Saul Singer Responds: The Truth About Moses Montefiore
I write in response to Naftali Smulowitz’s letter to the editor (“Much Ado about Montefiore,” August 22) in which he claims, “without going into specifics” (which is most telling), that from Judith Montefiore’s journal of their trip to Eretz Yisrael, “it’s quite clear that his [Montefiore’s] religious observance wasn’t as stated by Singer.” Not only has Mr. Smulowitz besmirched the name of one of the greatest Jews of the age, he is, in fact, demonstrably incorrect.
The writings and family correspondence of Judith Montefiore (1784-1862) suggest that during their early married years, they lived as respectable, assimilated Anglo-Jews, in a mode similar to the Rothschilds. There is some evidence – though more from family recollections than Judith’s published diary – that they occasionally dined in ways that were not strictly kosher and mixed in social circles that were not religiously exclusive. Cecil Roth, in The Life of Sir Moses Montefiore (1935), his much-respected biography of Sir Moses, notes that earlier in Sir Moses’s life and before this religious transformation, he was not markedly different from other well-to-do Anglo-Jews of his class, who were not rigidly observant by traditional rabbinic standards.
However, there was a dramatic change in Sir Moses’s Jewish practice and observance after his trip to Eretz Yisrael, which Mr. Smulowitz either doesn’t know about or has chosen to ignore.
Judith kept diaries and published writings, most notably her Private Journal of a Visit to Egypt and Palestine (1836), which is among the richest firsthand sources that we have for understanding their private lives. The actual evidence from Judith’s diaries suggests that her husband’s strictness intensified as he got older, and Sir Moses properly became a symbol of strict religious observance – Shabbat, kashrut, synagogue attendance, philanthropy, and above all his punctiliousness in public Jewish identity.
Sir Moses’s “turn” toward rigorous observance is generally dated to the mid-1820s, especially after his first visit to Eretz Yisrael in 1827. Judith’s record of their 1827 trip evidences significant religious reflection, including recording Sir Moses’s deep spiritual impressions at the Western Wall, his emotional prayers, and his renewed commitments to tzedakah. It was after this journey that contemporaries noticed – and Judith herself records – that Sir Moses became far more punctilious, including giving up his carriage on Shabbat, avoiding travel, and adhering strictly to dietary laws even while abroad. Her diaries describe, with considerable pride, the elaborate precautions that her husband took to secure kosher food while traveling, which would have seemed excessive had he not been consciously emphasizing his Jewish devotion.
Thus, while it is true that a few passages in Judith’s journals about difficulties securing kosher food in Italy and France subtly suggest that they were perhaps not always fully strict in earlier years, or at least were more flexible – and it may be this to which Mr. Smulowitz was referring, although he conspicuously fails to tell the whole story – this reflects Sir Moses’s conduct before he became uncompromising, as all the reliable sources agree. Historians maintain that the Montefiores’ religiosity was both personal and performative – heightened over time, and increasingly bound up with their sense of Jewish representation before the world.
Saul Jay Singer
Jewish Press “Collecting Jewish History” columnist
Chareidi Dereliction and Disrespect
Re: “Consolation Through Reconsideration” (Aug. 15): Over the past years, even during peacetime, I have been dismayed at the unwillingness of most chareidi yeshiva students to enlist in the Israel Defense Forces. During the past 22 months of war, my dismay has become much more palpable. With this in mind, I express my horror at a poster that was hung in shuls and yeshivos several weeks ago. The poster contained pictures of a recent Lakewood gathering in protest of the conscription of chareidi yeshiva bachurim. The poster also bore messages conveyed by rabbanim at this gathering – messages that are chilling.
The most egregious quote came from one Rav Menachem Shapiro of the Slobodka yeshiva. Rav Shapiro, who was sent to the gathering as an emissary by gedolim in Israel, stated that during World War II, Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandl said that “for a few dollars he can save nefashos from the Holocaust. That was from a holocaust of physical life. This is a holocaust of eternal life.” In other words, according to Rav Shapiro, the drafting of yeshiva students in defense of the Jewish state constitutes a greater evil than the Nazi Holocaust!
Such an outrageous sentiment should not merit a response. Nonetheless, I wrote up a message and attached it to the poster in a local yeshiva. I wrote that my son, who is in the IDF reserves, makes a kiddush Hashem every day as he (in his rabbinic role) tends to the needs of our heroes, the soldiers who are risking their lives for the Jewish homeland. Obviously, Rav Shapiro’s declaration is an insult to those, like my son, who serve in the IDF and maintain their Yiddishkeit intact. (I added that if someone were to take my sign down, the poster would also be removed. Needless to say, the poster is now in my house!)
It is high time that the rabbinic leaders of “black hat” Orthodox Judaism recognize that learning Torah, essential as it is, is not tantamount to risking one’s life in a war zone. It is high time they concede that the shirking of military duty by an entire subsection (with exceptions) of Israel’s population constitutes a violation of “Kol Yisrael areivim zeh lazeh” – that all Jews have a communal obligation to support one another. And it is high time they realize that at least for those not learning full-time in yeshiva, there is no excuse at all for ducking the draft, with the result that exhausted soldiers are thrown into battle time and again, due to a lack of recruits.
The Gemara (Sh’vuos 35b) relates that in King Solomon’s day, for every 1,000 soldiers, 200 men sat and studied Torah. Yes, we want and need Torah learning. Torah is the lifeblood of our people. But just as Yehoshua, second only to Moshe Rabbeinu, led the battle against the Amaleikim, and just as Pinchas led the battle against the Midianim, we need some of today’s yeshiva men to step up and enlist. The argument has been made that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to guarantee that chareidi religious standards will be fully upheld in the army. This is likely true in some circumstances, despite ongoing efforts to make military life more palatable to chareidim. But at the end of the day, life is about challenges. We confront these challenges at work and in other situations. This is not an excuse to avoid army service.
Do I believe that the IDF should simply draft all chareidi young men and use threats of arrest and economic consequences to force their hand? Absolutely not. I believe, rather, that as laid out by writer Doron Lazarus on the Times of Israel website, there must be a sincere attempt at engagement with the chareidim. First, the value of Torah learning must be emphasized – not “Yes, but,” but an emphatic “Yes!” to how vital Torah study is to our nation’s survival. Second, IDF elites must consult with chareidi rabbanim (those who are willing to listen) to navigate a road that respects the values that potential recruits hold so dear (values that most Orthodox Jews and many non-Orthodox ones share). And third, realizing that chareidim have so much to share, chareidi recruits should be a conduit to impart Judaism’s ethos to soldiers who heretofore have lacked meaningful exposure.
The Lakewood gathering was an attempt to raise money to help students who are under threat of being drafted. An earlier campaign raised money to replace funds that the Israeli government was withholding from yeshivos because of their refusal to allow students to enlist. I cannot understand how these yeshivos will not allow their boys to join the army, yet expect the public to continue to provide endless funding. And while everyone has the right to donate to campaigns of their choosing, I, for one, will not enable this brazen shrinking from national duty.
Avi Goldstein
Far Rockaway, N.Y.
Keep Exposing Mamdani to Defeat Him
In response to Jim Walden’s article about Zohran Mamdani entitled “Selective Outrage on The Left” (Aug. 1), I agree that Mr. Mamdani is, indeed, “an extremist in many ways.” Mr. Walden correctly points out that Mamdani has called to dismantle the NYPD, has embraced communist rhetoric, and once wrote “We-all of society-must break the stranglehold of whiteness, wherever it may be.”
Moreover, Mr. Walden highlights “the most troubling part of Mamdani’s past – his clearly expressed terrorist sympathies,” offering many examples. Mr. Walden draws attention to the fact that “it is not just his chosen advocacy, casting terrorists as oppressed victims, that is terrifying. It is his endorsers, contributors, and staff too.”
I believe the key to defeating Mamdani in November is an unveiling of his expressed beliefs, as adeptly stated by Mr. Walden, to all New Yorkers via social media and a unified effort to pressure the media “to interrogate Mamdani about his deluded advocacy.”
We must vote for law and order, safety in the streets of New York City, support of our great NYPD, economic prosperity rather than communism, and condemnation of antisemitism and all terrorist groups. Thus, we must rally around one candidate who epitomizes these positive values and defeat Mamdani in November.
I am calling on all Jews to act and reveal the true Mamdani who is “hiding in plain sight.”
Beyond the Jewish community, I appeal to all New Yorkers, including our Muslim community, to vote for a candidate who will empower us to live in peace and safety, and to thrive and prosper in this magnificent New York City. Now is the time to act!
Dr. Mel Waldman
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Pinchas Was Not an Extremist
In his article in the July 18 issue, Rabbi Weinreb describes Pinchas’s killing of Zimri and his consort at the end of Parshas Balak as an “immediate and spontaneous” reaction upon witnessing their public sin committed before Moshe and the entire assembly of Bnei Yisrael.
While Rabbi Weinreb acknowledges that “the L-rd spoke to Moshe with words of praise for Pinchas,” he nonetheless seems to condemn Pinchas’s actions and draws a parallel between them and modern-day extremism, with all of its troubling implications.
However, Rabbi Weinreb’s description appears to be at odds with Rashi’s account. Contrary to the notion of Pinchas acting impulsively, Rashi explains that Hashem caused Moshe to momentarily forget the halacha, at which point Pinchas reminded him of it. Moshe then instructed Pinchas to carry it out, indicating that Pinchas acted not out of personal initiative or passion, but in fulfillment of halacha under Moshe’s guidance.
Favi Walfish
Surfside, Fla.