Readings on Maramarosh 9781618112439

Citation preview

READINGS ON MARAMAROSH

READINGS ON MARAMAROSH

Elieser SLOMOVIC Edited by Caryn Landy, Aryeh Cohen, and Steven M. Lowenstein

Boston 2013

THE HOLOCAUST: HISTORY AND LITERATURE, ETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY Series Editor Michael Berenbaum (American Jewish University)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A catalog record for this title is available from the Library of Congress.

Copyright © 2013 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-61811-242-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-61811-243-9 (electronic) Book design by Ivan Grave About the cover: A family portrait of the Schlomovits (Slomovic) family taken in 1940. The picture was taken in their hometown of Slotfi na in the region of Maramarosh, which was then a part of Czechoslovakia. Sitting on the far left is the author’s mother Yehudit (Wiesel) Schlomovits. In the back row, from left to right, Yanku (Jack), Elieser, Volvi (Bill). Seated on the far right is the author’s father, Ephraim Schlomovits. In the front row from left to right are the author’s younger siblings: Chani, Avrumi and Etu. Yehudit, the mother together with her five youngest children (Rivka and Malka the youngest are not shown in the picture) perished in Auschwitz. The father, Ephraim, very ill at the time of his liberation from Theresienstadt, died shortly after the war in Prague. Elieser, Jack and Bill were the sole survivors of the family of 10.

Published by Academic Studies Press in 2013 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

TA BLE OF CONT ENTS

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Foreword, by David Lieber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Preface, by David Halivni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii A Personal Note, by Elie Wiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv A Note of Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

READINGS ON MARAMAROSH 1. THE RESPONSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I: Piety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II: Hasidut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 III: Shabbat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 IV: Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 V: Kashrut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 VI: Drusah (Domestic animals attacked by wild beasts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 VII: Community/Synagogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 VIII: Agunot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 IX: Parnasot (Occupations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 X: B’chor (First-born animal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 XI: Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 XII: Regal (Government or noble franchises) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 XIII: Zionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 XIV: Antisemitism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 XV: Shoah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2. EDUCATION IN MARAMAROSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 3. MARAMAROSH: A HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 4. IN OTHERS’ WORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 I: Zicharon Abraham (1900) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 II: Hertzl Upshon (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 v

TA BLE OF CON T EN T S

III: Cohen-Yambor (1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV: Chaim Tarshi (1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V: Without Jews (1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI: Rab Y. Y. Greenwald (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII: Naphtali ben Menachem (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII: Eye of Tears (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX: Our Journey to Solotvino (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191 193 194 196 200 202 213

5. SLOTFINA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Remembering Our Father, by Sara Slomovic Welts and Ephraim Slomovic . . . 230 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Bibliography and Biographies of Responsa Authors in Th is Volume . . . . . . . 248 Geographic Terms. Official and Unofficial Names of Regions and Districts . . 251 Language Variants of Place Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

vi

ACKNOW LEDGMENTS

This book has been in the making for a  very long time. During this extended period, I have been blessed with the support and determination of a  number of people without whose efforts this dream of mine might have gone unrealized. First and foremost, I  thank my wife, Tikva, who has shared my life since  our childhood years in Maramarosh and who has always been my dearest friend and confidante. When I  look into her beautiful soul, Maramarosh lives! I also want to thank Dr. David Lieber, President Emeritus of the University of Judaism, of blessed memory,1 my friend and colleague of many years. David was gracious enough to write the Preface to this volume, and I am honored by his addition to my work. As professor of rabbinic literature at the University of Judaism2 in Los Angeles from 1963-2000, I have been blessed to be able to study with many new and emerging minds. I want to acknowledge the part that these one-time students played in my continued work on this project. It was their curiosity and demand for more information that inspired me to include both the questions and the answers that are printed within this volume. As a scholar, I was more interested in the questions and what they revealed about the life of this community. It was my students’ desire to know more that inspired me to enlarge and add the contextual elements to this work. I hope that I have done them justice.

1

Dr. Lieber passed away in 2008.

2

In 2007 the University of Judaism merged with the Brandeis-Bardin Institute to form the American Jewish University. vii

ACK NOW LEDGMEN T S

Likewise, during my career I  spent many hours in the University of Judaism Library. It is a place where I have felt much at home and for whose largesse I am deeply grateful. I first met Steve Fine when he was a  graduate fellow (1991-1993) at the University of Judaism. Through the years—Steve is now a professor of Jewish history at Yeshiva University—our relationship has flowered and Steve has become a source of great joy. Thanks to his patience and efforts, this work is becoming a concrete reality. Finally, I  want to acknowledge Caryn Landy, my friend and coconspirator in the structuring, editing, and production of this material into  presentable and readable form. We first met in 1992 when Caryn came to the University of Judaism in pursuit of a  master’s degree in Jewish  studies. Caryn had the uncanny ability to read my handwritten notes and translate them into prose. In the intervening years, Caryn has remained steadfast in her support of the process and her determination that this project would find completion. Thank you, my friend. To be sure, there are others whose input and assistance over the years has been much appreciated. Suffice it to say that most of my colleagues are among those whose input and advice has been sought at various times. If I have not named you directly, please know that you are not excluded. I began by saying that this work has taken many years to complete. For this, I must acknowledge the presence in my life of Mr. Parkinson.3 Over time, we are becoming well acquainted. He takes a lot of my attention and he tries to distract me. So, it is no small wonder that we have managed to come to this point in time, Baruch HaShem.

3

Prof. Slomovic suffered from Parkinson’s disease for many of the last years of his life. viii

FOREWORD

Hundreds of books have been written on the Shoah, many of them by its surviving victims, who are eager to keep alive memories of the towns and villages in which they grew up. This volume belongs to that genre. Where it differs is in its effort to present the writer’s home town through the eyes of some of its residents, who turned to their rabbis for direction in matters of Jewish law when no clear precedent existed. It is valuable because it deals with Maramarosh, a region which is not generally well known and is not dealt with in most accounts of the Holocaust. Maramarosh, which is situated in the eastern Carpathian mountain range, is one of the more than forty counties of present-day Romania. It is approximately 2400 square miles, and is bordered by Ukraine on the north and Transylvania on the south. The Tisza River runs through it. In  this area, some 70,000 Jews lived in the first part of the twentieth century, surrounded by a  predominantly Romanian population, as well as sizable Hungarian and Ukrainian ones. Since most of the region consisted of mountains and forests, it lent itself predominantly to mining (salt and iron), wood cutting, and the production of lumber, while agriculture was restricted to the relatively small acreage that was arable. A small number of Sephardi Jews first appeared in Maramarosh in the seventeenth century while it was still in Turkish hands, and they were soon followed by a  group of Eastern European Jews fleeing from the  Chmelnitsky massacres in 1648-9. It was not until the nineteenth century, however, that the population grew large enough to establish a number of basic Jewish institutions—synagogues, schools, ritual baths, cemeteries—and to engage rabbis. By the 1870, hasidism, specifically the courts of Vishnitz and Satmar, was firmly established, and had a dominant influence on the community. ix

DAV ID LIEBER

It stressed simple piety and personal warmth and, in the case of Satmar, rabbinic learning as well. The language of the home and street was Yiddish, and the people wore the simple garb of hasidim. Most of the Jews lived in small villages and engaged in physical labor: wood cutting, logging, wagoneering, construction, shoe making, or tailoring. Some were farmers and a few were innkeepers. Almost all of them were poor. Only in Sighet, one of the two cities in the county, was there a more cosmopolitan group of Jews, who in addition to yeshivot supported schools where general studies were included and Zionist organizations flourished. It was in this culture of piety and learning that Elieser Slomovic was raised and developed his love for God and traditional Judaism. The oldest of eight children, Elieser was born in 1920 into a pious household. His father, a lumberman, wanted to be sure that his sons would be well grounded in  the tradition, and Elieser was enrolled in a  local yeshivah. Following his bar mitzvah, he was sent off to Slovakia to study in advanced yeshivot until he was about eighteen or nineteen. When the war broke out in 1939, Maramarosh was transferred by the Nazis from Czechoslovakia to Hungary in recognition of the latter’s alliance with Germany, and Elieser was sent to a  Hungarian labor camp where he remained for two years, until he ended up in a Soviet camp. He returned in 1945 to find his family, and was married to Tikva in 1946. Shortly thereafter, they made their way to Germany, where they spent a year or two before making their way to Israel in 1948. In 1955 the family emigrated to the United States, where Elieser decided to devote himself to his first professional love, the study and the teaching of Torah. After a  relatively brief stint at an afternoon Hebrew School, he was appointed to the faculty of the Los Angeles Hebrew High School, where he was held in high regard by students and faculty alike. At the same time, he enrolled in the University of Judaism to take an undergraduate degree and, subsequently, a graduate one as well. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on the Book of Jubilees, specializing in the literature of the late Second Commonwealth period. Shortly thereafter, he was invited to join the faculty of the University of Judaism, where he taught rabbinic literature for some thirty years until a debilitating illness made it impossible for him to continue with his regular classes. Despite his illness, he continued to tutor individual students, as he had always done in the past, and devoted himself to collecting and editing over a hundred responsa of the Maramarosh community to shed light on x

FOR EWOR D

its life and piety. For most of the responsa, no dates were available, but judging from those for which there was a date, they were mainly written at the end of the nineteenth century or the first part of the twentieth, with a  few regarding the Shoah. Eleiser supplemented his analysis with an appreciation of the Jewish educational institutions of Maramarosh, as well as a  brief history of the growth and final destruction of its Jewish community. The latter is particularly important, since it is not readily available in most books dealing with the Shoah. This is a  posthumous publication, expressing the author’s deeplyfelt appreciation for the Jewish community of his youth, the piety and “Yiddishkeit” which shaped his life, and its simple people, who asked only to be able to live out their lives as Jews. Today Maramarosh is “Judenrein,” a  loss to the Jewish world and to the populations that remain within it. David Lieber, August 2006

xi

PREFACE

“Everything depends on luck, even the scroll in the ark,” says the Zohar. The Jews of Maramarosh were not lucky enough to have their history, their struggles, their travails recorded in a methodological, reliable way. We know that their everyday life was harsh and brutal, dominated by poverty and privation, but do not know how they coped with these limitations and how they affected their religious life. It was not the nature of the land they dwelled in that failed them—the land had a good climate, rain, and fertility, and was geographically well placed—rather, it was the human element, initiative, and drive that did not energize them adequately to take risks and venture. They seemed to be happy with the status quo, both religiously and domestically. Life looked much the same over the course of the years. They neither fought for nor desired change. The modern period shook some pillars, but the foundation remained the same. The Jews of Maramarosh, particularly in the villages, did not alter their lifestyles over the centuries between their arrivals and the end of the community. Until the destruction of the Jews of Maramarosh, it was possible to partly rectify the unavailability of their history by observing them, and even to undertake to write the history anew, in a way colored by the perspective of the present while trying to overcome the modern tendency to ignore what is dissimilar to the present. Now, however, that Hitler has destroyed the community and its inhabitants, and destroyed the possibility of writing an eyewitness account, the chance of retrieving their complete history is indeed meager. We are destined to live with the history of our forefathers in a half-forgotten state, though this is less true of the history of our recent past, which is still alive in the memories of the survivors. There is no dearth of survivor writers, and although they have the advantage of personal participation and freshness, as they are not trained historians xii

PR EFAC E

the outcome is often more record than history, more self-glorification than actual event. It is also important to note that one cannot deal with recent events without being somewhat grounded in what had happened before. And if the society is a religious society, one is not able to fathom it without knowledge of its religious customs and commitments. But to understand these customs and commitments, one must know their source and origin, and the concern displayed towards them. Some of them, if not all, are preserved in books written during and before the tragedy—but reading them in turn requires the knowledge to read them correctly, and to utilize them for the purpose of history. In brief, to write a recent history of Maramarosh Jewry, besides being a survivor and recording events first hand, and besides being sensitive enough to grasp the anguish of the sufferers, one also has to be knowledgeable of the literary sources that preceded the tragedy. I can think of no one more suitable to do this than Dr. Elieser Slomovic. He was born in a village, Slotfina, in the Carpathian mountains, not far from where I was born. Slotfina was steeped in religion, low in general education, and occupied almost entirely in eking out a living. The majority of the population was hasidic, which could lead to all kinds of internal quarrels; it was a source of division but in absence of other social stimuli also served as a means of social action. After the liberation, Dr. Slomovic absorbed himself in general education, pursued an academic career, and struck roots in America. But he did not forget his past: not only did he actively remember what happened, but he also diligently pursued the Jewish learning that most effectively connected him with his former life as a child, in the often maligned cheder. This is attested to by the many articles he wrote on Jewish topics. But what was burning in him most was the lack of a proper monument to the Jews of the region where he was born, Maramarosh. He knew that composing a proper history of Maramarosh Jewry from its conception was an almost impossible task: we do not have the required sources. But the writing of the more recent history is attainable, if not entirely at least partially, and to this project Dr. Slomovic devoted his last years. He brought to it his knowledge of responsa literature and his erudition in the historical literature connected with Maramarosh. He is unique in that: most historians do not have the ability to utilize this literature. He is a cautious observer, working painstakingly to draw out the truth. You can  almost feel his personality intruding into his research, soft, careful, xiii

DAV ID H A LI V NI

and meticulous. One gets the feeling that he is treading on holy ground, never forgetting whom he is describing. Writing this history was not for him a secular activity, competing with studying Torah, but a holy endeavor that deserved religious attention. He embodied a rare combination of awe and thoroughness, distance and closeness, pain and satisfaction. This is a scholarly and a religious book combined. We all, descendants of Maramarosh and beyond, owe a great debt to the author of this volume (and to his children, who have worked so hard to publish it), who took precious time away from his technical scholarship— he was a commendable Talmudic scholar—and devoted himself for some time to eternalizing the memory of Maramarosh Jewry. May he rest in peace and may his soul be bound together with the the souls of the many martyrs whose existences he so painstakingly recorded. David Halivni Tamuz 27, 5772 July 16, 2012

xiv

A PERSONA L NOT E

Elieser Slomovic was my older paternal cousin, named for the same grandfather I was. We lived a short distance from one another, he in Slotfina, Czechoslovakia, and I in Sighet, Romania, the two small cities separated by the river Tisza. Our families met only when Hungary occupied both regions in 1940. When in 1944 we arrived in Auschwitz, his younger brother Yanku and his older brothers were already there. They had arrived with an earlier transport, and it was Yanku who revealed to us the unimaginable horrors of the place. I met Elieser again years and years later in Los Angeles. He was already a renowned professor of Talmudic studies. I knew he was good, in fact both erudite and brilliant: his students told me so. They spoke about him with fervor and admiration. Reading his posthumous volume of commentaries and essays, I find that they often seem familiar to me; I understand them just as I love them. As I turn the pages, discovering more and more new thoughts and innovations, I keep on repeating to myself what a pity it was that we were geographically separated from one another. I would have loved reminiscing and studying together with him. Clearly, my cousin Elieser emerged as one of the great scholars of our time. In addition to being a scholarly work, this book is also a personal memoir. Known and little-known events fi ll its pages. Old and new antisemitism; the role of Fascist Hungary in Germany’s Final Solution; local violent hatred against Jews; the expulsion and assassination of foreign Jews in Kamenetz-Podolsk in the early 1940s; the deportation of all Jews to Auschwitz; the history of Maramarosh Jewry and its tragic end are here explored with care. Essays, childhood memories from the xv

ELIE W IE SEL

ghetto and the camps, fascinating responsa problems both timeless and new, deeply moving meditations on faith and suffering, despair and hope, reflections and descriptions: they are all in this remarkable book, which can be described as a rewarding quest for both intellectual enrichment and nostalgic remembering. I recommend it to readers everywhere: it is a true gift. And a blessing too. Elie Wiesel

xvi

A NOT E OF INT RODUCT ION

For over fifty years, Maramarosh has preyed on my mind. I  have been haunted by its memory since I  saw it for the last time on a  rainy day in October 1945. Th is book has provided a  catharsis for my obsession and fascination with my home of old. The writing has not been easy; rather, it has been like spending precious time with someone dying, someone whose existence is slowly ebbing away into oblivion. Looking back into the history that is Jewish Maramarosh—for it lives now only in history—I have been gripped by a  sense of mission: to add one more stone to the memorial of a community that clung tenaciously to its ancient religion and paid the price: a martyr’s fate. The structure of the book emerged from my attraction to the numerous responsa that originated in Maramarosh or were written elsewhere for its benefit. To the attentive reader, these documents breathe with life and vigor, and reading the queries lends a sense of presence and immediacy. Religion played a  vital role in the lives of the Jews of Maramarosh. Indeed, the religious experience was all-encompassing. Daily life was regulated by the authoritative Jewish Codes of Law. When issues arose that were not specifically dealt with in these Codes, questions were directed to known and respected rabbinic authorities, whose written responses thereby established binding precedents. Responsa were considered authoritative because the author always appealed to the revealed oral law. As a genre, responsa literature considers every facet of life a legitimate topic for inquiry. Thus, the questions selected for inclusion herein deal with aspects of simple piety, problems resulting from confl icts between Jewish Law and pragmatic reality, issues of Jewish-Gentile relations, antisemitism, and questions that could only arise in connection with the Holocaust. xvii

A NOT E OF I N T RODUC T ION

Since most responsa arise out of specific, practical concerns of the individual and community and address discrete questions of daily life, by their very nature they are fractional, depicting a kaleidoscope of mundane living. In order to lend a sense of cohesion and continuity, one must also depict the setting that shaped the lives of the people involved. With this in mind, I have included a historical and geopolitical overview of this very simple yet complex community. As an educator, I have had to make peace with both the virtues of and the problems engendered by the traditional yeshiva educational system. Against all odds and efforts to change it, the yeshivot of Maramarosh persisted and have since provided what is perhaps the region’s most outstanding and enduring contribution to the world at large. In an effort to expand the understanding of the world of Jewish Maramarosh, I have included an essay describing the complex issues surrounding education there. I make no claim to have written a definitive history of Maramarosh based on original research. Rather, reliance has been placed mostly on secondary sources, eyewitness reports, and personal experiences. The intention here is not to provide detailed records of individual communities, nor to set forth a catalogue of dates and events, but to tell the story of the larger Jewish community of Maramarosh—its origin, its development, and its ultimate fate. Over time, other authors have written about Maramarosh, and I have included some of their voices in an effort to reconfirm my own experience and memories. However, some of these writings are out of print and many are not available in English. I consider it urgent to share them because, like Maramarosh, many of these voices are also fading from memory. Often in Jewish history, the physical destruction of a community did not bring about its total extinction. Maramarosh is a case in point. While only a handful of Jews are now living in the whole region and there are no synagogues, no yeshivot, no rebbes, and no hasidim, there are the far-flung remnants of the community members of Maramarosh who, like Ezekiel’s dry bones, revived and built new lives for themselves. The resilience of the survivors, which enabled them to set down nourishing roots in strange climes, attests to the vitality of the individuals who were once part of this vanished community. Of the surviving children and grandchildren of Jewish Maramarosh, many have reached world-class pinnacles of achievement in various fields of endeavor: Nobel laureate Elie Weisel, the most celebrated survivor, universally acknowledged as the xviii

A NOT E OF I N T RODUC T ION

Jeremiah of the Holocaust, whose writings speak most eloquently about the human conditions of despair and hope, at every opportunity acknowledges his Maramarosh origin. The pre-eminent Talmud scholar of our generation, Professor David Halivni-Weiss, whose pioneering methods in rabbinic scholarship have opened new avenues to the understanding of talmudic and rabbinic literature, is the grandson of a dayan of Maramarosh Sighet. Another illustrious son of Maramarosh was Sir Robert Maxwell, whose efforts after the Second World War fostered the international exchange of ideas and dissemination of scientific discoveries. His endeavors in the field of publishing brought him world renown and recognition as a major figure of the twentieth century. It has been my good fortune that my life path and theirs should converge.

xix

1 T HE RESPONSA

The structure of this section is as follows: numbered questions are followed by their numbered answers. Each question, or Sh’elah, is followed by a  parenthetical statement that includes the date it was asked (or the acronym NDA, for No Date Available) and the name of the person to whom it was addressed. A  complete reference for each question and answer is found in the note following the parenthetical statement. Because these texts appeared in bound volumes prepared by the respondent or the respondent’s followers, the Sh’elot are often the respondent’s paraphrasing of the initial question, rather than the original text sent to the respondent, and some directly address the questioner in the questions themselves. The responsa can be quite long and involved; for the purposes of this volume, they have been paraphrased and summarized, with the respondent’s decision included in the summary.

3

I: PIETY Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Haim Zvi Teitelbaum)1 This regards a  certain Jew whose profession requires him to spend the whole day in the house of a  Gentile. The [Jewish] man has free time [which he can use] to study Torah. The problem is that the room [in which he works] is fi lled with images and crosses. The question is: is he allowed to carry any sefarim [books on religious subjects] there to study, so as not to waste precious time? Responsum 1 The issue of praying in a room full of Gentile religious objects was dealt with in an often quoted responsum by R. Yisrael Isserlin2 (1390-1460) and cited in the glosses to the Shulchan Aruch by R. Moses Isserlis.3 R. Isserlin notes that the ubiquity of these objects in and around [Gentile] houses makes it virtually impossible to avoid them and is, therefore, inclined to permit, under certain circumstances, prayer in a Christian inn. R. Teitelbaum [the respondent] finds additional support for leniency in the Talmudic statement, “ . . . was there not a  synagogue which ‘moved and settled’ in Nehardea and in it was a statue [of a king] and Rav, Shmuel, and the father of Shmuel used to go in there to pray?”4 He sees no reason for distinguishing between praying [the object of the sources] and studying Torah.5 1

2 3 4 5

Haim Zvi Teitelbaum (henceforth “H.Z. Teitelbaum”), Responsa Atzei Hayim (Sighet: 1939) #1, pp. 1-2. The responsum can be found in his Terumat Hadeshen, #6 Orach Hayyim (henceforth OH) 94:9. Talmud Bavli Rosh Hashana 24b. See David Hoff man, Responsa M’lamed L’ho’il (Frankfurt Am Main: 1922) #54, p. 49. 4

I: PIET Y

Based on the above, R. Teitelbaum suggested that the questioner search out a corner free of religious objects and engage in his studies. Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Moshe Grunwald)6 Your question pertains to the issue of setting up a regular routine for studying Torah. As is well known, our sages gave high priority to night study. It was said that a student acquires most of his wisdom during the [study done at] night. The question is, which part of the night is more conducive for study? Should one stay awake until he is seized by sleep [during the first part of the night], even though it will make it impossible to rise during the morning watch? Or, is it preferable to go to sleep early, after a short period of study, and rise for the morning watch? Responsum 2 R. Grunwald [the respondent] does not lose sight of the variety of individual preferences regarding this matter. Th is depends, he says, on  the habits a  person has formed since childhood. As far as the traditional sources are concerned, the author accentuates those which recommend midnight as the most propitious time for study and prayer. Th is indicates that one should commence study during the fi rst half of the night [and continue past midnight]. He is, of course, not oblivious to the numerous statements in the Talmud and medieval sources describing the “last watch” as the most beneficial time for study, prayer and contemplation.7 Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to H.Z. Teitelbaum)8 This regards a woman who is accustomed to lighting twenty-six candles every Friday evening. Because of her current [financial] situation, she is forced to light smaller candles. The questioner asks, inasmuch as the smaller candles do not last through the [Sabbath] meal, is she permitted 6

Moshe Grunwald (henceforth “Grunwald”), Responsa ‘Arugat ha-Bosem (Svaljava: 1936), Vol. 2 #1, pp. 1a-b.

7

See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Studying Torah 3:13. See also Tur Shulchan Aruch (henceforth Tur) OH #238.

8

See H.Z. Teitelbaum, #22, p. 18. 5

1. T HE R E SPONSA

instead to use fewer but larger candles? The total weight of the candles would not be affected by the change. Responsum 3 The basis of the responsum is from the Mishna:9 “If he said these two oxen shall be a  burnt offering and they suffered a  blemish [so that they were no longer eligible to be sacrifices] he may bring, if he so desires, one ox for the price of the other two. But Rabbi [Judah the Prince] forbids it.” In the subsequent discussion, the Gemara argues that Rabbi’s negation of the tradeoff is based on the notion that there is a significance in numbers, i.e., if all other things are equal, two is preferable to one. Application of this concept to the issue under discussion would result in a preference of more and smaller candles. Thus, the questioner would be able to preserve the number of candles she was accustomed to, but, inevitably, this would reduce the amount of light in the house on the Sabbath. R. Teitelbaum (the respondent in this case) argued that the underlying reason for lighting the candles on Friday evening is the promotion of a pleasant and harmonious atmosphere in the home. This is enhanced by the light of the candles, which makes the enjoyment of the Sabbath eve, especially the Sabbath meal, possible. By reducing the size of the candles, the woman may deprive her family of the Oneg Shabbat (the delight of the Sabbath), which is essential to Sabbath observance.10 This is a more compelling argument than the import of numbers. On this basis, R. Teitelbaum ruled that the primary concern is to extend the stay of light as much as possible by maintaining the size, if not the number, of the candles. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Moshe Schick)11 Th is question concerns a  paralyzed Jew who suffers from an illness commonly known as shlak [stroke]. He possesses all of his mental faculties; they are not affected by his illness. He has an only daughter who takes care of him. Th is daughter puts tefillin [phylacteries] on his arm and 9

Mishna Menahot 13:9, and Talmud Bavli Menahot 108b; see Rashi ad loc. s.v. gadol.

10

See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Shabbat 30:5-8, and Tur OH 263:1-4.

11

Moshe Schick (henceforth “Schick”), Responsa Maharam Schick (Sighet: 1904) OH #15, pp. 4a-b. 6

I: PIET Y

forehead every morning while he recites the proper benediction. Is what he does right? Responsum 4 This inquiry raises two legal questions. First, does the obligation to tie tefillin (phylacteries) pertain even when one is physically unable to tie? Second, may women, who are generally absolved from fulfi lling timebound commandments like tying tefillin, serve as agents for men who are fully obligated?12 According to Rabbi Schick, neither question poses a  serious legal difficulty in this case. He points out that the mitzvah (commandment) of wearing tefillin is fulfi lled not by the act of tying, but by the fact of having tefillin placed on one’s head and arm.13 With regard to the question of women’s lesser obligation, R. Schick cites, among other sources, a case in the Talmud in which a  woman’s tying her husband’s phylacteries was considered a meritorious act.14 Sh’elah 5 (June 21, 1911, addressed to Eliezer Deutsch)15 I [Eliezer Deutsch] received your inquiry, which I probably should not answer. Your father—the saintly scholar, may he live a  good and long life—is eminently competent to resolve all your questions since “nothing is hidden from him” (Dan. 4:6).16 However, I do not wish to refuse a request and shall, therefore, respond briefly. The issue is as follows: A  certain person purchased a  set of tefillin and, in accordance with the law, had them checked [by a qualified scribe]. After a while, it was found that the tefillin were originally defective and, consequently, invalid. The result is that the owner [of the tefillin] did not fulfi ll the commandment of binding tefillin daily from the date of the purchase. This omission was aggravated by the fact that, during this same 12

See OH 38:3 and 589:6 and the sources cited in B’er Hagolah ad loc.

13

See Rabbenu ‘Asher on Talmud Bavli Pesachim 7b for this distinction.

14

See Talmud Bavli Avodah Zarah 39a.

15

Eliezer Deutsch (henceforth Deutsch), Responsa Pri Hasadeh, vol. III (Paksh: 1906) #117, pp. 65a-b. This author, who resided in Hungary, was a frequent respondent to inquiries from Maramarosh.

16

The questioner is the son of the famed rebbe of Spinka (Maramarosh), R. Yitzchak Eisik Weiss (1875-1944). 7

1. T HE R E SPONSA

time, the owner was guilty of “taking God’s name in vain” when reciting the blessings pertaining to the commandment of binding tefillin. The questioner wishes to clarify whether the owner of the tefillin is obligated to atone for these two infractions. Responsum 5 R. Deutsch reaches the following conclusions: Since at the time of the purchase the tefillin were properly inspected, there can be no question of negligence for which atonement would be required. This is akin to the Torah reader and the many men who were called up to recite the blessing over a Torah that was found to have scribal errors. We do not impose an obligation of atonement on them either for the present infraction of not fulfi lling the mitzvah of reading the Torah or for the retroactive omission. It is also analogous to the person who eats beef that was not inspected for all eighteen categories of treifah (being unfit for consumption), but only for the health of the lung. If this beef was later found to be treifah, we do not impose atonement and we do not consider it an infraction against the laws of kashrut. In these and many other cases, there is no retroactive transgression. Furthermore, R. Deutsch concludes that not only is there no infraction of the commandment of binding tefillin but, because the owner complied with the requirement of the sages, God, as it were, validates the tefillin and considers the daily application a meritorious act. Sh’elah 6 (NDA, addressed to Shlomo Yehudah Tabak)17 A wagon driver came to inquire about penance for the following transgression: At dawn yesterday, he was traveling with a  [Gentile] caravan. During the morning hours, they passed a Jewish settlement and he wanted to pause for the morning prayers [in the local synagogue]. However, his co-travelers refused to wait for him. He was concerned about traveling alone because the road was risky, albeit not dangerous. He spent the whole day in the forest, failing to put on tefillin because he had not brought a pair of his own. In addition to penance, the questioner would like to know whether he is still suitable to be a shaliach tzibur (reader at communal services). 17

Shlomo Yehudah Tabak (henceforth “Tabak”), Responsa Teshurat Shai: Mahadura Tinyana (Sighet: 1915) #17, p. 8b. 8

I: PIET Y

Responsum 6 The first issue is the definition of the wagon driver’s status: was he a victim of circumstances or was he guilty of neglect and indolence? This question is resolved in favor of the wagon driver. The required penance—to purchase a  set of tefillin for a  needy boy about to become bar mitzvah— suggests that the transgression was not considered too weighty. Obviously, the wagon driver was sincere and willing to repent. After all, we know of his “sin” only by his own confession. This readiness to admit and correct wrong behavior qualifies the driver to lead the prayer services in his congregation.18 Sh’elah 7 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)19 Your question [relates to the following]: Are you obligated to obey your father who ordered you—under the authority of the biblical commandment to honor your father—not to immerse yourself in the ritual bath before the morning prayers, or even to perform the so-called “Ezra Immersion” [in  case of nocturnal emission] unless the water is warm [enough to prevent catching a cold]? You are in a quandary about whether or not to obey him. Responsum 7 Sefer Hasidim,20 the major work of the medieval German Jewish pietists, offers an apparent solution to this query. It holds that “ . . . a son who is aware of his parents’ aggravation about his [voluntary] fasting is forbidden to practice this kind of self-denial.” Despite this precedent, however, R. Grunwald asks the petitioner to continue to act in accordance with the prevailing custom regarding the “Immersion of Ezra.” He urges the petitioner to make an all-out effort to convince his parents of the importance of ritual immersion before the morning service. He quotes biblical and rabbinic sources (e.g., “He who obeys a commandment will come to no harm” [Eccl. 8:5], and “He who is strict with himself in regard to it [the Immersion of Ezra], his days and 18

See Talmud Bavli Hagigah 5a and Talmud Bavli Shavuot 12b (end); Rashi and Tos. ad loc.; cf. Magen Avraham to OH 527:6.

19

See Grunwald, vol. 2, #19, p. 18a-b.

20

Sefer Hasidim, ed. R. Margoliot (Jerusalem: 1957) #30, p. 256. For the importance of this work in determining halakha, read in its editor’s introduction pp. 3-6. 9

1. T HE R E SPONSA

years are prolonged [Talmud Bavli Berachot 22a]). From these, he assures the son that no harm to his health will result from the immersion in the cold waters of the ritual bath. Sh’elah 8 (December 25, 1903, addressed to Eliezer Deutsch)21 This regards a  young man who [recently] reached the age of military duty. He is aware of the fact that if he waits until the time of the draft, the army will take him for the usual three-year period, for he is a strong and healthy lad. On the other hand, if he enlists voluntarily, his tour of duty will be shortened to one year only. [This young man] also realizes that, while in the army, he will be compelled to desecrate the Sabbath and to eat prohibited food. (Halakha recognizes the distinction between an act performed under duress and one performed voluntarily.) The question here is whether the young man should volunteer for a one-year period or be coerced into a three-year tour of duty. Responsum 8 Rabbi Deutsch bases his responsum on the principle of ein l’mitzvah ‘elah mekomah v’shaatah, i.e., while fulfi lling a  mitzvah one must not consider the possible or even inevitable affect of one’s deed on future situations.22 Accordingly, when deciding on a proper course of action, the prospective soldier must concern himself with immediate effects rather than eventual consequences. He therefore urges the young man not to enlist for the one year of service but rather to delay his military service for as long as possible. By delaying, the young man eliminates any element of voluntarism from his service. Thus, the violations of Jewish law that will inevitably result from being a soldier will in no way have been of his choosing. R. Deutsch points out that fortuitous future events, like the sudden arrival of the Messiah or an abolition of the draft, may render the decision moot. Consequently, halakha and prudence counsel against voluntary enlistment.

21

Eliezer Deutsch, vol. I #38, pp. 17-18.

22

See Alfasi to Tamud Bavli Shabbat 134b and R. Nissim’s comment ad loc. 10

I: PIET Y

Sh’elah 9 (NDA, addressed to H.Z. Teitelbaum)23 This regards your question about a  soldier who was drafted into the National Guard. The question is about his tefillin. Is he permitted to carry them on the Sabbath with the rest of his equipment, or is it prohibited to desecrate the Sabbath for the sake of [fulfi lling the commandment] of putting on tefillin? During the week, the soldier has already failed once to fulfi ll this commandment—may the Merciful One protect us—because the tefillin were not at hand. Responsum 9 Mishna Rosh Hashana 4:8 and the subsequent talmudic discussion on that mishna clearly establish that one may not violate the prohibition against “carrying” on holidays [and Sabbath] in order to fulfi ll another mitzvah.24 On this basis, R. Teitelbaum forbade the soldier to carry his tefillin on the Sabbath. However, he did permit the soldier to solicit the help of a nonJewish comrade-in-arms in carrying them. Ordinarily, such a  request would also be considered a violation of the Sabbath law of shvut.25 However, in this extreme circumstance, the respondent favors asking a non-Jew for help as a viable solution to the problem.26 Sh’elah 10 (NDA, addressed to Yehudah Lev Zirelson)27 This regards pious young men who are soon to be conscripted into the military where they will be forced to eat treifah (forbidden) food. The question is twofold: 1) Anticipating the inevitable [eventually having to eat the army food], are these young men permitted to partake in non-kosher food upon their entry into the military, or does the law require that they hold out until their health is in danger; and 2) upon reaching that stage, are they obligated to recite the proper blessings upon partaking of this treifah food under conditions of stress?

23

See H.Z. Teitelbaum, #26, p. 22b.

24

See Talmud Bavli Rosh Hashanah 32b (end).

25

See Talmud Bavli Shabbat 152a and parallel sources.

26

See OH 307:5.

27

Yehudah Lev Zirelson, M’arkhei Lev (Kishinev: 1932) #42, pp. 31-32. 11

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 10 Ideally, these Torah-observant young men should follow in the footsteps of their ancestors—like Daniel and his companions—who, in order to stay clear of eating the royal [non-kosher] food, subsisted on vegetables [and the like] and were still able to maintain perfect health. However, as “The heart knows its own bitterness” (Prov. 14:10), so one is his own best judge when it comes to health. Consequently, upon feeling even a potentially threatening progressive weakening, one is allowed to eat non-kosher army food and is obligated to recite the proper blessing before eating as well as grace after the meal.28 Sh’elah 11 (NDA, addressed to Schick)29 I [Moshe Schick] received your letter, but due to my physical frailty and busy schedule, I am unable to respond to all questions, only the most important ones. Your correspondence certainly belongs in this latter category. Thus, I find myself obligated to answer. You wrote regarding the girls who comb their hair on the Sabbath. Anyone who sees [the girls] notices their well-groomed hair and knows that it was shaped and formed on the holy day of Sabbath. In your opinion, this flagrant act makes them “desecrators of the Sabbath in public” who, in the eyes of the halakha, should be considered apostates with all of the ramifications thereof. You base your conclusion on the view of one authority30 who holds that an act of violation of the Sabbath which is known to ten people, even though they did not directly witness the act, must be viewed as a  public violation. In the case of the girls, they should, in your opinion, also be considered apostates and their contact with wine should render it heathen wine and be forbidden.31 Responsum 11 R. Shick’s view of this matter is a lenient one. It is understandable that he, too, considers the girls [who comb their hair on Sabbath] to be Sabbath violators; some perform this behavior unintentionally [not knowing that combing the hair is a forbidden act], and others do it with full knowledge 28 29 30 31

See OH 204:9, 618:1, and the commentaries thereof; cf. Mishna Berurah ad loc. Schick, OH #128, pp. 39b-40. Shakh to Yoreh De’ah (henceforth YD) 157:4 s.v. Bifnei. See YD 124:8. 12

I: PIET Y

of the law. The blame for this, in the view of R. Shick, falls on the parents, who are responsible for their children’s education. The respondent notes that, in the opinion of many, the violation of a rabbinically prescribed law does not render one an apostate, even if the act is performed in public. But even if this were considered a  biblically prohibited act, since it was not performed in public one may not assume, ipso facto, that the hairdos were shaped in a  forbidden manner. There are numerous permissible ways of having one’s hair combed and shaped which these girls could have followed. To label them apostates or heathens and render the wine they touch as forbidden is a  vastly exaggerated reaction, according to R. Shick. Sh’elah 12 (NDA, addressed to Schick)32 [About a person] whose son became very ill and the person vowed to fast every Thursday for three years. Now, this person has grown weak and has developed a  gnawing fear that he may not be able to fulfi ll his vow. Thus, he is requesting an annulment [of the vow]. Can this be done? Should we not consider the fact that a vow uttered b’et tzarah [during a “time of affl iction”], as such, is irrevocable?33 Responsum 12 It is the view of R. Shick that, in this case, there is no need for annulment since the conditions of the vow were not realized: the son, we find, did not recover. If the conditions of the vow had been realized, annulment would be the proper course to follow. The fear of not being able to fulfi ll the vow combined with the physical impairment caused by the attempt would have been sufficient grounds for annulment. 34 Sh’elah 13 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)35 Question: A local woman fell ill and [as a token of piety] vowed not to wear a newly designed modern scarf, a design that is shunned by pious and modest women. 32

Schick, OH #291, p. 97.

33

See YD 228:15.

34

See YD 228:45 and Pitchei T’shuva #42 and #43; cf. YD 232:19. For a useful summary of the laws of vows and annulments, see J.D. Eisenstein, A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs (New York: 1917), 258-260.

35

See Tabak, #261, pp. 61-62. 13

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Now that she has recuperated, the woman is not certain whether she actually uttered the vow [or just made a mental note of it]. Are we authorized to grant formal dispensation of the vow since it was made for the purpose of performing a  mitzvah (commandment)? In such cases, many authorities consider the mental reservation tantamount to utterances.36 They also frown upon annulment of vows when the effect of such annulment will allow something that is rabbinically outlawed.37 Responsum 13 The situation described in the question presents a case of s’fek s’feikah (remote doubt)—a doubt about whether the person even uttered the vow— and, if she did, it is still doubtful that she followed the standard formula which is required for a proper vow. 38 R. Tabak dismisses the suggestion of the questioner that in matters of fulfi lling a mitzvah, a conscious decision, even if not actually pronounced, is considered binding and is beyond the scope of annulment. Furthermore, R. Tabak does not consider wearing the scarf an infraction of the commandment of nor shall you follow their ways (Lev. 18:3),39 and neither does he consider it to be not proper according to the law of the Jews.40 Therefore, it is the view of R. Tabak that annulment is the proper course. While both the efficacy of the vow and the need for dispensation is a matter of opinion, there is no doubt that, according to all authorities, the annulment will make it possible for the woman to wear the scarf. Sh’elah 14 (NDA, addressed to David Sperber) 41 The issue at hand is the following: a certain woman whose son became ill vowed, without her husband’s knowledge, to donate all her jewelry to the study of Torah (Talmud Torah). She entrusted you (the questioner), as rabbi of the town, with the jewelry.

36

Moshe Sofer (henceforth “Sofer”), Hatam Sofer (Vienna: 1895), YD 222.

37

See YD 228:15.

38

See YD 210:1, 214 and 215.

39

YD 188:1.

40

See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Marriage 24:12.

41

David Sperber (henceforth Sperber), Responsa ‘Afarkast’a D’anya, vol. I (Satu Mare: 1940) #183, pp. 151-53. 14

I: PIET Y

When the husband learned of what his wife had done, he refused to rescind the vow [a prerogative assigned to him in the Torah]. He now claims that the money [obtained] from the sale of the jewelry should be spent on his nephew, who was recently orphaned and has no means of support other than the small assistance he receives from his uncle. The boy is in need of education, clothing, and shoes. Is [the orphan] entitled to the money, or is the husband obligated to donate the whole sum to the local Talmud Torah [religious school for poor children]? Responsum 14 Here are some of the issues raised by R. Sperber: What is the meaning of the phrase “Talmud Torah” in the vow? Does it mean the study of Torah in the general sense, [thus] including and legitimizing the support of the orphaned boy? Or do we understand the phrase “Talmud Torah” to be the community-supported religious school for poor children? This latter interpretation might exclude the orphan from receiving special treatment. Then, there is the question of intent. The law states that in matters of privately uttered vows, it is the intent of the person vowing, not the meaning of the words of the vow, that are of the greatest significance. In making a decision, one should consider the fact that, in matters of assistance, family members have primacy over non-family. Additionally, there is the question of priority. Does the need of the many [the school] override the individual case [the orphan]? After analyzing these issues, R. Sperber suggests that the questioner, who is the spiritual leader of the town and who is also in charge of the local Talmud Torah and who was entrusted with the jewelry, use his own judgment and act in the manner which will benefit both the school and the orphan.42 Sh’elah 15 (NDA, addressed to Shimon Grunfeld) 43 You asked for my views on the following matter: There is, currently, a  large contingent of soldiers stationed in your town. These soldiers regularly draw water from the [public] wells for drinking after meals and for cleaning their dishes. 42 43

See YD 217:48 and 218:1 and the standard commentaries. Shimon Grunfeld, Responsa Maharshag, vol. II (Jerusalem: 1980), 38-39. 15

1. T HE R E SPONSA

How shall you go about readying the wells for the upcoming holiday of Passover? Are you required to completely empty the wells and have them thoroughly cleaned? This will present a  problem because there is a  great shortage of laborers due to the ongoing war. In fact, this solution may not solve the problem because there is the possibility that the soldiers may be stationed here throughout the holiday and would continue to draw water from the wells with their hametz [not useable for Passover] dishes. You wish to know my opinion in the matter. Responsum 15 R. Grunfeld considers various circumstances and offers these options, all of which he considers appropriate: Should the soldiers leave town before the holiday, there will not be a need to clean the wells. The wells’ fitness would be assured because of the notion that we are dealing with “a doubtful rabbinic prohibition” (against the existence of the smallest unit of hametz) and, as such, leniency should be applied.44 In fact, this situation presents us with a “double doubt”: 1) uncertainty regarding the presence of actual hametz in the soldiers’ dishes, and 2) the possibility that any real hametz, if present, was totally eliminated. In cases of “double doubt” relating to a  rabbinic edict, leniency is certainly the proper course. If it appears that the army will maintain its presence in the town during Passover and that the soldiers will continue drawing water from the well, the author suggests that before the holiday begins, the Jewish inhabitants prepare all the water they will need for drinking and cooking during the holiday by fi ltering it in order to ascertain that no hametz is present. There is no need to prepare water for any other purpose [like ritual washing, watering plants, or water for cattle]. Furthermore, the author suggests that those Jews who lack necessary containers for storing the water should take their water from the local river, despite the remote possibility that some hametz may exist in the river because the Gentile population also draws its water there. Individuals who are poor and live far from the river find themselves bish’at had’hak (in an emergency situation). Such being the case, they are granted permission to draw their water from the wells during the holiday. 44

See OH 447:1 and commentaries ad loc.; cf. B’er Heitev #1-2. 16

I: PIET Y

Sh’elah 16 (1918, addressed to Shimon Grunfeld) 45 Your letter reached me in time. In truth, your inquiry should be directed to the local [appointed] rabbi, not to a  “layman” who does not occupy an official chair [of instruction]. Nevertheless, because your question deals with an issue that potentially holds great benefits to the poor, I decided to respond to your inquiry. Th is issue is of especial concern because of the difficult times we live in, with a [world] war raging around us. Please be sure not to act upon the matter unless you obtain the approval of your local [appointed] rabbi. Your question is, on Passover, is one allowed to consume oil produced from sunflower seeds? [It is known that] some authorities have serious misgivings about the consumption of this product because of its “link” to the leguminous family [kitniyot]. Consequently, those of us who do not eat kitniyot on Passover are also prohibited from consuming oil made from sunflower seeds.46 In these difficult times when there is a great shortage of oil, [permission to use] the product in question would be of great benefit to the poor, even to the middle class. Prohibiting it would force them to eat dry matzah for the whole eight days of Passover. Responsum 16 R. Grunfeld notes that he has dealt with this issue on previous occasions wherein he sided with those authorities having a lenient approach to the matter. He recalls the view of a  well-known authority of the eighteenth century47 who questions the restriction against using kitniyot on halakhic grounds and considers the ban to be overly restrictive. The same authority stated that he would revoke the ban if he could. In his well-reasoned responsum, R. Grunfeld concludes that prohibitions which do not have talmudic antecedents, even when they are universally accepted [among both Ashkenazim and Sephardim], were often abolished because of economic hardship. Certainly, the prohibition

45

Shimon Grunfeld, vol. III #43, pp. 57-58.

46

On this issue see Jehuda Feliks, “Legumes,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 12, 610-611 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). Cf. OH 653:1-2 and the standard commentaries there.

47

R. Yakov Emden (Yavetz), 1697-1776. 17

1. T HE R E SPONSA

against legumes, which is observed only by Ashkenazim, can be suspended in a time of dire need and great poverty. Moreover, the author argues, there was never a claim made that the restriction against sunflower oil won general acceptance even by the Ashkenazic population. In the district of Maramarosh, for example, where the population is generally very poor and cannot afford the price of goose fat, sunflower oil was used for years before the war broke out and nobody objected. Based on these and other arguments, the author unequivocally pronounces sunflower oil fit for Passover consumption. Sh’elah 17 (NDA, addressed to Eliezer David Grunwald) 48 The question you were asked [by one of your constituents] is the following: During the intermediate days of the past Passover holiday, the questioner was visited by a hungry Gentile soldier who requested to be fed [cooked] food. The Jew complied with the request and fed the hungry man, who then offered a small sack of flour and [a bag of] barley in exchange. The Jew refused the offer, stating that these products are considered “leaven” and are forbidden during Passover. Nevertheless, the soldier departed without taking the products with him. The Jew wishes to know whether he must dispose of the “leaven” or whether the flour and barley are fit for consumption now that the holiday is over. Responsum 17 The Shulchan Aruch stipulates that “in case a  Gentile offers a  gift to a Jew [even] on the last day of Passover, he is not permitted to accept. He must not exhibit a  willingness to acquiesce by his actions.” The issue is whether what transpired between the Jewish host and the Gentile soldier should be considered a  “mutually agreed-upon transaction.” R. Grunwald tends to view it as such. However, in disagreement with some known authorities, the respondent distinguishes between the barley and the flour; he permits the consumption of the latter but not the former, which must be disposed of.49 48

Eliezer David Grunwald, Responsa Keren L’David (Satmar: 1919) OH #125, pp. 143-44.

49

On the general issue of owning hametz on Passover see Rabinowicz, Harry. “Hamez, Sale of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred 18

I: PIET Y

Sh’elah 18 (NDA, addressed to Yekutiel Yehudah Teitelbaum)50 Regarding your question: In the past, a majority of the [Jewish] population was accustomed to fattening their geese by force-feeding them. In time, a number of [pious] members of the community founded a  society [for the study] of Mishna and resolved [among other things] to cease engaging in this [questionable] practice. This resolution, however, was not unanimously accepted and some members voiced objections to this provision. Nevertheless, all members of the society agreed not to partake in any meal served by those who did not submit to the new regulation. This brought about a change in the behavior of the people. Thus, the entire community ceased force-feeding, a practice which lasted 25 years.51 Finally, a  [founding] member of the Mishna society—one who originally opposed the inclusion of the prohibition against force-feeding in the charter of the society—broke ranks and began to fatten his geese by force-feeding them. This generated a chain reaction amongst the “common people” of the community, who in following suit “broke the fence” without consulting the [rabbinic] authorities and without “a supposition for retraction.”52 Split into two camps, the community was overtaken by hatred and divisiveness. It was therefore agreed that I  would look into the problem and render a decision by which all parties promised to be governed.

Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 8, 303 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). See, too, OH 448:2-3 and commentaries. 50

See Yekutiel Yehudah Teitelbaum (henceforth “Teitelbaum”), Responsa Avnei Tzedek (Lemberg: 1885), YD #93, pp. 82a-b.

51

The issue of force-feeding fowl, especially geese, was a divisive one. The problem is that the food forced down the throat, if not properly softened, may cause injury to the esophagus. Most Central European authorities tolerated the consumption of the meat of fattened fowl, while Eastern European rabbis (hasidic and nonhasidic) were opposed (some very strongly) to the practice. For a brief but thorough treatment of the problem, see Benjamin Adler, Kashrut u’Treifut Ba-of (Jerusalem: 1979), 164-70 (Hebrew).

52

This refers to the declaration before a court which determines whether the vow was taken under a misapprehension. See YD 214 and 228:31-35. 19

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 18 The main issue, as it is viewed by R. Teitelbaum, is neither the approval of nor the injunction against the eating of meat from force-fed fowl. The rabbi—one of the most influential hasidic leaders of Hungary—leaves no doubt about his views on the subject. He is firmly opposed to force-feeding and urges the community which posed the inquiry not to tamper with the original enactment, but to continue the ban on force feeding. The main theme of the responsum is the judiciousness of changing a  provision originally enacted with the purpose of promoting a  higher standard of observance. He notes that according to most authorities, from the early period until this day, no change can be made to such an enactment.53 Sh’elah 19 (NDA, addressed to David Sperber)54 Regarding the reciting of the blessing Shehechiyanu [said on special and joyous occasions] when a person reaches the age of 70, is it your view that on that day the full text of the blessing should be uttered, including the Name and the attributes of Kingship? [The full text reads: “Praised are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, for granting us life, for sustaining us, and for helping us to reach this day.”] Responsum 19 R. Sperber notes the uniqueness of this blessing and its wide application. He also stresses the fact that the recitation of the blessing on one’s seventieth birthday is recommended by a  well-known and authoritative scholar of the seventeenth century.55 He is nevertheless reluctant to classify the seventieth birthday as a joyous occasion. Our sages approached the terminal years with fear and trepidation; to them, old age was a time of reflection on death and judgment, and not of rejoicing. While he withholds consent on the reciting of the blessing, the author does consider the special thanksgiving meal on the occasion of a birthday to be a religious ceremony, because it has a talmudic antecedent.56

53

See YD 228:15.

54

David Sperber, vol. I #123, pp. 302-303

55

Yair Bachrach, Responsa Havat Yair (New York: 1964) #237, pp. 123-124.

56

See MK 28a. 20

I: PIET Y

Sh’elah 20 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)57 The following is the question which you directed to me: “Is one permitted to attend the performances of the [visiting] circus where there are strange creatures and animals on view?” There are people in your community, upright and pious, who look forward to the possibility of pronouncing the proper benediction upon seeing the “strange creatures.”58 Responsum 20 There is no scarcity of statements in the Talmud decrying visits to the circus and similar institutions, and it seems that R. Grunwald quotes them all. He concludes his brief responsum with an exhortation to refrain from attending, stating that he who attends a  performance of the circus may violate a biblical command.59 Sh’elah 21 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)60 From your letter I note that your son gave you an account of my advice to him regarding his wife’s predisposition to [miscarriage]. I suggested to him that she make a new Torah cover [for their synagogue] to replace the old one, and that she then use the old Torah cover to wrap around her belly [as a protective measure against miscarriage]. You are startled to hear this since, in your opinion, the exchange will cause a shift in the status of the (old) cover from the holy to the mundane.61 In your view the change of covers is allowed solely in cases where the health of the mother is in danger [which is not the case here]. Responsum 21 R. Teitelbaum insists on the legitimacy of this popular remedy.62 He notes that the sanctity of the synagogue and its ritual objects is rabbinically 57

See Grunwald, vol. I #39, p. 30b.

58

The blessing reads: Praised are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who varies the aspect of your creatures.

59

See Talmud Bavli Shabbat 149a (end).

60

Y.Y. Teitelbaum, OH #13, pp. 4a-b.

61

For the principle of “one should enhance, not lessen, the sanctity” and its application see OH 153, Magen Avraham ad loc. #14, as well as OH 154:3-8.

62

See Tabak, #135, pp. 30b-31a, for a  similar responsum. The popularity of the “remedy” is very much apparent in both responsa. 21

1. T HE R E SPONSA

prescribed. This fact, in itself, is sufficient to make the exchange permissible even when the medical benefits are not readily apparent. Moreover, the performance of the commandment of “populating the earth,” which is the basis for a license even to sell a Torah, must be taken into consideration. In addition, the prevalence of the usage of the cover as a remedy has its origin in the oldest traditions and is universally accepted. R. Teitelbaum rules that the sanctity of the cover should not prevent its usage by the desperate women who are merely exchanging one cover for another.63 Sh’elah 22 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)64 This regards the question, is it permissible for a woman to wear slacks [under her dress] in the winter for protection against the cold [weather]? Responsum 22 R. Teitelbaum’s answer is unequivocally in the affirmative. He bases his ruling on the prevalent view held by most authorities that the biblical injunction stating that “a woman must not put on a man’s apparel” applies solely to cases where the woman is dressed entirely in men’s clothing and wishes to impersonate a man. In addition, R. Teitelbaum’s own investigation convinced him that the slacks women customarily wear for protection against the cold weather are unlike men’s apparel.65 He notes that the women of Hungary and of Poland, even the most pious ones, wear slacks, and no one voices any objection. However, the rabbi castigates in the strongest terms those women who constantly wear men’s hats or men’s coats. It seems to him that the intention of these women is to impersonate the opposite sex. Sh’elah 23 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald) 66 You are asking for my view regarding the following event: A member of your synagogue wanted to light a candle in memory of the departed souls [of his family], but he did not own a proper candleholder.

63

See Talmud Bavli Megillah 26b-27a.

64

Y.Y. Teitelbaum, YD #72, p. 75.

65

See Bach to Tur YD 182 and Taz to YD 182:5.

66

Grunwald, OH #170, p. 136b. 22

I: PIET Y

Instead, during the holiday he placed the candle in a potato, which he had prepared for this purpose by boring a hole in it. Several members of the synagogue strongly objected to this method and claimed that the act constituted a  violation of the sanctity of the holiday. You, on the other hand, see no clear violation since the law against making a guma (indentation),67 which is a derivative of “plowing,” does not apply to foodstuff. Responsum 23 Rabbi Grunwald rejects the questioner’s argument and does view the man’s actions as a  violation of the sanctity of the holiday. The making of a  hole in a  fruit or vegetable with the intention of “constructing” a candleholder is certainly to be classified as “building.”68 It is interesting to note that a well-known disciple of R. Grunwald limits the application of this responsum to areas like Maramarosh, where poverty was rampant and one frequently saw potato “candleholders.” He calls attention to the fact that the responsum was dispatched to Maramarosh, where the disciple claims to have seen many such candleholders.69 Responsum 24 (1914, written by Yoel Teitelbaum)70 [A responsum regarding the formulation of by-laws for a  new beit midrash (house of study and prayer).] [Excerpt:] There is another issue which I  want to bring to your attention. Because of our sins, we are witnessing a  new phenomenon: [married] women who leave some hair [visible] on the forehead outside of the headcover. This infraction wasn’t even mentioned in the by-laws [previously] because I  did not think it needed special mention. Now, however, it comes to my attention that this abomination is widespread. In my opinion, this is even worse than wearing a wig. The severity of this transgression is brought home to us by the Hatam Sofer.71 He cites a passage

67

See OH 314:1 and commentaries. See also Magen Avraham to OH 498 #32.

68

Cf. the sources quoted in the question.

69

See Deutsch, 96-97.

70

Yoel Teitelbaum, Responsa Divrei Yoel (Brooklyn: 1980) #19, pp. 463-466.

71

Sofer, vol. III, OH #35. See also R. Moshe Feinstein, Responsa Igrot Moshe, vol.  I (New York: 1960), Even Ha’ezer (henceforth EH) #58, pp. 145-149. 23

1. T HE R E SPONSA

from the Zohar (the Book of Splendor, the basic kabbalistic work),72 which contains a  very strong admonition against viewing even a  single hair of a [married] woman. According to this source, the effects of this immorality are hunger and deprivation, delinquency [of offspring], and many other calamities—may the Merciful protect us. Therefore, I  implore you to incorporate this into your by-laws. Furthermore, I wish to add the following instructions: first, you should search [out] whether there are amongst you women who wear this kind of hair in any shape or form. If such women do exist and they refuse to submit to this ruling, please let me know. Perchance I will be able to convince them that they should remove this evil from their house and that they should have mercy and prevent the punishment which their action can bring upon them. It should also be stipulated in the bylaws that no woman should enter the women’s section of the synagogue if she has even one [of her natural] hairs showing. The leader of the congregation must act with full authority to remove such persons [from the synagogue]. Analysis of Responsum 24 This responsum was written by a  young rabbi from the small town of Orsheva who was destined to become the famed rebbe of Satmar. It addresses the members of a  newly established beit midrash who were in the process of formulating by-laws for the new institution. The responsum reflects the young rabbi’s views on tzniut (modesty), and its purpose was to ensure that these views would be incorporated into the statutes of the beit midrash. It is evident from the rabbi’s language that the responsum was  not solicited. In his capacity as rabbi of the community and mentor of the beit midrash, he felt that his opinions and sentiments should receive serious consideration. The Satmar Rebbe-to-be was 27 years old when he wrote this responsum. In his youth, the man who was to establish the hasidic community of Williamsburg and who became the spiritual mentor of the fanatically religious and anti-Zionist Neturei Karta already exhibited religious zeal and extremism.73 72

Sofer, 125b-126.

73

The notion that married women exposing their hair constitutes an immodest act was emphatically endorsed by the rabbinic establishment of Maramarosh. It is the temper of R. Teitelbaum’s responsum that makes it noteworthy. 24

I: PIET Y

Sh’elah 25 (NDA, addressed to Mordekhai Brisk)74 Some fl ighty women have let their fingernails grow [to an extraordinary length] and refuse to cut them before immersing themselves in the mikvah (monthly ritual bath). We cannot take strict measures against them because there is a strong possibility that they may forego immersion altogether. How shall we deal with this case? Responsum 25 This seemingly simple question spawned a sizable (22 densely printed oversized columns) and erudite responsum. In the process of clarifying the diverse issues involved, the author analyzes numerous halakhic principles and their applications to the question. Some of the salient issues dealt with are: should oversized fingernails be considered hazizot (intervening foreign objects which void the efficacy of the ritual immersion),75 or extensions of the female anatomy with the purpose of enhancing a  woman’s beauty? Is the prohibition against long fingernails rooted in custom, in which case it cannot be repealed, or is it halakha, which may be re-examined? Then there is the question of yielding to the threat made by the women. R. Brisk points to the ominous ramifications which may result from abdicating authority in the face of intimidation. After examining these and related issues, R. Brisk rules, in spite of his personal aversion to the actions of the “fl ighty” women, that if their leadership, by insisting they cut their nails, will cause them to make good on their threat and violate the biblical commandment of family purity, the leadership must grant their request and allow them to perform ritual immersion, even with long fingernails. However, in order to thwart further attempts by potential “rabble rousers,” these women should be treated with contempt and scorn. In this way, others will be discouraged from defying halakhic authority.

74

Mordekhai Brisk (henceforth “Brisk”), Responsa Maharam Brisk, vol. II (Tashnad: 1942) #90, pp. 94-104.

75

See Encyclopedia Talmudit (henceforth ET) XVI, pp. 2-22, on the various rules regarding hazizah. 25

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 26 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)76 The question: a man arrived in our town from Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) who claims to have the power to prognosticate. Both Jews and Gentiles frequent his place for answers to their questions and solutions to their problems. They inquire about family matters, matches for their daughters, health and sickness issues, and travel plans. To function as a  medium, the man uses a  small, three-legged table under which he places a  plate. Inscribed on each of the two sides of the plate are the Hebrew and Latin alphabets. Five children are stationed around the table with their hands placed simultaneously upon it. [The way the medium works is as follows:] The man asks the questions and the table “responds” by raising a leg, which points to the letters of the alphabet that spell the answer. Thus, the man performs deeds which are beyond human understanding. I have also heard that, prior to activating his medium, the man attends a mikvah (ritual bath), following his immersion with the recital of selected psalms. He claims that his successful prognostication is based on years of experience and the wisdom and intellect which he acquired through his studies with a saintly and God-fearing scholar in Eretz Yisrael, and not through magic, witchcraft, or incantations. The man also claims that many reputable scholars, pious rabbis living in Israel, engage in this perfectly legitimate activity. Responsum 26 One who engages the services of a diviner or soothe-sayer defies the biblical injunction of “You must be wholehearted with your Lord” (Deut. 18:13). He who preaches any of these illicit activities causes others to break the law.77 While early authorities differ on what constitutes divination, it seems to the respondent that the performance described in this inquiry falls within the category. Furthermore, the man’s attempt to “protect” himself by reciting various psalms indicates a belief in the existence of demonic powers which he may unleash during his performance. His action, as well as the actions of those who engage his services, are banned by all major codes.78

76

Tabak, Mishneh Torah #129, pp. 60a-b.

77

See YD #179.

78

Ibid., and standard commentaries. 26

II: HASIDUT Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to H.Z. Teitelbaum)1 [I was asked the following question:] The villages which were within the boundaries of the city [of Sighet] are now [due to the political situation] cut off from her. They are now ruled by different sovereigns. From time immemorial, [Jews living in the villages and towns] regularly came to the city to pray during the holidays, especially during the High Holidays. They also came for special Sabbaths to listen to sermons by the rebbe. The sermons contained messages for pious and righteous Jews who resided in the city. The government has now issued passports which make crossing the border possible and allows the people to come to the city. However, prior to crossing the border, the passport must be stamped [by a  non-Jewish official]. Is it allowed [on the Sabbath and holidays] to hand over the document to the official so he can do with it as he wishes? Responsum 1 This and similar responsa address an issue which was of great concern to the Jews living in the northern part of Maramarosh. The establishment of the new republic of Czechoslovakia meant that Jews residing within its borders were separated from their brothers and sisters south of the Tisza River. In addition to suffering the separation of families and economic hardship, the Jews of Czechoslovakia were simultaneously severed from their spiritual roots, since the hasidic courts in Sighet and Oradea Mare (Nagy Varad) were located on the Romanian side of the border.2

1

H.Z. Teitelbaum, #23, pp. 19-20.

2

The latter was the site of the Vishnitz court. 27

1. T HE R E SPONSA

R. Teitelbaum, the famed spiritual leader of the Sighet dynasty, analyzes the issue thoroughly, and his conclusions may be summarized as follows: inasmuch as the “labor” involved may be classified as shvut (which is rabbinically prohibited),3 and considering the fact that the spiritual wellbeing of thousands was at stake, it was permitted to have one’s passport stamped by non-Jewish border officials. However, this authorization was granted solely for the purpose of participation in religious activities like those mentioned in the question.4 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Shalom Mordekhai Ha-Kohen Shvadron)5 [This is a query] regarding [the permissibility of] sending a telegram to the rebbe [on Sabbath] with a request for intercession. Responsum 2 Almost all hasidim believe that their rebbes are endowed with a special aptitude for efficacious prayer and intercession on behalf of the sick, the poor, and all those in need of help. The Maramarosh hasid was no exception. He, like all hasidim, believed that the rebbe had the capacity to alter any adverse decree which may have been pronounced in heaven against a supplicant. In order to bring the rebbe’s attention to the hasid’s predicament, the latter would provide the rebbe with a kvitel (i.e., a list of items which needed to be addressed). Help was most frequently requested in regard to family problems, economic hardships, and various ailments and infirmities. Sometimes the request was limited to practical advice, but most often the petitioner asked for the rebbe’s “direct intervention.” To facilitate his supplication, the hasid provided the rebbe with his name and the name of his mother. This bold question was written by a  well-known and erudite hasid of the Vishnitzer rebbe and was prompted by an ill petitioner who could not communicate directly with the rebbe due to Sabbath laws. 3

See OH 307:5 and the standard commentaries.

4

For the key passages pertaining to the decision, see OH 306:11 and 307. An identical inquiry was directed to R. Haim Eliezer Spiro (1868-1937), the famed rabbi of Mukačevo (Munkács). For an interesting comparison, see his Responsa Minhat Eliezer (New York: 1976) #19, p. 19.

5

Shalom Mordekhai Ha-Kohen Shvadron (henceforth Shvadron), Responsa Maharsham, vol. II (New York: 1961) #225, pp. 13a-b. 28

II: H A SIDU T

The respondent notes that in the opinion of most contemporary decisors, writing and sending a  wire through a  non-Jew involves, at the least, rabbinically prohibited labor, and therefore no permission can be granted.6 Nevertheless, the author points to the unshakable faith of the hasidim in the healing powers of the rebbe. Th is fact, he claims, renders the situation as pikuah nefesh (the duty of saving all endangered lives), and in such situations all laws, even those biblically ordained, must be suspended. In his lenient ruling on the query, the author cautions that the license to have a wire dispatched on the Sabbath is limited to cases where the efficacy of the rebbe’s intercession was previously established and demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt.7 Sh’elah 3 (April 17, 1894, addressed to Grunwald)8 Regarding your inquiry about a recently acquired loaf of bread, one of the twelve customarily placed on the Shabbat table of his holiness the holy rebbe of Belz, may his merits protect us. The hallah (Sabbath loaf) is more precious to you than anything else and you wish to know whether it is permissible to “sell” [conditionally] this loaf with the rest of the hametz (leaven) [and repurchase it after Passover]. Responsum 3 This responsum is dated a short time after the passing of the popular rebbe of Belz, R. Yehoshua Rokeach (1825-1894), who had a  sizeable following in Maramarosh. The questioner came into possession of one of the twelve Sabbath loaves placed on the rebbe’s table one Sabbath. The custom of placing twelve loaves of bread on the rebbe’s table remains to this day. To the questioner,

6

See OH 307:18, 22; 328:2, 10, 12, 14, 17, and the commentaries thereof.

7

See also Yehudah Yoel Deutsch, Mishnat Beit Abba (New York: 1980), 83-84. This erudite collection consists of a compilation of writings of three generations of well-known rabbis and scholars from the town of Ganitch in northern Maramarosh. In addition to his own contributions to the volume, Deutsch, as author-editor, supplied valuable notes to the writings of his ancestors. In numerous ways, this book is an invaluable source for scholars and laymen alike.

8

Grunwald, vol. II #112. 29

1. T HE R E SPONSA

the hallah is a treasure never to be surrendered, and its sentimental value was significantly enhanced after the passing of the rebbe. However, with the advent of Passover, the questioner faced the problem of temporarily disposing of the loaf, which was naturally classified as hametz (leaven). Can the solution be found in the conditional sale of the leaven, in which case the Gentile “buyer” will re-sell it to the former owner after the Passover holiday?9 The respondent rejects an earlier ruling which allowed the temporary placing of the hallah into the possession of a non-Jew. Instead, he offers a  solution in the spirit of the talmudic statement, “Since one religious duty has been performed with it, let us perform with it another.”10 His suggestion was to utilize the rebbe’s hallah in the performance of the mitzvah of “burning the leaven” on the day before Passover. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)11 This regards your inquiry about the following: in a case where no other funds are available, is it permissible to use funds set aside for charity instead for the purpose of visiting the rebbe? Responsum 4 The respondent is of the opinion that to be in the presence of one’s master, if indeed he is a  truly righteous person, is a  very lofty mitzvah and is considered by Maimonides to be one of the 613 biblical commandments.12 This act of piety is very highly praised by the sages, especially if the purpose of the visit is to foster “fear of heaven” and “the way of God.”13 The question, however, is whether visiting the rebbe, even for the loftiest of reasons, overrides the great mitzvah of tzedakah. While there is no unanimity among scholars regarding the issue, the respondent leans toward granting permission to use the charity money for the purpose

9

For the laws relevant to this question, see OH 448:5 and the standard commentaries.

10

Talmud Bavli Berachot 39b (end) and Shabbat 117b; cf. Deutsch, 82-83.

11

Ibid., YD #220, p. 154a-b.

12

Mishneh Torah, the Book of Knowledge, 6:2.

13

Talmud Bavli Berachot 63b (end) and others. 30

II: H A SIDU T

of performing another mitzvah, especially in cases in which the donor’s spiritual well-being is concerned.14 Responsum 5 (January 26, 1870, written by Schick)15 [This is a  responsum advising the population of a  certain town of Maramarosh of dire consequences if the inhabitants of the town do not cease abusing their local rabbi. It is not in response to a Sh’elah.] The handwriting on a flying scroll reached me during the past week. What I heard made my insides quake. In it [I heard] the sound of “archers” who provoked a  quarrel with your duly elected rabbi, a  man who has occupied the seat of judgment faithfully and truthfully for the past fifteen years. Now members of your town, who are obligated to respect and honor their rabbi, have risen against him, turning his honor into shame. This they have done by distorting his statements regarding the Rebbe of Vishnitz. They claim that he spoke disrespectfully about the Rebbe. For this [alleged] wrongdoing, the rabbi and his followers have been ostracized and banned. The rabbi is now pleading with the congregation to bring this matter before an agreed upon Bet Din (religious court), but he is not being heard. This [matter] has been conveyed to me by several trustworthy members of your community. [It seems to me that] you are acting as if the world we live in is one of lawlessness and anarchy. Even though it is written, “Hear the causes between your brothers” (Deut. 1:16) [indicating that issues should be resolved locally],16 nevertheless, one dares not stand on the sidelines and watch a  rabbi being publicly disgraced by people who have turned against [his] authority. I appeal to you, the holy community of [left nameless], how long will the sword devour and the fire consume? What good are these bans, ostracisms, and excommunications? They certainly do not bring honor to your saintly rebbe, may he live a long life. I appeal, therefore, for peace and harmony. Surely you are God [-fearing] people. Please look to the rock you were hewn from. [I am sure that] all of you wish to do what God demands of you, and if one goes astray God knows

14

See YD 249:1 and commentaries ad loc., especially B’er Heitev.

15

Schick, YD #219, p. 75.

16

See ET III, p. 153. 31

1. T HE R E SPONSA

the thoughts of everyone and penetrates the heart of each person. Your rabbi, the light of the Diaspora, shouts and roars publicly that he honors and respects your saintly rebbe, may he live a long life, and it is far from him to impugn his honor. And if [all the public clamor] does not satisfy you, then the proper way to handle the matter is to appear before a  mutually agreed-upon court for arbitration, where the resolution of the issue will be accepted by both parties. And if you refuse to abide by this, then I am ready and willing to join other well-known rabbis in a [rescue mission, to rescue the victim] from his oppressor. All those who heed our call, may blessings come upon them. The words of one who looks out for your benefit and for peace. Analysis of Responsum 5 The style of this responsum is in character with its theme: an urgent appeal to the community of Borsha, one of the largest in Maramarosh, for tolerance and an admonition against it for persecuting its rabbi. The cause for this mistreatment was the rabbi’s outspoken opposition to the glorification of the Rebbe of Vishnitz as the long-awaited Messiah. The responsum is replete with zealous reproaches and exhortations,17 with appeals to the conscience and threats of herem (excommunication). This controversy was a cause celebre and generated strong feelings on both sides.18 It should be noted that in order to protect the reputation of the large community of Borsha, the name of the community was not given in the responsum.

17

Taken from the prophetic section of the Bible, including: Zech. 5:1; Hosea 3:9 and 4:7; Judg. 5:1; 2 Sam. 2:26; Joel 2:3; Isa. 31:1; and Jer. 22:3.

18

See Avraham M.F. Schwartz, Kol Arye (Brooklyn: 1963), 147-148. 32

III: SHABBAT Sh’elah 1 (October 30, 1872, addressed to Shmuel Engel)1 This regards a  Jewish individual who owns a  large forest. The cut timber [produced] is transported by wagons [owned mostly by Gentile teamsters] to the railroad station. These teamsters are paid by volume and are unwilling to cease work on the Sabbath. [The question is] can leniency be applied in this case by allowing the Gentile teamsters to transport the timber on the Sabbath? The urgency of a lenient decision is highlighted by the fact that there is, in the vicinity of the questioner’s business, a large depot operated by a Gentile competitor, a  [lumber] manufacturer who also employs Gentile teamsters. Like the Jewish owner, he too pays the teamsters by volume. Can such a transaction be considered contractual [and therefore permissible] work? Responsum 1 The issue of employing Gentile workers on the Sabbath was always thorny, as is evidenced by the preponderance of responsa on the subject. This was an especially crucial problem for Jews in the lumber industry, who competed with Gentiles for government contracts. Even a  cursory examination of the responsum reveals that R. Engel was cognizant of the irreparable damage a  negative ruling would infl ict. Like many other rabbis before and since, he strove to find ways to prevent the economic ruin of the constituents who looked to him for guidance and would abide by his halakhic decisions. The reluctant decision in this case was to refrain from felling trees on the Sabbath and to arrange for

1

Shmuel Engel, Responsa Maharash, vol. VIII #2, pp. 8-10. 33

1. T HE R E SPONSA

a temporary, conditional “transfer” of the business to a Gentile who would act as the owner and who was not bound by halakhic restrictions, in order to allow the Gentile employees to continue their work.2 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Mordekhai Brisk)3 [An opinion is sought] regarding the following: One [Jewish] individual signed a  contract with a  company owned by Gentiles to manufacture and supply the company with a specified number of barrels. The production of the barrels involves the use of a  machine [owned by a  Gentile], which cuts the boards to an appropriate size, and the employment of a number of Gentile laborers who assemble the boards and fit them together. The owner of the machine and his employees refuse to abstain from work on the holy Sabbath. Because the work is done on a  contractual basis—each person setting his own pace—the prohibition against “instructing a Gentile to do a Jew’s work”4 should not be invoked [according to the questioner.] Responsum 2 Basing himself on an array of sources, R. Mordekhai Brisk arrives at the same conclusion as the questioner, namely that in this instance there is room for leniency. This case, according to the respondent, falls under the rubric of “the Gentile is working for his own gain and is indirectly benefiting the Jew,” which removes it from the rabbinic injunction against “instructing Gentiles to do the Jew’s work.” Leniency is especially in order in this case because the livelihood of the individual is at stake. Sh’elah 3 (January 28, 1873, addressed to Schick)5 I received your letter in which the following case is related: a certain individual, who owns horses and carriages, has set up a  route of horsedrawn carriages stretching from the railroad station to the center of the city of Sighet. Currently, the service is operating six days a week, and the 2

See OH 276:1-2; 307:1-5, 19, 22; and ET II, pp. 42-48.

3

Brisk, vol. I #82, pp. 96-97.

4

On this injunction and its ramifications, see OH 244-246. For a detailed analysis of this issue, see Jacob Katz, The “Shabbes Goy” (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989). Cf. ET II, pp. 42-45.

5

Schick, #104, p. 32. 34

III: SH A BBAT

owner wishes to extend the operation to the full seven days, including the holy day of Sabbath. To avoid a public violation of the Sabbath, he intends to “sell” [conditionally] the horses and all the attendant equipment to a Gentile who will operate the omnibus during the Sabbath. Against the opinion of some [well-known and erudite scholars] who tend to allow the “sale” and operation on the Sabbath [of some businesses], you [the questioner] insist that leniency in this case may open the door for actual violation of the Sabbath and, therefore, feel a more stringent ruling is not only justified but also prudent and wise. Th is, in short, is the essence of your inquiry. Responsum 3 R. Schick is in full agreement with the questioner in prohibiting the operation of the omnibus on the Sabbath. Adding to the questioner’s reasoning, R. Schick advances the argument that this case of public transportation which is owned by a Jew and operated by a Gentile constitutes a violation of the principle of mar’it ‘ayin (appearing to commit a violation). As is known, the applicability of this principle is especially suitable in cases in which both a public act and a public place are involved.6 R. Schick draws on the laws regarding the travel of ships on the Sabbath to analogously conclude that a  stringent decision is in order regarding the omnibus.7 R. Schick’s main objection is to the sale of the horses and equipment. He writes: “I have never sanctioned a  fictitious sale in order to facilitate a  violation of the Sabbath.” Th is attitude is repeated in numerous of his responsa. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Mordekhai Brisk)8 The question regards the following case: A certain [Jewish] man owns a bull to which his [the Jew’s] [Gentile] neighbors regularly bring their cows for the purpose of insemination [for which they pay a  certain fee]. Is it permissible to charge for the bull’s services on the Sabbath?

6

On mar’it ‘ayin, see OH 244:1-4 and 301:45.

7

For the laws relating to maritime activities on and before the Sabbath, see OH 248 and related commentaries.

8

Brisk, vol. II, OH #83, p. 98f. 35

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 4 R. Brisk agrees with the questioner’s suggestion regarding the possibility of employing a Gentile worker who is in charge of all transactions, on weekdays and the Sabbath. The income for the whole week, without specifically designating daily proceeds, can then be given to the Jewish owner [minus a percentage for the Gentile caretaker]. This is allowed because the income of the Sabbath day is “merged” with the general proceeds of the week. In such cases the principle of Havla’ah (absorption) can be applied.9 Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to Tabak) 10 This question regards a  cow that is in heat. Is it permissible to have a Gentile take the animal [owned by a Jew] to a stud owned by a Gentile on the Sabbath day? This person would carry with him collateral to ensure payment for the service. It is a well-established fact that the sages repealed many prohibitions like “depriving a vessel of its readiness” for the sake of preventing cruelty to animals. For the same reason, it is permitted to direct a Gentile to milk a cow on the Sabbath. [Is this applicable in this case?] Responsum 5 The questioner argues in favor of leniency. He bases his argument on the fact that the prohibition against infl icting pain on animals is biblical,11 while asking a  Gentile to perform work on the Sabbath day is only a  rabbinic interdiction.12 In this case, as in the case of “depriving a vessel of its readiness for use,”13 biblical law overrides rabbinic ordinance. R. Tabak refutes this analogy since, in the case of “depriving the vessel,” the two prohibitions (the biblical and the rabbinic) cancel each other out

9

For the principle of Havla’ah, see ET III, pp. 130-134.

10

Tabak, #90, p. 19b.

11

Zvi Kaplan, “Animals, Cruelty to,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 2, 165-166 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). Cf. Talmud Bavli Baba Metzia 32b and Shabbat 128b.

12

Jacob Katz, The “Shabbes Goy”: A Study in Halakhic Flexibility, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989).

13

Cf. Talmud Bavli Shabbat 43a for a  discussion of this rabbinic ordinance. For a definition, see OH 310:6. See also ibid. 305:9-12, where the issue of preventing pain to animals is weighed against “depriving a vessel of its readiness.” 36

III: SH A BBAT

simultaneously, which is not the case of the cow in heat. He is, therefore, reluctant to accommodate the questioner. Sh’elah 6 (October 30, 1872, addressed to Schick)14 Your letter with the [following] question reached me on the holiday [Sukkot]. The question pertains to a herd of cattle owned by a Jew and entrusted to the care of a  Gentile shepherd. Some of the cows in the herd have acquired a  propensity for running into the forest, thereby exposing the rest of the herd to the attacks of wolves and other predatory beasts. The shepherd refuses to handle these cows unless a warning bell is attached to their necks to alert him of their impending escape. [These bells may constitute a  violation of Shabbat.] You are leaning toward leniency in this matter and you are seeking my opinion. Responsum 6 Several halakhic issues are involved in this simple question. The two salient problems are the question of an animal carrying a  burden on Shabbat, and the question of producing musical sounds on Shabbat. Does forcing the cattle to wear bells constitute a violation of the biblical injunction that “You shall not do any work—you, your son, or your cattle . . . ” (Exod. 20:10)? Does the sound produced by the bells violate the rule against producing musical sounds? These issues were discussed by the questioner, a  noted Maramarosh rabbi, who did not let these prohibitions stand in the way of utilizing the bell on the Sabbath. R. Schick agreed with his colleague on the question of “burden,” but was reluctant to dismiss the possible violation of “sounding a horn.” Consequently, R. Schick ruled against the questioner.15 Sh’elah 7 (NDA, addressed to Meir Arik)16 The question regards a local poor Jew who owns beehives. During the warm season, when the bees procreate, entire colonies break away from the

14

Schick, #129, pp. 40-41.

15

For the relevant sources, see OH 338:1-4; 305:17 and the standard commentaries.

16

Meir Arik, Responsa Imre Yosher, vol. II (Cracow: 1925) #27, pp. 21-22. 37

1. T HE R E SPONSA

queen bee. While flying away, the swarms are often caught in thickets of [nearby] tree branches. Failure to immediately retrieve the bees will result in a total loss [to the hive owner]. This owner asked me whether he is allowed to direct a Gentile, in case of emergency, to do the retrieving. To this poor man the loss of even one hive of bees constitutes a “substantial loss.” Responsum 7 The main issue in the case is whether retrieving stray bees is to be considered “hunting species which are customarily not hunted.”17 According to this classification, which is adopted by R. Arik, the work performed in “hunting” the bees is prohibited by rabbinic injunction only and, as such, is suspended in cases of “substantial losses.” To ask a Gentile to perform a task on the Sabbath on behalf of a Jew is likewise a rabbinic prohibition. Consequently, in this case of “double defect,” rabbinic injunctions may be set aside, especially in cases of substantial losses.18

17

See OH 316:1-4 and the commentary of Magen Avraham ad loc.

18

See ET II, pp. 42-45. 38

IV: FAMILY Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Schick)1 This regards a man who reached the age of 20 and for whom a match was found. However, the young man is convinced that if he can postpone [his marriage] for several years longer, he will be able to find a much more suitable match. In addition, if he marries at the age of 20, he will be forced to discontinue his study of Torah. [The question is] whether he is obliged to follow the law laid down in the Shulchan Aruch2 and accept the first marriage [arranged for him], or whether he is free to choose his own time for getting married. Responsum 1 In the view of R. Schick, the answer to the query requires clarification of two issues. First, is it appropriate to postpone the performance of a  mitzvah in order to execute the same mitzvah in a  better way later on? Second, does the possibility that marriage may result in neglect of Torah study justify postponing marriage? The sources cited by him answer both questions in the affirmative, and he permits the petitioner to delay his marriage. Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Schick)3 You are asking advice from me regarding the permissibility of marrying a well-to-do woman who was twice widowed.4 You noted in your letter that 1 2 3 4

Schick, #1, p. 1. EH 1:3; Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Marriage 15:2. Schick, vol. I #87, pp. 25-26. The widow is presumed to be dangerous to the third husband; after being widowed twice she is considered a katlanit, a killer wife. 39

1. T HE R E SPONSA

this marriage, if consummated, will be an excellent match to the husband, who will be able to devote his time to the study of Torah [with no burden of earning a living]. Responsum 2 The law of katlanit, “the deadly [killer] woman” who has buried two husbands and is [therefore] presumed dangerous, was always a  source of controversy between those who adhered strictly to the talmudic view and those who advocated a more lenient approach. Some authorities were inclined to abolish the whole concept of katlanit. R. Schick would not enforce the law in an ex post facto situation; i.e., if the couple is married, he would not force them to divorce. But he refuses to give a priori assent to such a marriage.5 Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Tabak) 6 Reuven [the father of the prospective bride] and Shimon [the father of the young man] agreed on a match between their children. They set the amount of the dowry [to be presented to the groom by the father of the bride], and they also outlined an agreement which was signed and sealed with a handshake. Reuven expressed his desire for the young man to continue his yeshiva education under the tutelage of a  known and erudite rabbi. To this, Shimon’s response was that he was financially not in a position to pay the boy’s living expenses and the high tuition fees, but had no objection to Reuven’s paying for his future son-in-law’s education. Reuven agreed [to pay for the young man’s education]. He spent a sizable amount of money on the groom’s continuous study in the best yeshiva, where he was tutored by well-known and erudite rabbis. [After a  short time, Reuven passed on and] the widow [the mother of the bride] claims that she is not able to meet her dowry obligations as stipulated in the agreement. She tried and failed to raise the agreed-upon sum. To compensate for the cash obligation, she is willing to hand over

5

For a  detailed treatment of various approaches to the laws of katlanit and the many ramifications of these laws, see Otzar haPoskim, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: 1946), to EH 9:1-2, pp. 34-53.

6

Tabak, #8, pp. 2a-b. 40

I V: FA MILY

property of equal value to the groom. The young man refuses to accept an exchange and insists on a cash settlement. You want to know whether, in cases where the debtor is unable to pay the debts in cash, he is legally allowed to compensate with property. Responsum 3 R. Tabak does not view this case as a  routine business transaction in which the creditor may be compelled to accept property in lieu of the cash owed to him. It is assumed that in a routine business transaction, the lender initially sets his mind on the property as a hedge against default by the debtor.7 In the case under review—an agreement on a  betrothal—the prospective groom has no need to rely on the property as a hedge against default. He has another legal option open to him, namely the refusal to go through with the marriage [if the agreement is not fully implemented], and he chose that option. R. Tabak, however, notes that the groom is fully obligated, in case of an annulment, to compensate for the money the bride’s parents spent on his education. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)8 The question regards a father who married off his only daughter to an outstanding and virtuous [young] man with whom she had four children before she passed on. The widower and the four orphans remained under the care of the deceased woman’s father. The father also has a deceased son, whose daughter lives with him as well, and who is engaged to be married. Now, the father wishes to dissolve his granddaughter’s engagement so that she can marry the widower. The father claims that, since the widower and his granddaughter inhabit the same dwelling, a bond has formed between them. He further claims that it would pain him greatly to see his admired former son-in-law marry an “outsider.” [The widower’s marrying an outsider] would also adversely affect the four orphans from his first wife.

7

See Talmud Bavli Ketuvot 86a and Rashi’s comment ad loc. s.v. Hai K’dinei; cf. Hoshen Mishpat (henceforth HM) 61:3 and the commentaries.

8

Tabak, #29, p. 6b. 41

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Based on the above-mentioned facts, the grandfather of the engaged woman is asking for an annulment of his granddaughter’s engagement, thus enabling her to marry the widower. You [the questioner] lean toward establishing a  case of oness (“the occurrence of unavoidable events which prevent or obstruct the performance of certain acts or which cause certain acts to occur”9), to which the principle of oness rahman’ah patre10 (anyone who commits a  transgression through oness is exempt even from the judgment of Heaven) may apply, thus releasing the granddaughter from the legal bond of her initial engagement. You also emphasize the fact that there is a total absence of malicious intent to bring disgrace to the man from whom the woman wishes to disengage herself and thus, no objection should be raised against the dissolution of the engagement. Responsum 4 R. Tabak refutes the arguments of the questioner and concludes that there are no legal grounds for the dissolution of the engagement. He notes that the type of oness suggested by the questioner is limited in scope and cannot be applied to just any stressful situation. Oness is restricted to illness of one of the spouses or one’s children. Both elements are absent in the situation described in the question.11 Furthermore, if the lack of intentional malice may be advanced as an argument in favor of rescinding the obligations of engaged parties, a  floodgate of broken engagements for reasons other than oness (e.g., the  prospect of more lucrative fi nancial arrangements, etc.) may be opened. Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to R. Yosef Zvi Dushinsky of Hust)12 A young man divorced his wife. The reason he gave for the divorce was that the woman refused to live with him and never revealed the reason for her refusal. 9

See ET I, pp. 162-3 and 167-8.

10

Ibid.; see also Talmud Bavli Baba Kama 28b.

11

See YD 232:12-16 and HM 333.

12

Deutsch, 104-09. 42

I V: FA MILY

A short time after the divorce, the young woman changed her mind and expressed her willingness to remarry her divorced husband. Because the first marriage produced a daughter who is now almost a year old, his friends are trying to convince him that, in the interest of the child, he should take her (the divorced wife) back. Meanwhile, the young man became engaged to another woman. His friends strongly suggest that he break the engagement and free himself to marry his divorced wife. The man was receptive to this suggestion because he had great love for his first wife and always longed for her. It was she who refused to have relations with him. In addition, this woman (his first wife) is very poor and he is apprehensive about his daughter’s future wellbeing. The question is whether the man can legally break the engagement to the young woman and return to his [former] wife, the wife of his youth. Do the regulations of herem (excommunication) and kenas (fines to be levied) for breaking an engagement apply in this case? Must he have her consent [the consent of the woman to whom he is engaged] in order to break the engagement? If so, he may never be able to remarry, since she [the woman to whom he is engaged] may always refuse to forgive him. Responsum 5 This question was posed by a  rabbi in a  small town in Maramarosh who was known for his piety and erudition to the famed R. Dushinsky of Hust, concerning a couple in his town. The rabbi relates that he strove unsuccessfully to effect a reconciliation between husband and wife prior to their divorce. He conveys his feelings that there was no valid reason for the break-up of the marriage in the first place: the man never wished to divorce his wife, and the woman, who insisted on separation, did so for “foolish” and inexplicable reasons. The rabbi expresses the hope that a way can be found to reunite the couple in spite of the fact that the young man is now engaged to another woman. Relying on a wide range of legal precedents, R. Deutsch (the questioner) concludes that the welfare of the child produced by the first marriage overrides disdain for breaking an engagement. Moreover, he suggests that the penalty normally due a spurned fiancée is not payable in this case since any “disgrace” inflicted on the betrothed was, obviously, unintentional. The 43

1. T HE R E SPONSA

rabbi also questions whether the man has any legal responsibility toward his new fiancée, since no signed legal document exists.13 Sh’elah 6 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)14 Reuven appeared before the local rabbinical court announcing that he had betrothed a certain young woman. He was supported in his claim by two witnesses, both of whom were his cousins. One testified that he saw Reuven placing a glove on the young woman’s hand while reciting the traditional declaration: “Harei ‘at . . . ”(With this ring you are wedded to me in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel).” He stated that he did not see a ring [being placed on the woman’s finger]. However, the other witness insisted that, along with the glove, Reuven also placed a ring on the young woman’s hand. Then a  third witness came forth and testified before the court that, although present during the encounter between Reuven and the young woman, he had been busy praying [silently] while facing a  wall and was, therefore, unable to observe the incident. However, he definitely heard Reuven reciting the “Harei ‘at . . . ” The judges asked the third witness whether, after concluding his prayers, he noticed a  glove or a  ring on the young woman’s hand. He responded that, thinking back on the incident, he now remembers that he did see a glove on her hand. The young woman denies the fact that Reuven placed the glove on her hand and tells a  completely different story. She claims that Reuven owes her a debt which he wished to compensate for with the glove. In fact, another, older, woman who was present during the incident took the glove to estimate its value and it was she who placed the glove on the young

13

The original manuscript of the question and the accompanying discussion of the various legal and moral issues relevant to the question was found in the possession of the former rabbi of Hust who, during the latter part of his life, served as the rabbi of the haredi community of Jerusalem. He was apparently readying a response to the question. The son of the questioner, a scholar in his own right and the editor of the volume in which the responsum is reproduced, relates that there existed a  frequent correspondence between the two rabbis; unfortunately, the manuscripts were lost during the war.

14

Tabak, #280, pp. 69-70. 44

I V: FA MILY

woman’s hand. Seeing that the glove was torn and of little value, the young woman found the proposed exchange inequitable and was about to discard the glove when Reuven grabbed her hand and pronounced the “Harei ‘at . . . .” The young woman claims that she did not comprehend what Reuven had said, but thought that he had uttered a curse because she was preparing to discard the glove. [Is there any validity to the alleged betrothal?] Responsum 6 The testimony of the third witness can be safely discounted because of his own admission that he did not observe the action. By this fact, according to most authorities, he disqualified himself. The young woman’s flat denial of Reuven’s version of the events shades his credibility. The older woman’s contention that she handed the glove to the young woman presents an alternative possibility and lends credibility to the latter’s testimony. Of the eyewitnesses, who are cousins to Reuven, only one asserts that he saw a ring on the young woman’s finger. Consequently, the case presents a situation where we have a single witness who is being contested by other witnesses. In addition, the fact that Reuven did not discuss his intention to betroth the young woman prior to this incident and the total absence of any object, like a hupah (canopy), which would have suggested his readiness to engage the young woman, completely undermines Reuven’s credibility. The young woman’s claim, albeit not corroborated, that she misunderstood Reuven’s utterance is akin to the many such cases discussed in the Codes,15 which view this flaw as sufficient cause to invalidate the betrothal. Sh’elah 7 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)16 A member of your community employs a  Gentile woman as a  housekeeper. [She has worked for him for many years.] Now that his wife has passed away, the man wishes to marry the woman after she is duly converted [to the Jewish faith, which she is eager

15

The most relevant source affecting the decision of the respondent’s view on the case is EH #27 and the commentaries ad loc., especially the comment of Bet Shmuel.

16

Tabak, #536, pp. 525-526. 45

1. T HE R E SPONSA

to do]. He claims that over the years, his children have become attached to the woman, and [that] marrying her will greatly benefit them. [He is now petitioning the court to carry through the conversion.] However, there exists a suspicion that the real reason for the woman’s eagerness to convert is her desire to become the mistress of the house. You argue for a lenient approach to this thorny issue and suggest that the court initiate the proceedings of conversion. You underscore the fact that, according to some authoritative sources,17 candidates for conversion are rejected only in cases where there exists indisputable evidence that the conversion is not “for the sake of Heaven.” When no such certainty exists, the court may initiate the process of conversion. The case of this woman should be viewed as such [according to your view]. Responsum 7 R. Tabak, after analyzing the seminal sources relating to conversion, concludes that the guiding principle as to the eligibility of a candidate into the fold ought to be the certainty that his or her desire to convert springs from a  genuine willingness to become a  part of the Jewish people “for the sake of Heaven,” and not for the sake of economic or social benefits. Uncertainty regarding the candidates’ motives is not sufficient grounds for a proper halakhic conversion. Sh’elah 8 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)18 A couple from a [small] village came to [stay in] town for the holidays. The wife was given lodging at the house of her brother-in-law. She told her husband that the brother-in-law initiated conversation with her. [Upon hearing this] the husband exhorted her to avoid being alone with the brother-in-law and to avoid any conversation with him. [On the following day] the woman told her husband that the brother-in-law continued to engage her in conversation. The husband’s reaction was to forbid his wife from sleeping at the sister’s house. His wife refused to acquiesce. She added that her sister left the house for one night and she was left alone with the brother-in-law, but that he did not touch her. [Can they continue together as husband and wife?]

17

See Tur YD #268 and the commentary by R. Joseph Karo (Beit Yoseph) ad loc.

18

Tabak, #99, p. 21b. 46

I V: FA MILY

Responsum 8 R. Tabak decided to allow the couple to continue to co-habit even under a cloud of suspicion. He bases his decision on the principle of “the mouth that binds is the mouth that loosens.”19 Since the husband’s awareness of the wife’s “being secluded “ [with a man under suspicious circumstances] came solely from her own testimony, we can trust her when she says that the brother-in-law did not touch her. Sh’elah 9 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)20 This regards a young man who has not yet fulfi lled the commandment to procreate.21 Recently, his wife deserted him and joined her Gentile lover, who lives in a  neighboring town. Two local scholars, prominent members of our community, visited the woman and appealed to her to accept a  get (writ of divorcement) from her husband. She was willing to accommodate for the price of 100 gulden. She knows, she said, that her husband, being a very pious Jew, will not remarry unless she accepts the divorce document from him. During the visit of the two scholars, they found the woman with her Gentile lover and, according to testimony given by local residents, the couple has lived together since they arrived in that town. In fact, the people of the town assumed that the couple is a Gentile married couple. The unfortunate husband is a poor man and in no position to accede to the woman’s demand. [Moreover,] for us, as a  community, to force or pressure the woman to accept the divorce would be dangerous. [Also,] the dissolution of the marriage by a  document signed by 100 authorities is not feasible in this case since the procedure is too costly and too timeconsuming. [Is there a solution to this man’s plight?] Responsum 9 It is the view of R. Tabak that the man is free to re-marry after a court of law is persuaded that he is sincere in his claims. On his part, he is to

19

For the principle, see ET IX, pp. 722-46.

20

Tabak, #543, pp. 168b-169.

21

See EH 1:1-8. 47

1. T HE R E SPONSA

make a solemn promise that if and when the wayward woman is willing to accept a get (bill of divorcement), he will not withhold it from her. R. Tabak’s decision is based on a ruling by Rashdam22 that, in certain cases where a  moredet (rebellious woman)23 is involved, the court may contravene the ordinance of Rabbenu Gershom Meor Hagolah24 and grant a  divorce without having obtained a  document signed by one hundred rabbis. This is especially applicable to this case, since it is apparent that the woman has no intention of returning to her husband. From her reaction to the plea of the two prominent members of the community, it is evident that the woman has her mind set upon blackmailing the husband and humiliating him.

22

Shmuel di Medina, Responsa Meharashdam Even Haezer #120.

23

On moredet, see EH 77:2-4 and also Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Marriage 14:8.

24

Th is is the ordinance against polygamy. On Rabbenu Gershom (c. 960-1028) and the ordinance see Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 7, 551-552 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). 48

V: KASHRUT Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Haim Mordecai Yakov Gottlieb)1 A Jewish owner of a  polenina (a summer grazing area for sheep and other small livestock, usually located deep in the forest and at some distance from town) hosts many herds of sheep—his own and those of his Gentile neighbors. He pays the neighbor a  specific amount of money for the milk from his livestock, which he [the owner] uses in his production of various dairy products. The attending shepherds work under the supervision of a  Jewish kashrut observer. His continuous presence guarantees that the laws of kashrut are properly observed so that all of the dairy products are kosher (ritually fit). One day the supervisor fell ill and was forced to leave the polenina without delay. The departure was so hurried that he was unable to wait for the arrival of a  substitute. Meanwhile, the shepherds and cheesemakers continued to produce cheese without supervision in the owner’s kosher dishes while using kosher rennet, the only one available to them. It is apparent that no foreign, non-kosher elements were available to the nonJewish shepherds. The next day, the new supervisor arrived and the production of cheese continued without separating the supervised from the unsupervised product. Both cheeses were hopelessly mixed together. Labeling the whole production as suspect may lead to inestimable financial loss. You are asking me to find a way to render the cheese kosher since it is known and certain that no forbidden particles entered in the production. 1

Haim Mordecai Yakov Gottlieb (henceforth Gottlieb), Responsa Yagel Yakov (Jerusalem: 1964) #30, pp. 51-52. 49

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 1 Among other rationales, R. Gottlieb’s decision, which is lenient, is based mainly on the fact that the requirement that a Jew be present at the milking does not apply here since the milk is not consumed in its raw state but is used for the production of cheese.2 Moreover, since the [Gentile] shepherds and cheesemakers do not derive any benefit from substituting or supplementing with non-kosher ingredients, there is no compelling reason for suspicion, especially in a case where the possibility of substantial monetary loss is ever-present. Sh’elah 2 (November 29, 1879, addressed to Schick)3 A certain pious and honest individual is licensed to sell meat [in the estate of a certain nobleman]. Recently, a Gentile obtained a similar license. The Gentile also sells pork and thereby attracts most of the customers. The Jewish butcher is being deprived of his livelihood. The question: is it permitted to enter into an equal partnership with a non-Jew and provide the [necessary] funds to enable the Gentile to buy swine and sell the meat in a shop that he [the Gentile] will construct? Responsum 2 As was noted above, halakhic restrictions often limited the Jews’ ability to compete in business with their Gentile neighbors. Local rabbinic authorities could not ignore the plight of Jews who clung tenaciously to halakha and sometimes, because of their very loyalty to the law, saw their businesses adversely affected and even destroyed. The fact that Jews are prohibited from selling pork4 gave the Gentile merchant a distinct advantage over his Jewish competitor. The prevalence and gravity of the situation was reflected in the numerous petitions of this nature addressed to the distinguished rabbis of Maramarosh over many generations. 2

See YD 115:1-3 and commentaries. The ubiquity of these enterprises prompted R. Moshe Grunwald, the famous rabbi of Hust, to set down all the laws relating to Gentile shepherds and workers in the poleninas. See Grunwald, YD 115, p. 2. These rules were issued upon the request of the rabbi of Volovei, a  cheeseproducing town.

3

Schick, #138, p. 41.

4

See YD 117:1 and the commentaries ad loc. 50

V: K A SHRU T

R. Schick, relying on a  well-known ruling by his teacher, the aforementioned and famed Hatam Sofer, allows for the establishment of a business relationship with a Gentile in order to alleviate the unevenness of competition engendered by halakha. However, R. Schick stipulates several conditions under which such a partnership must operate. The meat must be sold in a separate or partitioned area, and a plaque with the name of the gentile “owner” must be conspicuously displayed at the entrance. In addition, the Jewish butcher must lend the Gentile money with which to  buy swine and other “unclean” articles, rather than give it to him, so as  to avoid direct involvement in the procurement of these articles. R. Schick strongly emphasizes that the application of the solution offered in the responsum is limited to extreme cases in which substantial losses are involved.5 Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Shalom Mordecai HaKohen Shvadron)6 The question relates to the following case: A Gentile owes a certain amount of money to a [local] Jewish creditor, but the latter has great difficulties in collecting the debt. Now, the Gentile has made the following offer: if the lender is willing to increase the amount of the loan, he is willing to consign a pig as collateral for the total amount. He would also commit himself, in writing, to a time limit determining when the loan must be repaid. [Is this arrangement in line with halakha?] Responsum 3 R. Shvadron relies mainly on a fourteenth-century authority who ruled that this form of transaction, namely the usage of pigs as collateral, is not to be classified as “profiting from pigs,” because there will be no need for selling the pig since the borrower is liable to pay off his debts. While several authorities consider the loan transaction “repellent,” none consider it even rabbinically prohibited.7

5

On the definition and impact of the principle of “substantial losses,” see ET X, pp. 36-37.

6

Shvadron, vol. II #201, pp. 272b-273a.

7

See HM 182:1 cf. Beit Yosef to Tur HM 182:1; cf. YD 117:1 in the gloss of Moshe Isserles (henceforth R’MA). 51

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Schick)8 The following inquiry was sent to me: Two ducks fell off a  roof [at the same time]. One of them died on impact, while the other “walked away running.” The question asked was, is the fact that the surviving duck was able to walk and run sufficiently determinative to consider it unhurt and therefore fit for consumption [after proper sh’chitah]? Or must we suspect that the duck has suffered an injury which may render it safek treifah (make its fitness for consumption suspect)? Responsum 4 R. Schick’s lenient decision is based on Maimonides’ ruling regarding cattle which fell off a roof.9 The great majority of commentators agree that the principle established in regard to cattle, that the capacity of walking renders the animal healthy and kosher (fit to eat), is also applicable to fowl. Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)10 Reuven borrowed a  [live] goose [from Shimon]. After being [ritually] slaughtered, the goose was found to be kosher. Some time later, Reuven brought a  [live] goose back to Shimon, who kept it for three days before ritually slaughtering it. When Shimon slaughtered the goose, it was found to be treifah due to an injury to its gullet. Is Reuven obligated to provide [Shimon] with a  kosher goose? One could say that Reuven is obligated to provide [Shimon] with a kosher goose as there is a presumption of liability [i.e. that the injury which caused the goose to be treifah happened while it was in Reuven’s possession]. Responsum 5 R. Tabak’s response is as follows: because the question of treifah surfaced while the goose was in the possession of Shimon, it is he who, in accordance with the principle of onus probandi (the burden of proof falling

8

Schick, YD #44, p. 14.

9

See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of [Ritual] Slaughter, 4:9.

10

Tabak, #525, p. 134. 52

V: K A SHRU T

on the claimant), will have to prove that the fowl was already unfit for consumption when it came into his possession.11 He also argues for the application of the principle of hezkat hagoof, presumption regarding physical condition.12 This assumes, a  priori, that the defect indeed occurred after Shimon took possession of the goose. As such, Shimon must forfeit all claims for compensation.

11

See for example Talmud Bavli Baba Kama 46a and parallel sources. For a detailed discussion of the various aspects of the principle, see ET IX, pp. 557-559. For the applicability of the rule to cases of “doubtful treifah” see Talmud Bavli Ketuvot 76b and Hullin 50b-51a.

12

In addition to the sources cited in the preceding note, see the responsum of R.  Avigdor Cohen quoted in Mordecai to Talmud Bavli Ketuvot 76b. The rule is described in detail in ET XII, p. 524. 53

VI: DRUSAH (DOMESTIC ANIMALS ATTACKED BY WILD BEASTS) Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Aaron M. Tobis)1 This regards a matter of 80 sheep attended by a Gentile shepherd. [It was the shepherd’s custom] to lock up the sheep in the backyard for the night. [One morning] the shepherd reported that wolves had entered the backyard and [afterward] he found one lamb dead and two others wounded. [The question regards the surviving sheep.] Responsum 1 Drusah (cattle, sheep, or fowl attacked by predatory animals) is one of “the eight categories of foods unfit to eat, in the laws handed down to Moses from Sinai,” and this is one of the more stringently enforced prohibitions. Whereas many authorities permit the consumption of meat and poultry classified as “doubtful treifah” (food that is suspected but not known to be treifah), most authorities hold that “doubtful drusah” (safek drusah) is considered treifah. In this case, a  ruling of “doubtful drusah” would mean that all the sheep in question—not just those with obvious wounds—would be considered unkosher. The “doubtful drusah” classification and its harsh consequences apply only when there exists indisputable evidence or trustworthy testimony that the predatory animal did, indeed, breach and penetrate the pen of its prey. Lacking such evidence, the status of “doubtful drusah” cannot be established.

1

Aaron M. Tobis, Responsa To’afot R’em (Zilkov: 1855), YD, #11, pp. 6-7. 54

V I: DRUSA H DOME S T IC A NIM A L S AT TACK ED BY W ILD BE A S T S

R. Tobis holds that the testimony even of a single witness, the shepherd, combined with the probability [of entry by the wolves] is adequate to establish “doubtful drusah.” Thus, he considers the surviving sheep nonkosher and disallows their consumption.2 Sh’elah 2 (July 2, 1867, addressed to Schick)3 I received your letter requesting that I  voice my opinion on the following practical question. [It regards] a  herd of 300 sheep [owned by Jews and cared for by a Gentile shepherd] in a polenina (a pasture located in the mountains).4 When the herd was visited by the [Jewish] owners,5 they noted that one of the sheep was severely injured. In response to the owners’ inquiry, the shepherd claimed that he had been up and awake all night, busying himself with making cheese. During the night, he heard a howling sound coming from a single lamb. He ran in the direction of the herd but saw no intruder and no wounded sheep. Only in the morning did he notice the injury. The owners suggest that the single sheep may have been bitten by the shepherd’s dog6 while the herd was still in the field,7 before entering the  enclosed area for the night. The owners also surmise(d) that the shepherd was reluctant to admit that he had entrusted the herd’s safety to his dog.

2

On the complex issue of drusah, see ET VII, pp. 617-635; Harry Rabinowicz and Rela Geffen, “Dietary Laws,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 5, 650-659 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). Sources relevant to this query are to be found in YD 57:1-8.

3

Schick, YD #76, pp. 21-22.

4

This was a conventional arrangement in the farming communities of Maramarosh. The shepherd would settle in for the summer in a  remote pasture. While there, he was tending the sheep [and cattle] and producing, under proper supervision, various milk products. These fertile grazing areas were usually located in the forest at some distance from the town or village.

5

The use of the plural form here (“owners”) does not preclude individual ownership. The author may be employing talmudic parlance.

6

A dog is not classified as a doress [predator] and, consequently, does not render the herd suspect. See YD 57:2.

7

See YD 57:9 and the commentary of B’er Heitev ad loc. 55

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 2 While dismissing the testimony of the shepherd in cases of safek drusah and despite the following doubtful points, R. Schick finds in favor of a lenient decision. The general ruling is that when in doubt as to whether the intruder was a doress (predator), we follow the principle of prevalence. If dogs rather than lions are prevalent in the areas, one assumes that the attacker was a  dog. Moreover, it is apparent from the owners’ testimony that they did not observe the herd while they were in the open field [when safek drusah does not apply].8 It is possible, then, that the attack took place there [in the open field] and, whether the attack was by a dog or by another animal, it does not affect the status of the sheep. Finally, the fact that the fence was high enough to prevent a wolf from entering the enclosed area adds an additional doubt to the already doubtful drusah,9 and therefore the decision is toward leniency. Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)10 [This inquiry from the rabbi of the town of Jasin reads as follows:] I was asked by a local butcher to decide the following issue: on his way to the house of a Gentile to purchase a year–and-a-half-old heifer, he met a Gentile who happened to be a neighbor of the prospective seller. During their conversation, the accompanying Gentile inadvertently revealed that, a  year or more earlier, his neighbor’s heifer had been attacked by a  wolf that had torn open the heifer’s belly and left a mark near the udder. Upon reaching the home of the seller, the butcher inspected the heifer and, indeed, found an injury mark near the udder, confirming at least partially the information disclosed by his Gentile traveling companion. He asked the seller about the cause of the injury. The seller responded that the injury occurred as a result of the heifer’s attempt to scale a high fence. The seller made no mention of an attack [on the heifer]. The butcher’s question is: should he purchase the heifer or must it be considered drusah and, therefore, not fit for consumption? R. Avraham Zvi, the rabbi of Jasin, is of the opinion that the meat from the heifer is not fit to eat, and he instructed the butcher not to buy

8

Ibid.

9

Ibid., 57:13, and commentaries.

10

Teitelbaum, YD #19, pp. 6a-b. 56

V I: DRUSA H DOME S T IC A NIM A L S AT TACK ED BY W ILD BE A S T S

the heifer. He based his decision mainly on the following: many later authorities maintain that an attack of wolves on “large cattle” is considered drusah.11 Furthermore, inasmuch as the Gentile’s “testimony” was given inadvertently, the veracity of the statement [that the heifer was attacked] must be assumed and accepted.12 The rabbi of Jasin expressed his view that anybody who bought meat from the butcher [if he purchased this heifer for resale] may have their utensils [used for cooking or serving meat] declared treifah (unsuitable for further use). Notwithstanding this rabbi’s decision, the butcher did purchase the heifer, had it ritually slaughtered, and sold the meat in his shop. The rabbi of Jasin considered this to be a case of irreverence and flagrant disregard for rabbinic authority. He therefore proposed that the butcher compensate all buyers for the damages to their dishes and utensils resulting from his noncompliance. Note should be taken of the fact that the butcher, prior to the acquisition of the heifer, consulted a  [rabbinic] authority from a  neighboring town regarding its status, and that authority acquiesced to the purchase. [The rabbi of Jasin wishes me to support him in his decision.] Responsum 3 R. Teitelbaum, in his responsum, notes the following: The conversation between the butcher and the accompanying Gentile and the resulting “testimony” do not constitute “inadvertent revelation” since they were initiated by the Gentile’s questions, and therefore the information obtained from the conversation could have been used by the Gentile to discredit the seller if he had wished to do so. But even assuming that the information was inadvertent, the veracity may still be doubted, since the rule that “one Gentile cannot discredit the testimony of another Gentile” ostensibly is applicable to this case.13 R. Teitelbaum further notes that, based on the presumption that the great majority of cattle are not subject to such attacks, the heifer

11

See YD 57:1; also the commentaries of Taz and Shach ad loc.

12

See YD 69:10, 122:11 and the comments by Taz ad loc.

13

See YD 16:11. 57

1. T HE R E SPONSA

is presumed to be kosher. Th is fact offsets the efficacy of the Gentile’s testimony. Moreover, even if we accord total veracity to the Gentile’s words and assume the heifer to be drusah, we must consider the fact that more than a  year had elapsed since the alleged attack occurred, and that it is the opinion of many authorities that we do not assign deficiencies ex post facto.14 In rendering his lenient decision, R. Teitelbaum notes that one should not ignore the fact that this case is riddled with doubts—single, double, and even triple doubts. Th is makes the questioner’s position untenable both regarding the kashrut of the heifer and, even more so, the kashrut of the utensils and dishes. He also opposes the questioner’s chastisement of the butcher for ascertaining, prior to the purchase of the heifer, the permission of a recognized authority from another town. Sh’elah 4 (March 9, 1868, addressed to Schick)15 Two geese and one gander were placed in a  small hen house of approximately five cubits16 length and one and a  half cubits width. [One evening,] hearing a suspicious noise, the owner ran outside and saw a fox running away and holding one of the geese in his jaws. The question regards the fitness for consumption of the surviving fowl. Responsum 4 The problem of drusah was widespread in Maramarosh and affected not only shepherds, cattlemen, and small farmers, but also the ordinary Jew who raised geese and chicken for his own consumption. Few escaped the frequent assault of the predatory animals that inhabited the mountains and forests of the region. The problem presented a challenge to the rabbinic authorities, who often found themselves torn between loyalty to the law and compassion for the basic needs and interests of their impoverished constituency. In this case, two possible solutions are offered. The first, submitted by the questioner, was to give away or sell the fowl to a Gentile, who would

14

See YD #48 (end) and the lengthy comment by Taz ad loc., as well as Pitchei T’shuva #15.

15

Schick, #78, pp. 22-23.

16

1 cubit is approximately 18 inches. 58

V I: DRUSA H DOME S T IC A NIM A L S AT TACK ED BY W ILD BE A S T S

be required to slaughter them immediately in order to ascertain that they would not be resold to a Jew. The alternate solution, offered by R. Schick, the respondent, was to keep the affected geese for a  period of observation to determine their health status.17 Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)18 This responsum regards the following: Two chickens were kept in a  coop. The owner checked the coop for eggs during noontime, but found none. At twilight he heard some noise emanating from the pen, but did not check the cause. During the evening hours noise was heard again; this time the owner entered the coop and found one severely wounded and one dead chicken. In addition, the owner also found two eggs (ostensibly laid earlier in the day), which he inadvertently placed in a large basket containing more than ten dozen eggs. Under these circumstances, what is the status of the two eggs and, by implication, of all of the eggs in the large basket relative to the law of drusah? The issue is as follows: owing to the uncertainty of the time of day when the eggs were actually laid—before or during the attack by the predatory animal—are we to consider these “doubtful drusah” and, therefore, unfit for consumption?19 Or, are we to apply the talmudic principle that “chickens (which copulate in the daytime) give birth in the daytime”20 and place the laying of the two eggs before the attack, which took place during twilight? This latter assumption would clear the eggs from the “taint” of “doubtful drusah.” It should be noted that the applicability of the above-mentioned talmudic principle is contingent upon the presumption that twilight is not considered to be daytime. 17

For the duration of such an observation period, see YD 86:9-10, 57:18-21 and Shach’s comments to 57:47.

18

Teitelbaum, YD #32, pp. 59b-60a.

19

Because eggs are counted [not measured or weighed], they maintain their inherent quality and do not become neutralized or voided, even if they are mingled with an amount larger than sixty times. See YD 110:9 and the standard commentaries, especially Shach ad loc.

20

See Talmud Bavli Beitza 7a and Talmud Bavli Bechorot 8a. 59

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 5 R. Teitelbaum insists that halakhic and theological considerations impel us to consider twilight as a separate category from daytime. Consequently, the eggs must have been laid before the attack at twilight and, therefore, should not be considered “doubtful drusah.” Moreover, because the prohibition alluded to in this responsum is of rabbinic, not biblical, origin, the notion of “double doubt” may be invoked, in which case all of the eggs in the basket are considered to be fit for consumption. However, to be on the safe side, he suggests that two eggs be randomly picked from the basket and sold to a Gentile.21

21

See YD 104:1. 60

VII: COMMUNITY/SYNAGOGUE Sh’elah 1 (July 11, 1866, addressed to Schick)1 I received your letter in which you asked my advice on how to handle the matter on which your livelihood and the livelihood of ten little children depends. You are providing a living for your family by teaching several classes in your congregation. Recently, this congregation introduced new [customs]. They moved the bimah [the raised platform in the center of the synagogue from which the Torah is read] toward the eastern wall. They [also] organized a  choir and provided uniforms to the members [of the choir]. I know that you strongly disapprove [of these innovations]. Nevertheless, you did not resign your position even though it sometimes requires your direct participation in the services. You are justifying your actions by the fact that the job provides a living and a peaceful existence for your family. Resignation from the position would force you to travel from place to place [to earn a living], which would interfere with your [regular] Torah studies. Furthermore, since you are a  sick man, it would also contribute to the deterioration of your health. Based on the above reasons, you thought that you could stay on and continue your job. However, you have since heard that many rabbis and dayanim (judges who decide issues of a  religious nature) have voiced strong objections to these [modern] congregations with choirs; they have proclaimed that participation in them is worse than eating pork, and also  that there may be a  question of categorizing this violation as

1

Schick, OH #71, pp. 21-22. 61

1. T HE R E SPONSA

breaking a commandment which one cannot violate at the cost of life.2 You are now perplexed about this issue. Th is is a short summary of your inquiry. Responsum 1 Maramarosh Jewry served as an inexhaustible source of religious functionaries, including teachers, ritual slaughterers, and beadles, for the rest of Hungary. The endless search for a decent livelihood forced many of the functionaries to compromise their religious commitments and to settle in communities where religious laws and customs were not scrupulously observed. In all likelihood, the questioner was one such person.3 In this frequently-quoted responsum, R. Schick emphasizes in the strongest possible terms his opposition to any participation in a  service where “new customs” are practiced. The rabbi is, of course, aware of and indeed stresses the fact that any “transgression” involved in synagogue reform is, at worst, a  violation of rabbinic rather than biblical law. Still, he believes that even such reforms undermine established traditions and are therefore anathema to any observant Jew. He affirms repeatedly that where the integrity of tradition is concerned, one must act with unflinching self-sacrifice regardless of the economic consequences or whether the infraction is against biblical or rabbinic law. Once having asserted that, he marshals an array of sources to prove that monetary losses are no grounds for transgressing even rabbinic prohibitions. This responsum reflects the turbulent conditions of Jewish life in the western region of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the second half of the nineteenth century. The Orthodox establishment was engaged in a  Herculean struggle against the rapid proliferation of Reform Judaism. The following excerpt from the responsum reflects the mood that prevailed at the time:

2

The three transgressions which fall under this rubric are murder, idolatry, and illicit sexual relations. (See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 5:1-4 and YD 157:1-2.) The implication is that these innovations are akin to idolatry.

3

This suggestion is based on a  conversation with Mr. Mordecai Leib Klein of Brooklyn. He was originally from the Hungarian town of Miklos, the place of origin of this inquiry, and a  descendant of the correspondent in this responsum. 62

V II: COMMU NI T Y/S Y NAGOGU E

Current conditions demand of us to fight against all innovations whose aim is to cause Torah and mitzvot to be forgotten by the Jewish people. Their innovations are set to remove Torah from their children and children’s children, similar to the times of persecutions.4 Except that then the prohibitions [against observing the commandments] were imposed by our enemies by brute force, while in this case it is by deceit and subterfuge that they lead astray G-d’s people and their children after them. We must now publicly proclaim [our adherence to] true unadulterated Torah, the way we were taught by our ancestors.

R. Schick5 was the first in a  long line of great rabbinic authorities who served the community of Hust in Maramarosh. Th is question, which originated in the Hungarian town of Miklos, reflected a  very common phenomenon of the time. In most of the western communities of Hungary there were changes instituted in the format of the traditional service. Many of the changes were insignificant, but were strongly opposed by the traditionalists. Such problems were not recorded in Maramarosh, where strict adherence to tradition was a matter of course.6 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)7 This regards the following: A man arrived from Austria [to your town] and presented a document signed by a  prediger8 to the effect that the holder of the document [met all the requirements for conversion, including] circumcision. He wished to marry a local woman. Is this permissible?

4

A reference to the Hadrian persecutions during and after the Bar Kokhba revolt, especially after the fall of Betar (135 CE).

5

Although a  “westerner” by background and education—he was born in the small “Oberland” town of Brezova near the city of Nitra (now Slovakia) and was an outstanding student of the Hatam Sofer—R. Schick was the recognized authority and the accepted decisor in matters of Jewish law in the community of Maramarosh, as well as in the communities of the “upper lands” (Oberland).

6

For the background of this responsum, see Michael K. Silber, The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of Tradition, ed. Jacob Wertheimer (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), 23-48.

7

Teitelbaum, EH #7, pp. 113-14.

8

Literally, a  preacher. A  term applied to non-Orthodox rabbis by the Orthodox establishment. 63

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 2 Both the questioner and the respondent emphasize that the resolution of the problem at hand depends on the proper application of the relevant legal principles. It is apparent that by presenting the document to the local authorities and thereby exposing himself to questions and doubts regarding his personal status as a Jew, the man has greatly enhanced his credibility. The presumption that one does not tell a  lie in matters of public knowledge which are likely to be exposed lends additional support to the convert’s claim.9 However, it is not the credibility of the convert which is on the line, but the credibility of the prediger. In the view of the questioner and that of the respondent, a prediger is classified as a heretic and a sectarian, and therefore is held to be not trustworthy [in matters of halakha]. Consequently, in order for the convert to be admitted to the community of Israel, he must undergo a  new process of conversion, one which meets all halakhic requirements including hatafat dam, the flowing of a few drops of blood of the covenant from the place of the circumcision.10 Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)11 Is one allowed to knock on the doors of Gentiles to ask for contributions for the building of a synagogue? Responsum 3 After a lengthy discussion of the issue in two responsa, R. Tabak posits that the misgivings against the Gentiles’ participation in the building of 9

For the principle of migo (a statement is accepted as true on the grounds that if the author of the statement intended to tell a lie, he could have invented one more advantageous to his cause) see Talmud Bavli Ketuvot 16a. The migo is an extension of the Tannaitic principle of “the mouth that binds is the mouth that  loosens.” See ibid, 22a, and M. Elon, Jewish Law, vol. III (Jerusalem: 1973), 812-13 and note 27. See also EH 268:10-11. Related to this is the principle which supposes that no one would tell a lie which is likely to be exposed. See Talmud Bavli Yevamot 93b, 115a-116b, and Rosh Hashana 22b and others.

10

For the problems relative to this question, see YD 268.

11

Tabak, #15, p. 3b. Th is must have been a  recurring problem, judging from the number of existing responsa. See, for example, Tabak #51, pp. 22b-23b, and Teitelbaum, OH #14, pp. 4b-5. 64

V II: COMMU NI T Y/S Y NAGOGU E

a synagogue because “his name is identified with it” apply only to offerings of specific items which are conspicuously discernable, such as a  menorah (candelabrum) or timber wood; it does not pertain to cash money, which is contributed by a variety of people, mostly Jews. There is also a clear distinction between a Gentile’s voluntary participation in a campaign to erect a synagogue—an act deemed praiseworthy and regarded as glorification of the synagogue12—and his contributing to local Jewish charitable institutions. In the latter case, accepting the Gentile’s money casts an unfavorable light on the Jewish community and exposes it as ruthless, unwilling to provide for its own poor and needy. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)13 You asked the following question: Your community obligated itself to provide a lifetime stipend on a weekly basis to the widow of the rabbi. After a while, the woman left the community and married the rabbi of the neighboring town, who passed on shortly after the marriage. The twicewidowed woman now asks for the resumption of the stipend. You claim that the allowance was justified while the widow was living in your midst and was known as the rebbitzen (wife of a  rabbi) of your town. Now that she is known as the rebbitzen of the neighboring town, your responsibility has ended. Responsum 4 R. Tabak categorically rejects the claims of the community. The thrust of his argument is a mishna14 which, according to the author, treats a case that is thoroughly analogous to the case under discussion. The mishna states that if one marries a woman and she stipulates that he must support her daughter for five years, he is liable to provide for her [the daughter] during that time, even if he and his wife divorce and the wife marries another man. The obligation toward the daughter does not cease even when she is no longer known as his wife’s daughter. Based mainly upon this analogy, R. Tabak rules in favor of the woman.15

12

See YD 254:1-2 and 259:4.

13

Tabak, #102, p. 22.

14

See Mishna Ketuvot 12:1.

15

See Taz to HM 60:3; Bet Shmuel to EH 114:11. 65

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)16 For years the Jewish population of a [certain] town in Maramarosh was small and could not afford to hire a [full-time] shochet [ritual slaughterer]. On those sporadic occasions when one was needed, [the community] dispatched a messenger to summon the shochet from one of the neighboring towns, sometimes from this town and sometimes from that one. However, recently the need arose for a  full-time shochet. Two unrelated factors brought about the change in the situation. The first was the demographic shift in the population: the Jewish population increased noticeably during the last few years. With a growing population came a marked increase in the consumption of meat. The second factor was a newly constructed slaughterhouse, which was built in response to the increased demand for meat by the local [Christian] gentry. Considering the new situation, the community decided to hire a permanent full-time shochet who would establish residency in the town. Events more than justified this action, for it often occurred that there was an unanticipated request from members of the gentry for the immediate delivery of meat, and the shochtim who resided in the neighboring towns were not readily available; even their whereabouts were at times unknown. [In such cases] the local butchers were compelled to supply the gentry with “pierced” [rather than properly slaughtered] meat.17 In addition, there are now more frequent demands by the members of the local Jewish community for kosher meat, such as when one is seriously ill or when a local [Jewish] woman is recuperating from childbirth. Immediately [after the new shochet was officially hired], the part-time shochtim [who in the past had been] hired from the neighboring towns began to register a  vigorous protest against the engagement. They claim that a confl ict exists between the action of the community and due regard for the law of hazakah (principle of priority) as it applies to job security.18 Relying on this law, they assert that the community had no right to abolish their part-time positions. 16

Tabak, #263, p. 63.

17

For the halakhic ramifications see Talmud Bavli Hullin, 85b, cf. YD 117:4 and Taz ad loc.

18

Of the many facets of the law of hazakah, one deals with the perpetual right to an appointed office. See ET XIV, pp. 346-373; especially p. 362. 66

V II: COMMU NI T Y/S Y NAGOGU E

Responsum 5 A single line in this passage speaks eloquently about the economic condition in Maramarosh. In the impoverished towns, meat was a rare commodity indeed. It was generally available only to new mothers and the ill. In the answer to the question, R. Tabak invokes a ruling by the R’MA (R. Moshe Isserlis) that is analogous to the issue raised by the questioner.19 In it, the R’MA postulates that the claim of hazakah can be invoked only in cases where the claimant’s services were used exclusively, in spite of the availability of other options. In the case under discussion, no other feasible alternatives were available, and therefore, the claim of hazakah is not applicable. Sh’elah 6 (NDA, addressed to Shmuel Engel)20 Regarding your question: A certain member of the synagogue acquired the honor of being Hatan Torah (the person called up for reading the last portion of the Torah on the Feast of Rejoicing of the Torah). In exchange for the honor, he obligated himself to donate one hundred kilos of wheat to the local poor. At the time of the commitment, the price of wheat was very low; since that time it has doubled. Consequently, the donor claims that he will fulfi ll his obligation by donating fifty kilos, the monetary equivalent of his pledge. The people in charge of the local charity insist that only a donation of one hundred kilos will fulfi ll the promise. [Whose view is valid?] Responsum 6 The questioner, arguing in favor of the poor, is taking his cue from the laws of consecrations to the Temple. There, a general principle prevails that “in matters of price fluctuation, the Temple has the upper hand.” Since the laws of consecration of the Temple and those of charity are analogous, the ruling is in favor of the poor.21 R. Engel, the respondent, mustering additional relevant sources, is in total agreement with the questioner.

19

See R’MA to HM 149:31.

20

Shmuel Engel, Responsa Maharash, vol. III (London: 1954) #302, p. 272b.

21

See Mishna Shekalim 4:9 and YD 258:13 and commentaries. 67

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 7 (August 25, 1908, addressed to Eliezer Deutsch)22 On the Sabbath [when the portion] of V’ethanan (Deut. 3:23-7:11) is being read, it is customary in your community to call upon a member of the congregation known for his piety and scholarship to recite the appropriate blessings when the fourth section (ibid. 5:1-18) of the portion is read, since it contains a section describing the epiphany at Sinai and the giving of the Law. It happened that an [unlearned] member of the synagogue acquired the right to recite this section by contributing a large sum of money to the maintenance of the synagogue. The reader, however, refused to bestow this honor on an unlearned person. Thus, he shortened the reading of the third portion (ibid. 4:41-49) in order to carve out an additional [fourth] aliyah to be assigned to the unlearned contributor. The honor of the original fourth aliyah was then given to a noted scholar. Needless to say, the shunned “buyer” was humiliated and angered at being refused the honor for which he had made such a large donation. The question before you is whether the “buyer” of the fourth aliyah is obligated to pay the full amount of the “purchase” when he did not, in fact, receive what he purchased. Responsum 7 R. Deutsch classifies the case as an “erroneous purchase.” It is evident that the unlearned purchaser’s intention was the acquisition of the honor of the aliyah containing the Ten Commandments. Since this was refused him, in accordance with the law of erroneous purchase, the buyer is relieved of any monetary obligations.23 Furthermore, R. Deutsch praises the Torah reader for his part in preventing a “common, uneducated” person from acquiring an honor which is traditionally bestowed upon a pious and distinguished scholar.24 In his responsum R. Deutsch also considers the unvoiced question of whether the “commoner” is to be penalized for “daring” to assume an honor which is not his and thereby displacing the erudite scholar.

22

Deutsch, vol. II #116, p. 66.

23

For the concept of “erroneous purchase,” see HM 232:1-5; cf. ibid., 125:1.

24

See OH 136 and the comments of Magen Avraham, ad loc., where the scholar’s prerogative in the hierarchy of Torah readers is firmly established. 68

V II: COMMU NI T Y/S Y NAGOGU E

Sh’elah 8 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)25 As a  penalty for slandering the head of the community, a  certain member was denied the privilege of being called to the Torah for an aliyah (the recitation of the blessing before and after the reading of the appropriate portion). Now, his wife has given birth to a  daughter. It is a  time honored custom to invite the father of a newborn girl to the Torah, at which time he instructs the cantor to announce the name given to the child. Thus the father pleaded with the community leaders, asking them to lift the ban against him and professing his willingness to appear before the rabbinical court and abide by their decision. Still, they refused [to restore the privilege]. Thus, since the father was unable to be called to the Torah to name his daughter, the cantor assigned a name to the newborn girl without even consulting the father. There is a two-part question here: 1. Has the [lay] leadership of a  community the power to impose punishment upon members of the community for any infraction, or is this the exclusive domain of the rabbinical court; and 2. Is the name not given by the father efficacious? Responsum 8 R. Tabak replies that the function of the lay leaders of the community is strictly limited to overseeing the fiscal and other community institutions and does not encompass any judicial powers, which remain the exclusive domain of the rabbinical leadership. This law is codified and well established.26 With regard to the efficacy of the name assigned by someone other than the father, the author quotes a kabbalistic source27 which contains the view that the name assigned to the child in this world is the one by which he [or she] is summoned before the heavenly throne in the Hereafter. Also, the name given to a newborn is not the result of an arbitrary decision on the part of the parents, but a  component of the universal and holy soul and is assigned by the Creator Himself. The parents act merely as a conduit

25

Tabak, #15, p. 34.

26

See HM 2:1, where the rights of the elected representatives of the community are delineated.

27

Sefer Hagilgulim by R. Haim Vital. 69

1. T HE R E SPONSA

and divine instrument. Accordingly, the custom which gives the father the privilege to call a newborn child by a name chosen by him and pronounced during the aliyah cannot be revoked. R. Tabak urges the community to provide the proper forum for the rite and to invite the father to do his duty and give the girl a new name. Sh’elah 9 (NDA, addressed to Eliezer David Gruenwald)28 The question you asked regards the following: A certain [male member of the community] obligated himself to lead the congregation in prayer and recite Kaddish (the mourners’ prayer) daily, in memory of the departed Israel Perl, may he rest in peace, and for the benefit of his soul. For this the man was properly compensated by the widow of the deceased. It has now become known that the man’s father passed on recently. As a result, he is obligated to perform this service in memory and benefit of his departed parent, which will prevent him from fulfi lling his responsibility toward the widow. Is he obligated to refund the money the widow paid him? Responsum 9 After discussing analogous cases and applicable principles, R. Grunwald sides with the widow against the man she hired. He notes that leading the congregation in prayer and reciting Kaddish in memory of one’s parents is a  universally accepted, time-honored, and sacred custom. Therefore, the man’s primary obligation is to his parent. Since he cannot perform the service twice, the man is responsible for finding someone who is able to lead the congregation and recite Kaddish [at no cost to the widow].29 Sh’elah 10 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)30 The question regards the following: A congregation of hasidim instituted a rule that a member who wears woolen clothing is not qualified to act as a Baal Tefilah (reader) during the

28

Eliezer David Gruenwald, Responsa Keren L’David (Satmar: 1919) OH #32, p. 44.

29

See HM 232:2.

30

Tabak, #67, pp. 31b-32. 70

V II: COMMU NI T Y/S Y NAGOGU E

Sabbath service.31 The congregation also follows a long-established custom [which is recorded in the by-laws of the Congregation] assigning the concluding supplemental prayers of the Friday night service32 to a member of the congregation who is observing a yahrtzeit (annual commemoration of the death of a close member of the family) on that Sabbath. It happened one Friday evening that a member of the congregation who was observing yahrtzeit arrived at the service wearing a woolen garment. The dilemma facing the congregation is whether to deny the member the privilege of public recitation of the concluding prayers (in line  with the established rule) or whether, because recitation of the Kaddish is normally the prerogative of the “orphan,” to make allowance for the Psalm and the exhortative Barkhu. [Your response will provide us with guidelines for the future.] Responsum 10 R. Tabak asserts that the rule as written in the by-laws is not sufficiently explicit to enable us to determine the author’s intent with regard to the supplemental prayers. A rule covering prayers may not include supplemental prayers. In fact, these are not an integral part of the service, and the person reciting them does so from his seat; he does not replace the reader at the reader’s stand. In instances of ambiguity, we follow the principle of “when in doubt [of the exact meaning of an enactment], follow the narrow interpretation.” Such a reading would not deny the observer of the “yahrtzeit” the privilege of reciting the supplemental prayers. 33 Permitting the “orphan” to participate in the service will also prevent unnecessary arguments and quarrels in a house of worship on the holy day of the Sabbath. We are even directed to abrogate an established custom in order to prevent animosity among congregants.34

31

Wool may cause erotic stimulation.

32

This part of the service, in accordance with the hasidic (Sephardic) rite, consists of the recitation of Psalm 23, the Kaddish, and the short responsive prayer Barkhu (Blessed is the Lord, Who is blessed).

33

See EH 118:6. For additional treatment, see M. Elon, Jewish Law, vol. II (Jerusalem: 1973), 369 ff, 383, and 753 ff (Hebrew).

34

See Mishna Tamid 3:1 for an example of abrogating a law for the sake of peace. 71

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 11 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)35 A Gentile acquired an arenda [lease of part of an estate from a member of the local gentry] and hired Reuven to service the inn and act as bartender. They agreed that Reuven’s wages would be paid in accordance with the quantity of alcohol he would sell. The elected kahal (community) leaders, who speak for the community, insist that they have a  priority right to service the arenda. The kahal is willing to sublease the arenda [to Reuven, the hired bartender]. Responsum 11 According to R. Tabak, the established principle argued by the kahal— that the livelihood of the many takes precedence over the needs of the individual, and that therefore the kahal has an inherent right to the arenda—is not applicable in this case. The kahal does not view the arenda as a source of new and necessary jobs, but simply as a revenue-producing business.36 Sh’elah 12 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)37 The kahal (community) representatives procured the right to an arenda. They assumed responsibility for the losses and retained a  share of the profits. The kahal then hired two trustees to manage the business of the arenda. It happens that a certain member of the community purchased a large quantity of liquor on credit from one of the trustees. As collateral, the buyer provided the trustee with a ring whose value was greater than the cost of the merchandise. However, before the customer was able to redeem the collateral, it was stolen. The question is whether or not the trustee is responsible for the collateral object. Responsum 12 In spite of the fact that the trustee, as a “hired keeper,” is responsible for the theft, the case under discussion is uncommon and exceptional. 35

Tabak, #102, p. 22b.

36

See especially the responsum of R. Yoel Sirkis (first edition) #60, quoted by R. Tabak; cf. the responsum of R. Moshe Isserlis quoted in Pitchei T’shuva to HM 163:6 found in the new printed edition (Jerusalem: 1977) #73, p. 308.

37

Tabak, #98, p. 21b. 72

V II: COMMU NI T Y/S Y NAGOGU E

This is because the keeper (trustee) had been hired by the community of which both parties [the owner of the ring and the keeper] are members, and therefore they are partners in the enterprise. This fact changes the relationship between the trustee and the depositor of the collateral from owner and bailee to partners, and offers a possibility to absolve the trustee from responsibility for the collateral. 38 Sh’elah 13 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)39 In the year 1879, a  Society for the Study of Torah was established [in our community] for the purpose of securing a  sufficient number of melamdim (teachers of religious texts) for the poor children whose parents could not afford to pay tuition. As a result of an agreement between the Society and the local grocery store owners, the latter ceded the large potential profit from the sale of Passover flour40 to the Society. In fact, the Society became the exclusive agent of the wholesale suppliers, and as such was able to collect a substantial sum of money which was given to the schools [for the aforementioned purpose]. This arrangement worked extremely well for many years and, until now, no objection was raised. Recently, however, one storekeeper decided to “break the fence” and began selling Passover flour in his store [for a reduced price] which, to the detriment of the schools, will probably draw away many customers. [Would you voice your opinion on this matter?] Responsum 13 R. Tabak addresses his responsum to the community at large and exhorts its members to continue to support the cheder (religious school for younger children) by purchasing the flour exclusively from the Society. Several reasons are cited by R. Tabak. First of all, the objective of the arrangement with the merchants was to make the support of the schools a community affair. Every member who buys Passover flour contributes to the cause: the great mitzvah of learning

38

For the laws of trustees-keepers relating to this case, see HM 303:10 and 356:7 and the standard commentaries thereof.

39

Tabak, #18, pp. 37a-38.

40

Prepared under rabbinic supervision and fit for use during the Passover holiday. 73

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Torah. In fact, halakha (Jewish law) considers the duty of every community to provide teachers for all children an implied public vow.41 Second, many authorities have ruled that the burden of providing schools for needy children in smaller communities must be shared by the whole population, not just the parents.42 Third, the Society has a valid claim of hazakah (an exclusive right) to sell the flour since no one objected to the system which had been in place for many years. After all, reasons R. Tabak, how can we ignore the law of hazakah in cases involving a mitzvah of teaching poor children when we are bidden to enforce it in cases of regals and the liquor business?

41

See Talmud Bavli Baba Batra 21a, and Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Studying Torah 2:7.

42

HM 163:3, YD 245: and commentaries ad loc. 74

VIII: AGUNOT Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Yakov Meshulam Ornstein)1 To the community of Sihot (Sighet) in the country of Hungary. To the eminent rabbi of the community, Menahem Mendel. This regards a  certain Jew, a  member of your community, who has traveled [by foot] to a certain town. [Shortly] after his departure he was found dead, [apparently] murdered. A  positive identification was not possible since he had been decapitated and his head could not be found. However, there was “evidence” of his identity [which was] based on the perceptions of people who had known him while he was still alive. They were certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the victim was the same Jew who had departed from their midst. They also recognized him by his beard and side curls—which were found next to his body—the latter being in a form altogether different from ordinary curls. [The witnesses] also recognized him by the clothes he wore when he left for the journey. According to the collected testimony of the witnesses which you sent to me, the deceased was wearing only some of the clothes [he took with him], and the rest he carried with him. In the following, we shall detail which pieces of clothing he wore and which he kept in his bag. Responsum 1 The purpose of the inquiry is to alleviate the plight of the widow and enable her to remarry on the basis of the witnesses’ testimony. The responsum, which is only partially available, does not provide a complete answer to the query. 1

Yakov Meshulam Ornstein, Responsa Yeshu’ot Yakov (Brooklyn: 1955) EH #12 pp.  42-43. The rabbi of Sighet at the time was R. Menachem Stern, who died in 1834 at the age of 75. 75

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Unfortunately, the list of clothing mentioned in the responsum, which would give us a description of the dress of an ordinary Jew in Maramarosh during the early part of the nineteenth century, is also missing. Note, indirectly, that all Jewish men grew beards and sidelocks. Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Haim Halberstam)2 A certain [Jewish] man arrived in the town of Bogdan. He introduced himself by his name and the name of the place of his origin.3 The information supplied by the newcomer was corroborated by his passport. He also asserted that he was married [to his second wife] and that he was the father of a  son, a  tailor [and of younger children who are all currently studying in various yeshivot]. Among the papers that he had in his possession was his father’s last will and testament. After a  short period of residence in Bogdan, the man died. The local officials contacted the Jewish community of Sighet—that city being in the vicinity of the man’s former residence—for a verification of the pertinent data. In their response, these officials confirmed all of the facts except one: the claim that his younger children are currently studying in yeshivot was erroneous. The aforementioned tailor was his only son. More complexity was added to the situation by the testimony of a young lad who claims to have visited the son of the deceased—a shoemaker by trade [not a  tailor]. This young man left town and there is no way to interrogate him. We are unable to determine whether the lad knew the deceased’s son personally or mistook him for somebody else. [Are these facts sufficient to relieve the woman from the burden of being an agunah?] Responsum 2 According to R. Halberstam, almost all verifi able facts point to an unmistaken identification of the deceased with the person who left his former town, his wife and son, and settled in the town of Bogdan before

2

Haim Halberstam, Responsa Divrei Haim (Brooklyn, NY: 2002) (reprint of the 1875 Lemberg edition) EH 2:58, p. 385.

3

This case was also dealt with by R. Joseph Shaul Nathanson, the famed authority from Lemberg. In that responsum, the name of the person was Haim Zvi, and he hailed from the town of Kretchinif. See Joseph Shaul Nathanson, Responsa Shoel U’meshiv, vol. I (Jerusalem: 1973) #291, unpaginated. 76

V III: AGU NOT

he died. Especially noteworthy to the respondent is the fact that the man was the holder of a passport—an official document which cannot be easily reproduced. R. Halberstam also took note of the father’s “last will and testament,” which was in the possession of the deceased and which corroborates some of the pertinent facts: his name and the name of the town he hails from. It is highly unlikely, R. Halberstam concludes, that the man found such a lost document, previously owned by somebody with the same name and who hails from the same town. Consequently, the respondent found no reason to refuse the widow permission to remarry. The discrepancy about the deceased’s children who, allegedly, were currently enrolled in yeshivot, did not detract from the fidelity of the identification. People often made claims about their children studying in yeshivot in order to induce respect and/or pity. Regarding the testimony of the young lad who inadvertently mentioned that the deceased’s son was a shoemaker, this too has no bearing on the issue. Young people [are predisposed to] err in such details. The boy may have assumed, mistakenly, that he knows the man’s son but, in fact, it may have been somebody else.4 Sh’elah 3 (August 6, 1877, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)5 Concerning a woman, the wife of a resident of the town of Masif, who is mourning the husband of her youth. The following is a  record of the factual evidence and the testimony [of the wife and witnesses]. We were functioning as a court of three judges. Beile Mindi, the wife of Elimelech the son of Zusia, of blessed memory, appeared before us from the town of Masif. She related the following to us: Her husband left the house on Wednesday, the 8th of Av. Mr. Alter and Mr. Zusia (also from Masif) had sent her husband on a journey to the polenina (a summer grazing area for sheep and other small cattle, usually located deep in the forest and at some distance from the town) known as Prihalacki Alangeni. These men, the animals’ owners, had asked him to fetch fourteen sheep from the herd in the polenina and to deliver them to the town.

4

See EH 17:24-25 and the commentaries; see especially Pitchei T’shuva ad loc.

5

Teitelbaum, EH #22, p. 117b-121a. 77

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Elimelech left home alone, taking his staff and satchel. The journey, back and forth, normally takes two days. He has not returned home from this journey and there is no trace of his whereabouts. We asked the woman to describe any marks on his body, his clothing, and his equipment. She gave us the following specifications: on his face, above the right side of the mouth and adjacent to the upper lip, he had a  round opening which made part of his teeth visible, a  phenomenon known as “stork.” From the opening [near the upper lip] emerged a fissure which caused the development of a scar reaching the left pe’ah (side curl), and a similar scar developed at the roots of the right curl. As a result of the scar, the color of his skin there was blue. He was of average height. [The following is a description of] the clothing he was wearing at the time that he left the house: a new shirt made of linen and an undergarment of the same material. His pants were made out of zeig (burlap) with a checkered pattern. His talit katan (four-cornered garment) was also plaid and made of zeig. It was an old garment, she said, but could not recall its color. Over this he wore a  gray checkered jacket. His head was covered with a yarmulke made of corduroy and lined with leather. Over it he wore a simple, old Transylvanian hat. His boots were reconstructed (a new sole had been attached to the used upper section). The work on his boots had been completed a few days before his departure by a local shoemaker. His satchel was made out of black and white wool. In it he had an empty container and a cylinder shaped glass [bottle] which was fi lled with liquor for the trip. On his neck he wore a shawl with a polka-dot pattern and black stripes at both ends. A group of local residents [six names are given] came forward and legally testified under the threat of “if he does not testify, he is subject to punishment” (Lev. 5:1) that, in the spirit of cooperation between Jewish and Gentile residents, a joint search party had been formed to find Elimelech. They retraced all of the roads leading to and from the polenina from Masif. As a  result of the intense search, they [and five additional searchers] found the body of a  person in the forest [near the] polenina known as Biale Bakeci, which is on the way from the Prihalacki Alangeni polenina [where Elimelech had allegedly picked up the sheep]. They found the corpse on Tuesday of the week of the reading of the Torah portion [of] Re’eh, the 21st of Av, in the forest not far from the road, lying on its left side. The above-mentioned six people testified that they recognized him as Elimelech by his body, height, and face. Even though part of the 78

V III: AGU NOT

face and forehead had decomposed, most of the physical signs supplied by the woman matched those found on the body. Similarly, the corpse’s clothing matched the wife’s detailed description of the clothing worn by her husband. Also, the following circumstantial evidence pointed toward identification of the body as Elimelech’s: the shoemaker who had worked on Elimelech’s boots recognized his craftsmanship, and Elimelech’s satchel was found hanging on a tree near where the corpse was discovered. Based upon the report of the shepherds at the polenina, the six men advanced the following reconstruction of events: On the 9th day of Av, Elimelech arrived at the polenina with the owners’ instructions to bring back fourteen sheep and deliver them to Masif. The weather was unpleasant. It was cold and dark, and there was a heavy storm. The shepherds begged him [to remain with them] not to go on this perilous journey [to return home with the sheep], but Elimelech refused to listen and went on his way. About three or four hours after Elimelech’s departure, all fourteen sheep returned to the polenina unescorted, much to the shepherds’ surprise. They surmised, since sheep routinely run toward a grazing area, that these sheep had eluded their “leader” and returned to the polenina. The shepherds attributed the fact that Elimelech did not immediately follow [the sheep] to his probable difficulty in discerning where they had gone. It must have been extremely difficult, they speculated, to run up and down hills and mountains. While he searched for the sheep, Elimelech was probably compelled to hang his satchel, which contained several kilos of cheese, on a  tree. Meanwhile, the cold rain and the darkness must have overwhelmed him and caused him to lose direction. The fact that this was a  fast day, which he observed, added to his misfortunes. [Weak and hungry,] Elimelech apparently fainted and died. All of this came through in the testimony before the [rabbinical] court on Sunday, the first day of the reading of Shoftim, 27 days into the month of Av, 5637 (1877). This document was properly signed and sealed. [Additional correlating testimony relating to the physical identifying marks and to the description of the deceased’s clothing were presented to the court at later dates. These strengthened the testimonies previously given.] The questioner, after some wavering, arrives at the conclusion that the testimonies offered to the court are fully admissible, and sufficiently reliable to free the woman from the status of agunah. 79

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 3 R. Teitelbaum, through analysis of several premises relating to the reliability of the evidence presented, concludes that the veracity of the woman and the other witnesses is unquestionable. Therefore, he accepts the identification of Elimelech as the deceased husband of Beile Mindi. Sh’elah 4 (December 27, 1857, addressed to Meshulam Issachar Ish Horovitz)6 The woman appearing before us hails from the town of Krechinif in the country of Hungary. [She stated that] her husband left home on a business trip some three years ago. In the time since then, she has lived a lonely life, hoping for the return of her husband, whose whereabouts are unknown. After a  thorough investigation by a  duly appointed court, it became clear that the poor woman’s anticipation of the eventual reappearance of her husband was futile. It is plainly evident that the man who was suspected of murdering her husband did, indeed, kill him. Consequently, the woman appealed to us to find a way to relieve her from the shackles of being an agunah. Testimony of the witnesses before the undersigned [members of the court] is in regard to the woman who is grieving for her husband and who has not heard from him in the last two (sic) years. After a thorough inquiry, the following became apparent to us: On the day [when he left the house] Elyakim Getzl, the son of Maier, visited one Tzvi, the son of Yerachmiel, a  resident of our town. He handed Tzvi the sum of 90 gulden, the purchase price of the timber he bought from him on that day. From there, Elyakim Getzl went to see David Chaim, who is also a resident of our town, at his tavern. There, the alleged murderer, a Gentile, offered Elyakim Getzl oxen for sale. [As a token of goodwill,] the latter bought a few rounds of liquor from David Chaim and offered them to the Gentile. From there (David Chaim’s tavern), Elyakim Getzl and the Gentile departed for the latter’s house for lodging. On the way, they met Eliezer, the son of Shmuel, another member of our community, with whom they engaged in conversation regarding their respective journeys. Elyakim Getzl and his Gentile companion continued together on their way and were

6

Meshulam Issachar Ish Horovitz, Responsa Bar Liv’ai, EH #16, pp. 13a-15b. 80

V III: AGU NOT

observed by several Gentiles. Later, all of these witnesses testified in court regarding this matter. [Elyakim Getzl was not seen again.] Based on these testimonies, a  search party made up of members of the community, the national guard, and local policemen was formed. They carefully combed the surrounding area with no success. Members of the community continued on their own to make inquiries. They questioned the suspect’s servants and his wife, but to no avail: they all denied having any knowledge of Elyakim Getzl’s disappearance. On one  occasion, the search party overheard the suspect’s wife telling investigators from the national guard the following: The Jew arrived here with my husband at eventide. Upon their arrival they were discussing the matter of buying oxen. The Jew slept over here [she pointed to the area where he slept and where he placed his clothes). In the morning when the Jew awoke he washed, put on his phylacteries and prayed. At the conclusion of his prayer he asked the [her husband] to direct him to the road leading out of the Bidlitzer forest. The Jew was wearing the usual clothes, and also an overcoat called a hiuna. The Jew left together with my husband. My husband returned to the house where he picked up an axe. He followed the Jew and returned after about two hours.

This is what she told the guardsman while two minyanim of Jews (20 people) were standing in the outer room, listening to the woman’s tale. The hiuna (overcoat) was later found and is now in the possession of the court. It has two holes which were certainly caused by the axe. They also found coagulated and frozen blood on the same coat. The Jews and Gentiles all testified under oath to their certainty that the hiuna belonged to Elyakim Getzl. Under the legal admonition “If one does not testify, he is subject to punishment” (Lev. 5:1), Mendel and Haim Yisrael gave the following testimony relating to a conversation with a third party: A Gentile told us the following: “The suspect was walking the fields where farmers were attending to their plots. He told them that he had lost a briefcase with a substantial sum of money in it and offered each one three gulden for the recovery of the lost briefcase. In the end, the suspect himself found the money, but did not initially tell anybody. Later, one of the peasants grabbed the red briefcase, which was stuffed full of bills.” 81

1. T HE R E SPONSA

In addition to the above, Mendel heard the following conversation between some Gentiles who were discussing the events. They said that when the suspect returned home from the field, his wife remarked to him, “I am under the impression that you murdered that Jew.” The suspect is said to have retorted in anger, “If you don’t shut up, I shall chop off your head as I did to the Jew.” Also, the undersigned was told by a  Gentile from the town of Jasin that the suspect’s brother-in-law had informed him that, for the price of two oxen, he (the brother-in-law) was willing to reveal the place where the body was buried. Responsum 4 The lengthy responsum deals with several issues relevant to the case of the agunah (the wife whose husband has disappeared). One of the most prominent is the testimony of Mendel, who reported the dialogue between the murder suspect and his wife. He allegedly told his wife: “I shall cut your head off as I did to that Jew.” We are justified in assuming that “the Jew” referred to was Elyakim Getzl. The identification is further strengthened by the fact that the deceased’s hiuna with two holes fitting the suspect’s axe and splattered with blood was found and became part of the court evidence. The fact that the suspect accompanied the deceased into the forest—it was a very uncommon occurrence for a Jew to walk alone in a forest with a Gentile—supports the contention that the victim was none other than Getzl. In addition, the reputation of the suspect as an evil person and a  murderer adds credibility to the identification of the deceased. The conclusion reached is that, “Considering all of the circumstances and signs of identification, it is umd’n’a d’mukhah7 (self-evident) that the woman’s husband was murdered.” Nevertheless, the respondent implores the questioners that an additional and final attempt be made to narrow down even further the identity of “the Jew” who was admittedly killed by the suspect. The respondent, however, is inclined to issue a license for the woman to remarry, even if such an attempt is not successful. This permission is subject to the condition that two additional contemporary Torah scholars join him in the issuance of the document.

7

As it relates to this issue, this principle is detailed in ET I, pp. 137-138. 82

IX: PARNASOT (OCCUPATIONS) Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)1 A certain woman (A) owned a number of chicks and their mother hen. Woman “A” struck a deal with another woman (B). In return for half of the surviving chickens, woman “B” agreed to raise and care for all of the chicks. Every morning the chickens routinely went to the open field and each evening they returned home. One evening, they failed to return. Despite frantic efforts to find them, the lost chicks were not recovered. Several days later, remains of the chickens were found in the forest. [Is woman “B” responsible for the loss?] Responsum 1 In accordance with the laws of guards (keepers), the woman who raised the chickens (B) is considered a “paid guardian” who is fully responsible for the loss.2 However, an investigation of the local custom revealed that, despite halakha, it was common practice for owners and “paid guardians” to share equally in both the benefits and the losses in any joint enterprise. Consequently, the guardian is absolved from making restitution.3 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Tabak) 4 Reuven agreed to buy a horse from Shimon. They settled on the price, but Reuven did not perform any act of legal acquisition. He then asked Shimon to arrange for the transportation of the animal. Shimon sent one of 1 2 3

4

Tabak, #381, p. 110, cf. bid. pp. 125-126. See HM 303:10. For a  detailed treatment of the power of the minhag (custom), see M. Elon, ed., Principles of Jewish Law (Chicago: Jewish Publication Society, 1975), 91-98. Tabak, #45, p. 10b. 83

1. T HE R E SPONSA

his Gentile employees to lead the horse [which was on the other side of the river]. While crossing the bridge, the horse fell into the river and died. [Was Reuven or Shimon the legal owner of the horse?] Responsum 2 Since in this case the Gentile employee does not qualify as an “emissary,”5 no transaction took place. Thus, both parties were in a position to cancel the agreement. As a result, Reuven is not obligated to compensate the seller for his loss. Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Tabak) 6 Reuven was leading a caravan of rafts [constructed of logs] on the river. Due to the strong current, the rafts changed direction with the result that heavy damage was caused to the dam which protected Shimon’s mill from flooding. To assure payment [for damages], Shimon seized the rafts. Is Reuven responsible for the damage? Responsum 3 Based on analysis of several analogous cases, especially one cited by Maimonides,7 the author concludes that most authorities agree that in cases like the one in question, where it is absolutely certain that the damages caused were unintentional, the court must absolve the perpetrator from all legal responsibilities. Consequently, the claimant had no legal right to seize the rafts. However, a strong minority view insists upon a person’s responsibility to guard against causing damages under all circumstances. [Thus, the author] implies the rafter’s moral obligation to make restitution. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)8 Reuven knew of the identity of a Gentile who owned a [large] quantity of purchasable lumber. He met Shimon and, in exchange for 10% of the 5 6 7

8

See HM 184 and Mishneh Torah, Laws of Emissaries and Partnership, 2:1-2. Tabak, #391, p. 112. See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Damage of Chattels, 4:2. See also the commentary of R. Vidal, Magid Mishneh ad loc. Cf. HM 360:1. Tabak, #148, pp. 35a-b. 84

I X : PA R NA SOT OCC U PAT IONS

purchase price [as a  brokerage fee], offered to disclose the identity of the Gentile and the location of the lumber. Shimon agreed and Reuven revealed to him both the identity of the owner and the location of the lumber. Later, in the company of a Gentile merchant, Shimon came to Reuven and introduced the Gentile merchant as his prospective partner. Reuven responded that he was apprehensive about the partnership and feared that the Gentile merchant would refuse to pay him his share of the brokerage fee as soon as he discovered the identity of the Gentile seller. To soothe Reuven’s suspicions and fears, Shimon verbally guaranteed the whole amount. Shimon eventually disclosed the name of the owner to the Gentile merchant, and after buying the lumber in partnership with Shimon, the Gentile merchant refused to pay his part of Reuven’s fee. [Is Shimon responsible for the entire amount?] Responsum 4 R. Tabak relieves Shimon from responsibility for the Gentile’s refusal to pay his share of the mediation fee. Shimon’s involvement, the rabbi argues, is at best indirect and he is, therefore, not liable. He finds the principle of “the partners’ mutual responsibility” irrelevant to the case.9 Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)10 A certain individual purchased a large quantity of timber. He hired five workers—four Gentiles and a Jew—to roll the large logs into the river for further transportation. The river is a public venue and is open to navigation of all sorts: ships, boats, and rafts. The workers, all five of them, labored together and rolled the logs into the river. But as soon as the timber reached the water, the buyer canceled the deal. [Are the workers, hired by the buyer, “qualified to acquire the logs on his behalf”? Would this result in a  final acquisition which could not be revoked? Is the river a proper “domain” for acquisition of the logs?]

9 10

See HM 185:6 and Pitchei T’shuva ad loc. Tabak, #536, p. 165a-b. 85

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 5 At first glance, there is no technical flaw in the transfer. Large logs are legally acquired by meshikha (drawing).11 The act of acquisition was carried out by the workers when the “pulled” logs went into the river, which is defined as a simta (alley) and is, therefore, an appropriate “domain” for the transfer of ownership. However, R. Tabak points out that there is no unanimity among the authorities regarding the question of whether the single Jew in the group can effect legal transfer through joint drawing with the Gentile workers.12 Sh’elah 6 (NDA, addressed to Eliezer Deutsch)13 Regarding the following question: Reuven sold a  large section of timberland to Shimon. According to estimates solicited by the buyer [Shimon], it was calculated that the timber would suffice to produce 100,000 Fassdagen (barrel staves). After the workers had completed their jobs, the seller was dismayed to learn that the estimators had erred and that there was enough timber to produce 400,000 Fassdagen. He insists on cancellation of the transaction [due to the fact that the ‘on’ah (improper assessment of value) exceeds fifty percent]. Notable in this case is the fact that, since the transaction of sale had not been officially recorded at the time of the completion of the Fassdagen, the finished product is legally still in the possession of the seller. Responsum 6 The well established principle of ‘eyn ‘on’ah l’kark’aot (there is no claim for redress based on overreaching in the case of a  transaction of immoveable property) cannot be applied in cases where ‘on’ah (the improper assessment) exceeds fifty per cent of the value.14 In this case, however, where the difference between price and value is in the ratio of 1:4, the seller must be compensated for that difference, especially since he is, legally, still in possession of the merchandise.

11

See HM 198:1-3, 10, and 269:4.

12

Ibid.

13

Eliezer Deutsch, vol. II #64, pp. 34-35.

14

See HM 227:29 and Shach ad loc. 86

I X : PA R NA SOT OCC U PAT IONS

Sh’elah 7 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)15 A certain member of the local gentry owned a  large building which housed twenty-five stores, all of which had been operated for many years by local Jewish merchants. Recently, the nobleman decided to demolish the structure and, in its place, to erect a  new, more modern edifice. To encourage the nobleman in his enterprise, the town donated to the project a sizeable piece of public land. The new building was then constructed on both private and public land. Upon completion, the new building was subdivided into twenty stores [in place of the twenty-five stores that were there before the reconstruction] and the owner signed eight-year leases with twenty merchants. As a result, the five remaining storekeepers found themselves in a perilous situation with their livelihoods completely cut off. They are asking for compensation from the twenty lessees who are now well settled in the new building. Responsum 7 Authorities are divided on the issue of whether a  rebuilt or reconstructed building continues to maintain its hazakah protection. This disagreement is evident from the numerous responsa which differ from the Shulchan Aruch in their decisions.16 Because of the variety of views on the issue, R. Tabak suggests that the local rabbinic authorities devise a compromise which they feel will be fair to the litigants. According to many authorities, such a compromise is a viable alternative for settling disputes.17 Sh’elah 8 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)18 Reuven ordered from Shimon, in writing, a  shipment of beer to be delivered by train. Shimon operates a tavern in a town at some distance from Reuven. The invoice arrived [by mail] on Friday, but the shipment was scheduled to be delivered on [the following] Shabbat.

15

Tabak, #20, pp. 63a-b.

16

See HM #92 and the standard commentaries ad loc.

17

See HM 12:5.

18

Tabak, #79, p. 38. 87

1. T HE R E SPONSA

The question is whether it is [halakhically] permissible to consign the beer to a Gentile by transmitting the invoice to him so that the Gentile can retrieve the cargo and commence with sales to prospective customers on the very same day. Responsum 8 Since there is no legal transaction involving the cargo prior to taking possession, Reuven does not yet own the beer on Friday. Consequently, the sale to a Gentile could not be accomplished on Friday. Furthermore, in the responsum R. Tabak argues that even if a  legal transaction had taken place, since the merchandise was not at hand and the choice of beer to be shipped is determined solely by the shipper who is (“merely”) obligated to deliver it to Reuven, such an obligation cannot be transferred to the Gentile.19 R. Tabak offers the only viable solution to the problem. He suggests that the Gentile transfer the shipment to his own “domain” until Saturday night. Since the Gentile cannot act as an agent, Reuven acquires ownership only after the Sabbath. Sh’elah 9 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)20 Reuven and Shimon jointly leased an arenda [the right to open a tavern or manage an estate] in a large town. They divided [the rights of the arenda] so that Reuven would establish an inn at the far eastern end of the town and Shimon would set up an inn at the western end of town. In order to prevent unnecessary friction between the two lessees, a line of demarcation was agreed upon which divided the town into two sections. The area extending from the center of town eastward was assigned to Reuven, while the sector spanning from the center (of the town) to its western border was assigned to Shimon. Each party pledged not to sell alcohol which could be taken out of the tavern to residents from the other’s sector. Difficulties arose when Shimon erected a [second] tavern in the vicinity of the Town Hall, a gathering place for prospective drinkers immediately west of the “border” because those coming to the Town Hall bypassed his

19

See Magen Avraham to OH 252:5. Cf, however, OH 302:22.

20

Tabak, 139b, pp. 31b-32a. 88

I X : PA R NA SOT OCC U PAT IONS

first inn. The fact that the new establishment was located in the western sector did not prevent Reuven from objecting. First, claims Reuven, the new tavern’s location near the center of town provides easier access to residents from his side of town and thus discourages them from coming to his tavern. Second, the new establishment also benefits from its proximity to the Town Hall where, on Sundays and holidays, most of the drinking by the town’s male population—including those who reside in the eastern sector—takes place, since the Town Hall has become the social hub of the area. [Can Reuven prevent Shimon from opening the new tavern?] Responsum 9 It is the view of R. Tabak that Reuven has a  legal right to prevent Shimon from operating the newly built tavern. Since the intent of the agreement was to grant equal opportunity to the parties involved, any infringement which is economically injurious to either of the parties is unacceptable. In fact, Shimon’s actions are the direct cause of the damage to Reuven, and therefore his actions must be considered illegal.21 Moreover, as a result of the initial agreement, the economic activities are governed by the principle of hazakah (presumptive priority right), which treats any encroachment as a violation. R. Tabak views the above-described situation as analogous to a ma’arufia (exclusive right to an established Gentile customer), in which case it is halakhically prohibited to sway prospective Gentile customers by questionable means.22 Sh’elah 10 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)23 In the past, it was legal to operate any number of liquor establishments in the towns and villages [of Maramarosh]. Recently, the government reduced the number of possible licenses by one-third. Since the selection of licensees has been left to local chief officers, it is in their sole power to determine whose licenses will be revoked and whose will be renewed. The resulting uncertainty is causing anxiety among the tavern owners.

21

This is in distinction to HM 155:31-52, where the case is different.

22

See M. Alon, Principles of Jewish Law (Jerusalem: 1975), 343.

23

Tabak, #535, pp. 165a-b. 89

1. T HE R E SPONSA

The question is as follows: in order to secure a renewal of one’s license from the town’s chief officer, is offering him a bribe allowed? Responsum 10 Two issues are paramount in discussing this question. The first is the legality of the bribe itself, which is an act prohibited by the biblical exhortation, “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14). The second issue is whether one may actively engage in an activity which will eventually have ruinous consequences for another Jew. In attempting to secure his own license [by means of a bribe], does he not, in effect, deprive someone else from obtaining one? The latter issue does not present a  serious halakhic problem. Many authorities have ruled that it is not against the law to pursue favorable treatment from the secular powers, even if this action will turn out to be harmful to another person.24 Regarding the legality of the bribe, R. Tabak argues that in fact it is not a  bribe. Since the chief officer of the town is the sole arbiter in the matter of licensing, without having to justify his decisions by means of legal argumentation, any attempt to sway his decision, even the giving of money, is not considered a bribe.

24

See HM 388:2 and Shach to HM 163:6, s.v. 18. 90

X: B’CHOR (FIRST-BORN ANIMAL) Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)1 A local Jew purchased a cow from his Gentile neighbor. To secure the deal, the buyer made a down payment [on the purchase price]. After some time, the Gentile seller demanded that the buyer pay the balance of the purchase price [stating that] if the money was not forthcoming he would cancel the deal. Both parties appeared before the village judge, who ruled that the seller must allow the buyer more time. Meanwhile, the cow gave birth to a  prima-parous (first-born) calf [which, according to halakha, must be cared for by the owner for a period of fifty days and then given to a priest as one of his entitlements].2 At issue here is the ownership of the cow at the time of the calf’s birth. If the demand by the seller and the refusal by the buyer to make full payment invalidated the contractual agreement, then the calf belongs to the Gentile and the law of the firstling would not apply. Responsum 1 The law of the firstling [of cattle] and the vexing ancillary guidelines relating to the first born were a source of constant irritation to everyone in any way connected with cattle, including the kohen (priest) who was the  reluctant recipient of this “priestly gift.” The law states that “man is duty bound to sanctify the firstling of a clean beast and he must say, ‘This is holy.’ The law is binding both within the Land [of Israel] and outside the

1

Tabak, #139, pp. 31b-32a.

2

For details of the laws pertaining to the B’khor (first born), see ET III, pp. 283299. 91

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Land and whether the Temple is in existence or whether the Temple is not in existence.” Legally, the firstling belongs to a kohen. However, the firstling remains in the custody of the cow’s owner for a  period of fifty days, after which it is delivered to the kohen. While in the custody of either one, the calf enjoys total freedom to roam and stray undisturbed in all directions, until a discernible and durable blemish is detected. An examination of the laws of the firstborn in the various codes demonstrates the complexity of the problem; farmers and cattle ranchers, anticipating insurmountable problems, often took measures to counteract legal ownership. In this case, the questioner hoped for a  ruling that his agreement with the Gentile would be abrogated due to non-fulfi llment of all the conditions of sale. Consequently, the Gentile seller, rather than the Jewish buyer, would be considered the owner of the cow at the time of the calf’s birth. The Gentile, of course, would not be bound by Jewish law. R. Tabak ruled that ownership remained vested in the Jewish buyer, even though he had not met all the conditions of sale. Consequently, the treatment of the calf had to be in accordance with Jewish law. This decision was based mainly on the notion that if the Gentile seller wished to sue to enforce the contract and receive the rest of his money, he would have no more claim on the cow in question than he would on any other property belonging to the buyer.3 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum) 4 Your question: A certain tavern owner, embarking upon a lengthy journey, instructed his wife to sell a prima-parous (pregnant for the first time) ewe.5 [He also

3

See Taz to HM 101:6 for the application of this ruling. The ubiquity of the problem is fully attested to by the countless responsa dealing with problems relating to firstlings. The respondent (Rabbi Tabak), who served the community of Sighet for many years, incorporated into his responsa no less than twelve inquiries on the topic of firstlings, the great majority [of them] coming from Maramarosh. See J.  Joseph Cohen, “Nineteenth Century Responsa Written by Transylvanian Rabbis,” Areshet V (1972): 283-288.

4

Teitelbaum, YD #135, pp. 101-102.

5

On the laws of the first-born animal, see the previous responsum and the sources cited there. 92

X : B ’CHOR FIR S TBOR N A NIM A L

instructed his wife] to deliver the ewe to the prospective buyer. The woman was not versed on the details of the laws of transaction. Following her husband’s instructions, she sold the designated animal to  a  Gentile for cash. After receiving a  deposit, the woman physically handed the ewe directly over to the Gentile who, in turn, seized it with both hands and walked it around the tavern [where the transaction took place] in order to comply with the laws of transfer. Following this, the woman gave an aldomas [a round of drinks to symbolize the transfer/transaction]. Before the buyer was ready to remove the ewe from the tavern, it gave birth to a male lamb. What is the status of the newborn sheep? Who is its legal owner? Responsum 2 The most instructive observation to be drawn from the numerous responsa dealing with prima-parous cows and ewes is the fact that Gentile business associates, buyers and sellers alike, were willing and expected to comply with the rabbinic laws of sale and transfer. In the matter of this responsum, it was the woman’s ignorance of these laws that gave rise to the question of the legality of the transfer. The important issues in this lengthy responsum are the following: does the “big room of the tavern,” which is used freely by the customers for their own personal needs, also qualify [legally] as their partial domain and, consequently, make the (acts of) seizing and walking the animal in the tavern an act of meshikha (pulling of the object from one domain to another). Does the fact that the woman handed the sheep over directly to the Gentile [rather than the buyer removing it from the woman’s “territory”] invalidate the transfer?6 The answers to these questions, combined with some ancillary issues and principles, produced a  surprising solution to the problem at hand. R.  Teitelbaum rules that the owner may, in a  casual conversation, ask a young underage Gentile boy to render the sheep blemished by infl icting it, incognito, with one of the defects which will disqualify it from the status of “first born.”7

6

See especially HM 197:1-3; 200:1-7.

7

See preceding responsum on the sources of the laws. 93

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)8 I was asked the following question: A certain person bought a prima-parous cow from a Gentile. The Gentile seller and the buyer agreed upon the following condition: if, after giving birth, the cow developed a post-natal defect, the sale would be retroactively invalidated. The inclusion of this condition [was prompted] by the alleged fact that most cows do develop a blemish as a result of first delivery. Now the buyer, wishing to remove the anticipated calf from the category of “sanctity of the first born,”9 arranged for a temporary sale of the cow to a second Gentile. The transaction was formalized by a handshake and a  deposit of seven pengö,10 while the balance of the purchase price was “loaned” to the Gentile buyer [by the seller]. The Jewish “seller” also directed the Gentile “buyer” to remove the cow from his [the “seller’s”] premises [and move it] to the “buyer’s” own “domain” as part of the “legal” transfer . . . . But, due to the approaching darkness, the [Gentile] “buyer” was reluctant to move the cow, claiming that a move at such a late hour would cause a loss of milk. The next morning, when the Gentile “buyer” came to fetch the cow, the calf was already being born. The question is, who owns the calf? Before a  decision was reached, the original Jewish buyer came to us and reported that the cow had, indeed, developed a serious defect near the udder [in the form of a hard, swollen lump]. The lump was so severe that the transaction was canceled. He is asking my permission to return the cow [immediately] to the original owner in order to get his money back. If this is not done soon, he stands to lose the money he paid for the animal. [As I was pondering the issue], it came to my attention that the Jewish buyer had deceived me when he claimed that the blemish on the cow was life-threatening. In fact, it turned out that this type of cyst is a common occurrence as a result of delivery and usually lasts for a period of no more than six weeks. The alleged willingness of the seller to take back the cow is part of the deception. He never intended to invalidate the deal because there was no justification. 8 9 10

Teitelbaum, Yoreh Deah, #131, pp. 97-99, in a responsum to his son. ET III, pp. 283-299. Th is was the currency of Hungary between January 1, 1927, when it replaced the korona, and July 31, 1946, when it was replaced by the forint. 94

X : B ’CHOR FIR S TBOR N A NIM A L

What is the status of the calf? Should it be categorized as prima-parous, with the sanctity of the first born? Responsum 3 R. Yekutiel Yehudah Teitelbaum decides that the ownership of the calf is assigned legally to the Gentile buyer, basing his decision primarily on  two premises. The first is that any agreement, conditional or unconditional, whether formalized in accordance with rabbinic law or with common law, is absolutely binding, even when ritual law is affected. Second, while legal fiction has as its ostensible goal the eliciting of a  legal remedy for an adverse legal situation, the true intention of the Jewish parties is or ought to be to eventually restore the situation [legally] to the status quo ante. In the case under discussion, the temporary sale of the cow to the Gentile “buyer” was done to alter the status of the calf. Even though both parties were aware of the fiction, we posit that the true intention of the seller was to validly sell and then repurchase the cow, allowing the Gentile a reasonable profit. The author relies upon the ideas and opinions of several authorities in formulating his decision. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Haim Mordekhai Yakov Gottlieb)11 A local man, the owner of a prima-parous cow, came to me on a Sabbath in great haste with the following problem: During the past week he was on the road and was not aware of the cow’s condition. Consequently, he failed to “divest himself” of ownership of the animal and, therefore, he may be faced with the many problems arising from owning a first-born calf.12 The owner is asking for my authorization to “sell” the cow on the Sabbath, before she gives birth, to a  Gentile who will then become the owner of the first-born calf. Responsum 4 “In matters of biblical law, questions are asked before the decision is taken; in matters of rabbinic law, we decide even before the questions are

11

Gottlieb, OH #496, pp. 77a-79b.

12

See ET vol. III pp. 283-299. 95

1. T HE R E SPONSA

asked.”13 This rabbinic dictum guides R. Gottlieb in his responsum to the request of the owner of the cow. Since there is no potential violation of a biblical law, he agreed to the owner’s request. He finds the case to be analogous to the sale of hametz (leavened products which cannot be used during Passover) to a  Gentile on the Sabbath immediately preceding the commencement of Passover.14 Moreover, the efficacy of the sale is not in doubt. The Mishna sanctions this type of sale even if, by itself, the sale is in violation of the law.15

13

Talmud Bavli Eruvin 61b.

14

See OH 448:1-5 and the standard commentaries; cf. ET II, pp. 283-287.

15

On the relevant laws, see HM 195:11 and 235:28. 96

XI: FARMING Sh’elah 1 (July 6, 1877, addressed to Schick)1 The question relates to a situation where a farmer must use horses as power generators for threshing [since there is no steam-propelled threshing machine]. The machine is equipped with four separate projections [for four horses]. The question is whether the tying of two horses and two oxen to these projections would be considered a violation of the prohibition of “You shall not plow with ox and ass together” (Deut. 22:10). Responsum 1 The biblical prohibition against plowing with an ox and an ass together was expanded by the rabbis to include both the use of other animals and the performance of other activities, such as “drawing and leading.” In light of the definitive rabbinic rulings on this issue, R. Schick was unable to find a way to alleviate the farmer’s problem.2 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)3 It is now prevalent among the common people to cross uncultivated with cultivated trees, especially apple trees. Since the first experiment was

1

Schick, YD, #294, p. 98.

2

See YD 247:10-15. The issue dealt with in the responsum must have been of great importance to the Jews of Maramarosh, judging from the large number of responsa on the subject. See J. Joseph Cohen, “Nineteenth Century Responsa,” 303. On the general issue of kilayim or mixed species, see Jehuda Feliks, “Mixed Species,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 14, 385-387 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007).

3

Grunwald, #231, p. 98. 97

1. T HE R E SPONSA

a  huge success (and bore fruit), and the farmers earned a  great amount of money, the pious farmers too followed suit and are now engaged in crossbreeding, unaware of the prohibition against such an activity. They are now asking you, an eminent Torah scholar, to find a way to permit this method, since it has become “big business.” If they are forced to abstain [from crossbreeding], it will have a  devastating effect on the families of many of the farmers since they will incur great losses . . . Furthermore, if no halakhic approval is forthcoming, can the farmers resort to a “conditional sale” of the orchard to a non-Jew [who is not bound by the law against crossbreeding]? On the other hand, if no adequate solution can be found, is it not our duty to raise a  “loud voice” against the violators? They would certainly, albeit reluctantly, heed our call and acquiesce to our decision [regardless of the resulting damages]. Responsum 2 The area of the origin of the question was known for the quality and taste of its apples. Many farmers and merchants depended heavily on the apple trade for a  living. The tone of the question and the response gives utterance to a  deep concern for the welfare of the small farmers and their families. There is a felt urgency to find a solution to the weighty and widespread problem of forbidding crossbreeding. R. Grunwald analyses a  variety of issues and their relevance to the problem at hand. The two most significant are those mentioned by the questioner: namely, whether this kind of crossbreeding falls under the prohibition against kilayim (crossbreeding)4 and is thus prohibited under the law, and whether a  “conditional” (fictitious) sale of the orchard to a Gentile farmer presents a viable solution to the problem. R. Grunwald finds almost unanimous opposition by the halakhic authorities to crossbreeding “of the trees of the garden” with “trees of the forest.” However, considering the potential losses for the apple growers if such a ban were to be upheld, he is disposed to follow the minority opinion of a  single decisor and, therefore, to allow same-species crossbreeding. On this basis, he counsels the questioner not to engage in any protest against the growers. R. Grunwald’s qualms in rendering his decision are

4

See YD 295:1-6. 98

X I: FA R MI NG

reflected in the final cautionary note: “At any rate, a sensitive person will act cautiously in order to thwart even a  tinge of a  possible violation of a biblical ban. This will surely merit him God’s help in providing sustenance in honorable and permissible ways.” Regarding the fictitious sale, R. Grunwald minces no words in expressing his opposition. He notes that according to Maimonides, 5 the prohibition against crossbreeding of trees is included among the Noahide laws6 which are incumbent on Gentiles as well as Jews. Therefore, any “sale” to a Gentile would constitute a breach of the biblical law “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.” 7 Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Aryeh Leib Horowitz)8 You are asking me to express my view on the following issue: It is now customary in your area to crossbreed apple trees from the orchard with [wild] trees from the forest. No local [rabbinic] authority objects to this practice even though there is no unanimity among authorities as to its permissibility. It happened that a  pious owner of an orchard [who wished to follow a  stricter rule] admonished his Gentile tenant farmer not to engage in this type of activity. But the latter ignored the warning and continued to crossbreed. What is your opinion in all of this? Responsum 3 From an analysis of many primary and secondary sources, R. Horowitz concludes that a  majority of authorities do not consider crossbreeding between domesticated and wild apple trees an infraction of the prohibition of kilayim9 (crossbreeding), especially in a case where the Gentile acted on his own volition against the explicit admonition of the owner.

5

See Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Kil’ayim, ch. 1 and the standard commentaries, especially Kesef Mishneh ad loc.

6

On Noahide laws see Steven Schwarzschild, Saul Berman, and Menachem Elon, “Noachide Laws,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 15, 284-287 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007).

7

Cf. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 60a; Avoda Zara 6a-b; and Pesachim 22b. Aryeh Leib Horowitz, Responsa Harei B’samim (Jerusalem: 1959), #13, pp. 17-21.

8 9

See preceding responsum and note. 99

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Having ruled in favor of the owner in this ex post facto case, R. Horowitz expresses reluctance to do so a priori since there is a strong minority view which considers this type of crossbreeding kilayim. Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Y.Y. Teitelbaum)10 This regards the question about an individual who owns an orchard in which he grows quince apples. The spreading roots and branches of some of the trees are penetrating into his fallow fields and make plowing difficult. In addition, the shade caused by some of the branches has an adverse effect on the yield [of the field]. Is he allowed to uproot these trees with the roots attached and transplant them somewhere else? Responsum 4 The laws pertaining to the preservation of fruit-bearing trees are based on Deuteronomy 20:19. Even though the biblical admonition “you must not destroy its trees” refers specifically to trees in enemy territory during a  siege, the rabbis expanded its meaning to protect all fruitbearing trees under a  great variety of circumstances. Th is protection is not extended, however, to [fruit-bearing] trees that cause damage to the surrounding area.11 R. Teitelbaum holds that the damage caused by the trees is sufficient cause for cutting them down. Their removal is especially justified by the fact that the trees will be transplanted and revitalized in new surroundings to become fruit-bearing again. Sh’elah 5 (August 24, 1901, addressed to Sholem Mordekhai HaKohen Shvadron)12 Ten years ago a  member of your community acquired an orchard with a great variety of beautiful trees. These brought forth an abundance of superb quality, expensive fruits: apples, pears, plums, prunes, and others. The orchard increased in value and [at its peak] was worth about 12,000 gulden. 10

Teitelbaum, YD #45, pp. 64b-65a.

11

Cf. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 6:7-9. While this law was not codified in the Shulchan Aruch, it was later incorporated by Taz; see his comment to YD 116:10.

12

Shvadron, vol. III #171, p. 162. 100

X I: FA R MI NG

Now, while the trees were of a  tender age and the branches few, the yield was substantial and the profit significant. In the past four years, however, the trees began to thicken, the roots to expand, and the branches began to spread. The yields have declined dramatically. The experts who were consulted unanimously agreed that overgrown roots and the blocking of sunshine and rain are the causes for the diminishing yield. If steps are not taken to cut away some of the trees, the damage will be irreparable. This will result in a substantial loss and a threat to the owner’s livelihood.13 On the other hand, these experts assert that if positive action is undertaken in the very near future, the harvest will immediately improve and will soon regain its former condition. Responsum 5 R. Schvadron is inclined to concur with the questioner who, in his query, recommends permitting the owner to have the potentially damaging trees cut down. Permission was given even though the “identity” of the destructive trees is impossible to ascertain. Nevertheless, R. Schvadron is concerned with the pervasiveness of Talmudic sources against cutting down fruit-bearing trees, ostensibly even when there is no halakhic objection.14 He therefore suggests that the owner [temporarily] sell the orchard, in a legal manner, to a Gentile who will perform the necessary work to restore the productivity of the trees. Sh’elah 6 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)15 This is a question about a man who has planted many apple trees in his garden. He has now determined that replacing the apples trees with peach trees will yield a much higher profit. Is he permitted to cut down the apple trees and replace them with the higher-yielding peach trees?

13

On the principle of hefsed m’rubah (substantial loss) and its effect on halakha, see ET X, pp. 32-41.

14

See Talmud Bavli Pesachim 50b; Succah 29a; Baba Kama 91b-92a; and Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer ch. 34. Cf. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 6:8-10. See also the following responsum.

15

Grunwald, YD #121. 101

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 6 The responsum issued by this authoritative rabbi is as simple and uncomplicated as the question. After quoting some of the sources mentioned in the two preceding notes, R. Grunwald finds no objection to replacing apple trees with peach trees. He nevertheless advises the questioner against doing so, citing the following two Talmudic admonitions [which were also quoted in the foregoing responsum]: “Those who cut down goodly (fruit-bearing) trees will never prosper (see a sign of success)”; and “On account of four things are the luminaries in eclipse . . . [including] on account of those who cut down (fruit-bearing) trees.”16 It should be noted that in this case R. Grunwald was swayed by nonlegal (aggadic) sources to issue a more stringent decision against the more lenient halakha.17 Sh’elah 7 (1920, addressed to H. Z. Teitelbaum)18 I was asked the following question by the people of Akna Sugatag:19 They are compelled to build a  new synagogue because the one they have now is small and of low quality. They have even sold the seats and would like to begin the work of building the new synagogue during the forthcoming summer. However, the lot designated for the new building is full of fruit-bearing trees of all sizes. Unless the trees are cut down, it will be impossible to erect the synagogue. In case of a  delay, there is a  danger that the whole project may be canceled, God forbid. They are asking for my opinion. Responsum 7 See Responsum 4 in this section, written by R. Yekutiel Yehudah Teitelbaum, the illustrious grandfather of this respondent. 16

Ibid.

17

Ibid. For the place of aggadah in determining halakha see Louis Jacobs and Benjamin Vries, “Halakhah,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 8, 256 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), as well as ET I, pp. 60-62.

18

H.Z. Teitelbaum.

19

A town in the southern part of Maramarosh. 102

X I: FA R MI NG

While the two situations are quite different, the solutions offered are identical. Both [respondents] emphasize the halakhic requirement to transplant the trees if and when they must be uprooted. While the halakha permits the removal of fruit-bearing trees when their presence presents a  serious problem, it also requires that, whenever possible, the trees be replanted in an area where they will not cause any damage. R. Haim Zvi Teitelbaum, the author of this responsum, urges his questioners, the leaders of the community of Akna Sugatag, to synchronize the commencement of the building with the start of the tree planting season to ensure the revitalization of the trees. The relevant sources are cited in the footnote to Responsum 4.

103

XII: REGAL (GOVERNMENT OR NOBLE FRANCHISES) Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)1 A Gentile leased an arenda (estate) [from a  local nobleman] which was previously managed by Jewish lessees. The new lessee hired [Jewish] salespeople to sell the liquor on commission in the tavern [which was part of the estate]. The former [Jewish] lessees assert that, based on the principle of hazakah, they have a legal claim to the job of selling the liquor [and they ask to replace the newly hired bartenders]. Responsum 1 R. Tabak does not sustain the claim of hazakah by the former lessees. He stresses the fact that the newly hired workers are merely servants of the new lessee and they are selling his liquor. They have no direct connection with the arenda. Moreover, the conditions under which the principle of hazakah is operative with regard to the arenda do not exist in this case. A  lessee is entitled to protection under hazakah principles if it is assumed that he made a considerable investment during the initial years of his lease, by improving old buildings and building new ones. It must also be presumed that, should the lessee be forced out of the arenda, he would lose a considerable amount of money by forfeiting the debts owed him by the customers. None of these potential conditions exist in this case.2

1

Tabak, #126, p. 28.

2

On the principle of hazakah, see ET XIV, pp. 81 ff. and M. Elon, p. 590 ff. 104

X II: R EGA L GOV ER NMEN T OR NOBLE FR A NCHISE S

Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)3 The government issued a  license [to sell liquor] to a  member of your community. The permit was subject to the [following] conditions: that the lessee builds and maintains a coffeehouse and a restaurant which will serve the non-Jewish public, and that these facilities be open for business on the Sabbath. The Jewish license holder will not be active in the daily operation of the business. His activities will be limited to monitoring the financial records and recording results in the proper government office. The Jewish license holder plans to hire a  Gentile manager (chief waiter) and put him in charge of the enterprise. The equipment, dishes and necessary capital will be provided by the Jewish owner, but the hiring of employees will be done by the manager. For his efforts, the manager will receive 20% or more of the income. Your question is as follows: since the Gentile manager is to be compensated with an actual share of the business, should this be considered arisut (subcontracting) so that the Gentile would be allowed to operate the business on the Sabbath, even inside a house owned by a Jew? Responsum 2 The issues raised by the questioner were of great significance to the many Jews who contracted with the government or local nobility to manage their vast holdings, cut and transport their timber, and sell their agricultural products. Many respondents, realizing the importance of the problems arising from the employment of Gentile sub-contractors who worked on the Sabbath, strove [albeit reluctantly] to reconcile the economic conditions within the framework of halakha. There were also authorities who shunned the issue of Gentile employment on the Sabbath. Because of the ubiquity and weight of the problem, they refused to voice an opinion. In fact, R.  Tabak [the author of the responsum], wrote his decision only after repeated requests and petitions.4

3

Tabak, #12, pp. 56b-58a.

4

See the variety of contingencies mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, OH 245:3-6 and Sh’arei T’shuva ad loc. For an erudite treatment of the whole subject, see Jakob Katz, The Shabbes Goy (Jerusalem: 1986). 105

1. T HE R E SPONSA

In R. Tabak’s view, the fact that the transactions were legally recorded with the authorities made them a matter of public knowledge and subject to the strictures of mar’it ‘ayin (an appearance of wrongdoing).5 This is in addition to the problems arising from Jewish-Gentile partnership, contractual relationships, and tenancy. R. Tabak follows the minority opinion in this issue, taking a conservative approach to the subject. Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Tabak) 6 A certain individual obtained a regal (the exclusive lease of the estate of the local aristocrat) which included a saloon. He hired his brother-in-law to operate the saloon [which was part of the regal]. On one occasion, there arose a  dispute between the brothers-in-law and they asked the local rabbi to mediate the dispute. Under the rabbi’s guidance, they reached a  settlement. According to the terms of the agreement, the hired saloon keeper cannot be fired from his job unless he is guilty of causing actual damage to the business. The lessee of the regal earned his living by operating a  [water] mill, which he owned. As a result of a disastrous flood, the mill was demolished and his only source of income dried up. He now wishes to terminate the services of his brother-in-law and operate the saloon by himself in order to provide sustenance for his family. Responsum 3 There is a  tendency among early authorities to allow the eviction of a  tenant in cases where the owner finds himself in an adverse economic situation without a source of income and, unable to provide for his family, is forced to sell the rental house.7 However, in the opinion of R. Tabak, the new agreement, which is binding on both parties, provides the brother-in-law with protection against being fired or evicted, regardless of the circumstances. This, according to R. Tabak, is in line with the law stipulated in the Codes.8

5

See OH 244:1-4 and 301:45 and the standard commentaries.

6

Tabak, #149, pp. 33-34.

7

See Tur and Taz HM 312:1.

8

See HM 333:8. 106

X II: R EGA L GOV ER NMEN T OR NOBLE FR A NCHISE S

Sh’elah 4 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)9 Reuven obtained a  regal [in this case, the royal right to monopolize the supply and distribution of all liquor to retail and wholesale businesses in the area]. The law stipulates that any liquor found anywhere which has not been purchased from the distributor shall be confiscated and consigned to him (the distributor). To enforce this law, Reuven hired detectives to search out any contraband liquor. Meanwhile, a partnership was formed between Shimon and Levy for the purpose of illegally importing and selling alcohol to the local consumers and establishments. They were caught. In accordance with the terms of the regal, they were obligated to turn the contraband liquor over to Reuven. In order to compel Reuven to compensate Shimon for his lost merchandise, Shimon threatened Reuven, saying that he would divulge to the authorities some very damaging information relating Reuven to illegal activities. Realizing his vulnerability, Reuven compensated Shimon for his loss. Levy, Shimon’s partner, claims that half the compensation duly belongs to him. Responsum 4 R. Tabak sides with Shimon and denies Levy’s claim. First, he considers the compensation fee Reuven paid to obtain the regal (monopoly) a form of tax, and as such it falls into the category of “the law of the land is binding.” Consequently, the confiscated alcohol is now legally owned by Reuven and it is his prerogative to dispose of it as he sees fit. Even if the legality of the seizure is disputable, there is the presumption that Shimon and Levy, upon the confiscation of the merchandise, waived their expectation of ever recovering yi’ush (the loss),10 since the [Jewish] court lacks the power of enforcement. Furthermore, the blackmail by Shimon is nothing but an act of gzeilah (robbery) and, according to many authorities, a thief cannot be forced into sharing the spoils with his partner. In fact, the partnership’s dissolution was simultaneous with the confiscation of the liquor. What happened after that is of concern to Reuven and Shimon only.11 9 10 11

Tabak, #91, p. 20. A concise summary of the concept of yi’ush, see J.D. Eisenstein, 155. For the laws relevant to this responsum, see HM 369:7, 356:6, Shach to HM 176:12/27, Pitchei T’shuva to HM 259:3. 107

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 5 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)12 Reuven acquired a  license to collect tolls at a  designated bridge. The law prescribes that the process of awarding the license must follow certain procedures. [Among these] the recipient of the license must be determined at a public auction, the date and place of which must have been posted in advance. After Reuven’s license expired, Shimon acquired the rights to the tolls. When Shimon’s license expired, Shimon illegally interceded with the proper authorities who, for a sizable bribe, awarded him the license at a lower rate and without public auction. Shimon’s illegal activities came to the attention of Levy’, who directly contacted higher authorities and offered a much higher bid. The authorities revoked Shimon’s license and awarded it to Levy. Shimon is crying out for justice, claiming that Levy ruined his livelihood, that he has no other source of income, and that he has a legal claim to the license. Responsum 5 In R. Tabak’s view, there are two main issues to be determined in this query: 1) Should Shimon, despite his illegal activities, be considered “a poor man in search of crumbs”13 [and therefore immune from competition]? The fact is, the authorities initially agreed to his offer. Were it not for Levy’s interference, Shimon would have been the recipient of the license. 2) Does Shimon, who held the rights to tolls for more than three years, have a legal claim under the rubric of hazakah [presumptive priority right]?14 R. Tabak concludes that none of these categories is applicable to the case. Furthermore, the giving of bribes constitutes a transgression against the commandment “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14)15 which is applicable equally to Jews and Gentiles.

12

Tabak, #159, pp. 75a-b.

13

See HM 237:1 and 243:2.

14

See M. Elon, ibid.

15

See HM 9:1 and Pitchei T’shuva ad loc., and HM 364:4 as well as the sources quoted in the preceding notes. 108

X II: R EGA L GOV ER NMEN T OR NOBLE FR A NCHISE S

Not only did Shimon “corrupt” the authorities immediately involved, he also deprived the government of an income which it rightfully deserves. The income from these tolls funds the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and other public works for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the land, Jew and Gentile alike. By illegally reducing the income of the government, Shimon harmed these inhabitants. The fact that Shimon engaged in illegal activities in obtaining the license, coupled with the absence of valid legal claims, gave R. Tabak the grounds to rule against him. Sh’elah 6 (December 10, 1904, addressed to Alter Sh’aul Pfefer)16 This is in regard to the following issue: At [public] auction, Reuven acquired the exclusive rights to harvest the unclaimed wild apples of the estate and of the public areas from the [aristocratic] administrator-owner of the town. The transaction was recorded and the necessary contracts signed. After the agreement with the town ruler was signed, Reuven entered into an agreement with Shimon whereby Reuven sold Shimon 300 tons of assorted apples, 3/4 wild and 1/4 domesticated. Thereupon, Shimon gave Reuven a deposit of one hundred gulden and, as is the custom, a contract was signed by both parties. After Reuven harvested about seventy tons of the wild apples, the buyer, Shimon, had a  change of heart and now wishes to cancel the agreement and is requesting a refund of his deposit. Shimon bases his claim on the fact that the transaction is not legally binding since Reuven, the seller, was not yet in possession of all of the wild apples when the contract was signed. He claims that this is a case of “selling something which does not yet exist”17 and, therefore, the contract is to be considered null and void. Reuven argues, on the other hand, that he ascertained the rights to the [wild] apples prior to signing the contract with Shimon and that the apples were ready for harvest at that time. Moreover, Reuven asserts that the garden variety (domesticated) apples had already been harvested and

16

Alter Shaul Pfefer, Responsa ‘Avneh Zikaron (New York: 1923), #97, pp. 105-6.

17

On the problems resulting from selling “something that does not yet exist,” see ET VII, pp. 30-37. 109

1. T HE R E SPONSA

were ready for delivery when the contract was signed. Consequently, the seller not only refuses to refund the money, but insists on full compliance with the terms of the agreement. Responsum 6 Quoting an anonymous respondent who ruled on the question in favor of the buyer, R. Pfefer sets out, in a lengthy analysis, to refute that decision and to advance a plausible argument in favor of the seller. He does so first by describing the economics of wild apples harvested in Maramarosh villages and administered by aristocratic landowners. Every villager was permitted to harvest wild apples [which grew on public lands] sufficient for his annual consumption, including those used to make the liquor his family used during the year. No villager was allowed to sell any part of his harvest. It seems that the villagers’ share did not amount to a large part of the overall harvest. Th is enabled the landownerruler to sell most of the wild apples in “his” village. Accordingly, the sale by the ruler to Reuven, and the latter’s resale to Shimon, was of “existing” apples. In the view of R. Pfefer, the case is analogous to the sale of property to be inherited which [according to the Shulchan Aruch] is a legal and binding act.18 The fact that domesticated apples were ready for shipment when the contract was signed adds to the soundness of Reuven’s argument. In addition, the contractual obligations which result from the kinyan situmta (seal/signature) are, ostensibly, applicable to the case. It obligates the signatory even in instances where the merchandise does not yet exist.19 Based on this, R. Pfefer ruled in favor of the seller and instructed the buyer to comply with the original agreement. Sh’elah 7 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)20 (a) Several members of our community obtained regals (franchises granting the holder the exclusive right to sell alcoholic beverages of any kind in a specific area). 18

HM 209:5 and 211, as well as the standard commentaries.

19

On kinyan situmta, see HM 201:1 and Mishneh Torah, The Laws of Sale, 7:6. The application of this law to cases such as this is accepted by most authorities. See the final section of this responsum.

20

Tabak, #138, pp. 31a-b. 110

X II: R EGA L GOV ER NMEN T OR NOBLE FR A NCHISE S

After a  while, the store owners of the community intervened with the government authorities and were issued licenses to sell bottled liquor [which could not be opened in the store, but could be taken home]. The regal holders did not immediately react to the merchants’ limited licensing. Now, however, they wish to intercede with the proper agencies to revoke the merchants’ limited licenses. The regal holders claim that their exclusive right, which derives from the principle of hazakah (presumptive priority right), is being violated by the storekeepers. [Can the regal holders’ claim be justified?] (b) In a neighboring community the tavern owners, whose business is restricted to serving customers in the tavern, have also been given a license to sell bottled liquor. As it turns out, the sale of bottled liquor did not generate sufficient profit and, for a  long period, the merchants paid the annual license fee, but did not stock bottled liquor in their stores. However, now that a larger margin of profit may be realized, the storekeepers put bottled liquor back in their stores. The tavern owners now strongly object to the merchants’ action and view this as an encroachment into their right of hazakah. Responsum 7 In the first case, the regal holders cannot prevent the merchants from selling bottled alcohol. A  long period of time elapsed without a  protest from the claimants, and the halakha (law) considers their silence to be a  tacit concession to allowing the storekeepers to pursue the sale of bottled liquor. In the second case, the tavern owners attempt to prevent the storekeepers from selling sealed bottles of alcoholic beverages. They assert that the hiatus in trading of bottled liquor should be considered a  renunciation of the storekeepers’ licenses. R. Tabak insists that this is not a valid claim. Unless the store keepers specifically and unequivocally transferred their rights to the tavern owners, the latter have no legal grounds for their demand.21

21

Tabak, #138, p. 38. 111

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Sh’elah 8 (NDA, addressed to Tabak)22 (a) This is in response to the following question: [The government] has recently suspended the issuance of regals and instead promulgates a new type of document which is similar to the akzise (excise tax).23 By purchasing such a license, for a considerable amount of money, the license holder acquires the right to collect 15 kreutzer for each alcoholic beverage sold in local taverns. The question before us is whether a  former holder of a  regal has an a priori claim of hazakah24 to the new monopoly. If so, such a claim would suspend the customary auctioning of these licenses by preventing anyone from competing for the privilege.25 [You wish to know my view on this matter.] (b) The second question regards [another] former regal holder [and his alleged privileges]. The government limited the number of taverns in your town to two. The former regal owner, who now operates a tavern, wishes to prevent the establishment of a second tavern by claiming that, as a former owner of a monopoly, he still has a claim through the principle of hazakah. Responsum 8 In his responsum, R. Tabak cites several analogous responsa issued by medieval authorities.26 They concur that, once a  lease to a  house or business reverts to the “king” (ruling authority), the lessee forfeits all rights, including the right of hazakah.

22

Tabak, #265, pp. 63a-b.

23

In the responsum, R. Tabak defines the full privileges of the regal and the akzise.

24

The alleged advantage of the former regal holder over any other bidder is also based upon the principle expressed in the concept of “the poor man is examining a  cake and another comes and takes it away from him” and upon the rabbinic understanding of the verse “Do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord” (Deut. 6:18). See Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 59a, Baba Batra 21b, and Baba Kama 108a.

25

Tabak, #138, pp. 31a-b.

26

R. Tabak focuses mainly on an authoritative responsum by R. David ben Zimra (14801574), vol I, #513. 112

X II: R EGA L GOV ER NMEN T OR NOBLE FR A NCHISE S

Because the “king” has the power to dispose of the lease (or property) as he wishes, since “the law of the kingdom is the law” (dina demalchuta dina),27 the lessee has no recourse to the protection given to him by the principle of hazakah [except in places where there exists a well-established custom to the contrary]. A most interesting argument against the lessee’s claim to exclusive monopolistic rights is put forward by the respondent, R. Tabak. He distinguishes between the regal and the akzise, the latter being issued by the national government while the power to sell regals is vested in the local gentry. Thus, R. Tabak reasons that by eliminating competition in obtaining an akzise or a similar government document, the people are depriving the government of substantial income, which will have to be replaced by the levying of new taxes or alternative solutions, all of which will affect the entire population, Jew and Gentile alike. It should be noted that R. Tabak’s concern for the welfare of the government is reflected in many of his responsa. Regarding the second question, it is evident that the claimant has no basis for the claim of hazakah, which would have established him as the sole tavern owner in town. R. Tabak argues that the fact that the authorities consented to the operation of two taverns opens the door for any member of the community to operate a tavern—each one deferring the burden of responding to the regal bidder’s claim of hazakah to the other.28

27

See Shmuel Shilo and Menachem Elon. “Dina de-Malkhuta Dina,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 5, 663-669 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007).

28

See HM #148. 113

XIII: ZIONISM Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Sperber)1 The question regards my consent to your planned journey to the Land of Israel [for the purpose of settling there]. Is it advisable [you ask] to join a group of fellow travelers who are planning to settle in a Zionist colony? My friend, you have asked a very difficult question. One needs prophetic insight to predict the outcome of things, to determine which direction to take. Thus, who am I  to tell you which road to choose? Nevertheless, because of my love for you, and because of your sincere and honest interest in the matter, I shall not withhold my opinion. Responsum 1 In the responsum by the rabbi of the Orthodox community of the city of Brasav, Transylvania, there is none of the vehement and acrimonious anti-Zionist rhetoric one finds in the writing of the rabbis of Satmar or Sighet, also in Transylvania, or their followers, even though they employ many of the same sources. The primary concern of the respondent is whether the questioner, “the shining star of the town of Borsha in Maramarosh” [an epithet ascribed to him by R. Sperber] will be able to observe the commandments, especially those linked with the land of Israel, with the intensity and vigor required of one who is resides in the Holy land. R. Sperber’s approval for settling in Israel is contingent upon the following: the settler must have a  deep and consummate love for the

1

Sperber, #143, pp. 117-120. 114

X III: ZIONISM

land of Israel and a  burning desire to settle there. When there, he must adhere to a  life of fulfi lling the commandments. He must join and work for a religious community, and must separate himself completely from the “sinful colonist.”2 Sh’elah 2 (January 19, 1898, addressed to Y. Teitelbaum)3 This regards a letter addressed to me, upon your4 recommendation, by the scholarly R. David Katzburg. It [the letter] records a  new movement which is now being formed by people who have forsaken the Torah and its teachings. The [sole] aim of these groups is to establish local societies which they have named the Love  of Zion and Jerusalem [and the Society for the Settlement of Eretz Yisrael],5 through which they plan to acquire fields and vineyards in the Holy Land [and these are] to be settled by immigrants who will till the soil, reap the harvest, and enjoy its goodness. While the letter seems to indicate that the writer did not, as yet, actively join “the infidels and apostates,” they nevertheless influenced him noticeably, as is evident from the numerous remarks scattered in the letter.

2

See Talmud Bavli Ketuvot 110b-112b. This and the parallel midrashic passage (from Shir HaShirim Rabba to Song of Sol. 2:7) are the most frequently cited sources by the religious anti-Zionists. This responsum also incorporates a wealth of relevant material usually ignored by others.

3

Y. Teitelbaum, #176, p. 559.

4

The reference is to R. Hananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum (1836-1904), father of the famed R. Yoel Teitelbaum. Many of the senior R. Teitelbaum’s letters and “words of Torah” are incorporated into the son’s responsa, from which this document is drawn. This correspondence was prompted by a  letter sent to R. Teitelbaum, Sr., on the recommendation of R. Silberstein, the rabbi of the Orthodox community of Vac (Weitzen) in Hungary. The tone of the responsum is characteristic of the acrimonious nature of the debates which were raging between the newly organized Zionist organization and the extreme Orthodox establishment at the close of the nineteenth century.

5

The Society for the Settlement of Eretz Yisrael was founded in 1862. Among the early backers of the Society were some prominent leaders of the Orthodox community. See Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, vol. 4, 984 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). 115

1. T HE R E SPONSA

Responsum 2 The following is R. Teitelbaum’s response: I said [to myself]: “Do not answer a fool6 according to his folly” (Prov. 26:4), and chose to address my response to you7 directly. According to the writer’s view, there remains no hope for the future of the Jewish people in the Diaspora and we are doomed to sink [deeper and deeper], God forbid, unless we start acting on our own, in a natural way, toward redemption and rebirth. [In my estimation] these infidels believe that, acting on their own initiative, they will eventually be able to rebuild the ruins of Jerusalem and restore our ancient institutions to their former glory. You are aware, as I am, that one cannot change bitter into sweet, and no salvation will ever spring from a  fraternity of infidels and apostates. Their primary aim is not to improve the lot of our Jewish brethren, but to remove any faith in the coming of the Messiah. One of their representatives came to our city and spoke before various  groups. Using his slippery tongue, he attempted to sway his listeners to join one of these organizations but, with the help of the Almighty, I  was able to stand in the breach and to ensure that their scheme will not be perpetrated upon our community. Their emissary was forced to depart without making any inroads. Numerous communities have brought this issue to my attention and I urge them emphatically not to join an organization whose leaders are self-proclaimed apostates bereft of any faith in God. May God, our Benefactor, rebuild our House and redeem us speedily and in our time.

These are the words of one who eagerly anticipates God’s help in the hoisting of the banner of Torah and of Israel.

6

A reference to the “scholarly” R. David Katzburg.

7

A reference to the intermediary, R. Silberstein. 116

XIV: ANTISEMITISM Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Teitelbaum)1 I received your letter regarding the decree of the [Hungarian] authorities which forces the [Jewish] storekeepers to keep their stores open on the holy Sabbath. You argue that the act [of keeping the stores open on the Sabbath] must be considered a  violation of one of the commandments which must not be violated even when there is a danger of losing one’s life.2 When I received your question last year, I did not respond immediately because, for reasons which will soon become clear, I am very reluctant to voice an opinion on this matter. In addition, we were actively and diligently engaged in lobbying the government to rescind this decree, making inquiries such as yours unnecessary. With the help of the Almighty, we were successful and, in our city, there are no open stores on the Sabbath. Responsum 1 Around the time (1942-43) this query was written, the pro-German government of Hungary was in the process of confiscating all Jewish business establishments and transferring them to Christian control. The forcing of Jewish owners to open all stores on the Sabbath was a step in that direction.

1

Y. Teitelbaum, #16, p. 92.

2

An important rabbinic source dealing with the issue of kiddush HaShem (Sanctification of the Name) is Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 74a-b. The law was codified in Mishneh Torah, The Laws of the Foundation of the Torah 5:1-4, YD 157:1-2. 117

1. T HE R E SPONSA

It is noteworthy that R. Teitelbaum, the famed rebbe of Satmar who was known for his extreme views in matters of halakha, discusses here the feasibility of a lenient ruling, basing such a ruling on his understanding of the relevant Talmudic and post-Talmudic texts. R. Teitelbaum presupposes that the response to an anti-Jewish decree should only fall into the category of “suffer death rather than transgress” if the intention of the hostile government is to undermine the Jewish faith. The ruling does not apply, for example, to economic or other non-doctrinal harassment. This distinction is well-established and was accepted by many early authorities. In the case at hand, the respondent argues, the intimidation by the government is part of a series of economic pressures with a single purpose in mind: the replacement of the Jewish storekeepers by new Hungarian Christian owners. In support of this view, the rebbe cites a seminal responsum issued by R. Meir Eisenstadter of Ungvar (d. 1852), dated around the year 1838. It, too, deals with government ordinances that adversely affect the Jewish population.3 Among these was an edict permitting marriage licenses to be issued to Jewish bachelors under thirty only if they dressed in modern attire; otherwise, they would have to wait until they reach the age of thirty. R. Eisenstadter argued that this decree was merely an attempt to curb Jewish population growth and presented a demographic rather than a doctrinal challenge. R. Teitelbaum notes that, according to R. Moses Isserles, the notion of “the time of persecution” (during which one is obligated to die for the “sanctification of the Name,” even in situations other than the three transgressions of murder, illicit sex, and idolatry) is applicable exclusively in situations where the Jews are singled out for discrimination and persecution. In this case, although the decree against closing the stores on the Sabbath was directed toward all storekeepers, the intent was specifically geared toward Jewish merchants.4 Still, the famed rabbi was hesitant

3

For the background of this ordinance, see Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 5, 1033-34 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007).

4

And a lenient ruling would have been in line with the Shulchan Aruch. 118

X I V: A N T ISEMI T ISM

to issue a  direct approbation of a  public desecration of the Sabbath. The concluding passage of this lengthy and erudite responsum reads as follows: While it is clear in my mind that the decree is not in the purview of the category of “suffering death rather than transgression,” nevertheless this [the permission to open the stores on the Sabbath] is a grave matter indeed. In the final analysis, it is mainly a  question of monetary loss. God protect us if we consent to desecrate the holy Sabbath for financial gain, except in cases exempted by the Sages . . . . Keeping the stores open may lead to calamitous results! In this issue, I find myself thrown into a perplexing situation. On the one hand, there is the burden of authorizing a public “desecration of the Sabbath”; on the other hand, forcing merchants to close the stores may result in economic ruin for a great number of families. The fact is that the current situation may evolve into a condition of pikuah nefesh (saving endangered lives), God forbid. In my wretchedness, I simply don’t dare to take a stand, to assume responsibility to rule one way or another. This is the reason for my silence, despite numerous and frequent requests from many erudite rabbis. Our sages caution us not to take a stand on any issue unless we are unequivocally certain of the correctness of our position. 5 All we can do is hope and anticipate the mercy of God, who will bring about the annulment of the decree [in the whole country]. Since it is improper to refuse a request of a person of your stature, I wrote this short responsum and broke my silence on this matter. There remains, of course, much more to be said on this issue.

Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Brisk) 6 This relates to the government’s edict that [a Jew] cannot obtain a license to operate a truck unless he takes a Gentile partner. [In this case], the Jewish owner complied with this regulation and legally transferred [half of] his business to his Gentile partner. It was initially agreed that the Gentile partner would draw a monthly salary.7 5

This view is adumbrated by early leading authorities, including Maimonides. See Mishneh Torah, The Fundamentals of the Torah 5:3.

6

Brisk, part II #36, pp. 35-36.

7

The salary, apparently, is based upon the amount of business. 119

1. T HE R E SPONSA

The Jewish partner wants the business to be closed for the Sabbath, but the Gentile partner refuses to do so. The question is whether the Jew may share in the profit generated from work performed [by the Gentile partner] on the Sabbath. Responsum 2 R. Brisk concurs with the questioner’s tentative suggestion that the continuation of the partnership does not constitute a  violation of the Sabbath laws, provided that the agreement conforms with the principle of havla’ah (absorbing). 8 This principle postulates that the Sabbath wages earned by the Gentile partner must not be earmarked specifically for  work performed on the Sabbath but rather, are absorbed in the monthly pay. Concerning the application of the rule of shvitat kelim (Sabbath “rest” of utensils)9 to the jointly owned truck, R. Brisk notes that even those scholars who insist on the obligation of shvitat kelim would suspend the  statute in cases where its implementation would incur substantial losses. Sh’elah 3 (June 29, 1917, addressed to Engel)10 These days, every citizen has to show an identification card [upon request of a  police officer]. It has happened several times in the past that [on the Sabbath] our co-religionists were arrested, imprisoned, and beaten because they were unable to produce such a  card [due to halakhic restrictions regarding carrying on the Sabbath]. The question is whether one may be allowed to carry an identification card [on the Sabbath] through an unusual method of carrying [i.e., by placing the card under one’s hat] so that one can go to the synagogue and to the mikvah (the ritual bath).

8

The principle is discussed in detail in ET VIII, pp. 130-137. A  listing of laws pertaining to Jewish-Gentile partnership and the problems affecting proper Sabbath observance is found in OH 245-246. See especially 246:1, 3-5. Note the several alternative solutions suggested by the Shulchan Aruch. Of special interest are the concluding remarks by R’MA: “All these various permissible devices are halakhically proper and one may use whichever he chooses . . . provided that he publicizes that he has done it in a permissible fashion.”

9

See Tur and OH 246 and the standard commentaries to both codes.

10

Engel, Responsa Maharash, vol. III, p. 34 #43. 120

X I V: A N T ISEMI T ISM

Responsum 3 In a  lengthy analysis, R. Engel ruled that the infractions involved in carrying one’s identification card violate a  rabbinic prohibition [as distinguished from the biblical prohibitions]. Weighing these relatively minor infractions against the agony resulting from not being able to attend synagogue services and the ritual bath, R. Engel rules in favor of carrying the card under one’s hat, which represents a change from ordinary weekly usage. Permission is granted with the proviso that the purpose of being outdoors is to pursue a religious duty.11

11

The application of this rationale in limited circumstances is well attested to in the Talmud. See Talmud Bavli Shabbat 117b, 128b, and parallel sources. The various laws of carrying on the Sabbath are detailed in OH 301:1-4. 121

XV: SHOAH Sh’elah 1 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)1 “Whenever I remember, my soul sinks within me.” (Lam. 3:20). When the following debate took place, the holy community of Hust already lay in ruin and desolation, her members confined within the walls of the ghetto, surrounded by the wicked and ruthless German guards and their Hungarian surrogates. We were weighing the question of whether it is permissible to escape from the ghetto or to assist others to flee, knowing full well that such an act may cause great harm to the rest of us. In the eyes of the Germans, each individual Jew carried responsibility for the whole community. Thus, a violation by an individual could result in collective punishment. Responsum 1 The author of the responsum musters an array of sources from the Talmud, midrash, seventeenth-century responsa, and the Shulchan Aruch in support of his view that an act of disobedience to German or Hungarian authority is not only permissible but highly commendable, regardless of the possible dire consequences. In times like these, R. Grunwald argues, it is a great mitzvah to assist people in their attempt to escape from the hands of the Germans, whose declared aim is the total physical annihilation of our people, God forbid. Any individual who succeeds in this endeavor and reaches the free world accomplishes a hatzalah purta (partial deliverance). R. Grunwald notes that the rationale against escaping does not apply to the situation which presented itself in the ghetto, the last stop

1

Grunwald, #20, pp. 35-36. 122

X V: SHOA H

before the extermination camp. By then the German design for the total extermination of all Jewish people living in Maramarosh was already set in motion and the escape of an individual would have no effect on that plan. However, anyone who could successfully elude the guards had a  chance, albeit very minimal, to survive both as an individual and as a part of Israel, thereby challenging the enemy’s aim of obliterating the memory of Israel. Retrospectively, the modern reader can see that it is a  fact that the rate of survival was far greater among those who fled the ghetto than among those who were transported to the camps.2 Sh’elah 2 (NDA, addressed to Moshe David Oestreicher)3 After six years (1939-1945) of a  horrible war in which the most evil of men—may his memory be obliterated—succeeded in destroying most of  the world and almost all of our people, [we are facing many problems]. I was asked a  question: At the end of the war the victorious armies of the USSR, USA, and England forced the Germans into retreat. The few remaining Jews who escaped the horrible fate of millions of their brethren, [who were] cruelly murdered and burned in ovens, were about to be liberated by the advancing Allied troops. The Germans, however, were determined to annihilate the whole Jewish people and resolved to prevent the deliverance of even those few remaining battered Jews. They ordered the evacuation of the concentration camps and forced the ragged and sick inmates into a  long and arduous march. All of this is well-known. Among those retreating Jews there was a  family which consisted of several sisters and other relatives. One of the sisters was already very ill and close to death at the outset of the march. They all knew that those who were unable to march would be summarily executed. Consequently, the relatives tried hard to hold and support her and keep her in line with the rest of the marching inmates. As the sister’s situation worsened, all

2

Among the most relevant sources cited by the author are: Talmud Bavli Gittin 45a [Tosafot s.v. D’lo]; Bamidbar Rabba 23:1; Responsa Chavat Yair by Rav Y. Bachrach (1628-1701), #213; Shulchan Aruch YD #252:4-5.

3

Moshe David Oestreicher, Responsa Tif ’eret Adam (New York: 1984), EH #3, p. 207 f. This responsum was issued in 1947. The family involved hailed from the town of Neresnica in Maramarosh, according to the testimony of several former inmates. 123

1. T HE R E SPONSA

they could do was drag her along. One of the evil guards asked them: “Why are you dragging that corpse? You run along with the rest while you still have a chance. This one cannot be saved anymore!” When they turned to see what the German’s intentions were, he warned them not to tarry and to move on. They saw the soldier load his gun and soon after they heard a shot. They believed that their sister was dead. Now her [surviving] husband is pleading for permission to remarry, being convinced that his wife is no longer alive. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the intended bride is the sister [who has never been married before] of his wife. Your Eminence is of the opinion that, based on our own experience with the murderous German army, we should not withhold permission from the petitioner to marry the sister of his “deceased” wife. You wish me to voice an opinion in this matter. I shall entreat the Omniscient Helper to assist me in rendering the right decision. Responsum 2 The case involves two unequal possible violations. The first is the biblical prohibition against marrying the wife’s sister [during the lifetime of the former].4 The second is an infringement of the principles of monogamy established by R. Gershom.5 Consequently, for the husband to obtain halakhic approbation for his intended marriage with his sister-in-law, the death of his former wife must be established. The facts surrounding her alleged death are unmistakable. German atrocities in general, and indiscriminate killing of defenseless Jews in particular, occurred daily and were witnessed by the questioner and the respondent alike. They also experienced the long and cruel march of the winter of 1945. Coupled with the fact that at the outset of the march the woman was gravely ill and almost non-ambulatory, it is reasonably certain that she could survive neither the winter nor the guards.

4

Lev. 18:18.

5

On the ban of R. Gershom and its application to current issues, see ET XVII, pp.  399-402, and Shlomo Eidelberg and David Derovan, “Gershom ben Judah Me’or Ha-Golah,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 7, 551-552 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007). 124

X V: SHOA H

R. Oestreicher stresses the additional well-established fact that the German guards were under strict orders to shoot anyone who was unable to sustain the pace of the marching columns. In light of the evidence, the respondent endorses his questioner’s view that the available data, including eyewitness testimony of people who saw the guard aiming at the victim and the sound of the shot, is sufficient grounds to grant permission to the husband to marry the deceased wife’s sister. R. Oestreicher summons an array of Talmudic and post-Talmudic sources in support of this ruling.6 Sh’elah 3 (NDA, addressed to Grunwald)7 Regarding the ashes of the holy and the pure martyrs, of fathers and their children who were murdered, burned, and suffocated by the cursed Germans in the concentration camp of Auschwitz and whose remains are now in piles of ashes. Certain [former inmates] brought with them some of these ashes and wish to arrange for a traditional burial and for the erection of a monument to remind future generations of the Holocaust. I was actually asked a threefold question: are Jews of priestly descent allowed to carry the ashes? Is there a halakhic obligation to bury the ashes in a traditional manner? Where is the proper place for such a burial—is it in the rows of the other graves? Responsum 3 At first glance, the question of whether the ashes of the martyrs are “contaminating” should not present a problem. The Mishna, in a majority opinion, rules that the laws of impurity do not apply to “ashes of those who were burned.”8 However, R. Grunwald’s concern is with the legendary almond-shaped bone called luz which, according to a  rabbinic legend, is found in all human bodies. The bone is everlasting, indestructible, and fireresistant; it is the “stuff ” from which resurrection will be launched.9 6

Cf. Pitchei T’shuva to EH 1:8 where a  strikingly similar responsum is cited. See also Yehoshua Grunwald, authored by the former rabbi of Hust (Maramarosh) #1, pp. 8-9.

7

Grunwald, #4, pp. 9-12.

8

Mishna Ohalot 2:3.

9

The popularity of this legend is attested to by the numerous extant versions. See Bereshit Rabba, ed. J. Theodore and Chanoch Albeck (Berlin: 1903), vol. I, pp. 261-2, 125

1. T HE R E SPONSA

In light of this “fact,” the author posits the “existence” of a  bone in the ashes, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary. The proposed measurement of the imaginary bone equals the size of a [grain of] barley,10 sufficient to prevent a person of priestly descent from [coming in] contact with the ashes. R. Grunwald is indecisive on this issue. The resolution of the second problem [namely, whether there exists a  halakhic obligation to provide a  traditional burial for the ashes], is far less complex because of the existence of an earlier authoritative responsum which addresses the same issue. In it, the author emphatically underscores the obligation to observe all prescribed and customary rites for “those who were murdered or burned” while “sanctifying the name of G-d.” R. Grunwald concludes that, due to halakhic, emotional, and sentimental considerations, we are duty-bound to arrange a traditional burial for the ashes in the midst of the other graves.

and the parallel sources cited in the notes. See also L. Ginsberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: 1955), vol. V, p. 363, and vol. VI, p. 186. Cf. Tosafot on Talmud Bavli Baba Kama 16b marginal note to s.v. w’hu. For an interesting illustration of halakhic application of the luz legend, see R. Moshe Sofer, Responsum Hatam Sofer, YD #337, pp. 135-138, especially p. 137. 10

This is the minimum size for contracting “impurity.” Cf. Mishna Ohalot 2:3. 126

2 EDUCAT ION IN MA RA MA ROSH

In evaluating Jewish education in Maramarosh, one significant fact must be remembered: the entire educational process, from cheder through yeshiva, had no significant relationship to any worldly or occupational goals parents may have had in mind for their children. Ironically, even the practical facts of Jewish observance were not a major concern of the educational system. It was understood that a  child would learn how to function as an observant Jew from living in an observant Jewish home and community. What, then, were the goals of the intense religious education that boys, at least, received? Looking at the total picture of Jewish life in Maramarosh, where religious faith was the ultimate and all-consuming principle, the answer becomes self-evident. The type of education and the intensity of the educational process aimed to fulfi ll the mitzvah of learning and teaching Torah, a mitzvah that supersedes all others. However, the legal obligation alone does not fully explain the dedication of Maramarosh parents to their children’s cheder education. All Maramarosh Jews, whether learned or ignorant, wealthy or destitute, were committed to providing their sons with Torah learning. At times, a heavy price was paid for this commitment. Mothers literally sold the pillows from under their heads in order to be able to pay the melamed. One can only surmise that centuries of tradition forged a  metaphysical bond between Torah and the Jews of Maramarosh. With its emphasis on religious education alone, this system was strongly promoted and defended by the rabbinic establishment, especially the hasidic rebbes. In this way, the young were provided a milieu of devotion and piety as well as a  sheltered environment that protected them from 127

2. EDUC AT ION I N M A R A M A ROSH

acculturation into Gentile society. For this reason, little or no weight was attached to learning in secular schools. After the granting of legal equality to the Jews of the AustroHungarian Empire in 1867, a proliferation of Jewish schools of all religious persuasions and bents occurred in the “historic” lands (of Bohemia and Moravia). In Maramarosh, however, not even an attempt was made to establish such a school system. In fact, no serious challenge to the status quo in education was undertaken by any segment of the Jewish population in Maramarosh, and no voice was raised against the zealous rabbis and rebbes for almost 150 years. As early as 1895, the Budapest Jewish and general press deplored the state of education (or lack of it) in Maramarosh. Jewish leadership in Maramarosh was denounced as primitive for depriving more than 20,000 Jewish children of even a minimal secular education. The central government in Budapest was concerned enough to send a special emissary to enlighten the rabbinic and lay leadership about the importance of secular education. Accompanied by the highest local administrative bureaucrat, the emissary exerted all kinds of pressure, but to no avail. Documentary evidence reveals that at the turn of the century in Maramarosh (Jewish population over 50,000) there existed not one elementary school under Jewish auspices in which both religious and secular subjects were taught. Only a tiny minority of Jewish students in the area attended public schools. In 1913, the only Jewish school in the region to teach both Jewish and secular studies was established by a not very successful renegade Sephardic community in the city of Sighet. As a  result of WWI (1914-1918) and the subsequent Treaty of Trianon, Maramarosh was partitioned between the newly established Republic of Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of Romania. The northern section of Maramarosh, together with the counties of Ung, Bereg, and Ugocsa, comprised the autonomous Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia District of Czechoslovakia. The southern section of Maramarosh rejoined Transylvania as part of Greater Romania. In Transylvania, in the areas south of Maramarosh, a  new network of Jewish elementary and high schools was established. These schools followed curricula derived from various ideologies, traditional to Zionist to modern secular. With one or two glaring exceptions, no such schools were established in southern Maramarosh. Parents desiring an alternative education for their children were forced to send them outside of the county to Satmar (150 km), Oradea (50 km), or as far away as Cluj (200 km). 128

2. EDUC AT ION I N M A R A M A ROSH

In the northern area (Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia), a  bitter and acrimonious fight between the rabbinic establishment, especially the avidly anti-Zionist Chief Rabbi of Munkacs, R. Spiro, and the central government authorities occurred. The cities and towns of the three counties finally succeeded in creating an ever-expanding network of schools, mostly of Zionist orientation, in which Hebrew was taught alongside traditional and secular studies. Despite the Herculean struggle in beginning it and the many hurdles it had to pass, this school system achieved notable success. A  shining example and the pride of the system was the First Hebrew Gymnasium of Munkacs, in which all subjects were taught in Hebrew.1 Despite such sweeping changes and the success of these new schools, Maramarosh Jewry was not impressed. Only three out of the more than 150 communities in the region mustered enough courage to break with the old system and establish schools in which religious and secular studies were integrated and where Hebrew was an important component of the curriculum. Unquestionably, the newly-established public schools offered a  more positive environment and decidedly better instruction than the traditional schools. However, whether Czech or Ruthenian, they indoctrinated the children with a totally alien history and nationalism. In Jewish-operated schools, by contrast, the children were exposed to Jewish history and were imbued with positive Jewish role models from the past. Children in Jewish-operated schools were also spared the derision2 of the teachers and  the hostility of non-Jewish classmates, which were quite common in public schools, especially those in which the majority of students were Ruthenian, and the language of instruction was Ruthenian. From the perspective of the rabbinic and lay leadership, the differences between traditional and modern education were irreconcilable; they saw no room for compromise. The overriding concern of the rabbis and their adherents was the potential for acculturation and the decline in religious fervor that they feared would follow it. Maramarosh Jews, induced by their leaders, would not surrender their children’s souls to the “freethinking”

1

See Aryeh Sole, “Modern Hebrew Education in Subcarpathian Ruthenia,” in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, ed. Hugh Colman, vol. 2, 401-439, esp. 416-17, 426-28 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968).

2

Sole, “Modern Hebrew Education,” 410-11. 129

2. EDUC AT ION I N M A R A M A ROSH

Zionist teachers. Instead, they closed their eyes to the possible benefit of the new schools and clung tenaciously to the old system. What kind of system was it that was so scrupulously upheld and so faithfully preserved? Formal cheder or Talmud Torah education of boys began at age three or four. Informally, however, when a child was enrolled in cheder he already commanded a certain body of knowledge. His parents, adhering to the Talmudic dictum that as soon as a child begins to speak his parents (generally his father) must instruct him in the rudimentary religious practices, had taught the child simple prayers and blessings which are customarily recited in the morning, in the evening, and before meals. During the first year of cheder, the emphasis was on reading skills (e.g., learning the aleph-bet). As soon as reading proficiency was attained, the child advanced to the study of Torah (the Pentateuch). Soon after, the youngster was introduced to the most popular Bible commentator, Rashi. By the age of seven or eight, the boys first plunged into the “sea of Talmud.” The first years spent in cheder and the skills there acquired were preparatory to the real core of the curriculum: the never-ending study of Talmud and the related commentaries which together form the basis of all traditional scholarship. Teachers who specialized in Talmud were expected to provide youngsters with the basic skills needed to master this most difficult subject. Concurrent with cheder attendance, the boys were required (by the government) to attend public school for several hours a  day.3 There they received instruction in the “3 Rs,” some geography, and either Czech or Ruthenian history. The combined normal study day for a  pre-teen was excruciatingly long, often beginning at 5:30 am and continuing until 8:00 pm.4

3

Undated statistics given by Livia Rothkirchen in the chapter on Czechoslovakia in David Wyman and Charles Rosenzweig, The World Reacts to the Holocaust (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 161, counted 12,479 Jewish children in PKR in Czech language schools, 4,974 in Ruthenian ones, 1,084 in Hungarian schools and 751 in Hebrew language secular schools.

4

My own father, who would never have lifted a hand to his children, nonetheless allowed us to be tortured by these terribly long hours and the demands of the educational system. 130

2. EDUC AT ION I N M A R A M A ROSH

By age twelve or thirteen, the boys’ futures were charted. They had four options: continue to study in a yeshiva, become apprenticed to a journeyman in order to learn a trade, kumi (work for others), or return home. For those meriting and choosing the yeshiva option, childhood came to an abrupt end. Leaving home and hearth for the rigors of yeshiva life, these boys metamorphosed, virtually overnight, from cheder children to yeshiva bocherim. To the parents, their son’s choice signified the beginning of a new stage of maturation, when the first steps were taken toward becoming a talmid chacham. Most prospective scholars found suitable yeshivot in Maramarosh, since the area boasted numerous excellent schools. The more adventurous traveled to Oberland (Upperland, Western Slovakia), where the famed yeshivot of Pressburg, Nitra, and Galanta were located. The Oberland yeshivot were both geographically and spiritually distant from Maramarosh, since life in hasidic Maramarosh was unlike life in the more cultured Ashkenazic Oberland. However, life in any yeshiva was difficult for the average Maramarosh student, who came from a poor home and could not count on much parental support. Most shared a small room with several fellow students. Food was donated by members of the host community. Each householder in the host community fed one or more students every day for a  week. The quality and quantity of the food depended on the generosity and/or the means of the hosts. Unless a student received some support in the form of packages or cash from home—and few did—life in the yeshiva was a constant struggle against privation. Hardships notwithstanding, most yeshiva students remained deeply immersed in their studies. Customarily, they slept between 4 and 5 hours each night, arising at daybreak and retiring after midnight. Most of the day and a good portion of the night were devoted to the study of Torah and related commentaries. The contents of the curriculum were the same in all yeshivot, whether hasidic or Ashkenazic/Mitnagdic. With the exception of the weekly Torah portion, Rashi’s commentaries, and some passages from the Codes of Law, no subjects but Talmud were admitted into the curriculum. Needless to say, all secular subjects were considered taboo. Students discovered that delving into forbidden studies was sufficient cause for expulsion. It was understood that Jewish history, Jewish philosophy, Hebrew grammar, and even the study of prophets and hagiographa (except some of the scrolls) were all considered secular subjects, and were excluded from the curriculum. 131

2. EDUC AT ION I N M A R A M A ROSH

While the basic underlying principle of yeshiva learning was Talmud Torah (i.e., learning for the sake of the mitzvah and not for the advancement of some practical goal), there was an exception to this rule. Students who excelled in their studies through diligence and talent were encouraged to embark on a course of study leading to the credential or degree of rav, which qualified them to decide religious issues, mainly in the area of ritual law. By thoroughly mastering relevant sections of the Shulchan Aruch, a student could become qualified as a dayan (judge). Obviously, the goal of the yeshiva was not to prepare its students for the difficult struggles and vicissitudes of life. Their emphasis was on the spiritual. The yeshivot strove to fashion a personality that would be at home in the spiritual realm, would “swim” skillfully in the sea of the Talmud, and would unquestioningly adhere to the tenets of traditional Jewish living. Inasmuch as no practical results were aimed for and no proficiency in any particular area was expected of yeshiva students, there was nothing resembling a  formal graduation or completion of a  course of studies. No degrees were granted and no certificates were issued. Nevertheless, between the ages of 18 and 22, yeshiva students were expected to end their formal studies and were urged to find a bride (usually through a matchmaker) and take the first steps toward establishing a family. The realization of these goals was not an easy task for these former students, whose education was abruptly interrupted and upon whom the burden of providing for a family was suddenly imposed. The strained and poor economic system was not conducive to the creation of new economic opportunities, especially for those entering the system (as yeshiva students did) without a  trade or profession. Few succeeded in breaking through and penetrating the system. For most, life became a  struggle for survival. Many newlyweds, unable to create their own niches, remained in their parents’ home and relied on their support for years. Others, whose families were unable to provide financial assistance, left Maramarosh for greener pastures. In fact, Maramarosh Jews found employment as religious functionaries (e.g., sextons, cheder teachers, ritual slaughterers, etc.) in any number of places, including the “motherland” of Hungary, Romania, Germany, and Austria. They even reached the shores of America, and representatives of the community were found in Cleveland and Brooklyn. In very rare cases, scholastic reputation could procure practical gains. A truly gifted but poor yeshiva student was sometimes able to break down the rigidly entrenched socio-economic barriers and marry 132

2. EDUC AT ION I N M A R A M A ROSH

into a  family whose yichus (wealth and connections) would normally be beyond his reach. A vivid description of the place of the yeshiva in the life of Maramarosh Jewry was given in an interview with this writer by a former wagon driver from Slotfina, a  rambunctious border town on the shores of the Tisza River. Slotfina had a Jewish population including about 500-550 taleisim (adult married men), and boasted one of the largest and best yeshivot in the Maramarosh area, with a student body of between 200-250 taleisim. Our job was to transport gravel from the shafts to the various construction sites. We were required to deliver the load before the arrival of the workers. Consequently, we had to start very early in the morning. I still remember with pride and nostalgia the sweet voices of Torah coming out of the dimly lit houses at four and five o’clock in the morning. Some of us even extended the route in order to pass through the Jewish quarter to enjoy these sounds.

This former wagon driver is typical of the average Maramarosh Jew in his appreciation of Torah learning. Whether rich or poor, Maramarosh Jews willingly shared their food and often their small homes with the yeshiva students. To the Jew of Maramarosh, seeing students partake of his food or listening to their melodious recitation of the Talmud during the late night or early morning hours was a vicarious fulfillment of the greatest commandment of all: the mitzvah of learning Torah.

133

3 MA RA MA ROSH: A HISTORY

At first glance, an essay about the Jews of Maramarosh needs justification. Except for former residents of Maramarosh and its environs, few have ever heard of this Jewish community located at the heart of Central Europe. Yet Maramarosh was home to a unique and distinct Jewish community whose religious experience was all-encompassing and whose devotion to tradition was uncompromising. Except for the years 1918-1939, the Maramarosh region was part of the Hungarian kingdom, to which the fate of its Jews was inextricably bound. Yet, from almost its inception until its tragic end, the Jewish communities of the region maintained a distinct way of life, set apart from the rest of the country socially, culturally, and economically. It is the uniqueness of this community and this region that justifies a  separate historical treatment of the Jews of Maramarosh, highlighting their particular history and character. Little scholarly work exists on the history of Maramarosh Jewry. Early Hungarian historians were less than objective in their observations of the history of the Jews of the region. Some attempted to “prove” the antiquity of Hungarian Jewry and its integration into the indigenous culture. Others viewed the Maramarosh branch of Jewry as a foreign one that never took root in the acculturated Jewish community. The Jewish community of Maramarosh did not conform to the desired pattern of either school of historian. Rather, it was mainly composed of comparatively recent arrivals from Galicia and Podolia who adhered to an intensely observant hasidic way of life. Whether consciously or unconsciously most historians have all but ignored the Jews of Maramarosh. The brief overview presented here is a  modest attempt to fi ll this lacuna. However, the primary aim of this 134

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

historical discussion is to facilitate and enlarge our understanding of the responsa literature discussed above relating to the Jews of Maramarosh.

In the Beginning The region of Maramarosh occupies approximately 10,000 square kilometers in the northeastern section of the historical Austro-Hungarian Empire. Surrounded by the Carpathian Mountains, it is home to members of many ethnic groups, including Romanians, Hungarian, Ruthenians, and Germans. From the middle of the eighteenth century until the spring of 1944, Maramarosh also housed a  sizable Jewish community. The region, which is currently divided between Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania, was historically one of the most volatile places in all of Europe. Since 1918, Maramarosh (or parts of it) has changed sovereignty no fewer than six times. However, the fact that so many countries vied for sovereignty over Maramarosh should not lead one to believe that it was a glittering prize and worthy of such rivalry. Only approximately 15% of its land is arable, yielding only a  few specific crops; the rest consists of mountains and forests. Regardless of which nation possessed it, economically Maramarosh has always been an extremely poor region. Ample archeological evidence indicates that the area known as Maramarosh was settled before the arrival of Hungarian tribes during the last decades of the tenth century. However, it was only under Hungarian sovereignty that the region was cultivated and sedentary life established. Maramarosh first gained importance due to its strategic location at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains. The mountains presented a natural barrier against invaders from the east. Later, the region’s significance was somewhat enhanced by its natural resources: the tree-covered mountains and lush green valleys held treasures of mineral deposits, especially salt and various types of ore. While various documents point to military activities in Maramarosh during the rule of King Emeric (Hungarian: Imre) (1196), royal administration was extended to the area only at the end of the thirteenth century. During the first decade of the following century, Maramarosh was given the status of a crown province, with several of its cities designated as crown cities. Based on documents from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, some historians suggest a Jewish presence in northwestern Maramarosh 135

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

during that period. The Jews to whom these documents referred may have “strayed” from neighboring areas into less-developed Maramarosh. It is safer, however, to date the first appearance of Jews in Maramarosh to sometime during the first decades of the seventeenth century, some 50 to 60 years after the region was administratively linked with Transylvania and became part of its history. The importance of Transylvania emerged after the disastrous defeat of the Hungarian army by the Turkish invaders at Mohacs in 1526. After this tragic event in Hungarian history, Transylvania attained independence, which was later confirmed in the Treaty of Speyer (1570). Prior to the Turkish invasion, Transylvania had been an integral part of the Hungarian kingdom and was dominated politically and culturally by the Hungarians. The Hungarian defeat at Mohacs was more than a military disaster; it was a national tragedy. After Mohacs, the country was divided into three parts and the Hungarian Empire ceased to exist. Territories lying between the Tisza and Danube rivers were occupied by the Turks; the western section of the country was under the rule of the Hapsburg kings; and the third section (located east of the Tisza), known as Transylvania, became an independent principality ruled by princes who cultivated friendly relations with the Ottoman conquerors. These fiercely patriotic Hungarian or Szekel princes were totally committed to Transylvanian independence and fought numerous battles for its sovereignty. The newly-attained Transylvanian independence brought with it decisive changes in the political, economic, and religious life of the region. Two factors—the principality’s independence and the cordial relations with the Moslem Turkish authorities—created a  favorable political and economic climate, while the prevailing religious milieu was conducive to religious tolerance. Protestant-Calvinist Christianity spread rapidly and almost replaced Catholicism as the dominant religion. The liberal attitude had a positive effect on the fledgling Jewish community, which consisted almost exclusively of Sephardic Jews who had arrived in the region on the heels of the Turkish forces. An official edict promulgated by the Diet of Todra in 1557 and given official sanction in 1568 bestowed upon every inhabitant the right to publicly observe the religion of his choice. In 1623, Prince Gabor Bethlen issued an Edict of Privileges according the Jews many specific privileges, among them freedom of movement in designated areas, permission to wear any kind of clothes, and license to engage in commerce. It also granted permission to any Conversos to return to their former faiths. 136

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The Jews who were the recipients of these privileges were in many ways different from their brethren in other parts of Hungary. They were of Turkish and Spanish extraction and followed Sephardic customs, rites, and traditions. Thus, although the older established Jewish communities of Hungary proper suffered discrimination and persecution resulting from the Turkish occupation (Jews were officially expelled from the larger cities like Pressburg, Sopron, and Nagy Szombat and unofficially harassed in smaller towns), the newly formed Transylvanian communities enjoyed relative freedom. The liberal policies of Prince Bethlen brought about the establishment of an organized Jewish community with Alba Julia, the capital of Transylvania, as the seat of the chief rabbi. Although the privileges granted by Prince Bethlen were largely confined to the central areas of Transylvania around the capital city, many Jews under the protection of large landowners ventured into areas far removed from the center of the principality. It is assumed that the first Maramarosh Jews migrated there from Central Transylvania, and the political situation during Transylvania’s independence made any migration from north of the Carpathian Mountains scarcely possible. Thus, it is assumed that the Jews who settled in Maramarosh during the last quarter of the seventeenth century probably originated in the Sephardic community of Transylvania. Th is assumption is confirmed by documents of that era. There is also evidence from the same period of a  small presence of Ashkenazic Eastern European Jews in Maramarosh. In the wake of the horrific Chmelnitsky pogroms (1648-49), Jews fled Poland and the Ukraine in search of safe havens. While most refugees continued their migration toward central Hungary, some remained in Maramarosh. Still, a few scattered Jews do not constitute a viable Jewish presence. No documents of that era point to any communal life at that time. It took almost a  century for the rudiments of a  Jewish community to become established. After the Ottoman hegemony came to a close and the Turkish army was driven from Hungary (1690), Transylvania’s importance was greatly diminished. Its independence was curtailed and it was connected, with the rest of the country, to a  unified Hungary under the rule of the Hapsburgs. Only then did Hungary begin to shake off the long trauma that had begun at Mohacs almost 150 years earlier.

137

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The Making of a Community According to the census of 1700, Hungary’s Jewish population numbered only 4,074. Over the 100 years of the post-Turkish period, the community witnessed astonishing growth. During the eighteenth century, the number of Hungarian Jews increased to 126,620 and represented 1.8 percent of the total population. The same period marked the beginning of Maramarosh Jewry. The growth of Hungarian Jewry was carried on a wave of immigration from west and east that served to revitalize the stagnating indigenous Jewish community of Hungary. The new arrivals varied greatly in terms of their culture, education, and religious observance, depending on their places of origin. To a very great degree, this influx of heterogeneous Jewish immigrants shaped the character of Hungarian Jewry—including its diverse socio-economic patterns and religious modes—during the two and a half centuries that followed. The first group of Jewish immigrants arrived from Moravia and Bohemia. They were forced into exile primarily because of a decree issued by Charles III, king of Hungary and Croatia, in 1726 permitting only one member of each Jewish family to marry. This harsh edict became the catalyst for a  mass departure, against which measures taken by the Hungarian government to stifle immigration proved futile. Initially the new refugees settled in border communities, where they soon constituted a  majority of the Jewish population. Their impact was felt beyond the border regions as they moved into Jewish communities in central Hungary, planting seeds of “enlightenment” and bringing with them a  new, more open and cosmopolitan “German” type of Judaism. Another wave of Jewish refugees arrived from Austria following the Decree of Expulsion from Vienna (1670) by King Leopold. Their influence was also felt immediately, especially in the southwestern areas of the country and a  large section of central Hungary. The “Austrian” Jew was characterized by strict adherence to the Codes of Jewish Law and all its minutiae. (These were the forerunners of those later to be called Oberlander Jews.) The living space of these two groups of “Germanic” Jews was the southern, western, and central sections of Hungary, not reaching eastward into Maramarosh. The immigrants did not venture into an area that was, compared with the rest of the country, primitive, underdeveloped, and very sparsely settled. As a  result, the groups of Germanic Jewish immigrants 138

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

who so strongly influenced their newfound communities in the western regions of Hungary did not reach Maramarosh in any significant numbers. Maramarosh’s revitalization was still more than a generation away. Around the time when Maramarosh became an incorporated Hungarian province, a  census (dated 1735-38) showed only a  small number of Jews (371) scattered over a  large number of villages and towns. The next census (taken fifty years later, in 1785-87, during the reign of King Joseph  II) reflects a  striking increase in their numbers, to 2,254. A contributing influence, no doubt, was the liberal attitude of the king, who bestowed upon Transylvania and Maramarosh Jewry all of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the Jews of Hungary proper. The first decades of the nineteenth century were the true formative years of Maramarosh Jewry, and during this period the population climbed to almost 8,000 (1830-35). Larger towns, with Jewish populations of 150 to 300 people, were able to engage rabbis and establish the institutions necessary for a  religious community, including synagogues, ritual baths, and schools. During this period, Maramarosh-Sighet emerged as an important center in Hungarian Jewish life.1 Obviously, these enormous demographic changes were not the result of a  high birth rate alone. A  political event with ramifications for the political configuration of Eastern Europe was the main impetus for the demographic and cultural changes that began in Maramarosh during the first two decades of the nineteenth century and continued until World War I. The partition of Poland (1772), which brought Galicia into the Austrian Empire, opened the gates for Jewish emigration from the east. The Carpathian Mountains ceased to be a barrier as Galician and Podolian Jews poured into Hungary, finding Maramarosh a  natural destination. With varying intensity, the Galician influx into Maramarosh continued for more than a century. The settlers, especially those who found their way to the northern shore of the Tisza River, adjusted easily to their new surroundings. Many of them shared a  language and some customs with the Maramarosh Ruthenians, having come from Galician towns with Ruthenian populations. (In fact,

1

Erno Laszlo, “Hungarian Jewry: Settlement and Demography, 1735-38,” in Hungarian Jewish Studies I, ed. Randolph L. Braham, 99-101 (New York: World Federation of Hungarian Jews, 1966). 139

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

many of the indigenous Ruthenians considered that region of Galicia their “old homeland.”) Even the Galician Jews who settled on Tisza’s southern banks among a population of mainly Romanians found the environs agreeable because they could contribute to the local economy. As peddlers, they brought necessary products to remote villages. As businessmen, they opened markets for produce from Maramarosh. As tradesmen, they provided much-needed services. The new settlers developed a reciprocal relationship of mutual benefit with the native populations on both sides of the river. It should be noted that, despite the large influx of Jews into a region with such a  sparse Jewish presence, antisemitism had not taken root. When antisemitic sentiments came to the surface, they were mostly coming from the authorities, who aimed at discouraging immigration from Eastern Europe while tacitly approving immigration from the western Germanic lands. In fact, the new refugees from the east had great difficulty obtaining legal status, and the law imposed extremely heavy fines for harboring new immigrants. There are no reliable statistics on the number of Jews who immigrated from the east into the Austrian Empire during the century that followed the partition of Poland. Even less is known about the number who chose to establish roots in the border communities of Maramarosh. What is certain is the fact that during that century, Maramarosh Jewry on both sides of the Tisza River was invigorated and imbued with enough energy and zeal to last for a century and a half. In the end, the Galician immigrants more than integrated into the native population; they actually refashioned it in their own image. During the wave of Galician Jewish emigration we find rabbis in Maramarosh for the first time. New communities were formed and their necessary institutions built. In fact, almost all of the communities that were in existence during the final years of Maramarosh Jewry were established by the mid-nineteenth century, when Maramarosh first came into its own as a viable center of Jewish life. In the remaining decades of the nineteenth century, Maramarosh Jewry reached its maturity with a  total population of almost 35,000 (as measured in 1880). The larger communities grew in size and influence— Sighet’s Jewish population reached 4,000—and new communities proliferated with unusual speed. In some larger towns, Jews constituted 35 to 40 percent of the total population. By 1910, the Jewish population 140

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

of Maramarosh reached the astonishing figure of almost 66,000, and the region asserted itself as an important Jewish center, numerically and spiritually. Sighet—with a  Jewish presence of more than 8,000 in 1910 (28 percent of the population)—was by then renowned for its rabbis and schools, and Sighet was not unique.2 A most significant element of the metamorphosis of Maramarosh Jewry was the religious fervor of this immigrant group, whose roots were in communities where “authentic” Jewish tradition and a penchant for Jewish learning had been cultivated for centuries. Prior to their arrival, there was no rabbinic leadership of any kind in Maramarosh, the Jewish community being too small and too scattered to support religious functionaries. In addition, the surrounding Carpathian Mountains prohibited interchange with other Jewish communities. Owing to their poverty and ignorance, Maramarosh’s earliest Jews also provided a  fertile ground for sectarian teachings and superstitions. Documents from the early era of Maramarosh Jewry reveal the popularity of Frankism and its accompanying fast living. The indigenous Jewish population was in real danger of total assimilation.

The Hasidic Impact The genuine uniqueness of Maramarosh Jewry developed with the arrival of hasidic rebbes and tzadikim, who lit the spark that ignited the fiery hasidic movement. Its penetration began during the fi rst decades of the nineteenth century, and by the 1870s, the entire region was inundated with true hasidic zeal, influencing every aspect of life. Maramarosh came to be known as the world’s most hasidic region. The hasidic movement in Maramarosh evolved into two major branches: Kosof-Vishnitz and Sighet-Satmar. While other hasidic courts were active in Maramarosh as well (some tracing their genealogy to the earliest hasidic masters, some indigenous to Maramarosh), the houses of Sighet and Vishnitz stood out, both in the role they played in the life of Maramarosh Jewry and in the number of followers they attracted. The hasidim of each of these groups exhibited extraordinary allegiance to their respective rebbes, whose authority and leadership was beyond challenge. The various hasidic “courts,” named after the towns and cities

2

Laszlo, 99, 101-105. 141

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

of their origins, embodied the different practices and beliefs developed by their rebbes. Viewed in historical perspective, the credit for the evolution of Maramarosh Jewry into a  bastion of hasidism must go to the court of Kosof-Vishnitz. The founder of the “dynasty,” Menachem Mendel of Kosof, personally launched a  series of efforts to alter the prevailing conditions of ignorance and superstition. Introducing a serious, conscientious, single mode of religious conduct, R. Menachem Mendel was the first to bring to the villages hasidic teachers and professional shochtim, who, naturally, professed allegiance to the rebbe and inculcated the Kosof brand of hasidism. R. Menachem Mendel’s son, R. Chaim, continued with his father’s endeavors. After R. Chaim’s death, Kosof hasidism split into two factions: Kosof and Vishnitz. R. Chaim’s younger son, R. Menachem Mendel Hager, established his court in the town of Vishnitz (in Bukovina), and because of his charismatic personality attracted a much larger following, especially in Maramarosh. The underlying feature of Vishnitz hasidism was its folksiness and warmth. It consisted of simple piety, uncomplicated observance, and joyful prayer. Indeed, the soul and spirit of Vishnitz was prayer. Its nusach exuded joy and exaltation: it spoke to the learned and simple alike, and it was infectious even to the non-hasid. Vishnitzer hasidism captured the uncompromising loyalty of tens of thousands of ordinary folk: farmers, laborers, wagon drivers, and artisans. The Vishnitzer rebbes focused on having a true sense of ahavas Yisroel (love of all Jews), and were always accessible to their followers, seeing them primarily as friends and confidants. Vishnitz professed a distrust for the elitist Talmid chacham (Talmud scholar). Vishnitz yeshivas were more like hasidic farbrengens (celebratory gatherings) than Talmudic academies. It is no surprise that the Vishnitz way of hasidism was so attractive to the ordinary, unschooled, and unsophisticated Jew. The other large hasidic group, Sighet-Satmar, evolved from the court of R. Moshe Teitelbaum, who originally hailed from Galicia and had established a following in the Hungarian town of Ujhely. The rabbi, known as the Yismach Moshe (from the title of his books) was a  transformed Mitnaged (opponent of hasidism) and a champion of Talmudic scholarship. R. Teitelbaum aimed to establish a  new alliance between established rabbinic scholarship and hasidism, emphasizing both erudition and fervor. The founder’s dynamic and zealous grandson, R. Zelman Leib (in 142

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Hebrew Yekutiel Yehudah) Teitelbaum brought new direction and vigor to the fledgling dynasty after assuming the post of chief rabbi of Sighet. Now known as the Hasidism of Sighet, the movement never renounced the founder’s Mitnagdic attitude, namely the elitist view of the Talmudic scholar and disdain for the unschooled am-Ha’aretz, layman. In fact, the hasidism of Sighet was more popular in Hungary and Transylvania than it was in Maramarosh. Even in Maramarosh, it attracted mostly the wealthier, urban, and more bourgeois elements of the population. Moreover, in contrast to that of Vishnitz, the hasidism of Sighet was characteristically intolerant toward non-observant and ignorant Jews. Sighet Hasidim kept to themselves and made no attempt to engage in a dialogue with other Jews, not even other hasidic Jews. These two major dynasties, together with several minor groups, led Maramarosh Jewry to a  conscientious and vigorous mode of religious conduct. The followers of the various rebbes were fanatically loyal and willing to accept the stern demands put on them by their leaders. It must again be borne in mind that hasidism, as one aspect of the large Jewish immigration from Galicia, came into Maramarosh at a time when the region was a  religious wasteland. Ignorance, superstition, and Frankism controlled the minds of the Jewish population. There was hardly any rabbinic leadership, and spiritual life was at its lowest ebb. The hasidic rebbes launched constructive efforts to guide their new flocks out of a  spiritual desert by providing a  much-needed religious spirit and by building synagogues, ritual baths, and religious schools for the children. The situation was such that the rebbes were the only religious leaders, and consequently had no opposition in capturing the souls of the masses. Their influences became evident both in the home and in society at large. What took place in Maramarosh as a  result of the Galician influx and the hasidic permeation of society was an intensification of Jewish life in form as well as in content, with characteristics of its own, sui generis, among Hungarian Jewry. It is noteworthy that this spiritual awakening in Maramarosh occurred at a  time when, in Hungary proper, the tide was rapidly turning in the direction of assimilation. Th is process began with Emancipation, which followed the Ausgleich [Compromise between Austria and Hungary] of 1867, and continued in Hungary over the next 70 years.

143

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Maramarosh and (the Lack of) Magyarization To those Jews living in the Hungarian territories of the AustroHungarian Empire and anxious to assimilate, the second half of the nineteenth century was a propitious time. Hungarian nationalism was in the process of evolving and defining itself and was willing, for a price, to admit outsiders into its ranks. It was also a time when Hungary was faced with the immense problem of accommodating numerous ethnic minorities, who in many areas of the country outnumbered the ethnic Hungarian population. To correct the imbalance, the government resorted to various means to force Magyarization upon the minorities. It also opened the doors to members of minorities who wished to assimilate into the dominant Hungarian culture. But this society made many claims on its new adherents. It required a  radical adjustment to the Hungarian national culture and the total eradication of all traces of ethnic and cultural origins. It demanded complete identification with the goals of Hungarian nationalism, with its symbols and its language. It strove toward complete fusion of the minorities with the Hungarian national body. Many members of minority groups, especially the Jewish minority, succumbed to the pressure and temptation. They chose to assimilate into Hungarian society and to benefit from membership in the dominant culture. Indeed, Magyarization of a  large segment of the Hungarian Jewish community was achieved with remarkable speed and facility. In the process, new curricula were introduced into the Jewish schools, with a strong emphasis on secular culture and Hungarian nationalism. Rabbis, even the more traditional ones, delivered sermons in Hungarian with increasing frequency. To become a full-fledged member of society, to speak its language, to share in the national goals, and to participate in all areas of national life were the aspirations of every “emancipated” Jew. Indeed, measured solely on the basis of achievement, emancipation cum assimilation was a  great success. Jews made inroads in all areas of life except, perhaps, their level of social acceptance. They contributed far beyond their numbers to the economic growth of the country, its cultural awakening, and its intellectual maturation. Not even Jews in Germany, the center of Jewish assimilation during the century and a half before its destruction, achieved the degree of assimilation of Hungarian Jews. 144

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

It is an indisputable fact that—despite traditional Hungarian antisemitism, which tenaciously clung to the notion that Jews were an alien and unassimilatable race, and despite periodic outbreaks of spontaneous and organized anti-Jewish violence—no other minority in the Empire could lay claim to the degree of achievement that the Jewish minority attained during the years between the establishment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867 and World War I. In the annals of Jewish Hungarian history, this was indeed the “Golden Era” of Hungarian Jewry. The biblical adage “Yeshurun grew fat and kicked” was realized in the post-Emancipation era in all of the countries where Jews were legally emancipated. But nowhere was this truer than in Hungary. Economic success and upward mobility spawned a religious liberalism which expressed itself in the weakening of tradition and the relaxation of religious observance. The new Hungarian Jew, who was a  Magyar in body and spirit and Jewish in religion, soon relinquished much of his religion in favor of the Hungarian soul and in response to the demands of Hungarian society. The modern assimilated Jew, eager to provide an outlet for the new class of Magyarized Jews, established non-Orthodox communities, with modern institutions that were in confl ict with established, normative Jewish law. The implementation of these innovations in the area of Jewish law brought to the surface irreconcilable differences between the Orthodox and nonOrthodox (Neolog) communities. As a result, the Orthodox representatives to the Jewish Congress in Hungary withdrew from the national organization in 1868-69 and established their own Orthodox Kanzlei, or central office, which continued to function until 1944. This action by the Orthodox rabbinic representatives was the logical and anticipated result of the religious development of Hungarian Jewry. Maramarosh Jewry, which by then had developed its own character and cultivated its own religious life, strongly identified with Orthodox separatists. This was a  foregone conclusion. It must be noted that the bifurcated characterization of Hungarian Jewry as liberal and Orthodox is an oversimplification, particularly regarding its Orthodoxy. The traditional segment of Hungarian Jewry actually consisted of two distinct groups (based on the above-discussed migrations), and the spiritual antecedents and primary sources of orientation of each group shaped its character. On the one hand, Orthodox Jews living in the western and central regions of the country drew their inspiration from the Austro-Hungarian 145

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

tradition. They were infused with the spiritual characteristics of that tradition: a baroque spirit and a religious conservatism that is reflected in strict adherence to the law. But, coming from a central European culture, they were also willing to reconcile themselves to the demands of the outside world. They adopted the Hungarian language, even though some areas still clung to German (as an intellectual pursuit). They dressed in modern attire, and most sent their children to secular schools. On the other hand, the Jews living in the eastern section of the country, in Maramarosh and its environs, drew on the spiritual heritage of  the Galician-Polish and hasidic immigration. Like their brethren from the west, they were faithful to Jewish religious law, and like their counterparts, they accepted the traditional Jewish Codes as authoritative. But there also existed significant differences between the two groups. The most major difference concerned their divergent views on relating to the outside world. The Jews of Maramarosh preferred isolation to interaction with society at large. They were consciously oblivious to the outside world and kept their intercourse with general society to a minimum. In their view, secular education was a  definite step toward assimilation. Consequently, whenever and wherever possible, they maintained their own religious schools for the younger children and yeshivot for teenagers and older students. Being mostly hasidic, Maramarosh Jews, like most east European Jews, assumed the outward appearance of the hasidim. The men were bearded and wore black coats and dark hats. The women wore high-necked, looselyfitting dresses, with kerchiefs or wigs covering their heads. The hasidim in Maramarosh induced other distinctions between Maramarosh and the rest of the country. Unlike the “bona fide” Hungarian Jews, the Jews of Maramarosh followed the Sephardic (hasidic) rites of synagogue service. In fact, in all of Maramarosh there was only one synagogue that conformed with the Ashkenazic order of service. In the history of Maramarosh, it appears that no attempt was made to establish a non-Orthodox synagogue or to effect any changes in the “normative” service. A compelling characteristic of the prevailing religious milieu of Maramarosh is expressed by the fact that, as far as can be determined, there was not a single case of a Jewish establishment, whether store or shop, that openly operated on the Sabbath. The only exception occurred during the last two years preceding the ghettoization of Maramarosh Jewry. At that time, the Hungarian authorities forced all Jewish shopkeepers, 146

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

under threat of strict penalties and revocation of license, to keep their businesses operating on the Sabbath. Rabbinic authorities of the time gave their consent to comply with this anti-Jewish act of the government, as is discussed in the section of responsa literature. An additional mark of distinction of Maramarosh Jewry was their tenacious attachment to the Yiddish language. Unlike the Jews of the “motherland”—Hungary within its post-1919 borders—and Transylvania, Maramarosh Jews clung to Yiddish as their mother tongue; Hungarian was limited to communication with the non-Jewish world. Yiddish was the language of both the mundane and the sublime, the home and the street, the synagogue and the marketplace.

The Economic Situation in Maramarosh Last, but certainly not least, there was one more issue: the economic disparity that set Maramarosh apart from the rest of the country, including Transylvania and even the three neighboring counties of Ung, Bereg, and Ugocsa. As noted before, emancipation brought favorable changes to the lives of Hungarian Jews, not the least of which was access to the new economic avenues that were previously inaccessible to them. However, the upsurge in economic activities reached Maramarosh only peripherally. It hardly changed the standard of living of ordinary people, whether Jew or Gentile. The population of Maramarosh, with a few exceptions, mainly of people in urban centers, did not take advantage of the opportunities that the new situation offered. No doubt their geographic remoteness, the confining Carpathian Mountains, their self-imposed isolation from modern society, and their negative view of secular education all contributed to a lack of economic progress. While the rest of the country experienced economic growth, the economy of Maramarosh was at a virtual standstill. There were, of course, other objective factors that contributed to the poor economic showing of the region. As was already noted, Maramarosh had a  predominantly rural and agricultural economy. About 80 percent of the labor force was engaged in agriculture and lived in small towns and villages. A  similar demographic applied to the Jewish population. Approximately one-third of the Jews living in the urban areas of the region maintained an adequate standard of living. In fact, the urban Jews of Maramarosh, like their “motherland” counterparts, engaged mostly in commerce and light industry, with a very small minority entering the 147

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

professions. As the dominant force in urban commerce and business, they contributed immensely to whatever progress was made (a truth recognized even by unfriendly observers). Needless to say, these urban areas also spawned a  sizeable proletariat made up of the working poor, men and women who were perennially threatened with unemployment. On the other hand, the over two-thirds of the Jewish population that inhabited the mountainous rural areas, small towns, and villages lived under the same conditions of poverty as the native Ruthenian and Romanian populations. Like the latter, the majority of rural Jews relied heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods. Among them were small farmers, fruit growers, and small-scale cattle breeders and dealers. The Jewish predilection for wandering and traveling is reflected in the fact that thousands of Jews in Maramarosh engaged in wagoneering. In fact, wagoneering in the area became almost entirely a  Jewish profession. In addition, the crafts of the area were heavily dominated by Jews. One could hardly find a  non-Jewish tailor, shoemaker, sheet-metal worker, or even carpenter. These occupations—wagoneering and manual trades—were monopolized by Jews in rural and urban sectors of the region, and the monopoly was perpetuated through a system of apprenticeship. Because the economy of Maramarosh was precarious in the extreme even in the best of times, Jewish tradesmen were chronically underemployed and underpaid, and Jewish farmers, like their non-Jewish counterparts, constantly struggled to survive. Both classes, in spite of hard work, could not rise above the poverty level in this economically depressed region. Any degree of growth that permeated the economy of Maramarosh came from the lumber industry. Maramarosh produced almost 60% of the lumber sold in Hungary, and Jewish involvement in the industry was massive. They worked as lumberjacks, they were wagon drivers transporting lumber from the forest to the mills, and they worked the barges that moved the finished products from the mills to various river ports or docks, mostly on the Tisza River. The majority of the lumbermills were built and operated by Jews. The labor force was drawn from seasonal farmers, Jewish and Gentile, who were provided by the mill owners with a low wage as well as food, shelter, and other necessities. It is noteworthy that even though the forests were all governmentowned, the government did not object to having Jewish entrepreneurs and Jewish contractors operate the lumber industry. This was not true in the 148

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

mining industry, from which Jews and members of many other ethnicities were excluded. Mining was the almost exclusive domain of “bona fide” Hungarians, who were encouraged by all kinds of incentives to settle in the mining communities of Maramarosh. This description of economic life should be augmented by discussions of members of three professions that, even though they made up only a  marginal section of the Jewish population, were the butt and focus of writers and politicians with antisemitic tendencies. These were the owners of inns that traded in alcohol; the moneylenders who exploited the poor, Jew and Gentile alike; and the chronically unemployed, the hereditary beggars who roamed the country begging for alms. The existence of these elements unjustly cast an unfavorable light on Maramarosh Jewry, whose members were otherwise famous for their hard work and industry, toiling away on their small farms and tending to their fields and orchards. As we reach the fateful years of 1914-18, we find in Maramarosh a community that, by accident of geography and ethnography, developed and remained outside the main current of Hungarian Jewry. The community flourished in its own special atmosphere, as spiritually rich as it was materially poor. In the midst of what was probably the poorest area of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, life was made bearable by hasidism’s joie de vivre—especially on the Sabbath and holidays—and a sense of mission in maintaining a traditional Jewish lifestyle. This was accomplished despite the fact that assimilation among Hungarian Jews in other regions was rampant and minorities and ethnic nationalities were being deliberately seduced to join the dominant Hungarian culture, disowning their separate identities. The price Maramarosh Jewry paid for its determined adherence to its uniquely traditional lifestyle and staunch, uncompromising religiosity was not limited to the area of economics. “Bona fide” Hungarian Jews, including those from Transylvania and the three neighboring counties of Ung, Bereg, and Ugocsa, looked askance at their Maramarosh brethren, considering them socially and culturally inferior, backwards, and superstitious, a minority within a minority. Maramarosh Jews were stereotyped to the point of caricature, especially by other Jews. Th is attitude was adopted not only by assimilated, Magyarized Jews, but also by the Orthodox Jews of western and central Hungary. Wishing to disavow any kinship with Maramarosh, they too joined the chorus of its detractors. This relationship 149

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

was not unlike the relationship between native-born German Jews and the Ostjuden, with the former or “native” group harboring antipathy toward the latter (this has often been identified as Jewish self-hatred). A tangible example rests in the criterion for yichus (social standing) in Orthodox communities, which has always been reflected by the family with which one married. During the pre-World War I period, the low esteem in which Maramarosh Jews were held by the wider Hungarian Orthodox community was clearly indicated by the fact that having a relative marry a person from Maramarosh was considered to bear a definite social stigma. Since Maramarosh Jewry maintained its religious character until its demise, it is not surprising that the social stain attached to the Jews of Maramarosh never faded. They were, indeed, “a people dwelling apart, not reckoned among the nations.” (Num. 23:9).

The Interwar Years: Partition of Maramarosh With the total disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I, Hungary ceased to exist as a multi-ethnic nation and a new political constellation emerged in Central and Eastern Europe. Dormant national and ethnic loyalties that came to the fore as a result of the Allied victory generated many changes in the region’s geopolitical map. Many minorities who in the past had gravitated toward integration and assimilation found new avenues for asserting their ethnic identities and goals. The Paris Peace Conference (1919) granted independence to larger ethnic groups and shifted others into new sovereignties. In the process, Hungary was forced to part with some of its most prized possessions, including Transylvania (“the jewel of the Hungarian crown”), which was ceded to Romania, and Ruthenia, which became part of the newly formed Czechoslovakia. (For this reason, many political analysts agree that Hungary was the biggest loser of the war.) As a result of the new political realignments and geographic changes, Maramarosh’s homogenous hasidic community found itself partitioned into northern and southern regions, with the Tisza River acting as a  border. Northern Maramarosh was incorporated into the Republic of Czechoslovakia (CSR) as part of autonomous Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. Southern Maramarosh became a  part of the new Greater Romania, and was joined with the northernmost section of Transylvania to form a new administrative sector named Cresana-Maramures. 150

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Naturally, the two nations between whom Maramarosh was now divided affected the Jewish populations that were within their respective boundaries. The northern section joined a  newly formed multinational Czechoslovakia with no independent history. The southern section of Maramarosh was ceded, in accordance with the Treaty of Trianon, to the new Greater Romania (along with Transylvania, Banat, Bessarabia, Bukovina, and Southern Dobrudja), and became part of the vastly expanded Kingdom of Romania. However, Romania, the new sovereign of the southern section, had a record of both popular and official antisemitism.

Southern Maramarosh The list of the territories newly acquired by Romania reflects an expansion of its population and geographical territory as well as its ethnic and cultural diversity. Besides the pre-war homogeneous Regat (Old Romanians), the country now absorbed new ethnic minorities— Hungarians, German, Russians, etc.—with their centuries-old national and cultural loyalties. The same diversities prevailed in the Jewish community of Greater Romania. A  demographic analysis of the Jewish population shows that post-war Romania included no fewer than five distinct Jewries, among them the Hungarian-type Jews of Transylvania and Cresana-Maramures. Pre-World-War-I Romania had a  well-developed reputation for institutional antisemitism. Romania’s troubled relationship with its Jews included a  long history of unkept promises dating back to the Congress of Berlin (1878) when, under pressure from the signatories, Romania passed the Law of Emancipation (1881), which it never enforced. Overt and covert antisemitism, both political and economic, was sanctioned and even encouraged by Romania’s various governments. Soon after the end of World War I, during the meeting in Alba Julia on December 1, 1918, Romania, in its eagerness to placate the newly obtained provinces’ ethnic populations, proclaimed “complete national liberty for all people who inhabit Transylvania. Each people [shall be able] to educate, govern and judge itself in its own language” (Article III). The Romanian government committed itself to these lofty ideals as a signatory of the Treaty of St. Germain, which unequivocally stipulated full protection of minorities without making distinctions based on birth, nationality, language, race, or religion. On the insistence of the Committee 151

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

on Minorities, and despite vigorous objections by the chief Romanian delegate, a  special provision was also inserted in the treaty to protect Jewish minority rights. However, not a  single interwar Romanian government lived up to these obligations to any of the minorities, least of all in the case of the Jews. Post-war Romania’s challenge was to preserve its unity and secure the loyalty of the various minorities and cultures that it absorbed. Rather than granting equal rights, the government implemented a rigid program of Romanization. In this process, the Jews of Transylvania were forced to carry a double burden of minority status (as Jews and as Hungarians), and were therefore doubly vulnerable. For the first decade and a  half, the discriminatory pressures they suffered from came with only tacit government sanction. By the mid-1930s, however, officially legislated antisemitism and discrimination against minorities became the order of the day. The governments of Hungary and Germany interceded with Romania on behalf of their former co-nationals and were able to offset much of the discrimination, but the Jewish minority living in the newly acquired territories had no such protection against Romania’s political and economic assaults. Thus, they were blamed for being the “dangerous conduit” for foreign cultures (Hungarian in Transylvania, and German in Bukovina). It is true that antisemitism had been part of the national character in Hungary, as it had been elsewhere in Europe. Nevertheless, as was noted earlier, from the Emancipation until World War I, most Jews of Hungary had become integrated into the economic and cultural life of the country, and after 1895 Judaism became a legally protected religion. The immediate result of the new geographic changes and the replacement of Hungarian rule by Romanian sovereignty was a decline in the fortunes of the Jewry of southern Maramarosh. Politically, the region suffered from Romania’s traditional anti-Jewish policies. Antisemitic outbursts were common in Romania during the years between the two World Wars, and the southern Maramarosh area was especially vulnerable. Economically, it was in a  steady decline, due in no small part to the break from northern Maramarosh. Reflective of the dire conditions that existed in southern Maramarosh during the interwar years is the fact that southern Maramarosh was economically inferior to northern Maramarosh, the poorest region in Czechoslovakia. It is, therefore, not surprising that the interwar years witnessed a  dramatic increase in Jewish emigration to the United States, South 152

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

America, and Palestine. In addition, there was internal migration from southern Maramarosh to other, more prosperous parts of Romania. Due to the traditional upbringing and yeshiva education of many of Maramarosh’s Jews, southern Maramarosh became an almost inexhaustible source of Jewish rabbis, ritual slaughterers, teachers, and creators of ritual objects for all parts of the country, and even for some faraway countries. Although for administrative purposes southern Maramarosh was designated part of Cresana-Maramures, it nevertheless remained closely identified with northern Transylvania, a region with a strong traditional orientation where assimilation was much less pervasive than it was in the rest of the country. This close identification notwithstanding, the Jews residing in southern Maramarosh were decidedly different from the rest of Transylvania Jewry in a number of ways. First, there were the socioeconomic differences. The Jews of Transylvania, even those in the northern section, were to a  great extent urban and middle class. Jewish participation in commerce, manufacturing, and the professions was disproportionately high, and the community as a whole was relatively wealthy. This is in sharp contrast to the rural and impoverished community of southern Maramarosh, where the majority of Jewish people lived in small towns or on the land as small landowners, or in other agriculture-related vocations. Some found employment in the lumber industry as woodcutters or wagon drivers, while others engaged in such typical Jewish crafts as tailoring, shoemaking, and the like. The few merchants who were present were actually small shopkeepers or owners of stands in the local markets. In sum, the economic condition of southern Maramarosh during the interwar years, unlike that of Transylvania, was undeniably gloomy. Indeed, many Jewish families relied to a  dangerous extent on foreign relief funds, especially those from the American Joint Distribution Committee. Another element of distinction was the fact that the majority of Transylvanian Jewry identified with the Hungarian culture and language. The language affi liation was so strong that it penetrated even into the highly hasidic homes. The Jews of southern Maramarosh, on the other hand, felt very much apart from the Hungarian culture—as well as from other secular cultures—and from the Hungarian language as well. Their mother tongue continued to be Yiddish, although they also conversed in Romanian, the language of the ethnic majority. 153

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The Jewish community of southern Maramarosh was universally hasidic, and most of its members professed unconditional obedience to the Vishnitzer rebbe, while the Jewish community of northern Transylvania (Cresana) was divided between hasidim and “Ashkenazim.” The Transylvanian hasidim were associated almost exclusively with Satmar Hasidism, founded by R. Yoel Teitelbaum (chief rabbi of Satmar from 1934-44 and, after World War II, founder of the hasidic community of Williamsburg, New York). The polar opposite of Vishnitz, Satmar Hasidism was vehemently anti-Zionist, anti-secular, and elitist. In the area of education, Transylvanian Jewry took advantage of deMagyarization and Romanization to establish their own schools, Zionist as well as Orthodox. The Jews of southern Maramarosh, like their brethren north of the Tisza, continued with the old system of cheder and yeshiva education and reluctantly allowed public school attendance only to comply with the law. With the exception of Sighet, where there intermittently existed a  Jewish “secular” school, not a  single “secular” school under Jewish auspices existed in the whole of southern Maramarosh during the interwar years. The city of Sighet was truly an exception in the context of rural Maramarosh. An urban center with a total population of 30,000, 40 percent Jewish, Sighet was the most vital and influential city in all of Jewish Maramarosh, and the hub of traditional learning. The famed yeshiva, under the aegis of the rebbe of Sighet, was universally recognized as a center of Torah learning. Among its native sons the city counted many authors of classical works in all areas of religious scholarship: legal, homiletic, and ethical. The city also attracted many “minor” rebbes who established their courts there and made Sighet a bastion of hasidism. On the other hand, Sighet demonstrated a proclivity for modernization, and Jewish enlightenment made deep inroads into a large segment of the Jewish population. While the emergence of Jewish intellectual life can be traced to pre-Trianon Hungary, it came into its own during the interwar years. Sighet became the center of literary creativity and the home of many writers, publicists, and publishers committed to the cause of modern Jewish culture. The list of books and journals published in Sighet bears dramatic witness to this Jewish cultural awakening. Indeed, observers of the Maramarosh Jewish scene during the interwar years were invariably struck by the fact that, in spite of the domination of the extreme Orthodox establishment, Sighet was able to produce a viable intelligentsia capable of generating intellectual powers of considerable force. 154

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

In addition, Sighet also emerged as a  center of Zionism and Jewish national consciousness. Almost every Zionist group was represented in the city, and some of their leaders attained national stature. Th is, too, was surprising considering the very strong anti-Zionist stance taken by the rabbi of Sighet, who considered even the Agudah, an organization created to oppose secularism, to be an organization of apostates. Overall, southern Maramarosh did not fare well economically or politically after the partition. Not surprisingly, the beleaguered community was anxious for a  change in sovereignty, even while recognizing that any revision of existing borders could come only from Nazi Germany’s pro-Hungarian policies. What would transpire along with the revision of their borders could not have been predicted even by the gloomiest of prognosticators.

Northern Maramarosh The CSR (Czechoslovakian Republic), the new political home of northern Maramarosh, was constituted of an amalgamation of provinces, all of which had been part of the Dual Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, since the outset of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-58), the western provinces of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia had been incorporated into Austria, while Slovakia and Ruthenia (PKR) had been Hungarian provinces for centuries. The Jews of the former Austrian provinces were considerably more developed culturally, economically, and politically than those inhabiting the former Hungarian regions of the new republic. The BohemianMoravian Jews were predominantly urban, middle-class, well-educated, and socially as well as economically integrated into Gentile society. Most of them were also completely oblivious of Jewish tradition and lacking in Jewish identification. This was reflected in their high rate of intermarriage, which is the most reliable criterion for measuring the intensity of Jewish identification. In fact, the communities of western CSR were the most deJudaized of all the Jewish communities of Europe, even more so than that of Germany. Clearly, Maramarosh Jewry could not and did not relate to this westernized and assimilated Jewry. To a  large degree, the case was different with regard to the former Hungarian provinces of Slovakia and western PKR (Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia). Not only were there ties based on a common Hungarian heritage, but the shared Orthodox way of life bound them together. However, the Orthodox community of Slovakia was not homogeneous. Oberland, the 155

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

western region of Slovakia, was basically Austrian-Pressburg (Bratislava) influenced, which led to an unswerving and strict adherence to the Jewish Code of Law and at the same time a readiness to acculturate to some extent in matters of dress, education, and language. In addition, a large number of Oberland Jews belonged to liberal synagogues, a remnant of the Great Schism in Hungary (1868-9). While there were definite affinities between the Jews of Maramarosh and the western Slovakian Jewish communities in the realm of observance, no such kinship existed in the social sphere. The Oberlander, who for generations had cultivated the social and cultural values of the German Jew with whom he had become closely identified, displayed a  feeling of superiority toward his hasidic landsman. Indeed, there was very little social contact between the two communities. The contiguity between northern Maramarosh and eastern Slovakia and the three former Hungarian counties of Ung, Ugocsa, and Bereg (which, combined with Maramarosh, constituted the semi-autonomous PKR or Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia) was not only geographic, but also ideological. The population was closely linked through common ancestry—as the descendants of Galician immigrants—and through the Eastern European style of Orthodoxy practiced by both communities. However, this commonality notwithstanding, a wide gap still existed between Maramarosh and its western neighbors. First, there was the demographic disparity. Maramarosh was more than 80% rural, while western PKR was more than 80% urban. The Jewish community of western PKR exhibited all the traits of an urban community. They constituted a  more advanced community than did the Jews of Maramarosh, with a  strong and more prosperous middle class. They continued to foster Hungarian culture and language, even under CSR sovereignty. The Jewish inhabitants of the larger cities considered themselves “the bastion of western culture.” The Jews of Mukacevo (Munkacs), Uzhorod (Ungvar) and Berehovo (Beregszasz) were marked by a peculiar dichotomy between east and west, between inherited Galician traditions and aspirations toward acculturation. It should be borne in mind that the three counties were not totally homogenous. In fact, they were quite different in character, cultural orientation, and national identity. However, in their attitude toward Maramarosh, they transcended all regional differences. Like the Oberlander Jews, they displayed condescension and reluctant tolerance toward their 156

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

less fortunate brethren. They viewed Maramarosh as a community suffering from social malaise, economic retardation, and cultural ignorance. While Maramarosh was an integral part of CSR administratively, it still existed in a condition of not-so-splendid isolation. Regarding the political conditions, the situation in northern Maramarosh was altogether different from that in its southern counterpart. The newly formed Republic of Czechoslovakia, which absorbed the region, was,  like Romania, officially committed to the Treaty of St. Germain. However, unlike the Romanian government, the government of CSR made every effort to implement the guiding principles of its attitudes toward ethnic and religious minorities. It can be unequivocally stated that during the existence of CSR there was no official and very little factual antisemitism. When and where these principles were compromised—and this was more likely to happen in remote eastern sections of the region— the difficulties were the result of antagonism by local bureaucrats with no official government sanction. The following two statements reflect both the official stand of the  government and the actual conditions prevailing in the republic during the critical years of the 1930s. The fi rst, dated June 1933, was made by foreign minister (later president) Dr. Eduard Benes. The second, also dating from 1933 and even more compelling, is a  report to the German foreign ministry from Dr. Walter Koch, a  German minister to Prague. The latter was in response to a German effort to collect evidence of anti-Jewish discrimination in various other European countries, presumably to exonerate the Nazi regime’s persecution of its Jewish population. Dr. Benes wrote: There is no Jewish question in Czechoslovakia. I  would not like to be a  member of a  government which recognizes the existence of such a question. We in Czechoslovakia will direct our state in the future as in the past in accordance with the principles of liberalism and humanism. During the last weeks there were quite a  few people who came to see me and regarded it as necessary to persuade me that the moment had come for a  more outspoken or most outspoken nationalistic regime in our country. My attitude to their ideas is absolutely negative. I  do not intend to betray the basis of my whole thinking and convictions to a  transitional constellation. It is my belief that in Czechoslovakia all nationalities must be fully recognized and protected. No one, and 157

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

naturally no Jew, . . . could in our country be persecuted because of this as long as his allegiance to our state remains beyond doubt. 3

Dr. Koch wrote: There is no discrimination against Jews in Czechoslovakia, either in civil service careers or in the sphere of society, economy or anywhere else, not even in sports. Such steps would be in contradiction to the tendencies of President Masaryk, who has always acted as an outspoken friend of Jewry . . . who counted and still counts [Jews] among his best friends. Jews in Czechoslovakia are not only professors at Czech and German universities, but in many cases high officials of the state . . . headmasters or teachers at grammar schools, etc . . . . Jews are likewise recognized as equals in sport clubs. In view of these facts, it does not seem possible to me, when refuting attacks on measures taken in Germany, to point to similar occurrences in the field of racial policy in Czechoslovakia.4

As is apparent, there was a  great deal of difference between the two regimes that now ruled the sundered region of Maramarosh. These two systems greatly affected the political life of Maramarosh Jewry. Although social, religious, and economic life remained much the same for the split population, due to their new administrative entities the Jews of both regions found themselves joined to neighboring Jewish communities among whom they were not held in high esteem. Demographically, northern Maramarosh and the three neighboring former Hungarian provinces, although united, formed two very different regions. Maramarosh was about 85 percent rural and impoverished, while the Jewish community of western PKR was about 75 percent urban, with a strong, somewhat prosperous middle class. In addition, even under CSR sovereignty, Jews in the three major urban areas of Uzhorod, Mukacevo, and Berehovo continued to foster the Hungarian culture and language, marked by a peculiar dichotomy between the inherited Galician tradition and their aspiration toward acculturation. Maramarosh Jews’ loyalties were not divided between tradition and modernity, and they did not seek acculturation.

3

Quoted in J.W. Brügel, “Jews in Political Life,” in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, ed. Hugh Colman, vol. 2, 244 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968).

4

Quoted in Brügel, 243. 158

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Moreover, while Jewish law and custom were scrupulously observed in both communities, the communities nevertheless differed markedly in their approach to Jewish piety. Maramarosh was a bastion of hasidic zeal, while its neighbors from the west were more closely related to Slovakian Jewry and tended to be split between hasidic and “Ashkenazic” communities. However, even the hasidic communities of the two regions differed widely. The followers of the rebbe of Mukacevo, the dominant force in hasidism in the western PKR, were forged in the image of their spiritual mentor, R. Chaim Elazar Spiro. He was renowned for his great scholarship and for his penchant for divisiveness, belligerence, and authoritarian methods. He zealously fought against Zionism, as well as any rebbe he suspected of possible trespass in his domain. Th is was a  hasidism that thrived on dissension, a far cry from the Vishnitz brand of hasidism, whose hallmark was tolerance and “love of Israel.” Also a  compelling indicator of the distinction between Northern Maramarosh and its neighboring Jewish communities was the divergence between their education systems. In PKR, by far the least developed section of CSR, the new republic opened the gates for many innovative changes. One of the most significant of these changes was the phenomenal growth in the number of Jewish schools with curricula incorporating both religious and secular subjects. After less than two decades of CSR rule, Zionist Jewish schools, with Hebrew as the language of instruction, proliferated in the cities and towns of the three counties. Mukacevo and Uzhorod, the area’s largest cities, established Hebrew gymnasia that attained a very high level of accomplishment and were recognized for their excellent instruction and their successes as social and national melting pots. Th is was accomplished in spite of the many obstacles put in the way of the schools by the extreme Orthodox establishment, especially the vociferous and fanatical chief rabbi of Munkacevo. This development had almost no effect on northern Maramarosh. School-aged children of both sexes attended Czech schools, where they received the required secular education. For the boys, however, this was only supplemental education. In the main, cheder and yeshiva training continued to rule supreme, with boys studying under the tutelage of rabbis and headmasters. With almost no exceptions, northern Maramarosh continued to maintain the old system of Jewish education, despite the growth and increasing strength of the Zionist Movement (the prime mover of Hebrew education) in the western region of PKR. 159

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

It is a fact that the new type of Jewish education, with its emphasis on national identity, served as a key for closing the cultural gap between the western and eastern Jewries of the republic. Northern Maramarosh made no moves in that direction. It appears that the two decades that were the lifespan of CSR were too short a period for northern Maramarosh to break out of its self-imposed isolation and move toward rapprochement with the rest of the country. In 1938, when the Gotterdämmerung that loomed over Europe and CSR began to crumble, the Jews of northern Maramarosh were still a “people dwelling alone.” Economically, the establishment of the new republic was supposed to herald a new era of progress and prosperity. CSR had all the elements for the achievement of this goal. Unlike all its neighbors, from its inception CSR was a  liberal democracy, with antisemitism almost nonexistent (in comparison to the situation in the rest of Europe). The Jews of western PKR were able to maintain a higher standard of living, and for over a decade the economy of the area actually prospered. It was also hoped that the existence of a highly developed industrial establishment in the western regions of the country would benefit the economy of PKR. Alas, this hope proved to be unrealized in the case of Maramarosh, whose rural character did not change during the interwar years. Many factors, some of which were latent long before the geographic changes took effect and others of which were caused directly by the new alignment, combined to impede economic progress. The deplorable economic situation that prevailed in northern Maramarosh during the interwar years resonates in a  speech delivered in 1935 by Dr. Chaim Kugel, who was at the time one of the three Jewish members of the CSR parliament. When he delivered the speech, his call for help, the economic crisis was at its peak. Even though he does not specify what area it is he refers to in the following excerpt, there is no doubt that he’s speaking of the easternmost section of the republic, northern Maramarosh: . . . If conditions in the years preceding the (economic) crisis were bad, today it is completely impossible to adequately describe the poverty in the area. The Jews, who number one-seventh of the total population of the region, are affected equally along with the rest. Particularly in the rural areas, their fate is in no way better than that of the nonJews . . . . Our party and all who wish to improve the existence of the Jews in this country—to educate them, render them productive and teach them mutual cooperation—are adamantly opposed to this state of 160

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

affairs. The economic crisis, which was heightened in the Carpathians by the collapse of the lumber industry and its associated occupations, has had its inevitable effects on the region’s Jews, who were already living in great poverty and hardship as it was . . . . Due to the flight of industry, hundreds of skilled Jewish workers have been deprived of their livelihood. 5

Government intervention and American philanthropy improved the economic situation in most parts of PKR, but not in northern Maramarosh. The deepening crisis in the lumber industry, on which Maramarosh heavily relied, resulted in continuing economic decline. As a result, the gap between western PKR and northern Maramarosh widened further. Did the new alignment (the change from Hungarian to CSR sovereignty) bring about any improvement in the life of northern Maramarosh Jewry? Whether the answer can be given in the form of a  qualified “yes” is debatable. What is beyond any debate is the fact that the transformation from monarchy to republic did not produce the hoped-for benefits. In this short overview of the interwar story of Maramarosh, three salient observations may be made: 1) First, geographic and political divisions notwithstanding, in the realm of the spiritual, Maramarosh continued to function as one entity, drawing its religious strengths and spiritual vitality from the hasidic rebbes (most of whom dwelt in Romanian territory). There was an uninterrupted flow of hasidim to the various “courts,” and frequent visits by the rebbes to the Maramarosh communities on both banks of the Tisza River, without regard to geographic and national borders. The affinity between the two parts of Maramarosh was infinitely stronger than the new and forced affi liations between each part and its new country. Second, the Jewish community of Maramarosh demonstrated its resilience and was able to maintain its special character even under different circumstances and systems. The changes, as overwhelming as they were, could not offset the inner dynamic which had been operating within the community for generations. The self-contained, sui generis character of Maramarosh Jewry continued, even after partition, until its destruction.

5

Quoted by Aryeh Sole, “Subcarpathian Ruthenia: 1918-1938” in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, ed. Hugh Colman, vol. 1, 132 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968). 161

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Finally, the three counties that constituted Maramarosh’s neighbors to the west and northern Transylvania to the south were not totally homogenous. In fact, they were quite different from one another in character, cultural orientation, and religious identity. But in their attitude toward their Maramarosh brethren, they transcended all regional differences. Like the Oberlander Jews, they openly displayed condescension and reluctant tolerance, and viewed Maramarosh as a community suffering from social malaise, economic retardation, and cultural ignorance. In this respect, nothing had changed.

Back to Hungary The Munich Agreement (September 30, 1938), by which a democratic and independent Czechoslovakia was torn asunder by its own allies, was a  momentous turning point in the interwar history of Central and Eastern Europe. It was a  death blow to the CSR government’s policy of alignment with Britain and France, who in this document demonstrated their weakness and duplicity in capitulating so easily to Hitler’s demands. The agreement marked the first step in the disintegration of CSR, and the beginning of the end of its Jewry. As a result of the onerous terms of the agreement, CSR was transformed into a federal republic. The name CSR was hyphenated (C-S-R), and Slovakia and PKR became fully autonomous components of the republic. The federalization of the republic was the first step in its dismemberment. Seizing on the political weakness of the beleaguered and isolated C-S-R, its three neighbors (Germany, Poland, and Hungary) quickly launched territorial claims, encouraged in their belligerence by the ambivalence of France and Britain. Poland and Hungary indicated that they would ally themselves with Germany in war if their demands were not satisfied. C-S-R initially resisted the pressure. Its delegation entered into negotiations with Hungary in the Slovak city of Komarno on October 9, 1938. The delegation was authorized to assent to minor border adjustments and to resist significant demands put forward by the irredentist government of Hungary. It was soon apparent, however, that only outside pressure would ensure an agreement. The pressure soon came from the Axis governments, resulting in the First Vienna Award. Less than two weeks after the Munich agreement was signed (October  11, 1938), the new C-S-R prime minister appointed Andrii 162

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Brodii,  a  Russophile, to be the first governor of the autonomous SubCarpathian Ruthenia (PKR). His regime lasted only a  few weeks before he  was forced to resign. He was succeeded by Monsignor Augustin Valoshyn, who represented the Ukrainian branch of the ethnic Ruthenians. In an act that underscored his loyalty to Ukraine, he changed the name of the  province from PKR to ZKU, Zakarpatskaya Ukraina (Carpathian Ukraine), to the consternation of a  large segment of the Russophile population. According to the terms of the Vienna agreement, Hungary was awarded the Magyar-inhabited territories of southern Slovakia and the western region of PKR (the three counties already discussed). This excluded northern Maramarosh, which became the diminished autonomous ZKU, still a  component of the federal republic of C-S-R. It was apparent that Hitler kept the Ukrainian enclave in reserve for future eventualities. Documentary evidence shows that at the time of the Vienna agreement Hitler intended to use the “independent” ZKU as a steppingstone toward the establishment of a Greater Ukraina, which he hoped would eventually include the Ruthenian-populated regions of Galicia and the Soviet Ukrainian Republic. In the First Vienna Award, however, ZKU lost virtually all of the three counties of Bereg, Ung, and Ugocsa, along with their proportionally large Jewish populations. Since these counties merged with Hungary, the Ruthenian government was forced to relocate from the established capital of Uzhorod to northern Maramarosh’s largest city, Hust. During the week of November 5, 1938, the Hungarian army occupied the newly acquired lands, now given the name Felvidek (Upper Province). This was the first break of the “chains of Trianon,” a giant step toward the realization of Hungary’s irredentist dream. With its transfer to Hust, the Valoshyn government began to plan a  consolidation of its power in order to realize its political goals. The new government’s initial program organized the SICH, the Ukrainian National Defense, ostensibly to protect the fledgling government and the newly founded autonomous province from Hungarian attack. In fact, the paramilitary SICH, patterned after the German Gestapo, used brutal tactics to frighten the populace into accepting (i.e., surrendering to) the Valoshyn government. Detractors of the group at home and abroad accused the SICH of transforming the autonomous province into a center of proNazi Ukrainian nationalism. 163

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The Jewish population of ZKU scrupulously avoided involvement in the strife among the various Ruthenian factions of Ukrainophiles and Russophiles. Nevertheless, SICH attacks against Jews in many villages and towns created a climate of fear and insecurity. Older Jews recalled the terror generated by the invading Ukrainian Kossacks during World War I and saw in the SICH the old pogromchiks resurrected. These experiences resulted in a general feeling of impending disaster, amid unsubstantiated rumors that the SICH high command planned to annihilate the Jewish community. Whether these rumors were born of panic or whether a plan really existed soon became moot. The fact was that ZKU stood in the way of Hitler’s overriding objective, the dismemberment of C-S-R, which the Munich agreement had denied him. Now, Hitler easily set in motion the political steps necessary to immediately sacrifice the reduced ZKU province. While preparing the military action for “the pacification of C-S-R,” Hitler also encouraged radical elements of the Slovak independence movement to proclaim Slovakia an independent republic. As it turned out, there was no need for the radicals, since Hitler’s pressure on the more “moderate” Slovak government, headed by Joseph Tiso, proved sufficient. Tiso was invited to Berlin on March 13, 1939. Less than 24 hours after his arrival, the Slovak Diet unanimously declared its independence. Th is event served to seal the final destiny of ZKU and complete the destruction of C-S-R. Valoshyn attempted in vain to save his “country” from Hungarian occupation. Trying to appease Hitler, he renamed the province the Independent Republic of Carpatho-Ukraina and placed the new republic under German protection, but his efforts were to no avail. C-S-R was no more, ZKU was a matter of history, and Maramarosh—the northern part of it—was returned once more to Hungary. The SICH, putting up some token resistance, was no match for even the ill-equipped Hungarian army. On March 16, 1939, Hust, the capital of the one-day-old Ukrainian republic, was captured, to the enthusiastic reception of many Jews, by the invaders. Three days later, the whole region was Hungarian. Two factors contributed to the keen expectations and enthusiastic reception of the Hungarian liberators: nostalgic memories of the past and fear of the future. The stormy month of Ukrainian autonomy, especially the adventurous activities of the SICH, caused great apprehension among the Jews of ZKU. On the other hand, there was still a generation of Jews who remembered the Dual Empire and the benign rule of its last emperor. They chose to forget the anti-Jewish attitude often expressed by the Hungarian 164

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

populace and government. This generation viewed the “good old times of Franz Joseph” through rose-colored glasses. This nostalgia contributed to the enthusiastic reception of the “liberating” Hungarian army by the older portion of the Jewish population. However, in the five years that followed, the friendly Hungarian rule they anticipated did not materialize. Instead, an antisemitic current swept through the country, justifying the worst fears of the pessimists, most of whom were of a younger generation. The Hungarian army, so joyously received, brought with it the seeds of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” Ultimately, for the Jews, the years of Hungarian rule that followed were a slow descent into the impending inferno. Southern Maramarosh: Incorporation Into Hungary As was noted before, the Munich agreement expanded and secured German hegemony over Central and Southeastern Europe. All events, political and military, were now determined by Germany in congruence with her national interests and aspirations. One of the momentous events designed and effected by Germany was the bilateral agreement between Hungary and Romania concerning the retrocession of a section of Transylvania to Hungary. The genesis of the agreement was in the spectacular march of the Wehrmacht into Western Europe and the unexpected collapse of France in June 1940. It was the USSR’s reaction to the German occupation of Europe that launched Hungary’s drive toward the retrocession of Transylvania. The USSR reacted to the German invasion by occupying the Baltic states as well as the Romanian provinces of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Simultaneously prodded by these events, Hungary decided to solve the Transylvania question by unilateral action, seeking to incorporate the Magyar region that had been granted to Romania in accordance with the Trianon agreement. Fully aware that a conflict between his two allies would be detrimental to Germany’s eventual war effort, Hitler vetoed Hungary’s plan and advised both parties to enter into bilateral negotiations. The negotiations did not result in agreement. Both countries mobilized their forces, and war seemed inevitable and imminent. To avoid open hostilities, Hitler forced the parties to submit, however reluctantly, to arbitration. The resulting Second Vienna Award (August 30, 1940) restored to Hungary the northern section of Transylvania, which included southern Maramarosh. 165

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The Hungarians felt that the arbitrators (the foreign ministers of Germany and Italy) favored Romania, since Romania retained the areas with important mineral assets and resources, as well as larger population centers. Nevertheless, a  state of euphoria prevailed in Hungary when its army began the liberation of northern Transylvania. This abrogation of one more article of the humiliating Trianon pact was seen as progress on the road toward the complete restoration of Hungary’s former glory. It is noteworthy that, like the Jews of Felvidek and northern Maramarosh, the majority of the Jews of northern Transylvania and southern Maramarosh greeted the Hungarian army during that fateful week of October 8-14, 1940, with great satisfaction—and for nearly identical reasons. It should also be borne in mind that, at the time of the secession of northern Transylvania from Romania, the situation in that country was very volatile, and the political climate was especially unfavorable for Jews. This was the time when power began to shift in the direction of the viciously antisemitic Iron Guard. The situation in Romania became intolerable during the summer of 1940, when a  mythical “Judeo-Communist conspiracy” was “exposed” by the radical right. The seizure of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina by the Soviet Union that summer was seen by many as a vindication of the Iron Guard cause. The Guard’s rapidly growing power made the situation for Jews in those areas ever more perilous. The Iron Guard poisoned the region’s atmosphere with poisonous lies about Jews and Judaism, resulting in numerous pogrom-like attacks. Looking forward, the reality of the then-current Romanian policies as compared with the uncertainty regarding future Hungarian rule made the choice in favor of the latter understandable. Thus, through the “liberation” of northern Transylvania, the county of Maramarosh once again became unified under Hungarian rule. It was not long, however, before the Jews of southern Maramarosh, like their brethren in the northern region, awoke to the realization that the new regime had very little resemblance to the Hungary of the Dual Empire. Their collective hope for a favorable change in their situation was not to be. Instead, this last encounter between Maramarosh Jewry and Hungary was fi lled with anguish and pain, from the beginning to the tragic end, from the first “minor” anti-Jewish ordinance to the final deportation to the death camps. 166

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Hungary: from Trianon to Auschwitz How did it all happen? It is axiomatic that post-Trianon Hungary was not the Hungary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, especially regarding the treatment of its Jewish citizens. It is an incontestable fact that, beginning with the establishment of the Dual Empire (1867) and the subsequent Emancipation, Jews prospered in all areas of endeavor: economic, cultural, and intellectual (with the possible exception of social acceptance). During that period, Judaism was declared a  legal and protected religion. No doubt the majority of Hungarian Jews considered themselves to be living in a golden age. All of this was accomplished in the face of firmly entrenched, popular anti-Jewish feelings among the Gentile population. Much changed in the immediate post-Trianon era. Previously dormant anti-Jewish feelings burst into the open with a ferocity never seen before. Many factors combined to create this strong anti-Jewish atmosphere. To begin, the military defeat and political humiliation resulting from Hungary’s participation on the wrong side during World War I  created a  large scar on the Hungarian psyche. It must be remembered that Hungary was by far the biggest loser of the war in terms of both territory and population. The tangible results of the defeat (Romanian occupation, economic calamity, and an influx of refugees) intensified the desire for a  scapegoat for all the ills that had befallen the once-proud nation. The Jews were a convenient target. The main impetus for the first anti-Jewish outbreaks was the declaration of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic (March 21-July 30, 1919), whose guiding spirit was Bela Kun, a  Jew by birth who never acknowledged his Jewishness. Although his Soviet Republic was shortlived, its ramifications, especially for Hungarian Jews, were fateful. Out of the ruins of the Communist Revolution rose the counterrevolutionary group known as the White Terror, whose reign included indiscriminate and vengeful anti-Jewish atrocities similar in scope and brutality to the infamous Russian pogroms.6 6

See Andrew Handler, The Holocaust in Hungary: An Anthology of the Jewish Response (Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1982), 6-7, Nathaniel Katzburg, Hungary and the Jews: Policy and Legislation (New York: Sefer-Hermon Press, 1981), 33-46. 167

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The country, fueled by irredentist and counterrevolutionary fi re, remained on its antisemitic course even after the White Terror subsided. Hungary even preceded Nazi Germany in adopting anti-Jewish legislation and in performing mass executions of Jews. During this period, Law XXV of 1920 (the Hungarian Numerus Clausus) was promulgated. While the law’s wording was ambiguous, there was no doubt that it was aimed at potential Jewish students, the quota of which was now fi xed at 6% of the total student population.7 All of this took place during the period of the so-called “Christian Course,” which professed a radical, nationalistic, irredentist, anti-liberal, and antisemitic ideology. In fact, almost all the political and social movements of the time adhered in various degrees to the “Christian Course” and its ideology. By the mid-1930s, the most extreme of these organizations (like the Arrow Cross party) gained in influence in terms of both numbers and political power, a phenomenon that was to play a fateful role in the destiny of Hungarian Jewry. One of the many ironies of Hungarian Jewish history is that, despite the nightmare of the White Terror and the official antisemitism that was the direct result of the victory of the counterrevolution, Hungarian Jews resumed their position in the economic, cultural, and intellectual life of the country. Their part in the arts, professions, and education was disproportionately high. Assimilation, usually a by-product of emancipation and not of official antisemitism, continued unabated. Jews demonstrated their patriotism by founding numerous patriotic organizations, many of them affi liated with congregations. It is difficult to comprehend, but it is a  fact nonetheless that the many danger signals present did not assuage the nationalistic fervor of the Hungarian Jewish leadership, which was dominated by a class of rich, assimilated Jews. The ubiquitous signs of impending doom did not move Hungarian Jewry from the hubris it experienced. As Handler writes: Those who were deceived by the illusion of the Jews’ prosperity and believed in their guaranteed security failed to recognize the fundamental incompatibility of Hungarian nationalism and Jewish assimilation.

7

See Katzburg, 60-62, and Randolph Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 30. 168

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

They did not see that, boosted by the ever-growing German hegemony, Hungarian nationalism in its most outrageous, virulent form was raising its ugly head and preaching a “Final Solution” long before the term was coined by Nazi Germany. Moreover, as the country’s political orientation turned increasingly toward Nazi Germany, partly out of political expediency and partly out of pressure, the “Jewish question” became the recurrent theme in Parliament and most public forums. The direct outcome of the change of the political milieu was the passing of successive anti-Jewish measures that aimed to drastically restrict the position of Jewish citizens in all spheres of life. The so-called First Anti-Jewish Law, passed in May 1938 and titled “Law for the More Efficient Protection of the Social and Economic Balance,” limited Jewish participation in economic life to 20%. What is noteworthy is the rationale supplied by the government in justification of this legislation, namely that the Law would check harmful and dangerous Jewish expansion into the economic life of the country.8 The Second Anti-Jewish Law, placed before parliament seven months later in December 1938, went considerably farther than the first: Jewish participation in business and professions was now limited to 6%. It also differed from its predecessor in other aspects. The definition of “Jew” was expanded considerably, to include all persons who converted from Judaism to other religions after 1919. It also curtailed the rights of war veterans. The law was passed on May 4, 1939, six weeks after the triumphant “liberation” of northern Maramarosh by the Hungarian army. 9 It should be noted that some of the older, more liberal representatives of the parliament opposed the new direction that Hungary took, but the more right wing radicals considered the legislation to be too little and too late. They demanded total segregation of the Jewish population and the complete removal of the human rights of its members. The time was not yet ripe for implementation of the radical policies they advocated, but the stage was set. Several factors combined to enhance the anti-Jewish atmosphere during the early months of 1939. The national euphoria about the recent conquests, which were made possible by German intervention, generated

8

See Katzburg, 100-104, and Braham, Politics of Genocide, 122-126.

9

See Katzburg, 114-157, and Braham, Politics of Genocide, 153-156. 169

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

strong pro-German feelings and sympathies with their racial policies. The ascendance of a  variety of right wing radical political parties, especially the Arrow Cross party, brought to the forefront ideas about a new National Socialist Europe created by Hungary and Germany that would be totally “Judenrein.” However, the most important factor in intensifying antisemitic feelings was the government’s anti-Jewish legislation, which set the tone and made antisemitism part and parcel of the political system and the public mind. As has often been the case, the strongest and most vociferous voice against the Jews came from the military establishment. Thus, when the Hungarian soldiers marched into the towns and villages of Maramarosh, they carried within themselves both a  deeply rooted historical antisemitism and the government’s sanction, permitting them to easily convert such beliefs into terrible actions. It took the new rulers a  very short time to make their presence felt. After only one month, the Jews of the newly “liberated” territories became subject to the same institutionalized anti-Jewish treatment as those of Felvidek and the “motherland.” In addition, the military government promulgated with lightning speed all kinds of decrees and ordinances affecting the Jewish population, including, among others, the ordinance that Jewish stores and other commercial enterprises must be operated on the Sabbath. During the first month of “liberation,” all Jewish government employees were fired and replaced by imported Hungarian nationals. The legal profession, in which Jews had played an important role, became almost “Judenrein.” Only those Jewish lawyers who had served in the Hungarian army during World War I  or were licensed by the Austro-Hungarian authorities were permitted to practice their profession. Needless to say, these ordinances were just the preliminary stages of a larger plan for the total Magyarization of the economy. The next step was the revocation of business and commercial licenses. Jewish enterprises were hit by mass revocation of their licenses to operate. By official ordinance, licenses were transferred to Christian Hungarians, most of whom had been relocated from the “motherland.” The result of these intense efforts to Magyarize was the creation of a  new type of businessman, the Strohman. The Strohman was a Gentile who became the official owner of the business and, in most cases, knew little or nothing about the enterprise. He then retained the former proprietor as a  silent partner or manager. 170

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Economic oppression historically is usually followed by physical abuse and ruthless persecution. During the second year of Hungarian rule, 1941, the first sporadic attacks against Jews, coupled with vandalism of Jewish property, began with complete impunity. Official harassment, arbitrary arrests, and false accusations became commonplace occurrences. There were deliberate, systematic, and often ruthless attempts to harm and maltreat the Jewish population, instilling in its members a sense of alarm and panic. The year 1941 was, indeed, a year of affliction for Hungarian Jews in general and for Maramarosh Jews in particular. On August 2, 1941, the so-called Third Jewish Law (Act No. XV, 1941) was passed. This enactment, more than its predecessors, was patterned in language and content after the German racial laws. In accompanying legislation, the official status and protection of the Jewish religion was revoked. Economically, this was the year when Jews were completely excluded from many professions and occupations.10 The tragedy of Maramarosh Jewry was heightened by the KamenetzPodolsk affair. This cataclysmic event, in which thousands of innocent Maramarosh Jews were slaughtered and whole communities eradicated, presaged the on-rushing catastrophe. What transpired in and around the town of Kamenetz-Podolsk, in this action initiated and executed by Hungarian authorities, is among the most heinous crimes ever committed by Hungary. And, it must be noted, it occurred three years before the German occupation of the country. The genesis of this tragedy was the government’s zeal to “solve the perennial problem of Jewish immigration into Hungary.” One of the first acts of the Hungarian authorities in solving this “problem” was reviewing the citizenship of the Maramarosh Jewish population and stamping out the “stateless,” whom they constantly threatened with expulsion. In order to be considered a  Hungarian citizen, one had to prove residence in the region back to at least 1850. This requirement automatically excluded from the ranks of citizenship not only recent immigrants who had fled Germanoccupied Poland and other occupied countries, but also the thousands of native Jews whose parents were born in Maramarosh and who, for various reasons, had not attained citizenship. Due to the German victories, the number of immigrants into the country had increased dramatically, and the authorities were looking for

10

See Katzburg, 158-179, and Braham, Politics of Genocide, 194-195. 171

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

a  drastic solution to the problem. A  decision was made by the highest echelon of the government to transfer alien Jews to the Ukrainian territory, which was then occupied by the German army and administered by the Hungarian military command. In order to effect the plan with a  minimum of fuss, the Hungarian government employed the same tactics of deception which were later used by the Germans in their mass transportations of Jews. The whole operation was cynically presented as a means to provide employment for the thousands of Jews who, in the wake of anti-Jewish legislation by the government, were now unemployed. The following order, issued by the Deputy Prefect of Maramarosh, characterizes the deception and trickery that the government made use of. It served as a model for other countries. Law No. IV of 1939 concerning the restriction of the participation of Jews in public and economic Life, the measures adopted for its implementation, and the Third Anti-Jewish Law, now being prepared, compel and will compel the Jews living in the country to yield to the Hungarians their positions in public and economic life, just as they were compelled to yield their positions in the civil service. In Maramarosh County, where the anti-Jewish laws and license revisions, among other things, were not yet implemented, there live more than 45,000 Jews, who or whose elders infiltrated into the country from Galicia, Bukovina and Poland. In the city of Maramarossziget alone the number of Jews is over 10,000. The implementation of the anti-Jewish measures, which will begin with the greatest severity in the near future, will affect local Jews at their economic foundation. In view of the fact that a large part of Galicia has been occupied by Honved troops, and in order to bring about an equitable solution of this problem before the implementation of the antiJewish measures, I  appeal to the Jews living in the county’s territory, and especially to those who desire to resettle in Galicia, to apply within eight days to file the appropriate forms with the designated authorities, namely the Mayor of the City of Maramarossziget or the agents specified by him and the rural authorities in the villages. I would like to draw the attention of those interested in the idea that the resettlement will be organized and carried out on a centralized basis, which is facilitated by the fact that the bulk of the population in the occupied territories either retreated with or were removed by the Russians and, for this reason, no major difficulty is expected in the 172

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

settlement of the Jews and the starting of a new life. It will serve the interests of the Jews if they liquidate their uncertain situation in the country by yielding their position and beginning a new life on the soil of Galicia with the aid of the authorities.11

Upon issuing the official order, the authorities began to round up the “aliens,” who were allowed to take along 30 pengö (about $7.50), food for three days, and a few, mostly essential, personal items. Every person who was defined by the Decree as an “alien” was subject to deportation. There were few exceptions to this rule. The deportees, like those of 1944, three years later, were crowded into freight cars and taken to Korosmezo (Jasina), the easternmost town of Maramarosh, which bordered the occupied territories. There they were transferred across the border and handed over to military authorities. The German military command was unaware of and unprepared for the mass arrival of thousands of Jews, whom they considered to be a menace to their military lines of communication. The Hungarians, on the other hand, were unwilling to return them to their respective towns. After a conference between the Hungarian military command and the German military and SS authorities, it was decided to liquidate the Hungarian deportees, together with the indigenous Jewish population of Kamenetz-Podolsk, whose members had not managed to retreat with the Soviet armed forces. On August 27-28, 1941, between 24,000 and 26,000 Jews, about half of whom came from Hungary, mostly from northern Maramarosh, were marched on a tortuous ten-mile journey to a site with open craters, where German, Hungarian, and Ukrainian machine gunners were waiting for them. They were ordered to undress, and while they stood there, shivering from cold and horror, they were gunned down by the cooperative fire of three nations. Most victims died instantly, but many were buried alive. Some became “corpses floating down the Dniester River,” while a very few survived to tell an incredulous world what had transpired at KamenetzPodolsk. A massacre of such proportions could not be hushed up, despite the precautionary measures taken by the perpetrators. Hungarian soldiers who witnessed the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children were

11

Quoted in Braham, Politics of Genocide, 203. 173

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

among those who divulged information to others. The bitter news reached the remaining Jewish leadership, who acted on the information. They partially succeeded in slowing the pace of deportation, but were unable to stem it completely. It should be noted that Kamenetz-Podolsk was only one of many localities in the occupied Ukrainian territories where deportees shared in the tragic fate of the indigenous Jewish population. Another example is Stanislaw, a ghetto which one group reached only a few days before it was liquidated on October 11, 1941. Of the thousands of local Jews who were murdered in Stanislaw by the Germans and their Ukrainian collaborators, at least 2,000 came from Hungary, most of them from Maramarosh.12 This action, officially designated as a  “sure solution to the problem of Jewish unemployment,” became the “first five-figure massacre in the Nazi’s final solution program.”13 To the eternal shame of Hungary, it is remembered as one of the greatest atrocities of World War II. As noted by Livia Rothkirchen, the view that the massacre at Kamenetz-Podolsk was an isolated act carried out under the mesmerizing influence of the victorious German armies is refuted by the enthusiasm demonstrated by those who carried out the order, and by the alacrity with which the order was accepted by the majority of the populace. The massacre in Kamenetz-Podolsk in 1941, and the subsequent antiJewish activities leading to the final deportation in May 1944, derived from an antisemitism of “domestic vintage,” which surfaced whenever the political atmosphere was favorable. Upon incorporation into the Hungarian administrative system, Maramarosh became subject to all the discriminatory laws already in existence. One of the first of these, and the one felt most harshly, was the law of conscription into the labor corps of the Hungarian army. This was known as Law II of 1939, Article 230. It provided the legal basis for the system of forced labor within the framework of military service. In these labor battalions, the servicemen were under the jurisdiction and discipline of the army, but deprived of all the rights and privileges of the military. Although this system was intended for those classified as unsuitable to serve in the regular army, it was primarily used to affect Jews, and served as a component of the Hungarian solution to the Jewish question. 12 13

See Braham, Politics of Genocide, 199-207. Ibid., 34. 174

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

When the final decree about the formation of the labor units was issued, Hungary was already at war with the Soviet Union and the army was in need of a labor force to maintain the roads and bridges connecting Hungary with the newly occupied territories. Most of the labor units mobilized in 1941 were immediately sent to the Hungarian-Galician border. Those who were stationed within the country were assigned to build roads and military airfields, to dredge and clean rivers, and to load and unload freight. The condition of each unit depended mainly on its commanding officer. With few exceptions, these were fiercely antisemitic and took great pleasure in the suffering of the servicemen and the blatantly discriminatory treatment they dealt out. Increasing official discrimination against the Jewish labor units was reflected in the various ordinances issued by the military command, starting with the prohibition of wearing uniforms and moving on to the compulsory wearing of yellow or white armbands. To serve in a  labor company was to carry a  double burden: heavy, often punitive physical labor was coupled with subjugation to the whims of increasingly antisemitic commanders and guards. The situation became even more intolerable after the deployment of the Hungarian Second Army on the Eastern front in April 1942. At that time, the number of Jewish servicemen along the frontline increased dramatically. In fact, starting in 1942, the majority of recruits were shipped directly to the front, where—in addition to building and maintaining roads and railroads—they were engaged in building trenches, bunkers, and fortifications, and handling other related projects. The work was particularly demanding during the cold Russian winter, when the ground was frozen to a degree that made it almost impossible to penetrate it, especially with the primitive means available to the laborers. These heavy demands were made of the servicemen while they were poorly fed, ill-clothed, and maltreated by their commanders and guards. Far from the eyes of the central authorities, these “Christian” overseers gave vent to their sadistic passions. Beatings and pistol whippings were part of the daily regimen in many units, and rations were stolen, packages from home were confiscated, and clothing was taken away.. The physical suffering of the men at the front was matched by the emotional agony of families at home. There was hardly a  family in Maramarosh whose son, father, or brother was not mobilized into a labor unit. Communication with the servicemen was almost non-existent, and 175

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

the emotional strain on the families was intolerable. This was especially destructive in Maramarosh where, in most families, the individual called for service was the family’s sole breadwinner. The system of military labor service was also designed as a  weapon in the psychological war against the Jews: it made it possible to summon recruits by design and selection. In April 1942, the Ministry of Defense issued a decree ordering the commanders of all army corps to ensure that 10-15% of all army corps were composed of Jews “well known by their wealth or reputation.” Anybody falling into these categories could be mobilized, even if he was over age 42, the legal limit for front-line service. Many of these men were totally unfit for labor or any other service. Lists of “well known” Jews were prepared by local authorities or “patriotic” organizations, and those listed were recruited directly by the army corps commands and shipped to the front. Th is was a  foolproof method of depriving the Jewish community of its prominent professionals, Zionists, and community leaders. Thus, the Hungarian war against the Jews was fought on the physical as well as the psychological front.14 It is impossible to determine the number of dead and missing labor servicemen. Thousands died of cold and starvation, especially among the older recruits. Many units were decimated by their commanders, while others were totally exterminated. Many of the servicemen whom the government classified as “missing” were actually captured by the Soviet army following the offensive around the city of Voronezh, which took place in December 1942 and January 1943, while others “walked” into captivity. A  conservative estimate of Jewish labor servicemen in Soviet captivity by the end of this period would be around 30,000. It should be noted that, in general, Jewish “prisoners of war” were not  given preferential treatment over their erstwhile commanders. In many instances, the treatment they received from their Soviet captors was  even  worse than what the Hungarian officers had offered them. All those captured, whether they were regular soldiers or Jewish servicemen, were locked up together in prisoner of war camps and received equal treatment. Thousands perished in these camps from typhoid and other

14

See Randolph L.  Braham, The Hungarian Labor Service System 1939-1945 (New York: East European Quarterly, 1977). 176

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

ailments.15 Those who survived were held in captivity until the peace treaties were signed in February 1947.16 There was a  short but notable hiatus in the ever-increasing antiJewish frenzy orchestrated by official Hungarian policy. The government of Miklos Kallay (March 9, 1942-March 19, 1944) made a  valiant effort to resist German pressures in the areas of foreign policy and anti-Jewish legislation, in the hope that this would enhance Hungary’s chances for rapprochement with the Allies. His policies did have a  beneficial effect on the Jews of Hungary, including the thousands of men in labor camps on the eastern front. For the last fourteen months of the Kallay regime, Hungary was considered “an oasis” in the midst of the conflagration that prevailed in Central and Eastern Europe.17 In the long run, however, Kallay’s efforts were thwarted by internal and external pressures, and he was replaced in his office by Dome Sztojay, whose unconditional loyalty to Germany and unconstrained enmity toward Jews was beyond doubt.

The Final Solution The poisonous antisemitic atmosphere was intensified after the German occupation by an avalanche of harsh anti-Jewish measures, among them expropriation and the compulsory wearing of the Yellow Star of David. Each enactment, each measure, and each ordinance accelerated the process of “de-Jewification” of the region and the final solution. The final solution of the Jewish problem in Hungary began with the ghettoization of Maramarosh Jewry. They were the first to be relocated and concentrated. Of the first eleven ghettoes in Hungary, eight were located in Maramarosh proper and three outside the county. The action began less than one month after the German army occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944. However, even before occupation the ground was prepared by the radical right-wing Hungarian government. In fact,

15

Braham, Politics of Genocide, 285-351.

16

See Braham, Politics of Genocide, 285-351.

17

See Bela Vago, “Germany and the Jewish Policy of the Kallay Government,” in Hungarian Jewish Studies II, ed. Randolph L. Braham, 183-210 (New York: World Federation of Hungarian Jews, 1966). 177

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

when Eichmann and his Sonder-Kommando arrived in Budapest with plans for the “Final Solution,” he was impressed with the eagerness of the Hungarian government to cooperate in the implementation of these plans. The execution of the well-laid-out plans became a cooperative effort between the Hungarian and German governments. By that time, after years of overt and covert persecution, the Jewish community of Maramarosh was already sapped of its strength, bereft of all human rights and dignity, physically devastated, and emotionally shattered. Their power of resistance was exhausted. The following six weeks witnessed the last two stages in the total annihilation of Maramarosh Jewry: ghettoization and deportation. The decree pertaining to ghettoization and the details of its implementation were secretly issued to the proper authorities between April 4 and April 7, 1944, and the decree was formally adopted on April 26, 1944. These dates are important as indicators of the special attention given to Maramarosh Jewry. Although the decree was formally adopted on April 26, Maramarosh Jews were already being rounded up and placed into ghettoes beginning April 16. The ghettoization was carried out in accordance with meticulously prepared plans, without major incidents or resistance. The Jewish masses were still unaware of the realities of the “Final Solution” program. In smaller towns and villages, the whole Jewish population was rounded up and crowded into the local synagogue. From there they were marched to the designated ghettoes of larger cities. These agonizing journeys were usually preceded by thorough and harsh investigations, often accompanied by severe beatings administered by officials in pursuit of money and valuables. In the nine cities and towns with designated ghettoes, people were taken directly to assigned areas that were completely isolated from the rest of the city or town. The roundup and transfer to the ghetto was the responsibility of the mayor of the city or town. He was assisted by the police, gendarmerie, and other civil service organs and paramilitary groups. The dreaded police and gendarmerie were responsible for the “special treatment” given the more prominent citizens of the community, and their cruelty and brutality was legendary. Because the designated ghetto areas were limited to only a part of the Jewish sections of the respective cities, they were extremely crowded. The transfer of the Jews from the neighboring towns into the ghettoes of the 178

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

larger cities made the lack of space even worse. All the ghettoes suffered from a shortage of food and medicine. Health problems were ubiquitous, and in some ghettoes they posed a real danger to the lives of the population. Every ghetto also had a “mint,” where the more prosperous Jews and leaders of the community were beaten and tortured into confessing to all kinds of trumped-up charges of espionage and into revealing where they had hidden their valuables. A strong knock on the window by a gendarme or a policeman signaled the roundup of the Jewish population of the town, village, or city. The victims were given one hour or less to take along two sets of underwear, two shirts, food for two weeks, and other baggage not in excess of 50 kilos. All money, jewelry, and other valuables had to be surrendered to the appointed authorities. They were not allowed to lock the doors of their homes, which were to remain open for looting and vandalization. While the methods and procedures of the ghettoization were spelled out in the directives that all participating organizations and individuals had to follow, the severity with which ghettoization was carried out and the conditions within the ghettoes nevertheless depended upon the attitude of the particular authorities. Thus, life in the ghetto of Hust was more tolerable than the situation in the ghettoes of the neighboring town of Tecs or Slotfina, where the gendarmes, with the encouragement of some of the local population, maintained a  reign of terror and panic, especially in their “special treatment” of the more prominent citizens. The head of the ghetto of upper Vishava, who was especially vindictive and vicious, forced the whole ghetto population to present itself for a daily roll call that lasted for several hours. Beating and other forms of torture accompanied these daily lineups. The population of the ghettoes located in smaller towns suffered proportionately less than those in larger cities—the local rural populations were not as cruel and vindictive as those in the cities. In Dragmirest, for example, local farmers supplied the ghetto generously with various kinds of food. Characteristically, after the initial shock of the roundup and the closing of the gates, life in the ghetto assumed a  certain illusory calm. In fact, the atmosphere was one of hope and even optimism. It was fed by wishful thinking that the Red Army would soon cross the Carpathian Mountains and liberate the region before the next move by the Germans and Hungarians. 179

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

The German and Hungarian officials, meanwhile, viewed ghettoization as the last step before deportation, the last action before Auschwitz. Nevertheless, they cynically and audaciously camoufl aged their true intentions until the last minute. The following comes from an interview given by one of the architects of ghettoization, Lazlo Endre, on May 14, 1944: We adopted measures that were always carried out humanely and with consideration for moral factors. Really, no harm is befalling them. They live among themselves in one group within the borders of the ghetto in accordance to their own folk and racial laws. We made it possible for them to cook with sesame oil, which enables them not to violate one of their important religious tenets. The ghettoization was carried out humanely with the avoidance of all rough conduct. I issued instructions to the effect that good care be taken for their safety.18

The same high official also asserted that the population of all cities, especially Maramarosh-Sighet, “hailed the government measure (i.e., ghettoization) with genuine delight.”

Entrainment and Deportation While Maramarosh Jews were languishing in the ghettoes amidst increasing uncertainty about their fate, plans were being made by the German and Hungarian authorities at a  conference held at Munkacs (May 9, 1944) to direct the final stage of the physical annihilation of Maramarosh Jewry. The plans called for deportation to Auschwitz of all Jews in the deJewification zones, which included Maramarosh and the counties formerly known as PKR. The action was to begin May 15 and continue until June 11. At the same meeting as this was decided, the final secret instructions regarding procedures were issued to the mayors of the cities that served as ghetto centers. The procedures were consistent with the goals set by the government. The public statements by Prime Minister Sztojay left no doubt about the final objective: 18

Quoted by Braham, Politics of Genocide, 588. 180

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

We want to implement all the theoretical and practical objectives of the politics of . . . race defense, including the radical solution of the Jewish question.19

On May 16, 1944, as planned, the Maramarosh ghettoes were vacated and the inmates marched to the railroad stations. Some ghettoes were located 20-25 kilometers from the station; the gendarmes especially gave vent to their sadism, and the march became a long trail of suffering and humiliation. On the way to their destinations, victims were assembled in vacant factories, storage houses, hangars, or even in open fields for a final search for valuables. Nothing needs to be added to the following testimony by Mr. Samu Stern, head of the Budapest Judenrat, about this last stage of the destruction of the Jewish community of Maramarosh: (While searching for the valuables of the Jews) no brutality, no method of torture was spared to make them confess. Wives were beaten under the eyes of their husbands and, when this was of no avail, children were tormented in front of their parents. The favorite methods of Hungarian gendarmes to make these unfortunates speak up one way or another were tying up the victims, beating with rubber truncheons, the use of electrical devices, blows with sticks on the soles of the feet and the palms of the hands, boxing the ears, puncturing under the nails and kicking. When the detectives were through with their job, the SS men of Wisliceny and Zoldi’s special unit put in an appearance. They surrounded the ghetto with loaded machine guns in hand watching with the eyes of lynxes until the trains rolled in. Hereupon they drove the unfortunate people with whips and rifle butts to the station. At the beginning this was done in the early hours, for they were anxious to avoid sensation; later on, when the pace had to be accelerated, they did not care anymore, chasing victims across the towns in broad daylight. At this sight, kindhearted Christians could often not help bursting into tears, but they had to hide them lest some gendarme notice their pity and assault them with rifle butts and foul language. We heard about an instance where a  good-natured peasant woman tried to hand over edibles to the poor creatures crammed into freight cars. A  gendarme caught her in the act and pushed that kind woman into the car which, then carefully sealed, went on with an additional victim.

19

Quoted by Braham, Politics of Genocide, 614. 181

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

One car had to hold—depending upon the number of deportees and cars—60 to 80 persons . . . . In the burning heat of summer, sealed in cattle wagons with two buckets per car, they started their journey via Kassa to Auschwitz, the terminal.20

This horror was not limited to one ghetto. It served as a  pattern to be followed by all who were in charge of subsequent entrainments and deportations. In fact, the “messengers of death,” as they were called, often invented some new method of agony and torment in which they indulged in order to magnify the humiliation of the victims. On the railroad platform of Slotfina, for example, the gendarmes in charge selected the local rabbi, a saintly, gentle, and delicate person, to be the object of derision. He had his beard and his hair cut in half vertically. This was done in front of all the people who considered the rabbi to be the most erudite and noble person in town. The guards and “Christian” onlookers delighted in the performance. At some railroad stations, old grudges and animosities were settled with a vengeance: many local Gentiles came to the station to beat up those against whom they held a past grudge. When the doors of the boxcars were shut, Maramarosh Jewry was on its last journey, on its way to martyrdom. They arrived in the death camps on or around the holiday of Shavuot, when Jews of the world commemorate the giving of the Torah at Sinai. What a  cruel irony for a  people who faithfully lived by the precepts of the Torah to die in the season when God proclaimed that those who will “obey the voice of God and hold fast to His covenant will forever be His people.” Was there ever a people who held fast to God’s covenant more than the Jewry of Maramarosh? One gnawing question remains: what about the local population among whom these unfortunate victims lived for centuries? How did they react to these deportations? The following editorial, which appeared in a  local newspaper on Sunday, July 16, 1944, when Maramarosh (but not the rest of the country) was already “Judenrein,” offers a glimpse into Hungarian sentiments. The writer viewed the forced evacuation of the Jews as the final realization of the national aspiration to rid Hungary of all her Jews. The following excerpts express a view shared by most Hungarians:

20

Quoted by Braham, Politics of Genocide, 605-606. 182

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Maramaroshsziget Without Jews! Regretfully, this claim cannot as yet be made for the whole country. But, as far as Maramarosh is concerned, we do proclaim with great satisfaction that our region and our city (Sziget) are finally free of Jews. . . . Let us not be consumed with hatred, but let us rationally rejoice in our achievement and be grateful that we lived to see [a Judenrein] Maramarosh.

In fairness, the kind lady in Mr. Stern’s report was not the only one moved by the inhumanity of the Hungarian gendarmes and the cruelty of many of the civilians. There were other kindhearted people who refused to condone the terror against their former neighbors. Indeed, there were some who forged documents and identification papers, and some who helped Jews escape to freedom. There were even those—especially among the minorities (the Ruthenians in the north and the Romanians in the south, but very few bona fide Hungarians) who gave shelter to refugees despite the danger to their own lives. However, it must be remembered that rescue acts were very, very rare, and rescuers’ motives varied greatly from true compassion to simple greed. Moreover, the few acts of mercy cannot balance the zeal and eagerness that Hungarians as a  whole applied in the execution of the anti-Jewish laws, decrees, and ordinances in the socio-economic as well as political arenas. This was especially true during the Arrow Cross government (October 15, 1944-April 1945). During the last stages of the “final solution,” the Hungarians outperformed even the Germans. Ironically, evidence of Hungarian cruelty was preserved for posterity by their partner in crime: the German government. In order to improve their tarnished image, the Germans produced a fi lm whose objective was to depict their “humane” treatment of the Jews, as compared with the cruel methods used by the Hungarians. The fi lm shows the entrainment at one of the larger ghettoes in Transylvania, under the supervision of the Hungarian gendarmes. The fi lm shows “beating of women with rifle butts, chasing children with whips, tearing wedding bands off helpless victims. [It focuses on] . . . the omnipresent, cock-feathered gendarmes pressing the Jews into freight cars like cattle and on the two buckets that were placed into the cars: one for water, the other for excrement.”21 21

Braham, The Politics of Genocide, 611. 183

3. M A R A M A ROSH: A HIS TORY

Such scenes are indelibly impressed on the collective memory of survivors. The same collective memory recalls the White Terror perpetrated against the Jews, and remembers that the first racial legislation in Europe was passed by the Hungarian Parliament fourteen years before the Nuremburg Laws. It clearly retains the fact that the first full massacre of Jews was perpetrated by Hungarians at Kamenetz-Podolsk, and that Hungary took the honor of being the initiator of genocide. Sixty years later, Maramarosh remains “Judenrein.”

184

4 IN OT HERS’ WORDS

I: ZICHARON ABRAHAM (1900)1 Here in Maramarosh, I  found a  new world inhabited by Jews who are astonishingly different from the typical Polish Jew. Fraud, deception, and hypocrisy are not the usual traits of the Maramarosh Jew. He is best characterized by honesty, naivete, and simplicity. Let me introduce you to one: a simple stonecutter and an enthusiastic follower of the Vishnitzer Rebbe (who devoted himself to a life of austere piety, prayer, and the study of Torah). The stonecutter wears a  round (black) hat, wide trousers, and tsitsit (fringes) reaching to his ankles. He sits astride a pile of (large) stones which he is in the process of crushing, with a hammer as his only tool. (These crushed stones will eventually be used in the building of roads.) As I  approached the man, he extended his rough hand, which was covered and protected by a  rag, and greeted me with the traditional greetings. I said, “Please forgive me for bothering you. Could you help me find some employment in your line of work?” He replied, “No bother at all! I am working on a contractual basis and, consequently, am the master of my own time.” He continued, You are from Poland, aren’t you? Every year I travel with my friends (in the direction of Poland) to visit the rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of 1

Th is is a paraphrase of the Hebrew in Abraham ben Shlomo Meir Feuer’s Zichron Avraham (New York: 1924), 52-54. 185

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

Vishnitz. His (the rebbe’s) disposition and his (friendly) countenance are constantly before my eyes. The echo of his melodies ring in my ears. Every word he speaks penetrates into the heart and gladdens the soul of the listener, bringing him comfort and solace. His admirers shower great sums of money upon him, but he owns nothing, because faster than he receives the money he gives it away to the many people in need. My heart is full of yearning and overwhelmed with anticipation to see the radiant face of the tzadik. Between visits, I count the minutes until the next visit. We, (all of) the exceptionally devoted Jews of Maramarosh, travel annually to Vishnitz. But we do not travel on the customary paved roads, for they extend the duration of the journey. By forcing ourselves and our horses through the narrow mountain passes, we are able to cut the journey short. Usually about thirty of us assemble together, equipped with a supply of corn meal and sheep cheese, our prayer shawls and phylacteries. The natural beauty of this area is overpowering, especially the colossal mountains which seem to reach up and support the heavens. A glimpse down into the valley is enough to cause one to faint. To our eyes, the houses seem the size of a mustard seed. These mountains are eternally crowned with snow. Even during the hottest summer months, the snow does not melt. We travelers are also equipped with guns and rifles, which are essential for our protection against highway robbers. How great is our joy when we sit down on the ground to partake in the mamaliga which we ourselves have prepared! The yellow dish (mamaliga) is literally floating in butter and sheep cheese, and it tastes like the food of paradise. While eating, we sing songs from our rebbe’s repertoire. The fusion of the melodies with the roar of the waterfalls creates a  sound which ascends and penetrates even to the eighth heaven . . . . [And so, we continue on the road to Vishnitz.]

Meanwhile, the stonecutter’s wife, a woman whose appearance evinced great strength, brought a dish of mamaliga wrapped in white cloth. Urging her husband to stop the conversation and finish eating his lunch, she said, “I have no time to waste. The Gentile whose garden I am weeding is a real slave driver, and I must return as soon as possible.” I spent a  few months in Maramarosh, working at various jobs from stonecutting to forestry. [Thus, I came to know the local Jews, and] I do not exaggerate when I describe the Jews of Maramarosh as honest, innocent, and naive. The pursuance of business is not their strong point. However, they pursue a variety of manual labors and they are expert farmers. They 186

I: ZICH A RON A BR A H A M 19 0 0

are also adept in transporting logs from the mountainous forest through the dangerous slopes and then linking the logs into rafts which they transport down the river (Tisza) to their destination in Hungary proper. Maramarosh Jews are recognized specialists in this field, as well as in every aspect of farming and forestry. Their lives defy the calumny that Jews live off other people’s labor. During my stay in the city of Sighet, I  was privileged to visit with the righteous rebbe, Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. One must admire his erudition as well as his practical wisdom, and (no doubt) he is endowed with the holy spirit. I visited the village of Sepinka in the county of Maramarosh. I  can not recall the purpose of my visit, as it is now many years since it took place. (But I  do recall that) during a  conversation with one Yekel (or Yankel) Kleinfeld, he suggested, in an incidental fashion, that I engage in a conversation with his son-in-law in order to convince myself of his great scholarship. Curiosity got the better of me as I wanted to acquaint myself with this man who was so highly praised by his father-in-law. After properly knocking on the door, I entered the room. I saw before me a man of about twenty-five years sitting at a table in front of an open book, deeply involved in its content. As soon as I  entered, his train of thought was (apparently) interrupted, and he rose to greet me. In so doing, he stretched out not his hand, but the tips of his fingers, announcing to me that his name was Yosef Meir and that he was the son of the dayan [religious judge] of Munkacs. “Alas,” I thought to myself, “this custom of pride and ‘miserliness’ [indicated by offering only the tips of his fingers] which is characteristic of the Russian and Polish rabbis, is totally out of character in a  Maramarosh Talmud scholar. Being one of the Jews of Maramarosh, who express their friendship by generously ‘giving’ the whole hand, he should greet one heartily with a  strong handshake.” But when I  became aware of his great scholarship and erudition in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, my esteem for him increased immeasurably. As soon as I mentioned a [Talmudic] subject, he was able to discuss the topic with expertise and virtuosity. His mind absorbed every detail and the minutia of the discussion, including the names of the Talmudic sages to whom statements are attributed. He also related to me that he was involved in the study of Kabbalah and that he was a disciple of Eisik Ziditchev who, he claimed, was the most singularly outstanding kabbalist of the generation. Since Rabbi Eisik had 187

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

passed on, he became a follower of the rabbi of Vishnitz, not as a disciple, but as a hasid. Our conversation lasted for about two hours. On the Sabbath, after minchah (the evening service), I again visited his house for the purpose of “scholarly entertainment,” and I was astounded at the sight. The young scholar had become a totally different person. He sat there [as if] in a trance, absorbed in his own thoughts and oblivious of the many people present. More than thirty years have passed since that evening when I  beheld his remarkable face. Once, while returning from Russia, I met a Jew from Maramarosh. When I asked him about Reb Yosef Meir of Sepinka, he looked at me very strangely. “Don’t you know?” he asked, and went on, “He was a rebbe to thousands of hasidim who flocked to him for inspiration, yet you ask about him as if he were an equal friend. Alas, the righteous man passed from this world.” When I heard this news, I felt gripped by horror and I very much regretted the fact that I had not had an opportunity to visit him again. With his death, our people suffered a great loss, an irreversible loss.

188

II: HERTZL UPSHON (1939) The Maramarosh Jew lives his life through the rebbe. He seeks the rebbe’s advice and blessing on every undertaking, small as well as large. For an illness in the family, one runs to the rebbe; if one is hit with a summons to the court or has any other problem with the secular authorities, the rebbe is expected to intercede. Any crisis or difficulty merits his attention. Health, a match for a daughter, business enterprises: these are the main and most weighty subjects addressed to the rebbe by petitioners. The Maramarosh Jew is endowed with a  strong sense of emunat tzadikim, a deep faith in the power of the rebbe. One never deviates from the advice or guidance of the tzadik, whose very words are a  source of salvation and comfort. The hasid never wavers in his faith and fully trusts the rebbe’s power to elicit a favorable solution to his problems. With the exception of residents of the few large cities and larger towns, Maramarosh Jews are not urban folk. They live in small huts, surrounded by the tall Carpathian mountains and rivers. Poverty is endemic. Wealth is measured by ownership of a small hut, possibly a small plot of land for vegetables, and a single cow. This Maramarosh “farmer” owns a single suit for his entire life. His diet is simple and without variety. He eats three meals a day, the menu varying only with the season: borscht and potatoes in the summer, and beans in the winter. This is complemented with maize bread during the week, and for Shabbos [the Sabbath] his wife prepares challah. It [must be] a healthy diet, since very few people will ever see a doctor and stomach problems are very rare. Home furnishings are simple and coarse. The table is made of rough boards and the utensils have been inherited from ancestors. In most houses there is no wooden floor and the ground has been plastered with yellow clay. Even a single mirror is a rarity. 189

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

The Maramarosh Jew is remarkably healthy. He may look old and weary, but he is still able to perform acts of physical prowess and has hands of iron. He tends his “cattle,” plants, sows and reaps in his “field,” and performs all other tasks in maintaining his property. For most Jews living in villages and small towns, purchasing a pair of new shoes is chronically beyond his means. His children go barefoot most of the time. But this same Jew is willing to contribute to the establishment and upkeep of community schools which provide every child with basic religious training. These children grow up to become enthusiastic hasidim who will travel long distances to be with their rebbe on a Shabbat. Poor as they are, these people look at the world with open eyes and consistent optimism. No doubt they are strongly influenced by the breathtaking beauty of the surrounding mountains. They also maintain their traditions and ancient customs. Their clothes are old fashioned and their tools have not changed in centuries. Nevertheless, they feel safe and secure because God and the rebbe will always protect them. Some Jews prosper as owners of lumber mills, employing hundreds of Jews who labor in the forest. In addition to such standard trades as tailoring, shoemaking, and carpentry, which are the exclusive domain of the Jews, Maramarosh Jews also dominate most other trades, like wagon driving, blacksmithing, brush making, and itinerant pot mending. Jews also control retail businesses and the production and sale of liquor.

190

III: COHEN-YAMBOR (1940) The Jewish settler in Maramarosh was poor, backward, and way behind the times. His way of life and way of thinking were shaped by the Vishnitz doctrine of hasidism. The community was unique and, in most aspects, unequaled among the various Jewish factions that existed in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was as if an invisible wall separated them. The assimilationists looked askance toward the Maramarosh Jewish community, considering it a  negative factor in their march toward total integration into the general population. Indeed, Maramarosh was the classical sui generis. In reality, a new Judaism was being created in these majestic surroundings, a  Judaism which contained much of the old and some (but very little) of the new. Maramarosh gave birth to a  new, special type of Jew who, in his simplicity and naivete, was very compatible with his unrefined neighbor, the Ruthenian peasant. This new and different type of Jew became an integral part of his surroundings and derived his livelihood mostly from his small farm and small herd of cattle (often, one cow!). He exuded a certain roughness and ruggedness which protected him from the harsh physical world around him. However, from the depths of his soul there emanated a refined, spiritual nobility, which originated in the traditional teachings that began when he was a youngster in his parents’ home and continued thereafter. As noted above, the Maramarosh Jew was a  composite of two opposing elements: the noble and the vulgar, the lowly and the sublime. This may be the secret of the uniqueness of this sui generis community. While this unique personality is not easy to explain—in many cases, it even defies explanation—anyone observing the Maramarosh reality must acknowledge that here there exists a  unique creature who lives in 191

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

two worlds simultaneously, and who finds fulfi llment in the midst of the mountains and rivers in the Carpathian forest. There are those who view the Maramarosh Jew as though through a  bifurcated prism: the weekday Jew and the Shabbos Jew. But this dichotomy does not reflect reality. The weekday Jew possessed more than a small measure of extra soul and, on the other hand, it was not unusual to observe a Maramarosh Jew leading his horse or cow to the trough on Shabbos dressed in his shtreimel and caftan and completing the zmirot (Shabbos songs) he could not complete during the Shabbos meal. Many of the Jews in rural Maramarosh were unable to provide even a modest living for their families. They supplemented their meager incomes with seasonal work at the large lumber companies (many of which were owned by other Jews), where they worked in every capacity from felling large trees to transporting rafts and barges on the rivers. The Jewish “navigator” with a kippah covering his head, praying and wearing his tefillin and talit, with the tsitsit flying in all directions, was a common sight.

192

IV: CHAIM TARSHI (1944)2 A summer visitor to Maramarosh, this beautiful mountainous region, is greeted by unusual sights. Walking down country roads, the visitor is surprised to see traditional Jews dressed in their traditional garb—white shirts with tsitsit hanging out from their long coats—wearing beards and sideburns, engaged in all phases of farming. These traditional Jews, diligent and hard working, are also experts in transporting timber from the forest to designated stations. They are the raft makers and they are the rafters who steer the rafts down the river Tisza while wearing the same traditional outfits. All this is during the weekdays. On Shabbat [the Sabbath] and holidays, one can observe the metamorphosis of these farmers, rafters, and woodcutters as they become other beings. On Shabbat, most of them wear special silk caftans and cover their heads with shtreimels. The day of rest affords them an opportunity to engage in the study of Torah, some Gemara, and Ain Yakov. And on Shabbat, the sweet smell of cholent and kugel emanates from every house. The tourist looking out the train window during the days of chol hamoed will be surprised to see that most of the waggoners waiting at the railroad station for passengers are Jewish. Due to the nature of the day being a  semi-holiday, the wagon driver will be dressed in his festive clothes, including his shtreimel and caftan, and carrying an etrog and lulav. It is well known that the communities of Maramarosh are the main source of supply for such religious functionaries as scribes, cantors, schochtim, Hebrew teachers, and ritual supervisors.

2

From Haboker, October 22, 1944. 193

V: WITHOUT JEWS (1944)3 Regretfully, this claim [that we are without Jews] cannot as yet be made for the whole country. But, as far as the region of Maramarosh and her town is concerned, we do proclaim, with great satisfaction, that our region and our city is, finally, free of Jews. Only now do we sense the hellish atmosphere, the suffocating miasma in which we were forced to live while being confused by the poisonous Jewish presence. It made our lives unbearable. We were given to believe that living with the Jews in this densely populated area is a necessary evil, that it is the inescapable destiny of the native Hungarian population and of those Hungarians who have come here to live with us. We blushed with embarrassment when visitors from other parts of the country displayed their pity, their condescension for us “poor Hungarians who are doomed to live here.” They pitied us for the misfortune of living in Maramarosh in such proximity to the Jews. They considered us secondclass citizens. But now, as the final liberation becomes a reality, we look around with great relief and satisfaction. Walking the streets [of the city of Sighet] is now an idyllic experience. No more curly-haired (payes-wearing) yeshiva bochers (students). No more infantile intellectuals, noisily crowding every corner. No more cheaply made up girls.

3

First published in the newspaper Maramoros on July 16, 1944. Republished in the newspaper Maramorosziget (a Hungarian language newspaper for immigrants to Israel from Sziget) in July 1968. Please note that excerpts from this article appear elsewhere in this volume. 194

V: W I T HOU T J EWS 19 4 4

What an eastern flea market there was on every sidewalk on Saturdays, during the day, and every evening during the week. What a noxious odor emanated from their dark, small stores and smelly cellars. What revulsion we felt seeing the many moronic, sad-eyed, hunchbacked, and degenerated Jewish youth. Such a collection of trouble-destined children could be seen only among the kikes in the ghettoes of the east and in Poland. But, let us not be concerned with hatred. Instead, let us rejoice in what we achieved here in Maramarosh!

195

VI: RAB Y. Y. GREENWALD (1945) Maramarosh was the only region in what was formerly known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire that was not affected by the wave of Jewish assimilation and alienation that completely engulfed all other regions of the empire during the Enlightenment era. The Jews of Maramarosh had been completely impervious to this new trend toward heretical and cynical ideas which had caught the fancy of a large segment of European Jewry. Assimilation, which had become so prevalent among the Jews of Hungary and Romania, was virtually unknown in Maramarosh. There the Jews were imbued with a spirit of tradition, which prevailed both inside and outside the home. Most homes contained a bookshelf lined with traditional books—the Torah, Talmud, Codes and others. Even the most ordinary of Jews possessed a  set of the books of the Torah, with a translation and commentary, and a set of Mishna. Jewish Maramarosh was notorious as the most economically impoverished area, a position which it maintained until the Shoah. Spiritually, however, the region’s reputation was an enviable one. The average Maramarosh Jew did not always know whence his next meal would come, but he found solace in the spiritual treasures of his tradition. In outward appearance, the Maramarosh Jew, a  conspicuously imposing figure, was characterized by his long beard and peot. On Shabbos and holidays, every man, the learned and the ordinary, dressed in a long caftan with a streimel adorning his head. On these days, he was physically transformed and spiritually uplifted. The Jews of Maramarosh were hasidic Jews; the region was a hasidic stronghold. In fact, it was arguably one of the most hasidic regions in the world, and there was hardly a  Jew in the Maramarosh region who was not affi liated with a  hasidic court. Loyalty to the rebbe superseded all 196

V I: R A B Y. Y. GR EEN WA LD 19 45

other allegiances. Two dynasties almost completely monopolized hasidic life: 1) the Hagers (Wishnitz-Kosof), direct descendants of the great Rizhiner Rebbe; and 2) the Teitelbaums, whose head was the rebbe of the Teitelbaum hasidic dynasty and rabbi of the largest Maramarosh Jewish community (Sighet and its environs). The representatives of both of these dynasties drew their power from the dual function of being both rabbi (legal expert) and rav (spiritual guide). Yet, despite their extraordinary influence in the area, many other less established hasidic rebbes (like the Sepinka and Nadvorna rebbes) established their “courts” in Maramarosh as well. Most Jews living in the smaller towns and villages of Maramarosh eked out a living by farming. Because the farmland was of such poor quality, the farmer did not have high expectations. By nature, he was “content with his lot” and appreciated the small pleasures life sometimes accorded him. He found delight in the newborn calf and happiness in the herd of sheep which, in addition to conventional products, afforded him wool that he utilized in the making of cloth. The natural beauty of the region, which was surrounded by the majestic Carpathian mountains and colorful forests, coupled with clean, unspoiled air, compensated somewhat for the isolation and loneliness the Jewish farmer experienced, During his work week, the hard work and long hours consumed much of his energy and left him oblivious to his true nature, his spiritual being. Even so, the Maramarosh Jewish farmer and worker was not fatally insensitive to his spiritual needs during the week. Most synagogues were open before dawn and late into the night. People were always there, some looking into a  sefer, whether Torah or Mishna, Ain Yakov, or “The Duties of the Heart.” Very early in the morning, before going out to the fields, many farmers and workers could be found in the mikvah for a quick immersion before the morning prayers. When Friday afternoon set in, the towns and villages of Maramarosh were transformed into an earthly Garden of Eden, a mystical change that was readily observable. All home activities were geared toward the greeting of the Shabbos Queen. All men, young and old, went eagerly to the mikvah to be in a state of cleanliness and purity when they “received” Shabbos. It should be noted that the mikvah also served as a  favored site for the exchange of information. There was no more fitting setting than the hot mikvah and the enjoyable sauna for trading town gossip or launching discussions of local and national politics and other issues. 197

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

Friday evening, immediately after sunset, all men, young and old, were again seen walking to shul, the children outfitted in their Shabbat best while the fathers were proudly wearing their traditional Shabbos caftans and streimels. Even a  poor observer would note that almost every city, town, or community was uniformly hasidic in nature. A keener eye would see that they were, nevertheless, divided in their allegiances to the various rebbes and “courts.” This divisiveness was reflected in various ways, but primarily in the nusach (mode) of the prayer service. To the well-trained ear, these variations were glaringly conspicuous; to the average layperson, they were often too subtle to comprehend. The rebbe and his “court” were often established in towns some distance from the small cities and villages. For this reason, local synagogues, which may have been hundreds of kilometers from the rebbe’s “seat,” acted as the spiritual emissary of the rebbe in these small outlying towns. The local shul was thus the real sanctuary for the local hasid. In it he found the spiritual home and camaraderie the true hasid desires. The shul also provided hospitality for many wayfarers who were forced to spend Shabbos on the road. Immediately following services, the “guests” lined up before the Gabbai, who provided every man a warm welcome and arranged for him to receive hospitality: a home away from home where his fellow hasidim shared with him their home, food, and zmirot. Often the visitors in need of hospitality far exceeded the local population. This usually occurred during the annual or semi-annual visit of one of the more popular rebbes who, in order to foster the loyalty of his followers, who lived in these scattered towns, periodically paid them a  Shabbos visit. Despite being outnumbered, the local host community more than provided food and shelter; they made their visitors feel at home. In fact, the local faithful as well as the visitors experienced an exhilarating and spiritually heightened Shabbos in a  friendly milieu with feelings of camaraderie. In short, they were deeply rewarded for the effort and inconvenience. All year long, Friday night was the most joyous time of the week. It was a time for sharing and good fellowship. At the Shabbos table, host and guest shared stories and divrei Torah in anticipation of an eventful Shabbos. On a  single visit into any of the over 200 towns and villages of Maramarosh, even on a  regular weekday, it was evident that tradition was the essence of life in every Jewish home. Th is being so, how much 198

V I: R A B Y. Y. GR EEN WA LD 19 45

more apparent it became during the holy day of Shabbos. In fact, this day controlled every aspect of life and vitality in the region. Even the nonJewish population was influenced by the Jewish observance of Shabbos. Since the Jews owned the stores, all stores, without exception, were closed on Shabbos. Even the State-owned and -managed trains and stations rested on the seventh day; no passengers arrived and none departed on Shabbos. For Jews, Shabbos morning began not unlike Friday afternoon. The first stop was the mikvah, before going to shul. After services, the worshippers were enticed home by the divine smell of cholent. After the Shabbat meal and a short nap, the men returned to the shul to get in some Torah study or listen to the Magid for several hours. When a Maramarosh Jew settled in a new town, and there were many who did (especially the klei kodesh, religious functionaries), he transplanted the Maramarosh lifestyle into the new community. His attire and his conduct bespoke his origins. And when the dark clouds covered the district, and the area that the Maramarosh Jews called their own for centuries was to become Judenrein, the Jews of Maramarosh demonstrated their allegiance to their hallowed traditions. The wicked authority allowed each person to take with him on his last journey a  very limited amount of baggage. Almost every Maramarosh Jew chose his talit and tefillin, a chumash, and a siddur. In life and in death, he was submerged in his tradition.

199

VII: NAPHTALI BEN MENACHEM (1945) A fitting description of the typical Maramarosh Jew and his lifestyle during the interwar years (WWI and WWII) is provided by the noted bibliographer Naphtali ben Menachem, himself a native of Maramarosh. In two dispatches to the Hebrew journal HaHed (The Echo) in 1945, he writes: The Maramarosh Jew works a back-breaking fifteen hour day, six days a week. He farms his hilly, rocky land and plants corn, oats and barley. Because the land is of very poor quality, it yields meager crops. His daily needs are minimal: a (thick) slice of corn bread and some salad for breakfast, a bowl of potatoes or beans for lunch and a bowl of mamaliga with cheese or milk for supper. The Jew who has no land to farm usually drives a  wagon or does other chores. In most cases, although [the farmer] works long hours under very taxing circumstances, [the lot of the landless Jew] is even worse than that of the farmer.

******** The typical Maramarosh Jew is tall and broad-shouldered. His strength comes not from an opulent diet, for his dietary options are modest and consist mainly of corn bread with milk, beans and potatoes. Only on the Sabbath does he treat himself to white challah and a piece of meat. The weekday Maramarosh Jew is wretched, poor and careworn. Because the land he cultivates is of poor quality, rarely does it yield a  generous crop. Yet, by nature, the Jewish farmer of Maramarosh is complacent, a good-natured man who is generally happy with his lot in life. He demands only the simplest pleasures in life, finding great joy in the birth of a healthy calf or the well being of the small flock of sheep 200

V II: NA PH TA LI BEN MENACHEM 19 45

which annually provides him with curly wool. Oblivious to the modern world, all week he lives in his remote corner of the world, surrounded by tall mountains and virgin forests. But, when attending services on the Sabbath, “he dwells among people.” The average Jew of Maramarosh is God-fearing, Torah loving, devoutly observant and traditional to the core. All week long, he toils from sunrise to sundown and has little time for the spiritual. But, on the holy Sabbath, all is at rest. The simplest farmer or wagon driver becomes the master of his destiny. Strolling in his garden, dressed in his caftan and shtreimel, he rejoices in his lot. On the Sabbath, he has time to study a little Torah with commentaries, a chapter of Mishna, a page of Talmud and related rabbinic texts. To see the Maramarosh Jew on the Sabbath is to witness an incredible metamorphosis.

201

VIII: EYE OF TEARS (1946) I have decided to record what came to pass during those infamous days so that generations yet unborn will know of the wickedness of the Gentiles and will learn the proper lessons from the great calamity that befell our people as a result of our sinfulness. In this way, the generations will learn how the great and noble communities of Poland and Hungary, as well as the rest of Europe, were destroyed and why holy congregations and citadels of Torah which had been built and rebuilt throughout centuries of exile now lie in waste. [Hopefully] this account will aid our children and grandchildren in understanding how these thriving communities and their institutions vanished from the face of the earth, leaving hardly a trace. Reading this and similar accounts, our descendants [we hope] will comprehend the force of evil which, in but a brief moment, succeeded in eradicating, physically and spiritually, both our old, established and newly founded communities. The memory of these communities, which owed their existence to the unending toil and holy stiff neckedness of the thousands of anxious and God-fearing Jews who consistently dedicated themselves to the realization of God’s will on earth, must not be lost to our children. The hurban which almost succeeded in erasing the name of Israel from the face of the earth must not be forgotten. My eyes dissolve in tears [lamenting] the calamities that befell my people, the holy congregation of Hust, a mother city in Israel. From time immemorial, God had blessed this town with many God-fearing and pious scholars, as well as men of deeds and enterprise. Uninterruptedly for over one hundred years, Hust maintained a well known yeshiva. From Hust, my ancestors and other authorities, rabbis of universal recognition, disseminated teachings of Torah and issued numerous and diverse responsa relating to all facets of life. 202

V III: E Y E OF T E A R S 19 4 6

Hust was a city where the sound of learning never ceased, her streets echoing the tunes of traditional study day and night. In fact, Hust was a bastion of tradition. For the last decade of her existence, I had the great merit to serve the community as rabbi. I strove to follow in my ancestors’ footsteps and maintain the traditional milieu of the community. In fact, until the last days before the community’s demise, I was able to teach Torah publicly both to the students of the yeshiva and to our own children. Woe is me, that this bastion of Torah was utterly destroyed during my lifetime and that I  had to bear witness to the bloody hands of the murderers; may we live to see God’s vengeance upon the enemies of His people! As soon as the German army occupied Poland [September 1939], it began, methodically, to erase the names and obliterate the memory of all of her existing Jewish communities, all of our congregations and all of our pious and holy people. All. [Meanwhile] we, the communities of the eastern region of PKR [Podkarpatska Rus] [who, before the hostilities began, constituted one of the three ethnic entities of CSR], acquired a  new sovereignty: that of the newly established independent Ukraine. Notwithstanding the short duration of this new political entity, its impact on the Jewish community of PKR was onerous. The fact that many members of the newly formed government were known for their extreme anti-Jewish views gave rise to an atmosphere of fear, confusion and ominous expectation. Experience proved this expectation correct. Indeed, anti-Jewish ordinances relating to every facet of human endeavor were promulgated daily with devastating effects. However, as noted, the new political entity was short-lived. The Hungarians (who had already annexed the western region of PKR) now laid claim to the eastern section as well. They reinforced their claim with a military attack against the Ruthenian “army.” The battle for the region [PKR = Northern Maramarosh] was short and decisive. In less than three days, the Hungarian army infl icted heavy losses on the Ruthenian militia which, in fact, was no more than a rag-tag, disorganized band. The Hungarian military victory brought about immediate political changes as well. The army “liberated” and annexed the remaining territory of what was formerly known as PKR [the western section of PKR was accorded to Hungary as a result of the First Vienna Award, on August 30, 1940]. Thus, the short history of an independent Ukrainian-Ruthenian state came to an abrupt end. 203

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

It is noteworthy that the majority of the Jewish population of the region greeted these “liberators” with open arms. Although the Hungarian jurisdiction over previously annexed territories in Slovakia and the western region of PKR was far from benign and not at all encouraging, the pro-Hungarian sentiments were still quite strong, especially among the older population, who harbored positive memories of the pre-WWI AustroHungarian Empire and its benevolent emperor. Moreover, among members of the Jewish populace, whether old or young, there existed a great distrust of the Ruthenian and Ukrainian ruling powers. Rumors were flying that the SICH was planning to physically attack local Jews, especially the influential and affluent among us. Allegedly for this purpose, a detailed list of the Jews in leadership positions had been prepared. So, it is no wonder that, in the aftermath of these events, we gave praise to God Almighty for our (Hungarian) “liberators.” As matters developed, the hoped-for positive results from the change from Ruthenian-Ukrainian to Hungarian jurisdiction did not yield the anticipated benefits. Deeply rooted antisemitism, which manifested itself among a  great majority of the Hungarian population, impelled the government into enacting an ever-increasing number of laws aimed directly against the Jewish minority. Our integration into “Greater Hungary” subjected us not only to the whole corpus of laws enacted by the Hungarian Parliament during the interwar years, but also to special rules and ordinances aimed directly at the newly absorbed Jewish minority. Needless to say, none of these laws were designed to protect the increased number of Jews. On the contrary, attacks against Jews became more frequent and, officially, were met with impunity. As an example, one Sabbath afternoon during the third Sabbath meal (a communal affair), we were assaulted (by the local populace) and suffered many wounded. Later that night, a mob attacked the great synagogue and vandalized the holy ark and the holy Torah. Such attacks against Jews rapidly became routine, almost daily occurrences. This I remember and my heart melts in me: in 1940,4 without warning, the Hungarian authorities detained about 30,000 of our people. They were transported to an area in occupied Poland administered jointly by the 4

While we have retained the original wording, the author of this essay was in error: the correct date is 1941.—Ed. 204

V III: E Y E OF T E A R S 19 4 6

German and Hungarian armies—both of whom were eager to shed Jewish blood. The Hungarian gendarmes executed their official governmental orders (whose pretext was that the detainees were unable to prove Hungarian citizenship) with relish and extreme cruelty. How fright-fi lled this sight was! The following typical event, which I witnessed, will give some notion of the cruelty and ruthlessness of the Hungarian authorities and of the events  which transpired during those years of trial and tribulation. During these expulsions, the authorities brought a woman with five small children to our town (Hust) from one of the adjacent villages. Their absent father was serving in one of the labor battalions which, at that time, was attached to the military fighting unit on the Russian front. Arriving in our town, the children fell ill with a  very high fever. The doctors diagnosed their illness as “sharlach” [scarlet fever], a highly contagious disease. We hoped against hope that the authorities would show some mercy and delay transportation of the children until they could recuperate from their illness. But this was not to be. Instead, another cattle car was added to the train into which the mother and her children were placed and sent off with the rest of the banished Jews. Those fated for expulsion from Hungary were loaded into box cars— eighty or ninety to a  car—and dispatched toward the newly conquered areas in Galicia. Often, whole congregations of Jews were transported from town to town. Traveling day and night, these men, women and children with torn clothes and emaciated faces were subjected to further suffering under a constant barrage of physical assault by gendarmes who freely and cruelly used their weapons for this purpose. On arrival, the survivors were literally thrown from the trains and left to their own destiny. Exposure to the notorious and deeply rooted antisemitism of the local Ukrainian population only added to their misery. Wandering from place to place toward Kamenets-Podolsk, those who survived also endured famine and sickness. By summer’s end, the German occupational forces and the local militia ordered these wretched souls to assemble at a certain area, each carrying his or her scanty belongings. They were told that they were being sent back home to Hungary. Believing that the long, infernal journey was about to come to an end, the refugees eagerly congregated in the designated area at the appointed time, holding onto their meager possessions. Huddling in small groups, they waited impatiently for the train to arrive. 205

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

What transpired instead was totally unexpected and came about with horrifying suddenness. Bullets began flying from all directions, hitting and killing the huddling, unsuspecting Jews. Almost to a  person, the victims fell into open, mass graves (which had been dug by the refugees, themselves) and met with an unspeakably horrible death. With this act, the killers—Hungarian, Polish and German soldiers and their Ukrainian henchmen—staged the first mass murder of Jews. Since the mass transports originated in Hungary, the Hungarians may be credited with being the first perpetrators of such wholesale human slaughter in the Shoah. It should also be noted that their orders were administered with great zeal, fervor and relish. By the most conservative estimate, 20,000 people were killed in the Kamenets-Podolsk “incident,” most of whom came from northern Maramarosh. Those few who escaped and, miraculously, lived to give an eyewitness account of this horrendous tragedy told of mass graves in which the dying, still clamoring for life from the depths of the graves, caused the earth to move for three full days after the slaughter. Upon hearing the accounts of these escapees, we rent our garments (a symbol of participation in the mourning rite). During the week of Passover, 1944, the first Gestapo unit arrived in our town. For their living quarters and headquarters, they requisitioned the largest houses and most opulent dwellings owned by our affluent Jewish families. While ordering the owners out of their homes, the Gestapo warned and threatened them against removing anything—even a robe— from these houses. As soon as the new masters settled in, they ordered the former owners of the houses to summon, within two hours, the rabbi and several leading members of the community for the fi rst meeting with the new authorities. The former owners obeyed the order—did they have any choice?—and on their return within the allocated time, these men, joined by several representative members of the community, arrived at my house to recount their ominous encounter with the Gestapo. While we were debating the prospects of our engagement with the Gestapo, the rest of the community assembled in the local synagogue for communal prayer, imploring the Almighty to deliver us, the representatives of the community, from the German henchmen and assure our safe return. Our hearts were fi lled with trepidation, fearing that the Gestapo might act as they had in the communities of Poland. There, after having served the 206

V III: E Y E OF T E A R S 19 4 6

Gestapo’s purposes, the representatives of the Jewish communities were summarily executed. Our first encounter with the Gestapo was not encouraging. As soon as we appeared, they began to make sport of us, laughing at our panicstricken faces. One of them, apparently the commander, turned to us and triumphantly issued the first of many orders. He said to us: (Listen up) Jews. We Germans came here to bring (some) order to this country. It is common knowledge that you are giving aid and comfort to the (Russian) enemy. It is also known that you are exploiting and robbing the native population of their livelihood. In Poland, we have already smashed the power of the Jews. From now on, it is strictly forbidden for any Jew to speak on the telephone. No Jew may leave this town and no one is allowed to leave his house after dark. Any violation of this order will result in death. Except the rabbi, those present are hereby appointed to serve as members of the newly formed Judenrat. One of you must always be present in the office of the Jewish community to answer the telephone. Our future orders to and demands of the community will be conveyed to you over the telephone. The rabbi shall continue to preach every Sabbath as he has until now.

One morning, they commanded us to supply 500 workers to do miscellaneous jobs. As usual, the order was accompanied by a  clear and emphatic warning that failure to comply would mean that two randomly chosen members of the community would be executed. Immediately, we dispatched couriers to knock on people’s doors, explain the order and impress upon everyone the urgency of the situation. We implored the people to obey the orders issued by the Gestapo, since not satisfying their demand would have tragic consequences. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, it was not difficult to mobilize the requested number of workers. But the conditions under which these poor Jews toiled were detestable. They worked every day, including Sabbaths and holidays, without adequate food or shelter. While the men were away from home, their families worried incessantly, not knowing whether their husbands, fathers and brothers would return home [to their families]. We were painfully aware that in Poland and other occupied territories the disappearance of men who had been mobilized into working units was a common phenomenon. People left for work in the morning and never returned. 207

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

While spring was ordinarily a season of joy and a time of preparation for and anticipation of the upcoming holiday of Passover, this spring rapidly evolved into a season of mourning and grief. We were able to secure matzah for the community because the baking had been completed before the wicked Gestapo settled into our town. However, when some of the more pious members wished to bake special matzot mitzvah (a custom observed for generations), they were attacked by a mob and forced to flee and hide. On the day before Passover, 1944, I and my family were evicted from our home and synagogue. Instead, we were provided a  single room. (The heartless Gestapo considered giving us their permission to utilize this single room to be an act of charity and kindness). On the evening of the first seder, many of us assembled in this room—almost completely in silence and in a  state of fear and trepidation—to observe the ancient ceremony of the seder while Gestapo soldiers sat in an adjacent building. The next evening, during the second seder our service was interrupted by the sound of an alarm. We were all forced to seek shelter in the cellar of the synagogue. This time, even more people gathered to participate in the service. As soon as the sound of the alarm ceased, we “counted the Omer” and concluded the recitation of the haggadah. Following the order given to me by the Germans, I prepared a sermon to be delivered during the Passover morning service. Before I had uttered even a single word, those present burst into a collective sobbing. I spoke slowly, weighing every word, fully cognizant of the fact that my sermon could have a harmful effect. During the intermediate days of the Passover holiday, alarming news reached the community and spread like wildfire. It was rumored that local gendarmes were searching every Jewish house in town for Jews, whom they then forced into one of the synagogues. There, they infl icted upon them all kinds of torture and pain. People passing the synagogues reported hearing agonizing screams emanating from within. Needless to say, those who could do so hid in order to escape being captured by the gendarmes. I climbed up into my attic and lay stretched out on my back in the hope that the gendarmes would not notice my presence. During the evening hours, the news spread within the community that, since the synagogue was overcrowded with Jews and could not absorb any more, the gendarmes had temporarily suspended the search. On one of the intermediate days (of the Passover holiday), I was ordered to appear before the Hungarian border patrol, a  regiment known for its 208

V III: E Y E OF T E A R S 19 4 6

ruthlessness. Standing before them, I  was read an official indictment. It stipulated that I  was guilty of abetting and harboring a  Jewish refugee who, when captured by the authorities, had claimed that it was I  who helped him escape from Poland. In my fear of the officer’s burning rage, I was unable to respond to the false accusation. Strangely, the commanding officer did not see any compelling reason for pursuing the matter [saying] that the fate of all the Jews is already sealed [and none of them is destined to survive]. Soon after the Passover holiday, the Judenrat was summoned to appear before the Gestapo. We were ordered to set up a ghetto for all the Jews living in the town, to segregate them from the rest of the population. Officially, the Germans claimed that the Jews of Hust had launched a  propaganda campaign (with Russia) against the war and that we were poisoning the minds and spirits of the general populace. Consequently, they decided to isolate the Jews and put them out of reach of the local populace. Among my congregants, a feeling of impending doom accompanied the news about the ghetto. We felt that we were witnessing the demise of the town. The little we knew about the methods employed by Nazis in solving “the Jewish question” in other occupied areas made us keenly aware of the perilous situation in which we now found ourselves. We were witnessing the extinction of the “holy community” known as Hust. The tactics employed to enforce ghettoization were as follows: every Jewish home was invaded by the [Hungarian] gendarmes and each Jewish occupant was allowed to take a pillow, a cover and eating utensils. Poking the frightened Jews with rods and rifle butts, the gendarmes urged us on in the most brutish ways. In one short moment, the Jews of Hust lost everything they had accumulated in a  lifetime and witnessed the destruction of a  Jewish community that had taken centuries to build. The houses were closed, locked and sealed. The occupants, like thieves and robbers, were led away to the (overcrowded) city hall where they were again searched for money and jewelry. Anything the gendarmes found was immediately confiscated. Bereft of anything of material value, we settled in the ghetto with the few possessions we had been allowed to bring. The German authorities erected a  wall around the ghetto, placing guards outside to ensure that no one entered or exited at will. Inside the steaming ghetto, overcrowded living quarters housed an average of 20 people in each room. There was also a shortage of food. We Jews of Hust were lucky since our laborers, some of 209

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

whom worked outside the ghetto walls, were able to smuggle some food into the ghetto to supplement the otherwise meager portions available. In the smaller communities adjacent to Hust, the situation was much worse than in Hust proper and those inmates suffered constant hunger and deprivation. On their daily visits to the ghetto, the German authorities delighted in giving new orders whose sole purpose was to humiliate and degrade us. As noted, each order was accompanied by a dose of brutal force to instill fear in the already frightened population. They were especially violent and cruel to those being interrogated for possible hidden jewelry or other valuables. As rabbi of the city, I  was periodically permitted to leave the ghetto walls, affording me an opportunity to see the city or what was left of it. Every such visit broke my heart! I saw the streets and houses which, only a short time before, had been alive and bursting with activity and which, now, were like a desolate ghost town. Holy Torahs lay torn and desecrated on the streets, while synagogues and study halls had been turned into storage areas. Everywhere, the destruction was evident. Even despite the total collapse of the Axis war machine and the indisputably calamitous defeat of the Hungarian army, the “wicked nations” stubbornly persisted in their attempts to actualize their dream of a  Judenrein Europe. In fact, they were so obsessed that they became less concerned with their own survival than with their intended total annihilation of the Jews. They let nothing stand in their way. Alas, even the rapid advance of the allied armies did not curtail, but increased their efforts. For them, our misery signified a  great victory. In the hopeless misery and intense suffering of ghetto life, it seemed that their design was actually being realized through us. While our lives hung on a thread, both the Germans and the Hungarians rejoiced in our miserable existence. On the thirtieth day of the counting of the Omer [Monday, May 8, 1944], all the ghettoes stirred and the inhabitants were alarmed. Tension rose with every passing moment. Foreboding news began to circulate. It was rumored that steps were being taken by the wicked Germans to liquidate the ghetto and to transfer the population to a previously designated, but, to us, unknown destination. It is impossible to describe the reaction of the ghetto population to such news. People were walking around weeping and wailing, certain that their fate had been sealed. After several hours, the rumor became a reality. The Gestapo called the Judenrat together to inform us that, over the next 210

V III: E Y E OF T E A R S 19 4 6

several days, all Jews currently residing within the ghetto—men, women and children—were to be transported to an unnamed “work place” where they would be well provisioned. The Germans explained that the children would accompany their parents (to the new “work place”) as it had been their experience that parents were more productive when the whole family was together. The Hungarian authorities and gendarmes perpetuated the same lie. We were ordered to take as little as possible, with the assurance that all necessities would be provided at the new “work place.” We were further directed to take enough provisions for three days. Early in the morning, three days after our summons from the Gestapo, a  large contingent of Hungarian soldiers and gendarmes stormed the ghetto wildly screaming “Get out of here!” Running from house to house, they rampaged with a gusto and cruelty that is beyond description. They kicked and hit whatever was in their way. Those who were unable to complete their packing in the short period allotted by the gendarmes were beaten with rifles and assaulted by other means of cruelty. The happy faces of the Hungarian soldiers and gendarmes and the alacrity with which they executed their plan attested to the satisfaction and pleasure they experienced in destroying a  great Jewish community. They had eagerly anticipated the day when they could unleash such a  venomous attack against all the Jews residing in Hust and this was the moment they had awaited. Woe to the eyes which witnessed this horrible spectacle! A  whole community of Jews whose fear-fi lled children hugged their parents seeking protection and safety were pushed and shoved, trampled and treaded upon, humiliated, degraded and sent off to be annihilated by a  ruthless and wicked army. Several days after the holiday of Shavuot—the festival of receiving the Torah—the city of Hust became Judenrein. It should be noted that a number of our people did not survive the short period of ghettoization. But, with the permission of the authorities, those who died were given a traditional burial in the Jewish cemetery. However, on the night prior to our departure, two people died and permission for burial was refused. On our way to the train station, we witnessed their desecrated mortal remains lying in the street with no one to provide a decent burial. Still, the living, who passed this desecration on the way to their own terrifying and uncertain future, were envious of the dead. When we arrived at the train station, exhausted and worn out, we were thoroughly searched again by gendarmes who confiscated everything of 211

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

any value, including tallitot and t’fillin (prayer shawls and phylacteries). Our hearts bled as we witnessed a  mountain of these holy objects set on fire before our eyes. Following this last search, we were packed about eighty each into cattle boxcars. Overcrowded and hot, without benefit of air and water, the boxcars were double sealed before they were set on their way, accompanied by Hungarian gendarmes. Our first stop was the Polish-Hungarian border, at the railroad station of Kassa (Kosice), where the German SS replaced the Hungarian gendarmes as guards. We traveled two days and two nights under these trying circumstances, in constant danger of dying from suffocation. The children cried bitterly for some water to relieve their suffering. Alas, their cries could not be answered! By looking through the window, we were able to determine the direction toward which this caravan of box cars was heading. Now we were overtaken by fear and alarm because our train was speeding toward Poland. Our minds fi lled with thoughts of the fate of millions of our brethren who had already perished in occupied Poland. Our torturous train ride ended at the railroad station at Auschwitz.

212

IX: OUR JOURNEY TO SOLOTVINO (1978)5 For most of us, [accomplishing the very natural desire of visiting one’s place of birth] is an easy thing to do. [For my father it was not easy], because at the end of [WWII], when the peace treaty was signed, many countries or parts of countries changed hands. This was the case for Zacarpatska Rus, the most eastern part of Czechoslovakia, which was claimed [post war] by the Russians. Having gotten back that land which Poland had snatched from the Russians in the nineteenth century, [the Russians] felt it would square their frontiers better [to have] part of the chain of the Carpathian Mountains within their borders. So it was that Solotvino, as it was called then and is now called [again] (or Selo Slatina as we knew it in Czech), was separated from its natural town of Sighet on the other side of the Tisa River and found itself lying north of the Tisa River on the RomanianRussian border. Last year [1977] when we were in Russia for the 1st International Book Fair to be held there, Daddy [Sir Robert Maxwell] was asked by Mr. Demitchev, the Minister for Culture of the USSR, if he would be pleased to visit his native village, to which my father promptly answered, “Yes.” He had then thought that we could go forthwith . . . but it was not to happen until this autumn. . . . Tuesday, September 19 We left Oxford and . . . when we arrived at Sheremetevo Airport, we were quickly met by a small delegation of people: two from the Department 5

By Elizabeth Maxwell. Th is section is made up of excerpts from a 28-page typescript. The original spelling of place names has been retained, but the original text has been lightly edited to correct English spelling and grammar. 213

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

of Culture, sent by Mr. Demitchev, the other two from Mir Publishing House and goskomizdat. We all went into waiting cars and went at [top] speed to Moscow and the “Russia” Hotel, a huge complex of 3,000 rooms. . . . We were left in the charge of Yuri Stepanov, a young Russian in his early thirties who spoke perfect French and was to prove our guardian angel on the whole trip . . . . Wednesday, September 20 We got up at 8 o’clock and Daddy left for a number of meetings . . . . At 11:30, I was fetched by the faithful Yuri to collect Daddy . . . and to proceed to lunch with the British Minister, Mr. Wade Riddy. . . . [After a  day of many appointments, we retired and prepared] to leave in the morning at 5 a.m. for Moscow Airport and Lvov. Thursday, September 21 . . . At 4:30 a.m., we woke up with some difficulty. The faithful Yuri was waiting downstairs. We collected, on our way, Irena our lady interpreter from Mir. . . . We boarded [a plane] again, this time at Vnukovo airport, for a two-hour trip to Lvov. Of course, it departed (late as usual) at 8 a.m. . . . Although the great operative word in Russia is podozhdite (wait), one is always taken everywhere at least one hour too early. . . . Soon the time had come to leave on the first trek to the historic homeland. Just before our departure, we were joined by . . . Ivan Ivanovitch Bodule, also from the Ministry of Culture. He had specially and very kindly been delegated to accompany us to Solotvino because he was born 2 miles away from there in the village of Novozarovo. He spoke Hungarian and was immensely simpatico. [He was] a  man in his early forties, jovial, a  teller of endless puns and jokes, a ceaseless talker, but never a bore. . . . Daddy and he got on like a house on fire. . . . [Arriving at Lvov], we were met by Alexey Mikhailovitch, the director of all the newspapers of Carpathia (about 60 papers) and a resident of Uzhgorod. [He was] a  man in his early sixties, a  high official, good talker, knowing the Carpathian party machine inside out plus the history, geography, economy, and industry of the whole region. Two Volga cars awaited us to take us, eventually, to [my father’s] birthplace. . . . We then left for Uzhgorod 260 kilometers away, but in fact 300 because we could not take the main road, which was being repaired. . . . At first the countryside was flat and, to my western eyes, looked not properly cultivated. But then, . . . I am not knowledgeable enough to judge 214

I X : OU R JOU R NE Y TO SOLOT V I NO 1978

these things. I  saw many wastelands and very few cattle, but [soon] we started seeing a familiar sight: an old woman or man or a youngish child looking after one cow munching grass alongside the road where one could also see flocks of white or gray geese. Apparently, the peasants are allowed to own a small piece of land, up to two or three cows and as many chickens or geese as they can handle, outside of the Kolkhozy (collective farms), and they obviously take advantage of it. I (saw) many flocks of geese in the next two days. . . . Gradually hills appeared on the horizon, then mountains. The grass started to look greener and, eventually, we left Galicia (i.e., the ex-Polish territories) for Zakarpatska Ukraina. The landscape started to alter rapidly: lovely little churches with silver onion domes dotted the countryside, trees appeared, a  few herds of cows and many more geese. Here and there we would see large forces of farm workers, mostly women, hoeing or digging, generally their kerchiefed heads down and their bottoms up, unless they were going back to their villages along the road. The road was often hedged with small one-floor houses, in either wood or cement, all alike, looking not too prosperous. One would also see rows of modern little houses, again just cubes, in a little garden patch. We also started to see vineyards and tobacco fields. . . . [After a short stop in a local village, we continued,] coming higher and higher until we were high up in the mountains. There we stopped at a pass where there is a monument to commemorate the start of the AustroHungarian Russian war in 1916. . . . [When we arrived in Uzhgorod] we went straight towards the highest spot in the city. There they have built a very nice-looking modern hotel, which overlooks the whole modern town and from which there is an extremely nice view of the region and of the mountains. We were, by now, in Zakarpatska Ukraina. The air was clean and fresh. We were met on the steps [of the hotel] by Comrade Vladimir Ivanovitch, the head of the Uzhgorod publishing house, called Karpathie, and the director of the hotel. After a  lot of handshaking, we were shown to our rooms; a  very nice suite indeed . . . . One of the natural resources of the Carpathian Mountains is wood and from [our suite] it was obvious. Our rooms were paneled in veneered wood and the sitting room (was furnished) with very nice highly polished furniture. . . . We were given just a quarter of an hour to “refresh” and hastened . . . to a reception in the town that night. . . . Equipped [with] movie camera and camera, we left for the museum. . . . Our delegation had been augmented somewhat [and now included] Ivan Mikaelovitch alias Ludvik Hoch 215

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

alias Daddy, flanked by Audreje Mikaelovitch, Ivan Ivanovitch, Vladimir Ivanovitch, Yuri, Irena, and an unknown minion. Driven to the “museum,” we got out beside some huge castle surrounded by battlements at the foot of which lay a kind of . . . hilly orchard. All over that orchard were placed, each in its own little garden cum orchard, a small one-floor house made of wood and the original houses of peasants before the Soviet regime had changed their standard of living. (Here) we were going to be introduced, so to speak, to what the Karpathies were before the war, at the time when Daddy knew them. At the first house, we were met by the director and a  lady guide. We started visiting about seven or eight of these old Ukrainian cottages. . . . Some dated from the eighteenth century, most from the last [nineteenth] century. In every case, the houses had been transported to the site and reconstructed to show exactly how their inhabitants had lived. The idea being that they lived without any comfort whatsoever and that, in the space of under 50 years, the Soviet Union had given them running water, electricity, gas, toilets, warmth, and more room and a proper floor covering. In fact, nearly every house was composed of one or two rooms, rather small with mud floors. . . . In one room you would find a kind of oven cum hearth, but built in such a way that no chimney would be protruding over the roof so they would not (be required to) pay tax. Then a large kind of bed, generally along the wall, where up to six or seven people could sleep with their heads along the wall and their feet pointing toward the center of the room. Then there would be a table with two benches. . . . Along the wall some rope (was hung) on which original clothes hanged. Most of them were beautiful and, such as we know them, as worn by Romanian or Carpathian dancers. . . . When the houses had two rooms, you would have a bed in both rooms and a chest or table in one. In one house we saw an original wood handloom and . . . a wood (dining) table with eight plates carved into it with a hole in the middle blocked with a  woodcock, so there was no dishwashing. Also, just one large bowl and eight spoons, and that was it! It must have been difficult to keep warm, but even these old houses had double windows and a balcony running around. Beautiful thick wood planks formed the wall in a harmonious pattern and wooden tiles or thatch. One could also see some old kitchen vessels and furniture. I am not sure that these particular people were not immensely better off than Daddy’s family ever was, and possibly than many families are nowadays. 216

I X : OU R JOU R NE Y TO SOLOT V I NO 1978

. . . We then proceeded to the “castle” or museum proper. There we were shown two floors of paintings by two local artists: Bokshai and Eldee. [Bokshai] . . . obviously was imbued with the party ideology and his peasants were typical of the Russian art which sprang up just after the patriotic war [World War II], all looking very unnatural. Eldee, on the other hand, had studied for some time in Paris at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century and was definitely touched by impressionism and the cubist movement. Propaganda is not to be found in his work . . . . Both these painters were from Zakarpatska Ukraina and painted views of their country, although Eldee (also) had several portraits and still-lifes. I also remarked some amazing fossils, in particular that of a fish. They were found in fairly recent excavations of the town. We saw there (and will see even better in Solotvino) that millions of years ago, oceans covered this entire region. . . . At Uzhgorod, it became apparent that the instructions to the officials accompanying us were that we get the warmest official welcome, but were not to be given the opportunity or time to talk to ordinary people. (This was) evidenced by the fact that . . . wherever we were received it was either in private rooms or in restaurants from which the whole population was excluded. . . . (That evening we) went to a private banqueting room where all of the above named people entertained us to a nice Russian supper. Wine and vodka flowed and food kept coming: various salads, cold meat, hot meat, soups, etc. The bread (brown especially) is always very good. . . . All I can say is, even if you are very hungry, don’t throw yourself on the first course because for sure, even if you see no plates and no implements on the table, there are another eight courses to come. Soon, the toasts began: fi rst, Ivan Ivanovitch, then Audreje Mikaelovitch, then the publishing director, then Yuri, then Daddy, then the unknown minion. That went on (during) the whole supper with only the order of “toastings” varying. The dinner was very good and very well served. . . . We were very tired when we got to our beds and promptly fell asleep. Friday, September 22 The next morning we woke up early. It was to be the great day and I felt full of excitement. Since we were up at 8 o’clock and Solotvino was only three hours away, I felt confident that we would see all that Daddy longed 217

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

to see. The weather, misty at first, broke into blue sky and sunshine. It was much warmer than in Moscow. The day augured well. We came down for breakfast in the same banquet room accompanied by the same people and were immediately offered a choice of cognac or vodka to toast the start of the day. Having dipped my lips in cognac and seeing the first course . . . just being served on the table, I decided to ask for . . . a  continental breakfast. . . . In the end, it came, although while waiting for it I had been made to taste Kefir, the fromage blanc, the bouillon, the goulash, and whatever else appeared. I felt anxious we should leave. . . . We charged into the cars, the number of which by then had grown to three, and we left at last, thought I, for Solotvino. But that was not the case. First, we were quickly taken to one of the old Uzhgorod synagogues. The Germans having turned it into a stable, the Soviets decided to put matters right: they renovated it and turned it into a music hall!!! We then left again, and again I  thought, en route for Solotvino. But it was not the case. (Instead, we were taken to) the Town Hall to meet . . . the First Secretary of the Party of Zakarpatska Ukraina. We were met on the steps by a  number of high-ranking officials. We were then [taken to] the First Secretary’s private secretary’s office . . . who ushered us into “the presence.” [The First Secretary enjoyed] large comfortable offices with a standard pattern of furniture arrangement which is repeated all over the Soviet Union and which, Daddy says, is the replica of Mr. Brezhnev’s office. On the wall facing you [as you enter] is a large portrait of Mr. Brezhnev and a  beautiful modern bookcase, made of polished wood, [always] with the identical books inside. [There is] a large desk, totally clear of papers. Then, making an L-shaped design, a long table of highly polished wood with ten to eighteen chairs. Then, alongside the wall as you enter, is a display cabinet of the owner’s personal mementos and samples of the region’s crafts. The First Secretary walked in and greeted Daddy. He looked like a smaller Mr. Brezhnev. He sat at the head of the table, Daddy on his right and then everyone down the table according to their place in the hierarchy, of the party in this case. By then, we were about twelve sitting around the table. The First Secretary then made a  speech of welcome and told Daddy that Zakarpatska Ukraina had much changed since his childhood. The Germans had played havoc with the population and killed most of the Jews and many Ukrainians. With the shifting population due to the war, the state of this multinational country was now about 879,000 Ukrainians, 218

I X : OU R JOU R NE Y TO SOLOT V I NO 1978

165,000 Hungarians, 38,000 Russians, 25,000 Romanians, 12,000 Jews, 1,000 Slovaks, and 6,000 of everyone else: Armenians, etc. . . . [Eventually, it was time to leave.] The sun was shining and I  was delighted because I  thought of the beautiful fi lms I  would make in Solotvino. . . . Alas, we were to lose [another almost two hours with local business and sites.] By then, there were four cars and I had completely lost track of all the Igors, Ivans and Mikaelovitches, Vladimirs and Alexeys who were following us, but they were all from Zakarpatska Ukraina, and were not going to be left out of such an historic event as to welcome home a long departed prodigal son who had shaken hands with and been received by Mr. Brezhnev! The route we took after Uzhgorod went through Serevneye, then Mukachevo, a  town which Daddy remembers having been taken to as a child, but which had totally changed. . . . It now had an air of prosperity, not on the scale of our provincial towns, but Daddy was very much impressed by the improvement in the standard of living of the region. They intended to take the road for Solotvino through Beregovo (which borders Hungary), but Daddy was going to have none of it; all he wanted was the quickest route, so from Mukachevo we went to Lalovo, Zaluchi, Kamenskoe, Irchava, Olkovka, Tsiroko, Bel Kopania, and Xhurst [Hust]. . . . After Uzhgorod, Daddy sent me Audreje Mikaelovitch as an exchange for Yuri so that I could hear something of the history of the country . . . . It was then that I knew, kilometer by kilometer, how far we were from Solotvino! My heart was melting. I was moved, so anxious that Daddy would not be too wildly disappointed, (and) above all, desperately anxious that we should arrive before the sun went down behind menacing clouds. . . . As I saw the mountains disappearing in the horizon to my left and appearing on the right, I  was told the Carpathian Mountains separated here into a valley where ran the river Tisa; on the right it was Romania and on the left, Russia. We were extremely privileged and honored guests of the Soviet Union, for no foreigners were allowed nearer than 3 miles from any border and certainly not in that area [where] I saw the road was running parallel with barbed wire and a military guarded frontier. Soon we arrived in Xhurst, only six miles from Solotvino. My heart was beating fast. I  could not see Daddy since he was in another car. All I could think of . . . was of [the] Holocaust and of the last journey of his unfortunate family. What we had come to do, really, was to try and do a  pilgrimage in honor of their memory and to the place where they had 219

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

lived, where they had known some happiness mixed with unfathomable poverty and misery compared to the standards which Daddy had provided for us, and from where they had left for an unforgivable and never to be forgotten inferno. Following even more closely the Roumanian border, which ran along our road, we passed Sokvinitza, Butchina, Tiacher, Teresva Guechevo, and then, all of a sudden, we were there. They say that it has been worked out that Solotvino is the very center of Europe. It felt like it! What I saw was a gray landscape, very flat with some undulating low hills immediately to the left of the main road; far away, high mountains to the right in Roumania and a long straddling village along two miles of road. On the right, the shaft of a modern salt mine (was pointed out). Then, modern, low, indifferent houses (that) I was proudly told were built within the past twelve years. I  thought it could not be Daddy’s village. . . . Then, after about two miles, we made a  complete U-turn and retraced our footsteps lower down. I could then see some older buildings and sparsely built houses on a  generally sloping landscape to my left; down the Tisa River (with) the Roumanian border and the shaft of the new salt mine now appearing on the hillside on my right. Suddenly, I was aware of stone houses on either side, one story or two stories high, and people, lots and lots of people, running along the car and behind and in front. And then we stopped. Daddy got out of his car and I was surrounded with a goodhumored, silent, bewildered crowd. Women with kerchiefs around their heads, men with caps, peasants, better-dressed girls, lots of children and old men, two or three benevolent policemen or army men, and then, all of a sudden, there were hundreds of people. Before I  had time to take one or two pictures, we were ushered into what is the equivalent of the Town Hall: up the floors again, into the famous office described before, only poorer [and] very humble. There were about twenty of us sitting under the Brezhnev portrait, facing the first secretary of Solotvino: a  very pleasant, sympathetic, forty-year-old, graying, good-looking peasant type Ukrainian from Solotvino whose fathers and brothers had been killed by the Germans as partisans whilst they were being parachuted into the region . . . . He shook Daddy warmly by the hand saying, “Welcome to Solotvino.” He was the chairman of the local soviet. He started to talk and what he said was in some way moving, at least to me. Roughly, he said: “Mr. Maxwell, you have come a long way to see us and a long time in your [sojourns]. The village is not what you knew; 220

I X : OU R JOU R NE Y TO SOLOT V I NO 1978

it is much changed . . . from 2000 people who lived here in 1940 there are now, in spite of all those who were killed, 10,000. It has been completely rebuilt. The old mines have subsided (and) new ones have been opened. I doubt that you will recognize anything here.” . . . Daddy asked a  few questions. No definite answers were given, so he made a little speech. He had come here because it is the natural desire of every man to see his homeland. He had no family here (since) they had all been killed by the Germans. Of course he would be pleased to see his home, if it still exists (however poor it had been), and he would like to have a birth certificate. The Chairman answered the second request first: “That is easy, but it would have to be asked through the proper channels with the name of his father and his mother.” The first desire he could not say, as half of the village had sunk with the old mine, but they would try and find it . . . . Then, chocolate and sweets were presented and toasts were drunk to the Solotvinian who had come home. It was, in a  way, strange and moving. The secretary of the party was a  man in his sixties who . . . should have been able to remember people. The others were all too young. For them, the times we talked about were only known from books as the times of the Patriotic War, times that would never again be allowed to return. When we left (I thought) for Daddy’s home, half the village was blocking the street. Daddy and a  posse of party men left at a  brisk pace along the old high street while I  fi lmed the crowd. The light was falling fast. We walked past a  mine, . . . in an area where part of the village had sunk, and up the hill where a museum has been organized in a once-private home. We were greeted there by the Toravitch Director . . . and given the Cook’s Tour. Daddy was growing impatient, but we were not spared one room or one artifact. . . . At last I  thought we were going to . . . locate Daddy’s place, but instead we went back to the new mine and met the staff of the new Hospital and were given the Cook’s Tour of the hospital and mine . . . . After that, we went to a restaurant where a banquet had been prepared to receive Daddy . . . . In a private room, we all piled up around a well-laid table . . . . Our glasses were fi lled with vodka and cognac and wine and fizzy water. As the food began to appear, the toasts started . . . . Every toast was more touching than the previous. Ivan Ivanovitch said: “I want to toast not a friend but an inhabitant of this village who was born there 55 years ago, who has seen 221

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

the whole world, who is famous and rich and yet whose heart has forever remained in this humble village and who has come all this way just to walk in its streets and breathe the air and see other people who, like him, were born here.” . . . As the toasts got more numerous . . . , I realized that we were in the hands of the party machine (as guests of the government) and I lost all hope of ever seeing Daddy’s birthplace and me taking any photos as the day was nearing its end. Suddenly, I saw Daddy making big signs with his hands to the Mayor and I  heard “near the Tisa” and . . . we were all [going] down the stairs at a  trot, out into the street where even more people had gathered, and [leaving] in the cars at great speed. [Th is time,] we turned left into the old, poorer part of the village among old, wooden log houses. We passed a  biggish sort of courtyard on our right that had once been the market place, then right again past more wooden houses. In that street there were houses only on the right side. On the left was the top of a  swift falling slope that ran down to the Tisa River and the Roumanian border. In the hollow one could see military patrols with Alsatian dogs coming back from duty. . . . Daddy jumped out and got into a  street to the right. He started to talk to some people, asking them if they remembered the Davidovitch family (Cili’s uncle who had owned a pub and were considerably better off than Daddy’s family). The people responded “yes” and said that this was the street. From then on, he walked up very determinedly to where the house of his grandfather was. There he met a Romanian man of about his own age, but who looked about twenty years older. As Daddy explained who he was, the man said, “I know who you are. I recognized you when you arrived at the Town Hall. I thought it was you. I was at school with you.” Suddenly, these two men hugged each other. He explained to Daddy that the “shack” which had been Daddy’s house had been demolished, that the synagogue at the back had been turned into a  bakery and that the street, which in Daddy’s time had been a  cul de sac, had been opened and turned into a street. So, that was why the house, proper, could not be found. (Later we discovered that] this was not true. [The man] was actually living in Daddy’s grandfather’s house!) By then, all the people had come out of their houses. (They appeared to be) very poor, (were) poorly dressed, the women with kerchiefs on their heads. The houses were old, made of wood and all looking as poor as in Daddy’s time. The streets were muddy and, really, in that corner of the 222

I X : OU R JOU R NE Y TO SOLOT V I NO 1978

world nothing had changed. Except to us. The 200 Jews6 of the village of 2,000 who Daddy knew had all been deported to Auschwitz or other camps and killed. In their place today lived other minorities, in this case Roumanians, who in Daddy’s youth were contemptuous of the Jews, being one [rung] up, so to speak, on the acceptable social ladder. Now they were the poorest. Still speaking their own language, but being neither Ukrainian nor Russian, they were not as acceptable [as those who had assimilated]. It was the party secretary who had finally [understood] that Daddy’s family was Jewish and, reluctantly, led him to the right place. Having seen all of this, we returned to the restaurant, where an old Jewish man from a different village asked Daddy if he was “the son of so and so?” Daddy said, no, he was the son of Mehel, but the old man could not place him. Perhaps, if Daddy had been given more time or had been allowed to look up the remnant of the Jewish community, he might have met someone who had known his family. . . . At the restaurant [after much toasting and feasting and gift giving], the end of that long day had come. . . . At last, very late, we left for Xhurst. There again we were met by the Mayor and taken to the hotel, totally exhausted and, for me, very drunk on Vodka and emotions. Daddy, who had covered himself in the Kolkoze sheep blanket [a gift], soon fell asleep in the warmth of sheep from Solotvino and human feelings and air and smells and views and tears of his village. Saturday, September 23 In the morning . . . we were met by the mayor and first secretary of Xhurst . . . at 8 o’clock (for) a  breakfast of cognac, vodka, cold meat, hot sausages, borsht, soups, steaks, and potato pancakes . . . . [Difficult as it was] after the night-that-was, I had to drink all of the toasts and listen to yet more speeches [and receive more gifts]. After many goodbyes, we left. By that time, the caravan was five cars long as all the Solotvino people were there. We then went to the Russian monument erected in memory of the Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and partisans who were killed during the Patriotic War. The Solotvino mayor’s father and two brothers’ names were on the monument, at the foot of which burns an eternal fl ame. Then we said goodbye to our Solotvino friends. 6

Th is appears to be an understatement. Dr. Slomovic’s memoir below refers to 450 “taleisim” [married adult males].—Ed. 223

4. IN OT HER S ’ WOR DS

Our journey back to Lvov was by a  different road, this time through Lipsha, Gorinchovo, Bushkovo, and Mezgorye and Dolina. We crossed the Carpathian Mountains and (after a  morning rain), we were able to appreciate the beauty of these mountains. It is very similar to the low Alps or to the lower region of the higher Alps. The fields are green and gay, the houses resemble Swiss chalets, but in a Russian kind of way since they are built all of wood in these parts with no stone walls. The whole country is beautiful and smiling. People there are mostly occupied as woodcutters and farmhands; there is some light industry, like furniture making, which has been recently introduced. We stopped at Mezgorye (“middle of the way town”), our last port of call in Zakarpatska Ukraina . . . . [After another very warm welcome, much eating and drinking and sharing of cultural traditions,] we entered our cars (now reduced to two) and it was all over. During these two days, two things had been accomplished: [first,] Daddy had returned . . . to his village . . . and his Central European roots; [and second,] Daddy had been received like a minister and taken in hand by the government, of whom we were the guests, right down to the pocket money he had been given in Moscow . . . . Afterthoughts My overall impression of Solotvino was that perhaps in twenty years it would become a sort of “spa” cum hospital for asthmatics where hotels, restaurants, and even cinemas might spring up; that all the old humble wooden houses would disappear; and that, should we return again, we would probably see nothing of what had cradled Daddy’s youth. As it is, it brought to me very forcibly the intense shabbiness and poverty that surrounded the living of the Jewish families who had dwelt there and had been refused even the most tedious job of working in the salt mines in the nineteenth-century prevailing conditions (this work being reserved for the Czechs or Romanians or Hungarians at the time). . . . When we were in the mountains, I  asked Daddy if there was a mountain background in his village. He said, “Not really, the mountains were far away on the horizon.” With hindsight, I  now realize that the mountains are very near. They start just beyond the main road, but since Solotvino is built on the last slope—itself the “cliff,” so to speak— overlooking the Tisa, when one is either in the streets along the cliff or in the High Street or going to the higher part of the old village leading to the Museum, one literally cannot see them. It is not until one is on the new 224

I X : OU R JOU R NE Y TO SOLOT V I NO 1978

road (parallel to the High Street, but higher up), that one becomes aware that one really is “in the mountains.” In fact, from Sighet, the industrial town and natural outlet town of Solotvino whose chimneys one can see belching in the valley on the other side of the Tisa, Solotvino must appear like a  village perched on the first foothills of the Carpathian Ukrainian Range. Another realization I have had in retrospect is that Daddy left for the yeshiva in Bratislava several years before he actually left on his trek to freedom. So, he was very young when he left Solotvino, and it is likely that the village seemed much larger in memory than it really is. Thus, when we were there and I asked him if we could fi nd the last house where his family lived, he responded, “No, that is much, much further.” In fact, it was only a stone’s throw away.

225

5 SLOT F INA

The following article appeared in Directions, the monthly newspaper of the University of Judaism, in May 1981. In it Dr. Elieser Slomovic gives an informal, humorous, and somewhat critical look at his hometown, Slotfina, in Maramarosh. I want to tell you something about the shtetl where I  was born and where I  lived for my first 17 years. It was not large, about 450 taleisim,1 but every family had eight or ten children. I knew some with 14 and 15. Ours had eight; one was a week old when I left and the other was born later so I never knew them. They perished in the camps. My shtetl was named Slotfina. Most people have never heard of it. It was in Czechoslovakia, on the Romanian border, on the Tisza River. Today [1981] it is in Russia. Because it was on the border, smuggling was a  big profession in Slotfina and maybe 20 percent of our people were in that profession. Across the river was a  town which Elie Wiesel made famous, Sighet, and there was a constant back and forth. We went there to buy our food and they came to us for everything else. So about 30 or 40 percent of our people had small shops and the rest were craftsmen, many tailors. People from Sighet used to come in their shmattas, leave them on our side and go home in new suits. Also we had in Slotfina a salt mine, the only one in Czechoslovakia, and a broom factory. For the 450 taleisim we had twelve shuls. There was the big shul, the Bet Knesset Hagadol. I don’t know why but mainly the common people went to that shul. Then [they] we had the shuls of the hasidim. There was the shul of the Wishnitzer hasidim, which I never set foot in because I was sure that 1

As noted above, while this literally means prayer shawls, the colloquial usage here refers to married men. 226

5. SLOT FI NA

if I did some dark force would get me. My parents belonged to a different hasidic shul. There was a  shul of the tailors and one of the porters and others. For a small community like ours we had a yeshiva with 4002 students. Of course they came from different places and countries, not only from Slotfina, because our rav was very famous and attracted them. They spent all day studying Torah and they would eat in the homes of the people of the town so every Wednesday, I remember, there would be 20 or 25 boys eating with us. In every shul there were what today you would call Chavurot (study groups). We had a Chevra Mishnayis which met every day before MinchahMaariv (the afternoon and evening services, often said in quick succession) and learned a perek of Mishnayis (chapter of Mishna). We had the Chevra Ein Yaakov. The Ein Yaakov is a collection of the lore of the Talmud, which leaves out all the legal stuff and deals only with the stories and mores and morals and parables and so on. So people who are not capable of studying the legal part of the Talmud would study Ein Yaakov. And of course we had a Chevra Shass (study group for Talmud). Very few people belonged to the Chevra Shass because very few people were really learned. We didn’t have really ignorant people. There wasn’t a  Slotfinik who didn’t know how to read a possek Rashi (a passage of Rashi’s commentary). There was Leib the Apikorus but of course he went to shul every day and he was called that because he didn’t wear black shoes and perhaps he had a grey hat. We had a famous rav as I said. He was not expected to visit people in hospitals or get involved in family problems. He was expected to sit and study. Three times a year he would speak to the community. That’s why his speeches were so popular. He spoke on the Shabbat before Pesach at which time he gave a “pilpul” or commentary so learned that perhaps two people in the shul understood what he was talking about. And he spoke before Kol Nidre (the service that begins Yom Kippur). He would stand before the ark, kiss the parochet (curtain), and turn around and begin to speak. But the moment he began to speak he would start to cry so bitterly that nobody understood a word he was saying. Then he also spoke on the Shabbat before Yom Kippur. Then everyone understood him. He addressed himself to the ladies. He spoke on the importance of education for the children, the importance of modesty, of family life, and so on. 2

A handwritten note by Dr. Slomovic appears here, reading “150-200.”—Ed. 227

5. SLOT FI NA

He was the watcher over the morals of the community. One time someone told him that at a Bnai Akiva meeting I had attended the boys and girls had danced together, and he invited us to visit him. For three nights before that I couldn’t sleep. I wasn’t afraid of him but he had such moral authority that no one could defy him. I remember one time when he was defied and the man who did it was sorry for the rest of his life. We had a  man named Mendl, the shochet’s (ritual slaughterer’s) son. He had a store for children’s clothes. He had 15 or 16 children of his own and so he was in the right business and half the people of Sighet used to come over and buy in his store. Then one day a person from Prague came to town and opened a beautiful children’s clothing store with fluorescent lights and a radio playing music and, of course, people instead of going to Mendl the Schoichet’s son went to  the new store. Now according to Jewish law this was forbidden; you cannot encroach on someone’s livelihood. So the rav called the man from Prague once, twice, but he refused to close his store and move elsewhere. Then one Saturday night the new store burned down. Who did it? No one knows. I’m sure it was someone in the community because they were afraid a person like that was a danger not only to the authority of the rav but also might contribute to the breakdown of the community. I am also sure that the rav had no knowledge of it. If a person defied the rav that was almost as bad as defying the Ribbono Shel Olom [Master of the Universe]. So we had a rav and we also had a dayan, a judge, whose only task it was to answer shailas, questions. Here you could have one dayan for the entire city, and he would not have too many shailas. I  ask my wife sometimes what happened to the shailas my mother used to have, since my wife doesn’t have any. We had a  Talmud Torah for the people who could not afford to send their children to the Cheder. We had our burial society, a  hotel for poor travelers and schnorrers, a Bikur Holim for visiting the sick and not just visiting, bringing something to help them get well. But the Yeshiva was the most important center in Slotfina. If you walked through the town at three in the morning you could hear the sound of Torah. Even at midnight there was at least a minyan of people up and saying their prayers, lamenting the destruction of the temple. From this you might think that Slotfina was a  community of saints. I said that maybe 20 percent of our people were smugglers, and of course 228

5. SLOT FI NA

the smugglers adhered to the tradition that says an informer can be punished at any time and place, even on Yom Kippur. One Yom Kippur a man was knifed in our shul and I remember the red blood running down the front of his kittle. He had informed to the police and brought great grief to the community. There were times when our shtetl was more like Dodge City. Still we maintained the authority of the community. In 1939 the Hungarians occupied the part of Czechoslovakia in which Slotfina was located. Things became terrible and there was a  meeting in our home with  representatives of the American Joint Distribution Committee. We called it the “Joint.” It was the only time I  ever saw the rav come to a meeting. Every other time the meeting went to him. We agreed to collect ten thousand dollars and with their contribution that would see us through the year and after that God would provide. Everyone in town was assessed an amount of money and everyone agreed to pay except for one man. He simply refused. He was asked many times. Nothing worked. Then one Friday his wife went to the mikvah and they closed the door in her face. Of course he paid up right away. Our shtetl was a typical European Jewish town. Life had its shadows and its bright sides. We tell our children about the better things and the bad aspects we tend to forget. But it doesn’t much matter now. A few years ago there were two Jews left in Slotfina. One of them made aliyah to Israel when he was 82 years old and other died of old age. And that was the end of the story.

229

REMEMBERING OUR FAT HER

Our father had a wonderful, warm, and loving home, and was surrounded by a wife and family whom he loved and who reciprocated that love many times over. Nonetheless, there was no other place that gave him the uplifting feeling and unconditional joy that he felt while standing in front of his students in a place of study and learning. In truth, there was no aspect of his life totally devoid of learning and teaching, whether the setting was his classroom or his home. The substance of his life remained the same: only the venue and audience changed. We at home became the learners and listeners, and he always remained the teacher. The following verse from Psalms (119:92) exemplifies our father’s outlook on life: ”.‫“לולא תורתך שעשועי כי אז אבדתי בעניי‬ “If I had not found happiness in the study of thy law, I would have died in misery.” Our father’s wealth was not made up of material goods; those were never of interest to him. It consisted, rather, of the bounty of his Torah knowledge, of the depths and intricacies that knowledge could help him attain and the spiritual ends to which a life-long endeavor of this nature would inevitably lead. Again, the psalmist (119:72) has aptly expressed this sense: ”.‫“טוב לי תורת פיך מאלפי זהב וכסף‬ “The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.” 230

R EMEMBER I NG OU R FAT HER

The many postings on the internet in tribute to my father which we read after his passing all describe him as a gentle, humble, considerate, and caring man. These are attributes which made him not only a wonderful teacher and father but an extraordinary human being. His voice was never raised; he admonished no one. He saw the good in everyone and in everything. In his view, his wife was the best teacher, mother, and hostess in the world, his children were the finest human beings who ever had been, and, of course, each of his rabbinical students was destined to become the Rabbi Akiva of his generation. No wonder our childhood friends tell us that they all loved to come to our home! The non-critical environment, tranquil yet stimulating, which my father created in our home was their welcoming mat, and many friends, colleagues, and relatives chose to cross our threshold. Our father was a multi-faceted man. He could discuss a “blatt [page of] gemara” with his children, and then immediately turn to reviewing the baseball standings in the sports section with them. He could have erudite discussions with scholars and feel equally at home reminiscing about the pious yet simple people of Maramarosh. He could come to his daughter’s ultra-Orthodox htown of Bnei Brak and appreciate the beautiful Shabbat, then return to his modern Orthodox synagogue in Beverly Hills the following Shabbat. In between the two, naturally, he would be engaged in a week of teaching and learning with students who were prospective Conservative rabbis. Literally, he was a man of all people and of all seasons. The reader will not fully appreciate the essence of this book without knowing a little bit about our father’s background. He was born in 1920 in the small Carpathian town of Slotfina (sometimes called Slotina), in what was then Eastern Czechoslovakia, in the region of Maramarosh. He grew up in an Orthodox Hasidic family of eight children, with deep roots in the local community. His connection and affinity for this small town were to accompany him throughout his life and serve as a source of inspiration for his years of research on the Jews of Maramarosh. Our father was sent to cheder, as was the norm for young boys in the community. As he was a prodigious student, he readily advanced to higherlevel learning at prestigious yeshivas in the region. This blessed routine was soon to be disrupted by the “winds of war. At the age of 21 our father was drafted by the Hungarian government to serve in a labor camp as part of a Hungarian military work force. A year later, in 1942, he was taken by the Hungarians to the Russian front, where he was ultimately captured by Russian forces. He was a prisoner of war, under excruciatingly harsh conditions, from 1943-1945. 231

SA R A SLOMOV IC W ELT S A ND EPHR A IM SLOMOV IC

Following his escape from Russia, he returned to Maramarosh, and there found our mother, Tikva, who had been liberated from Auschwitz after losing her parents and two of her siblings. It was there that he learned of his unfathomable loss: his mother and five younger siblings had perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. His father had survived, but would shortly pass away due to his debilitating treatment during the Holocaust. Our parents married in 1946, and lived in a Displaced Person’s camp in Germany for two years prior to making Aliyah to the fledgling state of Israel in 1948. Our mother and father were married for 60 years. Actually, they were distantly related and my father, as they would have said in the old country, had “had an eye on” our mother since she was 16. If ever there was a match made in heaven, it had to be theirs. The understanding, acceptance, and great love they had for each other were clear as daylight. When our father called out our mother’s name, his face lit up. Anyone who ever saw them interact felt rays of affection spread from one to the other, and those rays warmed the entire household. In our father’s difficult days toward the end of his life, our mother was there uncomplainingly as a constant caregiver and companion, just as she had been throughout their 60 joyous years together. Our father felt three great loves during his lifetime: love for Torah, love for his wife and family, and love for Israel. As survivors of the horrific period in our history they lived through, my parents came to the Land of Zion. They lived in Israel for five years before departing. Leaving Israel was not a decision easily made: my father had a dream of learning and studying which he could not fulfi ll in Israel’s austere climate in those days. He came to America to fulfi ll his dream of furthering his education, and was successful, but at a price. His longings for Israel were always with him, together with a sense of regret that he had not spent his life there. We believe, however, that those regrets were out of place. My father had a mission, and that mission was to touch the lives of innumerable young people and to help ensure the continuation of our Jewish heritage, which he no doubt believed was impossible without Torah learning. Thus, Israel was not to be his place of residence until his final resting place, but it always resided in his heart with pangs of yearning and unbridled, unconditional love and affection. Our father’s teaching career began in 1955, shortly he arrived in Los Angeles. He began teaching at the Los Angeles Hebrew High School, and continued to pursue his academic studies, eventually receiving his PhD 232

R EMEMBER I NG OU R FAT HER

from the Jewish Theological Seminary. He taught at the American Jewish University (formerly known as the University of Judaism) for nearly 40 years, serving as the Finkelstein Associate Professor of Rabbinics. Our father was, in every bone and sinew of his body, a teacher. He was an educator, role-model, and mentor for generations of students following the path of Judaic studies. His vast knowledge of Judaic sources served his students well, but his enthusiasm, zeal, and passion did even more, instilling in them a love of Torah that lasted far beyond their formal years of study with him. His teaching was intricately bound to his learning and research, which in turn was bound to his past. Consequently, the importance of publishing this book, Readings on Maramarosh, cannot be overestimated. His childhood and young adulthood in Slotfina had a long-term, monumental influence on all aspects of his life. What was it that charmed our father so? Was it the innocent piety of Maramarosh Jews? Was it the lifestyle, which placed G-d, family, and human sustenance above all? Was it his longing for a world which now exists only in geographical terms, which belongs to a time that has passed, never to return? Perhaps it was the people who served as a magnet, the memories of those dear to him who had perished in a way that is unfathomable to the human mind. Although our father rarely broached the subject of the war years and the suffering he endured during them, his life in Slotfina was a constant theme. He spoke of it to his children, students, and family members, to people who both knew and did not know the place first-hand. Our father wrote articles and gave a number of interviews regarding life in Slotfina, and shared reminiscences of his personal life. For instance, he told us of his beloved grandmother, who had never slept on Thursday nights, instead staying up to bake a small shabbat challah for each grandchild, which was to be picked up Friday morning on the way to the cheder. He wrote of the special atmosphere that permeated his life on the holidays, particularly Yom Kippur, and the subsequent feelings of reverence and yearnings of the spirit for experiences that for him would never be duplicated elsewhere. Our father idealized his hometown, but was aware of its shortcomings as well. There was the small-town narrow-mindedness, the internal rivalries which had an impact on community life, and, of course, the lack of wider education which would have contributed to a broader view of both “Yiddishkeit” and the world at large. 233

SA R A SLOMOV IC W ELT S A ND EPHR A IM SLOMOV IC

Slotfina would remain a powerful and potent force in his life, despite its weaknesses. Th is, in turn, trickled down to his children and students alike. When he spoke, we felt as if a time machine had actually transported us to a different time and to a unique reality which we could then share with our father. (We did eventually make it to Slotfina, hoping to touch upon his roots, but were disappointed: the geographical location alone was in no way reminiscent of the world lost.) The world of Responsa literature was one in which our father felt very much at home. The world of rabbinic discourse was his “native tongue,” and his learning of Responsa literature was clearly a joy, both stimulating and enlightening. What better way could there be to decipher the world of Maramarosh than through Sh’elot V’teshuvot, and the insights that they presented? Our father reiterated time and again that the answers offered by the “poskim” (decisors) within the rabbinic discourse were of less interest to him than the questions were: it is the questions asked, he reminded us, that reflect the lives of the Jewish population. Their queries serve, first and foremost, to mirror their religious concerns and doubts. In addition, they reflect the people’s interests, and the worries and dilemmas which abounded in everyday life. What better way to reflect on the historical, sociological, and psychological make-up of these communities? Studying these Sh’elot, then, became our father’s pursuit for many years. It almost seemed as if he did not want to complete this endeavor, as he would then have to bid farewell to the images of his Old World. It was the process of learning and researching which uplifted him and kept him going long after he began suffering from Parkinson’s disease. The joy of delving into these materials superseded the need to see the project to its end in book form. We, however, felt compelled to complete his undertaking, both as a means of eternalizing the memory of the Jews of Maramarosh, as he had wanted to do, and as a lasting tribute and memorial honoring our beloved father, an outstanding teacher and scholar, a devoted family man and an exceptional human being who touched the lives of many and will be remembered by them all. May his memory be a blessing. Sara Slomovic Welts Ephraim Slomovic September 2013 234

GLOSSA RY

Aggada (aggadic): The genre of rabbinic literature which deals with homiletic, folkloric, moral and speculative, rather than legal (halachic), matters Agudah (Agudat Israel): World-wide non-Zionist (sometimes anti-Zionist) Orthodox Jewish organization founded in 1912 to combat the inroads of secularism and non-Orthodox forms of Judaism. It brought together hasidic and non-hasidic Orthodox Jews Aguna (pl. agunot): Hebrew, literally a “chained woman”; that is, a woman unable to marry because her husband has disappeared and his death cannot be legally confirmed, or because her husband refuses to give her a religious divorce Ahavas Yisroel: Hebrew, literally “Love of Israel”; the love of all Jews and the entire Jewish people Ain Yakov: A compilation of the aggadic (non-legal) passages in the Babylonian Talmud Akzise: excise tax (a kind of sales tax) Aldomas: Hungarian, literally “pledge”; a round of drinks to symbolize a transfer of ownership aleph-bet: Hebrew alphabet Aliyah: Hebrew, literally “to go up.” To have an aliyah is to be called upon to participate in Torah reading in a synagogue. American Joint Distribution Committee (popularly known as JDC or “Joint”): An American Jewish organization founded in 1914 to send material aid to impoverished Jews in various parts of the world Am ha’aretz: Hebrew, literally “people of the land”; a person ignorant of Jewish texts and Jewish lore Anti Jewish Law, First: Hungarian law passed in May 1938 limiting Jewish participation in economic life Anti-Jewish Law, Second: Hungarian law passed in May 1939 reducing Jewish participation in business and professions more drastically than the First Anti-Jewish Law 235

GLOSSA RY

Anti-Jewish Law, Third. Hungarian law passed in August 1941 patterned on German racial laws A priori: Latin, literally “from before”; an idea developed purely by logic without relying on observation Arenda: Lease of noble estates or feudal rights including the whiskey monopoly. Holding and administering such leases from the nobles was a frequent Jewish occupation in Eastern Europe. Arisut: Subcontracting Arrow Cross Party: In Hungarian, “Nyilaskeresztes”; An ultra-right, fascist, and antisemitic political party founded in 1935, which ruled Hungary from October 15, 1944, until January 1945 Ashkenazim (Ashkenazic): Jews of medieval Germany and their descendants who spread throughout Northern Central and Eastern Europe. To be distinguished from Sephardic Jews, of Spanish origin. In Hungary the term was sometimes used to describe non-hasidic Jews who (unlike hasidim) did not use the Sephardic liturgy. Ausgleich: German, literally “compromise”; refers to the agreement in 1867 transforming the Austrian Empire into a “dual monarchy” known as AustriaHungary in which the Hungarian nationality dominated almost half of the empire Baal Tefilah: Prayer leader of the synagogue service Baruch Hashem “Praise God!” Barkhu: The call to prayer in the morning and evening service that begins the central part of the liturgy B’chor: First born animal or son Berlin, Congress of: International conference in 1878 at which, among other things, the rights of Romanian Jews were guaranteed (in theory) Bet Din: A Jewish religious court beit midrash: House of study, in which householders and others studied Jewish sacred texts Bimah: Elevated platform in the center of a traditional synagogue from which the Torah is read Borscht: A vegetable soup generally made chiefly with beets, eaten hot or cold “Break the fence”: To violate the restrictions of Jewish tradition Caftan: Long black coat worn traditionally worn by East European Jews Carrying on Shabbat: The forbidden act of carrying any item outside the private domain (i.e. outside an area with a wall around it) on the Sabbath Cheder: Hebrew, literally “room”; traditional Jewish elementary school, often in the teacher’s lodging 236

GLOSSA RY

Chmelnitsky, Bogdan (alternate spelling Bohdan): Cossack leader of the Ukrainian rebellion against the Commonwealth of Poland in 1648-49, in which thousands of Jews were massacred Chol Hamoed: Intermediate days of the holidays of Pesach (Passover) and Sukkot (Tabernacles), in which most kinds of work are permitted Cholent: Traditional Sabbath stew made with barley, beans and meat (outside of Hungary, potatoes are also included) and cooked overnight Chumash: Pentateuch; the five books of Moses in a printed book Codes: Systematic compilations of Jewish religious law Cossacks: Militarized groups of Slavic cavalry, viewed by Jews as perpetrators of anti-Jewish pogroms Dayan (pl. dayanim): Hebrew; judge of a rabbinic court Dina demalchuta dina: Aramaic, literally “the law of the kingdom is the law”; the principle that non-Jewish governmental (fiscal) law has the force of Jewish religious law Dissolution of Marriage by a  Hundred Rabbis: Exception to the general Ashkenazic ban on polygamy, permitting a  man to remarry under extraordinary circumstances without benefit of a  divorce with the signed permission of 100 rabbis Divrei Torah: Hebrew, literally “words of Torah”; a discourse or sermon on biblical or halachic subjects Doress: Predator (See drusah) Double doubt: (See S’fek sfeikah) Drusah: Cattle, sheep, or fowl attacked by predatory animals Duties of the Heart: In Hebrew, Chovot halevavot; Medieval Jewish moralistic treatise written by Bahya Ibn Pakuda in eleventh-century Spain Eastern Wall: The front wall of the synagogue, where the communal honorees traditionally sit Ein l’mitzvah ‘el’a mekomah v’shaatah: A  Hebrew phrase stating that while fulfilling a mitzvah one must not consider the possible or even inevitable effect of the action on future situations Emunat Tzadikim: A Hebrew phrase referring to faith in the spiritual power of the hasidic rebbe Erroneous purchase (Hebrew, Te’ut Muchar): A  purchase made based on false information Etrog: The Hebrew word for citron, a lemon-like fruit used in the ceremonies of Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) Eretz Yisrael: The Hebrew phrase for the land of Israel 237

GLOSSA RY

Ex post facto: A law enacted after the fact (and therefore usually not applicable to the fact) Eyn ‘on’ah l’kark’aot: A  Hebrew phrase expressing that there is no claim for redress based on overreaching in the case of a  transaction of immoveable property Ezra immersion: Requirement traditionally ascribed to the biblical scribe Ezra, stating that men who have a  seminal emission must immerse themselves in a ritual bath Farbrengen: Yiddish; a hasidic celebration (usually in the presence of the rebbe) at which alcoholic drinks are consumed Fassdagen: Yiddish; barrel staves. Bent strips of wood used to form the walls of a  barrel. The word seems to come from Austrian German Fassdaugen, a dialect equivalent of the standard German Fassdauben. Frankism: A  sect of followers of the false messiah Joseph Frank (1721-1796). The Frankists engaged in ritual violations of the Jewish laws, including those concerning sexual behavior. Many Frankists eventually converted to Christianity. Franz Joseph: Emperor of Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1848 until 1916. Often viewed by Jews as their protector Gabbai: Appointee of the community to distribute disbursements and hospitality to the needy; also distributes synagogue honors Geese, force feeding of: A practice common in Central Europe designed to produce the delicacy foie gras (fat liver) but opposed by some rabbis as injurious to the animals. Gemara: The discussion and commentary on the Mishnah, forming the main text of the Talmud General Jewish Congress (1868-69): Convention of 220 Jewish delegates called by the Hungarian government in order to decide how to organize the  Jewish  community; led to a  split of Hungarian Jewry into Orthodox, Neolog (moderate Reform), and Status Quo Ante (unaffi liated) communities Get: A Jewish religious divorce Goskomizdat: Russian; abbreviation for “Gosudarstvenny komitet po delam izdatelstv”; Government committee for publishing in the USSR Gulden: A unit of currency in various parts of Central Europe, originally in the form of a gold coin (also sometimes called a florin) Guma: An indentation. Making a guma is prohibited on the Sabbath and holidays as an extension of the prohibition on plowing. 238

GLOSSA RY

Gymnasium (gymnasia): Form of university-preparatory secondary school in Central Europe, usually based on the study of Latin and Greek texts G’zeilah: Robbery Haggadah: Liturgical text used during the Seder ceremony on the first two nights of Passover Hagiographa: In Hebrew Ketuvim, “writings”; the third section of the Hebrew Bible after the Torah and Prophets Halakhah: Jewish religious law Hallah (alt. spelling, Challah): Special, usually braided, loaf of bread for Sabbath and Holidays. The same word also refers to the removal and burning of a small portion of the bread dough as a memorial of the offering to the priests in the ancient Temple Hametz: Food containing leavened grain products forbidden during Passover Haredi: An Orthodox Jew. The term is now generally used for a  “right-wing” Orthodox Jew, sometimes referred to as Ultra-Orthodox. Harei ‘At: Hebrew, “Behold you are . . . [betrothed to me]”; the traditional legal formula by which a groom marries his bride while giving her a ring or other valuable object Hasidim (Hasid, Hasidic): Followers of the Jewish sect founded in the eighteenth century by the Baal Shem Tov. Hasidim generally group around a charismatic rebbe and emphasize ecstatic prayer rather than intellectualized study of the law Hatafat Dam: Hebrew, literally “spilling a drop of blood”; a rudimentary form of circumcision in which a drop of blood is drawn from males who have already been (non-ritually) circumcised Hatan Torah: Hebrew phrase referring to the man given the honor to read (or to be called for the reading of) the last section of the Pentateuch on the holiday of Simchat Torah Hatzalah purta: Aramaic phrase for partial deliverance Havla’a: Aramaic, “Absorption.” The principle that funds earned from activity on the Sabbath can be absorbed into the general funds and are thus permissible. Hazakah: Presumptive priority right of a person already engaged in an economic activity, or residing in a place, to continue to exercise their exclusive rights to it Hazizah: A Hebrew word refering to an intervening foreign object [on the body] which voids the efficacy of ritual immersion Hefsed m’rubah: Hebrew, literally “A great [monetary] loss”; a  condition under which a lenient legal ruling is made to prevent such a loss Herem: A  Hebrew word used in modern Ashkenazic culture to refer to excommunication 239

GLOSSA RY

Hezkat Hagoof: A  Hebrew phrase meaning a  presumption regarding physical condition High Holidays: Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, the penitential holidays which inaugurate the Jewish year Hiuna: A kind of overcoat Honved (also Honvedseg): Hungarian, literally “homeland defenders”; the Hungarian army Hungarian Soviet Republic: Short-lived communist republic in Hungary led by Bela Kun (1886-1938) from March to August 1919 Hupah: Marriage canopy Inadvertent revelation (mesi’ah lefi tum’o): Testimony by a non-Jewish witness when the witness has no ulterior motive. Such testimony is acceptable even though non-Jews are generally not considered valid witnesses. Iron Guard: A  far-right, fascist and anti-semitic party in Romania founded in 1927 and outlawed in 1941 Joseph II, Emperor of Austria (1780-1790): Issuer of the “Tolerance Edict” in 1781 Judenrat: “Jewish council” imposed by Nazi authorities over Jewish communities in Eastern Europe during World War II Judenrein: German, literally “Cleansed of Jews”; used to describe a  locality or country in which there were no longer any Jews Kabbalistic: Pertaining to the Kabbala, the Jewish mystical tradition Kablan: A guarantor who accepts unconditional responsibility for a loan Kaddish: Aramaic prayer recited at the end of various parts of the fi xed liturgy. Although it contains no reference to death, certain versions of the Kaddish are recited by mourners during the first 11 months after a  close relative’s death or on the anniversary of the death Kahal: The ruling board of a local Jewish community Kallay, Miklos (1887-1967): Conservative prime minister of Hungary from March 1942 to March 1944. During his rule, anti-Jewish measures were moderated and Jews generally felt safer than in the previous and following periods Kamenetz-Podolsk massacre: Massacre of 23,000 Jews, most of them (1416,000) deportees from Hungary in Kamenetz-Podolsky, Ukraine (recently captured from the Soviet Union), on August 27-28, 1941 Kanzlei, Orthodox: Orthodox central office Kashrut: The observance of the Jewish dietary (kosher) laws Katlanit: Hebrew, literally “killer”; a woman whose previous two husbands have died. It was traditionally considered dangerous to marry such a woman 240

GLOSSA RY

Kenas: A fine Kil’ayim: The Hebrew word for the forbidden planting of “mixed seeds,” i.e. seeds of different species, in the same area Kinyan situmt’a: Aramaic, literally “acquisition through a  seal or signature”; the acquisition of property through means which are considered binding in a particular district Kippah: The Hebrew word for skullcap. In Yiddish, “Yarmulka.” Kitniyot: Hebrew, literally “seeds”; various types of leguminous plants including beans, peas, chick peas, sesame seeds, and peanuts which, while not technically leavened (see Hametz), are forbidden by Ashkenazic custom for Passover consumption K’lei Kodesh: Hebrew, literally “holy vessels”; a colloquial term for Jewish “clergy” such as rabbis, cantors, and ritual slaughterers Kohen: A member of the priestly caste traditionally considered to be descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses Kolkhoz (alternate spelling: Kolkoze): A Soviet collective farm Kreutzer: A  small Central European coin generally worth 1/60 or 1/100 of a Gulden Kugel: A Jewish baked side dish generally made for the Sabbath and holidays and traditionally made with noodles, potatoes, or matzos Kumi (alternate spelling Commis): A commercial employee, deputy, or agent Kun, Bela (1886-1938): Hungarian communist of Jewish origin who headed the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919 Kvitel: Yiddish, literally “receipt, note”; a  petition to a  hasidic rebbe generally written on a small piece of paper asking for his help in a spiritual or mundane matter. Labor Corps, Hungarian army: In Hungarian, munkaszolgalat; special units of the Hungarian army into which Jews were drafted for forced labor (between 1939 and 1945) Landsman: A person from the same hometown or region Legumes: See Kitniyot Lulav: Palm branch used as one of the four species in ceremonies on Sukkot Luz: Legendary tiny bone which never decomposes after death and forms the basis for the later bodily resurrection of the dead Ma’arufia: Aramaic word for the exclusive right to a  traditional Gentile customer Magyarization: The policy of the Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918) to induce or coerce members of non-Hungarian nationalities to adopt the Hungarian language and culture 241

GLOSSA RY

Mamaliga: A  cooked dish, similar to the Italian dish polenta, whose main ingredient was cornmeal (maize). It is especially popular in Romania and neighboring countries Maramarosh (alternate spellings include the Hungarian Maramaros and the Romanian Maramures): County of the former Kingdom of Hungary divided after World War I. Today the northern half is part of Ukraine and the southern half is part of Romania. Mar’it ‘Ayin: The Hebrew term for an otherwise permitted action that has the appearance of a violation and is therefore forbidden Matzot Mitzvah: The Hebrew term for specially “guarded” unleavened bread (matza) baked specifically for use in the Seder ceremony on Passover Melamed (Melamdim): Hebrew, traditional teacher(s) of Jewish religious subjects Meshikha: Hebrew, literally “pulling”; pulling of an object from one domain to another to acquire legal ownership of it Midrash (midrashic): Rabbinic homiletic interpretations of the Bible Migo: A psycho-legal presumption that if someone did not have to admit a partial culpability, yet did, they are presumed not to be culpable for the rest Mikvah: Ritual bath containing water from a natural source Minchah: Afternoon prayer service. Minhag: A religious custom (in contrast to a legal enactment) Minyan (minyanim): A  quorum of 10 males over the age of 13 required for a public prayer service. Mishna: The first codified text of the traditional Jewish “Oral Law” composed around 200 CE. Mitnaged (Mitnagdim) (Mitnagdic): An opponent of the hasidic movement, generally favoring Torah study over fervent prayer and rejecting the charismatic power of a rebbe Mitzvah: Hebrew, literally “commandment”; a religiously meritorious action. Moredet: A woman who refuses to have sex with her husband. (lit. rebellious) Munich Agreement: Agreement signed at Munich on September 29-30, 1938, by representatives of Germany, France, Great Britain, and Italy, permitting Germany to annex the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland). It marked the beginning of the dismemberment of the Czechoslovak Republic. Neolog: Supporter of (moderate) religious Reform in Hungarian Judaism. Neturei Karta: Aramaic, literally “guardians of the city”; an ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist sect with headquarters in Jerusalem that does not recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Many of its leaders and followers are the descendants of Hungarian Jews. 242

GLOSSA RY

Ninth of Av: Fast day commemorating the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and other disasters in Jewish history; considered the saddest day of the calendar Noahide Laws: According to rabbinic interpretation, the seven (mainly ethical and societal) laws given to the descendants of Noah which are obligatory for non-Jews Numerus Clausus: Latin, literally “closed number”; a  quota restricting Jewish participation in education or business. Nusach: Liturgy of a particular place or region Omer, Counting of: Counting the 49 days from Passover to Shavuot On’aah: Fraud, selling an item for outlandish profit. Also used in the sense of Ona’at dvarim, referring to either defamation or deceit Oneg Shabbat: Hebrew, literally “delight of the Sabbath”; any activity with the purpose of increasing one’s enjoyment of the Sabbath and its observances Oness: Hebrew; the occurrence of unavoidable events which prevent or obstruct the performance of certain acts or which cause certain acts to occur Oness rahman’ah patre: Aramaic statement expressing the thought that anyone who commits a  transgression through oness (see above) is exempt from punishment, including the judgment of Heaven Onus probandi: A Latin phrase indicating that the burden of proof falls on the claimant Ostjuden: German, literally “Eastern Jews”; a generally pejorative term used by Germans and Central European Jews to refer to Jews from Eastern Europe Paid guardian: One who is paid for a task or to guard a certain item and thereby is responsible if the item is damaged. Paris Peace Conference (1919-20): Allied conference to write peace treaties with the defeated parties in World War I. It issued the treaties of Versailles, St. Germain, Trianon, and others to end the war with Germany, Austria, and Hungary, etc. Parnasah (parnasot): Hebrew, means of making a living; occupation Passover flour: Kosher for Passover flour used for baking matza Pe’ah: Side curl worn by pious Jews so as not to “destroy the corner of their beards” Pengö: A Hungarian unit of currency from 1927 to 1946 Pentateuch: The five books of Moses, which are the first books of the Hebrew Bible. Phylacteries: (See Tefillin) “Pierced” meat: (See Trefa) 243

GLOSSA RY

Pikuah Nefesh: For the saving of a life. Most of the requirements of Jewish law are suspended in order to save a life Pogromchik: A perpetrator of a pogrom (violent anti-Jewish riot) Polenina: A summer grazing area for sheep and other small cattle, usually located deep in the forest and at some distance from town Prediger: German, literally “preacher”; a title sometimes used in Central Europe for a Reform rabbi Prima-parous: A female giving birth to offspring for the first time Prophets: In Hebrew Neviim; the second part of the Hebrew Bible between the Pentateuch and the Hagiographa Rashi: Acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040-1105), French Jewish commentator on the Bible and Talmud Rav: Hebrew, literally “master”; honorific title for a rabbi; in the Talmud referring specifically to Abba Arikha (160-247), a Babylonian rabbinic leader Rebbe (pl. rebbes): Charismatic leader of a hasidic group Rebbitzen: Wife of a rabbi Regal: Government monopoly on the sale of a particular product Rennet: Enzyme, generally made from a calf’s stomach, used in the production of hard cheeses. Many rabbinic authorities forbid the use of cheeses made with rennet derived from an animal Responsum (responsa): A written reply to a question about Jewish law Russophile: Although generally the term means “pro-Russian,” in the context of Maramarosh it refers to supporters of a separate Rusyn/Ruthenian identity, as opposed to those who identified as Ukrainians Ruthenians: Name given to the Eastern Slavic people of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who were sometimes considered Ukrainian and sometimes considered a separate people Safek: Hebrew, legal uncertainty; e.g., Safek Treifah, possibly non-kosher, and Safek Drusa, possibly drusa St. Germain, Treaty of: Treaty signed by Allies on September 10, 1919, breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and setting boundaries for the new Austrian Republic Scrolls: In Hebrew, Megillot. The five “scrolls” in the Hebrew Bible are: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther Seder: Hebrew, literally “order”; the ceremony conducted at home on the first two nights of Passover commemorating the Exodus from Egypt through the recitation of a liturgy and eating certain symbolic foods Sefer (Sefarim): Religious book(s) 244

GLOSSA RY

Sephardim: Jews originating in Spain. Often used in an extended meaning to apply to all non-Ashkenazic Jews. Hasidim are Ashkenazic Jews, but use the Sephardic prayerbook. S’fek s’feikah: Hebrew, literally “Double doubt”; a  legal uncertainty connected to another legal uncertainty, in which case judgments are always lenient. Shaliach Tzibur: Hebrew, literally “messenger of the community”; prayer leader at a public Jewish religious service. Sharlach: German, scarlet fever Sh’at had’chak: Time of emergency, when certain legal requirements are suspended or made less stringent Shavuot: The Feast of Pentecost, seven weeks after Passover. In rabbinic Judaism, Shavuot is the day of celebrating the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai. Sh’chitah: Kosher ritual slaughter of birds or four-footed animals Shehechiyanu: Hebrew, literally “who has kept us alive”; blessing of thanksgiving recited on holidays and on other “milestone” occasions Shlak: German and Yiddish word for stroke Shoah: Hebrew term for the Holocaust, the massacre of Jews in Europe from 1939-45 Shochet (shochtim): Hebrew, ritual slaughterer (see sh’chitah) Shulchan Aruch: Codification of Jewish law by Joseph Caro in the sixteenth century considered authoritative by Orthodox Jews. Ashkenazic Jews use the Shulchan Aruch with the commentary of Moses Isserles. Shvitat kelim: Sabbath “rest” of utensils. The disputed proposition that utensils and machinery belonging to a Jew must not be used for work on the Sabbath even if they are operated by a non-Jew or operate automatically. Shvut: Rabbinic Sabbath prohibition (as opposed to Torah prohibition) SICH: Administrative and military center of the Cossacks. In 1938 the name was given to the paramilitary defense organization (Ukrainian National Defense) of the short-lived Carpathian Ukrainian Republic. Siddur: Jewish prayerbook Simta: Alley Sonderkommando: German: special forces Speyer, Treaty of (1570): Treaty which recognized Transylvania as an independent principality Status quo ante: Latin, literally “the status before the event”; a term applied to Hungarian Jewish communities which did not take sides in the split between Neolog and Orthodox Judaism. Streimel: A fur hat Strohman: German, literally “straw man”; a  non-Jew who officially takes over a  Jewish business but continues to run it on behalf of the Jew to evade antisemitic laws 245

GLOSSA RY

Sui generis. Latin, “in a class by itself” Synthetic hasidism: Alliance between established rabbinic scholarship and hasidism, emphasizing both erudition and fervor Szekel (Szekler): Transylvanian Magyar Taleisim (talit, talitot): Hebrew and Yiddish, literally “prayer shawls”; in Maramarosh, also used as a  synonym for married man when counting the population Talit katan: Hebrew, literally “small talit”, also known as tsitsit for the fringes attached; small four cornered garment with fringes worn under the shirt by men Talmid Chacham: Hebrew, literally “wise student” or “student of the wise”; man  who is an expert in Jewish learning, especially of halacha and the Talmud Talmud (talmudic): Multi-volume compendium of Jewish law consisting of the Mishna and its discussion in the Gemara. There are two versions of the Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) and the more authoritative Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) Talmud Torah: 1) In Eastern Europe, a school to teach Torah to indigent Jewish boys; 2) the pursuit of the study of the Torah for its own sake Tefillin: Phylacteries; black boxes containing certain biblical verses written on parchment, tied around the head and the arm. Time-bound commandments: In Hebrew, mitzvot asei shehazman grama. Positive time-bound commandments, from which women and slaves were exempt. Tosafot: A school of Talmud interpreters who lived in the twelfth and thirteenth century, mainly in Northern France. Their hallmark was the dialectic understanding of Talmud. Treifah (trefe): Hebrew, literally “torn”; food forbidden by the Jewish dietary laws, or an animal designated as unviable and therefore not permitted to be slaughtered and eaten Trianon, Treaty of (June 4, 1920): Treaty ending World War I between Hungary and the Allies, by which Hungary ceded about two-thirds of its territory, mainly to Yugoslavia, Romania, and Czechoslovakia Tzadik (Tzadikim): Hebrew, literally“righteous man”; hasidic rebbe(s) Tzedakah: Hebrew, literally “righteousness”; charity Tsitsit: Fringes (sets of strings) attached to the four corner of a man’s garment (talit or arbakanfot) Tzniut: Modesty, especially a  woman’s sexual modesty expressed in dress or hairstyle

246

GLOSSA RY

Ukrainophiles: Ruthenians who considered themselves an integral part of the Ukrainian nation Umdena d’mukhah: Aramaic, self-evident Vienna award, first (November 2, 1938—six weeks after the Munich conference): Treaty in which Germany and Italy forced Czechoslovakia to cede the southern portion of Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia to Hungary Vienna award, second (August 30, 1940): Treaty in which Germany forced Romania to cede the northern part of Transylvania to Hungary Watch: A  specific span of time during the night. Traditionally the night was divided into three (sometimes four) watches. Wehrmacht: German, literally “defense force”; the German armed forces (until 1945) White Terror: 1919-20 Anti-communist (and anti-Jewish) violence in Hungary in 1919-1920 after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet Republic Wig: Yiddish, sheitel; there was a  requirement for married women to cover their natural hair. In certain parts of Europe the custom of wearing a  wig developed. Some very strict religious authorities considered the use of a wig an intolerable leniency and required the covering of the hair with a kerchief. Yahrtzeit: Yiddish, the anniversary of the death of a close relative Yarmulke: (See Kippah) Yeshiva (yeshivot): School for the advanced study of rabbinic and Talmudic texts. Yeshiva bocher: Unmarried student at a yeshiva Yichus: Prestigious lineage Yi’ush: Hebrew, literally, “Giving up hope”; when an original owner gives up hope of ever recovering a lost or stolen object and thereby gives up possession of it Zeig: (Pronounced tseig) Yiddish for Burlap Zmirot: Songs sung at the table, generally on Sabbath Zohar: The chief text of the Kabbalistic tradition, traditionally ascribed to the second century Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai

247

BI BLIOGRA PHY AND BIOGRA PHIES OF RESPONSA AUT HORS IN T HIS VOLUME

Arik [Arak], Meir (1855-1926). Author of Responsa Imre Yosher (Cracow: 1925), Czortkower Hasid, rabbi in Jazlovitch 1885-1912, Buczacz 1912-?, Tarnow 1922-26. III/71 Brisk, Mordekhai (1919-44). Author of Responsa Maharam Brisk (Tashnad: 1942), rabbi in Tasnad, Transylvania I/25, III/2, III/4, XIV/2 Deutsch, Eliezer (1850-1916). Author of Responsa Pri Hasadeh (Paksh: 1906), rabbi of Bonyhad I/5, I/8, VII/7, IX/6 Deutsch, Yehudah Yoel (d. 1918). Born in Sepinka. Rabbi of Ganics 1880s IV/5 Dushinsky, Yosef Zvi (b. 1865). Rabbi of Galanta, Hust, 1920-32?, Jerusalem 1933-? IV/5 Engel, Shmuel (1853-1935). Born in Tarnow. Rabbi of Radomysl Wielki 1886-?, after World War I in Kosice III/1, VII/6, XIV/3 Gottlieb, Haim Mordecai Yakov (1876-1936). Born in Hust. Author of Responsa Yagel Yakov (Jerusalem: 1964), rabbi in Orsha 1903-?, Ober Vishve ?-1923, Miskolc 1926-36 V/1, X/4, Grunfeld, Shimon (1861-1930). Born in Hust, son of Yehuda Grunfeld. Author of Responsa Maharshag (Jerusalem: 1980), lived in Munkacs and then succeeded father as rabbi of Szent Mihaly I/15, I/16 Grunwald, Eliezer David. Author of Keren Ledavid (Satmar: 1919) I/17, VII/9 [on line]

1

In this and the following entries, these roman numeral/arabic numeral combinations refer to the place where responsa from the scholars listed appear in this volume. 248

BIBLIOGR A PH Y A ND BIOGR A PHIE S OF R E SPONSA AU T HOR S I N T HIS VOLU ME

Grunwald, Moshe (1853-1911). Born in Czarna, died in Hust. Author of Responsa ‘Arugat ha-Bosem (Svaljava: 1936), studied in Deutsch Kreuz [Tselem] and Bratislava, rabbi in Humnec 1883-93, and Hust 1893-1911 I/2, I/7 Halberstam, Haim [Yitshak Eisik]. Son of rabbi Yehoshua Halberstamm of Dolina. Author of Divrei Haim, rabbi of Slotfi na 1925-44 VIII/2 Horowitz, Aryeh Leib (1847-1909). Author of Responsa Harei B’samim (Jerusalem: 1959), rabbi in Stanislawow XI/3 Horovitz, Meshulam Issachar Ish (1808-1888). Author of Responsa Bar liv’ai VIII/4 Katzburg, David (David Zvi Katzburg of Vac). Founder and editor of magazine Tel Talpiot 1892-1937 XIII/2 Oestreicher, Moshe David. Author of Responsa Tiferet Adam (New York: 1984) XV/2 Ornstein, Yakov Meshulam (1775-1839). Author of Responsa Yeshu’ot Yakov (Brooklyn: 1955), rabbi in Lwow VIII/1 Pfefer, Alter Shaul. Author of Responsa ‘Avnei Zikaron (New York: 1923)

XII/6

Schick, Moshe [Maharam] (1807-1879). Born Berezovo near Nitra. Rabbi in Jargan near Bratislava for 24 years and Hust 1861-1879 I/4, I 11, I/12, II/5, III/3, III/6, IV/1, IV/2, V/2, V/4, VI/2, VI/4, VII/1, XI/1 Shvadron, Shalom Mordekhai Ha-Kohen (b. 1835). Born in Zloczow, Galicia. Author of Responsa Maharsham (New York: 1961), rabbi of Potok-Zloty 1867-?, Jazlovich for 7 years, Buczacz for 2 years, and Berezan near Tarnopol? for 30 years II/2, V/3, XI/5 Sperber, David (1875-1962). Born in Zablotow, Galicia. Author of Responsa ‘Afarkast’a D’anya (Satu Mare: 1940), rabbi in Brasov, Transylvania 1922-? and Jerusalem 1950-? I/14, I/19, XIII/1 Stern, Menachem Mendel (1759-1834). Rabbi of Sighet VIII/1 Tabak, Shlomo Yehudah (1832-1908). Born and died in Sighet, son of Pesach Zvi Tabak. Author of Responsa Teshurat Shai: Mahadura Tinyana (Sighet: 1915) I/6, I/13, I/26, III/5, IV/3, IV/4, IV/6, IV/7, IV/8, IV/9, V/5, VII/3, VII/4, VII/5, VII/8, VII/10, VII/11, VII/12, VII/13, IX/1, IX/2, IX/3, IX/4, IX/5, IX/7, IX/8, IX/9, IX/10, X/1, XII/1, XII/2, XII/3, XII/4, XII/5, XII/7, XII/8 Teitelbaum, Haim Zvi (1880-1926). Son of Hanania Yomtov Lipa Teitelbaum. Author of Responsa Atzei Haim (Sighet: 1939), rabbi in Sighet 1904-1926 I/1, I/3, I/9, II/1, XI/7 249

BIBLIOGR A PH Y A ND BIOGR A PHIE S OF R E SPONSA AU T HOR S I N T HIS VOLU ME

Teitelbaum, Hananyah Yom Tov Lipa (1836-1904). Rabbi in Tecs 1864-1883 and Sighet 1883-1904 XIII/2 Teitelbaum, Yekutiel Yehuda (1804-1883). Author of Responsa Avnei Tzedek (Lemberg: 1885), rabbi in Satoralujhely 1840-?, Gorlitz, Drohobych 1855-57, and Sighet 1858-1883 I/18, I/21, I/22, VI/3, VI/5, VII/2, VIII/3, X/2 X/3, XI/4 Teitelbaum, Yoel (1887-1979). Rabbi in Orshiva 1911-? and Satmar from 1920s I/24, XIII/2, XIV/1 Taubes (Tobis), Aaron M.  (1787-1852). Born in Lwow, died in Iasi. Author of Responsa To’afot R’em (Zilkov: 1855), rabbi of Sniatyn 1820-?, Iasi 1841-1852? VI/1 Weiss, Yitzchak Eisik (1875-1944). Son of Yosef Meir Weiss. Rabbi in Sepinka 1909-? and Selisz 1930-? I/5 Zirelson, Yehudah Lev (1860-1941). Born in Koslitz, died in Kishinev. Author of M’arkhei Lev (Kishinev: 1932) I/10

250

GEOGRA PHIC T ERMS Official and unofficial names of regions and districts

Austro-Hungarian Empire [also Austria-Hungary]: The political entity created in  1867 and dissolved in 1918 in which the Kingdom of Hungary and the Empire of Austria formed two equal and autonomous parts. Baltic States: A group of states comprising Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Banat: Region in northeastern Yugoslavia (Serbia) occupied by Hungary in 1941. Known in Serbia as Vojvodina. Bereg: County of the Kingdom of Hungary immediately to the west of Maramorosh. Its capital was Beregszasz (Beregovo, Berehovo). Bessarabia: District belonging to Czarist Russia annexed by Romania after World War I, occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, recaptured by Romania in 1941, and annexed to the Soviet Union in 1945. It is now the independent state of Moldava, capital Kishinev. Bohemia: The Westernmost district of the Czech Republic. Bukovina: Province (crownland) of the Austrian Empire with its capital Czernowitz. It was assigned to Romania after World War I. The northern part was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 and again in 1945. Today it is divided between Romania and Ukraine. Carpathian Mountains: Mountains in Central and Eastern Europe. Today they form the border between Poland and Slovakia and then run through Ukraine and Romania. Cresana-Maramures: Romanian province between the two World Wars that included Maramures and the area to its southwest. Czechoslovakia [also known as CSR]: Republic from 1918-1938 and 1945-1992. Now divided between the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Dobrudja: Province now divided between Romania and Bulgaria. Felvidek: Upper province or “upper Hungary.” Region of southern Slovakia and Ruthenia annexed by Hungary in 1938. 251

GEOGR A PHIC T ER MS

Galicia: North-easternmost province of the Austrian Empire annexed after the partition of Poland in 1772. It was restored to Poland in 1918 and is now divided between Poland and Ukraine. Hungary, Kingdom of: The Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Maramarosh: Northeastern province of the Kingdom of Hungary, divided between Czechoslovakia and Romania after World War I. The Czechoslovakian section was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1945 and is now part of Ukraine. Moravia: Section of the Czech Republic east of Bohemia. “Motherland” [Mammeland]: Nickname given by Jews to those areas of historic Hungary which remained part of Hungarian territory after World War I. Oberland (Oberlander):. “Upper Land.” Jewish term for Western Slovakia and Western Hungary. PKR (Podkarpatska Rus): “Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia.” Name given to the easternmost region of Czechoslovakia [including Maramarosh] between 1918 and 1938. Podolia: Region of Ukraine east of Galicia. Regat: Old Romania. Those areas which were part of the Kingdom of Romania before World War I. Romania, Greater: Romania as expanded after World War I. Romania, Old: See Regat. Slovakia: Region of Czechoslovakia between 1918-1938 and 1945-1992. Independent 1938-44 and since 1992. Capital Bratislava. Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia: (See PKR) Transylvania: Region which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before World War I and was then assigned to Romania after World War I. Ugocsa: County of the Kingdom of Hungary between Bereg and Maramarosh and north of Satmar county. Ung: County of the Kingdom of Hungary west of Bereg. Capital Ungvar (Uzhgorod). Zakarpatsk[ay]a Ukraina (=ZKU) (=Zacarpatska): Trans-Carpathian Ukraine. Present Ukrainian name for the region called Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia by Czechoslovakia before 1938.

252

253

Klausenberg

Cluj

Jasin ?

Kosof

Koresmezo

Karacsonfalva

Kassa

Kasha/Kashoy

Krechinef

Huszt

Khust

[Xhurst]

Krechinif

Ganya

Dragomerfalva

Kolozsvar

Ganitch

Galanta

Dragmirest

Pressburg

Bratislava

Poszony

Brasso

Brasav

Bukovina

Borsa

Borsha

Beregszasz

Gyulafehervar

Akna Sugatag

Hungarian

Tiszabogdany

Belz

Karlsburg

Yiddish/Hebrew

Bogdan

Belz

Akna Sugatag

English

Cosau

Craciunesti

Dragomiresti

Cluj

Bucovina

Brasov

Borsa

Bogdan Voda?

Alba Iulia

Ocna Sugatag

Romanian

Jasina

Košice

Chust

Ganiče

Bratislava

Bohdan

Berehovo

Belz

Czech

LANGUAGE VA RIANTS OF PLACE NA MES

Kosiv

Ganichi

Ruthenian

254

Ihel

Oyber Vishve

Ujhely

Upper Vishava

Vishnitz

Theiss

Tisa River

Felsöviso

Ungvar

Satoraljaujhely

Tisza

Tecsö

Sopron

Edenberg

Tetsh

Aknasszlatina

Maramarossziget

Slotfi na

Tecs

Sighet

Szaplonca

Sepinka

Spinka

Szatmarnemeti

Ilosva

Satmar

Orsheva

Orsheva

Nagyvarad

Nagy Szombat

Tirna

Groys Vardein

Nyitra

Munkacs

Mohacs

Ökermezö

Mojszin

Hungarian

Neitra

Munkatsh

Volove

Yiddish/Hebrew

Oradea

Nitra

Nadvorna

Miklos

*Masif

English

Vijniţa

Viseul de Sus

Tisa

Teseu

Ocna Slatina

Sighet Marmatiei

Sapanta

Satu Mare

Oradea Mare

Moisei

Romanian

Uzhorod (Uzhgorod)

Tečovo

Slatinske Doly

Iršava

Trnava

Nitra

Mukačevo

Volove

Czech

Vyzhnytsia

Tiachiv

Solotvino

Irshava

Nadvirna

Mukachevo

Mezgorye, Mizhirya

Ruthenian

INDEX

A

B

Adler, Benjamin 19n51 Aggada 102n17 Aggadic 102 Agudah 155 Agudat Israel see Agudah aguna (pl. agunot) 75-76, 79-80, 82 Ahavas Yisroel 142 Ain Yakov 193, 197 Akzise 112, 112n23, 113 Albeck, Chanoch 125n9 Aldomas 93 aleph -beth 130 Aliyah 68-70, 229 Alon, M. 89n22 Am ha’aretz 143 American Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) 153, 229 Anti-Jewish Law, First 169 Anti-Jewish Law, Second 169 Anti-Jewish Law, Third 172 Arenda 72, 88, 104 Arik [Arak], Meir 37-38 Arisut 105 Arrow Cross Party 168, 170 Ashkenazic 18, 131, 137, 146, 159 Ashkenazim 17-18, 154 Ausgleich 143 Austro-Hungarian Empire 62, 128, 135, 144-145, 149-150, 155, 167, 191, 196, 204

B’chor 91-95 Baal Tefilah 70 Bachrach, Yair 20n54, 123n2 Baltic States 165 Banat 151 Barkhu 71, 71n32 Baruch Hashem viii Benes, Eduard 157 Bereg 128, 147, 149, 156, 163 Berenbaum, Michael 17n46, 18n49, 36n11, 48n24, 55n2, 97n2, 99n6, 102n17, 113n27, 115n5, 118n3, 124n5 Berlin, Congress of 151 Berman, Saul 99n6 Bessarabia 151, 165-166 Bet Din 31 Beth Midrash 23-24 Bimah 61 Bohemia 128, 138, 155 Borscht 189 Braham, Randolph, L. 139n1, 168n7, 169n8-9, 171n10, 173n11, 174n1213, 176n14, 177n15-17, 180n18, 181n19, 182n20, 183n21, Brisk, Mordekhai 25, 34-35, 119-120 Brügel, J. W. 158n3-4 Bukovina 142, 151-152, 165-166, 172

255

INDE X

C

E

Caftan 192-193, 196, 198, 201 Carpathian Mountains ix, xiii, 135, 137, 139, 141, 147, 179, 189, 197, 213, 215, 219, 224 Carrying on Shabbat 11, 120, 121n11, Challah see Hallah Cheder xiii, 73, 127, 130-132, 154, 159, 228 Chmelnitsky, Bogdan ix, 137 Chol Hamoed 193 Cholent 193, 199 Chumash 199 Codes xvii, 26, 45, 92, 106, 120n9, 131, 138, 146, 196 Cohen, Avigdor 53n12 Cohen, Joseph J. 92n3, 97n2 Colman, Hugh 129n1, 158n3, 161n5 Commis see Kumi Cossacks 164 (spelled Kossacks in the text Cossacks all over the index) Crisana-Maramures 150-151, 153 Czechoslovakia x, xv, 27, 128, 129n1, 130n3, 150-152, 155, 157-158, 161n5, 162, 213, 226, 229

Eastern Wall 61 Eidelberg, Shlomo 124n5 Ein l’mitzvah ‘el’a mekomah v’shaatah 10 Eisenstadter, Meir 118 Eisenstein, J.D. 13n34, 107n10 Elon, Menachem 64n9, 71n33, 83n3, 99n6, 104n2, 108n14, 113n27 Emden, Yakov (Ya’avetz) 17, 17n47 Emunat Tzadikim 189 Engel, Shmuel 33, 67, 120-121 Eretz Yisroel 26, 115, 115n5 Erroneous purchase 68, Etrog 193, Ex post facto 40, 58, 100 Eyn ‘on’ah l’kark’aot 86 Ezra immersion 9

F Farbrengen 142 Fassdagen 86 Feinstein, Moshe 23n71 Feliks, Jehuda 17n46, 97n2 Felvidek 163, 166, 170 Feuer, Abraham ben Shlomo Meir 185n1 Frankism, 141, 143 Franz Joseph 165

D David ben Zimra 112n26 Dayan xix, 61, 132, 187, 228 Derovan, David 124n5 Deutsch, Eliezer 7-8, 10, 23, 42n12, 68, 86 Deutsch, Yehudah Yoel 29n7 Dina demalchuta dina 113 Dissolution of Marriage by a Hundred Rabbis 47 Divrei Torah 198 Dobrudja 151 Doress 55n6, 56 Double doubt 16, 60 Drusah 54-60 Dushinsky, Yosef Zvi 42-43 Duties of the Heart 197

G G’zeilah 107 Gabbai 198 Galicia 134, 139-140, 142-143, 146, 156, 158, 163, 172-173, 175, 205, 215 Geese, force feeding of 19 Geffen, Rela 55n2 Gemara 6, 193 General Jewish Congress 145 Gershom ben Judah, Rabbenu 48, 48n23, 124, 124n5 Get 47-48 Ginsberg, Louis 126n9 256

INDE X

Goskomizdat 214 Gottlieb, Haim Mordecai Yakov 49-50, 95-96 Grunfeld, Shimon 15-17 Grunwald, Eliezer David 18, 70, 70n28 Grunwald, Moshe 5, 9, 20-23, 29-30, 50n2, 97-99, 101-102, 122, 125-126 Gulden 47, 80-81, 100, 109 Guma 23 Gymnasium 129

Hungary, Kingdom of 134, 136 Hupah 45

H

J

Haggadah 208 Hagiographa 131 Halakhah 102n17 Halberstam, Haim 76-77 Hallah (challah) 29, 30, 189, 200 Hametz 16, 18n49, 29-30, 96 Handler, Andrew 167n6, 168 Haredi 44n13 Harei ‘At 44-45 Hasidism (Hasid, Hasidic) ix-x, xviii, 19, 19n51, 20, 24, 27-28, 70, 127, 131, 134, 141-143, 146, 149-150, 153-154, 156, 159, 161, 188-191, 196-198 Hasidut 27-31 Hatafat Dam 64 Hatan Torah 67 Hatzalah purta 122 Havla’a 36, 120 Hazakah 66, 66n18, 67, 74, 87, 89, 104, 108, 111-113 Hazizah 25n75 Hefsed m’rubah 101n13 Herem 32, 43 Hezkat Hagoof 53 High Holidays 27 Hiuna 81-82 Hoffman, David 4n4 Honved (Honvedseg) 172 Horowitz, Aryeh Leib 99, 99n8, 100 Horovitz, Meshulam Issachar Ish 80, 80n6 Hungarian Soviet Republic 167

Jacobs, Louis 102n17 Joseph II, Emperor of Austria 139 Judenrat 181, 207, 209-210 Judenrein xi, 170, 182-184, 199, 210-211

I Inadvertent revelation (mesi’ah lefi tum’o) 57 Iron Guard 166 Isserlin, Yisrael 4, 4n2 Isserlis, Moses 4, 67, 72n36

K K’lei Kodesh 199 Kabbalistic 24, 69 Kablan Kaddish 70-71, 71n32 Kahal 72 Kallay, Miklos 177, 177n17 Kamenetz-Podolsk massacre xv, 171, 173-174, 184 Kanzlei, Orthodox 145 Kaplan, Zvi 36n11 Karo, Joseph 46n17 Kashrut 8, 19n51, 49-53, 58 Katlanit 39n4, 40 Katz, Jacob 34n4, 36n12, 105n4 Katzburg, David 115, 116n6 Katzburg, Nathaniel 167n6, 168n7, 169n8-9, 171n10 Kenas 43 Kil’ayim 99n5 Kinyan situmt’a 110, 110n19 Kippah 192 Kitniyot 17 Klein, Mordecai Leib 62n3 Kohen 91-92 Kolkhoz 215 257

INDE X

N

Kolkoze see Kolkhoz Kreutzer 112 Kugel 193 Kugel, Chaim 160-161 Kumi 131 Kun, Bela 167 Kvitel 28

Nathanson, Joseph Shaul 76n3 Neolog 145 Neturei Karta 24 Ninth of Av 79 Noahide Laws 99 Numerus Clausus 168 Nusach 142, 198

L O

Labor Corps, Hungarian army 174 Landsman 156 Laszlo, Erno 139n1, 141n2 Legumes 17n46, 18 Lulav 193 Luz 125, 126n9

Oberland 63n5, 131, 138, 155-156, 162 Oestreicher, Moshe David 123, 125 Omer, Counting of 208, 210 On’aah 86 Oneg Shabbat 6 Oness 42 Oness rahman’ah patre 42 Onus probandi 52 Ornstein, Yakov Meshulam 75 Ostjuden 150

M Ma’arufia 89 Magyarization 144, 154, 170 Maimonides (RaMBaM) 30, 52, 84, 99, 119n5 Mamaliga 186, 200 Mar’it ‘Ayin 35, 35n6, 106 Margoliot (Margoliyoth), Reuven 9n20 Matzot Mitzvah 208 Maxwell, Elizabeth 213n5 Medina di, Shmuel (Rashdam) 48, 48n22 Melamed (Melamdim) 73, 127 Meshikha 86, 93 Midrash (midrashic) 115n2, 122, 123n2 Migo 64n9 Mikvah 25-26, 120, 197, 199, 229 Minchah 188 Minhag 83n3 Minyan (minyanim) 81, 228 Mishna 6, 11, 12n28, 19, 65, 96, 125, 196-197, 201, 227 Mitnaged (Mitnagdim, mitnagdic) 131, 142-143 Moravia 128, 138, 155 Moredet 48 Munich Agreement 162, 164-165

P Paid guardian 83 Paris Peace Conference 150 Parnasah (parnesot) 83-89 Passover flour 73 Pe’ah 78 Pengö 94, 173 Pentateuch 130 Pfefer, Alter Shaul 109-110 Phylacteries (tefillin) 81, 186, 212 Piety x-xi, xvii, 4-30, 43, 68, 127, 142, 159, 185 Pikuah Nefesh 29, 119 PKR (Podkarpatska Rus, Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia) 128-129, 130n3, 150, 155-156, 158-163, 180, 203-204 Podolia 134, 139 Pogromchik 164 (please check the spelling cause the author means pogromshchik here) Polenina 49, 50n2, 55, 77-79 258

INDE X

Prediger 63-64 Prima-parous 91-95 Prophets 131

Shavuot 182, 211 Shehechiyanu 20 Shilo, Shmuel 113n27 Shlak 6 Sho’ah ix, xi, 122-195, 196, 206 Shochet (shochtim) 66, 142 Shulchan Aruch 4, 5n7, 18, 39, 87, 100n11, 105n4, 110, 118n4, 120n8, 122, 123n2, 132 Shvadron, Shalom Mordekhai Ha-Kohen 28, 51, 100 Shvitat kelim 120 Shvut 11, 28 SICH 163-164, 204 Siddur 199 Silber, Michael K. 63n6 Simta 86 Sirkis, Yoel 72n36 Skolnik, Fred 17n46, 18n49, 36n11, 48n24, 55n2, 97n2, 99n6, 102n17, 113n27, 115n5, 118n3, 124n5 Slovakia x, 63n5, 131, 135, 155-156, 159, 162-164, 204 Sofer, Moshe (Hatam Sofer) 14n36, 23n71, 24n72, 51, 63n5, 126n9 Sole, Aryeh 129n1-2, 161n5 Sonderkommando 178 (Spelled Sonder=Kommando in text) Sperber, David 14-15, 20, 114 Speyer, Treaty of 136 Spiro, Haim Eliezer (Chaim Elazar) 28n4, 129, 159 St. Germain, Treaty of 151, 157 Status quo ante 95 Stern, Menachem Mendel 75n1 Stern, Samu 181, 183 Streimel 196, 198 Strohman 170 Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia see PKR Sui generis 143, 161, 191 Synagogue/Community ix, xviii, 4, 8, 21-24, 61-74, 102, 120-121, 139, 143, 146-147, 156, 178, 197-198, 204, 206, 208, 210, 218, 222 Szekel (Szekler) 136

R Rabinowicz, Harry 18n49, 55n55 Rashi 6n9, 9n18, 41n7, 130-131, 227 Rav 4, 132, 197, 227-229 Rebbe (rebbes) xviii, 7n16, 24, 27-32, 118, 127-128, 141-143, 154, 159, 161, 185-190, 196-198 Rebbitzen 65 Regal 74, 104-113 Regat 151 Rennet 49 Responsum (responsa) x-xi, xiii, xvixviii, 3-126, 135, 147, 202 Romania, Greater 128, 150-151 Romania, Old see Regat Rosenzweig, Charles 130n3 Rothkirchen, Livia 130n3, 174 Russophile 163-164 Ruthenians 135, 139-140, 163, 183

S S’fek s’feikah 14 Safek 52, 54, 56 Schick, Moshe [Maharam] 6-7, 12-13, 31, 34-35, 37, 39-40, 50-52, 55-56, 58-59, 61-63, 97 Schwarzschild, Steven 99n6 Schwartz, Avraham Yehuda HaKohen (Kol Aryeh) 32n18 Scrolls 131 Seder 208 Sefer (Sefarim) 4, 197 Sephardim 17 Sh’at hadhak 16 Sh’chitah 52 Shabbat 6, 29, 33-37, 87, 190, 193, 198-199, 227 Shaliach Tzibur 8 Sharlach 205 259

INDE X

T

U

Tabak, Shlomo Yehudah 8, 13-14, 21n62, 26, 36, 40-42, 44-48, 52, 6467, 69-74, 83-92, 104-113 Taleisim (talit, talitot) 133, 192, 199, 223n6, 226 Talit katan 78 Talmid Chacham 131, 142 Talmud (talmudic) xiv-xv, xix, 4, 4n4, 5, 6n9, 7, 9n18, 10-11, 17, 20-21, 22n63, 25n75, 30, 36n11, 40-41, 42n10, 53n11-12, 59, 64n9, 66n17, 74n41, 96n13, 99n7, 101-102, 112n24, 115n2, 117n2, 118, 121n11, 122-123, 125, 126n9, 130-133, 142-143, 187, 196, 201, 227-228 Talmud Torah 14-15, 130 Taubes (Tobis), Aaron M. 54-55 (Tobis in the text) Tefillin (phylacteries) 6-9, 11, 192, 199 Teitelbaum, Haim Zvi 4-6, 11, 27-28, 102-103 Teitelbaum, Hananyah Yom Tov Lipa 115n4 Teitelbaum, Moshe 142 Teitelbaum, Yekutiel Yehuda 19, 19n50, 20-22, 56-60, 63-64, 77, 80, 92-95, 100-102, 142-143, 187 Teitelbaum, Yoel 23, 23n70, 115-118, 154 Theodore, J. 125n9 Time-bound commandments 7 Tosafot 123n2, 126n9 Transylvania ix, 78, 114, 128, 136137, 139, 143, 147, 149-154, 162, 165-166, 183 Treifah (trefe) 8, 11, 52-54, 57, Trianon, Treaty of 128, 151, 154, 163, 165-167 Tsitsit 185, 192-193 (tzitzit in the text) Tzadik (Tzadikim) 141, 186, 189 Tzedakah 30 Tzniut 24

Ugocsa 128, 147, 149, 156, 163 Ukrainophiles 164 Umdena d’mukhah 82 (different spelling in text) Ung 128, 147, 156, 163

V Vago, Bela 177n17 Vienna award, first 162, 203 Vienna award, second 165 Vidal of Tolosa 84n7 Vital, Haim 69n27 Vries, Benjamin 102n17

W Watch 5 Wehrmacht 165 Weiss, Yitzchak Eisik 7n16 Wertheimer, Jacob 63n6 White Terror 167-168, 184 Wig 23, 146 Wyman, David 130n1

Y Yahrtzeit 71 Yarmulke 78 Yeshiva (yeshivot) x, xviii, 40, 76-77, 127, 131-133, 142, 146, 153-154, 159, 202-203, 225, 227-228 Yeshiva bocher 131-133, 194 Yi’ush 107, 107n10 Yichus 133, 150

Z Zakarpatsk[ay]a Ukraina (Carparhian Ukraine) 163, 215, 217-219, 224 Zeig 78 Zionism 114-117, 155, 159, Zirelson, Yehudah Lev 11 Zmirot 192, 198 Zohar xii, 24

260