Letter from Mendelsohn, S. to Morais, Sabato. Wilmington, NC; Nov 1895
- Title
- Letter from Mendelsohn, S. to Morais, Sabato. Wilmington, NC; Nov 1895
- Date Created
- 18 November 1895
- Format
- 12 pages on 12 sheets
- Language(s)
- English
- Source
- Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies
- Sabato Morais Collection, Box 7, Folder 8
- Has Format
- https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p31834n3t/manifest.json
- Link to Colenda
- https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p31834n3t
- Provenance
- Transfer of Custody from the Hebrew Education Society, 10 March 1913.
- Is Format Of
- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/judaicadh/morais/main/TEI/SMBx7FF8_22.xml
- content
-
[Hebrew]
Wilmington, N. C., Nov. 18th 1895.
from S. Mendelsohn
Wilmington, N. C.
Rev. & dear sir:-
[Hebrew], I beg leave to submit for your consideration & decision the following question: Is the holding of funeral services in the synagogue opposed to the spirit of our laws & desecrating the house of God?
This question is, with me, not an idle one: it is a [Hebrew] which I seek. For even now there is pending in my congregation a resolution authorizing the opening of the synagogue for funeral services, in case it be the desire of the bereaved family--members of the Jewish commu-nity, of course--to hold such services in the synagogue.
Now, while I full well know that, to hold funeral services over the remains of a layman in the synagogue is not a general custom in Israel--though in Europe I have seen it done & in this country I have heard of it,-- & while I duly appreciate the gravity of our sages' maxims: [Hebrew] & [Hebrew], & therefore do not lightly esteem our customs: I am neverthe-less inclined to sanciton the proposed innovation, not, however, for the sake of the innovation, but for the sake of the wholesome results that may follow. I conscientiously believe that the opening of the house dedicated to the wor-ship of God & to instruction in the word of God for the purpose under consider-ation, will accomplish in Israel more good than many eloquent sermons preached to empty benches; & if [Hebrew] (Berakhoth IX §5; Yer. ib. IX §8-b.14d Tot, et al.) [Hebrew] that, under similar circumstances, a [Hebrew] mi[ght]
be altered--a [Hebrew] resting on, what seems to me, [Hebrew] of the popular [Hebrew] which is certainly [Hebrew] (Eduyoth II §2, et al.), particularly where there are people who have seen it, & upon a [Hebrew] which, I humbly submit, is misunder-stood & therefore misapplied._But [Hebrew].
What is it that leads people to believe the holding of funeral services in the synagogue opposed to the spirit of our laws? The Bible is silent on the question, & [Hebrew] it can not be included, because while Christianity was yet in its earliest infancy, public funerals [Hebrew] among the Jews were held in sy-nagogues (of Megillah 28b)._The Mishnah (ib. III § 3) says: [Hebrew]; but as our synagogues are [Hebrew] in splendid condition, this can not be applied to them. We consult the Tosefta, & here (ib. II, ed. Zuck. III, end) we read as follows: [Hebrew], which the Gemarah (ib. 28a sq.), probably on the principle of [Hebrew] & vice versa (?), reproduces in this form: [Hebrew] xxx [Hebrew] xxx [Hebrew]. This the [Hebrew] adopt as the [Hebrew], & hence we find Maimonides saying: [Hebrew] [Hebrew] (H. Tefillah XI § 7). The author of the [Hebrew] (151 §1) states it in about the same language: [Hebrew] [Hebrew], commenting upon which the [Hebrew] remarks: [Hebrew] [Hebrew] which view the author of the [Hebrew] himself expresses in his [Hebrew] (344 §19), where he says: [Hebrew].--This, then, is the [Hebrew], & to my limited knowledge the only one germain to the question at issue; but [Hebrew], I venture to contend that this Halakhah does not prohibit the
holding of funeral services in the synagogue, & that, per contra, according to the spirit & even to the letter of this Halakhah, funeral services ought to be held in the house dedicated to the worship of God & to instruction in the word of God.
Remembering that the Talmudic term [Hebrew] is multivocal (cf. Jastrow, Dick, s. v.), one might easily be led to suppose that it implies also funeral services; & yet such is not the case. The fact is, as far as we know, under the Talmudic dispensation there were no services at the funerals. There were the funeral ceremonies, obsequies, conducted with great pomp & grandeur. These embraced vocal & instrumental music, hired mour-ners & torch bearers, elegies & eulogies, wringing of hands, smiting on the breast, stamping with the foot (Moed Katon 24 sq.; Kethuboth 46b, 48a; Semahoth, et al.); but nowhere do we find in the Talmud the slightest reference to funeral services. We do meet with the [Hebrew] (ab. Zarah 18a; anp. Sifre Debarin §307); but even that was said, not during the funeral ceremonies, but by the dying & not by all the dying, as is evident from the Rabbi's exclammation: [Hebrew] [Hebrew]!--That such a [Hebrew], embracing such displays was distasteful to our sages, appears from its being mentioned in connection with acts denominated [Hebrew] (Meg. l. c.). The were gorgeous ceremonies, often continued for many days ([Hebrew]--M. Katon 27b, et al.) & ruinous to bereaved families, so that "the disposal of the remains was frequently more distressing than the death itself" (ib. 27b): [Hebrew],--hence could not be countenanced in the synagogue, where all classes of people gather to pour out their spirits to God or to learn the word of God. These spectacular obsequies too much glorified the high & mortified the low, so that the latter frequently deserted their dying
in order to escape the humiliation consequent upon their inability to rival their affluent brethren in funerial displays (ib.) [Hebrew],--hence the sages' objection to lending the synagogue for private funeral ceremonies.
Our funerals have nothing in common with those of olden days, save what is consoling & edifying. Modern Jewish funerals are not at-tended by gorgeous pageantries & costly exhibitions, but by sorrowing friends & subdued mourninf; they are accompanied, not by wringing of hands & smit-ing the breast, but by solemn services &instructive lessons,--hence they can not fall under the fan of proscription._Indeed, it seems to me that the spi-rit, & even the letter of the Halakhah under consideration recommend the holding of funerals, as conducted nowadays, in the synagogue. The Tosefta, & the Gemara, & the casuists tell us: [Hebrew], & I hazard nothing in asserting that, in our days, there is no other [Hebrew]. The [Hebrew] of the Talmud is, according to glossaries & casuists, one at which [Hebrew] a great many people are present. Another Halakhah makes it obligatory on the community at large to attend the funeral of a well known person: [Hebrew] (Moed Katon 24b; Maimon, H. Abel XII §11; Yore Deah 353 §5); & since in our days almost every Israelite is blest with large circles of acquaintances, particularly among those who worship with him in the same synagogue, every funeral is a [Hebrew], consequently ought to take place in the synagogue.
That in our days every funeral is a [Hebrew], one which is attended by many people, goes without saying. Every Israelite from whose house a funeral
ever took place knows that, notwithstanding his having prepared for the sad occasion the largest room in the house & furnished it with his neighbors' chairs, there were not seats enough, or even standing room enough, for the people that crowded in; & every one who ever attended a Jewish funeral from private premises knows that, while the minister conducts the funeral services in the house of mourning, there are vastly more people in front of that house than under its roof!
And do we owe nothing to public convenience & to public health? Have we never heard of people contracting colds & more serious ailments from exposure at funerals?_ Our sages extol public respect, going so far as to say, [Hebrew] (Berakhoth 19b Meg. 3b; cf. Tosafoth ib. s. v. 37b), & we, without express authority for it, close the synagogue against the public attending funerals! [Hebrew]!_I know that, pointing to the Halakhah, where it says: [Hebrew], one might argue that, as the same treatise which contains our sages exalted opinion of [Hebrew], contains also this prohibition, whence it might be inferred that, in this respect, our ancients did not consider [Hebrew] of insuperable importance, for [Hebrew] (Berakhoth lc.)! My re-ply would be Far from it! Public respect was with our sages an inviolable rule; but in the case of a strictly private funeral, their apparent devia-tion from that rule was dictated, first, by their respect for the greater public combined with their objections to the obsequies themselves; & 2ndly, by the fact that there was no occasion to disturb the synagogue on account of every private funeral, families having then owned private "mourning-houses" [Hebrew]
which were commodious enough for private funerals (Kethuboth 84a; B. Bathrso 100b, et al.). We have no such mourning-houses & no such obsequies; but we have synagogues, whither the Israelite does, or is expected to, hie himself on every occasion; these synagogues are commodious edifices,--why not open them for the convenience of the sorely tired mourners & of their large circle of sym-pathizing friends? The Tosefta, & the Gemara, & the casuists, as we have seen, agree in recommending the opening of the synagogue for a [Hebrew], & the "Prince of Commentators," Rashi remarks: [Hebrew] (Meg. 28b, s. v. [Hebrew]), which means public convenience,--let us adopt the recommendation, if only [Hebrew] for the sake of public convenience.
But it is not merely convenience, private or public, that inclines me to sanction the proposed quasi innovation; I am actuated by a higher motive, even the good effects which the better facilities for holding funeral services will produce.
Some years ago, I had the honor of an invitation to read before the Jewish Ministers' Association a paper on "Funeral Orations," & in the course of my remarks on that subject, I expressed the following views:--In our days, & particularly in this country, "while the funeral address is confessedly not an indispensable component of the burial services, it is the almost universal custom, & objectively very im-portant, because of the possible consequences in that [Hebrew] (Moed Katon 28b, et al). Funeral services are often attended even by such as are hardly, if ever, seen in the synagogue, & the minister has thus a rare opportunity for approaching hearts which are usually far removed from his influence; & who can tell whether the good seed sown on so solemn an occasion, may not find
a resting place in some fertile soil there to be deeply imbedded & eventually to produce blessed fruit? The coffin & the grave, it is true, are in themselves eloquent preach-ers, but not every ear is so constructed as to hear the silent lessons they con-vey. It requires an active tongue to interpret them & to render them intelligible & appreciable. In short, [Hebrew] 'the merit of the funeral address con-sists in the edifying, sacred emotions it inspires.' (Berakhoth 6b)
Such views I have embodied in my paper, [Hebrew] [Hebrew], & when I laid them before the said Association*, they received the unqualified endorsement of that learned body,--hence I believe that the fu-neral address is entitled to a place in the Jewish pulpit as much as any other address based on Jewish lore & Jewish doctrine, & more so than the wedding ceremony (emp. [Hebrew] in Y. D. 391 §3 & E. H. 61 §1, & cf. Succah 51b & Tosaforth Kidduhin 52b s. v. [Hebrew]), & this, not only [Hebrew]; but also [Hebrew]. For after all, if the \ term [Hebrew] in our Halakhah means anything, it certainly means the funeral address; & from the language of the Tosefta (Kethub. IV §2) & of the Ge-mara (Yer. ib IV §b--p. 28d): [Hebrew], we know that the funeral address was not universal in those days. Now, as long as the [Hebrew] was subject to local custom, & the privilege of the elect--as can readily be seen from the fragmentary remains of such addresses (M. Katow 25b, et al.)--there was good rea-son for banishing it from the synagogue, & even then only in cases of [Hebrew], to spare the feelings of the masses, for which reason many important changes in
*) At the meeting held in Washington, D.C., May 1888, which was attended, among many others, by the Rev. Drs. Gottheil, Jastrow & Mendes--the chief officers, & by the Rev Drs Szold, Wintner & the lamented Bettelheim.
the funeral ceremonies have from time to time been introduced (ib. 27). Again, as long as the [Hebrew] was purely subjective, confined to the delineation of the life & labors of the deceased ([Hebrew]--Berakhoth 3b), it would not have comported with the scope of the pulpit & of the synagogue to surrender them to every [Hebrew]. But in this country & in modern congre-gations, where the minister, in stricter consonance with the Kalakhah (M. Kab. 24b; Y. D. 344 §4, et al.), delivers an address on the death of even a young child; where no line of demarcation is drawn between the high & the low, between the rich & the poor, & where every such sad occasion is attended by a numerous assembly of friends & acquaintances of the deceased, or of the bereaved, or of both: the synagogue is, in my humble opinion, the proper place for the fu-neral address which combines the subjective & the objective: consolation for the mourners & instruction for all.
[Hebrew] is, that the inhibitory clause of our Halakhah is in-applicable to our times & customs, & that the modern Jewish funeral may, or should take place in the synagogue, in the public house of public prayer & public instruction.
But how about the corpse: may that be brought into the synagogue without doing violence to the sanctity of the place? Though our Halakhah permits, or ordains, the holding of the [Hebrew] in the synagogue, it does not yet permit the presence of the corpse. Indeed, from the concatenation of the Talmudic rules: [Hebrew] (M. Katon 28a) & [Hebrew] (ib 27b), both of which are accepted Halakhoth (Maim. H. Abel IV §§ 7-8; ib XIII §11; Y. D. 357 & 394) one might
reasonably infer that the [Hebrew] was delivered without the presence of the subject, even after burial; while our funeral services are held before burial & in the presence of the remains: may this be done in the synagogue? Again [Hebrew].
In [Hebrew] (344 §20) we find the following Halakhah: [Hebrew] [Hebrew]. This rule is incorporated in [Hebrew] (l. e., end) on the authority of Haggaon Hai; & although [Hebrew] it can not be traced further back, it suffices for the present to know that the [Hebrew] admits human remains into the [Hebrew]. It is true, the admission granted in these cases is a concession to greatness, but it nevertheless shows that the [Hebrew] did not con-sider it a desecration of the sacred edifice. We now turn to the Mishnah, & here (Yadayim IV §6) we find R. Yohanan ben Zaccai endeavoring to account for certain rules concerning ritualistic uncleanness, & as the best reason for as-signing the power of contamination to human bones, & not to those of the brute, he-- R. Yohanan ben Zaccai, who elsewhere (Numb. R. s. XIX; Tanhuma Huccath §8) is reported as saying: [Hebrew]--asserts offers the argumentum ad hominem: [Hebrew]; & accordingly, if [Hebrew] (Hullin 33a), & yet the Gaon's remains do not desecrate the sacred edifice, [Hebrew] that the remains of the lower classes can not desecrate it!--But there is no occasion for diving in the depths of obstruse reasoning. R. Akiba exaltingly exclaims: [Hebrew] (Pessahim 19a), & on the authority of a Baraitha, the Talmud (Yer. Kilayim IX §2--p. 32a) explicitly says: [Hebrew].
And still another question. If in the foregoing I have succeeded in correctly interpreting the Halakhah, & proved that, accordingly, the remains may be brought into the
the synagogue, the question may be asked may the [Hebrew] lawfully abide in the synagogue, while the human remains are under its roof? And to this I unhesitatingly answer Yes!
The Gemara (Yer. Berakhoth II §1--p. 6a) raises the question: [Hebrew]? & answers by citing the following precedent [Hebrew] [Hebrew]. Commenting on this, Asheri (Kethub. II §5) remarks: [Hebrew] [Hebrew]. The same precedent is quoted in illustration of the above Baraitha [Hebrew]. Now, since it is admitted that the funeral address, like any other address based on Jewish doctrine, is [Hebrew], it clearly follows that the [Hebrew] may attend funeral services. And should it be objected to the high position here assigned to the funeral address, then the [Hebrew] should be obliged to attend for the sake of the funeral it-self. For whether the [Hebrew] or [Hebrew] (Sanh. 46b sq.), it is [Hebrew], & we have just seen that the Talmud states: [Hebrew], which state-ment reappears elsewhere (Yer. Berakh. III §1--p. 6b top) in an amplified & Halakhic form; thus: [Hebrew]xxx? [Hebrew] [Hebrew].--Again the [Hebrew] (Y. D. 371 §5) permits the [Hebrew] to stand by the funeral couch, because [Hebrew] [Hebrew] & surely it will not be averred that the corpse, encased in a coffin & resting on a bier, can acquire a right to the place in the sy-nagogue! And as there is no right of acquisition, there is no possibility of contamination by proximity (cf. Sotah 44a; Maimon. H. Abel III § 13; Y. D., l. c.). Above all, we must remember, as Maimonides expresses it (More IIII, 47), [Hebrew] [Hebrew], & the Talmud (Taanith 17) permits the [Hebrew] to drink wine [Hebrew] (cf. Rashi ad l. & Tosaforth ib. s. v. [Hebrew]; also [Hebrew] ad l. s. v. 137).
In conclusion, I beg leave to add the following. Maimonides (H. Tumath Meth XII §6), on good Talmudic authority (cf. Berakhoth 19b), distinctly states that [Hebrew] [Hebrew]. Now, as in this coun-try the remains are never carried out on a funeral couch ([Hebrew]), but always in coffins, there is accordingly no room for the apprehension of contamination; & although the sources quoted add: [Hebrew], we may reasonably hold to the main Halakhah, since our coffins are invariably spacious, always leaving between the corpse & the lid more vacuum than the Halakhah requires. Again, the Talmud (Meg. 26b) & the casuists declare [Hebrew]; & since coffins are certainly [Hebrew], at least the wooden ones are [Hebrew].--
From all of the above it clearly appears to my mind:
1. That to hold funeral services in the synagogue can not be [Hebrew] public funerals having been held in synagogues early in the common era.
2. That modern Jewish funerals, differing as they do from those of Talmudic times in many respects &--the occasional costly casket & display of flowers notwithstand-ing--being free from that pomp & pageantry which constituted ancient funeral cere-monies & which probably suggested their being considered in connection with [Hebrew] [Hebrew], do not fall under the Halakhic interdict even as to [Hebrew].
3. That the modern Jewish funeral is, in every case & literally, a [Hebrew], & there-fore may be held in the synagogue [Hebrew].
4. That, as funeral services are attended even by those of our race who hardly ever take occasion to recollect that they are born Jews, & as the funeral address, embo-dying the objective as well as the subjective, may have the effect of awakening
them to their duties as Jews: funeral services ought to be held in the synagogue [Hebrew].
5. That the remains may be brought into the synagogue, without fear of thereby desecrating the sacred edifice, particularly if they are enclosed in a coffin.
6. That the [Hebrew] may attend such funeral services for the sake of both [Hebrew] & [Hebrew].--
And now, Rev. sir, having to the best of my ability--&, let me hope, also to your satisfaction--submitted my authorities for my views on the question at issue, I crave your authoritative & categoric opinion. I conscientiously believe to have in the above presented the Halakhah & its bearings, the premises & the conclusions: am I mis-taken, or am I correct? This, I earnestly trust, you will answer. If I am mistaken, kindly point out my mistakes; if I am correct, considerately endorse me. In either case I shall greatly appreciate your prompt reply: [Hebrew].
With highest regards & best wishes, I have the honor of being, [Hebrew], Sincerely your pupil S. Mendelsohn Rabbi Congr. "Temple of Israel."
The Rev. Dr. S. Morais; Philadelphia, Pa - Identifier
- p31834n3t
- identifier
- SMBx7FF8_22
Part of Letter from Mendelsohn, S. to Morais, Sabato. Wilmington, NC; Nov 1895
Mendelsohn, S. and Morais, Sabato, “Letter from Mendelsohn, S. to Morais, Sabato. Wilmington, NC; Nov 1895”, Sabato Morais Digital Repository, accessed October 18, 2024, https://judaicadhpenn.org/legacyprojects/s/morais/item/88159