1

The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah
By Eliezer Brodt
The following is a
chapter from my sefer Ben Kesseh
Le’assur
[still available for purchase, for more information contact me at
eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.]
מעלת התפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה
אליעזר יהודה בראדט
א.
ר’ יונה מגירונדי בספרו ‘שערי תשובה’ מדריך את האדם כיצד
יתנהג בעשרת ימי תשובה:
וראוי לכל ירא אלוקים למעט בעסקיו, ולהיות
רעיוניו נְחִתִּים, ולקבוע ביום ובלילה עתים להתבודד בחדריו ולחפש דרכיו ולחקור,
לקדם אשמורות, ולהתעסק בדרכי התשובה וכשרון המעשה, ולשפוך שיח ולשאת תפילה ורינה
ולהפיל תחינה, שהעת עת רצון והתפילה נשמעת בה, כענין שנאמר: ‘בעת רצון
עניתיך, וביום ישועה עזרתיך’; ואמרו רבותינו ז”ל (ראש השנה יח ע”א):
‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו‘, אלו עשרת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים[1].
מבואר
בדבריו, שעשרת ימי תשובה הינם ימים המסוגלים לקבלת התפילה. גם בן דורו, ר’ משה
מקוצי, כותב כיוצא בזה: “אף על פי שהתשובה והצעקה יפה לעולם, בעשרה
ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים היא יפה ביותר, ומיד היא
מקובלת
שנאמר: ‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו’; במה דברים אמורים? ביחיד, אבל בציבור
– כל זמן שצועקין ועושין תשובה בלבב שלם מיד הם נענים”[2].
וכך גם כותב ר’ בחיי ב”ר אשר ן’ חלאווה 
בספרו כד הקמח: “שכן בעשרה ימים אלה שהן ימי הדין והמשפט הנוראים,
הנקראים בכל ישראל ‘עשרת  ימי תשובה’, ומיוחדים
לעולם לתפילה
ולבקש שערי תשובה”[3].
באותה תקופה נתחדד הרעיון בדברי ר’ מנחם המאירי
, בעל בית הבחירה: “אף על פי שהתפילה חביבה אף ביחיד, תפילת הציבור חביבה
ביותר… ומכל, בזמן, רצוני לומר עשרת ימי תשובה, מתוך שהתורה נתנה הערה
לכל, הרי אף תפילת היחיד חביבה חיבוב יתר“[4].
כלומר, מחמת שבעשרת ימי תשובה האדם קרוב ביותר לאלוקיו, איננו נצרך להתפלל בציבור
כדי שתתקבל תפילתו כמו בשאר ימות השנה, והיינו משום שבעשרת ימים אלה הקב”ה
מצוי לכל יחיד ויחיד[5],
בימים אלו יש השראת שכינה מיוחדת, “בהללו עשרה ימי תשובה הקב”ה
שרוי ביניכם
“[6],
לפיכך אפילו תפילת היחיד מתקבלת, שהרי תפילה במקום או בזמן השראת השכינה – מתקבלת[7].
כך כתב גם ר’ אהרן הכהן מלוניל (נפטר בשנת ה’צ), בעל ‘ארחות חיים’: “שלשה
תפילות נשמעות: תפלה בדמעות… תפילת יחיד בין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים”[8].
התפיסה שבימים אלו
מתקבלת ברצון גם תפילת יחיד– שנזכרת גם בדברי כמה מהאחרונים[9]
– לא נשארה בעולם הרעיוני בלבד. ר’ חיים עוזר גרודזנסקי פוסק, שבמקרה הצורך יש
להקל בחובת התפילה בציבור בעשרת ימי תשובה, משום שתפילת יחיד בימים אלו שווה
לתפילה בציבור[10]
ועוד, גם כשמתפלל ביחידות אינו צריך להכליל תפילתוו עם הציבור, לאומרה בלשון
רבים
כדי שתתקבל תפילתו, כפי שיש לנהוג כל ימות השנה[11],
אלא יאמרה בלשון יחיד![12]
ולא עוד אלא שיכול לאומרה בארמית, שלא כמו בשאר ימות השנה[13].
ב. סגולת עשרת ימי תשובה
בקבלת התפילות אינה רק בנוגע לתפילות שנושא בימים אלה, אלא גם כל תפילותיו הבלתי
ראויות
ששפך בכל ימות השנה מתקבלים ומתרצים לפני בוראו באמצעות תפילה
ראויה
שישא בימים נשגבים אלה. כך כותב ר’ דוד ב”ר אברהם הנגיד, דור שלישי
לרמב”ם: “…אם היה נעור ומדבר דברים בטלים, בשמחה והוללות, ובסוף הלילה
הולך לישון עד שליש היום ויקום להתפלל – אותה תפילה תשאר תלויה ועומדת; לא
תוכל לעלות לפני ה’ עד שיגיע יום הכיפורים ויתפלל בכוונה ובתשובה שלמה, אז יעלו
תפילותיו, זו עם זו
“[14].
אכן במקורם נאמרו דבריו על יום הכפורים בלבד[15],
אך ברור שסגולת יום הכפורים להכשרת התפילות של ימות השנה היא משום שיום זה הינו
שיאו של עשרת ימי התשובה בהן התפילה רצויה ביותר מחמת קרבת
הקב”ה (‘קראוהו בהיותו קרוב‘). ולמרות שבמקורות קדומים לא נמצא במפורש
שהתפילות בעשרת ימי תשובה (ולא רק תפילות יום הכפורים בלבד!) מכשירות
את התפילות של ימות השנה, זכר לדבר יש. ר’ רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי (תמז-תקג), מגדולי
מקובלי איטליה ששהה בצפת ובירושלים מספר שנים, כותב בשנת תפב בספרו משנת
חסידים: “ובעשרת ימי תשובה… המתענה בהם ועושה תשובה גמורה, מוחלין לו
בכל יום מימי השבוע שבעשרת ימי תשובה מה שחטא ביום ההוא לעולם
“[16].
אם כל יום מעשרת ימי תשובה מכפר אפילו חטאים חמורים שחטא בימי השנה, אם כן
ודאי שאדם הרגיל להתפלל שלא בכוונה, תפילות ימים אלה יתקנו את תפילותיו שלא בכוונה.
מה עוד, שהדברים מתקבלים על הלב אם נצרף לכך את סגולת קבלת התפילה הקיימת בעשרת
ימי תשובה.
כמו חיבורים אחרים, גם משנת חסידים הינו סיכום
מתורתו של האר”י כפי שקיבלו המחבר מתלמידי גורי האר”י, ואכן עיקרו של הרעיון
מצוי בכתבי ר’ חיים ויטאל, אשר רשם את כל תורת רבו:
אמר לי הרב משה גאלאנטי, ששמע
ממורי ז”ל
: שאם האדם יתענה בשבעת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים ויעשה
בהם תשובה גמורה, כל יום מהם מכפר על כל העונות שחטא כל ימיו ביום שכיוצא בו
ואם התענה ועשה תשובה בכל שבעת הימים ההם, יתכפרו לו כל עונותיו שעשה כל ימיו[17].
בחיבורים מאוחרים יותר נאמר מפורש
שהתפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה את כל התפילות של ימות השנה. כך כותב ר’ יעקב
ב”ר יוסף, בעל זרע ישראל: “…מבואר גם כן בכמה ספרי מוסר מגודל מעלת
התפילה, באם שמתפלל בכוונה באותם הימים מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים, דאף מי
שלא היה מכוון בתפילתו בשארי ימות השנה, באם שהיה מכוון בתפילתו באותם הימים – בזה
הוא מתקן התפילות של כל השנה
“[18].
ג. הסיבה שתפילה בכוונה
הנאמרת בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה ומעלה עמה את התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל אותו אדם
בימות השנה היא גם משום, שבימים אלו מצוי גילוי שכינה, ואנו כבר מקובלים
מרבותינו הראשונים כלל גדול שתפילה הנאמרת בזמן או במקום השראת שכינה מתקנת עמה
תפילות שאינן ראויות.
כך מוסר לנו אחד מגדולי המקובלים בדורו, ר’ יוסף
ג’יקאטיליה (ספרד ה’ח – סה) בספרו שערי אורה (נכתב בשנת ה’לד[19]),
בבואו לבאר את החילוק שבין תפילה שביחיד לתפילה בציבור:
וכשהיחיד מתפלל… [תפילה ש]אינה
הגונה, קורים [המלאכים] לאותה תפילה ‘תפילה פסולה’… והכרוז קורא: אל תכנס אותה
תפילה לפני השם יתברך… ואם תאמר, נמצאו רוב התפילות שמתפלל היחיד נפסדות ונאבדות,
כי אחת מני אלף יכול להתכוון בתפלת יחיד בענין שתהא ראויה להתקבל. דע כי אין הדבר
כן, אלא כל אותן התפילות הפסולות… כשדוחין אותן לחוץ ואינן נכנסות, השם יתברך
נתן להם מקום להכנס בו, שהשם יתברך ברא רקיע ומסר עליו ממונים ושומרים, וכל אותן
התפילות הפסולות הנדחות, מכניסין אותן באותו רקיע, ועומדות שם. ואם חזר זה
היחיד שהתפלל תפילות פסולות… ועמד והתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, ותפילתו זו
הגונה ושלימה
– אז אותה התפילה הכשרה מסתלקת והולכת ונכנסת באותו היכל החיצון
שהתפילות הפסולות שהתפלל מקודם עומדות שם, ומוציאה משם כל אותן התפילות הפסולות
שהתפלל, ועולות כולן עם אותה התפילה הכשרה
…[20].
וכל העניינים האלו שאמרנו הם
בתפילות היחידים, אבל בתפילת הציבור – אין כל ממונה וכל שוער יכול לעכב, אלא
כשהציבור מתפללים תפילתם נכנסת ומתקבלת על כל פנים
[21]…
כשהיחיד מתפלל – בודקין את תפילתו אם היא ראויה להתקבל, וכמה מערערים יש עליה; אבל
כשהציבור מתפללין – ‘לא בזה את תפילתם’, אף-על-פי שאין תפילתם כל כך הגונה, מקבלים
אותה מלמעלה
…[22].
הסיבה שתפילת ציבור מתקבלת אפילו שאינה בכוונה,
היא משום שתפילתם נאמרת במקום השראת שכינה, ש”כל בי עשרה – שכינתא
שריא”[23].
ובכך שר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה משווה את תפילת היחיד שבכוונה לתפילת הציבור שלא בכוונה,
מוכח שהגורם להתקבלות תפילת היחיד הוא הכוונה, ש’התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה
גדולה
‘, היינו יחיד האומר תפילתו ב’כוונה גדולה’ – שכינה שרויה אצלו,
וכאמור תפילה זו מתקנת את כל תפילותיו הבלתי ראויות. הוי אומר: תפילה שנאמרה
במקום השראת השכינה –
מתקנת עמה תפילות שאינן ראויות[24].
יסודו של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה שהתפילות הפסולות
מעוכבות עד שיכוון בתפילתו, אינו חידושו שלו אלא נטלו מספר הזוהר שהיה מצוי אצלו,
ובו נאמר:
ההוא
ממנא קדישא דקיימא על ההוא פתחא, כל אינון צלותין דבקעי אוירין ורקיעין למיעאל קמי
מלכא, אי צלותא דסגיאין אינון – פתח פתחא ואעיל ההוא צלותא, עד דאתעבידו כל צלותין
דעלמא עטרא ברישא דצדיק חי עלמין; ואי צלותא דיחיד – סלקא עד דמטי לפתחא דהיכלא דא
דהאי ממנא קיימא ביה, אי יאה ההיא צלותא לאעלא קמי מלכא קדישא – מיד פתח פתחא
ואעיל לה, ואי לא יאה – דחי לה לבר, ונחתא ואתשטיא בעלמא, וקיימא גו רקיעא תתאה
מאינון רקיעין דלתתא דמדברי גו עלמא. ובההוא רקיעא קיימא חד ממנא די שמיה
סהדיא”ל, וממנא על האי רקיעא ונטיל כל הני צלותין דאתדחיין, דאקרון צלותי
פסילאן, וגניז לון עד דתב ההוא בר-נש לגבי מאריה כדקא יאות, וצלי צלותא אחרא זכאה,
ההיא צלותא זכאה כד סלקא, נטיל ההוא ממנא סהדי”אל האי צלותא וסליק לה לעילא
עד דאערע בההיא צלותא זכאה וסלקין ואתערבון כחדא ועאלין קמי מלכא קדישא[25].
תפיסה זו מופיעה גם בכתבי האחרונים. ר’ יהונתן
אייבשיץ אמר באחת מדרשותיו : “חטא היוצא מפי איש ואשה כל יום, וביחוד שיחה
ובטלה בבית הכנסת, ומכל שכן בעת תפילה, הכל הוא עולה בעב וענן, ומונע לתפילה
לעלות.
אך אם אדם התפלל אחר כך בכוונה ובבכי ודמעה – מעלה כל תפילות מכמה
שנים
אשר סביב נקבצו לו, כי נשארו עומדים ברפיון מבלי עלייה, וכעת על ידי
תפילה הם עולים במעלה בית אל”[26].
מעתה, אם השראת השכינה מחמת תפילתו
בציבור מתקנת את תפילותיו שהתפלל בעבר, ודאי שתפילה בציבור מתקנת את תפילתו
של עתה. וכך אכן כותב המבי”ט: “תפילת היחיד, בהיותה בלתי הגונה
או בלתי נאמרת בכוונה – אינה מקובלת כלל. וכשאומרה ברבים, לפעמים תתקבל בזכות
תפילת הרבים,
כי אפילו לחובה היחיד נגרר אחר הרוב…”[27].
חידוש נוסף אנו למדים מתורתו של המבי”ט
המתקשר באופן ברור לתפיסת תיקון התפילות של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה; כשם שהשראת שכינה
הבאה מחמת איכות התפילה (שנאמרה בציבור) מעלה ומתקנת את תפילותיו הקודמות,
כך גם השראת השכינה הבאה בגלל סגולת המקום, היינו שקבע מקום לתפילתו[28], מתקנת את תפילתו הקודמת. וכך
כתב המבי”ט בבואו לבאר את מאמר התלמוד (ברכות ו ע”ב): “כל הקובע
מקום לתפילתו – אלהי אברהם בעזרו”:
בעומדו במקום שהתפלל בראשונה[29],
גם כי לא יתפלל עתה, הוא נענה, בהיותו עומד במקום שהתפלל בו… כן המתפלל לאל יתברך על דבר פרטי במקום מיוחד, כשחוזר לאותו המקום בכוונת התפילה שהתפללהקבה שומע תפילתו שהתפלל קודם.
וזהו ‘הקובע מקום’ – לתפילות שהתפלל כבר[30].
היינו, אדם שהתפלל תחילה תפילה שאינה ראויה
(שהרי לא נתקבלה תחילה), אם בימים הבאים יהפוך את מקום תפילתו למקום תפילה קבוע – תתקבל
תפילתו של קודם. ואם יתמה המעיין מדוע, הנה הדברים ברורים כי בכך שמקום תפילתו הפך
למקום תפילה קבוע – שורה בו השכינה, והרי כבר מקובלנו מר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה
שהשראת השכינה מתקנת ומעלה את תפילותיו![31]
ולא זו אף זו. ר’ שמואל ראבין מחדש על פי היסוד
האמור דבר נפלא. וזו לשונו:
בכל התפלות צריך לפרש ולבאר היטב הכוונה, לבל
ישאיר מקום למקטרג שיקח הדברים על כוונה אחרת, זולת הכהן גדול ביום כיפור בקודש
הקדשים לא היה נצרך לזה, אחרי ששם היה התפלה מגיע אליו יתברך זולת אמצעות המלאכים,

שאפילו מלאכי השרת לא היו יכולים להכנס לקדש הקדשים[32].
הוי
אומר, התפילות הנאמרות בקודש הקודשים מתקבלות ברצון ואפילו ללא כל כוונה,
בגלל שהוא המקום בו מצוי גילוי שכינה הגדול ביותר.
ד. רבותינו האחרונים הזכירו
הרבה –
גם אם לפעמים לא ידעו מבטן מי יצאו הדברים – את פתרונו של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה
לתיקון תפילות, ושקלו וטרו בדבריו; יש מהם שצמצם את פתרונו ויש מהם שהרחיב, ויש
שהקיש את הרעיון והסיעו גם לענין אחר. 
1. לתפילה פגומה באותיותיה
אין אפשרות תיקון. אם היה ניתן להבין משיטת ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה שכל תפילה
מקבלת את תיקונה אגב תפילה ראויה, בא ר’ ישראל איסר מפוניבז’ ומחלק בין שתי מיני
תפילות פגומות – זו מחמת חוסר כוונה וזו משום חסרון אותיות
ותיבות, שלשיטתו, לפגם מן הסוג האחרון אין אפשרות תיקון, שהרי היא ‘מחוסרת
אבר’. ואלה דבריו:
אף שכתוב בספרים, שאם אדם
זוכה להתפלל תפלה אחת בכוונה רצויה, עולין עמה כל התפלות שלא בכוונה שהתפללו עד
הנה ונדחו, ומסתברא שכך הוא אם התפלל כל תיבה בשלמות, רק בחסרון כוונה,
והיא כמתה, תוכל לקבל חיות על ידי התפילה החיה. אכן, אם התפלה חסרה אותיות,
והיא כמו מחוסר אברים, איך אפשר שימלא אבר החסר?
…[33]
2. תיקון תפילות פסולות
של אדם שנפטר. לעומת צמצום פתרון התיקון של ר’ יוסף גי’קאטיליה, היו
שנהגו להפך והרחיבו את פתרונו והסכימו שאף ניתן לתקן תפילות של אדם שנפטר
לבית עולמו
. כך כותב ר’ ידידיה טיאה ווייל (אשכנז תפב – תקסו), בעל לבושי
בדים, לאחר שהעתיק תורף הדברים שנאמרו בספר שערי אורה:
אמנם נראה, אם מת אותו יחיד
ולא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה, וכי יעלה על הדעת שח”ו יפסיד כל התפילות שהיה
מתפלל?! ואולי יש לומר, אם בנו היה מתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, אז מעלה בנו
כל תפילות של אביו
(ואפשר דזה הטעם דאבל מתפלל בציבור), כי ברא מזכה דאבא.
ויען, אם גם בנו לא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה או אם אין לו בן, אם כן הפסיד כל
התפילות, לזה אם יגולגל נשמתו לבוא בעולם ויתפלל עוד תפילות אחרות בכוונה גדולה
– מעלה כל התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל בגלגולים אחרים
[34].
3. תיקון אכילות פסולות.
אמנם למרות שר’ ישראל איסר מפונביז’ צמצם את יכולת התיקון של תפילות,
מאידך גיסא הרחיב את השיטה לענין תיקון אכילה, היינו, אכילה שלא ברך
עליה בכוונה ראויה. ואלו דבריו:
בברכת אכילה ושתיה תכוין
להשפיע בהם נפש השכלית. ודע, שאף אם לא יעלה בידך הכוונה הרצויה הזו אלא פעם
אחת בחודש
, מעלה גדולה השגת; ואף שלא תזכה לזה כי אם פעם אחת בשנה
דבר גדול הוא. כי הספרים כתבו, שתפילה אחת בכוונה גוררת אחריה את כל התפילות
שבלא כוונה להעלותם איתה
[35]. 


[1] ר’
יונה מגירונדי, שערי תשובה,
שער שני, אות יד, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ עו.
[2] ר’ משה מקוצי, ספר מצוות גדול, עשין, סי’ טז.
[3] רבינו בחיי, כד הקמח, ערך ‘ראש השנה’, בתוך: הרב ח”ד שעוועל (מהדיר), כתבי רבינו בחיי, ירושלים תשל, עמ’ שעג. כבר ר’ יצחק ב”ר יהודה אבן
גיאת, הלכות רי”ץ גיאת,
הלכות תשובה, ירושלים תשנח, עמ’ ס, כותב: “שעשרת ימי תשובה… שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים לא למיקבעינהו בתענית הוא דדריש, אלא להתפלל ולהתחנן ולהודות ולעמוד בתחנונים ולחזור בתשובה”. השווה גם לצוואתו של ר’ ישראל ליפשיץ, בעל ‘תפארת ישראל’:
“הזהרו מאד להתפלל בכוונה… ובכל התפלות שבעשרת ימי תשובה, שאז קרוב ה’ לכם,
בני… ומצוי טפי שתקבל אז תפלתכם ברחמיו יתברך“. נדפס בתוך: המעין, יא (תשלא), גל’ ד, עמ’ 44-28,
סי’ כה [=אשר יצווה, א, ירושלים
תשסד, עמ’ רסט ואילך; ר”ש דבליצקי,
בינו שנות דור ודור, בני
ברק תשסו]. ר’ דוב בער קאראסיק, פתחי
עולם ומטעמי השלחן, סי’ תרב, ס”ק ב: “ובספרד נוהגים, שגם בשבת
אומרים סליחות ותחנונים… וכיון דבעשרת ימי תשובה התפלה נשמעת יותר מבימים
אחרים
, וגם באותן הימים האדם מוכן להיות נגמר דינו ביום הכיפורים, אין לך דבר
נחוץ יותר מזה”.
[4] ר’
מנחם ב”ר שלמה המאירי,
בית הבחירה,
ראש השנה יז ע”א.
[5] ראה ראש השנה יח ע”א: “‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו’… ביחיד… אלו עשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים”.
[6] דברים
רבה, מהדורת ליברמן, סו”פ האזינו. וכך
בפסיקתא דר”כ, מהדורת מנדלבוים, נספחים, פיסקה ז; תנחומא, האזינו, ד.
[7]
הרעיון שתפילת היחיד מתקבלת ברצון כתפילת הציבור בזמן השארת השכינה ביאר
המבי”ט. לדעתו, ב”דורות הראשונים, הקודמים לאנשי כנסת הגדולה שתקנו נוסח
כל הברכות, “לא התפללו בציבור, כי באותם ימים לא היה צורך בכך, משום שהשכינה
שרתה בישראל
היתה נשמעת תפילת כל יחיד ויחיד“. וזו לשונו בספרו בית אלהים, שער היסודות, פרק לח,
ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ שעח-שעט: “דורות הראשונים, הקודמים לאנשי כנסת הגדולה
שתקנו נוסח כל הברכות, היו שומרים ענין כוונת כל ברכה וברכה בדברים ההכרחיים… לא
כנוסח זה שאנחנו מתפללים אלא כל אחד כפי צחות לשונו. כי מזמן משה רבינו עליו-השלום
עד אנשי כנסת הגדולה היתה השכינה נגלית במקום הקרבןוהיתה נשמעת תפלת
כל יחיד ויחיד
וברכתו לאל יתברך על הנאתו מזה העולם. וזהו הטעם אצלי על מה
שנראה, כי באותו הזמן לא היו מתקבצים ישראל בכל מקומות מושבותם ערב ובקר וצהרים
במקום מיוחד להתפלל בו תפלת ציבור, אלא כל אחד היה מתפלל ביחיד במקום שיזדמן לו…
שכל אחד היה מתפלל ביחיד במקום שיזדמן לו והיתה תפלתו נשמעת כשל רבים לפני
השכינה הנגלית במקום הקרבן
“.
[8] ארחות חיים, סוף הלכות ראש השנה, דף קג ע”א.
[9] ראה,
לדוגמא, ר’ יעקב ישראל קניבסקי, קהילות יעקב,
ברכות, סי’ ג: “מבואר, דיחיד בעשרת ימי תשובה כוחו יפה כציבור בכל ימות השנה לענין שתשובתו ותפילתו מתקבלת”. וראה עוד: ר’ אלעזר פלעקלס, עולת חודש
השני (עולת ציבור חלק ראשון), מונקאטש תרסז, דף ע ע”א.
[10] [הרב ש’ אריאלי], חזון טוב,
ירושלים תשנח, עמ’ קצז. ידידי הרב אברהם שפילמן הפנני למקור חשוב זה.
[11]
ראה ברכות ל רע”א: “לעולם לישתף אינש נפשיה בהדי ציבורא”. ופירש
רש”י: “לישתף נפשיה, אל יתפלל תפלה קצרה בלשון יחיד אלא בלשון רבים, שמתוך
כך תפלתו נשמעת
“.
[12] כך
מחדש ר’ משה יהודה ליב ברמאן (פולין תרכו – תשב), חק משה, שבת יב ע”ב, תל-אביב תשלג, עמ’ כא-כב. תחילה תמה על
שבנוסח התפילה לחולה שהציעו ר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה לא נכללו בה חולים אחרים, ולא כנוסח
תפילת ר’ יוסי: “המקום ירחם עליך בתוך שאר חולי ישראל“, הכוללת
אחרים ו”תפילתו נשמעת בזכות הרבים” (רש”י, שבת שם); ולכאורה נמצא, שר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה אינם מסכימים
עם הכלל “לעולם לישתף אינש נפשיה בהדי ציבורא”. לפיכך הוא מסביר, שנוסח
התפילה של ר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה נועד להאמר רק בעשרת ימי תשובה (כשיטת התוספות, שם, ד”ה רבי יהודה אומר,
עיי”ש), כי “באותם הימים גם היחיד יש לו מעלת רבים, לכן סבירא
להו [לר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה] דאין צריך לכלול את עצמו ברבים, דגם בתפילת יחיד
הקב”ה שומע באותם הימים”.
[13]
עי’ סוטה לג ע”א, שיחיד אסור להתפלל בלשון ארמית, וציבור מותר (ועי’ הרב
עובדיה יוסף, שו”ת יחוה דעת,
ח”ג, סי’ מג, לסיכום הנושא). מכך למד ר’ משה יהודה ליב ברמאן: “אם כן,
בעשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום כיפורים, דדין יחיד אז כציבור, מותר ליחיד לבקש
אז צרכיו בלשון ארמי
” (חק משה,
שבת יב ע”ב, תל-אביב תשלג, עמ’ כב. וראה להרב נסים דיין, ברכת מועדיך על ימים נוראים, בני-ברק
תשסב, עמ’ כז-כח). לשני מקורות אלו הפנני ידידי פרופ’ יעקב שמואל שפיגל.
[14] ר’
דוד הנגיד, מדרש דוד, אבות פ”ב
מ”ה, מהדורת בן ציון קרינפיס, ירושלים תשד, עמ’ לא.
[15] וכך בהתקדש יום כפור אנו אומרים בתפילה זכה
שנתחברה ע”י ר’ אברהם דאנציג, בעל ‘חיי אדם’: “ועל ידי זכות התפילות שנתפלל ביום הקודש הזה, יעלו ויבואו ויגיעו ויצטרפו עמהם כל התפילות הפסולות שהתפללנו בכל השנה בלא כוונה, ויהיו כולם נכללות בתפילת היום הזה”. מסתימת לשונו משמע שכל תפילה שתאמר ביום כפור תעלה ותטהר את התפילות הפסולות, ולא רק תפילה בכוונה כדברי ר’ דוד הנגיד (“עד שיגיע יום-הכפורים ויתפלל בכוונה ובתשובה שלימה…”). בענין ‘תפילה זכה’, התפשטותה ודפוסיה, ראה: מ’ מאיר,
“על תפילה זכה”, כנישתא,
ב, רמת-גן תשסג, עמ’ קיט-קלח.
[16] ר’
רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי, משנת חסידים,
ח”ג, מסכת ימי תשובה, אות ג, ד”צ: ירושלים תשמב, דף קמב ע”ב.
קביעת
שנת תפב כתאריך כתיבת החיבור, הוא לפי הנאמר בשער המהדורה הראשונה (משנת חסידים,
אמשטרדם תפז): “…שחברתי אני… עמנואל חי בלא”א אברהם ריקי
תנצב”ה בעיר ליוורנו
בשנת דל לימי שני חיי, הוא שנת הכונות
ליצירה”. דהיינו שנת תפב.
[17] ר’ חיים ויטאל, שער הכוונות, דרושי ראש השנה, סוף ההקדמה.
[18] ר’
יעקב ב”ר יוסף, זרע ישראל למסכת ראש השנה, ראש השנה דף לד ע”ב, אמשטרדם תצו, דף כג ע”ב.
אמנם
לדעת ר’ דוד שלמה אייבשיץ
בעל ‘ערבי נחל’, רק תפילות ראש השנה בכוחן לתקן את
התפילות הפגומות. וזו לשונו: “ואיתא, דבראש השנה יש כח לתקן כל התפלות פסולות של כל השנה, דהיינו התפלות שהיה בהם מחשבות זרות ורעות… ובראש השנה יכול להעלותן. ומסתמא עיקר הזמן לזה הוא ביום השני, דאז מדת הדין גובר” (ערבי נחל,
ב, יום ב’
דראש השנה, בני ברק חש”ד, עמ’ שצ).
[19] ראה: א’ פרבר-גינת
(מהדירה), פירוש המרכבה לר’ משה די ליאון,
מבוא, לוס אנג’לס תשנח, עמ’ 42, סוף הערה
128.
[20] אגב, ר’ זכריה סימנר,
מציע אפשרות תיקון אחרת לתפילות הפסולות המעוכבות, הנעשה באמצעות צירוף חלקי
התפילות הכשרות
: “ובאם שאחד לא כיון בכל הברכות בפעם אחת מחמת טרדות, רק
היום מכון בברכה אחת או שתים או שלש ולמחר גם כן בשאר ברכות, באופן כשמגיע ראש
השנה ויום כיפור היה בודאי מכון כל הברכות בכוונה נכונה, אז מלאך סהדיא”ל
מוסרה לסנלפו”ן להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכוון בכולה – מעכבה אצלו עד
יום כיפור
, ואם לא נתכוין כן כל השנה עד יום כיפור, אז המלאך הנזכר
למעלה משליכה אל מקום פסולי המקדשים שהוא סוף רקיע” (ספר זכירה [נדפס לראשונה בהמבורג תסט], מהדורת ש’ אבא-שאול,
ירושלים תשנט, עמ’ לד).
הדברים
האחרונים מבוססים על
דברי ר’ נפתלי הירץ בכרך, עמק המלך
(נדפס לראשונה באמשטרדם תח), כפי שאכן נאמר במפורש בספר זכירה, אלא שבעמק המלך לא נזכר שלאחר יום-הכפורים אין תקנה לתפילות הפסולות, אלא שהוא כותב: “כי אפילו שלא יתכוין היחיד בכל הברכות בבת אחת, רק אם היום יכוין בברכה אחת או שתים וכמו כן למחר בברכה אחת או שתים אחרות, ברכות מצטרפות. וכשנמצא שנתכוין בכל התפילה, אז מלאך סהדיאל מוסרה לסנדלפון להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכווין בכולן, אז סהדיאל מעכבה אצלו” (עמק המלך,
אמשטרדם תיג, דף קעב ע”ב). גם לשיטת ר”י ג’יקאטיליה
אין גבול של זמן, כמשמע מרהיטת לשונו, ולפיכך לא ידעתי מקורו של ספר זכירה,
וצ”ע.
וראה
גם חמדת ימים
[נדפס לראשונה באיזמיר תצאתצב], חלק ימים נוראים, דף סח ע”ב: “ואמרו המקובלים ז”ל, כי בשאר ימות השנה – מחסדו הגדול יתברך – אפילו שלא נתכוון האדם בכל ברכות של ‘שמונה עשרה’ בבת אחת, רק אם יום אחד יכוין בברכה אחת או שתים, וכמו כן ביום אחר בברכה אחת או שתים אחרותברכות מצטרפות,
וכשנמצא שנתכוון בכל התפלה, אז המלאך סהדיאל מוסרה לסנדלפון להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכווין בכולן, המלאך הנזכר מעכב אותה אצלה עד יום כיפור, ואם לא נתקנה עד היום ההוא, אז המלאך משליכה למקום פסולי המוקדשין…”. וככל הנראה בעל ‘חמדת ימים’ עירב את שתי השיטות האחרונות.
[21] אמנם
נראה שלדבר זה לא הסכים המבי”ט, בית אלהים, שער התפילה,
פרק יא, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ מה, שכתב: “כי תפלת היחיד בהיותה בלתי הגונה או בלתי נאמרה בכוונה – אינה מקובלת כלל. וכשאומרה ברבים – לפעמים תתקבל בזכות תפלת הרבים, כי אפילו הוא צדיק לפעמים אין תפלתו נשמעת לסיבת הרבים שאינם הגונים”. וצריך עוד עיון.
[22] ר’
יוסף ג’יקאטיליה, שערי אורה,
שער שני, ספירה תשיעית, ד”צ: ירושלים תשנד, דף ל ע”ב – לא ע”א.
יסוד
זה הועתק כמעט ללא שינויים מספר ‘שערי אורה’ בידי רבים מהאחרונים. ראה: ר’ מאיר ן’
גבאי, תולעת יעקב, ‘היכל ראשון
יוצר אור’, ירושלים תשנו, עמ’ לט; תפלה
לדוד, נדפס במאמרו של י’ יודלוב, ‘תפלה לדוד’, ישורון, ב, ירושלים תשנז, עמ’ תקכא-תקכב [והשווה: י’ יודלוב, “קובץ
תפילות מירושלים, מקושטא שנת רצ”ה או רצ”ח”, קרית ספר, סא (תשמו), עמ’ 931-929]; ר’
מנוח הענדל, הגהות חכמת מנוח,
ברכות ו ע”א; ר’ ישעיה הלוי הורוויץ, סדור שער השמים,
חמו”ד, דף עז ע”ב; ר’ יעקב עמדין, סדור שערי שמים, א, ירושלים תשנג, עמ’ נב; ר’ מאיר מוילנא, נחלת אבות, ירושלים תשמג, דף יד
ע”א [=אשר יצווה, א, ירושלים
תשסד, עמ’ קצח]; ר’ יחיאל העליר, הגדה
לליל שמורים עם ביאור אור ישרים, קעניגסבערג תריז, עמ’ כב; ר’ יוסף מסלוצק,
דרשות רבינו יוסף מסולצק, ירושלים
תשנה, עמ’ ס; ר’ משה נתנאל פוטשובסקי, אמונת
התחיה, פתח השער, ברדיטשוב תרנד, דף יג ע”ב; ר’ יצחק ווייס, בינה
לעתים
, בני ברק תשסח, על אלול, עמ’ קיג, אות א’תקס; ר’ ראובן מרגליות, מלאכי עליון, ירושלים תשה, עמ’ קמד,
הערה קפה.
ועל
פי יסוד זה כתב ר’ יהודה הלר (נפ’ תקעט) ביאור יפה למאמר (ברכות לד רע”ב) “גדולה תפילה יותר מן הקרבנות”, ואלה דבריו: “גדולה תפילה יותר מקרבנות… אמנם גם אם איננה בכוונה אינה נדחית לגמרי אבל היא מונחת בקרן זוית, ואם יתפלל אחר כך בכוונהיש בו כח להעלותה אף את התפילה אשר היתה בלא כוונה, וזו שאמר הכתוב גבי קרבנות ‘למה לי רוב זבחיכם וגו’, קטורת תועבה היא לי‘, אבל גבי תפילה לא אמר אלא אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם,
אבל אינו דוחה אותה רק מעלים עיניו עד אשר הוכשר,
ועדיין תוחלת יש בה. וזו אשר כיוונו בה חז”ל, שגדולה תפלה מהקרבנות. והוא נכון” (ר’ יהודה הלר, תרומת
הכרי, פתח
השער, אות ג, ברטיסלבה תריח).
[23] סנהדרין
לט ע”א. ובברכות ו ע”א: “ומנין לעשרה שמתפללין ששכינה עמהם? שנאמר: ‘אלהים נצב בעדת אל'”.
ראה
סוטה לג ע”א שציבור יכול
להתפלל בלשון ארמי למרות שאין מלאכי השרת נזקקין לשפה זו, “משום דבציבור הוא, שהשכינה שורה שם” (אור זרוע,
הלכות שבת, סי’ נה, ד”ה ‘והא דאמרינן’), ומשום כך “אין המתפלל צריך שיזדקקו לו מלאכי השרת להכניס תפלתו לפנים מן הפרגוד” (ע”פ רש”י, שבת
יב ע”ב). וכך בראשונים נוספים, לדוגמא, ר’ יהודה ב”ר יקר, פירוש התפילות והברכות, א, עמ’ יט [=שו”ת תמים דעים,
סי’ קפה]: “אבל ציבור, כיון דשכינה עמהן, יכולין להתפלל בלשון ארמי…”; ר’ מנחם ב”ר שלמה המאירי,
בית הבחירה,
שבת יב ע”ב: “…כתבו הגאונים, בתפלת הציבור שהוא בכל לשון מטעם זה, שהציבור שכינה עמהם“; שבלי הלקט,
סדר ראש השנה, סו”ס רפב, ועוד
הרבה.
[24] יתכן, שלפי יסודו של ר’
יוסף ג’יקאטיליה ניתן אף להבין מדוע מי שאינו יכול לכוון בכל ברכות התפילה, עליו
לכוון לכל הפחות בברכת ‘אבות’ (ראה: ברכות לד ע”ב; ר’ יוסף קארו, בית יוסף, או”ח, סי’ קא, אות א),
או בברכות ‘אבות’ ו’הודאה’ (כך לשיטת ר’ יהודה החסיד, ספר חסידים, מהדורת ר’ מרגליות, סי’ קנח; ספר רוקח, הלכות חסידות, שורש זכירת השם, ירושלים תשכ, עמ’ ט; סמ”ק, סי’ יא; רי”י קניבסקי, קהילות יעקב, ברכות, סי’ כז, אות א; קובץ שעשועי אורייתא, ג, ברוקלין (כסליו
תשסה), עמ’ עד-פד). כי כשם שתפילה שבכוונה מכשירה תפילות פסולות שהתפלל קודם לכן,
כך גם חלק מן התפילה – ברכה אחת או שתי ברכות – שנאמרה בכוונה, בכוחה להכשיר את
שאר הברכות שלא בכוונה שבתפילה הנוכחית. ולמרות שלא מצאתי מקור לרעיון זה,
הדברים מסתברים במיוחד לאחר השוואתם לדברי ר’ שלום בוזאגלו (מקדש מלך על זוהר, ח”ב, רמה ע”ב, זאלקוויא 1864): “כתב הרב, שאין
צריך האדם שיתפלל י”ח ברכות כולה בכוונה, ואז יעלו התפלות שאינם הגוונים עמה.
אלא אפילו בכל תפילה ותפילה, אם כיון באחת מכל הברכות עד שמראש השנה עד ראש השנה
צירף הקב”ה שמונה עשרה ברכות בכוונה מכל תפלותיו – אגבן עולים כל תפלות של כל
השנה שאינום הגונות”.
[25] זוהר, ח”ב, רמה ע”ב. הביאו (בתרגום ללשון הקודש) ר’ צבי הירש קוידאנובר (פפד”מ תה – תעב), קב הישר, א, פרק ח, ירושלים תשנג, עמ’ לו. עיי”ש. גם
בחמדת ימים,
חלק ימים נוראים, דף לא ע”א, העתיק דברי זוהר אלו, וגם הוסיף להם דברי תוכחה ומוסר: “ומי האיש אשר לא ישית לבו את זאת לשוב מדרכו הרעה בקרב הימים האלה [הימים הנוראים], להכונן במחשבתו, ולהעלות כל תפילות הפסולות של כל ימות השנה בתפלות היום, וישים על לבו את מה שהתפלל בלא כוונה ועדיין לא נענה באותם התפילות, ועתה הוא מתודה ומתחרט על עון זה שהקל בכבודו יתברך ויאמר: אוי לי מה שעשיתי! מדוע את דבר ה’ בזיתי?…”.
[26] ר’ יהונתן אייבשיץ, יערות דבש, ח”א, דרוש א, בני ברק תשמג, דף לב ע”ד.
[27] כלומר, אם לחובה היחיד
נגרר אחר הרוב, ודאי שהיחיד נגרר אחר הרוב לזכות – שתפילתו תתקבל. הציטוט שבפנים
הוא מספרו בית אלהים, שער התפילה,
סו”פ יא, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ מה. העתיקו דבריו החיד”א, מדבר קדמות, מערכת צ אות ו (ערך ‘ציבור’),
ירושלים תשכב, עמ’ נא; ר’ יצחק ווייס, שו”ת
שיח יצחק, סו”ס מד.
[28] לכך שמקום הנקבע לתפילה שורה בו השכינה, ראה ירושלמי, ברכות פ”ד ה”ד: “צריך אדם להתפלל במקום שהוא מיוחד לתפילה, ומה טעם? ‘בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי’…”. והמשך הפסוק הוא (שמות כ כא): “אבוא אליך וברכתיך”. היינו, שכינתו תשרה שם [ראה תרגום ירושלמי, שמות שם: “בכל אתר דתדכרון ית שמי קדישא, מימרי מתגלי עליכון ומברך יתכון”]. וכך מפורש בספר ראבי”ה,
ח”א, ברכות, סי’ צ, מהדורת א’ אופטוביצר, עמ’ 67, הכותב דבריו ע”פ ירושלמי זה:
“צריך אדם להתפלל במקום המיוחד לתפילה, דכתיב: ‘בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי’ וגו’, היה מקום מיוחד לתפילהשם השכינה שורה“.
[29] על
חשיבות מקום התפילה בדעת המבי”ט אנו למדים מדבריו הבאים: “וכמו
כן המקום שהוא מוכן להתפלל בו כבר הוכן להיות תפלת ישראל נשמעת בו, ולכן המתפלל
בו אפילו יחיד ואפילו בלי כוונה שלימה
הוא קרוב להיות תפלתו נשמעת, וכמו
שמצינו בכלב שהלך להשתטח על קברי אבות” (בית אלהים, שער התפילה, פרק ה, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ כ). אמנם פיסקא זו איננה מדברת על הקובע מקום לתפילתו,
אלא על מקום הקבוע לתפילת רבים, ככל הנראה בית הכנסת. אך יש מן הטעם להשוות
את הדברים.
[30] מבי”ט, בית אלהים,
שער התפילה, פרק ה, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ יז.
[31]
בדרך אגב יש להעיר, שמ’ בניהו בדיונו על ידיעות הקבלה של המבי”ט (ראה:
הנ”ל, יוסף בחירי, ירושלים
תשנא, עמ’ קלב), לא התייחס לדברי המבי”ט הנוכחים בהקשרם לשיטתו הקבלית של ר’
יוסף ג’יקאטיליה והאחרים. גם ידוע לנו שהמבי”ט הכיר את ספרו השני של ר”י
ג’יקאטיליה – ‘גנת אגוז’, כפי שכתב במפורש: “וכן כתב גם כן ה”ר יוסף
גיקטליי”א ז”ל בספר ‘גנת אגוז’ אשר לו…” (בית אלהים, שער היסודות, סו”פ ה,
ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ קעב). עוד בענין ידיעת הקבלה של המבי”ט, ראה דבריו שם, שער
היסודות, פרק סא, עמ’ תקמא: “ושמעתי מפי מקובל אחד…”. אמנם כנראה
כוונתו על מקובל בן דורו ממנו הוא שמע.
[32] ר’ שמואל ראבין, בגדי אהרן, מערכת ת, אות ו (ערך
‘תפילה’), בני ברק תשנז, עמ’ קלג. וראה מה שהעיר על כך ר’ יעקב חיים סופר, תורת יעקב, ירושלים תשסב, עמ’ שמב.
[33] ר’
ישראל איסר מפוניבז’, מנוחה וקדושה, שער התפילה, סי’ כא, ירושלים תשנד, עמ’ עג.
[34] ר’
ידידיה טיאה ווייל, לבושי בדים,
ירושלים תשמח, עמ’ קיט.
[35] ר’
ישראל איסר מפוניבז’, מנוחה וקדושה, שער התורה, סי’ ה, ירושלים תשנד, עמ’ קעה-קעו.



The American Yekkes

The American Yekkes[1]
By Yisrael Kashkin
As I march around town grasping my Hirsch Siddur, I sometimes am asked, “Are you a Yekke?” to which I answer, “I am an American Yekke.”[2]  This statement draws puzzled looks as if I had said that I were an Algonquin Italian. “America is a Germanic country and my family has lived here for a century,” I say, attempting to explain but provoking usually even more puzzlement. For those who want to hear more, I present my case. 
Consider the country’s language. English is technically a Western Germanic tongue. It started when Germanic tribes settled in Britain in the fifth century, displacing Common Brittonic, a native Celtic language, and Latin, which had been introduced by the Romans. The English that was formed then was called Old English. As Wikipedia describes it, “Old English developed from a set of Anglo-Frisian or North Sea Germanic dialects originally spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes traditionally known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. As the Anglo-Saxons became dominant in England, their language replaced the languages of Roman Britain…”[3] Frisia is a coastal region along the Southeastern corner of the North Sea which today sits mostly in the Netherlands. 
The Frisian languages are the closest to English. Wikipedia explains: 

The Frisian languages are a closely related group of Germanic languages, spoken by about 500,000 Frisian people, who live on the southern fringes of the North Sea in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. The Frisian dialects are the closest living languages to English, after Scots.[4]

The language of Scots mentioned here is also a Frisian tongue brought by the Germanic immigrants and not Scottish Gaelic, a Celtic language that people generally associate with Scotland.[5] 
Old English was followed by Middle English which started in the 11th century after the Norman Conquest and continued unto the late 15th century. While Modern English contains vocabulary from several languages, the second most prominent being French which arrived with the Normans, the basic vocabulary and grammar of English is Germanic. Of the 100 most commonly used English words, 97% are Germanic; of the 1000 most commonly used English words, 57% are Germanic.[6]
Look at this example. Here’s one way to say, “Hello, my name is Harold” in several languages, the first four being Germanic. 
Dutch: Hallo mijn naam is Harold. 
German: Halo mein numen ist Harold. 
Swedish: Hej, mitt namn är Harold 
English: Hello, my name is Harold. 
French: Je m’appelle Harold. 
Italian: Ciao, mi chiamo Harold. 
Latin: Salve nomen meum HOROLD. 
Russian: привет меня зовут Гарольд. 
Chinese: 你好,我的名字是哈羅德 
See what I mean? 
As mentioned, those Germanic tribes went by the names Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. While most people associate the term Anglo-Saxon with the American aristocracy and the British, the term actually finds its origins in those Germanic settlers of Britain as does the name of the language called English, which derives from the Angles specifically. The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up as follows: 

Anglo-Saxon, term used historically to describe any member of the Germanic peoples who, from the 5th century ce to the time of the Norman Conquest (1066), inhabited and ruled territories that are today part of England. According to the Venerable Bede, the Anglo-Saxons were the descendants of three different Germanic peoples—the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—who originally migrated from northern Germany to the island of Britain in the 5th century at the invitation of Vortigern, king of the Britons, to defend his kingdom against Pictish and Irish invaders.[7] 

The Venerable Bede was an 8th century English monk and historian whose book The Ecclesiastical History of the English People earned him the title “The Father of English History.” The name Bede is actually Anglo-Saxon, ie. Germanic, being built on the root bēodan or to bid or command.[8]  Thus, the father of English history has a Germanic Anglo-Saxon name. 
It is possible that a high percentage of the inhabitants of 5th century Britain were not only influenced by the Germanic invaders but were actually comprised largely of those Germanic invaders and their descendants. We see this in the spread of the Frisian-Germanic language throughout Britain. In “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” Nicholas Ostler traces the decline of Latin during the collapse of the Roman Empire against invading armies. Slavic languages took hold in Eastern Europe but Germanic-Frisian held sway in Britain. 

Perhaps something similar happened at the opposite end of the Roman dominions, for Britain too lost its Latin in the face of invasions in this period. It also lost its British. This event of language replacement, which is also the origin of the English language, was unparalleled in its age – the one and only time that Germanic conquerors were able to hold on to their own language.[9] 

Ostler cites a theory by researcher David Keys that the ravages of the bubonic plague facilitated the spread of the Frisian Germanic dialect as it wiped out a high percentage of the Britons who, unlike the Saxons, maintained trade routes with the Roman Empire, from which the plague entered the island. A Germanic language took hold because a large percentage of the populace was actually Germanic. 
Genetic studies support the theory. One study at the University College of London tracked a chromosome that is found in nearly all Danish and North German men to about half of British men.[10] It is not found in Welsh men of Western England where the Angles and Saxons did not invade. 
While anthropologists debate the percentages of the British populace that trace to the AngloSaxons, the sociological discussion is more relevant to the thesis. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons ruled the British Isles for centuries, and rulers tend to dictate cultural norms. The Wikipedia entry on the Britons sums up their demise with the pithy words: “After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons the population was either subsumed into Anglo-Saxon culture, becoming “English”; retreated; or persisted in the Celtic fringe areas of Wales, Cornwall and southern Scotland, with some emigrating to Brittany.”[11] The point here is that the nationality called English is built on Anglo-Saxon or old Germanic culture. 
And again, pithily, Wikipedia sums up the entire cultural transformation of Britain under the Germanic invasion: 

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the term traditionally used to describe the process by which the coastal lowlands of Britain developed from a Romano-British to a Germanic culture following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the island in the early 5th century. The traditional view of the process has assumed the large-scale migration of several Germanic peoples, later collectively referred to as Anglo-Saxons, from the western coasts of Europe prior to the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that came to dominate most of what is now England and lowland Scotland.[12] 

A connection between the aristocracies of Germany proper and England has endured to modern times. British Kings George I and II were born in Germany, spoke German, and belonged to the House of Hanover.13 Queen Victoria’s mother was born in Germany, and Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, also was born in Germany. Their son King Edward VII, was an uncle of Kaiser Wilhem II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia. Mary, the Queen consort of King George V, was a princess of Teck, a German aristocratic line. The present British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, inherited the throne from Edward VII’s grandson George VI. Thus, she too is part German as are the princes Charles and William, the current heirs to the throne. 
It should be no surprise that the British and other Germanic peoples have much in common. One sees it in their orderliness, rationalist mindset, industriousness, and emotional reserve. Similar too is the Anglo aristocracy that set up the USA, laid down its primary culture, and arguably continues to run the place or did so through the 1950s. The educated American reader certainly needs no overview of the British roots of the USA which started as a British colony. The connection is so strong that the term WASP or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is generally used by Americans to designate a type of American even though, as I have shown, it traces back to the Germanic English and their German ancestors. While the USA is composed today of many ethnic groups, it is governed mostly in an AngloGermanic style, ie. rule-based and organized. 
So there’s the Germanic-English connection and its role in the founding of America. What about the American people? There we have an even more recent linkage via 19th century immigration. German Americans, some forty-nine million strong, are the largest ancestral group in the country.[14] By contrast, Irish Americans number thirty-five million and Italian Americans seventeen million. The 2010 census reports the top five as follows:
1      German      49,206,934      17.1% 
2      African      45,284,752      14.6% 
3      Irish      35,523,082       11.6%
4      Mexican      31,789,483      10.9% 
5      English      26,923,091      9.0% 
Incredibly, there are nearly twice as many Americans of German ancestry as English.[15] In 1990, fiftyeight million Americans reported German ancestry, constituting 23% of the entire country.[16] Between 1850 and 1970, German was the second most widely spoken language in the United States, after English.[17]
Germans immigrated in the greatest concentrations to the Midwest where the state legislatures of several of the North-Central states promoted their immigration with funding and support.[18] The area between Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and St. Louis was known as the German triangle.[19] By 1900, more than 40% of the major cities of Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati were German American.[20] However, they landed also in large numbers in New York and Pennsylvania and went all the way to the West Coast. In 1790, a third of the residents of Pennsylvania were German immigrants.[21] The following map shows plurality ancestry, ie the largest groups of national origins, in each state in 2010: 
Plurality ancestry in each state.[22]
More states have a plurality ancestry of German than any other nationality, three times the number of the next highest group.[23] Moreover, significant German immigration started in the 1670s and continued in large numbers throughout the 19th century, whereas most of the other ancestral groups of significant numbers arrived much later into a more established culture into which they strove mostly to conform.[24] Africans, whose numbers come closest to the Germans, also arrived early but were not in a position to shape the national culture.[25] 
Now, the word German and any word that contains it such as Germanic are problematic for many Jews, particularly those who were most directly affected by the Holocaust. This is understandable. However, as we have shown, the term Germanic is not limited to Germany proper. Germanic languages are spoken in such places as Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, culturally similar countries from a global perspective, and sources of immigration to the USA, particularly the Midwest. All are considered Germanic peoples.[26] Switzerland and Belgium too are largely Germanic. While technically, English and German belong to the West German family of languages along with Dutch and Afrikaans, North Germanic languages include Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and Faroese, which is spoken in the islands off the coast of Norway.[27] The adjective Germanic describes not just the culture of Germany but that of Northern Europe including large parts of Holland, Scandinavia, England, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Iceland. The Danes who are famous for protecting Jews during World War II are Germanic, as were the Dutch business associates of Otto Frank, Anne Frank’s father, who assisted her family as they hid in the attic, as was the Swede Raoul Wallenberg, who, by the way, studied in the American Middle West, at the University of Michigan, before he risked (and likely lost) his life saving Jews during the Holocaust. 
Accordingly, England, Germany, and the United States are not culturally identical. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons merged with the Britons and Pics of the British Isles. The British colonialists cohabited the New World with French settlers, Native Americans, Africans, Dutch, Irish, and an idiosyncratic group of Germans who came to the New World in search of religious freedom. As the USA formed and evolved millions of immigrants from all over the planet joined them. Germans are more intense than the other two groups. The British have the best sense of humor. Americans are the least formal of the three. Additionally, Americans are the least class conscious, have by far the best record regarding treatment of the Jews and religious freedom in general, and lack the ethic of blind obedience to authority that once characterized the Germans and enabled the Holocaust. In fact, the phrase “question authority” originated in the USA during the sixties movement and is arguably traceable to American sensibilities in general. Nobody knows what the future holds, but as I write, America, though Germanic, is not Germany, even as it picked up many traits from German immigrants. The same applies to England. But all three societies start to look quite similar when you compare them to Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Turkey, India, China, Nigeria, or the Arab countries. 
Even though my great-grandparents, who I never met, lived their lives in shtetls in the Ukraine, I am more Western and Germanic in style than Eastern European. Many Jewish Americans of Eastern European extraction can claim the same since peak immigration occurred at the turn of the last century. In those days, immigrants were encouraged to Americanize. The situation might be somewhat different for the people who attended yeshivos in New York City and lived in enclaves there, but for those who lived “out of town”, moved to the suburbs, or attended public school, the culture could be quite distinct from that of Eastern Europe. In American public schools until very recently, literature classes consisted of British and American authors and history classes British and American leaders, the latter being of Anglo descent. 
Granted, America has many sub-cultures, some not Anglo at all. You can visit neighborhoods in Metropolitan New York City such as Spanish Harlem and Chinatown in Manhattan or Little India in Jersey City and experience the difference. However, many Jewish Americans were raised in the suburbs, and their culture was defined by the public education system which took its cues from the universities which themselves are Anglo-Saxon in style, at least they used to be. Consider the archetypal professor in a tweed jacket with elbow patches ‒ the British gentleman. So, too, are most corporations Anglo-Germanic in style with their command and control organizational structure. 
The German influence is seen from coast to coast. Some people argue that the whole notion of a public education, funded and administered by the government, comes from the Germans.[28] Elsewhere, schooling was a private matter. This may be one reason that the Midwest developed such strong public schools, as German American writer Kurt Vonnegut often noted[29], and such strong state universities. In the Northeast, private colleges are more prominent. The concept of kindergarten comes from Germany.[30] The concept of the research university, used by many of America’s most prominent institutions, comes from Germany, as does the practice of faculty following their interests and students choosing their courses – the model used in most colleges today.[31] The old British model called for a rigid curriculum. The prizing of home ownership, which is a strong American value, was common among German immigrants. In the words of La Vern J. Rippley, “There was a low rate of tenancy among early German immigrants, who purchased homes as early as possible. German Americans have traditionally placed a high value upon home ownership and prefer those made of brick.”[32] Not surprisingly, home ownership is highest in the Midwest.[33] And let us not fail to mention hamburgers with pickles and frankfurters with sauerkraut, German imports, named for German cities but as American as the flag. Few Americans have 4th of July picnics or any picnics without them. 
Even socially, America resembles Germany. I recall as a youth visiting Europe and noting the contrasting styles of the people in various societies, particularly in comparison to Americans. As I entered each new country, I felt as if I were meeting entire new breeds of people. For example, the English were more classy (more than me) and sticklers about social propriety. They had complex rules about social interactions that I had never heard before, when to call, when not to call, how long a visit should be, what topics to discuss and not to discuss. The French were more cultured and had rules about food, dining, and clothing, rules that I had never heard before. I was impressed by aspects of both groups but felt like an outsider. However, with the Germans I seemed to know the rules and to care about them as well. The smooth running of society was a central concern. Our very practical goals for education seemed similar. They were ambitious and interested in engineering, commerce, politics, and history. The gaps between their style and mine were the narrowest − even physical mannerisms and social cues seem to be the same. For example, while the British, French, and Germans all displayed senses of humor, the Germans tended to take serious topics more seriously and refrain from joking about them.[34] I felt much of the time that I was with Americans, which is not something I felt with any other group. 
Blogger Dana Blankenhorn makes a similar observation: 

Here is something you weren’t told in school.  

America is a Germanic country.  

Our food is German. Our dress is German. Our distances, both personal and urban, are German. Our sense of beauty is German, not French. Our bread and sweets are German. Our loud laughter is German. America has people of French and Spanish and Polish and English and Irish and a hundred other descents, but the Germans set the mood, and the mood remains the same.[35] 

On the darker side, some argue that the notion of compulsory peacetime military service and general militarism come from the Germanic kingdom of Prussia and lead to the World Wars.[36] As James Gerard, the US ambassador to Germany during World War I noted, “Prussia, which has imposed its will, as well as its methods of thought and life on all the rest of Germany, is undoubtedly, a military nation.”[37] Mirabeau the French orator said, “War is the national industry of Prussia” and Napoleon said that Prussia “was hatched from a cannon ball.”[38] The USA, with a larger military budget than the next fifteen nations combined and five times the budget of the second biggest spender, seems to have inherited much of this militaristic sensibility.[39] The USA, despite having oceans for natural boundaries, has military personnel in over one hundred countries, far exceeding the global military presence of any other country.[40] 
With all of this said, we can return to the term that I have set out to explain: American-Yekke. What is a Yekke? Is he or she a descendant of Yepeth, Gomer, Ashkenaz, and the Germanic tribes that migrated from Asia Minor to Central Europe, warring with and pushing out the Roman legions?[41] No, he or she is a descendant of Shem, Abraham, and Sarah who practiced Judaism in the countries built by those Germanic peoples, extracting some of their better qualities. An American-Yekke is a Jew who lives not in European Germanic countries such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, or Holland but in Germanic America. 
Just this week, I received a phone call from a long, lost elder cousin. He was born in Cuba in the 1930s after my great-uncle immigrated there from a shtetl in the Ukraine. One brother gained entrance to the United States and the other to Cuba where he stayed until the communist takeover, immigrating eventually to Miami, Florida. My cousin was raised in Cuba and absorbed some of the best features of the Latin personality. He is easygoing and super-friendly, almost musical in his speaking manner. Certainly, I observed myriad universal Jewish qualities in my cousin and traces of Eastern Europe as you’ll find in me. But you can hardly call him an Eastern European even though his father, a wonderful man, was very much an old world yid from the shtetl. In talking to my cousin after a break of four decades, I could see how much we are shaped by the societies in which we are reared even as we retain Jewish identity and practice as he has. I have made similar observations of South African Jews whose parents are from Lithuania, British Jews whose parents are from Poland, and French Jews whose parents are from North Africa. We absorb much from the societies in which we live. I once had a Shabbos meal with a Haredi family in Paris. They served traditional Eastern European type food – chicken and kugel – but in tiny portions on large plates, in the manner of French cuisine.[42] After only one generation in France the influence was visible. 
So what are the repercussions of this? They are that some American Jews will be attracted to German Orthodoxy as it developed to suit the needs and reflect the sensibilities of pious Jews in Germanic lands. Each of the different camps of Orthodoxy work from the same literature, principles and laws. They are substantively the same, differing only in the margins, in style, via the parts of the Torah that they emphasize. 
I have observed a curious phenomenon. Many Russian Jewish baalei teshuvah thrive in the Eastern European portion of the Haredi world, looking completely at home there. They embrace the isolation from and lack of identification with the general society that characterizes much of that world. After all, they don’t even want you to call them Russian. “I am a Jew from Russia, not a Russian Jew,” they’ll say. Now, how many American Jews don’t want to be called American? Even those who make aliyah often still refer to themselves as American. Same with the British, Canadians, Australians, Swiss, and other Westerners. One can see in these recent immigrants from Russia how Eastern European Jewry in the 19th century put less emphasis on concepts like ‘light unto the nations’ and ‘tikun olam.’ This can happen when an entire nation is cast into an apartheid situation like the Pale of Settlement and mistreated there. 
By contrast, many American baalei teshuvah were attracted to Torah because of those ideas. One of the pillars of education in the USA is civics. Public school education in the United States of the 1920’s centered on the teaching of citizenship and civic service.[43] Scores of American youth envision for themselves careers in the public service. This is very American. Certainly before the 1970s it was.[44] It was German too.[45] Civic duty and national loyalty ‒ those were important parts of the culture in Germany. Certain nefarious people manipulated that value for wicked purposes as we know. One sees those values addressed in a constructive way in the writings of numerous German rabbis. In the words of Rav Joseph Breuer of Frankfurt, Germany: 

“And promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to God, for with its welfare, you too, will fare well” (Yirmeyahu 29:7). Because the Prophet has given this message to our people, banished from its homeland by the Will of God, each Jew, wandering through the world and faithful to the Torah, is obliged to keep faith towards the country which gives him refuge and a home.[46]

This idea being rooted in the Prophets is not alien to any Orthodox Jewish group but is emphasized in the German Jewish community. Rabbi Leo Jung, who attended the Hildesheimer Seminary in Berlin, wrote, “Judaism is a national religion in that it is the religion which God has given to Israel. According to the Torah, He has chosen us as His peculiar people, ‘to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ But Judaism is also universal, for that very choice implies that, as a priest to his congregation, the whole nation should be an example unto the gentile world of a life lived with God – upright, just, and kind. Our rabbis tell us that Judaism is the way of salvation for the Jew, but the righteous men of other religions will also partake of eternal salvation.”[47] 
Interestingly, I know one young woman who was born in the Ukraine but raised from a very young age in the United States. She even speaks fluent Russian but having been raised and educated in a Germanic country, the USA, she is attracted to the German Jewish approach on these matters. I know another that moved to the USA as an adult and she views both her native country Russia and her new host society the USA from the perspective of an outsider, with palpable suspicion and an often amusing derision. 
Of course, there are limits within German Orthodoxy to identification with one’s host country. If German Jews are anything, it is self-disciplined and they know where to draw the line. As Mordechai Breuer noted, “S.R. Hirsch was not alone in his aversion to Prussiandom and manifestations of German flag-waving. There were observant Jews in all parts of Germany who consciously distanced themselves from such display, either because they tended toward the old piety, where their ‘Jewishness’ did not leave room for German national consciousness, or because they shared an overriding affection for the local urban or rural surroundings.”[48] The idea within German Orthodoxy is to act with gratitude and loyalty towards one’s host country and to serve as a light when possible. But it is a host country; it is not our country. The very identification of it as a host puts us on the outside. 
Also appealing to the American sensibility is the order and decorum of the German Jewish approach. The first time that I walked into K’hal Adath Jeshurun the main synagogue of the German Orthodox community in Washington Heights, New York City, I was dazzled by the tidiness and order of the place. Their bank of light switches is numbered and color coded. It was a thing of beauty. The tefillah schedule is accurate and displayed outside the front door. The siddurim are grouped by type as they sit neatly on the shelves.[49] I cannot tell you how many times I have tidied up the sefarim in shuls around the world only to find them a mess again days later. In KAJ, I felt at home. I felt like I was back in the Midwest. 
The sense of discipline and order is found as well in the German approach to minhagim. The German Jewish loyalty to every detail of minhag avoseinu is well known and has served to safeguard authentic practice. In the words of Lakewood Mashigiach Matisyahu Salomon: 

As we know, over the years it became common to poke fun at the customs of the ‘Yekkes’, until someone proceeded to show the world that it is specifically the Yekkes who continue the ancient traditions, and that their customs originated during the time of the Geonim and Rishonim.[50]

Maintenance of the many details of minhagim right down to the nusach of fine points of the Siddur and piyutim requires a special kind of commitment and attitude. The Yekke beis ha-kenneses puts this all on display with its unique atmosphere of decorum, seriousness, and refined sentiment. 
One sees a similar sort of decorum in many American institutions from government to military to education much as one does in other Germanic countries. However, this does not mean that the German Jewish approach is to imitate the German gentiles. As Rav Joseph Breuer pointed out, “Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific ‘German Jewishness.’”[51] According to Rabbi Avigdor Miller, the idea of order and punctuality as Jewish virtues traces back to the great generation of Har Sinai as depicted in the Chumash: 

But before Moshe, the Am Yisroel were so good that even Bilaam, al corchei had to praise them. Now it states, Vayisa Bilaam es einav. Bilaam lifted up his eyes. Now he wasn’t looking for good things in the Am Yisroel. You have to know that. If Bilaam could have found faults, he would have pounced on it like a fly pounces on a speck on the rotten apple. He was looking for faults. Vayar es Yisroel shochain l’shvatim. He saw Yisroel dwelling according to their shevatim. Now this I’ll say in passing although it’s not our subject. He saw that they were orderly. That they didn’t mix. Everything was done with a seder. Now that’s off the subject. Someday I’ll talk about the importance of the orderliness of the ancient Jewish people. The ancient Jewish people were punctual in time. It’s a mistake when you say Jewish time. It’s a big lashon hara. There’s a zman krias Shema and that’s the time. You got to be punctual. No fooling around with that time. And other things in Halacha. Oh no, Jewish time is the most punctual, precise time. They were baalei seder.[52]

While some people view German Jewish punctuality as a quaint idiosyncrasy, we see that it represents the preservation of ancient practice that predates the German golus by thousands of years. What is happening is that the environment of the host country allows for better enactment of important parts of halacha. This doesn’t mean that the gentile hosts are encouraging halachic excellence but it just so happens that their style works in our favor on occasion. 
The incentive apparatus for observance is another distinguishing trait of German Orthodoxy – at least the Hirschian portion of it – that works better for many Americans. One finds in some parts of the frum world an intense focus on divine wrath. It may work successfully for many people. However, it is not productive for some, particularly when administered in large doses. I know of people who literally suffered nervous breakdowns from the continuous feeling of failure and terror. Moreover, the “terror of Heaven” approach does not go well with the American sensibility of optimism, responsibility, selfrespect, and healthy ambition as primary motivations in life. 
Fittingly, we do not see a persistent terror-based approach in the writings of Rav Hirsch, not a continuous emphasis on it. One finds openly threatening talk towards people who take advantage of the innocent and the helpless (Horeb 353 for example), and certainly, Rav Hirsch often discussed divine judgment (Siddur, Pirkei Avos, 3:1; Horeb, chapter 8; Collected Writings, Vol. I, p. 216; Vol. II, p. 398, and Vol. IX, p. 123 are a few examples), warning us of the “stern justice in the hereafter weighing all in an unerring balance” (Judaism Eternal , Vol. 1, “Adar”). He even translated passages from the medieval work Sefer Chasidim, which, while presenting love of and obedience to God as the primary 9 motivations for its stringent call to piety (Sefer Chasidim 62, 63), reference palpable concern over divine reward and punishment as well. For example, “Whatever you may have done to give your neighbor even a moment’s grief will be subject to punishment by Divine judgment, for it is written (Ecclesiastes 11,9;12,14) that God will call you to account for all this, even for secret things.” (Sefer Chasidim 44 in Collected Writings, Vol. VIII, pp. 160-1). However, overall Rav Hirsch’s approach was multi-faceted, utilizing love and awe of God, self-respect, fear of Divine retribution, and yearing for Divine reward. He did not resort to fire and brimstone at every turn. In the words of the gaon R’ Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg:

Rav Hirsch reestablished the principle of the fulfillment of religious duties with a spirit of joy and love, that is, from a satisfaction of the natural yearning of the Jewish soul for authentic religious expression. Mitzvos, as understood by Rav Hirsch, are the conduit of the Divine blessing in this world, the cord which binds man’s soul to his Creator, and which binds his fundamental spiritual nature with his physical presence. Rav Hirsch constantly appealed for the living of a religious life enriched by spiritual vitality, not by fear of Divine retribution in this life and the next.[53]

According to Rav Weinberg, an excessive reliance on fear of punishment as motivation for religious observance was an unfortunate byproduct of antisemitism. In his article “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” he said the following in a discussion of medieval European Jewry, which presumably included medieval Germany, and the effects of persecution, pogroms, banning of Jews from trades, and expulsions. 

Judaism no longer drew direct sustenance from life; it no longer was synonymous with the abundant power which dwells in the Jewish soil. Rather, it began to be viewed as being nourished by fear -‒ of death and of awesome punishments in the world to come. It is true that belief in reward and punishment is a fundamental of Judaism, and indeed, no religion worthy of the name can dispense with a concept which logically follows from the idea of an omniscient and omnipresent Supreme Being, as clearly elucidated by Saadia HaGaon in his Emunot V’deiot. However, the use of this belief as a central pillar or religious feeling and the sole motivating force for the fulfillment of one’s duty served only to cast a pall over religious sensibility and weakened any spiritual vitality, as decried by the Chassidic masters.[54]

One can become so accustomed to the punishment-only approach to Judaism that he or she may be surprised to find that there can be another. In Rav Hirsch one finds another. In drawing from the Torah to motivate German Jews of the modern era, he served Americans too. 
While gentile German immigration to the Americas started early by American historical standards, it transpired deep into European history, two centuries after the close of the Middle Ages. The Napoleonic Wars, which affected meaningful Jewish emancipation in Europe, particularly Germany, were a major impetus for immigration as they caused severe disruption in the Germany economy.[55] During the same period, France under Napoleon granted Jews full rights as citizens and this included the Jews living in the Rhine Valley, which had been annexed by France.[56] Thus, the German immigrants who formed so much of American culture were not the same people who had so intensely persecuted the Jews in Medieval times. They were for the most part 19th century contemporaries of Rav Hirsch. Thus, it makes sense that the approach to religious motivation and divine reward that Rav Hirsch formulated for Jews in 19th century German society would be meaningful to Jews who are raised in an American society that was shaped to a major extent by immigrants from 19th century Germany. 
As Rav Weinberg points out, Rav Hirsch accomplished this by returning to a traditional Jewish outlook. He did not invent something new. Says Rav Weinberg, “Nor were these ideas unique to him – they were as old as the founding Sages, who called this attitude הרוממות אהבת הרוממות יראת : awe and love of the Almighty’s elevated nature, and the greatness in man which it implies.” Rav Hirsch brought us back to where we stood before persecution “cast a pall over religious sensibility.” Since the multi-faceted approach is rooted basic Talmudic thought, Rav Hirsch was not the only one to turn to it. As Rav Weinberg noted, the Chassidic masters of Eastern Europe also pursued this approach, as did others. The same applies to many of the distinguishing traits of German Orthodoxy. They are not necessarily exclusive to German Jews. As mentioned, the differing styles of the various derachim often come down to a matter of emphasis. When I sing the praises of German Orthodoxy, I do not intend to slight other groups or discount the worth of their approaches, nor do I always intend to contrast them with the vast and magnificent world of Eastern European Judaism. Even when I do contrast West and East, I am pointing out only differences in style. Each has its merits and shortcomings. 
And of course the two groups are cousins. Ashkenazi Jews in general can count a long stay in Germany as part of their golus story. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans took many Jews as slaves across the Mediterranean to Rome proper, which in our times is called Italy. Sometime after earning their freedom and building communities in Italy, they migrated to France and elsewhere in Southern Europe and then to Germany where the language of Yiddish, a German dialect was formed. After several hundred years persecutions drove them East to Poland and Russia. The vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews have German Jewish ancestry which is why they are called Ashkenazi, a term used since Medieval times for Jews living in the Rhine Valley in Germany. 
Another area of overlap between Germany and America is recognition of the value of secular studies. According to Professors Mordechai Breuer[57] and Marc Shapiro[58], openness to quality secular learning was nothing unusual in Germany. As Professor Mordechai Breuer wrote, “Among German Jewry, there had always been rabbis who had recognized the need for Jews to acquire some general culture and who saw no offense against tradition in this.” This makes sense given that there was much quality material.[59] The same applies in the United States, which, until recently, displayed in many quarters a distinct concern for morality and faith and a knack for memorializing them in literature and law. Accordingly, Torah observance need not stand in opposition to the best of “secular” knowledge. It is the next step above it. They are not always opposites. A person need not toss aside his secular education if that education was of a proper kind. This is an important idea for Americans as the USA is intensely focused on higher education. In the most recent Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 13 of the 25 top ranked universities are located in the USA[60] and in the London Times rankings 17 of the top 25 are in the USA.[61] Rav Hirsch stresses of course that “the knowledge of the Torah and the understanding we derive from it is to be our principle concern and…must be the yardstick by which we measure all the results obtained by other spheres of learning.” (R’ Hirsch on Vayikra 18:5)[62] 
Steven M. Lowenstein’s Frankfurt on the Hudson, which is a history of the German Jewish community of Washington Heights in Manhattan, discusses other Germanic qualities such as thrift.[63] Germanic peoples are known for it. Along with thrift comes savings. The book talks about immigrants who espoused the philosophy of “saving for a rainy day” even deep into their elder years when that rainy day had come.[64] Accordingly, the contemporary trend of forgoing job training for the young and living with no financial plan is quite alarming to many culturally Germanic Americans.[65]
Being practical-minded comes into play here too. As Russian immigrants encountered German immigrants at the turn of the last century, each formulated generalizations about the others. Polish born Educator Israel Friedlander summed them up as follows: 

The German Jews were deliberate, reserved, practical and sticklers for formalities, with a marked ability for organization; the Russian Jews were quick-tempered, emotional, theorizing, haters of formalities with a decided bent towards individualism (Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915)[66]

Sociological generalizations are considered not “politically correct” these days, but we all know that they often contain grains of truth. German Jews (and Germans) do tend to be concerned with the practical. Rav Hirsch uses the words “practical” and “practice” more than a dozen times in the eighteenth letter of his book Nineteen Letters. So, too, are the British and the Americans inclined towards the practical. 
The leaning towards practicality can play a role in an entire religious philosophy. In the Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch, apparently basing himself on the Kuzari, challenges a notion that developed in parts of Medieval Spanish Jewry that the goal of man was philosophic perfection for which mitzvos were a handmaiden, rather than the reverse. In Rav Hirsch’s view this approach was the result of an attempt to reconcile Judaism with Greek thought. Aristotle had said, “The highest individual perfection is speculative wisdom, the excellence of that purely intellectual part called reason.” (Comp. Aristotle, Ethics, I, 6.) Professor Harry Wolfson described this encounter with Greek thought as follows: 

Like Philo, the philosophers of the Middle Ages aimed at reconciling Jewish religion with Greek philosophy, by recasting the substance of the former in the form of the latter. The principles upon which they worked were (i) that the practical religious organization of Jewish life must be preserved, but (ii) that they must be justified and defended in accordance with the principles of Greek philosophy. Thus Hellenic theory was to bolster Hebraic dogma, and Greek speculation became the basis for Jewish conduct. The carrying out of this programme, therefore, unlike that of Pauline Christianity, involved neither change in the practice of the religion, nor abrogation of the Law. There was simply a shifting of emphasis from the practical to the speculative element of religion. Philo and the mediaeval philosophers continued to worship God in the Jewish fashion, but their conception of God became de-Judaized. They continued to commend the observation of the Law, but this observation lost caste and became less worthy than the “theoretic life.” Practice and theory fell apart logically; instead there arose an artificial parallelism of theoretic with practical obligations.[67]

This outlook was influential on kelal Yisrael, in Rav Hirsch’s view negatively so as it lead to a devaluation of mitzvos. It seems to me that parts of Jewry in general more enthusiastically embraced “the speculative element of religion.” By contrast, as Israel Friedlander described it, the Germans were “practical.” The term in this sense conveys the meaning of something that one puts into practice. Not surprisingly, Rav Hirsch repeatedly stressed the importance of putting study into practice. He wrote, “You must study for practical life — that is the fundamental principle of the law. With attentive mind and with receptive heart you must study in order to practice. You must aim at learning from the law a way of life, which is its true teaching; only then can you learn it properly, only then will it disclose to you its inmost meaning.” (Horeb 75, 493) And he wrote, “Knowledge of the Law alone is not enough to gain Paradise in world to come; if that Paradise is to be won and the earth is also to be transformed into a Paradise, this Law must be not only known but also observed. And there remains a very wide gap between the knowledge of the Law in theory and its observance in practice.”[68] And once again, let us remark that German Jewry is not unique in this value, ie., it is not the only group that emphasizes the putting of learning into practice.[69] However, it is one of the most fervent. 
As Rav Shimon Schwab tells us, Rav Hirsch did not create his derech out of thin air. He got it mostly from his rebbes (who were German Jews) who got it from their rebbes: “But Rav Hirsch also had behind him a solid mesorah from gadolim who showed him the way. From the time of Chazal through the period of the Geonim; the Rambam, the Chachmei Sepharad through the Talmidei Hagra all the way down to his own Rebbe the Oruch L’ner and his disciples. Rav Hirsch had his mesorah.” (Selected Speeches, p. 243).[70]
Aside from the Germanic trait of pragmatism, Friedlander mentioned also emotional reserve, deliberation in action, and formality. Lowenstein elaborates: 

Among the many formal values that were highly praised were dignity, discipline, punctuality, structure, and order. Spontaneity was less prized than stability. Many German Jews expressed disapproval of the loud wailing at eastern European funerals as undignified; at their own funerals, weeping was restrained and silent.[71] 

Conduct at funerals was not the only issue. The book goes on to describe actual confrontations at Simchas Torah celebrations where the old-timers from Germany struggled with attempts by the youth to bring Eastern European style boisterous dancing into KAJ and other German Orthodox synagogues in Washington Heights. As it stands now in the 21st century, shtick and exuberant dancing at weddings and other gatherings seems, well, Jewish. In actuality, it is Eastern European Jewish, probably Russian Jewish for the most part (along with numerous Sephardic groups). German Jews conducted themselves differently. 
None of this is intended to equate German Jews with German gentiles nor American Jews with American gentiles. I am saying only that we are influenced by our host societies, sometimes in negative ways, sometimes in neutral ways, and sometimes in positive ways. For example, many of us feel quite Jewish when we refer to horseradish as כרײן. But this word, like most in Yiddish, does not have a Hebrew etymology: 

The Southern German term Kren is a loan from a Slavonic tongue, where cognates of Kren are widespread (Czech křen, Sorbian krěn, Russian khren [хрен], Ukrainian khrin [хрін] and Polish chrzan) and ultimately of unknown origin. Some other non-Slavonic European languages have also borrowed that name, e. g., French cran, Italian cren, Yiddish khreyn [כרײן] , Romanian hrean and Greek chreno [χρένο].[72]

That would be a purely neutral influence. Then there are some that are mixed. Take for example the philosophy of Kant. Many Orthodox Jews have studied it and claim to have grown from it. Yet, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik noted the following problem with Kant: 

…the religious person is given not only a duty to follow the halakha but also a value and vision. The person performing the duty seeks to realize this ideal or vision. Kant felt that the duty of consciousness expresses only a “must” without a value. He demanded a routine form of compliance, an “ought” without aiming at a value. As a soldier carries out his duty to the commanding officer, one may appreciate his service or just obey through discipline and orders. Kant’s ethics are a “formal ethics”, the goal is not important. For us it would be impossible to behave this way. An intelligent person must find comfort, warmth, and a sense of fulfillment in the law. We deal with ethical values, not ethical formalisms. A sense of pleasure must be gained by fulfilling a norm. The ethical act must have an end and purpose. We must become holy.[73] 

So a German Jew is not a German, even this very distinguished German. Nevertheless, German Jews often possess certain sensibilities that may work best with German Orthodoxy. And so it goes for many American Jews. 
Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, ever sagacious, told his students, “I cannot understand how it is possible for an American yeshiva student to be Jewish without The Nineteen Letters.”[74] The Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch’s first published book, explained Torah Judaism to the Western world, particularly to German Jewish youth. Coming from Eastern Europe, Rav Shraga Feivel could see how Americans would take to its approach, would need its approach. 
Many observant Jews struggle to find a derech. Some leap from Haredism to Modern Orthodoxy in search of a home. They may like the seriousness of Haredism but are uncomfortable with the striving for complete isolation from general society. They may like the appreciation of secular studies in Modern Orthodoxy but deem the filtering process inadequate. They may like the Modern Orthodox inclusion of Nach in the educational curriculum but cannot wrap their minds around the image of teenage boys and girls studying it in the same classroom.[75] 
Round and round it goes. However, German Orthodoxy, particularly as practiced via Torah Im Derech Eretz, contains elements of both. It is an approach to Torah observant Judaism which, unfortunately, one does not see substantially in action nowadays. One has to seek it out. For many it may resolve much confusion vis à vis derech when the others, all noble paths if done in sincerity, remain an uncomfortable fit. 
It is not an easy road. As Rav Shimon Schwab noted, “Torah Im Derech Eretz is not a kulah but a chumrah.” (Not a leniency but a stringency.)[76] In other words, the goal of Torah Im Derech Eretz to bring holiness to all aspects of one’s life, including the ‘secular’ parts, even while engaging general society, is formidable. Perhaps it is handled best by the German Jewish character, with its discipline on all sides, its sense of balance and proportion, its pragmatism, and its concern for piety, propriety, politeness, and community. 
Now, German Orthodoxy is not necessarily equivalent to Torah Im Derech Eretz. Many German Jews dating back to Rav Hirsch’s day and through today, demonstrate a different approach to German Orthodoxy even as they carry many of the traits that produced Torah Im Derech Eretz. For example, many people in Eretz Yisroel who maintain minhag Ashkenaz do not involve themselves with secular studies. And many German Jews have taken on other derachim entirely. This article, which may seem to merge German Jewry and Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not intended to parse out and categorize all the subtle differences between them. Its purpose is to say that America is largely a Germanic country and the different strains of German Jewry may be appealing to Americans and to Jews from other Germanic countries. I would expect that Torah Im Derech Eretz would hold the broadest appeal. 
One may legitimately question whether contemporary American culture is still concerned with piety, propriety, politeness, and community. The same can be asked of contemporary Germany. What person who has laid his eyes on television or the NY Daily News could answer confidently in the affirmative? One wonders if any society in modern history, other than Germany in the 1930s, has changed as much as has the USA and the West in general over the last half-century. It’s truly night and day, just an astonishing collapse in values. 
Rav Hirsch warned us about the mutability of ‘Hellenic culture,” ie. culture that draws from the blessing of Noah’s son Japheth to ennoble human kind through the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, and symmetry in contrast to the fear, ignorance, and violence of idolatrous, pre-Hellenic societies. Rav Hirsch’s lengthy discussion of this complex topic can be found in the chapter “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome” in the book Judaism Eternal. He tells us as follows: 

The Hellenic culture only stimulates the intellect, only creates the thirst for knowledge and truth, but is not capable in itself of assuring knowledge and producing truth. The mind indulges in surmises and conjectures, forms fanciful and hypothetical assumptions in order to solve the enigmas with which man is confronted both by the world outside and within himself and the solution of which his yearning soul passionately seeks. And as long as Hellenism assumes that the human mind alone-which, as reason, is created to “perceive” only the truthsimultaneously creates, reveals and dispenses truth, so long does the misty wisdom of the Hellenic spirit arrive at results which swing from one extreme to the other in everrecurring cycles, as has been evident in the history of human thought seeking wisdom for nearly 2,500 years in the Hellenic spirit.[77] 

Once upon a time, the USA, upon whose currency is emblazoned the creed “In God we trust,” was largely a faith-based society as was Germany. Arguably, those days are gone despite some superficial activity that is merely reminiscent of the past. At minimum, the departure from religion correlates with the collapse. It is more likely the primary cause as it left us vulnerable to the wild “swings” of Hellenistic based culture. As Rav Hirsch said, “Hellenic culture contains only one single fraction of that truth which some day will bring salvation to mankind. It is only a small preparation for that happiness which will some day flourish on earth through Shem’s “tents wherein God dwells”; and as long as it is not wedded to that Hebraic spirit, as long as it prides itself on being sublime and exclusive, it falls into error and illusion, degeneration and servitude.”[78] 
My maternal grandmother was from Uman in the Ukraine ‒ yes the actual Uman made famous by the Chassidic leader Rebbe Nachman. She returned to a Germanic land on the other side of our millennial family history. I would argue that my upbringing was more Germanic than that of many second generation German Jews from Washington Heights as that community started merging with the rich Eastern European yeshivish culture four decades ago. The America of my youth was much more distinctly Germanic for the most part. It should be no surprise that German Orthodoxy is the closest thing to it. I have met numerous others like me and am confident that there are many more out there, many more American Yekkes.
________________________________________________________
[1] Yekke is a colloquialism for German Jew. The term possibly originates in the German word Jacke (with the J pronounced as a Y) which means jacket as German Jews tended to wear shorter coats (jackets) than Eastern Europeans. Another theory posits that it stems from the Western European pronunciation of the name Jacob as Yekkef. (“Yekke,” Wikipedia) There are other explanations for the term. My apologies to those in the German Jewish community who are not fans of it. The usage here obviously is with affection and esteem as you shall see. 
[2] The Hirsch Siddur (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2013) contains the commentary of R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) of Frankfurt, Germany. 
[3] “Old English,” Wikipedia. 
[4] “Frisian languages,” Wikipedia. 
[5] “Scots Language,” Wikipedia: “Scots is the Germanic language variety spoken in Lowland Scotland and parts of Ulster (where the local dialect is known as Ulster Scots). It is sometimes called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic, the Celtic language which was historically restricted to most of the Highlands, the Hebrides and Galloway after the 1500s. The language developed during the Middle English period as a distinct entity.” 
[6] Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press. p. 477 in “English Language,” Wikipedia. 
[7] “Anglo-Saxons,” Encyclopedia Britannica. 
[8] “Bede,” Wikipedia. 
[9] Nicholas Ostler, “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” (Harper Collins: New York, 2005), p. 312. 
[10] “Are the English really Germans or Spaniards?,” The Telegraph, 
[11] “The Britons,” Wikipedia. 
[12] “Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain,” Wikipedia. 
[13] “Hanover,” English Monarchs . 
[14] 2000 US Census in Wikipedia, 
[15] “Race and ethnicity in the United States,” Wikipedia.org
[16] “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link).
[17] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . The first recorded usage of the name “America” as the name of the New World is found on the 1507 map Universalis Cosmographica by German Cartographers Martin Waldseemuller and Matthias Ringmann. “Martin Waldseemuller,” Wikipedia.org. 
[18] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation 
[19] “1890,” “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 
[20] “German Americans,” Wikipedia. 
[21] “Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 
[22] “Race and ethnicity in the United States, “ Wikipedia. 
[23] Ibid., Applysense – Map from Blank USA by Lokal Profil. Information and colors from USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG by Porsche997SBS, who sourced the info from Census-2000-Data-Top-USAncestries-by-County.svg, copy permission granted. 
[24] “German American,” Wikipedia,. 
[25] “Sentiment among German Americans was largely anti-slavery, especially among Forty-Eighters.” “German American,” Wikipedia from Wittke, Carl (1952), Refugees of Revolution, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press. 
[26] “Germanic Peoples,” Wikipedia. 
[27] “Germanic Languages,” Wikipedia. 
[28] “Henry Philip Tappan,” Wikipedia 
[29] In particular, see his last book “Man Without A Country.” 
[30] “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . Freidrich Froebel started the first kindergarten in Germany and German immigrants George Schurz and his wife Margaretha Meyer, a student of Froebel, transplanted it to the USA in 1855. 
[31] Steven Muller, “After Three Hundred Years: A Keynote Address in 1983,” “America and the Germans, An Assessment of a Three-Hundred Year History,” Edited by Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), p. xxvi-xxviii. 
[32] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . 
[33] “Homeownership in the United States,” Wikipedia. Interestingly, home ownership in 21st century Germany is relatively low by European standards. Amelie Constant, Rowan Roberts, Klaus Zimmerman “Ethnic Identity and Immigrant Homeownership.” September 2007, IZA DP No. 3050. [34] A similar observation is made in John Ardagh, “German and the Germans,” (Penguin: New York, 1991), p. 4. 
[35] Dana Blankenhorn 
[36] Irving Gordon, “World History Review Text,” (New York: Amsco Publications, 1988), p. 206. See also B. Ann Tlusty, “The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms,” (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). The publisher’s book summary notes as follows: “For German townsmen, life during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was characterized by a culture of arms. Because the urban citizenry, made up of armed households, represented the armed power of the state, men were socialized to the martial ethic from all sides. This book shows how civic institutions, peer pressure, and the courts all combined to create and repeatedly confirm masculine identity with blades and guns. Who had the right to bear arms, who was required to do so, who was forbidden or discouraged from using weapons: all these questions were central both to questions of political participation and to social and gender identity. As a result, there were few German households that were not stocked with weapons and few men who walked town streets without a side arm within easy reach. Laws aimed at preventing or containing violence could only be effective if they functioned in accordance with this framework.” 
[37] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 75. 
[38] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 76. 
[39] CIA World Factbook, CIA.gov in GlobalFirepower.com (link) “Military budget of the United States,” Wikipedia. 
[40] “Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases,” Politifact.com here
[41] Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, “The Migration of Torah Tradition from the Land of Israel to Ashkenazic Lands,” This explanation of the origin and migration of Germanic peoples to the Rhine Valley differs from that of many academic historians who argue that the Germanic tribes originated in Scandinavia. See Wikipedia, “Germanic Peoples.” 
[42] “French lessons: East petite, take your time,” Karen Collins R.D., NBCNews.com 
[43] Robert Reich, “The Next American Frontier” (New York: Penguin Books, 1983) pp. 55-56. See also Diana Owen, “Citizenship Identity and Civic Education in the United States,” Paper presented at Conference on Civic Education and Politics in Democracies, Center for Civic Education and the Bundeszentrale fur Politische Bildung, San Diego, September 26, 2004 (link). 
[44] See James Wilson, John DiIulio, Jr., Meena Bose “American Government, Essentials Edition,” (Boston: Centage Learning: 2015), p.83. They cite a study that shows Americans display higher rates of faith in their public institutions, belief in the imperative of civic duty, and sense that a citizen can affect government policies than people in several other countries. 
45 Joseph Breuer, “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). EDiplomat.com, “Germany” writes “Germans value order, privacy and punctuality. They are thrifty, hard working and industrious. Germans respect perfectionism in all areas of business and private life. In Germany, there is a sense of community and social conscience and strong desire for belonging.” 
[46] Joseph Breuer, A Unique Perspective, “Our Duty towards America,” (New York: Feldheim, 2010) p. 310. Joseph Breuer (1882-1980). 
[47] Leo Jung, Between Man and Man (New York: Jewish Education Press, 1976) p. 150. Leo Jung (1892-1987). 
[48] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992) p. 304. 
[49] R’ Joseph Breuer wrote, “Physically, the Kehilla’s German-Jewish character is immediately visible in the Synagogue. Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific “German Jewishness.” “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). In other words, the cleanliness of the German Orthodox synagogue is rooted in the halakha. It is not merely a reflection of German traits. However, German Jews excel in observing the halachos on this matter. 
[50] Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, (Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, 2010), p. 9. 
[51] “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). 
[52] Avigdor Miller, “True Modesty,” tape 412, 42:27. Rabbi Miller was born in Baltimore, studied at Slabodka Yeshiva in Lithuania in the early 1930s, and lived most of his life in Brooklyn, NY. He once remarked, “I have plenty to say about the German kehillah. I love the German kehillah. As a boy I davened every Shabbos in a German shul. I can sit four hours in the afternoon, Shabbos afternoon, in a German shul.” Loving His People 2, #528 1:06. 
[53] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 
[54] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 
[55] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation . The beginnings of tolerance date from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a treaty granting tolerance to Christian minorities; although Vienna banned Jews in 1670 and Worms in 1689. “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute (link). 
[56] “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute, p. 13 . Prussia granted Jews the status of “native residents and Prussian citizens” in 1812. 
[57] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (Columbia University Press: New York, 1992), p. 73. See also Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 
[58] Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 
[59] Consider this quotation from German-born Friedrich Frobel, the founder of the first kindergarten, “Education consists in leading man, as a thinking intelligent being, growing into self-consciousness, to a pure and unsullied, conscious and free representation of the inner law of Divine unity and in teaching him ways and means thereto.” “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . 
[60] Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 2014. 
[61] Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 . 
[62] Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, Leviticus 18:5, translated by Isaac Levy (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1989) 
[63] The Wikipedia article “Prussian Virtues” lists the following: austerity, bravery, courage. discipline, frankness, godliness, humility, incorruptibility, industriousness, loyalty, obedience, punctuality, reliability, restraint, self-denial, self-effacement, sense of duty, sense of justice, sense of order, sincerity, subordination, and toughness. Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have an article on Russian virtues but does have one on the “Russian Soul.” Certainly, Prussians have soul and Russians virtue. Both terms concern human ideals, but approach it in a different manner. 
[64] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). 
[65] kwintessential.co.uk, “German Society and Culture.” writes “In many respects, Germans can be considered the masters of planning. This is a culture that prizes forward thinking and knowing what they will be doing at a specific time on a specific day. Careful planning, in one’s business and personal life, provides a sense of security. Rules and regulations allow people to know what is expected and plan their life accordingly. Once the proper way to perform a task is discovered, there is no need to think of doing it any other way. “ See also“German Cultural Values” at . 
[66] Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915 in Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). Friedlander (1876-1920) was a founder of the Young Israel movement. 
[67] Harry Wolfson, “Maimonides and Halevi: A Study in Typical Jewish Attitudes Towards Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages” in Michael Makovi, “The Kuzari as Contrasted With Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s Conception of Tiqun Olam – The Place of Universalism and Morality in Judaism.” . 
[68] Collected Writings, Vol. II, p. 398. 
[69] See for example the Ramban’s famous letter to his son. 
[70] Shimon Schwab, Selected Speeches (Lakewood: CIS, 1991) p. 243. 
[71] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989), ebook, Loc 2480. 
[72] Gernot Katzer’s Spice Pages, “Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana G. M. Sch.) “, (link). 
[73] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Mesorat HaRav Siddur (Jerusalem: Koren, 2011) p. 112-3. 
[74] Klugman, p. 66. 
[75] They may also jump to and from Chassidism, enjoying the emphasis on community and song. And we find this too in German Orthodoxy, particularly in Frankfurt and Washington Heights with its implementation of the complete kehilla and the choir. In Washington Heights, NY, Rav Joseph Breuer built a totally self-sufficient community with a huge synogogue, day school, kollel, beis din, mikva, kashrus organization, senior center, and chevra kiddushah. The feeling of community and togetherness is palpable there on Benett Ave. as is the dignity and good manners of its community members in a manner reminiscent of the musar movement. 
[76] Cited by R’ Yisroel Mantel, KAJ, “60th Anniversary Gathering.” . 
[77] Samson Raphael Hirsch, “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome,” Judaism Eternal, Vol. 2 (London: Judaica Press, 1972) p. 191. 
[78] This is all most relevant for choosing educational strategies for the young people of today. I argue that Hirsch’s Torah Im Derech Eretz is still needed if only because it is not possible to hide from a wireless society and its equally invasive government. The Czars actually granted Jewish communities in Russia a fair amount of autonomy in comparison to ours. However, the exact form of Torah Im Derech Eretz for the 21st century likely needs to differ somewhat from that which may suit the people of my generation even as the basic principles as outlined by Rav Hirsch still apply. I recognize sadly that the America that many of us knew is largely but a memory. However, for some the memory is strong enough to inform their religious outlook.



New book by Gabriel Wasserman on Karaite Judaism

Royal Attire: On Karaite and Rabbanite Beliefs by Hakham Mordecai ben Nisan

The Karaites are a Jewish group who have been important for centuries of Jewish history, wrote many writings, and are a still extant minority today. Yet most people never get to hear much about them, especially not in their own words. When people in a typical rabbinic beth midrash encounter them, it is often in statements such as that of the Mishna Berura (27:33), that wearing tefillin down on the forehead, rather than further up on the head, is a Karaite practice. In fact, this statement is completely untrue, for Karaites do not wear tefillin at all, but rather understand Deuteronomy 6:8 and the other tefillin verses metaphorically, as meaning to constantly remember the Torah. 
This book offers a rare opportunity for English-language readers to hear a Karaite sage’s own explanation of the differences between Karaite and Rabbanite (Talmudic) Judaism. (For example, see pp. 96 ff. for a discussion of the metaphorical understanding of the tefillin verse.) 
The Hebrew text is of a letter by the Karaite sage R’ Mordecai ben Nisan of 18th-century Troki, Lithuania, to King Charles of Sweden, explaining differences between Karaite and Rabbanite Judaism: a narrative of how the two groups came to be, a selection of over forty specific commandments about which the groups disagree, and theological/philosophical differences. 
Dr. Gabriel Wasserman, a contributor to the Seforim Blog, did a lovely job of adding nikkud, translating, and annotating. His notes unpack the text for modern readers, and provide quotations of earlier texts, both Karaite and Rabbanite, to show a broader picture. This book will be excellent reading for anyone who wants to learn, or teach a class, about varieties of Judaism and “Judaisms”. 
This book is the first work of this size to be published by the recently-started Karaite Press. They have done a beautiful job of lining up the Hebrew and English, and adding an introduction at the beginning and several indices at the end of the volume. Tomer Mangoubi has helped the author supplement the notes with additional material from other Karaite sources. In all, it is a fine and interesting volume, and we look forward to the future success of the Karaite Press in putting out further Karaite texts, to make them accessible to a broader public. 
This book may be ordered here:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0996965726/
Here are several sample pages:





Rav Kook’s Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

Rav
Kook’s Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal
By Rav Eitam Henkin, Hy”d
 (Translated into English by Rachelle Emanuel)
This
article originally appeared
in Hebrew in HaMayan 51:4 (2011), pp. 75-90.

Today is the yahrzeit of the Rav Eitam and Naama Henkin, who were cruelly murdered one year ago. May Rav Eitam’s important writings, surely with us only thanks to Naama’s support, be an aliyat neshama for both. Hy”d.

·        
“It is well known that the person
who heads the above [body]” supports Keren Hayesod
·        
What is the difference between Keren
Kayemet Le-Yisrael – the Jewish National Fund – and Keren Hayesod — the United
Israel Appeal?
·        
The forgery in the 1926 public letter
·        
The significance of supporting Keren
Hayesod
·        
The halakhic letter of 1928
·        
The joint declaration with Rav Isser
Zalman Meltzer
·        
Conclusion
“It
is well known that the person who heads the above [body]” supports Keren
Hayesod

The
philosophy of Rav Elĥanan Bunem
Wasserman, follower of the Ĥafetz
Chaim and Rosh Yeshiva of the Baranovich Yeshiva (Lithuania), and among the
most extreme of eastern European Torah leaders between the world wars in his
anti-Zionist approach, is still considered today as having significant
influence on the ideology concerning Zionism and the State of Israel prevalent
in the Hareidi community. In this respect he constitutes almost an antithesis
to the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, in
whose philosophy religious Zionism found its main ideological support for its approach
and outlook.[1]
 
One
rare statement made by Rav Wasserman, aimed apparently at Rav Kook, has found
resonance with part of the Haredi public, and is used by them as justification
for rejecting Rav Kook and his teachings. In fact, we are not talking of a
direct reference, but of words that appear in a letter sent to Rav Yosef Tzvi
Dushinski, who took over Rav Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld’s position as head of the Eidah Ĥareidit, on June
25, 1924:
A proposal has been made to combine the Ĥareidi Beit
Din with the Chief Rabbinate. It is well known that he who heads [the Chief
Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling on Jews to
contribute to Keren Hayesod. It is also known that the funds of Keren Hayesod
go towards educating intentional heretics. If that is the case, he who
encourages supporting this organization causes the public to sin on a most
terrible level.  Rabbeinu Yona in Sha’arei
Teshuva
explains the verse “The
refining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold, and a man is tried by his
praise” (Prov. 27:21)  as
meaning that in order to examine a person one must look at what he praises. If
we see that he praises the wicked, we know that he is an utterly wicked person,
and it is clear that it is forbidden to associate with such a person.[2]
As
far as Rav Wasserman was concerned, because the head of the Chief Rabbinate
publicized statements in which he called to support Keren Hayesod, which among
other activities, funded a secular-Zionist education system, he was causing the
public to sin and it was forbidden to be associated with him.[3]
However,
it seems that Rav Wasserman’s sharp assertion is based on a factual error.[4]
According to Rav Kook’s son, Rav Z.Y. Kook, his father supported Keren Kayemet
Le-Yisrael
, and called on others to support them, but his attitude towards Keren
Hayesod was completely different.
… as a result of the claims and complaints about
their behavior concerning religion and Judaism, [Rav Kook] later delayed giving
words of support to Keren Hayesod, and none of the entreaties and efforts of
Keren Hayesod’s activists could move him. In contrast, even though he continued
to constantly protest concerning those claims and complaints, he never
hesitated giving words of support to Keren Kayemet. None of the entreaties and
efforts of those who opposed Keren Kayemet could change this. On the contrary, with
his sacred fire, he increased his support and encouragement for Keren Kayemet, [considering
its projects as] a mitzvah of redeeming and conquering the Land.[5]
If
these words are correct, Rav Wasserman’s protest loses ground. In light of the
above we would have to say that Rav Wasserman’s sharp statement about Rav Kook
relies on the shaky basis (“It is well known…”) of rumors that were
widespread in certain localities in East Europe.[6]
However, precise research shows that despite Rav Z. Y. Kook’s clear testimony, for
which we will bring below explicit references from Rav Kook himself, Rav
Wasserman’s words were not just based on vague rumors alone. It turns out that
even while Rav Kook was alive, propaganda attempts were made to attribute to
him support for Keren Hayesod. In one case, at least, it was intentional fraud,
upon which it seems Rav Wasserman unwittingly based himself.
What
is the difference between Keren Kayemet LeYisrael – the Jewish National Fund –
and Keren Hayesod – the United Israel Appeal?

Whatever
the case may be, the reader will ask: what is the difference between the Keren
Kayemet and the Keren Hayesod? Perhaps in Rav Wasserman’s opinion they both
were “abominations,” since both organizations were headed by “heretics”;
and even though Keren Kayemet did not deal with education, nevertheless it
enabled heretics to settle on its land. If that was the case even supporting Keren
Kayemet falls into the category of lauding the wicked, etc.! However, one
cannot ignore the fact that R. Wasserman was talking about Keren Hayesod in
particular, on the grounds that its funds were “going towards raising
intentional heretics” in the educational institutions – something not
relevant to the activity of Keren Kayemet. The Keren Kayemet was a veteran
institution, founded at the beginning of the century for very specific,
accepted goals – redeeming land from the hands of gentiles, whereas Keren
Hayesod was established at the beginning of the twenties in a very different
political reality, and its fields of activity were much broader. Rav Kook
himself, in a response from winter 1925 to the famous letter from four Hasidic
rebbes (Ger, Sokolov, Ostrovtza, and Radzhin) who had heard that “your
Honor is indignant over our opposition to giving aid to the Keren Kayemet and
Keren Hayesod,” and in which they explained their opposition, gave his
reasons in full for supporting the Keren Kayemet, and only the Keren Kayemet.[7] In an
earlier draft of his response, in his handwriting, preserved in his archive, he
explicitly notes the difference in his approach to the two organizations:
I myself, in the past gave credentials for aid to
Keren Kayemet alone […] which is busy transferring land from the hands of
gentiles to Jewish possession, […] and for that I gave Keren Kayemet’s activists
a recommendation over the course of several years. This is not the case with
Keren Hayesod, which does not deal in redeeming land, but rather in settling it
and in matters of education. I have never yet given them a recommendation [and
will not do so] until the matter will, please God, be put right, and at least a
significant part of the funds will be assigned to settling Eretz Yisrael in the
way of our holy Torah.[8]
There
is indeed a large amount of information about the extensive relations that Rav
Kook had with Keren Kayemet, most of which involved continuous support for its tremendous
project of redeeming land, together with constantly keeping his eye on,  and immediately objecting to, any deviation
from the way of the Torah that was perpetrated on its grounds.[9] On
the other hand, in all the writings of Rav Kook published till now, there are
only a few mentions of Keren Hayesod, and they show reservations in principle
from the organization.[10] Whoever
is fed by rumors and presents Rav Kook as one who “lends his hand to
evil-doers” without reservations, will anyway assume, “as it is
known,” that he similarly called for support of Keren Hayesod. In
contrast, for someone who knows about Rav Kook’s life story, his work, and his
letters, the idea that he would be capable of calling for support for an
organization which directly causes ĥilul Shabbat, secular education, and
so on, is utterly baseless. Even his support for Keren Kayemet was not
complete, but with conditions, restrictions, and even warnings attached. The
following are some salient examples that are sufficient to prove that if Keren
Kayemet had been involved in projects opposed to the spirit of the Torah — as
was the case with Keren Hayesod — Rav Kook would not have agreed to support it
either:
In
a letter to the chairman of Keren Kayemet, Menahem Ussishkin, from February 4,
1927, concerning violations of Shabbat in the Borokhov neighborhood located on
Keren Kayemet land (by the residents, not by Keren Kayemet itself), Rav Kook
warned them “that if they do not take the necessary steps to correct these
wrongdoings that have gone beyond all limits, I will be forced to publicize the
matter in an open letter, loud and clearly, to the whole Jewish People.”[11]
In
a letter to Tnuva from March 2, 1932, that was sent following a report
concerning ĥilul Shabbat on Kibbutz Mizra, Rav Kook announced that so
long as the kibbutz members did not mend their ways, their milk would be
considered as ĥalav akum (milked by a non-Jew) and Tnuva would be
forbidden from using it.[12]
In
a letter to Ussishkin from April 3, 1929, Rav Kook complained about the fact
that Keren Kayemet had started to publish literary pamphlets, “which are
not its subject matter. Money dedicated to the redemption of the Land was not
for literary purposes. Moreover, the essence of this literature damages its
image in public, spreading false views in direct opposition to the sanctity of our
pure faith […] I hope that these few words will have the correct effect, and
that the obstacle will be removed without delay, so that we will all together,
as one, be able to carry out the sacred work of redeeming the Land with the
help of Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael.”[13]
The
forgery in the 1926 public letter

 However, as has been said, because of the
significant weight that Rav Kook’s position bore, over the years many attempts
were made by the supporters of Keren Hayesod to ascribe to him outright support
of the fund. The most prominent case occurred in the winter of 1926 (about a
year after the above-mentioned letter to the hasidic rebbes). Several months
previously the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael entered a severe economic crisis which
seriously hindered its development, causing unemployment of a third of the work
force, a decrease in the number of immigrants, and a steady flow of emigrants
from the country.[14] This
crisis, considered the worst experienced by the yishuv during the
British Mandate, was the first time that the impetus of the yishuv‘s
development, which had been increasing since the end of the First World War, was
brought to a standstill. Against the backdrop of this situation, the Zionist
leadership initiated a “special aid project of Keren Hayesod for the
benefit of the unemployed in Eretz Yisrael.” Because of the severity of
the situation, Rav Kook also volunteered to encourage contributions to improve
the economic situation in Eretz Yisrael, and when R. Moshe Ostrovsky (Hameiri)
left for Poland to help with the appeal, Rav Kook gave him a general letter of
encouragement for the Jews in eastern Europe.[15] At
the same time, on November 8, 1926, Rav Kook wrote a public letter calling for
support of the Zionist leadership’s initiative, in which he wrote, inter alia:
To our dear brothers, scattered throughout the
Diaspora, whose hearts and souls yearn for the building of Zion and all its
assemblies; beloved brethren! The hard times which our beloved yishuv in
the Land of our fathers is experiencing, brings me to raise my voice with the
call, “Help us, now.” Our holy edifice, the national home for which
the heart of every Jew holds great hopes, is now facing a temporary crisis
which requires the help of brothers to their fellow sufferers in order to
endure […] Therefore I am convinced that the great declaration which the
Zionist leadership is proclaiming throughout the borders of Israel, to make
every effort to come to the aid and relief of this crisis, will be heard with
great attention; and that, besides all the frequent donations for all the
general matters of holiness which our brothers wherever they live will give for
the sake of Zion and Jerusalem, all the sacred institutions will raise their
hands for the sake of God, His people, and His Land, to give willingly to the appeal
to relieve the present crisis, until the required sum will be quickly
collected.
Although
the appeal was made through the organization of Keren Hayesod, Rav Kook avoided
mentioning the name of the fund because of his principled refusal to publicize
support for it (as he explained in the letter to the hasidic rebbes). The
version quoted above is what was published in the newspapers of Eretz Yisrael,
under the title “For the Relief of the Crisis.”[16]
However, amazingly, it becomes apparent that in the version published some
weeks later in Warsaw’s newspapers, the words “the Zionist
leadership” were changed in favor of the words “the head office of
Keren Hayesod
,” and accordingly, the words were presented as nothing
less than “Rav Kook’s public letter in favor of Keren Hayesod“![17]
Even
if we didn’t have any information other than the two versions of this public
letter, there is no doubt that the authentic version is the one published by
his acquaintances, the editors of Ha-Hed and Ha-Tor in Eretz
Yisrael, close to, and seen by Rav Kook. In contrast, when members of Keren
Hayesod circulated Rav Kook’s public letter among Poland’s newspapers, they were
not concerned that the author would come across the version they had published
in a remote location. They even had a clear interest to insert into Rav Kook’s
words a precedential reference to Keren Hayesod. Even if we only had before us
the east-European version of the letter, we could determine that foreign hands
had touched it. This is not only because of Rav Kook’s words in his letter to
the hasidic rebbes sent about a year earlier, but because of a letter that Rav
Kook sent to the heads of Keren Hayesod a few weeks prior to writing the public
letter. In this letter to Keren Hayesod he informs them in brief that he is
prevented from cooperating with the management of the fund or even visiting its
offices (!) until the list of demands that he presented them with, in the field
of how they conduct religious affairs, would be met. The background to this
letter is a request sent to Rav Kook on December 7, 1926, after the
inauguration of Keren Hayesod’s new building on the site of “the national
institutions” in Jerusalem. The directors of the head office of Keren
Hayesod wrote: “It would give us great joy, and would be a great honor if
our master would be so good as to visit our office – the office of the global
management of Keren Hayesod.”[18] In
reply to this request, Rav Kook wrote a letter – which is published here for
the first time – to the heads of Keren Hayesod, (Arye) Leib Yaffe and Arthur
Menaĥem Hentke:
8th Tevet 5687 [December 13, 1926]
To the honorable sirs, Dr. Yaffe and A. Hentke,
I received your invitation to visit your esteemed
office. I hereby inform you that I will be able to cooperate for the benefit of
Keren Hayesod, and I will, bli neder, also visit Keren Hayesod’s main
office, after Keren Hayesod’s management and the Zionist leadership will
fulfill my minimal demands concerning religious issues in the kibbutzim and in
education.
Yours, with all due respect …[19]
During
the course of the years there were, nevertheless, several opportunities when
Rav Kook came into contact with members of Keren Hayesod, mainly in connection
with matters of budgets for religious needs.[20]
However, as this letter illustrates, even such limited cooperation was
dependent, from Rav Kook’s point of view, on the demand to change the way the
fund conducted its matters with respect to religion.[21] What
were Rav Kook’s exact demands of Keren Hayesod, in order for it to be
considered as having “put things right” (as he wrote in his letter to
the hasidic rebbes), and to benefit from his support and cooperation? We can
clarify this from a document which is also being published here for the first
time. This document, whose heading is “Rav Kook’s answers” to Keren
Hayesod, was apparently written after the previous letter, in reply to a
question addressed to him by Keren Hayesod concerning his attitude towards
them. It was probably written against the backdrop of rumors that Rav Kook
forbade (!) support of Keren Hayesod.[22] We only
have a copy of the document in our possession, but it is written in first
person, meaning that Rav Kook wrote it himself, and the person who copied it
apparently chose to copy just the body of the letter without the opening and
end signature:

1.      I
have never expressed any prohibition, God forbid, against Keren Hayesod. On the
contrary – I am very displeased with those who do so.
2.      Concerning
my attitude towards the Zionist funds: my reply was that I willingly support
Keren Kayemet at every opportunity without any reservations. However,
concerning Keren Hayesod, at the moment I am withholding my letter in its
benefit until the Zionist management corrects major shortcomings that I demand
be put right, as follows:
a.      
That nowhere in Eretz Yisrael will
education be without religious instruction, not just as literature, but as the
sacred basis of Jewish faith.
b.     
That all the general religious needs be
immediately taken care of in every moshav and kibbutz. For example, shoĥet,
synagogue, ritual bath, and where a rabbi is necessary – also a rabbi.
c.      
That there will be no public profanation
of that which is sacred in any of the places supported by Keren Hayesod, such
as ĥilul Shabbat and ĥag in public.
d.     
That the kitchens, at least the general
ones, will be particular about kashrut.
e.       That
all the details here which concern the residents of Keren Hayesod’s locations,
will be listed in the contract as matters hindering use of the property by the
resident, and which will give him benefit of the land only on condition that he
fulfills these basic principles.
And because I strongly hope that the management will
finally obey these demands, I therefore am postponing my support of Keren
Hayesod until they are fulfilled. I hope that my endeavors for the benefit of
settling and building our Holy Land will then be complete.

It
should be noted that these conditions are similar in essence to those that Rav
Kook set with Keren Kayemet. However, the latter’s dealings were with redeeming
the Land, in contrast to Keren Hayesod where the areas referred to in Rav
Kook’s demands were at the center of its activity. Therefore, as far as the
Keren Kayemet was concerned, Rav Kook did not give the fulfillment of his
demands as a basic condition for his cooperation and call for support; but he
certainly did so with regard to Keren Hayesod.[23]
Whatever
the case may be, if R. Wasserman did indeed see the public letter of 1926,
without doubt he saw the falsified version published in the Polish newspapers,
and therefore he held on to the opinion that: “It is well known that he
who heads [the Chief Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling
on Jews to contribute to Keren Hayesod.”[24]
However, as has been clarified, these words have no basis.
The
significance of supporting Keren Hayesod

As
has been said Rav Kook was not prepared to support Keren Hayesod, which dealt
in education and such matters “until the matter will … be put right, and
at least a significant part” of the funds activities will be directed to
settling the Land according to the Torah. The words “at least a
significant part …” seem to give the impression that if a significant part
of the fund’s activity were directed to activity in the spirit of the Torah,
then Rav Kook would give his support even if another part were still directed
to secular education. However, in practice, there is no doubt that Rav Kook’s
demand was much stricter. In Keren Hayesod’s regulations it was determined that
only about 20% of its resources would be directed to education[25] (and
only a certain amount of that budget would be allocated to
“problematic” education) — and despite this fact Rav Kook refused to
call for its support. It must be emphasized that this policy in Keren Hayesod’s
regulations was strictly applied. An inclusive summary of the fund’s activity
between the years 1921-1930, indicates that 61.4% of its resources were
invested in aliya and settlement (aliya training, aid for refugees,
agricultural and urban settlement, housing, trade, and industry), 19.6% in
public and national services (security, health, administration), and only 19.0%
in education and culture – from which a certain part was allocated for
religious needs: education; salaries for rabbis, shoĥtim, and kashrut
supervisors; maintenance of ritual baths, eruvim, and religious
articles; aid for the settlements of Bnei Brak, Kfar Ĥasidim, etc.[26] In
light of this data, it seems that R. Wasserman’s claim against those who call
for support of Keren Hayesod, and his defining them as “utterly
wicked” people, is not essentially different from the parallel claim
against those who demand the paying of required taxes to the State – a claim
heard today only by extreme marginal groups within the Ĥaredi sector.
Indeed,
not surprisingly, it transpires that there were in fact some well-known rabbis
of that generation who did call to contribute to Keren Hayesod, despite the
problematic issues of some of its activity.[27] Just
several months before the publication of Rav Kook’s afore-mentioned public
letter, another declaration was published, explicitly calling for support of
Keren Hayesod, signed by more than eighty rabbis from Poland and Russia. Among
them were well-known personalities such as R. Ĥanokh Henikh Eigash, author of Marĥeshet;
R. Meshulam Rothe; R. Reuven Katz, and more.[28]
Moreover, in several locations, particularly in America, support of Keren
Hayesod was considered as consensus among the rabbis,[29] and
even Rav Kook’s colleague in the Chief Rabbinate, R. Ya’akov Meir, called for
support of Keren Hayesod.[30]
Would R. Wasserman have defined all of these scores of rabbis as evil ones
“who cause the public to sin on the most terrible level”?[31] Whatever
the case may be, it transpires that it was specifically Rav Kook who stands out
as being the most stringent among them, and he consistently agreed to publicize
support only for Keren Hakayemet. In the light of all the data detailed here,
one wonders whether R. Wasserman’s extreme words to R. Dushinski[32] were
only written in order to deter him from cooperating with the Chief Rabbinate
(which he strongly opposed), and perhaps this is the reason that he avoided
mentioning Rav Kook explicitly by name.[33]
The
halakhic letter of 1928

The
public letter of 1926 was indeed the only one in which Rav Kook’s words were
falsified in order to create support for Keren Hayesod. However, in the
following years, too, attempts were made to present what he had written as an
expression of direct support of Keren Hayesod. The element the two cases have
in common is that they were both published far from Rav Kook’s location. In 1928,
an announcement from the “Secretariat for Propaganda among the
Ĥaredim” was published in the Torah monthly journal Degel Yisrael,
published in New York and edited by R. Ya’akov Iskolsky. This secretariat
published a special letter from Rav Kook in Degel Yisrael, emphasizing
that the letter had not yet been publicized anywhere else. According to the
secretariat, the context in which the words were written was the following:

An
occurrence in a town in Europe, where the community demanded that all its
members contribute towards Keren Hayesod, and the opponents disputed
this before the government, and took the matter to court. The judges demanded
that the community leaders prove to them that the matter was done in accordance
to Jewish law, and on the basis of the above responsum (of Rav Kook) the
members of the community were acquitted.[34]

In
other words, according to those who publicized the Rav Kook’s letter, it was
written in order to help the heads of one European community to force all its
members to donate to Keren Hayesod. The problem is that examination of the
letter (see below) raises different conclusions. Similar to what appears above
(note 27) concerning the letter written by R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk,
here there is also no mention at all of Keren Hayesod. The explanations in the
letter are not relevant to the majority of Keren Hayesod’s projects, and the
letter only deals with clarifying the general virtue of settling Eretz Yisrael
and the obligation to support its inhabitants. Even the title prefacing the
letter only talks about “one community that agreed to impose a tax on its
members for the settlement and building of Eretz Yisrael,” without
mentioning that this was a tax specifically for Keren Hayesod. Towards the end
of the letter it is mentioned only that “the Zionist leadership in Eretz
Yisrael deals with many issues concerning settling the Land,” without any
specific reference to Keren Hayesod, even if the fund was the organization that
managed the appeal for the Zionist Organization. Thus, we again find that
whereas according to those that publicized the letter — the concerned parties —
the letter constitutes declared support for Keren Hayesod, in Rav Kook’s actual
words there is no mention of that.
The
letter, which as far as I know was never printed a second time, is brought here
in full:
When I was asked whether a Jewish community can impose
on an individual the obligation to give charity for maintaining the settlement
of Eretz Yisrael, I hereby reply that there is no doubt in the matter, considering
that the halakha is that one forces a person to give charity, and makes
him pawn his property for that purpose even before Shabbat, as explained in Bava
Batra
8b, and as Rambam wrote in Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim 7:10:
concerning someone who does not want to give charity, or who gives less than
what is fitting for him, the court forces him until he gives the amount they
estimated he should give, and one makes him pawn his property for charity even
before Shabbat. The same is written in Shulĥan
Arukh
, Yore Dei’a, 248:1-2. If
this is the case in all charities, all the more so is it the case concerning
charity for strengthening Eretz Yisrael, for this is explicit in Sifrei, and quoted in Beit Yosef, Yore
Dei’a
, §251, that the poor of Eretz Yisrael have priority over
the poor outside the Land. And because one forces a person to give charity for
the poor outside the Land, it is clearly even more the case concerning charity
for strengthening the Land and its poor. The obligation to settle in Eretz
Yisrael is very great, as it says in the Talmud Ketubot 110b, and is brought by Rambam as a halakhic
ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim 5:12: A person should always live in Eretz
Yisrael, and even in a town where the majority are idol worshippers, rather
than live outside the Land, even in a town where the majority are Jews. In Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (mitzvah 4) Nachmanides wrote: that we were
commanded to inhabit the Land; “and this is a positive mitzvah for all
generations, and every one of us is obligated,” and even during the period
of exile, as is known from the Talmud in many places.
A great Torah principle is that all Jews are responsible for one another.
Therefore, those who are unable themselves to keep the mitzvah of living in
Eretz Yisrael, are obligated to help and support those who live there, and it
will be considered as though they themselves are living in Eretz Yisrael so
long as they do not have the possibility of keeping this big mitzvah
themselves. It is therefore obvious that any Jewish community can require an
individual to give charity for the benefit of settling Eretz Yisrael and
supporting its inhabitants; and G-d forbid that an individual will separate
himself from the community. Someone who separates himself from the ways of the
community is considered one of the worst types of sinners, as Rambam writes in Hilkhot
Teshuva
3:11. Just as the community must guide the individuals towards all
things good and beneficial, and any general mitzvah, thus must it ensure that
no individual separates himself from the community concerning matters of
charity in general, and all the more so concerning matters of charity relating
to Eretz Yisrael and support of its inhabitants, as I have written. No one can
deny that which is revealed to all, that the Zionist leadership in Eretz
Yisrael deals with al lot of matters concerning settling Eretz Yisrael, hence
it is clear that its income is included in the principle of charity for Eretz
Yisrael.
And as a sign of truth and justice, I hereby sign … Avraham Yitzĥak HaKohen
Kook
The
joint declaration with Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer

Just
as the public letter of 1926 (in the version published in Poland) quickly came
to the notice of the zealots of Jerusalem, who rushed to claim that Rav Kook
supports “a baseless fund,” the same thing happened with the 1928
letter: following its publication under the above headline, the zealots rushed
to upgrade their accusations and to claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may
“force a person to give charity to Keren Hayesod” (see below).
This
fact brings us to yet another claim, raised only recently, that Rav Kook did
indeed sign on a declaration in support of Keren Hayesod. A few years ago,
Professor Menaĥem Friedman wrote about an event that occurred in winter 1930,
when the zealots of the Jerusalem faction of Agudath Israel, with Reb Amram
Blau at their head, came out with a particularly sharp street poster against
Rav Kook. The background to the attack was the joint declaration of Rav Kook,
R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and R. Abba Yaakov Borokhov, that was published before
the convening of the 17th Zionist Congress in Basel, calling to the
attendants of the convention and its supporters to exert their influence to
prevent ĥilul Shabbat, etc; at the side of this request, writes Prof.
Friedman, was a “call to donate to Keren Hayesod.”[35]
However,
in fact matters are not so clear at all. Prof. Friedman brings no support at
all for his words, and the only source that he brings concerning the event is
that same street poster that the zealots published. It seems that Prof.
Friedman never actually saw the said declaration, but rather assumed its
contents from the information that appears in parallel sources, such as the opposing
street poster, in which there is the claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may
“force people to give charity to Keren Hayesod,” but of course that
does not constitute an acceptable historical source.[36]
An
addition to this affair appears in a manuscript of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer,
which was published several years ago. This is a draft of a public announcement
from 1921, which shows that indeed there were those who understood that the
signature on the declaration meant support of Keren Hayesod (and other such
organizations) — but R. Meltzer clarifies that this was not the case:
Being that I signed on a call to the donors of the
Zionist funds, demanding that they do not support with their money those who
profane the Shabbat, and those who eat non-kosher food, I therefore declare
that my opinion is like it always has been: that so long as schools in Eretz
Yisrael that instill heretical ideas are supported by these funds, it is
forbidden to support them or give them aid in any way whatsoever. Those who
support and help them are destroying our holy Torah, and are ruining the yishuv.
I added my signature only to ask those who support those funds that at least
they should make every effort to influence those funds not to feed Jewish
people in kitchens that provide non-kosher food, and not to support those that
profane the Shabbat, etc.[37]
This
clarification was apparently written after reactions of amazement among some of
the Jerusalem public were voiced in the wake of the publication of the joint
declaration of R. Meltzer, Rav Kook, and R. Borokhov. From R. Meltzer’s words
it becomes clear that the joint declaration was not a call to support Keren
Hayesod, but a call to the supporters of the fund and to the attendants of the
Zionist Congress that they should anyway insist that their money should not be
used for unfitting purposes.[38]
Conclusion

Rav
Kook’s path was falsified many times, both during his lifetime and after his
death, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally. In what we have
written here, it is proven beyond all doubt that R. Elĥanan Wasserman’s claim
that Rav Kook called for the support of Keren Hayesod — a claim through which
he explained his opposition to cooperation between the Eidah Ĥareidit and the
Chief Rabbinate — is based on a mistake. The historical truth is that Rav Kook,
in his dealings with the institutions of the yishuv, more than once took
a more aggressive and stringent stand than did other rabbis of his generation,
as is expressed in the issue at hand.


[1] In
light of this contrast, it is interesting that Rabbi Wasserman, as a youth, was
privileged to learn from Rav Kook for a while. In 1890 Rabbi Wasserman’s family
moved to Bauska (Boisk),
and five years later Rav Kook was appointed as rabbi of the town. At the time
Rabbi Wasserman was a student in the Telz Yeshiva, and when he returned home
during vacation, he would participate in the classes given by Rav Kook (See R.
Ze’ev Arye Rabbiner, “Shalosh Kehilot Kodesh,” Yahadut Latvia:
Sefer Zikaron
[Tel Aviv, 1953], 268; Aharon Surasky, Ohr Elĥanan I [Jerusalem,
1978], 30).
[2] Kovetz
Ma’amarim Ve-Igrot

I (Jerusalem, 2001), 153; previously in Kuntres Be-Ein Ĥazon (Jerusalem,
1969), 92. Concerning R. Wasserman’s dealings with the issues of the Jews in
Eretz Yisrael, we bring the words of R. Ĥaim Ozer Grodzensky, R. Wasserman’s
brother-in-law, which he wrote less than two months later in a reply to R.
Reuven Katz’s complaint regarding the open letter published by R. Wasserman to
Poalei Agudath Israel in Eretz Yisrael, calling on them not to accept help from
Zionist organizations: “I, too, am surprised at what [R. Wasserman] saw
that he publicized his personal opinion without consulting us, and I did not
know of it. He also exaggerated. The matters of the yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael cannot be compared to private matters in the Diaspora for several reasons,
and certainly it is impossible to give a ruling on such a serious matter from
afar without knowing the details…” (Aĥiezer – Kovetz Igrot [Bnei Brak, 1970], 1:299; see ibid., 200-1, a letter to Histadrut
Pagi, where the words are repeated. For R. Wasserman’s open letter and more
material on this subject, see Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-Igrot I, 133-152).
[3] This
statement is based on the words of Rabeinu Yonah Gerondi (Sha’arei Teshuva,
3:148), and R. Wasserman’s interpretation of them elsewhere (“Ikvete De-Meshiĥa,
§ 36, translated into Hebrew from the Yiddish by R. Moshe Schonfeld and
printed as a pamphlet in 1942, and in Kovetz Ma’amarim [Jerusalem 1963],
127-28). However, it seems that there is an essential difference between the
actual words of Rabeinu Yona and R. Wasserman’s interpretation (compare with a
parallel commentary of Rabeinu Yona to m. Avot 4:6, and the way his
words were interpreted by Rashbatz, “Magen Avot” 4:8, and R. Yisrael Elnekave,
Menorat Ha-Ma’or, Enlau edition, 310-11), and let this suffice. For an
example of a diametrically opposed position, see: R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen, Pri
Tzadik
, Vayikra (Lublin 1922), 221.
[4] See R. Yitzchak
Dadon, Imrei Shefer (Jerusalem, 2008), 273.
[5] “Li-Shelosha
be-Elul” (Jerusalem, 1938) §24
(p.22). See also Siĥot Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehuda – Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem,
2005), 84. On the other hand, R. Shmuel HaKohen Weingarten, who also heard from
Rav Tzvi Yehuda about his father’s refusal to call for support of Keren Hayesod,
pointed out an item in the newspaper Dos Idishe Licht (May 23, 1924),
according to which Rav Kook refused to support a proposal raised at the
American Union of Rabbis to boycott Keren Hayesod (Halikhot 33 [Tel
Aviv, Tishrei 1966], 27). Compare Rav Kook’s reasons for not waging a public
war against the Gymnasia Ha-Ivrit high school, despite his intense opposition
to the school (Igrot Ha-Re’iya II, 160-61).
[6] The existence
of false rumors concerning Rav Kook was mentioned already in 1921 by the Gerrer
Rebbe, R. Avraham Mordechai Alter, in his well-known letter written on the
boat: “Outside Eretz Yisrael what is thought and imagined is different
from the reality. For according to the information heard, the Gaon Rav Kook was
considered to be an enlightened rabbi who ran after bribes. He was attacked
with excommunication and curses. Even the newspapers Yud and Ha-Derekh
sometimes published these one-sided reports. But this is not the correct way of
behavior – to listen to one side, no matter who it is…” (Osef
Mikhtavim U-Devarim
[Warsaw, 1937], 68). R. Moshe Tzvi Neriya’s description
is typical: “…these news items even made their way into sealed Russia.
They said: “He’s close to the high echelons, and he has an official
position. This opinion excluded him from the usual description of a great Rav.
And then again it was said, ‘He’s close to the Zionists,’ and he was imagined
to be an ‘enlightened’ rabbi […] however, all those description and imaginations
completely melted away on seeing him.” (Likutei Ha-Re’iya [Kefar
Haro’eh, 1991], 1:13-14). An amazingly similar description was written by R.
Yitzchak Gerstenkorn, founder of Bnei Brak: “I imagined Rav Kook, of
blessed memory, as a modern rabbi […] and how amazed I was, on my first visit
to Rav Kook, when I saw before me a sacred, pious person, few of whom live in
our generation…” (Zikhronotai al Bnei Brak I [Jerusalem, 1942],
74).
[7] See Igrot
la-Re’iya
, 303-306. See also his 1923 declaration in support of Keren
Kayemet in which he emphasizes that “it is intended only for redemption of
the Land” (Raz, Malakhim ki-Venei Adam [Jerusalem, 1994], 238) —
meaning, not for educational and other such purposes as those of Keren Hayesod.
In this connection it should be noted that there was sometimes tension between
Keren Kayemet and Keren Hayesod because of the impression created that the
latter also dealt in redeeming lands (see Protokolim shel Yeshivot Ha-Keren
Kayemet Le-Yisrael
, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, 4:109, 498/33 —
protocols from March 31 and July 7, 1922. See also the joint agreement of the
two funds, Ha-Olam 10:14 [January 27, 1921], 16). In order to illustrate
the Keren Kayemet’s well-established status among substantial sections of the
rabbinical world, we will refer to the 32nd annual convention of the
Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, 1937. In the second
section of the convention’s resolutions it states: “The Union of Rabbis
imposes a sacred debt on all Orthodox Jews who will lend generous support to
Keren Kayemet Leyisrael.” It should be noted that the majority of
America’s great rabbis of the time participated in this convention (see Ha-Yehudi
2:10 [New York, Iyar 1927], 195. A similar resolution was made in previous
conventions; see, for example, HaPardes 5:3 [Sivan 1931], p. 31, § 7; HaPardes 6:3 [Sivan 1932], p.
25, § 5-8).
[8] This draft is
quoted by R. Yaakov Filber, Kokhav Ohr (Jerusalem, 1993), 21-22 (Slight
changes in style have been made according to a photocopy in my possession).
Negatives statements about Keren Hayesod were omitted from the response that
was actually sent, and only the positive statements about Keren Kayemet were
included. R. Filber posits that, based on the letter that Rav Kook sent to his
son, Rav Z. Y. Kook, about a week later (ibid.), the reason for the omission
was Rav Kook’s concern that the negative sentences might be used as a means to
attack the Zionist funds in general. In my opinion, taking into account Rav
Kook’s style, it is unlikely that he had such a concern, but rather the omission
is probably connected to his wish not to take part in a public boycott of Keren
Hayesod (see above, note 5).
[9] See R. Neriya
Goutel, “Hilkhot Ve-Halikhot Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael Ve-Haĥug Ha-Hityashvuti
Be-Ma’arekhet Hitkatvuyotav shel Ha-Rav Kook,” Sinai 121 (1998),
103-115; Ĥaim Peles, “Teguvotav shel Ha-Rav A. Y. Kook al Ĥilulei Ha-Shabat
al Admat Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael,” Sinai 115 (1995),
180-186; see also Rav Kook, Ĥazon Ha-Geula (Jerusalem, 1937), 220-230;
ibid., 33-34, et seq. (I have expanded on the topic of Rav Kook’s relationship
with the Keren Kayemet elsewhere).
[10] In a letter
from winter 1924 to R. Dov Arye Leventhal of the Union of Rabbis, about his
trip to America, Rav Kook writes that one of the questions that his trip
depends upon is “whether there will not be a tendency to confuse his
support for this [the Union of Rabbis] with Keren Hayesod” (Igrot Ha-Re’iya
IV (Jerusalem 1984), 177. In a letter from winter 1925 to R. Akiva Glasner of Klausenburg,
he calls on him to make use of “the Zionist funds of Keren Hayesod”
for purposes such as sheĥita and ritual baths in a settlement of
Transylvanian immigrants in Eretz Yisrael. He comments that when all is said
and done, in most places the donors are religious Jews; but of course he should
ensure that everything is done according to the Torah (ibid., 216).
[11] Sinai
115 (1995), 181; the full letter was printed in Mikhtavim Ve-Igrot Kodesh
(ed. R. David Avraham Mandelbaum, New York, 2003), 588. Here, as in the third
example (see below), Rav Kook hints that if they do not take the necessary
steps, he will stop supporting the Keren Kayemet, and will even publicize the
matter.
[12] Sinai
115 (1995), 183
[13] R. Moshe
Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re’iya I (Rishon Lezion, 2002), 487.
[14] See inter al.:
Dan Giladi, Ha-Yishuv Bi-Tekufat Ha-Aliya Ha-Revi’it: Beĥina Kalkalit U-Politit
(Tel Aviv, 1973), 171-192. The cause of the crisis was twofold: on the one
hand, the especially large amount of new immigrants in the two years prior to
the crisis, for which the economy was unprepared; on the other hand, the severe
limitations that the Polish government enforced on taking money out of the
country (in an attempt to fight the hyperinflation of the value of the zloty),
which harmed both the donations to Eretz Yisrael, and the capability of the new
immigrants to bring their possessions with them to Eretz Yisrael.
[15] For details of
R. Ostrovsky’s trip see Ha-Zefira 66:30 (February 4, 1927), 8. For the
blessings for success that he received from R. Yeĥiel Moshe Segalovitz, head of
the Mława rabbinical court, see ibid. 66:34 (February 9, 1927), 3. Rav
Kook’s letter to Polish Jewry was published in Ha-Olam on March 4, 1927,
and again in Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re’iya II (1998 edition), 1075.
[16] See the monthly
Ha-Hed, Kislev 1926, p.12, and the weekly Ha-Tor 7:16 (November
19, 1926), front page. This version was printed later in Ĥazon Ha-Geula,
180. The version quoted here is based on minor corrections of mistakes that
appeared in one of the sources. In the description attached to the public
letter in Ha-Hed the following was written: “In honor of Keren
Hayesod’s special aid program for the benefit of the unemployed in Eretz
Yisrael, Rav Kook published a special public letter….”
[17] Ha-Zefira
65:50 (Warsaw, November 29, 1926), 3. In the description attached to the public
letter it said: “On 2 Kislev [November 8, 1926), the Chief Rabbi of Eretz
Yisrael, Rav A.Y. Ha-Kohen Kook sent the following public letter to the head
office of Keren Hayesod….” A few days later the letter was also published
in Ha-Olam 14:50 (London, December 3, 1926), 944, with the same headline
and description as in Ha-Zefira, but without the insertion of
“Keren Hayesod” in the body of the letter; see also Ha-Olam
14:48 (December 19), 906, where it was reported that “Rav Kook published a
public letter to world Jewry to aid Keren Hayesod, thereby easing the crisis in
Eretz Yisrael.”
[18] Central Zionist
Archives, KH421036. As is explained in this file, Rav Kook’s colleague, R. Y.
Meir, visited the offices of Keren Hayesod.
[19] From a copy of
the letter in the possession of R. Ze’ev Neuman, to whom I am most grateful. It
should be noted that Leib Yaffe was a relative of Rav Kook: his paternal
grandfather, R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe, was Rav Kook’s paternal grandmother’s
brother. Nevertheless, at the opening of the letter, Rav Kook does not show any
family sentiment, but starts with a completely neutral tone.
[20] About two years
before the above letter, in 1925, Rav Kook, together with other rabbis,
participated in a meeting with Keren Hayesod where sums allocated for religious
needs, and other allocation options, were decided upon (Yehoshua Radler-Feldman
[R. Binyamin], Otzar Ha-aretz [Jerusalem, 1926], 72-73; see also note 10
above).
[21] The reader
should note the letter of both the chief rabbis from March 27, 1927 – about two
months after the above letter – which was sent, among others, to the secretary
of Keren Hayesod, Mordechai Helfman, with the demand to prevent the profanation
of Shabbat and kashrut in settlements located on the land of Keren Kayemet, or
that are supported by Keren Hayesod. In his reply from March 30 (quoted in
Motti Ze’ira, Keru’im Anu [Jerusalem, 2002], 172), Helfman justified
himself saying: “The management of Keren Hayesod is only a mechanism for
collecting money […] We are, of course, ready to help in [attempting to] have
moral influence, and we hereby promise his honor, that we will use our
influence at every opportunity to emphasize that which is wrong.”
[22] The document
can be found in the Central Zionist Archive KH1/220/2. I am grateful to Mr.
Yitzĥak Dadon, who made me aware of the document’s existence and gave me a
photocopy. Most of the demands in this document were repeated, with different
emphases, in a declaration publicized by Rav Kook in the spring of 1931 (see
note 37 below).
[23] Even though Rav
Kook repeated in this letter that he was not prohibiting support of Keren
Hayesod, later, when in 1932 the Jewish Agency did not fulfill its promise to
transfer an allocated sum for religious matters, Rav Kook protested the matter
in a sharp letter in which he warned that if at least part of the promised sum
was not transferred, he would be forced to turn to the rabbis in America and to
members of Mizrachi in Poland, with the demand to prevent support of the Keren
Hayesod appeal (letter from April 6, 1932, Central Zionist Archive
S255894-419).
[24] Information
about Rav Kook’s supposed support of Keren Hayesod, based on the east-European
version of the public letter, quickly reached Rav Kook’s opponents in Eretz
Yisrael and even in America. In a letter from December 29, 1926, Meir
Heller-Semnitzer, one of the most extreme zealots in Jerusalem (around whom,
that same summer, a major scandal erupted, concerning a harsh declaration that
he published against the Gerrer Rebbe and Rav Kook), informed Reb Zvi Hirsch
Friedman of New York (a distinguished zealot himself who, a year previously, had
been expelled from the Union of Rabbis in America because of attacks against
Rav Kook that he had published in one of his books), that Rav Kook issued a
proclamation calling for support of “the baseless fund” [play on words:
yesod means base]. See Friedman, Zvi ĤemedMishpati im
Dayanei Medinat Yisrael
(Brooklyn, 1960), 67.
[25] As R. Y. Y.
Trunk pointed out already in 1921 (see note 27 below).
[26] A. Elitzur, “Keren
Hayesod Be-mivĥan Ha-zeman” in Luaĥ Yerushalayim – 5706 (Jerusalem,
1945), 259-268; see also Otzar Ha-aretz, 70-76.
[27] In this
connection it is customary to mention R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, author
of Ohr Same’aĥ, who acceded to the request of an emissary of the World
Zionist Organization in preparation for the appeal of Keren Hayesod in Latvia,
and wrote his famous letter calling for support of the yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael (printed in Ha-Tor, 3, 1922, and also in R. Ze’ev Arye Rabiner, Rabeinu
Meir
Same’aĥ Kohen [Tel Aviv, 1967], 163-165, et al.). However, even
though the historical context involves the Keren Hayesod, the letter itself
deals with general support of settling Eretz Yisrael, and contains no explicit
mention of Keren Hayesod or any other Zionist organization. Hence it is
difficult to see in the letter a ruling concerning the fundamental question of
whether to support Keren Hayesod despite the fact that part of its budget goes
towards secular education. The same applies to a similar letter written in the
same year and in the same connection by R. Eliezer Dan Yiĥye of Lucyn (See Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 84-86). In contrast, R. Yitzĥak Yehuda Trunk of Kotnya, the
grandson of the author of Yeshu’ot Malko and one of the rabbis of the
Mizrachi movement in Poland, wrote a detailed letter in the same year,
explicitly calling for support of Keren Hayesod. He wrote at length rejecting
the arguments against contributing to the fund (See Sinai 85 [Nisan-Elul 1979],
95-96). See also in the following footnotes.
[28] See Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 78-82. It should be added that the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (later
the Rishon le-Tziyon), R. Ben-Tziyon Ĥai Uziel, participated, himself, in the
activity of Keren Hayesod (see his books, Mikhmanei Uziel IV (Jerusalem,
2007) 31-32, 283-284, and in vol. VI, 297-299, et al.), as did R. Ostrovsky (as
mentioned above), and others.
[29] In an issue of
Ha-Olam
(18:46 [London, November 11, 1930], 911) in honor of Keren
Hayesod’s tenth anniversary, “the declaration of Eretz Yisrael’s rabbis
concerning Keren Hayesod” from September 1930, was published. Hundreds of
rabbis signed the declaration, the majority from America, and others from Eretz
Yisrael, Europe, and Eastern countries. The declaration included an explicit
call to strengthen Keren Hayesod, “which for the last ten years has borne
on its shoulders the elevated task of building our sacred inheritance, and
faithfully supporting all projects that bring us close to that great aim.”
It seems that there is not one well-known rabbi who was active in the Union of
Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada who did not sign this
declaration: R. Yehuda Leib Graubart, R. Elazar Preil, R. Ĥaim Fischel Epstein,
R. Yosef Kanowitz, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R. Eliezer Silver, R. Ze’ev Wolf
Leiter, R. Ĥaim Yitzĥak Bloch, R. Yehuda Leib Salzer, etc., etc. (nevertheless,
in light of the scope and rare variety of the signatories, one wonders whether
this was a declaration approved by majority vote at the conference of the Union
of Rabbis, such that the weight of the opponents was not reflected, and
therefore the names of all the Union’s members were given as signatories).
[30] See Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 77, his letter from December 8, 1925 calling for support of Keren
Hayesod. See note 18, and more below.
[31] A most
interesting fact in this connection is that R. Wasserman’s relative by marriage
from 1929 (the father-in-law of his son R. Elazar Simĥa), R. Meir Abowitz, head
of the rabbinical court of Novardok and author of Pnei Meir on Talmud
Yerushalmi
, not only was an avowed member of the Mizrachi movement, and in
1923 even signed a call to join the movement (see Encyclopedia of Religious
Zionism
I [Jerusalem, 1958], columns 1-2), but also was one of the
signatories on the aforementioned declaration in favor of Keren Hayesod! (Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 81). The fact that R. Wasserman was involved in R. Abowitz’s
younger daughter’s marriage, is testimony to the good relationship between the
families (see R. Wasserman’s daughter-in-law’s testimony in the photocopied
edition of Pnei Meir on the tractate Shabbat [USA, 1944], at the end of
the introduction. R. Abowitz’s letters to his son-in-law are published at the
end of R. Wasserman’s Kovetz Shiurim II [Tel Aviv, 1989], 117-119).
[32] It is
worthwhile comparing these words with R. Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld’s moderate
language in a letter to his brother written in 1921, in which he gives the
benefit of the doubt to the donors of Keren Hayesod: “Those naïve ones,
who contribute to Keren Hayesod out of pure love in order to aid in the
establishment of the settlement in our holy Land, certainly have a mitzvah. I
do not know to what purpose they will actually put the money of Keren Hayesod,
but if it is given into faithful hands, who will use it honestly for settling
the Land, this is anyway a big mitzvah. However, as has been said, it must be
in such hands that will use it for building and not for destruction […] ‘and
because of our sins we were exiled from our Land'” (translated from
Yiddish, S.Z. Zonnenfeld, Ha-ish al Ha-ĥoma III [Jerusalem, 1975], 436).
[33] Although R.
Ya’akov Meir, who explicitly supported Keren Hayesod, was also one ” who
heads the above [i.e. the Chief Rabbinate],” nevertheless, R. Wasserman’s
words are taken to be addressed specifically to Rav Kook. On the other hand, it
is interesting that in a letter that R. Wasserman wrote to his brother on July
30, 1935, the following sentence appears: “What is Rav Kook’s malady, and
how is he feeling now?” (Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-igrot II, 124).
[34] Degel
Yisrael
2:11 (New York, December 1928), 12-13 (the emphasis is mine). The date
of the secretariat’s letter is April 26, 1928.
[35] Friedman,
“Pashkevilim U-moda’ot kir Ba-ĥevra Ha-Ĥareidit,” in Pashkevilim
(Tel Aviv, 2005), 20. See also his book Ĥevra Va-dat (Jerusalem, 1978),
337.
[36] In the same
year, October 1930, in an issue devoted to the tenth anniversary of Keren
Hayesod, a declaration from Rav Kook was printed under the heading
“Mi-ma’amakei Ha-kodesh,” in which a process of awakening in the
country among the people and the new yishuv is described, together with
a call to base activities on sanctity and to unite (Ha-Olam 18:45
[November 2, 1930], 900). Here, too, there is no explicit mention of Keren
Hayesod or any other organization, even though explicit calls by other
personalities for support of the fund were published close to his declaration
(See also an additional article by Rav Kook, (Ha-Olam 18:47 [November
18, 1930], 926).
[37] Mikhtavim
Ve-Igrot Kodesh
, 624. The date of R. Meltzer’s signature on the declaration
is February 18, 1921. He writes using the plural form: “schools … are
supported by these funds,” but in fact only Keren Hayesod referred funds
to educational institutions, such that his main opposition was actually
directed against it in particular, and not against Keren Hakayemet (see next
note). For the moment I have been unable to locate the call mentioned in his
words, which Prof. Friedman dealt with, however it is probably a very similar
declaration to the one published in Ha-Hed, April 1931 (and again in Otzarot
Ha-Re’iya
II, 426), in which Rav Kook calls, in preparation for the
“coming Zionist Congress” to present a series of demands in the field
of religion, which have to come together with “material fundraising”
and aid to build up the country. It is superfluous to note that there is no
mention of Keren Hayesod in the declaration, as well as to no other official
institution.
[38] For comparison,
see a similar public letter that the three rabbis, Rav Kook, R. Meltzer, and R.
Borokhov, together with R. Yaakov Meir, published in 1929, calling to the heads
of the Zionist organizations “to immediately send a last warning to the
kibbutzim and moshavot supported by you, that if they do not stop
profaning our religion, and everything sacred, you will stop your support of
them altogether. If our words are not obeyed by you, we will unfortunately be
forced to wage a defensive war against these destroyers of our People and our
Land […] even though this will harm the funds which support the new yishuv”
(printed in Ha-Tor 9:37 [August 9, 1929], and again in Keruzei
Ha-Re’iya
[Jerusalem, 2000], 90) 



Jews in Wonderland

Jews in Wonderland
John M. Efron
John M. Efron is the Koret Professor of Jewish History at the University of California-Berkeley and author of German Jewry and the Allure of the Sephardic (Princeton University Press, 2016). This is his first contribution to the Seforim Blog.
Although an important sesquicentennial anniversary took place on September 5, 2016, few people outside of Berlin, and not even that many there will have paid much attention to it.  As generally happens with selective historical amnesia that which was once world famous is now known by very few.  On that very date one hundred and fifty years ago in 1866, Berlin’s Neue Synagogue on the Oranienburger Strasse, which was the largest and most ornate synagogue in the world was inaugurated in the presence of thousands, including scores of dignitaries, royals, as well as political and military figures, including the future Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, General Field Marshal of the Prussian Army, Friedrich von Wrangel, Mayor of Berlin, Karl Theodor Seydel, Chief of the Berlin Police, Otto von Bernuth, and the Prussian Finance Minister, August von der Heydt.
The spectacular ceremony began at noon on that early autumn day with a procession down the massive central aisle of the synagogue.  Under the musical directorship of the great, liturgical composer Louis Lewandowski, the choir of men and boys sang Psalm 118 to the accompaniment of an organ and a chorus of trombonists: “In the Lord do I glory. Let the lowly hear and rejoice.”  According to one attendee, the rabbi, Dr. Joseph Aub, delivered a soaring sermon in which he expressed his wish that “the humanistic and tolerant spirit of the age” would carry on far into the future.  The inauguration concluded with the afternoon Mincha service and befitting a synagogue that would become renowned for its musical traditions, Psalm 150 rang out: “Hallelujah. Praise God in His holy place, praise Him in the vault of His power.  Praise Him for His mighty acts, praise Him as befits His abounding greatness.  Praise Him with the ram-horn’s blast, praise Him with the lute and the lyre.”  It was an unforgettable day for all in attendance.
Nowadays, and it is understandable, if anything is known and remembered about synagogues in Germany, it pertains to their destruction on the Kristallnacht of November 9, 1938.  Where Kristallnacht signaled and symbolized the end of Jewish life in Germany, the inauguration of the many new synagogues that were built across the country in the nineteenth century symbolized the optimistic future that Rabbi Aub and the rest of German Jewry saw ahead.  Of course, synagogues symbolize more than a future full of possibilities.  They also tell stories about the way a particular congregation sees itself, the way it wants to be seen, and what its relationship is to Jewish history.  While the neo-Moorish, Neue Synagoge stood out for its size and splendor, it was not the only one of its kind nor is its story simply a part of the history of synagogue architecture.  Rather, it is but one part of a still larger and peculiar story of German-Jewish culture and its profound attraction to all things Sephardic.
The modern history of German Jewry begins in the eighteenth century, for it is then that we first see signs of a new and distinctive sense of self, one predicated on that community’s definitive, sometimes aggressive, separation from Polish Jewry, with whom it had previously formed a pan-Ashkenazic civilization.  The process began with the abandoning of Yiddish and the adoption of German language and culture.  This was followed in the nineteenth century by the advent of new forms of Judaism, such as Reform, Positive-Historical (later called Conservative in the United States), and modern Orthodoxy, the turn to Jewish scholarship, the acquisition of university education, and the emergence of Jews into the middle classes.  All of these innovations intended to or served to change the image and appearance of Jews and Judaism.
One aspect of the great cultural transformation of German Jewry was the special place of honor it accorded medieval Spanish Jewry during its so-called Golden Age.  For the entire German-Jewish elite, the Sephardim were a cultural nobility and over the span of about 120 years, from approximately 1780 to 1900, what first began among community leaders as an appreciation of Sephardic Jewry blossomed into a rhapsodic and full-blown infatuation with the Jews of Sepharad.  In fact, the adulation shown towards Sephardic culture had a deep impact on German-Jewish self-perception, for the celebration of Sephardic Jewry led simultaneously to a self-critique, often a very harsh one, of Ashkenazic culture.  German-Jewish elites portrayed the Jews of Germany and Poland as insular, unattractive and primitive and in response, they felt that the time had come to rectify this and become like they imagined the Jews of Spain to have once been—worldly, alluring, and cosmopolitan.
Beginning in the eighteenth century, with increasing fraternization between upper-class Jews and Christians and exposure to bourgeois tastes and sensibilities, Jews, long considered to be in religious error came to believe that they were also in aesthetic error.  In almost all corporeal and cultural categories, Jews found themselves to be deficient, occasioning among them a crisis of aesthetic confidence.  It was at this point that appearances first began to matter to German Jews, a situation that made them hyper self-conscious and hyper-vigilant, acutely aware of how they sounded, how they looked, and how they carried themselves.  These were among the most important categories that drew them to the Sephardim, who they imagined as dignified, elegant, eloquent, and beautiful.  To be sure, German Jews did not want to mimic Sephardic culture; they only wanted to be German Jews but they did wish to emulate the Jews of Spain and be thought of
in similar terms.  In 1820, a young Prussian-Jewish lawyer named Eduard Gans applied to the government for permission to establish an association dedicated to the study of Jewish history and culture.  In his application Gans invoked the Jews of Spain:
“These [Spanish] Jews, resembling all others both physically and mentally but granted by the Arabs equality with Muslims, proceeded to plumb in concert all the known sciences of the day….And they employed [in their writings] not Hebrew but Arabic.  Indeed those Jews expelled from [Spain] to France, Holland, Italy, and England, to the detriment of Spanish economic life…have never formed the contrast to Christian society which was so striking in the other family of Jews, [the Ashkenazim, who were] kept intentionally apart.  They are marked by less discrepancy in morality, purer speech, greater order in the synagogue, and in fact better taste.” [1]
By using this example, Gans was suggesting that if Jews in his day were granted equality with Germans then Jewish morality, speech, decorum and taste would likewise improve.
The positive impression of Sephardic Jewry was cultivated in a variety of ways, all part of a new and developing German-Jewish culture.  Maskilim or proponents of the Jewish Enlightenment claimed that Sephardic Hebrew was preferable to Ashkenazic pronunciation.  Anthropologists asserted that the Sephardim were superior to Ashkenazim in terms of physical beauty and comportment while authors and poets wrote scores of wildly popular Sephardic-themed works, and historians penned highly romanticized depictions of Sephardic history.  All of this created an image of the medieval Jews of the Iberian Peninsula as an ideal Jewish community, steeped both in Jewish tradition but also fully at home in secular culture.  Jewish historians also believed that what made for Sephardic superiority was their living under tolerant Muslim rule and as such, nineteenth century German-Jewish historians were tireless promoters of the idea that there had been a Muslim-Jewish symbiosis.  As the founding father of Reform Judaism, Abraham Geiger declared, “Judaism had developed its own fullest potential in
closest union with Arab civilization.”
There was, however, one aspect of Sephardicism that stands out from all the rest because it was neither textual nor was it an exhortation to modify behavior; it was architecture.  Between the 1830s and 1860s, the advent of neo-Moorish synagogues, with their towering minarets, giant domes, polychrome exteriors, windows with Islamic-style arches, and stunningly ornate interiors were the most visible, indeed, the most spectacular manifestation of an imagined Sephardic aesthetic and the only one that was created in partnership with non-Jews, in other words, the architects, builders, city planners and councils who approved such structures.
While there are neo-Moorish synagogues all over the world, what makes Germany the most important site for this architectural style is that it was the first place such synagogues were built and secondly, they were the only Orientalized buildings in Germany, a style almost all architects dismissed as suitable only for entertainment and recreational purposes.  Indeed, where Orientalist buildings did exist—Holland, England, and France—most of these were found in parks, gardens, and holiday resorts.  In Germany, however, the only Orientalized buildings were neo-Moorish synagogues and as such, it was accorded the status of a Jewish national style of architecture.
The neo-Moorish style did not simply appear but rather it evolved.  The earliest such synagogues were erected in the provinces, with the first one opening in 1832 in the small town of Ingenheim.  Designed by Friedrich von Gärtner, the Bavarian court architect, the small synagogue had no neo-Islamic decorations on the interior although it did employ an Egyptian theme for the Torah ark and had an aedicule bedecked with a frieze of palm trees, a botanical feature strikingly out of place in this rural Bavarian landscape.  However, from the outside,
the oriental character of the building was unmistakable given the large horseshoe-arched entrance and Islamic style-windows that ran along either side of the synagogue and were modeled on those found on thirteenth and fourteenth century North African and Spanish mosques.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, these synagogues were no longer being built, out of consideration for both the high costs and shrinking regional communities, whose inhabitants were leaving rural areas and moving to big cities.  This did not mean the end of neo-Moorish synagogues, however, for they now began to appear in large cities and in ever increasingly spectacular forms.  In Dresden, the exterior of the Neue Synagoge built in 1840 was composed of an eclectic mix of Christian, Byzantine, and Romanesque elements with no neo-Moorish exterior elements.  However, it was the first synagogue to have a neo-Moorish interior, borrowing decorative motifs from the Alhambra palace in Granada.  The ceiling of the central dome was painted a brilliant blue with the sun’s while the walls were sumptuously painted in a dazzling array of colors, depicting floral and geometric designs.  The Eternal Lamp, or ner tamid, that hung in front of the ark was of Moorish design and it is one of history’s puzzling ironies that upon learning of its beauty those two radical antisemites Richard and Cosima Wagner ordered a replica of the beautiful lamp for their house on Lake Lucerne.  They used it for the first time when their son Siegfried was baptized at home in 1870.
 The synagogue in Dresden was designed by one of Germany’s foremost architects, Gottfried Semper, the man who designed the city’s world famous opera house.  His student, Otto Simonson, was one of the very few Jewish architects in Germany in the nineteenth century and his great contribution was to design what was Germany’s first fully neo-Moorish synagogue, both inside and out.  Built in Leipzig in 1855, and also named the Neue Synagoge, its unusual triangular shape (akin to the Flatiron Building in New York) made it immediately recognizable.  At the very point of this gigantic, 2,000 seat synagogue, where the two angles met, there was a massive, semicircular silo on top of which was a highly polished, fluted copper cupola, framed by a horseshoe arch, crowned with a Star of David.
On the synagogue’s interior, it was this silo that was home to the ark that held the Torah scrolls.  The synagogue’s two massive facades were punctuated by four gigantic relief moldings of Islamic arches.  Running along the top of the outer walls were crenellated parapets.  With battlements, towers, and a rampart-like facade, the building took on the appearance of a fortress mosque.  The interior was a blaze of color, with yellow skirting boards forming the base for green walls, which rose to meet a stunning blue ceiling bedecked with stars and a giant sun.  All of this was further illuminated by the bright light that streamed in through the colored rose window.  A monumentally large and highly decorated horseshoe arch framed the whole eastern end of the synagogue, further enhancing the neo-Moorish appearance of the whole structure.  Simonson was one of the few architects to explain why he chose the neo-Moorish style for his synagogue:
“The Temple is built in the Moorish style, which appears to me to be the most
characteristic. Judaism adheres with unshakable reverence to its history; its
laws, its customs and practices, the organization of its ritual; in short, its
entire essence lives in its reminiscences of its motherland, the Orient. It is
those reminiscences that the architect must accommodate should he wish to
impress upon the building a typical [Jewish] stamp.”[2]
From humble rural beginnings, Germany’s neo-Moorish synagogues got increasingly bigger and ever more ornate and none was grander than the Neue Synagoge in Berlin, built between 1859 and 1866.  When it finally received permission to build a new synagogue, the congregation announced an international competition to choose an architect for what it envisioned would be a brightly lit synagogue with seating for 3,200 congregants, upstairs galleries for the women, entrances separated according to sex, sufficient space for a 60-person choir, an apartment for the rabbi, as well as administrative offices and classrooms.  There was also to be a library with space enough for 67,000 volumes.  The renowned Eduard Knoblauch was the architect who won the tender and he had the difficult job of making sure that “the total cost was not to exceed 125,000 taler.”
Sadly, Knoblauch did not live to see his great creation, passing away in 1865.  When the synagogue on the Oranienburger Strasse—the very street on which Knoblauch lived—was inaugurated on September 5, 1866, the guests were seated in the grandest neo-Moorish synagogue ever built.  They were also in the most expensive, costs having ballooned to a staggering 750,000 taler.  The synagogue’s external centerpiece was an onion dome that soared majestically some one hundred and sixty feet into the air.  Wrapped in a blanket of zinc and swaddled in gold ribbing, crowned with a Star of David, the great dome was the brightest and most joyful architectural feature to be found anywhere in Berlin.  It was also the tallest structure in the city. The central portal was flanked by towering minarets that borrowed heavily from North African mosques and from the Giralda, a late twelfth century minaret in Seville while the crenellations were typical of those found on Cairene mosques.
 
The synagogue was as massive as it was ornate, its triple-nave 188 feet long and 126 feet wide while the ceiling soared to a height of 87 feet.  The interior was a dazzling kaleidoscope of color, light, and texture.  With Moorish decorative patterns from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the floors were inlaid with intricate mosaics; the walls were covered in richly colored stucco and then painted with stars and flora, while stalactite features hung from the ceiling where geometric and honeycomb patterns were also widely deployed, including on the elaborate friezes that accented the temple’s interior. A technical breakthrough helped bathe the entire synagogue in a palette of many colors.  The windows were double paned, with the outer layer made of clear glass and the inner windows of stained glass.  An innovative system of gas lamps was installed in between the two panes throughout the synagogue.  While the myriad windows allowed for abundant light to pour into the synagogue, the placement of the gas lamps and the way they illuminated the stained glass helped create what one attendee at the synagogue’s dedication ceremony called a “magical effect.”
Indeed, the synagogue had the air and appearance of an Oriental pleasure palace.  A contemporary newspaper account vividly described the synagogue as “a fairy-tale structure.…In the middle of a plain part of the city we are led into the fantastic wonder of the Alhambra, with graceful columns, sweeping arches, richly colored arabesques, abundant wood carvings, all with the thousandfold magic of the Moorish style.”  The Neue Synagogue’s fame quickly spread and it attracted visitors from near and far.  Among the curious was none other than the English author, Lewis Carroll, a man who knew a thing or two about wonderlands and fairy-tale structures.  Just two years after publishing Alice in Wonderland, on Friday July 19, 1867, he stopped in Berlin on his way to Russia and while there, Carroll, a deeply devout Christian, made two visits to the synagogue.  He noted in his diary that after a full day of sightseeing, “later in the evening we strolled out and looked at the Jewish Synagogue, said to be well worth the inspection.”  His first cursory visit was followed by a much longer second stop the very next day and occasioned this beautiful diary entry:
“We began the day by visiting the Jewish Synagogue, where we found the service going on, and
remained until it was over. The scene was perfectly novel to me, & most
interesting. The building itself is most gorgeous, almost the whole interior
surface being gilt or otherwise decorated—the arches were nearly all
semi-circular, tho’ there were a few instances of the shape sketched here—the
east end was roofed with a circular dome, & contained a small dome on
pillars, under which was a cupboard (concealed by a curtain) which contained
the roll of the Law: in front of that again a small desk facing west—the latter
was only once used. The rest of the building was fitted up with open seats. We
followed the example of the congregation in keeping our hats on. Many men, on
reaching their places, produced white silk shawls out of embroidered bags,
& these they put on square fashion: the effect was most singular—the upper
edge of the shawl had what looked like gold embroidery, but was probably a
phylactery [sic].
These men went up from time to time & read portions of the lessons. What
was read was all in German, but there was a great deal chanted in Hebrew, to
beautiful music: some of the chants have come down from very early times,
perhaps as far back as David. The chief Rabbi chanted a great deal by himself,
without music. The congregation alternately stood & sat down: I did not
notice anyone kneeling.”[3]
For just over six decades the synagogue was home to a proud and confident congregation, one where the world’s first woman rabbi Regina Jonas preached and where in 1930 Albert Einstein conducted the orchestra for a concert performance.  Alone among the synagogues mentioned above, the Neue Synagoge survived the Kristallnacht despite being damaged in that night of violence and desecration.  In November 1943, however, it eventually succumbed, almost completely destroyed when struck by Allied bombers during the Battle of Berlin.  After the war, the synagogue was, by dint of the Cold War, located in what became communist East Germany.  In 1958 the main part of the building was demolished, with only those sections adjacent to the street remaining intact.  After the fall of the wall in 1989, those parts of the building that had survived, which included the severely damaged dome and the beautiful facade, were renovated and the synagogue was reopened in 1995.  However, what once was is no longer.  The main sanctuary does not exist. Today, on the premises there is a museum, an archive, classrooms, the administrative offices of the Jewish community and a small synagogue that is used for regular services.
Why did Jews build in the neo-Moorish style, especially in an era when German Jewry fought tirelessly against an antisemitic image that considered them a foreign, Oriental people?  Indeed, critics of the synagogue claimed that its design only confirmed this.  I think that from the Jewish perspective, the neo-Moorish design linked these congregations to their image of the Sephardim, allowing the congregations to appear dignified and sensitive to the importance of aesthetics and good taste.  However, above all, these mostly Reform temples looked nothing like any synagogues ever built before.  And like Reform Judaism itself, they were utterly new, with no historical precedent and that was their appeal and their purpose.
Though none of the synagogues built in the neo-Moorish style bore any resemblance to synagogues that had existed in medieval Spain they were nonetheless just one element of a much larger cultural project undertaken by German Jews, wherein they sought to honor and emulate Sephardic Jewry as part of a transformative process that would see them form a new kind of Ashkenazic Jewish culture.  Doing so led to a highly romanticized depiction of Sephardic Jewry, one where they were seen as superior to Ashkenazim in nearly every way—a curious, if not troubling, Ashkenazic assertion if there ever was one.  Long after the tragic demise of Spanish Jewry, the rays of its so-called Golden Age continued to shine across the Jewish world but without doubt it was in modern Germany that those rays enjoyed their greatest luminosity.
Notes:
[1] Quoted in Ismar Schorsch, From
Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism
(Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England, 1994), 75.
[2] Otto Simonson, Der neue
Tempel in Leipzig
(Berlin: F. Riegel, 1858), 3
[3] Lewis Carroll, The Works of
Lewis Carroll
(London: Hamlyn, 1965), 972-973.



Text Manipulation on the Left – A Recent Incident

Text Manipulation on the Left – A Recent Incident
by Yisrael Kashkin
We have seen on this blog several posts that cite examples of censorship and text manipulation in literature within the Orthodox community. Generally, the practitioners of this tendentious editing have been described here as being among our brethren from the right wing of the community. However, the act of text manipulation happens as well among our brethren from the left wing.
One notable example occurred recently in an article that discussed the theory of evolution. The article, Nathan Aviezer’s “The Origin of Mankind – A Torah Perspective” (Hakirah, Vol. 18), lists Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) as one of “many Torah authorities” whose writings indicate that “the Torah and evolution are completely compatible.” Aviezer asserts that “Darwin, Rav Hirsch, Yehuda HaLevi, and Rav Kook all viewed evolution as the mechanism used by G-d to produce the animal kingdom.” In its conclusion, the article reasserts its claim with the words “Theologians refer to the idea of evolution being orchestrated by G-d as ‘theistic evolution.’ This concept is accepted by many Torah luminaries, including Yehuda HaLevi, Rav Kook, and Rav Hirsch (as quoted above).”
What is this quote from Rav Hirsch? The article offers the following statement and purports it to be a quote from an essay in Hirsch’s Collected Writings:
If the notion of evolution were to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Judaism would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence to God, Who in His boundless creative wisdom, needed to bring into existence only one amorphous nucleus and one law of ‘adaptation and heredity’ in order to bring forth the infinite variety of species that we know today.
Those words, which actually are not an accurate quote of Rav Hirsch as I will show, do not constitute agreement with the theory of evolution. They say only that if the theory is accepted universally by the scientific community that one could look at it as describing a Divine wisdom utilized during the creation of animal species. This does not mean that Rav Hirsch looked at it that way.
How did Rav Hirsch regard the theory of evolution? In the same essay that the article cites as a source for its statement, Rav Hirsch explicitly expresses his view on the veracity of the theory. After asserting that man’s attempts to explain natural laws “does not alter his moral calling,” Rav Hirsch tells us the following:
This will never change, not even if the latest scientific notion that that genesis of all the multitude of organic forms on earth can be traced back to one single, most primitive, primeval form of life should ever appear to be anything more than what it is today, a vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact. (“The Educational Value of Judaism,” written in 1873, in Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume VII, pp. 263-4)
The theory is a “notion” and a “vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact.” Rav Hirsch’s skepticism is unequivocal.
Rav Hirsch embraced science, writing “Judaism does not fear the advances of science; in fact, it rejoices in them and hails them with high hopes for the future.” However, he required that we “distinguish between facts and hypotheses, between premises that have stood the test of time and hasty conclusions often based on half-truths ….” (p. 257)  Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859.
However, there is another problem with the article. Aviezer states that Rav Hirsch’s words can be found in the Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume VII, p. 264 and even presents them as a verbatim statement within quotation marks. However, these words do not appear verbatim on page 264 (in either the 1992 or 1997 editions), but rather they appear to be drawn from different parts of the page and to be sown together without the customary ellipses (i.e., …) to indicate omitted material. The actual text from page 264 is as follows:
Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of “adaptation and heredity” in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures.
Rav Hirsch adds that “This would be nothing else but the actualization of the law of le-mino, the ‘law of species’ with which God began His work of creation. This law of le-mino, upon which Judaism places such great emphasis in order to impress upon its adherents that all of organic life is subject to Divine laws, can accommodate even this ‘theory of the origin of species.’” [1]
If written with the customary ellipses, the passage as quoted in the article becomes unusable for a citation:
if … [the] notion [of evolution] were … to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, …. Judaism … would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence … to … God[,] Who … in His boundless creative wisdom[,] … needed to bring into existence … [only] one … amorphous nucleus and one … law of ‘adaptation and heredity’ in order to bring forth … the infinite variety of species [that] we know today ….[2]
With fourteen gaps within two sentences, albeit long sentences, the passage would be suspect as a proof text even if it seemed to concur with the theory of evolution.[3]
The lacunae are significant. Missing is Rav Hirsch’s biting allusion to Darwin as “the high priest of that notion,” suggesting that Darwin’s theory is more mythological than scientific. Rav Hirsch also contrasts Darwin’s reasoning from Jewish thought by saying that Judaism would never conclude as Darwin did that man descends from a “still extant representative of this primal form,” an apparent reference to the ape.
Missing also are the words “Even if,” words that contribute to the tenor of the relevant portion of Rav Hirsch’s essay, which is that this new theory along with other increasingly popular ones in the 19th century, does not uproot the Torah. Rav Hirsch is not proposing that the theory of evolution is true but is asserting the truth of Torah “Even if” the theory of evolution is accepted. His entire statement hinges on the words “Even if.”
To ignore that is to ignore Rav Hirsch’s main point. He was writing as a defender of Torah who was battling assimilation not as a scientist who was evaluating a newly proposed theory.  He had preceded his comments on Darwin’s theory with some comments on astronomy and an assertion that the “purely moral objectives of Judaism” are indifferent as to whether we assume a Ptolemaic or Copernican view of the universe (p. 263). Later in the essay, Rav Hirsch references theories on the age of the earth about which he writes “Judaism is not frightened.” (p. 265)
Also missing from the redacted quotation is the word “ever” which Rav Hirsch seems to use to cast doubt that such a questionable theory will be universally accepted. “Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance” becomes “If the notion of evolution were to gain complete acceptance….” The latter version assumes more confidence in the theory.
Also missing is Rav Hirsch’s depiction of God’s “eternal omnipotence” while the reference to “His boundless creative wisdom,” a phrase more palatable to the contemporary scientist, is kept intact. Similarly, the phrase “from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order” is eliminated, leaving us with an image of the first days of creation more in line with the standard evolutionist’s depiction of primordial soup. Along the same lines, Rav Hirsch’s reference to “the one, sole God” is rendered simply as “God.”
The result of all these redactions is an alteration of the meaning of the original material. When you read Rav Hirsch’s essay from start to finish you see a defender of Torah observance trying to find a way to give supporters of new theories about highly esoteric matters of nature a way to stay Torah observant, even as Rav Hirsch himself did not buy into the theories. However, the misquote strips Rav Hirsch’s words of all caveats and doubts and leaves us with the one positive thought that Rav Hirsch could muster about the theory of evolution.
This is problematic. Sometime in the future, a reader may recall hearing that Rav Hirsch supported the theory and seeing some kind of quotation from him indicating as much. However, we see from Rav Hirsch’s actual words that he was highly skeptical of it, and perhaps more importantly, considered the matter ultimately unknowable and irrelevant to the true purpose of Jewish scholarship. Referring to cosmogony and eschatology, Rav Hirsch wrote that Jewish scholars through the ages “were generally averse to speculations about what was in the past and what will be in the future, because, in their view, such questions transgressed the limits of that which is knowable to man, or, at best, they did not enhance man’s understanding of his moral function.” (p. 265) In general, Rav Hirsch advised our reading the Torah “Not for the purpose of making philological or antiquarian investigations, nor to find support and corroboration for antediluvian or geological hypotheses, nor either in the expectation of unveiling supermundane mysteries, but as Jews we must read it – that is to say, looking upon it as a book given to us by God that we may learn from it to know ourselves – what we are, and what we should be in this our earthly existence.” (The Nineteen Letters, “Letter Two”, published in 1836).[4]


[1] Here is how it appears:
[2] Here it is in Aviezer:
[3] As Rav Joseph Breuer’s introduction to Rav Hirsch’s essay in the Collected Writings tells us, the original essay in German does not appear in Gesammelte Schriften, the original German language collection of his writings published in 1911. Written originally for a school graduation exercise, the essay was published in 1937 in the journal Nachalath Z’wi, Vol. VII. One will not find it in the local Judaica shop.
Here is the title page:
[4] For other discussion of Aviezer, see Marc Shapiro’s Seforim Blog post here.