|
Mr. Editor,—
I
have observed of late, a disposition on the part of
certain Israelites in this and other cities, to
attempt what they term improvements in
matters and things appertaining to our religion, at
once startling, and in my, opinion, decidedly
objectionable. I was particularly struck with this
painful fact, on visiting in com<<137>>pany with a
friend, the new Synagogue just completed in Norfolk
Street. On entering the building, notwithstanding I
was aware of its character, so ingeniously had the
peculiar characteristic that has ever marked, and in
my opinion ought to mark, the Jewish place of
worship been obliterated, that I could not divest
myself of the impression of being in a Catholic
church.
The Jews have ever been a peculiar people, and it is
their true religious policy to remain so, nor is it
in any way desirable to overstep that individuality
which is the surest safeguard from innovation,
unless it can be shown necessary, in order to
achieve some practical result imperatively called
for to preserve the welfare and purity of our faith,
and even then, so responsible a movement must be
made with the greatest caution and moderation. It
comports not with the dignity of a religion, from
which all civilized creeds—and their name is
legion—have been obliged to borrow, to descend at
this period to pander to the vitiated tastes of
those worldly persons whose only object appears to
be a desire to produce a certain effect on
strangers.
I
feel satisfied were they sure that none but Jews
could have access to the Synagogue, they would care
little about the matter. I am led to this conclusion
by having noticed from time to time, that all the
principal movers in these modern improvements
and reforms, (heaven save the mark!) have
invariably shown a laxity of feeling in regard to
cardinal points, that is in no way in keeping with
the pure religious zeal that should be the
mainspring of all actions, emanating from those who
in the nineteenth century have the temerity to
attempt remodelling that which has proved its
perfectness by remaining unscathed during the
darkest ages of oppression and superstition.
No
other system of religion, I fearlessly assert, could
have withstood such an ordeal of persecution,
supported as it has been by a mere handful of
people, in what is termed Christian Europe, under
these circumstances without annihilation; this alone
shows a divine essence; and so nicely interwoven are
its delicate combinations, that “one broken link
distresses the whole chain, and an abstract virtue
becomes a relative iniquity.”
If
I mistake not, we are distinctly forbidden to
imitate other creeds in anything connected with
religious affairs; and if this <<138>> Synagogue is
not an attempt of this nature from the very pews to
the pulpit, I know not what to term it. It may be
considered a dead wall between Church and Synagogue,
bearing all the outer and perfect appearance of the
former, with a solitary exception of a few Hebrew
characters written over the Hechal (which is so
small and cramped, by the by, that it is hardly
seen) barely sufficient in the face of all this, to
convey an idea of any connexion with the latter.
So
great has been the desire for originality and
improvement, that the very ten commandments, which
have always been written on tablets to resemble the
shape we are accustomed to see represented as those
given to Moses, come in for their share, and are
distributed in a circle round a small window-light,
altogether so divested of their outward character,
that could the prophet himself see them, I question
his being able to recognise them in their new and
novel appearance.
The שלחן or
reading-desk, which should be either in the centre
or the extreme end facing the ark, is here placed
right against it, without any space intervening, so
that it has the appearance of forming part of the
same, not the least objectionable feature this being
that the reader is, as a matter of necessity, during
a large portion of the service, compelled to have
his back to the ark. I should say there cannot be a
question but that this is decidedly wrong in a
religious point of view; nor can I see any desirable
object gained either in appearance or convenience by
this method. That it in no small degree alters the
whole Jewish character of the interior, cannot be
denied, and perhaps this has been the principal
recommendation for its adoption; the policy that
seems to have influenced this new style of things,
warrants such a conclusion.
I
have been rather particular in explaining my ideas
on the few matters that struck me at once as
standing out in bold relief from the mass of
novelties that met me at every turn; and lest it
should be inferred I was actuated by some personal
feeling, I would state that I am altogether
unacquainted with any of the congregation, neither
can I lay claim to be considered what might be
termed by some strictly orthodox; but still, I am
not indifferent to steps so bold and startling,
calculated as they are, to open the way to farther
innovations.
If
such spirits as those who have contrived these
changes, shall rule in <<139>>Israel, we may
calculate to be imperceptibly submerged into that
state which must annihilate our title as a “peculiar
people.” Putting aside all religious objections, can
it he shown that any practical good is accomplished
by this new state of things; and if not, what
construction, I would ask, can be put on such
policy? I consider it a great responsibility which
these gentlemen have had the temerity to take on
themselves, nor can they answer as to how far it may
extend. They have torn down the first barrier, and
however insignificant it may appear, it will lead to
encroachments they themselves perhaps never
contemplated.
This is no visionary speculation, but one warranted
by the history of the human family, in spiritual as
well as temporal affairs. One of several
improvements already began in the service, I
particularly noticed, viz.: not allowing
אבלים to repeat the
Kaddish aloud. This, to say the least of it, appears
to me bad taste; in fact it is, if I mistake not,
decidedly wrong, and only goes to support the
argument which I have advanced in the premises. I
shall be agreeably deceived if there are not more
innovations in embryo. In a word, any one whose
religious spirit requires such stimulants as these,
must be in a very sickly condition in regard to such
matters, and, if I may be allowed the expression,
almost past recovery. At any rate, no such
artificial aids as these can effect much for him;
and this pandering to please worldlings in sacred
affairs, shows a depraved taste, which should, and I
trust will be, frowned down by every sincere Jew.
Yours, respectfully,
HONESTUS.
New York, June 12, 1850.
Note by the Editor.—Although not ourself cognizant
of the, facts in the above communication, we do not
deem it proper to withhold it from the public, as we
know the writer to be a man of probity and a worthy
religious character. Some may allege that the
changes complained of are small and unworthy of
notice. But we dissent from such an excuse; as they
show a sort of recklessness in favour of a departure
from our ancient usages which we see nothing to
justify. Singular as it may appear, the position of
the Tebah Kaddish Shuchan, Almemar, or
reading-desk as it is indifferently called, has been
a fruitful theme of <<140>>controversy within late
years, whereas anciently it occupied the centre of
the Synagogue, so that the person who read the law
was elevated in the midst of the people, and thus
within the sight and hearing of all those present;
and there surely can be no good reason for its being
placed just in front of the ark, which must compel
the reader to have his back turned to the same
during the service, a position notoriously opposed
to our usually received opinions, and by implication
condemned in the Scriptures by the prophet Ezekiel.
But it seems there is an inordinate desire to depart
from the customs of our fathers, even in so-called
orthodox congregations, and to introduce some
innovation or other, more or less startling. But we
trust that the vigilant eye of religious zeal will
be turned towards any such attempt at changes which
are the reverse of improvement, and we shall at all
times open our magazine to discuss the question
temperately and rationally. No one, however, must
accuse us of being against improvements, as our
pages furnish many evidences of a contrary tendency;
but, at the same time, there is no sense in the
morbid endeavour to unjudaize Judaism, which has of
late years been the constant theme of certain
emendators of our religion.
Leave us, we say, our ancient faith, with all of its
reasonable customs and peculiarities, and should
they not be even commensurate with the standard of
modern nations, we should not grieve thereat, as it
is at last in externals that the spirit of a system
can be found. Appearances show the manner in which
the soul feels; and, therefore, we say, leave
Judaism its outward dress; it becomes it well, and
tends to impress on the minds of its followers that
it has a strength of its own, and a power of
resistance to amalgamation, which have preserved it
so long amidst the ruin of all things springing from
the earth.
We
could easily extend this note to a great length;
but, for the present, it is merely necessary to
state the case, in hopes that the parties
interested, may bethink themselves and make their
Synagogue in appearance, what it is in fact, a house
of prayer for descendants of Israel. |
