activity, Mr. Struck is well-known to European Jewry, and especially to European Zionism, as the representative of the Mizrachi or pietistic movement. To the workaday world, however, he is not primarily a Jew or a Zionist, but a particularly fine etcher and painter, whose works rank among the best that modern Germany has produced. Yet into all his work and into the daily activities of his career he has carried his Jewish convictions and Jewish observances. Of these he has abated no jot or tittle in his familiar intercourse with presumably unsympathetic or misunderstanding outsiders, who have as a matter of fact often proved more sympathetic and more capable of understanding than some among his own people. Mr. Struck will be welcomed on this side in a number of receptions by official bodies of varied kinds, and an exhibition of his work will probably be held, first in New York, and afterwards in other large cities of the country. Mr. Struck will, however, fulfill his primary purpose in a visit to the objects of great natural beauty in the west.
A LETTER TO THE MACCABÆAN.
In your February number there appeared an editorial, which, I know, provoked much unfavorable comment, which I was surprised to discover, found no expression in your March number. I hesitate very much to rush into public print, but certainly this editorial ought not to be allowed to pass without some criticism.
The editorial had occasion to say, "But above all Dr. Magnes himself is to be congratulated. He has freed himself from all rabbinical obligations, and henceforth stands out in American Jewish life as a secular leader, whose sole object is the strengthening and upbuilding of Jewish life in the Dispersion; Jewish life, that is not limited by the interests of religion in its narrow sense."
I have no criticism to make of Dr. Magnes' action, for that is not the point of discussion here, but I am deeply grieved that any dignified Jewish paper, which seeks an audience from among intelligent people, should print such a statement as the above. Certainly it indicates a very perverted notion of "rabbinical obligation"
and "Jewish life," and religion, even in its narrow sense. Very likely the writer of the editorial has only seen rabbinical obligation and has never himself experienced it, and least of all, sympathized with it.
The editoral further remarks: “The fact is that Dr. Magnes is much larger than any of the petty tasks which he set before himself, when he came to New York as a rabbi.” and “Dr. Magnes is a secular leader whose influence is effective in the direction of building up Jewish life in general, which is much larger than Judaism, and from his point of view, much more important.” My one consolation is the feeling that Dr. Magnes would not himself endorse the above statement. The whole tone of the editorial seems to show that Judaism is something which a few narrow-minded and ignorant persons observe. Its author seems to insist that for one to really help in the upbuilding of Jewish life, one must first get out of Judaism. In the past our religion kept the nation alive, and the rabbi kept the religion alive, and now we are advised to cut them both off, as a child would cast off his parents who brought him into the world, who nourished him, and trained him into manhood. We are degenerate Jews indeed, and deeply treacherous to our past. to our ancestors who sacrificed their lives for our sake, when we begin to view our religion as something too narrow for our consideration. To think what our teachers of old meant for us, what the rabbi was to a Jewish community, with what reverence and awe he was regarded by all Israel, and now comes a man and says that a man is too big for the rabbinate! Would to Heaven that in these days in this country, we had even one man that was reaily “big” enough for the rabbinate.
I shall certainly not attempt to argue the question,but I express not only my own humble wish, but the desire of many others, when I say that I hope THE MAC-CABAEAN will refrain from that anti-Jewish and undignified tone which has lately characterized some of its editorials.
SAMUEL FREDMAN.
The gist of Mr. Fredman's letter appears above. A number of paragraphs that have no bearing on the criticism of the editorial in question have been deleted. THE MACCABAEAN cannot permit in its pages