Rosh Hashanah 2001

f

I

>

ss is;

Journal of the Federation of Synagogues Rosh Hashanah 5762 2001 Vol. 35. Number I

£1.50 where sold

-M-‘V* ,

;I

aT | v -,

‘•1

> .>

»V

m • > -c

- p.

r*~ V .N »

Bac^ row Left to Right: Mr. Henry Dony (Honorary Buriat Society Treasurer), Mr. Gordon Coleman (Chief Executive), Mr. Benjamin Mire (Vice President), Mr. Nathan Bruckheimer (Honorary Burial Society Treasurer) Front row Left to Right: Mr. Leon Newmark (Honorary Treasurer), Mr. Alan Finlay (President), Mr. Paul Westbrook (Honorary Treasurer)

New Honorary Officer Team ' H -si

A O’ wT !■

tl

I( /

Feature Article by Rabbi J David Bleich on Genetic Engineering Views on the Role of Jewish Women Israel Reflections. AYear On

(0

Y-

f>

'

•' i

c l r./

*

MES SAGE FROM THE EDITOR Trying my hand at editing a full size magazine for the first time has been an interesting experience and I would like to thank all those who offered their help and advice, particularly my husband, Dayan Lichtenstein and Gordon Coleman, who actually did at least half of the work!

We tried in this edition to combine Federation news with articles o f general interest. I hope that aim was achieved. Any feedback is welcome as are suggestions for articles for future issues.

The Federation has a fresh set of Honorary officers, whom we wish every success in their new positions.

We include a message from the new President, Mr. Alan Finlay outlining his plans for the future o f the Federation. Some of these are already starting to take place as can be seen from the report on the K ashrus workshop given by Dayan Elzas and the opinion piece by HH Judge Myrella Cohen. We are honoured to be able to include in this edition an article by Rabbi J.D avid B leich who had somehow seen a copy of a previous H aM aor in the USA and been write us.

Founded 1962 ISSN 0966-0291

Vol. 35 No. 1 Rosh Hashanah 5762 - 2001

CONTENTS New President ........................................................................................................ ..

Kashrus W orkshop................................................................................................ ..

Federation News

T ’shuvah and the Moment of Truth...................................................................

Genetic Engineering...............................................................................................

Facts on Israeli Conflict

Views on The Role of Jewish Women

Votes for W om en .......................................................................................

Shul - A Unique Institution.........................................................................yj

A Year on - R eflections........................................................................................21

m iD r w v im r a v o 1would like to conclude by wishing all readers and their fam ilies a

15

Personal

VICKI BELOVSKI Editor Published by the Federation o f Synagogues, 65 Watford Way, London, NW4 3AQ. Tel: 020 8202 2263 Fax: 020 8203 0610

VIEWS expressed in articles and reviews in Hamaor are those held by the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of either the Editor or the Federation of Synagogues

Advertising: Roberta Rubenstein COVER: New Honorary Officer Team PHOTO: G Coleman

3

M

U.

A lan F inlay’s A cceptance S peech n accepting the office of President of the Federation, Alan Finlay said as follows: “I am conscious o f the im m ense honour in accepting the office o f President. O f all the communal positions which I have held, being Federation Treasurer has been the most exciting and satisfying. I look forward to working with the Honorary Officers to make the next three years equally so. I would like to extend particularly a warm welcome to the two new T reasurers, Leon Newmark and Paul Westbrook.

I have to say that it is also daunting to follow Arnold (Cohen). This is not a hesped, but I wish to acknowledge his

P

ro

vision, his leadership, his learning (one is likely to have received from him a memo quoting both G em orro and Shakespeare), and his enthusiasm. He has said that he does not want to be a motherin-law from now on, but even mothers-in-law can be consulted and I am sure he will be.

I would also like to thank Jonathan Winegarten, Jeffrey Gitlin and Gerald H alibard who are stepping down as Honorary Officers. Their work and their wisdom around the Honorary Officers’ table have con trib u ted to m aking Honorary Officers’ meetings constructive and enjoyable. I hope this is “au revoir” rather than “goodbye”.

H Ie

N EW A Ian

lan Finlay grew up in Kenton and was educated at Harrow County School for Boys and Leeds University. He has a long history o f involvement in the community, including working with Jewish Youth Voluntary Service during his teenage years (gardening and decorating for elderly people) and hospital visiting, teaching English as a foreign language to new im m igrants, W elfare Benefits advice and running children's services. He has also held an im pressive range o f communal positions including P resident o f the Leeds U niversity Law S tudents | Society. Vice President o f the World Confederation of Jewish Community Centres, Chairman o f Harrow Free Law Centre, '3K|.

C hairm an o f Jew ish Youth Voluntary Service and Chairman of the Association for Jewish Youth.

Alan now works as an Employment Solicitor and is Head of Employment Law and managing partner o f the Holborn

/

Finally, Denis Norden, in the radio show “My Word” was asked what was the meaning of the word “etymology”. He said that it was the study of words so that, for exam ple, one would be able to differentiate between the word “vision” and the word “ sight” . This will be particularly useful if you were going out for the evening with your wife and as you came down the stairs, you would say to her “Why, my darling, you do look a vision” or “Why, my darling, you do look a sight”. I hope and pray that in the future years in the Federation, we have plenty of vision and no sights.”

Extract from Federation Council meeting held on 24th June 2001.

F In Ia

y

firm, Rayner De Wolfe. He is married to K athryn who is also involved in com m unal activ ities. She w orks N orw ood R avensw ood w ith

High School.

The fam ily moved to Edgw are from W oodside Park in 1987 to become members of the Yeshurun Synagogue.

A la n ’s • atv achievements at the Synagogue include responsibility for the children’s’ services and he was instrumental in arranging a day centre for Jewish Care at the synagogue premises.

He became a member of the Federation Council in 1989 and T reasurer in 1995. His responsibilities as treasurer included supervising the sale of those Synagogues that were no longer financially or spiritually viable, developm ent o f the Elstree Beis Hamedrash, the acq uisition o f land at North wood for cemetery use and the transfer of Rev. M. Gingold from W oolwich to becom e Pastoral Minister in the East End. We wish Alan every success in his new role as President of the Federation of Synagogues.

->v

>. y , v . - v

responsibility for Hackney Services and Binoh. They have three children: Joshua (18) who is at Yeshiva in Israel and David (17) and Talia (15) both at Hasmonean

- ■_

f

rv

'i

#

NEW PRESIDENT’S “FORWARD PLAN” am writing these words during the week o f Parshas Pinchas, which contains a fascinating comparison between two styles of leadership. During a moment of national crisis, Pinchas is able to act decisively and effectively to avert disaster. He is praised and rewarded

by Hashem for so doing. Nowadays, the term used to describe his actions would be “crisis-management”. And yet it is not he, but Joshua who is chosen to be the leader of Bnei Yisrael. The steady, reliable and dependable qualities shown by Joshua were considered preferable at a tim e when Bnei Yisrael needed consistency and stability.

When I became an Honorary officer six years ago, it was clear that the major achievement of the previous Honorary officers had been to keep the Federation going. Q uietly but effectively, the Federation had m aintained its place within orthodoxy with the high reputation of the Beis Din intact. In many other areas, however, much needed to be done.

My co-treasurer, Gerald Halibard, and I found an empty East End office draining resources, a num ber o f constituent synagogues which were spiritually and financially non-viable, poor head office resources, six years’ accounts unaudited, a membership with a low opinion of the organisation and little discharge o f any wider communal responsibilities.

Six years on, the F ederation is unrecognisable. The reputation o f the Beis Din is even higher and the Kashrus department is ever expanding. The closure of non-viable synagogues together with the sale of Greatorex Street and other unused properties have provided capital sums allow ing the F ederation the confidence to consider expansion. Our accounts are up to date and we are supporting organisations such as Manchester chaplaincy and Schools JLink. Land has been acquired at N orthw ood for developm ent as a cemetery and the East End community is supported by the superb ministering of Reverend Malcolm Gingold.

• The most exciting aspect for me is the development of new commmunities. The creation and development o f the Elstree Beis Hamedrash has involved a lot of hard work from all concerned and a special tribute is due to the tremendous kiruv

iIF

c *

qualities of Rabbi Dovid Tugendhaft and his rebbetzin. We are also delighted to welcome G olders Green M achzikei Hadass and Netzach Israel as constituent synagogues. At the time o f writing, discussions are taking place for two new Kehillas to be formed.

All of this has been achieved not by the crisis-management of a Pinchas, but by building on the firm foundations of the previous Honorary officers under the steady and consistent Joshua type leadership of Arnold Cohen.

W hat then to the future? Any successful organisation must have a business plan or strategy. Whereas some years ago, it was usual to think of business plans for a three-five year period, current thinking is that they be for no more than six to twelve months ahead and constantly under review.

An organisation like the Federation has many competing claims for its finite resources and it is important to establish priorities and to be proactive rather than reactive.

My preferred number one priority is to increase Federation membership. A certain am ount can be achieved by organic growth. It is absolutely vital that our synagogues are warm and friendly places where members and visitors are welcomed and made to feel at home.

Federation Head Office has contributed by providing grants to ensure that the buildings themselves are well maintained.

But of far more importance is the attitude o f existing members and the Rabbi and Rebbetzin. Newcomers (men, women and children) must be positively welcomed, shown to a place and encouraged to participate. They must be introduced to the Rabbi and R ebbetzin and arrangements made to ensure they have appropriate hospitality. New members must be encouraged and steps taken to ascertain what they can offer the shul. It is my experience that individuals feel far more committed to an institution when they can give to it, rather than just accept from it. This is where learning is vital. I feel that one of the synagogues’ primary responsibilities is to ensure that learning programmes are in place for members, with the full support of Head Office. After all, the purpose of an orthodox communal organisation is to provide a setting to

enable its members to achieve their full potential in Yiddishkeit.

The crucial age group to ensure the continued growth of a shul is young marrieds starting a family and wanting a warm and attractive environment for their children. That is why children’s services are so important. During my time in charge of the children’s services at the Yeshurun, the number of children and young people coming every Shabbos has grown to around 150/175 and we have seen a consequent increase in membership of young marrieds.

In order to increase membership in any great numbers, we must extablish new congregations To some extent, this is reactive because we are waiting for people to approach us. It is, however, important to bear in mind why anybody considering starting a new congregation would approach the Federation in the first place.

We are not the United Synagogue or the Adass but it is better to be defined by what we are than w hat we are not. The attraction of the Federation is that we are a non-compromising central Orthodox organisation with a strong and dynamic Beis Din, an efficient Burial Society and w ith sm all, friendly and m ainly autonomous synagogues.

We may know this, but we need to get this message across and this involves the challenging letters ‘PR’(public relations not proportional representation!).

However much we admire the qualities o f modesty and self-effacement, we must be better organised in publicising our strengths if we are to expand. We must constantly be prepared to tell the world what we are doing and how we are doing it. We must be prepared to organise events in order to demonstrate our qualities.

The members’ conference conceived and organised by our chief executive Gordon Coleman was a very successful example of this. Two subsequent spin-offs have been a meeting of ladies with Dayan Lichtenstein to discuss the role of women within the synagogue and a Kashrus work shop at which Dayan Elzas gave a riveting insight into the work involved in granting a manufacturer’s license. I hope these will be the first o f many such events.

Another area of development is in the Continued overleaf

NEW PRESIDENT S "FORWARD PLAN”

continued Lay leadership structure. As I stated above, a successful organisation is one in which members can give and not just receive. It is acknowledged nowadays that the pressures of work and family make it difficult for people to commit time to voluntary activities. However, the more people who can be brought into the decision making process, the stronger the Federation will become. The key is to ensure that precious tim e is used effectively. Volunteers need to be involved in actual decisions and to be valued for their input. I would therefore like to see a greater devolvem ent o f the decision m aking process and train in g for volunteers.

These objectives: the greater use of PR, the greater involvement of members in decision-making and the growth of m em bership all have m easurable outcomes. We have a team who I feel are well capable o f carry in g out these objectives; Ben Mire as Vice President, Henry Dony and Nathan Bruckheimer continuing as Burial Society Treasurers and ‘newcomers’ Leon Newmark and Paul Westbrook, whom we welcome warmly as Federation Treasurers.

B’ezras Hashem (with the help of the Almighty), I hope and pray that the role model and the leadership qualities o f Joshua will be a guiding light to us during our time in office.

K ashrus W orkshop

4 £W hat is Kosher Certification? How do factories obtain it and how is it m ain tain ed ?” T hese and m any similar questions were discussed at the Kashrus Workshop held in July at the Federation Headquarters in Hendon. The workshop was described by the President, Mr. Alan Finlay, as “a spin-off from the Federation Conference” which took place earlier in the year.

Dayan E lzas, the d irecto r o f the F e d e ra tio n ’s K ashrus departm ent provided an insight into what lies behind the “KF” label He began by explaining the different halochos o f bishul and afias akum - cooking and baking by a Gentile and how this affects whether a factory can have a yearly certificate or only a batch certificate. He then described the process o f a Belgian biscuit factory and a French jam factory o b tain in g a kosher certificate starting from the initial contact by the m anufacturer/im porter through to the issuing o f the Kosher Certificate.

Handouts were also provided so that those attending could follow the investigation as it unfolded, from the beginning through to the providing o f the certificate. In order to prevent any breech o f confidentiality laws, however, names were omitted and participants were asked to return the booklets at the end of the lecture.

Dayan Elzas showed how there could be num erous H alachic problem s to overcome along the way. Take the Belgian biscuit factory, for instance. A small piece of metal was discovered in between the metal conveyor belt coming from the oven and the plastic conveyor belt to the packaging area. Since the biscuits went over this piece of metal, it was considered to be a keli sheni, a secondary cooking vessel, thus necessitating hagoloh-pouring boiling water from an urn, to hasher it for the production.

Some factories, such as our Belgian biscuit m anufacturer, have a batch certificate, which means that a supervisor goes to the factory whenever a kosher batch is produced. Other factories, like the French jam factory, are able to obtain yearly certification. This entails regular inspection visits to the factory. This was also an exam ple o f the w orking relationship the Federation has with other kashrus supervision boards, in this case the OU (Orthodox Union), who gave their certificate based on ours.

Participants were also told about the database set up by the Federation a few years ago to enable cross-referencing of factories and their ingredients. This means that when a company sends us a list o f ingredients to be authorised for kosher use they can be checked on the computer to ascertain their status. This is obviously extremely useful and saves a lot o f time.

The workshop included a lively and inform al discussion with all the participants and was judged to have been a great success.

_

o

F ed era tio n N ew s E l st r e e B e is H a m e d r e sh DOUBLES IN SIZE he new Federation shut in Elstree currently rents rooms in the local Community Centre. Whilst on Shabbat the suite of rooms on the top floor are occupied solely by the shul, this is not the case during the week. During the week the same rooms are used by a variety of groups and religions from Spiritualists to Alcoholics Anonymous. After every service the whole shul has to be packed and locked away in a specially made cupboard. Sefarim, Sifrei Torah, the Ark and all the kiddush refreshments are neatly stored away every week.

The Shul has recently been donated a second cupboard and has doubled its storage capacity. Whilst we are optimistic about our chances of acquiring land to build a new shul, in the meantime we shall continue to preserve our title of the ‘shul in a cupboard’.

T

Foot and Mouth ban strikes Elstree Beis Hamedresh any people can claim to have an enjoyable walk to shul,

M

.through a park or past a local beauty spot, but few can claim that their route was closed during the recent Foot and Mouth restrictions.

Binyamin Radomsky is a regular and popular leyener at E lstree Beis Hamedresh. A fter davenning at the hashkomah minyan he walks the 4 miles from Edgware to E lstree along Edgwarebury Lane in time for layening at Elstree Beis Hamedresh. But at the beginning o f May the M inistry o f Agriculture had other plans when during his journey he was confronted with a NO ENTRY sign. Unable to make the Tong detour’ in time for layening, he had little choice but to turn around.

W hat happened at E lstree Beis Hamedresh on that Shabbat with no Baal

Kriah remains shrouded in mystery. None of the members were willing to talk about it, except for one member, who preferred to remain anonymous, who claimed “I don’t know what all the fuss was about the kiddush was just fine, as always!”

N ew “ ZiMMER'SliTENdER" A Biq HiT

new adaptation for a standard Zim m er fram e is likely to improve the quality o f life and davening of many active older members.

Alan Phillips of Elstree Beis Hamedresh has designed a special table that clips on to a Zimmer frame thus converting it from a simple walking aid to an important and functional piece of synagogue furniture.

The new, so called “Zimmer Shtender” is suitable for supporting the weight of a siddur, chumash and the user and can be used in either a standing or sitting position.

The Zimmer-Shtender has been given a ‘hechsher’ by Rabbi Tugendhaft of Elstree and can be used on Shabbat or Yom Tov by anyone who needs to use a Zimmer frame to get to shul. Says Alan Phillips “the model will be going into full production very soon now and orders are being taken. If you are interested you can phone 020 8953 7176 but not on Shabbat - unless it is a medical emergency!” A full patent is pending.

A

1

ILFORD - A CENTRE OF EDUCATION Ilford Federation Synagogue has in the past few months, under the leadership of Rabbi Harvey Belovski, become the focal point o f a num ber o f educational initiatives, both at the shul and in the surrounding area.

In the shul itself, we have had a number of guest speakers on Shabbosos, including Rabbi Jonathan Dove and Rabbi A ubrey H ersh and our new president Alan Finlay.

We have also started an alternative monthly explanatory service, led by Rabbi Belovski, designed both to attract and educate our membership. As part of a drive to attract young families, this has been followed by a jelly beans and ice cream Kiddush.

Another innovation on Shabbos has been the start o f a m onthly chulent Kiddush, which has proved attractive to the less frequent shul-goers as well as the more regular attenders. This has generally been preceded by an Ask The Rabbi session, with questions ranging from those dealing with the week’s sedra, to upcom ing festivals or even an impassioned debate about the Jewish view o f the fate o f Jam ie B o lg er’s murderers.

There have been other more regular activities in the shul including weekly shiurim on Sundays, Tuesdays and before Shacharis on Shabbos, covering the Jewish view on items in the weekly news, a mishnah shiur and “The Path of the Just”. These are supported by a group of enthusiastic followers.

The activities in the local area include a fortnightly Monday night shiur on the Jewish view of the various aspects of Love and Intimacy, held in the Rabbi’s home.

There has also been a highly popular summer series of roving shiurim, held on Shabbos afternoons, focussing on an indepth look at some o f the Bible personalities.

There have also been many informal o p portunities to share the Sabbath atmosphere with the Rabbi and his family in their home, culminating in a recent Continued overleaf

I k

&

-

t

News from Clapton

ILFORD - A CENTRE OF EDUCATION

continued Chinese-style Friday night meal, at which more than 30 people were around the Rabbi’s table.

In addition to all of these activities, the Rabbi has m aintained a regular programme o f events designed for the under 35’s, which has developed his relationship with the younger members o f our community.

The summer season concluded with a full Tisha b'Av programme attended by large numbers of people, including a shiur on Jerusalem, explanatory kinnos and an audiovisual programme on the expulsion from Spain at which fifty people were present.

These educational opportunities are interspersed w ith other long-term activities in the area, such as the local SEED programme, the activities of the Ilford Kollel, and regular twice weekly discussions, based on the ‘A’-level Jewish studies syllabus, leading to the ‘A’-level, for those who wish to take it, under the excellent tutelage o f Mr Nota Kreiman.

I think everyone will agree, that based on the above report Ilford is not an educational wilderness and that Jewish knowledge is not limited to North West London and Stamford Hill.

S

hom rei h ada th

N ew s n keeping with the spirit o f the Festival, when at Kabolas Hatorah the Bnei Tisroel encamped at the foot of Mt Sinai “as one man and with one m ind”, the Shom rei H adath Federation Synagogue and the Hampstead United Synagogue this year joined forces for the first time for a Tikkun Leil Shavuos, held at the Shomrei Hadath. The event was well attended and most successful. There were three shiurim (and plentiful refreshments). The first shiur was given

by Rabbi Doniel Grunwald of Gateshead.

Then came a shiur by Rabbi Michael H arris, Rabbi o f the H am pstead Synagogue. Finally there was a shiur by Rabbi Mordechai Fachler, Rabbi of the Shomrei Hadath, followed by davening.

On the second day o f Shavuos the Shomrei Hadath enjoyed for the second year in succession a splendid communal lunch in the shul hall. Rabbi Fachler gave a captivating address aimed primarily at the children of the community.

lapton Synagogue welcom es back its Financial Representative Jeffrey C ohen, who after suffering a heart attack and undergoing a by-pass operation, decided to take time out and visit Jewish Communities round the world. He visited Amsterdam, Lisbon, Helsinki, Rumania, Marakesh, Mexico C ity and C anada. On his return he delighted the congregation by regaling them with the fascinating story o f his travels. He is back in harness and has already begun his excellent work looking after the affairs o f the Synagogue. He is currently working on his next project which is to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the building of our beautiful Shul.

However, some sad news, in recent times our Synagogue lost Paula Resnick, wife o f Harold, mother o f Phillip and Michael. Paula was a stalwart o f the Ladies’ Guild and helped with all our Kiddushim and Communal Celebrations.

Her husband and sons continue to take an active part in the functioning o f the Synagogue particularly in actively taking part in the Service.

We also note with much sadness the loss o f a very active member of the Board o f Management, Geoffrey Abrahams.

Although of course he is irreplaceable we will always remember with fondness his hum our and his d ed icatio n to the Synagogue.

Our Honorary Baal Koreh, Eli Kohn, has moved on to Marble Arch and we wish him well and are grateful for the service he rendered to us. We are also grateful to the Rev. H. Davies for coming out o f retirement to assist us at this time.

We wish Bella Bodlander, Chairperson of the Ladies’ Guild, a Refuah Shelaimoh following her recent illness and look forward to welcoming her back to good health very quickly.

C

LEyTONSTONE W a n stea c I N e w s n May Max Bronstein the ViceC hairm an o f L eytonstone & Wanstead Synagogue, celebrated his Second Barmitzvah with a melodious rendering of his “Maph & Haph” which

I

was enjoyed by a large gathering of friends and congregants. Max & Rosalind Bronstein provided a very generous sitdown kiddush after the Service. Max was heard to say “Although it doesn’t get any easier, it's not as nerve racking as the first time round. Especially as there was no teach er present to rap me over the knuckles when I got a note wrong”. s »

•••

Max Bronstein In June, Laurie Braham (The Hon. Secretary) was elected as a Deputy Mayor of Waltham Forest. His wife, Beryl, who is Chairman of the Ladies Guild became the Deputy Mayoress. Laurie has been a Councillor since 1968, and he and Beryl were honoured to be elected as Mayor & Mayoress of the Borough in 1983. During that year Laurie was given the Freedom of the City of London and Beryl became a Justice of the Peace. She is a regular member of the Bench at Waltham Forest Court.

The B oard o f M anagem ent have invited Max Bronstein to become Choson Torah and Lauri Braham to become Choson Bereshits this year.

Finchley News he winter series of talks given by members on their professional work was extended after Pesach.

Mr Abraham Mahgerefteh presented a film shot this year by his brother in Isfahan, Iran of Jewish life today and his commentary explained the changes which have taken place in the community since the birth of the State of Israel.

On the penultimate day of June, Willie Ungar, a Life President of the Shul spoke on his 60 years since leaving Vienna in 1938. He has already written a series in Hamaor of his experiences in Britain and his talk lasting 75 minutes only covered part of this period. He with his wife are going on Aliyah in August but he has promised to complete his talk when he

1 •

returns to England on one of his visits.

At the end of May the David Hamelch Seuda on the 2nd day of Shavuot was addressed by Mr Eli Yerushalmi of the Israel Embassy. He spoke on the situation in Israel and the effects of the current Arab unrest. At the beginning of June another communal tea was held in a local hall.

Apart from shul members the Rubens house sent residents, as also did another local shul. The food was prepared in the shul kitchen, under the supervision of Mrs Telsner, who had earlier organised a baking session of biscutis and cakes. The

ages of those attending were from 1Vi to the mid eighties. The entertainment was supplied by Mike Morandi.

It is intended to have another communal tea at the end of October. In November the series of talks given by members will be continued. The first one ‘The Life of A Concert Pianist’ will be given by Norma Fisher.

In May our annual supper quiz took place. The questions were prepared by Stephen Dresner. They were wideranging and ingenious, in keeping with his usual high standard.

Leon Newm^rk Joint Treasurer ofthe Federation

Hnchleu's Succah Mobile

by Rabbi Z.H. Telsner

Yaisef Telsner Benching Lulav with Mr Ron Better at do you think a few young boys from Finchley would do on a Succos day? Go to the zoo? Play football? Or read a book? Well, if you passed by Parkway Patisserie on Regnets Park Road you would see that you were mistaken. A beautiful Succah mobile complete with a set o f Arba Minim manned by a few students o f Lubavitch Boys Primary School would catch your eye. Since there are many people who rush to work every morning and may not have the opportunity to Bentch Lulav and Esrog, these young volunteers stood for hours to give people the chance to keep this im portant Mitzvah. People from all walks of life came over to this beautiful little Succah to take advantage of this project. The boys, Yaisef Telsner together with his brother Levi & Shraga and some classmates joined with others to try to find Jews, either people who were guests in the area or customers of the local shops.

Every morning after they themselves

W:

returned from Davening they cleverly put together this 3-sided Succah and covered it with Sechach. A well wisher donated the Sechach and the boys themselves decorated it with beautiful pictures.

Amongst those who took advantage of the Succah was an Israeli who had come to buy a ticket from around the corner, members of the local Synagogues and a photographer who used the pictures for his latest exhibition. Even many NonJews came over to see what was this little booth. These (young) Boys patiently explained to them the m eaning o f this Mitzvah. After hours of hard work at 4.00pm each day, these young boys carefully took down the Succah and covered it, and then went home.

The boys hope to make this an annual event. Don’t forget to look for the Succah outside Parkway this Succos.

The Telsner children are sons of Rabbi Z.H. Telsner, Rabbi of Finchely Central Synagogue.

9

arlier this year, Leon Newmark, chairman of Ilford Federation Synagogue, becam e a jo in t treasurer of the Federation of Synagogues for a three-year term alongside Paul Westbrook.

Mr Newmark became the chairman of the Coventry Road Synagogue four years ago. His involvement with the shul began 24 years back when he moved with his family into the Ilford area. He was soon to join the board of management; and, over tim e, held several different portfolios, including security and head of the education committee.

He and the IFS community are now looking forward to the synagogue’s 75th anniversary next year. Among the planned events and functions w ill be the com pletion o f a new Sefer Torah, a special service to mark the birthday and a celebratory dinner to acknowledge this special landm ark in the sh u l’s history.

Mr Newmark is married to Rita, who is currently chairperson o f Ilford Federation’s ladies’ guild. They have two children and four grandchildren,

— ;

Tshuvah and th e M om ent Truth uch o f our thought and spiritual energies at this time of the year are devoted to selfexamination and introspection. Indeed, the entire forty-day period of Ellul and the Yomim Noroyim is dedicated to estab lish in g the d irectio n o f o n e ’s religious behaviour and goals for the year ahead. The mechanism by which this overhaul o f the personality occurs is called t ’shuvah - variously translated as repentance or return. The practical definition of this process is familiar and best encapsulated by the Ramham, who notes that once the penitent becomes aware of his offence, he should regret it, then verbally confess his wrongdoing and finally resolve never to repeat i t .1 Attention is seldom paid, however, to the critical role which t ’s huvah played in early history and continues to play in the well being of the human psyche.

The Talmud lists seven things, which ‘were created before the world was created.’2 One of these is t ’shuvah. The proof of this curious idea is based on two verses in a familiar chapter o f Psalms: before the mountains were yet bom and You hewed out the land and the world; from eternity to eternity You are God. You return man to dust and You say: return, sons of Man.3 O f course, only Man has the capacity to mend his ways and by so doing, create a better future for himself.

As such, the notion of / ’shuvah is only meaningful after the creation of the world in general and o f Man specifically.

Presumably, therefore, this Talmudic source conveys the idea that t ’shuvah is fundamental to human existence, for our lives and success are dependent on the capacity for t ’shuvah, which was placed in creation at the very beginning o f time.

W ithout it, we could not im prove ourselves, change our direction in life or have any means of restoring our damaged relationship with God or our fellow men.

Indeed, we could not function as humans in its absence - hence the Rabbis tell us that t ’s huvah predated existence; it is

essential to the human situation, and so it was placed as an abstract notion in the pre-Adam world.

Tshuvah may have existed, at least theoretically, before the universe was called into being, although the first opportunity for its practical had to wait for Man to appear on the world stage. On the very first day o f the history o f humanity, Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden and hence provided themselves with an opportunity to repent. Let us look at the motivation for eating from the fruit and how it relates to A dam ’s capacity for t ’shuvah. A complex psychoanalysis o f the first man and woman is beyond the scope o f this study, but suffice it to say that they felt an urge to express their distinctness from the Divine, to demonstrate to themselves and to God th at they considered them selves capable o f independent existence and could function without Him. In the perfect world o f paradise, this could manifest itself only by their disobeying G od’s single command to them - not to eat from the tree o f knowledge of good and evil.

The snake, aware o f this proclivity, used it to his advantage w hen he persuaded Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. As the verses say: the snake said to the woman - you will not die. For God knows that on the day when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.4 Rashi comments that the phrase ‘you will be like God' means that should they eat from the tree, they w ould gain the capacity to create w orlds.5 The bad inclination, as represented by the snake, played on their appetite for independence to achieve its goals. Adam and Eve were seduced by the scarcely believable prospect of achieving parity with God, to be creators themselves, autonomous of any external control.

This weakness, which so characterises the human condition, made t ’shuvah exceptionally difficult for Adam and Eve,

as indicated by a fascinating Midrash.

Quoting a verse in Proverbs, the Midrash assesses the real reason why God did not forgive Adam for his rebellion. Was it because of the heinous nature of his crime, or for some other, subtler and perhaps more disturbing rationale? Rebbi Tanchuma bar Aba observes that the verse, ‘the arrogance of man will bring him down, but one of a humble spirit will grasp honour,’6 makes reference to Adam following his sin in the garden. After Adam had sinned, God wanted him to repent and gave him a chance to do so, saying that He would accept his t ’shuvah even after such gross disobedience. Adam refused and as he left God’s presence, blasphemed and cursed the Almighty.

The M idrash concludes that it was Adam’s intransigence, and not his sin, which resulted in his expulsion from the Garden of Eden."

This has fascinating ramifications for our understanding o f the t ’shuvah process. God gave Adam the opportunity to repent, but he declined it, instead blaspheming and cursing. This means that Adam’s reluctance to rectify his error was a function of his arrogance, that is, his refusal to acknow ledge G o d ’s suprem acy over everything.

He continued, even after his sin, to need to control his world, even when he saw that this meant expelling God from some areas o f his experience. This, on Adam’s level, was blasphemy. In the light of this, we can understand his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. He had removed himself from God’s presence through his sin and subsequent obstinacy. As a result, he lived in a spiritual world, which was only partially inhabited by the Divine. The imperfect world that lay beyond the sanctified portals of the garden best suited his new spiritual reality, for it best reflected his impaired vision of God. We should view this episode as the prototype for all subsequent opportunities for t ’shuvah. The goal set by God for all o f hum anity is to create a spiritual

paradise on earth, permeated in every aspect by the Divine. As the verse says, ‘the heavens - the heavens are for God, but the earth he gave to humanity.’8 A Chassidic interpretation holds that while the heavens are the domain of God, we have the chance here on earth to make another heaven - a spiritual realisation of the Divine plan within the physical w orld.9 This requires us to submit ourselves to the heavenly will in every part of our lives. We therefore fail in this mission if we allow our own arrogance and concomitant need for control to get the better o f us. This problem afflicted Adam and Eve and is the root o f all rebellion against God - we may be aware of His presence, but experience difficulty in dealing w ith the em otional and intellectual consequences o f giving up control to Him. Perhaps this is the meaning of a well-known dictum of Reish Lokish, who states that a person never sins unless a spirit of folly enters him.10 Sin is always a product o f a moment of foolishness, when one loses o n e’s awareness o f the Divine and one’s own self-serving motives assert themselves.

Sin, then, is characterised by disconnection from God, in which one, temporarily or even momentarily ‘goes it alone’, acting upon an independent agenda, without making reference to the Divine will. It follows then, that the first moment of t ’shuvah is the instant at which the sinner feels a need to reconnect to God; when he realises that he has favoured his own, selfish desires above the sublime will of God. He experiences a ‘moment of truth,’ when he suddenly recognises the need to set aside his egotistical motivations and realign his life in consonance with the requirements of the Torah. Rav Kook, in his work on t'shuvah, observes that even the smallest thought of t ’shuvah may be considered as t ’shuvah itself.11 Once one is even slightly aware that one has erred and that self-im provem ent is necessary, the process of t 'shuvah has begun.

The tendency to express our individuality by ignoring God’s plan in favour of our own is an almost in-built feature of the human condition. That is not to say that we cannot overcome it, but it takes a great deal of self-analysis and inner strength to do so. The extent to which we are capable of achieving this lofty goal is dependent on the conceptual nature of the crime. In his classic work on t ’shuvah, the Maharal o f Prague

observes that even the deliberate, wilful sinner can repent and that if he does, God will accept his t ’sh u va h .12 This is perfectly understandable in the light of our previous discovery, that t ’shuvah (or at least the first spark in the soul which commences the t'shuvah process) is an intellectual activity. As we are essentially physical, posits the Maharal, our actions take place within the material world. As such, when we sin, the consequences of our actions do not entirely contaminate the higher, celestial realms of the spirit and intellect. Sin is rooted in physical imperfection and so its ramifications are not felt in the most God-like recesses of one’s personality. Since t ’shuvah is an intellectual, spiritually focussed procedure, which transcends the flawed motivation of mere physical man, it can override the sin and reattach the sinner to his sacred root - a yearning in theory and practice to follow the will of God. This takes place through study of the Torah and its integration into the personality. Torah represents pure, Divine spirituality and therefore affords us access to a dimension beyond the attraction o f the physical drives which originally motivated the sin.

Indeed, the Maharal observes, deeds for which one can do t ’shuvah are not true actions at all; as they are rooted in the physical drives - in the changing and ephemeral parts o f the person. Truly human deeds are a product o f the intellect and spirit, which act upon the body, directing it towards the sublime objectives of the Torah.13 In conclusion, we note that the psychological cycle that the penitent experiences begins with the natural (albeit controllable) human tendency to express independence and power. This, the ‘spirit o f folly’, leads him to sin. For a while,

perhaps even a long time, the sinner feels independent, happy that he has demonstrated to himself, at least in some small way, that he controls his world.

Then, some time later, he feels a stirring deep inside himself, indicating that not all is well within; he starts to become conscious of the fact that he has been seduced once more by human weakness and lowly physical drives. This earliest awakening is the moment of truth, the very first spark of the t ’shuvah process.

From this stage onwards, he gains a growing realisation of the need to rectify his relationship with God - to put God, as it were, back at the top of his agenda.

This leads to remorse and eventually to full-blow n t ’shuvah. The key is to capitalise on the first aw aking of repentance. May we be blessed this year to do just that.

Rabbi Harvey Belovski Ilford Federation Synagogue 1 Yad, Hilchos T ’shuvah 1:1 2 Talmud Bavli, Pesochim 54a 3 Tehillim 90:2-3. This requires some explanation. The phrase Before the mountains were yet born refers to the time before the creation o f the world. The phrase You say: return sons o f Man refers to the imperative o f t ’shuvah. Hence the notion o f t ’shuvah, existed, as it were, before the world.

4 BeReishis 3:4-5 - Rashi loc. cit.

6 Mishley 29:23 7BeMidbar Rabbah 13:3 8 Tehillim 115:16 v Variously attributed to the Chiddushey HaRim and the Kotzker Rebbe.

10 Talmud Bavli, Sotah 3a " Rav A. Y. Kook, Oros HaT’shuvah, Chapter 1 12 Maharal, N ’siv H ’T ’shuvah, Chapter 1 13 Maharal, G ’vuros HaShem, Chapter 31

The Rav, the Honorary Officers and the Board of Management of the

YESHURUN SYNAGOGUE EDGWARE extend their best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year to the members of the Beth Din and the Honorary Officers, Executive and all the members of the Federation of Synagogues

ll

/ A

Genetic Engineering enetic engineering has made it possible to manipulate the DNA o f m icroorganism s, animals and plants in order to satisfy human needs. Science has developed bacteria that ingest petroleum in order to alleviate the environmentally devastating effects o f oil spills, sheep whose milk contains a drug used in treatment o f cystic fibrosis and a host of genetically modified foods. One third of the harvest of com, soybean and canola in the United States is genetically modified to make the crops resistan t to insects. At least in the laboratory, it is possible to remove DNA that keeps the fish from freezing from a salm on and to introduce it into strawberries in order to produce a freezeproof strawberry. A small company in Syracuse has contracted with a scientist at the U niversity o f C onnecticut to develop a genetically engineered cat that will not cause allergies, an effort that may prove to be highly profitable since it could allow countless numbers o f people who cannot now do so to keep cats as pets.

There is, o f course, reason to be concerned w ith regard to possible deleterious effects of genetically modified foods upon humans. There is evidence that corn that has been g en etically modified to produce a toxin that kills a caterpillar called the European com borer may also kill m onarch b u tterflies.

Genetically modified crops may produce unfamiliar proteins that might prove to be allergenic, toxic or carcinogenic. These concerns are appropriately addressed both by the scientific com m unity and by government regulatory agencies.

The theological and religious question is whether man has the right to intervene in the natural order by m ixing and mingling the genetic material o f diverse species. There is no reflection in Jewish tradition o f a doctrine that establishes a global prohibition forbidding man to tamper with known or presumed teloi of creation. There are indeed individual thinkers who have explained the rational underlying particular mitzvot in a manner echoing such a concept. B iblical commandments prohibiting interbreeding of species and the mingling of diverse ag ricu ltu ral species certain ly lend themselves to such an interpretation.

G

Although Rashi, in his commentary to Leviticus 19:19, regards those restrictions as hukkim, i.e., arational statues not subject to human inquiry, Ramban, in his commentary on the same verse, takes sharp issue with Rashi and opines that interbreeding and prohibited mingling of species are forbidden as constituting illicit tampering with creation. Ramban states that every creature and every plant is endowed by God with cosm ically arranged distinctive features and qualities and is designed to reproduce itself as long as the universe endures. Interbreeding and c ro ss-fe rtiliz a tio n produce a reconfiguration o f those distinctive q u alities and also com prom ise reproductive potential. By engaging in such activities man usurps the divine prerogative in producing a new species or en tity w ith its own novel set o f attributes and, presumably, a species less than optimally suited to fulfil the divinely ordained telos associated with the original species.

Ibn Ezra has been understood as presenting the m atter in a somewhat different light in declaring that the Torah p ro h ib its cro ssb reed in g o f species because the act thwarts propagation of the species and hence represents an injustice to the animals who are prevented from fu lfillin g the divine purpose o f propagating their respective species.

A ccordingly, Ibn Ezra explains the prohibitions against the m ixture o f ag ricu ltu ral species as w ell as the combination o f linen and wool in the cloth o f a garment as violative o f the natural order decreed by the Creator. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch had no difficulty in explaining the prohibition regarding sha 'atnez (the mixing o f linen and wool) in sim ilar terms. Indeed, R. Hirsch understood all hukkim as being reflective o f the principle that man should not interfere with the order and harmony and hence the telos - o f creation.

According to R. Hirsch, such laws are distinguished from mishpatim, or socalled rational com m andm ents, only because our duties toward our fellow men are more intelligible to us by virtue of our recognition o f our own needs and aspirations. That particular purposes are similarly assigned to animals and even to

inanimate objects is not immediately grasped by the human intellect and hence hukkim are depicted as arational. It is noteworthy that, although R. Hirsch regards these commandments as designed to prevent interference with divinely ordained teloi, unlike natural law th eo lo g ian s, he regards the teloi themselves as not being readily apparent to human reason. That understanding of the nature o f hukkim is certainly confirmed by the fact that no natural law philosopher has ever asserted that the manufacture of linsey-woolsey or even agricultural hybridization is intuitively perceived as interfering with the divine plan for creation.

Were it to be assumed that tampering with the ostensive or presumed nature of animal species is always forbidden, most forms of genetic engineering would be illicit. No bacterium is designed by nature to clean up oil spills by metabolizing petroleum or to excrete human insulin for use by diabetics. In the absence of evidence in rabbinic sources to the contrary, it must be assumed that, even accepting Ramban’s explanation of the prohibition against interbreeding of R. H irs c h V s broader analysis o f the rationale underlying hukkim in general, biblical strictures must be understood as lim ited to those m atter ex p licitly prohibited.

Indeed, there is a perceptible tension between the concepts enunciated by Ramban and R. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s and the many m idrashic sources indication that man is an active partner to the process of creation and, as such, is charged with bringing creative processes to completion. Indeed, the biblical charge to Adam exhorting him to “fill the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28) seems to give Adam carte blanche to engage in any form of conduct that is not specifically prescribed. The problem is readily resolved if it is understood that, in general, the functions and teloi of the products of creation are not immutable; that the Creator did not intend to bar man from applying his ingenuity in finding new uses and purposes for the objects of creation; and that there is no injustice to animal species or inanimate objects in doing so. Immutability of function and

telos is the exception, not the rule. Thus, for example, it has never been suggested that manufacture and use o f synthetic fibres in the making of clothes is in any way a contravention of either the letter or the spirit of the law. The exceptions were announced by the Creator as formal prohibitions. It is precisely because human reason cannot intuit, or even com prehend, when and under what circumstance contravention of the natural order is inappropriate that these commandments are in the nature o f hukkim.

More generally, man’s creative power, at least to the extent that it does not involve creation o f novel species, is extolled in rabbinic sources. The divine appellation “Shaddai” is understood in rabbinic exegesis as an acronym “sheamarti le-olami ‘dai ’ _ Who said to My universe, ‘Enough!’” Thus the verse, “I, the Lord Shaddai” (Genesis 17:1) is rendered by Midrash Rabbah 46:2, “I am the Lord who said to the universe ‘Enough!’” R. Jonathan Eibeschutz, Tiferet Yonatan, ad locum, followed by R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, Bet ha-Levi, ad locum, explains that, in His creation of various artifacts, God arrested their development before completion. Man plants a seed, the seed germinates, a stalk grows and kernels of wheat develop. The Creator could well have made it possible for the kernels to crumble into flour, for the flour to absorb rain or moisture from the atmosphere, for the wind to chum the water-drenched flour so that dough be formed and for the heat of the sun to bake the mixture in order to yield a product that m ight literally be term ed a “breadfruit.” Instead, the Creator arrested the process long before its completion and ordained that grinding the wheat, mixing the flour with water, kneading the dough and baking the bread be performed by man. Similarly, the flax plant could have been endowed with properties causing strands of flax to separate and intertwine themselves in a cloth which might grow in the shape o f a cloak. Instead, the process is arrested and brought to completion by man. Indeed, the Gemara, Shabbat 30b, declares that in the eschatological era the Land of Israel will yield “cakes” and “linen garments.” Bet ha Levi explains that the import of that statement is simply that, in the end of days, God will allow the processes of creation to reach their destined end by modifying the natural order in a maruier

that will permit the creative process to become complete and thus spare man any travail. In the interim, however, He has declared, “E nough!” i.e., He has precipitously interrupted the process of creation and co-opted man, who must complete the process, as a collaborator in fashioning the universe.

It is abundantly clear that human intervention in the natural order is normatively interdicted only to the extent that there are explicit prohibitions limiting such intervention. Moreover, there is no evidence either from Scripture or from rabbinic writings that forms of intervention or m anipulation not expressly banned are antithetical to the spirit of the law. Quite to the contrary, Jewish tradition, although it certainly recognises divine proprietorship of the universe, nevertheless, gratefully acknowledges that while “The heavens are the heavens of God” yet “the earth has He give to the sons o f man” (Psalms 115:6). In bestow ing that gift upon mankind, the Creator has granted man dominion over the world in which he lives and over the living species that are co­ inhabitants o f that world. Man has been given license to apply his intellect, ingenuity and physical prow ess in developing the world in which he has been placed subject only to limitations im posed by the laws o f the Torah, including the general admonition not to do harm to others, as well as by the constraints imposed by good sense and considerations o f prudence.

The tension between the role o f man as the agent of completing the work of creation and biblical prohibitions against certain forms of interference in the natural order is elucidated by R. Judah Loew, popularly known as Marahal o f Prague, in his B e ’er ha-Golah, chap 2:3, s.v.

Masekhet Pesahim. The Gemara, Pesahim 54a, states that the creation o f a number of entities was planned by God before the first Sabbath but they were not actually created until the conclusion o f the Sabbath. Upon the conclusion o f the Sabbath “the Holy One, blessed by He, bestowed understanding upon Adam and he took two stones, rubbed them one upon the other and fire emerged; [Adam] brought two animals, mated one with the other and from them emerged a mule.”

Clearly, this statement reflects the notion that the potential for both fire and interspecies is the product o f divine creation and that the potential became

actualised through the intermediary of human intelligence which is itself a divine gift.

M aharal notes that, although interbreeding of diverse animal species was clearly interdicted by the Torah, the Sages certainly regarded the breeding of mules by Adam as a fulfilment of the divine plan. Maharal boldly declares that the fact that God has prohibited a certain act does not necessarily mean that God has renounced the effect of that act. Thus crossbreeding o f animal species was prohibited to Israel at Sinai but was not forbidden to Adam because the breeding of mules was incorporated in the divine blueprint for creation. Thus a distinction must be drawn between act and effect, and, if disdain for the effect is not the rationale underlying the prohibition of the act, there exists no basis for expanding the prohibition to encompass any act that is not formally within its ambit.

M an’s role is “com pletion” (hashlamah) of the process of Creation.

Insofar as “completion” of creation is concerned it is the diving plan that such development take place. Maharal asserts that it is the divine will that even interspecies such as the mule come into being, although not in circumstances that involve violation o f Torah law. Thus crossbreeding was permitted to Adam because emergence of interspecies is integral to “completion” of the universe.

According to Maharal, crossbreeding by a person who is not commanded otherwise (or in situations in which the prohibition does not apply) does not constitute a violation o f the divine will or o f the divinely ordained telos because “the way o f Torah is one thing and the way of completion is another matter entirely.”

Genetic manipulation involving even the introduction of a gene of one species into the genotype of an alien species does not constitute a v io lation o f the prohibition against crossbreeding. Hazon Ish, Kila ’im 2:16, notes that the violation o f the commandment occurs only in directly causing copulation between two living animals Hazon lsh declares that artificial insem ination designed to produce an interspecies is not forbidden.

It is thus quite obvious that genetic manipulation, since it does not entail a sexual act involving partners who are members of a different species, cannot be regarded as forbidden.

Continued overleaf

Genetic Engineering continued A similar principle applies to genetic manipulation of agricultural species. R. Shlomoh Zalm an A uerbach, M inhat Shlomoh, II, no. 97, sec. 27, declares that pollination of one species with pollen of another species does not result in a fruit that would be halakhically classified as a hybrid. Thus, although Rabbi Auerbach affirms that the fruit o f an etrog tree produced as the result o f grafting o f a lemon branch may not be used on Sukkot for purposes of fulfilling the mitzvah of the four species, nevertheless he regards pollination as an entirely different matter.

Accordingly, rules Rabbi Auerbach, if an etrog is pollinated with the pollen of a lemon tree the resultant fruit is an etrog and may be used for fulfilling the mitzvah.

Rabbi A uerbach declares that he prohibition against hybridisation o f species applies only to the planting or grafting of vegetative material that might independently yield fruit or a seed that might germinate independently. Pollen can never grow into fruit; hence, for purposes o f Halakhah, introduciton of foreign pollen does not affect species identity. Again, it is quite obvious that such pollination conducted artificially by humans is not prohibited. Similarly, it follows that introduction o f a gene o f a foreign species is not forbidden as a form of hybridisation since an isolated gene can never develop into a tree or into a plant.

Rabbi J. David Bleich Rabbi J. David Bleich is an authority on Jewish law and ethics and bioethics. He is a professor o f Talmud (Rosh Yeshiva) at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, an affiliate o f Yeshiva University, as well as head o f its postgraduate institute fo r the study o f Talmudic jurisprudence and family law.

Rabbi Bleich is the author o f Jewish Bioethics; With Perfect Faith: Foundations of Jewish Belief; Contem porary Halakhic Problems (four volumes); Time of Death in Jewish Law; and Judaism and Healing. He has written extensively on the applications o f Jewish law to contemporary social issues and on the interface o f Jewish law and the American legal system. He is a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, a postdoctoral fellow at the Hastings Center, fellow o f the Academy o f Jewish Philosophy, and a member o f the Governor's Commission on Life and the Law. We are very honoured that he has allowed us to include this article, which is part o f a forthcoming publication, in HaMaor. w

FACTS ON ISRAELI CONFLICT This article was passed to HaMaor by a member o f the Federation.

It does not necessarily express the view o f the editor or the Federation, however, it does raise some interesting points.

Here are some the brief facts on the Israeli conflict today.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise o f Islam.

2. Arab refugees from Israel began identifying them selves as part o f a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment o f the modem State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital o f any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Holy Scriptures.

Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city o f Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jew s pray facing Jerusalem .

Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Most left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12.

A rab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory.

Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples’ lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The P.L.O.’s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given or offered the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the P alestinian A uthority, and has supplied them with weapons.

15. Under Jordanian Arab rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship.

U nder Israeli rule, all M uslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs - o f the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. O f the 690 G eneral A ssem bly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The U.N was silent w hile 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent w hile the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The U.N. was silent w hile the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

“Votes for Women?

The fo llo w in g article has not been edited in any way by the express wish o f the author.

The opinions contained are those o f the author and do not necessarily reflect the views o f the editor or the Federation.

t least one half of the community consists o f women. Through .their increasing freedom from domestic chores, the greater opportunities for education, and their growing involvement in public life generally, they can greatly enrich the quality and intensity of Jewish communal life.

Until recently their involvement was restricted to Israeli and charitable endeavours. Is it not now time that their talents and specialised skills be harnessed also for the advancement of all religious and congregational issues. The orthodox community and its organisations can only benefit from the increased participation of their womenfolk in their deliberations and activities. At present, in many local and communal levels there are not sufficient opportunities afforded for women to make their full contribution.

I was bom into a strictly observant family in Manchester whose members were deeply involved in communal activity, including founding the Manchester Yeshiva. I spent 36 years of my married life living in the vibrant orthodox community o f Sunderland, where my husband was one of the leaders of north-east Jewry. Thus a deep sense of religious observance together with an appreciation of communal commitment have always been an integral part of my life, and strengthening Jewish life has always been my concern. Since coming to live in London, I have becom e confused by the differing standards, the small-mindedness and petty politics of some o f our leaders, both lay and religious, which is one of the causes of the drift away from traditional orthodoxy, often beginning with the women, who are then followed by their husbands and children. We cannot afford to be complaisant.

In 1993 C hief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks initiated a review into the role of women in the community which was conducted by Rosalind Preston. One section dealt with R eligious and Synagogue affairs. Many dedicated women conducted copious research

A

across the religious spectrum and in the provincial centres throughout the country.

One common feature in their findings was the discontent repeated over and over again by women who described a Shool as a “lonely” place where catering was the sum total of women’s participation, and many expressed a wish to be more involved in synagogue related discussions, but they found that the rules governing their involvement, for example on synagogue boards o f management were unclear and varied considerably from Shool to Shool. I know this from my own experience. I have the privilege of being involved with three Shools:1. I am a member in my own right of an independent Shool which recognises the authority of the Chief Rabbi. I have a vote at General M eetings. I am eligible to be elected by ladies to serve on the Board of Management.

Had I been a member o f the Sephardi community I would have been afforded similar rights.

Had I been a member of the United Synagogue I could, in addition, hold office on any Shool committee or sub­ committee, except that I could not be a President or Warden or Chairman of a committee.

2. I am fortunate in that I have a home in Israel and spend much of time there. I attend and belong to a strictly Orthodox Shool where I am a member in my own right. I have a vote. I can be elected to and hold any office on the Board of Management except Warden.

3. I now live in London adjacent to the Yeshurun Synagogue, Edgware, where I worship regularly. My husband is a member. I may not be. I do not have a vote. I am not eligible to serve on the Board o f M anagem ent, although Dayan Lichtenstein has said recently at a meeting with some Federation ladies that a lady may hold a “specific portfolio” without being a member of the Board. It remains to be seen how this will be interpreted.

There have always been differing approaches to orthodox Judaism and differing interpretations o f Halacha.

There have always been two ways of interpreting a problem . A lenient interpretation according to the House of Hillel - a more stringent interpretation according to the House of Shammai.

Some may say that divergence brings strength. That may be true when the community is num erically large and strong. Can we in the Anglo-Jewish community, which is now less than 280,000 souls and diminishing every year, afford the luxury of such a divergence on a matter of importance like the role of women? Can we afford to neglect the potential o f the rising generation of educated young Jewish women who would like to be more involved?

Those who bar women from holding office in a synagogue, seek to rely on Maimonides’ ruling in Hilchot Melachim 1.5 in which he interprets Devarim 17/14 - “thou shaft set a King over thee” as meaning as a King, not a Queen, shall be a ruler, and he extends this to include any appointment within the community. Even if the extension of this ruling is correct, it can be argued that “King or a Queen” implies one who exercises autocratic power like a Chairman or President and that election o f women to serve on a committee does not offend against this ruling w here pow er is a shared responsibility and is not the prerogative of any one member.

In any event, it is difficult to justify this interpretation in the light not just of what happened in Bible tim es with Deborah, a Judge and prophetess, Hulda, a great leader, and Bruria the female sage of the Talmud, but also in contemporary history: Nehama Leibovitz - biblical com m entator, Golda M eir, a Prim e Minister whose office implies absolute power, women members of the Knesset and women Judges in Israel who exercise authority, and here, in this country, a woman President of the Board of Deputes Continued overleaf

i.

L ..

“Votes for W omen?” continued

and women head teachers in Jewish boys’ schools, as acceptable precedents o f w om en's leadership, as Tanna D ’bei Eliyahu Rabba 9 says: “The Divine Spirit rests upon him in accordance with the deed he performs”.

Some have said that the restriction on women’s involvement in the community is based on the grounds o f modesty because in Psalm 45/14 we read “all glorious is the King’s daughter within the King’s Palace” which, they argue, means that modesty demands a woman’s activity should be centred on the home and not the outside world. This is hard to justify when so many orthodox women today have secular careers as well as running a home. How ironic that a woman can be a leader o f Israel - but may not serve on some Shool committee. I wonder if those who oppose w o m en ’s fu rth er participation in communal life realise they appear to be following a non-Jewish instruction to be found in the New Testament, I Corinthians 14 v. 34/35 which reads: “as in all congregations of G-d’s people, women should not address the meeting. They have no licence to speak but should keep their place as the law directs. If there is something they wish to know they can ask their own husbands at home. It is a shocking thing that a wom an should address the congregation”.

Would it not be preferable for them to consider our own history teachings and liturgy. Let us go back in time to the study o f creation itself. Men and women were both created in H ashem ’s image and likeness and both were invested with the same authority to subdue the world and have authority over it.

We are told that woman was created not from man’s head so that he could look down on her, not from his foot so that he could trample on her - but from his side so that she could be equal. It is not correct to say that the bible emphasis its heroes not its heroines, when we have Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, Miriam, Hannah, Deborah, Ruth, Esther, all of whom are given their due honour. G-d tells Abraham - “listen to what Sarah tells you”. Surely this is a challenge to Jewish man in every generation? The Torah on Sinai was given to women as well as to men and the constant theme of women throughout the

Bible as possessing the moral strength and determination necessary for the formation of the Jewish people justifies the Rabbinic pronouncement that each generation is redeem ed because o f the righteous women of that generation.

In Proverbs 1.8 we are told “Hark unto the disciplines o f your father, do not forsake the teachings o f your mother”.

The teachings i.e. the voices of women have become louder and louder as in the emancipated secular world they are taught the p rin cip les o f equality. But the response to the changing situation o f women in Judaism does not draw its inspiration from secular feminism as some believe, but from the giants o f Halacha, as Chief Rabbi Dr Sacks wrote: “I am awe-struck by the visions that led the Chofetz Chaim and the Rebbe of Belz to encourage Sarah Schneirer to build the first great network of Jewish schools for g irls, Beis Yaacov, Rabbi Y itzchok Elchonon Specktor to devote tireless energies to enable chained women to rem arry, Rabbi Yechiel W ainberg to em phasise w om en’s self-respect as a necessary part o f Jewish spirituality and Rabbi Ben-Zion Uziel to defend women’s participation in the political process o f the emerging State o f Israel.

These Rabbonim have had the courage when interpreting Halacha to take into account the prevailing and changing social conditions o f the day as was Rabbenu Gershon, the leading Talmudic authority in Western Europe when he saw the need to prohibit polygamy, and the need to prevent a wife being divorced without consent. How fortunate are we that not only the present Chief Rabbi but also his two predecessors in office have dem onstrated the same courage and en lig h ten m en t w hen it cam e to considering the enfranchisem ent o f women.

C h ie f Rabbi Sir Israel B ro d ie ’s Halachic ruling was:(a) Women m em bers may not be elected as honorary officers or appointed as officiants. (b) Women have the active, but not the passive elective right, that is, they may elect to office but may not themselves be elected. However, they may be appointed or nominated to synagogue boards and co u n cils eith er by wom en o f the congregation or by local ladies’ guilds or other local women’s organisations, and they may then exercise full membership rights.

Any ambiguity in the statement was clarified by Moshe Davis, the C hief Rabbi’s Executive Director, who advised the Sunderland Hebrew Congregation that the ruling meant that “it is possible for women to serve on a Synagogue Council (Board of Management) and on Boards of Shechita, provided they are not elected by general vote to that position”, i.e. men may not vote for women, women may vote for themselves. It follows they would then be full members of that Board.

In May 1973 a Conference of Provincial Communities was held in Leeds in the presence of the then Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, and a resolution approved by him was passed acknowledging “the im portance o f the historic and contemporary role of Jewish w om en..... and urging that consistent with Jewish law and practice, women should have the right to nom ination for election to all organisations and institutions including Synagogue Boards o f M anagem ent, Shechita Boards and Boards of Hebrew Education, so that women may play their due role in these organisations”.

Follow ing the conference, the Bradford Hebrew Congregation was the first orthodox synagogue to adopt this resolution and elect women to the Board o f M anagem ent, follow ed by the Sunderland Hebrew Congregation, the next year and many other provincial congregations in the years that followed.

Indeed, women have been and still are the life blood of many provincial synagogues and communities right to the present day.

In January 1979 the late Mr F M Landau proposed an amendment to the U nited Synagogue C onstitution to enfranchise women in the same way which Lord Jakobovits described as “unobjectionable”. Unfortunately, the proposal was vetoed by the Honorary O fficers o f the day who obviously belonged to the “Shool Council is a man’s club" Brigade. It was not until 1987 that the proposal was adopted and last year the Constitution was again amended to allow women to occupy every office save that of Chairman and Warden.

O f course, I am not so naive as to suggest that by allowing women to vote and serve on Boards of Management you will at a stroke end the drift away from orthodox Judaism - it has now gone too far. But it would help to stem the criticism from some frustrated women that they are being treated as second class citizens and that Rabbis are uncaring. You would

IV—

v-

)

C\

to f

'r-

i

4 H w

** statem Davis > s , ; the ^ c S f i h i “it jfre^at'°n

■ la

ensure by their form al and active involvement that women’s concerns were being addressed and their expertise would benefit the whole community. It would give women an added incentive together with their families to remain loyal to orthodox Judaism because they were seen as being listened to.

Shool is a unique institution. If it is to be regarded solely as a house of prayer, maybe there could be some justification for it rem aining prim arily a m an’s

SHUL

ien

•••

organisations

to

\m\f

*

>t

. <

interpret Halacha in its true meaning of “to go forward”, “progress”, and give her an opportunity of harnessing her energies in active participation and leadership.

H. H. Myrella Cohen QC This article remains the copyright o f the author at all times, and in accordance with the undertaking given by Dayan Lichtenstein, will not be edited in any way. In the event o f any decision to edit or alter this article in any shape orform, the author does not agree to its publication and requires its return forthwith.

fi UNIQUE INSTITUTION A response to Judge Myrella Cohen

imes are a-changing. But times are always changing. To the verse in Devorim binu shenos dor va-dor[I], “understand the ‘years’ of each generation”, a different reading goes: “understand the changes that occur in each generation”. In an era o f change perhaps the most far-reaching alteration to the patterns of society has occurred in the role of women, with women taking positions of public responsibility such as prime minister and judge.

Yet within the confines of the orthodox shul. life goes on as it always has done the men functioning in a primary active leadership role, the women in a secondary role. Not only in the religious service area of the shul, but also in its lay committees.

What logic lies behind this system, which subordinates women in the shul? Or perhaps it is not really a system, just a haphazard set of norms that emerged, but which could, equally, with the subtle application of force, be made to ‘evolve’ in a different way, with pressure from the right people and a bit of noise in the media.

In her persuasive article Judge Cohen has called for change. Her argument - that women nowadays are educated and able, and therefore could make a considerable contribution to the tasks of leadership of the community - appears eminently sensible. And yet, as Judge Cohen herself concedes, a shul is a unique institution.

What exactly, though, is the uniqueness o f a shul? Why is it that changes introduced in other Jewish communal institutions, such as schools, or welfare

'

preserve. But it is also a house of learning and a “Bet Knesset”, a meeting place for young and old alike, to ensure the enrichment o f communal life. When human recourses are running low, can you afford to exclude half of your population?

The modem woman is no longer satisfied with the 3Ks traditionally ascribed to Jew ish women - K itchen, Kuchen, Kinder. She is now ready, willing and able to make her contribution to the community. Our religious leaders must

*

■

institutions, can not be introduced into shuls? What is the special ingredient that makes shuls different?

Even in the charedi com m unity practices have altered, w ith the acceptance of a greater role for women, but not in their shuls. The Beis Ya ’akov movement has brought about a whole generation o f Jewishly educated women, and in their educational institutions there are women teachers and women head­ teachers. And yet in the shuls o f these same communities there has been no alteration to the status quo which grants pre-eminence to men exclusively, nor does any change appear likely in the future. Ma nishtanah - Why are shuls different?

I would like to suggest, therefore, that there is a background and a context to the involvement of women in shul. There are particular sensitivities which need to be taken into account. These factors, I believe, lie at the heart o f traditional thinking on this matter. And perhaps they will explain the natural reluctance of rabbinical authorities to sanction change in this area.

In her article Judge Cohen sketches out the recent moves in congregations in this country under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbi. She could have added that in some orthodox congregations in America, in recent years, matters have evolved even further. I understand that it is now not uncommon for some orthodox shuls in the USA to have a woman president.

Perhaps in the same vein, it was reported recently that in one American orthodox

synagogue, with a mechitza down the middle, there is a place at the front of the women’s section, a ‘pulpit’ from which an appointed lady congregational official delivers a d ’var torah to the whole congregation, at permitted times in the service.

To which one must respond - is that not simply women rabbis through the back door? Is this the direction in which ‘p ro g re ss’ leads? And are such innovations destined to find their way into orthodox shuls in this country, too? And when that happens will there then be renew ed agitation, with halachic authorities in this country called upon to approve the innovations, so that we can stem the drift away from traditional orthodox Judaism, and demonstrate that women are not being classed as second class citizens, as well as avoid rabbis being labelled ‘uncaring’?

Rabbis are very caring. They care about individuals, men and women, old and young. They also care about their role as guardians of the integrity of Torah and authentic Jewish practice, as handed down to us down the generations.

Shul councils - sacred or secular?

Perhaps an essential question to pose is: are shul councils part of the sacred side of the shul, or a part of its secular domain?

If shul councils, committees and positions o f leadership as honorary officers, were definable as a solely secular province, as distinct from the sacred aspects of the congregation, then perhaps the matter of Continued overleaf

SHUL - fl UNIQUE INSTITUTION continued the request for women to be included, would be, and would have been, easy to solve and to permit. We could just say that the reason that women were not included in shul com m ittees in the past, was because m en's clubs were a part o f everyday life. Nowadays, however, since chauvinism has gone out o f fashion in the outside world, shul councils, too, should be brought up to date. If one viewed shul councils as non-sacred, then updating outmoded practice would then perhaps be religiously unobjectionable; rather like the updating o f the decor in the shul cloakroom s, when it has becom e antiquated, is religiously unobjectionable.

But it is clearly not as simple as that.

Shul councils, and boards o f honorary officers, belong neither to a non-sacred, nor to a ‘neutral’, category. They are indivisible from the ‘religious’ side o f the shul, and on that basis they are subject to the some o f the standards and the principles that apply to the shul proper.

We are talking here about perceptions and symbol, as much as reality and substance.

The perception of the average Jew is that shul administration is a ‘religious’ matter.

In my experience I have found that members of a congregation refrain from putting themselves forward for election to office, because they feel themselves not to be sufficiently religiously observant for such a role. Especially so in Anglo-Jewish congregations, w here the elected representatives o f these lay committees, sit in specially designated seats in the main shul, a ‘box’, whose sym bolic essence is surely designed to convey a message, that the lay administrative side of the shul, is not separate from its religious side, but is, in fact, a function of it.

Historical perspective - the ‘reforming9 o f the synagogue Judge Cohen painstakingly details the gradual introduction of women into the administrative committees o f shuls in Anglo Jewry since the days o f the late Chief Rabbi Brodie z 7, in the 1950’s and 60’s. But surely the matter must be put into its more global perspective, o f the challenge to traditional Judaism in the last two hundred years by a reform ing movement in its various guises. For many people the policy of equal opportunities for women in synagogue has been the

great attraction o f reform. Let us ask, then, why have the leaders o f the orthodox refused to go along with this sort o f move, even at the cost o f loss o f popularity, and of membership?

The eternal link with the Temple in Jerusalem One of the main answers is surely this.

The institution o f shul resembles, in a number of ways, the Temple in Jerusalem.

The aron hakodesh, like a Holy of Holies in the Temple; a duchan, platform at the front from which the kohanim bless the people. A bimah, platform, in shul on w hich the Torah is read, like the mizbeyach, altar, in the Temple, located in the middle o f the sanctuary.

And, o f course, a ladies’ gallery; a place for women, separate from the men.

The segregation of the women away from the men in the Temple in Jerusalem is attested to by a d escrip tio n in the Mishna121. The same was true in shuls down the g en eratio n s all over the diaspora. A shul with a ladies’ gallery m eant a shul m odelled faithfully in accordance with Temple practice.

Reform breaks the link with past and rejects a connection with future This continued in all shuls in the diaspora for eighteen hundred years until, that is, the advent o f the reform m ovem ent in A m erica w ith its introduction o f family pews and mixed seating. W hat about the connection between the synagogue and the Temple in Jerusalem? Well, clearly, the Temple of old had gone out o f fashion.

But it was not simply a sense of Jewish history, against which this innovation offended; there were serious theological implications, too. For the connection between shul and Temple was not simply an historical link, based on national memory or nostalgia. The link with the Beis H am ikdosh in Jerusalem , also looked forward to a messianic time in the future, when the Temple would be rebuilt.

Inherent in the belief in the coming of the Messiah (defined by Maimonides as the twelfth o f thirteen essential principles o f Jewish faith) is the b elief in the rebuilding of a Temple in Jerusalem. At that time in the messianic future, the belief is that services in the Temple will once again predominate. In the light of this, shuls down the generations in the diaspora are, therefore, in a sense, a practice run for the real thing in the future

- divine service in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. The presumption is that the Temple of the future would be conducted in accordance with the Temple of the past, with segregation of men and women.

Consequently, the introduction of mixed services in shul in the intervening time, in our era, could therefore only be construed as a statement of denial of the possibility of a messianic era some time in the future.

By denying the p o ssib ility of messianic fulfilment in the future, the American Reform movement was merely following in the footsteps of the Reform m ovem ent in G erm any which had offended against the principle of belief in the coming of the Messiah, by their erasing from their prayerbook, references to the korbanos, the sacrificial ceremonies in the Temple. Those who believed that “Berlin was their Jerusalem”, and who aspired to g reater integration into E uropean society, did not w ant to encumber their religious practices with themes that alienated them from their P rotestant surroundings in the new Jerusalem, and which directed their hearts towards a possible rebuilding of a Temple in the Jerusalem of the Middle East. But this act had crystallised the issue. By incorporating this heretical aspect into their programme Reform had crossed a red lin e [31. But m ore than that, the desegregation of the shul walked in the footsteps of a most distasteful earlier precedent.

An earlier precedentfor non-segregated shuls In the 1950’s in a number of orthodox synagogues in the USA, less religiously committed members together with the assistance of the Conservative movement from the outside, acted to remove the mechitza, the segregation between men and women. In Wisconsin, USA, a man called Baruch Litwin was outraged by this d esecration o f his local orthodox synagogue. He challenged their action in the local courts. It was not easy for him to prove his case. After all, nowhere does the Shulchan Aruch say that there must be a division between men and women at prayer. Instead Litwin’s case was built on a series o f w ritten subm issions by acknowledged scholars and experts from the orthodox com m unity. These testimonies were collated into a volume.

The Sanctity o f the Synagogue. In his submission, the late Rabbi Dr Joseph B.

Soloveitchik wrote the following141:

, e Would K lhal the

m,^ m essianii'c era

The separation of the sexes in the synagogue derives historically from the Sanctuary, where there were both a Court of Women and a Court of Israelites. In its martyr’s history of a thousand years, the people of Israel have never violated this sacred principle. M oreover, when primitive Christianity arose as a sect in the Holy Land, and began to slowly introduce reforms, one of the innovations which the sect established at once in the externals of synagogue practice, was to have men and women sit together. In many instances mixed seating was the unmistakable sign by which a Jew could recognise that he had found not a place of sanctity for Jews to pray, but rather a prayer house for a deviating sect. For in those times the Christians had not yet formally differentiated themselves from traditional Jewry. As a secret sect they endeavoured to hide their identity, and only through certain definite signs could they be recognised.

It would seem to me that our remembrance o f history alone should keep us from imitating today the practice of primitive Christianity almost 1900 years ago.

While Rabbi Soloveitchik identified the mixing of the sexes in the place of worship as a Christian innovation, another orthodox leader, Rabbi Norman Lamm, showed that in fact it was a pagan introduction into Christianity: In its very early history, while still under the influence of classical Judaism, Christianity maintained a traditional Jew ish attitude tow ards w om en’s participation in religious services, and already found a strong pagan undercurrent m aking itse lf felt in opposition. It was Paul who found it necessary to admonish the Corinthian Christians to prevent their women from preaching in the church151. The position of the early church was against allowing its women to take part audibly in public worship, and included a prohibition on praying in mixed company161. The Pauline position was clearly “a rule taken over from the synagogue and maintained in the primitive church”.171 The C orinthian church proved, however, to be a channel for the introduction o f pagan elements into Christianity, foreign elements, which later were to become organic parts o f that religion. Corinth itself was a city of pleasure, noted for its immorality, which

i

So®e tiue

L ' he possibilitv f ®ent in the

' y of

Wm°veD1

tUre’the

ssSS f.heMnnC,PlCOfbdlef

te Messiai , by thejj

nprayerbook, reference

?e acnficiai ceremoni^ who Relieved that r Jem saK and who iler Integ ration into ^ did not want to ■ligious practices with lated them from their fundings in the new ich directed their hearts rebuilding of a Temple f the M iddle East. But tallised the issue. By 5 heretical aspect into Reform had crossed a m ore than that, the the shul walked in the ost distasteful earlier

mtfornon-segregated

'

> •

usually had religious sanction. It was full of prostitutes, thousands of courtesans attached to the temple of Aphrodite. This pagan environment, with its moral laxity, had a profound effect upon the Corinthian church181. The effort to introduce mixed seating and women’s preaching is thus part of the pagan heritage of Christianity, just as Paul’s initial efforts to resist these reforms were part of Christianity’s Jewish heritage. The pagan influence ultimately dominated, and today mixed seating is a typically Christian institution191.

In light o f the foregoing we now take vigorous issue with Judge Cohen for her claim that those who oppose women’s participation in shul life ‘appear to be following a non-Jewish instruction to be found in the New T estam ent’. Her staggering insinuation that segregation in the place of worship is of Christian origin, is refuted most powerfully. With the benefit o f the scholarship o f the nonJewish New Testament experts cited by Rabbi Lamm in his footnotes, and reproduced in our extract, it emerges that I Corinthians 14; 34-35, quoted by Judge Cohen, opposing w om en’s public participation in the house o f prayer, was in fact the voice o f a Jew - albeit a renegade - and from whose perspective in ancient authentic Judaism, it was natural that in a house of prayer men and women must be segregated.

The rationale behind segregation education towards sanctity But why was it necessary for men and women to be kept separate? What was the rationale behind the segregation o f men and women in Temple, and its successor, shuls down the generations?

The sources from almost 2,000 years ago, the era of the Tannaim, are clear on the subject. A Mishna[l0] relates how, in the public area of the Temple, a balcony was installed, “so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together”.

The presence of men and women together was undesirable, since it would lead to frivolous conduct” kalus rosh (literally, lightness o f head”/ 777.

Now let us ask the question that will surely be posed. When men and women are together at some form of event - be it social, commercial, or religious, surely we find that this does not automatically lead to improper conduct. So why was Temple practice so extreme and insistent in this regard, to require com plete 44

44

segregation, and to label mixing as leading to frivolous (and inevitably lascivious) conduct?

Shul standards of sanctity - a Jewish statement o f anti-paganism With the benefit of Rabbi Lamm’s scholarship, we are now equipped with greater insight. The Temple and its successor, the shul, had to have the highest standards of morality, so that they should be as far removed as possible from the corrupt practices o f the pagans.

Pagans might practice moral laxity; Judaism proclaimed that such laxity was abhorrent, and was detested by G-d(12].

Now while the presence together of men and women in mixed company, does not in itself constitute immorality, it is nevertheless associated with immorality.

Mixed company can be the setting for an atmosphere of frivolity to develop. For that reason it was adjudged to be incompatible with the high standards of sanctity expected in the house of G-d. For if the pagan place of worship included immorality with religious sanction, the Jewish place of worship in all its aspects was to be free o f the taint of any such corrupting decadence.

Thus there is a substantive issue of modesty, or to give it its proper Hebrew name tzn i’us, arising here. The mixed com pany o f men and women is problematical in Jewish law. The proposal to introduce mixed company, into a committee that is officially a part of the shul, where before there was segregation would represent a lowering of standards o f m orality. To low er standards o f morality has always been regarded as a serious matter, for which is reserved its own special pejorative epithet - poreytz geder, one who breaches a fence1131.

Conclusion H aving review ed the process o f desegregation o f men and women in Jewish places of worship initiated by the reforming movement in recent decades, it is surely clear what the uniqueness of a shul is, and why it is different to educational and other institutions in the Jewish community.

The shul is unique because it recalls the Temple o f old, which maintained a segregation of men and women in all respects; and it is a practice training ground for the Temple of the messianic Continued overleaf

introduce women to positions of leadership or membership of the lay committees of a shul as being one that represents progress, and why they would be more than hesitant in sanctioning such a move.

Of course we all agree that Shul should not be a lonely and unfriendly experience.

All of us involved in shuls seek to create the atmosphere o f warm welcome, for both men and women. There is, moreover, no reason why catering should be part of shul life for anyone who does not want it to be. Shul should indeed be for davenning and learning for both men and women, an opportunity for a deeply spiritual experience. Above all, though, if there is anything that can work to retain the affiliations o f women to traditional orthodox co n g reg atio n s, it is the provision o f g reater facility for community education, for women and men o f all ages to deepen their appreciation o f Judaism by connecting to its intellectual heritage of Torah learning.

SHUL - fl UNIQUE INSTITUTION continued future in Jerusalem, where once again there will be segregation o f men and women.

The shul is unique because it has special symbolic status. It has been the subject o f assault by the enemies of Judaism in ancient times who sought to subvert it to C h ristian ity and paganism, with their mixed religious establishments • • v. • \>

f

v.\ . • '

*4!

*

*Tti

&3j- *Mr'-1 •■ . : •'VEN&xi . tie

..ili. :l

Those assau lts have recurred in modern times, when the forces o f assimilation within the community tried to dejudaicise the shul and make it more compatible with the permissive spirit of the time.

The shul is unique because it stands as a beacon in our lives to the highest standards o f m orality; and mixed company - although it is an everyday part of our lives - represents a more permissive approach to morality.

In the light of the above it can perhaps be better appreciated why all halachic authorities do not consider the proposal to

Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag Whitefield Hebrew Congregation, Manchester Member of the Standing Committee, Conference of European Rabbis

[1J Devorim 32;7 [2] Mishna Middos 2;5 [3] Even though later they did draw back from this extreme position [41 On Seating and Sanctification, Rabbi Dr Joseph Soloveitchik, in The Sanctity o f the Synagogue, pp. 115-116 151 I Corinthians 14;34,35, [6]For this, R. Lamm cites Charles C. Ryrie, The Place o f Women in the Church (New York, Macmillan Co., 1958) pp 78-80.

171 Here, R. Lamm’s source is F. Godet, First Epistle to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1887), II, pp. 324, 325. ’"‘Again, Lamm's source is cited: Ibid., pp. 7, 60, 62, 140.

191 Rabbi Norman Lamm, Separate Pews in the Synagogue, in The Sanctity o f the Synagogue, pp 333-334 |1(l) Middos 2;5 1111 Tosefta Sukkah 4;1 [12) The sages (Medrash Esther Rabbah 7; 13) had Haman as saying; “The G-d of these detests licentiousness - Eloheyhem shel eylu soney zimah [13] Kohelles 10;8, applied to Zimri by Medrash Tanchuma Pinchas 2

Swiftnet Ltd Britannia House, 958-964 High Road, London N12 9RY Tel: 020 8455 1997 Fax: 020 8905 5644 Mobile: 079 6647 0449 Agents required. Please call 020 8455 1997

FOR DETAILS OF FOR ONLY 1.9P PER MINUTE...

S a v e up to 80% on yo u r phone/fax b llls ...s im p ly by u sin g S w iftn e t w ith yo u r ow n phone U SA 4p - Isra e l 8p - G e rm a n y 5.05p - Po lan d 15.73p - U K 1.9p (2 .5 peak)

Swift and friendly service

AD VER TISING RA TES FOR HAMAOR

ALLING CARDSERVICE FROM SWIFTNET BEST LINES BEST PRICES

OR A MEDIA INFORMATION PACK,

SWIFT GLOBAL C a llin g c a rd s Fre e 0800 a c c e s s No co n n e ctio n fee charge S p a in ...............................6p G e rm a n y .......................4p U S A ..................................5p I s r a e l...............................7p

SWIFT N SAVE

SWIFT CAPITAL

C allin g c a rd s G reat rates No m ain ten an ce c o st S A F E AND R E L IA B L E F IR S T M INUTE C O N N EC TIO N C H A R G E

C a llin g c a rd s 0845 LO C O S T

U S A ............................1p So uth A frica ........... 11 p I s r a e l...............................4p E u r o p e ...........................1p

ACCESS NUMBER E X C E L L E N T LIN E E X C E L L E N T S E R V IC E U S A ..................................2p So uth A frica ........... 11 p I s r a e l...............................5p E u r o p e ...........................2p

AVAILABLE AT YOUR LOCAL SHOP

PLEASE CONTACT ROBERTA RUBEN STEIN ON:

020 8202 2263

A Year on - Reflections ven thinking about writing an article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a gamble. It’s a gamble because you know that events could change, explode or even end, at any moment — while you’re writing, after you’ve sent your column in, even after it’s printed in the magazine.

N evertheless, it now seems appropriate, one year on, to reflect on the terrible and traumatic events of the past twelve months. Terrible, because so many people - on both sides - have been killed, and traum atic because Israel has constantly been rebuffed in its attempts to end the violence and return to the negotiating table. Furthermore, Israel has endured condemnation from many parts of the international community for simply endeavouring to ensure the safety of its citizens The story is often told of a chassid who, in a time o f great distress and poverty, w ent from com m unity to community to teach the principles of tzedakah. When he came back, the chassidim asked him : “How did you do?

Did you succeed?” And he said: “I half succeeded.” “What do you mean, you half succeeded?” said his students. “Well,” said the Rebbe, “ I persuaded the poor to take. Now I just have to persuade the rich to give.”

This is the ultimate irony. Israel wants to give - and we have to persuade the world to take!

At Camp David last year, Israel was prepared to return almost everything that Yasser Arafat had been demanding, an offer that was almost unprecedented in the entire history of the State of Israel.

According to unofficial reports, this included the vast m ajority o f the territories and also Palestinian control of parts of East Jerusalem. In return, Arafat had only to make two statements: that this agreement marked the end of the conflict and was now committed to living in peace with us. And also that they would no longer demand the right o f return to sovereign Israel for, potentially, millions of refugees, and thus signalling the end of their desire to retain a permanent claim on the Jewish State.

However, the summit revealed the stark fact that Arafat was not yet ready to

E

end the conflict with the Israelis, and following their collapse, he returned to the strategy of tactical violence. He hoped to realize his political and diplomatic goals through winning world sympathy for the Palestinian cause, thus foreclosing the need to compromise. Clearly, he has failed to implement among his people the most basic understanding o f the Oslo process, a commitment to abandon the armed struggle and to resolve the conflict through peaceful means.

Furtherm ore, a second im portant strand of Arafat’s thinking has proved misplaced. In the knowledge that the Arab states are unable to defeat Israel militarily, he thought that Israel would sow the seeds o f its own destruction through its increasing internal divisions. Having witnessed the public approval for the w ithdraw al from Lebanon, the Palestinians believed that Israelis now lacked the stomach for a prolonged conflict over the West Bank and Jerusalem.

He has discovered, however, that Israelis see the two issues very differently.

While there has been a significant shift in Israeli opinion towards the realization that territorial compromise is necessary to secure a lasting peace, they are unwilling to do so if there is no guarantee of security from the Palestinians. This attitude is reflected in opinion polls, which show Prime Minister Ariel Sharon enjoying unprecedented support o f up to eighty percent. It seems that the old adage really is true. Our enemies can unite us far more effectively than we ourselves can.

And our message is loud and clear. We came back to Israel to live as a free people. We did not leave the ghettos of Eastern Europe to be persecuted in our own land. As we say in the Israeli national anthem: L ’hiot Am Hofshi b 'Artzenu - to be a free people in our land. While we do not have any desire to dominate our Palestinian neighbours, we do have a right to live in peace and security.

The task for all o f us now is to convince the rest o f the world o f the legitimacy o f our cause. There is little doubt that we have not succeeded in doing this over the past year. Among the general public, we have been portrayed as the aggressor, even though we have only been

acting in self-defence. Our restraint and continued policy of negotiations in the face o f Palestinian violence have been ignored. Incitem ent and hatred, so prevalent in the Arab media, has been ignored whilst Israeli reaction has been analysed intensely.

Indeed, it is illustrative that the only two instances where Israel received favourable m edia attention was in response to the lynching of the three soldiers in Ramallah, and the terrible bombing of the Dolphinarium nightclub.

It seem s that Israel must suffer unimaginable atrocities before the world understands our position. Israelis are literally dying for international sympathy.

Admittedly, Israel has been slow to react to the media battle. We did not react effectively to the lies and incitement so skillfully presented by the Palestinian spokespeople. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should have been quicker to appoint a media advisor to sit in on key cabinet and IDF policy meetings in order to evaluate the impact of Israel’s decisions and policies on the media and public opinion.

However, w hile Israel strives to improve its own public relations, it is important to remember that we all must take responsibility for representing Israel to the British public. We know that the community has been at the forefront of supporting Israel over this difficult year, and urge a redoubling of efforts to secure understanding for our position.

As we approach the new Jewish year 5762, we pray that this coming year will finally bring the peace that we all so wish for. The Embassy of Israel thanks you for your unwavering support for the State of Israel in these difficult times, and would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a happy and healthy new year.

I f you would like to receive more information about the resources and services that the Embassy offers, or to receive our regular briefings containing news and opinion from Israel, please contact M ichael Rosen at info I @london.mfa.gov.il Michael Rosen Head of Public Affairs Israeli Embassy

Mazal Tov wishes are extended to the following people:

B irth S Mazal Tov to the following on the birth o f a child: Ilford Ruth and Victor Weigler on the birth of a second daughter.

Marilyn and Mark Weigler on the birth of their third grand-daughter.

Millie and Charles Scott on the birth of their fifth great-grandchild.

Sandra and Ronnie Lewis on the birth of their third grand-daughter.

Mr and Mrs A. Schiffman on the birth of a grand-daughter.

Shomrei Hadath Mr and Mrs A. Kaufman and Mr and Mrs A. Goldschmidt on the birth of a son and grandson respectively.

Mr and Mrs V. Klein on the birth of a grandson.

Mr and Mrs S.D. Winegarten and Mrs H.D. Winegarten on the birth of a grand-daughter and great grand-daughter respectively.

Yeshurun Aharon and Huguette Menczer on the birth of a grandson.

Wilfred and Helene Littlestone on their first great grandchildren.

Monty Rynhold on the arrival of his first grandson.

Patricia and Brian Shaer on the birth of a grandson.

E n g a g e m e n ts Mazal Tov to the following: Shomrei Hadath Mr and Mrs D. Rosenfelder on the engagement of their daughter.

Yeshurun M arilyn and Bob Vertes and grandfather Arthur Vertes on daughter Hannah’s engagement to Gabriel John.

Joy and Edwin Solomon on their son Johnny’s engagem ent to Donna Rosenthal.

Laraine and Lester Abrahams on daughter Anna’s engagement to Zvi Wohlgemuth.

WedA\m g s Mazal Tov to the following: Dayan and Mrs Lichtenstein on the marriage of their daughter Henya Faiga to Menachem, son of Rabbi and Mrs Yehudah Marmorstein.

Dayan and Mrs Elzas on the marriage of their daughter Yocheved to Zvi Zimmels, son of Judge and Mrs Martin Zimmels.

Elstree Judy and Godfrey Minsky celebrated the marriage on 2nd July of their daughter Abigail to Avromi Guttman of New York.

Ilford Grant Sackwild and Melanie Wajchendler on the occasion of their marriage.

Sandra and Leslie Wajchendler on the occasion of their daughter Melanie’s marriage.

Russell Brill and Katie Sassoon on the occasion of their marriage.

Linda and Ivan Brill on the occasion of their son Russell’s marriage.

Mr and Mrs T. Miller on the occasion of their son Jack’s marriage.

Shomrei Hadath Mr and Mrs M Benguigui on the occasion of their marriage.

Yeshurun Laurence and Hilary Comey on the marriage of daughter Rachel to Elliot Gerstler.

Robert and Jennifer Zeffman on the marriage of daughter Suzi to RafFi Berg.

Wecldim g A n nmi v e rsa n e s Mazal Tov to the following: Elstree Debbie and Martyn Slyper celebrated their 25th Wedding Anniversary on 14th March.

Ilford Mr and Mrs M. Mordkowicz on their 55,h Wedding Anniversary.

Gena and Alan Phillips celebrated their 40th Wedding Anniversary on 11th June.

Mr and Mrs Len Summers on their Golden Wedding.

Melvyn and Norma Weinberg on their Ruby Wedding.

Sammy and Jesica Weisal on their Silver Wedding.

B a r M itzva h Mazal Tov to the following: Elstree Samuel Landau, Elstree Beis Hamedresh’s first barm itzvah boy celebrated his barmitzvah on 31s' May (9 Sivan) in Israel.

The Landau farmily donated a kiddush in Elstree on their return.

Ilford Mr and Mrs Grant on their son Scott’s Bar Mitzvah.

Yeshurun Mr & Mrs Gordon on their son Ronen’s Bar Mitzvah.

B a t M itzvah Mazal Tov to the following: Yeshurun Miriam Harris on May 3rd Lysette Moses on June 17th Gemma Harwood on June 23rd Abigail Greenaway on June 29th

A liya h Mazal Tov wishes to: Mr & Mrs Willie Ungar on their Aliyah.

Friends may contact Mr & Mrs Ungar on Tel: 00 972 (0)2 5872001 Fax: 00 972 (0)2 5872003

Q u a lification s Mazal Tov to the following: Ilford Jack and Sadie Biller on their grandson Matthew Rowland obtaining a BSc Honours Degree.

C on dolen ces

We offer our condolences to:-

Ilford Michael Rogers on the loss of his Father.

Sidney Palmer on the loss of his Wife.

Mr Jackson on the loss of his Wife.

Mr. Kanolik on the loss of his Father.

Ruth Franklin on the loss of her Father.

Hilda Marks on the loss of her Husband.

Hazel Bernstein on the loss of her Mother.

Helen Hymos on the loss of her Mother.

Marilyn Rood on the loss of her Mother.

Leslie Glickman on the loss of his Mother.

Marion Pelta on the loss of her Husband.

Philip Franklin on the loss of his Brother.

Philip Rome on the loss of his Father .

Sheila Bostoff on the loss of her Husband.

Malcolm Bostoff on the loss of his Brother.

Elsie Stanhill on the loss of her Husband.

Howard Stanhill on the loss of his Father.

Graham Rosenberg on the loss of his Father.

Ben Brill on the loss of his Wife.

Madeline Tobin on the loss of her Mother.

Milly Freedman on the loss of her Brother.

Yeshurun Hannah Caplin on the loss of her Husband, Dr.Henry Caplin.

Jonathan Supran on the loss of his Mother, Trudy Supran.

Stephen Deutsch on the loss of his Father.

Margaret Stitcher on the loss of her Father.

Minky Orenstein on the loss of her Mother.

Susan Mount on the loss of her Sister.

Renee Dudack on the loss of her Brother.

CONSTITUENT SYNAGOGUES

AFFILIATED SYNAGOGUES

CLAPTON FEDERATION SYNAGOGUE (Shaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;are Shomayim). (Incorporating Yavneh Synagogue), 47 Lea Bridge Road.

E5 9QB. Tel: 020 8806 4369. Secretary: W. Jacobs. Tel: 020 8989 5211.

BEIS NADVORNA BETH HAM EDRASH. 45 Darenth Road N 16. Tel: 020 8806 2030. Rav: Rabbi M Leifer.

Treas: Mr S Tessler.

CONGREGATION OF JACOB SYNAGOGUE. 351/355 Commercial Road, E l. Min: Rev M. Gingold.

CROYDON & DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE, The Almonds, 5 Shirley Oaks Road, Croydon, Surrey CR0 8YX. Tel: 020 8662 0011. All correspondence to The Secretaries: Mrs V Harris.

Tel: 01883 348939. Mrs B Harris. Tel: 020 8689 7442.

FIELDGATE STREET GREAT SYNAGOGUE. 41 Fieldgate Street, E l. Tel: 020 7247 2644. Secretary: Mrs D Jacobson.

EAST LONDON CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE. 30/40 Nelson Street, El 2DE. Tel: 020 7790 9809. Secretary: L. Gayer. Tel: 020 8554 5267.

FINCHLEY ROAD SYNAGOGUE (Sassover), 4 Helenslea Avenue, NW 11. Tel: 020 8455 4305. Rav: Rabbi S. Rubin.

ELSTREE BETH HAMEDRASH. 6 Allum Lane, Elstree, Herts WD6 3PH. Rav: Rabbi D. Tugenhaft. Secretary: Mr M. Slyper.

Tel: 020 8953 8444.

LEYTONSTONE & WANSTEAD SYNAGOGUE. 2 Fillebrook Road, E ll. Secretary: Cllr. L. Braham Tel: 020 8539 0088.

FINCHLEY CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE, 2 Redboume Avenue, N3 2BS. Tel: 020 8346 1892. Rav: Rabbi Z. Telsner. Secretary: M. Mo Her. Tel: 020 8203 2822.

LOUGHTON, CHIGWELL & DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE. Borders Lane, Loughton, Essex, IG 10 3HT. Tel: 020 8508 0303.

Min: Rev. J.D. Lorraine. Secretary: Mrs M. Lewis.

HENDON BEIS HAMEDRASH 65 Watford Way, Hendon NW4 3AQ. Tel: 020 8202 2263. Rav: Dayan Y.Y. Lichtenstein. Hon Secretary: Z. Shenkin.

NEW WIMBLEDON & PUTNEY DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE. Secretary: Mrs R. Diamond. Tel 020 8778 6669.

ILFORD FEDERATION SYNAGOGUE. 14/16 Coventry Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 4QR. Tel: 020 8554 5289. Rav: Rabbi H. Belovski.

SPRINGFIELD SYNAGOGUE, 202 Upper Clapton Road, E5.

Tel: 020 8806 2377. Rav. Dayan I. Gukovitski. Secretary: L. Blackman. Tel: 01702 340 762.

MACHZIKEI HADASS SYNAGOGUE. Highfield Road, NW11. Rav: Rabbi C. Pearlman. Hon. Secretary: R. Shaw. Tel: 020 8204 1887.

STAMFORD HILL BETH HAM EDRASH. 50 C lapton Common, E5 9AL. Rav: Dayan D. Grynhaus. Secretary: M. Chontow. Tel: 020 8800 5465.

NETZACH ISRAEL SYNAGOGUE. 281 Golders Green Road, NW11 9JJ. Rav: Rabbi A. Doron. Secretary: Tova Cohen: 020 8455 0097

TOTTENHAM HEBREW CONGREGATION. 366a High Road, N17 9HT. Tel: 020 8808 4698. Minister: Rabbi S Lewis.

Secretary: Dr S.S. Cohen.

OHEL JACOB SYNAGOGUE (Ilford Beth Hamedrash), (Incorporating the Ilford Rabbinical College) 1st Floor, rear of 476/478 Cranbrook Road, Ilford. Essex IG2 2LE. Rav: Rabbi R. Godlewsky. Secretary: Mrs R. Pressman. Tel: 020 8550 4596.

WALTHAM FOREST HEBREW CONGREGATION. (Queens Road) 140 Boundary Road, E l7 Tel: 020 8509 0775. Minister Rabbi M Davis. Secretary: A Wolpert.

SHOMREI HADATH SYNAGOGUE, 64 Burrard Road, Hampstead, London NW6 1DD. Rav: Rabbi Mordechai Fachler.

Secretary: Mrs J. Segal. Tel: 020 7431 0017.

WEST END GREAT SYNAGOGUE (Beth Hasepher & Soho), 32 Great Cumberland Place, W1H 7DJ. Tel: 020 7724 8121.

Secretary: S.B. Levy.

SINAI SYNAGOGUE, 54 Woodstock Avenue, NW 11 9RJ. Tel: 020 8455 6876. Rav: Rabbi B. Knopfler. Secretary: Mr E. Cohen.

YESHURUN SYNAGOGUE. Femhurst Gardens, Stonegrove, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 7PH. Tel 020 8952 5167. Rav: Dayan G. Lopian. Secretary: D. Cohen.

WEST HACKNEY SYNAGOGUE AND MONTAGUE ROAD BETH HAMEDRASH, 233 Amhurst Road, E8 2BS. Chairman: I. Leigh Tel: 020 8550 9543.

23

JT'2

jo ki W > w vO *

FEDERATION SYNAGOGUE S 65 W atford Way, London, NW 4 3AQ. Tel: 020 8202 2263 Fax: 020 8203 0610

HONORARY OFFICERS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

President: A Finlay

G D Coleman

BURIAL SOCIETY

Vice-Presidents: B Mire

Administrator: M L Stuart

Treasurers (Federation): L N ew mark & P Westbrook

Sexton: N Kahler

Treasurers (Burial Society): H Dony & N Bruckheimer

Tel: 0 2 0 8202 3903 Fax: 020 8203 0610 Out o f hours answerphone: 020 8202 3903

CEMETERIES:

BETH DIN Emeritus Rav Rashi: Dayan M Fisher

M ontague Road, Edmonton N 18 Tel: 020 8807 2268

Rosh Beth Din: Dayan Y Y Lichtenstein

Upminster Road North, Rainham, Essex Tel: 01708 552825

Dayanim: Dayan M D Elzas, Dayan B Berkovits

During the winter months both cem eteries are open daily, except Shabbos and Yom Tov, from 9am until dusk.

Registrar: Rabbi Z Unsdorfer

During British Summer Time gates are open until 5pm and during the month o f Ellul until 6pm.

Enquiries to the Registrar Tel: 020 8202 2263

24

F E D E R A T IO N O F S Y N A G O G U E S K A S H R U S B O A R D Chairman: Mr A. Finlay Director o f Kashrus: Dayan M. D. Elzas The following establishments are licensed by the Federation Kashrus Board and are under the Supervision o f the Beth Din o f the Federation o f Synagogues: CA TERERS: PARK LANE HOTEL Piccadilly, London W1Y 8BX

HCH CATERING 9 Woodland Way, London NW7 2JP SILBERHORN 11 Highfield Ave, London NW11

020 7499 6321 Fax: 020 7290 7566 Mob: 079 4115 3575

020 8906 1208

020 8458 7708

RESTAURANTS: AVIV RESTAURANT 87 High Street, Edgware

020 8952 2484

CASSIT, 225 Golders Green Rd.,London, NW11 9PN

020 8455 8195

KINNERET 313 Hale Lane, Edgware, Middx HA8 7AX

020 8958 4955 020 8958 2229

SAMI’S, 157 Brent Street, London NW4

020 8203 8088

THE WHITE HOUSE 10 Bell Lane, Hendon NW4

020 8203 2427

MANUFACTURERS: El-Al Kosher Catering, J. Moldovan, Quality & Flavour (Fish) The Walnut Tree (with Kosher for Passover Seal)

020 8897 6136 020 8985 5791 020 8959 6626

DELICATESSENS AND SHOPS: PELTER STORES 82 Edgware Way, Edgware, Middx.

HOTELS: GOLDERS GREEN HOTEL 147/149 Golders Green Road, London NW11

020 8958 6910

020 8458 7127

THE FEDERATION HEBREW CLASSES Director o f Education: Rabbi Ronen Broder Loughton, Chigwell & District Hebrew Classes, Borders Lane, Loughton Headteacher: Mrs D Miller Ilford Hebrew Classes, 16 Coventry Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 4QR Headteacher: Mrs C Rodal

‘A l l A B C 4 RD*

HAPPY ROSH HASHANAH! YOU CAN HELP ‘AT.T. ABOARD’ TO HELP THE JEWISH COMMUNITY ALL ABOARD operates 18 Charity Shops which help to raise money for UK registered Jewish Charities...

THERE MUST BE ONE NEAR YOU! We would appreciate your help in any o f the following ways: Donating saleable clothes, toys, crockery, bric-a-brac etc

Yeshurun Hebrew Classes, Femhurst Gardens, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 7PH Headteacher: Vacant

Joining our friendly team o f volunteers in one o f our shops Becoming a volunteer collector fo r a few hours each week (petrol expenses repaid) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE PHONE

Kindergartens: Loughton Synagogue, Yeshurun Synagogue.

HEAD OFFICE: 020 8381 1717 EMAIL: info@allaboardshops.com WEBSITE: www.allaboardshops.com If you cannot deliver to your local shop, please call our collections/donations hotline number:

020 8731 1444

Judge Our Company...

The Company Keep!

De Dietrich

BOSCH •

m i*. ;

^

W$%x.

Xtvtfm Q d s c S a o<xrprorT»B

wmm

•*r§meg tWfavww*

5s •

•-

BUILT-IN A M L U N C I t

'S .'.V

W

*

///* z

'<■•

...and then remember we guarantee* you lowest price!

For Everything Electrical In The Kitchen ‘ ask in-store for details

Tel:

020 8453 7729

Fax:

020 8452 8800

Email: thaineselectric@berrys-direct.co.uk

or 020 8551 4849 9.00am

9.00pm

www.hilton.com/uk

Four stars, two bars, two banqueting suites and

several kosher caterers. Naturally, we appreciate the

a specially built kosher kitchen. At Hilton Watford each

particular bond that exists between caterer and client,

of our banqueting suites is flexible enough to hold

so if you want to bring in your own, be our guest.

from 60 to 375 guests, which is terrific if you've got a

Our staff will be there, and they've got the expertise

big guest list. On the other hand, you can't tell people

(and the common sense) to ensure every detail is

that, 'sorry, I'd love to invite you, but there just

taken care of.

isn't enough room/

So the next time you've got reason to celebrate,

All right, enough about the guest list, what about

we'd love to celebrate with you. When you need us,

the most important detail - the food? Now, not that

give us a call on 01923 235 881 so we can talk it

we're dropping any names you understand, but you

through. In the meantime, from all of us here at

should know that we come highly recommended by

Hilton Watford, we wish you a Happy New Year.

d

Hilton Watford, Elton Way, Watford, Hertfordshire WD2 8HA.

welcome to Hilton

time

L argest s e le c tio n for your B B Q