In Memoriam Rabbi Shlomo Goren

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

In Memoriam positive evaluation of this issue. The articles cover many diverse ar- I AM WRITING with some very sad eas of Jewish scholarship, including news. Dr. Ari Bleicher, z”l, has suc- halakhah, philosophy and history. cumbed to his terrible illness―he The entries represent a rare synthe- was niftar last week. The family is sis of traditional Torah study en- just winding up the shiv'ah. hanced by scientific Jewish scholar- Ari had written the article on Te- ship. I feel that the article entitled fillat Shav, which Hakiraḥ graciously “A Yeshiva Curriculum in Western published in vol. 12, 2011. The Literature” should be required read- shiur―and its publication in ing for all yeshiva students who Hakiraḥ ―meant so much to Ari, study the humanities on both high and it was a source of great inspira- school and college levels. tion to his family and to those who Regarding the Hebrew essay on knew him. In fact, it was mentioned the halakhic rulings of Rabbi a few times in the hespeidim at the Shlomo Goren, a similar thesis is levayah. I just wanted to let you expressed by Hagai Ben-Artzi in his know―and to express to you my doctoral dissertation on the hala- heartfelt appreciation for what you khic rulings of Rabbi Avraham did in sharing Ari’s Torah with the Isaac Ha-Kohen Kook. Ben-Artzi world. It is so hard to lose a friend also details the concept of “emer- and a talmid―but being able to go gency” rulings to aid the fledgling back repeatedly and read Ari’s yishuv in Palestine. Ben-Artzi’s vol- "הראי"ה קוק כפוסק: meaningful words is no small meas- ume is entitled יסודות חדשניים בפסיקתו של הרב קוק . ure of nehamaḥ published by וזיקתם לעולמו ההגות" May you continue to have the wonderful zekhus to share Torah Hebrew University in Jerusalem, 2003. with the world, opening eyes, excit- ing minds, and inspiring hearts. Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet Thank you so very much. Jerusalem

Rabbi Saul Zucker Teaneck, NJ DR. HOLLANDER’S discussion of the Langer case in Hakiraḥ 15 as Rabbi Shlomo Goren highlighting R’ Goren’s approach to p’sak sheds light on current events I CHANCED upon volume 15 of in Israeli conversions. While a com- Hakiraḥ during my recent visit to plete review of the details of the the United States. I cannot ade- case and R’ Goren’s p’sak is beyond quately express the depth of my the scope of this letter, I would like

Ḥ akirah 16 © 2013 10 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought to outline the basic halakhic argu- gave a get to Ḥava. Otto Langer ments of R’ Goren and, by doing so, then died and, in 1955, Havạ ap- demonstrate why any comparison peared in the Tel Aviv bet din seek- between this case and the “conver- ing permission to marry again. sion revocations” performed re- Upon questioning, the bet din real- cently by those in the Israeli Rab- ized that she had married Langer binate are completely unfounded. without a get. The bet din convened Reconstructing the history be- to consider this and, because Havạ hind the Langer case suggests the admitted she never told the rabbi following chain of events. Around performing her marriage to Langer the year 1923 Havạ Ginsberg, a girl that she had been married before, of about 14 from Lukov, Poland, Hanocḥ and Miriam were declared ran away from the home of her reli- mamzerim. No witnesses were gious family with a significantly brought to support any aspect of older, non-Jewish man named Bolik the case and, frighteningly unfortu- Borokovsky. Havạ converted to nately, there did not appear to be Christianity and they married in a any attempt to resolve the problem church. Hava’ṣ parents, deeply of mamzerut. ashamed, combined bribes and In 1966 Hanokḥ approached the threats to convince Borokovsky to Tel Aviv bet din rabbinate seeking convert to Judaism. Borokovsky permission to marry but was told he agreed and traveled with his father- could not. The case went back and in-law to Warsaw where he was cir- forth between the local bet din in cumcised and where it is claimed he Petaḥ Tikva and the supreme reli- converted. Upon their return to Lu- gious court, Bet Din haGadol kov it was claimed that Ḥava and l’Ir’urim, garnering national atten- Avraham (formerly Bolik) Boro- tion and causing the political up- kovsky married in accordance with heaval described by Dr. Hollander. Jewish law. In 1933 they moved to With no leniency forthcoming, Israel. the case was taken out of the regular It seems they meant to make ali- batei din and given to R’ Goren, the yah a year earlier with Hava’ṣ par- military Chief Rabbi (the Langers ents, but were delayed because their were both in the military). R’ Goren eldest son was registered as a Cath- uncovered more evidence and gave olic. In 1942 the couple separated, a lenient p’sak signed by himself and Havạ claiming that Avraham be- 9 anonymous judges. haved like a Christian. There was no In his published work on the halakhic divorce (get). Two years case, R’ Goren first explains why he later Ḥava married Otto Langer and can reconvene a new bet din despite together they had two children, the existing p’sak. This is due to the Hanokḥ and Miriam. severity of mamzerut and its equiva- In 1951, Borokovsky ap- lence to dinei nefashot, capital cases. proached the bet din to remarry and He then describes the entire history Letters to the Editor : 11 of the case including all the evi- Borokovsky came to synagogue dence and discusses new evidence every day until his father-in-law that he has found. Finally, he ex- died and still continued to come on plains at length his rationale for a le- Shabbat. This testimony was re- nient p’sak, the pillars of which are jected because, first of all, he is only the doubts he has uncovered. one witness and second, the testi- The first doubt is whether or not mony is contradicted by Borokov- Borokovsky actually ever con- sky’s own in which he demon- verted. There are three methods to strated that he cannot identify the prove conversion: 1) witnesses or term “kri’at sh’ma,” cannot properly documentation of the conversion continue the phrase “Sh’ma Yisrael,” itself, 2) a claim of conversion com- and does not recognize “lekha dodi.” bined with a hazakaḥ , presumption, Furthermore, documents from so- that the person is Jewish, 3) one as- cial services working with Borokov- sumed to be Jewish claims that he sky’s son assume Borokovsky is not was a non-Jew but converted, in Jewish and state that he attends which case he is believed since we Christian functions. Clearly, then, have no independent reason to as- there is no presumption that Boro- sume that he was ever not Jewish kovsky is a Jew. 3) There are plenty (hapeh she’asar hu hapeh she’hittir). of witnesses from Lukov who knew None of these three methods Borokovsky as a non-Jew and thus work in the case of Borokovsky. 1) we have independent evidence of There were no witnesses who could his initial status. If, in fact, Boro- testify to the conversion and Boro- kovsky never converted, there was kovsky himself could not name the no need for a religious divorce be- bet din in which he was converted fore Ḥava’s marriage to Otto or any of the rabbis who comprised Langer. Indeed this was the as- the said bet din. 2) The Shulḥan sumption of the rabbi who per- Arukh (Yoreh Deah 268:10) implies formed that marriage. For though that a hazakaḥ of Jewishness can be Havạ never told him she had been applied only if the convert claims he previously married, witnesses say was converted in a specific bet din that the rabbi knew about her first (which Borokovsky could not do). husband and was sure he was not In addition, even if identifying the Jewish, that his conversion was bet din is not necessary, there are fake. It is wrong, very wrong, totally numerous witnesses claiming that incorrect to exclude two Jews from Borkovsky continued going to marrying simply because there was church after his “conversion,” that a rumor that Borokovsky con- he baptized his eldest son who was verted. Remember we are dealing born soon after their marriage, that with a life and death situation (see he ate pork, never acted like a Jew, T’shuvot Rama 12). and did not even like Jews. One wit- R’ Goren felt that this first point ness did claim that while in Israel, is unchallengeable and uncovering 12 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought other doubts is not necessary. Nev- off with a 14-year-old girl. Forced ertheless, following the path of the conversions are not valid. 5) Even if great poskim who are m’zaref̣ as many there was a valid conversion and snifim as possible, R’ Goren uncov- marriage, the get eventually given ers four additional doubts. The sec- by Borokovsky refers to him as Av- ond cause of doubt garnered all the raham ha-ger (the convert). Using attention: the Rambam (Mishneh To- this formulation, rather than the rah, Hilkhot Issurei Biah 13:15-16) more appropriate Avraham ben Av- writes that one who converted for raham Avinu, halakhically identifies non-spiritual reasons is watched un- Borokovsky as a mumar, one who til we see what becomes of him. reject Judasim (see Torat Gittin 129). Borokovsky clearly converted due According to some Rishonim the get to the pressure and bribery from his of a mumar works only via annul- father-in-law. The various witnesses ment of the marriage. Thus, the get and documents mentioned above caused the marriage to Havạ to have demonstrate that he kept a Chris- never existed. Therefore, the mar- tian life even after conversion, thus riage to Havạ was retroactively an- the conversion is rendered invalid nulled. All of this provides plenty of (the Zafnaṭ Paneah ̣ on this halakha room to clear the Langers of the explains that if the “convert” subse- stigma of mamzerut. quently returns to idol-worship it With this as a background it is demonstrates there was no conver- difficult to conceive the rationale sion in the first place). behind statements comparing this Additional doubts uncovered by case to modern-day revocation of R’ Goren are: 3) Even if there was a conversion such as (see the blog valid conversion, Borokovsky, “Cross-Currents”), “I wonder how when asked by the bet din in Petaḥ many of those calling for Rabbi At- Tikva, could produce no witnesses tias’s scalp remember that Rabbi to his wedding or even anyone who Shlomo Goren ‘freed’ a brother and could establish the presumption sister from the halachic status of that he and Havạ were married. In mamzerut by voiding their mother’s addition, since they were originally marriage at the time of their con- married as Christians, even if wit- ception. And that was done, in turn, nesses could be found claiming that by voiding her husband’s conver- they were presumed to be married sion…” This comparison is simply (that there was a ḥazakah), we would appalling. say that the presumption was based First, R’ Goren’s main thrust on the non-Jewish wedding and that was not at all to revoke conversion they were never married as Jews but to convincingly prove that the (see Shulhaṇ Arukh, Even HaEzer conversion never happened. R’ 16:1). 4) Borokovsky was forced to Goren makes an almost irrefutable convert under the threat of being case that there was no bet din in reported to law officers that he ran Letters to the Editor : 13

במאמרי בגליון 15 של חקירה (קיץ -Warsaw and Borokovsky was actu תשע"ג) סיפרתי על יחסו של הרב יחזקאל ally never Jewish. However, even סרנה לרב שלמה גורן בהקשר של פרשיית ’assuming there was a conversion, R "האח והאחות" בראשית שנות השבעים Goren suggests it can be revoked למאה העשרים תוך הסתמכות על עדותו because Borokovsky immediately של הרב יוסי הראל המופיעה בטיוטת ספר returned to Christian worship. This שעל הכנתו שוקד יאיר שלג. יאיר הלוי, is not revoking a conversion of דוקטורנט באוניברסיטת בר אילן, הפנה someone who identifies as a Jew but את תשומת לבי לכך שהרב סרנה נפטר .is lax in certain areas of Jewish law בשנת תשכ"ט והרי שהסיפור הוא מן This is someone who, before and הנמנעות. -after conversion, was an idol-wor פניתי ליאיר שלג, ולאחר בירור shipper (see Noda b’Yehuda, Yoreh ראשוני הועלתה האפשרות שהארוע !(Deah 1:69 התרחש סביב פרשיית בנימין שליט, קצין -In fact, R’ Goren may not gen בחיל הים שנישא לגויה ודרש לרשום את erally believe that this statement of ילדיו כחסרי דת וכבני הלאום היהודי. -the Rambam is halakhically accepta דרישתו זו עוררה פולמוס, והיא מהווה את ble. It is enough to cast doubt and אחד מהשיאים של פרשיות "מיהו יהודי" add another snif to the permissibility בישראל. על כל פנים, פרשיה זו התרחשה .of mamzerim קודם לפטירת הרב סרנה, ועם זאת יש But most importantly, unlike להסתייג ולהדגיש שבדיקת העניין טרם other halakhic questions, R’ Goren העלתה מסקנות סופיות והחלטיות. has no need to prove anything. He בהזדמנות זו ברצוני להודות לשלג need not prove that there was no והלוי על נדיבותם כלפי, ולמערכת כתב conversion or that there was no העת על שבזכות פרסום המאמר התבררה marriage or that the marriage was נקודה זו. annulled. Based on the gamara in Kiddushin (73a): “ ‘A mamzer shall אביעד יחיאל הולנדר ’,not enter the congregation of God פתח תקווה a definite mamzer may not enter but a questionable mamzer may enter,” R’ Goren merely has to foment Propriety of a Civil Will doubt. R’ Goren’s goal was to follow RABBI A. YEHUDA WARBURG is to the ways of HaShem and defend the be commended for his valuable, innocent souls who are branded comprehensive review of the differ- with the stigma of mamzerut ent halakhic approaches regarding (Vayikra Rabbah 32) so as not to “The Propriety of a Civil Will” take away the Jewishness of those (Hakiraḥ vol. 15 at 163) (hereafter attempting to come under His “Propriety”). Yet, after all is said wings. and done, as Rabbi Warburg himself points out, “there is no halakhic Yaakov S. Weinstein consensus to affirm a civil will [and] East Brunswick, NJ the chance of the overwhelming 14 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought majority of the assets to be distrib- by disgruntled heirs on a civil will uted and awarded to a Torah heir(s) for the following reasons: by a beit din is a distinct possibility.” First, under normal circum- Id. at 205. What then is a testa- stances a second beit din cannot tor―or his posek―who believes in overrule a holding of the first, espe- the validity of a civil will to do in or- cially where the first beit din con- der to avoid potentially divisive cedes no error. See generally “The family disputes and ensure that the Appeal Process in the Jewish Legal desires expressed in the civil will are System” by Rabbi J. David Bleich in fulfilled? Contemporary Halakhic Problems (vol. Here is my humble, respectful 4) (Ktav 1995) at 44-45. Thus, even suggestion: if a dissatisfied heir were to bring his claims to another beit din, osten- 1. A formal “Beit Din for Civil sibly that beit din would be com- Wills” should be established com- pelled to uphold the ruling of the prised of Rabbonim who agree with “Beit Din for Civil Wills.” Rav Moshe Feinstein and other Second, even if the second beit poskim (as Rabbi Warburg sets out din were to demur as to the accept- in his article) that a civil will is hala- ability of Rav Moshe’s holding and khically acceptable. See id. at 169– that of the special “Beit Din for 73. Indeed, the Beth Din of Amer- Civil Wills,” the other heirs would ica or any other established beit din have a strong basis upon which to can institute such a special court un- disregard any ruling by the second der its auspices. beit din, since the first one has al- ready ruled. 2. During his lifetime, the testator Third, even if those heirs who himself, or through his attorney, were dragged into the second beit can submit the civil will to the spe- din were to accept its jurisdiction, cial beit din for a ruling on its valid- given the lengths to which the tes- ity. The beit din then renders its tator went to ensure that his wishes p’sak upholding the halakhic legiti- were followed by submitting the macy of the will. As part of the will to the special beit din, they p’sak, the beit din may also assert would have, at the very least, a very continuing halakhic jurisdiction compelling argument that the sec- over all matters concerning the will. ond beit din should rule in their fa- Alternatively, the testator can sign a vor on the kibud av principle that separate shtar directing all the heirs Rabbi Warburg appears to find rel- to adjudicate any claims relating to atively persuasive. See Propriety at the will in that beit din―and in that 198–203. beit din alone. One could argue that it would be While there are no guarantees in disrespectful of halakhah to estab- life, the above approach should go lish a specific beit din designed to a long way in mitigating, if not en- uphold Rav Moshe’s apparently mi- tirely foreclosing, successful attacks nority view that Rabbi Warburg Letters to the Editor : 15 terms “problematic.” Id. at 173. But din, argue their case (or have it ar- Rabbi Warburg’s advice at the end gued on their behalf by rabbinical of his article (at 205) that we edu- advocates and/or attorneys) and af- cate our community to “seek hala- ter a deliberation amongst the arbi- khic and legal counsel regarding ha- ters a decision is handed down. In lakhic estate-planning techniques fact, optimally the panel will be that will avoid the potential chal- comprised of three dayanim to as- lenges to the halakhic efficacy of a sure that there is an actual delibera- civil will” appears to be no prag- tion regarding the claims and coun- matic solution, as he himself has terclaims of the parties. If delibera- written about the travails of “Draft- tions occurred and a party failed to ing a Halakhic Will” (Hakiraḥ vol. be accorded the opportunity to be 10) that his mythical Rabbi Simeon heard prior to the deliberation, the Levy and his family underwent not- decision is null and void. See Teshu- withstanding Rabbi Levy’s at- vot Lehem Rav 87; Teshuvot Ba'ei Hayei tempts, in his own Rabbinic capac- HM 1:18; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot 5:357. ity and then also after involving his If a panel fails to deliberate whether local Rabbi, to write and effectuate it should validate a civil will as a ha- a “proper” halakhic will. lakhic form of estate planning, any For batei din to uphold (even) a ensuing judgment is null and void. minority opinion as a I'chatchilah, is See Teshuvot ha-Rashba 2:104; Teshu- a better option than allowing famil- vot Maharlbach 147; Teshuvot Maharit ial feuds to disrupt the wishes of a 2, HM 79. As R. Feinstein rules, testator who sought to promote fa- “the arbiter must comprehend, re- milial peace and harmony. solve the matter in his mind prior to ruling.” See Iggerot Moshe, YD 1:101. Yitzchak Kasdan In other words, a dayan must in- Silver Spring, Maryland quire, assess the issue and then rule. A “beit din for civil wills” as de- Rabbi A. Yehuda Warburg responds: scribed by Mr. Kasdan communi- cates to the reader a quite different Thank you Mr. Kasdan, Esq. for type of proceeding. your thoughtful review and kind Procedurally, Mr. Kasdan’s pro- comments regarding my essay deal- posal in effect entails a convening ing with the halakhic propriety of a of a panel of rabbis who would be civil will. rendering a p’sak concerning a civil In reply to your proposal of set- will submitted to them for halakhic ting up a “beit din for civil wills,” review, and any subsequent ruling please be aware of the following: A would be no different than an indi- decision rendered by a beit din is vidual who submits his question(s) predicated upon the fact that there to a rabbi for the purpose of render- is a dispute between two individuals ing a decision. Any decision emerg- regarding a particular matter. Par- ing from such deliberations would ties are requested to appear at a beit have the status of a p’sak authored 16 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought by three rabbis which may be sub- has the status of the p’sak of a rabbi ject to future review and potential rather than a beit din judgment. See rejection by a beit din rather than Pithei Teshuva HM 17 in the name of being considered a bonafide p’sak Meil Tzedaka. In the absence of din emerging from a beit din pro- hearing the other side, the rabbi(s) ceeding convened due to a petition- may only render a p’sak with the ca- er's request (in our case, a Torah veat “if the facts are as you pre- heir) to challenge the validity of the sented to me, the decision is...” In civil will. And given the absence of other words, both decision making a petition, subsequent hearing of processes of a rabbi as well as a beit the arguments from both parties or din are predicated upon the exist- absence of deliberation relating to ence and presence of two parties the merits of a civil will should this and a rabbinic/beit din deliberation panel of “a beit din for civil wills” of the facts and claims of the op- purport to operate as a beit din, any posing parties. Recently, Machon le- decision handed down by this fo- Horoyah, a beit din in Monsey, NY, rum would be null and void. bemoaned the fact that rabbis re- Even if the parties sign off that spond to a question from individu- they will appear at “the beit din for als and fail to factor into considera- civil wills” in order to afford the tion the opposing side's perception possibility to contest the testamen- of the facts and their claims. See tary disposition, the earlier p’sak Meishiv Behalakhah, 38-39. As such, which validated the civil will neither the proposal of a “beit din of civil binds the original panel who may wills,” which is in actuality a rab- change their minds after hearing the binic endorsement of a particular facts and claims of the case nor civil will (rather than a beit din con- binds the Torah heir who is chal- firmation of a testamentary disposi- lenging the will to accept the origi- tion), does not comport with the nal p’sak of “the beit din for civil basic procedural requirements of wills.” The earlier affirmation of the responding to a halakhic inquiry, p’sak of Rabbis Schwadron, Fein- namely “hearing the other side.” stein and Soloveitchik and others For all the above reasons such a who recognize a secular will carries proposal lacks halakhic foundation. no more halakhic weight than a In reply to Mr. Kasdan’s infer- p’sak of Rabbis Hazan, Goldberg, ence that given that I found Rabbi Amar and others who invalidate it. Simeon Levy’s halakhic will to be In fact, if during the testator’s flawed therefore there remain no life, a Torah heir would challenge solutions for proper halakhic estate the validity of the will and the testa- planning is unfounded. Admittedly, tor would proceed to a rabbi(s) (ra- as I have shown in “Drafting a Ha- ther than a beit din) to affirm the lakhic Will,” a matnas bari (the gift of will, it is incumbent upon the a healthy person) is an impractical rabbi(s) to hear from the Torah heir technique and fails to serve as an av- and then render a decision which Letters to the Editor : 17 enue for distributing all of one’s as- some preventive medicine to avoid sets. However, there are other via- litigation and/or becoming edu- ble halakhic techniques to address cated on which halakhic / judicial testamentary disposition arrange- forum(s) one should resolve one's ments. When people approach me issues in―prior to catapulting into regarding these matters, I suggest any litigation, their lives, both emo- various techniques and prepare tionally and financially, may well documents that one can implement have been different. With the and supplement to a conventional presentation of this suggestion of civil will. And as I note in my recent convening a special beit din for civil book, “Rabbinic Authority: The Vision wills, it is clear to me that Mr. and the Reality, Beit Din Decisions in Kasdan, as a Torah-observant Jew, English, Urim: 2013, 305–318, I dis- is grappling with how to maintain cuss the effectiveness of a revocable familial stability while simultane- living trust for estate planning. Such ously attempting to avoid litigation techniques have been rabbinically and maintain the integrity of the ha- accepted and should serve as an ef- lakhic process. In my estimation, fective deterrent for a Torah heir the answer(s) lies elsewhere. who is contemplating challenging a Hopefully, these matters have secular will in a beit din. And if for been clarified. some reason, the Torah heir persists P.S. Let me mention that similar and commences a proceeding in problems are encountered regard- beit din, the expectation is that the ing a wife’s civil will. According to civil will ought to be affirmed in halakha, a husband inherits his light of the document(s) prepared wife’s estate. Therefore, should the [i.e., “beit din proof”]. wife’s civil will provide that her as- But again, as I mentioned at the sets are being distributed to a third conclusion of my essay, it is recom- party such as a child, documents mended that one contact a dayan in have to be prepared that will protect order to address estate planning ar- her wishes as well as fend off the rangements, various global issues possibility of having a beit din dis- related to the contentious matter as inherit her designated beneficiary. well as particular yerushah matters. In fact, based upon my personal expe- rience, even a telephone conver-sa- Jewish GIs’ Dog-Tags tion with a potential plaintiff may “calm the waters.” I WOULD LIKE to thank you for a As Mr. Kasdan aptly notes, very interesting article on Jewish “there are no guarantees in life” ex- soldiers in WWII and their dog tags. cept for death and taxes. Having My grandfather Herbert served as a dayan for over fourteen Schwartz a”h fought in the US army years, I have seen firsthand the tru- during WWII as a combat engineer. ism that had people performed their He was captured by the Nazis three due diligence―in terms of taking times, and escaped each time. The 18 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought

Nazis never found out he was Jew- forbidding women to visit a ceme- ish, an unawareness that contrib- tery. He expresses surprise that uted to his survival. most orthodox women ignore this During one incident, my grand- open and clear prohibition. father threw his dog tags on the bat- Perhaps they rely on the Beit tlefield with the dead, so in the Lechem Yehuda (loc. cit.) who quotes event of capture the Nazis wouldn't Beit Ya’akov, she’ain limnoa hanashim be able to tell if he was Jewish. The lelech le’beit hakevarot, that it is per- US Army sent home a letter (which missible for women to visit ceme- we have) listing him as missing in teries. action, but not necessarily dead, This would explain the prevalent since they had found his dog tags custom that women do, indeed, but not his body. visit cemeteries. Another time the Nazis lined up the soldiers and began yelling at Steven Oppenheimer, DMD them in German to see if any of Miami Beach, Florida them showed signs of comprehen- sion―a sure sign that they were Pittum ha-Ketoret Jewish and spoke Yiddish. A third story my grandfather I FOUND THE ARTICLE in Hakiraḥ told was that one time the Nazis about Pittum ha-Ketoret very interest- captured him with part of his unit ing. and asked if there were any Jews. You might find this of interest One Polish-American anti-Semitic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v soldier wanted to turn in my grand- =V81v8L9Erjg. father, but the other US soldiers (The above-mentioned short threatened to rip him apart with video titled “African Rhythm: Suda- their hands if he dared do that. It nese Coffee Song” is an excellent il- was very interesting to read similar lustration of a perhaps ancient ex- stories and their halachic ramifica- ample of rhythm being used in the tions in the past issue of Hakiraḥ . process of hand-grinding. Ed.)

Shlomo Flamer Dr. Mark S Symons Flushing, NY Melbourne, Victoria

Visiting the Cemetery Errata

I READ WITH interest Rav Moshe In the first footnote in “A Yeshiva Cur- Zuriel’s article regarding the propri- riculum in Western Literature,” Hakiraḥ ety of visiting a cemetery (Hakiraḥ , vol. 15, the reference to “Rabbi Samson Summer 2013). In the last footnote, Raphael Hirsch and Friedrich von Schil- Rav Zuriel cites the Shulchan Aruch ler” should have been attributed to Dr. and Shach (Yoreh De’ah, chap. 359) as Marc Shapiro. We regret the error. Ed. 