Takanot Rabbenu Gershom-ban on polygamy

The Jewish tradition of polygamy is an ancient one, stemming back to the time of the patriarchs, the Kings, and at time times included common folk. However the tradition of monogamy was firmly entrenched by the second temple period, the approach that mongomy was the ideal family structure is hinted to in the prophets and becomes explicit in the words of the Talmudic sages. The Babylonian Geonim adopted the ruling of Rava, sanctioning polygamy. The Geniza documents reveal that polygamy was somewhat prevalent among Jews during the middle ages in Islamic countries and it was in the surrounding Muslim society. In contrast Jews of Northern France and Germany lived exclusively in monogamous marriages. All the sources from the eleventh century including halakhic rulings, commentaries, customs, and liturgy make reflect an exclusively monogamous society. This point is driven home in the Crusade Chronicle memorializing the names of those killed in the First Crusade of 1096, the entire list of martyrs does not contain a single family as having more than one wife (Pious and rebellious 73) It may be unequivocally asserted that during the eleventh century the Jews of Germany did not practice polygamy, maintaining monogamous relationships.

Despite the Ashkenaz Jewry's commitment to monogamy, sometime in the early part of the eleventh century R. Geshom ben Judah, known as the Meor Hagolah, light of the exile, issued a, takana, ordinance prohibiting bigamy. The ordinance was accompanied by the punishment of Herem, excommunication, the severe punishment used in Medieval Jewry. There are no existing French or German sources from the eleventh century in, in fact, the ordinance was not cited until the second half of the twelfth century. This had lead some scholars to believe that the ordinances were not issued by R. Gershom, but promulgated in the twelfth century and attributed them to him to lend the ordinances authority. In fact the first scholar to mention the takanot is the twelfth century sage R. Eliezer ben Nathan, who does not even mention the name of Rabbenu Gershom in association with these takanot, but refers to them as, takanot hakihilot, ordinances of the community. This does not necessarily imply the ordinances were not issued by R. Gershom; no single Rabbi's authority extended beyond his community, even R. Gershom initiated the ordinances for them to have been adopted by all of Ashkenaz they would have needed to be promulgated by individual leaders of Ashkenaz. The very practical question is why in an exclusively monogamous society of German Jewry was Rabbenu Gershom compelled to issue a ban on bigamy. Numerous scholars have grappled with this question producing differing approaches to this question using differing sources to determine the social realties of married life of German Jewry which would have necessitated this takana.

Some scholars including Eppenstein, Roth and Baron attribute the Ordinances of Rabbenu Gershom to the fact that there was, in some measure, polygamous marriage among the Jews of Germany, to which Grossman adamantly rejects. In his nearly century year old article, Eppenstein suggest that the reason for the institution of the ban on polygamy was the due to Jewish migrants from Muslim lands to Germany. According the Eppenstien the ordinance of Rabbenu Gershom banning multiple wives was directed at these immigrants who may already have two wives, as was practiced by Jewry in Islamic countries. Eppenstein solution as demonstrated by Roth is reliant on a shaky foundation to support its claims. Roth points out that it is difficult to imagine that Rabbenu Gershom instituted the ban on polygamy in order to break apart already existing polygamous marriages of Sephardic migrants to Germany. Additionally, Roth finds it hard to believe that ban was put in place in order to prevent the daughters of Germany's monogamous society from become second wives to Sephardic Jews. The remaining possibility, once the idea of dissolving pre existing polygamous marriages and preventing marriages of German women to already married Sephardic Jews has been eschewed, is to suggest preventing polygamous marriages among Sephardic immigrants.

Assumedly Roth accurately understood the options within Eppenstein's argument, that essentially, Rabbenu Gershom felt it necessary to ban polygamy because of the influx of Sephardic Jews into Germany. For this to be true Eppenstein must have felt that there was significant enough migration of Jews from the Muslim lands to Ashkenaz to warrant such a ban. However, Grossman states this was not the case; there was no substantial immigration of Jews from Islamic countries to Germany in the eleventh century or prior.

Roth, in his paper on the history of monogamy among Jews from biblical to medieval times, asserts that there were Jews of Germany who engaged in the practice of polygamy. This handful of polygamous German Jews was the reason the ban on polygamy was introduced by Rabbenu Gershom. Roth's view is not supported by contemporary sources but from an inference from a later Sephardic source. The inference is drawn from a response written by Maimonides where he accuses the Jews of France of being of the habit of taking more than one wife, and wasted their time in the company of their wives. Grossman dismisses this claim made of Roth, that methodologically this source cannot be used to support the idea the Rabbenu Gershom issued his ordinances to because there were polygamous elements of German society.

There are several critiques by Grossman why Roth's use of this Maimonides response is methodologically problematic. Firstly, Grossman contents that the source is only allegedly written by Maimonides and may have been attributed to Maimonides to lend it credibility and authority. Secondly, a source written by Maimonides is separated from the takanot of Rabbenu Gershom by well over a century, and perhaps even later if associating the response with Maimonides in order to capitalize on the Spanish scholar's prestige. Grossman concedes that even if the source were to have been penned by Maimonides it would be no proof to the polygamous nature of German Jewry. Maimonides reference to the polygamous marriages in France would refer not to the Ashkenazi lands of Germany and Northern France, but to the region of Provence, where there the population was influenced by Jews from Islamic lands.

Salo Baron hypothesizes, in his multi volume work A Social and Religious History of the Jews, the Jews of Germany were influenced by the works of Sephardic Jews which began to permeate the region. Jews of Western Europe, who had eschewed polygamy since the reign of France's Carolingian dynasty wished to reintroduce polygamy into Ashkenaz. This desire would have been predicated on the increased migration of Jews from Muslim countries to Germany and spread of Sephardic literary sources to Ashkenaz, which would have sanctioned multiple wives. Baron also argues that polygamy, spurred on by Sephardic influence, would have been more realistic during the tenth and eleventh centuries as the segregation between Jews and Christians became more pronounced, resulting in greater control of the Jewish communities by its leaders. This pressure by the community to accept bigamy compelled Rabbenu Gershom to issue his ban.

Although Baron stated that he was only hypothesizing when he suggested that the ban on bigamy was a reaction to the influence of Sephardic sources and immigrants proved to be partly true. Sources available only after the publication of Baron's work proved his theory regarding availability of Babylonian halakhic works and the influence of Babylonian traditions in Germany and France. The cross-polonaisation was not limited to books; some heads of Ashkenaz communities travlled to Babylonia, particularly the academy of Pumeditha in order to study under the tutelage of Rabbi Hai Goan. One example of Ashkenaz scholars studying in Babylonia is R. Elijah who established the Torah center in Northern France, studies extensively under R. Hai in Babylon and made several pilgrimages to the Holy Land (Grossman n.16). Despite veracity of Baron's claim based on the sources, Grossman contends that Sephardic influence, which permitted bigamy, on German Jewry did not provoke Rabbenu Gershom into issuing his ban.

Another approach to isolating the stimulus which necessitated Rabbenu Gershom to issue his ban against polygamous marriage is to look towards the Christian society which surrounded the Jews of Germany. This line of thinking is reflected in Zeev Flak's work Jewish Matrimonial Law in the Middle Ages. In his work Falk goes to great length to provide the context for Rabbenu Gershom's ban, starting in the mid ninth century when Pope Nicholas I (858-67) campaigned against polygamy in the Catholic Church. By the tenth century bigamy was not longer a problem among Christians, however, the Church attempted to curb concubinage and divorce among its devotees. By the tenth century the Church would acquire complete jurisdiction over personal status and family law (Falk 24); all the regulation promulgated by Church, including bigamy, were compiled by Buchard of Worms around the year 1020, however, Falk points out that this does not imply that transgressions catalogued in the book were being committed during the author's lifetime.

By the time of R. Gershom issues the Reformist Popes such as Gregory VII within the Church hierarchy, removing Priests who purchced their position along with impeaching Priests who did not uphold their vow of abstinence. Falk assets that the upheaval in Christian society, as the Church attempted to assert its authority over the family would have affected the Jewish communities dwelling in Christian towns "and come to understand certain cases of friction within their own families that they had never previously considered. (Falk 26)" Grossman rejects Falk's claim but concedes to the fact that the Jewish community would have been influenced by its Christian environment. However it is difficult to site the currents within Christian society as the main motivation for introducing the takanot in Jewish law. And although the sources such as Sefer Hasidim reflect that the Jews were aware that their marriage customs were the same as Christian society, Christian cannon law would not be adopted as Jewish halakha. Grossman also points out that there are no Christian polemic sources accusing the Jews of polygamy thereby making if difficult to look toward the influence of Christian society for instituting the ban on bigamy.

An n innovative solution to source of R. Gershom's ban is prescribed by M. Friedman in his book Ribbui Nashim be-yisrael. Friedman claims that in addition to the influence of the monogamous Christian society is the monogamous tradition of the Palestinian sages; perhaps the Jews of Germany preserved popular or family traditions corresponding to R. Ammi's position in support of monogamy. If such was the case the ordinance banning bigamy would was enacted by R. Gershom to preserve the German Palestinian tradition in support monogamy, albeit contrary to the halakha(Friedman quoted Grossman 19). Therefore, essentially, the takana of Rabbenu Gershom was an attempt to preserve the German tradition of monogamy.

Grossman feels that although family tradition was exceedingly integral to German Jewry, the sources do not support Friedman's hypothesis. Firstly the responsa of Rabbenu Gershom reflect his support for R. the Babylonian Amora Rava, permitting polygamy, and not the Palestinian Sage R. Ammi, who opposed it. There for is this source reflects R. Gershom's halakhic allegiance to Rava and the permissibility of polygamy it unlikely that he would enact and ordinance which contradicted his hakhic view. Therefore is we are to adopt this view it would not stand to reason that R. Gershom would issue anordinance which contradicted his halakhic position. Furthermore, if monogamy was a family tradition it may have been preserved by individual families and not enforced on the entire community. A possible criticism of Grossmans assessment of Friedman hypothesis is to suggest that it is possible for there to be an inconsistency between the halakha and the ordinance. Rabbenu Gershom may have held the strict halakha to be like Rava, permitting polygamy, but nevertheless issued the ordinance banning bigamy to demonstrate that the literal halakha was not to be observed.

Another approach, not cited by Grossman, was suggested by Gudemann and cited by Epstein in 1944 work Marriage Law in the Bible and Talmud. Epstein states that thinking until his time was that the ban was inspired by the monogamous Christian society of Germany at the time of R. Gershom. Gudemann, writing in 1888, stated that the Christians of Northern Europe were not above polygamy even centuries after the ban of R. Gershom. Gudemann posits that the ban was the culmination of an inner Jewish moral development which held an aversion to polygamy since the time of the Talmud, and Jews had employed various methods to ensure monogamy until formally doing so via the ban. The issue with this argument is that it is overly abstract and almost impossible to support itself based on sources. (Epstein)

Although several factors including, family traditions, surrounding Christian environment, or the influence of Babylonian texts and immigrants from Islamic lands, may have contributed to the establishment of the ban polygamy they do not sufficiently explain why it was necessary in a monogamous society. Grossman believes the ordinance was instituted in response to the lengthy international travels of German merchants. These merchants spent time in many countries including Provence, Spain, North Africa and other Muslim countries. These extensive international travels, which may have lasted several years, have been documented in the response literature. As well these travels may also be proved the penetration of technical commercial terms of Arabic language in the language of eleventh century German Jewry.

The most striking source which attests to the long absences of German merchants is the ordinance of R. Jacob Tam against prolonger absence of husbands from their families. The ordinance prohibits men from leaving his wife for any duration longer than eighteen months without her consent; the eighteen months is provided only that they are necessary for earning a livelihood. Secondly and man may not continue to stay away against the will of his wife, unless the court permits him. When returning from his travels a man must remain home with his wife for a minimum duration of six months. A man cannot leave his wife due to a quarrel, and may only travel in he is sincerely attached to his wife. This ordinance of Rabbenu Tam candidly reflects the reality in Ashkenaz; of men leaving their families in excess of eighteen months, and using travel as a way of avoiding a wife one was not committed to. This takana was reinstituted by R. Tam in the twelfth century when Ashkenaz Jewry's involvement in international trade was in the decline; it may be inferred that the situation of merchants leaving their abandoning their wife to trade was an even greater issue during the generation of Rabbenu Gershom.

For Grossman knowing the reality of international travel for Jewish German merchants during the time of Rabbenu Gerhsom is instrumental for understanding why the takana banning bigamy was adopted. With distant and lengthy travels, "it would not be the least supervising if the Jewish merchants sometimes married a second wife while they were so far from home for such a long time." (Grossman 12) Grossman maintains that is would be possible for Ashkenazi men to travel to communities were polygamy was permitted and marry local women; upon returning home they may divorce their new wives or abandon them until they returned to the region to trade.

A source supporting Grossman's view can be found in the response of R. Isaac Alfasi who was active in Northern Africa and Spain during the eleventh century. R. Alfasi was asked about a case where a man married a women, which he later abandoned leaving her an agunah, married and second women in another country. The case deals with a Jew living in Muslim Spain who traveled between regions within Spain, Grossman contents that there is no reason to believe that a German Jew would not behave in the same way, taking advantage of possibility to marry multiple wives in Sephardic lands.

Another Sephardic source used by Grossman to support his hypothesis regarding the establishment of polygamous relationships by German Jews with Sephardic source can be found in the response of Maimonides in the twelfth century. Maimonides issued an ordinance preventing the marriage of Egyptian women to foreign men unless the man can prove that he is unmarried or willing to swear an oath to that effect; If he is married he cannot marry in Egypt until he divorces his current wife. Additionally, a foreign man marries an Egyptian woman wants to leave the country on business he must provide his wife a bill of divorce which will come into effect at appointed time, maximum three years (Grossman 13, quoted N. 29). Grossman emphasizes the second part of the ordinance requiring foreign men to provide a bill of divorce to his Egyptian wife before leaving the country. Such an ordinance reflects a reality where foreign men, perhaps from the communities under the authority of R. Gershom, married Sephardic women during their journeys to Muslim countries only later to abandon them. While the takana of R. Gershom was enacted to protect the status of women in Germany, Maimonides ordinance was necessary to protect the women of Egypt from foreign travelers.

Grossman's thesis is hampered by fact that there are no German sources which connect prolonged absences of German merchants with the takana of Rabbenu Gershom. Sephardic sources to understand the situation in Germany. Maimonides ordinance was issued over a century after the takanot of Rabbenu Gershom, and may not have reflected the same reality of the time, besides that it is difficult to assume the situation in Egypt can be correlated with the necessity of the ban on bigamy in Germany. The same issue exists with the response of R. Aflasi which requires a leap to assume that the case reflects similar cases where traveling Ashkenazim took Sephardic women as second wives. Grossman defends this critique by stating the there was no reason for German Jewry to write response regarding the issue since there was no halakhic issue with a man taking a second wife, the greater issue was in the Islamic lands where women might be abandoned by foreign husbands.

T

Edgardo Mortara Affair

American Jewry's Response to the Edgardo Mortara Case

The abduction of Edgardo Mortara by the Bologna Inquisition became a rallying call for the American Jewish community, then still in its infancy. Eighteen years previous the administration of Van Buren had intercede in support of the Jewish community during the Damascus blood libel. However, the Jewish community under Buchanan was unsuccessful in convincing the government to intervene in opposition to the Pope. The failure was made more probable by the fact that of the Jewish community lacked unity, and formal organizations capable of appealing with the administration.

On the evening of June 23, 1858 the police arrived at the residence of Momolo Mortara, a Jewish resident of Bologna, in the Papal States. The local police entered the home holding a list containing the names of Mortara's eight children, with the name of, six- year- old, Edgardo underlined. The police informed Egardo's parents, that he was to be removed from his home on the authority of Pope and the Church for he had been baptized as a Catholic. A night long standoff ensued in which the Mortara family and desperately attempted to have the decree repealed by the regional Inquisitor, Father Feletti. Despite the efforts to prevent the abduction, Edgardo was seized by the police the following evening and taken to the House of the Catechumens in Rome to be educated as a Catholic.

The Mortara's were bewildered by the claim that the young son had been baptize, and was no longer a Jew in the eyes of the Church, and could therefore not remain with his parents. Seemingly a vestige of the dark-ages, the abduction of Jewish children was surprisingly common in nineteenth century Italy. So frequent that in 1851 the Jewish communities of Reggio and Modena wrote a joint petition, which was presented to the Duke of Modena entreating the Duke to act against clandestine baptism, and the anguish caused to the community. Although it was prohibited for Jews to employ Christian servants in the Papal lands, it was common for Jewish household to disregard the decree and hired Christian domestics, who were often implicated in the baptism of Jewish children. As a result suspicions fell on the Mortara's former domestic Anna Morisi, and when confronted, admitted to baptizing Edgardo when he was an infant.

Anna's confession revealed that when Edgardo, then about one year old fell ill, and as his condition worsened the fourteen year old Anna feared the child might die. Anna discussed Edgardo's deteriorating health with the local grocer Cesare Lepori, who recommended that she baptize the child for whom she cared greatly. She baptized Edgardo according to the instructions given by the grocer; Edgardo was soon after was restored to health, Anna forgot of the matter until five years later, when a different child of the Mortara's fell ill and died. Anna revealed her actions to her friend, a neighbor's domestic, named Regina who told Anna she should have baptized the Mortara's child before he died. Soon after, Anna was interrogated by Bologna's inquisitor regarding here baptism of the Jewish child.

Although the abduction of Edgardo was certainly not the first to be perpetrated by the Church, even it recent time, it generated a flurry of protests against the Pope. Although the Jews of the Papal States remained without civil rights, their brothers in the Kingdoms of Sardinia and Piedmont had been emancipated by Victor Emmanuel under the Piedmont Constitution of 1848. These emancipated Jews championed the cause of Momolo Mortara, sending letters to Jews of France, Holland, Prussia and London board of Deputies of British Jews, chaired by Moses Montefiore. By the autumn of 1858, the Mortara affair had expanded from the confines of Jewish concerns, and was written and debated in every important newspaper in Europe. However, the Pope remained obstinate in his insistence that under canon law, once baptized, Edgardo could not return to his Jewish upbringing. The case gained enough publicity to persuade the anti-clerical Louis Napoleon to instruct the French ambassador to Rome to appeal to the Pope for Edgardo's release. However, after November 22, 1858, the French cabinet decided to halt any further attempts to secure Edgardo's release.

Response to the Mortara affair was not limited the Europe's Jews; the case became the second circumstance to arouse the indignation of American Jewry, still in its infancy. When the Mortara affair erupted the Jewish community of antebellum America numbered about 150 000 people, the majority of whom were recent central European immigrants. Similar to Europe, there was a plethora or articles in America's Jewish and secular press decrying the abduction. However, the Jews of the United States lacked cohesion, and centralized organizations similar to France's Consistory of Israelites or England's London board of Deputies of British Jews. Other than the small B'nai Brith lodge, American Jewry's main channel of expression and communication was the three Jewish publications: Isaac Leeser's Occident, Isaac Meyer Wise's Israelite, and Samuel Isaac's Jewish Messenger. All three editors wrote scathing editorials denouncing the actions of the Church, which included candid ridicule of Catholicism and the Pope.

In their editorials, the three Rabbis unleash vitriolic attacks against the Catholic Church. Wise, writing in the Cincinnati Israelite, questions if in fact Edgardo was ever baptized, asserting that the Chruch's decision to abduct the child had nothing to do with canon law, "how much they preach and how little they believe". Wise, never suggests what he believes the Church's motive for seizing the Edgardo is, continues to deride Catholic priests, as being tools of their superiors, the "inquisition, which sacred office in the handmaid of the Pope, who again is the subject of the Jesuits". After attacking the Church, Wise creates a universalist scope for the abduction. "Now, that a whole intelligent world protests loudly against the violation of the inalienable rights of man, and denounces this act as declaration of war on the rights and liberties of humanity". Even in an exclusively Jewish newspaper, Wise chooses to deemphasize Edgardo's Judaism in favor of the universal rights of man.

In their editorials, Isaacs and Leeser do not hold back from attacking the Church, however, in their editorials they adopt a less universalistic approach in favor of more Jewish content. Samuel Isaacs, in the New York Jewish Messenger initiates his attack on the Church by praising the United States for being a land "where no Catholic would dare to kidnap abduct one of our children" Wise goes on the compare the Pope to Pharaoh, and Edgardo to the infant Moses, "The same gracious Being who saved the infant Moses from the murderous hand of Pharaoh, that same Being will also shield the infant Edgar from the ensnaring power of Pio Nono." Leeser, in his Occident brought the current crisis in line with the Church's long standing persecution of the Jewish people.

We dread the ancient enemy of the Jews even if it comes in a mild, persuasive garb. Circumstance may counsel the Church to use different means from the fagot and the gibbet to enforce universal acquiescence; but it has not yielded, and never will yield its right to coerce the conscience.

Concern and interest in the Mortara affair extended beyond the Jewish communities and its publications, becoming a cause célèbre in the secular press; the New York Times alone published twenty articles in a single month on the Mortara affair. These articles, such as Isaac Leeser's, editorial in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, combined the anti-catholic prejudices of the Protestant majority, with Universal rights as denied to Edgardo. Leeser commences his editorial with there are events which "arouse and fix the attention of the friends of freedom and mental progress; these events need not be clashes between empires but could affect an unknown individual as is the case of Edgardo Mortara."

Although lacking the same intensity of derision as in his Jewish newspaper editorial, Leeser, focuses his attention against the Pope. Without any belligerence, Leeser writes of the Pope's claim to be head of Christendom and the Universal Church, "the Church of Rome knows of but one head, one will, which governs and shapes all the vast machinery" of Catholicism. Although Leeser's description contains no explicit attack against the Pope, such a portrayal would serve none other than to ignite Protestant antipathies for Catholicism, and ensure their sympathy for Mortara. Leeser, continues to play the anti-Catholic card, when he asks that perhaps the abduction is not a reflection of Catholicism, but stems from the population's lack of rights. However, he asserts that this in not the case because Catholics in America have remained silent on the issue, in a show of solidarity with the Pope's actions; Leeser dreads what might occur to America "should ever the Catholics obtain the power to legislate religiously and civilly for the people". Leeser attempts to tone down his attack, by emphasizing that being a Hebrew he no more inclined towards Protestantism, than toward Catholicism, however this is merely perfunctory, as his bias has already bee clearly articulated. Leeser concludes his editorial questioning how the baptism of a Jewish infant by an illiterate fourteen year old nurse could logically be a valid baptism, enabling the Pope to confiscate the child; this too would have offended Protestant conception of baptism.

This was not the American Jewish community's first attempt at convincing the United States government to intervene in a Jewish crisis abroad. Eighteen years before the Mortara Case, America's antebellum Jewish community succeeded in eliciting a government response to the Damascus Blood Libel. In February of 1840 members of the Jewish community were imprisoned and confessed under the duress of torture to the ritual murder of a Catholic priest and his servant. The facts of the case were first made known to the Department of State by the American consul in Beirut on the 24^th of March in 1840. The Consul's report treated the confessions extracted under torture as fact stating that the bottle containing the priest's blood had yet to be found and that the house where the ritual murder's contained other human remains demonstrating signs of human sacrifice.

Fortunately, Secretary of State John Forsyth disregarded the Beirut's Consul's biased report and wrote a letter on August 14^th to America's consul at Alexandria, John Gliddon, expressing his sympathies to Damascus' Jewish community. In the letter to the American consul in Egypt, Forsyth, mentions President Van Buren as "expressing surprise and pain, that in this advance age, such unnatural practices should be ascribed to any portion of the religious world, and such barbarous measures be resorted, in order to compel the confession of imputed guilt". "Three days later Secretary of State Forsyth relayed the President's instructions to the American Minister in Turkey to do everything in his power, including his connection to the Sultan, to help rectify the situation.

It was not until after Moses Montefiore and Adolph Cremieux had traveled to Damascus and to diffuse the situation, and week after State Deportment had dispatched the President's instructions to America's Consul in Alexandria, did the Jews of New York hold a public meeting in response to the Damascus Affair. In the letter to Van Buren the Jewish community requested that the President direct the American consul's in the Ottoman lands to help secure "a fair in impartial trial for our brethren at Damascus." The resolution adopted by the meeting of the New York Jewish community elicited an almost immediate response from Secretary of State John Forsyth on behalf President Van Buren. Forsyth included a copy of the letter already dispatched to the American Consul in Alexandria encouraging to make every attempt to assist the Jews of the Ottoman lands "among whose kindred are found some of the most worthy and patriotic of our own citizens". The Jewish community was optimistic that this positive precedent for government's intervention in the Damascus Blood Libel would result in further support for future crisis involving international Jewry.

Despite their small numbers and lack of cohesion, American Jews were already ingrained with the values of separation of church and state, and basic human rights, and they turned to their government in hope that it would speak out against the injustice committed against the Mortara family. However, the lack of unity was reflected by each community, and in cases congregations within in single city, attempt to enlist the government to support their cause. The first attempt to illicit a government response was organized by Isaac Meyer Wise and Max Lilienthal's communities in Cincinnati. A petition was drawn up and signed by the officer of both congregations and was sent to the Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, to be forwarded to the Pope. In the letter written to Cass, the Cincinnati's communal leaders encourage Cass to follow suit with France, England, Sardinia, and Prussia, whose Jews had petitioned the Pope through their respective governments. In his response, Cass essentially rejects the notion of government interference in the Mortara affair: "The official interference of this government, in the case of the child alleged to have been abducted in Bologna, I take it for granted, is not the contemplated either by yourselves or those who you represent." Although there would be numerous attempts by differing Jewish communities to secure government intervention, Cass' initial refusal to intervene would remain consistent.

The next attempt to convince to the President to respond was achieved by Abraham Hart, the President of Congregation Mikve Israel in Philadelphia. The Secretary of State's response to Hart, published in the New York Times, included official government refusal to become involved.

This occurrence too place within the territories of an independent power, and without affecting the rights of any American citizen. It is the settled policy of the United States to abstain from all interference in the internal concerns of the country.

However, despite this unequivocal rejection by the government to interfere in the Mortara affair Jewish communities in Boston, Charleston, Chicago, Albany New York, and San Francisco, organized public meeting is hope of garnering government support. The largest, meeting was held by the New York Jewish community on December 7, in Mozart Hall,. 2500 people, Jews and Protestants, participated. The event consisted of several speeches given by both Jewish and Protestant speakers, who avoided derision of the Catholic Church, focusing on concepts of liberty and personal religious freedoms.

    After several more public meetings and more unsuccessful communiqués between various communities and Secretary of State Cass, President Buchanan issued his only statement on the case, possibly motivated by the New York City protest meeting. In the letter addressed to Benjamin Hart, the head of Board of Representatives of the United Congregations of Israelites of the City of New York, reiterating the government's refusal to intervene in the Mortara affair. In his letter, Buchanan emphasized that the previous letters received and replied to by the Secretary of State represented the official government response to the matter, but chose to reiterate the response for a measure of closure.

I have long been convinced that is neither the right nor the duty of this Government to express amoral censorship over the conduct of other independent Governments and to rebuke them for act with which we many deem arbitrary and unjust toward their own citizens or subjects. We ourselves would no permit and foreign Power thus to interfere with our domestic concerns and enter protests against the legislation or action of our Government toward our own citizens

With the exclusion of a few more protest meetings, Buchanan's letter, with its explicit refusal to intervene with the Pope ended the American Jewish communities' involvement in the Mortara affair. However, the question as to why the government refused to advocate for a person whose civil rights had been infringed upon remains. In contrast, eighteen years previous the American government had interceded in the Damascus affair, even before the Jewish community had requested it do so. One possibility, as to why the government refused to become involved, was the Monroe doctrine. This key tenet of 19^th century American foreign policy asserted that European powers should not impose their ideologies on the United States, and in return America would refrain from interfering in European affairs. Therefore interfering with the Papal State's abduction of Edgardo was not viewed as significant enough reason to violate the doctrine. Another issue was the Irish Catholic vote, which held the balance of power in many cities, was almost exclusively held by Buchanan. He could not risk antagonizing Catholic voters by fighting against the Church in support of Mortara.

Through their inability to convince the American government to responds to the Mortara affair, the American Jewish community learnt a valuable lesson. Through this defeat The American Jewish community recognized the necessity for cohesion and an organized institution for approaching the government, instead of individual synagogues petitioning the administration. As a result the first truly national Jewish organization the Board of Delegates of American Israelite was established to fight for Jewish rights abroad and at home.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited.

 

• Isaac Leeser, Occident, (Phila.), Nov. 1858, 376
  
• Isaac M. Wise, Israelite (Cincinnati), Jan 7, 18459, 21203.
  
• Issac Leeser, "The Mortara Case.-To the American public" Philadelphia Public Leger, November 23, 1858.
  
  • Jewish Enclopedia, 1906 ed., "New York." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=248&letter=N&search=board%20of%20delegates%20of%20american%20israelites
    
• Kertzer, David. The kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara. New York: Knopf, 1997.
  
  • Korn, Bertram Wallace. The American Reaction to the Mortara Case; 1858-1859. Cincinnati: Publications of the American Jewish Archives, 1956.
    
• Loss, Daniel. "Catholics and Jews in the Antebellum American Mind:
  

  A Study of Reactions to the Mortara Case" dis. Swarthmore College, 2003
  

  
   

• Samuel Isaacs, Jewish Messenger, Nov. 19, 1858, 60.
  
  • Schappes, Morris U. A documentary history of the Jews in the United States, 1654-1875. New York: Citadel Press, 1950.
    
  • "The Mortara Case- Letter from the President Refusing to Interfere." New York Times (1857- Current file); Dec. 30, 1858; ProQuest Historical Newspaper The New York Times (1851-2003)
    
  • "The Mortara Case-At the Mozart Hall" New York Times (1857-Current file); Dec. 4, 1858; ProQuest Historical Newspaper The New York Times (185-2003)pg. 4
    
  • "The Mortara Case-Letter from Secretary Cass." New York Times (1857-Current file); Nov. 30, 1858; ProQuest Historical Newspaper The New York Times (1851-2003)
    

    
     

  
   

R. Yosef Yoizle Hurwitz "the Alter of Novardok"

Rabbi Yosef Yoizel Hurwitz Mezake Harabim

"Where there are no kids, there are no goats." Yosef Yoizel Hurwitz delivered Mezake Harabim to provide direction for Jewish education, which felt to be rapidly deteriorated. Hurwitz feared that in the world of post WWI Europe, few were dedication themselves to the study of Torah, and that the "net of sin" had ensnared the majority of the young generation. He warns that if the abysmal education situation is to persists, there exists the danger the Torah will be forgotten from the house of Israel. Therefore, the responsibility falls to R. Hurwitz's students to combat, by every means available, the advance of secularism and neglect of Torah studies.

Yosef Yoizel Horowitz famously known as the Alter of the Novardok was the innovator of the most extreme branch of the Mussar Movement in nineteenth and early twentieth century Eastern Europe. Yosef Yoizel was born in the Lithuanian town of Plongian in 1848, where his father Shlomo Zalman served as the rabbi and dayan. Yosef Yoizel, still and adeolecent, was engaged to the daughter of Yaakov Stein or Shvedesna, who promised him a large dowry. However, Yosef Yoizel's father in law died shortly before the wedding, leaving a widow and eight children of whom the oldest was Yosef Yoizel's bride. Yosef Yoizel managed his deceased father in law's business , in order to support his wife's family.

On one of his business trips to Memel Yosef Yoizel first encountered Rabbi Yisrael Salanter in a beit midrash where Salanter delivered sermons. Under the influence of Yisrael Salanter, Yosef Yoizel decided to leave his family and travel to Kovno in order to pursuit his Torah studies. In Kovno, Yosef Yoizel studied in the mussar kollel under the tutelage of Yisrael Salanter's students. Yosef Yoizel brought his wife and family to Kovno, however during his studies his wife died in labor. Distraught by his wife's death, Yosef Yoizel divided his children among relatives and became a recluse, secluding him self in the room of the tin smith. The only contact Yosef Yoizel maintained with the outside world for a year and a half was through two small windows accessing the room. Yosef Yoizel was forced to abandon his seclusion in 1882 when the police raided his room, tipped off by maskilim that Yosef Yoizel was running a counterfeit money operation.

Shortly after emerging from seclusion Yosef Yoizel remarried on the condition that he may continue to seclude himself during the week and return to his wife for Shabbat. In 1894 Yosef Yoizel underwent another life altering change when Zimcha Zissel Ziv, one of Salanter preeminent students, convinced Yosef Yoizel to abandon his life of solitude, as the times demanded that Torah scholars be proactive in offsetting the advances of enlightenment. Yosef Yoizel established a series of small kollels throughout the Pale of Settlement; the kollels also operated yeshiva ketanas. It was also at this time that Yosef Yoizel opened the famed yeshiva gedola of Novardok for the graduates of these yeshiva ketanas. It was in his role as the rosh yeshiva and mashgiach of Novardok that Yosef Yozel would be most famously remembered until his death shortly after the conclusion of the First World War.

In Mezake Harabim R. Hurwitz initiates his plan for educational reform by contextualizing the crisis within the mussar approach of striving for self perfection. When an individual becomes aware of a personal deficiency he must use all the necessary tactics, unremittingly, to uproot this negative trait in order to return to a state of spiritual equilibrium. R. Hurwitz views society to be a macrocosm of the individual, when a crisis emerges within society it is the collective's responsibility to uproot the impediment for the spiritual wellbeing of the society. Although no part of their usual responsibilities, R. Hurwitz turns to his students and adherents to take it upon themselves to salvage Torah education. These scholars should not view the commitment to others as diverting time from their personal self-improvement, because the welfare of the community supersedes that of an individual.

Mezake Harabim is directed towards students, Torah scholars accustomed to living in a reclusive environment dedicated to spiritual self-perfection. Any interactions with outside world are viewed as perilous for one's spiritual health; thus the question arises how and if one should interact with spiritually dangerous elements in hope of positively influencing them and elevating their status. Hurwitz concludes his introduction by posing the ten questions to be answered throughout the sermon, as to how educators, the sermon's audience, are to involve themselves in the potentially spiritually dangerous education process.

Essential to R. Hurwitz's articulation of his program, are aggadic sources which serve as a foundation for illustrating his concepts. One of the most conspicuous examples in Mezake Harabim is the aggadic gemara involving R. Hiyya bar Abba. R. Hiyya was active during the time of the redaction of the mishna by Rabbi Judah the Prince, his years spanning from the tanaitic period in to the Amoritic period. Born in Palestine, he immigrated to Palestine at a young age become a disciple of R. Hanina and R. Joshua ben Levi. After the death of this last generation of Tanaim, R. Hiyya along with R. Ammi and Assi were recognized as the preeminent Halachik authorities in Palestine. R. Hiyya's major contribution to the Oral Law was compiling the braitas which would from the tosefta. R. Hiyya was the author of numerous aggadot, however, he denounced every attempt to commit them to writing to extent where he cursed an individual who had attempted to collect them. Due to his poverty, Hiyya traveled from town to town lecturing for his livelihood, but became agitated when his lecture on aggada drew larger audiences than his halachic discourses. R. Hurwitz uses an aggadic anecdote involving R. Hiyya as the basis for the first half of his sermon. In the aggada R. Chanina contends with R. Chiya: If Torah were forgotten in Israel, I would restore in through my reasoning? To Which R. Chiya responds:

Would you content with me, who kept Torah from being forgotten in Israel? How so? I went and sowed flax. From flax I made nets and trapped deer. The flesh I fed to orphans, and from the skins I make parchment scrolls on which to write the Five Books of Moses. I then went a town and taught the Five Books to five children and six orders of the mishna to six children , after which I in structure them "until my return teach each other what you have learned, so that Torah will not forgotten in Israel." It is to this that Rebbi alluded when he said: "How great are the works of Hiyya!".

R. Hurwitz sees R. Hiyya as the quintessential educator, who ought to be emulated even in twentieth century Europe. R. Hiyya was completely altruistic in his devotion to the teaching of others. R. Hiya even endures all the hardships involved in teaching from the sewing of flax to the production of the parchment. His greatest concern was for his efforts to be perpetuated by his students so they may sufficiently trained in order to influence other students in the future. R. Hiyya's also cultivates within his students the necessity of communal service by telling his students "teach each other". These students, in the future, will be capable of propagating Torah and fear of heaven among the Jewish people, and ensure continual commitment of the Jewish people to Torah.

R. Hurwitz sees R. Hiyya's actions not merely as an aggadic anecdote, but feels R. Hiyya's actions as an effective way to train communal servants with a common goal of perpetuating Torah learning and values for future generations. R. Hurwitz also mentions that R. Hiyya was determined to implement his plan, even though it was seen as unconventional at the time. So too the Novardok was of life is viewed as unconventional by other East European yeshivas, and yet the unconventional R. Hiyya prevented the Torah from being lost, so too the Novardok educators can ensure the Torah's survival in the interwar period. R. Hiyya demonstrated that teaching students to teach other is the ideal educational regiment for communal servants.

R. Hurwitz poses the question if one is permitted to perform mundane tasks that may be perceived as beneath one's station or dignity. Again R. Hurwitz looks to the actions of R. Hiyya, who took upon himself to perform all the mundane tasks necessary for teaching Torah to his students. He was unconcerned with his honor or his dignity, but acted out of necessity in order to aattain his goal. R. Hiyya's goal was to further the cause of Torah, by preventing its neglect when there was danger that the Torah might be forgotten. For R. Hiyya the end result and achievement is the focus, not the manner by which he arrived there, therefore he personally performed mundane tasks which were below his dignity. Therefore, R. Hurwitz explains, the Talmud praises R. Hiyya "how great are the works of Hiyya", because he took in upon himself to achieve his ends by every means necessary.

The upshot of R. Hiyya's efforts for the student audience of R. Hurwitz is that in order to accomplish a task and realize a goal one must be willing to do what ever is necessary to produce that result. Even actions which do not contain the outward appeal need to be performed if they are indispensable to the goal. This type of conduct, seen in R. Hiyya's actions, in certainly in keeping with Novardok's world view of shunning the constraints and expectations of the outside world, when trying to spread Torah to uncommitted Jews.

The choice of R. Hiyya's initiative to prevent Torah from being forgotten is very reconcilable with Novardok ideology; in the way that R. Hurwitz explains the aggada, R. Hiyya, in sense, emerges as a Novardoker as Novardok ideology is transposed onto his actions. This comparison emerges immediately when R. Hiyya takes it upon himself to perform the mundane tasks that are prerequisites to the teaching of Torah, including the sewing of flax, hunting of deer, and preparing the parchment for the writing of the Torah scroll. Novardok students were conditioned to be unconstrained by society, including religious society's notions of what was appropriate for scholars. Novardok students willingly humiliated themselves to demonstrate what society thought of them as irrelevant. In that sense R. Hiyya is portrayed as a Novardoker, by his ability to perform undignified actions to further his cause without fear of ridicule from his contemporaries. R. R. Hurwitz explains also implicit in Rebbi's world "how great are the works of R. Hiyya".

When the Torah scholar rises above all worldly influences and the pressures of day-to-day living, seeking only the truth, and aspiring to a unique world of spiritual perfection of his neighbor and objectively measures himself against the other to see where their respective strengths lie-there is no basis for propagation of Torah more solid than this.

Truthfulness to others and one's self attained obsessive proportions among Novardok students. They shunned society's constraints, viewing it as an impediment to the attainment of spiritual perfection. Individuals capable of achieving perfection as did R. Hiyya and his disciples are the idea vessels for the spread of Torah to wayward Jews.

Another aspect of the aggadic tale in which R. Hiyya becomes a Novardoker is his axiom of "teach each other". R. Hiyya did not enlist other scholars, or himself, teach the six order of mishna and five books of the Torah to his students, but opted to teach them individually one volume to each student and have them teach one another. R. Hurwitz asserts that students sharing their knowledge with one another, R. Hiyya intended to create mutual obligation. Students will achieve more when study together than when a scholar lectures to them; it is when individuals have an obligation to their fellow that the individual and the collective can maximize their potential. R. Hiyya's actions, as interpreted by R. Hurwitz, are in keeping with Novardok methods of study. The loftiest spiritual levels were attained by Novardok students during group study sessions in which they would critique one another's actions and behavior as a self improving endeavor. The expectation was that the reproof of fellow students would generate the greatest effort on the part of the individual to improve his self, as not to let down the other members of the study group. So too R. Hurwitz has R. Hiyya recognize that that the students will be most successful at disseminating their knowledge by teaching one another, generating indebtedness and dependency on each other as done by Novardok students.

R. Hiyya's actions answer the question as to whether a person should wait until they have the experience of forty years before they began to serve the community, and propagate torah values. R. Hiyya's education initiatives, instructing his students to teach each other emphasizes the importance of youthful energy and exuberance to the spreading Torah. If an individual fails to initiate his service to the community in his youth he likely will not begin in his old age, and will even digress in his personal spiritual labors. That is to say, the way to insure that a young Novardok student will perfect himself is by having him assist others early on. Scholars cannot single handedly save torah from disappearing; it requires a grassroots initiative of the youthful students like those of R. Hiyya and Novardok to spread torah to more students.

Lastly, the agadda of R. Hiyya teaches the audience that everyone is responsible for propagating Torah among Jews. The Torah giants of the generation fulfill their obligation by following the statement of R. Hannina, "Would you contend with me? If Torah were forgotten in Israel, I would restore it through my reasoning!" This axiom applies to people of great intelligence and learning who spread Torah using their intellectual faculties; but what of the average person? Are they exempt from spreading Torah? R. Hurwitz declares they are to follow R. Hiyya's statement of "teach each other." Each according to his abilities, must one spread Torah. Some will establish study groups or give Talmud lectures, proliferate the yeshivas, and others could involve with ensuring that the material needs of the students are taken care of. All are obligated in the propagation of Torah, utilizing which ever aptitude they have been endowed with.

The next source used by R. Hurwitz to espouse his educational program is from the Tanya Devei Eliyahu. This source highlights the extremeness of the Novardok ideology, and their commitment to spreading Torah observance.

If you would ask why the seventy thousand me of Givat
Binyamin were killed, it is because the Great Sanhedrin invested by Moses, Joshua and Pinchas should have tied iron thongs around their things, lifted their garments about their knees, and ventured forth into the cities of Israel … and so to all the Jewish settlements, and have taught the Jews proper conduct in the course of a year or two or three, so that the name of the Holy One Blessed be He would be exalted and sanctified. But they did not do this. Instead, each of them basked in the repose of his own vineyard, saying; 'Peace unto you, my soul'-so as not to overexert himself. Therefore, in Givat Binyamin, where the study of Torah and the cultivation of proper conduct were not pursued, seventy thousand men were killed. And who killed them all? The same Great Sanhedrin invested by Moses, Joshua and Pinchas.

R. Hurwitz uses this perplexing agadda to illustrate that one needs to be proactive about bringing Jews to Torah. A person cannot absolve himself from his obligation by saying that he was not present. Rather one must be active, traveling from place to place, years of journeying if necessary, in order to assist uncommitted Jews. The members of the Sanhedrin, esteemed individuals unaccustomed to manual labor were expected to "lift their garments above their knees" in order to reach destinations where their assistance was required. Furthermore the members of the Sanhedrin, who exerted effort cultivating Torah personalities and fear of heaven, should have been sensitive to the declining status of Torah among the nation, but because they did not exert the necessary effort they are accountable for the death of seventy thousand Jews.

This midrash is reflective of the Novardok worldview which made its adherents accountable to others. One cannot ensconce himself in a cocoon while others remain unexposed to Torah. Committing one's self to his own perfection, like the Sanhedrin, becomes accountable for the lapses of others. If one failed to exert themselves in assisting others, he bears their inequity, just as the Sanhedrin is responsible for the deaths of seventy thousand. Novardok students would travel from community to community cajoling towns to establish satellite beitei midrashim operated by a Novardok representative, so the town's youth would be able to study Torah.

R. Hurwitz poses the question of whether the young must be kept under constant surveillance, and have their needs taken care of. To answer this he differs to an agadda involving Rav in Tractate of Taanit. In the anecdote Rav prays in a town suffering from drought. When the shaliach tzibur repeated the world "He brings wind, and brings down rain" rain began to fall on the parched town. Rav asked the prayer leader what his occupation was, to which the man replied: "I teach the young, the sons of the poor as well as those of the rich, and I take nothing from those who are lacking in means. Also, I have some fish ponds and if a student in recalcitrant I bribe him with fish, and accommodate him, and conciliate him until he is won over to study".

R. Hurwitz examines the greatness of Rav's actions; not only did Rav teach the poor without demanding fees they were unable to pay, but his pedagogic genius lies is his fish ponds. It would have been sufficient if Rav focused his efforts on teaching those students who were interested and attentive to his lessons. However, Rav refused to abandon those stubborn students, uninterested in Torah studies. Rav pursues these students and reaches out to them of their level by bribing these students with fish from his ponds until they are prepared to being their studies. In Novardok philosophy, students need to encouragement and those students who require more attention until they can commit to learning are not to be overlooked, but reached out to on their unique level just as Rav gave fish to those not yet prepared to engage to Torah studies.

The last issue to be examined is the question if one's commitment to serve the community will come at the expense of one's self improvement. The improvement and attempt to perfect one's character is central to the Novardok worldview, and therefore neglect of this pursuit would appear contrary to the movement's ideals. R. Hurwitz demonstrates that there is no contradiction between self improvement and assisting the community by quoting the aggada of R. Predia, who repeated a lesson four hundred times to student struggling to comprehend the lesson. R. Predia's commitment to his pupil merited a bat kol which asked R. Predia "would you rather that four hundred year be added to your life or that you and your generation merit the world to come?"

R. Hurwitz states that the most difficult aspect of character development is responding appropriately in place and time. To perfect one's character in an artificial environment of encouragement without trials is no great achievement. However, demonstrating character perfection in a difficult situation is the fruition of such efforts, as demonstrated by R. Predia who exuded patients when repeating the same lesson to his pupil four hundred times without acquiescing to frustration and aggravation. Therefore there is no contradiction between communal service and self improvement.

Two more themes briefly worth mentioning are R. Hurwitz's use of parables and the influence of the Vilna Gaon. In the context of R. Hiyya aggada, highlighting the importance instructing students, R. Hurwitz quotes the verse in proverbs 22:6 "instruct (chinuch) the youth in his way, so that even when he grows old he will not depart from it". It, the GRA explains refers to the chinuch. Here the term chinuch implies "the cultivation of selflessness in one's deeds. The second time R. Hurwitz refers to the GRA, again in the context of the lessons drawn from R. Hiyya. R. Hurwitz offers a possibility as to why R. Hiyya provided his own parchment to write the Torah- possibility to remove any suspicion of theft. R. Hurwitz quotes the teaching of the GRA who asserted that any learning accomplished in a house whose roof contains one stolen nail will lack success. The mentioning of the GRA's teachings are only ancillary to R. Hurwitz's central thesis however it is interesting to note the GRA's influence on Novardok. It is not surprising that GRA's asceticism and extremism would have influenced Novardok's intensity. As well, Novardok certainly exists in the Lithuanian world, which views the GRA as it progenitor.

On two occasions R. Hurwitz utilizes parables to illustrate concepts. Usually R. Hurwitz's uses aggadic sources as background for concepts, so the parable expressed as stories with interpretations serve to concretize concepts espoused by R. Hurwitz, from the sources. The first parable is in the context of the aggada in which R. Hiyya is likened to the king's physician, who takes all the necessary precautions to prevent the king from contracting sickness, and instructs the king's court how to identify and prevent the disease. The more elaborate parable is brought in the context the Sanhedrin's failure to exert effort in convincing the Jews to act upright, for which the midrash holds them responsible for the deaths of seventy thousand people. Here the Sanhedrin is analogized to the captain of a ship whose passengers are oblivious to the fact the boring holes in the vessel will cause it to sink. Instead of warning the passengers against the dangers of damaging the ship's hull, the captain continues to pilot the sinking vessel; the captain bears the responsibility for the deaths of his passengers due to his inaction.

Mezake Harabim is the final major sermon delivered by R. Hurwitz prior to his death, and in a sense reflect the culminating perfection of Novardok ideology. Although R. Hurwitz never outlines the principles of Novardok mussar in Mezake Harabim, Novardok ideology is plainly visible in R. Hurwitz's ideas and assertions. R. Hurwitz has long ago shed his reclusiveness and yearning for self perfection in favor of influencing and perfecting Jewish society through his unique pedagogy. R. Hurwitz uses of aggadic sources is so seamless to extent it is similar to art imitating life, as the sources with R. Hurwitz's elucidations make Novardok's ideology appear timeless.

Bibliography

Hurwitz, Joseph Joizel, Sefer Madregat ha-adam : mi-mamare ... Hurvits she-diber beha-yeshivot de-Novhradoḳ / ba-ʻarikhah me-ḥadash bal yede Mosheh Yemini. Jerusalem : Keren mefitse torah u-musar, 730 [1970]

Hurwitz, Joseph trans. Shraga Silverstein, To Turn the Many to righteousness New York: Feldheim Publishers 1970

Sofer, D "Rav Yosef Yoizel Horowitz ZT"L The Alter of Novardok" Yated Neeman, Monsey NY. www.tzemachdovid.org/Murrsar.navordok1.html.

"Rabbi Hiyya" Jewish Encyclopedia, www.jewishencyclopedia.com