The Contemporary Relevance of History by Salo W. Baron

This is a short series of essays on the different approaches that the professional historian may take under his wing. I would like to mention just two points that Mr. Baron makes when discussing the researching and writing of history with the addition of my own thoughts.

The critical historical method: the comparison of different sources and accepting only that fact that has corroborating evidence has certain limits.  Mr. Baron points out that the method is only efficient or relevant during periods of ample written evidence.  He points out that when studying cultures or societies that rely heavily on oral transmissions or societies that rely on memory and the written evidence is often vary scarce, the research is difficult since no corroborating evidence can be analyzed.

This means that studying the ancient Jewish world, for example, during the time of a functioning Sanhedrin when oral transmissions were forbidden to write down, research is difficult.  For example, first century historian, Josephus writing for essentially a Roman audience inevitably must be compared to much later Talmudic sources because the Jewish world at the time of Josephus was functioning and firing on Oral cylinders.  The Roman world values written histories, whereas the Jewish world does not.  If the sources agree, then the historian is confident of the facts.  If, however, they do not agree, then the researcher has a quandary because there are so many possibilities to explain the differences, with no way to verify data.  Any re-creation or construction is basically founded on sand.

Secondly, Mr. Baron makes a very strong case that history (and certainly Jewish history) should be analyzed through a religious social lens.  Although he goes through many approaches: Psychohistory, Quantitative History, Social history, Secular State history etc., he shows that religion has played the most profound effect on civilization even in the most secular environments.  He shows that even at the height of the Enlightenment with the founding of a country that is the most secular in nature, with the greatest separation of Church/State (USA), religion, nevertheless, plays an incredibly dominant role in the animation of its people.

Mr. Baron was not known to be a religious nor observant Jew, nevertheless, he observed the theocracy that preoccupied the individual psyche of most of the world's inhabitants during every major epic and civilization.

All Shook Up: How Rock 'N' Roll Changed America by Glenn C. Altschuler

This volume chronicles the rise of the musical phenomenon, Rock and Roll of the 1950's and how it meshed with concurrent social trends of civil unrest, disobedience and the 'generation gap' of the coming turbulent times of the 1960's.  Prof. Altschuler explains that the genre of Rock and Roll reflects the emerging unrest of post WWII youth, a more affluent youth completely distinct from its veteran, depression era experienced parents.

Sex, race relations, and rebellion comprised the elements of Rock and Roll according to the author.  Mr. Altschuler explained a social evolution unfolds with Rock and Roll.  Rock and Rock originated in the Black community, known as Rhythm and Blues and implied explicit sexual expression in the music. It attracted young white males and Sam Phillips of Sun Records commented "if I had a white boy to sing these songs, I'd make a billion.."  Elvis Presley presented himself and became the transition bringing Black music to a craving white crowd.  Elvis' blatant sexual gyrations during his performances struck a chord with audiences: girls screamed desire for him, boys craved to be like him and parents were reviled, feared and were shaken by him.

Little Richard and Chuck Berry, black artists enthused audiences with their clearly sensual movements, yet threatened the status quo of segregation by appealing to mixed crowds.  Buddy Holly played at the famed Apollo theater in the Black section of New York's Harlem with many in the audience expecting to see a black artist yet were shocked at seeing a white one!  Jerry Lee Lewis pounded on the piano even with his feet evoking almost violent orgiastic experiences.  Rock and Roll manifested a breakout of the social and sexual repression of the 1940's and early 1950's.

By end of the '50s music producers cropped, edited and sanitized Rock and Roll so that mainstream vehicles and venues like American Bandstand with Dick Clark, The Steve Allen Show and the perennial powerhouse, The Ed Sullivan Show could exhibit Rock and Roll headliners without fear of negative repercussions.  Even Elvis Presley's agent Tom Parker understood the need for sanitizing Rock and Roll.  He forced Elvis to take a hiatus from singing and made movies that sanitized his image. Into the early '60s, Rock and Roll became dominated by innocuous love and romance songs by the smash English group the Beatles.  The only American groups to come close were Dianna Ross and the Supremes also singing about love and the adolescent group, the Beach Boys singing about surfing.

The book also discusses the corruption in the music industry.  It highlights the rise of and fall of pioneering DJ from Cleveland, Alan Freed taking money to spin records.  It shows the shrewd business sense of Dick Clark staying clear of getting caught, although it seems clear from the evidence that Clark benefited from music producers in the form of at least gifts and travels.

Rock and Roll seems to have met the test of time.  Well into the 1980's, Bruce Springsteen fooled the political spectrum with his "Born in the USA" by waving an American flag.  Conservative and liberal pundits alike identified with the song to represent an authentic truly American composition.  As a result, one may come to believe that Rock and Roll is here to stay!

Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer

Professor David Hackett Fischer's excellent history of the turning point of the American Revolutionary war brings out some important salient features of not only General Washington but also the emerging values of the nascent new country.  Besides his great leadership, one reads about the grand ideas and values of the Enlightenment that the leaders and founding fathers steadfastly hold up.

The book chronicled in detail Washington's crossing the Delaware river with the cover of night to make a surprise attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton, NJ. After the abysmal showing in New York when the Continental Army was in constant retreat and the British leadership thought they had the insurrection practically quelled, moreover, with the Continental Congress beginning to regret Washington's commission as leader, the general devised a plan that exploited the element of surprise and capitalized on his army's 'celerity'.  The battles at Trenton and Princeton were routs, exercising swift movements and classic flanking maneuvers knowing that the British regulars enjoyed intimidating and overwhelming its enemies with direct assaults. The fight continued with the 'forage wars', the British seeking out of fodder for their cavalry's horses - something as important then as oil is today for a mobilized army.  The Americans successfully prosecuted a guerrilla war, quickly attacking  to inflict major damage and just as swiftly withdrawing and disappearing into the wilderness keeping casualties at a minimum.  At that point, with little cavalry horses left, many on the side of the British began to understand that winning such a war and putting down the 'insurrection' would be very difficult.

Mr. Fischer debunks the iconic painting of Washington in a boat crossing the icy river, one foot raised with right hand resting on his thigh as an impossibility.  The instability of such a position would have cast the general overboard.  The painting, nevertheless, captures Washington's regal and noble countenance to which all who knew Washington testified.  Washington's resolute determination to win and personal courage in battle were indeed awesome and inspiring to all those who witnessed them.

The author contrasts the ways of the British and Americans wage war.  For the British, war is a question of honor and manhood with certain expectations of the vanquished.  For the British, if one one would not surrender at their request, then there was no obligation to quarter or sustain prisoners. There were countless events of absolute ferocious brutality on their part.  The Americans, however, wage war simply to win. Taking the basic call from John Adams and specifically the example of George Washington, the Americans show magnanimity, generosity and humanity - something attested to by the British themselves.  The British General Howe was autocratic and did not accept advice from his war council.  Washington, on the other hand, presided at his war council by consensus and encouraged opinions.  The contrasts seem to reflect the different style of governments - a Monarchy vs. a free Republic.

The author concludes that some contemporary critics of today who think that America is not a noble enterprise are wrong.  One need only to see Washington and the founding fathers as extraordinary people who created a country that reflects the generous ideas of the Enlightenment to set the record straight.

Ancient and Medieval Jewish History: essays by Salo Wittmayer Baron (Leon Feldman editor)

This collection of essays in honor of Prof. Baron's 75th birthday show the professor's virtuosity in understanding that Jewish history is not the 'lachrymose' record that Graetz and others claim.  Baron points out acutely that being the 'serfs of the royal chamber' actually safeguarded and protected the Jews from an overbearing and far reaching Church.  Baron discusses the the tug of war between Church and monarchies over the possession of the Jewish people.  He shows the actual protection given to the Jewish people in spite of the aggressive Churchmen's charges.

Baron gave a strong description of Saadya Gaon as a profound leader who really understood how to utilize his position of power to fight the heretical sect, the Karaites.  Some of the essays were, however, curious to me.  The one entitled "The Economic views of Maimonides" was very erudite in going through statements of the Rambam's Mishna Torah.  Nowhere, however, does the professor make clear that the Mishna Torah is only a restatement of Torah shebaal Peh, the oral Torah and rabbinic law.  Dr. Baron seems to imply the Rambam's novel interpretations were his independent views detached from the Oral Torah.  This criticism was already leveled at Baron by a contemporary, Solomon Zeitlin in a review of the original publication.  After reading Baron's essay, I thought Zeitlin's critique resonated on its own merits.

The essay on Rashi and the community of Troyes was also curious. Most of the essay was trying to establish the accurate demography of the Jewish community because the historical issue at hand was the lack of data on the town.  For historians, Troyes was too young and immature to have produced such a profound Jewish community with such a formidable figure as Shlomo Ben Yitzchak. Its history seems just to appear out of nowhere!; as if when Rashi comes back from studying in the Rhineland, Troyes becomes a great city of Jewish learning.  The lack of data baffles historians even today [Robert Chazan of NYU also brings out this point of wonder of about Rashi and his community]  Nowhere in the article, however, does one get a sense of how important or profound Rashi was to rabbinic interpretation.  He seems to be an important commentator, yet one never understands that Rashi becomes the middle man, the address for rabbinic understanding who far surpasses anyone else in Jewish history.  The novice and the scholar together must begin with Rashi to understand the Jewish rendering of scriptures and rabbinic texts.

Baron brings out profound irony when discussing the Reformation, Luther's and Calvin's religious revolutions.  That in spite of both Luther's and Calvin's vitriolic hatred of the Jews, their positions that demand the existence of differences of opinion within the Church require toleration and as a consequence of their arguments of acceptance and toleration of Christian sects, ultimately the Jewish people benefit in the growing pains of toleration.

These essays are worthwhile reading because one gets a sense of what animates a professional Jewish historian, one who has been called the greatest of the twentieth century.

The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties by Shaye J.D Cohen

This contribution of Jewish history fits into the classic critical methods that ignore the possiblity that ancient traditions (called Torah SheBaal Peh) could actually exist.  If one is interested in critical methodology that is evaluating all extant materials, comparing contrasting and interpreting then one should read this book.  It covers questions of conversion to Judaism, the prohibition of intermarriage and origins of matrilineal descent.  If one is, however, a believer in 'Emunas Chachamin' and believes in the integrity of the Oral Torah, then this study will frustrate and annoy because the author uses terms like 'rabbinize' that somehow the rabbis changed history formulating normative Judaism.

Much of the book is consistent with the critical historian's view (which was set down many years ago - first quarter of the 20th century- see George Foote Moore's Judaism) that our Judaism, the practices and observances of today were formulated during the major rabbinic periods from 200 bce through the talmudic era of the 5th century.  So what the author 'proves' from extant literature that the concept of conversion from another nation did not occur until the 2nd century bce.  In other words, Ruth the Moabite was not really a convert but rather by virtue of marrying Boaz (which is a complete negation of Torah SheBaal peh) accepted into the nation of Israel. Or the author opines that the Bible is patrilineal and not matrilineal - it was the rabbis that changed this Biblical tradition to follow the mother.  Or there really was never a wide ranging prohibition to intermarriage (Ezra not withstanding) but rather the rabbis widened the prohibition creating a notion of 'us vs. them'

Professor Cohen acknowleges that he does not know the motivations for the rabbis to 'rabbinize' (a fascinating indescript term used when the rabbis adopt, or change something according to the critical historian's thesis) and he never gives the possibility that the rabbis had a standing ancient tradition in their hands. The reason he can not entertain such a thought is because there is no corroborating outside evidence to support such a view or tradition.  In other words, for the critical historian the lack of evidence is evidence. In other words, Torah SheBaal Peh is a concept that is 'ahistorical' or anti historical for the critical historian. Any tradition that does not have 'evidence' from the outside is not considered historically worthy.  The arrogance of the critical historian comes out in a footnote that cites J.D. Bleich, a very well known accomplished Torah Scholar, labeling his work as "its naive fundamentalism and antihistorical pietism render its conclusions useless for the historian."  The true view of the critical historian is that to be a believer in Torah SheBaal peh one need be naive or antihistorical.

From a critical point of view, the author is a fine scholar, very thorough. I have said in another place that sometimes the rules of the critical scholar can blind or restrict his viewpoint precluding that the simple piety of the rabbis can be a viable view.  There is not a shred of evidence that the rabbis somehow manufacture changes consciously.  The rabbis' point of view that they were holding on to ancient traditions, as the author concludes his book, requires hermeneutics and exegesis, not historical research.

One of the basic differences between Orthodox yeshivos and the Conserivative seminaries is the stress on critical history.  The major figures of yeshivos are halakhic adjudicators fluent in the Torah SheBaal Peh with negligent emphisis on history, whereas the Conservative institutions are fundamentally historians fluent in history but not fluent in Torah Shebaal peh or halakhic adjudication.

Salo Baron: Architect of Jewish History by Robert Liberles

When enrolled at the university, I had a visiting professor of Jewish history, Abraham Halkin, who required the reading of certain volumes of Salo Baron's Social and Religious History of the Jews. I developed somewhat of close relationship with the teacher to the extent that he would ask me questions from time to time like, "what did you think of the text that I assigned?"  I responded frankly, "Although the material is quite substantial, I found the style difficult to understand."  He exhibited surprise, saying that he had helped the author with the style to make the language more accessible since English was not Baron's first language. This was the first time I was introduced to Salo Baron's scholarship.  Dr. Halkin was my introduction to the old school professor who was fluent in all the romance and Semitic languages along with German, Russian, and Yiddish. During a course of Spanish Jewish history, I witnessed an exchange that took place basically in Arabic when the professor was challenged by two students who were conversant in the Koran. They expected to fluster the teacher with their command of Islam's holy text, however, the professor retorted and rejoined their challenges until the students in frustration removed themselves from the class seeing that they could not dislodge the professor from his seat of authority.  I imagined that Baron must have been similar to Halkin: both born in Eastern Europe, both fluent in many languages and both settled in the American Academy as American professors.

Although Liberles does not mention Halkin as one of Baron's colleagues, nevertheless, there is indeed a sense that Baron had problems with English.  There is a brutal exchange with his publisher that paints Baron in a petty, unreasonable light.  Liberles' study, however, of Baron and his scholarship is a crushing critical study of the emergence of "anti-Lachrymose" Jewish history.  It is the story of Baron's emphatic effort to down play the tragedies of Jewish history and see the unfolding of Jewish history through external economic, social and religious contexts.  

[I am reminded of an exchange with another teacher of Jewish history at a conference when the teacher expressed envy that I could teach Jewish History without "burning out"!  I asked what do you mean and she explained that for her, Jewish History is just one tragedy after another!  Its too much to bear! she said.  I responded by saying how can a study of the personalities of Jewish history burn one out? Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Rambam, Ramban etc. are all extraordinary inspiring people! One need not dwell on tragedies to see the profundity of Jewish History!]

One learns of Baron's tumultuous invitation to Columbia University as the first chair in Jewish History placed in the History department.  There is irony in the fact the president of the university is very receptive to establishing a Jewish chair on the one hand but is instrumental in creating a Jewish quota system to limit the number of Jewish students to the university.

The bulk of Baron's scholarship is produced before WWII.  One learns that his innate optimism colors his attitude toward Nazism and woefully misreads the brutality of the Nazis.  Being a great historian does not mean one is a good prophet.  

One reads about the the biting criticism from contemporary historians that Baron often made sweeping generalizations without proper foundations from sources.  The most devastating critique comes from Solomon Zeitlin claiming that Baron cited from secondary sources (Jewish Encyclopedia) when original sources were available casting doubt on Baron's competency!  Zeitlin also stings Baron saying that to claim Maimonides held certain economic views in an Islamic environment when those views are universally held by the rabbis of the Mishnah, is to grossly mislead his reader.  

Yitzchak Baer of Hebrew University formidably disagrees with Baron on elements that moved the Jewish community. Baron favors external forces whereas, Baer stresses internal Jewish elements.  Baron downplays anti-Semitism as the primary mover in the great migration of Eastern European Jewry to the west.  He claims the economic stress, depressions of the communities were more fundamental.  Most historians find this claim incredulous in its suppression of the great Anti-Semitism of the Tzar.

He is the last of the singular historians in the class of Gaetz and Dubnow. I have always enjoyed Baron's history because of his respect toward the tradition and his view that the future of Judaism is more dependent on the religious community than its secular manifestation.[Ironically he himself never went to synagogue nor led a religious lifestyle except conducting a Passover Seder.] He is instrumental in the plethora of Jewish Studies departments all over America and as such is considered the progenitor of the scholarship that has made himself outdated! 

The (guilty) Conscience of a Conservative by Craig Schiller

Although published before the Reagan years, this book puts into perspective why the former governor of California and eventual president of the USA initially lost in the 70's but became a very popular president in the 80's.  Rabbi Schiller explains that if the image of the Conservative could be stripped of the stereotypes of crony capitalist, hater of the poor or destroyer of welfare programs and resonate with regular Americans whom Rabbi Schiller claims are sincerely conservative then the White House would be held by more conservative candidates.

The rabbi points out that there was a bipartisan approval for Social Security which means that even conservatives believe in the appropriateness to aid those that can't afford care.  They do not believe in the fraudulent opportunities that a central government creates.

This book is really a primer in conservative politics. One learns that Conservative thinking is not monolithic.  There are many different kinds of conservatives from the deeply religious, to the completely secular or historical.  Rabbi Schiller makes the case that religious people are naturally politically conservative because of the role that religion and tradition play in their lives.  Keeping tradition and skirting change is a key element in being religious and being politically conservative.

Over the years, I have found myself drifting to right in politics.  Most recently, however, I have acutely felt the unreasonable encroachments of a big centralized government.  The more the government encroaches, the more one's liberty is curtailed.  Phone data collection strikes me as Orwellian.  The notion of prosecuting journalists for doing their job violates freedom of speech.

Rabbi Schiller calls upon Conservatives to go back to the unifying roots of free market capitalism with limited but solid social programs that everyone can support.  The face of the evil amoral capitalist as the Conservative is the creation of the left's propaganda.  The rabbi calls for better communication of the values with which most Americans identify.