(The Jewish Messenger, New York, Heshvan 12, 5625,
November 11, 1864.)
New Orleans, Oct. 27th, 1864
To the Rev. S.M. Isaacs and Son, Editors of the Jewish
Messenger.
Gentlemen: - It seems that you have no regular correspondent in this
city, otherwise he could give you matter enough to have also New Orleans mentioned in the
domestic column of your valuable paper. I take, therefore, the liberty to forward you some
short items regarding religious affairs in New Orleans.
About two months ago Dr. Illowy sent an official letter to the
מהלים of this city, in which he requested them not
to circumcise in future any child born from a Christian mother, though the father is an
Israelite, for the following reasons:
1st. It is evident that the circumcision is not performed
לשם גירות (for
conversion), but only for the purpose of being entitled to a portion of ground on the
Jewish burial place in case of death, and according to the law, the ceremony of
circumcision can be performed only לשם
גירות, after which the ceremony of
טבילה (immersion in a
מקוה (mikveh))
has to follow, whilst among all those already circumcised children of Christian mothers,
of whom some have already reached the age of five, and others of six years, there is not
one that had טבילה. Though Dr. Illowy explained to some of the parents that their
children can not be regarded, by law, as Israelites, as long as
טבילה is not
performed, the father, but not the mother, would yield to the exigency of the law.
2d. Since the circumcision is not performed
לשם גירות, the
מוהל not only that he acts contrary to the law, but
he also transgresses the prohibition לא תשא
by making a
ברכה לבטלה.
3d. Suppose everything would be done according to the law, both
טבילה and מילה, what, however,
has Judaism to hope of a child educated by a Christian mother and an irreligious father?
Have we not enoughבנים
משחיתים of our own, who would not know that
they are Jews were they
not circumcised? Why shall we, under the cover of religion, increase their number?
Dr. Illowy made the above explanation to the Board of Trustees, who
assisted him, and two of the מהלים,
who are members of the congregation, were notified that it is the desire of the Board that
they should act according to the decision of the Rabbi, to which they agreed. But the
third מוהל wrote, two weeks after he had received Dr.
Illowy's letter, a very insulting answer, in which he declared, that he has done so
before, and will continue so to circumcise all children born of Christian mothers. Dr.
Illowy, after having received that insulting answer of the
מוהל,
declared him publicly in the synagogue as פסול,
having forfeited his right as
מוהל,
and being in future unfit for and unworthy of that holy office.
This event gave rise partly to a dissatisfaction amongst the friends of
the מוהל and those whose wives are strangers,
נכריות, to our nation, and partly to a dispute among
impartial individuals about the correctness of Dr. I's decision. Permit me, therefore,
Gentlemen, to lay before you and your learned readers, three questions:
1st. Is it permitted, according to the law, to circumcise the son of a
Christian mother and an irreligious Jewish father, though we know beforehand, that we have
not a spark of hope that the child will ever be brought up as a Jew?
2nd. Suppose it be not permitted, has any Rabbi the right to declare a
מוהל who acted contrary to his decision in said
question as פסול and unfit to perform in future the ceremony of
circumcision?
3rd. Suppose the Rabbi has such a right to declare a
מוהל as פסול, is then the
פסול resting only upon the
מוהל,
or is it likewise sinful in every individual who allows such a
מוהל to circumcise his child.
Hoping that you will grant these questions a space in the columns of your
valuable paper and let us hear in the next number of the Messenger
your own opinion, as well as those of other learned men in Israel, I can assure you,
Gentlemen, that by so doing you will restore the peace into the hearts of those who are
now dissatisfied with the decision of Rev. Dr. Illowy.
אחרון
אחרון חביב: There were this year over fifty
סכות in our city, of which over forty were built by the
members of the congregation "Shaare Hesed", Rampart Street, whilst three years
ago, when Dr. Illowy arrived in this city, there was but one
סוכה, built by the sexton of the Portuguese congregation, in the
yard of the synagogue. Though, it is true, that the rev. gentleman worked indefatigably,
with patience and perseverance, to keep the word of G-d alive in his community, still it
must be admitted, that praise enough cannot be bestowed on Samuel Friedlander, Esq.,
President of the congregation, not alone for the powerful support which he is to the
Rabbi, not alone for the able management through which he made the congregation flourish,
and increase to such a number of members, that the synagogue, spacious as it is, has no
more room for any new-comers, but also for the strictness and conscious care with which he
watches the sacred altar of G-d, that it be not desecrated by the unholy fire of reform;
he stands at the doors of the synagogue like the cherubim before the garden of Eden, with
the flaming sword in his hand, granting no admittance to those of whom G-d said:
'לא יבואו בקהל
ה. This
is probably the principal cause that the goats commence now to separate themselves from
the sheep, צאן קדשים, and seek a better pasture, where they can find food entirely
agreeable to their taste. I need not tell you any more, that a "Reform Society"
will soon be organized in New Orleans; the "Knight Templars" already show great
activity, and circulars for that purpose are already distributed.
H.I. Almony.
We readily endorse the decision of Dr. Illowy respecting the admission
of the sons of a non-Israelitish woman into the covenant of Abraham.
The authority of a Rabbi in this country, being unfortunately limited by
his moral influence, Dr. Illowy had no power to enforce his decision by preventing
a מוהל from acting as such. If the Israelites of any
city are willing to have the functions of מוהל exercised by a man pronounced unfit for good and sufficient reasons, it is a fact, however
painful and deplorable, that there exists no acknowledged authority to restrain their
"liberty of action". Outside of his own synagogue, a Chazan or Rabbi in
America is invested with no power whatever, beyond expounding the law. -
Editors, J.M.
(The Jewish Messenger, New York, Shevat 7, 5625, February 3,
1865).
Editorial remark: We have heretofore called attention to the controversy
agitating our co-religionists at New Orleans on the subject of the Mohel who had been
suspended from duty by Dr. Illowy, the Rabbi of the congregation. It appears that the
Doctor had been called upon to retract his position, and a communication had been made to
him by the officers of the congregation with which Mr. Goldenberg was identified,
demanding a withdrawal of his censure. Dr. Illowy requests us to publish the following
reply, which he transmitted by Rabbi [Samson Raphael] Hirsch, of Frankfurt, and other high
authorities. We have already stated our conviction that the Doctor's course was dictated
by an earnest purpose of serving Israel, and perpetuating the purity of the rite of
circumcision, and was in accordance with correct precedent:
To the Gentlemen of the Committee from the Congregation "Shaare
Tefilla" in New Orleans:
Gentlemen: - I hereby most respectfully acknowledge the receipt of your
favor dated the 28th of December, in which you request me, by order of your congregation,
to recall what I have publicly pronounced against Mr. Goldenberg, a member of our
congregation.
Believe me, gentlemen, and the Almighty, who seeth into man's heart, He
alone knows it, that I never felt the least animosity against the person of Mr. G., and
would my conscience tell me that I have done him wrong, I would not hesitate a moment to
ask his forgiveness, and revoke my declaration, but since I am perfectly convinced that I
have acted fully in accordance with our sacred code, I regret my not being able to comply
with your desire.
I further beg leave, gentlemen, to state before you the case in its true
shape, that you may be better able to judge whether that what I have done was in
consistency with duty, law, and justice, or not.
It is very true, as every one who is but slightly acquainted with the
Hebrew language, without being a theological scholar, can read in
הלכות גרים, that the male child of a non-Israelitish
mother can be admitted into Judaism, and brought into the covenant of Abraham; and there
is no need to hear first the opinion of European Rabbis about it; every layman will know
how to decide this question. It is, however, not to be overlooked that the admission of a
child into Judaism is subject, like that of an adult, to the condition that the
ב"ד must first be at least apparently convinced that there is no
other motive that impels the proselyte to embrace Judaism than true and sincere
conversion.
I have further to remark that, though the law permits the proper authority
to admit a non-Israelite into Judaism, it is still not more than a permission granted by
the law; by no means, however, can it be regarded a מצוה, a religious duty enjoined upon us; because experience has
shown that in all ages proselytes have done Judaism more harm than good; as Rabbi Helbo
says, Yebamot 109, קשים
גרים לישראל
כספחת, "Proselytes are as hurtful to Judaism as leprosy is to
the body." Rashi Niddah, p.11, explains this passage with the following words:
שישראל
לומדים
ממעשיהם.
In another place we read - הגרים
מעכבים משיח, "The proselytes prevent the coming of
the Messiah". (Niddah p.11)
Rabbi Isaac said, "Misfortune after misfortune shall befall those who
admit non-Israelites into Judaism". רעה
אחר רעה תבא על
מקבלי גרים, to which
Tosephot (Yebamot, ib.) remark: "Though it seems to be a
מצוה to make proselytes, for, if otherwise, Joshua would not have
made Rahab a Jewess, and likewise would Hillel not have compelled with the desire of the
two heathens to be made by him Israelites; still these are quite different cases. Joshua
knew from the character of Rahab, and so knew Hillel from the character of the two
heathens, that they will one day become strict and faithful Jews:
יודע היה הלל
שסופן להיות
גרים גמרים.
After these remarks, allow me yet to add, that we are, to our deepest
regret, sufficiently convinced that of all these non-Israelitish mothers in this city, who
consented that their children be entered into the covenant of circumcision, there is not
one that has done so from the pure motive, to see her child worship one day the One only
G-d of Israel - a religion which she herself denies in word and deed, but they did so to
please the Jewish grandparents or their Jewish husbands, (who themselves have no other
motive than that the children be entitleג, in case of death, to a piece of ground on the
Jewish burial place). They would, however, not allow the טבילה to be applied
to them; though I explained to some of them clearly that without the
טבילה a child of a
non-Israelitish mother, can by law never be regarded as a Jew, though it be circumcised;
it was, nevertheless, refused, because they do not want to have their children baptized as
Jews. They consent sooner to have them circumcised than to be
נטבל,
baptized as Jews, for in their religion, the baptism is the principal and most important
act.
Now let us see what are the consequences of the circumcision of these
children, (of whom there are in our city about twelve of different ages, from five months
up to twelve years, to whom tevilah was never applied). They will pass as Jews
and marry daughters of Israel, because they are circumcised, though circumcision never
made them Israelites. But, more than this, what must be foreseen, is, that the children of
these marriages will be regarded by law as
ממזרים, of whom G-d says:
'עד
דור עשירי לא
יבאו בקהל ה. Using the expression
ממזרים, which may
sound badly in your ears, I must refer to Talmud Yebamot, p. 46, where we read as follows:
"Rabbi Hiyya came to the city of Gabla, there he saw several daughters of Israel
married to proselytes, who were circumcised, but had no
טבילה, and when
Rabbi Johanan heard of it, he said to him (to Rabbi Hiyya), go and call out in the
synagogue that the children of these people are
ממזרים, who are forbidden to come into the
congregation of the Lord."
And now allow me, gentlemen, to ask you another question: what shall one
day become of such children, even if they would have both
טבילה and מילה? Educated by a Christian mother and an
irreligious father, who publicly violates Sabbaths and festivals, and whose table is
desecrated by all kinds of forbidden food, as is the case here, which cannot be denied;
the mother goes to church and the father has neither church nor synagogue; in the parental
house, the child can not perceive even a slight tine of our religion, no other Sabbath
than that of his mother - the Sunday - for the father has no day of rest at all, neither
on Sabbath nor on Sunday: be sincere, and say, would it not be much better for these poor
children to let them be what their mothers are, Christians, than convert them for
appearance's sake into Jews, which they will never be, and enjoin upon them heavy duties,
which, as you yourselves know, they will never fulfill? Can there be anything more
detrimental to the cause of Judaism than to make such Jews?
Mr. G. propounded simply the question before the different rabbis, whether
the son of a non-Israelitish mother can be admitted to the covenant? Of course they must
answer in the affirmative. But had Mr. G. stated all the abovementioned circumstances,
then, I am sure, that there is not a man in this world, who has only a spark of justice
and religious feeling in his heart, who can approve the admission of such children into
Judaism, for we would only educate them as enemies to our religion, which last is far more
respected by true Christians than by irreligious Jews. In vain would we inflict bodily
pain upon the poor creature, and commit a grave offence against our holy religion,
morality, justice, and humanity.
There, gentlemen, are, in short, the reasons wherefore I ordered the
מוהלים not to circumcise in future children of
non-Israelitish mothers, but Mr. G., on account of his circumcision fees, (for were it
religious scruple, he would surely not go on שבת
to auctions and would not arrange a ball, as
he did, on the eve of the last עשרה
בטבת), was not satisfied, and declared in a most
insulting manner that he has done so before, and will in future, in spite of reason and
religion, continue to do so; and it is, therefore, that I publicly declared him unfit for
the holy office of a מוהל.
That I had the right to do so, gentlemen, I refer you toחושן משפט סימן
ד' סעיף ו, which reads as follows:
וישש רשות
לבית דין
להחמיר עליו
שלא ימולו את
בניו ולגרש את
בניו מבית
הספר ואשתו
מבית הכנסת עד
שיקבל הדין
(see פתחי תשובה ad locum).
Hoping that this letter will convince you that I acted in obedience to my
duties,
I remain, gentlemen,
Most respectfully yours,
Dr. Illowy
New Orleans, Dec. 29th, 5625.
|
