|
(Continued
from issue #1.)
Mr.
Carillon appears to have condemned our ritual on three grounds.
First.
"The most beautiful hymns of the Portuguese liturgy were left
out." This is a point verging on the question of taste, which I do
not intend tend to discuss with the reverend gentleman. I wish merely to
observe that the majority of the members of Burton Street congregation
were for many years congregants of the best-conducted Portuguese
Synagogue; and yet are they very far from sharing Mr. C.'s opinion. But
what of this,—is it obligatory upon any Jewish community to adopt in
its ritual any hymns or piyutim at all? If the absence of the most
beautiful Portuguese hymns affects the orthodoxy of a prayer book, what
must then be the fate of the German and Polish rituals, on which the
majority of our brethren look with confidence? If the presence or
absence of either German or Portuguese hymns can influence the religious
character of a prayer book, what shall be said of the rituals used
previously to the age of the Paitanim, by whom these hymns were
composed, and who began to flourish only about the year 1000 of the
vulgar era? If Mr. Carillon wish to injure the reputation of our ritual,
he must, if possible, prove not indeed that we have left out the
most beautiful Portuguese hymns; but rather that we have retained the
most unmeaning of either the German or the Sephardim ritual. There would
be some weight in such a reproach, if substantial.
Second.
Mr. C. condemns any ritual emanating from our Synagogue, a priori,
"because we have no Rabbi amongst us."* If this be meant as an
assertion that there is no one amongst us paid for allowing himself to
be called "Rabbi," we plead guilty to the impeachment, and our
opponents are welcome to make the most of the admission. But should the
reverend gentleman labour under the presumption, that we are without men
acquainted with our holy law and with the ancient writings bearing on
this important subject, he may procure himself an opportunity of
correcting his erroneous impression, if he will appear before the world
with a clear investigation into the acts of violations of essentials,
attempted, as he appears to believe, by our body.
But
what has the existence or non-existence of a so-called Rabbi among us to
do with the orthodoxy of the prayers which we have compiled? Does Mr. C.
really imagine that none but men invested with the semicha have a
voice or a vote in Israel, that only such who are ordained by
"imposition of hands"* ought to be listened to, in the
discussion and settlement of questions relating to the ritual? He cannot
surely hold so revolutionary an opinion; he would not, I am sure,
attempt to unseat from his clerical chair, the very orthodox
חכם Haham of Hamburgh,**
one of the most influential congregations in the world—who considers
himself, and is by others considered, to be endowed with no slight
degree of authority in theological matters, although he is no Rabbi at
all. He contemned the mock semicha, and would have nothing to do
with the above mentioned rabbinical imposition of hands.
Third.
The great reason, however, why the minister of St. Thomas set his face
against the ritual of our congregation was, as he says, "because
the Rev. Mr. Marks has dared to deny all Talmudic authority."‡
Now it might be supposed that the reverend gentleman would have sought
to learn what our principles were, before he deliberately sat down to
abuse them in a public journal; but that Mr. Carillon never read the
consecration sermon, in which they are fully developed, is quite
certain, (for I cannot believe that he would wilfully misrepresent
them;) or he never would have penned such a sentence. Your editorial
note, sir, to this passage of the gentleman's letter, exonerates me from
the task of investigating farther, how much I am misrepresented by the
minister of the St. Thomas Congregation. But is it not very astonishing
that he should wax so wroth with me for having concurred in introducing
certain alterations in our form of worship, while in the same breath he
confesses "that we are at liberty to alter customs and to
substitute prayers," nay, admits that "he has granted
several alterations?" What greater liberty have we taken than that
which the reverend gentleman claims for himself? What "essential
points of our holy religion" have we touched, could we touch,
if, on Mr. C.'s admission, he does not consider the alterations of
customs and the substitution of prayers, to be infringements on the
essentials of our faith? Or, are all these acts so many misdeeds because
we have perpetrated them in this dark corner of Europe, and would
they be the effusions of purity itself, if they had been brought to
light under the tropical sun?
The
reverend gentleman throws the divine claim of the Talmud overboard with
the exclamation, "The Talmud is not divine, so do I say." He
is certain, however, that the authority of the Talmud must be upheld,
strictly upheld. Nevertheless (says he) we are at liberty to make
alterations in the prayers, in the customs, prescribed by those
very Rabbis, by denying whose authority "we deny Holy Writ
itself." Nevertheless "we must not touch the essential points
of our religion." Nevertheless, Mr. C. "has granted several
alterations," which are to be communicated hereafter.
Strange
that a theologian rejoicing in so slippery a profession of faith, should
bargain for consistency in other men! Whether I wear Thephillin and how
I wear Tzitzith is the query with which Mr. C. seeks to drive me upon
the horns of his dilemma. I would like to know if Mr. Marks lays
Thephillin or how he wears the Tzitzith? if he does, then he contradicts
himself, as it is only by rabbinical authority that we know how to obey
these and most other commandments." It is a vulgar error, shared by
Mr. C., that the adoption or retention of one talmudic observance
or principle enforces, by the laws of consistency, adhesion to the whole
mass of rabbinical ordinances. I concede that for him who finds in the
Talmud the very word of God, to slight one command is to question the
stability of the whole divine fabric. But those, who concur with the
Rev. Mr. C. in denying the divinity of the Talmud, cannot surely be
charged with inconsistency, for adopting from the doctrines of the
Rabbis, such as are congenial to their religious feelings, while they
reject such other rabbinical dicta as appear to their understandings
impracticable or objectionable. I, for one, should feel sorry to
recommend to my youthful flock, to get married, in pursuance of the
rabbinical statutes, at thirteen
years of age, certainly at sixteen; on pain of incurring the divine
curse, (Kiddushin, 29. 2,) if after the completion of the twentieth
year, they be still found bachelors. With the highest respect for the
motives which induced the Rabbins to recommend early marriages, I deem
myself at liberty to disregard their authoritative commands in this
respect. When speaking of the important day of Purim, I abstain from
exhorting my hearers to intoxicate themselves on the anniversary of the
feast, till they become unable to distinguish between a curse on Haman
and a blessing on Mordecai, although the Talmud (Megilla, 7. 2)
literally prescribes this Bacchanalian excess.
I
disregard as unauthoritative this ordinance of Raba, and gladly
recognize the beauty of that other rabbinical apothegm: "These
three the Lord loveth, him that is not given to anger, him that abstains
from inebriety, and him that is not too much taken up with his own
importance." I must say that I find it more in the spirit of
consistency to select the homogeneous principle from the Talmud, than to
set up the whole heterogeneous mass as one system.
In
conclusion, I beg to apologize for claiming so much of your valuable
space, in a matter which is so personal to myself, and on which, sir, I
am well aware, your opinions and mine differ. Nothing, I assure you, is
more fervently the wish of our pious congregation, than the preservation
of the unity of Israel, the unity of love towards each other, of
obedience to the divine law, under whose heavenly influence fresh life
will even in our days be breathed into "the dried bones of
Israel." Hitherto the Lord has been pleased to guide our infant
flock with his paternal hand, to bless us with internal concord, and
sincere zeal, and to protect us against the attempts of external
adversaries. Our endeavour has been, and ever shall be, to conciliate
all, and to offend none. And as the gracious providence of God has been
vouchsafed to us, so do I fervently pray that his blessing may rest upon
all your undertakings for the benefit of our brethren, and may He, in
his own good time, hasten the day, "When the tear shall be wiped
from off every cheek."
Permit
me, sir, to observe, that this letter has been called forth by the
peculiar circumstances of my position with the Synagogue of St. Thomas;
but I wish it to be particularly understood, that I have neither the
inclination nor the leisure for entering upon controversies from which I
cannot persuade myself that any practical benefit will arise. Besides
which my time is wholly taken up in the discharge of my local duties.
I
am, reverend sir,
With sentiments of high regard and profound respect,
Your obedient servant,
D. W. Marks.
The
Rev. Mr. Marks's Second Letter.
London, January 8th, 1844.
To
the Editor of the Occident.
Rev.
and Dear Sir—It was to me a matter of no little surprise to find the draft
of one of my sermons
printed
in your journal of Heshvan last.
I
was at first at a loss to conjecture by what means it had found its way
to your pages; but it subsequently recurred to me, that I had permitted
a gentleman to take a copy of it some time since, to send to a relative
at Philadelphia. It is true, a promise was made that no public use
should be made of the manuscript, which was imperfect; but of this
promise the gentleman seems to have been unmindful.
I
will not conceal from you my sore regret at the publication of the MS. First,
because it is not complete, nor is it free from those
defects, which are likely to occur in an address fn the ear; but which a
writer is always careful to amend, when he addresses the eye.
Secondly,
and principally, because having quoted some authors who have written
upon the subject, I should not have presumed to publish the sermon,
without having acknowledged, as a matter of course, the sources to which
I had been indebted.
Since
I am obliged to trespass again upon your kindness, permit me, sir, to
offer a word or two, in
reference
to a statement made by one of your correspondents, in a letter
printed in the Occident of Heshvan. Mr. Henry Goldsmith, after making
war with every one and with every thing, undertakes to dispose of some
of the Rev. Mr. Carillon's queries in the most summary manner. "I
would like to know (says the reverend minister of St. Thomas) whether
Mr. Marks lays Thephillin?" To this, Mr. Henry Goldsmith
unhesitatingly replies, "Surely he (the Rev. Mr. Carillon) ought to
know that these Reformers reject Thephillin altogether." You,
however, Mr. Editor, are not so rash nor so uncharitable as to pronounce
judgment on a congregation upon mere hearsay; you do not therefore
acquiesce in what you properly suppose, may be a calumny, and therefore
append a note, questioning the correctness of what your correspondent
aserts. In raising this question, sir, you have done us no more than
justice; and of this you will be convinced, when I assure you that the
precepts of מזוזות and
תפילן are as rigidly observed by the
members of the "West London Synagogue of British Jews" as by
any other congregation.
Permit
me, sir, to record my thanks, for this act of justice you have performed
to my congregation. Again, apologizing for this intrusion upon your
valuable space,
I
am, reverend and dear sir,
Yours very respectfully,
David W. Marks.
After
all, we are glad that we have proved by Mr. Marks's own words that he is
a member of the family of Israel in faith and deeds; it is a triumph
over the assertions of those who seek to destroy us that, divided as we
may be in sentiment, we are still undivided upon the fundamental
principles of our faith. We do sincerely deplore the step which the
Burton Street congregation have taken to divide off from the general
body of Israelites in London; but we cannot permit any one to imagine
that they have ceased to be Jews. We will therefore view them as
brethren who have committed a great error in establishing a worship
unknown elsewhere; and always cherish the hope that one day, not far
distant, they may become reunited to the ancient fold never more to form
"two families again." We have a great deal more to say, but we
forbear at the present.
Letter
From Mr. H. Goldsmith.
New York, Shebat 19, 5604.
To
The Editor Of The Occident:
Rev.
Sir—When a person who is considered a spiritual leader openly
pronounces an opinion regarding our faith, contrary to what we have been
in the habit of believing for ages past, and which is calculated to
promote scepticism and irreligion: some means ought to be employed to
inform those not thoroughly versed in those matters, that such is not
the opinion of the generality of our co-religionists, but merely
confined to an isolated few, in order to check the pernicious influence
to which the propagation of such ideas might tend.* This was the cause
that prompted me to make some remarks on the Rev. B. C. Carillon's
letter, which appeared in the Occident of October. The reverend
gentleman there says: "Now denying the divine claim of the Talmud
or its authority are two different cases;" from which I inferred
that he denies the divine claim of the Talmud, but acknowledges its
authority. This called forth my remark that no law is binding unless
it be divine; and I say again, if we do not believe a law to
be the divine will, I do not see the obligation or the sense in
observing it.† I then attempted to prove by logical deductions the
divine authority of the Talmud. I quoted לא
תעשה כל
מלאכה and
וקשרתם לאות
על ידיך to substantiate my argument
that the laws as they are written absolutely required an oral
explanation from the legislator, without which they would indeed have
been a dead letter. The quotation of the passage
והגית בו
יומם לילה was intended
by me to prove the same result. What I mentioned about Aboth was not (as
Mr. Carillon endeavoured to make out I did) in evidence of the truth of
the Talmud, but merely to describe the links that connect the chain of
tradition together, from Moses down to the Sages. I did not attribute
any qualities to the latter which might assimilate them to those who
were inspired by the Almighty; nor did I ascribe to them the power of
making laws not based upon divine authority. It appears, however, from
Mr. Carillon's subsequent communications, that he either did not or
would not understand me. To say that my proofs are few and
insignificant, is not the way to hold a controversy. We can surmount any
difficulty by reasoning in this manner.
Should
my proofs, however, not be sufficient, I refer him to Neh. 8, 7 and 8,
וישוע
ובני וכו׳
והלוים
מבינים את
העם לתורה
והעם על
עמדם׃
ויקראו בספר
בתורת
האלהים מפרש
ושם שכל
ויבינו
במקרא׃
"And
Jeshua and Bani, etc. and the Levites, caused the people to understand
the law, and the people stood in their places. So they read in the book
in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense and caused them to
understand the reading." This, in my humble opinion, sufficiently
proves not only that the laws required explanation, without which they
would have been utterly unintelligible to the majority of the nation,
but also that a few only were initiated to whom the tradition was
entrusted and who preserved it in its purity. The Hebrew being still the
vernacular tongue, I cannot see any other meaning in the terms caused
the people to understand the law and gave the sense, etc.
So
much in justification of my views stated in my first letter. In reply,
Mr. Carillon says: "Where did I speak of rabbinical laws? I said authority,
not laws, for I deny to the Rabbis and the Talmud the right of making
laws."* Now I am really at a loss to understand this. If he
believes the laws which we find in the Talmud to emanate from the divine
legislator, then they are incontestably divine If they do not, we are
not bound to abide by them if the Rabbis have no authority to enact
laws, as Mr. C. asserts. The conclusion I wish to draw from this is,
that there is no juste milieu. The Talmud is divine, or it is not
entitled to authority.
The
views of Maimonides which the Rev. Mr. Rice cites, cannot be quoted in
evidence of the truth of traditions, for as soon as a person admits that
oral laws have been transmitted from Moses, their divine nature is then
already sufficiently obvious. If not transmitted from Moses, they are
not entitled to he called divine.
I
can not conclude without returning thanks to the Rev. B. C. Carillon,
for his good wishes. But I beg to assure him that I am very well
satisfied with my present situation, and do not aspire to that elevated
position in which he would like to see me placed. I have every
opportunity now to be of some service to my co-religionists, and I pray
the Almighty to grant me life and strength to continue in my present
career.
I am yours, very respectfully,
HENRY GOLDSMITH.
Letter From
Barbadoes.
Bridgetown, Barbadoes, January 2d, 5604, (1844.)
To the Editor of the Occident.
Sir:
Having read in your
number
for December 1843, under the head of the "Jewish Congregation
of Charleston," the following sentences, "The congregation
determined to rebuild their Synagogue, and a subscription was
immediately opened for this sacred purpose, and an earnest appeal made
to the different Congregations in this country and Europe; we regret to
state that the only response to this appeal was heard from the
congregation of Cincinnati, Ohio, enclosing $119,50. Letters were
received from the congregations of London, Amsterdam, Barbadoes, and
Curaçoa, sympathizing with us in the loss of our Synagogue, but
excusing themselves under various pretexts from affording us the
necessary aid." I must request the favour of your doing the
congregation of this city the justice to publish the following letter in your periodical.
Kaal Kadosh Nidhe Israel, Barbadoes, 24th, Ab. 5598,
15th August, 1838.
Joshua Lazarus, Esq., Chairman, &c. &c.
Dear
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your circular applying to this
congregation for aid to rebuild your fallen sacred edifice; most
tenderly do this Kaal sympathize in your awful bereavement; yet with the
keenest anguish they deeply deplore announcing that the dreadfully
reduced and wofully depressed state of the Kaal prevents their extending
the hand of assistance. This congregation feel a desire with all their
hearts and souls to promote your exemplary energetic sacred efforts, but
with poignant anguish feel an incapability to accomplish their wish.
Praying
that the Omnipotent Guide will shield you from further peril, promote
your worthy exertions, and prosper your holy congregation,
I
have the honour to be,
&c. &c.
Now,
sir, I will ask the writer in the "Occident" in what part of
the above he discovered any thing of "pretext?"
We
plainly and unhesitatingly declare our inability; and which, when it is
stated that the number of contributing members in this congregation at
that time did not exceed twelve, must be allowed; of this the Charleston
Kaal might not have been cognizant; but they must have known that
our Synagogue was destroyed by an awful hurricane in August 1831, and
that we rebuilt it by February 1834, at a cost of nearly $11,000,
although we did not take any measures to "show to posterity that
this congregation rebuilt their Synagogue by the aid of their own
members," and without any "insurance recovered
on the building destroyed," or a single cent from any source
whatever but their own funds; but which I now take the opportunity of
declaring. Such has been our paucity of numbers, and consequent
reduction of income for some years past, that since the death of our
lamented Hazan, the Rev. M. Belasco, in November 1834, we have not had
the means to pay a minister, nor can we now afford but to pay a Shochet.
These
facts considered, we think it must be allowed that our assigned reason
for not affording assistance was any thing but pretext. It is
perhaps not amiss as a proof that we are not accustomed to use pretexts
for not extending the hand of assistance to our brethren, to mention,
than in the near 1819, we granted $500 to the Kaal of Philadelphia, to
aid in building their Synagogue; and also that an individual of this
Kaal contributed liberally towards the erection of one in Cincinnati.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
B——.
|
