Sunday, May 24, 2015

Because some footnotes need to be honored in the text.



Rediscovering the First Woman Rabbi

 

Ordained in 1935, Regina Jonas died at Auschwitz. Now, she’s being honored.


By Laura Geller|

October 15, 2014 2:55 PM

Tablet Magazine

Judaism acknowledges the day of one’s death and not one’s
birthday. It makes a certain kind of sense: You can only really measure
the impact of a person’s life after it is over. But what if we don’t
know the date of a yahrzeit? That is what happened to the first woman
rabbi, Regina Jonas, who was deported from Terezin on October 12, 1944,
and arrived at Auschwitz on October 14. It was Shabbat, Shabbat
Bereshit, which this year falls on Oct. 18. After that there is no
record of her.


It is time to honor her memory. That’s why a growing number of rabbis
and Jewish leaders have designated this Shabbat, Oct. 18, as her
yahrzeit and will say kaddish for her.


Born in Berlin in 1902 into a poor Orthodox Jewish family, Jonas was
influenced by her rabbi, Dr. Max Weil, who, though Orthodox, allowed
girls to become bat mitzvah. At his urging, Jonas continued her studies
at the liberal Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin
from 1924 to 1930. All the other women in her classes were there to
become teachers; Jonas, like the men she studied with, wanted to become a
rabbi. Her primary supporter was Rabbi Eduard Baneth, who was
determined to ordain her, but died just before she finished her
training. Though her thesis—“Can a Woman Be a Rabbi According to
Halachic Sources?”—received praise from her teachers, none of them
agreed to ordain her, including Rabbi Leo Baeck, the leader of the Jews
in Germany, who wasn’t willing to jeopardize the unity of the Jewish
community as the Nazi threat was intensifying.


Jonas was ultimately ordained, in a private ceremony, by Rabbi Max
Dienemann, the president of the General Association of Rabbis in
Germany, on December 27, 1935. She struggled to be accepted. A 1936
article in Der Israelit cites a comment describing Jonas’ ordination as a form of “treason and a caricature of Judaism.”


At first, she worked in hospitals, homes for the elderly, and
schools, but as more rabbis emigrated she began to preach in synagogues
around Germany. In November 1942, she and her mother were deported to
Terezin, where she worked with the famous psychiatrist Victor Frankl to
care for new prisoners.


Though some survivors, including Baeck, who had also been imprisoned
at Terezin, certainly knew Jonas, they didn’t refer to her by name in
their writings. The reason in part may found in the forward to Frankl’s
classic, Man’s Search for Meaning. He wrote that he erased from
his memory everything that happened before he entered Auschwitz. Part
of what he erased was the legacy of Regina Jonas.


Her name began to appear in the early 1970s. Rabbi Sally Priesand,
the first woman ordained by the Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of
Religion, mentions Jonas in her 1975 book Judaism and the New Woman.
Jonas is also cited in a 1972 article by Rabbi Jacob R. Marcus,
founding director of the American Jewish Archives, and by Alexander
Guttmann in an article celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the
Hochschule. She is mentioned in The Jewish Almanac by Richard
Siegel and Carl Rheins. But in my years as a rabbinical student at
HUC-JIR, from 1971 to 1976, not once did I hear her name. It would have
been helpful to me, the only woman in my class, to have known her story.



It didn’t come to light until 1991, when Katerina von Kellenbach, a
professor of Religious Studies at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, while
doing research in a small archive in Berlin, accidentally discovered a
small box of Jonas’ papers. Among them is a note dated November 6, 1942,
written by an acquaintance of Jonas’, explaining that these documents
were given to him on the day that Jonas and her mother were deported.
Her papers included a photo of her in rabbinical robes, a copy of her
thesis, and her ordination certificate.


Jonas had also kept some newspaper clippings that referred to the
challenges she faced in her struggle for acceptance as a rabbi, letters
from Jewish refugees abroad thanking her for taking care of their
parents, and thank you notes from congregations where she had preached.
This archival collection inspired Elisa Klapheck, a German native who
would became the first woman rabbi in the Netherlands, to write her 2004
biography of Jonas. Most recently, Diane Groo’s documentary film Regina
fills out the contours of Jonas’ story. It reveals that shortly before
being deported to Terezin, Jonas fell in love with a fellow rabbi,
Joseph Norden. In a letter dated July 13, 1942, just as he was about to
be deported from Hamburg to Terezin, he wrote, “The time has come to say
goodbye… maybe Berliners will be sent, too. In that case perhaps there
will be a chance for us to see each other again.” They never did.


A few of Jonas’ papers remain at Terezin, including a handwritten
list of more than 20 lecture topics delivered at the camp, including the
role of women in Judaism, women in the Bible, women in the Talmud, and
Jewish holidays and beliefs. All women rabbis have given those sermons,
but none under such circumstances.


Women rabbis stand on her shoulders. She had been totally alone,
independently ordained, unsupported by most of the Jews around her. I
wonder if she had imagined us when she left her papers to be discovered.
Could she have imagined the rebirth of Jewish life in Europe and the
role of so many young women rabbis and activists in nurturing that
renewal? Could she have imagined the flowering of Jewish scholarship
from gifted women academics or the number of Reform, Conservative,
Reconstructionist and, in the not so distant future, Orthodox woman
rabbis? Could she have imagined the way feminism has totally transformed
Jewish life so that women’s experience is no longer marginal and that
women’s stories are fully part of the larger Jewish story? Now her story
is part of it too.
udaism acknowledges the day of one’s death and not one’s birthday. It makes a certain kind of sense: You can only really measure the impact of a person’s life after it is over. But what if we don’t know the date of a yahrzeit? That is what happened to the first woman rabbi, Regina Jonas, who was deported from Terezin on October 12, 1944, and arrived at Auschwitz on October 14. It was Shabbat, Shabbat Bereshit, which this year falls on Oct. 18. After that there is no record of her.

It is time to honor her memory. That’s why a growing number of rabbis and Jewish leaders have designated this Shabbat, Oct. 18, as her yahrzeit and will say kaddish for her.

Born in Berlin in 1902 into a poor Orthodox Jewish family, Jonas was influenced by her rabbi, Dr. Max Weil, who, though Orthodox, allowed girls to become bat mitzvah. At his urging, Jonas continued her studies at the liberal Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin from 1924 to 1930. All the other women in her classes were there to become teachers; Jonas, like the men she studied with, wanted to become a rabbi. Her primary supporter was Rabbi Eduard Baneth, who was determined to ordain her, but died just before she finished her training. Though her thesis—“Can a Woman Be a Rabbi According to Halachic Sources?”—received praise from her teachers, none of them agreed to ordain her, including Rabbi Leo Baeck, the leader of the Jews in Germany, who wasn’t willing to jeopardize the unity of the Jewish community as the Nazi threat was intensifying.

Jonas was ultimately ordained, in a private ceremony, by Rabbi Max Dienemann, the president of the General Association of Rabbis in Germany, on December 27, 1935. She struggled to be accepted. A 1936 article in Der Israelit cites a comment describing Jonas’ ordination as a form of “treason and a caricature of Judaism.”

At first, she worked in hospitals, homes for the elderly, and schools, but as more rabbis emigrated she began to preach in synagogues around Germany. In November 1942, she and her mother were deported to Terezin, where she worked with the famous psychiatrist Victor Frankl to care for new prisoners.

Though some survivors, including Baeck, who had also been imprisoned at Terezin, certainly knew Jonas, they didn’t refer to her by name in their writings. The reason in part may found in the forward to Frankl’s classic, Man’s Search for Meaning. He wrote that he erased from his memory everything that happened before he entered Auschwitz. Part of what he erased was the legacy of Regina Jonas.

Her name began to appear in the early 1970s. Rabbi Sally Priesand, the first woman ordained by the Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, mentions Jonas in her 1975 book Judaism and the New Woman. Jonas is also cited in a 1972 article by Rabbi Jacob R. Marcus, founding director of the American Jewish Archives, and by Alexander Guttmann in an article celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the Hochschule. She is mentioned in The Jewish Almanac by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins. But in my years as a rabbinical student at HUC-JIR, from 1971 to 1976, not once did I hear her name. It would have been helpful to me, the only woman in my class, to have known her story.

It didn’t come to light until 1991, when Katerina von Kellenbach, a professor of Religious Studies at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, while doing research in a small archive in Berlin, accidentally discovered a small box of Jonas’ papers. Among them is a note dated November 6, 1942, written by an acquaintance of Jonas’, explaining that these documents were given to him on the day that Jonas and her mother were deported. Her papers included a photo of her in rabbinical robes, a copy of her thesis, and her ordination certificate.

Jonas had also kept some newspaper clippings that referred to the challenges she faced in her struggle for acceptance as a rabbi, letters from Jewish refugees abroad thanking her for taking care of their parents, and thank you notes from congregations where she had preached. This archival collection inspired Elisa Klapheck, a German native who would became the first woman rabbi in the Netherlands, to write her 2004 biography of Jonas. Most recently, Diane Groo’s documentary film Regina fills out the contours of Jonas’ story. It reveals that shortly before being deported to Terezin, Jonas fell in love with a fellow rabbi, Joseph Norden. In a letter dated July 13, 1942, just as he was about to be deported from Hamburg to Terezin, he wrote, “The time has come to say goodbye… maybe Berliners will be sent, too. In that case perhaps there will be a chance for us to see each other again.” They never did.

A few of Jonas’ papers remain at Terezin, including a handwritten list of more than 20 lecture topics delivered at the camp, including the role of women in Judaism, women in the Bible, women in the Talmud, and Jewish holidays and beliefs. All women rabbis have given those sermons, but none under such circumstances.

Women rabbis stand on her shoulders. She had been totally alone, independently ordained, unsupported by most of the Jews around her. I wonder if she had imagined us when she left her papers to be discovered. Could she have imagined the rebirth of Jewish life in Europe and the role of so many young women rabbis and activists in nurturing that renewal? Could she have imagined the flowering of Jewish scholarship from gifted women academics or the number of Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and, in the not so distant future, Orthodox woman rabbis? Could she have imagined the way feminism has totally transformed Jewish life so that women’s experience is no longer marginal and that women’s stories are fully part of the larger Jewish story? Now her story is part of it too.
e

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

May 19, 1865 Jefferson Davis is Taken Prisioner


With the capture of the Davis, today 19 May, 2015 (when I write this) could be argued to be the 150th anniversary of the official end of the Civil War (although Davis met with the Confederate Cabinet for the last time on May 5 and officially dissolved the Confederate government).
In light of that, I thought I would mention an interesting historical reflection in the New York Times,How the Civil War Changed the World, by .

While I think the article is somewhat over blown (and the support of massed 'progressive' forces in the UK and Europe is in dispute), it provides a useful example of looking at events a historical context.

We, for our own reasons, often like to concentrate on the issue of slavery, or of federal state relations, or of separate nationalisms.

But the real issue that the article brings up, was that for many, what was really in play was whether a 'self created' state, and a representative republic was a viable institution for  governing.

We forget what the world looked like at that time, hence Doyle's reference to Lincoln's reference to “last best hope of earth,” in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress.

What we might now call anti-democratic forces had been waiting for a rupture in the union.  To them it was inevitable. How could a state based on some notion of consent actually work.

History, they argued (with some force) showed that such societies could be torn apart if a disgruntled minority withdrew, rather than attempting to participate.

And they asked how could this state then attempt and justify (as a king or traditional ruling class believe they could) to restrain the dissidents.

Lincoln had to show that a republic created on a voluntary basis could provide government, up to an including force.  Which, I believe, is why he said:
I would save the Union. ...If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery...I do because I believe it helps to save the Union
The willingness to view as binding the covenants that were used to create a legitimate state, and enforce them is, in my opinion, the greatest lesson of the Civil War.

When I look at the feeble responses often provided by those who should defends such legitimacy -- more than the false claims of defending liberty used to attack our state --  I am not sanguine what Doyle refers to as the "trial of democracy".

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

May 19, 1865 Jefferson Davis is Taken Prisioner


With the capture of the Davis, today 19 May, 2015 (when I write this) could be argued to be the 150th anniversary of the official end of the Civil War (although Davis met with the Confederate Cabinet for the last time on May 5 and officially dissolved the Confederate government).
In light of that, I thought I would mention an interesting historical reflection in the New York Times,How the Civil War Changed the World, by .

While I think the article is somewhat over blown (and the support of massed 'progressive' forces in the UK and Europe is in dispute), it provides a useful example of looking at events a historical context.

We, for our own reasons, often like to concentrate on the issue of slavery, or of federal state relations, or of separate nationalisms.

But the real issue that the article brings up, was that for many, what was really in play was whether a 'self created' state, and a representative republic was a viable institution for  governing.

We forget what the world looked like at that time, hence Doyle's reference to Lincoln's reference to “last best hope of earth,” in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress.

What we might now call anti-democratic forces had been waiting for a rupture in the union.  To them it was inevitable. How could a state based on some notion of consent actually work.

History, they argued (with some force) showed that such societies could be torn apart if a disgruntled minority withdrew, rather than attempting to participate.

And they asked how could this state then attempt and justify (as a king or traditional ruling class believe they could) to restrain the dissidents.

Lincoln had to show that a republic created on a voluntary basis could provide government, up to an including force.  Which, I believe, is why he said:
I would save the Union. ...If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery...I do because I believe it helps to save the Union
The willingness to view as binding the covenants that were used to create a legitimate state, and enforce them is, in my opinion, the greatest lesson of the Civil War.

When I look at the feeble responses often provided by those who should defends such legitimacy -- more than the false claims of defending liberty used to attack our state --  I am not sanguine what Doyle refers to as the "trial of democracy".

Monday, April 27, 2015

Rare, surprising, interesting, and depressing event

A Rare event.

This past weekend, I was listening to the NPR radio broadcast of This American Life.

This is not something, I ordinarily do, as I generally find the show enormously precious, supercilious, predictable, and (not infrequently) subject to poor journalism*.

I was just too busy working on a stained glass design to get up and change the radio station.

A Surprising Event.

The first 'article', (Do Ask, Do Tell., of the show, The Incredible Rarity of Changing Your Mind,
was interesting to me.  It also appeared well researched, and seemed significant.

An Interesting Event

The gist of the article was that it was possible to change peoples minds on significant issues -- specifically gay marriage and abortion -- by engaging them one on one in an interview or conversation.

These changes in opinion came about not through 'reasoned' arguments, but by appeals to emotional connection (for example, the interviewer is gay and politely raises the issue should they have a chance for marital happiness, or the interviewer is a young woman who wrestled with having an abortion).

If the interviewer was personally involved, the change in opinion appeared to be long term -- for example is if the conversation about gay marriage was conducted by a straight person, a change of opinion seemed less likely to be long term.

This appears true, regardless of the subjects conceptual frame work -- that is a devout Catholic can be swayed by appeal to the personal, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Unlike most such stories, this article was coupled with a study -- a seemingly rigorous study which attempted to verify these results (which surprised the researchers) by running it twice.  And the researchers admit that they believe that the counter example -- anti choice interviewers reporting on abortion regret -- would probably also work.

So to first order, I accept the results. 

This has tactical information of use -- the technique is expensive but works -- and adds more ammunition to my argument for the return of the political machine structure of politics.  But let that pass.

A Depressing Event

I rather guess, that some would find this story uplifting in a 'Here we can see the importance of actual humans interacting' way.

I supposed I would fall into William James' tough minded mental make up (see Pragmatism,Lecture I. The Present Dilemma in Philosophy), so this does not appeal to me.

For the same reason, I have a profound dislike of 'human interest' reporting or argument on important issues -- I feel it devalues the important underlying principals, as well as the roll of fact and thinking.
 
And it seem to emphasize that we tend, either positively or negatively, to make decisions the basis of what is immediate -- that there is an inability to "picture the death of the blameless hero Hippolytos, with out seeing it enacted before my eyes",** without seeing the carnage of a chariot accident.

Most importantly, in the realm of public discourse, I think it constricts meaningful discussion and debate. I would like us to be more easily convinced by statistics, duty, ideals,  and reason. 

I should like to think we can understand that a suffering or situation is wrong, even it we have no emotional tie to the vicitm  -- indeed we should be able to do it even if we have a negative emotional tie.

In the end, that the information on changing minds provided is not easily actionable is merely somewhat discouraging when considered as practical problem.

What it says about the limitations of most decision making is, however both alienating and depressing to me.


* OK I also find Ira Glass' voice grating.
** Mary Renault, The Praise Singer

Hubble: A funny thing happened on the way to 25 years.


The Hubble Space Telescope in orbitIt is said that sometimes having a good memory can be a curse -- though a curse of whom is not made clear.

In all the traditional (cheap) journalism about the Hubble -- reports on how it changed our view of the universes, opened in vistas of the imagination, and so forth -- there is very little memory.

For example, not a lot of reporting on the  mocking it received at first (justifiably in my opinion) due to its initial problem with a poorly ground primary mirror, or its delay in construction.

Those points are fairly minor historical issues.

What I remember is that by the early 1980's, the degree of hostility I recall being expressed by many of the astronomers (particularly the optical astronomers ) in my department (the University of Minnesota Department of Physics and Astronomy).

The repeated complaint was how much better it would be to spend money on ground based astronomers -- just think about how many conventional (that is my sort of researcher) studies could be funded was the complaint. (I side note, the same object was raised about the weather satellites, that is one could spend the money better on more weather balloons.)

There were an interesting set of symptoms on display -- envy of success, an hostility to supporting other's research, and an inability to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative change.  I don't imagine* that the behaviors are changed.

I wonder how many people would own up to their positions today? I do know of some who still dismiss the work -- primarily as it is not their sort of research.


*Read I am dead certain.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

We are becoming Pakistan.

My brother, with some justice, dislikes casual use of the word treason, pointing to the strict definition in the constitution under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort
I would argue that Clive Bundy (Year After Denying Federal Control, Bundy Still Runs His Bit Of Nevada : NPR) comes pretty close, by the active use of force and the threat of force to constain and intimidate the Federal government.  In so doing, he is stealing my land and my resources.

I say my because as a willing citizen, I must acknowledge partial ownership in this American republic, both the good and the apalling.  And I want my agent, the Federal government to manage the lands we own for the benefit of greatest number of the republic's population/

Instead of this,
Indeed, the BLM has pretty much stopped managing or
patrolling a vast, southeastern corner of the state ...
because of safety concerns.
Which means, in the words of former local national park superintendent, Alan O'Neill, 

"In other words, anybody that doesn't want to follow
any federal laws or regulations can do so if they have
enough firepower with them," O'Neill said.
This is an example of the apalling I have to take ownerhsip of -- I am being forced to forego my right to a bully, because my agent -- the Federal Governement and the President are not acting for me.

 We are becoming Pakistan.


Friday, April 10, 2015

Fair enough

Daily Show Welfare Queens



 Jon Stewart: Kansas is America's Welfare Queen







This puts me in mind of my favorite proposal of mine:



No state shall
receive more funds from the federal government then it pays in taxes.



Fund will be withheld to the state until the imballance is addressed. 



The priority of this withholding (that is which funds will not be paid first) should be:

  1. Agricultral Payments
  2. Highway Construction
  3. Non emergency water projects
  4. Perparation of federal lands for bid
  5. Airport construciton
  6. Small business administration funding
  7. Aid to police forces
  8. Defence basing
  9.  ....
    99. Scientific research

  100. Medical Funding

  101. Direct income transfers to private persons



As a matter of policy, this is a terrible idea.  But it might be salutory.