}
4
CANADIAN JEWISH REVIEW
AN IMPARTIAL MEDIUM FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF JEWISH
NEWS AND VIEWS
Published Weekly by the Canadian Jewish Review
OFFICE, SUITE 109 319 BAY STREET, TORONTO Telephone Adelaide 7628-9
Entered as Second-Class Mail at the Post Office in Toronto, Ont., in December, 1921
Subscription Price, $3.00 per Year. United States, $3.50
To insure publication, all correspondence and news matter must reach this Office
by Tuesday evening of each week.
G. W Cohen, Managing Editor. Rabbi B. R. Brkkner, Contributing Editor
Canadian Jewish Review invites correspondence on subjects of interest to the Jewish people, but disclaims responsibility for indorsement of the views expressed by the writers. All correspondence must be signed with the full name of the writer.
NOVEMBER 2 1923
VOLUME V. NUMBER 1
KOSHER AND TREPHA
�The local Yiddish paper has for several days been carrying two advertisements, one directly above the other, which deliberately contradict one another. The one informs the Jewish public that two orthodox rabbis of long residence in the city declare that the kashruth of the meat products of a certain factory, which shall remain nameless in this editorial, is not to be relied upon. The other advertisement, appealing to the same orthodox Jewish public, states that another Orthodox rabbi of recent residence in the city, declares that the supervision of kashruth of the said factory is under his jurisdiction and that he guarantees that its products are absolutely kosher. Not so long ago a group of Orthodox rabbis in this city declared the shechitah of certain schochetim to be invalid whilst the other Orthodox rabbi who delights, it would appear, to be contrary declared the shechita of these schochtim as valid.
Similar situations are constantly arising in almost every good-sized Jewish community where there are several Orthodox rabbis. In this constant bickering over kosher and trepha is to be found much of the tragedy of Orthodoxy, particularly in America.
It must be apparent even to the most unsophisticated layman that the same products can not be both kosher and trepha at the same time. They are either one or the other. In any event one or the other of the rabbinical1 parties is remiss. If it were a matter involving judgment on some abstract, abstruse question we could appreciate there being room for difference of opinion. The matters involving kosher and trepha are purely ritual in character and adequately covered in the authoritative and recognized codes of Jewish law. Why then this constant irritation?
As one probes under the surface, it becomes apparent that the real difference is not a matter so much of ritual law as it is a matter of competition between orthodox rabbis. This competition is ofttimes generated by economic motives, and at other times by a desire on the part of one rabbi to pose as the chief rabbi and thereby control the whole situation. If he is fortunate enough to put himself over as chief rabbi as it were, he succeeds in securing for himself a position of power which places all the other rabbis at his mercy, and gives control over a large source of income.
It ought to be established once and for all that in a country like Canada or the United States, where each congregation is autonomous, no one rabbi has the right to assume the role of chief rabbi unless r. the congregations voluntarily federate as they did in England and
were the chief rabbi In aj>y event the �ruatk� of one fat>b�/ declaring askosher what th* other rmbbi has declared to be trepfe* or vice versa makes a farce,0? religion and should fye stopped. Wc' suggest that this could be fcvoirfcd U the Orthotic* rabbis Were all placed on a sufficient economic basis so that at least this motive^ ? which is a source of great irritation, be eliminated. Then the situation could be controlled through all the orthodox rabbta ing as a unit under a committee of laymen, representative, Orthodox congregations in the community.
The matter is sufficiently serious to warrant the careful attef*tt<$�|* of the Orthodox laity in every community. This situation of ' "" "~ proceeding to annul one another's authority in ritual matters religion a laughing stock in the eyes, of our people, particularrjtv young growing generation. It disgusts them with Orthodoxy ;j drives them from the synagogue. It leads them to believe that; emphasis in Judaism is being placed on the wrong eiement, naipe^f ritual, instead of on the ethical and spiritual principles under' the ritual practice. It is a pity that the older" generation who themselves as Orthodox fail to realize the tragic consequences w follow from this haggling about kosher and trefa by our rabb%~s It should and must be corrected. V ' ;V,
GENUINE MUNIFICENCE
In the category of the higher virtues, as they are commonly >i known, charity ranks next to justice. Charity like its sister mercy^ blesses those who give and those who receive. It is, therefore, twice blessed. By the Jews, however, charity is classed in the same Cater gory with justice since its very name "zedakah" is derived from the^ Hebrew word "zedek" (justice). Our sages in commenting on the ^ � prophetic words, "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue/* paraphraseit*5~ to read, "Charity, charity shalt thou pursue." \$
These thoughts come to mind when we learned of the munificent % contribution which Sir Mortimer Davis of Montreal made to the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of that city which has jus� Y completed a drive for $200,000 to "Save the Federation." The annual subscription of Sir Mortimer is $20,000. In addition he has-;^ underwritten the total expenses of conducting the campaign whichc will amount to some $7,000. In an appeal which Sir Mortimer madfevf. to his fellow-Jews he said as follows: "To my mind, the man whogivea^: of his time and his money, is more to be appreciated than the man who/ gives only of his money; time spent is gone forever, but money given by those who have plenty, is never missed. The man of small meanfii-who foregoes a pleasure, deprives himself or his family to- give to^f charity, is the most deserving of credit, and is the real philanthropist/* -V
Sir Mortimer Davis has shown by his generosity that he is a reaL.^. Jew. His contribution speaks louder than a hundred sermons on Jewish charity. But Sir Mortimer is not the sort of a Jew who is^-'r clannish and narrow. Though he feels that the care of the Jewish V poor is a matter of the Jews' special responsibility, he has demon-. : strated that broad humanitarianism which is the motiye-of all chanty.,/ by also contributing $5,000 to the Protestant Federation of Con> munity Service in Montreal. Charity to him has no barriers of race or religion. .; _
Sir Mortimer Davis is undoubtedly the most charitable marj'Hj, Canada today. We know of no single citizen of this Dominion
annual contribution to a local Federation of Philanthropies or.tp a**�/; local institution equals his. We are not referring to a grant. . Th&fc.j are innumerable instances where people have contributed a sum of'ji equal or even greater size to some charitable cause or educational^ institution in which they are interested, but what we here have refet* V_y ence to is an annual subscription. Sir Mortimer Davis in the face'-'! of business depression from which he undoubtedly, likeotiiers,suffered, increased his subscription from $15,000 to $20,000 per year. WeY; know of only two other Jews, Mr. Felix Warburg of New York, apd*; Julius Rosenwald of Chicago, whose annual contribution tothcktfJal Federation of Charities is larger than Sir Mortimer's, But ^ife they are wealthier men and the cities they live in are larger and charitable needs are greater. "^'^i
It will be said that Sir Mortimer is one of Canada's wealthkct^S citizens and therefore much is expected of him. To be sure I But . what others of moderate wealth should aaklthemselvesl is this: Are they giving in proportion to their, capital and income, and, what is even of greater import, are they giving in relation to the actual need* of the Jewish poor?
Most Federations are unfortunately in the '^.kju of to operate witiiao. t