|
Late
Hazan of the Congregation Beth Elohim at Charleston, S.C.
Rev.
Sir,—Were I to follow my own inclination, I would to a certainty ot disturb you in the retirement which you have just now sought
by your voluntary abdication of the office of minister, for which you
had been elected during life by your late constituents. But as I have a
duty to perform to the religious community of Israelites in America, who
have heard of your official conduct, and as your retirement took only
place, as one may judge, in consequence of the commotion which your
official acts have produced in a once united congregation:
I
feel myself imperiously called upon to address you in this public
manner, in order to obtain, if it meets your views, a full exposition of
your ideas on religion, which I herewith promise to lay before the
public in the same vehicle through which I address them now.
When
you were elevated to the
office of Hazan to the Portuguese Jewish Congregation of Charleston,
called Beth Elohim, I rejoiced that one whom I thought deserving of the
elevated position, (it being the highest as yet instituted among us in
America,) had been chosen by our friends of Charleston; and I think that
there are yet in existence sundry letters of recommendation, which,
unknown to you, I addressed to several influential gentlemen in that
city and elsewhere: I did this under the full persuasion that you were a
strict conformist, and an orthodox believer, as these terms are
understood among us. Had I suspected that you studied the Rabbins merely
to refute their authority by collecting passages not connected with each
other except by twisting the apparent meaning of words, or that you
favoured the party, unfortunately lately sprung up among us; called that
of ultra-reformists; I would have been the last to countenance your
elevation to the office of Shochet in New York, connected as it was, in
a manner, with that of assistant Reader in the first, and to that of
Hazan of Charleston, in the second instance. For both offices, as
conducted among us, pre-suppose a decent conformity to the dicta of our
sages, which if not always Scriptural, if we take the text as it stands,
are at least intended and well suited to have the literal meaning of the
Bible carried in strict execution; and although I have not been educated
for the office of Rabbi, wherefore I claim but a cursory acquaintance
with the multifarious writings of our
חכמים I think that I cannot err in
maintaining that they nowhere claim to be authorized to abolish or
abrogate any Biblical ordinance, and that they nowhere instituted any
ordinance, form or ceremony in contravention of, the text of Scripture.
But from circumstances, lately made public, and others which have
reached me through private channels, it would seem, that you regard the
rabbinical institutions very lightly, and that you think yourself
authorized to dispense with them, if they stand in the way of the ultra
reforms which you have either instigated yourself, or at least
countenanced in others.
One of the overt acts is your preaching against
the observance of the second days of the holydays, and by your own
example refusing to observe them. You know fully as well as I do, that
this observance originated long before the destruction of the second
temple, and was owing to the distance which many of the congregations
lived from the seat of the Sanhedrin, who always consecrated the first
day of the month upon the declaration of credible witnesses that they
had observed the new moon. You must also know that when the temple had
been destroyed, and the calendar had been fixed by astronomical
calculations, the ecclesiastical authorities assembled at Tam, sent
circulars to all the captivity, enjoining them to abide by their
ancestral customs. In every page of the Shulchan Aruch, no less
than the works of Maimonides, and even other legal authorities, the
second days of the festivals are regarded as obligatory, although the
Talmud contains a declaration, that the month of Elul had never been
known to have had more than twenty-nine days from the time of Ezra
downwards, consequently, as far as probable certainty was concerned, the
captivity might have kept all the festivals one day, as we could do now,
since the calculations of time are based upon astronomical data. You
know well enough in this connection, that
מנהג ישראל
תורה היא "the
custom of Israel is a law," is a maxim which is both consonant to
reason and Jewish interpretation of Scriptural duties. In my review of a
pamphlet lately put forth by a portion of your former congregation, I
cited a proof from Scripture that in Solomon's time he ordered the Feast
of Tabernacles to be kept seven days and seven days, together fourteen
days. It therefore can be no violation of the commands of God to
celebrate additional days of the festivals, especially as we consider
them only as continuations of the preceding days.
I will not now discuss
the propriety of their being abolished by a general synod of the Jews
all over the world, which would form a Sanhedrin equal in numbers and
renown with the one, from which the above circular emanated; enough for
our present purpose, such an assembly has not yet been witnessed; and
whilst this is undeniably so, I deny your authority or that of any
single body or few bodies of men to teach a dispensation of a sanctioned
custom in Israel. I will grant that the authority is not directly
divine; but as we understand the law, and as you even understood it when
you acted as the officiating Shochet in New York; and as Hazan in
Charleston, the Sanhedrin have received the especial delegation to enact
ordinances which are binding for the time being, or till revoked by an
equal authority, and we are enjoined to pay strict obedience to the
teaching of the judge or priest who has given us the word of judgment.
(Deut. 17. 10.) Perhaps you may allege that you are not bound by the
decisions of the ancients, and that you will interpret for yourself;
then you at once reject all rabbinical authority, and either wish to
form a mode of interpretation of your own, or become a Caraite, that is,
one contending for the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. If the
latter, you will have to adopt all the strict observances of this
division of Jews; if the former, I have yet to learn that you will find
many, those excepted who look up to you as the best authority for
expounding the law, who will sooner take your interpretation than the
opinions of those who were too worthy for us to think of equalling them
in honesty of purpose or righteousness of action.
Will
you have the goodness, therefore, to answer unequivocally, "Do you
believe yourself bound by the clearly established customs of Jews,
sanctioned by rabbinical authority, when this does not contravene the
Scriptures?"
The
other overt act, and one of prior date to the above, is your sanctioning
the introduction of instrumental music on Sabbaths and festivals in the
Synagogue under your pastoral charge. You seem to rely for your chief
support upon the assertion that the Synagogue is the legitimate
successor of the temple. But this is a fallacy; the Synagogue, unless we
have been all along deceived, was contemporaneous with the house of God
at Jerusalem, and was then, as it is now, a place for prayer,
proclaiming of the law and prophets, and public instruction in matters
of religion. I challenge you and your prototypes in Europe to lay your
finger upon a single historical passage to prove that the Levitical
music ever accompanied the Synagogue worship during the existence of the
temple. On the contrary, the Levites were appointed only for the בית המקדש, the
sanctuary, and persons strangers to this tribe were the officiants and
lecturers then as now in the meeting-houses,
בתי כנסיות,
or as called by the Greek term, Synagogues. It is, therefore, incumbent
upon you and your adherents to make out a clear case that since the
dispersion the meeting places of Israel have been at all equal to the
place of sacrifice and incense at Jerusalem. I acknowledge that we call
the Synagogue
מקדש מעט, the lesser
sanctuary, agreeably to the words of the prophet, (Ezek. xi. 18.):
"Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord God, Although I have led them
afar among the nations, and although I have scattered them among the
countries, yet will I be to them a minor sanctuary in the countries
whither they have gone;" which passage is so explained:
"although they have been placed at a distance from the sanctuary of
the Lord, which was the great sanctuary there in his land, He would be
to them a smaller sanctuary, meaning; in the meeting-houses, where they
assemble to pray, He would be with them, hear their voice, and save them
from the hand of their enemies, that they may not consume them utterly;
and moreover, He would yet again gather them together, as it is said in
the next verse," (which see.) How this means that the Synagogues
shall be so many temples, surpasses my humble capacity to decipher, as
it evidently alludes only to the watchfulness of God's providence
(confirmatory of the saying of Moses in Leviticus 26.44,) though we be
far from Palestine, without our great temple and its sacrifices and
ceremonies.
You
seem to lay some stress upon the fact that David praised God on the harp
and other instruments during his prayers; no one will deny you the same
privilege; yes, praise Him, in your hour of joy; glorify Him, in your
day of sorrow! and if you are skilled, let melodious hymns ascend to his
holy throne! But does this authorize you to play on instruments on the
Sabbath, if this be otherwise prohibited? By no means. Now, we have
undoubted evidence, even from your favourite Maimonides, whom I too
value and esteem, no less than you, to say the least, that instrumental
music was interdicted on Sabbaths and festivals, irrespective of the
reason assigned for the prohibition; and as no date is found for the
interdict, it is much more likely to suppose that it was always
prohibited, say from the days of Moses to our own, than to maintain,
that at any one period the people consented to stop amusing themselves
with innocent instrumental music merely to please the whim of any Rabbi.
Maimonides himself, the enlightened scholar and liberal philosopher,
ought to be sufficient evidence that there was supposed, by him even, to
be a transgression of the Sabbatic laws in the eliciting of sounds from
musical instruments (השמעת
קול בכלי שיר).
It
would seem that music was performed on the Duchan by the Levites,
during the bringing of the sacrifices at the temple, and at no other
time. We know that necessary labours for the sacrifices were commanded
to be done on the holydays no less than week days, and among the rest
the blowing on the trumpets by the priests, (see Numb. 10:10:) and
doubtlessly when David instituted the orders of the Levites, and
appointed the singers and musicians to officiate alternately at the
temple, the addition of the other instruments to the original trumpets
was done by authority of the prophets then living. With the destruction
of the temple all permission of Sabbath-labour has ceased; for we have
nothing vicarious instead of the sacrifices, except our prayers, as you
correctly observe; yet these prayers are not actual burnt, peace,
sin, and trespass offerings, but merely the substitutes which alone our
dispersion permits us to bring as acceptable atonements to the Lord. Can
this idea, which has its origin solely in the mercy of the Lord as
announced in Hosea 14. 3, ("And with our lips will we pay for the
steers,") warrant us in doing during this vicarious sacrifice what
would otherwise be prohibited? Understand me, Mr. Poznanski, that it is
my opinion, that we have no right to extend permissions any more than to
place unnecessary restrictions in the way of our people; and to permit,
therefore, by inference what is interdicted in plain words, is a freedom
neither philosophically correct nor in accordance with Jewish
interpretation.
You
yourself, I presume, will not allow profane music on the Sabbath; and
for the same reason it must be omitted in the Synagogue, which I repeat
is neither the temple nor the successor of the temple. I know, however,
that a temple society has been existing for twenty-three years in
Hamburg, an abortive one existed for a while at Frankfort, another at
Carlsruhe, and another at Berlin; but I ask you candidly, were any of
these the offspring of orthodoxy, or were they rather the effect of the
degeneracy of the times? The proof that music never was, and is not now
considered part and parcel of the Synagogue service, must be discovered
in the fact that you cannot point out a single instance during the
continuance of the second temple, nor subsequent to its destruction,
till about 1810, that music ever was performed on Sabbath in any Jewish
congregation all over the world. It is well to talk about unenlightened
ages; but there were times of light which are not surpassed now. German
dreamers may talk about the progress in every decennium; but facts do
not substantiate any such assumption. Religion has not progressed with
the fever for reform; and though I will not deny you, if you will, an
honesty superior to my own, an enlightenment of which I have no
conception, and a fund of learning before which I must hide my
diminutive acquirements: still I must say, you acted unwisely in
yielding to the clamour for reform in the Synagogue worship at a time
when your opinion might have united the contending parties and overcome
opposition, and you could thus, have become the minister of a
congregation instead of a party chief. I know you have the reputation
for meekness, for angelic forbearance, and unflinching piety; God forbid
that I should rob you of a single laurel-leaf which a loving partiality
has twined round your brow; nevertheless, you must think me honest also,
when I say, you acted without duly weighing the fearful responsibility
which you assumed in siding with those who formerly did not value you
very highly, and discarding your old friends, when you gave your advice
that music should be introduced on the Sabbath, against the opinion of
millions of Israelites, the voice of centuries, the doctrines of the
wisest and best of men.
There
is yet one subject connected, with the received doctrines of our church,
to which I must call your attention. I alluded to your reputed opinion
in the last number of the Occident, page 209, in the paragraph
commencing "Several painful rumours;" then I could hardly
credit it, though I could not doubt the veracity of my informants. But
since that passage was written, I received the Charleston Observer, a
paper in the interest of the Presbyterian Society, and edited by the
Rev. B. Gildersleeve. The number before me is that of June 17th, and
contains among other things the following:
"Among
what we have been in the habit of regarding as the fundamental articles
of the Jewish creed, are, 1st, the unity of God—2nd,
the resurrection of the dead—and 3rd, the coming of
Messiah. And we had always understood that the Jewish people generally
interpreted the prophecies as teaching the literal return of their
people to the promised land.
"But
if our correspondent were present at the dedication of the New
Synagogue, he will probably recollect that the officiating Rabbi, in his
eulogy upon this city and land, spoke of them as the only
Jerusalem, and the only Palestine, which he and his
people, who were enjoying our free institutions, either desired or
sought. We do not profess to give the words; but the substance of his
address was reported in the Courier, to which reference can be had. From
this we inferred that the officiating Rabbi and his people in the city
did not believe in the literal return of the Jews to the promised land.
And this opinion was confirmed by a subsequent interview with him less
than a year since. And at the same time we received the impression that
neither he, nor those attached to his peculiar views on this point,
believed in the personal coming of Messiah. He seemed to us to take the
same liberty in interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament
touching Messiah, that he had previously done touching the return of the
Jews. It struck us that he regarded both not in a literal, but in
an emblematical point of view—and that free institutions—a
cessation of hostilities—and the general prevalence of peace and
good-will among men, constituted the only Messiah which he
anticipated."
I
have learned since, from undoubted authority, that you should have
expressed similar views to my friend the Rev. Wm. T. Brantley, D.D., of
the Baptist connection, and the Rev. Mr. Barnwell, of the Episcopal
church. I might, perhaps, be inclined to doubt the correctness of the
memory of all these three gentlemen (which I admit would be acting very
unjustly, to them,) were it not that the creed, as affixed to the walls
of your late Synagogue, gave the amplest confirmation to the correctness
of their recollection. It seems your twelfth and thirteenth articles are
in these words, the correctness of which I presume you will probably
admit:
12.
"We believe that the Messiah announced by the prophets is not come,
the prophecies relating to his coming not being fulfilled.''
13.
"We believe that the soul is immortal, and that we shall be
accountable for our actions in the life to come."
Upon
this I have to remark, that if you believed in the bodily coming of the
Son of David, and did not view him merely as an ideality, some
philosophical image: you would not have altered the words of the usual
creed, which are, "I believe with a perfect faith in the coming of
the Messiah; and although he tarry I will nevertheless look for him
daily that he may come." In brief, I cannot understand how not
believing in the accomplishment of any thing can be a matter of belief,
or creed. The wording of your profession of faith is apparently merely
antagonising to Christianity. This is the first time in my life that I
have learned that it is the duty of Israelites to refer to the opinions
of any set of men, however respectable for talents and numbers, as a
part of their profession of faith. Our religion stands independently,
and maintains the same position as regards doctrines and duties, which
it did from the beginning. Now before the alleged coming of the Messiah,
it would certainly have been singular to asseverate "that he had
not come," as a matter of faith; and I really do not understand how
the ideas of Christians that he has come, can affect our creed so as to
require the alteration of its words which you have either introduced or
countenanced. But drop your concealment if you have any; do you believe
or not that the Messiah will come? or do you believe that he has neither
appeared nor will appear? for your wording is so obscure that it may
bear either interpretation. Do let us know, that we may be able to
understand in what light you wish Judaism to be regarded, whether as a
fabric, frail and changeable, or based on the Rock of ages, unchangingly
the same. Lastly, with respect to your thirteenth article as quoted
above, it certainly is not what we have a right to expect from a Jewish
divine who professes to teach religion as he has received it. Our creed
is: "I believe with a perfect faith that there will be a revival of
the dead at the time it may be the pleasure of the Creator, whose name
be blessed, and whose memorial be exalted for ever and unto all
eternity." The immortality of the soul is included in the eleventh
article, which speaks of rewards and punishments, and is, by the by, an
idea which many of the heathens believed in; but the resurrection
is a peculiar Jewish doctrine, and to this we must profess ourselves as
sons of Israel. Do you believe in it? or think you that they who sleep
in the dust of the earth will not arise to everlasting life? I will not
weary you any longer, my letter being already more extended than I could
have wished; but it is much too short yet to express all my views on the
important subjects herein embraced. But when I have your views, I shall
add such remarks as I may deem necessary, and if you decline answering,
it will then be time enough to enlarge upon points which I have now
omitted.
In
conclusion, I beg leave to assure you, that though opposed to reform as
carried on by yourself, I am not opposed to legitimate improvements in
the manner of conducting our public worship; but I want the sanction of
men who have made religion the business of their lives, whose piety is a
warrant that they will do nothing to yield to public clamour which it
would be wrong to yield upon grounds of law and solid reason. Yet so
much has been done already without authority, that I verily believe that
it would be safer to retrench, than to extend reform. Whatever can be
done in a legal manner has or will be done by our ecclesiastical chiefs;
and even their reforms I would look upon with suspicion, unless their
necessity and practical usefulness were clearly established.
Probably
I may be branded with the epithets "hyperorthodox, dark,
rabbinist;" whilst in truth many others will believe me to be too
free and bold in my opinions. Yet in the middle course there is always
safety, and not rarely the path of truth. Still, I shall not be
terrified from that which I consider the strict line of duty, and hope
to be strengthened by that aid which we all stand in need of. I trust
that you will agree with me in saying, that we require no agitation.
Persecution long terrified us in our houses and in the field; and now,
when peace from abroad dawns upon us, let those who are the leaders
endeavour to scatter peace also within the dwellings of Israel. What,
are we so much wiser than our progenitors, to maintain that whatever
they did was foolish and unsound? Must we for such reasons endeavour to
break down the ancient landmarks and the fences of the law? May the
Guardian of Israel forfend this, and may his blessing bring an increase
and prosperity to the good cause of the law of his bestowal.
In
the name, therefore, of our common faith, a religion dear to the heart
of all Israel, I call upon you to pause, and to withdraw yourself from
the dangerous course which you have, I hope thoughtlessly, been
pursuing; join your efforts, Mr. Poznanski, to those of others to
restore peace in the midst of your former congregation; yield the
interest of a party for the good of the whole community; and receive the
favour of your God, the approbation of your conscience, and the applause
of thousands of honest hearts, as the reward for the sacrifice which
such a step may for a moment require of you.
Yours
respectfully,
Isaac
Leeser.
Philadelphia, Tamuz 27th, 5603. |
