|
In our last, we inserted a
letter from our special
correspondent in England, relative to the improvements required by Dr.
Adler in the conducting of the worship in the Synagogues in his
rabbinical see. No doubt the greater part of our readers took especial
notice of the details, more particularly if they are persons belonging
to the German and Polish denominations, for whose government the orders
were issued by the chief Rabbi of Great Britain. And though the
authority of the learned divine does not extend beyond England and its
dependencies, and the rules do not properly affect the Israelites of the
Portuguese form in several particulars: we still think that for all that
the missive of Dr. Adler is of great moment to all our brothers in
America, and wherever the English language is spoken. There are so many
ties which bind together both shores of the Atlantic, the
intercommunication becomes daily so much more frequent and certain,
that nothing now can be matter of indifference because distance happens
to separate the countries; and more particularly is this the fact with
religious movements, so that when the impetus is given in one place, the
visible traces of the same will be speedily witnessed afar off, wherever
there is an opportunity for sympathy to be felt. To all intents and
purposes England and all Europe have been placed at speaking distances
to us, and the public press is ready to take up the voice which speaks
across the ocean, and to echo it back into the most remote and secluded
spots of every district, so as to unite into one the Israelites of every
country where they enjoy the blessing of free discussion. We say,
therefore, that the new regulations of the Rabbi of Great Britain are of
the greatest importance to us also, and we express the hope that they
will lead to a similar movement wherever required in America likewise.
We have not received the pamphlet itself, consequently we are not fully
acquainted with the particulars; but the details as given by our
correspondent are sufficiently ample to let us see their scope and
tendency. We hesitate therefore little in saying, that Dr. Adler has
based his reforms upon admitted legal principles of Jewish polity and
ancient custom; he has endeavoured to carry back the Synagogue to its
simplicity, and thereby taken an energetic step to stop the mania for
mere change, which has taken such deep root in many communities. The
doctor has admitted, however, that abuses disturbing the solemnity of
the worship in the Synagogue do exist, and that it is time to remove
them, though some of them have almost received the sanction of being in
vogue from time immemorial. Any stranger entering many a Synagogue, and
observing the uneasiness which some persons manifest in their seat, the
anxiety they evince for the commencement of the reading of the section
from the Prophets (the Haphtorah), or some other part, that they may
then go out and hold a chat with others, who have gone out before, or
accompany them from other quarters of the Sacred building. would imagine
that Jews do not go to the Synagogue to pray and to be instructed, but
to wile away in some mode or other the hours that custom induces them to
exhibit themselves in the sacred precincts. To be sure he sees painted
in golden letters at the entrance, or over the ark,
מה נורא המקום הזה אין זה כי אם בית האלהים וזה
שער השמים “How fearful is this place, this is no other than the
house of God; and this is the gate of heaven;” or the beautiful
admonition of the sage of the Mishna,דע לפני
מי אתה עומד “Know before whom thou art standing;” or the sublime
words of David, שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד “I
have placed the law ever before me,” or whatever other soulstirring
mottoes have been chosen to ornament our houses of assembly; and still
he would be induced to believe that nothing could have been more
misapplied than these very admonitions, which he finds so thoroughly
disregarded by those around him. In fact our opponents have used the
conduct of Jews in Synagogues as synonymous with disorder and confusion;
and why? not because our laws sanction such outrages of propriety, but
because we have broken through the restraints which have been imposed
on us, not only by the ordinances of our blessed teachers, but also by
the sense of decorum, which every good man of whatever persuasion feels,
when he meets his fellow-men in a mixed assembly, omitting even all
consideration that in Synagogue we are more in the presence of our
Supreme Sovereign, to whose glory the house is dedicated. Hence also has
arisen the belief in some restless minds, that the Synagogue, as it is,
is incapable of being conducted harmoniously and orderly, seeing that
even men reputed pious will quit it during worship, and occasionally
indulge in conversation with their neighbours whilst there. The fault,
however, no doubt is easily discoverable, though the remedy may not be
so easily applicable. It is, in our opinion, in which we follow merely
the ideas of many sincere Israelites, to the often undue length to which
the service is prolonged, by the introduction of chatters extraneous to
the worship, and the long chaunting and singing which many ministers
have been in the habit of indulging in, and in which abuse they were not
rarely encouraged by their congregation. And we contend in this
connexion, that all this can and ought to be altered, and that thus we
should and must restore the solemnity which is now so often absent. We
therefore thank Dr. Adler for abridging the time of the duration of the
service, not by cutting down the prayers themselves, but by abolishing
the sale of the Mitzvot (our readers of the German form will understand
us), and the limitation of the Misheberach (or money offerings) to a
single one, except on special occasions, a reform which Portuguese
congregations might safely adopt. The time lost in both processes, that
of offering the honours at auction from two to eight times, if
not oftener, during the morning service on week days, Sabbaths and
festivals, not to mention other times, and the disgraceful competition
occasionally got up by men of means, each intent to secure a particular
Haphtorah or Mitzvah for himself or friends, and that in reciting a long
list of offerings in which the congregation at large can have no further
interest than its being a matter of revenue,—we say the time thus lost
does not add the least to the solemnity of the worship of the
edification of the faithful, but naturally tends to produce tedium and
interrupts all thoughts of devotion. We leave it to any one who reflects
on the matter, the singular effect of the Shamas of the congregation
going up to offer at public sale the opening of the Ark, after the
spirit has been awakened to a depth of feeling, whilst participating in
the singing of the Psalms of David comprised in the Hallel; it is enough
to banish all serious thoughts from the mind at once, and to carry it in
imagination to the busy mart of commerce, whence this anomalous custom
no doubt originated. Even the manner of distributing the offices by
Misheberach from the desk, as practised among the Portuguese, is
somewhat objectionable, as immediately after the finishing of the
morning service the different offices required should be performed by
persons previously notified, and in readiness to attend to them. We know
not whether this would be practicable; but that it would be a great and
desirable improvement no one who reflects seriously on the subject can
well doubt; though at the same time we are candid to admit, that in
large cities where the members of the congregation live so far apart, to
leave out of question the strangers who are nearly always present, it
would be attended with some difficulty to notify all destined to
participate in, two or three days beforehand, and at the same time to
insure their prompt attendance. But as regards to complimentary
offerings, especially on Holy days and Sabbaths, we cannot find a single
valid reason for their continuance beyond the mere fact of their being a
revenue measure, something like indirect taxation for state purposes. We
know that some persons will regard them in a different light, that is,
as blessings invoked upon the respective parties for whom they are made.
Still even in this view we imagine that to make them over the Sepher
during the time of public worship is entirely out of place, especially
since money in a definite manner is mentioned, and an account taken
thereof in some way, though writing is prohibited on the Sabbath and
festivals. The greater part of our readers are familiar with the various
methods of perforated boards; boxes with tokens; books with cut slips,
&c., by which means this singular task is performed on the holy days of
the Lord; but to our simple view of religion this is all wrong, let the
contrivance be what it may. We will not say sinful; for we do not
wish to be understood as condemning what so many good and great men have
sanctioned by their silence, if not recommended by their advice. .There
may have been a time when the distress of the people compelled the
rulers of the Synagogue to resort to indirect modes of raising a
revenue, since persons may be stimulated to be liberal during the hours
of worship, if they have been successful immediately preceding the
Sabbath, &c., and thus be induced to purchase freely, or to offer
largely, urged by a profitable transaction just realized, when otherwise
but small contributions might be expected by demanding a subscription,
or a voluntary assessment at the beginning of the year. But in every
other point of view public offerings are totally objectionable; very
often the public are disappointed at the small amount given by some rich
man, who is perhaps in attendance but once a year, and when he is called
to the law, simply on account of his wealth, postponing for him some
other person who attends punctually all the year round; or they are
amused at his ostentatious liberality in making up this once for the
seasons when he is absent; or—but what is the use of transcribing all
the objectionable features of the system, which present themselves to
our mind? We may at a future period point out others; but at the present
time we only wish to speak in reference to the reforms of Dr. Adler, and
to show their great importance, though to some they may appear but small
matters. We consider them, on the contrary, of great moment, and if
carried out in perfect good faith, they cannot fail to constitute the
base upon which the restoration of the dignity of the Synagogue may
safely be predicated.
Let us sketch a plan for revenue, independent of
the so-called voluntary offerings, when in fact they are
compulsory, the persons having the honours during the service and those
called up to the law being expected to offer, and their not doing thus
being considered, and under present circumstances justly so, as an
evidence of illiberality. It is but proper that the persons who attend
Synagogue, whether members in full standing or mere seat-holders, should
pay for the seat they respectively occupy, and the congregations have an
undoubted right to exact, under proper penalties, the payment of the
annual assessment thus accruing. As it is most likely that the expenses
will not be covered by the seat-money, it would be advisable to try
at least whether the members and seat-holders, including among the
latter females and minors, might not be willing to subscribe an annual
contribution which would fully equal the average of the offerings now
made; and if a list could be secured for a period of years, say from
three to five, subject only to the contingencies of death and the loss
of means, then we should be enabled to dispense with money-offerings in
the Synagogue, the congregations not requiring them as a means of
defraying their expenses. This arrangement, if carried out into
practice, would have in addition one happy effect; it would place the
public treasury beyond the reach of the displeasure of some wealthy men,
who might endeavour to coerce the congregation to elect certain persons
as trustees or managers, at the penalty of withholding their accustomed
annual offerings unless their will be gratified. We could point out
instances where this actually occurred, where the revenues of the
Synagogue actually fell off because men not liked by some influential
persons were preferred by the majority. But if the subscription should
be for a term of years, as proposed above, the dissatisfied could not,
if they would, withdraw during the period for which they had signed
their names, and thus there would be more regularity in the finances of
the congregations. This would then enable the people, at their annual
meetings or oftener if requisite, to apportion their expenses, and to
regulate their charities and salaries on some fixed principles, and
would prevent on the one side wastefulness superinduced by an expected
liberal income, which may never be realized, and on the other, that
parsimony and injustice not always absent from the transactions of
public bodies any more than those of individuals. There could be formed
some just idea of their resources, and the people could act
understandingly in their public meetings. Another advantage to be
derived from this plan would be, that all the members of the
congregation would contribute more equally than they now do. As it is,
those who attend worship frequently are the highest taxed, as they are
the oftenest called on to make the voluntary offerings; whilst
those who are habitually absent, and come only on the Day of Atonement
or New Year, to be treated then with the respect they think due to their
rank and wealth, get off with a few offerings then and there made,
which, though larger than those given by others at any given time, are
far below the general average; and still, when it comes to voting and
appropriating the public funds, there can be no distinction in the
rights of the various parties, whether they gave much or little, whether
they offered once for ostentation, or were pious and regular attendants
of the house of God. We ask all reflecting minds to tell us, “Whether
this is right?” But let all tax themselves according to their means,
expect nothing of those who are regular attendants at the Synagogue, and
the injustice is removed; for the people will vote because they
contribute according to their means to the public purse, and have thus a
perfect right to dispose thereof as is best in their judgment; since the
penny of the honest poor is as much to him as the pound of the honest
rich. We only speak of men who associate together, with an honesty of
purpose to do what lies in their power for the promotion of the general
welfare; and if our congregations are composed of such materials, and we
fervently trust that they always will be, the system of voluntary
assessment will bring a more equitable tax than that of voluntary
offerings now in use. For the present we forbear going into farther
details, but may speak more on the subject hereafter, especially if it
should be brought to discussion.
But the greatest advantage resulting from the
abolition of the old mode of taxation, would be the saving of a
considerable space of time, now wasted in making the offerings, which
would tend to fix more pointedly to the objects of worship the attention
of the faithful; since those unmeaning interruptions which a long list
of Misheberach now produces would be removed, and thus leave the mind
more disposed to the perusal of the prayers and sections of the laws and
prophets, and to make the proper responses which the various forms of
Israelitish communities require. And we are honest to believe, that this
once accomplished, and that unseemly running in and out put a stop to,
our Synagogues would present every where that decorum which is
observable in the churches of the various Christian sects, and strangers
coming among us would really feel that we consider our houses of
worship as “the gates of heaven,” where the faithful can properly offer
up their prayers for acceptance on high.—It is otherwise a pernicious
error to suppose that Judaism requires not the same outward propriety of
behaviour which is demanded by other sects; on the contrary, nothing is
more imperatively enjoined by the Rabbins than to enter the house of
prayer slowly, whilst bowing towards the ark in respectful adoration to
the Most High; not to enter into conversation with each other; to be
attentive to the words as pronounced by the minister; to make the proper
responses, such as “Amen,” “May His great name be blessed,” &c, “Blessed
be the Lord who is ever blessed,” “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of
hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory,” and other similar ones,
not in one confused cry, which betokens a want of reflection, and is
merely machine-like, but with that awe and fear with which we ought to
recite the praises of our God. Farther, we are recommended not to pray
except with humility, reflecting on the greatness of God and our own
sinfulness; and, to insure this, we are also told to be among the
first at he house of worship, and not to rush in at all periods of the
service, thereby attracting to us the attention of those already
present, and disturbing them in their prayers. We are prohibited from
quitting the Synagogue upon any pretence whilst the LAW is open on the
desk, nor to return home till the congregation be dismissed by the
finishing of the service; and even then we are prohibited from hurrying
out; but we are told to retire with a slow pace, as though we were
taking our dismissal from the presence of a sovereign; for who is
greater than the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be his name? We
deem it the duty of the directors of Synagogues to see enacted such
rules as will affect the end indicated; and if they do so, honestly, we
will venture to assert that devotion would be felt where now the absence
is so apparent, and we should become a sample of holiness, in place of
being spoken of as indifferent to religion; a consummation devoutly to
be desired.
We here close for the present our desultory remarks
upon the movements abroad, and we trust that our readers will join us in
becoming reformers in the line indicated, to uphold the sanctuary
of the Lord, to heal its breaches, and to restore its glory.
(To be
continued.) |
