it mmrpx n xa ia"pn mrrx .mirryn "byisi ,D"a:ri n"an"a nmnx ana ,"inman p"ya □"baip.an pbmn "m bur mnraxn ba ur"ur on mxn max .pb px p mrrnp n x bur nnirrnpa irraa birr

Page Eighteen

DECEMBER, 1970 — KfSLEV, 5731

11 ti B n

BOOKS

A THOUSAND YEARS OF SAADIA GAON’S SIDDUR S iddur R. S aadya G aon, edited by I. Davidson, S. Assaf, B. I. Joel ; with appendix of Piyutim not included by Saadya in the Siddur; 448 pp.; Rubin Mass, Jerusalem, 1970; il£40.

If at all times in our history controversies about the Divine Service raged fiercely and even split the nation into sects and groups, the Reform movement with its topical outcries for change in the prayer book in our days has brought textual questions and the liturgy of our prayer book in general into bold relief.

Every student of the development of our prayers must needs go back to the very beginnings of their being fixed. About a thousand years have elapsed since Saadya Gaon's authorship and the appearance in print of his work in our time. For about 500 years, his Siddur was the most widespread in Egypt and all Arabic-speaking Jewries, and then was almost entirely lost.

About 150 years ago, the famous bibliographer, Steinschneider, rediscovered manuscripts containing it in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, yet it took many years and countless combined efforts until our editors succeeded in the colossal task of re­ establishing the original Siddur text with the aid of additional manuscripts in other libraries the world over.

Of course, as far as its extent is concerned, the Siddur is a far cry from the one in use in traditional synagogues of today, although Saadya's main aim was, through his Siddur, to strengthen traditional Judaism which, in his days, was also under heavy attack. In his introduction, Saadya stresses the triple aim of prayers: thanksgiving for the past, supplications for the future and acknowledging G-d's omnipotence.

After a brief personal opening, he writes: "I have taken upon myself to gather all the prayers, blessings and hymns as they existed before the Galut and afterwards in their original forms; I have added and deleted where I felt it necessary in accordance with original readings. . . . I wrote the laws regarding the prayers and blessings for ordinary days as well as for Sabbath, festivals and fasts from the sources in Mishna and I almud . . . not for the sake of controversy, but solely for the sake of learning and understanding. . . .” For this reason, Saadya like Maimonides after him — did not quote sources and painstakingly avoided any changes into a more nationalistic vein even in such matters as were dear to him — like the men­ tion of "a new light will shine forth upon Zion". He dropped the recital of the Kedusha, unless in congregational prayer.

1 here are a considerable number of divergencies from our cus­ tom which are of great importance to the student. Dr. Joel, in his valuable addenda to the Siddur, has specified the dis­ crepancies between the Siddur and that of Amram Gaon, and deepened our understanding of these also in Saadya Gaon's Haggadah shel Pessach. The collection of Saadya's Piyutim appended to the Siddur deserves special appreciation by experts.

C iiazal, P irke E m u n ot V e-D eot, T he Sages, T heir C on cep ts and B eliefs, by Ephraim E. Urbach ; 704 pp.; Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1969; I£42.

Professor Ephraim Urbach, head of the Hebrew University's Talmud Department, has set himself the task of revealing in this monumental work the religious and social philosophies of the I anaim and Amoraim.

I he historic-philological approach, which is basic and decisive in the appraisal of the total effort presented, admits the existence of common fundamental con­ cepts and beliefs which had accrued in the course of time to both the Sages and the ordinary people, but Urbach is far more interested to point out in his book the controversial ideas and conceptions that divided ( nazal and the ordinary people, as well

as those conflicts that, in his opinion, divided the Sages among themselves.

It is in this context that Urbach points to the burning ideas and sentiments that affected the Jewish nation from within in consequence of quarrels that took place during the period of the Second Temple and after its destruction, and to the processes ot assimilation and rejection of influences from outside. In 27 chapters, the author unfolds the vast gamut of those basic concepts, like belief in one G-d, Shekhina, sorcery and miracles.

Providence, Oral and Written Law, the Mitzvot, acceptance of the “ Divine Y oke", love and fear, ultimate justice, sin, death, sufiering, repentance, redemption and a series of chapters on the status, work and profiles of many of our Sages.

By way of illustration, a brief example from the book: In the days of Rabbi Akiba — a period of cruel religious persecution the attitude of “beloved are sufferings" for their own sake seems to have arisen which found even its Halachic permanent expression in the glorification of death for the sanctification of His name. However, Urbach points to a legend in which Rabbi Akibah himself — at the death-bed of his teacher, Rabbi Eliezer challenged his colleagues by saying that every­ one was liable to sin, thus implying that every suffering stems from retribution.

Again, the author lucidly explains how the later Tanaites and Amoraites were split on the desirability of inflicting privations upon oneself, those who believed in asceticism and those — like Rava — who prayed to be spared any suffering. All in all, here is a standard work which — irrespective of one's acceptance of every interpretation of the author — represents a wealth of thought and is virtually a thesaurus of Aggadah knowledge.

I yunim B emaksheveth Y israel , R eflection s on Jew ish T hou ght,

by S. Rawidowicz; Vol. I, F ragm en ts fr o m “An Introduc­ tion to a Philosophy of Jewish History", Saadya-Maimonides; edited by C. H. R av id ; 471 p p .; Rubin Mass, Jerusalem. 1969.

Tn an introduction, the son of the author — who was Professor of Hebrew Literature and Jewish Philosophy at Brandeis Univer­ sity until 1957 — traces his father’s life and variegated works.

I he first part ol this book consists of a more generalised inquiry into Israel's twin beginnings, referring to the creative genius of the periods of both the First and Second Temple. An appendix is dedicated to an original demarcation of concepts like sanctity, praise and deprecation. Revealing is, also, his second part on Saadya and his conception of man, which pinpoints the division on the problem of anthropomorphism between Saadya and Maimonides.

The author's lectures on the structure of Maimonides' G uide to the P erp lex ed and his study on M an an d G -d, which gives an analysis of the Maimonidean philosophy of religion, are then followed by an explanation of Rambam's concept of “ Madda in his S efer h a-M ad d a and by a comparison of S efer ha-M itzvot with S efer ha-M adda.

The final two studies are dedicated to the particular structure of S efer h a-M ad d a and conclude with an appeal made in the jubilee year of Maimonides regarding our scholarly responsibility towards his G u id e, i.e., a plea for a new translation and interpretation of Maimonides' heritage to our orphaned genera­ tion. We eagerly look forward to the second volume.

L emahuta S hel H ayahaduth, On the E ssence o f Ju d aism , by M. Z. Sole; 208 p p .; “ Kiryat Sepher", Jerusalem, 1969.

At a time when the definition of “Who is a Jew?” became

THE

LI GHT

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

(he focal point of Israel's inner policy, Sole's searching reflections on the various efforts on “What is Judaism?” made topical reading. In 12 separate chapters, the author tries to reach out to essential cornerstones of Judaistic thought and penetratingly explains themes like “Chosen People”, “Holiness”, “Faith in Eternity and in Freedom'’ and “ Moral Values”.

In its second part, the book has recourse to the original con­ tributions made on these subjects by thinkers from Yehuda Halevi to Mendelssohn fa vast jump), Steinheim, Lazarus, Rosenzweig and Herrman Cohen, leading up to S. R. Hirsch and Chief Rabbi Kook. In the third and final part of the book. Sole reproduces a number of his best reviews, such as of Leo Baeck's Essence o f Judaism, Soloveitchik's Man o f Faith, the Educational Thought o f the M aharal by Kleinberger and other though rather dissimilar fields. The book makes easy reading and surely deserves widest circulation among thinking Jewish adolescents and adults. A worthy addition to the author's other publications.

T oldoth G edole Hora' ah, by Shevakh Knebil; new editors, J. Millin and Shaul Schaffer; published by the editors, “Yefe Nof” 25 ; Sonnenfeld, Jerusa\em, 5730.

Although the first edition of this most illuminating work dates back nearly 93 years, this is only the second edition and the first in Israel. The book encompasses ten of the most influential “mentors'’ of our day-to-day conduct. It is, therefore, in this

OBITUARIES

REV. GOTTLIEB ROSENBERG

Vsr

Mr. D. Goodman, President o f the Woolwich and District Synagogue writes: Fifty-five years of active service to one synagogue was the proud record of the Rev. Gottlieb Rosenberg, - who died on October 16 at the age of 82. Mr. Rosenberg arrived at Woolwich, in 1910, and retired at the conclusion of a long and distinguished ministry in 1965. He was instrumental in the amalgamation of the local small synagogues to form the Woolwich and Plumstead Synagogue, and in the foundation of the ladies’ guild. He supported and encouraged the local Zionist society, and he lived to see the rebuilding of the synagogue and its reopening as the Woolwich and District Synagogue.

He led the congregation in prayer over all those years with a devotion and fervour which was uplifting to experience. For many years, Mr. Rosenberg was responsible for the Hebrew and religion classes, and in some cases taught the grandchildren of his original pupils.

During the war years he kept the congregation functioning, despite the fact that many were evacuated and younger members were away serving in the Forces. Even under wartime condi­ tions he was able to organise a regular daily minyan for services, which for a time were held in his home, owing to the difficulty of using the synagogue during the black-out.

Woolwich being a garrison town, there was a continuous movement of military personnel in and out of the local barracks.

All who found time to attend the Woolwich Synagogue were assured of hospitality in local homes for Shabbat or Yom Tov. Rev. and Mrs. Rosenberg were to the fore in this respect, and every week they welcomed servicemen to their home to enjoy a real Shabbat.

Mr. Rosenberg was universally loved and respected by all who knew him. His unfailing courtesy and sense of humour were well-known and he was ever present to support those who turned to him for comfort and advice.

He was one of those rare men who led successfully, not by precept but by example. He will be most sadly missed by his

Page Nineteen

capacity of theirs that these monographs see the mainstay of their lives and works. Thus, Rashi, Maimonides, the “Rosh”, the “Baal Haturim”, the “Beth Yoseph” and “Remah” are treated with equal conciseness, as are the “Taz”, “Schach”, the “Magen Avraham” and the “Pri Megadim” giving the scholar and layman alike a real insight into the world of the “Psak", which eludes us without the inner knowledge of the great men behind the Codes that have become standard works in Jewish scholarship. A most welcome new edition that should have a place in every Jewish home T almud Babli , M assekheth Shahbath; Vol. II vocalised and annotated by Rabbi Adin Steinsalz; 738 pp.; published by the (Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, Jeru­ salem, 1969; I£45.

I his is the second and concluding volume of Tractate Shabbath and a most welcome addition to that great pioneering effort by Rabbi Steinsalz to make the study of the Talmud once again an attractive pursuit for the entire Jewish people and surely for every intellectual in the Israel of today.

If this were the sole achievement of Rabbi Steinsalz, to spread again the word of the Law, it would be sufficient justifi­ cation for his enterprise. But, as this reviewer has pointed out before, in an appreciation of Vol. I. even the yeshiva student can derive much benefit from this edition.

former community and by many others in Anglo-Jewry with whom he came in contact.

He married into a local family, his wife being the youngest daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. Lipman Jacobs. Their family of two sons and three daughters brought them much pleasure and are a credit to them and all Anglo-Jewry. The elder son is the Minister at the Staines Synagogue, the younger is Warden^ of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Synagogue. His daughters are married, the elder to Rev. S. Venitt of the Hammersmith and South Kensington Synagogue, the youngest to Dr. J. Stein­ berg, Warden at the Barking and Becontree Synagogue. The other daughter is married to Dr. F. Machenick, the well-known surgeon, of Johannesburg. Our deepest sympathies are extended to his widow and family.

H 'm S '1 T!

RA BBI ELIA LOPIAN Rabbi Elia Lopian. who died in Israel shortly before Rosh Hashanah at the age of 95, was the Rosh Yeshiva of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva, London, from 1927 until his retirement to Israel, where he settled in Kfar Hassidim.

Rabbi Lopian was a leading exponent of the Mussar move­ ment and his derashot drew large audiences, particularly in Israel, where people came from all parts of the country to hear him. A former student of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva. Mr. S. Kramer, has written that Rabbi Lopian had the power to “im­ plant Emuna and Yirat Shamayim in the minds and hearts of his Talmidim. Who else could have taught us to daven with such Kavanah and Dikduk? His davenning at the Yamim Noraim services especially, inspired us to such a degree that its influence can be felt to this very day. His oratory was similarly unparalleled. Whether in his half-hour Mussar every morning before breakfast, or his occasional derashot to the general public, his words made an indelible impression. Who can for­ get, for instance, the Hesped over the martyrs of Hebron at the Machzikei Hadat in 1929, when he held his audience spellbound for over three and a half hours without pausing?”

The former Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Dr. .Sir Israel Brodie, has written: “ I am among the numerous students who regard his teaching and example as among the most formative factors

11-

J

Page Twenty

DECEMBER, 1970 — KISLEV, 5731

determining their Jewish thinking and behaviour to this day”.

The Editorial Board of h a m a o r extend sympathies on their loss to the children of the late Rabbi Lopian, who include the Rashei Yeshiva of Gateshead and Szneiders Yeshivot, and Rabbi B. Lapian, Rav of the Yeshurun Synagogue, Edgware.

The remains of Rabbi Lopian's wife have been transferred from Edmonton and laid to rest next to those of her late illustrious husband in Yerushalayim.

fn '2 x 'i 'n RABBI CHAIM WEINGARTEN y * T We regret to record the death of Rabbi Weingarten, who recently passed away in London at the age of 88. Rabbi Wein­ garten arrived in London from Liege, Belgium, in 1939, and immediately undertook the establishment of a new yeshiva which eventually settled in Staines. The yeshiva produced many ex­ cellent students who have participated actively in the AngloJewish community and elsewhere.

A Kolel where Ba'ale Batim can undertake evening courses of Torah study has been established in North London in memory of Rabbi Weingarten.

'H '2 'X '1 'n

MRS REBECCA ROTHENBERG ^ y We regret to report the death of Mrs. Rothenberg, who served with devotion as a member of the Ladies’ Chevrah Kadisha of the Federation of Synagogues Burial Society for many years.

Mrs. Rothenberg, who endeared herself to all who knew her by her goodness of heart and abundance of spirit in adversity, will long be remembered by her colleagues and friends. Our sympathies are extended to her family. 'n '2 ' s 'i 'n

MR MARCUS JANOVITCH r\'y The Ahavath Shalom Synagogue,” writes R a b b i / L. A b ra m s, has lost its oldest and most respected congregant at the age of 92. Blessed with an alert mind coupled with a keen sense of humour, Mr. Janovitch dedicated his life to the service of the synagogue, and his tireless efforts for its advancement as a house ot prayer and study will remain a source of encourage­ ment to those who are now deprived of his wise counsel. Having served as a warden, an office which he carried out with dignity and unflagging zeal, he was created a Life Warden. His crown­ ing glory, however, was the privilege of opening the newly-built synagogue, which was consecrated in 1969. Mr. Janovitch was a generous benefactor to many religious and charitable institu­ tions in this country and in Israel”.

71 '2 X '1 'D

MR PHILIP FER SH T rry "I he death of Mr. Philip Fersht brought deep sorrow to the members of the Waltham Forest Hebrew Congregation,” writes Mr. W. N. M argolis, President. ’’For many years before the amalgamation of the Queen’s Road and Boundary Road Synagogues, Mr. Fersht served the former as Vice-President and President and devoted his energies to the welfare of its members and, above all, to the Jewish youth movement in Walthamstow. He was a man of vision and a gifted leader, who was for long a protagonist of the amalgamation of the two synagogues. Since the amalgamation in 1968, Mr. Fersht had served the congregation as a warden, and had impressed all its members by his single-minded devotion”. 'n '2 'X '2 'D

ii

nn

n

REPORTS

ILFORD & DISTRICT MIKVEH OPENING AND CONSECRATION CEREMONY Despite the inclement weather, a fair number of people attended the Service and Reception held to mark the opening and consecration of the new mikveh established by the Federation of Synagogues in Ilford.

The Service, which was held at the Beehive Lane Synagogue, included the reading of passages from Tenach and Mishna relating to Taharah.

The congregation was addressed by the Chief Rabbi, who remarked that the Ilford community, the largest in Anglo-Jewry, was now provided with all the necessary kehilla institutions— Synagogues, Beth Hamedrash.

Yeshiva and Day School and, now, a mikveh. The mikveh was the hallmark of Judaism, distinguishing it from other laiths. Pointing out that the ancient defenders of the Massada fortress had dug out a mikveh in the rock under conditions of siege and physical extremity, the Chief Rabbi stated that the observance of T aharat H am ish p ach a could be equated with the M esirat N efesh . sacrifice and martyrdom, suffered by our people through the ages.

True Yirat S ham ayim required loyalty to the Mitzvot even in the most intimate and private moments of a person's life.

Dayan Pesach Braceiner, of the Federation of Synagogues' Beth Din, emphasized that the practice of T aharat H am ish p ach a had divine sanction and practical validity for all time.

It had exerted a profound influence on the Jewish home throughout history and was responsible for the miraculous preservation of Jewish life.

Indeed, without T aharat H am ish p ach a, Jewish life became impossible.

Quoting the dictum of the Chafetz Chayim that it was prohibited to reside in a town without a mikveh and that the construction of a mikveh takes precedence over the construction of a Synagogue or the purchase of a Sefer Torah, Dayan Braceiner deplored the erroneous idea that the mikveh was for the purpose of physical cleanliness.

Complimenting the leaders of the Federation of Synagogues on their initiative in expending some £20,000 on the construction of a mikveh in Ilford, Dayan Braceiner said that this was an example which should be followed in other districts; it was the sacred duty of the kehilla to build mikvaot which, by helping to create a religious environment, would serve to dispel the present ignorance and apathy.

Following the Service, which was conducted by the Rev. G. Shisler, the Rabbonim and Honorary Officers attended the formal opening ceremony by Mr. M. Lederman, President of the Federation of Synagogues, and a plaque was unveiled commemorating the consecration of the mikveh by the Chief Rabbi, Dayan P. Braceiner and Dayan M. Swift.

At a reception following the ceremony, Mr. Lederman expressed thanks to all who had been concerned in the project, and in particular, to Mr. H. Steinhart and Mr. G. Berger •••

mb'}.

S '* x

m 5

■m

mm m

rV

r—*♦ *

U V*

?

&

'v

i

The dressing room

i

r

V

THE

Page Twenty-one

DECEM BER, 1970 — KLSLEV, 5731

LI GHT

who, as Gabbaim of the former Dzikover Synagogue, had agreed that the compensation paid by the Greater London Council for the old synagogue site and adjoining mikveh in Dunk Street should be utilised towards the cost of the new mikveh in Ilford. He also paid tribute to Rabbi Meir Posen, the architect for the construction of the mikveh. who had under­ taken the work with exemplary expertise and conscientiousness.

He expressed thanks to the various local Orthodox com­ munities, including those of the United Synagogue and in particular, to the Joint Chairmen of the Mikveh Committee, the Rev. A. Burns and the Rev. Michael Goldman, as well as Rabbi A. Greenberg of the Ilford Beth Hamedrash. Hon. President, and Mr. Jack Gayer. Hon. Secretary, who had all joined the local Mikveh Committee and had participated enthusiastically in its activities.

This Committee, comprising as it did all the local Orthodox communities, was an example of unity, co-operation and under­ standing which could well be emulated in other spheres.

While the Federation was prepared to bear the capital cost of the mikveh, which amounted to some £20,000, it was the duty of the local communities to undertake the cost of its maintenance and he appealed to the local residents to give every support.

Dayan M. Fisher, Acting Rav Rashi, recalled a meeting held in Vilna many years previously, when the Chafetz C hayim had addressed a congregation of several thousand women on the subject of Taharat Hamishpacha. It was significant that all the various religious authorities in London had participated in the opening ceremony to emphasise the importance of mikveh and Taharat Hamishpacha.

Dayan I. Rudnick spoke of the concent of K edusha — holiness.

While the institutions in Jewish life — the Temple, the Synagogue, the Sefer Torah — all had the essence of K edusha, it was the personal holiness of the individual and the sanctity of Jewish family life that enabled the Jewish people to imbue their historical institutions with holiness. It was for this reason that the Chafetz Chayim had declared that the mikveh had priority over the synagogue.

Rev. A. Burns, who was Chairman at the reception, laid stress on the future work of the Mikveh Committee, which would be to educate the public in Taharat H am ishpacha and to encourage wider use of the new facilities offered.

Rev. S. Black. Minister of the Beehive Lane Synagogue, also commended the co-operation between the various local communities and, quoting the Kedushat Levi, he pointed out that the comments in Parshat Zachor were all in the singular, except for a reference to Yitsi'at Mitzrayim. which was in the plural. The Geula needed the co-operation of the entire community.

Rabbi A. Greenberg, Rav of the Ilford Beth Hamedrash, declared that the establishment of a mikveh converted a town into a Jewish town. Referring to the remarks of previous

The interior of the Mikveh

The reception room speakers, he stated that Synagogue service and activity were totally inadequate without the foundation and background of Taharat H am ishpacha in the home.

AHAVATH SHALOM SYNAGOGUE The new Minister of the Synagogue, Rabbi I. L. Abrams, was inducted into office by Dayan M. Fisher. Acting Rav Rashi. and Dayan S. Gukovitzki, on September 13. Rabbi Abrams, who was educated at Manchester Yeshiva. was formerly Minister of the Mill Hill and Shepherd's Bush Synagogues. The Service was conducted by Chazan P. Cowan, and Rev. B. Koschland participated.

In his induction address. Dayan Fisher stated that the Rabbi's task was defined in the second chapter of Malachi the Prophet: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the L-d of hosts". Dayan Fisher emphasised that the prophet said, “keep, knowledge", rather than “teach knowledge", to stress that the Rav had to undertake a long period of intensive and arduous study. Despite the improved material conditions of the Ministry, few were prepared to enter the profession, and it was therefore encouraging to see a young man of Rabbi Abrams' ability, learning, Yirat Shamayim, and zeal facing the challenge.

The task of the Rabbi had become more difficult during the last half-century ; he now not only had to administer the Law, but to defend it against attacks from the reformist movements.

Orthodox Jews had their principles and would not abandon them to please a movement that openly denied the divinity of the Torah of Sinai, embodied in the Shulchan Aruch, which gener­ ations had paid a high price in blood to maintain and uphold.

No tolerance could be shown to those who had stained and tainted the sanctity and purity of the Jewish people by the introduction of mamzerut. While tolerance could be shown to Law-breakers, it could not be shown to Law-abolishers. The Rabbi had not only to “teach knowledge” but to “keep know­ ledge'' — keep it pure and unaffected by the atmosphere, climate, ideas and beliefs of the times.

Dayan Fisher appealed to the congregation to revere and respect their Rabbi, who would try to lead them with wisdom and firmness, upholding the highest tradition and standards of Judaism.

In his induction sermon. Rabbi Abrams paid tribute to Dayan Fisher and to Dayan Gukovitzki, the latter having been his revered teacher and mentor. The Ahavath Shalom Synagogue was the first Synagogue in North-West London to be associated with the Federation.

During the four decades of its existence, it had gained a high reputation in the Anglo-Jewish community. He invited the community to recapture together with him the idealism of the original founders. Rabbi Abrams outlined his intended pro­ gramme of activity, planned with a view to enhance the dignity

Page Twenty-two

D E C E M B E R , 1970

and presentation of services and to increase the knowledge of Judaism in the congregation.

At a reception following the service, the chair was taken by the President of the Synagogue, Mr. S. Angel, and the speakers included Dayan Gukovitzki; Rabbi Dr. H. Rabinowicz of the Dollis Hill Synagogue; Rabbi H Landy of the Cricklewood Synagogue; Dr. C. N. Faith, Warden; Mr. M. Weintroub, Chairman of the Shepherd’s Bush Synagogue; and Mr. M. Pliskin, Honorary Secretary of the Ahavath Shalom Synagogue.

ILFORD FEDERATION SYNAGOGUE Rev. L. Sober, former Reader of the Barking and Beconlree Synagogue, has been appointed Chazan of the Ilford Federation Synagogue.

CANNING TOWN SYNAGOGUE 1he services on the High Holydays this year were conducted by two teenage brothers. David and Gerald Silverstein. aged 16 and 14 respectively.

GREAT GARDEN ST SYNAGOGUE On Saturday evening, November 21, a large gathering attended a Melave Malka function at the Great Garden Street Synagogue hall. Those taking part were Dayan M. Fisher. Acting Rav Rashi; Rabbi M. Frydman, Chairman. Mizrachi Federation; Mr. M. Lederman, President, Federation of Synagogues: and the Rev. L. Shaposnick, minister of the Synagogue.

TELEGRAM The following telegram was sent to the Israeli Ambassador by Dayan M. Fisher, Acting Rav Rashi. on behalf of the Federation of Synagogues Kehilla and Beth Din in connection with the threatened holding of a Grand Prix Motor Race in Ashkelon on Shabbat.

"Anglo-Jewish community deeply disturbed prospect public Shabbat desecration in Ashkelon.

Please convey urgent appeal Israeli Government use all authority prevent unprecedented Chillul Hashem.”

The Motor Race was eventually postponed until Sunday, but had to be abandoned because of hooliganism by the spectators.

CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN RABBIS Dayan M. Fisher, Acting Rav Rashi, attended the Conference of European Rabbis held in Rome from December 6 to 9.

Mr. M. Lederman. President of the Federation of Synagogues, attended the parallel conference of lay leaders of organisations associated with the Rabbinical Conference.

WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS At the recent elections of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, Rabbi M. Frydman and Mrs. R. Lederman were among those elected London Vice-Presidents. Seventeen representatives of the Federation of Synagogues were elected to the National Council.

THE JEWISH W ELFA RE BOARD One of the more pleasing aspects of community existence in the 'sixties was an increased concern for our fellow men. We discovered that the expression “Welfare State” had become a cliche and that it meant much less than it purported to convey.

K IS L E V , 5731

n

nn n

II all welfare were left to the State, what a big brother, admass world this would be! Writers like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell have drawn a terrifying picture of dehumanised people under such authoritarian benevolence.

This is as good a starting point as any to consider the work of the Jewish Welfare Board, which of late has come into the public eye to earn, at last, the priority attention which has always been its due.

Standards of what people need in the evening of their lives, or to get them properly started on their careers, or if they are mentally sick, or simply suffering from today’s scourge of loneliness, have all risen. We may feel some pride that in our own community, we have led the country in raising those stan­ dards. For this we have largely to thank the Jewish Welfare Board.

The Board is particularly concerned at this moment with the pressing needs of old people (a growing proportion of our population). It will be realised that we have a heavier con­ centration of old people without relatives, because of the large number of European Jewish refugees who live here, but whose families were lost without trace in the extermination camps of Hitler’s Europe. Many such people have now reached the age where^ they are utterly dependent upon our goodwill. The Board's social welfare staff visit many of them in their own homes, in addition to accommodating others in its establishments.

Our community should be proud to learn that the Board is unequalled in the field of family casework.

Social workers make thousands of visits each year to Jewish families and individuals living in the most appalling conditions, resulting from debt or the illness of parents.

During 1969, the total number of visits made by social workers to families and old people in their homes was 6.666 and a further 3,237 individual interviews took place at the Board s offices.

In addition 748 boys, girls and adults were helped by the careers and advisory employment service. Several hundred persons requiring mental after-care received casework support in the community, and many patients were visited in mental hospitals.

The daily average number of residents in the Board's Old People's Homes and Flatlets was nearly 600, in Mental AfterCare Hostels the number was 48. and a total of 1,574 people visited the Samuel Lewis C onvalescent Home for convalescent treatment or recuperative holidays. Including the 54 families residing in purpose-built flats and a converted house, a total of more than 12,000 individuals benefited during the year from services provided by the Board — about one person in every ten families.

During the year, many new volunteers were recruited for visiting old people in their own homes and to help in the Board's Homes. The help given in the Board's Homes includes visiting to converse with and befriend the residents, shopping for them and providing entertainment, and assisting with cooking and other domestic work in limes of difficulty. More volunteers help in the management of a day centre at Charles Jordan House, act as Duty Officers in the Social Welfare Department, or do clerical work at the Board’s headquarters.

At the end of 1969. 462 approved applicants were waiting for admission to Homes and 409 for flatlets, a total of 871. Many more enquiries were received for accommodation, largely from people in their eighties and nineties, for whom nothing could be done and for whom we could offer no hope, despite the desperate nature of their situation.

In April, 1970 the Board was able to open yet another fine Home for old people at Hemel Hempstead. It affords accom modation for 35 old people in flatlets (Maitland House) and 31 in Hostel accommodation (Joseph House). Those who can still look after themselves are thus given their privacy and enabled to remain independent, although they are constantly under the

THE

LI GHT

DECEM BER. 1970

watchful eye of the housemother, while those old people living in the part of the building comprising hostel accommodation are cared for by the Matron and her trained nursing staff.

Many more projects are now in various stages of development and the Board is aiming to provide places for a further 304 old people by the year 1974 at a total cost in the region of £1,800.000. These projects would not have been possible had it not been for some munificent gifts in the first place and the constant contributions of the mass of individual Jews of more modest means throughout London and the Home Counties.

WE HAVE OUR REASONS

by G.L jS. Throughout the years fo r decades past, The Jew s have gone to Shul, Som e o f them go regularly, And som e hardly at all.

The reasons that we go along.

Are many and diverse, As many as the sum o f Jews, In all the Universe.

Som e o f us who go to Shul, G o whene’er we may, Whilst som e o f us who go to Shul, G o to pass the day, Many people go to Shul, Their aim — to he inspired, But other people go to Shul, Because o f hom e they’re tired.

There are the ones who com e alongK To get a business tip And som e who take the kids along, Just fo r the weekly trip.

If a kiddush will he on, Som e will always com e, And there are those who thrice a year, M ake this their maximum.

If som eone has got yartzeit.

You’re sure to find him there, But otherwise his visits, Are very, very rare, And if he’s saying Kaddish, You’ll see him fo r the year, But when that year has finished.

You’ll never find him there.

If there is a Simcha, H e’ll shut the shop that day, For if he isn't in the Shul, What will the fam ily say?

But som e will never turn up, "No need to pray at all”, So what’s the point o f wasting time, Sitting down in Shul.

Then there are those who like to sit, And chat with all their mates.

And those who com e at nearly twelve.

The very, very late, But there are really very few.

Who can truly say, The reason that we go to Shul, Is simply to pray.

rag e Twenty-three

KISLEV, 5731

Although building is proceeding apace, meetings of the Board reveal a constant anxiety lest sufficient funds are not subscribed to get them properly working and then maintained.

For this reason, the Board has decided, after working for over a century in semi-obscurity as the Jewish Board of Guardians, to confront the Jewish public with an appeal for them to take a larger share of these responsibilities.

Of course, the Board is assisted through Government funds.

It is not, however, an instrument of government. It is a welfare agency of volunteers, both workers and contributors.

AID FOR ISRAEL FUND HERE IS YOUR CHANCE to do something practical for this unique fund, unique because, as you know, all the money received by the Fund goes to Israel without any deductions whatsoever for administration.

On Sunday, March 14, 1971. a Dinner is being held for the Aid For Israel Fund. It is being organised by the Greenford Charities Committee, the same organisers who have madesuch a success of their Dinners over the past years, that they have raisedenough money to pay for the cost of the building of the Greenford Synagogue.

This is no small feat fora small community.

Now that Greenford has no need to raise money to pay oft their debt on the Synagogue building, they have decided to turn their experience to organising for the Aid For Israel Fund.

We are confident that the Dinner on March 14 will be a success. But what we would like it to be is a tremendous success, and <we appeal to Boards of Management of Federation Synagogues to identify themselves with this Function by supporting it in a practical way. by support­ ing the Brochure and by attending the Function.

We would like the example which we hope to set on March 14 to be followed by an Annual Dinner organised by the Federation itself or by the Aid for Israel Fund Committee so that an annual function for the Aid For Israel Fund, socially and financially successful, may he a regular event in the calendar of the Federation.

L. Sinclair, Treasurer & Hon. Secretary (65 Ferrymead Gardens, Greenford, Middlesex.

Tel: 578 1554).

GREENFORD CHARITIES COMMITTEE have pleasure in inviting you to their

GRAND DINNER in aid of I S R A E L at the Greenford Banqueting Hall.

The Broadway, Greenford, Middlesex on Sunday 14th March, 1971 Reception (inch spirits & liqueurs): 4.30 p.m.

Dinner (inch wines): 6.00 p.m.

Cabaret: Anna Tzelniker 9.30 p.m.

Carriages: 11.30 p.m.

Tickets: £5 (inch gratuities and drinks) No Appeal Catering: H. Freedman & Sons Under the Supervision of the Kashrus Commission There is no need for me to elaborate on the vital import­ ance of the Aid For Israel Fund and I am sure that the members of our community will give this function every support to make it the success it so richly deserves.

M. Lederman

Page Twenty-four

DECEMBER, 1970

KISLEV, 5731

M

11 n n n

THE FINEST BANQUETING SUITE

*

IN NORTH LONDON NOW N EW LY D E C O R A T E D

REGISTERED TRADE MARK

ABRAHAM

Purveyors of

LEIFER

HALL

47 Lea Bridge Road, E.5

ISRAEL'S FINEST WINES AND SPIRITS

(adjoining Clapton Synagogue)

162 COMMERCIAL ROAD, LONDON, E l Telephones: 01-790 2363/4 and 2600

66 GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET, W.l.

Telephones: 01-636 5532 and 01-580 9701

A FEW

SU N D A YS S T IL L AVAILABLE IN

1971

Deliveries daily to all districts of London For Bookings apply to the Secretary Telephone : UPPer Clapton 4369

All branches open on Sundays until 2 p.m.

With best wishes from

MRS.

J ANE

CAP L I N

to

HAMAOR On the commencement of its Ninth \eai o f Publication

Published by HAMAOR Publications Committee, 64 Leman Street. London. E .l, and printed by Narod Press Ltd.. 129-131 Cavell Street. London, E .l.