Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ...

Author: Robert Chancan

8 downloads 878 Views 17MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486318 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

AJS VOL. FALL

IX,

NO.

2

1984

t 1 TheJournalof theAssociation forJewishStudies

('I

REVIE

Volume IX, Number 2, Fall, 1984

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

AJS Review

EDITOR:

Robert Chazan, QueensCollege ASSOCIATE EDITORS:

Seymour Feldman, RutgersUniversity Robert Goldenberg, StateUniversityof New Yorkat Stony Brook Paula E. Hyman, JewishTheologicalSeminaryof America David C. Jacobson, Universityof Pennsylvania Baruch A. Levine, New YorkUniversity Benjamin C. I. Ravid, BrandeisUniversity CORRESPONDING

EDITOR:

Lloyd P. Gartner, Tel-AvivUniversity BOOK REVIEW EDITOR:

Arnold J. Band, Universityof Californiaat Los Angeles The AJSreview (ISSN 0364-0094) is published twice annually by the Association for Jewish Studies. The Association for Jewish Studies is a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies. Manuscripts for consideration should be sent to Prof. Robert Chazan, Dept. of History, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 11367. Books for review should be sent to Dr. Charles Berlin, Association for Jewish Studies, Widener Library M, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. @ 1985 by the Association for Jewish Studies

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AJSREVIEW THE JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES

VOLUME IX, NUMBER2, FALL, 1984

Articles 141 ARNOLDA. LASKER ANDDANIELJ. LASKER

The Jewish Prayerfor Rain in the Post-TalmudicDiaspora A. DAVIDSON 175 HERBERT

Averroesand Narboni on the MaterialIntellect 185

STEPHENM. POPPEL

RabbinicalStatusand ReligiousAuthorityin ImperialGermany:The German RabbinicalAssociation 215

JEHUDAREINHARZ

Professorship ChaimWeizmannand the ElusiveManchester 247

MOSHESHOKEID

CulturalEthnicityin Israel:The Case of Middle EasternJews' Religiosity Book Reviews 273 Susan A. Handelman.TheSlayersof Moses: TheEmergenceof Rabbinic Interpretationin ModernLiteraryTheory SHIRA WOLOSKY

H. Schmelzer,ed. Yitzhakben AvrahamIbn Ezra: Shirim 281 M1enahem DAVID STERN

285 YehudaNini and Maya Fruchtman,eds. RabbiShem TobBen I;hak Ardutiel or Don Santo De-Carrion,"Ma'ase-Harab"(The Debate betweenthe Pen and the Scissors) LEONJ. WEINBERGER

287 David B. Ruderman.The Worldof a RenaissanceJew: The Life and Thoughtof Abrahamben MordecaiFarissol KENNETHR. STOW

291 Timothy Oelman, ed. and trans. MarranoPoets of the Seventeenth Century:An Anthologyof the Poetry of Jodo Pinto Delgado,Antonio EnriquezG6mez,and Miguel de Barrios RENtE LEVINE

293 Yona Sabar.TheFolk Literatureof theKurdistaniJews:An Anthology WALTERP. ZENNER

295 Ze'ev Falk. Law and Religion:The JewishExperience ELLIOTN. DORFF

297

0. O. Gruzenberg. Yesterday: Memoirs of a Russian-Jewish Lawyer GERSHONC. BACON

CollectedStudies 301 J. A. Emertonand StefanC. Reif, eds. Interpretingthe HebrewBible: Essays in Honourof E. I. J. Rosenthal 301 Jacob Neusner, ed. TakeJudaism,for Example:Studies towardthe Comparisonof Religions 302 SheldonR. Brunswick,ed. Studiesin Judaica,KaraiticaandIslamica: Presentedto Leon Nemoy on his EightiethBirthday 302 IsadoreTwersky.Studiesin Jewish Law and Philosophy 303 JacobI. Dienstag,ed. Eschatologyin MaimonideanThought:Messianism, Resurrectionand the Worldto Come 304 JehudaReinharzand DanielSwetschinski,eds. Mystics,Philosophers, and Politicians:Essaysin JewishIntellectualHistoryin Honorof AlexanderAltman 305 Lea Dasberg and Jonathan N. Cohen, eds. Neveh Ya'akov:Jubilee VolumePresentedto Dr. JaapMeijeron the Occasionof His Seventieth Birthday 305 Shlomo Deshen and Walter P. Zenner, eds. Jewish Societies in the MiddleEast: Community,Cultureand Authority 306 David Berger, ed. The Legacy of Jewish Migration:1881 and Its Impact 307 HowardJoseph,JackN. Lightstone,and MichaelD. Oppenheim,eds. Truthand Compassion:Essayson Judaismand Religionin Memoryof Rabbi Dr. SolomonFrank. 309 Books Received

Publicationof this volumeof AJS Reviewhas been madepossibleby grants from the National Foundationfor JewishCulture,the S. H. and Helen R. ScheuerFamilyFoundation,and the Dorot Foundation.TheAssociationis gratefulfor theirsupportandencouragement.

The Jewish Prayer for Rain in the Post-Talmudic Diaspora Author(s): Arnold A. Lasker and Daniel J. Lasker Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 141-174 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486319 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



THE JEWISHPRAYERFOR RAIN IN THE POST-TALMUDICDIASPORA by ARNOLD A. LASKER and DANIEL J. LASKER Introduction Halakhahdoes not developin a vacuum.It growsthroughits confrontation with the changingconditionsin which Jews live. New situationsraise new questionswhich, in turn, requirenew answers. The processof determiningthe correctpracticehas involvedmore than reinterpretingtalmudic discussionsor simply following the post-talmudic codes. Other factors, which include local custom, the desire for Jewish uniformity, and the dictates of reason, have also played a major role. Stressingone or anotherof these factors over the others could very likely resultin differentconclusions.As a result,authoritiesveryoftenhavefound themselvesin disagreementas to what the halakhahon a particularpoint shouldbe. A historyof halakhah,therefore,needsto take into consideration the interplay of the various factors entering into decision-makingand show which ultimatelybecame dominant. 141

142

ARNOLD A. LASKER AND DANIEL J. LASKER

To illustratethis point, we propose to study the following question: When is the Jewishprayerfor rain to be said in the diaspora?By concentratingon whatis otherwisea relativelyminor,technicalpoint,we hope that certainprincipleswhichformthe basisof halakhicdevelopmentwill become manifest. The Jewish prayer for rain consists of the insertion of the words tal u-malar("dew and rain")in the ninth benedictionof the Shemoneh'Esreh (Birkat ha-Shanim -

"The Blessing of the Years").' The practice of insert-

ing this phrase into the blessing is a very old one. In tannaitic times, apparentlythe only questionwhicharoseabout the insertionconcernedthe exact portion of the year when the prayerwas to be said. The Mishnah recordsvariousproposeddatesfor beginningto say it. The acceptedopinion was that attributedto RabbanGamaliel,who ruledthat the prayerfor rain should commenceon the seventh of Marbeshvan,"fifteen days after the feast, so that even the tardiestIsraelitemay reach the Euphrates[on the returnjourney from the pilgrimageto Jerusalem]."2 It is unclearfrom the context whetherRabbanGamalielintendedthat the prayerfor rain should begin invariablyon the seventhof Marheshvanor only when there was a Templeand pilgrims.3Conceivably,whentherewereno pilgrims,the prayer for rain could begin right after SheminiAtzeret.4 The authors would like to thank the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, which provided research grants, and the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project, whose facilities were used in the retrieval of pertinent sources. 1. The phrase tal u-malar ("dew and rain") is biblical; see 1 Kings 17:1. In the Ashkenazic rite, the changeover from dry season to rainy season is effected by the addition of the words tal u-malar. In the Sefardic rite, the two seasons have different forms for the opening of the benediction: Barekh 'aleinu (with the words tal u-malar) for the rainy season, Barekheinu (without those words) for the dry season. On the ninth benediction of the Shemoneh 'Esreh, see, e.g., Ismar Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Frankfurt, 1931; [reprint ed. Hildesheim, 1962]), pp. 49-50. 2. Mishnah Ta'anit 1:3; see Henry Malter, ed., The Treatise Ta'anit of the Babylonian Talmud(Philadelphia, 1928), p. 2 (1967 ed., pp. 4-5). For our purposes, it is not important to determine the accuracy of the talmudic attributions. Later rabbinical authorities, who are our main concern here, took the talmudic material at face value. Thus, our discussion, for instance, of Rabbi Judah's reasoning is based on the later perspective of commentators and decisors. 3. From the discussion in both Talmuds (Bab. Ta'anit 4b; Jer. Ta'anit 1:2, 64a), it would appear that Rabban Gamaliel's ruling is applicable only in Temple times. See Joseph Heinemann, ."Le-Verur Peshutan shel Mishnayot Abadot," Bar Ilan 3 (1965): 11-17. The current practice in the Land of Israel is to begin the prayer for rain on the seventh of Marbeshvan. 4. Whereas the mention (hazkarah) of rain, with the words mashiv ha-rualh u-morid ha-geshem, begins on Shemini Atzeret itself, the prayer (she'elah) for rain, /al u-malar, is said only in the weekday Shemoneh 'Esreh and, thus, could not be said until after Shemini Atzeret.

PRAYER FOR RAIN IN THE POST-TALMUDIC DIASPORA

143

Babylonianpracticewas differentfrom that of the Land of Israel. The Talmudreportsthat U1ananiah(a second-centurytanna who moved from the Land of Israel to Babylonia)pointed out that the Babylonian Jews startedto say tal u-matarmuchlater than the seventhof Marbeshvan.They did not begin to do so until the sixtieth day from TequfatTishrei(the autumnalequinox).5This practicewas subsequentlydeclaredby Samuelto be the halakhahfor BabylonianJews.6Despite this differenceof procedure betweenthe Jewsof Babyloniaand those of the Landof Israelas to whento start sayingtal u-malar,they both agreedon when to stop sayingit, the last weekday serviceprior to Passover.7 There were, of course, Jews living in other countriesduringtalmudic times, but, unfortunately, we have no information as to when these communitiesprayedfor rain.Onlyone case of this natureis mentioned,that of Nineveh (Nawe).s The BabylonianTalmudrelatesthe story as follows: of Ninevehsentthe followingquestionto Rabbi[JudahhaTheinhabitants arewe to be as we arein needof rainduringthe summer,9 Nasi]:Inasmuch 5. In the third century, the seventh of Marbeshvan fell between October 3 and November 1 (Gregorian); see A. A. Akavia, Calendarfor 6000 Years (Jerusalem, 1975/76), adjusting his Julian dates for Gregorian by subtracting one day from the Julian to get the Gregorian (for the third century). Although we do not know exactly how Babylonian Jews in the third century calculated the equinox, we can compute that the sixtieth day after the astronomical equinox at that time fell on November 21. 'At the present time, the rules for calculation set down by Samuel (Erubin 56a) are employed, and, as a result, the autumnal equinox is presumed to fall on October 7, and the prayer for rain in the Diaspora begins sixty days later, starting with Ma'ariv of either December 4 or 5; see below, n. 97. 6. See Bab. Ta'anit 10a; Malter, Ta'anit, p. 69 (1967 ed., pp. 138-140), Jer. Ta'anit 63d. The "sixtieth day from the equinox [shishim yom ba-tequfah]" ultimately became more precisely defined as the sixtieth day counting from the equinoctial day, or fifty-nine days after the equinox. The reasons for the difference between the dates in the Land of Israel and Babylonia are explored in the authors' "The Jewish Prayer for Rain in Babylonia," to appear in the Journal for the Study of Judaism. 7. Namely, in Minhah on the eve of Passover; see Mishnah Ta'anit 1:1-2. The mention of rain (mashiv ha-ruab) is made for the last time on the first day of Passover either in Shaharit (Sefardic and Land of Israel practice) or in the silent Musaf prayer (Ashkenazic rite). 8. The received text is "Nineveh," the Assyrian city, but Samuel Klein, "The Estates of R. Judah Ha-Nasi," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 2 (1911-12): 550-554, suggested reading here "Nawe," a city in Transjordan. His reasoning is that there was no Jewish community in Nineveh at the time of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. This emendation was accepted by Malter, p. 97 (1967 ed., pp. 194-195), and by Gedalyah Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-'Ere; Yisrael bi-Tequfat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv, 1961), p. 138. This emendation was rejected by Jacob Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien (Frankfurt, 1929), p. 139. For our purposes, it makes no difference whether it was the Jews of Nineveh or the Jews of Nawe who

144


compared to individualsand hence to include our prayer for rain in the benedictionShome'aTefilah["He Who HearsPrayer"],toor are we regarded as a communityand shouldinsertit in Birkatha-Shanim?Rabbi replied:You are regardedas individuals,and shouldinsertyour prayerin the benediction Shome'aTefilah.An objectionwas raised:RabbiJudahsays, the givenorder of fasts appliesonly to timeswhenthe seasonsof the yearweredividedon the basis of theirnormalrecurrenceand Israelwas dwellingin its land, but in the present [i.e., after the destructionof the Temple and the dispersionof the Jewishpeople]all dependsupon the natureof the seasonsanduponthe nature of the localities!What!You quote a baraitato contradictRabbi!Rabbiis an authorityof the Mishnahand is entitledto differ.What has been decidedin this matter?R. Nabman said, in such a case the prayerfor rain may be inserted in Birkat ha-Shanim,but R. Sheshet said, it must be included in Shome'aTefilah,and the law is that it must be includedin Shome'aTefilah.II The Jerusalem Talmud reports the incident somewhat differently. As the story is presented there,'2 the inhabitants of Nineveh found themselves in dire need of rain after Passover, i.e., when the Jews in both the Land of Israel and Babylonia no longer required rain. They, therefore, wanted to call a public fast, but they were reluctant to do so without higher authority. As a result, the Jews of Nineveh came and asked Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi whether a public fast was permissible. He said: "Go and do so; just do not change the form of the prayer [mi-tiv'ahshel tefilah]."'3On the basis of this answer, the question was then raised as to where in the Shemonah 'Esreh one actually prays for rain, i.e., says tal u-matar, under such circumstances. R. Jeremiah ruled that one says it in Shome'a Tefilah. R. Yose, however, stated that the

presented this question to Rabbi Judah the Prince. We shall refer to Nineveh throughout this article, since that is the reading familiar to the medieval authorities. 9. Bi-tequfat Tammuz, i.e., during the period of the summer solstice. The term tequfah is used for both the equinox/solstice itself and the entire season. 10. See Appendix. I1. Bab. Ta'anit 14b; translation, with some changes, Malter, Ta'anit, pp. 97-98 (1967 ed., pp. 194-196). 12. Jer. Ta'anit 1:1, 63d; Berakhot 5:2, 9b. 13. This is the reading of Alexander Kohut, Aruch Completum,vol. 4 (Vienna, 1926), p. 11. The Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 40b, refers to malbe'a she-lav'ubakhamim;see below, n. 17. Many later authorities quoted Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's phrase as malbe'a shel tefilah. By itself, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's answer is unclear. What does the "form of prayer" have to do with the rain fast? In context, however, and in comparison with Bab. Ta'anit 14b, it appears that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi must be referring to the saying of lal u-malar.


145

saying of jal u-malarin Shome'aTefilahapplies only during the period of the year when it should be said in Birkatha-Shanim,when the worshipper has forgottento do so.14 At othertimes, R. Yose argued,tal u-malarshould be said only in the six extra blessingsadded to the Shemoneh'Esrehon a fast-day."5Since, however,these six additionalblessingscould be said only in communal prayer, R. Hanina ruled that individualspraying by themselves would have to say tal u-malarin Shome'aTefilah.'6 Though the two Talmuds present the incident differently,one can discernthe basicstoryand conclusion.The climateof Ninevehwas suchthat rain was desirableeven after Passover.The Jewishcommunitythereturned to the patriarch,Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, to inquire as to the correct procedurefor prayingfor it. He answeredthat they mightprayfor rain,but not in the same manneras they would in the winter,when Jews in the Land of Israeland Babyloniawerealso prayingfor rain.The practicalimplicationof this ruling,as expressedby R. Sheshet,R. Jeremiah,and R. Ijanina, meant that suchJews,who wereto be consideredas individuals,could prayfor rain duringthe summer,but not in Birkatha-Shanim.One must not tamperwith the "form of prayer." Thereare, then, two possiblereasonsfor RabbiJudahha-Nasi'sruling. On the one hand, it may be that the Jews of Nineveh were too small a community,comparedto the Jewishpopulationsin the Land of Israeland Babylonia,to have their own specialtimes for sayinglal u-malarin Birkat ha-Shanim.On the other hand, it may be that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi was concernedabout Jewishunity as expressedby the uniformityof custom. If any group of Jews were allowed to change the form of prayerto suit local needs, the result might be fragmentation."Perhapsthe logical approach would have been for each group of Jews to pray for rain, in Birkat haShanim,when the need arose. Such, indeed, was the position of R. Judah (and, probably, R. NaIman): "In the present time all depends upon the

14. R. Yose's statement is based on the statement of R. Ze'eira in the name of R. Huna, quoted directly above the present passage (Jer. Ta'anit 63d). 15. See Mishnah Ta'anit 2:2-4. 16. R. IHanina based his opinion on another statement of R. Ze'eira in the name of R. Huna, Jer. Berakhot 4:4, 8b. 17. In Bab. Berakhot 40b, the possibility is raised that one might be able to substitute different formulae for the recognized blessings before food. This is objected to on the basis that one may not change the form which was ordained by the rabbis, malbe'a she-tav'u zakhamim.

146


natureof the seasonsand upon the natureof the localities."This, however, was not the way RabbiJudahha-Nasi saw the issue. Uniformityof practice outweighedwhat might have been considerationsof logic.'" In the post-talmudicperiod, Jewish communitieswere establishedin countries in which the climatic patternsdifferedfrom both the Land of Israeland Babylonia.One questionwhichnaturallyarosewas whenJewsin those landsshouldprayfor rain.Shouldthey follow the customof the Land of Israel,and pray for rain fromthe seventhof MarbeshvanuntilPassover, or that of Babylonia,and say the prayerfromthe sixtiethday of the equinox until Passover?Inasmuchas the Talmuddescribesthe Babyloniancustomas that of the Golah(which,in context,meantBabyloniabut whichalso means "diaspora"),'9shouldthe Babylonianpracticebe regardedas applyingto all Jews outside the Land of Israel?If the local need for rain was sufficiently differentfrom both the Land of Israeland Babylonia,were the individual Jewish communitiesentitled to set up their own customs?What lessons could be derived from the story about the Jews in Nineveh?What effect should climaticconditionshave on the practiceof prayingfor rain?These questionshaveexercisedthe mindsof manyrabbinicdecisorsfor at leastthe past thousandyearsand, to some extent,continueto do so to this day. Our examinationof the answersgiven to these questionswill show the various underlyingfactors involved in halakhicdevelopment.20 18. Some commentators understood Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's answer as based on the fact that summer rain is bad for most of the world. Therefore, he would not let the inhabitants change the form of prayer to pray for something which most people wish to avoid; see, e.g., 54. Menalhem ha-Meiri, Beit ha-Bebhirah,Ta'anit, ed. Abraham Sofer (Jerusalem, 1968/69), p. Yosef Kafalb,"She'elat Geshamim," Me'orot 1 (Fall 1979): 88-92, suggested that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi was concerned that the form of Birkat ha-Shanim said in the summer would fall into desuetude if he permitted the saying of tal u-matar in Birkat ha-Shanim other than in the winter. (This theory is based on the supposition that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi recognized two separate forms of Birkat ha-Shanim, as is the Yemenite and Sefardic practice to this day, rather than one form of Birkat ha-Shanim, with and without tal u-matar, as is the Ashkenazic practice; see n. 1.) This, to Kafab, is the meaning of the prohibition of changing the "form of prayer. 19. Bab. Ta'anit 10a, Jer. Ta'anit 63d. There are a number of talmudic passages in which Golah clearly means only Babylonia; see, e.g., Ber. 63a, Sanh. 32b, and Qid. 72a. 20. It should be clear already that the widely held belief that Jews in the diaspora pray for rain to fall in Israel is fallacious. Cf., e.g., Elie Munk, The Worldof Prayer, vol. 1 (New York, 1961), p. 138; Barukh Halevi Epstein, Barukh She'emar (Tel Aviv, 1970), p. 128; Mordecai M. Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization(New York, 1934), p. 188; Ben Zion Bokser, The Prayer Book (New York, 1961), p. 54 (note); Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York, 1979), p. 23. Apparently, Hayyim of Volozhyn understood Joseph Caro in the ShulbtanArukh to be of a similar opinion; cf. Zevi Kaplan, "Le-Darkho shel Rabbenu Hayyim mi-Volozhin


147

The Date in North Africa and Europe

Thereis no recordof any discussionsconcerningthe date for sayingtal u-matar in the ancient non-Babyloniandiaspora communities, such as Alexandriaor Rome. The question seems to have arisen first in geonic times, but only among the Jewsof Kairouanin what is now Tunisia,North Africa. There, accordingto the availableevidence,the custom of the Land of Israel-beginning to pray for rain on the seventhof Marbeshvan-was apparentlythe one followed.2' It is only from the eleventh century on, however,that accuraterecordsof rabbinicdiscussionsof the issuehavebeen preserved. From the extant sources,we learn that the generalpracticeamong the Jewsof Europewas to follow the Babylonianprocedureof startingto say tal u-mataron the sixtiethday fromthe autumnalequinox.Numerousauthorities fromthe eleventhto the fourteenthcenturyattestto this fact. Whetherit was in Franceand Germany,22 in Italy,23or in Spain,24the Babylonianprac-

ba-Halakhah," Sinai 69 (Nisan-Elul 1970/71): 92 (and cf. his n. 43). Epstein even provided a rationale explaining why a Jew living elsewhere should pray for rain in the Land of Israel. It is based on the principle (Berakhot 12b) that he who is able to pray for his neighbor's needs and does not do so is considered a sinner. 21. The evidence is somewhat sketchy and is dependent on unreliable MS readings. See Halakhot Gedolot, ed. J. Hildesheimer (Berlin, 1888), p. 175. In the E. Hildesheimer edition (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 360, the passage in question appears only in the textual variants. See, in addition, Aryeh Leib Frumkin, ed., Seder Ray Amram Ha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 1911/12), p. 245, where referenceis made to Franqia'. David Hedegard, Seder R. Amram Gaon, vol. 1 (Lund, 1951), p. 91, surmised that this means Africa. In any event, this passage is suspect since it appears only in Oxford-Bodleian MS Opp. 28, which is late and unreliable. See Tryggve Kronholm, Seder R. Amram Gaon, vol. 2 (Lund, 1974), pp. xl-xli. On the North African custom of beginning tal u-matar on the seventh of Marbeshvan, see below nn. 55-57. 22. See Isaac ben Judah of Mainz, as quoted in Zedekiah ben Abraham ha-Rofe, Shibbolei ha-Leqet, ed. Solomon Buber (Vilna, 1886/87; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1961/62), p. 20. For Rashi, see Israel Elfenbein, ed., Responsa Rashi (New York, 1943), pp. 10-11; Abraham Epstein and Jacob Freimann, eds., Sefer Ma'aseh Ha-Ge'onim (Berlin, 1909), p. 43; Michael Levi Frumkin, ed., Sefer Ha-Pardes Ha-Gadol, (Israel, 1969/70), p. 116; Solomon Buber and Jacob Freimann, eds., Siddur Rashi (Berlin, 1911), p. 23. For Tosafot, see Ta'anit 10a (s.v. hilkhata') and Nedarim 63a (s.v. revi'ah rishonah lish'ol). See also "Rashi's" Commentary ad Ta'anit 10a. (The Commentary of Rashi printed in our editions of Ta'anit is not Rashi's; see Jonah Fraenkel, "Rashi: Commentary to the Babylonian Talmud," Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 13, col. 1564; and David Weiss-Halivni, "Sheloshah ha-'Amudim ha-Rishonim shel haPerush ha-Meyuhas le-Rashi 'al Ta'anit," Sinai 43 [1957/58]: 211-222, and "He'erah," Sinai, 67 [1969/70]: 167-68.) For other Franco-German authorities, see also Simeon Levy Hurwitz, ed., Mahzor Vitry of Simbah ben Samuel of Vitry (Nuremberg, 1923), p. 66; Eliezer ben Joel of Bonn, Sejer Ravyah, ed. A. Aptowitzer, vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1963/64), p. 594; Isaac ben Moses of

148


tice was the one that was followed. The commentaryattributedto Rashi summedup the mattersuccinctly:"All our customs follow Babylonia."25 The only exceptionto this generalrule seems to have been in Provence (Languedoc),although the evidence is conflicting. Some authoritiessay unqualifiedlythat in Provencethe custom was to begin sayingtal u-matar on the sixtiethday fromthe equinox.26Most of our sources,however,point to a differentpractice,namely,beginningthe requestfor rainon the seventh of Marbeshvan.27 Most of the evidence for the Provencalcustom comes from the city of Narbonne.28 We see, then, that in regardto the prayerfor rain,Jewryin North Africa and WesternEuropecan be dividedinto two groups,those who followedthe Vienna, Or Zaru'a, vol. 2 (Zhitomir, 1862/63), p. 163; Moses of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol Positive Commandment 19 (Venice, 1546/47; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1960/61), p. 100b; Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, Ha-Manhig, p. 90; and Asher ben Jehiel, Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvotha-Rosh (n.p., n.d.), p. 14. 23. See Zedekiah ben Abraham ha-Rofe, Shibbolei ha-Leqet, p. 20; Isaiah ben Mali di Trani (the Elder), Pisqei ha-Rid, vol. 3, ed. A. Y. Wertheimer et al. (Jerusalem, 1970/71), p. 183. See also Isaiah ben Elijah di Trani (the Younger), Pisqei Riaz, ed. A. Lis et al. (Jerusalem, 1970/71), p. 91, who may be referring only to Babylonia. 24. See Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (Ha-Yarbi), Sefer ha-Manhig, ed. Yitzhak Raphael (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 90; Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili, HIiddusheiha-Rilba, Ta'anit, ed. E. Lichtenstein (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 36-40; Asher ben Jehiel, Teshuvot ha-Rosh, p. 14; Nahmanides' anonymous student, Perush Talmid ha-Ramban 'al Massekhet Ta'anit, ed. E. Lichtenstein (Petab Tiqva, 1977/78), p. 14 (who refers to Catalonia and not to all of Spain; on the identity of this student of Nalmanides, see Benyamin Z. Benedikt, Kiryat Sefer 29, 4 [April 1954]:391-429); and Hayyim ben Samuel of Tudela, Shillah Li- Va'al ha-Zerurot (Tel Aviv, n.d.), p. 35. 25. Commentary ad Ta'anit 10a (on this commentary, see n. 22). 26. See Meshullam ben Moses ben Judah of B6ziers, Sefer Hashlamah, in Moshe Herschler, ed., Ginzei Rishonim (Rosh ha-Shanah, Yoma, Ta'anit) (Jerusalem, 1962/63), p. 157; and ed. E. Hurvitz (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 66 (in text). Manoah of Narbonne, Sefer ha-Menui.ah, 27. See Meiri, Beit ha-Behirah, p. 34; Yerubam ben Meshullam of Provence, Sefer Toledot Adam va-ilavvah (Venice, 1553; reprint ed., Israel, 1974/75), p. 25a; Asher ben Jehiel, Hilkhot Rabbenu Asher, ad Ta'anit 10a and Teshuvotha-Rosh, pp. 14-15. 28. See Abraham ben Nathan, Ha-Manhig, p. 90; Nabmanides' anonymous student, Perush, p. 15; and David ben Levi of Narbonne, Sefer Mikhtam, in Herschler, GinzeiRishonim, p. 243. David ben Levi said that the rest of Provence, other than Narbonne, started the prayer on the thirtieth day of the equinox, which is probably a mistake for the sixtieth day (sheloshim/ shishirh)..In addition, Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne stated that Hananiah's statement about the Golah was understood by some to refer to the whole diaspora, by others to just Babylonia; see Sefer ha-'Eshkol, ed. B. H. Auerbach, vol. 1 (Halberstadt, 1867), p. 26. Ritba (Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili) and Ran (Nissim ben Reuben) mentioned undesignated places as beginning on the seventh of Marbeshvan, and Ritba added that some begin right after Shemini Atzeret; see below, nn. 39-42, 53. Cf. also, Z. N. Jaffe, Qorot NleshbonHa-'Ibbur (Jerusalem, 1930/31), p. 121.

PRAYERFOR RAIN IN THE POST-TALMUDIC DIASPORA

149

custom of the Land of Israel and those who followed the Babylonian custom. We do not know, however,the originsof theseparticularpractices. Was the adoptionof eithercustomthe resultof a consciousdecision-based on talmudic texts or other halakhic or meteorological considerations29-or do the various practicesreflect merely the origins of the first Jewish settlers in each country?30When the author of the commentary attributed to Rashi stated in this matter that "all our customs follow Babylonia,"3'was he institutinga new law or simplycodifyingan already existingpractice?Thereis no way of answeringthese questions,sinceJewish settlementin these areaspredatedour earliestsurvivinghalakhicdocuments and sincethe documentswe have do not addressthese by severalcenturies,32 issues. What we can say is that the divergencein practicein the first centuries of the second millenniumC.E.mirrorsthe divergencein the halakhic decisionson the matterfrom that period.Just as therewas no one diaspora custom regardingtal u-matar,there was also no one authoritativeexposition of the halakhahon this issue. As the halakhahdeveloped,local custom played a decisive role in the forming of the law. In turn, the halakhah 29. In Tunisia,thereis rain all yearround,thoughverylittlein JunethroughAugust.The rainyseason beginsin September,and the monthsof heaviestrainfallareOctoberto January; see J. F. Griffiths,ed., Climatesof Africa,WorldSurveyof Climatology,no. 10 (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 74. Provence(Languedoc),likewise, is relativelydry from June to August, with SeptemberthroughDecemberbeingthe wettestperiodof the year;see C. C. Wall6n,Climates of Northernand WesternEurope,World Surveyof Climatology,5 (Amsterdam,1970),pp. 189-190. TheseJewishcommunities,therefore,would seem to be justified,from the point of view of climate, in beginningthe pray for rain in Marbeshvan. 30. The settlementof Jewsin southernFrancegoes back at least to the firstcentury.There was an especialinterestin the JerusalemTalmudin Provence;see Abrahamibn Daud, Sefer ha-Qabbalah, ed, and trans.by GersonD. Cohen,(Philadelphia,1967),pp. 66 (Hebrew),88-89 (translation); Louis Ginzberg, A Commentaryon the Palestinian Talmud(New York, 1941), pp.

109-110 (in introduction).This interestin the JerusalemTalmudmay have been one of the factorswhichled to the basingof Provengalcustomson the practicesof both the Landof Israel and Babylonia;see B. Z. Benedikt, "Le-Toledotavshel Merkaz ha-Torahbe-Provence," Tarbi;22 (1950/51):93. Jews in North Africaalso had customsfromboth the Landof Israel and Babylonia; see H. Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews in North Africa, vol. 1 (Leiden,

1974),pp. 298-300. Spain had an ancientJewishcommunity,most of which was wiped out beforethe Muslimconquest(711). Duringthe Muslimperiod,the Jewishcommunitywasvery muchunderBabylonianinfluence;cf. EliyahuAshtor,"Spain,"Encyclopaedia Judaica,vol. 15, col. 222. In general,not enoughis knownabout halakhicdevelopmentsin Europeduringthe firstmillenniumC.E.to come to any definiteconclusionsabout the differentcustomsof saying lal u-malar.

31. See n. 25. 32. On the lack of written records from Provence,see Benedikt,"Le-Toledotav,"pp. 96-98.

150


determined the customs that subsequently developed in other communities. To understand this process, we must turn to the authorities whose rulings were most decisive for the final adjudication of the question. The first postgeonic codification of the halakhah was compiled by Isaac Alfasi (1031-1103). In his Hilkhot ha-Rif, Alfasi recorded the opinions of Hananiah, who said that the prayer for rain in the Golah begins on the sixtieth day from the equinox, and of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, concerning praying for rain in Nineveh, without any discussion. It would appear, then, that Alfasi believed that the entire diaspora should follow the Babylonian practice.3 Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides, 1135-1204) was the first authority to offer the possibility that each locality should pray for rain when it is needed there, rather than follow the practice of either the Land of Israel or of Babylonia. Unfortunately, his opinion on the matter is ambiguous, since the point of view in his Commentary on the Mishnah seems to differ from that found in his Mishneh Torah. In the Commentaryon the Mishnah, Maimonides wrote: In the othercountries[i.e., otherthanthe Landof Israel]the request[forrain] is at a time whenrainis good and properin that place, and that timeis consideredas if it werethe seventhof Marbeshvan,and if rainis delayedafterthat For there time,one shouldreactin regardto the fastsas has beenprescribed.34 are countriesin whichrainbeginsonly in Nisan [March/April]and countries whichhave summerin Marbeshvan;and rain,insteadof beinggood for them, kills and destroys them. How can people in such a place ask for rain in Marbeshvan?Would that not be both a lie and foolishness?This is true and obvious.35 A very different view is given when Maimonides comes to codify the 33. Hilkhot 2a, 5a (standard Vilna Talmud ed.). ha-Rif, pp. 34. The first three chapters of Ta'anit give instructions for the public fasts to be held in the event of a drought. What Maimonides seems to be saying here is that Jews in a country that needs rain as of the first of Nisan, for example, would begin to say lal u-malar on that date. (Since he does not specify the benediction in which it is said, that became the subject of later debate; see below.) They would also institute fasts for a drought as if the first of Nisan were the seventh of Marbeshvan. Thus, since in the Land of Israel individuals begin to fast on the seventeenth of Marheshvan (Ta'anit 1:4), in this particular country they would begin on the eleventh of Nisan. 35. Commentary on the Mishnah, ad Ta'anit 1:3.


151

halakhah in the Mishneh Torah. Here, without any reference to what

appearsin the Commentary,he wrote: One begins to ask for rain in the Blessingof the Yearsfrom the seventhof Marheshvan[andcontinues]duringthe wholeperiodof mentioningrain[until Passover].Thisrefersonly to the Landof Israel,but Shinar[Babylonia],Syria, Egypt, and places near them and like them ask for rain on the sixtieth day from the autumnalequinox.Placesthat need rain in the summer,such as the farawaysea islands, ask for rain when they need it in Shome'a Tefilah.36 As we shall see below, later authorities tried to explain Maimonides' two statements in different ways.37 It may well be that any apparent contradiction is a result of the different purposes of the two works discussed here.38In his Commentary, Maimonides was explaining the import of the Mishnah; therefore, he felt free to explore the logic of the situation: "How can people in such a place ask for rain in Marheshvan? Would that not be both a lie and foolishness? This is true and obvious." When he codified the law in the Mishneh Torah, however, he appears to be constrained by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's response to the residents of Nineveh. What may be logically sound, or even the correct interpretation of the Mishnah, is not necessarily codified as the halakhah. Whatever Maimonides' true intentions, the issue was left unresolved. He did, however, provide a basis for those who subsequently ruled that the prayer for rain should follow local needs and not be said simply according to the Babylonian practice. In Maimonides' work, the tensions between logic and tradition were not yet explicit. This conflict is more clearly expressed by Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili (Ritba, ca. 1250-1330). In his fliddushim to Ta'anit, he started off by interpreting Rabban Gamaliel's statement in the Mishnah to mean that the prayer for rain was delayed until the seventh of Marbeshvan because of the pilgrims, but that the appropriate time to begin the prayer, if there are no pilgrims, is right after Shemini Atzeret. He further noted the talmudic passage which attributes the late date for the prayer for rain in 36. H. Tefilah 2:16-17. 37. On the problem of contradictions in the Mishneh Torah itself, see Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven, 1980), pp. 311-320. 38. On the distinction Maimonides himself made between a commentary (perush) and a code (hibbur), see Chaim Tchernowitz, Toledoth Ha-Poskim, vol. 1 (New York, 1946), pp. 242-243.

152


Babyloniato the presencethere of peirei be-davra'("fruitsin the field").39 He, therefore,deducedfromthe Talmudthat thereare two possiblestarting dates for sayingtal u-matar:(1) rightafterSheminiAtzeret,as in the Land of Israel,40or (2) sixty days from the autumnalequinox, as in Babylonia. Whichof these two alternativesshouldapplyto any particularcommunity, he continued,dependson two factors.If the climateis like that of the Land of Israel,and if thereare ho fruitsin the field, then the date for beginningto say tal u-matarshouldbe rightafterSheminiAtzeret.If, however,unlikethe Land of Israel, a community does not need rain until much later than SheminiAtzeretor has fruitsin the field thatwouldbe damagedby the rain, the Babyloniandate should be observed. Ritba noted, however, that the geonim and Alfasi had ruled that all diasporacommunities,regardlessof theirown requirements,should follow the Babyloniancustom. Therefore,Ritba concluded, even though those diaspora communities which begin to request rain right after Shemini Atzerethave a good customand a correctapproach(minhagyafehve-shillah nekhonah),they have no right to disagreewith the geonim. As to those communities which begin saying lal u-malar on the seventh of Marbeshvan,4'Ritba stated that they are completelywrong. Ritba had one moreproblemhe wishedto solve. If his interpretationof the Talmudwas correct,why did the geonim rule as they did?He explained that they required all diaspora Jews to follow the Babyloniancustom, despite what the Talmud actually taught, for these three reasons:(1) all other diaspora matters ('inyanim)follow Babylonia;(2) all the diaspora should have one custom (understandingHIananiah'sstatementabout the Golah to refer to all diasporacountries);and (3) rain immediatelyafter SheminiAtzeret could damage the produce in the fields.42 39. The concept of "produce in the field (peirei be-davra')"is derived from Ta'anit4b. For its meaning in the talmudic context, see the authors' "The Jewish Prayer for Rain in Babylonia." Ritba said that communities which have produce in the field after Shemini Atzeret but need rain before sixty days from the equinox could pray for it in Shome'a Tefilah, but the custom is not to do so; see Appendix. 40. For the possibility that when there is no Temple, the prayer for rain should begin in the Land of Israel right after Shemini Atzeret, see above, n. 3. Isaiah di Trani the Younger was also of the opinion that in post-Temple times, lal u-matar in the Land of Israel is said right after Shemini Atzeret; see Pisqei Riaz, p. 91. For Nissim ben Reuben's opinion, see below, n. 53. 41. The text reads the "fifteenth" of Marbeshvan (obviously influenced from "fifteen days after the feast"). 42. See Hliddusheiha-Rilba, pp. 36-40. Ritba lived in Seville (as his name Ishbili shows), and, as we have seen, standard Spanish practice was to follow the Babylonian custom (as Ritba


153

Ritba was torn betweentwo conflictingaims. On the one hand,he wishedto makethe halakhahconformwiththe talmudicteachingsas he understood them. After all, correct practice should follow from correct interpretationof the Talmud.On the otherhand,he recognizedthe authority of the geonim and Alfasi. A rulingwhich contradictedthe later rabbis, even if in perfectaccordwith the intentionof the Talmud,would undermine Jewish unity. Reluctantly,Ritba decidedthat a uniformhalakhahis, in a sense, of greatervalue than a correcthalakhah.He, therefore,ruledthat all diasporaJews must begin their prayerfor rainon the sixtiethday from the equinox, in accordancewith the Babylonianpractice. Menabem ben Solomon ha-Meiri (1249-1316) and Asher ben Jehiel (Rosh, ca. 1250-1327) were aware of the same conflicting values. The formerwas a Provenqal,and he supportedthe local practiceof startingthe prayerfor rainon the seventhof Marbeshvan.ThoughMeirirecognizedthe opinion that all the diasporashould follow the Babylonianprocedures,he pointedout that therewas another,equallylegitimatepoint of view,namely, that the Babyloniancustomwas to be followed only if it weremeteorologically relevant.In a countrywhich neededrain before the sixtiethday from the equinox,the practiceof the Landof Israelshouldbe followed.This was the theoreticaljustificationfor the Provencalcustom.43 The other authority who supportedthe principlethat rain should be requestedwhenrainis neededwas Asherben Jehiel.Indeed,he was the most determinedprotagonistof that point of view, the only medievalauthority for whom this questionbecamea matterof personalprestige.In a responsum occasionedby a droughtin Spain in 5073 (1313), and writtenduring Hlolha-Mo'edPassoverof that year,44he describedefforts he had made in this directionover a long period of time. himself admitted). His knowledge of Provenqal customs may have been second-hand. In any case, there is no other evidence that some communities in Europe or North Africa began the prayer for rain right after Shemini Atzeret. Ritba's opinion that in some diaspora countries one begins saying lal u-malar right after Shemini Atzeret may have been influenced by his teacher Aaron ben Joseph Halevi (Sefer Pequdat Ha-Leviim [Jerusalem, 1961/62], Ta'anit sec., p. 4), who, however, was equivocal and said only that this appears to him to be the correct custom. Ritba's own opinion about beginning tal u-malar at the conclusion of Shemini Atzeret was followed by Joseph ibn IHabiba(Nimuqei Yosef,ed. E. Lichtenstein [Petah Tiqva, 1977/78], pp. 11-12). 43. Beit ha-Behirah, pp. 33-34. Meiri was familiar with the view (presumably Ritba's) that the prayer for rain should begin right after Shemini Atzeret. He claimed that this opinion was not applicable in Provence because of the "fruit in the field"; see above, n. 39. 44. Rosh apologized at the end of the responsum for writing during Ilol ha-Mo'ed, which

154


In his native Germany,Rosh had felt that rain was necessaryfrom the middleof Tishreito Shavuot,and that it was especiallyneededin the early fall-before the sixtiethday from the equinox-to protect the newly sown seeds from being eaten by rats and chickens.45He, therefore,had argued with his Jewishcountrymenthereagainstthe practiceof limitingthe prayer for rainto the periodfromthe sixtiethday fromthe equinoxto Passover.He agreedthat, in general,Babylonianpracticeis normativefor diasporaJews, but he held that this principleappliesonly to laws of forbiddenthings,obligations and exemptions,and ritualcleanliness.In regardto laws relatedto climaticconditions,he insistedthat the rulesto be followedshouldbe determined by the local climate, not by the Babylonianprecedent. Rosh, therefore,urgedhis fellowGermanJewsto pray for rainbetween the seventhof Marbeshvanand Shavuotby insertingthe wordstal u-matar in the Blessingof the Yearsat thattime.Whenconfrontedwith RabbiJudah ha-Nasi's instructionsto the inhabitantsof Nineveh that they should say their prayeronly in Shome'aTefilah,he respondedthat the two situations were different.Nineveh was only a city; Germanywas a whole country.46 Since the entire country needed rain at a time other than the traditional period,the Jewstherewerewithintheirrightsto incorporatethe prayerinto the Birkat ha-Shanim.

None of Rosh's fellow GermanJews disputedhis reasoning,since they recognizedthe logic of his position. Nevertheless,they refusedto listen to his recommendationsthat they change their custom. Their opposition to such a changewas reinforcedby the fact that often theirmajormeteorological problemwas too much rain, not too little. PassingthroughProvenceon his way fromGermanyto Spain(in 1303), Rosh faced a somewhatdifferentsituation.There he was pleasedto learn that the Jews in Montpellierbegan saying tal u-mataron the seventh of was against his custom. Since, however, the matter was so pressing, and since there are elements of the responsum that dealt with the holiday, he made an exception in this case. 45. Abraham Sofer offered an explanation in the name of his father, Simeon Sofer, of why German Jews did not respond to Rosh's arguments. Since in Germany rain was not intrinsically necessary, but was desired in order to keep the rats and chickens away from the seeds, one could do without rain. Instead, one could put up scarecrows to achieve the same end; cf. Meiri, Beit ha-Bethirah,p. 34, n. 2. This explanation appears in a slightly different form in Simeon Sofer, Hit'orerut ha-Teshuvah,vol. 1, printed with Moses Sofer (Schreiber), Sefer Sofer, vol. 7 (Munkaics, 1912), p. 87a. -.atam 46. Cf. also Hilkhot ha-Rosh ad Ta'anit 14b.


155

Marheshvan.When he was told, however, that they stopped saying it at Passover,he askedwhetherthis was becausethey had no need for rainafter that time. When they answeredthat, indeed, they did need rain, Rosh repeatedto them the position he had taken with the GermanJews,i.e., that the Jews of each country should ask for rain when they need it. The Provencal reaction was similar to the Germanreaction,namely, that Rosh's logic was sound,but customis custom.The earliestscholarshad established the dates for saying tal u-malarand only a synod of sages could change things. Rosh moved on without knowing the final disposition of the matter.47 Whenhe reachedSpain, Rosh saw that the need for raintherewas even greater than in Germanyor Provence.Though he mentionedto his colleagues severaltimes that they ought to ask for rain betweenPassoverand Shavuot,he did not make a publicissue of it at the time so as not to change the local custom. This brings us to the year 1313, when he wrote his responsumon the subject.Becauseof the droughtreferredto above, SpanishJewswerefasting for rain and saying special prayerson Sabbathsand holidays. Now, he thought, was a propitioustime to bring about the changehe wanted.If he could convince SpanishJews to say lal u-malarthis year until Shavuot,he felt, they would find the practice agreeableand continue it in following years. So, once again Rosh tried to convincea group of Jews to follow the logic of the situation ratherthan custom. This time he invokedthe wordsof Maimonides,who, as we have seen,is not altogetherclearon the issue. Rosh arguedthat, accordingto Maimonides' Commentaryon the Mishnah,when a "whole country,"such as Germany or Spain,has a particularneed for rain, it may createits own custom as to whento say tal u-malar.Whilehe looked to Maimonides'Commentary for supportfor his position,he was not dissuadedby the apparentlimitation to be found in the MishnehTorah,namely, "Placesthat need rain in the summer,such as farawaysea islands,"were requiredto say the prayerin Shome'a Tefilah,but he argued that Maimonideswould permit "whole countries"to say it in Birkatha-Shanim.Thus, therewas no contradiction between the Commentaryand the MishnehTorah.The formerdealt with whole countriesand could be used to justify a separateGermanor Spanish 47. Cf. Hilkhot ha-Rosh ad Ta'anit 1Oaand Tur's quotation of him, Orah Ilayyim 117.

156


custom; the latter referredonly to individuals,such as those who lived in Nineveh.48 The receptiongiven Rosh's opinion in Spainwas the sameas that given it by the Germanand ProvenqalJews. In his own words,"The heartof the communitywas unwillingto accept the words of the living God." In this responsum,Rosh took a strongstandfor an interpretationof the Talmud,and, thereby,a determinationof the halakhah,based on the logic of the situationratherthanon accumulatedlocal custom.It is not surprising that he met stiff resistanceto his ruling, for Rosh's logic led him to some daringconclusions.When he ruled that GermanJews could pray for rain before the date set by Babylonianprecedent,he at least had the practiceof the Landof Israelon his side. When,however,he permittedthe prayerto be said until Shavuot,49he had no explicittalmudicbasis at all. True,he made referenceto the case of Nineveh,but he regardedthe rulingof RabbiJudah ha-Nasi as irrelevantto his circumstances.He invoked the authority of Maimonides,but only to the extentthat the latter'sview supportedhis own. Other earlier authorities, such as the geonim and Alfasi, were ignored completely. Rosh's attempt, here, was to have the halakhahfit the meteorological and agriculturalconditionsof each country.It was an uphill battle, and he lost it. The GermanJews, though they could not disputehis logic, claimed that they alreadyhad too much rain. The ProvenqalJews felt that only an authorizedsynod could make such a momentousdecisionas continuingtal u-mataruntil Shavuot.In Spain, wheresome of his colleaguesagreedwith him, his opponentswereable to convincethe communitynot to "acceptthe words of the living God." Finally, Rosh gave up and accepted the inevitable, that logic is not enough to change practiceswhich are deeply rooted in tradition.He also realizedthat the need for uniformityis as importanta principleon whichto base halakhahas arelogic and a correctinterpretationof authoritativetexts. Therefore,to preservecommunalunity, he decided against implementing his decision even in his own synagogue.50 48. Even if Rosh's interpretation of Maimonides concerning the request for rain (tal u-malar) is correct, he seems to have gone beyond Maimonidean boundaries by advocating the continuation of the mention of rain (mashiv ha-ruah) until Shavuot. This practice has no basis in the works of earlier authorities. 49. And the mention of rain; see above, n. 48. 50. This story is told in Teshuvotha-Rosh 4:10, pp. 14-15. The fact that Rosh did not pray in the main synagogue may indicate that, even before this incident, he already had difficulties


157

It is ironic that the very greatnessof Rosh's reputationplayed a major role in crystallizingJewishpracticealong lines which he opposed. As some later authoritiespointedout, if Rosh was unableto changethe custom, no one could.51Even his own son, Jacob ben Asher (Tur, ca. 1270-1340), though he quoted his father'sopinion, ruled that the saying of tal u-matar

getting along with his community. In fact, the whole account hints at the complicated relationship which Rosh and his allies had with the general Jewish populace. This interesting responsum (which, of course, is not really a responsum because there is no question that was the cause of its issuance) provides insights also into both Rosh's halakhic method and his ability to compromise. He was an independent thinker, but he lacked the aggressiveness to fight for his point of view; he was willing to show flexibility to avoid open conflict. See the description of Rosh and his activities provided by Ephraim E. Urbach, Encyclopedia Hebraica, vol. 7 (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1953/54), pp. 443-446 (trans., Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2: 706-708). For Rosh's opposition to the use of logic per se, divorced from the halakhic process and authoritative texts, see Teshuvotha-Rosh 55:9, pp. 103-105. 51. Cf., e.g., Joseph Caro in Beit Yosef on Tur, Orah fIayyim 117; Jehiel Michel Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulfian, Orah 117:4 (Piotrkow, 1902/3 [reprint ed.,]), p. 202; Zevi Pesat Frank, Sefer Har Zevi, Orah H.ayyim 1 (Jerusalem, 1968/69), p. 56. each country has its own proper date for lal u-malar was N.ayyim Though Rosh's principle that rejected, his arguments were not totally in vain. This can be seen by a perusal of the responsa literature on the subject of whether a person who says tal u-malar at the wrong time must repeat the Shemoneh 'Esreh. If a person asks for rain in the summer in a country that does not need rain, it is clear that he must repeat his prayer. What, though, of someone who asks for rain during the summer in a country that does need rain then, or after the seventh of Marbeshvan and before the sixtieth day of the equinox in a country which needs rain at that time? Relying on Rosh, most authorities have ruled that such a person does not have to repeat the Shemoneh Esreh, even though there are many different opinions on this question. For the various points of view, see Caro, Beit Yosef,on Tur, Orab Hayyim 117 (quoting Isaac Aboab, his teacher), and Shulban Arukh, OrabhHayyim 117:2, and cf. Moses Isserles, ad loc.; David Ibn Abi Zimra, She'elot u-Teshuvotha-Radbaz, vol. 6 (Warsaw, 1882; reprint ed., New York, 1967), p. 2; Jacob Castro, Ohalei Ya'aqov (Livorno, 1783), pp. 135b-136a; Moshe Mat, Malleh Moshe, ed. Mordecai Knoblowicz (London, 1958), pp. 84-85; Hayyim Shabbetai, Torat layyim, vol. 3 (Salonika, 1712), p. 2b; Modai, Sefer Ilayyim Le-'Olam (Izmir, 1879), pp. la-3b; Yishmael ben Abraham.Hayyim Isaac ha-Kohen, Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvot Zera' Emet, vol. 1 (Livorno, 1788), pp. 27b-29a; Jehiel Michel Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulban, OrabhIayyim 117:7-8, p. 202; Jacob Hayyim Soffer, Kafha-flayyim, OrabhIayyim 2 (Jerusalem, 1963/64), pp. 59b-60a; Zevi Pesah Frank, Sefer Har Zevi, Orab 1, p. 56; and Ovadia Yosef, Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvot Yabi'a Omer, vol. 5 (Jerusalem, 1968/69), H.ayyimpp. 49-51. The impression is left that Rosh's opinion should be the halakhah but, nonetheless, is not followed. This is said clearly by Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe, OrahbHayyim 2 (New York, 1963), p. 293. We see here the seriousness with which the rabbis treat prayer. The assumption is that if one prays for rain, God will send it. Therefore, if the worshipper asks for it at the wrong time, he had better repeat the Shemoneh 'Esreh, this time omitting the prayer for rain lest God send rain at an inopportune time. This is the reason also for waiting fifteen days after Sukkot before u-malar in the Land of Israel when there are pilgrims returning home. If one prays saying for raintalearlier, it will come earlier, when not wanted.

158


should start on the sixtieth day from the equinox and should stop with Passover.52 Thisis not to implythat, fromthe timeof Rosh'sadmissionof failure,all Jewish communitiesoutside the Land of Israel followed the Babylonian practice. When Nissim ben Reuben of Gerona (Ran, ca. 1310-ca.1375) wrote his Commentaryon Alfasi'sHilkhot he recordedthe fact that ha-Rif, some diasporacommunitiesfollowed the practiceof beginningthe recitation of tal u-mataron the seventhof Marbeshvan.From a theoreticalpoint of view,he was sympatheticwiththis procedure,but practicallyhe could not approveof it. Ran, like Ritba, gave evidenceof a conflict betweenwhat he consideredto be the correctinterpretationof the Talmudandwhatthe tradition maintained as the halakhah. Thus, Ran explained the Talmud as presentingthreedifferentdatesfor beginningtal u-matar:(1) In the Landof Israelwhen there are no pilgrims,and in other countriesthat have similar climaticconditionsand do not haveproducein the fields,the prayershould begin right after SheminiAtzeret.(2) In the Land of Israelwhen thereis a Temple,and thus thereare pilgrims,and in othercountriesthat havesimilar climaticconditionsbut do haveproducein the field,the prayershouldbegin on the seventhof Marheshvan.(3) In Babylonia,and countrieslike it, the prayershould begin on the sixtieth day from the equinox. As Ran sawit, then,the Talmudsupportsthe procedureof the Provenqal Jews. His problem,though,was that his predecessors,Alfasi and Maimonides, limitedthe seventhof Marbeshvanto the Landof Israeland prescribed the sixtieth day from the equinox for all other countries.Neither of them consideredthe day afterSheminiAtzeretas appropriatefor any place. Ran, like Ritba before him, finallyconcludedthat his own interpretationof the Talmud,logical as he felt it was, must yield to the authorityof theseearlier decisors.53 We have no recordsas to what finallyhappenedamong the Provenqal Jews.Theymay verywell havecontinuedfollowingthe practiceof the Land 52. Tur, Orah Hayyim 117. He is followed by David ben Joseph Abudarham, Sefer Abudarham(Amsterdam, 1725/26), p. 41a. 53. See Ran's Commentary on Hilkhot ha-Rif, Ta'anit, p. 2a (s.v. ve-'ika le-meidaq). Ran suggested that Rif's and Maimonides' codification of starting /al u-malar in the Land of Israel on the seventh of was based on the fact that there were pilgrims to Jerusalem even Marl.eshvan after the destruction of the Temple. On this subject, see Shmuel Safrai, "Pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Second Temple" (Hebrew), in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, ed. A. Oppenheimer et al. (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 376-393.


159

of Israel until they were finallyexpelledfrom southernFrancein the fourteenthcentury.54In any case, thereis no evidencethat they everconsciously changed their practiceto conform with the rest of diasporaJewry. It is possiblethat the Jewsof North Africa,at least in certainareas,also continued to follow the custom of the Land of Israel. Both Simon ben Zema1hDuran (Rashbaz, 1361-1444) in Algiers"5and David ben Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz, 1479-1573) in Egypt56mentioned that some diasporacommunitiesbeganaskingfor rainon the seventhof Marbeshvan. Neither,however,statedthat this was the practicein his own community,or that this custom was specifically North African. The last place in the diasporawherewe hearof the prayerfor rainbeingsaid fromthe seventhof is Tunisia.In the nineteenthcentury,therewerereportsof this Marlheshvan practice in Tunis and Djerba.57 54. Though the Jews were never completelyexpelled from Provenceproper,they were forcedto leavemanyof the cities mentionedhere(whichare actuallyin Languedoc).Thereis some confusion between Provenceand Languedocbecausethe Jewish sourcesmentionthe formerwhenreferringto the latter;see BernhardBlumenkranz, s.v. "Provence,"Encyclopaedia Judaica,13: 1259,and idem, s.v. "Languedoc,"EJ, 10: 1421-22. 55. See Sefer Tashbe;,vol. 3 (Lemberg,1891 [reprinted.]), pp. 21a-b. 56. She'elotu-Teshuvot (n. 51), p. 2. It is unclearfromtheirresponsawhetherDuranand Ibn Abi Zimrahad first-handknowledgeof suchpracticesor whethertheywerereportingwhat was writtenby earlierauthorities.If the latter is true, there is no proof that any diaspora communities,let alone NorthAfricanones, werebeginningto saytal u-mataron the seventhof Marbeshvanin the fifteenthand sixteenthcenturies. 57. HlayyimPalache(1788-1869), Argotha-Uayyim(Jerusalem,1876/77),p. 42b, stated that he had heardthat it was thecustomof theJewsof TunisandDjerbato beginthe prayerfor rainon the seventhof Marbeshvan.He suggestedthat this custommighthave stemmedfrom the visit of a Jew from the Land of Israel.He surmisedthat the visitor,when repeatingthe Shemoneh'Esrehwhileleadingthe congregationalservice,followedhis usualpracticeof saying tal u-malarafterthe seventhof Marbeshvan.The TunisianJews,becauseof theirgreatlove for the Landof Israel,imitatedhis practice.Palacheapparentlydid not realizethat this procedure maysimplyhavebeenthe long-standingNorthAfricancustomof beginningthe prayerfor rain on the seventh of Marbeshvan,mentionedabove. If this is the case, we see here another exampleof the tenacityof custom. Palachestated furtherthat, even if the Tunisiancustom originatedaccordingto his hypothesis,the visitor from the Land of Israel should not have institutedsuch a change in the public worship.He also expressedsurprisethat the learned rabbisof Tunisiaallowedsuch a practice.He concludedthat the rabbis'silencewas a resultof the great need for rain in Tunisiaat the earlierdate. See also Palache'sSeferRuabHayyim (Izmir, 1880/81), Orab Htayyim117, p. 24a. Abraham Rapoport, Quntras be-'Inyan Zeman She'elat Geshamim be-Virkat ha-Shanim

be-ug;ah la-'Are; (London, 1963/64),p. 15, suggestedthat no diasporacommunityshould follow the practiceof the Landof Israel,even if thereare similarmeteorologicalconditions, becausethe date in the Landof Israelitselfis a matterof disputewhenthereis no Temple;see above, n. 3.

160

ARNOLDA. LASKERAND DANIELJ. LASKER

Divergentpracticesconcerningtal u-matarcontinuedfor a numberof centuries, since, as the rulings mentioned above show, the halakhah remained in flux. It may well be that Joseph Caro (1488-1575), who attemptedto give a final rulingon all halakhicquestions,sought to settle once and for all this issue as well.58He discussedthe prayerfor rainin his three major halakhicworks, the Beit Yosef(commentaryon the Tur),the KesefMishneh(commentaryon the MishnehTorah),and the ShulbanArukh. In the Tur,as noted above, Jacob ben Asher quotedhis father'sopinion about Europeancountrieswhose climate differs from Babylonia,but he rejectedit. Caro, commentingon the Turin his Beit Yosef,also quoted Rosh's responsumat length but statedthat this opinion was not accepted, although he did not explain why this is so.59 In the Kesef Mishneh,Caro was more specific, attackingRosh's interpretation of Maimonides.According to Caro, the apparentdiscrepancy betweenthe Commentary on the Mishnahand the MishnehTorahis not to be as a interpreted implying distinctionbetweenwhole countries,on the one hand, and cities or "farawaysea islands," on the other. Rather, in the Commentary,Maimonideslaid down the principlethat areasthat need rain in the summershouldpray for it then. In the MishnehTorah,Caro argued, Maimonidesindicatedwherein the prayerssuch a summerrequestshould be made. Caro added that Rosh was wrong to state that EuropeanJews should recite tal u-matarin Birkat ha-Shanimat any time other than between the sixtieth day from the equinox and Passover.60 In the ShulbanArukh,Caro codifiedhis opinion in terse fashion:"One 58. For Caro'sattemptsto offerfinaldecisionson halakhicquestions,see IsadoreTwersky, "TheShulban'Aruk:EnduringCode of JewishLaw,"in FaithandReason,ed. R. Gordisand R. B. Waxman(New York, 1973),pp. 141-158. 59. Beit Yosefon Tur, Orahb Hayyim 117.Caro pointedout that even Rosh himselfcould not get his view accepted. 60. Kesef Mishnehad H. Tefilah2:17. Another interpretationwas providedby Eleazar Rokeal (18th cent.) in TureiEven,ad loc. Yosef Kafab used anotherapproachentirelyin arguingthat there is no contradiction betweenthe two works of Maimonides.Accordingto his view, Maimonidesreferredin his on theMishnahto countrieswherewinterandsummer(i.e., rainyanddry seasons) Commentary are completelyoppositethose seasonsin Israel.In the MishnehTorah,he referredto countries that need rainin summerin additionto theirneedfor rainin the winter.See Kafab,"She'elat Geshamim"(n. 18),pp. 88-92. If Kafabis correct,it wouldseemthatMaimonideswouldhave solvedthe laterhalakhicproblemof Jewswho livedin the SouthernHemisphereby rulingthat they should say gal u-malarin Birkatha-Shanimin their winter;see below.


161

la-are;] in the evening begins to request rain in the diaspora [be-zug;ah autumnal from the sixtieth the of day prayer equinox."61 This rulingseemsto have been decisivefor Europeanand North African Arukh,e.g., Jewry.Even those who questionedthe authorityof the Shulfhan Mordecai ben AbrahamJaffe (Levush, ca. 1535-1612)62and Joel Sirkes (Bayitfladash, 1561-1610),63acceptedthis decision.Jaffeaddedthat evenif the entirediasporaneedsrainbeforethe sixtiethof the equinox,one may not changefrom the Babylonianpractice.Finally,JehielMichelEpstein(Arukh 1829-1908)went so far as to say that the community'srejection ha-Shulbhan, of Rosh's opinion is as if a divine voice (bat qol) had come down and announcedthat one is to follow the Babyloniancustom.Epsteinaddedthat The desirefor anyonewho doubts that this is the law should be punished.64 Jewish unity in the diasporahad carriedthe day. TheDate in theSouthernHemisphere This, however,is not the end of the story.The migrationof Jewsto new climes, far from the old centersof Jewish habitation,reopenedthe question of when to pray for rain. Not all migrationshad this effect. East EuropeanJewishcommunities, having been settled by Jews from CentralEurope,where the climate was more or less similarto that found in theirnew homes,simplycarriedon the familiar(Babylonian)practice.Apparently,the first Jewish immigrantsto North America also followed the same procedure.No considerationwas taken of the actual need for precipitationin the varioussectionsof Eastern Europeor North America.65 61. ShulbhanArukh, Orab lUayyim 117:1. Cf. also 117:2, where Caro specifically rejected Rosh's opinion and referred to Nineveh as an 'ir gedolah ("large city"). 62. Levush ha- Tekhelet, Orabh ayyim 117:1 (Bereditchev, 1818; reprint ed., Israel, 1967/68), p. 31a. 63. On Tur, Orabh fayyim 117:1. 64. Arukh ha-Shulban, Orabhlayyim 117:4, p. 202: "Ve-khol ha-mafaqpeq be-zeh ra'ui le-'onesh." Epstein seems to have adopted an attitude of Vox populi, vox Dei. Since Rosh could not convince his fellow Jews of the rightness of his position, it follows that the halakhah should not be according to his view. Epstein's vehemence may have been the result of Reform innovations. Abraham Geiger had decided that since Germany has rain all year long, both the mention of rain and the prayer for rain should be said in all seasons; see Jacob Levinger, s.v. "Abraham Geiger," Encyclopedia Hebraica 10: 639 (Jerusalem, 1954/55). 65. Some early non-Orthodox American prayerbook compilers seem to have adopted

162


Other Jewish migrants faced entirely differentclimatic conditions in their new homes. The first Jewishsettlersin the New Worldcame to South America,south of the equator,wherethey found the seasonsreversedfrom those to which they had been accustomed.The Northern Hemisphere's winter (i.e., the months betweenTishreiand Nisan) was summer,and the north'ssummer(i.e., the monthsfromNisan to Tishrei)was winter.Hence, when Jews began to settle in Recife, Brazil,in 1637, determiningwhen to recite the prayerfor rain was one of their first ritual problems.They sent theirinquiryto HayyimShabbetai(before1555-1647)of Salonika.This was the first halakhicquestionto come from the New World;66in the 350 years since then, the problemhas been raised again and again. When we analyzethe varioushalakhicsolutionsto the questionsabout the prayer for rain in the SouthernHemisphere,we see again the same arguments that had played a part in the discussions in the Northern Hemisphere. On the one hand, there is the logic of the situation. In Maimonides'words, "How can people in such a place ask for rain in Would that not be both a lie and foolishness?This is true and Marh.eshvan? obvious."67Jewsin the Landof Israeland Babyloniaprayedfor rainwhenit was necessaryfor them;shouldnot Jewsin the SouthernHemispheredo the same?On the other hand, therewas the weightof traditionand precedent. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi had ruled that the Jews of Nineveh could pray for rain in the summeronly in Shome'aTefilah,68 and Alfasi,69Maimonidesin the MishnehTorah,70 and JosephCaro71'had codifiedthis decisionas applicable to all Jews. Rosh had attemptedto establishthe principlethat Jewsin each countrycould decide when the prayerfor rain would be most efficacious accordingto theirown meteorologicaland agriculturalconditions;he was not successful.72 That Rosh had failed to breachthe walls of tradition

Geiger's innovation (above, n. 64). Since rain falls in America year-round, they must have felt that the prayer for rain was always appropriate. See, e.g., L. Merzbacher and S. Adler, The Order of Prayer (New York, 1881), p. 68; and Benjamin Szold and Marcus Jastrow, 'Avodat Israel, vol. I (Philadelphia, 1907), p. 152. In the newest Reform prayerbook, Gates of Prayer, ed. Chaim Stern (New York, 1975), pp. 40, 64, only ve-ten berakhah (the summer formula) appears. 66. See Arnold Wiznitzer, Jews in Colonial Brazil (New York, 1960), pp. 66-67. The question was sent by Congregation Zur Israel. 67. Commentary on the Mishnah ad Ta'anit 1:3. See above, n. 35. 68. Ta'anit 14b; see above, n. 11. 69. Hilkhot ha-Rif, p. 5a; see above, n. 33. 70. H. Tefilah 2:17; see above, n. 36. 71. Shulban Arukh, Orab Hayyim 117:2; see above, n. 61. 72. Teshuvotha-Rosh, pp. 14-15; see above, nn. 44-50.


163

couldnot be ignored.As we analyzethevariousresponsadealingwiththe we shallsee the ongoingtenprayerfor rainin the SouthernHemisphere, sionsbetweenlogicandtraditionandbetweenlocalcustomandthedesire for Jewish unity.

WhentheJewsof Recifewroteto IHayyim Shabbetai, theyinformedhim thattheyneededrainfromNisanto Tishrei(summerin the Landof Israel and in Europe,but winterin Brazil).Furthermore, theywrote,rainfrom butsummerin Brazil) Tishreito Nisan(winterin theNorthernHemisphere, would be the correctprocedure for wouldbe harmfulto them.73 What,then, them to follow in such climaticconditions? Ijayyim Shabbetai answered by analyzing the two statements of on theMishnahand in the MishnehTorah) Maimonides(in the Commentary and Rosh's noteworthyresponsumon the issue. He concludedthat Rosh had misunderstoodMaimonideswhen he interpretedhim as rulingthat if rainis neededin "a whole country"duringthe summermonths,it is proper to ask for it in Birkat ha-Shanim.The correct interpretation,Shabbetai explained,was that prayersfor rainmay be said fromNisan to Tishreiif it is needed then, but only in Shome'a Tefilah(as per the MishnehTorah).He continued,though, that one shouldnot pray for rainwhen it is harmfulfor him (as per the Commentary on the Mishnah).74 Therefore,Shabbetairuled, the Jews of Brazilshould never,at any time of the year, pray for rain (tal u-matar)in Birkat ha-Shanim.Furthermore,they should not even "mention" rain, i.e., recite the words mashivha-ruahu-moridha-geshemin the secondbenedictionof the Shemoneh'Esreh,the whole yearthrough.During their winter, however,the Jews of Recife might pray for rain in Shome'a Tefilahif they needed it."

73. Recifehas had, overa periodof fiftyyearsin the twentiethcentury,an averagemonthly rainfall during the months from March to August (its rainy season) of 8.7 inches. From Septemberto February,the monthlyaverageis 1.8inches.At leastin the presentcenturythere are distinctrainyand dryseasons(eventhoughNisanandTishreiarenot the monthsthatmark themoff fromeachother).It shouldbe noted,however,thatthe summerthereis not completely dry, since thereis some rain then. Cf. U.S. Departmentof Commerce,Climatesof the World ed., Climatesof CentralandSouth (Washington,D.C., 1972),p. 12;and WernerSchwerdtfeger, America,World Surveyof Climatology,no. 12 (Amsterdam,1976),pp. 244-251, 277. 74. Shabbetai'sinterpretationof Maimonidesis essentiallythe sameas Caro'sin the Kesef Mishneh,althoughhe claimsto have seen the latterwork only afterhavingcome to his own conclusionindependently. 75. Torat Hayyim (n. 51), pp. 2a-3a; and see Appendix. On the subject of mashivha-ruab,

see above,nn. 4, 7, 48, 49. Eventhoughmashivha-ruabconstitutedonly "mentioning"and not "praying"for rain,Shabbetaiobviouslyfelt,in linewith MishnahTa'anit1:1,thatone does not even mentionrain when it is unwanted.

164


In his responsum,Shabbetaiobviouslychose a middlepath. On the one hand, he could not authorizethe Jews in Recife to say tal u-malarin the Blessingof the Yearsduringtheir winter(his own summer)becausetradition, as representedin this case by Maimonides,restrainedhim from sucha ruling.On the other hand, he could not in good consciencedemandof this communitythat they pray for rain when such rain,accordingto theirtestimony, would be harmfulto them. His only recourse,or so it must have seemedto him, was to suggest,in effect,that the Jews of Recifeignorethe prayerfor rain. If they had a particularneed for rain duringtheir winter, these Jews, like those of Nineveh, could always pray for it in Shome'a Tefilah.Shabbetai'sopinion was later reiteratedby AbrahamOppenheim (d. 1786).76 This ruling did not settle the matterfor South AmericanJewry.In the early twentiethcentury,the ArgentinianJewishcommunityposed the same questionthat had occupiedthe Jewsof Recifethreehundredyearsearlier.77 A numberof inquirieswereaddressedby variousgroupsin that countryto differentauthorities,and they receiveda varietyof responses,some endorsing Shabbetai'sview,78othersmaintainingthat the standarddiasporapractice must be followed regardlessof meteorologicalconditions.79The same 76. Eshel Avraham on ShulbhanArukh, Orah IHayyim 117 (in standard edition), quoting

HayyimShabbetai. 77. This questionfrom BuenosAires is somewhatsurprising,since,even thoughsummer and winterareoppositethoseseasonsin the NorthernHemisphere,thereis rainall yearround. The heaviestrainfallis from Octoberto April (Tishreito Nisan), and the lightestrainfallis from June to August; cf. Schwerdtfeger, Climates of Central and South America, p. 91, and Climates of the World, p. 12.

78. See JudahTarrab'sresponsumin Ezra ha-KohenTarrab,Sefer Milei de-'Ezra,ed. Judah Hayyim ha-KohenTarrab(Jerusalem,1923/24), pp. 12a-18b. Tarrab'sopinion, in agreementwith HayyimShabbetai,was reachedindependentlyby SaulDavidSathun(Sithon), Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvot Diber Sha'ul (Jerusalem, 1927/28), pp. la-b.

Tarrab was also

followed by his father,EzraTarrab,rabbiin Damascus(see Sathun,p. lb) and JacobJoseph Tarrab,rabbiin Beirut(Sathun,p. lb and Tarrab,p. 18b).Sathun'sviewwas endorsedby his colleagueAaronGoldman,rabbiof Moisesville(QiryatMoshe),Argentina,and by threeJerusalem rabbis, Joseph Yedid ha-Levi, AbrahamAntebi Adam, and Solomon Laniado;see Diber Sha'ul,p. lb. (On Sathun and the Sefardiccommunityof Buenos Aires, see Robert Weisbrot,TheJews of Argentina[Philadelphia,1979],pp. 155-172, esp. pp. 162-163.)Elijah Yiluz,rabbiof Tiberius,agreedwithTarrabonlyinsofaras rainwasabsolutelyunnecessaryfor ArgentinianJewsfromTishreito Nisan(theirsummer).If it wereat all desirable,Yiluzargued, they should follow the practiceof the rest of the diaspora;see Milei de-'Ezra,pp. 19a-b. 79. See HezekiahShabbetai,DivreiYebezqiyahu, vol. 1 (Jerusalem,1934/35),pp. 18-19. (Shabbetaiwas chiefrabbiof Aleppo,and he once visitedthe UnitedStates;see JosephA. D. Sutton,MagicCarpet:Aleppoin Flatbush[NewYork, 1979],p. 131.)His viewwasendorsedby SolomonEliezerAlfandariand AbrahamIsaac Kook, Ashkenazicchiefrabbiof the Landof


165

questionwas also askedby the Jewsof Montevideo,Uruguay,who received differentanswers.80 The problem faced by South AmericanJews also confrontedJews in another location in the Southern Hemisphere.On the basis of Hayyim Shabbetai's ruling-as confirmed by Oppenheim-Solomon Hirschel (1762-1842), chief rabbi of the British Empire, instructedthe Jews of Australianever to "mention"rain at all and not to "request"it in Birkat His successor,Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler (1803-1890), gave ha-Shanim.8" the same ruling in response to an inquiry from the Jews of Hobart, Australia,in 1846.82In 1850/51, YehosephSchwarzin Englandwas asked by a father what should be done by his son who had settled in the newly establishedJewish communityof Port Adelaide. Schwarzgave the same opinion as Hirschel and Adler.83Thus, the custom was instituted for Australian Jews neither to mention rain nor to ask for it in Birkat ha-Shanim.

Israel.The latterwenton to say thatthe settingof the sixtiethday fromthe equinoxas the time for prayerfor rain in the diasporawas done withoutregardfor the meteorologicalfactorsof countriesotherthan Babylonia.Kook addedthat if one definitelyneededrainbetweenNisan and Tishrei,he may prayfor it in Shome'aTefilah,but he neednot necessarilydo so; see Divrei pp. 19-20 (reprintedin Kook's OrahMishpal [Jerusalem,1979],pp. 30-31). Yebezqiyahu, Kook's reasoningon the subjectcan be seen also in his MishpalKohen(Jerusalem,1966),p. 336. He wrotethat Babyloniahas a date separatefromthat of the Landof Israelonly because most Jews lived there in talmudictimes. If the majorityof Jews were to live in some other countrywith a differentclimate,perhapsRosh'sopinionwould be followedin regardto their sayingof lal u-malar.Accordingto this view,the Jewsin the SouthernHemisphere,sincethey do not constitutea majorityof all Jews, were not to look upon themselvesas a whole community but only as a collectionof individuals. 80. See Ben-Zion Meir Ouziel (Sefardicchief rabbi of the Land of Israel), Sefer .Hai2d ed. (Jerusalem,1946/47), pp. 19-20, who ruledthat the Mishpelei'Uziel, OrabHayyim, general diaspora practiceshould be followed. For the opinion of Samuel Halevi Wosner concerningUruguay,see below, n. 93. It is hard to see that meteorologicalconsiderations promptedthis question.Rainfallis fairlywell distributedin Montevideothroughoutthe year; see Climates of the World, p. 13.

81. See AbrahamEberHirschowitz,Beit Avraham,vol. 1 (Jerusalem,1922/23),p. 39. On the authorityof the Britishchief rabbi over the AustralianJewish community,see Israel Porush, "The Chief Rabbinateand Early AustralianJewry,"AustralianJewish Historical SocietyJournaland Proceedings2, no. 9 (July 1948):471-494; PeterMedding,"The Jewsof Australia,"TefutsotIsrael 17, no. 2 (June 1979):23, 33. 82. See L. M. Goldman, "The History of Hobart Jewry,"AustralianJewish Historical

Society Journal and Proceedings 3, no. 5 (1951): 209-237. The same question was asked of

Adlerby the Jewishcommunityof Melbournein 1848;cf. Porush,"TheChiefRabbinate,"p. 485. (Porushdid not recordAdler'sanswer).Cf. also, Hirschowitz,Beit Avraham,p. 39. 83. See Sefer Divrei Yosef vols. 3 and 4 (Jerusalem,1978/79), pp. 30b-3 la.

166


This was the situationwhichprevailedwhenAbrahamEberHirschowitz (1839/40-1924) arrivedin Melbourneto take up a rabbinicalpositionthere. He decidedthat AustralianJewsshouldfollow the generaldiasporacustom concerningthe mentioningand prayingfor rain.84He, therefore,carriedon a long campaignto alterthe practicewhichhad becomeestablishedoverthe courseof fiftyyears.His campaign,too long andinvolvedto describeherein detail, led him to conducta worldwidecorrespondencewith leadingJewish authorities.He arguedthat in Melbournerainwas both necessaryand beneficial throughoutthe year, a fact in regard to which, he claimed, Chief Rabbis Hirscheland Nathan Adler had been misinformedwhen they gave their ruling.85Hirschowitzwent so far as to set up his own minyanthat would pray for rain at the time which he felt was appropriate.In addition, he attemptedto forbid his congregantsfrom praying with or answering amento those who disagreedwith him.86 The authoritiesto whom Hirschowitzwrotegave variedanswers.Isaac ElhananSpektor(1817-1896, in Kovno) and Jacob Reinowitz(1818-1893, in London) agreedwith Hirschowitzthat AustralianJews should pray for rain according to the general diaspora practice.87 Samuel Salant (1816-1909, in Jerusalem)at first agreedwith Hirschowitzbut later backtrackedand arguedthat the custom supportedby Nathan Adler should be continued.He furthersuggestedthat the finaldeterminationof the question dependedon an exact knowledgeof Australianmeteorologicalconditions. HermannNaphtali Adler (1839-1911, chief rabbi of the British Empire) 84. Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham, pp. 34, 38. 85. He was supported in this claim by his colleague Kalonymous Ze'ev (Woolf) Davis. On Davis, cf. L. M. Goldman, The Jews in Victoria in the Nineteenth Century (Melbourne, 1954), index, p. 432. Climatic surveys bear out Hirschowitz and Davis's contention that rain does fall in the Australian summer (Tishrei to Nisan), and, in fact, certain localities in Australia (mostly in the northeast) receive most of their rainfall during this period. Cf. J. Gentili, ed., Climates of Australia and New Zealand, World Survey of Climatology, no. 13 (Amsterdam, 1971), pp. 133-163. For charts of Melbourne and Sydney, see pp. 273, 274, 354-355, 364-365. For rainfall in New Zealand, see ibid., pp. 238-245. 86. Hirschowitz recounted this controversy in Beit Avraham, pp. 34-47; see below, nn. 87-90. 87. Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham,pp. 34-35, 40-41. Reinowitz refused, however, to go along with Hirschowitz's edict that his congregants were not to pray with, or answer Amen to, those Jews who disagreed with him (Hirschowitz). Even though Reinowitz agreed with Hirschowitz's opinion on tal u-malar, he objected to such a drastic step. After all, Reinowitz wrote, one is allowed to,pray with and answer Amen to much worse sinners. Spektor's responsum is quoted in Hezekiah Shabbetai, Divrei Yebezqiyahu,p. 22, and Mayer Amsel, Sefer She'elot u-Teshuvotha-Ma'or (New York, 1966), p. 474.


167

ruled that AustralianJews should continue to follow the prescriptionof Solomon Hirschel and of his own father, Nathan Adler.88Aryeh Leib Roshkes(late nineteenthcentury,in Vilna)gave an equivocalanswer.After an extendeddiscussionof the sources(principallyMaimonides,Rosh, and Hayyim Shabbetai),he ruled that the law is totally dependentupon the meteorologicalconditions.If rain is, indeed,harmfulduringthe Australian summer,then, of course,Jewsshouldnot prayfor it then. He suggestedthat u-moridha-tal).On they mightmentiondew insteadof rain (mashivha-ruabh the other hand, if rain has value, then they should adopt the customof the rest of the diaspora.Roshkessuggested,though, that Hirschowitznot exert himself to such an extent to change the local custom.89Hirschowitzleft Melbourne soon thereafter,having been unsuccessfulin his campaignto alter the Australianpractice.90 In his struggle,Hirschowitzfound himself,in a sense, very much in the position of Rosh, though, of course, their objectiveswere diametrically opposed. Rosh wished to abolish the local custom, based on what was to him a misreadingof tradition,in favorof a new custombased on logic and the correct meteorologicalfacts. Hirschowitzalso wished to abolish the local custom, based on what was to him a misreadingof logic and of the meteorologicalfacts, in favor of an old-newcustombased on traditionand the correctmeteorologicalfacts. Bothfoundthemselvesat odds with the rest of the community.Rosh decided that acquiescencewas the betterpart of valor; Hirschowitzwent to America.

88. Hirschowitz, Beit Avraham, pp. 35-39. 89. Ibid., pp. 41-47. Roshkes argued that the real determinant is whether rain in their summer (Tishrei-Nisan) is harmful for the Jews in Australia, as it apparently is for the Jews in Brazil. 90. Hirschowitz was apparently a colorful and controversial individual. His first public appearance in Melbourne nearly caused a riot; see Goldman, Jews in Victoria,p. 368. He set up a "Beth Hamedrash" in Melbourne; cf. ibid., and Jewish Chronicle, n.s., no. 1197, (March 11, 1892), p. 18. The exact chronological order of the events in the tal u-malar debate (and the final outcome) is not clearly presented by Hirschowitz. Some of the correspondence is not presented, and references are made to the opinions of other authorities without citations of the sources. Hirschowitz spent only three years in Melbourne before leaving for America, where he served in Toledo, Ohio, and Borough Park, New York. He eventually settled in the Land of Israel. According to Goldman, Jews in Victoria, p. 369, Hirschowitz was forced to leave Melbourne because of a disagreement about his policy of accepting proselytes. One can speculate whether the controversy he engendered about tal u-malar may not also have been a factor in the brevity of his tenure in Melbourne. His correspondence on the issue took place in 1892-93; he left for America in August 1894; cf. Beit Avraham, p. 1, in which Hirschowitz described his journey

168


Hirschowitz'sefforts,however,werenot in vain.In whatmightbe considered a posthumousvictory, the immediatepast chief rabbi of Australia, IsraelPorush(now emeritus),adoptedthe Babylonianpractice(startinglal u-malaron the sixtiethday fromthe equinox)so as "to follow the seasonsin Eretz Yisrael."9'His predecessorat the Great Synagogue, Sydney, had replaced the Geshemand Tal hymns recited before Musaf on Shemini Atzeret and on Passoverwith a special prayer in English, composed by himself.The same prayerwas read on both occasions and dealt in general terms with the change of seasons. Mashivha-ruabwas not said. Porush His reintroducedthe omittedprayers,"andthis is the customuntiltoday.""92 motivationfor this change was "in accordancewith the importanceEretz Yisrael occupies today in our life."'93 from Melbourneto San Franciscoand consideredthe halakhicproblemsoccasionedby crossing the internationaldate line. 91. From a privatecommunicationto the authorsfrom Chief Rabbi EmeritusPorush, Sept. 12, 1979. 92. Ibid. 93. Ibid.The questionof jal u-matarrosealso amongthe Jewsof New Zealand.Zevi Pesab Frank,Ashkenazicchief rabbiof Jerusalem,ruledthat Jews thereshould follow the normal diasporapractice;see Har Zevi (n. 51), pp. 55-56. Cf., also, his responsumdealingwith Tu Iayyim 2 (Jerusalem,1972/73),pp. Bi-Shevatin the SouthernHemispherein Har Zevi, Orahb 48-49. See also AbrahamRapaport,Quntras(n. 57), p. 17,who ruledthatthe entireSouthern Hemisphereshould follow the Babylonianpracticeunless rain is definitelyharmful. Therearetwo novelresponsaon this question.JacobMeir,Sefardicchiefrabbiof the Land of Israel,in Shabbetai'sDivreiYehezqiyahu, pp. 20-22, suggestedthat Jews in the Southern Hemisphereshould"mention"and "request"dewall yearround.If theyneedrainduringtheir winter,they can pray for it in Shome'aTefilah,but only in a whisper(see Appendix).Thus, while Jews in the rest of the world were prayingfor rain, Jews in the SouthernHemisphere wouldat leastbe prayingfor dew. Meiraddedthat thisdecisionshouldbe consideredtheoretically correct(le-halakhah),but not for practicalusage (le-ma'aseh)becauseof the differing opinion of RabbisAlfandariand Kook. SamuelHalevi Wosner,Shevelha-Levi(Bnai Brak, 1969/70),pp. 22-23, suggestedto the Jews of Montevideo,Uruguay,that they completelyreversethe procedureof the Northern Hemisphere.Hence, they should mentionand requestrain in theirwinter(Nisan to Tishrei) and do neitherin theirsummer(Tishreito Nisan).He cautionedthatthis opinonshouldnot be implementedunlessa well-knownauthority(ga'onmefursam)agreedwith him. Interestingly, neitherWosnernor any otherauthority,to our knowledge,suggestedstartinglal u-matarin the SouthernHemisphereon the sixtiethday from the vernalequinox. Solomon Braun, She'arim Mepuyyanim ba-Halakhah on Qi;;ur ShullhanArukh, vol. 1

(Jerusalem,1969/70),pp. 107-108, raisedone morehalakhicquestionconcerningthe practice in the SouthernHemisphere.After reviewingthe relevantmaterial(Ijayyim Shabbetaiand Hirschowitz),he asked what practiceshould be followed by a residentof the Northern Hemispherewho travelsto the SouthernHemisphere,yet intends to returnto his original location.Braunruledthat such a personshouldprayfor rainaccordingto the practicein his countryof origin.


169

The Australianexperienceencapsulateswell all the factorsthat playeda part in previous discussions of when tal u-malar should be said in the diaspora.There was logic, there was local custom, therewas the appealto traditionand to outside authorities.Therewas even intracommunalstrife. In the end, the desire to identify with the Land of Israel was dominant. Herein, perhaps,lies the final irony:in order to follow the seasons in the Land of Israel,the Jewsof Australianow pray for rainwhen it is neededat the site of ancient Babylonia. The history of the problemof when to begin saying tal u-matarin the Southern Hemisphereraises a numberof issues for reflection.When one looks at the meteorologicaldata, it is hard to see what the debate in the SouthernHemisphereis all about.94It appearsthat none of the countries discussed here has a radical distinction between rainy and dry seasons; hence,thereshouldbe no moreproblemsin the applyingof the Babylonian patternthan in Europe,which also, for the most part, has no such distinction. The fact that winter and summer are reversedshould not have an influenceon the prayerfor rainif thereare no distinctrainyand dry seasons. Evenin Recife,wherethereare such distinctseasons,therestill is rainin the "dry season," and the seasons do not follow the equinoctialsummerand winter. It seems, then, that if the first Jewish settlers in the Southern Hemispherehad had correctmeteorologicalinformation,they might never have asked the questionwe have been discussing.What is likely is that the reversalof winterand summerwas such a shock for the early settlersthat they assumed, in the absence of precise meteorologicalcharts, that the season which was predominantlyrainy and the season which was predominantlydrywerealso completelydifferentfromthosewith whichtheywere familiar.This may have been one reasonwhy the Jews df Recife said that rain in their summerwas not only undesirablebut also harmful. We may also ask why, if the bonds of traditionare so strong,Jewswho had been startingthe prayerfor rain sixty days afterthe autumnalequinox The authors have been unable to ascertain the exact procedure concerning tal u-matar currently in effect in each South American country. Conversations with former Argentinian Jews now resident in Israel have revealed that the Sefardic Jewish communities there follow the opinion of Tarrab and Sathun, and, therefore, they never mention or request rain the whole year round. Only when they came to Israel did these Sefardic Jews learn to say Barekh 'Aleinu (the winter form of the Birkat ha-Shanim);previously, they had said Barekheinuthe year round (cf. n. 1). Ashkenazic communities in Argentina, however, follow the Babylonian pattern. 94. See nn. 73, 77, 80, 85.

170


in their native countrieswould suddenlyquestion this procedurein their new homes. The answermay very well lie in the natureof the first Jewish settlersin South Americaand Australia.If they had been stronglywedded to the customsof theirfathers,it is unlikelythat they wouldhave set out for climes unknown where the opportunitiesto practiceJudaism fully were nonexistent.They were sufficientlyknowledgeableso as to regardthe time for sayinglal u-malaras a problem.They werenot, however,so traditional as to follow the generaldiasporapracticewithout question.They were, in effect,pioneersin termsof both geographyand halakhah.95 Only when the Jewish communitieswere somewhatwell establisheddid Jews who were more traditional arrive. It is these Jews, as exemplified by Abraham Hirschowitz,who tried to set aside the innovationof the first settlers.By then, innovation had become entrenchedcustom and, hence, difficult to uproot. Still, as the case of Australiademonstrates,changecan be effected. It is probable that Porush'ssuccess, after Hirschowitz'sfailure, became possiblewhen increasedJewishimmigrationto Australiabroughta greater numberof traditionalJews to that country. Conclusion We have attemptedhere to use the history of one particularhalakhic question,namely,whenthe prayerfor rainshouldbe recitedin the diaspora, as an exampleof the way in whichJewishlaw develops.The variouswaysin which this question has been treated demonstratevery well the several factorsthat have an impacton the halakhicprocess.Some authoritiestried to determinethe halakhahby meansof logicalinference:just as Jewsin the Landof Israeland in Babyloniaprayfor rainwhenit is good for them,so all otherJewishcommunitiesshouldpray for rainaccordingto theirown local needs. Other rabbis, however, decided that competing factors should be decisive. These included tradition, as representedby authoritativetexts, custom based on that tradition,and the need for Jewish unity. Even the

95. The first Jews in Brazil were Marranos who had returned to Judaism; they were joined by sundry adventurers. The first Jews in Australia were convicts, even though those who asked about jal u-matar probably arrived in Australia under more auspicious circumstances. The fact that these Jews were sufficiently versed in, and concerned about, Jewish law to ask about the prayer for rain demonstrates their learning, although in their own day they were probably considered ignoramuses.


171

"correct"interpretationof the Talmudcould becomesecondarywhen confrontedwith other considerations.Logic, in fact, could be ignoredalmost altogether. This is most clear when we look at the case of the Southern Hemisphere.Those who argue that the generaldiasporapracticemust be maintainedeven when the meteorologicalsituation has changed, are, in effect, sayingthat for the sake of Jewishunity,it is betterfor a Jew in South Americato pray for rain when it is neededin Babyloniathan to pray for it when it is needed where he himself lives.96This, of course, is the logical resultof the action of Rosh's contemporaries,who, for the sake of custom, refusedto accept "the words of the living God."97 Appendix When the inhabitantsof Nineveh asked Rabbi Judahha-Nasi in which blessing they should pray for rain in the summer,he replied:in Shome'a 96. This may be one of the sourcesof the widely held fallacy that in the diasporatal u-malaris said for rain in Israel(see above, n. 20). In a sense, though,one could say that diasporaJews are reallyprayingfor rain in what was ancientBabylonia.This, indeed,is the opinionof Shlomo Min-HaHar,"CountriesThat RequireRain fromthe Seventhof Heshvan and the SummerMonths"(Hebrew),Techumin,I (Winter 1979/80): 137-148. Min-HaHar arguedthat in essenceall the diasporapraysfor the welfareof Babyloniaas the seat of Jewish scholarship,and that the separateBabyloniancustomcame about only afterthe close of the Mishnah(a doubtfulstatement;see the authors'"JewishPrayerfor Rain in Babylonia").Just as all Israelacceptedthe BabylonianTalmudinsteadof the JerusalemTalmud,it took upon itself to prayfor the Babyloniansagesratherthanthe sagesof the Landof Israel.Min-HaHar expressedthe hope (p. 148)that soon all diasporacountrieswillprayfor rainfromthe seventh of Marhleshvan as the centralityof the "Torahof the Land of Israel"is recognized. 97. See above,n. 50. Thereis one moreelementin the trivializationof theJewishprayerfor rainwhichhas not beendiscussedhere.In orderto determinethe sixtiethday fromthe equinox for the purposesof tal u-matar,the ruleslaiddownby Samuel(Erubin56a)areemployed.They are basedon a calculationof the year as beingexactly365 1/4 days long, ratherthanthe more exact 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes,46 seconds. As a result of this slight inaccuracy,the calculatedequinoxhas slowlymovedforwardthroughthe centuries,so thatnow the autumnal equinoxis computedto fall on October7. The prayerfor rainbegins,therefore,in Ma'arivof December4 (exceptin the yearbeforea civil leapyear,whenit beginsin Ma'arivof December 5, sincethe tequfahfallson October7 at 9:00P.M.[afterdark]).Sincethe datesDecember4 and 5 have no meaningat all to the averageworshipper,the significanceof the prayerfor rainhas beendiminishedevenfurther.Theuseof an inaccuratecalculationfor determiningthe equinox, despitethe knowledgethat the astronomicalequinoxfalls on a muchdifferentday, is another example of the supremacyof custom over logic. This issue must be dealt with elsewhere. (Anotherexampleof the strongeffect of customin ritualeven at the expenseof logic is the present-dayretentionin the prayerYequmPurqanof the prayersfor the Babylonianexilarch and the heads of the Kallahmonths,positionswhich have not existed for many centuries.)

172


Tefilah.As we have seen, this became,moreor less, the halakhahfor Jewsin the diasporawho need rain betweenPassoverand the sixtiethday from the equinox. Most authoritieshave ruledthat suchJewsshouldprayfor rainin Shome'aTefilah(and not in Birkatha-Shanim).This practiceis ultimately based on the statementin AvodahZarah8a that one requestshis personal needs in Shome'a Tefilah,except for health, for which one prays in the eighth benediction (Rofe' Ulolei 'Amo Yisrael, and livelihood, which is requestedin Birkatha-Shanim.Rain, as a blessingneededfor livelihood,is requestedin Birkat ha-Shanim.This applies, however, only in the rainy season, for at othertimesrainis consideredharmfulfor "mostof the world" (i.e., the Land of Israeland Babylonia).Therefore,one who prays for it at that time does not do so in Birkat ha-Shanim.Rather, he uses Shome'a Tefilah, the catch-all blessing, what Meiri called 'afarkheset(lit., "a hopper").98 Though this is the halakhah,the custom has developednot to pray for rain using the wordstal u-matarin Shome'aTefilah.As earlyas the beginning of the fourteenth century, Ritba stated that when rain is needed betweenSheminiAtzeretand the sixtiethday fromthe equinox,even though one may pray for it in Shome'aTefilah,the practiceis not to do so.99This custom was strongly reinforcedby Joel Sirkes (Bab), who recordedthat once two righteousmen prayedfor rain in Shome'aTefilah,and they both died untimelydeathsthat very same year. Sirkesattributedtheirdemiseto the fact that their prayerwas consideredan unnecessaryimposition upon God.'00 Sirkes's son-in-law, David ben Samuel ha-Levi (Taz, 1586-1667), objected to the possibility that God would consider prayersfor rain an imposition,even when they are offeredoutside the normalseason. Rather, he argued,it is permissibleonly for individuals,but not the sheliabhibbur,to inserttal u-malarinto Shome'aTefilah.He based this conclusionon Rabbi Judahha-Nasi's answerto the Jews of Nineveh. Rabbi Judahha-Nasi had

98. Meiri is also the one to say that rain in the summer is harmful for most of the world; see Beit ha-Behirah, p. 54. See also (Pseudo) Rashi's Commentary ad Ta'anit 14b; Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne, Ha-'Eshkol, p. 26; Mordecai Jaffe, Levush, p. 326. 99. Ijiddushei ha-Rilba, p. 40. 100. Bayit Hadash on Tur, Orab -Iayyim 117.


173

ruledthat theseJewswerenot to be considereda community,but individuals,and, therefore,they shouldprayfor rain in Shome'aTefilah.Taz shouldaskforrainin this inferredfromthisstatementthatonlyindividuals and in that matter, sayingtal u-matarpublicly Shome'aTefilabis not allowed.'0' DavidFraenkel(1707-1762)arrivedat the sameconclusion,usingthe Jerusalem Talmud'sversionof theNinevehincident.R. Yosehadsuggested sayingtal u-matarin the six additionalblessingsaddedin the communal prayerson a fast-day.Since,however,individualsdo not saytheseblessings,R. Haninasaidthata personprayingaloneasksfor rainin Shome'a in Fraenkelargued,onlyindividuals Therefore, Tefilah. maysaytalu-matar Shome'aTefilah;communitiesdo not havethis optioninasmuchas they haveanotheralternative for them.'02 (in the six blessings)prescribed Thisreluctance to prayforrainin Shome'aTefilahis evidentalsoin the The rabbiswho responsaon the questionof the SouthernHemisphere. thatJewsin thispartof theworldprayforrainin Shome'aTefilah suggested duringtheirwinterdid not give unqualified supportto the practice.'03 It is clear,then,thateventhoughJewsmayprayfor rainin Shome'a fromdoingso. Thus,Jewsin placesthatneed Tefilah,theyarediscouraged rain betweenSheminiAtzeretand the sixtiethday fromthe equinox,or betweenPassoverand Shavuot,are restrainedfromrequestingsuchrain. Jewsin theSouthernHemisphere Furthermore, can,in effect,prayfor rain eitherin theirsummer,whenit is not reallyneeded,or not at all. In thebodyof thispaper,wehaveshownhowcustomandthedesirefor to a diminutionin the meaningfulness of the uniformityhavecontributed Jewishprayerfor rain.In thecaseof sayingtal u-matar in Shome'aTefilah, onceagaincustomhasdictatedthateventhispossibilityof a sincereprayer

101. Turei Zahav on ShulbhanArukh, Orahb ayyim 117. 102. Shirei Qorban on Jer. Ta'anit 1:1. 103. See Judah Tarrab in Milei de-'Ezra, pp. 12a-18b; Abraham Kook in Divrei Yebezqiyahu, pp. 19-20; Jacob Meir in ibid., pp. 20-22. On this issue in general, see Jacob Hayyim Sofer, KaJ'ha-Nayyim (n. 51), p. 60b; and Israel Meir ha-Kohen, Mishnah Berurah, Orah -layyim 117 (Jerusalem, 1959/60), vol. 1, pp. 286-287.

174


for rain is discouraged. The rabbis have always taken prayer very seriously;'04 custom, though, has the power to modify considerably the meaningful-

ness of a particular prayer.'05 Margate,Fla. (A.A.L.) Ben-GurionUniversityof the Negev Beer Sheva, Israel(D.J.L.)

104. Thus, for instance, if jal u-malar is said at the wrong time of the year, the worshipper must repeat his prayer. See above, n. 51. 105. See above, "Conclusions," and esp. n. 97. On the trivialization of the prayer for rain, see, e.g., Abraham bar Hiyya, Sefer ha-'Ibbur, ed. Zevi Filipowsky (London, 1866/67; reprint. ed. in Sefer Po'al Hashem, vol. I [Bnai Brak, 1967/68]), p. 94 (quoting Isaac ben Barukh); Isaac Israeli, Sefer Yesod 'Olam ha-Shalem, ed. H. Goldberg, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1850/51; reprinted in Po'al ha-Shem, vol. 2 [Bnai Brak, 1968/69]), p. 24b; Israel of Zamosc, Orar Nehmad, on Kuzari 4:29; Jaffe, Qorot (n. 28), p. 121. Some authorities have seen the prayer for rain as being merely symbolic at the present time. See Rapaport, Quntras, p. 16, and, quoting him, Immanuel Jakobovits, "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature," Tradition 7, no. 1 (1964-65): 96-98; Sholom Klass, "Why We Say the Prayer Tal Umatar on Dec. 5th or 6th," Jewish Press, Nov. 30, 1979.

Averroes and Narboni on the Material Intellect Author(s): Herbert A. Davidson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 175-184 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486320 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



AVERROESAND NARBONI ON THE MATERIAL INTELLECT by HERBERTA. DAVIDSON Questionsregardingthe human intellecthauntedAverroesthroughout his philosophiccareer;no less than seven of his preservedworks treat the humanintellectformally,whileothers,naturallyenough,also do so incidentally. Here I shall point out that the seven aforementionedworksfall into a sequence,that a recentlypublishedtext of Averroes'has its placewithinthe sequence, and that Moses Narboni misread Averroes for reasons to be explained. What most baffled Averroeswas the natureof the humanmaterial,or potential,intellect,that is, the potentialityfor intellectalthoughtwith which man is born. Aristotlehad positedan intellectin man whichis "potential,"' which"beforethinkingis not any thingactually,"2 but "is whatit is by virtue of becomingall things,"3and which,being"all thingspotentially,"is a kind of "matter."4Quite apart from the explicit statements,the spirit of Aristotle's philosophy in any event requiresthat a potentiality for thought precede actual human thought. Given the existence of a potential or 1. 2. 3. 4.

Aristotle, De anima III, 4, 429a, 16. Ibid., 429a, 16. Ibid., 5, 430a, 14-15. Ibid., 430a, 10-11.

175

176

HERBERT A. DAVIDSON

materialhuman intellect,its natureremainsto be defined.Aristotle indicated that the potentialor materialintellectis of a differentcharacterfrom the other facultiesof the human soul, but he failed to state just what its nature is;5 and his vague remarkson the subject have, for twenty-three hundredyears, tantalized,more than enlightened,readers. From Averroes'vantagepoint, the rangeof possibleinterpretationswas delimitedby Alexanderof Aphrodisiasat the one extremeandThemistiusat the other. Alexanderhad construedthe humanmaterialintellectas a mere "disposition."6That is to say, the materialintellectis not a distinctentity added and attachedto the humanorganism,but is nothingother than the human organism'sbeing constituted,or disposed,in such a mannerthat it has the ability to think. Alexander'sposition is brought out nicely in a nuancehe appendedto one of Aristotle'sanalogies.Aristotlehad suggested that the human potentialityfor thoughtresemblesa blank writingtablet.7 Yet a writing tablet is a substance, whereas Alexander understoodthe human potentialityfor thought to be not a substancebut a disposition. Alexander accordinglyemended the Aristotelian analogy. The material intellect,he wrote,does not, to be precise,resemblea writingtablet.Rather it correspondsto the "unwrittenaspectof the tablet,"to the "disposition[in the tablet] for being writtenupon."8Just as the writingtablet possessesa capabilityfor receivingwriting,the human organismor human soul possessesa capabilityfor receivingthought,and the materialintellectis simply that capability. Themistius,by contrastwith Alexander,construedthe humanpotential intellect as something "separate"from matter, in other words, as incorThe attributesincorporealand indestrucporeal, and hence indestructible.9 can tible, Averroesreasoned, belong only to substances,and he therefore took Themistiusto have construedthe materialintellectas an eternal,incorporealsubstance.' Ibn Baijja,Averroesinformsus, also enteredthe lists; in a variationof Alexander'sposition,he maintainedthatthe materialintellect

5. Ibid., 1, 4, 408b, 18-25; III, 4, 429a, 15-429b, 5. 6. Alexander, De anima (in Scripta Minora, II, pt. 1, ed. I. Bruns [Berlin, 1887]), p. 84. 7. Aristotle, De anima III, 4, 430a, 1. 8. Alexander, De anima, pp. 84-85. 9. Themistius, De anima (in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, V, pt. 3, ed. R. Heinze [Berlin, 1899]), p. 105. 10. See below, n. 15, and Averroes, CommentariumMagnum in Aristotelis De Anima Libros, ed. F. Crawford (Cambridge, 1953), p. 389.

AVERROES AND NARBONI ON THE MATERIAL INTELLECT

177

is a dispositioninheringspecificallyin the humanimaginativefaculty." Averroesthus visualizeda field of combat.On one side, Alexanderand Ibn

Bajjaconstruedthe materialintellectas a dispositionin the humanorganism or specificallyin the imaginativefacultyof the soul, while on the other, Themistiusconstruedthe materialintellect as an eternalincorporealsubstance.The texts of Alexanderand Themistiuswereavailableto Averroesin Arabictranslations.'2The texts of Ibn BajjawhichAverroescites have also been published,but one of them, Ibn Bijja's De anima,breaks off in the

middleof thediscussionof intellect.Noneof thepublished textsof IbnBajja

construethe materialintellectas a disposition."3EitherIbn Bajjaexpressly took that standin the missingpartof his De animaor in an unknownwork; or else-most probably-Averroes found it impliedin other statementsof Ibn Bajja's.14 Artificial and simplistic though the scheme might appear, Averroes

progressedfromone extremeto an intermediate positionandthento the otherextreme.In the earlystagesof his thoughthe acceptedthe positionsof

Ibn Bijja and Alexander,subsequently he discovereda compromisebe-

tween theirpositionsand Themistius',and ultimatelyhe embracedThemistius' position. Averroes'Epitomeof Aristotle'sDe animarefutesThemistiusand argues

at lengththat the materialhumanintellectmustbe a dispositionin the imaginative faculty."'Some Arabic manuscriptsof the Epitome and a medievalHebrewtranslationcontain interpolations,however,both in the body of the discussionof intellectand at the end.'6 The interpolationsin the 11. CommentariumMagnum, p. 397. 12. The medieval Arabic text of Themistius has been published: An Arabic Translationof Themistius, Commentary on Aristoteles De Anima, ed. M. Lyons (Columbia, S. C., 1973). The medieval translation of Alexander's De anima has not been published, but the translation of a

relatedtext, his De intellectu,has beenpublishedtwice:"TexteArabedu PeriNou d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise,"ed. J. Finnegan,Milangesde l'UniversiteSt. Joseph33 (1956):159-202;and A. Badawi, Commentairessur Aristote perdus en grec (Beirut, 1968), 31-42. The attribution of the

De intellectuto Alexanderhas been questioned,but Averroeshad no doubts.

13. Cf. A. Altmann, "Ibn Bajja on Man's Ultimate Felicity," reprinted in his Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1969), p. 101. 14. In the CommentariumMagnum, p. 397, Averroes writes that he is reporting what Ibn Bajja "appears to mean, according to the obvious sense of his words." 15. Averroes, TalkhFsK. al-Nafs, ed. A. Ahwani (Cairo, 1950), pp. 83-86. The term talkhi$

properlydesignatesthe MiddleCommentary,but whatAhwanihas publishedis the Epitome. 16. Ibid., (a) p. 86; (b) p. 87; (c) p. 90. Ahwaniused a Madridand a Cairomanuscript. The threepassagesappearin the Madridmanuscript,and Ahwanireportsthat(b) and(c) but not (a) are missingin the Cairomanuscript.Anothertext was publishedin Hyderabad,1947,

178

HERBERTA. DAVIDSON

body of the discussionarguethat the positionof Themistiusis not implausible after all." And the statementappendedat the end announcesthat the precedingpages representIbn Baijja'stheories,that Averroeshad accepted those theories because Ibn Bajja "misled me," that Averroes now saw mattersdifferently,and his consideredposition was to be found not in the Epitomebut in his "commentary[sharb,perush]"on Aristotle'sDe anima.'"

A briefcompositionof Averroes'dealingwith the possibilityof the humanintellect'sbecoming"conjoined" to the activeintellectandseveral

passagesin Averroes'MiddleCommentaryon the De animaadvocatewhat he explicitlylabels as Alexander'sposition. Both worksjudge the material intellect to be a dispositionin the human organismwithout-unlike Ibn

Bajja-assigningit to any specificfacultyof the soul; and the Middle Commentaryfollows Alexanderin comparingit to the disposition in a writingtablet.'9But anotherpassagein the MiddleCommentary,a passage I assume to be a later additioninsertedby Averroesinto the originalversion, sets forth the difficulties in the positions of both Alexanderand

andarrivesatwhatAverroescallsa "combination Themistius [jam';qibbus]

of the two." The materialintellect,Averroeshere determines,is not exclusively a dispositionnor exclusivelyan incorporealsubstance;it consistsin

an incorporealsubstance's joininga dispositionwithinthe imaginative faculty. The incorporeal substance whose marriage with the human

and therepassages(a) and(c) aremissing,whereaspassage(b) is present;see pp. 84-85, andp. 87. All the Hebrewmanuscriptsthat I examinedhave the three passages. 17. Talkhis,pp. 86, 87. 18. Ibid.,p. 90. The Hebrewtranslationwas printedby S. Munk,Milangesde Philosophie juive et arabe (Paris, 1859), p. 443. 19. Averroes (Vater und Sohn), Drei Abhandlungenueber die Conjunktion,ed. and trans. J.

Hercz(Berlin,1869),firstopuscule,Hebrewtext,p. 5; Germantrans.,p. 20. MiddleCommentary on De anima,Arabictext (Paris,BibliothequeNationale, HebrewMS 1009),pp. 144a, 145b-146a; Hebrew text (Paris, BibliothequeNationale, Hebrew MS 947), pp. 219a, 220b-221a. The opusculeon conjunctionwas translatedinto Latinin the sixteenthcenturyunderthe title Epistola de connexione intellectus abstracti cum homine. A different Latin translation of the

opusculewas incorporatedinto chapters1-3 of a workentitledTractatusde AnimaeBeatitudine.The Tractatuscarriesthe nameof Averroes,but it is patentlythe handiworkof a Latin writer,presumablylate, who fashionsthe presentopusculeon the subjectof conjunction,a relatedopusculeon the samesubject(seebelow,n. 30),excerptsfromAlfarabi,andtransitional materialof his own into a singletreatise.The distinctionbetweenpossibilitasandpotentiain chapter2 of the Tractatusbetraysa Latinprovenance;sucha distinctionwouldnot be drawnin Arabic.See M. Steinschneider, Al-Farabi(St. Petersburg,1869),pp. 96-104. The Epistolaand the Tractatuswere reprintedrepeatedlyin the sixteenth-century Latin editionsof Averroes' commentaries.


179

imaginativefacultyengendersthe materialintellectis the "activeintellect," the last in the hierarchyof incorporealbeings that govern the physical universe.20 Averroes'Long Commentaryon the De animapursuesyet anothertack. The Long CommentarycategoricallyrefutesAlexander'sposition, according to which the materialintellect is a mere dispositionin the human organism, and Ibn Bajja's, according to which the material intellect is a disposition in the imaginativefaculty.21Averroes indeed complains that recent philosophersflocked to Alexander'sbannerbecause of no intrinsic meritin Alexanderbut merelybecauseof his inflatedreputation.22 Although AverroesexpressesreservationsregardingThemistius'theoryof intellectas well,23he construesthe materialintellectas Themistiushad done;he findsit to be an incorporealsubstancewholly distinctfrom the activeintellect,and he concludesthat a single materialintellectservesall mankind.24Once the materialintellectis taken to be a substance,Aristotle'sanalogyof the writing tablet must be interpretedaccordingly.Hence Averroesobserves:"To state that the materialintellectresemblesthe dispositionin the tablet [for receivingwriting]. . ., as AlexanderinterpretsAristotle,is incorrect."The materialintellect,being a substance,correspondsnot to the dispositionin the writingtablet, but "to the tabletinsofaras it has the dispositon."25 Still one more composition of Averroes',his Commentaryon Alexander'sDe intellectu,adopts a line similarto that of the Long Commentaryon the De anima."Afterlengthystudyand intenseapplication,"Averroeswritesthere, he realizedthat a single, eternal,materialintellectservesthe entirehuman species.26 Nothing can absolutelyguaranteethat Averroesadvancedhis various theoriesof the materialintellectin exactlythe temporalsequencethat I have given.27His Epitomesare known, however,generallyto be early, and his Long Commentaries,to be late. The note appendedto the Epitomewhich 20. Middle Commentary, Arabic text, p. 144b; Hebrew trans., p. 219b. 21. CommentariumMagnum, pp. 395-398. 22. Ibid., p. 433. 23. Ibid., pp. 391-393. 24. Ibid., pp. 385-386, 389, 402, 406, 413-414. 25. Ibid., pp. 430-431. 26. Commentaryon the De Intellectu (Leyden, Warner MS 6), pp. 122a-b. The text will be published in the issue of Mehqare Yerushalayimbe-Mabshebet Yisra'el dedicated to S. Pines. 27. The date 1159 has been assigned to the Epitome or to a copy of it, and 1181 has been assigned to the Middle Commentary. See Ahwani's introduction to TalkhrsK. al-Nafs, p. 6; M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen(Berlin, 1893), p. 148.

180

HERBERT A. DAVIDSON

on theDe animacan,moreover, directsreadersto Averroes'"commentary" in view.28Undoubtedly,therefore,the haveonly the LongCommentary thematerial Epitomeof theDe anima,whichfollowsIbnBijjainconstruing whereasthe intellectas a dispositionin the imaginative faculty,is early,29 whichconstruesthematerialintellectas anincorporeal LongCommentary, of construction substance,is later.The passagesthat acceptAlexander's the materialintellectas a dispositionin the humanorganism-a small and the originalversionof the Middle compositionon "conjunction" also early;thepositiontheyendorseis close Commentary-are presumably to thatof the Epitome,andis categorically rejectedin the LongCommentary.Thereremainsthe passageinsertedinto the MiddleDe animawhich of thepositionsof Alexander and a "combination" proposesa compromise, afterthe LongCommentary Themistius. rejectedAlexander's Conceivably, thematerialintellectas a singleincorporeal positionoutrightandconstrued substancecommonto all mankind,Averroescould have retreatedto a Buton itsfacesucha regression of Alexander andThemistius. hybridization is not likely,andequallyunlikelywouldbe the suppositionthatthe Long and minutelyarguedtreatAverroes'most conscientiously Commentary, in on theroadto a theoryrecorded mentof intellect,wasa mereway-station Theprobablesequence,then, of theMiddleCommentary. a fewparagraphs was this: Averroes'early works-the Epitome,a briefcompositionon withthe activeintellect,andtheoriginalversionof theMiddle conjunction Ibn Bajjain construingthe materialintellectas a Commentary-followed in in the facultyof the soul,or followedAlexander imaginative disposition in the human a as less organism. disposition specifically, construingit, Subsequently-in the passage inserted into the Middle CommentaryAverroescontemplateda "combination"of the positionsof Alexanderand Themistius. Finally-in his Long De anima and his commentary on Alexander'sDe intellectu-he concluded"after lengthy study and intense application"that a single, eternal,incorporealmaterialintellectservesall mankind. Considerationhas so far been given to five of the sevenworksthat deal formallywith the humanintellect.A sixthwork, anotherbriefcomposition on the possibilityof conjunctionwith the activeintellect,revealsno definite 28. The additions noted above, n. 16, reflect the doctrine of the Long Commentary even in details. 29. Also see above, n. 27.


181

standon the natureof the materialintellect.30The seventhwork,which againis devotedto the subjectof conjunction,is the recentlypublished

Epistle on the Possibilityof Conjunctionwith the ActiveIntellect. does not, as far as is known, TheEpistleon the Possibilityof Conjunction in Arabic exist the original and has survivedin a medievalHebrewtranslation thanks to Moses Narboni, who providedit with a commentary.The Epistle expressesitself unambiguously.The "materialintellect,"Averroes writes, "has been provenin the De animato be a puredisposition,not perfected by any form whatsoever."3'Aristotle'sDe animawill be searchedin vain for a proof that the material intellect is a "pure disposition,"and Averroes'mentionof a proof must referto the argumentthat Aristotledid offer for the potentialintellect'scontainingno form whatsoever.32Having construedthe materialintellectas a "puredisposition,"Averroesidentifies its locus within the human soul. He adduces the circumstancethat the human "intellectin habitu [sekelbe-qinyan= 'aqlbil-malaka],"the stage at which man possessesa repertoireof intelligiblethoughtsand can call upon them at will,33is "perfectedthrough imaginativenotions." Inasmuchas "imaginativeforms are the substratumof intelligiblethoughts, the potentiality for receivingintelligiblethoughts-the so-calledmaterialintellectmust be connected [mequshshar]with those imaginative forms";34the "materialintellect,"that is to say, inheresin the "imaginativesoul."35As the discussionproceeds,the analogy of the writingtablet comes up, and since Averroesis construingthe humanpotentialintellectas a pure disposition, he formulatesthe analogywith Alexander'snuance:The humandisposition 30. The second opuscule in Drei Abhandlungen(above, n. 19). 31. Averroes, Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunctionwith the Active Intellect ... with the Commentary of Moses Narboni, ed. and trans. K. Bland (New York, 1982), Hebrew sec., p. 4; English trans. p. 23. Bland opted not to produce an eclectic text and instead printed the text of a single manuscript verbatim, placing all variants in the apparatus. The manuscript Bland chose for his edition is, mirabile dictu, one of the worst, a manuscript that, he admits, exhibits "blatant error[s]," "errors of transcription," and "lacunae" (introduction, pp. 10-11). 'Aluba hi ha-'issa she-nahtomah me'id 'aleha.... My translations are based on Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Hebrew MS 918, corrected with the aid of Bland's apparatus. 32. Aristotle, De anima III, 4, 429a, 18-22. 33. "Intellect in habitu" is the term coined by the Greek commentators for the stage of intellect described by Aristotle, De anima III, 4, 429b, 5-9. See Alexander, De anima, p. 85; De intellectu, p. 107; Themistius, De anima, p. 98. 34. Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction, Hebrew text, pp. 12-13; English trans., pp.

27-28.

35. Ibid., Hebrew text, p. 102.

182

HERBERT A. DAVIDSON

forthoughtis "joinedto imaginative formsas thedisposition in thewriting tabletis connectedwiththe tablet."36 Averroes'Epistleon the Possibilityof Conjunction thusclearlyfollows IbnBaijja in construing thehumanmaterialintellectas a dispositionin the facultyof the soul. It belongsto the earlystageof Averroes' imaginative on thehumanintellectandis to be bracketed withhis Epitome speculation of the De anima. Averroescouldhavedesiredno morecarefulanddevoteda readerthan MosesNarboni.Yet,forwantof a fewkeytexts,Narbonimisreadthetexts he had. in whichAverroesaddressesthe subjectof Of the sevencompositions on theDe anima,was intellectdirectly,a singleone,theLongCommentary unknownto medievalHebrewreaders.37 the chance, By LongCommentary waslikewisetheonlyoneof thesevenknownto themedievalScholasticswhencethe radicallydifferentperceptionsof Averroesentertainedby As hasbeenseen,the Long medievalHebrewandScholasticphilosophers. to him accountof IbnBajja,attributing offersa circumstantial Commentary thedoctrinethatthematerial in thehumanimaginaintellectis a disposition tivefaculty.Averroes,forhispart,concludesin theLongCommentary that a singleeternalsubstanceservesthe entirehumanspeciesas its material he of course intellect.SinceNarbonidid not havethe LongCommentary, there.The to IbnBaijja did not knowthedoctrinethatAverroesattributed availableto Narboniapparentlylacked-as do the worksof Ibn BLijja worksavailableto us-a definitivestatementon the materialintellect. how IbnBaijja hadconstrued couldonlyconjecture Narboniconsequently Narbonialsodidnot knowthe it. In theabsenceof theLongCommentary, positionon the materialintellectwhichAverroeshad takenin whatwas probablyhis final effort.The conceptionof the materialintellectwhich AverroesultimatelyreachedmighthavebeengatheredfromtheCommenDe intellectu, butNarbonifailedto recognize thattext's taryon Alexander's significance.

36. Ibid., Hebrew text, p. 108; English trans., p. 85. 37. The Long Commentary was translated from Latin into Hebrew, probably in the fifteenth century. See Crawford's introduction to CommentariumMagnum, p. xi; H. Wolfson, "Plan for the Publication of a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem," reprinted in his Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 445-453.


183

Furtherdata were missing. Averroes'Epitome of the De animacirculated in differentversions,as mentionedearlier,some Arabicmanuscripts containing added passages, and other Arabic manuscriptslacking them. When read without the additions, the Epitome argues that the material intellectmust be a dispositionin the imaginativefacultyof the humansoul. But the passagesinterpolatedinto the body of the discussionrecognizethe plausibilityof the contraryposition, the constructionof the materialintellect as an incorporealsubstance.And the passage appendedat the end characterizesthe precedingpages as Ibn Baijja'stheory of intellect,blames lbn Bajjafor havingmisledAverroes,and advisesreadersto seek Averroes' mature position on the issue in his "commentary"on the De anima.The Hebrew version of the Epitome contained both the interpolationsin the body of the discussionand the remarkadded at the end.38 Narboni was thereby led astray. He took the interpolatedsuggestion that the materialintellectmay indeedbe an incorporealsubstanceto represent the original,genuineteachingof the Epitome.The passageappendedat the end of the discussionof intellectin the Epitomedescribeswhat preceded as Ibn Bijja's theory.SinceNarbonidid not know whatIbnB jja'sposition had in fact been, and since he read the entire Epitome as advocatingan incorporealand substantivematerialintellect,he took the appendedstatementto meanthat Ibn Bajjatoo had construedthe materialhumanintellect as an incorporealsubstance.Finally, not knowing Averroes'Long Commentary, Narboni understood the remark directing readers to the "commentary"on the De animaas a referenceto the MiddleCommentary and not the Long Commentary.Narboniaccordinglyarrivedat the following reconstruction:"In his Epitome, Averroesarguedthat man possesses an incorporealpart;.. . that is the view of Themistius. . . and Ibn Baijja [whoconstruethe materialintellectas an incorporealsubstance].... Subsequently, however, Averroes saw that a spiritual substance containing a disposition," a substance both incorporealand yet infected with potentiality, "cannotconceivablyexist." Averroesconcludedthat "the material intellect is, in one respect, a pure disposition ... and, in anotherrespect, incorporeal.... The materialintellectis composedof a dispositionin us ... and an [incorporeal]intellectjoined to the disposition,"the incorporeal intellect in question being the "active intellect."39" Confusing the true 38. Above, n. 16. 39. Narboni, Ma'amar be-Shelemut ha-Nefesh, ed. A. Ivry (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 123-125. Cf. Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction, Hebrew text, p. 21; English trans., p. 33.

184

HERBERT A. DAVIDSON

sequence,Narboni supposesthat Averroesbegan, in the Epitome,by construingthe materialintellectas an incorporealsubstance;thatsuchhad been Ibn Bijja'sdoctrine;and that Averroesfinallysettleduponthe intermediate, compromiseposition outlined in the Middle Commentary. To returnonce more to Averroes'Epistleon the Possibilityof Conjunction,Averroesthereconstruesthe "materialintellect"as "a puredisposition and locatesit in the imaginativefacultyof [hakanagemura= isti'dadmabhd]" the soul.40 His words are certainly straightforwardenough. Narboni neverthelesschooses not to understandAverroesas maintainingthat the materialintellectis a dispositionand nothingelse. Insteadhe interpretsthe phrase"puredisposition"to meanthatone aspectof the materialintellectis exclusivelya dispositionand not physical;the aspectthat is a dispositionis not "impressedin," "distributedthrough," and "intermixedwith" the physicalhumanorganism.But, Narbonigoes on, the materialintellecthas in Averroes'systemanotheraspectas well. It is only "in one respecta disposition .

. .

whereas in another respect it is an incorporeal being connected

which with the disposition."41 The Epistleon the Possibilityof Conjunction, straightforwardlystates Averroes'early constructionof the materialintellect as a dispositionin the imaginativefaculty,is thus forciblyharmonized by Narboniwith whathe took to be Averroes'finalposition,the theorythat the materialintellectconsistsin the activeintellect'sjoining a dispositionin the imaginativefaculty. of California atLosAngeles University Los Angeles,Calif.

40. Above, nn. 31, 34, 35. 41. Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction, Hebrew text, pp. 5-6, and cf. p. 44; English trans., pp. 24-25, 47.

Rabbinical Status and Religious Authority in Imperial Germany: The German Rabbinical Association Author(s): Stephen M. Poppel Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 185-213 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486321 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



RABBINICALSTATUS AND RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN IMPERIAL GERMANY: THE GERMAN RABBINICAL ASSOCIATION by STEPHEN M. POPPEL The old politicaladagethat everypeoplegets the leadersit deservesmay be recastin a broader,morepositive,and ultimatelytruersenseto statethat every society seeks (though it does not necessarilyfind) the kind of leadership that best embodies its values and aspirations.Thus much can be learned about a society by examiningthe relative standingof competing claimants for its leadership.This is particularlyso in the wake of great transitions,whensuchstandingmay be expectedto reflectspecificintention, ratherthan the social inertiathat predominatesin calmertimes. These considerationsapplywith specialforce to late-nineteenth-century GermanJewry,whichwasjust completingthe transformation,launchedby the Haskalah, from a traditional, culturally autonomous society to a present-orientedand acculturatedone. Though at first glance its institutions of leadershipseem stablethroughoutthe period,in fact they developed in ways that revealmuch about the underlyingdirectionsof changeand the natureof the transitionthat occurred.Particularlytelling was the conflict over the appropriaterole of the rabbi, who sought a position as an in185

186

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

dependentreligiousleaderofferingauthoritativeprofessionalguidancefor the spiritual affairs of the community,but who was in danger of being reducedby the actions of governingboardsto a religiousfigurehead,able only to ratifythe inclinationsof an increasinglyacculturatedand secularized Jewry.

The primarylocus of nineteenth-century GermanJewishcommunitylife was the organized,legally charteredcommunity-the Gemeinde.Typically the Gemeindecomprisedthe Jews of a particularlocality, though in some jurisdictions-such as Baden-the separate Gemeindenmight be linked togetherin a larger,formalnetworkwith a certainamountof centralcontrol and direction. The fact that these communitieswere sanctioned, and to some extent regulated,by civil law representsa continuationof premodern political structures,wherebysociety was composedin the first instanceof collective"estates,"or of corporationssuchas townsand guilds,ratherthan of individualcitizens subjectto a unified, centralizedstate.' The constitutedauthorityof the Jewishcommunityresidedin a governing board, which might range from three to twenty-oneor more members, dependingon the community'ssize.Oftentheseboardswereformallyrepresentative of the community in that they were chosen by some direct or indirectelectoralprocedure,thoughvotes were usuallyheavilyweightedin proportionto the elector'scontribution-tothe tax rolls. Thereforein practice communities tended to be ruled by oligarchies of their wealthier members, with much continuity of successive generationsof particular families. More democratic notions of community governance began to prevailonly in the twentiethcentury.2Wealthwas regardednot so muchas a license for privilegeas a writ of responsibility,and wealthiermembersof a 1. See Stephen Poppel, "State Building and Jewish Community Organization in Germany, Contemporary Jewry 5, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 1980): 13-26; and Kurt Wilhelm, "The Jewish Community in the Post-Emancipation Period," Leo Baeck Institute Year Book (hereafter, LBIYB) 2 (1957): 47-75. 2. The attempt to democratize Jewish community governance in Imperial Germany is one subject of a recent study by Jack L. Wertheimer, "German Policy and Jewish Politics: The Absorption of East European Jews in Germany (1868-1914)" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1978), particularly chapter 9, published in part in Wertheimer, "The Duisburg Affair: A Test Case in the Struggle for 'Conquest of the Communities,' " AJS Review 6 (1981): 185-206.

RELIGIOUSAUTHORITYIN IMPERIALGERMANY

187

communitymight be draftedagainsttheir will to serve on its board, with refusalpenalizedby stiff fines.3 To be sure,communitiesmightbe disturbedoccasionally,and seriously, over mattersof principle,particularlydisputesbetweenreligious conflicts by reformersand traditionalists.Generally,however,a board'smain concern was the more mundanebusinessof governmentinvolvedin maintainingan extensive system of religious, educational,and social welfare institutions with their associatedrabbis, teachers,and officials. It may have been the very mass and gravity of the board's obligations that stabilizedits own existence. The most dramatic shift in the leadershipof the nineteenth-century Jewishcommunitywas registerednot by its nominalgoverningbodies, but ratherby its religiousleadership,the rabbinate.The natureof the rabbinic office was much affected by the transformationof GermanJewry in the theiractivities eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies.Jewscompartmentalized and even their consciousness,and restrictedthe realmsin which Judaism held sway.TheyreshapedtheirJewishnessto makeit less ethnicand more a matter of religion and to make that religionmore rationaland less traditional. They regardedtheir surroundingculturewith a new, positiveappreciation and made many of its values and achievementstheir own. One importantconsequencewas a diminishedconcern for, and observanceof, traditionalJewishlaw-certainly in its civil aspects,and increasinglyin its

3. One perhapsextremeexampleis providedby the case of SamuelIsrael,who in 1855 refusednominationto the Hamburgcommunityboard for reasonsof politicalprinciple:he regardedthe continuedexistenceof the Gemeindeas a politicalanachronism,and condemned the proceduresfor selectingthe boardas undemocratic.It may have been becauseof Israel's principledand, fromthe board'sviewpoint,dangerousstancethatthe boardpursuedhimwith specialvigor. In the faceof Israel'sobduraterefusalto serve,the boardimposeda fineof 3,000marks,to be paid to the community'spoor chest.This sum was laterreducedby the HamburgSenateto 1,000marks.In most of the otherHamburgcasesthatI examined,wherea nomineeattempted to decline serving for claimed reasons of health, the board generallyacceptedthe excuse withoutdemurrer,or sometimessuccessfullyinsistedthatthe nomineeserveanyway.However, at leastone seriousstalematedevelopedin 1832and 1833in the caseof LipmannRaphaelBeit, a memberof a prominentHamburgfamily.Citingreasonsof health,Beitdeclinedto serve,but the boardpursuedhim for over a year,despiteBeit'ssecuringa physician'sattestationof his supposedinabilityto withstandthe strainsof boardmembership.In the end Beitwas forcedto appealto the HamburgSenateand finallysecuredhis release,evidentlywithouthavingto pay any fine.The recordsof thesecasesmaybe foundin the CentralArchivesfor the Historyof the JewishPeople(hereafter,CAHJP)in the Hamburgboardminutes,AHU 273a/Bd. 5 and 11, and the associateddocumentsin AHU 274/a-c.

188

STEPHENM. POPPEL

ritualreligiousones. In these circumstancesthe rabbifaced a declinein the demand for his establishedproduct, traditionaltalmudic expertise.The challengewas really twofold. On the one hand, Jews whose social attachments and cultural involvementswere directed ever more toward their German surroundingsregardedJudaismwith increasingindifference.On the other hand,some Jewshopedthat by alteringJudaismthey mightshape a reformedreligion that would merit and retain their own and others' continueddevotion. To maintainhis position the rabbihad to cast himself in a new role that would attractand serve both groups.4 It would be mistaken,however,to imaginethe rabbinatestandingunified on the ground of tradition, and only exceptionallyand grudgingly contemplatingdemands for change-either the explicit demands of religious reformersor the impliedchallengesof the indifferent.Even among rabbisin serviceearlyin the nineteenthcenturyit was possibleto findindividuals who were alert to the new situationand able to respondpositively. Thus when the Hamburgcommunityboarddecidedin 1820to seek a rabbi able both to performtraditionalfunctionsand to restorethe allegianceof the indifferentthroughsuch relativeinnovationsas vernacularpreaching,it was able to identify severalappropriatecandidatesbeside Isaac Bernays, whom it eventuallyhired.5Similarly,in its selectionof AbrahamGeigeras rabbiin 1838,the Breslauboardwas able to appointa Reformadvocateof considerablestature.Of greaternumericaland long-rangesignificancewas the rise of a new, younger generationof rabbis,whose own outlook was affected by the same currents of rationalism and acculturation that influenced German Jewry generally. The collective appearanceof these rabbinicadvocatesof Reformin the rabbinicalassembliesof 1844-1846was only a visible manifestationof their growing presence.6Thus the new rabbinatewas a product both of communalexpectationsand of its own orientations. The increasingtendency of rabbis to secure at least some secularuniversityeducationin additionto traditionaltalmudiceducationis

4. Thisis the classicplightof leadership,as was once aptlycaptured,thoughin admittedly whollydifferentcircumstances,by MahatmaGandhi,who is reportedto havesaid, "Therego my people. I must hurryto catch them, for I am their leader." The Rabbinatein 5. For detailssee StephenPoppel,"ThePoliticsof ReligiousLeadership: Nineteenth-Century Hamburg,"LBIYB28 (1983):439-70. 6. StevenM. Lowenstein,"The 1840'sand the Creationof the German-JewishReligious Reform Movement," in Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German-JewishHistory, ed. Werner

E. Mosse et al. (Tiibingen:Mohr, 1981),pp. 255-297, esp. p. 265.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN IMPERIAL GERMANY

189

one example of this interplay-since it representedboth a measure of acculturationby the rabbisthemselvesas well as a changein the religious needs and culturalexpectationsof hiring communities.7 From this setting emergedthe new rabbi-indeed the modernrabbiof our own times-who attemptedto establisha role as spiritualleaderof the communityby exercisinghis new functionsas preacher(Prediger),pastor (Seelsorger),and teacher.Admittedlynone of these activitiesby itselfwas an innovation.The vernacularsermon,as Zunz demonstrated,had long been an elementin Jewishspirituallife. But at least in the immediatepremodern period it had not been the prime responsibilityof the communityrabbi, whose contracttypicallycalled for such an addressonly twice a year.Now the spirituallyelevating sermon was set at the focus of the synagogue service.8Similarlythe rabbi had always been a teacher, but primarilyof advancedtalmudicstudents.With the erodingregardfor the Talmudas a comprehensiveand all-sufficingvehicle of Jewishness,the rabbiturnedhis attentionincreasinglyto secondaryand even elementaryJewisheducation, which formerlywere the preservesof lesser functionaries,but which now had to bear the primeresponsibilityfor Jewishculturaltransmission.Likewise the rabbimighthave filleda pastoralrole in the past, but only incidentally, as an especiallyeminentand visiblememberof the community.Taken together these functionaltransformationsof the rabbinicoffice servedto preserveit by fittingit to the emergentrealitiesand needsof a new Judaism and a changedJewry. Successful evolution brings with it, however, the challenge of new environmentsand new competitors.The erodedposition that the rabbinate abandonedhad been in its time a protectedpreserve.But the new circumstancesto which the rabbinatesuccessfullyrespondedalso generateda new set of claimantsfor Jews'attentions.Foremostamongthese,of course,were non-Jewishcultureand society, whose attractionsand valuesJewsincreasingly admired and appropriated.But even within the nominally Jewish realm the rabbi faced significantcompetitors.For example,the rabbiwas not alone in undertakingto formulateand deliverelevatingand inspiring sermons;indeedtherewas littlein his trainingthat specificallyequippedhim 7. Ismar Schorsch, "Emancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority: The Emergence of the Modern Rabbinate," in Mosse, Revolution and Evolution, pp. 205-247. 8. Alexander Altmann, "The New Style of Preaching in Nineteenth-Century German Jewry," in Studies in Nineteenth-CenturyJewish Intellectual History, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 65-116.

190

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

to do so. In manycommunities,and especiallyin reformedreligiouscircles, a preacher(Prediger)might be appointedto this task. Generally,primary and secondary schools were already in the hands of well-established teachers.In fact, since preachersand teachersalike might be as learnedin Talmud and proficientin ritual as the rabbi, they challengedthe rabbi's position not only in his newlyclaimedfunctions,but also by competingfor the emolumentsthat a rabbimightexpectfor the performanceof occasional rituals. In smallercommunitiesseveralJudaic offices might be telescoped together, with the same individualservingvariouslyas preacher,cantor, teacher,ritualslaughterer,or circumciser-and dependenton the collective income from all for his livelihood. Apart from these ritualrealmstherewas also a growingseculardomain within the Jewish sphere whose very existencedetractedfrom the rabbi's influence. The secular, "scientific"study of Judaism, Wissenschaftdes Judentums,involvedexaminingits subjectfroman external,criticalvantage. Whilethis was not necessarilycorrosiveof continuedJewishallegiance,and in fact mightconfirmestablishedJewishloyaltieson newfoundations,it did introducean additionalvoice that could speak of Jewishtraditionwith its own authority.For the traditionalrabbi Wissenchaftdes Judentumsalmost inevitably representeda countervailingauthority, while for the Reform rabbi it was at least an alternativeone that detractedfrom the distinctive expert status of the rabbi's office and person, even though it may have reinforcedthe substanceof the Reform position. On a popularlevel Jewishlearningwas secularizedin a way that did not so much detract from the rabbi's special standingas remove it from his special competencealtogether.Whereasin the past small, more or less informal groups might gatherfor the study of Talmudeitheras an independent activity or as part of a fraternal,philanthropic,or mutual-benefit association,now suchgatheringsfor popularstudyweremorelikelyto take the form of local associationsfor Jewish history and literature.Gustav Karpeles,who organizeda nationalorganizationof theselocal associations, madethe point explicitlyby describingthe literaryassociationas a surrogate for the traditionalhouse of study.9Rabbis might try to capitalizeon this 9. Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums (hereafter, AZJ) 59, no. 47 (Nov. 22, 1895): 553.

Karpelesfoundedthe VerbandderVereinefiirjiidischeGeschichteundLiteraturin 1893.At its pre-WorldWar I peak the Verbandincludedalmost 230 local associations.It publishedthe important Jahrbuch far jadische Geschichte und Literatur. See Werner Schochow, Deutsch-

jadische Geschichtswissenschaft(Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1969), pp. 23-24.


191

phenomenon by mounting the lecture podium themselves (at least one rabbinicaladmirerof Karpeles'sundertakingcelebratedthe way it had displaced old-fashionedTorah study),1'but that did not necessarilymean an increasein the numberswho gatheredbefore their synagoguepulpits. As importantas these developmentswere, the single most significant challengeto the rabbi, directedspecificallyagainst his claim to a special authority based on his religious expertise,came from his employers,the communitygoverningboards.Althoughtheredefinitelywerenew elements in the tension betweenrabbiand board,it would be wrongto overestimate the noveltyof the situation.In the firstplace,the fact that in the premodern communitythe rabbihad no monopolyover "rabbinic"lore meantthat his judgmentsmight be energeticallychallengedby membersof the community who had no official status but nonethelesswere knowledgeable.Moreover, since the rabbi was primarilya judicial officer, he dependedon the community'spolitical authority,i.e., the board, for the executionof his judgments. This was true especially of the rabbi's ultimate sanction of excommunication,which not only dependedin practiceon the consentand cooperationof the board and the community,but in some localities was made explicitlyconditionalon the board'sprioragreement.This constraint reflectedthe intrinsicdivergencebetweenthe rabbi'sjudicial functionand the board'sadministrativeresponsibilities.The rabbimight speakwith the voice of tradition, but the board representedthe governingcommunity consensus. Presumablyit was characteristicof the premodernperiod that, despite occasional conflict, there was considerablecontinuity between these two outlooks. But with the subsequentdeclinein the traditionalconsensusthe potential for conflict came to the fore. Communitymembersand their governingboards were no longer universallyrooted in tradition,and they did not necessarilyrecognizethat the rabbi'sdistinctiveexpertiselent his judgmentsany special authority. The new rabbipresentedhimselfto the communityas its spiritualleader, and the communitynominallyacceptedhim as such, though without conceding the authoritythat such leadershipwould seem to have required.A board could allow the rabbia role of independentspiritualleadershiponly as long as he kept pace with the community,and only as long as he did not 10. The astonishing remark was made by the liberal rabbi Heinemann Vogelstein in one of the opening speeches at a convention of representatives of the Verbandin 1897. A ZJ 61, no. 53 (Dec. 31, 1897): 628-630.

192

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

provoke the communityto breakits collectivestride.With this in mind a board might explicitly oblige its rabbi to refrainfrom divisive speech or action, or even subjecthis sermonsto its censorship.The paradoxwas that the rabbi was expectedto offerguidancein the name of a traditionwhose authoritywas no longerunconditionallyand universallyaccepted.In these circumstancesthe community'sambivalencebecame the rabbi'sdilemma. II

The formation of a German RabbinicalAssociation" in 1884 represented, among other things, an effort to give the rabbinatea collective presenceand voice in orderto compensatefor the generallyweak political standingthat the individualrabbihad in his local community.The ultimate failureof the undertakingindicatesthe strengthof the opposition. It also reveals much about the rabbis' and communityleaders'visions of themselves and each other, and about the contoursand conditionof Judaismin ImperialGermany. The GeneralAssemblyof Rabbisin Germanythat gatheredin Berlinat the beginningof June 1884was not the first meetingof Germanrabbisto discuss their collectiveconcerns.Previousoccasions, however,such as the conferencesof the mid-1840s,the gathering in Cassel in 1868, and the "synods"at Leipzigin 1869 and Augsburgin 1871,had mostly addressed issues of religious reform, and hence implicitlyexcluded anyone unsympatheticto the Reform party. The innovationin 1884 was the attemptto gather the entire Germanrabbinatein a single organization,regardlessof divergent religious convictions, and to draw its attention to a broader complex of problems. Thus the invitationthat membersof the Berlinrabbinateissued for the 1884meetingpromisedthat "everypoint of religiouscontroversy"wouldbe "excludedfromthe discussion.""The assemblyobservedthis constraintbut

11. Rabbiner-Verband in Deutschland. After its reorganization in 1896 the organization was also known as the Allgemeiner Rabbiner-Verband. 12. Information on the early history and activities of the Association is drawn from [Rabbiner-Verband in Deutschland], Verhandlungen und Beschlasse der RabbinerVersammlungzu Berlin am 4. und5. Juni 1884 (Berlin: Walther & Apolant, 1885); Priisidium der Rabbiner-Versammlung, VorldufigerBericht iiberdie am 4. und5. Juni 1884 in Berlin stattgefundene Versammlungdeutscher Rabbiner (Berlin, 1884).


193

was able, nevertheless,to identify three contemporaryproblems that demandedrabbinicalattention:anti-Semiticdefamationsof Jewishreligion, particularlyregardingJews' supposedlyunethicalattitudestoward Christians; the ineffectivenessof Jewishreligiouseducation;and the disarrayof the rabbinateitself. Hence the agenda called for a public declarationof Judaism'sposition on interfaithrelations;a discussionof meansfor raising Jewishreligiousconsciousnessand improvingreligiouseducation;and the foundationof a Germanrabbinicalassociation.In each regardthe assembly producedthe anticipatedresolutions-affirming Jews' love of their fellow men (i.e., denyingthat Jews applied any lesser moralityin their relations with Christiansthan in their dealings with Jews); elaboratinga range of educationaland curricularreforms;and confirminga detailedcharterfor the projectedrabbinicalassociation. The charter'spreambleoutlined the whole range of concernsthat the meetinghad addressed,and it stressedthe new association'scommitmentto antidefamationand to Jewishculturaland religiousdevelopmentand education. However,it also made no secret of the association'sconcernfor the rabbinateitself, and its intentionto "safeguardthe dignity and prestigeof the rabbinicalprofession."'3To be sure,the apparentself-interestwasjustified in altruisticterms, by linking the spiritualhealth of GermanJudaism with an active, strong, and well-organizedrabbinate.Nevertheless,as the debates of subsequentdecadeswere to demonstrate,the rabbinate'sconfidence in its own centralimportancewas by no means universallyshared. Creating an organization requires more than brave resolutions and detailedcharters,14as the earlyyearsof the GermanRabbinicalAssociation confirmed.In at least one regardthe organizationwas a failurefrom the outset, since despiteits promiseto excludeissues of religiousdisputeit was The organizationseemedunsuccessgenerallyboycottedby traditionalists.'5 ful on other groundsas well, and aftertwo years,when the associationhad failed to meet for a second time in the biannualgeneralassemblythat its bylaws required,the executivecommitteewas forced to admit that little of practicalvalue had been achieved. The explanationsthat were offeredfor this failureto reconvene,while perhapsexaggerated,revealsomethingof the actualworkingconditionsof 13. Statut, sec. 1. Printed in Verhandlungen... 1884, pp. 101-102. 14. The Statut elaborated the rules of the organization with truly Prussian thoroughness, providing, for example, that membership lapsed with the death of the member (sec. 7.1). 15. AZJ 48, no. 20 (May 13, 1884): 321.

194

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

the Germanrabbinate.Summervacationwas one timethat most rabbis would be free for a convention,but this periodthey preferredto reservefor recoveringfromthe laborsof the year,and for "strengtheningor recovering their health."More revealingwas the fact that many rabbisclaimed that they simplycould not affordthe expenseof travelingto a nationalconvention.'6 That this was not simplyan emptyexcuse is underlined by the public acknowledgementat subsequentmeetingsof contributionsmade to cover the travelexpensesof attendees.'7Whenin 1914a memberof the executive committeeproposedthat rabbisforgothe customarysubventionsfromtheir communitieslest their independenceof judgmentand expressionbe compromised,he was roundlyopposed on the groundsthat many of his colleaguescould not afford to attendthe generalassemblieswithout them.'" (Membersof the executivecommitteewerein any case reimbursedfromthe association'streasuryfor travel costs to their regularmeetings.)'9 Whateverthe reasons,therewas little visibleactivityin theseearlyyears, and the association's1886reportcould only insist that the organizationwas "by no meansas deadas mightappear."In the absenceof concreteachievementsthe executivecommitteeinsistedthat the merefact of the association's existencebroughtbenefitsof its own, since it createdor strengthenedthe individualrabbi'sconsciousnessof belongingto a largerprofessionalgroup whose very organizationwould benefit the collectivity and thereby the individual.20

Therewas a considerablegap betweenthis heartyrhetoricand the reality of the group'sweakness,as at least one venturerevealed.Kosherslaughtering was a favoritetargetof anti-Semites,who attackedit underthe guise of preventingcruelty to animals and attempted,sometimes successfully,to secure restrictivelegislation. In 1886 the association'sexecutive tried to addressthis problembut soon decidedthat since the rabbinatein Prussia lacked any legal standing as clerics, it would do better to turn over the 16. [Rabbiner-Verband in Deutschland], Geschiftsffihrender Vorstand, Erster Bericht des Rabbiner-Verbandesin Deutschland(Juni 1884-Dezember 1886). (K6nigsberg, 1887), pp. 9-10. 17. Verhandlungenund Beschlisse der Generalversammlungdes Rabbiner-Verbandes in Deutschland zu Frankfurta.M. am 7. und 8. Juli 1902 (Frankfurt a.M.: Kauffman, 1903), p. vi; and Verhandlungenund Beschliisse der Generalversammlungdes Rabbiner-Verbandesin Deutschland zu Berlin am 2. und 3. January 1907 (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1907), pp. vii, 7. 18. CAHJP. M4/3. Rabbiner-Verbandin Deutschland. Protokoll, Sitzung des Zentralausschusses vom 20.12.1913, p. 5. 19. Section 10 of the 1884 Statut, and section 9 of the revised 1896 Satzungen. 20. Erster Bericht des Rabbiner-Verbandes,pp. 4, 10-11.


195

leadershipof any defensecampaignto the officiallyrecognizedGemeinden.21 Thus even concerningan issue that fell squarelywithin the association's proclaimedpurview,the organizationfound that it was incapableof pursuing independentaction. The originalRabbinicalAssociationsucceededin holdingonly one other generalassembly,in Breslauin 1887,beforeits reorganizationin 1896.22As in 1884,it met underthe watchwordof the exclusionof points of religious contention.Indeedthe verypossibilityof doing so formedone themeof the opening addressby ManuelJoel, formerlya memberof the facultyof the middle-of-the-roadBreslauJewish TheologicalSeminary.Joel applauded the appearanceof a new, university-trainedrabbinate,whose common outlook transcendedthe old tensionsbetweenprogressiveand conservative commitmentsthat animatedthe Reformdisputesof mid-century.The issues that had exercisedthe Reformconferencesof the 1840swerenow resolved, or had at least been thoroughlyaired, and could be laid aside. DespiteJoel'sconfidence,the exclusionof religiouscontroversyfromthe association'sdeliberationsmust have crampedthem considerably,and was increasinglyfelt to be an undesirableconstraint. Even before the 1884 founding assembly had actually convened, Ludwig Philippson-the influentialeditorof the AllgemeineZeitungdes Judentums,who had playedan importantrole in organizingthe previousrabbinicalconferences-doubted that the exclusionwould be viable. He observedthat "eventhe discussionof religiouseducationcannot avoid touchingon 'pointsof controversy'unless it remains superficial and excessively limited to general questions."23 Eventually,in 1889 the executivecommitteeproposedamendingthe association's bylaws to allow for the introductionof religiouslycontroversial matterson the agendaof generalassemblies,thoughonly with its own prior approval.The issue seemed inescapable,and arose again the next year in connectionwith a plan for the associationto publisha PassoverHaggadah, a project that would necessarilyinvolve substantivepoints of religious dispute.24 Althoughthe originalRabbinicalAssociationrecognizedthe problem,it 21. Ibid., pp. 8-9. 22. An account of the Breslau meeting is given in Bericht uiberdie Thatigkeit des RabbinerVerbandesin Deutschland [1887-1890]. 23. AZJ 48, no. 21 (May 20, 1884): 327. 24. Bericht fiber die Thatigkeit des Rabbiner-Verbandes, pp. 14-16, and Bericht des Rabbiner-Verbandesin Deutschland (April 1891-December 1891.) (Kbnigsberg, 1892), p. 6.

196

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

neverreallyresolvedit, and its failureto do so was apparentlyan important reason for its almost completedormancy,apartfrom executivecommittee meetings, after the 1887 convention in Breslau.If the rabbinatewere to gatherto foster religiousand culturalmattersin general,as the Rabbinical Association claimed it had, it could not easily refuseto addressissues of substance,which inevitablywould prove to be controversial.The lesson of the original RabbinicalAssociation was that the political unificationon these grounds of a religiouslydivided rabbinatewas unlikely.There was, however,anotherpossibility,whichhad been indicatedby the thirdpartof the association'sprogram,namely,the rabbinate'spursuitof its own interests as a professionalclass. In this caseit was the fact of politicalunification itselfthat counted,whilereligiousdiversitycould be easilyoverlooked.Such an approachwas more than a theoreticalpossibility,and it in fact provided the basis for the reorganizationof the RabbinicalAssociation that was undertakenin 1896.

III

The December 1896 broadsidethat called for the reactivationof the Rabbinical Association was sober in its analysis of the organization's failures."An Associationof rabbisthat refusesto considerreligiousmatters of Jewishreliis an absurdity[Unding]."Becauseof the comprehensiveness it had the that be could law, bypassed provedincorrect. gious expectation Collectiveactionwas possibleonly if rabbiscould deal calmlyandobjectively with religiousmattersabout whichthey werenot necessarilyunanimous. The old association,the broadsideconceded,was fromits verybeginninga partisan group from which a considerableproportion of the German rabbinateheld itself distant.25 To remedythis one-sidednessthe new organizingcommitteedid more than urgea coalitionon behalfof commoninterests;it actuallyformedone itself.The invitationto its meetingat the end of Decemberwas signedby the liberalBerlinrabbiSigmundMaybaum,but also includedthe namesof such leading traditionalists as Azriel Hildesheimer of Berlin and Markus Horowitzof Frankfurt.Interestinglythe immediateissue that had proved powerfulenoughto occasiona coalitionacrosslinesof religiousdisputewas 25. CAHJP: M4/1.


197

the alreadyfamiliarone of Jewishreligiousethics,particularlythe matterof kosher slaughtering,which anti-Semites continued to denounce as inhumane. By the time the old associationaddressedthis issue, the organization had already been clearly markedas a religiouslyliberal group. The challenge to kosher slaughtering,however, was one that directlyaffected traditionalists'interestsat the sametime that it defamedJudaismgenerally. Therefore,it could serveas the objectof collectiverabbinicalattention,and as the point of departurefor a new, comprehensiverabbinicalassociation. The strategyproved to be effective,and the 1896conventionsucceeded in reactivatingthe RabbinicalAssociationon the basisof a slightlymodified constitutionthat allowedfor the discussionof religiousquestionsas long as the positions established by recognized traditional authoritieswere not challenged.26Thus in its general assemblyheld a year and a half later, in June 1898,the associationwas able to take up a wholerangeof issuestouching on religiouspractice(the introductionof a sermon at Friday evening services,the relationshipbetweenJewish law and veterinaryscience),religious education, Zionism (particularlythe executive committee's 1897 denunciation of Zionism, which the assembly ratified), and group life insurance.In termsof sheerbulkof attention,however,the matterthat most occupiedthe congresswas the statusof the rabbinate.The resolutionsthat it producedprovidedthe agenda for the rabbinate'spolitical activitywithin the Gemeindenfor at least the ensuing decade. Basicallythe resolutionsbore on the often relatedissues of the rabbi's The firstresolutiondemandedthat religiousauthorityand hisjob security.27 26. Section 16: "In den Sitzungen des Vorstandes und Ausschusses, sowie in den Generalversammlungen des Verbandes diirfen nur solche religi6se Fragen er6rtert werden, die keinen Verstoss gegen die religionsgesetzlichen Bestimmungen der massgebenden Decisoren in sich schliessen." Satzungen des Rabbiner-Verbandesin Deutschland (rev. 1896). The coalition was fostered by the fact that matters of more specifically partisan interest could be handled by separate organizations that were founded shortly thereafter: the Vereinigung traditionell-gesetzestreuer Rabbiner, in 1897, and the Vereiningung der liberalen Rabbiner Deutschlands, in 1898. In 1906 a separatist orthodox group (Verband der orthodoxen Rabbiner) was established, whose members did not join the general Rabbinical Association. 27. Verhandlungen und Beschliisse der Generalversammlungdes Rabbiner-Verbandes in Deutschland zu Berlin am 1. und 2. Juni 1898 (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1898), pp. 68-70. (i) "Bei Verhandlungen fiber religi6se Angelegenheiten ist der Rabbiner zuzuziehen. Bestehende Kultuseinrichtungen k6nnen nur mit Zustimmung der Gemeindebeh6rde und des Rabbinats gedindertwerden." (ii) "Die Anstellung der Rabbiner soll derart geregelt werden, dass dieselbe nach einem hochstens 3 Jahre dauernden Provisorum eine definitive wird." (iii) "Zur Wahrung der religi6sen Angelegenheiten und zur Hebung des Religionsunterrichtes sollen Bezirksrabbinate gebildet werden." (iv) "(1) An die ffir den Rabbinerberuf vorbereitenden Anstalten ist

198

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

the rabbibe includedin governingboards'discussionsof religiousmatters, and requiredthat any alterationin existingreligiousarrangementsbe made only with the agreementboth of the rabbi and of the board(the so-called veto right).The formulationclearlyanticipatedthat the rabbiwould serve as a brakeon perhapshasty and ill-conceivedchange.More revealingthan the call for a rabbinicveto was the very need to demandthat the rabbibe includedin religiousdeliberations,for the rabbinatewas findingit increasingly difficultto haveits views seriouslyregarded,or even to makeits voice heard,on religiousmatters.The problemwas especiallyseverein the many cases where the rabbi was not the master in his own house, but where religiousaffairsand synagoguearrangementswereunderthe controlof the governingboard.28 In these circumstancesthe rabbinateundertookto cast itself in a special role that wouldjustifyits claimto a decisivevoice in religiousaffairs.Unlike the Catholicpriest,however,the rabbihad no distinctivesacerdotalpowers that would set him apart from the laity. In fact, given the generalityof talmudiclearningin the traditionalcommunity,andJudaism'sprovisionfor a direct,unmediatedrelationshipbetweenGod and the individual,the contrastbetweenclergyand laity wouldhavebeen foreignto premodernJewry. Duringthe courseof the nineteenthcentury,however,the rabbi'sexpertise had becomemoreand moreunusual,andincreasinglyprovidedthe basisfor his claim to a specialposition as a professionalrepresentativeof Judaism vis-A-vishis less-educatedco-religionists.In this light someone who was not a rabbi could be seen as a "layman"in the modernsense of the term, that is as someone who is not a memberof a particularprofession.29The rabbi who introduced the resolution on rabbinical authority drew the analogy explicitly when he insisted that the desire for formal rabbinical influencein religiousmatterswas not a hungerfor personalpower,but was

die Bitte zu richten, in Ausnahmefillen auch solche Kandidaten zuzulassen, welche sich anderweitig die erforderlichen Kenntnisse erworben haben und als wiirdig fuirden Beruf befunden werden. (2) Der Rabbiner-Verband erwihlt Prfifungskommissionen, welche zur Ausstellung von Rabbinatsdiplomen ermichtigt werden. (3) Der Rabbiner-Verband erklirt es als unstatthaft, dass ausser den fiir den Rabbinatsberuf vorbereitenden Lehranstalten und den in Nr. 2 [i.e., 4(2)] in Aussicht genommenen Kommissionen seitens einzelner Rabbiner Autorisationen erteilt werden." 28. For samples of clashes over specific issues see AZJ 48, no. 4 (Jan. 22, 1884): 54-55; Deutsch-Israelitischer Gemeindebund (hereafter: DIGB), Mitteilungen 58 (May 1902): 12-13, 18; and 74 (September 1909): 30, 70-72. 29. Ludwig Philippson in AZJ 48, no. 4 (Jan. 22, 1884): 54-55.


199

rathera claimfor the properroleof the profession(Berul),parallelto the physician'srolein medicaldecisions.In the sameveina laterspeakerconceded that while rabbiswere not speciallyordainedpriestsin the Catholic sense, they were clerics(Geistliche)"in the word'sholiest and truestmeaning," sincethey "representedthe spiritual[geistige]interestsof Judaismand exerciseda decisiveinfluence.""We are," he insisted,"the teachersof the communitiesand as such ought to occupy a befittingposition."30 The criticallistenermight have detecteda circularityin this argument, which could be reduced to the claim that since the rabbi had a special authorityhe ought to have a specialauthority.Whatwas missing,and what was requiredto make the argumentmore than tautological,was a demonstration that the rabbi had a special vantagethat matteredto others, and that his view would be sought with the same interestas that of the legal or medical specialistin his particularrealm. Given the relative weaknessof the rabbi's prqfessionalauthority,his securityin officedependedon institutionalarrangementsthat weregenerally dictatedby the very lay boardswith which he was likely to come into conflict. This was the subject of the second of the resolutionson rabbinical status adopted at the 1898meeting.Specifically,the associationcalled for rabbinicalappointmentsto be madeon a permanentbasis,with the possibility of an initial period of provisionalemploymentlasting no more than three years. Contemporarypracticein this regardvaried. In a surveywhose results werereportedat the 1898congress,of the eighty-sixresponsesreceivedfrom a hundredquestionnairescirculated,only twenty-fiverabbisindicatedthat they enjoyed appointmentswith permanenttenure.3' The issue involvedmorethan simplestabilityof employment,but rather a potentialdirect opposition of interestsbetweenthe rabbi and his board. Justas the rabbisaw in permanentappointmenta guaranteefor his independence and freedom of expression, so did the board regard conditional appointmentas its ultimatecontrol of the rabbi. Without some kind of general regulation favoring the rabbinate,the employersclearly had the upperhand. Collectiveaction by the rabbinateitselfwas, of course,a possibility, though the meeting failed to pursue one speaker'ssuggestionthat

30. Verhandlungenund Beschliisse der Generalversammlungdes Rabbiner-Verbandes,pp. 35-36, 44. 31. Ibid., pp. 34, 41.

200

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

rabbis refuse to serve in any communityguilty of unfairlyfiring its rabbi over a religiousdispute.32Whetherthe guild-consciousnessof the rabbinate would have generallysustainedsuch an approachis thereforeunknowable, though in at least one earliercase, the opposite was true. In 1862Leopold Stein, the rabbi of Frankfurt,was firedby the board becausehe refusedto recognizeits claimedrightof censorshipover his sermons.Steincalledfor a boycott of the position in order to force the board's retraction,but was foiled whenAbrahamGeigeracceptedthe post in 1863,claimingthat he had satisfiedhimselfthat agreementbetweenSteinand the boardwouldneverbe possible.33 At the same time that it addressedthe issue of politicalcontrol,the call for permanentappointmentsalso touchedon a separateeconomicproblem posed by the demographicshift of German Jewry. Especially with the second half of the nineteenthcentury,GermanJewrywas becomingmore concentratedin urbancenters,to a degreeevengreaterthanthe corresponding urbanmovementof the generalGermanpopulation.34This meantthat the relativelysmallruralcommunitiesthat had been so characteristicearlier found their tax base shrinking as their membershipdeclined. In these circumstancesthe permanentappointmentof a rabbi would representan untenable financial obligation. Indeed a contracting community might forgo the servicesof a rabbialtogether,and make his duties the part-time responsibilityof another communityfunctionaryor some other capable communitymember.The assembly'sthird resolutionon rabbinicalstatus was directedpreciselytowardforestallingsuch an erosionin the demandfor regular,full-timerabbisby the creationof districtrabbinates.Thesewould combine the resourcesof smallercommunitiesthat were by themselvestoo poor to supportrabbisindividuallyin orderto hirea singlerabbiwho would divide his attention among them.35 32. Ibid., pp. 50-51. 33. Leopold Stein, Mein Dienst-Verhiiltniss zum Israelitischen Gemeinde-Vorstande zu Frankfurt a.M. (Frankfurt: Auffarth, 1861); idem, Die Vorbereitungzum Abschied. Predigt gehalten in der neuen Hauptsynagoge zu Frankfurt a.M. von Dr. Leopold Stein bisherigen Rabbiner der israelitischen Gemeinde daselbst (Frankfurt: Auffarth, 1862); idem, Vorstand und Geiger: Ein Beitrag zur Charakterisirungder israel. Gemeindezustdndein Frankfurta. M. (Frankfurt: 1863); Ludwig Geiger et al., Abraham Geiger: Leben und Lebenswerk (Berlin: Reimer, 1910), pp. 168-174. 34. Steven M. Lowenstein, "The Rural Community and Urbanization of German Jewry," Central European History 13, no. 3 (September 1980): 219-236. 35. For a further discussion of the institution of the district rabbinate, its importance, and possible administrative mechanisms, see DIGB, Mitteilungen 50 (January 1899): 50-57, and


201

The call for the creation of district rabbinatesattemptedto stem the declining demand for full-time rabbis. A fourth resolution addresseda correspondingsourceof job insecurityposed by the dangerof an oversupply

of candidatesfor rabbinical positions.Thisit proposedto do by puttingan

effectivemonopolyon rabbinicalcertificationin the handsof the threeexisting rabbinicalseminaries,on the groundsthat this would assurea uniform standardof quality.(TheseinstitutionscombinedtraditionalJewishstudies with modern,criticalapproaches,in varyingproportionsdependingon the schools' orientations.The seminariesrangedfrom the traditionalistBerlin Rabbiner-Seminar,founded in 1873, to the conservativeBreslauJiidischtheologischesSeminar,foundedin 1854,and the liberalLehranstaltfiir die Wissenschaftdes Judentums, founded in Berlin in 1872. In each case studentswereexpectedto pursueconcurrentdoctoralprogramsin the local university.By the end of the nineteenthcenturytheseseminarieshad almost completelydisplacedthe traditionalyeshivaeducationas a source of rabbinical trainingand certificationin Germany.)36In addition to certifying their own students,the seminarieswere requestedto recognizeand certify appropriatepreparationdone elsewhere.The resolutionfurtherproposed that the associationcreate a board of examinersthat might exceptionally confer rabbinicalcertificationby itself. Admissionto the practicingrabbinate in Germanywas to be restrictedto these avenues. The problemof a domesticoversupplyof rabbis,with a corresponding sharpening of competition, that this proposal addressed seemed real enough. For example,in orderto regulatecompetitionbetweenneighboring rabbis over emolument income, an 1895 meeting of the Association of Rabbis of the Rhine Provinceproposeddelineatingzones in which a given rabbiwould havethe exclusiverightto performritualfunctions.37 (Theplan also the post-1902 debate described in part IV below. Regarding the financial implications of permanent tenure, see ibid., 74 (September 1909): 70-72. 36. Samuel K. Mirsky, Jewish Institutions of Higher Learningin Europe: Their Development and Destruction (in Hebrew) (New York: Ogen/Histadruth Ivrith, 1956); Bernard D. Perlow, "Institutions for the Education of the Modern Rabbi in Germany during the Nineteenth Century" (Ph.D. diss., Dropsie College, 1954); Marcus Brann, Geschichte des jaidischtheologischen Seminars (Fraenckel'sche Stiftung) in Breslau (Breslau: Schatzky, 1904); Guido Kisch, ed., Das Breslauer Seminar: JiAdisch-TheologischesSeminar ... 1854-1938; Geddchtnisschrift (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1963); and Ismar Elbogen and J. H6niger, Lehranstaltfir die Wissenschaft des Judentums: Festschrift... (Berlin: Hermann, 1907). 37. AZJ 59, no. 25 (June 21, 1895): 294-295. For another expression of concern about this issue, see also Verhandlungenund Beschlisse derGeneralversammiungdesRabbiner-Verbandesin Deutschland zu Berlin a.M. 7 und 8. Juni 1911, p. 31.

202

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

was linkedwith one to createdistrictrabbinatesto ensurethat the needsof smallercommunitiesbe met.) It is unclear,however,whetherthe German RabbinicalAssociation'sproposalwould have solvedthe problemat hand, since it implied that immigrants from outside Germany (particularly Eastern Europe),ratherthan the rabbis alreadybeing turned out by the existingseminaries,were the sourceof the oversupply.Immigrantpressure had been a seriousproblemin the past, and therewas a clearoppositionof interests between German rabbis and German Gemeinden,especially smaller,less attractiveones that mightdependon the less expensiveservices of newly immigrantrabbisfrom the east.38Neverthelessthe situationhad been to some extent alleviated,at least in Prussia,by the government's efforts duringthe 1880sto excludeand expel all EasternEuropeanJewish immigrants.That tensions persisted, however, is indicated by the 1892 protest of sixty-sevenGerman rabbis (who held positions in lesser communities or were altogetherunemployed)against the appointmentof an of Altona.39 alien as Oberrabbiner A furtherdifficultywith the certificationplan was posed by objections that werealreadyraisedwhenit had been advancedoriginally,namely,that it violated the traditionalright of an individualrabbi to certify the competenceof his student.In any case implementationprovedimpossiblewhen Seminaragreed to of the three seminariesonly the Juidisch-theologisches candidates.40 external certify

IV Unlike the attemptto establisha monopolyon rabbinicalcertification, the first three of the 1898 resolutions-regardingrecognitionof the religious authorityof the rabbi,permanenttenureof appointment,and district rabbinates-all dependedfor their realizationon the assent and coopera38. For example, see DIGB, Mitteilungen 59 (December 1902): 11-13. 39. Wertheimer, "German Policy and Jewish Politics," p. 289; also pp. 56-59, 72, 161, 167-169, 269-276, 394-395, 508-511, 544; and Walter Breslauer, "Der Verband der deutschen Juden (1904-1922)," Leo Baeck Institute Bulletin 7, no. 28 (1964): 371-372. 40. The responses from the seminaries are filed in CAHJP: M4/1, in the material from 1899. Further discussion of this proposal at the 1902 assembly pointed to the additional problem that forming the association's own projected board of examiners would be difficult because of sectarian differences. The matter of special certification was referred to the separate liberal and traditionalist rabbinical associations that had meanwhile been established.


203

tion of communitygoverningboards.What followed the 1898meetingwas an attemptat collectivebargainingbetweenthe RabbinicalAssociationand the Deutsch-IsraelitischerGemeindebund (DIGB, Confederation of German Jewish Communities).The DIGB was the closest thing that GermanJewryhad in this periodto a nationalrepresentativeorganization. Foundedin 1869the DIGB was meantto serveprimarilyas a coordinating body and a clearing house for informationon common concerns of the Gemeinden,such as community administration,education, and philanthropy. As a collective organizationof governingboard representativesit was at once the appropriatenegotiatingpartneras well as the naturaladversary in the RabbinicalAssociation'seffortto securea generalimprovement in the situation of the rabbinate. Hence the associationpresentedits resolutionsto the DIGB for adoption at its generalassemblymeetingin 1902.41 The letterof transmittalurged approval in terms of the rabbis' own understandingof their situation: despitethe absencein Judaismof any formaldistinctionbetweenclergyand laity, the fact was that Jewishlearningwas generallyon the decline,which meant that the rabbi, the experton Judaism,should be accordeda special position of authoritywithin the community.On the face of it, the DIGB's responseshouldhave beenreassuring.Thoughit rejectedthe provisionfor a rabbinicveto over religiouschanges,it adoptedthe rest of the Rabbinical Association'sproposalsin full, on the understandingthatsuch approvalwas only advisory, and could not be binding on the separate communities represented. And yet the association'sdelegationcame away with the sense that its triumphwas not all that it might have been, a perceptionthat had considerablesubstance.For insteadof accordingthe rabbinatethe recognitionit claimed,the debate had muchmore conveyedthe laity'sview of the rabbinate as an impedimentto progressin Judaismratherthan an esteemedleadership.42 The DIGB assembly'spositioncame close to that expressedby the Latin phrase Voxpopuli,vox Dei - not that the voice of God was to be displaced 41. The account of these deliberations appears in DIGB, Mitteilungen 56 (December 1901): 4-5; 58 (May 1902): 6-27. 42. The Rabbinical Association's representative found a telling sign of this attitude in the fact that the lay speakers at the meeting went on at great length, while the association was given little opportunity to present its position. Rabbiner-Verband in Deutschland, Verhandlungen ... 1902, pp. 18-19.

204

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

by the dull roar of the masses, but ratherthat the voice of God might be equallyheard,and recounted,by all. Whileit did not necessarilyfollow that one person's opinon was as good as the next, it was true that the rabbi's opinionwas only that of one man,and deservedno extraweighting.If Jewry found its will balked it might simply vacate the synagogue."The laity," declaredone delegate, "shall and must have a decisive influence."43 Furthermorethere were some things about the rabbi that tended to disqualifyhim from influencingpolicy. If he was a new arrivalto a community he would be unacquaintedwith local circumstances.(Note the contrast with the traditionalcommunity,in which a rabbi'slack of local connectionswas regardedas ensuringhis judicial objectivity.The involvmentof the rabbiin communityaffairswas held to be incompatiblewith the dignity of his office. The strengthof the rabbiwas that he was above political dispute;he was not to be draggedinto partisanagitation.)One speaker went so far as to say that therewas nothingin the qualitiesfor whicha rabbi was actuallyhired-good sermons,teachingability,a fittingwife, and sufficient meansso as not to be a burdenon the community-that equippedhim to deal with practicalmatters.Thus the rabbiwas set upon a pedestalin a way that pretendedto exalt him but actually depreciatedhim. The true status of the spiritualleaderdependedvery much on what realvalencewas assignedto things of the spirit. Given this currentof lay antipathyto the rabbinate,the rabbinate's expectation of being accepted on its own terms was astonishing. An exchangeonly a few yearsearlierin the AllgemeineZeitungdes Judentums, the leading organ of the GermanJewish press, could have remindedthe rabbinateof just how sharpwas the oppositionto it in some circles.In 1897 Gustave Karpeles(who had succeededLudwigPhilippsonas editor) published a generally sympatheticlead article entitled "The Status of the In it he decriedthe fact that the Prussianregime,unlikethose Rabbinate."44 of some other Germanstates, still refusedto recognizerabbisin the same legal categories as Christianclergy. He pointed out, however, that this slightingof rabbinicalstatushad its supportersamongthe Jewishlaity, and recalled the notorious 1820 memorandumof the Berlin board member Ruben Gumpertz,who informedthe Prussiangovernmentthat the rabbi was little more than a kosher meat inspector. 43. DIGB, Mitteilungen 58 (May 1902): 11. 44. AZJ 61, no. 7 (Feb. 12, 1897): 73-74.


205

Karpelesencouragedthe recentlyreorganizedRabbinicalAssociationto do what it could to enhancerabbinicalstatuswithinthe Jewishcommunity itself, since it was untenablethat "the most importantchangesin religious practice could be made without the agreement of the rabbi-indeed without even asking or informing him in advance." Karpeles warned, however,that in everymodernboardtherelurkeda bit of RubenGumpertz. The responsesto Karpeles'seditorialweremixed,but one confirmedhis worst fears. Felix Makower,a lawyeractive in Jewishcommunityaffairs, wrote that while he approvedof rabbis'effortsto gain appropriateexternal legal recognition as clerics, he opposed their efforts to enhance their authoritywithin the communityat the expense of governingboards. The board acts as the elected representativeof the whole community,whereas the rabbiacts only as an individual.In any case, Makowercontinued,rabbis are by their very trainingand outlook unfit to lead the communityinto the future. The problem with rabbis, as with any clerics, was their constant preoccupationwith liturgicaland ritualquestions,which led them to overestimatethe importanceof such matters.What was reallyat issue was the rabbinate'sefforts to furtherits own professionalinterests(Standesinteressen), which were not necessarilyidenticalwith the interestsof Jewry as a whole, whateverthe rabbis might claim.45 Makowerwas correctat least in his observationthat the rabbinatewas quicker to pursue its self-interestthan it was to acknowledgethat it was doing so. How true this was became clear in the DIGB's debate on the RabbinicalAssociation'sprogramfor the creationof districtrabbinates.46 The purposeof this institutionwas to retainor securefor a rabbithe income from preachingand the performanceof ritual duties that would otherwise go to a local communityfunctionary,such as a teacher or nonordained preacherwho might serve as the religiousfactotum.Thus the rabbi'sgain would be the local functionary'sloss, a fact that one preacherimmediately pointed out. He found no reason to believe that rabbis were any better equippedto deal with local spiritualneeds than local preacherswere, and the same held for teaching.The clearestresult of establishingdistrictrabbinateswouldbe to impairtheincomeandstatusof localreligiousfunctionaries.

45. AZJ 61, no. 50 (Dec. 10, 1897): 592-593. Makower expressed similar views in connection with the events described in section V, below. Ibid. 75, no. 6 (Feb. 10, 1911): 67-69. Also see Alexander Altmann, "The German Rabbi: 1910-1939," LBIYB 19 (1974): 42. 46. DIGB, Mitteilungen 58 (May 1902): 20-22.

206

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

The potential financialimplicationsof the districtrabbinateplan were admittedlyserious,and the rabbiwho undertookto establisha pilot district rabbinatein Pasewalk,Pomerania,reportedthat he took care as far as possible to reservethe performanceof religiousduties with their attached fees to local officials. He made an exception,however,in cases of funerals where large numbersof Gentiles might be present, and where the board consequentlybelievedthat a rabbiwouldbetterrepresentthe communityto the public than would the local religiousofficiants.47 The notion that the rabbi had a specialadvantagewhen it came to external relations was advanced again in 1905, when the whole subject of districtrabbinateswas reopenedfor debateat the DIGB's generalcongress. Hereone rabbiconcededthatin caseswhereno rabbiwas availableteachers had filleda seriousgap, but in orderto competein publicesteemwith Christian clergyJudaismneededa learnedand culturedfigurelike the rabbi.Even within the Jewish community,another rabbi argued,the rabbi enjoyed a certainnaturallysuperioraura,such that in visitingthe sick, for example,it was importantthat a rabbi, and not simply a teacher,appear.While rabbinic speakersgenerallydeniedany materialinterestin the proposal,at least one seemedto concedethe point when he accusedthe teachersof opposing the programbecauseof the pecuniaryloss theywouldsustain.In the end the 1905 congress adopted a compromiseresolution, which recognizedthat conflictinginterestswere involved, and called on largercommunitiesand their rabbis to supportthe pastoraland educationalefforts of teachersin neighboringsmaller communitiesthat could not themselvesmaintain a rabbi. V

The resolutionsof the DIGB wereonly advisoryand not legallybinding on its membercommunities.The real test for the RabbinicalAssociation's programwould come in the campaignto securea bindingcommitment,for which the currenteffort to revise PrussianJewrylaw offereda welcome opportunity.It was an appropriateopportunityas well, since despite the fact that the RabbinicalAssociationwas nominallyone for all of Germany, many of the problemsthat it tackledwere actuallyspecificto the Prussian rabbinate,whichincludedthe majorityof the Germanrabbinate.Time and 47. Ibid., 59 (December 1902): 11-13.


207

again in discussionsof rabbinicalstatus, authority,and recognition,and of patterns of religious organization,the examples of Baden, Bavaria, and Wuerttembergwere cited as models to be emulated.Consequentlyit was understandablethat the membership of the Rabbinical Associationwhich in this period rangedaround 160 membersout of an estimatedpossible total of approximately270 Germanrabbis-came disproportionately from Prussianterritoriesratherthan southernGermany.48 Jewish affairs in Prussiawere governedby a regulationthat had been issued in 1847 and had gone basicallyunchangedsince.49The impetus to undertakea revisioncame from the desirewithin the Jewishcommunityto take account of interveningdevelopmentssince the edict's originalappearance, among which were the legal emancipationof the Jews in 1869, and Prussia'saccretionof new territorieswith their separateJewrylaws, which yielded over thirty differentsets of regulations.The work of revisionwas launchedaround 1900 by the DIGB, and was laterjoined by the Verband der deutschenJuden,which had been foundedin 1904to serveas a formal representativeof GermanJewryin dealingswith the government.By 1905 the DIGB decided to defer any furtherconsiderationof, or attempts to implement,the RabbinicalAssociation'sproposalspendingthe immiment appearanceof the draft of a new Jewrylaw.50 In a previewof the draft deliveredto the DIGB's June 1905 congress, HeinrichRosin, its author,recognizedthe needto accommodatethe potentially divergentinterestsand claimsof clericaland lay elements,and to take explicit account of the rabbinate.(The 1847 law mentionedthe rabbinate 48. Information on the size and composition of the Rabbinical Association's membership is presented in the reports of the organization's meetings (Verhandlungenund BeschlIsse .. .), particularly in the treasurer's reports. Unfortunately, after the reorganization of the association in 1896 the Verhandlungengive only the attendance lists, but not full membership lists, making an independent analysis of the geographical distribution of the membership impossible. Verhandlungen... 1902, pp. vi, 22, 22; 1907, p. 13; 1911, p. 18. Regarding the geographical distribution and variations in the legal status of the German rabbinate, see Altmann, "The German Rabbi," pp. 34-36, 40-43. 49. See Leopold Auerbach, Das Judentumundseine Bekennerin Preussen und in den anderen deutschen Bundesstaaten (Berlin: Mehring, 1890); Hermann Makower, Ueber die GemeindeVerhiiltnisse der Juden in Preussen (Berlin: Guttentag, 1873); and Alfred Michaelis, Die Rechtsverhaltnisseder Juden in Preussen seit dem Beginne des 19. Jahrhunderts(Berlin: Lamm, 1910). 50. CAHJP: Ml /9, Anon., "Zum 50 jdihrigen Jubilium des... Gemeindebundes," pp. 43-56; Breslauer, "Der Verband der deutschen Juden"; and Jacob Toury, "Organizational Problems of German Jewry: Steps towards the Establishment of a Central Organization (1893-1920)," LBIYB 13 (1968): 77-78.

208

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

only as one of a numberof professionsfrom which foreignerswere excluded.) RegardedspecificsRosin sketchedout a positionthatwas closelyakinto the RabbinicalAssociation's. Although the rabbi was not a priest with speciallyordainedpowers,he was a clericin the senseof one who servesthe religiousinterestof a laity by the use of his specialknowledgeand related abilities. A distinctionwould be made between the communities'representativeorgansand the administrativeones, in whichthe rabbinatewould be included. The rabbi was to be involved in deliberationson religious matters, and had the right of appeal to a provincialcommittee in cases where a majoritywent against him. The rabbi was to be provided with appropriateconditions of employmentand compensation,and collective arrangementswould be made to assist communitiesunableto bear the related financialburdenthemselves.5' The actualdraftthat Rosin presentedin 1906outlinedan elaborateand complex network of governing institutions and arrangements,with two branches-representativeand administrative,on each of three levelsOn the local level the representativebody local, provincial,and Prussian.52 was responsiblefor religiouseducation,the managementof religiousaffairs, and any fundamentalchangesin religiousservices.The rabbiwas a member of the administrativesynagoguecouncil, wherehe was allowed to participate in discussionsand to vote concerningquestionsof religiouslaw. He was recognizedas the "officialprofessional,expertleaderof the communityin all religiousaffairs."If the rabbiopposeda decisionof the synagoguecouncil he couldexercisea suspensiveveto of eightdaysto allow for appealto the provincialsynagoguecouncil. While Rosin grantedthat as a groupjoined by ties of religion every Jewish community ought to have a rabbi, he deferredfor futurediscussionthe actualarrangementsfor whateverdistrict rabbinatesmight be necessaryto secure this goal. On the provincialand Prussianlevelsthe patternwas alteredonly in that a proportionof seatson the representativebodieswas reservedfor rabbis,in a ratioof one rabbito everyfour laymen.In the administrativecouncilsthe rabbisagain had a clearminorityposition(threeout of elevenplaceson the

51. DIGB, Mitteilungen 65 (October 1905): 6-18. 52. Heinrich Rosin, Entwurf eines Gesetzes aber die Organisation der israelitischen Religionsgemeinschaft in Preussen, nebst Einleitung, BegrZndungund Schluss. (Im Auftrage des Ausschusses des Deutsch-IsraelitischenGemeindebundes)(Berlin, [1906]). Rosin is identified on the title page as Geheimer Hofrat and professor of law at the University of Freiburg i.B.


209

provinciallevel, and four out of seventeenon the Prussiancouncil).Rabbis were to be German citizens, to have completed at least three years at a German-languageuniversity,and to pass a rabbinicaland generalqualifying examination.Appointmentswere to be made with life tenure after a maximumprobationalperiod of five years. Salary scales were left to be determined,along with the details of pensions and life insurance. Under this plan the rabbi was given the opportunityto participate directly in formulating religious policy, which constituted a marked improvementover situationswhere he had been allowed-tocommunicate with the board only by writtenmemorandaand could addressit in person only at its own pleasure.Beyondthat the rabbienjoyedonly a very modest institutionaladvantagein exerting whateverpersonal authority he could muster. These hierarchicaland centralizedarrangementscharacterizedRosin's entire draft, and reflectedhis experienceas a memberof the similarlyorganizedOberratder IsraelitenBadens,the governingbody of BadenJewry, which in turn had been modeledafterthe Napoleonic Frenchconsistories. As logical and workableas such a scheme may have seemed to Rosin, it violatedPrussianJewry'sestablishedpatternof local communityautonomy, which had the advantageof accommodatingthe mutualsuspicionsheld by the overwhelminglylarge and powerfulBerlincommunityand the smaller though more numerousothers. Moreover,despitereassurancesto the contrary,it aroused fears of centralizedinterventionin the religiousaffairsof local communities,a prospectfearedequallyby liberalsand traditionalists. (Such an interventionwas, of course,exactlywhat the RabbinicalAssociation aimed for, insofar as it sought a centrallyadopted arrangementthat would bolsterthe authorityof the individualrabbiin the local community.) Despite the generallyfavorableresponsethat Rosin had won with his preliminarysketchat the 1905DIGB congress,the actualdraftseemedcertain to be rejected. An alternativewas quicklyproposedby HeinrichMachol,a lawyerwho had been involvedwith the DIGB projectat its outset, but who had had to abandonit in its earlystages.Macholproceededfromthe premisethat only the 1847 Jewry law with its provisionfor the autonomyof separatecommunitiescould serve as a precedentfor new legislation.The Jewryregulations of other states allowed too much governmentintervention,and too largea say by rabbisin religiousand even generalcommunaland administrativematters.Machol'sdraftplaced religiousaffairsin the control of the board, with the rabbi assured only of the possibility of communicating his

210

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

opinion by way of formal memoranda.In taking this position Machol declaredhimselfto be followingthe lead of the 1902DIGB congress,whose rejectionof any rabbinicalveto right he understoodas a rejectionof any special influencefor the rabbiin governingreligiousaffairs.The only concession to the rabbi'sexpertisecame in the single seat reservedfor a rabbi out of the twenty-threeon the overallPrussianJewishcouncil, so that the councilcould providean informedresponseto any governmentinquirieson religiousmatters.(A secondseat was similarlyreservedfor a legal expert.)53 The two drafts were referredfor further considerationto a mixed commissionof representativesof the DIGB and the Verbandder deutschen Juden, which produced its report in April 1909. This combined draft basicallyfollowed the lines that Macholhad set.54Local communitieswere guaranteedtheir autonomy in religious affairs. A rabbi was allowed to expresshis views on specificallylisted aspectsof religiousaffairsby way of written communications,and only exceptionallythroughdirect, oral presentation.Aftera maximumprovisionalperiodof threeyearsa rabbiwas to be given a contractfor at least twelveyears,whichcould be renewedthereafterfor like periods.Boardswerepermittedto makeappointmentswith life tenureif they wished.The regulationalso made provisionfor pensionand severancepayments,and for death benefits. Like its predecessorsthis third draft failed to secure broad enough communitysupport to serve as the basis for actual legislation.As far as provisionsfor the rabbinatewereconcerned,despitepartialconcessionson the termsand conditionsof employmentit still maintainedthe humiliating The discusand thoroughlysubordinatepositionof the rabbito the board.55" sion at the ensuing 1909 DIGB congressmade it clear that this approach enjoyed considerablelay sympathy.56Here the rabbinate'srepresentatives 53. Heinrich Machol, Gesetzentwurffiir das jidische Gemeindewesenin Preussen [1906]. 54. DIGB, Mitteilungen 67 (December 1906): 1-3. The draft is printed in ibid., 72 (April 1909): 29-60. 55. The Rabbinical Association registered its dissatisfaction with the draft in correspondence with the DIGB. CAHJP:M4/2(1): Eschelbacher letter, Dec. 22, 1909, and "Resolution." In this resolution, which was apparently drafted after the 1909 DIGB debate, the association added to its basic three-part program a demand for extended control over the appointment of other community officials, and over community religious education. The relevant sections read: "Alle beim Kultus und im Religionsunterricht tdtigen Beamten k6nnen nur nach fibereinstimmender Entschliessung der Gemeindevertretung (Vorstand und Repraisentanten) und des Rabbinats angestellt werden"; and "Die Religionsschule untersteht in schultechnischer Beziehung dem Vorstande, in Bezug auf Lehrstoff und die zu verwendenden Lehrbiicher dem Rabbinat." 56. Reported in DIGB, Mitteilungen 74 (September 1909): 2-83.


211

repeatedtheir familiarargumentsabout the expertiseof rabbis,the ignorance of lay boards,and the need for rabbinicindependenceguaranteedby secureappointments.Theyalso assertedthat the communityowed it to itself to investits clergyman,the rabbi,with the dignityappropriateto his office, so that he could stand as a worthyrepresentativeof Jewryand Judaismto the outside world. This ingeniousargumentfailed to have its effect, as did the others. Opponentsinsisted that if the rabbi sought to make his views prevailwithin the community,it had to be on the basis of his own personal prestige and authority,and not by virtue of any artificialpowers of his office. The conscienceof the communityhad to be regarded,as well as the conscienceof the individualrabbi,and the whole communitycould not be subjectto one man'swill. "Weare willingto take accountof the interestsof the rabbis,"a Justizratexplained,"but in the interestof Judaism,in the interestof the community,we must rejectthe demandfor life tenureand a veto right for the rabbi.""On the whole it was a resoundingdefeat,an explicit rejectionof the core of the RabbinicalAssociation'sprogram. VI

The failure of the RabbinicalAssociation'sdecade-longcampaignfor an improvementin the status of the Germanrabbiproducedseriousreflections on the place of the rabbiin the community,the natureof rabbinical authority,and the properrole of the rabbi.One of the most soberingof these came in the address that the Dortmund rabbi and Bible scholar Benno Jacobdeliveredto a regionalconferenceof rabbisin Colognein 1910.Jacob pointed out that the Jews, a people definedby their religion,werein some ways the most irreligious.The proposed revision of Prussia'sJewry law would have given lay leadersa decisivevoice in religiousaffairs,even involving rabbinicalcertification,despitethe fact that religiouscriteriawere never foremostin the choice of boardmembers,who often were only marginally involved in Judaism. Although in spiritual (as contrasted with administrative)mattersthe rabbiwas the community'sproperguide,he was being reduced to a subordinatefunctionary.Despite the historical and theoreticalpossibilityof dispensingwith an official,professionalrabbinate, with the dissolution of traditionalobservanceand the disappearanceof a

57. Ibid., pp. 48-49.

212

STEPHEN M. POPPEL

learnedlaity therewas a need for hiredexpertswho would also functionin new roles-as preachers,teachers,and pastors. The lay directionof religious affairswas an absurdity.The draftJewrylaw madethe preachingand teaching rabbi the "one man in the communitywho speaks most but has least to say."58 Perhapsmoretellingwerethe remarksmadeat the 1909DIGB congress a by liberalrabbiwho concededthat the demandfor a veto rightitselfmight be irrelevant.If the rabbiever had such power before, he said, it was only becausehe and the communitystood on the commongroundof the law. The sourceof the rabbi'sauthoritywas a consensuson the basis of tradition.In its absencethe demandfor a veto powercamea hundredand fifty yearstoo late. Except in traditionalistcommunities,wherethe rabbicould still base his claim on Jewishlaw, the demandfor a veto was effectivelya demandfor personalpower, but one that lackedany institutionalfoundation.Furthermore it was eithergratuitousor destructive:either the rabbiand the communityagreed,in whichcase therewas no need for a veto, or the rabbiwas at odds with the community,in which case the attemptto exercisea veto would only be destructive.59The implication was one that a critic had alreadyexpressed,namely,that if the rabbiwereto have anyauthorityat all, it would have to derive from his personal standing, and not his official status.60 Thus the rabbinatewas confusingcause and effect;the incumbent should invest the office with the authority. Indeed this is something that one rabbi after another had stated all along. Ratherthan demandstatus as an expert,the rabbicould win esteem as an exemplarof virtue, devotion, and religiouscommitment,and as an object of love, trust, and respect.6'The remarkablething was that on this point layman and rabbi fundamentallyagreed. One seasoned lay leader 58. Benno Jacob, Die Stellung des Rabbiners in dem Entwurf eines Gesetzes betreffenddie Verfassung der jiidischen Religions-Gemeinschaft in Preussen. Referat gehalten auf der Rheinischen Rabbinerkonferenzzu Kiln a. Rh. am 31. Juli 1910. (Hamburg, 1910). "Nach ihm [i.e., the draft] kann man den predigenden und lehrenden Rabbiner als diejenigen Mann in der Gemeinde definieren, der am meisten zu reden und am wenigsten zu sagen hat" (pp. 14-15). Regarding Jacob himself, see Kurt Wilhelm, "Benno Jacob, a Millitant Rabbi," LBIYB 7 (1962): 75-94. 59. Rabbi Seligmann, Frankfurt, DIGB, Mitteilungen 74 (September 1909): 78-79. 60. Ibid., pp. 49-50. 61. Sigmund Maybaum, in ibid., 58 (May 1902): 6; Benno Jacob, in Stellung des Rabbiners, p. 17; and Ferdinand Rosenthal, in Rabbiner-Verband in Deutschland, Verhandlungen... 1911, p. 31, reprinted as Ferdinand Rosenthal, Was war, was ist und was soil der Rabbinersein? (Breslau, 1911), p. 14.


213

observedthat "the rabbihas alwayswon the position that he deserved,and if he had the qualitiesfor it becamethe spiritualleaderof the communityin fact, if not in law."62It was a strikingcoincidencethat time and again lay critics of rabbinicdemandsquoted a remarkthat the separatistOrthodox rabbiSamsonRaphaelHirschhad publishedin 1858,"Therabbiis calledto be a teacher of the law, and not a legislator. . . . He can neither permit nor

forbid, but can only teach what is permittedand forbidden."63 But what laymen cited as a rebuke and a challengecould also be an opportunityand a promise.The GermanJewishlaitywas willingto concede a place to the rabbi,if not as a bearerof tradition,thenin some sense as the keeperof the faith-though one to be heededonly insofaras he could make his own voice heard.His was an officethat lackedthe independentauthority that the rabbidesired,and that he thoughtit once had. It was a placewhose shape was uncertain,but whose changingdimensionswere ultimatelythe measureof the rabbi and of the communitythat he sought to lead. New York,N.Y. Researchfor this articlewas supportedby the National Endowmentfor the Humanities,and by a Mellon FacultyFellowshipat HarvardUniversity.I am also pleased to acknowledgethe resourcesand assistanceprovidedby the CentralArchives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem.

62. AZJ 61, no. 17 (April 23, 1897): 196-197. 63. DIGB, Mitteilungen 58 (May 1902): 14; 74 (September 1909): 61; and Machol, Gesetzentwurf p. 25, which identifies the source as Jeschurun, vol. 4, p. 255.

Chaim Weizmann and the Elusive Manchester Professorship Author(s): Jehuda Reinharz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 215-246 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486322 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



CHAIM WEIZMANN AND THE ELUSIVE MANCHESTER PROFESSORSHIP by JEHUDA REINHARZ In February1912 Arthur Hantke, a memberof the EngeresAktionsComit6(EAC or SAC), askedChaimWeizmannto undertakea propaganda tour in the UnitedStates.'Weizmannrefused,but did agreeto a shortertour to European cities during the university semester break in March. In explaining his reasons for travelingonly to Berlin, Vienna, Prague, and Heidelberg,2 Weizmannrevealedsome of his plans for the future:

In preparing this essay, I consulted notes written by the late Rt. Hon. Richard H. S. Crossman, the official biographer of Chaim Weizmann. I have greatly benefited from his insights and formulations. I would also like to thank the late Professor Philip J. Elving of the University of Michigan and Professor Saul G. Cohen of Brandeis University for commenting on those parts of the paper dealing with chemistry. 1. See Arthur Hantke to Weizmann, February 13, 1912. Central Zionist Archives (hereafter CZA) Z3/524. Weizmann was not always welcome as a Zionist propagandist. In some Zionist circles he apparently had the reputation of initiating sharp and unpleasant controversies. See, e.g., letter from the Comit6 Central de la FHd6rationZioniste Belge of December 2, 1912, in which the Belgian Zionists specifically asked the Central Zionist Office in Berlin to refrain from sending Weizmann on propaganda tours. CZA, Z3/772. 2. The tour was very successful. In Vienna and Prague his lectures on "Zionismus und Staatsbuergertum" were very well received. See Die Welt, no. 15, April 12, 1912, p. 451. Robert Weltsch, who led the "Bar Kochba" group in Prague at the time, also recalled Weizmann's visit, some sixty-three years later. See Haaretz, January 22, 1975.

215

216

JEHUDA REINHARZ As you know,I wantto go to Palestinein 3-4 years.ButI wantto go to Palestinenot whenI havenothingto lose here,but on the contraryafter here.This"everything" consistsof two things:a havingachievedeverything fullprofessorship andadmissionto the RoyalSociety.Theformerhasbeen achievedexceptfor the officialannouncement, whichwillpresumably come the summer term The second is moredifficultfor a somewhat during [sic]. RussianJew.However,thematterhasgot to thepointwheremycandidature hasbeenestablished. Howlongthecandidature will"stand"dependson the and character of scientific for in work, scope my mycasethisis theonlydecisivecriterion.I musttherefore straineverynerveto workandpublisha great to theRoyalSocietywillopenalldoorsformehere.I shall deal,foradmission thenbeworthtentimesasmuchto you.... I havea definiteaiminview,andI haveworkedhardforyearsto attainit. I haveachieveda greatdealhere,and this is my last ambitionherein the Golus,for it will makeme independentand give me the best introductionfor Palestine.I shallnot concealfromyou that I have yet anotherambition-to become EnglishConsul in Palestine,and if necessaryI shall take the examinationfor it.3

Weizmann'sfrankdiscussionof his goals only hintedat his ambitionto be independent.By "independence"he meant financialas well as professional independence.Weizmannhad always been plagued by the lack of financialsecurity.Eversince he began to work at the age of eleven, Weizmann had yearnedfor financialsecurity.For years he had been patenting chemical inventions, hoping that one of them would bring him a large, steadyincome. Ironically,he had achieveda partialfinancialindependence only in 1901 during his Geneva years-at the outset of his career-when he and his collaborator,ChristianDeichler,sold one of theirfirstpatentsto the Bayer Works in Elberfeld.4By the beginningof 1912 Weizmannhad seventeenpatentsregisteredalone or withcollaborators.5Of all thesehe was able to sell only his camphorpatent, which brought him 300 francs each month untiljust priorto WorldWarI.6 His incomeconsistedof this patent 3. Weizmann to Arthur Hantke, February 25, 1912, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann(23 vols., London, 1968-80), V, p. 276. 4. The contract with Bayer was signed on January 30, 1901. See document in Weizmann Archives (W.A.). 5. See Anthony Michaelis, Chaim Weizmann,(London, 1974) pp. 57-58, and Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 3, nos. 1-2 (June-September 1953): 22. 6. The camphor patent was sold in 1907 to Leon Givaudan, who owned a plant producing perfumes and aromatics in Vernier, near Geneva. Weizmann owed his interest in camphor to William Perkin, who had encouraged him to investigate the field as soon as Weizmann arrived in Manchester in 1904. Arthur Lapworth, Perkin's brother-in-law, who came to Manchester

WEIZMANN AND THE ELUSIVE MANCHESTER PROFESSORSHIP

217

and a yearly salary of ?300 from ManchesterUniversitysupplementedby the correctionof examinationsfor other universities.The total amountedto

at most?450-500peryear.7When,in April1912,hewasplacedin chargeof a coursein chemistryfor medicineanda courseon coloringmattersat the

Universityof Manchester,his annualsalarywas increasedto ?450,8 which was quite substantial at the time. Neverthelessit seemed inadequateto maintain the Weizmannhousehold, and Weizmannfrequentlyasked for loans from Moses Gaster and later from Ahad Ha'Am and JuliusSimon.9 From the beginningof their marriedlife, Chaimand VeraWeizmannlived beyond theirmeans. Beforeshe married,Verahad neverearnedan income. While a studentin Geneva she was supportedfirst by her parentsand then When she by an older brotherwhen their financialsituationdeteriorated.10 came to Manchesterin 1906as Chaim'swife, it was at herinsistencethat the Weizmannsmoved to a house in a better neighborhood(on Birchfields Road) and bought new furniture.Since she did not know how to cook, or care to learn, they employed a maid who did the cooking, washing, and cleaning." As soon as Benjy,the Weizmanns'first son, was born, in June 1907, they also employed a nanny. From the start, the Weizmannstook vacations a few times a year, usually in the Austrian, Italian, or French Alps, in Switzerlandor the southof France,and on otheroccasionsin Wales University in 1909 and taught in the same department, was also interested in camphor and, in fact, was the one to point the way out of the labyrinth of camphor chemistry. 7. According to Weizmann ?700 per year. See Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, January 17, 1912. WL V, p. 270. This is clearly an exaggerated figure for this period, intended probably to boost his salary at the Technicum in Haifa, should he get a job at that institution. Weizmann ceased working for the Clayton Aniline Company in 1910. 8. See Senate Committee Minutes of April 23, 1912, John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4, vol. V, p. 27. See also Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, April 28, 1912. WL V, p. 291. It seems that in light of his new university obligations and salary, Weizmann invented for himself the title of "independent lecturer." In fact he was still a senior lecturer, but his teaching duties were apparently reduced in the spring of 1912. His new salary and responsibilites became effective in October 1912. See list of appointments of faculty members of the University of Manchester, John Rylands Archives, UA/18/16R. 9. The loans from Ahad Ha'Am continued throughout 1914, i.e., after Weizmann had been promoted to the position of reader which carried with it the considerable salary of ?600. At that point Vera was also earning a salary. Their combined income just prior to World War I must have been close to ?1,000. 10. See Vera's extensive communications to Weizmann on these matters between 1902 and 1905, e.g., September 17, 21, 25, 1905. W.A. 11. See Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, (London, 1967) p. 35. Vera maintains that she did learn how to cook. Nevertheless, Weizmann's constant references to the cook indicate that Vera's contributions in the kitchen were minimal.

218

JEHUDAREINHARZ

or the southern coast of England. Both seemed to like the good life.12 Accordingto Vera, her husband'stastes were expensiveand he had little monetarysense.'3Verawas more awareof the need to save money,but she, too, wantedto live in style.If she triedto save money,it was - accordingto her own autobiography-by attemptingto check Weizmann'sgenerous financial contributionstoward his siblings' education and by choosing a good (and inexpensive)dressmakerin a little backstreetwho madeherthree well-cut dressesa year, which she took care to preserve.14 Havingto cut corners,'"and awarethat they had to watchtheirbudget, the Weizmannswere sensitive to the wealth of their acquaintancesand friends.Whileon his propagandatripto the Continentin late March 1912, Weizmannwas invited to the Berlin apartmentof Richard Lichtheim,a German Zionist who came from a wealthy family.'6"They have a very elegantapartmentand live in the Berlinfashionlike everybodyelse,"wrote Weizmannthe followingday. "Wetwo are realproletarianscomparedwith all that crowd."''At the end of his triphe stoppedoverin Heidelberg,where his friend Julius Simon lived in the style of the upperbourgeoisie."They have a jewel of a villa in terrifictaste, everythingvery expensive,but not parvenu,"Weizmannreported.'8He felt so comfortablein this environment that he decidedto extendhis stay,ostensiblyin orderto be ableto attendthe circumcisionceremonyof the son of his dear friend BertholdFeiwel. He continued to regale Vera with details of the Simon household:"It's very pleasant in this house. Julius and his wife are very nice people and very cultured.She's a bit too loud, but very culturedand intelligent.He is pure gold. They havea gorgeoushouse. A lot of beautifulthings,beautifulbooks and a greatdeal of realtastein everything.Theycertainlylive betterthanwe do.... It isn't like Manchester,whereeverythingis so grim and heavy."'9 12. See interview with T R. Fyvel (W.A.), who describes their life-style in London later on, but one can assume that these inclinations and tastes were not cultivated overnight. See also Israel Sieff, Memoirs (London, 1970), p. 77, who writes of Vera: "She took with her a bourgeois background, gaiety and a taste for the good life." 13. Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 37. 14. Ibid., pp. 31, 35. 15. Israel Sieff records that during the 1913-1914 period "I often gave lunch to [Chaim], and to Vera ... not only for their company but because I thought it helped them out." Israel Sieff, Memoirs, (London, 1970) p. 79. 16. See Richard Lichtheim, Rueckkehr, Lebenserrinerungenaus der Fruehzeit des deutschen Zionismus (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 17-26. 17. Weizmann to Vera, March 22, 1912. WL V, p. 283. 18. Weizmann to Vera, March 29, 1912. WL V, p. 287. 19. Weizmann to Vera, April 1, 1912. WL V, p. 288.


219

This was the kind of life Chaimand Veradesired.Theywereboth elitists who felt that they rightlybelongedamongthe highereconomicand intellectual strata of society. Though Weizmannknew how to communicatewith the EasternEuropeanimmigrants,it certainlyneveroccurredto him to live in their neighborhoods;20 he rarely socializedwith them in England,not even with theirintelligentsia.Theexceptionsto this ruleweremenlike Ahad Ha'Am and Nahum Sokolow, who had great prestigein the Zionist movement. The one person who was below his station, as it were, with whom Weizmanndid keep up contact in Englandwas Joseph Massel, who had shelteredand providedfor him duringhis firstdays in Manchester.Though he liked to talk to the membersof Manchester'sZionist groups, he never reallygot close to them. "Therewas no intimacyof contact,no realwarmth of affection.Of coursetherewere some Zioniststo whom he was delighted to talk. But once the conversationwas finished,he wantedto escapeto his laboratoriesor to his home."21 If Weizmannremainedpersonallyaloof from the masses,he did retain an emotional bond with them. Vera,on the other hand, had no emotional ties to themat all. If Weizmanncould,in a momentof anger,exclaimthathe was "fedup" with his fellowJews,22 it was becausehe caredaboutthemand wanted to refashion them into "better" Jews. Vera could only express impatience with them.23 Her assimilationist background24and classconscious attitudes dictated her social preferences and behavior. In Manchester,as later, she alwayspreferredthe companyof high-classJews and the English. Thoughshe was the wife of only a seniorlecturerand could hardlyspeak proper English, Vera'sentry into Manchester'supper society was rather 20. The immigrants concentrated in and around the lower part of Cheetham Hill; as their economic condition improved, they moved up the hill. Weizmann always lived a few miles away from this area, in close proximity to, or south of, the university. 21. Israel M. Sieff, "The Manchester Period," in Chaim Weizmann:A Biography by Several Hands, ed. Meyer W. Weisgal and Joel Carmichael (New York, 1963), p. 90. When Weizmann spoke on Zionist affairs in the center of the immigrant community, he frequently did so at the Jewish Working Men's Club. The club was established by well-to-do Jews for workers, to help "protect" them from socialist influences. 22. See Weizmann to Vera, May 30, 1912. WL V, p. 309. 23. In her memoirs Vera recorded that while Weizmann visited Massel "I would sit in silence, sniffing the smell of print, waiting for us to go home." Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 32. 24. Vera's ignorance of Judaism was such that she was often unaware of the date of the High Holidays and needed to be reminded by Weizmann. See, e.g., Vera to Weizmann, September 17, 1905. W.A.

220

JEHUDAREINHARZ

swift, partlydue to her strikingappearance.Verawas "of mediumheight, gracefuland well poised, dressedwith distinctivetaste, though not expensively. Her eyes werehazel,her hairbetweencolors,herbrowwas open and serene,her mouth broad,generous,amused.She was a beautifulwoman."25 Though most of the professors'wives were twice her age, they immediately adopted her. They must have sensed that this impressive-lookingwoman belonged-if not by class then by inclination-to their own elitist circle. Though puzzledby some of the habits and customs of polite society, Vera clearlytook a liking to the weekly"at homes"with theirinnumerablecups of tea, toast, and cakes.26Beforeherarrivalin Manchester,Weizmannspent his freehoursmainlywith the familyof his employer,CharlesDreyfus,with William Perkin, his mentor and the senior chemistryprofessorat Manchester University, and, occasionally,with the professorof philosophy, Samuel Alexander,and some of the chemistsworking for Dreyfus at the Clayton Aniline Company.27With time, of course, an intimate Zionist group consistingof Norman Bentwich,Leon Simon, HarrySacher,and a few others gatheredaroundhim. Vera,however,was not contentwith this circle.She was eagerto be invitedinto Manchester'sbetterhomes.Withina short time, she became a frequentvisitor to the homes of the ladies Lapworth, Schuster,Behrens,Perkin, Kolp, and other membersof the city's elite. It was during one of these social occasions that Vera met Caroline Schuster,the wife of ProfessorArthurSchuster,who admiredVera'scharm and abilitiesand immediatelytook a greatlikingto her.In the periodbefore WorldWarI, the Weizmannswerefrequentvisitorsin the Schusterhome in the exclusive neighborhoodof Victoria Park, a short distance from their own house on BirchfieldsRoad. The Weizmannswerecharmedby the Schustersand theirlife-style.This was a differentEnglishsociety from the one so disparagedby Weizmann when he first arrivedin Manchester.The Weizmannswere determinedto emulate the Schusters,but this would take more money than Weizmann earned. In response, Vera decided to obtain her British qualificationin medicine,a goal she had had in mind since 1907.28 Becauseshe had earned 25. Sieff, Memoirs, p. 66. 26. Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 32. 27. Charles Dreyfus hailed from Alsace. He moved to England in 1869 and in 1876 founded the Clayton Aniline Company, of which he was managing director until his retirement in 1913. Weizmann had worked for the Clayton Aniline Company on a part-time basis since March 1905, a few months after his arrival in England. 28. See Weizmann to Moses Gaster, January 15, 1907. WL V, p. 6.


221

her medicaldegreein Geneva,she was requiredto redo the last two yearsof the medical curriculumin Manchester.In 1910 she began her studies. Despite the frequentbouts of ill health that plagued her and Benjy, she succeeded in obtaining her bachelor of medicine and surgery degree on December 19, 1912.29After an extended vacation in Cannes during the winter of 1912-1913, she took a position in May 1913 as public health officerin Manchesterin chargeof a clinic for expectantmothers.30 Shecould a contribute second to the finally salary family budget. If Verawas resentfulof Weizmann'sburdensomeZionist activities,she did encouragehim to expandhis horizonsin variousbranchesof chemistry during vacations from the university.Although this was time they could have spent togetherin Manchesteror in the mountains,they both willingly made the sacrifice, hoping that the researchwould bring them financial security.A few yearsaftersettlingin Manchester,Weizmannbecameinterested in biological chemistryand in bacteriology,which he regardedas a specialbranchof organicchemistry.No facilitiesfor this work were available at ManchesterUniversity,since biochemistrywas not yet part of the curriculum.Bacteriologywas confinedto the medicalschool.3'Beginningin March 1909,therefore,Weizmannregularlygave up his springand summer universityvacations,as well as his work and incomeat the ClaytonAniline Company, in order to work at the PasteurInstitute'sbacteriologicaland microbiologicaldepartments,under the direction of the well-knownbiochemist Auguste Fernbach,directorof the fermentationlaboratoryat the institute.32In ParisWeizmannbecameacquaintedwith Frenchcivilization and the French way of life. He usually stayed in the Latin Quarterwith Vera's sister Rachel and her husband Joseph Blumenfeld, a chemical engineer. In ParisWeizmannmet some of the most brilliantchemistsand physicistsof the day, includingGeorges Urbain,Jean BaptistePerrin,and Paul Langevin. For a time he worked in Perrin'slaboratoryat the Sorbonne, learningsomethingabout colloidal chemistry.He did not let any 29. See Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 16, 1912. WL V, p. 329. 30. The Manchester School for Mothers. Vera Weizmann, The Impossible Takes Longer, p. 40. See also Weizmann to Berthold Feiwel, May 16, 1913. WL VI, p. 73. 31. Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, (New York, 1949) p. 133. 32. See Albert Delaunay, L'Institut Pasteur, des Origines ai Aujourd'hui(Paris, 1962), pp. 114ff. At the Pasteur Institue Fernbach ahd become known in 1910 for his researches in which he-along with others-anticipated Buchner's classic grinding of yeast cells with fine quartz or sand to yield cell contents for examination. See Maurice Schofield, "Weizmann's Success as Manchester Biochemist." W.A.

222

JEHUDA REINHARZ

opportunityfor deepeninghis knowledgein chemistrygo by. Duringone of the Weizmanns'vacations in Switzerland,he spent a few weeks studying milk bacteriologywith the distinguishedscientistRobertBurri.The rest of his trainingin biochemistryhe supplementedwithhis own readingand work in Manchester.33 In the springof 1910Weizmann'sregularvisits to the PasteurInstitute receiveda new sense of purpose.On February8, 1910, ProfessorWilliam Perkin-the senior chemistry professor at Manchester UniversityemployedWeizmannin researchon the productionof syntheticrubberfor which Perkinhad a contractwith Strangeand GrahamLtd. of London.At the beginningof the twentiethcentury,a crisis developedin the supplyof naturalrubberfrom the Far East, caused both by the rapidlyincreasing demand for this commodityand by local difficultiesin production.34The resultingshortageincreasedthe interestin creatinga syntheticsubstitutefor naturalrubber.At that time the idea of syntheticrubberwas revolutionary. Thoughsyntheticsubstitutesfor naturalproductswereknownand had been used in the pharmaceuticaland dyestuffindustries,this was not the case for materialssuch as rubberor naturalfibers. complex high-molecular-weight In Germany the chemist Carl Harries had just discoveredthat natural rubber was a hydrocarbonwhich, when heated to high temperatures, releasedisoprene.The conclusionwas, therefore,that if one could find a good method of making isoprene, one might be able to convert it into syntheticrubber.35 The prospects,then, of makinga fortunein producinga scarcecommodity attractedthe firm of Strangeand Graham.EdwardHalford Strange, the company'sdirector,engaged ProfessorWilliam Perkin36to assist the companyin the technicalresearch,offeringto pay him ?1,000 a year plus royalties.37Perkinacceptedthis generousofferand in turnaskedWeizmann

33. Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 133. 34. At the time, the price of natural rubber in England had soared to 12 shillings per pound and was still rising. See Harold Davies, "A Review of the Development of the Butyl AlcoholAcetone Fermentation and Early Work on Synthetic Rubber," Papers Collected to Commemorate the 70th Anniversary of Dr. Chaim Weizmann,p. 5. W.A. 35. Ernst D. Bergmann, "Bergmann on Weizmann," Rehovot 8, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 54. 36. Probably in January 1910. 37. There are two main sources from which I have drawn the information in this chapter dealing with Weizmann's research during 1910-1912 and his connections with William Perkin, Auguste Fernbach, and Strange and Graham Ltd. The first is the court proceedings dealing with a suit brought by Weizmann and Commercial Solvents Corporation-a U.S.-based


223

if he would care to serve as his researchassistant,for which he would pay him ?250 a year plus 33 percentof the profitswhich Perkinwould receive from any royaltiesor patents resultingfrom theirjoint work. Eager for a largerincome, Weizmannjumped at the offer.38Thus, when he went to the PasteurInstitutein the springof 1910,Weizmannwas veryexcitedaboutthe prospectof finallymakinga lot of moneyin the world of industrialchemistry. It occurredto Weizmannright away that it would be a good idea to draw into the researchteam ProfessorAugusteFernbach,who knew more about alcohol fermentationprocesses than either Weizmannor Perkin. Fernbach was interested, and upon his return to England, Weizmann broachedthe idea with EdwardStrange,who promptlyinvitedthe French chemistto join the team.39Fernbachagreedto join on termsthat were far less generousthan those offeredPerkin40and broughtwith him one of his own assistantsat the PasteurInstitute,Moses Schoen.41Halford Strange, who himself had a general backgroundin chemistry,was also considered part of the researchgroup. Thus, by the fall of 1910 an Anglo-French researchsyndicatewas formedwhich set itself the task of investigatingthe question of syntheticrubbersimultaneouslyin Manchesterand in Paris. To create synthetic rubberon a commercialscale, the researchteam concentratedat first on the productionof amyl and butyl alcohols by fermentationprocesses.42 Fernbachand Schoenworkedin Parisand the others company-against Strangeand Grahamand SyntheticProductsCompanyLtd. in 1926.The proceedingsare containedin a reportcalled "Reportsof Patent, Design, and Trade Mark Cases,"vol. XLIII, no. 7 (London, 1926),hereaftercited as Reportsof Patent.The second sourceis the lettersand memorandawhichwerepresumablyusedas evidenceduringthe court proceedings.Thesearecollectedin a containerlabeled"In the HighCourtof Justice,Chancery Division, Mr. Justice Romer. CommericalSolvents Corporationv. Synthetic Products CompanyLimited.Correspondence, AgreedBundleNo. 1 from 10thMay 1909to 31st May 1919and Correspondence, AgreedBundleNo. 2 fromJune 12 [to 1925].Plaintiff'sSolicitors" Hereaftercited as Court of Justice.The entire documentationis housed in the Weizmann Archives. 38. See Courtof Justice,Agreementsignedby W. H. Perkinand Ch. Weizmann,February 8, 1910.A month later,on March14, 1910,Perkinhiredanotherresearchassistant-Harold Davies-who workedcloselywith Weizmannon all experiments.See Davies, "Review... on SyntheticRubber,"p. 5. 39. Court of Justice,Strangeto Fernbach,April 16, 1910. 40. See Court of Justice,Weizmannto Fernbach,August 8, 1910;Strangeto Fernbach, September22, 1910;and Fernbachto Strange,November11, 1910. 41. ConcerningSchoen'sexpertiseandwork,see Delaunay,L'InstitutPasteur,pp. 114and passim. 42. Court of Justice,Weizilann to Fernbach,August 8, 1910:"The questionswhichwe want to study at once are: 1st. Rice Albumin... 2ndly Amyl and iso-butylalcohols."

224

JEHUDA REINHARZ

in England,with Weizmannand Strangevisitingthe PasteurInstitutefrom time to time. The attentionof the groupwas directedchieflyto the meansof producing amyl alcohol, and in January 1911 Fernbachand Weizmann found a mixtureof bacteriathat would fermentthe starchin potatoes,yielding in the processamylalcohol.The followingmonthWeizmannwas ableto produce the same substancewith other bacteria.43The membersof the group thereuponconcentratedtheir efforts on the amyl alcohol route to isopreneand syntheticrubber.But at the end of March 1911it was found that, duringcertainexperimentsat Parisand Manchester,the fermentations had producedbutyl alcohol, and from that time the energiesof the group were divertedtoward ascertainingthe means by which this materialcould best be obtained. The first order of businesswas to select or discoverthe particularbacillus that would yield the best results. Such a bacillusreferredto variouslyas BF (BacillusFernbach)or FB-was discoveredby Fernbachin June 1911.A cultureof this bacilluswas isolated,and that same Fernbachand Weizmannnow monthit was sentto Weizmannvia Strange.44 endeavoredto produce butyl alcohol in bulk by fermentingthe starch in potatoes.45At that time it was alreadyknown that in the fermentationof sugarto alcohol by yeast, a minorby-productwas "fusel-oil,"essentiallya mixtureof amyl alcohols each of whichcontainsfive carbonatoms. It was assumed,erroneouslyas it turnedout, that thesealcohols,like ethylalcohol itself, were producedby the fermentationof sugar,and Weizmann'sattention was thereforedrawnto fermentationprocessesin general-an unusual subjectfor an organicchemistat that time-and to the problemof finding a microorganismwhich would yield five-carbon alcohols as the main product,not just a by-product,of fermentation.The Russianmicrobiologist Winogrodskyhad already discoveredthe existence of a bacteriumor a group of bacteriaable to fermentcarbohydratesand produce an alcohol with an odor similar to that of fusel-oil, as well as another well-known chemical substance-acetone. However, this alcohol was butyl alcohol, containingonly four carbonatoms, a compoundalreadyknown, but at the sametime not used for any practicalpurpose.WilliamPerkin,who of all the 43. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, February 10, 1911, and Weizmann to Strange, March 14, 1911; Reports of Patent, p. 211. Weizmann isolated this bacillus from garden soil taken from the "Vice Chancellor's garden," while Fernbach had isolated his bacillus from a water source in or near Paris. See Davies, "Review ... on Synthetic Rubber," p. 7. 44. Reports of Patent, p. 211. 45. See, e.g., Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, January 23, 1912.


225

members of the team understood the least about fermentation, therefore recommended that this substance be called not "butyl" but "futile alcohol" and suggested that "the stuff be poured down the sink."46 Despite Perkin's pessimism, Strange decided to erect a plant at Rainham, Lincolnshire, for the production of materials developed in the inter-

mediatestages of research.In contrastto Perkin,Weizmannwas confident of the outcome of his research.To Ahad Ha'Am he boasted: I haveactuallyreachedthe end and overcomeall difficultiesin the synthesisof rubberand the laboratorystageis finished.Thisbusinessshouldnow be transferredto the factory.Whethermy Industriertitter will have enough patience and abilityto take advantageof what I am convincedis a reallygood job, or whetherthey will turnit into somethingpurelyfor speculation,I don't know; and this problemis causingme a lot of worry,becauseI shouldn'tlike to be left with nothing but my chemical"fame."47

he hadjumpedthe gun, rushingto informStrangethat he Characteristically, would soon send the isoprene he would produce in his lab. His report turned out to be inaccurate, resulting in recriminations from Strange.48

WhileWeizmannand Fernbachwerestrugglingto makeheadwayon the questionof fermentation,with a view to convertingsugarstarchinto higher alcohols,49 an important discovery was made in March 1912 by one Mr.

Kane the works-managerat Rainham.Using BF and some crudemethods of distillation,Kane realizedthatthe fermentationof starchyielded,in addition to other products,a considerablequantityof acetone.50The discovery of acetone was made known, of course,to Weizmann,who did not imme46. As it turned out, he was wrong. An interesting and rather unexpected property of the minute rodlike bacterium, subsequently given the systemalic name "Clostridium acetobutylicum Weizmann" (nicknamed B-Y), was its ability to ferment starch directly, i.e., without prior treatment, since it contains maltase, which can split starch to "fermentable" sugars. See Ernst D. Bergmann, "The Example of Weizmann's Science," Jerusalem Post, November 2, 1969, p. 3, and Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 134. 47. Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 2, 1911. WL V, p. 264. 48. See Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, February 24, 1912; Weizmann to Strange, February 27, 1912; Strange to Weizmann, February 28, 1912; and Weizmann to Strange, March 3, 1912. 49. See, e.g., Court of Justice, document by E. Moore Mumford, an assistant to Weizmann, dated April 30, 1912. 50. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, March 29, 1912. Kane also experimented with the isolation of other butyl-producing bacteria and on May 1, 1912, isolated one which he called "160" from barley. Reports of Patent, p. 186.

226

JEHUDA REINHARZ

diately grasp its industrial implications.5'Strange, on the other hand, realizedat once that this discoverycould have momentousimplicationsfor his business.52Acetone, largelyused at the time as a solvent,was made by dry distillationof wood. One of its importantuses was its abilityto make gunpowder"smokeless."Whentreatedwith acetone,gunpowderburnswith a minimumof smoke, a discoverywhich would become very important when the First World War broke out, since it meant that the location of guns, especiallythe big naval guns, could be concealed.53 Halford Strange had for some time labored under the difficulty of With the discoveryby raisingsufficientcapitalfor his researchsyndicate.54 Kane of an efficientmethodfor the productionof acetone,he decidedthat the moment had come to expandhis company,which was to be renamed The Synthetic Rubber, Fusel Oil and Acetone ManufacturingCo., Ltd., In with a capitalof ?500,000to be raisedby publicsubscriptionfor shares.55 orderto inducethe publicto buy sharesin the new company,Strangecommissioneda certain Dr. Otto Hehner,who was in his employ, to write a scientific report on the productionof acetone, amyl alcohol, and butyl alcohol through fermentationof potatoes.56The report claimed a much higheryield than had in fact beenhithertodiscoveredwith any bacterium.57 Strangeknew quite well that he could not get away with making such a claim concerningthe experimentsat Rainham.What he needed was the backingof well-knownchemistswhose statementswould not be questioned by anyone. Sir WilliamRamsay,professorof chemistryat LondonUniversity and recipientof the Nobel Prizein 1904,had alreadyexpressedhis inter-

5 1. The power of producing acetone in the fermentation of carbohydrates was not peculiar to the bacillus BF. It is the property of all butylic ferments of starch. 52. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, March 29, 1912. 53. Bergmann, "Bergmann on Weizmann," p. 54. See also Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, May 10, 1912: "1 had a further interview with two of the Nobel Dynamite Trust people yesterday . . . and they admitted that the diminishing supply of acetone and the increasing demand for it by several countries for explosive manufacture is a matter of great concern to the British Government and particularly the Admiralty." 54. See, e.g., Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, November 17, 1911. 55. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912. A more modest name was finally chosen for the company: "Synthetic Products Company, Ltd." 56. Reports of Patent, p. 214. 57. See ibid.: "the report states that it was 43 per cent of the dry substance of the potato, but this must have been a clerical error. No such yield has been observed with any bacterium discovered hitherto." The court proceedings do not make it clear what the true yields from potatoes were at Rainham.


227

est in joining the board of the new company."'Strangehad no problem persuadingPerkin to vouch for the experimentsthat had been made at Rainham.59Moreover,Perkinagreedto give a lectureon June 17, 1912,to the Society of ChemicalIndustrywhichwould promotethe new company, twelve days before the prospectuswas to be issued.60 It was more difficultto move Fernbachto write a reportbased on the experimentsat the Pasteur Institutethat would excite both the scientific communityand the public. In reply to Strange'srequestof May 8, 1912, Fernbachtruthfullyreportedthat he lacked sufficientevidenceto writethe kind of report that Strange had in mind. Yet, he too, like Ramsay and Perkin, was tempted by the prospect of making money. He therefore demandeda seat on the boardof directorsof the new companyas a conditio sine qua non. He also urgedthat a new experimentbe conductedbeforehe wrote the report.Both conditionswere acceptedimmediatelyby Strange.6' Fernbach had been conducting an experimentwith maize (rather than potatoes) as the rawmaterial.The experimentwentwell for about ten days, but at the end it turnedout to be a failure,yieldingno more than 25 to 28 percentacetoneand higheralcohols, about equal to the amountwhich had been obtainedby Kanein Rainham.62NeverthelessFernbachdiscardedhis

58. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912. 59. Early on in their collaborative research, when Strange published a prospectus that used Weizmann's and Perkin's names, the latter wrote to Strange-perhaps at Weizmann's insistence-that "the prospectus has the appearance at least, of being an attempt to raise money on our names and reputations and it was widely enough circulated to create a a very unfavorable impression in scientific circles. We have every reason to object strongly to such a document being sent out without our knowledge or sanction." Court of Justice, Perkin to Strange, July 27, 1910. Clearly, Perkin's qualms about the use of his name had in the meantime been allayed by the prospect of making his fortune. 60. See Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, April 30, 1912, and Reports of Patent, p. 214. In a letter to Fernbach of May 8, 1912, Strange wrote: "Perkin is to read a paper to the Society of Chemical Industry on June 17 setting out such portions of our position as we deem wise. ... We are anxious to get our statement ahead of the big German boom which is being engineered for September at the Congress of Applied Chemistry in Washington. . . I am writing up the paper for Perkin and I will send you an advanced copy for your criticisms." Court of Justice, p. 391. 61. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, May 9, 1912, and Fernbach to Weizmann, May 9, 1912. 62. See Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, June 11, 1912, and Reports of Patent, p. 232. Fernbach stated clearly: "Our large fermentation experiment on Maize has been going on with very great speed for ten days when it stopped suddenly. The result is about the same as what you have yourself obtained at Rainham. ... the fermentation of maize is far from being so easy as the fermentation of potatoes."

228

JEHUDA REINHARZ

earlier pangs of conscience and wrote a report that was purposelymisleading and which could be interpretedas saying that he had been able to extract as much as 42 percentof the substancesin question from maize, whereasin fact he had obtainedthose resultsonly from potatoes.63Thus, Strangefinallyhad his professorswherehe wantedthem:luredby money, they were,in fact, backingfalseadvertisements.The distinguishedgalaxyof Ramsay, Perkin,and Fernbachdid not fail to impressthe public, and at least ?75,000 was raised throughsubscriptions.64 Weizmann knew all along that the reports from Rainham and the PasteurInstitutewere incorrect.65He kept quiet, nevertheless,becausehe too saw a chanceof finallybecomingrich. He could assuagehis conscience by telling himself that he had neitherwritten the misleadingreports nor permittedhis nameto appearin the company'sprospectus.Moreover,Fernbach, who realizedthat Weizmannwas the real brainin the Englishteam, sought to tie Weizmanncloser to the project by improvinghis financial terms with the new company.In anticipationof Strange'svisit to Parison May 18, 1912, Fernbachinvited Weizmannto stipulate his own conditions.66Realizing that this was a once-in-a-lifetimechance, Weizmann decidedthat he would personallytravelto Paris(May 17, 1912)to prepare with Fernbachfor theirmeetingwith Strange.67 By the time he crossedover to Paris, Weizmannhad already read the first draft of Perkin'slecture, scheduledfor deliverya month hence. The lecturewas apparentlywritten for Perkin-who had little knowledgeof the substanceof the experiments -by a chemistemployedby Strangeand Grahamcalled FrancisEdwards Matthewsin collaborationwith HalfordStrange.Latein April,Strangesent over the draftto Weizmannwith the request"for the additionof any scientific stuff which you think ought to go in. I have arrangedwith Perkin 63. Reportsof Patent,p. 232. Fernbachwrotethe following:"I havediscoveredfermenta-

tion processes which by employing starchy substances, namely, cereal grains such as maize, as

rawmaterialsproducehigheralcoholsand acetone.... In additionto workingon the laboratory scale I have conductedthe processsuccessfullyin large size vessels and undercertain conditionsobtained over 42 per cent of the starch employedconvertedinto mixed higher alcohols." 64. Courtof Justice,Strangeto Perkin,July3, 1912:"Wewereonlyaskingfor the?450,000 on the off chancethat the publicmight like to give it to us." 65. See, e.g., Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, May 9, 1912, and Moses Schoen to Weizmann, June 14, 1912. 66. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, May 9, 1912. 67. Court of Justice, Weizmann to Fernbach, May 12, 1912, and May 13, 1912.

68. Court of Justice,Strangeto Weizmann,April 30, 1912.


229

that he will give due credit to the chemists and bacteriologists who have been engaged on the work."68It is unclear what "scientific stuff'-if anyWeizmann added to the paper, but the incident made him painfully aware that Perkin was getting credit for doing little or nothing. But if Perkin was

going to have all the prestige,Weizmannwas determinedto improvehis

contractwith Strange.Havingworkedout the strategywith Vera in advance,Weizmannwrote her of the outcome of negotiationson May 18. A hardday is over. I havebeenup since8 in the morning,at the Institutefrom 9. Shalllet you knowthe resultsbriefly.I have concludedan agreementwhich we shallput in writingin a few daysby meansof an dchangede lettres,according to whichI shallget 25%of what Fernbachmakesas profit,andin addition to that Fernbachwill pay me 100 pounds a year from the salaryhe receives from Strange.I considerthis arrangementverysatisfactory.I certainlydidn't expect to succeedin getting anythingin cash beyond the 25%. Besides,I was fully convincedthat Strangewould take all measuresto get me undercontractto them,as he knowsthat I haveno obligationswhateverto Perkinas regardskeepingsecrets,etc. etc. I told him I would sign up a contract with them only if they gave me a guaranteeto pay me a decent and regularsalary.He understandsthis perfectlyand it is in his interestto haveme tied up-if I let him-and to pay for it. His affairsare apparentlygoing very well.... I hope my Verochkawill be pleased.I kept in mindthat you told me "to think of you duringthese businesstalks . . ."69

Strangewas willingto signa contractwithFernbach,but onlyafterJune, presumably in order to first see the rate of public subscriptions.70

All he had to do now, Weizmannthought,was to sit quietlyand waitfor Strange to give a new contract to Fernbach, who would in turn write Weizmanna letter confirmingtheir oral arrangements.Once he had the letter from Fernbach, he would demand from Perkin a larger share of the latter's ?1,000 per annum retainer. Should Perkin refuse, he would threaten to walk out on him, free to use the knowledge he had acquired on fermentation processes as he wished."7To Vera, who had in the meantime gone for a

69. Weizmann to Vera, May 18, 1912. WL V, p. 299. 70. Court of Justice, Weizmann to Strange, May 22, 1912. 71. See Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, July 19, 1912. In this letter Strange reviewed developments in Manchester after Weizmann returned from Paris in May. Weizmann had, no doubt, also indicated to Fernbach that he would walk out on the team, which is why Fernbach sought to bind him to the group through a more forceful contract.

230

JEHUDA REINHARZ

two weeks'vacationto Baslow,Derbyshire,he wroteon May 21 that Perkin was unawareof what was going on.72But Perkinwas not deceived.Possibly he had in the meantimebeenalertedto the new situationby Strange.Perkin fully understood that once Weizmannhad made an arrangementwith Fernbach,he was out of his control. A day later, he pressedWeizmannto informhim in detailof the agreementmade in Paris.Whentold, he warned Weizmannto cancel this new deal, since, accordingto Perkin,Weizmann had made a commitmentto the UniversityCouncil-prior to the changein his appointmentin April-not to undertakeany new outsidework.73WeizWithin mannrefusedto budge,and Perkinwentto Londonto see Strange.74 less than a fortnightPerkinhad turnedfrombeingWeizmann'smentorinto his most dangerousenemy, writingopenly to Strangethat he was sick of Weizmannand wished that "the affair in Jerusalemwould hurry up."75 Moreover,Perkinhad Strange'sfull cooperationin plotting againstWeizmann. Strangestill held a grudgeagainstWeizmannfor havingmisledhim on the question of isoprene and for having aggressivelypressed a few months earlierfor permissionto publishthe resultsof some of the experiments undertakenon behalf of the company.Strangehad suspectedsince 1911that Weizmannwishedto claimcreditfor workthat was not his own.76 This reservoirof suspicion and resentmentnow came to the fore when Strangerealizedthat Weizmann'sstrategywas to cornerhim and Fernbach, forcing them into an agreementwhich could then be used against Perkin, 72. Weizmann to Vera, May 21, 1912. WL V, p. 302. 73. Court of Justice, Weizmann to Strange, May 22, 1912. Perkin seems to have been right in this case, though the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. In its meeting of 1912 the senate of the university resolved "that Dr. Weizmann's stipend be raised to ?450 per annum, it being understood that his position as to external work be the same as that of other members of the staff." Senate Committee Minutes of April 23, 1912. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4, vol. V, p. 27. The council of the university had monitored Weizmann's work outside the university all along. See, e.g., "At a Meeting of the Council Held on November 13th, 1907," John Rylands Archives, RA/29/1, vol. III, p. 85, which regulated Weizmann's work for the Clayton Aniline Company. 74. Court of Justice, Strange and Graham to Weizmann, May 23, 1912. 75. Court of Justice, Perkin to Strange, May 30, 1912. Perkin may have actually meant the Technicum in Haifa, where Weizmann had long sought to be appointed chairman of a department of chemistry. 76. See Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, August 1, 1911; Weizmann to Strange, September 1, 1911. On September 6 Strange wrote to Matthews: "You will note that behind what I have stated is the feeling that if we are not careful Weizmann will endeavor to secure credit for himself which only belongs to him as a unit of the Research Organization. I am beginning to think that our association with Weizmann may have to come to an end unless he is prepared to accept the position as part of the machine."

PROFESSORSHIP WEIZMANNAND THE ELUSIVEMANCHESTER

231

whom Strangeheld in high esteem as a loyal friend.77In consultationwith Perkin, Strange undertook to turn Fernbachagainst Weizmannas well. With all threeof them lined up in one camp,Weizmannwould have to give up his exaggerated demands or be left out in the cold. Strange returned to Paris and reported to Perkin on his conversation with Fernbach. I commencedby askingFernbachwhetherWeizmannwas an old friendof his as I had been rather led to understandso from Weizmann'sremarks. Fernbachtold me that he may have knownhim threemonthspreviouslyand that only casually.I said: "Is he a man upon whom you have any reason to doubthis absolutereliance?"He said:"No, and I shouldbe veryshockedif we found we could not give him our full confidence."I thentold himwhat I knew of Weizmann'shistoryand his provedtendencyto lyingin ordinaryand scientific mattersand of his continualcampaignfor slightlymore cash. Fernbach told me that he had agreedto the 25%commissionto Weizmannbecausehe felt that he undoubtedlyowed somecommissionto Weizmannfor his valuable introductionbetweenhimselfandStrangeandGrahamLtd.He also felt thatit was unsafethat suchvaluableknowledgeshouldbe in the possessionof a man of Weizmann'stype withouthis havingsome directinterestin it. I told him of Weizmann'sthreatsto you, that he consideredhimselffreeto do whathe liked with any informationincludingrubberif he did not obtain termsfrom you which he consideredsatisfactory.I also told him of the promisenot to do any outside work which he is allegedto have given, by which he has securedhis new appointment[at the university].Fernbachhas agreedto give Weizmann nothingin writinguntilwe havediscussedthe thingand drawnup a joint plan of campaign. I have been consideringthe agreementbetweenyourselfand Weizmann and I am more astonishedof Weizmann'seffronteryin makingthe threatshe did to you and also to me in London.... I do not wish to haveany fuss about this whilethe flotation[of the new company'sshares]is in progress,but when it is over I think the best plan will be to invite Weizmannto meet yourself, myself, Matthews and Fernbach, produce an agreementgiving him the maximumwe are preparedto agreeto, and if he does not sign it, we will fire him out. In my opinion it is quite a questionwhetherwe cannot get an injunction from the High Court to restrainWeizmannfrom utteringthreatsto disclose secretinformationin his possession..... This is a weaponup our sleeve.... Finally,I have come to the conclusionthat attemptsto work in a friendly way with Weizmannonly invite aggressionon his part and in futureI am 77. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, June 3, 1912.

232

JEHUDA REINHARZ

firmness. afraidthepolicywithregardto himmustbeof unmitigated Thefact thatwearenotreadyto dealwiththesituationfora fewweekswillactin our and favoras at presenthe hasstrainedhimselfup to a moveon impudence

duringthenextfewweeksof uncerdaring,butI thinkthiswillevaporate tainty.78

but hadno clueas to Strange'smachinations Weizmann againsthim,"79 hadbecomethelinchpinof theteamandthathis he realizedthatFernbach case.Consequently Weizmann decisionwouldmakeor breakWeizmann's went over to Parisonce againon May 29 to presenthis argumentsto Fernbach,who was thenconferringwithStrangeas well. Fernbachmay aboutWeizmann's havehadsomereservations personalstyle,buthehadno doubtthatthisbrilliantchemistwasessentialto the successof theproject. he thoughtPerkinwastryingto Afterhearingbothsidesof the argument, to hisownfinancial into Weizmann submitting misusehisrankto browbeat demands.Fernbachthereforesuggestedan arrangement by whichWeizmannwouldhandoverto Perkinone-thirdof whathe got fromFernbach, one-thirdof hisownprofitson whereasPerkinwouldconcedeto Weizmann This Perkinin any case, sincethe favored syntheticrubber.s0 agreement workon butylandamylalcoholsandon acetoneatthePasteurInstituteand at Rainhamseemedmorepromisingat the time. Strangeagreedto this scheme,thoughwithouttoo muchenthusiasm, promisingto take up the Perkinalsoagreed,82 butat thesametimeproposedto matterwithPerkin.8' shareof hisownretainer, reduceWeizmann's insistingonceagainthatWeizmann'snew appointmentat the universityhad been conditionalon his promisenot to acceptnew work,and that Weizmannhad violatedthis Strange,to whomWeizmann agreementby his contractwith Fernbach.83 must thatWeizmann Fernbach now been convinced had by complained, by be retained.Strangetriedto preventPerkinfromdamagingWeizmann's positionat the universityand at the sametime soughtto cut Weizmann downto size."Inmyopinion,"wroteStrangeto Perkin,"wecanforceyour 78. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, June 1, 1912. 79. See Weizmann to Vera, May 30, 1912. WL V, p. 307. 80. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Strange, June 1, 1912. 81. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, June 3, 1912: "My private opinion is that Perkin is not such a robber and blackguard as Weizmann makes out.... I think an arrangement something on the lines you indicate can probably be put through." 82. See Court of Justice, Weizmann to Perkin, June 5, 1912. 83. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, no date indicated.


233

said assistant to agree to anythingwe considerreasonableas Fernbach,I believe,is not willingto give him a shareof profitsunlesshe is properlytied up past, present and future."84 It is possible that a final arrangementcould have been worked out between Weizmannand Perkin,had it not been for the latter'slectureon June 17, 1912.WhenWeizmann,who may havecontributedsome"scientific stuff" to the paper,heardthat Perkinhad given creditin his speechonly to FrancisEdwardMatthewsand AugusteFernbach,totallyignoringhis assistant's pivotal role in the research,he lost his composure. He criticized Perkin openly and demandedto be free of the professor'scontrol while retainingthe sameshareof Perkin's?1,000yearlysalary,otherwisehe would consider himself a free agent.85By the time Strange'sletter of July 3, in whichhe proposedto tie Weizmannlegallyto the company,was receivedby Perkin,it was too late. Furiousat his assistant'sbrashness,Perkindismissed Weizmannfrom the Anglo-Frenchteam on June 23.86 Strange,who was largelyto blame for havingpitted the partiesagainstone anotherto begin with, had belatedlyarrivedat a radicallydifferentassessmentof Weizmann from the one he offeredseven weeks earlier. I shouldlike to add thatin my opinionWeizmannis a valuablememberof our group. He is well up in chemical literature,knowing many languagesand havingvaluableconnectionsthroughoutEurope.He is amazinglyindustrious and has a quickbrain.He is not an accurateexperimenterand this, of course, involvesrepeatinghis experimentsverycarefully.On the other hand,I do not think he is untrustworthy..... Lastly,I am very consciousof the fact that we

owe Weizmann a veryheavydebtfor bringingus in contactwithyourself.

This reassessmentwas combinedwith Strange'sconcessionthat "Perkinhas done very little actual work.'87He now proposed, with Perkin'sconsent, that Weizmannbecome Fernbach'sassistantso that he could continue to collaborateon the fermentationprocesses.88The summerand fall of 1912 84. Court of Justice, Strange to Perkin, July 3, 1912. See also Fernbach to Strange, July 11, 1912. 85. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, July 19, 1912. Though the source for this information is Strange, it is borne out by subsequent developments. See also Weizmann's letter to Vera of May 18, 1912. WL V, p. 299. 86. Reports of Patent, p. 214, and Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, June 25, 1912. WL V, pp. 311-312. 87. Court of Justice, Strange to Fernbach, July 19, 1912. 88. Ibid.

234

JEHUDA REINHARZ

were spent in workingout a new arrangementbetweenWeizmann,Fernbach, and Strange.89Fernbach and Strange took the precautionin the meantimenot to give Weizmannany new informationon experimentsin progress.This time Weizmanntoo was more cautiousthan he had been in February1910 and consulteda law firm before agreeingto any new contracts.90 Weizmanntook one other precautionand decided that the time had come to consult his senior colleaguesat the university,Arthur Schuster, SamuelAlexander,and ErnestRutherford.It is not clearhow muchhe told them about his scientificwork for Strangeand Graham,but he did inform themthat his personalties withPerkinweresevered.He neededtheirprotection and advice now that Perkinhad become his implacableenemy. His friendstook his side,of course,whileaskinghim to calmdown and maintain cordialrelationswith Perkin.91Weizmanncontinuedhis workat the university as if nothinghad happened,but the Perkinsand the Weizmannsmoved in some of the same social circles, which made life in Manchestervery uncomfortable. In the close-knit society of Manchester academics, it became quickly known that the Perkins were no longer friendly to the Weizmannsand that it was best not to invite them to the same teas and gardenparties.92Weizmannbeganto talk about his plans to securea position at the HaifaTechnicumnot only to Ahad Ha'Am,but also to members of the facultyat Manchester.He was also consideringapplyingfor vacancies at Oxford, London, and Edinburgh.93Then, all of a sudden, it was announcedat the beginningof December1912that Perkinhad acceptedthe Waynfleteprofessorshipat Oxford94and plannedto move thereat the end

89. Court of Justice, Fernbach to Weizmann, August 16, 1912; Weizmann to Fernbach, August 22, 1912; Fernbach to Weizmann, August 24, 1912; Weizmann to Fernbach, October 28, 1912; Fernbach to Weizmann, October 29, 1912; Strange to Fernbach, November 13, 1912; Strange to Weizmann, December 9, 1912; and Fernbach to Weizmann, December 17, 1912. 90. See Court of Justice, Addleshaw Sons and Latham to Clapham, Fraser, Cook and Co. [Strange's solicitors], December 23, 1912, and January 7, 1913. 91. See Weizmann to Caroline Schuster, July 13, 1912, WL V, pp. 313-314. 92. See Weizmann to Nahum Sokolow, August 2, 1912, WL V, p. 315. 93. Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, September 26, 1912, WL V, pp. 316-317. Weizmann sent Ahad Ha'Am a formal request, to be forwarded to the Hilfsverein, in which he declared his readiness to come to the Haifa Technicum in two years' time as professor of chemistry, at an annual salary of 10,000 marks, with sufficient facilities to conduct research and a guaranteed budget for five years. He himself undertook to raise 100,000 marks. 94. The professorship was offered to Perkin on November 23, 1912. Perkin accepted on December 10, 1912. See Oxford University Archives, "Minutes of meetings of electoral boards


235

of the academic year. Perkin'sdeparturefor Oxford was a sudden and unexpectedmove. It is quite likely that it came in the wake of the national publicity surroundingthe synthetic rubberand acetone experiments,for whichPerkintook all the credit.95It is clearthatWeizmannwas surprisedby Perkin'smove, otherwisehe mightverywell have avoidedcontroversywith the professorat that stage. For a moment,Weizmanndeludedhimselfthat he was still the naturalsuccessorto Perkin."It is not impossible,"he wrote to Ahad Ha'Am, "that I shall get either Perkin'sChair or the Chair of Biochemistry.I've already been asked in a roundabout way about my Palestinianplans (Schusterand Alexander).For the time being I'm saying nothing,and the questionof the appointmentis not yet actuelle."96To be on the safe side, he informedSchusterthat he would be preparedto stayat the universityfor at least five years. Characteristically,he countedhis chickenstoo early.Perkin'schanceto pay Weizmann back for his insubordinationcame sooner than he had expected. For years he had promoted Weizmannthrough the university ranks, giving him every possible opportunityto advancehimself. He had carefullygroomedhis prot6g6,possiblypromisingWeizmannthat he would succeedhim in the chairof organicchemistry;in the processPerkintook out a numberof patents with Weizmann.97 Even if we take into accountWeizmann'stendencyto exaggeratehis own status, his persistentclaim for nine years that he was in line for a professorshipmay indicatethat Perkingave him good reason to believeit. Insteadof showinggratitudeand deference, Weizmannhad acted in a most disrespectfuland insultingmanner.Perkin was determinedto show his assistantthat he could also use his prestigeand influenceto ruin Weizmann'schancesfor promotion.He pointedout to the UniversityCouncilthat Weizmannwas moreinterestedin moneythanpure researchand that in any case his stay at Manchesterwas temporaryby his own admissionand only servedas a springboardto a position in Palestine. Why not give the chair, then, to an upright, native Englishman,to his brother-in-lawArthur Lapworthfor example?True, Lapworth'sspecialty

and other meetings chaired by the Vice Chancellor, 1898-1937," pp. 113 and 118. Perkin officially resigned from Manchester University on December 18, 1912. See Minutes of Council, 1912-1914. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/1, p. 49. 95. For the widespread publicity connected with Perkin's work for Strange and Graham, see Henry Roscoe Record Notebook, John Rylands Archives (Deansgate). 96. Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 8, 1912. WL V, p. 328. 97. Perkin's last patent with Weizmann was registered on October 4, 1912.

236

JEHUDA REINHARZ

-though he had begun his careeras an organicchemist-happened to be in inorganicchemistry,but on the other hand he was about to be electeda fellowof the Royal Society(in 1913)and could be countedupon to servethe universityloyally for many years to come.98 Thus, the battle for the professorshipwas to ensue-at the worst possible time for Weizmann-when Verawas sitting for her exams and Benjywas sick with a severeear infection. As soon as Verapassedherexamsand Benjyfelt better,Weizmannsent them off to Cannes,affordinghim time to devote himselfto the inevitable and painful showdown ahead. Luckily, Weizmannhad at his disposal the active support and sound adviceof the Schusters,Rutherford,and Alexander.Whenhe told themthat he was about to sign a new contract with Strange, they were appalled. Perkinwas indeedright;the UniversityCouncilwould view such extensive work outside the academeas being in conflict with Weizmann'suniversity duties. Strange, who had initially thought he could get along without Weizmann'sservices, now tried to persuadehim at all costs to keep the agreementsecret:"It is highly undesirableto ask the Councilwhetheryou may enter into the agreements.I stronglyadvisethe courseof enteringinto the agreementsand sayingnothing.. . . It can easilybe explainedthatthis is simplya confirmationof the old arrangementin a slightlydifferentform."99 But Weizmann,who only a week earlier thought he could ride on both horsesby gettingthe professorshipand also enteringinto a lucrativeindustrialconsultantship,was quicklysoberedon both accounts.Perkincould get away with certainimproprieties,given his family'sprestigeand impeccable lineage.Perkincould even hypocriticallyand shamelesslytry to denyothers what he sought for himself.It was quite anotherthing for a Russianimmigrantto step out of line. He wouldhaveto renounceall outsideemployment if he wanted his senior colleaguesand friendsto work out a compromise with the vice-chancellor. 98. In tracing materials related to the appointment of Perkin's successor, searches were conducted in Manchester in the University Archives, the records of the Organic Chemistry Department, the records of the Faculty of Science, and the University Registrar's Office. The full files of the committee which dealt with the appointment to Perkin's chair are missing. Yet the record shows that at its first meeting the committee heard the views of Perkin and Dixon as to how to proceed in filling the vacancy. See "Arrangements in Consequence of Professor Perkin's resignation" (hereafter cited as "Arrangements"), January 28, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/3. Council Committees' Book, February 1909-January 1916. 99. Court of Justice, Strange to Weizmann, December 9, 1912.


237

ImmediatelyafterChristmas1912,Schuster-who was a memberof the search committee-began to work out an arrangementwith the vicechancellor,Alfred Hopkinson,regardingWeizmann'sposition. The search committee was constituted on January 8, 1913, and in its first meeting sought the advice of Harold Dixon and William Perkin.It was not at all clear at the outset what was to be done, and the initial suggestionwas to advertisethe positionfor a professorshipandto appointboth Lapworthand Weizmann as readers. Another suggestion was to appoint only two readers.'00Weizmannand Lapworthhad the same rankin 1913.Lapworth was senior lecturer and assistant director of the inorganic laboratories; Weizmannwas seniorlecturerand assistantdirectorof the organiclaboratories.101In February1913the committeeresolvedto writeto seven distinguishedchemistsin Britain,the United States,and Germanyto solicit their opinions on candidatesfor the position.102Yet after the answersof all but ProfessorRichardswere duly received,the committeedecided to make a permanentappointmentto the chairin organicchemistryand not to advertise the position, as was customary.'03 The vice-chancellorwas asked to write to the following:J. Norman Collie, W. J. Pope, James Walker,J. J. Dobbie, and G. T. Beilby-all of England, and to Theodore William Richardsof HarvardUniversity.HaroldDixon was asked to write to Professor Hermann Emil Fischer, an organic chemist in Berlin who had receivedthe Nobel Prizefor chemistryin 1902.In its full reportto the senate of the universitythe committeestated:"no usefulpurposewould be served by an advertisementwhich necessarilywould cause delay and would in the circumstancesof this case, have other very serious disadvantages."'04 On May 1 the UniversitySenate resolvedthat Perkin'sbrother-in-lawwas to get the professorshipin organic chemistry, while Weizmann would be

100. See "Arrangements," January 28, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/3. 101. See list of appointments of faculty members of the University of Manchester, John Rylands Archives, UA/18/16h. See also Senate minutes of April 23, 1912. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4, 1912-1913. 102. See minutes of February 14, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4. Senate Committee Book. This decision was reaffirmed after the committee met on April 17, 1913, and read the letter received from Professor Theodore William Richards of Harvard University. 103. See minutes of March 11, 1913. John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4. Senate Committee Book. 104. Report of Committee on Arrangements consequent to Professor Perkin's resignation. John Ryland's Archives, RA/3/5. Senate Minutes, vol. 4 (1912-1914), p. 68.

238

JEHUDA REINHARZ

appointedto a new position as readerin biochemistrywith a raise in his this arrangementdid not salaryto ?600 a year plus ?50 for an assistant;105 Weizmann. of in a role to that supervisory place Lapworth Harold Dixon, who was senioreven to Perkinin the chemistrydepartment,was chosenby the UniversityCouncilto soundout Weizmannon this arrangementbefore the official decision was communicatedto him.'06 Thoughhe had knownfor sometime(throughSchuster)whatthe university would propose,'t7Weizmannpretendedto be surprisedand told Dixon that if asked whetherhe approvedof this arrangementhis answerwas categorically no. Dixon left, requestinga firm reply by 2:15, two hours after they met. Weizmann rushed over to the Schusters, and over lunch Arthur Schuster-now wearingthe hat of an adviserratherthan that of a committeemember-approved of Weizmann'sreply,whichwas given to Dixon presumablyat the requiredtime: "I cannot afford to rejector acceptproposals. I shall have to obey the decisionof the University.I consideryour proposalas wrongin the interestsof the Universityand as an offenseto me. It will affectme in such a way, that I shall tryto get out of this placeas soon as I can." He did not neglectto add that Perkinhad cheatedhim materially and morally and that Dixon was condoning it.108

After the new arrangementwas officially announced in May 1913, Weizmanntried to make the best of it-at least publicly.'09To Vera he wrotethat the whole affairsmackedof anti-Semitism.o10On the face of it, it may have indeed seemedthat way. Weizmanncould not be faultedon his

105. See Minutes of the Senate of the Victoria University of Manchester, May 1913, John Rylands Archives, RA/3/1 (25.9.1912-10.6.1914), MS pp. 123-125: "That Dr. Charles Weizmann be appointed Reader in Bio-Chemistry at a stipend of ?600 per annum, his duties being to give such instruction in Bio-Chemistry and the Chemistry of Colouring Matters as That the appointment be made in the first instance for three years, as from may be required. .... See also John Rylands Archives, RA/29/1. 29th September 1913." 106. When Dixon informed Weizmann of the committee's deliberations, he must have offered Weizmann the position of reader, though in January 1913 it had not yet been decided that Lapworth would get the chair. Thus, it seems that from the outset Weizmann was ruled out as the incumbent of the chair in organic chemistry. 107. See Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, December 27, 1912. WL V, p. 332. 108. Weizmann to Vera, January 28, 1913. WL V, p. 362. 109. See, e.g., Weizmann to Norah Schuster, May 12, 1913, WL VI, p. 64; Weizmann to Ahad Ha'Am, May 25, 1913, WL VI, p. 78; and Weizmann to Isaac Straus, May 25, 1913, WL VI, p. 82. Weizmann was so angered by the fact that he did not receive the professorship that he delayed signing his new contract as long as possible. He was the last of the entire faculty to do so-on November 13, 1913. See John Rylands Archives, RA/3/4. 110. Weizmann to Vera, January 28, 1913. WL V, p. 362.

WEIZMANN AND THE ELUSIVE MANCHESTER PROFESSQRSHIP

239

teaching,for example.He was knownas a good teacherand caredabouthis students, who in turn showed him great respect and even affection."' Moreover by 1913 he had almost fifty publicationsto his credit. He was known in the departmentas a brilliant chemist, more promising than Lapworth,12 who had published more than Weizmann, but worked by accumulationof detail ratherthan by publishingseminalpapers."3In fact, Harold Dixon and William Perkin were among those who in December 1910 had sponsored Weizmann for a fellowship in the Royal Society, obviouslybecausethey held him in highesteem.Exactlytwo yearslaterthey turned against him, making sure he would not receive the professorship, which, in turn, made it impossible for him to attain the coveted fellowship."I4Weizmannnever got over the loss of the professorship.He considered this to be the most serious setback of his life."5 In the immediate aftermathof Dixon's officialproposalhe becamephysicallyill and extremely dejected."If you only knew,"he wrote to Vera, "how tired I am of all these 'goyim,'how muchof a strangerI feel here,how isolated."'"6 Twodays later,in a momentof desperation,he exclaimed:"Ach, Verochka,I wish we could go to Palestinesoon and put an end to Galuthin all its forms.""' 111. See, e.g., Weizmann to Vera, July 2, 1909, WL V, pp. 140-141; January 23, 1913, WL V, p. 357; and H. B. Speakman, "Dr. Weizmann's Contributions to Microbiology," in Chaim Weizmann(see note 21), pp. 265-266. 112. In 1913 both had roughly the same status in the department. Weizmann had slight seniority, since he had been appointed senior lecturer in 1907, while Lapworth was appointed in 1909. See Senate minutes of April 23, 1912. RA/3/4, 1912-1913. 113. See Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1981), vol. 8, p. 32. There is, of course, no agreement on who deserved the professorship. Lapworth's student-George Norman Burkhardt-has a different view on the merits of the case. According to Burkhardt, Weizmann's choice of topics for research was determined more "by commercial rather than scientific considerations. In 1913 he was only beginning to establish himself" in biochemistry. Lapworth, on the other hand, "had done notable work in the structural organic chemistry of camphor and related compounds. His general report was regarded as a classic. But it was his work on the formation and decomposition of cyanohydrins of ketones and on the bromination of acetone ... that was recognized as one of the foundations of a new branch of chemistry (physical organic)." Yet even Burkhardt admits that much of Lapworth's work could not-by 1913-be thought of as being relevant to a chair of organic chemistry. Information provided by G. N. Burkhardt in November 1982. See also G. N. Burkhardt, "Prof. A. Lapworth, F.R.S.," Nature 147 (June 21, 1941): 769. 114. Weizmann was unable to become an FRS despite the fact that Arthur Schuster was the secretary of the society from 1912 to 1919. It is more than likely that Perkin withdrew his backing for Weizmann for an FRS. 115. See Weizmann to Vera, February 1, 1913, WL V, p. 369, and Weizmann, Trial and Error, pp. 134-135. 116. Weizmann to Vera, February 11, 1913. WL V, p. 381. 117. Weizmann to Vera, February 13, 1913. WL V, p. 383.

240

JEHUDAREINHARZ

A carefulreadingof the searchcommittee'sdocumentsreveals,however, that anti-Semitismdid not play a role in Weizmann'sloss of the professorship. The simple truth is that all parties involved in this messy affair Weizmannincluded- were guilty of only two things: greed and vanity. PerhapsPerkinwas the worst offender,becausehe receiveda largeretainer from Strange and Graham, reaping financial and professionalbenefits withoutdoing any of the workand usingWeizmannwithoutgivinghim due credit.It is possiblethat had Weizmannreceivedrecognitionfor his fermentation experiments,he would have had a betterchanceto attainthe professorship. Moreover,Perkinwas willing to go so far as to read a purposely misleading scientific paper, written by others, in order to promote a commercialenterprise.Lastly,when facedwith the possibilityof a challenge whichwould haveexposedhis dishonestyin scientificmatters,he attributed to Weizmannthose offensesof which he was most guilty. But it was only a questionof degreeof guilt. Fernbachhad knowinglycontributedhis prestige to an enterprisehe knewwoulddefraudthe public.Weizmannwas throughout guiltyby associationand by his omissionto call his colleaguesto task or expose them publicly.He too, like Perkin,had workedon projectswhichhe knew were against universityrules. He was willing, as late as December 1912,to repeatthis mistake,and it was only thanksto Schuster,Alexander, and Rutherfordthat he severedhis associationwith Strangeand Grahamat the last moment. What helped undermineWeizmann'schances for the professorship,then, was not anti-Semitism.Perkinwould, no doubt, have continued to favor him as his successor had Weizmannnot challenged Perkin's reputation and financial arrangements;given Perkin's great influenceat the university,he might have been able to arrangefor Weizmann to attain the professorship.Weizmann'sattemptto exploit his own indispensabilityin the Anglo-Frenchresearchgroup by presentingthe professorwith an ultimatumbackfiredwhen Perkinrefusedto be blackmailed. In his anxietyto breakout of his own financialstraits,Weizmannforfeited not only the new deal with Strangeand Fernbachbut also his old contract with'Perkin. He had lost not only a second income but his status in the departmentas Perkin'sprot6geand heir-apparent.The fact of the matteris that Weizmannwas guiltynot only of greedand disloyaltyto his benefactor, but also of impatienceand lack of sound politicaljudgment.This, in the final analysis, contributedto his undoing. Clearly,the proceduresfor filling Perkin'schair were highly irregular, most notably the decision not to advertisethe position. In his letters to emineni chemists in Britain, Germany, and the United States, the vice-


241

chancellor listed the names of candidates other than Weizmann and Lapworth,yet it is obvious from readingthe committee'sand the senate's minutes that these other candidates were never seriously considered as incumbentsof the chair in organic chemistry."8The irregularitiesin this particularcase are all the more striking when one examines the other appointments made that year by the university'ssenate. None of these appointmentsto professorshipsinvolvedthe sametype of specialcommittee that was constitutedto deal with the chairof organicchemistry,and in none did the vice-chancellorof the universitytake so activea role as in this case. None of the committees asked for or received permissionto deal with departmentalmattersother than recommendinga candidatefor the chair. None of the committeesasked for permissionnot to advertise,and none even considerednot fillingthe professorshipin questionand insteadmaking "specialarrangements."All the other committeesseemedto seriouslyconsider candidatesfrom within and without the university."'In light of the referencein the reportof the Committeeon ArrangementsConsequenton ProfessorPerkin'sResignationto "the [special]circumstancesof this case," one must arrive at the conclusion that the committee's decisions were stronglyinfluencedby political considerations. But what of the intellectual and academic merits of the case. Did Weizmanndeservethe professorshipon his own merits?Was he a better candidatefor the positionthan Lapworth?Wasperhapsneitherappropriate for such a position at this stage in theircareer?It is unlikelythat a clear-cut and decisiveanswercould ever be given to all of these questions;this is a particularlydifficult task seven decades after the fact. Yet the evidence seems to suggest that even without the irregularitiesassociated with Lapworth's appointment, Weizmann would not necessarily have been awarded the professorshipat this stage in his career,even if Perkinhad stronglybackedsuch an appointment.Themost decisiveextantevidencefor this assertion is contained in the correspondencebetween the vicechancellorof the VictoriaUniversityof Manchester,Sir AlfredHopkinson, and Professor Theodore Williams Richards, the Erving Professor of Chemistryat Harvardand directorof the WolcottGibbsMemorialLabora-

118. See, e.g., Alfred Hopkinson to Norman Collie, February 18, 1913. John Rylands Archives, VCA, no. 5. 119. See "Minutes of Council, September 25, 1912-June 10, 1914," John Rylands Archives, RA/3/1.

242

JEHUDA REINHARZ

tory.20" In view of the fact that all other replies to the committee have disap-

peared, this correspondence assumes special significance and is therefore extensively cited. Hopkinson's letter to Richards of February 18, 1913, reads as follows: Dear ProfessorRichards, As you are no doubt aware ProfessorPerkinhas been appointedto the Chair of Chemistryin the Universityof Oxford and will shortlybe leaving to Manchester.We arenow makingenquirieswith a view to the arrangements be madeherein consequenceof his resignation.It is of vitalimportanceto us, having regard to the extent of the Chemical Department,the number of students to be trained and the continuanceand promotion of researchin Chemistry,that we shouldsecurethe best men availableto carryon the work, and I havebeenaskedby the Committeeof Senatewhichhas the matterunder consideration,to makeconfidentialenquirieswith a view to obtainingthe best information. Among the younger organic chemistsof distinctionthe following have been mentionedas men of special ability and promise: Dr. A. W. Crossley, F.R.S., Professorof Chemistryin the Pharmaceutical Society. Dr. M. O. Forster, F.R.S., Assistant-Professorat the ImperialCollege of Science. Dr. A. McKenzie,BirkbeckInstitute. Dr. R. H. Pickard,TechnicalSchool, Blackburn. Dr. R. Robinson,Professorof OrganicChemistryin the Universityof Sydney, N.S.W. Dr. Smiles, Assistant Professorof OrganicChemistry,UniversityCollege, London. Dr. J. Thorpe,F.R.S.,SorbyFellow,Universityof Sheffield. We havealso beforeus the namesof two chemistsnow on our SeniorStaff: -Dr. Lapworth,F.R.S., Lecturerin PhysicalChemistryand AssistantDirector of the Inorganic Laboratories,and Dr. Weizmann,Lecturerin BioChemistryand AssistantDirectorof the OrganicLaboratories.

120. Richards was one of the most eminent chemists in the United States. In 1914 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry, the first chemist in the United States to be so honored. See Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 11, pp. 416-417.


243

I shouldbe verygratefulfor any expressionof opinionyou wouldgive me, which I can communicateto the Committeein confidence,on the subjectof the qualificationsof any of the above mentionedor of any other chemists either in Englandor Americawho may appearto you to have the desired qualifications-our objectbeingto maintainthe efficiencyof the Department of OrganicChemistryas'a School of learningand research....12 Professor Richards replied as follows on March 7, 1913. My dearSirAlfred: Your kind letter came two or three days ago, and I have been thinking about it ever since. It seemsto me that you have namedthe candidatesabout in the order desirable.Dr. Crossleyand Dr. Forsterare both able men and known all over the world, and of the two I should be inclinedto put Dr. Crossleyfirstas you have.Next, I shouldbe inclinedto put Dr. Lapworthand next Dr. McKenzie.The others I know little about, for my specialtyis not organic chemistry,as you know. ... Among the young AmericansProfessorBrunel,now of Bryn Mawr, seemsto be consideredas perhapsthe most brilliant.He has not a reptutation, however,comparableto that of Dr. Crossleyor Dr. Forster.... . .. I find that our residentprofessorof organicchemistryE[lmer]P[eter] Kohler agrees essentially with me in the order of preference named above... .122 One must keep in mind that Richards was best known for his atomic weight studies, and it is not surprising that he was more likely to hear of Lapworth-a physical chemist-than of Weizmann. Yet Crossley and Forster, whom he held in high esteem, were organic chemists, i.e., outside his own specialty. Clearly Richards had no knowledge of Weizmann's work, though he had visited Manchester a few years earlier and had an honorary degree from the university. Moreover, Richards's colleague, Kohler, who

121. Alfred Hopkinson to T. W. Richards, February 18, 1913. Harvard University Archives, HUG/1743/1/6 (1912-1913), Box 1. Hopkinson wrote in a similar vein to the other chemists consulted by the committee. It should be pointed out that not all the potential candidates held the title of FRS. 122. Theodore William Richards to Alfred Hopkinson, March 7, 1913. Harvard University Archives, HUG/1743/1/6 (1912-1913), Box 1. On May 22, 1913, Hopkinson informed Richards of the decisions concerning Lapworth and Weizmann. See Harvard University Archives, HUG/1743/1/5 (1911-1913), Box 5; a copy of Hopkinson's reply is also contained in the Vice-Chancellor's Letter Book, John Rylands Archives, VCA, no. 5.

244

JEHUDA REINHARZ

wasan organicchemist,also did not rankWeizmannamongthe top candidates. Weizmannhad not at that stage made significanttheoreticalbreakthroughs.He had been workingin the new field of biochemistryfor only two yearsand had not yet madeany majorcontributionsin that field.Those he did make were claimed by Perkinas his own. Yet,even assumingthat Weizmannwas not the undisputedcandidatefor the position, one must conclude that the appointmentwas handled in a strangeway by the UniversitySenate. It had decidedto give the chair in organicchemistryto a man who was clearlyan inorganicchemist(in 1922 Lapworthofficiallyassumedresponsibilityfor inorganicchemistryand was succeededby RobertRobinson,who had appearedon the vice-chancellor's list in February1913),while appointingWeizmannreaderin biochemistry -a field in whichhe had not yet distinguishedhimself.The explanationfor this may be fourfold. Weizmann'sappointmentto the professorshipmerit apart-would have been a direct insult to Perkin,one of England's moredistinguishedchemists.Possiblythe councilwas also angeredby Weizmann'sextensiveoutsidechemicalwork, whichwent againsthis agreement with the university.Weizmannhad not yet attained a fellowshipin the Royal Society. Lastly, there were political motivations underlyingthe appointmentwhich are not explicitin the extantminutesof the committee. Obviouslythe universitywas tryingto avoid embarrassmentand a possible scandal, but it is not clear what factors were at play here. Whateverthe reason,the committeeand the senateactedin an unusualmannerby failing to advertisethe position, as was customary.Clearlythey wished to retain Weizmann,but not at any price.Fromthe outsethe neverhad a realchance to succeed Perkinin the chair of organic chemistry,since it was decided already in January 1913 that he would be appointed reader. Whether Lapworthwas indeedthe strongestcandidatefor the chairis doubtful,but it is impossibleto answerthis questionwith absolutecertaintyin view of the missingdocumentationon the other candidatesand the availabilityof only one replyfromthe eminentchemistswho had been approached.On the face of it, it seems that Lapworth'sappointmentto a chair-any chair-was premature.As for Weizmann,attaininga readershipat this stage in his career was a respectableachievementwhich was marredonly by Weizmann's unrealisticexpectations,fanned for years by Perkin.Nevertheless, Lapworth'sappointmentto a chair seems to indicatethat had Weizmann been able to have Perkin'sbacking,he too would have been a viable candidate for the position. Thus Weizmannfailed to attain the professorship


245

becausehis scholarshipwas not perceivedas clearlysuperior,and because he had alienatedhis strongestpotential supporter. Weizmann'sloss of the professorshipgnawed at him for the rest of his life. By naturedrivento high achievement,Weizmannaspiredto reachthe highest rungsof the academicladderboth for the sake of financialrewards and for the prestigesuch a position automaticallybestowed in so statusconsciousa countryas England.By temperamentnervousand impatient,he had covetedthis position for yearsand often spokeof its attainmentas afait accompli. Remarkably,he listed himself as "professor"in Manchester's phone directoryas early as 1908.123Paradoxically,his and Vera'seagerness to become rich and famous led him to try to manipulatesome of his colleagues and to make unsoundjudgmentswhich underminedhis chancesto attain either goal. Weizmann'sdrivefor formalrecognitionas a scientistwas also indirectly linkedto his Zionistactivity.Weizmannbelievedhe could be moreuseful to the Zionist movementif he gained a reputationas a first-ratescientist. But he probablyneverimaginedthat he would be able to harnesssciencein the serviceof politics as effectivelyand directlyas he did. The opportunity presented itself during the First World War.124Like Herzl, who gained access to the upper reaches of internationaldiplomacy by virtue of his reputationas a journalist,Weizmannwas eventuallyto gain entry to the same domain by virtue of his scientificachievements. On the eve of the First World War Weizmanndid not yet possess the Zionist credentialsto be seen as the movement'sspokesman.,25Moreover, though a naturalizedcitizen, he was perceivedas a foreignerin British societyand had not attainedthe kind of standingwhicha professorshipor a fellowshipin the Royal Societywouldhavegrantedhim. His majorpersonal resourceswere his contacts with the Rothschildfamily and with the academic community,includingthe Round Table group, and, of course, his scientificability. Two years after the outbreakof the war, however,Weizmann had a preeminentstatus within the Zionist movement.That accomplishmentwas linked to Weizmann'sadministrative,social, and scientific

123. See Kelly's Directory of Manchester, 1908. Central Library, Manchester. 124. See my forthcoming article "Science in the Service of Politics: The Case of Chaim Weizmann," English Historical Review (Spring 1985). 125. See Jehuda Reinharz, "Chaim Weizmann: The Shaping of a Zionist Leader before the First World War," Journal of Contemporary History 18 (1983): 205-231.

246

JEHUDA REINHARZ

accomplishmentson behalfof the Britishwareffort.This, in turn,propelled him to the insideof Britishpower-brokering. Thus, despitehis lack of good with his in 1910-1912 and the mistakeshe in colleagues judgment dealing made which contributedto the loss of the professorship,Weizmanndid eventuallybecome financiallyindependent.Thoughhe was not adequately compensatedfor his servicesto the Britishgovernment,Weizmann'swar work affordedhim the opportunityfor testinghis chemicalinventionson a scale hithertounknown.As a result,with the coming of peace, he was able to sell his processesto U.S. industriesinvolvedin automobilemanufacture. His income was henceforthpermanentlyassured. Brandeis University Waltham,Mass.

Cultural Ethnicity in Israel: The Case of Middle Eastern Jews' Religiosity Author(s): Moshe Shokeid Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 247-271 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486323 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



CULTURAL ETHNICITY IN ISRAEL: THE CASE OF MIDDLE EASTERN JEWS' RELIGIOSITY by MOSHESHOKEID

Introduction Nationalmythsand publicpoliciesin Israellong assumedthat the andindeed country'sdiverseJewishimmigrant groupswouldalleventually, withina shortspanof time,be absorbedand fusedinto a unifiedsocial, is nowgiving economic,political,andculturalentity,but thisexpectation doubtsas to its feasibility.Someof thesedoubtswere way to widespread not expressedduringthe 1970sin a seriesof studieswhichdemonstrated were still that there between of Middle Eastern and North Israelis gaps only or OrientalJews)andthoseof Africanextraction(oftencalledSephardim extraction as andresidential (Ashkenazim), regardsoccupational European mobility,incomeand educationalachievements, politicalrepresentation, Earlier versions of this paper were prepared for the International Seminar on Judaism and Secular Society and the International Seminar on East and West in Israel, held at Bar-Ilan University in the summers of 1980 and 1982 respectively. I am grateful to Shlomo Deshen, Jacob Katz, Robert Chazan, and Menachem Friedman for their helpful comments.

247

248

MOSHE SHOKEID

and social prestige,but that the gaps were widening.'The growingdisillu-

sionmenton thepartof MiddleEasternJews(NorthAfricansincluded) was dramaticallyrevealedin the 1981 generalelections by the emergenceof a

newethnicparty,Tami,whichseemedto havebetterprospectsof success and survivalthanany previousethnicparty.Moreover,the resultsat the polls obtainedby most of the other partiesseemedto reflectan intensifying ethnic polarity.2 A growingnumberof sociologistshave been concernedwith the social,

economicand politicalfactorsthat haveled to the emergingethnicityin

Israel,but they have usuallyrefrainedfrom discussingmore specificallythe culturalelementsthat characterizeIsraeliethnic divisions.The sociological perspectivederived from the theories of modernizationof the 1950s and early 1960s,whichregardedMiddleEasternJewsas representingtraditional societiesand cultures,and expectedtheminevitablyto move out towardthe modern axis (which was apparentlyrepresentedby the veteranEuropean and mostly secularizedIsraelis),3had been seriously challenged,4but no alternativetheoreticalframeworkfor understandingthe dynamicsof cultural continuity and change had been suggested.The absence of a clear treatmentof these processeshas possiblybeen influencedby the prevailing generalsociological approach,which seems to perceiveemergentethnicity as an ephemeralphenomenonof little consequence.This has been inter1. See, for example, M. Hartman and M. Eilon, "Ethnicity and Stratification in Israel" (Hebrew), Megamot (1975): 124-129; S. Spilerman and J. Habib, "Development Towns in Israel: The Role of Community in Creating Ethnic Disparities in Labor Force Characteristics," American Journal of Sociology 81 (1976): 781-812; S. Smooha, Israel: Pluralism and Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978); and S. Svirsky and D. Bernstein, "Who Worked Where, for Whom and for What: Economic Development in Israel and the Emergence of an Ethnic Division of Labor" (Hebrew), Mahbarot le'Mekhar ule'Vikoret 4 (1980): 5-66. 2. The major contest in the 1981 general elections involved the Labor party and the Likud. It has been confirmed, however, that a higher proportion of voters of European extraction voted Labor while a higher proportion of voters of Middle Eastern extraction voted Likud. See A. Arian, "Elections 1981: Competitiveness and Polarizations," Jerusalem Quarterly21 (1981): 16-20; A. Diskin, "The 1981 Elections: Public Opinion Polls," Jerusalem Quarterly22 (1982): 104; Y. Peres and S. Shemer, "The Ethnic Factor in the 1981 Elections" (unpublished research report, Tel-Aviv University, 1982). 3. See, for example, S. N. Eisenstadt, The Absorption of Immigrants (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954); D. Weintraub and M. Lissak, "Social Integration and Change," in Agricultural Planning and Village Community in Israel, ed. J. Ben-David (Paris: UNESCO, 1964); and R. Bar-Josef, "Desocialization and Resocialization: The Adjustment Process of Immigrants" International Migration Review 2 (1968): 27-45. 4. Smooha, Israel. Pluralism and Conflict; D. Bernstein, "A Critical Review of a Dominant School in Israeli Sociology" (Hebrew) Mahbarot le'Mehkhar ule'Vikoret 1 (1978): 5-19.

CULTURAL ETHNICITY IN ISRAEL

249

of preted,interalia,in termsof theexigenciesof survivalandthe structure opportunity(suchas the resultof residentialand occupationalenclaves) of a commonheritage.5 Gans ratherthanas themanifestation Alternatively, American in terms of ethni"symbolic ethnicity contemporary interpreted city," which influencesleisure-timeactivity,does not need a practiced culture, and is "largelya working-classstyle."6

we knowrelatively andstereotypes, Leavingasideintuitiveassumptions thatcharacterize theethnicstructure of littleabouttheculturalcomponents contemporaryIsraeli society.7Anthropologicalstudies of Middle Eastern immigrantshave provideddetailedinformationabout specificinstitutional

suchas thepatternsof familyandkinshipor thepatternsof characteristics, in particular communities of immigrants communalandreligiousleadership from Tripolitania,Djerba, or the Atlas Mountains.8However,becauseof

the inhibitionsand limitationsinherentin the methodologyof intensive in smallcommunities, the authorsof thesestudies observations participant have usually refrained from deducing relevant trends to wider ethnic

populations. Deshen,who gave morespecificattentionto the statusof the ethnic cultures,observedduringthe late 1960sand early 1970sthe revivalof some

this ethniccustomsand traditionsamongTunisianJews.9He interpreted phenomenonas indicatinga process by which culturalethnicityhas been

5. See, for example, Urban Ethnicity, ed. A. Cohen, A.S.A. Monograph 12 (London: Tavistock, 1974); and W. L. Yancey, E. P. Ericksen, and R. N. Juliani, "Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation," American Sociological Review 41 (1976): 391-403. 6. H. J. Gans, "Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1979, pp. 1-20 (the quotation in the text is from p. 3). 7. See also the discussion of the state of research on Israeli ethnicity in H. E. Goldberg, "Introduction: Culture and Ethnicity in the Study of Israeli Society," Ethnic Groups 1 (1977): 163-186. 8. See, for example, S. Deshen, Immigrant Voters in Israel: Parties and Congregations in a Local Election Campaign (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1970); M. Shokeid, The Dual Heritage: Immigrants from the Atlas Mountains in an Israeli Village (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1971; new ed., New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1985); H. E. Goldberg, Cave Dwellers and Citrus Growers: A Jewish Community in Libya and Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); S. Deshen and M. Shokeid, The Predicament of Homecoming.: Cultural and Social Life of North African Immigrants in Israel (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1974); M. Shokeid and S. Deshen, Distant Relations: Ethnicity and Politics Among Arabs and North African Jews in Israel (New York: Praeger and Bergin, 1982). 9. S. Deshen, "Political Ethnicity and Cultural Ethnicity in Israel during the 1960s," in Urban Ethnicity, ed. A. Cohen (London: Tavistock, 1974), pp. 281-309.

250

MOSHESHOKEID

replacing political ethnicity among Middle Eastern immigrants.These observationsand interpretationssuited the euphoric, optimisticnational mood followingthe 1967war, which for some time camouflagedthe persistence of social gaps. A fewyearslater,Weingrodsuggestedthe emergenceof a working-classculturewhichinvolvesMiddleEasternJewsin particular.'0 He relatedthis culturemainlyto certaintypicalleisureactivities,suchas the growingpopularityof nationalethnic festivals,the enthusiasticattendance at football games, the popularityof particularforms of music, etc. This observationrequires,however,a closerinvestigationof variousdimensions of behaviorthat may constitutea more complex definitionof culture. I do not intend to proposea specificdefinitionof culturehere. Thereis no doubt, however,that we cannotconceiveof Jewishsocietyat any stageof its historywithoutconsideringthe Jewishreligionas a majorcomponentof its culturalpresentation.The aim of this articleis to indicatesome trendsin the culturalprocessesthat characterizecontemporaryethnic developments in Israel,as demonstratedby the roleof religionin the life of MiddleEastern Jews. The religiouscomponentof Jewish culturehas become increasingly problematicand a sourceof acutetensionin recentgenerationsas a resultof the declineof socialand culturalhomogeneityin Jewishsocietyat its various centers.This trendhas beennoticeablein Europesincethe emergenceof the Jewish Enlightenment(Haskalah) in the eighteenth century." Among MiddleEasternor North AfricanJewry,however,the processstartedmuch later,in someplacesat the end of the nineteenthcentury,in otherplacesnot until the beginningof the twentiethcenturyor even later.12In Israel, the questionof the role to be playedby religionin the nation'slife has becomea majorsourceof conflict.A largesegmentof the population(andparticularly those associatedwith the socialist elite which dominatedthe country for many decades)sees religiousorthodoxyas an archaicsurvivalof little relevance. Ashkenaziorthodoxy in its various shades, however, has demonstrated extraordinaryviability. Apart from the ultra-Orthodox,who are concentratedin exclusive communities(such as Jerusalem,Benei-Berak, etc.), the more moderate"neo-Orthodox"group seems to have strength10. A. Weingrod, "Recent Trends in Israeli Ethnicity," Ethnic and Racial Studies 2 (1979): 55-65. 11. See J. Katz, Traditionand Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle Ages (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), pp. 245-274. 12. See, for example, the description of the process of change among the Jews in Morocco by A. Weingrod, "Moroccan Jewry in Transition" (Hebrew), Megamot 10 (1960): 193-208.

CULTURALETHNICITYIN ISRAEL

251

ened its hold on the youngergeneration,'3as witnessedby the recentexpansion of its modern rabbinicalhigh schools (yeshivottichoniyot)and the growing involvement of its youth with the Gush Emunim nationalistic movement.4 We are not concerned here with an analysis of religious change, as expressed,for example,in termsof secularizationversustraditionalism.For the purposesof the presentdiscussionwe considerreligiousbehaviorto be an integralpart of a broaderculturaland social repertoire,althoughit is often arbitrarilyseparatedfrom its more comprehensivecontext and analyzed independentlyin exclusively religious terms. Just as the changing position of religion in any particulargroup reflectson processes mainly relatedto the religiousdomain,it reflectsno less on fluctuationsin the status and the existentialcircumstancesof the peopleinvolved.Thus, for example, A. Cohen demonstratedthe Islamic religiousrevivalwhich supportedthe ethnic-economicinterestsof the entrepreneurialHausa tradersin Yoruba towns."5In a study of a transplantedAtlas MountainsJewishcommunity,I found that the fieldof religiousactivityis a verysensitivevehiclefor expressing the changing circumstances,aspirations,and achievementsof individuals and groups.'6 This was demonstratedby changes in the style of worship.A differentsituationis describedby Deshen,who revealedthat the abandonmentof religious symbols by Tunisianimmigrantsin an Israeli town was a result of their consideringthemselvesreligiouslyunworthyto performthe observancesrelatedto thesesymbols.'7Theirfeelingof religious unworthiness reflected, however, a wider notion of failure and selfdepreciationderivedfromthe circumstancesof theirnew environment.The role playedby religionin expressingsocial developmentsand politicalconflicts has again been recentlydemonstratedin variousparts of the Middle East, Israel included. Thus, on the one hand, certain revivalistreligious trends have been identifiedamong young Muslims in Israeli villages and 13. S. Deshen, "Israeli Judaism: Introduction to the Major Patterns," InternationalJournal of Middle East Studies 9, (1978): 141-169. 14. A movement mainly dedicated to the establishment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. 15. A. Cohen, Customs and Politics in Urban Africa (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969). 16. M. Shokeid, "An Anthropological Perspective on Ascetic Behavior and Religious Change" in The Predicament of Homecoming: Cultural and Social Life of North African Immigrants in Israel, by S. Deshen and M. Shokeid (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), pp. 64-94. 17. S. Deshen, "The Varieties of Abandonment of Religious Symbols," ibid., pp. 173-189.

252

MOSHE SHOKEID

towns,'"and, on the other hand, religiousactivismamong young, mostly AshkenaziJews has been the energizingforce behindthe establishmentof new settlementson the West Bank. It is thereforeinterestingto find out whetherand how MiddleEasternJewsexpressin religioustermstheirstatus in Israeli society. HypothesisandMethod The first encounter between Middle Eastern immigrants and the country'ssecularizeddominantsector, as representedin particularby the majornationalbureaucracies,musthavebeena traumaticexperiencefor the newcomers.Moreover,their concurrentmeeting with the Ashkenazireligious establishmentwas by no meansgenial. Although the latter provided themwith religiousservicesandtriedto recruittheiryouthto its educational institutions,the contactsbetweenthe Ashkenazireligiousestablishmentand the Middle Easternerswere disappointing,often painful,and ultimatelyof little consequence.On the whole, Ashkenaziorthodoxyin its variousshades had little regardfor the standardsof religiosityand the ethnictraditionsof the newly arrivedco-religionistswho had become its clients. Therefore,it could not reinforcetheirtraditionalreligiouspatternsand did not succeedin recruitingmany of the youngerimmigrants. Socialscientistsassumedthat MiddleEasternJewswouldtendto assimilate with the dominantAshkenazisegmentof Israelisociety. The observations providingthe basis for the predictionthat the Middle EasternJews would eventually be secularizedwere, however, greatly influencedby a perspectiveof religiositywhichwas anchoredin the Ashkenazitraditionof orthodoxyas experiencedor stereotypedby the researchers.This perspective inevitablyleads to the conclusionthat Middle EasternJews will eventually abandon their religious commitment completely, a conclusion supportedby the absenceof noticeabletrendsof religiousrevivaland the lack of institutionsof religiouseducationamong Middle EasternJews, in contrast to the remarkablevitalityobservedamong the various sectors of Ashkenaziorthodoxy."9As a result of these assumptions,the newcomers 18. M. Shokeid and S. Deshen, Distant Relations: Ethnicity and Politics Among Arabs and North African Jews in Israel (new York: Praeger and Bergin, 1982), p.161. 19. See, for example, the discussion of religious education among Ashkenazi and Middle Eastern Jewry by S. Deshen, "Religion among Middle Eastern Immigrants in Israel," in Israel: A Developing Society, ed. A. Arian (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1980), pp. 235-246.


253

became to an extent "religiouslyinvisible."Against this evaluationof the religious situation among Middle EasternJews, we argue that they have neverthelessdevelopeda strategyof culturalaccommodationwith the surrounding dominant society, a strategyalso employed by Middle Eastern Jewsin earliercenturies.Accordingto our observations,thishas produceda religiouspath which appearsto be midwaybetweenAshkenaziorthodoxy, on the one hand, and Ashkenazisecularism,on the other. The symbolic presentationof this style is distinctiveand appealingto the extent that it carriesthe potential of influencingpoliticallife in Israel,but it is not provocative and exclusivistto the extent of contradictingthe nationalideal of social integration. These observations,we hope, may also expand our understandingof the role and strategyof emergentethnicity in contemporary civilizationin general. The data I draw upon are variedand it may not always satisfy a strict doctrinalapproach.I reporton participantobservationswhichI carriedout during the late 1960s and late 1970s in villages inhabitedby Moroccan immigrants.During 1979 I carriedout observationsin severalsynagogues located in two neighborhoodsof Tel-Aviv,and in 1981 I interviewedsupportersof the new ethnic party,Tami.I also drawupon ethnographicdata producedby other anthropologists,the availablesociologicalsurveysand interviewswith leading Middle EasternJews recordedby the mass media. My discussion is supportedby the reconstructionsof Jewish life in the Middle East providedby historiansand social scientists. Precepts versus Tradition

During the 1950s Israeli sociologists, mainly involved with the then dominanttheoriesof modernization,whichoften soughtthe variablesmost conducive to the accommodationof traditional societies with Western technologyand culture,did not show much interestin the study of Middle EasternJews'religiosity.In the 1960s,however,a few sociologistsbeganto include in their surveysquestions about the religiousattitudesof Middle EasternJews.20 Thusthe data producedfroma nationalsampleof eleventhgradeschool studentsreportedby Hermanshow that while MiddleEastern childrenwere less religiouslyinclinedthan their parents,the proportionof 20. For example, J. Matras, Social Change in Israel (Chicago: Aldine, 1965) and S. N. Herman, Israelis and Jews: The Continuity of an Identity (New York: Random House, 1970).

254

MOSHE SHOKEID

Middle Easternyouth who consideredthemselvesreligiouswas higherthan among Ashkenaziyouth (34 percentvs. 22 percent).In addition,considerably more Middle Eastern youth defined themselvesas mesoratiim(lit. "traditional")-a commontermfor believerswho observereligiousprecepts selectively-44 percent verses 22 percent among Ashkenazi youth. The survey also revealed noticeable differencesamong the various groups of Middle EasternJews: Yemeniteyouth were highest in consideringthemselves religious(63 percent),21North Africanyouth second on the scale(44 percent) and other Middle Easternyouth came lowest on this scale (21 percent).However,the majorityof MiddleEasternyouth who did not consider themselvesreligiousdefinedthemselvesas mesoratiim. The expansionof anthropologicalresearchin Israelsincethe mid-1960s had been accompaniedby an increasinginterest in the religious life of MiddleEasternJews.In a studyof an immigranttown, Deshenreportedon the viabilityof ethnic synagogues:the regularparticipants,however,were mainly youngstersunderfifteenyearsof age and adultsabove thirty-five.22 Thus the generation of young adults was absent. Another observation, mentionedearlier,indicatedthat the immigrants'notion of religiousdepreciation reflectedtheirdeterioratingpositionin otherspheresof life. We may assume that this low self-esteemalso influencedparentalauthority over children'sreligiousbehavior,which may explaintheir absencefrom synagogue activitiesas well as the growing intergenerationaldisparityin religious conformity, as reportedby Herman.23It-is not surprisingthat ten years later Deshen reportedthat the ethnic synagoguehad lost most of its thriving viability.24Its regulars appearedto be mostly aged, while the youngergenerationsparticipatedonly occasionallyand mainly at festivals and family celebrations. Interpretingthese observations,Deshen employedSharot'scomparison of the level of acculturationwith the host cultureamongJewishcommunities in Europe,the Middle East, and the Far East.25Middle EasternJewry occupies a midway position on a scale of acculturationwhose extremes 21. Similar findings, based upon a study of Yemenites in an urban suburb, were reported by J. Katz and Z. Zloczower, "Ethnic Continuity in the Second Generation: A Report on Yemenites and Ashkenazim in a Small Israeli Town" (Hebrew), Megamot 9 (1958): 187-200. 22. S. Deshen, "The Ethnic Synagogue: Patterns of Religious Change in Israel" (Hebrew), in The Integration of Immigrantsfrom Different Countries of Origin in Israel, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt and A. Zloczower (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1969), pp. 66-73. 23. Herman, Israelis and Jews. 24. Deshen, "Religion Among Middle Eastern Immigrants." 25. S. Sharot, Judaism: A Sociology (London: David & Charles, 1976).


255

represent,at one end, the high acculturationof Far EasternJewry(such as the now defunctChineseJewry)and at the otherend, the Jewishcommunities of Europe, which until the nineteenthcentury remainedremarkably segregatedfrom their host societies.Sharotarguesthat the generaldisposition of the host religiousdoctrinetowardminorityreligionsdeterminedthe degree of the Jewishacculturation:the greaterthe tolerancedemonstrated by the host society, the strongerthe tendency on the part of the Jewish communitytowardaccommodationwith the host doctrine.This analysisis supportedby the observationthat the traditions,rituals,and beliefsof most Middle EasternJewishcommunitiesoften displayedelementsin common with those of their Muslimneighbors.To this assessmentof the characteristics of the religiosityof Middle EasternJews, Deshen adds that oral tradition, as opposed to writtentradition,played a greaterrole in the transmission of Middle EasternJewishculture.That is to say, as comparedto East EuropeanJews, MiddleEasternJewswereless likely to regardlearnedtexts as depositories of culture. He therefore concluded that the religion of Middle EasternJewry was less differentiatedexternally,vis-ai-visGentile culture, as well as internally,from other facets of Jewish culture.26The conclusionsderivedfrom these studiesmay providean explanationfor the patterns of religious behavior observed among Middle Eastern Jews in Israel. Since they are apparentlypredisposedto a relativelyeasy accommodation with the culturalpressuresof theirhost society,whetherMuslimor Israeli-Ashkenazi,they soon acculturatedto the secular culture of the dominant veteran segment of Israeli society and accommodatedwith no protest to the attitudeof superioritydemonstratedby the orthodoxestablishment. An anthropologicalstudy whichI carriedout duringthe late 1960sand again during the late 1970s among Moroccan immigrants in villages revealed a phenomenon different from what was observed in the town environment.The economic affluenceafforded by farming,which eradicated the old communalstratification,enabledthe familiesthat had once been poor to utilize the religious sphere as a means of displayingtheir achievementsin Israel,as, for example,throughthe acquisitionof expensive Torahscrolls.Moreover,all generationsparticipatedregularlyin synagogue activities. My observationsrevealed,however,persistentdifficultiesin the functioningof the traditionalMoroccanreligiousleaders.27 26. Deshen, "Religion Among Middle Eastern Immigrants," pp. 241-242. 27. Shokeid, The Dual Heritage, and "The Decline of Personal Endowment of Atlas Mountains Religious Leaders in Israel," Anthropological Quarterly 52 (1979): 186-197.

256

MOSHE SHOKEID

In manypartsof Moroccoreligiousleadershipwas exercisedby scholars whose authoritywas vestedas muchin theirpersonalcharismatictraitsas in their familypatrimony(i.e., zekhutavot-"merit of the fathers").The attribute of zekhutavotwas hereditarybut at the sametime was an inherenttrait of moralsuperioritypossessedby those who chose the religiouscalling.Such leaderswerenot formallyappointedanddid not receivea regularsalary,but they were reputed for their extraordinarydeeds and the power of their blessings.The characteristicsof this leadershiphad a parallelin the religious leadershipof the Muslim host society:zekhutavot might be comparedto baraka("blessing"),the virtue of sacrednessattributedto the Moroccan maraboutand his livingdescendants.28 It was not easyfor leadersof this type to accommodateto Israel'sbureaucraticreligioussystem.Moreover,while in Morocco the local communitieshad each supportedseveral religious leaderswho cateredindividuallyto their clients, in Israel the Ministryof ReligiousAffairsappointsonly one salariedrabbito each community.The unsuitabilityof the traditionalleadersfor this highlyformalizedsystem,as well as the tensionsand conflictsresultingfrom the inevitablecompetition betweenthe candidateswho wereavailablefor suchappointments,oftenled to the departureof the authenticcommunal leadership,whose members settled in the more heterogeneouslycomposednew towns. Meanwhile,the ministryappointedits own candidates,who often did not gain the respect and affectionof their congregants.29 During the late 1970sI carriedout observationsin two suburbsof Tel Aviv. One was a decayingpublichousingprojectdatingfromthe 1950s.Its residents, of low socioeconomic status, were mainly of Middle Eastern extraction.The second suburb,situatednearby,was mainly composed of privatelyownedapartments,and its residents,a youngerpopulationof both Europeanand Middle Easternextraction, had moved in since the early 1970s.Eightethnicsynagogueswereregularlyoperatingin the old neighborhood: one Iranian, one Afghani, one Iraqi, two Egyptian, two East European, and a joint congregationof Tripolitaniansand Moroccans.30 Althoughspaciousand richlydecorated,the synagogueswereusuallypoor28. See, for example, C. Geertz, Islam Observed.-Religious Developments in Morocco and Indonesia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 50. 29. Shokeid, "Decline of Personal Endowment of Atlas Mountains Religious Leaders." 30. The suburb was mainly settled in the early 1950s, before the major immigration from Morocco in the mid-1950s. Therefore, the small number of residents of Moroccan extraction, who could not establish a separate Moroccan congregation, joined the Tripolitanian synagogue.


257

ly attendedby the youngergenerations,who had moved out to betterneighborhoods or did not feel obligatedto attend services.The scene seemedto confirm Deshen's observationsabout the decline of ethnic synagogues. Nevertheless,these observationsdid not appearto representan irreversible process. In the nearby new neighborhood, I observed two ethnic congregations-one Moroccanand the other Yemenite.The congregantsassembled in the local school, wherethey were allowedto use two classroomsfor the daily early morning and evening prayersas well as for the Sabbath and festivalservices.The congregantswereexertingpressureson the Ministryof ReligiousAffairsand the Tel Aviv MunicipalReligiousCouncilto provide the sites and financialmeans necessaryin order to build proper separate synagogues.The Moroccancongregation,which I observedmore closely, had been startedby a forty-year-oldcongregantfrom Casablanca.He was the son of a religiousleaderin Tafilaltand had broughtalong a Torahscroll when he came to Israel in the early 1960s.On arrivalhe had settled in a developmenttown, wherehe was employedin variousteachingand clerical jobs. He moved to Tel Aviv in 1976 and soon after startedto organizea minyan(ten adult males)for regularservices.At first the minyanmet at his home, but with the growthof the congregationit was allowedto operatein the school. In 1979 the congregationalready owned four Torah scrolls, which had been providedby the ministryand by individualresidents.When I attendedSabbathmorningservicesduringJuly (the peak of the summer season),twentyyoung and older men werepresent.The leadertold me that usually thirty men attended services regularly,"but now there are some memberswho preferto go to the beach."He addedthat he was carefulnot to burdenthe youngercongregantswith heavyreligiousdemands.He knew that some of themdid not weara skullcapon weekdaysand probablydrove cars on the Sabbath,"but what is reallyimportantis that they come to the synagogue."He also told me that on the High Holidays many more residents of Moroccanextractionasked to participatein the services.On these occasions the serviceswere held in the school's gymnasium.The holiday services provided the congregation with new recruits who sometimes became regulars.He did not hesitateto recruitnew congregantswhom he knew "were not particularlyreligious."Thus, for example,a regularcongregantof about thirtyyearsold told me that he did not weara skullcapon weekdays but in the last few years had stopped driving his car on the Sabbath."I keep the traditionwhich I got at Father'shome,"he endedas a sort of explanation.

258

MOSHE SHOKEID

At the end of Sabbathprayersthe congregantswent togetherto perform a shortceremonyat the home of a non-memberfamilywhichwas mourning the loss of an elderly relative.On the way the leader mentionedthat the congregantsand other residentsoften invitedhim to performfamilyrituals and also consulted with him on various personalmatters.He ended the conversationwith the statement:"Theytreatme like a rabbi."Althoughthe appearanceand bearingof this congregationalleaderwere "modern,"his performancewas very similar to that of traditionalMoroccan religious leaders.His authoritywas personal,ratherthan basedon formalcriteriaof learningand ordination,and also seemedto containsome featuresof zekhut avot. During the High Holidays, the synagoguesin the old neighborhood came to life. This phenomenonof religiousrevivalwas particularlynoticeable among the Iraqi residents.The Iraqi synagogue,which was poorly attendedmost of the year, was fully packed,includingmany young adults and youth. Moreover,a new congregationwas organizedfor the holiday season in the gymnasiumof the local school. In addition,crowds of men, women, and childrengatheredaroundthe synagoguesduringthe services, so that each one appearedto be the center of a lively communalfestival. Withinthe synagogues,large sumsof moneywerecontributedfor the right to performvarioushonoredpartsduringthe service.The emergentcongregations manifestednoticeablefeaturesof communalbonds.3'On Succoth (Tabernacles),when the attendancedroppedconsiderably,I carriedon a conversationwith a groupof regularcongregantsaboutreligiouslife in Iraq and Israel.The beadle,an impressiveman in his earlysixties,arguedsomewhat impatiently:"Thereis no difference;it is all a matterof familycomportment.If the fatherattendsthe synagogue,the childrengo along. But if the mother spends her time playing cards and the fatherwhiles his time away in similarpursuits,the childrenwill do just the same. And there are also the uncleswhose behaviorcarriessome influenceas well. So you see, it all dependson the blood that runsin the family."He addedthat attendance at the synagoguein Iraq was also not regular,"but Rosh Hashanahand Yom Kippurare differentdays!"He was thusimplyingthat in Iraqalso, the attendance of congregantson the festivals was much more impressive.

31. This type of High Holidays communal congregation differs from that observed in many Ashkenazi synagogues, where the swollen congregations during the festivals are usually composed of unrelated participants.


259

Anothercongregant,in his early fifties,reactedas follows:"In Israelthere are manyparties[miflagot]:Iraqis,Iranians,Egyptians,etc. Everyoneestablisheshis own synagogue;thereis even anotherIraqisynagoguehere [on the High Holidays].But on weekdaysyou can't assemblea minyan!"Although the latterexpressedsome bitternessabout the organizationof religiouslife in Israel,neitherman complainedabout changesin the extentof religiosity among their compatriots,nor did they look back nostalgically. The personalexperiencesof the historianY. Nini are revealingin this context, reflectingsimilar characteristicsamong YemeniteJews. He was born in a veteranvillageof Yemeniteresidents,whichhe left at a laterstage for a nearby town. He was often questionedby observantolder relatives about his absencefromthe synagogueserviceson the Sabbath.He answered in astonishmentthat he could not attend on the Sabbath because of the distanceof the synagoguefromhis home. Withno hesitationthey suggested that he shouldcome by car andparknearthe entranceto the village.He was also invitedby relativesto participatein the Sabbathand festivalservicesin anothervillagewhose residentshad arrivedfrom Yemenin 1948.They also suggestedthat he lead the prayerson the festivals.They knew he could not accepttheirinvitationunlesshe came by car on theseoccasions.Eventually he came by car, parkingat the centerof the village.He was warmlyreceived and was treated during the serviceas a guest of honor.32 Pertinent support for our observationsis provided by Tessler, who carriedout a study in Morocco during the early 1970s.33He reportsthat most of the Jews who remainedin Morocco'stowns (many of whom had migratedfrom villages),"are observant,but often by traditionratherthan conviction"(p. 371). Ninety-twopercentof his respondentskept kashrutat home, sixty percent attended synagogueevery Sabbath,but only twentyfive percentobservedthe Sabbathstrictly.When they were asked to report on aspectsof daily life whichmost frequentlyremindedthem that they were Jewish,the majoritypointed out factorsrelatingto family, friends,and the social milieu as often as those relating to worship and observance.This informationrecallsthe many interviewswith Jews of Moroccanextraction (the largestgroupof MiddleEasternimmigrants)on Israeliradioand televi32. 1 am grateful to Prof. Yehuda Nini of Tel-Aviv University, who gave me permission to publish this information. 33. M. A. Tessler, "The Identity of Religious Minorities in Non-Secular States: Jews in Tunisia and Morocco and Arabs in Israel," Comparative Studies in Society and History 20 (1978): 359-374.

260

MOSHE SHOKEID

sion or appearingin the daily newspapers.The intervieweesrecurrently confess their attachmentto masoret(lit. "tradition").Such statementsare often made by leadingyoung figureswho are not consideredreligiousby most listenersand readers.For example,Mr. Shaul Ben-Simhon,president of the Association of MoroccanJews, stated in a newspaperinterview:34 "AlthoughI smoke on the Sabbath,I adhereto tradition[ani mesorati].I am secularized,neverthelessI fast on Yom Kippur. I attend synagogue during the festivals,and I performkiddush[the blessing over wine] every Sabbath.I considerthe Sabbathfeast as holy of holy [kodeshhakodeshim], and I dedicatethe Sabbathcompletelyto the family[ShabbatkodeshlamishA similarattitudewas reportedby Mr. RaphaelEdri,who at the pachah]."35 time of the interview(1979) was the managerof a large national building concern and is presentlya Labormemberof the Knesset.He also defined himselfas "traditional"(mesorati).He told his interviewer36 that, although he drives a car on the Sabbath,he often dons phylacteries.37 "It has been plantedin our blood," he explainedand continued:"My childrenattenda secular school, but during the Sabbathfeast I make the blessing over the wine and the children wear skullcaps."Most revealing is Aharon Abu Hatzeira,son of the most veneratedreligiousleader of MoroccanJewry, who at the time of the followingobservationwas servingas ministerof religious affairs.At a political rally which he held on the campusof Bar-Ilan University38before the 1981 generalelections, soon after he broke away from Mafdal (the National Religiousparty),he explainedthe meaningof the name of the new party he headed, Tami, whose initials stand for Tenu'atMasoret Yisrael(The Movement of Israel'sTradition):"Mafdal opened its ranks to those who observe taryagmitzvot[the 613 commandments prescribedin the Pentateuch;the word taryag is made up of the Hebrewletterstaf = 400, resh = 200, yod = 10,gimmel= 3]. But thereare 34. Levy Itzhak Hayerushalmi, Ma'ariv weekend supplement, Nov. 9, 1979, p. 30. 35. The Sabbath ritual and meals are made particularly noticeable by a family's symbolic presentation. Thus, for example, although women are exempt from performing positive precepts whose execution is bound to a specific time, they are obliged to observe the sanctification of the Sabbath. The primary kiddushis recited on the eve of the Sabbath before the start of the meal (see, for example, Encyclopaedia Judaica). 36. Hayerushalmi, Ma'ariv weekend supplement, Nov. 9, 1979, p. 30. 37. It seems that the interviewees attributed an equal value to most religious actions, as well as to their transgressions. Thus, for example, the kiddush,smoking on the Sabbath, fasting on Yom Kippur, the wearing of a skullcap, driving on the Sabbath, and donning phylacteries are presented as equal alternatives. 38. June 3, 1981.

CULTURALETHNICITYIN ISRAEL

261

manypeoplewho do not observeall the mitzvot[precepts],yet they do considerthemselves Jewsas thefollowersof Israel'stradition.Whyshould we closeourranksandexcludethem?Tafmitzvot [400precepts]or reshyod mitzvot[210 precepts]are also sufficient!!"A similarinterpretation of Tami'sideologywasofferedto mebya youngschoolprincipal whosefamily arrivedin 1956fromtheAtlasMountains: "Tamiis a partywhichcherishes tradition[Tamimiflagahmesoratit]. OrientalJews[edothamizralh] arenot extremists: did not in reside the If the Arab they ghetto. grewlonghair,the Jewcut his hairandlefta beardonly.If the Arabworea whitegown,the Jewworea blackgowninstead.ButtheJewlivedwith[hai'im]theArab!" to thecomplexrealityof Jewishlifein manyMuslimcountries,he Referring was describingboth a philosophyand a strategyof existencewhichhad sustainedJewishculturalsurvivalthroughan unabashedaccommodation withsocialandculturalconstraints (as forcefullyphrasedin his statement: "ButtheJewlivedwiththe Arab").He wasat thesametimeimplyingthat the Ashkenazimtend towardextremism,as demonstrated both by their and their orthodoxy by secularism.39 Quitein line withthis typeof religiosityis the continuingpopularity, particularly amongNorth AfricanJews,of pilgrimagesto the tombsof veneratedscholarsand saints,whetherof ancientor morerecentvintage. Thisphenomenon hasbeennoticeablesincethefirstyearsof immigration, the periodwhichseemedto reflectmostprofoundlythe weakeningof religion in the life of MiddleEasternJewry.Thus,for example,by the early 1960sthe pilgrimage to the tombof RabbiSimonbarYohaiin Meronon B'Omer was Lag alreadythelargestspontaneous gatheringin the country. Morethan100,000pilgrims,themajorityof Moroccanextraction, cameto the annualcelebration.40TunisianJews also hold lavishcelebrationsin honorof theirlatescholars.41Thepilgrimages andcelebrations attracteda 39. He went on to explain the pattern of voting in his village (composed of Moroccan settlers), which was divided between Tami and Likud (Premier Begin's party coalition). He thought that those who voted for Likud had acted against their own economic interests, since as farmers they were more likely to prosper under a Labor government, "but the propaganda presented the Labor party as the old Mapai [the Labor party, mainly under Ben-Gurion's leadership]. Mapai represents secularization! This is the party which, many years ago when the settlers arrived in the country, was suspected of prohibiting the learning of the Torah and which was enthusiastic in conscripting girls to the army." In accordance with this interpretation, the Labor party was now rejected because of its image as representing extreme secularism. 40. Shokeid, "Anthropological Perspective on Ascetic Behavior and Religious Change." 41. Deshen, "Memorial Celebrations of Tunisian Immigrants," pp. 95-121.

262

MOSHE SHOKEID

noticeablylargenumberof youngerpeople. Drawn,amongotherthings,by the entertainmentand social activities which the gatheringsoffered, the youngerpeople were participatingin these activitiesat the very time when they wereneglectingsynagoguelife (as indicatedby Deshen).The popularity of the pilgrimagescontinuedin spiteof the objectionsof the religiousestablishment, which also in North Africa had unsuccessfullyobjected to this phenomenon of folk religion. Manifestationsof folk religion have not decreased since the 1960s. On the contrary, new pilgrimagesites have become popular. Particularlynoteworthyare the North African scholars and saintswhose spiritshave apparentlymovedto Israelin recentyears,as revealedin the dreamsof their disciples.Ben-Ami,for example,observed that the worshipof saints intensifiesin times of crisis.42Immediatelyafter the 1973 war he recordedinstances of young soldiers and their parents expressinggratitudeto familysaintsfor the miraclesthey had performedon the battlefield. Besidesthe spontaneousrevivalof traditionalpatternsof folk religion,a celebrationhas beenevolvingsincethe late 1960s: new type of ethnic-religious the Moroccan Memuna, the Kurdish Saharanei,and the Iranian RuzeBaque. Although based on traditionalelements, these celebrationshave been greatlyencouragedby the Israelipoliticalestablishment.43 The largest celebration, the Memuna, on the day after Passover, has been held in The Saharaneicelebration,which began duringthe 1970s,is Jerusalem.44 held duringSuccothat a moresecludedcountrysite.45The Ruze-Baque,the most recent of the celebrations,is also held on the day after Passover,in Ramat-Gan's National Park. These gatherings, which originally were family and communal events, have been transformedinto nationwide ethnic-politicalfestivals.They are regularlyattended by national leaders and politicians,includingthe president,the primeminister,and the leaderof the opposition. Although the activities at these celebrationsbear little resemblanceto the traditionalfamilyand communalfestivitiesin Morocco, 42. 1. Ben-Ami, "The Folklore of War: The Motif of Saints" (Hebrew), in Dov Sadan, ed. S. Verssess et al. (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1977), pp. 87-104. 43. A. Weingrod, "Recent Trends in Israeli Ethnicity." 44. For the origins and patterns of the Memuna, see, for example, H. E. Goldberg, "The Memuna and Minority Status of Moroccan Jews," Ethnology 17 (1978): 75-87, and Shokeid, The Dual Heritage, p. 32. 45. J. Halper and H. Abramovitch, "The Saharanei Celebration in Kurdistan and Israel" in Jews of the Middle East: Anthropological Perspectiveson Past and Present, ed. S. Deshen and M. Shokeid (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1984).


263

andtheparticipants andIran,boththeorganizers Kurdistan, perceivethem as part of their diasporaheritage.This heritageis so intertwinedwith the that in 1980,acceptingthe inevitable, religiousaspectsof the celebrations46 the Sephardichief rabbi publiclygave his blessing to the Memuna.47 Familial and CommunalAnchorage of Religious Action

The data suggestthat religiousvitalitydiffersaccordingto the extent of homogeneity or heterogeneityin the ethnic composition of settlements. Thus, a larger percentageof youth seem to participatein synagoguelife among ethnic groups whose membersare more concentratedin villagesor urbansuburbs.48But religionis not dying out with the passingof the older generationin the more heterogeneoussettlements.Despite the shattering cultural crisis that Middle Eastern Jewry experiencedin Israel, which involved,among other things, a depreciationin the statusof theirreligious leadersand a diminutionin the authorityof religiousobservancesin daily life, the religiousdomainstill forms an importantelementin the cognitive, perceptive,and affectivelayersof socialexistencefor a considerableportion of Middle EasternJewry. In orderto clarifythesepropositionswe will firstelaboratethe sociological definitionwhichindicatesthe featuresof religiousactivityamongMiddle EasternJews. The definition,largely developedby Deshen, relates to the minimal differentiationof religion from other cultural domains among MiddleEasternJews.49This definition,whichhas greatlycontributedto our understandingof Middle EasternJewishreligiosity,fails, however,to consider the extent and the consequencesof MiddleEasternJudaism'sanchorage in the family and the communityweb of commitments.We argue that this type of lesserdifferentiationbetweenreligionand other social domains, which has deeply anchoredMiddle EasternJudaismin familialand communal action, offers the religious domain indispensablesupport under

46. The Ruze-Baque, however, does not as yet carry any noticeable symbols of religious life. 47. There are two chief rabbis in the country, an Ashkenazi and a Sephardi. This system of rabbinical leadership was established during the British Mandate in Palestine. 48. This may explain, for example, the higher frequency of self-designations as religious among Yemenite youth as opposed to North Africans and members of other groups. 49. Deshen, "Religion Among Middle Eastern Immigrants in Israel," p. 241.

264

MOSHE SHOKEID

changingcircumstancesthat deprivereligionof many of its own resources. This perspectiveon the structureand content of religiousaction leads us toward a differentinterpretationof contemporaryobservationsof Middle EasternJewishreligiosityand towarda differentevaluationof the prospects for religiouslife among Middle EasternJewry. In Muslim countries,severalfactors related to the social environment and to materialexistencelent muchbindingforceto the individual'sfamilial and communalcommitments.Genealogicalbonds and territorialascription were among the most importantindicatorsof the social position of the individualin Muslimsociety.50Althoughthe Jewsdid not adoptthe ideological elementsthat sustainedthis system,the organizationalcomponentsof the host societywere,nevertheless,incorporatedto some extentinto Jewish society. The importanceof genealogicaland territorialbonds was particularly noticeablein small, remote,and isolatedJewishcommunities.Moreover, in manypartsof the Muslimworld,the weaknessof the centralpolitical organizationwas reflectedin the inabilityof the Jewsto developnational or regional organizations. These constraints naturally buttressed the familial and communaldimensionsin the compositionof the individual's Jewishidentity.The essentialposition of the family and the communityis also indicated in the style of Middle Eastern synagogue services; for example, the seatingarrangements,and the social activitiesthat take place in the synagogue.Thus, all congregants,includingchildren,participateas soloists in leadingsectionsof the service,regardlessof theirmusicalskillsor religiouscompetence.The congregantsare mainlyseatedalong the walls of the synagoguehall facingeachother,in contrastto the seatingarrangements in Ashkenazisynagogues,wherethe congregantssit in rows facing the holy ark, and consequentlycan only observe the backs of most of the other congregants.Similarly,in the MiddleEasternsynagogueservice,those who have been called to take partin the readingof the scrollsof the Law makea round of the hall and greeteach congregantbefore returningto theirseats. The variousmodes of greeting(e.g., shakinghands, kissingcheeks,kissing on the brow) reflect the particularrelationship with each congregant: kinship, friendship, and deference.5 Traditionally,the old men in the 50. See, for example, the conception of Moroccan social organization as analyzed by L. Rosen, "Social Identity and Points of Attachment," in Meaning and Orderin Moroccan Society, eds. C. Geertz, H. Geertz, and L. Rosen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 19-111. 51. See S. D. Goitein, A MediterraneanSociety, 4 vols. (Berkeley: University of California


265

community, regardlessof their religious competenceand economic and social position,weretreatedwith respectandwereattributedwith the power of blessingreminiscentof the reverencereservedfor religiousscholarsand sacredobjects.The deferenceexpressedtowardthe old men buttressedtheir position as heads of their familiesand enforced family loyalties. Economiclife, however,more directlyaffectedthe patternsof religious life, socialcomportment,and identity.Itinerantpeddlersandcraftsmenwho stayedfor days, weeks,and evenmonthswith theirMuslimclientscould not regularlyparticipatein synagogue life.52These difficultieswere acknowledged by local religiousleaders,as shown, for example,by the exception made by a Sefrou scholar for employees who could not attend public prayers.53Moreover,we do not find among Middle EasternJewspressures similarto those prevalentin EuropeanJewishsociety regardingthe severe avoidance of social relations with Gentiles, which aimed in Europe at maintainingreligiousand social barrierseven when Jews were obligatedto associate with Gentiles.54The data which I collected among Jews from southern Morocco demonstratethe frequent and relaxed contacts with Muslim patrons, neighbors,and clients. Since the religiousleadersin the tribaland ruralareaswere not given full financialsupportby theircommunities, they too wereusuallyobligedto interactregularlywith Muslimswith whom they had an economic relationship.Therefore,the religiousleadership was not as remoteas the EuropeanJewishleadershipfromthe realityof mutual relationshipsbetween Jews and Gentiles. Also, in their physical appearanceand clothingthe Jewsin the MiddleEastwerenot ostentatiously differentfrom their neighbors,unlike orthodoxJewryin Europefor many generations.55These observationsindicatethat Middle East Jewrydid not Press, 1967-83); 2:145; M. Shokeid, The Dual Heritage, pp. 149-152; A. Shtal, "The Order of Seating in the Synagogue as Reflection of the Type of Service" (Hebrew), in Mikdash Me'at, ed. Y. Ilan et al. (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, 1975), pp. 46-56; S. Bar-Asher, "The Jews in North Africa and Egypt" (Hebrew), in History of the Jews in the Islamic Countries, ed. S. Ettinger (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1981), pp. 172-3. 52. M. Shokeid, "Jewish Existence in a Berber Environment," in Jewish Societies in the Middle East. Community, Culture and Authority, ed. S. Deshen and W. Zenner (Washington: University Press of America, 1982), pp. 105-122. 53. S. Deshen, Individualsand the Community:Social Life in 18th-19th Century Moroccan Jewry (Defense Ministry, 1983), p. 69; D. Ovadia, The Communityof Sefrou (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Center of Moroccan Studies, 1975), p. 90. 54. Katz, Tradition and Crisis, pp. 33-34. 55. S. D. Goitein, Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Throughthe Ages (1955; reprint ed., New York: Schocken, 1974); Shokeid, "Jewish Existence in a Berber Environment."

266

MOSHE SHOKEID

develop a life-style of observancesand prohibitions which consistently limited and stigmatized social interactionswith Gentiles. The religious cultureof Middle EasternJews,particularlyin North Africa,was probably influencedby the Sepharditraditiondevelopedby the Jews in the Iberian Peninsula until their expulsion in 1492. It was this tradition that also contributedto a more accommodatingapproachto the surroundingsociety and culture.56 Sharotand Deshen analyzedthe close affinityof Middle EasternJewry to the cultureof theirhost societyin termsof its impacton the patternsand contentof theirreligiousactivities.57 My approach,however,emphasizesthe relevanceof this affinityin generatinga mode of religiositythat is highly interwovenwith the individual'sbondsof familyand communityaffiliation. Moreover,in spiteof the economic,social,and politicalchangesthey underwentpriorto theirimmigrationto Israel(suchas thosefollowingthe process of urbanizationin Morocco), Middle EasternJews still representedto a great extenta homogeneoussociety,in termsof a sharedworldview, maintained by all classes, in which a prominentposition was occupiedby the familial,communal,and religiousrealms.Althoughthe same processesof social differentiationand communaldisintegrationthat had occurredmuch earlier in EuropeanJewry had already begun in some parts of Middle EasternJewish society, their impact and consequenceswere not, as yet, comparable.Similarly,while the close-knitkin and communitynetworksof Middle EasternJewry disintegratedsomewhatas a result of immigration, the extentof dispersionand actualdeclineof the familyandcommunitywas by no meansso pronouncedas among EuropeanJews in Israel.The immigration from Europe at the end of the nineteenthcentury was usually composedof individualsand smallfamilies,and this becameirreversibleas a consequenceof the Holocaust. In stark contrast, Middle EasternJewry's immigration was usually composed of communities in their entirety. Althoughthese communitiesoften becamedispersedin Israel,and in spite of the variousconstraintsthat affectedthe daily life of the immigrantsand their offspringin their new environment,the individualIsraeli of Middle

56. H. J. Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim (London: Oxford University Press, 1958). Zimmels claims, inter alia, that "as a general rule the Ashkenazim were stricter than the Sephardim" (p. 158) and, "while as far as general culture was concerned the Sephardim were certainly superior to their Ashkenazi brethren, the latter surpassed them in religious and moral conduct" (p. 261). 57. Sharot, Judaism; Deshen, "Religion Among Middle Eastern Immigrants in Israel."


267

Easternextractionhas not becomedissociatedfromthe actualbondsand obligationsas well as from a generalorientationtowarda widernetworkof

kin and communitymembers.5" We relate the symbiosisof the religious,familial,and communal domains in Middle EasternJewishsociety in the diaspora,which survived

untilrecenttimes,to thepresenceof a deepattachment to a diffusedconcept of masoretbeitabba("thetraditionof the father'shome")thatis usually

connected with synagoguelife and, more specifically,to religiousdetails connectedwith familyceremoniallife on the Sabbathand the festivals.No doubt, the impact of religious obligations and the authorityof religious leadershave greatlydiminished,but the intensityand scope of familyand

communalties, whichhave been traditionally interwovenwith religious activitiesandmeanings,haveprovidedan importantsourcefor a diffused identificationwith religioussymbolsand an incentivefor partialparticipation in religious activities at this stage of societal reorganization.The interpretationssuggested by Sharot and Deshen for the apparentlyeasy accommodationof Middle EasternJews with the secularculture of Ash-

kenaziJews59ignorethe impactexertedby the factorsof familialand communalcommitments in theprocessof religiouschangeandadjustment

among Middle EasternJews versusAshkenaziJews. The lack of powerful

family and communalorientationsmay offer an explanationfor the

dominantpatternsof religiosityamong AshkenaziJews in Israel,whichdo

not encouragethemodesof "partialreligiosity." It shouldbe emphasized, however,that the Ashkenaziscene in Israel is considerablydifferentfrom

that in the UnitedStatesand WesternEurope,wherepartialreligiosityis to the ReformandConservative denominations andis not conacceptable sistently denouncedby the Orthodoxsector.60 58. For my observations on the intensity of the feelings expressed during reunions of relatives who had settled in different localities, see Shokeid, "Evolution of Kinship Ties among Moroccan Immigrants," in The Predicament of Homecoming, pp. 210-236. For a more general conclusion on this subject, see M. Shokeid, "The Impact of Migration on the Moroccan Jewish Family in Israel," forthcoming in EvolvingJewish Family, ed. S. Cohen and P. Hyman (Holmes and Meier). In the latter paper I demonstrated, for example, the demographic stability, if not the expansion, of the North African nuclear family in Israel. See also D. Friedlander and C. Goldscheider, "Immigration, Social Change and Fertility in Israel," Population Studies 32 (1978): 316, and C. Goldscheider, "Family Change and Variation among Israeli Ethnic Groups," forthcoming in Evolving Jewish Family, ed. S. Cohen and P. Hyman (Holmes and Meier). 59. Sharot, Judaism; Deshen, "Religion Among Middle Eastern Immigrants in Israel." 60. During my stay in Britain in the 1960s I observed the phenomenon of selective preserva-

268

MOSHE SHOKEID

Particularlyrevealinghave been our observationsof the expressionsof toleranceby MiddleEasternJewstowardpartialparticipationin synagogue life. The attitudes of the leader of the Moroccan congregationthat I observed in the new Tel-Aviv suburb are reminiscentof the attitudes expressedby Moroccanleadersin earliergenerations,as, for example,the Sefrouscholarmentionedabovewho madeallowancesfor congregantswho could not easily attend prayerservices.The mere identificationof individuals with the synagoguecongregationthroughpartialparticipation,without acceptanceof the full range of mitzvotin public and at home, was accordedby the leadera religiousvaluein a scale of religiositywhich ranks and rewardsevery believeraccordingto his particularexistentialcircumstances.The congregantsperceivethis scale as the naturalorderof religious life whichendowscontemporaryleaders,as well as the scholarsand saintsof the past, with the spiritualpowerto supplementtheir religiousdeficiencies. These figuresprovideseasonalopportunitiesfor religiouselevation,as, for example,duringthe pilgrimagesto the saint'stombsand othercelebrations. This mode of religiosity is characterizedby spiritualand emotional involvementand the notion of belonging,ratherthan by the strictpractice of religious observances.The general reaction of Middle EasternJewish religious leaders seem to provide some support for this approach. Even those of them who succeededin preservingtheir leadershipstatusin Israel did not encouragethe kind of isolationist tendenciesor more aggressive manifestationsamong their followers that are observed among certain segmentsof Ashkenaziorthodoxy.This accommodatingreactiondoes not by any meansimply that the MiddleEasternleadershipis weak or has lost control under the new circumstances.Nonetheless,it is difficultfor those whose expectationsand evaluationsof religiouscomportmentare anchored in the Israeli Ashkenazi tradition to comprehendthis seeming religious

tion of certain elements of religious life among the second generation of immigrants from Eastern Europe in Salford, where many Jews have concentrated. Successfully integrated in British economy and society, secular in their appearance in public and at home, they are also integrated in a close-knit network of family ties and community activities. They often participate in the Sabbath and festival services of Orthodox synagogues and preserve considerable elements of the customs related to the Sabbath and festival meals. Professor Jacob Katz has informed me that more recently, with the growing institutionalization of the yeshivot, their protagonists have started to protest and raise doubts about the value of partial observance. My experience in Salford, however, supports the hypothesis that wherever the individual remains embedded within a relatively close framework of familial and communal ties, he tends also to keep at least a partial commitment to religious traditon.


269

toleranceandthemodestreligiousdemandspresented to thecongregants in daily life. From the Ashkenazi perspective,there is not much religious substance in the selective preservationof religious observancesthat are mainlyof folkloricvalue. The low evaluationin religioustermsaccordedto the modes of behaviorreportedhere leads naturallyto the conclusionthat we are actuallywitnessinga process of secularization. Masoret Religiosity and Ethnic Action

Beyond the possible debate about the religious value to be accorded them, Middle Easternpatternsof religiositymay indeed express distinct symbols of an ethnicculture.Congenialcircumstancesfor the development of that symbolicestate are providedby certainstructuralfactors,and particularlyby the tendencyof MiddleEasternJewsto concentrategeographically in villages, developmenttowns, and urban suburbs. Moreover, this concentrationin ethnic neighborhoodsis associatedwith a shared socioeconomic status among residents.61Masoretreligiosity as here described may both express and satisfy the growing dissatisfactionamong Middle Eastern Jews and their increasinglymore outspoken demand that their culture be recognizedas a legitimatealternativeto dominant Ashkenazi culture which is supposed to representIsraeli society. The melting pot ideologyin Israel,as in othercountries,has apparentlyaimedat social unificationthrougha single,homogeneousculture.This ideologyaimedno less at the quickacculturationof the recentlyarrivedgroups,whosememberswere often consideredbackwardand traditional,into the social order and the culturalrepertoireof the dominantveteransectors.Secularizationhas been one of the most noticeablecharacteristicsof the veteranIsraelis of Ashkenazi extraction. It was they who staffed the governmental,municipal, JewishAgency, and partybureaucraciesthat monopolizedand allocatedto the immigrantsthe majorresourcesof livelihoodand prestige.Among these bureaucraciesthe Laborparty,whichruledthe countryfor manyyears,was particularlyinfluential.Actually,MiddleEasternJewscould usuallychoose between two alternativesoffered,if not forced on them, by the Ashkenazi political establishment:firstly, the secularparties(preferablyLabor), and 61. For an analysis of the phenomenon of ethnicity in American cities in terms of structural factors, see Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani, "Emergent Ethnicity."

270

MOSHESHOKEID

secondly,the religiousparties(preferably Mafdal).Therefore,it is not that an ethnic that went to thepollsforthefirsttime Tami, surprising party

in 1981and showed betterprospectsthan any other ethnic party that has emergedsince 1948, has chosen to identifyitself by the term masoret.62 The emergenceand disappearanceof ethnicpartiesin Israelhas usually been analyzedin terms of situationalfactors.63Althoughwe are not concernedhere with the factorsthat triggeredTami'sappearanceon the political scene, nor with its future prospects,it is importantto emphasizethe culturaldimension,for we believethat it buttressedthe personaland intraparty situation that led to the new party. Moreover, the same cultural dimensionapparentlyalso affectedthe resultsobtainedat the polls by other parties.The new party'schoiceof its nameappearsto be consistentwithour observationsof the wide use of the termmasoretby MiddleEasternJewsin explaining their religious situation. The concept of masoretconveys the symbols of a religio-familial-communalculture which is supposed to includealso those who observeonly taf mitzvotor reshyod mitzvot,as was openly declaredby the party's leader. Thus, addressingitself to the vast constituencyof MiddleEasternJews,Tamimadeitself the representativeof a distinctculturedifferentfrom both the Ashkenazisecularculture,which has conspicuously and aggressively dissociated itself from traditional Judaism, and the Ashkenazi exclusivist orthodoxy, which compulsively observes taryag mitzvot.64 The symbols and messages utilized by Tami offered indicationsabout the characteristicsof the culturalaspect of the developingethnic-politicalframeworkof contemporaryIsraeli society. Emergentethnicityin Israelandelsewhereoftenseemsto be a temporary phenomenon, as usually suggestedby contemporaryresearch.Thus, for example,it providesthe firstgenerationof immigrantswith an instrumental means for claiminga largershareof publicresources,and the thirdgenera-

62. The election advertisements of Tami utilized the slogan "masoret is the thread which links all edot [ethnic groups]"; see, for example, Ma'ariv, June 11, 1981. The edot were identified in another advertisement as follows: "... those who came from North Africa, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, India, Cochin, Kurdistan, Yemen, and other Diaspora lands"; see, for example, Yediot Ahronot, June 12, 1981. 63. For a recent analysis of Israeli ethnic parties, see H. Herzog, "The Ethnic Lists to the Delegates' Assembly and the Knesset (1920-1977): Ethnic Political Identity?" (Hebrew) (Ph.D. diss., Tel-Aviv University, 1981). 64. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the more recent developments (since the 1984 general elections) that created a split in the Agudat Yisrael party which increasingly gained Middle Eastern voters. The new party, Shas, was headed by Sephardi Orthodox leaders.

271

ETHNICITY IN ISRAEL

tion with a nostalgicreturnto theirancestralculture.65I do not claim that the emergentethnicityis a revivalof an authenticethnicheritage.It certainly is not, though it reflectstraditionalelementsand influences.Nor is it the mere ephemeral outcome of structural opportunities,66or a primarily leisure-timeactivity of a working-classculture,67though it has certainly been influenced by structuralopportunitiesand does sustain a type of leisure-timeactivity that often characterizes"workingclasses." The fact that "ethnic" and "working-class"cultural manifestations often filter upward(e.g., Americanblack folk culture)indicatestheir role in creating new symbols which also attract the mainstreamand may eventuallybe transformedinto major national culturalsymbols. The masoretreligiosity adoptedand proclaimedby MiddleEasternJews,whichhas beeninfluenced by their diasporaheritageas much as by their family,community,residential, and other structuralopportunitiesin Israel,may undercertaincircumstances develop into a symboliclinkage with the more dominantcultural stream. With the growing disparity between the expanding Ashkenazi orthodoxyand the dominantsecularsector,on the one hand, and the growing notion of culturalneedconcerningthe symbolicrealmof Jewishidentity in the secularsector, on the other, masoretreligiositymay be more than an ethnic peculiarity.Regardlessof its possibly temporarynature, emergent ethnicity could have an importantimpact on mainstreamculture,68much beyond what has usually been assumed. TelAvivUniversity TelAviv,Israel QueensCollege,C.U.N.Y. New York,N.Y.

65. M. L. Hansen, The Problems of the Third GenerationImmigrant (Rock Island: Augustana Historical Society, 1938) and "The Third Generation in America," Commentary 14 (1952): 492-500. 66. As suggested, for example, by Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani, "Emergent Ethnicity." 67. As suggested by Gans, "Symbolic Ethnicity." 68. A. Weingrod suggested that traditional immigrant groups influence the practices of institutions in the absorbing society through the process of reciprocal change. See "Reciprocal Change: A Case Study of a Moroccan Village in Israel," American Anthropologist 65 (1962): 115-131.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Shira Wolosky Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 273-281 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486324 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOK REVIEWS

Susan A. Handelman. The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretationin Modern Literary Theory. Albany: State University of New

York Press, 1982. xxi, 267 pp. TheSlayersof Moses expressesa sense that many share,with an excitement that many feel, of an emergenceof rabbinicmethodsin modernliterary theory. From JacquesDerridato Harold Bloom, thereis an increased awareness of the metaphysicaland theological assumptionswhich may underliemethods of interpretingtexts; and new methods are coming to be definedwhich have, as SusanHandelmanargues,a strikingand significant relationto rabbinicinterpretivemodes.The workin recentliterarytheoryis thereforemaking possible a new assessmentof Judaism'splace in general culture, and a new interchangebetween Judaic and Christian attitudes towardtexts. The significanceof the Judaictraditionis gainingwiderrecognition, even while its integrityand independenceare affirmed. In exploringthe rabbinicaspectsof recentliterarytheory, TheSlayersof Moses examines first the historicalbackgroundsof biblical exegesis, and then modernexpressionsof these backgrounds.In its firstpart,it discusses Greek philosophyand rhetoricas the source of patristictheology. It then traces rabbinic modes of reading Torah from talmudic debate through midrashic,Philonic,and kabbalisticcommentary,attemptingto formulate general principlesby which Judaismapproachesthe biblical text. This is followed by a historyof Christianexegeticalmethods,fromJesusand Paul throughOrigen,Augustine,and otherchurchfathers.In its secondpart,the book examinesthe workof Freud,JacquesLacan,JacquesDerrida,Harold Bloom, and others, trying to correlatetheir hermeneuticalmethods with those examinedin the book's first half. Thus, TheSlayersof Moses has two centersof interest-the theological and the modern-which, however,interpenetrate.Handelmanapproaches Jewishand Christianreligioustraditionsthroughthe termsand conceptions developed in modernity. She also approachesmodern literary theorists 273

274

BOOKREVIEWS

through theologicaland religiouscategories.In general,the book's efforts are directed toward definingelements in recent theory which suggest or reflect a Judaic rather than a Christianhermeneutic.It posits an openended, multiple,and discontinuousinterpretivemode as rabbinic,in which each verse is examinedin turn ratherthan subsumedinto a unitaryargument and many readingscan coexist with each other. This mode focuses upon concrete instances rather than abstractions, on specific textual elements and events and laws. Its exegeticalmethod proceeds,in Handelman's terms,by way of "metonymic"or associativereasoningwhichworks among literal"signifiers,"that is, the particularletters,words, and texts of the Bible in their literal sense. This method is likenedto the open-ended, multiple, and discontinuousinterpretationsof modern literarytheorists, who similarly,accordingto Handelman,focus uponthe associationsamong literaltextualelementsand do not attemptto reconcileall the issues raised in the courseof theirdiscussions.In contrast,Handelmanposits a Christian hermeneuticconcernedwith the "figurative"ratherthanwith the "literal," with abstractconcepts("signifieds")ratherthan concretetextualelements ("signifiers"),and which synthesizescriticaldiscussioninto a closed, unitary, and hierarchicalinterpretation.In this mode all interpretivedetailsare integratedand seen to referto a single issue or final figure,such as that of Jesus as the IncarnateWord. The book thereforeposits a series of dichotomies,often drawn from literarytheoryand then appliedto theology,as a meansof drawingdistinctions between the two religious traditions.Judaic exegesis, accordingto Handelman,is concernedwith the particularas against the general, the concrete as against the abstract,the predicateas against the subject,the signifieror concretetextualdetailas againstits signifiedconcept,metonomy or associativereasoningas against metaphoror figurativereasoning,the auditoryas againstthe visual,etc. The Christiantraditionis associatedwith each contraryterm. Handelmanhas thereforeattemptedgeneralassessmentsof exceedingly complexphenomena.She succeedsin offeringa widearrayof sourcematerials, with a substantialbibliographyand a usefulcollectionof textsandreferences. Each figure'sthought, both ancient and modern,is summarizedin turn, so that the book provides a general introductioninto many of the systemsof thoughtcentralto currentliterarydiscourse.And her sense of a basic distinctionbetweena Judaicand a Christianhermeneuticis justified. Yet TheSlayersof Moses is not ultimatelyfaithfulto its own premisesand does not finally realize its own promise. This is partly due to the scholarly

BOOK REVIEWS

275

difficulties inherent in Handelman's undertaking, which are, as she acknowledges, formidable. But it is also due in part to Handelman's own stance. For each system of thought, as it is summarized, is overschematized; and ultimately, the different discussions do not cohere. The book's dichotomies, in identifying a single opposing term with one tradition as against the other, omit forces and factors in each which are significant; and the author overlooks important aspects of their interrelation. Moreover, the terms shift from context to context without consistent usage, leading to a lack of integration among the book's various discussions. The different categories of each opposition are not in fact fully equivalent. There is a lack of alignment among the terms, the relations between which are never fully examined. This is not the case,as we noted,with Hebraicthought,wherewordand thing are intimatelyinterconnected;the relationof word to thing is not the relation of abstractto concrete,but ratherthe characterizationof the inner specific realityof the thing. In placeof representationis graspedreality.Becausethere is no absolutedivisionbetweenwordand thing,the generalmode of Rabbinic thoughtties the generalizationto the particularor ratherembedsit withinthe particular.Perhapsit could be said that the imageryconceptis to the representedcategoryas the wordis to the thingin the meaningof davar.To use the linguistJakobson'sterms,the relationis not one of substitution(metaphor) but contiguity(metonymy).(P. 62) Word here is contrasted with thing, without ever establishing thing as a physical or an ontological category. The correlation of word/thing and abstract/concrete is therefore unclear, especially when "concrete" is then defined through the ontological abstraction "inner specific reality." "Representation" is posed against "grasped reality" without confronting the epistemological problems of such a distinction. Finally, the various terms are somehow equated in turn with "metaphor" and "metonymy," while the complex relation between these two tropes is ignored (metonymy, for example, is not merely governed by association, but also involves substitution). The relation between terms seems unclear; so do the terms themselves. For example, the terms "signifier"/"signified" are used without fully defining or consistently applying them. Introduced into modern theory through Ferdinand de Saussure, the term "signified" designates the "concept" or "content" of a sign, as opposed to the "signifier," its shape or "form," by which the "content" is signified. The terms are here invoked by way of

276

BOOKREVIEWS

JacquesDerrida,who has, as Handelmanasserts,definedand exploredtheir metaphysicalimplications.Accordingto Derrida,the "signified"concept acts as an ontologicalcategory,not unlikea PlatonicIdea.It is thusopento the post-Nietzscheancritiqueof ontologyas removedfromand devaluating the sensible world of actual, concrete, literal "signifiers."Derrida posits instead a system of signification-a model for how-signs-mean-which reliesnot on the distinctionbetweenthe "signified"conceptand its signifying, literalsign, but ratheron the interrelationamongconcretedetailswhich are never displaced by some supposed concept separable from them. Meaning would thus be generated through the systematic interrelation among concrete signs, rather than by referenceto some "idea" toward which the signs point and which would leave the concretelevel behind. Termsdrawnfrom moderntheory, such as "signified"and "signifier," can, as Handelmanasserts,elucidatethe distinctionsbetweenthe Judaicand Christianstructuresof signification.The book's own terminologicalconfusion, however,obscureshereffort.On the one hand,Greco-Christianphilosophy is indictedas "a thought processthat mistook signs for things"(p. 118), that is, for having failed to distinguishbetweenthem. On the other hand, the rabbinicview is praisedbecausein it "thereis no mimeticconception of language, no radical separationof word and thing, signifierand signified"(p. 89). Again, sign and thing are said to be inseparable.The use of these terms thus fails to explain how a rabbinicrefusalto displacethe literal "signifier"for allegorizedmeaning-part of the rabbinicinsistence on the significanceof each letter-differs from the Christiansubsumption of each particularsignifier-whether it be image or event-into the ultimatesignifiedof Jesusas logos, as occursin the typologicaltreatmentof Old Testamentcharactersand events as prefigurationsof the New Testament. Similarly,Handelmandescribesthe rabbinicworldas "one of intertextuality. Texts echo, interactand interpenetrate.In the world of the text, rigid temporaland spatialdistinctionscollapse"(p. 47). This descriptionapplies to Christiantypology as well, and leavesunclearthe distinctiveelementsin rabbinicpractices.At the sametime, Handelmanclaimsthat in the rabbinic view, the biblicaltext "is only superficiallya descriptionof the past"(p. 78), which seems more true (though not entirely so) of Christianexegetical assumptions than of Judaic ones, in which the historical level retains unquestionedimportance. Handelman'sefforts to define religious distinctionsin the terms provided by literarytheoryis thereforecompromisedby confusionsin her use of these terms.Nor is the traditionalmaterialsufficientlycontrolledor well

BOOK REVIEWS

277

defined to clarify the theological implicationsof the modern terms. As Handelmanherself concedes, "One needs to approachRabbinic thought from within, for the elaborationof abstractrulesis not a processwhichfor the Rabbiswas separatefrom the concreteinstancewhichgives them rise" (p. 49). But, as she also admits, she proceedsto do just this. The variety, difficulty,and methodsemployedin rabbinictexts resisttheoreticalabstraction; this is a problemwhicheverystudentof Judaismmustconfront.While it may be possible to undertakethis temptingand risky venturewithin a carefullycontrolledframework,TheSlayersof Moses does so on too broad a basis, and at too great a distancefromthe texts to do themjustice. There are, therefore,lapses. Handelmantends to substitutethe generalprinciples of Rabbi Ishmaelfor the talmudictext. Judaicimpulsesare categorizedin termsof the book's variousdichotomies,whichthen, however,breakdown. "Literal"as opposed to "figurative"readings,for instance,are adoptedas the cornerstoneof Handelman'sanalysis of exegeticalmethods, and are identified with the opposition between letter and spirit in Paul. But this given of Judaic/Christianexegesis forces Handlemanto frame her own argumentin Paulineterms,whichshe then triesto resist,addingto the confusion. At one moment,Handelmanassertsthat for the rabbis"the literalis nevercancelled"(p. 55), while at anothershe claims that "to interpretthe text in a non-literalmannerwas an integralpart of the Rabbinictradition" (p. 96). Handelmanis here, as elsewhere,raisingan importantissue. But in Derridait leads to a rejectionof the distinctionbetweenthe literaland the figurativeas inherentlyPauline. Handelmantries to articulatethis Derridean position, but does so whileherselfremainingcaughtin the distinction. This terminologicalinconsistencytends to trap Handelmaninto excessive claims. For example,in tryingto distinguishGreeknotionsof necessity from Jewishattitudes,she erectsa Jewishdoctrineof contingency:"For if the world werecreatedthroughthe arbitarywill of God," she writes,"then it was contingentand had no necessaryexistence."But the Jewishidea of God is not typicallyone of arbitrarywillfulness."The Biblicalview," she continues, "posited an extremenegativityat the center of things"(p. 28). Negativitymay be invokedin certainmysticalcontexts,in paradoxicalreference to the infinity of the Godhead. But the term cannot be introduced without such qualification. Thereis, indeed,a generallack of rigorin Handelman'streatmentof the complex issue of the place of mysticismwithinJewishtradition.Citing the belief that Moses received the oral law on Sinai along with the written Torah, Handelmanpasses without pause to the furthernotion of secret,

278

BOOK REVIEWS

hidden, mystical levels of Torah-which she, however, startlingly distinguishes from the actual written text: "The material Torah, then, is the embodiment or enclothing of this non-material original Torah, and the parameters of the text are, to begin with, infinite" (p. 38). The description here recalls Gershom Scholem's discussions of Torah-de-'astiluth,Torah in its mystical aspects-as, for instance, in On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism. But Scholem is careful to note the "ambiguous nature of this theory," and indeed, its potential for heresy-a potential realized, as he asserts, in the "antinomianism and mystical nihilism" of the Sabbatians: "The mystical content of the Torah was freed from its bond with the traditional meaning of the text; it became independent, and in this new state could no longer be expressed in the symbols of traditional Jewish life." Scholem himself can hardly be said, in this regard, to present "a vision of heresy as deeply traditional" (p. 199), as Handelman claims. While Scholem examines the importance of mysticism to developing Jewish traditions, he does not simply equate the mystical with the heretical. That Handelman herself does seem to equate them, however, is consistent with her own fundamental notions of the nature of rabbinic interpretation as such. For in emphasizing the "multiplicity of interpretation and diversity of opinion in Rabbinic thought" (p. 66), she comes to overlook the structures which nevertheless define rabbinic interpretation. Writes Handelman: The boundariesbetweentext and interpretationare fluid in a way which is difficultfor us to imaginefor a sacredtext, butthis fluidityis a centraltenetof muchcontemporaryliterarytheory.The elevationof latercommentaryto the status of earlierprimarytext is one of the extraordinarycharacteristicsof Rabbinicinterpretation,and involvesa not so subtlepowerstruggle.Interpretation as a speciesof will-to-powerwill be investigated[viz.] Harold Bloom, whose literarytheory focuses on the Oedipalconflict betweenbelatedinterpreterand canonicalprecursor.(P. 41). The extent to which Harold Bloom endorses an unqualified will-to-power as the basis of critical interpretation is highly questionable. But to claim it for the rabbinic approach is to distort the reverence, devotion, and awe which remain the distinguishing characteristic of rabbinic attitudes toward the sacred texts. It may be that there is "no before and after in Torah," as Handelman cites; but there are differences in the authority granted to acharonim and rishonim, amora'im and tana'im, rabbinic utterances and Torah itself. Even midrashic discussions, however open they may be, are not

BOOK REVIEWS

279

utterly unbounded,but take place within a sharedcommunityof religious education, practices, and belief. And Torah, as the basis of all further interpretation,retains its special and preeminentstatus. Nevertheless, in her discussion of Judaism, Handelman is faithfully attemptingto describein moderntermsprinciplesof Judaictextualstances with which she has a fundamentalsympathy.This cannot be said of her treatment of Christianity,which is often unsympathetic,and sometimes simplyincorrect.Thereareminorproblems,suchas: "Monologicreadingof Scripturewas the provinceof the ChurchFathers,recentlyconvertedfrom monistpaganphilosophy"(p. 81). But manyof the philosophiesfromwhich the church fathers converted were, as in the case of Neoplatonism, not monist, but dualist. In general,there is a refusalto take into account the multiplicityof forcesand movementsin the firstChristiancenturies.Nor is Christianity'sattempt to synthesizeHebraic and Hellenic elements taken into account,so that neithersuch differencesfrom its Greek antecedentsas did evolve nor its remainingJudaic elements are ever acknowledged. Still, these oversightsremainperipheral.More centralto Handelman's of argument,and more troubling,is what appearsto be a misunderstanding the Incarnation.As the manifestationof the logos, the Incarnationmust be the heartof any discussionof the Word in the Christiantradition.Handelman's referencesto it seem distortedand polemical.In the Incarnation,we are told, "the Rabbinicwordbecamesubstantializedinto flesh"(p. 17)."In Christianity,... the text was supplanted,the movementof interpretation now directedto the revelationof how all wordspoint to and are fulfilledby the word of flesh" (p. 32). The Christiansense that the logos forms the center of all revelationand interpretationmust, certainly,be distinguished from Jewish interpretivepremises.In Judaism,the text is neversubsumed into or displacedby revelation-as-person. Still, the suggestionthat the goal of the Incarnationis to focus upon and worshipnot the logos but the literal flesh, rather than proposing the flesh as a miraculous(to the Christian) condescensionof the logos whichmakesit accessibleto man withinhistory, can only be describedas a profoundinversionof the logos doctrine.Handelman's furthercharacterizationof the doctrineas "paganbecauseit literalizes the metaphor"(p. 29) both contradictsher earliercategorizingof the Christianimpulseas figuraland works againstan objectivecomparisonof Jewish/Christianconceptions. The inconsistent and unclear dichotomies characterizenot only the discussion of religious issues, but also the discussion of modern literary theories. First, Jacques Lacan is said to assert in a "rabbinic"mode a

280

BOOK REVIEWS

"metonymical"interplay of signifierswhich move through "continuous displacementsalong the chain of signification-without any recourseto a signified"(p. 156). Soon after, we are told that JacquesDerrida,also in a rabbinicmode, "would break Lacan'scovenant of unity betweensignifier and signified,abolish any illusorypoint of stability,which is some present signifier[sic; signified?]underlyingall others or some ideal full word"(p. 164).Whathad seemeda Lacanianand rabbinicdistinctionbetweena signified conceptand signifyingconcretedetailcomesto be calleda unity,which Derridawould break. But he is then also said to protest "the very act of differentiatingbetweensignifierand signified,andpostulatingtheirexteriority to one another."The position of each critic remainsunclear,as do the implicationsof unity or separationbetweensignifiedand signifier. In the end, however,the dichotomywhich seems most to control The Slayersof Moses is that of Us againstThem. Designationsof one notion as Jewishand its contraryas Christianmust be fully qualifiedif they are to be useful. And even the Us/Them dichotomy is not consistently applied. Freud's contributionis proposed as "an extension of the line of Jewish Rabbinichermeneutics"and thus as differing"decisivelyfrom the German Protestanttradition that culminatesin the phenomenologyof Heidegger and Gadamer"(p. 130). But before Heidegger,phenomenologyhad been explored by Husserl; and after Heidegger, it has been developed by EmmanuelLevinasand by Derrida:all of whom are Jews.The point is not, however,to put anothernotch on the handleof one's religiousgun. Rather, it is to recognizehow complexsuch cross- and intra-culturalexchangesare. Too extremea line-drawingis combinedwith a ratherstrangeline-blurring. HavingstarklyopposedJudaicagainstChristianinterpretation,and having introducedmodern theorists as Judaic in method, The Slayers of Moses concludes by positing a "heretic hermeneutic"which, it seems, includes everyone:"We may now read Jesus, Paul, Freud,and Freud'smost recent interpreters,Derrida,Lacan,and Bloom as all sharingin a particularmode of Jewishheresy:a distorteddisplacement,an aspectof whichis the conversion of metonymyinto metaphor,or displacementpretendingto substitution" (p. 137).Bloom,who is superblyawareof the distinctionsbetweenhis own hermeneuticalheritageand the Paulinetraditionof exegesis,is somehow groupedwith Paul.At this point it becomesunclearwhatis Jewishand what is not, what is traditionaland what is not. Even the emergenceof rabbinicinterpretationin modernliterarytheory no longer seems certain, unless emergenceand "distorteddisplacement"are accepted as synonymous. Moses seems more slain than reborn.

281

BOOK REVIEWS

TheSlayersof Moses raisesimportantquestions,and containsinteresting and suggestivematerial.Both its fundamentalthesis of Judaismas an active force in modernliterarytheory and its sense of distinctionbetween Judaicand Christianhermeneuticsare promising.But a less extremepolarization of "sides" would have strengthenedHandelman'sarguments,and prevented readers' qualifications from becoming objections. A deeper explorationof the implicationsof the impulsescharacterizedas Judaic or Christianwould have made these categories seem less arbitrary.And a firmercontrol of termsboth modernand traditional,with more cautionin applyingthem, seems especiallynecessaryin a book as encyclopedic,on a subject as intricate, as is The Slayers of Moses.

ShiraWolosky YaleUniversity New Haven,Conn. Menahem H. Schmelzer, ed. Yitzhak ben Avraham Ibn Ezra: Shirim. New

York: Jewish TheologicalSeminaryof America, 1980. xxii, 171 pp. This handsomeedition of the poems of Yitzhak Ibn Ezra, edited and annotatedwith a valuablecommentaryby ProfessorMenahemSchmelzer, is a worthy addition to the growing numberof critical texts of medieval Hebrewpoetry that have appearedin recent years, a distinguishedgroup that includessuchvolumesas Dan Pagis'sShireiLeviIbnAl-Taban,Aharon Mirsky's Yossi ben Yossi, Yisrael Levin's edition of the shirat hakodesh of

AbrahamIbn Ezra,and Ezra Fleischer'sseveralcollectionsof earlypiyyut. This edition of Yitzhak'spoetry is especiallyimportantbecauseit constitutes the first publicationfor nearly all the poems in it. Thanks to this volume, scholarswill now be enabledto evaluatethe careerof a not very well known Golden Age Spanish-Jewishpoet who was perhapsmorerepresentativeof his culturethan some of his more gifted and bettercelebrated contemporaries. The reputation of Yitzhak ben Avraham Ibn Ezra has suffered an obscurefate, particularlyin comparisonwith that of his illustriousfather.' About Yitzhak'slife little is known except that he appearsto have accom-

1. For a complete discussion of the issues mentioned in this paragraph and in the next, see Professor Schmelzer's informative introduction to the edition.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David Stern Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 281-284 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486325 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



281

BOOK REVIEWS

TheSlayersof Moses raisesimportantquestions,and containsinteresting and suggestivematerial.Both its fundamentalthesis of Judaismas an active force in modernliterarytheory and its sense of distinctionbetween Judaicand Christianhermeneuticsare promising.But a less extremepolarization of "sides" would have strengthenedHandelman'sarguments,and prevented readers' qualifications from becoming objections. A deeper explorationof the implicationsof the impulsescharacterizedas Judaic or Christianwould have made these categories seem less arbitrary.And a firmercontrol of termsboth modernand traditional,with more cautionin applyingthem, seems especiallynecessaryin a book as encyclopedic,on a subject as intricate, as is The Slayers of Moses.

ShiraWolosky YaleUniversity New Haven,Conn. Menahem H. Schmelzer, ed. Yitzhak ben Avraham Ibn Ezra: Shirim. New

York: Jewish TheologicalSeminaryof America, 1980. xxii, 171 pp. This handsomeedition of the poems of Yitzhak Ibn Ezra, edited and annotatedwith a valuablecommentaryby ProfessorMenahemSchmelzer, is a worthy addition to the growing numberof critical texts of medieval Hebrewpoetry that have appearedin recent years, a distinguishedgroup that includessuchvolumesas Dan Pagis'sShireiLeviIbnAl-Taban,Aharon Mirsky's Yossi ben Yossi, Yisrael Levin's edition of the shirat hakodesh of

AbrahamIbn Ezra,and Ezra Fleischer'sseveralcollectionsof earlypiyyut. This edition of Yitzhak'spoetry is especiallyimportantbecauseit constitutes the first publicationfor nearly all the poems in it. Thanks to this volume, scholarswill now be enabledto evaluatethe careerof a not very well known Golden Age Spanish-Jewishpoet who was perhapsmorerepresentativeof his culturethan some of his more gifted and bettercelebrated contemporaries. The reputation of Yitzhak ben Avraham Ibn Ezra has suffered an obscurefate, particularlyin comparisonwith that of his illustriousfather.' About Yitzhak'slife little is known except that he appearsto have accom-

1. For a complete discussion of the issues mentioned in this paragraph and in the next, see Professor Schmelzer's informative introduction to the edition.

282

BOOKREVIEWS

panied Yehuda Halevi, his literary and spiritual mentor, on Halevi's attemptedpilgrimageto Palestine.Afterthe latter'sdeath in Egyptin 1141, Yitzhakjourneyedto Damascusandlaterto Baghdad,wherehe came under the influence of the Jewish physician and philosopherNetanel ben Eli (better known, after his conversionto Islam, as Abu al-BarakatHIibat (sha'ar Allah). Accordingto the testimonyof Al-Hariziin the Takhkemoni his Yitzhak followed teacher and himself converted. This 3), subsequently last fact, however,has never been independentlyverified.2 Yitzhak's poetry has also languishedin obscurity.Although the late Naftali ben-Menahempublishedin 1950 an edition of Yitzhak's known work, much of it of questionableattribution,most of Yitzhak'sdiwanwas known only by reportbecauseit was all containedin a single manuscript whose owner, a wealthy Syrian Jewish merchant by the name of Ezra Solomon Silvera, refusedto permit scholars to study it. As early as the beginningof this century,Hayyim(Heinrich)Brody attemptedto buy the manuscript,3but Silverawas willingto sell it only at an exorbitantprice,and not until 1968 was the manuscriptfinally acquiredby the Libraryof the JewishTheologicalSeminary,whereProfessorSchmelzeris chief librarian. The seminaryhas now generouslysupportedthe publicationof this valuable manuscriptthroughthis edition. For all its undoubted importance, the Silvera manuscriptraises a numberof questionsconcerningits dating,authorship,and relationshipto Yitzhak'scomplete diwan.The manuscriptis writtenin a twelfth-century Sephardirabbinichand, and two inscriptionsat its beginning-a prefaceto a lengthy letter in rhymed prose and four praise-poemsdedicatedto a certain Rab Avraham,the head of the yeshivain Damascus-state that at least some of the poems in the manuscriptwere copied in a town near Damascusin Marheshvan1454(October-November1142).Anotherpoem, however,no. 36, a praise-poemin honor of Abu al-Barakat,states that it was composed in Baghdad in May 1143-that is, nearly a year after Yitzhakhad left Damascus.To resolvethis apparentcontradiction,Professor Schmelzersuggeststhat the manuscriptas it now existsactuallyconsists 2. On this poem and its biographical value, see the brief remarks of Hayyim Schirmann, published as note 29 in A. M. Haberman, "Regarding the Fate of the Diwan of Yitzhak Ibn Ezra" (Hebrew), Sinai, vol. 14, pp. 245-246. 3. For the correspondence between Silvera and Brody, see Haberman's article, cited in the preceding note, and Appendix 2 of Professor Schmelzer's edition.

BOOK REVIEWS

283

of severalfasciclesor booklets (kuntrasim)of poems;the earliestof these is the fasciclecontainingthe poems dedicatedto Rab Avrahamof Damascus, who, accordingto ProfessorSchmelzer,may actuallyhave copied the text himself,possiblyin Yitzhak'sown presence;the otherpoems, includingthe fasciclewith the praise-poemto Abu al-Barakat,wereaddedto the diwanat a later time. ProfessorSchmelzerproposesotherpossibleexplanationsfor the stateof the manuscript,4but his observationthat the presenttext is composed of separate fasciclesjoined together at differentperiods is borne out by the organizationof the poems. Followingthe initialrhymed-proseletterand the praise-poems to Rab Avraham, the manuscript contains a section of twenty-onepoems that are mainlyencomiain honor of the dignitariesof the EgyptianJewishcommunity(some of whom are also the subjectsof praisepoems YehudaHalevicomposedin the same period);a group of poems on diversesubjects,includingseveralin praiseof BabylonianJewishleaders;a small collection of poems by other Spanish-Hebrewpoets (among them Halevi, AbrahamIbn Ezra, and Yitzhak Ibn Giat); finally, an additional group of poems by Yitzhak dating from the period of his sojourn in Babylonia. The reason for the presencein the manuscriptof the groupof poems by Yitzhak's contemporariesremainssomethingof a mystery,and Professor Schmelzerhas wisely relegatedthe poems to an appendix(printingin full text only those never before published).In anotherappendix,he has publisheda letterfrom EzraSilverato HayyimBrodydescribingthe manuscript and its contents, while a third appendixcontains twelve poems that have traditionallybeen attributedto Yitzhak but are not in the Silveramanuscript. These poems include Yerivuni'alei 'ozvibrit,until now probablythe best-knownpoem attributedto Yitzhak, in which he supposedlyrepented and begged forgivenessfor his conversion. The case of Yerivuni is instructivebecauseit suggestshow the publication of the Silvera manuscriptwill now change our views about Yitzhak as a poet. This is not the only poem traditionallyattributedto Yitzhak which may now have to be excluded from the diwan;to some readers,an even greater disappointmentmay be the poem beginningBekhi tis'u, also not 4. For a different explanation and criticism of Schmelzer, see Nehemia Alloni's learned review-essay of the edition in Kiryat Sefer 56 (1981): 488-493.

284

BOOK REVIEWS

found in the Silveramanuscript,and surely one of the most delightfully malicious hate-poems in all medieval Hebrew poetry.5 Yet the Silvera manuscriptclearly does not contain Yitzhak'sentire diwan.There are no poems in it from the period before Yitzhak left Spain, and while all the poems in the manuscriptareshireihbol,it is hardto believethat Yitzhakdid not compose some liturgical poetry. Moreover, although Yitzhak has typicallybeen known as a poet who excelledin the compositionof girdlepoems,6all the poems in the Silveramanuscript,with the exceptionof the rhymed-proseletter, are in classical meters with a single rhyme-scheme. The vast majority of these are praise-poems or poems of friendship addressedto the ubiquitous Tsvi-a fact that may serve to remind the readerof the actual situation in which poets like Yitzhak usually wrote, alwayshavingto curryfavorfromone patronor another.Whilethe Golden Age's greatestpoets, like Halevior Moshe Ibn Ezra,wereableto transcend the so-calledpecuniaryside of poetic existencethroughthe sheerpowerof literary genius, one suspects that the more common, perhaps inevitable consequencesof the patronagesystemare more accuratelyreflectedin the qualityof Yitzhak'spoetry,whichis thoroughlyprofessional,highlyliterate, and almost completelyuninspired.It is revealingthat the best poemsin this collection have the least to do with "patronizing";I have in mind in particular the lyricallamentsand meditationson time, fortune, and the poet's loneliness. All in all, Yitzhak emerges from this collection as a gifted epigone(especiallyas a discipleof Halevi),and as a significantexampleof a second-ranktalent of the period. This last fact, however,makes Professor Schmelzer'sedition all the more valuable if only because such poets as Yitzhak are usually ignored by modern scholarsin favor of the "greats," even though they have their own interest. In the prefaceto this edition, ProfessorSchmelzernotes in passingthat when the Silveramanuscriptfirstcameto his attentionhe was in the process of collectingthepiyyutimof YitzhakIbn Giat. Wecan now eagerlyawaitthe appearanceof that edition in a volume as handsomeas this one. DavidStern Universityof Judaism Los Angeles,Calif. 5. A good text and translation of this poem is found in T. Carmi's The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse(New York: Penguin & Viking, 1981), p. 356. It is significant that this is the single poem by Yitzhak that Carmi publishes. 6. Cf. H. Schirmann, Hebrew Poetry in Spain and Provence (Hebrew), 2d ed. (Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1959), vol. 2, p. 625.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Leon J. Weinberger Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 285-287 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486326 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOK REVIEWS

285

Yehuda Nini and Maya Fruchtman, eds. Rabbi Shem Tob Ben Izhak Ardutiel or Don Santo De-Carrion, "Ma'ase-Harab" (The Debate between

the Pen and the Scissors).Tel Aviv: Tel-AvivUniversityPress, 1980,86 pp. In recentyearstherehas been an increasedinterestby scholarsin Spain (E. Alarcos Llorach,A. Castro,F. Diaz Esteban,A. Gerchunoff,I. Llubera Gonz~les, C. Sinchez-Albornos),France(J. Joset), Israel(H. Schirmann), Argentina(E. LanuzaGonzales),and the United States(C. A. Colahan,J. Castilianrabbi Kleinerman)in the life and worksof the fourteenth-century Shem Tob ben Isaac Ardutiel,following the discoveryby Y. Baerin 1935 that Ardutielwas identicalwith Santobde Carri6n,authorof the celebrated Proverbiosmorales.Ardutielhas been variouslypraisedfor his writingson man'sbehaviorand his insightsinto the dynamicsof personalityand human emotions(A. Castro);for his intellectualbentand his detachedobservations of life and society (Sanchez-Albornos);and for his criticism of human pretensionsto know absolute truth (A. Colahan). In additionto the Proverbiosmoraleswrittenin Castilianusing Hebrew characters,his literarylegacy includesa viduifor the musafserviceon the Day of Atonement;a baqashaof 2,000 wordseach beginningwith the letter mem,patternedafterthe Baqashatha-Memimof Yedayaha-Peniniand the somewhat later Malkiel of Menalhemben Elia of Kastoria;a translation from Arabic into Hebrewof a liturgicalwork by Israelha-Israeliwhich he entitled MiSvot Zemanniyyot; and a maqama called Milhbemetha-Et ve-ha-

Misparayim,an amusingdebateon the relativemeritsof pen and scissorsas instrumentsfor writing,composed in 1345. The latter work, which was published in Metz in 1859 by Eliezer Ashkenazi,using two defectivemanuscripts,has been reissuedby Tel-Aviv Universityunderthe capableeditorshipof YehudaNini and Maya Fruchtman, based on a photocopyof the more accurateversionthat was once the Seminarin Breslau(cf. MS proudpossessionof the Juedisch-Theologisches no. Stein 38, Saraval, Catalogue,p. 120). In his "debate"betweenpen and scissors,Ardutielparodiesthe more serious debate betweenthe pen and the sword (i.e., betweenthe religious and secularauthoritiesor betweenthe bureaucraticadministratorand the military commanderin the field), a well-knowncontemporarytheme in Hebrewand Arabicliterature.Followinga briefintroductionof alternating rhymedprose and verse, and after stating his intention to write with his scissors,the authorgives us the detailsof a quarrelwith his pen for failing him on a particularlycold winter day by refusingto penetratea frozen inkwell. (The literary debate between master and possession was a familiar

286

BOOK REVIEWS

parody of the period employedby such Provenqaland Catalin writersas BertranCarbonell,Gui de Cavaillo, and Anselmo Turmeda.) The firstprincipalnarrativedivisionof the workends with the inversion of imagerycommonto this genre,as the author'searlierjoy at the prospect of entertaininghimselfwith his noble and faithfulwritingpen on this cold and friendlessday turns into anger and abuse of this "ungrateful"and "splinteredreed."In the secondsectionpen and scissorsarguetheirrespective merits.The authoris persuadedby the scissorsand is delightedto find an able alternativeto his fickle pen. The handsomeletters formed by the scissors now become an ornament for the concepts they express (lines 276-280), as the authorheapspraiseupon his new writingtool in a reprise of metaphorsearlierreservedfor his pen. In rebuttalthe pen chargesthat the scissors are not suited for writing-the author's ingenuity in this instancenotwithstanding-and proposesthat an impartialjudge, a man in the street,be asked to determinethe properuse of each object.The pen is vindicatedwhen the "judge,"after sortingthroughthe author'shousehold utensils,beginsto writewiththe pen, and thentrimshis beardand nailswith the scissors(lines 515-519). The pen celebratesits victoryby again writing for its masterand, in a continuinginversionof images,is praisedfor pursuing its traditionalcalling,with an impliedrebuketo the scissorsfor their attemptto pervertthe establishedorder of creation.In the third and concluding section, ArdutielpraisesGod for his compassionin a time of distress and condemnsthe schemersand plotterswho, like a cutting scissor, bring divisivenessand fear into the city, even as he admits to writingthis entire work without the benefitof pen and ink (i.e., with his scissors)! Nini and Fruchtman'sedition of Ardutiel's"Debate"comes complete with a thoroughcriticalapparatusand a valuableexcursuson Ardutiel'suse of biblical, rabbinic, and Arabic literary sources and on the distinctive vocalizationof his text. The editors are to be commendedfor rejectingas mere speculationthe thesis that Ardutiel's"Debate"is a political allegory reflectingthe distressof CastilianJewryin 1336-1340 underAlfonso XI, following the rise to power of his major-domo,Gonzalo Martinez de Oviedo. Regrettably,the relationshipof Ardutiel's"Debate"to the contemporarydebate literaturein Spain is not adequatelyaddressedby Nini and Fruchtman.To whatextentwas Ardutielinfluencedby the debatesin Judah Jacob b. al-Harizi'sTabkemonior in the maqamatof the thirteenth-century Eliezerof Toledo?Is Ardutiel's"Debate"modeledafterthe medievalLatin altercatio,whichseeksto establishthe truthof one side of the argument,or is it more akin to the mundzara,whose generalpurposewas to combineor

287

BOOK REVIEWS

harmonizeopposing views?How is Ardutiel'swork relatedto the contemporarydebatesin Provenqalcourtgatherings,as, for example,the tensoand thepartimenorjoc partit,particularlysinceProvencalliteraturewas popular at the Castilian court during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries? Perhapsin the revisededition promisedby the editors these issues will be considered. LeonJ.Weinberger Universityof Alabama University,Ala.

David B. Ruderman, The Worldof a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol. Monographs of the Hebrew Union

College, no. 6. Cincinnati,1981. xvii, 265 pp. In the past two or three decades, the numberof subjectsconsidered appropriatefor historicalinquiry has greatly increased.While historians wereonce concernedalmostexclusivelywith succeedinggenerationsof elites and toweringintellectualand political figures,they now pursueavidly the study of much "humbler"folk. Similarly,social groupsand categorieslike "the family"and "children"havebecomethe historian'slegitimatedomain. Jewish historians have proved themselves no exception to this trend. Nevertheless,at least with referenceto the premodernperiods of Jewish history, and with one or two recent and notable exceptions, much still remainsto be said about that groupwhichhas traditionallybeenso preponderant and so representativeof the Jewish totality, the "bourgeoisie"or "middleclass." An importantstep towardthe understandingof bourgeoisJewishlife has now been taken by David Ruderman'spenetratinganalysisof the life and works of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol. Copier of manuscriptsand teacher of chidren, and mohel,student of science and astrological .azzan of dabbler, and frequenter humanistic and Christian Hebraist circles, includingthat of Pico della Mirandolain Florenceand Ferraraat the endof the fifteenthand in the earlydecadesof the sixteenthcentury,Farissolwas a quintessentiallymiddle-classand, if you will, middle-browtype. This study of his life, accordingly,providesus with a distinctview of the middle-class world of RenaissanceJewish Italy, its goals, its hopes, and its anxieties. Neither a philosopher, universityprofessor, rabbi, nor, at the other

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Kenneth R. Stow Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 287-291 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486327 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



287

BOOK REVIEWS

harmonizeopposing views?How is Ardutiel'swork relatedto the contemporarydebatesin Provenqalcourtgatherings,as, for example,the tensoand thepartimenorjoc partit,particularlysinceProvencalliteraturewas popular at the Castilian court during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries? Perhapsin the revisededition promisedby the editors these issues will be considered. LeonJ.Weinberger Universityof Alabama University,Ala.

David B. Ruderman, The Worldof a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol. Monographs of the Hebrew Union

College, no. 6. Cincinnati,1981. xvii, 265 pp. In the past two or three decades, the numberof subjectsconsidered appropriatefor historicalinquiry has greatly increased.While historians wereonce concernedalmostexclusivelywith succeedinggenerationsof elites and toweringintellectualand political figures,they now pursueavidly the study of much "humbler"folk. Similarly,social groupsand categorieslike "the family"and "children"havebecomethe historian'slegitimatedomain. Jewish historians have proved themselves no exception to this trend. Nevertheless,at least with referenceto the premodernperiods of Jewish history, and with one or two recent and notable exceptions, much still remainsto be said about that groupwhichhas traditionallybeenso preponderant and so representativeof the Jewish totality, the "bourgeoisie"or "middleclass." An importantstep towardthe understandingof bourgeoisJewishlife has now been taken by David Ruderman'spenetratinganalysisof the life and works of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol. Copier of manuscriptsand teacher of chidren, and mohel,student of science and astrological .azzan of dabbler, and frequenter humanistic and Christian Hebraist circles, includingthat of Pico della Mirandolain Florenceand Ferraraat the endof the fifteenthand in the earlydecadesof the sixteenthcentury,Farissolwas a quintessentiallymiddle-classand, if you will, middle-browtype. This study of his life, accordingly,providesus with a distinctview of the middle-class world of RenaissanceJewish Italy, its goals, its hopes, and its anxieties. Neither a philosopher, universityprofessor, rabbi, nor, at the other

288

BOOK REVIEWS

extreme, a publicist, Farissol might be best described as a perennially aspiringintellectualand scholar. Still, his achievementswere by no means slight. Conversantwith the ideas and work of contemporarysecularliterature, as well as with the staplesof Jewishtradition,and with good contacts at all levels of society, both Jewishand non-Jewish,Farissolcould attain a measureof respectand assert his presenceeffectivelyin influentialcircles. The audienceFarissolconsciouslyaddressed,moreover,was broadlybased. He wrote for and respondedto the needs of those hundreds(or was it thousands?)of ItalianJews who felt the stimulus,challenge,and threatof the Renaissance-pre-Reformation world and who asked the fundamental of how deal with this world,indeed,imbibefromit, yet could question they still remainsteadfastin theirJewishidentity.Hence,Rudermanwriteson p. 145:"To the extentthat Farissolwroteto informthe entireJewishcommunity, his life and thoughtprovidea greaterinsightinto the impactof Renaissance cultureon a wide cross-sectionof that communitythan do the works of other intellectuals,whose audienceswere restrictedto learnedcircles, whetherJewish or Christian." The Renaissanceworld, moreover,was a deceptiveone, willingin some cases, as Rudermanexplains, to see in the individualJew a person and human being, but also holdingon staunchlyto the medievalconceptionof the accursedJewish people. The FrenchhumanistFrancoisTissardcould show respect for Farissol, his teacher of Hebrew. However, through Hebraism and the exploitation of the Kabbalah, Tissard also hoped to achieve Farissol'sconversion. Farissol could distinguishbetween what was primaryand what was secondaryto his own identity.Familiar.with, althoughnot immersedin, the writingsof Maimonidesand Gersonides,as well as those of contemporary RenaissanceAristotelians,he warnedin his polemicaltractMagenAvraham against an overrationalized,spiritualized,or mystified understandingof Judaism.He argued,rather,for the acceptanceof the sanctityof the Torah and the avoidanceof rarefiedphilosophicalinquiry.Likewise,he pointedto the plightof those who had fallenvictimto the luresof Christiankabbalistic interpretations:theirconversionto Christianityhad too often led to disappointment,rejection,and despair. More importantly, as Ruderman methodically demonstrates-in chapterafterchapterbasedon a thoroughstudyof each of the problemshe discusses,firstin its generalRenaissanceand then in its Renaissance-Jewish aspects-Farissol was able to take the Christianargumentand makeof it a "two-edgedsword." If Christiansrelied on biblical texts, then he would

BOOK REVIEWS

289

show, as part of the developedRenaissancecritiqueof the Vulgatetranslation, that the very proof-textsused by Christiandebaterswere incorrectly understoodand henceunreliablefor polemics.If Christianeconomistswere beginningto expandthe definitionof licit profits,movingtowardthe acceptance of openly charged interest rates which occurred first in the early seventeenthcentury,then Farissolwould anticipatetheir argumentswith a similarargumentof his own. HereindeedFarissolwas trulyinnovative.And if discoveriesin the New Worldmade Christiansdreamof a comingperfection of all mankind, then Farissol, in his pioneeringgeography,Iggeret OrhotOlam,would show that a studyof geographyand naturalphenomena could substantially reinforce traditional Jewish teachings. Throughout Farissol'swritings,furthermore,there is a constantassertionthat Judaism stands up well to the challengeof magic, astrology,messianicspeculation, and even humanistrationalism.In the traditionof so muchof Jewishliterature, therefore,Farissol'swritingsmay be seen togetheras a grandessay at consolation:We have met the enemy, on his terms, and we are not his. But to whom was Farissoldirectingthis consolation,and why?As noted above, Ruderman-who, in fact, stops short of using termslike "consolation" and "consolation literature"--arguescorrectly that Farissol was addressinghimselfto a broadsegmentof the Jewishpopulaceintriguedwith Renaissancecultureand, uniquely,given the chance to participatein it in the "enlightened" (p. 44) and "generallyhospitable"(p. 3) atmosphereof the times. Such a group of (proto-bourgeois)Jewsundoubtedlyexisted,and in large numbers.This is evidencedby, among other things, the popularized philosophy and mysticism present in the faith-strengtheningsermons of (latersixteenthcentury)preacherslike MenahemRabaor, mutatismutandis, in the low-key intellectualmissionaryletter of LudovicoCarrito(formerly Yosef Shacki)to his sons. Farissol'saudiencealso includedJewishlenders and bankers.Farissolhad close relationswith this group,and his defenseof interest-takingmet one of its immediateneeds in the same way that the contemporaryEternalLife of Yehielda Pisa chidedone of its excesses,the taking of interestfrom fellow Jews. Just because, therefore,this incipient Jewish middle class did exist, and just because Ruderman'sportrayalof Farissolis so thorough,one would have likedto see some attemptto bridge the gap betweenthe individualand the collectivityby discussingthis body of Jews directlyratherthan only by general referencesto it. This discussion would have added immeasurablyto the appreciationof Farissol's own importance. The question of the social climate in which Farissol wrote is more

290

BOOK REVIEWS

problematic.The humanistsmay havebeenhumaneto individualJews,yet, as Rudermanhimself notes carefully,there was a countercurrentin the religious ideals of the time. It manifesteditself, first, in unceasing and strenuouscalls for the eliminationof the Jewish danger to society, and, second, throughlibels and open assaults.The many efforts to convertthe Jews "through(Augustinian)kindness"characteristicof the earlysixteenth century,that is, in Farissol'simmediateday,only maskedthe determination of what was probablythe majorityto rid itself of the Jews, either through elimination,by meansof expulsionand pogroms,or throughtotal integration, by meansof massconversion.If Farissolwas as sensitiveto intellectual currentsas Rudermanhas shown he undoubtedlywas, then he must have been no less sensitiveto the explosivesocial moods, especiallythe religious mood, of his day. And thus it is likely that Farissol'swritings,with their messageof consolation,were not merelythe responseof a Jew quickened and challengedby Gentilesociety,and, on occasion,evenmadesolicitousof the beliefsand feelingsof its individualmembers.They were, beyondthat, the responseof a Jew conditionedby a (correct)sense of impendingupheaval(as occurredin ItalianJewishlife fromthe mid-sixteenthcenturyand onward),or, at the least,by a senseof malaisewhichhe sharedwith so many othersof his ilk, and for whomhe was writing.In the "Conclusion,"Ruderman does point to these problems.He notes, first,that "dissonancesrather than compatibilityunderlaythe supposedlycongruousrelationshipbetween the two [Jewishand Christian]cultures,"and he goes on to speak of the "inherentthreatto Jewishexistence"that Renaissancecultureposed. In the body of the book, however,most of the emphasisis placed on the "new climateof greatertoleranceand polite regard"(p. 80) in whichFarissolwas able to live and work.The existenceof sucha climateis by no meanscertain. David Ruderman'sbook is, thus, most stimulating.It not only revealsin all its depth the personalworldof a man like AbrahamFarissol,but it also raises importantquestions (not unknown to twentieth-centuryJews, for that matter)of how the Jewishmiddleclass in the Renaissancewas able to perceiveand effectivelygrapplewith the feelingsand directionof Christian society at a momentwhen an outwardlydeceptivecalm beliedan ominous underlyingchallenge. One final note: the eruditionof the notes is vast, in both quantityand quality. Ruderman is, moreover, to be complimentedon his editorial judgmentin consigningthe technicaldiscussionof manuscriptsand editions of Farissol'sworks to notes and appendices.It is thus regrettablethat the

291

BOOK REVIEWS

notes were gatheredtogetherat the back of the book with no key enabling the readerto pass rapidlyfrom the text to the notes. The authorof this fine book was done a signal disservice. KennethR. Stow Universityof Haifa Haifa,Israel Timothy Oelman, ed. and trans. Marrano Poets of the Seventeenth Century: An Anthology of the Poetry of Jodo Pinto Delgado, Antonio Enriquez Gdmez,

and Miguelde Barrios.LittmanLibraryof JewishCivilization.Londonand Toronto: Associated UniversityPresses, 1982. 296 pp. The creationof a class of Jewishconvertsto Christianityin fourteenthand fifteenth-centurySpain and fifteenth-centuryPortugalhad such vast repercussionsthat modern scholars have yet to analyze many of them. TimothyOelmanconcernshimselfwith the literarysphere,more specifically, with three seventeenth-century poets of conversoancestry.The poetry chosen splendidlyreflectsthe dilemmaof the conversovis-a-visthe question of loyalty to his ancestralreligion.If the desireto expressoneselffully as a Jew emerged (and crypto-Judaismwas eschewed),the logical alternative was to abandon one's homeland. Nevertheless, even after successfully evading the ubiquitoustentaclesof the Inquisition,the conversochoosing overt ratherthan covertJewishlife was confrontedby considerablepsychological and religiousdifficulties. The poetryin this anthologydealswith theseas well as otherformidable obstacles and traumasfaced by the "Marrano."Each poet's personallife story is fascinating,and Oelmanprovidesbackgroundmaterialfor all three poets as well as for the phenomenonof crypto-Judaismand the literary ambianceof the time. Withoutthis information,the readercould not begin to comprehendthese men or theirpoetry;the editorprovidesa fairlyevenhanded historicalintroductionfollowed by an excellentliterarypresentation. Clearly,Oelmanis at home in the literaryworld of the Golden Age of Spain.Not only are his translationsexcellent,but his selectionof materialis outstanding.Each poet is representedby portions of the works that best revealhis Jewishconsciousnessand his experienceas a Marrano.Since all were able to familiarizethemselveswith the Biblewhile livingas Christians

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Renée Levine Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 291-292 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486328 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



291

BOOK REVIEWS

notes were gatheredtogetherat the back of the book with no key enabling the readerto pass rapidlyfrom the text to the notes. The authorof this fine book was done a signal disservice. KennethR. Stow Universityof Haifa Haifa,Israel Timothy Oelman, ed. and trans. Marrano Poets of the Seventeenth Century: An Anthology of the Poetry of Jodo Pinto Delgado, Antonio Enriquez Gdmez,

and Miguelde Barrios.LittmanLibraryof JewishCivilization.Londonand Toronto: Associated UniversityPresses, 1982. 296 pp. The creationof a class of Jewishconvertsto Christianityin fourteenthand fifteenth-centurySpain and fifteenth-centuryPortugalhad such vast repercussionsthat modern scholars have yet to analyze many of them. TimothyOelmanconcernshimselfwith the literarysphere,more specifically, with three seventeenth-century poets of conversoancestry.The poetry chosen splendidlyreflectsthe dilemmaof the conversovis-a-visthe question of loyalty to his ancestralreligion.If the desireto expressoneselffully as a Jew emerged (and crypto-Judaismwas eschewed),the logical alternative was to abandon one's homeland. Nevertheless, even after successfully evading the ubiquitoustentaclesof the Inquisition,the conversochoosing overt ratherthan covertJewishlife was confrontedby considerablepsychological and religiousdifficulties. The poetryin this anthologydealswith theseas well as otherformidable obstacles and traumasfaced by the "Marrano."Each poet's personallife story is fascinating,and Oelmanprovidesbackgroundmaterialfor all three poets as well as for the phenomenonof crypto-Judaismand the literary ambianceof the time. Withoutthis information,the readercould not begin to comprehendthese men or theirpoetry;the editorprovidesa fairlyevenhanded historicalintroductionfollowed by an excellentliterarypresentation. Clearly,Oelmanis at home in the literaryworld of the Golden Age of Spain.Not only are his translationsexcellent,but his selectionof materialis outstanding.Each poet is representedby portions of the works that best revealhis Jewishconsciousnessand his experienceas a Marrano.Since all were able to familiarizethemselveswith the Biblewhile livingas Christians

292

BOOK REVIEWS

on the IberianPeninsula,biblicalthemesabound.JodioPinto Delgado, for example,a Portugueseconversowho eventuallybecamea parnasin Amsterdam, chose themesfrom Esther,Jeremiah,and Ruth to symbolizeredemption, guilt, and faith as experiencedby the Marrano. Once he became familiar with rabbinicliterature,Pinto Delgado hesitated not to include knowledgeof these sourcesas well. His poetryconveysthe image of a profoundly religiousindividualwho successfullyintegratedhis Christianpast and his nativeliteraryheritagewith the Jewishculturehe valuedso highly. A more satiricalbut no less movingimpressionis conveyedby the selected poems of Antonio EnriquezG6mez, a Spaniardof mixedOld and New Christianparentage,who moved to Rouen, France,only to be arrestedby the Inquisitionwhileattemptinga visitto his homeland.The most incredible poem includedhere recordsthe Inquisitorialtrialof a Spaniard(Old Christian) who convertedto Judaismduringthe courseof his trialandthus dieda Jewishmartyr.Oelmanprovidescopious notes for this as well as for all the other poems in the anthologyand attemptsto explainthe veiledattackson the church,its doctrines,and the Inquisitionis additionto the referencesto Jewishsourcesand customsthat can be discoveredin the verseand between the lines. The thirdpoet whose worksare representedin this anthologywas also a Spanish conversoand differsfrom the others becausehe led a double life even afterhe left Iberia:as Miguelde Barriosof Brusselshe was a Catholic Spanisharmycaptain,and as Daniel Levide Barriosof Amsterdamhe was a practicingJew. The poems included range from elegy to burlesque;this Marranoalso displays particularconcern with judgmentand repentance. Likewisethe readercan discernkabbalisticas well as liturgicalovertones. The lives and the works of these three conversoswho eventuallyjoined their Jewish brethren poignantly reflect the duality of existence in and between two worlds. The reader with a comprehensionof Spanish can admirethe beauty of the languageof the originalworks;the readerwith a knowledgeof Jewishtexts can marvelat the eruditionof the poets. At the same time, the readerof Englishalone can encountera genre of literature previouslyunknownto him and enterthe worldof the Marranointellectual. Accordingly,by publishingthis anthology,Oelmanhas made an important contributionto our understandingof the phenomenonof Marranism. ReneeLevine Universityof Maryland CollegePark,Md.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Walter P. Zenner Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 293-295 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486329 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOK REVIEWS

293

Yona Sabar. TheFolk Literatureof the KurdistaniJews:An Anthology.Yale JudaicaSeries,vol. XXIII. New Haven:YaleUniversityPress. 1982.xli, 250 pp. In addition to its translationof the Yadhalazacah and other classics, the Yale Judaica Series has presented important anthologies of lesserknown literaturesof the Jews, including that of the Falashas and the Karaites. The present volume of KurdistaniJewish folk literatureis the latest contributionto a program to bring such "little traditions"to the attention of scholars and the general public. After a brief introductionin which the editor packs in informationon the history,ethnography,and literatureof the KurdistaniJews,he presents a sampling of their written and oral literaturefrom Neo-Aramaic and Hebrewsources.Whilelisting ten differentgenresof the writtenworksand oral traditionsof theseJewishcommunities,Sabarconcentrateshis selection on those which have specificJewish content and/or a broad appeal. Nine out of the twentychaptersare devotedto tales of biblicalpersonalities,two to talmudic figures (Onkelos and Bar Kappara),one to David Alroy-a Kurdistanimessianic pretender,and one long chapter to legends about Rabbi SamuelBarzaniand other Kurdistanirabbis.The biblicaltalesrepresent intriguingreinterpretationsof the Scripturein the spirit of rabbinic midrash,while legendsof later rabbisprovideglimpsesinto the historyand the self-perceptionof the Jews in Kurdistan. He includes selections from women's laments for Tisha' B'Av, a preacher'sapology, selections from a local chronicle, as well as nursery rhymes, proverbsand sayings, folksongs and folktales. Many of the folktales werecollectedin Israeland were first publishedin Hebrew.The folktales include animal fables and similar tales which have no specifically Jewishcontent and are similarto such tales throughoutthe Old World.The book is a readableintroductionto the literatureof this Jewishsociety and provides readersof Englishwith a good entree to it. The fact that the book amply serves the purpose for which it was intended does not mean that it lacks some serious flaws. I am writing this review from the viewpoint of a scholar working with Judaic cultures, although not with those using Neo-Aramaic in Kurdistan.Some of the shortcomingsrelate to the footnotes and scholarlyapparatus,while others referto the lack of informationof interestto those who wish to go beyond the anthologyitself. Sabardoes not in an obvious way indicatethe sources of the workswhichhe is rendering,althoughwith a little bit of effortone can

294

BOOK REVIEWS

figurethis out. This could be remediedeasily by differentiatingthe source fromthe bibliography.In his introduction,Sabarliststhe differentgenresof KurdistaniJewish literature,but he does not clearly relate what he has translatedto thesecategories.This could have been done easilyeitherin the Introductionor in the prefatorynotes at the beginningof each chapter. He also does not provideintroductionsto the chapterson folksongsor proverbsand sayings. Since these forms of folklore typicallycondensethe meaningsconveyed,some additionalexplanatorymaterialwouldhave been of value. In addition,they often markthe intersectionof severallanguages and dialectsknown to and spoken by KurdistaniJews. One footnote to a song is actually confusing-it is folksong 15 (pp. 200-201), which was obviously composed in Palestineduring World War II, since it refersto Sarafand,near Tel Aviv. It is unclear,however,whetherthe woman from whom it was recorded,Rivka Mizrahi,was an immigrantto Israel from Urmia, PersianKurdistan,or was still living in Urmia at the time of the recording. As in otherendeavorsdescribingthe cultureandliteratureof a particular Jewry,Sabarmust definewhat he meansby the regionwhichhe endeavors to cover. Most Jewish culturalareas requiresuch delineation,since they only roughlycoincidewith the ethnicboundariesof the surroundingGentile peoples and the bordersof nation-stateswhich contain them. He assumes that a stretchof mostlymountainousland whichcuts acrossSouthwestAsia from easternTurkeythroughnorthernIraqinto the southernSoviet Union and western Iran is Kurdistan,the homeland of the Kurds, an ancient people speaking an Indo-Iranianlanguage. He also seems to take for grantedthat the domestic languageof most Jews living in that region in recent centurieswas Neo-Aramaic. In fact, this area is one which is inhabitedby severallanguagegroups and ethno-religiousgroups. It has been the targetof migrationsby Arabic speakersand Turkicspeakersalike, while Kurdshave also left more solidly Kurdish areas for other places within the Middle East over the years. Obviouslythe boundariesof "Kurdistan"have not been stable,despitethe persistenceof the Kurdishculture,language,and ethnic identity. For the centers, such as Zakho in Iraqi Kurdistan,which producedmost of the Neo-Aramaic literature used by Sabar, the coincidence of Kurdishspeakingand Neo-Aramaic-speakingpeoples existed and thus presentsno problem. When one considersUrmia, however,one finds oneself dealing with the capital of the Iranianprovinceof West Azerbaijan,in which the Kurdsand the Neo-Aramaic-speaking Jewsand Christiansalso confronted

BOOK REVIEWS

295

the TurkicAzeris and the Iranians.One wondersif that city can be clearly seen as part of Kurdistan.In addition,by Sabar'sown accountand according to my own informantsfrom southeasternTurkey,some Jewsin Kurdistan spoke Kurmanji(a formof Kurdish)or Arabicdialectsas theirdomestic languages.By use of a clearerdefinition,Sabarcould have helpedwean his audience from a naive, nationalistview of the region. Sabar's introduction is unclear about the relationship between the Neo-AramaicChristiansand the Jewsof Kurdistan.This is a point whichis clarified in his 1978 article, "MultilingualProverbsin the Neo-Aramaic Speech of the Jews of Zakho, Iraqi Kurdistan,"InternationalJournalof MiddleEasternStudies9, no. 2, pp. 215-235. In that article,he points out that the Jews spoke the Christiandialect in conversationswith the Christians. In general,that articlecomplementsthe introductorychapterof this volume in presentingthe social and culturalcontext of KurdishJewry. None of thesepointsaffectthe centralpurposeof his mission,whichis to Jewsof Kurdistanto an presentthe literatureof the Neo-Aramaic-speaking The audience. Judaica Series should be congratuYale English-speaking lated on the publicationof this enlighteningvolume.Let us hope that it will continue to publish such anthologies. WalterP.Zenner StateUnivesityof New York at Albany Albany,N.Y. Ze'ev W. Falk. Law and Religion: The Jewish Experience.Jerusalem: MesharimPublishers,1981. 238 pp. This is an erudite,passionatestatementof the role of values in shaping the contentand methodsof Jewishlaw. It is also a fascinatingand illuminating explorationof many of the values of Judaismand a comparisonof the legal expressionof those valuesto that of Anglo-Americanlaw. It is also a well-reasoned,sharpcritiqueof a positivistic,largelyOrthodoxapproachto Jewish law. For all of these reasons, it is well worth reading. What it is not is a sustainedconsiderationof the topic indicatedin the title and the first chapter-i.e., the nature of the suffusion of law and religionin the Jewishexperience.In fact, the majorweaknessof the book is that it jumps from topic to topic, offeringtantalizingviews into each one of them, but ultimatelynot satisfyingthe reader'sdesireto stay with a subject

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Elliot N. Dorff Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 295-297 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486330 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOK REVIEWS

295

the TurkicAzeris and the Iranians.One wondersif that city can be clearly seen as part of Kurdistan.In addition,by Sabar'sown accountand according to my own informantsfrom southeasternTurkey,some Jewsin Kurdistan spoke Kurmanji(a formof Kurdish)or Arabicdialectsas theirdomestic languages.By use of a clearerdefinition,Sabarcould have helpedwean his audience from a naive, nationalistview of the region. Sabar's introduction is unclear about the relationship between the Neo-AramaicChristiansand the Jewsof Kurdistan.This is a point whichis clarified in his 1978 article, "MultilingualProverbsin the Neo-Aramaic Speech of the Jews of Zakho, Iraqi Kurdistan,"InternationalJournalof MiddleEasternStudies9, no. 2, pp. 215-235. In that article,he points out that the Jews spoke the Christiandialect in conversationswith the Christians. In general,that articlecomplementsthe introductorychapterof this volume in presentingthe social and culturalcontext of KurdishJewry. None of thesepointsaffectthe centralpurposeof his mission,whichis to Jewsof Kurdistanto an presentthe literatureof the Neo-Aramaic-speaking The audience. Judaica Series should be congratuYale English-speaking lated on the publicationof this enlighteningvolume.Let us hope that it will continue to publish such anthologies. WalterP.Zenner StateUnivesityof New York at Albany Albany,N.Y. Ze'ev W. Falk. Law and Religion: The Jewish Experience.Jerusalem: MesharimPublishers,1981. 238 pp. This is an erudite,passionatestatementof the role of values in shaping the contentand methodsof Jewishlaw. It is also a fascinatingand illuminating explorationof many of the values of Judaismand a comparisonof the legal expressionof those valuesto that of Anglo-Americanlaw. It is also a well-reasoned,sharpcritiqueof a positivistic,largelyOrthodoxapproachto Jewish law. For all of these reasons, it is well worth reading. What it is not is a sustainedconsiderationof the topic indicatedin the title and the first chapter-i.e., the nature of the suffusion of law and religionin the Jewishexperience.In fact, the majorweaknessof the book is that it jumps from topic to topic, offeringtantalizingviews into each one of them, but ultimatelynot satisfyingthe reader'sdesireto stay with a subject

296

BOOK REVIEWS

for a whileto exploreits depths.The proliferationof topicswouldbe tolerable-especially given Professor Falk's sensitive handling of so many of them-if the readerhad a clue as to why the authoris going fromSubjectA to SubjectB and what he wants to accomplishin the end. In other words, the weaknessof this book is that it does not sufficientlyrevealits organization and purpose.That is a shame,for I fearthat many readerswill be discouraged from following Falk to the end by the lack of an evident game-plan. The trek through ProfessorFalk's work is well worth the effort to overcomethat obstacle,though. He arguescogently,and from severaldifferentperspectives,for recognizingthe values inherentin both the content and the methods of Jewishlaw. In his view, "Jewishlaw is not an end in itself but a meansof moralfulfilmentand of spiritualelevation"(p. 82). The attackagainstlegalismshould not be left to criticsfrom the outside(mainly Christians),but should ratherbe discussedand correctedwithinthe Jewish community,even if it meanssharplycriticizinga man as respectedas Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik(pp. 156ff.). "If Jewishlaw is to continueits role, .. . the studyof valuesmust becomepartof the studyof Torah,and an avenuemust be opened towards creativeinterpretation.Judaismshould be taken as a constantencounterbetweenpositivenormsand humanvalues.Any decision should reflectboth and do justice to the situation"(p. 235). That position causes him to attack Orthodoxyin a numberof places for its misunderstandingof the natureof Jewishlaw and even for its mistakeninterpretations of specificpassagesin rabbinicliterature(e.g., its attemptto emasculate the notion of hiddusheyTorahso as not to allow what the term clearly means, i.e., novelties of teaching-p. 175). On the other hand, he also argues againstthose who would try to identifyand preserveJewishvalues without the frameworkof Jewishlaw. Jewishlaw must remainthe vehicle for Jewish values, but to do that it must be interpretedand applied by people who are sensitiveto its valuationalbase. This view of Jewishlaw requiresthat one see the law in a broadcontext, and probablythe greateststrengthof this book is that ProfessorFalk does just that. He understandsthe full impactof the fact that most Jews do not now observe Jewish law-to the point that he asks "whetherthe lack of efficacyof many rules of Jewishlaw does not affect theirvalidity.Even if divine law does not deriveits legitimacyfrom the recognitionor obedience on the part of human beings, it cannot disregardsocial reality" (pp. 137-138). That social reality is not only the relationshipof the Jews to Jewish law; it is also the relationshipbetween it and the non-Jewish community.Falk arguespersuasivelythat we must and can be moreopen to

297

BOOK REVIEWS

some of the people and values of the modernworld than Jews have been duringmanyperiodsof the past, both becausewe have some thingsto learn from non-Jewswhich will aid us in applyingJewishlaw intelligentlyin the mdoern world and because the existence of the State of Israel can help assurethe maintenanceof our own separateidentityin the process(pp. 84 ff., 101ff.). Aside fromthe social contextof Jewishlaw, he is sensitiveto its historicalcontext and development.Moreover,he recognizesthe effectsof languageon the law and the functionof faithin Jewishlaw as well as Jewish religion. He also makes illuminatingand accuratecomparisonsbetween Jewish and Anglo-Americanlaw, always resistingthe temptationto carry the comparisontoo far. The fact that ProfessorFalk remindsus of all of these contextsin whichJewishlaw operatesis itself an invaluablecontribution to our understandingof it. ProfessorFalk's breadthof vision is matchedby its depth. The bulk of this book is devotedto an explorationof specificvaluesarticulatedin Jewish law-democracy, liberty,equality,humanrights,disobedience,generalization and individualization,and authority.In each case, the authornot only delineatesthe extent to which Judaismholds this value or fails to; he also probes the philosophicalassumptionsbehindthe values as they are articulated in both Jewish and non-Jewishliterature.One comes away with a sense that the identityand specificexpressionof the valuesin questionare not the capriciousresult of history, but ratherflow from the fundamental assumptionswhich differingsocieties make about humanity,nature, and God. In that way ProfessorFalk helpsus to do what he exhortseveryoneto do in the opening pages of this book-i.e., develop a philosophythrough which to see law and life in general.I only wish that he would have spelled out the principles and implicationsof his own philosophy of law more systematicallyso that we could be helped yet further. ElliotN. Dorff Universityof Judaism Los Angeles,Calif. 0. O. Gruzenberg. Yesterday:Memoirs of a Russian-Jewish Lawyer. Edited

and with an introductionby Don C. Rawson. Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1981. xxix, 235 pp. Most portrayalsof the internallife of RussianJewryuntilthe Revolution presenta skewedpictureof that community.Narrativeson the periodup to the 1881 pogroms center on the slowly developing small minority of

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Gershon C. Bacon Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 297-300 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486331 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



297

BOOK REVIEWS

some of the people and values of the modernworld than Jews have been duringmanyperiodsof the past, both becausewe have some thingsto learn from non-Jewswhich will aid us in applyingJewishlaw intelligentlyin the mdoern world and because the existence of the State of Israel can help assurethe maintenanceof our own separateidentityin the process(pp. 84 ff., 101ff.). Aside fromthe social contextof Jewishlaw, he is sensitiveto its historicalcontext and development.Moreover,he recognizesthe effectsof languageon the law and the functionof faithin Jewishlaw as well as Jewish religion. He also makes illuminatingand accuratecomparisonsbetween Jewish and Anglo-Americanlaw, always resistingthe temptationto carry the comparisontoo far. The fact that ProfessorFalk remindsus of all of these contextsin whichJewishlaw operatesis itself an invaluablecontribution to our understandingof it. ProfessorFalk's breadthof vision is matchedby its depth. The bulk of this book is devotedto an explorationof specificvaluesarticulatedin Jewish law-democracy, liberty,equality,humanrights,disobedience,generalization and individualization,and authority.In each case, the authornot only delineatesthe extent to which Judaismholds this value or fails to; he also probes the philosophicalassumptionsbehindthe values as they are articulated in both Jewish and non-Jewishliterature.One comes away with a sense that the identityand specificexpressionof the valuesin questionare not the capriciousresult of history, but ratherflow from the fundamental assumptionswhich differingsocieties make about humanity,nature, and God. In that way ProfessorFalk helpsus to do what he exhortseveryoneto do in the opening pages of this book-i.e., develop a philosophythrough which to see law and life in general.I only wish that he would have spelled out the principles and implicationsof his own philosophy of law more systematicallyso that we could be helped yet further. ElliotN. Dorff Universityof Judaism Los Angeles,Calif. 0. O. Gruzenberg. Yesterday:Memoirs of a Russian-Jewish Lawyer. Edited

and with an introductionby Don C. Rawson. Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1981. xxix, 235 pp. Most portrayalsof the internallife of RussianJewryuntilthe Revolution presenta skewedpictureof that community.Narrativeson the periodup to the 1881 pogroms center on the slowly developing small minority of

298

REVIEWS BOOK

Maskilim,while works dealingwith the post-1881era focus theirattention on the formation of Jewish political ideologies and mass political movements. Though it is readily acknowledgedthat the majority of Jews remainedwithinthe traditionalframework,with the exceptionof the small Mussarmovement,the life of the Orthodoxmassesand the functioningof traditionalinstitutionshave not attractedextensivescholarlyattention. Regardingthe growingnucleusof RussifiedJewsboth withinand particularlyoutsidethe Pale of Settlement,the situationis not much better.One generallyfinds a "who's who" chroniclingof Jewish notables (including apostates) who achieved some renown in Russian society, but with little analysisof how RussifiedJewswrestledwith theirJewishidentity,with antiJewish discrimination,or even with the processof Russificationitself. On the last point, our understandingof the difficulties involved has been deepened through the work of Alex Orbach, Michael Stanislawski,and Steve Zipperstein,all of whom have gone beyond the limited model of ideological Haskalah to look at the wider process of secularizationand attemptedintegrationinto Russiansociety.Exceptfor the selectionsin Lucy Dawidowicz'sGoldenTradition,the English-readingpublic has had scant opportunity to know the inner world of RussifiedJews first-hand.The identityproblemsof such Jewswere no less acute than those of theiracculturatedcoreligionistsin Germany,France,or the United States. The recentlytranslatedmemoirsof the famed Russian-Jewishattorney Oskar O. Gruzenberg(1866-1940), writtenduringhis post-Revolutionary exile in WesternEurope,offersome fascinatinginsightsinto the mentalityof one such RussifiedJew. Yesterdayis not a fullchronologicalautobiography, but with severalnotablegaps (e.g., on the backgroundof his familyand on his marriage),Gruzenbergpresentshighlightsof his childhood,his primary and professional education, and his distinguishedcareer as a defense attorney. Along the way, he treats us to a series of thumbnailsketchesof notable figuresof the Russianlegal profession.The majorthemethat runs throughGruzenberg'smemoirsis his involvementwith the worldof the law, whichhe portraysas an islandof comparativedecencyandjusticewithinthe corrupt tsarist system. Here he could defend political prisonersor Jews arrestedon ritual murderor espionage charges,confident that he could dependon his legal abilityplus the essentialfairnessof Russianjuries and jurists. Editor Rawson has added to the original YesterdayGruzenberg's essay (publishedposthumously)on the trial of the St. PetersburgSoviet, which roundsout the list of his most importantcases, and which contains incidentallyGruzenberg'sviews on Stalin and Trotsky.The volume under

299

BOOK REVIEWS

considerationalso includesan editor's introductionwhich providesuseful backgroundinformationon the Russianjudicial system and a ratherless insightfulintroductionto RussianJewry.A glossaryof names,an annotated bibliography,and an index close out the work. Though Yesterdayconcentratesmostlyon Gruzenberg'slegalcareer,the student of Jewish social history will find it an interesting,if problematic, primarysource. As with all memoirs,one wondershow much the views of the elderlyGruzenbergin exile have been projectedback into earlierstages of his life. Even with this cautionarynote aside, Yesterdayopens a window on a complex inner world. The opening sentenceof the memoir is most telling:"The firstword that reachedmy consciousnesswas Russian"(p. 1). Gruzenbergis a Jew who carriedon a lifelonglove affairwith the Russian languageand culture,whosefamilymarkedtime not in monthsor years,but by the appearanceof a literaryreview or a collection of Russian verse. Characteristically,Gruzenbergdoes not tell us that his total immersionin Russian culture was the result of careful planning by his Maskil father (intro.,p. xv). Gruzenberg'sJewishheritage(pp. 17-22) consistsof personal experience of anti-Jewishdiscrimination,rites of mourning, and some unspecifiedself-studyof Jewishhistoryat the age of twenty-eightafter the death of his child. As he tells it, only his exposureto the extremesof Jewish povertyin an unnamedvillagemovedhim to somethingapproachingidentificationwith the Jewishpeople. Evenhere,though,he sees himselfas a man obligatedto aid all those who suffer.Since Jews had few defendersagainst tsarist tyranny,Gruzenbergcould not abandon them, even at the cost of being misapprehendedas a Jewish "nationalist."The thirteen-year-old Gruzenbergwill say Kaddishfor his fatheras an act of filial loyalty rather than piety, but will tell no one at school the reason for his daily lateness. Gruzenberg'sdescriptionsof Jews in hs memoirs,as comparedto his portrayalsof Russians,have a decidedoutsider'stinge to them (even afterfifty yearshe doesn'texactlyknow whatto makeof a strangeRussianconvertto Judaism-pp. 13-14). Yet this same Gruzenberg refused to consider apostasy as an option, even though it meant giving up on a teachingpost when Jews were denied and servingsixteenyears as a "lawyer-in-training" admittanceto the bar. His list of cases shows him as a devoteddefenderof Jewsagainstinjustice.A strangecombinationof affirmationand denialis at work within Gruzenberg.He is neithera model Deutscherian"non-Jewish Jew" nor a Jew totally at home with his Jewish identity. Yesterdaycommends itself to students of Jewish history for another reason.Gruzenberg'sconcisecase historiesof miscarriagesof justice during

BOOKREVIEWS

300

World War I (pp. 125-168) presentin a most vivid mannera period of Jewish suffering which has been overshadowedby the horrors of the Holocaust, but which is crucialfor understandinglater developments. Surprisingly,the major disappointmentof Yesterdayis Gruzenberg's sketchy memoir of his most famous case of all-the Beilis trial. Despite Gruzenberg'ssubsequentaccessto the secretpolice files relatingto the case, thereareno stunningrevelationsor insights.Gruzenbergdoes not evenoffer his impressionsof the defendantBeilis. Sadly, he mentionsonly in passing his defenseof David Blondessome elevenyears before on similarcharges. Detailed comparisonswould seem warranted. The ironiesof historyare suchthat Gruzenbergthe manof law had more of a role underthe tsaristregimehe despisedthan underits successor,and that in his exile years Gruzenbergthe RussifiedJew developed a more positive attitudetowardZionism. Nevertheless,Yesterdayis not a work of despair or regret. It offers the historiana valuable glimpse of a type of RussianJew that meritscarefulattentionand analysis. GershonC. Bacon Bar-IlanUniversity Israel Ramat-Gan,

Collected Studies Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 301-307 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486332 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:29 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



COLLECTEDSTUDIES J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif, eds. Interpretingthe Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge

UniversityPress, 1982. xv, 318 pp. CONTENTS: Stefan C. Reif, "Erwin I. J. Rosenthal: A Biographical Appre-

ciation." "Bibliographyof the Publicationsof E. I. J. Rosenthal."S. P. Brock, "An Early Interpretationof pasa.b: 'aggin in the Palestinian Targum."R. E. Clements, "Heinrich Graetz as Biblical Historian and ReligiousApologist."David Daube, "TheExtensionof a Simile."N. R. M. de Lange,"TwoGenizahFragmentsin Hebrewand Greek."J. A. Emerton, "The Translationand Interpretationof Isaiah vi. 13." Robert P. Gordon, "'TerraSanctaand the TerritorialDoctrine of the Targumto the Prophets." R. J. Loewe, "The Bible in Medieval Hebrew Poetry."Shelomo Morag, "SomeNotes on SelomoAlmoli'sContributionsto the LinguisticScienceof Hebrew."Chaim Rabin, "DiscourseAnalysis and the Dating of Deuteronomy."StefanC. Reif, "A MidrashicAnthologyfromthe Genizah."Avihai mrn Shivtiel,"T"y (Psalmcxiv. 1)."J. G. Snaith, n,. tv:•.y 5xotl ,_r Jews." na~. "Aphrahatand the Georges Vajda,"L'hom61iedu KaraiteSamuel tlin al-Maghribisur les Dix Commandments."J. Weingreen," ,1.ftr M. P. Weitzman, "The Origin of the Peshitta Psalter." 'i.lf tax-.a" Jacob Neusner, ed. Take Judaism,for Example: Studies toward the Compari-

son of Religions.Chicago and London:Universityof Chicago Press, 1983. xvii, 244 pp. CONTENTS: Jacob Neusner, "Religion and Society: The Case of Ancient

Judaism."WilliamScott Green, "Storytellingand Holy Man:The Case of AncientJudaism."RichardS. Sarason,"Religionand Worship:The Caseof Judaism."ArthurGreen,"Religionand Mysticism:The Case of Judaism." Ivan G. Marcus, "ReligiousVirtuosiand the ReligiousCommunity:The PietisticMode in Judaism."David R. Blumenthal,"Religionand the Reli301

302

COLLECTED STUDIES

gious Intellectuals:The Case of Judaismin MedievalTimes."CharlesLiebman, "Religion and the Chaos of Modernity:The Case of Contemporary Judaism."RichardL. Rubenstein,"Religionand History:Power, History and the Covenant at Sinai." Ben Halpern, "History and Religion: The AmbiguousUses of JewishHistory."David Buchdahl,"Religionand Culture: Judaismas a CulturalSystem."Jonathan,Z. Smith, "No Need to Travelto the Indies:Judaismand the Study of Religion."Jacob Neusner, "Alike and Not Alike: A Grid for Comparison and Differentiation." Sheldon R. Brunswick, ed. Studies in Judaica, Karaitica and Islamica: Presented to Leon Nemoy on his Eightieth Birthday. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan

UniversityPress, 1982. 285, 36 pp. Sketch."S. R. Brunswick,"BibCONTENTS: S. R. Brunswick,"Biographical of Leon J. "On Some liography Nemoy." Blau, AuxiliaryVerbsin JudaeoArabic." W. G. Braude, "Midrashas Deep Peshat."N. M. Bronznick, "Two UnrecognizedCases of Tallhin."S. D. Goitein, "Prayersfrom the Geniza for FatimidCaliphs,the Head of the JerusalemYeshiva,the Jewish Communityand the Local Congregation."L. S. Gold, "Word Play as a ContraryElementin the Poems of AvrahamShlonsky."J. C. Greenfield, "A Hapax Legomenon: nrinpvnn." A. Scheiber, "The Legend of the WanderingJew in Hungary."E. J. Wiesenberg,"TheLadyon Her Throne and Her Ursine Attendants." H. Ben-Shammai, "Hebrew in Arabic Script-Qirqisani's View." W. M. Brinner,"The EgyptianKaraite Communityin the Late NineteenthCentury."A. S. Halkin,"A KaraiteCreed." G. Vajda,"QuelquesAggad6t Critiqu6espar Yefetben Eli." M. J. Kister, "On an EarlyFragmentof the Qur'an."J. L. Kraemer,"Heresyversusthe State in MedievalIslam."M. Perlmann,"'Ali Al-Munayyar."S. R. Brunswick, "Cataloging and Classificationof Materials in the Near Eastern "NathanMarcusAdler:BiblioLanguages."R. P. Goldschmidt-Lehmann, T. "Jewish at the graphy." Wiener, Refugees Libraryof Congress."H. C. "A Probe into Hebrew Printing in Hanau in the Seventeenth Zafren, Century."A. M. Habermann,"Two MedievalPiyyutim."N. Gruss, "The Jewish People and Its History in the View of VladimirSoloviev." Isadore Twersky. Studies in Jewish Law and Philosophy. New York: Ktav

PublishingHouse, 1982.xvi, 226, 75 pp. "Maimonides: Life and Works": Introduction to I. Twersky:A CONTENTS:

MaimonidesReader(New York, 1972), 1-29. "The Beginningsof Mishneh Torah Criticism": Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge,

COLLECTED STUDIES

303

1963), 161-182. "Some Non-Halakic Aspects of the Mishneh Torah": Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, 1967), 95-118. "The Mishneh Torah of Maimonides": Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, vol. V, no. 10 (Jerusalem, 1976), 265-296. "English translation of Sefer Mishneh Torah la-Rambam: Megamato ve-Tafkido": Israel Academy of Sciences (Jerusalem, 1972), vol.

V, 1-22. "SomeAspectsof the JewishAttitudeTowardthe WelfareState": TraditionV (1963), 137-158. "TheShulhban 'Aruk:EnduringCode of Jewish Law": Judaism XVI (1967), 141-158. "Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquieres:His Attitudeto and Acquaintancewith SecularLearning":Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research XXVI (1957),

161-192. "Aspectsof the Social and CulturalHistoryof ProvencalJewry": Journal of WorldHistory XI (1968), 185-207. "Religion and Law": Religion

in a Religious Age, ed. S. D. Goitein (1973), 69-82. Review of Meir Benayahu, Rabbi H. J. D. Azulai and Sefer Hidah: Jewish Social Studies

XXVI (1964), 229-231. Reviewof Jacob Katz, Masoretu-Mashber[Tradition and Crisis:JewishSocietyat the Endof the MiddleAges]:JewishSocial Studies XXIII (1961), 249-51. Review of The Guide of the Perplexed, trans.

Shlomo Pines: Speculum XLI (July 1966), 555-558. "'Al Hassagot ha-Rabad le-Mishneh Torah": Harry A. Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jeru-

salem, 1965), 169-186. "R. Joseph Ashkenazi ve-Sefer Mishneh Torah la-Rambam": Salo W. Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1975), 183-194.

"Sidduro shel Sefer Mishneh Torah la-Rambam: Yesodot Hilkatiyim u-Philosofiyim": Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies

III (1977), 179-189. ReviewEssay:E. E. Urbach,Ba'aleha-Tosafot:Tarbiz XXVI (1957), 215-227. Review Essay: S. Abramson,HamishahSefarim le-R. Nissim Gaon: Tarbiz XXXVII (1968), 318-328. Review: Rabad, Derashah le-Rosh ha-Shanah: Kiryat Sefer XXXII (1957), 440-443.

"Ha-Hinnukha-Yehudibe-AshkenazBiyeme ha-Benayim":Encyclopedia Hinnukit: Toledot ha-Hinnuk, 252-264.

Jacob I. Dienstag, ed. Eschatology in Maimonidean Thought: Messianism, Resurrection and the World to Come. New York: Ktav Publishing House,

1982.cxx, 281 pp.

CONTENTS: Jacob I. Dienstag, "Introduction: Personages Associated with

the EschatologicalTeachingsof Maimonidesand the ScholarshipThereon. An AlphabeticalSurvey."HermannCohen, "Immortalityand Resurrection." Joseph Sarachek, "The Doctrine of Messiah In Medieval Jewish

304

COLLECTED STUDIES

Literature."Isaiah Sonne, "A Scrutinyof the Chargesof ForgeryAgainst Maimonides''Letter of Resurrection."'Gershom Scholem, "Towardan Understandingof the MessianicIdea in Judaism."Harry Blumerg,"The Problemof Immortalityin Avicenna,Maimonidesand St. ThomasAquinas." Daniel JeremySilver, "The ResurrectionDebate."Joshua Abelson, trans., "Maimonideson the JewishCreed."A. Cohen,trans.,"Rewardand Punishment;Eschatology."Jacob I. Dienstag, "Maimonides'Epistle to Yemen (on Messiah and Messianic Movements)."Jacob I. Dienstag, "Maimonides'Treatiseon Resurrection."Jacob I. Dienstag,"Eschatology In MaimonideanThought."

Jehuda Reinharzand Daniel Swetschinski,eds., with the collaborationof Kalman P. Bland. Mystics, Philosophers,and Politicians:Essays in Jewish IntellectualHistoryin Honorof AlexanderAltmann.Duke Monographsin Medievaland RenaissanceStudies,no. 5. Durham,N.C.: Duke University Press, 1982. CONTENTS: Daniel Swetschinski, "Alexander Altmann: A Portrait." Lawrence H. Schiffman, "MerkavahSpeculation at Qumran: The 4Q SerekhShirot 'Olat ha-Shabbat."Kalman P. Bland, "Moses and the Law Accordingto Maimonides."Alfred L. Ivry, "Maimonideson Possibility." BarryMesch,"Principlesof Judaismin Maimonidesand Josephibn Caspi." Daniel J. Lasker, "The Jewish PhilosophicalCritiqueof Transubstantiation." Allan Lazaroff,"The Absolute Freedomof the Divine Will in the Philosophyof AbrahamBibago."LawrenceFine, "MaggidicRevelationin the Teachings of Isaac Luria." BenjaminRavid, "'How Profitablethe Nation of the JewesAre':The HumbleAddressesof Menassehben Israeland the Discorsoof Simone Luzzatto."ArthurGreen, "Rabbi Nahman Bratslaver'sJourneyto the Land of Israel."FrancesMalino, "From Patriotto Israelite: Abraham Furtado in Revolutionary France." Phyllis Cohen Albert, "Ethnicityand Jewish Solidarityin Nineteenth-CenturyFrance." JehudaReinharzand ShulamitReinharz,"Leadershipand Charisma:The Case of Theodor Herzl."Paul R. Mendes-Flohr,"Rosenzweigand Kant: Two Views of Ritual and Religion."Bibliographyof AlexanderAltmann's Writings.

COLLECTED STUDIES

305

Lea Dasberg and Jonathan N. Cohen, eds. Neveh Ya'akov:Jubilee Volume Presented to Dr. Jaap Meijer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday.

Assen: Van Gorcum, 1982. xxiii, 338 pp. Daniel Swetschinski, "An Amsterdam Jewish MerchantJeronimo Nunes da Costa alias Moseh Curiel (1620-1697), Diplomat: of of the King Portugal."RobertCohen, "Passageto a New World: Agent the SephardiPoor of EighteenthCenturyAmsterdam."AbrahamA. Cohen, "Some MattersRelatedto the Historyof the Jewsin Nijmegen"[Hebrew]. Anton E. M. Ribberink,"Overheiden eredienstrond 1813."AbrahamS. Rijxman."Eenjeugd op het breukvlakvan twee culturen:een schets voor m6moiresvan CarolinaEitje (1883-1968)."Jos6 Faur, "David Nassy: on Prejudiceand RelatedMatters."Fr6deriqueP. Hiegentlich,"Eenonderzoek naar filantropijnseelementenin Naphtali HerzWessely'sDivreiShalomveEmet." JonathanN. Cohen, "De historicusI. M. Jost (1793-1860) in de Duitse geschiedtraditie."Frank Bovenkerk,"Shylock of Horatio Alger: beschouwingen over de theorie der handelsminderheden."Morton H. Narrowe,"Iwriah:An UnsuccessfulAttemptto Establisha HebrewSchool in Stockholm(1915)."LodewijkBrunt,"EenJood in Arabie:overhet leven van MuhammadAsad." Marc Rozelaar,"Grotepoezie met kort kommentaar:een proeve tot Kohelet vertaling."MenachemBolle "De zegenspreuken van Jakob (Genesis: 1-28)." Albert van der Heide, "Selomoh de Oliveyra: Ayelet Ahavim. Een zeventiende-eeuwsebewerking van het verhaalvan Abrahamsoffer."SimonA. Vega,"Ha-Kol Kol Ya'akov:Jaap Meijers hebreeuwsevertalingenvan Jacob Israel de Haans kwatrijnen." Henri6tte Boas, "Etty Hillesum in niet-Joodse en Joodse ogen." Nora Roos, "VanJoodse mensentot Joden.Jaap Meijerals leraaraan het Joods Lyceum."Lea Dasberg,"Mentor,motor, rebbe.Jaap Meijerals rectorvan de 66n-leerling-school."Adriaan K. Offenberg, "Bibliografie van de geschriftenvan Dr. Jaap Meijerop het gebiedvan de Joodse wetenschap." CONTENTS:

Shlomo Deshen and Walter P. Zenner, eds. Jewish Societies in the Middle East: Community, Culture and Authority. Washington, D.C.: University

Press of America, 1982. v, 321 pp. Walter P. Zenner and Shlomo Deshen, "Introduction:The Historical Ethnology of Middle EasternJews." Jacob Katz, "Traditional Society and Modern Society."StephenSharot, "Judaismin 'Pre-Modern' CONTENTS:

306

COLLECTED STUDIES

Societies."Allan R. Meyers,"Patronageand Protection:The Statusof Jews in PrecolonialMorocco."Moshe Shokeid, "JewishExistencein a Berber Environment."ShlomoDeshen,"TheSocialStructureof SouthernTunisian Jewry in the Early 20th Century."Harvey Goldberg, "From Shaikh to Mazkir:StructuralContinuityand OrganizationalChange in a Tripolitanian JewishCommunity."WalterP. Zenner,"Jewsin LateOttomanSyria: ExternalRelations."WalterP. Zenner,"Jewsin LateOttomanSyria:Community,Familyand Religion."ShlomoDov Goitein,"TheSocialStructure of Jewish Educationin Yemen."Yosef Tobi, "The Authorityof the Community of San'aa in YemeniteJewry."Dina Feitelson, "Aspects of the Social Life of KurdishJews."Donna Shai, "FamilyConflictand Cooperation in Folksongsof KurdishJews."LaurenceD. Loeb, "Prestigeand Piety in the IranianSynagogue."MarkGlazer,"TheDowry as CapitalAccumulation Among the SephardicJews of Istanbul,Turkey."

David Berger,ed. The Legacy of Jewish Migration:1881 and Its Impact. With an Introductionby Irving Howe. BrooklynN.Y.: BrooklynCollege Press, 1983. 187 pp. JonathanFrankel,"TheCrisisof 1881-82 as a TurningPoint in Modern Jewish History."Michael Stanislawski,"The Transformationof TraditionalAuthorityin RussianJewry:The First Stage."Steve J. Zipperstein, "RussianMaskilimand the City." RobertSeltzer,"From Graetzto Dubnow:The Impactof the East EuropeanMilieuon the Writingof Jewish History."BernardAvishai,"TheConquestof Labor:Gordon and the Idea of the Kvutzah." Moses Rischin, "AbrahamCahan: Guide Across the AmericanChasm."Faina Burko,"The AmericanYiddishTheaterand Its AudienceBeforeWorldWar I." RobertAlter, "The InnerImmigrationof Hebrew Prose."Todd M. Endelman,"Native Jews and Foreign Jews in London, 1870-1914."Naomi W. Cohen,"TheEthnicCatalyst:The Impact of the East EuropeanImmigrationon the AmericanJewishEstablishment." IrvingHowe, "Pluralismin the ImmigrantWorld."PaulaE. Hyman,"Culture and Gender:Womenin the ImmigrantJewishCommunity."Thomas Kessner,"The SelectiveFilter of Ethnicity:A Half Centuryof Immigrant Mobility." CONTENTS:

COLLECTED STUDIES

307

Howard Joseph, Jack N. Lightstone, and Michael D. Oppenheim,eds. Truthand Compassion: Essays on Judaism and Religion in Memory of Rabbi

Dr. SolomonFrank.Waterloo,Ont.: CanadianCorporationfor Studiesin Religion, WilfredLaurierUniversityPress, 1983. iv, 217 pp. CONTENTS: FrederickB. Bird, "A ComparativeStudy of Charityin Christianity and Judaism."Jack N. Lightstone,"Judaismof the Second Commonwealth:Towarda Reform of the ScholarlyTradition."Ira Robinson, "Jacobal-Kirkisanion the Realityof Magicand the Natureof the Miraculous: A Study in Tenth-CenturyKaraite Rationalism."Michel Despland, "A Key to Nineteenth-CenturyCriticalAttitudesTowardsReligion?The Work of Jean Jacques Rousseau."CharlesDavis, "WalterBenjamin,the MysticalMaterialist."MichaelD. Oppenheim,"SomeUnderlyingIssuesof Modern Jewish Philosophy."Gershon D. Hundert, "Reflectionson the

'Whig' Interpretation of Jewish History: Ma'assei banim siman le-'avot."

Jerome Eckstein,"BetweenDignity and Redemption:A Critiqueof Soloveitchik'sAdam I and Adam II." B. BarryLevy,"OurTorah,YourTorah, and Their Torah:An Evaluationof the ArtscrollPhenomenon."Howard Joseph, "Some JewishTheologicalReflectionson the Holocaust."Shimon Levy, "Basar Ve-Ruah, Dat U-Medinah: lyun Be-Bamidbar II."

Books Received Source: AJS Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 309-310 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486333 . Accessed: 28/06/2011 21:29 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOKSRECEIVED Avigad, Nahman. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983. 270 pp. Baez-Camargo, Gonzalo. Archaeological Commentaryon the Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1984. 288 pp. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series. vol. 9. Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1983. 186 PP. Bernstein, Philip. To Dwell in Unity. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983. 394 pp. Bleich, J. David. Contemporary Halakhic Problems. Vol. 2. New York: Ktav, 1983, xx, 688 pp. Brooks, Roger. Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Tractate Peah. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. 211 pp. Freedman, David Noel, and David Frank Graf. Palestine in Transition. Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1983. 108 pp. Goitein, S. D. A Mediterranean Society. Vol. 4, Daily Life: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. xxviii, 492 PP. Green, William Scott. Approachesto Ancient Judaism. Vol. IV. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. xx, 187 pp. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. viii, 70 pp. Gurock, Jeffrey S. American Jewish History: A Bibliographical Guide. New York: Anti-Defamation League, 1983. xxi, 195 pp. Himmelfarb, Martha. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1983. x, 198 pp. Jacobs, Louis. The Book of Jewish Values.Chappaqua, N.Y.: Rossel Books, 1984. 160 pp. Joselit, Jenna Weissman. Our Gang: Jewish Crime and the New YorkJewish Community, 1900-1940. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. xii, 209 pp. 309

310

BOOKS RECEIVED

Kornberg, Jacques, ed. At the Crossroads: Essays on Ahad Ha'am. Albany:

State Universityof New York Press, 1983.xxvii, 207 pp. Kossoff, Philip. Valiant Heart: A Biography of Heinrich Heine. Cranbury,

N.J.: CornwallBooks, 1983. 217 pp. Liebman, Charles S., and Eliezer Don-Yehiya. Civil Religion in Israel. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1983. x, 308 pp. Matt, Daniel C. Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment.Translated and with an

introductionby Daniel ChananMatt. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. xvi, 320 pp. Mendelssohn,Moses. Jerusalem.Editedby AlexanderAltmann.Translated by Allan Arkush. Hanover,N.H.: UniversityPress of New England, 1984. 254 pp. Neusner, Jacob. In the Margins of the Yerushalmi:Glosses on the English

Translation.Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1983. 153 pp. --.

Major Trends in Formative Judaism, First Series. Chico, Calif.:

ScholarsPress, 1983. 118 pp. -

. Torahfrom Our Sages: Pirke A vot; A New American Translationand

Explanation.Chappaqua,N.Y.: Rossel Books, 1984. 224 pp. Raphael, Marc Lee, ed. Approaches to Modern Judaism. Chico, Calif.:

Scholars Press, 1983. 168 pp. Sanua, Victor D., ed. Fields of Offerings:Studies in Honor of Raphael Patai.

Cranbury,N.J.: FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress, 1983.xx, 327 pp. Schulweis, Harold M. Evil and the Morality of God. Cincinnati: Hebrew

Union College Press, 1984. vii, 168 pp. Sokoloff, Michael, ed. Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradi-

tion. Ramat Gan: Bar-IlanUniversityPress, 1983. xli, 143 pp. Soloveitchik,Joseph B. Halakhic Man. Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society of America, 1984. 182 pp. Trachtenberg, Joshua. The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation

to ModernAnti-Semitism.Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety of America, 1984. xvi, 278 pp. Weinberger,Leon J. Bulgaria'sSynagoguePoets. University,Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1983. 192 pp.

Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Ajs Review, 1995 No 2

Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

AJS Review 1985: Fall, No 2

Ajs Review, Fall 1989, No 2

Ajs Review 1987: Fall, No 2

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 2, 1996

Ajs Review: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, 1992, Part 2

Ajs Review 1987: Spring, No 1

AJS REVIEW - VOLUME THREE

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 1, 1996

Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Ajs Review 1995: Fall, No 1

Ajs Review, Fall 1990

Ajs Review, Spring 1990

Ajs Review, 1988: Nos 1 and 2

Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 2 1984

Ajs Review, 1993, Part 1

Ajs Review, Volume Two, 1977

AJS REVIEW The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies Vol. IX, No. 1 Spring 1984

AJS Review 17, 1 (Spring, 1992)

AJSreview AJS Review (1980 Volume 5)

AJS Review Volume Seven-Eight 1982-1983

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 18, No. 2 1993

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 19 No. 2 1994

Искатель. 1984. Выпуск №2

George Orwell - 1984 (2)

1984

Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Ajs Review, 1995 No 2

Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

AJS Review 1985: Fall, No 2

Ajs Review, Fall 1989, No 2

Ajs Review 1987: Fall, No 2

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 2, 1996

Ajs Review: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, 1992, Part 2

Ajs Review 1987: Spring, No 1

AJS REVIEW - VOLUME THREE

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 1, 1996

Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Ajs Review 1995: Fall, No 1

Ajs Review, Fall 1990

Ajs Review, Spring 1990

Ajs Review, 1988: Nos 1 and 2

Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 2 1984

Ajs Review, 1993, Part 1

Ajs Review, Volume Two, 1977

AJS REVIEW The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies Vol. IX, No. 1 Spring 1984

AJS Review 17, 1 (Spring, 1992)

AJSreview AJS Review (1980 Volume 5)

AJS Review Volume Seven-Eight 1982-1983

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 18, No. 2 1993

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 19 No. 2 1994

Искатель. 1984. Выпуск №2

George Orwell - 1984 (2)

1984

Recommend Documents