• Home
  • Parashah
  • Ask the Rabbi
  • Festivals
  • Freemasonry
  • Articles
  • About
  • Books
  • Media

    Anti-Shechitah as a stage in Australian antisemitism

    The following article by Rabbi Raymond Apple appeared in the Journal of the Australian Jewish Historical Society in 2021, Vol. 25, Part 2.

    This article raises and answers questions in relation to anti-shechitah campaigns, with a particular focus on developments in post-war Melbourne with the campaign maintained by Rev. WJ Salter and the Jewish community response led by Rabbi Jacob Danglow. It deals with the conflicts between Rabbis Danglow and Gurewicz, explains why in the end Gurewicz accepted Danglow’s key role, and the arguments the latter put forward in defence of shechitah. It strongly argues that anti-shechitah campaigns are antisemitic, despite the denials of their supporters including Rev. Salter.

    In the Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal, volume 18 (2007), Catherine Pearce wrote a well-researched article on anti-shechitah campaigns in post-war Melbourne.[1] Her focus was a specific period, but such campaigns cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be seen as a stage in Australian antisemitism as a whole and as a part of a global phenomenon, as is clear from David Fraser’s Anti-Shechita Prosecutions in the Anglo-American World, 1855-1913 (recently reviewed in the AJHS Journal).[2] His arguments and a series of associated (largely academic) questions are the subjects of the present article.

    1. Is anti-shechitah agitation antisemitic?
    In 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance formulated a working definition of antisemitism, the first sentence of which speaks of “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. In the light of this definition, anti-shechitah agitation is intrinsically antisemitic. This is denied by many of its proponents, whether in Australia or elsewhere, even in tolerant countries and all the more in lands of oppression such as Nazi Germany. As an example of tolerant countries let us instance postwar Britain when there was a flood of material from the Council of Justice to Animals and Humane Slaughter Association and similar organisations.[3] The Council’s pamphlet, Jewish and Mohammedan Slaughter of Food Animals began, “It would be a grave mistake to imagine that this Society’s opposition to the Jewish method of slaughter is prompted in the slightest degree by any anti-Jewish sentiment.”[4]

    Despite denying that they are antisemitic, these pamphlets utilise antisemitic tropes, for example by hinting at alleged Jewish financial interests: “gentile operatives are paid a bonus by the Jews… because gentiles are forced to buy the hindquarters they are helping to finance the Jewish method of slaughter”.[5] The pamphlet writers often resorted to pejorative adjectives and insinuations of Jewish character defects (“cruel, inhumane, suffering, unfortunate”) which are obviously designed to affect public perceptions of Jews. Similar Australian material was issued in the 1950s by Rev. William J Salter,[6] who sought to be gracious by denying any antisemitic feelings but ignored the Nazi precedent. Hirsch Jakob Zimmels in The Echo of the Nazi Holocaust in Rabbinic Literature,[7] traces the bans on shechitah and adds, “the reason given for this prohibition was that the method employed by the Jews was inhumane, the Jews themselves being regarded as barbarous and cruel”.[8]

    Countering rabble-rousing rumour-mongering critics, Rabbi Jacob Danglow of the St Kilda Hebrew Congregation in Melbourne warned against “fomenting, whether intentionally or otherwise, ill feeling towards observant Jews by grossly misrepresenting and continually attacking the Jewish method of slaughter, which … is supremely humane.” Rabbi Danglow said he sought “to give honest guidance to people at a time when hostile propaganda is unfortunately so rampant”.[9] He appealed to “the fair-minded and truth-loving person (to) accept the impartial evidence of the scores of scientists, pathologists and veterinary surgeons who have all testifed to the absolute humaneness of Kosher killing”.[10]

    2. Does Judaism allow cruelty to animals?
    The established institutions of the Jewish community (both lay and religious) marshalled an array of biblical and rabbinic sources which showed that Jewish scripture had more compassion than some New Testament teachings. It is clear that Judaism neither idolises animals nor abhors them. A leading Jewish statement came from a booklet by Rabbi Leib Aisack Falk of the Great Synagogue, Sydney, based on an article in the Australian Jewish Herald.[11] In contrast, Paul in the New Testament had asked rhetorically, “Does God care for oxen?” (I Cor. 9:9), though one doubts whether this was Jesus’s point of view. Pope Pius IX would not allow a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Rome and said it was “a theological error to believe that man has any duty towards animals.” Many passages in the Hebrew Bible lay down an ethical duty to animals even though Judaism (see for example Genesis 1:26-28) regards human beings as a superior species with soul, conscience and reason, entitled to use the animal species in the service of man. Nevertheless, that use must be limited, controlled and disciplined. Animals must not be treated roughly and tza’ar ba’alei chayyim causing pain to a living being, is not permitted (Talmud Bava Metzia 32b). Sholem Aleichem even says that a little boy told another child, “Your father is a goy (gentile); he has no sympathy for animals”.[12] Moses and David were worthy of leadership precisely because they were kind to animals.

    Jewish law, whilst not prohibiting the eating of meat, regards vegetarianism as being on a higher ethical level.[13] However, if meat is to be eaten, the slaughter of animals for food must be carried out swiftly, sharply and with the least possible amount of pain. An impressive array of scientists, none of whom is Jewish, has endorsed shechitah as so humane that one even says that if he had a choice he would prefer to die by this method.[14]

    3. Do Australian Jews observe shechitah and kashrut?
    The first Jews to arrive in Australia, whether as convicts or free settlers, found diffculty in observing Jewish practices even though some came from observant homes in London and elsewhere. Sheer survival was so diffcult in Australia that Jewish prayer and religious practice were not a priority. On the long and unpleasant voyage from Britain who could keep Shabbat and kashrut and say their prayers? The congregations they eventually established in Australia acknowledged in theory the religious duties which few observed in practice, but even if they wanted to, how would they obtain kosher meat? How could they prevent mixing milk and meat? The most they could do was to avoid pig meat, and even this was highly difficult. Some newcomers had their qualms and showed an interest in obtaining kosher meat but finding shoch’tim (trained slaughterers) was far from easy. Few people knew how to perform shechitah. Nor did every congregation give appointing a shochet high priority. In the 1860s when an emissary asked the Adelaide Synagogue board why they had no shochet, the retort was, “Where do the Ten Commandments say anything about a shochet?”[15] Jews ate non-kosher meat despite occasional scruples. Thee most that was done in some cases was to buy trefah (non-kosher) meat and to soak and salt it in the Jewish way before cooking it – a compromise that some families still seem to follow.[16] In Nazi Germany some Jews had this practice which was dubbed neukascher.[17]

    There were communal conflicts over whether supposedly kosher meat was properly prepared. When Australia began sending kosher meat to the Holy Land in the late 1930s, a poster in Tel Aviv warned residents against buying Australian meat because it was not certified as kosher. At the time, Rabbi Jacob Danglow was acting chairman of the Melbourne Beth Din and Rabbi JL Gurewicz accused him of sanctioning shechitah without possessing any knowledge of the subject.[18] Gurewicz indignantly criticised Danglow for ignorance and incompetence and contacted the rabbinate of the Holy Land, harshly denigrating “Reverend” Danglow and belittling his “supervision” of meat, though the actual supervision was carried out by the senior shochet, Isaac Jacob Super (later Rabbi Super), against whom Gurewicz probably had no objections. Anti-Danglow posters appeared on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Gurewicz set up his own Beth Din in North Carlton which acted independently in halachic matters.

    Shechitah statistics from leading synagogues[19] indicate that prior to World War Two less than 10 per cent of Australian Jewish homes were kosher but the number (at least in Melbourne) more or less doubled by the late 1960s[20] and is now even higher (perhaps 25 per cent) because of greater orthodoxy and better Jewish education. When shechitah was under attack, the whole community – regardless of personal observance – automatically joined forces in combatting a challenge to a practice kashrut which had been always part of Jewish life.

    4. When did Australian attacks on shechitah begin?
    Even prior to World War Two, there were constant attacks on shechitah by animal welfare organisations, with anti-shechitah agitation often being bound up with antisemitism. The leading precedent was Nazi Germany, which banned shechitah in one of its first onslaughts on Jews and Judaism. Even there the attacks on shechitah were cloaked in animal welfare language. Some Jews wryly reminded themselves of a Biblical verse about men who kiss calves and hate human beings (Hos. 13:2). Whilst Australians were united in their loathing of Nazism, shechitah was one of the issues used to justify keeping Jewish refugees and immigrants out of the country.

    On the Jewish side, the leading protagonist for shechitah nominated by the rabbis and communal institutions was the veteran Rabbi Danglow, widely known and universally respected. Despite his age, Danglow took up the cause energetically and fundamentally turned the anti-shechitah case on its head by quoting the eminent non-Jewish scientists who endorsed the humaneness of the practice.[21]

    Between eruptions of antagonism, the Jewish leadership continued to seek and receive such statements. Support came from eminent non-Jewish scientists such as Sir Ian Clunies-Ross who proved scientifically that shechitah was swift and efficient, and as humane as any method of killing could be, certainly more humane than the sometimes clumsy and ineffectual methods used by rough and ready non-Jewish slaughtermen.

    There were anti-shechitah campaigns in the 1950s in all the Australian states but most visibly in Victoria. In New South Wales a leading role in countering the agitation was played by Harry S Goldstein of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies,[22] who presumably discussed the question with Rabbi Dr Israel Porush of the Great Synagogue. The local branch of the World League for the Protection of Animals eventually conceded that the anti-Jewish accusations were false and admitted the humanity of shechitah. There were Christian clergy who supported the agitation, but New South Wales had no Rev. Salter to rally them.

    5. Who led the anti-shechitah campaign?
    Rev. Salter was a populist clerical agitator, a tub-thumping type that was often seen on the Australian scene at the time. Born in West Melbourne about 1890, he was a Baptist minister who campaigned against alcohol, Sunday entertainment, dog-racing and the use of animals for experimental purposes. He claimed to have 60,000 supporters. He had a degree of support from other clergy as well as from animal welfare bodies, but the public was mostly indifferent. The media found him good copy though they did not quite make him a figure of fun. Salter gave speeches, wrote tracts, challenged his opponents to debates, and used the press and radio to promote his case. Under the title of “The Question of Kosher”, he published the text of a 3AW broadcast in early 1955. He accused Jews of “diabolical cruelty, revolting, a gratuitous national blot… involving violence, terror, and pain for the beast”. He called upon the state government to “abolish kosher killing by universal enforcement of the slaughter of cattle after they have been stunned by the captive-bolt pistol”.[23]

    It was a time when British patriotism was still important in Australia, and Salter tried to paint the Jewish community as un-British because of its alleged cruelty to animals. He said that in England the gentile butchers refused to trade in kosher meat, though he did not attribute this to revulsion against the Jewish methods nor explain that the kashrut authorities always restricted the sale of kosher meat to rabbinically-licensed butchers over whom the rabbis could exercise careful supervision.

    6. What was under attack, shechitah or the preliminary casting? [holding the animal in position for slaughtering]
    Salter criticised both shechitah itself and the casting method. Tolerant Australia was urged by the Salter camp to ban shechitah even though this meant following Nazi Germany in its first anti-Jewish measures.
    In Australia it was not an outright ban which was promoted, but pre-slaughter stunning which the Salter camp claimed would remove pain to the animal at the moment of the cut. The fact that stunning the animal was forbidden by Jewish law as an injury to the animal was ignored as was the overall Jewish insistence on humane treatment to animals. Judaism was thus denied the right to its views and traditions. The alleged cruelty of shechitah was repeated as a mantra. It could be in fact the non-kosher method that caused cruelty to the animal whose paralysis did not remove the ability to feel. There is a solid study of the subject in A Critical Study of Electrical Stunning and the Jewish Method of Slaughter (Shechita) by Rabbi Solomon David Sassoon.[24] In a review in the Jewish Chronicle, Sir Charles Lovatt Evans speaks of objective ways of checking an animal’s state of feeling and suggests that electrical stunning fixes the muscles in rigidity and might merely prevent the animal from expressing pain.[25]

    The anti-shechitah campaign not only focussed on the method of slaughter but on the way the animal was hoisted for shechitah. A new casting pen had been brought into use in Melbourne in order to counter criticisms of the way the animal was held for slaughter.[26] Whilst the method of casting was not, in itself, an indispensable part of shechitah, a community delegation led by Joseph Feiglin had promised the Victorian state premier to develop a new casting pen. The newly designed pen, made locally, was approved by the Minister of Health, and was probably unique in the world. This explains why Rabbi Danglow’s press and radio interviews addressed the wider issue, not the preliminaries: not the pre-shechitah hoisting but the method of slaughter itself.

    7. Why was Rabbi Danglow the Jewish spokesman?
    Rabbi Danglow spoke for both the Melbourne Beth Din headed by Rabbi Dr Izaak Rapaport and the rival body (“The Beth Din in Melbourne”) headed by Rabbi Gurewicz. After World War Two, the latter accepted Danglow as spokesman even though the two had been on bad terms from at least the late 1930s when Rabbi Israel Brodie left Australia and (with the approval of Chief Rabbi Hertz) nominated Danglow to chair the Melbourne Beth Din for the time being despite Gurewicz’s greater rabbinic stature and capacity as a posek (rabbinic decisor) and, as discussed above, they conflicted over the certification of Australian meat sent to British mandated Palestine.[27] Danglow, for all his deficiencies in rabbinic learning, was a respected national figure. He had been a member of the Melbourne Beth Din for many years, but his rabbinic title was honoris causa and it is not certain that his studies had included the laws of shechitah.

    Gurewicz conceded, however, that Danglow had the national stature which the public was more likely to heed. In an attempt to divide the Jewish community, Salter tried the snide tactic of seeking support from Rabbi Dr Herman Sanger of Temple Beth Israel, aware that neither Liberal Judaism as a movement, nor Sanger personally, was strongly committed to the Jewish dietary laws.[28] However, Sanger gave Salter no joy and accepted that, on this issue, an orthodox spokesman was the appropriate communal representative. Sanger was personally friendly with Gurewicz despite the gulf between their religious views. It is likely that they discussed the Salter campaign and Sanger successfully urged Gurewicz to support Danglow’s stance. Sanger himself needed no urging. Apart from his personal respect for Danglow, Sanger had a strong sense of K’lal Yisra’el (unity of the Jewish people), he knew his moral duty to the broader Jewish community and made up his own mind regardless of rabbinic politics. Sanger’s biographer Rabbi John Levi told me in an email, “Many of Sanger’s attitudes were shaped by his experiences in Germany. I am convinced that he recalled the Nazi campaign against shechitah, and that would have been the basis for his opposition to Rev. Salter”.[29] Apart from writing letters to the press supporting Danglow, Sanger actually went to Victorian government leaders and told them this in person. The lay leadership of Temple Beth Israel supported Sanger’s stance and sent delegates to the community’s inaugural Kashrut Commission.[30] Salter tried to work out how many Melbourne Jews were Liberal and decided that if they were excluded from the statistics, the number of orthodox Jews who took kosher meat was so small that shechitah could easily be dropped.

    Sanger’s position differed from that of Liberal Judaism in England where Rabbi Dr Israel Mattuck had said there was a “conflict” between the law of shechitah and the ethics of humane slaughtering. The Liberal lay leader Claude G Montefiore denied that shechitah was “the Jewish method of slaughter” and said it only applied to the Orthodox. However, when wartime regulations required people to register with a butcher, a high proportion of Jewish families, even Reform and Liberal members, took kosher meat.

    8. What arguments did Danglow adduce?
    The seminal statement was Danglow’s broadcast on Melbourne radio on 6 June 1955, following a script (later published) in which others such as Rapaport had a hand, though the final text was couched in the rather formal Edwardian English which was Danglow’s style.[31] What was the result? Where Salter used rabble-rousing and lurid language, Danglow was seen (and heard) to be cultured, restrained, rational and dignified.
    The rabbi said:

    1. Despite Salter’s calling the casting pen “a huge forbidding iron cage” in which the animal is killed by ‘the slash of the great blade” whilst “fully conscious all the time”; scientists testified that the animal knew “no injury, excitement or alarm”.

    2. The cut was made with an extremely sharp knife in the neck of the animal in such a way that there is no pain but practically instant unconsciousness. A gentile scientist said, “I should be happy to think that my own end was likely to be as swift and painless as the end of cattle killed in the Jewish way undoubtedly is”.[32]

    3. Salter’s advocacy of a captive bolt pistol or electrical stunning was not only unacceptable in Jewish law but ignored cases when this method was ineffective.

    4. The idea that Jews indulged in cruelty to animals was inconceivable in the light of Jewish teachings about kindness to animals.

    5. Convulsive movements by a supposedly dead animal were mere reflexes, not due to sensation.

    6. To deny Jews the right to practice their method of animal slaughter would be an un-British infringement upon religious

    Danglow’s broadcast did not put an end to Salter’s agitation. Within a few weeks an animal welfare group held a public meeting at which Salter again attacked shechitah. Writing in the Australian Jewish News on 23 March 1956, Rabbi Rapaport said, “It is very likely that this gentleman will go on launching these attacks, although he knows very well that that our method of shechitah is as humane and painless as any other method at present practised. It is our confident hope… that Mr. Salter will not find anybody, either among the authorities or in the community at large, to follow him in his pernicious propaganda.”[33]

    9. What was the outcome?
    Rabbi Rapaport wrote again in the Australian Jewish News:

    When it became known that the anti-cruelty committee was going to present a petition to the Government, the Melbourne Beth Din wrote to Dame Mabel Brookes, president of the Lori Smith Hospital, and Mr EJ Moreton, manager of the Animal Welfare League, and enclosed copies of the (scientists’) statements. In view of the highly competent opinions of Sir Ian Clunies Ross and Sir Samuel Wadham … we requested Dame Mabel and Mr Moreton to request the Rev Salter that he should refrain from repeating the false views on the merits of shechitah inasmuch as they were contrary to the truth as established by scientists of the highest repute.[34]

    Salter issued a new booklet – Stunning Before Slaughter – in October 1957.[35] The old arguments were repeated. The sub-heading of the booklet was A Challenge to Conscious Killing. As usual, Salter argued as a patriot and accused Jews of not doing the British thing. He said that in Britain, gentile butchers were forced to trade in Jewish-killed meat even though they disapproved of the method of slaughter. “That [he said] is being British”. Nothing is said about Jews themselves being British or about gentile butchers being free to decline to trade in Jewish-killed meat. As usual Salter insists that he has no religious prejudice though he enjoys using terms like “outmoded cruel ritual” and the animal being “caged and clamped”, and he allows himself to mock those Jews who (secretly?) enjoy their pork. It is doubtful whether Salter ever recanted. His anti-shechitah campaign was only one of his causes. When a reporter asked if he felt that the public supported him, Salter said “No – but right through the ages a handful of people has had to think for the multitude”.[36] He saw himself as a martyr.[37]

    The sporadic campaigns kept going but they no longer seemed so colourful without Rev. Salter, whose lurid vocabulary and aggressive personality had been so central to the campaign and had attracted a level of support. In Salter’s time this made Melbourne the more visible centre of the agitation, but other states were never uninvolved. New South Wales appears to have become more activist about the issue from around the late 1970s. I personally recall being involved in the Jewish response in consultation with the lay communal leaders, especially Leslie Caplan. My especial role was to monitor the situation and maintain contact with animal welfare organisations.[38] I was a patron of at least one major animal welfare organisation, accepting this post both because I believed in ameliorating public attitudes to animals, and because it kept my finger on the pulse of the animal rights movement. If and when necessary I spoke out, my public visibility worked to my and the community’s benefit. I do not recall being met with Salter-like raucousness. On a major occasion in 1982, I gave a pro-shechitah presentation to a state government advisory committee.[39] My involvement could be seen as somewhat paradoxical in the light of my vegetarian tendencies.

    My impression is that the academic aspects of the problem became more evident at this stage. The old populist and often overtly antisemitic arguments had not disappeared, but the level of agitation was quieter and less strident. Attention was now especially turned to the academic aspects of animal psychology such as whether an animal knows the meaning of death or feels suffering even for a miniscule amount of time when the cut is made by the shochet. Studies and surveys about these and similar aspects have been carried out by Dr Meir Levinger of Bar Ilan University.[40]

    Thee anti-shechitah agitation never totally waned and Australian antisemitism continued in a different – though virulently anti-Israel form. Agitation about animals gave way to anti-Zionist smears and anti-Jewish incidents. A number of European countries continue to ban shechitah, though legal authorities (such as the European Union attorney-general) have recently stated that such bans breach freedom of religion.

    1. Catherine Pearce, “Animal slaughter in Melbourne: campaigns concerning the issue of shechita, 1946-58”, AJHS Journal, vol.18, 4 (2007), pp.570-85.

    2. Review by Raymond Apple, AJHS Journal, vol.26 (2019), pp. 414-16. Fraser’s book: Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2018.

    3. Apart from articles in the Jewish Chronicle, pro-shechitah material was issued by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Council of Christians and Jews.

    4. Jewish and Mohammedan Slaughter of Food Animals, pamphlet issued by the Council of Justice to Animals: Humane Slaughter Association, 1960s.

    5. Ibid., p. 2.

    6. Salter was a primitive Protestant whose views on many subjects were often reported in the Melbourne newspapers, especially during his presidency of the Victorian Council of Churches.

    7. HJ Zimmels, The Echo of the Nazi Holocaust in Rabbinic Literature, London, 1975, especially part 2, chapter 1.

    8. Ibid., p. 181.

    9. “Eminent scientists endorse kosher killing method”, interview on Station 3AW, 6 June 1955, p. 9.

    10. Ibid.

    11. Leib A Falk, Australian Jewish Herald, 15 August 1947; cf. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, NY, Avon Books, 1975; Roberta Kalechefsky (ed.), Judaism and Animal Rights: Classical and Contemporary Responses, Marblehead, Mass., Micah Publications, 1993.

    12. The origin of this is possibly a story called “A Pity for the Living” in Jewish Children, translated from the Yiddish of Shalom Aleichem by Hannah Berman, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1922.

    13. Re vegetarianism: Richard Schwartz, Judaism and Vegetarianism, Marblehead, Mass., Micah Publications, 1988 and later editions.

    14. This was stated by Professor Sir Charles Lovatt Evans, FRS, a famous physiologist from London University, and quoted by Rabbi Isaac Halevy Herzog when he defended shechitah in 1934 in Ireland. See Baruch Sterman and Judy Taube Sterman, “The Day Kosher meat was saved”, Commentary, April 2021. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/baruch-sterman/rabbi-herzog-saved-kosher-slaughter-ireland/ Accessed 1 April 2021.

    15 JL Saphir, Even Sappir (Hebrew), vol. 2, p. 60 (cf. Raymond Apple, AJHS Journal, vol. 6, pt. (1968), p. 209.

    16. Ibid.

    17. HJ Zimmels, The Echo of the Nazi Holocaust, pp. 363-4.

    18. John S Levi, Rabbi Jacob Danglow: The Uncrowned Monarch of Australian Jews, Melbourne, MUP, 1995, pp. 208-9.

    19. Raymond Apple, The Great Synagogue, Syd., UNSW Press, 2008.

    20. Peter Medding, From Assimilation to Group Survival, Melb., Cheshire, 1968, p. 108.

    21. Levi, Rabbi Jacob Danglow.

    22. Suzanne D Rutland and Sophie Caplan, With One Voice: A History of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, Sydney, AJHS, 1998, p. 105.

    23. Rev. Salter, 3AW broadcast in early 1955.

    24. Rabbi Solomon David Sassoon, A Critical Study of Electrical Stunning and the Jewish Method of Slaughter (Shechita,) 3rd ed., Letchworth, self-published, 1956.

    25. Jewish Chronicle, 17 June 1955.

    26. Details are spelled out in Pearce, “Animal slaughter in Melbourne”.

    27. Levi, Danglow, pp. 208-9; Eshkolot, Essays in Memory of Rabbi Ronald Lubofsky, Melbourne, Hybrid, 2002, pp. 35-8.

    28. According to Rabbi Levi (in a personal communication), Rabbi Sanger told the state government: “The first thing the Nazis did was to ban shechitah – surely you wouldn’t follow their example”.

    29. Email from Rabbi Levi, 2 September 2014.

    30. Mr. Yossi Aron (currently religion writer for the Australian Jewish News), told me in a personal communication that he received this information from Dr Saul Wiener of Caulfield Hebrew Congregation.

    31. Extra material for which there was no room in the broadcast was appended to the published version.

    32. The origin of this is possibly a story called “A Pity for the Living” in Jewish Children, translated from the Yiddish of Shalom Aleichem by Hannah Berman, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1922.

    33. Rabbi Rapaport, Australian Jewish News (AJN), 23 March 1956.

    34. Rabbi Rapaport, AJN, 12 October 1956.

    35. Australian Jewish Herald, 1 November 1957.

    36. The Melbourne Argus, 13 August 1952.

    37. His tombstone (he died in 1975) called him a fighter for Christ.

    38. I was (with the Anglican and Catholic archbishops) a patron of the NSW Animal Welfare League. In 1993 my prayer for animals was inaugurated at a gathering sponsored by the Animal Societies Federation.

    39. On 24 February 1982, I addressed the NSW Animal Welfare Advisory Council, a government advisory body.

    40. Rabbi Dr Yehoshua Kemelman, Australian Jewish Times, 13 July 1978.

    Comments are closed.