|
In our second volume we gave all the available
accounts which had reached us concerning the doings of the assembly of
reform Rabbis and preachers of Germany, which met last year at Brunswick.
Our readers will probably recollect that they resolved then and there to
meet the coming year at Frankfort on the Maine. The assembly accordingly
took place on the 15th of July last, and continued in session till the
28th. We gave in our September number of this year, a brief summary of the
proceedings, all that had then reached us. Since then we have had some
farther accounts in the Orient; Voice of Jacob, the Voice of Israel, and
the Jewish Intelligence; and we select the one from the latter as being
best suited for our pages. Of course it is necessarily but a meagre
outline of what took place; but sufficient to prove how very unfit the
majority were of legislating for Israel at large. Two of the Rabbis
present, as we have told already, Dr. Frankel and Mr. Schott, withdrew
from the meeting when they saw the destructive course resolved upon by
their colleagues; and let not our friends suppose that these worthy
Israelites belong to the school of those opposed to progress; on the
contrary, they are fully alive to the importance of diffusing light among
the people, and probably of introducing some useful reforms, whilst they
abhor the indecent haste with which the reformers proper wish to
strip Judaism of its distinctive features as a religion of observance and
of faith. But they were not heeded by their colleagues, who only could see
safety in making the religion as easy as the veriest infidel can desire,
and rendering our worship as nearly the church as possible; whereas, if
they are truly teachers in Israel, they must know that faith without duty
is a libel on Judaism, and that the worship of the Synagogue is in
its nature totally at variance with the church. Not because we
might not copy something from our Christian neighbours; but because the
objects of the religion of the Jews and gentiles are so widely different.
To us the scriptures are of paramount importance; the institutions of the
law are dear to the memory, though they be impracticable in our
dispersion; the language of Palestine is to us a living tongue, the
language of the Bible, which alone is a sure guide to faith; and we are
yet to be taught that we could with any safety introduce an authorized
translation, either of the prayers or of the Scriptures into the
Synagogue, by any authority whatever. In the course of our labours for the
people, we have, as our readers dwell know, endeavoured to furnish a
transcript of the Hebrew to the English; and we were constantly admonished
that to give a translation which would be universally acceptable, which
would harmonize with all commentators, and which could satisfy ourself,
was impossible of attainment. All we ever attempted to do and shall do, if
we prosecute the field of study farther, is to give as nearly as possible
a literal version of every word, so as to guide the inquirer; and this we
fancy is all our learned German contemporaries can accomplish with their
superior information and opportunities. But how are the advocates of the
German language to obtain an authorized version? Three of the assembly are
authors of a German Bible, to wit: Salomon, of Hamburg, Herxheimer, of
Bernburg, and Philippson, of Magdeburg, and in addition to these there is
one edited by Dr. Zunz, of Berlin, besides the former partial translations
of Mendelssohn, and his immediate followers and others of the present day;
and still the cry is “they come.” And each one has some new discovery
of the hidden meaning of the word of God, and each one is welcome in the
field whence always many good fruits must spring, if only the spirit of
the labourer be imbued with proper reverence. How then, we ask, can a
substitute for the Hebrew be found? Dr. Salomon’s temple congregation
would no doubt use his Bible; Dr. Herxheimer would expect no less
from his; Dr. Philippson would look unwillingly upon the introduction of
the works of his rivals into the Synagogues under his control; and the
reformers at Berlin would probably prefer Dr. Zunz’s. We only have seen
the latter work; but we hesitate little in saying that the critic can
discover material variations in all the versions now existing; and by
introducing them therefore into the Synagoge, we might open the door to a
multiplication of sects, all as furious in their insisting upon the
correctness of their views derived not from the original Scriptures, but
from the arbitrary perversion of the text by some of the various schools:
the Salomonian, the Philippsonian, the Zunzer, &c., as now is the case
between the champions of the Vulgate, and the versions of Luther and King
James, all confessedly full of errors, when tested by the standard of the
Hebrew text.
We
say it candidly, that such proceedings as we now record must retard the
progress of useful reform with the truly religious. They can only see
danger in trusting the rudder of our national ship into the unskilful
hands of a Geiger, a Maier, a Hess, and a Jost, men of undoubted learning,
but of exceedingly doubtful piety, at least if we assume the standard of
our good forefathers, who were faithful when such as these would have
believed outwardly in the Islam or Gospel, to prolong their worthless
lives. We for one are for progress; but such reforms are odious to Israel;
they are retrogressions, incentives to apostasy, and could only be at all
entertained, because some unlearned and irreligious men clamour for
reform, change, revolution, and these would be leaders are ready to accord
whatever is demanded. How supremely ridiculous is their prating about
“the fatherland;” whereas, Germany has to this day not been a mother
to Israel, and there is hardly a district where a Jew can come and settle
from abroad, and where he is not subject to odious restrictions for the
sake of his faith. We mean to give at a future day, when we have more
leisure than now, some specimens of what we have to endure in the land
which if a parent to us, acts certainly the part of a step-mother, who is
jealous for the advancement of her own offspring to the exclusion of the
rightful heirs of the father’s estate. We doubt whether there was one of
the whole assembly who felt a stronger attachment to his native land than
we do; but the truth must be told, that Germany has to this day been a
refuge it is true to the Israelite from extermination elsewhere; but it
has to this day not recognised in him a brother of the other inhabitants,
and looks upon him as an alien to her soil, although hundreds of his
brethren have in modern times shed their blood freely in defence of the
land that neglects their claims to equality. But the Rabbis perhaps think
that by professing such a love for the fatherland as not to wish to return
to Palestine, they will secure to themselves the favour of government, and
perhaps obtain the so much desired emancipation, and get a few offices, to
procure which so many have abjured their religion and with falsehood on
their lips professed a belief in Christianity, of either the Protestant,
Greek or Roman Catholic, or some other kind, whilst in their hearts they
believed not the first principle of either.
Our readers will also perceive,
that unless the words attributed to some of the speakers are wrongly
reported, these gentlemen entertain doubts as to the authenticity of
Scripture. First, it was the Rabbis of old, those darklings, as the
new men call them, who resisted to the last the enemies of their faith,
and sooner died than to renounce by word, thought, or deed, their hope in
Israel’s God; and to whose labour we owe under God the preservation of
our people; and now it is some part of the Bible, which is unpalatable to
these men of the new light; they find a strong obstacle against their
innovating fury in the Scriptures; hence, these too must be denounced. To
speak, however, the truth, we are pleased to see that the men of our day
come out boldly; and they thus raise a cry against themselves, which is
the best safeguard against the adoption of their vicious policy. We thank
them for their candour; and we trust that the alarm being once sounded,
our brethren all over the world will, perceiving the danger which
threatens our institutions, should such counsels prevail, repudiate them
and the advisors of them, as unsafe guides on the road to salvation. At the same time, we trust that the
opponents of sweeping reform will not rest satisfied with the mere protest
which they have lately issued; but that they will bestir themselves to
scatter light and. knowledge among all classes, and prove thus that they
are the real reformers, the restorers of the light of piety, which has
lately and so long burnt dimly in the socket.
The subject is one of the deepest importance; and we
dismiss it now reluctantly for want of time to discuss it perfectly. Our
readers may, however, rest assured that we shall not lose sight of it, and
expose on the one side the danger of precipitancy, whilst on the other,
we shall not be wanting to urge forward all useful schemes of improvement
which may be brought forward by men who are truly servants of the Lord.
Ed. Oc.
The Assembly of Rabbis at
Frankfort-on-the-Maine.—The second of the recently projected Annual
Assemblies of Rabbis, the first of which took place last year at
Brunswick, has recently been held at Frankfort-on-the-Maine. The meetings
commenced on the 15th of July, and concluded with the 28th. The number of
rabbis who attended was larger than last year, and the two opposing
parties in Judaism, the orthodox and the reformed, had both their
representatives; the latter, however, formed from the commencement the
majority.
The following were present:—Stein, of
Frankfort-on-the-Maine, President; Geiger, of Breslau, Vice President;
Jost, of Frankforton-the-Maine, and Hirsch, of Luxemburg, Secretaries;
A. Adler, or Worms, and Auerbach, of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, Vice
Secretaries; Einhorn, of Birkenfeld; Treuenfels, of Weilburg; Herxheimer,
of Bernburg; Gosen, of Marburg; Gueldenstein, of Buchau; Sobernheim, of
Bingen; S. Adler, of Alzey; Frankel, of Dresden; Jolowicz, of Thorn; Ben
Israel, of Coblenz; Wechsler, of Oldenburg; Kahn, of Treves; Maier, of
Stuttgart; Wagner, of Mannheim; Formstecher, of Offenbach; Holdheim, of
Schwerin; Salomon, of Hamburg; Herzfeld, of Brunswick; Hess, of Weimar; Süsskind,
of Wiesbaden; Hoffmann, of Meiningen; Schott, of Randegg;
Philippson, of Magdeburg; Reis, of Breisach; Lowengard, of Lehren; and
apologies for non-attendance were sent by Hochstatter, of Schwalbach;
Lindemann, of Mannheim; and Levi, of Giessen.
Addresses
were received by the Assembly, from the Reformers at Berlin, (which was
presented by a deputation, consisting of Messrs. Stern, A. Rebenstein, and
Simion, and met with particular favour on the part of the Assembly,) from
Breslau, Neustadt, Binges, Darmstadt, Alsfeld, Mayence, Frankenthal,
Edenkoben, Grünstadt, Musbach, Schwetzingen; Alzey, Obermuschel, Munster,
Worms, Giessen, Frankfurt, and other places; most of these were referred
to a committee, by whom replies were drawn up in behalf of the Assembly.
The
tenor of the various addresses was very much the same; condemning, in
strong language, the late protest of seventy-seven rabbis, against the
competency and the decisions of last year’s Assembly, expressing their
confidence in the present one, and their desire of a thorough reform in
Judaism, &c., &c. In one of them the following passage
occurred:—“We look upon you, Reverend Gentlemen, as a second Sinai,
whence we are to receive a new Law.” The addresses from the
congregations of Darmstadt and Mayence are remarkable, from the fact of
the rabbis at those places being among the seventy-seven just referred to.
The one from Breslau, which had 168 signatures, rejects the authority of
rabbinical writings, but shows at the same time no great regard for the
word of God, seeing that it also treats the peculiar privileges of the
Jewish nation with indifference and neglect.
Thus,
while the Assembly is warned “against taking obsolete books too much for
their guides,” (an expression which called forth some censure in the
assembly’s reply)—the above address contains also the following
passage:—“We cannot any longer join with fervent sympathy in repeating
passages which refer to the ‘election of Israel,’ as if we did enjoy
the peculiar love and favour of the Father of all mankind,—nor in the
prayer for a return to Palestine; and we should be compelled, either to
abstain altogether from public worship, or suffer our lips merely to join
therein.” Another address declared beforehand the readiness of the
undersigned to conform to every decision the Assembly might come to.
At the opening of the proceedings, Dr. Z. Frankel,
the leader of the orthodox party, demanded a formal declaration of the
principles which were to be understood as guiding their deliberations: for
himself, he identified himself with Judaism, as historically, positively
revealed. On the question being put by the president, the meeting
unanimously declared its principles to be those laid down by Dr. F., (des historisch-positiven geoffenbarten Judenthums.) The latter, however, on
the 18th thought it his duty to secede front the Assembly, as did also
Rabbi Schott, who had been one of the most zealous attendants at the
meetings both last year at Brunswick, and now at Frankfort. Both, in the
protests addressed by them respectively to the Assembly, stated as their
reason, that a partial omission of the Hebrew language having been
sanctioned, and alterations directed to be made in the prayers, the
Assembly had departed from the principles laid down for their guidance as
above referred to.
The result of the debates respecting the use of the
Hebrew language in public worship, was as follows:—1. The question,
whether its maintenance be imperatively necessary? was negatived by
fifteen votes to thirteen, three declining to vote; 2. Whether its
continuance for the present be expedient? answered in the affirmative by a
lame majority, without a debate; 3. In how far is it advisable to use
Hebrew in the Jewish Liturgy? the appointment of a Commission to determine
upon the proportion of Hebrew and German prayers, was carried by a
majority of eighteen to twelve.
During the debates on these
questions, Dr. Herzfeld, of Brunswick, made a direct attack on the
Word of God. He said, “The Bible is the Word of God, it is true, but yet
not wholly the Word of God.” And Dr. Jolowicz declared, “What
‘the people’ do not recognise as the Word of God, so much of the Bible
is not the Word of God!” Rabbi Kahn, of Treves, said,
“According to the Bible, we are not bound to believe on a personal
Messiah; only a few prophets have announced a personal Messiah, but most
of them an ideal one (einen idealen).”
We cannot give our readers a better idea of the
result of the deliberations, than by quoting the summary given by the
President himself in closing the Assembly:—
Gentlemen! Allow me in concluding our meetings to
cast one more retrospective look upon our proceedings, and to bring them
in rapid review before your minds. The time allowed us for consultation
was but short, and it was impossible to come to a decision upon all that
came under our notice; still we have the satisfaction of being able to
say, great things have been effected, or at least, put in train for future
settlement.
The Report of the Commission, respecting alterations
in public worship was laid before us, and its consideration claimed the
greatest share of our deliberations this year. Our steps were slow and
sure, and we did not decide lightly on so important subjects. The
consequence has been, that our discussions have been marked by that
seriousness which becomes so necessary, when religion is the subject under
consideration, and which claims for it that general interest which is
indispensable for carrying out the good work.
We have not excluded the Hebrew language from
public worship; we were unanimous in coming to that resolution. But
we were also all agreed in allowing a broad footing for the German
element in our Divine service.
We
all vindicated the great, importance of the Messianic doctrine
in our prayers; but we were also all of opinion that the prayer for
removal out of our native country should be expunged from our
Prayer-books; as that prayer originated at a time when that country was to
the Israelite nothing but a dreary prison.
We
all urged the simplification of our public worship, and the
omission of fatiguing repetitions; and were equally agreed that the prayer
for a restoration of sacrifices ought no longer to be repeated by
us, but that our public worship would lose its fundamental character by
the omission of portions that are of importance and antiquity: this we
oppose; and we all voted for strengthening the bond of union between the
present and our glorious past history, by embodying its exalting
recollections in our prayers, whether ancient Hebrew or modern German.
That
important part of Divine service, the reading of the Torah, was
simplified; it was proposed to restore the ancient office of the
Meturgeman (expounder); it was unanimously resolved to have the
prophets, as well as the other instructive Scriptures of the Bible read
in German; while, as regards the call to the Torah, the blowing of
trumpets at the new year, and the palmbranch at the feast of tabernacles,
existing customs were not interfered with.
We
stood unanimously up for the good cause on the subject of the
admissibility of the organ into our houses of prayer; and the question of
the propriety and duty of its being played on the Sabbaths
and festivals by an Israelite, was answered in the affirmative by
almost all of us.
By
following out these principles, we trust to God that we shall obtain a
ritual, which, deeply rooted in existing forms, will do honour to Judaism,
and fill the house of God with worshippers; that no longer shall be heard
in vain on our festivals the call of God to us: “Gather the people
together, men, and women, and children.” (Deut. 31:12.)
Woman’s
religious position in Judaism was well considered, and propositions
relating to that subject were referred to a special Commission.
The
subject of family worship was not neglected, and a Commission was
appointed for compiling books of prayer for schools and families; whose
special attention was directed to the revival of ritual observances, as, e.
g., ceremonies to be observed at and after the death of Israelites.
In
this manner, my dear friends,—by the publicity of our proceedings, by
the publication of our debates, and by the further discussion and
examination of liturgical subjects by the press;—will the attention of
our brethren be again directed to our greatly neglected forms of worship.
Even before the new Prayer-book, which in our hands will become a
mighty weapon for the interests of religion and our times, can appear in
the house of God, it will have taken root in the hearts of our brethren
and sisters; and those who now call us destroyers, will yet, we
confidently hope, call us builders.
Thus
also shall it be as regards the Sabbath; that day from which now
thousands among us have become estranged, will, by working on and
transforming the minds in the spirit of the times, unconsciously become of
importance to them; and we look forward with pleasure to the coming year,
when the admirable Report of the Commission on this important subject
shall be considered. And thus shall gradually—may God strengthen us for
this holy work—religious life be again awakened in the minds, and in
purified forms shall religion enter victoriously into the hearts of her
sons and daughters. Thus have we also yesterday considered an ancient
custom in Israel* in its moral importance, and by such alteration as the
times require, recommended its continuance. God is our witness that in all
this our sole object is to strengthen the influence of religion. On this
day we have, in conclusion, acknowledged the importance of founding a College
for the training of Jewish teachers, and have resolved to labour, each
of us in his sphere, for attaining that object. Matters which have not
been disposed of have been referred back to the respective Commissions;
and the publication of the Report on the Revision of Marriage Laws has
been authorized.
*
The bathing of women טהרת
המשפחה.
Thus
have also our meetings this year been of great, immediate, and prospective
importance. May God preserve in us courage for the next! We were this year
greatly cheered and encouraged; congregations in town and country declared
by addresses their confidence in us; the deputation from a body which
actively and vigorously labours for the improvement of our religious
affairs, raised our courage and our zeal; but it was especially the Jewish
congregation in this town which furnished an important centre for the
sympathy expressed on every side, doing all in its power to facilitate our
assembling here, and in conclusion manifesting its confidence in our
proceedings by a very flattering address, which strengthened and
encouraged us. Let us therefore rejoice in what has been done, and gather
new strength for the labours that await us next year.
In
consequence of the alterations in the lessons, as referred to in the
President’s Address, it was decided that the portions to be read in the
Synagogue should be so arranged as to extend over a period of three years,
instead of one, as heretofore.
The
Commission to whom the subject of the religious education of Jewish
females was referred, consists of S. Adler, A. Adler, and Einhorn.
Two
commissions were appointed for the compilation of prayerbooks; one
consisting of five members, viz., Stein, Salomon, Geiger, Maier, and
Herzfeld, to prepare a prayer-book for public worship; and another,
consisting of Phillippson, Stein, and Formstecher, to prepare manuals of
devotion for family worship.
Some
discussion arose respecting the inscription to be put on the Assembly’s
official seal, as no rabbis have attended from several of the German
states; thus Austria, Bavaria, Hanover, &c., have been unrepresented.
In Bavaria collections for the expenses of the Assembly had been
prohibited by the Government, and the rabbis of that country were
forbidden attending, by special command of the King. It was, however,
decided that the seal should bear the inscription, “Versammlung
Deutscher Rabbinen,” (Assembly of German Rabbis.)
It
was resolved that next year the Assembly should be held at Breslau,
according to the invitation of the Jewish community at that place.
Apprehensions were expressed that the Assembly, if not confined
exclusively to German rabbis, would, on that occasion, be swarmed by an
influx of Polish rabbis, on account of the contiguity of the place of
meeting to Poland. Dr. Geiger, however, assured the meeting he knew the
Polish rabbis too well to expect that any one of them would take the step
of signifying to him his wish to attend, which is a necessary preliminary
for attending the Assembly.
|
