Books

Jerusalem in America’s ForeignPolicy, 1947-1997By Shlomo SlonimKluwer Law InternationalThe Hague,1998421 pagesReviewed by George E. Gruen

Because thequestion ofJerusalem is gen-erally recognizedas one of themost emotional-ly-charged andpolitically andreligiously mostsignificant issuesin the entireArab-Israel con-

flict, experienced American diplomatssuch as Dr. Henry Kissinger haveadvised leaving resolution of issuesrelating to Jerusalem to the end of thepeace process. But now that Israel andthe Palestinian National Authority(PNA) have entered into permanentstatus talks, and President Clinton hasactively supported their efforts toachieve a comprehensive agreement bySeptember of this year, the many unre-solved issues concerning the city arefinally on the table.

What positions should Washingtonsupport when faced with conflictingpositions such as the following: YasirArafat’s claim that Jewish housing pro-jects and settlements in East Jerusalemare illegal and his demand that theArab-inhabited part of the city mustbe recognized as the capital of an inde-pendent Palestinian state; Israel’s insis-tence that all of reunified Jerusalemwithin the expanded municipal bor-ders established by Israel in 1967 beacknowledged as the capital of Israel,and that the American embassy bemoved promptly, as Congress hasrepeatedly mandated, from Tel Aviv toJerusalem? What of the rival claims ofJordan and the PNA to administer the

Muslim shrines, and the demands ofthe Vatican, and other Christiandenominations for a special statute togovern the Holy Places? The Pope’srecent visit to the Holy Land onceagain highlighted these concerns.

As Americans look for guidelines fora realistic and constructive approachthat avoids the pitfalls and failures ofthe past, they would do well to consultProfessor Shlomo Slonim’s new book,Jerusalem in America’s Foreign Policy,1947-1997. This is a remarkablycomprehensive and multi-facetedexamination of the evolution of U.S.policy toward Jerusalem over the half-century since 1947 when the issue wasfirst brought to the United Nations. Adistinguished scholar of American gov-ernment and diplomacy at the HebrewUniversity, Slonim not only traces thehistory of the Jerusalem issue, but alsoanalyzes the complex political andlegal factors, both domestic and inter-national, which have shaped Americanexecutive decisions. This book is theresult of the author’s meticulousresearch, which included the painstak-ing examination of documents indiplomatic archives on three conti-nents, national and presidentiallibraries, interviews with many of thekey persons involved in the decision-making process and scholars in theUnited States, Britain, the UnitedNations, Israel and the Middle East.Professor Slonim has uncovered manyfascinating details about the formula-tion of policy, as well as the inconsis-tencies and contradictions that weresometimes glossed over in official dec-larations. He also examines the inter-play of the White House and theCongress, which has in recent yearstaken an increasingly assertive role insupport of pro-Israeli positions.

Professor Slonim examines, inchronological order, the major periodsin the evolution of international policytoward Jerusalem and the Americanposition at each stage: The first is

titled “Support for TerritorialInternationalization (1947-1950).”He notes that at that time the UnitedStates — as well as Israel (reluctantly)— accepted the internationalization ofan enlarged area of Jerusalem, includ-ing Bethlehem, as part of the UnitedNations General Assembly 1947 planto partition Palestine into a Jewish andan Arab state. The United Statesbacked away when the United Nationsfailed to prevent Arab attacks againstthe Jewish population in the Old City.The U.S. also shares the blame for thisfailure, he contends, since Washingtonwas unprepared to pay the costs ofadministering the city and imposing asolution, and refused to commitAmerican peacekeeping troops,because this would legitimize theKremlin’s demand to send Russiantroops, which Washington was deter-mined to prevent, as the Cold Warstruggle with the Soviet Union wasthen at its height.

Consequently, at the end of theheavy fighting in the 1948 Arab-Israeliwar, Jerusalem was divided betweenthe Jordanian forces that occupied theOld City and East Jerusalem, and theIsraelis, who held the New City orWestern Jerusalem. Slonim arguesthat the failure of the UN and theU.S. to do anything to save the Jews ofthe Old City from expulsion had, ineffect, ended their moral right to insiston internationalization. SubsequentUN efforts to do so failed to get thenecessary two-thirds majority whenthe Soviet bloc withdrew its supportfor internationalization. Based on hisresearch, Slonim concludes thatMoscow decided it did not wish tostrengthen the international prestige ofthe Vatican, which the Kremlinincreasingly saw as a major globalrival. (These fears were subsequentlyproven correct when Pope John Paul IIplayed a major role in helping hisnative Poland free itself from Sovietdomination.)

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

The second period, which Slonimterms the “Dormant Interlude, 1951-1967,” saw the United States graduallyadjust to the fact of a dividedJerusalem. After initially protestingthe move of the Israeli ForeignMinistry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,American officials conducted normalbusiness with the Israeli government inJerusalem. However, the U.S. embassyremained in Tel Aviv, and Washingtondid not formally recognize eitherIsraeli or Jordanian sovereignty in thecity. There was officially oneAmerican consulate in Jerusalem, withoffices in both sides of the divided city.It had the anomalous position of beingadministratively removed from theembassy in Tel Aviv. The Jerusalemconsulate reported directly toWashington. All children born toAmerican citizens living in the cityhad their place of birth listed simply as“Jerusalem.” Efforts are currentlyunder way in Congress to require theadministration to add “Israel” to anydocuments issued by the Jerusalemconsulate.

The third section of the book covers“Jerusalem Reunified in the Wake ofthe 1967 Six-Day War” and consists offive chapters. Slonim examines indetail the debate over the status of EastJerusalem. In contrast to the asser-tions by some former American diplo-mats that United States policy wasconsistent, he demonstrates that, infact, it was marked by controversy,confusion and contradiction. Forexample, Slonim points out thatPresident Lyndon Johnson refused toformally declare East Jerusalem occu-pied territory and explicitly cited onlythe religious Holy Sites as legitimatematters of international concern. Byway of contrast, the Nixon administra-tion stamped East Jerusalem as “occu-pied territory” and the Bush adminis-tration even objected to Israeli con-struction in that area. PresidentRonald Reagan refused to term Israelisettlement policy as illegal, but didregard it as an obstacle to peace.

The Camp David agreement nearlyfell apart when Premier MenachemBegin threatened to leave after

President Jimmy Carter proposed toinclude in a letter to EgyptianPresident Anwar Sadat that the U.S.regarded East Jerusalem as occupiedterritory. In his post-Camp David let-ter to Carter, Sadat had insisted that“Arab Jerusalem is an integral part ofthe West Bank.” But on the religiousissues, the Egyptian, Israeli andAmerican positions were essentially inagreement. Sadat proposed: “All peo-ple must have free access to the Cityand enjoy the free exercise of worshipand the right to visit and transit to theholy places without distinction or dis-crimination. The holy places of eachfaith may be placed under the admin-istration and control of their represen-tatives.” A similar position has sincebeen enunciated by Jordanian andsome Palestinian officials. Because ofthe fundamental disagreement onissues of sovereignty and political con-trol, there was no explicit discussion ofJerusalem in the text of the CampDavid Agreement.

In the fourth and final section of thebook, he discusses “Jerusalem Underthe Oslo Accords,” and has chaptersthat examine “The Struggle for Peaceand Unity” and finally “Jerusalem: TheChallenge of Indivisibility.” AlthoughProfessor Slonim effectively cites thelegal arguments why Jordan, whichoccupied east Jerusalem in the 1948war, did not have legal title, andindeed, it was recognized internation-ally only by Pakistan, he does not fullydeal with the issue of the rights to self-determination claimed by the indige-nous Palestinian residents of the city.

In an appendix, the book containsthe text of the Jerusalem Embassy Actof 1995 under which Congress, passedby overwhelming majorities in bothhouses, declared as a “Statement of thePolicy of the United States.— (1)Jerusalem should remain an undividedcity in which the rights of every ethnicand religious group are protected; (2)Jerusalem should be recognized as thecapital of the State of Israel; and (3)the United States Embassy in Israelshould be established in Jerusalem nolater than May 31, 1999.” (This datewas picked because it was to mark the

end of the period for resolving all“final status” issues between Israel andthe Palestinians, including Jerusalem.The deadline has passed without anyagreement.)

The law carried the sanction that50% of the State Department’s budgetwould be withheld unless theJerusalem embassy was opened by thedeadline. Because of powerful lobby-ing by the White House, using theargument that this was an illegalusurpation of the President’sConstitutional authority in foreignaffairs, the law included a provisionallowing the President to waive theimplementation of the law for six-months at a time “if he determinesand reports to Congress in advancethat such suspension is necessary toprotect the national security interestsof the United States.”

President Clinton has repeatedlyinvoked this provision to delay movingthe embassy, arguing that it was a vitalU.S. national interest not to disruptthe delicate peace talks still in progress.However, supporters of a speedyembassy move point out that the sitethat the U.S. has purchased for its newembassy in Israel is indisputably inWest Jerusalem, namely the part of thecity that has been under Israeli juris-diction since 1948. A move therewould not infringe upon or prejudicePalestinian claims. Slonim is very crit-ical of the “pattern of equivocation” bythe Administration with regard to theembassy matter, pointing out, as havemany members of Congress, that thisAmerican position is not helpfulbecause it may raise unrealisticPalestinian expectations that even WestJerusalem is negotiable! A similar pointwas made by Jerusalem Mayor EhudOlmert (during a visit to New York onFebruary 17, 2000), who rebutted theClinton position, arguing that “theopposite is true, namely, that refrain-ing from moving the embassy wouldbe detrimental to the peace processbecause it creates inflated and unrealis-tic expectations” among thePalestinians that leads them to reject “areal and genuine compromise.”

Reviewing the historical record,

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

Slonim notes that “throughout thecenturies pilgrims have journeyed toJerusalem to worship and to engage insupplication, study and contempla-tion. Freedom of access has ever beena critical issue in the existence of theCity, and it is a fundamental plank inAmerican policy on Jerusalem.”Because of the violent events of 1948and the tragic consequences of 19years of a divided city, when Jews weredenied access to the Old City and theWestern Wall, Slonim concludes “eversince 1967 American policy has beenpremised on one fundamental princi-ple critically linked with freedom ofaccess — that Jerusalem must neveragain be divided.”

I recommend Shlomo Slonim’s out-standing work not only to students ofhistory and diplomacy, but to all whoare politically active and concernedwith insuring that American policyremains faithful to this fundamentalprinciple.

As an Adjunct Professor of InternationalAffairs, Dr. George E. Gruen has taughtgraduate courses on American Politicsand the Arab-Israel Conflict atColumbia University’s School ofInternational and Public Affairs, andhas analyzed the evolution of Americanpolicy on Jerusalem in his annual articleson “The United States, Israel and TheMiddle East,” in the American JewishYear Book. From 1962 to 1990 he wasDirector of Israel & Middle East Affairsat the American Jewish Committee.Among his numerous publications is amonograph on Jerusalem and the PeaceProcess (New York: American JewishCommittee, International Perspectives# 23 (November 1993).

The 39 Melochos An Elucidation of the 39 Melochosfrom Concept to PracticalApplicationby Rabbi Dovid RibiatFeldheim Publishers, 1999Four Volumes, 2,794 pages Reviewed by Rabbi Leibel Rockove

For genera-tions Torah lead-ers have be-moaned thepaucity ofknowledge of thelaws of Shabbosand the resultantShabbos desecra-tion by the gen-eral population.Sophisticated

knowledge of the Shabbos laws is thepurview of a precious few. RabbiDovid Ribiat, author of The 39Melochos, suggests two possible reasonsfor this situation: Firstly, the Shabboslaws are extremely complex and pre-sent a challenge even for the talmidchacham. Secondly, the lack of a clear,structured presentation of the Shabboslaws in the Talmud and the ShulchanAruch makes it difficult to gain anoverall picture of the halachos. Theobject of Rabbi Ribiat’s work is to pre-sent the Shabbos laws in a systematicand logical sequence, enabling a clearunderstanding of those laws.

Our generation has seen a dramaticincrease in the thirst for Torah knowl-edge and understanding. People fromall walks of life are finding time todevote to Torah study. Laymen arenow expressing a genuine interest inacquiring a firm grasp of the laws thataffect them every week.

Even for those who benefited fromyears of yeshivah education, mastery ofthe Shabbos laws requires years ofstudy. In addition, modern technologypresents fresh problems and questionsrequiring technical understanding inaddition to halachic expertise. Thus,individuals on all levels of knowledgerequire an address to resolve their prac-tical questions and to provide anunderstanding of the underlying prin-ciples of the laws of Shabbos. The 39

Melachos is such a work.Upon studying its contents, the read-

er quickly senses that he is in the class-room of a master teacher, skillfullyguiding his students from the paradig-matic work performed in the Tabernacleto its modern day extrapolations. Forexample, we are shown how themelachah of boneh (building), whichoriginally involved constructing thewalls of the Mishkan, is a source forquestions about landscaping, arrangingrocks as a garden border, and even kick-ing a stone back to the place fromwhich it was dislodged.

An admirable aspect of this work isthat it keeps the reader abreast of themost recent questions. For example, afew years ago a controversy arose overwhether the use of a “crockpot” onShabbos violates the rabbinical restric-tion of hatmonoh (insulating). In clearand precise terms, the author presentsboth sides of the issue.

For the most advanced scholar, thereare two features of this sefer whichmake it invaluable: the extensive foot-notes and the practical informationthat the author has gathered, includinghis correspondence with manufacturersconcerning the makeup or use of theirproducts. One is impressed not onlyby the breadth of the author’s knowl-edge, but also by his mastery of thetechnical aspects essential to properlyapplying the halachah.

The work is enhanced by numero u sillustrations which concretely clarifythe concepts described. This vast re f e re n c ep rovides a firm foundation for thosei n t e rested in gaining a sophisticatedk n owledge of the laws of Shabbos. It isa monumental work and should serveas an invaluable s o u rce for Jews on all leve l sof know l e d g e .

Rabbi Rockove is rabbi of Khal NachlasAvos/Elmhurst Jewish Center (N.Y.). Heis currently on the faculty of ShevachHigh School. As of this Fall, he will bethe m e n a h e l of Mesivta of Roslyn (N.Y. ) .

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

The Heroic StruggleThe Arrest and Liberation of RabbiYosef Y. Schneersohn of Lubavitch inSoviet RussiaBy Rabbi Dr. Alter B. MetzgerKehot Publication SocietyBrooklyn, NY 1999344 pagesReviewed by Zalman Alpert

It may be saidthat while EretzYisrael was alwaysthe heart of theJewish people,Czarist Russiawas the soul ofthe Jewish peo-ple. In moderntimes, practicallyall major Jewish

intellectual, philosophical and mysticalsystems developed within the bound-aries of Russia. The Musar movementwas founded by Rav Israel Lipkin inLithuania. The Chassidic movementwas established by Rabbi Israel benEliezer in the Ukraine, and Chabad, avery specific offshoot of the Chassidicmovement, was formulated by RabbiSchneur Zalman of Liadi in WhiteRussia. The modern Yeshivah move-ment personified by the VolozhinerYeshivah, founded by Rabbi Chaim ofVolozhin in Lithuania, and its off-shoot, the Brisker derech — an analyti-cal approach to Talmudic study— wasfine-tuned by Rabbi ChaimSoloveitchik of Lithuania. TheReligious Zionist movement was for-mulated by such Russian rabbis asRabbi J.I. Reines and ShmuelMohiliver. Thus, until the start of theFirst World War in 1914, Russia wasthe spiritual and intellectual center ofWorld Jewry.

The “Great War” brought greatupheaval to Russian Jewry, but follow-ing the end of the war in 1918, it wasexpected that Russia would take itsplace again in the forefront of Jewishspiritual life. All of these expectationschanged with the establishment of theCommunist regime in Russia, and itssubsequent declaration of war againstall organized religion, including the

Jewish religion. Most of us know verylittle about this war against Judaism inSoviet Russia and even less knowabout how religious Jews resisted andfought back.

The Heroic Struggle details the trialsand tribulations of the sixthLubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Joseph I.Schneersohn (1888-1950) in SovietRussia, especially his arrest in 1927,his trial and his subsequent liberation.The translator and editor of this bookis the well-known Lubavitcher Chassid,Rabbi Dr. Alter B. Metzger, who is aprofessor of Jewish studies at SternCollege, Yeshiva University in NewYork. Dr. Metzger is the author ofseveral noteworthy monographs andarticles on the Lubavitch movement,as well as on the thought of the firstchief rabbi of Palestine, RabbiAbraham Isaac Kook.

In this volume, Metzger translatesthe diary of Rabbi Schneersohn as itrelates to his arrest and liberation.Also included are translations of sup-plemental sources authored by RabbiJoseph I. Schneersohn himself; hisson-in-law, Rabbi Menachem Mendel.Schneerson who succeeded him as theseventh and last Lubavitcher Rebbe;and by other Lubavitcher Chassidimclose to the events.

The result is a dramatic and emo-tionally charged account of the Rebbe’sarrest by the Communist regime; hisviolent interrogation; his noble behav-ior throughout his imprisonment; thefinal efforts to release him; and hissubsequent release and “exile” toLatvia. The diary represents an impor-tant spiritual document, a meditationon how deep personal courage basedon an abiding trust in Hashem, bita-chon, helped the Rebbe withstand hisinterrogation and imprisonment at thehands of the Communist security ser-vices. The Rebbe’s view of himself asthe successor to the Chabad leadershipgreatly assisted him in mustering themesirat nefesh needed to withstand thetactics of torture and confusion. Assuch, this volume serves to remind thereaders of the power of bitachon and ofthe mesirat nefesh of gedolei Yisrael intheir quest throughout the ages to pre-

serve Yiddishkeit. The translators andeditors deserve our thanks for bringingthese documents to the attention ofEnglish-speaking Jews.

There is no doubt about the factthat Rabbi Joseph I. Schneersohn wasthe central figure in Jewish religiousresistance to the Communist war onreligion, as well as the dominant rab-binic figure in Russia at this time. Heoperated a network of religious schools— yeshivot and chedarim — amongstother religious activities. RabbiSchneersohn united practically all seg-ments of Russian religious Jewry underhis leadership, including Mitnagdim,other Chassidic groups and Russia’sOriental Jewish communities, includ-ing the Bucharian ,Georgian andMountain Jews. In fact, most otherimportant rabbis decided to leaveRussia after the Communist regimewas in power. For a short while, theNavardok musar yeshivah network wasvery active in the Ukraine; but they,too, made a decision to leave theSoviet Union. With their departure,the last significant vestige ofLithuanian yeshivot departed fromSoviet Russia. In addition, individualgedolim such as Rav Chaim Ozerdecided to return to Vilna fromYekatrinislov and the saintly ChofetzChaim decided to leave Russia forRadin, now in Poland. As recorded byhis biographer, Rabbi Moshe M.Yashar, the Chofetz Chaim stated yearslater that he regretted his decision, andfelt that he should have stayed andfought the Communists for the preser-vation of Jewish religious life.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in the vol-ume before us is the author’s failure toprovide the reader with the appropri-ate historical background informationconcerning the ongoing struggle of theCommunist Party, and its Jewishhenchmen, against traditional Jewishreligious institutions and values. Inaddition, very little is related detailingthe actual activities of the Rebbe inRussia. While we are informed of theRebbe’s arrest, we are left in the dark asto why the Rebbe was arrested. Thusthe actual background of his arrest isglossed over. Several introductory

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

pages by the late Dr. WilliamBrickman are included with this inmind, yet they fail to convey the truehistorical background of the Rebbe’sarrest. Thus for all its value and poweras a document of mesirat nefesh, thevolume is transformed into a chronicleof suffering and resistance — of impor-tance chiefly to those seeking spiritualinspiration in their faith. As such, itsimportance is more in the realm of anethical, awe-inspiring and didactictract, rather than a work of history.

In fact, the Rebbe’s arrest must beframed against the all out Communistwar against religion. The Communistregime fought all organized religion,including the Russian OrthodoxChurch, the Roman Catholic Churchin the Ukraine and the Muslim reli-gion in Asiatic Russia. This struggletook a particularly amazing turn inregards to Judaism, due to the fact thatJudaism’s chief opponents wereCommunist Jews who actually advo-cated the persecution of religious Jews.Organized as the Yevsektzia (the Jewishsection of the Communist party),these misguided Jews sought to createa Godless, secular, Yiddish-speakingJewish life in Russia. In regards to thearrest of the Rebbe, however, it mustbe noted that in the years 1921-1926— that is, the early years of the SovietNew Economic Policy (NEP) — thisstruggle against religion was not yetgoing full blast. This allowed theLubavitcher Rebbe to organize many ofhis educational and religious endeavorsin a quasi-legal manner. In addition,the Rebbe was involved in an intensepower struggle with the organizedJewish Community of Leningrad(LERO), headed by Lev Gurevich, aformer Zionist activist, and by its chiefrabbi, the famous Lithuanian gaon, theSuvalker Rav, Rabbi David TevelKatzenellenbogen (1850-1930).

LERO was the best organized Jewishreligious community in CommunistRussia. In 1927, the leaders of LEROwished to call an all-Russian Jewishreligious conference to discuss manyreligious issues as well as the establish-ment of a rabbinical seminary. Thisconference sought to extend the influ-

ence of LERO throughout Russia.Since LERO was supported byZionists and Maskilim, the Rebbe sawthis proposed conference as a gravethreat to Orthodox religious life, aswell as to his own activities in Russia,which included a Beit MidrashL’rabbonim in Nevel that trained reli-gious functionaries, as well as a net-work of smaller yeshivot throughoutRussia.

In brief, the Rebbe felt that LEROwas dominated by more modernJewish elements and was probablyinfiltrated by Communists. TheRebbe’s activities were chiefly fundedby the American Jewish JointDistribution Committee, and theRebbe may have seen LERO’s activitiesas a threat to this funding. In addi-tion, he felt their true goal was toreform Jewish life through the creationof a modern rabbinical seminary totrain modern rabbis. All attempts bythe Rebbe to dissuade RabbiKatzenellenbogen from supporting thisconference came to naught. Fromexisting sources it is unclear whatLERO was really after, though in allprobability the Rebbe was on to some-thing. However, before the conferencecould be realized, the Rebbe wasarrested. What exactly instigated thearrest is hard to pinpoint. In fact, by1927 the Communist war on religionwas in full swing and the Rebbe wasaccurately seen by the Communistsand their Jewish lackies as the chiefthreat to their hegemony over Jewishlife. Thus, Lubavitch sources implythat his arrest by the Communistregime was instigated by some LEROactivists. This seems doubtful, as soonafterwards, in 1929, ChairmanGurevich was also arrested, togetherwith numerous other LERO leaders.Rabbi Katzenellenbogen died a naturaldeath in 1930 and LERO itself wasdisbanded that year, although it hadceased to function by early 1929.

Both the Rebbe and LERO eventul-ly had successor organizations.Lubavitch activities continue in Russiauntil this very day. Undergroundyeshivot, schools, shechitah and mikvaotcontinued to function, even after the

Rebbe’s exile. LERO activities contin-ued as official synagogues in importantRussian cities.

Finally, I must sadly note anotherexample at attempted revisionism inrecording Jewish history. AlthoughRabbi Metzger has done an excellentjob in translating these essays intoEnglish, his identity as a Chassid tookprecedence, in one instance, over hisrole as an academic. First let me pref-ace by stating that I have been familiarwith the original materials since myteenage years, and their emotion-charged impact had me re-readingthem many times. In 1997, anotherofficial Lubavitch publishing houseissued a translation of the central partof the Rebbe’s diary under the title APrince in Prison, translated by UriKaploun. After reading the new trans-lation, I compared it with Kaploun’stranslation. It is then that I noticedthat a number of short paragraphs hadbeen omitted by Rabbi Metzger. Thusthe arrested Rebbe’s last words in hishome, prior to leaving for the Sovietjail, were a brachah to his little grand-son (his only grandchild), Sholom BerGourary, son of his daughter and elderson-in-law Rabbi Shmaryahu Gourary(died 1990). The Rebbe blessed hisgrandson in his crib with tremendousand very meaningful brachot, amongstthem “that this child grow to be thegreatest of his brothers.” (Since youngSholom Ber had no actual brothers, themeaning here is clear.) Rabbi Metzgertakes care of these blessings with thefollowing line, “I also went to give mydeparting blessing to my grandson whowas sleeping in his crib...”(page 38),thereby omitting four paragraphsincluded in Kaploun’s English transla-tion from the original text.

To those readers familiar with theevents within the Lubavitch communi-ty of the last 10 years, these omissionsare understandable. Sholom BerGourary, now known as BarryGourary and his mother, RebbetzinChanah Gourary, contested the sev-enth Lubavitcher Rebbe’s decisionregarding the fate of the library ofRabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn. This

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

led to a series of ugly court battles andthe blacklisting in Chabad history ofBarry Gourary, his mother and theprevious Rebbe’s private secretary andlibrarian, Reb Chaim Lieberman.Alas, this blacklisting continues inMetzger’s otherwise fine volume.

Rabbi Joseph I. Schneersohndeserves to go down in Jewish historyas the defender of the faith in one ofthe most tragic phases of Jewish histo-ry. Indeed, he deserved the titlebestowed upon him by theMunkatcher Rebbe, Rabbi HayimEleazar Shapira: “Der Russische Leyb,”the Russian Lion.

Zalman Alpert is reference librarian atthe Mendel Gottesman Library ofJudaica at Yeshiva University.

Sefer HaKuzariby Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, translated(from the original Arabic into Hebrew,with the original Arabic edition) andannotated by Rabbi Yosef Kafach Machon Mishnat HaRambam Kiryat Ono, 1997234 pagesCurrently out of print. For informa-tion, call 011-972-3-535-1119.

The Kuzari: In Defense of theDespised Faith by Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, translated(from Hebrew into English, with theoriginal Hebrew translation of RabbiYehudah ibn Tibbon) and annotated byRabbi N. Daniel KorobkinJason AronsonNorthvale, N.J., 1998507 pagesReviewed by Rabbi Chaim Eisen

During the past years, we havebegun to witness a burgeoning revivalof interest in the great pillars of classicJewish thought, passed down to usfrom the giants who were the rishonim(early rabbinical commentators).These pathfinders, perhaps more thanany others, have the potential not onlyto arouse academic interest but touplift and inspire us. Their newfoundpopularity may be the best antidote tothe crisis of faith and meaning thatseems so rampant in our alienated,antiseptic society.

Most recently, this renaissance hasbeen crowned with the release of twonew translations (one into Hebrewand one into English, as well as at leastone additional, newly annotated edi-tion) of one of the most profoundclassics of them all: Rabbi YehudahHaLevi’s Book of Response and Supporton Behalf of the Disgraced Faith —more commonly known by its latertitle, The Kuzari. The ongoing activitythat surrounds this monumental workeloquently testifies to its enduring sig-nificance and undiminished relevance,over 850 years after its author’sdemise. Any devoted student ofJewish thought must be heartened bythese developments; as the Vilna Gaonnoted, “Sefer HaKuzari is holy andpure; the fundamentals of the faith ofYisrael and the Torah depend upon it”(Tosefot Ma‘aseh Rav, 15).

The Trouble with Translations

To most readers who are only mar-ginally familiar with Rabbi YehudahHaLevi’s masterpiece, the book’s osten-sibly increasing renown must appear asbaffling as the Vilna Gaon’s singularassessment of it. If anything, thebook’s literary style (manifestly conver-sational and placed quasi-historicallyin an oriental, royal court that predat-ed even the author by four centuries)may intensify the sense that it is dated,even as it enhances its readability. Forthe most part, available translationshave further augmented this antiqueand arcane flavor, to the book’s detri-ment, and compromised its accessibili-ty as well. English-language readers

were forced to subsist on a 1905 trans-lation that employs a forbiddinglyarchaic style. Even Hebrew speakerswere constrained, until less than fortyyears ago, to depend upon the meticu-lous but cumbersome original transla-tion from Arabic, undertaken byRabbi Yehudah ibn Tibbon within ageneration of the book’s first release.

Ironically, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’schoice of language for his magnumopus was undoubtedly prompted pri-marily by his concerns for its readabili-ty and accessibility. Arabic was notonly the spoken tongue of much ofRabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s intendedreadership. It was also a language thathad already metamorphosed into oneof smooth philosophical expression,thanks largely to the translation intoArabic of most of the classics of Greekphilosophy during the ninth and tenthcenturies C.E.. The analogous adapta-tion of Hebrew into such a mode ofexpression began only in the twelfthcentury C.E., under the aegis of suchgreat medieval translators as RabbiYehudah ibn Tibbon (the “father oftranslators”) and his eminent descen-dants (at least three generations ofwhom were noted translators fromArabic to Hebrew). Understandably,this process initially demanded coinageof new words and phrases in Hebrew— and the consequent unwieldy syn-tax that is endemic to the painstakingibn Tibbon editions. In contrast,expressing philosophical concepts inlucid, fluid prose was surely amongRabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s principal con-siderations in forgoing the opportunityto write in the Hebrew he adored,even as he interpolated untranslatedHebrew quotations (from classicJewish sources) throughout his text.

The special problems that facedmedieval translators of Arabic intoHebrew underscore the complexity oftranslation work in general. As isobvious to all who review Onkelos’sAramaic translation of the Torah indischarging our obligation to study theweekly portion with “targum,” a trans-lator is perforce an interpreter; the fin-ished product is necessarily a commen-tary on the original. This realization

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

prompted Rabbi Shmuel ibn Tibbon(Rabbi Yehudah’s son) to solicitRambam’s advice before embarking onhis translation of the latter’s MorehHaNevochim (Guide of the Perplexed).Rambam’s reply stressed the need toabandon literal, word-by-word transla-tion, in favor of a less rigorous render-ing: “The translator from one lan-guage to another must first understandthe matter and afterward relate andexpound and explain [it] well, in amanner through which that matterwill be understood … according to[the syntax of] the language intowhich he is translating.” This liberalapproach is especially startling, givenRambam’s admonition in MorehHaNevochim’s introduction, to thosewho “desire to apprehend all that issaid in it,” “not … merely to under-stand the general matter of each chap-ter, but also to comprehend everyword that is said in it [apparently] bythe way … for nothing was said in thistreatise incidentally — rather, withgreat precision and extreme care.…”The conflict between Rambam’s sternwarning to the serious reader on theone hand and his relaxed stated atti-tude concerning translations on theother highlights the translator’s dilem-ma to this day.

As an historical postscript, weshould note that (regardless ofRambam’s professed gratitude for thefinished translation) Rabbi Shmuelibn Tibbon fairly ignored his mentor’slenient advice. Ibn Tibbon transla-tions in general are known (and noto-rious) for their attempts at literal,scholarly precision, even at the expenseof readability. Yet, it is to these veryqualities that the ibn Tibbon editionsowe their definitive importance. Incontrast, Rabbi Yehudah al-Charizi’stranslation of Moreh HaNevochimemployed a style that is arguably farmore consonant with Rambam’s sug-gestions for nonliteral rendering.While his version also suffers frominaccuracies, its nonliteral, less exactstyle certainly bears much responsibili-ty for its relative obscurity. The com-parison between the styles of the ibnTibbon and al-Charizi renditions

(accuracy notwithstanding) aptly illus-trates the predicament of the translatorwho strives to be both readable andright. Only in this light can any seri-ous translation — such as those byRabbi Kafach and Rabbi Korobkin —be evaluated.

The Uniqueness of Sefer HaKuzari’sMessage — to Us

Before considering the specific mer-its of the newest translations of RabbiYehudah HaLevi’s classic, some appre-ciation of the book’s enduring signifi-cance and relevance is clearly in order.The Vilna Gaon’s statement (quotedabove) and numerous similar approba-tions through the ages testify to thesingular role that Sefer HaKuzari hasfilled historically. Directly bearing onthis role is the momentous circum-stance cited above: the translation intoArabic of most of the classics of Greekrationalist philosophy during the cen-turies preceding Rabbi YehudahHaLevi’s birth.

The infiltration of rationalist philos-ophy into — and its eventual ascen-dancy in — much of the medieva lMoslem world imposed upon Ju d a i s m(as well as Islam) a new set of chal-lenges that had never before beene x p l i c i t l y, systematically addre s s e d( e xcept perhaps to a degree by Philo ofAlexandria). Although clearly allauthentically Jewish responses to thesechallenges we re based upon Bi b l i c a l ,Talmudic, and Midrashic literature, theformulations themselves we re perf o rc ei n n ova t i ve. Thus, the rise of rational-ism was a major factor in the gre a tblossoming of classic Jewish philoso-p h y, which took place in the medieva l ,Arabic-speaking world. (In light ofthese challenges, it is by no means inci-dental that Rabbi Yehudah Ha L e v inamed his masterpiece “A Book ofResponse and Su p p o rt on Behalf of theD i s g raced Fa i t h” and introduced “t h e[Aristotelian] philosopher” at thebeginning of the book.) We shoulds t ress that, since we still live in what isprimarily a rationalist (or pseudora-tionalist) society, the challenges facedby Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi and his con-

temporaries and their responses are noless timely — or cogent — today.

In a broad sweep (which, within thescope of this ove rv i ew, must suffice),almost all the Jewish responses to ratio-nalist philosophy that emerged duringthe early medieval period attempted, insome fashion, to reconcile the ostensi-bly conflicting We l t a n s c h a u u n g e n o fJudaism and philosophy. This re c o n-ciliation was effected by diverse means.(We certainly are not implying ane q u i valence among the disparate Ne o -Platonic, Aristotelian, and Kala’ a m i s ta p p roaches developed during this peri-od, nor is it our intention to eva l u a t ethe different systems that aro s e . )Howe ve r, while the relationship to, ande ven the definition of, philosophy va r-ied widely, the basic attitude thatJudaism can and must be viewe dt h rough some prism of reasoning waspractically axiomatic. This perspectiveis probably best exemplified byRambam: Although Rambam unhesi-tatingly rejects Aristotle’s conclusionsw h e re he finds them deficient andincompatible with the fundamentals ofthe Torah, his philosophical inquiry isn e ve rtheless predicated upon subjectingJudaism to the tools and premises ofrational analysis.

In dramatic contrast to all the classicsof Jewish philosophy that emerged dur-ing this period articulating these vari-ous approaches, Sefer HaKuzari stands,virtually alone. This does not meanthat Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi denigratedreasoning or opposed using one’s intel-lect. On the contrary, in consideringthe order of the blessings in the dailyAmidah prayer, he observes, “Amongthe supplications, the one taking prece-dence is the request for intellect andunderstanding, for through them a per-son can reach closeness to his God.Therefore, ‘You grant knowledge to man’precedes [all the rest]” (HaKuzari3:19). More generally, he exclaims,“God forbid that any matter of Torahcontradict the testimony of direct observa-tion or that which has been proven bylogic!” (1:67), and “God forbid that webelieve in that which is impossible or thatwhich the intellect rejects and regards asimpossible!” (1:89). Furthermore, in the

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

script that provides Sefer HaKuzari’s lit-erary framework, it is surely no acci-dent that the first scholar summonedby the Khazar king after embarking onhis religious odyssey is a philosopher.

Yet, in Rabbi Yehudah Ha L e v i’s story(as in an earlier tale related to R.Chisdai ibn Sh a p rut by the Khazarking Yo s e f, re g a rding his pre d e c e s s o r ) ,philosophical speculation does notp rompt the king’s quest. Instead, thee n t i re book is predicated upon a dre a mthat relates a message thre a d e dt h roughout the text: “Your intentionsa re desirable before God, but your deedsa re undesira b l e” (1:1). To the philoso-pher who is focused principally uponthought, any statement ascribingintrinsic significance to deed (asopposed to gauging the value of deedm e rely as that which engenders goodintentions or attests re t ro s p e c t i vely totheir presence) is patently absurd .C o n ve r s e l y, through this starting point,the king assumes the reality of ani n s c rutable experience (and one asutterly subjective as a dream!), not onlyto spur his theological search but alsoto dismiss, as irre l e vant to that searc h ,the position of the philosopher (whichis incompatible with the dre a m’s mes-sage) — whose words the king singu-larly judges to be sensible (1:2). Su re l y,Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi did not expectto convince his readers with a facileargument based upon a dream thatnone of them ever experienced!

To appreciate fully the critical roleand message of this opening dream, weought first to consider an equallyimportant dream, which appears evenmore enigmatically at the beginning ofthe book’s second treatise, followingover one hundred paragraphs of dis-course between the king and theJewish sage: “Afterward, what isdescribed in the history books of theKhazars took place: The king revealedthe secret of his dream to his vizier;and, in the dream that now recurred tohim, he was told to go to the mountainsof Warsan, to seek there the deed desiredbefore God. And the two walkedtogether — the king and the vizier —to those mountains in the wildernessbeyond the sea; and, one night, they

happened upon a certain cave, towhich a group of Jews would come torest every Shabbat. [The king and thevizier] revealed themselves to them andentered into their faith, being circum-cised in that cave” (2:1). In otherwords, according to this startling nar-rative, the king’s embrace of Judaismwas not prompted by any convictionthat resulted from the extensive dia-logues of the book’s first treatise at all.Indeed, one can scarcely avoid notinghow “fortunate” it was that the kingand the vizier stumbled into the“right” cave altogether (as opposed toone in which Christians or Moslemsmight have congregated). One wouldthink that the book’s tone would havebeen far more resolute had the king, atthe end of the first treatise, simplythrust up his hands and exclaimed,“Eureka! I am convinced! Convertme!” One cannot help wonderingwhy Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi chosesuch an implausible — and even coun-terproductive — scenario for the king’sconversion, effectively robbingJudaism of the ideological victory thebook might otherwise have portrayed.

To the conscientious reader, whobothers to ask such questions, RabbiYehudah HaLevi’s message here is assubtle as a well-aimed brick: With alldue respect to reasoning and the intel-lectual discourse that Sefer HaKuzaricomprises, these will never lead theking — or anyone else, including us— to embrace a religion. The kingdeems only the (Aristotelian) philoso-pher’s statement sensible, a characteri-zation he neither retracts nor appliesto any religion — Judaism included.Conversely, the king never refutesChristianity or Islam on rationalgrounds. He is unwilling to accept theChristian’s religious interpretations ofhistorical experiences, “because theyare new to me, and I was not rearedon them” (1:5) — hardly a disproof!Instead, he concludes by expressing hiscommitment to “investigate” further,without discounting the possibilitythat his search might one day bringhim back to Christianity. Even moreblatantly, the king’s initial refusal toembrace Islam stems from his inability

to understand Arabic, a prerequisiteof being impressed by the putativedivinity of the (untranslated) Koran(1:6). But illiteracy in Arabic wouldsurely be a weak argument if regardedas a refutation of Islam — particularlyamong the book’s original readership,in Arabic, who clearly had no suchencumbrance and might take the argu-ment as a tacit invitation to beginstudying the Koran! The king’s reluc-tance to adopt either religion shouldtherefore not be misconstrued as rejec-tion; it simply underscores the extentto which embracing any religion ispredicated upon subscribing to someset of subjective experiences.

As Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s kingstates explicitly, his eventual summonsof the Jew is intended not as a lastresort after other religions are defeatedbut rather to provide crucial clarifica-tion for the basic experiential notionof divine revelation. This, the kingcomes to recognize, is a necessary pre-condition for adopting any religion,including Christianity and Islam.Thus, on the one hand, since heappreciates the Jews’ unique signifi-cance as “the demonstration that God’slaw is revealed on earth” (1:10), hefeels compelled to probe, through theJewish scholar, this experiential basis ofJewish belief. On the other hand, incontrast to his questioning theChristian and Moslem about their“ideas and practices” (1:4-5), the kinginitially asks the Jew only about “hisbelief” (1:10), because he is not eveni n t e rested in the Jewish religion per se (1:4).

In this manner, Rabbi YehudahHaLevi lays his groundwork for thecentral focus of Judaism upon thedivine experience. Theology is con-spicuously absent from the Jewishsage’s opening statement (1:11);instead, he speaks exclusively of histor-ical experiences. Moreover, he findsprecedents for this approach in bothMoshe’s introductory declaration toPharaoh and God’s first words in theDecalogue (1:25). The emphasis isplaced not on rationally mediatedthought but on a divinely initiatedexperience so intense — “seeing isbelieving” — that it supersedes reason-

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

ing in molding our conception of real-ity (1:5). Characteristically, when theking asks his Jewish mentor to explainthrough what natural course ofsociopolitical evolution Judaism arose,the latter responds, “In such a manneronly systems that are based on humanreason are established and born, sincethey are innovated by people.… Notso regarding the system that has itsorigin in God: It was formed at once.[God] said to it, ‘Be!’ and it was — justas in the creation of the world” (1:81).

It is especially instructive to considerthe archetypal role played by Avrahamin Sefer HaKuzari’s system.Predictably, Rambam would portraythe patriarch as a model philosopher,who “while [still] small, began to rovewith his mind” (Mishneh Torah,Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3; see alsoMoreh HaNevochim 2:13 and 3:24,29).In comparison, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevifinds greatness principally in tran-scending that philosophical mode:“Avraham [in contrast to the philoso-phers] successfully endured Ur Kasdim,the wandering, the circumcision, thebanishment of Yishmael, and the bind-ing of Yitzchak in preparation for hisslaughter — because he apprehendedwhat he did of the divine essence expe-rientially, not through reasoning. Hesaw clearly that none of the details ofhis life was concealed from the eyes ofGod and further saw that God was rec-ompensing him continually for hisrighteous deeds and guiding him in theupright path.… And how then couldAvraham but mock his earlier logicalreasoning?” (HaKuzari 4:17; see also4:27). In the same vein, on a commu-nal level, the divine experiences atten-dant to the Exodus, culminating in therevelation at Sinai, supplanted all thephilosophical speculation that thenation might have previously enter-tained: “All those futile rationalesdeparted with that great event” (1:87).

In this light, we may discern RabbiYehudah HaLevi’s motive in hinginghis protagonist’s odyssey — and hisentire book — on the subjective expe-rience of a dream. Granted, none ofus ever shared the king’s dream. Thephilosopher is surely justified in ignor-

ing it. Yet, for the king, his dream —his experiential starting point — isreal. And this is all that really matters!We, too, have an experiential startingpoint; our relentless search for truth,like the king’s, does not take place in asterile, intellectual vacuum. The his-torical experiences of the Jewish peo-ple, to which we relate either directlyor vicariously — compounded incre-mentally by our own personal experi-ences of purpose, value, spirituality,and ultimately God — are all signifi-cant to us. While these lack theephemerality of dreams, they sharewith all human experiences the sameinescapable bounds of subjectivity —yet, they are meaningful and convinc-ing to us, nonetheless. A completehuman being (as opposed to a post-modern, self-inflicted, intellectualamputee) is, first and foremost, anexperiential being, endowed with suchnonrational senses as love and beauty.There is more to a person than reason-ing; there is more to life than thatwhich is rationally scrutable — andthere is more to Judaism than a philo-sophical construct. As Rabbi YehudahHaLevi observes (3:17), whenever weapproach God through the Amidahprayer, we first address Him experien-tially as the God of history — “ourGod and the God of our forefathers,”etc. — and as the God of nature,“Causer of the wind to blow and of therain to fall.” Only afterward do wegrapple with the abstract philosophicalconcepts implicit in the blessing “Youare holy,” etc. We appeal to our expe-riences, rather than our reasoning, asthe primary basis of our relationshipwith God (3:5).

Two anomalous but critical words,quoted in the book’s preface, are par-ticularly noteworthy here: “vehamask-ilim yavinu [lit. but the intelligent willunderstand]” (Daniel 12:10). Insertedincongruously immediately after RabbiYehudah HaLevi’s portrayal of thebook’s literary framework — with theKhazar king’s dream and his pursuantquest — this citation is all the moreintriguing, considering its usage inother classic works. For example, theexpression is mentioned or para-

phrased repeatedly (almost 20 times)in the Biblical commentary of RabbiYehudah HaLevi’s younger colleague,Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra, and in thelater Torah commentaries of Ramban(over 50 times) and Rabbeinu Bachyaiben Asher (almost 30 times).

Ty p i c a l l y, its context is esoteric; thephrase is used to cap a cryptic passage,intimating that only the initiated“m a s k i l i m” may succeed in fathomingthe unspoken implications of the fore-going. In Sefer Ha Ku z a r i’s pre f a c e ,h owe ve r, we might have failed tonotice anything exceptionally pro-found! Perhaps this phrase, with itsconnotations of concealment, alludessubtly to Rabbi Yehudah Ha L e v i’s hid-den agenda in basing his entire bookon the subjective experience of a dre a m— and his attendant message of thedivine experience, which permeates thetext. Only the “m a s k i l i m” can appre c i-ate that all of Sefer Ha Ku z a r i is encap-sulated in the quaint story on its firstpage. The book’s framew o rk alre a d ysets it apart from all its alternative s .

In a world that often seems stifledby rationalism, the song of SeferHaKuzari — by our foremost poet —soothes like a breath of fresh air. In itswake, we should seek the significanceof doing a mitzvah not in the analyti-cal depths of our rational understand-ing of it but rather in the exhilaratingheights of our experience of it(HaKuzari 2:26). Thus, the book sokeenly resonates with the Torah. Afterall, Judaism appears far more an“orthopraxis,” focused on correct prac-tical applications — living Torahthrough doing mitzvot — than an“orthodoxy,” defined in terms of theo-retical adherence to accepted, rightopinions, such as the mitzvot’s allegedphilosophical import. This is the mes-sage affirmed by the king’s first dreamand reiterated throughout the text(e.g., 1:98, 2:50,56, and 3:23); whiledesirable “intentions” and other ethe-real thoughts may be valuable, specifi-cally the experiential “deeds” them-selves are decisive. As the rabbi avers,“If, after having completed the deed asyou were commanded, you beheld afire from heaven, or you found within

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

yourself a different spirit to which youhad been unaccustomed, or portentousdreams were shown to you or won-drous signs — you will immediatelyknow that all these derive from the deedthat you had done earlier and that greatmatter to which you had cleaved andwhich you had reached” (3:53).

More generally, Sefer HaKuzarienjoins us to brave life’s vicissitudes byconnecting experientially to the “largerpicture” of everything around us(3:11). Ultimately, by directing us tobe especially sensitive, of all our expe-riences, to the divine essence in ourlives, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi not onlyequips us with the fortitude to tran-scend the challenge of the rationalistphilosopher. He provides us with thewherewithal to prevail in the face of allthe challenges of life itself. Herein liesthe uniqueness of his masterpiece’smessage to us.

A Translator’s Rights — and Wrongs

For those Arabic-illiterates among us(including this re v i ewer), constrainedto study Sefer Ha Ku z a r i in translation,some of the semantic nuances that va l i-date the above thesis may seem tenu-ous and there f o re unsettling. T h e re is awe l l - k n own joke about a rabbinicalscholar who dedicated his life to re s o l v-ing apparent contradictions betwe e nsubtleties in Rambam’s Mishneh To ra h,learning — upon confronting Rambamhimself in the World of Truth — thatthe supposed subtleties he had so stru g-gled to reconcile we re simply latercopying errors. I can attest to the anal-ogous consternation of deriving fro mpassages in Sefer Ha Ku z a r i c o n c l u s i o n sthat lacked credence when sought in ana l t e r n a t i ve translation.

As a case in point, after dwelling(above) on the meaning of the crypticphrase “vehamaskilim yavinu” (Daniel12:10) in Sefer HaKuzari’s preface, Iwas appalled to find that the 1905English translation simply deleted theterm altogether! As corroborated byRabbi Kafach’s edition, which featuresthe Arabic source in facing columnswith his Hebrew translation, theexpression does appear in Rabbi

Yehudah HaLevi’s original text, as aHebrew interpolation. In contrast tothe 1905 version, Rabbi Korobkin evi-dently grappled with these words, ren-dering them, “Hopefully, perceptivereaders will gain much understandingfrom [the rabbi’s arguments]” (p. 2).The dilemma of the translator as inter-preter, outlined above, is clearly mani-fest. On the one hand, a literal rendi-tion (“but the intelligent will under-stand”) sounds relatively recondite.On the other hand, while it is surely avast improvement over the 1905 edi-tion’s glaring omission, one wonders towhat extent Rabbi Korobkin’s moreapproachable adaptation preserves theauthor’s intent.

In a broader sense, this question offaithfulness to the source underliesRabbi Kafach’s preface to his transla-tion and many of his footnotes, whichscathingly attack the popular modernHebrew translation of Sefer HaKuzariby Yehudah Even Shmuel. In his pref-ace, Rabbi Kafach argues that EvenShmuel “in many places changed [theoriginal] beyond recognition, advancedand delayed [passages], added anddetracted, and claimed that he wasincorporating his commentary into thewords of Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi” (p.6). The publisher’s foreword charges“that Even Shmuel tampered excessive-ly with the text, and his conceptualtranslation, as distinguished from a lit-eral translation, at times is transformedinto an adaptation rather than a trans-lation.… Are we not sinning againstourselves, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, andscientific truth, when we blur the dis-tinction between a translation and anadaptation?” (p. 2).

To be fair (as Rabbi Kafach notes),Even Shmuel explicitly admits that“according to the translationalapproach that I have taken, my com-mentary is incorporated into my trans-lation” (Translator’s Preface, p. 74).More generally, he asserts that,inevitably, “every metarggem [transla-tor] is always, in every generation, alsoa meturggeman [interpreter], a com-mentator” (ibid., p. 60). Indeed, hequotes Rambam’s aforementionedadvice on translations as justification

for his liberal course (ibid.). Yet, evensuch incontestable arguments canhardly provide a license for major,unattested modifications, merely forthe sake of enhanced accessibility. Andeven a cursory comparison with thestructure and order of the originalindicates that Even Shmuel took greatliberties in his rendition.

Returning to Rabbi Korobkin’s trans-lation, following a careful comparisonwith the Hebrew translations of RabbiYehudah ibn Tibbon and YehudahEven Shmuel, upon which it is based— as well as the new translation ofRabbi Kafach — one cannot help pon-dering anew many of the issues thatRabbi Kafach raises concerning EvenShmuel. Rabbi Korobkin also quotesRambam’s advice on translations, andhis prose is certainly straightforwardand readable. For English-languagereaders, his edition may well fill a roleparallel to that of Even Shmuel’s popu-lar version, which may remain the pre-ferred choice of many Hebrew-speak-ing beginners. Furthermore, RabbiKorobkin’s appendices, especially onsome of the subjects that may eludemany students (such as Greek philoso-phy, the date line, and Hebrew gram-mar) present plainspoken overviewsthat can facilitate understanding diffi-cult passages of the text. These appen-dices and many of Rabbi Korobkin’sfootnotes render some of the relativelycomplex sections of Sefer HaKuzarimore readily approachable. Still, oneagain feels repeatedly forced to wonderwhether too many liberties were takenin adapting Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’sbook rather than more rigorouslytranslating it.

Undoubtedly, in some instances, thevery act of translating from translationshas exacerbated this problem, since theArabic source was not consulted. Whiledwelling on particular examples wouldbe inappropriate here, I feel obliged tocite one with crucial Halachic conse-quences. After Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’sking solicits and receives from hisJewish mentor a list of Talmudic andMidrashic statements in praise of thevirtue of living in Eretz Yisrael, theking accuses the latter of “being lax in

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

the obligations of your Torah, for youdo not strive to dwell in this place”(HaKuzari 2:23). Both the reference to“obligations of your Torah” and thecontext (the Jewish sage was not aninhabitant of Eretz Yisrael, nor was heleaving it) indicate clearly that thebook presents the mitzvah of dwellingin the Land as mandatory for all Jewseverywhere. The sage’s reply, uncondi-tionally admitting his (and our) “sin”and conceding the resultant hypocrisyof our liturgical references to “Tzion”(2:24), certainly leaves no room fordoubt regarding Rabbi YehudahHaLevi’s position. His only mitigatinghalachic consideration would be theexemption of “onès” (i.e., constrainedby circumstances beyond one’s con-trol), the same grounds that exempt ustoday from restoring the Temple ser-vice, which is indisputably mandatoryas well. Therefore, the king’s indict-ment is specifically for failing to “striveto dwell” in the Land, since successfulaliyah, especially in Rabbi YehudahHaLevi’s lifetime, was far from assured(see 5:23). The halachic ramificationsof this position nowadays, when EretzYisrael is so accessible, are obvious:Aliyah is an “obligation of your Torah,”not merely an option.

Unfortunately, while all the Hebrewtranslations accurately render theArabic “chak” as “obligation,” in theEuropean editions of Rabbi Yehudahibn Tibbon’s translation, the unvow-elized “bechovat” (“in the obligation of[your Torah]”) was spelt deficiently(without the vav). Evidently, RabbiYehudah Moscato consequently mis-took it, in his Kol Yehudah commen-tary, for “bechibbat” (“in the affectionfor [your Torah]”). Thus, RabbiKorobkin incorrectly renders the king’scharge as “you must have limited affec-tion for your Torah” (p. 79). This erro-neously implies that not striving todwell in Eretz Yisrael displays a lack ofaffection but does not (also) violate anobligation — definitely not SeferHaKuzari’s ruling. Ironically, in theversion of Rabbi Yehudah ibn Tibbon’stranslation printed in Rabbi Korobkin’sappendix, “bechovat” is spelt unam-biguously, with the vav (p. 389). It is

spelt similarly in other modern releasesof the ibn Tibbon translation (follow-ing Hartwig Hirschfeld’s critical edi-tion of 1887), including those of Dr.A. Tzifroni (Tel Aviv: MachbarotLeSafrut, 1948) and Rabbi MordechaiGenizi (Tel Aviv: A. Tzioni, 1969).

In Rabbi Korobkin’s second appen-dix, “On Living in Israel,” he grappleswith “the rationale for living outside ofIsrael” (p. 321), considering the posi-tion articulated by Rabbi YehudahHaLevi in his book. Rabbi Korobkinpresents the views of Ramban and theTosafist Rabbeinu Chaim, concludingwith a responsum of Rabbi MosheFeinstein. This responsum derivesfrom Rambam (in Mishneh Torah,Hilchot Melachim 5:9) that the mitz-vah of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael dictates“that only for the inhabitants of EretzYisrael, there is a prohibition [to leavethe Land], which the Sages instituted.But, from the aspect of the positive[commandment], it is not mandatory;rather, when one dwells there, one ful-fills a mitzvah” (Iggerot Moshe, EvenHaEzer 1:102). As Rabbi Korobkinrightly notes, “This is the distinctionbetween a mitzvah chiyuvith — a com-mandment that, if not fulfilled, bringspunishment — and a mitzvahkiyumith, a commandment for whichone is rewarded for fulfilling, but isnot punished for not fulfilling [sic]”(p. 323, n. 8). However, while this isirrefutably Rambam’s position, itseems inappropriate, particularly in anedition of Sefer HaKuzari, to ignoreRabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s (earlier) rul-ing, which explicitly differs. Given thepractical halachic implications of thisposition for Diaspora Jewry, one hopesthat, in future printings of his book,Rabbi Korobkin will correct this errorin his translation and emend hisappendix accordingly.

Despite these and similar short c o m-ings, Rabbi Ko robkin should be com-mended for providing the En g l i s h - l a n-guage public with an eminently re a d-able edition of Sefer Ha Ku z a r i, whichhad been sorely lacking. Indeed, per-haps such a rendition is needed pre c i s e-ly in order to generate a gro u n d s well ofi n t e rest in a more rigorous ve r s i o n .

Even in He b rew, where we have nowmerited such a scholarly redaction inthe hands of Rabbi Kafach, he himselfadmits “that my translation is morecumbersome than Even Sh m u e l’s per-formance, because of [my re n d e r i n g’s ]p roximity to the original” (p. 6). And,although Rabbi Kafach blames the(unwarranted) ado pursuant to the pub-lication of Even Sh m u e l’s edition fordelaying release of his own version by25 years, the ongoing excitement engen-d e red by that publication may well havecontributed significantly to theimmense, continuing re v i val of intere s tin Rabbi Yehudah Ha L e v i’s masterpiece.The approachability of Even Sh m u e l’srendition — the modern prose is bothfluid and lucid, and it is vowe l i zed aswell — has certainly fostered thatrenaissance, from which Rabbi Kafach’stranslation will undoubtedly ultimatelyp rofit. We may hope that RabbiKo ro b k i n’s production will likewise pro-vide the impetus for re n ewed and invig-orated study of Sefer Ha Ku z a r i a m o n gthose to whom the Arabic and He b reweditions are inaccessible. Thus, hisw o rk may spawn not only future trans-lations but also a proliferation of stu-dents and scholars of all the great pillarsof classic Jewish thought, lehagdil To ra hu l h a’ a d i ra h — to magnify the Torah andmake it glorious.

Rabbi Eisen has taught Sefer HaKuzari(and other classics) at Yeshivat Hakoteland other yeshivot in Israel for the pasteighteen years, and has lectured on Jewishthought throughout Jerusalem. As found-ing editor of the Orthodox Union’s jour-nal Jewish Thought, he also wrote andedited numerous essays in this field. Inaddition to Yeshivat Hakotel, he teachesat the OU/NCSY Israel Center and inthe Torah Lecture Corps of the IsraelDefense Forces Rabbinate. The authorgratefully acknowledges the comments ofProfessor Yehuda Gellman and RabbiYoel Yehoshua, who reviewed this article.More generally, he acknowledges theinsights of his mentors and his studentswith whom he has studied SeferHaKuzari over the years.

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000

God is Missing…and theythink WE did it!Addressing Our Doubts About Godand JudaismBy Rick AronsBS”D Press, Skokie, Illinois, 1998171 pagesReviewed by Rabbi Matt Tropp

Which of theRambam’s 13Principals of Faithcould you name,other than thetwo that are pop-ular songs? Wereyou or your chil-dren taught theprinciples ofJewish belief, or

were they assumedly “absorbed” lessformally? Were doubts ever discussed?

As a freshman taking RabbiBenjamin Blech’s “Basic JewishConcepts” course in Yeshiva University,I was introduced to an 800-year-olddebate between Rambam and Raabad.Man is endowed with absolute freechoice, thus making reward and pun-ishment meaningful, posits theRambam towards the end of hisHilchot Teshuvah (5:5). He then posesthe classic question: Is not our freechoice curbed by God’s foreknowledgeof events? Rambam explains that theresolution to this dilemma lies in anunderstanding of God’s unity, whichincludes His knowledge, unlike man’sknowledge — which is limited and sep-arate from his essence. This unity ofthe Deity, the Rambam adds, is impos-sible for man to truly understand.

Raabad disputes the wisdom of rais-ing questions that cannot be answeredcompletely. It would have been better,he claims, to leave the questionsunasked in the minds of the fully-faith-ful, rather than introduce possible nag-ging doubts about religious dogma.

Both approaches have been main-tained in Jewish thought throughoutthe ages. Some schools, communitiesand rabbinic figures have tackledexplaining ikarei emunah [fundamentalsof faith] directly. The majority of rab-bis and institutions seem to prefer the

Raabad’s reluctance to open the prover-bial Pandora’s box. Rabbi Blech deliv-ered his own postscipt to the Rambam -Raabad debate: The Raabad’s positionwas indeed tenable in the shtetl of yes-teryear, but in today’s environment ofadvanced education and public discus-sion of religious tenets, Raabad wouldlikely concede to Rambam that we mustarm ourselves with as much knowledgeof the Torah’s philosophical positions aspossible.

Author Rick Arons has taken thechallenge one step further. In God isMissing... and they think WE did it!, heproposes to address “doubts about Godand Judaism” harbored by many in thecontemporary “Who Cares?” genera-tion. His book is based upon thepremise that yesterday’s men of simplebelief have been replaced by a genera-tion that is only vaguely aware of whatit is supposed to believe.

How do we speak to today’s teens,who are often diffident, distracted andfiercely independent of would-be adultmentors, especially parents and teach-ers? In the first portion of God isMissing, Arons speaks directly to histeenage daughter in the nuance of herlanguage and thought.

You are used to turning off those whoforce you to think and reflect.…To you,reality is dealing with your sisters, havingenough money to buy clothes, passingyour courses in school… dealing withother people’s feelings…Who can youbelieve or believe in? (p.8-11)

These blunt summaries of theteenage dilemma seem harsh. Morecritically, do they confer legitimacyupon behaviors and attitudes that weought to disdain, or at least ignore,until they pass with the approach ofmaturity and sophistication?

I have spent many hours withthoughtful and altruistic men andwomen who determine subject matterand presentation approach for theOrthodox Union’s NCSY Torah studysessions, and we have grappled withthis issue at great length. Some of mycolleagues in education and outreachbelieve deeply that by granting teens anassumption of commitment and coop-

eration, we help engender these quali-ties. And I have seen them succeed,operating in quasi-naiveté about theloyalty of their students, as they modeltheir own enormous faith in Hashem,passion for Torah study and love fortheir fellow Jews — and eureka! It rubsoff. On the other hand, some realistssucceed by acknowledging their stu-dents’ shortcomings of emunah andhatmodah, adjusting expectations ofstudents accordingly and savoring smalland hopefully incremental accomplish-ments.

The majority of God is Missing isdevoted to the exposition of our creed,including God’s existence, free will,reward and punishment, the nature ofthe soul and many such issues. Aronspresents complicated ideas in simplelanguage and reduces issues of majorcomplexity into digestible bites.

One of the bonuses of God is Missingis the inclusion of a discussion guidefor group leaders at the end of thebook. Here we find a series of pointedand provoking questions that will formthe basis of an interactive class or groupdebate. This section equally piques theinterest of the individual reader; theauthor might consider placing it at thefront of the volume in future editions.

Rick Arons has set the very ambi-tious and worthwhile goal of explainingto all Jews, regardless of background oraffiliation, the purposes and principlesof our Jewish beliefs. This work couldgenerate important discussions amongAmerican Orthodox leadership on avariety of topics: Is it time to considerteaching the basic philosophical under-pinnings of Judaism, as well as themore complex concepts, not only tobaalei teshuvah, but to the rest of us aswell? Perhaps, reporting the findings ofthose who have used God is Missing indiscussion groups or classes willenlighten the debate.

Rabbi Matt Tropp has been the director of the Etz Chaim Region of theOrthodox Union’s National Conference ofSynagogue Youth since 1987.

JA

JEWISH ACTION Summer 5760/2000