text:
Michael Joseph Savage

Michael Joseph Savage (23 March 1872 – 27 March 1940) was an Australian-born New Zealand politician who served as the 23rd prime minister of New Zealand, heading the First Labour Government from 1935 until his death in 1940.

Savage was born in the Colony of Victoria (present-day Australia), and emigrated to New Zealand in 1907 at the age of 35. A labourer, he became a trade unionist, and in 1910 was elected president of the Auckland Trades and Labour Council. Savage supported the formation of the New Zealand Labour Party in July 1916. He was active in local politics before his election to the House of Representatives in 1919, as one of eight Labour members returned in that election. Savage was elected unopposed as Labour party leader in 1933.

Savage led the Labour Party to its first ever electoral victory in the. He won public support for his government's economic recovery policies and social welfare programme. His popularity assured the Labour Party of an even more significant electoral victory in the. His government joined Britain in declaring war against Germany in 1939. Savage's health declined rapidly after Labour's second electoral victory and he died in office. He was succeeded as head of government by his deputy Peter Fraser.

Savage saw himself as spokesman on behalf of his entire party and worked to keep its multiple factions in harness, although a left-wing critic of his leadership, John A. Lee, was expelled. Commonly known as the architect of the New Zealand welfare state, Savage is generally regarded by academics and the general public as one of New Zealand's greatest and most revered prime ministers. To date he is the only New Zealand prime minister or premier to serve under three monarchs (George V, Edward VIII and George VI).

Early life
Born as Michael Savage in Tatong, Victoria, Australia, he was the youngest of eight children of Irish immigrant parents. His father, Richard Savage, was a native of Dundrum, County Down and his mother Johanna Savage (née Hayes) was from Limerick. Both migrated to Australia in the 1850s to escape the Irish Famine. He received a Roman Catholic upbringing from his sister Rose, after his mother died when he was aged five. He spent five years attending a state school at Rothesay, the same town as his father's farm. From 1886, aged 14, to 1893 Savage worked at a wine and spirits shop in Benalla. Savage also attended evening classes at Benalla College at this time. Although short in stature, Savage had enormous physical strength and made a name as both a boxer and weightlifter while enjoying dancing and many other sports.

In 1891 Savage was devastated by the deaths of both his sister Rose and his closest brother Joe. He adopted Joe's name and became known as Michael Joseph Savage from then on. After losing his job in 1893, Savage moved to New South Wales, finding work as a labourer and irrigation ditch-digger in Narrandera for seven years. Whilst there, he joined the General Labourers' Union and became familiar with the radical political theories of the Americans Henry George and Edward Bellamy, who influenced his political policies in later life.

Savage moved back to Victoria in 1900, working a number of jobs. He became active in the Political Labor Council of Victoria, and in 1907 he was chosen as the PLC's candidate to stand for the Wangaratta electorate. Savage had to pull out after the party was not able to fund his deposit and campaign costs, and John Thomas stood instead. He remained an active party member and became a close friend of PLC member Paddy Webb, with whom he was closely linked in later years.

Arrival in New Zealand
After a farewell function in Rutherglen, Savage emigrated to New Zealand in 1907. He arrived in Wellington on 9 October, which happened to be Labour Day. There he worked in a variety of jobs, as a miner, flax-cutter and storeman, before becoming involved in the union movement. Despite initially intending to join Webb on the West Coast, he decided to move north, arriving in Auckland in 1908.

He soon found board there with Alf and Elizabeth French and their two children. Alf had come to New Zealand in 1894 on the ship Wairarapa, which was wrecked on Great Barrier Island, and had helped in the rescue of a girl. Savage, who never married, lived with the French family until 1939, when he moved to the house Hill Haven, 64–66 Harbour View Road, Northland, Wellington, subsequently used by his successor as Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, until 1949. After arriving in Auckland he found employment at Hancock and Co., a brewery. The brewery was owned by a Jewish family who hired irrespective of workers faith helping Savage overcome the anti-Irish Catholic sentiments that were prevalent in much of Auckland at the time. Soon after beginning work he joined the Auckland Brewers', Wine and Spirit Merchants' and Aerated Water Employees' Union and quickly became president of the 154 member union. He was the delegate of the union to the Auckland Trades Council and in 1910 he was elected president of the trades council.

Political career
Savage at first opposed the formation of the original New Zealand Labour Party as he viewed the grouping as insufficiently socialistic. Instead he became the chairman of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, known as the "Red Feds". There, he assisted with organising meetings and group sessions and helped to distribute their socialist newspaper, the Maoriland Worker.

Socialist origins
In the 1911 and 1914 general election campaigns, Savage unsuccessfully stood as the Socialist candidate for, coming second each time to Albert Glover of the Liberal Party. During this time Savage was also involved in local union groups, becoming president of the Auckland Brewers', Wine and Spirit Merchants' and Aerated-water Employees' Union, president of the Auckland Trades and Labour Council, the Auckland organiser for the Social Democratic Party and supported striking miners at Waihi. During the First World War he opposed conscription, arguing "that the conscription of wealth should precede the conscription of men". Savage's opposition to conscription was not absolute, rather based on balance. Indeed, he complied with a conscription order and entered a training camp in 1918, aged 46.

Savage openly supported the formation of a unified New Zealand Labour Party in July 1916, and became its national vice-president in 1918 and later the first permanent national secretary the next year. In 1919 Savage was elected as a Labour candidate to both the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board in local body elections. He served on the Charitable Aid Board until 1922 and as a councillor until 1923 but was re-elected to the Charitable Aid Board in 1927, remaining in office until 1935.

Member of Parliament

As the war came to an end, the voters of the Auckland West electorate put Savage into Parliament as a Labour member in the 1919 general election, an electorate that he held until his death. He became one of eight Labour members of parliament. He formally became the party's deputy-leader after the 1922 election, defeating Dan Sullivan eleven votes to six. Assuming an ever-increasing workload, he had resigned as Labour's national secretary and Auckland Labour Representation Committee secretary in July 1920.

For most of the 1920s Savage sought to expand Labour's support beyond urban unionists and travelled frequently to rural areas. He became the leading advocate for increases to pensions and universally free health care. He is credited for the creation of the Family Allowances Act 1926, which the governing Reform Party openly commented that it had modelled the legislation on three earlier defeated bills introduced by Savage. In 1927 Savage and several others persuaded the party to amend its land policy and recognise the right of freehold which was essential in gaining rural support for Labour. In doing so, Savage furthered perceptions that he was a more practical politician than then Labour leader Harry Holland. In October 1933 Holland died suddenly and Savage took his place becoming Labour's third party Leader.

Savage later helped to engineer an alliance between Labour and the Rātana Church, which was gaining a large Māori following in the 1930s. When T .W. Rātana entered politics he allied himself with the Labour Party, which had consulted with his followers over Māori policy. The pact was formalised in a 1936 meeting between Rātana and Savage.

In 1935, Savage was awarded the King George V Silver Jubilee Medal.

Prime Minister
During the depression, Savage toured the country, and became an iconic figure. An excellent speaker, he became the most visible politician in the land, and led Labour to victory in the 1935 election. Along with the Premiership, he appointed himself to the posts of Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Native Affairs. In 1936 the Weekly News featured Spencer Digby's full page iconic photograph of Savage which was often to be seen framed in many New Zealand homes through the following years. Soon after its election the government gave a "Christmas bonus" of £270,000 to the unemployed and needy. Savage's government also restored wage cuts, expanded pensions, guaranteed farmers' prices, and revalued the currency.

In 1936 the government decided that broadcasting would be run by the state. As a result a government minister in charge of Broadcasting was appointed and new legislation (the Broadcasting Act 1936) was passed that abolished the existing New Zealand Broadcasting Board and established the new National Broadcasting Service in its place. A Director of Broadcasting was appointed and a Broadcasting Advisory Council formed as a result of the act to advise the minister. The Labour Party had specifically sought to broadcast parliamentary debates via radio as a means of allowing the public to listen and make their own judgment of events, rather than relying solely on reporting the press, whom Labour were distrustful of. Savage appointed himself as the inaugural minister.

In 1936 the government instituted major reform to industrial relations legislation. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act which established a statutory minimum wage, standardised the 40-hour week and made union membership compulsory. It also restored the power of the Arbitration Court and required the court to factor in the needs of wives and dependent children of workers when making general wage orders.

While unemployment was consistently reducing the cabinet continued to spend for unemployment relief. To find a more permanent solution to the unemployment situation the government was promoting the development of secondary industries. Likewise the government announced in May 1936 a three year public works programme. This not only provided relief work for the unemployed but also restarted the Public Works Department original function as the development arm of the state. Additionally, all relief workers were placed on standard £4 a week rate of pay.

Despite questioning the necessity for Edward VIII to abdicate, Savage sailed to Britain in 1937 to attend the coronation of King George VI, as well as the concurrent Imperial Conference. While in London, Savage differentiated himself from the other Commonwealth prime ministers when he openly criticised Britain for weakening the League of Nations and argued that the dominions were not consulted with properly on foreign policy and defence issues. Savage's government (unlike Britain) was quick to condemn German rearmament, Japanese expansion in China and Italy's conquest of Abyssinia. Savage criticised Britain's appeasement policies at the conference, saying "Is your policy peace at any price; if it is so I cannot accept it". Anthony Eden replied "No, not at any price, but peace at almost any price", to which Savage replied: "You can pay too high a price even for peace". Britain, Australia, Canada and the opposition National Party were critical of Savage for his stance.

In April 1938 Savage and his Finance Minister, Walter Nash, began planning Labour's proposals on social security, in-line with their 1935 election promises. Responding to a suggestion from the Reverend W. H. A. Vickery, mayor of Kaiapoi, Savage began to use the term "applied Christianity" to describe the government's scheme. The Social Security Bill put forward by the government boasted an unemployment benefit payable to people 16 years and over; a universal free health system extending to general practitioners, public hospitals and maternity care; a means-tested old-age pension of 30 shillings a week for men and women at age 60; and universal superannuation from age 65.

The social security scheme was a collaborative effort, with the detailed negotiations and drafting of the legislation carried out by committees of MPs and public servants. However, Savage's personal involvement was pivotal, as he decided on the basic scheme, helped resolve deep divisions of opinion within the Labour caucus over principles and detail, made many of the major public pronouncements and guarantees, and astutely responded to opposition from the Treasury, the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association, and the National Party. It was also Savage who insisted that the Act contain a provision that it would not come into force until 1 April 1939, thereby giving National the opportunity to revoke it if they won the 1938 general election. The First Labour Government proved popular and easily won the election, with an increased popular mandate. The Social Security Act was eventually passed, establishing the first ever social security system in the western world.

Following the 1938 election, at the first Labour caucus on 3 November, Labour under-secretary John A. Lee, a critic of Savage who was bitter about being excluded from the cabinet, attempted a caucus revolt. He moved a proposal that caucus elect a new cabinet rather than endorse either the existing one or one nominated by Savage. After a bitter debate amongst MPs the proposal was successful 26 votes to 23. However, Savage over-ruled the vote and proceeded to inform the press that cabinet would remain unchanged. In December 1938 the infamous "Lee Letter" appeared. It contained many attacks on the financial orthodoxy and over-cautiousness of the Labour leadership. It received wide publicity and led many in the public to question Labour's unanimity. Lee was eventually expelled from the party by the annual conference.

Second World War
Savage led the country into the Second World War, officially declaring war on Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, just hours after Britain. Unlike Australia, which felt obligated to declare war, as it also had not ratified the Statute of Westminster, New Zealand did so as a sign of allegiance to Britain, and in recognition of Britain's abandoning its former appeasement of the dictators, a policy that New Zealand had opposed. This led to Prime Minister Savage declaring (from his sick bed) two days later:

With gratitude for the past and confidence in the future we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand. We are only a small and young nation, but we march with a union of hearts and souls to a common destiny.

Death and commemoration

Suffering from cancer of the colon at the time of the 1938 election, Savage had delayed seeking treatment to participate in the election campaign. In late 1939, John A. Lee was censured for his comment that Savage was "mentally as well as physically ill". Savage died from cancer on 27 March 1940, although the terminal nature of his illness was still being denied at the beginning of March.

Savage brought an almost religious fervour to his politics. This, and his death while in office, has made him become something of an iconic figure to the Left. Lauded for his welfare policies, Savage's picture reportedly hung in many Labour supporters' homes. His popularity amongst the voting population was so celebrated that he is said to have remarked in disbelief to Lee that, "They [the people] think I am God" after Labour's re-election in 1938. Savage returned to his Catholic roots shortly before he died.

His state funeral included a Requiem Mass celebrated at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Hill St, Wellington before his body was taken amidst general and public mourning by train to Auckland, with frequent halts to allow local people and dignitaries to pay their last respects; the journey was carried live on the radio. The lugubrious funeral music and speeches was lightened on arrival in Auckland when the announcer intoned reverently "Sir Ernest Davis is passing round the bier"; Davis, the Auckland mayor, was a wealthy brewer.

He was interred initially in a temporarily adapted harbour defence gun installation. He was soon after removed to a side chapel of St Patrick's Cathedral in Auckland, while a national competition was announced, decided, and the winning design of the monumental tomb and memorial gardens at Bastion Point constructed, forming his permanent resting site.

Savage lies buried at Bastion Point on Auckland's Waitematā Harbour waterfront in the Savage Memorial, a clifftop mausoleum crowned by a tall minaret, and fronted by an extensive memorial garden and reflecting pool. Savage's body is interred in a vertical shaft below the sarcophagus. In February 1941, a competition was run by the New Zealand Government for the design of the mausoleum, won by Auckland architects Tibor Donner and Anthony Bartlett. Work begun on the memorial in June 1941, which was completed by March 1942 and officially opened in March 1943.

Legacy
Michael Joseph Savage is admired from many sides of the political spectrum and is known as the architect of the New Zealand welfare state. His Labour government provided the foundations of the post-war consensus, based upon the assumption that full employment would be maintained by Keynesian policies and that a greatly enlarged system of social services would be created.

He is considered by academics and historians to be one of New Zealand's greatest and most revered prime ministers. Often called "Everybody's Uncle", his genial and charismatic personality, and his skills as an orator, were largely responsible for public acceptance of his government's radical policies. Exemplifying his enthusiasm for his government's policies, Savage personally assisted a family in Fife Lane, Miramar, Wellington, to move their furniture into the first of the government's 1930s state houses.

The iconic 1935 portrait of Savage was hung in many New Zealand homes in the 1930s and 1940s, and previous prime minister Jacinda Ardern had a framed copy in her Beehive office. In December 2020, the original negative of the portrait was discovered in Te Papa's collections.

Savage served as patron of the New Zealand Rugby League.

Savage was awarded the title of "New Zealander of the Century" by The New Zealand Herald in 1999.

title: Michael Joseph Savage


text:
Talk:Poisson distribution

Ceiling function
The same way the symbols used for the floor function are explained (in the Infobox-cdf), shouldn't the symbols for the ceiling function be also defined (appear in the "Infobox-mode" of the function)? 193.136.147.158 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding a section on the CDF
Would it make sense to add a subsection for the CDF under the definitions, like there is for the Binomial distribution? FynnFreyer (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Modelled after the linked section it could look like this:
 * The cumulative distribution function can be expressed as:
 * $$F(k;\lambda) = \Pr(X \le k) = e^{- \lambda} \sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor k \rfloor} \frac{\lambda^i}{i!},$$
 * where $$\lfloor k\rfloor$$ is the "floor" under k, i.e. the greatest integer less than or equal to k, and $$!$$ is the factorial function.
 * It can also be represented in terms of the upper incomplete gamma function $$\Gamma$$ or the regularized gamma function $$Q$$, as follows:
 * $$F(k;\lambda) = \frac{\Gamma(\lfloor k + 1 \rfloor, \lambda}{\lfloor k \rfloor!} = Q(\lfloor k + 1 \rfloor, \lambda).$$
 * FynnFreyer (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FynnFreyer (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Other Properties - Mitzenmacher
Source does not support this statement in the article: and $$\Pr(Y \leq E[Y]) \geq \frac{1}{2}.$$

See https://imgur.com/a/3lE0VDa

2A02:1811:351E:AF00:2966:4372:24C8:154B (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 * You are right: there is a typo in the source. However the statement on Wikipedia is correct:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Value of $$\mu$$ !! $$\mathbb{P}(Y \leq \mu) = \sum_{k = 0}^\mu \frac{e^{-\mu} \mu^k}{k!} $$ !! Numerical approx.
 * 1 || 2/e || 0.73575...
 * 2 || 5/e2 || 0.67667...
 * 3 || 13/e3 || 0.64723...
 * 4 || — || 0.62883...
 * 5 || — || 0.61596...
 * }
 * More values can be obtained, e.g, with the following Python function
 * f = lambda n : sum(n**k * math.exp(-n) / math.factorial(k) for k in range(n + 1))
 * (note that this is poorly implemented, and that it overflows for μ ≥ 144).
 * 5 || — || 0.61596...
 * }
 * More values can be obtained, e.g, with the following Python function
 * f = lambda n : sum(n**k * math.exp(-n) / math.factorial(k) for k in range(n + 1))
 * (note that this is poorly implemented, and that it overflows for μ ≥ 144).

 * In view of this, it's pretty clear that the mistake in the source is a typo rather than an actual mathematical error. Still, it's a problem... Especially since I wouldn't know where to find a source for this kind of statement. It's not too hard to see that the statement should be true for large $$\mu$$ (e.g, because the variables $$Y_\mu$$ can be coupled in such a way that $$(Y_\mu - \mu)_{\mu \in \mathbb{N}}$$ is a random walk whose increments are centered and have variance 1), but even if someone provides a proof here, it might be considered original research.

 * As far as I'm concerned:
 * the fact that there is a mistake is not a huge problem, since it's clearly a typo; but I understand that some people might disagree;
 * the fact that there is no proof in the source is a bigger problem;
 * I think the statement is cool, but it's relevance is actually not so clear.

 * Malparti (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Poisson distribution


text:
Jewish views on religious pluralism

Religious pluralism is a set of religious world views that hold that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in other religions. As such, religious pluralism goes beyond religious tolerance, which is the condition of peaceful existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.

Within the Jewish community there lies a common history, a shared language of prayer, a shared Bible and a shared set of rabbinic literature, thus allowing for Jews of significantly different world views to share some common values and goals.

General classical views on other religions
Traditionally, Jews believe that God chose the Jewish people to be in a unique covenant with God, described by the Torah itself, with particular obligations and responsibilities elucidated in the Oral Torah. Sometimes this choice is seen as charging the Jewish people with a specific mission: to be a light unto the nations, practice Tikkun olam and to exemplify the covenant with God as described in the Torah. This view, however, did not preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples—rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God; each nation with its own unique relationship with God.

Biblical references, as well as rabbinic literature, support this view: Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh", and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifies prophets outside the community of Israel (e.g., Baalam). Based on these statements, some rabbis theorized that, in the words of Nathanel ben Fayyumi, a Yemenite Jewish theologian of the 12th century, "God permitted to every people something he forbade to others... [and] God sends a prophet to every people according to their own language."(Levine, 1907/1966) The Mishnah states that, "Humanity was produced from one man, Adam, to show God's greatness. When a man mints a coin in a press, each coin is identical. But when the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, creates people in the form of Adam not one is similar to any other" (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). The Mishnah further states that anyone who kills or saves a single human life, Jewish or otherwise, has killed or saved an entire world. The Tosefta, a supplement to the Mishnah, states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1; Sanhedrin 105a; also Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4). The Midrash adds: "Why does the Holy One, blessed be He, love the righteous? Because righteousness is not due to inheritance or family connections... If a man wants to become a Kohen or a Levite, he cannot. Why? Because his father was neither a Kohen nor a Levite. However, if someone wants to become righteous, even if he is a gentile, he can, because righteousness is not inherited" (Numbers Rabbah 8:2).

A traditional Jewish view is that rather than being obligated to obey all 613 mitzvot, the other nations of Earth need adhere only to a common list of commandments under seven categories that God required of the children of Noah known as the Noahide laws.

According to the Talmud, the seven Noahide laws are;
 * 1) Sh'fichat damim, to refrain from bloodshed and murder
 * 2) Dinim, to establish laws and courts of justice
 * 3) Avodah zarah, to refrain from idolatry
 * 4) Birkat Hashem,, to refrain from blasphemy
 * 5) Gilui Arayot, to refrain from sexual immorality (traditionally, incest, bestiality, adultery)
 * 6) - Gezel, to refrain from theft
 * 7) Ever min ha'Chai, to refrain from eating a limb torn from a still-living animal

Any person who lives according to these laws is known as "righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws. In the 2nd century a sage in the Tosefta declared "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come." (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13)

Prophets of the Bible, while they repeatedly denounced the evils of the idolatrous nations (in addition to their denouncing the Jews' sins), they never call the nations to account for their idolatrous beliefs (i.e. worshiping multiple deities), but only for their evil actions (such as human sacrifice, murder, and miscarriages of justice). .

The Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Peah, states:

""

"It is written, "Justice and abundant righteousness he does not withhold". [from here we see] God does not hold back from a non-Jew who does mitzvot.

Classical views on Christianity
Maimonides, one of Judaism's most important theologians and legal experts, explained in detail why Jesus was wrong to create Christianity and why Muhammad was wrong to create Islam; he laments the pains Jews have suffered in persecution from followers of these new faiths as they attempted to supplant Judaism (in the case of Christianity, called Supersessionism). However, Maimonides then goes on to say that both faiths can be considered a positive part of God's plan to redeem the world.

 * Jesus was instrumental [or, "was an instrument"] in changing the Torah and causing the world to err and serve another beside God. But it is beyond the human mind to fathom the designs of our Creator, for our ways are not God's ways, neither are our thoughts His. All these matters relating to Jesus of Nazareth, and the Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammad] who came after him, only served to clear the way for the Jewish Messiah to prepare the whole world to worship God with one accord, as it is written 'For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they all call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent.' . Thus the Jewish hope, and the Torah, and the commandments have become familiar topics of conversation among those even on far isles, and among many people, uncircumcised of flesh and heart. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, XI.4.)

The above paragraph was often censored from many printed versions where Christian censorship was felt.

Views on dialogue with non-Jews in general
Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and a few Modern Orthodox rabbis engage in interfaith religious dialogue, while most Orthodox rabbis do not.

Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue of Great Britain, describes a commonly held Jewish view on this issue: "'Yes, I do believe in the Chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe that every people - and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual - is 'chosen' or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some fulfill their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for their pioneering services in law and government, the British for bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose.'"

The German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) taught that "According to the basic principles of my religion I am not to seek to convert anyone not born into our laws....We believe that the other nations of the Earth are directed by God to observe only the law of nature and the religion of the Patriarchs...I fancy that whosoever leads men to virtue in this life cannot be damned in the next."

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah, Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697–1776) claimed: ... the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law – which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.

Joseph Soloveitchik
In practice, the predominant position of Modern Orthodoxy on this issue is based on the position of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik in an essay entitled Confrontation. He held that Judaism and Christianity are "two faith communities (which are) intrinsically antithetic". In his view "the language of faith of a particular community is totally incomprehensible to the man of a different faith community. Hence the confrontation should occur not at a theological, but at a mundane human level... the great encounter between man and God is a holy, personal and private affair, incomprehensible to the outsider..." As such, he ruled that theological dialogue between Judaism and Christianity was not possible.

However, Soloveitchik advocated closer ties between the Jewish and Christian communities. He held that communication between Jews and Christians was not merely permissible, but "desirable and even essential" on non-theological issues such as war and peace, the war on poverty, the struggle for people to gain freedom, issues of morality and civil rights, and to work together against the perceived threat of secularism.

As a result of his ruling, Orthodox Jewish groups did not operate in interfaith discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and Jews about Vatican II, a strictly theological endeavour. However, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), with Soloveitchik's approval, then engaged in a number of interfaith dialogues with both Catholic and Protestant Christian groups.

Soloveitchik understood his ruling as advising against purely theological interfaith dialogue, but as allowing theological dialogue as part of a greater context. Bernard Rosensweig (former President of the RCA) writes "The RCA remained loyal to the guidelines which the Rav had set down [concerning interfaith dialogue] and distinguished between theological discussions and ethical-secular concerns, which have universal validity. Every program involving either Catholic or Protestant churches in which we participated was carefully scrutinized.... Every topic which had possible theological nuances or implications was vetoed, and only when the Rav pronounced it to be satisfactory did we proceed to the dialogue."

 * An RCA committee was once reviewing possible topics for an inter-faith dialogue. One of the suggested topics was "Man in the Image of God." Several members of the committee felt that the topic had too theological a ring, and wished to veto it. When the Rav [Soloveitch] was consulted he approved the topic and quipped, "What should the topic have been? Man as a Naturalistic Creature?!"
 * (Lawrence Kaplan, Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy Judaism, Summer, 1999)

The basis for Soloveitchik's ruling was not narrowly legal, but sociological and historical. He described the traditional Jewish–Christian relationship as one of "the few and weak vis-à-vis the many and the strong", one in which the Christian community historically denied the right of the Jewish community to believe and live in their own way. His response was written in the light of past Jewish-Christian religious disputations, which traditionally had been forced upon the Jewish community. Those had as their express goal the conversion of Jews to Christianity. As recently as the 1960s many traditional Jews still looked upon all interfaith dialogue with suspicion, fearing that conversion may be an ulterior motive. This was a reasonable belief, given that many Catholics and most Protestants at the time in fact held this position. Reflecting this stance, Rabbi Soloveitchik asked the Christian community to respect "the right of the community of the few to live, create and worship in its own way, in freedom and with dignity."

Other rabbinical views
Many traditional rabbis agree; they hold that while cooperation with the Christian community is of importance, theological dialogue is unnecessary, or even misguided. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism." (Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter, Ed. F.E. Talmage, Ktav, 1975, p. 291.)

In later years Solovetichik's qualified permission was interpreted more and more restrictively. (Tradition:A Journal of Orthodox Thought, Vol. 6, 1964) Today many Orthodox rabbis use Soloveitchik's letter to justify having no discussion or joint efforts with Christians.

In contrast, some Modern Orthodox rabbis such as Eugene Korn and David Hartman hold that in some cases, the primary issue in Confrontation is no longer valid; some Christian groups no longer attempt to use interfaith dialogue to convert Jews to Christianity. They believe that the relationship between Judaism and Christianity has reached a point where Jews can trust Christian groups to respect them as equals. Further, in most nations it is not possible for Jews to be forced or pressured to convert, and many major Christian groups no longer teach that the Jews who refuse to convert are damned to hell.

In non-Orthodox denominations of Judaism most rabbis hold that Jews have nothing to fear from engaging in theological dialogue, and may have much to gain. Some hold that in practice Soloveitchik's distinctions are not viable, for any group that has sustained discussion and participation on moral issues will implicitly involve theological discourse. Thus, since informal implicit theological dialogue will occur, one might as well admit it and publicly work on formal theological dialogue.

Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity
On December 3, 2015, the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC) spearheaded a petition of orthodox rabbis from around the world calling for increased partnership between Jews and Christians. The unprecedented Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity, entitled "To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians", was initially signed by over 25 prominent Orthodox rabbis in Israel, United States and Europe and now has over 60 signatories.

Between Jerusalem and Rome
On August 31, 2017, representatives of the Conference of European Rabbis, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel issued and presented the Holy See with a statement entitled Between Jerusalem and Rome. The document pays particular tribute to the Second Vatican Council's Declaration Nostra Aetate, whose fourth chapter represents the Magna Charta of the Holy See's dialogue with the Jewish world. The Statement Between Jerusalem and Rome does not hide the theological differences that exist between the two faith traditions while all the same it expresses a firm resolve to collaborate more closely, now and in the future.

Ground rules for a Christian-Jewish dialogue
Conservative Rabbi Robert Gordis wrote an essay on "Ground Rules for a Christian Jewish Dialogue"; in all Jewish denominations, one form or another of these rules eventually became more or less accepted by parties engaging in Jewish-Christian theological dialogue.

Robert Gordis held that "a rational dialogue conducted on the basis of knowledge and mutual respect between the two components of the religio-ethical tradition of the Western world can prove a blessing to our age." His proposed ground rules for fair discussion are:

 * (1) People should not label Jews as worshiping an inferior "Old Testament God of Justice" while saying that Christians worship a superior "God of Love of the New Testament." Gordis gives quotations from the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) which in his view prove that this view is a misleading caricature of both religions that was created by selective quotation. (See Marcion for the historical source of this interpretation).

 * (2) He holds that Christians should stop "the widespread practice of contrasting the primitivism, tribalism and formalism of the Old Testament (see also Antinomianism) with the spirituality, universalism, and freedom of the New, to the manifest disadvantage of the former." Gordis again brings forth quotations from the Tanakh which in his view prove that this is a misleading caricature of both religions, created by selective quotation.

 * (3) "Another practice which should be surrendered is that of referring to Old Testament verses quoted in the New as original New Testament passages. Many years ago, Bertrand Russell, a well known atheist, described the Golden Rule 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' as New Testament teaching. When the Old Testament source (, the Great Commandment) was called to his attention, he blandly refused to recognize his error."

 * (4) Christians need to understand that while Judaism is based on the Hebrew Bible, it is not identical to the religion described in it. Rather, Judaism is based on the Bible as understood through the classical works of rabbinic literature, such as the Mishnah and Talmud. Gordis writes "To describe Judaism within the framework of the Old Testament is as misleading as constructing a picture of American life in terms of the Constitution, which is, to be sure, the basic law of the land but far from coextensive with our present legal and social system."

 * (5) Jews must "rise above the heavy burden of historical memories which have made it difficult for them to achieve any real understanding, let alone an appreciation, of Christianity. It is not easy to wipe out the memories of centuries of persecution and massacre, all too often dedicated to the advancement of the cause of the Prince of Peace.....[It is] no easy task for Jews to divest themselves of the heavy burden of group memories from the past, which are unfortunately reinforced all too often by personal experiences in the present. Nevertheless, the effort must be made, if men are to emerge from the dark heritage of religious hatred which has embittered their mutual relationships for twenty centuries. There is need for Jews to surrender the stereotype of Christianity as being monolithic and unchanging and to recognize the ramifications of viewpoint and emphasis that constitute the multicolored spectrum of contemporary Christianity."

Gordis calls on Jews to "see in Christian doctrine an effort to apprehend the nature of the divine that is worthy of respect and understanding" and that "the dogmas of the Christian church have expressed this vision of God in terms that have proved meaningful to Christian believers through the centuries." He calls on Jews to understand with tolerance and respect the historical and religious context which led Christians to develop the concepts of the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection, even if Jews themselves do not accept these ideas as correct. Similarly, Gordis calls on Christians to understand with tolerance and respect that Jews do not accept these beliefs, since they are in contradiction to the Jewish understanding of the unity of God. (Source: "The Root and the Branch", Chapter 4, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962)

Recently, over 120 rabbis have signed the Dabru Emet ("Speak the Truth"), a document concerning the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. While affirming that there are substantial theological differences between the two religions, the purpose of Dabru Emet is to point out common ground. It is not an official document of any of the Jewish denominations per se, but it is representative of what many Jews feel. Dabru Emet sparked a controversy in segments of the Jewish community. Many Jews disagree with parts of it for a variety of reasons.

Views on Jewish-Muslim dialogue
Many Muslim and Jewish groups and individuals have together created projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs, most of which have as one of their goals overcoming religious prejudice.

The viewpoint of Conservative Judaism is summarized in Emet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism. This official statement holds that
 * "As Conservative Jews, we acknowledge without apology the many debts which Jewish religion and civilization owe to the nations of the world. We eschew triumphalism with respect to other ways of serving God. Maimonides believed that other monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Islam, serve to spread knowledge of, and devotion to, the God and the Torah of Israel throughout the world. Many modern thinkers, both Jewish and gentile, have noted that God may well have seen fit to enter covenants with many nations. Either outlook, when relating to others, is perfectly compatible with a commitment to one's own faith and pattern of religious life. If we criticize triumphalism in our own community, then real dialogue with other faith groups requires that we criticize triumphalism and other failings in those quarters as well. In the second half of the twentieth century, no relationship between Jews and Christians can be dignified or honest without facing up frankly to the centuries of prejudice, theological anathema, and persecution that have been thrust upon Jewish communities, culminating in the horrors of the Shoah (Holocaust). No relationship can be nurtured between Jews and Muslims unless it acknowledges explicitly and seeks to combat the terrible social and political effects of Muslim hostility, as well as the disturbing but growing reaction of Jewish anti-Arabism in the Land of Israel. But all of these relationships, properly pursued, can bring great blessing to the Jewish community and to the world. As the late Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel put it, "no religion is an island."

Views on dialogue with other religions
A small number of modern Jewish theologians, such as Yehezkel Kaufman and Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz, have suggested that perhaps only the Israelites were forbidden to worship idols, but perhaps such worship was permissible for members of other religions. (Yehezkel Kaufman, "The Religion of Israel", Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960; J. H. Hertz, "Pentateuch and Haftorahs" Soncino Press, 1960, p. 759). Most Jewish theologians disagree, saying that the original meaning of the text was to condemn idolatry in total. However, a growing number of Jewish theologians question whether Hindus and Buddhists today should be considered idolaters in the Biblical sense of the term. Their reasons are that modern day Buddhists, Hindus and others (a) do not literally worship "sticks and stones", as the idolaters in the Tanakh were described doing. They are well aware that icons they worship are only symbols of a deeper level of reality (though the same can be said of modern-day pagans), (b) they do not practice child sacrifice, (c) they are of high moral character, and (d) they are not anti-Jewish. Some Jews argue that God has a relationship with all gentile monotheists (or perceived monotheists), including Hindus, who in the past may have been (mis)interpreted as having a polytheist faith (see also Hindu views on monotheism), as well as with members of other religions such as Buddhism.

Intra-religious pluralism
The article on Relationships between Jewish religious movements describes how the different Jewish denominations view each other and interact with each other.

title: Jewish views on religious pluralism


text:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Rosenberg (née Greenglass; September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were an American married couple who were convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, including providing top-secret information about American radar, sonar, jet propulsion engines, and nuclear weapon designs. Convicted of espionage in 1951, they were executed by the federal government of the United States in 1953 at Sing Sing in Ossining, New York, becoming the first American civilians to be executed for such charges and the first to be executed during peacetime. Other convicted co-conspirators were sentenced to prison, including Ethel's brother, David Greenglass (who had made a plea agreement), Harry Gold, and Morton Sobell. Klaus Fuchs, a German scientist working at Los Alamos Laboratory, was convicted in the United Kingdom.

For decades, many people, including the Rosenbergs' sons (Michael and Robert Meeropol), maintained that Julius and Ethel were innocent of spying on their country and were victims of Cold War paranoia. When the U.S. government declassified information about them after the fall of the Soviet Union, the declassified information appeared to have included a trove of decoded Soviet cables (code-name Venona), which detailed Julius's role as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, and information about Ethel's role as an accessory who helped recruit her brother David into the spy ring and did clerical tasks such as typing up documents that Julius then passed to the Soviets. In 2008, the National Archives of the United States published most of the grand jury testimony related to the prosecution of the Rosenbergs.

Early lives and education

Julius Rosenberg was born on May 12, 1918, in New York City to a family of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire. The family moved to the Lower East Side by the time Julius was 11. His parents worked in the shops of the Lower East Side as Julius attended Seward Park High School. Julius became a leader in the Young Communist League USA while at City College of New York during the Great Depression. In 1939, he graduated with a degree in electrical engineering.

Ethel Greenglass was born on September 28, 1915, to a Jewish family in Manhattan. She had a brother, David Greenglass. She originally was an aspiring actress and singer but eventually took a secretarial job at a shipping company. She became involved in labor disputes and joined the Young Communist League, where she met Julius in 1936. They married in 1939.

Espionage
Julius Rosenberg joined the Army Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in 1940, where he worked as an engineer-inspector until 1945. He was discharged when the U.S. Army discovered his previous membership in the Communist Party USA. Important research on electronics, communications, radar and guided missile controls was undertaken at Fort Monmouth during World War II.

According to a 2001 book by his former handler Alexander Feklisov, Rosenberg was originally recruited to spy for the interior ministry of the Soviet Union, NKVD, on Labor Day 1942 by a former spymaster Semyon Semyonov. By this time, following the invasion by Nazi Germany in June 1941, the Soviet Union had become an ally of the Western powers, which included the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Rosenberg had been introduced to Semyonov by Bernard Schuster, a high-ranking member of the Communist Party USA and NKVD liaison for Earl Browder. After Semyonov was recalled to Moscow in 1944 his duties were taken over by Feklisov.

Rosenberg provided thousands of classified reports from Emerson Radio, including a complete proximity fuse. Under Feklisov's supervision, Rosenberg recruited sympathetic individuals into NKVD service, including Joel Barr, Alfred Sarant, William Perl, and Morton Sobell, also an engineer. Perl supplied Feklisov, under Rosenberg's direction, with thousands of documents from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, including a complete set of design and production drawings for Lockheed's P-80 Shooting Star, the first U.S. operational jet fighter. Feklisov learned through Rosenberg that Ethel's brother David was working on the top-secret Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory; he directed Julius to recruit Greenglass.

In February 1944, Rosenberg succeeded in recruiting a second source of Manhattan Project information, engineer Russell McNutt, who worked on designs for the plants at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. For this success Rosenberg received a $100 bonus. McNutt's employment provided access to secrets about processes for manufacturing weapons-grade uranium.

The U.S. did not share information with, nor seek assistance from, the Soviet Union regarding the Manhattan Project. The West was shocked by the speed with which the Soviets were able to stage "Joe 1", its first nuclear test, on August 29, 1949. However, Lavrentiy Beria, the head official of the Soviet nuclear project, used foreign intelligence only as a third-party check rather than giving it directly to the design teams, who he did not clear to know about the espionage efforts, and the development was indigenous. Considering that the pace of the Soviet program was set primarily by the amount of uranium that it could procure, it is difficult for scholars to judge accurately how much time was saved, if any.

Arrest
In January 1950, the U.S. discovered that Klaus Fuchs, a German refugee and theoretical physicist working for the British mission in the Manhattan Project, had given key documents to the Soviets throughout the war. Fuchs identified his courier as American Harry Gold, who was arrested on May 23, 1950. On June 15, 1950, Greenglass was arrested by the FBI for espionage and soon confessed to having passed secret information on to the USSR through Gold. He also claimed that Julius Rosenberg had convinced David's wife Ruth to recruit him while visiting him in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1944. He said Julius had passed secrets and thus linked him to the Soviet contact agent Anatoli Yakovlev. This connection would be necessary as evidence if there was to be a conviction for espionage of the Rosenbergs.

On July 17, 1950, Julius was arrested on suspicion of espionage based on Greenglass's confession. On August 11, 1950, Ethel was arrested after testifying before a grand jury.

Another conspirator, Morton Sobell, fled with his family to Mexico City after Greenglass was arrested. They took assumed names, and he tried to figure out a way to reach Europe without a passport. Abandoning that effort, he returned to Mexico City. He claimed that he was kidnapped by members of the Mexican secret police and driven to the U.S. border, where he was arrested by U.S. forces. The U.S. government claimed Sobell was arrested by the Mexican police for bank robbery on August 16, 1950, and he was extradited the next day to the United States in Laredo, Texas.

Grand jury
Twenty senior government officials met secretly on February 8, 1950, to discuss the Rosenberg case. Gordon Dean, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, said: "It looks as though Rosenberg is the kingpin of a very large ring, and if there is any way of breaking him by having the shadow of a death penalty over him, we want to do it." Myles Lane, a member of the prosecution team, said that the case against Ethel was "not too strong", but that it was "very important that she be convicted too, and given a stiff sentence." FBI director J. Edgar Hoover wrote that "proceeding against the wife will serve as a lever" to make Julius talk.

Their case against Ethel was resolved 10 days before the start of the trial, when David and Ruth Greenglass were interviewed a second time. They were persuaded to change their original stories. David originally had said that he had passed the atomic data he had collected to Julius on a New York street corner. After being interviewed this second time, he said that he had given this information to Julius in the living room of the Rosenbergs' New York apartment. Ethel, at Julius's request, had taken his notes and "typed them up." In her second interview, Ruth expanded on her husband's version: "Julius then took the info into the bathroom and read it and when he came out he called Ethel and told her she had to type this information immediately ... Ethel then sat down at the typewriter which she placed on a bridge table in the living room and proceeded to type the information that David had given to Julius." As a result of this new testimony, all charges against Ruth were dropped.

On August 11, Ethel testified before a grand jury. For all questions, she asserted her right to not answer as provided by the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. FBI agents took her into custody as she left the courthouse. Her attorney asked the U.S. commissioner to parole her in his custody over the weekend so that she could make arrangements for her two young children. The request was denied. Julius and Ethel were put under pressure to incriminate others involved in the spy ring. Neither offered any further information. On August 17, the grand jury returned an indictment alleging 11 overt acts. Both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were indicted, as were David Greenglass and Yakovlev.

Trial and conviction

The trial of the Rosenbergs and Sobell on federal espionage charges began on March 6, 1951, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Irving Kaufman presided over the trial, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Irving Saypol leading the prosecution and criminal defense lawyer Emmanuel Bloch representing the Rosenbergs. The prosecution's primary witness, David Greenglass, said that he turned over to Julius a sketch of the cross-section of an implosion-type atom bomb. This was the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, as opposed to a bomb with the "gun method" triggering device used in the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

On March 29, 1951, the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage. They were sentenced to death on April 5 under Section 2 of the Espionage Act of 1917, which provides that anyone convicted of transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government "information relating to the national defense" may be imprisoned for life or put to death.

Prosecutor Roy Cohn later claimed that his influence led to both Kaufman and Saypol being appointed to the Rosenberg case and that Kaufman imposed the death penalty based on Cohn's personal recommendation. Cohn would go on later to work for Senator Joseph McCarthy, appointed as chief counsel to the investigations subcommittee during McCarthy's tenure as chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee.

In imposing the death penalty, Kaufman noted that he held the Rosenbergs responsible not only for espionage but for American deaths in the Korean War:

"I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country."

The U.S. government offered to spare the lives of both Julius and Ethel if Julius provided the names of other spies and they admitted their guilt. The Rosenbergs made a public statement: "By asking us to repudiate the truth of our innocence, the government admits its own doubts concerning our guilt...we will not be coerced, even under pain of death, to bear false witness".

Campaign for clemency
After the publication of an investigative series in the National Guardian and the formation of the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, some Americans came to believe both Rosenbergs were innocent or had received too harsh a sentence, particularly Ethel. A campaign was started to try to prevent the couple's execution. Between the trial and the executions, there were widespread protests and claims of antisemitism. At a time when American fears about communism were high, the Rosenbergs did not receive support from mainstream Jewish organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union did not find any civil liberties violations in the case.

Across the world, especially in Western European capitals, there were numerous protests with picketing and demonstrations in favor of the Rosenbergs, along with editorials in otherwise pro-American newspapers. Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher and writer who won the Nobel Prize for Literature, described the trial as "...a legal lynching..." Others, including non-communists such as Jean Cocteau and Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize-winning physical chemist, as well as left-leaning figures—some being communist—such as Nelson Algren, Bertolt Brecht, Albert Einstein, Dashiell Hammett, Frida Kahlo, and Diego Rivera, protested the position of the American government in what the French termed the American Dreyfus affair. Einstein and Urey pleaded with President Harry S. Truman to pardon the Rosenbergs. In May 1951 Pablo Picasso wrote for the communist French newspaper L'Humanité "The hours count. The minutes count. Do not let this crime against humanity take place." The all-black labor union International Longshoremen's Association Local 968 stopped working for a day in protest. Cinema artists such as Fritz Lang registered their protest. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, supported by public opinion and the media at home, ignored the overseas demands. Pope Pius XII appealed to Eisenhower to spare the couple, but Eisenhower refused on February 11, 1953. All other appeals were also unsuccessful.

Execution
The execution was delayed from the scheduled date of June 18 because Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas had granted a stay of execution on the previous day. This stay resulted from intervention in the case by Fyke Farmer, a Tennessee lawyer whose efforts had been scorned by Bloch. The execution was scheduled for 11 p.m. the evening of June 19, during the Sabbath, which begins and ends around sunset. Bloch asked for more time, filing a complaint that execution on the Sabbath offended the defendants' Jewish heritage. Rhoda Laks, another attorney on the Rosenbergs' defense team, also made this argument before Judge Kaufman. The defense's strategy backfired. Kaufman, who stated his concerns about executing the Rosenbergs on the Sabbath, rescheduled the execution for 8 p.m.—before sunset and the Sabbath—the regular time for executions at Sing Sing where they were being held.

On June 19, 1953, Julius died from the first electric shock. Ethel's execution did not go smoothly. After she was given the normal course of three electric shocks, attendants removed the strapping and other equipment only to have doctors determine that her heart was still beating. Two more electric shocks were applied, and at the conclusion eyewitnesses reported that smoke rose from her head. The Rosenbergs were the only American civilians executed for espionage during the Cold War.

The funeral services were held in Brooklyn on June 21. The Rosenbergs were buried at Wellwood Cemetery, a Jewish cemetery in Pinelawn, New York. The Times reported that 500 people attended and some 10,000 stood outside:

"The bodies had been brought from Sing Sing prison by the national 'Rosenberg committee' which undertook the funeral arrangements, and an all-night vigil was held in one of the largest mortuary chapels in Brooklyn. Many hundreds of people filed past the biers. Most of them clearly regarded the Rosenbergs as martyred heroes and more than 500 mourners attended to-day's services, while a crowd estimated at 10,000 stood outside in burning heat. Mr. Bloch [their counsel], who delivered one of the main orations, bitterly exclaimed that America was 'living under the heel of a military dictator garbed in civilian attire': the Rosenbergs were 'Sweet. Tender. And Intelligent' and the course they took was one of 'courage and heroism.'"

In 1953, socialist historian W.E.B. Du Bois wrote a poem titled "The Rosenbergs", which began "Crucify us, Vengeance of God, as we crucify two more Jews" and ended "Who has been crowned on yonder stair? Red Resurrection? Or Black Despair?"

Soviet nuclear program
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, investigated how much the Soviet spy ring helped the USSR to build its bomb. Moynihan found that in 1945, physicist Hans Bethe estimated that the Soviets would build its bomb within five years. "Thanks to information provided by their agents", Moynihan wrote in his book Secrecy, "they did it in four".

Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, wrote in his posthumously published memoir that he "cannot specifically say what kind of help the Rosenbergs provided us" but that he learned from Joseph Stalin and Vyacheslav Molotov that they "had provided very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb." Boris V. Brokhovich, the engineer who later became director of Chelyabinsk-40, the plutonium production reactor and extraction facility that the Soviet Union used to create its first bomb material, alleged that Khrushchev was a "silly fool". He said the Soviets had developed their own bomb by trial and error. "You sat the Rosenbergs in the electric chair for nothing", he said. "We got nothing from the Rosenbergs."

The notes allegedly typed by Ethel apparently contained little that was directly used in the Soviet atomic bomb project. According to Julius's contact Feklisov, the Rosenbergs did not provide the Soviet Union with any useful material about the atomic bomb: "He [Julius] didn't understand anything about the atomic bomb and he couldn't help us."

1995 Venona decryptions
The Venona project was a United States counterintelligence program to decrypt messages transmitted by the intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union. Initiated when the Soviet Union was an ally of the U.S., the program continued during the Cold War when it was considered an enemy. The Venona messages did not feature in the Rosenbergs' trial, which relied instead on testimony from their collaborators, but they heavily informed the U.S. government's overall approach to investigating and prosecuting domestic communists.

In 1995, the U.S. government made public many documents decoded by the Venona project, showing Julius Rosenberg's role as part of a productive ring of spies. For example, a 1944 cable (which gives the name of Ruth Greenglass in clear text) says that Ruth's husband David is being recruited as a spy by his sister (that is, Ethel Rosenberg) and her husband. The cable also makes clear that the sister's husband is involved enough in espionage to have his own codename ("Antenna" and later "Liberal"). Ethel did not have a codename; however, KGB messages which were contained in the Venona project's Alexander Vassiliev files, and which were not made public until 2009,  revealed that both Ethel and Julius had regular contact with at least two KGB agents and were active in recruiting both David Greenglass and Russell McNutt.

2001 David Greenglass statements
In 2001, David Greenglass recanted his testimony about his sister having typed the notes. He said "I frankly think my wife did the typing, but I don't remember." He said he gave false testimony to protect himself and his wife and that he was encouraged by the prosecution to do so. "My wife is more important to me than my sister. Or my mother or my father, OK? And she was the mother of my children." He refused to express remorse for his decision to betray his sister, saying only that he did not realize that the prosecution would push for the death penalty. He stated, "I would not sacrifice my wife and my children for my sister."

2008 release of grand jury testimony
At the grand jury, Ruth Greenglass was asked, "Didn't you write [the information] down on a piece of paper?" She replied, "Yes, I wrote [the information] down on a piece of paper and [Julius Rosenberg] took it with him." But at the trial, she testified that Ethel Rosenberg typed notes about the atomic bomb.

Numerous articles were published in 2008 related to the Rosenberg case. Deputy Attorney General of the United States William P. Rogers, who had been part of the prosecution of the Rosenbergs, discussed their strategy at the time in relation to seeking the death sentence for Ethel. He said they had urged the death sentence for Ethel in an effort to extract a full confession from Julius. He reportedly said "she called our bluff" as she made no effort to push her husband to any action.

2008 Morton Sobell's statements
In September 2008, Morton Sobell was interviewed by The New York Times after the revelations from grand jury testimony. He admitted that he had given documents to the Soviet contact but said these had to do with defensive radar and weaponry. He confirmed that Julius Rosenberg was "in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information...[on] the atomic bomb," and "He never told me about anything else that he was engaged in."

He said that he thought the hand-drawn diagrams and other atomic-bomb details acquired by Greenglass and passed to Julius were of "little value" to the Soviet Union and were used only to corroborate what they had learned from the other atomic spies. He also said that he believed Ethel Rosenberg was aware of her husband's deeds but took no part in them.

In a follow-up letter to The New York Times, one week after the first interview was published, Sobell denied that he knew anything about Julius Rosenberg's alleged atomic espionage activities, and that the only thing he knew for sure was what he himself did in association with Julius Rosenberg.

2009 Vassiliev notebooks based on KGB archives
In 2009, extensive notes collected from KGB archives were made public in a book published by Yale University Press: Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, written by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev; Vassiliev's notebooks included KGB comments concerning Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

The notebooks make clear that the KGB considered Julius Rosenberg an effective agent and Ethel a supporter of his work. According to Vassiliev, Julius and Ethel worked personally with KGB agents who were given the codenames Twain and Callistratus and were also described as being the ones who recruited Greenglass and McNutt for the Manhattan Project spy mission. Though the public release of Vassiliev's notebooks did not occur until 2009, the notebooks had in fact been originally intercepted during the Venona decryptions.

Rosenberg children
The Rosenbergs' two sons, Michael and Robert, spent years trying to prove the innocence of their parents. They were orphaned by the executions and were not adopted by their many aunts or uncles, although they initially spent time under the care of their grandmothers and in a children's home. They were adopted by the communist activist Abel Meeropol and his wife Anne and assumed the Meeropol surname.

After Sobell's 2008 confession, they acknowledged their father had been involved in espionage but that in their view the case was riddled with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, that their mother was convicted on flimsy evidence to place leverage on her husband, and that neither deserved the death penalty.

Michael and Robert co-wrote a book about their and their parents' lives, We Are Your Sons: The Legacy of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (1975). Robert wrote the memoir An Execution in the Family: One Son's Journey (2003). In 1990, he founded the Rosenberg Fund for Children, a nonprofit foundation that provides support for children of targeted liberal activists and youth who are targeted as activists. Michael's daughter Ivy Meeropol directed a 2004 documentary about her grandparents, Heir to an Execution, which was featured at the Sundance Film Festival.

Their sons' current position is that Julius was legally guilty of the conspiracy charge, though not of atomic spying, while Ethel was only generally aware of his activities. The children say that their father did not deserve the death penalty and that their mother was wrongly convicted. They continue to campaign for Ethel to be posthumously legally exonerated.

In 2015, following the most recent grand jury transcript release, Michael and Robert Meeropol called on U.S. President Barack Obama's administration to acknowledge that Ethel Rosenberg's conviction and execution was wrongful and to issue a proclamation exonerating her, though her innocence is still not proven. In March 2016, Michael and Robert (via the Rosenberg Fund for Children) launched a petition campaign calling on President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to formally exonerate Ethel Rosenberg. In October 2016, both Michael and Robert Meeropol spoke with Anderson Cooper in an interview which aired on 60 Minutes. In January 2017, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent Obama a letter requesting consideration of the exoneration request. In 2021, Ethel's sons restarted the campaign to pardon Ethel as they are optimistic that President Joe Biden will consider this favorably. Ethel Rosenberg: A Cold War Tragedy by Anne Sebba was published by Orion Books in 2021. Michael and Robert are requesting Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to release the records related to their mother’s case, per a 2009 executive order.

Artistic representations

 * The song "Julius and Ethel" written by Bob Dylan in 1983 is based on the Rosenberg case.
 * Images of the Rosenbergs are engraved on a memorial in Havana, Cuba. The accompanying caption says they were murdered.
 * Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz dedicated a poem to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Its title in Urdu is "Hum Jo Tareek Raho May Mary Gaye".

Other languages

 * Florin Aftalion, La Trahison des Rosenberg, JC Lattès, Paris, 2003
 * Howard Fast, Mémoire d'un Rouge, éd. Payot & Rivage. Intéressant, traite de toute la période de l'avant seconde guerre mondiale et après (MacCarthysme, etc.) aux États-Unis. Nombreux témoignages. Plusieurs passages sur les Rosenberg notamment pp. 349 à 359
 * Gérard A. Jaeger, Les Rosenberg. La chaise électrique pour délit d'opinion, Le Félin, 2003
 * Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Lettres de la maison de la mort, Gallimard, 1953
 * Morton Sobell, On condamne bien les innocents, Hier et demain, 1974

Archival collections

 * Guide to the Playscript about the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Espionage Trial. Special Collections and Archives, The UC Irvine Libraries, Irvine, California.

Other links

 * An Interactive Rosenberg Espionage Ring Timeline and Archive
 * Timeline of Events Relating to the Rosenberg Trial.
 * Rosenberg trial transcript (excerpts as HTML, and the entire 2,563-page transcript as a PDF file)
 * Ethel's brother says he trumped up evidence.
 * Documents relating to the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Case, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
 * Project Venona messages.
 * Rosenberg FBI files (summary only)
 * Heir to an Execution – An HBO documentary by Ivy Meeropol, the granddaughter of Ethel and Julius.
 * A statement by the Rosenberg's sons in support of their exoneration
 * An Interview with Robert Meeropol about the adoption
 * National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg Case
 * Annotated bibliography for Ethel Rosenberg from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
 * Annotated bibliography for Julius Rosenberg from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
 * The Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) for Alexander Vassiliev's Notebooks
 * Rosenberg Son: "My Parents Were Executed Under the Unconstitutional Espionage Act" – video report by Democracy Now!
 * History on Trial: The Rosenberg Case in E.L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel by Santiago Juan-Navarro from The Grove: Working Papers on English Studies, Vol 6, 1999.
 * Julius Rosenberg at court sentenced to death
 * The WSWS speaks to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s son – An interview with Robert Meeropol
 * Ethel Rosenberg on IMDb

title: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg