52
Training College which they opposed for fear it would only produce “ersatz” Torah scholars.16
In this chapter we shall isolate four aspects of Rabinowitz’s view of Judaism in order to differentiate his approach from that of his ideological opponents. These four aspects are the value of teaching Hebrew; modernizing Jewish Law; engagement with the broader Jewish public; and educating the youth and cultivating leadership to ensure religious continuity. We will deal with each of these aspects separately and chronologically, highlighting the
differences between the accommodators on the one hand and the traditionalists and sectarians, on the other hand.
53
ruling applied here.19 Herzog replied that Kook’s reasoning was unpersuasive, but
nevertheless his correspondent should not implement such a change. Doing so, he argued, would encourage Johannesburg’s ignorant population to scoff tradition and it would embolden the Reformist congregations there, since some in the Reform movement had already adopted the Sephardi pronunciation in the nineteenth century.20 Rabinowitz
apparently accepted this ruling when it was issued, but barely two years later in early 1948 on the eve of Israel’s independence he decreed that all synagogues and Hebrew Schools would shortly switch pronunciation. This, he declared would “revitalize” religious life in the country.21 As will be shown, the idea that Hebrew would contribute to increasing religious observance would be subject to much scrutiny in the following years.
In early 1950, Moshe Swift arrived in South Africa from Britain to assume the position of rabbi of the Berea Synagogue and Dayan on the Johannesburg Beth Din.22 Soon after, he penned a letter to the S.A. Jewish Times attacking the Board of Education’s
curriculum used at his congregation’s Talmud Torah (afternoon school) for its overemphasis on the Hebrew language. Claiming he did not wish to withdraw altogether from the Talmud Torah, he declared he would “eradicate” the “secular aspect of the course”, would teach the
“children Chumesh [Pentateuch](sic)”, and would bring “G-d back to our children.”23 This statement drew a sharp rebuke from the newspaper’s editor (and the Chief Rabbi’s close friend), Leon Feldberg, who “wholeheartedly” concurred with the Board that teaching Hebrew was “indispensable to Jewish education now that the State of Israel has come into being.”24 A month later Rabinowitz himself rebuffed Swift’s criticism and “challenged” the notion that the syllabus was “loaded on the secular side.” He cautioned that in order to
19 Mazabow, To Reach for the Moon 3; Isaac Herzog Responsa Heichal Yitzhak (Hebrew) OH 3 dated December 1945, cited in Isaac Gottlieb “The Politics of Pronunciation” AJS Review 32 (8) 2008: 343.
20 Ibid. See also Joel David Weinberger, “Ashkenazim and the Sephardic Pronunciation of Hebrew” Jewishlink 20 February, 2020, also available at https://jewishlink.news/features/36422-ashkenazim-and-the-sephardic- pronunciation-of-hebrew.
21 Mazabow, Reach for the Moon, 278, quoting Jewish Herald 12 March 1948. Mazabow notes this innovation was “hotly debated”. From the author’s informal conversations, it emerges that this switch was by and large successful and was imposed in every synagogue far beyond the confines of the UHC. It should be noted that strictly speaking the pronunciation used in Israel is not purely Sephardi and as Rabinowitz himself admitted it is a “compromise between the Ashkenazi and Sephardi” but tends to be more in line with the latter.
22 For more information on Swift see Jacob Rubik, “The Great Attributes of Dayan M. Swift” (Hebrew), Barkai, August, 1949:14. Born in England to a rabbinical family he studied under Rabinowitz’s father and also travelled abroad to Lithuania and Poland, where he enrolled at the famous Yeshivas of Mir and Ponevezh.
23 Moshe Swift, (Open Forum), SAJT, 10 February 1950. Interestingly the spelling of the word Chumesh [Pentateuch] (as opposed to Chumash) follows the Yiddish pronunciation and not the Israeli pronunciation, which Rabinowitz had declared should be taught at the Hebrew Schools.
24 Editorial, SAJT 10 February 1950. For Rabinowitz’s friendship with Feldberg see Mazabow, To Reach for the Moon, 1
54
“confront the reality of a Jewish State,” it is imperative “to teach Hebrew as a living language.” Otherwise, one “is encouraging the dangerous trend of dividing Israel and the Golah [Diaspora].”25 This rigorous defence of the Board of Education, and the public scolding of a rabbinic colleague and fellow Dayan on the Beth Din, contrasted starkly with the attitude Kossowsky and his son had adopted five years earlier when the Board’s
curriculum was first approved.26 It is also uncertain whether Rabinowitz was fair in
characterizing Swift’s objection as an expression of an attitude hostile towards Zionism.27 In any event, the dispute between these personalities underlines the contrasting philosophies of Jewish education between the accommodators and traditionalists. Arguably the new Dayan viewed anything not originating from the Holy Writ as secular, whereas Rabinowitz was more willing to consider the teaching of Hebrew a formative step towards imparting a balanced Jewish education.28
The debate over Hebrew’s centrality in Jewish education reared its head again in 1952. This time it was conducted between two veteran educators, neither of whom could be considered traditionalists. Dr. A. Moar, director of the Cape Board of Jewish Education took to the pages of the August edition of Jewish Affairs, published by the Board of Deputies, to outline his aims of Jewish education.29 To preserve the Jewish community, he felt children must be “brought up in such a way that they... appreciate their spiritual ties with [their]
People…and they make Jewish tradition a part of their own spiritual life.” Ideally, three values had to be imparted to the Jewish child: “Jewish religion and national tradition; the Hebrew language and national culture; and the spiritual link with Israel.”30 In South Africa, where few people would likely go to Israel, and where Cheder did not provide sufficient time to teach a new language, priority had to be given to Jewish traditions. Children had to be taught about the festivals and religious ceremonies and had to be given tools to lead the
25 Louis Rabinowitz, SAJT, 10 March 1950. Golah, the Hebrew word for the Diaspora, is a loaded term which was used by Zionists and denotes exile.
26 See discussion at the Board of Education Seventh Conference discussed in chapter 2 above.
27 This contention is supported by reports in Barkai that Swift had taught modern Hebrew in England and was active in the Zionist movement. On the other hand, after his return to England Swift was known for his hard-line approach and strong opposition to Louis Jacobs (see Eliot Cosgrove, “Teyku: The Insoluble Contradictions in the Life and Thought of Louis Jacobs", unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 2008, 128.)
28 Swift was no stranger to controversy. In 1951 his reputation for being somewhat of a religious zealot was reconfirmed when he demanded that the Board of Deputies cease to engage itself in cultural activities which would legitimize the Reform Movement. Lay leaders of the Federation of Synagogues condemned his statements (see Edgar Bernstein “South Africa” American Jewish Yearbook Vol. 53 (1952), 394).
29 Dr A. Moar, “What Should be the Aims of Jewish Education”, Jewish Affairs August ,1952: 8-11.
30 Ibid. 8.
55
services and read from the Torah.31 Through transmitting these traditions, the future
generation could become “the vital limbs of the Jewish congregation.”32 Reacting to this call for tradition and the concomitant denial of the Hebrew language as central to education, E.
Levite, regional director of the Johannesburg United Hebrew Schools, penned a firm response to his former colleague.33 After insinuating that Moar was blaming teachers for the poor state of observance among Jewish pupils, he claimed the former were doing a “wonderful job” in a religiously apathetic environment. Time constraints made it impossible to render children proficient in reading from the Siddur or being familiar with the Torah cantillation. Deriding Moar for his change from being an enthusiastic advocate of teaching Hebrew to his current position as promoter of a more tradition-based education, Levite proclaimed that in the shadow of the Jewish State children had to know something about Israel and had to be able to speak Hebrew. Only then would the Hebrew Schools conform to the Board of Education’s historical mission to provide a “traditional National Hebrew Education.”34 Unlike the Swift - Rabinowitz dispute, G-d’s name was not invoked, and no one could be accused of religious arrogance. The debate did however show that even some of the educators did not share Rabinowitz’s view that Hebrew was “indispensable” to Jewish education and preferred to focus exclusively on Jewish tradition. At this stage, the accommodators’ Hebrew-centric approach still appeared to garner the religious establishment’s support. This was evident a few months later when in January 1953, the Beth Din ejected one of the traditionalists’
stalwarts, Moshe Swift, following his disagreements with the lay leadership and with rabbinic colleagues. Consequently, in June that year he resigned from the pulpit and returned to
London.35
Almost a decade later, in June 1962, soon after Rabinowitz left South Africa, the discussion concerning Hebrew’s prominence in Jewish education was revived. The traditionalist-allied Rabbi Isaac Zwebner, noting the average home was unobservant,
expressed concern that children were not being exposed to authentic Judaism and this defect
31 Ibid 10-11. This prescription of creating a synagogue-centred Judaism was mentioned earlier that year in an article by Dr Harry Abt, “How to Make Judaism a Living Force”, Jewish Affairs January 1952: 8-11.
32 Ibid 11
33 Katz “History of Jewish Education in South Africa”, 425; E. Levite “Response to A. Moar” (Letterbox), Jewish Affairs November 1952: 35. Levite mentions the fact that Moar was an educator in Johannesburg before relocating to Cape Town.
34 Ibid. 36. This is an interesting paraphrase of the resolution passed in 1944, and referred to above, which called for “Jewish education based on broadly national traditional lines”. (See “Broadly Traditional or Strictly Traditional,” 16). It is uncertain whether the replacement of Jewish with Hebrew was deliberate or in error.
35 Edgar Bernstein, “Union of South Africa,” American Jewish Yearbook Vol. 55 (1954), 334. No immediate cause for his resignation is provided but his public spat with Rabinowitz and with the Board of Deputies suggests his stridently religious approach was unwelcome.
56
was not being remedied by the Cheders’ prioritising of Hebrew. The scarce hours available and the difficulty in teaching a language made it counterproductive. Instead, he argued, pupils needed to be taught Jewish laws and customs and be trained to read from a Siddur and Chumash.36 Responding, E. Levite repeated his argument that the State of Israel’s existence made it paramount for Diaspora children to be conversant in modern Hebrew.37 If rabbis wished to strengthen religion, he advised that they start with the children’s parents;
attempting to make children religious while circumventing the adults would not work. Levite also believed there was no educational value to teaching prayer and Jewish studies via the English medium, and these could only be taught effectively in Hebrew.38 In an article published three months later, the traditionalist Rev. Osher Altshuler disputed the notion that studying Hebrew would fill the gaps in Jewish education. He declared that the modern
theories and methods in teaching Hebrew had failed to improve the youth’s comprehension of the Jewish calendar and it was not even sufficient for them to be able to recite the kaddish [mourner’s prayer] without stammering.39 Focusing on Hebrew at the expense of teaching tradition, he surmised, had its roots in a religiously lax lay leadership and in university- trained religious leaders who emphasized Judaism’s universal aspects, such as spreading
“goodwill” among their gentile neighbours, to the detriment of parochial interests.40 A year later, just prior to Chief Rabbi Bernard Moses Casper taking office, Isaac Goss, the director of the Board of Education, and one who fit Altshuler’s description of the religious academic, made the diametrically opposite case. Presenting his credo on youth education, Goss opined that in fact teaching Hebrew would produce a wholesome Jew proud of his religious
heritage.41 Quoting the scholar Solomon Shechter, he declared that “history had shown [that]
assimilation comes precisely when the Hebrew language is abandoned.” He therefore
vigorously opposed any Jewish Studies course taught in English at the expense of teaching it in Hebrew.42 Challenging this accommodationist view on practical grounds, Rabbi
Menachem Aronson, writing in November, complained that the religious level of the educated youth was far inferior to his counterpart in Israel. Without accusing Hebrew teaching of being the culprit, he nevertheless noted that the Judaism taught by the Board had
36 Isaac Zwebner, “Answer to the question of shaping the image of our education” (Hebrew), Barkai, June 1962.
37 E. Levite, “How should we teach our students” (Hebrew), Barkai, June, 1962
38 Ibid.
39 Altshuler, “Did you protest loudly,” 84-85. In Jewish tradition when a person dies the descendants recite a special mourner’s prayer in synagogue, every day for eleven months.
40 Ibid., 85.
41 Goss, “What Should We Teach our Children”, 5.
42 Ibid.
57
stagnated to the point where it lagged 60 years behind England whose model it purported to follow.43 Parroting Altshuler, he proposed that the only solution was to abandon
sophisticated treatises on Judaism and return to promoting Torah and mitzvah observance.44 Aronson’s challenge went unanswered but the battle over Hebrew instruction appears to have elucidated the differences between the accommodators’ broad and Zionist outlook, which saw language and culture as important components of wholesome Judaism, and the traditionalists’ narrower perspective that viewed Judaism as primarily focused on the observance of Jewish law, with Hebrew relegated, at best, to second place. In the years to follow, the latter approach would be strengthened with the arrival of a new crop of rabbis, less sympathetic to the modern state of Israel and more willing to openly challenge the accommodators, as shall be detailed in the next chapter.