|
The
assembly of German Rabbins and preachers was to meet on the 12th of June
at Brunswick, but we have not yet received any account whatever of the
meeting. In addition to those mentioned before, Rabbi Aub of Munich,
Rabbi Goldman of Eschwege, Dr. Adler, Rabbi at Kissingen, Dr. Mayer, Rabbi at Stuttgart, Dr. Heilbut, Rabbi at Glückstadt, Dr. G. Kohn, Preacher at Mühlhausen, Dr. Grünebaum, Rabbi of
Landau, Rabbi Oppenheim of Pirmasenz, Rabbi Seligman of Kaiserslautern,
Dr. M. Sachs, Temple Preacher at Prague, Dr. Jolowicz, Preacher at
Marienwerder, Rabbi Gutman of Redwitz, Dr. Aub, Rabbi of Baireuth, and
Dr. S. Formstecher, Rabbi at Offenbach.—The list, thirty-two in all,
comprises certainly men eminent in all branches of learning; but still
we miss the names of the conservatives with but few exceptions.
Nevertheless we trust that the impulse at union may extend to others
besides those assembled and that much good may result to the whole house
of Israel. At all events we shall know what some of the Reformers really
desire, and this will certainly be a great point gained, since now
everyone reforms according to his own fancy and on his own
responsibility.
We
had written thus much for our September Occident, but we had to exclude
it with several other articles prepared for that number. Since then we
have heard something of the deliberations of the assembled reform
wisdom; but that something is about what we expected. Still we withhold
our entire condemnation of some of the resolves of these Rabbins and
preachers, till we obtain the official announcement in the Allgemeine
Zeitung des Judenthums, the paper conducted by Dr. L. Phillippson, the
originator of the Brunswick Assembly. In the mean time we quote from the
Voice of Jacob, No. 79, (August 2d,) from which it would also appear
that all of those who promised did not attend, and that at least seven
were absent. We will merely add, and with this close our remarks for the
present, that a meeting of twenty-four men, Rabbins and preachers, is
certainly in no sense of the word a representation of the Jewish
interests of Germany; and hence, if our readers should be startled at
the singularity of some of the resolves, they will please to remember
what we have all along stated, that some of our leaders are very unsafe
guides in matters of religion, and that we could well apply to them the
old saying, “Who watches these watchmen?”
“In
how far the misgivings expressed in our last notice were warranted may
be judged from the following sketch of the proceedings of these
twenty-five gentlemen, gleaned from the Zeit. des Jud.’s
summary of ‘results.’ (1) The drawing up of a code of rules for the
regulation of these meetings. Dr. Philippson is of opinion that, among
the rest, these impose the moral obligation upon every one who helps to
constitute the majority upon a principle contested in these meetings, to
carry out such principle into practice, so far as his influence extends.
The meetings are to be annual; (the next at Frankfort a. M.) and smaller
assemblies of like character are to be encouraged in the intervals. (2)
The declaration that the oath of a Jew requires no more than an appeal
to the name of God. This was on the proposition of the Hildesheim Chief
Rabbi, whose object is to procure the repeal of the offensive formulary,
more judaico, in Hanover and other states. The debate on this
subject led to the next. (3) The resolution to effect the immediate
omission of the Kol Nidre, in their respective congregations. (4)
The decision that the Synagogal formularies of Mecklenburgh Schwerin,
are consonant with the faith and ritual of Judaism. (5) The confirmation
of the twelve answers given to Napoleon by the Paris Sanhedrin, in 1807.
As this determination was arrived at on the proposition of Dr.
Phillippson himself, he enters into the history of the Sanhedrin, and
argues for the validity of its decisions; principally on the score of
their expediency, and because they have never been formally protested
against. Notwithstanding this declaration of our learned contemporary,
it appears that the meeting found it necessary to modify the following
decisions of the Paris Sanhedrin. Its third answer declared that
intermarriages with Christians are not forbidden; the meeting
adds,—provided that by the law of the state it is legal to train the
issue of such mixed marriages in the religion of Israel. Our readers may
be reminded that the meeting confirms, among others, the following
decisions of the Paris Sanhedrin:—Jewish divorces are only valid, with
consent of the law of the state:—there are no pursuits (professions)
forbidden by Jewish law;—and every species of usury is forbidden and
disgraceful.
“The
meeting found it needful to append a declaration to the effect
that:—Inasmuch that the state hereby receives every guarantee, that
Judaism harbours no anti-social principle or tendency, it is on the
other hand needful to declare, that Judaism can never resign the right
of its own free development; that the interests of the state have no
concern beyond; and that all further interference in the internal
development of Judaism, and its religious concerns, is most emphatically
repudiated.
“Credit
is claimed by the reporter, for the perfectly dispassionate character of
this confirmation, as the act of a meeting not to be suspected (like
Napoleon’s Sanhedrin,) of being influenced by an Emperor’s fear or
favour, or, like the Hungarian committee, of a disposition to
accommodate their dogmas with a reference to the pursuit of civil
equality.
“Other
propositions were received and referred for future decision. Among these
are:—
“The
appointment of a commission to revise the Jewish law of marriages:—on
the plea that the laws of various states overrule our own law in so many
particulars, including Get, Chalitsah, &c.
“(7)
The appointment of a commission preparatory to a new liturgy;—the
following questions are to be propounded to this commission. (a)
Whether it is necessary and desirable to retain the Hebrew language in
Divine service. (b) Whether the dogma of the Messiah should be
retained in the prayers. (c) How ק״ת the public
reading of the law) may be more suitably arranged (d) How
ת״ש (blowing of the cornet) and נ״ל
(waving of the palm-branch) can be arranged in better taste. (e)
Whether the Musaphim should be retained. (f) Whether the
organ should be introduced in Divine service.
“(8)
The appointment of a commission to prepare the question of how a
compromise may be effected between the doctrine of the sabbath, and the
actual observance of it. (Leben and Lehre.)
(9)
A proposition that the Rabbis should keep circumcision registers, was
adopted.
“As
characteristics of the meeting, it may be mentioned that the two
following propositions were rejected:—“To seek the emancipation of
the Jewish church, and its recognition as a church in all states:—and
the expression of a formal censure upon Jewish fathers, who refuse to
have their children circumcised. The reasons assigned for the rejection
of the latter proposition was,—because it too nearly concerned the
passions of the day.
“We
have thus endeavoured, as matter of history, to give an impartial sketch
of the reports before us; and when we receive the protocol and debates
which the meeting has undertaken to publish, we shall feel impelled to
make some few comments upon them.” |
