Interwar Slovakia

Rebekah Klein-Pejsova spoke to us about Jewish loyalty, nationality and citzenship in Interwar Slovakia. To be honest, the entire presentation was way over my head. As of late, we had focused on differing modes of Judaism, but this was an entirely different subject alltogether. Having no previous knowledge of Jewish involvement in Slovakia, I found it difficult to follow. Mrs. Klein-Pejsova told us that the Jews were a suspect minority in Slovakia, and that a Czech was a Czech and a Czechoslovak was a Slovak. In terms of us learning from what the Jews experienced while in Slovakia, we can observe 1. the transition to an empire state, 2. broad changes in the region and 3. how an international situation affects dom developments. A large portion of the lecture dealt with the Treaty of Trianaan (sp?) which was a disaster for Hungary. The Hungarian Jewry wished to revise this treaty entirely. I wish that this lecture had been easier to follow, and that relevance to us being Jews today was introduced. I felt the topic to be very unrelatable for me. Having some connection made between us and the Slovakian Jews would have given the lecture more of an impact.

Amy Zitelman march 18

 I was not in class today... will not be posting for this week.

Matthew Lagrone

There were many points during this lecture where I was very lost, however I did find Mr. Lagrone’s lecture to be very informative on the subject of modern Judaism in America. The views of Kohut and Kohler were discussed, each having opposite visions for the future of Judaism in America. Kohut was the traditionalist of the two, believing things should carry on as they had for years unchanged. Kohler hoped that Jewish law would adapt to current American culture, saying that Jewish law was from a near pre-historic like bygone era. I think both of these offer valid points but neither really highlights the key to Judaism’s success in America, in my opinion at least. As Matthew Lagrone emphasized, Judaism is not a hierarchy as other religions are. There is no final authority on anything, something that really separates it from other faiths. I think this is a vital attribute to the success of Judaism and all religions in American. Faith needs to be open for interpretation; there can’t be any right or wrong way in which religious law is practiced. However, this must be done with an eye on the roots of religion, it can never stray to far from the center of the beliefs it was founded on.

Matthew Lagrone

Similar to past lecturers, Matthew Lagrone’s talk discussed different modules of conservative Judaism, specifically concerning Alexander Kohut and Kaufman Kohler. While I was admittedly quite confused during most of the lecture, I did find that Kohut articulated conservative philosophy, defined by 1. volunteerism, 2. denominationalism and 3. pluralism. Volunteerism is considered to be the hallmark of American Judaism. Mr. Lagrone discussed other trademarks of American Judaism. First, American Jews are Jews by birth and choice. Second, American Jews have no chief rabbi. Mr. Lagrone said this was more akin to baptists then catholics. I found this part of the lecture to be interesting, as it made me take a step back and observe who I am as a Jewish American. Kohut also allowed some changes, and defines Judaism as conservative progress. The talk centered around differing views regarding the fluidity of Jewish law. I believe that part of my confusion was due to the usage of many words unfamiliar to me. For example, I am only mildly acquainted with the term “kehila.”

Matthew LaGrone

I am skipping this week.

Matthew Lagrone

Like some of my peers in the class, I have found it hard to talk about last weeks lecture. In efforts not to be critical of Mr. Lagrone's delivery of the material, I find that I'm at a loss of words. For most of the lecture, I was confused, although with the help of the knowledge from the past lecturers, I wasn't completely lost. The main point i took away from Lagrone's lecture was that the conservative movement serves as a balance between traditional and reform. Kohut was a figure who embodied the centrism in the argument of traditionalist vs. reform. I believe that the thoery behind the conservative movement is to be centered between orthodox and reform, yet I dont necessarily think the theory is always put into action. We have briefly talked about how Jewish people tend to make their own rules and exceptions, so i think that the balance of the conservative movement is just the case. As it is, i belong to an egalitarian conservative temple. The men and women are mixed in the synagogue and woman can go on the bima and say prayers from the Torah. In other conservative temples, this may not be the case. What I am trying to say, is what i got from Lagrone's lecture was that there is a theoretical balance between reform and orthodox within the conservative movement, but like many aspects of American Judasim, people take the restrictions and such into their own hands. Subsequentially they have created a personalized version of what we call the conservative movement.

Matthew LaGrone; Amy Zitelman

I have been trying to figure out who I agree with more; Kohut or Kohler.  Both have really interesting opinions on where Judaism should have gone in America.

Kohut wanted to extend the chain of tradition, thought that "reform is a deformity", and that fidelity to Jewish Law will preserve the Jewish people.

On the other hand, Kohler wanted to end the chain of tradition and live under American Law, was "receptive of ideas of present" and thought that the "rabbinic observe obsolete laws of bygone days."

After thinking about it for a while, I realized that Kohler's opinion really disturbed me.  Kohler was too reformed; almost to the extent that I believe that if we followed him, Judaism would be lost.  Although, if Kohut's ideas were wholly followed, it would be very difficult to live as a Jew in America. 

Hence, a combination of them is, in my opinion, the solution.  And it is a combination of their opinions that I find I live my life.  I am "receptive of ideas of present" but also follow Jewish tradition and laws as major parts of my life.

Although my balance makes me not as observant of a Jew, I find that the culture and tradition still unite me with my people, and my reforms keep my in contact with the world and others around me.