ADORAIM To AERONAUTICS, AVIATION, AND ASTRONAUTICS (Jews and Judaism)

ADORAIM

(Heb tmp129-11_thumb , ancient city of Judah, southwest of Hebron. It appears in the Bible only in the list of cities fortified by Solomon’s son, *Rehoboam (ii Chron. 11:9). Adoraim (Adoram) is also mentioned in the Book of Jubilees 38:8-9. In the Hellenistic period, when it was known as Adora, it was one of the chief cities of Idumea; the Ptolemaic official Zeno visited it in 259 b.c.e. (Zeno papyri, 76). The city is also mentioned in I Maccabees 13:20 in connection with the campaigns of the Hasmonean ^Jonathan and his adversary Try-phon in 143 b.c.e. It was later captured by John Hyrcanus together with Marisa and the whole of Idumea (Jos., Wars, 1:63; Ant., 13:257). The Roman proconsul Gabinius (d. 48/7 b.c.e.) chose it as the seat of one of his synhedria ("councils"; Jos., Ant., 14:91) and it retained its Jewish character until the end of the Bar Kokhba War (135 c.e.). The site is occupied by the twin villages of Dura al-’Arajan, 5 mi. (8 km.) south west of Hebron, situated on a plateau overlooking the coastal plain, with a population of 10,000.


Modern Period

The name Adoraim also describes a ridge of the Hebron Hills. Most of the ridge, including the site of ancient Adoraim, remained until 1967 on the Jordanian side of the 1949 armistice lines. However, the name Adoraim was given in the middle 1950s to a specially planned region in the Judean Foothills under Israel control between the Bet Guvrin-Hebron road and Kibbutz.

ADORNO, THEODOR W.

(1903-1969), German philosopher, sociologist, composer. As a sociologist (in conjunction with Max *Horkheimer et al.) he developed the Critical Theory of society (the so-called Frankfurt School project) and published treatises in the fields of literary and cultural criticism. As a composer he produced over 30 musical works in various genres.

After completing his academic studies in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and musical sciences in Frankfurt/Main in 1925, Adorno took composition lessons with Alban Berg in Vienna – an education he had begun (with Bernhard Sekles) when he was still a high school student. Alongside his studies with Berg he also published numerous musical reviews. In 1931 he qualified as a university professor in philosophy and took up a chair in philosophy at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitat of Frankfurt/Main. During this time Adorno was most strongly influenced by Walter *Benjamin and particularly by his notion that language preserves historical truth. When the National Socialists came to power, he was deprived of his chair. Adorno had always considered his Jewish descent (his father was Jewish and Adorno’s last name was Wiesen-grund-Adorno until his mid-forties) to be unimportant but the race laws introduced by the Nazis made him into an outsider. This turning point in his life and his personal experience of having an outsider status in society generated a politically accentuated intellectualism. In the period 1934-49 he lived as an emigre – initially in England (Oxford) and then in the United States (New York and Los Angeles). During this period he wrote major philosophical and sociological works, most of which were published after his return to Germany (October 1949): The Philosophy of Modern Music (1949), Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), The Authoritarian Personality (1950), Minima Moralia (1951), and Against Epistemology: Meta-Critique – Studies in Husserl and the Phenomenological Antinomics (1956).

Teaching philosophy and sociology in the 1960s, Adorno made a name for himself not only as an extremely successful university lecturer and public intellectual but also as the director of the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, gaining fame for such publications as What Does It Mean: Working Up the Past (1959) and Education after Auschwitz (1967).

Adorno’s critical stance towards the world and the negativism of his social criticism resulted from his personal experience of sustained horror: Exposure to the monstrous cruelty of the Nazi genocide was the guiding moral force behind his philosophical theory of society and its ultimate source. His intellectuality resided in his ability to maintain the tension between opposing phenomena instead of synthesizing or harmonizing the differences. The individual experience of acknowledging the uniqueness of the Other crystallized into a fundamental concept which Adorno brought to bear in seeking a decent social order: "living one’s difference without fear."

In the 1960s Adorno published a volume on Gustav Mahler (1960), three volumes of Notes on Literature (1965-68), and his main philosophical opus, Negative Dialectics (1968). During this decade he was given the German Critics’ Award for Literature and for his 60th birthday the city of Frankfurt/ Main bestowed the Goethe Medal on him. His Aesthetic Theory was published posthumously. In addition to a large number of letters he exchanged with contemporaries, his Complete Works comprise his musical compositions, 20 volumes of collected writings, and the equally comprehensive posthumous writings (Suhrkamp Verlag).

ADRAMMELECH

(Heb tmp129-12_thumb

(1) A deity named Adram-melech was worshiped, together with *Anammelech, by the people of *Sepharvaim (11 Kings 17:31), possibly Assyrian Saparre, who settled in Samaria after its destruction in 722 B.c.E. No Assyrian or Babylonian deity is known by the name Adrammelech. Inscriptions from Gozan (Tell H alaf on the Khabur, beginning of the ninth century B.c.E.) were once thought to attest the name of a god Adad-Milki. Accordingly, it was suggested to correct Adrammelech to Adadmelech assuming the common graphic confusion of dalet and resh. But the reading Adad-Milki in the Gozan inscriptions themselves now seems questionable. The element melech in the name is probably the Hebrew word for king, so Addir-Melech, "the glorious one is king," is a possibility. At the same time Addir-Molech, "glorious is (the god) Molech" (see *Moloch), cannot be ruled out.

(2) According to the received Hebrew text, Adram-melech was the name of a son of *Sennacherib, king of Assyria (11 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). Together with his brother *Sharezer, Adrammelech murdered his father in the temple of Nisroch and escaped to the land of *Ararat (cf. 11 Chron. 32:21). Abydenus (Eusebius, Armenia Chronicle, ed. Schoene, 1:35) gives the name of the murderer as Adra-melus. That reading is now confirmed by cuneiform evidence that gives the regicide’s name as Arda-Mulissi, "servant of Mulissu," Mulissu being the neo-Assyrian name of the goddess Ninlil. In turn we may correct the Hebrew to oVmix.

The biblical description of Sennacherib’s murder is given in relation to the Assyrian defeat near Jerusalem (11 Kings 19:36-37; Isa. 37:37-38; cf. 11 Chron. 32:21). In point of fact, many years elapsed between Sennacherib’s campaign in Phoenicia and Erez Israel (c. 701 B.c.E.) and his death (681 B.c.E.), but the Bible telescopes these events to show that the prophecy of Isaiah about Sennacherib (11 Kings 19:7; Isa. 37:7) was fulfilled.

ADRET, MOSES IBN

(d. 1772), rabbinic scholar of Smyrna. H .J.D. *Azulai described Adret as an eminent and saintly scholar with extensive knowledge in rabbinic literature, endowed with a keen intellect and a phenomenal memory. Adret often took an independent and critical stand against older authorities. Twelve of his works, listed by Azulai, include novellae on the major part of the Talmud, notes on the Mishnah, *Maimonides’ code, *Asher b. Jehiel’s compendium, and *Jacob b. Asher’s Arbaah Turim, as well as responsa, and Bible commentaries. Only Berakh Moshe, novellae on various Talmud tractates, has been published (Salonika, 1802). His Torat Moshe (commentary on the Mishnah) was supposed to have appeared in Leghorn, but has not survived. Responsa by Adret were incorporated in E. Malki’s collection Ein Mishpat (Constantinople, 1770, yd, nos. 7, 8, 9, 10). In responsum no. 10 Adret boasted of his complete mastery of the whole range of talmudic sources and the various halakhic works he had composed to justify his stand in his protracted dispute with Malki, who speaks sarcastically of Adret’s vaunted piety and modesty (ibid., no. 11).

ADRET, SOLOMON BEN ABRAHAM

(known from his initials as RaShBa, Rav Shlomo Ben Abraham; c. 1235-c. 1310), Spanish rabbi and one of the foremost Jewish scholars of his time, whose influence has remained to this day. Adret belonged to a well-to-do family of Barcelona where he lived all his life. His principal teacher was Jonah b. Abraham *Gerondi and Adret always refers to him as "my teacher." He also studied under Nahmanides, being considered one of his outstanding students and principal exponent of his "school" in the interpretation of the Talmud.

While still young, Adret engaged extensively in financial transactions, and the king of Aragon was among his debtors. After a few years he withdrew from business and accepted the position of rabbi in Barcelona, which he held for more than 40 years. Adret was recognized as the leading figure in Spanish Jewry before he was 40 and his opinions carried weight far beyond the frontiers of Spain. He was a man of great accomplishments, strong character, and incorruptible judgment. Not long after he entered upon his office as rabbi, he vigorously defended an orphan against leading court Jews and the powerful Christian nobles who supported them. Yet, he was a humble man, with a warm, sensitive heart. Pedro 111 of Aragon submitted to him for adjudication of a number of complicated cases that had arisen between Jews of different communities. Against his will, the case of an informer belonging to an aristocratic family was assigned to him for trial by order of the king: he sentenced the man to death. Three years later the relatives of the condemned man appealed the verdict. Adret referred the case to *Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg, the foremost rabbinic authority in Germany, who sustained the verdict.

Questions were addressed to Adret from all parts of the Jewish world including Germany, France, Bohemia, Sicily, Crete, Morocco, Algiers, Palestine, and Portugal. The communities gathered his responsa into special collections and kept them as a source of guidance. He explained the most abstruse matters in clear and simple terms. Many of his responsa deal with the clarification of problematic biblical passages, and some of them touch on questions of philosophy and the fundamentals of religion. Altogether Adret wrote thousands of responsa (3,500 have been printed). One responsum, written a few days before his death, is signed by his son. Adret’s responsa constitute a primary source of information for the history of the Jews of his period and, to some extent, also for general history. When Maimonides’ grandson David was denounced to the Sultan of Egypt, Adret collected 25,000 dinars from the Spanish community to secure his release. Similarly when the Rome community wished to translate Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah into Hebrew, Adret secured the necessary manuscripts and translators, one of whom testified, "It is because of the awe with which our master inspires us, that we have persisted in our undertaking."

Adret acquired a considerable knowledge of Roman law and local Spanish legal practice. He played a vital role in providing the legal basis for the structure of the Jewish community and its institutions, and many of his responsa are devoted to communal matters and to the activities of rabbinic courts. He defended the rights of the Jewish communities and opposed all attempts at arbitrary control and recourse to non-Jewish tribunals. That Adret was considered by his contemporaries to be one of the outstanding authorities of the generation is obvious from the efforts that Abba Mari *As-truc made to enlist his support in the campaign for the preservation of the traditional way of study and traditional values against the philosophical school. These efforts ultimately culminated in a ban (see below). The correspondence on the subject was included by Astruc in his Minhat Kenaot (Press-burg, 1838).

Adret had a considerable knowledge of philosophy and was well-versed in the scientific literature of his day, although he headed the movement against the spreading of these subjects among the masses. To an opponent of a ban on secular studies he wrote: "You seem to think that we have no share in (secular) wisdom. This is not the case, for we know these lofty sciences and we are aware of their nature" (Abba Mari b. Moses of Lunel, Minh at Kenaot (1838), 43). He defended Maimonides in the second attack directed against his writings in France and in Palestine. He opposed both the allegorical method of interpreting the Bible that was then prevalent among the rationalists in southern France and in Spain, and the extreme mystical tendency which was making headway in Spain, and he strongly attacked the activities of Abraham *Abulafia. He also took precautions against those who denied the Divine origin of the Torah and forsook its study for that of the sciences. In the bitter conflict which flared up in the communities of southern France, Adret was on the side of the traditionalists. There were extremists who wished to prohibit the study of the sciences completely; in the text of the ban which they suggested to Adret they proposed that such studies be prohibited until the age of 30. However, Adret, in the famous ban he proclaimed in Barcelona in 1305, adopted a middle course. He permitted the study of physics and metaphysics from the age of 25, put no restriction at all on the study of astronomy and medicine, and sanctioned the reading of Maimonides’ works. In the end the communities in southern France resisted Adret’s ban. In part, their resistance stemmed from the efforts of Philip the Fair (1285-1314) to unite all of France. Since rabbinic bans required authorization from the State, the acceptance of a ban originating in Spain might have been viewed as treason by the French Adret took up arms also, both in oral and written disputes, against detractors of Judaism, such as Raymond *Mar-tini and his work Pugio fidei. Adret replied to this in a special work in which he defended the eternity of the Torah and the value of its practical commandments. In his responsa (4, 187) he gave details of a disputation he had with a leading Christian scholar. He wrote a book refuting the attacks of the 11th-century Mohammedan scholar, Ahmad ibn Hazm (published by Perles, 1863). A variety of reasons have been suggested as to why Adret wrote his attack on ibn Hazm. They include the fact that Christian polemicists drew many of their arguments from ibn Hazm’s tract, that Adret’s book served to bolster the communities of Jews under Muslim rule, and that Adret was fearful that ibn Hazm’s biblical criticisms might be accepted.

Collections of the responsa of Adret are extant today. They pose a difficult literary problem. The first collection was printed in Rome before 1480 and the second, of which only a few copies remain, in Constantinople in 1516. In 1908 (on the front page incorrectly 1868) these two collections were reprinted in Warsaw, and the editor called them "Part 7" of the responsa of Adret. An additional collection, containing 1255 responsa, was printed in Bologna in 1539. It is this which is referred to as the Responsa of Adret "Part 1." The so-called "Part 2" containing 405 responsa, called Toledot Adam, was published in Leghorn in 1657, and "Part 3" with 488 responsa, also in Leghorn, in 1788. "Part 4" was published in Salonika in 1803 and "Part 5" in Leghorn in 1825. "Part 6" was published together with the 1908 Warsaw edition previously mentioned. Many of the responsa are not the work of Adret, but of other scholars whose responsa the copyists collected together with his. On the other hand, most of the responsa in the collection attributed to Nahmanides (Venice, 1519) are the work of Adret. These collections, amounting to a few thousand responsa, contain many responsa identical in wording and context. A critical edition of Adret’s responsa, which should facilitate identification and determine authorship, is a primary scholastic need and is still lacking.

Adret headed a yeshivah to which students flocked, even from Germany (Responsa 1,395) and other countries. Among his distinguished students were *Yom Tov b. Abraham of Seville, Shem Tov *Ibn Gaon, and *Bahya b. Asher. According to Adret, his academy housed valuable manuscripts of the Talmud brought from the Babylonian academies or which had been checked in the academies of Kairouan. It appears that he composed his famous novellae to the Talmud in connection with his lectures to his students. His novellae to 17 tractates of the Talmud have been published: Berakhot (Venice, 1523); Shabbat (Constantinople, 1720); Eruvin (Warsaw, 1895); Bezah (Lemberg, 1847); Rosh Ha-Shanah (in part, Constantinople, 1720, and in a complete, critical edition, 1961); Megillah (Constantinople, 1720; complete edition, 1956); Yevamot (Constantinople, 1720); Gittin (Venice, 1523); Kiddushin (Constantinople, 1717); Nedarim (ibid., 1720); Bava Kamma (ibid., 1720); Bava Mezia (in part, Jerusalem, 1931); Bava Batra (ibid., 1957); Shevu’ot (Salonika, 1729, and in full, Jerusalem, 1965); Avodah Zarah (in part in Jerusalem, 1966); Hullin (Venice, 1523); Nid-dah (Altona, 1797 and a complete edition, Jerusalem, 1938). The novellae to Menahot are not his, and the novellae to Ke-tubbot ascribed to him are actually by Nahmanides. Ketubbot and Nazir are still in manuscript. In his novellae, Adret was greatly influenced by Nahmanides’ method, a synthesis of the methods of French scholars and of the early Spanish authorities such as Joseph *Ibn Migash and his colleagues. He carried, however, Nahmanides’ methods to their extreme, establishing the French school in Spain, though there exist strong literal ties between the two methods. The novellae enjoyed a wide circulation; they have gone through many editions and are still extensively consulted by students of the Talmud.

Adret also devoted much time to commenting on the ag-gadot in the Talmud and wrote a special work on the subject (Hiddushei Aggadot ha-Shas, Tel Aviv, 1966). In his commentaries, Adret followed the methods of inquiry of the moderate Spanish scholars; the influence of Maimonides’ Guide is also evident. It is evident from many places in his works that Adret interested himself in Kabbalah and even acquired great knowledge of it. In this he resembled his teacher Nah-manides. On the other hand it appears that he did his best to conceal his opinions on the subject. However it is significant that most of his pupils wrote commentaries to the mystical part of Nahmanides’ commentary on the Pentateuch, many of them still in manuscript.

Beside his responsa and novellae, Adret wrote two legal manuals. The more important, Torat ha-Bayit, deals with most of the ritual observances, such as ritual slaughter, forbidden foods, gentile wine, and the laws of niddah (Venice, 1607), together with Shaar ha-Mayim – laws of mikveh (first published in Budapest, 1930, and again in Jerusalem, 1963). The book is divided into seven parts, is written with great profundity and perception, and embodies detailed halakhic discussions. He reviews the methods of his predecessors, raises and meets objections, refutes and corroborates, decides among opposing views, and advances his own opinion. For practical purposes of guidance, he wrote a compendium of the larger work, Torat ha-Bayit ha-Kazer (Cremona, 1566). Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona (see *Ha-Hinnukh), a fellow townsman and old friend of the author, wrote many critical notes on this topic in his Bedek ha-Bayit. Although Aaron ha-Levi in his introduction and criticisms wrote in a respectful tone, Adret felt offended and wrote in reply his Mishmeret ha-Bayit (all included in the 1608 Venice edition) which was issued anonymously and contained no clue to the author’s identity. It purports to have been written by a scholar solicitous of Adret’s honor. However, in one of his responsa Adret revealed that he was the author. Adret’s refutations are written in a pungent style reminiscent of *Abra-ham b. David of Posquieres’ strictures on Maimonides, and in this topic he reveals himself as a doughty polemicist.

Adret’s Avodat ha-Kodesh on the laws of the Sabbath and the festivals is also extant. It appeared in two versions, one complete and the other abridged. The former has not yet been published, while the latter was published in Venice in 1602. He also wrote Piskei Hlallah (Constantinople, 1516) on the laws relating to *Hallah.

The changes in rabbinic study in Spain started by Nah-manides were finally effected by Adret. His responsa have at all times been highly influential and were a major source of the Shulh an Arukh.

ADRIEL

(Heb tmp129-13_thumb

"God is my help"), son of Barzillai the Meholathite; the husband of *Merab, the daughter of Saul (1 Sam. 18:19). Saul pledged his daughter Merab to David; however, when the time came to fulfill his promise, he gave her to Adriel. Critics have suggested that the name Michal in 11 Samuel 21:8 is an error for Merab (which is read by the Lu-cianic recension of the Septuagint and by the Peshitta). David handed over the five sons of Adriel and Merab to the Gibeon-ites for impalement (11 Sam. 21:8-10).

ADULLAM

(Heb tmp129-14_thumb

city in Judah in biblical times. It was originally a Canaanite town, the seat of Hirah the Adullamite (friend and father-in-law of Judah (Gen. 38:1, 12, 20)). Adul-lam’s king was defeated by Joshua and the city is mentioned together with 13 others as belonging to the second district of Judah (Josh. 12:15; 5:35). This region contained many caves which could offer refuge to outlaws. In one of these, David hid after fleeing from Saul, and it served as his headquarters for a time during his war with the Philistines (1 Sam. 22:1). It was there that the three "mighty men" brought David water from the well at Beth-Lehem (11 Sam. 23:13; 1 Chron. 11:15 ff.; Jos., Ant., 6:247). Rehoboam included Adullam in his line of fortifications beside Soco in the valley of Elah (11 Chron. 11:7). After the return from Babylonian exile it is mentioned in Nehemiah 11:30 among the places inhabited by Jews. It remained a Jewish town in Hasmonean times (11 Macc. 12:38, cf. 1 Macc. 5:59-60); Judah the Maccabee withdrew to Adul-lam after his battle against Gorgias near Marissa (Mareshah) in 163 B.c.E. Eusebius (Onom., 24:21) describes fourth-century Adullam as a large village, 10 Roman mi. east of Eleu-theropolis (Bet Guvrin). It has been identified with al-Sheikh Madhkur, 9 mi. (15 km.) northeast of Bet Guvrin. The name Adulam may have survived in Khirbat ‘Id al-Ma (or Miyeh) in the vicinity of that tell.

ADULLAM REGION

(Heb tmp129-15_thumb

settlement region in southern Israel, N.W. and W. of the Hebron Hills, comprising over 100,000 dunams (25,000 acres). Geographically, it belongs partly to the Judean Hills and partly to the Shephelah. The name was chosen because the assumed site of ancient *Adullam lies in the center of this region. After the principle of comprehensive regional planning had been adopted by the relevant authorities in the mid-1950s, the area was first included in the *Lachish Region (which eventually became the prototype of all such planning). After 1957, however, the Adullam Region was treated as a separate area, as conditions there were much more difficult and land reclamation had to precede all settlement activity. The Jewish National Fund, therefore, assumed responsibility for the first stage of the urgent development of this border region. In the project, three clusters of villages were arranged around the "rural centers" of Z ur Hadassah in the northeast, Neveh Mikha’el in the center, and Li-On (later renamed Sarigim) in the southwest. New villages were founded in the framework of the regional plan (e.g., Avi’ezer, Roglit (later united with Neveh Mikha’el), Ad-deret, Givat Yeshayahu, Z afririm), and earlier settlements in adjoining areas (e.g., Netiv ha-Lamed He, Bet Guvrin, Mevo Beitar, Matta, Bar Giora, and Neh ushah) were included in the project. Farming land was reclaimed by terracing and stone clearing, and by drainage of soil in small valleys. The water supply was greatly improved by drilling of deep wells in and near the region. The actual development of villages and their farming branches was carried out by the Jewish Agency’s Agricultural Settlement Department. In the higher northeastern part of the region with its limestone rocks, terra rossa soils, and its cool and relatively wet climate, deciduous fruit and grapevines became important factors in the local economy, and poultry breeding constituted a main source of income. In the lower southwest parts with their broader valleys and deeper rendzina or alluvial soils, the economy was based on field crops (wheat, cotton, sunflowers, sorghum, etc.) as well as tobacco, vegetables, sheep, and cattle. In 1968 a road was built connecting Neveh Mikha’el with the reestablished *Gush Ezyon bloc. At the beginning of the 21st century the region included 16 moshavim, a kibbutz, and two rural communities, reaching a population of approximately 8,000. The economy of the region developed to include wine and olive oil production, citrus groves, fruit orchards, cotton, and flowers. In addition to farming, many of the settlers earned their livelihoods in the tourist industry.

Biblical Period

The extramarital intercourse of a married man is not per se a crime in biblical or later Jewish law. This distinction stems from the economic aspect of Israelite marriage: the wife was the husband’s possession (of a special sort, see *Marriage), and adultery constituted a violation of the husband’s exclusive right to her; the wife, as the husband’s possession, had no such right to him. Adultery is prohibited in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), where it is listed between murder and theft (cf. Jer. 7:9; Ezek. 16:38; Hos. 4:2; Ps. 50:18; Prov. 6:30ff.; Job 24:14-15) among offenses against one’s fellow. Like all sexual wrongs, it defiles those who commit it (Lev. 18:20; Num. 5:13). It is termed "(the) great sin" in Genesis 20:9 and in Egyptian and Ugaritic texts (cf. [ha]-Averah, "[the] transgression," for sexual crimes in rabbinic texts, e.g., Av. Zar. 3a). Its gravity is underscored by its being punishable by the death penalty for both the man and the woman (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Stoning by the public, a procedure often prescribed for crimes felt to threaten the well-being of the nation as a whole, among which were sexual crimes (Lev. 18:24-27; 20:22; Deut. 24:4; cf. Jer. 3:1-2), is mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:24; cf. Ezekiel 16:40; 23:46-47 (cf. John 8:3-7). Other punishments are reflected in non-legal texts. Burning is mentioned in Gen. 38:24 (cf. Lev. 21:9). Stripping, known in ancient Near Eastern divorce procedure, is reflected in the metaphor of Hos. 2:5 and mentioned in Ezekiel 16:37, 39; 23:26. The mutilation mentioned in Ezekiel 16:39; 23:25 does not seem to reflect Israelite practice, but rather the legal traditions of Mesopotamia, where Ezekiel lived (cf. 23:24: "[the nations] shall judge you according to their laws," and, cf. The Middle Assyrian Laws, 15 in Pritchard, Texts, 181; the same punishment for adulteresses in Egypt is attested by Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca, 1:18, according to G.A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, 254).

Other ancient Near Eastern law collections also prescribe the death penalty for adulterers, but, treating adultery as an offense against the husband alone, permit the aggrieved husband to waive or mitigate the punishment (The Code of Hammurapi, 129, in: Pritchard, Texts, 171; The Middle Assyrian Laws, 14-16, in: Pritchard, Texts, 181; The Hittite Laws, 197-98, in: Pritchard, Texts, 196). Biblical law allows no such mitigation. Because the marriage bond is divinely sanctioned (cf. Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17) and the prohibition of adultery is of divine origin, God as well as the husband is offended by adultery (cf. Gen. 20:6; 39:8-9; Ps. 51:6), and an offense against God cannot be pardoned by man. Mesopotamian religious literature also views adultery as offensive to the gods, but, unlike the situation in Israel, this religious conception is not reflected in Mesopotamian legal literature.

ADULTERY

(Heb. tmp129-17_thumb

Whether the severe provisions of the law were actually carried out in biblical times cannot be ascertained. Proverbs 6:23-35, warning of the harm and disgrace which will befall the adulterer, and Job. 31:11, which terms adultery "an assessable transgression" (E.A. Speiser, jbl, 82 (1963), pp. 301-306) seem to assume that the crime could be composed monetarily at the husband’s discretion. But whether passages from the wisdom literature, with its strong international literary ties, reflect actual practice in Israel is a moot question.

As in other cases (see M. Greenberg, idb, 1 (1962), 739), here too, biblical law distinguishes between intentional and unintentional acts. In the Priestly Code, the final clause in Numbers 5:13 (lit. "she was not caught"; cf. the use of the word in Deut. 22:28) may mean that a woman who has had extramarital intercourse is guilty only if she was not forced. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deuteronomy 22:23-27), the presumption of consent on the part of the engaged girl is treated: If in the open country where no help would be available in response to a cry from the girl, she is presumed to have been forced and only her attacker is executed; if the crime occurred in the city, where help would presumably have been afforded her had she cried out, she is presumed to have consented, and is stoned with her paramour. No such presumptive distinction is made in this passage regarding the married woman: she and her lover must die in any case (Deut. 22:22; unlike The Hittite Laws, 197, in: Pritchard, Texts, 196, which makes this very distinction for married women). According to J.J. Fin-kelstein (jaos, 86 (1966), 366 ff.; jcs, 22 (1968-9), 13), the absence of such a distinction may reflect reality: the experience of daily life may have shown that married women who had had extramarital intercourse were likely to have been seeking sexual experience. While payment of a brideprice established a marriage tie constitutive of adultery, the "designation" of a slave woman to marry a man (free women are engaged by brideprice while slave women are designated for marriage by their masters; cf. Ex. 21:8) does not establish such a tie before the woman has been redeemed or freed. Hence a designated slave woman and her paramour are not executed, but the paramour must pay an indemnity and bring a guilt offering (Lev. 19:20-22). The question of the slave woman’s consent is not raised in the law, presumably because she is not a legal person and her consent is legally immaterial.

Evidence for prosecution of adultery is scant in the Bible. Some passages suggest the husband’s initiative in prosecuting (Num. 5:11-31; cf. Prov. 6:32-35), while another might be construed as reflecting public initiative (Deut. 22:22; cf. Sus. 28-41, 60 ff.). None of these passages is decisive. If a husband in a fit of jealousy but without evidence suspects his wife of adultery, the case is turned over to God (by means of the "ritual for cases of jealousy," Num. 5:11-31; see *Ordeal of Jealousy) for decision and, where the wife is guilty, for punishment.

Abraham’s and Isaac’s wives were taken or nearly taken by foreigners who believed them to be the patriarchs’ sisters (Gen. 12:10-20; 20:2 ff.; 26:6-11), but Genesis 20:4 and 26:10 deny that any sexual contact took place. It is noteworthy that these passages seem to assume that these foreigners would sooner commit murder than adultery, "the great sin." Tamar’s fornication (Gen. 38) might be viewed as technically adulterous, since she had already been assigned for Shelah. Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph, who refused to sin against his master and against God (Gen. 39:7-12). David committed adultery with Bath-Sheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite (ii Sam. 11). The narrative about Hosea’s marriage (Hos. 1) describes Hosea’s wife as adulterous, but this is probably a legendary motif of the sort typical in third-person prophetic narratives (see *Hosea).

Adultery is one of the crimes with which the prophets, particularly Hosea (4:2; etc.) and Jeremiah (7:9; 23:10, 14; etc.), charged Israel. The adultery and ravishing of wives is mentioned among threatened punishments (Deut. 28:30; Amos 7:17).

The book of Proverbs warns extensively against the seductions of the adulterous woman (2:16-19; 5:1-14; 6:24-35; 7:5-27; cf. 30:20). She is a gadabout (a frequent description of promiscuous women in the ancient Near East: cf. Gen. 34:1; The Code of Hammurapi, 141, 143, in: Pritchard, Texts, 172; J.J. Finkelstein, jaos, 86 (1966), 363, with nn. 28-29), rarely found in her own home (Prov. 7:11-12). She uses a smooth tongue to lure the foolish – like oxen to the slaughter – to her bed (2:16; 5:3; 6:24; 7:138".). Adulterers seek the protection of darkness (7:9; cf. Job 24:15; Eccles. 23:18). The adulterer is more foolish than a thief, who will at least escape with his life (Prov. 6:30 ff.). Wisdom warns (6:20 ff.; 7:4 ff.) that traffic with the adulterous woman leads inevitably to loss of wealth (5:9-10) and life (2:18-19; 5:5; 6:32-35; 7:22-23, 26-27). One ought to "drink water from his own cistern" (5:15) and not from another’s.

The exclusive loyalty which Israel must give God is analagous to the exclusive fidelity a wife owes her husband. Thus, Israelite religion seized upon the metaphor of marriage to express Israel’s relationship with God and already in early texts employed language from the sphere of adultery to describe worship of other gods: Israel "goes a-whoring" (zanah) after other gods (Ex. 34:16; Num. 15:39-40) and yhwh, the "impassioned" or "jealous" (qanna) God, becomes "wrought up," or "jealous" (qanna) over Israel (Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 5:9; cf. Num. 5:14); idolatry, like adultery, was described as "great sin" (Ex. 32:21, 30-31; ii Kings 17:21). Later prophets, especially the author of Hosea 1-3 and after him Jeremiah (2:23; 3:1ff.) and Ezekiel (16:1ff.; 23:1®), gave the metaphor full and explicit expression.

In Jewish Law

It appears that originally it was the husband’s right to punish his adulterous wife himself (cf. the story of Judah – ordering even his daughter-in-law to be burned: Gen. 38:24) and that he could take the law into his own hands even against the adulterer (cf. Prov 6:34). It was only when adultery was elevated to the rank of a grave offense against God as well that the husband was required to resort to the priests or to the courts. Yet, so far as the adulterer was concerned, it is probable that he could always buy himself off by paying to the husband a sum of money by way of compensation: *compounding was not prohibited for adultery (cf. Prov. 6:35) as it was for murder (Num. 35:31). Where sufficient evidence was available both of the act of adultery (Mak. 7a) and of the adulterer and the adulteress having first each been duly warned (Sanh. 41a), both would be liable to the death penalty. The trial reported in the apocryphal book of *Susannah (37-41) was held without any evidence being adduced of a previous warning having been administered, either because the book predates the mishnaic law to this effect, or because the warning appeared irrelevant to the point of the story. No particular mode of execution is prescribed in the Bible, but talmudical law (Sifra 9:11) prescribed strangulation as being the most humane mode of *capital punishment (Sanh. 52b et al.). An older tradition appears to be that the punishment for adultery was stoning: the lighter offenses of the unvirginal bride (Deut. 22:21) and of the betrothed woman and her adulterer (Deut. 22:24) were punished by stoning, and the severer offense of adultery would certainly not have carried a lighter punishment. Stoning of adulteresses is moreover vouched for in prophetic allegories (e.g., Ezek. 6:38-40) and is described in the New Testament as commanded by the Law of Moses (John 8:5). In the aggravated case of adultery by a priest’s daughter, the adulteress was burned (Lev. 21:9), while the adulterer remained liable to strangulation (Sif. 5:19). Burning is provided for another similar offense (Lev. 20:14) and is also found in prophetic allegory (e.g., Ezek. 23:25; Nah. 3:15). Where the woman was a slave "designated" for another man, the punishment was not death (Lev. 19:20), but he had to bring a sacrifice (ibid. 21:7), while she was flogged (Ker. 11a). Where insufficient evidence was available (the nature of the offense being such as usually took place in secret: cf. Job 24:15), a husband was entitled to have his wife, whom he suspected of adultery, subjected to the *ordeal of the waters of bitterness (Num 5:12-31). If found guilty, her punishment was a kind of talio, she being made to suffer with those organs of her body with which she had sinned (Sot. 1:7). One of the features of the ordeal was that the woman’s hair was "loosened" (Num. 5:18), that is, disarranged (except, according to R. Judah, if her hair was very beautiful: Sot. 1:5). This disarrangement of the hair (usually covered and concealed) may be the origin of the later punishment of shaving a woman’s head – more particularly in cases where lesser misconduct, and not the act of adultery, could be proved against her. Other punishments meted out to adulteresses in post-talmudic times included death, both by strangulation (hanging) and by burning, imprisonment, and, commonly, public flogging.

Maimonides rules that "if a woman has, while married to her husband, committed adultery unwittingly or under duress, she is permitted to him…" (Yad Ishut 24:19). Adultery committed under duress is rape, and is dealt with at length in the relevant entry (see *Rape). The question is what defines "inadvertent adultery" in this context and how it is adapted to the modern legal categories of mistake of law and mistake of fact.

In a situation where a woman thought that the man with whom she engaged in sexual relations was her husband, but was in fact another man, the halakhah regards the act as "inadvertent" or, in contemporary terminology – a mistake of fact. The Mishnah (Yeb. 3:10) deals with a case in which two men betrothed two women and, at the time of marriage, they exchanged the women between themselves. The Mishnah rules that in such a case, where the parties acted unwittingly and unintentionally (see tb Yeb. 33b where it explains that the term "[they were] exchanged" indicates that the exchange was inadvertent), all four parties involved must bring sin offerings, because they unwittingly violated the prohibition against relations with a married woman. However, the original couples are permitted to continue living together as man and wife (following an initial separation of three months in order to enable determination of the biological father in the event of pregnancy). The halakhic ruling is that "at all events they are permitted to one another after three months, for they are considered to have acted under duress because they were mistakenly exchanged" (Yam shel Shlomo, to Yebamot, ch.3, §17).

Another source dealing with adultery as the result of a mistake of fact was based on an actual case, recorded in tb Nedarim 91a-b. A woman informed her husband that they had conducted sexual relations on the previous night. The husband expressed astonishment; denying that this had taken place. The woman responded that apparently she had sexual relations with one of the spice sellers, mistakenly assuming that it was her husband. R. Nahman rules that the woman was not to be believed, for "perhaps she set her eyes on another" and made up the story, so that she could receive a divorce from her husband. He explains that this case concerned the wife of a kohen (priest) who would be forbidden to her husband even in the event of rape. Had the case involved the wife of an Israelite "since even according to her words she believed he was her husband, then there is no greater duress than that – and when there was duress regarding one of Israelite descent, she is permitted."

What follows from these sources is that adultery resulting from mistake of fact is governed by the law of duress, and therefore the law of adultery, including the prohibition of the woman to her husband, does not apply.

Adultery resulting from ignorance of the law. The responsa literature contains a number of responsa discussing the question of how to view adultery when it resulted from a mistake in the law (i.e., ignorance of the law). One case dealt with by Rashba concerned a woman who had accepted a ring from a man to whom she had been introduced during a meal, and a few years later she married another man. Rashba ruled that she is considered an adulteress, and is prohibited to both of them. In his responsum, he discusses the claim that the woman was unaware that she was married to the first man, and that the adultery was therefore the result of a mistake. He wrote as follows: "Should it be claimed that she was under duress because she did not know that she was forbidden to marry – this is incorrect, for she ought to have verified the matter, and in any case where she did not examine, she is prohibited to both of them … But what kind of duress was there that she could rely upon in order to marry? For if so [were we to accept this claim], we would permit all women who had committed adultery, by saying: she believed that she had not become prohibited by this action. And the matter is clear" (Resp. Rashba, 1:1189).

When R. Joseph Colon (Maharik) was asked how to judge a woman "who had intentionally committed adultery while married to her husband, and did not know whether the act was forbidden: should it be regarded as an unintentional act?" His response was: "In my humble opinion, she cannot be permitted to her husband under the law applying to one who acted inadvertently, because she intended to betray her husband, and committed adultery while still married to him" (Resp. Maharik, 168). He based his position on Numbers 5:12: "If any man’s wife go aside and commit a trespass against him" – in other words: the trespass is against the husband and not against the law (or, in Maharik’s language, against God). There is no requirement that the woman actually intend to commit the sin of adultery; it is sufficient that she betrays her husband. Maharik offers the following explanation of the aforementioned passage from Maimonides – that the woman who commits adultery inadvertently is permitted to her husband – "this is only applicable where the mistake relates to the act of adultery, and was not a mistake regarding the prohibition itself, for the reason that her adultery is not considered to have been inadvertent is that she intended to commit adultery, but was unaware of the prohibition. What case would be deemed as inadvertent adultery? One in which she thought that it was her husband, as in the case mentioned in Nedarim 91."

These responsa were codified in later halakhic literature (see Beit Yosef on Tur eh 115, s.v. u-mishum hakhi; Rema, to Sh. Ar. eh 178.3; Yam shel Shlomo, Yeb. 3:17). The subject was the source of further discussion in subsequent responsa literature (see Lehem Yehudah of R. Judah Eish, Hilkhot Ishut 24; Hida, Hayyim Sheal, 2: 48).

In a judgment given in Israel, by the Ashkelon Regional Rabbinical Court (8 pdr 184) the aforementioned conception was accepted: namely, the distinction between a mistake of fact, which constitutes a defense with respect to adultery, and a legal-halakhic mistake – ignorance of the halakhah – which cannot exempt the woman from the consequences of the act of adultery. In the case in question, the Rabbinical Court ruled that the parties must divorce, and a few months later the get was given. It was proven to the court that the woman and another man had engaged in sexual relations after a divorce judgment had been given, believing that once a divorce judgment had been issued there was no longer any prohibition involved, even though they knew that the get had not yet been given. The Rabbinical Court based its ruling on the aforementioned responsa of Rashba and Maharik (as well as additional halakhic sources). The woman and the man, with whom she had become pregnant during the intermediate period between the divorce ruling and the get, were forbidden to marry each other, in accordance with the law that an adulterous woman is forbidden both to her husband and to her lover.

Summing up the position of Jewish law - which is also the positive law of the State of Israel in this area – adultery under duress is not considered adultery. As for adultery resulting from a mistake, a distinction is drawn between a mistake in fact, which is regarded as a case of duress, and hence not in the category of adultery, and a legal-halakhic mistake – i.e., ignorance of the prohibition on adultery, or of the law that only a get terminates the marriage; neither of the variants of the latter category will be regarded as duress. A woman engaging in sexual relations with another man under such circumstances is deemed an adulteress, and as such forbidden both to her husband and to her lover.

ADVERTISING

In few modern industries have Jews had greater influence than in advertising, and this applies particularly in America. It has even been suggested that Jewish advertising men are responsible for the wide scope and shape of the modern advertising agency. Though the use of advertising began after the Civil War of 1865, until the beginning of the 20th century, business concerns wishing to promote the sale of their goods or services developed their own programs and even wrote their own copy. The existing agencies were thus brokers in media space. This was the pattern when Albert D. Lasker, often called the father of modern advertising, joined the Chicago agency of Lord and Thomas in 1898. He soon realized that by providing first-rate copywriters, who were creative, imaginative artists, the agency could be of far greater help to the client than by just offering the service of selling him space for his advertisements. In 1904, when only 24 years of age, he became a partner in the firm and by 1912, Lasker became the sole owner of Lord and Thomas. He built it in three decades into one of the best known and most respected advertising agencies in America.

Milton H. Biow may be regarded as the man who molded the advertising agency into a form which would meet the requirements of modern business. He began in 1918 with a one-man business and in the four decades of its existence, it became one of the largest and best known agencies both in the United States and abroad. Biow’s agency was credited with being the first to use radio and television "spots" for short advertisements. This era saw the development of the partnership agencies. One of these, Grey Advertising, was founded in 1917 by 18-year-old Lawrence Valenstein. Later he formed a three-man partnership with two men he had taken into his employment, Arthur C. Fatt and Herbert D. Strauss. Each of the three was successively president of the company. All three believed advertising to be an important ingredient in the wider activity of marketing, and the firm played a leading part in developing the system of creating a demand for a product before introducing it to the market. In 1936 the agency started Grey Matter, a newsletter of merchandising comment and interpretation, which was widely read both by the advertising industry and by business generally. By the late 1960s the agency was one of the most successful with branches in Canada, Japan, and a number of European countries.

Two former directors of Grey Advertising, William *Bernbach and a non-Jew, Ned Doyle, joined with Maxwell Dane in 1949 to form another three-man partnership, Doyle, Dane, Bernbach, which developed rapidly. Bernbach may well be regarded as the successor to Lasker, Biow, and the Grey partners, becoming the leader of the "creative revolution" that was sweeping across Madison Avenue, the New York center of American advertising. Bernbach began to use copy in which advertisers spoke to the public in low-keyed, even self-deprecating terms. This new approach of intelligent subtlety was quickly and widely emulated. In 1955 Norman B. Norman and a number of his associates in the agency firm of William H. Weintraub and Co. bought control of the agency and changed its name to Norman, Craig, and Kum-mel. They soon expanded its business by the use of the "empathy" formula, which Norman described as "emotional advertising" aimed at having the reader find himself inside the advertisement.

Other Jews who have made important contributions to advertising are Julian Koenig and Frederic S. Papert (1926) who founded Papert, Koenig, and Lois; Maxwell B. Sackheim (d. 1982), an expert in mail order advertising; David Altman, of Altman, Stoller, and Chalk, specialist in fashion advertising; Ernest Dichter, a psychologist who founded the Institute for Motivational Research; Stanley Arnold, sales promotion consultant; and Monroe Green, an advertising vice president of the New York Times. Green was largely responsible for building the New York Times Sunday Magazine into a powerful combination of trade and consumer publication. In the 1920s and 1930s Jews in advertising were mainly relegated to media or market research jobs, and had no part in front office, account-management, or contact functions. But the skill and accomplishments of many of them opened the gates to Jews and other members of minorities, in a profession that had been restricted to gentiles for decades. Among the Jews who rose to prominence in the American advertising industry in more recent years were Carl *Spielvogel, who later became United States ambassador to Slovakia; Donny Deutsch, who sold his agency for many millions and began a career in television; and Linda Kaplan Thaler, whose creativity started with advertising jingles and expanded into a flourishing, mul-tifaceted agency.

It was not until the 20th century after World War 11, that Jews rose to prominence in advertising in Britain. The multiplicity of media used in modern advertising called for creative ability and Jews found outlets for their skills in this profession. Jewish agencies include Caplan’s Advertising, Progress Advertising, and Richard Cope and Partners. Probably the best-known contemporary British advertising agency is Saatchi & Saatchi, founded by the two *Saatchi brothers. In general, however, Jews play only a limited role in British advertising.

On the continent of Europe advertising developed slowly until after World War 1 when the growth of methods of communication was rapid, but Jewish participation was brought to an abrupt close by the Nazi Holocaust. Since World War 11 expanding American agencies and to some degree British agencies have extended their operations to the continent to compete with their European counterparts and it is here that Jews have begun to play a creative role.

In Israel

There was little organized advertising in Mandatory Palestine. The first advertising agency was set up in Jerusalem in 1922 by Benjamin Levinson, who was followed by a handful of others. Several more modern agencies were established by newcomers from Germany in 1933-39. Large-scale advertising started only with the rapid development of industry and the creation of a growing consumers’ market in Israel, especially after the Sinai Campaign (1956). Today, Israeli advertising is indistinguishable in its methods and pervasiveness from advertising in any other Western-style consumer society.

The favorite medium is still the daily press: In 2003 Israel’s newspapers received 53% of advertising revenues ($293 million). Next came television with 33% and radio with 7%. Internet advertising, the new frontier, had a modest 2%. The Israel Advertising Association, established in 1934, has 60 agencies as members.

AELIA CAPITOLINA

Name given to the rebuilt city of Jerusalem by the Romans in 135 c.e. Following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 c.e. the city remained in ruins except for the camp (castrum) of the Tenth Legion (Fretensis), which was situated in the area of the Upper City and within the ruins of the Praetorium (the old palace of Herod the Great), protected, according to the first-century historian Josephus (War, 7, 1:1) by remnants of the city wall and towers on the northwest edge of the city. Although Jews were banished from the city (except apparently during the Ninth of *Av), some Jewish peasants still lived in the countryside, and remains of houses (with stone vessels) have been found immediately north of Jerusalem (close to Tell el-Ful). Following the disastrous *Bar Kokhba Revolt, the emperor *Hadrian began rebuilding Jerusalem, from 135 c.e., naming it after himself (Aelius Hadrianus) and the god Jupiter Capi-tolinus. Some scholars believe that an impetus for the breakout of the Bar Kokhba revolt was the pagan construction activities in the city, but archaeological finds would appear to indicate that most of the principal building activities there (including those on the Temple Mount) took place only after the revolt had been quashed and when a colony was already established there. Jews were no longer allowed access to the city and it was populated by foreigners and settled Roman veterans. Aelia (approximately 120 acres in size) rapidly took on the character of a pagan city with special gates, civic centers (demosia), bathhouses, latrines, sanctuaries, and shrines, and pagan equestrian statues were even set up on the Temple Mount. The whereabouts of the Capitoline Temple is debated, with some scholars placing it in the area of the present Church of the Holy Sepulcher, while others suggest situating it in the area of the destroyed *Antonia Fortress on the north side of the Temple Mount. Shrines to Aphrodite and Serapis are also known. Most of the building activities took place in the northern sectors of the Old City of today (in the Christian and Moslem Quarters), and around the southwestern foot of the Temple Mount. The city remained unfortified until after the Tenth Legion had been transferred to Aila (Eloth), with a fortification wall built in the third century around the northern part of the city only. The name Aelia was perpetuated in the Early Islamic period as Ilia.

°AELIAN

(Claudius Aelianus; c. 170-235 c.E.), Greek sophist. Aelian mentions the Jews in several places. In Varia Historia, 12, 35, he includes the Jewish Sibyls (see *Apocalypse) in a list of *Sibylline oracles. In his De Natura Animalium, 6, 17, he tells of a snake enamored of a girl in Judea during the reign of Herod. He also mentions the deer on Mount Carmel.

AERONAUTICS, AVIATION, AND ASTRONAUTICS

An early contribution by a Jew to aviation was the cigar-shaped airship with an aluminum framework designed in 1892 by the Zagreb timber merchant David *Schwarz. His designs were sold to Count Zeppelin, who carried them through to produce the airship known as the "Zeppelin." Another pioneer of flight-theory was Josef *Popper (1838-1921), who as early as 1888 considered the problems of flight-theory in his Flugtechnik. The development of French aviation was furthered by Henri *Deutsch de la Meurthe (1846-1919), who donated the first prize won by the Brazilian Santos-Dumont in October 1901 for flying an airship around the Eiffel Tower. After establishing an experimental aeronautics station at Sar-trouville, Deutsch founded the Aeronautic Institute at Saint-Cyr in 1909. His daughter Suzanne (1892-1937) continued his work. In 1901 Arthur *Berson, director of the Prussian Aeronautical Observatory and a major personality in contemporary investigations of the upper atmosphere, navigated a balloon to what was then a record height of 35,100 feet (10,700 meters), and in 1908 he made a flight over the equator in East Africa at great heights. Other Jewish aviation pioneers were Emile *Berliner, the first man to make lightweight revolving-cylinder internal-combustion engines and to equip airplanes with them; Eduard *Rumpler, whose "Rumplertaube" was used by Germany in World War 1; August Goldschmidt of Vienna, an inventor of a novel type of balloon in 1911; the Russian pilot Vseuolod Abramovich, who held the world record in 1912; Fred Melchior of Sweden, an expert pilot who won many awards; Arthur L. *Welsh, U.S. aviation instructor and test pilot, who died in 1912 while testing a new load-carrying military biplane; Ellis Dunitz (1888-1913), chief instructor in the German Naval Air Service; Victor Betman, winner in 1914 of the speed flight between Vienna and Budapest; Arthur Landmann of Germany, holder of the world endurance record for 1914; and Leonino Da Zara, the father of Italian aeronautics.

Aelia Capitolina.

Aelia Capitolina.

Interwar Period

Marcel Bloch (later *Dassault) became a major aircraft manufacturer in France from the period between the two world wars. Harry F. Guggenheim (see *Guggenheim Family) was a U.S. pilot in World War 1, and later a lieutenant-commander in the U.S. Navy (and U.S. ambassador to Cuba). His father, Daniel Guggenheim, established the Guggenheim Foundation, at that time the leading private organization in the aeronautics field, and in 1925 he created a pioneer school of aeronautics at New York University. Still active after World War 1, Emile Berliner, with the help of his son Henry Adler *Berliner, designed and built three different kinds of helicopters (1919-26). Karl Arnstein was chief construction engineer with the Zeppelin Company; in 1924 one of his airships flew the Atlantic. With the coming of the Nazis he left Germany for America, and from 1934 was employed by the Goodyear-Zeppelin Corporation as chief engineer and vice president. Among the many airships he designed were the dirigibles "Los Angeles" and ‘Akron," which were used by the U.S. Navy. America’s first civilian superintendent of airmail was Captain Benjamin B. Lipsner, and Harold Zinn of Savannah was the first flying mail carrier in North and South Carolina. Sergeant Benjamin Roth was the mechanic in the aeronautic squad in the Byrd expedition to the Antarctic in the 1920s. Professor Aldo Pontremoli, head of the department of physics at the University of Milan, was in charge of meteorological research in the 1928 Italian expedition to the North Pole, an expedition which cost him his life. Charles A. Levine (1897-1991) was the first flight passenger over the Atlantic. In 1927 he traveled 3,903 mi. (6,295 km. – a world record at the time) from New York to Eisleben, Germany. Levine himself financed this pioneer flight. In 1930 the Viennese Robert Kronfeld created a world record by gliding 93 mi. (150 km.) and in 1931 he won the London Daily Mail prize by gliding over the English Channel. Jewish women pilots included Mildred Kauffman of Kansas City, Peggy Salaman of England (winner of the third prize in the King’s Cup Race in 1931 who established a record in the same year by her flight from England to Cape Town with Gordon Score), and Lena Bernstein of France. A number of Jews were also academic authorities on aerodynamics.

Postwar Aeronautics

Sir Ben *Lockspeiser was deputy director at the British Ministry of Aircraft Production in the critical years of the war from 1941. In France, Rene Bloch was director of aviation in the French Navy and later in the Ministry of Defense. Erich Schatzki was a pilot and then chief engineer of Lufthansa in pre-Nazi days, and an early general manager of Israel’s El Al. Benedict Cohn was head aerodynamicist for the Boeing Company, and Benjamin Pinkel headed the Rand Corporation’s aero-astronautical department. Richard Shevell (1920-2000) helped design the DC-10 at Douglas Aircraft and taught aeronautics at Stanford.

Astronautics

Jews were involved in the activities of the National Advisory Council for Aeronautics in the U.S.A., and many are concerned with some aspect or other of its successor organization, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (nasa), which operates the U.S. astronautical program. Three directors of large divisions of nasa were Abe *Silverstein (Lewis Research Center), Abraham Hyatt (program planning and evaluation), and Leonard Jaffe (Communications Systems of Satellites). Daniel Saul *Goldin was the longest-serving director of nasa (1992-2001). Astronaut Jeffrey *Hoffman (1944- ) participated in five space missions in the 1980s and 1990s. Two Jewish astronauts who met tragic ends were Judith *Resnik, who died on January 28, 1986, on a space shuttle mission when her Challenger spacecraft blew up on launch, and the Israeli Ilan *Ramon, lost on re-entry in the Columbia mission of January 16-February 1, 2003.

Little is known of the personalities involved in the technical management of the Soviet space program. While it is quite likely that some of them are of Jewish origin, this cannot actually be proved. However, the Soviet cosmonaut Lieutenant-Colonel Boris Volynov, commander of spaceship "Soyuz-5" which in January 1969 performed the first link-up in space with a transfer of cosmonauts from one spaceship to another, was reported to be Jewish.

Next post:

Previous post: