Compiled by Gail Umeham
Hebrew Home (Editorial)
Southwestern Jewish Press December 25, 1953 Page 7
“Cast me not off in the time of old age; when my strength faileth, forsake me not.” Thus wrote the second of Israel’s kings in the immortal Psalms of David.
The concern men entertain for the problems of the aged has not diminished since that time. The atmosphere of everything one considers “modern” and “scientific” still leaves a significant portion of our population each year with the question of what to do with those who are no longer socially and economically productive.
Here in San Diego a small but resolute group did something about it some 8 years ago. Now they are asking the entire community to join with them in providing safe, adequate and pleasant facilities for those elderly citizens who need help to fulfill their need of shelter and to allay their feeling of loneliness and frustration. We must give them a sense of personal dignity, a climate of conditions of fair health, the security of a home, and present them with the opportunity to educate body and mind in the belief that age must not mean the cessation of fruitful activity.
The present home has been ony a partial answer. Now the Home leadership is seeking a more complete solution. They have foumnd a new site at 54th and University Avenue where a modern structure will be built to house 25 aged. It will also be able to enlarge its facilities if the need arises in the future.
It is now up to this community to assist the leadership of this campaign in its drive for funds. The aged at the Home and elsewhere will be listening with their hearts. Out of the community’s generosity will come the assurance of happiness during their twilight years.
*
Letter to the Editor
December 14, 1953
Southwestern Jewish Press
Dear Mac (Kaufman):
The editorial in your issue of December 11th, entitled “All Gaul Was Divided Into Three Parts,” was read with much interest. Although I am not a letters-to-the-editor addict, certain unwarranted conclusions are drawn in the editorial which require comment. If I did not know you better, I might almost assume that you have an anti-synagogue axe to grind! That impression might easily be drawn from the implications of your thoughts.
It is rather difficult to understand how a Thanksgiving Service sponsored jointly by three congregations—no matter what the attendance—can be cited as an instance of separatism or disunity. I agree with you that the sparse attendance was deplorable, but why not place the blame where it belongs? On the spiritual indifference and religious lethargy of the community!
If the attendance at this service was—to quote you—an embarrassing commentary on community cooperation,” what shall we say of the equally small attendance at the wonderful recital by Cantor Michael Loring, sponsored by the Jewish Community Center, or the mere handful who turned out to hear Rabbi Max Nussbaum, also on the Center Forum Series?
The conclusion is inescapable that the crux of the matter is the cultural immaturity and spiritual infantilism of the Jewish community. Apparently it requires dancing, cards or entertainment of the lightest and most inconsequential character to attract relatively large numbers.
But there is something more basic involved in your editorial, and that is the assumption that monolithic uniformity is the desired goal of a Jewish community. That mystic shibboleth, “unity,” covers a multitude of sins and embraces a vast area of sloppy thinking.
Does the existence of three Congregations—each with its own specific ideology and pattern of tradition—make for disunity? Then what shall we say of the Protestant communion, which is fragmentized a thousand fold? Or why stop with the Synagogue in the quest for the Utopia of unity? If you really want to be consistent, let’s abolish the Jewish Social Service Agency, United Jewish Fund, Hebrew Home for the Aged and Community Relations Council—and have their activities absorbed by non-sectarian Community Chest agencies! After all, don’t these agencies “separate” us from our fellow citizens of other faiths? Don’t they create “disunity” in the larger community? Andy why have four B’nai B’rith lodges, the Guardians, the Labor Zionists, etc., etc.? To use your own words, doesn’t this “separation” foster a “jungle Jewish Community?” Come now, Mac, you know better. Why apply a yardstick of mass uniformity to the Synagogue that you would regard as ridiculous if applied to any other Jewish institution?
My own personal record of laboring for genuine Jewish unity (as distinguished from a totalitarian uniformity)—remember, I have publicly endorsed the Jewish Community Center program when it is coordinated with the religious and educational program of the Synagogue—requires no apology of any kind. Therefore, I find it necessary to deplore the loose thinking which imputes to the Synagogue and its rabbinical and lay leadership the onus of responsibility for instances of disunity.
Take another, closer look, Mac. You’ll find that, historically speaking, the Synagogue and its religious message have constituted the strongest unifying factor in American Jewish synagogues—and at the Community Center, B’nai B’rith, etc., etc.—tell your fellow Jews to look within their own hearts for the real reasons, lethargy, indifference, and perhaps an overdose of the opiate called TV.
Maybe San Diego Jewry is far more unified than you suspect. Have you ever seen so many people so firmly united in their resolve not to be bothered?
Realistically yours,
Rabbi Morton J. Cohn
Editor’s Note
Unwarranted conclusions seem to be drawn by the good Rabbi. We are not in favor of a monolithic community; we are not anti-synagogue; and the Rabbi missed the point entirely. The concert and lectures drew more than 3 times the Thanksgiving service and as you say, it’s a long pull along the cultural road. The Synagogues have had an earlier start.
What the Rabbi missed was the point that all the organizations and agencies are now under one Federation and the President’s council, while the Synagogues still fail to form a Council of their own and refuse to go along with any other. This is unity? The Rabbis still stand accused of letting their own personal disabilities affect the growth of the spiritual and cultural life of the Jewish Community.
*
Community Currents
Southwestern Jewish Press December 25, 1953 Page 7
By Albert Hutler, Exec. Director United Jewish Fund
Many valuable and stimulating concepts came out of the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds held in Cleveland in late November. Top American Jewish leadership representing over 300 Jewish communities were present to assist in planning for 1954 and discussing the challenges which that year will present.
In the field of the aging (in which we in San Diego should most definitely be interested, considering the fact that we are going to build a new home for the aged in 1954) discussions centered around the fact that this was a community responsibility and not the responsibility of just a few individuals.. Care of the chronically ill aged, and non-ambulatory aging, is considered the most important problem in this field. Planners of the Home here in town, are beginning to take this into consideration, and in planning the new building are making plans for limited service to infirm, senile and chronically ill aged.
By the way, there is a great deal of misconception in our community about the Home for the Aged. There have been several remarks to the effect that everyone in the Home can afford to pay the full amount of maintenance for the Home. Yesterday I had to do some investigating for the Home, and found that out of the thirteen guests now living in the Home, more than 50 per cent are paid for by either the Department of Public Welfare, Old Age Assistance, or Blind Aid.
One major point in the field of Jewish education which should concern thinking leadership of our community is the fact that Jewish education is a community piece of business and not alone a problem for the Synagogues. Feature of the Conference was the session on “National Local Relations—Overseas Needs.” In reviewing the three year plan to help Israel which American Jewry passed late in 1950, it was found that the United Jewish Appeal through Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, had received about $220,000,000 during the three years. Other Israel philanthropic agencies received an additional $45,000,000; Israel Bond subscriptions totaled $130,000,000; United States Grant-in-Aid Commitments amounted to $160,000,000; United States Government Surplus Commodity Grants were $23,000,000, Export Import Bank loan of $35,000,000 and then there were private investments.
America’s share of the three year plan was one billion dollars. Not counting private investments and U.S. Technical aid which was tremendously helpful to Israel in stretching the value of its income and resources, some seven hundred and seventy-five million dollars in cash was achieved in the three years.
This achievement would have been impossible without the centralized action of the Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds throughout the country. It is further suggested that the bringing home to Israel of the greater understanding of American fund raising methods, so that Israel can more effectively cooperate, is an added need.
A clearer distinction is still needed between the Israel Bonds as an investment and the United Jewish Appeal as philanthropy.
Again the question of multiplicity of services and campaigns was discussed. The three educational institutions in Israel were urged to combine into a United Campaign again including their drives for capital funds.
The Jewish National Fund no longer has authority to campaign except through blue boxes, since they are receiving money from the United Jewish Appeal.
The question of subsidies and administrative expenses for Israel organizations in America, is receiving action of the Council of Federations and Welfare Funds.
Progress also was reported toward lessening duplications in JDC-USNA, HIAS and all agencies dealing with immigration.
Professor Gardner Patterson, economist of Princeton University, gave a somewhat gloomy picture of Israel’s economic ills, but ended on a strongly optimistic note which indicated that Israel would grow into a stable nation economically.
His main point was that economic reforms are necessary and that human resources must be used more. Claiming that there is too much mechanization on the farms and a lack of use of the human resources of Israel as farmers, he stated that some method must be found to place people on the farms. This new movement to farms, will require more aid from Israel’s friends, but then only for a short time. But it is necessary that Israel make better use of labor market, since its main resource is people.
Though we think of Israel’s living standards as pretty low, the professor stated that they are higher than the country can afford—and higher than other poor countries such as Greece, Turkey and Italy. For a time these living standards, as low as we may think they are, must be lowered yet.
Rabbi Norman Salit, president of the Synagogue Council of America, gave the sermon at Saturday morning services, in which he discussed the Jews in Germany. He had recently returned from a trip there with other religious leaders—a group in which he was the only Jew invited by the German government. It was his feeling that the role of the Jews in Germany had dwindled almost to extinction;
There are 22,000 Jews left in Germany compared to 665,000 before World War II. The Jews of Germany, averaging over 50 years of age, have completely lost their spirit. Young Jews see no future in Germany and many are leaving for Israel. Only five Rabbis were found in all of Germany, and Rabbi Saluit holds little hope for the regeneration of the Jews of Germany.
*
Preceding stories were gleaned from the Southwestern Jewish Press