Translating a Tradition: Studies in American Jewish History 9781618110336

Citation preview

Translating a Tradition: Studies in American Jewish History

JUDAISM AND JEWISH LIFE EDITORIAL BOARD Geoffrey Alderman (University of Buckingham, Great Britain) Herbert Basser (Queens University, Canada) Donatella Ester Di Cesare (Università “La Sapienza,” Italy) Simcha Fishbane (Touro College, New York), Series Editor Meir Bar Ilan (Bar Ilan University, Israel) Andreas Nachama (Touro College, Berlin) Ira Robinson (Concordia University, Montreal) Nissan Rubin (Bar Ilan University, Israel) Susan Starr Sered (Suffolk University, Boston) Reeva Spector Simon (Yeshiva University, New York)

Copyright © 2008 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved Book design by Batsheva Levinson Published by Academic Studies Press in 2010 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

In Memory of My Teacher Rabbi Dr. Arthur Hertzberg (1921-2006)

-

“The words of the wise are like spurs” Kohelet 12, 11

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew The Invention of American Jewish History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Cyrus Adler and The American: a Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Cyrus Adler, bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States . . . . . . . . . .54 Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 1915-1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler: New Perspectives on the Development of American Jewry in the Early Twentieth Century (with Dr. Maxine Jacobson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 A Supplemental bibliography of Cyrus Adler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

II. orthodox Judaism in North America The First Hasidic rabbis in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223 because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of rabbi Moses Feinstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 “Practically I Am a Fundamentalist” : Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend With Evolution and Its Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 III. Contemporary American Judaism American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316

Preface This book, which is a collection of my essays in American Jewish history, would not have seen the light of day but for the vision of Dr. Simcha Fishbane of Touro College, editor of the “Judaism and Jewish Life” series of Academic Studies Press. I thank him for this and for many other kindnesses over the years. I thank also Igor Nemirovsky, head of the Academic Studies Press, for his confidence in this volume and for his assistance in bringing it to fruition. This volume is dedicated to the memory of a remarkable man, rabbi Dr. Arthur Hertzberg (1921-2006). His accomplishments are many, and the legacy he leaves in the field of Jewish studies, as well as in the arena of Jewish communal life in the twentieth century, is significant and profound. Arthur Hertzberg was my teacher at Columbia University in the years 1973-1975, but our relationship went far beyond the roles of student and teacher. Perhaps because we were fellow alumni of Johns Hopkins University, or perhaps because I happened to have studied Yiddish, he made me his research assistant, and I spent a memorable summer, in 1974, organizing and examining the papers of his late father, Zvi Elimelech Hertzberg, a Hasidic rabbi in baltimore. More than I realized at the time, this encounter with the life and thought of a remarkable Eastern European rabbi who had emigrated to North America in the early twentieth century and made a mark on his New World community, gave me the initial impetus to a field of research which culminated in my recently published volume of studies on the Yiddish-speaking immigrant orthodox rabbinate in Montreal.1 In a wider sense, it alerted me to the possibilities of research into orthodox Judaism in North America, historical and contemporary, which ultimately resulted in many of the studies reprinted here. Hertzberg gave me a further push in the direction my scholarly career was to go when he recommended that I succeed him as editor of the letters of Cyrus Adler, one of the most important American Jewish personalities in the first half of the twentieth century. Hertzberg had originally been entrusted with this task years before, with an iniPreface

v ii

tial goal of having a volume ready for the centennial of Adler’s birth in 1963. Suffice it to say that by the mid-1970s, while some work had been done, the volume was far from prepared and Hertzberg realized that, in fairness to Adler’s daughter, Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn, who had commissioned the project, it would have to be someone else who would bring the book to press. He recommended me, and his recommendation was sufficient to persuade those concerned that I, an untried graduate student, whose ostensible field of study was medieval Jewish history and thought, could do the job. Thus my graduate career, which had taken me from Columbia to Harvard, involved me in what amounted to the preparation of two theses: my formal Ph.D. dissertation,2 and the Cyrus Adler project, for, to do a proper editorial job, I had to thoroughly master the sources of the history of the American Jewish community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The publication of the Adler letters in 19853 gave me my first major publication. More than that, though, Cyrus Adler gave me an entrée into another significant field of research in American Jewish history, and resulted in another large group of studies found in this volume. What unites the two major groups of studies thematically is that both examine the manifold ways in which the premodern Judaic tradition was “translated” by the American Jewish community in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries into a rabbinate and a community that begot both orthodox and Conservative Judaism. Hence the overall title of this volume. I would like to thank the original publishers of these articles for their permission to republish them in this volume. They originally appeared in the following publications, and are listed in the order of their publication: “Cyrus Adler, bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States”, American Jewish History 69 (1980), pp. 497-505. “because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of rabbi Moses Feinstein”, Judaism 35 (1986), pp. 35-46. “Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: viii

Translating a Tradition: Studies in American Jewish History

Image and reality”, American Jewish History 78 (1989), pp. 363381. “That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium”, Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society 2 (Montreal, Concordia University Department of religion, 1992), pp. 161-173. “The First Hasidic rabbis in North America”, American Jewish Archives 44 (1992) pp.501-515. “Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian”, When Philadelphia was the Capital of Jewish America ed. M. Friedman (Philadelphia, Associated University Presses, 1993) pp. 92-105. “The Invention of American Jewish History”, American Jewish History 81 (1994), pp. 309-320. “Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal”, Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division B The History of the Jewish People, Volume III Modern Times (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 139-146. “Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 19151940 “, Tradition Renewed: a History of the Jewish Theological Seminary, ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997), volume 1, pp. 103-159. “Cyrus Adler and The American: a Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry”, in Jay Harris, ed. Be’erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2005), pp. 179-191. “Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist”, Historicizing “Tradition” in the Study of Religion, ed. Steven Engler and Gregory P. Grieve, (berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2005), pp. 283-296. “Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America”, American Jewish Archives 57 (2005), pp. 53-66. “‘Practically I Am a Fundamentalist’: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend With Evolution and Its Implications”, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Preface

ix

Swetlitz, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 71-88. “American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design”, Modern Judaism 27 (2007), pp. 173-192. Two of the studies published here have not been published elsewhere. one is “The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler: New Perspectives on the Development of American Jewry in the Early Twentieth Century”, which was co-written with Dr. Maxine Jacobson and jointly presented by us at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies. I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Jacobson’s collaboration, and her permission to publish this study here. The second is “An Addendum to Cyrus Adler’s bibliography”, which includes a number of items I discovered during my research on Cyrus Adler that are not included in the standard bibliography of Cyrus Adler’s works. The essays are reproduced almost exactly the way they originally appeared with only a few exceptions, mainly to correct errors which crept into the original publications, and to update and standardize notes and bibliographical data. I wish to acknowledge the help of the Social Science and Humanities research Council of Canada in financing much of my research on Cyrus Adler. I also wish to acknowledge the Department of religion at Concordia University, my academic home for nearly three decades, for fostering a congenial atmosphere in which my scholarship could bear its fruit. Finally, it is my privilege to thank my wife, Sandra Moskovitz robinson, and my children, Sara Libby and Yosef Dov. They inspired me to creatively engage the questions that engendered the essays published here. Even more importantly, they found it within them to live with me and put up with my distractedness as I kept on researching and writing. Their love and their belief in me is my ultimate reward. Montreal January 6, 2008

x

Translating a Tradition: Studies in American Jewish History

Notes 1. Rabbis and Their Community: Studies in the Immigrant Orthodox Rabbinate in Montreal, 1896-1930. (Calgary, University of Calgary Press, 2007). 2. “Abraham ben Eliezer Halevi: Kabbalist and Messianic Visionary of the Early Sixteenth Century “ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1980).

Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters. (Philadelphia and New York, Jewish Publication Society and Jewish Theological Seminary, 1985). Two volumes.

3.

Preface

xi

The Invention of American Jewish History In attempting to answer the question whether American Jewish history is “Jewish”or “American,” a good place to begin might be to think of how Cyrus Adler, by all accounts one of the prime movers in the foundation of the American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS) a century ago, would have responded. When confronted with such questions, Adler instinctively turned to a discussion of origins.1 We could do worse than to attempt to do the same. In any evaluation of the origins of a field of study which has come to he known as “American .Jewish history,” it surely behooves us to remember that the concept of history itself, in the sense that it is used in Western culture, has no metaphysical existence. It is a culturally specific construct.2 Within the culture of people calling themselves Jews in medieval and early modern times, moreover, history as we know it had relatively little valence and was not pursued as a major subject. The pursuit of Jewish history, as we understand it, thus marks a nineteenth century departure from the cultural norms of rabbinic Judaism, for which what “counted”was the sacred history recounted in the Hebrew bible and not that which Jews experienced thereafter.3 Furthermore, even assuming the value of post-biblical Jewish history (which non-Jewish historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries generally did not)4 as something important which all Jews should he aware of, we should bear in mind that the modern Jewish historical consciousness, in its nineteenth century beginnings, encompassed much less than contemporary historians of the Jews are used to dealing with. As expressed in the writings of nineteenth century Jewish historians, practitioners of the Wissenschaft des Judentums such as Heinrich Graetz, Jewish history, in the absence of a Jewish state, was looked upon as essentially a record of persecution and scholarship.5 That, in the minds of the first modern Jewish historians, the Jews of the Americas possessed as their heritage neither signal persecutions nor scintillating Judaic scholarship, is probably best illustrated by the struggles of the fledgling Jewish Publication Society of America (JPS) in presenting Jewish history to its audience. That the subject of Jewish history was of some importance to the founders of JPS is indicated by the fact that the Society issued as its first publication 2

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Lady Katie Magnus' Outline of Jewish History in 1890. As the book's original English edition had contained only a brief, disparaging reference to North American Jewry, the Society commissioned an appendix which would deal adequately with the history of the Jews of America.6 Later in that decade, as its first major project, the Society presented a translation of the popular version of Heinrich Graetz's classic History of the Jews. Graetz, specially for the English edition, devoted a single page to the marginal phenomenon known as American Jewry. 7 Taking all of these factors together, it should be in no way surprising that, though Jews had been living on the North American continent for more than two centuries by the 1880s, the concept of American Jewish history barely existed even among American Jews, let alone world Jewry at large. At best, it constituted a factor in the consciousness of a few American Jews, notably those behind the organization of the Jewish Publication Society, who consciously sought to introduce this subject to the American Jewish public. In short, the concept of American Jewish history was not a given. It had to be invented. It was invented in the 1880s and 1890s. It coalesced, some one hundred years ago, in an organization called the American Jewish Historical Society.8 As interpreted by contemporary American Jewish historiography, the purposes of the inventors of American Jewish history were clear and straightforward. As Henry Feingold put it: [The founders of the AJHS] were intent on making Jewish life in America more secure and comfortable by demonstrating that American Jewry was “present at the creation.” That would legitimize the Jewish presence in America which was challenged by the virulent antisemitism of the 1890s. Their purpose was frankly apologetic.9 In substantiating this position, historians of the origins of the AJHS note, among other things, that the founders seem to have limited the scope of the society's purview to proving that Jews had been, from the very beginning, active and useful citizens of the New World.10 Furthermore, these critics note the idea of some of the AJHS founders that their society's task was an essentially temporary one, to be com-

The Invention of American Jewish History

3

pleted in a mere few years, as indicating the essentially apologetic purpose of the society.11 Finally, they point to the tendency of the AJHS in its formative years to ignore or suppress controversial topics as part of an image-making” campaign by the members of an American Jewish stablishment.” 12 There is no reason to deny the scholarly consensus that antisemitism loomed large in the minds of the inventors of American Jewish history. However there is more to the story than that. This article will attempt to deal with what else was on their mind, and look at the problem from other perspectives, those of the development and professionalization of American history and of the drive for American Jewish cultural independence, of which the invention of American Jewish history was one factor of some importance. At the 1892 organizational meeting of the AJHS, its first president, oscar Straus, stated that the organization was “entering upon a new field.”13 What exactly did this statement mean? In attempting to assess Straus' comment, the first thing one notices is that the “field”of American Jewish history was far from a tabula rasa by 1892. Though contemporary scholarship tends to dismiss these works, already in print or soon to see the light were a number of studies of the Jews in the United States by Charles P. Daly,14 Isaac Markens,15 Simon Wolf16 and Henry Morais.17 Those works, whatever their deficiencies in terms of the standards of twentieth century academic historiography, were not at all deemed deficient by contemporaries. In particular Markens' The Hebrews in America was hailed as an excellent book”by Henry Morais, himself the author of the first comprehensive study of an American Jewish community–Philadelphia. Morais, indeed, felt that the achievements of the AJHS were built upon the foundation laid by the work of Markens and Daly. As he put it, the AJHS: was the outgrowth of an occasional agitation in the Jewish press, and it may have been spurred on by the unaided work of a few in their strivings for a dissemination of valuable historical information bearing on our people who dwell in the United States.18 If, then, the inventors of American Jewish History did not mean, when they employed the term “new field”, that the historiography of American Jewry was literally a tabula rasa, what did they mean? An

4

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

answer to this question must be sought in the context of the pursuit of history as a whole within the United States of the late nineteenth century, an era in which professional, university-trained historians were beginning the process of taking over the helm of American historiography from the “amateurs.” In order to see more clearly the parallels between the invention of American Jewish history and the contemporaneous reinvention of the field of American history, it would be appropriate to look at the prime movers in each case: Cyrus Adler and Herbert baxter Adams. They were contemporaries at that newly founded bastion of German-style scholarship, the Johns Hopkins University. both were prominent in the scholarly community of their era. History has determined that neither was a noteworthy scholar in his own right whereas both were indefatigable promoters of scholarship. both were instrumental in the founding of associations for historical studies.19 Adler, the first American-trained Assyriologist, who had received his Ph.D. in 1887 from Johns Hopkins, was at this period in his life embarking on a career as librarian of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington which would see him rise to the position of Assistant Secretary. He managed to combine that position, which kept him at the center of many of the academic and intellectual currents of the United States, with a number of commitments to Jewish communal work of which his advocacy of the founding of AJHS was but one aspect.20 Adams, professor of History at Johns Hopkins, was one of the prime movers in the founding of the American Historical Association (AHA) in 1884. However, though the AHA was to become in later decades a bastion of historical professionalism, it was founded in a context in which PhDs and college teachers were not yet numerous enough to control the organization. Historians note that Adams”took care to involve amateur historians in the Association and thereby make it a broadly national institution.”21 Indeed in the period 1890-1910, only approximately 25 percent of the members of the AHA were college teachers,22 while the first year in which American universities graduated more than one hundred PhDs in all fields of study was 1888.23 Adams was sorely aware of these facts and sought the help of everyone seriously interested in history.24

The Invention of American Jewish History

5

For his perceived courting of the amateur patricians within the AHA, Adams received considerable criticism. Nonetheless, for two decades Adams never selected a professional historian as annual president, though the professionals were in actual charge of the organization.25 The Association's publication, American Historical Review, in its early years, was never directed exclusively to professional scholars. The early meetings of the AHA were often more social than academic occasions, dominated by the amateurs.26 The 1884 organizational meeting of the AHA, was not unlike the 1892 first meeting of AJHS. At both meetings, approximately forty were in attendance. The chairman pro tem of the AHA, Justin Winsor of Harvard stated on that occasion, like Straus of the AJHS: “We have come, gentlemen, to organize a new society and fill a new field.”27 Subsequent annual meetings of the AHA witnessed increased attendance, however the increase was only moderate. The sixth annual meeting of the AHA recorded 87 present, among whom was Cyrus Adler.28 At the AHA's seventh meeting in 1890, 108 members were present.29 The numbers attracted by the first few “scientific”meetings of the AJHS do not pale by comparison.30 Adams, like Adler, was drawn to Washington, D.C. Under his influence many of the first meetings of the AHA were in Washington, not least because of the intellectual atmosphere created by the celebrated Cosmos Club of which Adler also was a member. Adams reported to his society that “friendly reunions at the Cosmos are the most attractive features of scientific meetings in Washington.31” Adams was connected to the United States bureau of Education32 and sought to formally attach the AHA to the United States government. He was successful in receiving a charter for his organization from Congress in 1889, which required an annual report to the Smithsonian Institution (where, after 1892, it went through the hands of Cyrus Adler).33 Yet another initiative of Adams which would have required cooperation with Adler was a proposal to set up an historical library at the institution of which Adler was librarian.34 At the organizational meeting of the AJHS, Adler rose to differentiate AJHS from JPS by asserting that “the historical work as such

6

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

will interest but a comparatively small number while the Publication Society is intended for the general public...it is the business of the Historical Society to publish at times dry as dust material.”35 In making this statement, Cyrus Adler was clearly attempting to create a society which would maintain the sort of scientific academic standards he had learned at Johns Hopkins. He took care to consult some of the leading practitioners of American history of the time, including Adams and John bach McMaster of the University of Pennsylvania, who though he was conspicuously absent at the founding of the AHA,36 became one of the original vice-presidents of the AJHS. He also took care to associate with the AJHS whatever Jewish academic talent was available, including, among others, Marcus Jastrow, Assyriologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and Charles Gross, who is known as the first Harvard historian to contribute to the literature of medieval European history.37 both Adams and Adler were doing what they were doing in the name of the ideal of a “science,” which embodied a set of cultural values which distinguished the new higher education from the old, and pointed the way toward a pursuit of knowledge that would advance the condition of mankind. The methods of science were to separate the amateur from the professional, the dilettante from the dedicated specialist in the context of an age in which scienticity was the hallmark of the modern and the authoritative.38 Wissenschaftlich historical study meant the adoption of the (allegedly) purely empirical and neutral approach of the social sciences.39 Science in this sense was never more powerful an idea in the United States than in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when it was “still for the most part intellectually accessible to the lay public.”40 In this particular context, no group was more prone to scientific imagery, and the assumption of the mantle of science, than the historians. Thus Adams spoke of the graduate seminars in history he conducted as “laboratories where books are treated like mineralogical specimens...examined and tested.”41 Cyrus Adler similarly said of his own field of scholarship, which he called “biblical archaeology,” that it was the equivalent of a laboratory science: This study is not a part of dogmatic theology; its results can comThe Invention of American Jewish History

7

mand the same acceptance accorded to a new fact reported from a physical laboratory; its problems should be faced in the same spirit of fearless investigation into the truth as obtains in other departments of scientific research.42 Following models pioneered in the nineteenth century German university, these men also made a great deal of the concept of objectivity, which at times went so far as to “virtually amount to a denial of (the historian's) right to hold any political or moral opinion as to the events and the men he is treating of.”43 In this sense, rabbi bernhard Felsenthal, credited by Adler with the initiative to create the AJHS, wrote to him in the letter proposing the founding of such a society, that the practitioners of the art of American Jewish history should be “men who know what a scientific method is and what is to be understood by the term objectiv Geschichtschreibung.”44 In terms of understanding the early AJHS, the notion that the AJHS had essentially limited work to do and would be able to wind up its affairs after a few years, must also be understood in the context of the contemporary zeitgeist. It has been noted that both natural scientists and historians in this period often voiced the expectation that their respective ventures might be finite and that they were rapidly approaching the natural limits of their respective fields.45 Critics have pointed out that the early publications of the AJHS tended to present insignificant “facts”concerning alleged early American Jews which amounted to something tantamount to ancestor worship. Indeed it is true that many of the early publications of the Society deal with extracts from already published documents. For example, Cyrus Ad1er’s contributions to the first volume of the AJHS Publications consisted of extracts from two English publications bearing on the Jews in the New World as well as an original document, which had come his way, and which was published with a minimum of commentary.46 While one is tempted to conclude from this sort of effort that Adler and his colleagues were going beyond their depth in engaging in historical study, whatever their competence in their respective fields, comparison with other American historians of the era will once again demonstrate that there was at least some currently accepted methodology behind their method.

8

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

John Franklin Jameson received the first Ph.D. in History from Adams at Johns Hopkins in 1882, and gained prominence within the historical profession. He believed that he lived in a period uncongenial to great individual achievements in history. As far as he was concerned, historical scholarship was advancing “more by extensive accumulation and critical sifting of the evidences than by new endeavors toward their interpretation.” His goal was to create strong institutional support for historical endeavors–a national center for historical research. The principal service such a center could render was to make unpublished sources available to others.47 Unlike earlier historians from Thucydides to Parkman, Jameson and others of his generation of historians did not address posterity; they wrote for their immediate successors, fully expecting to he superseded.48 Another contemporary, Edward Cheyney, objected to “beginning the examination of historical facts...with any theory of interpretation...the simple and arduous task of the historian was to collect facts, view them objectively, and arrange them as the facts themselves demanded...when justly arranged (the facts) interpret themselves ... when all the documents are known, and have gone through the operations which fit them for use, the work of critical scholarship will be finished.”49 Adler wanted to create just this sort of history for the Jews of America. He had projected as early as 1888 a publication which he tentatively called “Sources for the History of the Jews in America”, which would have undoubtedly consisted of the publication of documents “dry as dust.”50 regarding the issue of avoidance of controversy within the AJHS it is clear that the inventors of American Jewish history by and large were determined to avoid sensitive issues. Thus, on January 31, 1894, Adler wrote to Felsenthal: I am free to say that I do not favor an attempt to bring out matters so recent as to have had all influence on current movements. It seems to me that history must be written from a greater distance than a generation.51 In another letter, dated May 4, 1897, Adler informed Felsenthal of the rejection of a manuscript he had submitted to the AJHS Publications. The reason given was that:

The Invention of American Jewish History

9

the paper touches on questions of a polemical character, and has to deal with some persons still living and some so near the living as to remove the discussion of their actions out of the plane of calm criticism.52 However once again this tendency within the circle of the AJHS has to be understood in the context of the genteel culture of the turn of the century, in which there was a widespread distaste for sharp controversy and criticism. It was, in fact, considered “unprofessional.” Thus in 1901, the AHA program committee hesitated to put on its agenda “so controverted a field as the reformation”while a decade later that same committee hesitated scheduling a discussion of southern views of state sovereignty before the Civil War.53 Such controversies, it was felt, belonged in the pages of newspapers or magazines, but assuredly not in publications that aspired to the title “historical.” Thus Adler, having rejected Felsenthal's manuscript on the grounds of controversy, did not do so wishing to suppress it. rather he suggested to Felsenthal that he publish it in a newspaper or periodical.54 In Lady Magnus' Outlines of Jewish History, at the end of the added “American”chapters, which were ultimately written by Adler and Henrietta Szold, it was noted that “in accordance with the precedent followed by the Encyclopaedia brittanica, no living person has been mentioned.”55 From the perspective of 1890, this took care of practically everything after the War of 1812. This has to be taken into consideration when one tries to understand the motives for largely limiting early AJHS researches to the colonial and revolutionary War eras. Quite obviously, whatever Adler's ambitions, the fate of American and American Jewish historiography diverged. None was more cognizant of this than Adler himself. An important part of this realization stemmed from his connection with the Jewish Encyclopedia, which was of great influence in the evolution of his thought on American Jewish history. American Jewry was the only department of the Encyclopedia he effectively controlled and his article on “the Jews of America”was of great importance as a synthesis of the results obtained in the field up to that point. His involvement in the Encyclopedia, however, caused him to realize “the deficiencies of our 10

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

knowledge in this subject… (including) the entire field of sociology, economics and statistics (as well as) the organization and growth of our local communities.”56 In later years, Adler often commented on the lack of university or seminary level courses on American Jewish history, of professors choosing it as their field of research and of incentives for graduate students to go into the field.57 What he did not mention, perhaps as too obvious, was the dearth of Jewish academicians in the field of American Jewish history.58 As he stated in1920: We have neglected our opportunities and I count myself one of the sinners ...we have all considered American Jewish history a mere amusement not to he followed up seriously. Unless I am very much mistaken, both for scientific and practical purposes, the need for serious work in American Jewish history will be evident for a good many years, but I do not think it will he done unless we are put in position to have at least one or more people to devote all their time to this department of Jewish history.59 American Jewish history did not obtain a foothold in the American university or even in Jewish academic institutions until the post World War II era, when Moses rischin essentially agreed with Adler's 1920 statement and characterized the field of American Jewish history by saying, “with few exceptions, study and research in American Jewish history have been left to the amateur, the antiquarian, the necrologist and the undaunted sentimentalist.”60 With no real academic support, the AJHS, unlike the AHA, did not professionalize. American Jewish history, unlike American history, remained perforce in amateur hands, for whom the academic standards of the Adlers and the Grosses meant little and filiopietism much. The origins of American Jewish historiography, then, must be examined in relation to contemporary trends in the field of American history. It must also be understood as part of the declaration of independence of American Jewry noted by Jonathan Sarna in his history of JPS.61 The cast of characters in the story of JPS is by and large the same as that of the founders of the AJHS, so many of whom came from Philadelphia that they have been characterized as “the Philadelphia group.”62 Though the two organizations had different purposes (otherwise, as Adler had pointed out, there would have been no need for another organizational structure), the goal was the same. In the The Invention of American Jewish History

11

case of AJHS, the goal was to invent a history for American Jewry. In the world of the late nineteenth century to have significance meant to have a history. If American Jewry was to come of age and take its place as one of the world's major Jewish communities, it needed as sense of itself–a history, In ways and for reasons which are essentially to be sought in the America of the 1880s and 1890s–it got one.

Notes Thus at the organizational meeting of AJHS, Adler began his introductory statement with the words: “before venturing to speak of the scope and object of the work, I will detain you for a moment with the history of the movement so far as I am concerned. “AJHS, “report of organization “ (New York, 1892), p. 4. on Adler, see Ira robinson, ed. Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters (New York and Philadelphia, 1985), introduction by Naomi Cohen, as well as his autobiography, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia, 1941).

1

2.

Cf. Edward H. Carr, What Is History? (New York, 1961), p. 5.

3.

Cf. Yosef Haim Yerushalmi. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, 1982), chapter I.

Cf. Gavin Langmuir, “Majority History and Post-biblical Jews” Journal of the History of Ideas 27 (1966), pp. 343-364. 4.

12

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Cf. Ismar Schorsch, introduction to Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History and Other Essays (New York, 1975).

5.

6. Jonathan Sarna, JPS: the Americanization of Jewish Culture, 1888-1988 (Philadelphia, 1989), p. 29ff. 7.

Ibid., p. 34ff.

on the American Jewish Historical Society, see John J. Appel, Immigrant Historical Societies in the United States, 1880-1950 (New York, 1982), pp. 182-270. 8.

Henry Feingold, “American Jewish History and American Jewish Survival, “American Jewish History” 71 (1982), p. 421. Cf. Nathan M. Kaganoff, “AJHS at 90: reflections on the History of the oldest Ethnic Historical Society in America,” American Jewish History 71 (1982), p. 467, and John J. Appel, “Hanson's Third Generation 'Law' and the origins of the American Jewish Historical Society,” Jewish Social Studies 23 (1961), p. 5.

9.

10.

Cf. Appel, Immigrant Historical Societies, pp. 204-205.

11.

Ibid., p. 229.

12.

Ibid., p. 253.

AJHS. “report of organization, “p. 4. For observations on the transcript that constituted the basis for this report, cf. Kaganoff. “AJHS at 90”.

13.

The Settlement of the Jews in North America, ed. Max Kohler (New York, 1893). Significantly, this publication originated in a series of newspaper articles published as early as 1872, but was not given permanent form for over two decades. The subject of the earliest publications in American Jewish history deserves an extended treatment. 14.

15.

The Hebrews in America: a Series of Historical and Biographical Sketches (New York, 1888).

16

The American Jew as Patriot, Soldier and Citizen (Philadelphia, 1895).

The Jews of Philadelphia: Their History From the First Settlement to the Present Time (Philadelphia, 1894).

17.

18.

Ibid., p. 181.

19.

John Higham, History (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1965), p. 11.

20

Cf. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 171ff.

21

Higham, History, p. 11.

Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: the ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (New York, 1988), p. 49. 22

burton J. bledstein, The Culture of Professionalism: the Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America (New York, 1976), p. 277.

23

24

Higham, History, pp. 12-13.

25

Ibid.

26

Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 58

27

Papers of the American Historical Association (PAHA) 1 (1886), p. 11.

28

PAHA 4 (1890), p. 1.

29

PAHA 5 (1891), p. 1.

The Invention of American Jewish History

13

The first volumes of the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society (PAJHS) list the attendance at the annual “scientific meetings.“

30

31

PAHA 5 (1891), p. 2.

32

Higham, History, p. 11.

33

Ibid., p. 14.

34

PAHA 5 (1891), p. 4.

35

Kaganoff, “AJHS at 90”, pp. 471-472

36

Higham, History, p. 7.

37

Ibid., pp. 39, 436.

38

bledstein, Culture of Professionalism, p. 285.

39

Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 21.

40

Ibid., pp. 25, 31.

41

Ibid., p. 33.

Cited in Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality, “American Jewish History 78 (1989), p. 367.

42

43

Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 25.

Adler to Felsenthal, July 10, 1888. Felsenthal Papers, American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham, Mass. 44

45

Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 55.

46

PAJHS 1 (1893), pp. 105-115. Cf. Appel, Immigrant Historical Societies, p. 216.

47

Higham, History, pp. 21-22.

48

Ibid., p. 103.

49

Novick, That Noble Dream, pp. 38-39.

50

robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 13.

51

Felsenthal Papers, American Jewish Historical Society.

52

Ibid.

53

Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 58.

54

See note 52 above.

55

Lady Katie Magnus, Outlines of Jewish History (Philadelphia, 1890). p. 366.

PAJHS 10 (1901), p. 6. on the Jewish Encyclopedia project, see Shuly r. Schwartz, The Emergence of Jewish Scholarship in America: the Publication of the Jewish Encyclopedia ( Cincinnati, 1991).

56

57

robinson, Adler Letters 2, p. 24.

58

on this issue, see Novick, That Noble Dream. p. 69 note 9.

59

robinson, Adler Letters 2, p. 24.

60

Cited in Jeffrey Gurock, American Jewish History: a Bibliographical Guide (New York, 1983), pp.

14

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

xv-xvi. 61

Sarna, JPS. See especially the preface.

Cf. Maxwell Whiteman, “The Philadelphia Group “in Murray Friedman, ed., Jewish Life in Philadelphia, 1830-1940 (Philadelphia, 1983), pp. 163-178.

62

The Invention of American Jewish History

15

Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry The Jewish community of the United States of America in the late nineteenth century was very much on the periphery of the consciousness of world Jewry. It had neither the centuries of history nor the scholarly traditions of the great Jewish communities of the old World. Moreover, those who seriously considered the Jews and their history in that era, following Heinrich Graetz, were wont to think of Jewish history as the story of scholarship and suffering. by these standards, it seemed clear to all that American Jewry possessed neither in great abundance.2 Yet there were Jews in the United States at that time who dreamed of an American Jewry with a far greater profile in the world.3 of these dreamers, one of the most prominent was Cyrus Adler (1863-1940).4 Adler was one of the most interesting Jews in the United States in this era. He was a major force in the founding and sustaining of many of the institutions and organizations which spearheaded the intellectual and political development of American Jewry. In particular he was instrumental in creating much of the institutional framework of twentieth century American Jewry through his work as president and co-founder of such organizations as the American Jewish Historical Society, the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and the American Jewish Committee, among others . Moreover, he edited the Jewish Quarterly Review, the preeminent English-language journal of scholarly Judaica of the era, from the beginning of its new series in 1910 to his death in 1940. For all this accomplishment, however, Adler was widely misunderstood both by his contemporaries and by his posterity. In particular, he was widely looked upon, particularly by religious liberals both in the Conservative and reform movements as “a traditionalist of the antiquarian type” who was not at all open to the sort of religious change they deemed necessary for the development of the American Jewish community.5 There is, however, a real problem with the acceptance of this image. Accepting it will necessitate our explaining how such a hidebound antiquarian traditionalist dealt with the rigors of a doctoral program in Semitics at the Johns Hopkins University. Adler's training at the hand of Professor Paul Haupt, which earned

16

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

him the first American Ph.D. in Semitic studies, of necessity plunged him into the contemporary scholarly controversies surrounding the bible, its origins and its relationship to various newly-discovered and deciphered cognate literatures. It further put him in a position in which he could hardly ignore the implications of these scholarly controversies for the present and future of Judaism. How, in short, are we to attempt to understand Adler's critical process of intellectual and religious maturation, which took place in the 1880s? one way of attempting to unravel the mystery surrounding Adler is to look at his writings. Indeed, a volume of Adler’s occasional writings published on the occasion of his seventieth birthday in 1933, contains a bibliography of nearly six hundred items, which I have been able to augment substantially.6 These writings have hitherto been little exploited, however, not least because they largely consist of short book reviews or other occasional or ephemeral pieces. To my knowledge, they have never been systematically investigated. However given the intrinsic importance of Adler to American Jewish cultural history, it is reasonable to assume that all relevant material must be explored and these reviews and other occasional pieces, if properly mined, will yield information both interesting and informative concerning Adler's early development. This, in turn, will help us better understand the ways in which the issues and intellectual trends of the day impacted on someone who was to become a key figure on the American Jewish intellectual scene. For the purposes of this exercise, therefore, we will look at Adler's writings from the 1880s, which saw his first publications , to the eve of his journey to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa on behalf of Chicago's Columbian Exposition. This journey, undertaken in 1890, marks another important chapter in his growth the discussion of which goes beyond the scope of this study. The great majority of the 135 items in Adler's published bibliography from the 1880s, over eighty articles and reviews, were published in The American, a Philadelphia weekly journal. They constitute the largest and most consistent body of his writing from this era. These articles, then, supplemented by Adler's other extant writings of the period, will serve to help us understand an important and enigmatic influence on the development of American Judaism.

Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

17

Since The American is such an important part of this story, some background information on the periodical may be helpful. It was a weekly journal, published in Philadelphia beginning in 1880. It advertised itself as a: national, independent journal of original contents...[which] aims at an honorable standard in literary excellence, an independent and fearless course, a catholic and fair-minded relation to controverted subjects and the study of the hopeful side of human affairs...it represents unhesitatingly the form and substance of American principles. Perceiving no superiority in foreign institutions, it prefers those of its own country and seeks to perfect them.7 readers of the journal were presented weekly with news, editorials, articles on special topics “including the phases of Social Life, Art, Science, Literature, etc.”as well as book reviews and a department called “drift”, which included “Scientific, Archaeological, Personal and other timely and interesting items.” Thus The American presented a very wide diversity of material which, as we will see, was inclusive of the Jews and Judaism in general as well as the findings of the newly emergent scholarly discipline of Semitics. Notable among the contributors featured in its prospectus were several Jews with Philadelphia connections. beside Adler, these included Joseph Jastrow8, H.P. rosenbach9, and Simon A. Stern.10 It is possible that one of these men, or else some other connection through the University of Pennsylvania, from which he graduated in the class of 1883, got him a recommendation to the editor. However it is far more interesting to note that what Adler was to contribute, largely reviews and articles on scholarly contributions to the Hebrew bible, Judaic and Near Eastern Studies, were deemed publishable by a general-circulation magazine which reported as well on national and state politics and current fiction. It is even more worthy of note that these publications appeared during an era in which the study of the bible in North America, including the old as well as New Testaments, was, to quote Ernest Frerichs, “not only in the hands of Christian scholars, but in the hands of Christian scholars who were theologians.”11 Thus to place a Jew, like Adler, in a position to comment on matters biblical to a predominantly Christian audience was of con18

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

siderable significance, bespeaking a turn from denominational voices to those emanating from the modern, secular university which Johns Hopkins pioneered in the United States.12 What were the factors influencing Adler as he wrote for The American? He was by all accounts acutely conscious of the fact that he was living in an era in which Judaism was being subjected to unprecedented challenges stemming from new perceptions of biblical origins. Abraham Neuman, his biographer, asserts that his entry into Semitic scholarship was born of his realization that: In the name of the new science ...startling theories were propounded: the veracity of the early bible accounts was attacked; the foundations of traditional religion were endangered; the historic position of Israel as the People of the book was derided in the German halls of learning. These extravagant and ill-founded claims aroused the fighting spirit of the young scholar, who was inwardly certain that the faith of the world could not be shaken by the expanding horizon of true knowledge. He was determined to explore the field for himself. Eagerly he turned to Semitic studies with the zest of a pioneer and the crusading zeal of a defender of the faith.13 This zeal he was to demonstrate amply. He, like other Jews of his generation entering the field identified himself as a Semiticist rather than a biblical scholar, since old Testament scholarship was then not merely denominational in character but was also characterized by a great deal of the “higher anti-semitism”, as Solomon Schechter aptly put it.14 However Adler defined his field rather broadly, so as to include the bible in his area of expertise. In his contributions to The American, he was not merely seeking a forum for biblical and Semitic scholarship. He was also carefully positioning post-biblical Judaism, its history and literature to be an integral part of the cultural world view of his readers. Thus he could state that “oriental scholarship all over the world has witnessed a remarkable revival...which has spread rapidly to the English speaking countries, and more especially to America”.15 Within this revival, “Jewish history and literature are being cultivated for their own sake,

Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

19

for the history of theology, for the geography and ethnology of the ancient world”.16 It was clearly part of his mission to bring the message of these new fields of scholarship to the general public. As well, he sought to assert the necessity of including the Jews–and other “oriental”peoples as well–into the purview of the educated general public. Thus he remarked in a review of a book purporting to deal with “Ancient Education”, which did not venture far beyond the well-demarcated bounds of Greco-roman civilization, that the Jews, along with the Chinese, the Assyrians, the Arabs, and the Indians needed to be included in any such study.17 As previously stated, Adler's bibliography lists over eighty contributions to The American between 1883 and 1890.18 In addition, I have identified several other pieces which escaped his bibliographers which are designated either by his initials, C.A., or by his full name.19 Individually, none of his contributions can be said to have any great significance. Collectively, however, they can shed light on how Cyrus Adler's mind was at work on a variety of key issues. The most central of these issues was that of tradition. He himself was all too well aware of the fact that his era was characterized by numerous challenges to tradition in general. Thus Adler wrote in a review of a biography of Herod, “the passion for disproving what tradition (our most reliable informant of the ages which are past) tells us is gradually becoming a settled mania”.20 This citation gives us a clear indication that we are dealing with a man who was largely sympathetic to the testimony of tradition. on the other hand, Adler had no patience for mere dogmatic defences of tradition, scriptural or other. Thus he said of one Protestant minister's attempt to defend the scriptural account of the Egyptian bondage of the Israelites and the Exodus, “we must confess our dislike for apologetical treatment of any portion of history, the historical books of the bible not excepted”.21 The challenge presented by this trend to debunk tradition concerned first and foremost the bible and its origins. For Adler, The key to the defense of tradition was his chosen field of study, which he called “biblical archaeology”. He defined it as follows:

20

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

This study is not a part of dogmatic theology; its results can command the same acceptance accorded to a new fact reported from a physical laboratory; its problems should be faced in the same spirit of fearless investigation into the truth as obtains in other departments of scientific research. Through it, the bible becomes, in its form and to some extent in its substance, a new book.22 Advancement of this area necessarily involved the study of Assyriology, which “has considerably changed the face of Hebrew etymology and lexicography”as well as such ancillary factors as progress in understanding the geography of Palestine.23 The new science, as far as he was concerned, tended to confirm the accuracy of scripture and demonstrated that the biblical critics “have sometimes hit very wide of the mark.”24 Thus he stated: [T]hose who disliked the theology of [the Hebrew bible's] teachings found it comparatively easy to bring its history into discredit. They still are disposed to exaggerate every incongruence between its statements and those of the inscriptions, and to assume that a record on stone must always be regarded as more trustworthy than one on parchment. A visit to any graveyard might have taught them how easy and how natural it is to lie on stone. We do not say that the comparison of the new sources with the old will prove the latter to have been invariably accurate. our respect for the bible as a great historical record and a manual of religious teaching requires no such extravagance. We believe that in the matter of chronology the inscriptions furnish us valuable corrections of some of the dates given by the Jewish historians. but, altogether, the bible stands on much more solid and unimpeachable ground since the Egyptologists and the Assyriologists lifted the veil from Western Asia in this early period.25 In a review of Ernest renan's History of the People of Israel, he further stated: Whatever may be said to the contrary, the basis of the modern biblical school lies more in the Spencerian application of the Darwinan hypothesis of the evolution of species to all thought and to all life, than upon any textual or archaeological discover-

Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

21

ies. The history of Israel must fit into the scheme of religious development which comparative mythology has worked out...It is quite likely that other opinions than those held by the churches concerning the authorship or editorship of many of the books of the bible will prevail. Whether these will seriously affect traditional views concerning the history of Israel is another question. The philosopher and the literary critic will never answer it. It is for the archaeologist, who has already done a little, and who may yet do much more, to furnish the material toward solving the problem.26 In any event he was convinced that as a result of all of the new discoveries of biblical archaeology, the future of biblical studies would see a turnabout: Having spent great ingenuity in endeavoring to bring down the date of every chapter of the bible as late as possible, it does not require a spirit of prophecy to foresee that the fashion of science is likely (and with more show of reason) to swing in the opposite direction.27 The key challenge to this view of Assyriology as confirming the validity of the bible and Judaism at this time was the question of the possible Mesopotamian origins of the Sabbath and other biblical traditions. When it became known that the ancient babylonians had days at weekly intervals during the lunar month which could be construed as “sabbaths”as well as traditions of creation and a deluge which paralleled those of the Hebrew bible, the issue of whether these items were borrowed from Mesopotamian sources and incorporated into the bible spoke to the originality and, indeed the integrity of the biblical tradition. Adler expressed the following attitude toward this issue: To one who is inclined to the conservative view of biblical criticism28 it would be most natural to assert that the traditions common to both Hebrew and Assyrian are of so remote antiquity as to have arisen before Hebrew and Assyrian became separated from one another...on the other hand critics who regard much of the bible as of heathen origin can say that these early traditions were received by the Hebrews in Ur of the Chaldees, or if they

22

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

think the Pentateuch, or portions of it post-exilic in origin, they can with much force assert that the closeness of the accounts would preclude any idea of an independent origin...To all of these opinions, however, Assyriology suggests an important consideration...If the redaction of the bible took place in Alexandria, the Cosmogony and the Deluge are still records that go back to the most remote ages. Their antiquity is now established beyond the possibility of cavil and their substantial agreement among two different peoples forms the strongest kind of argument for the faithfulness of their transmission and for their being more than mere moral stories.29 There is no doubt where Adler stood on this issue. He gleefully reported the mistakes of those, like Sayce, whose “statements about the coincidence of babylonian and Jewish ritual are backed by references to texts, but not infrequently an examination of these fails to reveal the authority for the statement made”.30 The discovery of cuneiform tablets at Tel El-Amarna in 1888, proving that the cuneiform writing was widespread in Palestine in the fifteenth century b.C.E., meant to Adler that “considerable speculation about the post-Exilic origin of biblical laws and customs which seem to show babylonian influence will be upset”.31 While Adler saw himself as a defender of the bible's essential accuracy, he had no difficulty in asserting that its narratives did not represent perfect and inerrant transmissions of the original text. In his 1885 review of the revised Translation of the bible, he stated: That there are occasional corruptions in figures and in names, that the vocalization may here and there not accurately represent the original, the most conservative will admit, but they deny that modern scholars have in their possession any means by which such mistakes could be rectified. Such a sweeping statement is however easily disproved.32 He was convinced, rather, that the science of biblical archaeology did offer a means of approaching the original text. In another place, he added that, “as is well known, the vowels of the Hebrew bible are comparatively modern and that errors have crept in is quite possible.”33 Thus, following his teacher, Haupt, he was able to read the

Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

23

name of Nimrod's father in Genesis 10, 8 as Kash rather than Kush, which is the way the word had been vocalized the Masoretic text. This is a rather important point which goes beyond a small difference in pronunciation. What it means is that Adler had gone a small but important step beyond contemporary conservative Jewish biblical scholarship. His own teacher, Sabato Morais, conceded that the Prophets and Hagiographa could be the legitimate subjects of critical study, stating that “notwithstanding the care of our copyists to avoid errors, it may have happened that discrepancies about names, dates, localities or even narrative of some events may have crept in.34 Similar attitudes prevailed among other contemporary rabbis who had helped found the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.35 Jakob barth, Professor of bible at the orthodox Hildesheimer Seminary in berlin could equally entertain the idea of the book of Isaiah being of multiple origins. 36 However, none of them were willing to extend their critical methodologies to the text of the Pentateuch as Adler, however gingerly, clearly was. Neither was American reform Judaism, so critical of other aspects of the Judaic tradition, comfortable with tampering with “the authenticity of the Mosaic records”, as Isaac Mayer Wise put it.37 Moreover many reform Jews in this era backed away from the results of the use of higher criticism even with respect to the Hagiographa. Thus in 1899, reform rabbi Edward Calisch's lecture on the 51st Psalm at the Jewish Chautauqua Society was criticised for employing higher criticism.38 Nonetheless, Adler was at pains to defend the traditional Hebrew pronunciation of the name of the babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, against a suggestion of Sayce that it be pronounced Nebuchadrezzar.39 He was prepared to understand portions of the book of Psalms as reflecting the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans in the time of Nehemiah and thought well of Heinrich Graetz's “brilliant conjecture”that Psalm 127 was an attack on Nehemiah.40 He was not at all prepared, however, to accept the idea that other Psalms derived from the Maccabean era, agreeing, with Karpeles, that such derivations “exist only in the fruitful fancy of biblical criticism.41 In other areas Adler was essentially a nineteenth century rationalist for whom mysticism was inherently suspect. Thus while he reviewed the widest variety of books in the area of Judaica and 24

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Hebraica, it is significant that when The American published a review of a book on Kabbalah, the review was by someone other than Adler.42 In his review of a biography of the English Arabist and linguist, Edward Henry Palmer, Adler was moved to state: The biographer is a great mystic, and in the early part of the work relates with great solemnity the many wonderful things, little short of miracles, that Palmer performed; had the writer been looking through clear spectacles, he might have discerned his hero as a boy learning these tricks while he was acquiring romany.43 Knowing he was addressing the predominantly Christian readership of The American, Adler was eager to dispel the negative impressions they had received concerning the rabbis and their writings, which he felt were given inadequate treatment “by all writers on Jewish literature”.44 He was eager to stress that the Talmud was critically important for Semitic scholarship as “the Syriac scholar, the Assyriologist and the Semitic comparative philologian have suddenly awakened to the fact that many of their problems must lie unsolved until the language of the Talmud and of the literature that clustered about it is clearly understood”.45 He traced the origins of “superior skill of the Jewish physicians of the Middle Ages”to the Talmud, “a faithful mirror of the Jewish thought of centuries”and was at pains to assert that the practice of medical dissection was in fact known to and practised by the ancient rabbis.46 He further expatiated, in another review, on the value placed by the ancient Jews on education: (W)hen the Jewish state fell, her wise men recognized that their only strength lay in education. Accordingly it was compulsory on every community to set up a school... Schools for higher education were even older, and science and foreign languages, though they were studied, did not detract from the attention paid to the national laws and religion.47 In a review of Moses Mielziner's book on The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, he addressed a Christian perception that the Jewish law of divorce, as formulated by the rabbis, was “lax in the extreme”and tended “to prevent woman from attaining her normal place as man's equal in difference.” Adler expounded on the grounds of divorce according to the schools of Shammai (“unchastity”) and Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

25

Hillel (“even if she spoiled a dish”),48 that “the founder of Christianity”[Jesus]: gave it as his opinion that the school of Hillel interpreted with more accuracy the letter of the law, but that the law itself was one which had become intolerable through the broadening of men's conceptions. He said Moses allowed such things because of “the hardness of your hearts”at the time. but in the Jewish usage the heart is the symbol of the understanding, not of the moral affections, which are symbolized by the bowels.49 Adler was thus most respectful of the ancient rabbis. However he would not accept their aggadic statements as indications of the Hebrew bible's meaning. As he stated in a review of Wünsche's German translation of Midrasch Debarim Rabba: These legends make interesting reading, if we but bear in mind that they are to be taken as homiletics rather than as rigid interpretations of the text.50 Jewish history was seen by Adler in a dual aspect. It marked “the destruction of Jewish nationality...Yet it also marks a heroic adaptation of the Jewish Church to a new order of things and a conversion of the world,–to an extent at least,–to an appreciation of the Jewish writings, and an approximation to Jewish ethical standards.”51 Adler wished his predominantly non-Jewish readership, above all, to appreciate “the peculiar position of the Jews as a religious body inheriting a national law and yet under obligation to comply with the laws of the country they reside in.”52 American Jewish history, for Adler, was of great significance. Foreshadowing his later contributions to the history of the Jews in America,53 he stated: There is much in this story of the Jews in America to challenge the attention of the historian, possibly the most remarkable fact being the services rendered by the Jews to the cause of American freedom.54 As Adler well knew, criticism of the Talmud came not merely from gentiles. When a reform rabbi ridiculed the absurdity of some Talmudic discussions, using an example the Talmudic discussion 26

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

regarding the finding of a cloak55, he rejoined “[t]he discussion as to the finding of the cloak was intended to prevent perjury,–surely a praiseworthy purpose”.56 Adler's partisan feelings with respect to reform Judaism come to the fore when, in discussing reform rabbi Solomon Schindler's book Dissolving Views in the History of Judaism, he stated: His religious point of view is almost unique among his people. It shows a natural theism, denying revelation, considering the bible a purely historical work of doubtful authority, denying the importance of Jewish separatism, identifying religion with ethics, and never suspecting any connection between religious formalism and right living.57 Adler's opinions on these subjects were largely reassuring within the contemporary traditionalist Jewish community. For many such Jews of the late nineteenth century, biblical archaeology as conceived by Adler did seem to be the solution to the problems posed by the Graff-Wellhausen thesis. Thus Mordecai breuer, describing the contemporary orthodox Jewish community in Imperial Germany, stated that: Even the threatening nature of bible criticism seemed considerably blunted by the results of research into old babylonia and the historical authenticity of biblical accounts seemed assured.58 on the other hand, the extent to which Adler was willing to accommodate to text-critical work he considered soundly-based, even on the Pentateuch, marked him as a man not to be easily dismissed as merely “a traditionalist of the antiquarian type.”He was, rather, a traditionalist who would espouse change when he believed it to be soundly based. An indication of Adler's readiness for change within the tradition, appearing at a slightly later date, may be found in his Jewish Encylopedia article on the Jewish Calendar. In noting the slight but significant difference between the length of the year in the Jewish and Gregorian calendars, he stated that: Insignificant as these differences may appear, they will cause a considerable divergence in the relations between Nisan and the spring as time goes on and may require a Pan-Judaic Synod to adjust.59 Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

27

The 1880s saw Cyrus Adler emerge as a scholar with a message. To his own community, the Jews of America, he offered a way to understand their tradition in a critical yet sympathetic way, which avoided what he considered to be the excesses of reform. He also began to emerge as a representative of Judaism to the larger American public. Adler asserted to them that their cultural world view would remain incomplete without a due appreciation of the contribution of the Jews and Judaism to their civilization. both messages, so central to Adler's later career, can be found in this earliest stratum of his writings, which mark a significant moment in the development of the cultural history of American Jewry.

Notes The research for this article was aided by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada as well as by a grant from Concordia University. I would like to acknowledge the help I received from Concordia University's Interlibrary Loan Department as well as the Periodicals librarians of the New York Public Library.

1

on Graetz, see Ismar Schorsch, “Ideology and History in the Age of Emancipation”, in Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History and Other Essays ed. Ismar Schorsch (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1975), 1-62.

2

See Jonathan Sarna, JPS: the Americanization of Jewish Culture, 1888-1988 (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1989)

3

on Adler see Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 19151940”, Tradition Renewed: A History of the Jewish Theological Seminary, ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997) volume 1, pp. 103-159.

4

For an example of this attitude, see Herbert Parzen, Architects of Conservative Judaism (New York, 1964), p. 98. Cf. Louis Lipsky, Memoirs in Profile (Philadelphia, 1975), p. 272.

5

Cyrus Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses (Philadelphia, 1933), pp. 363-445. The bibliography was prepared by Edward D. Coleman of the American Jewish Historical Society and Joseph reider of Dropsie College. I possess in manuscript a supplement to this bibliography.

6

7

“Prospectus of the Sixth Year”, American, September 19, 1885, p. 319.

Jastrow was the son of Marcus Jastrow, a prominent rabbi in Philadelphia, and was Adler's fellow student at Johns Hopkins where he engaged in the study of Psychology. Cf. Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1970), volume 7, col. 1298 s.v. “Jastrow”.

8

He was a journalist who published a pioneering work on the history of the Jews of Philadelphia. Cf. Adler, “rosenbach, Hyman Pollock”, Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1910) vol 10, p. 473.

9

10

He later collaborated with Adler as a director of the Jewish Publication Society. Cf. Sarna, JPS, p.

28

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

23 . J.M. Cohen and J.G rosengarten, both listed as contributors resident in Philadelphia, are also possibly from the same circle but I have not as yet succeeded in identifying them.

Ernest Frerichs, “Introduction: the Jewish School of biblical Studies “, in Jacob Neusner, baruch A. Levine and Ernest S. Frerichs, Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987), p. 2.

11

12

Ibid., p. 5.

Abraham Neuman, “Cyrus Adler: a biographical Sketch”, American Jewish Year Book volume 42 (1941), p. 32.

13

14 Jonathan Sarna and Nahum Sarna, “Jewish bible Scholarship and Translations in the United States”, in Ernest Frerichs, ed. The Bible and Bibles in America (Atlanta, 1988), pp. 94-95. Cf. Jon D. Levenson, “Why Jews Are Not Interested in biblical Theology” in Jacob Neusner, baruch A. Levine and Ernest S. Frerichs, Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 287-289. 15

American, September 21, 1889, p. 363.

16

Ibid.

17

American, 1886, p. 119.

They are distributed as follows: 1883-2; 1884-10; 1885-15; 1886-10; 1887-11; 1888-11; 188913; 1890-10.

18

beyond those listed in the bibliography, I have noted six. I believe that other, unsigned pieces may also be Adler's.

19

20

American, November 7, 1885, p. 42.

21

American, 1887, p. 395.

Adler, “report on the Section of oriental Antiquities in the United States National Museum, 1888” (Washington, D.C., 1890), p. 94.

22

23

American, october 20, 1883, p. 24. Cf. March 1, 1884, p. 329; July 19, 1884, p. 233.

24

American, November 24, 1883, p. 105.

25

American, January 17, 1885, p. 233.

26

American, December 8, 1888, p. 120.

27

American, July 12, 1890, p. 255.

Among these “conservatives” Adler numbered his teacher, Paul Haupt. Cf. Ira robinson, ed. Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters (Philadelphia and New York, 1985), volume 1, pp. 4-5.

28

29

American, July 16, 1887, p. 201.

American, June 16, 1888, p. 138. Adler had a public dispute in the columns of the American Hebrew with rabbi Emil Hirsch of Chicago on just this issue. Cf. American Hebrew July 3, 1885, p. 117; February 10, 1888; March 2, 1888, p. 57; March 9, 1888, pp. 72-73; March 23, 1888, p. 102.

30

31

American, June 16, 1888, p. 136.

32

American, June 13, 1885, p. 88.

33

American, August 2, 1884, p. 265.

robert E. Fierstein, A Different Spirit: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1886-1902 (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1990), p. 32. It must be noted that the Jewish Theologi-

34

Cyrus Adler and The American: A Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry

29

cal Seminary more or less followed this distinction until the late 1950s. David Ellenson and Lee bycel, “The JTS rabbinical Curriculum in Historical Perspective”, in Jack Wertheimer, ed., Tradition Renewed: a History of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1997), volume 2, p. 559. Cf. Moshe Davis, The Emergence of Conservative Judaism: the Historical School in 19th Century America (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1963), pp. 294-296.

35

36

Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. “barth, Jacob”, volume 4, col. 263.

Cited in Sheldon blank, “bible”, in Samuel E. Karff, ed. Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion at One Hundred Years (Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College, 1976), p. 288.

37

Peggy K. Pearlstein, “Assemblies by the Sea: the Jewish Chautauqua Society in Atlantic City, 1897-1907”, Jewish Political Studies Review 10 (1998), p. 11.

38

39

American, october 25, 1884, p. 43.

40

American, June 6, 1885, p. 73.

41

American, January 1, 1887, p. 167.

42

American, September 15, 1888, pp. 344-345

43

American, october 13, 1883, p. 10.

44

American, January 1, 1887, p. 169.

45

American, September 21, 1889, p. 363.

46

American, June 27, 1885, pp. 121-122.

47

American vol. 12 (1886), p. 119.

Mishna, Gittin 9, 10. Note that in this apologetic context, Adler refrained from expressing the still more radical opinion of r. Akiva, that divorce is permitted “even if he found another fairer than she”.

48

49

American, December 20, 1884, p. 169.

30

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian Cyrus Adler (1863-1940)1 is a man whose career is of great importance for an understanding of the history of American Jewry in that crucial era, between the 1890s and the Second World War, in which America became a major factor in world Jewry. It can be cogently argued that the institutions Adler helped found and lead: the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Historical Society, the Jewish Publication Society, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, to name only a few of the more prominent, were instrumental in the shaping of the institutional structure which to this day helps define organized American Jewry. All this makes Cyrus Adler an important man for us to know. Yet Adler is also a very hard man to get to know. As a public figure, Adler was reticent almost to a fault. He tended to speak of himself as little as possible in public and attempted as far as possible to discourage would-be biographers.2 His own autobiography, written partly in the hope that others would not attempt the task, once again tends to mystify. It has, for example, been called by the same critic in the same article both “egocentric”and “polite”.3 The extensive biographical sketch by his colleague and successor as president of Dropsie College, Abraham Neuman, is too close to its subject to effectively demystify.4 All in all, the force and dignity of Adler's public persona tends to overshadow the private person whom we have to try to understand. Another difficulty we face in our attempt to understand Cyrus Adler is the differing images of the man which arose in the five decades since his death and which tend to obscure both the man and his mission.5 Thus, he has been hailed as a great scholar. Indeed, in a memorable fit of hyperbole, one newspaper article on Adler called him “the greatest Jewish scholar since the time of Christ”.6 As well, he has been dismissed by certain critics as no scholar at all. In the political life of the American Jewish community, he was praised as a great leader as well as denounced as elitist and undemocratic. Though widely recognized as an able administrator, even his administrative ability has been called into question by some. He was accused of having a domineering personality7 by some and called a saint by others.8 How are we to begin making sense of all these diaCyrus Adler the Philadelphian

31

metrically opposed positions? In order to properly understand Cyrus Adler, it is my conviction that one must begin with understanding him as a Philadelphian, and this despite the well-founded view that Adler's career and impact was more national than local.9 The reason is twofold. It was Philadelphia which shaped him as a youth and it is Philadelphia to which he returned in his maturity, eager to make his contribution to the life of the Jewish community of America. Adler's Youth Though born in Van buren, Arkansas, in 1863, Philadelphia, to which he moved in 1869, was truly Adler's spiritual home. It was there, at Congregation Mikveh Israel, that he received his vision of a Judaism which could be true to the rabbinic tradition as well as authentically American. It was likewise in Philadelphia that he confronted a model of public service combined with a non-rabbinic Judaic scholarship which was to characterize his own life work. If we are to begin to understand Cyrus Adler, therefore, we must begin with him as a Philadelphian and examine exactly what he took from that city and what he gave back to it in his turn. Cyrus Adler started his education, both secular and Jewish, at the Hebrew Educational Society day school. After two years, however, the rise of the public school system coupled with an increasing perception among American Jews that separate education was not to their advantage created an atmosphere detrimental to the continuance of Jewish day schools. Thus Adler transferred to a public elementary school and received private tutoring in Hebrew and German. In 1874 he matriculated at Central High School and in 1879 entered the University of Pennsylvania.10 Thus far, Adler's educational record contains nothing out of the ordinary for his time and place. What is remarkable about Adler, however, is his desire to continue his Judaic education intensively and the opportunity he had to do just that. In high school, Adler was one of a small group of boys who studied with a remarkable consortium of Philadelphia rabbis, ranging in ideology from traditionalist to reform. They included Sabato Morais,

32

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Marcus Jastrow, Samuel Hirsch, George Jacobs and M. Elkan.11 Among this group Adler's chief influence derived from the traditionalist Morais, from whom Adler imbibed not merely scholarship but also an appreciation of the Jewish tradition and, more specifically, of the Sephardic ritual and liturgy, as practised at Mikveh Israel, which would remain with him for the rest of his life. Adler payed tribute to Morais' teaching in the following words: In Philadelphia, in his own house, with his own books, and at all hours, he taught all that would come. Hardly one of these home students has entered the ministry, but all of them are to-day, in some wise, engaged in spreading Jewish learning.12 It is possible to speculate that the ideological diversity of the rabbinic consortium with which Adler studied bequeathed to Adler the idea that, despite ideological differences, it was possible for traditionalist and reform elements to cooperate on specific projects for which they could discern a common purpose, such as the Jewish Publication Society bible translation.13 Studying eight hours per week, more in the summer, Adler and his companions received what had to be one of the most intensive Jewish educations then available to adolescents in the United States. It is significant that, of this small number, both Adler and Morris Jastrow went on to graduate studies in Semitics. This supplementary Judaic education continued for Adler during his college years, during which he taught in a Hebrew school from six to eight each weekday evening, studied with the rabbinical consortium from eight to ten and did his homework for his University of Pennsylvania classes from ten to two in the morning.14 In these years, Adler also was engaged in informal study. He had the run of his cousin Mayer Sulzberger's excellent library which had, in 1891, over 2,000 volumes of Judaica including a good selection of books on biblical “higher criticism”,15 as well as of the Leeser Library, deposited at the YMHA, which was apparently little used and which, in one of his first academic efforts, he catalogued.16 beyond these influences, Cyrus Adler had role models from his own family. His uncle, David Sulzberger, who had taken on the role

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

33

of pater familias on Samuel Adler's death, was distinguished neither by his scholarship nor by his wealth. Indeed, he was noted for doing business as little as possible so as to devote most of his energies to Jewish communal endeavors. He was, however, definitely a role model for Cyrus in his communal activism, particularly in the area of Jewish education.17 It was David Sulzberger who imbued Adler with his ideal. As Adler expressed it: I was to be a good Jewish scholar, a good general scholar, a lawyer in order to support myself. I was then to give myself to the Jewish people as a sort of lay rabbi, with any additional duties that might arise.18 Mayer Sulzberger was Adler's cousin, older than him by two decades. He was the very exemplification of David Sulzberger's ambition for Cyrus. He was different from David Sulzberger in terms of worldly success, though he was, like him, also a bachelor.19 In a very real sense, Mayer Sulzberger is a most important “missing link”in our understanding of Cyrus Adler. Largely because of the absence of any truly serious study of the man,20 it is difficult to see the extent to which Cyrus Adler's career was influenced by Mayer Sulzberger's recognition and cultivation of Cyrus Adler's manifold talents. For the moment, suffice it to say that Mayer Sulzberger, no less than Cyrus Adler, was instrumental in the founding and the building of the majority of the Jewish institutions in which Cyrus Adler rose to leadership. As a successful lawyer and jurist, twenty years Adler's senior, he most naturally played a more prominent role than Adler in the initiation of such organizations as the Jewish Publication Society and the American Jewish Committee. It is equally clear that, recognizing Adler's many talents and capacity for hard work, Sulzberger was able to be of great assistance to Adler's advancement in these institutions. Thus, for instance, Adler records that his first contact with Louis Marshall was in the company of Mayer Sulzberger.21 Adler was in no way a clone of his older cousin. There is a certain ambivalence in their relationship which, until a close examination of the extant Adler-Sulzberger correspondence takes place,22 is probably most eloquently expressed in his refusal to write a memorial essay for Sulzberger though he did it for many others and was specifically asked to do so in this case.23 Another straw in the wind concerns 34

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Adler's refusal to follow his cousin into the law though he started reading law in his office and the law was his family's original ambition for him.24 Then, too, he was a lifelong Democrat though Mayer Sulzberger was a republican.25 Nonetheless it is eminently clear that Judge Sulzberger, who was interested in the same sorts of things and in the same organizations as Adler and was of senior stature at the time when Adler was just starting his career recognized Adler's talents and abilities, especially his ability to get things done, along with his sound opinions, and helped him along. The Years Away From Philadelphia During the quarter century (1883-1908) in which Adler lived in baltimore, attempting to forge an academic career at the Johns Hopkins University and in Washington, where he rose in the ranks of the Smithsonian Institution to become Assistant Secretary, he maintained close ties with Philadelphia. In 1902, at the Jewish Publication Society Dinner, Judge Sulzberger called on his cousin Cyrus to respond to the toast “The Jewish Encyclopedia”. In introducing Adler, Sulzberger facetiously said that he was claimed by three cities, Washington, New York and Philadelphia. According to the report of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, Adler began his response by stating, “I wish to declare that I belong to Philadelphia”.26 This statement was true, first of all, in a legal sense. Legally, Adler remained a citizen of Pennsylvania while residing in Washington.27 beyond that, his personal ties to Philadelphia were manifold. He most naturally kept up relations with his family, which remained in the city. His daily letters to his mother, whom he revered, were only part of his personal ties to Philadelphia, for his future wife, racie Friedenwald, was also a Philadelphian.28 Then there was his beloved synagogue, Mikveh Israel. Adler's continuing strong ties to this congregation are amply demonstrated by the fact that he was chosen to be Parnas [president] of the synagogue almost immediately upon his return to Philadelphia.29 one does not achieve this position of leadership coming in cold after a twenty-five

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

35

year absence. While still living away from Philadelphia, Adler had kept up his connection with periodical lectures to the Mikveh Israel Association,30 and, most importantly from his perspective, every major Jewish holiday was spent in Philadelphia, though this was at least partly the fact that in Washington the synagogue was not really to his liking.31 Cyrus Adler's institutional ties to Philadelphia were of equal or even greater importance. Thus, he was appointed to the Gratz Trust and later College board of Trustees–the only non-Philadelphian on that board.32 Another institution bringing him periodically to Philadelphia was the Jewish Publication Society. He was a member of that society's powerful Publications Committee, headed by his cousin Mayer. His involvement with the American Jewish Year Book, among his other projects, and his various other collaborations with the Society's redoubtable factotum, Henrietta Szold, helped to maintain the connection.33 The Adult Philadelphian When he returned to Philadelphia in 1908 to head Dropsie College, Adler entered fully into Philadelphia's communal life–both Jewish and general. When, in 1915 he was entrusted with the Presidency of the Jewish Theological Seminary, his Philadelphia activities did not thereby diminish. Indeed, he maintained his home in Philadelphia despite pleas that he move to New York.34 In the last decade of his life, often beset by illness, he was entrusted in addition with the presidency of the American Jewish Committee. Despite his increased need to be in New York, and despite the strains that a weekly commute must have put upon him,35 he persisted in remaining a Philadelphian to the end. When Adler moved back to Philadelphia after a quarter century of absence, he moved to what was then a relatively new Jewish neighborhood on North broad Street. At this time it was mostly non-Jewish in character, with a heavy Irish admixture. Adler's house at 2041 North broad was but a few doors away from the rectory of our Lady

36

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

of Mercy, which had been built at the corner of broad and Susquehanna in 1893. Larger numbers of Jews came to this neighborhood only in the 1920s.36 In his memoirs, Adler says that he moved there because it was near where his synagogue, Mikveh Israel, was going to move.37 but it was more than that. In a certain way his choice of neighborhood could be construed as a statement that, though he was going back to Philadelphia to do Jewish work, Cyrus Adler was not at all abandoning the cosmopolitan connections of his Smithsonian years. That he was not going to be ghettoized is amply shown by his deep involvement with numerous activities in the general community In the period of Cyrus Adler's involvement with the community, it has been noted that Jews held relatively few appointed positions in the city of Philadelphia.38 Adler was one of the exceptions to this observation despite the fact that, in electoral politics, Adler was a lifelong Democrat in a city run by a republican machine. Indeed, he was prominent enough in the Democratic Party to make an election speech on the radio for the Democratic senatorial candidate in the 1932 election.39 He apparently did not vote in municipal elections.40 Adler, as president of Dropsie College, naturally would have become known in Philadelphia educational circles. It is therefore not entirely unexpected that he was asked to become a member of the school board of Philadelphia, serving on that body in the years 19211925.41 His service on the school board, which was largely populated with political appointees instead of professional educators was largely a disappointment to him, and he soon withdrew from active participation in the affairs of the municipal school system.42 His most prominent contribution to the general community of Philadelphia was his leadership of the Free Library of Philadelphia. Already noted in library circles for his service as Librarian of the Smithsonian, and having one of his friends from the University of Pennsylvania class of '83, Thomas L. Montgomery, prominent in the library, Adler was appointed to the library's board of Trustees in 1913. After serving for a time as vice president, he served as president of the library from 1925 to his resignation in December, 1939, mere months prior to his death. Among other things, Adler presided

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

37

over the building of a new central library building, completed in 1927. He was called a “strong influence”on the development of the Philadelphia Free Library system.43 The American Philosophical Society was, like the Jewish Publication Society in its own sphere, a Philadelphia institution, intertwined with the hallowed history of Philadelphia, which had nonetheless a national constituency and mandate. For Adler, whose career at the Smithsonian Institution involved the public dissemination of scientific knowledge, the American Philosophical Society was his outlet on the world of science beyond Jewish scholarship. Adler was first elected to the society on May 18, 1900. It was only upon his return to Philadelphia, however, that he became active within the Society. He was a member of the Society's council in the years 1927-1930 and 1932-1936. He became Vice President in the years 1938-1940. He also served as chairman of the society's Publications Committee in 1932 and was also a member of the building Committee and the Committee on Meetings from 1936-1940. His prominence within the inner circles of the Society is attested by the fact that he gave the central address at the Society's 200th anniversary banquet.44 Adler's active membership in the oriental Club of Philadelphia and in the University Club45 as well as more informal connections with prominent Philadelphians, like Judge Charles Audenreid and Thomas L. Montgomery, members of the University of Pennsylvania Class of '83, marked Adler as a man with many connections beyond the Jewish community of Philadelphia. It is, of course, within the Jewish community that Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian was to make his greatest mark. Neuman states simply that Adler's counsel was sought in every important communal endeavor.46 This evaluation is questioned by Wolf, who sees Adler more as an eminence grise.47 Let us look at the record. As previously stated, Adler served almost immediately upon his return as Parnas of Mikveh Israel and was in charge of arrangements for dedication of the new synagogue building in 1909.48 The synagogue, built as part of the complex of institutions at broad and York Streets which would include Dropsie College and Gratz College as well, be38

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

came an expression of the institutional coherence Adler hoped to achieve in Philadelphia Jewry as a whole. This drive is perhaps best expressed in Adler's move to unite the city's Jews in an institution known as the Kehilla. Adler, soon after his return to Philadelphia, came to the realization that his services would be in demand as liaison with the general community, just as in Washington he had utilized his contacts within the government for furthering Jewish rights.49 He wrote a letter to Lyman Abbott, who had charged that tainted meat was being widely sold in the Jewish quarter of Philadelphia, asserting the health and purity of kosher meat. It was an exchange which was made public by the Jewish Exponent.50 The situation Adler dealt with in his exchange with Abbot was similar, in a sense, to the public charges of criminality against the immigrant Jews of New York which effectively launched the Kehilla movement in that city in 1908.51 The incident clearly brought home to Adler the need to deal with the issue of the burgeoning Eastern European community of Philadelphia. Characteristically, Adler felt challenged to work to bring the Eastern European Jews into the framework of the organized Jewish community. Thus, as early as 1910, Adler would urge the Philadelphia Jewish Federation to include Eastern European organizations within its purview.52 This move ultimately led to the formation of the Philadelphia Kehilla in 1911.53 The Philadelphia Kehilla, by far less well known than the Kehilla experiment in New York City, has been called by Wolf “almost invisible”.54 It was founded by Mayer Sulzberger, Adler and Solomon Solis-Cohen, representing the Americanized Jewish elite of Philadelphia, as their way of reaching out to the Eastern European Jewish community of the city–though, of course, on their terms.55 It eventually encompassed nearly all Jewish organizations in the city. However the delegates of these organizations possessed little power of their own since the organization was tightly controlled by the American Jewish Committee with Adler having drafted its constitution and serving as its president.56 What did the Kehilla mean to Adler? He stated in his autobiography that the Kehilla was “proper kind of organization for a commu-

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

39

nity.”57 He meant it on the one hand to be an opportunity for American Jews to organize themselves on a basis other than philanthropy and, on the other hand, to strengthen traditionalist power within the American Jewish community, represented by the Eastern Europeans, so as to offset the power of reform elements which tended to dominate the more established Jewish philanthropic federations.58 Adler's statement of purpose for the Philadelphia Kehilla deserves quotation: We are engaged in an attempt to bring to the minds of the Jews of Philadelphia the fact that they are one people and have interests in common. We endeavor to regulate Jewish affairs neither through an oligarchy nor a mob but by the American representative method. our organization is an extension of the principle of federation which has been used with good effect in a portion of our philanthropic work but has been wanting in nearly every other direction though we see hopeful signs of co-ordination even outside of the ranks of the official Federation.59 It is ironic that the Kehilla, founded on “the American representative method”, was effectively destroyed during the First World War by the controversy which raged within American Jewry on the issue of the American Jewish Congress, pitting Adler and the American Jewish Committee on the one hand against Louis brandeis and the Zionists on the other over the very issue of “representation”.60 Adler resigned his presidency of the Kehilla in 1916 because of these controversial political issues. Though the Kehilla limped along for another few years, its effectiveness had ceased.61 In summing up this chapter in Philadelphia Jewish history, Adler stated that it was a shame the Kehilla experiment didn't continue because in its absence, American Jews remained organized only for purposes of philanthropy. on that plane, however, Adler made certain that the Eastern Europeans were not forgotten and, in 1919, the Philadelphia Jewish Federation expanded to include the Eastern European organizations.62 While he was attempting to organize the Philadelphia Jewish community in a Kehilla, Adler did not neglect the organization of the

40

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

city's Jewish philanthropies. From the outbreak of World War I to the Armistice and beyond, Adler lead the Jewish War relief Campaign in Philadelphia.63 In the postwar period, he was one of the more prominent leaders of the Federation of Jewish Charities in Philadelphia.64 In the 1930s, he was a supporter of the United Jewish Appeal. His standing in the UJA is attested by the fact that, in 1935, his picture and appeal to Philadelphia Jews for support of the UJA were published in a full page advertisement in the Jewish Exponent.65 Adler attempted to maintain good personal relations with all sectors of the Jewish community. His well known friendship with the orthodox chief rabbi of Philadelphia, bernard Levinthal, is attested not least by the fact that Levinthal named one of his sons Cyrus.66 The regard in which he was held by the Jewish labor movement in Philadelphia can be seen in the fact that in both 1914 and 1921, he was called upon to mediate disputes between labor and management in the local garment industry.67 Cyrus Adler considered himself first and foremost an educator. Thus it is no surprise that he served on bodies supervising elementary Jewish education in Philadelphia.68 His influence on Gratz College was fundamental. Not only was he one of the original trustees of the Gratz Foundation, as stated previously, but Neuman states that the very idea of the Gratz foundation being used to make a Jewish teachers training institute was Adler's.69 In his Philadelphia years, Adler served as Chairman of Gratz's College Committee, saw to it that the Gratz building adjoined that of Dropsie College, and was frequently consulted by the Gratz leadership.70 Dropsie College was, of course, the major reason for Adler's return to Philadelphia in the first place, and, of all his causes, Dropsie was probably the truest expression of his personality. The institution was an unprecedented educational experiment.71 People who had heard that Moses Aaron Dropsie had left his fortune to found an institution for the propagation of Hebraic and cognate learning to all, without regard to race or creed, could not fathom what it all meant. Thus the American Hebrew editorialized: It is difficult to see what function it is intended to play in the Ju-

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

41

daism of America or where its students are to come from.72 After considerable heated discussion within the confines of Dropsie's board of Trustees, the die was cast. Apparently, it was Adler's idea that Dropsie College was to be purely a postgraduate research institute, offering the doctorate as its only degree. Nonetheless it was no less characteristic of Adler that the institution had to have a practical aspect as well.73 As a communal institution Dropsie was used as meeting place for variety of communal organizations, including Zionist. More importantly, however, Adler, while in no way looking at Dropsie as merely a Philadelphia institution, nonetheless took pains to emphasize that it was not exclusively of benefit to the constitutency of Judaic studies. Thus in his speech on Founder's Day at Dropsie College in 1923, he stated: This college has gradually and most effectively taken its place in the Jewish religious educational work of the community. Most of the members of the faculty are, aside from their obligations here, engaged in one form or other in communal work. our existence has added to Philadelphia a group of experts who could never have been obtained in any other way and are a real asset to the community. Thousands of people who never enter our walls will be greatly and directly benefitted nevertheless by the existence of this college.74 Conclusion Neuman notes that the relative absence of social intercourse among the Jews of New York more than once astounded and baffled Adler.75 This observation speaks volumes about Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian. He was clearly less comfortable in New York and just as clearly most within his own element within his Philadelphia circle. He obviously felt most at home at such gatherings as Dropsie College board meetings, whose membership may be taken as representative of the social and intellectual harmony of the “Philadelphia Group”. At these meetings, according to the report of A.S.W. rosenbach's bi-

42

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

ographer, Adler and rosenbach together accounted for a bottle of whiskey.76 The social and intellectual atmosphere achieved in this group is perhaps best captured in an obituary of Simon Miller, for many years the president of the Jewish Publication Society, who described Adler, his classmate, as his “closest lifelong friend”.77 For Miller, it was said that he was at his best “when supper had been disposed of, cigars lighted, and the good talk had begun”.78 It was in the context of such a Philadelphia Jewish elite in which, perhaps, Cyrus Adler functioned at his best, that he can be best understood. To cite John Lukacs, writing about the elite of Philadelphia society circa 1900, is very much to capture the essence of Philadelphia's Jewish elite as well. Lukacs spoke of: ...the society extant in Philadelphia where–strange and wonderful condition within the mobile and restless American democracy–in a certain sense everybody knew everybody.79

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

43

Notes on Adler, see his autobiography, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1941) and Ira robinson, ed., Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters 2 volumes (Philadelphia and New York, Jewish Publication Society and Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1985).

1

robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 374. Sara Adler Wolfinsohn, Cyrus Adler's daughter, reiterated this point to me in a private communication. Cf. Jonathan Sarna's review of robinson, Adler Letters in Commentary, February, 1986, pp. 68-71. 2

3 Cf. Maxwell Whiteman, “The Philadelphia Group”, in Murray Friedman, ed. Jewish Life in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, ISHI, 1983), pp. 172, 178. 4 Abraham Neuman, “Cyrus Adler: a biographical Sketch”, American Jewish Year Book 42 (1940/1), pp. 23-144.

Cf. Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality”, American Jewish History 78 (1989), pp. 363-364.

5

This headline appeared in the Van buren, Arkansas, Press-Argus of August 3, 1967. From the article it appears that, since Adler was the first Jewish scholar and historian the author had heard of since the first century Josephus, he felt justified in hailing native son Cyrus Adler in that particular way.

6

7

Whiteman, “The Philadelphia Group”, p. 164.

8

Louis Finkelstein, “Preface” in robinson, Adler Letters, pp. xvii-xxiv.

Edwin Wolf 2nd, “The German-Jewish Influence in Philadelphia's Jewish Charities”, in Friedman, ed. Jewish Life in Philadelphia, p. 130.

9

10

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 15ff.

11

Ibid., pp. 38-39.

Adler, “Sabato Morais”, Jewish Theological Seminary Association, Biennial Convention Proceedings 6 (1898), pp. 105-106.

12

on Adler's role in the delicate diplomacy necessary for the consummation of the translation, cf. Jonathan Sarna, JPS: the Americanization of Jewish Culture, 1888-1898 (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication society, 1989), p. 95ff.

13

14

Adler, I Have Considered The Days, p. 41.

15

American Hebrew, December 4, 1891, p. 86.

16

Adler, Catalog of the Leeser Library (Philadelphia, 1883).

17

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 10-12.

18

Ibid., p. 12.

19

Cf. Sarna, JPS, p. 298, note 30.

20

Whiteman, “The Philadelphia Group”, p. 172.

21

Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses (Philadelphia, 1933), p. 125.

22

Cf. Whiteman, “The Philadelphia Group”, p. 332, note 29.

44

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

23

Henry Hurwitz Papers, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati.

24

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 46.

25

Personal communication from Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn.

26

Jewish Exponent, May 23, 1902, p. 9.

American Hebrew, April 12, 1907. Adler was cited as a citizen of Pennsylvania in the application for a charter for Dropsie College.

27

28

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 77.

29

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 278-279.

American Hebrew, January 27, 1893. Cf. the January 6, 1893 issue which records his lecture at the Philadelphia YMHA. 30

31

Personal Communication from Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn.

32

American Hebrew 54 (1894), p. 84. Cf. Jewish Exponent, September 6, 1895.

33

Cf. Sarna, JPS, pp. 71-73.

34

Personal communication from Dr. Louis Finkelstein.

Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn, in a personal communication, asserted that Adler enjoyed the commute since on the train he had uninterrupted time to read proof, etc.

35

Dennis Clark, “Irish-Jewish relations in Philadelphia”, in Friedman, ed., Jewish Life in Philadelphia, p. 257.

36

37

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 276.

Sandra Featherman, “Jewish Politics in Philadelphia, 1920-1940”, in Friedman, ed., Jewish Life in Philadelphia, p. 284.

38

The typescript of this radio speech is housed in the Adler Papers, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York. A microfilm copy is housed in the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati.

39

40

Personal communication from Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn.

41

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 88.

Personal communication from Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn. She asserts that Adler remarked that he was the only one on the school board who was not an undertaker. Cf. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 358-359.

42

43

Free Library of Philadelphia, Annual Report, 1939.

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, Year Book of the American Philosophical Society, 1940, p. 412. Cf. Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, pp. 183-188.

44

45

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 88.

46

Ibid., p. 86.

Edwin Wolf 2nd, “The German-Jewish Influence in Philadelphia's Jewish Charities”, in Friedman, ed., Jewish Life in Philadelphia, p. 131.

47

48

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 278-279.

49

Cf. Naomi Cohen, “Introduction”to robinson, ed., Adler Letters, p. xxvii.

50

Jewish Exponent, December 25, 1908.

Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian

45

Philip rosen, “German Jews vs. russian Jews in Philadelphia Philanthropy”, in Friedman, ed., Jewish Life in Philadelphia, p. 198.

51

52

rosen, “German Jews vs. russian Jews”, p. 201.

53

Ibid., pp. 201-204.

Wolf, “German Jewish Influence”, p. 131. on the Kehilla of New York, see Arthur A. Goren, New York Jews and the Quest for Community: the Kehilla Experiment, 1908-1922 (New York, Columbia, 1970).

54

55

rosen, “German Jews vs. russian Jews”, p. 201.

56

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 86.

57

Adler, I Have Considered The Days, p. 292.

58

robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 153.

59

Jewish Community of Philadelphia, Annual Report (Philadelphia, 1913), p. 7.

on this issue, cf. Naomi Cohen, Not Free to Desist: A History of the American Jewish Committee, 1906-1966 (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1972), p. 91ff. 60

61

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 292-293.

62

rosen, “German Jews vs. russian Jews”, p. 204.

63

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 303-304.

64

Ibid., p. 329

65

Jewish Exponent, May 10, 1935.

66

robert Tabak, “orthodox Judaism in Transition”, in Friedman, ed., Jewish Life in Philadelphia, p.

67

Jewish Exponent, September 4 and 11, 1914. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 44.

68

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 86.

69

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 88.

70 Frank rubenstein, The Dropsie University: the Early Years, 1908 to 1919 (Philadelphia, Dropsie, 1977), p. 15. 71

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 78.

72

American Hebrew, April 17, 1907. Cf. the issue of March 27, 1908, pp. 82-83.

on the early history of Dropsie College, cf. Herbert Parzen, “New Data on the Formation of Dropsie College”, Jewish Social Studies (1966), pp. 131-147, and Meir ben-Horin, “Scholars' 'opinions': Documents in the History of the Dropsie University”, in Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, American Academy for Jewish research, 1974), volume 1, pp. 167-208.

73

74

Jewish Exponent, March 16, 1923.

75

Wolf, “German Jewish Influence”, p. 136.

76

Wolf and John F. Fleming, Rosenbach: a Biography (Cleveland, World, 1960), p. 305.

Edwin H. Schloss, “Simon Miller”, American Jewish Year Book 5706 (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1945), pp. 201-208.

77

78

Ibid., p. 204.

79

John Lukacs, Philadelphia: Patricians and Philistines, 1900-1950 (New York, 1981), p. 6.

46

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal Though the study of North American Jewish history has greatly advanced in the past two decades, there are considerable areas still requiring investigation. one of the more important, to my mind, remains the study of the attempts to set up Jewish communal structures, or kehillot, in various North American cities in the early twentieth century. The crucial interplay between the interests of the settled, relatively acculturated Jewish communities and those of the more recent Eastern European Jewish immigrants went a long way toward creating the political dynamic which formed the American Jewish community which was to rise to a position of dominance in World Jewry by mid-century. Goren's examination of the kehilla experiment in New York City1, the first to thoroughly study this phenomenon, constitutes an admirable beginning for an investigation of the phenomenon. However it does not go far beyond the boundaries of New York. Though it is true that New York City constitutes the largest and, in many ways the most influential Jewish community in North America, it is also true that one cannot always extrapolate from the New York experience to that of other communities. only when other attempts to create kehillot are investigated thoroughly can one truly identify the factors which are unique to a given community and which are common to all. Another issue of interest and importance to historians of North American Jewry concerns the internal dynamics between Canadian and United States Jewish communities.2 To what extent is Canada different from the United States? A comparative study of American and Canadian attempts to build Jewish communal structures will be instructive on this issue as well. As a sort of preliminary exercise toward an investigation of these problems, I would like to look at two lesser studied North American kehilla experiments: Philadelphia3 and Montrea1.4 The kehilla movement was undertaken in an attempt to solve the problem of how to manage the disparity between older, more settled elements of the community and the power structures they had built

Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal

47

up and the emerging new ones. Essentially, it could be seen as an original form of co-optation on the part of the settled establishment seeking to retain its essential power in vastly new circumstances. This was certainly the case in Philadelphia. The Jewish Community of Philadelphia was established at a meeting held on November 5, 1911 as a first attempt by the American Jewish Committee to spread the New York model for community building and to create a representative basis for itself in major American Jewish communities.5 Its driving force was Cyrus Adler, an AJC stalwart, who was President of Dropsie College.6 Adler had previously taken on the role of defender of the Jews of Philadelphia against charges that tainted meat was being widely sold in the Jewish quarter of Philadelphia.7 This was similar, in a sense, to the public charges of criminality against the immigrant Jews of New York which effectively launched the Kehilla movement in that city in 1908.8 The incident clearly challenged Adler to work to bring the Eastern European Jews into the framework of the organized Jewish community. Thus, as early as 1910, Adler would urge the Philadelphia Jewish Federation to include Eastern European organizations within its purview,9 and this ultimately led to the formation of the Philadelphia Jewish Community in 1911. The Philadelphia Kehilla, by far less well known that the Kehilla experiment in New York City, has been called called by Wolf”almost invisible”.10 It eventually encompassed nearly all Jewish organizations in the city.11 However the delegates of these organizations possessed little power of their own since the organization was tightly controlled by the American Jewish Committee with Adler having drafted its constitution and serving as its president.12 What did the Kehilla mean to Adler? He meant it on the one hand to be an opportunity for American Jews to organize themselves on a basis other than philanthropy and, on the other hand, to strengthen traditonalist power within the American Jewish community, represented by the Eastern Europeans, so as to offset the power of reform elements which tended to dominate the more established Jewish phil-

48

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

anthropic federations.13 Adler's statement of purpose for the Philadelphia Kehilla deserves quotation: We are engaged in an attempt to bring to the minds of the Jews of Philadelphia the fact that they are one people and have interests in common. We endeavor to regulate Jewish affairs neither through an oligarchy nor a mob but by the American representative method. our organization is an extension of the principle of federation which has been used with good effect in a portion of our philanthropic work but has been wanting in nearly every other direction though we see hopeful signs of co-ordination even outside of the ranks of the official Federation.14 The issues faced by the Philadelphia Jewish Community were basically the same as those faced by its New York counterpart–kashrut and Jewish education–issues which were not liable to impinge upon the areas of primary interest to the Federation because they were within the “religious” sphere, representation as a lobby group before the authorities in matters concerning Jewish religious rights as well as immigration rights in general.15 The Jewish Community of Philadelphia suffered from important structural flaws, which no doubt contributed to its relatively short lifespan. For an organization one of whose important goals was to include the Eastern European immigrant community, it did its work seemingly entirely in English.16 More importantly, it never had any serious financial resources of its own. Its total income, from 19111914, totalled only $2,830.17 Its plan to bring order out of chaos in the kosher meat industry of the city foundered because of lack of resources to finance estimated start up costs of $2500-3000.18 It is ironic that the Kehilla, founded on “the American representative method”, was effectively destroyed during the First World War by the controversy which raged within American Jewry on the issue of the American Jewish Congress, pitting Adler and the American Jewish Committee on the one hand against Louis brandeis and the Zionists on the other over the very issue of “representation”.19 Adler resigned his presidency of the Kehilla in 1916 because of these con-

Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal

49

troversial political issues. Though the Kehilla limped along for another few years, its effectiveness had ceased.20 The Montreal Jewish Community Council (Va'ad ha-'Ir) was founded in the Autumn of 1922, after the demise of the community experiments in both New York and Philadelphia. Structurally, however, it also constituted an attempt at accommodation between disparate elements in the community. It remains in existence to the present, though it is now almost exclusively a kashrut certification agency–a far cry from its original ambitions.21 The driving force behind the foundation of the Jewish Community Council was Hirsch Wolofsky, editor and publisher of both of Montreal's Jewish newspapers, the Yiddish daily Keneder Odler and the weekly Canadian Jewish Chronicle. It is important to note that he was a figure acceptable to the more acculturated elements in the Montreal Jewish community as well as to a broad spectrum of the Yiddish-speaking immigrant community.22 The first impetus for the creation of the Jewish Community Council was the chaotic situation of the kosher meat industry in Montreal. on September 11, 1922, Wolofsky published a proposal for the organization of a communal organization which would solve the kosher meat problem in the city and defeat the “butcher trust”.23 Previous attempts at solving this had failed and Wolofsky thought he knew why. A central feature of his proposal was that the proposed communal organization would include not merely religious Jews, like previous attempts, but also the non-religious Jews, who were called “radicals”[radikaln] because of the socialistic sympathies of many of them.24 It should be noted that in both New York and Philadelphia, the “radical” element of the Jewish community had remained aloof. on october 1, Wolofsky published a detailed proposal for a democratically elected community organization with equal representation for religious Jews [shul yidn], members of mutual benefit societies, which comprised both religious and non-religious elements, and the “radicals”. The “radicals”, argued Wolofsky, had previously been in a position to destroy any communal solidarity since they tended to purchase their kosher meat wherever it was sold the cheapest. Giving them a stake in the communal organization would potentially

50

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

create an unbreakable united front against the abuses of the butchers.25 Wolofsky attempted to make the radicals' participation in the Council worthwhile to them by promising to use the profits envisaged by the communal regulation of the city's kosher meat industry to support financially the Jewish schools of the city–both the religiously oriented Talmud Torahs as well as the “radical”, Yiddishist schools. The communal body would also be able to represent the Jewish community before the government of Quebec, especially on the then pressing issue of the status of Jewish children in the Protestant school system.26 The implementation of Wolofsky's plan came relatively quickly. on october 29, the organizational meeting of the Jewish Community Council [Va'ad ha-'Ir] took place. on December 17, the elections for council representatives took place. The rabbis of the city also organized themselves into the “rabbinical Council” [Va'ad ha-Rabbanim] of the Jewish Community Council.27 Though almost immediately the Council was plunged into a”kosher meat war”which seriously threatened its very existence, it survived, though never attaining any real influence in the community outside the realms of kashrut and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jewish education. The Jewish Community Council of Montreal was, relative to the Jewish Community of Philadelphia, a success in terms of its longevity and effectiveness. one major reason for this seems to be the Montreal group's lack of connection with a national representative body, which did not exist in Canada at this time. Another major reason would have to be the relatively successful attempt to appeal to all sections of the immigrant Jewish community, in their own language, by offering them–religious and “radical” alike–a stake in the system. Finally, though Montreal, like Philadelphia, boasted a Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, on whose turf the Jewish Community Council was careful not to impinge, the fact that the settled, Canadianized Jewish community in Montreal was far less substantial relative to the immigrant community than in Philadelphia or New York meant that a kehilla structure in Montreal had far better chances of succeeding.

Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal

51

This brief comparative essay has shown important homologies in these attempts at setting up a Jewish communal structure in North America as well as substantial differences in setting which may help explain the differing fates of the kehilla experiments in Montreal and Philadelphia. A more detailed investigation into this phenomenon would seem to be amply justified.

Notes Arthur Goren, New York Jews and the Quest for Community: the Kehilla Experiment. 1908-1922 (New York, 1970). Cf. idem., “New York KehilIah: a response”, American Jewish History 80 (1991), pp. 535-546. on the significance of the kehilla experiment in the context of North American Jewry, see Daniel Elazar, Community and Polity: the Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry (Philadelphia, 1976).

1

Cf. Gerald Tulchinsky, Taking Root: the Origins of the Canadian Jewish Community (Toronto, 1992).

2

Philip rosen, “Gennan Jews vs. russian Jews in Philadelphia Philanthropy”, Jewish Life in Philadelphia. 1830-1940 ed. Murray Friedman (Philadelphia, 1983), pp. 201-204.

3

Cf. Ira robinson, “The Kosher Meat War and the Jewish Community Council of New York, 19221925”, Canadian Ethnic Studies 22, 2 (1990), pp. 41-53.

4

5

Goren, New York Jews, pp. 246-247.

52

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

on this aspect of Adler's career, see Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian”, When Philadelphia Was the Capital of Jewish America ed. Murray Friedman (Philadelphia, Associated University Presses, 1993), pp. 92-105.

6

7

Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia), December 25, 1908.

8

Goren, New York Jews, p. 25ff.

9

rosen, “German Jews vs. russian Jews”, p. 201.

Edwin Wolf 2nd, “German-Jewish Influence in Philadelphia's Jewish Charities”, Jewish Life in Philadelphia. 1830-1940 ed. Murray Friedman (Philadelphia, 1983), p. 131.

10

11

rosen, “German Jews vs. russian Jews”, p. 201.

Abraham Neuman, “Cyrus Adler: A biographical Sketch”, American Jewish Year Book 42 (1940-1), p. 86.

12

Ira robinson, ed. Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters (Philadelphia and New York, 1985), vol. 1, p. 153.

13

First Annual Report of the Jewish Community of Philadelphia For the Year 1911-1912 (Philadelphia, 1913), p. 7.

14

15

Cf. Goren, New York Jews, p. 66 ff.

Third Annual Report of the Jewish Community of Philadelphia for the Year 1913-1914, (Philadelphia, 1915), p. 5. It may be for that reason that there is literally nothing concerning the Philadelphia Kehilla in the major Yiddish language survey of Jewish life in Philadelphia during this period. Cf. rosen, “Gennan Jews vs. russian Jews”, p. 203.

16

First Annual Report, p. 3; Second Annual Report of the Jewish Community of Philadelphia for the Year 1912-1913 (Philadelphia, 1914), p. 3; Third Annual Report, p. 3.

17

18

Third Annual Report, pp. 9-10.

Cf. Naomi Cohen, Not Free to Desist: A History of the American Jewish Committee. 1906-1966 (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 91ff.

19

20

Cyrus Adler, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia, 1941), pp. 292-293.

21

Cf. robinson, “Kosher Meat War”.

22

Hirsch Wolofsky, The Journey of My Life (Montreal, 1945).

Keneder Odler, September 11, 1922. He simultaneously published a pamphlet in English and Yiddish entitled “A Kehilla for Montreal”.

23

24

Keneder Odler, September 18 and 20, 1922.

25

Cf. Canadian Jewish Chronicle, october 6 and 13, 1922.

26 Keneder Odler, october 3, 1922. Cf. David rome, On the Jewish School Question in Montreal. 1903-1931, Canadian Jewish Archives n.s. 3 (Montreal, 1975). 27

Keneder Odler, october 10 and 30, November 1 and 2 and December 11,17. and18,1922.

Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal

53

Cyrus Adler bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States In January, 1902, Solomon Schechter, reflecting on his impending journey to the United States to become President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, wrote his friend and colleague, Samuel Poznanski: I have great hope that, with God's help, I will be able to build a permanent home for Jewish scholarship and Torah in that land which is greater in quantity – if not in wisdom – than all the lands of the West and where new refugees arrive every day from Europe.1 Hope for the future of Jewish scholarship in America was, indeed, almost all Schechter could count on. Cyrus Adler, one of the men instrumental in bringing Schechter over from England, had, less than a decade before, summed up the state of Jewish scholarship in America: At the present we have no libraries, no publications and no independent scholars... We have some MSS and some books...but who would think of comparing all of them together with anyone of the better libraries in England, Germany, Italy or Austria?2 Whatever else it was known for, American Jewry was not considered a flourishing center of Jewish learning. by the onset of the First World War, thanks in large measure to the efforts of Schechter, the situation had changed. A small group of Jewish scholars had established itself in the United States. With exceptions like Harry A. Wolfson, then just beginning his fruitful career at Harvard, these scholars were concentrated in three Jewish institutions. Two of them, Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, were rabbinical seminaries, The third, Dropsie College in Philadelphia, was a graduate institution for Semitics and Jewish Studies, and was officially non-denominational. The status of these three institutions as the American Jewish scholarly “establishment”is symbolized by the fact

54

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

that, on the editorial board of the Jewish Publication Society's bible translation, the most important cooperative venture undertaken by American Jewish scholarship at that time, equal representation was accorded the three institutions. by 1916, one man held the key to two of the three. He was Cyrus Adler, the first American-trained Ph.D. in Semitics. Deeply involved in American Jewish communal life and instrumental in the reorganization of the Jewish Theological Seminary, and in planning the institution created by the bequest of Moses Dropsie which became Dropsie College, Adler was prevailed upon to relinquish his position as Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and become the first president of Dropsie College. When Solomon Schechter died in 1915, Adler succeeded him to the presidency of the Seminary, while remaining president of Dropsie. He also became sole editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review, the only English-language journal then devoted to Jewish Studies, which task he had previously shared with Schechter. Clearly there was little on the American Jewish scholarly scene that escaped his notice. Just as clearly “with his contacts with Jacob Schiff and other sources of financial support”, Adler would be instrumental in the success or failure of any American Jewish scholarly venture.3 beyond the three “established” institutions, there existed a fourth, still struggling for its place in the sun. It was called the rabbinical College of America and had been formed through the merger of two yeshivot, Etz Chaim and the Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. Its president was bernard revel, who had but recently received his doctorate from Dropsie College. revel took the reins of this struggling institution in 1915, facing the formidable task of making the rabbinical College a respected part of the American Jewish community. In his first year, revel initiated several programs to achieve his purpose. Some of these projects were destined to take root and prosper, such as the Talmudical Academy, the first high school in America under Jewish auspices where both secular and traditional religious subjects were taught.4 others failed, such as the attempt to found the “Society of Jewish Academicians of America.” because the Society of Jewish Academicians died aborning, it is almost completely forgotten today. Its papers are not extant. It is not Cyrus Adler bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States

55

mentioned in the biographies of its members. It is only through the preservation of the Society's constitution and resolutions in the papers of Cyrus Adler, together with the reactions of the faculty members of Dropsie and the Seminary, that the story of the Society, and the concern it caused within the American Jewish scholarly establishment, can be told.5 From the scanty information we possess, the concept of the Society of Jewish Academicians was first discussed in the spring of 1916 when Joseph reider, of the Dropsie faculty, was approached by Solomon T.H. Hurwitz, principal of revel's Talmudical Academy, who was to become the Society's secretary, and by Meyer Waxman, who questioned him concerning the feasibility of the Society.6 During that summer, revel apparently attempted to gain support for his project from the Intercollegiate Zionist League and the Federation of American Zionists which had their conventions at Philadelphia in June and July respectively – but to no avail.7 At that point, revel apparently decided to start the organization on his own. on August 21,1916, the Society was established with revel as chairman and with a ten-member Executive Committee. A constitution was adopted and printed, and a tentative program for the first annual meeting of the Society, to be held in New York City the week of December 25, was adopted. A press release was issued, and invitations to join the Society were sent to prospective members.8 What was the Society of Jewish Academicians supposed to accomplish? Its purpose, according to its constitution, was: ... to further the ideals of traditional Judaism; to promote, encourage, and advance constructive Jewish scholarship; to study current questions and problems from the point of view of traditional Judaism; to elucidate the truths and principles of Judaism in the light of modem thought; to determine the place of Judaism in human progress; and to apply the methods and results of modern science towards the solution of ritual problems.9 The Society's criteria for membership involved strict adherence to orthodox Judaism,10 and it was proposed to include within the Society not only those actively engaged in Jewish scholarship. but also

56

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

those people with advanced university degrees of any sort who met the religious requirement and were interested in Jewish issues.11 revel appears to have attempted, through the Society, nothing less than a synthesis of orthodox Judaism and modern scientific thought. Though Jewish scholarship was certainly given a prominent place, the Society seems to have been envisioned as a focal point for an American orthodox Jewish intelligentsia. Cyrus Adler received an invitation to join the Society in early September. He was, as we shall see, not in sympathy with the Society. He did not respond to the invitation immediately, however. Characteristically, he first took steps to ascertain the opinions of the faculties of Dropsie and the Seminary on the matter. Since most of them were still vacationing at the time, he wrote them and received their replies in writing.12 The correspondence that ensued is interesting not only for the insight it gives on the personalities of the respondents, but also for the intimate glimpse it gives of the world of American Jewish scholarship in its formative stage. Adler and his respondents agreed on several points. They virtually ignored the non-scholarly aspects of revel's organization devoted to Jewish scholarship. In that guise, some treated it as a joke, but all agreed with Adler that the action of revel and his associates in setting up the Society ... without consultation with the faculties of the recognized Jewish institutions of learning in this country is an unwarranted assumption and that the use of the name “Jewish Academicians”on the part of a miscellaneous group of young men is liable to bring Jewish scholarship in America into ridicule abroad.13 It was, as Max Margolis wrote, “a piece of hutzpah.” 14 The leaders and members of the Society were characterized as a group of upstarts, “several of whom are hardly entitled to play a part in a society of Jewish scholars.”15 The sole member of the Seminary faculty to join the Society, Mordecai Kaplan, was condemned for his action by Jacob Hoschander, while Abraham Neuman, in his response, doubted that Kaplan had indeed given his assent to be included in the Society's Executive Committee.16

Cyrus Adler bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States

57

The orthodox nature of the Society drew the ire and, sometimes, the humor of the respondents. Though a number of the respondents were themselves observant Jews, it was agreed that the policy of restricting membership in the Society to adherents of orthodox Judaism, a policy characterized by Neuman as “sanctimonious and jesuitical,” gave the Society no right to the use of the title “Academicians.” Commenting on the religious test, Louis Ginzberg, who had not received an invitation to join the Society, remarked,”Whether my scholarship or my orthodoxy is not up to the mark, I can not tell.” Joseph reider reported to Adler that when he was approached about the Society in the spring, he: .. was given to understand that in papers and books to be published by this society. scientific truth will have to be sacrificed to tradition... This was my main point of opposition: a society of academicians whose object is scientific research must be broad enough to include all Jewish scholars whatever their private opinion and practice be, and should not be sectarian. If revel and his group wished to strengthen orthodoxy in America, well and good. but such efforts should not be done in “Academic” guise. 17 Several of the respondents regarded the Society as an attempt by revel and his associates at the rabbinical College to aggrandize themselves and gain academic respectability for the College, which Adler and others, notably Louis Marshall, had long been attempting to merge with the Seminary on the ground that America needed only one traditional rabbinical seminary. Adler wrote Israel Friedlaender that he had learned from Jacob de Haas, publisher of the boston Jewish Advocate, that a story printed in that newspaper. stating that the Seminary was about to become an annex of Hebrew Union College, had come to de Haas, “not only from his New York correspondent but from the group of Jewish Academicians.”18 The fomenting of anti-Seminary propaganda on the part of the “Academicians” was connected by Adler to “other movements which had for their purpose the destruction of Jewish institutions in America.” Adler meant the American Jewish Congress movement

58

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

which he, as a leader of the American Jewish Committee, was then engaged in fighting. That incident did not improve his opinion of the Society. Henry Malter also called the Society a “hypocritical scheme,” adding, cynically, that every one in that galaxy of names [of members of the Society], including the chairman ... would be ready to accept at any time a position in the Hebrew Union College ...and, within due time, would probably head an organization with an altogether different purpose. The only one of the respondents to somewhat mitigate his criticism of the Society was Israel Friedlaender. He wrote: I must say, however, that there is one justification for the organizers of the Society: that no attempt has been made hitherto to unite the representative Jewish scholars of this country in the form of a responsible body.19 Plans for an international organization of Jewish scholars had been brought forward as early as 1887, when the historian Heinrich Graetz advocated founding a Jewish Academy in an address delivered at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition. In the years prior to the First World War, such an Academy was often discussed and certain organizational steps were taken by Ignatz Goldziher. Goldziher had kept American Jewish scholars informed of the plans afoot through his correspondence with Solomon Schechter. In the United States, the organization had been discussed by Schechter, Adler, Friedlaender and Alexander Marx, while Kaufmann Kohler and the faculty of Hebrew Union College also kept abreast of developments. The height of this prewar activity in America, as far as public discussion of the issue went, came on March 9, 1914, when, using the forum of Founder's Day at Dropsie College both Adler, and the main speaker, Israel Friedlaender, commented on the proposal.20 Adler stated on that occasion: Abroad, I understand, there is under consideration the establishment of an International Congress of Jewish Studies, which, however, has not yet taken definite shape; and in this country the

Cyrus Adler bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States

59

project has been informally discussed of the formation of a learned society or foundation which would weld together, for scholarly purposes, all of those who are actively engaged in carrying on studies for which this and like institutions are founded.21 The onset of the War, making international cooperation impossible, put a stop to the plans Goldziher had been making. It also added a new twist to this story, for Israel Abrahams, writing in the Jewish Chronicle in the fall of 1914, suggested that the Jewish Academy should be founded after all, with its seat in the United States, and that the Americans, as neutrals, were in a perfect position to take the matter up. Abrahams' proposal led to a symposium published in the American Hebrew on November 6, 1914, where the issue was discussed by a number of prominent American Jewish scholars, most of whom echoed Adler's statement: I would strongly deprecate, at the present time, the assumption of the formidable and distinguished name,”Academy”... I feel, too, that in spite of the growth of our institutions in wealth, libraries, and general equipment for Jewish studies. we would expose ourselves to ridicule if we undertook the formation of an Academy without consultation with scholars in russia, Austria, Germany, France and England, with most of whom communication is now impracticable.22 These considerations, however, did not preclude, in the opinions of Adler, Friedlaender and Hyman G. Enelow, the formation of a local American society for Jewish Studies. Nothing tangible was done to further this suggestion, however. This was the situation when revel attempted to found the Society of Jewish Academicians of America, and it explains in large measure the vehemence of the reactions of Adler and his faculties to an organization which only partially impinged on Jewish scholarship. revel's Society did, however, serve to bring the issue of the organization of American Jewish scholarship once more to the center of attention. The need for an American society of Jewish scholars was expressed especially by Friedlaender, who wrote Adler: ... I have enough local patriotism to think that the Jewish schol-

60

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

ars of this country need the stimulus of such an organization, or the scholarly atmosphere which is naturally wanting in a young country, for their own benefit ... It seems to me that, if nothing else, an annual meeting at which the results of Jewish research would be made known to the public, would have a great moral effect and read favorably both on the Jewish scholarly world and on the community at large.23 Alexander Marx also commented: It is a great pity that this organization [the Society of Jewish Academicians] will make it impossible for us in the near future to found a society of real Jewish scholars, for which there is a strong need... but now it will look like imitation if we would take up the matter. In the end, Adler drafted a reply to the invitation he had received, which expressed the consensus which arose out of his correspondence with his faculties. There is no evidence to show that it was ever sent, however.24 The Society of Jewish Academicians was listed in the American Jewish Year Book from Volume 19 (1917/18) through Volume 24 (1922/23). It invariably listed a membership of twenty-four. Though the composition of the Executive board showed some change, the organization seems to have caused little further stir. rejected by the American Jewish scholarly establishment, it faded away, leaving barely a trace. It never became the force in American Jewish intellectual life that revel had hoped for. The Society did, however, give a new impetus to plans for the organization of American Jewish scholarship. on September 26, 1916, just a few days after Adler's correspondence on the Society had terminated, he addressed a memorandum to Jacob Schiff, proposing a merger between Dropsie, Gratz College and the Seminary. In the memorandum he advocated the formation of: an Academy composed of scholars devoted to Jewish learning ... the only test for entrance should be meritorious productive Jewish scholarship.

Cyrus Adler bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States

61

These discussions were halted by the entry of the United States into the War in April, 1917, and were not revived until after the Armistice in the summer of 1919, when a group of Jewish scholars representing the three institutions of the American Jewish scholarly establishment met at Louis Ginzberg's summer home in Avon, New Jersey to formulate plans for a society which was first called the “Association of Jewish Scholars in America.”At its first meeting, on April 7, 1920, it became officially the “American Jewish Academy for the Promotion of Jewish research.”and it is known today as the American Academy for Jewish research. Coincidentally, at about the same time there was founded in berlin the Akademie fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums with much the same purpose as the American Academy. The American Academy, whose leadership represented the three institutions of the establishment, included in its list of charter members Solomon Zeitlin, then on the faculty of the rabbinical College, but, significantly, revel's name was crossed off the draft proposal.25 What revel had attempted was neither forgotten, nor forgiven.

Notes A. Yaari, ed., Igrot Shneur Zalman Schechter el Shmuel Avraham Poznansky (Jerusalem: 1943), p. 6.

1

2

American Hebrew, 1894, p. 181.

62

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

A. A. Neuman. Cyrus Adler: A Biographical Sketch (New York: 1942); Cyrus Adler, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia: 1941); Herbert Parzen, “New Data on the Formation of Dropsie College.” Jewish Social Studies. 28 (1966), 131-147 .

3

4

Aaron rothkopf, Bernard Revel: Builder of American Orthodoxy (Philadelphia: 1971.) pp. 43, 47.

The file on the Society of Jewish Academicians is to be found in the Cyrus Adler Papers currently in the possession of Mrs. Wolfe Wolfinsohn, Cambridge, Mass., and was utilized with her permission. Another copy of the Society's Constitution is found in the Alexander Marx Papers, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York.

5

6

reider to Adler, September 18, 1916.

7

Neuman to Adler, September 8, 1916.

The members of the Executive Committee. named in the Society's resolutions were, besides revel, Solomon T.H. Hurwitz, Secretary; Emanuel David Friedman (bellevue Medical College), Treasurer; Dr. Georges baccarat; Judah David Eisenstein (rabbinical College); Nathan Isaacs (University of Cincinnati); Mordecai M. Kaplan (Jewish Theological Seminary); Henry G. Keller (Polyclinic Medical); David I.. Macht (Johns Hopkins University); and Dr. Meyer Waxman. other members' named in the Society's press-release, published in the Jewish Advocate (boston), September 7, 1916, p. 6, were: bernard Drachman, David de Sola Pool, Moses Seidel, Isaac [sic?] Zeitlin, Schachne Isaacs, J. Tarlau, Israel Elfenbein and George Cohen; at the meeting four sessions were envisaged. Two of them were to deal with “Jewish Science,” with sub-categories of bible, Archaeology, Hebrew Philology, Jewish Philosophy and Ethics, rabbinics, Jewish History and Jewish Literature. The third session was to be devoted to “Judaism and Modern Thought,” with sub-categories of biology, Anthropology, Physical Sciences and Modern Philosophy. The fourth session, entitled “Modern Jewish Problems,” was to deal with Jewish Education, Sabbath and religious rites, Jewish Immigration. Jewish Economic and Social Life, Current Literature and Palestine.

8

9

Constitution, Article II.

“Conformity to the usages and practices of Judaism as expressed in the Torah, Talmud and authoritative codes is a condition sine qua non for all classes of membership. This clause is unalterable.” Constitution, Article IV.

10

11

“Eligible for members are the following:

a) Members of the faculties of higher institutions of learning, Jewish or secular. b) Doctors of Philosophy from recognized universities or persons possessing equivalent degrees in the sciences, arts and theology. c) Doctors of medicine from recognized universities possessing a preliminary collegiate degree. d) Jurists possessing a doctor's degree in jurisprudence or any equivalent higher degree. e) Those not conforming to the above requirements but who have otherwise distinguished themselves in the arts and sciences (especially in the field of Jewish scholarship) may, on the recommendation of the executive committee, be elected members of the society. Two negative votes on the executive committee shall constitute a disqualification.” Constitution, Article V. Adler sent letters to Henry Malter, Max Margolis, Jacob Hoschander and Abraham A. Neuman of the faculty of Dropsie College, and to Louis Ginzberg, Israel Friedlaender, Alexander Marx and Israel Davidson of the faculty of the Seminary. In addition, Adler received communications on the Society from Joseph reider of Dropsie and from Solomon Solis-Cohen of Philadelphia.

12

Cyrus Adler bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States

63

13

Adler to Henry Malter, et al. September 7, 1916.

14

Margolis to Adler, September 8, 1916.

15

Marx to Adler, September 13, 1916.

Indeed, after the initial press-release, Kaplan's name disappeared from the listing of members of the Society's Executive Committee published in the American Jewish Year Book.

16

17

Malter to Adler, September 8. 1916.

Adler to Friedlaender. September 13, 1916; the letter from de Haas to Adler, dated September 11, 1916. which contains that information, is preserved in the Adler Papers. Jewish Theological Seminary .

18

19

Friedlaender to Adler. September 11, 1916.

Adler to Kaufmann Kohler. october 16, 1914, preserved both in the Kohler Papers, American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati. and the Adler Papers, Dropsie University, Philadelphia; Friedlaender's address, “The Function of Jewish Learning in America,” was published in Past and Present (Cincinnati, 1919), Pp. 309-329.

20

21

American Hebrew, 1914. p. 31.

22

Ibid., pp. 31-33.

23

Friedlaender to Adler, September 15,1916.

24

Adler to Hurwitz, n.d.

25

Eli Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law: Louis Ginzberg (Philadelphia, 1966), pp. 165-166.

64

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality Cyrus Adler (1863-1940) was clearly a man to be reckoned with both in the American Jewish community and the American scholarly community from the 1880s to his death.1 His achievements were many, including the assistant secretaryship of the Smithsonian Institution and the presidency of Dropsie College, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the American Jewish Committee and numerous other organizations. Nonetheless, Cyrus Adler remains very much a mystery even to scholars specializing in American Jewish history.2 Part of the reason for this has to do with Adler himself. In public, he was reticent to an extreme, a characteristic which marks his autobiography. He has not yet received the full-scale biographical study he deserves. The sole major biographical treatment he received, though written by a trained historian, lacks critical detachment. In the absence of a rounded picture of the man, either from his own pen or that of a biographer, an historical image of Cyrus Adler has arisen which is rather unsympathetic. The following is a summary of this “received” image of Adler: 1. Despite Adler's Ph.D. in Semitics from Johns Hopkins University and his teaching career at that university, he was not considered a scholar.3 This renders his presidency of several learned societies and institutions incongruous to say the least. 2. Though for nearly a quarter century he headed a major rabbinic seminary, he was not considered a theologian. He was looked upon as a blind traditionalist with no ideas of his own beyond a sentimental adherence to the religious forms with which he grew up.4 3. He was no leader. He owed his positions to his relationship with and influence over a small group of American Jewish plutocrats such as Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg. A corollary to this question of leadership involves his rejection of democratic rule within the Jewish community and a preference for oligarchy.5 4. Though almost all his critics granted him some talent for organization and bureaucracy, most saw him as a cold, aloof, essentially sterile bureaucrat and little else.6

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

65

How true is this image? In recent years, especially since the 1985 publication of a two volume edition of Adler's Selected Letters. There has been some small revision of this image.7 Nonetheless, Adler has not hitherto received sufficient critical attention from historians to test the adequacy of the “received”image. This study of Adler's fiftyyear relationship with the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTS) will provide just such a test. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America was founded in 1886 by a coalition of rabbis ranging from quite traditional to moderately reform. What united these men was their opposition to the radical rejection of traditional Judaism by a conference of reform rabbis meeting in Pittsburgh in 1885.8 reform's Pittsburgh Platform had given the final impetus to a growing resolve among these men that they could not in good conscience cooperate any longer with Isaac Mayer Wise's Hebrew Union College, then the only American rabbinical seminary, or with Wise' s rabbinic organization, the Central Conference of American rabbis.9 In the Seminary's first half century, one of its key figures was Cyrus Adler. In understanding Adler's relationship with JTS, we must first understand his choice of career. Apparently rebelling against his family's desire that he become a lawyer.10 Adler determined to pursue an academic career in Semitics, After receiving his bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1883, he enrolled in the first class of the “oriental Seminary”of the Johns Hopkins University in baltimore, He received his Ph.D. in 1887, becoming the first American-trained scholar in Semitics. Adler's academic choice is noteworthy for several reasons. First of all, it was unusual for one coming out of Adler's social milieu to pursue nonprofessional graduate studies. Secondly, it was highly unusual for someone with Adler's traditionalist beliefs to pursue a course of studies which necessarily touched upon the sort of biblical criticism which was looked upon by other traditionalist Jews as undermining religious faith and which Solomon Schechter characterized as “the Higher Anti-Semitism.”11 Thirdly, and perhaps most unusually for one who was all his life interested in the fate of Jews and Judaism, Adler demonstrated absolutely no interest in a rabbinical career.

66

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Comprehending Adler's career choice involves us in understanding the dynamics of the Progressive era in which he grew to maturity. It was a time, as robert Crunden states, “in which the ministry was unattractive and the university a place of fabled possibilities, long dreamed of but as yet untried,”12 Also to be considered in this context is the fact that since Adler was a student of Sabato Morais, Hebrew Union College would have been quite out of the question. Going to Europe for a rabbinic education, the choice of several Americans in this era, traditionalist and reform alike,13 apparently did not appeal to him either. Instead he chose to pursue his graduate education in baltimore, close to his Philadelphia home. In the autumn of 1883 Adler commenced the study of Semitics under the noted Assyriologist Professor Paul Haupt, then newly arrived from Germany, According to his biographer, Abraham Neuman, Adler approached his studies with something of a polemical thrust: In the name of the new science ... the veracity of the early bible accounts was attacked; the foundations of traditional religion were endangered; the historic position of Israel ... was derided in the German halls of learning. These extravagant and ill-founded claims aroused the fighting spirit of the young scholar, who was inwardly certain that the faith of the world could not be shaken by the expanding horizon of true knowledge ... Eagerly he turned to Semitic studies with the zest of a pioneer and the crusading zeal of a defender of the faith.14 From his letters to Morais dating from the beginning of his studies at Johns Hopkins, Adler sounds somewhat less sure of himself. He was relieved, he told Morais, to discover that “Dr. Haupt is not a destructive critic ... He is in most of his views conservative.”15 In another he stated, “My dread of the Germans is beginning to wear off and I can account for Haupt's conservatism from the fact that Delitsch was his instructor in Hebrew.”16 Adler was patently attempting to allay Morais' apprehensions regarding his field, one which most rabbis viewed with considerable suspicion to say the least.17 Though Adler was successful in convincing Morais that his Semitic studies would not estrange him from traditional Judaism, he had become part of a field of scholarship shunned by “traditional”Jews. Professor Haupt, with whom Adler soon developed a lasting friendship was by Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

67

no means a radical critic and could even be considered something of a philo-Semite.18 Still, he certainly communicated his firm belief in the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch to his students, Adler among them. Adler, then, emerged from his studies at Johns Hopkins far from a “traditionalist of the antiquarian type.”19 He was, at least in his own mind, a scientist. In 1888 he wrote: This study [of biblical archaeology] is not a part of dogmatic theology; its results can command the same acceptance accorded to a new fact reported from a physical laboratory; its problems should be faced in the same spirit of fearless investigation into the truth as obtains in other departments of scientific research. Through it the bible becomes, in its form and to some extent in its substance, a new book.20 Though Morais himself was not above admitting that the text of the Prophets and Hagiographa (but not the Pentateuch) could legitimately be the subject of critical study,21 Adler had clearly gone far beyond his mentor in his acceptance of the critical method of bible study. Despite his academic credentials, Adler was not fated to make a career in his chosen field. Johns Hopkins, which hired him to assist Haupt after his graduation, did not have sufficient finances to give him a permanent position. His efforts to obtain a position at the University of Pennsylvania and at the University of Chicago failed. His ambition to lead, along with Haupt, an archaeological expedition to Mesopotamia came to naught.22 by the early 1890s he realized that hanging on to an insecure position at Johns Hopkins was getting him nowhere, so he accepted a position as librarian of the Smithsonian Institution. There he stayed until 1908, eventually rising to the number two post at the Smithsonian, Assistant Secretary.23 It is during this period in his life that Adler first became involved with JTS. Though, as Adler stated in his address at the Seminary's fiftieth anniversary celebration, he “was too young to be admitted to the inner councils of the new venture,”24 he was soon pressed into service by Morais, who had stated in 1886 that: The proposed Seminary shall vindicate the right of the Hebrew

68

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

bible to a precedence over all theological studies. It shall be the boast of that institute hereafter that the attendants are surpassing Scripturalists ... though they may not rank foremost among skilled Talmudists.25 In 1888 Adler gave a summer course at JTS entitled”biblical Archaeology”which included discussion of the biblical accounts of creation, paradise and the deluge and their babylonian parallels as well as a resume of Assyrian history with special reference to the period contemporary with the kings of Judah and Israel. In his report to Morais, Adler stressed that: the study of the bible must always be the center of a scientific Seminary training as well as of a practical theological education ... The [archaeological] discoveries ... have done much and will do more to confirm and elucidate the bible.26 This course was offered at least once more, in 1890. In 1892 Adler gave a series of lectures at the Seminary entitled “The Activities of the rabbi.”27 Such was apparently the extent of his involvement with the JTS under Morais' administration. Whether Morais would have appointed Adler professor of bible at the Seminary if he had the finances is a matter for speculation. The fact was that he did not, and so Adler's involvement in the Seminary then was perforce sporadic, carried out at considerable personal sacrifice due to the lengthy commute from Washington, D.C. to New York. In 1901 Adler came to a position of prominence in the life of JTS by virtue of what he described as a chance meeting. During the lifetime of Sabato Morais the Seminary struggled on with inadequate funding and congregational support and little chance of achieving either given the overwhelmingly reform orientation of the vast majority of established American congregations.28 When Morais died in 1897 this situation turned from bad to worse, and it appeared that the American traditionalists' answer to the challenge of reform might have to close its doors. Help came from an unexpected source – a group of prominent and wealthy laypeople, nearly all of whom were formally affiliated with reform Judaism. This group of influential, acculturated Jews was

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

69

concerned about the religious state of the recent Eastern European Jewish immigrants to the United States, who had already numerically overwhelmed the established American Jewish community, and who were pouring into the country at a prodigious rate. These newly arrived Jews observed a form of orthodoxy which was decidedly alien to the American environment. When these Eastern European Jews abandoned orthodoxy, however, the result, in the eyes of the established American Jewish community, was even worse: they became socialists, anarchists, communists and adherents of other “anti-American” ideologies. In a period when anti-Semitism in the United States appeared to be rising, and with acculturation the watchword of established American Jewry, it is no wonder that Americanized Jews expressed concern regarding the future of the new Jewish immigrants.29 The American Jewish leadership quickly realized that American reform Judaism would not attract the majority of the Jewish immigrants. They hoped, however, that the immigrants might be attracted to an acculturated, English-speaking orthodoxy which would satisfy their traditionalist needs yet become an integral part of the American religious scene. For propagating such a Judaism, the traditionalist, yet decidedly American JTS held great promise. Cyrus Adler, who remains our sole source for what transpired, has given us two versions of the event. In one of them he planted the idea of the financial rescue of the Seminary in Jacob Schiff's mind.30 In the other version, contained in his biography of Jacob Schiff, Adolphus S. Solomons, acting president of JTS, first brought the problems of the Seminary to Schiff's attention.31 In any event what transpired was a corporate “reorganization”of the Seminary which, in a bloodless coup, shunted aside the previous board of directors and put Schiff and his group, which had quickly raised a considerable endowment, in control. Adler, practically the only one in the group with a traditionalist religious orientation and certainly the only one with academic credentials, was made president of the board. The new board pursuaded Solomon Schechter, a prominent Judaic scholar and a traditionalist Jew, to become academic head of JTS on the understanding that Adler would take the lead in administration,

70

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

thus freeing Schechter for creative work.32 From 1901 to 1905 Adler commuted weekly from Washington to New York to fulfill his administrative duties at JTS. In a 1901 letter to Schechter, he attempted to clarify what their relationship would be: My functions as I understand them are to be the external management of the Seminary and its affairs ... and relieving you in every way of what might be called the external administrative detail. I should hold you supreme in everything relating to the actual work of the Seminary itself, teaching, the selection of instructors (although since these trench upon money matters, the assent of the trustees I assume would have to be given to your selections) and in short what I understand to be the conduct of the teaching work. If I should find time, or have the desire myself to give a lecture or a series of lectures, I should not think of doing so without your consent and your direction.33 Adler and Schechter had been friends for some time and their relationship remained, according to everything we know, cordial and harmonious. However, in one area of their relationship there must have been at least some subdued friction - the teaching of the bible at the Seminary. Schechter had put himself on record that the Jews should reclaim the bible from the German “higher criticism,” which he had dubbed “the Higher Anti-Semitism.” Though far from an obscurantist himself and professing respect for gentile bible scholars whom he called “serious” (though he claimed that they had often adapted the conclusions of medieval Jewish bible exegesis without attribution) he was clearly uncomfortable with the enterprise of modern gentile biblical scholarship. As he put it: My sympathies for Wellhausen are not very strong and I have a tolerable antipathy against”painted bibles”[the polychrome bible edited by Adler's teacher, Paul Haupt, which indicated the various documents within the Pentateuch by different colors] and mutilated scriptures.34 Schechter hoped to spur the growth of an indigenous Jewish biblical scholarship which would be critical yet reverent.35 Yet in the

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

71

Seminary he headed, the study of bible was decidedly secondary to other concerns. Whereas Morais had boasted that the students of JTS would be superior scripturalists and had encouraged Adler to give courses in biblical archaeology, in Schechter's Seminary, bible study was curiously truncated. Though the Prophets and the Hagiographa were studied by rabbinic students at JTS, the Pentateuch was not, ostensibly because its mastery was preparatory to entry into the rabbinic program but actually because the issue of Pentateuchal criticism could thereby be avoided. So strong was this legacy that it was not until the late 1950s that Pentateuch study entered the JTS curriculum.36 Then, too, we have the curious issue of the man Schechter appointed as professor of bible at JTS. Whereas he engaged a distinguished Talmudist, Louis Ginzberg, as professor of Talmud and a promising young historian, Alexander Marx, as professor of Jewish history and librarian, when it came time to appoint a professor of the bible, he chose a man whose scholarly accomplishments were in another field altogether. Israel Friedlaender was a student of Islamic history and literature and of Judeo-Arabic literature. He was not by training a biblical scholar. In a career admittedly foreshortened by his murder in the Ukraine in 1920 on a relief mission, he published exactly one article on a biblical subject. In a 1903 letter to Schechter, Friedlaender stated: I take upon myself the personal obligation ... to learn in order to teach others. I shall seek to familiarize myself with the problems of biblical scholarship in order to be able to present them to my students. In cooperation with other scholars who deal in these problems, I intend to make a modest contribution to their clarification and solution.37 As his biographer points out, he did not fulfill this pledge to Schechter, “most fundamentally (because] he was uncomfortable with the trend of current biblical criticism.”38 If Schechter was indeed looking for a man who was a modern, academically trained biblical scholar and also a traditional Jew, who was critical yet reverent, he had him right in his own back yard – Cyrus Adler. Adler had even openly hinted, in the letter cited ear-

72

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

lier, that he might well be interested in lecturing at the Seminary. Yet with the exception of a 1903 series of lectures Adler gave on the Jewish calendar,39 Schechter never called on him. The fact that he did not demands explanation. It is true, of course, that Adler had a secure and seemingly congenial position at the Smithsonian, and his position as president of the JTS board of trustees might have created a conflict of interest had he begun actively teaching at the Seminary. However, neither of these reasons would have prevented Adler's teaching the occasional course in biblical archaeology as he had done in the past. Two additional reasons suggest themselves. The first is that Adler, by Schechter's definition, was not a Jewish scholar, meaning one who had added formal academic training to a primary training in rabbinic texts gained in a traditional environment and who then dealt with these same texts and cognate documents in an acceptable academic manner.40 Nearly all the practicing scholars of Judaica at this time were “Jewish” scholars in this sense; Adler clearly was not. Secondly, though clearly traditionalist, Adler was the academic product of the sort of German biblical scholar for whom Schechter, as we have seen, harbored a visceral dislike. However mildly, then, Adler was tainted by German bible criticism. Finally, though entrusted with a mission to “save” American Judaism, Schechter had determined to bring over European scholars to help him do the job. Adler was not merely an American by birth but also by education, and so in Schechter's scheme of things he could only play the nasi (temporal head of the Jewish community) to Schechter's gaon (head of the academy).41 Though, as previously stated, Adler and Schechter remained to all appearances close friends, Adler's relations with key members of the Seminary faculty were strained. The major reason for this seems to have been Adler's assumption, in 1908, of the presidency of Dropsie College, a postgraduate institution in Philadelphia designed to teach “Hebrew and Cognate Studies.”At least one of the members of the JTS faculty, Israel Friedlaender, had hoped to be chosen president.42 More at issue, however, seems to have been Adler's lack of credentials as a “Jewish”scholar. In 1909 Adler wrote Schechter: I would be inconsistent with the frankness of my nature if I did not express to you my profound dissatisfaction with the interview

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

73

I had with the members of the Seminary faculty the other day .... There is something wanting which bodes little good for a real spirit of cooperation. I could not help but get the impression, too, that there was a lack of personal sympathy with me upon their part .... It is undoubtedly true that a better man than myself ought to have been found to take up the organization of the Dropsie College and the re-establishment of the [Jewish] Quarterly review ... That I have done these things may be an offense to the genuinely trained Jewish scholar, which I am not, but it might be counted in my behalf at least that I have given and shall give opportunities to such scholars which might very well have been wanting otherwise ... When, therefore, I came to consult with the faculty as to the best steps to take in building up a Jewish publication in the English language, and am met with proposals that would probably defeat that end and finally am informed that A. b. is persona non grata to them, meaning of course that it is not only their intention to dictate the policy of the review, but also the personnel of the Dropsie College, I deeply resent their attitude.43 This negative attitude toward Adler as a parvenu in the temple of Jewish learning carried over to the period of his presidency of the Jewish Theological Seminary, as we shalt see. When Solomon Schechter died in 1915, he left no heir apparent. 44 At least three JTS faculty members wanted Schechter's job: Louis Ginzberg, Israel Friedlaender and Mordecai Kaplan.45 None of them was acceptable to the board of trustees for various reasons. Ginzberg was an academic who could not communicate well with laypeople and did not disguise his contempt for the common run even of American rabbis.46 Friedlaender could and did communicate well, but his reputed pro-German views regarding the issues of World War I were controversial. In his memoirs Adler discretely hints at this when he states that because of wartime conditions the board did not think it advisable to give the headship of the Seminary to anyone but a native American.47 Kaplan, something of a maverick at the Seminary, would have alienated an important faction within the Seminary faculty, particularly Ginzberg, and could not be seriously considered.48 Thus Cyrus Adler, a known quantity to the board, who had previously been administrative head of the Seminary, was asked to assume 74

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

the duties of “temporary president”for a period of six months until a successor to Schechter could be named. He remained “temporary” president until 1924, when his position was regularized, serving as president of JTS until his death in 1940.49 As president of JTS – and a “temporary”one to boot - Adler was in a singularly delicate and uncomfortable position. Not a rabbi, he was the head of a rabbinical-training institution. His anomalous situation was somewhat facilely summarized by Louis Marshall, Adler's colleague on the Seminary board and the American Jewish Committee: “It is scarcely proper to speak of Dr. Cyrus Adler as a layman except on the theory that he is not a rabbi.”50 Moreover, on top of the strained relations with the faculty due to his not being a “Jewish”scholar in an institution which propagated “Jewish” scholarship and which relegated the study of the bible, his specialty, to a decidedly second-class status, he now had to preside over a faculty at least three of whose key members saw him as a symbol of their thwarted ambitions.51 before Schechter's death it was bad enough that Adler controlled Dropsie College and co-edited, with Schechter, the new series of the Jewish Quarterly Review. Now he remained sole editor of the JQr. retained the presidency of Dropsie, and had become President, albeit temporary, of JTS as well. In a small and closely knit institution, Adler was an outsider and doomed to remain one. His relationship with the faculty was never close. They had no voice in his appointment and first learned of it from the newspapers.52 With some exceptions, their attitude toward him was at best diplomatic and correct, though they could not resist opportunities to show him what they thought of his scholarship. For example, when the American Academy for Jewish research was founded in 1919 with Louis Ginzberg as president, Adler was offered an “honorary” membership.53 Characteristically Adler accepted his “honorary” membership, though some members had thought he would decline it, and he cooperated fully with that organization in its work. Louis Finkelstein prefaced his memoir of Adler with the following Talmudic quotation: Those who are humiliated but do not humiliate; who hear insults, and do not speak in reply; who do [their duty] out of love [for

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

75

God] ... of them Scripture says:”but they who love Him are as the sun when it goeth forth in all its might.”55 He might well be describing Adler in the context in which he knew him best - JTS. Adler began his regime as a caretaker, attempting as best he could to continue in Schechter's footsteps. Knowing full well that he was there on a “temporary” basis, he refrained from initiatives of his own, whether theological or academic. by the early 1920s, though, it was becoming clear to all that Adler's “temporary”presidency was becoming permanent, and so in 1923 he made two moves which, had they succeeded, might have allowed him to leave his mark on the Seminary. The first move was symbolic. Early in 1923 Adler addressed the rabbinical Assembly on “The Point of View of Judaism Taught in the Seminary.”According to Neuman, Adler was motivated by concern that theological differences within the rabbinical Assembly might force it into sharply defined theological positions, something he deeply deplored, as we shall see. More importantly, however, he was arrogating to himself the right to speak in the Seminary's name. He was serving notice that he wished to be president of JTS in more than name.56 The second move had to do with the composition of the Seminary faculty, upon which he wished to make his mark. Adler was a bible man, first and foremost. More than Schechter, he was determined to reclaim the bible for the Jewish people. He utilized the Jewish Publication Society's bible translation for this purpose, and he felt that the dominant subject at Dropsie College ought to be “the study of the bible in all its aspects from the Jewish point of view.”57 The chair in bible at JTS had remained unoccupied since Israel Friedlaender's death in 1920. Now Adler, who felt that he had credentials in biblical studies, determined to name a man of his own choice to this key post. His choice was Jacob Hoschander, then on the faculty of Dropsie College. Adler clearly felt that Hoschander was an appropriate choice for the Seminary. In an obituary for Hoschander, he described him as “one

76

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

of the foremost Jewish scholars in his field. He had an original approach to bible studies and made it his lifework to defend its integrity against the attacks of certain schools of Higher Critics.”58 Moreover, Adler had the power to appoint him on his own, for the president of the Seminary by custom did not consult the faculty on appointments, only the board of trustees. In 1923 he used his power to appoint Hoschander, but the appointment, instead of establishing his authority in the Seminary, demonstrated his essential weakness and isolation within the institution. The Seminary faculty, led by Louis Ginzberg, revolted against the Hoschander appointment. Though they were powerless to prevent the appointment, and he served at JTS as professor of bible until his death in 1933, they were able to make his tenure at the Seminary a most uncomfortable one. He was never accepted by his colleagues as one of them. In their wrath at Hoschander's appointment they were, in the words of Ginzberg's son and biographer, “insensitive to the pain they inflicted” on him.59 In Eli Ginzberg's memoir of his father, he “distinctly recall[ed] the degree of [Louis Ginzberg's] agitation” over the appointment. In Louis Ginzberg's mind, according to his son, the Hoschander appointment was proof of Adler's scholarly incompetence. For Ginzberg, Hoschander was short on scholarship, deficient in pedagogical skills and in personality. Certainly this is a different picture from the one given by Adler and from the image which emerges from the article devoted to him in the Encyclopedia Judaica:”He influenced a generation of rabbis by his kindly and pious character and personality as well as by his scholarship.60 It may be assumed that the vehemence of the opposition by Ginzberg and his colleagues to Hoschander stemmed less from his qualifications for the position – though in his own mind Ginzberg was likely convinced that his evaluation of Hoschander was correct – and more from the fact that he was “Adler's man.” The Seminary faculty, through the Hoschander affair, served notice to Adler that they would not permit him to place his own stamp upon the institution. An impasse had been reached. Adler controlled the presidency and had the confidence of the board of trustees, who had not the slightest doubt as to his scholarly qualifications.61 It is not unlikely that

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

77

the change in the designation of Adler's position from “temporary”to permanent president in 1924 was a vote of confidence in Adler by the board and thus a message to the faculty. on the other hand, the faculty had demonstrated that Adler could flout its wishes only at his peril. In the end, a compromise was reached by which the faculty gained considerable power. As Louis Finkelstein, whose teaching career at the Seminary began in 1921 but who apparently attained the right to attend faculty meetings only after the compromise, recalled in a 1946 memoir of Adler: During all the time I sat on this faculty with him I do not recall even a single decision which was taken against the will even of a substantial minority. The Faculty shared in the responsibilities for appointments and promotions: its members were consulted about major steps in administration and development of the institution. No honorary degree was conferred except by unanimous agreement.62 This post-Hoschander compromise restored peace within the Seminary but at the price of a significant diminution of power for Adler. The Seminary was not nor ever would be his in the same sense that it had been Schechter's. Adler, who was nothing if not a realist, accepted these conditions and went on, in his love for Judaism and for JTS, to make the best he could of the situation.63 Since he could not make his mark on the Seminary academically, he made it in other ways, especially in bricks and mortar. Under Adler's administration the Seminary amassed one of the world's greatest libraries of Judaica, and most of the present campus was built. During the Depression Adler kept the institution afloat in the face of a drastic decline in income from contributions and endowment. It was also Adler who, in a very real sense, managed the development of the Conservative movement. Solomon Schechter, brilliant scholar that he was, was not the salvation for American Judaism that the moneyed backers of the JTS reorganization had hoped for. His arrival in the United States caused a veritable “Schechter craze”within American Jewry. by 1904-1905, however, Schechter's honeymoon with American Jewry was over. orthodox Jewry was not flocking to 78

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Schechter's banner in droves. It was still primarily Yiddish speaking with little use for college-educated, English-speaking traditionalist rabbis. The Seminary's limited constituency had not magically changed with Schechter's appearance, so it must have been a not inconsiderable task for Adler to keep financial support for the Seminary intact among people who were not ideologically inclined to traditional Judaism and who did not see the results which had been projected.64 Schechter's response to this crisis of confidence was his Conservative Union, a congregational organization ultimately founded in 1913 as the United Synagogue of America. Adler joined the planning of this organization with much hesitation.65 once engaged, he fought strenuously against an aggressively ideological platform and against the term “conservative.” His viewpoint was finally adopted.66 Despite continual attempts by various members of the Seminary faculty, like Friedlaender and Kaplan, to make definitive ideological statements regarding the position of Conservative Judaism vis-a-vis orthodoxy and reform,67 Adler persisted in remaining ideologically neutral even when pressed to delineate “the standpoint of the Seminary”by the rabbinical Assembly, the rabbinic organization of JTS graduates. Many have concluded, from this ideological neutrality that Adler had no position, no ideas, no thought beyond an “antiquarian traditionalism.”68 These people miss one of Adler's most characteristic and least understood traits: his political philosophy informed by a knowledge of and belief in the American political system. He was not an old Washington hand for nothing. In a crucial paragraph of his speech “The Standpoint of the Seminary”he says this: The Seminary still aims to teach a form of Judaism to which all people could come so far as fundamental values are concerned. A common language, the understanding of a common history and a common literature are the strongest factors for keeping together the Synagogue – stronger in our opinion than any set of resolutions or platforms. Short of the very simple words of our charter, we have laid down no platform and adopted no creed, for we are of the opinion that religious platforms. like party platforms. are more often made to be disregarded than to be lived by, and that the surest guarantee for the steady maintenance of an enlightened Judaism based upon tradition was the teaching of the acCyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

79

cumulated knowledge and information of the Jewish sages through all the ages.69 His approach to the politics of American traditionalist Judaism was informed by his experience in American politics and diplomacy gained during his tenure at the Smithsonian. In his autobiography Adler tells the following story. In 1898 he was the American delegate at an international conference to establish an International Catalogue of Scientific Literature. Negotiations had bogged down and it looked as if the conference was not going to achieve its objective. At that point, the british delegate, Sir Michael Foster, visited Adler. Here is how Adler recollects the conversation: He said to me in effect: “Adler, this thing looks to me as though it were going to fail. You people in America are rather practical. How would you act under such circumstances?” I said to him: “We call a caucus.” He said: “What is a caucus?” I said: “A caucus is the assembling together of reasonably like-minded persons, who unite upon a policy by composing their minor differences, and then they appoint one spokesman.” A caucus was thereupon formed of the American, british, French, and German delegates and an agreement reached.70 Whether this story happened exactly as Adler recollected is not relevant. It clearly reflects his approach to political problems. For Adler, things got done not through ideological debate but through the formation of coalitions of reasonably like-minded people who shared basic principles. Adler believed strongly in an American traditionalist Judaism. The Jewish Theological Seminary was to be the vehicle for disseminating such a Judaism. The constituency of the Seminary during Adler's tenure in office at JTS was not such as to afford him the luxury of alienating any part of it if he could help it. It is arguable that through his policy of aggressively avoiding ideological definition the Seminary maintained its existence and enhanced its reputation as both a scholarly institution and a source of American-trained traditionalist rabbis. Under his administration the membership of the United Synagogue increased nearly tenfold,71 and the Conservative Movement was positioned for its great postwar expansion, when its constituency expanded to the point where it could

80

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

afford the luxury of ideological definition. 72 Through this examination of Cyrus Adler's half-century relationship with JTS it is possible to discern the reality behind the received historical image. Adler's scholarly attainments in Semitics simply did not count in the academic environment of JTS whose professors, in common with other contemporary practitioners of Wissenschaft des Judentums, essentially excluded biblical studies from their purview as “non-Jewish.”73 The fact that several American Jewish scholars had made Semitics their field did not judaize it in the eyes of the Seminary faculty, which was largely trained in and oriented toward Europe. Adler's other field of scholarly endeavor, American Jewish history, was not considered a serious branch of Jewish learning in Adler's time and presumably got even shorter shrift from JTS scholars.74 Adler was called upon to lead JTS after Schechter's death because no other candidate was available for the position who was acceptable to the board and the faculty. The caretaker nature of Adler's initial tenure constrained his presidency. He was not Solomon Schechter, and those who measured the position in Schechterian terms were bound to be disappointed. His later attempt to assert his academic authority at the Seminary failed due to significant and adamant faculty opposition. This explains why Adler's mark on JTS was institutional rather than academic. Finally, Adler emerges from this analysis not so much as an antidemocratic oligarch but as a sort of democratic politician in the contemporary American style, one far more at home creating and sustaining coalitions behind the scenes in “smoke-filled rooms” than engaging in the sort of public ideological debate which he considered less than helpful.75 In essence, Cyrus Adler felt that, as president of JTS, he had been entrusted with the destiny of traditionalist Judaism in America. In terms of his political philosophy, he was thus willing to cooperate with all Jews and Jewish institutions “essentially loyal to traditional Judaism.”Faced with the crisis of traditional Judaism in America, he did something quintessentially American – he called a caucus. All the rest is commentary.

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

81

Notes on Adler, see his autobiography, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia, 1941). cf. also Abraham A. Neuman. “Cyrus Adler: A biographical Sketch,” American Jewish Year Book, 42 (1940/1), pp. 23- 144, and Ira robinson, ed., Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters (Philadelphia, 1985).

1.

Cf.. Naomi Cohen. Introduction to robinson, Adler Letters I, p. xxv. Cf. also Jonathan Sarna's review of robinson, Adler Letters, in Commentary (February, 1986), pp. 68-71.

2.

Cf. Louis Lipsky, Memoirs in Profile (Philadelphia, 1975). p. 270; Eli Ginzberg. “The Seminary Family: A View From My Parents' Home,” in Arthur A. Chiel. ed . Perspectives on Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of Wolfe Kelman (New York, 1978). pp. 117-118; richard Libowitz. “Kaplan and Adler” unpublished paper presented at the December 1987 meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies. p. 17. For a contrary, positive opinion on Adler's scholarship, see Herbert rosenblum. Conservative Judaism: A Contemporary History (New York: 1983). p. 25.

3.

4. Lipsky, Memoirs, p. 272, Cf. Herbert Parzen, Architects of Conservative Judaism (New York, 1964), p. 98. 5.

Lipsky, Memoirs, p. 271.

6.

Ibid., pp. 269-270.

Cf. Naomi Cohen's review of baila Shargel's Practical Dreamer: Israel F'riedlaender and the Shaping of American Judaism (New York: 1985) in American Jewish History 75 (1986), p. 468; David Dalin, review of robinson, Adler Letters, in Modern Judaism, 6 (1986), pp. 313-316.

7.

on the Pittsburgh Platform, see Walter Jacob, ed., The Changing World of Reform Judaism: The Pittsburgh Platform in Retrospect (Pittsburgh, 1985). Cf. Jonathan Sarna, “New Light on the Pittsburgh Platform,” American Jewish History, 76 (1987), pp. 358-368.

8.

on the beginnings of JTS, see Moshe Davis, The Emergence of Conservative Judaism: The Historical School in 19th Century America (Philadelphia, 1963), part 3. Cf. robert E. Fierstein. “From Foundation to reorganization: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 1886-1902” (D.H.L. dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1986). 9.

Adler stated in his autobiography that he quit “reading law” in Mayer Sulzberger's office in September 1883 after considering “the duties of a lawyer to his client.” Yet he was registered at Johns Hopkins at the beginning of october and had been to Johns Hopkins the previous year to investigate possibilities of graduate study in Semitics there. Quite possibly he hid his plans of going to Johns Hopkins until the last moment in order to minimize the opposition he was to face regarding his decision. I Have Considered the Days, p. 46. Cf. Neuman. “Cyrus Adler,” p. 31.

10.

11. For Schechter's views on biblical criticism as the “Higher Anti-Semitism,” see Norman bentwich, Solomon Schechter: A Biography (Philadelphia, 1948), pp. 49, 200. Jonathan and Nahum Sarna make the point that American Jews who did enter academics in this field were primarily identified as Semiticists and not “bible” scholars since this was a safer course theologically. See their article, “Jewish bible Scholarship and Translations in the United States” in Ernest S. Frerichs. ed., The Bible and Bibles in America (Atlanta, 1988), pp.94-95.

robert M. Crunden, Ministers of Reform: the Progressives’ Achievement in American Civilization: 1889-1920 (New York, 1982), p. 278. Cf. James P. Wind, The Bible and the University: The Messianic Vision of William Rainey Harper (Atlanta, 1987), p. 62. 12.

This was the case with bernard Drachman, Felix Adler, richard Gottheil and others. Cf. Drachman. The Unfailing Light: Memoirs of an American Rabbi (New York, 1948); benny Kraut, From Reform Judaism to Ethical Culture: the Religious Evolution of Felix Adler (Cincinnati, 1979).

13.

82

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

14.

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler,” p. 32.

15.

robinson, Adler Letters, I: 4.

16.

Ibid., p. 5.

For Schechter's views, see note 11 above. Isaac Mayer Wise of Hebrew Union College held similar views on “the authenticity of the Mosaic records” versus modern biblical criticism. See Sheldon H. blank, “bible” in Samuel E. Karff, ed., Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion at One Hundred Years (Cincinnati, 1976) p. 288.

17.

18. on Haupt and the Jews, see Moshe Perlmann, “Paul Haupt and the Mesopotamian Project.” PAJHS 47 (1958), 154-175. 19.

Parzen, Architects, p. 98.

20. Adler, “report on the Section of oriental Antiquities in the United States National Museum, 1888” (Washington, D.C., 1890), p. 94. 21.

Fierstein, “From Foundation to reorganization”, p. 46.

22.

Fierstein, “From Foundation to reorganization”, p. 46.

23.

For Adler's career at the Smithsonian, see I Have Considered the Days, p. 180 ff.

24.

Adler, Jewish Theological Seminary of America Semi-Centennial Volume (New York, 1939), p, 3.

American Hebrew. February 19, 1886, cited in Fierstein, “From Foundation to reorganization”, p.69.

25.

26.

robinson, Adler Letters I, p. 14.

27.

Fierstein, “From Foundation to reorganization”, pp. 103, 138-139.

28.

Cf. Nathan Glazer, American Judaism (Chicago, 1957), p. 39.

on American anti-Jewish feeling in this period see John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New brunswick, 1955).

29.

30.

Adler. Semi-Centennial, p. 9. Cf. I Have Considered the Days, pp. 243-244.

31. Adler, Jacob H. Schiff: His Life and Letters (Freeport, NY, 1972) volume 2, p. 53. Cf. Fierstein, “From Foundation to reorganization”, p. 177.

Abraham J. Karp, “Solomon Schechter Comes to America” The Jewish Experience in America (New York, 1969), volume 5, pp. 111-129; Norman bentwich. Solomon Schechter, p. 171.

32.

33.

robinson. Adler Letters I, p. 92.

34.

Solomon Schechter, Seminary Addresses and Other Papers, (Cincinnati, 1915), p.4.

35.

Ibid., p. 5.

Marc H. Tanenhaum. “Communal Affairs: religion,” American Jewish Year Book 60 (1959), pp. 53-54. Cf. baila round Shargel. Practical Dreamer, p. 52.

36.

37. Letter from Israel Friedlaender to Solomon Schechter, August 7, 1903. Cited in Shargel. Practical Dreamer, p. 45. 38.

Shargel, ibid.

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

83

39.

Adler, Semi-Centennial, p. 189.

Cf. Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism 4th ed. (belmont, Ca., 1988), pp. 143-144.

40.

Schechter's description of the ideal American Jewish layman sounds remarkably like Adler. Cf. bentwich, Solomon Schechter, p. 171.

41.

42.

Shargel. Practical Dreamer. p. 10.

43.

robinson. Adler Letters I, p. 156.

44.

Parzen, Architects, p. 94.

Eli Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law: Louis Ginzberg (Philadelphia, 1966), pp. 132-133: idem., “The Seminary Family,” p. 119: Shargel, Practical Dreamer. pp. 16, 38; Libovitz, “Kaplan and Adler,” p. 21, n. 16.

45.

46.

Ginzberg. “The Seminary Family,” pp. 124-126. Cf. Shargel, Practical Dreamer. p. 104.

47.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 291.

48.

Libovitz, “Kaplan and Adler,” p. 12.

49.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 291.

50.

Charles reznikoff, Louis Marshall: Champion of Liberty (Philadelphia, 1957), p. 891.

51. Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law, p. 136: Shargel, Practical Dreamer, p. 16; Libovitz. “Kaplan and Adler,” p. 19. 52.

robinson. Adler Letters I, p. 300.

Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law, pp. 165-178. Cf. Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler, bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized American Jewish Scholarship,” American Jewish History 69 (1980), pp. 497505, and idem. “American Academy of Jewish research,” in Michael N. Dobkowski, ed., Jewish American Voluntary organizations (New York, 1986), pp, 7-11.

53.

54.

Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law, pp. 168, 171.

55.

Louis Finkelstein, Preface to robinson, Adler Letters I, p. xvii.

56. This address is published as “The Standpoint of the Seminary” in Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses (Philadelphia, 1933), pp. 251-263. Cf. Neuman. “Cyrus Adler,” p. 116. 57.

robinson, Adler Letters I, p. 159. Cf. Sarna and Sarna, “Jewish bible Scholarship,” p. 95 ff.

Adler, “Abstract of the report of President Cyrus Adler to the board of Directors of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America” (January, 1934), p.4. 58.

Ginzberg, “The Seminary Family,” p. 118; Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law, p. 137. Cf. also Parzen, Architects. p. 96.

59.

60.

Enyclopedia Judaica, s. v. “Hoschander, Jacob.”

61.

Cf. Charles reznikoff, Louis Marshall. pp. 862, 891.

Louis Finkelstein, “Cyrus Adler (A biographical Appreciation),” The Torch 5, no. 3 (March, 1946), p. 6.

62.

63.

Adler, Semi-Centennial, p. 18. Cf. the typically obscure reference to conflict within the Seminary

84

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

on p. 19. rosenblum, Conservative Judaism, p. 62. Cf. idem, “Ideology and Compromise: The Evolution of the United Synagogue Constitutional Preamble”, Jewish Social Studies 35 (1973), p. 19; Nathan Glazer, American Judaism, p. 77.

64.

65.

robinson, Adler Letters I, pp. 204-205, 222-224.

66.

rosenblum, “Ideology and Compromise”, p. 23; idem., Conservative Judaism, p. 21

67.

Shargel, Practical Dreamer, p. 104; rosenblum, Conservative Judaism, p. 20.

Cf. Parzen. Architects, p. 98: Gilbert rosenthal, Conservative Judaism: Patterns of Survival 2nd ed. (New York, 1986), p. 160.

68.

69. 70

Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, p. 261.

. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 235.

71.

rosenblum, Conservative Judaism, p. 160, terms it “slow and insubstantial.”

Cf. Marshall Sklare. Conservative Judaism: An American Religious Movement (New York, 1972), especially pp. 66-82.

72.

73.

Sarna and Sarna. “Jewish bible Scholarship,” pp. 93-94.

on the development of American Jewish history in Adler's era. see Jeffrey Gurock, American Jewish History: A Bibliographical Guide (New York, 1983). pp. xv-xviii. 74.

75. Cf. Adler's disparagement of the proceedings of Zionist meetings, based upon Austrian Parliamentary rules, reported in Lipsky, Memoirs in Profile, p. 272.

Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality

85

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940 I. Introduction Cyrus Adler (1863-1940)2 became temporary president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America after the death of Solomon Schechter in 1915. He was appointed president on a permanent basis in 1924 and served in that office until he died in April, 1940. Adler was one of the most prominent American Jewish leaders in that crucial period between the 1890s and the onset of the Second World War when American Jewry rose to a leading place on the world Jewish scene. He was born in Arkansas in 1863, but moved to the East at an early age. Growing up in Philadelphia, he became a student and disciple of rabbi Sabato Morais, one of the leading advocates of the founding of the Jewish Theological Seminary and its first president. Adler was strongly attached to Morais and to the traditionalist Judaism he represented. It is significant, however, that Adler, as strongly drawn to Judaism as he was, apparently never considered the rabbinate as a career. It is possible to speculate that, as Morais' disciple, he would not have considered attending Hebrew Union College, while the only alternative at the point he might have entered rabbinical training, in the early 1880s, would have been a European seminary.3 This was also a time, as robert Crunden stated,”in which the ministry was unattractive and the university a place of fabled possibilities, long dreamed of but as yet untried.”4 Thus when Adler graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1883, he determined to serve the cause of Judaism by pursuing a doctorate in Semitics at the newly founded Johns Hopkins University in baltimore. His purpose, as he recalls it, was to counter the effects of the new “higher criticism”of the Hebrew bible by creating a scientifically accurate”biblical archaeology”which would serve to validate the bible and thus strengthen Judaism.5 In 1887, he received his doctorate from Johns Hopkins, the first Ph.D. in Semitics granted by an American institution. Upon receiving his doctorate, he began an academic career as as-

86

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

sistant to his Professor, Paul Haupt, at Johns Hopkins. However, he was unable to sustain his career in this field. Despite considerable effort, he was unable to secure a permanent university position and his plans for mounting an archaeological expedition to the Middle East came to naught. Instead, in 1892, he was able to secure the position of librarian at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. He became an academic administrator who rose in the ranks until he became Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian in 1905. He had, at the same time, achieved a leadership position in the creation of a number of American Jewish institutions such as the Jewish Publication Society, the American Jewish Historical Society and the American Jewish Committee.6 As a disciple of Sabato Morais, Adler certainly was interested in the founding of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in 1886, though he did not take a prominent leadership position with the Seminary in Morais' lifetime. He was, however, able to gain an audience at Morais' Seminary for his ideas on biblical Archaeology. Adler thus gave a course of lectures on “biblical Archaeology” at the Seminary in 1888, commuting to New York from Washington weekly. This course was repeated sporadically during Morais' tenure.7 II. role in reorganization our perception of the “reorganization” of the Seminary in 1901/2 is largely shaped by Cyrus Adler's accounts of what happened, accounts in which he played a major role. Whether his recollection that it was Adolphus S. Solomons who took the initiative in this matter was correct,8 or whether his later version, giving himself a more central role,9 was truer to the facts, Adler was clearly an important factor in the group planning the Seminary's “reorganization”. Though he had no money to contribute to the scheme he had three things of great importance to offer. As a disciple of Sabato Morais as well as a friend of Solomon Schechter, he offered a point of continuity between the Seminary's past and its future. He had academic credentials among a group of men whose expertise was otherwise almost entirely in business and the law. Finally, as a traditionally religious Jew, among a group of men almost all of whom were formally identi-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

87

fied with the reform movement, he offered a commitment to the traditions of rabbinic Judaism. For the leaders of the “reorganization”, like Louis Marshall, it was Adler, no less than Schechter, who served as a guarantor for the continued traditionalist orientation of the Seminary. Part of the bargain which brought Solomon Schechter to the Seminary as its president, made Adler president of the board of Trustees. Schechter was to be brought to America in order to concentrate on developing the intellectual and spiritual resources of the Seminary. He was, however, known to be disinterested in and inadept at the day-today administration of an academic establishment. That administration was to be Adler's job and it necessitated his splitting his time between his work at the Smithsonian in Washington and the Seminary in New York.10 Adler's role as board president was, therefore, a more active one than would otherwise have been the case. Whereas Schechter was given a fairly free hand with important decisions concerning faculty hiring and similar matters, he was given no fiscal leeway at all. Even the smallest of Seminary expenditures had to be countersigned by Adler, as President of the board, in order to be valid. It is also significant, in understanding the power of the Seminary's self-perpetuating board, to realize that, according to the Seminary's charter from the State of New York, in a legal sense, it was not Schechter and his faculty that granted the rabbinical degrees. They had, to be sure, the prerogative to formally recommend candidates for the rabbinate to the board, but it was the board that actually granted the degrees. This remained the administrative situation of the Seminary until 1905, when Adler's promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian, as well as his marriage, made his continuing to split his time between Washington and New York highly impractical. Thus the post of President of the board was transferred to the hands of Louis Marshall. This meant that the fiscal administration of the Seminary was put in the hands of one of the busiest man in New York, who gave direction to the Seminary in the moments he could spare from his work and the numerous other causes he advocated. III. President of Dropsie College

88

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Adler next impacted on the Seminary in his role as president of Dropsie College. This institution, founded with a generous endowment of some $800,000 from the estate of Moses Dropsie of Philadelphia, was like none other in the world. It was to be a postgraduate institution of Jewish learning with absolutely no connection to theological or rabbinical training. When the Dropsie will was published, there were numerous opinions with respect to the form the Dropsie endowment was to take and just as many opinions concerning the person who was to head it.11 Ultimately, Adler was given the post. When Cyrus Adler was named president of Dropsie College in 1908, it marked the end of what had been for him a long and satisfying career at the Smithsonian. There, however, he had no further room for advancement. When Smithsonian Secretary Samuel P. Langley died in 1905, Jacob Schiff had asked Adler whether he wished to have him utilize his influence on his behalf for the post of Secretary. Adler realized that, as a scholar in the humanities, he would not be suitable as the head of the Smithsonian and he declined Schiff's offer.12 When The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning opened its doors in Philadelphia in 1909, it was clear that there were some tensions between the Seminary and the new institution. Schechter, Schiff, and Marshall were afraid that Dropsie, with a considerably larger endowment than the Seminary had at the time, would take the place in American Jewish scholarship that they felt the Seminary should have.13 Moreover some members of the Seminary faculty objected to the fact that Adler, who, whatever his academic credentials, was not considered by them to be a “Jewish” scholar, had been appointed president of an institution for “Jewish” scholarship and was, furthermore, co-editor, with Schechter, of the American new series of the Jewish Quarterly Review.14 This was particularly an issue with Israel Friedlaender, who had actively sought the presidency of Dropsie College for himself.15 When Adler became president of the Jewish Theological Seminary, he would encounter these attitudes and had to deal with them.

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

89

IV. Acting President of the Seminary: Appointment Solomon Schechter died in November, 1915, without having made clear provision for his succession, despite the fact that his health had been clearly fragile for some time.16 There were several members of the Seminary faculty who felt that they should be appointed president to succeed Schechter. These included Louis Ginzberg, senior member of the faculty, to whom Schechter had given previously given authority to run Seminary affairs in his absence,17 Israel Friedlaender, who had been given similar responsibilities,18 and Mordecai Kaplan.19 All of them certainly possessed qualifications for the presidency yet each one of them was unacceptable to the board for various reasons. Ginzberg was known as a brilliant scholar who could not, however, communicate well with laypeople and did little to disguise his contempt for the common run of American Jews and their rabbis.20 Friedlaender was a much better communicator, who had great ambitions for the intellectual and spiritual leadership of American Jewry. However World War I was raging and Friedlaender's pro-German views, even in a then formally neutral United States, counted decisively against him.21 Kaplan, like Friedlaender, had leadership ambitions with respect to American Jewry. However he was very much an odd man out at the Seminary. His appointment would have alienated others on the Seminary faculty, particularly Ginzberg.22 If, then, Schechter's successor could not be an “inside” appointment, there was a need to appoint a caretaker until such time as a suitable candidate could be agreed upon. on November 21, 1915, immediately after Schechter's death, the board of Trustees met to appoint a temporary administration for the Seminary until the next board meeting on December 19. As had been done during Schechter's sabbatical, Louis Ginzberg was placed in charge of “scholastic supervision” and Israel Friedlaender was given Schechter's other responsibilities. The board also appointed a committee on the “future of the Seminary”consisting of Louis Marshall, Herbert Lehman, Mayer Sulzberger, Charles Hoffman, and Adler.23 The decision of the committee, ratified by the board on December 19, was that Adler “should act as President of the Seminary temporarily pending the election of a successor to Doctor Schechter” beginning in January, 1916.24

90

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Adler was doubtless perceived by the board as an ideal temporary fill-in. He was a member of the board who, as president of the board from 1901-1905, had first hand experience with the day-to-day running of the institution. He had academic qualifications which, even if they were not especially appreciated by the Seminary faculty, certainly impressed the board. His relationship with Sabato Morais and his close friendship with Schechter meant continuity with the Seminary's past. As well, his leadership position in the circles of the American Jewish Committee meant to the members of the board that Adler was “one of them” and could be trusted to do the “right thing” in a way that no one on the Seminary faculty could. As Adler himself summed up these factors at the 1916 Seminary Commencement: The directors, upon whom the very heavy responsibility was laid of finding a man to take up this work considered it neither prudent nor wise to endeavor to reach an immediate conclusion and they asked me temporarily to give an oversight to the conduct of the Seminary.25 It was patently clear that, when Adler was first appointed, the appointment was sincerely intended to be for just a few months. Thus when Adler received permission from the board of Directors of Dropsie College to assume the temporary Presidency of the Seminary, it was emphasized that the appointment was to be for a few months only, presumably in order to ensure a smooth transition of power.26 In fact, the very last thing Adler felt he needed at that time was another presidency. As he had stated in a letter to Jacob Schiff written just one day before Schechter's death: I may say to you for your information that several months ago I announced that I would not accept reelection as President of the [Philadelphia] Community...and I am proposing to give up an number of other presidencies of which I have held too many.27 Moreover, Adler clearly understood that “the head of the Seminary should be a rabbi who had Semicha.”28 Thus in the spring of 1916, the board appointed a special committee to consider filling the Presidency on a permanent basis and asked the Seminary's faculty and

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

91

alumni for suggestions.29 However at that very time it was increasingly becoming clear that there would be no decision on a permanent president any time soon. Apparently, neither the Seminary Faculty nor the Alumni could agree on a successor and no names were forwarded to the committee.30 As Louis Marshall put it: The practical difficulty...presented itself of finding [someone] who combined sufficient religious authority, recognized standing in the ranks of Jewry and administrative ability to take charge of our growing institution.31 With no really suitable candidate for the presidency in sight, on July 26, 1916, Adler ordered Joseph b. Abrahams, the secretary of the Seminary “to place my own name as Acting President in the [Seminary] register as no provision has been made for any other president as yet.”32 Adler's name would remain in that register as president for nearly a quarter century. Adler's relations with the Seminary faculty did not get off to a good start. Adler had agreed with Marshall that the latter would write an official letter to the faculty before he made his first appearance at the Seminary in his new role.33 However, through a mixup in communications, Adler's appointment was reported in the New York Times before Marshall was able to inform the faculty officially and this, as Alexander Marx wrote to Adler, “we could not but take as a slight to the Faculty.”34 This initial reaction by the faculty was a sign of a future in which Adler's relationship with key members of the Seminary faculty would often be strained. V. State of the Seminary The Seminary Adler took over was an institution in fragile health. Since its “reorganization”in 1901/2 it had been charged with a number of tasks practically impossible to achieve under the conditions then prevailing in American Jewry. It was supposed to religiously unite an American Jewry which was in the process of becoming ever more disunited; to take an almost entirely European-trained faculty, with an uneven command of spoken English,35 to train English-speaking traditionalist rabbis. Much was expected of the charismatic

92

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

leadership of Solomon Schechter. However American Jewry's “honeymoon” with Schechter was clearly over by the time of his death. In essence, unrealistic expectations which were not realized and support which was slow in materializing created among many an atmosphere nearly of despair by the end of Schechter's life. Schechter himself gave expression to this when he wrote in 1913: It is a terrible thing to see one's hopes and aspirations shattered to pieces. For I cannot help feeling that the Seminary is in a sadly struggling condition.36 When Schechter died, was the Seminary going to be able to continue in its mission? There were many doubters. Louis Finkelstein recalled in 1940 that: when Doctor Schechter died, I was a freshman student at the Seminary, but I recall vividly the general feeling that with his death, the Seminary would cease to be an influence in American life.37 Despite these apparently widespread feelings of gloom, Adler came to the leadership of the Seminary convinced of the potential of the Seminary to become a major force in American Judaism. In his address at the 1915 Seminary commencement, Adler had expressed his understanding “that if Judaism was to be perpetuated in America provision must be made for an educated ministry.”38 by thus echoing the rationale of the seventeenth-century founders of Harvard College, Adler was indicating that he was looking at the Seminary in a decidedly American context. The Seminary was to serve as an integral part of his vision of the intellectual and spiritual strengthening of American Jewry. He would in fact present a plan in the next year to embody this vision through a coordination of the programs of the Seminary and the Teachers' Institute in New York as well as the Dropsie College and Gratz College in Philadelphia in order to form a “Jewish University of America”.39 In taking up the duties of office, Adler settled into a routine which was to last him the rest of his life. While major decisions and policies were in all cases determined by him, he attempted to leave as many routine details as possible in the hands of subordinates, such

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

93

as the secretary of the Seminary, Joseph b. Abrahams, and trusted faculty members such as Israel Davidson and, later, Louis Finkelstein.40 Adler had only a part-time presence in New York; his home base remained Philadelphia. He usually came to New York, on Seminary and other business, twice a week, sometimes oftener. In one description of his habits, he stated: It is always a great convenience to be able to attend to my business in Philadelphia in the morning and take the 11 o'clock train over to New York which gets in at 12.50 and enables me to reach any point down-town at 1 o'clock.41 Staying overnight, he was able to spend parts of four days a week in New York while spending most nights at his Philadelphia home.42 As he wrote to Marshall: I find that most of my papers [for the Seminary] are handled here [Philadelphia]--my visits to the Seminary being almost exclusively for visitors–they seem to have a special way of finding out that I am there.43 Initially, he served the Seminary without compensation, and was merely reimbursed for his travelling expenses and accommodations in New York.44 The problems Adler faced as he began his temporary presidency of the Seminary were manifold. The board of Directors of the Jewish Theological Seminary, after its “reorganization”, was designed to be a self-perpetuating body45 largely representative of elite Jewish groups in New York and Philadelphia.46 While the board had its definite strengths, one glaring weakness was the fact that it could exercise its tight control of the fiscal and other affairs of the Seminary only in the time its very busily engaged members could spare from their other duties. Adler, who was one of their number, found, upon assuming office, that the board had been acting somewhat haphazardly as far as corporate administration was concerned. Thus Adler commented to Marshall, “the records of the Corporation are very incomplete indeed.”47 In point of fact, important matters were being handled so informally that Adler complained to Marshall:

94

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

There is no central office which follows up the entire question of our income, and no Treasurer's statement as far as I can recall (certainly not for years) has been submitted... Without being sure of it, yet I am reasonably certain that due to the lack of any centralization at all, and a follow-up system, we are not getting all that we might, and even if we were I do not think that the present method would be creditable to an institution like ours. I know that my training is far away from financial matters, but in other institutions with which I have to do I have much better knowledge, at least, of what is their financial condition.48 Thus, one of the first things Adler attempted after he became president was to repatriate some of the financial record-keeping from the hands of the board of Directors to the Seminary office.49 The endowment money raised during the Seminary's reorganization had never been sufficient to ensure the deficit-free running of the institution. It was, moreover, becoming much harder to make ends meet given the high wartime rate of inflation. As Adler took the helm of the institution, he saw clearly that the previous method, whereby the Seminary's annual deficit, in the order of some $10,000, was made up through contributions by the members of the board, was inadequate under present circumstances.50 In attempting to resolve this problem and others which came up from time to time, Adler generally succeeded in maintaining a harmonious relationship with the Seminary board. on the other hand, it was quite clear that the Seminary could no longer afford to be the private charitable hobby of the board. How was the Seminary to achieve financial stability? Adler's approach to the problem was twofold. on the one hand, he sought to reactivate popular interest in, and contributions to the Seminary from a broader public while also calling on major donors to increase the Seminary's endowment from its current level of approximately $600,000 to at least $1,000,000 (though he felt an endowment of $2,000,000 was truly necessary). This increase in the endowment, he felt, “is absolutely necessary now if we are to maintain the Seminary at its proper level and it will not provide for the growth of the future.”51 The Seminary's basic problem then and throughout the years

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

95

of Adler's presidency was to be its inadequate financial base. A large part of Adler's mission would be to attempt to find a balance between the large gifts of the wealthy few and the smaller gifts which could be obtained from a broad-based support by American Jews. It was a balance he would never quite achieve. Adler began his term in office with an attempt to do some fresh “propaganda work” for the Seminary, which he hoped would result in substantially increased donations. In attempting to figure out what the most efficient way to finance the Seminary was, his first instinct told him that he would have to go beyond the immediate circle of the rich men on the board of Directors. His initial efforts to broaden the Seminary's financial support were not very successful, however, and his experience impelled him to advocate hiring a professional fundraiser “in place of our previous amateur efforts”.52 In these”amateur efforts”to gain popular support, Adler was largely dependent upon the rabbinical alumni of the Seminary,53 and he was, relatively speaking, disappointed with them.54 This experience led him to conclude, as he stated in a report to the board, that: While the Seminary will be somewhat aided by general public subscriptions, such aid will never form a material part of the support of the Seminary. Institutions of Learning are practically never anywhere supported by general, popular subscriptions.55 Part of the problem, of course, was that the Seminary, which in theory looked to a national constituency, enjoyed real strength of support mainly in New York and Philadelphia.56 Indeed in a listing of the results of the Seminary fundraising campaign of 1924, receipts were $314,789.34 for the New York metropolitan areas and $253,985.07 for the rest of the country, including, of course, a large contribution from Philadelphia.57 Similarly, in a campaign to enroll new members of the Seminary in 1926, 1193 came from New York City, 226 from Philadelphia and only 167 from the rest of the United States.58 Adler's frustration with the situation is expressed in a letter to Felix Warburg of 1928: ...while the Seminary makes the appeal to the people, the Seminary lacks the machinery to create a campaign, whereas the

96

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

United Synagogue and the rabbinical Assembly, which make no popular appeal, possess the machinery ready made which can easily be mobilized.59 A lot of work remained to be done in this area. beyond the question of finances, there were other things that Adler found had not been communicated between the Seminary and the board. Schechter was apparently somewhat diffident in going to the board with requests for raises in salary. Thus Joseph Abrahams addressed Adler very soon after he took office in this way: Solely because of my attachment to Doctor Schechter and the desire to spare him the unpleasantness of making further encroaches upon the board in the face of the Seminary's financial condition, I hesitated [to ask for a raise in salary].60 Seminary employees had no such hesitation in approaching Adler for these purposes and he found himself the recipient of numerous requests of this nature which were held over from previous years. Another thing Adler found he had to do was to formally establish the relationship between the Seminary and the United Synagogue. While Schechter was president of the Seminary, he had refrained from bringing the congregational organization ultimately called the United Synagogue to the official notice of the board, despite his conviction of the importance of that organization for the cause of Judaism in America, on the ground that “differences of doctrine or practice might bring about discord if practical problems relating to Congregational life in America were brought before this board.”61 It fell to Adler to formally rectify this situation. VI. Adler and the Seminary Faculty Insofar as our sources indicate, Adler began and maintained a generally harmonious working relationship with the board of Directors. As already indicated, however, this was not always the case with the Seminary faculty. both Adler and the Seminary faculty came to their encounter wary of one another. Indeed Adler's very elevation to the office of temporary president meant that he sat at faculty meetings with

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

97

people who not only considered him intellectually their inferior, but also disdained his academic specialization in Semitics as not representing “Jewish”scholarship.62 For several key members of the faculty, moreover, he also symbolized the frustration of their own ambitions.63 Adler knew that he had to work with these people, for as he wrote to Louis Ginzberg at the inception of his temporary presidency, “without [your] support any efforts of mine would be futile.”64 Nonetheless, he already had had occasion to comment to Schechter, with particular reference to Louis Ginzberg: Many of our scholars are terrible egoists and do not understand the real difficulties we have in building up institutions in the face of an environment largely indifferent and often hostile.65 For his part, Ginzberg was, in his son's words: disturbed that the Seminary, which had the opportunity and responsibility to play a leadership role in American Jewish life, suddenly had at its helm a man incapable of providing such leadership.66 The faculty came ultimately to a modus vivendi with Adler because they respected his access to the board and the power he wielded on such vital questions as salary raises which went through him. Their relationship with Adler was almost always at least “correct”, and sometimes even cordial,67though some of them persisted in their resentment of someone who was not a”Jewish”scholar and not even a rabbi sitting in Solomon Schechter's seat. The fact that Adler retained the sole editorship of the Jewish Quarterly Review as well as the presidency of Dropsie College along with the leadership of the Seminary also helped to spawn some resentment as well as an abortive plan to start a rival to JQR based at the Seminary.68 resentment and jealousy of Adler were not universal among the faculty, however. one faculty member Adler seems to have gotten along with fairly well was Israel Davidson who, in a certain sense, seems to have served as his advisor in the early years of his presidency and his representative on campus while he was in Philadelphia. For example, Adler wrote to Davidson asking his advice concerning the necessity of his presence for the opening of the

98

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

1916/7 academic year and, if so, whether he had to address the students.69 Alexander Marx, who seemed to harbor no ambition to become head of the Seminary and whose leadership in building up the Seminary library saw no challenge from Adler, also seems to have gotten along fairly well with the new president. Mordecai Kaplan was problematic for Adler in several ways. Adler, who was in most respects a staunch traditionalist, clearly disliked those who, like Israel Friedlaender and Mordecai Kaplan, held what he considered to be somewhat non-traditional views concerning Judaism and its place on the American scene. Certainly he was uncomfortable with many of Kaplan's views on Judaism. Commenting on Kaplan's efforts in founding his organization, the “Society for the renaissance of Judaism”, Adler commented, “As for the Society of the renaissance I consider its platform not so much dangerous as childish”. Adler further expressed his opinion of Kaplan's theories to Marshall: I am afraid that Doctor Kaplan is a man who is very full of theories and that we may not expect much wise advice from him.70 Though Adler defended Kaplan to Jacob Schiff, who was concerned about press reports of his speech at the 1916 Seminary Commencement, on the grounds that the reporting had been inadequate, he nonetheless wished to make it clear that he disagreed with Kaplan's views and concluded, “I considered Doctor Kaplan's address very much out of place.”71 The reason Adler persisted in defending Kaplan despite basic disagreement with his views stemmed from Adler's deeply held support for the principles of free speech and academic freedom.72 As he wrote Kaplan: We are all modern men, we do not engage in inquisitions or heresy hunting and we are brought up in the general doctrine of academic freedom...We have all been personal friends and we must continue to be, but I think we are civilized enough to recognize and even discuss our differences without destroying our friendships.73 Adler also preferred, if possible, not to give Kaplan the further aura of martyrdom. As he put it:

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

99

I am very much opposed to an inquisition or to heresy hunting... if an issue is now made with Doctor Kaplan, he will become a martyr.74 As Principal of the semi-autonomous Teacher's Institute, Kaplan was, leaving aside his views on Judaism and its future, often a thorn in Adler's and Marshall's side, as will be seen. In general it must be said that, if the Seminary faculty in the years of Adler's presidency could be described as a “family”,75 Adler was never a full member and, at best, suffered the ambivalent relationship afforded a step parent. VII. The Student body When Adler entered office, he found the organization of the student body no less haphazard than the organization of the Seminary's finances. Schechter's long suit had never been administrative detail and Adler came across instances of Seminary students of whom the Seminary had no record. Schechter had admitted them “without recording the fact”.76 As Adler commented in a 1918 letter, “we really must have a more definite system of deciding who is to be carried as a student...[it is] now more or less a matter of chance.”77 As far as the rabbinical students of the Seminary were concerned, Adler thought of them as “a fine group of young men, intelligent, well prepared in the main and studious and all endowed with a zeal for Judaism”. However he also noted that they were being given too little individual attention because of the large size of the senior class, then numbering forty-three. He therefore successfully advocated a system of graded classes.78 These graded classes, in both the Junior and Senior levels, were instituted in 1917, and involved the hiring of new instructors to implement the lowering of class size.79 As he analyzed the students, Adler found that they basically fell into two groups: one group...has an intimate acquaintance with Jewish literature...is composed of men who have been brought up in Yeshivas abroad, who have hastily acquired a College degree, who may be excellent Talmudists, not very good biblical scholars and entirely 100

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

unsuspicious of such a thing as Hebrew grammar. The other group, born in America, or ...bred here, has a good all around training in secular knowledge, practically no Talmud, some bible, and a good knowledge of Hebrew grammar and a fair knowledge of Jewish history, the men having availed themselves of the best that they could get in our improving Hebrew schools...80 overall, Adler saw that the most serious handicap the students were working under was their inability to devote full-time to their studies. As he put it: It very seldom happens that the student is the son of a rich man. He usually has to make his own way and not infrequently help in the support of a family. He generally has to work four or five hours a day at least in order to make his living.81 It was apparent to Adler that the way to fix this situation would be to have scholarships available to rabbinical students of sufficient value as to enable them to study full-time without having to worry about earning their living at the same time. With respect to Seminary student life, one of Adler's most important moves was his advocacy of dormitory facilities, which, at the time of the Seminary's “reorganization”, he had originally opposed.82 When he became temporary president, he changed his mind on this issue and a Seminary dormitory began to become a reality in 1918.83 The Seminary under Adler stood for a program of the americanization of traditional Judaism. This became evident in many details, large and small. Thus Adler ordered a change in the title of a course in the Seminary calendar from the transliterated Hebrew “Hazanuth” to “Synagogal Practices”.84 Similarly, Adler had some ambivalence in dealing with the Eastern European immigrant background of so many of the Seminary's students. The Seminary, as he saw it, was an institution founded to train “American” rabbis, and any deviation from this ideal would not be countenanced. Indeed, Adler was under some pressure to “Americanize”the students. For instance, A.S. Isaacs wrote Adler in 1920, “I wish to heaven your Seminary would attract more of the distinctly American type.”85 Thus one great concern that Adler and the Seminary faculty shared was with respect to the foreign accents of many applicants. Among the reasons for rejection of can-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

101

didates for the rabbinate in the Adler years were “does not speak English correctly” in one case, and “appearance questionable; foreigner; unlikely to succeed in rabbinate”in another.86 Even when admitted, the persistence of accents in students was enough to merit the attention of the faculty and it was mandated that students be warned about their accents and, at least in one case, it was decided by the faculty that if the student showed no improvement in his accent, he would be asked to leave the Seminary.87 The real place of origin of many of the Seminary's graduates was not a fact to be publicized and in fact Adler instructed that, in the 1916 Commencement program, it was “not advisable or necessary to give the date or place of [the graduates'] birth.”88 Another institutionalized feature of the “americanization” program of the Seminary were the elocution lessons which, however, were often skipped by the very same students of foreign birth for whom they had been principally designed.89 The student body of the Seminary in the Adler administration was often swayed by the radical politics which affected all college educated young Jews in that era. Adler was not terribly concerned by this and took the view that: As to offsetting the socialistic or non-religious attitude of the University...We are passing through a period of radical thought which will probably spend itself–there are signs of this already. Judaism has survived other forms of attack and will survive this one.90 To many if not most of the Seminary students, Adler was a distant figure, who seemed to be on campus “about twice a month”.91 Adler, however, felt that he knew most of the students personally.92 At best, however, he seems to have interacted with them on a formal basis fairly infrequently. He taught but little but did give occasional lectures to the students, as when in 1927 he was invited to give the lecture on “Tact”in a series of talks on “The Practical Problems of the Ministry”.93 Many Seminary students resented the onerous class attendance requirements and often absented themselves, despite efforts by the faculty to control the situation.94 In 1927, student dissatisfaction with this as well as other things came to a head. When the students agreed

102

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

among themselves to petition Adler for a revision of the curriculum, all those in the student deputation were nervous and one of them, out of sheer fright, refused at the last moment to accompany the others. Adler heard the delegation and their proposals. The delegation, led by Milton Steinberg, did not feel that their proposals would receive serious consideration. However Adler did raise the issue at the next meeting of the faculty and certain changes to the curriculum were decided there.95 Adler referred to this in his address at the following rabbinical Assembly convention: Do not for a moment suppose that the faculty of the Seminary is without advice...We have a very alert body of students at present who, from time to time tell us how they think their Seminary training should be improved, and the Faculty, like the reasonable men that they are, give heed to these suggestions. Sometimes they adopt them and sometimes they do not.96 VIII. rabbinical Placement one of Adler's major tasks when he took over the presidency of the Seminary was the placement of rabbis, a task in which he was wholly inexperienced.97 He was up against a formidable challenge. When the Seminary was founded, it was set up to train rabbis for congregations which did not then exist in large numbers. Congregations requiring English-speaking spiritual leaders were mostly reform in affiliation and orientation while orthodox congregations, when they could afford to pay for rabbinic leadership, mostly preferred Yiddishspeaking, European-trained men. A great deal of spadework was needed in order to place Seminary graduates in proper positions. Thus Adler wrote to Jacob Schiff of the necessity of: teaching the immigrant population and the first generation born in this country that the Jewish tradition can be preserved in this country and that there is something else than the type of the congregation of the small town in Eastern Europe.98 For these reasons, and more, rabbinical placement was crucial and Adler seems to have spent a great deal of his time in that endeavor,99 trying to match the Seminary's graduates with congregations looking

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

103

for a spiritual leader who would be, in the words of one congregation, “very presentable in appearance, a forcible speaker, especially in English...who knows Talmud...[and] can attract the younger generation”.100 In fact, as he confided to Jacob Schiff: ...the curious thing is that at present the head of the Seminary becomes an advisor to congregations and their rabbis and has to take up their problems because there is no strong organization to which they can go. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that fully 25 percent and at certain times of the year 50 percent of the time that I have been able to give to the Seminary during the past three years has been devoted to interviews with the former graduates of the Seminary or with the officers of their congregations.101 He had to deal with delicate situations, such as one in which the Seminary rabbinical diploma was not recognized by an orthodox congregation,102 and yet another in which an individual had acquired a rabbinical post on the basis of a forged Jewish Theological Seminary degree.103 He also took upon himself the demanding task of assessing the differing needs of the new graduates of the Seminary who were competing for positions with older graduates, and determining whether an individual congregation seeking a rabbi was too far into the reform camp,104 or whether “there is hope of bringing it into fairly conservative lines”.105 He sometimes also used his influence discretely to strengthen the hands of traditionalists in congregational debates concerning the introduction of organs and mixed choirs.106 His attitude toward ritual change is expressed in a letter he wrote to rabbi Solomon Goldman: If the attitude of the Seminary means anything to you, it would be not at any time to force or even encourage changes in the ritual or the practice of a Congregation. We have not refused the fellowship of the Conservative Congregation, but it has not been our purpose to depart from the main stream of rabbinic Judaism. I recognize that we cannot control either the rabbis or the Congregations, but I have always hoped that the result of the Seminary's teaching would be the maintenance of the traditional worship.107

104

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Adler was also proactive in placement in the sense that he often thought strategically concerning the ways in which the Seminary could gain new congregations. Thus, upon hearing of the organization of a new congregation in Philadelphia, Adler wrote them “and offered my advice and assistance in securing a rabbi as well as their organization in general.”108 He also tried to see to the placement of the right senior rabbis in order to further the Seminary's cause in major centers of Jewish population, such as Cleveland.109 by 1917, Adler had begun to obtain fairly good results for his efforts and he was able to report: No Seminary man who desires a pulpit is at present without one...These facts indicate both the growing reputation of the Seminary and the growing needs of the Congregations. At one time it was feared that the number of Seminary students was too large and that they might not be able to find positions. This fear is dispelled...110 In 1919, Adler was able to state in a letter to Schiff: These congregations want Seminary men for their rabbis ...whereas ten years ago our graduates had real difficulty in securing a proper place there are now at least twenty congregations waiting for the next Seminary class to be graduated.111 The Seminary alumni, being vitally interested in the issue of placement, asked for a role in the placement process, which was granted them. Thus in 1922, Adler arranged for a joint placement committee consisting of representatives of the rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue and the Seminary faculty to meet with him in dealing with matters of placement.112 on the other hand, as far as Adler was concerned, this body was not terribly helpful in this task. As he wrote: these co-operative arrangements [regarding placement] do not seem to work out very well. If the Seminary is to be in effect responsible for placement, then I would prefer to have it done definitely by the Seminary and have nothing to do with either the rabbinical Assembly or the United Synagogue...as for the rabbinical Assembly, so far as I have been able to see, their contribution has been that of complaint.113

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

105

by 1930 the growth in the number of Seminary alumni to more than 200 severely taxed the ability of the “volunteer”committee headed by Adler which had been doing the work of placement. The Assembly recommended, and Adler concurred, that it was high time to set up a placement service in charge of a paid official.114 The financial crisis of the depression, however, made this an idea that had to be deferred for some years.115 IX. rabbinical Assembly The Seminary's rabbinical alumni often had mixed feelings regarding their alma mater. They were, for the most part, justifiably proud of the scholarly reputation of the Seminary. on the other hand, given the novelty of the task the Seminary was attempting, it was not at all surprising that alumni of the Seminary often found their Seminary training to be inadequate preparation for the practical situations they found in their congregations.116 In his relations with these Seminary alumni, organized after 1918 as the rabbinical Assembly, Adler faced the same sort of ambivalence that he faced with respect to the Seminary faculty. He both was and was not one of them. As Louis Marshall stated, somewhat ingenuously, “It is scarcely proper to speak of Dr. Cyrus Adler as a layman except on the theory that he is not a rabbi”.117 As in his relations with the Seminary faculty, his relations with the rabbinical Assembly were correct but not for the most part really warm. He needed and used the network of Seminary-trained rabbis to help raise money for the Seminary, but did not really look to the rabbinical Assembly for intellectual or spiritual leadership. In particular he was skeptical of the ability of the rabbinical Assembly to effect meaningful change in the nature of American Judaism through its committee on the interpretation of Jewish law. As he stated: I have never been quite clear about the Committee on the interpretation of Jewish law. Somehow or other it always seems to run up a tree and little if anything happens.118 X. The United Synagogue Adler was one of the founders of the United Synagogue of America 106

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

and one of the prime architects of its structure and constitution.119 In doing so, he had to overcome his concern that it might somehow work to the detriment of the Seminary. As he wrote to Schechter in 1912: I believe that if the Conservative Union is formed it will overshadow the Alumni of the Seminary and may even detract somewhat from the Seminary as the authoritative center of Conservative Judaism in this country. At present it stands so because of your personality and not because of its organization and if the Conservative Union should grow to be a strong body the center of gravity would be removed from the Seminary. In conversation and otherwise I told you this repeatedly and I have yielded to your judgement in the matter without being thoroughly convinced.120 once the United Synagogue was launched, Adler became one of its key leaders and succeeded Schechter as president of that organization in 1914. He was, however, never really happy with the organization, though he clearly saw a usefulness in maintaining it in a position subordinate to the Seminary. For Adler, the United Synagogue had a definite and integral place in the group of institutions supporting the Seminary. As he put it: I do not look upon it...at all as something detached from the Seminary. It is a separate organization, but in effect it is our Extension Department and the actual placing of the graduates of the Seminary, both as rabbis and teachers, depends to a considerable extent upon the continued activity of the United Synagogue.121 This opinion did not really change over the years. In 1935, Adler advocated a rethinking and renewal of the United Synagogue. As he stated: I firmly believe that the United Synagogue ought to be maintained and should be made a more useful organization...the United Synagogue has been going on in the same way for quite a number of years. Nearly every organization requires a certain amount of selfstudy and investigation.122 by that point, however, Adler was, as we shall see, having a hard enough time maintaining the Seminary and had little to spare for the Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

107

improvement of the United Synagogue. XI. Teachers' Institute The Teachers' Institute, under the direction of Mordecai Kaplan, was conceived by Adler as an integral part of the Seminary, though relatively less important than the rabbinical school. As he wrote to Schechter, “while I regard the Seminary as a national institution, I do not regard the Teachers' Institute in the same light.”123 This assessment of the Institute's place in the constellation of Seminary institutions was decidedly not shared by Kaplan and his Institute colleagues, who often sought to capitalize on the Institute's semi-autonomous status to chart an independent course. Adler consistently opposed any independent expression on the part of the Institute, such as separate graduations. Moreover, because of the Institute's semiindependent status, there was often friction between Adler and Kaplan on the subject of budgets and fundraising. While the Institute felt that it was not being given its fair share of the Seminary's resources,124 Adler and the board all too often felt that the Institute's actions were detrimental to their own.125 There were also curricular disagreements, as over the prominence of Modern Hebrew literature at the Institute.126 It was a situation made for conflict. As Adler commented to Marshall: I consider the whole question of the administration of the Teachers' Institute to be one involving serious difficulty which is likely greatly to increase if a definite understanding is not reached. The Teachers' Institute is in charge of a very ambitious man which is in itself a good thing. The committee which has supervision over it is a Committee with practically unlimited powers but not financial responsibilities and is not directly amenable to the board of Directors of the Seminary. In this brief statement you have all the possibilities of trouble both financial and otherwise.127 Thus, for example, in 1916 Kaplan made major purchases for the Teachers Institute without previous budgetary authorization and agreed to a rental contract on behalf of the Institute without Adler's knowledge. Adler caustically wrote to Kaplan:

108

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

My anxiety on this subject...lies in the fact that the duty will devolve on me of providing the funds, and I do not feel justified in charging the Seminary with the obligation until I have the sanction of the board of Directors. In this day of universal democracy I find that even in matters of the expenditure of money, the autocratic principle must be abolished.128 Marshall commented to Adler on this subject: I had believed that [Kaplan] was fully aware of the fact by this time that the Teachers' Institute is not his private enterprise; that it is an integral part of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America–is conducted by it, maintained by it, and controlled by it. The board of Directors must be permitted to exercise its powers and perform its duties without interference on his part, and the educational policies and curriculum are not to be determined by him alone. If he is disposed to resent the assertion of these principles by the board of Directors, much as I should regret any severance of our relations, he must be made to understand that it is he, and not the board, that will have to withdraw.129 Yet another issue between Adler and the Institute involved the Institute's independent physical presence in a building a considerable distance from the Seminary, whereas Adler advocated the housing of the Institute in the same building as that housing the Seminary.130 Adler remained concerned that the Teachers Institute, which by the mid 1920s was in competition with several other institutions for Jewish teacher training in New York City, should keep its competitive edge. Nonetheless, while he entertained the proposal of the faculty of the Institute to make it possible for it to grant degrees, he was not, by his own admission, a strong advocate of the idea.131 Adler was, in short, somewhat sympathetic with the idea of the Institute while nonetheless having serious reservations about the independent course plotted by the Institute's leadership. For him, the Teachers' Institute was to be a part of the Seminary–though a subordinate one. When, during the Depression years, the Seminary as a whole went through painful budgetary contractions, we will see that the Teachers' Institute took a quite disproportionate share of the cuts. XII. Proposed Merger with Yeshiva

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

109

one of the hardest things for the Seminary to do was to define its relationship with orthodox Judaism. Though the people associated with the Jewish Theological Seminary asserted that they offered a platform opposed to reform Judaism, the relationship of the Seminary to orthodoxy was left fuzzy. Was the Seminary “orthodox”or not? No definitive answer had yet been given though it was clear that many Eastern European rabbis and their followers tended to look askance at some of the things the Seminary and its professors seemed to stand for. Adler was one of those Seminary supporters who felt that the Seminary embodied the form of orthodoxy which had a chance of lasting in America. As such, he deeply resented the efforts of some Eastern European orthodox Jews to create their own rabbinical seminary which could only take away from the Seminary's already inadequate base of support. It is, therefore, perfectly understandable that Adler did not have a great deal of respect for the rabbi Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva, called in English the rabbinical College of America, headed by bernard revel. Just prior to Schecter's death, Adler advised him: There is, of course, no occasion for your attending the dedication of revel's institution. I would not put myself out to go either. However I have an idea that it may result in training students for the Seminary.132 revel's rabbinical College did not go away, and the idea of merging the Seminary and the Yeshiva arose fairly soon in Adler's presidency. bernard revel's brother-in-law, S.r. Travis, began by proposing a reorganization of the Seminary so as to have an orthodox rabbinical figure at its head and to revamp the curriculum so that it would prepare students for orthodox semicha. Marshall and Adler reacted generally favorably to this proposal and Travis was offered a seat on the Seminary board. However the negotiations did not get very far at that point. Soon afterward, though, a merger proposal between the two institutions was floated. Adler believed in the possibility of cooperation with the orthodox and even a merger “if it did not involve an alteration of our standards of secular education and did not involve the taking over of the faculty of the rabbinical College”.133 Adler was not, however, looking for a partnership of equals.

110

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

He always retained the idea that “the Yeshivah has a function to perform and that it can usefully aid in training men for the rabbinical calling up to a certain point, in effect as a preparatory school...”134 Widespread propaganda within orthodox circles for the rabbinical College and against the Seminary greatly disturbed Adler.135 Adler was loathe to burn his bridges with orthodoxy and defended the Seminary against criticisms from the orthodox camp regarding the adherence of its graduates to Judaic law and practice while insisting upon the integrity of the Seminary faculty in the certification of its rabbinical graduates.136 one of the most telling criticisms by the orthodox was that the graduates of the Seminary did not deserve the name of”rabbi”since their education did not give them the ability to decide questions of halakha. Adler's response to this was, in 1918, the announcement that the Seminary was prepared to grant the “Hattarath Horaah” degree, giving its recipients equal status with orthodox rabbis,137 with Louis Finkelstein the first at the Seminary to receive this degree. Adler considered the granting of this degree by the Seminary to be: ...of great importance to the Seminary and in general to the rabbinical profession. The Jewish theological seminaries in Europe and in America have not up to the present granted this diploma, the Hattarath Horaah (or Semichah) being the private act of individual rabbis. This form of ordination has resulted in many abuses, and I deem its regularization by an institution of high importance.138 Though the Seminary had never declared itself not orthodox, it was clear to many that a large number of the congregations which were hiring Seminary graduates had in fact deviated from strict orthodoxy. Moses Hyamson, perhaps the most orthodox member of the Seminary faculty, expressed himself to Adler, according to Adler's report of the conversation, in the following way: If God forbid, the Presidency of the Seminary should be offered to me, I could not accept it. I understand very well Doctor Schechter's policy and yours. If a graduate of the Seminary is invited to a Conservative congregation where there is an organ you do not forbid him to go because you realize that a good many of

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

111

these Congregations although they have adopted some changes are in many respects thoroughly Conservative and if the Seminary turned its back upon them you would force them into the reform movement which they themselves do not wish to enter. An orthodox rabbi, especially one like myself who has been Dayan twenty-five years would be going back on his entire record if he gave his sanction to such a step, yet in this country it may be necessary.139 In the 1920s, there were renewed feelers regarding a merger, particularly from prominent orthodox lay leaders like Judge otto rosalsky and Samuel C. Lamport.140 one sticking point in the negotiations was the presence of Mordecai Kaplan, whose ideas on Judaism were by then quite publicly heterodox. Adler attempted to finesse Kaplan's continued tenure at the Seminary by asserting that his role was merely that of instructor in homiletics.141 However the Kaplan roadblock remained. When, in 1927, Mordecai Kaplan submitted a letter of resignation to the Seminary, Marshall commented to Adler that it should have come five years ago and would have saved a great deal of trouble in the negotiations with the Yeshiva.142 Another sticking point in the merger negotiations was the objection of the rabbinical leadership of the Yeshiva, bernard revel and bernard Levinthal.143 Adler, who enjoyed a close personal relationship with rabbi Levinthal, conferred with him in hopes of finding a suitable compromise solution, but to no avail.144 overall, the Seminary board continued to view the merger, under suitable conditions, to be desirable.145 However by 1927, it was increasingly clear that the negotiations had gotten nowhere. Though the doors were never quite formally shut, the two institutions went their separate ways.146 XIII. Hebrew Union College Hebrew Union College was the oldest established rabbinical training school in America. When the Seminary was first established, there were many who felt that there was no room in the United States for more than one rabbinical training institution and sought to foster

112

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

a merger between the Seminary and Hebrew Union College. by the time Adler became president of the Seminary, talk of merger between the two institutions had pretty much ceased. However both sides were conscious that they constituted two institutions doing much the same thing: propagating Jewish scholarship and training rabbis for service in American congregations. Thus there was between them a community of purpose as well as a mostly friendly rivalry. The natural competition between the two institutions led Adler to envy Hebrew Union College's facilities. As he reported in 1925: I arrived in Cincinnati in time to spend some hours at the College and had a very strong temptation to break a Commandment. The physical facilities of the Hebrew Union College are so vastly superior to our own that I can well imagine them as a superior attraction to any young student.147 Adler, for one, sought to learn from Hebrew Union College's experiences even as he differed from it ideologically. As he stated to Jacob Schiff in 1919, reform Judaism had progressed with a structure including the Hebrew Union College, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the Central Conference of American rabbis. He continued: I am never ashamed to learn and hence I feel that the Seminary and its movement can only really prosper if it has two similar subsidiary organizations.148 The Seminary and Hebrew Union College cooperated in many technical matters. They shared information on such things as faculty salaries,149 and pension plans.150 Furthermore, Adler hesitated to be seen to be in competition with HUC for rabbinical students. Thus he wrote Louis Feinberg, a Seminary graduate serving in Cincinnati, that he would not give a certain student a fellowship, because “it would look as though I were bribing a man to leave Hebrew Union College and this, in view of the amicable personal relations which I try to cultivate all around, would certainly be inadvisable.”151 XIV. Jewish Institute of religion

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

113

relations between the Seminary and the Jewish Institute of religion, founded by Stephen Wise, were strained due to the bitter political and personal emnity which existed between Adler and Wise. Even routine matters were affected by this situation.152 Personal bitterness, however, was only part of the story. Whereas Hebrew Union College was located at a comfortable distance from the Seminary, the new institution had opened its doors practically in the Seminary's back yard and, once more, like revel's Yeshiva, threatened the Seminary's monopoly of rabbinical training in New York. relations were not improved when Wise courted Mordecai Kaplan with an offer of appointment to the JIr faculty which was seen by both Adler and Marshall as inimical to the Seminary's interests.153 XV. American Academy for Jewish research The American Academy for Jewish research was made up largely of the faculties of the Seminary and Dropsie College. Adler, in a value judgement on the worth of his “Jewish” scholarship, was given only an “honorary”membership in this body.154 Despite this, he gave the Academy his full cooperation while nonetheless viewing it as not tremendously helpful. Thus, with respect to the proposed celebration of the five-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Don Isaac Abravanel in 1937, Adler confided to Louis Finkelstein: I am a little hesitant about approaching the Academy because I think they would spend so much time in discussing details that the year might be over.155 The Twenties XVI. The Crisis of 1921 In 1921 the Seminary suffered an unprecedented financial crisis. The reason for this crisis lay in a major error made with regard to receipts from the Seminary's fundraising campaign. In May of 1920, Adler had reported to the board that approximately $70,000 had been pledged to the campaign. on the basis of these anticipated funds, the Seminary made large increases in its budget.156 by october of that

114

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

year, however, no more than $25,000 had actually been received and the Seminary's deficit ballooned.157 At the end of the 1920-1921 fiscal year, the Seminary's deficit came to $29,000, exhausting the institution's reserves of $10,000 and forcing the borrowing of $19,000 from the pocket of Louis Marshall and the reduction of the Seminary's budget by $17,000.158 The 1921 financial crisis was so bad that the Seminary's ability to pay its bills was impaired and the Seminary's leadership decided to go public at a meeting held at the Jewish Center. As reported in the New York Times of March 21, 1921, under the title “Seminary for Jews Faces bankruptcy”, the meeting was a plea for funds to cover a deficit of some $50,000 which was the difference between pledges and receipts in the campaign. by the end of the summer, the situation had not changed significantly. Marshall wrote Adler in late August: I am entirely in the dark as to how the Seminary and the Teachers' Institute stand financially and I must therefore have in mind the necessity of saving in every possible direction. I cannot possibly continue to make any further advances. It will be many a day before I shall ever hope to be repaid any substantial part of the $19,000 which I have advanced. I cannot afford to continue in the angelic attitude which I have occupied in the past year...In any event we must cut our coat according to the cloth that we have. We can no longer live on imaginary money.159 Adler himself, faced at this juncture with a request for a raise in salary for the janitor, responded: I cannot tell you how unpleasant it is for me to be obliged to refuse such requests...but when an institution hardly knows from month to month how it will meet its bills, any item added to the budget is a serious matter.160 The Seminary was forced at this point to delay payments on its obligations. Thus Adler, on December 5, 1921, informed Joseph Abrahams that checks just received from Kuhn, Loeb totalling $3624 enabled the Seminary to send out its vouchers from the previous month.161 because of this financial crisis, urgently needed faculty appointments, replacing Solomon Schechter with a professor of Theology and Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

115

Israel Friedlaender, who had been murdered in the Ukraine in 1920, with a Professor of bible, had to be deferred. This deferral had negative effects on a Seminary which was now facing competition from other rabbinical training institutions in New York City, and especially, on the Seminary students. As Adler wrote Marshall: our depleted Faculty is a source of real danger to us in that I fear dissatisfaction on the part of the students if it should be continued and I earnestly hope that by the early autumn, if not sooner, the results of the campaign will be of such a nature as to warrant our making some provision for bible and philosophy this year.162 It was not until the end of December, 1922, that Adler felt confident enough of the Seminary's finances to begin paying Marshall back the $19,000 he had advanced.163 on the principle of “once burned, twice careful”, Adler would not move to increase the Seminary budget again “until the Campaign now under way gets beyond the state of pledge and promise into that of actual performance and realization.”164 XVII. Appointment of Jacob Hoschander The way in which Adler went about filling Israel Friedlaender's chair tells us a number of interesting things concerning Adler and his relationship with the Seminary. As opposed to Schechter, who had appointed a Professor of bible, Israel Friedlaender, whose academic specialty was not biblical studies, Adler, with his background in Semitic studies and his zeal to reclaim the bible for the Jews sought a specialist in bible. He must have felt that this was his chance to begin putting his mark on the Seminary. He was fully conscious of the fact that “the paucity of bible scholars among Jews is a just matter of reproach which we ought to remove,”165 and that the Seminary had not up to then been doing its part to make up this lack. As far as Adler was concerned, Seminary students simply did not know the bible very well at all.166 Indeed, he stated, “I do not recall any [Seminary graduate] who has devoted himself to biblical studies and attained any recognition in them.”167 This was because the students themselves, and the Seminary faculty had the attitude that

116

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

bible was a relatively “easy” subject and its study tended to be ignored.168 For Adler, then, the Chair in bible was potentially the most important position in the Seminary.169 Adler and Friedlaender had never seen eye to eye with respect to major political questions facing the American Jewish community. Adler also had had reservations concerning Friedlaender's pedagogical ability in bible. As he reported in 1920: I myself took the examination last year of Professor Friedlaender's classes and found that our students were far from being up to the mark in the biblical History and Archaeology which I regard as of the greatest importance for a biblical scholar.170 Therefore, Adler was determined to replace him with a truly modern yet traditional bible scholar, whose first loyalty would be to scholarship and not to communal affairs. As he stated in a letter to Joseph Hertz: I am anxious to have a man who will be first and foremost devoted to biblical studies and not be drawn off to any other department of Jewish scholarship or to communal work.171 Among the men Adler considered for the position were M. H. Segal and Samuel Daiches of England and Jacob Hoschander and Jacob Mann of the United States. When he began the process, he seemed to have placed Segal number one on his list, indeed, he had his eye on him since at least 1909.172 He did not prefer Daiches, since he considered Hoschander to be better, nor Mann, because biblical studies was not his specialization.173 Ultimately, however, his choice was Hoschander. Adler had great confidence in Hoschander being able to negotiate the delicate balance between traditional and modern bible study required at the Seminary. As he wrote: I have confidence in Doctor Hoschander's discretion and in the soundness of his views...I have the feeling that while not ignoring the attitude of criticism, our students are apt, unless corrected, to accept what they find printed in the latest book, and I

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

117

feel that Doctor Hoschander will have a perfectly definite view which will correct this attitude.174 Adler knew Hoschander to be “a good Assyriologist and a good bible student...a man of real learning, of great piety and of saintly character,”175 who “was a staunch traditionalist in his private life and in his biblical work ...felt it almost a duty to engage in polemics against the modern biblical criticism.”176 The decision to appoint Hoschander was almost exclusively Adler's responsibility. In this case, Adler was doing no more than following the precedent set by Schechter in his faculty appointments. Adler made his recommendation to the board. The board, in turn, appointed him, along with Marshall and Lehman as a committee with power to make the appointment.177 The faculty, apparently had no voice in the appointment and this fact led to difficulties later on. Adler was indeed sensitive to the fact that Hoschander's appointment “might arouse feelings on the part of other members of the faculty.”178 He was correct in this analysis. Louis Ginzberg, in particular, vehemently opposed Hoschander's appointment.179 Adler tried his best to smooth the waters and, concerning a Faculty meeting soon after Hoschander's appointment, he wrote Davidson: I am a little hesitant about inviting Doctor Hoschander to the meeting...It seems to me that at least for the first six months, or even year of Doctor Hoschander's membership on the Faculty, it would be more advisable that he should get an understanding of our situation rather than aid in making a program.180 Despite these efforts, Hoschander was never fully accepted by the Seminary faculty who thus, in their rebellion, made known to Adler the limits of his power. While the faculty could not prevent Adler from appointing Hoschander, their revolt gained them a voice in future appointments. Summarizing the post-Hoschander relationship between Adler and the Seminary faculty, Louis Finkelstein wrote: I do not recall even a single decision which was taken against the will even of a substantial minority. The Faculty shared in the responsibilities for appointments and promotions; its members were consulted about major steps in administration and devel-

118

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

opment of the institution.181 XVIII. Defining the “Position of the Seminary” one of the most difficult things for the Seminary leadership to do was to define exactly where the Seminary stood within the currents of American Judaism. While, in a general way, it was evident that the Seminary opposed the Pittsburgh Platform which defined American reform Judaism and also was against any attempt at transplanting Eastern European orthodoxy unchanged on American soil, the Seminary, as such, had never really defined its own position with any clarity. Some members of the Seminary faculty, such as Friedlaender and Kaplan, saw this situation as one which had to be remedied. Adler, for his part, shied away instinctively from potentially divisive ideological statements, sensing that a hard-and-fast ideology would tend to jeopardize the Seminary's fragile coalition of supporters. Nonetheless there was a certain demand for an articulation of the “position” of the Seminary which Adler, as its president, could ill afford to ignore entirely. Adler's first recorded attempt at clarifying the “position of the Seminary” came in a draft of a letter to Moses Hymamson prepared at Solomon Schechter's request. In it, Adler stated: This institution is devoted to traditional Judaism. The individual members of the Faculty may differ slightly in their views upon certain points but the institution always acts as a whole...All differences concerning the Seminary...are settled within our own walls.182 In 1919, Adler further defined this position in a letter to Jacob Schiff: The Seminary has a double aspect. It is an institution of learning...From that point of view it may properly claim the support of any Jew. It is also a religious institution with a definite aim in view to preserve the Jewish tradition and make it liveable in modern surroundings. You once called this reasonable orthodoxy. Some

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

119

people call it conservative Judaism. I prefer the name of traditional Judaism or historical Judaism. but whatever it is, it is bound to be attacked from two sides.183 Clearly by 1921, Adler had become quite concerned about the “position” of the Seminary. As he wrote: The people do not differentiate between the Seminary as an institution and the statements made by its professors and graduates...I consider the position of the Seminary, in view of the divisions of opinion that have arisen in the Faculty and among its graduates, to be in a most critical state.184 In 1923, Adler prepared a speech on the “Position of the Seminary” as an address to the rabbinical Assembly at the invitation of its president. In submitting a draft to Louis Marshall for his criticism, he stated: There has been a certain amount of uneasiness on the part of our graduates–no doubt produced by the twitting of their friends in both extreme camps–as well as restlessness from within, that the Seminary had no standpoint and was all things to all men. As you know, some during the past few years have wanted to adopt a creed or platform.185 Yet another reason for Adler to articulate the “position of the Seminary” at this time was the growing competition among American rabbinical seminaries. Whereas at its foundation, the Jewish Theological Seminary had as competition only Hebrew Union College, by the mid 1920s, as Adler put it: There are no longer two theological Seminaries in this country. There are three in New York, and every large city now boasts its own Jeshibah.186 Adler's address, “The Point of View of Judaism Taught in the Seminary”, which became his best known contribution to the literature of Conservative Judaism, was, characteristically, an historical statement of the Seminary's growth and development. Adler was doing two things in this address. First of all, he was declaring that the Judaism which the Seminary taught was not to be understood as supporting any one partisan faction in Judaism. This, of course, was not a new 120

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

message for him. What was new in this was that Adler had placed upon himself the mantle of spokesman for the Seminary. According to Neuman, “The reception which this declaration met among the members of the rabbinical Assembly was the determining factor in his decision finally to accept the mantle of the presidency”.187 Thus this speech presaged his transition from temporary to permanent president of the institution the next year. XIX. Why did Adler's appointment become permanent? In the Spring of 1924, Adler had been temporary president of the Seminary for fully eight years and he had the provision of a permanent president for the Seminary in his mind. As he stated in his report to the board of Directors: The Seminary must at some time soon consider the advisability of having a full-time president...I feel that with the amount of time that I can devote to the Seminary I am not giving its work adequate supervision. To the Teachers Institute I can give practically no supervision at all, and even for whatever brief time I may continue to act as President I think it would be profoundly in the interest of the Seminary if an Assistant to the President were appointed...one of sufficient knowledge and administrative ability who at the same time would be of real service in checking up every aspect of the work.188 From one perspective, Adler, now over sixty and not in terribly good health, seems to have been saying that he wanted to be relieved of his burden as president of the Seminary. However the reasons which prompted his temporary appointment in the first place–the lack of another candidate for the presidency who could gain the confidence of all the parties interested in the office's incumbent–conspired to keep Adler as president, this time in a permanent capacity. The formal initiative for making Adler permanent president of the Seminary came to the board from the Seminary faculty189 and the rabbinical Assembly. The board approved the proposal at its meeting of May 15, 1924.190 Adler may have been gratified at this vote of confidence in his ad-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

121

ministration, but he wished to minimize the difference between his temporary and permanent appointments and did not wish to “make a fuss” about the change in the designation of his title.191 Many at the Seminary, however, were hoping for a change. The hope of the Faculty was that Adler, having been granted permanence in his office, would move permanently to New York and, if he kept the presidency at Dropsie, would periodically commute to Philadelphia. This, however, never happened.192 In the final analysis, probably the best reason for Adler's persistence in office is what he stated in 1930, “I did have the ambition to put this whole place on its feet and then quit.”193 Despite the launching of a new campaign for Seminary endowment in 1923/4, day-to-day finances remained a concern. In August, 1923, Adler informed Marshall that: ...we ended up our fiscal year [end of July] with $840 in the treasury, but that for the remaining five months of the calendar year we shall not have the funds to meet our obligations.194 In the summer of 1924 as well, it was necessary for the Seminary to borrow $10,000 from the endowment fund to tide it over a cashflow problem.195 This “borrowing” from endowment funds to finance current expenditures was a practice the Seminary would follow in succeeding years to its ultimate regret. A year later, in May 1925, the Seminary faced a deficit of nearly $30,000.196 As of January 31, 1926, the accumulated deficit had hit $41,487.27.197 The 1923/4 campaign was reasonably successful, garnering by May, 1924 $940,000 in pledges and over $568,000 in cash, of which well over half came from New York City.198 A year later, fully $826,332.79 had been added to the endowment,199 and Adler optimistically looked forward to a permanent Seminary campaign which would raise fully $5,000,000 in endowment funds.200 This easier financial situation enabled the board to contemplate filling the long awaited chair of Theology.201 The faculty, now having a decided voice in the hiring process of the professor whose chair would bear the magical name of Solomon Schechter, originally nominated Julius Guttmann for this position, but the rabbinical Assembly opposed the

122

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

nomination and it was withdrawn.202 This allowed Adler an opening to make an offer to Louis Finkelstein to become lecturer in Theology with what he hoped would be a sufficient salary ($5,000) to entice him to give up his rabbinical post and devote his full time to the Seminary.203 Finkelstein, however, did not give up his congregation for another several years. In these years, there were many things Adler did in order to publicize the Seminary. These included press releases, publications, public lectures and the establishment of a Jewish Museum. While the Seminary had early begun the exhibition of a few Jewish ceremonial objects, it was Adler, with his extensive experience in museum management acquired at the Smithsonian, who saw to the Seminary's acquisition in 1925 of a large and significant collection of Judaic objects, the benguiat Collection, which formed the core of what Adler called “our...charming little museum”.204 Another area that Cyrus Adler took up with some enthusiasm was the newly popularized medium of radio.205 In 1924, Adler reported to the board that rCA wished to broadcast the upcoming Seminary Commencement.206 In the following years, many of the Seminary's major events were broadcast. Thus, for example, NbC allotted fifteen minutes for the Seminary's semi-centennial celebration,207 while a celebration of Cyrus Adler's seventy-fifth birthday was given a full thirty minutes on the NbC radio Network in 1938.208 XX. Mortar and bricks: the building of the New Campus From the very first days of his Acting Presidency, Adler was aware that the current building of the Seminary, while possibly adequate for the time being, was, especially with respect to the library,209 inadequate for future growth. In his very first report to the board, he stated “I think that the question of a new site is one of great importance. The whole policy, even the teaching policy of the institution is somewhat bound up with it”.210 He was concerned that the Seminary had not been able to spend enough money even to prevent the deterioration of the Seminary's current physical plant.211 by 1923, the Seminary was seriously looking to move from its cur-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

123

rent location at 531-535 West 123rd Street, which, even then, was a neighborhood in need of “improvement”,212 though Felix Warburg still maintained that renovations to that property would suffice.213 That year plans were afoot to build a separate library building and renovate the rest of the property for the Seminary proper.214 However, while negotiations regarding the possible amalgamation of the Seminary and the Yeshivah were ongoing, plans for the new library were put on hold.215 In the meantime, the $1,000,000 bequest of Louis brush to the Seminary put a new dimension on the plans.216 The brush bequest, combined with money the Schiff family donated for a library building and the money the Unterbergs had given for a building for the Teachers' Institute gave the Seminary the opportunity to build a new complex of buildings.217 In 1927 property at the corner of 123rd Street and broadway was acquired.218 The building complex at that site, consisting of the Library, Dormitories, and the Teachers Institute was designed and built in 1928/9. Consistent with the Seminary's mission to produce American rabbis, and in accordance with the provisions of the brush will, the building was designed in “severe colonial style.”219 The building occupied much of Adler's time and energy. As he wrote Marshall after one meeting: I may say incidentally that after the last conference I had with all of these gentlemen [connected with the building project], lasting nearly four hours, I felt more or less competent to referee a prize fight.220 by 1929, after the death of Louis Marshall, it appeared that the financial condition of the Seminary was finally getting on a really sound footing. The Seminary was about to move into a magnificent new complex of buildings with no mortgage obligation. Meanwhile, the institution's endowment funds stood to gain significantly with Julius rosenwald pledging $500,000 of a $5,000,000 Louis Marshall Memorial Fund. However financial security was not to be Adler's lot. The board Meeting at which rosenwald's pledge was announced took place on october 16, 1929, just days before the Stock Market Crash would initiate a particularly traumatic period for the Seminary.221

124

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

The 1930s XXI. The Financial Crisis The financial crisis brought on by the Great Depression brought back with added severity the financial problems the Seminary had seen in the early twenties. With a serious reduction of the Seminary's income, both from endowment funds as well as current donations, deficits and cost cutting became the order of the day. In February, 1930, it was already clear that the situation of the Seminary's finances was unsatisfactory. operating on an endowment of approximately $1,475,000, the Seminary had adopted a budget of some $280,000, which required at least a $2.5 million endowment to sustain it. The board recommended the discontinuation of the practice of employing capital funds for maintenance and the treasurer was authorized to negotiate a loan of up to $500,000 to cover expenses.222 At the June, 1930 meeting of the board it was clear that the deficit for 1929/30 was $60,000 while the coming year would see a deficit of approximately $100,000.223 Adler reported to the convention of the rabbinical Assembly that: We are faced with great financial difficulties. our income from memberships has fallen off by sixty per cent. The few wealthy men who have aided us in the past can no longer be approached and, alas, their number is constantly lessened. He then pleaded: In this extremity I turn to you. Will not each one of you undertake to make yourself a center of annual giving. Dependent upon the size of your Congregation, may I not expect that you will annually secure for the Seminary $200, $500, $1,000–as much as you can.224 In November of that year, the treasurer reported that the deficit would likely come to $120,000, that he had been advancing money from capital funds to meet current expenses, and that those capital funds, the results of the campaign of 1924/5, would be exhausted by May, 1932.225 In fact, by December 2, 1931, the treasurer reported that only $22,000 of that fund was left.226

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

125

by the end of 1931 the financial situation of the Seminary had reached crisis proportions and financing the operations of the Seminary became definitely hand-to-mouth. A request to the New York Foundation for $30,000 garnered only $5,000.227 Economies were ordained for every part of the Seminary and the temporary abandonment of the work of the Teachers Institute was contemplated.228 The sheer desperation of the situation at that time is illustrated by the fact that, as a member of the board reported to Adler: Mr. [Sol] Stroock...visited three of the Directors in an effort to raise $1000 from each and was curtly refused. The best he was able to do was $200.229 Putting the best possible face on things, Felix Warburg wrote Adler, “our situation is serious, but it is not, by any means, hopeless.”230 Adler himself was not as optimistic. He wrote: I am oppressed at every quarter with the terrible business of money and reducing salaries and maybe even discharging people.231 At that point, it was recognized that salaries for Seminary Professors and office staff would have to be cut by 10% and that of teachers in the Teachers Institute by 15%.232 The occasional large donations that came the Seminary's way in those days were but a drop in the bucket compared to the institution's pressing needs. Thus in April of 1932, Adler commented that a $10,000 donation from John Schiff “ought to ease up matters for the next month or two”.233 As the Seminary was in a number of instances unable to pay its obligations in a timely way, liens were made against the Seminary which Sol Stroock, a lawyer serving on the board of Directors, was obliged to “take care”of.234 In 1932, it became necessary to implement the 10% reduction of salaries,235 including Adler's own.236 The following year another 5% reduction in faculty salaries was instituted.237 The draft budget of the Seminary for 1933/4 envisaged a reduction of 3% in the global budget from that of the previous year with an expenditure of $144,990.27 and anticipated income of $127,980.00 making for a deficit of $17,010.27.238 The budget was thus approximately 50% of the budget for the 1930/1 academic year. 126

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

by 1934, Adler felt that the Seminary had hit rock bottom and that no further reductions could be made without crippling the institution. Adler tried his best to see some light at the end of the tunnel and wrote: I think we ought to take the risk of making our budget next year $160,000 which would be about $16,000 or $17,000 more than we have expended this year. We are increasing our income gradually.239 Salaries, however, were only restored to their pre-depression levels in 1937.240 Faced with this grievous financial situation, Adler attempted a form of triage in which the Seminary itself was spared budget cuts as much as possible. The Teachers Institute, on the contrary, received a major budgetary blow which resulted in the impossibility of instituting freshman classes at the Institute both in 1932 and 1933.241 In order to keep the Teachers Institute alive at all, some of its staff submitted to salary cuts of over 50%.242 Adler recorded an interview he had with the Teachers Institute staff: They also told me that although it had been my suggestion that in these critical times the five eldest members of the Faculty should be retained and the services of the others dispensed with for the time being, they had preferred to have the Institute Faculty continue its work entirely and accept salaries sometimes not more than twenty-five or thirty per cent. of what they had been receiving. one of the older members, a man of family, told me that his entire income from the Institute was now under $80. per month, that he was making the sacrifice cheerfully, but that they wanted some hope for the future. I explained to them that I was not in a position to make promises at the present time, that they had the good will of the Directors and myself, and what we could do we would, but that it was vain for me to make promises.243 While Adler undoubtedly did sympathise with the plight of the Teachers' Institute staff, he certainly did not forget the administrative trouble the Institute had been to him. Indeed in 1933, his assistant, Louis Finkelstein put forward a plan to merge the Institute and

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

127

the Seminary administratively on budgetary grounds. Finkelstein offered Adler the opinion that: I do not believe that Professor Kaplan would offer serious objection to this arrangement if his own salary were left intact.244 During this trying period there was a reduction in the number of students admitted to the Seminary as well as to other American rabbinical seminaries.245 Those who were admitted found, among other things, that it was no longer possible for scholarship aid to cover more than room and board in the Seminary dormitory.246 There was as well an almost desperate attempt to cut corners in such areas as the seminary dining room. In 1931, Adler stated that too much food was being served. Some of his suggestions were clearly put forward for health reasons, as he had observed “we have a good many rather stout men and women.” Thus he advocated fresh fruit at every meal. other suggestions, however, such as elimination of the entree as well as the fruit cocktail were clearly cost cutting measures. As he stated: I do not believe that there is any private family in the world that any longer serves so many courses.247 Insofar as the Seminary library was concerned, librarian Alexander Marx wrote, “the normal continuous development of the library came to a sudden stop and the appropriations for the purchase of books were practically cut off.”248 Adler's only advice to Alexander Marx was that: ...the best thing that we can do now is to concentrate on getting it in good running order in our new building and make it as accessible as possible.249 The placement of rabbis during the depression was less problematic than might have been expected, provided that the rabbis were prepared to be flexible in their demands.250 As Finkelstein reported to Adler in 1933: At the moment our trouble is less with available pulpits, than with inducing the men to accept the conditions under which alone they can secure employment at the present time.251 Despite the terrible financial problems, Adler never allowed him-

128

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

self to ignore the problem of securing the Seminary's future. In 1934, he pointed to the fact that though the rabbinical Department faculty “are getting older and all of them are not in the best of health, there have been no additions to the staff. In other words, we are training no new young men to take the place of the elders or to help them.” The library had decreased its services and practically stopped the purchase and the binding of books. In sum, he added: We have maintained here a high standard. I fear that it is in danger of deterioration.252 XXII. The Semi-Centennial Celebration As early as March, 1931, Adler appointed a faculty committee to decide whether the Seminary was founded in a meeting which took place in November, 1886, or whether it could be said to have commenced with the beginning of classes in January of 1887. A month later, he announced to the faculty that he had retrieved a document from the American Jewish Historical Society which indicated that the organization of the Seminary had taken place in January, 1886, a year prior to the commencement of classes.253 Therefore 1936 was to be the year in which the Seminary would celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. 1936 saw Adler in increasingly ill health,254 but doggedly determined to restore the Seminary to financial as well as academic health. He was chastened by his experience of the past few years and confessed to the members of the rabbinical Assembly: I was one of those who originally believed that an endowed institution is the safest in the world. I have come to the conclusion that this is wrong, that it is not sound to rely upon a few of the princes of Israel, because when the princes diminish, the institution will be taken away from us.255 He hoped the anticipated celebration of the Seminary's fiftieth anniversary in 1936 would allow the Seminary to engage in fundraising so that it would be able to at least restore its 1929 budget and “carry on its activities in a suitable manner”.256 This would afford the Seminary a chance to renew its faculty with younger blood and to teach Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

129

new subjects such as “the history and general tradition of social life among the Jewish people and also their ethnology and anthropology.”257 In that year, Adler took steps to begin the renewal of the faculty. As in the 1920s, he started his hiring process with biblical scholars. He appointed H.L. Ginsburg and robert Gordis to teach bible along with Alexander Sperber. It was Adler's thought, in doing so, to “create a bible Department that would be stronger than any at the Seminary earlier.”258 In 1938, he recommended retaining the services of these men while attracting other younger people to teach like Israel Efros, Simon Greenberg and Milton Steinberg.259 In the next year, he recommended further the hiring of Max Arzt,260 and was actively contemplating the hiring of Saul Lieberman, which would not be effected until after his death.261 rabbinic placement was still looking up and Adler was able to assert, in a 1936 report: Among the older graduates of the Seminary, there is practically no unemployment except for five or six men who for personal reasons insist on finding pulpits within the limits of the [New York] Metropolitan district. In fact, the Seminary was unable to make recommendations to a number of congregations which have been earnestly requesting rabbis.262 However the depression had not yet completely loosed its grip on the institution. In May of 1938 the board of Directors Finance Committee concluded that the Seminary still faced a cumulative deficit of approximately $143,000. Fundraising had proved a disappointing task and the committee concluded that “if the policy of incurring sizeable annual deficits is continued the rabbinical Department itself and the Library will be in danger at a time when their existence will be most needed.”263 Considering the fact that in the period up to 1934 some $488,513.98 had been taken out of capital funds to meet deficits in current income, the receipt in pledges of $170,570.91 during the semi-centennial celebration, offset by approximately $40,000 expended for that celebration, was viewed by the board as a “disappointment”.264 The Seminary was still unable to balance a budget of $182,800, approximately $100,000 less than that of 1930/1.265 With

130

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

little possibility of making further economies of substance in an already denuded Seminary budget, the board feared that “it is therefore necessary to face a curtailment of the activities of the Seminary within the near future” and concluded, nonetheless, that the situation “is not hopeless”.266 XXIII. The refugee Challenge The coming to power of the Nazi Party in Germany led immediately to the institution of anti-Jewish policies in that country. The result was a Jewish refugee crisis of catastrophic proportions which impacted on the Seminary in several ways. At a time which could not have been worse from a financial standpoint, the Seminary was asked to absorb a large number of refugee students as well as scholars fleeing from the Nazi regime. on the faculty side, Adler attempted to accommodate as many refugee Judaica scholars as the institution's slender means afforded.267 He was successful in appointing the biblical scholar Alexander Sperber to the Seminary faculty, at first in a temporary capacity, but then, starting in 1938, to a permanent position at the Seminary.268 The Assyriologist Julius Lewy taught briefly at the Seminary before going to a more permanent position at Hebrew Union College. The historian Ismar Elbogen was likewise brought over to America, largely due to Adler's efforts, and given an office at the Seminary.269 There was, as well, an increasing demand from foreign students to be admitted to the Seminary at a time when admission of students in general had to be cut way back and in a context in which, as we have seen, candidates for the rabbinate who did not possess “American” accents faced an admissions process which was certainly not in their favor. Some of these foreign student applicants were admitted but not nearly as many as sought to come to the Seminary. by early 1938, the Seminary faculty was forced to state: We already have under consideration so many foreign students that it is inadvisable to admit a new student unless he is of exceptional ability.270

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

131

by June of that year, the faculty resolved that “the Seminary cannot at present consider the admission of any more foreign students.”271 In May of 1939, the Seminary had a total of seven foreign students, two in graduate degree programs and five taking the rabbinic program of whom only one had at that point been regularly admitted.272 The 1930s were a time in which the Seminary's success was measured in terms of sheer survival. Nonetheless, the Seminary did more than survive the depression. Adler, who in 1933 celebrated his seventieth birthday, had his eye clearly on the Seminary's future. His way of insuring that future lay in his careful advancement of the career of the man who would succeed him–Louis Finkelstein. XXIV. The Grooming of Louis Finkelstein by far the most significant factor in the latter part of Adler's administration of the Seminary was his selection and advancement of Louis Finkelstein to a leadership role in the Seminary. He was able to create a situation in which Finkelstein became Adler's logical successor. This was no accident but rather a conscious process on Adler's part to ensure that there be no crisis of succession as had occurred when Solomon Schechter died. XXV. Early relationships As early as 1921, Adler had his eye on Louis Finkelstein. In connection with a fundraising assignment, Adler commented to Marshall, “So far Finkelstein has shown not only real interest but real ability to be of service in this connection”.273 by the next year, Finkelstein was on the all-important rabbinical placement committee.274 Adler clearly enjoyed his company and, in 1923, reported to his wife, racie: I am in my room for luncheon to get away from the [rabbinical Assembly] gang and have asked Doctor Finkelstein to share it with me.275 In 1924, Adler was giving Finkelstein responsibilities with respect

132

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

to rabbinical placement.276 It is apparent that Adler felt comfortable with Finkelstein in a way he did not with most other Seminary faculty members.277 Given the fact that his friend and original representative on the Faculty, Israel Davidson, was by the end of the twenties in increasingly poor health, Adler found it necessary to have a successor faculty representative and Louis Finkelstein certainly filled the bill. Finkelstein's usefulness to the Seminary increased in the mid-twenties, when he began teaching Jewish theology as well as Talmud, while his prolific and distinguished record of publication gained him the respect of his colleagues. XXVI. Growing responsibilities It is a tribute both to Finkelstein's qualities, as well as to Adler's appreciation of those qualities, that, in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis for the Seminary, in which, it need not be said, all efforts were being made to save money, Finkelstein was promoted to Associate professor of Theology. This involved a pay raise from $5,000 to 8,000 a year, thus putting Finkelstein's salary on a par with those of Ginzberg, Marx and Kaplan. Certainly, that was $3,000 which the Seminary could ill afford financially but which Adler obviously thought was necessary and justified from the point of view of securing Finkelstein's exclusive services for the Seminary, which his 1925 appointment as lecturer in Theology had not achieved. responding to the notice of appointment, Finkelstein wrote Adler: Your own affection for me in the past years has been a great stimulus to me in all my work and I appreciate this appointment even more as further evidence of that, than for the great honor which it implies.278 Thus in April of 1931, Finkelstein finally gave up anything but Seminary work and was appointed as Solomon Schechter Professor of Theology with a salary equal to that of the highest payed faculty members.279 Adler had successfully argued for Finkelstein's promotion on the basis of the administrative tasks he could take on and he increas-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

133

ingly abandoned routine, time-consuming matters to Finkelstein. by December, 1931, Felix Warburg commented to Adler: I feel that Dr. Finkelstein is rapidly finding himself and the Faculty is quite ready to accept him as your representative.280 In 1933, the year in which Adler turned seventy, Finkelstein became the Seminary's registrar, and was encouraged by Adler to begin signing routine documents himself rather than sending them to Adler for signature.281 In 1934, Finkelstein's special relationship with Adler was formally recognized with his acquiring the title of “Assistant to the President”. by 1935 Adler was increasingly leaving routine work in the hands of Finkelstein, not least because of the demands on his time due to his leadership position in the American Jewish Committee and in the Non-Zionist section of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Thus Adler confessed to his Assistant: “I have been rather inactive in the work of the Placement Committee”.282 Somewhat later, Finkelstein summarized their working relationship on rabbinical placement as follows: As for correspondence with congregations, I hope to carry it on as heretofore, drafting letters for your signature, and occasionally writing letters myself.283 XXVII. Appointment as Provost In 1937, Finkelstein was appointed Provost of the Seminary, a position which Adler defined in the following way: The title and office will give a wider administrative authority than did the previous one [of Assistant to the President] and that may be usefully employed under the direction of the President to aid and improve the administration of all branches of the Seminary.284 In another letter Adler stated: [the office of Provost is] intended to be largely an academic office and to put you in a position to have general oversight of the administration of all parts of the Seminary.285 by this time, it was clear that running the Seminary was a team effort on the part of Adler and Finkelstein, with Adler withdrawing more 134

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

and more from the day-to-day running of the institution.286 Their relationship continued to be one marked by mutual respect and admiration which, on Finkelstein's side at least, bordered on reverence.287 In mid-1939, Adler's health, which had been poor for a long while, took a drastic turn for the worse. Already in intense pain from the cancer that was to cost him his life, Adler participated in the Seminary commencement in June, 1939.288 After that, he had to leave practically all of the real administration of the Seminary to Finkelstein who, at the meeting of the board of october 25, 1939, was authorized to sign checks in Adler's place.289 Finkelstein's report to the board of June 5, 1940, summarizes Adler's connection to the Seminary in the last months of his life: Doctor Adler and his family first realized the grave nature of his illness about the time of the Seminary Commencement in June, 1939...Through patient nursing and the exercise of his indomitable will, he seemed to recover some of his strength in the course of the summer. When I saw him in late August in Woods Hole, he told me that while he hoped for recovery, he did not expect it. He and his family had considered the possibility that he might take a sabbatical year, so that he would not feel any obligation to concern himself with Seminary business. but I noticed that it brightened him to be told of all we were planning and doing, and that it helped him to be able to assist us with his counsel, even in his illness. Therefore I suggested to Doctor and Mrs. Adler that I would go to Philadelphia every week or fortnight during the winter to discuss our business with him, and in that way he could remain in active charge of the institution. This pleased him very much; and the arrangement was followed until about a month before his death, when he was no longer strong enough to carry on his work even in this way... There were several matters that Doctor Adler strongly impressed on me during my visits, which in spite of our attempts at cheerfulness, were frequently made solemn by considerations of world problems, and the place the Seminary would have to play in

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

135

American religious life. He repeated on several occasions during the past years that no matter what happened, the Seminary was to carry on its normal work...He charged me again most particularly to see that the Seminary remained loyal to the traditions of Morais and Schechter, which despite heavy obstacles he himself had tried to carry on.290 Adler had been determined not to leave an interregnum like the one which faced the Seminary after Schechter's death. For well over a decade, Adler had carefully groomed Louis Finkelstein as his successor. In an undated letter, Adler's wife, racie, stated: You must know that my dear husband always looked upon rabbi Finkelstein as his successor in the position of President of the Seminary. I am quite certain that this assumption during the past few years made him feel that he would never leave the Seminary without a directing hand. because of this, too, he felt that in any task which came to him as President of the Seminary he should have the assistance of rabbi Finkelstein.291 Adler's admiration for Finkelstein was echoed by both the Faculty and Alumni of the Seminary. on May 1, 1940, less than a month after Adler's death, the Seminary board, after some discussion, resolved unanimously to elect Finkelstein president of the Seminary and to abolish the office of Provost.292 In announcing Finkelstein's appointment, the President of the board, Sol Stroock, stated: Dr. Finkelstein was Dr. Adler's intimate friend and advisor for many years. In making this appointment, the members of the board of Directors feel that they are acting in accordance with the desire of the alumni and faculty of the institution.293 by the end of Adler's presidency of the Seminary, the institution had graduated 329 rabbis and 447 teachers, as opposed to 93 rabbis and 83 teachers in 1915. In 1915 the library had 46,365 volumes as opposed to 116,902 in 1940. The Seminary Museum had become a successful attraction. In 1915, the Seminary had published five volumes, by 1940 there were nineteen. Most importantly, in 1915 the faculty consisted of nine men. by 1940 it numbered 16 including a number of younger scholars who were to maintain the Seminary's tra-

136

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

dition of academic excellence into the next generation.294 The most important of these younger scholars was Louis Finkelstein, whose traditionalist orientation was in most respects compatible with Adler's own views. Adler's guiding hand had succeeded in ensuring a smooth transition to power in an institution which, if not in the best of financial health, had indeed survived the worst economic crisis of the twentieth century not only whole but also in the process of renewing itself to face the challenges and opportunities of the postwar world. XXVIII. Conclusion:Who Cyrus Adler Wasn't and Who He Was Finding out who Cyrus Adler was is no easy task. People who have attempted to do so have come to diametrically opposite conclusions.295 Therefore, in attempting to evaluate Cyrus Adler's impact on the Seminary he served, in one way or another, for most of his life, it is necessary to be very careful in observing him. This is because Adler was, as Louis Finkelstein, who probably knew him better than anyone else at the Seminary observed, almost always in such utter control of his emotions that his personality was a mystery to many.296 It seems to me that, under such circumstances, the best thing to do is to first understand who Cyrus Adler wasn't. Through this via negativa, who Adler was will emerge all the more clearly. XXIX. He was Not a rabbi In this statement, we find the great paradox of Cyrus Adler's relationship with the Seminary summarized. For Cyrus Adler's choice not to become a rabbi decisively influenced his career at the Seminary. As a layman, Adler could never speak with absolute authority on behalf of an institution which existed mainly to train rabbis, and this was apparent to both the faculty and the graduates of the institution. To outsiders, this distinction was less clear, and Adler was often addressed as “rabbi”and was even occasionally asked by people to per-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

137

form rabbinic functions. Thus, apparently at Felix Warburg's behest, Adler officiated at the funeral of Paul Warburg.297 However he usually tried to keep the lines from being too blurred. When he was asked to officiate at a wedding ceremony, for instance, he absolutely refused.298 XXX. He Was Not a “Jewish” Scholar As important as his lay status was in Adler's relationship to the Seminary, no less important was the status of his scholarship. Adler was always committed to the advancement of scholarship, in its broadest sense, and certainly to the study of Semitics, the field of his original academic pursuit. This latter subject, however, far from being pursued at the Seminary, was basically ignored. As Adler pointed out to Finkelstein in 1936, “we [the Seminary] cannot be said to be really devoted in Semitic learning.”299 A large part of the reason for this was that Semitic scholarship was closely related to the sort of modern, critical scholarship on the Hebrew bible which Solomon Schechter had decried as the “Higher Anti-Semitism”. Moreover, even within the field of Semitics, Adler's scholarly career never really got off the ground. Had Adler been a world-renowned Assyriologist, much might have been forgiven. As it was, Adler could not gain respect from the Seminary faculty with a non-productive scholarly career in his own field. Furthermore, Adler lacked the common denominator in the scholarly profiles of the Seminary's senior faculty of his era: mastery of the texts of rabbinic Judaism through a yeshiva training to which was married the scholarly precision of the modern European university.300 Scholarly precision he certainly possessed. What he lacked was a traditional Jewish education. Adler's other field of scholarly endeavor, American Jewish history, while perhaps closer to “Jewish” concerns in one sense, got even shorter shrift from a faculty which was in essential agreement with the then widespread feeling among “Jewish” scholars that events in Jewish history after 1800 merely constituted “current events”. The seminary in the Adler years was even wary of the study of such “current events” which might have political reverberations with respect to current concerns. Thus when, in 1930, rabbi Louis Greenberg submit-

138

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

ted for his D.H.L. the thesis topic “Jews in the revolutionary Movements in russia till 1905”, the request was refused. The faculty found that the thesis “was not of a sufficiently Jewish character; it rather belonged to russian history.” It was suggested that he present a thesis on “the Struggle of russian Jews for Civil rights”.301 A similar request by rabbi Abraham Heller to do a thesis on”Jewish Political Parties in Present Day Palestine”was likewise refused.302 XXXI. He Was Not an Ideologue Adler was instinctively wary of ideologies and ideologues, whether political or religious. He was, rather, a builder and maintainer of coalitions.303 by adhering to this policy, he was successful in gaining the support of people of all sorts for the Seminary. He could and did talk to the staunchly orthodox rabbinical group, Agudat ha-rabbonim as well as the Central Conference of American rabbis. He likewise elicited financial support for the Seminary and its Library from an extraordinarily wide constituency. In looking out for the welfare of the Seminary, which throughout his career worked from an inadequate financial base, Adler felt that he could not afford the sort of ideological precision which might serve to alienate potential support. Furthermore, even ignoring the obvious practical advantages of his non-ideological stance, ideological precision would have been against Adler's deeply-felt sense of doing things. In Adler's Seminary, as he stated, “we do not persecute each other and we live reasonably well together”.304 Thus Adler's seminary in essence sought to represent a coalition. As he wrote: The Seminary...aims to teach a form of Judaism to which all people could come so far as fundamental values are concerned. A common language, the understanding of a common history and a common literature, are the strongest factors for keeping together the Synagogue–stronger in our opinion than any sets of resolutions or platforms. Short of the very simple words of our charter, we have laid down no platform and adopted no creed, for we are of the opinion that religious platforms like party platforms are

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

139

more often made to be disregarded than to be lived by...305 XXXII. He Was Not Charismatic one of the reasons many people pronounced themselves “disappointed” in Adler was that, when he became President of the Seminary, he followed Solomon Schechter, just as he followed Louis Marshall to the presidency of the American Jewish Committee. He did not have Schechter's charisma, nor did he possess Marshall's. Moreover, Adler's modesty and his penchant for severely controlling his emotions, mentioned above, certainly tended to reinforce his reputation in the Seminary and elsewhere as a cold bureaucrat. He did not, however, fool those who took the trouble to get close to him. one of them was Solomon Schechter. In 1911, Schechter wrote him about an address he had made: You always speak of yourself as lacking in imagination. A better piece of elevating religious poetry I have seldom read, whilst the counsel and advice you gave were full of real wisdom and sagacity. There are sentences in it which deserve to become the motto for our activities, representing whole programs in themselves.306 XXXIII. He Was a Traditional Jew At his core, Adler was a traditional Jew with a true conservative's dislike of change. As he stated: Speaking for myself I may say without qualifications that the old prayer book and the old service without any innovation whatsoever are entirely satisfactory to me and that I do not feel at home anywhere else.307 Thus, of Adler's seminary it could be stated: It has not modified the prayer book, it has not changed the calendar, it has not altered the dietary laws, it has not abolished the second day of the holidays, and although some of its founders and some of its graduates have, without protest from the Seminary, attempted changes in the ritual, the Seminary itself has

140

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

never adopted any of these changes.308 There was a strengthening of Judaic ritual at the Seminary in the Adler administration, as when Adler advocated the institution of regular afternoon [mincha] prayers at the Seminary.309 Adler's dislike of change extended as far as retaining traditional melodies. Soon after the Seminary's 1934 graduation, Adler wrote: I wonder why rabbi Goldfarb changed the Adon 'olam from the melody which we have been singing for many years and which everybody knows, to one which very few people know.310 This does not mean, however, that Adler's traditionalism was completely unyielding or unbending. It did mean, however, that any departure from tradition had better be soundly based. He once told the Seminary faculty that the sort of people he wanted at the Seminary were those who naturally accept tradition and who entertain doubts only when there is strong proof against what tradition affirms.311 It is a good characterization of his own approach to the problem. When change was necessary, though, Adler would support it. Thus Louis Marshall once wrote to him: I remember that on various occasions you have deplored the failure of orthodoxy to deal with questions...in a Synod or equivalent conference in order to relieve from the rigidity of technical ritual requirements.312 Adler was the sort of religious Jew who felt that knowledge alone was insufficient to make a good Jew. A good Jew, as far as he was concerned, “has to do things Jewish”,313 for, to him, “Judaism, while it has doctrines, laid more stress on what people did than on their beliefs.”314 Understanding this about Adler helps one understand much better the longevity of Mordecai Kaplan at the Seminary despite some very basic differences between him and Adler. For Adler, Judaism was first and foremost a religion. Ethnic Judaism in the absence of religion repelled him. In this connection he stated: I am inclined to think that this constant claim of the great contributions of Jews to physics or medicine does more harm than

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

141

good.315 XXXIV. What Cyrus Adler Meant to the Seminary Adler's wife, racie, reported of him that: He always said that a man would be remembered by either the buildings he had created or the books he had written.316 Cyrus Adler wrote no books of great or lasting influence. but many of the things he helped to create, both physical buildings and institutional structures, are still standing, though most of these have all but lost their connectedness to him with the passage of time. Adler presided over the Seminary in an era characterized by Herbert rosenbloom as “an era of consolidation; sinking roots, finding an identity, building institutions, cultivating leadership and developing structural forms.”317 It was all that. During that era, in which the Seminary and its related institutions were experiencing significant growth, though nothing like the the massive postwar expansion the Conservative movement would experience in the postwar years, Adler was anything but a figurehead. He was, first and foremost an enabler. He created and sustained the infrastructure enabling the Seminary faculty to become prominent in the world of Jewish scholarship. The rabbis the Seminary produced became in this era the nucleus of one of the most significant movements in American Judaism. Adler did so because he felt that the Seminary was integral and essential to his vision of what American Judaism and Jewish continuity on the American continent should be. In the end, we are left with a sense of Adler's complete dedication to the Seminary whose cause he identified with that of American Judaism as a whole. Adler summed up his vision of the Seminary in the following words: the Seminary, ...after all, is not a platform, is not a building, is not a library, is not even a fund, but consists of the masters and pupils who have labored for it and in it...318 Cyrus Adler was never a pupil at the Seminary. He was a master at the Seminary only in a somewhat limited sense. It is nonetheless true that, having “labored for it and in it” for over five decades, he must 142

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

be counted among its foremost founders and sustainers.

Notes Abbreviations AJA CAP FWP IDP JSP LMP

American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati Cyrus Adler Papers, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York Felix Warburg Papers, AJA Israel Davidson Papers, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York Jacob Schiff Papers, AJA Louis Marshall Papers, AJA

research for this chapter was partially supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada. I would like to acknowledge the help received from the li-

1.

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

143

brarians and archivists at the Jewish Theological Seminary and the American Jewish Archives. The major source for Adler's life, to the present, is his autobiography, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1941). Cf. Abraham A. Neuman, “Cyrus Adler: A biographical Sketch”, American Jewish Year Book 42 (1940/1), pp. 23-144; Ira robinson, ed. Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters 2 volumes (Philadelphia and New York, 1985).

2

Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality”, American Jewish History 78 (1989), pp. 364-367.

3

robert Crunden, Ministers of Reform: the Progressives' Achievement in American Civilization, 1889-1920 (New York, 1982), p. 278.

4

5

robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 366.

6

Ibid., pp. 367-368.

robinson, Adler Letters, p. 14; robert E. Fierstein, A Different Spirit: the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1886-1902 (New York, JTSA, 1990), pp. 89-90.

7

Adler, Jacob H. Schiff :His Life and Letters (Freeport, 1972), volume 2, p. 53. Cf. Fierstein, A Different Spirit, pp. 133-134.

8

Adler, “Semi-Centennial Address”, Jewish Theological Seminary Semi-Centennial Volume (New York, JTSA, 1939), p. 9; Cf. his I Have Considered the Days, pp. 243-244.

9

robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 92; Norman bentwich, Solomon Schechter: a Biography (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1948), p. 171. Cf. Abraham J. Karp, “Solomon Schechter Comes to America”, The Jewish Experience in America volume 5 (New York, 1969), pp. 111-129.

10

See Meir ben-Horin, “Scholars' 'opinions': Documents in the History of the Dropsie University”, Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1974), volume 1, pp. 167-208; Herbert Parzen, “New Data on the Formation of Dropsie College”, Jewish Social Studies (1966), pp. 131147.

11

12

Jacob Schiff-Adler, February 28, 1906; Adler-Jacob Schiff, March 1, 1906. CAP, box 22.

Adler-Israel Davidson, May 7, 1932. CAP, box 27. Cf. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 277.

13

14

robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 156.

bayla r. Shargel, Practical Dreamer: Israel Friedlaender and the Shaping of American Judaism (New York, JTSA, 1985), p. 10.

15

Adler-Louis Marshall, June 17, 1913. LMP box 36; Adler-Marshall, october 3, 1914. LMP box 1583.

16

Eli Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law: Louis Ginzberg (Philadelphia, 1966), pp. 132-133. Cf. idem., “The Seminary Family: a View From My Parents' Home”, in Arthur A. Chiel, ed. Perspectives on Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of Wolfe Kelman (New York, 1978), p. 119.

17

18

Shargel, Practical Dreamer, pp. 16, 38.

Herman Dicker, Of Learning and Libraries: the Seminary Library at One Hundred (New York, 1988), p. 32.

19

20 21

Ginzberg, “The Seminary Family”, pp. 124-126. Cf. Shargel, Practical Dreamer, p. 104. Cf. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 291.

richard Libovitz, “Kaplan and Adler”, unpublished paper presented at the Association for Jewish Studies 1987.

22

144

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Minutes of board, JTSA, November 21, 1916; Adler-Louis Marshall, November 26, 1915. CAP, box 5.

23

Adler-Louis Marshall, December 27, 1915. CAP, box 5. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 300. Cf. Minutes of board, JTSA, December 19, 1915; Adler, report to board, April 30, 1916. In his memoirs, Adler speaks of the temporary appointment being for a period of six months. I Have Considered the Days, p. 291.

24

25

Jewish Exponent June 16, 1916, p. 10.

In the Dropsie College, Minutes of the board of Directors, December 26, 1915, we find that it was agreed that Adler should serve as “Acting President of that Institution [the Seminary] temporarily”.

26

27

Adler-Jacob Schiff, November 19, 1915. JSP 441/7.

28

Adler-Louis Marshall, June 6, 1917. LMP box 49/JTS. Cf. Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 115.

29

Circular dated May 10, 1916. CAP, box 9.

Louis Finkelstein, “Preface”, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. xx. Eli Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law: Louis Ginzberg (Philadelphia, 1966), p. 132-133.

30

31

Louis Marshall-S.r. Travis, June 7, 1917. LMP box 49/JTS.

32

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, July 26, 1916. CAP, box 1.

33

Adler-racie Adler, December 27, 1915. Letter in possession of author.

Alexander Marx-Adler, December 27, 1915. CAP, box 6. Cf. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 300.

34

That Adler may have had misgivings on this subject may be indicated in his letter to Joseph Hertz of August 5, 1920 in which he indicates, with respect to his search for a new professor of bible: “I am rather inclined to limit the choice to America and England, as I doubt the wisdom of our going to Germany, Austria or Hungary at the present time.” CAP box 6.

35

36

Cited in bentwich, Solomon Schechter, p. 195.

Louis Finkelstein, “report to the board of Directors”, october 29, 1940 in “Minutes, board of Directors, JTSA

37

“Address by Dr. Cyrus Adler at Theological Seminary Commencement”, Jewish Exponent 61 (June 11, 1915), p. 9. This was a theme Adler broached several times. Cf. his “The Seminary–Its History and Aims”, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses (Philadelphia, 1933), p. 240.

38

39

robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, pp. 320-323.

40

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, June 18, 1917; March 20, 1922; June 5, 1923. CAP, box 1.

41

Adler-Arem, June 4, 1935. FWP box 308/4.

42

Adler-A. Margolin, March 20, 1922. FWP, box 202/4.

43

Adler-Louis Marshall, February 9, 1919. LMP box 53/JTS.

44

Finkelstein, “Preface”, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. xx.

Cf. Charles reznikoff, ed. Louis Marshall: Champion of Liberty (Philadelphia, 1957), volume 2, p. 861. 45

46 The axiomatic nature of the New York-Philadelphia axis with respect to the support of the Seminary is indicated by a directive of Adler to Joseph b. Abrahams of January 14, 1923. Speaking of contributors outside of New York, Adler added: “and that means of course also outside Philadelphia”. CAP, box 1. on the “Philadelphia Group” which gave much of the Seminary's early lead-

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

145

ers, see Murray Friedman, ed. When Philadelphia Was the Capital of Jewish America (Philadelphia, 1993). 47 Adler-Louis Marshall, January 17, 1916. Cf. Irving Lehman-Louis Marshall, January 20, 1916. LMP, box 47, folder JTS. 48

Adler-Louis Marshall, December 23, 1920. LMP, box 56, file JTS.

49

Adler-Louis Marshall, November 21, 1917. LMP, box 128, file JTS.

Thus Louis Marshall wrote Adler on May 18, 1916: I agree with you that we should have at least $15,000 annually in addition to what we are receiving. LMP.

50

51

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 30, 1916, pp. 28-29.

52

Adler-Louis Marshall, April 10, 1921. LMP box 61, folder JTS.

53

Adler-Solomon Schechter, November 1, 1911. CAP, box 23.

54

Adler-Jacob billikopf, May 5, 1924. CAP, box 2.

Adler, report to board of Directors, November 26, 1916, p. 15. Cf. Adler-Jacob Schiff, August 13, 1919, in robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, pp. 383-384.

55

Adler-Joseph A. Abrahams, January 14, 1923. CAP, box 1. referring to contributors outside of New York City, Adler added “and that means of course [my emphasis] also outside Philadelphia”.

56

57

Minutes, board of Directors, May 15, 1924.

Minutes, board of Directors, october 31, 1926, p. 6. Similarly, the board Minutes of March 11, 1923 records Seminary membership receipts as $15,411 from New York City and $3665 from the entire rest of the country.

58

59

Adler, Felix Warburg, February 6, 1928. Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 151.

Joseph b. Abrahams-Adler, January 25, 1916. JTSA records, record Group 1, General files, Series A. box 1.

60

61

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 30, 1916, p. 8.

62

robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 372.

63

Shargel, Practical Dreamer, p. 38. Cf. robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 374.

64

Adler-Louis Ginzberg, January 2, 1916. CAP, box 4.

65

Adler-Solomon Schechter, July 28, 1911. CAP, box 7.

66

Ginzberg, Keeper of the Law, p. 133.

Thus Adler wrote his daughter Sara in an undated letter from the year 1919 describing his departure for the Versailles Peace Conference: “The token from the Faculty almost took my breath away. It was two very beautiful silver pieces a cigar case and match case quite as handsome as anything of the kind I have ever seen. I was quite overwhelmed.” Letter in the possession of the author.

67

“Working Plan for a Quarterly to be Published by the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America”, undated. CAP box 12.

68

69

Adler-Israel Davidson, September 24, 1916. CAP, box 2.

Adler-Louis Marshall, September 1, 1916. Cf. Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, July 21, 1921. CAP, box 1.

70

71

Adler-Jacob Schiff, June 15, 1916. JSP, box 445/9.

146

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

In a letter to Louis Finkelstein of July 21, 1939, Adler commented on robert Gordis: “He is taking the same line...that the supression of free speech would not be paying too high a price to get rid of Father Coughlin. I thought it would. CAP, box 3.

72

73

Adler-Mordecai M. Kaplan, September 21, 1923. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 80.

74

Adler-Edwin Kaufman, December 31, 1920. CAP, box 5.

75

Cf. Ginzberg, “The Seminary Family”.

76

Adler-Louis Marshall, September 24, 1917. LMP, box 128, file JTS.

77

Adler-Israel Davidson, January 11, 1918. CAP, box 2.

78

Adler, “report to the board of Directors, April 30, 1916, p. 2.

79

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, November 25, 1917, p. 12.

80

Ibid., p. 3. Cf. Faculty Minutes, March 10, 1926, p. 53.

81 82

Adler-S.r. Travis, November 29, 1916. LMP box 47/JTS. Adler, “report to the board”, April 30, 1916, pp. 29-30.

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 29, 1917, p. 12; May 19, 1918, p. 6. In a letter to his wife, racie, of october 15, 1918, Adler wrote: “business [at the Seminary] was over at 6.45 so I walked around with rabbi Gordon to see the new house. It is a beautiful house in a charming neighborhood not yet ready nor furnished...There were quite a number of Seminary students eating and others who had finished were dancing in a front room to the music of a victrola. Altogether there seemed to be a good spirit about the place.” Letter in author's possession.

83

84

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, July 26, 1916. CAP, box 1.

85

A.S. Isaacs-Adler, June 24, 1920. CAP, box 24.

86

Faculty Minutes July, 1929.

87

Faculty Minutes, May 28, 1930; october 20, 1930.

88

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, June 6, 1916. CAP, box 1.

89

Adler-Israel Davidson, February 24, 1928. CAP, box 26.

90

Adler-Edwin Kaufman, August 18, 1920. CAP, box 5.

91

Ira Eisenstein, Reconstructing Judaism: an Autobiography (New York, 1987), p. 62.

92

Adler-Israel Davidson, April 23, 1925. IDP, box 1.

93

Israel Davidson-Adler, March 17, 1927. CAP, box 2.

94

Faculty Minutes, February 7, 1928. Cf. Adler-Alexander Marx, october 18, 1928. CAP, box 26.

95

Faculty Minutes, March 29, 1927, pp. 1-8.

Simon Noveck, Milton Steinberg: Portrait of a Rabbi (New York, Ktav, 1978), pp. 30-32; Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, 1927, p. 26. 96

97

Adler-Henry berkowitz, June 25, 1917. CAP, box 2.

Adler-Jacob Schiff, November 11, 1919, CAP, box 24. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 398. Cf. “President's report”, Third Annual Report of the United Synagogue of America (New York, 1915), p. 17.

98

Adler, “report to board”, November 26, 1916, p. 6. The detail in which Adler reported to the board on rabbinical placement is one of the things which distinguishes his reports to the board from those of Solomon Schechter.

99

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

147

100 101 102 103

Congregation Sons of Israel (Albany, NY)-Adler, July 6, 1916. CAP, box 2. Adler-Jacob Schiff, November 11, 1919. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. 399. Adler-Louis Marshall, June 6, 1917. LMP, box 49. Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, May 15, 1928. CAP, box 1.

Adler-Israel Davidson, March 8, 1918, CAP, box 2. In this letter Adler stated that because the congregation used the Union Prayer book, the Seminary could not consistently recommend a candidate for it.

104

105

Adler-Louis Marshall, January 17, 1916. LMP, box 47, folder JTS.

Mortimer J. Cohen-Adler, May 25, 1923. Cf. Adler-Joseph Marglies, January 10, 1917. CAP, box 5. Adler-Shaia D. Tulin, october 31, 1923, in robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, pp. 89-90.

106

107

Adler-Solomon Goldman, March 27, 1925. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, pp. 113-114.

108

Adler-Louis brav, September 13, 1916. CAP, box 2.

109

Adler-Herman Abramowitz, August 4, 1922. CAP, box 2.

110

Adler, “report to the board”, April 29, 1917, p. 7.

111

Adler-Jacob Schiff, November 11, 1919. CAP, box 24.

112

Adler, “report to the board”, November 11, 1922.

113

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, May 14, 1930. CAP, box 3.

114

Adler, “report to the board”, February 5, 1930, pp. 11-12.

Cf. Adler, “report to the board”, February 11, 1936, p. 3. board of Directors Minutes, June 10, 1938, p. 6.

115

116

Faculty Minutes, 1932/3.

117

Charles reznikoff, ed. Louis Marshall: Champion of Liberty (Philadelphia, 1957), p. 891.

118

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, July 11, 1939. CAP, box 3.

See Herbert rosenblum, “Ideology and Compromise: the Evolution of the United Synagogue Constitutional Preamble”, Jewish Social Studies 35 (1973), pp. 18-31.

119

120

Adler-Solomon Schechter, February 12, 1912. CAP, box 23.

121

Adler-Felix Warburg, october 16, 1928. FWP, box 237/2.

122

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, June 11, 1935. CAP, box 3.

123 124

Adler-Solomon Schechter, November 1, 1911. CAP, box 23. Louis Finkelstein-Adler, october 20, 1932. CAP, box 1.

An example of this relationship can be seen in Adler's directive that he did not wish students from the Teachers Institute to speak at the 1920 Seminary opening. Israel Davidson-Adler September 16, 1920. IDP, box 1. Yet another example is contained in an undated “Confidential Memorandum to President Adler on the Teachers Institute” in which one reads the charge that “the Institute administration does not regard itself as bound to conserve the Seminary's resources”. CAP, box 12. Cf. Adler, “report to the board”, May 16, 1920, p. 14.

125

126

Adler-Louis Marshall, May 22, 1923.

Adler-Louis Marshall, August 29, 1916. LMP box 47/JTS. Cf. Adler-Marshall, May 22, 1922 LMP, box 63/Adler.

127

148

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

128

Adler-Mordecai Kaplan, August 28, 1916. LMP, box 47/JTS.

129

Louis Marshall-Adler, May 25, 1922. CAP, box 24.

130

board of Directors Minutes, December 19, 1923, p. 4; July 1, 1925.

Adler, “report to the board”, May 18, 1924, p. 29. Cf. Adler-Louis Marshall, January 15, 1924. LMP, box 70/JTS.

131

132

Adler-Solomon Schechter, November 15, 1915. CAP, box 23.

Adler-Louis Marshall, June 29, 1917. Cf. Adler-Marshall, June 6, 1917; Travis-Marshall, June 3, 1917;Marshall-Travis, June 7, 1917; Adler-Marshall, June 10, 1917; Travis-Marshall, June 27, 1917. Marshall-Adler, June 27, 1917. LMP, box 49/JTS.

133

134

Adler-Louis Marshall, May 1, 1918. LMP 114/A.

Adler-Louis Marshall, May 1, 1918; Adler-bernard revel, April 29, 1918; bernard revelAdler, April 30, 1918. LMP box 114/A.

135

136

Adler-S.r. Travis, November 29, 1916. LMP, box 47/JTS.

137

Adler, “report to board”, November 17, 1918, p. 21.

138

Adler, “report to the board”, November 11, 1922, p. 7.

139

Adler-Louis Marshall, June 6, 1917. LMP box 49.

Aaron rothkoff, bernard revel: Builder of American Jewish Orthodoxy (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 102ff.

140

Adler-Louis Marshall, october 15, 1925. LMP, box 74/A; Marshall to Adler, December 29 and December 31, 1925. LMP, box 1597/12/25.

141

142 Louis Marshall-Adler, January 23, 1927. CAP, box 17. Cf. Adler-racie Adler, February 23, 1927. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 139. 143

Louis Marshall-Adler, January 28, 1926. LMPbox 1598/1/26.

144

board Minutes, March 14, 1926, p. 5. Cf. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, pp. 123-124.

145

board Minutes, March 14, 1926, p. 5.

board of Directors Minutes, February 22, 1927, p. 4; Adler-Louis Marshall, December 20, 1928. LMP, box 76/J. Cf. Marshall-Adler, December 18, 1928. LMP box 1600/12/28.

146

147

Adler, “report to the board”, November 15, 1925, p. 21.

148

Adler-Jacob Schiff, November 11, 1919. CAP, box 24.

149

Adler-Alfred M. Cohen, November 10, 1924. CAP, box 2.

150

Adler-Israel Davidson, April 29, 1920. IDP, box 1.

151

Adler-Louis Feinberg, January 11, 1926. CAP, box 3.

152

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, November 13, 1936. CAP, box 3.

Adler-Marshall, dated “Friday, 6 p.m.”, LMP 60/Adler; Marshall-Adler, May 25, 1922. LMP box 1593/5/22.

153

154

robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 375.

155

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, January 6, 1937. CAP, box 3.

156

Adler, “report to the board”, May 16, 1920, pp. 1, 14.

157

Adler, “report to the board”, october 31, 1920, p. 22.

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

149

158

Adler-Mordecai Kaplan, September 8, 1921. CAP, box 5.

159

Louis Marshall-Adler, August 29, 1921. LMP, box 1592, folder 8/21.

160

Adler-Louis Ginzberg, october 10, 1921. CAP, box 4.

161

Adler to Joseph b. Abrahams, December 5, 1921. CAP, box 1.

162

Adler-Louis Marshall, June 19, 1922. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 50.

163

Adler-Louis Marshall, December 19, 1922. LMP, box 132/J.

164

Adler, “report to the board”, June 4, 1922, financial section, p. 2.

165

Ibid.

166

Adler-Israel Davidson, June 14, 1923. CAP, box 25.

167

Adler-Joseph Hertz, August 5, 1920. CAP, box 6.

168

Faculty Minutes, June 5, 1925, p. 44.

Adler-Sol Stroock, December 23, 1935. CAP, box 7. Cf. Adler-Louis Marshall, February 1, 1922. CAP, box 24.

169

170

Adler, “report to the board”, october 31, 1920, p. 10.

171

Adler-Joseph Hertz, September 24, 1920. CAP, box 6.

172

Adler-Solomon Schechter, September 29, 1909. CAP, box 23.

Adler-Joseph Hertz, September 24, 1920. CAP, box 6. Cf. Adler-Louis Marshall, December 12, 1920.

173

174

Adler-Israel Davidson, November 24, 1922. CAP, box 2.

175

Adler-H. Pereira Mendes, october 31, 1933. CAP, box 6.

176

Adler, “Foreword”, in Jacob Hoschander, The Priests and Prophets (New York, 1938), p. xvii.

177

Adler-Louis Marshall, March 16, 1923. LMP box 66/JTS.

178

Adler-Max Drob. August 29, 1923. CAP, box 2.

179

robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, pp. 376-377.

180

Adler-Israel Davidson, June 14, 1923. CAP, box 25.

Louis Finkelstein, “Cyrus Adler (A biographical Appreciation)”, The Torch 5, no. 3 (March, 1946), p. 6.

181

182

undated draft (1915?). CAP, box 5, file Hyamson, Moses.

183

Adler-Jacob Schiff, November 11, 1919. CAP, box 24.

184

Adler-Charles Hoffman, January 19, 1921. CAP, box 5.

185

Adler-Louis Marshall, March 1, 1923. LMP, box 66/JTS.

186

Adler, “report to the board”, May 18, 1924, p. 28.

187

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 117.

188

Adler, “report to the board”, May 18, 1924, p. 28.

According to Louis Finkelstein, the suggestion came from Professors Ginzberg, Marx and Davidson. “Preface”, Adler Letters, volume 1, p. xxi.

189

190

board of Directors Minutes, May 15, 1924, p. 16.

150

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

191

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, May 22, 1924. CAP, box 1.

on Adler's attachment to Philadelphia, see Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian” in Murray Friedman, ed. When Philadelphia Was the Capital of Jewish America (Philadelphia, 1993), pp. 92-105. Adler's daughter, Sarah Adler Wolfinsohn, in a personal communication to the author, claims that the reason Adler never moved to New York is that the synagogue he would have attended there, Shearith Israel, was not to his liking.

192

193

Adler-Mortimer Schiff, May 12, 1930. CAP, box 1, file J. b. Abrahams.

194

Adler-Louis Marshall, August 2, 1923. LMP box 66/JTS.

195

Joseph b. Abrahams-Louis Marshall, June 25, 1924. LMP, box 70/JTS.

196

board of Directors Minutes, May 17, 1925, p. 4.

197

board of Directors Minutes, March 14, 1926, p. 3.

board of Directors Minutes, May 15, 1924, p. 16. Cf. Adler-Aaron Finger, March 24, 1924, robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 92.

198

199

board of Directors Minutes, May 17, 1925, p. 4.

200

board of Directors Minutes, November 15, 1925.

201

board of Directors Minutes, May 15, 1924, p. 16. Cf. Faculty Minutes, 1924, pp. 43-47.

Adler, “report to the board”, February 17, 1925, p. 13. Cf. board of Directors Minutes, February 17, 1925, p. 3.

202

203

board of Directors Minutes, May 17, 1925, p. 4.

Adler, “Semi-Centennial Address”, in Cyrus Adler, ed., The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Semi Centennial Volume (New York, 1939), p. 14. Cf. Emily D. bilski, “Seeing the Future Through the Light of the Past: the Art of the Jewish Museum”, The Seminary at 100: Reflections on the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Conservative Movement ed. Nina beth Cardin and David Wolf Silverman (New York, 1987), pp. 145-146.

204

See Adler-S. Cohen, April 3, 1925; S. Cohen-Adler, July 18, 1929. CAP, box 2. Cf. AdlerSamuel Schulman, october 16, 1933. Schulman Papers, AJA, box 1/2.

205

206

board of Directors Minutes, May 15, 1924, p. 14.

207

The text of Adler's radio address is to be found in FWP, box 335/5.

208

Louis Finkelstein-Adler June 26, 1938. CAP, box 3.

209

Neuman, “Cyrus Adler”, p. 115.

210

Adler, “report to the board”, April 30, 1916, p. 29.

211

Adler-Louis Ginzberg, Alexander Marx and Israel Davidson, February 1, 1924. CAP, box 25.

212

Adler-Louis Marshall, July 12, 1923.

Adler-Louis Marshall, July 4, 1923, robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, p. 71. July 12, 1923. LMP, box 66/JTS. Adler-Marshall, July 23, 1923. LMP, box 66/JTS.

213

Adler-Louis Marshall, June 5, 1924; october 29, 1924. LMP, box 70/JTS. Cf. Adler-Mortimer Schiff, July 31, 1923, robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, pp. 72-74.

214

215

board of Directors Minutes, November , 1925, p. 4.

Felix Warburg-Adler, November 30, 1926; Adler-Warburg, December 6 and December 15, 1926. FWP box 224/20

216

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

151

217

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 361-362.

218

Adler-Louis Marshall, May 18, 1927. LMP, box 120/A.

219

Adler-Felix Warburg, December 6, 1926; January 14, 1927. FWP, box 231/8.

Adler-Louis Marshall, February 19, 1929. LMP box 78/A. Cf. Adler-Marshall, January 10 and February 22, 1929. LMP box 78/J. 220

board of Directors Minutes, october 16, 1929, p. 1. Cf., Jewish Theological Seminary register (1930-1931), p. 38.

221

222

board of Directors Minutes, February 5, 1930, pp. 2-3.

223

board of Directors Minutes, June 10, 1930, pp. 2-3.

224

Proceedings of the rabbinical Assembly (1930-1932), p. 121.

225

board of Directors Minutes, November 12, 1930, p. 5.

226

board of Directors Minutes, Finance Committee, December 2, 1931, p. 1.

227

Adler, “report to board of Directors”, December 2, 1931, p. 5.

228

board of Directors Minutes, Finance Committee, December 2, 1931, p. 8.

229

Arthur oppenheimer-Adler, December 22, 1931. CAP, box 5.

230

Felix Warburg-Adler, December 11, 1931. FWP, box 268/1.

231

Adler-Felix Warburg, December 17, 1931.

232

Felix Warburg-Adler, December 9, 1931. FWP, box 268/1.

233

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, April 7, 1932. CAP, box 1.

234

Joseph b. Abrahams-Adler, october 7, 1932. CAP, box 1.

235

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, January 14, 1932. CAP, box 1.

Cyrus Adler-Cyrus Adler, october 14, 1932. CAP, box 2. In the interests of bureaucratic completeness, Adler wrote himself a form letter detailing the salary cut.

236

237

Louis Finkelstein-Adler, July 31, 1933. CAP, box 3.

238

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, June 30, 1933. CAP, box 3.

239

Adler-Arthur oppenheimer, June 27, 1934. CAP, box 6.

240

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, March 31, 1937. CAP, box 3.

241

“report of Teachers Institute”, october 25, 1933. CAP, box 1.

242

Adler-Felix Warburg, June 13, 1932. FWP, box 278/6.

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, November 16, 1932, pp. 13-14. Cf. Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 25, 1934, pp. 2-3.

243

244

Louis Finkelstein-Adler, June 15, 1933. CAP, box 3.

Faculty Minutes, February 5, 1930, p. 4;September 25, 1930. Cf. Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 30, 1931, p. 2.

245

246

board of Directors Minutes, June 9, 1933, p. 13.

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, october 16, 1931. CAP, box 1. Cf. Adler-Louis Finkelstein, october 28, 1932. CAP, box 3.

247

248

Cited in Herman Dicker, Of Learning and Libraries: the Seminary Library at One Hundred

152

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

(New York, 1988), p. 46. 249

Adler-Alexander Marx, May 18, 1931. CAP, box 26.

250

Cf. Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 6, 1932, p. 5.

Louis Finkelstein-Adler, August 15, 1933. CAP, box 3. Cf. Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, November 13, 1933, p. 9.

251

252

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 25, 1934, pp. 1-4.

253

Faculty Minutes, March 11, 1931, p. 46; April 15, 1931, p. 52.

254

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, February 11, 1936, p. 1.

255

Adler, “Greetings”, Proceedings of the rabbinical Assembly 5 (1933-1938), p. 353.

256

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, February 11, 1936, p. 9.

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, February 11, 1936, p. 19. This contrasts with several reports from the 1920s which show Adler as less than an advocate of the social sciences. See Solomon Grayzel, “American and Jew”, Jewish Exponent, March 25, 1960.

257

258

Finkelstein, Draft “report to the board of Directors”, January 16, 1941, pp. 1-2.

259

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, May 2, 1938, p. 2.

260

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, April 25, 1939.

261

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, July 31, 1939. robinson, Adler Letters, volume 2, pp. 366-368.

262

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, February 11, 1936, p. 2.

263

board of Directors, Finance report, May 2, 1938, pp. 1-2.

264

board of Directors Minutes, June 10, 1938, p. 3.

265

board of Directors Minutes, June 10, 1938, p. 5.

266

board of Directors Minutes, June 10, 1938, pp. 9,11.

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, July 16, 1933. CAP, box 3. Cf. Adler-Louis Finkelstein, January 14, 1936, CAP, box 27. 267

268

Adler-Julian Morgenstern , January 31, 1935. Morgenstern Papers, AJA, box A1/6.

269

David Dalin,

270

Faculty Minutes, January 19, 1938, p. 52.

271

Faculty Minutes, June 9, 1938, p. 77.

272

Faculty Minutes, May 17, 1939, p. 42.

273

Adler-Louis Marshall, May 4, 1921. LMP, box 60, file Adler.

274

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, December 13, 1922. CAP, box 1.

275

Adler-racie Adler, February 2, 1923. Letter in the possession of the author.

Adler-Joseph A. Abrahams, April 28, 1924. CAP, box 1. Cf. Abrahams-Adler, February 20, 1925, in which Abrahams mentioned “a letter prepared by Doctor Finkelstein for your signature”. JTSA record Group 1, General Files, Section A, box 1.

276

277

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, December 10, 1938. CAP, box 3.

278

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, June 16, 1930, p. 11.

279

board of Directors Minutes, April 30, 1931, pp. 2-3.

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

153

280

Felix Warburg-Adler, December 11, 1931. FWP, box 268/1.

281

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, January 23, 1933. CAP, box 3.

282

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, June 11, 1935. CAP, box 3.

283

Louis Finkelstein-Adler, october 8, 1937. CAP, box 3.

Adler, “report to the board of Directors”, June 23, 1937. Cf. Adler-Louis Finkelstein, July 2, 1937. CAP, box 3.

284

285

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, october 11, 1937. CAP, box 3.

Thus the board of Directors voted to approve a recommendation “but to leave the details of working out this and other recommendations to Doctor Adler and Doctor Finkelstein. board of Directors Minutes, June 23, 1937, p. 4.

286

Louis Finkelstein-Adler, october 20, 1937. CAP, box 3. Cf. Finkelstein's preface to robinson, Adler Letters. For Adler's opinion of Finkelstein, see Adler-H. Pereira Mendes, June 9, 1931, CAP box 26, in which Finkelstein is described as “a man of piety and fervor”.

287

“Memorial resolution, April 8, 1940”, Jewish Theological Seminary register (1940-1941), p. 3.

288

289

board of Directors Minutes, october 25, 1939, p. 2.

290

Louis Finkelstein, “report to the board of Directors”, June 5, 1940.

291

racie Adler-Lewis?, JTSA records Group 1, General Files, Series A, box 1.

292

board of Directors Minutes, May 1, 1940, p. 3.

293

Cited in Dicker, Of Learning and Libraries, p. 50.

294

Louis Finkelstein, “report to the board of Directors”, october 29, 1940, pp. 3-4.

295

robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, pp. 364-365.

296

Louis Finkelstein, “Preface”, in robinson, Adler Letters, volume 1, pp. xxiii-xxiv.

297

Felix Warburg-Adler, January 27, 1932. FWP, box 278/7.

298

Adler-Felix Warburg, May 11, 1928. CAP, box 26.

299

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, December 1, 1936. CAP, box 3.

300

Cf. Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, p. 256.

301

Faculty Minutes, November 17, 1930.

302

Faculty Minutes, February 15, 1933, p. 18.

303

robinson, “Cyrus Adler”, pp. 379-381.

304

Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, p. 260.

305

Ibid., p. 261.

Solomon Schechter-Adler, May 5, 1911. CAP, box 23. The address was that of the induction of Judah Magnes to the rabbinate at bnai Jeshurun. Cf. Jewish Exponent March 31, 1911, p. 8.

306

“President's report”, Third Annual report of the United Synagogue of America (New York, 1915), p. 16.

307

308

Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, p. 260.

309

Adler-Louis Ginzberg, December 23, 1918. CAP, box 24.

310

Adler-Joseph b. Abrahams, June 4, 1934. CAP, box 1

154

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Cited in Mel Scult, Judaism Faces the Twentieth Century: a Biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan (Detroit, 1993), p. 205.

311

312

Louis Marshall-Adler, August 16, 1928. LMP box 1600/8/28.

313

Adler-I.A. Fried, April 7, 1931. CAP, box 3. The emphasis is in the original.

314

Adler-Edwin Kaufman, December 31, 1920. CAP, box 5.

315

Adler-Louis Finkelstein, November 13, 1936. CAP, box 3.

316

racie Adler-Frank rubenstein, June 29, 1941, rubenstein Papers, AJA.

317

Herbert rosenbloom, Conservative Judaism: a Contemporary History (New York, 1983), p. 25.

318

Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, p. 262.

Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1915-1940

155

156

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler: New Perspectives on the Development of American Jewry in the Early Twentieth Century (With Maxine Jacobson) Introduction Cyrus Adler (1863-1940) significantly contributed to many areas of American Jewish life. He was celebrated in many fields within the American Jewish community of his day as an institutional administrator, and a worker for many Jewish causes and institutions. He was the first American to get a Ph.D. in Semitics from an American University, John Hopkins. He was Assistant Secretary at the Smithsonian Institution, edited the Jefferson bible, was associate editor of the Jewish Encylopedia, president of the Jewish Theological Seminary, president of Dropsie College, and on the board of trustees of Gratz College. He was a primary player in the American Jewish Committee, The Jewish Publication Society, The Jewish Welfare board, and The Joint Distribution Committee. Adler was part of the American Jewish delegation at Versailles after World War one. Cyrus Adler was, in many respects, a distinguished representative of the class of affluent, acculturated, social minded, American Jews whose ancestors had immigrated to the United States from Germany in the midnineteenth century.1 While we know Cyrus Adler primarily from his professional and public life, the goal of this article is to obtain a different perspective and to understand some of his concerns through examining his correspondence with his wife, racie Friedenwald Adler (1872-1952). For most of their married life, Cyrus and racie were often separated. Cyrus ordinarily worked in New York on Jewish Theological Seminary and other business several days each week. During his frequent absences from his home in Philadelphia, Cyrus considered the letters to his wife his nightly chat and an avenue to vent his feelings.2 He would write, “I thought I would have a bit of a chat with you before going to bed”, or “I must chat with you on paper.”3 racie felt the

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

157

same. Thus she began one letter, “I was just about to go to bed but I want to talk to you first”.4 Their correspondence evokes a time when letter delivery was efficient and inexpensive, in contrast with the expensive and less reliable long distance telephone. As Cyrus further noted, “although we may be talking to each other in between, the written word remains.”5 The reader of these letters, numbering in the hundreds, which begin in 1892 and continue into the 1930s, is presented with a first hand view of historic events as they unfold, as well as insight into the personal lives of key public personalities who interacted with Adler and played a role in shaping American Jewish history. The letters also expose the dynamics of the couple, which further helps us understand Cyrus Adler, racie’s key role in his life, the changing role of women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the times they lived in. This article examines some of the significant events and issues addressed in the correspondence: the development of American Zionism, the friction between the German Jewish community and the Eastern European Jewish community and the relationship of Conservative Judaism with orthodox Judaism at the beginning of the parting of their ways. Personal correspondence has a character of its own. These letters expose feelings, personal observations and attitudes. on the public stage one rarely says all that one feels or thinks; one sees a carefully constructed persona. In the era that we examined, moreover, there were considerably different cultural expectations for both men and women, and public displays of emotions were supposed to be carefully controlled. It has been noted, in this context, that Cyrus Adler presented a public persona that “was reticent almost to a fault.”6 on the other hand, in these letters the words of Cyrus and racie are unscripted and spontaneous. Their accounts of their activities are often detailed and peppered with unguarded comments and personal opinions. It is because of their comfort level with each other that their attitudes are expressed so freely and that we see clearly the human feelings and frailties of the Adlers. The down side is that letters do not communicate all the facts we would like to know. Since they both were clued in to the context; topics of interest were often dealt with

158

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

in a sketchy, incomplete manner, and researchers are left to try to fill in the gaps. However, if details are missing, attitudes are very much present and these attitudes often paint a truer picture of people and the era, than clear, cold facts. role of Women The relationship of Cyrus and racie gives us a glimpse of the expectations of women’s role in society at that time. racie’s role in her husband’s life was an important one; she was active, helpful, and caring and thus fulfilled expectations for married women in that era. She was well read and able to intelligently discuss politics, community work and the arts with her husband. racie served as Cyrus’ ears and eyes when he was away. She reported what was said at meetings and encounters, as well as what she read in newspapers, journals and reports. She thus kept him updated with activities at Dropsie College, the United Synagogue, the American oriental Society, and particularly the Mikve Israel Synagogue, with which she was very involved. She regularly went through his mail forwarding information that she felt he needed. Thus she stated in one letter of 1918, “your mail was not anything that needed immediate attention.”7 racie was politically astute. Encouraging Cyrus to come to Lake Placid, where she was summering during their lengthy courtship, she wrote, “you might even score up a meeting with Mr. Schiff–as well as others of your patron saints such as Mr.[Simon] Guggenheim and Mr. [Louis] Marshall…”8 racie stayed active socially with those connected to Cyrus’ work. The Adlers socialized with the Jacob Schiffs, Felix Warburgs, Louis Marshalls, and the Lewis Straus’ to name a few of the well-known Jewish community leaders of the era.9 Clearly, racie cultivated the friendships of those who shared Cyrus’ interests and who were in a position to support him in his endeavours. racie was content to work behind the scenes in a supportive role, to be active in women’s organizations, to lunch and have tea with her friends. She shared or adopted her husband’s attitudes on community issues and concerns. She was supportive of his work, and tried never to cause him to feel torn between his work and home. During his 1919 absence in Paris, for instance, she wrote that he should not return The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

159

home until all his work was done.10 on another occasion that year she wrote, “I don’t want you to consider me one bit…”11 racie was somewhat hostile to women who strayed from the conventional female role of the day. She told her husband that at a meeting of the Women’s League, an organization for women affiliated with synagogues tied to the Jewish Theological Seminary, a resolution was proposed that it be incorporated in the United Synagogue of America, the organization of congregations supporting the Seminary, under one president. This proposal was divisive and racie wrote Cyrus: I never heard such talk– women saying that they did not want to be ordered about by men, that women always knew more, etc. God help the world when the sexes are pitted against each other.12 The Adlers’ relationship with Henrietta Szold, one of American Jewry’s most prominent intellectuals, and founder of Hadassah, also illustrates her hostility to an unconventional woman’s role. Henrietta Szold was the only woman prominently involved in Adler’s organizational work. She worked closely with Adler for many years in numerous projects, but especially in the Jewish Publication Society, which she served as translator, indexer, researcher, proof reader, statistician, administrator and editor.13. She collaborated with Adler on several of the Society’s first publications and they worked on the American Jewish Year Book together. Cyrus reported to racie many times about his work with “Miss Szold”. An example is this letter from 1910: “I was over at the Szolds a few minutes today to see Henrietta on business…”14 Yet there was animosity between the two; he seems to have resented her getting attention as a major player. Cyrus thus reported to racie in 1913 that a “Publication Society meeting was called to meet Miss Szold’s convenience though it was known that Dr. Schechter and I would be there.15 Cyrus was certainly not happy with Szold when she resigned from the JPS bible committee, and he was not happy with her proposed replacement: “I had a letter this morning from our mutual friend informing me that she has tendered her resignation offering her volunteer…to read the bible proof...”16 The disharmony was in evidence when Cyrus was in Paris in 1919, and racie reported:

160

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Henrietta Szold did not do me the honor to ask after you. I suppose she considers you her deadliest enemy–everyone except Henrietta asks about you...17 racie spoke of Henrietta Szold as “his friend”. When visiting Palestine in 1929 racie wrote, “Henrietta looks old and seems to have a terrible grouch on...but of late fears she has been so queer to us.”18 racie was clearly uncomfortable with and resentful of Szold. racie was witness to the beginning of changes in the role of women and in expectations of their gainful employment. She reported, in 1918, that Gratz College was looking for a staff replacement; “I told him, I suppose I or some lady would have to take the job as women were doing more things these days.”19 racie noted in her letter that the suffrage amendment was passed by the Senate in 1919, but, surprisingly, she made no additional comment on this important issue.20

Zionism The letters illustrate some of the dilemmas of being a Zionist in the early 1900s in America. Cyrus Adler considered himself a non-Zionist. He claimed in 1925 that, “though interested [in Zionism] he was not convinced”..21 He had sent Theodore Herzl, founder of political Zionism, some ideas to be presented at the first Zionist Congress, but these ideas were not followed up. Adler resented this and wrote that Herzl was– “not welcoming recruits that had ideas.”22 Concerning Herzl, Cyrus told racie that “I believed his publication legally assuring a home in Palestine, a chimera and so it is.”23 Adler felt that “the...right to rule is pretty well knocked out of us moderns you know.”24 At the news of Herzl’s death Adler responded, “like all Jews and many other people, I sincerely deplored the death of Herzl–yet I am not a Zionist.”25 However, racie was a Zionist, at least at the beginning of their relationship, perhaps influenced by her cousin, the American Zionist leader, Harry Friedenwald.26 racie clearly had an emotional connection with the Zionist cause, though her relationship to Zionism would

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

161

change as she took on Cyrus’ ideas. Thus in 1903, two years prior to her marriage to Cyrus, racie attended the sixth Zionist Congress in basle. As she related to her mother: I know that I have never been so moved and I found myself at the end of [Max] Nordau’s wonderful summing up–with the tears running down my cheeks and my lips bloody from constant biting... I think I am in a fair way to become a pretty good Zionist.27 Cyrus Adler went to the Peace Conference at Versailles in 1919, accompanying Louis Marshall, in order to represent the views of the American Jewish Committee, when it became clear that the American Jewish Congress, dominated by East European American Jews, preponderantly Zionist in orientation, would be well represented.28 The American Jewish Committee, made up mostly of Jews of German descent, tended to be non-Zionist and its leaders, like Adler, felt that loyalty to a Jewish State might conflict with their status as Americans. It wanted to preserve rights for Jews in lands where they lived, not to foster their relocation in Palestine. It is evident that in Paris, Adler succeeded in gaining the respect of many in the Jewish delegations. He wrote, “I feel satisfied that I have the confidence and respect of all the East European Jews and as you may have learned even the American Zionists come to me occasionally.”29 Adler was a diplomat par excellence and was careful not to do anything that would lead to an “open rupture” with the Zionists. He objected, however, to the goal of securing a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, which he referred to as “mere material nationalism”, though he claimed that he was open to a Zionism that worked for “the cultivation of Judaism upon the historical soil of Palestine.”30 Cyrus, nonetheless, in his private words with racie, had few kind words for the Zionists. He wrote in 1919, “by the way they have nothing more definite than the balfour Declaration.”31 racie’s caustic reply was, “what you say about the Zionists doesn’t sadden me–they do not even deserve the balfour Declaration.”32 He expressed his opinion of a number of Zionist leaders. of Louis brandeis, his adversary in the debate over the American Jewish Congress, Cyrus wrote: by the way the King of Israel for Washington and his prime min-

162

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

ister [Jacob] de Haas were here for a day–en route to Palestine.33 Cyrus felt that Judge Julian Mack, president of the Zionist organization of America, was “not a first class diplomat but has been energetic and useful...Mack is not a good speaker.”34 regarding Israel Zangwill, Adler wrote, “Zangwill has done himself great harm and is a very much suspected person in divine circles.”35 Cyrus even stooped to petty critiques; he wrote that Chaim Weizmann was a clever man, but his hair style “looks like Mephisto.”36 racie reported that at home, in America, there were those who objected to the Jewish Welfare board Haggada which included the Zionist anthem, Hatikva, that was sent overseas to American Jewish military personnel.37 Cyrus replied that, “Hatikva doesn’t belong in the Haggada–however, it is not possible to fight all the time.”38 He further related that non-Zionists at the Seder he attended in Paris in 1919 would not say “next year in Jerusalem and therefore Zionists refused to attend the second seder.” He wrote “None of the boys stayed away the second night because of ‘next year in Jerusalem’, I assure you it was only a few of the Eastern European politicians who are always looking for trouble”.39 Abreast of what was transpiring in Paris, racie commented on press reports she had read: I see that the Zionists are your publicity agents. I suppose you are the American delegate who objected to the sixth and nationalistic clause... Thank God you didn’t have to align yourself with them. [the Zionists].40 Cyrus wrote that he was happy that the word “national” [referring to Jews] was not included in the Versailles Peace Treaty and he felt that the first round was won. “I don’t often flap my wings and wouldn’t do it to anybody, –forgive me.”41 He wrote, “I came to help look after the treaties to get certain rights.”42 He was working primarily to secure rights for Jews in Eastern Europe, which included changing the Polish Treaty.43 He wrote that it was the “Polish treaty that interested us [the American Jewish Committee] most–results better than I had hoped–due to President [Woodrow] Wilson.”44 According to Cyrus, President Wilson was sympathetic to the plight of East Euro-

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

163

pean Jewry.45 Cyrus also gave credit to Louis Marshall: “[The Jews] couldn’t have accomplished half of what they did without Marshall– Marshall has held his own with the greatest of world lawyers”.46 He also called Marshall a “powerful machine”.47 Cyrus strongly felt that the Polish Treaty with its rights for Polish Jews: …is one of the great achievements of the Peace Conference–this watching must be done by America and the American Jewish Committee must either become a very strong organization or go under. 48 German Jewish and East European Jewish relations The many differences between the two groups had economic, social, cultural, and political aspects. racie and Cyrus themselves lived privileged upper middle class lives. both the Adlers and the Friedenwalds enjoyed prominent German Jewish family connections, and mixed in fairly high social circles, both Jewish and non-Jewish. At the turn of the century racie was traveling to Florida, Cuba, Jamaica and Europe, and spending summers in Lake Placid. Cyrus was dining with, as he described, “peerage present”in London as early as 1898. When in Lake Placid, racie wrote to Cyrus that things were quiet: “no phone calls except for the maids”.49 They were invited to the White House by President and Mrs. Theodore roosevelt in 1908. In contrast the East European Jewish immigrants constituted a predominantly poor, working class community, and were immersed in a Jewish culture significantly different from that of the more established American Jews. German Jews, who by the turn of the twentieth century were established and often prosperous residents in the United States, often viewed the Eastern Europeans as unenlightened, coarse, and dangerous radicals. The letters between racie and Cyrus Adler confirm that they shared many of these prejudices. When Abraham Cahan’s classic novel about an East European Jew’s rise from rags to riches, The Rise of David Levinsky, was published in 1917, Adler wrote to racie that she ought to get the new book.50 Months later, he again referred to the book and commented, “seems to me a strong story though crude...”51 We can also see from Cyrus’ letters concerning the different fac164

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

tions that attended the Peace Conference his prejudice toward Eastern European Jews. Adler wrote, referring to the East European Jewish delegation, that they, “might have been from Kamchatcha, except that the men from Eastern Europe brought valuable information.” 52 Kamchatcha was obviously a primitive, unsophisticated place and Cyrus seems to have implied that this description applied to the people also. The language of East-European Jewry was Yiddish, which was then competing with Hebrew for the allegiance of world Jewry. With respect to this conflict Cyrus wrote: I am also convinced that Hebrew should be used as a spoken language and am willing when I come home to join in the movement to that end. While I am too old to get a good use of it, I realize that we must have a language in which we [Jews] can communicate with each other and as I consider Yiddish a source of danger, I shall advocate Hebrew. 53 Cyrus and racie were a couple who modeled in themselves a consciously Americanized Judaism. Thus they would refer to Judaic concepts in their English form, thus avoiding both Yiddishisms and Hebraisms. Cyrus would wish racie “the joy and rest of the Sabbath”, “a pleasant Sabbath”, “a restful Sabbath” , “a peaceful Sabbath”or “the peace of the Sabbath”. 54 These greetings, in English, which may sound stilted and affected to many today, indicate their commitment to creating an American Jewish vocabulary. racie fully shared her husband’s disdain for the Yiddish language and his unease with Eastern European Jews. She wrote Cyrus in 1919 that Eastern European Jews: ...have found[ed] a Talmud Torah that meets after school and on Sunday but the teacher teaches in Yiddish...If they taught in English I would be satisfied and they would need no Sunday school. The girls do not go to the Talmud Torahs. They [the East European Educators] looked at me as a heathen as I insisted on English and Hebrew–and no Yiddish...Will talk to Dr. [Julius] Greenstone to see if this Talmud Torah could be associated with the North Eastern Talmud Torahs.55

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

165

When racie was in Atlantic City at a Convention of Jewish Charities, she complained about the food at the hotel and the people: “the kind of people here have actively changed. They are mostly of the russian persuasion”.56 There was a clear implication that this change was for the worse. organizations A large part of the story of East European-German Jewish relations in America may be told by looking at the paternalistic attitude of the German Jewish organizations. At the start of the century men of German Jewish origin were at the wheel of power in the American Jewish community. When East European men formed their own institutions their influence began to be felt by those in American Jewish organizational work who were in a position of power to influence, to change and to direct. Cyrus Adler was prominent among them. He was involved with many organizations and spent much of his life in what he described as “my riot of meetings”.57 It was not unusual for him to have three or four meetings a day or to have a meeting that lasted all day.58 Many of racie’s letters say “hope you had good meeting”.59 American Jewish Committee and American Jewish Congress Cyrus Adler was one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee. out of sympathy to the plight of East European Jews and also out of its own self-interest, the Committee, which primarily represented the interests of the German Jewish elite, had organized to do something about political problems important to Jews all over the world, especially the anti-Semitism that they felt was largely a result of the East European immigration. by aiding the Jewish poor, they also hoped to remove any Jewish welfare burden that could arouse anti-Semitism.60 However, the Committee came to be seen by many in the East European immigrant community as a self-appointed aristocracy. They did not feel that the American Jewish Committee should or did speak for them, and in 1918 the American Jewish Congress was founded, supposedly as a temporary measure to give voice to the demands of the American Jewish community at Versailles, though it

166

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

soon became a permanent fixture in American Jewish life. The conflict between the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress sheds much light on the differences between the American Jews of German descent and those of East European descent. The founders of the American Jewish Congress included Stephen Wise, a prominent reform rabbi, jurist Louis brandeis, Nathan Straus, a well known philanthropist and businessman, Henrietta Szold, and Golda Meyerson [Meir], a future Prime Minister of the State of Israel. American Jewish Congress, as representative of American Jewry at Versailles, constituted a major challenge to German Jewish control. racie’s cousin, Harry Friedenwald, resigned from the American Jewish Committee at the height of the conflict between Committee and Congress because he felt that it did not address the needs of the East European Jews. Friedenwald was unhappy at the lack of unified American Jewish action and he also resented the American Jewish Committee’s stance on Zionism. His biographer quoted racie’s reaction to his joining American Jewish Congress” “oh, Harry, you are not one of us–you are one of the Gesindel!”61 [rabble or rifraf] This statement illustrates clearly the prejudice and friction between the two groups and the two organizations. Harry and Cyrus had previously differed on the objectives of Dropsie College and on the Zionist question; this comment signalled a permanent breach between the two.62 At Versailles, Cyrus complained to racie that the American Jewish Congress was not relaying information to him, an example of his perception of the conflict and lack of co-operation between the two organizations.63 Kehilla Movement The Kehilla movement has been seen as another effort on the part of the German community to retain power, for in its design, the Kehilla was to be tightly controlled by the American Jewish Commit-

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

167

tee.64. The first Kehilla was organized in New York in 1908, when the East European Jewish community was charged with disproportionate criminality. The German Jews worried that all Jews would be affected by this accusation and moved to get it withdrawn. They also saw the need for a Kehilla movement to ease the social situation of the East European immigrants through organization and educational work. Cyrus Adler was a prominent founder of the Philadelphia Kehilla, which imitated the New York Kehilla, in 1910.65 The Philadelphia Kehilla began by looking into a tainted meat scandal involving Jewish butchers.66 In an effort to follow the New York model, Adler consulted with Judah Magnes, founder of the New York Kehilla.67 In 1910, Cyrus wrote to racie that the first public lecture of the Kehilla meeting was at the YMHA: “Marshall presided, Schiff made an address, and Magnes was the lecturer.”68 The same players who were behind the organization of the New York Kehilla were at work to encourage Philadelphia Jewry. A few months later Adler talked about the meeting of the “embryo kehilla.”69 Adler resigned his presidency of the Philadelphia Kehilla in 1916; after that its effectiveness ceased.70 When Cyrus was in Paris at the Peace Conference racie reported that there was news in the newspapers and journals that the Kehilla was being revived and “showing some signs of life” but this revival never took place and the Philadelphia Kehilla came definitively to an end.71 The Kehilla movement as a whole was killed by the crisis of the Jewish response to the challenges of World War one. Thereafter the American Jewish Committee was no longer able to solely influence the political organization of American Jewry. Jewish Publication Society Another avenue of Cyrus’ influence was the Jewish Publication Society, founded in Philadelphia in 1888. Cyrus Adler was one of its founding members. The establishment of JPS portended a new role for American Jews as educators and spokesman for world Jewry, with the goal of informing Jews and non-Jews alike and of preventing anti-

168

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Semitism. JPS served as an intellectual outlet for Adler, keeping him busy on many fronts. However, once again, we see German Jews at the helm, wielding power. JPS at the start had an overt anti-East European bias; one of their early publications showed this bias.72 There was little East European presence in leadership positions.73 JPS committee members were an accomplished, powerful group and included Cyrus Adler and Solomon Schechter, who worked to shape the committee so that it would be weighed toward the “Conservative element.”74 Also involved were Marcus Jastrow, oscar Straus, Solomon Solis-Cohen, Israel Friedlaender, Joseph Jacobs, Judge Mayer Sulzberger, and Henrietta Szold. 75 JPS joined the battle against russian Jewish persecution in the wake of the infamous 1903 pogroms in Kishinev. It issued a series of informational pamphlets and appointed Cyrus Adler to oversee the effort. Adler edited a volume entitled The Voice of America on Kishineff, in which he reported the atrocities, the history of outrages, protest meetings, sermons, resolutions, editorial articles, petitions and protests, (one was sent by President Theodore roosevelt to the Tsar) on the subject. Cyrus wrote to racie, “I am celebrating Christmas in the seminary working on the Kishineff book. That is a continuation, isn’t it?”76 In his article “The Voice of America on Kishineff,” Adler wrote, “the Hebrew race throughout the world is wrought up over the situation of their brethren in russia.”77 This effort raised public awareness and therefore the outrage and indignation of American Jews, Jewish organizations, and non-Jews. It helped build support for the abrogation of an 1832 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and russia, which involved the rights of American Jews to enter russia, and was another important early project of the American Jewish Committee.78 Cyrus thought it important to instill in American Jewry a pride in being American, as well as to teach Jews and non-Jews alike the significance of the Jewish role in America. He reported that while dining with the Schechters, Schiffs, Morris Loebs, and Paul Warburgs, “we talked about the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the settlement of Jews in New York next fall.”79 He wrote that a history of the Jews in America “is on the carpet and may result in making the The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

169

[American Jewish] Historical Society a much more important concern...”80 The plans took root and Adler wrote, “I will undertake the preparation of a history of the Jews of America in co-operation with the 250th anniversary committee and with the Jewish Publication Society...to instill pride in being Jewish and being American.”81 Cyrus wrote that he was “happy to be writing a memorial History of Jews in America...wanted...to support the reputation of the Historical Society.” 82 Cyrus also undertook a leadership role in the translation of the Hebrew bible into English, which had originally been initiated by the JPS in 1892. He took up this editorial task along with Solomon Schechter, Joseph Jacobs, Kaufman Kohler and David Philipson.83 This translation was designed to revive Jewish interest in the bible. It was the first translation of bible into English by a committee of Jews and it appeared in 1917.84 There were many “bible meetings”, as Adler called them, over a period of many years. Cyrus reported in a letter in 1905 that he had his bible meeting before dining at the Friedlaenders.85 In 1910 he wrote to racie that he had his bible meeting and then went to a [JPS] Publications Committee meeting and “it was a great occasion–Judge Sulzberger, Henrietta [Szold], oscar Straus, [Judah] Magnes, [David] Philipson, Herbert [Friedenwald], [Joseph] Jacobs were there. one of the most interesting meetings”.86 In 1912 he wrote, “we made progress on the bible work today.”87 In 1913 he wrote, “translating the bible...work going well.”88 This is not to say that there were no problems in the Translation Committee, for there were numerous clashes of personalities and ideas. Historian Jonathan Sarna has pointed out that Kaufman Kohler wanted final decisions to be his alone and he eventually resigned from the committee.89 Cyrus wrote to racie, “again conflict with [Samuel] Schulman and Kohler–progress not made because of this conflict.”90 Adler wrote on another occasion, “had a good meeting because of Kohler’s absence.”91 A comment Cyrus made laid out one of the underlying causes of the friction; “Shulman is...more furious than ever as Kohler–after a fine introduction by Shulman– Kohler said that russians and rumanians could not understand reform Judaism!”92 This was a most offensive remark, especially since it was made to a reform rabbi born in russia. Kohler’s com-

170

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

ment is another example of the underlying tension between German Jews and Jews of East European origins. The project took many years; Adler and Philipson met often, as late as 1915, to write the introduction: “Philipson and I have been working on the Introduction...I went to the bible meeting with United Synagogue”.93 In 1916 he wrote, “I was with Dr Philipson for an evening in bible Introduction”.94 Conservative Judaism observance of the Sabbath, Jewish education, and Kashrut facilities were important for the Adlers in maintaining a viable Jewish community. racie’s letters to Cyrus convey weakness in these areas and a desire to improve the situation. She often spoke about poor synagogue attendance at Mikveh Israel: “poor shabbos attendance at synagogue”, or: “attendance in synagogue horrible and getting worse”.95 racie wrote Cyrus that, at a meeting she had attended, the problem of facilitating and encouraging the observance of the Sabbath was addressed and it was suggested that, “people who close factories on Saturdays be given synagogue membership–persuading them to come to synagogue”.96 . Commenting on the level of Sabbath observance, racie wrote that she observed members of a Philadelphia congregation who stopped at the bank to make deposits on Saturday.97 At another time she wrote: ...surprised to see rabbi Klein on Saturday leaning into an automobile to talk to some of his folks. I really think that was quite unnecessary.98 In racie’s eyes, this was surely an example of openly transgressing the Jewish Sabbath law by those in the car, and of the rabbi openly accepting this transgression. racie complained in another of her letters about the lack of traditional Jewish observance at many Jewish charitable organizations: “that federated charities have been working on Saturdays”.99 The Adlers’ only daughter, Sarah, did not go to a Jewish parochial school, and racie complained to Cyrus that Sarah’s school did not give its students a vacation to coincide with the Passover holidays: “high school in Montreal changed spring vacation to coincide with

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

171

Passover holiday and the Parls [sic?] School can’t do it.100 racie also wrote that she was keeping Sarah away from Saturday afternoon classes: “you would not care to have Sarah go on Saturday afternoon, would you?”101 It is somewhat of a surprise that she had to ask the question, but such were the dilemmas of observant Jewish parents in the 1920s. racie wrote that at a meeting she attended there was talk about standardizing Hebrew teaching, school curricula, teachers’ prerequisites, and that they discussed co-operation between Talmud Torahs and Sunday Schools.102 However, while synagogues recognized the need for improvement in this area, and wanted to address these problems, it appears that the community’s umbrella organization, Federation, was not making Jewish education an important priority as indicated by Cyrus’ reply to racie’s letter: “sorry to hear how little Federation has done for education...I will concentrate on this next year.”103 There were problems regarding the state of kosher facilities. As mentioned, the Philadelphia Kehilla tried to address corruption in the kosher meat industry, which was certainly not unique to Philadelphia. Improving and expanding kashrut was a goal that was addressed in several letters. racie wrote that, “...rabbi Klein...insists that kashrut must be observed in institutions...some felt it was hopeless in hospitals.”104 She reported later that month, “there is talk of opening a kosher restaurant.105 one of the problems discussed was the kosher butcher shops and their lack of reliability and appeal. racie wrote, “there is talk about cleaning up the kosher butcher shops; young women give up on buying kosher because of this, especially in West Philadelphia.”106 Jewish Theological Seminary Cyrus Adler was heavily involved in the Jewish Theological Seminary from its founding by his teacher, Dr. Sabato Morais. He was connected with the Seminary as early as 1887 and became president of its board of Directors.107 He helped reorganize JTS and bring in Dr. Solomon Schechter as its president, and eventually he himself be-

172

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

came president of JTS. Abraham Neuman, Adler’s biographer, wrote that the Adler-Schechter relationship was “that of Jonathan and David.”108 Solomon Schechter, among whose major accomplishments was his discovery of the Genizah in Cairo, was an important part of the Jewish cultural renaissance in England in the late nineteenth century.109 It was Adler who encouraged Schechter to come to America to head the JTS.110 Cyrus Adler worked with Schechter on a daily basis. He spent several days each week in New York doing Seminary work and returned to his home in Philadelphia on weekends. Adler wrote racie repeatedly that Seminary work was keeping him busy.111 The letters do not in general discuss either policy making, halakhic, or philosophic discussions at JTS. We do see clearly though, Cyrus Adler, the devoted and capable administrator. Adler wrote to racie of Schiff’s scheme to unite the Seminary Teacher’s Institution, Dropsie College and Gratz College into one institution of which Adler was to be the head, “a sort of Jewish University–Dan Guggenheim, Marshall, Warburg, all agreed.”112 In his autobiography, Adler wrote about this, and added that the reason for this suggestion was that Marshall, Schechter, and Schiff all feared that the newly formed Dropsie College, which had received the largest endowment of any other Jewish college, would draw students away from JTS.113 However, Cyrus told racie that Dr, Schechter had not yet been consulted on the matter, and he did not know how Dr. Schechter would feel. He “wouldn’t countenance a plan that would put him above Schechter.”114 Cyrus noted that “the Seminary is a difficult place to run, working with Solomon Schechter”.115 Finances were a key problem in keeping the Seminary viable and Schechter’s poor handling of the finances of the Seminary were criticized. Cyrus wrote in 1913 that Schechter approved a scheme that he and Schiff had discussed.116 It is likely the scheme was Schiff’s plan to improve the seminary’s finances. Cyrus was always alert for opportunities to raise money for and foster awareness of the institution. one day while at the Seminary synagogue, he wrote, “I got one lady interested in the seminary and she bought manuscripts for the seminary”.117 Another time, he wrote,

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

173

“she [referring to a wealthy potential donor] is now truly interested in the Jewish schools. Think of it!”118 by 1914, Schechter was not well and Adler commented “that makes for things getting done slowly”.119 At the June commencement “Marshall presided well, [Louis] Ginzberg confirmed the degrees”since Schechter was ill.”120 Cyrus Adler added the presidency of JTS to his other responsibilities after the death of Solomon Schechter.121 racie wrote that she had met Professor Paul Haupt, Adler’s former professor at Johns Hopkins University, and that he had asked if [Israel] Friedlaender was going to be Schechter’s successor. Haupt said, according to racie, Adler ought to have it and Schechter was no administrator.122 Conservative-orthodox relations The letters between Cyrus and racie also expose something of the relationships between the emerging Conservative and orthodox factions within American traditional Judaism. racie replied to one of Cyrus’s letters: “I quite agree with you that...Israel has certainly lost its old traditions in taking up with revel’s crowd.”123 Hence, in the Adlers’ opinion, the orthodox group coalescing around bernard revel, and the Yeshiva he was developing, was not helpful for the progress of American Judaism. It appears from the letters that Cyrus and Philadelphia’s preeminent orthodox rabbi, bernard Levinthal, disagreed on certain issues as early as 1906, though the letters do not make the issues clear.124 We can presume that some of the core differences between the two men led to the friction: Levinthal was orthodox, Zionist, East European. They both were key leaders of Jewish Philadelphia, and mere competition may have been a factor too. Details may be missing from the letters, but Cyrus’ attitudes are blatant. regarding mass meetings held in New York and Philadelphia in 1906, most likely to protest the continuing persecution of russian Jewry, racie wrote, “I suppose Levinthal will get up and brag again and add a few more tall stories”.125 Levinthal was also a representative at the Versailles Conference, but the two men met only acciden-

174

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

tally at a kosher restaurant: “this is the first time that I’ve met Levinthal as we have not been sitting in the same conferences”.126 Cyrus wrote another time, “I’m happy that you paid no attention to the Levinthal interview.”127 on the same topic, Cyrus continued in another letter, “I have written this smear with reference to the Levinthal interview.”128 Adler wrote, “what you say about rabbi Levinthal is amusing. You know he is a good politician.”129 Yet, there is evidence that the two traditionalist groups in the process of separating from one another could support each other at times. Cyrus Adler went to the orthodox Jewish Center Synagogue in Manhattan to meet with its key members, Joseph H. Cohen, Fishman, Asinof, rothchild, and Arthur Lamport. He wrote that: ...they agreed they had a moral obligation to help me in repaying but held that it was the whole Center that obligated themselves and that the other crowd should pay part.130 Adler does not state specifically what they should help pay for, but it likely concerned the payment of a pledge to the Seminary made before Mordecai Kaplan was deposed as the Jewish Center’s rabbi. The issue of Mordecai Kaplan and his ideas was a divisive point for the nascent American orthodox and Conservative movements. Kaplan’s proposals to reconstruct Judaism had been a shock to orthodox Judaism because they were inconsistent with his position as an orthodox rabbi and he had thus resigned as rabbi of the Jewish Center Synagogue. At the meeting at the Jewish Center, Adler added, “of course the Kaplan matter obtruded itself at every step and great bitterness was shared...”131 However, according to Cyrus: ...they agreed that it would be unwise for me to force a resignation and they are not sure of the wisdom of their own course–in fact one of the men admitted it.132 The orthodox leadership in question would have likely disagreed with his assessment. He also felt that Joseph Cohen was the “fairest and mildest of the lot.” of course, it was Joseph Cohen that was instrumental in having Kaplan removed from his post as rabbi of that synagogue. Adler came away feeling that the talk was useful for the Seminary.

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

175

Adler presented the issue of Mordecai Kaplan as a problem that the orthodox were having, attempting to distance the problem from the Jewish Theological Seminary: “Dr. Pool is returning from Palestine to endeavor to slide into the Jewish Center where there is a great shindy against Kaplan.” 133 on the other hand, Kaplan’s presence on the JTS faculty was strongly criticized by the orthodox. racie’s remark on this subject was somewhat guarded: “I see by the seminary program that Kaplan was back at his old job, I knew his absence last year was criticized”.134 However, Kaplan’s presence on the JTS staff was also a problem for some at JTS. Professors came individually to see Cyrus Adler regarding Kaplan, as in this 1927 remark: “...for now the fuss is over Kaplan”.135 Adler did not ultimately fire Kaplan, despite the pressure put on him, and despite his disagreement with Kaplan’s theories, because of his fundamental belief in academic freedom. Another comment by racie is worth exploring. She wrote that “Levinthal’s son advocated having English in the synagogue service yesterday.”136 bernard Levinthal’s son was Israel Levinthal, a Conservative rabbi, and the issue of English in the service was another ongoing, divisive issue between the orthodox and Conservative groups. At this point hard lines and clear concepts eluded both groups. Conclusion Cyrus Adler died in 1940, and the last decade of his life was one of great political and economic turmoil. As a prominent leader of the Joint Distribution Committee, Adler was in a good position to know of the tragedy that lay ahead. Adler wrote to his daughter, Sarah, in 1932, “the situation in Germany getting more anxious”.137 In another letter that year he wrote, “more trouble for the Jews in Germany–bad times ahead for the Jews in Germany” 138 He commented about a JDC meeting that it “was an impressive but melancholy affair...nothing but hard luck reports from every path of Europe–except Holland and Switzerland.”139 “The news of the world is unspeakable”, he told his daughter, though he was hopeful that either Italian dictator, benito Mussolini, would climb down or that the Council of

176

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

the League of Nations would help solve the crisis.140 The thirties were economically hard times. Cyrus reported that Dropsie College could not balance its budget. 141 All institutions faced difficult times and progress was impeded because of this. Furthermore, in America anti-Semitism was all too prevalent. Adler wrote about the recurrence of anti-Jewish attacks within the American military: ...due in part, I believe to the prominence of Einstein and some lesser Jews in the pacifist movement .142 In times such as these, Adler talked of the cooperation between him and rabbi Stephen Wise, president of American Jewish Congress, “who wanted me to do impossible things for the Jews of Germany...”. Adler did send telegrams at Wise’s behest, which, he noted, cost him $120.00 in long distance calls.143 Cyrus, always a proud American, wrote that he had received a letter from benjamin Cardozo resigning from the American Jewish Committee because of his appointment to the Supreme Court: “he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate–a little better experience than brandeis had.”144 For Adler, Cardozo’s appointment to the Supreme Court was a ray of hope for the improvement of the status of the Jew in America: Judge Cardozo took his seat on the Supreme Court today and four million Jews have grown taller whereas his stature has not changed.145 The letters between Cyrus and racie Adler give us precious glimpses of their times, and their struggles to establish American and Jewish identities. Cyrus helped build institutions and organizations that enabled Jews and Judaism to develop on American soil, and that gave a new importance for American Jews in the fight for equal and human rights for Jews the world over. All the conflicts, issues, and dilemmas he faced were fully shared with racie. The Adlers spoke to each other candidly in their letters, and their correspondence speaks eloquently to us.

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

177

Notes Major books about Cyrus Adler include his autobiography, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1945) and Ira robinson, ed. Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1985). Studies on Adler include Jonathan D. Sarna. “Cyrus Adler and The Development of American Jewish Culture: The 'Scholar-Doer' as a Jewish Communal Leader," American Jewish History 78 (1989), pp. 382-394; Gayle Meyer Coolick. "The Public Career of Cyrus Adler." (Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia State University, 1981); David G.Dalin.“Cyrus Adler, Non-Zionism, and the Zionist Movement: A Study in Contradictions”, AJS Review, Vol.10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 5587; Leonard J. Greenspoon, “A book ‘Without blemish’: The Jewish Publication Society's bible Translation of 1917”, Jewish Quarterly Review, 79, No. 1 (July, 1988), pp.1-21; Abraham Neuman. Cyrus Adler (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1942); Ira robinson. “Cyrus Adler”, American National Biography (New York, oxford University Press, 1999), volume 1, pp. 153-154; idem., “Cyrus Adler and The American: a Moment in the Intellectual History of American Jewry”, in Jay Harris, ed. Be’erot Yitzhak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2005), pp. 179-191; idem., "Cyrus Adler and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: Image and reality", American Jewish History 78 (1989), pp. 363-381; idem., “Cyrus Adler, bernard revel and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States”, American Jewish History 69 (1980), 497-505; idem., "Cyrus Adler: President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 1915-1940", Tradition Renewed: a History of the Jewish Theological Seminary, ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997), volume 1, 103-159; idem., "Cyrus Adler the Philadelphian", When Philadelphia was the Capital of Jewish America ed. M. Friedman (Philadelphia, 1993) 92-105; idem., "The Invention of American Jewish History", American Jewish History 81 (1994), 309-320. 1.

on racie Adler, see Women’s League Outlook 22, no. 4 (May, 1952), pp. 8-9. 2. Cyrus Adler to racie Adler, Dec.21, 1916. The letters to and from Cyrus Adler and his wife racie Friedenwald Adler cited in this article are currently in the possession of their grandaughter, Judith Wolfinsohn Parker of Cambridge, Massachusetts. We acknowledge her kindness in placing the original letters in our hands. The only significant previous use of this material was Moshe Davis, “The Human record: Cyrus Adler at the Peace Conference, 1919”, Essays in American Jewish History, To Commemorate the Tenth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Jewish Archives Under the Direction of Jacob Rader Marcus (Cincinnati, 1958), pp. 457-491, and Ira robinson, Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters. 3.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 28, 1910; october 29, 1929.

4.

racie to Cyrus Adler, Sept. 5,1905.

5.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 24, 1933.

6.

robinson. “When Philadelphia Was the Capital of Jewish America,” p. 93.

7.

racie to Cyrus Adler, January 30, 1918.

8.

racie to Cyrus Adler, August 6,1902.

racie to Cyrus Adler April 18,1905; January 21,1932. Simon Guggenheim, a Senator from Colorado, was active on the JTS board. The fact that he had intermarried posed a dilemma concerning this position. Cyrus wrote to racie, reflecting on the deliberation and discussion of this issue, “We all think that Simon Guggenheim must resign from the Seminary board. He is not responsible for his wife but he is responsible for his children”, Cyrus to racie Adler, May 19,1913; May 21,1913. Louis Marshall was both a lawyer and Jewish community leader, protecting human and civil rights of the Jewish people and others. Cf. Charles reznikoff, ed., Louis Marshall: Champion of Liberty. Selected Papers and Addresses (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1957). Like Schiff, Marshall was

9.

178

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

a reform Jew, but was active at JTS and became the chairman of the its board. He and Cyrus worked closely on many projects. Jacob Schiff was head of the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was active in and supported many Jewish causes, including the JPS and the JDC; he was one of the founders of The America Jewish Committee. Schiff was a contributor to relief programs for Jewish victims of russian anti-Semitic programs. Adler acknowledges how supportive Schiff was of his endeavors in his autobiography. See I Have Considered The Days, p. 270. 10.

racie to Cyrus Adler, April 19,1919.

11.

racie to Cyrus Adler, April 25,1919.

racie to Cyrus Adler, June 17,1919. The National Women’s League of the United Synagogue was founded on June 21,1918, created by its sisterhood organizations, under the leadership of Mathilde Schechter, Solomon Schechter’s wife. There is no evidence that this resolution was implemented. 12.

There are several biographies of Henrietta Szold. Two that are easily available are Marvin Lowenthal, Henrietta Szold: Life and Letters (New York, Viking, 1942) and Joan Dash, Summoned to Jerusalem: the Life of Henrietta Szold. (New York, Harper and row, 1979).

13.

14.

Cyrus to racie Adler, December 6,1910.

15.

Cyrus to racie Adler, october 31,1913.

16

. Cyrus to racie Adler, october 2, 1915.

17.

racie to Cyrus Adler, April 25, 1919.

18.

racie Adler to her sister, April 4, 1929.

19.

racie to Cyrus Adler, September 12, 1918.

. racie to Cyrus Adler, June 6, 1919. In a personal communication, Judith Wolfinsohn Parker recalls that her grandmother was strongly for votes for women, but that her grandfather, while sympathetic to that cause, did not wish her to participate in demonstrations.

20

21

. Cyrus to racie Adler , March 31,1925.

. Cyrus to racie Adler, May 4,1905. In this letter, Cyrus enclosed correspondence he had had with Herzl in folder entitled “Zionism 1904-5”. The letters are on Smithsonian Institution stationery. 22

23.

Ibid.

24.

Ibid.

25

. Cyrus to racie Adler, August 2, 1904.

26. Alexandra Lee Levin. Vision: a Biography of Harry Friedenwald. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964), pp.148, 192, 240. 27.

racie Adler to her mother, Aug. 30, 1903.

28

. Moshe Davis. “The Human record: Cyrus Adler at the Peace Conference, 1919”, p. 461.

29

. Cyrus to racie Adler, June 25, 1919.

30.

robinson Cyrus Adler: Selected Letters volume 1, pp. 213, 229-230.

31. Cyrus to racie Adler, March 1, 1919. The balfour Declaration of 1917 stated that the british government supported a Jewish national home in Palestine. 32.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 29, 1919.

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

179

. Cyrus to racie Adler, June 21, 1919. brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, became an ardent Zionist and Zionist leader only in his fifties, in response to antiSemitism in America , and was influenced in this direction by Jacob de Haas, a disciple of Herzl. brandeis’ high profile gave American Zionism new respectability and vigor.

33

. Cyrus to racie Adler, April 29, 1919.

34

35. Cyrus to racie Adler, April 23, 1919. Zangwill was a british writer. His influential novel, Children of The Ghetto, was published by the Jewish Publication Society. Zangwill founded the Jewish Territorialist organization in 1905 with the aim to creating a Jewish homeland wherever possible. This stance caused friction with the majority of Zionists. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 46, Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 77.

Cyrus to racie Adler, April 29, 1919. Dr. Chaim Weizmann had been instrumental in obtaining the balfour Declaration. He would become president of the World Zionist organization and the first president of the State of Israel.

36.

37.

racie Adler to Cyrus Adler, March 19, 1919.

38.

Cyrus to racie Adler, April 10, 1919.

39.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May12, 1919.

40.

racie to Cyrus Adler. May 23, 1919.

41.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 21, 1919.

42.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 26, 1919.

43.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 29, 1919.

44.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 29, 1919.

45.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 315.

. Cyrus to racie Adler, May 27, 1919.

46

Cyrus to racie Adler, July 5, 1919.

47. 48.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 30, 1919.

49.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 31, 1916.

50.

Cyrus to racie Adler, February 20, 1905.

51.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 17, 1905.

52.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 12, 1919.

53.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 29, 1919. Cyrus to racie Adler, october 28, 1904, May 4,1905, June 16,1905, July14,1908.

54. 55.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 23, 1919.

56.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 30, 1919.

57.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 8, 1914.

58.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 8, 1914, February 13, 1932.

59.

racie to Cyrus Adler, July 16, 1919.

180

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

Naomi Cohen. Not Free To Desist: the American Jewish Committee 1906-1966 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 5732-1972), introduction.

60.

61.

Alexandra Lee Levin. Vision: a Biography of Harry Friedenwald., p. 231.

62.

Ibid., pp. 181-182.

63.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 12, 1919.

on the New York Kehilla , see Arthur Goren, New York Jews and the Quest for Community:the Kehillah Experiment, 1908-1922 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970).

64.

65.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 252.

Ira robinson ATwo North American Kehillot and their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal. Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division B The History of the Jewish People, Volume III Modern Times (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 139-146.

66.

Adler, I Have Considered The Days, p. 292. Dr Judah Magnes was president of the New York Kehillah and later the first president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

67.

68.

Cyrus to racie Adler, December 5, 1910.

69.

Cyrus to racie Adler, February 7, 1911.

70. 71.

robinson, “Two North American Kehillot and Their Structure: Philadelphia and Montreal”. racie to Cyrus Adler, May 2, 1919.

72. Jonathan Sarna. JPS: The Americanization of Jewish Culture 1888-1988 (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: JPS, 5749/1989), p. 33. 73.

Ibid., p. 139.

74.

Ibid., p. 122.

75. racie to Cyrus Adler, July 29,1920. Cyrus Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 38. Marcus Jastrow was a Philadelphia rabbi, a contemporary of Sabato Morais, a great Talmudic scholar and another of Cyrus’ mentors. oscar Strauss was an Ambassador to Turkey, and a Secretary of Commerce and Labor. He was active in the leadership of Dropsie College and like Cyrus Adler, a non-Zionist. Cf. Naomi Cohen, A Dual Heritage: the Public Career of Oscar S. Straus (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1969). Solomon Solis-Cohen was a physician and Cyrus’ friend, as well as a disciple of Sabato Morais. Cf. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 66. Israel Friedlander was on the faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary. When on a Jewish Joint Distribution Committee project in the Ukraine in1920 he was killed, leaving behind a widow and six children. Cf. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 331. Joseph Jacobs was a member of the Anglo-Jewish intelligentsia who came to America, taught at JTS, was a founding member of AJC, and worked with Adler on the Jewish Encyclopedia. Cf. Adler. I Have Considered the Days, pp. 78,246. Judge Mayer Sulzberger was Adler’s uncle, and the first president of the American Jewish Committee. 76.

Cyrus to racie Adler, December 25,1903. Cf. Sarna, JPS, p. 64.

77. racie Adler to Cyrus Adler, April 17,1904. (Enclosed is this letter is a clipping of the article “The Voice of America on Kishineff.” Cf. Cyrus Adler, ed. The Voice of America on Kishineff. (Philadelphia; Jewish Publication Society, 1904). 78.

Naomi Cohen, Not Free To Resist The American Jewish Committee 1906-1966, pp. 54-80.

Morris Loeb was a German-American businessman and a brother-in-law of Jacob Schiff. Paul Warburg was a banker who was a business partner of Jacob Schiff.

79.

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

181

80.

Cyrus to racie Adler, April 2, 1905.

81.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 16, 1905.

82.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 29, 1905.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, pp. 288-289. For more about the JPS bible translation see Max L. Margolis, The Story of Bible Translations. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 5703-1943).

83.

84.

Sarna , JPS, p. 95.

85.

Cyrus to racieAdler, December 4, 1905.

86.

Cyrus to racie Adler, December 4, 1910.

87.

Cyrus to racie Adler, July 9, 1912.

88.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 2, 1913.

89.

Sarna , JPS, p. 100.

Cyrus to racie, May 18, 1913. Samuel Schulman was a member of the editorial board of the JPS. He was a reform rabbi and had taken over Kohler’s Temple Emanu-El in New York when Kohler became president of Hebrew Union College.

90.

91.

Cyrus to racie Adler, october 28, 1913.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 13, 1913. In his autobiography, Cyrus avoids mentioning names, but implies that, despite occasional differences, on the whole things went well. I Have Considered the Days, pp. 288-290.

92.

93.

Cyrus to racie Adler, october 28, 1915.

94.

Cyrus to racie Adler, April 25, 1916.

95.

racie to Cyrus Adler, March 15, 1919; April 26, 1919.

96.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 25, 1919.

97.

racie to Cyrus Adler, April 11, 1918.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 7, 1919. It is likely that this was rabbi Max Klein who was ordained at JTS in 1911 and was rabbi at Adath Jeshurun Synagogue in Philadelphia from 1911-1960.

98.

99.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 7, 1919.

100.

racie to Cyrus Adler, March 14, 1913.

101.

racie to Cyrus Adler, october 27, 1913.

102.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 7, 1919.

103.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 10, 1919.

104.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 7, 1919.

105.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 25, 1919.

106.

racie to Cyrus Adler. May 27, 1919.

182

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

107.

Cyrus to racie Adler, February 3, 1903.

108.

Neuman. Cyrus Adler, p. 47.

109

. Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 364.

110.

Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 88.

111.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 13, 1913, and March 30,1928

112.

Cyrus to racie Adler, February 3, 1903.

113.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 277.

114.

Cyrus to racie Adler, February 3, 1903.

115.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 15, 1905.

116

. Cyrus to racie Adler, February 4, 1913.

117.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 2,1907.

118.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 3, 1922.

119.

Cyrus to racie Adler, November 9, 1914.

120.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 7, 1914. Louis Ginzberg was professor of Talmud at JTS.

Adler, I Have Considered the Days, p. 291. Adler’s permanent appointment as president of JTS was slow in coming. After Solomon Schechter’s death, in 1915, he acted as president for eight years before being appointed officially. 121.

122.

racie to Cyrus Adler. December 2, 1915.

rabbi bernard Levinthal, an important orthodox Jewish leader nationally and in Adler’s home city, Philadelphia, helped found Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva, later Yeshiva University as well as the Union of orthodox rabbis of the United States and Canada, and was a prominent Zionist leader.

124

125.

racie to Cyrus Adler, May 26, 1906.

126.

Cyrus to racie Adler, April 1, 1919.

127.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 8, 1919.

128.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 25, 1919.

129.

Cyrus to racie Adler, June 12, 1919.

130.

Cyrus to racie Adler, March 25, 1922.

131.

Cyrus to racie Adler, March 25, 1922.

132.

Cyrus to racie Adler, March 25, 1922.

133.

Cyrus to racie Adler, May 13, 1919.

134.

racie to Cyrus Adler, June 3, 1922.

135.

Cyrus to racie Adler, February 23, 1927.

136.

racie to Cyrus Adler, June 19, 1919.

The Correspondence of Cyrus Adler and racie Friedenwald Adler

183

137.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler [his daughter], February 18, 1932.

138.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, February 28, 1932.

139.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, March 31, 1932.

140.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, June 26, 1934.

141.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, February 3, 1932.

142.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, February 21, 1932.

143.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, March 10, 1932.

144.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, February 18, 1932.

145.

Cyrus Adler to Sarah Adler, March 14, 1932.

184

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

A Supplemental bibliography of Cyrus Adler The most comprehensive bibliography of Cyrus Adler’s writings is Edward D. Coleman and Joseph reider, “A bibliography of the Writings and Addresses of Cyrus Adler 1882-1933", published in Cyrus Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses (Philadelphia, 1933), pp. 363-445. In the course of my research on Cyrus Adler, I have discovered a number of publications not included in this bibliography. They are listed here. Note that all numbers contained in brackets [] refer to the item numbers in the Coleman and reider bibliography published in Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses. 1883 "Class History", The University record. Published by the Graduating Class of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1883), pp. 38-45. review of Walter besant, The Life and Achievements of Edward Henry Palmer, Late Lord Almoner's Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge and Fellow of Saint John's College, The American, number 166, october 13, 1883, pp. 9-10. Signed C.A. 1884 Hebrew translation of [1]. ha-Meliz no. 76 (october 10, 1884), col. 1226-1228. "recent German Works", The American, number 178, January 5, 1884, pp. 199-200. Signed C.A. "recent Discoveries Concerning Nimrod", The American August 2, 1884, p. 265. Signed Cyrus Adler. review of William Matthews, Words: Their Use and Abuse, The American, August 30, 1884, p. 329. Signed C.A. 1885 "Sabbath School reform", American Hebrew 22 (April 3, 1885), p. 119. "Misusing Assyriology", American Hebrew 23 ( July 3, 1885), p. 117. 1886 "our baltimore Letter", American Hebrew (March 5, 1886). Summary of CA’s lecture before Young Men's Chizuk Amoonah Association. "on Hebrew Words in the Codex Sangallensis 912", Johns Hopkins University Circular no. 47 (March, 1886), p. 63. "Is Cherub of Assyrian origin?", American Hebrew (September 10, 1886). "The book of Job With a New Commentary", Johns Hopkins University Circular no. 53 (November, 1886), p. 26. 1887 "The Shemitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University", American Hebrew 30 (February 11, 1887), pp. 4-5. "From the Eleventh Annual report of the President of the Johns Hopkins University, 1886" reprint of [61], American Hebrew (July 22, 1887), p. 164; (July 29, 1887), p. 182. reprint of [71], American Hebrew (March 4, 1887), pp. 50-51. "The Death of Sennacherib (705-681 b.C.)", American Hebrew (December 9, 1887), p. 90. 1888 "Girls' Education and the Woman Question in Germany", The American, number 404, May 5, 1888, pp. 42-43. Signed C.A. "Pugnacious Dr. Hirsch as Judge of a Combat" American Hebrew (March 2, 1888), p. 57. "The bookseller To blame", American Hebrew (March 23, 1888), p. 102. reprint of [87] American Hebrew (September 7, 1888), pp. 68-69. 1889 Short notice on The babylonian and oriental record, The American, number 468, July 27, 1889, p. 234. Signed C.A.

bibliography

185

1890 reprint of [129], American Hebrew (January 10, 1890), p. 228. 1891 "our Constantinople Letter", American Hebrew 48 (August 21, 1891), pp. 43-44. 1892 "Turkey and the russian Jews", American Hebrew 51 (May 6, 1892), p. 16. "Mr. Pennell and the Jews", American Hebrew 51 (June 29, 1892), p. 245. "The orient at the Exposition", American Hebrew 51 (June 29, 1892), pp. 245-246. reprinted from "The Johns Hopkins University Circulars for May, 1892", p. 252. "The Historical Society and the Publication Society", American Hebrew 51 (June 29, 1892), p. 252. 1893 [review of] Edwin Cone bissell, Genesis Printed in Colors Showing the Original Sources From Which It Is Supposed to Have Been Compiled, American Hebrew 52 (March 10, 1893), pp. 622623. "A Worthy Version of Adon olam", American Hebrew 52 (April 4, 1893), p. 773. 1894 "Description of a Collection of Arabic, Coptic and Carshooni Mss" (New Haven, 1894) Library of Congress: Z6623.A410 1897 Jewish Exponent (November 19, 1897), p. 3 on the death of Sabato Morais. 1899 "Jewish Statistics", American Hebrew 65 (June 9, 1899), p. 172. "Emigration to Palestine", American Hebrew 65 (September 29, 1899), p. 650. A German summary of this letter dated September 24, 1899 was published in Die Welt 1899, no. 43, p. 13. This was also reprinted in Die Wahrheit, November 3, 1899, p. 11. "Zangwill's 'Children of the Ghetto"', Jewish Chronicle (october 6, 1899), p. 15. Cf Israel Abrahams' criticism in Jewish Chronicle (November 10, 1899), p. 11. 1900 "From Dr. Cyrus Adler", American Hebrew 67 (June 1, 1900), p. 70. Part of symposium on merging HUC and JTS. 1901 reprint of [193] American Hebrew 68 (March 29, 1901), p. 579. 1902 reprint of [221] under title "The History of the reorganization of the Seminary", American Hebrew 70 (April 4, 1902), pp. 597-599. reprint of [225] under title "Jewish Seminaries in America", American Hebrew (December 5, 1902), pp. 71-72. 1903 "American Jewish History", Menorah Monthly 35 (August, 1903), pp. 108-109. "Dr. Cyrus Adler", American Hebrew 73 (october 23, 1903), pp. 730-731. one of the "Tributes to Dr. Jastrow". reprint of [232], American Hebrew (February 13, 1903), pp. 424-425. reprint of [244], American Hebrew (May 1, 1903), pp. 793-794.

186

I. Cyrus Adler: Toward the biography of an American Jew

1904 reprint of [287], American Hebrew 75 (June 10, 1904), p. 107. reprint of [290], American Hebrew 74 (1904), pp. 291-292, 319-321. 1905 "The American Hebrew Index", American Hebrew 77 (June 9, 1905), p. 41. reprint of [307] in American Hebrew 77 (June 23, 1905), p. 100-101. 1934 "Adolphus S. Solomons and the red Cross", Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society 33 (1934), pp. 211-230. Listed as number [570] prior to its publication. "Morais, Sabato", Dictionary of American Biography (New York, 1934), pp. 149-150. 1935 "A Public Statement on Communism and the Jews" (New York, AJC) Jointly signed by CA, Alfred M. Cohen of b'nai b'rith and b.C. Vladeck of the Jewish Labor Committee. brochure. "The Jewish Theological Seminary of America", Irwin A. Swiss and H. Norman Shoop, Rabbi Aaron M. Ashinsky: Fifty Years Study and Service (Pittsburgh, 1935), p. 77. Letter of greeting. 1937 "Felix Warburg in Memoriam", American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin no. 68 (December, 1937), pp. 2-4. "Jewish Welfare board–Twenty Years old" (New York, Jewish Welfare board). reprinted from American Jewish Year Book 39 (1937/8), pp. 149-177. 1938 "reply of the President of the American Jewish Committee to Mr. D'Annunzio", Contemporary Jewish Record 1, no. 1 (September, 1938), pp. 15-17. originally published in April 9, 1938. 1939 "Annual Presidential Address", American Jewish Committee. (New York, AJC) 8pp.

Appendix The following unsigned articles appear to me to be Adler's on account of their subject matter and style. review of P. Cassel, Manual of Jewish History and Literature. Preceded by a Brief Summary of Bible History, The American, February 9, 1884. Unsigned. "Lanman's Sanskrit reader", The American, number 189, March 22, 1884, pp. 377-378. Unsigned. "recent German Literature", The American, March 14, 1885, p. 359. Unsigned. review of A Socin, Arabische Grammatik. Paradigmen, Litteratur, Chrestomathie und Glossarand Arabic Grammar, Paradigms. Literature, Chrestomathy and Glossary, The American, number 275, November 14, 1885, pp. 58-59. Unsigned. review of James Atkinson, The Shah Nameh of the Persian Poet Firdousi, Translated and Abridged in Prose and Verse, The American, November 20, 1886, p. 73. Unsigned. "oriental Notes", The American, number 486, November 30, 1889, p. 134. Unsigned.

bibliography

187

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America The Issue on March 3, 1893, the American Hebrew, traditionalist-oriented journal of the Americanized Jews of New York, reacted editorially to a story in the New York Herald of the previous Sunday which had, in the best muckraking tradition, exposed a seeming scandal on the Lower East Side. A rabbi on East broadway, calling himself a baal Shem (i.e., a master of the numinous power contained in the names of God), had been doing what such rabbis had done for centuries, writing amulets in order to cure the ailments of the faithful. For the Herald, this was a “nefarious faith-cure humbug.” The American Hebrew supported this view, editorializing that it: caused a blush of shame to mantle the cheek of every honest Jew…It is proper that every one who is at all representative of Judaism should emphatically reprobate this trickster and should especially denounce his attempt to cloak his swindling under the guise of religion.1 When a reader pointed out that the rabbi was, in point of fact, most likely “as sincere as any [person] occupying Jewish and Christian pulpits; [whose] faith-healing remedies are based with calculating exactness upon formulas in the Kabbala and even in the Talmud,” the editor of the American Hebrew deemed it neccessary to comment: It surpasses our comprehension how any fairly intelligent Jew can for a moment defend such practices. rather the reverse, we should all exert the fullest influence possible to discountenance the transplanting of this system to this country.2 The transplantation of Hasidic Judaism to North America, which so frightened the American Hebrew in 1893, is, one hundred years later, an accomplished fact. For most observers of the American Jewish scene, however, Hasidic settlement in North America is basically a post-World War II phenomenon. Though they acknowledge that a sizable portion of the mass Eastern European Jewish emigration to North America from the 1880s to the 1920s came from areas where Ha-

190

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

sidic Judaism was dominant, their assumption is that there was no organized Hasidic life in America during this period. The pronouncement of Jerome Mintz is typical: Although Hasidic Jews had been part of the earlier waves of immigration to America in the last century, for the most part they had come as individuals, leaving behind their rebbe and the majority of the court. As most rebbes had remained in Europe during this earlier period, the focal point of Hasidic life had been missing.3 The considerable attention paid of late to contemporary North American orthodox Judaism has caused a reevaluation of the history of American orthodoxy. In particular, the role of the interwar orthodox community in developing an institutional basis for the postwar development of American orthodoxy has been noted.4 In all this, however, the history of the establishment of Hasidic Judaism in North America has been sadly neglected. Why should this be so? In the first place, it is assumed that the European leaders of Hasidic Judaism did not themselves go to America and discouraged their followers from going to a country which had the reputation of not being conducive to maximal Judaic observance. Thus those Hasidic Jews who did somehow emigrate to North America did so completely bereft of spiritual leadership. on the surface, this assumption has much to recommend it. Within Eastern European orthodox circles America was considered an “impure”country to be avoided if at all possible.5 Nineteenth-century Hasidic rebbes did discourage their followers from emigrating. Thus, r. David Shifrin, an early follower of the Lubavicher rebbe to emigrate to the United States, recalled his parting with his rebbe, r. Shalom Dov baer Schneersohn: I did not come to ask whether to go. I had the ticket. I just did not want to be like a student who flees from the heder and does not tell the rebbe where he is going. Therefore I came to tell the rebbe that I am going to the United States.6 The same, however, could be said of the mitnagdic rabbinical establishment. It was, in fact, the Lithuanian rabbi David Willowsky

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

191

(ridbas) who stated that in America “even the stones are tref,”7 and similarly it was the Lithuanian rabbi Israel Meir ha-Kohen (Hafez Hayyim) who stated, in his book for emigrating Jews, Nidhe Yisrael, that emigration to America was to be avoided or, at least, that America was to be made into a temporary place of settlement with the clear intention of returning to a land where Judaism could be properly observed.8 Despite these strictures, the Lithuanian rabbinical establishment, led by such personalities as rabbi Isaac Elhanan Spector of Kovno, began sending rabbis to the United States and Canada as early as the 1880s.9 As for the Hasidim, it makes no sense that they should have emigrated in any great numbers without somebody attempting to fill the vacuum of Hasidic spiritual leadership. The Earliest Hasidic rabbis in North America New York City, which apparently had a “Polish” synagogue as early as the 1840s, was home to rabbi Joshua Segal, known as the Sherpser rav, who came there in 1875.10 When rabbi Jacob Joseph, a mitnaged from Vilna, was appointed chief rabbi of New York, rabbi Segal was offered the position of av bet din under him. His refusal to take the subordinate position, and his subsequent appointment as “chief rabbi”of some twenty Hasidic congregations, organized as “Congregations of Israel, Men of Poland and Austria,” was one of the primary factors in the decline of the prestige of Jacob Joseph's chief rabbinate, and amply demonstrates that Jewish immigrants from Hasidic areas were lacking in neither spiritual leadership nor organizational élan.11 In 1893, the same year as the New York Herald exposé referred to at the beginning of the article, rabbi Hayyim Jacob Vidrovitz of Moscow came to the United States, where he was able to gather under his rabbinical control “a few small hasidic shtiblach” in New York and proclaimed himself “Chief rabbi of America.”12 Hasidic Jews were organizing in other communities as well. In 1894 there was a report in the Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia of a “wonder working rabbi” in baltimore.13 The year 1896 saw the arrival in boston of one of the first Lubavichers in the United States, rabbi

192

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

D. M. rabinowitz, who became spiritual leader of the Agudat ha-Sefardim of that city.14 Close attention to the Yiddish press of these years would doubtless elicit yet other examples of nineteenth-century Hasidic organizations and rabbis in America. of course it is one thing to say that there were rabbis serving Hasidic congregations and propagating Hasidic doctrines, and quite another to assert that there were Hasidic rebbes in America in this early period. In fact there were, if we know what we are looking for. It must be borne in mind that, in the context of late-nineteenth-century Hasidic Judaism, it was not merely descendants of old, established Hasidic dynasties who served as rebbes. To a certain extent, the field was open to men whose charismatic qualities gained them a certain following, especially if they could claim a distinguished ancestry, but sometimes even when they could not. It was inevitable that men of this kind, whom Solomon Poll, in his work on postwar Hasidism in Williamsburg, brooklyn, calls “shtikl rebbes,”15 would be the first to go to North America. Just as Jacob Joseph would probably not have agreed to become chief rabbi of New York had he not been in debt,16 so those Hasidic spiritual leaders who could make a go of it in Europe did not emigrate to the United States. In this first period, therefore, Hasidic leadership in America went to such shtikl rebbes as the baal Shem of East broadway and the “wonder working rabbi” of baltimore. The first evidence of concern on the part of the established Hasidic leadership for providing “legitimate”Hasidic leaders for America comes in 1903, when r. David biderman, the Lelover rebbe, instructed his nephew and disciple, r. Pinhas David Horowitz, to emigrate to America.17 According to the tale told by his descendants, r. Pinhas David was horrified at the very idea and refused to go, eventually setting out for America only during World War I, as an alternative to imprisonment.18 Credit for being the first “legitimate” Hasidic rebbe to settle in the United States appears to go to the Ukrainian Twersky family. r. David Mordecai Twersky, a descendant of r. David Twersky, the Talner rebbe, settled in New York in 1912.19 Certainly the growth of American Jewry in the immediate prewar years as well as the increased

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

193

institutionalization of orthodoxy in the New World made America an increasingly attractive destination for Hasidic rebbes-if not for settlement, then at least for a visit Thus, in January 1914, r. Israel Hagar, a relative and namesake of the Viznitser rebbe, made a tour of North America. In Philadelphia, the Jewish Exponent reported that Friday evening...five hundred Jews, young and old, stood on the benches [of the synagogue] to get a glimpse of the “righteous Jew”as he is called...on Saturday afternoon, after Mincha services, the rabbi was supposed to bless the Jews. Several thousands of people flocked to the synagogue. The police, fearing a riot, told the rabbi that the blessing would have to be postponed...During the week the rabbi...will advise the distressed and give them his blessing.20 other Hasidic rabbis known to have immigrated to North America at this time include r. Yudel rosenberg, known as the Tarler rebbe, who came from Lodz to Toronto in 1913 to be rabbi of its Polish synagogue,21 and r. Pinhas David Horowitz, who arrived in boston in 1916 at the request of that city's Hasidim and began calling himself the bostoner rebbe.22 The postwar period saw more immigration of Hasidic rabbis, including Moshe Zvi and Meshullam Zalman Twersky, brothers of the original Twersky in the United States. Moshe Zvi arrived in 1924 and lived in Philadelphia. Meshullam Zalman spent some time in Philadelphia before moving on to boston in 1927.23 other Hasidic rabbis of this period included r. Moshele Lipschitz, whose address on Sixth Street in Philadelphia gained him the name Dcr Zcgstcr Tzaddik.24 A center of Hasidic life in New York was arising in Williamsburg, brooklyn. Kranzler, whose interests centers almost exclusively on the post-World War II period, notes in passing that “a few rebbes” settled there in this period.25 Another scion of the Twersky family, r. Jacob, whose father had lived in Antwerp, settled in Milwaukee in 1927.26 r. Zvi Elimelekh Hertzberg (18941971), a native of Dinov, Galicia, and an “official” of the court of the belzer rebbe, came to America in 1923, first to New York, then to

194

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Youngstown, ohio, and finally to baltimore.27 The mid-1920s also saw the beginnings of an organized Lubavicher presence in North America.28 An extensive tour by the Lubavicher rebbe, r. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, took place in 1929; and in the 1930s, the Lubavicher rebbe apparently considered the possibility of moving his court to America.29 This era also saw the emigration of several Hasidic rabbis from Eastern Europe to England.30 These facts, gleaned in a serendipitous way, could doubtless be further amplified, so that other North American Jewish communities with a Hasidic presence could be added to the list. research on the first Hasidic rabbis in the United States is still in its infancy. However, enough has been demonstrated to amply show that pre-World War I North America was hardly a barren desert for adherents of Hasidic Judaism. A Case Study of a North American Hasidic rabbi All of the foregoing, of course, merely scratches the surface. In order to flesh out the picture, we need to gain a closer perspective on the lives and problems of these first Hasidic rabbis. For this purpose, I will present in some detail the North American experience of one of the people I mentioned earlier, whose biography I am currently writing, r. Yudel rosenberg (1859-1935).31 rosenberg was born in the small town of Skaryszew in russian Poland, claiming distinguished ancestors on both sides of his family. Apparently he excelled in his Torah studies, becoming known as the Skaryszever Ilui. Also, like many traditionalist youths of his generation, he was exposed to the literature of Jewish modernism–the Haskalah. Married at seventeen, Yude1 rosenberg moved to the town of Tarlow, where, after a period of independent study, he went into business.32 His failure as a businessman and the necessity of providing for a growing family forced rosenberg, ostensibly against his will, to become rabbi of Tarlow in 1885.Dissatisfied with life as a small-town rabbi, he moved to Lublin, where he hoped to find a position as a rabbinical judge. In 1891, in consonance with this goal, he took and

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

195

passed a russian government examination designed to test his proficiency in the russian language and laws concerning the rabbinate, as was required in order to officiate as a rabbi in Poland.33 Having backed the losing candidate in the election for the Lublin rabbinate in 1892, rosenberg moved to Warsaw. In the metropolis of Poland, he eked out an existence on the fringes of the official rabbinate while publishing numerous books from 1902 on. These included a supercommentary on the Talmudic tractate Nedarim, a short-lived rabbinical periodical, and the beginnings of an ambitious project to reedit large portions of the Zohar and translate them from Aramaic to Hebrew.34 He also published a number of literary forgeries, supposedly derived from a nonexistent “royal Library of Metz,” which included, most prominently, Nifla'ot Maharal mi-Prag 'im HaGolem (1909), which gave the world what was to become the standard version of the story of the Golem of Prague, and which Yosef Dan has called the most important twentieth-century contribution of Hebrew literature to world literature.35 These publications seem to have so enhanced rosenberg's reputation that in late 1909 or 1910 he moved from Warsaw, where, apparently, he had at long last realized his ambition of official status as a dayyan,, to the city of Lodz, where he attempted to set himself up as a Hasidic rebbe. He called himself the Tarler rebbe after the town where he had first functioned as a rabbi.36 The most reasonable explanation for rosenberg's move is that he thought he could do better as a rebbe in Lodz, a city which tended to look to the outside for its spiritual leadership, than as a dayyan in Warsaw. Though contemporary Hasidism was dominated by major institutionalized dynasties such as Ger, Lubavich, Alexander, and belz, there was still room at the bottom of the ladder for a newcomer to set up a synagogue or study house and attempt to attract followers while, at least at the outset, supplementing his income from other sources.37 rosenberg settled in balut, a working-class district of Lodz, and did attract some followers, supplementing his income as rebbe by practicing homeopathic medicine. In a letter written toward the end of his life, he recalled this aspect of his practice as rebbe.

196

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

When I lived...in the city of Lodz as a rebbe of Hasidim, I needed to dispense cures and remedies. I wrote the book Refael haMal'akh [“The Angel raphael”] .. for I did not want to take fees [pidyonim] for nothing. Thus I was obliged to seek cures and remedies which were good and effective. I especially employed homeopathic remedies which were effective. The medical books I had were from great professors, all in the russian language.38 As is clear from this passage, rosenberg was a mixture of the old and the new. Refael ha-Mal'akh, which he published in 1911, contained three methods of treating illness: home remedies and medicines that could be obtained from pharmacies without a doctor's prescription, amulets, and incantations. He could, on the one hand, thunder against a rival Hasidic practitioner's prescription for a barren woman that she consume the foreskin of a circumcised child: Enough of such stupidity and foolishness. It merely makes a jest and mockery that such things can be found in the literature of Israel. These minor rebbes [rebbelekh] who give out such a remedy are of inferior intellect and without sense...They think that everything printed in such books is something which has substance.39 on the other hand, he could state, with regard to an amulet he prescribed for a difficult childbirth: This amulet was revealed to me from Heaven. I earnestly give a very great warning that no man utilize this amulet unless he know and understand the secret of the combination of these three [divine) names.40 rosenberg also wrote other sorts of books in Lodz in order to supplement his income. These works ranged from the halakhot of Prosbul (a Talmudic legal formula pertaining to loans) and sha'atnez (forbidden mixtures of wool and linen) to collections of midrashim and Hasidic stories.41 All of his activities combined, however, were not enough to make ends meet. In the first place, Lodz was suffering an economic recession, which impacted particularly hard on the poor Jews who were rosenberg's Hasidim. Secondly, there was a great deal of competition at the bottom end of the rebbe market, a competition

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

197

which was often accompanied by mutual accusations. Thus, in one of rosenberg's letters to his eldest son, Mayer Joshua, he describes an accusation against him alleging that he was “not a rebbe, but only a maskil [follower of the Haskalah] and unbeliever [apikoros] and a bit of a doctor.”42 This could not have helped. In the same letter, rosenberg summed up his financial situation. His daughter, Hessel, married to a man who had emigrated to Toronto, had received ship's passage from him in order to join him in Canada. However, rosenberg reminded his son: She has no [money for] expenses. If she keeps living with me, what shall she live on? I have nothing I can give her, for want and pressure on livelihood is very great here. It is as plain as can be that people are dying of starvation. Ultimate1y, rosenberg realized that he could not make a go of being a rebbe in Lodz. Thus, in 1913, when he received an invitation from the Polish synagogue of Toronto, issued at the behest of his sonin-law there, to come and serve as its rabbi, he accepted.43 Yudel rosenberg arrived in Canada in July, 1913. His congregation in Toronto, beth Jacob, which had been founded in 1905, had at the time only sixty-five members. However, according to one account, hundreds of people worshipped there and participated in such Hasidic ceremonies as the “third meal” of the Sabbath, conducted on Saturday afternoons, at which rosenberg presided.44 In Toronto, rosenberg came to be known as the Poilisher rebbe.45 He continued to look the part of the Hasidic rebbe, with his beard and pe'ot (side-curls), shtreiml (fur hat), and bekeshe (long coat), despite the fact that his appearance in this guise meant that he was subject to harassment when he appeared on the street, and hence he did so infrequently. Some things, however, changed when rosenberg crossed the Atlantic. Though there is evidence that he continued to write amulets for those who desired them, he ceased the practice of homeopathic medicine–perhaps because the practice of medicine was more stringently regulated in North America.46 Moving to Canada, unfortunately, did not solve rosenberg's financial problems. Toronto, no less than Lodz, was suffering from an eco-

198

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

nomic recession, and rosenberg's constituents, the Polish-Jewish community, having arrived fairly recently, were relatively less in a position to support a rabbi than other sectors of Toronto's immigrant Jewish community. This situation, incidentally, was not unique. Kranzler, in his account of Williamsburg, remarks that the Hasidic community in this era was economically less well off than the mitnagdic orthodox community. According to the accounts we have of rosenberg's rabbinate in Toronto, he suffered from economic want to the point, at times, of actually having no bread to put on the table.47 In order to make ends meet, rosenberg attempted a number of things. He was a mohe1 (ritual circumciser), adjudicated disputes brought to him, and went out of town to serve on rabbinical courts when called upon. He wrote books on halakhic subjects dealing with mikveh and synagogue procedure–topics of immediate relevance to orthodox Jews in North America. None of these things yielded a sufficient income.48 For an immigrant orthodox rabbi in North America, Hasidic or not, the only way to make a decent living was through the supervision of the kosher meat industry. rosenberg, naturally, turned to this field as well. Kashrut, in Toronto, was controlled by other, more established rabbis, with whom rosenberg had to compete for his livelihood. For a brief time in 1915 he affiliated himself with the rabbis of the Toronto Va'ad ha-Kashruth, but he soon broke away and attempted to organize his own system of kashrut supervision, employing ritual slaughterers who had refused to affiliate with the Va'ad and whose meat had been banned by the other rabbis, and attacking the very legitimacy of the Va'ad. Perhaps because his community had little economic power, rosenberg's efforts in kashrut came to naught.49 Another of rosenberg's initiatives in Toronto was more successful. This was the organization of an institution for the Jewish education of children, at first simply called the Polish Talmud Torah and then formally named Etz Hayyim. It was rosenberg who was largely responsible for the spiritual direction of the school, which soon boasted four teachers and some 120 students. He made sure that the Jewish education offered at Etz Hayyim was free of “secular” tendencies and as close as possible to the elementary education offered in Poland.50

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

199

Ultimately, rosenberg was unable to make a go of it economically in Toronto, and so, in 1919, he shifted his base of operations to Montreal, where he had been invited by a faction of butchers and slaughterers to become their chief rabbi and, not incidentally, to serve as a counterweight to the authority of r. Hirsch Cohen, a Lithuanian rabbi who had been in Montreal since the 1890s and was generally acknowledged by the city's established Jewish community as its chief rabbi.51 In Montreal, Yudel rosenberg and Hirsch Cohen fought a bitter kosher-meat war in the early 1920s which ended in a stalemate and a compromise whereby Cohen became president of the rabbinical council of Montreal's Va'ad ha-'Ir and rosenberg vice-president.52 It should be noted that in these kosher-meat disputes, rosenberg was attacked, among other things, for his adherence to Hasidism. Thus one satirical anti-rosenberg handbill states: “The womanish Zaddik, rosenberg, came and declared [an allegedly tref animal] kosher with his pe’ot ... The pe'ot with his fifty-dollar check make everything kosher.”53 In Montreal rosenberg continued his literary activities with the publication of books and pamphlets containing sermons and halakhic decisions. His main project during this period, however, was the completion of his new edition and translation into Hebrew of the Zohar. Though he had published the first volume, covering the book of Genesis, as far back as 1905, it was only now that rosenberg resumed and completed the project in eight volumes published in the years 1924-1931. In 1927 he also published a companion volume, Sefer Niflous ha-Zohar, giving a bilingual Hebrew-Yiddish edition of stories regarding rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, the hero of the Zohar.54 What rosenberg hoped to accomplish with his work on the Zohar was to make it a genuinely popular book, one which might be studied by schoolchildren and synagogue study groups in the same manner as the Mishnah and the Eyn Ya'akov. His ultimate aim in all this was nothing less than to help bring about the coming of the Messiah. As he stated: I know that my book ... is not needed by the great men who are comparable to divine angels... However, they, too, will rejoice...

200

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

when they see the awakening of ordinary men to study and understand the statements of the holv Zohar. For that is a sign that salvation will soon be revealed.... The good of the community of Israel will arise through the study of the Zohar. We cannot say that salvation depends upon [the study of the Zohar] by the great ones of the generation alone. For there will yet come a new revelation [of the Zohar] to the masses of Israel who will taste of the Tree of life.55 The general impression given by a perusal of rosenberg's writings is that his life as a Hasidic rabbi in Canada was one of ceaseless struggle: between the pious remnants of lsrael and the helpers of Satan .... At that time Jacob, the spirit of ancient Israel [Yisrae1 sabba] will remain almost alone with no help or support. For the people will go in darkness and will not wish to go in the spirit of ancient Israel. only a tiny minority will be the remnant which God calls. Then Jacob will remain limping on his hip because of the coldness of those who support the Torah “until the dawn breaks”-that is, until the light of Messiah glimmers.56 Conclusions before we are able to say that the experience of Yudel rosenberg was typical of the fate of those Hasidic rabbis and rebbes who came to North America prior to World War II, much more research will have to be done. However, even in the current state of research, it is possible to make a few generalizations. 1. A prewar North American Hasidic community did exist and did enjoy a spiritual leadership. 2. Established Hasidic leaders, like the contemporary mitnagdic leaders, tended not to come to America unless under pressure from economic or political need. This meant that Hasidic spiritual leaders who settled in North America in this period tended to be men of the second rank, unable to establish themselves satisfactorily in Europe.

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

201

3. Hasidic rabbis, like the community they served, tended to emigrate later than their mitnagdic counterparts, and hence found themselves at a decided disadvantage in establishing their own control of kashrut supervision, with all its social and economic implications, in the face of an already established system headed by mitnagdic rabbis. This fact helps to explain the bitter battles over kosher-meat supervision which took place in city after city in North America in this period. 4. Though the prewar Hasidic spiritual leadership in North America was not visibly more successful in propagating its vision of Judaism than its mitnagdic counterpart, neither was it less successful. When, during World War II and its aftermath, the surviving remnants of Hasidic life in Europe took refuge in the New World, they did not find a tabula rasa. Hasidism and Hasidic leaders already existed in North America. The prewar Hasidic pioneers had provided a base upon which the new Hasidic immigrants proceeded to build their communities.

Notes 1 American Hebrew, March 3, 1893, p. 563. on the basis of Isaac Even’s article, “Chassidism in the New World”, published in the Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918 (New York, 1918), pp. 341-346, it is possible to identify this man as r. Eliezer Hayyim rabinowitz. Cf. My “Letter to the Editor”of American Jewish Archives published in volume 47 (1995), pp. 331-332. 2

Ibid., March 17, 1893, p. 653.

Jerome r. Mintz, Legends of the Hasidim: An Introduction to Hasidic Culture and Oral Tradition in the New World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 37.

3

on orthodox Judaism in North America during this period, see Jeffrey Gurock, “resisters and Accommodators: Varieties of orthodox rabbis in America, 1886-1983,” American Jewish Archives 35

4

202

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

(1983), pp. 100-187. Cf. also Jenna W. Joselit, New York's Jewish Jews (bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990). 5 Cf. Aaron rothkoff, “The American Sojourns of ridbaz: religious Problems Within the Immigrant Community,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 57 (1968) pp. 557-572. Shalom Duber Levin, Toldois Chabad B’Artzois Ha’Bris (brooklyn: Kehot, 1988), p. 5. See also the case reported on p. 7, where the rebbe was not asked since he would “almost certainly”have advised against going.

6

7

Cf. rothkoff, “American Sojourns of ridbaz,” p. 560.

8

r. Israe1 Meir ha-Kohen, Nidhei Yisrae1 (Warsaw, 1894), pp. 288-293.

Abraham Karp, “New York Chooses a Chief rabbi,' in The Jewish Experience in America: Se/ected Studies From the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, ed. Abraham Karp (Waltham and New York, 1969), vol. 4, p. 130.

9

Isaac Mayer Wise, Reminiscences (New York: Arno, 1973), p. 21. Interestingly, in this context, Wise identified orthodox Judaism with “Polish cabbalistical rabbinism and supernaturalism” (p. 22).

10

11

Karp, “New York Chooses a Chief rabbi,” pp. 170-171.

12

Ibid., p. 172, n. 128.

13

Jewish Exponent, July 29, 1894, p. 7.

14

Levin, Toldois Chabad, p. 7.

Solomon Poll, The Hasidic Community of Williamsburg: A Study in the Sociology of Religion (New York: Schocken, 1962), pp. 63, 118, 121.

15

16

Karp, “New York Chooses a Chief rabbi,” p. 141.

Amnon Levi, “Anglo-Saxon Haredim: Can They Serve as a bridge between Haredim and Non-religious?”, in Religious and Secular: Conflict and Accomodation Between Jews in Israel ed. Charles Liebman (Jerusalem: Keter, 1990), p. 12.

17

18 Honoch Teller, The Bostoner: Stories and Recollections From the Colorful Chassidic Court of the Bostoner Rebbe, rabbi Levi I. Horowitz (Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1990), p. 11. See also Ira Axelrod, Seventy Five Years of Chassidic Life in America: the Story of the Bostoner Rebbe, an Authorized History (brookline, Mass., n.d.[1990?]).

Personal communication from Dr. Isadore Twersky. The Encyclopedia Judaica article on theTwersky family (vol. 15, cols. 1472-73) mistakenly dates the emigration of family members to the United States to the period after World War I. Cf. b. re'em, “Semukhim le-'Ad ule-'olam,” Ha Modia, December 7, 1990, p. 10.

19

Jewish Exponent, January 16, 1914. This r. Israel Hagar came from radautz, settled in New York City, and became known as the “radowitzer rebbe.” Cf. Even, “Chassidism”, p. 344.

20

21

on Yudel rosenberg, see n.31 below.

22

Teller, The Bostoner, p. 13.

23

Personal communication from Dr. Isadore Twersky. Cf. re'em, “Semukhim le-'Ad ule- 'olam.”

24 Hindy (Edith) Krohn, The Way It Was: Touching Vignettes About Growing Up Jewish in the Philadelphia of Long Ago (brooklyn: Mesorah, 1989), p. 114.

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

203

25 George Kranzler, Williamsburg: A Jewish Community in Transition (New York: Feldheim, 1961), p. 18.

Abraham J. Twersky, Generation to Generation: Personal Recollections of a Chassidic Legacy. (brooklyn: Traditional Press, 1986), p. ii.

26.

Tsvi Elimelekh Hertzberg, Tzaddik be-Emunato (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 12. Cf. Isaac Fein, “Salahti ...”, Ha-Doar, 29 Elul 5735, pp. 601-603.

27.

28

Levin, Toldois Chabad, p. 15.

29

Ibid., p. 88.

Tzvi rabinowicz, Chassidic Rebbes: From the Baal Shem Tov to Modern Times (Southfield, Mich., and Spring Valley, N.Y.: Targum/Feldheim, 1989), p. 362. Four rebbes are enumerated in this source.

30

I am presently preparing a biography of rabbi rosenberg entitled “A Kabbalist in Montreal: The Life and Times of rabbi Yudel rosenberg.” For the present, see Ira robinson, “A Letter from the Sabbath Queen: rabbi Yudel rosenberg Addresses Montreal Jewry,” in An Everyday Miracle: Yiddish Culture in Montreal, ed. Ira robinson, Pierre Anctil, and Mervin butovsky (Montreal: Vehicule, 1990), pp. 101-114.

31

32

robinson, “Kabbalist in Montreal,” chaps. 1 and 2.

Ibid., chap. 3. The russian government certificate issued to rosenberg upon passing the examination is in the possession of Mr. Lionel Albert of Montreal. A photocopy is in the author's possession.

33

34

Ibid., chap. 4.

Yosef Dan, “The beginnings of Hebrew Literature” [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 1 (1981), p. 85; Ira robinson, “Literary Forgery and Hasidic Judaism: The Case of rahbi Yudel rosenberg,” Judaism 40 (1991), pp. 61-78.

35.

36

robinson, “Kabbalist in Montreal,” chap. 6.

Cf. n. 15 above. Professor robert M. Shapiro, of the baltimore Hebrew University, in his research on the Jews of Lodz in the interwar period, informs me in a personal communication that he has discovered the traces of a number of shtikl rebbes in Lodz.

37

Yudel rosenberg to Moshe blistreich, Hanukah 5695 (rosenberg Papers, Jewish Public Library, Montreal). A photocopy is in the possession of the author.

38

39.

Yudel rosenberg, Sefer Refael ha-Mal'akh (Piotrkow, 1911), p. 6.

40

Ibid., p. 64.

41

robinson, “Kabbalist in Montreal,” chap. 6.

42 Yudel rosenberg to Mayer Joshua rosenberg, dated Lodz, Wednesday of Parshat va-Yigash [no year cited]. The original is in the possession of rabbi Yehoshua ben Meir of Jerusalem. A photocopy is in the possession of the author. 43

Nahman Shemen, “ortodoksia,”in Der Idisher Journal: Yubilei Oisgabe (Toronto, 1950), p. 10.

44.

Ibid.

44.

Leah rosenberg, The Errand Runner: Reflections of a Rabbi's Daughter (Toronto, 1981), p. 41.

45.

Cf. the letter to Moshe blistreich cited in n. 38 above.

204

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

46.

Shemen, “ortodoksia,” p. 11.

47.

Cf. Stephen Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937 (Toronto, 1979), pp. 166-167.

48.

Ibid., p. 281.

50

Ibid., pp. 173-174.

Ira robinson, “The Kosher Meat War and the Foundation of the Montreal Jewish Community Council. 1922-1925”, Canadian Ethnic Studies 22 (2) (1990) pp. 41-53. An abbreviated Hebrew version is published in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division B, volume 1 (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 369-376.

51

52

Ibid., p. 374.

Handbill, undated, in Jewish Community Council File, Canadian Jewish Congress Archives, Montreal.

53

Cf. Ira robinson, “A Kabbalist in Montreal: Yudel rosenberg and His Translation of the Zohar”, unpublished paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of religion, 1987.

54

55

rosenberg, Sefer Zohar Torah (Montreal, 1924), Genesis, p. 9.

56

rosenberg, Sefer Peri Yehuda (bilgoraj, 1935), pp. 34-35.

The First Hasidic rabbis in North America

205

­

Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1 The documents do not speak unless someone asks them to verify, that is, to make true, some hypothesis. –Antoine Prost2

I. The “Absence”of Prewar North American Hasidism Hasidim are very much a presence in the large urban communities of North American Jewry today. Numerous scholarly studies, mostly sociological and anthropological in nature, examine the Hasidic phenomenon in North America.3 Most of these studies, however, pay scant attention to Hasidism in North America prior to the Second World War, when a number of Hasidic spiritual leaders of the first rank, like rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, the Lubavitcher rebbe, arrived as refugees from Europe.4 Hasidic life in North America prior to 1940 is still very much a terra incognita.5 We need to ask ourselves, “why is this so?” It is well understood that the great Eastern European Jewish migration to North America, among other places, came from all areas of Eastern Europe, including those in which Hasidism was the dominant Judaic religious expression. While it is clear that some of the Jewish emigrants from Hasidicdominated areas had already decisively broken with the Hasidic tradition while still in Europe, and yet others did so after their emigration, there still remained large numbers who retained a greater or lesser attachment to traditional yiddishkeit as understood and practiced in their hometowns. Logically, this would mean that Jews from Hasidic backgrounds would seek to found synagogues in North America in which their Jewish experiences in Europe would resonate. Yet the scholarly consensus seems to be that the Hasidic emigrants were less successful at doing so than their non-Hasidic contemporaries. Thus Lloyd Gartner stated:

206

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Hasidim emigrated to the U.S. within the great migration of 18801925, where they generally formed part of the larger body of pious immigrant Jews, while frequently forming shtiblekh of their own. They seem to have been less successful than non-hasidic immigrant Jews in transmitting their style of religious life to the next generation, because apart from their zaddikim, who had remained in Europe, they apparently felt a fatalistic impotence to perpetuate the Judaism they knew.6 This article will be, in essence, an inquiry into the validity of Gartner’s surmise. In the last few decades, the study of Eastern European immigrant orthodox Judaism in North America has significantly progressed, with much of the attention going to studies on the immigrant orthodox rabbinate.7 However this scholarship has not yet paid sufficient attention to the special circumstances of the Hasidic stream of immigration. The general scholarly understanding is that the thousands of congregations founded by Jews of the immigrant generation were overwhelmingly orthodox in nature, and that immigrant orthodoxy was largely transient in nature, often not sustained much beyond the immigrant generation. This consensus is not going to be challenged here. However this article will attempt to take a closer look at the Hasidic phenomenon in North America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. before we can begin doing so, however, we have to pay some attention to why pre-World War II Hasidic immigration to North America made such little impression on the scholars studying North American Jewry in that era. one of the reasons may, perhaps, stem from the fact that until recently, Hasidim, with the partial exception of Habad,8 tended not to use the literary genre of history as such,9 whereas those Jews who had consciously broken with Jewish orthodoxy often understood the historical nature of their endeavors, and recorded them in memoirs and narrative history.10 Many of the Jews who had consciously broken with their Judaic past also understood themselves to be engaged in a struggle with orthodoxy in general, and with Hasidism in particular, for the very definition of what yiddishkeit was going to mean to the next generation. Thus in Europe, leading figures of secular yiddishism, like Yehuda Leib Peretz, tried Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

207

to portray their own version of “Hasidism”,11 and still others, like Mendele Mokher Sforim, desired to excise Hasidism from the landscape of the Eastern European shtetl. In the words of critic, Dan Miron: [Mendele’s] novels have almost nothing to say about Hasidism and the Hasidic way of life, in spite of the fact that the Ukrainian shtetl society upon which the writer focused was largely dominated by Hasidism.12 Furthermore, Hasidism as a movement found itself the target of the extreme opprobrium of numerous nineteenth and early twentieth century critics, both Jewish and non-Jewish, for whom Hasidism symbolized all that was wrong with Eastern European Judaism.13 The young historian, Simon Dubnow, summed up the turn of the twentieth century scholarly view of the movement when he wrote in the Jewish Encyclopedia: ...Hasidism is so deeply grounded in russo-Polish Judaism that it has proved impossible to uproot it. It still has its hundreds of thousands of adherents; and, although its development has been temporarily arrested, its vitality can not be doubted. Started as a counterpoise to rabbinical and ritual formalism, it still satisfies the religious requirements of the uneducated masses. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century, owing to a general social reaction in the life of the russian Jews, a measure of revival was noticed in Hasidic circles... Though not producing at present any prominent personalities in literature or in communal life, Hasidism nourishes itself by its stored-up reserves of spiritual power. In the eighteenth century it was a great creative force which brought into stagnant rabbinical Judaism a fervent stream of religious enthusiasm. Under the influence of Hasidism the russo-Polish Jew became brighter at heart but darker in intellect. In the nineteenth century, in its contact with European culture, it was more reactionary than rabbinism. The period of stagnation which it has lately passed through must, however, result in its gradual decay.14 It is worth noting several items in Dubnow’s description, which tellingly reflected and informed both the scholarly and the popular

208

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

opinion of Hasidism in the era we are examining: • its followers are the “uneducated masses”15 •it is described intellectually as “dark”and “reactionary” •in its present “period of stagnation”it is sustained by “its stored up reserves of spiritual power”, but it is fated to gradually decay. Given this evaluation, it is no surprise at all that both European and North American observers expressed horror at the thought that Hasidism might actually come to America. Thus when, in 1873, news arrived in Europe that a group of Hasidim had founded a synagogue in Chicago, the Israelitische Wochenschrift of Magdeburg carried the following: A Polish synagogue is to be inaugurated. The detailed description lets [us] know that we have to do with a group of Hasidim. It is to be regretted that such scenes should be taking place in America.16 In North America itself, another Hasidic congregation, founded in Montreal in 1884 elicited negative comment from an observer who expressed the fear that “the malignant leprosy of hasidut will spread on the soil of this land”.17 The traditionalist-oriented American Hebrew, in response to a letter to the editor defending the conduct of a Hasidic rabbi in New York in 1893, stated editorially: We should all exert the fullest influence possible to discountenance the transplanting of this system to this country.18 II. Methodological Considerations As we can see from this reaction, there were Eastern European Jews in North America from the very beginnings of the mass emigration who founded congregations which contemporary Jews understood as “Hasidic”. but what does “Hasidic”actually mean in this context? one important factor to take into consideration is that the Hasidic spiritual leadership, particularly at the beginning of the migration, tended not to emigrate. Secondly, this leadership also tended to discourage its followers from emigration because they had grave doubts

Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

209

about the viability of Jewish life in the New World (though this pessimism held true no less for the Mitnagdim than for the Hasidim).19 Thus, for these Hasidic leaders, no less than for the detractors of Hasidism, North American Hasidic life had no “right”to exist. Hasidism has indeed been classically defined as a leadership-centred movement. Was the Hasidic rank and file, however, merely an inert mass, taking its entire direction from its spiritual leadership? Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, in a recent article, has demonstrated the importance of understanding Hasidism from the perspective of the ordinary Hasidim, who often lived at a considerable distance from their leadership.20 If we look primarily at the Hasidic congregations in North America, and compare them to Hasidic institutions in Europe established at a distance from the rebbe’s court, we will perhaps arrive at a more balanced view of North American Hasidic life.21 What is our evidence for Hasidic life in North America during the mass migration era? It consists largely of the congregations that the emigrants founded, and of the rabbis who attempted to provide spiritual leadership for the emigrants. both of these areas need to be examined with great care. With respect to the synagogues, particularly, some scholars have almost reflexively referred to them as “copies”of the synagogues the emigrants experienced in their home communities.22 A typical expression of this idea is where the worship in these synagogues has been described as “the meticulous preservation of the traditional orthodox service”.23 More recent scholarship, however, does recognize that there were important differences between the two.24 It can be readily conceded that the emigrants indeed attempted to “copy”the worship of their hometowns, as long as it is understood that these “copies” were recognizably different from the originals, if only because, as Moses rischin points out, the synagogues which were created in New York’s immigrant Jewish district often functioned as “many sided landsmanschafts, uniting the features of the old World burial, study, and visitors-of-the-sick societies”.25 When we examine these immigrant Hasidic congregations, we find two important factors worthy of our attention. The first is liturgy. one of the primary distinguishing factors of the Hasidic movement, from

210

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

its eighteenth century origins, was its adoption of Nusah Sfard, a distinctive liturgy derived from, but not identical to, that of the Sefardic Jews.26 but whereas in Eastern Europe, Hasidic congregations were most often identified by the name of the movement or its spiritual leader, so that one referred to the “Gerrer Shtibl”of Warsaw. In North America Hasidic synagogues often found it necessary to identify themselves with the designation “Anshe Sfard” [Men of the Sfard liturgy]. “Sfard” in a number of variant spellings is present in a large proportion of congregational names. Sometimes it is alone, as in “Anshe Sfard”, while at other times it is combined with another title, such as “Agudath Achim Anshe Sfard”. The presence of the “Anshe Sfard” code in many North American Hasidic congregations, and its absence in descriptions of European congregations lets us know that in North America a “code word” was often thought to be necessary. With respect to the spiritual leadership of the congregations, it is reasonably clear that the majority of the pioneer Eastern European immigrant orthodox rabbis in North America were “Lithuanian”, and hence non-Hasidic.27 With some exceptions, such as Toronto, 28 rabbis from heavily Hasidic areas, such as Congress Poland, the Ukraine, and Galicia, came to North America relatively later. They often found difficulty in establishing themselves, particularly in the kosher meat industry, which alone afforded immigrant rabbis the opportunity to earn a decent living. In certain cases, the endemic rabbinical disputes encountered in city after city in this era in North America, can be plotted according to Hasidic-Mitnagdic fault lines.29 A final methodological note is that any survey of North American Jewish life has to include data both from New York, the largest and culturally most important North American Jewish community–then and now–and what New Yorkers often call “out of town”–the rest of North America. III. Hasidic Synagogues The researcher attempting to get a handle on the synagogues of New York in the prewar era possesses25 a most important tool: a 1939 WPA survey of New York’s Jewish houses of worship.30 For the synagogues surveyed we possess the names, locations, dates of foundation, Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

211

and other significant information. This allows us to attempt some generalizations about Hasidic/Anshe Sfard congregations in the five boroughs, understanding full well that the survey was not complete and contains some errors. The first thing to note is that 113 synagogues in Manhattan, brooklyn and the bronx31 had “Sfard”as part of their name, while another 16 advertised themselves as “Nusah Ari”32 This is a significant portion of the total number of synagogues listed, 2033. Just as clearly, not every synagogue which prayed with a Hasidic liturgy felt the need to advertise Nusah Sfard in their name. For many, it was likely sufficient to advertise themselves by the name of a town in which Hasidic worship predominated to give potential worshippers the right idea. beyond the number of clearly Nusah Sfard congregations, there is a smaller number of synagogues on the WPA list which clearly indicate their adherence to a particular Hasidic court. In this respect, they were similar to the European Hasidic synagogues which functioned at a distance from the movement’s center. Hasidic groups represented in prewar New York included Karlin, Ger, Viznitz, Stolin, and Habad. It is noteworthy that these synagogues, and others named for prominent Hasidic leaders, such as r. Hayyim Halberstam of Sanz, were not founded late in the immigration period. on the contrary, the synagogue of the Karlin Hasidism was founded on the Lower East Side as early as 1879, and apparently spawned a Karlin synagogue in brooklyn, founded in 1912. Similarly the Stolin Hasidim founded their synagogue in Manhattan in 1897, and a Stoliner synagogue opened in brooklyn in 1924. The WPA survey thus indicates that, beside the “Anshe Sfard” synagogues, there were at least sixteen: eight in Manhattan, six in brooklyn, and two in the bronx whose names definitely indicate their Hasidic nature. These synagogues, and others whose names do not allow such a close identification, presumably maintained close relations with European spiritual leaders through personal visits, letters, and telegrams.33 Any survey of Jewish communities outside New York City will find “Anshe Sfard”synagogues to be nearly ubiquitous. A general pattern, repeated in many communities, is that the first Eastern European congregation to be founded was non-Hasidic, and then, as soon as 212

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

the demographic growth of the immigrant Jewish community allowed, a “Sfard”congregation was founded. Thus, among larger communities, in Philadelphia, the first Eastern European congregation, bnai Avraham was founded in october, 1882, and bnai Jacob Anshe Sfard in 1883.34 Toronto’s mitnagdic Goel Tzedek was followed in 1887 by the “russian” [Ukrainian] and Galician Chevra Tehilim.35 In boston in the decade of the 1910s, there were two separate congregations known simply as “Anshe Sfard”, and in the 1920s there were three separate congregations, with different addresses with no other name.36 In smaller communities like Louisville, Kentucky: A secession from beth Israel of some russian members in 1881 led to the establishment of the bnai Jacob congregation... The old b'rith Sholom synagogue, on First street, near Walnut street, has been acquired by the Anshei Sfard, most of whom are Southrussians, worshiping after the ritual of the Hasidim.37 It was clearly understood that the Anshe Sfard congregation was “worshipping after the ritual of the Hasidim.” IV. Hasidic Spiritual Leadership As we have already indicated, however, “worshipping after the ritual of the Chasidim”constitutes only part of the Hasidic experience. The rest of the Hasidic experience depended greatly on the quantity and the quality of the spiritual leadership available. The consensus among contemporary observers of the North American Hasidic scene is that the First World War marks something of a watershed. Prior to the War, there was little authentic Hasidic leadership in North America, and certainly no Hasidic rebbes of the first rank. The relatively few Hasidic rabbis who did come to North America in the pre-World War one era were men with a claim to distinguished Hasidic descent [einiklekh], or non-established Hasidic leaders [shtikl rebbes] who had tried, and failed, to achieve satisfactory rabbinical positions in Europe.38 In this situation, many Anshe Sfard congregations would not possess adequate Hasidic spiritual leadership. Such a situation may be reflected by one of these pioneer Hasidic rabbis, Yudel rosenberg, who emigrated from Poland to Toronto in 1913. In the in-

Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

213

troduction to his book, ha-Keriah ha-Kedosha, which dealt with the laws relevant to public Torah reading in the synagogues, rosenberg states that he wrote the book for congregations with no rabbis capable of interpreting the relevant laws.39 It is interesting to note in this connection that in terms of rabbinical leadership, it should not be thought that the phenomenon of “einiklekh” leadership was unique to Hasidic life in North America. Until the First World War, Hasidic rebbes generally resided in small towns, and not in large cities, like Warsaw, which had large Hasidic populations. In large cities only rebbes of smaller reputation lived on a permanent basis.40 The First World War and its aftermath, which brought unprecedented death and destruction to the Jews of Eastern Europe, overshadowed only by the immensity of the Holocaust, seems to have changed the minds of at least a portion of the Hasidic leadership with respect to urban living as well as concerning the desirability of emigration. Many Hasidic spiritual leaders had been displaced by the raging battles of the war to such large cities as Warsaw and Vienna. It is significant that the story of the emigration to the United States of rabbi Mordecai Shlomo Friedman, the boyaner rebbe, involved a wartime-induced stay in Vienna, as well as the encouragement of the Tchortkover rebbe, who told rabbi Friedman that in going to America he would be able to accomplish something for Yiddishkayt.41 There is something of a consensus among early twentieth century observers of the Hasidic scene in North America that 1917 constituted a watershed year for American Hasidic life. Thus the New York Times obituary of the prominent brooklyn Hasidic rabbi , Vigdor regenbogen, noted that, circa 1900 when regenbogen came to New York, “there were very few Chasidim in America”, whereas “since 1917 many Chasidic centres had sprung up here with the exodus from wartime Eastern Europe.”42 Similarly Sh. Erdberg, writing in 1927, understood that the “pioneer” gute yidn in America had arrived a decade previously.43 beyond the ravages of the First World War, the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Ukraine, as well as the harsh repression of Judaism by the Soviet Union also helped induce a number of Hasidic rabbis to emi-

214

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

grate to North America.44 Thus Hasidic rabbi oshea rabinowitz, in his first book published after his arrival in America, stated, “This my composition is dedicated...with thanks to God who brought me, my children, and my childrens’ children from the vale of tears, from the field of slaughter, the land of Ukraine which is in russia, the sinful country”.45 Indeed, by the 1920s, a journalist writing in New York’s Jewish Day could state that there is not a block in New York City which does not contain a sign advertising the presence of a Hasidic rabbi, whether “true” [i.e. with the right family connections, etc.] or “false”.46 The ubiquity of Hasidic rabbis in New York is further attested in a 1944 article of Isaac bashevis Singer in the Forward. As Singer stated, “Now New York is full of rebbes, rebbes’ sons, grandsons. They conduct tishn in the [Lower] East Side, in Williamsburg, and in all areas of brooklyn. They advertise in the Morgn Zhurnal.47 The phenomenon of Hasidic rabbis coming to America to settle also inspired the satirical play “The Hasidic rabbi”, performed by the Maurice Schwartz troupe in 1928. The premise of the play was the incongruity of Hasidic rabbis in New York: “as grotesque an anachronism as a caravan of camels in a city of subways and motor cars.”48 The number of Hasidic spiritual leaders who emigrated to North America in this era will probably never be known with great exactitude, especially since one observer’s rebbe may be another’s charlatan. However it is possible to get some idea of the magnitude of this emigration by looking at the biographies in Tzvi rabinowicz’s Encyclopedia of Hasidism. In it, some forty-seven Hasidic rabbis are listed as having emigrated to North America in the period 1893-1934. All but two of them are said to have arrived post 1920. Not surprisingly, most of them wound up in New York (12 in Manhattan, 10 in brooklyn, and 4 in the bronx). other cities include Chicago (5), Philadelphia (4), boston (3) Detroit (2), St. Louis (2), Montreal, Toronto, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee.49 Perhaps the best illustration of the emigration of Hasidic rabbis to North America in this period is the story of the Twersky family, descended from the well known Ukrainian Hasidic leader, r. Mordecai of Chernobyl.50 No less than six Twersky cousins came to America between 1913 and 1938. The first to come was rabbi David MordeAnshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

215

cai Twersky, who settled in New York in 1913, but also visited Hasidic congregations in other major communities, such as Philadelphia.51 His house, located at 9 Attorney Street, included a synagogue, “Kehal Hasidim”, that advertised itself as having “hundreds of members, all of them [God-]fearing and perfect, for only Sabbath-observant and proper Jews are accepted as members.” The Talner rebbe further announced that he received visitors from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, and from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM.52 His younger brother, rabbi Moshe Zvi, came to New York in 1922, and shortly thereafter moved to Philadelphia at the behest of a group of Hasidim, presumably those who had been visited by rabbi David Mordecai.53 A third brother, rabbi Meshullam Zusia came to boston in 1927. A cousin, rabbi Hanokh Henikh Twersky arrived in Chicago in 1924, and rabbi Jacob Isaac, who came originally to Chicago in 1926, moved to Milwaukee in 1927 to become rabbi of Congregation Anshe Sfard there.54 rabbi Jacob Israel Twersky came to the United States in 1938, settling in brooklyn. In 1934, rabbi David Mordecai’s son, rabbi Yohanan, added to the network of Twerskys in North America by moving to Montreal, where he presided over a Talner Beyt ha-Midrash. The Twerskys may have constituted the largest family group of Hasidic rabbis to settle in North America in this period, but they were far from alone. There were enough to necessitate the creation of an organization, the Agudas ha-Admorim of the United States and Canada. Too little is known about this organization, which was apparently founded in 1924, and led by rabbis oshea rabinowitz, and Yehuda Aryeh Perlow, the Novominsker rebbe, who had arrived in America in 1922.55 Its very name, however, evokes that of the organization of Eastern European orthodox rabbis, the Agudath ha-rabbonim of the United States and Canada, founded in 1902.56 It is reasonable to assume that just as the Agudas ha-rabbonim was founded in order to separate those North American rabbis who had “proper” rabbinic preparation from those who did not, so the Agudath ha-Admorim was an attempt to separate “valid” and “false” claimants to Hasidic spiritual leadership. It seems also reasonable to assume that the Agudas ha-Admorim was founded at least partially as a counterweight to the power of the Agudas ha-rabbonim, which was dominated by nonHasidic “Lithuanian” rabbis.

216

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

It is not possible in this article to detail the stories of all, or even of most of the Hasidic rabbis who came to North America in the interwar period. I would, however, like to go into some detail concerning the Hasidic rabbis who settled in Philadelphia. The first to come was rabbi Moshe Lipschitz, who was born in Galicia. He arrived in Philadelphia in 1911, after a short sojourn in St. Louis. He was known to some as the “Philadelphier rebbe”, and to others as the “Sechter Zaddik”, after his residence on South Sixth Street.57 The next to arrive, already mentioned, was rabbi Moshe Zvi Twersky, the Talner rebbe. The third was rabbi Jacob rabinowitz, the Monstricher rebbe.58 He came to America in 1924, at the age of 23, along with his father, rabbi osheah rabinowitz, who settled in brooklyn, became popularly known as the “brownsviller rebbe”, and served as president of the Agudath ha-Admorim.59 The presence of these three rebbes in Philadelphia, each with his own synagogue and following, and each with connections to other Hasidic leaders, both in North America and in Europe, indicate that by the 1920s, a Hasidic immigrant community of some substance had been created not merely in New York, but also in many of the larger immigrant communities in North America. The fact that many of these leaders, like the Philadelphier, the brownsviller, and the bostoner, were publicly identified with their North American place of residence, rather than their place of origins in Europe, seems to indicate as well that there was a process of Americanization taking place, even among those who must be considered to have been most resistant to “America”and all it stood for. Thus many of these Hasidic rabbis acquired a command of the English language. Some, like the boyaner rebbe, did so through a daily reading of the New York Times.60 others had to deal with such seemingly non-Hasidic events as Fourth of July picnics, and groups such as Ladies’ Auxiliaries.61 The evidence that has been presented here, while far from comprehensive, is, I think, sufficient for us to understand that we are dealing with a reasonably widespread phenomenon of pre-World War II Hasidic life in North America. This understanding adds to our ability to nuance the complex phenomenon of Jewish immigration to North America in two ways. First of all, it enriches our understanding of the religious life of the immigrants by factoring in Hasidism, which has not been given its full due. Secondly, and, perhaps, most Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

217

importantly, it allows us an opportunity to examine the ways in which scholarship on the period of mass Eastern European Jewish emigration to North America all too often did not see what it was not prepared to see.

Notes This was first presented at a conference on “The Jewish Immigrant Experience in North America”, held at the Centre for American, University of Western ontario in 2005. My thanks to Dr. Monda Halpern and all others responsible for this conference.

1.

Cited in Paul ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 177.

2.

For a review essay on the scholarly literature on Hasidism in North America, see Janet belcoveShalin, “Introduction”, Janet belcove-Shalin, ed., New World Hasidim: Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America (Albany, State University of New York Press, 1995).

3.

4. For a discussion of rabbi Schneersohn’s escape from Europe and entry into the United States, see bryan Mark rigg, Rescued from the Reich: How One of Hitler’s Soldiers Saved the Lubavitcher Rebbe (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2004)

218

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

5. Cf. Ira robinson, “The First Hasidic rabbis in North America”, American Jewish Archives 44 (1992) pp.501-515; idem., “An Identification and a Correction”, American Jewish Archives 47 (1995), pp. 331-332. Cf. Steven Lapidus, “New Galicia: Hasidic rabbis and rebbes in Prewar Canada”, Canadian Jewish Studies, 12 (2004) , pp. 1-20 6.

Lloyd P. Gartner, Encyclopedia Judaica s.v. “Hasidism”, (ramat-Gan, 1970), volume 7, col. 1399.

Cf. Jeffrey Gurock, American Jewish Orthodoxy in Historical Perspective (Hoboken, NJ, KTAV, 1996); Kimmy Caplan, Orthodox Judaism in the New World: Immigrant Rabbis and Preaching in America, 1881-1924 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2002); Ira robinson, Rabbis and Their Community: Studies in the Eastern European Orthodox Rabbinate in Montreal, 1896-1930 (Calgary, University of Calgary Press, 2007). 7.

Ada rappoport-Albert, “Hagiography With Footnotes: Edifying Tales and the Writing of History in Hasidism”, Ada rapoport-Albert, ed., Essays in Jewish Historiography (Atlanta, Scholars’ Press, 1991), pp. 119-159; Nahum Karlinsky, “between Historiography and biography: the beginning of Hasidic orthodox Historiography” [Hebrew] Zion 63 (1998), pp. 189-212.

8.

Ira robinson, “Hasidic Hagiography and Jewish Modernity”, Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Haim Yerushalmi, ed. Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Efron and David N. Myers (Hanover and London, brandeis University Press, 1998), pp. 405-412. Cf. Yosef Haim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1982). 9.

Cf. Pierre Anctil. “Introduction”, in Simon belkin, Le Mouvement ouvrier juif au Canada, 19041920 traduit du yiddish par Pierre Anctil (Sillery, Septentrion, 1999), p. 17ff.

10.

11. Cf. ruth Wisse, I. L. Peretz and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture (Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1991), pp. 55-59.

Dan Miron, The Image of the Shtetl and Other Studies of the Modern Jewish Literary Imagination (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 2000), p. 8.

12.

For a decidedly anti-Hasidic interpretation of Eastern European Jewish history, see Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1967), pp. 374-394. raphael Mahler, in his Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment : their confrontation in Galicia and Poland in the first half of the nineteenth century translated from the Yiddish by Eugene orenstein ; translated from the Hebrew by Aaron Klein and Jenny Machlowitz Klein. (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985), deals extensively with opposition to Hasidism in the nineteenth century on the part of Jewish advocates of the Jews adapting to the standards and mores of western civilization.

13.

“Hasidim, Hasidism”, The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1910), volume pp. 255-256. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

14.

This stereotype is reflected in Steven Hertzberg’s study of, Atlanta Jewry in which he stated: “The Hasidim tended to be less learned and sophisticated than the Mitnagedim.”, Strangers Within the Gate City: the Jews of Atlanta, 1845-1815 (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1978), p. 64.

15.

Yehuda rosenthal, “Perakim be-Toledot ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi ha-Mizrah Eropei be-Shikago”, Pinkas Chicago, ed. Simon rawidowicz (Chicago, 1952), p. 16, n. 47.

16.

Y.E. bernstein, The Jews in Canada (In North America): an Eastern European View of the Montreal Jewish Community in 1884 translated from the Hebrew by Ira robinson Canadian Jewish Studies Chapbook Series No. 1 (Montreal, Hungry I books, 2004), p. 18.

17.

18.

American Hebrew, March 17, 1893, p. 66.

robinson, “The Prehistory of a Legal Classic: the origins of the Mishnah berurah” , Canadian Society for the Study of religion, 2003. Cf. Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism (New Haven, Yale

19.

Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

219

University Press, 2005), p. 151ff. Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, “Hasidism, Havurot, and the Jewish Street”, Jewish Social Studies, 10 (Winter, 2004), pp. 20-54.

20.

In a certain sense this problem is similar to the scholarly debate on the Jewish identity of the conversos of Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For some scholars, the conversos did not fulfill classical rabbinic definitions of Jewishness and hence were not to be considered “Jewish”. For others, applying different criteria of “Jewishness”yielded significantly different results. See benzion Netanyahu. The Marranos of Spain : from the late 14th to the early 16th century, according to contemporary Hebrew sources Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1999; Haim beinart, Conversos on trial : the Inquisition in Ciudad Real translated into English by Yael Guiladi (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1981); rene Levine Melammed, A question of identity : Iberian conversos in historical perspective (New York, oxford University Press, 2004).

21.

Cf. Arthur Hertzberg, “The American Jew and His religion”, p. 14; M. Herbert Danzger, Returning to Tradition: the Contemporary Revival of Orthodox Judaism (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989), p, 24; Aaron rothkoff, bernard revel, pp. 8, 10. Michael r. Weisser, A Brotherhood of Memory: Jewish Landsmanschaften in the New World (New York, basic books, 1985), p. 14. Irving Abella, A Coat of Many Colours:n Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada (Toronto, Lester and orpen Denys, 1990), p. 122.. I would like to thank my student, Steven Lapidus, for these references.

22.

Milton Doroshkin, Yiddish in America: Social and Cultural Foundations (Teaneck, NJ, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1965), pp. 142-143.

23.

Gurock, American Jewish Orthodoxy, p. 81; Sarna, American Judaism, p. 167; Charles Liebman, The Religion of American Jews, pp. 26-28, 36-37; Deborah Dash Moore, At Home in America, pp. 123-124.

24.

25.

rischin, The Promised City, p. 104.

Louis Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer (New York, Schocken books, 1973), p. 36ff.; Cf. Pinchas Giller, “between Poland and Jerusalem: Kabbalistic Prayer in Early Modernity”, Modern Judaism 24,3 (2004), 226-250.

26.

27.

Caplan, Orthodoxy in the New World, p. 72ff.

Stephen Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: a History to 1937 (Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1980), pp. 164-166.

28.

This was certainly the case in Montreal. Cf. Ira robinson, “The Kosher Meat War and the Jewish Community Council of Montreal, 1922-1925”, Canadian Ethnic Studies. 22 (2) (1990) p.43

29.

Ada Green and Judi Langer-Surnamer Caplan, “Works Progress Administration (WPA) Federal Writers Project Survey of State and Local Historical records (1939) Church records Jewish - Synagogue: Introduction” http://home.att.net/~landsmanshaft/wpaform.htm

30.

31.

There were none listed for either Queens or Staten Island.

Another Hasidic liturgy, closely related to Nusah Sfard, and identified primarily with Habad Hasidism.

32.

on communications, see Menahem blondheim, “ha-rabanut ha-ortodoxit Megale ‘et Amerika: ha-Geografia shel ha-ruah be-Mitavim shel Tikshoret”, in M. Eliav-Pladon, ed. Be-Ikvot Kolumbus: Amerika, 1492-1992 (Jeruslem, 1997), pp. 483-511. Idem., “‘vela-Shom’im Yin’am: ha-Derasha ha-ortodoxit be-Arzot ha-berit beyn Heyza rabanit le-bikush ‘Ammami”, in b.Z. Kedar, ed. Ha-Tarbut ha-‘Ammami:kovez Ma’amarim (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 277-304; Jonathan Sarna, “The Myth of No return: Jewish return Migration to Eastern Europe, 1881-1914”, American Jewish History 71 (1981), pp. 256-268; Ira robinson, “A Global Shtetl: American orthodox rabbis in the

33.

220

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Early Twentieth Century and Their World Wide Web of Communication”, Scholars’ Conference on American Jewish History, 2004. Idem., “The Globalization of Diaspora Communications Among Jews at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: an Analysis of Schmuel N. Gottlieb’s ohole-Schem”, Jewish Diasporas: Myths and realities, York University, 2005 M. Freeman, Fifty Years of Jewish Life in Philadelphia [Yiddish] (Philadelphia, Mid-City Press, 19, pp. 30, 37.

34.

35.

Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: a History to 1937, pp. 97-98.

36.

www.bostonfamilyhistory.net/religion/jew_re02.html

Jewish Encyclopedia New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1906), s.v. “Kentucky”, volume 7, p. 468..

37.

38.

robinson “First Hasidic rabbis in North America”, p. 504.

Yudel rosenberg, ha-Keriah ha-Kedosha (New York, 1919), p. 9. on rosenberg see Ira robinson, “Kabbalist and Communal Leader: rabbi Yudel rosenberg and the Canadian Jewish Community”, Canadian Jewish Studies 1 (1993), pp. 41-58.

39.

M.G. Geshuri, “he-Hasidut ve-Niguneha”, in Itzhak Gruenbaum, ed. Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Warsaw (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1953), p. 326. Cf. Weisser, A brotherhood of Memory, p. 47.

40.

Jerome r. Mintz, Hasidic People: a Place in the New World (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 14-15. Similarly, r. David Elimelch Zanger left Cracow for Montreal on the advice of the bobover rebbe. oscar Z. rand, ed. Toldoth Anshe Shem (New York, 1950), p. 106. It is claimed that r. Pinchas David Horowitz, the bostoner rebbe, was first encouraged to emigrate to America in the early 1900s by his uncle. Significantly, he is said to have resisted this suggestion and only emigrated to boston in 1916 because he was unable to return to Palestine because of the First World War. Hanoch Teller, The Bostoner: Stories and Recollections From the Colorful Chassidic Court of the Bostoner Rebbe, rabbi Levi I. Horowitz (Jerusalem and New York, Feldheim, 1990), p. 13.

41.

42.

August 11, 1935, p. 28.

Sh. Erdberg, “Rikhtige Rebbes–un Falshe”, Jewish Daily News, November 2, 1927. Cf. also J.D. Eisenstein, Otsar Zikhronotai: Autobiography and Memoirs New York, 1929) , p. 156.

43.

In the case of Lubavitcher (Habad) Hasidim, it is noteworthy that prior to the 1920s, individual Lubavitchers did come to the United States and formed congregations, but that the Lubavitcher rebbes discouraged these phenomena until the 1920s. Shalom Dober Levin, Toldois Chabad B’Artzois Ha’Bris (brooklyn, Kehot, 1988), pp. 7-8, 10, 15.

44.

45.

Joshua Heshl rabinowitz, Torat Avot (New York, 1926), introduction.

46.

Erdberg, “rikhtige rebbes–un Falshe”

Singer’s article originally appeared on February 6, 1944; it was reprinted the Forward [Yiddish], December 31, 2004, pp. 10, 18-19.

47.

“Schwartz in a Farce: ‘American Chasidim”a Satire on a religious Sect”, New York Times, March 17, 1928.

48.

(Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson, 1996), pp. 53, 63, 105-107, .117, 130, 140, 175, 221,222, 276-278, 280, 289, 303, 329, 346-347, 365, 367, 389, 390-391, 406, 415, 418, 465, 483, 502506, 509, 517-518, 526, 552.

49.

on the Talner Hasidic Dynasty, see b. rom, Semukhim la-‘ad le-‘olam, ha-Modia, December 7, 1990, p. 10.

50.

Anshe Sfard: the Creation of the First Hasidic Congregations in North America1

221

He visited congregation bnai reuven in Philadelphia for two weeks in 1915. That congregation hosted other visiting Hasidic spiritual leaders. See “Chasidik Tsadik”, Jewish Exponent [Philadelphia], January 16, 1914. Cf. M. Freeman, p. 47.

51.

Advertisement in ha-‘Ivri February 11, 1916, p. 16. This advertisement was repeated in the same journal on March 24, April 7 and April 17, 1916. A similar advertisement, on behalf of the radovitzer rebbe, who was located at 293 East 3rd Street, was published in ha-‘Ivri on March 17, 1916, p. 16, and repeated on April 17, 1916. r. David Mordecai Twersky also advertised his New Year greetings in ha-‘Ivri, october 6, 1916, p. [14].

52.

Y.L. Malamut, ed, Filadelfier ‘Idishe Anshtaltn un Zeyere Fihrer (Philadelphia, 1942/3), pp. 7980.

53.

Abraham J. Twerski, Generation to Generation: Persoanl Recollections of a Chassidic Legacy (brooklyn, Traditional Press, 1986), p. ii.

54.

55. Ha-Ma’ayan volume 14, n. 19 (February 12, 2000) http://roshhashana.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5760/terumah.html

Gurock, American Jewish orthodoxy, p. 6ff; Aaron rakeffet-rothkoff, The Silver era in American Jewish Orthodoxy: Rabbi Eliezer Silver and his generation (Jerusalem : Feldheim ; New York, Yeshiva University Press, 1981).

56.

Krohn, The Way It Was: Touching Vignettes of Growing Up Jewish in the Philadelphia of Long Ago (brooklyn, Mesorah, 1989), p. 114.

57.

58.

Malamut, Filadefier, pp. 80-81.

59.

New York Times April 28, 1938, p. 23

60.

Mintz, Hasidic People, p. 18.

Tabak, The Transformation of Jewish Identity: the Philadelphia Experience (Ann Arbor, UMI, 1990), p. 173.

61.

222

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist 1 If a Hasid says, “I have seen [it] with my eyes”, maybe he has heard [the story]. And when he says he heard [it], it certainly never happened. rabbi Hayyim Halberstam of Sanz2 When Samuel rocker died in 1936 at the age of 713, he was the publisher of a Yiddish-language daily newspaper in Cleveland, ohio, entitled Di ‘Idishe Velt [Jewish World]. As such, he was a person who possessed great power and influence with the members of the Eastern European immigrant Jewish community of Cleveland, who were his readers. For those interested in gaining influence within that community, including the leaders of the establishment of the Cleveland Jewish community, as well as for ohio politicians who sought the ‘Idishe Velt’s electoral support, rocker was a man to be reckoned with.4 If that were all we knew about rocker, we would most probably characterize him simply as a modernizing force within the Jewish community. For it is commonplace for observers of the North American Yiddish press of the early twentieth century to view it as an “Americanizing Agency”. It was thus an important link in a process of acculturation whereby Eastern European Jews acclimatised themselves to America and its way of life while retaining important linguistic and cultural ties to their past.5 rocker, as publisher of Di‘Idishe Velt, certainly fulfilled this expectation. However the writing of editorials and essays, which caused him to be remembered as a “Yiddish Walter Lipmann”,6 was only part of his contribution to the acculturation process of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. For beyond his persona of “Samuel rocker” the American Yiddish journalist, he was also “reb Yehoshua [Joshua] rocker”,7 author of a book on the Talmudic interpretation of the bible8 as well as two books of Hasidic tales.9 This means that rocker served as a cultural me-

Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

223

diator not simply between the Eastern European Jewish immigrants and their new country, but also between these Jews and their religious past. This past included the study of the Talmud as a highly valued religious and cultural activity,10 as well as the religious traditions embodied in the stories which he told about the great masters of the Hasidic movement. It is his construction of the Hasidic tradition in his books which will mostly concern us in this article. It is important for us, at the outset, to clearly understand that the Hasidic tradition evoked in rocker’s books, concerns a movement in Judaism which emerged in the eighteenth century in Eastern Europe and played an important, if sometimes paradoxical, role in the process of the modernization of Eastern European Jews.11 It is equally important for us to understand that the presentation of the Hasidic tradition in the form of collections of Hasidic stories concerning the movement’s great spiritual leaders was largely a function of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the product of the clash between Hasidic Judaism and various competitive ideologies in that period.12 It thus constitutes an example of Eric Hobsbawm’s thesis that the period 1870-1914 witnessed not merely the overthrow of many premodern lifestyles, but also the “invention” of a number of national and ethnic “traditions”.13 Finally, it is worth noting that, in a number of cases, collections of Hasidic stories were edited and published by people who were not themselves committed Hasidic Jews in the full sense and whose relationship to Hasidic Judaism could sometimes be described as ambivalent.14 rocker himself is such an ambivalent presenter of Hasidic tales, as we shall soon see. He was born in 1864 or 1865 in Gorlice, southern Poland, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His father, usually referred to as reb Ephraim Fishel Gorlitser, was a fervent Hassid and Talmudic scholar, who held the position of dayyan [judge of the rabbinical court] attached to the retinue of rabbi Hayyim Halberstam (17931876), the Hasidic leader of Sanz (Nowy Sacz).15 Growing up in a strongly Hasidic environment, Joshua rocker was able to personally visit several Hasidic courts in Galicia and Hungary,16 and was educated in the Hasidic tradition both formally and informally. As he matured, however, while he remained an observant orthodox Jew,17 he drew away somewhat from his initial strong attachment to Ha-

224

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

sidism, as did many of his contemporaries, through his exposure to the writings of the nineteenth century Jewish movement for Europeanization, the haskala.18 Thus he recounted how, even as a young man in Europe, when he celebrated the Sabbath in the same town as the son and successor of rabbi Hayyim Halberstam, rabbi Yehezkele of Siniewa, he did not go to visit him, as a normal Hassid would, “because”, he related, “my Hasidism was even then evaporated [oysgevefte]”.19 rocker emigrated to the United States in 1891, and established the first Jewish print shop in Cleveland in 1898. He simultaneously began a career in Yiddish journalism in Cleveland which culminated in his becoming editor, and, eventually, sole owner of Di ‘Idishe Velt.20 As editor and publisher of an American daily Yiddish newspaper outside New York, rocker could not afford the luxury of catering to exclusively one or another political or religious faction within the immigrant Jewish community, as was possible in New York. He had to be respectful to the religious and the secularist Jew alike; be sympathetic to unions while not completely disdainful of management.21 but he also maintained his own point of view, which reflected his education and predilections. This point of view emerged even in his general articles and editorials, in which he would “draw...liberally on Jewish literature and folklore for illustration and proof.”22 It came out strongest in the three books he published. The first of them, as previously mentioned, was his Sefer Divrei Hakhamim. Its subject was the babylonian Talmud’s interpretation of the bible, and it was first published in 1903, near the beginning of his journalistic career. In this book, rocker anthologized the aggadic comments scattered throughout the babylonian Talmud on Genesis in the order of the verses, adding a commentary of his own based largely upon classic rabbinic expositions on the subject. While this book amply demonstrates the expertise in rabbinic literature rocker acquired in his Hungarian yeshiva education, that was not the major purpose of the book. The book rather emerged from his concern that Talmudic study, the backbone of Eastern European Jewish education, was being forgotten in the New World.23 In his introduction, he began by speaking of the crucial importance of Talmud study in Jewish history. Then he stated:

Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

225

However now the times have changed...a new land and new heavens are revealed before us, and the conditions of life have changed completely. While we were dwelling on the soil of Europe, even though we were occupied the entire day with making a living...we nonetheless devoted time to the Talmud. Instead [here] we have abandoned it completely and forgotten it...What has become of us here that Talmud study has become the possession of a few individuals while the nation as a whole has no part in it? I will not exaggerate if I were to say that it is habit alone...which is to blame in this matter...It is within our power, even here, even now, to establish for ourselves at least a small period of time to study the words of the Talmud...For if this present situation will continue for the period of two or three generations, then, God forbid, the teaching of the Talmud will be forgotten among us, and even more so among our descendants in our country.24 It is apparent that this book was not addressed to the younger, American-born generation, but rather to rocker’s contemporaries who had studied Talmud in Europe and had then abandoned it. reading his book, rocker hoped, would “arouse in them the memory to remember what they studied in their youth, which would arouse in them the desire ...to establish times for Torah [study].”25 From nostalgia for fading memories of a youthful Talmudic education, then, an improvement in the situation of American Judaism might well emerge. The reader who peruses this book will quickly understand that rocker was a genuine master of rabbinic literature as a whole. He will also sense that the author was definitely not interested in going much beyond traditional sources.26 While rocker occasionally demonstrates hesitation at accepting literally some Talmudic statements which seem contrary to scientific observation or common sense,27 he tends to absolve the Talmudic sages of any blame in any such misrepresentation. Thus in commenting on the Talmud’s statement “Israel has no mazal [predestined fate]”28, rocker comments: Though in several places in the Talmud we find a belief in mazal...the sages concluded that this belief was so rooted in the heart of the masses of Israel that they were unable to uproot it completely. Truly this belief is opposed to the religion of Israel, 226

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

for if we believe in mazal, man has no free will, God exercises no personal providence, and there is no place for reward and punishment.29 rocker’s Divrei Hakhamim was thus an experiment in repositioning the “tradition”of Talmud study in the context of an American Jewish community which by and large seemed to have relegated the necessity for Talmud study to those preparing for the rabbinate. rocker’s experiment apparently did not generate much enthusiasm. In his introduction, he expressed the hope that the completion of his work on Genesis would soon be followed by similar anthologies for the other books of the Pentateuch.30 No other book in this series was published, however. In the 1920s and 1930s, rocker would try another way of influencing his readers to preserve the Jewish tradition– by writing about the great masters of the Hasidic tradition. In order to understand the novelty of what rocker was attempting in his Hasidic works in the North American context of the early twentieth century, we have to understand the sort of “press”that Hasidism was receiving at the moment he was writing. The most authoritative reference book on Judaism at the time was the Jewish Encyclopedia. Searching that work for the term “hasidism”would yield the following in the entry on “Cabala”: While the doctrines of the HabaD have shown that the Lurianic Cabala is something more than a senseless playing with letters, other forms of Hasidism, also derived from the Cabala, represent the acme of systematized cant and irrational talk.31 The entry on Hasidism itself, written by Simon Dubnow, would inform the reader that at the beginning of the twentieth century, though the movement’s “vitality cannot be doubted”, it was being nourished “by its stored-up reserves of spiritual power”, and that “the period of stagnation which it has lately passed through must...result in its gradual stagnation.”32 Many reports in the Jewish press, both English and Yiddish, treated the first manifestations of Hasidic life in North America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as if Hasidism were a disease which it were best to quarantine so as not to infect American Jewry.33 rocker was, therefore, going to have to counter a great deal of negativity if he was determined to present Hasidism in anything resembling a positive light. Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

227

both his Hasidic books began as series of articles for Di ‘Idishe Velt, which were afterwards published in book form.34 The ostensible occasion for the first of his series of articles on Hasidism was the fiftieth anniversary of the death of rabbi Hayyim Halberstam of Sanz in 1926.35 Not only was rabbi Halberstam well-known to rocker through his personal experience, and through his father’s stories,36 but, as we will see, rabbi Halberstam’s interpretation of Hasidim, which de-emphasized kabbala and miracles and stressed halakhic observance and Talmud study, was particularly congenial to rocker. There was, however, another reason why rocker may have wanted to write about rabbi Halberstam. In 1916, Yitzhak Even (18611925) had published a series of articles in the Hebrew language periodical, ha-‘Ivri on the lengthy and bitter conflict between the Hasidism of Sanz and those of Sadigoreh in the 1860s and 1870s which rocked the Jewish world.37 Even promised, in his preface, that his account of the conflict would be “evenhanded” favoring neither side and presenting only historical facts. In doing so, however, he also undertook to demonstrate that “all the accusations of “new sect” [kat hadasha] or “wicked sect” [kat ha-resha’a] which the Hasidim of Sanz called the Hasidim of Sadegoreh had no substance to them”.38 In an “evenhanded” way, in other words, Even tried to place the onus for the quarrel on the Sanzer side.39 Though he was no longer a Sanzer Hassid in the strictest sense of the terms, rocker retained much of his youthful loyalty to Sanz. He thus felt that he could do a better job, one fairer to the Sanzer side than Even’s account.40 Whether that is the case or not, it is certain that rocker had Even’s work on the conflict, as well as his other book on the Hasidic dynasty of rabbi Israel of rizhin in front of him,41 and learned from it, not least, that there was an historical importance to the Hasidism of the previous generation.42 From the perspective of Hasidic history, rocker was also dissatisfied with attempts on the part of the Sanzer Hasidim themselves to tell their leader’s story. He thus noted in his introduction to his account of the Sanzer that: The history of the Sanzer Zaddik, rabbi Hayyim Halberstam, has not yet been written, neither in Yiddish or in the Holy Language

228

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

[Hebrew]...Several small books [bikhlekh] in the Hebrew language have indeed been written about him. They are, however, no more than a gathering together of short stories, quotations, and Torah thoughts which have no historical value.43 His work, by contrast, was oriented toward illuminating “a chapter of the highest importance in Jewish history.”44 In attempting to write the history of Sanzer hasidism, rocker was doing something which marked him as different from the mainstream of traditional, pre-modern Judaism, which did not often choose history as a favored means of literary expression.45 Despite the title of “history” rocker gave to his work, the result was largely a retelling of Hasidic tales of zaddikim. rocker often prefaced these tales with some indication of the nature of the source. Thus a tale might begin “Hasidim relate”, “old Hasidim relate”, “Sigeter Hasidim relate”, “a Hasidic legend [aggada] relates”, or “Hasidic books state”.46 These tales were supplemented with written sources when available, as will be seen, but rocker was characterized by Shapira as “not delving deeply into [Hasidism’s] original sources. rather he himself was a “source”for the phenomenon of Hasidism.” 47 rocker was thus by no means a “scientific”historian of Hasidism either by the standards of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, exemplified by Simon Dubnow, or of the Eastern European haskala, as exemplified by the work of Samuel A. Horodetzky.48 He was, however, well aware that there were a number of contemporary orthodox authors who had begun to attempt to tell the Hasidic story as history and theology, and not merely to accumulate a collection of “stories, quotations and Torah thoughts”. Yitzhak Even’s work, previously referred to, was one example of an author consciously writing what he thought of as Hasidic history. Another example familiar to rocker was that of rabbi Mattityahu Yehezkel Gutman of Husi, romania, whose 1922 book on rabbi Israel ba’al Shem Tov was subtitled, in the best academic style, “His Life, His Works and His Teaching”.49 In that book, Gutman, like rocker, uses terms like “the Hasidic legend” [ha-‘agada ha-hasidit]50 and clearly has in mind a reader who is not necessarily steeped in Hasidic life, but for whom the story of the ba’al Shem Tov may be relevant in other ways.51 Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

229

rocker gives us some further clues to his attitude toward Hasidism in his last book, published posthumously, entitled Toldot Anshei Shem. This book consists of a collection of rocker’s work on rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi,52 founder of Habad Hasidism, and the Hungarian zaddikim Isaac of Kalev, Moshe Teitelbaum, Yekutiel Yehuda Teitelbaum, Lipele Teitelbaum, and Yeshaiale Kristirer, also published in the ‘Idishe Velt, apparently after his work on the Sanzer Zaddik.53 In his introductory remarks to his work on rabbi Shneur Zalman, he makes the following programmatic statement: Hasidic literature, stories and customs of “Good Jews”54 which recently have become an important part of Hebrew and Yiddish literature, have been of great use to Jewry. They have opened the curtain on a portion of the Jewish people (Hasidim), which has been portrayed by the Mitnagdim on the one hand, and the Maskilim on the other as dark and superstitious. both the Mitnagdim and the Maskilim have noticed their mistake. both have noticed that in that camp [of the Hasidim] there is no darkness, but rather light and life; no superstition but rather a world in which a great portion of the Jewish people found comfort and consolation, life and holiness. Whether we agree with the Hasidic way or not, we must admit that where Hasidism lived and spread its wings, Judaism remained whole, and with a soul.55 rocker clearly wanted his own writings on the Hasidim to be part of this new branch of Jewish literature and history. What was he trying to accomplish? First and foremost, he was trying to move discourse on Hasidism within the Jewish community into the mainstream. His strategy was twofold. First of all, he utterly denied the accusation that the ba’al Shem Tov, and Hasidism as a whole, did not sufficiently respect Talmudic scholarship.56 on the contrary, the ba’al Shem Tov is portrayed by rocker as a great Talmudic scholar, though he admits that not all of his successors were outstanding scholars [geonim].57 He was also prepared to admit that many later Hasidim fell short of this ideal: [Talmudic] learning became secondary [tafel] and Hasidism became the essential. A saying of the rebbe became more [important] than studying a page of Talmud with Tosafot, and a

230

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

“grandchild” [of the rebbe] in swaddling clothes took on more importance than the greatest Torah scholar [gaon]. Drinking “tikkun”, relating stories, conversing about “Good Jews”began playing the most important role in Hasidic life.58 It is noteworthy, however, that if, indeed, Hasidim themselves fell short of the ideal, in rocker’s view, their leaders were hardly ever to blame. Thus in the great controversy between the Sanzer and Sadegorer Hasidim, rocker carefully tried to minimize the active part taken by both the Sanzer and the Sadegorer leadership. In particular, rocker took pains to distance the Sadegorer leadership from provocative acts on the Sadegoreh side such as placing the Sanzer Zaddik in excommunication in a ceremony held at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.59 Similarly, the persecution of rabbi Elazar Nisan Teitelbaum by the Hasidim of rabbi Mendele of Kassov in Sighet was described by rocker as not emanating from rabbi Mendele himself.60 The Hasidic leaders, then, were almost invariably portrayed as great and benevolent Torah scholars, who stood above the fray which often pitted one Hasidic group against another. beyond that, rocker put forward in his books a vision of an ideal Hasidism. It was, perhaps not surprisingly for one who so closely identified with the Sanzer Zaddik, one which emphasized traditional Talmudic learning, and de-emphasized mysticism and claims of miracle-working.61 The embodiment of this ideal, of course, was rabbi Hayyim Halberstam of Sanz. Not only does rocker portray rabbi Halberstam as a world-class Torah scholar [velts gaon] in both Talmud [nigleh] and kabbala [nistar], thus harmoniously combining “the way of the Vilna Gaon with the way of the ba’al Shem”,62 but he also emphasizes the primacy of Talmud study for rabbi Halberstam.63 Similarly, he approves the fact that rabbi Halberstam and others, like rabbi Hershele Lisker, discouraged tales of miracles and wonders relating to themselves.64 rocker was characteristically ambivalent concerning the issuing of amulets [kameot], which he considered a gentile custom which was adopted by Jews during the babylonian exile. rocker asserted that “many great Jewish scholars [gedolei yisrael] in nearly every generation were against the issuance of amulets,” and that those rabbis who gave them, like rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, were persecuted for it. Therefore even Hasidic rabbes,

Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

231

for the most part, dispensed amulets in secret.65 The world that rocker portrayed in his Hasidic books was one in which modern Jews, who had abandoned the Hasidic tradition, yet derived many positive things. Thus, for example, “modern” cantors came to Hasidic singers for inspiration, and rabbi Isaac Kalever’s songs were sung by even the “enlightened” among Hungarian Jewry.66 At least some nonobservant Jews came to Hasidic rabbis for their blessing.67 In a word, the Hasidism he portrayed was one in which those elements which would appear most foreign to modern civilization were either suppressed or else de-emphasized. one of the most important aspects of this is the fact that in his lengthy portrait of rabbi Hayyim Halberstam and his teachings, he barely refers to his rulings which forbade Jews, especially women, from adopting western modes of dress,68 and rocker’s reference, which he could have hardly avoided, has to do with the notorious accusation that the women of the Sadegoreh dynasty had adopted western dress and manners, which he could not entirely avoid in dealing with the dispute.69 A second factor to note is rocker’s treatment of maskilim. They were, as mentioned earlier, depicted as mistaken opponents of Hasidism, like the mitnagdim. They are generally portrayed in rocker’s books entirely from a Hasidic perspective. Thus a maskil of Chernovits, Dr. Yehuda Leib reitman, who figured in the affair of rabbi Dov [berenyu] of Leova which touched off the Sanz-Sadegoreh conflict, is described as follows: “He was an early maskil and a student of Joseph Perl, the author of Megale Tmirin. [He was] a terrible “devourer”of Hasidim [Hasidim fresser] and a known nonbeliever [‘apikoros].70 There is nothing in his books that overtly lets the reader in on the fact that rocker was in fact greatly influenced by the works of Galician maskilim such as Joseph Perl, Nahman Krochmal and Shlomo Yehuda rapoport.71 What, then, was rocker trying to do by writing his Hasidic books in Yiddish in Cleveland, ohio? Perhaps the best answer is to compare rocker’s works with a book written at the same period by the editor of Montreal’s Yiddish daily, Der Keneder Adler, Hirsch Wolofsky.72 Its title was Oyf Eybiken Kvall: Gedanken un batrachtungen fun dem hayntigen idishen leben un shtreben, in likht fun unzer alter un eybignayer tora, eingeteylt loyt di parshiyos fun der vokh.73 As with 232

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

rocker’s books, Wolofsky had first published his book as a series of articles in his newspaper in 1928-1929. He was attempting to create nothing less than a contemporary commentary or homily [drush] on the Pentateuch. The form the book took, commentary, as well as its division according to the weekly synagogue Torah readings, both reflected a respect for and an appreciation of the Judaic tradition. It appropriated that tradition so as to shed new light on the dynamics of the contemporary Jewish community, whose life and aspirations Wolofsky wished to reflect. In his introduction Wolofsky began by consciously placing his work in the tradition of the ancient midrashic and later homiletic [drush] literature of Judaism. These premodern works, he asserted, sought to explain contemporary problems in terms of the Torah, utilizing the literary means of allegory, fantasy and imagination. These elements were added to the true story of Torah74 in order to affect the hearts of the audience. This process was precisely what Wolofsky wished to follow, only in the twentieth century and “according to the American version [nusakh]”.75 In a North American Jewish cultural atmosphere, drush also had to become different. There was no twentieth-century audience for a homily lasting hours on end. Jews who were willing to listen at all to words of Torah wanted the speaker to come to the point in fifteen to twenty minutes without either elaborate introductions or difficult questions. Having this situation in mind, Wolofsky was not about to create a “serious” commentary on the Torah in the old style.76 Wolofsky, in writing this work, thought of his enterprise in the context of the age-old Jewish custom of reviewing the weekly Torah portion [ma'avir sedra zayn] with the original biblical text read twice and the translation/interpretation [targum] once. At present, however, Wolofsky asserted that the original “text”of Jewish life has largely been forgotten and that therefore contemporary Jews are living their lives at a remove from the original [targum-lebn] in a world where practically nothing is “original”and all is targum. For Jews living in such a world, Wolofsky proposed to present a series of homilies which might, indeed, be more “targum” than original, but which were conceived by him to be in the spirit of the original.77 I would say that rocker, like Wolofsky, understood that the Jews who constituted his audience had detached themselves from an immediate connection with the Jewish tradition of yesteryear, but might Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

233

yet be reached through innovative literature emanating from that tradition. Wolofsky found himself in the mainstream of a cohort of contemporaries in Montreal, who, through their teaching and publication, attempted to utilize the hallowed resources of the Jewish past, including Midrash, and Mishna, to recreate a thriving and culturally innovative Jewish community through the medium of Yiddish. As David roskies described these people, they took for granted that the old Judaic culture of Eastern Europe had to be reinvented. If the original had become inaccessible to the average Jew in the street, then a compelling Jewish life in targum had to be established both intellectually and institutionally.78 rocker himself had a group of intellectual companions in Cleveland. They included pioneering Hebrew educator H. A. Friedlander.79 More importantly, however, they included a pair of orthodox rabbis who originated in Galicia and Hungary, and who themselves were authors of books about Hasidism which were both departures from traditional Hasidic literature and yet which retained a respect for Hasidism itself and for orthodox Judaism. one was Menachem Mendel Eckstein, rabbi of Congregation bnai Jacob Anshei Marmorosh of Cleveland, author of Tena’e ha-nefesh le-hassagat haHasidut (1920/1).80 The other was rabbi Yekutiel Greenwald (1889-1955) of Columbus, ohio, whose monumental oeuvre includes books on the Jews of Hungary,81 and several biographies of great rabbis.82 rabbis Eckstein and Greenwald are credited by rocker with lending him books and sharing their knowledge of Hasidism.83 An intensive study of their works would doubtless yield more insight into rocker’s intellectual world. When Samuel rocker died in 1936, his funeral service, as reported by the New York Times was conducted by rabbis of the three branches of American Judaism–reform, Conservative, and orthodox.84 It is nonetheless clear that characterizing rocker on the standard orthodox-Conservative-reform continuum of twentieth century American Jewry does a disservice to the complexity of his personality. A better basis of understanding was presented by three of his contemporaries who wrote about him in the language in which he wrote–Yiddish. baruch Zuckerman, an important leader of the Poalei Zion movement in the first half of the twentieth century, compared rocker in his

234

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

memoirs to Hillel Zeitlin(1871-1942), the Warsaw journalist and mystic who, in the words of Arthur Green, “tried to create chasidism for those who lived outside the chasidic world”.85 The Yiddish journalist David Eidelsberg wrote an obituary for rocker in the Jewish Morning Journal [Morgen Journal] of New York on March 24, 1936 under the title “Hasid and Maskil” [Hasid un Maskil]. rocker, in his opinion: ...embodied the infrequent combination of Hasid and Maskil– first of all Hasid, and then Maskil...In his youth, like many Torah students of that era, he was satiated with the rationalistic teachings [torah] of the Haskala, but his Hasidic soul was not touched. So to speak, he ate the fruit and threw away the peel. In his best maskilic convictions, he remained a Hasid... rocker used to say that great maskilim like [Joseph] Perl, [Judah] Levinsohn, [Isaac] Erter and [Nahman] Krochmal persecuted Hasidism to the end because they were completely Jews of mind, while a deeper [maskilic] thinker like Eliezer Zweifel86 looked on Jewry also with the eyes of the heart. And thus, as a maskil he was able to evaluate the great importance of the Hasidic movement for Jewish history. rocker did not only write well about Hasidism, but he practised its high morality and life. Yosef Shapira, who had worked closely with rocker for several years on the staff of Di ‘Idishe Velt, and had subsequently moved to Palestine, also wrote of rocker’s paradoxical mixture of Hasid and Maskil: reb Joshua rocker, the Torah scholar [talmid hokhom] with the clear mind, was educated in a Hasidic environment and was well versed [baki] in its teaching...when he distanced himself from it, like rabbi Meir, he ate the content and threw away the husk... often I felt as if I were sitting in front of one of the most faithful heirs of ...the generation of true maskilim: an heir in knowledge, humor, love of Israel, and also an heir in the struggle against those who sought to bring foreign culture into Jewish life...The struggle of Joshua rocker against assimilation in all its forms was conducted with enthusiasm, and the entire fervor of his Jewish soul.87 Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

235

In this struggle, Joshua rocker attempted to use the power of the Hasidic tradition, not to oppose modernization as such, but to show his readers that there were different paths available to them as Jews other than a lockstep acculturation into an American “melting pot”. by portraying the leaders of nineteenth century Hasidism positively in the way he did, he sought to convince his readers that the ideas and ideals of the Hasidic tradition had continued relevance in the here and now, and had not simply left been behind in the forward march of civilization.88 For Joshua rocker, there was something in Hasidism and its story that could speak to his contemporaries, and help them as they engaged in the vital balancing act between the Judaic tradition and western civilization that characterized all of modern Judaism.

Notes . I would like to thank Justin Jaron Lewis and Steven Engler, from whose comments on an earlier draft of this article I learned much. 2 . Zvi Moshkovits, Kol ha-Katuv le-Hayyim, (Jerusalem: 1962), p. 6. 3. on rocker, see Encyclopedia Judaica (ramat-Gan:1970), volume 14, col. 213, and an obituary in the New York Times, March 19, 1936, p. 25. Cf. Yosef Shapira, Morai u-Mehankhai: Zikhronot, Reshamim, Havayot, (Tel-Aviv: Netiv, 1972), pp. 123-133. 4. Lloyd Gartner, History of the Jews of Cleveland, (Cleveland: Western reserve Historical Society, 1978), pp. 214-215, 225-226; baruch Zuckerman, Zikhronos, (New York: Farlag ‘Idisher Kempfer, 1962), volume 1, p. 155. 1

236

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Mordecai Soltes,”Yiddish Press: an Americanizing Agency”, American Jewish Year Book, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1924-1925, 165-372; Moses rischin, The Promised City: New York Jews, 1870-1914 (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1972), chapter 7; Leon Stein, Abraham Conan, and Lynn Davison, tr., The Education of Abraham Cahan. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969); ronald Sanders, The Downtown Jews: Portrait of an Immigrant Generation (New York: Harper and row, 1969.); Isaac Metzker, ed., A Bintel Brief: Sixty Years of Letters from the Lower East Side to the Jewish Daily Forward (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971). There is relatively little on the “provincial”North American Yiddish press of that era.. Cf. David rome and Pierre Anctil. Through the eyes of The eagle : the early Montreal Yiddish Press (1907-1916) (Montréal: Véhicule Press, 2001) and David rome, “Men of the Yiddish Press”, Canadian Jewish Archives n.s. volume 42 (1989). on Di ‘Idishe Velt itself, see Shapira, Morai, pp. 123-128. 6 Gartner, History, p. 214. 7 Yehoshua [Joshua] was apparently rocker’s original name. Samuel/Joshua rocker was far from the only Jew in North America to adopt a personal name different from his name of origin. Shneur Zalman Schechter, President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, thus changed his given name to Solomon when he arrived in the western world. Cf. Norman bentwich, Solomon Schechter: a Biography (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948). A North American immigrant rabbi of the same era, rabbi Yeshaiah [Isaiah] Glazer used Simon as his given name. on Glazer, see Ira robinson Rabbis and Their Community: Studies in the Immigrant Orthodox Rabbinate of Montreal, 1896-1930 (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2007), chapter 3. Possibly Samuel was chosen because it somewhat corresponded to the Galician/Ukrainian/Hungarian pronunciation of Yehoshua’ “Shia”. 8 Joshua rocker, Sefer Divrei Hakhamim: Derashot Hazal mi-Talmud Bavli, milukatim mi-kol hamekomot asher hema mifuzarim, u-mesudarin be-seder nakhon ‘al mikraot ha-tora. Mizuraf le-zeh sefer avnei hefez: devarim yekarim ve-nehmadim, mi-sefarim rishonim ve-aharonim le-varer u-lelaben ma’amarim temohim ve-amukim. (Cleveland: rocker Printing Company, 1919). The book was first printed in 1903, according to the title page, but a search of a number of library catalogues has not yielded an extant copy of the first edition so far. The 1919 edition is available at the website www.hebrewbooks.org . 9 The first of these books is rocker’s Der Sanzer Zaddik: R. Hayyim Halberstam, zts”l di vunderbare lebens-geshikhte fun dem sanzer zaddik, velkher iz aroys fun a mitnagdishe svive, zu veren eyner fun di greste gute iden in zayn dor zayn leben. zayn virken. zayne taten, zayn tetigkeit in hasidus. zayn geonus in nigleh un nistar biz di moradige mahlokes Sanz un Sadagure dertseylt zum ersten mol in a reyn idishe shprakh. (Printed in Vienna: Union buchdruckerei for Hayyim Zvi Heshe Kauftel [New York], 5687 [1926/7]). This book is also available at www.hebrewbooks.org . It was reprinted in bnei brak, Israel, 5730 [1969/70]. The second book is rocker’s Toldos Anshei Shem di lebens geshikhte fun dem gaon u-mekubal R. Shneur Zalman Ladier, di ungarishe geonim R. Moshe Teitlboym, R. Yekutiel Yehuda Teitlboym, un andere zaddikim; zeyr leben, zeyr virken, zayere taten, zayr tetigkeit in hasidus, zayr geonus in nigle un nistar Dertseylt zum ershten mol in a reyn ‘idisher shprakh. (Cleveland: Progressive Printing Company, 5699 [1939]). Kauftel was rocker’s brother-in-law. Cf. rocker Toldos Anshei Shem, p. 5. 10 Jacob Katz, Tradition and crisis : Jewish society at the end of the Middle Ages (New York: Schocken, 1971), chapter 18; Mark Zborowski, and Elizabeth Herzog, Foreword by Margaret Mead, Life is with people: the culture of the shtetl (New York: Schocken 1962). 11 Gershon David Hundert, Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century: a Genealogy of Modernity (berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), chapter 9; Shaul Magid, Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism in Izbica/Radzin Hasidism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004). 12 Ira robinson, “Hasidic Hagiography and Jewish Modernity”, Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Haim Yerushalmi ed. Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Efron and David N. Myers (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1998), pp. 405-412; Justin Jaron Lewis, “Imagining Holiness: A source-Critical, Historical and Thematic Study of Collections of Hasidic Tales with particular focus on the works of Isaac berger and Abraham Hayim Simhah bunem Michelson”doctoral 5

Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

237

dissertation, University of Toronto, 2002. 13 Eric Hobsbawm,”Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914”, in E. Hobsbawm and T. ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 14 Joseph Dan, “A bow to Frumkinian Hasidism”, Modern Judaism 11 (1991), pp. 175-193. Lewis in his “Imagining Holiness”, expresses doubt concerning Dan’s thesis. 15 He is described in a Sanzer source as “a great sage [talmid hakham]”. Moshkovits Kol ha-Katuv le-Hayyim, p. 57. Cf. rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, pp. 15, 52, 101. 16 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, pp. 51, 149, 159; Toldos Anshei Shem, pp. 147, 161, 209. 17 Thus rabbi Max Wohlgelernter in a letter dated March 24, 1936, described rocker at the time of his death as a person “who both in his personal life as well as in his communal and journalistic activities was a true exponent and staunch defender of orthodoxy”. rocker Papers, Western reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, ohio. 18 Shapira Morai, p. 124. on the haskala movement, cf. Michael Stanislawski, For whom do I toil? Judah Leib Gordon and the crisis of Russian Jewry (New York: oxford University Press, 1988); raphael Mahler, Hasidism and Haskalah in Galicia and the Congress Kingdom of Poland, in the first half of the nineteenth century [Hebrew] Merhavia, Israel: Sifriat Poalim, 1961. Translated into English by Eugene orenstein, Aaron Klein, and Jenny Machlowitz Klein. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985); Jay Harris, Nachman Krochmal: Guiding the Perplexed of the Modern Age (New York: New York University Press, 1991). 19 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 66. on r. Yechezkele, cf. A.Y. bromberg, The Sanzer Rav and His Dynasty tr. Shlomo Fox-Ashrei (brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1986), pp. 214-300. 20 “Samuel rocker papers, 1910-1984 (1913-1947).” Western reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, ohio. www.wrhs.org. The Encyclopedia Judaica indicates that he began his Yiddish journalistic career in Cleveland as early as 1896. 21 He was, however, far from spineless and supported the workers in the 1911 Cloakmakers’ strike even though the manufacturers threatened to withdraw their advertising. Shapira Morai, 126. 22 Gartner History, p. 214; Shapira, Morai, p. 127. David Eidelsberg, “Hasid un Maskil”, Jewish Morning Journal, March 24, 1936, recalls that rocker “sat over an editorial like over a page of Talmud, rocking back and forth”. 23 Thus the Talmud Torah, the major expression of Jewish education in North America in that era, had little room in its curriculum for Talmud. M. Ginzberg, Keneder Adler (Montreal) November 19, 1950; Simon Glazer, “The Talmud: Fundamental Principles”, Jewish Times [Montreal], october 23, 1903; Seth Farber, An American Orthodox Dreamer: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Boston’s Maimonides School (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2003). 24 rocker, Sefer Divrei Hakhamim, introduction, unpaginated [v]. 25 Ibid., unpaginated [vi]. rocker himself was described as having established times for personal Torah study. 26 In only two cases does he cite figures who were themselves traditionalist, but not entirely within the boundaries set by contemporary yeshivot: a citation from Moses Mendelssohn, found in the Hebrew encyclopedia Otsar Yisrael (p. 38), and one from “the sage [Alexander] Kohut”(p. 67). on rocker’s traditionalism and attitude toward “critical”literature, see Shapira Morai, 128-129. 27 rocker, Sefer Divrei Hakhamim, pp. 4, 17, 104. 28 Tractate Shabbat 156a. 29 rocker, Sefer Divrei Hakhamim, p. 52. 30 Ibid., unpaginated [viii]. 31 S.v. “Cabala”, Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1910), volume 3, 470. Cf. www.jewishencyclopedia.com 32 S.v. “Hasidim”, Jewish Encyclopedia. volume 6, 255-256. Cf. Shuly rubin Schwartz, The emergence of Jewish scholarship in America : the publication of the Jewish encyclopedia (Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College Press, 1991), p. 121. 33 Yosef E. bernstein, “The Jews in Canada (in North America)”: an Eastern European View of the Montreal Jewish Community in 1884”. Translated from the Hebrew by Ira robinson (Montreal: Canadian Jewish History Chapbooks Series No. 1, 2004), p. 18; Ira robinson, “The First Hasidic

238

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

rabbis in North America”, American Jewish Archives 44 (1992), pp. 501-515; idem., “An Identification and a Correction”, American Jewish Archives 47 (1995), pp. 331-332. Cf. David rome, “The Canadian Story of reuben brainin, Part 2”, Canadian Jewish Archives, n.s. 48 (1996), pp. 33-37. 34 Numerous books in that era originated as a series of newspaper articles. An example of a series of articles, published originally in Montreal’s Yiddish daily Der Keneder Adler, and subsequently appearing in book form is Hayyim Kruger, Der Rambam: Zayn leben un Shafn (Montreal, Keneder Adler, 1933). 35 rocker Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 224. 36 rocker Der Sanzer Zaddik, introduction, unpaginated, p. 15. 37 Yitzhak Even, Mahloket Sanz ve-Sadigore: kol korot ha-pulmus mi-tehilato ‘ad sofo, ‘al pi mekorim ne’emanim uve-ruah bikoret ne’emana (New York: ha-‘Ivri, 1916). It is interesting, and possibly significant, that the Artscroll account of the Sanzer dynasty chooses to dismiss this conflict in less than one page. bromberg, Sanzer Rav, 128. 38 Even, Mahloket Sanz ve-Sadigore, p. 5. 29 Ibid., pp. 19-21. 40 Shapira notes rocker’s attempt to be fair while yet demonstrating a certain affinity for the Sanzer side of the dispute. Morai, p. 129. 41 Yitzhak Even, Fun'm rebin's hoyf zikhroynes un mayses gezehn, gehert un nokhdertsehlt (New York: 1922). 42 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, introduction, unpaginated. 43 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, introduction, unpaginated. rocker is probably referring to works like raphael ha-Levi Zimetboim, Darkhei Hayyim (Cracow: 1923), reprinted in Moshkovitsh, Kol haKatuv le-Hayyim. on rabbi Halberstam’s halakhic influence, see Jacob Katz, The “Shabbes Goy”: a Study in Halakhic Flexibility (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), pp. 167-215 passim. 44 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, introduction, unpaginated. 45 Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor, Jewish history and Jewish memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982). 46 rocker Der Sanzer Zaddik, pp. 7, 13, 19, 26, 32; Toldos Anshei Shem, pp.82, 137, 151. 47 Shapira, Morai, p. 128. 48 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 127 refers to Samuel A. Horodetsky, ha-Hasidut veha-Hasidim (berlin: Dvir, 1922). 49 Matityahu Yehezkel Gutman, Rabi Yisra’el Ba’al Shem Tov: Hayyav, Pe’ulotav ve-Torato. (Jassy: 1922), cited in rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, pp. 45, 159. The work also boasted a title page in German. Cf. Ada rapoport-Albert, “Hagiography With Footnotes: Edifying Tales and the Writing of History in Hasidism”, in Ada rapoport-Albert, ed. Essays in Jewish Historiography (Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 119-159. In this article rapoport-Albert deals almost exclusively with Habad hagiography. 50 Gutman, Rabi Yisra’el Ba’al Shem Tov, p. 32. 51 Ibid., p. 2. 52 This series is noteworthy in that rabbi Shneur Zalman is the only Hasidic leader portrayed who lived other than in Galicia or Hungary. It also did not tell the entire story, stopping with rabbi Shneur Zalman’s release from russian imprisonment on the nineteenth of Kislev. 53 rocker, Toldos Anshei Shem, p. 8. His series on r. Moshe Teitelbaum apparently appeared in 1928 (p. 79), and his essays on r. Lipele Teitelbaum in 1930 (p. 212). 54 An alternative name for zaddik or rebbe, particularly in Galicia. 55 rocker, Toldos Anshei Shem, p. 7. 56 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 47. 57 rocker, Toldos Anshei Shem, p. 148. 58 rocker Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 47. 59 Ibid., p. 195. 60 rocker, Toldos Anshei Shem, pp. 126, 128. 61 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 79.

Hasid and Maskil: The Hasidic Tales of an American Yiddish Journalist

239

rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 42. rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 47; She’elot u-Teshuvot Divrei Hayyim (Lvov: 1875), part 2, number 47, p. 33. 64 rocker Toldos Anshei Shem , p. 200. 65 Ibid., pp. 109-110. 66 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, pp. 35-36, 39. rocker notes that rabbi Halberstam would not let the “modern”cantors perform for him. 67 rocker, Toldos Anshei Shem , pp. 182-183. 68 Halberstam, She’elot u-Teshuvot Divrei Hayyim , part 1, number 30, pp. 54-55. 69 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, pp. 140, 154. It is instructive to contrast this treatment with Even’s emphasis on this importance of this charge. Even, Mahloket Sanz ve-Sadigore, pp. 8, 13. 70 rocker, Der Sanzer Zaddik, p. 158. 71 Shapira Morai, 124) 72 on Hirsch Wolofsky, see his autobiography Mayn Lebens Rayze Montreal: Eagle Publishing Company , 1946. This memoir was translated into English as The Journey of My Life (Montreal: Eagle Publishing Company, 1945), and into French as Mayn Lebens Rayze: un demi-siècle de vie yiddish à Montréal tr. Pierre Anctil Sillery: Septentrion, 2000. Cf. Also Ira robinson, rabbis and Their Community , chapter 8. 73 Hirsch. Wolofsky, Oyf Eybiken Kvall: Gedanken un batrachtungen fun dem hayntigen idishen leben un shtreben, in likht fun unzer alter un eybig-nayer tora, eingeteylt loyt di parshiyos fun der vokh. (Montreal: Eagle Publishing Company, 1930.) [“From the Eternal Source: Thoughts and observations from Contemporary Jewish Life and Aspirations in the Light of our old and Eternally New Torah, organized According to the Weekly {Torah} Portions”]. 74 It is clear from a careful reading of Eybigen Kvall that Wolofsky believed in the essential historicity of the narratives of the Torah. 75 Wolofsky, oyf Eybiken Kvall, pp. 2, 5. It is worth noting that, for the most part, Wolofsky speaks of “America”, and does not seem to be looking at a Canadian specificity in the situations he depicts. 76 Ibid., p. 6. 77 Ibid., p. 7. 78 David roskies, “Yiddish in Montreal: the Utopian Experiment”, in Ira robinson et al., eds. An Everyday Miracle: Yiddish Culture in Montreal (Montreal:Vehicule Press, 1990), 22-38. 79 rocker, Toldos Anshei Shem, p. 5. 80 This book was later reprinted in Israel under another title Cf. Menachem Mendel Eckstein, Mavo’ le-Torat ha-Hasidut (Tel-Aviv: Nezah, 1960). 81 Yekutiel Greenwald, Ha-Yehudim be-Ungaria. (Vac: 1912); idem., le-Pelagot Yisrael be-Ungaria (Devo, romania: 1929); idem., Toizend Yohr ‘Idish Leben in Ungarn (New York: 1945). 82 Greenwald, Ha-Rav R. Yehonatan Eybeshits (New York: Hadar Linotyping, 1954). 83 (rocker Toldos Anshei Shem, pp. 160, 215. 84 New York Times, March 19, 1936, p. 25. 85 Cited in Shapira Morai, p. 133. Cf. John Dorfman, “radical Theology: Arthur Green Translates a Chasidic Classic”, Forward, December 4, 1998. 86 Encyclopedia Judaica volume 16, cols. 1245-1246. 87 Yosef Shapira, “reb Yehoshua rocker”, Di ‘Idishe Velt (Cleveland), May 4, 1936. 88 robinson, “Hasidic Hagiography”, p. 409. 62 63

240

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of rabbi Moses Feinstein I. Introduction Until relatively recently, scholarship on North American Judaism tended to ignore orthodox Judaism, or. insofar as this was not possible, to accommodate orthodoxy within an essentially denominational pattern including Conservative and reform Judaism. In the past two decades. however, there has been a new appreciation of the growing importance of orthodoxy on the contemporary North American Jewish scene and, along with it, a growing scholarship on it.1 This scholarship. predominantly sociological and, by its nature, descriptive, has greatly added to our understanding of the phenomenon of contemporary orthodox Judaism and its concerns. In this context, a dichotomy of opinion within orthodoxy itself has been studied and Charles Liebman has described it as “modern,” on one Side, and “sectarian” on the other. “Modern”orthodoxy takes seriously its place in a North American Jewish universe of discourse. Thus, “modern” orthodox Jews feel themselves to be a part of a larger Jewish community with a significant connection to the non-orthodox. For the “sectarian”orthodox. on the other hand, they are the Jewish community, and any expression of “Jewishness”has legitimacy only insofar as it accords with their norms and standards.2 While, as late as the 1950s, observers could dismiss the “sectarian”orthodox community almost out of hand, lately there has been a shift in perceptions so that the vital force within contemporary orthodoxy is perceived by many as coming from the sectarian, rather than the modern camp.3 What has been missing, up to the present, in the scholarship on contemporary orthodox Judaism is an account of the issues of orthodoxy and heterodoxy as presented by the intellectual spokesmen of the “sectarian” group.4 This is a lacuna of some import, for orthodoxy stands upon an “elite” intellectual tradition which pervades the thought of the movement's rank-and-file to a greater extent than is the case in either Conservative or reform Judaism. Furthermore, the orthodox community tends to give the contemporary bearers of that tradition not merely veneration but close

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

241

attention. Without a thorough analysis of the works of the intellectual spokesmen for the group, a certain level of comprehension of the phenomenon of contemporary orthodoxy remains missing. It is this gap that this essay seeks to begin to fill by an investigation of the halakhic responsa of rabbi Moses Feinstein, by far the most prominent contemporary spokesman for “sectarian”orthodoxy. These responsa, answers to questions of ritual and practice, which address a broad range of problems of concern to North American orthodox Jews, shed light on current trends within orthodoxy as well as on how major trends within the North American Jewish community as a whole are viewed.5 II. Moses Feinstein In the world of contemporary orthodox Judaism, Moses Feinstein is a towering figure. respected as a leading halakhic authority by the modern orthodox community,6 he is a key figure in the constellation of authorities who preside over the yeshivot, the advanced academies of rabbinic learning, which tend to dominate the sectarian orthodox intellectual scene.7 He was born in 1895 in the town of Uzda, in the district of Minsk, belorussia. In 1921, he became the rabbi of the town of Luban in the same district. He came to the United States in 1937, teaching at the orthodox rabbinical Seminary in Cleveland, ohio for a few months prior to becoming the head (rosh yeshiva) of Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem in New York City, a post that he has held to the present.8 Feinstein's leadership within the world of orthodoxy is symbolized by the offices he holds. In 1960, he became co-president of the Agudath ha-rabbanim of America, an orthodox rabbinic organization made up predominantly of European- as opposed to Americantrained rabbis. In 1962, he was appointed chairman of the American section of the “Council of Torah Greats” (Mo'ezet Gedolei ha-Torah) of Agudath Israel, a group made up of distinguished scholars which is looked to by the sectarian orthodox community as a policy-making body. In that year he also became head of the Agudath Israelsponsored independent school system in the State of Israel (Hinukh Azmai).9 242

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Finally, Feinstein has come into prominence as a Posek (halakhic decisor). As Liebman states, Feinstein is considered: the leading Posek of his generation. Within the world of authoritative Posekim he is also the most lenient. His decisions, in fact, have bordered on the radical in departure from halakhic precedents to meet contemporary needs. reb Moshe [Feinstein] is a retiring, modest, unassuming person who, while acknowledging his role as a leader of orthodox Judaism, nonetheless seeks a strong consensus on political and social questions (in contrast to religious-ritual-ethical questions) before acting.10 Since 1959, Feinstein has published six volumes of his responses to halakhic queries. Collectively entitled Igrot Moshe [The Epistles of Moses], they constitute a valuable resource for an understanding of the problems and issues facing the orthodox community in the latter half of the twentieth century. III. The World According to Feinstein The world, as seen by Moses Feinstein, is dominated by the Torah, as interpreted and directed by orthodox Torah scholars or Talmidei Hakhamim (disciples of the wise). The admonitions of the Talmidei Hakhamim on matters ritual or political are to be obeyed as expressive of “the Torah weltanschauung” (Daas Torah) Thus, Feinstein commented in an interview: Those who maintained: “what do they (the Talmidei Hakhamim) know about politics? This is a field where we are better versed” - groups that set their policies in such a manner cannot be considered as being in the Torah camp. one might well say that ignoring the advice of the Talmidei Hakhamim is far worse than transgressing a Law (clearly expressed in the Torah). Whereas one may violate a command because he finds himself too weak to resist the insistent attractions of that which is wrong, at least he realizes that his action is wrong. by contrast, when one does not heed the advice of a Talmid Hakham he denies the superior wisdom of the Torah personalty.

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

243

This is a far more serious breach.11 In his responsa, Feinstein claims to express a pure Daas Torah. As he states, in defending one of his opinions which had been subjected to criticism: “There is nothing in the words I have written and instructed except the Torah of truth.”12 To the extent that Jews accept Daas Torah, they may be considered full members of the sectarian community. Members of this community are called, in Feinstein's responsa, Bnei Torah (sons of Torah) and Yir'ei Ha-Shem (God-Fearers).13 outside of this group, but still within the realm of orthodoxy, are the “modern”orthodox, whom Feinstein characterizes as Shomrei Mizvot (observers of the commandments), who. though they may deviate from the “proper”method of doing things, nonetheless consider the halakhah as binding on them in principle. In a number of instances, Feinstein has stated that, although a certain course of action might be unobjectionable from an halakhic standpoint, nonetheless, “the sages are not pleased with it”and “those who fear the Lord” ought to adopt a more stringent interpretation of the law.14 In other cases, however, the responsa recognize that there are people “observant of the Torah”who do adopt practices which sectarians might consider detrimental to proper Jewish life. A case in point concerns, a woman who wished to convert to Judaism but did not wish to adopt the “modest” style of female clothing characteristic of the sectarian orthodox women. Feinstein attempted to understand her attitude in this way: Since, because of our many sins, the wearing of indecent (perizut) garments has also spread among the daughters of Israel, even among those who observe the Torah (my italics). Therefore the gentile woman who has come to convert assumes that this is merely another stringency the rabbis wish to place on her over and above the law since she knows women whom she believes to be observers of the religion who dress indecently and even if the rabbis say to her that it is a forbidden matter she does not believe them.15 It is readily apparent, therefore, that Feinstein has a two-tiered halakhic system. Although he is interested in encouraging the greatest amount of halakhic observance by those who, at least, accept the

244

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

“essentials of belief in God and his Torah”,16 he has greater expectations from the community of “God-fearers.” In the case of a school program where the rabbi in charge could not forbid the male parents from hearing their little girls sing “without (arousing) great division and controversy,” he ruled that it was permitted to allow pre-menstrual girls (under the age of eleven) to perform. Nonetheless, he continued, “without [such a] necessity, one may not permit it at all, for in such matters he who acts stringently shall be called holy.”17 beyond the pale of the halakhicly observant, there are other Jews, whose status within Feinstein's universe of discourse depends on whether their lack of halakhic observance is ideologically motivated or not. Those whose lack of observance is not ideologically motivated may, in his opinion, he counted in the quorum [minyan] of ten adult males required for public prayer.18 Jews about whose level of observance one is ignorant may be given synagogal honors, such as being called up to the reading of the Torah. on the other hand, those known to profane the Sabbath are not to receive such honors.19 rabbinic literature assumes that those who do not observe the Sabbath are “deniers” [kofrim] of the creation of the world, of which the Sabbath is a sign, and, hence, of the Creator. Feinstein attempts to mitigate this assumption by asserting that most of those who do not observe the Sabbath are not heretics: I have explained that since the comparison [of the profaner of the Sabbath] and one who practices a foreign worship [‘avoda zara] is because he appears as a “denier” [kofer], this applies only if he profanes the Sabbath for this reason. However, if he [profanes the Sabbath] because he does not withstand the temptation to earn money or to fulfill his craving one may not consider him a “denier” ... Thus here [in America] since it is known that most of the profaners of the Sabbath [do so] because of this craving for money, ... he in no way practices foreign worship.20 one may, therefore, maintain normal relations with them. one may give them wedding gifts,21 rent them apartments,22 and have business dealings with them under certain controlled conditions,23 though in the last case it is clear, as Feinstein put it, that: Certainly it is difficult to give a clear permission for this. Howbecause of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

245

ever if we forbid it they will not listen to us for many commercial matters will be nullified which affect the livelihood of many Jews. [Therefore] we are obligated to search for reasons to permit [it].24 one may also belong to a synagogue many of whose members are non-observant so long as the synagogue itself is orthodox.25 Nonetheless, Feinstein dearly feels that it is much better to belong to a synagogue of “observers of the Torah.”26 Despite this attitude of tolerance, Feinstein feels that non-observance must have no official standing within the community. Thus, with regard to Jewish communal institutions which do not observe the Sabbath, Feinstein ruled that: It is plain and clear that no Jewish man or woman may be a member in [such an] institution even if it is [organized] for charitable matters and for the benefit of the people of the city, for even if he does not profane the Sabbath he aids the profanation of the Sabbath and holidays in public which is also the public profanation of [God's] Name ... [Thus] any possible means which one may employ in order to legally cause the dissolution of such an institution must be pursued even though this will cause the dissolution of the charitable action that the institution performs.27 one is permitted to maintain relations with non-observant Jews on the assumption that their non-observance is non-ideological in nature. This. however, does not apply to one who deviates from halakha, however slightly, on an ideological basis. Such Jews–Conservative and reform–are dealt with differently by Feinstein. He defines a Conservative congregation in the following way: [The members of] a Conservative synagogue have announced that they are a group of people who deny some of the Laws of the Torah and have removed their way far from it ... for even those who deny one thing from the Torah are considered “deniers” [kofrim] of the Torah ... and they are considered heretics [minim] ... even if they [merely] err like infants who were captured by the heathen because their fathers and their surroundings led them astray and the laws [concerning heretics are not enacted] on them ... In any event they are heretics and one must remove himself from them.28

246

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Thus. though Conservative Jews may. in fact. observe a great deal of halakha, as Feinstein occasionally recognizes,29 the fact that their commitment to orthodox halakha is not total renders them ideological “deniers”of Torah. Thus, functionaries in Conservative synagogues, in whatever capacity, lose their right to be ritual slaughterers [shohetim].30 only in a case of dire emergency, when there is no one else available to perform the task. could a cantor in a Conservative congregation, whose conduct was otherwise strictly in line with halakha, act as scribe to write a divorce document.31 Conservative rabbis ought not to officiate at weddings, for: It is clear that the “rabbi” himself is unfit to be a witness [of the wedding ceremony] and there is no difference in this regard whether he was a Conservative rabbi from the beginning. having studied in their Seminary or was a rabbi who obtained [orthodox] ordination and who got a position in a Conservative Temple. and perhaps the latter is worse since he is as one who learned [properly and then] abandoned [it].32 Even if such rabbis perform certain commandments halakhicly, their ideological opposition to orthodoxy is enough to render their actions null and void. Thus Feinstein decided, in the case of United Jewish Appeal banquets at which a non-orthodox rabbi might be called upon to pronounce the blessing over the bread. that: Even if he said the blessing properly ... since he denies God and His Torah. like most of their “rabbis,” it seems that he considers the mention of the Name of God as mere words and with no intention [of invoking] God. may He be blessed. [Thus] this is no blessing at all. Thus it appears that it is forbidden to honor the heretical [apikorsim] “rabbis” to recite the blessing over the bread since their blessing is not considered a blessing. one is also not obliged to answer “Amen” after his blessing.33 This position is also in explicit contrast with Feinstein's attitude toward non-halakhic behavior on the part of synagogues which consider themselves ideologically “orthodox.” Thus, in the same responsum cited earlier for its definition of a Conservative synagogue, he continued:

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

247

However [with regard to] those orthodox synagogues which are improper. e.g. with no proper separation [between the sexes] or which use a microphone they are not. God forbid, deniers of these commandments. They merely make light of them while essentially believing in all the commandments of the Torah ... They are essentially proper Jews and if they occasionally err totally. one need not separate [himself from them].34 Feinstein mentions reform Judaism much less than Conservatism. When he mentions reform Jews, however, his characterization of them is a great deal harsher. He calls them “the wicked who have denied our holy Torah”and who in fact have transgressed all the commandments of the Torah.35 Essentially, however, reform is treated as another form of “denial”of the Torah. beyond the world of Jews, of various sorts, lies the world of gentiles. on the one hand, this world is easier to live with than with nonhalakhic Jews, since one does not expect belief or observance from them and on the other hand, it is much more threatening. The threats of the gentile world come from three sources: religion (Christianity), the secular society and gentiles wishing to change their status to that of Jews. That Feinstein regards the Gentile world with a great deal of suspicion is clear from a reading of a responsum that he issued on interfaith gatherings of Jews and Christians in the wake of Vatican II: It is plain and clear that it is stringently forbidden [to attend such meetings] ... for this plague has spread through the influence of the new Pope whose entire purpose it is to cause all the Jews to abandon their faith ... and accept the faith of the Christians, [feeling] that it is easier to cause this abandonment in this way rather than through [means of] hatred and murder which previous Popes had used.36 Feinstein's suspicions extend, however, beyond organized non-Jewish religion to North American society as a whole, which, he feels, must be looked upon as an insidious, corrupting influence: In our country, because of the abundant blessing which God, may He be blessed, has bestowed, there is a great desire and appetite

248

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

for the enjoyments of this world in all the pleasant experiences which they call “good time” [my italics], which is also a matter which greatly corrupts a man. It makes him used to desiring things for which there is no need and destroys his character until he becomes an evil beast. At the beginning he seeks (to satisfy.] his lusts with some permitted thing ... and when it is impossible [to obtain this] he will not refrain even from the forbidden. [It will reach the point where] to justify his actions he will even become a “denier” [kofer], God forbid.37 For these reasons, Feinstein seeks to minimize Jewish contact with the Gentile world. He thus discourages Jewish attendance at public schools38 and at universities, which contain “all of the abominations in the world,” and which will invariably corrupt those who attend them.39 Indeed, even within the context of Jewish schools, Feinstein wishes to emphasize that there must be as little connection as possible with the way of life of the Gentile world. He insists that, on principle, Jewish schools hold classes on Sundays in order that Sunday be not viewed as a day of rest, “for each and everyone can sense that this copying of the Christians has destroyed the holiness, purity and character of these generations, because of our many sins.”40 In the same way, he forbids Jewish schools to schedule vacation time at the end of December and the beginning of January, concluding: It is in itself reprehensible to make a vacation time when they are celebrating their foreign worship - they who have troubled and embittered the nation of Israel for nearly two thousand years and still their hand is outstretched.41 Those Jews who intermarry with non-Jews are counted among the “wicked.”42 and even those non-Jews wishing to convert to Judaism are looked upon with a great deal of suspicion. Conversion under reform or Conservative auspices is, as might be suspected. of no validity.43 Even orthodox conversions. however, are not without their difficulties for Feinstein. Thus he stated: With regard to conversion, [since] almost all [conversions] are for purposes of marriage, one ought not accept them...even when they accept all the commandments since they did not come to convert for the sake of Heaven. It is therefore clear that one must

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

249

suspect that even if they say before the [rabbinical] court that they accept the commandments, that it is not true ... In most cases and, perhaps, even in all cases, the Jew who desires a Gentile woman or the Jewess who desires a Gentile man are not themselves observers of the Torah. Thus it is not logical [to expect] that the Gentile man or woman who converts for their sake will observe the laws of the Torah any more than they ... Therefore one must exercise great caution in accepting converts. because of our many sins [the matter] has spread in many places that even God-fearing rabbis, because of lay pressure. accept them. Thus it is very necessary to improve [this situation] and to repair this great breach.44 As far as Feinstein is concerned. only those converts who, with no thought of marriage. sincerely accept the observance of the totality of halakha are to be accepted. The others simply swell the ranks of those beyond the pale. IV. Feinstein on Jewish Institutions To be considered an orthodox synagogue, according to Feinstein, means ideological commitment to halakha. as we have seen. There is, however, much more involved. The synagogue must be located in a proper building that has not been utilized for “unworthy activities”45 or for Christian worship. In this latter case, however, Feinstein will not oppose a fait accompli though he remains troubled by it.46 Moreover an orthodox synagogue may not occupy space in a building housing a Conservative one.47 Those synagogues with a designated space for social functions may not permit card playing, bingo, or, especially, dances involving men and women together.48 Indeed, says Feinstein, those synagogues which, when built. contain space designated for parties involving mixed dancing do not possess the holy status of a synagogue. Prayers in such a synagogue are not accepted by God and “God-fearers”may pray there only when there is no other place of worship available.49 The architecture of the orthodox synagogue must include a separation of the sexes during worship. While Feinstein prefers women to be seated in an upper balcony and hopes that “God-fearing”Jews will 250

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

maintain this form of separation,50 he does accept seating on the same level. provided that a suitable partition [mehizah] be erected. once again, Feinstein differentiates in his recommendations. “God-fearers”should see to it that the partition is high enough to cover the women's heads, since there are many women who do not cover their hair.51 He will, however, admit a shorter partition, provided that most of the women's bodies remain out of sight. When praying in such synagogues, “God-fearers”must avoid looking in the direction of the women's section.52 In the absence of even a partition, Feinstein counsels that an attempt be made to maintain at least the separate seating of the sexes, the abandonment of which, more than anything else, indicates that a synagogue has gone across the boundaries of the acceptable and has become Conservative.53 Women are to remain in their designated area and take no part in leading the service. When he heard of a rabbi who invited a woman to recite an English prayer before the entire congregation, he ruled that this action was forbidden and he commented that “it is a wonder that an orthodox rabbi could do such a thing.”54 Likewise a bat Mitzvah [coming of age] ceremony for a twelve-year old girl may not be held in the synagogue proper and the ceremony itself is not to be encouraged.55 Those women wishing to have a greater public role than that allotted to them by traditional halakha are warned that they are in danger of being considered “deniers”of the Torah.56 Another architectural feature of the orthodox synagogue is the reading desk [bimah] which, traditionally, has been located in the center of the room. Though changes in the location of the bimah are not to Feinstein's liking, he is not prepared to make an issue of it. Nonetheless, given a choice, he recommends attending a synagogue with the bimah in the traditional central location.57 His main concern in this regard is that a frontal location for the bimah will lead to a demand that the congregation install a microphone so that those worshipping in back can hear.58 The use of microphones in the synagogue on Sabbaths and holidays does not, ipso facto, render a synagogue non-orthodox, for a number of orthodox rabbis hold that such use is permissible under certain circumstances. Feinstein, however, and the Agudath ha-rab-

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

251

banim which he heads, are identified with the position that any use of microphones is forbidden and that this position is part of Daas Torah which must be obeyed: Even if there are people to whom the reasons [of the prohibition] are unknown, [they] are obligated to abide by the instructions of the sages. Those who have leniently [permitted the microphone] acted improperly even if they are rabbis and even if they claim to be great in the Torah.59 Accordingly, Feinstein prohibited a rabbi from accepting a pulpit in a synagogue with a microphone.60 He likewise ruled that a ritual slaughterer who officiated as a cantor in an “orthodox” synagogue with a microphone must be removed from his post. His continuing to officiate at that synagogue after official notification that it had been forbidden would render him “a public desecrator of the Sabbath who is disqualified from slaughtering.”61 When informed that forcing the slaughterer to vacate his post would cause great strife, Feinstein reluctantly agreed to let him continue, provided that he be given close supervision by a “God-fearing”slaughterer.62 Nonetheless, one who officiates with a microphone, though a sinner, may not be classed as a “denier.”63 The school is the other major institution, beside the synagogue, whose orthodoxy must be ensured. Public schools, which mix boys and girls as well as Jews and Gentiles are, as previously stated, not places to which orthodox Jews should send their children.64 Proper Jewish schools cannot be co-educational, though in a community which cannot financially support two separate schools, Feinstein reluctantly permitted mixed classes, but only in the earlier grades.65 In these schools, non-Judaic studies are to be de-emphasized. The student is to be instructed that “the essence of his coming to the school [Yeshiva] is to study Holy subjects...though in addition, because of the laws of the state and the like they also study secular subjects.”66 Just as secular subjects are to be limited, the textbooks used to teach them are to be scrutinized for heretical ideas concerning, e.g., the creation of the world. If no non-heretical textbooks can be found, the offending pages may be torn out of the “heretical”books.67 In general, secular studies are to be considered a threat to one's

252

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

“holy”studies even when they are not per se heretical, “for this is the power of one's [evil] inclination”to lure the student away from the path of eternal life which is the Torah.68 V. Conclusion In principle, Moses Feinstein's universe is well and tightly ordered. First, there are Jews who practice a Judaism based on an ideological commitment to halakha. Though they display varying levels of adherence to Daas Torah, they function within the same universe of discourse. outside of the circle of halakhic commitment are those unobservant Jews who are either indifferent to halakha and Daas Torah or are ideologically opposed. Such Jews, whose religious practice - insofar as it deviates from halakha - constitutes a wicked denial of the Torah, are confidently shunted to the sidelines of Feinstein's consciousness. The Gentiles, even more peripheral, impinge on his field of vision only insofar as they threaten his world either through attempts to encourage Jews to abandon Torah or through attempts to swell the ranks of nonobservant Jews through conversion “not for the sake of Heaven”. Yet, just beneath the surface, Feinstein's responsa indicate that not all is tightly ordered. In numerous matters it is clear that pure halakhic reasoning often reaches conclusions that clash with the demands of reality. Though halakhicly observant Jews ought not to have business relations with the nonobservant in the “best of all possible worlds,” Feinstein finds that he is forced to find an halakhic permission for such action. Though he cannot find it in himself to grant permission for the conversion of a church to a synagogue, he is likewise unable to forbid Jews to pray there. The examples are numerous; the conclusion is clear. Feinstein, like great halakhic minds of previous ages, has made compromises with reality, at times against his better halakhic judgment, in order thereby to escape limiting his audience to the relatively small number of “God-fearers.” In making the basic decision to cast his net as widely as possible for adherents of halakhic Judaism, he has had to adjust his halakhic principles at strategic points so as not to read individuals and institutions entirely out of the bounds of the acceptable. He thus maintains the purity of halakha in principle while often bending it in practice. That is why his

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

253

two-tiered halakhic system, with one standard for “observers of the commandments”and another, more stringent, for “God-fearers”, is central to an understanding of his responsa and his view of the world. For Feinstein, contemporary North American orthodoxy is not the best of all possible halakhic worlds. It does, however, afford him ample scope to cultivate his own garden.

Notes The major studies in the field include Charles Liebman, “orthodoxy in American Jewish Life,” in Aspects of the Religious Behavior of American Jews (New York, 1974), Samuel C. Heilman, Synagogue Life: A Study in Symbolic Intereraction (Chicago, 1976), and The People of the Book (Chicago, 1983); William b. Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva (New York, 1982). Egon Mayer. From Suburb to Shtetl (Philadelphia, 1979). For historical accounts of American orthodoxy, see Jonathan D. Sarna, People Walk on Their Heads: Moses Weinberger’s Jews and Judaism in New York (New York and 1.

254

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Liebman, “orthodoxy,” pp. 157 ff. Helmreich, World of the Yeshiva, p. 52ff. Liebman further refines the divisions within contemporary orthodoxy in “religion and the Chaos of modernity: the Case of Contemporary Judaism,”in Take Judaism for Example, ed. Jacob Neusner (Chicago, 1983), pp., 147-164.

2.

Lawrence Kaplan, 'The Ambiguous Modern orthodox Jew,” Judaism, 29 (1979) 439-448 For the previous attitude, cf Emanuel rackman, “American orthodoxy retrospect and Prospect,” Jewish Life In America, ed Theodore Friedman and robert Gordis (New York, 1955), pp 23-36.

3.

An interesting exception to this rule is an article on the anti-Zionist Ideology of the late Satmar rebbe by Alan Nadler, “Piety and Politics the Case of the Satmar rebbe” , Judaism, 31 (1982), 135-152.

4.

Cf. rod Glogower, “The Impact of the American Experience Upon responsa Literature”, American Jewish History 69 (1979), 257-269.

5.

An example of this respect is Emanuel rackman's article, “Halachic Progress: rabbi Moshe Feinstein's Igrot Moshe on Even ha-Ezer”, Judaism, 13 (1964): 365-373.

6.

Liebman, “orthodoxy,” pp 159-161, Helmreich, World of the Yeshiva, pp. 52-58. An Interesting example of Feinstein's influence has to do with the fact that many works on Judaism produced by the sectarian orthodox in the English language contain a letter of approbation by him in Hebrew in which he states that, as the book was written In English, he has not read it. Cf. b. barry Levy, “our Torah, Your Torah and Their Torah an Evaluation of the Artscroll Phenomenon,” in Truth and Compassion. Essays on Judaism and Religion In Memory of Rabbi Dr. Solomon Frank, ed. H. Joseph, J. Lightstone and M oppenheim (Waterloo, ont., 1983), pp 137-191, especially pp. 141-142, 161. 7.

8.

Helmreich, World of the Yeshiva, p 354, note 13.

9.

Encyclopedia ]udaica Vol VI, col 1213, s.v. “Feinstein, Moses”.

10.

Liebman, “orthodoxy”, p 176.

11.

Helmreich, World of the Yeshiva, p 68.

12.

Igrot Moshe (hereafter noted IM), Even ha-Ezer (hereafter noted EE), no.11.

IM, Yoreh Deah (hereafter noted YD) no. 5, YD3, no 75 For the use of the term Yir’ei ha-Shem to indicate an elite within orthodox Jewry, see Israel Meir ha-Kohen (Hafez Haim), Kuntres Zekhor leMiriam (New York, 1960), pp 30-31.

13.

14.

IM, Orah Haim (hereafter noted oH) 1, no. 163.

15.

IM, YD3, no 106/1. Cf EE l, no 114.

16.

IM, oH2, no 79, cf. oH 1, no. 98.

17.

IM, oH 1, no. 26.

18.

IM, oH 1, no. 23; oH2. no. 19.

19.

IM. oH4, no. 91/8. Cf. oH3. no. 12.

20.

IM, oH 1, no. 123.

21.

IM, EE2, no. 13.

22.

IM. oH 1. no. 123.

23.

IM. YD3. no. 39; oH 1. no. 91; oH 2, no. 62; oH 3, no. 36.

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

255

24.

IM. oH 2. no. 62.

25.

IM. oH 1, no.99.

26.

IM. oH 4. no. 33.

27.

IM oH2. no. 61. Cf. YD 2. no. 100: YD 1, no. 149.

28.

IM oH 4. no. 91/6. Cf. YD2, no. 101.

29.

IM. YD 3, no. 107.

30.

IM. YD2. nos. 6. 12. Cf. YD 3. no. 1; YD 2. no. 108.

31.

IM. EE 2. no. 20. Cf. EE l., no. 121.

32.

IM. EE 2. no. 17.

33.

IM. oH 2, no. 50; cf. oH 2. no. 49; oH 3. nos. 12.21-22; EE l. no. 76.

34.

IM. oH4, no. 91/6.

35.

IM YD3, no. 149. Cf. EE 3, no. 23; EE l, no. 76.

36.

IM YD 3. no. 43/1. Cf. EE l, no. 6.

37.

IM. YD 3, no. 71.

38.

IM YD 3. no. 83.

39.

IM YD 3, no. 82.

40.

IM. YD 3, no. 84.

41.

IM YD 3, no. 85.

42.

IM oH , no. 73; YD 3, no. 106/2.

43.

IM YD 3, nos. 77/2, 105; YD 2, nos. 100, 125; YD 1, no. 160; EE 3, no. 3.

44.

IM YD 3, no. 106. Cf. YD 1, no. 159; YD 2, no. 125.

45.

IM, oH 1, no. 31.

46.

IM oH 1, no. 49.

47.

IM oH 2, no. 40.

48.

IM oH 4, no. 35.

49.

IM oH 2, no. 30.

50.

IM oH 2, no. 43.

51.

IM oH 1, no. 39; oH4, no. 29.

52.

IM oH l, no. 42.

53.

IM oH l, no. 44; oH 4, no. 31.

54.

IM oH 4, no. 70/5.

256

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

55.

IM oH 4, no. 36. Cf. oH l. no. 104.

56.

IM oH 4, no. 49.

57.

IM oH 2, no. 42.

58.

IM oH 2, no. 41.

59.

IM oH 4, no. 84. Cf. oH 3. no. 55.

60.

Ibid.

61.

IM YD2, no. 4.

62.

IM YD 2, no. 5.

63

. IM EE 2, no. 20.

IM YD 3, nos. 79-80. Cf., however, oH 2. no. 25, in which Feinstein rules that Jewish children attending public schools may take part in school prayer which omits any mention of Christianity.

64.

65.

IM YD3, nos. 78-79. Cf. YD 1, no. 137.

66

IM YD 3, no. 83. Cf. YD 3, no. 81.

67.

IM YD 3, no. 73. Cf. YD 2, no. 105.

68

IM YD 3, no. 82

because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of Moses Feinstein

257

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium Who shall speak for Orthodoxy …the Judaic Studies Professor? Martin Waxman1

I. The Problem In the past two decades, orthodoxy has been perceived as one of the most interesting and dynamic sectors of North American Jewry.2 As a number of the studies of this community indicate, one major characteristic of North American orthodoxy is the tension inherent in the dichotomy between the separatism and parochialism which characterizes orthodoxy de jure and its integration into the North American milieu de facto.3 A prime example of this tension relates to that omnipresent representative of North American secular society – the media. Within orthodox circles, the secular media is almost universally decried as a harmful influence, from which there is practically no escape. As Yaakov Feitman, a noted orthodox rabbi, comments, “All of us, no matter how insulated, live in the McLuhan world of powerful media influences.”4 While the stated preference of most North American orthodox leaders is isolation from these perceived harmful influences, reality is otherwise. bernard Fryshman, commenting on television viewing by orthodox Jews, states, “we have, as a community, chosen to ignore the call of our leaders.”5 This impression is borne out statistically in the study of Heilman and Cohen, who found that the most traditional group of orthodox Jews in their sample were as likely as the non-orthodox Jews polled to watch or listen to news broadcasts, read newspapers and see r or X-rated motion pictures.6 Thus, with the possible exception of extremely sectarian orthodox groups, primarily Hasidic, which have opted for isolation within selfcontained communities far from urban areas, access to the normal channels of media information, while perhaps relatively restricted, is a fact of life. 258

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

This fact of life is most worrisome to orthodox rabbis and educators, who are likely to emanate from the most traditional wing of orthodoxy.7 They recognize that teachers at orthodox schools have “to compete with all the slickly packaged dross that clamors for our children’s' attention,”8 the values of which “are not Torah values and ... never were, not even fifty years ago before the values of Western society had plunged to the muck of today.”9 one of the most significant responses of the North American orthodox community to this perceived problem has been the attempt to create an orthodox counter-media, especially for children. The past two decades have seen the emergence of orthodox children's books, magazines, records and audiotapes.10 This article will examine a sample of audiotapes created specifically for orthodox children in the 1970s and the 1980s.11 In so doing, it will attempt to clarify orthodoxy's ambivalent attitude toward contemporary secular media as well as shed some light on the process of educating North American orthodox children in the values and world-view of orthodox Judaism. II. The Medium orthodox Jews have long used print media for promoting their causes. However the advent of audiocassette technology, which provided a product which is durable, convenient and relatively inexpensive to produce and purchase has created an opportunity which orthodox Jews have seized. In several North American centers of orthodox Judaism, such as boro Park, brooklyn12 or Montreal,13 “Torah Tape Libraries” have been set up to satisfy public demand for audiotapes on subjects ranging from the study of traditional texts to sermons and expositions of the orthodox hashkafa [weltanschauung] on contemporary issues. Major North American orthodox institutions, such as the Union of orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, are similarly sponsoring series of cassette tapes.14 These efforts indicate that the orthodox community as a whole is looking beyond print media to disseminate its message and has adopted audiotapes for its purposes. This effort has naturally extended to audiotapes designed

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

259

for children, with which this article is concerned. III. The Message In our analysis of a sample of twenty-three audiotapes produced for North American orthodox children, our first task is to attempt to pinpoint, as accurately as possible, the ideological standpoint of the creators of these tapes. An important clue is given in a dialogue contained in Abie rotenberg and Shmuel Klein's “The Marvellous Midos Machine”, part 3. In it, two boys discuss the shortcomings of Jews not like themselves, providing, for didactic purposes, an example of the negative quality of sinas hinom [senseless hatred]. The first boy the pair criticizes goes to a yeshiva, an orthodox school. However, as one the boys comments, “I don't know why they call that a yeshiva. They don't even learn [study Talmud] in Yiddish!” The second boy who comes under criticism wears “a funny looking knitted yarmulke”. This boy is carrying a volume of Talmud. one of the boys comments rhetorically, “Why does he need a gemora?” Finally, the boys criticize a Hasidic boy on the grounds that “They don't even speak English! really weird!” From this dialogue the following emerges: a. The normative group to which the boys conducting the dialogue belong speak English as their language of common discourse. b. For them, Yiddish is a language of sacred discourse and not common discourse. c. The normative group does not identify with modem, Zionistoriented orthodoxy, symbolized by the “funny looking knitted yarmulke”. This pattern of linguistic identity is characteristic of that section of North American orthodoxy affiliated intellectually with traditionalist yeshivot, such as beth Midrash Gavoha of Lakewood, New Jersey and politically with Agudath Israel.15 This section of orthodoxy, it was noted previously, provides a disproportionate percentage of the

260

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

rabbinical and educational leadership of North American orthodoxy16 as well as a disproportionate share of the market for orthodox children's literature.17 It is therefore entirely reasonable that the views of this sector of orthodoxy are primarily represented in these tapes. This linguistic standpoint certainly characterizes the sample of tapes studied. In them, English is the language of common discourse, with, however, a liberal sprinkling of words of Hebrew and Yiddish derivation such as talmidim [students] or yidn [Jews]. Hebrew words are invariably pronounced according to the Ashkenazic pronunciation, favored in the yeshivot, and never in the Sephardic pronunciation utilized in the State of Israel. Hebrew, as utilized in these tapes, does not form the basis of dialogue but rather serves as a source of quotations, from biblical or Talmudic sources, which form the basis of a number of the songs. by way of contrast, Yiddish is occasionally used as the basis of entire songs and is used exclusively in dialogue by certain characters such as Shmerel the Chipmunk in Avi Sherman's “I'm Made Just Perfect for Me.”18 Equally consistent with the mores of the traditionalist orthodox community is the absence in these tapes of female vocalists,19 and even, in the majority of them, of female speaking parts. Female roles are typically spoken by males assuming high pitched voices.20 on the other hand, the musical ambience of these tapes is anything but consistent with the expressed parochialist ideology of the traditionalist orthodox world. It is, rather, an example of what one orthodox critic terms “a shocking misalliance between American pop-art counter-culture and genuine Jewish motifs.”21 Starting with the recordings of Shlomo Carlebach in the late 1950s, the juxtaposition of traditional lyrics (e.g. biblical verses or liturgical selections) with contemporary pop or rock melodies has come to characterize a genre of orthodox music. As one observer comments, the success of records such as those of Carlebach “together with the American pop-folk revival of the early sixties, gave birth to the plastic nigun. Peter, Paul and Mary went to the mikva [ritual pool] and came out rabbis' sons.”22 The tapes in our sample fall entirely into this musical pattern. The melodies are consistently taken out of the general North American musical culture. The lyrics are set to everything from country and western, to rap, to nursery rhymes to marches such as the “Notre That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

261

Dame Fight Song”.23 The lyrics themselves and the fictionalized settings in which the songs are placed, attempt to make explicitly didactic points to their juvenile audience. In her analysis of the lifestyle of contemporary Lubavicher hassidim, Lis Harris says of orthodox juvenile literature: The books were short on fancifulness and long on proscriptive moralizing. There wasn't the slightest chance ... any child ... would be led up the customary fairy-tale garden-path to terror, unease, malice or plain uncapped fantasy.24 This observation jibes with the comments of orthodox observers,25 one of whom clearly enunciates the handicaps the orthodox writer/librettist works under: The writer of religious fiction is handicapped in building up dramatic situations. He does not want to present an attractive evil-doer, nor wrongdoing as a real alternative to doing the right thing, in consequence, his heroes all too often tend to be one-dimensional “goody-goodies”, his anti-heroes shadowy nonentities and the plotline nothing more exciting than, say, finding the challah cover that was misplaced.26 In the sample of tapes analyzed, entertainment is most often subservient to the major purpose at hand: to teach the young children facts, such as bible stories, or proper conduct [midos]. Didacticism prevails. What is perhaps most interesting about the tapes sampled is their presentation of Judaism and its way of life, which is presented as having all the answers. As rotenberg states in the theme song of the Marvellous Midos Machine: Midos are the way we act And how we think and feel. The Torah tells us just what we must do. So if you want to do what's right And really be a mensch, You've got to have good midos through and through. The first thing to be said concerning the tapes is that Judaism and

262

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

its way of life is presented almost exclusively in positive terms. The idea that Jews have been called upon to suffer or die for their faith is treated only exceptionally and normally relegated to the distant past.27 Significantly, the only reference to the recent Holocaust of European Jewry is made in a tape explicitly written for an older (teenage) listener.28 The second point to be made is that the universe of discourse of these tapes is exclusively orthodox. Though the fictionalized settings of the tapes: school, summer camp, amusement park,29 would be recognizable to any North American, people other than orthodox Jews, though they occasionally appear, do not really count. Thus, in a song from Suki and Ding's “Mordechai and His Mitzvah Puppets,” we find the line, “The children of the world, they all love Hashem”. This might possibly be read as a universalistic statement that every child, regardless of creed, loves God. The next line belies this point, however. It states, “Every child knows the Torah is a gift.” The “children of the world” are, obviously, orthodox Jews. Jews who are other than orthodox appear rarely, and then only in two contexts. In the first, they are negative foils to orthodox Jews. Thus in blanka rosenfeld's “The Mitzvah Tree,” a “smart apple”, whose ambition in life was to be eaten by a person who would recite the proper blessing, seeing a “grouchy and grumpy man”coming to purchase him, knew he would not make a blessing, and rolled out of his basket. Later, when he saw a “jolly man”with a yarmulka, he knew he would get his wish. The second way in which non-orthodox Jews are portrayed is as potential converts to orthodoxy. Thus, in Yocheved Sorscher's “Yanky and Shabbos,” Yanky's presentation of the joys of the Jewish Sabbath so captivate boris, a russian-Jewish immigrant, who had had no contact with Judaism in the Soviet Union, that he resolved to begin its observance. Similarly, the unselfish action of Dov Dov, hero of Yona Weinberg's “Dov Dov and the Great bicycle race,” so impresses the parents of his non-observant friend that they determine to send him to Dov Dov's yeshiva. Finally, the arch villain in the “Marvellous Midos Machine” series, Dr. Doomshtein, repents in the end and decides to study Torah in a yeshiva.

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

263

The portrayal of gentiles in the tapes shows them to be non-threatening and respectful of (though also ignorant of) Judaism and its values. The ethnic and cultural tensions of the real world are noticeably absent as the only blacks encountered are found in Africa. Converted from cannibalism by Dr. Midos in part 2 of “The Marvelous Midos Machine,” they develop a taste for such Jewish dishes as kugel, kishke and cholent. The only recognizable ethnics encountered are Italians, perhaps the least threatening ethnic group for orthodox Jews. Even they, however, are portrayed as lacking the basic spirituality and value system prized by orthodox Jews. In Yanky and Shabbos, Yanky encounters Tony, the proprietor of a fruit store, who cannot understand anything but work and money. Thus Yanky sings: How I pity all those people on the street. Seven days out of seven they're all on the beat. Money making, money banking but I am special 'cause I am thanking To Hashem for shabbos, it pulls me through the week. Predictably, in material designed for young children, the family plays a central role in the dissemination of values. Indeed parents are seen in partnership with God in this respect. A song in “The Marvellous Midos Machine,” thus urges children to do the right thing so that “Tatty [daddy], Mommy and Hashem will be so proud of you.” While respect for the elderly is one of the values inculcated by the tapes, grandparents are almost nonexistent as characters. With the exception of “Dov Dov’s Something to Sing About,” designed for older listeners, grandparents are people who send their grandchildren presents “from Miami” (Marvelous Midos Machine, part 1) and the elderly are portrayed as people 1iving alone, whose children have moved far away. (“Yanky and Shabbos”). Within the family, specific and distinct gender roles are emphasized. The father works outside the home, and only once is a husband portrayed as doing housework– and that at his wife's repeated urging. The mother, on the other hand, is never portrayed outside of the home, and is typically engaged in domestic chores such as cooking or washing clothes. In a sequence in the “Marvelous Midos Machine” part 3, designed to encourage children to help out at home, the daughter is assigned the task of

264

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

cleaning up the dinner table while the son is asked to pack seforim [religious books] for a trip to the country. on the Sabbath, gender roles are equally distinct, with Mommy lighting the Sabbath candles at home and “Tatty”going to the synagogue with the boys. Several of the tapes studied make much of the mother's candle lighting, which turns the home into a palace and her into a Sabbath Queen.30 Immediately after the candles are lit, however, the differentiated gender roles come back to the fore as Yanky, leaving with his father for the synagogue, comments: Left my mother at home to rest So she'll be able to set the table.31 In general, these tapes seem primarily oriented to boys, though it is clear in most of the tapes that girls also make up part of the intended audience. Few sequences feature females who are not mothers. Indeed, the one time a girl makes a statement of her ambition in life, it is not made by her directly. rather it was reported by her brother that she wished to be “a mommy, a morah [teacher] and an eshes hayil.”32 The orientation toward boys in the tapes is reflected in the sort of roleplaying that goes on. The boys in the tapes fantasize being such typical North American heroes as cowboys, baseball players, astronauts and firemen, while at the same time they are subtly reminded that the obligations of orthodox Jews, especially Sabbath observance, render it impossible to fulfill these fantasies in real life. A particular example of this is the character of Gedalia Goomber, in the “Uncle Moishy” tapes. In one example, Goomber was an astronaut in orbit who, upon realizing that the Sabbath would begin soon, aborted his mission and parachuted down to earth.33 When all is said and done, the only desirable goal for the boys in these tapes is to become “a big, big, talmid hakham [Torah scholar].”34 Those who listen to the tapes are reminded constantly of their responsibility to display exemplary behavior so that no one can conclude that Jewish children are like everybody else. As “The Marvelous Midos Machine”, part 3 expresses it: When your teacher, Mrs. Appleby says,

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

265

“Kindly quiet down”. but you keep on misbehaving And acting like a clown. “These kids are nothing special”, She'll be saying to herself. “They fool around and misbehave Just like anybody else.” The chorus of that song reiterates: You've got to show the world What the Torah teaches you. Let everybody see How fine it is to be a Jew. The world of these tapes is a curiously parochial one in yet another way. It tends to be circumscribed both temporally and spatially. As noted before, references to Jewish history are exceptional. Even in “The Marvelous Midos Machine”, part three, in which Dr. Midos invents a time machine, the potentialities for discovering Jewish history are explicitly denied. When one of Dr. Midos' disciples, hearing of the time machine, asks whether they would then be able to visit great rabbis [gedolim] of the past, such as the Hofez Hayyim and the Vilna Gaon, Dr. Midos replies in the negative. Instead, visits are paid to such heros of American history as Christopher Columbus and George Washington (who, according to the tape, apparently chopped down his famous cherry tree in boro Park). In a song in Weinberg's “Dov Dov's Tough break,” entitled “Yidn round the World”, we find a long list of places in which Yidn are to be found. belying the title of the song, however, all of these places are in the United States and Canada, with no mention made of other cities, such as London, Paris, buenos Aires or even Jerusalem, which one would expect to be on such a list. In consonance with this limitation, Israel does not loom large in these tapes. Indeed, one of the tapes, “Uncle Moishy,” Volume 2 has for its setting a trip to Israel. However even in this tape, and in the others studied as well, the name Israel is eschewed in favor of Erets

266

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Yisroel [Land of Israel], so as not to refer to the political state. The only Israeli landmark singled out is the Western Wall, and the only Israelis encountered are, like “Yaakov the Taxi Driver,” in inferior positions.35 When, in Aaron Appelbaum's “reb Yossel and His Yom Tov Fair,” a boy says of the Land of Israel, “I wish I could be there”, he is answered, “When moshiah [messiah] comes very soon, your wish will come true.” Indeed, in most of these tapes, the hope that the messiah will come to redeem the Jews is presented as something which is near to fulfillment and which is aided by Torah study and performance of the commandments of Judaism. As “Uncle Moishy,” part 3, puts it: Moshiah's on the way With each and every mitzvah [commandment] He comes closer every day.36

IV. Conclusion What do these tapes tell us? They tell us of a community which is, at one and the same time, highly integrated into the North American milieu and yet consciously seeks to deny that integration.37 It is a community anxious to further the Jewish education of its children through a counter media and yet fearful that the counter media is, in its way, as harmful to the religious development of the children as the general media. An orthodox preschool teacher, braindy Leizerson, well expresses these ambivalent feelings: It has been said that modern technology and inventions can play an instrumental role in strengthening our Emunas Haborai–our faith in God. This can readily be seen in the myriad of records and tapes available to the Jewish consumer... How grateful we are to have it all at our fingertips. Nonetheless, an incident in Leizerson's preschool class, in which her students had learned the names of all the Torah portions [parshios] from a tape, which, to her mind, used humor in an inappropriate way, took her aback:

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

267

Yes, they did know all the parshios of the five Chumoshim, but at what price? Can we condone ridicule of holy words just to catch the children's attention and get them to learn? Are we not defeating the purpose of our chinuch [education] if we aIlow our children to acquire knowledge devoid of Yiddishe gifeel [Jewish feeling]?38 The ambivalence felt by Leizerson and echoed by others,39 is symptomatic of the dilemma faced by the North American orthodox community, which desires to be both in North America and not of it. The educators of this community have, in the face of the North American media, attempted to create a “marvelous midos machine”, to inculcate its values and world-view. It nonetheless remains wary lest its “marvellous midos machine” turn into a media monster, powered by forces ultimately beyond their control.40

268

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Appendix: The Audiotapes Studied Allen, Michael 1984 Let's Sing the Aleph-bais. Neshama orchestra. Anonymous 1985 LeShana Tova. Aderet. Appelbaum, Aaron 1984 reb Yossil and His Yom Tov Fair. rosenfeld, blanka 1975 The Mitzvah Tree. Menorah records. rotenberg, Abie, Shmuel Klein and Moshe Yess. 1986 The Marvellous Midos Machine. part 1, “Up, Up and Away. 1987 part 2, “Shnooky to the rescue”. 1988 part 3, “Does Anyone Have the Time?” Sherman, Avi 1984 I'm Made Just Perfect for Me. Sorscher, Yocheved 1982 Yanky and Shabbos brooklyn, Aderet records. Suki and Ding n.d. Mordecahi and His Mitzvah Puppets n.d. Mitzvah Musicals (Mordechai). Featuring: “The Camel Who Wouldn’t Drink Water” n.d. Uncle Moishy and His Mitzvah Men. volume 1-5 (JEP). Weinberg, Yona 1983 Dov Dov and the Great bicycle race baltimore, Dov Dov Publications. 1984 Dov Dov’s Tough break. 1985 Dov Dov’s Something to Sing About baltimore, Dov Dov Publications. n.d. Dov Dov and the Pentatude.

Notes Martin Waxman, “radio and T. V.: Without the orthodox Jewish Community”, Jewish Observer (September, 1975), p. 18.

1

Samuel C. Heilman, and Steven M. Cohen, Cosmopolitans and Parochials: Modern Orthodox Jews in America. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989.)

2

3

Ibid., introduction.

Yaakov Feitman, “Vessels of Holiness: A Torah-Look at Child rearing.” Jewish Observer (october, 1989), p. 17.

4

5

bernard Fryshman, “0n Losing one's Mind.” Jewish Observer (May, 1981), p. 50.

6

Heilman and Cohen, Cosmopolitans and Parochials, p. 158.

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

269

7

Ibid.

Avi Moses, [pseud.], “Funding Torah Education - Anatomy of a Crisis.” Jewish Observer (January, 1990).

8

Nosson Scherman, “A Look at an old but real World.” in Yitzchak Kasnett, The Scaled List of Judaica: Readability Levels, Torah Communications Network. n.d.

9

10 Yaffa Ganz, “You Can't Sell a book by Its Cover (but It's a Good Place to Start): The Complexities of religious Juvenile Publishing.” Jewish Observer (May. 1988), pp. 31-36. 11

A list of the tapes examined for this article will be found in an appendix to this article.

G. Zippin, “A Very Different Kind of Library.” Olomeinu-Our World, vol. 43, No. 8 (May, 1989), p. 3.

12

13

JEP Journal., Montreal, (September 1989), p. 2.

“How to Turn a Traffic Jam into a Torah Class”, Advertisement in Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Passover Kosher Directory, New York, 1990.

14

15

William b. Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva. New York, 1982.

16

Heilman and Cohen, Cosmopolitans and Parochials.

17

Ganz, “You Can’t Sell a book”, p. 34.

18

Cf. b1anka rosenfeld, “lkh Hob a Matona”, The Mitzva Tree.

This prohibition reflects the Talmudic dictum that a woman's [singing] voice is erotic. Cf. babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakhot 24a.

19

Exceptions to this rule are the “Uncle Moishy” and “Marvellous Midos Machine” tapes, where female speaking parts are apparently spoken by females but where, nonetheless, no adult female sings.

20

Joseph Elias, “Chassidism on the Modem Scene.” Jewish Observer (January, 1975), pp. 20-21; Avi Menashe, “Music: To Tame the Heart or Incite the beast?” Jewish Observer (December, 1988), pp. 39-41.

21

Mordecai Schiller, “Chassidus in song—Not for the record”, Jewish Observer (March, 1975), p. 21.

22

This pattern, present in all the tapes studies, is particularly prevalent in Michael Allen's “Let's Sing the Aleph-beis”.

23

24

Lis Harris, “Holy Days.” New Yorker (September 30, 1985), p. 80.

Anonymous, “Children's books.” Jewish Observer (April, 1980), p. 37; Ganz, “You Can’t Sell a book”.

25

26

Anonymous, “Children’s books”.

27

Cf. the story of the medieval martyrdom of rabbi Amnon in “L'shana Tova.”

Yona Weinberg, “Dov Dov's Something to Sing About”, cover notes. Significantly, that same tape contains a song about a Soviet Jewish refusenik.

28

29

The limitation of the scenes to North America will be discussed below.

This theme is common to several of the tapes, including, “Yanky and Shabbos”, “Marvelous Midos Machine”, part 3 and Avi Sherman's “I'm MadeJust Perfect for Me.”

30

31

Yocheved Sorscher, “Yanky and Shabbos.”

32

Yona Weinberg, “Dov Dov and the Pentatude.”

33

Ibid.; Aaron Appelbaum, reb Yossil and His Yom Tov Fair.

270

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

“Suki and Ding,” “Uncle Moishy and His Mitzvah Men”, volume 2; Yona Weinberg, “Dov Dov and the Great bicycle race.”

34

“Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men,” vols. 2-3; Abie rotenberg, Shmuel Klein and Moshe Yess, “Marvelous Midos Machine”, part 3.

35

Cf. “Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men”, volume 5. The messianic hope forms a part of most of these tapes.

36

on the differences between North American and Israeli orthodox Jews, see Amnon Levi, “Anglo-Saxon Haredim: Can They Serve as a bridge between Haredim and non-religious?” in Charles Liebman, ed. Conflict and Accommodation Between Jews in Israel. (Jerusalem, Keter, 1990), pp. 1-20.

37

breindy Leizerson, “Setting the record Straight.” [letter to the editor]. Jewish Observer (May, 1987), pp 40-41.

38

Menashe, “Music”; Aryeh Forta, “Personal Viewpoint.” Bais Yaakov Life (Montreal), volume 7, no. 3 (october 27-November 9, 1989), pp. 20-21.

39

40

Cf. Levi “Anglo-Saxon Haredim”.

That Marvelous Midos Machine: Audio Tapes as an orthodox Educational Medium

271

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

A Clash of Myths In the summer of 1925, the world’s attention was focused on the socalled “Monkey Trial”in the state of Tennessee, which debated the truth as well as the propriety of teaching the theory of evolution. In Montreal, Canada, an immigrant orthodox rabbi, Hirsh Cohen, wrote a letter to his daughter and son-in-law in which he voiced the following opinion: [regarding] the Darrow-bryan dispute, as long as it is in theory, one can agree [with whatever position] one thinks [right] and still remain a believer in the divinity of the bible. It is the power of the Torah that all theories can be included. When Alexander Von Humboldt and other natural scientists discovered that in the earth there are rock formations which were much, much older than our Torah's chronology [allows for], the sages of the Torah were not shocked, and they realized that this way of thinking was long known to the sages of the Talmud and the kabbalists ... that our present world is not the first2 ... However, as I said, this is only in theory. Practically, I am a fundamentalist.3 our great rabbi, Maimonides, philosophized in his Guide of the Perplexed in many matters theoretically. but when in his Yad ha-Hazaka4 he dealt with practical things, he was altogether different.5 rabbi Cohen’s opinion, as we will see, foreshadows many of the problems and strategies adopted by orthodox Jews in the twentieth century as they contended in their various ways with the theory of evolution and its implications. The major issue that bothered the orthodox about evolution was that it, probably more than any other scientific theory, symbolized for them the displacement of the Judaic myth by a scientific one. Myths, in the anthropological sense of the word, are stories which explain to those who accept them why things are the way they are. In contem-

272

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

porary Western society, as Colin Grant has written, science serves as myth in this sense. Grant points out that, “as official definer of reality, there is nothing in the modern era to rival science.”6 Science, in taking its place as key to the explanation of why things are as they are, has done so largely at the expense of previously dominant myths – ones provided by such scriptural religions as Christianity, Islam, and, in our case, Judaism. Historically, Judaism has provided its adherents with a comprehensive account of reality. This account is referred to by Jews as the Torah, a teaching which is believed by orthodox Jews to be the result of divine revelation. This Torah has been the object of study, contemplation, and interpretation by Jews for millennia, and, in the course of its history, it has more than once clashed with rival mythic systems. For our purposes, the most interesting and significant of these clashes took place in the medieval period when the Torah came head-to-head with the legacy of ancient Greek philosophy and science. This rival to Torah seemed to present an alternative, comprehensive view of reality that had no need of Torah, nor of any other divine revelation. At that time, intellectually aware Jews were confronted with the need to take a position on Greek philosophy, particularly in those areas where it was perceived to conflict with the message of the Torah. Thus as the Torah seemed to speak of God’s creation of the universe, many Jews saw the need to define their beliefs when confronted by ancient Greek philosophy, which claimed that the universe was eternal and thus never created.7 Predictably, some Jews saw philosophy as subversive and dangerous, and preferred to remain loyal to Torah, however “impossible” the Torah’s narrative seemed when viewed from the perspective of Aristotelian science. other Jews, however, sought to reconcile the truth of Torah with that of science. They did so on the following assumption, described by Moshe Idel: “[T]hat all the sciences are found in the text of many details of the Torah and that it is possible to derive them from the ‘adequate’ exploration of the structure of the sacred scriptures.”8 Such attempts at reconciliation took place in three basic ways. The first was to assert that the Torah, properly understood, says the same thing as science. Thus, for example, having asserted that God is “one, living, omnipotent, and omniscient, that

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

273

there is nothing that resembles Him, and that He does not resemble any of His works,” Saadia b. Joseph Gaon in the tenth century proceeded to cite biblical verses “proving”all these assertions. At that point he stated: “Having learned about these five facts from the books of the prophets, we proceeded to confirm them by way of logical reasoning and found them to be correct.”9 This approach worked for many issues in which Torah and science were more or less reconcilable. Where this reconciliation was not as easily effected, medieval Jewish thinkers applied two basic strategies. The first of these was to point out the ways in which Greek science and philosophy were not to be considered definitive. by poking holes, however small, in the opposition’s arguments, Jews hoped to gain legitimacy for the Torah’s interpretation. Thus in the twelfth century, Maimonides pointedly asserted in his Guide of the Perplexed, that Aristotelian science had failed to correctly explain the retrograde motion of the planets.10 This was an important part of his larger argument that, since Aristotle had not completely proven the eternity of the world, but merely shown it to be a probable proposition, Jews were able to continue their belief in divine creation.11 A second major strategy was to approach – and transcend – science by means of Kabbala. This strategy of understanding science as related to – and subordinate to – Kabbala can be traced in Judaic sources from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, and is especially well adumbrated in Pinhas Elijah Hurwitz’s late eighteenth century work, Sefer ha-Berit.12 This chapter will demonstrate that in the past century orthodox Jews have utilized all these strategies in seeking to respond to the perceived challenge of the theory of evolution. As Eliot Pines, one of the thinkers to be discussed here, clearly states: “In essence, none of these [perceived conflicts] is new. They actually go back to older conflicts arising between Torah and various philosophical systems.”13 The Challenge of Evolution to Twentieth Century orthodox Judaism In dealing with the theory of evolution, twentieth-century orthodox Jews were clearly responding to the possibility that the Torah

274

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

would be deemed irrelevant if evolution were accepted uncritically. Thus this issue was considered part and parcel of the general challenge of modernity to the truth claims of Judaism. Confronted with the writings of militant contemporary supporters of evolution, like richard Dawkins, who, in the words of critic robert Fulford, “considers evolution not only a great idea but the great idea of all time” and who concomitantly “condemns religion for spreading evil and ignorance,”14 the orthodox felt obligated to enter the lists.15 In doing so, they generally seem to perceive their fight as directed against the view that the theory of evolution makes God irrelevant. As Morris Goldman states, “God is irrelevant in the Darwinian evolutionary scheme and that is what is wrong with it for a Jew.”16 Likewise, for rabbi David Gottlieb, the theory of evolution implies that Jews are conceding the self-sufficiency of atheism and “are giving up the whole of life as evidence for God.”17 Morality is also at stake, because the theory of evolution is seen as “an egregious blueprint for secular humanism ... [a] blueprint [that] dismantles social order by tacitly approving a) the abandonment of the Almighty as a moral authority, and b) the intentionally inevitable pursuit of cutthroat behavior.”18 Finally, the theory of evolution challenges the concept of man as a “qualitatively different creation.”19 With these rather significant issues at stake, it is no wonder that orthodox rabbis, scientists, and lay people have entered the conversation on the theory of evolution with a wide variety of opinions, which are, in essence, quite close to those pre-modern Judaic opinions previously defined. Some orthodox responses As a modern social phenomenon, Jewish orthodoxy could be classified on the basis of its adherents’ receptivity to secular education and culture.20 For those orthodox Jews who reluctantly accept the secular education of Jewish children, and largely because of state demands for universal education, science, insofar as it appears to disagree with the Torah, is to be suppressed. Thus one of the most prominent orthodox rabbinical figures of the past generation, rabbi Moshe Feinstein, addressed the problem of the presentation of the theory of evolution, and the related issue of the age of the universe in secular studies textbooks, in the following way: “Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

275

Textbooks of secular studies which contain matters of heresy [kefira] with respect to the creation of the world are certainly books of sectarianism [minut] that are forbidden to be taught. It is necessary to see to it that the secular studies teachers do not teach from them to students. If it is not possible to obtain other books, it is necessary to tear out those pages from the textbooks.21 It is known from several sources that some Jewish schools, particular Hasidic ones, do indeed tear out textbook pages dealing with the theory of evolution.22 There have also been protests by ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel against Tara Dairy’s use of images of dinosaurs in an advertising campaign.23 As an orthodox critic of this ultra-orthodox protest, rabbi benjamin Hecht, has stated: belief in the existence of dinosaurs–with the corollary approval of the theory of evolution–was simply deemed to be ... sacrilegious. Use of dinosaurs in the campaign implicitly demonstrated acceptance of these irreverent ideas which represented a challenge to the truth of Torah and its declaration of a creation, 5764 years ago, in seven days.24 Finally, much of the twentieth century orthodox educational system in general may be said to be characterized by the following attitude, described by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an orthodox Jewish scientist whom we will meet again in this article: My son ... had been taught to relate to the bible in its most literal sense, and so for him, and for many of his teachers, the age of the universe is exactly the age derived from the generations as they are listed in the bible. For them, the cosmological estimate of the age of the universe, some 15 billion years, is a preposterous fiction.25 Interestingly, nearly all those orthodox Jews I have found who expressed an opinion on evolution, whether or not they treat the theory of evolution or the related issue of the age of the universe, as “a preposterous fiction”, are united in their opposition to, and disavowal of Creationism. Although there are some points on which orthodox Jews and Christian Creationists might agree upon, these Jews are clearly uncomfortable with being classed together with Christian Fun-

276

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

damentalists.26 The main reason for this attitude is expressed by Susan Schneider: [T]he formulation of biblical evolution called creationism, derived from the King James translation of Genesis, bears little, if any, resemblance to Jewish thought on the subject ... Thus creationism, though it cites the bible as its source, is a non-Jewish phenomenon, since it does not incorporate traditional Torah commentaries and perspectives on the subject.27 Fundamentalism and Creationism are generally decried using such terms as “nonsense,”28 and “a grave error.”29 The identification of orthodox Judaism with Christian Fundamentalism is thought of as “frightening.”30 In general, orthodox critics of Creationism would agree with Norbert Samuelson’s opinion that, “even when read literally, these revered [biblical] texts do not say what Christian ‘creationists’ say that they mean.”31 It is likely that this attitude may be attributed in part to the specifically Christian nature of the Creation research Society which, after some debate, required members to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their savior.32 Those orthodox Jews, who like rabbi Feinstein, do not wish to ignore or suppress discussion of the theory of evolution within their community, have to argue with it. Moreover, in having to contest the theory, at a time when it is generally accepted by the scientific community, they have also to respond to critics like A. N. Wilson who claim that they are crackpots.33 Thus rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, a leading thinker in the contemporary Modern orthodox camp, states that: [C]onfronted by evident contradiction [between Torah and science], one would ... initially strive to ascertain whether it is apparent or real ... whether indeed the methodology of madda [science] does inevitably lead to a given conclusion, and ... whether ... Torah can be interpreted ... so as to avert a collision.34 A very popular way to do that is to convince one’s readers that one has demonstrated defects in the scientific argument for evolution. This is apparently not all that hard to do, for critics of evolution are riding a wave of public skepticism concerning the theory of evolution.

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

277

Thus a recent poll concerning scientific literacy in Quebec indicated that, whereas 94 per cent of respondents accept the validity of Einstein’s theory of relativity, only half of them accept the theory of evolution as valid.35 Some of the orthodox arguments against the scientific basis of the theory of evolution are fairly technical in nature, while other presentations are more popular and rhetorical. The scientific arguments are generally made by orthodox Jews who have received scientific training in various disciplines. Some of them, but by no means all, have also undertaken rabbinic training. Their growing presence, barely evident in the early twentieth century,36 increased considerably in the post World War II period, and culminated in the founding of the Association of orthodox Jewish Scientists, hereafter AoJS, in 1948. one of their principal aims was to resolve the “apparent challenges of scientific theory to orthodox Judaism.”37 Their critique of scientific theories deemed to challenge orthodox Judaism, such as the theory of evolution, involved them in dealing with basic issues of faith. Thus one of the leading scientists of this school, Alvin radkowsky, argued that these contradictions involved a test of faith comparable to that of the biblical Abraham who was called upon to offer his beloved son, Isaac, as a sacrifice. “In these circumstances,” he wrote, “the Jewish scientist must hold staunchly to a faith ... [which] implies that the claims of secularism ... will turn out on deeper analysis ... to be fallacious.”38 orthodox scientists also necessarily address basic epistemological points. Thus, in the early 1970s, the AoJS Students’ Questions Panel, summarized “the standard orthodox approach”to evolution as follows: As one of our leading members has said, one of the bonuses of being an orthodox Jewish scientist is that one can become a better scientist, being used to scrutinise with the utmost care statements which others tend to take on trust. And it is not difficult to criticise the theory of evolution to show up its difficulties, its weaknesses, its speculative nature, its circular reasoning. The so-called facts of evolution are, it is said, not facts at all but extrapolations from fragmentary data backwards in time to a dim and unknown past.39 Evolution is, after all, “only a theory,” it is argued, and as such it can have no power to influence our belief in the literal interpretation of Bereshit [Genesis] and the tradi278

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

tional time-scale.40 Though clearly not every orthodox scientist subscribes to these views, and the Students’ Questions Panel indeed indicated that the above approach “is not the only possible one,”41 this general strategy has been adopted by a variety of thinkers. Thus we find that many of the thinkers surveyed feel that science, in general, is contrasted to Torah in the sense that it is constantly in flux, and offers an incomplete understanding of reality as opposed to the Torah’s unchangeable and perfect nature. Eliot Pines has stated that the Torah: is written by G-d, and as such it is a complete description of reality. Science[’s] ... subject matter is ... not reality but a manmade model of reality ... The Torah, though packaged in a finite form, is reality in all its infinity. Science is a model of reality, and as such, despite delusions of grandeur, is as finite as the brain of Man. No matter how far it progresses, even if perfected within its limitations, it reflects an approximation to an infinitesmal speck of reality ... all objective conflicts between Torah and Science, arrive from this intrinsic fact.42 Science is, moreover, accused of “unscientific”subjectivity, dogmatism, and even outright idolatry.43 Evolution is widely portrayed as deviating from the standards of “objective”science.44 It is not “rigorous science,”45 nor does it have a “well-formulated hypothesis.” It is said that the theory is indeed “an example of unrestrained speculation.”46 An example of a “scientific”critique of evolution may be found in Schroeder’s publications. In attempting to discredit the theory of evolution, he is careful to state: I make no attempt to deny that life developed from the simple to the complex. Paleontology, biology and for that matter, the bible each presents its own account of life’s flowering ... all three describe a chain of increasing complexity.47 on the other hand, he does not find the theory of evolution in its current form to be a true scientific theory, but “merely a description

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

279

of the ‘punctuated’ jumps in the fossil record.”48 He attempts to discredit the theory of evolution on the grounds that “all calculations of probability say no to the assumption of randomness being the driving force behind life’s development.”49 Such technical critiques of evolution are read and digested by rabbis, who relate this knowledge to orthodox audiences in their sermons and publications. A good example of a popular, rhetorical treatment of these themes, informed by a reading of some of the orthodox scientists mentioned above, is that of rabbi Avigdor Miller: We see the yad hashem [hand of God] in nature ... In a book of molecular biology, there are six thousand entries in the index ... two entries on evolution, and the writer said in his preface, one of the purposes of biology is to teach people the principle of evolution, and in the entire book nothing is mentioned. Two places! In these two places it doesn’t say any proof for evolution.50 It just said it evolved. How could it evolve? It’s so complicated, and if one of the elements is missing, and there are hundreds of elements, precise arrangements that had to be mathematically exactly correct.51 As well as the arguments by orthodox Jewish scientists and rabbis against evolution, we also find orthodox Jews supporting evolution. With a few exceptions, however, these writers favor some concept of evolution but do not wish to be seen as necessarily agreeing in toto with the scientific advocates of evolution. They rather attempt to transcend science, and include the concept of evolution within a higher concept, often by invoking the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbala. Among the exceptions, as noted above, is Judah Landa, whose book, Torah and Science,52 contains a sustained polemic against orthodox Jews who “motivated by considerations other than science ... persist in a stubborn refusal to accept the tower of [scientific] evidence.”53 According to Landa, these orthodox fundamentalists are painted into a corner by their adamant refusal to admit that the traditional rabbinic interpretation could possibly be wrong. They also continue “to search for baseless objections to the powerful evidence.”54 Landa accepts the findings of science and assumes that if the ancient rabbis were alive today, they “would see fit to reconcile

280

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

their interpretation of the six days and the entire story of creation with the evidence.”55 In a somewhat utopian conclusion, he looks forward to the convening of: ...a conclave of prominent and open-minded orthodox rabbis for the purpose of considering the adoption of the following resolution: be it made known that neither the scientifically established age of the earth ... nor the general outline of the theory of evolution is in conflict with the Torah. The story of creation in Genesis and the entire Torah can readily be interpreted in such a manner that there is no conflict with any established principle of science. None of the fundamental tenets of Judaism regarding the existence of God, creation, divine intervention in the affairs of mankind, and the occurrence of miracles contradicts any established principle or theory of science. Any representations to the contrary, made in the past by people and organizations in the name of Judaism or by members of the scientific community, are erroneous and based on misunderstandings. We regret the confusion and misconceptions which have been propagated in the wake of our silence on this important issue for so long a time.56 Less radical in tone, but just as adamant against those who oppose the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution is baruch Sterman, who decries the “lack of willingness within the Jewish intellectual community to face Darwinism in an open-minded fashion,”57 and who criticizes the critiques of the theory of evolution articulated by such prominent orthodox scientists as Leo Levi, Herman branover, and Nathan Aviezer. In an article published in 1990, Carl Feit agreed that evolution is “central to the whole enterprise of biology today,” having withstood “one hundred years of the most intense analysis.” There is, he wrote, “no alternative ... theory to explain the phenomena with which it deals.”58 His stance embraces the possibilities of a non-fundamentalist, non-literal interpretation of Torah,59 and entertains the possibility that Torah may “allow for the existence of several, even mutually exclusive truths,” just as halakha (Jewish law) allows for the notion of multiple truths, each truth being judged according to its

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

281

own criteria. Leaving an anchor to windward, however, he nonetheless does not believe that Torah’s truth can be totally relativized.60 Despite the voices mentioned above, the majority of orthodox Jews who have published on evolution, and who have expressed the desire to incorporate evolution into their world view, seem to do so by avoiding a direct confrontation with science. rather, they seek to transcend the problem by using concepts derived from rabbinic aggada (nonlegal arguments) in general, and Kabbala in particular. This stance can be readily seen in the argument of Susan Schneider, who is associated with the Torah Science Foundation: Tradition teaches that the entire creation chapter did actually happen and in a physical sense, but on an entirely different level than what we now know as the physical plane.61 Pursuing a similar line of thought, Dovid brown has written: our point ... is not, however, to refute the theory of evolution in order to justify our belief in the divine creation of the universe. As the descendants of those who stood at Har [Mount] Sinai and accepted the Torah, we do not need the assent of secular intellectuals to maintain our faith ... However Chazal [an acronym referring to the ancient rabbinic authorities] tell us ... “Falsehood cannot exist without some admixture of truth.” What element of truth is there in this falsehood?62 Similarly, Elliot Pines, drawing on kabbalistic concepts, asserts that “our universe is a simulation,” and concludes triumphantly: “Science can, in all sincerity, demonstrate a fact of the physical world that seems to contradict Torah. However science is, in actuality, modeling what is in itself merely the present state of a simulation.”63 This engagement with the aggadic/kabbalistic tradition in order to transcend the difficulties posed by science has a centuries-old history, as indicated previously. In the nineteenth century, we can trace this trend from the previously mentioned Pinhas Elijah Hurwitz to the Italian rabbi and kabbalist, Vittorio Hayyim Castiglioni.64 Now I would like to look at some early twentieth century examples.65 rabbi Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen Kook is well-known for having ex-

282

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

pressed the view that evolution possesses a greater affinity with the secret teachings of Kabbala than with all other philosophies.66 A contemporary Eastern European rabbi, Judah Yudel rosenberg, who emigrated from Poland to Canada, also sought an accommodation with science through the transcendent power of Kabbala.67 rosenberg wrote that Darwin’s theory of evolution possesses a certain distorted sense of the revelation of the Zohar, which asserts that under our earth there exist seven lands, all of which are inhabited by men not of the seed of Adam. He speculated that Darwin had been aware of the Zohar’s view about the creatures of the lands “down under”and had established his “mad heresy”that men developed from smaller animals, like monkeys, and they, in turn, had developed from still smaller creatures. Actually, states rosenberg: “In several places in the Zohar the opposite is stated that the apes are the descendants of sinful men. Something similar is agreed upon by the honest scientists of the nations of the world.”68 There is a line of popularizers of Kabbala in the twentieth century, including rabbis Judah Ashlag, Yehuda brandwein, Philip S. berg, Aryeh Kaplan,69 and David Sheinkin, who also attempted to link Kabbala and science.70 Sheinkin, in particular, stated that Kabbala is consistent with belief in some form of the evolutionary process.71 In recent decades, this position has been adopted by many orthodox Jewish scientists, not only rabbis.72 one of the more prominent personalities in the orthodox scientific group is Alvin radkowsky, who states that “the increasingly remarkable progress of mankind in the last four centuries was actually prophesied in the kabbalah.”73 Another is Eliezer Zeiger, CEo of the Torah Science Foundation, whose interesting exposition deserves quotation at length: We thus see that the inner wisdom of the Torah clearly reveals the operation of evolutionary processes in creation ... However, the Holy Izhbetzer [rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner (1802-1854)],74 the author of Mei Sheloah, published about the same time than [sic] Darwin’s origin of Species, wrote in Pei [sic] breshit: In the beginning, G-d created all the creations. Then the creations understood their limitation that they did not have anybody that would unite their life with the Holy one, and that by means

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

283

of man all the sayings of the world will be united with the Creator, and that the inanimate gives its power to the plants and the plants give their power to the animals and the animals give their power to the human hamedaber [the one that can talk], so that man will worship with his power the Holy one. When the creations saw what they were lacking, they use their power to create a Hitarerutah le maala [an awaking above] for the creation of man. And Elokim said Let us make man, and the Holy one told the creations that all of them give of their power to contribute to the creation of man, so that man will have a part of all of them, so that if man will be in need, they will all help him because when it is bad for man it is bad to all creatures like in the generation of the flood, and when is good for man is good for all creatures as well. How do we relate to the Izhbetzer’s teaching? As a metaphor? This is a very important methodological question. Many people erroneously think that the Torah is only a moral discourse ... However, a thorough study of the inner wisdom of the Torah readily reveals its outstanding precision. So if we can relate to the Izhbetzer’s teaching as a precise statement, we realize that it has stunning biological implications. It hints that the sharing of many biological features by man, animals and plants arose from a contribution from all created organisms to the formation of man, in order for them to be their partner in the praising of G-d. We thus see that an analysis of Genesis based on the inner wisdom of the Torah unifies the Torah and science views of the origin of the world and of life. It shows that the creative forces that shape all creatures of the world are Divine forces, and that the unfolding of these major creations are micro-evolutionary forces that follow natural laws and that are amenable to scientific analysis.75 In a similar way, rabbi Nosson Slifkin grounds his model of evolution, as of Torah and the universe in general, on the kabbalisticallytinged Hebrew term hishtalshelus – “the sense of the gradual unfolding of fundamental patters from simple unity to complex multiplicity.”76

284

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

To Whom It May Concern: the Evolution of an Argument In 1978 the AoJS Student’ s Questions Panel expressed the conviction that “the conflict between ‘religion’ and ‘evolution’ has outlived its usefulness and it was high time it was allowed a quiet demise.”77 Nonetheless, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the argument among people who consider themselves orthodox Jews over the validity of the theory of evolution continues with no sign of closure. All the ways of dealing with the issue described above, from denial and suppression to acceptance in various forms, have contemporary advocates. In large measure, this is due to a combination of the diversity of opinion among orthodox Jews with respect to the validity of “secular”science, and also the absence of a generally accepted process within orthodox Jewry to resolve ideological or doctrinal issues. It is, however, possible to identify some significant changes in attitude towards evolution. First of all, one can detect a certain shift of opinion away from the scientific arguments against the theory of evolution as adumbrated by members of the AoJS. In an 1998 article dealing with that organization, Judy Siegel-Itzkovich quoted the founder of AoJS, who stated that “in the old days, the matter of evolution vs. religion was a hot topic; some people were obsessed by it.” He added that religious scientists had gradually accepted that there was no real conflict between the two.78 It could be said that this perceived relative decline in the intensity of the issue among orthodox Jewish scientists parallels the decline in the AoJS itself; from a membership of nearly 2,000 in the early 1960s to about 800 in the late 1990s. In part this decline reflects the security felt by those orthodox Jews who pursue scientific careers in the contemporary academic world, while at the same time assigning their scientific and religious activities to separate domains.79 Another significant factor is the increasing level of “haredization” – the tendency towards ultra-orthodox ideologies – within contemporary orthodox Jewry.80 Most Haredim tend to ignore science, and those who do take it seriously often opt for a mystical reconciliation of Torah and science. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a connection between the or-

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

285

thodox discourse on evolution and the outreach activities towards non-orthodox Jews, which has been an important dynamic element within contemporary orthodox Judaism.81 For those firmly within the ultra-orthodox camp, for whom the “fit”between traditional rabbinic stories and secular scientific theory will axiomatically be decided in favor of the former, the orthodox scientists’ arguments may not be all that important. Similarly, those Jews who consider themselves orthodox while at the same time accepting secular scientific theory – which involves some degree of reinterpretation of traditional biblical and rabbinic texts on their part – may not care all that much about a separate orthodox scientific enterprise. The audience for the refutations and explanations of evolution detailed in this article is thus likely to be the so-called ba’alei teshuva [Jews from non-orthodox backgrounds]82 and those orthodox Jews who are engaged in an attempt to influence them.83 Thus it is probably no coincidence that many of the publications cited in this paper are aimed at the “market”of readers who were not raised in an orthodox Jewish environment and hence feel a need to understand the orthodox perspective on science. These readers, in particular, need to resolve the seeming contradictions between their conception of Judaic dogma and scientific theory. As rabbi Slifkin states when discussing the age of the universe: “[T]he scientific evidence for an old universe is ... so vast and overwhelming that it is rather unwise to simply wave it away (and the effects on Jewish outreach efforts are disastrous).”84 Thus, ultimately, the issue of the relationship between Torah and the theory of evolution within orthodox Judaism is connected to the way orthodoxy is presented to, and accepted by, those Jews who are not born orthodox but instead come to accept the ideas and ideology of orthodox Judaism. In an era in which kabbalistic explanations of the world seem ubiquitous, enthusiastically accepted by many Jews and non-Jews alike,85 the transcendence of scientific evolutionary theory by kabbalistic concepts is not at all surprising, and brings to mind the statement of Isaac bashevis Singer: When I read that a stone consisted of trillions of molecules, constantly in motion and that these molecules consisted of atoms, and that these atoms were in themselves complicated systems, whirls of energy, I said to myself, “That’s the cabala after all.”86

286

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Notes I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Geoffrey Cantor, Marc Swetlitz and ronald Numbers on the paper as originally presented at the Arizona State University conference.

on Cohen, see Ira robinson, Rabbis and Their Community: Studies in the Eastern European Orthodox Rabbinate in Montreal, 1896-1930 (Calgary, University of Calgary Press, 2007), ch. 2.

1

2 For a similar contemporary rabbinic view of geological discoveries on the age of the earth, cf. rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Igrot RAY”H (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-rav Kook, 1985) I, 104. Cf. Carl Feit, “Cosmological and Evolutionary Motifs in the Thought of rav Kook and rav Soloveitchik”, in Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, eds., Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2006), 208-224.

It seems likely that rabbi Cohen meant to underscore the halakhic, or legal, aspects of Judaism, which were to be taken literally, whereas the non-legal, or aggadic, opinions of the rabbis, were open to interpretation.

3

4

Maimonides' halakhic code, otherwise known as Mishneh Torah.

The letter is dated 1 Devarim 5685 [July 19, 1925]. It is located in the Cohen Papers, Canadian Jewish Congress National Archives, Montreal. on the impact of Darwin on other immigrant orthodox rabbis, see Kimmy Caplan, Orthodoxy in the New World: Immigrant Rabbis and Preaching in America, 1881-1924 (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2002), 259.

5

6

Colin Grant, Myths We Live by (ottawa: University of ottawa Press, 1998), 30 and 41.

Cf. oliver Leaman, “Introduction to the Study of Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, ed. Daniel H. Frank and oliver Leaman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 3-15.

7

Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 252.

8

Saadia b. Joseph, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, tr. Samuel rosenblatt (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1948), 94-5. Saadia has been evaluated by contemporary historians of religion and science as approaching the problem in a manner not unlike that of twentieth century thinkers: “He is like the modern theologians...whose science is sound but whose extrapolations to particular religious doctrines are dubious.” James A. Arieti and Patrick A. Wilson, The Scientific and the Divine: Conflict and Resolution from Ancient Greece to the Present (Lanham, MD: rowan & Littlefield, 2003), 197 (n. 21).

9

Moses Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, tr. Shlomo Pines, 2 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), II, 24 and 322-7. Cf. Tzvi Langermann, “Maimonides and the Sciences”, in Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, 157-75. 10

11 Though many interpreters assume that Maimonides may have believed in the eternity of the universe, it is important in this instance to assert that most contemporary orthodox readers of Maimonides understand that his conclusion is that Aristotle did not in fact prove his point beyond the shadow of a doubt. William Etkin claims that, “like Maimonides, we may say that where reason fails we must choose to believe in creation by a purposeful Creator for religious reasons.” (“Science and Creation,” Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems, in Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb, ed. 2nd edn. (Jerusalem and New York: AoJS and Feldheim, 1978), 251.)

Ira robinson, “Kabbala and Science in Sefer ha-berit: a Modernization Strategy for orthodox Jews”, Modern Judaism 9 (1989), 275-88.

12

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

287

Elliot M. Pines, “Torah, reality and the Scientific Model” (dated February, 2001) www.613.org/torah-pines.html. Similarly, Alvin radkowsky seeks to invoke the examples of such great Jewish intellectual luminaries as King Solomon, Maimonides and the Gaon of Vilna. “Judaism in the Atomic Age,” in The Jewish Library: Volume 4, Judaism in a Changing World, ed. Leo Jung (London: Soncino, 1971), 237.

13

robert Fulford, “The book against God: richard Dawkins talks up atheism with messianic zeal”, National Post (Toronto), 25 November 2003.

14

15 Cf. Nathan Aviezer, “richard Dawkins and Darwinian Fundamentalism”, B’Or ha-Torah 13 (2002), 95-106.

Morris Goldman, “A Critical review of Evolution,” in Carmell and Domb, Challenge, 218. Cf. Yocheved Golani, “book review,” www.jewishpress.com (Posted 4 october 2001).

16

David Gottlieb, “The Theory of Evolution” [audiotape] G-98, Jerusalem Echoes (Jerusalem: ohr Somaych International, n.d.). rabbi Dovid brown has made a similar point that “atheists use the theory of evolution as a substitute religion.” Mysteries of the Creation: A Cosmology Derived From Torah, Nevi’im, C’suvim, Mishna, G’morroh and Midrash (Southfield, MI: Targum/Feldheim, 1997), 248.)

17

18

Golani, “book review.”

19

Anonymous, “The Jewish Perspective on Evolution,” www.hanefesh.com/edu/Evolution.htm

Though it claims to be a faithful replication of the pre-modern rabbinic tradition, orthodox Judaism is very much a product of the wrenching changes undergone by Judaism in the modern era. See Jacob Katz, A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth Century Central European Jewry (Hanover and London: brandeis University Press, 1998), 36 and 71; Charles Liebman, Aspects of Religious Behavior of American Jews (New York: KTAV, 1974), 111-88.

20

Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah, volume 3, responsum number 73, (New York: 5742 [1982]), 323. on rabbi Feinstein, see Ira robinson, “because of our Many Sins: The Contemporary Jewish World as reflected in the responsa of rabbi Moses Feinstein,” Judaism 35 (1986), 35-46. 21

22 Judah Landa, Torah and Science (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1991), 290; William Shaffir, “boundaries and Self-Preservation Among the Hasidim: a Study in Identity Maintenance”, in New World Hasidim: Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, ed. Janet S. belcove-Shalin (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 46. 23 Jerusalem Post (International edition ), 21 August 1993. For a similar controversy involving Pepsi Cola’s use of the evolution of humans in an advertising campaign see “Creation Science News,” http://www.answeringenesis.org/docs/1156.asp Cf. Also mail.jewish (28 September 1993), http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v9/mj_v9i37.html

benjamin Hecht, “Insight 5764-#05,” www.nishma.org mailto:nishmainterlog.com. This position was supported by, among others, rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, the Lubavitcher rebbe. Cf. Alexander Nussbaum, “Creationism and Geocentrism Among orthodox Jewish Scientists,” National Center for Science Education, reports 22, 2 (January-April, 2002), 38-43. 24

Gerald L. Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang: the Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible (New York: bantam, 1990), 11. Cf. AoJS Students’ Questions Panel, “Actual and Possible Attitudes to Evolution Within orthodox Judaism”, in Carmell and Domb, Challenge, 279: “This science has been a closed book to the average orthodox student.” Also rena Selya, “Torah and Madda? Discussions of the Teaching of Evolution in Jewish Schools,” in Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, eds., Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2006), 188-207.

25

I have been able to find only one source in which the author specifically identifies herself as a “creationist”, and she, too, expressed her initial understanding of creationism as the province of “narrow minded, bible-belt, Christian fundamentalists”. Sara Levinsky riegler, “Confessions of a Creationist,” www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Confessions_of_a_Creationist.asp .

26

288

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Susan Schneider, “Evolutionary Creationism: Torah Solves the Problem of Missing Links,” (1984) www.orot.com/ec.html . Cf. Dr. Eliezer Zeiger, “KoSHEr EVoLUTIoN”in PoINTS oF WISDoM:The Newsletter of the Torah Science Foundation Volume 3, number 1 (Tevet 5764 / December 2003) www.torahscience.org

27

28

rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb, “Theory of Evolution.”

rabbi Nosson Slifkin, “Science Wars”www.torah.org/features/secondlook/sciencewars.html. Cf. “Creationism vs. Evolution: radical Perspectives on the Confrontation of Spirit and Science”, Tikkun 2, pt. 5 (1987), 55. 29

30

baruch Sterman, “Judaism and Darwinian Evolution”, Tradition 29, pt. 1 (1994), 70.

Norbert Samuelson, “The Death and revival of Jewish Philosophy,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70 (2002), 128.

31

ronald Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Knopf, 1992), 230-1 and 318. For evidence of Jewish collaboration with the Creation research Society see Moshe Trop, “Letter to the Editor,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 20 (1983-1984), 121-2.

32

33

A. N. Wilson, The Victorians (New York: Norton, 2003), 100.

34

Cited in Sterman, “Judaism and Darwinian Evolution”, 49.

35

Allison Lampert, “biology Teachers Fear Paring Knife”, The Gazette (Montreal), 5 May 2003.

For an early attempt at an organization of orthodox academics, see Ira robinson, “Cyrus Adler, bernard revel, and the Prehistory of organized Jewish Scholarship in the United States”, American Jewish History 69 (1980), 497-505.

36

Michael N. Dobkowski, Jewish American Voluntary Organizations (New York: Westpost and London: Greenwood Press, 1986), 76. Cf. Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, “orthodox Scientists Found Strength in Numbers,” Jerusalem Post, 27 July 1998. www.jpost.com/Archive/27.Jul.1998/Features/Article14.html

37

Alvin radkowsky, “Faith in an Age of Scientific Achievement,” in Viewpoints on Science and Judaism, ed. Tina Levitan (New York: board of Jewish Education, 1978), 90-1. This position was not so subtly questioned by the AoJS Students’ Questions Panel, being characterized as an “Akeyda of the intellect”which demands that the doubter must “surrender”his “rational faculty”or consider himself to have abandoned “the ranks of believing Jews.” “Actual and Possible Attitudes to Evolution Within orthodox Judaism”, in Carmell and Domb, Challenge, 257.

38

This is an expression of the position of orthodox scientist Leo Levi, Torah and Science: Their Interplay in the World Scheme (Jerusalem/New York: Feldheim, AoJS, 5743 [1983]), 104. This position was criticized by Alvin radkowsky, “Miracles,” in Encounter: Essays on Torah and Modern Life, ed. H. Chaim Schimmel and Aryeh Carmell (Jerusalem and New York: AoJS/Feldheim, 1989), 63.

39

40

Ibid., 256.

41

Ibid.

Eliot Pines, “Torah reality and the Scientific Model,” 3. Cf. Anonymous, “The Jewish Perspective of Evolution,” 2, and rabbi Nosson Slifkin The Science of Torah: the Reflection of the Torah in the Laws of Science, the Creation of the Universe, and the Development of Life (Southfield, MI: Targum/Feldheim, 2001), 73), who states: “The Torah is a perfect description of all existence because it is the root of all existence ... the universe being a physical manifestation of the Torah.”

42

43 Lewis berenson, “The Evolution of Life,” in Levitan, Viewpoints on Science and Judaism, 10; Morris Goldman, “Evolution by Natural Selection,” ibid., 53. (Cf. Cyril Domb, “biology and Ethics,” in Carmell and Domb, Challenge, 455.) Herman branover, “Torah and Science: basic Principles,”, in Schimmel and Carmell, Encounter, 236.

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

289

44 Nathan Aviezer, “Misreading the Fossils: the Dark Side of Evolutionary biology,” abstract of article. www.biu.ac.il/JH/bDD/engabs.htm. Cf. Moses L. Isaacs, “The Challenge of Science,” in Jung, The Jewish Library, 173. 45

radkowsky, “Judaism and the Atomic Age,” 240.

Sol roth, Studies in Torah Judaism: Science and Religion (New York: Yeshiva University, 1967), 54.

46

47 Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (New York: Free Press, 2001), 48. on Schroeder, see Shai Cherry, “Crisis Management via biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern orthodoxy and Genesis,” in Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, eds., Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2006), 166-187. 48

Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, 91.

49

Ibid., 100; cf. 120.

Miller seems to have derived this from Gottlieb, “The Theory of Evolution,” except that for Gottlieb, the number of index entries is four and not two.

50

Avigdor Miller, “Diamonds on the road”audiotape E-235 (brooklyn: Yeshiva Gedolah bais Yisrael, 2002). Miller became an important influence on the thought of Sara Levinsky riegler, “Confessions of a Creationist.”

51

52 Judah Landa, Torah and Science (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1991). on Landa, see Cherry, “Crisis Management”. 53

Landa, Torah and Science, 273.

54

Ibid., 326.

55

Ibid., 325.

Ibid., 349. Influenced by Landa is D. M. Davis, “Evolution, Creationism, Indigenous Knowledge,” www.hsrc.ac.za/genome/events/papers/fullness/Davis.pdf

56

57

Sterman, “Judaism and Darwinian Evolution,” 62.

Carl Feit, “Darwin and Drash: the Interplay of Torah and biology”, Torah U-Madda Journal 2 (1990), 25-36, on 19-30. 58

Ibid., 31. Cf. Sol roth, who asserts (Studies in Torah Judaism, 53) that “the biblical chapter on creation has correctly been assigned a metaphorical interpretation by many thinkers who adhere without compromise to Jewish tradition.” 59

60

Feit, “Darwin and Drash,” 28-9.

61

Schneider, “Evolutionary Creationism,” 7.

62

brown, Mysteries of the Creation, 276.

63

Pines, “Torah, reality and the Scientific Model.”

Lois Dubin, “Pe’er ha-Adam of Vittorio Hayyim, Castiglioni: an Italina Chapter in the Jewish response to Darwin,”, in The Interaction of Scientific and Jewish Cultures in Modern Times, ed. Yakov rabkin and Ira robinson (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1994), 87-101.

64

65 Cf. Ira robinson, “Kabbala and orthodoxy: Some Twentieth Century Interpretations,” unpublished paper presented at the American Academy of religion, 1987. 66 Abraham Isaac Kook, Lights of Penitence, tr. ben Zion bokser (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 220 and 306. Cf. Feit, “Cosmological and Evolutionary Motifs.” A number of contemporary orthodox thinkers on evolution cite rabbi Kook, e.g. Cyril Domb, “biology and Ethics,” Proceedings of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists 3-4 (1976), 15-16.

290

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

Ira robinson, “Kabbalist and Communal Leader: rabbi Yudel rosenberg and the Canadian Jewish Community.” Canadian Jewish Studies 1 (1993), 41-58.

67

Judah Yudel rosenberg, Zohar Torah (New York: n.p., 1924), Genesis, 62; Idem., ha-Zohar haKadosh (bilgoraj, Poland: Wajnberg, 1929), Psalms, 23. rosenberg’s opinion is echoed by Mosheh Epstein, Torah Verified by Science (New York: oriom, 1928), 17. This opinion is paralleled by that of the Christian creationist, George McCready Price; see Numbers, The Creationists, 85.

68

of Kaplan it was said, “The Midrash could illuminate the laws of relativity, and developments in biogenetics could explain Messianic prophecies”. Y. Elkin. “Preface,” Aryeh Kaplan, Facets and Faces (Jerusalem: Moznaim, 1993), 10.

69

70

robinson, “Kabbala and orthodoxy.”

71

David Sheinkin, The Path of the Kabbalah (New York: Paragon House, 1986), 148.

In an account, which I do not take as parody, orthodox scientist Herman branover stated: “Driven to despair by the unwillingness of ‘intelligent’ audiences to listen to simple, eternal words of Torah, I once tried to ‘dress up’ Torah concepts in pseudo-scientific terminology. The enthusiastic response from the scientific and engineering graduates in the audience was boundless.” (“Torah and Science: basic Principles,” in Schimmel and Carmell, Encounter, 237.) 72

73

radkowsky, “Miracles,” 69.

See Morris M. Faierstein, All is in the Hands of Heaven: the Teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica (New York and Hoboken: Yeshiva University Press, 1989).

74

Eliezer Zeiger, “Kosher Evolution,” Points of Wisdom:The Newsletter of the Torah Science Foundation 3, pt.1 (Tevet 5764 / December 2003); www.torahscience.org.

75

76

Slifkin, The Science of Torah, 215. Cf. 73, 89, 98 and 164.

77

Carmell and Domb, Challenge, 268.

Siegel-Itzkovich, “orthodox Scientists.” This decline might possibly be reflected in Aryeh Carmell’s introduction to rabbi Nosson Slifkin’s Science of Torah, in which he stated that orthodox Jewish scientists should be in the forefront of these debates. It is also interesting that Carmell pointedly does not seem to endorse that part of Slifkin’s argument, which relies heavily upon kabbalistic concepts.

78

robert Werman, a contemporary biologist and orthodox Jew, expressed his personal position thus: “As a Professor in a biology Institute (at the Hebrew University) I teach evolution; as a religious Jew I daven and associate with Haredim.” Mail.Jewish, 10 September 1993. http://www. ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v9/mj_v9i16.html#CCC

79

on contemporary orthodoxy, see Haym Soloveitchik, “rupture and reconstruction: the Transformation of Contemporary orthodoxy,” Tradition 28, pt. 4 (1994), 64-130.

80

on this phenomenon, see M. Herbert Danziger, Returning to Tradition: the Contemporary Revival of Orthodox Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); Janet o’Dea Aviad, Return to Judaism: Religious Revival in Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Lynn Davidman, Tradition in a Rootless World: Women Turn to Orthodox Judaism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991).

81

See Aaron J. Tapper, “The ‘Cult’ of Aish Hatorah: ba’alei Teshuvah and the New religious Movement Phenomenon,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 44 (2002) 5-25; Dabziger, returning to Tradition, 282-7.

82

Cf. Golani, “book review”, who recommended the works of orthodox Jewish science mainly to “older students and adults who must contend with the mindset of the secular world.” See also Goldman, “Evolution by Natural Selection,” 50.

83

84

Slifkin, The Science of Torah, 90.

“Practically, I am a Fundamentalist”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications

291

Cf. The paper of my student, Howard Gontovnick, “Kabbalah 2000 - The Emergence of a New religious Movement,” presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of religion, 2003.

85

86

Isaac bashevis Singer, Love and Exile (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 16.

292

II. orthodox Judaism in North America

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design1

I. Introduction The second half of the year 2005 saw public attention in the United States focussed as seldom before on a court case centred on an idea. The case, Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, was tried in United States District Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It was brought by a group of parents in order to determine whether a concept called “Intelligent Design” should be presented to students in high school biology courses, along with standard evolutionary theory, for their consideration in forming their ideas of the origins and development of life on earth. Intelligent Design claims to be a non-religious, scientific reading of the evidence available and concludes that life on earth did not originate nor develop randomly, but rather shows evidence of intelligent design.2 The judge in the case, John E. Jones III, ruled on December 20, 2005, that the Dover School board’s insertion of Intelligent Design into the high school science curriculum was unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional ban on the teaching of religion in public schools. He therefore accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the teaching of intelligent design was basically religious in nature, and not scientific. The Pennsylvania ruling received nationwide attention as well because there are school boards in numerous other states, like Kansas, in which moves to require the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution in public schools were in various stages of planning.3 Predictably, liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the plaintiffs, were happy at the outcome,4 while conservative groups, particularly those of evangelical Christians, decried it.4 Anyone reading the copious press and media coverage surrounding this case will readily understand that all the sound and fury concerns much more than the proposition that the origin and development of life on earth is to be attributed to an intelligent design and not merely to chance and random mutation. Intelligent Design has become an issue that tran-

294

III. Contemporary American Judaism

scends the narrow legal front upon which this case was argued, and has come to adumbrate many of the political, social, and religious tensions which beset contemporary American society.6 This article will attempt to contextualize the issue of evolution and Intelligent Design as it presents itself to contemporary American Jews. It will do so by paying special attention to historical Judaic responses to perceived conflicts between religion and science generally, and concerning evolution and its teaching in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries specifically. It will then describe American Jewish responses to this debate in the religious, political, and educational spheres. Finally, it will indicate some of the directions in which the American Jewish community seems to be headed with respect to the public discussion of this issue. II. The Issue of Evolution: an Historical Perspective The issue of the origin of life is one which rivets the attention of all human societies, historical as well as contemporary. In those societies governed by the scriptural traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the origin of life, and of the universe itself, was attributed to the action of a purposeful God, and was understood in terms of revealed scriptures, such as the Hebrew bible and the Qur’an. The scriptural understanding of human origins received a number of major challenges in the modern era. one of the greatest commenced around the middle of the nineteenth century, with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). Darwin’s book presented an argument scientists found intellectually compelling: that life forms born with beneficial mutations will survive and bequeath them to their offspring, whereas those without these advantages will become extinct.7 The controversy that ensued within western society defined much of the debate between religious tradition and science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. People on all sides of this debate were forced to confront the implications of Darwin’s scientific ideas for religious belief. Darwin’s theory showed a way in which the origins and development of life on earth could be explained without reference to

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

295

a divine designer. In a relatively short time, the debate commenced. Science increasingly became an “official definer of reality”, replacing scripture in the minds of many.8 Darwin’s theories were generally accepted by scientists, some of whom claimed belief in God and thus believed in a theistic evolution.9 other Darwinists celebrated the idea that God was no longer a necessary explanation for the origins of the universe and of life and tended to regard traditional religious beliefs as utter nonsense. by the end of the nineteenth century scientific opposition to Darwin’s theses had markedly lessened, but the controversy did not thereby dissipate. religious leaders were divided in their response to evolution and its implications.10 Some attempted to embrace a theology in which God worked through the means of natural selection, while others continued to see Darwin as a militant enemy of all attempts to retain God as a governing principle in the affairs of the universe. Darwin’s evolution was the most prominent of the scientific theories which, they feared, were making religion and its teachings irrelevant to modern society. In the United States in particular, the controversy over Darwin’s theory reached into the social and political realms, as well as the scientific and theological. Darwinism’s challenge to religious thinkers helped, among other things, to give birth to “fundamentalism”in Christianity.11 For fundamentalism, the account of the origin of the universe and of humankind, in the biblical book of Genesis had to be true “scientifically”as well as religiously. The American religious fundamentalists in the early twentieth century exercised their power by enacting legislation in a number of states barring the teaching of evolution in public schools. In 1925, legislation of this sort in the State of Tennessee was challenged in court by John Scopes, a high school teacher. The trial that ensued, popularly known as the “Monkey Trial”, engaged widespread public attention both in the United States and abroad.12 In the aftermath of the Scopes trial, legal restrictions on the teaching of evolution were lifted in many places, though the last state law barring the teaching of evolution, in Arkansas, was not overturned until 1968.13 Evolution, which had become established as the standard theory in scientific circles with respect to the origin and development of life on earth, had now become standard in terms of public

296

III. Contemporary American Judaism

school education in the United States. Nonetheless Christian fundamentalist opponents of evolution did not concede the field to their opponents, and continually sought to persuade the public at large of the rightness of their views. In the course of their campaign against the teaching of evolution, attempts were made to create alternative explanations of the origins and development of the universe more in sync with a literalist interpretation of the biblical account. These attempts coalesced in what has come to be termed “creationism”. As a doctrine, creationism has itself evolved. Whereas in its inception, a number of its adherents thought of the creation account in Genesis as metaphorical, with the “six days of creation”symbolizing perhaps thousands of years, in contemporary times many creationists have abandoned any nonliteral understanding of the biblical text whatsoever. Creationism has come to be identified largely as a position taken by conservative Christians. Indeed the major organization of creationists, after discussion, voted to require its members to believe in Jesus as their personal savior.14 It is fair to say that creationism from its inception was largely shunned within the American scientific establishment as well as by liberal Christian denominations which had largely embraced evolution in their theologies. As far as these circles were concerned, religious fundamentalism and creationism constituted the remnants of ideas whose time had gone and which should fade into obscurity. The past few decades of American history have witnessed that creationism did not, in fact, fade away. In this period, rather, a basic change took place in the way the issue of evolution was perceived by many. That is because, first and foremost, political and religious conservatism has become much more prominent on the national and world stage.15 In the United States, this resurgence has undoubtedly affected the way in which the issue of evolution has played out. Thus the evolution debate has returned in full force with creationists increasingly playing to a sympathetic public opinion, and offering what they claim to be serious and cogent scientific objections to the truth claims of Darwinism. The power of creationism is demonstrated by the results of a Gallup poll published in 2001, which found that only 13 percent of the respondents believed human life evolved naturally, 38 percent thought God guided evolution, and 45 percent believed

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

297

evolution played no role.16 Moreover, other polls indicate that a majority of Americans, among whom President George W. bush is to be counted, want intelligent design taught along with evolution.17 In another, related, development, several creationist museums and theme parks have been or are in the process of being established throughout the United States, presenting the public with natural history as seen through the world view of biblical literalism.18 In the published polls on public attitudes toward evolution, Jewish responses were not singled out. A recent poll of physicians, however, co-sponsored by the Louis Finkelstein Institute of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, found that whereas a small majority of Protestant physicians agreed with the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in schools, 88 percent of Jewish doctors opposed such teaching.19 This seems consistent with other opinion polls in which Jews have fairly consistently responded with positions more liberal than many other religious and ethnic groups. Defenders of evolution have been awakened to the importance of the renewed assault on what they consider the integrity of science and scientific education in the United States, and have brought the issue into courts of law. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court found in Edwards vs. Aguillard that the teaching of Creation Science in public schools violated the principle of the separation of Church and State.20 Shortly thereafter, in 1989, the book Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon introduced the “new”concept of Intelligent Design. It presented a case for the origins and development of life as a product of intelligent design, with no necessary connection to the God of the bible. Its detractors, however, basically see intelligent design as creationism in a new garb, designed to meet legal objections to teaching a creationism so closely linked to a particular religious scripture.21 Despite this widespread public belief, proponents of Intelligent Design deny that they are creationists in disguise. one of their major spokesmen, Stephen C. Myer, thus states, “Intelligent Design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the bible. It is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.”22All of this has lead to the intense public interest in the Pennsylvania court case, and in similar litigation, such as the case in Cobb County, Georgia, where the issue is the placement of stickers on biology textbooks declaring evolution “a theory, not a 298

III. Contemporary American Judaism

fact”23 This controversy concerning what is to be believed about the origins and development of life on earth has most often been portrayed as a front in a struggle between conservative/fundamentalist versus liberal/scientific world views in the United States. It is necessary to examine this question carefully. Is it indeed the case that Intelligent Design is a wedge to give the rest of the fundamentalist Christian message entry into the American public school system?24 In looking at American Jewish perspectives on this question, this article will examine how Jews in the United States have gone about understanding this issue. III. Judaic Perspectives on the Issue Judaism has had a long history of dealing with apparent conflicts between Torah and scientific teaching in the premodern period. The conflicts came about because the Torah, as traditionally understood, seemed to disagree with the findings of scientists and philosophers, such as Aristotle. An example of such a conflict is the issue of whether the universe was created or has existed eternally.25 Aristotle unequivocally holds that the universe is eternal and that God therefore did not create it, whereas the first verse of Genesis seems to speak of a God who created heaven and earth. In responding to this challenge, premodern Jews had the advantage of a rabbinic tradition that was not completely tied to the literal meaning of the biblical text.26 They were therefore able to respond to these challenges in variants of the approach used by Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) in his Guide of the Perplexed. In it, he asserted that since it had been “scientifically”proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that God had no body or bodily image, any verse in the Torah which seemed to assert the contrary, speaking, for example, of “the eye of God”, needed to be understood in other than a literal sense. Similarly, in the case of the creation or eternity of the world, Maimonides was ready to assert that, if the proposition were scientifically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, he would not hesitate to reinterpret the verses in Genesis chapter one which seem to assert the contrary in a non-literal sense.27 Even though Maimonidean-style rationalism did not characterize all

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

299

Jewish responses to these challenges, those medieval Jews who opposed philosophical rationalism nonetheless embraced a mystical, kabbalistic reading of the biblical text that itself departed from the literal interpretation. As Moshe Idel wrote, premodern Jews felt “that all the sciences are found in the text of many details of the Torah and that it is possible to derive them from the ‘adequate’ exploration of the structure of the sacred scriptures.” 28 In the nineteenth century, when Judaism, among other scripturallybased religions, was challenged by the scientific claims of the modern world, there was thus a precedent in the Judaic tradition that could be built upon by those Jews intent upon making Judaism relevant to the modern world. It will thus be no particular surprise that when the controversy over Darwin’s writings first irrupted, the opposition to the theory of evolution was almost all from Christian theologians who held to a more or less literal reading of Genesis. The earliest Jewish reactions to Darwin were often quite positive, including a treatise written in Hebrew by a Polish Jew attempting to demonstrate that Darwin’s ideas are demonstrable from scripture.29 Though there were certainly Jews in the nineteenth century who did not agree with Darwin’s ideas, it would seem that much of contemporary Jewish opinion tended to take a positive view of his theory. That there was not a stronger negative reaction by nineteenth century Jews may be partly explained by the hesitancy of many Jews to enter into the midst of a controversy they perceived as a “Christian”one. It is also, however, likely that many Jews felt that their own religious tradition was far more compatible with the new scientific findings than was Christian theology.30 This essentially positive reaction to Darwin was the case not only for those nineteenth century Jews who felt the need for a Judaism that departed from the premodern rabbinic tradition, but also for those who affirmed the validity of rabbinic tradition in its entirely, and who coalesced under the name “orthodox”. Thus one of the most prominent orthodox rabbis of the nineteenth century, Samson raphael Hirsch, was prepared to give natural selection a conditional approval. on the assumption that evolution would be proven correct, Hirsch stated: Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even 300

III. Contemporary American Judaism

greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus, and one single law of “adaptation and heredity,” in order to bring forth, out of what seemed to be chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today.31 Yet another nineteenth century orthodox rabbi who was willing to venture an accommodation with the new scientific ideas of the nineteenth century was rabbi Michael Loeb ben Yechiel Malbim. In his well-known biblical commentary, he interpreted passages from the creation story in Genesis to indicate that, when God said things like “Let the earth sprout forth vegetation”and “Let the waters swarm,”, He was commencing an ongoing act of creation which is continuously at work.32 Similarly, rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, writing in the early twentieth century, saw the world as in a constant state of evolution, and felt that evolutionary theory was in essential accord with the doctrines of kabbala.33 Thus he stated: The theory of evolution (hitpattehut) is increasingly conquering the world at this time, and, more so than all other philosophical theories, conforms to the kabbalistic secrets of the world. Evolution, which proceeds on a path of ascendancy, provides an optimistic foundation for the world. How is it possible to despair at a time when we see that everything evolves and ascends. When we penetrate the inner meaning of ascending evolution, we find in it the divine element shining with absolute brilliance. It is precisely the ‘Eyn Sof in actu which manages to bring to realization that which is ‘Eyn Sof in potentia.34 In the United States, Darwin and evolution have not historically caused much of a stir within the Jewish community, other than in relation to events and issues affecting the general community, up to the middle of the twentieth century. There were, of course, nineteenth century American reform rabbis to be found on both sides of the evolution debate. Though most such rabbis favored Darwinian ideas, there were prominent opponents of Darwinism, like rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, one of the prime architects of reform Judaism in America, whose criticism was largely in terms of the moral implications of

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

301

Darwinism. Thus he stated: In a moral point of view the Darwinian hypothesis on the descent of man is the most pernicious-chiefly because it presents all nature as a battleground, a perpetual warfare of each against all in the combat for existence, and represents the victors as those praiseworthy of existence, and the vanquished ripe for destruction.35 For the contemporary American Jewish community, the issue of the age of the universe and the development of life on earth has become an issue not apparently from any internal Jewish dynamic, but rather because it has become a major issue in the United States as a whole. Thus Jews, as concerned citizens, have reacted to attempts in several states to mandate that public schools teach “intelligent design”along with evolution when dealing with the origins and development of life on earth. Since the question, as presented in the public square, is largely educational in nature, it may be instructive to examine the ways in which evolution is taught, or not taught, in Jewish schools. Most Jewish day schools in the United States are under orthodox supervision, and a recent study of “Modern orthodox”high schools by rena Selya has pointed out that, for the most part, evolution is taught. The message students receive, if any, that there is no essential problem for Jews to believe in the theory.36 Thus Dr. Joel Wolowelsky of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, states: There is no contradiction between good science and Torah hashkafah [world view]...lurking behind the would-be debate between Torah and evolution is either a shallow understanding of Torah or an unsophisticated appreciate of science–or both.37 Yale University Jewish studies professor and parent of day school children, Paula Hyman, put it this way: both my children went to Jewish day school ... We know and we teach in our day schools that the Torah is one way of understanding the world and science is another way of understanding the world.38 Selya does, however, indicate that the schools included in her study in which boys and girls are separated, and which are therefore more traditional in their orthodoxy, tend to be more cautious in their teach302

III. Contemporary American Judaism

ing of evolution. It is only ultra-orthodox schools which, at present, seek to enforce an anti-evolution position by censoring textbooks.39 In response to the current debate on Intelligent Design in education, however, there are indications that some orthodox Jews, like rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, Professor of biology at Yeshiva University, have begun to contemplate the idea of introducing the teaching of Intelligent Design into orthodox day school education.40 Yet many orthodox Jews, however sympathetic they are to the creationist/intelligent design ideas, hesitate to completely ally themselves with evangelical Christians,41 and the Modern orthodox rabbinical association, the rabbinical Council of America, has issued an official statement dated December 22, 2005, affirming that belief in evolution is entirely consistent with orthodox Judaism.42 If the orthodox American Jewish educational system, by and large, deals with the problem of evolution and intelligent design by either censorship or else assertions that there is no essential problem, then the question that has to be asked is whether there has, indeed, been a “Jewish response” to the issue, and whether there really is an appreciable difference in the response of the various denominations of American Judaism and other Jewish organizations. The Jewish response to this issue, as has been already indicated, has largely been reactive in nature. The reported reaction of the local Jewish community in Harrisburg to the trial of Intelligent Design being held in its own backyard is more or less typical. Conservative rabbi Eric Cytryn of Harrisburg thus stated, “We don’t want anyone to think that this is a Jewish issue”. His orthodox colleague, Chaim Schertz, said that though “among orthodox Jews there is an understanding that God is the source of creation–but there is not a desire on their part to make it into a political issue...It has become purely a political battle, and I’m not sure we want to be involved in that.”43 The major thrust of the argument in this controversy has been between proponents of Intelligent Design, who are largely evangelical Christians,44 and the academic scientific establishment. Though it is true that many of the members of that establishment are Jewish, their opposition to intelligent design is not as Jews but as scientists. Similarly, legal opponents of the introduction of Intelligent Design in public schools are also often Jewish,45 but their opposition has not American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

303

been manifested in public as specifically “Jewish”. “Jewish”reactions as reported in the media, therefore, seem largely to be the result of public and media curiosity as to how Jews, and other American minority religious groups, like Muslims, felt about the controversy. In some cases, the thrust of Jewish intervention in the debate is to explain that the Jewish reading of the Hebrew bible is not the same as that of Christian fundamentalists. Thus Marc brettler, professor of bible at brandeis University, used a column in the Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram to state that he, as a Jewish biblical scholar looked at Genesis as myth. As he stated: Most biblical scholars would call the initial chapters of Genesis a myth – not in the sense of a false story or bad science but in the sense of a story that is not meant to be taken literally and that has as its primary function structuring the world in a metaphysical rather than a physical sense. Myths in this sense may be more important (rather than less) than science or history. In contrast, proponents of creationism and intelligent design contend that the bible gives a true historical and scientific account of the formation of the world, even though this is nowhere explicitly stated in the biblical text. In other words, contrary to what is overstated, the bible does not open with the statement “read me as literal truth.” In fact, there are strong indications that the initial stories in the Hebrew bible/old Testament should not be taken literally.46 While orthodox Jews may not subscribe to Professor brettler’s ascription of “myth”to the Genesis account, there is a recognition among some orthodox rabbis that, as rabbi benjamin Hecht put it, “The theological parameters of orthodox Judaism does not place the same restraints on our understanding of the biblical text as would be found in the world of fundamentalist Christianity.”47 It is among the orthodox, whose belief system embraces the biblical creation story, that we nonetheless find a partial exception to this essentially reactive and low-key response. Though, as has already been said, there are orthodox voices in support of Darwin, criticism of evolution can be found in many orthodox publications and web-

304

III. Contemporary American Judaism

sites.48 rabbi Avi Shafran, director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America, expressed this opinion: The orthodox Jewish community, of which I am a part, has no monkey in this race [i.e. public schools]; we operate our own private schools, and recognition of God is very much a part of what our children are taught. It is unfortunate, though, that the students in most of our nation’s public schools, are indoctrinated in the religion of randomness and Meaninglessness. They, and American society as a whole, would benefit considerably were they exposed to the possibility of design, in our universe and in our lives.49 With respect to American non-orthodox Judaism, it is the reform movement which has been the most publicly active in its public reactions to the Intelligent Design controversy. Thus reform Judaism’s Union for reform Judaism, in its recent biennial meeting in Houston, passed a resolution against the misuse of science for “religious or ideological ends”.50 This stance has been reiterated by rabbi David Saperstein, director of reform Judaism’s religious Action Center. In his statement we read: The scientific theory of evolution is being challenged in public schools and in our courts by those seeking to tear down the wall of separation between church nd state by enshrining one religious view into public school curricula. This campaign is dangerous, especially to those who cherish true religious liberty.51 In their reactions, non-orthodox rabbis generally attempt to negotiate between their belief in God, and God’s “intelligent design” for the universe, and their opposition to the teaching of “intelligent design” as science. A typical example is the reaction of Conservative rabbi Michael beals, of Congregation beth Sholom of Wilmington, Delaware. He stated: I certainly believe in an intelligent designer, that God did this quite deliberately, and I believe that with my whole heart. but if you are going into a state-funded, taxpayer-based educational institution, I would consider it heresy of the highest level to be talking about intelligent design in a biology class...For a majority to

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

305

hold one religious belief and impose that belief system on others borders on evil.52 Similarly, reform rabbi Simeon Glaser, Associate rabbi of Temple Israel of Minneapolis, Minnesota, stated in a letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune: Any person of faith who doesn't see the process of evolution as an integral part of the genius of creation is employing simplistic theology, ignoring empirical evidence that is both intellectually compelling and religiously inspiring. And any scientist who denigrates those of us who see God's extraordinary fingerprint in the nature of all things human and otherwise, is being naive and even irresponsible. A desired goal, as stated by reform rabbi Karen Citrin, of Temple beth El, San Mateo, California is to preserve both scientific and religious perspectives, but to maintain a separation between them: I firmly believe both the scientific and religious views of creation have something to offer to the question of our beginnings. That is why it is important to study both separately — one in school, and the other in church, synagogue or mosque.53 The politicization of the controversy has not been lost on rabbinical observers. Thus Conservative rabbi Joshua Levine-Grater of the Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center stated: I am saddened by the continued erosion of church and state that many on the far right of the Christian world are pushing. From intelligent design arguments (which were thankfully rejected in Dover, PA in a major victory for the Constitution), to the Christmas wars, there is a move to bring religion into every sphere of life in America, even where it doesn’t belong. Where is the Love?54 rabbi Levine-Grater has been seconded in this by reform rabbi Joshua M. Aaronson of Temple Har Shalom in Park City, Utah. In his 2005 Kol Nidrei Sermon, he speaks of his sense of the “intellectual chill of religious intellectual oppression”surrounding this controversy.55

306

III. Contemporary American Judaism

The political issue has also been noticed and exploited by Jewish democrats who hope to rally Jewish Americans for the support of their party. Thus National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director Ira N. Forman stated, “George W. bush's latest statements [on Intelligent Design] are yet another example of this White House's war on science; apparently he would gladly add America's public schools to the 'flat earth society' to which the current White House science team belongs.”56 Some American Jewish organizations, like the American Jewish Committee, have been active in opposing intelligent design. AJC has been a staunch defender of the separation between church and state in the public school curriculum, particularly in the science classroom. In this vein, AJC has submitted amicus briefs in the key legal cases concerning evolution and creationism over the years, including Edwards vs. Aguillard. More recently, AJC joined this year in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Selman vs. Cobb County, where a school district required disclaimer stickers to be posted on science textbooks that teach evolution.57 In a recent press release, issued after the Kitzmiller decision, American Jewish Committee general counsel Jeffrey Sinensky stated, “The court's ruling underscores that the appropriate place to teach religion is in churches or synagogues, and not in the public schools...We hope that today's ruling will give pause to other school boards around the country that are flirting with the idea of introducing intelligent design into science curricula.”58 A similar attitude also characterizes the reaction of the Anti-Defamation League of b’nai b’rith. ADL’s position paper on Intelligent Design concludes: because intelligent design has spiritual and religious implications, it is an idea that should be seriously discussed and considered in houses of worship, private religious schools, and in the home. In the proper context, it also warrants discussion in the public schools. but context is crucial so as not to undermine the foundations of a solid science education for our children or to promote religious doctrine inappropriately in public schools. Thus, the concept of intelligent design may well be a proper sub-

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

307

ject of public school study in comparative religion, philosophy and anthropology classes, which address humankind’s various attempts to explain the origins of life and the universe.59 The National Council of Jewish Women has issued a similar statement.60 Local Jewish defense groups, like the Jewish Community relations Council of Greater Washington have also reacted. reacting to what it felt was “the general climate surrounding the issue nationwide”, it has added a plank to its platform of legislative priorities that it is prepared to oppose any measure instituted in the Virginia General Assembly supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design even though it acknowledged that no such legislation is pending.61 IV. Toward a Jewish Position on the Issue In attempting to delineate the direction the American Jewish community is taking on this issue, it is important to pay attention to its political and constitutional aspects, including the constitutional principle of “Separation of Church and State”, as well as the nature and potential of public schooling in the United States and the control of its curriculum. Such an examination must also include the issue of the relations between American Jews and conservative Christians, given the often overtly Christian context of the advocacy of creationism and intelligent design. At its starting point, such an examination also has to take into account the heterogeneity of the American Jewish community. This community contains within itself a wide variety of religious, philosophical and scientific positions. both sides of the issue of Intelligent Design are to be found within the community, though enthusiastic supporters seem limited at this time to a portion of the orthodox community. Nonetheless, some Jews who have been prominently identified with liberal and leftist causes, like rabbi Michael Lerner, support “a spiritual, religious component added to the teaching of evolution”.62 Therefore most communal response to the issue tends to be expressed in such a way as not to proclaim any honestly held position as “heretical”. There is certainly enough to divide the Ameri-

308

III. Contemporary American Judaism

can Jewish community without adding yet another divisive issue. Having said that, the American Jewish communal response also finds itself confronting the principle of the Separation of Church and State. It is fair to say that there is a general consensus within the American Jewish community that this constitutional principle has been “good for the Jews”, enabling them to participate as formal equals in a polity in which the vast majority of the population’s religious heritage is Christian. Thus the question American Jews are confronting is whether the presence of any religious teachings whatsoever in the American public sphere (other than those of the American “civil religion”)63 should be considered dangerous for the well being of the American Jewish community, and should therefore be opposed. Alternatively, there are voices asking whether a non-hegemonic discussion of religious and moral beliefs is not of great importance for an American society in which there is evidence for less than ideal standards of public morality? Some American Jews, precisely because they constitute a minority group that has historically made a difference in terms of the American polity, may see here an opportunity to educate the public that issues of philosophical and moral import have a place in the classroom through well-prepared presentations on religions as constitutive elements of human society and human understanding of ultimate issues. Another major parameter for the Jewish approach to the issues at hand is the impact any such approach might have on Jewish relations with American evangelical Christians. Conservative Christians have emerged after the 2004 elections as an important force in American politics, as they have been important in American culture for some time. The strongly pro-Israel stance of this community has created an opportunity for renewed and fruitful communication as well as exacerbation of previously held prejudices. Any Jewish communal position on the issue of evolution and intelligent design is therefore likely to have important implications for Jewish-Christian relations now and in the future.64 What, ultimately, will be the direction taken by American Jews in this instance? The elements of a balanced approach to the problem are present in

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

309

an editorial on the issue which was published in the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent: [T]he intelligent-design debate only serves to divide us along lines that make no sense. The vast majority of Americans believe in God, and probably, on some level, believe that God is behind the workings of the universe. but that doesn't mean that they wish to include such musings in a child's science class. opposition to the attempt by the Dover board and others isn't an argument for atheism. Science and religion are far from incompatible, as the faiths of many great scientists attest. The “wall”of separation between church and state is not absolute. our constitution is not hostile to religion, nor does it demand that our public squares (in both the figurative and the literal sense of the term) be devoid of expressions of faith. radical secularists who would alter the pledge of allegiance or remove the word “God”from coins fail to understand the profound religiosity of Americans and the role of religion in U.S. history. but by the same token, those believers who try to sneak their beliefs into science curricula are doing religion no favors. Sectarian attempts to use public schools to bolster religion are not only illegal, but futile. And when such proposals are made in the context of politicized religious campaigns, it comes as no surprise when the courts of law and of public opinion turn against them.65 In sum, the way the public battle lines have been drawn do not make entire sense for many members of the American Jewish community. This community overwhelmingly supports the doctrine of the separation of church and state, though there are many who see no need to make this wall of separation so stringent that expressions of faith should neither be seen nor heard in the American public square. The other aspect of this issue is Intelligent Design. There appears to be a consensus encompassing nearly the entirety of the American Jewish community that Intelligent Design’s claims deserve discussion and analysis, but that the place for this discussion and analysis is in the arenas of philosophy and religious studies, and not in the science classroom.

310

III. Contemporary American Judaism

The final observation to be made in assessing the direction of American public opinion, and that of the American Jewish community in particular, is that entrenched political and religious beliefs will not and cannot be changed magically overnight. Seeking a middle ground, Earl raab put it well: This conflict, and others like it, will not be settled by contesting each other's religious beliefs or by demonizing each other. We are all just expressing our opinions, whatever molded them. The issue has to be slugged out politically. In the course of that debate, and over generations, attitudes will change. Perhaps the attitude of the Middle Minority will grow—and society will be able to handle school curricula that accept both evolution and the probability that a higher “intelligence”has had a hand in it (to be further pursued in one's own neighborhood church or synagogue). We’re not ready for such a synthesis and it will not happen overnight. but there are no short cuts in democracy.66

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

311

Notes I would like to thank Dr. Steven bayme and rabbi Noam Marans of the American Jewish Committee’s Department of Contemporary Jewish Life for suggesting that I engage in the study of this topic and for their many helpful suggestions during its gestation.

1

For an exposition of intelligent design by its proponents, see the website of the Discovery Institute: www.discovery.org . For a fairly evenhanded review of the issues and concepts involved, see http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Creationism

2

Jen Stone, “Jews eye ‘intelligent design hearings’, Kansas City Jewish Chronicle May 6, 2005. Www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm

3

See ACLU’s press release of December 20, 2005, “ACLU Hails Historic ruling in Dover, Pennsylvania ‘Intelligent Design’ Case”http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/23158prs20051220.html?ht’

4

E.g. David Klinghoffer, “Judging Darwin and God”, The Seattle Times, December 23, 2005. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDb/index.php?command’view&id’3118&program’Misc&callingPage’discoMainPage

5

For an insight into many of these issues, see James Davison Hunter, Culture wars : the struggle to define America (New York, basicbooks, 1991).

6.

7

Peter J. bowler, Charles Darwin : the man and his influence (oxford, blackwell, 1990).

8

Colin Grant, Myths We Live By (ottawa, University of ottawa Press, 1998), p. 30.

A contemporary example of this effort is the book by a brown University professor of biology, a practising roman Catholic, and a witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover case. Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (New York, Harper Collins, 1999.).

9

Paul K. Conkin, When all the gods trembled : Darwinism, Scopes, and American intellectuals (Lanham, rowman and Littlefield, 1998)

10.

on religious fundamentalism, see Malise ruthven, Fundamentalism : the search for meaning (New York, oxford University Press, 2004).

11

on the Scopes trial, see Edward L. Larson, Summer for the Gods: the Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. on American Jewish reaction to this trial, see Stephen J. Goldfarb, “American Judaism and the Scopes Trial”, American Jewish Experience II (Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1984), pp. 33-47.

12.

The last state law barring the teaching of evolution, in the State of Arkansas, was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Epperso.htm.

13.

14.

ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York : A. A. Knopf, 1992).

robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since WWII (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988).

15.

Deborah Jordan brooks, “Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for origin of Humans”, March 5, 2001 http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm This is in marked contrast to the large percentage of the population which claims to believe in the truth of Einstein’s Theory of relativity, which vies with Darwin’s Theory as the most famous (or notorious) of scientific theories. Cf. Allison Lampert, “biology Teachers Fear Paring Knife”, The Gazette (Montreal), May 5, 2003.

16

17

Peter baker and Peter Slevin, “bush remarks on 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate”,

312

III. Contemporary American Judaism

Washington Post, August 3, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/Ar2005080201686.html . Michael Powell, “When dinosaurs rode the ark”, The Gazette (Montreal) September 26, 2005, p. A21.

18

“Majority of Physicians Give Nod to Evolution over Intelligent Design”, September 28, 2005 www.jtsa.edu/about/communications/media/summer05/misc/20050928.pdf Cf. “Keeping religion Separate”editorial published in Detroit Jewish News, June 20, 2005 http://www.tmt.urj.net/archives/5jewishworld/070105.htm

19.

20.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html

George W Gilchrist, “The Elusive Scientific basis of Intelligent Design Theory”National Center for Science Education, March 16, 2001

21

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp 22

Stephen C. Myer, “Not by Chance”, National Post (Toronto), December 1, 2005, p. A18.

bill rankin,” 'Evolution is theory' sticker on court docket: Cobb appeal may be major test case”, Atlanta Constitution December 11, 2005 http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/1205/11metsticker.html

23.

24

Jerry Coyne, New Republic, August 22, 2005.

Echoes of this premodern philosophical/scientific controversy can be seen in the twentieth century debate among astronomers between proponents of the “steady state”theory and that of the “big bang”.

25

James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: a Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1998).

26

Cf. oliver Leaman, “Introduction to the Study of Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, in Daniel H. Frank and oliver Leaman, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 3-15. For a contemporary use of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed in this sense, see Leon Wieselthier, “Creations”, New republic August 22, 2005, p. 38.

27

Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2000), p. 252.

28

ralph Colp, Jr. And David Kohn, “‘A real Curiosity’: Charles Darwin reflects on a Communication from rabbi Naphtali Levy”, The European Legacy, volume 1, number 5 (1996), pp. 17161727.

29

Geoffrey Cantor, “Anglo-Jewish responses to Evolution”, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming).

30.

Samson raphael Hirsch, Collected Writings volume 7, (New York, Feldheim, 1984), pp. 263264. Cited in Jennie rothenberg, “The Heresy of Nosson Slifkin”, Moment (october, 2005), p. 39.

31

32

Malbim on Genesis, 1, 25.

Kook, Orot ha-Kodesh volume 2, p. 557. Cf. Carl Feit, “Cosmological and Evolutionary Motifs in the Thinking of rabbi J.b. Soloveitchik and rabbi A.I. Kook: a Modern orthodox Approach to Evolution”, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).

33

34

Abraham Isaac Kook, Orot ha-Kodesh volume 2, p. 537, cited in Shai Cherry, “Three Twentieth-

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

313

Century Jewish responses to Evolutionary Theory”, Aleph 3 (2003), pp. 252-253. Cited in jewishreview.org/Archives/ Article.php?Article’2004-11-01-500 - 9k - Supplemental result - . Cf. Marc Swetlitz, “responses of American reform rabbis to Evolutionary Theory, 1864-1888”Yakov rabkin and Ira robinson eds. The Interaction of Scientific and Jewish Cultures in Modern Times (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter, Edwin Mellen Press, 1994, pp. 103-125.

35

rena Selya, “Torah and Madda? Discussions of the Teaching of Evolution in Jewish Schools”, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 188-207.

36

Joel Wolowelsky, “Teaching Evolution in Yeshiva High School”, Ten Da’at, A Journal of Jewish Education X, 1 (Adar 5757, Spring 1997) http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/education/evolution1.htm

37

Cf. Also Johanna Ginsberg, “When Darwin meets doctrine”, New Jersey Jewish News 2004. Http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/021005/njdarwin.html David Shieh, “Creation debate hits campus: Some students say intelligent design should be taught in schools” Yale Daily News october 14, 2005 http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID’30324

38

Ira robinson, “‘Practically I am a Fundamentalist’”: Twentieth Century orthodox Jews Contend With Evolution and Its Implications”, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 71-88.

39

Mariah blake, “Darwin This: Jews clash over the intelligence of intelligent design”, Miami New Times December 29, 2005. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2005-12-29/news/metro2.html

40

41

rothenberg,”The Heresy of Nosson Slifkin”, Moment (october, 2005), p. 42.

42

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id’100635

Stewart Ain, “New breaches in Church State Levee”, Jewish Week (New York), September 30, 2005.

43

There are some indications that Intelligent Design advocates, like William Dembski, are beginning to search for allies among orthodox Jews. Mariah blake, “Darwin This: Jews clash over the intelligence of intelligent design”, Miami New Times December 29, 2005. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2005-12-29/news/metro2.html

44

Even so, it is likely the case that the Jewish identities of at least some of these people has influenced their participation. Thus the lead attorney in Kitzmiller v. Dover School board, Eric rothschild, is a reform Jew who stated, “I do think that I’m probably particularly sensitive to intrusions on this constitutional right because of being part of a minority religion,” he says. “I think the Jewish religion, Jewish practice, has thrived and felt a sense of security in this country because we really do have such a good structure for protecting religious freedom.” Chanan Tigay, “For Philly lawyer, landmark win was a case of ‘intelligent design’”, December 27, 2005 Jewish Telegraphic Agency. www.jta.org

45

“Putting the right labels on the bible”http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13211165.htm . Cf. brettler and bernadette brooten, “biblical scholars laud intelligent design ruling”, December 20, 2005. http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id’104307&show_release_dte’1&print_p’1

46

47

“Whose on First?”, Nishma Insight 5766-#4.

E.g. in the Aish ha-Torah website, a search using the word “evolution”elicited no less than ten articles and videos. www.aish.com Cf., among many others, Nathan Aviezer, “Misreading the Fossils: the Dark Side of Evolutionary biology”, abstract of article www.biu.ac.il/JH/bDD/engabs.htm 48

314

III. Contemporary American Judaism

49 Avi Shafran, “Faith and science related” Jewish News of Greater Phoenix online September 16, 2005. Http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?050916+debate1 Cf. Avi Shafran, “Lift up Your Eyes and See: The “Intelligent Design”Controversy And Why It Matters”, Jewish Observer December, 2005. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/12/22/rabbi-avi-shafran-on-intelligentdesign/#comment-49315 50

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id’15040

51

http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id’1389&pge_prg_id’4368

“Pa. Science Trial Won’t End Controversy”, Delaware News Journal, November 6, 2005. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID’2005511060329

52

53

“In the beginning”, San Mateo County Times November 25, 2005.

54

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2005-12-26.5367080713

55

Www.templeharshalom.com/sermons/Kol_Nidrei_5766.pdf

Posted on Sun, Nov. 20, 2005 http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13211165.htm A search of the website of the republican Jewish Coalition (www.rjchq.org ) elicited no items concerning “intelligent design”.

56

http://releases.usnewswire.com/Getrelease.asp?id’58471. Cf. orthodox Jews in S. Florida join debate on evolution vs. intelligent design James D. Davis South Florida Sun Sentinal, December 12, 2005.

57

“AJC Applauds Court Decision Against Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania Schools”, December 20, 2005 http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c’ijITI2PHKoG&b’849241&ct’1740821

58

59

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/intelligent_design.asp

“NCJW opposes Teaching ''Intelligent Design'' in Public Schools”, December 6, 2005. http://www.ncjw.org/html/News/Pressreleases/051206/

60

Eric Fingerhut, “JCrC Sets 2006 Agenda for Virginia”, Washington Jewish Week online Edition November 23, 2005 http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID’4&subsectionID’4&articleID’4438. A similar statement was posted on December 20 by the MinnesotaDakota JCrC http://www.minndakjcrc.org/telligde.cfm

61

62

Jonathan Mark, “No Debate over “Intelligent Design”, Jewish Week, March 25, 2005.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid’10674&offset=&b1’1&author’Jonathan%20Mark&issuedates’oneday&month’03&day’25&year’2005&issuedate’20050325&keyword’intelligent%20design This concept received its classic statement in robert N. bellah, “Civil religion in America,” Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 96 (1967), pp. 1-21

63

Daniel Lapin, “Jewish Survival: My Way or Foxman’s Way? Jewish Press (brooklyn) November 9, 2005 http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article_printasp?article’5677 .Carl Schrag, “American Jews and Evangelical Christians: Anatomy of a Changing relationship”, Jewish Political Studies Review 17:1 (Spring, 2005), pp. 171-181.

64

65

December 29, 2005 http://www.jewishexponent.com/ViewArticle.asp?ArtID’1983

American Jewish Views of Evolution and Intelligent Design

315

Index

Amarna, Tel el, 23

Aaronson, Joshua M., 306

American, The (periodical), 16-20

Abbott, Lyman, 39

American Academy for Jewish research, 62, 75, 114

Abrahams, Israel, 60 American Civil Liberties Union, 294 Abrahams, Joseph b., 92, 94, 97, 115 Abravanel, Isaac, 114

American Hebrew (New York), 41, 60, 190 American Historical Association, 5-7, 10-11

Adams, Herbert baxter, 5-7, 9 Adler, Cyrus, vii-viii, 2, 5-11,16-20, 22-28, 31-43, 48-49, 54-61, 65-81, 86-143, 157177, 185 and American Jewish Committee, 65 and American Jewish history, 26 and biblical archaeology, 20 and Dropsie College, 37, 42, 48, 65, 73, 88-89, 98, 157 and Free Library of Philadelphia, 37-38 and the Jewish Encyclopedia, 10 and Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 36, 65, 73-74, 81, 86, 88, 96-97, 103, 113, 120-121, 157 and Philadelphia School board, 37 and reform Judaism, 28 and the University of Pennsylvania, 18 and Semitic Studies, 19 and the Smithsonian Institution, 37-38, 55, 65, 68, 73, 80, 87-89, 123, 157

American Jewish Committee, 16, 31, 34, 36, 39-40, 48-49, 59, 75, 87, 91, 134, 140, 157, 162-163, 166-167, 169, 307 American Jewish community—see United States, Jewish community American Jewish Congress, 40, 49, 58, 162, 166-167,177 American Jewish Historical Society, 2-12, 16, 31, 87, 129, 170 American Jewish history (see also Jewish history) 8, 11, 169-170 American Jewish Year Book, 36, 61, 160 American oriental Society, 159 American Philosophical Society, 38

Adler, racie Friedenwald, x, 35, 132, 135136, 142, 157-177

amulets, 190, 197, 231

Adler, Samuel, 34

Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition, 59

aggada, 26, 234, 282

Anti-Defamation League of b’nai b’rith, 307

Agudas ha-Admorim, 216-217

anti-Semitism, 70, 166, 168-169, 177

Agudat ha-rabbonim of the United States and Canada, 139, 216, 242, 251

Appelbaum, Aaron, 267 Aristotle, 273-274, 299

Agudath Israel, 242, 260, 305 Arkansas, 86, 296 Akademie fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 62

Arzt, Max, 130

Alexandria, 23

Ashlag, Judah, 283

316

Index

Association of orthodox Jewish Scientists, 278, 285

brettler, Marc, 304 breuer, Mordecai, 27

Assyriology, 21-22 brown, Dovid, 282 Audenreid, Charles, 38 brush, Louis, 124 Aviezer, Nathan, 281 bryan, William Jennings, 272 baal Shem (see also Israel baal Shem Tov), 190, 193

bush, George W., 298, 307

ba’alei teshuva, 286

Cahan, Abraham, 164

balfour Declaration, 162

Cairo Geniza, 173

baltimore, 192, 194

Calendar, Jewish, 27

barth, Jakob, 24

Calisch, Edward, 24

beals, Michael, 305

Canada, 198 , 201 Jewish community of, 47

benguiat collection (Jewish Museum), 123 Canadian Jewish Chronicle (Montreal), 50 berg, Philip S., 283 Castiglioni, Vittorio Hayyim, 282 beth Jacob Congregation (Toronto), 198 Cardozo, benjamin, 177 beth Midrash Gavoha (Lakewood, New Jersey), 260

Carlebach, Shlomo, 261

bible, 22, 69, 116-117, 170, 261, 272, 276277, 279, 295, 298, 304 Higher Criticism of, 24, 27, 66, 71, 77, 86, 118, 138 Masoretic Text, 24 revised Translation, 23

Central Conference of American rabbis (reform), 66, 113, 139

biblical archaeology, 7, 20-21, 23, 27, 68-69, 86-87, 117

Chicago, 209, 215

Central High School (Philadelphia), 32 Cheyney, Edward, 9

biderman, David, 193

Christianity, 248, 250, 273, 276, 294-297, 299-300, 303-304, 306, 308-309

boro Park (brooklyn), 259

Citrin, Karen, 306

boston, 194, 213, 215

civil religion, 309

brandeis, Louis D., 40, 49, 162, 167

Cleveland, ohio, 105, 215, 223, 225, 232

brandwein, Yehuda, 283

Cohen, Hirsch, 200, 272

branover, Herman, 281

Cohen, Joseph H., 175

Index

317

Cohen, Steven, 258

Dov (berenyu) of Leova, 232

Coleman, Edward, 185

Dover School board (Pennsylvania), 294, 310

Columbian Exposition (Chicago), 17 Columbus, Christopher, 266

Dropsie College, 16, 31, 36, 38, 41-42, 5455, 61, 74-76, 89, 93, 114, 122, 159, 167, 173, 177

Concordia University, x

Dropsie, Moses Aaron, 41, 55, 89

Conservative Judaism—see Judaism, Conservative

Dubnow, Simon, 208, 227, 229 Eckstein, Menachem Mendel, 234

Cosmos Club (Washington), 6 Creation research Society, 277

Education, Jewish, 49, 51, 172, 199, 249, 302-303

Creationism, 276-277, 297-298, 308

Edwards vs. Aguillard, 298, 307

Crunden, robert, 67, 86

Efros, Israel, 130

Cytrin, Eric, 303

Eidelsberg, David, 234

Daas Torah, 243-244, 252-253

Einstein, Albert, 278

Daiches, Samuel, 117

Elbogen, Ismar, 131

Daly, Charles P., 4

Elijah, Gaon of Vilna, 231, 266

Dan, Yosef, 196

Elkan, M., 33

Darrow, Clarence, 272

Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 10

Darwin, Charles, 21, 275, 283, 295-297, 300302, 304

Enelow, Hyman G., 60 Erdberg, Sh., 214

Davidson, Israel, 94, 98, 118, 133 Erter, Isaac, 235 Davis Percival, 298 Etz Chaim (yeshiva)—see Yeshiva College Dawkins, richard, 275 Even, Yitzhak, 228-229 de Haas, Jacob, 58, 162 de Sola-Pool, David, 176

evolution (scientific theory), 272, 274-275, 277-280, 282-286, 294-298, 301-302, 305306, 311

Delitsch, Franz, 67 Eybeschutz, Jonathan, 231 Detroit, Michigan, 215 Feinberg, Louis, 113 Dinosaurs, 276 Feingold, Henry, 3

318

Index

Feinstein, Moses, 241-254, 275, 277

Goldziher, Ignatz, 59-60

Feit, Carl, 281

Golem of Prague, 196

Feitman, Yaakov, 258

Gordis, robert, 130

Felsenthal, bernhard, 8-10

Gorlitser, Efraim Fishel, 224

Finkelstein, Louis, 75, 78, 93-94, 111, 114, 118, 123, 128, 132-138

Gottlieb, Dovid, 275 Graetz, Heinrich, 2-3, 16, 24, 59

Fishbane, Simcha, vii Grant, Colin, 273 Forman, Ira N., 307 Foster, Sir Michael, 80

Gratz College, 36, 38, 41, 61, 93, 157, 161, 173

Frerichs, Ernest, 18

Green, Arthur, 234

Friedenwald, Harry, 161, 167

Greenberg, Simon, 130

Friedenwald, Herbert, 170

Greenstone, Julius, 165

Friedlaender, Israel, 58-60, 72-74, 76, 79, 8990, 99, 116-117, 119, 169, 174

Greenwald, Yekutiel, 234 Gross, Charles, 7, 11

Friedlander, H.A., 234 Guggenheim, Daniel, 173 Friedman, Mordecai Shlomo, 214 Guggenheim, Simon, 159 Fryshman, bernard 258 Gutman, Mattityahu Yehezkel, 229 Fulford, robert, 275 Guttmann, Julius, 123 Fundamentalism, 277, 280, 296-297, 299, 304 Habad—see Lubavitcher Hasidism Gartner, Lloyd, 206-207 Hadassah, 160 Germany, Nazi, 131, 176 Hafez Hayyim – see Israel Meir ha-Kohen Ginsberg, H.L., 130 Hagar, Israel, 194 Ginzberg, Eli, 77 halakha, 251, 253, 281 Ginzberg, Louis, 58, 61, 72, 74-75, 77, 90, 98, 118, 133, 174

Halberstam, Hayyim of Sanz, 212, 223-224, 228, 230-232, 234

Glaser, Simeon, 306 Halberstam, Yehezkele, 225 Goldfarb, rabbi, 141 haredization, 285 Goldman, Morris, 275

Index

319

Harris, Lis, 262 Holocaust, 214, 263 Harvard University, 7, 93 Horodetzky, Samuel A., 229 Hasidism, 190-198, 200, 208-210, 214, 224225, 228-232, 235-236, 258, 276 medical practices, 196-197 North American, 190, 193, 201, 206-207, 212, 215, 218 rebbes, 191, 193-194, 196-198, 201, 213-215, 231 Sanz-Sadegoreh conflict, 228, 231 tales, 229

Horowitz, Pinhas David, 193-194 Hoschander, Jacob, 76-78, 116-118 Humboldt, Alexander von, 272 Hungary, Jews of, 234 Hurwitz, Pinhas Elijah, 274, 282

Haskala, 198, 225, 229-230, 232, 235 Hurwitz, Solomon T.H., 56 Haupt, Paul, 16, 23, 67-68, 71, 87, 174 Hyamson, Moses, 111, 119 Hebrew (language), 22, 165, 261 Hyman, Paula, 302 Hebrew Educational Society (Philadelphia), 32 Idel, Mosh e, 273, 300 Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati),54, 58-59, 66-67, 86, 112-114, 120, 131 Hecht, benjamin, 276, 304

‘Idishe Velt (Cleveland), 223, 230, 235 Intelligent Design, 294-295, 298-299, 302303, 306-308, 310

Heilman, Samuel, 258 Heller, Abraham, 139

International Catalogue of Scientific Literature, 80

Herod, 20

Isaac of Kalev, 230, 232

Hertz, Joseph, 117

Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary—see Yeshiva College

Hertzberg, Arthur, vii Isaacs, A.S., 101 Hertzberg, Zvi Elimelech, vii, 194 Islam, 273, 295, 304 Herzl, Theodore, 161 Israel (state of), 242, 261, 266-267, 276, 309 Hildesheimer Seminary, 24 Israel baal Shem Tov, 229-231 Hillel, school of, 26 Israel of rizhin, 228 Hirsch, Samuel, 33 Hirsch, Samson raphael, 300

Israel Meir ha-Kohen, (Hafez Hayyim), 92, 266

Hobsbawm, Eric, 224

Jacobs, George, 33

Hoffman, Charles, 90

Jacobs, Joseph, 169-170

320

Index

Jacobson, Maxine, x Jameson, John Franklin, 9 Jastrow, Joseph, 18 Jastrow, Marcus, 7, 32, 169 Jastrow, Morris, 33 Jefferson bible, 157 Jesus, 26, 277 Jewish Advocate (boston), 58 Jewish Agency for Palestine, non-Zionist section, 134

Americanization in, 101-102 board of Directors, 91, 94-97, 108-110, 114, 118, 121-122, 125, 130-131, 135, 172 endowment, 95, 125 faculty, 114, 118, 121, 126, 129130, 132, 136, 138-139 fundraising, 114, 122, 124, 130, 139, 173-174 Jewish museum, 123, 136 library, 128-130, 136, 139 Louis Finkelstein Institute, 298 relationship to orthodox Judaism, 110 reorganization (1901), 87, 92 Study of bible in, 72, 75 Teachers’ Institute, 93, 100, 108, 115, 121, 126-128, 173

Jewish Center (New York), 175-176

Jewish War relief Campaign (Philadelphia, 41

Jewish Chautauqua Society, 24

Jewish Welfare board, 157, 163

Jewish Chronicle (London), 60

Johns Hopkins University, 5, 7, 9, 16, 19, 35, 65-68, 86-87, 157, 174

Jewish Community relations Council of Greater Washington, 308

Joint Distribution Committee, 157, 176

Jewish education – see Education, Jewish

Jones, John E. III, 294

Jewish Encyclopedia, 10, 35, 157

Joseph, Jacob, 192-193

Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia), 41, 309

Judaism, 19, 56, 139, 141, 233, 262, 273, 275, 281, 299-300 Conservative, viii, 16, 78, 80, 104, 111-112, 120, 142, 158, 171, 174-175, 234, 241, 246-247 Conversion to, 249-250, 253 divorce in, 25 mitnagdic, 202, 210-211, 216, 230, 232 orthodox viii, 56-58, 70, 78-79, 103-104, 110-112, 119, 139, 141, 158, 174-176, 191, 193, 207, 229, 234, 241-244, 247-248, 250, 254, 258-262, 264, 268, 272-278, 280-283, 285-286, 300, 302-305, 308 reform, 16, 24, 26-27, 66, 69-70, 79, 88, 103-104, 110, 112, 119, 139, 170, 234, 241, 246, 248, 301, 305 Sephardic, 33, 211

Jewish history (see also American Jewish history), 26, 138-139, 207, 229-230, 235, 266 Jewish Institute of religion, 114 Jewish Publication Society of America, 2-3, 67, 11, 31, 34-36, 38, 87, 91, 157, 160, 168, 170 bible translation, 33, 55, 76, 160, 170-171 Jewish Quarterly review, 16, 55, 74-75, 89, 98 Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 16, 24, 31, 54, 58, 61, 66, 68-72, 75-81, 93, 96, 101-102, 104-105, 108-119, 122-126, 129131, 136, 139-143, 160, 172-173, 176

Index

321

Kabbalah 25, 190, 227-228, 272, 274, 280, 282-283, 286, 300-301

Lehman, Herbert, 90, 118 Leiner, Mordecai Joseph, 283

Kaplan, Aryeh, 283 Leizerson, braindy, 267-268 Kaplan, Mordecai, 57, 74, 79, 90, 99-100, 108-109, 112, 114, 119, 128, 133, 141, 175-176

Lerner, Michael, 308 Levi, Leo, 281

Karpeles, Leopold, 24 Levine-Grater, Joshua, 306 kashrut, 49-50, 171-172 Kosher meat industry, 172, 199 Kehilla Movement (North America), 47, 167-168

Levinsohn, Judah, 235 Levinthal, bernard, 41, 112, 174-175 Levinthal, Cyrus, 41

Keneder Odler (Montreal), 50, 232 Levinthal, Israel, 176 Kenyon, Dean, 298 Lewy, Julius, 131 Kishinev Pogrom, 169 Lichtenstein, Aharon, 277 Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, 294 Liebman, Charles, 241, 243 Klein, Max, 171-172 Lipschitz, Moshele, 194, 217 Klein, Shmuel, 260 Lisker, Hershele, 231 Kohler, Kaufmann, 59, 170 Loeb, Morris, 169 Kook, Abraham Isaac, 282, 301 Louisville, Kentucky, 213 Kranzler, George, 194, 199 Kristirer, Yeshaiale, 230

Lubavitcher Hasidism, 192-193, 195-196, 207, 212, 230

Krochmal, Nahman, 232, 235

Lukacs, John, 43

Kuhn, Loeb and Company, 115

Mack, Julian, 163

Lamport, Arthur, 175

Magnes, Judah, 168, 170

Lamport, Samuel C., 112

Magnus, Lady Katie, 3, 10

Landa, Judah, 280

Maimonides—see Moses ben Maimon

Langley, Samuel P., 89

Malbim, Michael, 301

League of Nations, 176

Malter, Henry, 59

Leeser Library (Philadelphia), 33

Mann, Jacob, 117

322

Index

Markens, Isaac, 4 Margolis, Max, 57 Marshall, Louis, 34, 58, 75, 88-89, 92, 94-95, 99, 108-110, 112, 115-116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 132, 140-141, 159, 162, 164, 168, 173174

Montreal, 171, 209, 215, 232, 234, 259, 272 Jewish community, 47, 200 Jewish Community Council, 50-52, 200 Jewish education, 51 Morais, Henry, 4 Morais, Sabato, 24, 32-33, 67-69, 72, 86-87, 91, 136, 172

Marx, Alexander, 59, 61, 72, 92, 98, 128, 133 McLuhan, Marshall, 258

Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), 272, 274, 299

McMaster, John bach, 7

Mussolini, benito, 176

Meir (Meyerson), Golda, 167

Myer, Stephen C., 298

Mendele of Kassov, 231

National Council of Jewish Women, 308

Mendele Mokher Sforim (Shalom Abramovitz), 208

National Jewish Democratic Council, 307

Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem (New York), 242 messiah, 201, 267 midrash—see aggada Mielziner, Moses, 25 Mikveh Israel Congregation (Philadelphia), 32-33, 35-38, 159, 171

Neuman, Abraham, 19, 31, 38, 41-42, 57-58, 67, 76, 121, 173 New York, 194 Hasidic synagogues, 212, 216 Jewish community of, 42, 210212, 215 Kehilla, 39, 47-48 Nordau, Max, 162 Nusah Ari (see Lubavitcher Hasidism)

Miller, Avigdor, 280 Nusah Sfard, 210, 212 Miller, Simon, 43 oriental Club (Philadelphia), 38 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 194, 215 orthodox Judaism—see Judaism, orthodox Mintz, Jerome, 191 orthodox rabbinic Seminary (Cleveland), 242 Miron, Dan, 208 Palmer, Edward Henry, 25 Mishnah, 200, 234 Parkman, Francis, 9 Mitnagdim—see Judaism, Mitnagdic Peretz, Yehuda Leib, 207 Mo’ezet Gedolei ha-Torah, 242 Perl, Joseph, 232, 235 “Monkey Trial” (Tennessee), 272, 296 Perlow, Yehuda Aryeh, 216 Montgomery, Thomas L., 37-38 Peter, Paul and Mary (musical group), 261

Index

323

Petrovsky-Shtern, Yohanan, 210

radio, 123

Philadelphia, 32, 86, 194, 213, 215-217 Eastern European Jewish community, 39-40, 48 Jewish labor movement, 41

radkowsky, Alvin, 278, 283 rapoport, Shlomo Yehuda, 232 reform Judaism—see Judaism, reform

“Philadelphia Group”, 11, 42 regenbogen, Vigdor, 214 Philadelphia Jewish Federation, 39-41, 48 reider, Joseph, 56, 58, 185 Philadelphia Kehilla, 39-40, 47-48, 51-52, 168, 172

reitman, Yehuda Leib, 232

Philipson, David, 170-171

renan, Ernest, 21

Philosophy, Greek, 273-274

revel, bernard, 55-58, 60-62, 110, 112, 114, 174

Pines, Eliot, 274, 279, 282 rischin, Moses, 11, 210 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 215 rocker, Joshua—see Samuel rocker Pittsburgh Platform (reform Judaism), 66, 119 rocker, Samuel, 223-236 Poll, Solomon, 193 roosevelt, Theodore, 164, 169 Poznansky, Samuel, 54 rosalsky, otto, 112 Prost, Antoine, 206 rosenbach, A.S.W., 42-43 Quebec, 51, 277 rosenbach, H.P., 18 Qur’an, 295 rosenberg, Hessel, 198 raab, Earl, 311 rosenberg, Mayer Joshua, 198 rabbinate, American, viii rosenberg, Yudel, 194-201, 213-214, 283 rabbinical Assembly of America, 76, 79, 97, 105-106, 120, 125, 129, 133 rabbinical College of America—see Yeshiva College

rosenbloom, Herbert, 142 rosenfeld, blanka, 263 rosenwald, Julius, 124

rabbinowitz, D.M., 192-193 roskies, David, 234 rabinowicz, Tzvi, 215 rotenberg, Abie, 260, 262 rabinowitz, Jacob, 217 russia rabinowitz, oshea, 216-217

324

Jewish community , 208 persecution of Jews, 169, 174, 214

Index

russian language, 196-197

Segal, M.H., 117

Saadia b. Joseph Gaon, 274

Selman vs. Cobb County (Georgia), 298, 307

Sabbath (Jewish), 22, 171, 246, 251-252, 263, 265

Selya, rena, 302

St. Louis, Missouri, 215

Semitic studies, 25, 66-67, 81, 86, 98, 116, 138

Samuelson, Norbert, 277

Sephardic Judaism—see Judaism, Sephardic

Saperstein, David, 305

Shafran, Avi, 305

Sarna, Jonathan, 11, 170

Shammai, school of, 25

Sayce, Archibald, 23-24

Shapira, Yosef, 229, 235

Schechter, Solomon, 19, 54-55, 59, 66, 70-76, 78-79, 81, 86-91, 93, 97-98, 100, 107-108, 111, 116, 118-119, 123, 132, 136, 138, 140, 160, 169-170, 172-174

Sheinkin, David, 283 Sherman, Avi, 261 Shifrin, David, 191

Schertz, Chaim, 303 shtetl, 208 Schiff, Jacob, 61, 65, 70, 89, 91, 99, 103-105, 113, 119, 124, 159, 168-169, 173

Siegel-Itzkovich, Judy, 285

Schiff, John, 126

Sinensky, Jeffrey, 307

Schindler, Solomon, 27

Singer, Isaac bashevis, 215, 286

Schneersohn, Joseph Isaac, 195, 206

Slifkin, Nosson, 284, 286

Schneersohn, Shalom Dov baer, 191

Smithsonian Institution, 5, 35

Schneider, Susan, 277, 282

Society for the renaissance of Judaism, 99

Schneur Zalman of Liadi, 230

Society of Jewish Academicians of America, 55-61

Schroeder, Gerald, 276, 279 Solis-Cohen, Solomon, 39, 169 Schulman, Samuel, 170 Solomons, Adolphus S., 70, 87 Schwartz, Maurice, 215 Sorscher, Yocheved, 263 science, 7, 273-274, 277-279, 281-282, 284, 286, 296, 298-300, 302-303, 305-306, 310

Spector, Isaac Elchanan, 192

Scopes, John, 296

Spencer, Herbert, 21

Segal, Joshua, 192

Sperber, Alexander, 130-131

Index

325

Steinberg, Milton, 103, 130

Twersky, Hanokh Henikh, 216

Sterman, baruch, 281

Twersky, Jacob Israel, 216

Stern, Simon, 18

Twersky, Jacob Isaac, 194, 216

Straus, Lewis, 159

Twersky, Moshe Zvi, 194, 216-217

Straus, Nathan, 167

Twersky, Meshullam Zalman, 194, 216

Straus, oscar, 4, 6, 169-170

Twersky, Yohanan, 216

Stroock, Sol, 126, 136

Union for reform Judaism, 305

Sulzberger, David, 33-34

Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 113

Sulzberger, Mayer, 33-36, 39, 90, 169-170 Synagogues, 250-252 Szold, Henrietta, 10, 36, 160-161, 167, 169-170 Talmud, 25-26, 190, 224-228, 230-231, 260-261, 272 Talmud Torah, 165, 172, 199

Union of orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 259 United States Eastern European immigrants to, 101, 158, 162, 164, 166-168, 170-171, 174, 190, 207, 218, 224 Jewish community, 47, 70 German Jewish immigrants to,158, 162, 164, 166-168, 171 refugees from Nazism in, 131

Talmudical Academy (New York), 55 United States bureau of Education, 6 Teitelbaum, Elazar Nisan, 231 Tendler, Moshe, 303

United Synagogue of America, 79-80, 97, 106-108, 159-160

Teitelbaum, Lipele, 230

University of Chicago, 68

Teitelbaum, Moshe, 230

University of Pennsylvania, 7, 18, 32-33, 38, 66, 68, 86

Teitelbaum, Yekutiel Yehuda, 230 University Club (Philadelphia), 38 Thucydides, 9 Torah, 243, 273-274, 277-279, 281-282, 284, 286, 299-300, 302

Unterberg building (Jewish Theological Seminary), 124 Van buren, Arkansas, 32

Torah Science Foundation, 282-283 Vatican II, 248 Toronto, 198-199, 211, 213, 215 Versailles, Treaty of, 157, 162-167, 174-175 Travis, S.r., 110 Vidrovitz, Hayyim Jacob, 192 Twersky, David Mordecai, 193, 215-216

326

Index

War of 1812, 10

Women’s League (Conservative Judaism),160

Warburg, Felix, 65, 96, 124, 126, 134, 138, 159, 173

WPA (Works Progress Administration), 211-212

Warburg, Paul, 138, 169 Washington, George, 266 Waxman, Martin, 258 Waxman, Mayer, 56

Wunsche, August, 26 yeshiva, 242, 260-261, 263 Yeshiva College, 55, 58, 62, 110-112, 114, 124, 174

Weinberg, Yona, 263, 266

Yiddish, 79, 103, 165, 232, 234, 260-261 press, 223, 225 Zangwill, Israel, 163

Weizmann, Chaim, 163

Zeiger, Eliezer, 283

Wellhausen, Julius, 71

Zeitlin, Hillel, 234

Williamsburg (brooklyn), 194, 199

Zeitlin, Solomon, 62

Willowsky, David, 191-192

Zionism, 162-163, 167, 174, 260 American, 40, 42, 49, 158, 161 Federation of American Zionists, 56 Intercollegiate Zionist League, 56 Poalei Zion, 234 Zionist Congress, 161-162 Zionist organization of America, 163

Wilson, A.N., 277 Wilson, Woodrow, 163 Winsor, Justin, 6 Wise, Isaac Mayer, 24, 66, 301 Wise, Stephen, 114, 167, 177 Wissenschaft des Judentums, 2, 81, 229

Zohar, (see also Kabbala) 200-201, 283 Zuckerman, baruch, 234

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 135 Wolf, Edwin, 38-39, 48 Wolf, Simon, 4 Wolfinsohn, Sarah Adler, viii, 171-172, 176 Wolfson, Harry A., 54 Wolofsky, Hirsh, 50-51, 232-234 Wolowelsky, Joel, 302 Women, role of, 159-161, 244-245, 250-251, 264-265

Index

327