In reading about 19th century, Civil War era Jewry (Isaac Leeser and Judah P. Benjamin), the regional attitudes toward slavery etc, I noticed the mention of a notorious spy, Belle Boyd. With my curiosity piqued, I found a book about the spy.
Her memoir of the war years is a fascinating read about Southern gentry, values and culture attempting to justify secession. Ms. Boyd (who becomes Mrs. Hardinge) is an articulate voice of the Confederate demand for freedom to continue the values and culture of the South and a constant critic of Northern bullying and brutality. According to her memoir, after the Union conquest of her hometown, she and her mother are accosted at their home by belligerent Union soldiers who verbally disrespecting them demand entry to be fed and quartered. Ms. Boyd demands a minimum of courtesy which is not forthcoming and requests that the soldiers stand down or she will defend herself, her mother and her home! The first belligerent soldier steps threateningly toward the threshold and Boyd pulls a small derringer from concealment and mortally wounds the soldier. She is hauled into custody and the following investigation aquits her with the Union commanding officer commending Ms. Boyd's conduct saying that he would have done the same. Later, she overhears conversations of Yankee positions that she gallantly, courageously conveys to the Headquarters of Confederate General 'Stonewall' Jackson. That information is vital to Jackson's routing of Union forces and Belle Boyd is instantly famous in the Confederacy.
The most interesting element of this memoir for me was Ms. Boyd's attitude toward slavery. Although it is clear that she believed in white supremacy (very common in the South- e.g. she does not believe a loyal black servant that warns her of the Union pursuit of her) she seemed to acknowledge that slavery would be short lived. This assertion is similar to Judah P. Benjamin's attitude. Perhaps, this may not be a true attitude but rather a politically necessary attitude because the Confederacy was lobbying for British recognition and support. The British outlawed slavery in the 1830's. Ms. Boyd's memoir was directed to a British audience. In downplaying the institution of slavery and stressing State's rights and freedom from a central federal government, Boyd makes the case for supporting the Southern way of life.
From this memoir, one can deduce a well educated, and outgoing personality who would not be abused and the demand for refined Southern gentleman values.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Isaac Leeser and the making of American Judaism by Lance J. Sussman
Lance J. Sussman's study of Isaac Leeser's life introduces Leeser as a visionary of American Jewry and ardent defender of "Shulchan Aruch" Orthodoxy against Reform.
The life of Reverend Isaac Leeser was really an adumbration of the present structure of American Judaism. Leeser sensed correctly the needs of the emerging Jewish community of the USA. He understood the need for Jewish education for children and adults, the need for a structure that would unify the greater Jewish community; he saw the need for a Jewish press and the need for a Jewish ministry of rabbis. Leeser also experienced the common present-day tension between congregation and minister over expectations and salary negotiations.
Leeser was the first to preach in English on a regular basis on the Sabbath to the chagrin of his congregation. His decision was solely to enable understanding and not to encourage a reform to synagogue practice. (At the same time in Europe, the permission of preaching in the vernacular was being discussed because of the concern that perhaps such a practice was assimilation in disguise) Leeser was not a Talmudist; he concentrated on Biblical exegesis and philosophic ideas. He started a school in his home that peaked at 16 students but failed since he could not convince his synagogue (Mikvah Israel of Philadelphia) of the necessity. Eventually, Rebecca Gratz initiated the first Jewish Sunday School system with the support of Leeser.
In the first quarter of the 19th century there was a dearth of ordained rabbis (Leeser was not an ordained rabbi, but rather a Ba'al Tefillah, one conversant in leading the prayers and was engaged as a Hazzan). The reverend help found the advanced school for the training of rabbis called the Maimonides school -unfortunately, it too was short lived due to lack of funding. In order to educate (without the vehicle of schools) Leeser founded the first Jewish publication society and edited The Occidental: the Jewish Advocate, a periodical that commented on the current Jewish issues and events.
With the growth of more and more synagogues since immigration rose exponentially, Leeser saw the need to communicate and organize with other Jewish communities. He saw the need of a present day Orthodox Union. He translated the Torah and prayer book into English. His prayer book could be seen through the 1940's!
As a former congregational rabbi, I could relate to the Hazzan's grief when he failed to persuade his congregation of the need for a school or that he wanted to preach (without their permission) on a particular topic. His salary negotiations, I could recognize as authentic.
The author points out that there is some discrepancy about labeling Leeser Orthodox. Some say that he really was the progenitor of Conservative Judaism because he seemed to accept integrating into the larger society and seemed accepting of Zunz's scientific methods. Leeser was clearly Orthodox, however, according Sussman because he never turned away from the authority of Jewish law and its Shulcan Aruch. He constantly attempts at proving that the Rabbinic understanding (as in Rashi's Peshat) was undoubtedly correct.
Dayschool Education, a Rabbinate with its own school, a Press, a federation or Union were issues that Isaac Leeser fought for and lost in his lifetime, however, all of those ideas comprise the make-up of present day American Jewry.
The life of Reverend Isaac Leeser was really an adumbration of the present structure of American Judaism. Leeser sensed correctly the needs of the emerging Jewish community of the USA. He understood the need for Jewish education for children and adults, the need for a structure that would unify the greater Jewish community; he saw the need for a Jewish press and the need for a Jewish ministry of rabbis. Leeser also experienced the common present-day tension between congregation and minister over expectations and salary negotiations.
Leeser was the first to preach in English on a regular basis on the Sabbath to the chagrin of his congregation. His decision was solely to enable understanding and not to encourage a reform to synagogue practice. (At the same time in Europe, the permission of preaching in the vernacular was being discussed because of the concern that perhaps such a practice was assimilation in disguise) Leeser was not a Talmudist; he concentrated on Biblical exegesis and philosophic ideas. He started a school in his home that peaked at 16 students but failed since he could not convince his synagogue (Mikvah Israel of Philadelphia) of the necessity. Eventually, Rebecca Gratz initiated the first Jewish Sunday School system with the support of Leeser.
In the first quarter of the 19th century there was a dearth of ordained rabbis (Leeser was not an ordained rabbi, but rather a Ba'al Tefillah, one conversant in leading the prayers and was engaged as a Hazzan). The reverend help found the advanced school for the training of rabbis called the Maimonides school -unfortunately, it too was short lived due to lack of funding. In order to educate (without the vehicle of schools) Leeser founded the first Jewish publication society and edited The Occidental: the Jewish Advocate, a periodical that commented on the current Jewish issues and events.
With the growth of more and more synagogues since immigration rose exponentially, Leeser saw the need to communicate and organize with other Jewish communities. He saw the need of a present day Orthodox Union. He translated the Torah and prayer book into English. His prayer book could be seen through the 1940's!
As a former congregational rabbi, I could relate to the Hazzan's grief when he failed to persuade his congregation of the need for a school or that he wanted to preach (without their permission) on a particular topic. His salary negotiations, I could recognize as authentic.
The author points out that there is some discrepancy about labeling Leeser Orthodox. Some say that he really was the progenitor of Conservative Judaism because he seemed to accept integrating into the larger society and seemed accepting of Zunz's scientific methods. Leeser was clearly Orthodox, however, according Sussman because he never turned away from the authority of Jewish law and its Shulcan Aruch. He constantly attempts at proving that the Rabbinic understanding (as in Rashi's Peshat) was undoubtedly correct.
Dayschool Education, a Rabbinate with its own school, a Press, a federation or Union were issues that Isaac Leeser fought for and lost in his lifetime, however, all of those ideas comprise the make-up of present day American Jewry.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Judah P. Benjamin - The Jewish Confederate by Eli N. Evans
This fascinating study of the 'brains of the Confederacy' puts Benjamin in a Jewish context. A man who served as Secretary of War, Secretary of State and Attorney General of the Confederacy, Mr. Evans writes an excellent study about a person clearly uncomfortable about being Jewish; at one point he complains about his name: 'you might as well have written JEW across my forehead!' Nonetheless, Benjamin is unable to shake the label or the pejoratives that are heaped upon him in an Anti-Jewish environment, yet remained loyal and trusted to Confederate President Jefferson Davis. One is introduced to a driven, industrious individual who perseveres against adversity and overcomes missteps and reversals. He is the epitome of discretion in absorbing the abuse that should have be lodged against Jefferson Davis.
Benjamin born in the West Indies when it was an English Colony moved to Charleston SC as a child with his family. There in Charleston, his family was clearly not Shabbos observant keeping their store open on Saturday to the chagrin of an observant Jewish community. His father was an advocate for Reform in the Jewish community. At 14 yrs, he attended two years at Yale but mysteriously dropped out under a cloud of moral turpitude, never disclosed. Separating from his father, his family moved to New Orleans where he apprenticed with a lawyer and came to know the influential political apparatus of the city. He married into a influential Creole Catholic family to a wife who notoriously lacked fidelity. His acquaintance with the lead of the political machine enabled him to be elected Senator of Louisiana, the first acknowledged Jewish Senator of Congress (David Yulee technically may be considered the first Senator (from Florida) however, he never acknowledged his Judaism converting to Catholicism and denying his past.)
With a perpetual smile on his face he showed great competence at Law and was a standout public speaker. The issue of Slavery, he held as a necessary economic vehicle and not an immoral principal, however, with the understanding that the institution would eventually be abolished. Benjamin resented the Federal Government's interfering with the States' rights.
During the Civil War, Benjamin served where he was asked: first as Secretary of War until the Generals resented his lack of military background, then Secretary of State and then Attorney General because despite the vitriol heaped on him, Jefferson Davis relied on him! The Confederate Generals hated him and spewed antisemitic epitaphs conveniently not fully understanding that Benjamin was only the extension of the policies of the President!
He fled to England at the Civil War's end knowing that he would be tried for treason and put to death. He successfully claimed British citizenship through his birthplace and successfully passed the bar and became a highly successful barrister making the grade of "Queen's Counsel". In England, he never mentioned his role in the Civil War with the understanding that whatever he would say would be misinterpreted and that he would be maltreated in any event.
There is evidence that he read Jewish periodicals and maintained Jewish friends in Richmond, VA , however, he personally seemed to lack any affinity toward the Jewish tradition except that he conspicuously did not become an apostate like Yulee. He was buried in a Catholic cemetery outside of Paris by his daughter.
This book is thoughtfully well written, an excellent introduction to the Civil War and the Jews of the South.
Benjamin born in the West Indies when it was an English Colony moved to Charleston SC as a child with his family. There in Charleston, his family was clearly not Shabbos observant keeping their store open on Saturday to the chagrin of an observant Jewish community. His father was an advocate for Reform in the Jewish community. At 14 yrs, he attended two years at Yale but mysteriously dropped out under a cloud of moral turpitude, never disclosed. Separating from his father, his family moved to New Orleans where he apprenticed with a lawyer and came to know the influential political apparatus of the city. He married into a influential Creole Catholic family to a wife who notoriously lacked fidelity. His acquaintance with the lead of the political machine enabled him to be elected Senator of Louisiana, the first acknowledged Jewish Senator of Congress (David Yulee technically may be considered the first Senator (from Florida) however, he never acknowledged his Judaism converting to Catholicism and denying his past.)
With a perpetual smile on his face he showed great competence at Law and was a standout public speaker. The issue of Slavery, he held as a necessary economic vehicle and not an immoral principal, however, with the understanding that the institution would eventually be abolished. Benjamin resented the Federal Government's interfering with the States' rights.
During the Civil War, Benjamin served where he was asked: first as Secretary of War until the Generals resented his lack of military background, then Secretary of State and then Attorney General because despite the vitriol heaped on him, Jefferson Davis relied on him! The Confederate Generals hated him and spewed antisemitic epitaphs conveniently not fully understanding that Benjamin was only the extension of the policies of the President!
He fled to England at the Civil War's end knowing that he would be tried for treason and put to death. He successfully claimed British citizenship through his birthplace and successfully passed the bar and became a highly successful barrister making the grade of "Queen's Counsel". In England, he never mentioned his role in the Civil War with the understanding that whatever he would say would be misinterpreted and that he would be maltreated in any event.
There is evidence that he read Jewish periodicals and maintained Jewish friends in Richmond, VA , however, he personally seemed to lack any affinity toward the Jewish tradition except that he conspicuously did not become an apostate like Yulee. He was buried in a Catholic cemetery outside of Paris by his daughter.
This book is thoughtfully well written, an excellent introduction to the Civil War and the Jews of the South.
Monday, March 25, 2013
The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the making of modern Judaism by Eliyahu Stern
This contribution to Modern Jewish history is quite wide ranging in scope attempting to put the Vilna Gaon in the context of the currents and trends of contemporary ideas and righting the wrong of many Jewish historians who posit that Eastern European Jewry was not really part of the modern world. Stern shows very forcefully that in deed, Eastern European Jewry fit into to the modern world. The author attempts at showing the affinity of the Gaon's approach as an idealist thinker with Leibniz. He observes a certain irony about the approach of Mendelssohn's defense of Tradition in contrast to the Gaon's innovative practices of textual emendations and challenges to the Shulchan Aruch, Code of Jewish Law.
Prof Stern details the absolute differences affecting Western and Eastern Europe: the Jewish community is a minority culture in the West, trying to fit in whereas the Eastern European Jewish community is the dominant community with no pressure to conform. Mendelssohn and his followers contend with Protestant Church thinkers, defending Judaism, whereas the Gaon and his followers see no challenge posed by a Catholic Church. The author points out what he sees as ironic: Mendelssohn known as the progenitor of Reform actually spends his career in the Salons defending Traditional Judaism, whereas the Gaon, known as the representative of Traditional Judaism trail blazes a path of innovative changes in practices. I believe, however, at a closer look at these two personages, the conventional understanding of them is nevertheless compelling. For example, although Mendelssohn himself did not agitate for any Reform and for the most part represented Traditional Judaism admirably, he was nevertheless, rebuked by Rabbi Yakov Emden in suggesting a compromise when the State demands to stop immediate burial. The willingness not to fight the State for Minhag Yisroel disappoints Rabbi Emden and perhaps makes him suspicious of Mendelssohn. In addition, although the Vilna Gaon changes Jewish practices, those practices can hardly be called Reforms since the innovations were results of deeply rooted traditional Torah learning. Mendelssohn accepts the authority of the State almost immediately without a fight, whereas, the Gaon is determined to arrive at the correct practice. One is drifting away from traditional authority whereas the other is correcting a perceived mistake in Tradition.
There actually is a stark difference between Mendelssohn and the Gaon which has to do with Torah learning. To illustrate my point let's allow the following comparison: Mendelssohn translates the Torah into the vernacular, German and Artsrcoll Mesorah publishers (representatives of followers of the Gaon's tradition) translate not only the Torah but also the Talmud into the vernacular, English. Most historians agree that Mendelssohn's translation no matter how accurate it is, nor how traditional it is to the 'sensas literalis', its main purpose is to bring the Jewish community out of the ghetto and into the mainstream culture. whereas Artscroll who's main purpose is to enable access to ancient texts, has successfully brought so many people back to the authority and observance of Jewish Tradition. The social trending of the followers of Mendelssohn and the followers of the Gaon go in opposite directions. The followers of Mendelssohn abrogate the Torah in their discovery of the German language whereas the followers of the tradition of the Gaon fortify Torah observance through the learning of classical Hebrew texts.
In his discussion of the Gaon's opposition to Hasidism, he observes that the Gaon accepted 'Maskilim' with courtesy yet rejected courtesy when dealing with Hasidim, giving the impression that Hasidism posed more of a threat to the Gaon then the Haskalah. With the professor admitting that the Haskalah and also Emancipation were not battles being waged during the Gaon's time and place in Eastern Europe, I did not find this point proven.
Prof. Stern astutely describes the change of the medieval corporate structure of the Kehillah as the 'privatization' of the Jewish community. The Jewish community today is still 'privatized'. This point can be seen today very easily in the concept of the 'Shtiebl', often the private home of the Hasidic rebbe. Moreover, He proves privatization by showing us how the modern Yeshiva is funded privately.
Sometimes professor Stern's tone gets in the way of his point. His enthusiasm for the Gaon's broad shoulders in Halakha brings him to hyperbole when he says that the Gaon "rejected out of hand" the Shulchan Aruch. No doubt, the centrality of Torah learning (as opposed to learning codes) brings a fresh understanding of Jewish practice. One would be hard pressed, however, to think that the Gaon advocates the dismissal of the Shulchan Aruch.
Although I enjoyed reading this book because of its subject matter, and it is a major academic positive contribution to the understanding of the Vilna Gaon, it revived, nevertheless, because of its tone, an old religious complaint of mine: 'Fear of Heaven' does not fit into the academic world. It's as if immediately, when one walks into the halls of the Academy (not Yeshiva) one must check 'Yiras Shomayin' at the door! I can already hear a professor's screed: 'scholarship must be objective, and Yiras Shomayin colors a bias.' The truth is Yiras Shomayin will make one more careful and conservative in what one publishes, more deliberate and considerate, and hence, a better scholar.
Prof Stern details the absolute differences affecting Western and Eastern Europe: the Jewish community is a minority culture in the West, trying to fit in whereas the Eastern European Jewish community is the dominant community with no pressure to conform. Mendelssohn and his followers contend with Protestant Church thinkers, defending Judaism, whereas the Gaon and his followers see no challenge posed by a Catholic Church. The author points out what he sees as ironic: Mendelssohn known as the progenitor of Reform actually spends his career in the Salons defending Traditional Judaism, whereas the Gaon, known as the representative of Traditional Judaism trail blazes a path of innovative changes in practices. I believe, however, at a closer look at these two personages, the conventional understanding of them is nevertheless compelling. For example, although Mendelssohn himself did not agitate for any Reform and for the most part represented Traditional Judaism admirably, he was nevertheless, rebuked by Rabbi Yakov Emden in suggesting a compromise when the State demands to stop immediate burial. The willingness not to fight the State for Minhag Yisroel disappoints Rabbi Emden and perhaps makes him suspicious of Mendelssohn. In addition, although the Vilna Gaon changes Jewish practices, those practices can hardly be called Reforms since the innovations were results of deeply rooted traditional Torah learning. Mendelssohn accepts the authority of the State almost immediately without a fight, whereas, the Gaon is determined to arrive at the correct practice. One is drifting away from traditional authority whereas the other is correcting a perceived mistake in Tradition.
There actually is a stark difference between Mendelssohn and the Gaon which has to do with Torah learning. To illustrate my point let's allow the following comparison: Mendelssohn translates the Torah into the vernacular, German and Artsrcoll Mesorah publishers (representatives of followers of the Gaon's tradition) translate not only the Torah but also the Talmud into the vernacular, English. Most historians agree that Mendelssohn's translation no matter how accurate it is, nor how traditional it is to the 'sensas literalis', its main purpose is to bring the Jewish community out of the ghetto and into the mainstream culture. whereas Artscroll who's main purpose is to enable access to ancient texts, has successfully brought so many people back to the authority and observance of Jewish Tradition. The social trending of the followers of Mendelssohn and the followers of the Gaon go in opposite directions. The followers of Mendelssohn abrogate the Torah in their discovery of the German language whereas the followers of the tradition of the Gaon fortify Torah observance through the learning of classical Hebrew texts.
In his discussion of the Gaon's opposition to Hasidism, he observes that the Gaon accepted 'Maskilim' with courtesy yet rejected courtesy when dealing with Hasidim, giving the impression that Hasidism posed more of a threat to the Gaon then the Haskalah. With the professor admitting that the Haskalah and also Emancipation were not battles being waged during the Gaon's time and place in Eastern Europe, I did not find this point proven.
Prof. Stern astutely describes the change of the medieval corporate structure of the Kehillah as the 'privatization' of the Jewish community. The Jewish community today is still 'privatized'. This point can be seen today very easily in the concept of the 'Shtiebl', often the private home of the Hasidic rebbe. Moreover, He proves privatization by showing us how the modern Yeshiva is funded privately.
Sometimes professor Stern's tone gets in the way of his point. His enthusiasm for the Gaon's broad shoulders in Halakha brings him to hyperbole when he says that the Gaon "rejected out of hand" the Shulchan Aruch. No doubt, the centrality of Torah learning (as opposed to learning codes) brings a fresh understanding of Jewish practice. One would be hard pressed, however, to think that the Gaon advocates the dismissal of the Shulchan Aruch.
Although I enjoyed reading this book because of its subject matter, and it is a major academic positive contribution to the understanding of the Vilna Gaon, it revived, nevertheless, because of its tone, an old religious complaint of mine: 'Fear of Heaven' does not fit into the academic world. It's as if immediately, when one walks into the halls of the Academy (not Yeshiva) one must check 'Yiras Shomayin' at the door! I can already hear a professor's screed: 'scholarship must be objective, and Yiras Shomayin colors a bias.' The truth is Yiras Shomayin will make one more careful and conservative in what one publishes, more deliberate and considerate, and hence, a better scholar.
Friday, March 22, 2013
American Jewry and the Civil War by Bertram Korn
This is an enduring classic. The book reveals great personages and issues that affected the American Jewish community. The reader is introduced to influential rabbinic figures, Isaac Meyer Wise, Isaac Leeser, and David Einhorn who shaped the Jewish community. One sees the sympathetic attitude of Abraham Lincoln toward American Jewry, his Jewish friends Abraham Jonas and Isachar Zacharie and one is mystified by General Grant's sweeping order 11 to expel the Jewish people from his department. The Northern side's chaplaincy controversy is reminiscent of the Medieval European required oath of fealty to Christianity in that the government had a stubborn determination not to allow a Jewish chaplain because the military code required a Christian. In contrast, the Confederate South is filled with simple Jew Hatred.
One learns that Isaac Meyer Wise, the most famous 'rabbi' of that era was a Democrat, not truly identifying with Lincoln until the assassination and excoriates Abolitionism. Isaac Leeser, the staunch reverend who defends 'Shulchan Aruch' Judaism, sees the need for Jewish education and pushed for the 'Maimonides' school; he rejects David Einhorn's extreme abolitionism and radical reform. The Jewish community's approach toward slavery resembles regional attitudes - Northern Jews generally accept abolition and Southern Jews generally accept States' Rights.
Abraham Lincoln was close to two Jews, Abraham Jonas, a political associate and Isachar Zacharie, MD, his foot doctor. One sees, however, Lincoln's real attitude when he rescinds Grant's order of expulsion immediately upon hearing from an anonymous shop keeper from Paducah,KY, one Caesar Kaskel. Lincoln comes off as a real 'father Abraham'.
The infamous order of expulsion is the most antisemitic act of American history. It probably is more a reflection of Grant's frustration with speculators than actual antisemitism (of which his own father the speculators). Korn shows that Grant maintains friendships with Jews before the war and after the war. Korn entertains the possibility that the order came from someone else in Washington that Grant refused to reveal. Jonathon Sarna of Brandeis shows that Grant rehabilitated himself by appointing more Jews to his administration than anyone else before.
The Union's stubborn refusal to appoint a Jewish chaplain because of a Christian clause in the Military code smacks of the Medieval requirement of fealty to Christianity that prevented the Jewish people from fitting in to the feudal communal structure. During this controversy we see a persistent demand of freedom and equality from an emerging organized Jewish community. In contrast, the Confederacy had no clause that would prevent a chaplain, however, there was simply more anti-Jewish attitudes that precluded appointed a Jewish chaplain! The anti-Jewish attitudes were so vehement, for example, that the number 2 man in the Confederate government, Judah P. Benjamin suffered constant abuse because of his background, despite the fact he was completely unobservant in Jewish tradition and married a Christian.
The book is essential reading for one interested in American Jewish history.
One learns that Isaac Meyer Wise, the most famous 'rabbi' of that era was a Democrat, not truly identifying with Lincoln until the assassination and excoriates Abolitionism. Isaac Leeser, the staunch reverend who defends 'Shulchan Aruch' Judaism, sees the need for Jewish education and pushed for the 'Maimonides' school; he rejects David Einhorn's extreme abolitionism and radical reform. The Jewish community's approach toward slavery resembles regional attitudes - Northern Jews generally accept abolition and Southern Jews generally accept States' Rights.
Abraham Lincoln was close to two Jews, Abraham Jonas, a political associate and Isachar Zacharie, MD, his foot doctor. One sees, however, Lincoln's real attitude when he rescinds Grant's order of expulsion immediately upon hearing from an anonymous shop keeper from Paducah,KY, one Caesar Kaskel. Lincoln comes off as a real 'father Abraham'.
The infamous order of expulsion is the most antisemitic act of American history. It probably is more a reflection of Grant's frustration with speculators than actual antisemitism (of which his own father the speculators). Korn shows that Grant maintains friendships with Jews before the war and after the war. Korn entertains the possibility that the order came from someone else in Washington that Grant refused to reveal. Jonathon Sarna of Brandeis shows that Grant rehabilitated himself by appointing more Jews to his administration than anyone else before.
The Union's stubborn refusal to appoint a Jewish chaplain because of a Christian clause in the Military code smacks of the Medieval requirement of fealty to Christianity that prevented the Jewish people from fitting in to the feudal communal structure. During this controversy we see a persistent demand of freedom and equality from an emerging organized Jewish community. In contrast, the Confederacy had no clause that would prevent a chaplain, however, there was simply more anti-Jewish attitudes that precluded appointed a Jewish chaplain! The anti-Jewish attitudes were so vehement, for example, that the number 2 man in the Confederate government, Judah P. Benjamin suffered constant abuse because of his background, despite the fact he was completely unobservant in Jewish tradition and married a Christian.
The book is essential reading for one interested in American Jewish history.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Hammerin Hank Greenberg: Jewish Pioneer by Shelley Sommer
This slim volume seems to follow quite closely the documentary film by Aviva Kempner, The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg. It is a fine contribution for one seeking a succinct synopsis of the career of Jewish home-run king Hank Greenberg. It was probably written for Middle School.
When studying modern Jewish American history, one realizes that Hank Greenberg is a key figure because he represents the first generation American wanting to blend in to American life. He is the product of Jewish immigrants from the greatest wave of Jewish migration of 1880's-1924. His playing career spanned the 1930's that coincided with the rise of Nazism and Hitler's takeover oversees and the rise of Antisemitism here in America.
Observing Greenberg, one can learn much about being Jewish in a hostile environment,
Greenberg was a perennial optimist; he always saw the good in people and never blamed others for his mistakes. He had a strong work ethic and worked hard to master the different positions that he was asked to undertake for the sake of the team. (First base and then Left field) He was not afraid to ask for help. When he made the transition from First to Left field, he asked Barney McCosky, the Tiger Center fielder to give him direction and help. He humbled himself to ask the Yankee great, Joe DiMaggio for tips in playing the outfield. (One learns that Greenberg became friendly with DiMaggio because they both were regulars at the famous NY saloon club Toots Shor's)
In the hostile environments of his career, first in Beaumont Texas and then the American League, Hank learned to mostly ignore the barbs and insults. Only on occasion did he feel it necessary to enter the other side's locker room after a game to ask if anyone had anything more to say to him. There was never a fight because nobody wanted to pick a fight with such an imposing figure. Hank encouraged Jackie Robinson to which Robinson replied with a compliment.
Personally, I would say in comparing Greenberg to Sandy Koufax, historically Greenberg is more significant to Jewish history. They both did not play on Yom Kippur, however, Greenberg sought rabbinical advice about Rosh Hashanah and although one need not agree with the permissive ruling, the idea of asking for advice is quintessentially Jewish. Both superstars were secular in religious outlook, innately modest and uncomfortable with being lionized as special Jewish heroes. Both did not want to be recognized with the adjective "Jewish" ahead of "ball player". As a matter of fact, Greenberg mentioned that the service during WWII removed the ethnic adjectives from one's identity; everyone who served became just American! Greenberg, however, seemed more at ease later on with his Jewish identity and enjoyed the idea that he trail-blazed a path for Jewish kids.
When studying modern Jewish American history, one realizes that Hank Greenberg is a key figure because he represents the first generation American wanting to blend in to American life. He is the product of Jewish immigrants from the greatest wave of Jewish migration of 1880's-1924. His playing career spanned the 1930's that coincided with the rise of Nazism and Hitler's takeover oversees and the rise of Antisemitism here in America.
Observing Greenberg, one can learn much about being Jewish in a hostile environment,
Greenberg was a perennial optimist; he always saw the good in people and never blamed others for his mistakes. He had a strong work ethic and worked hard to master the different positions that he was asked to undertake for the sake of the team. (First base and then Left field) He was not afraid to ask for help. When he made the transition from First to Left field, he asked Barney McCosky, the Tiger Center fielder to give him direction and help. He humbled himself to ask the Yankee great, Joe DiMaggio for tips in playing the outfield. (One learns that Greenberg became friendly with DiMaggio because they both were regulars at the famous NY saloon club Toots Shor's)
In the hostile environments of his career, first in Beaumont Texas and then the American League, Hank learned to mostly ignore the barbs and insults. Only on occasion did he feel it necessary to enter the other side's locker room after a game to ask if anyone had anything more to say to him. There was never a fight because nobody wanted to pick a fight with such an imposing figure. Hank encouraged Jackie Robinson to which Robinson replied with a compliment.
Personally, I would say in comparing Greenberg to Sandy Koufax, historically Greenberg is more significant to Jewish history. They both did not play on Yom Kippur, however, Greenberg sought rabbinical advice about Rosh Hashanah and although one need not agree with the permissive ruling, the idea of asking for advice is quintessentially Jewish. Both superstars were secular in religious outlook, innately modest and uncomfortable with being lionized as special Jewish heroes. Both did not want to be recognized with the adjective "Jewish" ahead of "ball player". As a matter of fact, Greenberg mentioned that the service during WWII removed the ethnic adjectives from one's identity; everyone who served became just American! Greenberg, however, seemed more at ease later on with his Jewish identity and enjoyed the idea that he trail-blazed a path for Jewish kids.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Tradition and Crisis by Jacob Katz
Professor Katz of Hebrew University wrote a seminal contribution to modern Jewish history in discussing the convergence of massacres, the Enlightenment and Hasidism that resulted in the breakdown of the corporate structure of the traditional Jewish community of Germany and Eastern Europe.
After a detailed description of the different parts of the Jewish community of the Middle Ages, Katz explains that historical events were too profound for the community to withstand. The impact of the new age was like a juggernaut that left the leaders of the community staggering to recover the past. With a new neutral society the Jewish community had to resort to the power of persuasion to retain the allegiance of the membership.
The traditional isolation of the Jewish community in Western Europe saw an open door to the outside world with the rise of the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment. Moses Mendelssohn stepped out the of Study Hall and into the Salons of Philosophy with the hope of acceptance. Although acceptance did not really come, the lure of the outside was overwhelming. The requirement of Jewish domicile was loosened and the Jew could live among the gentiles.
The despair that resulted from the attacks on the Jewish people created new trends among the people and instead of traditional scholarship and Torah study, charismatic and ecstatic experience attracted the simple folk. Individuals of charisma, not known for their scholarship created an atmosphere of equality instead of the 'elitism' of Torah Scholars. This new group now wanted to create their own communities and NOT to integrate into the traditional society. Their especially sharpened slaughter knives were not just a halakhic stringency but rather, a guarantee that their adherents would not eat the meat of the traditional community!
Professor Katz believes that the Enlightenment and Hasidism were successful assaults against the traditional Jewish community from opposite ends of the social spectrum. The Enlightenment created a neutral society that essentially disarmed the rabbinic ban. If one disagreed with the community, one was free to live somewhere else. The ban meant little. Hasidut demanded fervor and enthusiasm that the traditional community lacked. Hasidim encouraged defection from the traditional community. As a result, the corporate structure crumbled which gave rise to talented individuals who had to rely on their ingenuity to rebuild, reconstruct, and retain their constituency.
After a detailed description of the different parts of the Jewish community of the Middle Ages, Katz explains that historical events were too profound for the community to withstand. The impact of the new age was like a juggernaut that left the leaders of the community staggering to recover the past. With a new neutral society the Jewish community had to resort to the power of persuasion to retain the allegiance of the membership.
The traditional isolation of the Jewish community in Western Europe saw an open door to the outside world with the rise of the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment. Moses Mendelssohn stepped out the of Study Hall and into the Salons of Philosophy with the hope of acceptance. Although acceptance did not really come, the lure of the outside was overwhelming. The requirement of Jewish domicile was loosened and the Jew could live among the gentiles.
The despair that resulted from the attacks on the Jewish people created new trends among the people and instead of traditional scholarship and Torah study, charismatic and ecstatic experience attracted the simple folk. Individuals of charisma, not known for their scholarship created an atmosphere of equality instead of the 'elitism' of Torah Scholars. This new group now wanted to create their own communities and NOT to integrate into the traditional society. Their especially sharpened slaughter knives were not just a halakhic stringency but rather, a guarantee that their adherents would not eat the meat of the traditional community!
Professor Katz believes that the Enlightenment and Hasidism were successful assaults against the traditional Jewish community from opposite ends of the social spectrum. The Enlightenment created a neutral society that essentially disarmed the rabbinic ban. If one disagreed with the community, one was free to live somewhere else. The ban meant little. Hasidut demanded fervor and enthusiasm that the traditional community lacked. Hasidim encouraged defection from the traditional community. As a result, the corporate structure crumbled which gave rise to talented individuals who had to rely on their ingenuity to rebuild, reconstruct, and retain their constituency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)