By Rabbi Baruch Stern

Rabbi Baruch Stern List of honorees Louis Rose Society Jewishsightseeing home

Writings by Rabbi Baruch Stern
-1949-
December 16, 1949—Rabbi Baruch Stern, "Letter to Editor," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 2: Mr. Maxwell Kaufman, Publisher, Southwestern Jewish Press, 333 Plaza, San Diego, Calif., Dear Mr. Kaufman: Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate the Southwestern Jewish Press on its 35th Anniversary. My constituent organizations join me in saying that this fine paper does much to further the work of our combined groups and we are happy to be able to be a part of a community which can boast of such a "helper." In looking forward to the building of our new Synagogue and Center, we know that you will do all you can to aid us in this undertaking. With every sincere wish for your continued success, I am, Sincerely yours, Rabbi Baruch Stern, Congregation Beth Jacob.

-1950-
September 8, 1950—Rabbi Baruch Stern, "Rosh Hashonah Message," Southwestern Jewish Press, pages 1, 20: In every age and eposh, Rosh Hashanah calls upon us to pause for a while, and to attempt to evaluate the events which played a decisive role in our lives in the past, and also to prognosticate the events that the future may have in store for us. Our age will stand out conspicuously in the annals of our people as a freak of history. On the one hand, we saw the greatest cataclysm that ever befell a nation; we were standing, as it were, at the brink of a deep abyss threatening to engulf us once and for all. On the other hand, we were witness to the most glorious achievement of our people: the return to Zion of her two-thousand year old captives. Two spiritual currents were struggling with each other. The one taught the glorification of man's alleged infinite powers, as manifested by the rapid, undreamed-of progress of our technological age with its inevitable corollary that God—if he is at all—is always on the side of the powerful. The other viewed man's dazzling accomplishments only as an indication that what was once regarded as utopian might be factual today; that the garden of Eden, in which the various songs of various nations will blend into a harmonious symphony of human understanding and nobility, might be reconquered to stay, with God and his moral law reenthroned. And on Rosh Hashanah, we shall ask ourselves individually: on which side did we stand. Did we believe in the omnipotence of science and thus indirectly contributed to the apotheosis of hero-worship and of brute force, or did we join those noble ranks who knew no other worship but God-worship, and thus aided the reign of wickedness to vanish like mist? This Rosh Hashanah, the voice of the Shofar will remind us of the Mene Tekel which is inherent in a godless civilization; the old prayer of "Who shall live, and who shall die, who shall perish by the sword and who by fire?" is as valid in our civilization as it was in any primitive society. We, the Jewish people, are proud of having upheld the eternal ethical law of our Torah even in face of adversity. We are proud of never having yielded to the forces of arrogance and wickedness, even at the highest price man can pay. Can we, Jews of today, and more especially those among us who have reduced their Jewishness to three days a year, and have often cut one-third or even two-thirds of these and made them regular work-days, face the Day of Judgment uprightly and say we have done our share. The late Doctor Hertz, chief Rabbi of Great Britain, expressed this thought thus: "our ancestors when they wandered in the wilderness subsisted on manna, a honey-like substance which melted away before the sun. Morning by morning they went out to gather it, and some collected more and some less. But when they returned to their tents and measured what they had collected, they found that he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack. They were earnestly admonished not to gather it on Sabbaths, nor were they to hoard it. They were warned and the warning was soon verified—that anything so hoarded would become full of worms. we likewise have for years past gone out day by day gathering manna for ourselves and ours. And like some of our ancestors of old, we have disregarded all rules, thrown to the winds all admonitions. We hoarded much and still we were not satisfied. Even on Sabbaths and festivals we were out manna-gathering, money-making; we bartered away Sabbatical home-peace and Yomtov-bliss for "more." But with the experience of the Children of Israel before us, do we wonder that it has all melted away before the heat of adversity; that there seems to be no blessing in what we hoarded, and that when the time of measuring came—when the Day of Reckoning arrived—he that had much came to stand on the same level with him that had very little?" May the Lord remember us all for a year of blessing and peace.

-1951-
February 2, 1951—Rabbi Baruch Stern, "Living Judaism," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 6: Some may wonder why we chose to call this column "Living Judaism." Is there any danger of the opposite, of Judaism dying. It may seem paradoxical to say that simultaneously with a revival of Judaism, the danger of its decadence set in. However, just as in the material world decay follows birth, so it also seems to be in the realm of ideas. After the establishment of the state of Israel new pseudo-prophets appeared, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who predicted the fall of Judaism. They reasoned somewhat like this: the mainspring of Jewish aspirations throughout centuries of homelessness was the restoration of a sovereign Israel, both in a religious and a temporal sense. Religiously, God's promise has been fulfilled. Worldly Jews have found a home. Since Jewish yearnings did find fulfillment, it is time for Jews to dissolve... These sinister ideas have borne practical fruit. In Israel today a new movement arose. This movement is not satisfied with modernizing or reforming Jewish life. Because both are religiously within the Jewish fold. What they want to become is nothing less than "Christian" Jews. They profess to be Jews, and are even proud of it. However, they are Jews only nationally; religiously, they are Christians. Soon the "rabbi" of this movement is to become the first Judaico-Christian bishop, and what they demand from the Israeli government is equality. They want equal rights with other "Jewish" Jews. About a couple of weeks ago, I read in the San Diego Tribune inter alia the following: "After 5711 years of all-male leadership, the Jewish church may soon have women rabbis." Let me add that Jewish women have often achieved great prominency in Jewish public life. A woman distinguishing herself as prophetess, judge, or heroine is familiar to us. But a woman as a rabbi is one of the idiosyncracies of our age. As future mother of the nation she is freed from many religious duties, to enable her to carry out her functions as a mother at any hour. And it seems that as long as our modernists will not be able to change her biological nature, the woman will hardly be in a position to carry out the duties of a rabbi. Unless wwe want to introduce a woman celibacy... The solution: The only effective dam against a spiritual wilderness would be the re-establishment of a supreme religious authority or a "Sanhedrin," which would solve problems arising from our technology in the light of the Talmud. And in time the Sanhedrin would unify under its aegis all those who wish to remain Jews, and to perpetuate living Judaism.

March 16, 1951—Rabbi Baruch Stern, "Living Judaism," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 5: There has appeared a very provocative article in the February issue of "Commentary," dealing with problems of American Judaism. "Time" magazine of February 19,m 1951 quoted much of its content under a somewhat clumsy heading: "A Common Ignorance," and it is likely that this article ill become a matter of sharp criticism and controversy. It is undoubtedly a challenge to ask of the American Jew—as the author does—to be intellectually honest with himself. Although I personally disagree with his beliefs or rather disbeliefs, yet I do agree with his general trend of thought. "As I survey the American Jewish scene I see much of this dishonest around me." I think the author should have said: Intellectual dishonesty. Let me quote: "I do not myself believe with the first 'Perek' of the Ethis of the Father that Moses received the Law from God on Sinai and passed it on to Joshua." The author therefore regards himself as an agnostic, who does not believe in going to 'Shul' except as a 'sentimental exercise.' And he is logically consistent. Because, if Moses did not receive the Law from God on Sinai, why should we go to 'shul' and pray to a God of Moses' invention. Besides if Moses did not receive the Law from God on Sinai, then Moses was nothing but an historical impostor when he wrote: "And God spake unto Moses..." If Judaism is nothing but an invention of a certain man named Moses, why should we not assimilate and join the majority. "If we ourselves do not accept the theological assumptions that lie behind the Jewish religion, let us be honest with ourselves and our children." Should you argue that many of us would gladly assimilate, but the Hitlers of the world do not allow us to solve the problem in this way, why "that only confirms me in my view that it is a good position, and one wroth trying to live fro." Who then has a right from the viewpoint of intellectual honesty to perpetuate Judaism? "The only ones who have a valid reason are the Orthodox believers in the doctrine of the election of Israel." But can a Jew being Orthodox become integrated into Western civilization and be accepted by his neighbor with respect. Yes, he can! "i found a lively, aggressive Orthodox Judaism an effective entree to the non-Jewish civilization around me...and this led me to believe that a Jew who wants to play his part naturally in a Western environment can do so either by this kind of honest self-assurance or by total assimilation. American Jewry seems to me to be aiming at a confused third way which is neither philosophically tenable nor socially practicable." In keeping with this either-or philosophy, the author refused to address a congregation from the pulpit at a Friday evening service, "Because where Jewish liturgy and traditions are concerned, I want either the genuine thing or nothing at all." If he goes to 'Shul' as a sentimental exercise, then he wants an Orthodox 'shul' and an Orthodox service. The author rejects the term "temple" because a temple can be only in Jerusalem, and the Jews cannot have more than one temple. Temple is a translation from the Hebrew "Beth Hamikdash," and we are not permitted to build a "Beth Hamikdash" or a "temple" but in one place in the world: the same place where the first and second "Beth Hamikdash" stood. The author objects to the term rabbi being used generally as the Jewish equivalent of minister, a practice which deprives it of the nobility and grandeur that invested the title when it was confined to those who had achieved the hard discipline of obtaining the proper 's'michah' (ordination). He objects to calling our school 'Sunday School' instead of 'Cheder,' and I admit I never overcame that feeling myself. Why in the world should a Jewish five-year-old child be indoctrinated with the idea of Sunday instead of Shabbat?!! He sneers at American Zionists, and though I am a Zionist myself, I do not feel offended. He says "No one would be more astonished or upset than the American Zionist if out of Zion were really to come forth the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He hopes that out of Zion will come forth good Rotarian Israelites and Hebrew speaking hot-dog sellers." I think the author should not have limited this feeling to the American Zionist alone. It seems to me that Zionists all over the world including Israel would be greatly upset if the Word of the Lord would achieve supremacy in their daily lives. I am reminded of the days I was a Yeshiva student, and I liked to eat hot-dogs, but, as was common among students of Torah, I could not afford to buy such a luxurious snack. I saw many people sitting in the cafe and enjoying their hot-dogs, and I thought to myself most of them cannot read Isaiah, in the original nor do they understand the intricacies of the Talmud, but they know how to make money for hot-dogs. So I asked myself: the value of which is higher? It is no secret that the majority of people give priority to the material over the spiritually-intellectual. Only few great Jews of the caliber of Achad-Haam or Jabotinsky explain the ultimate aim of Zionism to be: "Out of Zion shall come forth the Law." He urges us: "Let us teach our children Hebrew and Jewish history, and let us have them read Isaiah, and Amos and Judah Halevi in the original. Let us, above all, have more knowledge. Let us have less emotion about Jewishness and more reading of the Bible—yes, and the Talmud...and let those Jews for whom the traditional Jewish explanation of God and His relation to His people and the world is truly valid practice as their religion the full historical Judaism with its richness, its ceremonial, its discipline, and its strange beauty. There is a Yiddish proverb: 'Er iz a shmad-nick un doch a frummer Yid." Either-or shocks us into thinking.

April 27, 1951—Rabbi Monroe Levens, "Living Judaism," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 4: A Remarkable Solution—Our susceptibility to religion varies with our age. As children our soul yearns to our God and often learns to pray to Him with intense fervor. Only few people retain this childish, naive religious zeal throughout life, and these people become the great leaders of religion or saints. But for most of us, hen we become adolescents, our religious enthusiasm is diminished, with the increase of our conceited all-knowingness. One community in America seems to be confident that it became disentangled from the various paths of our religious labyrinth, and is now on the highway to solving the problem of Jewish religion. It was in New York's Greenwich Village that a handful of Jewish intellectuals, disappointed by their materialistic secularism, started to organize a Jewish religious community. They had no synagogue, and they were too poor or simply did not think of raising funds for the building of a synagogue. They invited a rabbi to organize their community. He found that the problem of a synagogue was actually no problem at all. He felt sure that some clergyman in the community would permit him to hold Jewish services in his church. The rabbi was right. The Presbyterian minister welcomed the idea and today the services there are a blending of both faiths. "Through the stained-glass windows shafts of light illumine the church choir, the Christian organist and the Jewish cantor.Together they lead the Congregation in the old Presbyterian hymn: "I Sing Thee Mighty Power of God." Then the minister in English and perfect Hebrew, intones the conclusion of the Jewish morning prayer. And he and the rabbi both pronounce the benediction as Christians and Jews file out. It was a remarkable arrangement. When the Holy Ark was moved in, the Cross was moved out of the church. The Jews often attended Presbyterian services and the Christians Jewish services. The temple participated in the church's Yuletide and Christmas programs and the church again took part in the temple's Purim and Chanukah festivals. This merely meant that Jews attended Christian services and Jews attended Christians Jewish services, with only the host's symbols on display. One day, the rabbi and the clergyman decided to use the symbols of both faiths simultaneously. "The Ark of the Covenant, bearing the star of David, was open and lighted before the pulpit. On the Communion table in front of the pulpit stood the cross, flanked by two altar candles. And at each end of the table were the seven-branched candelabras of the Jewish faith." It is the only Congregation so far in America where people worship before the Torah and the Cross, but the congregation is growing. Without a comment on my part, I have recorded these facts from the Colliers' magazine, since they struck me funny. But I will conclude this article by a quotation of the late Rabbi Stephen Wise in his autobiography, "Challenging Years." Rabbi Wise, a pioneer in interfaith work writes: "I must in truth add, and in sorrow, that the major trends of much interfaith effort throughout the last generation have been far from good, especially from the Jewish point of view." "No one can be more bent than I am upon achieving perfect understanding and fellowship between Jew and Christian. But if in order to have the understanding of Christendom I must cease to be a Jew, or I must do that which will make for the minimizing of my Jewishness, then I must do without such understanding—as my fathers have had to do without it for hundreds of years, yea for more than a millenium. I crave the understanding and the reverence of the Christian world, but for myself as a Jew, not for me as a chameleon. I cover understanding of the Jew, not seeking to utter in accents that are not his own the Pater Noster but affirming simply and earnestly and everlastingly as did the holy mothers and glorious fathers of Israel, —Hear, oh Israel, the Eternal is our God, the Eternal is One."

June 8, 1951—Rabbi Baruch Stern, "Living Judaism," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 4: Rabbinism vs. Clericalism —The National Jwish Post of May 25 reports about a "running fight" between two rabbis in Bradford, Pa., and Jewish merchants who are unwilling to close their stores on Friday nights. Jewish businessmen in that city have selected Friday night for keeping their stores open until 9 p.m. The two rabbis, one Conservative and one Reform, felt that Friday night was Synagogue night. They tried to persuade the Jewish merchants that there would be no serious loss of business volume, if instead of Friday evenings they kept their stores open some other evening of the week. Some Jewish businessmen yielded to the pleas of the rabbis while others loathed to see the rabbis "interfering unnecessarily in business not germain (sic, germane) to the pulpit" and refused to close down their stores. So far, we side with the rabbis. After all, if they shifted their sales from Friday to Monday evening, they would probably not go broke, and would not unnecessarily prolong working hours on Sabbath. But, according to the Post, the rabbis did not stop there. They took further steps against the recalcitrants. They published the names of the businessmen who refused to clsoe down their stores on Friday evenings, in the daily press. They enlisted the support of the Ministerial Association, and even the Catholic Church sided with the rabbis against the Jewish merchants. Many of us will doubt whether the rabbis did not go too far. I myself could not help feeling that the attempt to bring Jews to the Synagogue by such extreme methods as publishing their names in the daily paper has a strong flavor of clericalism, and is not in line with the traditional spirit of rabbinism. It is a grotesque combination: the rabbis, the Ministerial association and the Catholic Church on the one side; the Jewish businessmen on the opposite side. The rabbis do not speak in the name of the holiness of the Sabbath, because in that case they would have to ask all Jews to close down not only Friday evenings, but also on the Sabbath day. In such a campaign I would join, on one condition: that the fight remains strictly within the Jewish congregation. But to set Jewish names on the pillory in order to enhance Synagogue attendance is highly problematic and questionable. They tell a story about a chassidic rabbi, who when told that a Jew opened his store on Sabbath, went to the store dressed in his kaftan and "streimel" (fur cap) and sat down in the store. Customers seeing the rabbi in the store on Sabbath did not have the "chutzpe" to shop in his presence on Sabbath. In this way he forced the businessman to close down on Sabbath. Rabbinism and clericalism are two distinct things, andshould be kept apart.

September 28, 1951—"Letters to the Editor," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 2: Dear Julia and Mac: I am mailing to you a piece of publicity for my Synagogue. I would like to take the opportunity to extend to you and to Mrs. Kaufman my personal wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful year. I trust that your fine paper, which is of great service to our community, will continue to prosper, and in time—it being the only Anglo-Jewish organ in San Diego—will be read by every Jewish family in the city. —Rabbi Baruch Stern

-1952-
April 18, 1952—Rabbi Baruch Stern, "Letters to the Editor," Southwestern Jewish Press, page 2: Dear Mac: In your "Post Passover Ponderings" (same day publication, April 18, 1952) you asked—as I understand it—two basic questions: 1) Who is a Jew? 2. Should every Jew be entitled to a vote in the Jewish Community? As to the question, Who is a Jew, I would say: (a) Every person, man, woman or child, born as a Jew, and (b) Every person who adopted the Jewish faith, in conformity with Jewish law. Belonging to a secular organization is no criteria for being a Jew. To your negative and somewhat twisted question, "When is a Jew not a Jew," there is only one brief answer. Never! A Jew is always a Jew. As to membership in the Synagogue, I think every Jew is, nolens volens, a member of the Synagogue. He may not be a dues-paying member, but as a Jew, he cannot free himself from belonging to the Synagogue, though he may fail in its two primary duties: to worship there and to support it. Your second question: "Should every Jew be entitled to a vote in the Jewish Community?" is a highly interesting and complex question. In the strict sense of the word, there is no Jewish Community in America. At best, it may be regarded as a loose body having no legally constituted or democratically elected Jewish Community Council. I think that every Jew may be regarded as a loose member of this loose body and may be entitled to voice his loose, not binding opinion. This, of course, is a lamentable state of affairs. However, suppose a situation arises, as you say, in which we had to have the opinion of every Jew in san Diego on a vital question, every Jew should be invited to vote. This would be an ideal time to establish a Jewish Community. A Jew's desire to vote should be utilized to make him pay a Jewish tax—a sum to be agreed upon by a temporary Council of Jewish Elders—for his privilege of helping to determine vital Jewish problems. He may have to pay this tax retroactively from the time he reached the age of 20 years up to the year in which he desires to vote. American Jewry, it seems to me, would do well to establish a unified Jewish Community, out of which a Jewish Council would be democratically ele3cted, which would speak for the Jews and determine major policies. A joyous Pesach to you, Baruch Stern.