Friday, June 28, 2013

Anne_Frank


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank

Annelies "Anne" Marie Frank (Dutch pronunciation: [ɑnəˈlis ˈɑnə maˈri frɑŋk], German pronunciation: [anəliːs ˈanə maˈʁiː fʁaŋk] ?, pronunciation (help·info); 12 June 1929 – early March 1945) is one of the most discussed Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Her diary has been the basis for several plays and films. Born in the city of Frankfurt am Main in Weimar Germany, she lived most of her life in or near Amsterdam, in the Netherlands. Born a German national, Frank lost her citizenship in 1941. She gained international fame posthumously after her diary was published. It documents her experiences hiding during the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II.




The Frank family moved from Germany to Amsterdam in 1933, the year the Nazis gained control over Germany. By the beginning of 1940, they were trapped in Amsterdam by the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. As persecutions of the Jewish population increased in July 1942, the family went into hiding in some concealed rooms in the building where Anne's father worked. After two years, the group was betrayed and transported to concentration camps. Anne Frank and her sister, Margot, were eventually transferred to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where they died of typhus in March 1945.
Otto Frank, the only survivor of the family, returned to Amsterdam after the war to find that Anne's diary had been saved, and his efforts led to its publication in 1947. It was translated from its original Dutch and first published in English in 1952 as The Diary of a Young Girl. It has since been translated into many languages. The diary, which was given to Anne on her 13th birthday, chronicles her life from 12 June 1942 until 1 August 1944.


Early life
Frank was born Annelies[1] or Anneliese[2] Marie Frank on 12 June 1929 in Frankfurt, Germany, the second daughter of Otto Frank (1889–1980) and Edith Frank-Holländer (1900–45). Margot Frank (1926–45) was her elder sister.[4] The Franks were liberal Jews, did not observe all of the customs and traditions of Judaism,[5] and lived in an assimilated community of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of various religions. Edith Frank was the more devout parent, while Otto Frank was interested in scholarly pursuits and had an extensive library; both parents encouraged the children to read.[6]

Lee, Carol Ann (2000). The Biography of Anne Frank – Roses from the Earth. London: Viking Press. ISBN 978-0-7089-9174-9.
van der Rol, Ruud; Verhoeven, Rian (1995). Anne Frank – Beyond the Diary – A Photographic Remembrance. Langham, Tony & Peters, Plym (translation). New York: Puffin. ISBN 978-0-14-036926-7.
On 13 March 1933, elections were held in Frankfurt for the municipal council, and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party won. Antisemitic demonstrations occurred almost immediately, and the Franks began to fear what would happen to them if they remained in Germany. Later that year, Edith and the children went to Aachen, where they stayed with Edith's mother, Rosa Holländer. Otto Frank remained in Frankfurt, but after receiving an offer to start a company in Amsterdam, he moved there to organise the business and to arrange accommodations for his family.[7] The Franks were among 300,000 Jews who fled Germany between 1933 and 1939.[8]




Otto Frank began working at the Opekta Works, a company that sold fruit extract pectin, and found an apartment on the Merwedeplein (Merwede Square) in Amsterdam. By February 1934, Edith and the children had arrived in Amsterdam, and the two girls were enrolled in school—Margot in public school and Anne in a Montessori school. Margot demonstrated ability in arithmetic, and Anne showed aptitude for reading and writing. Her friend Hanneli Goslar later recalled that from early childhood, Frank frequently wrote, although she shielded her work with her hands and refused to discuss the content of her writing. The Frank sisters had highly distinct personalities, Margot being well-mannered, reserved, and studious,[9] while Anne was outspoken, energetic, and extroverted.[10]
In 1938 Otto Frank started a second company, Pectacon, which was a wholesaler of herbs, pickling salts, and mixed spices, used in the production of sausages.[11][12] Hermann van Pels was employed by Pectacon as an advisor about spices. A Jewish butcher, he had fled Osnabrück in Germany with his family.[12] In 1939 Edith's mother came to live with the Franks, and remained with them until her death in January 1942.[13]

In May 1940, Germany invaded the Netherlands, and the occupation government began to persecute Jews by the implementation of restrictive and discriminatory laws; mandatory registration and segregation soon followed. The Frank sisters were excelling in their studies and had many friends, but with the introduction of a decree that Jewish children could attend only Jewish schools, they were enrolled at the Jewish Lyceum. Anne became a friend of Jacqueline van Maarsen in the Lyceum.[13] In April 1941 Otto Frank took action to prevent Pectacon from being confiscated as a Jewish-owned business. He transferred his shares in Pectacon to Johannes Kleiman and resigned as director. The company was liquidated and all assets transferred to Gies and Company, headed by Jan Gies. In December 1941 Frank followed a similar process to save Opekta. The businesses continued with little obvious change and their survival allowed Frank to earn a minimal income, but sufficient to provide for his family.[14]

Before going into hiding
For her 13th birthday on 12 June 1942, Anne Frank received a book she had shown her father in a shop window a few days earlier. Although it was an autograph book, bound with red-and-white checkered cloth[15] and with a small lock on the front, Frank decided she would use it as a diary,[16] and began writing in it almost immediately. While many of her early entries relate the mundane aspects of her life, she also discusses some of the changes that had taken place in the Netherlands since the German occupation. In her entry dated 20 June 1942, she lists many of the restrictions that had been placed upon the lives of the Dutch Jewish population, and also notes her sorrow at the death of her grandmother earlier in the year.[17] Frank dreamed about becoming an actress. She loved watching movies, but the Dutch Jews were forbidden access to movie theaters from 8 January 1941 onwards.[18]


In July 1942, Margot Frank received a call-up notice from the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung (Central Office for Jewish Emigration) ordering her to report for relocation to a work camp. Otto Frank told his family that they would go into hiding in rooms above and behind Opekta's premises on the Prinsengracht, a street along one of Amsterdam's canals, where some of his most trusted employees would help them. The call-up notice forced them to relocate several weeks earlier than had been anticipated.[19]


Life in the Achterhuis


Reconstruction of the bookcase that covered the entrance to the Secret Annex, in the Anne Frank House in AmsterdamOn the morning of Monday, 6 July 1942,[20] the family moved into their hiding place, a secret annex. Their apartment was left in a state of disarray to create the impression that they had left suddenly, and Otto Frank left a note that hinted they were going to Switzerland. The need for secrecy forced them to leave behind Anne's cat, Moortje. As Jews were not allowed to use public transport, they walked several kilometers from their home, with each of them wearing several layers of clothing as they did not dare be seen carrying luggage.[21] The Achterhuis (a Dutch word denoting the rear part of a house, translated as the "Secret Annexe" in English editions of the diary) was a three-story space entered from a landing above the Opekta offices. Two small rooms, with an adjoining bathroom and toilet, were on the first level, and above that a larger open room, with a small room beside it. From this smaller room, a ladder led to the attic. The door to the Achterhuis was later covered by a bookcase to ensure it remained undiscovered. The main building, situated a block from the Westerkerk, was nondescript, old, and typical of buildings in the western quarters of Amsterdam.[22]



Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman, Miep Gies, and Bep Voskuijl were the only employees who knew of the people in hiding. Along with Gies' husband Jan Gies and Voskuijl's father Johannes Hendrik Voskuijl, they were the "helpers" for the duration of their confinement. The only connection between the outside world and the occupants of the house, they kept the occupants informed of war news and political developments. They catered to all of their needs, ensured their safety, and supplied them with food, a task that grew more difficult with the passage of time. Frank wrote of their dedication and of their efforts to boost morale within the household during the most dangerous of times. All were aware that, if caught, they could face the death penalty for sheltering Jews.[23]

On 13 July 1942, the Franks were joined by the van Pels family: Hermann, Auguste, and 16-year-old Peter, and then in November by Fritz Pfeffer, a dentist and friend of the family. Frank wrote of her pleasure at having new people to talk to, but tensions quickly developed within the group forced to live in such confined conditions. After sharing her room with Pfeffer, she found him to be insufferable and resented his intrusion,[24] and she clashed with Auguste van Pels, whom she regarded as foolish. She regarded Hermann van Pels and Fritz Pfeffer as selfish, particularly in regard to the amount of food they consumed.[25] Some time later, after first dismissing the shy and awkward Peter van Pels, she recognised a kinship with him and the two entered a romance. She received her first kiss from him, but her infatuation with him began to wane as she questioned whether her feelings for him were genuine, or resulted from their shared confinement.[26] Anne Frank formed a close bond with each of the helpers, and Otto Frank later recalled that she had anticipated their daily visits with impatient enthusiasm. He observed that Anne's closest friendship was with Bep Voskuijl, "the young typist ... the two of them often stood whispering in the corner."[27]

The young diaristIn her writing, Frank examined her relationships with the members of her family, and the strong differences in each of their personalities. She considered herself to be closest emotionally to her father, who later commented, "I got on better with Anne than with Margot, who was more attached to her mother. The reason for that may have been that Margot rarely showed her feelings and didn't need as much support because she didn't suffer from mood swings as much as Anne did."[28] The Frank sisters formed a closer relationship than had existed before they went into hiding, although Anne sometimes expressed jealousy towards Margot, particularly when members of the household criticised Anne for lacking Margot's gentle and placid nature. As Anne began to mature, the sisters were able to confide in each other. In her entry of 12 January 1944, Frank wrote, "Margot's much nicer ... She's not nearly so catty these days and is becoming a real friend. She no longer thinks of me as a little baby who doesn't count."[29]






The Secret Annexe with its light-coloured walls and orange roof (bottom) and the Anne Frank tree in the garden behind the house (bottom right), seen from the Westerkerk in 2004Frank frequently wrote of her difficult relationship with her mother, and of her ambivalence towards her. On 7 November 1942 she described her "contempt" for her mother and her inability to "confront her with her carelessness, her sarcasm and her hard-heartedness," before concluding, "She's not a mother to me."[30] Later, as she revised her diary, Frank felt ashamed of her harsh attitude, writing: "Anne, is it really you who mentioned hate, oh Anne, how could you?"[31] She came to understand that their differences resulted from misunderstandings that were as much her fault as her mother's, and saw that she had added unnecessarily to her mother's suffering. With this realization, Frank began to treat her mother with a degree of tolerance and respect.[32]



The Frank sisters each hoped to return to school as soon as they were able, and continued with their studies while in hiding. Margot took a shorthand course by correspondence in Bep Voskuijl's name and received high marks. Most of Anne's time was spent reading and studying, and she regularly wrote and edited her diary entries. In addition to providing a narrative of events as they occurred, she wrote about her feelings, beliefs, and ambitions, subjects she felt she could not discuss with anyone. As her confidence in her writing grew, and as she began to mature, she wrote of more abstract subjects such as her belief in God, and how she defined human nature.[33]

Frank aspired to become a journalist, writing in her diary on Wednesday, 5 April 1944:




I finally realized that I must do my schoolwork to keep from being ignorant, to get on in life, to become a journalist, because that's what I want! I know I can write ..., but it remains to be seen whether I really have talent ...

And if I don't have the talent to write books or newspaper articles, I can always write for myself. But I want to achieve more than that. I can't imagine living like Mother, Mrs. van Daan and all the women who go about their work and are then forgotten. I need to have something besides a husband and children to devote myself to! ...



I want to be useful or bring enjoyment to all people, even those I've never met. I want to go on living even after my death! And that's why I'm so grateful to God for having given me this gift, which I can use to develop myself and to express all that's inside me!



When I write I can shake off all my cares. My sorrow disappears, my spirits are revived! But, and that's a big question, will I ever be able to write something great, will I ever become a journalist or a writer?



— Anne Frank[34]

She continued writing regularly until her last entry of 1 August 1944.



ArrestMain article: Betrayal of Anne Frank



A partial reconstruction of the barracks in the Westerbork transit camp where Anne Frank was housed from August to September 1944On the morning of 4 August 1944, following a tip from an informer who was never identified, the Achterhuis was stormed by a group of German uniformed police (Grüne Polizei) led by SS-Oberscharführer Karl Silberbauer of the Sicherheitsdienst.[35] The Franks, van Pelses, and Pfeffer were taken to RSHA headquarters, where they were interrogated and held overnight. On 5 August they were transferred to the Huis van Bewaring (House of Detention), an overcrowded prison on the Weteringschans. Two days later they were transported to the Westerbork transit camp, through which by that time more than 100,000 Jews, mostly Dutch and German, had passed. Having been arrested in hiding, they were considered criminals and were sent to the Punishment Barracks for hard labor.[36]



Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman were arrested and jailed at the penal camp for enemies of the regime at Amersfoort. Kleiman was released after seven weeks, but Kugler was held in various work camps until the war's end.[37] Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl were questioned and threatened by the Security Police but were not detained. They returned to the Achterhuis the following day, and found Anne's papers strewn on the floor. They collected them, as well as several family photograph albums, and Gies resolved to return them to Anne after the war. On 7 August 1944, Gies attempted to facilitate the release of the prisoners by confronting Silberbauer and offering him money to intervene, but he refused.[38}

Deportation and death
On 3 September 1944,[a] the group was deported on what would be the last transport from Westerbork to the Auschwitz concentration camp, and arrived after a three-day journey. On the same train was Bloeme Evers-Emden, an Amsterdam native who had befriended Margot and Anne in the Jewish Lyceum in 1941.[39] Bloeme saw Anne, Margot, and their mother regularly in Auschwitz,[40] and was interviewed for her remembrances of the Frank women in Auschwitz in the 1988 television documentary The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank by Dutch filmmaker Willy Lindwer[41] and the 1995 BBC documentary Anne Frank Remembered.[42]

In the chaos that marked the unloading of the trains, the men were forcibly separated from the women and children, and Otto Frank was wrenched from his family. Of the 1,019 passengers, 549—including all children younger than 15—were sent directly to the gas chambers. Frank had turned 15 three months earlier and was one of the youngest people to be spared from her transport. She was soon made aware that most people were gassed upon arrival, and never learned that the entire group from the Achterhuis had survived this selection. She reasoned that her father, in his mid-fifties and not particularly robust, had been killed immediately after they were separated.[43]




With the other females not selected for immediate death, Frank was forced to strip naked to be disinfected, had her head shaved and was tattooed with an identifying number on her arm. By day, the women were used as slave labour and Frank was forced to haul rocks and dig rolls of sod; by night, they were crammed into overcrowded barracks. Some witnesses later testified Frank became withdrawn and tearful when she saw children being led to the gas chambers; others reported that more often she displayed strength and courage. Her gregarious and confident nature allowed her to obtain extra bread rations for her mother, sister, and herself. Disease was rampant; before long, Frank's skin became badly infected by scabies. The Frank sisters were moved into an infirmary, which was in a state of constant darkness and infested with rats and mice. Edith Frank stopped eating, saving every morsel of food for her daughters and passing her rations to them through a hole she made at the bottom of the infirmary wall.[44]

In October 1944 the Frank women were slated to join a transport to the Liebau labour camp in Upper Silesia. Bloeme Evers-Emden was slated to be on this transport. But Anne was prohibited from going because she had developed scabies, and her mother and sister opted to stay with her. Bloeme went on without them.[42]




On 28 October selections began for women to be relocated to Bergen-Belsen. More than 8,000 women, including Anne and Margot Frank and Auguste van Pels, were transported. Edith Frank was left behind and later died from starvation.[45] Tents were erected at Bergen-Belsen to accommodate the influx of prisoners, and as the population rose, the death toll due to disease increased rapidly. Frank was briefly reunited with two friends, Hanneli Goslar and Nanette Blitz, who were confined in another section of the camp. Goslar and Blitz survived the war and later discussed the brief conversations they had conducted with Frank through a fence. Blitz described her as bald, emaciated, and shivering. Goslar noted Auguste van Pels was with Anne and Margot Frank, and was caring for Margot, who was severely ill. Neither of them saw Margot, as she was too weak to leave her bunk. Anne told Blitz and Goslar she believed her parents were dead, and for that reason she did not wish to live any longer. Goslar later estimated their meetings had taken place in late January or early February 1945.[46]



In March 1945 a typhus epidemic spread through the camp, killing 17,000 prisoners.[47] Witnesses later testified Margot fell from her bunk in her weakened state and was killed by the shock. A few days later, Anne died. This was only a few weeks before the camp was liberated by British troops on 15 April 1945; the exact dates were not recorded.[48] After liberation, the camp was burned in an effort to prevent further spread of disease, and Anne and Margot were buried in a mass grave; the exact whereabouts remain unknown.

After the war, it was estimated of the 107,000 Jews deported from the Netherlands between 1942 and 1944, only 5,000 survived. An estimated 30,000 Jews remained in the Netherlands, with many people aided by the Dutch underground. Approximately two-thirds of this group survived the war.[49]




Otto Frank survived his internment in Auschwitz. After the war ended, he returned to Amsterdam, where he was sheltered by Jan and Miep Gies as he attempted to locate his family. He learned of the death of his wife, Edith, in Auschwitz, but he remained hopeful that his daughters had survived. After several weeks, he discovered Margot and Anne had also died. He attempted to determine the fates of his daughters' friends and learned many had been murdered. Susanne ''Sanne'' Ledermann, often mentioned in Anne's diary, had been gassed along with her parents; her sister, Barbara, a close friend of Margot, had survived.[50] Several of the Frank sisters' school friends had survived, as had the extended families of Otto and Edith Frank, as they had fled Germany during the mid-1930s, with individual family members settling in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Publication


Het Achterhuis ("The Secret"), cover of the 1st edition of Anne Frank's diary in 1947, subsequently titled as The Diary of a Young GirlIn July 1945, after the Red Cross confirmed the deaths of the Frank sisters, Miep Gies gave Otto Frank the diary and a bundle of loose notes that she had saved in the hope of returning them to Anne. Otto Frank later commented that he had not realized Anne had kept such an accurate and well-written record of their time in hiding. In his memoir, he described the painful process of reading the diary, recognizing the events described and recalling that he had already heard some of the more amusing episodes read aloud by his daughter. He saw for the first time the more private side of his daughter and those sections of the diary she had not discussed with anyone, noting, "For me it was a revelation ... I had no idea of the depth of her thoughts and feelings ... She had kept all these feelings to herself".[51] Moved by her repeated wish to be an author, he began to consider having it published.



Frank's diary began as a private expression of her thoughts; she wrote several times that she would never allow anyone to read it. She candidly described her life, her family and companions, and their situation, while beginning to recognise her ambition to write fiction for publication. In March 1944, she heard a radio broadcast by Gerrit Bolkestein—a member of the Dutch government in exile—who said that when the war ended, he would create a public record of the Dutch people's oppression under German occupation.[52] He mentioned the publication of letters and diaries, and Frank decided to submit her work when the time came. She began editing her writing, removing some sections and rewriting others, with a view to publication. Her original notebook was supplemented by additional notebooks and loose-leaf sheets of paper. She created pseudonyms for the members of the household and the helpers. The van Pels family became Hermann, Petronella, and Peter van Daan, and Fritz Pfeffer became Albert Düssell. In this edited version, she addressed each entry to "Kitty," a fictional character in Cissy van Marxveldt's Joop ter Heul novels that Anne enjoyed reading. Otto Frank used her original diary, known as "version A", and her edited version, known as "version B", to produce the first version for publication. He removed certain passages, most notably those in which Frank is critical of her parents (especially her mother), and sections that discussed Frank's growing sexuality. Although he restored the true identities of his own family, he retained all of the other pseudonyms.

Otto Frank gave the diary to the historian Annie Romein-Verschoor, who tried unsuccessfully to have it published. She then gave it to her husband Jan Romein, who wrote an article about it, titled "Kinderstem" ("A Child's Voice"), which was published in the newspaper Het Parool on 3 April 1946. He wrote that the diary "stammered out in a child's voice, embodies all the hideousness of fascism, more so than all the evidence at Nuremberg put together."[53] His article attracted attention from publishers, and the diary was published in the Netherlands as Het Achterhuis in 1947,[54] followed by a second run in 1950.

Romein, Jan. "The publication of the diary: reproduction of Jan Romein's Het Parool article Kinderstem". Anne Frank Museum. Archived from the original on 29 April 2007. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
Lee, Carol Ann (2000). The Biography of Anne Frank – Roses from the Earth. London: Viking Press. ISBN 978-0-7089-9174-9.





_______________________________________________________________________________
Notes and referencesExplanatory notes




a.^ Westra et al. 2004, p. 196, includes a reproduction of part of the transport list showing the names of each of the Frank family.

Citations



1.^ a b Anne Frank Fonds.

2.^ a b Barnouw & Van Der Stroom 2003, pp. 3, 17.

3.^ Müller 1999, pp. 143, 180–181, 186.

4.^ Müller 1999, preface: Family tree.

5.^ van der Rol & Verhoeven 1995, p. 10.

6.^ Lee 2000, p. 17.

7.^ Lee 2000, pp. 20–23.

8.^ van der Rol & Verhoeven 1995, p. 21.

9.^ Müller 1999, p. 131.

10.^ Müller 1999, pp. 129–135.

11.^ Müller 1999, p. 92.

12.^ a b Lee 2000, p. 40.

13.^ a b Müller 1999, pp. 128–130.

14.^ Müller 1999, pp. 117–118.

15.^ van der Rol & Verhoeven 1995, p. 3.

16.^ Lee 2000, p. 96.

17.^ Frank 1995, pp. 1–20.

18.^ Müller 1999, pp. 119–120.

19.^ Müller 1999, p. 153.

20.^ Müller 1999, p. 163.

21.^ Lee 2000, pp. 105–106.

22.^ Westra et al. 2004, pp. 45, 107–187.

23.^ Lee 2000, pp. 113–115.

24.^ Lee 2000, pp. 120–21.

25.^ Lee 2000, p. 117.

26.^ Westra et al. 2004, p. 191.

27.^ Lee 2000, p. 119.

28.^ Müller 1999, p. 203.

29.^ Frank 1995, p. 167.

30.^ Frank 1995, p. 63.

31.^ Frank 1995, p. 157.

32.^ Müller 1999, p. 204.

33.^ Müller 1999, p. 194.

34.^ Marcuse 2002.

35.^ Barnauw & van der Stroom 2003.

36.^ Müller 1999, p. 233.

37.^ Müller 1999, p. 291.

38.^ Müller 1999, p. 279.

39.^ Morine 2007.

40.^ Bigsby 2006, p. 235.

41.^ Enzer & Solotaroff-Enzer 1999, p. 176.

42.^ a b Laeredt 1995.

43.^ Müller 1999, pp. 246–247.

44.^ Müller 1999, pp. 248–251.

45.^ Müller 1999, p. 252.

46.^ Müller 1999, p. 255.

47.^ Müller 1999, p. 261.

48.^ Stichting, "Typhus", p. 5.

49.^ US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

50.^ Lee 2000, pp. 211–212.

51.^ Lee 2000, p. 216.

52.^ Frank 1995, p. 242.

53.^ Romein.

54.^ Lee 2000, p. 223.

55.^ Lee 2000, p. 225.

56.^ Müller 1999, p. 276.

57.^ a b Frank 1989, p. 102.

58.^ Blumenthal 1998.

59.^ Levin 1952.

60.^ Michaelsen 1997.

61.^ Berryman 2000, p. 78.

62.^ Rosow 1996, p. 156.

63.^ a b c Westra et al. 2004, p. 242.

64.^ Graver.

65.^ Feldman 2005.

66.^ Clinton 1994.

67.^ Mandela 1994.

68.^ Müller 1999, p. 305.

69.^ Lee 2000, pp. 222–33.

70.^ Stichting, "Simon Wiesenthal".

71.^ a b Rosenblatt 1999.

72.^ Frank & Holmer 2005, p. 340.

73.^ a b c d Stichting, "Authenticity of the Diary".

74.^ Lee 2000, pp. 241–246.

75.^ Stichting, "Legal rulings".

76.^ Lee 2000, p. 233.

77.^ Faurisson 2000.

78.^ Stichting, "Ten Questions".

79.^ Boretz 1995.

80.^ a b O'Toole 2013.

81.^ Bennett-Smith 2013.

82.^ Bastow 2013.

83.^ a b Anne Frank House Annual Report 2005.

84.^ Anne Frank-Fonds Annual Report 2003.

85.^ Anne Frank Educational Centre website 2012.

86.^ Max 2007.

87.^ a b Thomasson & Balmforth 2008.

88.^ Kreijger 2007.

89.^ Radio Netherlands 2010.

90.^ Engel 2013.

91.^ Stevens 1989.

92.^ Chester and Novello.

93.^ Gabbatt 2009.

94.^ McCrum 2010.

95.^ Ferguson 2012.

96.^ Anne Frank at the JPL Small-Body Database

Discovery · Orbit diagram · Orbital elements · Physical parameters

Bibliography Barnouw, David; Van Der Stroom, Gerrold, eds. (2003). The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-50847-6.

Berryman, John (2000) [1999]. "The Development of Anne Frank". In Enzer, Hyman Aaron; Solotaroff-Enzer, Sandra. Anne Frank: Reflections on her life and legacy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06823-2.

Bigsby, Christopher (2006). Remembering and Imagining the Holocaust: The Chain of Memory. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86934-8.

Enzer, Hyman Aaron; Solotaroff-Enzer, Sandra, eds. (20 December 1999). Anne Frank: Reflections on Her Life and Legacy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06823-2.

Frank, Anne (1995) [1947]. Frank, Otto H.; Pressler, Mirjam, eds. Het Achterhuis [The Diary of a Young Girl – The Definitive Edition] (in Dutch). Massotty, Susan (translation). Doubleday. ISBN 0-553-29698-1. ; This edition, a new translation, includes material excluded from the earlier edition.

Frank, Anne (1989). The Diary of Anne Frank, The Critical Edition. Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-24023-9.

Frank, Anne; Holmer, Per (2005). Anne Franks dagbok : den oavkortade originalutgåvan : anteckningar från gömstället 12 juni 1942 – 1 augusti 1944 [Anne Frank's Diary: The Unabridged Original Edition: Notes From the Hiding Place] (in Swedish). Stockholm: Norstedt. ISBN 978-91-1-301402-9.

Lee, Carol Ann (2000). The Biography of Anne Frank – Roses from the Earth. London: Viking Press. ISBN 978-0-7089-9174-9.

Müller, Melissa (1999) [1998]. Das Mädchen Anne Frank [Anne Frank: The Biography] (in German). Kimber, Rita and Robert (translators). New York: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-7475-4523-1. OCLC 42369449. ; With a note from Miep Gies

Rosow, La Vergne (1996). Light 'n Lively Reads for ESL, Adult, and Teen Readers: A Thematic Bibliography. Englewood, Colo: Libraries Unlimited. p. 156. ISBN 978-1-56308-365-5.

van der Rol, Ruud; Verhoeven, Rian (1995). Anne Frank – Beyond the Diary – A Photographic Remembrance. Langham, Tony & Peters, Plym (translation). New York: Puffin. ISBN 978-0-14-036926-7.

Westra, Hans; Metselaar, Menno; Van Der Rol, Ruud; Stam, Dineke (2004). Inside Anne Frank's House: An Illustrated Journey Through Anne's World. Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth. ISBN 978-1-58567-628-6.



































Masking Holiness, Part 1

Masking Holiness, Part 1







Chapter 3




Mishna 15a



Rabbi Elazar of Modin said, one who desecrates sacred objects, one who disgraces the festivals, one who shames his fellow in public, one who annuls the covenant of our forefather Abraham, or one who interprets the Torah not in accordance with Jewish law -- even if he has Torah [study] and good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come."



This week's mishna lists a number of concepts central to Judaism, stating that one who fails to accord them the proper reverence will lose his share in the World to Come. This will require some analysis. Why these five concepts in particular, and why so devastating and total a punishment? There are many types of sinners, and virtually all -- except a chosen few - - ultimately merit at least some small share in the World to Come. "All of Israel has a share in the World to Come," proudly promises the Mishna (Sanhedrin 10:1). What is so exceptional about these individuals -- more than the murderer, adulterer, Sabbath-violator, etc.? First, however, I would like to explain each of the five cases of our mishna in its own right.



(a) "One who desecrates sacred objects" refers to a person who does not treat sacrifices or Temple articles properly, in particular by willfully causing a sacrifice to become invalid or ritually unclean (through direct or indirect contact with a corpse or certain other unclean objects).



(b) "One who disgraces the festivals" is one who treats them as ordinary days. The commentators understand our mishna to be referring to Chol HaMoed, the intermediate days of the festivals of Passover and Sukkos (Tabernacles). Passover is a seven-day festival, in which the first and last day are Yom Tov -- sacred days similar to the Sabbath. (Outside the Land of Israel, Passover is observed for eight days, with the first two and last two days sacred.) Sukkos likewise is an eight (or nine) day holiday, with the first and last day(s) sacred. The intermediate days of these holidays are neither Yom Tov proper nor wholly mundane. In Jewish law, they are accorded a semi-sacred status, in which most labor is forbidden but with several exceptions. ("Chol HaMoed" translates as "the non-sacred of the holiday.")



The commentator Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the mishna did not need warn us of the Yom Tov portions of the holidays. Everyone knows of their sacred nature. Everyone has a Passover Seder, (this being virtually the last Jewish observance to be cast off by the marginally-observant). However, the intermediate days are far more often neglected. Many of us know how difficult it is to take off time from work or school on account of religious holidays. In the fall in particular, Sukkos immediately follows Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (for good reason, of course -- which we won't get into here). Having taken off so many days already, who has the luxury of taking off Chol HaMoed as well (or even the guts to ask the boss)? However, these days must not be taken lightly. They are a part of our holidays and provide their own opportunities for spiritual growth.



My personal feeling has always been that once a person goes off to work on Chol HaMoed, even if he shook a lulav (palm branch) in the morning or brought in a matzah sandwich for lunch, the day quickly reverts to life as usual and loses any sanctity it had to offer. Offices are very uninspiring places. They might be cordial and friendly, but in a sterile and certainly nondenominational manner. They offer very little in terms of true religious inspiration -- or even of just being ourselves rather than the organization man.
By the way, needless to say I am not writing this as a definitive statement of Jewish law. There are possible leniencies in going to work on Chol HaMoed, and every G-d-fearing individual should consult his local rabbi. But to act as if there is no difference between this and other days -- not to even *consider* taking off -- that our mishna cannot countenance.




(c) "One who shames his fellow in public" needs no explanation. Religion aside, one who publicly humiliates another has little or no soul of his own. The Talmud writes that publicly embarrassing someone is tantamount to murdering him. When one Talmudic sage stated this, a second one concurred, saying that when a person turns pale, "the red leaves and the white comes" (Bava Metziah 58b). Causing another's blood to rush from his face is no less an act of bloodshed.



(d) "One who annuls the covenant of our forefather Abraham" refers to one who refuses to be circumcised or who hides the fact that he is. (Circumcision was a mitzvah (commandment) given specifically to Abraham -- the first mitzvah commanded upon the nascent Jewish nation -- and through which G-d sealed His covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Thus, the terminology here and in many places -- "the covenant of Abraham;" see Genesis 17.)



With this the Rabbis certainly had in mind a contemporary practice, prevalent during the period of the Greek and Roman Empires. The Greek Olympics and other athletic activities were performed in the nude. The Greeks, in their worship of the human body and physical beauty (they were even so shallow as to see their gods as supermen), would not allow people with mutilated bodies, such as the circumcised, to participate. (No Special Olympics in those days, that's for sure. We all learned how in Sparta they left the less-than-healthy babes out to die.) Aspiring Jewish athletes, in an effort to obtain entrance into the contemporary culture, would undergo an operation known as "stretching the foreskin." Such a desperate (not to mention painful) attempt at hiding one's Jewishness in order to be "fashionable", was condemned by the Rabbis in the harshest terms. We have so little to be proud of that we would go to such horrific extremes just to conform?

Circumcision contains within it a deep significance. Far from being a hygienic procedure practiced by a desert-dwelling tribe, it was a commandment from G-d to Abraham, the first given to the Jewish people, and so the first and most prominent distinguishing symbol of Israel. G-d referred to it as the sign of a special covenant between Himself and Israel (Genesis 17:11), and said that through it Abraham would be "complete" (v. 1). (The word "covenant" in fact appears 13 times in Genesis 17 -- as noted by the Sages), What is so unique and distinguishing about this one mitzvah?




On one level, circumcision represents the sublimation of man's strongest passions towards a higher purpose. We do not live for ourselves -- not on any level of our existence. Israel is G-d's special nation, and our passions, our drives, our bodies, and our very lives are devoted to our Creator. This perhaps above all else is the defining and distinguishing characteristic of the nation of Israel.



But there is a deeper idea as well. By circumcising ourselves, we state that we are not entirely creatures of this world. We must "improve" ourselves before we are ready to begin life. For we are not merely the physical beings we were as we came out of the womb; we are not truly beings of this world at all.



The rest of mankind, as part of the natural world, is quite at home the way it was created. G-d's handiwork is perfect; there is no need to "improve" upon it through circumcision. G-d made the rest of mankind in its correct form. Man may live in his natural and pristine state -- and in harmony with the world at large.

But Israel is different. We are not physical beings alone. We take our natural physical form and transform it into something just a little bit less physical. And this is because our mission is not simply to live *in* this world. We are to strive for something infinitely higher. Abraham was not "complete" without circumcision. As a physical being he certainly was complete, but he was to become something far greater -- a new and different sort of being altogether. And we too must live for something higher. Our goal is not merely to live *in* this world but to transcend it. We have enormous and awe-inspiring heights to scale. We may now aspire to be creatures of spirit and of a higher plane. And we will never again entirely fit in the world of man.



For this reason, Jews have always had a sense that there is something particularly sacred about circumcision. Even Jews who have lapsed from almost all other religious observance hold it dear. (In general, birth, death and marriage issues increase our awareness of our immortality and are approached with due reverence.)



Finally, considering all the above, someone who sacrifices a ritual so sacred, one which so wholly exemplifies our existence as servants of G-d -- for the pathetically inexcusable reason of currying favor with the Gentile society at large -- can tragically be said to have placed this world before the next. We all sin and make mistakes. But to refuse to accept the basic premise of what it means to be a Jew -- sadly, such a person deserves inclusion in our mishna's list.

e) "One who interprets the Torah contrary to Jewish law" is one who studies Torah but who concocts his own explanations, regardless of whether or not they are consistent with the tradition handed down to us from Sinai. He may find Torah study enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, but he is clearly not studying it to fulfill G-d's will or even to find out what that will is. Stated frankly, he does not care about G-d. And admiring the Torah and the words of the Sages with little reverence for their Giver separates them from their source and removes any and all spirituality they may have had to offer.


Next week, G-d willing, we will begin to examine the connection between the five cases above -- and will hopefully uncover just a small degree of their deeper significance.