Letter from M. Mayer to Isaac Leeser;October 05, 1857 · Isaac Leeser Digital Repository · Legacy Projects from Judaica DH at Penn Libraries

Title

Letter from M. Mayer to Isaac Leeser;October 05, 1857

Author

M. Mayer

Contributor

Isaac Leeser

Date Created

5 October 1857

Location(s)

Charleston

Philadelphia

Format

Letter. 5 page(s) on 3 sheet(s).

Letter

Type

Letter

Language(s)

English

Hebrew

Has Format

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p3h12vt6r/manifest.json

Link to Colenda

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p3h12vt6r

Physical Characteristics

Unlined Paper

Manuscript

Is Part Of

The Dropsie College Isaac Leeser Collection at the Penn Libraries

content

1
Charleston, S. C. October 5. 1857.
Rev. Isaac Leeser, Philadelphia,
Dear Sir—
Your letter of the 15th ult. would have been immediately replied to, although I received it but a day after Hebrew, had I not been otherwise overwhelmed with the most various business engagements, not the least of which was moving 2 days after that Festival. But now, I have sat down to write a lengthy answer to your rather long letter, and intend to be as open and candid with you as you have been with me. First then, you take umbrage at my indorsing what you call the scurrilous and impertinent editorial of the Asmonean in re-lation to the establishment of your Synagogue. Now, my dear Sir, I have always held the opinion that it is unjustifiable, under any circumstances whatever, to establish a new religious associ-ation, unless from principle. If a change of doctrines has taken root in a religious body, then, and then alone, I think, it is right for those repudiating that change, to establish an association of their own. Was such the case in Philadelphia? Decidedly not! And for this reason I subscribe to the re-marks of the Asmonean which are neither scurrilous nor impertin-ent. I would ask any unprejudiced mind, whether the following words, to which I made allusion in my last letter, are such as you describe them? “What necessity can be shown in Philadelphia for two Sephardim congregations? There exists no difference on dogma; none on form, tone or accentuation; neither is the edifice to small for the congregators, even, if they all invariably attended

2/
whenever the portals were opened for service. A watchful opposition is beneficial, a severing one, suspicious; and the leaders of the latter are bound to justify themselves before the world, when they attempt to launch into existence an opposition congregation.” You may find these remarks “scurrilous & impertinent,” I think they contain the plainest truth. Of course, this is only a difference of opinion, upon which neither of us can decide. However, this much I venture to add, that if the Congregation Beth-El-Emeth had been a reformed one, and the Asmonean had made even some stronger remarks, Mr. Leeser wold not have deemed them “scurrilous and impertinent.” You do me further injustice by saying that I “So far forgot the courtesies of life, as to decide without knowing the least of the situation of affairs in Phila-delphia.” Now, I can assure you that, although I am no Editor of a Journal, a Magazine, I am still pretty well informed with regard to all that is going on in the larger congregations of our brethren. Besides, have not you given me the clue to “the situation of affairs in Philadelphia,” at our interview on the 17th of July 1856? Did you not then tell me that “it depended but upon your encouraging the movement, and a new congregation would be established; for the tyranny in the old had become intolerable.” Thus then it was “tyranny” that gave birth to the new congregation. Tyranny of opinion, principle, reform, innovation, and the like? Nothing of all this. The tyranny so called by a minority that desire a majority to sub-mit to them, by a minority that would not obey the laws and regulations passed and executed by the legal majority. Is such an imaginary “tyranny” a just course for secession? No, no, thrice no! And because it is not, such a secession is rebellion that

3
should never be countenanced. But, say you in your letter to me, “did it not strike you, that Isaac Leeser's friends may have thought that he had been in retirement long enough, and that it was but just to protect him against the slander of Wise, Einhorn, especially that contemptible price of criticism in the March Sinai which was translated on Pureem day in a certain city called Charleston by a gentleman whom you perhaps know” (of this farther down), “of the Asmonean, the director of the Deutsch-Americanische Skizzen, and D Philippson, and correspondents on this side of the Atlantic? Now, as you have read my strictures on the “Deutsch-Americanische Skizzen” you must have perceived from the part defending you, that some sort of such a though did really “strike” my mind; but it is still questionable whether the means adopted by your friends with the view of giving you satisfaction was a moral one. The end never justi-fies the means; and however great and acute the real or imaginary “slanders” were, of which you complain, and however anxious and justified your friends may have been to protect and satisfy you in some way, all this can not induce me to approve a means which I, in my humble opinion, look upon as rebellious and, therefore, immoral. Others may think otherwise; they are welcome to their opinion, and I do not wish to disturb them in their enjoyment of it, as little as I can be divested of mine, or would permit them to dis-turb my convictions. From your letter I perceive that the greatest number of the Portuguese ? of Philadelphia attend your Syna- gogue; why, if this majority thus are your friends, why have they not exercised their power in the old congregation, in your favor? This would have been legal, moral and, consequently, right, so that but the slanderous tongue of malice could then have made any objection; whereas now, just criticism may well find room for its strictures and needs fear no retorts. You see, Mr Leeser, I

4/
have been often with you, on this point, and shall further imitate you in candor, now, as I shall speak of another point, already alluded to above. Amongst the slander against which your friends protected you, you mention also “that contemptible piece of criticism in the March Sinai, which was translated on Pureem day in a certain city called Charleston, by a gentleman whom you (I) perhaps know.”
November 25. 1857.
This point in my letter I reached on the day mentioned at the head of these lines when I was interrupted and would not resume them until this day. Yet, I do not regret this long delay for two reasons: it is my best defence against any charge of writing in excitement; for had your letter even caused it, it must have been calmed by the long interval between its receipt and my reply to it. In the second place, the November manner of the Occident, which reached me since, offers me an opportuni-ty to advert to other matters that were then unknown to me.
And now let us return to the subject broken off above. No one can deny that the so-called Jewish Sunday Schools, as they have been hitherto, and still are managed, did more harm than good, have been, in a word, mere mockeries of religious schools. Some old maids, with the view, perhaps, of atoning for the sins of their youth, and imagining henceforward to consecrate their lives unto the Service of God, undertake, altho' knowing as little of their Religion and the history of their nation, as their pupils themselves, to establish and manage religious schools, that is to say, take it upon themselves to impart the most important of all branches of education, which requires some know-ledge, circumspection and experience than any of its cognates. Now, is the very attempt on the part of these managers not in itself sacrilegious? And who are, in general, their assistant teachers? A few young girls that do not even know how to read the language of the Bible, or some gentlemen who may be good business men, mechanics, artists &c &c, but understand just as much of teaching and their Religion as their sister-colleagues. All this, and still

will you? I desire to compel them, to inform us also of the con-clusions of their arguments, which, thus far, we must only guess. There is yet a good deal to be written until the Hebrew will be fulfilled.
I just remembered, that I forgot to mention one point with regard to Mr. J's arguments, to prove to you, how little we can write without books. You remember, that he maintained, that Hillel “ordered the non-enactment of the Hebrew, because the land was tributary to Rome. Poor Mr J.! A glance at Hebrew Vol 386, in the first line, would have told him another story: Hebrew to which Rashi Hebrew remarks: Hebrew. From this point alone you must see, how great his Talmudical learning is! He is indeed not yet infallible, although he thinks so!
You must excuse, that I break off here, so abruptly; the other points in your letter will soon be attended to. My dear wife just enters my study, and admonishes me to pay a few visits with her. Accept her best regards, & my own. Write soon, to yours,
as ever
Dr M Mayer
A propos! Have you published, according to request, my German report, about the “?”?

Identifier

LSDCBx2FF4_70

Date

1857-10-05