State of Israel, Diaspora, and Jewish Continuity

Essays on the “Ever-Dying People”

Simon Rawidowicz

• Publisher: Brandeis University Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780874518467
• eBook ISBN: 9781512601572
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: Social Sciences

This readable, insightful, and thought-provoking collection of essays, presents an original and innovative ideology that stirringly affirms the unity of the Jewish people. Rawidowicz's rich themes include the relationship between the State of Israel and the Diaspora; Jewish "difference" and its repercussions; Jewish learning; and Jewish continuity in the post-Holocaust world. In his foreword to the paper edition, Michael A. Meyer writes, "Forty years after his death, [Rawidowicz's] sober analyses, his realism with regard to both the State of Israel and the Diaspora, and his striving to find unities among dichotomies that divide the Jewish people -- all of these make his images and ideas still worthy of our reflection."

The World of Ararat and Its Fortress

From the Letters of Simon Rawidowicz to Alexander Margulies*¹

Simon Rawidowicz (1896–1957), who at the time of his death was the first Philip Lown Professor of Jewish Philosophy and Hebrew Literature and first chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, was best known for his scholarship, which centered upon Saadia, Maimonides, Mendelssohn, Krochmal, and the role of interpretation in Jewish thought, as well as for his ideological writings on the relationship between the Land of Israel and the Diaspora.*² However, because of his deep commitment to scholarship and Hebrew creativity, Rawidowicz did not limit himself to literary activity but also devoted himself to practical matters, including the founding of the Brit Ivrit Olamit in Berlin in 1931, and the establishment of two Hebrew publishing companies, Ayanot in Berlin in 1922 and Ararat in London in 1942.^†3 The origins of the Ararat Publishing Society were recounted in a memoir written forty-five years later by one of its founders, the London businessman, philanthropist, and patron, Alexander Margulies.*⁴

My brother Benno^†5 was a Maskil in the traditional mould, and kept contact with Jewish scholars and writers. Simon Rawidowicz was one of them. Simon and I shared memories of a period in Germany during the Weimar Republic and until the Nazi upheaval. We hit it off from the word go. During subsequent conversations, Rawidowicz told me that he used to edit Yalkut, a Hebrew supplement to an Anglo-Zionist paper, published by the Zionist Federation. It folded up with the beginning of the war.**⁶ He complained that there was not a single Hebrew word printed in Europe, and that nothing was done to save European Jewish culture from the ruins. I asked what he thought could be done. He had various ideas, among them the idea of a proper Hebrew publication. This, he said, would not only keep Hebrew culture alive but also give an outlet to a number of refugee Hebrew scholars, as well as the few Anglo-Jews who wrote Hebrew, perhaps three or four.

Rawidowicz wondered whether a fund for such a publication could be established in England while the war was raging. I was never good at fundraising. I am incapable of asking people to part with money even for a good cause. But I don’t mind taking financial responsibilities myself for something I believe in. I asked Rawidowicz straight: What is involved in terms of money, assuming the facilities are there. He said there was still a very good Hebrew printer in London, and he named a sum. It was a goodly sum of money but not something beyond the capacity of myself, perhaps with some help from members of my family and one or two outsiders, if they should be willing.

I told Rawidowicz to go ahead. This is how it started. We established a nonprofit making society with the aim to foster Hebrew literature and to encourage Jewish learning.

The following selections from the correspondence between Rawidowicz and Alexander Margulies revolve around the activities of the Ararat Publishing Society, and place those activities in the wider context of the issues of their times.

From the letters of Simon Rawidowicz to Alexander Margulies

9 November 1942

. . . I think that it would be advisable for many reasons to name the Publishing House (or Society): Ararat (The Ararat Publishing Society). Our activities and books should symbolize the top of the mountains of Ararat, which were first seen when the terrible mabul [flood] reached its climax, or rather began to decrease. Please do think it over with your brother.

6 April 1943

I am glad you were interested in the controversy between Lavater and Mendelssohn.*⁷ What a nice century the 18^th one was! People could discuss most burning problems without being sent to a concentration camp etc.! How cruel are our times.

30 June 1943

I do not know why, I have never doubted anything you told me since our first meeting. “I do not know why”—maybe I am mistaken. I probably do know why. When we trust a friend, when we are fully convinced of his deep sincerity and more than that, if “more” is needed or possible—we surely know why. However, there are various kinds and degrees of “knowledge.” Not all knowledge that we know is fully “known” to us. Maybe this is a “higher” kind of knowledge. This is more—sometimes—than that kind of “Klarheit” [clarity] which you seem to miss—vermissen—here and there. Remember, the more “Klarheit” there is in ourselves, the more “Klarheit” we find in the world that surrounds us.

‘H’ deaseret yeme teshuvah, 5704 [The fifth of the ten days of repentance, 22 September 1943]

. . . Yes, you are fully entitled to a sense of pride over the Metzudah [Fortress, the name given to Ararat’s Hebrew miscellany]. Pride over money or any material things is surely not a virtue. It is different with spiritual achievements. “Pride” means here that our efforts have encouraged our fellow-men to something, be it an action or “just” an act of faith, of belief in the possibility of doing things in a proper and satisfactory way. “Pride” just indicates our joy over an “echo” reaching us from unexpected corners.

As far as I am concerned, I am glad that Hebrew is the spiritual pioneer in the desert of Anglo-Jewry; also that Hebrew, the tongue of our great and sacred fore-fathers, is regaining its due respect and authority. . . . The revival of Anglo-Jewry, the raising of its spiritual standard will thus begin with the restoration of “derech erez” to our national language and its literature.

4 November 1943

I have just received the news that you are nursing a cold in Liverpool—ausgerechnet [just what you needed]. . . . And this in spite of the fact that you went there on a holy mission: bar mitzvah. Our sages used to say: Sheluhei mitzvah einan nezokin (those who are discharging a mitzvah, no harm befalls them). Unfortunately, so many things happen which contradict the letter and the spirit of the wise statements of our sages.

To cheer you up—here are two of the Metzudah articles: Parkes’s and Kobler’s.*⁸ Both have been here and there “modified” in their Hebrew dress. The one will show you what the “best of the Gentiles” think of us, the other—what the post-1933 “English” Jews have done here—in every respect, much, much more than the pre-1933 “English” Jews. I hope both will interest you.

21 December 1943

It is very, very kind and thoughtful of you to suggest the dedication of the Metzudah to the memory of my late father-in-law.^†9 Yet, as I explained to your brother, since the volume is dedicated to the memory of our hundreds of thousands of Martyrs it cannot be connected with any individual name.

Mein Frau hat hier in einer Library ein Buch von H. G. Wells entdeckt, das heisst: All Aboard for Ararat!! (London, 1940, Secker & Warburg), das sogar ein “Symbol” hat, das dem unsrigen sehr nahr kommt! [My wife discovered here in a library a book by H. G. Wells entitled: All Aboard for Ararat!! (London, 1940, Secker & Warburg), that even has a “symbol” (logo) that comes very close to ours!]*¹⁰

30 December 1943

And many thanks for the books for our son. Very kind of you. As he caught the flu—or has one to say: the flu has caught him?—on Friday last and had to stay in bed all week until today, he has almost finished most of them. He is a quick reader. He gave me the Alhambra book, saying: This is for you, here is something about Jews. . . . Of course, he could not say this about the book on the Vikings. My wife had a look at it and advised me to read it. I shall probably do it.

20 February 1944

I hope you have fully “recovered” from the strain of the last so crowded week, full of “excitements” of various kinds. On the whole, when I sum up all that “happened,” the feature which strikes me most is that of the test to which all of us were put. As man’s body “needs” from time to time a test to pass through, so needs his spirit. So need human relations. So need—to a still greater extent—cooperation and friendship. Viewed from this angle, it seems to me that it has been a great performance, full of encouragement and inspiration for days to come. We pray—or rather should pray daily: veal tevienu leyede nisayon [do not bring us to the test]. Yet the “nisayon”—temptation or test—is indispensable. It is perhaps the most important part of the “game” that we have to “play” on God’s earth. Would that we stand the test to come as we stood this one.

Nothing could justify the urgency of our common effort more than the “attack” at the Reception,^†11 which (i.e. the Reception) made a good impression on all those present (“beruchim kol hamesubim” [blessed are all those assembled]). Were S. [Sir Leon Simon] not allowed to come and “attack,” the Reception would have been more harmonious—but the first test would not have been complete, it would have missed its most decisive part. My witness is in heaven that this Metzudah serves and will serve the cause of Eretz Israel more than many, many propaganda-books and papers in the language of the “Fortress.”

How did you take the Jewish Chronicle’s account? [Ivan Marion] Greenberg wrote to me an interesting personal letter.*¹² Mr. Brostoff came to see me and he expressed his indignation—also in the name of Mr. Landman, S’s brother-in-law—at the “attack.” Roth wrote to me about it too. I shall let you have his letter. But we want to work and work, to build the third Metzudah—while leaving the role of interfering with, undermining etc. to our “friends.” I feel so sorry for them.

19 March 1944

As to Mr. Haendler’s review which is on the whole encouraging and cleverly written (from his point of view),^†13 I would like to mention that he is mistaken mainly in two points:

1. That I could have given those “attacked” the opportunity to state their case before I published my article. This critical part of my article refers to ideas which have been stated or restated innumerable times in the last 60 years or so. Those who think that I am wrong in my analysis or my understanding of the current ideas in Zionism have the liberty or are even obliged to correct me as far as they consider it necessary. I am a student by nature, and I shall be much obliged to everybody who will draw my attention to facts overlooked by me.

2. Metzudah II had officially not a much “colder reception” on the part of official Zionism than Metzudah I. See e.g. the editorial of the Zionist Review about Metzudah II, which is much more enthusiastic than that about Metzudah I,**¹⁴ which was more “kosher” in the eyes of Simon and his friends. Mr. Haendler does not see the point. Did any Zionist body try to give support to the “kosher” Metzudah I or even to the Yalkut which was dedicated to the memory of Ussishkin,*¹⁵ and which also contained official Zionist articles by Ben-Gurion and others? Were we then favored with the smallest support or real interest on the part of any Zionist body in this country?

I have read Dr. Bombach’s article too, after I received your letter.^†16 He overlooks entirely the most characteristic part of my effort. To mention one instance only: I make it quite clear that the “Second French Revolution” of which I am speaking will have nothing to do with the first one. Neither will it come from “this France” nor will it be based on the principles of the Enlightenment of the 18^th century. In contradistinction to the dominant concept of the 18^th century of égalité (equality), I try to develop the concept of “Man’s One-ness.” While equality imposed on us an emancipation of assimilation, etc., One-ness of Man will secure the safest basis possible for the natural differentiation of the individuals and the various national groups. On this “One-ness of Man” is based the future of Palestine as well as the existence of Jewries out...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontispiece
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Series Page
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword to the Paperback Edition
• Preface
• Introduction: The Life and Writings of Simon Rawidowicz
• Israel: The Ever-Dying People
• Jewish Existence: The End and the Endless
• On the Concept of Galut
• Libertas Differendi: The Right to Be Different
• On Jewish Learning
• Two That Are One
• One Continuity or Two?
• Israel: The People, the State
• Excerpts from a Correspondence between David Ben-Gurion and Simon Rawidowicz on the State of Israel, the Diaspora, and the Unity of the Jewish People
• Sanctity, Praise, and Deprecation
• Jerusalem and Babylon
• Only from Zion: A Chapter in the Prehistory of Brandeis University
• The World of Ararat and Its Fortress: From the Letters of Simon Rawidowicz to Alexander Margulies