Tishri 1979

v4 r- ■ V

U

*

Ea >

///,///// <

THE LIGHT Published by HAMAOR PI BLISHI\G COMMITTEE

Vol. 17, Nos. 3-4

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI, 5740

rrn

CONTENTS Editorial ....................................................................

Fulfilment of Torah Chinuch, by Dayan Z. J. Alony Shemittah, by the late Dayan Dr. I. Grunfeld, z.l. ...

Principle of Preparation, by Rabbi Dr. Chaim J. Cooper .............................................................

The Human Touch, by Rabbi I. L. Abrams .............

The Still, Small Voice, by the Rev. I. Nodel .............

1-2 3-5 6-7 8-12 14-15 15

lWhat is Worthwhile in our Life?’ by the Rev. W. Wolfson .........................................................

High Holy-days in Smaller Communities, by the Rev. Malcolm Weisman ...........................................

Rabbi I. J. Reines, byL. Elgrod .................................

Books .........................................................................

Reports .....................................................................

Obituary .....................................................................

16-18 18-19 23 25-26 28 28

GATESHEAD YESHIVAH JUBILEE 5690 5740 HIS YEAR, 5740 (November, 1979) marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Gateshead Yeshivah, currently — no doubt — the most important and renowned institution of higher Torah study in Europe. This jubilee is an occasion giving deep satisfaction, great joy and profound spiritual elevation, not only to its many Talmidim, past and present, but to the whole of Anglo-Jewry. It is also — as, indeed, it should be, an occasion for jubilation, as well as pride, to Anglo-Jewry.

Thanks to a small group of people with foresight, zeal and tremendous enthusiasm, who were responsible for its original establishment, the Yeshiva has grown from small beginnings into a formidable spiritual power-house, which illuminates, enriches and enlightens thousands of Jewish homes within our respective communities. During the past 50 years, this great academy of Torah learning has produced hundreds of great Talmudic scholars, to be found in almost all continents, as well as thousands of learned, scholarly, G-d-fearing baalei batim, who have, in turn, changed the face of Anglo-Jewry, exercising a considerable influence on the quality of the religious and spiritual life of our communities in this island, as well as beyond it.

Its world-famous Roshei Hayeshivah and spiritual

T

\W".'-Vv" !' i

i

guides and mentors, themselves products of the great Yeshivot of pre-war Eastern Europe, have succeeded in implanting into the souls, hearts and minds of their Talmidim a love for learning, a thirst for knowledge, a burning desire to acquaint and familiarise themselves with the great treasures of the Torah — a Torah so vast and deep, so comprehensive and all-embracing that even were any man to live a thousand years, he would not be able to reach even its fringes. Gateshead has created a climate within our midst where young boys are prepared to defer their university studies for several years and devote themselves to Torah study, to drink from its living waters and thus equip themselves with the protective spiritual armoury of Torah and Yirat Shamayim, so that, later on, they should be able to face lite secure and safe from the damaging and dangerous influences of the current trends in the non-Torah world.

One need not be a great historian to realise and appreciate the importance of Yeshivot to our very existence, and the vital role they played in the past and still play, in the lite ot our people. Our rabbis in the Talmud always speak of Batei Knesset and Batei Midrash — houses of prayer and houses of study — for only these two institutions, when together, are the safe and sure guarantee, the best insurance policy, for our spiritual survival.

Page Two

SEPTEM BER, 1979 — TISH R I, 5740

The concept of a Yeshivah as an academy of religious and theological study appears in the Talmud (Yom a) in reference to the Patriarchal age. We are told that, throughout their lives, A braham , Isaac and Jacob and, subsequently, their descendants, “ sat” in Yeshivot.

Even before their time, mention is made in many sources of the Yeshivah o f Shem and Ever, where Jacob himself studied for 14 years, an academy which was open to all men who wished to come closer to G-d and increase their spiritual appreciation. Its function was to wean them away from idol-worship and teach them that there was a suprem e Ruler of the universe, to Whom all owed absolute allegiance and Who had laid down seven basic norms of human conduct to enable civilised society to exist and function. We further find that, when Jacob em barked on his journey into Egypt, he sent his son Judah on to Goshen ahead of the other brothers. O ur Rabbis say that this was for the purpose of establishing a Yeshivah there, so that Jacob’s family

THE

Jietl) But of tl)t jfeberation of is>pnagogueg THE RAV RASHI AND DAYANIM OF THE

EXTEND MOST CORDIAL WISHES TO THE CHIEF RABBI, THE HAHAM, THE PRESIDING RABBI AND RABBINATE OF THE UNION, THEIR RESPECTIVE BATEI DIN, THE BATEI DIN

OF THE

RABBANIM

PROVINCES,

AND

AND

MINISTERS,

TO

THE

ALL

PRESI­

DENT, HONORARY OFFICERS, MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND GENERAL COUNCIL AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES WITH THEIR FAMILIES, TO MEDINAT YISRAEL AND KLAL YISROEL THROUGHOUT THE WORLD FOR A

n a to

n V iiu i D i t o i n , , n r w

n i nn n

would have the opportunity of continuing their study houses even while in exile from their homeland.

When Jerusalem was beleagured by the, mighty Roman arm ies, the great sage Rabbi Yochanan ben Z akai, given the unique opportunity of seeking a favour from the E m peror Vespasian, asked not for Jerusalem itself to be spared from destruction — as one might have expected — but for Yavneh (a small town some distance from the capital) and its sages to be perm itted to develop into a Torah centre. Ever since, Yeshivot have existed and functioned wherever Jews have happened to be dwelling — in Babylon and. later on, in Spain, Africa, G erm any, France, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania and Russia — upheld and m aintained at great sacrifice, because it has been realised that these centres of learning are the only lifeline to keep our people alive and united, holy and apart, strong and indestructible. We are told in the Talmud (Gittin) that the famous sage Rav, never signed his name on a docum ent, but made a drawing of a fish , alluding by this to the parable of the Sage Rabbi Akivah (Brachot) about the fox inviting the fish to come and live with him on dry land, thus avoiding the dangers of living in the water. For, just as fish can survive only in their own elem ent, so, too, can we as a nation survive only by holding fast to the tree of life which has stood us in good stead in the past and will surely sustain us in the future.

The necessity and purpose of establishing and maintaining Yeshivot are not merely to train and produce Rabbis and Dayanim , as well as other qualified and well-learned men to run our religious and cultural institutions, but also to produce a learned laity — decent, honest, high-principled Yidden, with high moral and ethical standards, as befits the decendants of the Patriarchs and the members of the Chosen People.

The spirit and high standard of Torah study and Derech Halim ud prevailing within the walls of the G ateshead Yeshivah is the same as we rem em ber of the great pre-war Polish and Lithuanian Yeshivot like Mir, Slobodka, Radin, G rodno, Kamenietz, Tels and many others. It is in the County of D urham , a county which, provides coal to warm and light our homes, that this great Torah centre was founded, to bring forth the light and warmth of Torah and authentic Judaism to us all.

Anglo-Jewry is grateful and indebted to this great spiritual lighthouse. We wish the Yeshivah and all those who guide its destinies even greater success in the future. We hope and pray that the Yeshivah will carry on their sacred work and vital task of disseminating knowledge of Torah among the masses of Jewry, thereby creating an educated, well-informed and spiritually orientated lay public, so that the prophecy of Isaiah: “ A nd all thy children shall be taught of the L-rd and great shall be the peace of thy children” , may be fulfilled in our time.

Leshana tovah tekhatevu vetechatemu

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI, 5740

THE LI GHT

THE FIT FILMENT OF TORAH CHINUCH: HOW AND WHAT Bv Dayan Z. J. Alonv Rosh Beth Din, Federation of Synagogues The Ramham, in The Laws of Talmud I orah (Ch. I) states: ‘i t is the father's duty to teach his young son Torah, as it is written: ‘You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them'. And. just as it is man s duty to teach his son. so is it his duty to teach his grandson, as it is written: ‘Make them known to your children and your children's children'. When shall a father begin to teach his son Torah?

As soon as the child begins to talk, he shall teach him the Torah verses — ‘The Torah which Moshe handed down to us*, and ‘Hear O Israel'. Later on. he shall gradually teach him more and more verses at a time until he reaches the age of six or seven. It all depends on the state of health of the child. He shall then take him to a Teacher In the Gemarah Succah (p. 42) it states: “ Tanu Rabanan. a child who knows how to shake the Lulav is obliged to perform the Mitzvah of Lulav: if he is able to wrap himself in a Tallit he is obliged to have Tzitzit: if he is able to keep the Tephillin and himself in a clean condition, the father is obliged to buy him Tephillin. When the child begins to talk, the father teaches him Torah and ‘Keriat Shema*. What part of Torah? Rav Hanuna said: ‘Torah tzivah lanu Moshe. morasho Kehilat Yaakov'". We see from this that the basic obligation for a father is to teach Torah to his child, and this is a" Torah obligation. Nevertheless. Chinuch training in Mitzvot for a father and. according to some opinions, even for a mother, is Midarabanan. as we see in many places in Talmud (Succah. p. 28: Chagigah, p. 4: Yumalu p. 82: Kiddushin. p. 30), and it is based on the verse: “Train a child in the way he should go and even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22). The Rambam in the Laws of Maachalot Asurot (Prohibited Foods) X V II, 27 states: “A minor who has eaten any prohibited foods, or if .he violated the Shabbat by doing prohibited work, the Beth Din are not obliged to restrain him because he has no intelligence: this applies only it he did this of his own accord, but to make him do it or to give him prohibited food is prohibited to anybody, even when the prohibition is ‘Midivrei Sofrim (Rabbinic Law). Thus it is prohibited to acquaint him with the violation of Shabbat or Yom-Tov. even with such violations as our sages prohibited". And he goes on to say that, although the Beth Din are not obliged to restrain a minor, it is a father's obligation to exert discipline upon his child and to restrain him in order to train him in Kedushah — sanctified Jewish life, as it is written: “Train a child . . . . etc".

The Gemarah in Yevamot (p. 114) declares: “To make a child eat or commit any Torah prohibition or an Issur Midarabanan is violating a Torah law: ‘Lo tachilum ( Vavikra II). (You shall not cause them to eat. . . .). This is the basis for the Rambam mentioned above. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chavim (Ch. 343) make, similar statements. From what we have said, it follows that the father has the obligation to implant and establish in his child the foundations of Torah and Emunah by learning Torah and having deep Emunah in the Yichud Hashem Yitbarach and the fulfilment of Mitzvot. But Chinuch covers the entire Torah-true Jewish wav of life, not merely to restrain the child from doing prohibited things but, indeed, to ensure the Kiyum Hamitzvot, the performance of the positive Mitzvot.

The question is, does the Mitzvah of Chinuch require from the father that he should train his child to perform the complete Mitzvot in the same way as an adult Jew, or is even a “chatzi shiur" — a part of the Mitzvot — enough for the &

Page Three

father to have performed the Mitzvah of Chinuch? We find the Rashba in Succah (p. 2) referring to the case of Hileni Hamalkah. who was sitting with the children in the Succah.

And the Gemarah quotes the Mishna in Succah (p. 28) to the effect that a minor who can sit in the Succah by himself, without his mother, has to be trained to sit in the Succah to fulfil the Mitzvah of Chinuch. The Gemarah says that he has to sit in a Succah which is kosher for an adult. On this the Rashba comments that from this we derive that the Mitzvah of Chinuch is fulfilled only when we train the child to perform the Mitzvah completely. “ behechsher gamur k gadol” — in complete perfection, like an adult — as it says: “Train a child . . . . etc." And the Gemarah in Eruvin (p.

40) says we have to be concerned that a child should not do a Mitzvah incorrectly lest, when he grows up. he will recollect the incorrect way in which he performed the Mitzvah when he was an infant, and this will mislead him. And the Rashba concludes that he finds it necessary to state this, because there were Chachamim who held the mistaken view that, even with a part of a Mitzvah, the Mitzvah ot Chinuch is fulfilled.

The same view is expressed by the Ritvah on Succah (p. 2) who goes on to explain that the verse: “Train the child . . . . etc.” indicates that the very purpose and aim of the Mitzvah of Chinuch is to train him so that he should do the Mitzvah completely and correctly, so that he should grow up to do likewise in his adolescence. He concludes with the same remarks as the Rashba.

The same view' is expressed by the Rambam in The Laws o f Chametz and M atzah. when he says (Ch. VI. 1) that it is a Mitzvah to eat Matzah on the night of Nissan 15. and on this night there is an obligation (a chov) and by eating a kezavit Matzah we fulfill the obligation of the Mitzvah. In Paragraph 10, he says: “ For a child"who can eat bread on an ordinary night, there is the Mitzvah of Chinuch to train him by giving him a kezavit of M atzah". So we see from the Rambam that the Mitzvah of Chinuch is performed in the same fashion and measure as by the adult Jew. Let us note a view' on the Mitzvah of Chinuch that differs from those mentioned above. The Gemarah in Succah (p.

46) says that Reb Zirah said that a person should not hand over a Lulav and Etrog to a child on the first day of Succot in order that he should acquire it to be solely his. and so that he should re-assign it to the person who gave it to him (because a child can acquire something so that it can become lawfully his. but he cannot give it back to an adult, s'ince a child cannot assign anything of his own. Hence it w ill remain in the possession of the child), since an adult receiving a Lulav from a child will be using a Lulav that is not his.

So the advice is for a father who has a child and therefore has the obligation of Chinuch himself to recite the blessing first on the Lulav and Etrog on the first day. and only then to perform the Mitzvah of Chinuch and hand over the Lulav and Etrog to his child. (The reason for all this is that, on the first day, we cannot fulfil the Mitzvah with a borrowed Lulav and Etrog as we need 100 per cent “shelo" in acquisition and belonging. So says the Gemarah Succah (p.41), and so says the Rambam in the Laws o f Lulav (Ch. \ 111. 10). In the same paragraph, he goes on to say that we do not give the Lulav to a child, because, although the child acquires it lawfully, he cannot re-assign it according to the Torah, i.e. he cannot return it so that it should belong again to the owner.

The problem that now arises is. if the principle is observed, that the Mitzvah of Chinuch is performed in such a way that the child fulfils the Mitzvah as completely as an adult, w hich requires that the Lulav and Etrog shall be “shelo" on the first day of Yom Tov, it implies that, once the Lulav is given to the child, no other person will be, able to perform the Mitzvah correctly with this particular Lulav on the first day.

Page Four

SEPTEM BER. 1979 — T ISH R I, 5740

For a solution to this problem, we find in the Hagahot Harosh on Succah (p. 46) quoted in the name of the Or Zerua (Rivon). that the father should retain the Lulav and Etrog in his own hands when he gives it to a child, so that, while the child holds the Lulav, the father does not let it out of his hands. He goes on to sav that there is another possible way: that the father or the adult should lav the Lulav and Etrog down and the children take it of their own accord and recite the blessing over it. The same advice and method are suggested by the Mordechai. So we see that both the Mordechai and the Rivon have as their view that the Mitzvah of Chinuch is fulfilled even when the child does not perform it completely and perfectly like an adult, (since, according to their method, the child does not acquire it so that it becomes lawfully his property — see Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Berurah 658). Thus, says the Birkei Yosef, we see that, according to the Rivon and the Mordechai. the father fulfils the Mitzvah of Chinuch even when the Mitzvah has not been fulfilled perfectly like an adult.

At this point let us try to understand what the Mishnah and Gemarah say in Succah (p. 42): “A child who understands how to shake the Lulav is obliged to shake the Lulav". The Rambam, in Hilchot Lulav (Ch. VII. 19). and the Tur. on the Shulchan Aruch (657). say the same. The question is asked. Why does the child need to know the ‘Na'anuvim' (waving the Lulav in various directions), since, according to the Iorah the Mitzvah is performed simply by taking the Lulav, and the Na'anuyim are only Mid’erabanan? The Bikurei Ya akov explains that, by merely taking the Lulav without the Na'anuyim, although the Mitzvat Lulav is performed and there is no impediment to the Mitzvah, nevertheless, the child does not appreciate the function and the Mitzvah of Lulav. It is only by fulfilling the Mitzvah as required, with the Na’anuyim, that the child fully understands it as a Mitzvah.

In the Hagahot Maimoniot on the Rambam mentioned above, the author quotes the Yerushalmi: “A child who understands how to shake the Lulav is obliged to do so — but that is not the end of the matter (not simply to shake it): he must shake it as ritually required". The expression used by the Yerushalmi is: “Lo sof davar". Only when the child has grown sufficiently in intelligence to understand the full functionary performance of the Mitzvah. and onlv then, does the father have to perform with him the Mitzvah of Chinuch.

But does this mean to say that, before the intelligent age of the child, the Mitzvah of Chinuch does not begin for the child in any shape or form ? I he Rabenu Manoah on Rambam.

Hilchot Lulav (Ch. VIII). explaining that what is stated: "We shall not give the Lulav to a child on the first dav of

THE PRESIDENT AND HONORARY OFFICERS OF THE FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES EXTEND BEST W ISHES TO THE RAV RASHI, DAYANIM, MEMBERS, STAFF, FRIENDS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND TO KLAL YISROEL FOR

m itt n » T im n r r r D

n rnn

Succot" . . . deals with a child who understands and knows how to make the Na'anuyim and why we make Na'anuyim and that, since the child is at such a stage of development in his intelligence, he can therefore acquire the Lulav, but before that age and intelligence there is no objection to a child taking the Lulav and even to be given the Lulav. since he does not acquire it. Thus, we derive from here that only when the child has intelligence to understand when we explain to him why we make the Na'anuvim and how to perform the Na'anuyim does the obligation of the Mitzvah of Chinuch fall on the father to train his child to perform the Mitzvah of Lulav and Etrog with all its details like an adult.

But as long as the child lacks the intelligence to understand the meaning of “How and what", then there is still the Mitzvah of Chinuch on the child only to the degree and requirement: “ Lehargilo bemitzvot" — “to acquaint him with Mitzvot". without all the details of the Mitzvah. So when the Gemarah says: “ We shall not give and hand over the Lulav to a child on the first day of Succot", that deals with a child who knows how to make the Na'anuyim and why we make the Na'anuyim. hence the obligation on his father to train him in all the details of the Mitzvah and for that reason the father himself has to fulfil the Mitzvah of Lulav on the first day of Succot before handing it over to the child. But for a child who has not reached that stage of intelligence, when the Mitzvah of Chinuch is only to acquaint him. then even a loaned Lulav is enough, so the father can give it to him or exercise one of the various methods mentioned by the Mordechai and the Rivon.

It is important to mention the Tur (657) who states: “A minor who knows how to shake the Lulav. the father has to acquire for him a Lulav in order to train him in that Mitzvah". And the Shulchan Aruch (657) says: “A minor who knows how to do the Na'anuyim Kedino (as the law requires), the father has to acquire a Lulav. etc. for him".

The Magen Avraham explains that “ Kedino" means that he knows and is able to perform all the Na'anuvim as required and, as we explained, that in order to facilitate the child's performance of the Mitzvah like an adult, the father who has that Mitzvah of Chinuch shall buy the child his own Lulav.

This fundamental principle, that we have various stages and functions in the Mitzvah of Chinuch. is clearly stated in the Mishna in Yoma (p. 82): “Children shall not be ‘afflicted' and made to fast on Yom Kippur. but we train them a year or two before they become adult, in order that they shall become ‘regilim bemitzvot'" — to acquaint them with Mitzvot. The Shulchan Aruch (616) states: “A healthy child of nine or ten years of age is trained to fast; that is, if thev were used to eat at a certain time in the morning, they shall eat an hour or two later, and so we can extend it according to their physical strength. Only from eleven years do we train them that they should complete the fast". And so says the Rambam in Hilchot Shevitat Asar (Ch. 2), a minor less than nine years of age we do not make him fast in order not to cause physical danger. The Ran on this Mishna quotes the comment of Rashi, who says that we are not obliged to withhold food on Yom Kippur from children of less than nine years of age. And on the Rambam's explanation that we are not allowed to withhold food from them before that age he goes on to explain that, although in all Mitzvot. if the parents desire to advance the Mitzvah of Chinuch for a child to an earlier age, it is permitted, and we then train the child to do the Mitzvah as is required with all its details like an adult, but concerning the fast of Yom Kippur. we are not allowed to afflict the child before the time that our Chachamim have set. So we see the established concept within the framework of the Mitzvah of Chinuch, that there is a type of Chinuch for the child to perform the Mitzvah but not as the Din requires, and the purpose and aim of that Chinuch is simply to

SEPTEMBER. 1979-- TISHRI. 5740

THE L I G H T

acquaint the child with the performance of Mitzvot.

Likewise, we see in the Mitzvah of 1zitzit when the Rambam says in Hilchot Tzitzit (HI. 9) that a child who knows how to wrap himself in Tzitzit is obliged to observe the Mitzvah of Tzitzit in order to “train him in Mitzvot". On this, the Hagahot Maimoniot quotes the Yerushalmi: "Lo sot davar — this is not the whole requirement. In addition, he needs to know how to wear the Tzitzit. two in front and two at the nack at the time of Keriat Shema. And although the Yerushalmi savs that this is not the completion of the Vlitzvah of Chinuch, this is indeed not the first stage in :raining a child to wear Tzitzit. as we see in Shulchan Aruch XVII. 3) which states that from the time a child understands low to wrap himself in Tzitzit and why. the father is obliged ;o procure for him Tzitzit in order to train him into that Vlitzvah. And the Remo in the Hagahot adds that, in addition, the child should know how to arrange the front and lack Tzitzit and the whole Tzitzit at the time ot Keriat khema. On this same din. the Sha'arei T shuva tells us in the lame of Elivah Rabbah and Sefer Yeraim that we should put i Talit Kattan on a child from the time he begins to talk and lot later than three vears of ace! Likewise, we see in Ch. 472

Page Five

that, at the Pesach Seder not only should we give four cups ol wine to intelligent children who understand us when we explain to them about Geulat Mitzraim. but. indeed, even infants should be given four small cups of wine. We likewise train our infants to taste the Kiddush every Shabbat and Yom-Tov. We find the Magen Avraham (343) telling us that the Mitzvah of Chinuch varies with the age and intelligence of the child. The Rav. in the same chapter of Slwlchan Aruch. savs that the time and adaptation ot “ how and what for the child in connection with the performance of the Mitzvah of Chinuch depends upon the age. intelligence and health of every child. As the child grows and advances, so should the Mitzvah of Chinuch advance with the child in Torah, in Mitzvot. and in Yahadut.

And so it is with most of the Mitzvot. that we begin Chinuch even while they are in their infancy. The Mishna Berurah (215) says (basing himself on the Rambam Hilchot Berachot, I) that an infant when he makes berachot before eating, can make the beracha with the “Shem Umalchut . but we do not answer “ A m en". But when a child with intelligence makes a berachah. we do say “ Am en" after the berachah.

T H E F E D E R A T IO N O F S Y N A G O G U E S DERASHOT IN HALACHAH AND AGGADAH WILL BE DELIVERED ON SHABBAT SHUVA, SEPTEMBER 29. AS FOLLOWS: Rabbi E. Salasnik

The Rav Rashi

SHA’ARE SHOMAYIM SYNAGOGUE, 47 Lea Bridge Road. E. 5.

First and second day Rosh Hashanah

Before Tekiyot

1

WALTHAM FOREST HEBREW CONGREGATION, Boundary Road, E. 17.

Before Musaf

Rosh Beth Din, Dayan Z. J. Alony

Rabbi A. F. Herling

GREAT GARDEN STREET SYNAGOGUE,

EAST LONDON CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE,

Greatorex Street. E. 1.

After Mincha

Nelson Street, E. 1.,

After Mincha

1 ,

■

Rabbi M. Aaronberg

Rosh Beth Din, Dayan Z. J. Alony

FIELDGATE STREET GREAT SYNAGOGUE, Fieldgate Street, E. 1.

Second day Rosh Hashanah

Before Tekiyot

SHEPHERD’S BUSH, FULHAM & DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE, Poplar Grove, W. 6.

Dayan P. Braceiner

Rabbi A. Greenberg

FINCHLEY CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE,

WEST HACKNEY SYNAGOGUE, Amhurst Road, E. 8.

Redbourne Avenue, N. 3.

After Mincha

Before Musaf

Upper Clapton Road, E. 5.

After Mincha

1 1

FIELDGATE STREET GREAT SYNAGOGUE,

SHOMREI HADATH SYNAGOGUE, After Mincha

Fieldgate Street, E. 1.

After Mincha

Rev. I. Nodel

Rabbi M. Smith After Mincha

1

Coventry Road, Ilford.

After Mincha

Rev. M. Gingold

Rabbi B. Blau

STAMFORD HILL BETH HAMEDRASH,

1 1

WOOLWICH & DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE, Anglesea Road, S. E. 27.

Before Musaf

1

Before Mincha Rosh Beth Din, Dayan Z. J. Alony

Rabbi G. Lopian

OHEL JACOB BETH HAMEDRASH,

YESHURUN SYNAGOGUE,

Cranbrook Road Ilford.

Yom Kippur. O ctoberl.

Femhurst Gardens, Edgware

1

ILFORD FEDERATION SYNAGOGUE,

SINAI SYNAGOGUE,

Lampard Grove, N. 16.

1

Rev. L. Gayer

Dayan C. D. Kaplin

Woodstock Avenue, N. W. 11

After Mincha

SPRINGFIELD SYNAGOGUE,

AHAVATH SHALOM SYNAGOGUE,

527 Finchley Road, N. W. 3

1

Rabbi I. Gukovitzki

Dayan Dr. S. Herman, B. A., Ph. D. Clifford Way, N. W. 10.

Before Musaf

Before Mincha

1

Before Musaf

1 1

Page Six

SEPTEM B ER , 1979 — TISH R I, 5740

1 1Nn n SHEMITTAH

By (he late Dayan I)r. I. Grunfcld, z.l.

1.

The President and Honorary O fficers of the

SHA’ARE SHOMAYIM SYNAGOGUE 47 LEA BRIDGE ROAD, E.5

extend N ew Year greetings to the Chazan, O fficials and m em bers of the Synagogue and their fam ilies, and to the President and Hon. O fficers of the Feder­ ation of Synagogues, and all their m em bers and fam ilies.

J. SAMUEL & SON J A M E S S A M U E L 1797 - 1866

MEMORIALS & RENOVATIONS

All work under the personal supervision of Mr. Louis M. Samuel, a direct descendant of Haham Moses Cohen D ’Azevedo

The Law o f Shemittah and its underlying ideas Shemittah is not just a single commandment. If one considers it together with Yovel, with which it has a close halakhic and ideological connection, one finds that its basic underlying ideas belong to the warp and woof of the Jewish philosophy of life. In each generation of our age-old history, there arose religious thinkers who delved deeply into the meaning of Shemittah. The sages of Midrash, Mishnah and Talmud, the Geonim, Maimonides in his More Nebuchim, Abarbanel in his Nachlat Avot, Aaron haLevy in his Sefer haHinukh, Estori Haparchi in his Caftor vaPherakh, Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra, Or haHayim and other commentators on the Torah, ancient, mediaeval or modern — among the latter notably S. R. Hirsh — Saul Morteira in his Giv’at Shaul, Jonathan Eibeshitz in his Tiferet Yehonathan, Kalisher in his Sefer haB'rit, Kook in his Igrot haRe iah Orot haKodesh and Shabbat haAretz, and many more have enriched our national thought by returning again and again to the institutions of Shemittah and Yovel for inspiration.

The Law of Shemittah is an integral part of a whole system of religio-social legislation which is the basis of the constitution of the Torah State. The Sabbatical Year is the greatest act on the part of a whole nation of recognition that G-d is the sole, one and real Owner and Master of their country, inasmuch as in that year they lay it in homage at His feet, and refrain from exercising their rights of ownership to their lands. The concept of Shemittah follows from the concept of the Sabbath. Hence the expression “Sabbatical Year” — Shnat Shabbaton. It is no coincidence that in Exodus, where the law of Shemittah is first mentioned it is immediately followed by a reference to the Law of the Sabbath, for there is an intimate connection between the idea of the Sabbath of the week (Shabbat Bereshit) and the Sabbath of the land (Shabbat Ha’aretz).

The great concept of Sabbath is that on one day of the week man should renounce every exercise of the purposeful control of natural objects and forces. He should cease from every act of human power in order to proclaim G-d as the source of all power. By refraining from human creativity on the Sabbath day, the Jew pays silent homage to the Creator.

A similar concept underlies the law of the Sabbatical Year of which it is said: “And the land shall keep a Sabbath unto the Lord” .

What the Sabbath Day is for the position of the individual in the world, the Sabbath Year is for the position of the nation in the Holy Land. However, while the purpose of the Sabbath Day is the proclamation of G-d as the Creator and Master of the Universe as a whole, the aim of the Sabbatical Year is the proclamation of G-d as the ultimate Owner of the Holy Land.

This ideological difference shows itself in a practical manner in the kind of work which is forbidden to be carried out during the Sabbatical Year on the land as compared to the kind of work referring to man's general activities which is forbidden on the Sabbath Day. Following the general concept of the Sabbath Day and the Sabbatical Year as stated before, the range of forbidden work on the Sabbath Day is wider than that of the agricultural work forbidden during the Sabbatical Year.

2.

SIDNEY STREET, LONDON, El 2EH Telephone: 01 -247 5181 4256

Laws referring to the Sabbatical Year (1) Forbidden Work (Malachot Asurot). The Torah forbids the performance of certain agricultural work in our fields and orchards during the Seventh Year and commands us to treat that which grows. of itself as ownerless property. The categories of work forbidden by the Torah have been extended by Rabbinical Law. Because this year, 5740, is a Shemittah Year, we are reprinting in this, and following issues, an article on the subject that first appeared in hamaor in 5733.

t h e

l i g h t

Page Seven

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI. 5740

Agricultural work is divided into two categories: (a) Tilling the soil; (b) work on trees. The Torah forbids sowing and harvesting, pruning the vine and the cutting of grapes. Anyone who carries out these activities is punishaole by Torah law. Planting falls under the category of sowing and pruning, and is as such forbidden by Torah law but not punishable, because it is not directly mentioned as a prohibition in the Scriptural text (Lev. 25, 4), but is derived from it by logical deduction. The same applies to ploughing. Pruning is, as far as Torah law goes, only forbidden in connection with vines, but not with other trees.

Our Sages, however, have forbidden also other agricultrual activities such as clearing fields of stones, weeding, manuring: hoeing, watering, etc. The details cannot be dealt with here.

(2) The Produce of the Seventh Year. Agricultural products are divided into two categories: (a) Produce of the soil which only grows if it is sown annually, such as grain, pulse and vegetables; (b) the fruit of trees which grows every year on its own.

As far as Biblical law is concerned (Mideorayta), all these products are permitted for food. This applies equally to produce which was sown in the sixth year and grew in the seventh, to the after-growth (Sefikhim, i.e., the growth caused by seeds that accidentally fell to the ground in the sixth year and grew of their own in the seventh, and to produce of the ground which had been sown illegally, in contravention of the law of the Sabbatical Year.

(This is the view of a majority of Halakhists; see Hazon Ish, Shevi’it 26; Seder haShevi’it, 1 and 3. Some authorities hold that the produce of illegal sowing during the Shemittah Year is forbidden by Torah Law. Similarly, fruit which grows on trees in the seventh year is permitted for consumption by Torah law.)

However, our Sages have forbidden such after-growth in order to prevent the would-be transgressors of the laws referring to the Sabbatical Year from sowing their fields and pretending that the produce of this forbidden sowing is only after-growth from the previous year. (See Mishnah Shevi'it 9, 1; Maimonides, Shemittah VeYovel 4, 2). This decree does not apply to fruit of trees growing in the Seventh Year, neither to vegetables that were sown in the sixth year and sprouted in that year, although the time of their main growth fell into the Seventh Year.

(3) The Sanctity of the Produce of the Seventh Year (Kedushat Payrot Shevi’it). (a) Produce of the Seventh Year which is permitted for consumption, i.e., fruits of trees and such grain and vegetables to which the Rabbinical prohibition of after-growths does not apply are subject to certain rules which flow from the sacred character of that produce. Everyone who owns a field, a vineyard or an orchard, must abandon (mafkir) absolute ownership of them in the Sabbatical Year, insofar as he must guarantee free access without let or hindrance to all those who want to collect or eat the produce of his field during the Sabbatical Year, (b) No trade must be done with the produce thus collected, be it grain, vegetable or fruit of trees (issur sekhora). (c) The produce of the Seventh Year must be used only in the way prescribed by the law. (Mishnah Shevit’it Chs. 7 and 8b; Talmud Baba Kama 102b; Sukka 40a; Jerusalem Talmud Shevi it Chs. 7 and 8; Maimonides Shemittah Chs. 5 and 7). That which is suitable for human food may not be used for food for cattle. Similarly, what is gathered as food for man may not be used as an emollient or for ointment. Being of sacred character, produce ofthe Shemittah Year must now be thrown away .or treated in a similarly undignified manner. Such food as is no longer edible must be left to decay and can then be removed. Similar rules apply to peels of fruit of the Sabbatical Year.

(4) The Duty of Removal (Biur). Produce of the field that has been gathered in may be stored up and eaten only as long as the same kind of produce is available for the beasts in the field. Once there is no more of any particular kind left in the fields, no man may keep any of that kind in his house or storage place. This is derived by the Oral Law from the wording of Lev. 25, 7. (See Pesachim 52b based on Ex. 23, 11 and Lev. 25, 7.).

The manner in which the Removal of the products of the Seventh Year or their money substitute has to be carried out is a

controversial point among commentators and Halakhists. In accordance with the predominant Halakhic view the Removal is carried out by taking the produce out of one's house or storage, putting it in a public place in the presence of three people and declaring it as ownerless property (hefker). Before doing so, the person in possession of the Seventh Year's produce may keep for himself as much as is necessary for three meals, and he may distribute the same amount to his neighbours. The laws o£ Removal (Biur) refer only to produce that is suitable for human consumption.

To be continued

THE

RAV

RASHI

DIN,

RABBI

M.

NIT

FISHER

YEAR

FISHER,

EXTEND

GREETINGS

RABBANIM,

AND

AV AND

BETH RABBA-

WARMEST

TO

THE

MINISTERS,

NEW

DAYANIM,

CHAZANIM,

THE

PRESIDENT, HONORARY OFFICERS, EXECU­ TIVE, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE FEDERATION OF SYNA­ GOGUES, AS WELL AS THEIR MANY FRIENDS

ny.w n nVuoi

D” n n w a DM3 m a n '

FRYDMAN

PROPERTIES LTD.

EXTEND S IN C E R E G R E E T IN G S FOR mMn □,,n nw

TO M aw

'Md

Page Eight

SEPTEM B ER , 1979 — TISH R I. 5740

THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPARA H O N

By Kabhi l)r. Chaim J. Cooper, M.A.. Ph.l).

“Preparing for the performance of a Divine Command is greater than its performance", says the scholar J.L. Eger, and an Aggadata at the beginning of Mesichta Avodah Zarah (3a) depicts the Holy One, blessed be He, as saying to the gentile nations: “He who took the trouble to prepare on the Sabbath shall eat on the Sabbath”. This sentiment finds an echo in the statement of R. Jonathan b. Eliezer in Pesikta Rabbati, p. 198b (ed. M. Friedman, Vienna, 1880).

The subject of preparation comes to mind with the advent this year of the second day of Rosh Hashanah on a Sunday, this being what the rabbis call “Yom-Tov shechal lih’yot achar haShabbat”, a festival which occurs on the day after Shabbat. The opening Mishnah of Mesichta Bei'ah rules that an egg laid on Yom-Tov may, according to Bet Shammai, be eaten on the same day, while Bet Hillel forbids it.

The Gemara on this Mishnah commences its delibera­ tions by considering the purpose served by the chicken which laid the egg mentioned in the Mishnah. A chicken may conceivably be reared for one of two reasons—first for food (“ tarnegolet ha’omedet la’achilah”), i.e. kept and fed so that it might, when required, be slaughtered for food; or alternatively for egg-production (“tarnegolet ha’omedet legadel bei'im”), i.e., kept not for food itself, but so that it might produce eggs.

If for the first purpose, namely, for food, then why, asks the Gemara, should Bet Hillel forbid the egg laid by such a chicken on Yom-Tov? Food in general is “mukhan”, and so the egg produced on Yom-Tov was consequently “food merely separated from other food” ("ochla d'afret hu")—rather as a slice of bread is cut from a loaf. Is not the loaf permitted? How then can the slice be forbidden? In similar fashion, the chicken, being “la'achilah", is food and hence “mukhan", so why should the egg proceeding from it be prohibited?

If, on the other hand, the chicken was being reared for the production of eggs, then why should Bet Shammai permit it? Is not such an egg “muktzeh”? And even if Bet Shammai does not accept the rabbinic institution of “muktzeh", they would surely forbid it on the grounds of “nolad”?

44Muktzeh ” and 44Nolad ” “Muktzeh" may be defined as the prohibition, by rabbinic decree, of the handling (“ tiltul”), on the Sabbath and festivals, of all such objects as had not previously, i.e. on the eve of the Sabbath or a festival, been mentally designated for use on the Sabbath or a festival.

We speak of rabbinic “decree" because the mere handling per se of the object concerned may not, in itself, constitute a Biblical infringement of the Sabbath or a festival.

A hammer or mallet might conceivably be used as, for ex­ ample, a paperweight; a chisel could be used, perhaps, as a wedge to keep open a door; a pen could be used, shall we say, to stop up a keyhole and so keep out a draught.

The use of these articles for such purposes would not actually constitute work as such. Yet the rabbis forbade the mere handling of these things, for whatever purpose,

"11 R T] n

because hammer, chisel, pen and the like are so closely connected and associated with the work for which they are normally employed (for they are, above all things, instru­ ments of labour which is forbidden on the Sabbath and festivals), that the abstention from handling them, for purposes however innocuous, will prevent the possibility of our absent-mindedly forgetting the day and using them for their normal purposes. “ Muktzeh” is thus a form of “fence” round the Biblical Law, to serve as a means of further ensuring the avoidance of the infringement of the Sabbath or a festival.

The subject of “Muktzeh" is a wide one, with manifold ramifications; suffice it here to state that there are several categories of “ Muktzeh” (twelve, according to R. Judah; nine according to R. Simeon)—such as Muktzeh machmat lssur, Muktzeh machmat Bassis; Muktzeh machmat Mi'uss, etc. All share one feature in common namely, that since their normal use is forbidden on the Sabbath and festivals, hence there cannot have been any mental intention or designation, tacit or explicit, on the day prior to the Sab­ bath or a festival, for their use on the Sabbath or a festival, for any such intention would have been inadmis­ sible. The term “Muktzeh" is the Hophal participle of the verbal root “katzah”, meaning, “cut off, separated”—i.e., “cut off" from consideration for use the following day— hence undesignated for use on Shabbat or a Yom-Tov. The antonym of “Muktzeh" is “Mukhan”—literally, “prepared"—indicating that which has been mentally in­ tended and hence “prepared" and designated for use on Shabbat or a Yom-Tov. It is for this reason that, as above indicated, food in general is “Mukhan”, because food stands ready and prepared, as it were, for human use.

Hence “ Muktzeh” is forbidden, “ Mukhan” permitted.

The question against Bet Shammai posed by the Gemara

The Members of

HAMAOR PUBLISHING COMMITTEE wish to express their sincere thanks to contributors, advertisers and supporters, and wish them all and

m t o i D” n riian m iu n a v im n m D

K

SEPTEMBER. 1979 — TISHRI, 5740

THE LI GHT

is that if the chicken were kept for egg-production, then the chicken-farmer is not interested in the chicken as fooJ, for his purpose in rearing the birds is the production of eggs. Hence he would not on Erev Yom-Tov have made any mental reservation or expressed any intention about the use of the bird for food on Yom-Iov. Io him, the bird is not food—it is merely a machine to produce eggs.

And the absence of any such pre-festival designation categorises it, by definition, as “ Muktzah". And that would apply equally to the egg which issued from the bird. How, then, can Bet Shammai permit it?

“Nolad" may be described as a more extreme case of “ Muktzeh". Meaning literally, “that which is born" or, more generally, that which has newly come into existence on Shabbat or Yom-Tov, it could not possibly, by the very nature of events, have been designated on Erev Shabbat or Yom-Tov for use on Shabbat or Yom-Tov, because on the eve of Shabbat or Yom-Tov it was not yet in existence. Since one could not designate or express any intention concerning that which does not exist, such designation would be completely beyond the realm of pos­ sibility being, in a sense, what the rabbis refer to as “davar shelo ba le-olam". Hence the Gemara’s further question: Even though Bet Shammai would reject the principle of “ Muktzeh", they would surely forbid the egg mentioned in the Mishnah on the grounds of “Nolad"?

The Mishnah, says Rabbah, speaks of a chicken reared for the purpose of food—hence the bird and its egg i ‘Mukhan", and that is why Bet Shammai permits it. Why, then, does Bet Hillel forbid it? Is it not “Ochla d’efrat"— food separated from permitted food? It is here that Rabbah enunciates his very interesting and highly original theory of “Hachanah". Basing his explanation upon the biological principle, “ kol be’ah d'mityalda ha’idna mey’etmol gamra lah"—that every egg laid today was completely formed yesterday, he asserts that an egg laid on a Sunday which is a Yom-Tov was completely formed the day before, namely, Shabbat. This would mean, in effect, says Rabbah, that Shabbat had, as it were “prepared” for Yom-Tov. The completion of the egg within the bird on Shabbat “prepared” it, so to speak, for the actual laying on the following day, which was a Yom-Tov. This, he rules, is prohibited by the Torah, which specifies that only “ the sixth day"—i.e., a week-day—shall prepare for Shabbat or Yom-Tov—which would, in turn exclude Shabbat preparing for Yom-Tov or vice-versa. And since it would be forbidden on a Yom-Tov falling on Sunday, it becomes forbidden on Yom-Tov in general, whatever the day of the week. Hence Bet Hillel’s ruling in the Mishnah.

For the embryological process of completion on Shabbat “prepared" for the subsequent one of parturition on Yom-Tov.

“Hachanah d'Rabbah” To the questions posed both against Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai the Gemara propounds four answers in the names respectively of Rav Nachman, Rabbah, Rav Joseph and Rav Yitzchak. Of them all, the most interesting and challenging is the second, that of Rabbah, who interprets the ruling of Bet Shammai in the Mishnah as due to the circumstance in which a Yom-Tov occurs on a Sunday.

Pentateuchal authority The Biblical text to which Rabbah appeals for his ruling is the passuk in Exodus xvi, 5: “Veheychinu et asher yavi’u"—“And it shall come to pass, on the sixth day, they shall prepare that which they shall bring". Such was the Divine Commandment to Moses when the Israelites were enjoying the manna in the wilderness. On the sixth yy day of the week (i.e. on Friday) they were to “ prepare

FOR KASHRUS AND QUALITY

VIENNAS

FINEST TINNED SOUPS, ETC. SALAMI MANUFACTURED BY

M . ltL O O M (K O S IIE H ) & S O X L I M I T E D UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE LONDON BETH DIN With best wishes to all readers of HAMAOR for a very Happy and Prosperous New Year

p

Page Nine

Page Ten

SEPTEM B ER , 1979 — TISH R I. 5740

i.e., cook the manna which they had collected that day, so that they might enjoy cooked food on Shabbat, when' cooking was forbidden. The “sixth day" means a week-day, and so Rabbah interprets the verse to mean that only a week-day was to be used to prepare for Shabbat or Yom-Tov, which impliedly prohibited the use of Shabbat as preparation for Yom-Tov, or vice-versa. Bet Hillel’s rea­ son for prohibiting the egg was that if it were permitted, then people would assume that it was also permitted when Yom-Tov occurred on Sunday, thus infringing the Biblical command.

Such, then, is the explanation of the Mishnah ex­ pounded by Rabbah—that the prohibition by Bet Hillel results from the particular case of a Yom-Tov following Shabbat, when Shabbat would act as a day of preparation for the Yom-Tov—a situation impliedly excluded by the Biblical text above cited. Rabbah's principle is henceforth known as “hachanah d'Rabbah”—literally, “ the principle of preparation propounded by Rabbah”.

Other solutions As above stated, the Gemara records four solutions to the problems posed by the Mishnah, of which that of Rabbah, “hachanah”, is one. The Gemara then, having considered each in turn, asks (ibid. 3a) why there should be four answers. Obviously, Rav Nachman, Rav Joseph and Rav Yitzchak, the other three scholars, found them­ selves unable to accept Rabbah’s explanation. As the Gemara puts it, “ hachanah let lehu”—they do not accept Rabbah's explanation of the ruling in the Mishnah by Bet Hillel—because “they do not accept hachanah”.

But why do they not accept it? Of all the four explana­ tions offered, that of Rabbah is the only one to cite a Biblical text as its testimony. And moreover, does not Rabbah’s exegesis of the Pentateuchal text appear to be impeccable and irrefutable? Is it not, after all, a fair and wholly logical deduction from the passuk which specifies [hat “veheychinu'’—the necessary “preparation”—shall be bayom hashishi”—on the sixth day—i.e., a working day, or “chol”—thereby clearly excluding preparation on the Sabbath, which is not a working day and not “chol” for the Yom-Tov which follows it? It is all very well for the Gemara airily to dismiss Rabbah by his colleagues’ objec­ tions that “hachanah let lehu”—but why “ let lehu” ? What are the grounds of their objection? Or, rather, we should ask: How can they repudiate the concept, of hachanah when it has been logically deduced from the Torah—a feature which is conspicuously absent from their own explanations?”

I'he meaning of “Hachanah” Let it be said at once, in answer to these questions, that Rav Nachman, Rav Joseph and Rav Yitzchak do not reject the principle of hachanah as such. Nor do they find any objection against Rabbah's interpretation of the Biblical text. Where they do differ from Rabbah is in their inability to accept, as Rabbah does, that the passuk applies to such a case as is postulated in the Mishnah.

They differ from Rabbah, that is to say, over the true meaning and connotation of the term “hachanah”, and over precisely what constitutes “hachanah”. That is the real issue between them.

Hachanah b'yadayim According to those three, the circumstances in the passuk in Exodus differ radically from those in the Mishnah— indeed, so very different are they, that the concept of

"11 R n n

“hachanah” cannot be applied at all to the situation adum­ brated in the Mishnah.

Consider the facts of the circumstances in which the command “veheychinu” was imposed in the passuk. Simply stated, the verb meant that the Heaven-sent manna was to have been prepared on Erev Shabbat for Shabbat—that the baking, roasting, grilling, poaching, or whatever it was that the Israelites did with the manna was to have been before sundown on Friday. In contemplating the situation in the1 text, one might almost imagine our ancestral Israelite matriarchs in the wilderness swapping notes and recipes for preparing the most delectable dishes to grace their Shabbat tables—discussing ways and means of cooking the bread from heaven in order to transform it into the most highly palatable delicacies of which their culinary skills were capable. (Some indication of the cooking skills applied to the manna is actually given in the Torah—cf.

Numbers xi, 8).

This, then, is what the Torah means by “hachanah”— the preparation, by human means, of food for Shabbat or Yom-Tov. Compare that now with the case in the Mishnah—that of the egg laid on Yom-Tov which, according to Rabbah, Bet Hillel forbid by a gezerah because of the possible occurrence of such an event on a Sunday which is YomTov. Compare the two cases—and one vital difference will immediately become apparent. While the passuk speaks of ‘‘veheychinu”—“and they shall prepare”—(who is the “they”? Why, the Israelites of course)—the laying.of the egg in the Mishnah is by contrast, completely independent of any human agency. While the “hachanah” of the Torah is “hachanah biy'dei adam”—preparation by human hands —that in the Mishnah is “hachanah biy'dei shamayim"— .

DAYAN P. AND RABBANIT BRACEINER & FAMILY EXTEND SINCERE GOOD WISHES TO THE DAYANIM, RABBANIM AND MINISTERS, THE CHAZAN, PRESIDENT, HON. OFFICERS, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, SECRETARY AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE FINCHLEY CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR A

mm

MR. AND MRS. M. LEDERMAN 11 MAYFIELD GARDENS, N.W.4

wish their children, grandchildren, mechutanim and relatives, members o f the Beth Din, Honorary Officers and Council o f the Federation o f Synagogues, and K'lal Yisroel a — n:m jw nm nrrro

u

THE LI GHT

SEPTEMBER, 1979— TISHRI, 5740

preparation by means of Nature, in which no human agency has any part.

So, say Rav Nachman, Rav Joseph and Rav Yitzchak “ hachanah”, yes but what kind of “ hachanah” ? By whose instrumentality does the Torah enjoin the preparation of food for Shabbat and Yom-Tov? “ Veheychinu”— by the hands of man (or woman). That in the Mishnah does not come within this category, for it is “hachanah mimeyla” —the laying of an egg is purely the function of Nature, in which no human hands are involved.

Hence, they say, the text cited by Rabbah just cannot be invoked in justification of Bet Hillel's ruling in the Mishnah—simply because, in the circumstances there postu­ lated, the passuk would not apply. (See Tosafot, Bei ah 17a, s.v. “ Mai Taama” ).

It is this that the Gemara means when it states the views of the three rabbis as “let lehu hachanah”—not that they dispute the deduction from the Biblical text, or the validity of Rabbah’s exegesis, or the cogency of the binding nature of “hachanah”. All of that they readily accept. What they just cannot accept is that the principle of “hachanah” applies to the case delineated in the Mishnah. Since, to them, because of the Biblical text, “hachanah” must, by definition and deduction, necessarily be “b’yadayim”, it cannot apply to the Mishnah, to which it is therefore irrelevant.

Rabbah’s reply How, then, would Rabbah defend his position against these apparently weighty objections? One may perhaps imagine Rabbah’s reply as couched somewhat along the following lines.

You, he might address his three colleagues, interpret the Biblical term “veheychinu” to refer to the cooking of

Page Eleven

the manna, do you not? Exclusively “b’yadayim”? Right?

Wrong! For the “hachanah” in the passuk is quite un­ qualified, nor is there any justification for the gratuitous restriction of the term to human preparation exclusively.

As the term stands in the Torah, it may apply equally to “hachanah b’yadayim” or “biydey shamayim”. Was the origin of the manna prepared on earth or in Heaven?

Obviously, the manna was prepared in Heaven, not on earth (cf. Rashi on Bei’ah 2b, s.v. “ ve’en Yom-Tov . . also ibid., 4a, .v.v. “ hachanah d'R abbah”).

Further, Rabbah could argue, the term “veheychinu” cannot refer to the “preparation” of the manna by the human means of cooking. For if that were so, then the meaning of the verse in which the term occurs: “And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they shall bring” would be a prohibition of every kind of cooking on Shabbat. And that, Rabbah might argue, cannot be "the import of the verse, because the prohibition of cooking on Shabbat is explicitly stated in another verse: “Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sab­ bath unto the Lord. Bake that which ye will bake, and seethe that which ye shall seethe . . .” (Exodus xvi, 23.

See Rashi on Bei’ah 2b, s.v. “ veheychinu”). Since there is a verse explicitly forbidding cooking on Shabbat, the term “veheychinu” cannot be so interpreted, for that would constitute a quite unnecessary duplication of texts. And so, Rabbah would conclude, the term “ veheychinu” must neces­ sarily denote “preparation” of every kind, whether by human instrumentality or by natural means. We are there­ fore justified in suggesting “hachanah”, based on the pas­ suk, as the grounds for Bet Hillel’s ruling in the Mishnah.

Halachah according to Rabbah In this difference between Rabbah and the other scholars

Visit L o n d o n s new est K osher D elicatessen, R esta u ra n t and B an qu etin g S u ite fu rn ish ed in elegan t sty le in the W est End

ENS fully air conditioned at

20a Baker Street, (Corner o f George Street) Telephone 935 5945 & 486 7079

Under the supervision o f the Federation oi Synagogues Beth Din and Kashrus Board

u

<0

Page Twelve

SEPTEM B ER . 1979 — TISH R I. 5740

on the interpretation of the verse, later authorities appear to hold the view of Rabbah (cf. Orach Chaim 513, 5 and 6, and the Rama ad loc., who states quite clearly that when Yom-Tov occurs on Sunday, the egg would be for­ bidden. adding: "Ve'assur mid’orayta”. Since Rabbah is the only one of the four who invokes the text of the Torah to adduce the grounds of his explanation, it is clearly Rabbah’s exegesis to which the Rama refers)! Like­ wise, the Taz ad loc., sub-section 9, explicitly writes: “The reason for the prohibition (of the use of an egg laid on Yom-Tov on the same day) is ‘hachanah’, for an egg laid to-day was completed yesterday, and Shabbat cannot prepare for Yom-Tov. for that is an ‘issur mid’orayta’ because of the verse: ‘And they shall prepare that which they shall bring . .

This comment by the Taz is noth­ ing but a clear reiteration of Rabbah’s position in almost identical words. The Mechaber himself, likewise, at the beginning of Simman 513, categorically states: “An egg laid on Yom-Tov may not be handled, and certainly not eaten (on the day). If it were mixed with other (per­ mitted) eggs (i.e. in its shell, with other shell-eggs) even numbering a thousand, all are forbidden”. To which the Magen Avraham comments that an egg laid on a Sunday which is Yom-Tov is Pentateuchally prohibited, and hence by gezerah the prohibition is extended to Yom-Tov in general, irrespective of the day of the week.

“Davar sheyesh lah mat tirin’’ I lie ruling given by the Mechaber concerning the pro­ hibition of all with which the prohibited egg was mingled, even numbering a thousand, is due to the fact that such an egg is not intrinsically forbidden. The prohibition is due only to the time when it issued forth into the world, and is therefore a temporary one, because it becomes per­ mitted at the conclusion of Yom-rov. This type of temp­ orary prohibition, which becomes removed by the mere passage of time, is known as “davar she’yesh lah mattirin” literally, “a (prohibited) object which external means {e.g. the time-factor) cause to become permitted”. In the case of such objects, which become permitted through some extraneous agency, such as the passage of time, the rule of “bittul”, or neutralisation by majority, does not apply (c/. Y oreh Deah 102, 1).

The concept of “Ho'il” 1he principle of hachanah applies in one other con­ nection: that of the Eruv. In Mesichta Pesachim 46b, Rabbah, in the course of a disputation with Rav Chisda! rules that permission to cook on Yom-Tov when it falls on a Friday for use on the following day, Shabbat. by means of an eruv tavshillin" is due to the possibility of the food cooked being required on the day of the festival itself; e.g., if visitors call to see the householder on the day of the festival. Part of the food cooked would then be consumed on the day of Yom-Tov itself, which would, of course, be permissible. Hence the food was not prepared on Yom-Tov expressly for Shabbat, but prim­ arily for the day of Yom-Tov itself, with what was left over remaining available for Shabbat. This is not “hachanah” on Yom-Tov for Shabbat, since the food is consumed, or is available for consumption if guests should call, on the day itself. This argument is known as “ho’il” (lit. “since” —ie., “ since”, if guests visited, the food would be permitted on that day).

“Hachanah’' and “Ho’il” Tosafot in Mesichta Eruvin 38a, s.v. “ Mishum Hach­ anah”, in discussing the two principles of “hachanah”

i mi i n

and “ ho’il”, appears in the first instance to see them as inter-connected and inter-dependent. For Tosafot writes“The prohibition imposed by ‘hachanah’ is Pentateuchal in authority, as is deduced in the forthcoming passage.

Baking on Yom-Tov for .Shabbat by means of an eruv tavshillin is explained by Rabbah (Pesachim 46b) as being permitted because of ‘ho’il’ ”. Hence Rabbah, the primary exponent of “hachanah”, also holds “ho’il”. Conversely, Tosafot discusses the standpoint adopted by R. Eliezer who, it appears, holds neither “hachanah” nor “ho’il”.

The conclusion of Tosafot Nevertheless, and despite the above, Tosafot, citing the Ritzba, concludes by drawing a distinction between the preparation of food on the one hand, and the setting of an “eruv" or the laying of an egg, onthe other According to the Ritzba, “hachanah” does not apply to such activities as baking or cooking, because such acts do not give rise to any new substance; they are merely the improvement of existing matter (“tikkun be’alma”).

‘Hachanah" would, on this consideration, apply only to such cases as the egg or the “eruv” which are, in effect, new creations ( ‘davar chadash”). On this standpoint there is no longer any bounden obligation to see any inter­ dependence or inter-relationship between the principles of hachanah and ho il such as Tosafot had previously considered. In a classical Tosafot (Bei'ah 2b, ,v.v. “Vehaya bayom hashishi”) these lines of argument are set forth with much clarity—a passage which may well be con­ sulted with great advantage.

KASHRUS BOARD OF THE FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES Readers are reminded that not all fish sold in country chopped

is kosher.

particular,

ready

should be purchased only from

shops where it is certain that no non-kosher fish is used.

winm lansin

mtr^

MR. & MRS. S. SYNETT AND FAMILY Wish the Dayanim, President, Honorary Officers and Executive of the Federation, the Minister, the Chazan, the Hon. Officers, Executive and members of the Ilford Federation Synagogue and K’lal Yisroel a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year ❖

THE LI GHT

Page Thirteen

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI. 5740

CROYDON & DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE

WOOLWICH & DISTRICT SYNAGOGUE

THE PRESIDENT, HON. OFFICERS AND BOARD OF MANAGEMENT WISH THE MEMBERS OF THE BETH DIN, AND MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS

The President, Hon. Officers and Board of Management wish all members and their families and Klal Yisroel

NEW YEAR la n n n i inn^n n a w aiu

ru n nn*?xn

a^n

nw

•

THE

P R E S ID E N T

AND HONORARY

O F F IC E R S

THE PRESIDENT AND HONORARY OFFICERS OF

OF THE

GREENFORD SYNAGOGUE W ISH T H E IR

M EM BERS

AND

SINAI SYNAGOGUE GOLDERS GREEN N .W .ll

F A M IL IE S

wish all their members and their families, the A N D K LAL

Y IS R O E L

President and Hon. Officers o f the Federation A H A PPY

N EW

YEA R

o f Synagogues, their members and their familes, and ‘PKIUP 77D a

m iD

n w 1?

nmu n rrn m h th d

lftnnm

in n D n

Page Fourteen

11 Rnn

SEPTEM B ER . 1979 — TISH R I, 5740

THE HUMAN TOUCH

Bv Rabbi I. L. Abrams The festival of Succot may in contemporary terminology be described as a “ Do-it-yourself festival'’, for we must become directly involved. Thus, our Codes advise that no one should consider it beneath his dignity to build or assist in the erection of a Succah. Again, a Succah which is placed beneath a tree is unfit because, on their interpreta­ tion of the scriptural injunction: “Thou shalt observe the festival of Succot”, the Talmud comments: “Thou shalt make, and not from that which has already been made”.

The Succah and particularly its covering, must be prepared from material cut away from its roots but, in building a Succah beneath a tree, the human element is absent. It is already in existence, and we thus become passive partici­ pants in a festival which is essentially one of personal action. The Mitzvah concerning the Arba Minim—the Four Species—particularly emphasises this involvement and action: “ And thou shalt take for thyself” . . . We fulfil the precept only when we take up the Four Species.

Initially they must be our own property.

The festival may therefore be regarded as a break and, perhaps, even an anachronism, in our sophisticated age of automation and technology. So much can be created, achieved and obtained bv pressing a button or flicking a switch. So many areas of our lives are controlled by the computer, that human beings are surrendering more and more of their own personal involvement to the machine which, though undoubtedly fascinating and speaking vol­ umes for man's ingenuity in many areas (having proved its value beyond recognition), has created an artificial age.

Automation has also created problems in industry and commerce: because of the machine, human conduct and human contacts have suffered. The vending machine, the automatic ticket machine for example, have dispensed with human endeavour.

■*

w

Some years ago, an article appeared in a rabbinic journal entitled Religion and the Robot. In it, the learned author, an ordained Rabbi as well as a professor of computer science, discussed the development of the robot and, in so doing, found it necessary within that context to explain the religious definition of a “man”. Even though the problems raised in the article may still be considered far-fetched today, through the process of time and research it may be much less so a few decades from now. There are no known grounds for denying the theoretical possibi­ lity that intelligent computers can be built. True, such a computer may have to be as fully complex as a human brain, many orders of magnitude beyond any existing com­ puter, but this is merely a matter of degree.

Until quite recently, was there any doubt concerning the validity of the chapters in our Tefillin or Mezuzot?

It was taken for granted that the chapters were written in conformity with the Halacha by a scribe. Today, because of the machine, many can be deceived. If we are not vigilant, these mechanical devices can be used to exploit the less discerning members of our community, many being prepared to accept that which has been manufactured rather than that which has been prepared by hand from start to finish, as Jewish law demands. This has affected so many areas of religious activity in our way of life.

While it is true that the concept of “agency” , whereby 1 may appoint someone to carry out certain functions on my behalf, thereby surrendering my own involvement, is acceptable in Jewish law, our Sages nevertheless advise

that personal involvement is much preferred. There is a tendency, too, in our communities for people to abdicate their rights in deference to ministerial officials, errone­ ously assuming that it is their exclusive prerogative on various occasions—sad and happy—to lead people in prayer. How many would forget a Yahrzeit of their near and dear ones were it not for the register kept in our Synagogue offices! We sit back, we become spectators, instead of participants.

Uie Talmud relates an intriguing story of an incident that occurred in the holy city of Jerusalem once, when the High Priest was approaching the Temple to enter its sanc­ tuary. The doors of the Bet Hamikdash miraculously opened for him by themselves. The Priests who usually per­ formed the honour of opening those doors were amazed.

The crowds standing in the courtyard were awed by this startling divine revelation. “This is truly a miracle! ” they exclaimed with adoration. “ Blessed be G-d for His eternal kindness”. How happy they were. But amid the rejoicing people, the High Priest stood saddened and depressed by the miracle. “ Do not rejoice”, he cried. “ What we have just seen is no cause for delight. For we have witnessed an evil omen, warning us that a great misfortune will soon befall the House of Israel”. Those automatic doors por­ tended the tragic destruction of our Holy Temple. That day marked the beginning of the end of our glorious past.

The people could not understand their venerable leader.

Why should they be downcast by the automatic temple doors, they asked. What did the High Priest see that they, the masses, could not fathom?

Even if the people of that generation could not under­ stand, we of this generation should have no trouble in finding the answer. We know what tragic consequences

Mr. & Mrs. L. D. SINCLARE 43 W itley Court, Coram Street, W C i EXTEND SINCERE GOOD WISHES FOR m Vtn

d' t i

ruw

TO RELATIVES AND MANY COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS

THE LI GHT

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI. 5740

automation has brought. We have already seen how much society is suffering because of our dependence upon auto­ mation. When the High Priest saw automation become a substitute for human involvement and personal initiative, he wept in the Temple. He knew that those automatic doors predicted the inevitable destruction of our Holy Sanctuary. As long as people knew that the doors of the Temple had to be opened and closed, they were ready to help. Who else would do the job if they did not? They had willing hands and tender hearts; they were dedicated to work and committed to give. They became involved, anxious to assume their share of responsibility. They did not expect work to get done by itself. Then the Temple was secure, transfused by the life-sustaining support of the people. Once those heavy doors opened by themselves, the people came to expect every job to get done automatically and every problem to be solved automatically. It was for this reason that the High Priest wept.

THE STILL SMALL VOICE Bv The Rev. I. Nodcl “A great trumpet is sounded, and a still small voice is heard” . The way in which the Jew describes the Yamim Noraim is colourful and moving. He depicts the Court on High, presided over by the King of Kings; the Books of Life and Death being opened, and the Scales of Justice being prepared. For man must account for his conduct in life and must make an accounting every year—perhaps every day.

One of the most moving prayers is recited on this day, Unetaneh Tokef—we will make mention of the mighty holiness of this day, because it is tremendous and awesome.

This prayer is ascribed to a martyred saint, Rav Amnon of Mayence. As the Heavenly Court is called into ses­ sion, we are told, a great trumpet is sounded and a still small voice is heard.

It may occur to some that this verse is inconsistent. If a great shofar is sounded, surely a great sound should come forth. Why tell of a large instrument if it yields only “a still small voice” ? And why are the angels dismayed? At least, if the sound were loud and clear, it might cause dismay or fear; but not a quiet little sound. Yet this is what the saintly rabbi composed, and it is one of the most dramatic prayers in our liturgy.

We must assume that he knew what he was saying.

His understanding is a vital one for our day. The shofar that opens the Court on High is indeed a large one, as befits such an event. Truly, its blasts are heard far and wide. Yet, even in the midst of the sounds of the great trumpet, the still small voice must be heard. In addition to the shofar and its tones, the message should come through. One must hear the calm smoothness of the Tekiah; the wavering ups and downs of the Shevarim; the wailing of the Teruah and, finally, the calm of the Tekiah again. These sounds are indicative of life itself. Life has its even, pleasant moments, as well as the many ascents and descents that unnerve us. And it has its tragic, shat­ tering periods that try us. However, for the man of faith, there will always follow the restored calm of the even Tekiah.

One must not hear only the sounds of the great trumpet, but the small voice of assurance that lies in the depths of faith in God’s justice, despite the suffering of the moment.

Or one may hear the voice of Maimonides in the shofar, exhorting us: “Arise you who sleep from your slumber!”

Page Fifteen

Despite this Talmudic narrative, however, King Solomon, in Ecclesiastes, his Book, read on the festival of Succot, would appear to suggest a contrary viewpoint.

“What profit does man have for all his labour while he toils beneath the sun?” Why become personally involved and exert ourselves? Let us take it easy and indeed make use of automation, is what King Solomon appears to suggest. But the Sages add the apt comment: “ In our material endeavours there is, indeed, little reward for our efforts, but in matters spiritual, all our efforts are divinely rewarded. Our greatest joy is personal effort for God” . The benefit we derive from sitting in the Succah we have built, and whatever else we do in the vineyard of God, cannot be evaluated. The “do-it-yourself” man gains immense pleasure from involvement. This is what the festival of Succot does for us, enabling each and every one of us to proclaim in the words of the Prophet: “The work of my hands bestows glory” .

Hearing the small voice is a crucial task in our day.

Not many can sit quietly, alone, and hear the small voice of conscience, of spiritual yearning, speaking to us from within. We cannot face the silence, ourselves, G-d. It is easier to become engrossed in our television sets or enter­ tainment. We become lost in action, noise and pleasureseeking.

This is the age of big things, sky labs, space ships and planet landings. People have become mere numbers and sta­ tistics. We forget that we are none of these things, because man possesses “ the still small voice” of feelings, thoughts and hopes, and reflects the spirit of the Divine Ruler.

We see and hear only the outer great trumpet and its loud tones, but ignore the inner voice that speaks of life and peace. We are living in glorious times for our people.

Jerusalem is reunited; the Holy Places are in Jewish hands; the Yom KippurW ar was an heroic victory, although we do not boast of military feats. This is the external scene, the outer trumpet. Do we hear, as thousands of Israelis from all walks of life came to hear, the “still small voice” of this historic event? Do we hear the voice that calls the Jew to return to Israel? Do we hear the small voice (the voice of G-d) that prompted our enemies, like Pharaoh of old, to become defiant; that moved the Jordanian leader to join his former enemy; that caused the super-Powers to fail to act before war broke out; that restored Old Jerusalem, something on which we Jews were not counting in the foreseeable future; that provoked a miraculous surge of unity in all Jewish ranks, the like of which had never been seen before?

The thousands who turned to Tephillin, the hundreds of thousands who moved to the Western Wall, heard the “still small voice” for the moment. They saw a flash-back of scenes from the marvellous episodes of the Bible and the Prophets. We are aware of the trumpet, the tanks, the planes, the brilliant army, but there is much more to it.

There is much to say about the still small voice that the great shofar blasts are meant to wake within us. Rosh Hashana is the first of the Ten Days of Penitence, the days of returning to G-d. Will we listen before it is too late to the “still small voice”, which bids us to return to Torah and Mitzvot; to put on Tephillin; to observe Shabbat and Yom Tov, and to eat kosher? If the angels are dismayed, let us, too, on Rosh Hashana, as the shofar is sounded, penetrate to the very depths of our being and listen attentively to the “still small voice”—the voice of G-d.

,V

i F L.

Page Sixteen

SEPTEM B ER . 1979 — TISH R I. 5740

W H A T IS W O R T H W H IL E IN O UR L IF E ? ’

Bv The Rev. W. Wolfson It once happened that the famous Chassidic Rabhi. Aaron of Karlin, was about to chant the Rosh Hashana Shacharit service before the congregation of his Talmidim. I his part of the service always starts with the loud exclamation: “ Hamelech!” — “The King!" and. we are told, as Rabbi Aaron was about to begin and "cleared his throat, his body suddenly began to quake. His sobs and loud crying were such, that he was unable to continue. In the afternoon of that Rosh Hashana day, when they all went to Tashlich. his pupils asked him for an explanation. This is what he told them: ‘When I wanted to begin the chanting of “Hamelech". I shuddered right through my body, as if the Al-ty had said to me: "If I am your ‘Hamelech’, your King, how is it that you have not come unto Me, until now? How is it. that you are only now turning to me in sorrow and trepidation?" ” In thinking about this incident, we are safe in assuming, . f d wtilts t o r us. too, to show sincere repentance. But it is only now, during these Days of Solemnity, that G-d first begins to hear our voices, collectively or individually, giving us another opportunity, to see “how" and in “what direction", we arc enthroning'G-d as our King.

In the Talmud (Mesichte Rosh Hashana Folio 16) G-d said unto Israel: “ Let me hear the ‘Malchiof. bv which you accept my Sovereignty; “ let Me hear the ‘Zichronot'. which may recall to you favourably the lives of vour ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, ‘who walked hu’mblv with their G-d'; “ let Me hear the ‘Shofrot', which sounded on Mount Sinai at Mattan lorah, and let Me see how vou react to

HINTID

these sounds today, in your life, and in the lives of vour nearest and dearest".

Rosh Hashana commemorates the crucial moment when G-d set m motion the "Forces of Creation", and it behooves us to think about this "Act of Creation". In our dailv pravers we sav: “ In His goodness. G-d renews the work ol Creation". This traditional concept teaches us. that the world is alive, and that the orderly unitv of Nature should tmd an eloquent expression of this aliveness within us. At this season ot Repentance, we can destroy sin and sinfulness; we can break the space-barrier between sinful man and Ins Maker. In Rabbinical literature, we read a commentary on this verse: "If you keep my commandments and do them. I shall count it to you, as il you have made yourselves (assitem) new." What a sign of G-d’s benevolence to us. that lie grants us another period of dedication and a further opportunity to make a fresh start in life!

Life is too short to perpetuate our failings. Let these solemn days bring to us the healing touch of reconciliation and regeneration. When Benjamin Disraeli was contesting a Parliamentary election, he spoke at a meeting which turned very turbulent. The voters were dissatisfied with his independent principles. Thev shouted out across the floor "What is your platform? Where do vou stand?" "On mv head", was the quick reply of Disraeli.' He took his stand on his brains. Figuratively, as well as literally, human beings cannot walk about on their heads for very long. You can think and speak of the brain, but vou must live from the heart.

Beginning afresh is an audacious spiritual leap upwards. It is a process of recharging the batteries of our faith, as we recommence our expedition in the year that lies ahead. We shall better meet this challenge, if we keep in mind that life has both a positive and negative aspect. The positive will bring expansion and enhancement, the negative only a

YAVNEH BETHNAL GREEN GREAT

SYNAGOGUE

SYNAGOGUE THE PRESIDENT, HON. OFFICERS

The

President,

Hon.

Officers

Board

Management wish all their Members a year of

AND BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EXTEND GREETINGS TO THEIR MEMBERS AND FAMILIES AND

good health and prosperity.

TO KLAL YISROEL FOR 3113 boi DlVttO D'” n nut?

la n n n i la n a n n a n :

0> -

IPVA

the l i g h t

Page Seventeen

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI, 5740

contraction of our values, which will tend to diminish steadily as our cycle of life continues.

Let us ask ourselves once again: What is the proper function of Rosh Hashana? Why do our Rabbis insist that he who is apathetic and indifferent to the meaning of these solemn days has lost the most important purpose of life itself? What is the essential function of Rosh Hashana?

There are dead years as there are dead persons. T his period of the year calls upon every Jew to shed all self-complacency and egotism. It asks him to inquire of himself: "Have I conscientiously done my duty? Have I made life sweeter, human relationships better? Do I really deserve a new year?

We find the words of great scholars very uplifting in our search for true values. In the Jerusalem Talmud ( Taunit 65a). the following conversation is recalled, between three fgreat Rabbis: Rabbi Bebai_ bar Zavda* Rabbi Tanchum Chanilai and Rabbi Josiah. They went out for a walk on a public fast day. Rabbi Bebai started the conversation by analysing these verses from Lamentations (III. 40-41): "Let us search and trv our ways, and turn again to G-d: Let us lift up our heart with our hands, unto G-d in the heavens'*. He continued: "Is it possible for the heart of man to be taken out of him, and then put back into place again?” But the verses mean: "Let us make our hearts, like our hands, objects of cleanliness, and then let us return to G-d” . If a man holds an unclean thing in his hand — he may immerse himself in all the seas of creation, but he will never become clean.

However, let him throw away the unclean object, and a small quantity of water will suffice to make him clean.

As we grow older with every New Year, we are likely to feel more concern about the purpose of our lives. We increasingly look for a fundamental meaning behind the activities of our daily routine. Developing one's religious faith, doing something tangible about maintaining" this development, is just as important as all our plans for maintaining our financial stability and sense of security.

Financial security without spiritual security can never give us real peace of mind — so vital to the programming of our life in the year to come. The two can never be separated. In Psalm 90, verse 12, we read: "So teach us to number our days, that we may get us a heart of wisdom” . Rabbi Yehoshua said: "If we know exactly the number of our days, we should repent before we die.” But Rabbi Eliezer said: "Repent one day before you die” . His disciples were quick to say: "But Rabbi, who knows when he will die?” "All the more , replied Rabbi Eliezer. "Let him repent today, for perhaps he may not be here the following day, and all his life will be spent in repentance.”

On Shabbat Bereshit we read that the Creator, after the Creation of each day, saw that it was good. Each day was a good day, because it came from G-d. He points the way for us and asks us to make each day a holy day so that we may live, not only in the physical sense, but also in the sense that is stamped in our minds, in the image of the Divine.

Rabbi Israel Salanter (1810-1883) said: "W e often meet people who are extremely conceited, vain and apathetic, although we fail to see the slightest reason for their own good opinion of themselves” . Without deep sincerity, we find little to criticise in ourselves. Repentance is not remorse, but a serious attempt to profit from past mistakes. We must so train ourselves, that we no longer obey our ethical principles and teachings reluctantly, but follow them quite naturally.

I he Rambam brings this message home to us more says: "It is of very great advantage that man should know his limitations and station in life, and not erroneously imagine that the whole world exists only for him . To paraphrase these statements, they mean, purely and simply, that we must hold sacred our spiritual values: we must so live our daily lives, that our example will be copied

EMET V’SHALOM SYNAGOGUE THE PRESIDENT, HON. OFFICERS AND BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EXTEND SINCERE GREETINGS TO ALL THEIR MEMBERS AND K’LAL YISROEL FOR nm nn^m

D’fran o^n

nm

WEST HACKNEY SYNAGOGUE

On behalf of our Rabbi, Wardens, President, Vice-President,

Chairman,

Hon.

Officers

and Board of Management, we extend to all our Members and to Klal Yisroel our very best wishes for a Healthy, Happy, and Peaceful New Year. naiti n zrn m nn t d

Page Eighteen

SEPTEM BER. 1979 — TISH R I, 5740

by those who will follow us. If we want to look around us. we are surrounded by Mitzvot. personal ethical duties, and communal problems, so there is work in abundance for us to tackle.

Worship is the one and only commodity that we obtain without any great cost. We need the “opening of a Siddur" This we can pass on to our children, without their having to pay “inheritance tax". With worship it is so easy to go on to the next stage of Limud Hatorah. if not every day at least at week-ends, with the atmosphere of Shabbat helping us along in our search for Divine truths. How well the Talmud (Mesichta Berachot. 4b) expresses this thought: “On his return from work, a man should stop at his Synagogue: review a section of the Bible or Mishna. recite his prayers, and then go home. If he goes home for a meal and a ‘nap' first, he may forget completely about his spiritual duties and obligations". The Mechilta says in Sidrat Mishpatim that there were many utensils used in the Temple that were supposed to be made of gold, but if there was a scarcity of gold, they could be made of other metals — all. that is. except the Cherubim.

The famous Lubliner Rov (Rabbi Meyer Shapiro) asked why the Cherubim were different from other objects in the Temple. His reply to his own question was: “The Cherubim symbolise our youth. They were to be placed on the top of the Aaron Kodesh to teach us that our children must be attached to the topmost branch of Torah studies and Jewish education".

We must teach our children how to pray, since prayers in ' Hr daily programme make every day a holy day and all of i , holier beings. The manner in which we perform our role of parents, educators of our children, can spell out our faith and also, perhaps, our fate, as well. This is our Rosh Hashana inventory and our Yom Kippur admonition. May G-d help us Continued at foot o f adjoining column

If

SHOMREI HADATH SYNAGOGUE The President, Hon. Officers and Board of Management wish their Rav, Secretary, and all their members A Happy New Year and well over the Fast

“II NT] M

[H E HIGH HOLY-DAYS IN THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES By tin* Rev. Malcolm Weisman. \l.A . (Oxon). (I F.

To those accustomed to the heightened and overcrowded atmosphere that always marks the “ Yamim Noraim” in larger communities, the informality and calm, indeed casualness, of the preparations for the High Holv-davs in smaller communities may come as a surprise, perhaps even as a welcome one.

In the smaller communities to which I minister — and these range in location from Aberdeen in the North to the Channel Islands in the South, the Isle of Man in the West, to Colchester in the East — a shortage of seats is not one of our problems.

This is not because of a lack of enthusiasm or awareness of the centrality of the High Holy-days to our faith, but rather the contrary. It is because, in many of my communities, the degree of commitment to the congregation the whole vear through is greater perhaps — believe it or not — than in Golders Green or Stamford Hill.

I do not necessarily mean that there are more persons who are shomrei Shabbat in the country areas, but that Jews in smaller communities realise that each person in a congregation of. sav. 30 families, counts for more than, perhaps, he feels he does in a congregation of. for example, 1,000 families.

In smaller communities, whether worshipping in the newly restored 18th-century Synagogue in Exeter, or the recently consecrated Synagogue in Guildford, a Jew knows that his presence throughout the whole year in Synagogue, not merely at Rosh Hashanah, is vital if the community is to exist and flourish. The net result is that attendances at many functions and services in small communities can put most larger congregations to shame. Attendances of 90 per cent in Chester, Bognor or Cheltenham are quite normal. More important, because of the decline in calibre of would-be officiants, especially at this time of the year — and worse, the occasional mercenary attitude to fees for helping small communities — more and more of these tinv congregations are conducting the services themselves.

Nothing remarkable about this, you might say. in a Federation London community. wTere many a congregant is a dab-hand on the Bimah. or at a “ Blatt". But in Chelmsford, Jersey and Hastings, for example, members who in earlier vears could not read a word of Hebrew, have now taught themselves to take services on the High S— ^ Holy-davs, and at other times, with great competence.

In increasing numbers, young Jewish families are being obliged to move to isolated parts of the United Kingdom from areas containing large Jewish communities. The reasons vary from the cost-of-living to job prospects, e.g., promotion, etc. The net result is that very many country communities are expanding, including the Isle of Man and Hastings, for example.

I look after about 60 small groups, including Bangor, which holds regular services, though the membership is only five. The common denominator is enthusiasm, which is

m n n rn ■nron n m u m w 1?

Continued from first column

to realise the stature of good parenthood and grant us the grace of patience, so that the rules which govern our spiritual kinship should move us eagerly, and in friendship, forward and upward in a spirit of sincere conscientiousness, to make our new spiritual lives swell with inward joy and gratification at its highest level.

0 t 'i

f»

k

Page Nineteen

SEPTEMBER. 1979 — TISHRI. 5740

the l i g h t

lacking in verv manv members of London Synagogues seen in Shul only twice a year.

Of course, there are Jews in the country who seek to hide their identity. Also, some of my communities are in decline (so are many in London). In addition, the problem of social contact, intermarriage, etc. for youngsters in isolation is serious. I do not minimise these problems. But the lesson that all of you ought to learn from the small communities while you pray in vour overcrowded Synagogue or. perhaps in its overflow service, is that you can be Jewish, and positively so. in isolated areas. The extra commitment needed bv Jews in these areas, especially if they have no Synagogue and worship in a rented hall or. perhaps, alone at home because there is no community near enough, is an example well worth bearing in mind in terms of pride in our heritage and identity.

One last word. The determination of smaller communities to ensure that all members are made to feel part of and to understand what is going on at services and other functions gives great meaning to the concept of Klal Yisrael. This is an example that all larger communities would do well to follow. ^

m

EAST LONDON CENTRAL

The author is Visiting Minister to the smaller communities. Senior Jewish Chaplain to H.M. Forces and National Hillel Counsellor

SYNAGOGUE

m an FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES

FINCHLEY CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE

The

H onorary

M anagem ent

O fficers

w ish

and

their Rabbi,

Board M em bers,

P resident and Hon. O fficers o f the Feder­

Redbourne Avenue, Finchley, N.3 ation of Synagogues and all their m em bers

The President, Honorary Officers and Board of Management, on behalf of the Synagogue, wish

Dayan

Braceiner,

Rav;

Mr.

and their fam ilies, and Klal Yisroel a very happy and prosperous N ew Year

Needleman, Secretary; all members and their families for 5740 mo Vai nan nn'rxn mVisn o, , n m w

THE NEXT ISSUE OF

HAMAOR WILL APPEAR FOR

PESACH

;

nmt>

n arn m

nrrnD

r— * •

’■'loJ

Page Twenty

wXwvWwwXxwWwwXwv'^j

. *>

Tisiin

SEPTEM B ER . 1979 — T ISH R I. 5740

lute MARBLE ARCH, W .l

FOR THE MOST EXCLUSIVE BANQUETING IN LONDON DELIGHTFUL FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR SMALL PARTIES WEEKDAYS ONLY

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE BETH DIN AND KASHRUS COMMISSION VIEW BY APPOINTMENT ONLY

v . SCHAVERIEN (CATERERS) LTD Telephone: 229 3581 (office hours 10-4)

Elfes L td MONUMENTAL MASONS

OSBORN STREET, LONDON, Telephone: 01-247 0163

JL ^

v

yr\\

TH

Page Twenty-one

SEPTEMBER, 1979 — TISHRI, 5740

E L IG H T

FIELDGATE STREET GREAT SYNAGOGUE The Honorary Officers and Board of Management extend New Year Greetings to the Shammas and Members of the Synagogue and their families, as well as to the Beth Din, Honorary Officers, members of the Executive and Staff of the Federation of Synagogues.

i»n n m u r o n m iu n w 1?

GREAT GARDEN

O H ELSH EM

STREET SYNAGOGUE

SYNAGOGUE

The President, Hon. Officers,

THE HON. OFFICERS AND BOARD OF

and Board of Management

MANAGEMENT EXTEND GREETINGS

extend sincere good wishes to their Minister, their members and K’lal Yisroel for a Happy and Peaceful New Year

i»n n n i

m io m w 1?

TO THEIR MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR

n:n nn^xm

D” n nw

Page Twenty-two

SEPTEM B ER . 1979 â&#x20AC;&#x201D;TISHRI, 5740

n xn n

3ht memory

MICHAEL and JANE CAPLIN 12

O

//

■ .i 0

r-

ri

;%

Page Twenty-three

SEPTEMBER. 1979 — TISHRI. 5740

THE LI GHT

RABBI ISAAC JACOB REINES By • L. Elgrod ' Rabbi Isaac Jacob ben Shlomo Naphtali Reines was born in Karlin, near Minsk, in 1839. He was only ten years old, when it became apparent that he would become a genius. At the age of 16, he entered the Volozhin Yeshivah and also studied at the Eishhook (Eisiskes) Yeshivah. While at Volozhin. he became known as the “ Karlin Genius". He studied by day and bv night, sleeping for only two hours out of the 24.'Before becoming Rabbi of Lida in 1885. he served as Rabbi of Shackyanv and Seventsvna.

His voluminous published and unpublished writings included Hatam Tochnit (published in two parts in 1880 and 1881), which had a profound influence on Talmudic studies because of the new methods it put forward. In Lida. Rabbi Reines established a Yeshiva which trained rabbinical students to expound Judaism in Russian.

In addition to the Lida Yeshiva, which was established in 1905, Rabbi Reines also established other Yeshivot. where secular studies were introduced into the curriculum to counteract the inroads made into Orthodox Jewish life by the Haskalah movement.

Rabbi Reines was also very involved in communal affairs.

His main aim in life was that religious Jews should also become Zionists, and he himself joined the Zionist movement in 1898, being one of the first rabbis to do so.

Three years later, in 1901, he founded the Mizrachi movement, and in 1903 headed a Mizrachi delegation to the 6th Zionist Congress in Basle.

In 1915, this great and learned rabbi and Zionist, who had by then been Rabbi of Lida for 30 years, departed this life.

THE HONORARY OFFICERS & BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE YESHURUN SYNAGOGUE

EXTEND

THEIR

BEST

WISHES

FOR

A

HAPPY, PROSPEROUS AND PEACEFUL NEW YEAR TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BETH DIN, HONORARY

OFFICERS,

EXECUTIVE

AND

ALL MEMBERS OF THE FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES

Page Twenty-four

SEPTEM B ER , 1979 — TISH R I, 5740

“I 1

(CONNY SHACK) Licensed by Federation Beth Din and Kashrus Board

FISH AND DAIRY FOODS OUR SPECIALITY

MID-WEEK AND SUNDAYS ANY HALL

67 BEEHIVE LANE, REDBRIDGE, ESSEX Telephone: 01-554 7375, 01-247 6153 or 01-247 0039 Day

PETER SELMON, F.C.A.

and

LESLIE TEMPLE, A.A.I.B.

Co-directors

SMITH

SELMON TEMPLE

LTD

A ssociated Insurance B rokers

wish the Honorary Officers, Staff and Members of the Federation of Synagogues run to nzD'nm n r n a

T E M P L E C H A M B E R S , T E M P L E A V E N U E , L O N D O N , EC4Y 0EB

Tel: 01-353 0581

f

t

— i =

Page Twenty-five

SEPTEMBER. 1979 — TISHRI. 5740

the li ght

ROOKS THREE-STRANDEI) POLICY Britain and the Jews of Europe 1939-1945. by Bernard Wasserstein; Institute of Jewish Affairs .-'Oxford Universit\ Press; £7.95. A DANGEROUS PLACE, by Daniel Patrick Moynihan; Seeker and Warburg; £6.95.

On the face of it. there appears to be no connection between the two books reviewed here. The first is a detailed and scholarly account of the efforts of British Governments to prevent Jewish emigration from Germany, and subsequently from Europe as a whole, particuiarh to Palestine, from the period before the Second World War until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. I he second book is a description by a United States politician of his experiences as his country's Ambassador to India and the United Nations. However, what the two books do show, in my opinion, is the accomplishment of at least one of the ultimate objects of political Zionism and at least one disadvantage that has followed from it.

The time that has elapsed since 1945 means that many people are writing and commenting about affairs before that date who were not even born then, let alone personally able to remember what conditions were like at the time. Writers brought up in an age when, for example, young men and boys wearing kippot are seen everywhere, and Chassidim, in their distinctive dress, almost everywhere, appear to find it difficult to discover from their reading that these conditions did not always exist. Mr. Wasserstein, who is only 31 vears of age. and other contemporary writers, including at least one of his critics, under-estimate (as mentioned by Mr. C. C. Aaronsfeld in a recent letter to the Jewish Chronicle) the •f

*

*

extent of anti-Semitism in Great Britain before the war. and the extent to which it influenced British policies. There were, in my view, three interconnected strands influencing British policy up to. and to a certain extent, since, the end ol the Mandate.

The first was anti-Semitism. Physically speaking, the furthest that Nazism reached in this country was the barrier at Gardiner's Corner on October 4. 1936. The next wave, in 1940. stopped at the Channel. The poison of Nazism, however, had fertile ground to flourish in. In the Inst place, there was the traditional “ Shvlock" type of anti-Semitism.

That period was 40 years closer to the mass immigration to Britain from Eastern Europe. The resulting change in a populous area of London aroused similar reactions to those resulting from recent Asian immigration. The influence of Jewish retail enterprise is now very favourably regarded, but when Jewish retailers began to open up “cut-price" shops outside the ghetto area, the reaction of existing shopkeepers was predictably negative. In fact, existing shopkeepers, even in the “ghetto", were put out. The later arrival of the refugees, with their different, and often quite modish dress, and different habits and manners, did not help. In addition to the open operations of Oswald Mosley and his Fascists, some of the press, particularly the Rothermere press, with their continual harping on “ aliens" — meaning Jews — was creating an environment favourable to Nazism. As a result, most Jews tried to keep a very low profile, and it was those who wanted to assimilate and attempted to break into non-Jewish society who often provoked reaction.

The second strand was the strong anti-war feeling that existed until well into 1939. This was not pacificism, but a reaction against what was generally felt to have been the senseless slaughter of the First World War. When the British Legion, not a very pacifist organisation, was founded in 1924. a procession led bv the then Prince of Wales marched

THE MEMORIAL FIRMS LTD THE DIRECTORS OF LEWIS & CO. E S T A B L IS H E D O V ER SIX T Y Y EA R S T H E L A R G E S T F IR M O F M E M O R IA L M A N U F A C T U R E R S IN E U R O P E

EXTEND THEIR BEST WISHES TO THE RAV RASHI, THE DAYANIM THE PRESIDENT AND HONORARY OFFICERS AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE

Show room & Office:

347

FEDERATION OF SYNAGOGUES FOR AVENUE,

GANTS HILL, ILFORD, ESSEX Telephone : 01-551 1659

310

m'run D^n mu?

Page Twenty-six

1 1NT]n

SEPTEM B ER . 1979 — TISH R E 5740

through the streets ot London to the Roval Albert Hall where they pledged never to go to war again. This was the foundation of the policy of appeasement and it was feared that the influx and influence of refugees from Germany would lead to opposition to Germany and involvement in another war.

The third strand was that British diplomats and colonial officials thought that the Middle East would be a sate British preserve if the Jews were not allowed to intrude into Palestine. This view is not only still held by some British civil servants, but was also always the view of United States diplomats and officials.

What caused the change in attitude to. and of. the Jews?

Many reasons are given. Coloured immigration did not become a problem until the late 1950s, and the effects of the affluent and the permissive societies until the ‘sixties. I believe the change preceded these eras. Whereas Israel's War of Independence was accompanied bv bad feeling between Israel and Great Britain — on both sides — the Suez Affair of 1956 was regarded in another light. Whereas the British and the French botched their share of the action, the Israelis showed not only that they could organise things well, but that they could stand up and fight — a feeling which subsequent Israeli activity only served to reinforce. Fromthat time on, not only Israel, but the Jews generally, were no longer regarded as the natural whipping boys of the nations, on whom frustrations could be vented, but as people who were prepared and able to stand up for themselves and be worthy of respect. I myself lived through this period and member the change vividly. One of the results was the cessation of Jewish anti-Zionism — prevalent particularly among the older Anglo-Jewish families — except for a lunatic fringe which is unfortunately lately increasing. This effect, which was world-wide, was one of the benefits which Herzl and other early Zionists forecast would follow from the creation of a Jewish State. However, as in all matters Jewish, there is always a negative side . . . .

Daniel Moynihan is not, as one had suspected, simply the Irish type of politician whose aggressiveness manifested itself in anti-Communist and pro-Israel attitudes . . . . He is a highly educated man, who served as Professor of Government at Harvard University. During the ‘sixties he held a number of minor government x)sts, mainly dealing with domestic affairs, and developec views as a liberal, regarding capitalism as the best environment for freedom, and Socialism as limiting freedom. In his book, he presents a shrewd analysis of British Socialism as being primarily concerned with the distribution of wealth whereas, he holds, capitalism seeks to improve the lot of all humanity bv increasing wealth. Most of the liberated countries of the Third World, influenced by the Socialist ideals of their former British and French masters, came to establish authoritarian, so-called -Socialist" regimes at home and claimed that the wealth of the industrialised nations should be re-distributed to them. The other former colonial countries, liberated from Spain and Portugal, had no democratic tradition. On his appointment as US Ambassador to India in 1973, Mr. Moynihan came to realise that even that country, which was the only one that had tried to maintain democratic traditions, would not continue in that way, and he claims to have been proved correct. All these new' Third World states tended to follow the lead of the largest autocratic country, the U. S. S. R., and they formed a large majority at the United Nations.

Accepting that America would be in a minority. Daniel Moynihan held that the U. S. A. should not be ashamed of its free, capitalistic system and the benefits it had provided and could continue to provide to the world, but should

Publicly proclaim this, and use its wealth and position to influence policy.

Since Israel, as a democracy, with a high level of personal freedom for all its citizens, had changed from being the under-dog, favoured by do-gooders, to being regarded as an “ imperialist, racist and oppressive nation “. Moynihan felt it was the task of the U. S. A. to stand up for Israel at the United Nations and through public utterance and private pressure to oppose attempts to brand Israel and Zionism as racist and expel Israel from the IJ. N. (It should be noted that the behaviour of Israel s opponents in these spheres was. to say the least, questionable.) In this policy he found that he came up against the opposition of his own State Department and the representatives of the British Foreign Office, still maintaining the attitudes described earlier in this review.

Their reaction against his outspokenness, backed by the activity, or inactivity, of Henry Kissinger, led him to resign.

He is now a United .States Senator, representing New York, and still proclaiming his ideas — hence this book.

One concluding thought. Whether the continued expansion of production is the answer to the material problems of mankind, I somewhat doubt. There is the opposing view of John Galbraith, who believes that we should move into a post-industrial era and learn to live with what we have. I here are many grounds for this view . environmental and otherwise. What we must accept. however, is that for Israel merely to become a nation “like all other nations will not be enough to ensure its continuing existence.

Norman A. Cohen

CONCHATUI.ATI< INS I

he Editorial Board of I I a m a o r extend hearty congratulations to:

The Rosh Beth Din and Mrs. Alony on the birth of a grandson.

Rahhi and Mrs. Gershon Lopian on their son's Barmitzvah.

Rev. and Mrs. J. Steinhart on their grandson's marriage.

Rev. and Mrs. L. Sober on their daughter's marriage.

Mr. David Griver on his grandson's marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. M. Lipczer on the birth of a grandson.

Mr. and Mrs. S. P. Hackner on their son's marriage and the birth of two grandsons.

Mr. E. Littman on the birth of a grand-daughter.

Mr. and Mrs. M. Leifer on their grandson's Barmitzvah.

Mr. and Mrs. M. Morris on their grandson's Barmitzvah.

Mr. and Mrs. B. Christie on their grandson's Barmitzvah.

Mr. and Mrs. E. H. Pruim and Mr. and Mrs. D. ()rchansk\ on their children's marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. H. Z. Linstock on the marriage of their son. Re>. 1.

Linstock.

Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Goldberg on their daughter's marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. W. B. Magen on their daughter's marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. A. Berniger on their son's engagement.

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Perlmutter on their Golden Wedding Anniversary.

Mr. and Mrs. Connie Shack on their Pearl Wedding Anniversary.

Mr. and Mrs. Bert Barnett on their Ruby Wedding Anniversary.

Mr. and Mrs. Joseph kitsberg on their Sapphire Wedding Anniversary and on their grandson's Barmitzvah.

Mr. Phillip Goldberg on his 75th birthday.

Councillor L. Braham on his election to Waltham Forest Borough Council

Page Twenty-eight

SEPTEM B ER , 1979 — T ISH R I, 5740

REPORT

n

n

n n

O BITUAin

AH AVATU SHALOM (NLASDLN On Sunday, April 29. plaques were consecrated in the Neasden Federation Synagogue to the memory of the late Morris Pliskin (former President of the Synagogue), Sol Angel (former President) and Henry Samson (former Vice-President).

The plaques are surmounted bv a special Yahrzeit lamp ordered from Israel and inscribed: “To the Memory of those who have given valiant service to the Synagogue".

The President. Mr. Max Woolf, unveiled the plaques. The service was conducted by Mr Peter Cowan. Tributes were paid by Dayan Dr. S. Herman.

THE ROLE 01 YOUTH Day an Dr. S. Herman writes: I am delighted that the new scheme that I have introduced for youth is proving so successful.

Each week just before the reading of the Torah, a different boy stands on the Bimah and gives a summary of the Sedra to be read.

This has a number of advantages: 1. It ensures that the bov goes through the Sedra thoroughly; 2. It ensures that the boy comes to Shul; 3. His family may also attend, in order to hear him; 4. It is interesting for the Congregation to compare the efforts of different bovs each week.

RABBI L. LOPIAN, z.l.

At the time of going to press, we learnt with great sorrow of the petirah of one of the Roshei Hayeshiva of Gateshead Yeshiva.

Hagaon Hatsaddik Rabbi Leib Lopian. z.l. His passing has created a vacuum in the Olam Hatorah which will not easily be filled. The Editorial Board of H A M A O R extends heartfelt condolences to the R ebbetzen and family. A full obituary will appear in our next issue.

RABBI JOEL TEITEEBAUM. z.l.

Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum. knowai throughout the world as the Satmarer Rebbe. whose petirah occurred in New York in August, has left a void in the Olam Hatorah. The sole survivor of his familv. who perished in the Holocaust, he recreated in the United States and Israel the great centre of learning he had previously directed at Satmar. in Rumania, and attracted tens of thousands of adherents.

He was one of the greatest Talmudic scholars and Tsaddikim of our age, and. exercised a profound influence throughout the world.

EARL IY10UNTBAITKN 01 BURMA B R A IN S T R U ST AT IL FO R D On May 16 a Brains Trust was held in the Synagogue Hall. The panel, which was provided by the Board of Deputies, consisted of Beatrice Barwell, Clive Lawton (both from the Board), Arnold Shaw, who was until re­ cently the local Member of Parliament, and Hayim Sander­ son of El Al. Mr. S. W. Stuart, Life Vice-President of the Synagogue, was in the chair. There were approxi­ mately fifty people present.

Questions were asked on a wide variety of topics, which evoked vigorous responses from the members of the panel, with a wide variation in the opinions expressed.

One of the liveliest discussions was on the topic of racial prejudice in Israel vis-a-vis the Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities. Time passed so quickly that many of the questions which had been submitted to the Chairman were not even discussed.

A vote of thanks was proposed by Dr. M. Segal, the Synagogue’s Financial Representative.

It is understood that the Board of Deputies is very willing to provide panels, and if required, chairmen, for similar functions for any organisation which approaches them. We thank them for their assistance on this occasion.

A message of condolence was sent to Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip on behalf of the Rav Rashi and President of the Federation of Synagogues and in the name of the Kehilla and its members, following the assassination of Earl Mountbatten and other kinsmen of the Royal Family. The message stressed that Lord Mountbatten was admired by millions throughout the world for his supreme qualities of wisdom, courage and humanity.

CONDOLENCES The Editorial Board of H amaor extend sincere condolences to: Rahhi Gershon Lopian on the loss of his revered father. Rabbi Leib Lopian. Gateshead Rosh Yeshivah.

Mrs. G. Lopian on the loss of her father, I)r. Saberski.

Mrs. Nat Leifer and familv on the loss of her husband.

Mr. M. Leifer on the loss of his brother.

Mr. Max Woolf on the loss of his brother.

Mrs. W. N. Margolis on the loss of her husband, former President of Waltham Forest Hebrew Congregation.

Mr. C. Pollack on the loss of his mother.

Mrs. B. Stone on the loss of her father Mr. S. Gittleman on the loss of his mother.

Mr. I). E. Leverson on the loss of his sister.

Mr. I. Bloom on the loss of a brother.

Mr. I). Hvman on the loss of his sister.

C

EA ST L O N D O N C E N T R A L SY N A G O G U E In addition to his normal and regular Synagogue Shiurim. Rabbi Herling, Rav of the East London Central Synagogue, conducts fortnightly Ladies' Shiurim at his home, attended by well over a “minyan" of lady students — and the number is steadily growing.

Rabbi Herling has commented on the high quality of the discussion and questions. As far as is known, this is the only Ladies' Shiur in this part of London.

V-

Published by HAMAOR Publications Committee. 9-11 Greatorcx Street. London. E l and printed

by Narod Press Ltd.. 129-131 Caveil Street. London.