the Canadian Jewish News/thiursday, May 15,1980 - Page 5
inioii
says
ByJ.B.SALSBERG (First of two columns 1
For most people the 1980 plenary assembly of the Canadian Jewish Congress has" come and gone. But not so for my uncle Eliezer. He and his Thursday night siivitz regulars still seem to be engrossed by it.
My good uncle phoned a few times to say that he arid his coterie of friends have great difficulty in assessing the latest, the 19th. national convention of Canadian Jewish Congress.
Finally, my uncle informed me, his Thursday night Sanhedrin decided to ask for my help. They selected three of their acknowledged spokesmen: uncle Eliezer, his friend Mendle (who not only reads the small print but also reads between the lines) and their friend. Sam (whois known tohavfs a mind of his own) to meet with me. Andof course I agreed to see theni.
Fortunately, the unseasonal heat wave had ended and it was once again ideal tea-drinking weather. The samovar was hot and ready, so were the glasses, the juicy slices of two lemons arid some jam and soda crackers when my visitors arrived.
After a few sips of tea and some kibbitzing my uncle gravely began to explain what it was that bothered him and his friends. Mendle made some of his own profound comments and Sam showed that he, too, was a sh^rp observer.
I would dearly love to provide you with thefulltextofwhatthey had to say. But 1 know that the editor would never agree to provide me the space necessary for such a treat. So I must ask you accept my greatly abbreviated version of what they actually said. Here it is.
The three, who were delegated by their respective landsmanshafteri, no sooner entered the classy waterfront hotel, where the convention took place, than they realized that they were in for many surprises. lii the past there were also elections, of course, but such eyertts were rarely, if eyer, the central theme of a plenary. This time they felt that the, election of new officers was the .major concern of most people there.
Within a few hours they found themselves loaded with literature and buttons that were, dispensed freely by eajger partisans and by promoters of special causes. Chairs in nieetirig rdoms were covered with glosisy electioneering leafietsand fliers urging the prospective occupant of the chair to vote forX, or Y, or to raily behind this Or that "urgent cause. "It looked more like a convferition
of a political party than a plenary of Congress," said uncle Eliezer.
Mendle, in his desire to probethenew type of smootlT7prof?ssional electioneering hoopla at a Congress Assembly, arranged that he and his. friend Sam. mingle with the perspiring and supercharged campaigners to probe their rhotjves and attitudes. They agreed, for . thesakeof objective; research, to take the opposite view of every campaigner who happened to accost them,
Within an hour they met with uncle Eliezer to report their experiences. They Had been, so they related, pitied, sneered at. scolded, rebuked and made to feel as if they had become turncoats^ renegades and, heaven forbid, even worse. Sam insists that one zealous fellow ripped the right lapel of his jacket as he tried to ram his'special message into Sam's head.
Sam also reported that while being deliberately contrary to the vote-getters he was sneeringly dismissed with such withering verbal shots as: "I thought that you were a Zionist," or "I thought you were an activist," or "1 thought you were level-headed," or "1 never thought you would want to wreck Congress." or^'so you're trying to turn Congress upside down/' And soon, and on, and on.
After many rounds of tea-and-lemon and after Jistenirigv to many more experiences ofthe three wise men, uncle Eliezer tried to sum up their difficulty in arriving at a balanced assessment of the assembly.
"There is no doubt," said uncle Eliezer, "that this assembly differed from those of the past. It was dominated by a spirit of confrontation rather than co-operation," my Uncle stated gravely. "But why the confrontation?" he asked. "What was so wrong with Congress until now to justify the antagoniistic attitudes of so many?
"On the one hand," he added quizically. "if the Rabbi Plaut leadership-for the past three years was so unsatisfactory then why was he and all other past leaders praised so lavishly at this assembly? And why did practically all sides give standing ovations to all the key speakers, domestic and from abroad, who addressed the.assembly on fundametital matters?"
Pursuing his enquiry, uncle Eliezer asked: "Is it possible that there were concealed reasons and objectives that we know nothing aboiit what caused the unhappy mood of .confrontation to prevail at the assembly?"
Well, my dear readers, riow you niay appreciate why uncle Eliezer finds it so difficult to arrive at an honest and objective assessment of the last assem-:bly.-- ■
Did I offer them any help? Of course I did. At least I fried to dp so. And since I have no' secrets from you. my sympathetic and understanding feaders, I shall share with you the advice 1 gave them— one week from how.
In the meantime forget it all for the iShabbat that awaits you. Nit. gedayget^ (don!t worry). The worid neither ended nor was it born at the plenary. Shabbat Shalom!
An important work of 15th century scholarship, will become available for the first time this spring. Almost 500 years after the compilation ofthe niaterial. The Jewish Theological Semiiiary of America will publish an edition of .the Babylonian Talmud, long thought to have been lost.
Seminary Chancellor GerJ5onb;C arid Prof. HaimZ. Dimitroysky, compiler arid editor of the work, re^cently presented an early copy of the new. edition ,to Israel. President Itzhak .Navon at his Jerusalern residence.
Through detective work and almost incredible feats of scholarship,; Dimitrov-sky, a rioted Talmud sthdlar who holds the Judge Abraham Lieberirian Chair; in Tal-mudicExegesisintheseriiinary faculty, has located 550 pages of the lost voluriies — arid cpritinues to identify additional leaves each week; His search takes him far afield, and brings him photographs of single paiges or fragmentsof pages of unidentified Hebrew works from all corners of the world.
The Talmud in-which Dimitfovsky is iriterested is ai.. project that started in •Guadalajara iri 1482; .WHerii the Jew^s:were ■ expellfed'ft-om Spairi 10^ years later, the-V'nters coritinued their work in Faro,; PortugaU.In 149?; when the Inquisition became effective .in that country too. the-jews weriedriveriirito exile. Under those circumstances, it is not stirprising that their proposed edition of the Babylonian Talmud disappeared. , / ; ■ For almost 500 ^eai:s; knowledge of this edition of the Talmud had been based wholly bjT^ rumor. There was an oral, tradition that such a work had been compiled .and that it differed from editions" of the Babylonian Talmud that had come down to us in many important respects. .
In the 19th century. Jewish bibliograph-. ers tried to identify old leaves and sections of texts as belonging to this tradition. But without Dimitrbvsky's painstakingly acquired knowledge of the style, the orthography, and the grammar of the lost volumes, scholars could not agree on the identification of the fragments* and the/
years later
Spanish text was once more relegated to the domain of rumor. .
There it rested for another three-quarters of a century, until Dimitrovsky chanced upon a page of Talmud in the seminary library. A Talmud page, among the thousands of uncatalogued fragments in the iseminary's manuscript collections is not an. unusual find, but upon examination, the professor realized that this particular fragment contained variant readings not found in any known Talmud text.
A careful scholar, Dimitrovsky embarked v upon a hunt which took him to other repositories of Hebrew manuscripts. He searched through the collections of materials from the Cairo Genizah housed at the . Vatican, Cambridge University, and the Bodleian at Oxford. He examined odd pages and fragments in Israel and in private collections.
While examining a 16th century book in the seminary library, he noticed, through a tear in the cover, that the binding had been stiffened with a dozen printed^ages glued together and covered with doth. Carefully removing the pages, he found-them to be leaves! from the Spanish Talmud,, and contemporary bindings became a new place—, to search.
Dimitrovsky deduced that Jewish-print- . ers, expelled from Portugal, had taken all their possessions — including the unbound pages of the new Talmud — to their havens of refuge in Italy, Turkey, North Africa, and even Holland and Palestine.
Working on this hypothesis, the professor asked colleagues all over the world to examine the bindings of Hebrew books printed in tHe early 16th century,-^arid this proved a rich sourceTor the pages he was . seeking. These, added to other fragments', enabled him to identify pages from many sources as belonging to the "lost" Spanish edition.
; Commenting on this uncharacteristic;' find. Chancellor Cohen said: "Prof. Dimitrovsky has recreated for us a dimension of theTalmudic age, just as his predecessors -Irrthis faculty have reopened other fields of past history and cultures."
Both religious and agricultural events
r By RABBI SELIG KOROLNEK
-The Festival of Shavuot commemorates both an agricultural.as well as a religious event on the Jewish calendar,
In our synagogue services on the first day in the morning, we read from the Book of Exodus which commemorates Shavuot as the zman matari Torasainu". "the season of the giving of the Torah." The' second day we read the Book of Ruth to commemorate Shavuot as the chag hakotzir. "the feast of the harvest."
A careful study of the events recorded in the Book of Ruth and the events preceding the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai confronts us with the most difficult paradox.
Immediately preceding the preparations for receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, we read, Vayislach Moshe es chosno. "and Moses sent away his father-in-law." After helping his son-in-law set up a judicial
again a
issue
By NECHEMIA MEYERS
REHQVOT —
Does Israel have the moral right to demand that Soviet Jews leaving Russia on Israeli visas come to Israel rather than go to the United States. Canada or other Western countries.
This question, intermittently debated in recent years, has once again become a hot issue with the passage of a new U.S. Refugee Act.
Since this law will make it easier for refugees, to enter the United States, give them free medical care, and allow them to obtain American citizenship more quickly, it is likely to further increase the already large proportion of. Jews, who are isup-posedly bound for Israel when they leave Russia, and yet drop out along the way and end up in New York rather than Tel Aviv.
Moreover ,.in view of the fact that this law confers .refugee status even on stateless persons who have found a new home but are not "firmly settled."Tfniay also encourage some Russian Jews already in Israel to pack their bags once again and leave for the United States.
Alarmed by these possibilities,. Jewish Agency executive chairman Arye Dulzin and other Israeli leaders recently declared that the U.S. Refugee Act should not apply to Jews leaving the Soviet Union on Israeli visas because they are not, in fact, homeless refugees; they have a home and citizenship waiting for them in Israel.
If Jews liyirig in the Soviet Union want to go to the United States. Dulzin added, then they should apply for an American visa directly rather than ' "immorally" exploiting for that purpose the Israeli visa they had obtained thanks to enormous efforts by the Zionist movement and the Israeli govern-ment.
While most Israelisshare the concern felt by Dulzin, not all think he was wise to speak out as he did. Doubts were expressed, for example, by the influential Tel Aviv daily Ha'aretz, which said there was no possibility of Russian Jews being excluded from the benefits of the Refugee Act. and by even raising the question animpression might be created; that-Israel was trying to force Russian Jews to come here against their will.
Instead; the paper suggested, -efforts should be made to improve the quality of Israeli life so that most Jews leaving Russia — and not just 30.%. as at present — will . want to live here.
This is easier said than done, because a poor country like Israel simply can't offer the same material benefits as the U.S., much less what Russian Jews — many of whom still think American streets are paved with gold — think it can offer. '
Those Soviet Jews who do come to Israel usually!"make it," at least in Israeli terms. A recent survey of 400 immigrant families from the eastern part of the USSR carried out by Prof. Gur Ofer of the Hebrew University and Dr. Aron Vinokur of Haifa University showed that approximately . two-thirds of them felt their standard of living was better or much better than it had : been in Russia, while only one-eighth said they were worse off.
In addition, these familie3~rhave outstripped veteran residents in_a material sense; Their incomes are 9% higher than : thoseofold-timers; and only 6.1% of them live in apartments of three rooms Or less, as compared to 28.9,% of other Israelis.
Such .figures are not| likely to influence Russian Jewish emigrants/says Dr. Vladimir (Ze'ev) Zaretskli, a former resident o'fMoscow who came here in 1971 and now heads the Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Weizmann Institute of Science. This isbecause, in his opinion,.most of them just don't want to live in Israel.
Zaretskii declares that a majorityof the emigrants would have assimilated in the Soviet Union "had this been possible.'' But it wasn't in a country where the word "Jew" is stamped on identity cards. "Now," he adds, "they hope to achieve asssimilation in the United S^tes;"
In such circumstances Zaretskii sees no justification for the assistance offered to them by HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) and other Jewish bodies.
system for the Jewish people, Jethfo: is sent away and is deprived of witnessing the most glorious moment in mankind's hiistory —^ the giving of the Torah at Sinai, jethro in essence, is rejected from from the JewisTf ■ fold.
In studying the story of Riith, on the other hand, we see that this simple Moabite woman is welcomed into the fold of Judaism and, indeed, is granted the honor of being the great-grandmother of King David.
The question must be asked why was Jethro rejected while Ruth was accepted, especially when both expressed similar .proclamation of faith in the Almighty.
Jethro said: "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all Gods." while Ruth proclaimed, "your people shall be my people and your G-d shall be my G-d.".
Furthermore, Jethro was a prominent leader of his people and was also the father-in-law of Moses.
While there is little, if any prominence in Ruth's background, common sense would dictate that Jethro should have been welcomed with open arms, while Ruth, if anything, should have been returned to her people. Yet, just the opposite was the case!
Why? Our sages in the Midrash help us to understand this perplexing problem through the following:
The Almighty said:"My children were enslaved with cement and bricks in Egypt while Jethro quietly sat in his home. Npwhe came to witness with my children the rejoicing of the Torah. Therefore Moses sent his father-in-law away."
While the Jews were enslaved in Egypt Jethro showed no interest in helping and joining the Jews. He found it expedient to sit in the peace and security of his home. At . notime is it recorded that Jethro, a man of influence, lifted one fingier to help the plight of the Israelites. This was not the time, he felt, to become involved. Later, when G-d had redeemed the Jewish people from bondage and freedom was at hand, Jethro suddenly appeared on the scene. And only when the Jews were at the foot of Sinai did he express a commitment to the Jewish people. .
In other Words, Jethro appeared in good times, but was absent in bad , times. Therefore, it is easy to understand why Moses sent hirii away. If he was not willing to be with Israel in their times of need, he was not worthy to participate in their time of joy. • . ■ .
Such was not the case in relation to Ruth. She expressed her deep feelings for the Jews when the situation did not appear ' bright .Quite the contrary, there was famine in the land and her Jewish husband had passed away. All was not well. And yet. precisely at this time, did Ruth declare her love for the G-d and people of Israel, and her desire to become a part of that holy nation. Ruth expressed her friendship at a time of crisis while Jethro waited until all was well. ■ '
It is. therefore, quite understandable why Ruth was rewarded for her devotion while' Jethro was sent back to his own people. ■ Although they lived thousarids of years ago, their difference, in; aj^roach to our people has found isiriniilar expression Iri our time; While six million of oUr brethren were being slaughtered in Hitler's gas chambers, our Christian neighbors, like Jethro, "sat in the peace and security of their homes," not wanting to get involved. It was only, years after, when Israel became a mighty couritry
in the Middle East and when North American Jewry was achievirig political arid economic power far beyond their numbers, did we suddenly hear the cry of ecumenical-ism and the brotherhood of man.
Unlike Ruth, our neighbors sought to -draw closer to us only when things were going well, not in time of crisis. Thisfeeling of ecumenicalism was further questio.ned when the people of Israel faced a crisis in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War 1973. Once again the spirit of Jethro prevailed amongst •pur neighbors. ; ^ .
The spirit of Jethro seems to prevail in many aspects of our human life. How often are we friendly with people when all is well, but when things turn bad and our friends need help we, like Jethro, sit on the sideliries waiti-ng for the storm to blow over. We wait for the good times to show or friendship, but in times of need, unlike Jethro. we are nowhere to be found.
Indeed, oftentimes we even turn our backs on our own families in their time of need.Theclassicexampleof this is foundjn ■the story of Job. We are told that after Job was afflicted with sorrow. Eliphaz the' Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, came to comfort him. But where was Job's own mishpocha? They were nowhere to be found! It was only after the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before, "then came there unto hirn all his brethren, and all his sisters and all they that had been his acquaintances before . . . and
they bemoaned him and comforted him." (Job 42:10—11.)
To me as a rabbi, the saddest example of the Jethro philosophy that I note is the attitude that many of bur own people take towards their Jewish heritage^'~When we should bie like Ruth, unforturiately we act like Jethro: Many of us are visible in th'e synagogue only at times of joy, bar mitzvahs, weddings, breakfasts, etc., but in time of trouble when the synagogue needs pur support We are no longer present.
We will attend banquets, but won't help make a.minyan. We will spend our money freely for a good time, but when confronted by.aneedy Jew at our doprsteps, we hide in the "peace arid security of pur homes." Thisis the Jethro philosophy in every sense of the word.
On the . second day of Shavuot at the niorning services before reciting Yizkor, Jet us recall the faith that many of our parents had in their heritage. Many of them lived in atime when it was truly shvertzu zein a Yid. But they had. faith and determination of a Ruth. When their futiire seemed bleak and their plight seemed tragic, they drew closer and closer to their religion' Let us remember that our parents and grandparents, like Ruth, believed in their religion, notonly in timeof joy, but even in the time of need.
It is this noble heritage of Ruth that our parents continued and which riow waits for us to emulate.
l.nU'rs in ilfc Editor
Many otfiers shared work
1 feel compelled to comment on your correspondent's story frorri Hamilton about my three decades iri the community-and the Good Servant Medal that will be presented to Emile Dubois and myself by the Canadian Counciibf Christians and Jews.
1 am astonished that the writer attributes accomplishments to me for which I do not deserve credit.
Naturally. I. am pleased that it was possible for me to help in creating better community relations in Hamilton. But at no time did 1 suggest that the improved climate over the years is "largely due to my efforts" or that I did "the lion's share of the work." Many members of the community ha^ve helped to make our city a better place. Many have shared in the-difficult ongoing struggle for greater understanding.
The remarks attributed to me in connection with hiy part in a church service were actually the words of Rev. Lorne McKay in a newspaper story.
I am sure that the article from Hamilton was well intentioned, but, communication at best is difficult and complex, facts are facts, and the truth should not be distorted. : '
Few rabbis suffer from an overdose of humility, but I am anxious that none of my friends and readers think me arrpgant!
.. Bernard Baskin, Hamilton.
The caption on a photo of hitchhikers in Israel, carried in your. March 27 issue, referred to hitchhiking, as a popular pastime. ■
I think it is worth pointing out, that hitchhiking is well accepted in Israel for men and women in uniform traveling between home and the places they are stationed. For all other categories of hitchhiker. Israel is like any other country: if you hitch, yoii take your chances.
Marcia Kretzmer Jerusalem.
*. * *
Iri the article by Abraham Arnold on "\yhere should our archival ma:,terials go?" (April 24) you failed- to mention the existence of the archives and Jewish Canadiana collection at the Jewish Public Library in Montreal.
These two collections, which include archival and printed sources, were established in 1953 and include materials and data dealingWith history, sociology, economics, legal status, military records. pubHc life, biographies, institutionaf life, Zioiiist activities^ creative and cultural endeavors of Canadian Jews; extensive 'holdings of Canadian Jewjsh periodicals, newspapers, magazines all part of the collection. The material is classified iand arranged for ready access.
Many proriiinent institutions and iridiyid-uals have entrusted their records and : papers to the library for safekeeping.
The: library welcomes inquiries; from persons interested in the archives. and Jewish Cariadian collections.
PaoITrepman, GoIdaCokier, Ronald Finegold, Montreal.
New U,S, secretary of state consistent in voting in favor of aid for Israel
ByWOLFBUTZER
WASfflNGTON [JCNS] —
Senator Edmund Muskie, of Maine, who ran unsuccessfully as the late Hubert Humphrey's vice-presidential running mate in the 1968 U.S. presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, is the neW U.S. secretary of state.
Those who keep a record of such matters say that he has always voted in favor of foreign aid legislation for Israel. "He's never been against Israel on anything," a pro-Israel source in Congress reports.
Thesourcenoted, however, that in recent years, after Senator Muskie returned as a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, he rarely adopted a leadership stance on Israel or on Middle Eastern-related issues. Senator Muskie was apparently selected by President Carter because the senator is well-liked by his colleagues who must confirm his nomination.
^Pro-Israel sources in Congress and the American Jewish community — as well as ■-Israeli diplomats in Washington are pleased by the Muskie nomination. -
Several sources suggested that he might serve as a counterforce to the professional Arabists in the State Department, who have lately become increasingly more assertive/: in their criticism of Israel.
But other diplomatic sources insisted that nodramaticchangein U.S. policy should be expecfed-because President Carter, more lhan anyone^elsein the Administration, still largely determines the shape of policy.
The naming of Senator Muskie came as a total surprise. He had not been included on \any of the/Iists of speculative candidates. UiTder-Secretary of State Warren. Christopher, who was named as acting secretary following the Vance resignation, will remain on the job.
Senator Muskie sought the Democratic presidential nomination in the 1972 primaries but dropped out of the race after the New Hampshire contest,, following an unpleasant and embarrassing exchange'
Senator Edmund Muskie —
-with William Loeb, the powerful editor of The Manchester Union who had raised questions about Mrs. Muskie.
Addressing a crowd outside the newspaper's headquarters. Senator Muskie became emotional and cried. It marked the; end of his presidential aspirations.,
Of Polish ancestry. Senator Muskie has been among the most active leaders in the Senate on behalf of free~~emigration for Soviet Jews. For sev(eral: years, he has introduced legislation tailing for financial aid for Israel to resettle Soviet Jews; r-:
Senate colleagues describe him as a private individual — "a loner," in the words of one member' of the foreign relations panel. He has served in the.Senate since 1959.
• In recent yearsi^ he has been chairman of the powerful budget committee where he has supported foreign aid allocations for Israel.
Vance's surprise resignation and Senator Muskie's appointment are not expected
to have any immediate impact in U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, senior Caner administration officials have stated.
They insist that President Carter's personal representative to the Palestinian autonomy negotiations. Ambassador Sol' Linowitz, will continue in his non-stop efforts to try to conclude these talks before , the May target date. But they are not under any illusions about the chances for success, given the weakened U.S. stature following the aborted rescue mission in Iran and the Vance resignation.
Vance was generally respected in Wash-' ington, but in recentmonths he has had an increasing public feud with Brzezinski. Vance had accepted personal responsibility for the ill-fated anti-Israel vote at the UN, which was later partially repudiated by President Carter, Vance, however,: was known to have beUeved that U.S. support, for the resolution had been largely justified, given U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements.
Before returning to Israel from- his talks with President Carter, Israel's defence minister, Ezer Weizman, was asked whether he thought that the resignation of Vance,would affect the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks. Weizman told reporters that the process was: not dependent upon one person. Later Mr. Weizman refused to - answerthe question of an.Israeli journalist about the wisdom of top officials resigning in protest over various governmental decisions an obvious reference to Weizman's own threatened resignations in the past., - . •
The Arab rejectionist states have castigated Senator Muskie's appointment. Radio stations and newspapers recalled derisively his statement soon after the Six Day Warwhen, as one ofthe first prominent ' American politicians to visit Israel, he said : on tour of Golan: "If I were an Israeli I would never, give up a single inch of this area.".
Early Egyptian response to the news was restricted to factual reporting of President Carter's surprise choice.