Dei'ah veDibur - Information & Insight

A Window into the Chareidi World

4 Nissan 5761 - March 28, 2001 | Mordecai Plaut, director Published Weekly







The Roots of Eretz Yisroel: Religious Conflict in Tel Aviv- Yaffo

by D. Rachelson

Part III

The first section of this three-part essay discussed the struggles between the chareidi Jews based in Yerushalayim and the secular Jews who came from Europe to Eretz Yisroel in Yaffo and early Tel Aviv. There was a discussion of the ways in which the maskilim tried to undermine the credibility of the rabbonim, including their assertion that the Diskin Orphanage in Yerushalayim founded by the Maharil Diskin, did not exist.

The second part discussed the trials of Rebbetzin Diskin in Yerushalayim and described the early times of the community of Yaffo that eventually spread to Tel Aviv, as Jewish neighborhoods were established. A communal organization was founded that promised to promote harmony and unity, but instead served as a vehicle for the weakening of religious observance.

Shabbos Demonstration in Ir Ganim

Petach Tikva, Chanukah 5666 (1906). The youth of the settlement and local workers were planning a "Chanukah party." Preparations were in full swing, but the timing was not right. News had arrived from Russia about pogroms and the destruction of dozens of Jewish cities and villages. In light of the news, the settlement's committee forbade the farmer in whose house the party was to be held to allow the workers the use of his house. The notice circulated by the committee explained that one must not desecrate the memory of the kedoshim. The slain were in the headlines, and this was enough of a reason, it seems, to cancel the party.

The workers, who were mainly Russian immigrants from the Second Aliya, were terrified about the fate of their parents and families in Russia, but they were angered by the suspicion that they were supposedly planning to desecrate the memory of the kedoshim. Circulars scattered in the streets of the settlement announced that due to the bloody events, the gathering will not be a party, but a mourning assembly -- "to discuss our pain and express our admiration for the mighty self-defense force." The profits were designated for the wounded.

The members of the Second Aliya were actually a group of Communist-Socialists; most of them fled from the Russian government after the failed Communist Revolution in 5665 (1905). Jews were a significant component of the attempted revolution. The searing poverty and the ugly existence brought upon them by the Russian Czars' border settlement policy brought them to despair and caused them to leave their parents' homes and Judaism.

They fell in the lap of Communist doctrine, which spread through the Jews like a fire in a field of thorns. Many of them held key positions in the movement. After the failed revolution in 1905, they were in danger of being executed by the police. Whoever could, fled the country, some to the United States (where they founded the germ of the Socialist- Communist movement) and some to Eretz Yisroel, which they considered a substitute -- but only bedi'eved -- for "Mother Russia."

In Eretz Yisroel, they were free to found the workers movement they desired, without anyone disturbing them, imprisoning them or executing them -- especially not the rabbonim and chareidi settlers who reacted to their incitement, as will be seen later, with a strange leniency and much tolerance.

These immigrants were the tough core of the left-wing movement and the Haganah, the basis of the future establishment of the country and army. It was an excitable and provocative group, atheistic in principle and secular in ideology, rebellious and insolent, haters of Yisroel and haters of Judaism. Even today, its heirs -- the left-wing movement -- act according to its doctrine and in the exact same spirit, with the arrogance and incitement that was so typical of them.

We return to the "assembly." The settlers were divided into two camps. Some farmers were on the workers' side while others condemned their deeds and flippancy. The Vaad Hamoshav told the farmers in whose house the "mourning assembly" was to take place that they would immediately cut off his water supply, withhold medical aid and would not guard his property.

The workers did not want to fight the committee on the host's account, so they found another farmer who was not scared of the committee. The "mourning assembly" took place on Shabbos, in spite of the fury of most of Petach Tikva, with the participation of the workers and most of the settlement's youth who were drawn after them.

The committee considered this outright rebellion. It sent the settlement's police force, Bedouins from the Abu-Kishak tribe, to disperse the gathering. However, the Bedouins did not dare raise a hand, due to the large crowd. The committee therefore decided to punish the farmer in whose house the assembly took place. The settlement seethed.

The storm had not quieted down when a worker from Rostov exacerbated the situation. He was found smoking in public on Shabbos! Petach Tikva, whose founders were shomrei mitzvos, was not used to such sights. Krias haTorah in shul was delayed, fiery speeches were held against the workers and the chareidi congregates were furious at the youth who discarded ol malchus Shomayim.

The committee instructed the farmer who employed the worker and gave him room and board, to fire him and evict him from his house. The farmer refused to listen. When the committee saw that they could not enforce their will, they placed a cheirem on mechalelei Shabbos and those who didn't observe the Torah.

The cheirem contained the following points: "The workers must act according to das Moshe veYisroel, listen to the instructions of the committee, and may not include the settlers in gatherings and parties. Every worker who signs this contract may live here and receive employment. If a worker does not sign, it is forbidden to rent him an apartment or give him any kind of work."

Note that the committee's demands are rather vague. What is the exact definition of to "act according to das Moshe veYisroel and listen to the instructions of the committee?"

The committee did not even forbid the workers themselves from gatherings and licentious parties, only from including the Petach Tikvah settlers in these events -- a rather puzzling decision, which any sensible person would realize could not be implemented. If the committee did not grasp with whom it was dealing, the workers quickly pointed out their mistake. Even this compromising declaration was met with rebellion: They decided not to sign.

They concocted an excuse that is surprisingly similar to the claims of the left-wing and secular of today. "Is the power of the committee of the settlement of Petach Tikva greater than the power of Toras Moshe? He who was commanded and stood at Mt. Sinai knows what is permitted and forbidden and each worker [can act] according to his free will. How is the committee authorized to force mitzvah observance by cutting off a person's bread supply?!" That is: This is a free country, we have pluralism, freedom of religion, freedom of the individual and freedom of business.

Each period has its style and its demagogic slogans, but the goal is always the same: to throw off the yoke of Torah and mitzvos.

A point of clarification: the workers of the Second Aliya were not workers in the ordinary sense. They did turn work into a "religion" and called themselves workers, but most of them were originally maskilim and left-wing intellectuals, somewhat familiar with physical labor but much more experienced in communal work, organization and cultural activities, and socialist journalism to promote their ideas.

The Vaad Hamoshav held its ground. Without a signed contract from the workers, it threatened, the punishment would fall swiftly. As agreed, the farmers began to fire workers and evict them from their houses. The members of the workers' committee, however, who were used to organizing action from the beginning of their movement, did not sit back quietly. They called an emergency meeting, traveled to various settlements and founded a fund for the banned.

Cultural Offensive

Meanwhile, new immigrants arrived, joined the work force and finished the work that had stopped due to the ban. The banned workers passed the time like true left-wingers and returned fire by opening a "cultural war." At the end of the work day, they used to return defiantly singing Hebrew worker songs, for which the committee could not punish them. One of the derisive stanzas went as follows:

"I am nothing but a poor Jew,/ Raised in exile and suffering,/ But in Eretz Yisroel I am happy,/ And I can raise a cup like a free man./ I'm not afraid of the head of the committee,/ That he'll write on us malshinus;/ For how would he know writing and sealing?/ Did he cholila learn minus?"

This stanza accomplished several goals. First, it aroused the sympathy and empathy of the naive farmers through mentioning bitter poverty and suffering in exile and happiness of Petach Tikva life in Eretz Yisroel. (As if to say, what do you want from us? After all, we are just . . . and after all the suffering you treat us like this? You should be ashamed of yourself.)

Second, it defined life in Eretz Yisroel as "free men," without the yoke of the dangerous Czarist police, and lehavdil, without the power of the rabbinate and strong communal opinion in chutz la'aretz. In Eretz Yisroel there was real freedom -- because who would dare do anything to us? The "committee" had no real power (the rabbinate is not mentioned at all), it was incapable of enforcing its will; even the cheirem was no longer effective.

From here it can be seen clearly how these cruel immigrants - - alumna of violent revolutions abroad -- took advantage of the pity and compromises offered them, in order to vulgarly trample religion. At the same time, the war against religion served as a means to take control of public issues, until the time came that they conquered the opinion of most of the public, until today.

Third, the little poem deliberately included false slander. The reference to not fearing the committee's malshinus implies that the committee might resort to malshinus -- but in truth they certainly would not. The word "malshinus" aroused strong emotion in the listeners, and automatically put the committee on the other side of the fence, as if they were not "one of us." Intentional incitement.

In chutz la'aretz, malshinus came from low, sometimes criminal, elements of the community whose goal was to gain control by force, imprisonment and cruel deeds. Like typical left-wingers, the immigrants completely perverted reality. Attributing low malshinus to the heads and the elite of the yishuv of Eretz Yisroel was nothing less than a deliberate, fallacious tactic whose goal was to disgrace important personalities and arouse the listeners' instinctive empathy.

Fourth, the words "learn minus" ridiculed Torah observant Jews who were makpid not to learn foreign languages, only loshon hakodesh and Yiddish, suggesting that they would have no way of contacting the non- Jewish authorities.

The sharp mockery of the songs did its job, it seems. The Vaad Hamoshav reacted sharply to the insults. On 17 Tammuz 5666 (1906), its agents, together with Arab policemen, burst into the workers' library (the immigrants' center of activities), removed the tables and shelves with the books and stopped their cultural activities. (It seems that the evil emanated from these libraries, but no one had opposed them until then and not at any other time afterwards.)

Although the cheirem was not officially removed, it simply dissolved in time. Some of the farmers asked for clemency for the workers. They claimed that if the Turkish government (everyone's "enemy") allowed a few hundred families to live in Eretz Yisroel, how could the Jewish settlement (be so cruel as to) not allow entry into it? The cheirem expired. Once again, new workers were not required to sign the contract with the Vaad Hamoshav to observe das Moshe veYisroel, and with time the place became a center for workers for the entire area.

The battle was lost.

Shavuos 5671 (1911).

The Histadrut (Union) of Agricultural Workers in Yehuda (now they were organized) decided to hold its inaugural conference on Shavuos, which fell that year on erev Shabbos. (This was the founding of the core of the socialist movement in Eretz Yisroel.) The conference included chilul Shabbos and yom tov in public, and aroused broad communal protest in the settlement of Petach Tikva as well as in Yaffo. For some reason, the more forceful protests came from Yaffo and not Petach Tikva.

The second generation of the settlements, which were founded by chareidi Jews, seemed to have fallen asleep at their posts. Chareidi tenets were weakened when agricultural work was not fortified with Torah learning and active botei medrashim (as happened in the Baron's settlements in Argentina). In Yaffo, however, things stormed to such an extent that they declared a second cheirem on the workers of Petach Tikva, who dared work on Shabbos.

The incident reverberated throughout the land, aroused new- old tensions and exposed the depth of the gap between the new "pioneer" population, mainly of the second Aliya and the men of the old yishuv and the settlers.

On 2 Tammuz 5671 (1911) the religious public from all cities of the country gathered in Yaffo for a forceful demonstration against Shabbos desecration. The brazen pioneers were the first to publicly desecrate Shabbos in the settlement. Emphasis was placed on the fact that chillul Shabbos and yom tov was not a one time occurrence -- it seemed that something was broken Rachmono litzlan in the walls of religion in Eretz Yisroel.

As mentioned, the strongest reaction of chareidi Judaism in the new yishuv came from Yaffo, and the main activities of the demonstration against the conference in Ir Ganim, Petach Tikva were held there.

The workers' reaction, in the style we recognize today, was not long in coming. The brazen seducers viciously attacked the demonstrators in the newspaper, Hapoel Hatza'ir; for they felt that the best defense is an offense. Students of violent Communist revolutions (which was then an underground movement in Czarist Russia), experts in subversion and misinformation and outright kofrim, they inflamed their congregation with false, cheap demagoguery and pretended that they were the underdogs. According to them, "The goal of the zealots of Petach Tikva and their partners is to pursue until destruction, to kill, destroy and exterminate the name of the Hebrew worker from under the skies of Eretz Yisroel."

One who criticizes others, accuses them of his own flaw. While members of the old yishuv displayed patience and were very forgiving to the pioneers, allowing them to live in their communities as they desired and to pursue their "cultural" activities and tried only to ask for a few minimal fundamentals, such as no chillul Shabbos and chillul yom tov in public, the pioneers nonetheless called them zealots.

They (the pioneers) were the true zealots. It was their intention to do exactly what they accused the other side of doing: they had, in effect, sworn, from the moment they came into Eretz Yisroel, "to pursue until destruction, to kill, destroy and exterminate the name of the chareidi Jew from under the skies of Eretz Yisroel."

And although the Bolsheviks and pioneers have vanished from the world, their heirs, the "elitists" of today, have not abandoned this goal.

The chapter of Ir Ganim was part of a continuous nibbling away at the foundations of religion in the new settlement, in the center of the land, and served as a precedent from which the secular began taking control. The leaders of the religious-traditional congregation, which was still the majority of the settlers at that time, did protest and hold public demonstrations. When it came down to it, however, the new, lethargic settlement of Eretz Yisroel, which was busy and poor (in personalities as well), was unable to return warfare against the Communist pioneers who came from abroad, skilled in modern techniques of swaying public opinion, experienced in organizing demagogic, cultural wars, happy with an ideological war and with unceasing energy to conquer public opinion of Eretz Yisroel.

The newspaper, Moriah, on 1 Tammuz 5671 (1911), contains the reaction of the Orthodox Jewry, which responded with good intentions but was unfortunately very conservative and too frigid, without truly picking up the gauntlet in the vigorous struggle against the experienced enemy.

A Public Protest Against the Incident of Ir Ganim:

"In Ir Ganim next to Petach Tikva, many of the Hebrew workers of the settlement gathered on the past Shavuos and on the Shabbos after it, and in front of the eyes of the people of the settlement, they desecrated the kedushah of these two days in public, lehach'is, with riding, writing, cooking, and the like. In Yaffo, they held a demonstration against this act, and we have now received the declaration which was published about this.

"A call to a public demonstration against the mass desecration in Eretz Yisroel of the things that are Holy to Yisroel.

"Dear brothers, all residents of Eretz Yisroel, in the cities and the settlements! We hereby call upon you to hold a public protest against the mass desecration of Shabbos kodesh and yom tov in public in Ein Ganim on the past Shavuos and the Shabbos after it, and to come for this purpose on this Wednesday, 2 Tammuz, at the seventh hour of the evening to the beis knesses Kehillas Yaakov here in Yaffo."

The issues of Moriah published in that Tammuz include the protocols of that demonstration, which were published in several issues of that newspaper:

"The large beis knesses Kehillas Yaakov of our Sephardic brothers was completely full. Six representatives came from Petach Tikva, the Rabbonim Yaakov Moshe Broida, Dinautch, Shmuel Mills, Maklov, Michel Leib Katz, Dov Yemini. Two representatives came from Rechovot: HaRav Tzvi Kahane and R' Isser Antin. From Gedeira, R' Meir Yaakov; from Rishon Letzion, their protest came in a letter. Many workers came from Yaffo. R' Yosef Lipshitz was chosen as chairman of the gathering and Mr. Yisroel Meir Chadrovski as secretary.

"The gathering took place with a government permit; policemen were there to keep order. Over five hundred people gathered (Note: A huge crowd in those days), including representatives from Yerushalayim, Petach Tikvah, Rishon Letzion, Rechovot, and Gedeira. The representatives from Petach Tikvah brought a protest signed by seventy-five people, and they said that if they would have had time, they could have obtained the signatures of all the settlers. Rishon Letzion also brought signatures of all the settlers.

"After some discussion, the following decisions were accepted:

1. The gathering expresses a vigorous protest against those who desecrate Shabbos and yom tov in public in the cities and settlements of Eretz Yisroel.

2. [To protest] against the destroying stream, the evil influence that many of the teachers in Eretz Yisroel implant in the hearts of the students through criticizing Tanach and Talmud.

3. [A protest] against boys and girls learning together in Hebrew high schools (Gymnasium).

4. [We resolve] to send copies of these decisions to our brothers the workers, the teachers, and institutional leaders, and ask them to prevent such actions in the future which go against the spirit of our nation and religion."

In the end, even from the great demonstration, from all the bans and meetings -- nothing was achieved. The warring workers, brazen and organized, did succeed in broadening their activities and carrying out their plans. On the other hand, weakness overcame the chareidi and dati congregations, whose power was increasingly weakened.

We Didn't Detect the Vacuum that was Created

As early as 5686 (1926), "Oneg Shabbos" parties were held in Tel Aviv. Because most of the workers and immigrants were or became irreligious, the need arose for an alternative, a replacement for the values and mitzvos they had shed. New ideas and customs were therefore created throughout the year, but they took on quite different undertones as they were merely manmade substitutes for authentic Jewish holidays. Additional "holidays" were also instituted, such as May first (international labor day), to identify with non-Jewish values.

One of the founders of the Labor movement, Shochet, justified these manmade holidays as follows. "In every land we came to, there was a certain type of lifestyle, with many negative aspects and positive ones as well. We came here and did not find any type of lifestyle; we must create it. Now we are hanging in the air, we are living a barefooted life, we have no fixed etiquette (Shochet, The Paths of Labor).

Upon reading this paragraph, one wonders if it is tremendous chutzpah, boundless naivete, or satanic cunning. "We came here and we did not find any lifestyle; we must create it?" This is reminiscent of Ben Gurion who persuaded the Yemenite and North African immigrants to become secular with the excuse that the Torah was good for "the lands from which we came to here" but is not necessary any more. Were these workers so naive that they could so easily convince them? Perhaps yes!

And how did they not consider the fact that the Torah first existed with Yisroel in Eretz Yisroel, and only later did Hashem exile them to "those lands?" The general populace, it seems, was overly ignorant in those days.

We must "create a life style?" "Now we are hanging in the air, we are living a barefooted life?" To whom were these words said -- to some wild tribe in Africa or to products of the chadorim and yeshivos of Eastern Europe, cradle of the Jewish nation's rich culture of the past thousands of years?

If we would relate to the aforementioned paragraph like a folklore researcher, we must conclude that indeed, upon abandoning the Torah, the immigrants and idealistic, socialist workers were left without any culture. They had turned their backs on Judaism, but were still repulsed by the Christian, Western culture, because their neshomos drank from pure waters in their youth. They would not accept Western culture for ideological reasons as well, because it was considered capitalist by the left-wing zealots.

On the other hand, chareidi, dati and mesorati Jews lived in Eretz Yisroel in the old settlements and clung to authentic Judaism with different degrees of intensity. According to the left-wing leaders, a danger existed if their people would become close to the religious-traditional settlements. The old bond with ruach Yisroel Saba still existed and the workers might be overcome and return to their roots.

Instant Culture -- Something from Nothing

They had to quickly create a new folklore, a "something from nothing" culture, which would set the left-wingers in their own camp. By the same token, this culture had to connect to Jewish culture, since the workers did not know anything else. "The barefooted life" that the socialists experienced in Eretz Yisroel was quite boring and pitiful, to tell the truth. The left-wing intellectuals were given the task of pumping artificial momentum into this weary, dry life, and the results are obvious today. Eighty years later, nothing remains; the empty and barefooted life no longer attracts anyone.

Then, in the twenties, the left-wing maskilim began giving Jewish holidays other connotations. They turned them into natural festivals, R'l, holidays of the rain and spring, crops and harvest, lights and masks; only their names remained unchanged. Shabbos kodesh and menuchoh, which is the sign of the treaty between Hashem and Am Yisroel became a symbol of socialist achievement, proclaiming that "every man has the right to rest from his work one day a week" (and was also "permitted" to profane it). They called it Shabbos, but changed its entire essence, exchanging it for an "oneg Shabbos" party of the chillul Shabbos of cigarettes, music, and other such activities. Instead of learning the heilige Torah, they held various discussions in which they even dared mix Torah with secularism of the Enlightenment.

Neither Shabbos nor oneg. The general population considered these parties as a kind of entertainment, nothing more. In an announcement from the organizers to the public, they were asked to "preserve the dignity befitting it" and the participants were warned "not to allow people who come just to see and not to hear to disturb the decorum." While the organizers tried to infuse those parties with a serious character, the people were just looking for fun. All attempts to create a new culture in Hebrew became, at best, mass entertainment which copies (or apes) Western culture. A true new Hebrew culture does not exist.

A document from 5689 (1929) calls upon the public to come to a central "oneg Shabbos" in Tel Aviv. The organizers of these parties, which were based on chillul Shabbos, took the name from tradition in order to attract people and to give the illusion that these parties would bring back a taste of "home," a true oneg Shabbos of earlier generations. This was clearly plain deception. From the hands of the secular emerged deeds of shatnez and kilayim, a strange conglomeration of kodesh and chol, ambiguous longing for the past -- and deception in order to transgress. Religion, Torah and enlightenment in one category, Shabbos kodesh and menuchoh with microphones and cigarettes.

In order to "enjoy" Shabbos, they desecrated it; chillul Shabbos wrapped in oneg Shabbos. It's no wonder that this manufactured "culture" did not last long. The following paragraphs taken from the announcement are enlightening.

"Oneg Shabbos" Organization [at] Ohel Shem House Tel Aviv, 30 Balfor St. To the Hebrew Community in Tel Aviv!

"After three years of wandering, the "Oneg Shabbos" organization got its own place, Ohel Shem House . . . which also will serve . . . as the cultural center for the city of Tel Aviv . . . A steady flow of visitors . . . found in the house the tranquility of Shabbos in an environment of Torah, knowledge and enlightenment, and a full line of speakers, writers and teachers disseminated Torah and knowledge . . .

"The new house is indeed large and spacious . . . but . . . but a lack of order and opening the doors to anyone, planned or unplanned, will not maintain the spirit and homey atmosphere. Pressure and constraint, confusion, taking other's places, could nullify the character we want to give the institution: that of a beis medrash, in which its participants delve into abstract matters that demand concentration.

"We decided, first, to include members of the organization . . . They need to register. . . and with their membership cards, they take precedence over everyone else . . . Special places will be designated for important visitors and tourists from abroad and after them, room will be made for the others . . . The ushers will not allow . . . disturbances of decorum.

"We therefore request . . . that you register as members . . . And the honored public is asked to listen attentively to the usher's demands.

[signed] "Oneg Shabbos Committee in Ohel Shem House"

Upon reading this announcement, one can not say that Ohel Shem of seventy years ago is the founder of the street culture that characterizes Tel Aviv today. They were undoubtedly experts at public relations and stimulating interest through tricks like attractive descriptions of homey events, creating an aura of exclusivity with the idea of membership and other such devices that managed to attract big crowds.

After all, this is the herd philosophy: If not everyone is allowed to enter, then one must enter. However these new "Jewish" attractions did not last, because who needs a pretentious "new culture," if the real thing, the competition from the West, is so readily accessible? Who needs a pitiful copy if the attractive original is so easily available?

The "new culture" was doomed to failure. In its own way, however, it was an excellent means to the painful trends of those days. As an intermediate step, it caused increasing separation from the Jewish source. And then, the disintegration of the tie to Judaism paved the way for the mass defection to the Western culture. The final result cuts off the connection of the Jew to his father's culture completely. We see the results clearly today.

Many descriptions remain of those depressing years about estrangement from authentic Judaism and foolish attempts to create a new, artificial framework for the true, pure Torah that was given at Sinai. The emptiness created due to leaving religion also created a tremendous vacuum which attracted superficiality and confusion.

Nonetheless, the masses, and especially the real dedicated left-wingers, found peace only in constant, tiring physical labor which caused them to forget superfluous thoughts, as evident from the following paragraphs.

A member of that period described Shabbos in a kibbutz. Between the lines lies a strong longing for a father's home, which the kibbutzniks could not completely repress. They at least adopted some of the outer symbols of Shabbos, although, as the writer painfully wrote, "we did not feel the kedusha of the chag," and "we did not feel the empty vacuum that was created."

"We did not work on Shabbos and chag, but we did not feel the kedusha of the chag. When we came here from the Golus, we shed the tradition and customs of religion but we did not detect the empty vacuum that was created. We were full of enthusiasm from the newness of our lives and the work of the entire week was kodesh kodoshim to us.

"We were drunk with work, the work filled every part of our souls, there was no other content to all the hours of the long, long day . . . We forgot ourselves, the world and everything in it. We limited ourselves in certain areas.

"Shabbos -- the day of rest . . . The dining room glowed, the large candelabrum was lit. Finally, after a few debates, tablecloths were also bought and the room took on a holiday atmosphere. Someone suggested candles -- how much grace they add! A little wine also wouldn't hurt, and a mother to make a blessing over the candles. The meal was truly Shabbos'dik -- fish from the river. The comrades went fishing together, and went out dancing to the Kinneret in a wagon, riding and on foot."

There was a candelabrum, they cleaned the dining room, and after a few "debates" the kibbutz members were also even prepared to open their tight coffers and to buy tablecloths. But, "someone suggested candles -- how much grace they add! A little wine also wouldn't hurt, and a mother to make a blessing over the candles."

But where was the mother to make a blessing on the candles? Instead, they went out dancing to the Kinneret, desecrating the Shabbos, and forgot their yearning for a mother, who perhaps was standing and looking at them from above, her eyes streaming with heartbroken tears.


All material on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted.
Click here for conditions of use.