DOCSLIB.ORG

Charles S. Liebman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Charles S. Liebman Charles S. Liebman Conservative Judaism has been characterized by some· of its leading exponents as a coalition rather than an ideologically cohesive movement. Other distinguished spokesmen for the group, however, insist that it was a specific school of thought, the so-called "Historical School," rather than institutional loyalty th.i1t pro­ vided the matrix for the emergence of Conservative Judaism. One of the most forceful expositions of this view is found in a new book by Professor Moshe Davis. Whether and to what extent historical evi­ dence supports Professor Davis' thesis is examined here by Professor Charles Liebman who teaches Po­ litical Science at Yeshiva University. Formerly an Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, he has written extensively on urban politics and is co-author of a forthcoming book on suburban political .patterns. He is presently engaged in the preparation of a study of orthodox Judaism in the United States. ORTHODOXY IN NI-r\ETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA Moshe Davis' new book, The that Judaism should make to the Emergence 0/ Conservative Juda­ American milieu. It attempts to dem­ ism, though reproducing much of the onstrate that with the foundation of material originally published by him the Jewish Theological Seminary the in an article on "Jewish Religious "Historical School" achieved its ulti­ Life and Institutions in America"l is mate institutional form as the con­ an interesting and informative vol­ servative movement. Though some ume. The author has brought many historians prefer the term "Conserv­ sources together in a highly readable ative Judaism," Davis maintains: . form and bis work will represent a Upon considered study of the sources good starting point for future schol­ and documents of the period, it ars. Yet it is far from being either a seems clear to me that between the definitive or an authoritative study. two possibilities, with the entire cen­ The book attempts to describe the tury in mind, the name "Historical emergence and development of the School" presents the more accurate description of the pre-twentieth-cen­ "Historical School," which differed tury "Conservative Movement." It both from Orthodoxy and Reform emphasizes the revolutionary char­ on the measure of accommodation acter of the idea which only eventu­ 132 Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America ally became embodied in particular member of a reform congregation institutional forms, and includes such and a Zionist and it is readily ap­ differipg approaches as the tradition­ alism of Isaac '1l.eeser and Sabato parent from Davis' own material Morais, the development conception that one could have been either Re­ of Alexander' Kohut and the, prog­ form or Orthodox and a member ressivism of Benjamin Szold and of what he terms the Historical Marcus ]astrQw, all of whom identi­ School. fied themselves with this School and institutions. (p. IS) What Davis has done is to take the founders of the Jewish Theo­ The ma'jor criticism of Davis' logical Seminary together with their work is that his evidence for the ex­ earlier associates, call them the His­ istence of the Historical School as torical School: and then treat them an independent approach to Jewish as though there was no need to dem­ life in nineteenth century America onstrate that they represented a suf­ is inadequate. If he is to make his ficiently independent and cohesive point, he must indicate the major school of thought to justify dis­ lines of Reform, the major lines of tinguishing them from Orthodoxy Orthodoxy, and then show that and Reform. Lest there be any ques­ members of the Historical School tion that what Davis is doing repre­ shared significantly more with' one sents a real innovation, and that it another than they shared with Re­ has never been incontrovertibly ac­ form or Orthodoxy. Furthermore, he cepted that the precursors of the must demonstrate that the differences Jewish Theological Seminary rep­ between the Historical School and resented a school of thought, we Reform and Orthodoxy were differ­ need only cite Herbert Parzen, in ences of the same quality. In other his study of "The Early Develop­ words, if he posits some religious ment of Conservative Judaism" continuum with radical Reform at which appeared in Conservative Ju­ one end and Orthodoxy at the other, daism. Parzen notes that "the sketch we can only distinguish the Histori­ of the history of the old Seminary cal School from them if that move­ makes abundantly definite that it did ment can in fact be located along not embody a movement."2 Davis, the same continuum. But if, for ex­ whose entire theme lies in contra­ ample, the differences between Re­ diction to that of Parzen, is at the form and Orthodoxy were over the very least obligated to note wherein centrality of Halakhah in Jewish life, he is justified in beginning with as­ and the Historical School members sumptions contrary to the evidence shared with one another only a com­ of a fellow Conservative scholar. The mitment to raise the level of Jewish stress here is on the word "assump­ education, fight anti-semitism, and tion" because unless one accepts procure public adherence to Sab­ Davis' position a priori that there bath and kashrut, they cannot be was an Historical School, much of juxtaposed to Orthodoxy and Re­ the book, particularly the first half, form anymore than one might to­ is without meaning. As we will in­ day compare Zionism, Conserva­ dicate by example below, what Da­ tism, and. Reform. One can be it vis does is simply document the ac­ 133 v,/, TRADITION: A Journal 0/ Orthodox Thought tivities of a number of members of has until recently turned aside ef­ his "Historical SchooL" He tells us forts to identify it with Conserva­ that Leeser, Szold, and Morais did tism as juxtaposed to Orthodoxy. If, something. But if there is no His­ by definition, one chooses to en~ torical School to begin with, then compass both the Seminary and the "... why are we concerned with what United Synagogue movement under Leeser, Szold, or Morais did. Maybe the label Conservatism, the relation- ')'. Reform and Orthodox leaders were ship between the two bodies repre­ doing exactly the same thing. sents more a marriage of convenien!=o . Before we proceed to a more de­ than a love affair. In fact, even Solo.. tailed examination of the evidence mon Schechter, at a much later pe­ for the existence of a Historical riod, entertained hope for a ~id­ School one point should be made. duch between the Seminary and the Even if Davis had,succeeded in jus­ new Orthodox immigrants,' from tifying his thesis that the "Historical Eastern Europe. The dowry was to School," i.e., the founders of the Jew­ be Eastern European acculturation. ish Theological Seminary, formed an but not surrender of religious con­ independent movement in nine­ Victions. Orthodoxy, wisely or un­ teenth century American Jewish life, wisely, refused to separate the halak­ the evidence is by no means con­ hically essential from the non-essen­ vincing that he is justified in calling tial. (This may only serve to prove them the precursors of the Conser­ that we need to be wary of change vative movement. As Marshall even within the framework of Ha­ Sklare in his brilliant study Conser­ lakhah.) Nevertheless, the founding vative Judaism 3 demonstrates, the of the Seminary in 1887 did not conservative synagogue movement necessarily lead to the emergence evolved as an effort on the part of of the Conservative movement. the offspring of the more successful Now let us tum our attention to East European immigrant families some examples from Davis' text and less frequently the immigrants which in fact argue against the ex­ themselves to adopt East European istence of the Historical School in Orthodox worship to the prevailing the sense which has been suggested. social and cultural norms of middle 1) Davis distinguishes the members class urban America in the early of the Historical School by name 1900's. There was no ideological but there is almost nothing that can foundation for the changes intro­ be said about them as a group. They duced by the Conservatives. The had no central institutions, no regu­ Seminary, in fact, whose founders lar meetings, and until quite late, no originally contemplated calling it publication. Here, for example, is the Orthodox Jewish Seminary,. and an early instance of how Davis who organized the present Union of treats the Historical School. Orthodox Jewish Congregations as its original group of constituent In 1868. another such incident oc­ congregations, has traditionally re­ curred [The Governor of a State addressed a Thanksgiving Day proc­ sisted sanctioning many of the Con­ lamation only to Christians] and servative synagogue innovations and evoked a response from members of 1.::' 134 Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America the Historical group ... The rabbis ample for all Israel "to behold clear­ of Philadelphia, among whom were ly the difference between the ways· Bettelheim, Jastrow,. and Morais, were greatly aroused, (p. 96). of truth and the footprints of false~ hood."3 leeser, by the way, is re­ Time and again Davis narrates ferred to by another Conservative incidents in American Jewish his­ writer as "a skillfUl and energetic tory, and then relates the reaction of propagandist and negotiator for tra­ the Rabbis of the "Historical ditional or Orthodox Judaism."o School." There is no evidence that The other prominent Orthodox anybody else acted differently. leader whom Davis mentions is Ab­ 2) In order to distinguish the His­ raham Rice. He characterizes Rice torical School from Orthodoxy we as an example of the "West Euro­ must know something about the Or.­ pean Orthodox which, even in the thodox movement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paradigms Sometimes Fit: the Haredi Response to the Yom Kippur War
    Paradigms Sometimes Fit: The Haredi Response to the Yom Kippur War CHARLES s. LIEBMAN This essay is an effort to understand Jewish ultra-orthodox Haredi reaction to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Attention is confined to the large central segment of Haredi society represented in the political arena by Agudat Israel - the only Haredi political party which existed in the period covered here. The hypothesis which guided my research was that between 1973 and the elections of 1977, changes took place in Haredi conceptions of the state of Israel and the wider society which led Agudat Israel to join the government coalition. I have sought to explore this hypothe­ sis by comparing Haredi responses to the Yom Kippur War with their reactions to the Six Day War of June 1967. I assumed that the striking victory of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in the Six Day War would pose serious problems for Haredim. The Six Day War superficially, at least, seemed to be a vindication of Zionism, of secular Israel and the capacity of human design. The Yom Kippur War, on the other hand, seemed to reflect the tentative and insecure status of Israel, its isolation from the world and the folly of Israel's leaders. It, more than any of Israel's wars, might help narrow the sense of alienation that Haredim heretofore have felt. The tragedy and trauma of the war and the deep scars it left in Israeli society would serve, so I anticipated, to evoke in Haredi eyes the age-old experience of the Jewish people since the destruction of the Temple.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life1
    ORTHODOXY IN AMERICAN JEWISH LIFE1 by CHARLES S. LIEBMAN INTRODUCTION • DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ORTHODOXY • EARLY ORTHODOX COMMUNITY • UNCOMMITTED ORTHODOX • COM- MITTED ORTHODOX • MODERN ORTHODOX • SECTARIANS • LEAD- ERSHIP • DIRECTIONS AND TENDENCIES • APPENDLX: YESHIVOT PROVIDING INTENSIVE TALMUDIC STUDY A HIS ESSAY is an effort to describe the communal aspects and institutional forms of Orthodox Judaism in the United States. For the most part, it ignores the doctrines, faith, and practices of Orthodox Jews, and barely touches upon synagogue hie, which is the most meaningful expression of American Orthodoxy. It is hoped that the reader will find here some appreciation of the vitality of American Orthodoxy. Earlier predictions of the demise of 11 am indebted to many people who assisted me in making this essay possible. More than 40, active in a variety of Orthodox organizations, gave freely of their time for extended discussions and interviews and many lay leaders and rabbis throughout the United States responded to a mail questionnaire. A number of people read a draft of this paper. I would be remiss if I did not mention a few by name, at the same time exonerating them of any responsibility for errors of fact or for my own judgments and interpretations. The section on modern Orthodoxy was read by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman. The sections beginning with the sectarian Orthodox to the conclusion of the paper were read by Rabbi Nathan Bulman. Criticism and comments on the entire paper were forthcoming from Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein, Dr. Marshall Ski are, and Victor Geller, without whose assistance the section on the number of Orthodox Jews could not have been written.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage
    Double or Nothing? mn Double or published by university press of new england hanover and london po po Nothing? Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage Sylvia Barack Fishman BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY PRESS nm Brandeis University Press Published by University Press of New England, 37 Lafayette St., Lebanon, NH 03766 © 2004 by Brandeis University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 54321 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fishman, Sylvia Barack, 1942– Double or nothing? : Jewish familes and mixed marriage / Sylvia Barack Fishman. p. cm.—(Brandeis series in American Jewish history, culture, and life) (Brandeis series on Jewish Women) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–58465–206–3 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Interfaith marriage—United States. 2. Jews—United States—Social conditions. 3. Jewish families—United States. I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: Brandeis series on Jewish women HQ1031.F56 2004 306.84Ј3Ј0973—dc22 2003021956 Brandeis Series in American Jewish History, Culture, and Life Jonathan D. Sarna, Editor Sylvia Barack Fishman, Associate Editor Leon A. Jick, 1992 The Americanization of the Synagogue, 1820–1870 Sylvia Barack Fishman, editor, 1992 Follow My Footprints: Changing Images of Women in American Jewish Fiction Gerald Tulchinsky, 1993 Taking Root: The Origins of the Canadian Jewish Community Shalom Goldman, editor, 1993 Hebrew and the Bible in America: The First Two Centuries Marshall Sklare, 1993 Observing America’s Jews Reena Sigman Friedman, 1994 These Are Our Children: Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing Jewish Buddhist Identity in America
    UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Choosing People: Constructing Jewish Buddhist Identity in America by Nicole Heather Libin A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2009 © Nicole Heather Libin 2009 ISBN: 978-0-494-51194-7 Abstract Evidence suggests that Jews comprise an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of American Buddhist converts. This study examines this phenomenon, exploring the identity construction and lived experiences of Jewish individuals who identify with Buddhism. Through in-depth, unstructured interviews with fifteen individuals, supplemented by textual sources, the study investigates the ways self-identified Jewish Buddhists characterize their own identities, examining the nature of both their Buddhist and Jewish identities, and the relationships between the two. Using a journey motif, the research explores the roles these identities play in their lives, how they came about, and how they continue to evolve. The Jewish individuals in this study moved from processes of Seeking Meaning to Finding Something that Resonates to Creating Their Own Paths of Meaning. Unstructured interviews and constructivist grounded theory are key tools for understanding Jewish identity as it is lived and constructed by individuals today. Identities are multiple, evolving, and variable. Individuals are the arbiters of meaning. They seek, choose, and follow paths and traditions based on personal meaning and relevance. They choose how to connect to being Jewish, which parts of Buddhist teachings fit with what they are seeking and what makes sense for them, and how the two traditions fit into their lives and identities.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretations of Jewish Tradition on Democracy, Land, and Peace
    Interpretations of Jewish Tradition on Democracy, Land, and Peace GERALD M. STEINBERG The relationship between democratic institutions and practices, on the one hand, and policy on issues related to war and peace, on the other, is one of the most intensely debated topics in international rela- Downloaded from tions. Under the framework of "democratic peace," a wide range of theories and models has been presented in the attempt to clarify these links. From the basic neo-Kantian argument that democratic states are less likely to go war against each other, compared to dyads involving at least one non-democratic country, the literature has developed a num- http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/ ber of variations and refinements. Some analysts conclude that demo- cratic processes and institutions reduce the proclivity towards the use of violence in the context of international disputes, and others present evidence that cultural similarities between Western liberal democracies explain the perceived vafiance in behavior. 1 While the disputes among the theofists confinue, accompanied by the collecfion and evaluation of the data, a number of attempts have been made to analyze specifie regions and international conflicts in at Bar Ilan University on January 15, 2014 terms of "democrafic peace" theofies, broadly defined. The Middle East "peace process "'2 and the intense debate on democratization (and its absence) in the Islamic world, have also led to studies of the links 9GERALD M. STEINBERG is director, Program on Conflict Management and Negotia- tion in the political studies department of Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. He is editor of "Jewish Ap~plroaches to Conflict Resolution," forthcoming (Fall 2000) in a Special Volume of Jewish Political Studies Review.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Beyond the Religious-Secular Dichotomy: Masortiim in Israel
    Beyond the Religious-Secular Dichotomy: Masortiim in Israel* Yaacov Yadgar and Charles Liebman Introduction Our concern in this paper is with Israeli Jews who, when asked to categorize their religious behavior define themselves as “traditional” (masorti, pl. masortiim). Their religious behavior is defined as “traditionalism” (masortiut). They constitute about one- third of the Israeli Jewish population. By comparison, less than 20 percent of Israeli Jews define themselves as either “religious” (dati, a synonym for Orthodox in the Israeli context)1 or ultra-Orthodox (haredi). The remaining Jews define themselves as secular (hiloni). The Guttman Report upon which we rely for our general Jewish population statistics eschewed the term hiloni and asked respondents to define themselves as haredi, dati, masorti, not-dati or anti-dati.2 The meaning of these categories and the differences between the categories are not entirely clear and the category “traditional” is the most enigmatic. Even among those who have stressed the demographic importance of this category, many dismiss it as no more that an inconsistent cocktail of beliefs and practices characterized by its lack of clarity. It is the category often referred to in academic analyses and popular discussion of religious identity among Israeli Jews. In both academic and popular discourse the distinction is drawn between “secular” and “religious” and the category “traditional” is often applied to a very different typology, one that was so popular among social scientists until recently – that between “traditional” meaning one who had not undergone modernization, and “modern” referring to one who has.3 Indeed the very birth of the category “traditional” to mark a kind of intermediate category between the “completely * our thanks to Carol Liebman for a critical reading of an early draft and some poignant criticisms.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 ISRAELI IDENTITY: the JEWISH COMPONENT Charles Liebman
    ISRAELI IDENTITY: THE JEWISH COMPONENT Charles Liebman and Yaacov Yadgar Our essay addresses a troublesome question first alluded to in a book Choosing Survival coauthored by one of us.1 Every survey of Israeli Jews suggests that the overwhelming majority observe many Jewish rituals. In addition Israeli Jews report that Judaism and the Jewish people are important to them. Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that many Diaspora Jewish leaders think that Jewishness is of little importance in the lives of Israelis. Their impressions would seem to be confirmed by its secondary role in Israeli culture. That portion of the population who define themselves as religious (between 20 and 25 percent of the Jewish population) and live their lives in accordance with its ritual demands, and the media which caters expressly to them are obvious exceptions. This essay is devoted to documenting the extent of religious observance and the strength of Jewish identity among the “non-religious”, the absence of a significant Jewish dimension in Israeli culture and how one explains this apparent paradox. Attitudes Toward Jewishness and Observance of Jewish Practices Positive attitudes toward Jewishness and the observance of Jewish (religious) practices are not the same thing. Among the pioneer settlers who came to Palestine in the first decades of this last century there was, generally speaking, a positive attitude toward Jewish ethnicity, i.e. membership in the Jewish people and concern for Jews throughout the world, a nostalgia for many traditional Jewish practices but a principled objection to “religion” and hence to many Jewish rituals. The solution of these settlers was to transform and transvalue many traditional rituals and ceremonials imposing a Zionist-socialist ethos upon them.
    [Show full text]
  • Tthhee Eeddaahh Jjoouurrnnaall
    l a n r American Modern Orthodoxy: u Confronting Cultural Challenges o J Chaim I. Waxman h a Abstract: American Modern Orthodoxy is considerably more prevalent and stronger than many assume. This d article presents data indicating its strength and analyzes reasons for its institutional decline and emerging come- E back during the second half of the twentieth and onset of the twenty-first centuries. e h Biography: Chaim I. Waxman is Professor of Sociology T and Jewish Studies at Rutgers University. The Edah Journal 4:1 Edah, Inc. © 2004 Iyar 5764 American Modern Orthodoxy: Confronting Cultural Challenges Chaim I. Waxman For the past two decades or so, a number of social scien- Respondents ranged in age from 25 to 65 and older, with tists including, among others, Charles Liebman,1 Haym the vast majority being between 35-54 years. Soloveitchik,2 Sam Heilman,3 William Helmreich and Reuell Shinnar,4 and me,5 have pointed to a turning to the One indication of the synagogue's Modern Orthodox right in American Orthodoxy. Be that as it may, it does character is in the finding that, whereas 58% said they not spell the end of Modern Orthodoxy. Indeed, there were raised Orthodox (or Traditional), 42% replied that are indications that Modern Orthodoxy is quite strong in they not. There was some difference according to gen- the United States. der, with a slightly higher percentage of males than females responding that they were not raised Orthodox. One tentative indicator of the viability of Modern Orthodoxy emerged from an internet search which found
    [Show full text]
  • SYNAGOGUE and STATE in the ISRAELI MILITARY: a STORY of "INAPPROPRIATE INTEGRATION" Karin Carmit Yefet
    Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 2016 SYNAGOGUE AND STATE IN THE ISRAELI MILITARY: A STORY OF "INAPPROPRIATE INTEGRATION" Karin Carmit Yefet The encounter between synagogue and State in Israel’s military context raises a variety of complex questions that defy conventional paradigms. While religious liberty continues to occupy a special place in most liberal democratic thought, the legal and philosophical literature pondering its various dimensions has largely lost analytic sight of the fascinating intersection of military and religion. This article embarks on analyzing the appropriate integration between loyalty to God and to country, and between religious male and secular female soldiers. Evaluating examples of synagogue-state tensions and accommodationist policies, this Article explores the manner and extent to which the Israeli military (IDF) responds to the observant soldier's multiple identities as a religious minority member and a faithful citizen of the larger secular polity. Against this backdrop, the Article analyzes the vexed challenges posed to multicultural theory by the equivocal status of the Orthodox community as a numerical minority but “power majority” within the military, and by the IDF's unique exercise of multiculturalist protection, termed herein “external restrictions,” imposed on majority group members. It concludes that the ongoing "religionization" of the IDF through the 2002 “Appropriate Integration” regulation has served as a powerful counterforce to gender equality, fostering a growing practice of female exclusion through which women are disenfranchised from core, non-negotiable protections of citizenship. The Article identifies as the prime casualty of this aggressive multicultural accommodation not only secular women's hard-won equality of opportunity, but also the very rights and status of minority women within their own religious community.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel: Religion and State
    RELI 329/2 POLI 398A/2 A Israel: Religion and State Wednesday and Friday 10:15-11:30 Location : FG B050 SGW Professor: Ira Robinson Office: Annex R (2050 McKay St.), room 303 Office Hours: Thursdays, 13:00-14:00 or by appointment. Telephone (Voice Mail): 514-848-2424, x2074 Fax: 514-848-4541 Email: [email protected] Teaching Assistant: Ms. Minghui Pan TA Email: [email protected] TA Office Hours: TBA Course Website: Moodle: accessed through your “My Concordia” Course Description: This course will examine issues relating to religions in Israel. It will include an analysis of historical and contemporary attempts to define Israel as a “Jewish State”. It will include as well the position of religions, especially Judaism but inclusive as well of Islam and Christianity, with respect to the Israeli state and its laws. It will explore various Judaic visions of the State of Israel and its religio-political destiny as well as the societal tensions engendered by the variety of Israeli-Jewish interpretations of Judaism and the Judaic lifestyle. It will also deal with the de facto presence of several religious traditions within Israeli society and their influence on Israel’s societal discourse. Course Requirements: 1. Students will write a take-home mid-term assignment and a final take-home assignment. The mid-term and will be worth 20% of the final grade and the final take- home assignment will be worth 40% of the final grade. 2. Along with each reading assignment there will be a question assigned. Students are required to submit a 1 page (typewritten) response to any ten assignments during the course of the term.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambivalent Jew Charles Liebman in Memoriam
    Ambivalent jew Charles Liebman in Memoriam Intermarriage in America The Jewish Experience in Historical Context* Jonathan D. Sarna edited by STUART COHEN and BERNARD SUSSER The Jewish Theological Seminary of America New York 2007 Intermarriage in America The jewish Experience in Historical Context* jonathan D. Sarna nthropologists teach us that "endogamy, the practice of marrying some- · ne from within one's own tribe or group, is the oldest social regulation f marriage."1 Certainly, it is a very old regulation within Judaism. The Bible, in the book of Deuteronomy (7:3), warned Jews not to intermarry with the seven nations surrounding them. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, we are told, the Israelites themselves pledged to uphold God's law that "we will not give our daughters in marriage to the peoples of the land or take their daughters for our sons."' The sages subsequently expanded the meaning of "peoples of the land" to embrace people of all lands and nations, and insisted that Jews may only marry among themselves.' The resulting taboo against intermarriage is one of the strongest and most deeply rooted taboos in Judaism-and understandably so, for ... The subject of intermarriage interested Charles Liebman both as a social scientist and as a Jew. Characteristically, he held strong views on the subject, and did not hesitate to express them, even in circles where they proved unpopular. But he never permitted his personal views to cloud his srholar­ ship. The article that follows, prepared originally for a conference, would doubtless have benefited from Charles's comments; he was a brilliant critic and reader, generous with his time and unsparing in his criticisms.
    [Show full text]
  • SCHOLARS ------PUBLISHING AMERICA AS IT Ought to BE: the Conflict BETWEEN JEWISH RHETORIC and AMERICAN REALITIES1
    Ideology and Rhetoric: Constructing America Edited by Bozenna ChyliiJ.ska CAMBRIDGE SCHOLARS ---- ------------ PUBLISHING AMERICA AS IT OuGHT To BE: THE CoNFLICT BETWEEN JEWISH RHETORIC AND AMERICAN REALITIES1 JONATHAN D. SARNA Jt is a great honor for me to be here in Warsaw. My grandfather, Jacob Sarna, as well as my great-grandfather, Simha Sarna, and my great-great- grandfather, Binyamin Sarna, were born not too many kilometers from here in Lubraniec. Great Grandpa Simha moved to my great-grandmother's hometown of Konin about 1892, where my grandfather grew up. The Sarnas left Konin for London in 1913, which was enormously fortunate for me. On July 13, 1942, the last remaining Jews of Konin were murdered by the Nazis and their local collaborators. 2 I am the first of my im­ mediate family ever to return to Poland. I am most grateful to the Polish Associa­ tion for American Studies and particularly to Prof. Bo:i:enna Chylinska for making my trip possible. Your conference this year focuses on "Ideology and Rhetoric in the Construction of America." All nations, Benedict Anderson reminds us, are, to some extent, ideo­ logical and rhetorical constructs (Anderson calls them "imagined communities").3 This is particularly true of a diverse and pluralistic nation like the United Stales which is continually absorbing new immigrants. Generation after generation, America transforms immigrants, and immigrants, in turn, transform America. That, in a nutshell, is what makes America at once dynamic and contentious. lv1y topic this afternoon, hov~·cvcr, i:; not l\.1nericr1 as a whole, but rather i!s ~'ew- ish community--itself something of an imagined community.
    [Show full text]