A History of Student Government at Yeshiva University

At many educational institutions in the United States, there is some kind of school sponsored student government. Each school has its own policies for the powers and responsibilities afforded to this student government, but overall all schools have the same main goals in mind. The student government affords the students the opportunity to practice civic engagement in a low stakes environment and the school can benefit from some kind of student input to potentially improve some of their policies. 

Yeshiva University has had a student government since long before it was a University. The earliest recorded student government was formed for the Talmudical Academy high school in 1918 it was referred to as the Students' Organization of the Talmudical Academy High School (S.O.T.A.H.S.) and alternatively as the General Organization (G.O.). The Talmudical Academy High School itself was formed out of the merger of Yeshivas Etz Chaim and Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan in 1915. 

Though both of these schools offered some secular education, they existed outside of the educational framework of the American school system at the time. Yeshivas Etz Chaim educated elementary through middle school aged students, preparing them to attend a more advanced Yeshiva. Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan taught high school aged students, providing them with the opportunity to test for Semicha. Semicha candidates at the time would be around 18 to 20 years old. 

Along with the merger of the two Yeshivas, there was an emphasis on professionalizing the whole educational system. Yeshivas Etz Chaim would become an accredited college preparatory high school, now called the Talmudical Academy. Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan would begin to only accept high school graduates, making Semicha into a professional degree. Later additions to the Yeshiva curriculum such as Yeshiva College and later the graduate schools would increase the professional education required for a RIETS Semicha making it into a graduate degree. 

S.O.T.A.H.S. produced the Talmudical Academy yearbook, the Elchanite which records many of their activities. They arranged various clubs, athletics, and even basic medical services for themselves. 

Buried within the oldest surviving Elchanite Yearbook is a reference to the S.O.Y.. During Lag Ba'omer of 1923, the students of the Talmudical Academy and the Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan set out from their crowded building at 301 East Broadway and boarded the Broadway line of the Interborough Rapid Transit company. They traveled all the way up to Van Cortland Park to play their annual game of Baseball. The high school, as usual, beat the S.O.Y. 11-3. 

S.O.Y. at the time likely stood for the Students' Organization of the Yeshiva. This reading is based upon its name in 1926, as recorded in Hedenu (our echo) the S.O.Y.'s oldest surviving publication. Hedenu was a bilingual, Hebrew and English newspaper that gradually became a literary magazine over the course of its life. Hedenu never discusses much about the origins of the S.O.Y., though S.O.Y. leadership often used it as a mouthpiece to publish their general communications. An essay written by Solomon Wind, the President of the S.O.Y. in Hedenu's first issue reflects the perception that the S.O.Y. is already old and has peaked in the past. This may be a rhetorical construction on the part of Solomon Wind, however it is much more insecure narrative of student government activity than what can be found in the Elchanite Yearbooks. The December 1928 issue of Hedenu includes a S.O.Y. page that generally discusses what the S.O.Y. has been up to. There is a list of all the people involved with the organization and the committees they serve on, and there are some articles describing the athletic activities of the S.O.Y.. The number of committees and the roles of the positions on the executive board are useful for understanding the abstract constitution and function of the organization in 1928. There were 16 councilmen, and 7 members of the executive committee. There was a president, vice-president, secretary, editor (of Hedenu), Gabai, Dining Room Manager, and Athletic Manager. The S.O.Y. seems to have assisted in running the prayer services, providing extra-curricular programing like guest speakers and athletics, stocking the library, managing some dormitory functions including the mail. 

All the issues of Hedenu from 1926 to 1928 were digitized by Otzar Hachochma. 

There was a third school operating out of RIETS during the 1920s. That the Teachers' Institute or Beit Midrash Le'Morim. This school had its own student government. The Teachers' Institute was formed in 1917 and merged with RIETS in 1921. Its first yearbook Nir was published in 1925 by the students of the Teacher's Insitute. It was only in the 1925-1926 academic year that the faculty of the school assisted the students in organizing a student government, the Histadrut Talmidei Beit Midrash Le'Morim, or if it had a name in English, the Students Organization of the Teachers' Institute. 

This young Students' Organization managed the publication of Nir, the Teachers' Institute Library, and potentially some athletic activities (since there was an athletic manager on the board). It is worth noting that there was no record of athletic activities in the Nir yearbook, so it is unlikely that this position was as active as his counterpart in the S.O.Y. and the S.O.T.A.H.S.. 

The environment of the student governments of RIETS would change with the formation of Yeshiva College in 1928. Initially the students worked with the faculty to publish an annual journal called Masmid. Both the Masmid 1929 and 1930 were published under this arrangement. It was only in the 1930-1931 academic year that a broader student government organization was formed. This organization was initially called the Students' Organization of Yeshiva College, or S.O.Y.C. They quickly changed the name to the Yeshiva College Students Council, Y.C.S.C., probably because it was so similar to S.O.Y.

As Yeshiva College and the broader school of Yeshiva University grew, the role of the Yeshiva College Student Council transformed over time. I will try to cover some of the more notable policy shifts in future posts. 

A Brief Encounter Between Chaim Yaakov Widrewitz and RIETS

As an amateur researcher of the early history of YU, I am deeply indebted to the writings of Gilbert Klaperman. For his doctoral research that accompanied his rabbinic degree, he produced a critical history of Yeshiva University. Lacking any archival records from before 1915, Klaperman turned to newspapers and oral history to construct a grounded narrative. Like any pioneer in a particular field, Klaperman got a lot right, but also made many errors. 

I am fortunate to have the luxury of the National Library of Israel's digital newspaper collection to exponentially increase my ability to find relevant information in the collection. Klaperman had to manually search through tens of thousands of pages of newspaper material to find his many sources. His imperfect method of search meant that he missed some information that challenges the facts that form the basis of his historical narrative. Though on the whole, his historical narrative is generally reliable as an approximation of the historical events. 

Klaperman (page 131) of his doctoral thesis, states that RIETS first sent out someone to fundraise out of state in 1900, a sign that it had grown too large to be supported locally. I found that RIETS actually sent out a fundraiser to travel across the country from July 1, 1898.

https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dth/1898/07/01/01/article/12 

The fundraising advertisement begins with a basic description of Yeshiva. 

"Here in New York there is exists a Yeshiva, already in its second year, where one studies Gemara with Poskim, and for two hours a day a teacher teaches the English language, and the boys get board, clothing, and all expenses."

Then follows with an appeal for funds.

"Therefore we sent out a fundraiser, the great rabbi and speaker Yisrael Yosef Litvik [sic] and we request that all rabbis, slaughterers, and presidents receive him with honor wherever he goes. And support the elevated matter, to elevate the horn of Torah in America, the money from each city should be sent to the treasurer M. A. Germansky, and they will get receipts from New York."

And ends with the following signatures.

"Yaakov Yosef, Rav ha-Kollel

Hillel Katz who is called Klein

Shlomo Natan Kotler Judge of the Kollel"

Chaim Yaakov Widrewitz moved to America in 1892 to lead the Lubavitch community in New York. The Adas Lubavitch and Niezhin published a letter in Hapisgah on August 12, 1892, announcing that he would be their spiritual leader.

Initially it seems that Widrewitz worked with Yaakov Yosef and the established orthodox rabbinate of New York to police Kashrut. A public letter reprinted from March to April 1896, declaring a slaughterhouse on Governor Street to be not Kosher, was signed by both Yaakov Yosef and Chaim Yaakov Widrewitz. They were also jointly signed on another letter that ran from May to August 1896 declaring a rival rabbinic organization, bearing the name Kollel America v'Tiferet Yerushalayim to be illegitimate. 

The two rabbis seem to have developed beef in October of the same year. On October 2, Yaakov Yosef and his assistant Hillel Klein declared the United Dress Beef Company to no longer be under their supervision. Following a summons of shochetim from this slaughterhouse to a Din Torah in late September. 

On October 12 Chaim Yaakov Widerwitz endorsed the Kashrut of shochetim of the United Dress Beef Company. 

This seems to have been the start of Widerwitz and Yosef's feud over Kashrut in New York City. 

The feud played out in some interesting ways. Shortly after RIETS announced that it was sending out a fundraiser, Chaim Yaakov Widrewitz protested this development. On July 7, 1898, about a week after the announcement was made, Widrewitz published a letter in the Jewish Daily Herald. Widrewitz argued that it was embarrassing for the New York Jewish community to have to fundraise from outside the city for its Yeshiva. He claimed to have consulted with Yehuda David Bernstein and Asher Lemel Germansky, the treasurer, who agreed with his perspective. It seems as if Widrewitz was blaming the Rav Hakollel for the idea of sending out fundraiser for the Yeshiva, and inflicting shame upon the New York Jewish community. 

Its difficult to know exactly what happened then, but my gut feeling is that Widrewitz was trying to use this small issue of the Yeshiva fundraising outside of the city against his local rabbinic rival. Claiming that Yaakov Yosef was bringing shame upon the New York Jewish community with the intention of swaying public opinion. 

At some point I should look more into the United Dress Beef Company affair, but for the moment I must let it sit because I don't really have time to investigate further.

An Early Washington DC connection to RIETS

As an amateur researcher of both Yeshiva University history and the history of the Washington, DC Jewish community, it is rare for these two subjects to directly intertwine. The Jewish community has always been a small world and in my ongoing project to catalog as many historic newspaper articles as I can find that relate to the early history of Yeshiva University, I found a direct intersection between my two main historical interests. 

To explain this intersection, I must give a little bit of background. 

In 1871, a 16 year old Yitzchak Levy landed in the port of New York. He left behind his young wife Sarah back in the Russian Empire. By 1873, Yitzchak had built a stable enough livelihood in New York to bring his wife over. They built a life form themselves in America. Yitzchak went by Isaac, and Sarah started going by Cecilia. They raised a large family of 12 children who all lived to adulthood. Looking to advance their prospects in the retail clothing industry, Isaac and Cecilia moved their family to Washington, DC in 1887 or so. 

In 1890, Isaac joined with his small but growing number of Jewish neighbors in Southwest Washington, DC to form the Talmud Torah Congregation¹. In Hebrew they called it חברה תלמוד תורה. He continued to serve in leadership at his Synagogue and operate his store in Southwest Washington until he passed away in 1926, when he was about 70 years old². 

In February 1897, a small group of ambitious Orthodox Jewish rabbis and layman filed a charter to form a traditional Orthodox Yeshiva in New York City, which they called the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. Though they initially pitched their vision as a school that would teach Talmud and Halacha for young men who were interested in the rabbinate, by late January 1897, they began advertising that their prospective school would teach Chochma (scholarship/science) and Derech Eretz (local national culture) in addition to the traditional Talmud and Halacha. Until 1915, the school was not able to offer more than middle school level English for secular studies and did not offer any academic Jewish studies to augment its Talmud and Halacha curriculum. 

The students at the Yeshiva were frustrated by the school's inability to expand beyond the traditional Yeshiva curriculum. Many of them were immigrants themselves who likely sought out RIETS under the assumption that they would be able to pursue academic Jewish and secular studies while still participating in a Yeshiva environment. Much of the Jewish public sided with the demands of the students and resulting ugliness of the dispute damaged the Yeshiva's reputation. This eventually led it into financial difficulties forcing it to close its doors in August 1908.    

These two stories intersect on August 26, 1908, about a week after the Yeshiva's closure went public. The Jewish Morning Journal, printed a letter that Isaac Levy sent them³. I have prepared a transcription and translation of it below. 

שטיצט ישיבת ר' יצחק אלחנן

א בעל הבית פון וואשינגטאָן ווערט א מעמבער מיט 10 דאָלאר א יאָהר — שיקט פיר א האלב יאָהר דיוס.

מר. יצחק ליוויי, א ביזנעסמאן, פון 922 פאור-ענד-איי-העף סטריט, וואשינגטאָן, די. סי. האָט אין "מאָרגען זשורנאל" אריינגעשיקט 5 דאָלאר פיר ישיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן מיט פאָלגענדע בריעף:

הערר רעדאקטאָר:—

אזוי וויא איך האָב געלעזען אין "מאָרגען זשורנאל" אז עס איז געשלאָסען געוואָרען דיא ישיבה דורך מאנגעל אין געלד און איך ווייס אז אייער צייטונג האָט זעהר פיעל געטהאָן פיר דער ישיבה האָף איך אז איהר וועט יעצט אויך אלעס טהאָן דיא ישיבה זאָל ניט געשלאָסען ווערען. דאָס וואָלט ווירקליך געווען דיא גרעסטע שאנדע פיר אלע אידען אין אמעריקא.

איך בין א מיטגליעד פון דער ישיבה זייט זיא איז געגרינדעט געוואָרען און איך האָב ביז יעצט געצאָהלט 3 דאָלאר א יאָהר. יעצט בין איך ווילינג צו צאָהלען 10 דאָלאר יעהרליך און איך שיק דיערמיט 5 דאָלאר פיר א האלב יאָהר דיוס.

איך האָף אז עס וועלען זיך געפינען פיעלע אידען וואָס וועלען דאָסזעלבע טהאָן און דיא הייליגע ישיבה וואָס טראָגט אזא שטאָלצען נאָמען וועט עקזיסטירען און ארויסגעבען רבנים מיט תורה און חכמה וואָס וועלען זיין א שטאָלץ פיר דעם אמעריקאנער יודענטהום. יעצט איז דיא צייט ווען אלע אָרטאָדאָקסישע אידען דארפען זיך פעראייניגען און אויפהאלטען דיעזען ריכטיגען אנשטאלט.

אכטונגספאָל

יצחק ליוויי

Support the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary.

A gentleman from Washington will be a member for 10 dollars a year — Sends a half year’s dues. 

Mr. Isaac Levy, a businessman, from 922 four-and-a-half street, Washington, D. C. sent to the “Morning Journal” 5 dollars for the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary with the following letter:

Mister Editor:—

As I read in the “Morning Journal” that the Yeshiva was closed through a lack of money and I know that your newspaper has done a lot for the Yeshiva, I hope that now you will also do anything so that the Yeshiva should not remain closed. This would actually be the biggest disgrace for all Jews in America. 

I have been a supporter of the Yeshiva since it was founded and until now, I have paid three dollars a year. Now, I am willing to pay 10 dollars yearly and presently I am sending 5 dollars for a half year’s dues. 

I hope that it will find many Jews who will do the same thing and the holy Yeshiva who carries such a proud name will exist and generate Rabbis with Torah and scholarship (chochma) who will be a pride for American Judaism. Now is the time when all Orthodox Jews need to unite and support this righteous institution.

Respectfully,

Isaac Levy

---

1. ^"Certificates of Incorporation," Evening Star (Washington, DC), May 27, 1890. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1890-05-27/ed-1/seq-5/
2. ^"Isaac Levy, Merchant, Dies of Heartstroke: Proprietor of Southwest Store was Prominent in Talmud Torah Synagogue," Evening Star (Washington, DC), July 22, 1926. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1926-07-22/ed-1/seq-44/
3. ^"Support the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary," Jewish Morning Journal (New York, NY), Aug. 26, 1908. [Yiddish] https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/tjm/1908/08/26/01/article/64

Our Organization - A Glimpse of Student Life at 1920s RIETS

In May 1926, the students of the Rabbi Elchanan Theological Seminary, yeshivas rabbeinu yitzchok elchonon as they would have known it, published their first newspaper named hedenu or Our Echo. It ran for over a decade, printing infrequently, but aiming for an issue for each month. Hedenu was bilingual, Hebrew and English, and was intended to provide an opportunity for the yeshiva students to practice their Hebrew and English composition. In the first few years, the paper was mostly in Hebrew, but by the 1930s the English section had grown to be about half of each issue. The publication of this paper was facilitated by the Students' Organization of the Yeshiva or histadrus talmidei yeshivas rabbeinu yitzchok elchonon as they called it in Hebrew. 

With hedenu, the S.O.Y. had a mouthpiece to encourage students at the yeshiva to participate in its activities and administration. In the first issue of hedenu, published on May 18, 1926, the president of the S.O.Y., Shlomo Wind, wrote an essay to encourage his peers to participate in the activities of the S.O.Y. I found his commentary on the nature of student life shockingly relevant to my own experience at the same school almost a century later. 

As a fun fact, Shlomo Wind went on to teach at the Teachers Institute, The Hebrew Teachers Training School for Girls (before it was transformed into Stern College for Women), and Stern College for Women during its first decade. 

I transcribed the original Hebrew text of the article and wrote an English translation below. 

הסתדרותנו

ש[למה] ווינד

 

חברים, בני הישיבה!

הגיעה השעה שנכּנס בשיחה גלויה בדברים הנוגעים לחיינו החברתיים. נסיר את המחיצות המבדילות בינינו ונבוא לידי התענינות כּללית — ליצור סביבה יפה ומתוקנה בתוכנו.

לכו נא ונוכחה! אם בּקרב לבּנו שוֺרה איזו דאגה המכאיבה אותנו, אם בּקרב נפשנו הומות הרגשות המבקשות בּטוי, נודיע איש לרעהו את הדבר המעיק אותנו, וגם את הדברים שלפי דעתו יובילונו להתרוממות הנפש ולמצב כלכלי נכון.

הלא כולנו יחדו בּני-ישיבה, וגורל משותּף לכולנו, ולמה נהיה כזרים איש לרעהו בחיינו החברתיים? שמעתּן קובלנא רגילה בפי כמה תלמידים: הלא זה מאָז ומעולם שהיתה לנו הסתדרות, האם הצליחה אַף פּעם לעורר את לבנו לרעיון של התאַחדות, לרגש של אַחוה ואַהבה?

לענות על השאלה הזאת קשה באמת עד מאד. היחס בינינו לא היה כיחס אברי הגוף הניזונים מלב אחד. כּל תּלמיד התרכּז בּעולמו הוא — למצוא תנאים נוחים רק בּשבילו, קרובים אָנו, אבל רחוקים היינו. אחדים הצליחו המגמתם שבּחרו להם, ואחדים מבּלי עזרה, נכזבה תוחלתּם. התּוצאה: אי-התענינות בּחיינו החברתיים, קפאון הנפש ושפלות הרוח.

כּמו כן, אין ההסתּדרות אחראית בּעד מצב של פּירוד כּזה. כּי מה היא הסתּדרות ולשם מה היא באה? הסתּדרות היא בטוי-כּח של לבּות השואפים לאידיאל אחד, למחשבה עקרית המכילה מגמות שונות. הסתּדרות הנוצרת מאיחוד-כחות מדרכת את נטיות חבריה להצלחת כּולם. ואם אין כּחות מאוחדים, אם כּל אחד עושה בשלו ולעצמו — מאיזה חומר תּוצר הסתּדרות נשגבה ומוצלחת, וכח השפּעתה מאַין יבוא?

למה לא תהיה התאַחדות לבבית בּינינו שתּפיח בּנו רוח של חיים ומרץ, התלהבות נאותה ונשגבה למען נוכל התקדם בּחיינו באופן הכי נעלה? "או חברותא או מיתותא" אָמרו חז"ל. כּמה רעיונות נשגבים בּפתגם זה! נבוכי-רוח אָנו בחיי בדידות. חיים כאלה אינם שוים כלום.

כּולנו צריכים חזוק בּעבודתנו. ולמען הלהיב ועורר מרצנו, צריכים אָנו לחלופי רעיונות, לרוח שיחדש בּנו את כּחותינו. גם העולם לא היה יכול להתקיים אלמלא נתחדשו מעשי בראשית בּכל יום ויום. עבודתנו הבּלתּי נעימה בחיי בּדידות יכולה להשנות לעבודה הכי נעימה בחיים חברתיים. בּחיי אחוה ורעות, בּחיים המושפּעים מאידיאל נעלה ונשגב.

ועוד זאת, חברים, הסתּדרות כּשהיא חזקה ומבוססה, ושיש לה הכּחות המשותּפים של כּל התלמידים, יכולה לשכלל את המצב הרוחני והכּלכּלי של חבריה. כּחות משותּפים מולידים כחות אחרים. כּחות טמירים ונעלמים מוצאים את בּטויים בּנקל על-ידי עזרה הדדית. עבודה משותּפת תּוסיף לנו אומץ והתאוששות להרחיב ולהגדיל את חוג השפּעתנו לטובתנו במדה שלא שערנו מאז.

בטוח אני, שבּקרב נפשנו אָנו קובלים על פּזור-נפש כּזה במעלה חלודה על כּחותינו הנפשיים. בּטוח אני, שעומק עמוק בּלבּנו מפכּים גלי חיים. אלא מפּני סבּה אחת או אחרת, אָנו מונעים אותם מעבור את גבולם.

ובכן, חברים, אליכם אקרא: "למה נוסיף סרה?" הבה נגול את האבן המעמסה מעל לבּנו, ויקלח הזרם של אחוה ורעות. יעשה הזרם הזה למעין מים חיים ואי-מפסיקים. יצא כל אחד מחוג הצר של עולמו הוא. נעבוד בּכחות מאוחדים ומרץ משותּף. ניצור חבורות שונות: חובבי פּלפּול, זמיר, שירה וספרות. ניצור סביבה יפה, שתּחת השפּעתה נחיה כחברים גמורים, ולבּותינו הקפואים מקור יחמו, ונרגיש את האחריות הנעימה של חיים צבוריים ונעלים, ואז נבין איש את שפת לבו ונמלא את דרישתו.

ואל כּל זה נוכל להגיע אַך ורק על-ידי הסתּדרות מוצקה המאחדת את כּלנו לשם שאיפה ומטרה אחת. זהו האמצעי היותר בּדוק בּחיים החברתיים והמעשיים. ארגון כּחותינו הוא עיקר גדול. נרכז אותם לנקודה אחת, נחזק ההסתּדרות ותקווֺתינו בע"ה תּתגשמנה.

Our Organization

Sh[lomo] Wind

Friends, members of the Yeshiva!

The time has come for us to enter in open dialogue on matters that affect our social life. Let us remove the barriers that divide us and join in the general interest to create a pleasant and improved environment among us.

Come and let us consider! If some anxiety that pains us dwells in our hearts, if there are strong emotions demanding expression in our souls, each one should tell his friend that issues oppressing him, and also the things that he believes will bring us an elevated spirit and general well-being.

Are we not all members of the Yeshiva, there is a shared lot for all of us, so why must we be like strangers to each other in our social life? I have heard a common saying among many students: Was it not a while ago that we had an Organization, if only we could succeed to awaken our hearts to the idea of unity, the feeling of brotherhood and love?

Answering this question is truly very difficult. The connection between us is not like the connection between limbs of a body that are sustained by one heart. Every student is centered in his own world — finding conditions that are pleasant only for him, we are close, but we have been distant. A few have succeeded in the direction they chose for themselves, and a few, lacking aid, have had their expectations disappointed. The result: No interest in social life, a frozen soul and a depressed spirit.

The Organization is not responsible for this situation of separation. For what is the Organization and for what purpose did it come into being? The Organization is the expression of power of hearts that desire a unified ideal, for a root philosophy that includes different directions. An Organization created from a union of powers directs its diversity of members to a collective success. But if there are not united powers, if everyone does his own thing — from what material can a successful Organization be created, and where will its power to influence come from?

 Why will there not be unity of heart between us that express in us a spirit of life and vigor, proper and elevated enthusiasm so that we can proceed with our lives in the move elevated way? “Friendship or death,” said our sages. How many great ideas in this message! We are depressed in this lonely life. Life like this is not worth anything.

We all need strengthening in our work. In order to ignite and awaken our vigor, we must exchange ideas, for the spirit that will renew our strengths. Even the enter world would not be able to continue existing without the renewal of the act of creation every day. Our unpleasant work in our lonely lives can transform to become pleasant work in social life, in a life of brotherhood and friendship, in a life that is influenced by an elevated and sublime ideal.

Friends, the Organization when it is strong and established, and it has the united powers of all the students, it can perfect the spiritual and material state of its members. Powers of union birth other powers. Powers hidden and obscured present their expression with ease through mutual aid. Shared work will increase our strength and recovery to widen and grow the sphere of our influence to our benefit to an extent never measured before.

I am certain, that within our souls we are accepting this scattering of souls to degree that rusts our emotional strength. I am certain that deep down in our hearts we are resisting the waves of life for one reason or another, we are preventing them from passing over their boundaries.

So, friends, to you I call: “Why do we continue to stray?” Let us roll the burdensome stone off our hearts, and the flow of brotherhood and friendship will spray. It will make this flow into a constant spring of water that never stops. Everyone will leave the narrow sphere of his world. We will work in united power and with shared vigor. We will create different clubs: Lovers of pilpul, song, poetry and literature. We will create a beautiful environment, which beneath its influence we will be complete friends, and our frozen hearts will thaw, and we will feel the pleasant responsibility of social life and we will ascend. Then we will understand our own individual hearts and fulfil their desires.

We can only achieve all of this through a grounded Organization that unites all of us with the same desire and goal. That is the central concept in social life and activity. Organization of our powers is a large foundation. We will centralize them to one point. We will strengthen the Organization and our hopes, God willing, will materialize.

On the Matter of Student Governance

I began to be interested in the mechanisms of student government at Yeshiva University my Fall 2022 semester as I tried to learn more about what various positions did and the role student government played in the Pride Alliance litigation. I wrote an article for the Observer back then arguing that Student Government needed to be more transparent and take an active role in doing its own PR.

After carefully reading through the constitution that we used back then, I initiated a lawsuit against the General Assembly (which if you know, you know, I can't even begin to explain it here) the "legislative body" of the Wilf Campus Student Government apparatus. The GA has the power to do open meetings to allow students to be aware of what they are planning. There hasn't really been a true open meeting since 2006, which was the last such meeting that the Commentator reported on. 

I first thought I could force them to do it by trying them in Student Court. I was naive, but I prepared my case and tried to initiate a case. Unfortunately, my grandmother died while I was in the middle of the whole thing, and I really didn't want to keep up the fight while I was trying to mourn her, so I dropped the case. Which, in retrospect was probably for the better.

I was not the only person frustrated with the situation. Baruch Lerman, one of the rare students who spends four years at YU, a career politician in student government wanted to completely restructure the whole enterprise. 

So he assembled a constitutional committee to make a new constitution. I was invited to join, and I happily participated in the discussions. I read up on Roberts Rules of Order and offered my research abilities to analyze how student government behaved in the past. 

Our whole committee was rather unprofessionally run. We didn't actually produce a document for people to look at until the very last second, and in order for any legislation to pass it needs to go through a review process for the constituents to read it. Of course the document didn't even get a majority of votes cast. 

Internally, within the committee, we entered into a state of group think, where we just assumed that all the problems of student government were caused by the vague, unclear, and powerless rules that filled the existing constitution. If we could only make a constitution that clearly outlined a better organization that was filled with competent students, we could actually improve things. We could return autonomy to the students. There was discussion of returning students to the calendar committee so that we could have a say in the calendar so that it wouldn't be so inconvenient for us. We could present a united front of student advocacy and really make change. We could restore student control over the Student Union space in the Schottenstein Center and bring about a renaissance of student activities that people would actually attend. 

We were all living in a fantasy that these rules could somehow fix all of our problems. Now, I had some doubts that I would occasionally bring up in meetings. Will these rules really fix everything? Do we need to do an overhaul of this system to fix many of these problems? Even if we do get this whole thing passed, how will people know how to use it properly? Our ideas were not new. An older and more professionally run constitutional committee in 2001 successfully overhauled their constitution and it didn't really solve any problems. 

When our vote failed, some members of the group were angry that the students didn't listen to us. But I tried to talk sense into them, that it would make us all look like pieces of shit of we didn't take this lose graciously. The loss sent down a path of introspection. I reread some of the historical sources on student government. I tried to get a better understanding of the theory behind why it exists and how it exists. The more a rethought, outside of the eco-chamber of the constitutional committee, the more I was convinced that we students don't currently have the power and crucially never had the power to independently run student government. 

A much more lengthy treatment of this subject is necessary to hammer down all the details of the issue of student government at YU, but I want to summarize it as best as I can here.

Though we do find instances of students independently advocating for themselves in 1905 through 1908 during the years of turmoil in the early yeshiva, I find it unlikely that those primitive strike organizations formed the foundation of the school's oldest student council, the Student Organization of Yeshiva, or SOY. 

The earliest written record I have been able to find of it comes from the 1923 Talmudical Academy yearbook, which mentions the lag ba'Omer baseball game between the Yeshiva and the Talmudical Academy. The Students' Organization of the Yeshiva (SOY) and the Students' Organization of the Talmudical Academy High School (SOTAHS) arranged the annual baseball game. 

From then on we have the Hedenu newspaper that SOY published. Here we see their Hebrew name, הסתדרות תלמידי ישיבת ר׳ יצחק אלחנן. In the fact the first issue of the paper from May 1926 has an editorial from the president of SOY, Shlomo Wind (who would go on to teach at TI and Stern for many years) begging students to get more involved in the organization and to support it. Sounds a little familiar. It becomes immediately apparent that students at YU have never been entirely enthusiastic about student government type activities. We don't know exactly how this institution of SOY came to be. 

In addition to these early records of the SOY we also have writing from the Students' Organization of the Teachers Institute, הסתדרות תלמידי בית מדרש למורים. They published a yearbook called Nir, entirely in Hebrew. Once again we don't know exactly when the organization was formed, but both for SOY and SOTI, they needed to have been around for a bit to become established enough to publish their own magazines. There's no mention in these publications of the founding of the Students' Organization, everyone who's around just seems to assume it exists and doesn't feel the need to question it or be proud of its growth since its founding. 

I suspect that these organizations were created in shortly after 1915, when RIETS started to professionalize into an American seminary. It maintained its Yeshiva elements with Sedarim and Shiur on Talmud and Halacha, but it also incorporated classes on academic Jewish studies, language, and homiletics. Once the Teachers Institute was added in 1917, they started teaching pedagogy. The school was working to being professional. There is a longstanding practice of American schools having student governments to organize activities to keep up the spirits of the students while they engage in their studies. 

These institutions are intended to benefit the school, by ensuring there will be such activities to entertain the students and build comradery between then, and the students get to practice leadership skills in a controlled environment before they enter the real world.

It seems fairly likely that the school actively decided to adopt such a policy around 1915 to 1917ish, maybe a little later. That policy has not changed. The students are given a little funding from the school to arrange activities. They have to abide by the guidelines of the school's administration. 

When Yeshiva College was created in 1928, the school was quick to form its own Students' Organization of Yeshiva College or SOYC. Its similarity to SOY made then change the title after a year to be the Yeshiva College Student Council or YCSC. The student council answered to the dean of Yeshiva College. This arrangement was similar to how the SOTI worked with the dean of TI. These deans were able to arrange for meeting space for their school's student councils. They encouraged students to work with the faculty of the college to do academically oriented student activities. In the early years, the student council worked with the Yeshiva College librarians to purchase the textbooks needed for the courses being taught each year. The council even diverted some of its funding to that.

The YCSC, like all the other student councils likely worked closely with the deans of Yeshiva College, or the school it served, and the faculty of the school to accomplish its programing. YCSC organized athletic and intellectual competitions both within and outside of the school. They brought in guest speakers to talk about politics and intellectual pursuits, and paid for fun social events for people to just hang out in. 

We know that YCSC's relationship with the faculty was instrumental to its success, since it was one of the complaints they lodged against the dean of Yeshiva College, Dr. Shelly R. Safir, in 1936. During the very early years of the school, the Student Council directly collected the activity fee and managed its own banking. However fairly quickly, the activity fee collection was handled by the office of the Bursar (financial office.) 

The bursar then had to appropriate the money to the student council in order for them to spend it. I speculate that the process began with YCSC drafting a budget. This budget would plan out how their money for that particular semester would be spent. X amount would go to subsidizing the Commentator, X amount to the Yearbook committee, X amount to the chess club, and so on. The budget probably had to be approved by the dean of Yeshiva College before the bursar could authorize the funds. 

This whole process meant that the students had to pass a budget before anything could be done that semester, but it also meant that the students were the one's who directly spent the money on events. 

Even as far back as the 1940s, the school was trying to slowly professionalize its student services. Such as the career placement center, its dormitories, and health services. They created a position in the 1950s called the dean of men who supervised the men's housing and the dean of women who supervised women's housing. The dean of men/women and the deans of Yeshiv/Stern college worked with their respective student governments jointly. We can find an example of a training session these two deans did for the Stern College for Women Student Council during the early years of the school. 

The dean of the college still held the veto power for student activities during this era. A good example of this being exercised, was when Dean Isaac Bacon of Yeshiva College blocked the formation of a Student run radio station for several years until he was able to work out an agreeable arrangement with the Student Council in 1968. 

By the mid-1980s, the office of the dean of students was being solidified. The responsibilities of events planning were shifted away from the dean of the colleges and onto the dean of students. Since the dean of students office was created, the functional autonomy of the student government has decreased slowly over time. 

I suspect that this loss of power directly translates to a frenzy of amendments to the constitution and even rewriting the whole document in an effort to reclaim control. Students don't really realize that the policy of the school has changed since previous generations, and they believe that the constitution is a respected document. If only the could change it, things would get better. So we see that the SCWSC produced a new constitution for itself in 1996 that clearly outlined how the treasurer of the council would do the banking. I speculate that this reflects a reality where student council was losing the ability to do its own banking, and they were trying to keep it by putting it into writing. 

The Yeshiva College Student Council saw over 30 amendments passed over the 1990s leading up to an overhaul of the whole student council system in 2001 that combined all the small student councils in a large Student Union body. 

Very quickly, the original student council basically separated again, and its unlikely that they ever functioned as the unified body that the framers intended. The 2014 amendments, made this arrangement official. 

By 2004 the Dean of Student had organized the Office of Student Affairs that managed student activities. Its hard to say the extent of the office's control of the process of event planning. We know that the Commentator was still doing its own banking during this period, but the YSU was less vocal about its plans to do things. Long gone were the days when the Student Council would draft a budget in the first few weeks of the semester. The YSU still did an opening meeting that mimicked the budget, but they were just taking suggestions for things to do, the meeting was under no obligation to produce an actionable budget. 

By 2011, the Office of Student Affairs was subdivided again, and the Office of Student Life was formed to specifically focus on managing events. At least five full time employees were devoted to this cause. The office produced a policy sheet directed at student leaders to explain how the office worked. No longer were students allowed to independently spend student activity money. Every single purchase was managed through the Office of Student Life. This intricate involvement of every step in the process of event planning meant that the office recommended you submit all the details of your event three weeks in advance to allow for everything to be cleared and managed by the office. 

Both the Commentator and the Observer changed their website domains from .com to .org around this time. We know from some issues that recently arose regarding both domains, that OSL makes the payments to maintain the domains, and nowadays OSL also manages the banking of both papers. I suspect that this change in domain was due to an OSL policy that wanted to control all the spending of student activity money. 

Oddly enough, the Seforim Sale was given immunity to the control of OSL. The seforim sale operates like an old school student organization, with more autonomy than anything else. I don't know why that is exactly, but perhaps someone high up enough in the YU administration knew that forcing the Seforim Sale to comply with OSL regulations would cripple it and destroy it. 

Under the current system, one has to wonder, what is the place of elected student officials. In the early days of OSL, the office actually directly managed the election, but they quickly saw how dicey counting ballots can be and quickly stepped out of it. So the students independently run an election and then OSL recognizes whomever the election committee declares the winner. There are so many rules in the election that are so specific that every year there's been some kind of court case to settle who actually won the election due to issues of eligibility to have that seat in student government. 

OSL wants to cater to the interests of the students, but they also have to follow university policy and will limit what student leaders can do. Our current imagination of the all the positions in student government is based on a time when OSL didn't exist and student government actually needed to manage things. 

I don't really know what the answer is, but I do know that our current constitutions assume that students are doing a lot more than they actually are in these elected positions. 

The constitutions did not always need to exist. In fact the early student governments didn't have one. They likely just functioned off of the policies set forth by the deans of the schools that created them. These constitutions mimicked those policies when they were eventually drafted, but the secrecy of what actually is policy at YU nowadays means that so much of the constitution might not actually be policy. Which discredits its legitimacy as a document. 

With all that considered, I propose that the Office of Student Life and the Dean of Students publish their policies. They can update them as often they like. They don't have to be accountable to the students, but the policies have to be open for us to see. 

The policies should include info about the limitations of what activities can be, like no alcohol and sex. They should include limitations on who can be student leaders, such as whether or not a student's standing with the registrar should affect their eligibility to be part of things. 

Once we know what the limitations of student autonomy within activities is, we can work with OSL to draft a set of by-laws that actually reflect the political reality of the school and allow for more natural and seamless collaboration between students, faculty and administrators.     

Jacob Heller and Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism

In 1945 Jacob Heller sued Aharon Pechenik for libel on the accounts of Pechenik calling him a meshugane, a chassar deah, and that he belongs in a meshuganem hoiz. Heller claimed these terms amounted to calling him a lunatic and that he belonged in an insane asylum. Pechenik had used the terms in an editorial for the Mizrachi monthly magazine, Der Mizrachi Veg, to critique the politics of the young advocates of Agudas Yisrael and its anti-Zionist ideology, Heller was included as one of the more radical among these. The following articles were included as evidence in the court case, which can be found here. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Supreme_Court/dTDfs1FDu4YC?hl=en&gbpv=1 

Great Britain and the East, Oct. 31, 1942

Letters to the Editor

ORTHODOX JEWRY AND PALESTINE

Millions of religious Jews are unalterably opposed to the machinations in Palestine of the Zionists. The latter, after all, represent but a section of Jewry: They may not speak for all Israel. But all Israel is deeply concerned. Surely the views of the whole Jewish people, not those of a single organization alone, should be taken into account in any plans that are formulated.

On is inclined to ask: Who gave the Zionists authority to be the custodians and guardians and overseers in Palestine—a sort of extra government, an imperium in imperio? How long is their pernicious influence to be suffered? They seek the benefit of Zionism, not of Zion. Perhaps if they stopped trying from without to determine the destiny of Palestine, advantage would accrue to Palestine and to the Jews therein.

It is possible that Palestine will be divided into cantons; eventually it may be incorporated into the British Empire as a dominion (not, of course, as a specifically Jewish dominion) on the Quebec model of provincial autonomy for the two racial elements. In any arrangements that may be set up complete autonomy in internal Jewish affairs is forecast.

Are the Zionists to assume control then over Jewish affairs? This is of supreme significance to true, undiluted, independent Orthodox Jewry the world over, organized under the banner of Agudas Yisroel: it is, indeed, a matter of life or death. Orthodox Jews in Palestine are at this moment being ground under the heel of Zionist tyranny through the instrumentality of the Zionist Chief Rabbinate and the Zionist 'Jewish Community.' (There is in the Zionist Organization a fraction of religious Jews known as "Mizrachi," who are regarded by most Orthodox Jews as appeasers or fifth columnists or quislings in Orthodoxy. They do not merit serious consideration.)

Zionist in Palestine and in Europe and America has wrought untold confusion and damage in Jewry. Isaac Breuer declared that Zionism has become 'the most formidable enemy that ever arose to the Jewish People.' At the World Congress of Orthodoxy at Marienbad in August, 1937, H. A. Goodman cried out: "We must put an end to the criminal monopoly of the Zionists."

The British Government would certainly defer to the advice of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in religious questions. Palestine is essentially a religious question. Why, then, is it not guided by the wishes of the great rabbis, always the acknowledged leaders of Israel? Why does it turn to secular political Zionist spokesmen?

It made the mistake of not consulting the Arabs with regard to the Balfour declaration and the terms of the Mandate. Let it not make the mistake of not consulting the Agudas Yisroel with regards to the conduct of internal Jewish affairs in Palestine. Orthodox Jewry earnestly hopes that the Government will protect it from the evil devices of the Zionists. It asks independence for itself.

Jacob Heller, Boston, Massachusetts, U. S. A.

The Springfield Daily Republican, Oct. 10, 1944.

ZIONIST AND PALESTINE

Former's Position Adversely Criticized—British Policy Approved

To the Editor of The Republican:—

The Republican and Democratic parties should not have yielded to the pressure of the importunate Zionists and inserted a plank about Palestine in their platforms. Neither should hearings have been held before the House committee on foreign affairs on Palestine resolutions concocted by the Zionist henchmen. America should not be involved in Zionists delusions. Britain, despite the ungrateful, querulous Zionists, has done a magnificent job in Palestine; it is not for us to make her lot harder.

Britain, with admirable understanding, saw that the policy of the 'white paper' announced five years ago was imperative on economic, political and psychological grounds. Who is qualified to reprove her, to favor her with safe advice? The plain truth is that the white paper is a guarantee of the safety and security of the 530,000 Jews (many thousands of whom, by the way, are anti-Zionists) now resident in Palestine. Withdrawal of British bayonets would inevitably mean that the throats of these Jews would be cut over night. 

The vociferous Zionists, with their unpleasant, incessant propaganda, would turn Palestine into a huge concentration camps for Jews. They willfully forget that Palestine is a small, barren country without natural resources, and inhabited by Arabs (who form more than two-thirds of the population) for 1300 years. The Arabs—with reason—fear domination by the Zionists. The terrible plight of Jewry cannot be assuaged at the expense of the Arabs. The moral conscience of the world will not permit treatment of the Arabs that flouts the canons of democracy and fair play. This matter must be settled on the basis of justice, not of Zionism. Let the nations only show good will, and there is plenty of room throughout the world for Jewish refugees.

The Zionists and unfit for self-government. Their attitude toward their Jewish opponents alone proves this statement. The shocking tyranny exercised by the high-handed, lordly Zionists for a quarter of a century over the defenseless, inarticulate Orthodox Jews in Palestine is a tale that needs telling. Such brutal persecution of people because of their adherence to the principles of a great faith—their reduction to helotry—can be matched only in Hitlerdom. 

There will be no Jewish (read "Zionist") state in Palestine. The Jewish population there will never rise to 51 per cent. The Zionists will resign themselves to the status of a permanent minority. The Arabs will be the masters in Palestine. The Jews' rights will be protected by the nations. Possibly the Holy Land, because of its peculiar interest to three religions, will be placed under and international trusteeship.

Let us wake up and face reality. Zionism is not a blessing to Jews or to non-Jews. Hundreds of thousands of solid substantial Jews are vigorously and unalterably opposed to this crass, materialistic, secular nationalism. And there is the grave problem whether it shall be permitted to create unrest and disturbance in the Near East, thereby upsetting the peace of the world. Is it not high time that Zionism be liquidated?

Jacob Heller, Boston, Oct. 8, 1944.

The Springfield Daily Republican, Oct. 17, 1944.

ZIONISTS AND ORTHODOX

Differences of Jewish Opinion Regarding Palestine

To the Editor of The Republican:—

The non-Jewish public, at the mercy of Zionist propaganda, is often, by statements in the press regarding the so-called 'Jewish agency,' led to believe that the body speaks for the Jews of the Holy Land (else why would it 'demand' the right to control Jewish immigration thereto?), if not of the world. This is an entirely erroneous conception. This agency is not Jewish, but Zionist; it is not representative and cannot pretend to be spokesman for Jewry.

In this connection, I should like to quote from a recent article by Jacob Rosenheim, president of Agudas Yisroel, the powerful international organization of Orthodox Jewry: "The one-sided, illegal, party character of this official body, that according to the unambiguous stipulations of the (Palestine) mandate was to secure 'the cooperation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of a Jewish national home,' has been revealed to a disastrous degree in the experience of the last few years . . . The agency under its present constitution does not deserve any confidence or support . . . This state of things cannot be allowed to continue. Non-Zionist Jewry and Orthodoxy above all heave a legal and moral claim before the allied nations not to suffer any longer a Zionist party-dictatorship under the deceptive name of a 'Jewish agency for Palestine.' A basic reconstitution of this Jewish agency must be enforced, limiting at the outset its competence and power to purely political economic and social matters (excluding disputed cultural and religious matters) and then securing—on the footing of equality—the cooperation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of a Jewish national home. The near future will show whether an internal Jewish understanding of this basis is possible or whether a protracted battle for emancipation among Jews themselves is inevitable."

Further comment is superfluous, Mr. Rosenheim, who for 40 years has enjoyed the confidence of the outstanding rabbinical luminaries, writes with restraint. If Americans were made aware of the unfair and abhorrent tactics to which this agency has repeatedly stooped in its ferocious eagerness to strangle Orthodox Judaism—and all this will the unconscious help of Britain—they would shudder with loathing. 

Jacob Heller, Boston, Oct. 15, 1944.

Der Mizrachi Veg, December 1944.

LIGHT AND SHADOW

From Newspapers and Periodicals

Efforts to Provoke Conflict—Mask of Nonpartisanship—A judgement of Maimonides—'Arguments' of and Ignoramus—In a Temple—Solace from the Poale Agudat Mizrachi—An Agudah Rabbi Preaches Zionism—Repentant Declarations from the Leftist Camp—Were it Not For Mizrachi—

By A. Halevi [Aharon Pechenik]

From all sides we receive inquiries as to our reason for devoting so much interest to the attacks of the Agudat Israel, and for creating so much ado over them at a time when they possess no significance in American Jewish Life, and when comments only create publicity for them. All those bringing this matter to our attention are quite correct; but it is precisely because these people have no significance and no responsibility and have nothing to lose through public expression of opinion, that the few young men occupied with the Agudat Israel in America can permit themselves to write whatever their hearts desire, and, as it were, to provoke quarrel in American Orthodoxy. It is this fact that must be brought to the attention of the Jewish public.

That they themselves are aware of their complete lack of value or significance in America can be seen from their machinations on two fronts. On the one hand, it is sought to besmirch Mizrachists in the press; naive writers are caught by this bait, and the quarrel between Mizrachi and the Agudah is taken up as an indication that not alone among others, but also among pious kosher Jews, is there general bickering . . . On the other hand, however, when it comes to practical work, they know well that they public cannot be fooled, and it is clear to all that the Agudat Israel is unable to point to any actual accomplishments either in America or Palestine; on this account they try to cover themselves under a mask of non-partisanship. Thys, the Beth Jacob schools were known in Poland as Agudah institutions; but here they are averse to making official acknowledgement that they are in any way connected with the Agudah, since the use of that name would be no great praise for them . . . Therefore the Agudats seeks to draw Mizrachi leaders into conflict, while loudly proclaiming their non-partisanship. The same applied to their Torah u-Mesorah, their rescue campaigns, and the others. They include in their roster the names of several Mizrachists, who cannot every day protest the misuse of their names; and they then proclaim in the public places that their lack of partisanship is proven by the Mizrachists who seem to be with them. 

And while we are discussing their aims of provoking warfare and dissension in Orthodoxy, let us present several out of many examples. One of their young men, who has pretensions to being a rabbi and pedagogue, and who holds a position in a yeshivah supported by Mizrachists, blossomed forth in the 'Forward' with an article studded with lies and inanities concerning Mizrachi. This article, under two large captions—'Mizrachi and Agudat Israel—What Is Their Quarrel About?' and 'The Schism in the Orthodox World'—and signed by the pseudonym, A. B. Ruthson, had the following among its pearls: 'Mizrachi maintains the principles taught by the constitution of Zionism; and when the Torah comes into conflict with Zionism, the final law remains in consonance with Zionist dictates. This has created the schism between the Agudat Israel and Mizrachi.' One can readily comprehend the cheap ignorantism fed to the readers of the 'Forward'—that the illustrious scholars, Rabbis H. L. Woloshiner, Samuel Mohilever, I. J. Reines, and A. I. Kook, of blessed memory, and their living compeer, Chief Rabbi Dr. Isaac Herzog—that all these, the great spiritual leaders of Mizrachi, place the constitution of Zionism about the holy Law! Any child acquainted with the ABC of Mizrachi and Zionism knows the elementary fact that the Mizrachi Organization came in existence only in 1902 at the Fifth Zionist Congress, when Orthodoxy severed itself from the main body on the questions of Torah and culture; and that since that time it has gone its own way in all matters of Torah wherein other Zionists have opposing opinions. But Mizrachi always joins other Zionists in general political and economic matters, in accordance with the ordinance of the Law forbidding full severance from the generality of Israel. The sages teach that any prescribed fast-day not also observed by sinner in Israel is not considered a valid fast-day. This is not a fanciful statement lending itself to various interpretation, but a definite legal principle posited by Maimonides, that in Israel's community affairs one must proceed together even with sinners.

To comment on all the absurdities in this article would require ten times its own space. One can only refer to such as: 'Dr. Herzl drew a black line through all of Jewish history when he declared. "Zionism has no relationship with the Jewish religion."' Thus novel expression of ignorance indicates that the young writer had never perused Herzl's writings. For therein he would have discovered scores of positive statements, such as, 'Zionism means, above all, the return to Judaism,' and the end of his book 'Altneuland,' where realization of the dream of Zionism is ascribed to the Master of the universe . . . And had the young man read only what his own leaders wrote, he would have known what the ideological leader of the Agudat Israel, Dr. Isaac Breuer, set down about Herzl—that he was a great Jew and an agent of Divine Providence. And had he read further what Dr. Breuer wrote concerning the ugly discomfiture and bankruptcy of the Agudah ideology, he might never have composed this article. 

Here is but one more pearl from this piece: 'For this reason the Agudat Israel did not attend the Jewish (read Zionist) Conference which took place last year in New York, because the Conference gave prominency only to demonstrations in favor of Palestine, and gave insufficient expression to the agony of European Jewry.' Everyone knows how much truth there is in this statement, but it is curious that the Agudah knew in advance that the Conference would occupy itself only with Palestine—all of which is in full accord with the saying of the sages: 'From the day that the Temple was destroyed, the art of prophesy was granted only to fools.'

And while we are on the subject of Agudah provocation, may we be permitted to refer to another product of the Agudah—one Jacob Heller, who evidently is a resident of Boston, and with whom we have previously dealt in the pages of The Mizrachi Weg. This man has made himself known, with his provocative informations against Zionists and Zionism, to the London Colonial Office; and the organ of the Agudah zealots in Jerusalem, Kol Israel, has published his work quite frequently. Recently this Jacob Heller fastened himself upon the English daily, the Springfield Daily Republican, to which he carried his provocations. He writes therein that England is justified in instituting the White Paper, and that if the Zionists were to attain power over Palestine they would immediately transform the land into a great concentration camp; also that the Arabs are the majority there and to them belongs the land; and that places can be found elsewhere for the Jewish refugees; and so on.

Further does this Jacob Heller declare in his pieces for the English newspaper, that the enslavement of the Orthodox Jews in Palestine through the Zionists can only be likened to Hitlerism; and that the Jewish Agency represents no one, adducing proof therefor from an article by Jacob Rosenheim, 'president of the powerful international orthodox organization, the Agudah Israel' (so writes Jacob Heller), in which Rosenheim 'openly' asserts that non-Zionist dictatorship'—and the like.

We have taken the trouble to present quotations of all the 'arguments' this Jacob Heller had adduced before the non-Jewish world, but entirely with the favoring purpose that we cannot pass adverse judgement upon him insomuch as we are dealing with a person of confused mind . . . But if so, why does the Agudah permit him to speak in its name, and why is he not confined to an asylum, to prevent him sending his accusations and treacherous writings to the non-Jewish newspapers?

Nevertheless, to be honest and objective, we must admit that not all active Agudists have crept into such impasses as have their local representatives. We have already quoted Dr. Isaac Breuer, and other of their workers in Palestine who joined in open combat with the so-called 'Universal Agudat Israel.' Well remembered is the revolt of the 'Poale Agudat Israel,' who could not wait until the Agudat Israel should do something in the Holy Land, hence wen the way of Mizrachi and established their colonies on National Fund land under a budget derived from Zionist funds. And we have had true solace from the Poale Agudat Israel. They recently held a conference in Petach Tikvah and in the village Saba, at which Chief Rabbi Herzog delivered an extended address, and, according to press reports, at which there reigned a feeling of amity toward Mizrachi. A. J. Goldroth, a leader of the Poale Agudat Israel, asserted: 'Instead of the general organization of the Agudat Israel devoting themselves earnestly to assisting the Poale Agudat Israel in its labor and colonization projects, they concern themselves only with their divisiveness among Jews and with creating sundered communities . . .' The Palestine press also reports an address at the National Fund conference held last September on Mount Scopus, by a representative of the Hapoel Agudat Israel colony 'Hafez Hayyim;' 'I have the honor today to take part in this national conference as a representative of the new colony Hafetz Hayyim of the Poale Agudat Israel, just established on National Fund soil. We thank God that we have become partners of all those building up our Holy Land . . . May it be His will that we bring good fortune and serve as exemplars to all the members of the Agudat Israel, so that they too may become partners in the upbuilding of our Holy Land, to assure the continued existence of our people now suffering and bleeding in such fearful agony.'

And to round out the picture, let us quote from an article by one of the few American rabbis who have offered their names as members and actives workers of the Agudat Israel. This is Dr. Leo Jung, who writes as follows in Talpioth: 'The present period is an nationalistic one to an unprecedented degree, but this nationalism displays a valuable attribute for our inner life. Zionism has taught all Jews the central importance of our Holy Land, and has completely electrified Jewish energies. Together with anti-Semitism, Zionism has become a significant factor in turning many Jews back to their people and there is added hope that they will also return to Judaism. On this road one sees perspective of Zionism helping to develop in Jewish hearts that faith which will hold back the stream of assimilation by means of a religious revival and through the revival of Hebrew literature. Through Zionism we shall be enabled to transform the American chaoticism into an American Judaism that will be strong and established and create a milieu that will prove a splendid proliferation of our past . . .'

Where now stands the A. B. Ruthson and the other combative Agudists, who still carry on their foolish attacks and conflicts?

Finally, may we be permitted to quote from the other opposition camp, which also gives evidence of incidental Mizrachi influence, and of the expressions of repentance which seem to have captured the entire camp of Israel. In the Poale Zion publications (Yiddisher Kempfer, Verband Stimme) there was prominently published an impassioned appeal in favor of the Sabbath by M. Moshevitzky, who demands discontinuance of the secular meetings held each Friday night—'A Friday evening gathering should be permeated with the spirit of holiness and with Sabbath sentiment.' Pleads the writer further: 'From the Jewish homes and their windows there must gleam and resound the greeting accorded the Sabbath Queen!' To this we give hearty assent. For long years we have hammered away in our publications and everywhere against the Sabbath desecration of the Poale Zion, and we trust that the emotional appeal in their own paper will have its effect. Incidentally, that appeal was that appeal was reprinted and quoted in many other periodicals. 

Dr. Simon Bernstein, noted Zionist and author, writes in Das Yiddishe Folk, organ of the Zionist Organization of America: 'It is the present task of American Jews not along to succor Jews throughout the world, but also Jewishness among themselves . . . American Jews must themselves become more Jewish, must be the kind of Jews upon whom we could fully rely in previous generations—this is the new responsibility devolving upon American Jewry. It must be clear to everyone, young or old, that from now on upon him alone lies the responsibility for maintaining Judaism, for prolonging the life of Judaism . . .'

Dr. Bernstein, discussing the duties and tasks of Zionism in America, ends: 'No matter how important this may be, it is only part of the general tremendous task before us of returning to Judaism, to Jewishness. The old generation as well as the young must be yoked together in the duty of assuring our continuity as a people, with its own Law, tradition, and Land. Basle and Sinai must be united for all time!'

We can add dozens of such citations from the Palestine press. For lack of space, however, we shall content ourselves with excerpts from an address by A. Lieberstein under the auspices of Mapai, the leftist workers' organization in Palestine: 'We must serve as example for our remnants in Europe, and for the Jewish masses in exilic lands who are threatened by assimilation. We must return to our old tradition, to the Bible and the Jewish Sabbaths and holy day; and thereby we shall avoid the peril of assimilation throughout the world. It is no accident that the colonies of Hachalutz (The Pioneer) in England have resolved to observe the Sabbath and all Jewish traditions, and that their kitchens should be completely kosher. We must prepare along these lines all our representatives that travel to Europe . . .'

Not for naught did the Chief Rabbi of Palestine declare that to evaluate Mizrachi properly one must try to envision Palestine without Mizrachi . . . And the writer of these lines has heard Rabbi J. L. Seltzer, leader and honorary president of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, utter similar words at a Mizrachi convention—'We cannot envisage the existence of orthodox Judaism in America without Mizrachi . . .'

Hey! - Hey! - Nu?

The men of RIETS published a bilingual Hebrew and English newspaper called Hedenu (Our Echo) in the 1920s and 30s. In the late 20s they included a satirical page titled "Hey! - Hey! - Nu?" The issue from May 1928 included a satirical account of the dedication of the Main Building on Amsterdam Avenue and 187th Street, now called Zysman Hall. 

The Dedication

(As viewed from a different angle, which is either acute or right or straight, according to the viewpoint of the reader.)

    And so we went to the Dedication. At least, we tried to. Let us admit candidly that our attempt did not succeed. The reasons for our non-admittance were numerous. If, dear reader, you are desirous of ascertaining the exact number of reasons, you may do so by inquiring at headquarters just how many myrmidons of the law were stationed at the various entrances to the noble edifice on the corner of One hundred Eighty-sixth Street and Amsterdam Avenue. Each of these alone would have proved a sufficient reason; how much more so, then, so vast an aggregation.

    We had the pleasure and the privilege of interviewing several of the officers guarding the various portals. Indeed they seemed quite a jolly lot of Irishmen, and were not averse to indulging in conversation, in a somewhat jocular vein, it is true.

    We approached the first pair of minions with a confident bearing, but found our passage obstructed by four brawny, blue-clad arms. We looked up interrogatively.

    "Yer can't get in!"

    "!הלא ברב עם הדרת מלך" we retorted wittily.

    They saw that we had them there, for they kept quiet. Immediately pursuing our advantage, we extracted all the tickets which we had in our possession, each of which read somewhat as follows:

YOU ARE CODIALLY INVITED

TO ATTEND THE DEDICATION CEREMONIES

OF THE

YESHIVA COLLEGE

ETC.

    We had one white ticket, three blue tickets and four or five of a non-committal character. We boldly produced these and flaunted them before the eyes of the officers in triumph. There was no visible effect—not a flicker of an eyelash or the turn of a hair.

    I^*) departed without the courtesy of saying goodbye, determined to seek elsewhere, and approached the next pair of officers.

    I now assumed an attitude of youthful innocence.

    "Can you tell me," I asked solicitously, "What this ticket is good for?" I herewith presented a blue ticket, hoping the gentlemen would feel flattered by the color-match between the blue pasteboard and their uniforms.

    "Well," one replied, "not exactly. Maybe if you had some more you might be able to do something. You might—"

    "Make a fire and warm yourself," interposed the other, benignantly.

    "Or use it for a page in a book," suggested the first.

    "You mean a book-mark," corrected the second, wisely.

    "But I thought this was an admission card," I remonstrated.

    "It was, at eleven in the morning," said one. "You got up too late."

    "But it says four o'clock," I sputtered.

    "We know what it says, but we don't give a hang. We're telling you."

    "Oh," I remarked, "You're telling me!"

    This superb bit of sarcasm seemed to pass completely over their heads. They did not utter a word.

    Thus I strolled past the several entrances, holding fruitless conversations with numerous policemen. That is to say, fruitless as far as my entrance was concerned, but serving to give me a deeper insight into human nature.

    In the course of my meanderings, I happened to repass the portal where the first conversation occurred, and who should appear before my eyes but one of the fifteen or twenty—I am not exactly sure of the number—members of the presidium of a certain organization of Rabbis, who was trying with might and main to obtain entrance into the auditorium.

    "We got our order," was the only satisfaction he could get from the officers.

    "But here is my card," he ejaculated in astonishment, "I am the president!"

    "We got our orders!"

    We^**) decided to explore the edifice, with a vague hope in the back of our mind that there might be an unguarded side-entrance somewhere. We succeeded merely in stumbling over some dark staircases and finally in getting within hearing range of the applause in the auditorium, which served merely to whet our desire. 

    As we were upon the point of departing, defeatedly, we heard a personage who is intimately connected with the Yeshiva urge a well-known restaurateur in a stage whisper:

    "Go up on the third floor, and tell them you are a member of the Agudas Harabbanim, and since you wear a beard, they will surely let you enter."

    Having taken a razorless shave some days previous, we decided not to follow. . . .

    Soon thereafter we noticed a young gentleman with an artificial carnation in his buttonhole earnestly trying to avoid being heard while he urged a party of young men and women:

    "Follow me."

    We immediately took advantage of the invitation. He led the party, followed by us, up the stairs, through a corridor, and over to a small door in an out-of-the-way alcove. Being too far away to see how the door was opened, we reached it just in time to find it locked. We murmured several incantations, including "Open Sesame," followed by "פתחו לי שערי צדק"—all to not avail. The door, strange to say, with an insufferable persistence, remained firmly closed.

    We descended the stairs with a slow and thoughtful step, pondering upon the injustice of the world and its ways. We noticed several cantors departing, also several young gentlemen with artificial carnations in their buttonholes seemed to be upon the point of leaving. The officers were beginning to invite people to enter. . . .

    We buttoned our coat and started out for the subway. 

    Note: Others who may have found themselves in the same predicament as ourselves on the day of the dedication may find consolation in the hope that when the new buildings become too humble to house the entire student body, and a new group of buildings are dedicated, then, surely, better provision will be made for the accommodation of those who found themselves out of things on the recent occasion.  

---

*) At this point the writer seems to have lost a great deal of his self-complacency and confidence, probably due to his inability to gain admission to the auditorium. This would explain the abrupt change from the editorial "we" to the singular "I."

**) Here, evidently, the writer regained a modicum of his former easy bearing, not doubt taking comfort in the fact that so eminent a personage as the one just mentioned was also refused admission—thus accounting for the reassumption of the editorial "we."