1

Strife Between Men

Strife between Men
By Rabbi Shnayor Burton
This is an
excerpt from his forthcoming book [אורות יעקב [דרושים נבחרים על חיי
האבות, Oros Yaakov [selected essays on the forefathers]. 
This essay,
entitled ריב בין אנשים (Strife between Men),
deals with Lot and Avraham – their own changing relationship and the
relationship of the nations descended from them. It demonstrates that the
complex treatment of Amon and Moav, and Ruth’s role therein, are rooted in the
Sodom narrative, Lot’s connection to that city and his daughters’ actions; and
that all of this is alluded to in an unlikely place: the Halachic parsha of
strife between men –  כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים in דברים פרק כה.

ריב בין אנשים

וגם
ללוט ההלך את אברם היה צאן ובקר ואהלים׃ ולא נשא אותם הארץ לשבת יחדו . . . ולא
יכלו לשבת יחדו׃ ויהי ריב בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט . . . אל נא תהי
מריבה ביני ובינך . . . כי אנשים אחים אנחנו . . . הפרד נא מעלי
וגו’ [בראשית יג ה-ט]
לא
יבוא ממזר בקהל יי גם דור עשירי לא יבוא . . . לא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יי גם
דור עשירי לא יבוא . . . על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים . . . לא תדרוש שלומם
וטובתם כל ימיך לעולם׃ לא תתעב אדומי כי אחיך הוא
וגו’ [דברים כג ד-ח]
כי
יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע׃ והיה
אם בן הכות הרשע והפילו השפט והכהו לפניו כדי רשעתו במספר׃ ארבעים יכנו . . . מכה
רבה ונקלה אחיך לעיניך׃ לא תחסום שור בדישו׃ כי ישבו אחים יחדיו ומת אחד מהם ובן
אין לו לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה . . . יבמה יבוא עליה . . . ויבמה
וגו’ [דברים כה א ה]
האדומי
לא נדחה עד עולם. אף שהיה בדין להרחיק את אדום מחמת מעשיו הרעים ואכזריים, אך הלוא
אח עשו ליעקב; אין לתעב אח והוא מקבל רחמים לפנים משורת הדין. לא כן עמון ומואב:
הם סובלים את מלוא תוקף מידת המשפט. כראויים לתיעוב הם מקבלים את גמולם ואין
מרחמים בדין. אך גם עמון ומואב אחים הם לנו, לוט זקנם מכונה כך במפורש בפי אברהם
אבינו: ‘כי אנשים אחים אנחנו’. למה להם לא מגיע אהבת אחים?
הפתרון
טמון בפענוח התואר שהעניק האב ללוט: ‘אנשים אחים’. שתי בחינות בתואר זה, שני
צדדים: איש וגם אח. זאת אומרת, לוט ואברהם יכולים וחייבים להיות אחים מקורבים, אבל
אין קרבה זו מובטחת ללוט. איש-אח הוא; איש שעשוי להיות אח ואח שעלול להיות איש
נכרי בלבד. מדרגתו תלויה ועומדת: הריב והפירוד מהווים סכנה להמשכיות מעלתו הרמה
כאחיו של הצדיק, שמא יקלקל; הריב יתגבר ויתגלע בלא שליטה ולא ייחשב עוד אלא איש
נכרי.
ואכן
כך היה – האח נהפך לאיש גרידא. לוט נפרד מאברהם ובחר לשבת בערי הכיכר, איש-אח
המצטרף עם אברהם בלכתו לארץ כנען התרחק מדודו הצדיק וברכת הארץ אשר יראה לו ה’,
הלך אחר עיניו והתאווה לשבת בסדום הדומה לארץ מצרים. ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה’
מאוד, הם יסובו על הבית להרע למלאכים שירדו לבקר ולראות את מעשיה, אינם מכבדים
אורח ומתאווים למעשה נבלה; כך היא מידת אנשי העיר, אנשי סדום, ולוט המצטרף עמהם
מתאחד עם סדום ומתנכר מן הצדיק.
אך
לא מיד לאחר פרידה זאת נהפך לוט לאיש גרידא, סדומי בלתי ראוי לחנינה – הפירוד נגמר
רק אחרי הנסיון להציל את לוט, ויחד איתו שאר אנשי סדום.
כי
פעמיים התעסק אברהם בפרשת סדום, ומעמדו של לוט מידרדר מן האחת לשניה מאח לאיש:
במלחמת ארבעת המלכים את החמישה ובמהפכת ערי הכיכר. בפעם הראשונה כל דאגתו של אברהם
נתונה בעד לוט אחיו היושב בסדום, כפי שנאמר: ‘ויקחו את לוט . . . בן אחי אברם . .
. וישמע אברם כי נשבה אחיו . . . וגם את לוט אחיו ורכושו השיב’ [בראשית יד יב-טז]. טרם התייאש אברהם מלקרב את לוט; קשרי האחווה מזכים אותו
במאמצי דודו להילחם בעדו ולהצילו. באותה שעה, אף שכבר היה הריב והפירוד מן הצדיק
שבעקבותיו התיישב בסדום, עדיין נחשב לוט לאחיו של אברהם – מפני שעוד לא היתה רעת
אנשי סדום עצמם מוחלטת. כמנצח בקרב הענק הזה היה ראוי אברהם למלוך על כל אנשי סדום
וכל הרכוש משעובד לו ואיתם לוט. מתוך כוונה זו – להחזיק בשלל המלחמה – נתן אברהם
מעשר מכל, שהרי אין אדם מעשר ממה שאינו מתכוון להחזיק בו. ואם כל אנשי סדום היו
נכנעים לאברהם וסרים למשמעתו לא היו אנשיה רעים וחטאים לה’ עוד, ואף ניכורו של לוט
היה מתבטל. לוקח נפשות חכם היה אברהם וכל הנפש בידו, הכל מוכן לגאולה ותשובה שלמה
והצדק שולט, אנשי סדום מכירים במעלת אברהם ובן אחי אביו מתאחד שוב איתו – אלא שיצא
מלך סדום לקראתו ואמר: ‘תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך’ [שם כא].
כלומר: ‘אכן נצחת בקרב והרכוש מגיע לך, אך הנפשות כולם עדיין סדומיים הם ורוצים
להיות תחת שליטתי, להמשיך להתנהג בדרכה של סדום’. כשמוע אברהם כן נחלש כוחו ועזב
את אנשי סדום ולא הכניסם תחת כנפי השכינה. נשארו אנשי סדום רעים וחטאים ונפש לוט
אבודה איתם.
בכך
נגמר נסיונו של אברהם לשמר את קרבת לוט אחיו, להשקיט את הריב ולהשתיק מדון, בלתי
מתייאש מקרובו. כך אמרו חז”ל:
וישמע אברם כי נשבה
אחיו’ – וכי אחיו היה? אלא ראה ענותנותו של אברהם: אחר אותה מריבה שכתוב ‘ויהי ריב
בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט’, אעפ”כ היה קורא אותו ‘אחיו’ דכתיב:
‘כי אנשים אחים אנחנו’.[1]
האח
המתנכר שערק לסדום עודו יכול להתאחד ולא להפוך לאיש גרידא – אבל רק בשעה שאין רעת
אנשי סדום מוחלטת, בעוד לא דחו מלכו ואנשי עירו את מעלת אברהם בשתי ידיים.
לכן
בפעם השנייה – במהפכת סדום – אין לוט בן אחי אברהם זוכה לטיפול מיוחד מאת דודו.
אין אברהם מתפלל בעד לוט ולא מנסה להצילו. מתעלם אברהם מקרובו ומתנהג כאילו אין לו
זיקה מיוחדת לאיש היושב בשער סדום. עמדת אברהם אז היתה שגורלו של לוט יוכרע על פי
גורל כל אנשי העיר: אם עכשיו אין בה עשרה צדיקים המכריעים את כל המקום לכף זכות אף
לוט ילך לאבדון עם שאר אנשי העיר, אנשי סדום. בסוף אכן ניצל לוט בזכות אברהם –
ובזה נדון בהמשך – אך אין אברהם שם לבו לגורלו של בן אחיו. אז, כפי שיבואר עוד,
כבר נתקלקל לוט בקלקולה של סדום. כשאר אנשי סדום החטאים, מגלי עריות, אף הוא אינו
נמנע מלהציע את בנותיו לכל אנשי העיר לעשות להן כטוב בעיניהם. איש הקורא לאנשי
סדום: ‘אל נא אחי תרעו הנה נא לי שתי בנות . . .’ [בראשית יט ח]
איננו אח לאברהם. ‘אנשים אחים אנחנו’ – אך הריב בין האחים השפיע על הקרבה ונהפך
לוט לאיש גרידא, אח לסדומיים, וזרעו מתועב עד עולם.[2]
כל
ההידרדרות הזו במעמדו של לוט התחילה מכוח הריב בין הרועים, כפוטר מים ראשית המדון,
מתרחב והולך; ריב גורם לפירוד והנפרד לא נטש את הריב אלא נהפך לסדומי רע; הפילוג
קבוע עד עולם.
‘כבוד
לאיש שבת מריב וכל אויל יתגלע’ [משלי
כ ג] – ריבו של לוט המיט עליו קלון
תחת כבוד, וכפי שדרשו חז”ל:
‘לתאוה יבקש נפרד’ [משלי יח א]:
זה לוט. ‘בכל תושיה יתגלע’: שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות – ‘לא יבוא
עמוני ומואבי בקהל יי’; דתנן – ‘עמוני ומאובי אסורין, ואיסורין איסור עולם’ [משנה יבמות ח ג].[3]
לא
רק פסוקי משלי אלא גם הלכות המריבה – פרשת ‘כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים’ – רומזות לכל
נבכי סיפורו של לוט. אף לימוד זה נפתח במדרש חז”ל:
‘כי יהיה ריב’ – אין
שלום יוצא מתוך מריבה. וכן הוא אומר: ‘ויהי ריב בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה
לוט’. מי גרם ללוט ליפרש מן הצדיק ההוא? הוי אומר: זו מריבה![4]
בדרשה
זאת, החושפת את הקשר בין פרשת המריבה לפרשת ריב לוט, רמזו חז”ל ופתחו פתח
לקריאת כל פרשת ‘כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים’ כמדרש לסיפורם של לוט וצאצאיו, עמון
ומואב. כפי שיבואר, כל פרטי הפרשה מרמזים לפרטי תהליך דחיית לוט, שנהפך לאיש תחת
אח מחמת ריב, זרעו פסול עד עולם, אך בסופו של דבר חוזר ומתקשר לכלל ישראל, בת בתו
רות מתקבלת ולא מתועבת, צד האחווה חוזר וניעור והרי הוא כאחיך – הכל מרומז בפרשה
זאת. מה כוחו של לוט ומה זכותו להתקבל כאח רק מצד בנותיו? איך מתייחס כלל ישראל אל
זרעו, ואיך התנהגות זאת מביאה בסוף להשבת האחווה? הכל מרומז בפרשה זאת. אבל קודם
הבה נסוב אל פרשת מהפכת סדום עצמה ונלמוד מה הפך את לוט לסדומי ופסל אותו ואת
זרעו, ומהו מקומן של בנות לוט בכל זה.
שני
חטאי סדום כתובים בפרשת וירא ומפורטים בפי יחזקאל הנביא: גילוי עריות ושנאת זרים.
אנשי העיר אמרו: ‘איה האנשים אשר באו אליך הלילה הוציאם אלינו ונדעה אותם’ [בראשית יט ה];
מבקשים להוציא את האורחים מבית לוט הנותן להם מחסה ולעשות תועבה כנגדם. ובכן אמר
הנביא:
הנה זה היה עון סדום
אחותך גאון שבעת לחם ושלות השקט . . . ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקה׃ ותגבהינה ותעשינה
תועבה לפני
וגו’
[יחזקאל טז מט-נ]
רוב
עושרם – כיכר הירדן היתה ‘כולה משקה . . . כגן יי כארץ מצרים’ [בראשית יג י],
משופעת במים – הביא להם שלווה והשקט, שהביאו לגאווה, ומידה זו למעשי אכזריות
ולעשיית תועבה מתוך גבהות. כל זאת ראו המלאכים ההולכים לבקר את סדום ולראות את
מעשיה, לראות אם ימצאון שם עשרה צדיקים – ואין, ונגמר דין העיר לכלייה.
בדרכם
לסדום ראו שלושת האנשים את ההפך בבית אברהם. הצדיק מכניס אורחים ומטיב להם; ואיה
אשתו? הנה באוהל – צנועה היא. מעט מים בבית אברהם, ממהרים להכין לחם, אוכלים
ושבעים ומברכים את ה’. שם לא יבואו לשלוות השקט, רום לבב ושכחת ה’.
מהי
מדרגת לוט במערכה זאת? בבית אברהם נראה חסד ופרישות מעריות, וברחוב סדום –  ההפך. לוט עצמו, בן אחי אברהם אבל גר בסדום,
ממוצע הוא בין אברהם ואנשי סדום. הוא דואג ששום נזק לא יקרה לאורחיו, בעל חסד,
מכניס אורחים ומגן עליהם. ואילו לתאוות העריות אין לוט מתנגד באופן עקרוני. ‘אל נא
אחי תרעו’ – אם בנותיו תהיינה מופקרות לתאוות אנשי סדום, אם אנשי סדום כולם יתעללו
בהן לעשות להן כטוב בעיניהם, אין זה רע בעיני לוט, אח לסדומיים. ‘רק לאנשים האל אל
תעשו דבר, כי על כן באו בצל קורתי’ – את מידת החסד למד לוט היטב מדודו, אך לא מידת
פרישות מעריות.
אלו
דברים שבין בית אברהם לרחוב סדום: חסד ופרישות מעריות. כגמול למעשי סדום הרעים
שמיה כעשן נמלחו והארץ כבגד תבלה, יושביה כמו כן ימותון; ואילו אברהם אבינו ושרה
אמנו, רודפי צדק ומבקשי ה’, הם ראויים לישועת ה’, הם חוזרים לנערותם כמדבר החוזר
לעדן, ושרה אומרת: ‘אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה’, זרע הקודש – נולד מן אברהם המהול –
לה’ הוא.
ולוט
באמצע. בכמה דרכים שווה לדודו, ובכמה דרכים מושפע מאנשי העיר: אחרי שמל אברהם נראה
אליו ה’ ושלושה אנשים בדרך לסדום, והוא יושב פתח האוהל כחום היום; שניים מן
המלאכים מגיעים לסדום בערב, ולוט יושב בשער סדום. אברהם רץ לקראתם, משתחווה; אף
לוט קם ומשתחווה. אברהם מזמין את האנשים להשען תחת העץ, להתקרר בצל אילן השתול ליד
בית הצדיק; לוט מגן עליהם בצל קורתו. שניהם מכניסים אורחים ומאכילים אותם, בעלי
חסד. אך לוט גם נמשך לסדום, שלא כאברהם. לשאלת האנשים ‘איה שרה אשתך?’ באה התשובה:
‘הנה באוהל’; ולשאלת אנשי סדום ‘איה האנשים?’ באה התשובה: ‘הנה נא לי שתי בנות . .
. אוציאה נא אתהן’ וגו’. ואברהם ממהר תמיד ואין שלוות השקט בביתו, רץ לקראתם ורץ
אל הבקר, אבל לוט מתמהמה, עודו מפותה ממידות סדום.
והשאלה
נשאלת מאליה: אברהם ושרה זקנים הקדושים – העומדים בקצה הקוטבי כנגד אנשי סדום –
נתברכו בזרע קודש, זרע קהל ה’ הנולד באופן ניסי בעדנה הבאה אחרי בלות, שלא כדרך כל
הארץ, בשעה שסדום הדומה לעדן חרבה ובלה לנצח. מה יהיה עם לוט וזרעו? הוא הוצא
מסדום ונמלט על נפשו, אך מתמהמה ומשתהה, קשה לו להיפרד מעירו ורכושו ולצאת לגלות –
והוא שייך למידות סדום, נמשך אחר תאוות העריות כמותם. האם עוד מחזיק לוט במעמד
קרבתו לדודו שנעשה אב לקהל ה’? האם מידת חסדו וחנינתו תציל אותו מלהיחשב כסדומי
אבוד? איך אנחנו צריכים לסווג איש רב-פנים זה, המעורב צדק ורשע: כאחיו של אברהם
הצדיק או כסדומי רשע?
על
שאלה זאת עונה סיפור לוט ובנותיו במערה:
ותאמר הבכירה . . .
אבינו זקן ואיש אין בארץ לבוא עלינו כדרך כל הארץ׃ לכה נשקה את אבינו יין ונשכבה
עמו ונחיה מאבינו זרע . . . הוא אבי מואב עד היום . . . הוא אבי בני עמון עד היום׃
[בראשית יט לא-לח]
אב זקן – כאברהם. ודרך כל הארץ
אבדה – כמו שרה, חדל להיות לה אורח כנשים. אלא שהפתרון באוהל לוט איננו הולדה
ניסית קדושה אלא הולדת עריות פסולה. ‘כל
מי שלהוט אחרי בולמוס העריות סוף שמאכילים אותו מבשרו'[5] – והאיש
המציע את בנותיו לכל אנשי סדום לבסוף בא עליהן בעצמו; ובזאת חלט את עצמו לסדומי
כשאר אנשי העיר, נכרי לאברהם, ובניו כבני סדום. אבהות לוט היא ההפך של האבהות
הקדושה, בשורת שלושת האנשים לאברהם ושרה בדרכם לסדום. זרע קודש ניסי הנולד מן
המהול לא יתערב בזרעו של לוט, כארץ פרי נעשתה מלחה נעשתה אשתו נציב מלח והוא הוליד
מבנותיו במידת סדום, שלא כדרך כל הארץ. הבנים לישראל – זרע אברהם מבורך; וזרעו של
לוט פסול לעולם, גם דור עשירי לא יבוא לו בקהל ה’, כממזר.
‘מואב
כסדום תהיה ובני עמון כעמורה . . . מכרה מלח ושממה עד עולם’ [צפניה ב ט].
כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים הריב יתגלע ולא ישקוט, והאחים מתרחקים ומתנכרים עד עולם.
לוט
נפסל ונדחה עד עולם ואין יחס בין זרעו לזרע אברהם; הכף הוכרע והוא נידון כסדומי
מגלה עריות. אך אם הקלקול נמצא בו, הלוא נמצא בו גם דבר טוב ממידות אברהם: מידת
גמילות חסדים והכנסת אורחים – ולמה אין מידתו זו מצילתו ושומרת על מעלתו ויחסו
לאברהם? וכי אין במידת החסד לבדה די לקבוע אדם כאחי אברהם?
תשובה
לשאלה זאת נמצאת בטעם האיסור שיבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה’:
לא
יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יי . . . על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך בצאתכם
ממצרים
חסד לוט נעלם ואיננו. בני בניו
של המתחסד ועושה משתה ומצות, אכזריים הם כלפי בני ישראל ולא שמרו על מידת אביהם
הזקן. זאת אומרת: מידת החסד לבדה בלי פרישות מעריות אינה מתקיימת. השקוע בחיי
החומר ולהוט אחר העריות, מחבב את העושר ורוכש
השקפה חומרית כלפי החיים, ומכוח השקפה זאת מתגאה בגופו ונוטה אחר התאוות – אדם זה סוף סוף ייעשה אכזרי. המתגאה בגופו ובממונו לא יחמול על אומללים, פחותי יכולת, ולכן בעיניו פחותי
ערך ממנו. לוט עכר את שארו ובא על בנותיו,
קובע את עצמו כסדומי, ובסופו של דבר נעשה אכזרי כאנשי סדום. בטלה האחווה ואין בינו ולצדיק
שום השתוות ודמיון; איש גרידא מרוחק ממשפחת הקדוש. רק חסד אברהם הצמוד לפרישות
מעריות נשמר לדורותיו הקדושים.
כך
ירד לאבדון ההולך אחר עיניו. תחילה הצטרף לוט ללכת עם דודו אל הארץ אשר יראה לו
ה’, וכתלמידו של אברהם אבינו היה מוכן לקבל את כל תורתו, מתעלה בקדושה ודגול במעשי
חסד. אז נחשב הוא לאחיו של אברהם; אלא שנשא עיניו וראה ארץ הכיכר תחת ‘הארץ אשר
אראך’, נפרד מן הצדיק וחבר אל הרשעים וקדושתו הולכת ונחלשת עד שנשקע בתאווה. הוא
עצמו שמר לפחות על מידת החסד, אך מידת התאווה עשתה את שלה מדור לדור, מחלשת כל
מידה נכונה, עוכרת ומשחיתה את הנפש הנגועה בה, עד אין צדק בביתו של לוט וזרעו
מקולקל לגמרי – הריב התגלע ולא נשארה שום אחווה בין עמון ומואב וכלל ישראל.
לוט
נפסל, אין תקנה לזרעו עד עולם, כל אנשי עמון ומואב אסורים לבוא בקהל – לכאורה. אך
ישנה דרך אחרת להסתכל על הדברים. מבט מעמיק יותר בסיפורו של לוט, בירור מי הוא
האשם בקלקולו של לוט ומי לא, יגלה צד כשרות ולכן צד אחווה וצד היתר ביאה בקהל ה’.
הבה
נשפוט את משפט עמון ומואב.
מי
נשא את עיניו לראות את כיכר הירדן? לוט. מי הציע להוציא את בנותיו מן הבית ולהפקירן
לכל אנשי העיר, קורא לאנשי סדום ‘אחי’? לוט. איש זה אכן להוט אחר העריות, וקיבל את
מה שראוי לו והאכילוהו מבשרו. הכל מחמתו: הוא נמצא אשם במשפט. אך בבנותיו אין
אשמה: מוצעות בעל כרחן לאנשי סדום, משמרות על זרע אנושי מן אביהם בחשבן שאין אדם
בארץ לבוא עליהן כדרך כל הארץ, הן תצאנה מן המשפט נקיות, חפות מפשע. לשון
חז”ל:
לוט ושתי בנותיו עמו: הן
שנתכוונו לשם מצוה – ‘וצדיקים ילכו בם’ [הושע
יד י]; הוא שנתכוין לשם עבירה –
‘ופושעים יכשלו בם’ [שם].[6]
אל
נסקור אותם בסקירה אחת בלי להבחין בין הנפשות העושות – באותו מעשה עצמה ישנו צד
עבירה וצד מצווה.
זיכינו
ונקינו את בנות לוט מן הפשע הראשי של אביהם. נשפטו ונמצאו תמימות, והצדקה זאת
מועברת בקלות לכל נקבות עמון ומואב, ההולכות בעקבות אמותיהן. עכשיו לגבי משפט
תוצאת הפשע הזה, אובדן מידת החסד – ‘על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך’
וגו’. מי האשם?
מי
קידם את פני שלושת האנשים ההולכים בדרכם לסדום? אברהם; שרה נשארה באהל. ומי קידם
את פני שני המלאכים העומדים ברחוב סדום? לוט; הבנות צריכות להישאר לפנים מדלתות
הבית, ולא לצאת מדלתות הבית אל הרחוב. זאת אומרת, כלשון חז”ל:
‘על דבר אשר לא קדמו
אתכם בלחם ובמים’ – דרכו של איש לקדם ואין דרכה של אשה לקדם.[7]
הליקוי
במידת החסד נבע מלהיטות אחר העריות, והחפים מן הפשע הראשי אף לא איבדו את מידת
אהבת החסד. צנועות הן ונשארות בבית – בל נאשים אותן על שלא יצאו לדרך לקדם בלחם
ובמים.
זיכינו
ונקינו את העמוניות והמואביות מכל מגרעות אביהן לוט. עד הנה משפט מואב. הפסק:
עמוני ולא עמונית, מואבי ולא מואבית; האחווה חוזרת עם התאחדות צאצאי לוט הנקבות עם
זרע אברהם.
בזאת
תבוא רות בקהל; זרעו של לוט שב משדה מואב ולא תיפרד רות מנעמי חמותה, מתקנת פרידת
אביה להקים את מלכות בית דוד: בחסד ובפרישות מעריות. בחסד – כי נעמי אמר אליה:
‘יעש יי עמכם חסד כאשר עשיתם עם המתים ועמדי’ [רות א ח],
ובועז אמר אליה: ‘בתי היטבת חסדך האחרון מן הראשון’ [שם ג י] –
היא דגולה במידת החסד, ולעולם חסד יבנה.[8]
ובפרישות מעריות – כי נעמה אמר אליה:
שבנה בנותי למה תלכנה
עמי, העוד לי בנים במעי והיו לכם לאנשים׃ שבנה בנותי לכן כי זקנתי מהיות לאיש כי
אמרתי יש לי תקוה גם הייתי הלילה לאיש וגם ילדתי בנים׃ הלהן תשברנה עד אשר יגדלו
הלהן תעגנה לבלתי היות לאיש אל בנותי
וגו’ [רות א יא-יג]
אותה
מבוכה של אברהם ושרה, ושל לוט ובנותיו: הסיכון הנשקף מן הזיקנה ללידת בנים. בנות
לוט, אמותיה של רות, שכבו את אביהן – אם לשם שמים – והובילו את עמון ומואב במורד
דרך פגומה, פסול ממזרות דבוק בהם עד עולם. באה רות לתקן את הדבר, לאחוז בדרך אברהם
ושרה, דרך ההולדה הניסית של יצחק. בוטחת שתשיג עזר אלוקי למצוא מנוחה בית אישה,
אין רות הולכת אחרי הבחורים. ובליל זריית גורן השעורים יורדת היא לגורן ככל אשר
ציוותה חמותה, באה בלאט ומגלה מרגלות האיש שהיטיב לבו ביין – ושוכבת. ויהי בחצי
הלילה ורות הצנועה לא עושה דבר, אלא מבקשת: ‘ופרשת כנפיך על אמתך כי גואל אתה’ [שם ג ט].
הגיע הזמן להחזיר את המואביה לחיק ישראל, לבטל את תוצאת מעשי הפריצות – בנות לוט
שוכבות את אביהן השיכור – ורות מקבלת את ברכת בועז: ‘ברוכה את ליי בתי’ [שם י].
זכתה
רות לסלול דרך ולגלות את כשרות המואביות לבוא בקהל, בהראותה שאין בהן דופי של
פריצות ואכזריות. הריב שבת והרי לוט כאחיך, צאצאיותיו הנקבות ראויות להתאחד עם זרע
אברהם ולהקים מלכות בית דוד – עד עולם מוכן זרעו, כסאו בנוי לדור ודור.
‘כי
יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום’
כי
יהיה ריב בין אחים הם מתהפכים לאנשים. כטבעה של מריבה על דבר אחד קטן לצאת מכלל
שליטה, הולכת ומתגלעת ואין מרפא. במצב כזה הם מתרחקים זה מזה לחלוטין ולא יוכלו
למצוא איש באיש ריבו שום דבר טוב. אם ירצו להתאחד עוד יש להם אך תרופה אחת – יגשו
אל המשפט ושפטום! יותר נוח לאנשי הריב להתעלם כליל זה מזה ולשכוח אחד את השני,
וקשה להם להעלות את ענייני הריב עוד פעם ובפומבי, לעיני השופטים – אך אין דרך אחרת
לרפא את השבר ולתקן את יחסיהם. רק עינו החדה של המשפט, מצדיק צדיק ומרשיע רשע,
בוחנת רע מטוב וטוב מרע, תוכל להציל את ידידותם. עם הבהרת השופט ובהדגישו מה בדיוק
הוא העוול והרשע, בהביאו את הפשע לאור עם כל הקלון וההשפלה הכרוך בזה, הרשע בריבו
מתבזה ומבויש – בזה הוא מכין את הדרך להגיע לקירוב לבבות. כי רק על ידי מבט מרוכז
וחסר פשרות על הרע, יוכל הטוב להתקבל. רק מי שאינו נרתע מלהגדיר את הרע באדם יוכל
להבחין ולראות את הטוב שבו – דהיינו כל השאר.
זהו
כוח המשפט והקלון הכרוך בו: ‘ונקלה אחיך לעיניך’ – כיון שנקלה הרי הוא כאחיך.[9] מלא פני
הרשע קלון, ועם הצהרת השופט על הרשע, מושך תשומת לב לנקודה הרעה הנמצאת באיש
הנדון, יוכלו חבריו להתאחות ולהתאחד שוב עמו ביודעם שהתגלתה הנקודה הרעה שבו: מכאן
ואילך יישמרו אך מתכונה מסוימת זאת – השאר מוצדק.
וכה
נעשה ללוט משפט מואב. נדחה, נפסל ומבוזה, אולי נשכח ממנו, אולי לא נגעיל את
מחשבותינו בסיפור האב ושתי בנותיו במערת פריצות? יותר קל להתעלם כליל מאנשים כאלו;
אך אין זה מידת המשפט. זכות היא ללוט שלא נכסה על קלונו ונשפוט אותו. ‘בכל תושיה
יתגלע’: שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, תינוקות של בית רבן משחקין וקורין
‘ותהרין שתי בנות לוט מאביהן’,[10] נקרא
ומתרגם; ומכוח משפט זה, מכוח הריכוז והעיון במעשיו, מבקשים להבין את מידותיו ומה
הניע אותו לפעול כמו שפעל, מי התקלקל, מתי, איך ולמה; יצא לאור הצד הטוב שבו,
ובנותיו זוכות בדין.
הגישה
החדשה לפרשת לוט – גישה של משפט – הפכה את השיטה ושינתה את דרך ההתמודדות איתו. כך
הושבת הריב: ‘ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים‘ [רות א א]
פעל המשפט והחזיר כבוד לצאצאי לוט, בת בתו אם המלכות. מכאן ואילך – עמוני ולא
עמונית, מואבי ולא מואבית, על פי מידת המשפט.
לא
כל רשע זוכה למשפט שיוציא לאור את הצדק שבו, ולא כל ריב מושבת. באיזה זכות הוחלה
מידת ‘ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום‘ – על לוט? אין זה אלא בזכות מה שכתוב עליו
בליל ישיבתו בשער סדום, ליל מהפכת סדום: ‘וישפוט שפוט‘ [בראשית יט ט].
הבה
נסביר את כוח מידת המשפט של לוט, הציר המכריע בהצלתו מסדום וגורל צאצאיו, ובשאלת
הטיפול בעמון ומואב.
מידות
החסד, משפט וצדקה, תופשות מקום מרכזי בכל פרשת מהפכת סדום. גורלה של סדום על כף
המאזניים, בית דין של שלושה אנשים יורד מן השמים לשפטה, ואם ימצאוה חייבת יכלו
אותה. אליהם רץ אברהם, קורא ‘יקח נא מעט מים’ במידתו, מידת חסדו. אך לא בדרך החסד
הולכים האנשים עכשיו. הדבר היה מכוסה מן האב המתחסד, אך הגיע הזמן לגלות לאברהם את
כל דרכי ה’, מידות צדקה ומשפט, כמו שכתוב: ‘ושמרו דרך יי לעשות צדקה ומשפט’ [בראשית יח יט]. בכן בא אברהם בסוד בית דין של מעלה, צופה במהלך השפיטה,
דיוני חברי בית הדין. ומכוח זה ניגש אברהם, כידיד בית המשפט, והביע את דעתו: אין
זה משפט שיספה צדיק עם רשע; אם ימצאו שם עשרה צדיקים לא תישחת העיר, ולא יהיה
כצדיק כרשע.
דעת
אברהם התקבלה באוזני ה’, והמשיכו שני המלאכים והגיעו לסדום. ואיה השופט השלישי,
המכריע? אלא שלוט שופט הוא – הוא ישתתף בדיונים. מתחילה היתה דעתו שהסדומיים זכאים
מעונש כליה; כפי שאמרו חז”ל:
כל אותו הלילה היה לוט
מבקש רחמים על סדומיים והיו מקבלים מידו. כיון שאמרו ‘הוציאם אלינו ונדעה אותם’,
אמרו לו. . . ‘עד כאן היה לך רשות ללמד עליהם סניגוריא, מכאן ואילך אין לך רשות
ללמד עליהם סנגוריא’.[11]
אך
משעה שאיימו אנשי סדום על אורחיו וכלתה אליהם הרעה מהם, הסב לוט את משפטו עליהם;
שפוט שפט אותם על רעתם, מוכיח אותם לשנות את מעשיהם לטובה, להתחסד ולתת מחסה
לעוברי אורח, כמעשיו וכמעשי אברהם דודו: ‘אל נא אחי תרעו!’ באותה שעה, לו קיבלו
אנשי סדום את תוכחת השופט וחזרו למוטב, לא היתה העיר אובדת. אלא שהם מיאנו במשפט
האחד שנמשך מתחילה אחרי עושרה של סדום ועכשיו מוכיח אותם, ובאמרם: ‘האחד בא לגור
וישפוט שפוט’ [בראשית יט ט], המיטו עליהם את משפט כל השלושה – שניים מהם היטו את
הדין לחובה, וכבר אין לו פה לשלישי, ללוט, ללמד עליהם זכות.
כל
זה השפיע על הצלת לוט, הנובעת מהכרעת השאלה: האם יהיה נדון כסדומי או כמי ששייך
לאברהם. כי ישנם שני פנים במעשי אברהם בסיפור סדום: חסד ומשפט; חסד להולכי דרכים
וכניסה לסוד משפט האל. וישנם שני פנים במעשי לוט: חסד ומשפט; וכנגדם שני פנים
בהצלתו. כי תביעת המשפט בפי אברהם היתה: ‘האף תספה צדיק עם רשע’ [שם יח כג];
על פי זה אמרו המלאכים אל לוט, ‘קום קח את אשתך . . . פן תספה בעון העיר . . .
ההרה המלט פן תספה’ [שם יט טו-יז] – כל זה במידת המשפט, מצילים את לוט ששפט את אנשי
סדום והפריד את עצמו מהם, מראה התנגדות לשיטה הסדומית, ובכן זוכה למידת צדק ומשפט
זאת – ‘האף תספה צדיק עם רשע’. הוא נפרד מן אנשי הרשע ושפטם, וזה מזכה אותו שלא
לספות איתם, בעוונם. הוא נדון כצדיק – אם אך יקום ויקח את שלו להוציאם מן העיר.
אלא שהוא מתמהמה וקשה לו למהר, להיפרד מסדום, ואף אינו רוצה להימלט אל ההר, אי
אפשר לו לברוח מהר מן הרע המתפשט – לא! אי אפשר ללוט להיפרד מכיכר הירדן, דבוק הוא
במקום שלוות השקט שמשך את עיניו ואדוק הוא באורח חייו. בא לוט לעורר רחמים, התחנן
ואמר:
אל נא אדני . . . ותגדל
חסדך אשר עשית עמדי . . . ואנכי לא אוכל להמלט ההרה פן תדבקני הרעה ומתי׃ הנה נא
העיר הזאת קרבה לנוס שמה והוא מצער . . . הלא מצער הוא ותחי נפשי׃
[שם יח-כ]
וכבר
אין לוט ניצל במשפט מכוח צדקו; חסד הוא מבקש כחסד שעשה הוא להם. ואף על פי שהוא
מתמהמה כסדומי, אף על פי שמגיע לו לספות בעוון העיר, הוא ניצל בחמלת ה’ עליו.
כדודו הדבק בחסד, קורא ‘יקח נא מעט מים’, מבקש לוט שלא תישחת כל המקום שכולה משקה,
ועיר מצער תישאר.
ובכן
סוף הצלת לוט חוזר רק אל החסד. שתי המידות הוצגו על ידי אברהם, ושתיהן על ידי לוט.
אברהם התחיל להראות מידת החסד, ושוב נכנס בסוד המשפט; ולוט מתחילה היה ראוי להינצל
במשפט, ולבסוף ניצל רק מכוח החסד. על שני המידות כתוב: ‘ויהי בשחת אלהים את עכר
הכיכר ויזכור אלהים את אברהם וישלח את לוט מתוך ההפכה’ [שם כט] –
כל דבר צדקות שהיה בו למד לוט מדודו, ממנו למד להכניס אורח ולהתחסד, ממנו הושפע
להיות דבק במשפט; וזכות הצדיק נזכרת ופועלת בעדו. אך סופו ניצל רק בחסד.
והבדל
יש בין מי שניצל במשפט ובין מי שניצל בחסד. כי כל שאלת הצלת לוט היתה איך לסווג
אותו. אם הוא נפרד מן הסדומיים, שופט אותם וניצל במשפט ולא יספה בעוונם – הרי הוא
נדון כאחי אברהם וצדיק הוא. אבל אם קשה לו להיפרד מהם ומגיע לו לספות איתם, אלא
שסוף סוף התחסד ותחת זה מקבל אף הוא חמלה וחסד – הרי הוא נדון כאיש סדומי גרידא
ולא נצדיק אותו, ומידת חסדו עצמה מידרדרת והולכת עד תומה: ‘על דבר אשר לא קדמו
אתכם בלחם ובמים’, זרעו נדחה ונפסל כסדום, לא יבוא בקהל ה’.
אבל
לא נשכח לנצח נסיונו של לוט השופט לשפוט את אנשי עירו הסדומיים, ואומץ לבו להוכיחם
ולעמוד על שיטתו, שיטת החסד. אם בסוף רפו ידיו ויתמהמה מלהיפרד, הרי מתחילה שפט את
בני עירו על התנגדותם למידת החסד בעוז רוח; ובכן זכה שסוף סוף, אחרי כמה דורות,
בימי שפוט השופטים, ימי רות המואביה, יישפט אף הוא על הפרת החסד בידי זרעו; זכות
הניגש אל שופט כל הארץ ואומר: ‘האף תספה צדיק עם רשע’, נשמרת לצאצאי בן אחיו:
ונגשו
אל המשפט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע
זאת
היא זכות משפטו של לוט להצטדק ולהפריד את צאצאיו מן הסדומיים. כי על החסד שפט את
אנשי סדום ועל החסד יישפט: כל רעתו נדונה בגלוי ומזדככת, המשפט שומר את חסדו, בלתי
מופר ומוכן לנצח, בלתי נאבד מבנותיו. פרשת לוט לא נגמרה, והסוגיה מתפתחת והולכת.
נצדיק נא את הצדקניות, בנות לוט – והאחווה חוזרת.
‘והיה
אם בן הכות הרשע והפילו השפט והכהו . . . ארבעים יכנו . . . מכה רבה ונקלה אחיך
לעיניך’
מידת
המשפט מצרפת, מידת המשפט מזככת – אבל יש לכך מחיר. השופט מחפש את הרע ומתמקד בו
בלי להרפות. ובמוצאו רע תופס הוא בסירחון וחוקר אותו, בוחן את כל בחינותיו ומביא
אותן לאור, פרוש כשמלה בבית המשפט. והנוול המתגלה מצריך תגובה הולמת: העונש הראוי מהווה
גמול לרשע ומפרסם את הרשע – והוא תיקונו. הרשע סובל ומבויש, חרפה מטה עליו, ושבע
קלון יוכל לנחול כבוד עוד.[12] הרוע חשוף
וטופל, הצדק חזר למעמדו, והנדון זכאי כאחיך משקיבל עליו את הדין.
התיקון
מושג עם הכאה וקלון, וכך היה עם מואב. העניין מופיע במלחמת שלושת המלכים – יהורם
מלך ישראל, יהושפט מלך יהודה, ומלך אדום – עם מואב. אלישע בן שפט התנבא על נצחונם
והורה להם איך לנהל את המלחמה. וכה אמר:
ונקל זאת בעיני יי ונתן
את מואב בידכם׃ והכיתם כל עיר מבצר וכל עיר מבחור וכל עץ טוב תפילו וכל מעיני מים
תסתמו וכל החלקה הטובה תכאבו באבנים׃
[מלכים
ב ג יח-יט]
כפקודת
בן שפט הנביא עשו, מכים מכה משחיתה ומוחלטת, כפי שכתוב:
ויקמו ישראל ויכו את
מואב וינסו מפניהם ויכו בה והכות את מואב . 
. . וכל עץ טוב יפילו . . . ויכוה׃
[שם כד-כה]
אלא
שזה נוגד את החוק הקבוע בספר דברים:
כי תצור אל עיר . . . לא
תשחית את עצה לנדוח עליו גרזן . . . כי האדם עץ השדה לבוא מפניך במצור׃
[דברים כ יט]
כה
פתרו חז”ל את הדבר:
אמרו לו: ‘התורה אמרה
“לא תשחית את עצה”, ואתה אומר כן?’ אמר להם: ‘על כל האומות צוה דבר זה,
וזו קלה ובזויה היא’; שנאמר: ‘ונקל זאת בעיני יי ונתן את מואב בידכם’, שאמר ‘לא
תדרוש שלומם וטובתם’ – אלו אילנות טובות.[13]
קלון
נשפך על מואב, שאינה נחשבת כאומה הגונה; בניה נבזים ושפלים הם, נולדים בפסול. כבוד
לאברהם ולזרעו, צדיק המאכיל אנשים בצל העץ; יורש יש לו – זרע קודש מובטח להמשיך את
דרכו, דרך ה’, והם מכבדים את עיקרון החיים הנצחיים תמיד. אף בשעת מלחמה, בעת כריתת
חיי האדם והפלתו לארץ, יכבדו את העץ הנצחי, סמל החיים הנצחיים. אבל נצחיותו של לוט
– צאצאיו לדורותיהם – פסולה היא, אשתו כארץ מלחה, צחיחה ועקרה, ויוחסיו רקובים כמו
עץ מת ולא יבוא בקהל ה’. כל עץ טוב יפילו, כי האיש הגומל חסד בהביאו את המלאכים
בצל קורתו הוליד אומה בזויה ונקלה, בהולדה שפלה ומבוזה. ונקלה כבוד מואב, אליהם
מגיע הכאה וקלון – ‘ונקל זאת בעיני יי’.
אך
בקלון הזה, בכאב הזה, טבוע גם האפשרות לתיקונו של לוט. ימלאו פני בני לוט קלון,
בוז על מחצב מכורותיהם: מתוך כך נוכל לקבל את הטוב שבהם. עם תפיסה נכונה על רעתם
נוכל לקבל את טובתם בבטחה. הלוא זוהי דרך המשפט – ‘”ונקלה אחיך לעיניך”:
כיון שנקלה הרי הוא כאחיך’.
זכות
המשפט מצרפת, מאחה – ומצדיק. וכל העניין מרומז בדרש זה:
‘חצות לילה אקום להודות
לך על משפטי צדקך’ . . . דבר אחר : ‘על משפטי צדקך’ – משפטים שהבאת על עמונים ומואבים,
וצדקות שעשית עם זקני וזקנתי, שאילו החיש לה קללה אחת מאין הייתי בא? ונתת בלבו
וברכה, שנאמר, ‘ברוכה את ליי’.[14]
זהו
הסדר: המשפט עצמו מצדיק, משפט עמונים ומואבים, נאסרים לבוא בקהל ה’, מצדיק את רות
בת בתו של לוט, צדקה תהיה לצדקת זאת וברוכה היא לה’.
‘ונקלה
אחיך לעיניך׃ לא תחסום שור בדישו׃ כי ישבו אחים יחדו ומת אחד מהם ובן אין לו לא
תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר יבמה יבוא עליה ולקחה לו לאשה ויבמה’
כך
מסתיים המעגל. ריב בין רועי מקנה אברהם ורועי מקנה לוט, ולא יכלו האחים לשבת יחדו.
על מה רבו? על אודות חסימת השוורים, כפי שאמרו חז”ל:
בהמתו של אברהם היתה
יוצאה זמומה ושל לוט לא היתה יוצאה זמומה. אמרו להם רועי אברהם: ‘הותר הגזל?’ אמרו
להם רועי לוט: ‘כך אמר הקב”ה לאברהם: “לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת” [בראשית יב ז],
ואברהם פרדה עקרה הוא ואינו מוליד ולוט יורשו, ומדידהון אכלין.[15]
הריב
התגבר ונפרדו איש מעל אחיו, האחווה בסכנה, אך עדיין קיימת לזמן קצר, עד זמן שסדום
ומלכה דחו את שיטת אברהם בשתי ידיים; ואז אין לוט אלא איש גרידא כשאר אנשי סדום,
אין אברהם מכיר אותו ולא מנסה להצילו, להעלותו ממהפכת הכיכר. אך מידת משפטו של לוט
פעלה הצלה בעד בת בתו רות, זכות האחים היושבים יחדו חוזרת ונזכרת, ואם אחד מהם מת –
לוט – ובן כשר אין לו, לא תהיינה בנותיו-נשותיו החוצה לאיש זר, בל תחשבנה לנכריות
מחמת מעשיהן, כי לשם שמים נתכוונו. על פי המשפט: תעלה רות השערה אל הזקנים ותתייבם
לבועז, ובזאת תבוא המואבית אל קהל ה’.


[1]מדרש תנחומא פרשת לך לך
סימן יג.
[2] ראה הוריות י: מאי דכתיב
‘אח נפשע מקרית עוז’ וכו’.
[3] נזיר כג:
[4] ספרי דברים פיסקא רפו.
[5] בר”ר נא:ט.
[6] נזיר כג.
[7] יבמות עו:
[8] ראה מדרש רבה רות ב:יד.
[9] מכות כג.
[10] מדרש תנחומא פרשת וירא
סימן יב.
[11] בר”ר נ:ה.
[12] ראה מש”כ בעל הטורים על ‘ונקלה אחיך לעיניך’.
[13] מדרש רבה במדבר כא:ו.
[14] מדרש רבה רות ו:א.
[15] בר”ר מא:ה.



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.



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.



אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך

אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך
מאת דוד פרקש*
במדבר רבה (ט:מח)
מטרונה שאלה את ר”א מפני מה
חטייה אחת בעגל והם [בני ישראל] מתו בה ג’ מיתות, אמר לה אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלכה
דכתיב וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו. אמר לו הורקנוס בשביל שלא להושיבה דבר אחד מן
התורה איבדה ממנו ג’ מאות כור מעשר בכל שנה? אמר לו, ישרפו ד”ת ואל ימסרו
לנשים.
קושייות המטרונה יותר ברורה בהמקביל
ביומא (יומא סו:) שם הגירסא “שאלה אשה חכמה את ר’ אליעזר, מאחר שמעשה העגל
שוין מפני מה אין מיתתן שוה”, והוא הוא. ומאמר זה של ר”א צריך להקרא יחד
עם מאמרו בסוטה (ג:ד) “כל המלמד תורה לבתו כאילו מלמדה תפלות.” והנה, הא
ודאי מענין שעד כה הגיע עמידתו של ר”א נגד תלמוד תורה לנשים, עד כדי כך
שוויתר על 300 מאות כור מעשר [שהמטרונה היתה מתנדבת] מפני שיטתו, ואפילו לא ללמדם
תורה באופן מסודר, רק שלא להשיב לשאלת המטרונה. אולם, מה שנוגע לנו עתה הוא הלשון
המדויק של ר”א: “אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלכה.”
פלך, כידוע, הוא מה שקוראים באנגלית
spindle, היינו כלי המשמש בטווית צמר לשם תפירה או אריגה. (לראות צורתו ע’
ויקיפדיה ערך פלך, או כאן: (/http://schachtspindle.com/item/hand-spindles). מסגנון מאמרו זה ר”א לבד היה יתכן לומר שהיה פתגם עממי שגור
בצבור הרחב בזמנו, בדרך “היינו דאמרי אינשי.” אבל ממקומות אחרים רואים
ההדגשה מיוחדת שרבי אליעזר בפרט ראה בהפלך, ויחוסו לאשה. בבתובות (ט:ד) תנן
“המושיב את אשתו חנונית או שמנה אפוטרופא – הרי זה משביעה כל זמן ירצה [שלא
לקחה משלו כלום.] רבי אליעזר אומר: אפילו על פלכה ועל עיסתה.” הרי נקט
ר”א דוקא דוגמאות אלו – פלך ועיסה – כסימן למלאכתה של אשה.
יותר מזה – בכתובות (ה:ה) למדנו
שבעה מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה, כולל הטחנה, הכבסה, הצעת המטה, ועוד. ברם, לפי
הת”ק שם, אם היא מכניסה מספיק שפחות לנשואין, אין היא צריכה לעשות כלום,
ו”יושבת בקתדרא.” אבל “רבי אליעזר אומר, אפילו הכניסה לו מאה
שפחות כופה לעשות בצמר, שהבטלה מביאה לידי זמה
.” מתוך שבעה מלאכות הנזכרת
שם במשנה, ר”א נקט דוקא מעשה צמר – דהיינו, מעשה פלך – כחיובה של אשה, אפילו
אם יש לה שפחות ואיננה צריכה לכך. הרי ברור לנו שביטוי זה, “אין חכמה לאשה
אלא בפלך” הוא מאמרו של ר”א לבד, בדרך “מרגלא בפומיה”,
ומאפיין לשיטתו בכלל. אבל מהו פירושו של הביטוי?
 לפי פשוטו כוונת המאמר מבוססת על דברי הכתוב
“וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו” (שמות לה:כה) כמו שאכן המדרש לעיל מסיימת
בההמשך. נקודה זו גם משתקפת במשלי (לא:יט) “ידיה שלחה בכישור וכפיה תמכו
פלך”. לאמר, האשה מתוארת בכתבי קדש כמצטיינת בפלך, ולכן זהו קאמר ר”א,
שכל חכמת האשה כרוכה אך ורק בחכמה זו, כלומר, אריגה, תפירה, וכדו’. ברם, מכמה
מקומות בש”ס נראה שיש שכבה נוספת טמונה בדברי ר”א.
ראשית, יצוין כי אשה יכולה לעשות
עוד כמה דברים באותו זמן שהיא משתמשת בפילכה. ע’ מגילה (יד:) – כי הוות מיפטרא
מיניה [אביגיל מדוד] אמרה ליה והטיב ה’ לאדוני וזכרת את אמתך. אמר רב נחמן היינו
דאמרי אינשי, “איתתא, בהדי שותא, פילכא.” פרש”י “עם שהאשה
מדברת היא טווה, כלומר עם שהיא מדברת עמו על בעלה, הזכירה לו את עצמה שאם ימות
ישאנה.” זאת אומרת, אשה יכולה גם לדבר וגם לארוג בב”א, והכא נמי, בעוד
שאביגל היתה מדברת לדוד אודות בעלה נבל, גם רמזה לדוד שאם מקרה יקרה לבעלה (כמו
שאכן קרה) שדוד ישאנה. הרי הרווחנו בזה יסוד חשוב: שמוש בפלך אינו מגביל או
מעכב את האשה מעסקים אחרים, אפילו באותו זמן, וכש”כ בזמנים אחרים
.
שנית, שמוש בפלך אינה מלאכה גרועה
או בזויה, והאשה יכולה להתעשרת מכך. ע’ 
בראשית רבה (נו:יא) “משל לאשה שנתעשרה מפלכה, אמרה הואיל ומן הפלך הזה
התעשרתי, עוד אינו זז מתחת ידי לעולם. כך אמר אברהם, כל שבא לידי אינו אלא בשביל
שעסקתי בתורה ובמצות, לפיכך אינו רוצה שתזוז מזרעי לעולם.” יוצא לנו יסוד
אחר: אין זה עלבון להיות מומחה בחכמת הפלך.
יותר מזה, מצינו שמוש בפלך במגוונים
רחבים ומצבים שונות. ראה לדוגמא כתובות (עב:) – 
“אמר רבה בר בר חנה זימנא חדא הוה קאזילנא בתריה דרב עוקבא חזיתיה
לההיא ערביא דהוה יתבה. קא שדיא פילכה וטווה ורד כנגד פניה [לשון נקי]. כיון
דחזיתינן פסיקתיה לפילכה שדיתיה אמרה לי עולם [בחור], הב לי פלך.” –  פי’ האשה הערביא הזאת השתמשה בהפלך באופן
בלתי-צנוע, כדי לתפוס את רבב”ח  לדבר עבירה. לשם כך, היא
השליכה את פילכה בערמומיות, ובקשה מרבב”ח שיחזיר אותה לה, כדי להתקרב לו. הרי
גם כאן, הפלך שרת כאמצעי לחכמתה ויוזמתה.
סנהדרין (צה.) –  “בהדי דקא מסגי חזייה לערפה אמיה דהוות
נוולא. כי חזיתיה, פסקתה לפילכה שדתיה עילויה. סברא למקטליה. אמרה ליה, עלם, אייתי
לי פלך.”  באגדה זו, הענק ישבי בנוב
[אחיו של גלית, שהיה בא להרוג דוד בנקמה על הריגת אחיו] תפס את דוד והיה מצער
אותו. בדרך נסי, אבישי בן צרויה שמע את המצב, ורכב על סוסו להציל אותו. ערפה, אמא
של הענק, ראתה את אבישי, וכדי להרוג אותו זרקה פלכה אליו. (וכשלא הצליחה, אמרה
באמתלא שהפלך רק “נפל ממנה” ובקש מאבישי לחזור אותו לה.) הרי הפלך בידיה
היה משרת כעין נשק. ובדרך צחות נוכל לומר, כמו שאמרו (יבמות קטו.) “אשה כלי
זיינה עליה.” שוב פעם, חכמה בפלך היא חכמה רב-גווני, וכוללת אפילו ידע
בנשק.
וכן יש עוד דוגמאות. במס’ שבת (יז:ב)
מצינו: “נוטל אדם קרנס לפצע בו את אגוזים… את הכוש ואת הכרכר לתחוב
בו.” פי’ הרע”ב, “כוש: פלך שטוות בו הנשים. לתחוב בו: לאכול
בו תותים וכל מיני פרי רך.” הרי כאן הפלך יכולה לשמשת כעין מזלג.
 ומלבד חז”ל, כבר מצינו קללת דוד ליואב
בשמואל ב (ג:כט) “ואל יכרת מבית יואב זב ומצורע ומחזיק בפלך ונפל בחרב וחסר
לחם.” פרש”י ורד”ק שם, “מחזיק פלך, נשען על מקלו מחמת חולי
הרגלים.” הרי הפלך גם היה יכול לשרת כמשענת. (מיהו, נחלקו המפרשים שם, ויתכן
שמלת פלך שם באמת היינו משענת, ולאו פלך בשמוש כמשענת.)
היוצא מכל הנ”ל היא שחכמת נשים
בפלכה מתבטאת בכמה גוונים, לא רק טוויה בלבד. כמו אולר שוויצרי (Swiss Army Knife), בשמוש של פלכה אשה חכמה יכולה לעשות הרבה דברים. ואמנם אמת היא
שלדעתו של ר”א חכמת נשים מוגבלת, לפחות שמטעם זה לא רצה להשיב לקושיית
המטרונה. מיהו, אינה כ”כ מוגבלת כפי אשר נראה באופן שטחי. חכמת הפלך אכן היא
חכמה גדולה.[1]
* Mr. Farkas, an attorney
practicing as in-house labor counsel for FirstEnergy Corporation, received his
rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College in 1999. He lives with
his family in Cleveland, Ohio.  This is
his third appearance in the Seforim Blog. See his articles Rashbam theTalmudist, Reconsidered and אור חדש במעשה ברבי אלעזר בהגש”פ.


[1]יש
להעיר,שני ביטויים שמקשרים נשים לפלך – “אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך”, ו”איתתא
בהדי שותא פילכא” נאמרו ע”י רבי אליעזר ורב נחמן. במגילה (יד:) מצינו
“אמר רב נחמן לא יאה יהירותא לנשי” [לא נאה גאוה לנשים]. ובגמרא
מ”ק (כח.) “[אין מניחין את המטה ברחוב שלא להרגיל את ההספד] ולא של נשים
לעולם מפני הכבוד אמרי נהרדעי לא שנו אלא חיה אבל שאר נשים מניחין. ר’ אלעזר אמר
אפילו שאר הנשים [לא מניחין], דכתיב וכו’.” ומענין שר”א ור”נ שניהם
היו נשאוים לנשים ממשפחות מפורסמות: ר”א לאמא שלום, אחות רבן גמליאל מיבנה;
ורב נחמן לילתא, בת ריש גלותא. ושני נשים האלו נזכרים בש”ס כמה פעמים בקשר
לדברים מוסריים, ע’ למשל קידושין (ע:) ושבת (קטז.) כמו”כ יצוין מה שמסופר על
ר”א בנדרים (כ.) “שאלו את אימא שלום מפני מפני
מה בניך יפיפין ביותר אמרה להן אינו מספר עמי לא בתחלת הלילה ולא בסוף הלילה אלא
בחצות הלילה וכשהוא מספר מגלה טפח ומכסה טפח ודומה עליו כמי שכפאו שד.” ולעיל
הבאתי שיטת ר”א בהמשנה (כתובות ה:ה) “שהבטלה מביאה לידי זמה.” השוה
לדברי רשב”ג שם “שהבטלה מביאה לידי שעמום”.
 לא נעלם
ממני שיש מעמינו שרוצים לעשות הצהרות פולטיות מכל סוגיא כזו והמסתעף. להוי ידוע
שאין לי עסק בזה כלל וכלל, ואין לי שום חפץ לכנס לתחום ההוא, ואין אני מסיק לא דבר
ולא מידי. אני כותב כמעורר בעלמא מבחנת תלמוד תורה, כי תורה היא, וללמדה אני צריך.



Book week 2016

Book week 2016
By Eliezer Brodt
Book week just began in Eretz Yisrael. As I have written in previous years every year in Israel, around Shavous time, there is a period of about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer – Book Week (for previous years lists see here, here, hereherehereherehere,  here and here).
Many of the companies offer sales for the whole month. Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out just for the sales. There are places where strictly “frum” seforim are sold and other places have most of the secular publishing houses. Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at this time.
In my lists I sometimes include an older title if I just noticed the book. As I have written in the past, I do not intend to include all the new books. Eventually some of these titles will be the subject of their own reviews. I try to include titles of broad interest. Some books I cannot provide much information about as I just glanced at them quickly.
As this list shows although book publishing in book form has dropped greatly worldwide, Academic books on Jewish related topics are still coming out in full force.
As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee to help one purchase these titles (or titles of previous years). For more information about this email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the the Seforim Blog.
מאגנס
1. שמחה עמנואל, מגנזי
אירופה
,, א, 512 עמודים
2. דוד הנשקה, מה
נשתנה
, ליל הפסח בתלמודם של חכמים, 650 עמודים
3. מנחם כהנא, ספרי במדבר, חלק ד-ה, ב’ חלקים
4. שי עקביא ווזנר, חשיבה משפטית בישיבות ליטא, עיונים
במשנתו של הרב שמעון שקופ, 332 עמודים
5. יאיר פורסטנברג, טהרה וקהילה בעת העתיקה, מסורות
הלכה בין יהדות  בית שני למשנה, 479 עמודים
6. יקיר אנגלנדר, הגוף הגברי החרדי ליטאי בספרות המוסר
ובסיפורי הצדיקים
7. קבלה מיסטיקה ופואטיקה, המסע אל קץ החיזיון,  בעריכת אבי אלקיים שלומי מועלם
8. שרה צפתמן, צא טמא, גירוש רוחות ביהדות אשכנז
בראשית העת החדשה, 597 עמודים
9. אבינועם רוזנק [עורך], הלכה כהתרחשות, פילוסופיה של
ההלכה, 472 עמודים
10. דוד רוקח, סוגיות בענייני דיומא ושאר ירקות 160
עמודים
11. צחי וייס, קיצוץ בנטיעות, עבודת השכינה בעולמה של
ספרות הקבלה המוקדמת, 170 עמודים
12. שרה קליין ברסלבי, פירוש הרלב”ג לסיפורי
בריאת האדם ולסיפור גן העדן
13. אלכסנדר קריסטיאנפולר, חלומות ופשריהם בספרות
חז”ל, מגנס, 174 עמודים
14. תרביץ פג א-ב
15. תרביץ פג ג
16. תרביץ פג ד
17. קובץ על יד, כרך כד
18. יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות
ישראל, האיגוד העולמי, 447 עמודים
ביאליק
1. זאב גריס, הספר העברי פרקים לתולדותיו, 435 עמודים
2. אסף ידידיה, לגדל תרבות עבריה, חייו ומשנתו של זאב
יעבץ, 232 עמודים
3. משנת הזוהר, כרך המפתחות
4. נאוה וסרמן, מימי לא קראתי לאשתי, זוגיות בחסידות
גור,
5. איתמר לוין, קאפו באלנבי: העמדת יהודים לדין בישראל
באשמת סיוע לנאצים, 573 עמודים
מרכז זלמן שזר
1. ולדימיר לוין, ממהפכה למלחמה הפוליטיקה היהודית
ברוסיה, 1914-1917, 503 עמודים
2. מעוז כהנא, מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, הלכה והגות
לנוכח אתגרי הזמן, 486 עמודים
4. שלמה טיקוצינסקי, למדנות מוסר ואליטיזם, ישיבת
סלבודקה מליטא לארץ ישראל, 394 עמודים
4. יוסף דן, תולדות תורת הסוד העברית, ימי הביניים,
יא, ספר הזוהר, 515 עמודים
5. רחל מנקין, יהודי גליציה והחוקה האוסטריה, ראשיתה
של פוליטיקה יהודית מודרנית, 287 עמודים
6. אבני דרך, מסות ומחקרים בהיסטוריה של עם ישראל,
בעריכת עמנואל אטקס דוד אסף ויוסף קפלן, 537 עמודים
7. פאבל מצ’ייקו, ערב רב, פנים וחוץ בוויכוח
הפרנקיסטי, 352 עמודים
8. זוהר מאור, מרטין בובר
9. ויצמן מנהיג הציונות, אורי כהן מאיר חזן (עורכים)
10. עפרי אילני, החיפוש אחר העם העברי: תנ”ך
ונאורות בגרמניה
בר אילן
1. פירוש ר’ אברהם בן שלמה התימני לספר ישעיהו, מהדיר
א’ שלוסברג, בר אילן, 540 עמודים
2. מנחם קלנר, גם הם קרויים אדם, הנכרי בעיני
הרמב”ם, בר אילן, 249 עמודים
3. משנת ארץ ישראל, עם פירוש ספראי, חלה, 258 עמודים
4. עלי ספר, כד-כה, 362 עמודים
5. סידרא ל
6. בדד 30
7. דעת 79-80
8. דב שוורץ, הגותו הפילוסופית של הרב סולובייצ’יק, ג:
התפילה כחוויה
9. שירת ההגות, עיוני ביצירתו של ר’ יהודה הלוי,
בעריכת אפרים חזן ודב שוורץ
10. שמואל גליק, שרידי תשובות מחכמי האימפריה
העות’מאנית, ב’ חלקים
11. Daniel Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle,
Addenda et Corrigenda, 88 pp.
יד יצחק בן צבי
1. מנחם כ”ץ, תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת קידושין, מהדורה
וביאור קצר, 480 עמודים
2. מרד בר כוכבא, העדות הארכאולוגית, 158 עמודים
3. ניסים יושע, אנוס בחבלי משיח: תאולוגיה, פילוסופיה
ומשיחיות בהגותו של אברהם מיכאל קארדוסו, בן צבי, 282  עמודים
4. כנה ורמן, ספר היובלים, מבוא ופירוש, 627 עמודים
5. גבוה מעל גבוה: בית הכנסת תפארת ישראל והקהילה
החסידית בירושלים, עורכים: ראובן גפני יוחאי בן גדליה אוריאל גלמן, 272 עמודים
6. סתרי נדחים: יהודים עם זהויות חבויות עורכים אבי
אלקיים, יוסף קפלן, 359 עמודים
7. אפרים יעקב, אלוה מתימן יבוא, פרקים בתולדות הקבלה
בתימן, 351 עמודים
8. דוד בן זזון, נבוכים הם, מסע בביאורו של דון יצחק
אברבנאל ל’מורה נבוכים’, 408 עמודים
9. גנזי קדם, כרך יא
10. ספונות כרך כד, 560 עמודים
קורן-מגיד
1. מעשה חשב, אמונה הגות ומחשבה נושאי מרכזי דעת
אלוקים, כרך א, 270 עמודים
2. ר’ אהרן ליכטנשטיין, מוסר אביב על מוסר אמונה וחברה,
320 עמודים
3.
Rabbi David Eliezrie, The Secret of Chabad, Inside the world’s most
successful Jewish Movement
4.
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik etc, Torah and Western Thought; Intellectual
Portraits of orthodoxy and Modernity
ידיעות ספרים
1. גרשם שלום, זרמים ראשיים במיסטיקה היהודית, 502
עמודים
2. אבי רט עם רבנים וחוקרים, באמת ובאהבה, על גדולי
החסידות עולמם ותורתם, 377 עמודים
3. חביבה פדיה, קבלה ופסיכואנליזה, מסע פנימי בעקבות
המיסטיקה היהודית, 391 עמודים
4. אריאל פיקאר, לראות את הקולות, מסורת יצירה וחירות
פרשנית, 310 עמודים
דני ספרים
1. עמנואל אלאלוף, הרי”ף בין ספרד לאשכנז,
השתלשלות ההלכה ודרכי הלימוד בספרד ובאשכנז ומקומו של הרי”ף כמגשר ביניהם,
560 עמודים
יד ושם
1. יחזקאל ליכטנשטיין, והסנה איננו אכל: סוגיות מימי
השואה בראי ההלכה, 363 עמודים
קיבוץ המאוחד – ספריית הילל בן חיים
1. יוסף יצחק ליפשיץ, אחד בכל דמיונות, הגותם
הדיאלקטית של חסידי אשכנז, 234 עמודים
2. בועס הס, שאלת קיומה של מיסטיקה יהודית, גנאלוגיה
של המיסטיקה היהודית והתיאולוגיות של חקר הקבלה, קיבוץ המאוחד-ון ליר, 185 עמודים
3.יונתן גרוסמן, גלוי ומוצפן, על כמה מדרכי העיצוב של
הסיפור המקראי, ספריית הילל בן חיים, 435 עמודים
4. עזריה בייטנר, הכהנים רגזנים הם, לדמותם של הכהנים
באגדה, 304 עמודים
5. עופר חן, המשכיות ומפנה, מגרמניה לארץ ישראל
האורתודוקסיה המודרנית לנוכח האתגר הציוני
6. יעל שמש, אבלות במקרא, דרכי התמודדות עם אובדן
בספרות המקראית
מכללת הרצוג
1. ר’ יואל בן-נון, זכור ושמור, טבע והיסטוריה נפגשים
בשבת ובלוח החגים [הרבה חומר על הלוח] מללכת הרצוג, 544 עמודים
2. ר’ יעקב מדן, המקראות המתחדשים, עיונים בנביאים
ובכתובים, 563 עמודים
3. יצחק גייגר, היציאה מהשטעטל, רבני הציונות הדתית אל
מול אתגר הריבונות היהודי, 537 עמודים
כרמל             
1. חלמיש למעיינו מים, מחקרים בקבלה הלכה מנהג והגהות
מוגשים לפר’ משה חלמיש, כרמל, 667 +33 עמודים
2. פירוש שד”ל על התורה, ה’ חלקים על פי
כ”י, כולל הרבה הוספות
3. חנה קהת, משהפכה התורה לתלמוד תורה, תמורות באידאה
של תלמוד תורה בעידן המודרני, 744 עמודים
4. אפרים חמיאל, האמת הכפולה, עיונים בהגות הדתית
המודרנית במאה התשע עשרה ובהשפעתה על ההגות היהודי במאה העשרים, [על רש”ר
הירש, שד”ל, מהר”ץ חיות, רד”צ הופמן ועוד], 477 עמודים
5. רוברט ליברלס, יהודים וקפה, מסורת וחדשנות בגרמניה
בעת החדשה המוקדמת, 240 עמודים
6. חננאל מאק, מבראשית לבראשית רבה 2