Mosaic Magazine

What’s Wrong with Fiddler on the Roof

Fifty years on, no work by or about Jews has won American hearts so thoroughly. So what's my problem?

  

No creative work by or about Jews has ever won the hearts and imaginations of Americans so thoroughly as the musical Fiddler on the Roof, which this year is celebrating its 50th anniversary and next year will have its fifth Broadway revival.

Everyone enjoys this show, whose musical numbers—“Tradition,” “Sunrise, Sunset,” “If I Were a Rich Man,” “To Life,” “Matchmaker,” and others—not only enliven Jewish weddings but are commonly understood to represent something essential about Jews and Jewishness. Jeremy Dauber opens his new biography of Sholem Aleichem with Fiddler because Fiddler is how the beloved Yiddish author is known—if he is known at all—to English readers. “Forget Sholem Aleichem,” writes Dauber, “there’s no talking about Yiddish, his language of art, without talking about Fiddler on the Roof. There’s no talking about Jews without talking about Fiddler.” And Dauber ends the book by tracing the stages through which Sholem Aleichem’s stories of Tevye the Dairyman and his daughters were transformed by successive translators and directors into what, by the time the movie version of Fiddler was released in 1971, the New Yorker’s normally severe critic Pauline Kael would call “the most powerful movie musical ever made.”

Soon after the stage production opened in 1964 (music by Jerry Bock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, book by Joseph Stein, with Zero Mostel in the title role), I was urged to see it by my teacher, the Yiddish scholar Max Weinreich, who had just completed his History of the Yiddish Language. Unlike some purist defenders of Yiddish culture who were expressing mixed feelings about a classic work being hijacked for the American stage—and in contrast to several highbrow Jewish intellectuals, offended by what Irving Howe blisteringly called the play’s “softened and sweetened” nostalgia—Weinreich was delighted that Sholem Aleichem’s masterwork would be accessible to audiences who could never have come to know it in the original. He even defended as legitimate some of the changes that had been introduced in order to appeal to an American audience. I, too, loved the show, not least because Yiddish literature had become my subject of study, and I appreciated the boost.

Even livelier than the stage production was the 1971 movie, directed by Norman Jewison and starring Chaim Topol, which exploited the freedoms of the film medium to veer still further from the original Yiddish conception. By this time, though, my own reservations about the enterprise had begun to mount. In the original series of stories and in all of their many adaptations for the Yiddish stage, whenever Tevye is defied by his daughters and challenged by his potential sons-in-law, he emerges morally intact. This is how we learn to appreciate his resistance to the historical forces that are trying to undo him. Economic hardship, Communism, internationalism, materialism, persecution, expulsion, and, by no means least, romantic love: powerless as he may be to stop their advance, Tevye is not mowed down by any of them.

So thoroughly does Sholem Aleichem’s Tevye command the plot line and its outcome that even Hava, the daughter who converts to Christianity in order to marry her Ukrainian lover Fyedka, does not get the better of him. However persuasive her arguments for a universalist ideal may be—why should God have separated people into Jews and Christians, and isn’t it time we repaired the breach?—Tevye does not sanction love over the integrity of the Jewish people. Nor do his paternal feelings for Hava excuse her defection; instead, he pronounces her dead to the family and observes the traditional seven days of mourning. Only when she repents does he accept her back; only because he has stayed firm is she able to return to a still-Jewish home.

Of course, it was the generous side of Tevye’s nature that made him so readily adaptable for an American audience. An observant Jew who prides himself on being able to quote traditional sources, he is also an accommodating parent who jokes at his own expense and uses prayer as an opportunity to argue with God. He may be conservative in his beliefs, but he is liberal in his instincts. Indeed, much of the humor in Sholem Aleichem’s stories about him pivots on the tension between his faith and his doubts, his tenacity and his lenient heart. But this only makes all the more striking the single point on which he will not yield. His “No!” to Hava is the dramatic and emotional centerpiece of the work.

 

And here the critics were right: the authors of Fiddler took the stuffing out of the derma. In both the Broadway and film versions, Tevye not only makes his peace with his daughter’s conversion and marriage but accepts the justice of her Christian husband’s rebuke of him as the couple departs for Cracow, Poland. (Ultimately, they would go to America.) “Some,” says Fyedka, “are driven away by edicts—others [that is, he himself and Hava] by silence.”

Let’s understand what lies behind this sentence. Fyedka is daring to equate Tevye’s refusal to accept Hava’s conversion to Christianity with the czarist persecution of the Jews of Russia. The accusation is outrageous and brutal—but to it, Fiddler’s Tevye replies meekly: “God bless you.” Charged with bigotry for upholding the integrity of the Jewish people, he ends by endorsing the young couple’s intermarriage as the benign culmination of a leveling ideal. We might be tempted to turn Fyedka’s accusation against the accuser: some drive the Jews out of Russia, others drive Jewishness out of the Jews. But the “others” in this case include the authors of Fiddler, who demolish the dignity of their hero without any apparent awareness of what they have done. 

A similar insouciance characterizes a recent “cultural history” of Fiddler on the Roof. Entitled Wonder of Wonders, after one of the show’s catchiest musical numbers, it is written by Alisa Solomon, a theater critic and teacher of journalism at Columbia. In this abundantly researched study, we can follow the path by which Sholem Aleichem’s drama of Jewish resistance evolved into a classic of assimilation. Although Solomon doesn’t make the connection, the process she describes closely resembles an earlier transmutation of a different Jewish work for the American stage: namely, the replacement in the 1950s of the original dramatization of the Diary of Anne Frank, by the novelist Meyer Levin, with a thoroughly de-Judaized version by the team of Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett.

As is well known, Levin fought back. He could not abide the suppression of the Diary’s gritty Jewishness in favor of the upbeat, treacly, universalized message voiced by Anne in the Broadway production’s most quoted line: “[In] spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart.” Over the decades, Levin’s pursuit of intellectual and moral restitution became an obsession, which is the one-word title he would give to his story about the American Jewish theater and the Jews. By contrast, Alisa Solomon hails the triumph of all that Levin mourned, writing with cheerful mien about Fiddler’s shift from kosher to “kosher-style.” Her celebratory work has won the plaudits of reviewers and academics alike.

 

I voiced some of my concerns about Tevye’s theatrical fate in my 2001 book The Modern Jewish Canon, and I return to them now with broader questions. Certainly, the authors of Fiddler were not the first to sacrifice Jewish identity to the universalizing ethos. One day, I’d finally sat down to read Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s 1779 classic German drama Nathan the Wise, a plea for interreligious tolerance I had often seen praised for its positive representation of the Jew who is its title character. Nathan’s wisdom and nobility were known to have been modeled on the German Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. But just as, in real life, Mendelssohn’s offspring left the Jewish fold, so, too, Lessing’s fictional Nathan leaves no Jewish heirs. It struck me that I would much have preferred a lesser Jew at the head of a large and living family to this generous paragon who leads his people to a dead end. It was as though the Jew could be celebrated only at the expense of his tribe’s survival, which is just the sort of happy ending that the team of Bock, Harnick, and Stein provide for their wise Jew, Tevye the Dairyman.

In fairness, I should note that Jews are not the only people whose integrity the authors casually cancel. Fyedka, an aspiring Ukrainian intellectual with his own sense of universal responsibility, leaves with Hava for Poland in generous-hearted protest against the expulsion of the Jews from Anatevka. Poland: really? Here our American authors betray little familiarity with, or patience for, the kind of ethnic-religious-linguistic-national rivalry that claimed—and has continued to claim—the lives and loyalties of Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles.

Liberal fantasy delights in improbable unions, and Fiddler on the Roof approaches the issue of Fyedka, Hava, and the Jews much like Edward Lear’s Owl and Pussy Cat who went to sea in a beautiful pea-green boat, got married by the Turkey who lives on the hill, and “hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,/. . . danced by the light of the moon.” In the same cockeyed spirit, Sholem Aleichem’s adapters, liberating the couple from the complicating features that sustain Tevye and the Jewish people, blithely ignore the likelihood that staying in Cracow would only have embroiled them in new enmities and eventually landed their descendants in Auschwitz.

It was the Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill who, having married a Gentile woman and abandoned his earlier Zionist commitment, supplied Americans with their own enduring image of harmonious amalgamation in his 1908 play The Melting Pot. The happy ending that Zangwill conjures up for David Quixano, a quixotic Jew who seeks refuge in America, takes the form of marriage with the daughter of the pogromist from whom he had managed to escape in Russia. Thus does the American melting pot liquefy the antagonisms and violence of Europe in a bland but warming stew.

Zangwill’s concept of misfortune is associated with threat from without. Sholem Aleichem’s concerns were all about the collapse of Jewish confidence from within: flight from Jewish responsibility, erosion of Jewish language, the snapping of the chain of Jewish transmission. Evidently, by the time we come to mid-century America and Fiddler, Sholem Aleichem’s talented adapters were all too ready to assume that the past was truly past, and that the problems of the Jews, like the “Jewish problem,” had finally been solved.

What is it about America—or about the American theater—that leads to such assumptions? I have often wondered why the team of Jerome Robbins and Leonard Bernstein gave up their original idea for West Side Story as a story about Catholics and Jews on New York’s Lower East Side. Could it be that only the substitution of Jets and Sharks as the warring parties allowed them to imagine a truly tragic outcome? To fight and die—albeit unintentionally—as the lovers do in Romeo and Juliet, and as Tony, the white Jet, does in this American adaptation of Shakespeare, is to possess something one is willing to fight for, like family honor or group pride. Puerto Ricans or Poles might go to the mat for such values—but Jews?

I suspect Bernstein and Robbins couldn’t imagine Jews in such a scenario—and certainly not when intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles was already becoming commonplace. In fact, in every Al Jolson or Benny Goodman story, it is the Jewish parents who must demonstrate their largesse by accepting their son’s marriage to a Christian. Refuse, and they would be labeled bigots, which is precisely the fate visited on Tevye by his American handlers.

 

Guaranteed rights, freedoms, and civic obligations were the great gifts that America offered its Jews, and these, combined with upward mobility, were surely enough to be grateful for even when marred by discrimination. Toleration came somewhat more gradually, but faster to Jews than to “people of color,” and the lure of assimilation was correspondingly stronger among Jews than among many other ethnic and religious groups. Indeed, many liberal Jews became so wedded to the universalist ideal as to become intolerant of fellow Jews who wished to stay identifiably Jewish.

This illiberal form of liberalism, practiced by Jews as well as non-Jews, has always objected to the nexus of religion and peoplehood that has historically defined the Jews and their civilization. Judaism invites in anyone who truly wants to become a Jew, but differs from universalist creeds in not expecting or requiring that everyone do so. Paradoxically, this makes Jewish Jews more tolerant of others than those who cannot abide the idea of a people apart—like Fyedka, who equates Tevye’s stubborn Jewish loyalty with czarist xenophobia. With that in mind, one might venture that if Fiddler on the Roof marks a high point in American Jewish culture, the triumph of American-style Fyedkaism represents its low.

Great art requires a moral seriousness that allows for the possibility of tragedy as well as the relief of comedy. Sholem Aleichem endows Tevye with this potential. His concluding words in Sholem Aleichem’s concluding chapter are: “Say hello for me to all our Jews and tell them wherever they are, not to worry: the old God of Israel still lives!” The conclusion of Fiddler on the Roof, in Alisa Solomon’s approving summary, shows that Tevye belongs nowhere, which she takes to mean that he belongs everywhere. Meaning, everywhere the “old God of Israel” is not.

________________

Ruth R. Wisse is professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard. Her books include Jews and Power (Schocken), The Modern Jewish Canon (Free Press), and, most recently, No Joke: Making Jewish Humor (Library of Jewish Ideas/Princeton).

Comments

  • Yair

    “It was as though the Jew could be celebrated only at the expense of his tribe’s survival”

    The nail on the head. Not much has changed in this respect since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment and the first emancipations of the Jews. Just like the theologically universalist Christian origins of today’s post-Christian universalist western culture, the problem is Jewish particularism. Brunu Bauer’s words are an example of the link between the Christian and post-Christian attitudes: Let the Jews leave their particular Jewish existence and become Christians, then let them leave Christianity and be received as equals into enlightened European society.

  • LeeEsq

    I suspect that the original version of the West Side was abandoned because it would look too silly in the 1950s to believable. A 1950s audience would have a lot of difficulty suspending their imagination enough to imagine rival gangs of Jewish and Catholic teenagers clashing on New York’s Lower East Side. Puerto Ricans and ethnic Whites made more sense from the reality of the times.

  • Rahel Sharon Jaskow

    I always thought that in his remark about being driven away by silence, Fyedka was referring not to Tevye but to his own neighbors. He has just told Tevye that the reason he and Chava are leaving is that they cannot stay in a place where people do such things to others. So I always thought that his remark, like his departure, was a rebuke to his neighbors, who stood silent when the Jews were driven out.

  • JPKatz

    I recall seeing the movie titled, “Tevye Der Milchiker.” The story was generally the same as “Fiddler on the Roof” but it had some serious differences. Tevye did not want Hava to marry Fyedka and Teveye sat shiva when she married Fyedka. Tevye and his family were ordered to leave the town shortly after the wedding. The expulsion was at the request of the local priest who did not want Hava’s family to have any influence on Hava. The movie then moved to Hava’s married life. It showed her being beaten by her husband and living within a family of drunkards who customarily beat their women folk. The concluding part showed Tevye and his family leaving town and then shows Hava chasing after them in order to get away from an intolerable life style.

    • Rfalk

      Many, many years ago I also saw a Yiddish movie based on “Tevye der Milchiger” in a movie theater packed to the rooftop with my parents and a crowd of mainly European native speakers of Yiddish. I had come with the slightly ironical distance children of immigrants often feel for the older generation – but found myself bawling, along with everyone else, at scenes like the death of Golde, when Hava, banished, wanders around in a snowstorm outside the house.

      The author is right – the American Tevye is very, very far from his roots. But as she also acknowledges – that is the story of American Jews as a whole. Is the trade-off worth it? Only time will tell, and Fiddler’s worldwide popularity certainly speaks to some of the better aspirations of human nature, not the worst,

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Read the short story where Tevye tries to talk with Hava after her marriage. Even in English (which I had to use, sadly knowing no Yiddish), it will break your heart.

  • weingrad

    Fiddler is a betrayal of Jewish peoplehood, but I’m not convinced that it is entirely a betrayal of Sholem Aleichem’s character. (Similarities here to Anne Frank.) Here I propose that the secret to Tevye’s popularity–both in the original stories an on stage and screen–is that he gives us permission to abandon the tradition: http://investigationsandfantasies.com/2014/05/15/tevyes-secret-2/

    • https://web.archive.org/web/20120130060231/http://benplonie.bravehost.com/ Ben Plonie

      I looked at your reference and I disagree. Far from being a flawed figure, the secret to Tevye’s popularity in the original stories is that he is a hero of integrity. The original stories could be read only by Jews. They are much darker and deeper than the Broadway treatment.

      And as per this article, the secret to Tevye’s popularity on stage and screen is the corruption of his character into the standard Jew stereotype of a ridiculous (but lovable) buffoon without real integrity; a pious self-righteous transparent hypocrite, as per the New Testament).

      More telling than Tevye is the portrayal of the rabbi (“Your also right!”). That is the tell-tale of the pandering and validation for Jews who have given up the fight to Jewish integrity and dignity, and to gentiles who obtain validation for their contempt.

  • http://endtimechaverim.wordpress.com Princess

    “The Modern Jewish Canon,” was an excellent read.

  • Robert Lehr

    From the first time I ever saw Fiddler On The Roof, I realized it was a anti-Semitic play. The author does not admire Judaism or Jews, and mocks them at every possible opportunity. This play is a travesty of real shtetl life, and avoids showing the nobility of our great grandparents. Sholom Aleichem depicts a “disgusting” Judaism, that really needs to fade away.

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      I agree with you about the play, but do not hold Sholom Aleichem responsible for it. The play bears about as much resemblence to his work as the execrable movie Starship Troopers bears to the Heinlein novel of the same name.

      • https://web.archive.org/web/20120130060231/http://benplonie.bravehost.com/ Ben Plonie

        I also agree about the play, but as a Heinlein and Starship Troopers lover too, I thought the film was pretty respectful. You can never get a film treatment that reproduces the story in your imagination from reading the book.

        It was made from the same ensemble cast and crew that made Robocop.

  • Ted

    I’ve not read the original, confining myself to the movie, but it strikes me that even more than Prof. Wisse’s concern about the Christian emphasis in Fiddler is the feeling that she ignores both of the changes undertaken by the first two daughters, to wit, marrying for love despite her father’s declaration of whom she should marry (making him lie to his wife to get her to change her viewpoint) and sending the second daughter off to Siberia to live with her “husband” in exile. Yes, he’s Jew, but it is this kind of Jew that, it seems to me, has led Jews down the garden path to Communism, first, and then to a secular Judaism with a huge segment of Jews ending up as unbelievers. Not sure that this is a better choice than rejecting Christianity, though I’m sure no Jew, or at least few Jews, will agree with me on that. Still, Jews without God? In other words, ethnic Jews in name only? Perhaps the book doesn’t give that impression. If so, forgive me for intruding into an in-house version of one-upsmanship, where Christianity is the bad guy. I don’t agree that Christianity is, but I can see where Prof. Wisse may feel that way. I wonder if all Jews agree?

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      The short stories do not give that impression. He does allow his oldest daughter to choose the man she will marry, but the man she marries for love (as in the play) is a decent man and a G-d fearing Jew.
      And in the short story, Tevye argues with the atheist Communist that his second daughter marries.

  • curlytop

    You are spot on. You have also deconstructed the tension between Jewish survival and modern liberalism. (I say as a proud Jew and liberal).

  • Ruchama

    I saw this problem with the play the first time I saw it. Never went to the film. I hope that this recognition of the Fiddler as propaganda for intermarriage and assimilation will become more widespread. Not only does the adaptation promote assimilation it also trivializes the dignity and perseverance of the Jewish people.

  • Susan A. Berger

    Absolutely perfect analysis. Seems that we have been and will always be put on the defensive–from physical to spiritual.

  • werner cohn

    While I agree with Prof. Wisse on the question of religious authenticity — the lack thereof in “Fiddler” — I have always been more concerned with the cheap sentimentalizing of shtetl life in this disaster of a production on stage and screen.

  • eegrow

    My father—born in Poland in 1911—was invited to the actual Broadway premiere of Fiddler in 1964. As the final curtain came down he said, “This isn’t Sholem Aleichem. This is dreck. It’ll close in a week.”

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Two out of three ain’t bad.
      Having been born in Poland, your father may not have been familiar with the quote attributed to HL Mencken, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” The American Jewish public is sadly no exception, as some of the comments on this thread demonstrate.
      Your father would have been 3 for 3 if he had said “Gentiles and assimilated American Jews will love it” instead of “It will close in a week.”

  • Charles

    Oh for heaven’s sake, lighten up! This was entertainment – and excellent entertainment at that. Please stop making profound theological or philosophical judgments about a great musical which was never meant to be a definitive statement about Jewish life in Eastern Europe in the first place.

    • Commentator

      Agreed!

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Oh for heaven’s sake, recognize that entertainment often reflects the values of its authors and its audience, and that Fiddler perfectly encapsulates the assimmilationist values of the playwright, and shares none of the world view of the author whose characters it appropriated.

      • Robert Lehr

        The author is one of several Yiddishist authors who thought of themselves as “enlightened” and whose works were extremely intelligent and moving, thus causing great harm to the Observant Jewish world. These authors mocked Torah observance, using their artifice to ridicule the most noble lifestyle on earth, as best as they could, and caused millions to leave the fold of Judaism.

    • Faye

      But the problem is for many people, this musical *did* become a definitive statement about Jewish life in Eastern Europe. As generations passed and people lost touch with their forebears, this became the paradigm of Jewish life in Eastern Europe.
      Before you dismiss Wisse so quickly, read the Jewish Review of Books’ article (I think from two issues ago) on the history of Fiddler on the Roof. Sholom Aleichem was indeed an anti-religious Jew, and so it’s not out of the realm of possibility to read some of that contempt for the “poor, dirty, ignorant religious Jew” in “Fiddler on the Roof.” And when the creators of the original Broadway show were working on the play, there was a lot of discussion about whether they should “tone down” some parts of the show because it might be “too Jewish” for their audience.
      If you want to simply see it and enjoy without any deeper analysis, that’s your right. But it doesn’t mean there’s no “there” there to discuss.

  • jerry finkle

    WAY TO GO! Its about time a Jew had the courage to take on the assimilationist leadership and tell the truth that Fiddler on the Roof glorifies assimilation and Jewish destruction.

  • ahad_ha_amoratsim

    Tevye may pride himself on quoting traditional Jewish sources, but he often misattributes a commonplace from Tehillim or Pirkei Avos to something more demanding such as Gemara. I suspect that at least some of Sholom Aleichem’s readers recognized the misattribution and laughed at Tevye’s pretension. By contrast, the laugh lines in Fiddler cue the audience to laugh at Tevye for quoting such quaint foolishness and taking it seriously.

  • chris robling

    When i saw the film (Lake Forest, Illinois, summer, 1973, thought it was the greatest musical ever and nearly perfectly realized, So, here’s to Norman Jewison), Fyedka’s snarky line offended me deeply. I thought Tevya should have slapped him across the face for his impudence. Utterly undeserved. Thanks for this article. The “old God of Israel” does live, and all of us, Jew and gentile, belong everywhere.

Adam and I

On Jews and Judaism

The Future of American Jewry
“The American Jewish community today is comfortable, secure, but lacking in self-confidence.” So Irving Kristol wrote in 1991. Right then; right now?
by Irving Kristol

Bea

On Jews and Judaism

Irving Kristol, Born Jewish
My late husband's political views are well-known. His Jewish ones, less so. But they’re at the root of everything.
by Gertrude Himmelfarb

The Situation in Europe

The Situation in Europe

Post-Liberal Europe and its Jewish Problem
Strong ideological currents are turning the continent into a very difficult place for Jewish survival.
by Natan Sharansky

Facebook Like Box

Karski

The Holocaust

A Tree Grows in Lublin
Remembering Jan Karski, the Pole who told FDR to his face about the Holocaust, and still wondered if he'd done enough.
By Joshua Muravchik

Freundel Wertheimer

Can Modern Orthodoxy Survive?

The Unresolved Dilemmas of Modern Orthodoxy
Everyone agrees that the movement needs to rethink and revamp. Very few agree on how.
By Jack Wertheimer

Fiddler

Tevye Betrayed

What’s Wrong with Fiddler on the Roof
Fifty years on, no work by or about Jews has won American hearts so thoroughly. So what's my problem?
By Ruth R. Wisse

Horn Surnames

What's In A Name

Jewish Surnames [Supposedly] Explained
“Dara, you’ll love this!” Actually, I don’t.
by Dara Horn

Benjamin

The Intellectual Scene

The Walter Benjamin Brigade
How an original but maddeningly opaque German Jewish intellectual became a thriving academic industry.
by Walter Laqueur

Golinkin

Conservative and Orthodox

The Crisis in Jewish Law Today
Orthodox rabbis need to stop worrying about 200-year-old battles with “Reformers” and allow Jewish law to develop organically, as it did in the past.
By David Golinkin

Kook

History

Abraham Isaac Kook Receives the Call
For a visionary rabbi in London, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 signified nothing less than the advent of the messianic era.
by Yehudah Mirsky

Gurfinkiel

The Situation in Europe

You Only Live Twice
Vibrant Jewish communities were reborn in Europe after the Holocaust. Is there a future for them in the 21st century?
by Michel Gurfinkiel

Degenerate Art

The Art World

Degenerate Art and the Jewish Grandmother
The story of the family behind the Nazi-era art trove.
By Walter Laqueur

Wertheimer

The September Essay

Intermarriage: Can Anything Be Done?
A half-century after the rate of intermarriage in the US began to skyrocket, the Jewish community appears to have resigned itself to the inevitable. But to declare defeat is preposterous.
by Jack Wertheimer

Aharon L

The Rabbinic World

Who Is Aharon Lichtenstein?
Introducing the extraordinary rabbi who next week will receive Israel’s highest honor.
By Elli Fischer

Rubinstein

Yom Hashoah

Making Amends
A mysterious request leads the Canadian-born son of a Holocaust survivor back to the old country.
by Robert Eli Rubinstein