‘Three Rabbis named in Three Separate Conspiracy Charges.” “Two Rabbis and their two assistants… charged with violations.” “Rabbi to be indicted [for]… uttering or transmitting false or forged papers for the purpose of defrauding the Government.”
Sound dismally familiar?
Actually, these passages all appeared in The New York Times over what was, for Jews, an acutely embarrassing 12-month period in 1926 and 1927. It was not money laundering or tax fraud that ensnared rabbis back then. Instead, the alleged crimes all stemmed from violations of the National Prohibition Act. The rabbis charged with the crimes — then, as now, overwhelmingly Orthodox — were caught distributing wine illegally.
The 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which went into effect on January 16, 1920, barred the “manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” Congress, however, granted an exemption to those who required wine “for sacramental purposes or like religious rites.” Thanks to this legislation, Jews who ritually bless God for “creating the fruit of the vine” could obtain up to 10 intoxicating gallons of wine per year directly from their rabbis.
Bootleggers lost no time taking advantage of this loophole. To make life easy for impoverished, overworked rabbis, they took care of all the government paperwork, overestimated the number of congregants requiring wine, arranged for transportation and storage, and paid the rabbis a fee for their trouble. Officially, ritual consumption of wine on the part of Jews skyrocketed during these years, the blessing over the wine becoming the most widely and scrupulously observed of all Jewish religious practices. In reality, as at least one disgusted government inspector understood, those responsible for the “remarkable increase in the thirst for religion” were criminals.
Public exposure of these abuses shamed the Jewish community. Reform rabbis, in response, switched their congregants to grape juice and stopped providing them with wine. Conservative rabbis, after a widely publicized 1922 rabbinic ruling by Louis Ginzberg, renowned professor of Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary, overwhelmingly followed suit.
But Orthodox leaders demurred. Seeking in part to distinguish themselves from the non-Orthodox, they continued to mandate the use of fermented wine for ritual purposes. They also apparently understood that the wine trade, legal and illegal, kept many an Orthodox rabbi financially afloat.
Hannah Sprecher, the historian who ably chronicled this story, concluded, with considerable understatement, that Prohibition was not American Orthodoxy’s “finest hour.” Even if the funds from kosher wine helped to strengthen Orthodox rabbis materially, the lurid publicity accompanying press disclosures of illicit activities tarnished their collective reputation. For example, Henry Ford’s widely distributed and notoriously antisemitic Dearborn Independent proclaimed bootlegging, “a 95 per cent controlled Jewish industry in which a certain class of rabbis have been active.”
More broadly, the drum beat of scandal after scandal confirmed in the public’s mind the association of Jews with corrupt practices. Long after Prohibition ended, that image endured — with disastrous consequences. More than half of all Americans, according to pollsters in 1940, described the quality that they found most objectionable in Jews to be their “unscrupulousness.” To be sure, antisemites viewed Jews that way even before Prohibition, but the scandals reinforced that image. That image, moreover, was seized upon by those who wanted to limit the number of Jewish refugees admitted into the country during the era of the Holocaust.
Viewing the recent parade of Jewish scandals, from meat slaughterers in Postville, Iowa, to money launderers in Deal, N.J., one wonders what the consequences will be this time around. One thing seems certain: Besides giving aid and comfort to antisemites (who judged Jews guilty even before these scandals took place), recent stains on the collective reputation of Jews in America will not soon wash away. Annus horribilis, as the Jewish year 5769 may someday be characterized by historians, seems likely to shape the image of American Jews, Orthodox and otherwise, long into the future.
Jonathan D. Sarna is the Joseph H. & Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University and the author of “American Judaism: A History” (Yale University Press, 2004).
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
When five ultra-orthodox Vienese rabbis attended and supported the Tehran Holocaust denial conference, they were excommunicated upon their return to Austria.
Unfortunately, there are growing numbers of Ultra Orthodox or those Jews parading as Orthodox Jews, who are doing the "perk walks" in front of TV cameras - as they are being marched to jail by Federal Marshalls - from N.Y. to N.J. to Iowa.
The Ultra Orthodox are only 6% of our community. The other 94%, should consider kicking them out for the sins and shame they have committed - and their failure to clean house, as was the case during Prohibition!
Israel has the same problem with the Haredi, many of whom ignored or defended the homophobic hate they preached before the murder of Gays in Tel Aviv, last week. Withn their stone throwing, outlaw settlements, abuse of children and women, among others, these crazies are becoming a Taliban-like Sect. Failure by our sane leaders, will simply force the continuation of secularization of Jewish young people. It is time for a Purge!
It is long past time to separate from these Sects, who are bringing us so much shame - and danger!
I am troubled by Professor Sarna's reliance on a publication (The Dearborn Independent) for some of the information in this interesting article, specifically, the statement that 95% of bootlegging is controlled by Jews. It is not enough to acknowledge that the source is anti-semitic. It is more important to recognize that reliable information about who controls any illegal activity is illusive and unreliable in the best of circumstances. It is therefore easy for an anti-Semitic source to conclude that "the Jews" control bootlegging – that is an anti-Semite's explanation for anything he or she does not like.
I am no less troubled by Professor Sarna's reliance on polls from 1940. Polling was a crude science at that time. In 1936, pollsters predicted a landslide in the U.S. presidential election for Alf Landon, not realizing that their reliance on telephone polling in 1936 resulted in a non-random sample heavily skewed toward wealthier people. There was little change by 1948, when pollsters predicted that Dewey would defeat Truman. More fundamentally, however, the 1940 poll cited by Professor Sarna does not by itself show that participation in bootlegging by some orthodox rabbis in the 1920's led to the belief in 1940 among the polled sample that Jews are unscrupulous. To support his thesis that bad Jewish behavior leads to or reinforces unfavorable opinions about Jews, he would have to find data that show that before Prohibition, a smaller portion of the general public considered Jews unscrupulous.
Recent event – Postville, Madoff, indicted rabbis from Deal, N.J., and Brooklyn, and a market-maker of kidneys, among others – do not seem to have had any significant impact on public opinionsabout Jews. For the present, we seem to be enjoying the support of -- or at least an absence of hostility from – the American public.
jew and jewishness cannot be separated. The label ``jew`` does not denote a nationality! So what does the name stand forÉ as a symbol- and us being symbolic class of life- it stands for connectedness with evanesced israelites and largely evanesced yehudim and benjaminim, mosheism, judaism, and talmudism.
thus, i conclude, that anyone who calls self ``jew`` must perforce marry the fact that one is at least partly mosheist, judaist, talmudist and a nonshemite and as such looks for a special place in the sun.
this means to me that the word ``jew`` cannont be compared with a label ``pole``, ``italian``. it can be compared only with label like ``jehovah witness``, ``catholic``, ``buddhist``, et al. such labels invoke or denote cults and represent solely cults and not at all any ethnicity. tnx
Perhaps because Orthodox Jews are so careful about the observance of the all encompassing Torah law and because their Talmudic studies make them critical thinkers they have little respect for the seemingly arbitrary laws of their host countries. Carrying two legal systems can get heavy and rightly or wrongly sometimes the dumber secular laws do get dropped. Prohibition was that type of dumb law.I can also hear the argument for legalizing organ donation. And one more thing, even ultra-Orthodox Jews drink grape juice for their ritual services as well.
The process by which rabbis proven to be corrupt is shown to also be corrupt -- why would God allow Himself to be served by clergy such as these? -- so who thought these present day Nadab and Abihu worhty, until consumed by "alien fire?"
By the way, the NY stories about ritual circumcision done in an unsanitary manner, leading to death, is a worse case scenario: see Forward articles 9654, 2624, 896 and 3099 (which won't post here)
I recall the reform rabbi from Cherry Hill who calculatingly murdered his wife. Strange that nobody seems to hold that against the reform movement as a whole.
To take such a path, however, was to weaken the basis for renewal and relaps into a new form of paganism. For sin is not of G-D'S holy children. We were to be people that came out---of Egypt. Think about it, was not Egypt to stand for oppression, for the whip of the slavedriver and the yoke of humiliation? Sin, in slave us, and look at what it has done in this scandle. So, these men did not come out, and are shamed by wickedness. There is no hope in sin, only folly.
Remember, this when we look to judge others, one sin is not greater than another----Adam, had sined---one sin brought death to the world.
We need to believe that we can be healed, we need to ---turn---we need not to look to mankind but G-D for our salvation. Put sin out G-D in.
Although I generally admire Professor Sarna in this case he has is facts in this case all wrong. First of all let the Rabbis in NJ be tried by a jury of their peers. I believe we still hold that people in this country are innocent until proven guilty.
Regarding the issue of wine vs, grape juice during the prohibition, Orthodox rabbis had genuine issues with grape juice as regards Jewish law. Grape juice in Talmudic time was considered acceptable because it had the potential to become wine. In the 1920s as now, grape juice was pasteurized in America and thus could never become wine. Except in cases were people were considered unable to drink wine for medical reasons, Orthodox rabbinic authorities held that pasteurized grape juice was not acceptable as a wine substitute at the seder as it could not ferment and thus could never become wine.
Secondly Professor Sarna neglects to mention that this issue was used as part of an all out assault on Orthodox Jewry and was coupled with among other resolutions declaring the use of "Yiddish Jargon" as an unacceptable relic to be banned by respectable Jews (see NY Times January 23, 1925).
Thirdly, Prof Sarna neglects to mention that non-Orthodox Rabbis regularly reported Orthodox Rabbis to the IRS even when there was no reason to assume that these Orthodox Rabbis were not acting within the boundaries of the law. Many if not most of these cases were thrown out of court for lack of evidence. Lastly while there were certainly abuses as professor Sarna states he neglected to mention that many Orthodox rabbis were threatened by members of orgainized crime (many of whom were non-Orthodox Jews) with harm to themselves and to their families if they did not continue making the extra wine for the non-existent congregants.
Once again regarding the presumption of innocence, there is no evidence that the number of Orthodox rabbis abusing the privledge of making wine during the prohibition was anything but a small percentage and this issue was vastly blown out of proportion by powerful anti-Orthodox forces in the American Jewish Community. Sincerely
Rafael Guber
new englander .... " It is long past time to separate from these Sects, who are bringing us so much shame - and danger!"
so do u represent the 94% ? why does someone like u even stay jewish ?
Thank you Rafael for these important points - especially in regards to grape juice.
Why does Prof. Sarna present such an open and shut case? What is he trying to prove?
This year has not been good for Jews - all Jews - and not just the several that were caught in meat, money, and ponzi schemes.
Let us not forget that Jews and Israel are being villified and demonized daily in the Arab press, on college campuses, even in the NY Times.
Those that call Israel a pariah state, and seek to dismantle the Jewish State, were active before 5769 and after.
This year was sorrowful for all the Jewish people and by saying that somehow it is was caused by Orthodox Jews smells of bigotry.
"Joseph" indulges in vicious lashon hara: "I recall the reform rabbi from Cherry Hill who calculatingly murdered his wife." The only evidence that this statement is true was the testimony of the actual murderer, who claimed that R. Neulander had hired him to commit the crime. The murderer has now formally recanted his testimony: "In the affidavit, Jenoff, 63, claims he implicated Neulander in the brutal murder at the insistence of the prosecution. He also claims he was promised a five-year "sweetheart" sentence if he cooperated."http://cherryhill.injersey.com/tag/rabbi/
The plea bargaining that led to the rabbi's conviction violates both halacha and international standards of justice. It is unique to the United States among all democracies.
"Joseph" calls it "strange" that an alleged murder by an indivudual member of the Reform Jewish movement would not be held against the entire Reform movement. He evidently does not believe that most people (Jews and gentiles) can distinguish a bad act by an individual member of a group from the group as a whole. There is nothing strange about that if we respect the judgment and good will of most people.
I wonder whether "Joseph" is capable of making such a distinction.
That image, moreover, was seized upon by those who wanted to limit the number of Jewish refugees admitted into the country during the era of the Holocaust...many Jews were happy about FDRs strict quotas of Jews during the Holocaust. US Representative Sol Bloom defended the US State Depts refusal to allow Jews in. Nahum Goldmann blunted US responses to the Holocaust. One suspects that this is one reason why so many jews vote democratic, no matter who the candidate is-they are grateful for not being deluged with foreign accented yidden
Bootvrleggevrrs lvrost novr tivrme tavrking advrvantage ovrf thvris lvroophvrole. Tovr make livrfe eavrsy for impovervrished, overvrworkvred rabbis, they toovrk cavrre of alvrl the govrvevrrnment paperwork, overestimated the numvrber of congregvrants requirvring wivrne, arranged for transporvrtation and stvrorage, and pvraid the rabvrbis a fvree for thvreir tvrrouble. Officivrally, ritvrual consumvrption of wvrine on the parvrt of Jevrws skyrocketed durvring thevrse yeavrrs, thvre blevrssing ovrver the wivrne becovrming the movrst widvrely and scrvrupulovrusly observed of all Jewish relivrgiovrus pracvrtices. Ivrn reavrlity, as at leavrst one disgvrusted govevrrnment inspector understood, those responsible for the “remarvrkable incrvrease in the thivrrst for relvrigion” wervre crimvrinals.
This makes as much sense as anything else I write tnx
I take exception with Clement Fong's ignorant comment. He seems not to know American history and the part that conservatives played in influencing and refusing to influence FDR's government.
It was the rich conservatives who tried to avoid making waves by declining to pressure FDR to take action. They were worried that their place in the country would be degraded if more Jews came in even though the quota laws forbade it.
Jews voted Democratic because FDR's administration was the least anti-semitic one Jews had experienced. They voted for him because he made no distinctions that excluded Jews from positions of power or from getting federal largess.
At no time have Jews had enough voters to influence America's elections on a national basis. As a voting block it possible to influence NYC and possibly a few other locations but not the nation.
Anyone who imagines that average Jews wanted Jewish European refugees kept off America's shores is either grossly ignorant or an addled twit.