Letter from B. E. to Isaac Leeser;March 28, 1844 · Isaac Leeser Digital Repository · Legacy Projects from Judaica DH at Penn Libraries

Title

Letter from B. E. to Isaac Leeser;March 28, 1844

Author

B. E.

Contributor

Isaac Leeser

Date Created

28 March 1844

Location(s)

London

Philadelphia

Format

Letter. 4 page(s) on 2 sheet(s).

Legal

Type

Letter

Language(s)

English

Hebrew

Has Format

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p35m62t32/manifest.json

Link to Colenda

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p35m62t32

Physical Characteristics

Manuscript

Is Part Of

The Dropsie College Isaac Leeser Collection at the Penn Libraries

content

To The Editor of the Occident
Reverend Sir
Having read the Rev. Mr Carillon's letter addressed to you in the Occident No 11. I beg leave through your valuable columns respectfully to ask the Rev gentleman how he reconciles the celebration of the double festivals with his condemnation of human laws, when added to the divine code? These are Mr Carillon's words “God forbid that any Jews should commit rebellion against the God of our fathers„ by adding human laws, to the divine, pure and perfect code &c Now in reference to some of our festivals, it is enjoined that the first and seventh day be holy convocations: is it not then to fly in the very face of this divine command to add, voluntarily to these two days, a second and an eighth day? is it not an open violation of the precept Hebrew “Thou shalt neither add to nor diminish from it [the law]
It is worthy remark, that from the observance of these double festivals we give utterance in our prayers to expressions both untrue and contradictory. For instance, one of these interpolated festivals (Hebrew) kept on a ninth day, we, in our solemn prayer, call Hebrew (“This eighth day of solemn assembly Again; on the second day of Hebrew (new year) we repeat Hebrew (“The world was brought into existence this day) which cannot be predicated of both days, for one is evidently a negation of the other. But much more objectionable is that highly irreverend disregard of holy truth, which, on the double festivals—additions made by mortal man— proclaims Hebrew (“These are the festivals of the Lord, holy convocations”). Now as all these double festivals, including Hebrew are confessedly “human laws,” called by Maimonides Hebrew (words or institutions of the scribes) I would then respectfully ask Mr Carrillon in the name of that holy religion we both reverence, whether these human ordinances, added to the “divine code” do not come under the category of the sins he so emphatically denounces? Antiquity of custom, in the present case, is unentitled to the slightest weight, because, this custom, the offspring of sheer necessity with which it should have ceased, is a positive transgression of God's law. Let it be imagined that necessity had compelled our ancestors to diminish from instead of adding to the divine code—had compelled them to keep only six instead of seven days Passover; would future generations of Jews, in the supposed cases, be justified by veneration of antiquity to continue to sin voluntarily, because their ancestors had thus acted from compulsion? “No” replies Holy Writ “Thou shalt neither add to nor diminish from the law” Should it be asked in case of the abolition of the second day Hebrew what is to be done

when the first day of Tishri falls upon the Sabbath I answer, Obey God and blow the Hebrew as Joshua did [Chap 6] for it were impious to suppose that wrong, which God commands and this command is as irrespective of place and time as that of circumcision so frequently performed on the Sabbath; in fact, no tyranny of custom, it matters not how old, can make void the word of the living God
These double festivals, with the exception of *Hebrew (and even that festival was not always kept two days) were never observed in Jerusalem, simply because its inhabitants had no doubt as to the precise days on which the three festivals (Hebrew) were to be celebrated and this example, one would think should be an all-sufficient reason with modern Jews, who possess an unerring calendar to abolish the Custom
From the observations of Maimonides on this subject in his Yad Hachazaka (in Hilch Kidd Hachodesh and Hilch Yom Tob) it may be legitimately inferred that our great talmudical teacher himself, when he abstracts from the then state of things de facto, and addresses himself to the question de jure, is no advocate for the perpetuity of these supplemental days. Maimonides not only calls the institution of them a—Hebrew—a fashion (“Our celebration of the second day of these festivals is a fashion introduced by the sayings of the scribes, an innovation due to the state of dispersion” ? Yom Tob Ch 1 rule 21) but he says totidem verbis that by rights the second day ought to be abolished. Here follow his words
“Now a days when there is no Sanhedrin, and when the Beth Din of Hebrew follows the actual calculation, it would be just to have only one holiday in all places, even in those removed from Palestine, as well as those in Hebrew in as much as they all rely on one calculation”
As the abolition of these supplemental days forms the most salient point of difference between the Congregation of the West London Synagogue of British Jews and their coreligionists, and as Mr Carillon has introduced several reforms into his own synagogue,
*In those times it was requisite to observe two days Hebrew for the messengers who were sent out upon the high places to watch the heavens for the appearance of the new moon might have been impeded in their observations by the state of the atmosphere and their return to Jerusalem on the thirtieth of Elul been thereby prevented; in such case, and not otherwise, if I rightly understand Maimonides, two days Hebrew were kept in the capital of Hebrew. Further; as the feast of Hebrew is held on the first day Tishri there would have been no opportunity to correct any error into which the messen-gers might have fallen, if only one day had been observed

I have therefore dwelt the longer on this religiously important subject, which I now submit to the calm consideration of the reverend gentleman
I trust I shall not trespass too much on the valuable and impartial pages of the Occident if I take this opportunity to set Mr Carillon right as to the opinion entertained of the Talmud by the Rev D. W. Harks. Never did this gentleman unqualifiedly deny its authority or speak disparagingly of the traditions contained therein; on the contrary, he spake in terms highly eulogistic and reverential of the authors of that work. He did indeed say that the Talmud was not so infallible a guide for the Israelites as the “One immutable Law” contained in Holy Writ, but let these words be taken in connexion with the antecedent praise and with the whole paragraphs of which they form a part and no unprejudiced person, I am bold to say, will see in them aught that is not religiously true! And here to enable the reader to judge for himself I subjoin the paragraph in question extracted from the Discourse delivered in the West London Synagogue on the day of its consecration (Vide Discourse p 748)
“Now let it not be supposed that it is the intention of myself, or of any member of this Congregation, whose humble organ I am, to vilify, in any way, the character of the traditional records. ON the contrary, we recognize in them a valuable aid for the elucidation of many passages in scripture; we feel proud of them as a monument of the zeal and mental activity of our ancestors, we hold it our duty to reverence the sayings of men who, we are convinced, would have sacrificed their lives for the maintenance of that Law which God has vouchsafed to deliver unto us; but we must (as our conviction urges us) solemnly deny, that a belief in the divinity of those traditions written in the Mishna and the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, is of equal obligation to the Israelite with the faith in the divinity of the law of Moses. WE know that these books are human compositions; and though we are content to accept with reverence from our post-biblical ancestors, advice, and instruction, we cannot unconditionally accept their Laws. For Israelites, there is but one immutable Law the sacred volume of the scriptures commanded by God to be written down for the unerring guidance of his people until the end of time”
It is not unessential to observe, that even these mild, measured remarks were not gratuitous, but absolutely called for as the Minister was then addressing his Congregation for the first time after himself and they had been excommunicated under the charge (utterly groundless by the bye) of having denied the divinity of the Oral Law...I hope I do not offend Mr Carillon by supposing that he

under parallel circumstances, would not have expressed himself more respectfully of the Talmud than his brother Minister spoke of it
I am most anxious to avail myself of the present opportunity to inform Mr Henry Goldsmith, that the charge (Occident No 8) he has brought against the members of the Burton Street Synagogue of having repudiated the wearing of Tephilin is wholly devoid of truth. I unhesitatingly acquit Mr Goldsmith of wilful misrepresentation and refer him to the first volume No 12 of the Voice of Jacob page 89 where he will find that a “rumour” had reached its editor that the “Secession Congregation” had determined by a majority of two in favor of not against, the wearing of Hebrew The following note from the Editor shows that there was not a scintilla of truth even in the above “rumour” hence I trust Mr Goldsmith will in future, exercise a little wholesome scepticism (not inaptly called one of the nerves of wisdom) when reports again reach him as to the proceedings of the Burton Street Synagogue. The Editor's note alluded to is as follows “This rumour referred to the obligation of wearing Hebrew. After we had gone to press, an authorized explanation reached us, that this particular question was not put to the vote. It was, on the contrary, an understanding, that the Hebrew should be worn during the service of every day on which they were worn in the established synagogues. On the morning of Hebrew those who could not conscientiously comply with this understanding were absent from service”
I return to the subject of the double festivals as I wish to observe before I conclude that if I had supposed Talmudic knowledge essential to the proper understanding of the question at issue, then, most assuredly, I had not been so presumptuous as to discuss a matter so transcendently important, but, I rely with some confidence on arguments, which, seem to me, to rest on the force of truth, the energy of common sense and upon the all-sustaining pillars of Holy Writ
I am
Reverend Sir
Yours very respectfully
B. E.
Upper Beaford Place
Russell Square
London March 28th 1844

Identifier

LSDCBx9FF14_3

Date

1844-03-28