Highlands House history
Early Beginnings: Criteria for Admission
Admissions during this period reflect the fact that during the peak migration years, men outnumbered women, and it was only at the end of 1937 that the numbers of men and women started evening out.
The chief criteria for admission were that the applicant was of the Jewish faith and was destitute. No Jew who had ever been converted to Christianity was to be admitted. This included the case of a blind man who applied to the home in December 1920, and a man who in June of 1924 requested to be moved to the Home from the Valkenberg mental asylum, who was confirmed to be a meshumad (convert to Christianity). In November 1935, a man who had been married to a gentile and brought up his eight children in the Christian faith was also refused. In September 11936, a case arose of a man married to a gentile who hadn’t known that he was Jewish. While it was felt that he should be allowed to return to the fold, he was ultimately refused because he was underage and was not destitute. The following month, the Committee resolved that men or women who had been married to a gentile and who had brought their children up in the Christian faith should not be admitted.
On 14 March 1920, it was recorded that no paying inmates would be accepted as the Home was only for charity cases. On 30 April 1922, the practice was introduced of providing pocket money of one shilling and three pence to the impecunious. With the improvement of the economic situation in 1934, this amount was increased, although it was complicated by the introduction of the pension system. In March 1935, it was suggested that pensioners be allowed to retain 15/- of their pensions.
A couple who wanted to pay were told that they could make donations from time to time. If the person or their children had means, the person would be rejected, as they would be depriving somebody who really had nowhere to go of a bed. In 1924, a woman was taken into the Home for a month pending investigation before discovering she had means. Her situation was resolved by leaving GBP 150 in her will to the Home and the residue to various Jewish institutions. She would live on the interest during her lifetime. Her will was to be translated from the Yiddish and sent to the lawyers. This principle was still in force in December 1932, when a man was refused for not being destitute, and in June 1935, a woman of means, described as a property owner, was also refused.
In a discussion of the principles of admission to the Home in August 1935, it was stated that, where possible, it was a “duty and an honour” for children to look after their elderly parents. It was felt that 60-70% of parents could be looked after by their children. Whereas the Home was intended for those who were genuinely destitute, what they were really doing was relieving children of their elderly parents. It was, however, pointed out that in many cases, the parents did not feel comfortable living with their children. The attitude of the Home was summed up in the words of SB Hersman, Treasurer of the Committee in 1938:
“The Home was primarily for destitute cases and at all times, destitute cases were given preference. The Committee, however, found it sometimes necessary to accept an applicant, although such applicants had relatives. In such cases, the Committee did their utmost to obtain a substantial donation from the relatives.”
No age limit was initially laid down, although it can be presumed to be 60. In May 1935, a man of 55 from Keetmanshoop, described as “below the age limit”, was admitted, as he had lost a leg and was penniless. On occasion, someone was admitted temporarily for the purposes of convalescence. This was the case of a young man, a Hebrew teacher, who was taken in for the period of a year in March 933. The Sick Relief Society undertook to pay the Home GBP 2 a month on his behalf.
In the very early days, a phenomenon was that residents, or ‘inmates’, as they were called, were asked to leave on account of disruptive behaviour. This could be abusing the matron or disturbing other residents. This happened on several occasions. A complaint was also registered in February 1922 of inmates returning after 22:00.
An unusual request was tabled in December 933, 2when an inmate applied for his passage to Australia to join his wife and children who were already there. The request was refused. A similar type of problem arose when an emissary from Palestine had a stroke while travelling in the country districts. A long discussion ensued about whether the Home was obliged to send him back to his family in Palestine once he had recovered. He had apparently been away from his family, from whom he had been estranged for 5 years. Having established that it was indeed his wish to return to Palestine, finally, in May 1936, he was sent on his way.
Inmates could only bring in personal effects. House rules were adapted from the Witwatersrand Jewish Aged Home in Johannesburg with some additions. Reports were published in Yiddish and English. It was not until November 1934, however, that a draft constitution with bylaws, rules and regulations for the inmates was drawn up and printed in English and Yiddish. A copy was placed in all the bedrooms.
Acknowledgement
We profoundly thank Veronica Penkin Belling, who meticulously compiled most of our historical archives into a Centennial Volume published in 2016, ISBN 0780620718110. Her work is a testament to the importance of preserving our past and the invaluable insights it provides into the Jewish history of the Western Cape.