Some enterprising news editor in the Middle West [of the USA] in search for the unusual made a great discovery. Upon the large American continent, populated as it is with talent and genius, he has discovered the Average American. A close scrutiny was made of the unicum and it was discovered to the surprise and amusement of the reading public that the average American is quite a normal man. The find was made in the state of Iowa. He is a small businessman. He owns his own home, drives a car, cares for his family, goes to church, is a good, congenial neighbor and is all around all right. Because of these unusual qualities he was on exhibit and all his actions, opinions and reactions to the world and its affairs were scrupulously recorded and interpreted.
To summarize his outlook not a very large vocabulary is necessary. It would range between a complacent “all right” and satisfaction with what exists.
Notwithstanding the harpings of the highbrow intellectuals if it is true that the average American is indeed what he is claimed to be in his exemplary personification, there is nothing wrong with him.
It is to be wondered that there was not an ingenious editor of a Jewish newspaper, daily or weekly, to attempt to find his counterpart in the American Jewish community. Not wishing to anticipate the finding of such a search, the following qualities might be suggested as a clue to the discovery.
The average American Jew corresponds more or less to the average American. He is a businessman, he owns his own home, drives his car, cares for his family and is a congenial neighbor.
The only difference that might exist is that he goes to synagogue at least once a year. He is not a member of many social clubs but instead has hands full and his pockets empty with the payment of all kinds of dues to charitable organizations, societies and lodges. Another difference is that he is either a “driver” or is being driven in the various consecutive drives for every imaginable good, uplifting cause.
* * *
A trial of unusual interest will take place next week in the city of Cleveland. As a preparatory step for providing the legal guns for the parties concerned theological advice on the background of the conflict was sought from the leaders of the respective branches of American Jewry in New York.
The crux of the matter on which light was sought in the depositions taken was the answer to the question: What is orthodoxy? A minority group of the Cleveland Jewish Center is responsible for instituting the suit against Rabbi Solomon Goldman, spiritual leader of the Center. The minority claims that the Rabbi, a graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary, has deviated from the constitution of the congregation which provides that as long as ten members will insist on the Orthodox ritual, the congregation must remain Orthodox. To prove that the Rabbi’s deviations are un-Orthodox it is first necessary to establish what Orthodoxy is. To bring out the answer to this question a great volume of questions were prepared to be submitted to the experts. Many of the questions framed by the attorneys for both sides who are, by the way, both non-Jews, contain the danger of turning this essentially necessary battle into a Jewish edition of the Dayton trial. Many of the questions and answers during the taking of the depositions brought in the entire mass of religious lore which then transferred into the secular atmosphere of a court might tend to create a kind of ridicule similar to that which attended the “monkey trial” in Dayton. When questions concerning Baalem’s Ass are asked and answered, or when the perplexing problem is presented as to whether or not kissing a bride by the officiating Rabbi is in accordance with Orthodoxy or whether the reading of this or that book on present-day social problems is or is not in accordance with Orthodoxy, the entire matter is reduced to the level of vaudeville which will certainly do no good for the dignity of Jewish religious life in the United States.
This, however, has nothing to do with the question itself. There seems to be no doubt that in the present transitory period through which American Jewry is passing, the friction between the traditional synagogue and the modernized synagogue is at its height.
Orthodoxy is generally a misnomer when Jewish religion is spoken of. It is a word new in the use of the synagogue. It came into use only after Reform Judaism made its entrance. With Reform Judaism the traditional synagogue has no quarrel. Friction of which the Cleveland case is typical is in existence and the dignified settling of the matter in the Cleveland court will have a wholesome influence and lead to a clarity which is much needed.
* * *
Life has its tragic and comic sides. Dispatches from Budapest conveyed the indignation of the highly cultured Magyar students who objected to performance of “Abie’s Irish Rose” in the Metropolitan Theatre.
The refined Magyar students objected to the play not because it did not measure up to their artistic appreciation but because they believed that “Abie’s Irish Rose” represents American Jews in too favorable a light. Here is one point where many an American Jew whose eye has grown weary for the past six years of seeing “Abie’s Irish Rose” blossom among the bright lights of Broadway agrees with the Magyar youths – but obviously not for the same reasons. “Abie’s Irish Rose” is as far from being complimentary to the Jew as it is far from the truth; it is also as far from proving the public’s knowledge of the Jew as of its artistic appreciation.
* * *
A chair for the instruction of the Yiddish language and literature will be created at the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus. This is another achievement which Dr. Magnes has added to his brilliant record as chancellor of the University.
The Hebraist zealots in Jerusalem and elsewhere will not, strange as it may seem, derive any too great satisfaction from the accomplishment. In the struggle for the cultural dominance among the Jewish masses, Hebrew and Yiddish have fought many a battle which was certainly injurious to both. The renaissance of Hebrew is of too recent a date to have instilled in its followers the feeling of security which is necessary for a proper appreciation of the academic necessities of an institution like the Hebrew University, which must unfold its activity in an impartial, scientific and serene atmosphere.
Hotheaded Hebraists will visualize an attack of the Yiddishists on the Hebrew integrity of the Scopus institution. Dr. Magnes, however, has to be complimented on the achievement which will bring renown to the university as it will do much good for the prestige of the vernacular of a large section of the Jewish people and as it will furnish new living material for the study of Jewish life and institutions.
Dr. David Shapiro, publisher of “The Day,” and his associates on that New York Yiddish newspaper who are responsible for the idea and its execution by establishing a $100,000 fund, the income of which will secure the maintenance of this department, have made a valuable contribution both to the Hebrew University and to the study of Jewish literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment