|
To Rev. Dr. Lilienthal:
During my stay in Cincinnati, you desired of me an explanation of the cause why I
contended so earnestly against the abolishment of the second day of the festivals; I
promised that I would communicate to you my reasons in a public manner, the moment my time
would permit me to do so. Having now an half hour's leisure, I will devote it to the
fulfillment of my promise. But, before I proceed with my explanation, I would like to have
a more important question solved, namely: "What binds us this day to the Mosaic laws
- laws which encumber our domestic and social life with despotic power; since we have not
received them ourselves either from G-d or Moses, because G-d has not deigned to reveal
himself to us, while Moses has not spoken to us of the present day; why then do we still
continue bearing this burden? Why do we not cast it off, and confine ourselves to a
religion which G-d has not only revealed to our forefathers, but to us likewise? I refer
to the religion of reason, which is placed into the heart of man, from his first coming
into existence. The bible, however, although I will not put in question its divine origin
in this connection, has, nevertheless, been handed down to us by men, while the religion
of the heart, on the contrary, comes from G-d, without any mediation, directly to us. Why
do we not, then, hold to it alone?
We have but one answer, and this is: that our fathers, by an oath and solemn promise,
pledged themselves and their latest descendants to maintain the laws delivered to them
through Moses; and it is for this reason, that the laws have still an abiding force for
us.
But if we ask: Can a father pledge his latest descendants, through means of an oath or
a promise, to the performance of anything as a binding obligation? The answer would be,
"no", one father cannot do this,
אין
אדם מוריש
שבועה לבניו, no man can transfer as an inheritance an
oath to his children; but a whole nation is empowered to impose an obligation on
succeeding generations. The difference is very simple: a father dies, - and whereas death
dissolves all personal responsibilities of a man, not one of them can accordingly pass
onward to his children, since they have been completely annulled immediately on the
decease of the former. But if a nation has assumed any obligations, this remains
obligation on the same to long as it exists as a nation; with the death of generations,
one after the other, the nation does not cease to exist; and as long as it does not
perish, or is amalgamated with others, it is not absolved from its obligation. For this
cause are we at this day obliged to celebrate the festival of Purim, because the whole
nation did adopt the fourteenth of Adar, for all future times, as a national feast; and
the same is the case with the national mourning, the ninth day of Av.
This premise will show us, that there is no difference between a biblical and a
rabbinical ordinance, if the latter should have received, like the former, the sanction
of the people. This view appears to follow clearly and distinctly from the principle laid
down by the Talmudistsמנהג
ישראל תורה
היא (not a מנהג הקהלה,
a local custom, nor a
מנהג מדינה, the one of a particular country, but),
"a religious custom introduced by the whole nation of Israel, stands on the same
level of importance as the biblical laws.
After having premised this view, you will readily comprehend why I am opposed to the
abolishing of the second day of festivals; and I believe not to be mistaken when I
maintain, that even Dr. Einhorn, the most decided reformer of modern times, if he had
assented to the second article of the Cleveland platform, would contend with all his might
for the retention of the second day of the festivals; for although the Bible does not
recognize it as a holy day, it was, nevertheless, instituted as such by the whole nation,
at a period when people were well acquainted with the computation of time, had a fixed
rule for the determination of the festive seasons, at least when they had reliable data
for the calculation of the changes of the moon, and the proper days for the festivals; and
it has accordingly, as a national ordinance*, not less importance for us than a biblical
law.
But now I would be glad to obtain an explanation from you. In the first place, I
request of you that you would have the goodness to tell me why you attack just the second
day of festivals, and have not the courage to step boldly forward, and pronounce sentence
of death over all rabbinical laws. You will farther be kind enough to let me know, why the
ninth day of the month of Av has still so much importance for you, that you celebrated it
as late as the past year quite after the old custom, sitting on the ground, and reading
the Lamentations of Jeremiah with heartrending tones, recommending also the mourning of
this day to the earnest observance of your congregation, while you desire to abolish
altogether the second day of festivals? Why will you rob us of a day of joy, and leave us
a fast-day, since there is surely no more reason for the continuance of this one, than for
the abolishing of the other?
In expectation of your answer I sign myself respectfully,
Dr. B. Illowy.
Syracuse, N.Y. Shevat 8th, 5617.
|
