Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The History of the Jews in New Zealand

Chapter XVIII — The Problems of Intermarriage

page break

Chapter XVIII
The Problems of Intermarriage

The bonds which bound the seven established Jewish congregations which flourished in New Zealand in the latter half of the nineteenth century were not only those of a common faith and history. Ties of a common social background and country also drew them into a unity which allowed each section to co-operate in harmony and brotherhood with the other. The major stream of the members of each community had migrated from London, and even most of the small minority who had emanated from Posen and the German-Polish border had resided for a length of time in either England or Australia. All the communities conducted their institutions upon strict democratic British lines, governed by almost identical constitutions and by-laws which commanded obedience on the penalty of small fines or cessation of privileges. When a bridegroom in Dunedin did not attend the synagogue on the Sabbath before his marriage as demanded by the Laws, the committee informed him that it had withdrawn permission for the wedding ceremony to take place although all arrangements had been completed. His excuse that he did not belong to Dunedin, and the proximity of his wedding-date, did not move the autocratic, by-law abiding committee. Only a fervent apology and the solemn promise to obey another law to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath following his marriage, induced the strict committeemen to change their minds at the very last moment.

Modelled on the laws of the Great Synagogue in Duke's Place, London, the congregational legislation of each of the synagogues provided in the first instance that it came under the guidance of the Chief Rabbi of England, and that services would be conducted according to the liturgy known as Minhag Polen. The Wellington Congregation went so far as to issue a Declaration of Trust to that effect so that no reforms or disputes could be introduced then or in the future. Usually, members, on joining, would be handed a copy of the rules which they would have to sign as a form of acceptance to abide by them. The communities regarded membership of a synagogue seriously. Membership almost gave a person the stamp of respectability. Before acceptance, an applicant would have to pass a period of probation during which his credentials would be examined and behaviour scrutinized. Sometimes the probation would extend for two years. When passed, the privileged member would receive the right to vote and to stand page break
Rabbi H Van Staveren (1849-1930). Truly loved and respected by all who knew him, his record of social service was unique. As a senior Rabbi of the Jewish community in New Zealand, his spiritual leadership was of the highest order.

Rabbi H Van Staveren (1849-1930). Truly loved and respected by all who knew him, his record of social service was unique. As a senior Rabbi of the Jewish community in New Zealand, his spiritual leadership was of the highest order.

page break
An historic picture taken in 1929 on the occasion of the consecration of the new Synagogue in Wellington. Left to right: W. Phillips, S. Triester, J. I. Goldsmith, M. M. Heinemann, Rev. A. Astor, Rev. Ch. Pitkowsky, Rev. H. Van Staveren, Rev. S. A. Goldstein, P. Meyers.

An historic picture taken in 1929 on the occasion of the consecration of the new Synagogue in Wellington. Left to right: W. Phillips, S. Triester, J. I. Goldsmith, M. M. Heinemann, Rev. A. Astor, Rev. Ch. Pitkowsky, Rev. H. Van Staveren, Rev. S. A. Goldstein, P. Meyers.

page 129 as Sgan at the Barmitzvah or marriage of his children. Privileged membership would be forfeited by any Jew who married out of his faith, or who violated the Covenant of Abraham or did not have his daughter agreeably named within the synagogue. In order to prevent any Jewish resident of a town from failing to share in the burden of maintaining communal institutions, a regulation on the books permitted a charge to be made to residents who had lived over a year in the area and who had not applied for membership. If the services of the congregation or its ministers were called upon, they would not be given until all arrears had been paid.

Occasionally, members who desired to be called to the Reading of the Law for some special reason encountered difficulty, because the Sedra of the week could not be divided into sufficient portions to satisfy all who desired an Aliyah. For those occasions, a by-law stated the order of those to whom the privilege should be accorded. The right had to be given first to a Barmitzvah, then a bridegroom, followed by a father of a newly-born child, a Sandek, a father of a child being circumcised, a Yahrzeit and the father of a Barmitzvah. Other regulations of interest in congregational by-laws concerned the minister, honorary officers and cemetery rules. A minister had to be in the synagogue ten minutes before the commencement of a service and arrayed in his clerical costume. The Treasurer, on retiring from office, had to hand over to his successor all books, bonds, money and accounts of the congregation in his possession, or subject himself to be dealt with as the committee deemed fit. Father and son or brothers could not hold office at the same time. Anyone digging a grave without the permission of the President "shall be prosecuted according to the Law". In one congregation, the committee passed a strange rule that no burial should take place within forty-eight hours of death except by permission of the committee. Jewish custom requires burial as soon as possible after death.

Complete co-operation existed between the congregations in regard to the conduct of funerals. Ministers travelled hundreds of miles to other communities which had no Reader, or where the regular minister could not attend, in order to carry out the burial rites in traditional fashion and upon consecrated ground. The Rev. Lichtenstein once travelled specially to Queenstown to consecrate a piece of ground as a Jewish cemetery. Only three or four families lived in the township, yet they had made provision for Jewish burial rites. Bendix Hallenstein, an important personage in the district, and one of the most enterprising men in the colony, acquired the site. Born in Germany, he had spent five years in Manchester and a year in Melbourne before he landed at Invercargill. After a short time, he moved to Queenstown where he built the Brunswick Flour Mill at Kawarau, the first in the district erected for the benefit of small farmers. Several times mayor of the township, he was also elected as Member for Lakes in the Otago Provin- page 130 cial Council, and for Wakatipu in the House of Representatives. He later went to live in Dunedin where he acted as Consul for Germany and was director of several large companies. Hallenstein Street in Queenstown is named after him. He sold out to Louis de Beer, who, with the Wenkheim and Van de Walde families, comprised the permanent Jewish community in the town.

Because of the smallness of the Jewish population in the towns, and in some cases the almost total disappearance of its members from various districts, other denominations would encroach upon or somehow acquire unused, consecrated Jewish burial-ground. This is obvious in Hokitika and Nelson. In 1884, the Dunedin City Council requisitioned a portion of the Dunedin Jewish Cemetery. Three years later the Council wanted to acquire another portion, a course from which it desisted after protest. In this cemetery, the children of the Hebrew School would plant trees on Tu B'Shvat, Jewish Arbor Day. When the cemeteries were consecrated, they were divided into two portions, one of these being set aside for suicides and -others considered unfit for burial amongst the regular members of the community. In time, ministers and committees dispensed with this division.

Communities also gave close attention to the matter of circumcision and co-operated with each other in order that the Abrahamic Covenant should be conducted in accordance with Jewish law and custom. Ministers went to no end of trouble, and travelled to all parts of New Zealand to perform the ceremony of Brith. The de Beer family frequently requested the Mohel to come to Queenstown. So did the Invercargill Jewish families of L. Myers, M. Berrick and M. Moeller. During the Otago gold-rush, Arrow-town for a brief period became a haven for miners, and the temporary Jewish settlers occasionally had need to call for the Mohel. The more permanent Jewish residents of Arrowtown included George Arndt, the teacher, Herman Arndt, Samuel Gordon, the storekeeper, and Thomas Leister. It sometimes happened that a Mohel could not attend one of the smaller towns for many months, and then a number of circumcisions would be held at the same time. Because of this, parents became lax concerning the performance of the Brith on the eighth day after birth. Conscientious committees took rigorous steps to stamp out the practice. Children of parents living in outlying settlements would sometimes not be circumcised until they were grown boys. A case occurred in Christchurch concerning such a lad, and doubts arose if he should be called to the Torah on his Barmitzvah. The committee decided to allow him to recite his portion of the Law on condition that his father named a day within the month when the Brith would be performed. Van Staveren of Wellington experienced the rare honour of celebrating a circumcision on the Day of Atonement. In accordance with ancient custom he performed the Brith in the synagogue before the page 131 crowded and respectful congregation. Van Staveren's reputation as a Mohel travelled beyond the borders of the Jewish community. In his lifetime, in a non-religious capacity, he circumcised over four thousand Gentile boysr. Parents came from all classes in order to have the distinction of Van Staveren circumcising their children.

Although the congregations co-operated with each other willingly and harmoniously, all attempts to unite the communities into a single unit or to create a united ecclesiastical body, failed. The Victorian branch of the Anglo-Jewish Association suggested a conference of all Australasian congregations to be held in February, 1881, during the Melbourne International Exhibition. The conference intended discussing:
  • 1.   The promotion of the interest of the Anglo-Jewish Association in the colonies.
  • 2.   The improvement of the status of Judaism in Australasia, comprising the discussion of (a) Jewish schools, (b) Sabbath observance, (c) synagogue services and (d) charities.
  • 3.   Establishment of a Union of Australasian Hebrew Congregations.

Five congregations, including those of Wellington and Dunedin, refused to participate. Probably they suspected, and perhaps not without reason, that by submitting to a union they would lose their individuality and freedom of power to act as they themselves desired. Dunedin had reason to fear. It had defied the Chief Rabbi's advice in spite of the first rule on its Laws and Regulations to adhere to the Chief Rabbi's guidance.

In the spirit of the Australian Federal Movement then prevailing, the Adelaide Hebrew Congregation proposed, in 1888, an All-Australasian Jewish Synod. It suggested that each synagogue send its minister, president and treasurer to a conference with power to act, with the object of considering the desirability or otherwise of reform and the revision of the prayers and form of service. It also proposed to have all matters affecting individual congregations referred to the Synod for decision. The proposed ideas seemed too drastic for some of the congregations, and the scheme lapsed. At the time, Dunedin supported reform and favoured the Synod. If the conference would have taken place it was prepared to send delegates.

All attempts, too, to create a united body of Jewish ministers through the establishment of an ecclesiastical court did not succeed. It was not from want of trying, nor from want of support of the lay members of the congregations. Both the clergy and the communities desired to establish a New Zealand Beth Din. The opposition emanated from the Chief Rabbi himself. No minister in New Zealand possessed the necessary rabbinical qualifications to act as an Ab Beth Din. As far back as 1872, the Chief Rabbi informed the New Zealand communities that the Beth Din in Melbourne under the chairmanship of Rabbi Samuel Herman and his assistants, the Rev. Moses Rintel and the Rev. page 132 A. F. Ornstien, constituted the only authorized Beth Din for Australia and New Zealand. It was the only Beth Din outside London that had been authorized by the Chief Rabbi. An application made to him in 1877 to form a New Zealand ecclesiastical body failed, as did a further application in 1879, when strong representations were made by the communities, pointing out that Australia and New Zealand were so distant, separate and different from each other. The applicants also stressed that at the time, New Zealand had six congregations and four ordained ministers. Further representations on the same grounds made to the Chief Rabbi in 1880 and in 1883 did not move him from his stand. However, in 1880, the ecclesiastical authorities in Melbourne granted special permission to the Rev. Lichtenstein and the Rev. Zachariah to meet in Christchurch as a Beth Din for one particular purpose only, and with the specific understanding that it must not assume permanency. The Chief Rabbi gave similar permission for temporary courts in December, 1883, and in April, 1884, when Lichtenstein, Zachariah and Van Staveren met in Christchurch. In March, 1900, the Rev. Elias Blaubaum, on behalf of the Melbourne Beth Din, came over from Australia to Dunedin for a similar purpose.

Temporary ecclesiastical courts in New Zealand were permitted for the sole and specific purpose of performing the rites and ceremonies of prosely-tization of Gentile men and women to Judaism, a function which necessitated the presence of an authorized Beth Din. A vexed problem had arisen in New Zealand communities. Not enough Jewish women had migrated to the country. In the early years, Jewish men outnumbered women in a proportion of nearly two to one. The young men who had migrated to New Zealand had been brought up in surroundings where the communities regarded marrying out of the Jewish faith with dismay. Nearly all of the men had also been nurtured in homes where deep reverence was paid to the marriage institution, and the adoption of the artificiality of living with a Gentile woman in a de facto state would have aroused disgust and dissatisfaction. Marry-ing out of the faith automatically resulted in the loss of prestige and status. In the synagogue it led to loss of privileges. An offender would lose the right to vote and the honour of being called up to the dais during the reading from the Scroll of the Law. He would also have to face the prospect of ignominy in case of burial, of being interred in the portion set aside for suicides and others considered unfit to be buried amongst privileged members. Socially, he would lose prestige. He would be "looked down upon" by the other members of the community, some of whom regarded intermarriage as almost equal to that of the abandonment of the Jewish faith. Some parents whose children "married out" would mourn for them as for the dead.

For Jews who lived on the goldfields or in small townships, the problem of marriage was even more difficult than for those who resided in one of page 133 the larger cities. A young man living in Queenstown illustrated the hardship when he brought a suit for breach of promise before the Supreme Court in Dunedin against a young Jewish lady, whom he alleged had promised to marry him, and against the husband who had won her hand. The first suitor claimed that the husband had poisoned his wife's mind against him. The hearing took place on the last two days of the Passover, and witnesses, including the minister, were brought direct from the synagogue into court to give evidence. The judge would not listen to the plea of the claimant's counsel to postpone the hearing. Plaintiff's counsel then stated that the facts he would relate were as sensational as a three-volume novel. The judge begged him to compress it into one volume. Counsel then suggested he would reduce it to one chapter. Legally an involved case, the claimant received one farthing damages, but it did demonstrate the heartbreaking dilemma of Jewish men who wished to marry within the fold, and it was doubly emphasized by the fact that it led a Jewish man to bring a rare type of breach of promise case against a woman co-religionist.

The solution regarding marriages came of itself. The inevitable happened. It would have been extraordinary for young men to have remained bachelors, especially in the smaller townships which had no synagogue and no community to involve a person in social prejudices. In synagogue towns many risked calumny and the loss of privileges. In spite of this, most of those who married out of their faith did their utmost to retain their ties with their religion and with their people. They often received setbacks. One gentleman asked if he could join the synagogue. The committee told him he could not do so, but that the synagogue was always open to the public. When Jewish men married Gentile women it did not only affect their personal status. It also affected the status of their children. In Jewish law the children receive the religious status of the mother. A Jewish father who had married a Gentile women sent his children to the Hebrew School. The minister taught them amongst the others, but the synagogue committee told the father to remove the children as the school could accept only Jewish pupils.

Problems also arose concerning circumcision and burial. The Jewish father of a child of a Gentile mother desired a minister to circumcise his son. By a majority vote of the committee and against an entered protest by one of the minority, it was decided to perform the Brith. The minister refused, and wrote to the Chief Rabbi about it. The Chief Rabbi agreed with the minister although a colleague had previously circumcised two other brothers of the child. The incident contributed to that minister's dismissal. Synagogue committees did not like their ministers corresponding directly with their spiritual superior in England without permission. On another occasion, a child born of a Gentile mother had died and the father wished the child to be buried in the Jewish cemetery. On asking a visiting emissary page 134 Rabbi from Jerusalem for advice, he was told that the child should be interred in the non-privileged portion of the burial-ground. Nevertheless, the authorities decided to ask the Chief Rabbi his opinion on the matter. He replied that the child should not have been buried in the Jewish cemetery at all but that it was unnecessary to exhume the body. In spite of the Chief Rabbi's decision, when a similar case occurred a little later, the committee disobeyed the ruling, and by five votes to two took it upon themselves to bury the child in the Jewish section of the cemetery.

Some synagogue committees regarded themselves as inviolate. Frequently, there sat in their midst young, inexperienced men who, because of their election, believed that they had the power to violate Jewish law and dishonour the spiritual head of their organization whom they had promised to obey in the first rule of the organization on which they sat as governors. In their arrogance and ignorance they committed dreadful errors. Their autocratic behaviour induced them to meddle in matters about which they knew nothing. One such body arrogated the right to inform an applicant for conversion whose great grandfather had been a Jew from Posen, that they would select three lay members of the congregation to act as an ecclesiastical court who would proselytize him. A suggestion that the application should be sent to the Chief Rabbi received scant attention. When the minister heard about it, he did not ask the committee but sent the application to the Chief Rabbi himself. In the congregations where the minister showed weakness, the committee treated him as a paid servant and a mere tool. Their attitude towards their minister was, "obey or be dismissed".

In some congregations which had no incumbent, the committee would sometimes act as if the mantle of the rabbinate had fallen upon it. In one case a Gentile woman appeared before a Board of Management. She had not seen her husband for fourteen years, and she wished to marry a certain member of the congregation. On being questioned, she stated that she was sure her husband was dead. The President then placed his hat upon his head and said to her, "I solemnly swear my husband is dead." She replied, "I swear." Upon such evidence and upon such a ceremony the committee decided she could be married, arranged for three lay men to act as a Beth Din, converted her, and the President, as acting minister of the congregation, celebrated the marriage. They were unaware, besides being ignorant of the civil law, that only three well-trained members of a Beth Din can act in a matter of conversion.

Whether a congregation had a minister or not and whether its executive was responsible or not, committees regarded it as their right to arrive at rabbinical decisions. Sometimes the minister, in order to absolve himself from responsibility, would make the members of the committee believe it was their prerogative to arrive at a decision. One minister, when asked to page 135 circumcise a child of a Gentile mother, stated that he would do so if the committee agreed. The Board of Management happened to be responsible and would not allow it. Instead of the minister sending a report to the Chief Rabbi regarding an applicant, the committee made the recommendation, and it often depended upon the friendliness of the committee towards the applicant whether or not the recommendation would be favourable. An absurd situation would arise when the Chief Rabbi sent a reply agreeing to an application for conversion. It would not be the minister but the committee who would examine the applicant regarding religious knowledge of the laws and precepts of Israel.

As time went on, intermarriage became so frequent and so many families became involved, that it gradually lost a great deal of the distaste with which members of the community had regarded it previously. Some congregations allowed those who had married Gentile women to become seatholders in the synagogue but not voting members. They were buried no longer in the non-privileged section of the cemetery. In some of the smaller communities, those who had "married out" acted in an executive position within the congregation, as presidents, treasurers and committeemen. Some communities became disturbed at the situation. One passed a resolution: "That it is with regret that the Congregation views with alarm the continued marriages between Christians and the Jewish nation and particularly those of influence showing a bad example to others." It also resolved: "That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Chief Rabbi, Dr Adler, in London."

Intermarriage increased to such an extent that it threatened to undermine the structure of one or two of the communities. Many individuals claimed they could not help themselves, as there were not sufficient Jewish women living in the vicinity from whom they could choose their wives. Nearly all who had "married out" wished to retain their Jewish connections. Finally, one congregation decided to "ameliorate the position of Jews and Jewesses who had married out of their faith", and wrote to the Chief Rabbi about the situation. In principle, he opposed conversions. Jewish law specifically states that proselytes should not be made when their motive is marriage. Converts to Judaism should be "Gere Zedek", righteous proselytes who convert because of belief and the desire to seek holiness and purity. However, the Chief Rabbi had deep sympathy for the pioneers who had no other choice but to marry Gentile women. He therefore established the temporary authoritative ecclesiastical courts, and insisted that all applications for conversion must first be sent to him for approval after recommendation by a congregation. The Chief Rabbi usually relied upon these statements. With time, abuses crept in because of the distance between London and New Zealand and of the time it took for communications to be received and answered. Occasionally, the New Zealand congregations relied upon the Mel- page 136 bourne Beth Din for assistance. About the end of the nineteenth century conversions were carried out with the minimum of formality. All applications except those of persons of known bad character were automatically recommended, and almost automatically approved. When a number had passed, arrangements would proceed for the formation of a temporary Beth Din. Applicants would then be told to prepare for the examinations which the committee of the congregation would conduct. Not infrequently, the candidates would know more of Jewish practice than some of the ignorant examiners, and certainly be prepared to observe more of the laws and customs of Israel than those who cross-questioned them.

Naturally, intermarriage took its toll of Jewish adherents. If thoughtlessness and indifference prevailed in the Jewish partner, no steps would be taken to have the children proselytized. A rebuff would often have the same effect. Generally unbeknown, Jewish blood runs in the veins of many New Zealanders. When marriage took place with a Maori, the children were not usually brought up as Jews, although cases did occur when Jewish fathers told their children they were Hebrews and taught them a smattering of Hebrew prayers, but did not convert them to Judaism. An isolated instance of Maori conversion to the Jewish faith occurred in the First World War, when a Glasgow Beth Din proselytized a New Zealand soldier. He worshipped in synagogue regularly. Childless and of comfortable means, he benevolently cared for Maori orphans, and when he died he was buried in the Jewish cemetery. Maoris with the name of Nathan, Keesing, Asher, Flegeltaub, Black or Yates may trace their descent from Jews, but in many cases Maoris with Jewish names adopted them from the person or firm for whom they worked.

Samuel Yates came to New Zealand in 1853 at the age of twenty-four. His sister, Mrs Charles Davis of Auckland, had preceded him. Born in London, the son of P. Yates, a well-known solicitor, Samuel was sent for his education to Liverpool where his grandfather, Benjamin Eliakim Yates, had been first Jewish minister and founder of the Liverpool Congregation. His original name had been Goetz. Samuel completed his education in Paris, where he became acquainted with Emperor Louis Napoleon. Sent out to his family in New Zealand, he remained in and around Auckland for ten years. He then opened a store at Mangonui. After deciding to open at Paren-garenga for a trial period of six months, he remained in the district all his life. He met and married a Maori princess, and through her acquired vast tracts of land around Parengarenga, the most northerly settlement in New Zealand. When he arrived, nearly all the country around the settlement consisted of scrub and tea-tree. No grass could be found in the area. He cleared the land, enlarging his estate to a cattle and sheep run of over 150,000 acres on which he produced beef and lamb, various fruits and kauri gum. He owned page 137 and controlled nearly all the country north of Tekao, and gave the land on which the Van Diemen's Lighthouse now stands, to the Government. As a local Justice of the Peace, he gained the respect of the countryside through his culture and learning. He spoke French perfectly. They called him "King of the North". When he died on 14 September, 1900, his relations buried him in the Jewish cemetery in Auckland.

Another man named Asher, with Maori-Jewish connections, attained prominence in the Waikato district for his cleverness and wisdom. He, too, received honorary "kingship". They called him "King of the King country". It was said of him that he had the cunning of his mother and the shrewdness of his father. By the end of the nineteenth century, Jews had visited every part of the land. It is not surprising to come across their traces in strange nooks and crannies. Once a traveller, staying overnight at a remote village, having nothing better to do, visited the local dance-hall. During the evening, a regal Maori princess entered wrapped with a blue and white silken Talith around her shoulders, draped as a stole. She had married a Jew from White-chapel. He had no more use for the Talith. She had.