[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval–Editor.]
The contention that the revision of the Jewish religious laws by a rabbinical council in accordance with modern requirements, as proposed recently by Prof. Tchernowitz, would serve merely as an aid to the process of assimilation on the part or many Jews, is voiced by Gedaliah Bublick, editor of the “Jewish Daily News,” orthodox paper of New York. Mr. Bublick, writing in the “Jewish Daily News” of yesterday, points out that Judaism harmonizes with the requirements and the spirit of all times and that those who observe the Jewish religious laws do not ask for any lightening of the “burden.” He says:
“I” have never in all my life seen an orthodox Jew who should complain that traditional Judaism is disagreeable to him, that he would like someone to ‘fix’ it for him. Those who desire to revise Judaism are not orthodox Jews, that is, they are seeking to revise something that does not belong to them. They are showing anxiety for Jews who do not ask them for their services.
“Efforts to revise or do away with certain things always come from those who regard Judaism as a ‘burden’ And,” Mr. Bublick proceeds, “the question can justly be asked: why do you show anxiety for others, why do you seek to adjust Judaism to modern times when those who observe and believe in orthodox Judaism feel that it is in harmony not only with modern times, but with all times to come. Hermann Cohen, one of the greatest philosophers of modern times, did not feel that there was any conflict between the modern time and orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is not at variance with the present time nor with any time. It is you ‘revisionists.’ reformers, who are at variance with orthodox Judaism. If you wish to be orthodox you should ‘revise’ your own selves, for the core of the trouble lies in you.
“As for reformers,” we read further, “nothing will avail to preserve their Judaism, for they lack the essence, attachment to tradition, and no matter how much we will ‘revise’ things for them they will not be contented.”
UPTON SINCLAIR AND QUEEN MARIE
Upton Sinclair’s refusal to accept an invitation to attend a reception for Queen Marie in New York City is the subject of an editorial in the “Nation” of Nov. 10. Mr. Sinclair, in rejecting the invitation, took occasion to denounce the Roumanian government as “the most infamous, etc.,” in Europe, we learn from the “Nation,” which comments on the incident thus:
“It is just as well for rude persons like Mr. Sinclair to inject a serious note into the round of frivolity. Whatever Queen Marie may be personally, her kingdom is one of the plague-spots on the map of Europe. The spirit of Locarno has touched neither its internal nor its foreign policies…
“Nowhere in Europe today is the lot of the Jews more terrible. They are excluded from the universities and subject to constant attacks in the streets; a Roumanian officer has confessed that under the direction of his commander he murdered numbers of Jews who were seeking to cross the River Dniester and leave the country, and despite his own confession a Roumanian court acquitted him!
“Of Marie’s personal connections with the crimes committed in her country we know nothing. But it would be well if the public which listens to her over the radio and gapes at her glorious strings of pearls should realize what misery lies behind their beauty and upon what bloody suffering is built the throne of her country.”