Existentialism and Mussar

Elements of the new can often be found in the old. The “old” I refer to here is the oldest monotheistic religion, Judaism. Humanism, the ethical philosophy that affirms the dignity and worth of all people, can finds its roots in what the Rabbis state in Pirkei Avot “All humans are dear, because they are created in the image of God.” The modern day attempt to take military weapons and technologies and transform them into peaceful civilian applications, can also find its roots in the words of the prophets, that a day will come in which “the swords will become ploughshares.” I would like to demonstrate that traces of Existentialism can be found in thinkers that are grounded in the Torah world and the Yeshiva, specifically thinkers affected by the Mussar Movement.

In the third century Palestinian work known as the Mishna,- the oldest authoritative collection of Jewish Oral law- we find the following statement in the first chapter of tractate Avot: “Rabban Gamliel says: Provide yourself with a teacher and free yourself of doubt.” This fundamental statement developed into the foundation for the Jew living by the rabbinic system. In Rabbinic literature, disagreements about practical elements of Jewish life are fairly common. When the Jew decides to follow the teachings of the Rabbis he is faced with a dilemma: Which Rabbi or school do I follow? Rabban Gamliel resolves this issue by recommending that one should follow the guidance of a master, and thereby remove doubts from one’s mind. By focusing on one master, or Rebbi, and not taking notice of the rest, the practicing Rabbinic Jew can be confident that he is fulfilling his spiritual obligation.

However, established systems can create several problems for a genuine religious experience. When religion is limited to words to be uttered and acts to be performed, the mind, at times, may become disengaged, and all dogmatic activities become soulless. The Talmud itself warns the Jew not to allow his Judaism to become routine. Rabbi Yonah ben Abraham Gerondi (d. 1263) a Catalian rabbi and moralist, in his ethical work The Gates of Repentance, writes, “People who are lacking in fear of God and perform mitzvoth by rote, will not be able to withstand challenge from the evil inclination.” [1] Nachmanides, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, the great Spanish luminary of the thirteenth century, warned that a person can obey all the laws and still be a scoundrel (Naval b’rishut ha-Torah).[2]

Throughout the long history of Rabbis and their teachings, several works can be identified as existential ethics, which address the need to make Jewish law part of a person’s true self. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto's (1707-1746) classic work Mesilat Yesharim is undoubtedly a paradigm of such work. However, the first individual to formalize a system and a school of such ethics is Rabbi Israel Wolf Lipkin of Salant.

The Enlightenment and Jewish Emancipation of the Nineteenth Century presented the Rabbinic world with new realities and questions that they had to confront. Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment, was a movement among European Jews in the late 18th century that supported adopting enlightenment values to facilitate the integration of Jews into European society. One of the main focuses of the group was to change the traditional educational curriculum and increase the learning of secular studies.

As long as the Jews lived in the ghetto, the rabbi- and thus traditional Judaism- was the only model for the Jewish community. The rabbinate was the premier profession for Jewish boys, and the study of the Mishnah, Talmud and the codes were the means of obtaining that desirable position. With doors opening for the Jew, and Haskalah and their followers promoting change, assimilation was the greatest challenge for the Rabbinate of the nineteenth century.

Rabbi Israel Wolf Lipkin, seeing the transformation that was occurring throughout the Jewish community, sensed an urgent need for Judaism to return to its roots if it wanted to survive. For Lipkin, as long as Jewish practices remained external social functions, which lacked a connection to the practitioner’s true self, Judaism would not survive. For Lipkin, the only answer to the problem was Mussar.

Although Lipkin left very little in writing, a picture of the movement can be developed by reading discourses from his disciples and followers. Rabbi Dov Katz, a graduate of the renowned Mussar Yeshiva in Slabodka, Lithuania, published a book entitled Tenuat Hamusar in 1945. It became the first of several works that attempt to recapitulate the philosophy of the movement. Among the sayings quoted in the book, we find Lipkin’s attitude towards negative traits, behavior by rote and apparent religious activities which, in essence, are transgressions.

For Lipkin, the well respected practice of Talmud study is not the purpose of the Jewish way of life; rather it is only a means to ethical behavior that includes character improvement. He would preach that it is easier to study the complete Talmud than to change one human trait. He would complain about the fact that people rushing to do a good deed, if they are mindless, can in fact destroy the world on the way. Lipkin’s core message was that to be a committed Jew, you must be attuned to your true self and being. Only by identifying that truth can you transform your existence. Without that recognition, your external activities are not fulfilling the objectives of a religious life.

In Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan describes to his brother Alyosha an imaginary event, or poem, regarding a visit by Christ that occurred in Seville, Spain during the sixteenth century. After healing the sick and performing miracles, Christ is arrested by the Cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor.

The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that due to his rejections of the temptations of the Devil he has secured free will for people and consequently imposed a great burden on humanity. He continues by telling Christ that there are three powers needed for happiness of the impotent masses: miracle, mystery and authority. When the Church provided men with the above three, it corrected the work of Christ and brought happiness to man, because men were again led like sheep, and the terrible gift of freedom was lifted from their hearts.

Dostoevsky is telling us, through the voice of Ivan, that miracle, mystery and authority are concepts that stifle free will, and consequently, the person’s true self. For a person like Lipkin, for whom the true self and being is the true performer in a religious life, these three must be eliminated. I would like to demonstrate Lipkin’s, and the Mussar Movement’s, rejection of miracle, mystery and authority.

At the same time that the rabbinate was trying to deal with the Enlightenment, it was still in the midst of defending itself from an earlier attack from the Hasidic movement. Hasidic or Hasidism refers to the great religious and social movement which began in the middle of the 18th century in Eastern Europe, whose leader was Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, known by the acronym "the Besht". Describing the mode that brought the Chasidic movement to life, Dr. Josef Fox writes “People sought the help of the Ba'al Shem who was believed able to perform miracles, heal the sick, and exorcise demons by his skill in combining letters that spelled out the Ineffable name. The Ba'al Shem represented a kind of a mixture of medicine, man and Cabbalist, who composed amulets, prescribed medicine, and drove out evil spirits."[3]

The movement, which spread rapidly in the last quarter of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, engulfed most of the centers of Jewish population in parts of Russia, the Ukraine, Poland, and later Romania, Hungary and other areas. By the middle of the 19th century, it had hundreds of thousands of followers, and became one of the greatest pietistic movements in Jewish history. However, a serious schism evolved between the Hasidic and non-Hasidic Jews. Those European Jews who rejected the Hasidic movement dubbed themselves Mitnagdim (literally, "opponents"). They identified several problems with the new movement, believing that the group might become a deviant messianic sect. The leader of the Mitnagdim was Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman (1720-1797) known as the Vilna Gaon, or "the Gra". Following the Gra’s death, his disciple Rabbi Chaim Volozhin (1749-1821) established the Volozhin Yeshiva in 1803. Its purpose was to reinforce the traditional values of rabbinic Judaism upon as many students and future rabbis as possible. The Volozhin Yeshiva became known as the forerunner of the modern day Yeshiva.

Lipkin, being trained and educated in the traditional Yeshiva, viewed himself as part of the Yeshiva world. However, sensing the pivotal role of the Yeshiva to protect and transmit the true message of rabbinic Judaism, he addressed several points in his lectures that he believed must become the focus of the Yeshiva philosophy.

One of the core beliefs in the Hasidic philosophy was the significant role of the Rebbe or tzaddik and his ability to perform miracles. Stories and legends of the Baal Shem Tov are a considerable part of the Hasidic way of life. Although Judaism has always valued and believed in miracles and wonders that occurred during Biblical times, the Yeshiva world was quite scornful of the Hasidic legends. For many within the Yeshiva, such stories reflected the naiveté and lack of intellect among the Hasidim. For Lipkin however, focusing on miracles was harmful to the welfare of the Jewish soul, for it signified losing sight of the true objective of Judaism. Lipkin’s outlook was able to be sensed from the fact that he rejected even the one “Lithuanian miracle”.

The Priestly Blessing, known in Hebrew as the Birkat Kohanim, is a Jewish prayer recited by the Kohanim - descendents of the biblical figure Aaron - during certain Jewish services. According to Talmudic law, the blessing should be said daily in the morning service of Shachrit. Due to uncertain reasons, as Jews moved into European countries during the Medieval Period, the practice was suspended from the daily prayers and was only recited during the seasonal holidays. For rabbinic authorities throughout the ages, it was a mystery as to why the practice was abandoned, but out of respect to tradition, no one advocated a change to the custom. The Gra of Vilna was one of the first to promote change, and actually attempted to reintroduce the Birkat Kohanim to the daily prayers in the synagogue in Vilna.[4] Although he did not succeed, his disciple Rabbi Chaim Volozhin attempted to do the same several years later. Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1817-1893), the Rosh Yeshiva (Dean) of the Volozhin yeshiva during the second half of the Nineteenth Century, recorded the sequence of events that occurred in Volozhin, stating: “R’ Chaim decided that on the morrow he would order Birkat Kohanim; that night half the city and the synagogue burned down. They saw and understood that there is some secret and mysteries of the descent of felicity which alights via the Priestly Blessing, that we lack the ability to understand”. Clearly, we have a unique “Lithuanian miracle”, where the Divine intervened for the sake of a custom.

Lipkin had a different take on the event. In Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky’s book, The Making of a Gadol,[5] he expresses the opinion of Lipkin that “he (Lipkin) would rebuild the Shul and again instituted the Birkat Kohanim despite the fire.” He continues by saying that Lipkin viewed the event not as a supernatural intervention, but rather as an act of arson. In the words of the author: “Do you suppose that a fire came down from Heaven to set the Shul aflame? It did not. An old Jew who objected to changing a custom which had prevailed for as long as he remembered decided to take matters into his own hands and set the blaze!”[6] Mussar’s rejecting miracles is consistent with its emphasis on self-understanding and self-improvement. Basing observance on supernatural events was an unacceptable approach for Lipkin and his way of thinking.

One of the major elements in Hasidic thought and practices is the significant role of Kabbalah and the Zohar. Kabbalah is the mystical aspect of Judaism. It refers to a set of esoteric teachings, which are meant to define the inner meaning of both the Hebrew Bible and traditional rabbinic literature, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. The Zohar, a mystical commentary on the Torah, written in medieval Aramaic, is widely considered the most important work of Kabbalah. The Zohar contains mystical discussions of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, sin and redemption, good and evil, and related topics. Followers of the Hasidic movement often recited passages from the Zohar and would meditate on sayings from the Zohar during the performance of Mitzvot.

The core idea of Kabalistic thought relates to the inability of man to comprehend the mysteries of the mitzvoth. He must therefore focus on the Kabbalah (literally what has been received) to achieve purpose in mitzvah observance. By meditating on secret messages and philosophical knowledge of the godhead, the Kabbalist fixes flaws of the spiritual realm and, in his mind, fulfills the true purpose of the mitzvah. John Hochman, in his article entitled Miracle, Mystery and Authority: The Triangle of Cult Indoctrination writes that “People who harbor secrets can find this exciting or gratifying, particularly if done for a ‘higher purpose.’ Cults are riddled with secrets.”[7] For Lipkin, attention to the theosophical speculation on esoteric matters seemed entirely irrelevant. Immanuel Etkes, in his book on Lipkin, writes that “[Lipkin] distanced himself from [Kabbalah’s] influence, so that it no longer played a role in his religious outlook.” He continues by quoting a response by Lipkin as to why he ignored Kabbalah, stating, “What practical difference does it make in which heaven the Holy-one-Blessed-He sits?”[8] Another statement by Lipkin that clearly indicates what he viewed as essential in Judaism was: “The Maharal of Prague[9] created a golem[10], and this was a great wonder. But how much more wonderful is it to transform a corporeal human being into a mensch (a decent person).” By Lipkin disconnecting human activities from affects in the higher realm, he was able to develop approaches to deal with human nature and its true self in a rational way. Hence, for the Mussar Movement, since its raison d'être is for humans to identify and improve their true selves, mystery, beyond a doubt, was rejected.

Often, to understand a new movement’s true goals, one turns to literature from the traditional school that fought against the innovation of the Mussar Movement. Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik (1903-1993) an American rabbi, Talmudist and modern Jewish philosopher, in his essay Halakhic Man, recounts how men like his grandfather Reb Chaim Brisker (1853-1918) reacted when an attempt was made to propagate the Mussar Movement in their community. Soloveitchik relates that “the halakhic men of Brisk and Volozhin sensed that this whole mood posed a profound contradiction to the Halakhah and would undermine its very foundations. Halakhic man fears nothing. For he swims in the sea of the Talmud that life-giving sea to all the living. If a person has sinned, then the Halakhah of repentance will come to his aid. One must not waste time on spiritual self-appraisal, on probing introspections, and on the picking away at the ‘sense’ of sin.”[11] He continues by describing the philosophy and behavior of the Mussar Yeshiva by stating “It was the practice in Kovno and Slobodka to spend the twilight hour when Sabbath was drawing to a close in an atmosphere suffused with sadness and grief, an atmosphere in which man loses his spiritual shield, his sense of power, confidence, and strength and becomes utterly sensitive and responsive, and there to engage in a monologue about death, the nihility of this world, its emptiness and ugliness. Adherents of the Mussar Movement recognized that, beyond the four cubits of Halakhah there are other realms needed to heal people from sin. They believed that reflection on death and human finitude has a purging influence. They insisted that the Jew cannot build a total religious personality by confining himself entirely within a world of legal texts.”[12] For the Jews of the traditional school, uncertainty and existential thoughts were counter to their view of Halachic Judaism. For them, Talmud and the Codes were to offer confidence and the only focus was to remain on understanding the halachah and not on understanding one’s self.

Similarly Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), popularly known by the name of his magnum opus Chazon Ish, a Belarusian born Orthodox rabbi who became leader of Haredi Judaism in Israel, in his work Emunah Ubitachon, is critical of the Mussar Movement’s focus on soul searching and self understanding, stating that the text should be the only guiding light to determine right from wrong.

The Mussar Movement, on the other hand, believed that relying on the “Authority” i.e. the Talmud and the Codes is not enough to be considered as living a true religious life. What is required is mindfulness of one’s true self and being. Although such awareness would lead to anxiety, as Soloveitchik described occurring in Kovno and Slobodka, angst is an integral part of the Mussar system of self improvement. Thus, it is evident that the Mussar Movement disengaged itself from the idea of “authority”.

Many other similarities can be seen between the great existential philosophers and the Mussar thinkers. Søren Kierkegaard, the 19th century Danish philosopher, wrote about the importance of living and being conscious of life. Kierkegaard was addressing religion and philosophy and the idea that people were not being mindful of what they were doing. He wanted to sting people into awareness. He believed that the religious person can follow the law established by others without ever really thinking or making the law part of his true self. Likewise, Lipkin would be critical of people as living with themselves for seventy years and not really knowing themselves.[13] Many of his sermons were meant to “sting people into awareness.”[14]

One of the twentieth century great Mussar personalities was Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler (1892-1953), the "spiritual counselor" of the Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei-Brak Israel. Dessler, in a collection of his writings published posthumously by his pupils entitled Michtav Me-Eliyahu (translated into English as Strive for Truth), writes the following: “There is a not-so-obvious reason why human beings pursue worldly pleasures so avidly. It is because they have a subconscious urge to still the pangs of spiritual hunger. Everyone has this nameless inner yearning: the longing of the soul for its state of perfection; and indulgence in worldly pleasures is an illusory substitute for this.”[15]

Similarly, Martin Heidegger addresses a person’s being as Dasein. Naturally, Dasein has angst about death. Yet daily activities distract Dasein from death. Dasein gets involved in the pursuit of worldly pleasures which leads it into tranquillization. However, this inauthentic existence of “busyness” eventually alienates Dasein. The inauthentic everydayness of Dasein is referred to by the masses as “getting ahead”. However, in Heidegger’s analysis, it is in reality a plunge for Dasein.

We find in the Book of Psalms 73:27 the following verse: “Those who are distant are lost.” Dessler explains that this distance refers to when a person is not mindful of his experiences.[16] For Dessler the human must end self alienation and must ask, like Heidegger: “What is the meaning of my being?”

For Dessler, choice defines the human. He writes that “every decision made by man has an effect. The choice has consequences not just for the decision maker himself but rather on his surroundings and also on the world. The choice-maker is responsible for his influence and must be aware of it.”[17] Dessler’s thought is quite comparable to that of Jean-Paul Sartre, who stated that the human being ought to be aware of what he is and take full responsibility for his existence. Sartre also added that by choosing, humans choose for all mankind as well as for themselves.

The great French philosopher and leading Christian existentialist Gabriel Marcel noted that “A man cannot be free or remain free, except in the degree to which he remains linked with that which transcends him.” This view of freedom has been expressed by the rabbis in the sixth chapter of the Mishnah tractate Avot. “A person is not free unless he is involved in the study of Torah.” The rabbis, in a similar way of thought to that of Marcel, address the fact that the human being, although he might deem his actions as by-products of freedom, makes choices which may result in an enslavement to some kind of physical urge or desire. To address freedom, the human must first identify his true self, and only from that point of reference might he identify true freedom. Marcel expanded his view of freedom to national freedom as well by stating that, “If the freedom of a people or a country be defined as absolute independence, is it not obvious that in a world like ours freedom cannot exist because of pressure, or, less politely, by blackmail, at all levels of international intercourse?” This same view was stated by one of the great Mussar disciples of the twentieth century, Rabbi Yechezkel Sarna (1890 - 1969). Rabbi Sarna was instrumental in building the first Mussar yeshiva in Palestine in the city of Hebron. Later, as dean of the institution, he moved it to Jerusalem following the Hebron Massacre of 1929. After the establishment of the State of Israel, Sarna addressed the euphoric mood of the Jewish nation after gaining their independence and “freedom” by wondering if “a small country can fool itself to believe that it will indeed be ‘independent’ through its own might. It must know that all the independence will be blown away like a loose leaf by the will of any large empire and it will always be dependent on the large superpowers”. Thoughts of freedom that are often addressed by existentialists are also vital for the followers of the Mussar School.

Albert Camus, in the Myth of Sisyphus, describes Sisyphus as condemned by God to roll a rock to the top of a mountain and then the stone would roll back. Sisyphus is able to find meaning in this. “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.” Similarly, Etkes, in his work on Lipkin, addresses the focus of the Mussar Movement. Traditionally, the antidote for a man’s struggle with his evil inclination would be to turn toward God and pray for “Siata Deshmaia” (assistance from heaven) to succeed in his “milchemet hayetzer” (the battle against the evil inclination). Lipkin, on the other hand, stated and emphasized the importance of the battle itself and preached that one should view the battle as the goal.[18]

A story is told that one time Rabbi Lipkin was laying ill in bed and another rabbi came to visit him. The visiting rabbi told Lipkin that he was thankful to Lipkin for being an accessory for the performance of the Mitzvah of Bikur Cholim (visiting the ill). Rabbi Lipkin responded “I am not your Lulav”[19] What Lipkin was trying to convey to the guest was, that you do not treat another human as an object. Although Judaism teaches that individuals have responsibilities towards others, they must not be viewed as objects, but rather as people. The Mussar School teaches that although a blessing must be said when performing a mitzvah, when the mitzvah is between humans (Bein Adam Lechavero) blessings are not recited, since God must be set aside, with the focus remaining only on the human need and not on objectifying another.[20]

Martin Buber, in his best known book I and Thou, discusses the unfortunate reality that people relate to others as objects. Buber’s major theme is that human existence may be defined by the way in which we engage in dialogue with each other, with the world, and with God. Only by relating to the Thou of others can the person become connected to the ultimate Thou, God, according to Buber. Here we find yet another similarity between the Existentialist and the Mussar School.

The Mussar Movement teaches that in Judaism, the main focus is not on external details but rather on what man makes of himself. During the twentieth century, as the teachings of the Mussar School penetrated into the Yeshiva, the word Menschlichkeit[21] became quite prevalent. Knowledge was no longer the only gauge for evaluating greatness, but rather it was to be in concert with character. For the Mussar personality what the being makes of himself is what really counts. This Mussar viewpoint is the same as the religious existentialist philosophy, and is summed up by Paul Tillich, who states that “the essence of being is not something which he finds; he makes it.”

In William Barrett’s book, Irrational Man, he writes that although Heidegger was a brilliant thinker, towering above men like Jaspers and Buber, he was not great enough to be a man. In Barrett’s words, “He has led us back, as has no other thinker, to see what is involved in light and vision, but we need to go one step farther and see that all light requires fire.” For Barrett, the fire must come from a new Kierkegaard “to pump back living blood into the ontological skeleton of the Heideggerian Dasein.”[22] The Torah Jew on the other hand, can turn to the fire of his tradition, which can illuminate and, at the same time, warm his soul. The Torah, or Mussar, Existentialist can relate to the Dasein of Heidegger and yet avoid the forlornness of Sartre, loneliness of Holderlin and the madness of Nietzsche, by waking up every morning and saying “I gratefully thank you, O living and eternal King”.

References

Book

Dessler, E.E., Michtav Me-Eliyahu

Etkes, I. The Mussar Movement: Seeking the Torah of Truth. Philadelphia: JPS

Girondi, Y. Sha'arei Teshuvah The Gates of Repentance

Kamenetsky, N. The Making of a Gadol

Karelitz, A. Y., Emunah Ubitachon

Katz, D. Tenuat HaMusar

Luzzato, M. C., Mesilat Yesharim

Soloveitchik,J.D., Halakhic Man. JPS, Philadelphia PA,1983

Journal article

Hochman, J. Miracle, Mystery and Authority: The Triangle of Cult Indoctrination

Psychiatric Annals/April 1990

---

[1] Chapter 3 section 169

[2] Commentary on the Torah Vayikra 19:2

[3] Joseph Fox Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk: A biographical study of the chasidic master (New York: Maznaim,1988)

[4] Aruch Hashulchan 128

[5] PP Publishers, Israel, 2005

[6] The Making of a Gadol p.654

[7] Psychiatric Annals/April 1990

[8] Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement, Immanuel Etkes Movement: Seeking the Torah of Truth. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

[9] Rabbi Judah Loewe (1525-1609)

[10] An animated being, created entirely from inanimate matter. There is a legend that Maharal created one.

[11] Halachic Man p.72

[12] Ibid 74

[13] Tenuat Hamusar p.270

[14] Pulmus HaMussar p. 20

[15] Book two p. 13

[16] Michta Me’elitahu p. 61 Hebrew addition

[17] Michta Me’elitahu p. 115 Hebrew addition

[18] Etkes P. 322 (Hebrew Addition)

[19] Frond of the date palm tree; It is one of the Four Species used in the daily prayer services during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

[20] Story and Message heard in Yeshiva lecture Telshe Yeshiva Chicago 1990

[21] Good or decent person

[22] P. 237

Genizah

Some people love collecting things. They might even save a newspaper from twenty five years ago, or even worse, hoard all newspapers from the last twenty five years. I personally hate junk and love throwing things out. When I am finished with an article, and at times even before that, I chuck it. My method of immediate disposal works quite well for most things, however, when it comes to religious objects, specifically papers that contain verses or words of Torah, I have a problem. According to Halachah it is forbidden to dispose of such objects in a disrespectful way. Ideally you bury them. However, this option is not so practical. Funerals are expensive, even without the stretch limo. So, when people have a problem with a spiritual matter, they go to their Synagogue. As a result people bring bundles of papers, old newspapers, worn out Kipot, yellow Tzitzit, old records (Elvis was Jewish) and dump them on the most spiritual location in the Synagogue-the Rabbi’s desk. The community no longer has a problem. Now the Rabbi has a problem. What should he do with all these holy (and not so holy) objects? The answer is- Genizah.

The word Genizah appears in the beginning of the sixth chapter of the book of Ezra describing an archive containing records, documents or books. We also find in the Talmud [1]that during the first temple period, the Jewish people had a medical book that listed cures for all ailments. King Chezkia, sensing that the nation was relying on the book and did not turn to God for healing, decided to get rid of the book. So, he “Ganaz” the book, meaning placed it in a good hiding place- without destroying it. This is the foundation for the concept of a Genizah, placing significant items that are no longer in use in a secure place.

However, numerous times throughout our history, the Geniza did not solve the problem. Rabbi Yaakov Reisher, (d. 1730) was asked the following question [2] on the eve of Passover when people clean their houses, they bring all their worn-out holy scriptures to the attic in the synagogue. However there is no longer any room in the attic and big barrels were placed in the cemetery to hold the excess. Unfortunately these papers landed up in the market place and are used as toilet paper! So the questioned was raised if it would be acceptable to burn the papers to avoid the terrible desecration of the Holy Scriptures?

Genizah, it seems, creates lots of problems. Yet one of the greatest Jewish treasures ever found comes from a Genizah, the Cairo Genizah, located in the Ezra Synagogue in Fostat (Old Cairo, Egypt) that was built in 882. German poet, traveler and book dealer Simon von Geldern appears to be the first modern visitor to the Cairo Genizah in 1753. Although he mentioned it in his 1773 book, “The Israelites on Mount Horeb,” von Geldern never truly examined its contents. A little over a century later, in 1864, Jacob Saphir, the scribe of the Ashkenazi community of Jerusalem visited the Genizah, however he was turned away. The importance of the Cairo Genizah became evident in 1896, when two Christian women brought some leaves to Rabbi Solomon Schechter, who at the time was a professor of Talmudic and rabbinical literature at England's Cambridge University. Schechter recognized the leaves as the Hebrew original "Book of Wisdom," ascribed to Ben Sira. The Book of Wisdom became part of the Christian biblical cannon (Ecclesiastes) when translated into Greek. Before its discovery in the Cairo Genizah, no known Hebrew version existed. Some scholars even doubted its existence. Schechter traveled to Cairo where after negotiating the permission of the synagogue authorities to empty the Genizah, extracted thousands of pages from the Genizah and took them to University of Cambridge. In Europe, few items placed in a Genizah would survive more than a few decades to weather changes and moisture. Egypt’s climate on the other hand, was just right for the preservation of these informative documents.

For the student of the Talmud, the book of Ben Sira is quite a perplexing issue. We find the book quoted in the Talmud indicating that the Rabbis viewed the teachings of Ben Sira as valuable. In one instance the quote from the book is prefaced as a canonized text. In tractate Baba Kama 92b the Talmud states: “Raba said to Rabbah the son of Mari: Whence can be derived the popular saying, 'A bad palm will usually make its way to a grove of barren trees'? — He replied: This matter was written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, and also learnt in a Mishnah and taught in a Baraitha: It is stated in the Pentateuch as written, So Esau went unto Ishmael; repeated in the prophets, as written, And there gathered themselves to Jephthah idle men and they went out with him; mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written: Every fowl dwells near its kind and man near his equal.” The last quote is found in the Book of Ben Sira. Clearly it is indeed a valued text.

On the other hand, the Talmud Sanhedrin 100b quotes Rabbi Yosef who identifies the book of Ben Sira as one of the “Sefarim Chitzonim” –external works that should not be read by the committed Jew. This inconsistency has not escaped the notice of great Jewish scholars.

Rabbi Yom-Tov ibn Asevilli (2nd Half 13th cent. – 1st Half 14th century) in his commentary on the Talmud, resolves the inconsistency by stating that the prohibition to learn from Ben Sira is only if one makes the study of the book a permanent activity. On the other hand, it is proper to learn from the wisdom of the text on a temporary basis.

However there is a far more fascinating rabbinic story regarding Ben Sira. This one is not from the Talmud, but rather makes its appearance into the world of Torah in the fifteenth century. Rabbi Jacob Moelin (1365 – 1427) was a Talmudist and a great authority on Jewish law, known for his codification of the customs of the German Jews. In the middle of his work Likutei Maharil he writes as follows: ”Ben Sira was born from the seed of the prophet Yirmiyahu. The daughter of Yirmiyahu was bathing in a tub and conceived from her father’s sperm. Her righteousness was known to all, so it was agreed that she conceived in the bathtub and named the child Ben Zera (son of seed). However as the child grew older he was ashamed from the name and thus it was changed to Ben Sira. The numerical value of Sira is Yirmiyahu.”

This interesting narrative has been quoted quite often regarding a modern day question, namely artificial insemination. Artificial insemination is the oldest [modern] method couples and physicians have tried in their attempts to overcome infertility. Because it is the least invasive, the least dangerous, and the least costly technique available, it is still the first one used today when a couple cannot conceive through sexual intercourse because of sexual dysfunction, insufficient or abnormal sperm, or inadequate motility of the sperm.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895–1986) a Lithuanian Orthodox rabbi, scholar and posek, who was world-renowned for his expertise in Halachah and was regarded by many as the de facto supreme rabbinic authority for Orthodox Jewry of North America and the world, cites the Likutei Maharil as a source to permit donor insemination. This story supports Rabbi Feinstein’s Halachic view that unlike sexual intercourse, such a conception does not make a child conceived by a father and daughter a mamzer [illegitimate]; and, since the legend asserts that Ben Sira was the child of Yirmiyahu, the sperm donor is apparently to be considered the legal, as well as the biological, father of the offspring. Other twentieth century Rabbis including Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss, (1902-1989) Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg (1915-2006) and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910 -1995) question the legitimacy of Maharil’s tale.

Another interesting document found in the Genizah is a marriage document between a Rabbinic bridegroom and a Karaite bride. Karaite Judaism was a break-off from traditional Rabbinic Judaism that occurred during the eight century in Babylonia. The principle of the movement, established by Annan was "Search thoroughly in the Torah and do not rely on my opinion" and was designed to uphold the Holy Scriptures as the sole source of the law. Maimonidies, as he arrived in Egypt was confronted by wide spread negligence of traditional Rabbinic Judaism due to the strong hold of the Karaite authorities in the region. Maimonidies records that he was eventually successful in uprooting their Karaite practices.

Later Rabbinic authorities prohibit marrying into Karaite families. Nevertheless, one of the discoveries found in the Genizah is a marriage document between a rabbinic groom and a Karaite bride. The document indicates that before Maimonidies’ strong stance against the movement, intermarriages between Rabbinate and Karaite families did take place.

The document itself addresses a few of the differences between the two groups and the need for compromises for such a union to occur. Among the details listed, the husband promising not to compel his future wife to make use of light on Friday eve (the Karaite tradition explains the verse in Exodus. xxxv. 3 to mean that no light must be seen in Jewish habitations even when kindled on the eve of the Sabbath), or to eat the fat covering the rump, which the Rabbinic Jews did not consider prohibited, while the Karaites did. Another stipulation found in the document is that the husband cannot insist upon her profaning the festivals according to the Karaite calendar. The wife on the other hand promises on her side to also observe with her husband the festivals as fixed by the Rabbinate calendar.

Another finding from the Genizah sheds light on a fascinating dispute regarding the Jewish calendar that transpired in the tenth century. In Biblical times Jewish festivals were set by witnesses coming to court and testifying that they saw the new moon. Following the testimony, the court would declare that the new month has begun and messengers would be sent throughout the land to inform the nation regarding the appropriate dates for upcoming holidays. During the fourth century, due to the terrible persecutions suffered at the hands of the Romans, the Rabbis in the land of Israel decided to commit to writing the rules that form the Jewish calendar and they abolished the testimony system. According to Jewish tradition of Gaonic times, it was Hillel II (in the 4th Century C.E.) who fixed the Jewish calendar and established its rules. However there were differences of opinions among the rabbis regarding the rules, and during the tenth century a major controversy erupted due to these variation.

In the year 4681 of the Jewish era (=921 common era) the Rabbis in Babylon anticipated that the upcoming Passover would fall on a Tuesday. They began the process of setting the annual calendar based on this information. At the same time Rabbi Aaron Ben Meir, head of the Yeshiva in Israel, stated that the upcoming holiday of Passover would fall on a Sunday. As soon as the news of Ben Meir’s proclamation reached Babylon, the Exilarch David ben Zakkai, in conjunction with the Geonim of the rabbinic academies and Rabbi Saadia Gaon, addressed an official letter to Ben Meir setting forth in urgent language the validity of the established calendar and warning him against the contemplated change. At the same time the Geonim sent out circular letters to the various Jewish communities, advising them to abide by the Babylon order and not heed Ben Meir. This massive quarrel that sent the Jewish world into turmoil is known to us from several letters found in the Genizah.

Among the thousands of documents and letters found in the Geniza the most prized object is a letter signed by Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, known as Maimonides or the Rambam. Maimonides was born in Spain shortly before the fanatical Muslim Almohades came to power there. To avoid persecution by the Muslim sect Maimonides fled with his family, first to Morocco, later to Israel, and finally to Egypt. He apparently hoped to continue his studies for several years more, but when his brother David, a jewelry merchant, perished in the Indian Ocean with much of the family's fortune, he had to begin earning money. Maimonides' major contribution to Jewish life remains the Mishneh Torah, his code of Jewish law. His intention was to compose a book that would guide Jews on how to behave in all situations just by reading the Torah and his code, without having to spend large amounts of time searching through the Talmud. Needless to say, this provocative rationale did not endear Maimonides to many traditional Jews, who feared that people would rely on his code and no longer study the Talmud. Despite sometimes intense opposition, the Mishneh Torah became a standard guide to Jewish practice. It later served as the model for the Shulkhan Arukh, the sixteenth century code of Jewish law that is still regarded as authoritative by Orthodox Jews.

The letter discovered in the Geniza is penned by Maimonides’ personal secretary Mevorkh Ben Nathan. In the letter Maimonides pleads for funds to ransom Jewish captives taken prisoner in November 1168 in Bilbeis, Egypt, by the Crusader king Amalric of Jerusalem in his attack on the town.

Philosophically, Maimonides was a religious rationalist. His damning attacks on people who held ideas he regarded as primitive — those, for example, who understood literally such biblical expressions as “the finger of God” so infuriated his opponents that they proscribed parts of his code and all of The Guide to the Perplexed. Other, more liberal, spirits forbade study of the Guide to anyone not of mature years.

Several years ago during the nineteen nineties, Albert Friedberg, a Jewish businessman from Toronto Canada was attending a conference on Jewish Studies. Professor Neil Danzig, an expert in Geonic literature, was lecturing on the current condition of Genizah research. Dr. Danzig lamented that "although over a century has elapsed since the discovery of this material, (Cairo Genizah) little has been done to bring to light all its hidden treasures." The trove of material was at the time un-catalogued, and only a few experts had any idea of what it contained. Although many scholarly articles had been written over the years, they were all scattered through a multitude of extant and no longer extant journals, and written in many different languages. Much precious material remained abandoned in the boxes and basements of museums and libraries.

Seeing the enormous opportunity for Jewish studies, Mr. Friedberg established “The Friedberg Genizah Project” with the goal of producing a unified catalogue of all Cairo Genizah fragments located around the world. As a result, scholars will be able to use a search engine to collate scattered remnants of documents or books – in all the languages of the Genizah – and be able to view them together, regardless of their actual location. The project also aims to transcribe the content of Genizah fragments to allow scholars to conduct text searches. Several years later Mr. Friedberg elucidated on the significance of the project: "To give you an idea of the immensity of the find, consider that there are some 210,000 Genizah items, representing over 700,000 folios, spread around the world, 140,000 of them in Cambridge, 17,000 in the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, and the rest in various other institutions, in such places as Paris, Oxford, Budapest, London, Manchester, St Petersburg, Jerusalem, and Philadelphia. The subjects covered included the Hebrew Bible and its commentaries, the Talmud and its commentaries, midrash, halachah, aggadah, prayer, liturgical poetry, responsa, philosophy, theology, grammar, contracts - commercial and ketubbot - letters, medicine, astronomy, kabbalah, and magic.” Mr. Friedberg continued that, "Having heard of the sorry state of affairs in which this invaluable cultural treasure was found, we decided to bring together a group of leading scholars in the field to co-ordinate work on the Genizah.”

As a result of the “The Friedberg Genizah Project” numerous people, periods and text will come to life for the individual interested in Jewish student.

I am thankful to the Genizah Project for giving me the opportunity to be able to sit by a computer in Memphis TN, and view this most wonderful collection of Jewish treasures.

---

[1] Talmud Psachim 56a

[2] Shevut Yaakov 3:10

Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes (1805-1855)

שו"ת חתם סופר חלק ב (יו"ד) סימן שלח

שלום וכל טוב לה"ה הרב המאה"ג החרוץ המופלג זית רענן יפה פרי תואר קרא שמו כבוד מו"ה פלוני נ"י אב"ד ור"מ דק"ק פלוני.

יקרתו הגיעני ונפשו היקרה בשאלתו נידון עיר א' שהרופא כהן ומנימוסי המדינה שאין המתים נקברים עד אחר שבדקו הרופא ומעיד עליו שנתיאש אחר נפלו אם מותר לכהן לכנס אפי' ליגע לבדוק כנ"ל וחפץ מעלתו להתיר ובנה יסודו … אם הדור שלפנינו התירו הלנת מתי' שהוא בעשה ול"ת והתירו משום ס' נפשות ה"ה יש להתיר כאן

הנה בקראי דברים אלו יוצאים מפה גברא דכוותיה עמדתי מרעיד ונבהל מאד מי הוא זה ואיזהו שהתיר בדור שלפנינו הלנת מתים ולהתיר עפ"י חכמי ישראל לא שמעתי ולא ראיתי

אחרי שובי התבוננתי …. הרי המתים מוטלים בבזיון בלי קבורה מפקידת המלך שלא לקבור מבלי עדות הרופא שבדקו ומצאו מת וא"כ אי לא יבדקנו הרופא צריך שיהי' מוטל עד שיסריח וא"כ ה"ל מת מצוה שאין לו

ומ"מ לא הודעתיו להשואל פן יאמרו סתם שהסכמתי להתיר מטעמא דידהו כשם שתלו בוקי סריקי בהגאון מהר"י יעב"ץ ז"ל שהתיר הלנת המתים ככה יתלו בי שהתרתי טומאת כהנים ע"כ שמתי ידי למו פי

משה"ק סופר מפפד"מ

the Shoel? Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes
Did the Chatam Sofer trust Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes?

PASCAL

Blaise Pascal(1623–1662)

One of the basic principles in Jewish faith is that humans will never be able to fully comprehend the reasons for the Creator’s actions. Included in this belief is the idea that Mitzvot are performed not because we understand the reasons behind them, but because we are committed to performing the command of the Almighty. Nevertheless, throughout the ages rabbis have attempted to add some flavor (Taam in Hebrew) to the Mitzvot, by offering some kind of rational explanation for the Mitzvot in order to make it easier for the Jew to fulfill his task. With this in mind I would like to share the following story with you.

During the seventeenth century there lived a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher by the name of Blaise Pascal. One night, Pascal was traveling by carriage through Paris. As he was crossing a bridge, the horses plunged over the parapet and the carriage nearly followed them. Fortunately, the reins broke and the coach hung halfway over the edge. Pascal emerged unscathed. The sensitive philosopher, terrified by the nearness of death, fainted away and remained unconscious for some time. Upon recovering, Pascal recorded the experience in a brief note. He carefully sewed it into his coat, and always transferred it whenever he changed clothes.

When I first read of this event, I was reminded of the Mitzvah of Tefillin. The Tefillin (phylacteries) contain a parchment, on which it is written, “Remember this day on which you departed from Egypt from the house of bondage, for with a strong hand Hashem removed you from here.” This Mitzvah represents precisely the same theme as the above story.

It is reasonably normal for a person to be emotionally affected by a life altering event and to always want to hold a memento close to his heart, reminding him of the incident. This same desire applies to the Jew who experienced the awesome event of the exodus from Egypt.

When the Jew sits down at the table on Passover night and, while reclining, declares that this is the Zman Cherutainu, the season of our freedom, he must not only utter it as an historical fact but must actually feel that he is going through the process of redemption. For the Jew, the exodus from Egypt, although it occurred over three thousand years ago, must be viewed as a life altering event, a story that a person would want to place near his heart so that he can constantly remember the kindness that was bestowed upon him by his Creator.

A successful Passover night is one that makes an impression on the soul and leaves the person with a feeling and emotion of spiritual liberation. As the holiday comes to an end, the individual, who lived and experienced this exodus, desires a memento that will remind him of his life altering event. With his renewed understanding that the exodus from Egypt is a personal experience he will value the Mitzvah of Tefillin with new appreciation.

Wishing you a kosher and happy Pesach

Yirmiya Milevsky

Purim and the cynic

I feel bad for a person who will never be able to learn. I am not talking about someone that is unintelligent, since there is a good chance that by putting in time and effort, he will gain knowledge. Rather, I am addressing the one that due to his attitude will definitely never learn: the cynic. After listening to an inspiring speech or story that assists us in remembering our mission in life, be sure to avoid the cynic, because without a doubt we will hear from him one of his sayings that will instantly eradicate the beneficial effect of the insight.

When the nation of Israel left Egypt, humanity recognized that what transpired to this nation of slaves in Egypt was no coincidence, but rather the hand of Hashem. This recognition was good for the world, since acknowledgement of Hashem and the recognition of the unique function of the Jews, are key elements of the Messianic age and the perfection of the world. Unfortunately the cynic ruined it all. The name of that cynic was Amalek. Amalek attacked, and although it lost the battle, great damage was done. The Rabbis compare the attack to a steaming bathtub, too hot for anyone to climb into. Then, someone came along and plunged into the boiling water. He got scorched, but in the process of doing so, he cooled the water a bit, enabling others to enter. The feelings and mindset humanity gained, was destroyed by the cynic.

The Torah commands us to “obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens.” We may not be able to technically fulfill the commandment; however the message is still quite relevant; we must wipe out the cynic that is within us.

On the surface the cynic is a very happy fellow. He always has what to laugh at, and if he is good at it, he may even have his own late night show. However, deep inside there is great emptiness, because if everything is a joke, there is no meaning to life, and nothing can be as sad as a life without meaning.

The Shabbos before Purim we read the portion of Torah that reminds us to obliterate the memory of Amalek. This can be done by eradicating the cynic that is within us, and becoming aware that there is something very serious and special within every person. With that recognition, we feel a sense of purpose and fulfillment so that on Purim we can be joyful, and have a true Simchat Purim.

Happy Purim

Yirmiya Milevsky

Warder Cresson

Warder Cresson

The searching man seeking the answer to the meaning of life would give all for a revelation that would clarify the true purpose of man’s existence. Religions that claim a revelation as their bedrock must develop a system to safeguard the information of the enlightenment in a world that is void of its sacred message. For the followers of the Bible, or, for the traditional Jew, the Torah, that revelation occurred at Sinai. The Torah’s safeguarding system was institutionalized and named “Yeshiva”.
The world and life of a young man in the Yeshiva is quite unique. While time, energy and effort are channeled toward discovering the intricate laws and ordinances of the Torah, walls are placed around the student to avoid “contamination” from the external world. To understand the wisdom of the past scholars, from antiquity to the modern period, Yeshiva students must rely, most often, on internal tools. At times, however, discoveries made on the outer side of the wall can be of great assistance to the explorer on the inside. These findings, which are capable of shedding light upon complex issues, may come from archaeologists or, at times, historians. The young student in the Yeshiva must decide if the information should be utilized due to its intellectual benefit, or rejected as a result of its external source.
This paper will deal with a difficulty in a responsa by Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger and will allow external sources to assist in resolving the issue.
Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger (1798 –1871) was a German rabbi and author, and one of the great leaders of Orthodox Judaism. He was born at Karlsruhe and died in Altona. He studied under Rabbi Abraham Bing in Würzburg, where he also attended the university. Because of his well-known greatness as a Torah scholar, questions were sent to him from across the globe. The following question relates to a story that occurred in Jerusalem.
According to Jewish Law, there is a list of activities that are prohibited on the Jewish Sabbath. Although resting on the Sabbath is one of the most important commandments for a Jew, the Talmud tells us that a Gentile is actually forbidden from resting on the Sabbath, and must perform one of the “prohibited” actions to be considered a righteous gentile. The following is the question presented to Rabbi Ettlinger with regard to this issue. (Responsa Binyan Tzion 91)
“Here in Jerusalem on Tuesday the twenty third day of the month of Adar Sheni of the year (5)608, a non Jew came from Morocco and was circumcised for the sake of conversion, and accepted all the mitzvoth. On the following Shabbat, he had not fully recovered from the circumcision and thus not entered the Mikvah (ritual bath to finalize the conversion). A rabbi was informed that the convert is very careful in his observance of the Sabbath. However another rabbi claimed that due to the fact that he did not yet enter the Mikvah he must not observe the Sabbath and must perform one of the prohibited acts. It was late in the day and the convert was told what he must do. Consequently he violated the Sabbath by writing a few letters. After the Sabbath when the Rabbis in town heard of the ruling they disagreed claiming that after circumcision he is considered a Jew and must not violate the Sabbath.”
While reading about this out of the ordinary situation, several questions may arise in our minds, including: What brought this Moroccan to Jerusalem and what prevented him from converting in his homeland where a very significant Jewish population and rabbinic court was present? To answer this question, we must go beyond the Yeshiva wall to a distant land: America.
The main focus of this paper will be the life and journey of a man from Philadelphia named Warder Cresson. Cresson was born on July 13, 1798. Little is known of Cresson’s formative years. It is clear from the few family records available that his was a strict upbringing, in keeping with the habits of his Quaker elders. In 1815, a year following his father's death, Cresson was sent away to work on the family farms in Darby and Chester. From statements Cresson made later in life, it is evident that he had worked hard, saved his money and learned a great deal about agriculture. Later on, he married Elizabeth Townsend of Bensalem, and by 1824 he was a father of two children, Emma and John Elliot.
Warder displayed a mind steeped in Scriptures as well as in the social issues of the time. In 1829, Cresson wrote a strong attack on the "Babylon" of Pennsylvania, primarily attacking wealth and social distinction. "It will certainly be admitted," he began, "that all the misery and troubles that afflict the human family arise aspiring from ...selfishness." The lack of true religion, he wrote, a faith that ought to be expressed through self-denial and universal love, had brought about tyrannies and caused slavery and bloodshed. He attacked the monopolizing wealth, "both by speculative and anti-republican measures”. "Wealth was power," he claimed, and the few who were wealthy also had access to education, which in turn gave them even greater power over "the industrious farmer, mechanic and laborer.”
Cresson denounced the republican form of government in the United States as a set of selfish laws and selfish appointments in the hands of legislators and self-seeking officials. He considered the conditions of the working and farming classes intolerable, with wages barely on a survival level and unemployment widespread. He singled out his fellow Quakers for failure to see these wrongs. “Originally, they were the living witnesses for God and the true light, but they lapsed in their faith and went to building and erecting another “Babel” on the ruins of the old.”
It was clear to Cresson that, despite his own beliefs at the time, his wife was determined to bring up his children as members of the Society of Friends. Cresson, who had written that "fleshly love" was proof of the selfishness of human beings, would soon prove that he would not allow even family attachments to stand between him and his vision.
Cresson became familiar with a Jewish leader in Philadelphia, Rabbi Isaac Leeser, in whose religion Cresson was to find a confirmation of his own beliefs. Leeser, the minister of Congregation Mikveh Israel since 1829, was using his pulpit and pen to educate the membership and to revive the languishing communal and religious organizations. In his first important work, “The Jews and the Mosaic Law”, which was published in 1833, Leeser not only expounded on basic Jewish beliefs for both Jewish and Christian readers, but also reiterated his belief in the ultimate restoration of the Israelites and the gathering of the captives. He noted that those countries which persecuted or excluded the Jews were impoverished. England, on the other hand, had risen to eminence since Cromwell had admitted the Jews. Leeser, however, did not expect an imminent fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies and wrote that the Jews should “await with resignation the time when Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, and the Israelites shall again inhabit the land of their ancestors!” (Isaac Leeser, The Jews and the Mosaic Law Philadelphia, 1834)
Another contemporary, whose views very likely influenced Cresson, was Mordecai M. Noah, an outstanding American Jew, who addressed Christian and Jewish audiences in New York and Philadelphia in the early 1840s and urged a return to Zion as the only solution to the Jewish problem of continuous persecution. A playwright and journalist, Noah had served as the American Consul in Tunis in 1813. In 1825, he attempted to establish “Ararat", a city of refuge for the Jews on Grand Island in the Niagara River. In 1844, in a discourse on the restoration of the Jews, which was addressed primarily to Christian audiences, Noah forcefully expressed the religious and political ideas of millennium-minded reformers. "Within a few years," he said, "the attention of the world has been directed, in a peculiar manner, to the character, condition and future prospects of the Jewish people." He acknowledged his own belief in the "restoration of the Jews and the coming of the Messiah," and confidently noted that political happenings in Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Russia indicated the coming of upheavals that might bring about the return of Jews to Jerusalem. Noah cited a letter he had received from the former President, John Adams, which stated, "I really wish the Jews again in Judea, an independent nation.”
Turning to practical aspects of Zionism, Noah insisted that Jews could succeed in agriculture and that the climate and soil of Palestine were suitable for large-scale colonization. Noah believed that the United States was the most logical country from which to launch this effort. The eighteenth chapter of Isaiah describes a "land, shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia." This land, according to Noah, was the United States.
The periodical “The Occident”, first published by Leeser in 1843, carried news of Noah's activities. It is very likely that Warder Cresson read reports of Noah’s addresses and activities.
By 1844, Cresson was ready to take another big step. In the same year that Noah made his series of addresses on the return of Jews to Palestine, Cresson decided to go to Washington and to apply for the position of the first American Consul to Jerusalem. On May 17, Cresson, who had volunteered to take this position for no pay, was officially notified of his appointment. It turned out to be one of the shortest assignments on record. On May 25, 1844, barely a week after Cresson received his commission, Samuel D. Ingham of New Hope, Pennsylvania, formerly Andrew Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury, wrote to former vice-president John Calhoun: "The papers have recently announced the appointment of Warder Cresson, Consul to Jerusalem. This man is the brother of Elliot Cresson who is much distinguished for his activity in the cause of colonization, but the Consul has been laboring under an aberration of mind for many years; his mania is of the religious species. He was born a Quaker, wanted to be a preacher... and has gone round the compass from one job to another, sometimes preaching about the church doors and in the streets; his passion is for religious controversy and no doubt he expects to convert Jews and Mohammedans in the East but, in truth, he is withal a very weak-minded man and his mind, what there is of it, quite out of order... His appointment is made a theme of ridicule by all who know him.”
As a result, on June 22, 1844, Calhoun wrote Cresson: "I am instructed by the President to inform you, that, having reconsidered the proposal to establish a Consulate at Jerusalem, he is of the opinion it is not called for by public service, and therefore declines to establish it at present." By this time, Cresson, unaware that his commission had been revoked, was well on his way to Jerusalem, carrying with him a dove and an American flag.
As to his own decision to go to Jerusalem, Cresson emphasized his conviction that only one's physical presence in the Holy Land could bring about the actualization of the prophecies. He writes, "If I could have honestly believed... that the fullest degree of the glory of the coming kingdom might have been possessed... without any connection with place, I might have still remained at home in my ceiled house, with a beloved and virtuous wife and lovely family. Great and precious were the many privileges that I enjoyed there, and I feel most sensibly the deprivation of them; but the light and conviction of God's precious promises, in reference to the return of the Jew and the setting up his everlasting kingdom at Mount Zion and Jerusalem, became so great... that I could no longer remain at home; therefore I have forsaken houses, brethren, sisters, mother, wife, children and lands for the kingdom of God's sake." He insisted that his only motive in applying for the post as Consul was to give of his time, labor, and money to Israel, which was “now despised”, but take out “which” would soon be a "Crown of Glory and a Royal Diadem in the hand of thy God."
Cresson wrote that, “When I reached Jerusalem in 1844, the missionaries of the Church of England and those of the American Presbyterian Church had quarreled and left Jerusalem.” He criticized bitterly the work of societies devoted to converting Jews. In one of his rare excursions into the field of satire, he wrote a short tract 'The Society Formed in England and America for Promoting Sawdust, Instead of good Old Cheese, amongst the Jews in Jerusalem.’ Equating Judaism with "Good Old Cheese” and Christianity with “Sawdust”, Cresson explained that when real Good Old Cheese became too costly and brought discomforts to its users, a Society was established with a mission to introduce Sawdust in place of Good Old Cheese. Since the "Good Old Cheese itself smelled too strong and tasted too oily and greasy and Sawdust looked in every respect very much like the grated article”, a decision was made to create societies in England, Scotland and America to promote sawdust among the "poor Jews," even though it was admitted that they were the possessors of the genuine Good Old Cheese.
Cresson wrote disparagingly of the high salaries paid to the missionaries who lived "in the very best houses, bought most splendid Arabian horses and dressed in the most luxurious and stylish manner." As for their practical work, he wrote that, "To further their imposing and enterprising object they built a church which has cost them more than $150,000; then a hospital and Dispensary, sent physicians from England, set up an institution of Industry and also a college and schools, all to entrap and instruct the poor, dirty, oily, greasy, starving Jews and to tempt and provide them with good livings, fine English clothing, upon the only one condition that they will give their names and use all their influence to support and promote the interest of their Society for introducing and establishing Sawdust instead of Good Old Cheese, amongst the poor Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine." According to Cresson, the missionaries failed to get a single Jew, who was born in Jerusalem, to apostatize.
Throughout his account of his four year stay Jerusalem, Cresson continued his attack on the missionaries, blaming them for exploiting the miseries of the local Jewish population in order to win converts.
Although the United States decided that no post was to be established at Jerusalem, Cresson continued to act as a representative of the United States. He quickly got involved with the affairs of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and his correspondence with Mordecai Noah shows that, as late as 1847, he was still issuing certificates of "protection"(documents carried by American seamen as proof of citizenship). On November 5, 1847, he wrote a rambling letter to Noah in which he connected the war between the United States and Mexico with the restoration of the descendants of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manassah to Mount Zion.
During the same year, Cresson began writing his most personal work, “The Key of David the True Messiah”, in which his gradual and irreversible attachment to Judaism was evident. The pages were filled with elaborate interpretations of stories from the Old Testament, especially those relating to King David and his progenitors. Jerusalem had stirred Cresson deeply. He found justification for the origins of Judaism everywhere. Archaeological diggings convinced him of the existence of Solomon's Temple and the walls of Herod's palace. By the same token, these discoveries made him doubt the authenticity of the New Testament accounts. He was certain that, "...Neither the walls of Jerusalem nor its streets were built at all during the appearance of Jesus but were destroyed seventy years after him by Titus and that the Holy Sepulcher was not the place of Christ's death."
Finally, after noting the contradictions in the Gospels and denying the divinity of Jesus, Cresson was ready for the most drastic step of his incredible journey. He writes, "I remained in Jerusalem in my former faith until the 28th day of March, 1848," he wrote, "when I became fully satisfied that I could never obtain Strength and Rest, but by doing as Ruth did, and saying to her Mother-in-Law, or Naomi 'Entreat me not to leave thee for whither thou goest I will go'... In short, upon the 28th day of March, 1848, I was circumcised, entered the Holy Covenant and became a Jew.” Cresson was then forty-nine years old.
By Cresson identifying the date of his conversion, we can resolve the mystery regarding the Moroccan convert in Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger’s response. The 28th of March 1848 - the day Warder Cresson became Michael Boaz Yisrael - corresponds to the 23rd of Adar Sheini in the Jewish year (5)608. In other words, the conversions occurred on the same day! Moreover, the response indicates that conversions in Jerusalem were pretty unusual, making it difficult to believe that there were two conversions on that specific day. Consequently, I believe that the non Jew in Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger’s response did not come from Morocco but rather from America. In Hebrew, the spelling of America can be easily mistaken for Morocco. Cresson indeed came to Jerusalem "for the sake of conversion”.
On May 7, 1848, Cresson began his return trip to Philadelphia, "being anxious of once more beholding the faces of those I loved most dearly above anything else on earth." He could not find a ship sailing directly from Jaffa or Beirut and had to wait for a ship at Smyrna, delaying his trip to "beloved family and home” by a month.
Cresson believed that he would be able to convince his family to share his newly found faith. Unfortunately, a domestic crisis was in the making. According to his account in “The Key of David”, Cresson, who had returned from Jerusalem anxious to reconcile himself with his family, found nothing but enmity at home. He claimed that the conversion brought him to a point where he was forced to choose between "the one, only God, or [his] wife”. Cresson, who had given his wife power of attorney before leaving for Jerusalem, found himself with practically no property. He remained at his home in downtown Philadelphia until December, 1848, trying to verify the financial arrangements made during his absence. However, Cresson found out that the accounting book had been made out to Elliot Cresson, his eldest brother. He was now convinced that his entire family had conspired to rob him. As a result, Cresson revoked his wife's power of attorney. The situation in the house was becoming intolerable. Cresson hired a wagon and took his belongings to the house of a Jewish friend, Isaac Asch. He then assigned one half of the $5,320 mortgage to his wife and family, in order, as he put it, "to convince them that a Jew could 'do justice and love mercy'."
By now, the battle lines were drawn. On May 15, 1849, Cresson's wife, Elizabeth, and other members of his immediate family lodged a charge of lunacy against Cresson, claiming that he wanted to rebuild the Temple on Mount Moriah and was incapable of handling his business affairs. It did not take long for a Sheriff's jury of six men to issue a verdict of insanity. This resulted in a legal dispute. Cresson's attorney, General Horatio Hubbell, succeeded in bringing an appeal on April 11, 1850, and preparations were made on both sides for a trial on the charge of lunacy in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On May 13, 1851, two years after the original complaint, the trial opened before Judge Edward King. Elizabeth Cresson listed a series of charges, intending to prove that Cresson was a lunatic, who was incapable of handling his own affairs. Newspapers noted that, with regard to the trial, "A large number of his friends testified that they had had dealings with him and always considered him of sane mind that his buildings were properly constructed and his farm well attended to.”
In the closing defense speech on May 16, Horatio Hubbell referred to Cresson as "an earnest inquirer after truth," and made the issue of religious freedom the dominant one. The question arose: Should Cresson be blamed if he became a convert to Judaism, "that old and venerable faith whose institutes were founded amid the solitudes of Sinai and which belongs to a people hoary with antiquity - whose history exhibits them tenaciously preserving the golden thread of their religion amid the shock and dissolution of empires”? Hubbell stressed the right of free Americans to worship as they pleased. "Thank God, we are here free indeed, follower of Christ and the child of Israel alike protected... The Turk might erect his mosque and the votary of Vishnu might dream securely of the mysteries of the sacred waters of his Ganges. Such are the blessings of our republican institutions." He quoted Jefferson, who had said that as long as one fulfills his obligations as a citizen, "It is immaterial whether a man worships one god or twenty.” Hubbell portrayed Cresson as "an agriculturist, a tiller of the ground the most primitive and the most honorable occupation that man can pursue." Cresson was a gentleman, Hubbell explained, whose "education and manners introduced him into the society of such enlightened and distinguished individuals as Sir Moses Montefiore.”
To contradict the testimony of the relatives, Hubbell cited the statements of seventy-three witnesses, thirty-eight of whom were Christians. Four doctors certified that in their opinion Cresson was sane. Rabbi Mordechai Noah and Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, a great scholar from Palestine, who had met Cresson in the Holy Land, both confirmed that they considered Cresson’s manner to be normal. In his final remarks, Hubbell returned to the theme of religious tolerance, this time appealing for the jurors' understanding and sympathy in regard to Cresson's conversion. It took the Jury a short while to return with a verdict, which vindicated Cresson of all charges.
Seeing "signs" of "divine preparation" everywhere, Cresson hastened to return to Palestine. In a short work entitled, “Signs of Messiah”, which was published in 1851, Cresson enumerated some of them: a proliferation of railroads, the use of the telegraph, the California gold strike, antislavery agitation, drought in Egypt and great power competition in the Near East. To Cresson, these "omens" were fulfilling the prophecies of the Scriptures. He was, more than ever before, convinced that the “Great Sabbath" was about to commence, that "restoration" was at hand, and that "some neutral power, as America alone is, must first begin the great work."
Cresson shared his vision and emphasized that "agriculture is to be Israel's vocation." He appealed for funds to purchase such modern equipment as air-pressure engines for the running of gristmills and machines that would not require water or fuel, which were both in short supply in Palestine. He was convinced that the Jews could become self-supporting there, eliminating the need for "messengers" who collect funds from the Jews of Europe and America.
To prove his plan could work, Cresson announced that he was starting a model farm in the Valley of Rephaim, outside Jerusalem, "To introduce an improved system of English and American Farming in Palestine." He hoped that a Jewish, agricultural Palestine would become "a great center to which all who rest may come and find rest to their persecuted souls."
Cresson’s model farm never developed, for lack of capital, but Cresson continued to pray for its success. In the mid-1850s, he married Rachel Moleano and became an honored member of Jerusalem’s Sephardic community. When he died in 1860, he was buried on the Mount of Olives, "with such honors as are paid only to a prominent rabbi."
The inspiring life of Cresson is not just a story of commitment and dedication for a higher cause. It is also a story that sheds light on the fantastic world of response.
While the world of the Yeshiva is the key for Jewish survival, at times, a piece of information from the outside world can not only assist in clarifying the literature studied on the inside, but also inspire the student with a wonderful account of commitment.

שו"ת בנין ציון סימן צא

ב"ה אלטאנא, יום ו' כ"ו אייר תר"ט לפ"ק. להרה"ג וכו' מ"ה אשר לעמיל נ"י הגאב"ד דק"ק גאלין וכעת משכן כבודו בירושלם עיה"ק תוב"ב.

כתב מעכ"ת נ"י וז"ל - ילמדנו רבינו בעובדא דאתא לידן פעה"ק ירושלם ת"ו יום ג' כ"ג לירח אדר שני שנת תר"ח העבר לפ"ק נימול א"י אחד שבא הנה ממדינת מאראקא לשם גירות בפנינו בד"צ דקהל אשכנזים הי"ו וקיבל עליו המצות כדין וכדתה"ק ובש"ק שלאחריו עדן /עדין/ לא היה נתרפא ממילתו ולא טבל עודנה הגידו לי לאמר מזריזתו במצות איך הוא נזהר בשביתת שבת הגם שהוא עודנה /עודנו/ בכלל חולה שאב"ס =שאין בו סכנה= אינו מניח לגוי להבעיר אש בביתו והשבתי להם לדעתי לא מבעי' שמותר לו לעשות מלאכה בשבת אלא אפילו מחויב ומוזהר על יום ולילה לא ישבותו וחייב לעשות מלאכה בשבת כ"ז שלא טבל לשם גירות וכה עשו השומעים למשמעתי והלכו אצל הגר והגידו לו בשמי כן בש"ק לאחר תפלת המנחה וכן עשה כי כתב איזה אותיות ויהי ביום המחרת כאשר נשמע הדבר בעה"ק ת"ו פה צווחו עלי חכמי ספרד וחכמי אשכנזים הי"ו על דבר חדש הלזו אשר לא נשמע מעולם אחרי שכבר קבל עליו כל המצות בשעת מילה וכבר נימול ועומד ומצפה בכל יום לטבול לכשיתרפא שיהי' מותר לו לחלל וכש"כ שיהי' עליו חיובא ומצוה לחלל ש"ק והמה זוכרים כמה גרים שנימולו פעה"ק ת"ו ולא נשמע כזאת ומנין לי לחדש דבר אשר לא שערום הראשונים והשבתי להם אולי מקום הניחו לי להתגדר בו. ואמינא טעמא דידי האמנם מהראוי היה להתייעץ בזה עם חכמי ורבני עיה"ק פה הי"ו טרם נעשה המעשה אמנם מחמת כי כבר הי' אחר תפלת המנחה לעת ערב ובין כך יצא ש"ק ובעיני הי' הדבר פשוט שאין כאן איסור כלל ומכש"כ דלית בי' דררא אי' דאורייתא ובדרבנן עבדינן עובדא כו' וכש"כ שלענ"ד אין כאן איסור לא דאורייתא לא דרבנן כ"א מצוה בחילולו ש"ק אחרי שמעכת"ה אמרתם מכח סברא אמנם לדעתי אינו כן אב"ע סברא אב"ע גמרא איבע"א סברא כיון דקיי"ל כחכמים וכר' יוחנן יבמות (דף מ"ו) דאינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמ"ש הרמב"ם פי"ד מה"ל איסורי ביאה ובטוש"ע יו"ד (סי' רס"ח) וכיון דקיי"ל כרשב"ל סנהדרין דף נ"ח ע"ב גוי ששבת ח"מ דכתיב יום ולילה לא ישבותו ולרבינא אפי' בשני בשבת וכ"פ הרמב"ם ז"ל בפ' עשירי מהל' מלכים דין ט' אלא דפשטא דהש"ס משמע מיתה בידי אדם דאזהרתן זו היא מיתתן ודעת הרמב"ם דוקא בז"מ ב"נ =בז' מצוות בני נח= ב"ד ממיתין עליהן כשידינו תקיפא אבל בגוי ששבת ב"ד מכין ועונשין אבל אין ממיתין שאינה בכלל שבע מצות ב"נ יעו"ש בכ"מ והרי כ"ז שלא טבל אינו גר ועדיין הוא ב"נ כאשר מבואר א"כ במאי נפקע ממנו מצות יום ולילה ל"י =לא ישבותו= שנצטוה עליו והאיך יוכל לפטור א"ע ממצוה שנצטוה בו במה שיהי' גר ויהי' לו דין ישראל לאחר שיטבול הלא לדעת הרמב"ם ז"ל שם בהלכה י"ג מפרכסת מותר לישראל ואסור לב"נ משום אמ"ה דבב"נ במיתה תלייא רחמנא ולא בשחיטה (דלא כהרשב"א יעו"ש בכ"מ) היעלה על הדעת שיהי' מותר לו להקל על עצמו לאכול מפרכסת קודם הטבילה כיון דעדיין ב"נ הוא ולא גר וא"כ כן מה לי קולא דמפרכסת או קולא זו להתירו לעבור על מה שנצטוה יום ולילה ל"י וא"כ אדרבא לרומעכ"ת שרוצים להקל לעבור על מה שנצטוה להביא ראי' ועוד האריך מעכ"ת נ"י בהראותו רב חריפותו ובקיאתו לחזק דבריו האלה.

תשובה - פסק מעכ"ת נ"י שגר שמל ולא טבל אסור לשמור שבת מפני שעדיין אינו גר ולא יצא מכלל בן נח אשר לא חשו לו חכמי ירושלם נ"י - חקרתי בשאר מקומות שמקבלים גרים ונאמר לי שגם שם מעולם לא הקפידו על זה שלא ישמור הגר שבת קודם הטבילה. ונתתי אל לבי למצוא טעם לזה אחרי שלכאורה פסק מעכ"ת נ"י מוסד על אדני הדין ואמת אבל א"ע ראיתי שהדין עם המנהג דכבר מצד הסברא יהי' מתנגד אל השכל אחרי שמילת הגר נקרא ברית שמברכים עלי' כורת הברית כדאמרינן שבת (דף קל"ז) וגם שבת נקרא ברית כדאמרינן שם (דף קל"ב) איך נאמר אחר שנכנס לברית האחת יהי' מוכרח להפר ברית האחרת שכרת הקב"ה עם ישראל מקיימי מצותיו ולכן נלענ"ד דאף שעדיין לא נכנס לכלל ישראל גמור עד שטבל מכ"מ משעה שנכנס לברית מילה כבר נבדל מכלל ב"נ וכעין זה כתבו התוספ' בכריתות (דף ט') אמה דאמרינן שם דאבותינו נכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים ויליף מילה ממה דכתיב כי מולים היו כל העם היוצאים וכתבו התוספ' ואע"פ שאותן שהיו נמולים בימי אברהם לא מלו אותם ביציאת מצרים מכ"מ מעיקרא כשמלו עצמן מלו ליכנס בברית המקום וליבדל משאר אומות וגם כי עתה טבלו עכ"ל הרי בפי' שכבר קודם טבילה ע"י מילה לבד נכנסו לברית ועי"ז נבדלו משאר האומות וא"כ גם זר זה שמל ולא טבל דמי לזה שנכנס לברית ועי"ז נבדל משאר האומות וע"כ אין עליו עוד מצות יום ולילה ל"י של ב"נ ולכן לא בלבד שמותר לגר כזה לקיים שבת אלא אפשר לצדד ג"כ שחובה עליו לקיים ע"פ מה שכתבתי בספרי ע"ל ביבמות (דף מ"ו) בתוספ' ד"ה כי פליגי לתרץ קושית התוספ' שם שהקשו לר"ע ל"ל תושב ושכיר למעט גר שמל ולא טבל מפסח תיפוק לי' דאינו גר עד שימול ויטבול ותירצתי דשפיר צריך קרא כיון דפסח אכלו במצרים לאחר שמלו וטבילה לא הי' עד מ"ת א"כ ה"א דגם לדורות יאכל גר שמל ולא טבל מפסח לכן צריך קרא למעט. והנה בשבת (דף פ"ז) אמרינן דעל שבת נצטוו ישראל במרה וכן מוכח מהכתובים שכבר קיימו ישראל שבת קודם שבאו להר סיני שהרי הספור של המן שעליו נאמר עד אנה מאנתם הי' קודם סיני כמבואר (שם /שבת פ"ז/) וכיון דטבילה לא הי' עד סיני ע"כ קיימו ישראל שבת כשמלו ולא טבלו אף שב"נ מוזהר על יום ולילה ל"י (וכבר העיר על זה בס' פ"ד פ' בשלח ע"ש) וע"כ צ"ל או שגזיה"כ הי' שלענין שבת יצאו מכלל ב"נ ונילף משם כמו דהוי גמרינן גם לענין פסח אי ליכא מיעוט או כאשר כתבנו שע"י שנכנסו לברית מילה נכנסו ג"כ לברית שבת ועכ"פ איכא למילף מישראל קודם מ"ת שגר שמל ולא טבל מותר לקיים שבת או אם נאמר כאופן השני ששתי הבריתות כאחת נחשבו חייב לקיים שבת. ולכן לענ"ד יפה נהגו שלא לכוף לגר שמל ול"ט לעשות מלאכה בשבת. ואם צדקתי במה שכתבתי במקום אחר שציווי שביתת ישראל ואזהרת שביתת ב"נ אינם מענין א' שבזה תלוי בל"ט מלאכות ובזה תלוי במלאכת טורח ויגיעה מצאנו אפילו למי שלבו נוקפו לומר שגר שמל ול"ט מותר לקיים שבת פשר דבר על ידי שיעשה מלאכת יגיעה שאינה מל"ט מלאכות כגון שישא משא ברשות היחיד כנלענ"ד הקטן יעקב.