To The Editor:
Thank you for your recent article commemorating and
eulogizing Rabbi N. Bulman, zt"l. Amongst Rabbi
Bulman's notable achievements was the founding of an orthodox
kehillah in Migdal Ho'emek and that would account for
the fact that HaGaon Rav Shamshon Refoel Hirsch, zt"l,
was twice mentioned in your esteemed article.
Rabbi Bulman had the farsighted vision, like his great
predecessor before him, that the firm and solid basis of
Knesses Yisroel is vigorous, well-organized,
independent and inspirited orthodox kehillos.
For hundreds of years, the heart and lifestream of Jewish
life have been kehillos kedoshos. The rov stood at the
head of the kehilloh and, where there was a yeshiva,
he functioned as rosh yeshiva too. One example: The
Chasam Sofer was a world-renowned rosh yeshiva, but he
was also the rov of the Pressburg kehilloh, as were
his descendants. In fact, all outstanding rabbonim had
talmidim in their proximity who were often intimately
attached to them and in turn themselves became talmidei
chachomim.
During the Second World War, almost all the Western and
Eastern European kehillos were destroyed. Since then,
the blessed establishment and growth of yeshivos and
kollelim has been more rapid and widespread than the
refounding and recreation of orthodox kehillos. The
question arises whether there is not something essential and
important missing. Especially in Eretz Yisroel there
are no kehillos of the old style and it seems that for
this reason Jewish life is characterized by a lack of
cohesion and stability.
It is well known that Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, the veteran
pioneer and leader of Orthodox British Jewry during and after
World War II, was aware of this shortcoming, and courageously
set out to establish kehillos in Eretz Yisroel
(Ashdod). However, he was unfortunately unable to achieve
more than a modest beginning.
Maybe it is necessary for once to explain and describe what
actually went in the established, independent Orthodox
kehillos of yesteryear. Personally I can speak for
Frankfurt am Main, but much the same applied to many other
Western European communities. I apologize in advance for my
insufficiency and inadequacy to undertake such a weighty and
far-reaching task.
First and foremost, the figure of the Rov: His authority was
unquestioned and he was a shining light to the members of his
congregation. He was deeply revered and every week, on
Shabbos, it was a great spiritual moment when he
bentsched the numerous younger boys who were present
in the shul.
There was an elected President and Board and it was their
holy obligation to run the community according to Torah
umitzvos. Of course, the kehilloh employed one or
more shochtim who were responsible to the rov and his
dayanim. The latter would exercise a minute and
reliable hashgocho over various establishments and
food items and, generally speaking, a perfect kashrus
apparatus was in operation, which naturally included the
mikvo'os.
The members of the congregation were very closely knit and a
strong sense of brotherhood prevailed. The community boasted
many different tzedokoh and gemilus chessed
institutions. The wealthier members felt very much
responsible for the hiddur mitzvoh of the shul
and all that was connected with it. Very large amounts of
money were freely and generously donated for this purpose.
(At this moment I have the historic Friedberger Anlage
Synagogue in Frankfurt am Main in mind.)
Let no one think that Torah learning was neglected in these
very frum kehillos. There were many different types of
shiurim for different interests and tastes and, though
very young at the time, I remember that my father attended a
Chumash with Rashi shiur on Shabbos mornings,
after the completion of davening. In the
afternoon, he had another shiur, to which he sometimes
took me along. The regular, elaborate and high standard
droshos of the rov played a significant role and had a
powerful effect.
The rov did not hesitate to say mussar and, when and
where necessary, admonish his congregation in the strongest
terms. The droshos of the rov were the subject matter
of conversation at the family Shabbos table. On the yomim
tovim, Talmudic discourses were given by the
lomdim of the town -- sometimes by men sheTorasom
umnosom, but sometimes even by baalei batim. The
importance of the shiurim for the ladies was clearly
recognized and it surely goes to the credit of the rabbonim
in these communities that they themselves participated in
this holy task.
In Frankfurt, HaRav Shlomo Breuer zt"l insisted on
opening a yeshiva alongside the kehilloh; in Berlin,
Rov Esriel Hildesheimer zt"l established a Rabbinical
Seminary for orthodox rabbonim, which was closely associated
with the Adass Yisroel Congregation. It is clear that many
more yeshivos would have sprung up, had it not been for the
ugly emergence of Nazism and its horrific aftermath.
After all that has so far been written, I have not touched on
the most salient point of all: the Jewish school. Educating
the youth on the basis of Torah, mesorah ve'emunah,
was the backbone and sine qua non of the
kehillos. Thus the communities in Frankfurt, Berlin,
Cologne, Hamburg, Leipzig, Nurenberg, Strassburg, London, as
a few examples, had their own schools, where pure and
unfalsified Yiddishkeit was taught by strictly
orthodox teachers. The scope of this letter does not allow an
elaboration of this vital aspect.
Please allow me one final word. The atmosphere in shul
on Shabbosim and yomim tovim is indelibly inscribed in
the memory of the writer. On these occasions, the congregants
rose to extraordinary spiritual heights. Members of a
kollel have the advantage that all the year round they
live on an elevated spiritual level -- albeit perhaps
slightly divorced from daily practical life. The majority of
the members of the kehillos transformed themselves and
their neshomos on these days of holiness, and this
kedushah was so tangible and all-pervading that it had
a profound effect on everyone who had the zechus to
experience this phenomenon.
To sum up: the kehillos of Europe were a powerful, non-
political force in the public and private life of Klal
Yisroel. They had an enormous capability of attraction. I
hope that these poor words will, in some way or another,
reach the gedolei Yisroel. Only they can decide
whether kehillos should be established in Eretz
Yisroel, and only they can put such a project into
practice.
Sincerely,
M. Eisemann
Kiryat Sefer
