Bernard1 Essay, Research Paper
I. Bernard Malamud
Bernard Malamud (1914-1986) was born in Brooklyn, New York. From 1932 to 1936 he studied at the City
College of New
York, where he received his bachelor’s degree. From 1937 to 1938 he was a student at the Columbia
University. In 1942 he
received his Master’s degree.
From 1940 to 1948 he taught evening classes at the Erasmus High School, the same High School he went to
from 1928 to
1932. In 1943 his first two short stories were published in Threshold and American Preface. He began to teach
evening classes
at Harlem Evening High School in 1848, before he started to teach at the Oregon State College, Corvallis,
Oregon in 1949.
1950 was a highly successful year for Bernard Malamud. His stories appeared in Harper’s Bazaar, Partisan
Review and
Commentary. His first novel The Natural was published in 1952. Although this first novel is a fantasy about a
start baseball
player, most of his following writings are concerned with Jewish themes and reflect the sad, impoverish
Brooklyn scenes of his
own childhood. His second novel The Fixer (1966), which earned him a Pulitzer Prize in 1967 is about the
suffering of a
Russian Jewish workman sentenced unjustly to prison. Thus it is an allegory of the Holocaust. The Tenants
(1971) deals with
inner-city tension and demonstrates how human beings can come to an affirmative life through suffering. His
last two novels are
Dublin’s Lives (1979) and God’s Grace (1982). But Malamud isn’t only famous for his novels. His short stories,
which mix his
compassion for Jewish life with subtle touches of wry humor, have earned him quite a lot of credit, too. These
short stories have
been collected in The Magic Barrel (1958), for which he received a National Book Award, Idiots First (1963)
and Rembrant’s
Hat (1971). He has also written a series of rather satirical stories about an rather unsuccessful Jewish artist,
Fidelman, which
were published in 1969. Today, Malamud is widely regarded as a leader of the post-World War II Jewish literary
renaissance.
Although most of his stories are about Jews, he is less concerned with being Jewish as with being human. Most
of his stories
are about individuals struggling to survive and these people are mostly symbolized by poor Jews. 1
His writing is influenced by existentialism. “For the existentialists neither universal systems of moral order nor
the influence of
society and social custom can provide meaning for an individual’s life; each person must find meaning himself.”
(Hershinow 13)
But this can only be achieved through love and compassion, not through reason. “As a writer influenced by
existentialism,
Malamud demonstrates an implicit respect for self. His protagonists characteristically transcend the disorder
that surrounds
them, finding meaning in the power of love and moral commitment.” (Hershinow 13) As many of his short
stories, “The Magic
Barrel” deals with this problem, too.
II. “The Magic Barrel”
II.1. Technical description
Although Malamud has written quite a lot of short stories, by many “The Magic Barrel” (1952) is considered to
be his
master-piece.
“The Magic Barrel” is written from a third person’s view. This narrator isn’t part of the story himself, nor do you
have the
feeling, that he knows more than the characters do. He never addresses the reader directly, so I think that it is
fair to say, that
we are dealing with a traditional narrator. But from the third part on, you get the feeling that the story is now
being written out
Leo point of view. Maybe its just the sympathy the writer has for Leo, but from that point on, only Leo emotions
and reactions
are described.
The story itself is subdivided into five, chronologically ordered parts. The time covered in each part ranges from
a few days
(part one) to several weeks (part three). The first part of “The Magic Barrel” takes place in February. (”Although
it was still
February, winter was on its last legs,…” (p.2541)). The last date given is March (”March came”(p.2548)). The
rest of the story
covers one or two weeks, but you can’t be absolutely sure about this, because no more exact dates are given.
The last scene
takes place in a spring night, so it might already be April. Nevertheless, it is obvious, that the story covers the
time from the end
of winter to the beginning of spring. This changing of the seasons is a very important symbol in “The Magic
Barrel”, because not
only nature finally awakes, but the same goes for Leo Finkle. The change he undergoes during these month will
be analyzed
more closely during the cause of this paper.
II.2 The story
“The Magic Barrel” is the story of the young rabbinical student Leo Finkle who tries to find himself a wife, but
because he can’t
one for himself, he answers an ad in the Forward2, for a marriage broker, Pinye Salzman (”commercial cupid”).
This marriage
broker shows him pictures of more or less suitable women, but when he finally meets one, it end in disaster.
Despite the fact
that Finkle doesn’t want to see Salzman anymore after this, Salzman leaves an envelope with pictures on Leo’s
table and
although he doesn’t want to open it, after about one month he can’t resist and starts to examine the photos.
One of these photos
grabs his attention, but Salzman refuses to introduce her to him. First of all, she is his daughter, Stella, and
second, “she is a wild
one – wild, without shame. This is not a bride for a rabbi.” (Barrel 2551) But in the end, Salzman gives in and in
the last scene,
Leo and Stella finally meet. The whole story covers about one and a half month in the life of Leo Finkle.
But lets start at the beginning. The first sentence does not only describe the setting and the main character,
Leo Finkle, but it
also introduces the main topic and tone. “Not long ago, there lived in uptown New York, in a small, almost
meager room,
though crowded with Books, Leo Finkle, a rabbinical student in the Yeshiva University.” It is obvious, that this is
a variation on
“Once upon an time…”.
But who is this Leo Finkle? After six years of studying at the Yeshiva University3 in New York, he is going to be
ordained in
June. He has spent most of these years for his studies. Actually, as Sandy Cohen puts it, “he has sacrificed too
much of life for
his studies” (Cohen 89). His eyes have become “heavy with learning” (Barrel 2542) and for these six years, he
has led an
ascetic life, with almost no social contacts, except for his parents (Barrel 2541). Leo is not the typical
rabbinical student. He
even seems to question why he has become one. He doesn’t consider himself to be a talented religious person
and he says that
he came to God not because he loved him, but because he did not love him. He may have been interested
passionately in
Jewish law since childhood, nonetheless, he is godless. “Finkle knows the word but not the spirit” (Richmann
119).
But why does he actually call in the marriage broker. At first it is not because he is desperately looking for love,
but because he
“had been advised by an acquaintance that he might find it easier to win himself a congregation if he were
married” (Barrel
2541). This is definitely not the most romantic reason for looking for a wife. Maybe therefore he keeps this
reason for himself
and he doesn’t even tell Salzman about it. Nevertheless, Salzman senses “a sort of apology” (Barrel 2541) when
Finkle tell him
his reasons for calling in his help and later on in the text, after Salzman has shown him his last picture, Leo
says: “But don’t you
think this girl believes in love?” (Barrel 2543) The real reason for finding a wife is just mentioned once, but it
plays an important
role, because you have to keep in mind, that until he has met the first prospect, this is his main motivation. As
Sheldon J.
Hershinow says: “A fear of life and love, not a pious sense of tradition has led Leo to the old matchmaker”
(Hershinow 130). It
is not until the disaster with the first prospect that “he gradually realized – with an emptiness that seized him
with six hands – that
he had called in the marriage broker to find a wife, because he was incapable of doing it himself” (Barrel 2547).
This point
definitely marks the most tragic moment in the story, because he realizes, what he truly is: “unloved and
loveless” (Barrel 2547).
He couldn’t love God, because he couldn’t love man.
The marriage broker, Pine Salzmann, is an interesting character, too. Smelling of his favorite food, fish, and
wearing an old hat
and an overcoat that doesn’t really fit him, “he appeared one night out of the dark fourth-floor hallway of the
graystone rooming
house where Finkle lived…” (Barrel 2541). This first appearance makes him look like a mystic person, maybe
sent by god, but
the rather comic description Malamud gives of him levels this out completely. Especially his eyes seem to be
very remarkable.
Although Finkle doesn’t really approve the rest of Salzman’s outer appearance, his “mild blue eyes … put Leo a
little at ease”
(Barrel 2541).
It is interesting to see, that all the appearances Salzman makes are unexpected. The times he comes to Finkle’s
room, he
appears out of nowhere, once they meet unexpectedly in a cafeteria and even when Finkle comes to his office to
see him,
Salzman isn’t there, but when Finkle returns home, Salzman is already waiting there for him. He always
appears when Leo
needs him and he seems to have almost magical powers. He travels “as if on the wings of the wind” (Barrel
2548) and his wife
says that his office is “in the air” (Barrel 2550). So I would agree with Kathleen G. Osbourn who says that he
might be an
angle. Of course, these descriptions are part of the whole comic tone of the story, as it is already apparent in
the first,
“fairy-taleish” sentence.
For years, he hasn’t been proud of his job anymore, but “later, however, he experienced a glow of pride in his
work” (Barrel
2541). In the same sentence it is said that he “heartily approved of Finkle. “It is hard to tell when he approved
of Finkle and
when his pride returned, but from their second meeting on, their relationship begins to grow, so this could be
the moment.
The second impression you get from Salzman is that of a typical salesman. After he has carefully selected six
women out of his
“much-handled card” (Barrel 2541), he tries to “sell” them like you would expect from somebody who sells used
cars and
Salzman’s “high-pressure sales techniques” (Hershinow 129) are quite comical. Once, he doesn’t tell Leo about
a lame leg and
another time he gives Leo a wrong age and he only tells him about the good sides of marrying that particular
woman. These
good sides are interesting, too. The money the father promises, a new dodge car, being “well-Americanized”, the
languages
they speak etc. They are all “wonderful opportunity(s)” (Barrel 2542). But Leo isn’t really impressed at all. Yet,
in the end,
Salzman manages to talk Leo into meeting the High school teacher Lily H. As I have already said, this meeting
ends in a
complete disaster.
Salzman’s language is also worth a notion. Malamud makes extensive use of Yiddish speech rhythms, by which
he creates
Salzman’s own colloquial style.4This special kind of language add up to the already quite comical appearance
of Pinye
Salzman.
On one hand, you could say that Salzman tries to sell these women like a normal product, but on they other
hand, you could
say that he tries to make them better than they are, because that’s really what he sees in people: just the good
things. The
narrator says that Salzman looked, “as if he had steadfastly waited that week at Miss Lily Hischorn’s side for a
telephone call
that never came” (Barrel 2547). Of course you can’t be sure about this, but I wouldn’t say that it is impossible,
because
Salzman’s relationship with his clients seems to be a very close one. Maybe that’s why he is so shocked when
the meeting with
Lily end in a fiasco. This shock is made transparent through the physical state Salzman is in. “A skeleton with
haunted eyes”,
looking with “the picture of frustrated expectancy” and “casually coughing” (Barrel 2547). His health seems to
be closely
connected to the success he has and this must mean that he is very taken up with his job, because otherwise it
wouldn’t affect
him in this way.
When Leo and Salzman first meet, it is apparent, that Leo feels very uncomfortable. Leo doesn’t offer Salzman
anything to
drink or eat, as you could have expected5 and it seems as if Leo gets more and more irritated during this first
meeting with
Salzman. Food seems to be the main motif that illustrates the relationship between the two main characters.
The second time
Salzman comes, he asks for “a sliced tomato” because, as he says, he must come back to his strength (Barrel
2544). But Leo
can’t give him one. After finishing his meal, Salzman ask for a cup of tea that Leo brewed “conscience-stricken”
(Barrel 2544)
and it is not after drinking this tea, “served with a chunk of lemon and two cubes of lump sugar, delighting
Salzman” (Barrel
2546) that the marriage broker’s “strength and good spirits were restored”. Salzman has provoked Leo to show
some warmth
and hospitality. The last time Salzman and Leo meet in Leo’s apartment, Leo fixes tea and a sardine sandwich
for Salzman
(Barrel 2550) without Salzman even asking for it. By this motif, Malamud shows that the relationship between
the two men has
steadily grown.
This is not the only time Salzman’s health is put to a test. Salzman left an envelope of pictures after he visited
Leo subsequent to
the fiasco with Lily Hirschorn. Leo refuses to open it, but after about one month, he can’t resist. “With a sudden
relentless
gesture he tore it open.” (Barrel 2549) Leo had made “plans for a more active social life” (Barrel 2548), but
either he didn’t put
his plans into action or they didn’t work out the way he wanted. “The days went by and no social life to speak of
developed
with a member of the opposite sex…” (Barrel 2548). Leo told Salzman that he wasn’t interested in an arranged
marriage
anymore and wanted to find love for himself.
Why then did he open the envelope? Perhaps he wasn’t so sure about what he had said anymore, or maybe he
discovered that
he wasn’t able to find love for himself, or perhaps he remembered Salzman’s words: “If you want love, this I can
find for you
also” (Barrel 2548). Whatever it was, the manila packet must have been prepared by Salzman in advance. I
guess that he
already sensed what would happen. Why else would he have prepared this special envelope. This would
consolidate the
possibility to see Salzman as a kind of guardian angle. Whatever his reason may have been, at first he is
disappointed about the
six photographs he finds in the envelope. To Leo all the women look like being “past their prime, all starved
behind bright
smiles, not a true personality in the lot. Life … had passed them by” (Barrel 2549) and that’s exactly what Leo
isn’t looking for.
He tries not to let life pass him by. That’s why he puts the pictures back into the envelope, just to discover
another picture in it.
It’s the picture of Salzman’s daughter, Stella, but Leo doesn’t know that yet. It is the picture of a girl “whose
face reflects youth
and age, a face that seems familiar to him” (Ochshorn 92). He is deeply moved by it. Especially they eyes have
a remarkable
effect on him. This is not the first time that eyes are mentioned in the story. When Leo meets Salzman’s wife,
her eyes will look
familiar to him, too. In the last part of the story, Leo will see, that Stella’s eyes are “clearly her father’s”(Barrel
2552).
Stella has, at least in Leo’s imagination, everything he is looking for. It isn’t her beauty, which isn’t
extraordinary, but “it was
something about her…” (Barrel 2549). Leo has the feeling that she had lived, “maybe regretted how she had
lived – had
somehow deeply suffered …”(Barrel 2549). At this moment, Leo doesn’t know how right he is. For the first time,
he physically
takes action himself. He “rushed downstairs”, “ran up” again, “hurried to the subway station” and he “bolted out”
of the train
when he pulled into the station (Barrel 2549/2550). But when he has to find out that Salzman isn’t at home, he
falls into his old
procedure again. “he walked downstairs, depressed” (Barrel 2550).
Salzman is everything but delighted to see the picture of his daughter. “He turned ghastly and let out a groan”
(Barrel 2550). “If
Salzman is delighted at the prospect of a commission, he is horrified at his choice” Ben Siegel writes. (Critics
133) I’m not so
sure about the commission. I don’t think that it is only the commission he is after, or even his main reason for
doing his job. If it
was just the profit he wanted, why should he react in such a strong way. When Leo asks him why he had lied to
Lily Hirschorn,
his “face went dead white” (Barrel 2548). That’s not the reaction you could expect from a hardened salesman,
but the horror is
out of question. For the first time, Salzman isn’t able to disappear when he tries to run away. Leo, fearing never
to find love and
Salzman become let themselves go. Leo even seizes Salzman. Leo reaction is quite understandable, but why
does Salzman
react in such a strong way?
The relation between Salzman and his daughter is a very complex one. Malamud gives several hints that in fact,
she really is a
whore. You can already see this from what Leo thinks of her when he sees her picture for the first time and that
the photo is “a
snapshot of the type taken by a machine for a quarter” could be interpreted as another hint, too. His
description matches that of
a whore quite well. She has lived, and maybe regretted the way she has lived. Especially the last part of the
story leaves very
little to imagine. Standing under a lamppost, smoking, and wearing white with red shoes she waits for him.
Salzman, “the angle”,
is definitely neither pleased with his daughter’s way of life nor with her behavior. “She is a wild one – wild,
without shame”
(Barrel 2551). he cries out. To him she is “like an animal”, “like a dog”. To him she is dead and “should burn in
hell” (Barrel
2551).
Why then does he put Leo in contact with his expelled daughter? Leo reckons that “Salzman has planned it all
to happen this
way.” (Barrel 2552) But are there really any hints that make this suspicion maintainable? One hint could be the
photo itself.
Why is it in the manila envelope? Was it really an accident? According to Salzman’s reaction, it really was and
there are no
other hints that would guide the reader into thinking that Salzman has planned it all, except Leo’s notion. But
Salzman is “an
angel” and angels normally don’t make mistakes. Or maybe it is the fact that Salzman actually arranged a
meeting. He could
have resisted Leo’s force. Or maybe it was the humble way in which Leo asked him that made him change his
mind. According
to Kathleen G. Ochshorn’s opinion, Salzman had planned it all before. According to her, “Salzman is continually
sizing up the
rabbinical student in a way that suggests a prospective father-in-law: ‘he heartily approved of Finkle’” (Ochshorn
62). She says
that Salzman has given in, because of Leo stubbornness. But Mrs. Ochshorn doesn’t take Salzman’s reaction
into consideration
and “heartily approving” of someone does not absolutely refer to being his father-in-law. I couldn’t find any other
hints that
would underline this theory, but still it is valid nonetheless. But my guess would be, that hasn’t planned this to
happen, but now,
as it has happened, he arranges a meeting, because he considers this to b the best solution for Leo (and maybe
also for his
daughter).
Leo has already undergone quite a change since he discovered Stella’s photo. He has tried to get rid of his
feelings towards he.
He prayed, but “his prayers remained unanswered” (Barrel 2551). But he never really intended to get rid of her,
because,
“fearing success” (Barrel 2551) he stopped and “concluded to convert her to goodness, himself to God” (Barrel
2551). The
linguistic relationship between “goodness” and “goddess” doesn’t really need an explanation, but why does Leo
want convert
himself to God? Because he wants to change Stella? Or because God didn’t answer his prayers? This would
mean that he has
finally lost his trust in God now, but yet, on the outside he has finally become a rabbi: “Leo had grown a pointed
beard and his
eyes were weighted with wisdom” (Barrel 2551). But the wisdom is not a rabbi’s wisdom and Salzman seems to
notice this,
because he calls him a “doctor” now (Barrel 2551). Kathleen G. Ochshorn even suggest that he “has become a
bit of a devil.”
(Ochshorn 63)
The change on this level on the story is closely connected to the changing seasons. Spring is normally
associated with hope and
regeneration6. His despair and isolation occur in winter, but spring brings the possibility of a new life for Leo.
“Leo’s painful
self-insight amounts to the labor pains of his emotional rebirth” (Hershinow 130)
The meeting between Leo and Stella in arranged by letter, as was the first contact between Salzman and Leo,
so this circle is
closed. At a spring night, Stella is waiting under a lamp-post, smoking, wearing white with red shoes. This
actually fits Leo
expectations, “although in a troubled moment, he had imagined the dress red and only the shoes white” (Barrel
2552). So Leo
really knew what he had to expect of her, but yet I don’t know if Leo really knew about Stella’s profession, nor
am I sure if he
knows it right now. But maybe this could be an overinterpretaion and it’s just the symbolic colors (red = sin and
white = purity)
that play a role here. At least these color tell Leo that it’s not to late for him to “convert her to goodness”.
Wearing red with
white would have meant that his mission had become more difficult.
Stella is described as “waiting uneasily and shyly”, with eyes “filled with desperate innocence.” He pictured, in
her, his own
redemption. Violins and lit candles revolved in the sky. Leo ran forward with flowers outthrust” (Barrel 2552).
All this
innocence doesn’t really fit. Before, Stella was described a whore and at least in Salzman eyes, she is. Yet,
under this lamppost,
to Leo she is completely innocent.
When Leo had met Lily Hirschorn, he had sensed Salzman’s presence and now Salzman is present, too. He is
standing “around
the corner,…, leaning against a wall, chant(ing) prayers for the dead” (Barrel 2552). There is just one “prayer
for the dead” in
Jewish liturgy: the Kaddish. The Kaddish is an Aramaic prayer that glorifies God and asks for the fast coming of
his kingdom
on earth. Originally it was only recited at the conclusion of rabbinical scriptural exposition, but today the prayer
takes a variety
of forms and serves several liturgical functions. Five different forms of the Kaddish exist and one of them, is
recited as part of
the funeral service at the graveside and includes a petition for resurrection of the dead.7 This must be the
prayer Salzman is
praying.
This is the most confusing point of the story, because the ending of the story varies with the question for whom
Salzman is
chanting. He could be praying “for himself and his guild” (Richman 122), because he had planned this to
happen, as Sidney
Richman (Richman 122) and Sam Bluefarb (Bluefarb 148) suggest as possible answers. Maybe he is praying
for Leo, who is
rushing headlong into disaster, or he is praying for his “dead” daughter. Ben Siegel says: “… what has died may
be Salzman’s
honesty, Leo’s innocence, or Stella’s guilty youth: all merit lamentation. What is clearer is Malamud’s reluctance
to give up on
anyone” (Siegel 133). But you should keep in mind that the Kaddish that is prayed at the graveside also
includes a petition for
the resurrection of the dead, which puts this scene into a totally different light. So maybe Salzman isn’t praying
for “the dead” at
all. Maybe he is praying for his daughter’s resurrection, as Richard Reynolds suggests8. He could also pray for
Leo, who has
actually been resurrected. Or, as Sidney Richman reckons, he is chanting for all of this at once (Richman 122).
I would say that
there isn’t really a valid answer to this question. All of the suggested answers may be true, but, on the other
hand, every one of
them might be completely wrong, too.
Many scholars, including Mark Goldman9, have seen a parallel between this last part of the story and the book
Hosea,
attributed to the 8th century BC prophet Hosea, in the Old Testament consisting of 14 chapters. The union,
between God and
Israel, formerly based on law, is envisioned by Hosea as a spiritual bond based on love. Hosea (God) is a
betrayed husband.
The wife (Israel) is an adulteress. Both she and her offspring will be punished, but each time she errs, she will
be redeemed,
even bought back (chap. 3), because the love of her husband will always turn away his anger. The dominant
tone, especially of
the last 11 chapters, is one of impending doom.10 “God commanded Hosea to marry a whore, because ‘the
land hath created
a great whoredom, departing the Lord’ (Hosea 1:2)” (Ochshorn 62). The Hosea story is an allegory for the
relationship
between God and the people of Israel, as “The Magic Barrel” is an allegory, too. The parallels between these two
stories are
obvious, but in “The Magic Barrel” nobody is commanded to do anything. Of course you could say that Salzman
has arranged
everything so neatly that commanding wasn’t a necessity, but I don’t think that the comparison between
Salzman and God
would work out.
For the largest part the story is realistic, with some fantastic parts in it, but the last part is pure fantasy, with
“violins and lit
candles revolv(ing) in the sky” (Barrel 1552) and Salzman praying around the corner. During the whole story,
Malamud is
balancing between allegory and realism. The fantasy and the changing of seasons that form the frame for the
story, which is
filled by the realistic parts.11 Many important facts in the story are wrapped into fantastic images. For example
Salzman’s
health (”a skeleton with haunted eyes” (Barrel 2547)) or the “Violins and candles (that) revolved in the sky”
(Barrel 2552).
There are many comic elements in the story, too. The character of Salzman for example. Smelling of fish,
extolling his clients
like a used-cars-salesman and speaking in his Yiddishized English, he has quite a lot of comical potential.
III. Summary
Reaching the end of this paper, I would like to summarize the main facts. “The Magic Barrel”, a mixture
between fantastic and
realistic elements is the story of Leo Salzman’s maturation, his changing from student to rabbi, with the help of
Pinye Salzman.
He has to learn to “balance his life by adding sensual aspects and subtracting from its ascetic aspect” (Cohen
89) and in the
end, he actually finds this balance. Yet, the end is open. We don’t know if Stella will react in the way Leo
expects and we don’t
know if a marriage between those two people will ever work, but we know that Leo has grown throughout the
story and that
there is no other way for him than this.
The litrerature I have used:
Bluefarb, Sam. “Bernard Malamud: The Scope of Caricature”. Bernard Malamud and the Critics. Leslie A. and
Joyce
W. Field, eds. New York: New York UP, 1966.
Cohen, Sandy. Bernard Malamud and the Trial by Love. Amsterdam: Rodopi N.V., 1974.
Field, Leslie A. And Joyce W., eds. Bernard Malamud and the Critics. New York: New York UP, 1970.
Hershinow, Sheldon. Bernard Malamud. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1980.
Ochshorn, Kathleen. The Heart’s Essential Landscape: Bernard Malamud’s Heros. New York: Peter Lang,
1975.
Richman, Sidney. Bernard Malamud. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1966.
Siegel, Ben. “Victims in Motion. The Sad and Bitter Clowns.” Bernard Malamud and the Critics. Leslie A. and
Joyce W.
Field, eds. New York: New York UP, 1966.
1 This introduction follows Evely Avery’s argument in her introduction to “The Magic Barrel” in the “Heath
Anthology of
American Literature” and the article “Malamud, Bernard” in “Microsoft Encarta ‘95″ under the headword
“Malamud,
Bernard”.
2 The Jewish Daily Forward was the leading Yiddish newspaper in the U.S. in the beginning and middle of
the 20th
century.
3 The Yeshiva University is the oldest and largest university under Jewish auspices in the United States.
Affiliated with
Yeshiva University is the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, which trains students for the
rabbinate.
4 see also: Sam Bluefarb, p. 156.
5 But you shouldn’t forget, that Finkle isn’t used to having visitors, so you might forgive him if he doesn’t
know what to
do.
6 see also: Sheldon J. Hershinow, p 130.
7 The information about the “Kaddish” was taken from “Microsoft Encarta ‘95″ and can be found under the
headword:
“Kaddish”.
8 quoted in: Kathleen G. Ochshorn, p. 61.
9 quoted in: Kathleen G. Ochshorn, p. 61.
10 The information about “Hosea” was taken from “Microsoft Encarta ‘95″ and can be found under the
headword:
“Hosea”.
11 see also: Sheldon J. Hershinow, p. 130.
Back to the American Literature Page
Back to the main page