The Temple in Jerusalem Idealized and the Historic-Synagogue-Institution:

A Study in Synagogue Purposes in an American Context

by

Kenneth Brander

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

August 2016

Copyright 2016 by Kenneth Brander

ii

Acknowledgements

Eighteen years ago in the living room of Dr. Nahum and Helen Sarna, I began a conversation with them exploring how a pulpit rabbi of a 550 family member synagogue could continue to grow intellectually and academically. It was Nahum, who, in a determined yet self-effacing manner, urged me to think of pursuing a PhD. Their kindness and willingness to study with me helped to plant a seed that eventually flourished into reality.

What better path of intellectual inquiry for a rabbi to pursue than the areas of philosophy and comparative studies. Being exposed to the ideas and ideals of the great

(and not so great) philosophers of society has allowed me to reflect upon my own religious beliefs. It changed the way I communicated with my community as well as the values I shared with my family, congregants, students and religious colleagues of all faiths. I am in debt to the faculty of the Schmidt College of Arts and Letters of Florida

Atlantic University for this growth opportunity.

This journey became more complicated when I was offered the opportunity to become the founding David Mitzner Dean of a new university center, The Center for the

Jewish Future, as part of Yeshiva University. This position eventually led to an appointment as one of the Vice Presidents of Yeshiva University. Without the patience of a dissertation committee who graciously helped me negotiate this new and very full time position at Yeshiva University with the demands of the research and writing of a dissertation, I would have been forced to relinquish this goal. The committee was

iv

sensitive to my professional and communal responsibilities but still demanded intellectual rigor in every aspect of my research and writing. I have always appreciated their disposition and willingness to help.

Thank you, Dr. Miriam Sanua-Dalin, for participating in my dissertation committee. Your generosity of spirit and time has helped me to actualize my academic dreams. Dr. David Wolgin, your presence on this committee adds to the rigor of my work. You have a profound understanding of synagogue culture and what is required to create and sustain a successful synagogue enterprise. Your participation in the dissertation committee demanded that my theoretical positions be rooted in realism and that my conclusions “pass the smell test” of one who is both an academic and the president of one of the most entrepreneurial synagogues in North America. Thank you for your constant feedback and support throughout this process.

Dr. Jonathan Sarna is the Joseph H. & Belle R. Braun Professor of American

Jewish History and Chair of the Hornstein Jewish Professional Leadership Program at

Brandeis University, as well as Chief Historian of the new National Museum of

American Jewish History in Philadelphia. Your encyclopedic knowledge and complete grasp of American Jewish History helped to insure that any ideas put forth in this dissertation were historically accurate. Additionally, your comments and our conversations helped me to properly contextualize historical facts and rabbinic principles so that creative concepts put forward in my dissertation were articulated with proper historical and phenomenological nuance. I am deeply moved by Dr. Sarna’s willingness to help me complete the objectives that I set with his father. I hope that with the completion of this work, I bring honor to the memory of my mentors, Dr. Nahum and

v

Helen Sarna. It is with deep appreciation that I express gratitude to their son for his attention and time from his already busy schedule, even as he recovered, thank God, from a serious illness.

The academic mentor and teacher who supported me faithfully throughout my dissertation and without whom my studies would have never progressed is the academic advisor of my dissertation, Dr. Alan Berger, the Raddock Family Eminent Scholar Chair for Holocaust Studies at Florida Atlantic University. I am concerned that any comments of gratitude that I articulate will not suffice. Robust thanks cannot encapsulate the support that he has given me. Professor Berger helped me create realistic goals for my doctoral studies, prodded me to get on with the work of my dissertation, and reminded me of the wise proverb of Hillel, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me ...” (Ethics of Our

Fathers, 1:14). He had the ability to share his criticism and that of the dissertation committee on the drafts that I submitted. The criticism was always followed with sagacious advice on how to move forward and deal with the revisions that had been suggested. Over the course of years that I worked on my dissertation with Professor

Berger he guided me in all aspects of its writing including how to position both primary and secondary sources to prove historical facts and articulate new perspectives. He has always been available by phone or in person, and I know that I am truly blessed to have been influenced by such a caring scholar and incredible mensch.

My colleague at Yeshiva University, University Professor and Senior Scholar of

Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future, Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter, has always been willing to read a draft and edit any of my works for publication. His help with my dissertation by commenting on both style and substance gave me the support to move

vi

forward. I am also thankful to my assistant, Ms. Marilyn Wechsler who has helped me with this goal. She assisted in many ways including typing drafts of the chapters, tracking down specific books from libraries around the world and clearing my schedule that I could have the peace of mind to complete this task. Thank you, Rabbi David Eckstein, who as a Mitzner presidential fellow at Yeshiva University assisted me on numerous occasions with research and the copying of primary sources. Thank you President

Richard M. Joel and Vice President Rabbi Josh Joseph for urging me on to complete this work.

Yeshiva University’s Mendel Gottesman Library and its special collection of

Hebraica and Judaica was immensely helpful. The library’s collection of material from the Harlem/West Side Institutional Synagogue is a treasure trove, unmatched anywhere in the world. Furthermore, the professional staff’s willingness to help secure material from other libraries and research centers added to the richness of my dissertation and to veracity of ideas that I wished to posit regarding definitions of a successful synagogue.

Thank you Ms. Shulamith Berger, Curator of Special Collections and Hebraica-Judaica and Ms. Deena Schwimmer, library archivist, for the time you allowed me to peruse through the library’s collection.

My entire second chapter would not have been possible without the manuscript collection of the American Jewish Historical Society. Their willingness to allow me to study rare, one of a kind documents and review 200 years of synagogue minutes from

America’s first synagogue, Shearith Israel, the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue was critical to the formation of my thesis and the writing of this dissertation.

vii

A special mention is reserved for my friend, teacher and mentor Stewart Harris, of blessed memory. Navigating the politics of the rabbinate and the priorities of a community, seeking to become effective in an academic institution like Yeshiva

University which is also the center of the Modern Orthodox movement were challenges I faced. Stewart’s guidance, caring and clarity of vision helped me steer past obstacles. He gave me permission to appreciate my talents. He encouraged me to find time for myself, my academic pursuits, and my family. Thank you Stewart for all the time you gave to me.

Your presence was a precious gift in my life.

Yet it is my family who has served as the greatest support for me to finish my

PhD. To my children Tuvia and Miriam, Yoni and Yehudit Tehilla, Yosef and Yitzchak thank you for your understanding and support in helping me to complete this dissertation.

Whether it was your playful jabs across the Shabbat table suggesting who among you would graduate college or graduate school (including Yitzchak, the fifth grader) before I finished my PhD (and some of you did precede this publication with graduations), the sensitivity to allow me quiet time to advance my work even during our family vacations, and the encouragement, which each of you in your own way provided, when the research and composition process seemed unending, has meant more to me than you will ever know. You are all amazing and I love you.

Last and most precious is the selfless dedication of my soulmate and wife,

Ruchie. When I began the doctoral degree, began attending classes and preparing for comprehensive exams, we had five young children. This meant that after her full day of work professionally, Ruchie could only look forward to a fuller day of work at home. Her superb editing skills insured that the many papers that I submitted during my course work

viii

were properly punctuated and clearly revised. Over the course of the past decade, our vacation time was often just a pretext for me to find a hide away or a library to research and write leaving her to run the family activities. The late nights that I would sit in my office writing or spend time at the YU library until it closed were never met with anything but encouragement and sleeping on the couch to wait until I came home. Not once in over ten years did Ruchie complain about my focus on PhD studies or research.

She has always been encouraging. When the pressures at my work seemed so great that I thought about quitting, it was Ruchie in her supportive determined manner that helped me refocus, empowering me to complete the task. When this dissertation is expanded into a book, the potential positive influence it will have on rabbinical students as well as rabbinical and community leaders will be solely due to her love and constant support – the anchor of our family, Ruchie Tambor Brander.

ix

Abstract

Author: Kenneth Brander

Title: The Temple in Jerusalem Idealized and the Historic- Synagogue-Institution: A Study in Synagogue Purposes in an American Context

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Alan Berger

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2016

This dissertation sketched key structural-functional design characteristics of the

Temple in Jerusalem as they emerge from archeological finds, academic scholarship, and rabbinic literary and legal traditions. It illustrated numerous embodied and functional parallels, with detailed descriptions of two successful American Synagogues drawing on the documents of social history, one built and led by the leadership of a lay community and the other dominated by a renowned Rabbi. Both synagogues seem to have inherited, continued, and celebrated venerable purposes that the rise of synagogues once took over from the ideals of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem. Synagogues become successful institutions when they serve their communities, meeting self-perceived as well as pressing needs, through a willingness to accomplish multiple and diverse purposes.

x

Dedication

Dedicated in Loving Memory Izak & Miriam Tambor וכתר שם טוב עולה על גביהן

• Loving parents who nurtured two beautiful children. • Role models for their sons-in-law and grandchildren of what it means to be true servants of God. • People of great integrity who celebrated the ideals of ethics and derech eretz in all their business and personal practices. • Survivors of the Nazi atrocities yet always spoke about the future with great optimism. • The parents of my wife, Ruchie who without her encouragement, sacrifice, love, support and editing skills this dissertation would have never been completed.

Dedicated in Honor of my Parents Rabbi Aaron & Ellen Brander הבט נא השמימה וספר הכוכבים אם תוכל לספר אתם ויאמר לו כה יהיה זרעך

• For the education you provided me. • For modeling that hard work counts, that sacrificing for values is never that, rather an opportunity to live a rich and purposeful life. • You have shared with the community the capacity to change the world by inspiring thousands of young people, one student at a time. • May your greatest dividends continue to be your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Each continuing your legacy and finding their own personal connection with God.

The Temple in Jerusalem Idealized and the Historic-Synagogue-Institution: A Study in Synagogue Purposes in an American Context

List of Figures ...... xvii

Introduction ...... 1

1. Institutional Re-instantiation ...... 14

The Temple in Jerusalem Becomes Synagogues ...... 14

Exegetical Links between the Temple and the Synagogue ...... 17

The Temple in Jerusalem and the Physical Structure of Synagogues: Reinventing Institutional Form ...... 19

Positioning and Facing ...... 20

Architecture, Interior Layout, and Furnishing ...... 21

DIOPELOSTON and ISTAVANIS: Seating in the Temple and Synagogues ...... 26

Norms of Synagogue Behavior: Reinventing an Atmosphere ...... 33

Division of Labor and Specialization in Spiritual Work ...... 36

An Example of a Professional Role: The Chazzan ...... 37

Functions of the Temple and the Historic-Synagogue-Institution: Exploring Institutional Purposes ...... 40

The First Gate: Intellection ...... 41

Prayer ...... 41

Priestly Blessings ...... 44

Studying Torah ...... 45

xii

The Second Gate: The Calendar ...... 47

Days of Personal Grief and Joy ...... 48

The Third Gate: Mutual Aid ...... 50

The Fourth Gate: Generosity ...... 52

Donations and Benefactors ...... 55

The Fifth Gate: Justice ...... 58

Lost and Found ...... 60

Remarks ...... 63

2. Shearith Israel: Synagogue-Community ...... 65

The First and Only New York Synagogue Community 1654/1695 -1825 ...... 65

Kahal Leadership: Adjunta [Administrative Council], Hatanim, and Parnas ...... 68

Fines for Refusing to Serve ...... 70

The First Educated Lay Leader: The Hazan as Minister ...... 71

Bodek [Meat/Chicken Slaughterer and Meat Examiner] and Shamaz [Sexton]: ...... 73

Professional Expectations ...... 73

The Revolutionary War and a Synagogue Community in Crisis ...... 74

The Many Functions of Shearith Israel: Opening New Spiritual Portals for Jewish Engagement ...... 74

Fundraising and Philanthropy ...... 76

Education for Children and Adults ...... 76

Life-Celebrations ...... 81

Special Holiday Provisions ...... 81

Providing Kosher Meat ...... 82

xiii

Qualified Shochet ...... 82

The Supply of Kosher Meat: Its Availability and Integrity ...... 88

Death, Burial Preparation, Cemetery, and Mourning ...... 92

Hebra Gemilut Hasadim -- A Society for Acts of Kindness ...... 93

Women’s Needs and Leadership Roles ...... 96

Mikveh (Ritual Bath) ...... 96

Jewish Poverty and Jewish Charity ...... 103

The Global Reach of Shearith Israel’s Charity ...... 108

Enforcing Standards in Jewish Behavior ...... 108

Divisions, Missed Opportunities, and the Founding of B’nai Jeshurun ...... 119

A Call for Early Prayer Services with English Explanations ...... 123

The Decision to Found a New Synagogue: B’nai Jeshurun ...... 131

3. The Institutional Synagogue: A 20th Century Model ...... 140

The Burgeoning of American Jewish Communal Structures ...... 142

American Rabbis Needed ...... 146

A Successful Career in the New American Rabbinate ...... 149

Jewish Demographics in Early 20th Century Harlem ...... 151

Kehilath Jeshurun ...... 168

Kehilath Jeshurun’s ‘Central Jewish Institute’ ...... 172

Social Welfare Work at Kehilath Jeshurun ...... 174

A Growing Reputation ...... 175

‘The Institutional Synagogue’ ...... 176

Marketing the Institutional Synagogue ...... 182

xiv

Articulating the Vision ...... 183

Revival Movement ...... 185

Delinquency among Young Jews in Harlem ...... 191

Sports Activities ...... 193

The Talmud Torah ...... 194

Youth Programming ...... 195

Summer Camp ...... 196

Orthodox Judaism for Youth on the National Level ...... 197

The Sabbath Question ...... 198

Celebrating Jewish Holidays ...... 203

Growing the Membership ...... 205

Social Welfare Services and Volunteerism in Harlem ...... 208

Education for Adults ...... 211

Fundraising and Building Campaigns ...... 216

American Ideals Celebrated as Jewish Values ...... 225

Rabbi Goldstein on Radio ...... 226

Fighting Anti-Semitism in Government ...... 228

World War I: Synagogue Help for American Soldiers and Jewish Refugees ...... 231

World War II and the Holocaust ...... 237

Zionism ...... 244

Yeshiva University Involvement ...... 247

The Collapse of the Harlem Institutional Synagogue ...... 248

The Harlem Institutional Synagogue and the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem ...... 249

xv

Conclusion ...... 252

Endnotes ...... 256

Works Cited ...... 292

xvi

Figures

Fig. 1. Formal announcement found in Goldstein’s personal papers ...... 169

Fig. 2. The dedication program is found on page 33 of Herbert Goldstein’s scrapbook ...... 172

Fig. 3. B’nai B’rith Bulletin, March 1917 Vol. 4 No. 3 ...... 174

Fig. 4. Advertisement for first revival meeting ...... 186

Fig. 5. Schedule of first revival meeting ...... 186

Fig. 6. The New York Times June 9, 1919 p. 14 ...... 220

Fig. 7. New York Times, February 20, 1946, page 19 ...... 241

Fig. 8. Bernard Revel’s letter of appointment to Herbert Goldstein ...... 248

xvii

Introduction

As the Assistant Rabbi and Educational Director of Lincoln Square Synagogue from 1986 to 1990, I had the privilege of working with wonderful mentors and colleagues as part of the professional leadership at one of New York’s most prominent, 1600 membership unit1 synagogues. These mentors included Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald who served as a pioneering force in creating tolerant, open educational programs for those searching to connect with Judaism,2 Rabbi Hershel Cohen of blessed memory3 who was a wonderful mentor in the area of pastoral counseling to members of the community, Ms.

Suri Kasirer a programming genius, and the senior Rabbi, Rabbi Saul J. Berman, who served as an inspiring and creative leader for the entire community.

In May 1990, to the surprise of many, Rabbi Berman informed the congregation that he was resigning from the Rabbinate and reengaging fully in academia. I was asked by my colleagues, the synagogue president, and the Board of Directors to assume the position of Acting Rabbi of Lincoln Square Synagogue, one of the largest congregations in the country. I was all of 28 years old. While I enjoyed the new role and the rigor that came with responsibilities to a large established constituency, my wife and I made the decision to look for a position in which I would not serve as rabbi in a custodial position tasked with maintaining the status quo which inherently was the role of any rabbi following Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and Rabbi Saul J. Berman. We sought a position that

1

would enable me to create and shape a synagogue community with my own vision, working collaboratively with the lay leadership.

In March of 1991, I accepted a position as a rabbi in Boca Raton, Florida at the

Boca Raton Synagogue, a small fledgling congregation with 60 families.4 The synagogue had already employed multiple rabbis each for a very short period of time. My wife and I anticipated that this would be a position which would last about 2 to 3 years. During that time I would be able to help the synagogue grow, and as Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, then

President of Yeshiva University suggested, use a portion of my day to write about my unique experience at Yeshiva University, serving as the student aide to the great theologian and philosopher Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. His offer was simple and direct: write about Rabbi Soloveitchik’s legal traditions and philosophical insights and the university press would publish the material. Not much writing happened. Instead, I was blessed to be at the Boca Raton for 14 years, and the synagogue of 60 families grew from a one-room structure with an adjacent small office and kitchenette, to a multi-acre campus serving 600 families.5 The campus included multiple buildings. We constructed a main building6 which contained a large sanctuary, ballroom, small kitchen, special rabbinic suite, and library. With the construction of the main building we also had built a mikveh (ritual pool designed for the Jewish rite of purification)7 and a permanent sukkah.

A children’s playground and a basketball court were constructed. To address the growth and the surging real estate prices, two satellite synagogues were established so that young families would have affordable housing while benefitting from the Boca Boca Raton

Synagogue experience.8

2

We added in time a youth and senior center which housed the synagogue’s youth and adult education programs,9 ancillary prayer services, and a college preparatory

Yeshiva High School.

With the help of many dedicated lay leaders, we were able to expand the synagogue’s reach to various segments of the community. This was done by working with the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, Ruth and Norman Rales Jewish

Family Services, creating a Yeshiva High School, the first Jewish high school in Broward or Palm Beach County,10 and the development of The Hillel Day School which offered an

Orthodox run but community focused elementary school. As the community grew we expanded the eruv11 (a formally designated and marked boundary around the community which defines a joined communal space affording a more pleasant observance of Shabbat and Yom Kippur) to include a larger swath of the Boca Raton community.

Additionally, a community kashrut organization, the South Palm Beach Vaad haKashrut, was established to maintain proper community kashrut standards. A kollel12

(post-graduate program in Talmudic literature) named The Boca Raton Judaic Fellows program was established. The fellows dedicated themselves both to their own studies and to teaching and mentoring the entire Broward and Palm Beach community in various teen and adult education settings.13

Our common narrative and mission statement sought: “to create a synagogue with multiple portals of spiritual entry.” Our daily prayer services grew from one to four, and

Shabbat services grew from one to ten. Services were never constructed based on a particular age group, but on different styles of prayer. Separate services were established, focusing on praying through the Ashkenazic, Sephardic, or Chasidic traditions. Other

3

services were formed around mutual religious interests such as a focus on singing, or on study, or an explanatory service with English14 translations and explanations of prayers.

The multitude of services allowed for various audiences within the community to feel that all had a place within the synagogue community.

We developed a youth department which engaged the younger members of the community throughout the week but particularly on Shabbat. Our Shabbat morning youth services were not seen as babysitting so parents could attend services, but rather opportunities for active, experiential learning. This became so well established that many parents came to the synagogue simply to see their children be engaged through the youth department.

Our adult education also flourished, attracting both members of the synagogue,

Jews as well as non-Jews from outside of our membership community. The adult education program offered classes that were text based. They included a Daf Yomi (the daily study of a page of Talmud enabling the participant to complete a reading of the entire Talmud in seven and a half years) and classes analyzing contemporary issues through the prism of Jewish Law using primary sources. Bible classes focused on texts as well as selected classical commentaries such as Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac, 1040–1105 who lived in Troyes and wrote a commentary on the Hebrew Bible and much of the

Talmud), Nachmanides (1194-1270, born and lived in Gerona, Catalonia wrote a commentary on the five books of the Bible which often has kabalistic overtones), as well as modern literary approaches such as Nechama Leibowitz.

The adult education program also included classes and activities that focused on spirituality, history, prayer, Hebrew reading and speaking,15 a book club, movie nights

4

exploring various Jewish themes, museums, and workshops that helped those new to the

Jewish experience explore and learn practical aspects of Judaism.16

Active committees in the synagogue supported additional initiatives including: social justice,17 anti-Semitism,18 Israel advocacy,19 a society which takes care of mourners and sees to the religious burial rites of the dead, and serving the poor.20 A rabbinic discretionary fund was established to help raise the funds for such initiatives and keep them separate from the synagogue’s capital and operating dollars. A Tomchei

Shabbat committee (lit. meaning “food for Shabbat” but colloquially used to represent committees throughout the Jewish world that focus on food and often clothing needs of the poor) was started to insure that those in the community that were indigent were provided with food and clothing for their families in a confidential, respectful manner.

Adults and teens participated in Habitat for Humanity initiatives as well as worked in local shelters. A social action committee was formed which helped support synagogue activities such as rallies in support of Israel, chartering a plane to attend the support for

Israel rally in Washington DC, working to support action against the atrocities in Darfur, solidarity missions to Israel during the Intifada, drives to raise money for protective gear for those living in range of Mideast terrorism, blood drives including having blood mobiles accessible at very popular family events (such as Purim carnivals).

The synagogue realized its mission also as a mandate to empower and support other vital local Jewish institutions: the local Jewish Federation, Jewish Family services, the local day schools (serving generally students through grade 8), and the Jewish college preparatory high school founded by the synagogue.21

5

Our synagogue grew at a rate of close to fifty new families a year, people started to ask: “What secret sauce made for such success?” Throughout the country many suggestions were hypothesized. Demographers or economists might observe that the entire city of Boca Raton was in a growth mode. The senior population in surrounding neighborhoods required bankers, financial investment professionals, and doctors. New business construction in the area further required workers involved in construction and a growing population needed more schools and health services. New or expanding medical, legal, and insurance practices attracted younger professionals looking for their next growth opportunity. There was expansion and proliferation of new branches of successful companies like Sanford C Bernstein & Co. The younger professionals and workers led to a new set of demands to meet the needs of families which in turn created another new wave of professional, business, and recreational opportunities.

However, our synagogue growth came at least as much from Jews who had been living in Boca Raton but had never before decided to affiliate with a synagogue as it did from families moving into the community. The success of the Boca Raton Synagogue had come from a newly realized environment; multiple spiritual gateways had opened, allowing various segments of the Jewish community to feel themselves a part of the constituency of the synagogue and to connect to something larger than themselves.

I had been nurtured in an understanding that “our community” was never limited to the Orthodox Jewish populace but included any Jew. In the case of Boca Raton

Synagogue, helping individuals and families search for their spiritual connections irrespective of their previous degree of connections to Jewish living stood at the heart of every day’s operations. Further, our understanding of the synagogue did not confine itself

6

to just engaging the Jewish community; it included interacting with any person or faith community that wished to link arms and help society become morally stronger. I knew that the most successful synagogues, had always defined their purposes in multiple and diverse ways in an effort to cope with the individuality, the immediacy, and the immensity of connecting with God.

Boca Raton Synagogue had become a place of gathering for Jews of all types: those who had been observant all their lives, Jews who were now interested in re- engaging after perhaps having drifted away, and for Jews appreciating their ancestral roots in Jewish faith and culture for the first time. Boca Raton Synagogue had become a place of meaningful prayer but much more than that. It became a center of study, a house of social action, and a place where expected or unexpected spiritual rendezvous occured.

Our synagogue served as an incubator for new dynamic organizations like Nefesh

B’Nefesh,22 and a launching point for promising young Jewish communal professionals who started their careers at the Boca Raton Synagogue and were nurtured through its positive energy and work to become significant leaders in their next positions. People were inspired by their experiences at the synagogue which impacted their lifestyle decisions, often koshering their kitchens, becoming Shomer Shabbat (Sabbath observant), moving to homes in walking distance of the synagogue, or deciding to send their children to Jewish day schools.

At some point, this achievement, larger than the vision or contribution of any one person, seemed to me to celebrate and reverberate with the presence of the spiritual portals of entry seen in the synagogue’s ancient progenitor, the Beit ha’Mikdash, the ancient Temple in Jerusalem.

7

Reflecting upon successful synagogues, those, in any of the Jewish movements, I noticed repeatedly the multidimensionality of these institutions. On the one hand, their mission and the pressing needs of the community in the present shaped and redefined the institutions continuously, while simultaneously, the work of countless synagogues in other places and times led back to ancient Israel, to Jerusalem and to the Beit ha’Mikdash, the holy Temple. This complex historical narrative had a place in my consciousness as a Rabbi. The desire, the will of our synagogue to open “multiple portals of spiritual entry” connected for me, in my thinking, to the many spiritual gates that once stood in ancient Jerusalem, ready for the visiting pilgrim in the Temple. I began to delve more into the relationship of synagogues and the ancient Temple. I came to realize that throughout the history of our people, the synagogues were viewed as the flagship institutions of their communities. The most successful synagogues have been creative, dynamic, and sensitive to the multiple ways in which Jews and all people have connected with God while living their particular lives, subject to particular interruptions and upheavals (sometimes on a massive scale), and enthusiastically or reluctantly, confidently or with hesitations, following their own particular senses, aspirations, about how to develop and strengthen a connection with God. Such private, unfathomable purposes have guided the footsteps of every pilgrim to Jerusalem, of every person who ever came to pay a visit or bring a sacrifice at the ‘House for God.’ How, I wondered, have Jews institutionalized that?

This dissertation has been researched by a practitioner of synagogue development and building who wishes to academically explore the following ideas: (1) What “multiple portals of spiritual entry,” to use the popular language of the Boca Raton’s Synagogue’s

8

mission statement, did the ancient Temple in Jerusalem make available to pilgrims? (2)

How did Jewish Law and Jewish practice come to recognize and renew time and again binding connections between the Temple and synagogues? (3) How did synagogues throughout history implement that ideal institutionally to cope with the daunting and immense complexity in every individual’s approach to God? (4) Is the Temple an ideal paradigm for synagogues? ( 5) What, if any, have been the repercussions when synagogues have opted to adopt a less multidimensional, less complex institutional vision, limiting their existing or failing to develop new “portals of spiritual entry” for the population of Jews they serve?

The first chapter here, “Institutional Re-Instantiation” seeks to convey and confirm that a functional parallelism between the ancient Temple in Jerusalem and the historic-synagogue-institution exists as a consequence of a particular history, finds literary expression and exhortatory force in the texts and law codes of Judaism, and elicits repeatedly from different populations of Jews along their long peregrinations, and even in the present, a practical, a performative accomplishment in the structuring of their synagogues and designing their institutional purposes. The several cognate aspects implied or insisted upon by the Jewish tradition explored between the Temple ideal and its synagogue successors in architecture and furnishing; in the constructing an atmosphere conducive to worship; in distinguishing it from secularly purposed buildings and institutions, and in the professional governance of both institutions cannot, upon consideration, be denied. The chapter turns then to consideration of the most vital, though hardest to detect and validate parallel aspects, the multiple and diverse functions

(“spiritual portals,” if you will) that the two incommensurate institutions, one majestic

9

and national the other humble and regional, have come to share in the ecology of Jewish life. “Spiritual portals,” or classic functions identified in the chapter, are grouped by a convenient metaphor or concept of “Five Gates into the Temple.” Towards the conclusion of the chapter, I define intellection, the calendar, mutual aid, generosity, and justice as a framework to aid readers in thinking about the purposes of different Jewish communal institutions.

The second chapter: “Congregation Shearith Israel: the Synagogue-Community” represents a historical case study in synagogue purposes. Shearith Israel, a lay institution with no Rabbinic leadership for years, founded by Jewish pilgrims or refugees of a sort to

America, worked to build or re-build the “portals of spiritual entry” needed by this first small Jewish community in North America, the first synagogue in New York, and for a long period the only Jewish communal institution on the scene there. A brief social history of the synagogue is offered to disclose the circumstances of its community with specific attention to their attempts to meet challenges in accord with their self-perceived values. The stresses that the synagogue-community coped with in its history and the changes and challenges that it eventually failed to adequately address interest us in this second chapter. What did the leadership of Shearith Israel view as its primary responsibilities? Did the physical building and social-cultural acts of innovation and construction that took up their efforts and resources answer to a canny, reliable awareness of those responsibilities?

The third chapter: “The Institutional Synagogue: An Early 20th Century Model” again offers a historical case study in synagogue purposes in New York but now at the turn of the 20th century, as an influx of hundreds of thousands of Jews to the United

10

States transformed the image and the reality of America’s community of Jews. In 1917, a group of lay leaders from Harlem engaged Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, a dynamic young rabbi born and educated in America. Goldstein, they knew, wanted to create an innovative type of synagogue. He called his model an “Institutional” Synagogue. It would represent an unusually broadly purposed synagogue that would take on enormous responsibility in leading Jewish communal and cultural life. Goldstein would agree to build an Institutional Synagogue in Harlem one of the largest and most troubled Jewish neighborhoods in New York City.

Rabbi Goldstein approached the task of building the needed institution, his dream institution, with all his formidable intelligence and energy. He was given an immediate lifetime contract.23 Goldstein, a Rabbi, not a lay group of leaders, would direct the new institution. It was conceived and built as a multi-storied complex: a hybrid model to fulfill many roles. It would serve as a synagogue and place of worship in America, as a replacement for the Hebrew school movement, and as a recreational and social hub along the lines of the Y.M.H.A (Young Men’s Hebrew Association). It was to be a place for religious revivalism; for a wide offering of secular and religious educational classes and programs; and for dances and socials, clubs and committees, sports and summer camps.

Its facilities would boast a gymnasium and a swimming pool as well as kitchens, classrooms, and, of course, at its heart a sanctuary. The third chapter will describe its multidimensionality and diverse functions while sketching its social history.

The Institutional Synagogue had a social welfare agenda that relied primarily on members of its own community to help the soldier, the refugee, the immigrant, and the poor. It labored to reduce juvenile delinquency and combat social ills. It provided

11

resources to enable members of its community to celebrate Jewish holidays despite uncongenial circumstances. Out of concern for the observance of Shabbat, it launched various campaigns to help Jews find jobs that did not demand work on Saturdays. It helped to launch and support a national campaign for a five-day-work week.

The Institutional Synagogue and the growing fame of its rabbi also fostered opportunities to engage with the national and international issues of the day and to represent Jews and their interests (in the newspapers, on the radio, and as a public figure).

The history of the Institutional Synagogue connects at points directly to the general history of the period: mass immigration, ideologies and societies for improvement of varying kinds (charities, labor unions, and political activism), and European Jewry threatened with destruction and devastation. The Institutional Synagogue and its Rabbi did the best they could to meet the horrendous and overwhelming challenges for Jews in that moment of history.

The Jewish community, even its historians, view the Institutional Synagogue (and

Kaplan’s Center movement) as a revolutionary institutional model modernizing the synagogue for life in early 20th century America. That perception and narrative is often accurate but neglects to connect the Institutional Synagogue to the historic-synagogue- institution and to its almost forgotten roots in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem. Our third chapter seeks in part to remedy that. It is our view that Goldstein and the Institutional

Synagogue achieved the revival of a more broadly purposed synagogue as part of the synagogue as ‘miniature Temple’ theme. Rabbi Goldstein transformed the contemporary synagogue of his day, which had narrowed its purposes to prayer and study for men, with a broader institutional concept not without traditional precedents.

12

The third chapter also recognizes and discusses the challenges of this broader purposed synagogue model when a Rabbi moves from teacher and preacher, roles for which his education usually prepares him, to a job that includes community organizer and fundraiser. It explores the challenges to sustaining and professionalizing such diverse programs, to developing an institution that is both useful from a cultural perspective and religiously traditional by design, arguing that we must tap the creativity needed to envision, fundraise, and oversee just such complex organizational structures as the

Institutional Synagogue if our synagogues are to meet our diverse communal needs.

Finally, it is the hope that this dissertation is just a beginning. Research will show that more current synagogue institutions like the Boca Raton Synagogue and the independent minyanim championed by Kehillat Hadar are also successful because they embody the broadly purposed paradigm of the ancient Temple. The pressing need for synagogues “to create multiple points of spiritual entry” inspiring participants to connect with their contemporary synagogue-institution and to deeper currents within Jewish experience will attract financial support, demonstrate reasons to affiliate with the Jewish community, and provide a vehicle that strengthens community, helps perfect society, and provides a haven and a heaven for families while encouraging the individual to approach and to rendezvous with God.

13

1. Institutional Re-instantiation

The Temple in Jerusalem Becomes Synagogues

If there is any institution that has both helped to guarantee the immortality of the

Jewish people and served as an early model for developing institutional structures to support worship in both Christianity and Islam, it is the synagogue, the beit keneset or

‘house of assembly’ in Hebrew.24 The synagogue though, for all its utility and revolutionary importance, had roots in a prior institution: the Temple in Jerusalem. Long before any synagogue-communities would begin to dot the far places of the globe, to flower in colonial New York, or to flourish in the United States of America, there was a

Temple on a mount in Jerusalem with many gates into its precincts, with priests and an altar, with an inner-sanctum, a holy of holies, that housed sacred texts and, more mysteriously, the Divine Presence.

In the Hebrew Bible, King Solomon voices the enigma of the Temple:

But will God in very truth dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and

the heaven of heavens cannot contain You; how much less this

house that I have built! Yet have You respect unto the prayer of

Your servant, and to his supplication, O LORD my God, to listen

to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You

this day; that Your eyes may be open toward this house night and

day, even toward the place about which You said: ‘My name shall

14

be there;’ to listen to the prayer which Your servant shall pray

toward this place. And listen to the supplication of Your servant,

and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; yes,

hear in heaven your dwelling-place; and when You hear, forgive.25

The Temple creates multiple portals of entry through which people are able to connect to

God. Accessibility for all, regardless of their culture, faith commitments, or skepticism, is also the message of the prophet Isaiah in his famous description of the Temple: “...My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”26

Scholars dispute the moment in Jewish History when the centralized ‘Temple’ found its substitutes in de-centralized synagogues. Regardless, from then on, Jews have come to synagogues to worship, to pray, to sing, to learn, for social justice and activism, to deal with local, national, and international issues, and for the self-celebration, self- criticism, and self-government of their communities in a dedicated space where Jewish ideals could unfold into Jewish actions.27 In fact, the word synagogue is derived from the

Greek σµυαγωγή meaning assembly. The borrowed language and generic quality of the designation, ‘house of assembly,’ suggests a refusal to limit synagogues to a single, even if lofty, definition or purpose.28

These wider functions of the synagogue, those in addition to communal prayer and study, also carried on the work of the Temple in Jerusalem from where the High

Priest would offer his counsel; and from where the High Priest himself would perform the sacrificial labor entailed by the annual national act of contrition, atonement, and purification of Yom Kippur; from where the Israelite King would read from the Torah to an assembled nation re-enacting the Mount Sinai revelation; to where ordinary men and

15

women, young and old, wise and otherwise would pilgrimage to acknowledge the seasons of time, the remembrances of the past, and life’s changes; from where the Sanhedrin, the highest court, and its ancillary courts would sit in judgment concerning matters of religion, but also regarding civil justice and matters of war and peace. Synagogues could never match a Temple in Jerusalem for majesty, but some of its sway and broad- leadership did endure in its synagogue successors.

While no one doubts the importance of the synagogue in the development of western religion, Joseph Gutmann29 divides the theories of Jewish and Christian scholars regarding its origins into three groups:

(1) Exilic period - the development of synagogues during the

Babylonian captivity in the sixth century B.C.E. This theory

contends that the synagogue was developed as a response to the

need of the Jewish people, bereft of their Temple, to gather at

central locations to connect with God.30

(2) Pre-exilic period - during the second Temple (538 B.C.E. –

70 C.E.) with the synagogue gradually growing as an institution

which co-existed alongside the Jerusalem Temple.31

(3) Post-exilic period - (after 70 C.E.) - as a response to the loss

of the Temple and the Second Commonwealth.32

All three positions accept a historical relationship, one of substitution, in which some responsibilities of ‘the Temple in Jerusalem’ are taken over and accommodated, by the rise of synagogues. Scholarly positions of the first and third type maintain that synagogues arose to fill a void caused by the destruction of Jerusalem in the religious life

16

of Jews: synagogues met the need for a public space in which to connect with God and assemble for communal needs. The middle position holds that synagogues developed prior to the destruction of the Second Temple and, for a time, existed alongside the

Second Temple. Synagogues would have then met a subset of local and daily religious needs for a connection to God without competing with Jerusalem on pilgrimage festivals or for the religious awareness sought in the gestures of offering voluntary or mandatory sacrifices at the Temple. The middle position might not exclude synagogues arising initially during the seventy-year Babylonian exile after the destruction of the Temple of

Solomon but then continuing to exist in some form even after the reestablishment of the

Second Temple.

Exegetical Links between the Temple and the Synagogue

The Hebrew Bible provides no unambiguous references to synagogues. In the book of Ezekiel the prophet states:

Thus says the Lord God: Although I have cast them [the Jewish people]

far among the nations and although I have scattered them among the

countries, I have been to them a little sanctuary [l’mikdash ma’at] in the

countries where they are come.33

This quote introduces the term mikdash ma’at: mikdash means ‘sanctified’ as in the nominal phrase ha-mikdash—the sanctified place or temple; ma’at means ‘little,’

‘small,’ or ‘miniature.’ In the translation of the above verse, the phrase mikdash ma’at is nicely rendered ‘a little sanctuary,’ and it refers back to God who is describing his own conduct. Rabbinic thinking, recorded in the Talmud, notices this unusual phrase and homiletically explains ‘mikdash ma’at’ as meaning a ‘small temple’:

17

R. Yitzchak: [this verse of mikdash ma’at shows] that the synagogues and

houses of study are miniature Temples…34

Rashi, the great medieval commentator, writes in his gloss to the above verse from Ezekiel: “This is referring to the synagogue for it is comparable to the Temple.” In other words, Rashi curates from rabbinic literature to bring to the attention of Jewish readers of the Bible that the phrase mikdash ma’at references synagogues as ‘temples in miniature.’

Consistent with these remarks to students of the Bible, rabbinic literature in other contexts and from medieval to modern times, frames the synagogue as somehow a continuation of the Temple institution. It is important to keep in mind that this framing uses text as a device to support predetermined ideas. Nevertheless it shows the mindset that rabbis, over a millennium, wished to connect the Temple and the synagogue.

Examples include: the comments of the thirteenth century German Rabbi, R. Eliezer b.

Joel of Bonn, who states: “and this refers to the Synagogues for they are like the

Temple;”35 the fourteenth century Spanish Rabbi, R. Isaac B. Sheshet who affirms:

“behold our synagogues are considered little Temples;”36 and fifteenth century German

Rabbi, R. Judah Minz who articulates: “regarding the building of our synagogue, the

House of our God, [our] miniature Temple.”37 In one of the responsa of R. Benjamin

Ze’ev b. Mattahias,38 early sixteenth century Greece, there is a full introductory paragraph extolling the holiness of the synagogue and comparing it to the Temple, and

Spanish Rabbi, R. Estori ha-Parchi in his famous fourteenth century work Kaftor va-

Ferach,39 written as he settled in Beit Shean, Israel, describes synagogues as miniature

18

Temples when writing about the destruction of synagogues in France and Provence after the expulsion of Jews from these locations in 1306.

These many rabbinic restatements of a Talmudic teaching reveal more than a widespread fondness for the creative close reading of an unusual phrase in the Book of

Ezekiel; the idea of a mikdash ma’at— a small temple, and its connection to the temple in

Jerusalem arrives to us, or should arrive to us, less as a metaphor and more as a mission.

The consensual perception of aptness in the mikdash ma’at teaching has found itself expressed for generations in the construction of synagogues through their physical and architectural structure. More importantly, the majestic model of the ancient Temple has inspired the multiple and diverse functions of synagogues throughout their history and in locations around the world. In the typical manner of rabbinic-legal thinking, distinctive features and behavioral norms are required by the mikdash ma’at, synagogue as temple ideal, in parallel to elements identified with the original beit ha-mikdash, the Temple in

Jerusalem. In this way, sacred text recognizes and renews cognate aspects between the two institutions, one come to substitute for the other, in the ecology of Jewish religious life.40

The Temple in Jerusalem and the Physical Structure of Synagogues: Reinventing

Institutional Form

The Iggeres (Epistle) of Rabbi Sherira Gaon describes how Jews during the

Babylonian exile (following the destruction of the Temple of Solomon) erected a synagogue in which they set stones from the rubble of the First Temple into its foundations:

19

You should know that in the beginning, when Israel was exiled in

the exile of Yechaniah, the ‘charash (craftsman) and the masger

(smiths),’ as well as a number of prophets, went with them. [The

Babylonians] brought [the Jews] to Nehardea. Yechaniah, the King

of Judea, and his compatriots built a synagogue, establishing the

foundations with stones and earth which they had brought with

them from the Holy Temple.41

Sherira Gaon’s articulation of this practice, testifies to the striking interest in rabbinic literature to highlight the ‘continuance’ of the Temple by the synagogue.

Positioning and Facing

Recorded in the Tosefta, a late Mishnah era (1-200 c.e.) work and later in the

Babylonian Talmud, is the fact that synagogue entrances must face the east in order to connect to the Temple:

The doors of synagogues open only eastward, for so we find

concerning the sanctuary that it was open eastward, since it says,

‘And those that were to pitch before the tabernacle eastward,

before the tent of meeting toward the sun rising…’42

Our Rabbis taught: Consequently, if he is in the east [outside of

Israel] he should turn his face to the west; if in the west [outside of

Israel] he should turn his face to the east; if in the south [outside of

Israel] he should turn his face to the north; if in the north [outside

of Israel] he should turn his face to the south. In this way all Israel

will be turning their hearts towards one place [in prayer].43

20

All Diaspora synagogues face toward Israel; all synagogues in Israel face toward

Jerusalem; and all synagogues in Jerusalem face toward the Temple to connect and to direct all prayers to the site of the ancient Temple.44

Architecture, Interior Layout, and Furnishing

The architecture, interior layout, and furnishing of synagogues often suggest a connection to the Temple in Jerusalem. In the Tosefta, it records that ‘Temple-centrism’ is also a rule for the construction of doorways in synagogues: “One only creates openings for the synagogue on its eastern side for that was the style in the Temple.”45

The bima, as synagogue furnishing, is a platform; it is used nowadays for Torah reading recalling a kind of stage built in the Temple’s outer courtyard for different occasions on which the High Priest or the Israelite King would read sections of the Bible to the throngs of people gathered in the Temple precincts.

What was the procedure with the benedictions of the High Priest?

The ritual director [of the Temple’s] synagogue takes a Torah-

scroll and hands it to the synagogue-president. The synagogue-

president hands it to the deputy [of the High Priest] and he hands it

to the High Priest. The High Priest stands; receives [the scroll]; and

reads [therein]: ‘after the death…[of Aaron’s sons]’ (Lev. 16:1-

34); and [then] ‘however on the tenth day…’ (Lev. 23:26-32); then

he rolls the Torah-scroll together, places it on his bosom and

exclaims: ‘More than I have read before you is written here!’ The

passage ‘on the tenth day’, which is in the book of Numbers, he

recites by heart…46

21

From just where would the High Priest mentioned in the above passage read? According to R. Joshua Falk, he too stood on a bima ‘wooden dais’47 as is clear regarding the

Israelite King in this next passage:

What was the procedure in connection with the portion read by the

King? At the conclusion of the first day of the festival [of

tabernacles] in the eighth year, that is, the end of the seventh, they

erect a wooden dais in the temple court, upon which he sits

[emphasis added]; as it is said, at the end of every seven years, in

the set time etc. …. [the King] reads from the beginning of

Deuteronomy up to the shema (Deut. 6:4); the shema (Deut. 6:4-9);

[then the following sections] ‘…and it shall come to pass if ye

hearken’ (Deut. 11:13-21); ‘thou shalt surely tithe’ (Deut. 14:22-

29); when thou hast made an end of tithing (Deut. 26:12-15); the

portion of the king (Deut. 17:14-20); and the blessings and curses

(Deut. 28); until he finishes all the section (Deut. 28:69)48...

This use of a bima in the Temple courtyard from which to declaim words of Torah as well as to speak on issues of spiritual engagement is found regarding the early second temple leader, Ezra:

And Ezra the priest brought the Tora before the congregation, both

of men and women, and all those who could hear with

understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he

read therein facing the open place which was before the water gate

from morning until midday before the men and the women and

22

those who understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive

to the book of the Tora. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a

platform of wood, which that they had made for the purpose,

… And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he

was above all the people,) and when he opened it, and all the

people stood up…Also they…caused the people to understand the

Tora: …and gave the sense , and caused them to understand the

reading [through exposition on the text]. 49

The aron kodesh or ark, a cabinet or repository for sacred items, has furnished or been built into almost every ancient synagogue50 discovered by archeologists. According to Jewish tradition, for a period of time in Solomon’s Temple, there was an aron kodesh in the Holy of Holies which served as the repository of the community’s most sacred item-texts: there the shattered pieces of the two tablets engraved with the Ten

Commandments, which Moses had broken on witnessing the people of Israel sinning, were stored; there the second set of tablets, those written after Israel’s sin was partly forgiven by God following Moses’s long prayer, were preserved intact; and there, according to some rabbinic authorities, a Torah scroll written by Moses51 himself was kept. Similarly, in all synagogues since ancient times, the aron kodesh has served as the receptacle for the holy items of the community: the Torah scrolls.

The synagogue’s ark or aron kodesh is either a curtained niche carved into that wall of the synagogue which faces the site of the Temple (or Jerusalem, or Israel depending on the synagogue’s locale), or it is an often elaborate kind of cabinet, which might be portable, set against that same important synagogue wall.

23

Further, ‘kedusha--holiness’ is also a perceived or constructed phenomenological reality that connects the ark or aron kodesh in synagogues to the ark or aron kodesh that rested within the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. In the Talmud, it is determined that the Holy of Holies was the most sacred part of the Temple52 and that similarly the place of the ark in the synagogue is the locus of the synagogue’s sanctity, the most sacred part of the synagogue itself (which can be removed and transferred to another location to re-establish a synagogue in a different place), and it manifests a

‘higher’ level of kedusha than any other feature of synagogue structure.53

John Chrysostom (349 – 407 c.e.), an early church father and the Archbishop in

Constantinople, observed somewhat bitterly Jewish belief and practices in his time regarding synagogue arks:

What sort of ark is it that the Jews now have, where we find no

propitiatory, no tables of the law, no holy of holies, no veil, no

high priest, no incense, no holocaust, and no sacrifice, none of the

other things that made the ark of old solemn and august? It seems

to me that the ark the Jews now have is no better off than those toy

arks which you can buy in the market place. In fact, it is much

worse. Those little toy arks cannot hurt anybody who comes close

to them. But the ark which the Jews now have does great harm

each day to those who come near it.54

His comments testify to but also resent that the aron kodesh in synagogues connects to the aron kodesh that was once in the Temple in Jerusalem. For John

Chrysostom, observing the synagogue ark from within his own commitments to Christian

24

faith, the connection from ‘an ark’ to ‘the ark’ could be no more than a kind of blasphemous parody.

A menorah, the many-branched candelabra, is a Jewish sacred item Biblical in its origin.55 Under Moses’ tutelage, Bezalel the chief artisan of the traveling Tabernacle (the desert-period iteration of the Temple), constructs a menorah,56 and it is placed in this structure.57 Much later in the permanent Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem the menorah is featured as a key structure.58 When the holiday of Chanukah is celebrated in synagogues the menorah also appears and is lit. Jewish law demands that the candelabra be placed and lit along the southern wall of the synagogue, a geographic location reminiscent of the menorah’s location in the Temple. In the synagogue [the menorah] is placed along the southern wall.59 The reason [for this placement] is to remember the location of the menorah in the Temple [which was] in the south.60

Sometimes menorahs are found today in synagogues as furnishings or in decorative motifs. Ze’ev Safrai, a leading expert in Israel studies and the Second Temple period, comments about the presence of menorahs (and of an aron kodesh) often depicted in the mosaics decorating ancient synagogues unearthed by archeologists:

Large candelabra often appear on synagogue mosaic floors in Eretz

Israel, often flanking an aron kodesh… Zucker61thought that the

lighting of the candelabra in the synagogue was the result of the

anti-Karaite62 polemic of the Gaonic period. This, however, was

not the case. As stated above, the menorot are found in synagogue

mosaic floors which predate the Gaonic period. Moreover, the

midrashim clearly stress the similarity between Temple and

25

synagogue pertaining to the candelabra, something the anti-Karite

polemic does not explicitly do …It would seem, therefore, that the

candelabra was introduced into the synagogue as part of a general

approach which saw the synagogue as the successor of the

Temple.63

DIOPELOSTON and ISTAVANIS: Seating in the Temple and Synagogues

The Great Synagogue of Alexandria famously described in Talmudic lore has never been located by archeologists. It is known that large numbers of Jews settled in

Alexandria at the beginning of the third century B.C.E. and built synagogues in the city.

The Alexandrian community of Jews enjoyed a large measure of autonomy and prosperity engaging in various forms commerce and craftsmanship. The Talmud tells of the splendor of the synagogue in Alexandria called the diopeloston (from the Greek meaning double colonnaded):

Whoever has never seen the DIOPELOSTON of Alexandria in

Egypt never saw the glory of the Jews. They said it was like a large

basilica with a row of benches inside another row of benches. On

occasion there were there in attendance a multitude of six hundred

thousand and six hundred thousand, twice the number who left

Egypt at the time of the Exodus. There were in it seventy one

chairs of gold, corresponding to the seventy one members of the

Great Sanhedrin, each one of which weighed no less than twenty

one myriads of gold kikars. There was a wooden platform in its

center’ upon which the synagogue chazzan stood with a flag in his

26

hand. When the time came for the congregation to answer amen he

would wave the flag as a signal, and all the people would answer

Amen.64

The beauty of the ancient synagogue is elaborated upon also in the Tosefta:

Said R. Judah, ‘Whoever has never seen the DIOPELOSTON of

Alexandria in Egypt has never seen Israel’s glory in his entire life.’

It was a kind of large basilica, one colonnade inside another.

Sometimes there were twice as many people there as those who

went forth from Egypt. Now there were seventy-one golden

thrones set up there, one for each of the seventy-one elders, each

one worth twenty-five talents of gold, with a wooden platform in

the middle. The minister [chazzan] of the synagogue stands on it,

with flags in his hand. When one began to read, the other would

wave the flags so the people would answer, ‘Amen’ for each and

every blessing.65

The aggadic texts of the Talmud and the Tosefta emphasize the rich furnishings and massive structure of the ancient Alexandrian synagogue. The homelitical interpetations Talmud and the Tosefta also indicate to the informed student of the rabbinic tradition a special link between the architecture of the Alexandrian synagogue and the ancient Temple in Jerusalem: “It was also taught in a Baraita like this: The

Temple Mount was built as a double row of benches. R’ Yehudah says it was called istavanis because it was a row of benches inside another row of benches.”66

27

The language of “a row of benches inside another row of benches” should attract notice. The architecture of the synagogue in Alexandria, according to the previous sources, was similar to the Temple in design: both had double colonnaded halls with benches in rows. The Sanhedrin (the high court established in the Temple) seems also to have had that kind of architecture in a location within the Temple precincts.

From a literary perspective, these statements are meant to evoke a connection within those familiar with rabbinic text between DIOPELOSTON and the Temple in

Jerusalem. By employing the curious expression, “Whoever has never seen … never saw the…” language borrowed from that used by the rabbis elsewhere in the Mishnah to describe the most joyous times in the Temple, “Whoever has never seen the rejoicing [in the Temple of Jerusalem at the end of the holiday of Sukkot]…never saw rejoicing in their life67.”

There are also much later architectural links among the Temple in Jerusalem,

European Synagogues, early synagogues built in North and South America, and, most surprisingly, Churches built by Christians in London towards the end of the 17th century.

In an instance of ‘cross-cultural cooperation and sharing’ (or appropriation on a more jaundiced view ) research into Solomon’s Temple by a Danish rabbi, Jacob Judah Aryeh

Leon and Leon’s colleague Menasseh Ben Israel directly influenced Christopher Wren the famed architect of London.

Humanities professor Laura Leibman provides a fuller narrative of the curious episode presented here in summary.68 The Great Fire of London in 1666, coming on the heels of the Great Plague of 1665, destroyed three quarters of the city. Flames consumed

13,200 houses and 84 churches. King Charles II decided to turn this tragedy into an

28

opportunity. The King’s planners convinced an anxious city public of the importance of the rebuilding of London by calling the fire a harbinger of Messianic import and announcing that London would rise as a “New Jerusalem.”

The architect Christopher Wren was selected to rebuild 51 churches in London including St. Paul’s Cathedral. Wren made a momentous decision. He would use King

Solomon’sTemple in Jerusalem, as a key: an inspiration and a prototype in defining the churches’ spatial relations and proportions. In particular, Wren came upon the idea to use a ratio 37:100 taken from the Book of Ezekiel (chap. 41), where it holds between the space of the ancient Temple’s Holy of Holies chamber (the inner sanctum) and the space of the Holy chamber (the outer sanctum) in all the Churches he designed. Wren wished to affirm in this way that England’s Protestant Church continued the legacy of the Israelite

Temple. The design of London’s churches would be fit to welcome the Prince of Peace and to annunciate His Second Coming.

Wren was influenced by two Amsterdam rabbis, R. Jacob Judah Aryeh Leon and

Menasshe Ben Israel. They had written extensively about the Tabernacle used by Israel in the dessert and the Temple built in Jerusalem. Laura Leibman explains69 Leon even built models of the Temple which made him famous. Some twenty years before the Great Fire of London, Leon had published works on the Temple: Afbeeldinghe vanden Tempel

Salomonis (in 1642, reprinted in 1644, and again in 1669) and Retrato del Templo de

Selomoh (also in 1642). Jews as well as Dutch and English intellectuals supported Rabbi

Leon’s research. Many people from the Netherlands and abroad would come to view

Leon’s models. Among the most notable, Queen Henrietta Maria of England while in

29

Amsterdam came to see in 1643. Rabbi Leon subsequently took his models with him to

England in 1671.

Leibman points out:

First, scholars have focused on the ways that synagogues like Touro

imitate Wren’s churches and neo-Classical forms, but have ignored the

‘Solomonic’ origins of Wren’s vision. Thus, scholars have interpreted the

implementation of Wren’s style and the pattern books as indicative of a

rise of Jewish secularization and assimilation. Second, while scholars have

noted that the other source for Bevis Marks and Touro that preceded Wren

is the Portuguese Synagogue (‘Esnoga’) in Amsterdam (1675), they have

failed to explain why the Amsterdam synagogue shares features with

Wren’s architectural program. This oversight is connected to the first

error, in that scholars of synagogues have failed to ask who and what had

influenced Wren’s famous style. Although Wren was certainly widely

read, one of the key influences on his thinking was the very rabbis whose

interest in the Temple had influenced the Amsterdam synagogue’s unusual

design.70

Leibman compiles a list of the early synagogues in North and South America that use the same Biblically derived ratio, and includes the following still extant synagogues:

Touro Synagogue (Newport, 1764), Mikvé Israel (Curaco, 1732), Neve Shalom

Synagogue (Paramaribo, Suriname, 1719), Sedek Ve Shalom (Paramaribo, Suriname,

1736), and Nidhe Israel (Barbados, 1654? rebuilt in 1833). Information is also listed for destroyed synagogues including: Shearith Israel (New York, 1729), Beit Elohim

30

(Charleston SC, 1794), Honen Dalim (St. Eustatius, 1739), Kahal Kadosh Shaare Shalom

(Kingston, Jamaica, 1744), and Beracha Ve Shalom, (Jodensavanne, Suriname, 1685).71

Rabbi Leon’s scholarly focus on the Temple its workings and structure, earned him the nickname Templo: Jacob Judah Leon de Templo. So proud was his family of this nickname that his progeny took ‘de Templo’ as their family name.

These several similarities: the ‘temple-centric’ positioning of synagogue buildings; the ‘temple-centric’ construction of doorways; the inclusion and the placement of an aron kodesh; the construction of a bima; the menorah; and theater seating in a columned hall, and the much later modeling of synagogue architectural proportions after proportions inspired by the Biblical exegesis regarding the Temple all attest to parallels or cognate aspects of physical form through which Jews have expressed in the structure of their built synagogues deliberate connections to the Temple in Jerusalem idealized.

Additionally, the doorposts of Jewish buildings are generally subject to a Biblical rule: an adornment of sorts, called a mezuzah, is typically affixed to the doorposts of buildings and rooms. It requires some sophistication to understand that the uniqueness of an institution such as the synagogue is not solely the consequence of elements of its architecture or furnishing, but can also be the result of an omission, the absence, of a common feature in the buildings of a particular culture: here, Jewish culture.

Every Jewish home must have affixed to their doorposts a mezuzah, an encased parchment scroll, fastened on the right, on the top third of every doorway. This is based on the Biblical verse “…and you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.”72 Certain buildings, functionally defined, are exempted from affixing a mezuzah on their doorposts.73 The ancient Temple in Jerusalem and synagogues are two

31

examples of exempted structures. So long as a synagogue is not used for the lodging of guests, it represents the type of building not required to have a mezuzah.74 The reason given for this exemption is that the synagogue is viewed as ‘a Temple in miniature’.

And the gates of the temple, its offices and courtyards are exempt

[from Mezuzah] for they are holy. Similarly, our synagogues and

halls of study are exempt for they are also holy, as it states ‘and I

have been to them a little sanctuary.75

Finally, the identification of the Temple in Jerusalem with the historic-synagogue- institution has also many times found acknowledgment in speeches given at ceremonies dedicating newly constructed synagogue buildings which regularly return to the theme that the Temple in Jerusalem finds some embodiment and continuation in the houses of worship built since by Jewish communities all over the world.

The historian Michael Meyer cites dozens of dedicatory sermons from the nineteenth century that make a direct linkage between the ancient Temple and the new synagogue being dedicated:

The biblical text sited most frequently in these sermons (found in

some form in about half of them) is Jacob’s expression of

worshipful amazement after beholding, in his dream a ladder

connecting heaven and earth: ‘How awesome is this place! This is

none other than the abode of God, and this is the gateway to

heaven.’ (Genesis 28:17). This text has been applied to the ancient

sanctuary of Jerusalem, since, according to the medieval

commentator Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac) the place of Jacob’s

32

dream was to become the site for the Temple. But now it was

regularly applied to newly-built synagogues…In Nuremberg the

verse was inscribed on the main façade of the synagogue, in

Stuttgart high on an interior wall. ‘Only angels ascending and

descending the ladder must encounter us here, so that the edifice

may sustain its heavenly power over us,’ said R. Holdheim when

he dedicated a synagogue in Goldberg [Germany].76

These particular citations go further than just identifying ‘newly built synagogues’ in the Diaspora with the Temple. The language identifies the site of Temple in Jerusalem with the spot on which Jacob, the Patriarch whose name is also Israel, dreamed in astonishing imagery of transcendence, of a point between Heaven and Earth, of a location where upward and downward meet that popularly takes as its title: ‘Jacob’s Ladder.’

What better sentiment in these homilies of synagogue dedication to express than to invoke the midrashic identification whereby synagogue, Temple, and a Patriarch dreaming of transcendence are joined? For the goal of the Temple, and of its spiritual progeny the synagogues, is always to make space for a rendezvous between God and ordinary human beings.

Norms of Synagogue Behavior: Reinventing an Atmosphere

The Shulchan Arukh, a written codification of Jewish law composed by Rabbi

Yosef Karo in 16th century Israel and considered a pre-eminent and authoritative compilation of Jewish law, defines the requisite behavior in a synagogue by echoing the language used in the Talmud regarding the respect and reverence that must be shown in the Temple. Regarding behavior in the Temple the Talmudic passage reads:

33

A person may not behave light-headedly opposite the eastern gate

[of the Temple Mount] since it is aligned opposite [the gateway to]

the Holy of Holies. And one may not enter the Temple Mount with

his staff, with his shoes, with his money belt, or with the dust that

is upon his feet. And one may not make of it (the temple mount) a

shortcut, and spitting [is prohibited on the Temple Mount] on

account of a kal va-chomer 77 [argument]. 78

Similarly, the code of the Shulchan Arukh mandates respectful conduct in a synagogue as follows:

[In] synagogues…one is not permitted to act with light-

headedness, such as to engage in: play, fooling or idle talk. One

may not eat or drink in them … one may not enter the synagogue

to protect oneself from the heat or from the rain. If the synagogue

has two entries [one on one side of the building and one on the

other] one may not enter into one doorway in order to exit through

the second [for the purpose of using the synagogue structure] to

shorten his/ her travel.79

Cognate aspects of the Temple and the synagogue find further acknowledgment in the later commentators on the Shulchan Arukh. In nineteenth, early twentieth century

Poland, R. Israel Kagan, the author of a compendium guidebook to R. Karo’s Orach

Chayim, the Mishnah Berurah, states that the Temple in Jerusalem is the paradigm for the kavod, dignity, and yirah, fear/respect, required in the synagogue.

34

[There is no] levity [in the synagogue]: [for the synagogue] is a

miniature Temple as it states … By the Temple it states ‘and you

should fear my sanctuary’ there should be reverence due to the fact

that [God] resides in its midst80…

Furthermore, the Jewish legal connection between the Temple and the synagogue is applicable even in the case of a synagogue which is in a state of ruin. Regarding the responsibility to treat the Temple Mount in Jerusalem with respect, we are told the following:

…and [thus far] I know only [that these restrictions apply] while

the Temple is standing. From where [do I derive that they apply

even] when the Temple is not standing (in ruin)? For [the

Scripture] states: ‘My Sabbath shall you observe and my Sanctuary

shall you revere’ (Leviticus 19:30). Just as the observance that is

mentioned concerning the Sabbath is [obligatory] forever, so too,

the reverence that is mentioned concerning the sanctuary is

[obligatory] forever.81

When the Talmud focuses on the holiness of the synagogue, it states:

Additionally, R. Yehudah said: A synagogue that has fallen into

ruin [nevertheless retains its sanctity and therefore] one may not

eulogize in it, one may not twist ropes in it, nor spread nets in it,

nor spread out fruit [to dry] on its roof, nor use it as a shortcut.

(Thus, all the restrictions that apply to a functioning synagogue

remain in force even after the synagogue has been abandoned.) For

35

it is said ‘and I shall make your sanctuaries desolate (Leviticus

26:31)’. [In calling desolate sites Sanctuaries, the Torah implies

that synagogues retain] their sanctity even when they are desolate.

If grass sprouts in [the ruined synagogues] one should not uproot it

in order to [inspire] grief. 82

This Talmudic discussion is then codified as Jewish law in the Shulchan Arukh: “Even after the destruction [of synagogues] they still remain holy. Just like respect afforded to them when they [the synagogues] are functional so is the responsibility when they are in ruin.”83

Division of Labor and Specialization in Spiritual Work

Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein points out that there was specialized division of labor among the various groups engaged in the Temple service. He quotes Maimonides on this point:

Just as the Levites were warned not to perform the service of the

priests, so too, the priests are warned not to perform the work of

the Levites, as it is written: ‘Both you and they.’ (Bamidbar 18:3).

Similarly, the Levites themselves were warned that each one

should not perform the task incumbent on a colleague. Thus a

singer should not assist a door-keeper, nor a door-keeper a singer,

as (ibid. 4:49) states: ‘Every men, according to his service and his

burden.’

When Levites perform the service of the priests or one Levi

assisted in a task that is not his, they are liable for death at the hand

36

of heaven, for (ibid. 18:3) states: shall not die. When, by contrast, a

priest performs the service of a Levite, he is not liable for death.

Instead, he violates merely a negative commandment. (Mishneh

Torah, Hilchot Kelei ha’Mikdash 3:10-11) 84

The staffing and leadership of synagogues has often required the development of specialized roles, professionals. Some of these roles are even parallel to occupations found in the Temple. Professional roles in synagogues have included: the rabbi, the dayan (judge), chazzan (prayer leader), shochet (meat slaughterer), and lay leadership.

An Example of a Professional Role: The Chazzan

It is commonly accepted within the literature of the sacred texts that there was a synagogue in the Temple.85 This is based on statements in rabbinic literature which describe administrative roles, for a chazzan, “in the synagogue of the Temple” and for

‘the president’ of that synagogue.

What was the manner of the portion of the king? [the

commandment for the king to read portions of the Torah at the

conclusion of the sabbatical year]…The chazzan of the synagogue

[in the Temple] took a scroll of law [a Torah] and gave it to the

president of the synagogue [in the Temple], and the president of

the synagogue gave it to the assistant high priest …86

Additional statements describing a chazzan for the synagogue on the Temple

Mount and describing his role are mentioned in the Tosefta Taanit (1:13); Tosefta Sukkah

(4:11,12); and Mishnah Yoma (7:1,7,8).

37

A role of the chazzan continued in synagogues in Palestine during the Temple period as well in Palestine in a post-Temple period. One example, a chazzan would lead congregants on their travels to Jerusalem to bring the first fruits offering. Like the pilgrim farmers from his community, when they were on route to the Temple to bring the first fruits offerings they would sleep outside in the open area of the town, not entering the homes in the town, to avoid becoming impure.87

Other rules governing the chazzan’s and the synagogue president’s behavior include the warning to share the leading of the service with parishioners. They should not read unless others in the congregation request it of them.88

Lee Levine, a professor of Jewish history and classical archaeology at the Hebrew

University, points out89 that in addition to the rabbinic literature describing the role of a chazzan who served as a communal officer, there is archeological evidence indicating that the chazzan often resided within the synagogue complex. This is similar to the practice described in the Mishnah regarding the priest-cohorts who resided temporarily in the temple precincts while serving there90.

The chazzan’s role as the teacher of the synagogue’s children also represents a continuation of activities that happened within the Temple. The ancient city of Jerusalem, colloquially known as the Old City, has a unique standing in Jewish legal-texts and precedents: it is considered an extension of the Temple itself. As Maimonides expresses it: “I have explained many times that the Temple includes [the city of] Jerusalem.” 91 The rabbis suggest that, within Jerusalem, the Temple played a role in educating children in both the Bible and rabbinic traditions.

38

R. Pinchas quoted R. Hoshaya as saying: ‘There were four hundred

eighty synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a

Bet Talmud; the school was for [the studying] Bible and the Bet

Talmud for [the studying] Mishnah; and Vespasian destroyed them

all.’92

Synagogues have long continued to play a role in schooling as described in these sources from the Jewish-Babylonian experience:

R. Hiyya b. Abba encountered R. Yehoshua b. Levi, who had

(hurriedly) thrown the sheet upon his head (in order not to walk in

the street with his head uncovered) and was bringing his

grandchildren to the synagogue for their Torah lesson.93

R. Hiyya b. Abba said: I was passing the Babylonian synagogue of

Sepphoris, when I heard children sitting and studying the verse…94

These Talmudic passages mention synagogues in the land of Israel and in

Babylon and the common denominator among them is the teaching of Torah. The practice of bringing children and grandchildren to study receives specific mention. As

Shmuel Safrai, the late Professor of History of the Jewish People at Hebrew University, pointed out95 the chazzan, the administrator of the synagogue, played the key role in educating the children. Safrai refers to the Talmudic passage: “…the chazzan may see where the children read on Shabbat [by candle light] but he himself must not read” 96 to reinforce his point.

Similarities between the chazzan in the synagogue and the Temple are also mentioned within Jewish law. The nineteenth century Polish rabbinic leader Abraham

39

Bornstein97 taught that when a synagogue searches for a new chazzan after the death of its previous chazzan, the synagogue cannot give precedence to the child of the deceased.

Bornstein explains this is not the case with a deceased rabbi where preferential treatment may be given to the deceased rabbi’s son when he is a qualified candidate. Bornstein suggests that the reason for the difference is that the chazzan is comparable to the High

Priest. As the death of the High Priest gave no preferential treatment to his children, so too, the children of the chazzan, the historical counterpart to the High Priest, may not receive preferential treatment.

Functions of the Temple and the Historic-Synagogue-Institution: Exploring

Institutional Purposes

Rabbinic literature developed through memory and tradition, academic texts, and archeological evidence mention additional and extensive similarities of purpose and function, suggesting that these similarities have more substance to it than a mere theme for homilies. Both institutions are meant to house God’s presence. That metaphysical goal, making space in the ordinary physical landscape for God, may give pause to the narrowly utilitarian minded: how can one possibly design structures and link form and function for such a lofty goal? That concern simply suggests that King Solomon’s famous question is still relevant! Nonetheless, the ‘house of assembly/ small Temple’ ideals for synagogues, as I see them, should embrace a three-fold purpose: (1) they should empower an individual to connect with God, (2) they should provide guidance and purposefulness in life, (3) and they should enable the synagogue-community to serve as a haven for all its constituents.

40

Consider a Temple metaphor. Multiple gates led a pilgrim to the Temple in

Jerusalem. These gates receive attention in Rabbinic literature. Some, as noted further on, are specially named for benefactors who had them built. In the following section, functions of the Temple that the historic-synagogue-institution continued are grouped and briefly considered under the rubric, for convenience rather than for classification, of five gates of entry: (1) intellection; (2) the calendar; (3) mutual aid; (4) generosity; and (5) justice. In subsequent chapters, examples of specific synagogues and their activities and functions will be discussed. It will be helpful to have the Temple activities described under these headings as a frame of reference that suggests the accessibility of the Temple to its ‘stakeholders’ and the diversity of functions already attributed to that paradigmatic institution. That the number of ‘gates’ in the Temple that once stood in Jerusalem remains the source of some uncertainty fits well with my suggestion of a fivefold grouping of Temple functions meant only to anticipate the broad mission and activities of the historic-synagogue-institution in its later specific instances.

The First Gate: Intellection

An effort towards dialogue with God through prayer and study forms the substance of a religious sensibility. These contemplative activities were part of the religious experiences available in the Temple empowering the citizen of the ancient world to feel the warm embrace of God and the community.

Prayer

Any standard synagogue liturgy includes recitations such as the Shema and its blessings. The Mishnah records that originally priests had the privilege of leading these

41

passages with the community present in the Temple following the morning offering of the blood of the daily sacrifice (the tamid):

The superintendent [of the lottery in charge of deciding which

priests preformed various Temple activities] said to them [the

priests], pronounce one blessing ahava rabbah [great love], and

they [the priests] did so: they then recited the ten commandments,

and the first, second and third sections of the shema, and [then]

they pronounced with the people [present in the forecourt] three

benedictions: emet v’yatziv [True and Firm], and abodah

[Worship], and the Priestly blessing. On Sabbath they added one

[more] benediction to be said for the Priestly Guard that was

departing. 98

This formula for verbal recitations was transferred from its original place in the Temple ritual to the context of prayer. Nowadays ‘ahava rabbah—great love’ precedes the recitation of the shema said in communal or individual prayer; ‘emet v’ yatziv—true and firm’ follows the Shema’s third paragraph in daily morning prayers. The ‘abodah— worship’ is an invocation similar to our blessing ‘ratzeh—desirable,’ a petition that prayer be accepted.99

In Temple times, groups of priests from 24 distinct regions throughout the land of

Israel took turns serving in the Temple. These groups were known as mishmarot— watches, each mishmar served for a period of a little more than two weeks. When a mishmar gathered in the Temple, the residents of their represented district would gather

42

for a prayer vigil. In this way, they identified with the priests from their district working in the Temple:

When the time came for the mishmar to go up [to Jerusalem] the

Priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem and the Israelites of that

mishmar assembled in their cities and read [from the Torah] the

story of creation...On Sunday [they read], in the beginning, and, let

there be a firmament; on Monday, let there be a firmament, and, let

the waters be gathered together; on Tuesday… Two persons would

read between them a long section and one [person] a short section.

At shachariet, musaf, and mincha they assembled and read [the

requisite] section by heart, in the same way as people recite the

Shema….100

This passage demonstrates how prayer happening in communities linked directly with prayer happening in the Temple. Note that this passage takes for granted that while the Temple stood some form of community prayer took place in districts outside of the

Temple precincts. The Mishnah here offers an example of how communal prayer in synagogues might have co-existed with that in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Regarding the origins of our current practice of assembling for prayer three times daily the Talmud offers two opinions: “It has been stated: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said:

The daily prayers were instituted by the Patriarchs. R. Joshua b. Levi says: The prayers were instituted to replace the daily [Temple] sacrifices.”101

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, one of the pre-eminent religious thinkers of the twentieth century, explains102 that these two opinions which serve as the precedent for

43

thrice daily synagogue prayer experience are not in conflict. Rather they represent two paradigms which must both be incorporated in our synagogue prayer experience. The opinion linking prayer to sacrifice reminds the practitioner that prayer, like ritual sacrifice, has a precise structure and form. As with ritual sacrifice, there is a sequence in the prayer structure that cannot be ignored. The psukei d’zimrah, introductory set of psalms which begin the morning prayer, set the stage for engaging God, the blessings focusing on the universal and particular components are a prerequisite to beginning the silent devotional prayer. Even within the silent devotional prayer there is a structure which must be followed. This structure arranges prayer motifs including: the need to find

God in the everyday and not to wait for miraculous activities, the relationship between personal and communal redemption, and the awareness that our personal requests are recited in the plural incorporating the community. Yet, at the same time, the opinion which connects the prayer institution to our patriarchs reminds us that prayer must have informality to it. In order for prayer to be the conduit of personal communication with

God, it must contain the capacity for personal innovation and expression. Without such capacity, prayer becomes a habit which cannot empower communal or personal rendezvous with God. Certainly in contemporary times when the search for meaningful dialogue with God is increasing, we must be cognizant of both aspects of the prayer paradigm if it is to successfully occur within the structure of a synagogue.

Priestly Blessings

In addition to prayer, structures found in the post-Temple prayer service, such as the priestly blessings, are parallel to the priestly blessings in the Temple.103

44

Studying Torah

The Temple was not just a place of ritual sacrifice and prayer, but also a place of study. As previously stated, the Talmudic teaching of mikdash ma’at considers both the synagogues and the study halls the spiritual progeny of the Temple: “R. Yitzchak states: that the synagogues and houses of study are miniature Temples.”104

The Temple was a place of study as the three Rabbinic passages which follow reference Torah study happening within the precincts of the Temple:

Rabban Gamaliel and the sages were in session on the steps of the

Temple and Yochanan, the scribe was before them…105

They said about Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai. That he would sit in

the shadow of the sanctuary and expound Torah to the masses all

day 106

During what hours do the judges hold sessions? … The Great

Sanhedrin meets from the time of the morning tamid [daily burnt

offering] until the evening tamid is slaughtered. Sabbaths and

festivals they spend in the House of Study [emphasis added],

located in the Temple Mount. 107

As previously discussed, we are able to trace the study of Jewish texts with children from its practice in ancient Jerusalem, to the later practice of synagogues being the central address for the education of youth in Jewish communities throughout the millennia.

45

In order to ensure the study of Torah became an integral part of the synagogue’s activities the rabbis enacted laws to include the reading of the Torah on Shabbat morning,108 on holidays,109 on the day(s) we celebrate the new month,110 on fast days,111 as well as on Mondays, Thursdays, and Shabbat afternoon.112 The Biblical and Temple situated precursors of this practice were previously referenced. Safrai points out113 that historically these legislations as well as the practice of reading the Targum, a translation and commentary on the Torah for the masses, taught the ideals of Judaism to the diverse populations served by the synagogue.

Lee Levine concretizes this idea by making the following observations:

While a plethora of activity revolved around the Synagogue in the

first century, it would nevertheless seem that first and foremost the

Synagogue, in its formative stages, at least, served as a place for

the reading of the Torah and its study. All of our earliest sources

point in this direction… Josephus likewise emphasizes the

centrality of scripture reading and study the practice he subscribes

to the days of Moses. ‘He appointed the law to be the most

excellent and necessary form of instruction, ordaining, that it

should be heard once for all or twice or on several occasions, that

every week men should desert their other occupations and

assemble to listen to the Law and obtain a thorough and accurate

knowledge of it, a practice which other legislators seem to have

neglected.’…The author of Acts, in fact, makes this connection

[between the synagogue and study] quite explicit: ‘For from early

46

generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for

he read every Sabbath in the Synagogues (Acts 15:21).’114

The Second Gate: The Calendar

All the biblical Jewish holidays had Temple sacrifices. Some of sacrifices were eaten by the priests on duty and some were consumed by the individual(s) who offered the sacrifice.115

Ze’ev Safari explains that in the synagogue of Katzrin an inscription mentioning a revua was found. While the word is difficult to interpret, a revua apparently refers to a place in which holiday feasts were held.116 Lee Levine writes:

Josephus, rabbinic literature and archeological evidence attest to

the practice of holding sacred meals at the synagogue. Such

festivities were probably associated with Sabbath or holidays, but

may have taken place at other times as well. A triclinium or

dining hall is mentioned in synagogue inscriptions from Caesarea

and Stobi (in Yugoslavia). 117

Additionally, the use of the synagogue to celebrate holiday experiences is highlighted below:

On the New Moon, the associations of elders, leaders and students

were assembled in session [for a ritual feast in honor of the new

month] from the time of the afternoon service onwards until the

sun had set and the moon appeared in the night [sky].118

R. Yochanan would go up to the synagogue in the morning, and he

would gather crumbs and eat them, and he said, “Let my lot be

47

with him who eats here evenings [because they have such a fine

meal when they bring testimony about the New moon].” 119

Days of Personal Grief and Joy

The Temple, and subsequently the historic-synagogue-institution, concerned itself also with special occurrences in the lives of individuals, occasions heavy with consequence and emotion, common to many an ordinary lifetime. In the Jerusalem

Talmud the following passage speaks both of how the Temple incorporated such sensitivity into its structures and how synagogues carried on the practice:

Rabbi Eliezer B. Hyrkenos said: ‘Solomon saw the greatness of

those who would bestow loving kindness, and built two gates for

Israel [in the Temple’s eastern gate] one for grooms [and brides]

and the other for mourners and excommunicated persons. On the

Sabbath, the inhabitants of Jerusalem use to congregate, ascend the

temple and take their seats between these two gates to show

kindness to these persons.’ Since the Temple was destroyed, it was

enacted that grooms and mourners should go to the synagogue so

that kindness should be shown to them: to grooms by recounting

their praises and escorting them to their homes [after synagogue].

To mourners [by comforting them as follows] after the reader

finishes the musaf service, everyone goes behind the doors of the

synagogue, which are in front of the synagogue, and there meet the

mourners and all their relatives. The benediction [words of comfort

to the mourner] is said, followed by kaddish.120

48

Customary expressions of condolence include language suggestive of the role of the Temple in acknowledging the grief of mourners. In the collection of customs of Rabbi

Jacob b. Moses Molin, known as the Maharil the leader of the Jewish communities of

Germany, Austria, and Bohemia in the late fourteenth and fifteenth century, there is a discussion of the language used to extend words of comfort to a mourner in the

Rhineland synagogues. The language used was “He who dwells in this home should comfort you.” The Maharil points out that this is exactly the language used to comfort mourners in the Temple:

All who entered the temple mount entered by the right and went

round [to the right] and went out by the left, save for one to whom

something untoward had happened, who entered and went round to

the left. [if he was asked], why do you go round to the left, [and he

answered] because I am a mourner, [they said to him], ‘May He

who dwells in this home comfort you.’121

The Maharil draws the conclusion that the reason for the shared language is that the synagogue is a miniature Temple:

It was asked [of the Maharil] what connection does God dwelling

in the place [Temple] have to do with our synagogue for we are

told in the midrash that in the Temple there were two openings

[offices] one for the groom [for the citizens of Jerusalem to extend

words of congratulations] and one for the mourner [to extend

words of comfort]? And he answered him that the synagogue is

considered a miniature Temple.122

49

The Ashkenazic community formulates its greeting to mourners in the following way:

המקום ינחם אתכם בתוך שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים

May the Place [God] console you among the other mourners of

Zion and Jerusalem.123

The name used to designate God in this greeting is, ha-makom, literally meaning “the

Place.” I believe this name of God used in offering consolation to the mourner is formulaically similar to the original Mishnaic greeting: it suggests that the source of comfort is the God who resides in a particular place, the Temple.124

The Third Gate: Mutual Aid

Hospitality in the past, prior to its commercialization, when traveling required more time and exposed those journeying to greater dangers along the way, was a critical communal task. For Jews, finding lodging and meals outside of their own locales might prove especially difficult. Jews have long coped with these difficulties by maintaining robust traditions of mutual aid.

While initially Jerusalem may have been inherited by a certain tribe(s) with the development of the Temple it became a national city, owned by the Jewish people and not any particular tribe.125 Therefore certain offerings and sacrifices could be consumed in Jerusalem instead of upon the Temple Mount.126 According to some rabbinic authorities, residents of Jerusalem were required to open their homes, without compensation, for those on Biblically mandated pilgrimage to the Temple.127 According to others,128 it was the synagogues within Jerusalem that were designated as the hospitality locations for those on pilgrimage.

50

The historic-synagogue-institution too has played a role in housing those in need of shelter and hospitality. The Midrash speaks of the shelter that was part of synagogue structures:

‘Where is he [your brother residing]?’ he asked. He (R. Meir)

replied [he is residing] ‘in the synagogue.’129

Lee Levine writes:

Even synagogues outside Jerusalem and throughout the Diaspora

appear to have had rooms set aside for the poor, for itinerants, and

for Jewish merchants.130

Ze’ev Safari records that synagogues from the Amoraic period in Hammath-

Tiberias and Ein Gedi had multi-room buildings, with no furniture or other equipment, next to the sanctuary. Archaeologists suggest that these buildings served as hostels.131

The famous Theodotus inscription, found on the Ophel (at the Southern Wall excavations) in Jerusalem, dating back to the first century, is the earliest archeological attestation for the existence of a Palestinian synagogue. There is a Greek dedicatory inscription which articulates the ‘mission statement’ of the synagogue:

ΘΕΟΔΟΤΟΣ . ΟΥΕΤΤΕΝΟΥ . ΙΕΡΕΥΣ . ΚΑΙ

ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝΑΓΩΓΟΣ . ΥΙΟΣ . ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝ[ΑΓΩ]−

Γ[Ο]Υ . ΥΙΟΝΟΣ . ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝ[Α]ΓΩΓΟΥ . ΩΚΟ−

ΔΟΜΗΣΕ . ΤΗΝ . ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓ[Η]Ν . ΕΙΣ . ΑΝ[ΑΓ]ΝΩ−

Σ[Ι]Ν . ΝΟΜΟΥ . ΚΑΙ . ΕΙΣ . [Δ]ΙΔΑΧΗΝ . ΕΝΤΟΛΩΝ ΚΑΙ

ΤΟΝ . ΞΕΝΩΝΑ . ΚΑ[Ι . ΤΑ] . ΔΩΜΑΤΑ . ΚΑΙ . ΤΑ . ΧΡΗ−

Σ[Τ]ΗΡΙΑ . ΤΩΝ . ΥΔΑΤΩΝ . ΕΙΣ . ΚΑΤΑΛΥΜΑ . ΤΟΙ−

51

Σ . [Χ]ΡΗΖΟΥΣΙΝ . ΑΠΟ . ΤΗΣ . ΞΕ[Ν]ΗΣ . ΗΝ . ΕΘΕΜΕ−

Λ[ΙΩ]ΣΑΝ . ΟΙ . ΠΑΤΕΡΕΣ . [Α]ΥΤΟΥ . ΚΑΙ . ΟΙ . ΠΡΕ−

Σ[Β]ΥΤΕΡΟΙ . ΚΑΙ . ΣΙΜΩΝ[Ι]ΔΗΣ

Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and an archisynagogos,

(leader of the synagogue) son of an archisynagogos grandson of an

archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of Torah and

for teaching the commandments; furthermore, the hostel, and the

rooms, and the water installation for lodging needy strangers. Its

foundation stone was laid by his ancestors, the elders, and

Simonides.132

The inscription validates a number of the functions discussed already for the Temple and the synagogues that succeeded it in history. Both study and mutual aid were without a doubt a part of this ancient synagogue’s mission.

The Fourth Gate: Generosity

Shimon HaTzaddik (Jewish High Priest during the time of the Second

Temple) was from the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say: On three things the world stands. On Torah, On service [of God], and on acts of human kindness.133 Jewish tradition places acts of kindness on par with the study of

Torah and God-centered service. Indeed in the Temple in Jerusalem, a dedicated space, ‘the chamber of the silent’ was purposed to allow for giving and receiving charity anonymously.

There were two chambers in the sanctuary. One was called

chamber of the silent, the other chamber of utensils. In the former

52

[chamber of silent], devout men secretly gave charitable gifts (they

deposited funds), and the poor of good family received there

secretly their sustenance (they withdrew funds).134

Maimonides codifies the virtue of charity in which the giver and recipient are unknown to each other:

There are eight levels in charity, each level surpassing the other.

The highest level beyond which there is none is a person who

supports a Jew who has fallen into poverty [by] giving him a

present or a loan, entering into partnership with him or finding him

work so that his hand will be fortified so that he will not have to

ask others [for charity]…A lower [the 7th level] than this is one

who gives charity to the poor without knowing to whom he gave

and without the poor person knowing from whom he received. For

this is an observance of the mitzvah for its sake alone. This [type

of giving was] exemplified by the secret chamber that existed in

the Temple. The righteous would make donations there in secret

and poor people of distinguished lineage would derive their

livelihood from it in secret.135

Synagogues have also served as a central address for the collection and disbursement of communal funds. Maimonides writes: “Never have I seen or heard that a community in Israel did not have a charity fund” (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma’tanot Ani- yim 9:3). This role of the synagogue is evident in the following source:

53

In the days of R. Berekiah there came over here a certain

Babylonian whom R. Berekiah knew to be a bastard. The latter

went to him and said: ‘Acquire merit through me.’ R. Berekiah

said to him: ‘Go away and come tomorrow, when we shall make a

collection for you in the synagogue.’ He came the next day and

found R. Berekiah in the synagogue sitting and expounding. He

waited until he [R. Berekiah] had finished. When R. Berekiah had

made an end of expounding, the man went up to him. R. Berekiah

said to those present: ‘Our brethren, acquire merit through this man

who is a bastard [and needs charity].’ So they made a collection for

him.136

Spaces that appear to be treasury rooms were discovered at the archeological sites of a number of synagogues: Beth Alpha, Beth She’arim, Caesarea, Capernaum, Ein Gedi,

Gush Halav, Hamat-Tiberias, Katzrin137, Chorazin, Meroth, Rehov, and Rimmon. It is hypothesized that they were used to disperse charity138.

As indicated previously the chazzan played a teaching and a professional role in the synagogue. It would seem from the following source that he also served as a collector of the charity monies.

SUFFER NOT THEY MOUTH TO BRING THY FLESH INTO

GUILT (Ecclesiastes 5:5). Joshua b. Levi interpreted the verse as

alluding to those who publicly undertake to subscribe to charity but

do not pay. NEITHER SAY THOU BEFORE THE MESSENGER

54

(ibid.), [meaning] i.e. the chazzan [who comes to collect the

money].139

Donations and Benefactors

Benefaction, the gifting of items for a religious purpose and, typically, the naming of objects for those who made or donated them, is an underappreciated link between synagogues of all denominations at present and support for their contemporary fundraising practices has antecedents in the practices of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Examples of benefaction in the Temple include: the Gates of Nicanor; Ben Gamla’s refurbishing of the Yom Kippur lots; Ben Qatin’s enhancement of the water laver; King

Munbaz’s enhancement of the vessels used on Yom Kippur; and Helena’s dedications to the Temple. In the Tosefta, the following is recorded:

All the doors that were there were changed for gold ones, except

for the doors of Nicanor, for a miracle was done with them…; and

there are those who say it is because their copper glistens. Rabbi

Eliezer son of Jacob says: ‘Their copper was Corinthian and was as

beautiful as gold.’ What is the miracle done with them? They say:

When Nicanor was bringing it from Alexandria of Egypt, a gale

rose in the sea and threatened to drown them. They took one of

them [the doors] and threw it into the sea, and they wanted to

throw in the other, but Nicanor would not let them. He said to

them, ‘If you throw in the second one, throw me in with it.’He was

distressed all the way to the port of Jaffa. Once they reached the

port of Jaffa, [the other door] popped up from underneath the ship.

55

And there are those who say one of those beasts of the sea

swallowed it, and when Nicanor arrived to the port of Jaffa, it

brought it up and tossed it onto land. And concerning it, it is

explicitly stated in tradition, ‘The beams of our house are cedar,

our rafters are pine’ (Song of Songs 1:17).140

The benefactions of Ben Gamla, Ben Qatin, King Munbaz and Queen Helena to the Temple are discussed in the rabbinic passage below:

He [the high priest] came to the eastern part of the courtyard, to the

north of the Altar, with the Sagan (assistant high priest) to his right

and the head of the family (the head of the mishmar – group of

priests that would have served in the Temple that day if it was not

Yom Kippur) at the left. And two he-goats were there. And a

container was there in which were two lots. [The lots formerly had

been made] of boxwood and Ben Gamala [re-] made them out of

gold. And [the Sages] would recall him with praise. Ben Qatin

made twelve spouts for the kiyor (the laver), for it [formerly] had

only two. He also made a mechanical device for the kiyor (the

laver) so that its water should not become unfit by remaining

overnight. King Munbaz made all the handles of the utensils [used]

for Yom Kippur out of gold. Helene his mother set a golden

candelabrum [and placed it] over the entrance of the Heichal

(sanctuary). She also made a golden tablet upon which the passage

of the sotah was written.141

56

The Temple Gates were named for different personalities such as Chulda,

Kiponos, and Tadi:

The Temple Mount (in the time of the Second Temple) had five

gateways; the two Chuldah Gates in the south were used for

entrance and exiting; Kiponos in the west was used for entering

and exiting; Tadi in the north was not used for any purpose; the

Eastern Gate , upon it was depicted a likeness of Shushan the

capital city [of Persia], that through it, the Kohen Gadol (High

Priest) who was to burn the [red] heifer and all the others assisting

[in the process] would exit [through the Eastern Gate] to the Mount

of Olives.142

R. Israel Lipschuetz, in his 19th century commentary on the above Mishnah,

Tiferet Yisrael, explains that the Kiponos gate was named for the person who paid for its construction. Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak) in his commentary on Ezekiel (40:14) suggests that the northern gate named Tadi which served no function was named for a person from the north. Perhaps he dedicated time, funds or both to the building of the

Temple.

While the Chuldah gates were not named for philanthropic benefaction, according to R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller (Tosafot Yom Tov),143 the gates were dedicated to the memory of the prophetess Chuldah. The prophetess had sat near those southern gates, during the final years of the First Temple, admonishing the Jewish people to give up their idolatrous ways. She is remembered for working toward creating a religious environment that was both critical and welcoming: protesting against those Jews who were

57

worshipping multiple deities while simultaneously allowing their coming to the Temple and offering sacrifices to the one God. When the Second Temple was built, these gateways were named, for her dedication.

Amazingly, Greenfield and Fine reference an inscribed ossuary found on Mt.

Scopus in 1902 in which the inscription directly corroborates some the benefactions mentioned in rabbinic literature. The inscription is bilingual. In Greek it states: “Bones of the (sons/descendants) of Nicanor the Alexandrian who made the doors” and in

Hebrew/Aramaic, in Jewish Square Script: it simply states “Nicanor the Alexandrian.”144

The Fifth Gate: Justice

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came

before … him, ‘Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach

me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.’ … Hillel said to

him, ‘What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the

whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and

learn it.’145

For we have learned that proper ethical behavior precedes [our

cherished] tree of life and the tree [of life] represents Torah.146

As is highlighted in the above Talmudic story and Jewish proverb a prerequisite for an individual or a community to have a relationship with God is the responsibility to be ethical and just in dealing with others. The Temple in Jerusalem served as the center for discussions of Jewish law the teaching and practice of which seeks to make justice permeate Jewish society and served as the seat for authoritative judgements in accordance with the majority of sages on its several courts.

58

Three courts were there – one (23 judges) used to sit at the

entrance to the Temple Mount, one (23 judges) used to sit at the

entrance of the Temple Court and one (71 judges) use to sit in the

Hall of the Hewn Stone. 147

As in the Temple, the synagogue too has been a location for doing justice.

Rabbinic texts highlight this point including:

A story told of Bar Telamyon justifies the Rabbis [who interpreted

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain] as prohibiting the

swearing of an oath in God’s name in jest, even when the oath was

ostensibly affirming the truth]. It happened that a man who had

deposited a hundred denar with Bar Telamyon went to get them

back. Bar Telamyon said: ‘What you deposited with me I have

already turned over to you.’ The man said: ‘Come, [to court and] I

will have you take an oath.’ What did Bar Telamyon do? He took a

cane, hollowed it out, put the hundred denar in it, and then leaned

upon it for a walking stick. When he came into the synagogue [to

take the oath in front of the court], he said to the man whose

hundred denar were in the cane: ‘Take hold of this cane with your

hand, and I will swear an oath to you,’ and went on to swear in

God’s name: ‘0 master of this goodly treasure which was deposited

with me, I have turned it over to you.’ In his anger the man threw

the cane upon the ground, and the hundred denar were scattered.

As the man began to gather them. Bar Telamyon said: ‘Gather

59

them, gather them, for it’s your own denar that you’re

gathering!’148

How do they flog him? He binds his two hands on the post on

either side, and the chazzan of the congregation seizes his

garments - if they tear, they tear, and if they split open, they split

open - until he bares his chest; and the stone is placed behind

him.149

While the above references evidence of the role that synagogues have played in the maintaining justice in Jewish communities, Lee I. Levine adds that much to the consternation of the early Church father John Chrysostom, Christians in his day preferred signing contracts and taking oaths in synagogues. There was a feeling of awe and power felt for an oath administered in the synagogue. Chrysostom rebukes a Christian for taking another into the synagogue for the purpose of compelling the other to take an oath.

Chrysostom’s version of the Christian’s reply is telling: “Many had told them that oaths that were taken there [in the synagogue] were awesome.”150

Lost and Found

Respect and concern for the personal property of others, beyond reimbursing for it and refraining from damaging or stealing it, is an additional important part of a developed ethical outlook. In the Temple, there was a designated location to help people reclaim lost property.

The Rabbis taught in a Baraisa: There was a ‘claimants’ stone’ in

Jerusalem. Anyone who lost something would turn there and

anyone who found a lost object would turn there…151

60

[The rains] then fell normally until the Jews had to leave Jerusalem

for the Temple Mount because of the rains (the flooding). [The

people] came and said to him (Choni the circle maker) ‘Just as you

prayed for them (the rains) to fall, pray that they cease.’ He replied

‘Go out and see if the Stone of the Claimants’ has been

effaced….’152

The practice of announcing lost items in synagogue continues this concern for property. The Talmud makes a direct connection between the practice of the Temple and that of the synagogue.

Our Rabbis taught: In former times [when the Temple stood],

whoever found a lost article used to proclaim it during the three

Festivals and an additional seven days after the last Festival, three

days for going home, another three for returning, and one for

announcing. After the destruction of the Temple — may it be

speedily rebuilt in our own days! — it was enacted that the

proclamation should be made in the synagogues and

schoolhouses.153

Ze’ev Safrai focuses on the synagogue as the locus for social/public policy issue with the following comment:

In light of all that has been said, the synagogue may be defined as

the true community center, encompassing nearly the entire

constellation of services that existed in the Jewish community. The

officials of the synagogue were counted among the parnassim of

61

the town and the line between the synagogue and the communal

leadership was blurred… we hear that the pilgrimage [to the

Temple] is described by the Tannaim as it was done within the

synagogue framework, and indeed the synagogue and the residents

of the city are one and the same.154

Lee Levine and Solomon Zeitlin also make this point:

As the largest communal institution, the synagogue also functioned

as a place of meeting. In a vivid description of the tensions within

Tiberias in 66-67 c.e. over the question of whether to join the war

effort against Rome, Josephus describes the various political

meetings held in the local synagogue some scheduled immediately

following religious services.155

In these smaller settlements, where they had to meet the social and

economic problems that confronted them in their practical life,

they summoned assemblies of all the inhabitants of the town or

village. The people that participated in their deliberations were

the men of the assembly. The head of the assembly בני הכנסת called

The officer of the assembly, whose duties .ראש הכנסת was called

were not only those of janitor, but also the care of the religious

and the house where ,חזן הכנסת needs of the assembly, was called

the house of the ,בית הכנסת the assembly was held was called

assembly [ed. the synagogue].156

62

The Temple in Jerusalem met a broad range of needs and functioned in diverse ways summarized here under the rubric of these ‘five gates of entry.’ Jerusalem was then the center of Israelite culture and power. While no synagogue could approach the scope or scale that the sacred text wishes to describe regarding the Temple’s actions, all synagogues were challenged to become ‘small Temples.’ Abandoning the Temple’s essential role in creating an intellectual and emotional rendezvous with God; surrendering leadership in building a just society; deferring hopes that ethical and religious ideals would shape everyday reality to a dream-like messianic future or improved social- political circumstances, would have left Diaspora Jewish communities spiritually compromised and morally blighted. In short, it was and still is, unthinkable, and the synagogue has served and serves as a vital conduit between our ideology of righteousness and human reality.

Remarks

The next few chapters will describe synagogue models mindful of their halachic

(rabbinic-legal), historical precedents and the images that rabbinic memory conjures regarding the Temple. It will explore how some American synagogues have sought to embrace, to redefine, or to completely ignore the ‘mikdash ma’at—small Temple’ mission. In considering institutional forms and functions, finding explicit identification with the Temple in Jerusalem is less significant than discovering parallel structural relations and practical effects. A synagogue that gives space to the life of the mind, to the experience of the Jewish calendar, to opportunities for mutual aid, to moments for generosity, and to rational actions that support wise communal policies and justice in society at large serves as the spiritual progeny of the Temple in Jerusalem, a mikdash

63

ma’at, regardless of how self-conscious of that majestic model it remains. Nonetheless, explicit awareness of an ideal allows for reflective self-evaluation that merely inheriting institutional forms and practices does not necessarily support.

This thesis will explore how the synagogue has evolved in America: what it has concerned itself with and what it has tended to ignore. My purpose is not just to share an academic analysis but to recognize and trace the struggle of synagogue-communities to create multiple opportunities for all those entering the synagogue’s hallowed walls to meet with God not only in worship but as part of their participation broadly in synagogue life. To return to our metaphor: the ancient Israelite who sought out God’s Presence in the

Temple in Jerusalem could enter from any one of several gates before arriving at his or her destination. Our generation deserves a no less purposeful, accessible, and multi- dimensional synagogue experience.

It is my hope that this work will stimulate conversation on how the multiple portals of spiritual entry found in the ancient Temple in Jerusalem can inspire the work of modern synagogues. The institution of the synagogue will then be positioned to fulfill the threefold teleology mentioned earlier connecting, our ideals, our vision, and ourselves to

God, within even our newest and most innovative constructions.

64

2. Shearith Israel: Synagogue-Community

That the Lord has promised that he will gather the two tribes,

Judah and Benjamin, out of the four quarters of the world, calling

them ‘Nephussim’[dispersed]. Whence you may gather that for the

fulfilling of that, they must be scattered through all the corners of

the world; as Daniel (12:7) says: ‘And when the scattering of the

holy people shall have an end, all those things shall be fulfilled.’

And this appears now to be done, when our synagogues are found

in America.157

In this country, as well as in all other countries where the Jews

have been emancipated, the synagogue is the principal means of

keeping alive the Jewish consciousness… [It] is the only institution

which can define our aims to a world that would otherwise be at a

loss to understand why we persist in retaining our corporate

individuality 158

The First and Only New York159 Synagogue Community 1654/1695 -1825

While authored by Jewish leaders hundreds of years apart, these comments articulate both the challenges and opportunities that confronted the synagogue as an institution in its early development on American soil. A new world far from established religious elites made possible a freedom of religious expression which encouraged the

65

new Jewish settlers to engage the formidable task of building synagogue communities in the western hemisphere.

In the early years of North American settlement most of the colonies’ formerly

European inhabitants celebrated religion as a beacon of righteousness.160 Jews tended to settle in the more heterogeneous communities, in port cities such as New York and

Philadelphia, as opposed to the homogenous port cities such as Boston. Heterogeneous communities were culturally diverse and therefore more accommodating to Jews. For

‘new world’ Jews, the discovery of a nascent society supportive of religious diversity and emphasizing individual autonomy held out the hope of genuine acceptance by ‘gentile’ neighbors and reduced pressure on individuals to identify collectively with other Jews for reasons of simple economic and existential security.

The first American synagogues were established by such optimistic New World

Jews as lay dominated kehilot (communities). They were synagogues that followed the traditions of the Sephardic branch of Jewry; the congregation practiced Judaism according to Spanish and Portuguese customs and rabbinic precedents. These Jews began to arrive in New York in 1650161 and by 1695, 100 Jews lived in the city.162

We are able to observe the beginning of a Jewish community in New Amsterdam with the approval on October 15th, 1660 by the New Amsterdam Council of additional licenses for butchering which included a Jew, Asser Levy Van Swellen. The license also exempted him from the requirement to slaughter every beast brought before him, such as hogs, which, for religious reasons, were not permitted for Asser to slaughter. Two weeks later, October 29th, a second Jewish butcher, Moses Lucena, was sworn in with the same

66

exemption. The Council records also reveal that in 1683 two more Jews with the same exemption were permitted to slaughter.163

Yet, there is controversy over when the first synagogue was established.

According to Congregation Shearith Israel’s narritive it was in 1654.164 Most scholars believe it was no earlier than 1695.165 Until 1825, with the establishment of B’nai

Jeshurun, Shearith Israel served as the only synagogue in New York.

To this day, Shearith Israel166 continues to serve as a Jewish communal institution and place of Jewish worship in New York. Printed material and original archival research reveal how the synagogue community of Shearith Israel developed many of the gateway functions of the Temple in Jerusalem described in chapter one and associated with the mikdash ma’at or ‘small temple’ ideal. This synagogue model offered multiple portals of spiritual and social entry to Jews.167

The first 170 years of New York’s synagogue-community development at

Shearith Israel would establish the configuration of its lay and professional leadership, the acquisition and design of its property and buildings, and the functions, both religious and social-secular, for which the Jews of New York purposed it.

The dates 1654-1825 delimit the period of Shearith Israel’s monopoly over organized Jewish life on the New York scene until a competing institution, Bnai

Jeshurun, opened. During those 170 years, the Shearith Israel synagogue progressed from a lay led community to one with professional leadership; it transformed itself from a house of worship prohibited still by Christian-biased laws from building its own structures into an institution that contracted for multiple buildings implicitly selecting and prioritizing through these acts of construction its self-perceived communal needs.

67

During these years, Shearith Israel’s stature grew by addressing the felt needs of the community by building and opening new gates of entry for Jews in the New York area, including the suburbs of Westchester and Long Island. Shearith Israel became for a time the center of organized New York Jewish communal life. However, by the close of this period the synagogue leadership ceased to focus on the diverse needs of the community becoming parochial in their approach. The refusal to recognize and accommodate the needs of its various constituencies— residents and immigrants,

Sephardim and Ashkenazim, assimilated and traditional— was one of the primary factors that contributed to a decline in the stature of Shearith Israel and the establishment of a rival congregation.

The name of the synagogue, Shearith Israel, Remnant of Israel, is based on a verse in Micah:

I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the

remnant of Israel; I will render them all as sheep in a fold; as a

flock in the midst of their pasture; they shall make great noise by

reason of the multitude of men. (2:12)

This passage focuses on the ingathering of “the remnant of Israel,” the many diaspora communities, to the land of Israel. To name a synagogue, ‘Remnant of Israel’ evokes the

Messianic aspiration that was common amongst the Sephardic community and American port Jews.168

Kahal Leadership: Adjunta [Administrative Council], Hatanim, and Parnas

From its inception, ordinary Jews, not rabbis, led Shearith Israel. The new kahal, community, relied on its Spanish and Portuguese Jewish members to form an adjunta, or

68

leadership council, and for the community to elect executive officers. Any adult male member of the community could be elected to serve without having volunteered for a leadership position. This structure of demanding that any ‘head of household’ might share the leadership burden followed the practice of the Kahal Zur Israel synagogue in

Recife, Brazil.169

Kahal Zur Israel, predated all other synagogue communities in North America.

Some of the founders of Shearith Israel had previously lived as part of the community of

Kahal Zur Israel in Recife. When the Portuguese defeated the Dutch for control of

Recife, they brought with them the Inquisition. The Jews of Kahal Zur Israel fled, some of them reaching New Amsterdam.

The democratic mode of leadership selection at Shearith Israel, and before it at

Kahal Zur Israel, highlighted the ideal that all were part of the community and all needed to participate.

The Biblical mandate (Exodus 30:13) that a half-shekel contribution must emanate from all members of the Jewish community to insure the upkeep of the ancient

Temple is a similar insistence on the responsibility all share in maintaining a house of worship. Also, in Temple times the kohanim (Priests), levi’im (Levites) and yisraelim

(Israelites) were split into 24 groups called mishmarot. Each mishmar, watch or cohort, would work in one-week shifts with the Priests and Levites serving in the Temple insuring that all matters were being handled properly while the Israelites of that mishmar offered prayer supplications.170

In 1728, the Shearith Israel synagogue community drafted a constitution based on

“certain wholesome Rules and Restrictions”171 that were agreed upon by the Elders of the

69

Congregation in 1706, codifying its leadership structure.172 It defined three unpaid officer roles: the Parnas173 (a president) and two Hatanim (vice-presidents or, literally,

‘bridegrooms’). Hatan Torah (groom of the Torah) designates an honor given on the holiday of Simchat Torah to the person who is called to the Torah as its final verses are recited in front of the community. Additionally, the Hatan Bereshiet (groom of Genesis) designates an honor given on the holiday of Simchat Torah to the person called to the

Torah as the first verses of the Bible are recited in front of the community. At Shearith

Israel, the Hatanim became also governance positions: first and second assistants respectively to the Parnas.

The constitutional rules further required that any person honored by being called to the Torah during prayer services needed to offer blessings for the health of the Parnas, the welfare of the community, and a donation: “[he] shall offer at least three-pence for the acting PARNAS & KAHAL KADOSH.”174 These leadership positions continue to exist in modern times.175

Fines for Refusing to Serve

Any Parnas or Hatan who was nominated, elected by the community and refused to serve was required to pay a fine to the community.176 Synagogue records indicate that these fines were levied at different times. For example, the fine was imposed on

September 8th, 1746177 when Mr. Daniel Gomez did not wish to serve as “Parnas & paid his fine [to] Mr Jacob Franks;”178 it was imposed again and again: 1748,179 1750,180

1756;181 and 1787.182 In subsequent years, the standards for the Parnas were modified to allow for a larger pool of men from which to choose. With this change came an increase in the fine for refusing to serve.183

70

Similarly, members of the community who were asked to attend the council meetings but did not appear could also be fined. A resolution passed on April 16, 1747 states:

At a junta [an administrative board meeting of Shearith Israel] of

the Kaal held this day, it was unanimos resolved By the Jehidim

present that from this day forward any member of this

Congregation that’s above 18 years of age that refuses to give his

atendence att the ajunta of the Kaal when properly sumend thereto

shall pay the Sum of Twenty Shillings184 Currency of New York

for every time he omits coming. Except in case of sickness or

sufficient cause be givn to the contrary to the satisfaction of the

mejority of the Jehidim then present. 185

Yet the levying of the fines was the exception to the norm. Active volunteerism played a strong role within the dynamic development of Shearith Israel. It was perhaps the greatest asset that the synagogue had and will be elaborated upon as we explore the multiple portals of spiritual entry built for the Shearith Israel synagogue community.

The First Educated Lay Leader: The Hazan as Minister

As the community grew, an educated lay leader to serve as a Hazan became a necessity. Rev. David De Sola Pool, a noted rabbinic figure, communal leader, and historian who from 1907 until 1956 served as the minister of Shearith Israel,186 recognizes Saul Pardo [Brown] (1702/1703?) as the first educated lay leader to function both as the regular reader at the services and as the meat/chicken slaughterer.187 The

Hazan was both a merchant and a religious leader for the first 74 years of the

71

synagogue’s history.188 As the community grew, the role of Hazan expanded from that of a part-time to a full-time profession taking on a range of what might be termed ‘rabbinic’ responsibilities in addition to leading prayers. By 1728, the congregation’s growing need for religious services, including supervising the procurement of kosher meat and teaching children Hebrew language and religious studies, required a full time professional. That year, the community hired Moses Lopez De Fonseca as the first full-time Hazan of

Shearith Israel.189

That same year, the synagogue’s Constitution both formalized the responsibilities of officers elected by the community to the adjunta and defined the responsibilities of the synagogue’s new professional staff. The Hazan would be part of a professional leadership triad along with a Bodeck-Shochet (meat/chicken slaughterer and meat/chicken examiner roles being held by one person), and a Shamaz (ritual director).

The constitution specified the Hazan’s responsibilities:

To attend at the Sinagog at the customary hours twice every week

day, and three times on the Sabath & feasts to preform prayers &

what more belongs to his function as is custumary in othere

Congregation & that he Also (in the case the Bodeck be

indispos’d) shall assist in his Room for the which he shall have his

Selary of fifety Pounds and Six Cords of Wallnut Wood pr annum,

also Passover Cakes for his family, all which shall be Payd him out

of Tsedaca.190

The Hazan was hired to exercise responsibility over the community’s religious needs such as the synagogue services and kashrut. Eventually his role was expanded to

72

include education of both youth and adults. The synagogue community and the wider community of New York recognized the Hazan as the minister of Shearith Israel.

Bodek [Meat/Chicken Slaughterer and Meat Examiner] and Shamaz [Sexton]:

Accentuating the importance of providing kosher meat to the community and a working synagogue structure, the 1728 constitution described roles for two additional paid professionals: the Bodek and Shamaz:

[The Bodek] … Shall be oblidged to kill at severall places and Sufficiently

for the whole Congregation, and that every six months he shall submit to

be exameend in the Dinimz by the Hazen and any other Bodeck said

Hazan shall choose for which he shall have Twenty pounds Salary per

annum

…Shamaz shall be oblidged to attend Sinagog191 and call the Yechidimz

that they may assemble togeathere at the usuall hours and he likewise be

oblidged to call to Selichot such persons as shall be given by the Parnaz in

List. that he shall keep the Synagog candlesticks & lamp clean and make

the candles also shall keep the Sestern supplyed with watter for which he

shall have Sixteen pound, two Cords of wood & masot Pr annum. 192

The Shamaz was also required to work with the Parnas on issues of decorum and

“indecent behavior” by congregants in the synagogue warning members that failure to comply would elicit a fine.193

Professional Expectations

There were times when the synagogue professional was not successful in the performance of his duties. Failure to meet expectations could result in either suspension

73

or dismissal.194 At times it was determined that the salary did not adequately compensate for the effort required to fulfill the job responsibilities. The salary was renegotiated.195

Often if a member of the clergy died in office, his salary and a residence was given to his widow.196

The Revolutionary War and a Synagogue Community in Crisis

With the onset of the Revolutionary War and the British occupation of New York, a majority of the synagogue’s members, supporters of revolution, fled New York City and eventually relocated to Philadelphia.197 Synagogue minutes from September 27, 1775 until December 8, 1783 do not exist. However, a handful of Jews remained behind in

British occupied lower Manhattan and guarded the sanctity of their synagogue. During the Revolutionary War, Mr. Jacob Cohen,198 and for a short time Mr. Isaac Touro199 each served as the Hazan of Shearith Israel.

It required commitment and savvy from the remaining congregants to prevent their synagogue from being used for a hospital or barracks during the war.200 At one point, two British soldiers broke into the Synagogue and stole the rimmonim (decorative crowns placed on the Torah scroll); they also destroyed two Torah Scrolls, and threw them into a sink. British authorities did not tolerate the crime: “The soldiers were apprehended and severely flogged, one of them died from the effects.”201

The wartime community cared for the synagogue until organized communal life resumed in 1783.202

The Many Functions of Shearith Israel: Opening New Spiritual Portals for Jewish

Engagement

Alexandra Shecket Korros and Jonathan Sarna quote Martin Cohen, a recognized

74

authority on Judaism who has written extensively on Jewish history, theology and education, on the synagogue as it stood during the first century of Jewish life on

American soil:

…in this phase of Jewish history, the synagogue reinforced the

basic values which… perpetuated the optimism, morality,

creativity and compassion, which traditionally have shaped Jewish

life. Socially it was a place where Jews met, commented on events,

communicated their needs, planned their charities, and adjudicated

their disputes, and held their lifecycle events. In the synagogue,

bridegrooms were given recognition, mourners comforted,

strangers fed and housed, and the herem or ban of

excommunication, pronounced against recalcitrants.203

Shearith Israel’s success was achieved due to a balance of actions which included both passionate engagement and punitive measures. Many were the activities of Shearith

Israel during its first 170 years of its existence. It provided for the spiritual, ritual and social needs of a new and growing Jewish community. It created multiple portals of spiritual entry, like the ancient Temple in Jerusalem; Shearith Israel was more than a house of prayer.

The Shearith Israel synagogue-community collected and disbursed funds acting as the sole representative of organized Jewish life in New York. While Shearith Israel’s literature never expressly describes its similarities to the Temple, it acted as one of its spiritual progeny. By following the Temple paradigm, the synagogue community was empowered to nurture New York and American Jewry. This first synagogue community

75

took responsibility for the education of children and adults. It provided a venue for celebrating births and marriages in accordance with Jewish practice. It helped procure kosher meat and special holiday foods. It purchased cemeteries on behalf of the community, arranged for Jewish burials, and tended to the needs of the bereaved. It maintained a mikveh, a ritual bath, for Jewish women and, in the early nineteenth century, supported the first charitable ‘society’ for women led by Jewish women.

Fundraising and Philanthropy

Shearith Israel served as the central address for responding financially to needs both within its local Jewish community and for Jews throughout the world. It raised funds to build and maintain its institutions, to pay to its professional leaders, and to provide vital assistance for the Jewish poor and the victims of disasters. The monies came from private donations, from the selling of synagogue seats204 and synagogue honors, from gifts to recite Escava (memorial prayer), and from payment for Kashrut supervision. In

1737 membership dues were introduced. At times special taxes were instituted to address needs of the community. For example, on the 11th day of Adar 5497 (Feb. 12, 1737) a tax was established requiring that each family contribute a minimum of forty Shillings to the community205 to insure that the community could meet all of its financial needs.

Education for Children and Adults

One of the prime examples of Shearith Israel’s commitment to the eternity of the

Jewish people shows in its passion and investments for the education of its children. They believed that Jewish continuity in a new land required that education be a priority. Both the professional staff and the volunteered leadership (directors) worked at schooling at

76

Shearith Israel. The leaders of the synagogue (directors) approved the curriculum, provided the financing, and managed oversight.

The ideal of universal education had little currency in Colonial America. Families who valued education generally had to pay to receive it. The Shearith Israel community took the unusual step of making funds available such that every child, even those from families without sufficient income, could go to school. The educators, compensated for their activities, were responsible to deliver in an effective manner the educational curriculum and to maintain proper decorum of the students when in the synagogue complex.

Alexander Mordecai Dushkin, who in the early 1900’s served as the Head of the

Department of Research at the New York Bureau of Jewish Education, writes that due to the inhospitable treatment Jews were accorded initially in New Amsterdam educational activities were conducted in the privacy of the home for the first seventy-five years of the community’s existence. 206 During this period it is unclear what role the synagogue played in the educational process.207

The history of formal Jewish education in New York begins with the first Jewish school founded as part of Shearith Israel. In 1730 Shearith Israel built its first synagogue building. A year later it consecrated space for Yeshibat Minhat Areb as an educational center for adults and school for children. In keeping with the traditional outlook of Jews of Europe, that school seems only to have focused on Hebrew and Judaic subjects.208

However, according to other reports, the school initially taught “not only the Hebrew tongue but Dutch, English and Spanish as well.”209

77

On the 21st of Nisan, the 7th day of Pesach, [1731] the day of

completing the first year of the opening of the synagogue, there

was made codez [consecrated] the Yeshibat called Minhat Areb, in

the name of the following gentlemen, Mosseh son of Sarah and

Jahacob, of Abraham, and of Mosseh Mendez da Costa, for the use

of this Congregation Sheerit Israel and as a Beth Hamidras for the

pupils, in conformity with the direction to that effect given by

Jahacob Mendez da Costa Signior, residing in London, to Messrs.

Mordechay and David Gomez of New York. And may God bestow

His Blessing upon us, Amen.210

Compulsory education was not part of early American society until it began in

Massachusetts in 1852.211 Churches usually ran schools212 and charged tuition. Early education in the colonies recognized a need for individuals to know religious doctrine, morality, and enough general knowledge to allow them to meet the expectations of their station as citizens. Schools as private for pay religious institutions did not always satisfy the perceived education needs of their constituencies providing the impetus, eventually, for governmental action to require education. Even though, initially, education was seen more as a private/community responsibility than a public one, it became a concern of government. The concept of ‘freedom of children from work’ while attending school would not become part of the societal expectations until the nineteenth century.213

For Shearith Israel, the Board minutes of March 3, 1737 discussed the hiring of

David Mendez Machado as Hazan indicating that his responsibilities included that he:

“… obliges himself to keep a publick School in due form for teaching the hebrew

78

Language.”214 In this context, the term ‘publick School’ is still limited to the students of the Jewish community. The minutes of April 15th 1747 expanded on his responsibilities and required that he teach the children Hebrew from 9-12 every morning and from 2-5 on

Thursday afternoon. The Hazan received an additional salary of 8 shillings per quarter per student as well as one load of wood annually from each child. Any child who could not afford tuition was to be taught without cost by the Hazan. Additionally, the Parnas, or a representative trustee, would visit the school once a week in an oversight capacity.215

Three decades later the school expanded to include teaching general subjects. The

December, 1755 minutes record the following:

At a Meeting of the Parnasim and Elders of the Congregation it

was Resolv’d, that Twenty Pounds pr annum be added to the

Salary of the Hazan on Condition that he open.a School at his own

house every day in the week (Fryday afternoon Holy Days and

Fast days Excepted) & teaches such poor children Gratis that shall

have an order from the Parnas Presidente, the Hebrew, Spanish216,

English, writting & Arithmetick.In the Summer from 9 to 12 in the

forenoon & from 2 to 5 in the afternoon & in the winter from 10 to

12 in the forenoon and from 2 to 4 in the afternoon & that the

children may be strictly kept to their learning, the Parnasim and the

Elders according to their Seniority engage to visit ad school

monthly to examine the children and judge if the Scholars under

the Hazans care advance in their learning; the above additional

79

Salary to commence from last Rosh aShanah. & to continue whilst

the Hazan discharges the duty above expressed.217

The community’s commitment to the education of the youth was tested when the school grew to the point that the Hazan could not fulfil the simultaneous duties of congregational minister and schoolteacher. At that point, the community agreed to add to the synagogue’s professional staff the ribbi (teacher) position. In 1760 the search for a competent teacher of Hebrew and Judaic subjects led the community to send a letter to

Benjamin Pereira, a retired Hazan living in Jamaica of the British West Indies to see if they could attract him for the job or if he could recommend someone.218 By 1762, the school was considered part of the New York public school system.219 A few years later the Revolutionary War interrupted the school’s operation.

After the conclusion of the Revolutionary war, beginning in the 1800’s, the school was again considered part of the New York City Common School system. In the beginning of the 19th century, the New York State legislature established the policy of subsidizing schools, and by 1811 the school was partially funded by the city of New

York.220

Yeshivat Minhat Areb became the Polonies Talmud Torah (school for children).

This was done in recognition of the funds donated by the Polony family insuring the perpetuity of Shearith Israel’s educational commitment: “In the Common Year 1801

Myer Polony a native of Poland died in New York, and bequeathed to the Congregation the Sum of Nine hundred dollars; the interest to be applied towards the establishing a

Hebrew School…” 221

80

In the synagogue constitution of 1805, the Polony name entered the history of the

Shearith Israel School, and until this day, the Shearith Israel Hebrew School is known as

The Polonies Talmud Torah School or PTTS.222

Whereas by the last will and testament of Myer Polonies a legacy

was left to this Congregation for the express purpose of

establishing a Hebrew school, it should therefore be the duty of the

Board of Trustees, to form such school under some suitable teacher

or teachers, with such regulations as they may think proper; and

that a free-will offering be made in Synagogue for the benefit of

such establishment, in such manner as the Trustees may direct. 223

Over the next thirty years, the school changed gradually from a government recognized parochial school into that of a supplementary Hebrew school only for religious instruction. With the establishment of a New York Board of Education in 1842 school education requirements became more rigorous. Shearith Israel’s school had limited hours and increasingly limited success in attracting students.224

Life-Celebrations

Shearith Israel celebrated life with families: brit milah (circumcisions),225 baby naming of female children,226 bar mitzvah celebrations,227 and weddings. 228

Special Holiday Provisions

Shearith Israel provided celebratory ritual foods at the appropriate times of the year. For example, prior to Passover there was a special committee in charge of baking matzot 229 and providing charoset (a food used at the Passover seder).230 Additionally, a

81

sukkah 231 (a booth used on the holiday of Sukkot) was made available to the entire community.

Providing Kosher Meat

The congregational shochet would slaughter all the kosher meat, and it would be sold to the Jewish households through certain Christian meat dealers. The community needed to be concerned with employing a qualified shochet and that there was a large enough supply of kosher meat while simultaneously insuring that the Christian meat purveyors would not sell non-kosher meat as kosher.

Qualified Shochet

In 1660 Asser Levy Van Swellen and Moses Lucena were appointed by the New

Amsterdam council slaughterers with the exemption of not needing to kill hogs, which were against their religious convictions.232 The first community appointed shochet was

Benjamin Elias who served until February 9, 1728.233 Until 1813, only the shochet employed by Shearith Israel could slaughter meat/chicken as certifiably kosher.

For most of 18th and 19th century the congregational shochet was not a position that many sought.234 At times the congregation was left without a formal shochet and the

Hazan allowed some of the members who were in business but were qualified ritual slaughters to jointly perform the service for the community.235

Often, there were concerns that the shochet/bodek was lax in the knowledge and observance of Jewish law as it relates to the slaughtering of animals for kosher meat. In cases of concern the Hazan or one of his representatives could examine the shochet on a regular basis to verify that his knowledge and skills were proficient. In 1729 the following excerpt from the congregational minutes attests to this protocol.

82

That Semuel Bar Meyr aCohen Bodeck of this Kahall … and that

every six months he shall submit to be exameend in the Dinimz By

the Hazen and any other Bodeck said Hazan shall choose for which

he shall have Twenty pounds Salary pr annum.236

In 1767, there was such a scandal. The equipment for kosher slaughter was left unsupervised and could have been used for non-kosher meat. The community leadership responded immediately to this concern:

On ye 22d Veadar 5527 [March 23, 1767] By Particular Desier of

the Parnas Residente Mr Isaac Adolphus, there was Called a

Meeting of the Pamasim & Ajuntos, to Complain of the Bodecks

Leaveing the pinchers at the Buchers, and it was resolved That it

should be Looked into, and the Bodeck Suspended till farther

Orders, and adjourn the Ajunta, till 12 Clock the next day, which

was Accordingly done, and then it Was Resolved by the Sd

Parnasim & Ajuntos, That the Bodeck Mr Phillips, Shall Continue

to Kill, and no other person, If ever, he does leave, the pinches,

with any Buchers, then, to be suspended, and the K.K. Summonsed

Immediately … 237

In 1774238 Hart Jacobs became the shochet/bodek of the community, replacing

Abraham Chavas who was deemed incapable:

Tabet 12th [January 7, 1774] Agreed to let Hart Jacobs Kill,

(Abraham Chavas having Resign’d being Incapable) under the

direction of Mr Raphael Jacobs, and when approved of by the

83

Hacham Hiam I Caragal to give him our Votes and Interest, and a

Sallery of £35 a year to Comence from the present time ….

Ayr 2d [April 25] at a Meeting of the Yahadim Hart Jacobs was

Unanimously Voted in Shochet with a Sallery agreeable to a Vote

of 12th Tabet [January 7th] last..239.

Only eight months after being hired on October 17, 1774, his tenure as shochet/bodek was challenged. Doubts were expressed if proper internal checking was done on an animal that Jacobs had certified kosher. To assure that he had the capacity to be a shochet/bodek, Jacobs agreed at the request of the community leadership to be tested by local experts, Rabbis Samuel Bar Isaac or Moses b. Eleazer:

As Complaint was made to the Parnas President, that the Widow

Hetty Hays had bought out of the Markett a Quarter of Lamb, that

was sealed, but not sherched (An animal must be checked again

after it has been slaughtered to see if there were any internal

injuries that would have rendered the animal unhealthy before the

slaughter and were simply not visible because they were internal)&

supposed kill’d by Hart Jacobs, our Shoheth, the President, in

conjunction with the Residente summon’d the assistants and Rabby

Samuel Bar Isaac a learned man, lately from London via Phillada

(who has proper Credentialls from Haham Moses Cohen De

Asavado, of London, & From other Hahamim) to Attend said

meeting & to assist us with his advice When the Shoheth

Attending, was called in, as allso Isaac Marcus (who formerly had

84

been Shoheth in Holland) and now, resides at the House of the said

Widow Hetty Hays, acquainted us that the Quarter of Lamb, in dispute was sealed, but from appearance, was not Sherched, & that

Rabby Moses Bar Eliezer, had likewise seen said Lamb, and was of the same oppinion the Shoheth, assured us, on his word, that all the small Creaters & beasts that he had killed, since he had been

Shoheth, was all Sherched, before he had sealed them, the

Parnasim & Assistants Agreed with the aforesaid Rabby Samuel, that there were not sufficient evidence to condem the said Shoheth, and therefore Acquited him of the aforesaid Charge that the said

Shoheth Hart Jacobs should attend the aforesaid Rabby Samuel

Bar Isaac at his Lodgeings to be examined by him & if he should be of oppinion, that the Shoheth should be sufficient, to order him to go & kill for the Congregation, wch the Shoheth Hart Jacobs agreed to. It was likewise agreed, with the aforesaid Rabby

Samuel,and by his advice that Mrs Hetty Hays be acquainted that,as the Quarter of Lamb in question was not Sherched, or at least there seems to be a doubt about the same, that according to our Holy Law, when there’s any doubt it’s to be looked on as

Treffo, therefore that she do Cassarar, or properly Clense, all her

Spoons, plates and all other her utensall,used in her House, otherwise to be look’d on a Treffo house.240

85

The next day, October 18th, Hart Jacobs changed his mind and refused to be tested by Rabbis Samuel Bar Isaac or Moses bar Eleazer but expressed his willingness to be tested by others. Jacobs threatened that if he was required to be tested by the two rabbis designated by the community he would rather “resign his Office.”241 When the congregation leadership insisted that he be tested by the rabbis previously agreed upon,

Jacobs resigned and the congregation immediately began to search for another kosher meat slaughterer. Four days later, on October 22nd, Jacobs realized that the congregation would not relent, even if it meant that the community would not have meat. Realizing that he would have no income, he agreed to be examined by Rabbi Samuel Bar Isaac and was reinstated:

The Parnas Presidente acquainted this Meeting that Hart Jacobs

our Shoheth had this morning left at his House the Killing knife,

pinchers, seals & hone and acquainted the said Presidente that he

would not be Examined, either by Rabby Samuel Bar Isaac (as was

agreed to yesterday,) or by Rabby Moses bar Eleazer or by Isaac

Marcus, as he would rather resign his Office, rather then be

Examined by either of them, but was ready to undergo an

examination by any three or Six Shohethim of the Congregation

the aforesaid Hart Jacobs attending was called in, when he related

the same as before, related and insisted that he relying on the

learning of the aforesaid Rabby, insisted on the same, when the

Shoheth told them he resigned his place of Shoheth. 242

86

Mr Haim Levy then acquainted the Gentlemen Present that Rabby

Israel Bar --- now at Eastown [Pennsylvania ?] had formerly desired him, should there be -a vacancey in this Congregation to

Acquaint him therewith It was accordingly agreed, that the

Parnasim do write to said Rabby Israel Bar --- that the place of

Shoheth of this Kaal is now vacant. 243

The Parnas Presidente, acquainted the Gentlemen present, that Hart

Jacobs the Shoheth, had called at his House on the 17th Hesvan

[October 22] & acquainted .... that he the Shoheth had just come from Rabby Samuel Bar Isaac of the sur name of Keyser, the person formerly appointed to examine him, who accordingly

Examined & approved of him, had told him that he the sd Shoheth, might go & kill for the Congregation wch the Rabby has since

Confirm’d to the President & in Consequence, had delivered the

Killing knife, pinchers, Seals &ca unto said Hart Jacobs, for said purpose, as the Congre gation had been severall days without meat.

The Presidente informed this meeting that he had understood that some of the Yehedim was of oppinion that a Meet ing of the

Yehedim should be called, to Ellect a new Shoheth in the place of

Hart Jacobs who they said had resign’ d, and that the said Jacobs had Reported he would keep the place no longer then the Spring of the Year and then would resign, after some time spent in Debating

87

this Matter it was therefore Resolved, that Hart Jacobs, our

Shoheth had only resigned the place Conditionally, (if he was to be

ex amined by Rabby Samuel Bar Isaac,) but as he has since

Complyed with our request, by submitting to an examination of &

has been approved by said Rabby, by wch he has vacated his

former Resignation, it being only conditionally — therefore,

there’s no Occasion of calling a Meeting of the Yehedim

Resolved, that said Hart Jacobs be noticed to attend Our Meeting

on next Sunday morning, at 11 O’Clock to acquaint us if he

Intends to keep the place of Shoheth for a Continuance, otherwise

to give timely notice, that we may provide ourselfs, with a Shoheth

Resolved, that the applycation of said Hart Jacobs for allowance

for his lost of time (when he did not kill) be dismissed as it was his

own fault that he sustained any loss by his obstinately refuseing to

be examined before he was, therefore it was agreed that he should

not have any allowance made him — one dissenting vote, vizt Mr

Haim Levy.244

His reinstatement was short lived and, on Feburary 5, 1775, Hart Jacobs informed the president that he would give the congregation three months’ notice and would then resign.245

The Supply of Kosher Meat: Its Availability and Integrity

Even with good grasslands, kosher meat was often in short a supply. The export business was profitable and after 1740 grew in great quantities. In 1743 a clause in the

88

agreement of the synagogue shochet was added emphasizing that there was to be enough meat for the local community: “that he shall kill sufficient Meat of all kinds fitting for the use of the said congregation.”246

In 1752 Shearith Israel placed limits on exports of kosher beef imposing fines on anyone who bought kosher beef and fat immediately prior to the Shabbat and the holidays to sell in Jewish communities in other cities.

K K Sheerith Israel 5 Tisry 5513 [September 13, 1752]

Complaint being made to the Parnasim & Elders of this K K that

the Congregation is often left without Beef & fatt for the use of

their families occasion’d by the great Exportation thereof &

therefore in order to remedy the same for the future & that the Kaal

may be fully supply’d it is agreed by the Parnasim & Elders

aforesaid, that whoever takes any beef or fatt on any fryday or

Hereb Yomtob for Exportation or Sale shall be subject to a fine of

Forty Shillgs for every such offence. Neither shall any beef or fatt

be taken on a Thursday Ev’ning that is intended for frydays Market

& if they persume so to do small be liable to pay the aforesd fine

of 40/ and shall not be allow’d a Certificate for the sd beef bot on

the aforesd days, and that no person or person may plead Ignorance

for the time being, it is agreed that this shall be read and publish’d

on Saturday next. By order of the Elders aforesd.247

Stronger language insisting that enough meat be available for the local community, and not just for export, was again placed into the shochet’s contracts in 1765

89

and 1770. In 1786, the concern was so great that the parnas wrote a stinging letter to the shochet about the available kosher meat supply:

Sir: Since you are not pleased to act in conformity to the

instructions given you by the Junta in consequences of which many

of the Congregation who are not in Market being 8 o’clock go

without meat, unless they put up with the refuse in the stalls.248

Initially, all kosher meat was marked by placing a lead seal through the meat. This became too expensive so the meat was branded with a special kosher symbol. The Hazan kept the branding iron to prevent it from being used inappropriately. Additionally, to help pay the regulatory expenses of kosher certification a tax was added to every barrel of kosher meat that was exported.

K.K. Sherith Israel the 26th day Nissan 5512 April 10, 1752 ...

No. 9 (4 As the farriages of our Sohet & supplying him with Leads

to seal the meat is at present a very Expensive article, in order to

make it as easy it as easy as Possible to the Publick, it

is unanimously agreed that from & after the first day of

Tamuz (June 13) next Insuing all beef that shall be made in

this town & exported beyond the Sea, shall be branded with

the Brand the Branding Iron to be kept for that

purpose by the Hazan for the time being, who is to see, or order the

same to be done, In a regular method, & every Cask of Beef so

made & branded as aforesaid, either small or large shall pay

threepence Currt: money of New York; provided said beef be made 90

& exported by any person or persons, Living and residing in this

Colony. But if the said Beef be made & exported by any person not

living & residing in this Colony shall pay Six pence Like mony for

the same, for the use aforesaid ; & all beef that shall be made &

exported without being first branded & the said duty of three pence

and six pence being first paid to the Parnas for the time being, shall

be deem’d and Lookt upon as treffo Beef. Enterd by order of the

Elders of this K K.249

Kosher meat production and certification professional enough to insure that beef being shipped from New York was actually kosher proved challenging. A formal application to ship kosher meat was introduced. This helped Shearith Israel guarantee the meat’s kashrut integrity which helped to reassure communities and individuals to whom meat was shipped. It was to be filed and handled by the Hazan or his designee.

Memr That on the 5th Hesvan 5508 [October 9, 1747] The Parnas

adjuntos & yahidim of this Congregation being assembled, do

consent and have agreed to the following articles…

3d That no Casheer Beef be Shipt or sent away from this place, or

by any person or persons belonging to this Congregation, without

first applying to the Hazan or person properly appointed for a

Certificate for said Beef, and pay him for said Certificate at the

rate of Six Shillings for twenty half barrels, in proportion for more

or less…250

91

Such focus by the community leadership on the area of kashrut, especially in early America, enabled the observance of the Biblical and Rabbinic laws of kashrut among New York Jews. This created, for every member of the community, a link for to their pre-immigration way of life while simultaneously reinforcing a unique social norm and more that bound the Jewish community together.

Eventually the monopoly of the synagogue over religious goods and services withered away. In 1813 Jacob Abrahams failed to win reelection as the community slaughterer and established himself as an independent kosher slaughterer. After receiving petitions from members of the Jewish community, “we humbly conceive to be an encroachment on our religious rites…,” the New York City’s community council251 was forced to abolish the ordinance requiring that kosher slaughterer only be of Shearith

Israel’s employ; thus permitting, in the spirit of personal rights, the ability for independent slaughterers to be certified as kosher slaughterers.252

Death, Burial Preparation, Cemetery, and Mourning

It is a positive commandment of Rabbinic origin to… comfort

mourners, prepare for a funeral … attend to all the needs of a

burial, carry a corpse on one shoulders, walk before the bier,

mourn, dig a grave, and bury the dead… These are deeds of

kindness that one carries out with his person that have no limit.253

This comment by Maimonides indicates the priority the Jewish tradition assigns to taking care of mourners and seeing to the burial of the dead. Such ideological factors led the Shearith Israel community to take primary responsibility for helping its members in times of loss and bereavement.

92

Early on, the community received the permission of the Director General and the

Council of New Amsterdam, and purchased a burial place “outside of this city”254 in

1656.255 As Sarna highlights, this purchase represented the “Jews’ first municipally recognized religious turf” 256 and “…offered Jews the spiritual serenity of knowing that when they died they would be buried within their faith.”257 In 1683, the synagogue purchased its second cemetery, the Chatam Square Cemetery. As Lower Manhattan continued to expand, shifting landscape caused the graves of the synagogue cemetery to become exposed and proper maintenance became an arduous task. For close to 60 years, the community dealt with this challenge and did so at great financial expense, striving to preserve the dignity of the deceased.258 The community spent thousands of dollars to prevent graves from being exposed.259

On April 6, 1791 the congregation formally inquired and received permission from the Beit Din (Jewish Court) of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation in London to move the graves.260 In order to provide proper burials for community members the congregation expanded its cemetery property several times.261 The Jewish value of respect for the deceased that the synagogue community held explains why its Hebra

(burial society) purchased for the Shearith Israel congregation the first hearse in all of

New York.262

Various synagogue based societies maintained cemeteries, prepared bodies for burial, and guided the bereaved through shiva (mourning) rituals.

Hebra Gemilut Hasadim -- A Society for Acts of Kindness

The Hebra Gemilut Hasadim formed at Shearith Israel probably before 1785. It appears based on its description and activities that the society’s services included

93

attention to the family during illness, assistance in the practicalities of burial, and support for the bereaved during observed mourning periods. It provided a minyan (prayer quorum) during the shiva (week of mourning) and payment of “shiva money”that compensated for the mourner’s absence from work. In addition to these services to the entire community, the society also provided medical aid and free burial for the poor. The group had the following officers: a Gabbi (ritual director), a Shamash (assistant to the ritual director), and a group of 4 directors known as Arba Anashim (the four men). This hebra held an annual celebration on the anniversary of the death of Moses (7th Adar).

Dues were 2 shillings a month and an initiation fee was 1£ 17 shillings and 4 pence.263

On June 7, 1785 by a vote of the Trustees (3 vs. 2), permission was given to aid the fledging hebra by putting a charity box into the synagogue for the society. On May

21st, 1786 a request was made by this hebra to “have offerings [for those who received honors] made for their Benefit in the Synagogue.”264 On June 24, 1786, the trustees approved this request: “We are informed that in Consequence of an application from the

Hebra Gamilut Hasidim, leave has been granted by the Parnassim & Junta, for them to have offerings made in Synagogue, for the benefit of said Society.”265

With the exception of free burial for the indigent, synagogue attendance and paid membership dues were a prerequisite for burial in the synagogue cemetery. On April 10

1752, the adjunta passed the following terms in a resolution:

that on the demise of any person, that in his lifetime absented

himself from the Sinagogue, or was no ways a benefactor to the

Congregation, His Corps or the Corps of his wife or children under

thirteen years of age shall not be laid & Buried within the walls of

94

our Burying ground without leave and Licence first had and

obtain’d from the Elders …who shall meet together & resolve by

Majority of Voices whether such Corps shall be Buried within or

without the walls and upon what terms & conditions.266

A similar resolution was again passed on January 31, 1796:

Resolved that every Jewish resident of the age of twenty one years

.... who may receive benefit from this congregation and who does

not contribute twenty shillings for…. (If in a situation to do so)

shall be obliged to pay to the collector of this congregation the

aforesaid sum of twenty shillings annually to the committee

through the first of Nisan next- in failure thereof such… of any of

his or her family dying should not be permitted to be buried, in our

burial ground, until there shall be first paid the Trustees, whatever

they may think proper to fix agreed to unanimously.267

The synagogue minutes of Oct 19th 1825,268 record an example of such a situation when

Mr. Shanwow of Paterson, New Jersey buried his son in September “at his own expence.”

The Hebra Gamilut Hasidim functioned until 1790 and, with the disbanding of this society, their assets where moved to central coffers of Shearith Israel. Hyman

Grinstein, an expert in early American Jewish History, explained that for the next twelve years, the synagogue handled all the issues that this hebra had addressed. In 1802,

Gershom M. Sexias, “resurrected”this society under a similar name, Hebra Hased Va-

Amet, literally translated “The Society for Acts of Kindness and Truth.” This society took care of all issues of burial, caring for the mourners, and taking care of the burial

95

grounds.269 In 1805, the Synagogue officially recognized the Society as its burial Hebra.

Article 8 of the synagogue constitution ratified on June 24, 1805 mentions this Hebra by

the same is ,חברת חסד ואמת name: “Whereas there is established in this Congregation a hereby recognized, under its present constitution and laws.”270

This society, founded by Gershon M. Seixas, is still in existence and demonstrates the lasting impact that a volunteer society can have on a communal ideal in this case respect and concern for its dead.

Women’s Needs and Leadership Roles

The first recorded Jewish American women’s society in New York dates back to

1820 when the female Hebrew Benevolent Society was organized at Shearith Israel. The purpose of the Society was to provide for the relief of indigent females and their families.

When the Society was formed, its officers immediately requested, and received permission, to have a charity box in the synagogue and pledges to support its work were permitted to be offered by those who received honors in the synagogue.271 Women of the community played a leadership role in philanthropy that had a local and global impact.

As the Shearith Israel women’s society developed it became active in sponsoring educational classes, Shabbat gatherings, gifts for Bar Mitzvah boys, and special celebrations for holidays including Purim and Simchat Torah272.

Additionally the construction of a mikveh allowed for a unique portal of spiritual entry for the women of the community.

Mikveh (Ritual Bath)

On the Fifteenth day [of the month of Adar in preparation for the

arrival of pilgrims to the Temple for Passover] emissaries from the

96

court would go out and repair the highways and the streets that

were damaged in the rainy months … and would repair [the public]

ritual baths [so the pilgrims could immerse prior to entering the

Temple]273

R. Akiba said: Happy are you, Israel! Who is it before whom you

become [spiritually] clean? And who is it that makes you clean?

Your Father which is in heaven, as it is said: ‘and I will sprinkle

clean water upon you and Ye shall be clean’.274 and it further says:

‘Mikveh Yisrael275 is the Lord’276 [is interpreted as meaning] the

hope of Israel, is the Lord just as a mikveh (ritual pool) renders

(ritually) clean the unclean, so does the Holy One Blessed Be He,

purify Israel.’277

While the Temple existed in Jerusalem, entering the Temple mount required a state of ‘taharah -- purity’ from worshipers. Any activity on the Temple Mount required, as a precondition, immersion in a mikveh. It is why the quote above speaks about the courts insuring that mikvaot, ritual baths, were in working condition prior to the

Biblically mandated pilgrimage to the Temple and why archaeologists have found so many mikvaot in proximity to the Temple.278 Additionally, mikvaot were on the Temple mount as they were used by the kohanim (Temple priests) in order to perform some of the

Temple services.279 Following the destruction of the second Temple, one of the few remaining ancient sources of purification is the use of the ritual bath – mikveh. In the time of the Temple when a Jew searched for atonement, ritual purification was followed by the offering of a sacrifice,280 an act restricted to the Temple.281 It is this point that R. Akiva

97

(50 -135 CE), a witness to the destruction of the Temple and second commonwealth, speaks to in the above passage. It celebrates immersion in the mikveh as an act that prepares one for a rendezvous with God. This sensitivity to the power of mikveh is seen in the practices of the women of the Shearith Israel community in particular and of the

Jews in the colonies in general. Women immersed following menstruation and childbirth, and made an effort to separate themselves from their husbands while in the state of niddah (impurity).282

Laura Leibman, Professor of English and the Humanities and a researcher of early

American Jewry, explains that the Spanish/Portuguese Jews were committed to the institution of mikveh and paid a high price to practice the laws of family purity as related to the use of the mikveh even while under the watchful eyes of the Inquisition.

Why this commitment to mikveh? The Spanish Portuguese community viewed their existence in the Americas as an expression of their messianic beliefs. An idea highlighted in the introductory passage to this chapter by Menasseh Ben Israel, a 17th century rabbi, author and political figure who petitioned Cromwell to allow the Jews readmission to England. Ben Israel articulated an idea felt by many of the Jewish leaders of the 17th century that the settlement of Jews in the New World was part of the necessary scattering of Jews throughout the world, a precursor to the Messianic era ending the religious tyranny against the Jews which allowed for the ingathering of the exiles. It is for this reason that early American congregations used names such as Nephuse Israel (the scattered of Israel), Yeshuat Israel (salvation of Israel), Shearith Israel (the remnant of

Israel) and Nidhe Israel (scattered/exiles of Israel).

98

Furthermore the pre-eminent codifier of Jewish Law, Maimonides, of Sephardic descent, states the following:

Although [ritual immersion is a Scriptural decree], there is an

allusion involved: one who focuses his heart on purifying himself

becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no

change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on

purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are

wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when

he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel

and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. As it states: ‘I

will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all

your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify

you.’283 284

These comments accentuate the significance of immersion in the redemptive process. Leibman suggests that this anticipation of purification and redemption in connection to the institution of mikveh by colonial Jews is also why many of the

Synagogues were known by the name Mikveh Israel.285 As in the above Talmudic passage of R. Akiva, the phrase has a dual connotation: the mikveh of Israel is the means of purification to prepare for the coming of Messianic age, and it can also be interpreted as the ‘Hope of Israel’ referring to God. By design this is also the name of Menasseh Ben

Israel’s book focusing on the messianic implications of the dispersion of the Jews to the

New World.

99

In digging down Mill Street in the Year 5596 of the Common Year

1836 one hundred and Six Years afterwards, One of the labourers

found a plain gold ring several feet below the surface, inscription

in the ring. ‘Isaac Lopez 1728’ It is traditional that before the

Synagogue was built, there was a fine run of water in Mill Street,

over which a bathing house was erected, where the females of our

nation performed their ablutions, the probability is, that the

aforesaid ring- was lost there by one of the ladies when bathing.286

Prior to 1759, women would use a structure that covered the natural spring adjacent to the synagogue. During the years of 1759 – 1760, there is a great deal of discussion in the Shearith Israel board minutes about the need to build and maintain a mikveh.

At a Meeting of the Parnassim & Elders the 21st Hesvan 5520

[November 11, 1759] it was agreed that a proper bathing place

shall be built of stone for the use of the Congregation.

Messrs Joseph Simpson Naply Hart Myers, Abm Abrams & Mordy

Moses appointed Managers for the same.287

The Jews of Amsterdam provided the expertise, and their mikvaot were the model for the construction of New World mikvaot which included the heating of the pools.288 In

1760, Shearith Israel approved an allowance of 50 shillings a year for the cleaning of the mikveh and the heating of the water:

The Parnassim and Elders, having considered, that the Samas’s

Salary here-to- fore was insufficiunt to maintain his Family. Do

100

resolve to augment the same, by Adding thereto, Ten Pounds per

Ann in consideration of which, he is to be particularly carefull in

keeping the Bath in good order by cleaning it from time to time &

to heat the water when required, and to prevent his being at any

Expence for wood, The Parnassim and Elders, add an allowance of

Fifty Shillings yearly, for that purpose. 289

The commitment to a usable mikveh required continued financial and communal support. Several examples are found in the Board minutes discussing the maintenance of the mikveh. On Dec 21, 1783: “A motion made by Mr Abm Isaacs & seconded by Mr

Hayman Levy, whether the Mikva is to be repair’d or not. Carried in the Affirmitive to be done as soon as possible.” 290

In light of the above information, as well as architectural and archival evidence that early mikva’ot were built in Philadelphia, New York, Newport, Rhode Island and

South America, Laura Leibman disputes the hypothesis she calls “the myth of the friendly Piranhas.”291 It is the claim, which many suggest, that Colonial American Jews immersed in piranha-infested waters of Latin America, or in the freezing rivers and bays of the Northeastern seaboard. The hypothesis asserts that even wealthy people would risk death on a monthly basis rather than build a mikveh. It ignores the documented evidence regarding the building of several mikvaot from Shearith Israel and in other Jewish communities throughout the Eastern United States.

While during the first 180 years of Shearith Israel the maintenance of a mikveh was essential, when the synagogue in 1834 moved uptown to Crosby Street, a mikveh was not constructed. Grinstein argues that this indicates that women who were American born

101

were not observing this ritual, and it was only observed by the immigrant population.292

Therefore, when Shearith Israel moved to a new location where Ashkenazim were the majority of the congregation and had become assimilated into general society there was not sufficient interest for the building of a mikveh as part of the new synagogue edifice.293

Hasia Diner suggests a different reason for not constructing a mikveh as part of the Crosby street synagogue:

Perhaps it was reluctance, as newcomers in the country to

incorporate in a public building, an institution that related to so

private a matter, especially in light of the puritanical moral stance

of the populace.294

There may be a still simpler reason: Shearith Israel moved to its new location only a few years after of the establishment of Congregation B’nai Jeshurun. B’nai Jeshurun had built a mikveh.295 Perhaps the population of women from Shearith Israel using the mikveh regularly was not large enough to warrant the immediate construction of a second mikveh and those to whom it was important simply relied on B’nai Jeshurun’s relatively new mikveh.

Eventually, Feb 9 1883, there is a Shearith Israel Board resolution passed to knock down the buildings attached to the school “to construct … a house for the Mikveh,

School Room, and a Room for the meetings of this Board and that of the Congregation

…”296 It is doubtful that in the interim interest in using the mikveh increased dramatically.

Most likely, the Shearith Israel community wanted to maintain a mikveh of their own.

Perhaps the loss of authority over this area of observance convinced the leadership to

102

allocate assets for this religious obligation, to be once more a spiritual gateway that

Shearith Israel offered its members.

As an aside, this decision raises a fundamental policy question facing many modern communities. Are there certain religious activities that are so critical to the makeup of the synagogue community that financial concerns or duplication of services are to be ignored in the decision to provide ritual experiences? A synagogue community that struggles to support its mikveh may find itself with the additional challenge of a competing synagogue opening a mikveh on its campus, even though heretofore both communities were serviced by the original structure. Similarly, a synagogue in a smaller community might struggle to maintain its daily prayer service only to have another synagogue announce a competing service at the same time or at a slightly more convenient time. These challenges not only affected religious institutions in the early

America period but continue to do so in modern times. The ‘free market’ of American

Judaism allows for competition not a part of the top down authoritative paradigm found in the ancient Temple or the medieval kehilla, where such duplication of services could be ended immediately through rabbinic edict.

Jewish Poverty and Jewish Charity

‘Indigence’ or poverty, aside from the ordinary misfortunes it entails, may hold a special danger for Jewish individuals and families put at the mercy of unsympathetic gentiles. Historically, Jews have cared for Jews out of some combination of religious obligation, good will, and cruel necessity. On September 22, 1654 Peter Stuyvesant famously sent a letter to the directors of the Dutch West India Company requesting that the Jews (“the deceitful race”) be asked to leave New Amsterdam:

103

The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here,

but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful

trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior

magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for

you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present

indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we

have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and

the land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly

way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for

ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that

the deceitful race -- such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the

name of Christ -- be not allowed to further infect and trouble this

new colony to the detraction of your worships and the

dissatisfaction of your worships’ most affectionate subjects. 297

Stuyvesant’s feelings were buttressed by Dominie Megapolensis, the Reformed minister of New Amsterdam. He wrote in 1655:

We have here Papists, Mennonites, and Lutherans among the

Dutch; also many Puritans or Independents, and many Atheists and

various other servants of Baal among the English under this

Government, who conceal themselves under the name Christians;

it would create still further confusion, if the obstinate and

immovable Jews came to settle here.298

On April 26 1656 the West India Company of Holland responded to Stuyvesant:

104

. . .We would have liked to effectuate and fulfill your wishes and

request that the new territories should no more be allowed to be

infected by people of the Jewish nation, for we foresee therefrom

the same difficulties which you fear, but after having further

weighed and considered the matter, we observe that this would be

somewhat unreasonable and unfair, especially because of the

considerable loss sustained by this nation, with others, in the taking

of Brazil, as also because of the large amount of capital which they

still have invested in the shares of this company. Therefore after

many deliberations we have finally decided and resolved to

apostille [to note] upon a certain petition presented by said

Portuguese Jews that these people may travel and trade to and in

New Netherland and live and remain there, provided the poor

among them shall not become a burden to the company or to the

community, but be supported by their own nation. You will now

govern yourself accordingly. 299

The response of the West India Company to Peter Stuyvesant does not hesitate to share in general revulsion for the Jews. However, its authors hold “the taking of Brazil,” an event that led to the founding of the Shearith Israel, a mitigating factor in evaluating the circumstance of these specific refugees “provided the poor among them shall not become a burden to the company or to the community but be supported by their own nation.”

105

Naphtali Phillips (1773-1870), a newspaper publisher by profession, served as president (parnas) of Shearith Israel Congregation from 1815-24 and has written that the needs of the Jewish poor were handled by the Jewish community.

This Congregation has always been forward in their attention to the

poor, the books will show the many and liberal donations for the

support of families of the congregation and others and the aid

given from time to time to transient persons.300

Phillips claims that the Shearith Israel community was always concerned with the poor and that “liberal donations” were given to the synagogue for this purpose. There is much in the archival record of Shearith Israel to support that contention.

Throughout the Colonial era, small numbers of impoverished Jews from Europe found their way to North America. Widows and orphans constituted a significant portion of this poor population. Occasionally merchants who had lost everything in disastrous business dealings found themselves stranded in New York. The Spanish and Portuguese

Synagogue community would support them for a period of time, giving them room and board at Shearith Israel’s expense.301 Those who had financial difficulty were assisted so that they would not need to beg or be incarcerated in debtor’s prison. Charity was also used on occasion to help Jews who arrived as indentured servants, having sold their labor for a term of years to pay for their passage to America. Such servitude often involved many unforeseen difficulties, such as working on Shabbat and being forced to eat non- kosher food.302 Throughout the year the synagogue took care of the needy, the elderly, and the sick. Unlike many other colonial schools where tuition was a prerequisite for education, any child of a poor family would be taught at Shearith Israel’s school at no

106

cost to the family.303 Moreover, written into the Shearith Israel’s constitution was the

Parnas’s ability to assist the indigent:

If any person should happen to come to this place and should want

assistance of the Sinagog the Parnaz is hereby impowered to allow

every poor person for his maintainance the sum of Eight Shillings

pr Week and no more Not Exceeding the term of twelve weeks.

And the Parnaz is also to use his utmost endeavours to dispatch

them to sum othere place as soon as Possible assisting them with

necessarys, for their Voyage, that is for a single person fourty

Shillings, but if it be a family then the parnaz shall call his

assistance and consult with them both for their maintainance whilst

ashore and also for their necessarys when they depart; those poor

of this Congregation that shall apply for Sedaca shall be assisted

with as much as the Parnaz and his assistants shall think fitt. 304

There are dozens of incidents described in the minutes of the Congregation that illustrate the charity offered to those with special circumstances.305 In 1746-1747, no less than one third of the synagogue’s budget went to helping the poor and those in need.306

Even during the years following the Revolutionary War, when economic conditions were extremely challenging, the commitment to this agenda remained firm.307

Charity was also afforded to the lay leaders of the synagogue: “That in case the

Parnas and assistants of the Hebra require to borrow from the Sidaka it may be lent to them not exceeding Ten Pounds.308

107

The Global Reach of Shearith Israel’s Charity

Shearith Israel, the synagogue community, felt an obligation towards the entirety of the Jewish People even to Jews outside of their New York community and far from the shores North America. This responsibility included a special priority for Jews living in

Palestine. In 1823, Rabbi Aaron Judah Corcos arrived from Jerusalem to raise money to pay ransom to the Greeks for release of his wife and children who were being held captive. The synagogue paid for his room and board while he went fundraising throughout the New York Jewish community and paid for his trip to Curacao to continue his fundraising efforts.309 In 1824, Rabbi Isaacki came from Tiberias to secure aid for

Jews in Palestine. While he was raising funds in New York, the congregation paid for his room and board and donated to his cause.310 In 1826,311 Rabbi David Athias collected charity for Jews in need in Morocco.

As explained in chapter one, in the Temple of ancient times charity served as part of the approach of the Jewish people in sustaining their relationship with God. This is one of the ways that , the offices of the Temple had relationships with Jewish communities around the globe. 312 So too was charity a central concern of Shearith Israel and an effective means of engaging its constituents and empowering them to serve as an institution of global change for world Jewry and society at large.313

Enforcing Standards in Jewish Behavior

The minute books of Shearith Israel are not only filled with resolutions of a general nature focusing on religious observance but of specific instances of the leadership disciplining those who violated the norms of Jewish life.

108

In 1786, Lion Jonas was accused of violating the Shabbat. “Complaints having been made by several respectable members of the Congregation, that said Lion Jonas has for a considerable time past trespass’d on our holy Sabath.”314 After the “Parnassim &

Adjuntas wrote several letters”315 urging him to appear at the Hebra, he not only ignored the request but on the eve of Tisha b’Av, insulted the leadership by mocking the letters sent to him.316 The leadership stripped Lion Jonas of any benefits of synagogue affiliation until “a fine of Five Pounds & make satisfactory Concessions for the Insults

…mentioned.”317

As mentioned earlier on October 1774 the congregation’s leadership recorded an incident where a woman in the community was accused of having non-kosher meat in her private home which she also used to lodge boarders. While the infringement of kashrut seems to be accidental, Widow Hetty was required to make her kitchen kosher again

(with a cleaning/purifcation process) for fear that her dishes and utensils had been rendered not kosher.

The synagogue community relied upon sanctions to compel community members to maintain Jewish distinctiveness as an independent cultural group within the larger

Colonial/Early American society. Self-discipline, conformity, and enforced religious participation within communities were familiar coercive modalities to those living in colonial America, particularly in the Congregational church and the Quaker meetinghouse. Failing to attend daily church services twice each day in Virginia could lead to loss of day’s food or a whipping318 or in Boston of being put in stocks.319

109

While New York was more lax than Virginia or Boston, the church still played a critical role in the ordering of the personal life of their citizens’ and employed measures of social control.320

Not only were there taxes to support the ministers and the church, 321 government control extended to the practice of religious rituals. In the time of the Dutch (1624-1644)

New Amsterdam had detailed laws regulating Sunday-Sabbath observance with fines for those who did not attend church; blasphemy was a serious criminal offense brought to the governor; local magistrates were required to show proof to their allegiance to the dogmatic beliefs of the Reformed faith and citizens were warned about assisting heretics or introducing seditious writings into the colony.322 Incidents of Quakers preaching publically resulted in banishment and arrests.323

With the change of rule over New Amsterdam/New York from Dutch to English

(1664 -1776) there was greater religious tolerance. However, breaking Sunday-Sabbath ordinances or the voicing heterodox opinion was still under legal sanction with disciplinary committees established to enforce conformity to ethical and dogmatic norms of conduct.324 The churches took care about the religious beliefs and opinions of their parishioners and the way religion exhibited itself in the public square.

The focus of the synagogue-community in its coercive measures was somewhat different. Communal norms of religious behavior such as communal prayer, Shabbat,

Kashrut, and endogamous marriage most concerned the community. There was no focus on dogmatic belief, or the belief system of the Jewish tradition.325 The Jewish community believed that through external performances and practical conformity Jewish faith would maintain itself.

110

Such a posture at times caused the synagogue community to show concern for even minor violations of Jewish practice. For example, a man who did not wear a tallit

(prayer shawl) to synagogue services due to lack of knowledge, interest, or it was not his family’s custom (as in the case of some traditions which call for only married men to wear a tallit), could be barred from receiving the honor of being called to the Torah.326

There was also an expectation that members attend synagogue on Shabbat and holidays. For those who were unmotivated, the threat of a financial penalty was used as a means of demanding compliance. Penalties levied were roughly commensurate with the contributions which would have been paid over the year(s) if the person had attended synagogue. Additionally, access to the right of Jewish burial was used to motivate support for the synagogue community from those that appeared to be totally unaffiliated.

An example of how the community responded to both a minor and major violations of ritual Jewish life is seen on April 10, 1752, where a synagogue motion was unanimously passed, stating the following:

No 7 That every Person that Congregates with us shall do the

Mitzvoths & goe to the Sepher whenever he is order’d so to do by

the Parnas & any Person that refuses to do either of them shall be

subject to a fine of Twenty Shills for the use of this Congregation

for every such offence.

No. 8 In order to discountenance all manner of discord & Division

amongst the Members of this K.K. the Elders aforesd have

unanimously agreed that on the demise of any person, that in his

life time absented himself from the Sinagogue, or was no ways a

111

benefactor to the Congregation, His Corps or the Corps of his wife

or Children under thirteen years of age shall not be laid & Buried

within the walls of our Burrying Ground without leave and Licence

first had and obtain’d from the Elders for the time being, ... 327

The responsibility of every male community member “to commune,” attend synagogue was formalized in Shearith Israel’s new constitution and By-Laws. On June

24, 1805, Article X of the By-Laws stated the following:

It is also declared, that all and every person or persons who shall

have been considered of the Jewish persuasion, resident within the

limits of the corporation of the city of New-York, that do not

commune with us under the constitution and bye laws now

established, shall be assessed and charged by the Board of Trustees

ten dollars per annum, and in case of refusal to pay the same, shall

not be entitled to any of the rights, benefits and immunities,

granted to the electors and members thereof, until he or they shall

have paid up his or their arrearages, and the consent of the Board

of Trustees had thereto.328

Though herem (formal excommunication) was not exercised in North America,329 the withholding of communal entitlements by the leadership of Shearith Israel was tantamount to a herem. However, when an offender acknowledged his/her offenses and made peace with the congregation, the person was always readmitted, and no grudge appears to have been maintained.330

112

On the night before Rosh Hashanah, September 14, 1757, the following resolution was approved:

In the Name of the God Of Israel

The Parnasim & Elders having received undouted Testimony That

severall of our Bretheren, that reside in the Country have and do

dayly violate the principles of our holy religion, such as Trading on

the Sabath, Eating of forbidden Meats & other Heinous Crimes,

and as our Holy law injoins us to reprove one Another agreeable to

the Commandments in Liviticus ‘Hocheach tocheeach et

‘ameetecha’ thou shalt surely reprove thy Neighbour and not suffer

sin upon him, the consideration of this Divine Precept has Induced

the Parnasim & Elders to come to the following resolution in order

to check the above mentioned growing evil & as our ‘Hachamim’

observe ‘En ′onshin ela mazhero’ That is no one is to be Punished

unless First admonished, therefore whosoever for the future

continues to act contrary to our Holy Law by breacking any of the

principles command will not be deem’d a member of our

Congregation have none of the Mitzote of the Sinagoge Confered

on him & when Dead will not be buried according to the manner of

our brethren…so will the Gates of our Community be shut intirely

Against such offenders, but those that repent & obey the precepts

of the Almighty, We beseech the Divine Goodness to open to them

113

the Gates of Mercy, & all their Enterprizes be attended with the

Blessing of Haven… 331

Not only was this resolution passed, there was agreement unanimously that it should be read on the “Holly day of Kipoor 5518.”332 By March 22 of the following year, the leadership was convinced that their stern warnings had been successful;333 they removed the ban and invited all those who had been “wandring sheep,”334 to feel welcome in the synagogue.335

While American society championed individualism which promoted free choice in marriage, Judaism promoted in-group marriage and viewed intermarriage as the quintessential sin against Jewish peoplehood. Estimates of Jews intermarrying in colonial times ranged from ten to fifteen percent and rose after the American Revolution to 28.7 percent.336 Intermarriage among Jews was far lower than other faith groups.337 This may be due to the fact that punishment in the Jewish community for intermarriage was severe.

Such issues where discussed in the Jewish newspaper, The Occident.338 In March

1845 the following letter to the editor written by Simeon Abrahams, highlighting the need for an aggressive stand against intermarriage, was printed:

…How ridiculous it is to see a man who has married a gentile wife,

and has for her sake given up everything which his religion

demands of him, mount the reading-desk on our most solemn days,

and participate in the religious services of the day; or to see a

woman who openly says that she has married a gentile, boldly

entering the place of worship, and placing herself in the front ranks

among the true daughters of Israel, as though she had not violated

114

the duties of her religion. It is a great fault in the trustees of congregations, that they do nothing to prevent these things; and that they in a manner encourage them, by selling seats in their places of worship to persons of this class, thus setting a baleful example for their own sons and daughters. To countenance acts like these is not the way to put a stop to them; not to punish by setting on them a mark of public disapprobation, is to encourage them; and surely we do not set a good example to the rising generation, whom, we pretend, we are striving to rear by all means at our disposal to become proper representatives of Judaism, whilst we do nothing to prevent this increasing bane of our nation, since we allow a person who has in a measure voluntarily abandoned his religion, to remain a member of our societies and congregations.

Among us the object of punishment is not so much the disgrace of the guilty as the deterring of the yet innocent from the committal of wrongs; and I therefore hold it requisite, in order to infuse a wholesome fear in the minds of the young, not to permit any of those who have married out of the congregation, be they men or women, to have any part or share with us in the religious rites or services of our ancient and holy religion; they have voluntarily withdrawn themselves from us, there let them remain, it is an act of their own, done without any necessity, and our very existence as

Jews demands of us, as such, that they should not be permitted to

115

re-enter, or to have extended to them, any of the rites or privileges

of our religion; they should not be permitted to purchase or hire a

seat in the Synagogues ; the men should not be allowed to be

called to the reading of the law, nor to be reckoned to make

Minyan, nor in any way to be countenanced or regarded as Jews.

Besides this, in case of their death no especial notice should be

taken of them, they having made their selections of companions for

life, let their gentile relatives take care of their dead bodies, and

inter them in any manner they may deem proper.

This position of Abrahams was supported and Shearith Israel forbade one who intermarried to enter into the synagogue or to be buried in the Jewish cemetery. This was tantamount to excommunication.339 The fear of exclusion from the synagogue’s most basic privileges as punishment for intermarriage may have been effective at a time when the members of the Jewish community were isolated from the larger public.

However, as Jews “succeed” in being welcomed into the larger society, such punitive action had little success340 and raised the ire of Jewish public intellectuals.

This is reflected in a later article found in The Occident:341

Congregation Shearith Israel, New York.—We have received a

copy of a circular issued by the trustees of the Portuguese

congregation, New York, which we communicate as a matter of

general interest to our readers, without other comment than that,

according to our expressed views, we deem the measure

embraced therein entirely too stringent [emphasis added],

116

though we are free to confess that there may be circumstances

which induced the gentlemen of the board to issue this special

decree which, operating as it does as a warning, leaves

transgressors afterwards no room for complaining.

New York, 4th Nissan, 5607. [March 21, 1847]

Sir:—At a meeting of the Trustees of the Congregation Shearith

Israel the following was adopted:

Resolved, That no seat in our holy place of worship shall hereafter

be leased to any person married contrary to our religious laws; and

no person married contrary to our religious laws shall be interred

in any of the burying-grounds belonging to this congregation.

Ordered, that the clerk send a printed copy of the foregoing

resolution to each seat-holder. 342

Shearith Israel’s fear for the community’s self-integrity and continuity as a Jewish community and its desire to protect the uniformity of its communal religious practices resulted in the following edict:

As early as the Year 5523 1763 a law was passed prohibiting any

of the officers of the Congn. aiding, or assisting in making

proselytes, or performing the marriage ceremony of any Jew, to a

proselyte, and which is at present the law of the Congn. under the

penalty of One hundred dollars.343

117

This fear and insistence on uniformity led to the closing of a gateway of entry into

Jewish life by rejecting the possibility of conversion to Judaism and rejecting all Jews by choice who sought to join their community.

The tendency of Shearith Israel community to over-police the religious observance of its members was lamented by one of its own community leaders, Naphtali

Phillips (1773-1870) who offered the following self-critical judgment:

Many and severe regulations were adopted at different periods in

relation to those who ‘Violated any of the laws of our holy

religion’, or gave insults to the Congn. as such; and which shewed

the desire of our ancestors to preserve all regulations enjoined on

us. On ‘Some Occasions’, they resolved, that ‘certain members’,

besides the general disqualifications, should not be spoken to, and

all communications with them prohibited, and those acting

contrary to the resolution, were to be considered in the same light

as the first offender.344

Phillips’ descriptions, as well as the issues documented in the minute books of

Shearith Israel, beg the question: did these “many and severe regulations” help in stopping the tide of disengagement? While the violation of certain religious principles were stopped and prevented through bans and social pressure, the success came at a cost.

Naphtali Phillips thought that cost too high begging a question of its own: did Judaism become more cherished and relevant to members of Shearith Israel’s community as a result of coercive measures?

118

There is no documentation to ascertain the consistency of success or failure in using sanctions to guide the community. However, Shearith Israel would eventually find itself marginalized on the New York scene. After 1825, Shearith Israel moved from the center to the periphery of New York Jewish life. Perhaps instead of punishing Jews whose social milieu had connected them to the general community Shearith Israel might have engaged and involved them. If so, the missed opportunities to engage New York’s changing Jewry is in part to blame for the series of controversies, divisions, and breakaways that developed.

Divisions, Missed Opportunities, and the Founding of B’nai Jeshurun

Every communal split has its specific etiology. For Shearith Israel, an honor given in synagogue on the eighth day of Passover, the refusal to make an accustomed donation by an Ashkenazi Jewish immigrant, and an unwillingness to forgive and get beyond the controversy began a cascade of consequences that was one of the major factors leading to the breakaway of a portion of the community, the founding of a new synagogue, B’nai

Jeshurun, and the decentralization of organized Jewish life in New York.

Shearith Israel had served as the sole institutional representative of organized

Jewish life in New York. It had been ‘the Federation,’ ‘the Joint Distribution Committee,’ the day school, the place of prayer, and the kosher market all at once. Its leadership collected monies and established the communal priorities. While its constitutions, regulations, and board minutes do not describe Shearith Israel as substituting for the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, it was the only institution that might serve in the role of the ancient Temple’s progeny in New York. Of course, Shearith Israel instantiated the norms of a mikdash ma’at, a Temple in miniature, in terms of synagogue architecture, design,

119

furnishing, and comportment as discussed in chapter one. More vitally, its many practical involvements, the many gateways opened at Shearith Israel, did re-capitulate some of the work of the Temple in Jerusalem partly filling the void in autonomous leadership and supportive communal structures for its population of Jews.

However, by the early 1800’s demographics were changing. New immigrants from Germany and a growing Jewish population rapidly acculturating into general society posed new challenges. The Shearith Israel leadership began to lose its sway over the population of Jews arriving by boat, growing in number, and living increasingly outside of its established community.

On the eighth day of Passover, in 1825, Barrow E. Cohen, a German Jew, was called to the Torah. At Shearith Israel, a person called to the Torah would make a charitable pledge. It was the explicit practice at the Shearith Israel synagogue. A resolution had been added to the Constitution on September 6, 1820: “every person called

[charity fund] צדקה to read the Torah] shall make at least one offering to the] ספר to the

president] and the congregation.”345 Mr. Cohen refused to offer the required] פרנס for the

2 shillings for charity. He was, therefore, called to stand trial before ‘the Board of

Trustees.’

In having been manifested to the Board that Mr. B. E. Cohen did

on the eight day of Pesach when called to the Sephar commit an

offence against a law of this Congregation which makes it

obligatory for every person called to the Sephar to offer at least

two shillings to the Sedaka of which Mr Cohen did not do.

120

On Motion of …Resolved that Mr Cohen be called before the

Board to answer for such conduct – carried unanimously with the

exception of Mr Hayam M Salomon [Ed. Note one of the

synagogue trustees and youngest son of the well-known financier

of the American Revolution] who voted in the negative.346

On April 19th when Cohen appeared, the Board read to him a document accusing him of breaking the laws of the congregation. Mr. Cohen offered, in his defense, that others had acted similarly without reproof, and that he was unaware that the offering was compulsory. He further threatened that he would seek redress elsewhere (i.e. in gentile courts) if the Trustees proceeded against him. Haym M. Salomon, the son of the famous financer of the American Revolution, immediately voiced his objections to the proceedings siding with Barrow Cohen. When the Board decided nonetheless to move ahead with these proceedings against Mr. Cohen, Salomon resigned his office in protest, declaring “the trial” against Mr. Cohen to be illegal.347

An influx of German Jews into New York had begun changing the make-up of the

Shearith Israel community. The Sephardic leadership of Shearith Israel, partly as a consequence of their own democratic process of leadership selection, feared being outnumbered and displaced by the new Ashkenazic immigrants to New York. On August

7, 1825,348 Shearith Israel’s leadership approved a reinterpretation of the New York State

Religious Society’s Corporation Law of 1784. Membership in the Synagogue was no longer the right of every Jew in New York, but the privilege of those whom the electors approved. Initially, Shearith Israel accepted few Ashkenazic Jews as members not wanting the Sephardic community and its traditions to become marginalized at Shearith

121

Israel. Indeed, at a meeting of the electors in September 1825, only two out of a group of sixteen German Jews who had applied for admission as members were accepted.349

No one knows the exact reason for Salomon’s concerns and objections to the proceedings against Barrow Cohen. However an event forty-three years earlier may explain Salomon’s protest and Board resignation. Jacob I. Cohen (1744–1823), an immigrant from Oberdorf, Bavaria, who arrived in America in 1773 was a Kohen (a Jew of priestly descent). In 1782 Jacob I. Cohen fell in love with Esther Mordechai (formerly

Whitlock) a convert whom he wished to marry. The challenge to this marriage is that it is strictly prohibited by Jewish law for a Kohen to marry a convert.350 The rabbi of

Philadelphia’s Mikveh Israel synagogue was instructed by the adjunta not to perform the ceremony or even mention the couple’s name within the synagogue.351 Salomon was willing to support this marriage and served as a signatory on the ketubah (Jewish marriage document). As Sarna details352 this demand for religious liberalism is a reflection of the post-revolutionary atmosphere where democratization is creating a shift in society accentuating the rights and liberty of the individual. Salomon following this mood places Jacob I. Cohen’s personal liberty above Jewish legal dictates.

Perhaps Salomon’s son viewed the complaint against Barrow Cohen as a conflict between the rights of the individual and the norms and mores of the synagogue leadership, highlighting a synagogue conflict between the right of the individual and the custom of the Sephardic congregation to give charity when called to the Torah. Salomon might have felt this conflict particularly unfair because Barrow Cohen, a German

Ashkenazic Jew, could justly claim that such donations had not been the practice in the

Ashkenazi synagogues of Europe from which he immigrated and was familiar.

122

In the end, the Board ruled that since Cohen claimed ignorance of the laws of the congregation, his actions would be excused. However, in the future, he would need to comply.

Cohen refused to accept this face saving decision of the Trustees. He returned their letter with an expression of contempt. At that point, the Trustees, acting with the support they received at a congregational meeting, barred Cohen from being called to the

Torah and being given any other honor in the Synagogue.353 The decision of the Board of

Trustees was solemnly read in the Synagogue during the Sabbath services before the

Scroll of the Torah was taken from the Holy Ark.354

Following this ordeal, many at Shearith Israel had a change of heart and voted to rescind the constitutional rule requiring a donation when called to the Torah.355 This change of protocol is consistent with the ideals that Sarna discusses regarding the democratization of American society in the post- Revolutionary years, anti-elitism, the shattering of distinctions between the “haves”and the “have-nots,” between members and non-members, was occurring in general society and was a permeating influence on all religious institutions. 356

A Call for Early Prayer Services with English Explanations

Less than a month after Barrow Cohen had been called before the Shearith Israel board, in May of 1825, a group of influential, predominantly Ashkenazic congregants, wanted their prayer and educational needs to be considered in a more distinctive way.

They petitioned to establish, under the direction of Shearith Israel, a new society called

.(the society for the education of the children) חברה חנוך נערים

123

The petitioners included Haym M. Solomon and other prominent persons:

E.S. Lazarus interim Hazan after Hazan Seixas’ death

co-editor of the Hebrew-English prayer book

S.H. Jackson co-editor of the Hebrew-English prayer book and

publisher of Judaic texts

J.B. Kursheedt Jewish scholar, involved in relief efforts of Jews in

the Holy Land,

S.B.H. Judah playwright

H. Myers a builder of the Newport Synagogue.357

These members established a constitution and by-laws for their committee. Their motto, verses from Proverbs, emphasized the educational aim of their new society, and was printed on the cover page of their constitution in both Hebrew and English:

- - חנך לנער, על פי דרכו גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה:

מסיר אזנו משמע תורה גם תפלתו תועבה :

Train up a youth in anyway whatever, even when he becomes old

he will not depart therefrom Prov. xxii 6

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law; even his prayer

is an abomination Prov. xxviii 9 358

The society’s constitution and by-laws specified that its members did not wish to become a separate congregation and that belonging to the society did not absolve one from any other synagogue communal obligations.359 Furthermore, despite their own Ashkenazic backgrounds, the new prayer services would continue to follow the custom of Shearith

124

Israel reflecting the Sephardic tradition.360 The petitioners hoped to demonstrate that their purpose was not to create a split in the kehilla (community) along Sephardic-Ashkenazi lines but to offer a new educational initiative. Participants in the new society would agree to attend all prayer services during the week, would strictly adhere to the laws of Shabbat and the holidays, and would be of good moral character.361 Such a society would strengthen the core of the Jewish community. The new society’s constitution mandated the formation of services that would be understandable to both youth and adults. Prayer services in Shearith Israel were never explained in English, this alternative service would have English explanations empowering both the youth and the adults to understand the prayer and synagogue experience.362 Finally, the society would not be a financial burden to the synagogue; they would charge a fifty-cent fee for membership.363 Synagogue honors were to be distributed without bias and with a purely voluntary request for a minimum gift of 6 1/4 cents and maximum of 2-3 shillings.364 This last stipulation responded directly to what had happened with Barrow E. Cohen.

On May 31, 1825 the committee to create this society wrote a letter to the Board of Shearith Israel the following request for the society:

To the Trustees and Parnass of the Congregation Shearith Israel.

GENTLEMAN,

The undersigned in behalf of themselves and a number of their

brethren, actuated with religious motives, respectfully request the

use of our place of worship and the Sephorim, (ed. note Torah

scrolls) on the Sabbath mornings during the summer months, in

125

such a way as will no wise interfere with the time now devoted, to the residue of the Congregation.

As it is merely our desire to say the prayers at an early hour on the mornings of Sabbath as well as on other mornings of the week before breakfast observing the same minhog that has always been observed in the congregation, and as the custom which we intend to follow is now and has been practised in Europe and other parts of the globe, among Yehudim; therefore it is earnestly requested the Trustees will promote our undertaking.

In the performance of our early prayers, it is not expected by us that any trouble should be given to the officers of the congregation; as a relief to them, the management of the service, will be entirely under the controul of a committee, to be chosen from among and by those attending the early worship – and for the furtherance of this reasonable favour, which we feel every assurance will be granted without hesitation : it is determined by us, that all offerings shall be under the same rules, and for the like purpose, as they are now; and it shall be the explicit duty of the same committee, to charge and keep a regular account, of all such amounts of offerings, that they may be given to the clerk of the congregation, and be added to the usual bills.

As the favour is one to which there can be no grounds for refusal : as we have no doubt the trustees will cheerfully concur in

126

the promoting of our zeal and attention to the worship of our holy

religion, we shall consider that we are allowed to put in practise

our design the ensuing Sabbath (4 June) unless notified to the

contrary.

We are gentlemen,

Yours & c.

Signed by the Committee appointed in behalf of a number of the

Congregation. 365

The Board immediately took up this matter. The minutes record the following:

the trustees having given the said the most serious attention

adopted the following resolution. Resolved Unanimously, that the

application contained in the said letter cannot be granted, and that a

Copy hereof be sent to the applicants. Ajourned Bern Hart (signed)

Clerk 366

The negative response was accepted by many from the society who signed the initial letter and they did not continue to pursue this issue. Yet, there were a few of the original signatories including Morland Micholl, E. S. Lazarus, John I. Hart, J.B. Kursheedt, S. B.

H. Judah, and a new community member Moses Joseph, who refused to give up and sent a second more passionate and forceful letter to the Trustees dated June 30th 1825:

To the Parnass and the Trustees of the Congregation of Shearith

Israel.

GENTELMEN,

127

A Society having been formed for the purpose of instruction and explanation in the ceremonies of our ancient laws and religion and

חנוך נערים for the performance of early prayer by the name of

(educating the children).

We the undersigned in behalf of the members of said society, being a committee appointed to regulate the affairs of the same, have taken the liberty of addressing you, believing no doubt, with ourselves, you are equally interested, in the promoting of an object, which strikes us, not only as highly laudable, but of great moment, to the Hebrew Community at large : as tending to encrease the respect of the worship of our fathers.

We therefore respectfully request that you will loan to the society,

Torah scrolls) now in use belonging to the) ספרים one of the congregation.

We further solicit for the same object, many benches belonging to

(ark) תבה the old shool as you can conveniently spare: also the old

readers podium), and what other articles you may suppose) הכל and will assist our intentions.

The effects enumerated we are led to understand remain in your hands of no use at present, and as they will be of great service to the society in its early stage, for their safe return, in at least, as

128

good condition as they are at the time we receive them, the members of the society collectively, and individually, bind themselves.

We father deem it proper to state, that the object of the society is purely religious; and to do away all ill and unfavorable impressions that may have been made on your minds against our association : as our constitution and bye-laws have not yet been printed we think it necessary to detail briefly, the governing principles on which we have formed ourselves.

First. Early attendance to our prayers - the room in which the same is to be performed, to be freely at the service of any other part of the congregation after the service of the society. and during the service of the society, the doors to be open to our brethren.

Second. Conveying religious instruction to our youths.

Third. Our city having become very large and yearly increasing in size, and our brethren scattered in every direction is it therefore one of our first duties to multiply facilities in order to afford all an opportunity of praying that adoration to our beneficent creator which is the duty of life to return him for his manifold mercies, that are every hour extended to us. Now, gentlemen, with these ideas before you, we confidently believe you will grant the seeking

129

of the society, and by doing so we believe you will be performing

that which is the part of every follower of the House of Israel : the

lending a mite towards the erection of a dwelling of the Living

God! whose temples should be spread in every corner and

multiplied by his people.

N.B. It has been omitted to mention that the society intend in no

way to create distinctions, but each member is to fulfil the duties in

rotation, having no Parnass nor Chazan.367

One of the initial signatories, Isaac Vaill, upon hearing about this second letter, wrote his own note to the Trustees, indicating that the action of creating a rift in the synagogue was never the intention of many of those who wished to start the society. Vaill apologized for being part of this group stating: “upon reflection that I have done wrong, although unintentionally. I therefore pray that your honourable Board to have my name struck … the said petition …yr obed servnt signed Isaac Vaill.”368

On July 19, 1825 the trustees discussed the letter and passed another resolution refusing to recognize the newly created society:

The Trustees under the full conviction that they cannot recognize

any Society or association for religious Worship distinct from the

Congregation Shearith Israel Do Resolve that the request contained

in said letter cannot be complied with, and that the Clerk transmit

them an extract of the above resolution.369

130

An additional letter written to the Board by the society is found in the society’s publication, but it is unclear if it ever reached the Trustees, as no reference to it is made in the Board minutes.

…the said committee viewed their conduct, one of the principle

reasons which induced to this was, that about two years preceding,

the board had rashly and inconsiderately entered a resolution

respecting a certain individual which upon a representation to them

by several members, they thought proper, in fact were compelled,

to rescind. It was thought likely that in the present instance upon

due reflection and consideration a similar result, would ensue.370

In this final communication, the society mentions how it felt that the Trustees mishandled the incident and had erred in other cases when the needs of the individual or group of individuals was in question. They had in mind the case of Barrow E. Cohen (and other situations) in which the Trustees made an initial decision but later tempered that response. The petitioners for the society hoped that the second letter would have allowed the Trustees to reconsider their initial response.

When the idea of the society was again denied by the Board, most of the initial group resigned itself to the fact that the Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim would not be established. However, a smaller group decided to hold a meeting in the Washington Hall recognizing that this idea was so vital it warranted creating a second synagogue in New

York City.

The Decision to Found a New Synagogue: B’nai Jeshurun

In the minutes of the Shearith Israel board the following is recorded:

131

The following letter was received from Rowland Davies, John I.

Hart Daniel Jackson, dated October 6, 1825:

To the Parnass & Trustees of the K.K. Shearith Israel

Respected Brothers & Friends;

We are deputed by Committee from A Meeting of Israelites held at

Washington Hall to announce to you their intention to erect a New

Synagogue in this City.

It is our duty and we most cheerfully comply with it to acquaint you with the motives which have conduced us to take this step – We have a larger portion of our brothers who have been educated in the German and Polish Minhag371, who find it difficult to accustom themselves to what is familiarly called the Portuguese

Minhag, in consequence of their early impressions and habits. It is also proper to state that the increase of our Brethren is so great and in all probability will be much greater in a few years that accommodations, particularly on Holidays, cannot be offered to all

- again, the great increase of New York and the distant situation of the Shul render it necessary to have a new place of worship in a more convenient situation for those residing up Town.

These reasons we respectfully trust will be satisfactory to your honorable Board, and will at once show our intention is not capriciously to withdraw ourselves from the ancient and

132

respectable Congregation Shearith Israel which God may prosper, but is urged by motives of necessity.

Conforming therefore to our duty as Jews and the obligations of our Holy Faith, we first make known our intentions to your Board and solicit such aid in the furtherance of this laudable object as liberality, justice and the situation of the

Congregation will warrant.

We have the pleasure to state with loans & subscriptions we have about Four Thousand Dollars a sum which your honorable

Board will at once perceive is insufficient to build a place of

Worship.

The religious and the equitable claim which we have as brethren of one great family of the Congregation of Shearith Israel will we hope be recognized and every aid countenance and protection afforded us calculated to insure successful and give respectability and character to our project.

Wishing peace to Israel and, prosperity and long life to you

Gentleman

We are Respectfully

Your Friends

Signed Rowland Davies

John I Hart

Dan ᵉ Jackson

133

We the Undersigned concur in the views taken by the Committee

in their letter to the Trustees of K K Shearith Israel and

respectfully solicit their liberal aid and friendly Cooperation

Signed by – Joseph Davies, Morland Micholl, John M. Davies,

John D Jackson Naphtali Judah, D. Cromeline, J B Kursheedt, Ab ͫ

Collins, Solomon Seixas, S. Myers, Jos[eph] l Hays, John Jackson,

B Morange, E.L. Phillips & M. M. Noah372

That Wednesday night, October 19th 1825, the letter was read and the Trustees tabled conversation on how to deal with this issue. They appointed a committee to address the issue and instructed the President to inform those who sent the letter that they would look into the matter.373 On October 20, the president sent a letter to Rowland Davies, John I.

Hart and Daniel Jackson indicating the decision of the Trustees.374

When De Sola-Pool, the pre-eminent scholar on Shearith Israel, wrote about the establishment of the this new synagogue he did not acknowledge any connection between the starting of what was to be known as B’nai Jeshurun and the decision of the Trustees denying the establishment of the Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim society. He states the following:

Shearith Israel was the only Jewish congregation in New York City

until 1825. But that time the need for a second congregation was

increasingly felt as the numbers in the Jewish community

progressively increased. Among recently arrived English and

German Ashkenazi Jews there were those who found difficulty in

adjusting themselves to the customs and traditions of the Sephardi

134

Congregation Shearith Israel with its different pronunciation of

Hebrew, its variants in the wording of the prayers, and its altogether unfamiliar chanting...

Originally, indeed, there was the thought that within Shearith Israel itself there might be found room for a group which would worship according to Ashkenazi minhag. A number of members met together and planned to organize an Ashkenazi congregation of their own within Shearith Israel. In keeping with this, in May of that year in 1825 they sent to the board of trustees a letter formally

‘requesting the use of our place of Worship and Sefarim at times different from the usual hours of service, the management of the same to be entirely under the control of a committee to be chosen by themselves’.

The board of trustees saw in this proposal something that would be a definite break in the congregation’s unity, and a departure from its constitutionally required distinctive Sephardi religious tradition.

They therefore ‘resolved unanimously after the most serious attention that this cannot be granted.’… They oppose any measure or proposition having a tendency to destroy the well known and established rules and customs of our ancestors as have been practised in said congregation for upwards of one hundred years past.375

135

As has been documented, De Sola-Pool’s perspective and information does not reflect the full picture. Grinstein may argue that the event is described by De Sola-Pool in a slightly inaccurate fashion.376 The group that wanted an alternative prayer service was not requesting to pray according to their Ashkenazic traditions. They were willing to follow the traditions of the Spanish and Portuguese community, even though at this point in history those from German and Polish descent had become the majority of the synagogue.377 As their society’s constitution, by-laws and their letters to the Trustees demonstrated, their goal was to expand the educational opportunities of Shearith Israel.

They wished to work within the existing synagogue community, but the synagogue leadership rebuffed them. The synagogue leadership did not consider the diversified needs of the community. It was the leadership’s unwillingness to compromise that led a subset of the group who wished to establish the society to play a founding role in the establishment of New York’s second synagogue, B’nai Jeshurun.

Interestingly, I had a personal research experience that would seem to confirm the relationship between the society Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim and the establishment of B’nai

Jeshurun. When researching the history of Shearith Israel, I came across a footnote about the Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim. Eager to read everything about Shearith Israel, I tried to track down the original constitution and by-laws of this proposed society. Research indicated that a rare original printed copy was available at the American Jewish

Historical Society. It was printed in 1825 by one of the proponents of the society, the printer of Judaic material, S.H. Jackson. The American Jewish Historical Society could not find this original copy and began looking in all the boxes of material connected to

Shearith Israel. After a desperate week of searching, I asked if they would check the

136

boxes containing the material from the early development of B’nai Jeshurun. That is indeed where the printed copy of the constitution and by-laws of this proposed society were found. Perhaps from a cataloging perspective it belongs in the boxes of material connected with Shearith Israel, but from a developmental perspective, it was the refusal to approve the establishment of Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim society that became a founding document of B’nai Jeshurun.

The parochial attitude seen in in the Barrow Cohen incident, visible in the new measures employed for approving members, and apparent in denying the establishment of this society represented a tendency on the part of the synagogue leadership at Shearith

Israel to try to maintain unity by enforcing uniformity. Yet it is precisely that prejudice that produced tension and turmoil. Building multiple gateways of spiritual entry into

Jewish life enhances religious opportunities for a diverse population, allowing for the unique spiritual voice of each individual member to connect to his/her spiritual center, in a way that unites. It requires a certain broadness of vision and willingness to allow others a role in the continued development of the shared communal enterprise; after a seventy year period of communal hegemony, that broadness of vision was not found at Shearith

Israel.

Clearly, at some point, the dissolution of the synagogue community was inevitable;378 a series of breakaway synagogues followed the establishment of B’nai

Jeshurun. There were forces besides broadness or narrowness of vision at work, and the demographics were changing fast due to mass immigration. By 1860, Jews in New York

City could join any of twenty-seven new synagogues. While the multiple synagogues represented a new vitality for the New York Jewish community, chaos in ritual matters

137

also ensued. Men performed marriage ceremonies and wrote Jewish divorces without the necessary religious knowledge. People identified themselves as rabbis without any accepted process of study and ordination. Philanthropic activities began to take place outside the Synagogue community. The fraternal orders and other societies that developed took over many of the charitable and mutual aid focused activities of the synagogue.379 The Shearith Israel congregation witnessed the diminishing of its own power and watched as New York transformed from a synagogue community to a community of synagogues.

The avoidable abrupt breakaway of B’nai Jeshurun put financial stress upon

Shearith Israel. A review of the revenue collections from synagogue seat sales two years prior to the establishment of B’nai Jeshurun and the revenue from seat sales several years after its founding indicates a drastic drop in revenue.380 When a synagogue compromises its mission, often competing institutions arise to fill the void, and financial distress follows: there is less reason for congregants to stay with the synagogue or to continue their voluntarily support of the institution.

The decentralization, in some ways the deterioration, of the New York Jewish community, cannot be solely attributed to the rise of multiple synagogues. The culture of the American society celebrated pursuit of personal autonomy outside the established institutions of the past which affected the centrality of the synagogue as well as the prospects for a Jew to be welcomed to assimilate into the general society. All of these factors alienated Jews from synagogue life.

Yet the challenges that occurred with Shearith Israel began when its leadership forgot the model and mission of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem: the building and

138

opening of multiple gateways of spiritual entry for the synagogue membership and for the entire Jewish community. Lacking that clarity of purpose, Shearith Israel began its diminishment declining in financial vitality and community sway.

139

3. The Institutional Synagogue: A 20th Century Model

By the turn of the century, America and its Jewish community pulsed and convulsed with demographic changes. There was a Jewish-urban-immigrant population explosion centered in New York in the beginning of the twentieth century. Previously, the majority of New York’s Jews had come from German speaking lands or were the descendants of early Sephardic-American Jews. In 1880, Jews of German descent formed the majority of Greater New York Jewish population of 85,000.381 However, by the end of 19th century, there were half a million Jews in the city, with only one fifth from

German stock. Eighty percent of New York’s Jewish population had arrived from Russia and Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, and Austria- Hungry).382 Between 1881 and 1914, some 2 million Jews from East Europe and Russia would land on America’s shores.383

The deteriorating situation in Russia, events such as the Kishinev pogroms

(1903),384 brought more than 100,000 Jews annually from Eastern Europe during the seven of the eleven years which preceded the outbreak of WW1, with seventy percent of them remaining in New York. By 1914, the Jewish population in New York had risen to

1,335,000, making Jews twenty-eight percent of the city’s total population,385 with the

German Jewish community representing only ten percent of the total living in the New

York area.386 By 1920 there were 1,643,012 Jews; Jews then made up an astonishing twenty-nine percent of New York City’s total population.387

By a mixture of necessity and choice, these immigrants lived in somewhat segregated groups or neighborhoods. By 1910, the Lower East Side had become the

140

largest Jewish area of residence with over 542,061 Jewish inhabitants.388 These neighborhood-ghettos were ‘newly cosmopolitan’ in that they drew from many Eastern

European and Russian Jewish communities. In addition, most immigrant Jews also shared and spoke among themselves the international Jewish language of that time, Yiddish.

Abraham Cahan, a Lithuanian immigrant, began in 1897 publishing in Yiddish the

Forwitz, the Jewish Daily Forward, eventually reaching a circulation of 250,000 Yiddish readers in New York.389

New York had become a promising, if not the promised land for East European

Jews.390 As most of the immigrants were non-English speaking, they gravitated to trades they were familiar with from the “old home land.” The clothing industry employed the largest number of Jews, followed by the food industry, cigar making, and the building trades.391 These trades were primarily located on the Lower East Side which reinforced it as a natural place for immigrant Jews to take up residence.

Serious challenges came with migration even as the new homeland promised golden possibilities. The first concerns were poverty and the dwelling conditions. Life in close quarters in the ‘dumbbell’ tenement buildings392 was a powerful incubator for human and social ills of just about every kind: depression, strife, criminality, and disease.

For many, work came to mean exploitation in a ‘sweat shop.’ It was exhausting, often injurious, and sometimes deadly.393 World events had delivered a huge and vulnerable population of Jews on American shores without the leadership or communal structures necessary to meet their massive needs.

By 1900, a remarkable number of Jews had struggled for and won important places in New York life. They included the founders of the great department stores such

141

as the Altman, Straus, Stern and Bloomingdale families; corporate lawyers such as Louis

Marshall and Edward Lauterbach, and financiers and bankers such as Schiff and

Seligman and Jacob Schiff.394 Adolph Ochs acquired a controlling interest in The New

York Times in 1896. New York came to have its Jewish elite, wealthy and prominent, with access to corridors of power ordinarily explicitly closed to Jews by the stifling prejudices of the period.

The better off and Americanized Jews of New York as a rule hailed from the past generation of German Jewish immigrants and the descendants of the early Sephardic-

Jews from a century or more ago and were now a small but established class of residents.

This group had become acculturated, bourgeoisie in outlook, and mercantile in economic base. They had successfully integrated into the economic life of the city.395

The New York general community however did not differentiate among Jews when it chose to discriminate against them. The arrival of so many immigrants threatened the social and political standing of New York’s established class of Jews and aggravated prejudice and ethnic tensions both towards the Jewish community and within it.396

Additionally, many in New York’s Jewish establishment and among its elites truly concerned themselves with the needs of their Jewish immigrant brothers and sisters.

The Burgeoning of American Jewish Communal Structures

For both selfish and altruistic reasons, establishment New York Jewry tried to respond charitably creating numerous service organizations to help meet immigrant needs in the process of attaining citizenship, education, social welfare, and healthcare. As early as 1843, Henry Jones and eleven other German-Jewish immigrants gathered in a café on

New York’s Lower East Side to found the B’nai Brith to address what Isaac Rosenbourg,

142

one of its founders, called “the deplorable condition of Jews in this, our newly adopted country.” 397 In 1852 Shearith Israel’s lay leadership established Jews Hospital which eventually became New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital.398 In 1884, the Montefiore Home for Chronic Invalids to help those whom other hospitals had turned away was founded by

Shearith Israel philanthropists. A Hebrew free burial society and a society to help Hebrew school students in need of clothing donations and other forms of assistance were also begun by Shearith Israel members. In 1874, the first Y.M.H.A., Young Men’s Hebrew

Association came into existence. The Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society of

America (H.I.A.S.), an immigrant aid society, was founded in 1881 to assist Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe. In 1890, Beth Israel Hospital was founded both to offer services such as kosher food required by Orthodox Jews and to provide places of employment for Jewish physicians of East European origin facing discrimination in hiring at other hospitals. In 1892, The Hebrew Free Loan Society of New York City was founded by leaders of the Jewish immigrant community on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

With initial working capital of $95, the Society started issuing interest-free loans of 50 cents, payable in ten weekly installments of a nickel.399

In 1898 the Shearith Israel rabbi, Rev. Dr. Henry Pereira Mendes, convened a gathering of Rabbis which initiated the Union of Orthodox Congregations (the O.U.).400

This created an opportunity for synagogues around the country to unify the fragmented ranks of traditional Jewry. The Union of Orthodox Congregations worked with the

Jewish Endeavor Society founded in 1899 to provide the young Jews of the Lower East

Side with English language lectures and classes, orderly religious services with an

English sermon, and positive social and recreational activities.401

143

In 1906 the national body of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) was founded to advocate for the needs of the Jewish community. Its founders were among the most successful representatives of the New York German-Jewish elite, including Jacob Schiff,

Oscar Straus and Louis Marshal. In 1907, the Council for Jewish Communal Institutions was established; it brought together eleven philanthropic organizations, ten of whom belonged to the uptown community, and undertook to recommend “ways and means” of dealing with the current challenges in the Jewish community.402 In 1908, the “Kehillah experiment” began in the attempt to organize the community into a cohesive community structure on the historic European-Jewish model. The effort lasted from 1908-1922 but collapsed in dissent and contention.

In 1917 the Federation for the Support of Jewish Philanthropies was established as an umbrella organization for 3,637 separate agencies serving New York’s Jewish population, with Felix Warburg of the uptown community leading a group of community leaders who sought to foster efficiency in Jewish communal service and philanthropic efforts.403 In 1921, several organizations including those of the Y.M.H.A. type, merged with the Jewish Welfare Board to become a national association of ‘Jewish Community

Centers’ in order to integrate social activities, education, and active recreation.

However, even this formidable effort at communal innovation, with even the best of intentions, could not prevent the established Jewish community from becoming peripheral in the immigrant demographic deluge that was redefining the needs and the image of Jews both inside and outside of New York.

Synagogues rapidly came to be found on every block where Jewish immigrants lived. Many of these small shuls and even mutual aid societies sprang up in the

144

neighborhoods, among the tenement buildings, and were started by the first generation immigrants themselves. These organizations, known as landsmanschaft synagogues or mutual aid societies, were created, not by the previous Jewish establishment in New York but by the throngs of newcomer Jews organizing themselves more or less effectively to cooperate in addressing their mutual religious, social, and charitable needs. These organizations were based primarily on ethnic solidarity.

Consider that by 1917, there were 784 permanent synagogues in New York404 with 503 of those synagogues on the Lower East Side (with another 71 “mushroom synagogues” popping up around the High Holidays).405 Landsmanschaft synagogues made up the vast majority of these shuls incorporating former members of particular

Jewish communities in Europe.406 These synagogues had their own burial plots, funds for the needy, sick and death benefits, occasionally a religious school and, if sufficiently affluent, they supported a rabbi.407 This was not only true on the Lower East Side but throughout New York. Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish, and Russian Jews built institutions for themselves, often naming synagogues after hometowns in Europe. In a census of

Jewish organizations conducted in 1917, one thousand out of three thousand and sixty had named themselves after localities in Europe.408 The glut of these small associations and synagogues attested to the continuing ethnic loyalties of the immigrants and helped to fill the needs of the immigrant generation. Simultaneously, this decentralization of

Jewish communal life led to some chaos and had serious shortcomings.409

Few of the landsmanschaft shuls had schools to educate children and youth. The shuls seemed ‘old world,’ lacked decorum, and failed to attract a next generation to their institutions. The immigrant character of these institutions became a source of

145

intergenerational conflict as the children of these synagogues Americanized. No more than 25% of the young men on the Lower East Side attended synagogue, and the number of young women attending was even lower.410

While most of these synagogues were Orthodox, economic reality forced many in the immigrant community to work on Saturdays, the Sabbath. Surveys fielded between

1900 and 1917 found the number of “unsynagogued” Jews to exceed the number of

“synagogued” Jews by a wide margin, with eighty percent of the Jewish population not attending synagogue.411

By 1920, with the building of rapid transportation infrastructure as well as the

Williamsburg and Manhattan bridges, it became possible to work in the city and live in

Harlem, the Bronx, or Brownsville and Williamsburg in Brooklyn. Over 160,000 Jews abandoned their old Lower East Side streets for these new neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, the immigrants again re-created familiar aspects of European Jewish community supporting Yiddish and religious culture.412 Here too, synagogues had a foreign (to Americans) aspect similar to the synagogues built in the Lower East Side. In

1925 and 1926 surveys of the synagogues in Brownsville showed that these institutions were similar to those of the Lower East Side. Few had their own buildings (20 out of 71), most had no activities for Jewish youth, women and children generally did not attend services, and nearly all had sick and death benefits for members.413

American Rabbis Needed

The United States still had few Rabbis of stature to advocate for Judaism, or to teach it, or to represent it. Rabbi Moses Weinberger claimed that in 1887 there were no more than three or four rabbis in all of New York City with the highest level of

146

ordination.414 In 1890, there were fewer than 200 rabbis nationwide, less than one rabbi for every 2000 Jews.415 Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish denominations had yet to be articulated and institutionalized in separate and extensive synagogue-networks.

In 1901, Jacob Schiff and his son in law, Felix M. Warburg, as well as Daniel

Guggenheim and Louis Marshall were involved in the reorganization of the Jewish

Theological Seminary. Their goal was to attract young Russian Jews and prepare them to be rabbis, faithful to the tradition, but at the same time able to assist in the acculturation of Jewish immigrants into American life.416 Yeshiva University and its Rabbinical

Seminary existed but only in proto-institutional forms. English speaking rabbis and the educational infrastructure needed to produce them were a broadly perceived communal need.

Mr. Harry Fischel, himself once a twenty-year old immigrant from Russia who became a successful businessman, philanthropist, and the father-in-law of Rabbi Herbert

Goldstein, in his remarks at the cornerstone dedication in 1915 of the new rabbinical college, the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, stated:

We have assembled this day for the purpose of celebrating the

laying of the cornerstone of a new institution, an institution which

was established to fill a want that has long been felt not only by the

Jewish community of New York City, but by Jews all over the

United States.

The new Rabbinical College, whose birth is now our privilege to

witness, holds forth as its object ‘Orthodox Judaism and

Americanism,’ that is, its aim shall be to educate and produce

147

orthodox rabbis who will be able to deliver sermons in English so

that they can appeal to the hearts of the younger generations and at

the same time, who will be thoroughly qualified to occupy

positions with congregations in conformity with the strict

requirements of orthodox Judaism.”417

Herbert Goldstein wished to be and was a part of that new era of the rabbinate changing the status quo. As one of the first American-born and trained rabbis, he had a natural understanding of the American ethos and culture and could relate effectively to youth. In 1913, his career started at age 23, when he was hired as the young ‘English- speaking Rabbi’ at the Kehillath Jeshurun synagogue with an additional academic/administrative appointment at its ‘Central Jewish Institute’. Under his leadership, it would become an opulent, six-story building (on East 85th Street) dedicated to the study and teaching of Judaism. Goldstein replaced Mordecai Kaplan in these roles at Kehillat Jeshurun and its Central Jewish Institute.

The American Jewish Standard, a periodical of the day, quoted Rabbi Herbert

Goldstein’s remarks at that same 1915 dedication ceremony where his father-in-law had spoken:

[New rabbis] …reared on American soil, who have breathed the

ideals of American democracy, who have been born and bred like

other Americans, who have received a systematic scientific,

secular education, and who are at the same time deeply saturated

with a knowledge and desire of practicing the tenets of our faith.418

148

Only such a rabbinic figure can, Rabbi Goldstein went on to say, “break down ghetto walls” and allow the emerging Jewish youth “to live as their neighbors, their fellow citizens -- the Americans.”419

However, Rabbi Goldstein soon came to see himself as an innovator and institution builder, not on the Upper East Side where he had been employed by Kehilath

Jeshurun; he was determined instead to use strategies developed serving that more established community to begin to meet the challenges of Jews living in Harlem with its large, needy, and young Jewish population. Ultimately, he hoped his ideas and model of a synagogue empowered to meet a wide range of communal needs would be influential in

Jewish communities throughout the United States.

A Successful Career in the New American Rabbinate

By 1910, at least four Harlem synagogues had appointed American-born rabbis as replacements for incumbent immigrant rabbis or as associates to deal with the congregants who wished to engage with a rabbi who understood American culture.420 At the ‘Harlem Institutional Synagogue,’ which Herbert Goldstein opened in October of

1917, he worked to bring the secular/social functions of the ‘Y.M.H.A’, the educational and outreach functions sponsored by the Kehilath Jeshurun and the Central Jewish

Institute, and the regular functions of a shul all under the same roof.421

Rabbi Herbert Goldstein resigned from Kehillath Jeshurun months in advance of starting the ‘Institutional Synagogue.’ Within weeks of announcing his intention to found a new synagogue, real estate for the synagogue (on 112 West 116th Street) in Harlem was donated anonymously by his father-in-law. Goldstein achieved rapid success. The synagogue out grew its first location. In 1919, just two years after the synagogue began, a

149

larger building (on Nos. 37 to 43, West 116th street) was purchased. It required extensive renovation to meet the synagogue’s needs which included the eventual building of a new gymnasium and swimming pool. The new location opened and began to be used in

1921.422 Fundraising to develop that location in keeping with the broadly purposed

‘institutional synagogue’ model continued to occupy Goldstein for almost a decade.

Rabbi Goldstein’s success as an institution builder and community leader vaulted him into fame. He had a media presence in newspapers and on the radio. One periodical gave him the moniker, “The Jewish Billy Sunday” 423 because he held revivalist style gatherings for Jews aimed especially at those working on the Sabbath who could only attend on Sundays. He founded his ‘Institutional Synagogue’ as World War I raged in

Europe. In New York, infamous Jewish mobsters, such as Arnold ‘The Brain’ Rothstein responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series, grabbed headlines.424 Goldstein attained prominence even among rabbinic colleagues as the head of the Union of Orthodox

Rabbis, the Rabbinical Council of America, and in a trans-denominational leadership capacity for the Synagogue Council of America which included leaders from Reform and

Conservative Judaism. His leadership continued throughout the Great Depression, World

War II, and the Holocaust. Twice in his career, international catastrophes for Jews led

Rabbi Goldstein to assume active roles in rescue activity raising and distributing money to help millions of devastated Jewish refugees in Europe and Palestine. In this capacity, he worked with the panoply of Jewish, U.S. government, and international organizations,

UNESCO, for example. He was only fifty-eight years old in 1948 (1890) when the State of Israel was declared and lived to eighty years of age when he passed away in 1970.425

150

Jewish Demographics in Early 20th Century Harlem

On the community potential in Harlem, the Jewish Welfare Board did a preliminarily study426 of the Institutional Synagogue in 1924 five years after its purchase of the new location (on Nos. 37 to 43, West 116th street). That study indicated that the

Jewish population in Harlem was more native born than foreign born making it a proper testing ground for Goldstein’s understanding that Jews who were born in America needed to be approached differently than the immigrant population of the previous generation.

The study also showed that a substantial number of young Jews lived around the

Institutional Synagogue. There were 31,000 Jews between the ages of 5 and 14, and

60,000 Jews between the ages of 10 and 30 in the vicinity.427 It acknowledged that the local area Christian institutions had 2,500 participants who were Jews, with 1,500 of them going regularly to the YWCA.428

The report noted further that only 26% of Jewish children in Harlem received any form of organized religious instruction429 and that 5,000 of the 27,000 foreign born Jews were working on becoming naturalized as Americans.430

These numbers played well to Goldstein’s goals for the Institutional Synagogue: a place to educate Jewish youth, to offer recreational activities, and to provide academic classes to help Jewish immigrants succeed in America in an environment affirming of

Judaism. The report indicated that juvenile delinquency in the Harlem Jewish population was on significant decrease in comparison to delinquency in the rest of the New York area which was a major focus of Rabbi Goldstein and the leadership of the Institutional

431 Synagogue.

151

As an advocate for the creation of the Harlem Institutional Synagogue, even before it opened its doors in October of 1917, Rabbi Goldstein had often made the case for a new, broader purposed synagogue because the ‘old model’ was not succeeding. At the Jewish Theological Seminary Alumni Convention, on July 2, 1917432 he argued as follows:

Immigrant Congregations.

When the Jewish immigrants from Russia, Poland, Austria and

Hungary first began to come to this country, they were interested

in erecting houses of worship, not only wherein they might pray,

but wherein they might also meet their countrymen, their

“Landsleute”. Thus congregations sprang up styling themselves

after the name of the province or of the town from which the

members of the congregation came, as for instance: the

Chechanova, the Suvalker and the Byalostocker Chevras.

The members of these congregations would come together,

not merely for Sabbath prayers, but would attend the three daily

services during the week as well. After “Schacharies” (morning

prayers), they would listen to the exposition of a chapter of the

Mishna (a Parek Mishnayis). They would spend the interval

between Mincha (afternoon prayers) and Ma-ariv (evening

prayers) hearing someone give a course in the Schulchan Aruch.

After Ma-ariv they would stay an hour longer poring over the

Talmud, until it was time for them to return to their respective

152

homes. The religious services on all occasions represented the chaos, the lack of decorum, and the peculiarities of the European communities from which these people came. These provincial synagogues, as a rule, merely represented the transplanting of the

Russian, Polish or Galician synagogues to American soil.

Decline of the Immigrant Synagogue and Lack of a Substitute.

As soon as these men were able to save money and open businesses for themselves they became so absorbed in their enterprises that they went beyond the pale of the ghetto, took up their habitations among non-Jews, adopted customs of their neighbors, and ceased to attend the synagogue three times a day; nay, many of them came not more than once a week, namely, on the Sabbath. Moreover, as these men began to have families of their own, their interest in their country people (Landsleute) waned, and the social and friendly spirit which had been a direct product of these provincial synagogues were proper only so long as these men lived the Russian, Polish or Galician ghetto life in

America.

Yet this is the type of religious gathering which has been handed down for the American orthodox Jew to emulate. Is it not apparent that these provincial synagogues, which express local

European mannerisms and represent a meeting place for

Landsleute are un-American, antiquated and largely responsible for

153

the great chasm which now exists between the sons of the founders

of the synagogues and the founders? The best proof of this is that

during the week days we hardly see any young men in these

synagogues, except those who come to say Kaddish for their

departed dear ones, and on the Sabbaths a few who come not from

conviction, but out of respect for their parents’ wishes.433

Rabbi Goldstein’s 1917 rhetoric describing the shuls built by immigrant communities with terms such as “un-American,” “peculiar,” “provincial,” “ghetto” and

“antiquated” deliberately aligned him as a partisan for a Jewish life that could walk hand- in-hand with being an acculturated American. This stance sided with American Jewish youth in their intergenerational conflict with their immigrant parents. Of course, in practice, Rabbi Goldstein hoped to win this generation back for the synagogue, for their parents, and for the Jewish people. At a minimum, Rabbi Goldstein hoped to prevent them from getting lost at the margins of society or involving themselves in criminality.

The dissatisfaction, the condemnatory view of the landsmanschaft shuls, is echoed also by Shulamith Berger, Curator of Special Collections and Hebraica-Judaica at the Yeshiva University Library, who has written as follows:

European immigrants had tried to transplant their old world

traditions to American soil, in the form of the Landsmanschaft

synagogue. These synagogues helped ease the immigrants

adjustment to America by creating a setting where the prayer ritual

and Yiddish accent native to the old home town in Europe could be

heard, and immigrants could share their problems and realize that

154

they were not alone in having trouble finding [work] or whose

children were Americanizing rapidly. This type of institution,

however, had nothing to offer those Amerizanizing children who

could not share in their parents nostalgia for the old country. Even

if the American youngster was interested in Judaism, the

Landsmanschaft synagogue had little to offer. Young people were

not given the opportunity to participate actively in the services,

which were lengthy, held in unattractive rooms, and characterized

by disorder, schnoddering [i.e. the public sale of synagogue honors

during services], and Yiddish sermons on obscure topics in

Gemara and Midrash. And on Friday nights, the dance halls, the

theater, or a Socialist speaker were certainly more attractive than

the prayer house.434

Landsmanshaft shuls, as mentioned, did not have schools connected to them.

Children of immigrant Jews were taught Judaism by other immigrants hired as private tutors or teachers of several students by parents who had limited means. Often an exclusively Yiddish speaking melamed (teacher) was hired because newly arriving

Talmudists and ‘scholars’ from the old country had no other skills or means of earning a living and desperately needed the charity. A melamed might teach in a rented or donated, poorly lit, sometimes dilapidated room or building. In some places, a melamed would go from tenement apartment to tenement apartment teaching his American students in

Yiddish, without the benefits of a curriculum or modern pedagogical training, and provided pupils with only a smattering of Hebrew and elementary knowledge of Judaism.

155

These types of educational choices failed to attract families who could afford to pay tuition, and such schooling was tainted by the stigma of poverty. This mode of education actually created barriers to Jewish identification and commitment. Rabbi Goldstein believed that these communal deficiencies explained the increasing rates of defection from Judaism or, at least, from Jewish religious practice among the second-generation of

Jewish immigrants’ children born or raised primarily in the United States.435

Goldstein desired to find a way to blend American and Jewish cultures such that they could reinforce each other positively.436 In addition to worship, social, educational, and athletic activities could all take place at the synagogue. Goldstein felt that there was no need for the institutional bifurcation of religious and secular-social behaviors. This idea of a more expansive synagogue structure, as exemplified by his ‘Institutional

Synagogue’ in Harlem, would to a greater or lesser extent be attempted by synagogues of all denominations and even by synagogues outside of New York.437 In the early-to-mid

1900’s, synagogues with gymnasiums or swimming pools would rise in Jewish communities across the country. Prominent synagogue centers or complexes could be found in New York, Brooklyn, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Baltimore,

Newark, Detroit, Cincinnati, Seattle, and Providence.438

Goldstein held that the ‘Institutional Synagogue’ revived the true and broader purposed functions of the historic synagogue:

This institution will be a revival of the historic synagogue. The

synagogue of old was a center for prayer, study and the social

life of the community, all in one. The restoration of this type of

synagogue must spell the salvation of Judaism [emphasis

156

added]. Aside from all this, it will serve the practical purpose of

helping to solve the problem of support of religious institutions.439

Goldstein did not hesitate to promote the democracy that one multi-purposed institution offers as opposed to a welter of specialized smaller institutions each serving its own stratified socio-economic constituency. At the first meeting establishing the Institutional

Synagogue, Goldstein stated the following:

My dear friends, I suggest that we organize not merely a

synagogue, but that it be an Institutional Synagogue. I want the

synagogue organized to attract not only men of wealth, who

generally are the ones using their funds to build synagogues, to

attract not merely the older men who generally manage and

supervise the details in conducting the synagogue, but my ambition

is to gather around me a large mass of American Jewish young

men and young women. I want to revive and intensify Judaism

among the young people living in Harlem…

An Institutional Synagogue is the means by which we shall Judaize

our outside environment… the emphasis that must be put upon the

[Hebrew school] is not so much education, but ‘chinuch,’ … which

also means … dedication or consecration as, for instance, in Psalm

30, which we read and recite in our morning prayers, ‘mizmor

sheer chanukat habayit’ - which translated means ‘a psalm for the

dedication of the House of God.’ To teach a language in the

157

[Hebrew school] is insufficient. [The school’s] atmosphere must at

all times come from the synagogue, the root of Jewish religion.

I say the same about the Y.M.H.A. or the Y.W.H.A. These

associations are partial and negative. It is partial in so far as it

makes an effort to take the youngster off the street. It is negative --

I could really say ‘colorless’-- because it does not stand for

religious Judaism.

My thought is that where young men and women gather, for

whatever purpose they see fit, for social, literary, or athletic

purposes; there must be the atmosphere that springs from the

synagogues, that lends a note of dedication even in their literary or

athletic activities.440

For Goldstein, the secular Y.W.H.A and Y.M.H.A. had mistakenly set up competition between the synagogue and secular-social activities. After a fifty-year institutional head start, that social, recreational model had failed to inculcate positive

Jewish religious ideals in the hearts and minds of the youth.441 This skepticism about the utility of purely recreational facilities was shared by Mordecai Kaplan, the leader of the parallel ‘Jewish Center’ institutional concept. Although Kaplan and Goldstein came to differ significantly on their understanding of the role of orthodoxy in the future of

Judaism, with Kaplan moving to head the Reconstructionist movement and Goldstein remaining firmly orthodox,442 they shared similar concerns regarding the Y.W.H.A and

Y.M.H.A.443

158

Regarding the Y.M.H.A. movement, Goldstein reflected:

We began imitating the Y.M.C.A., the Young Mens’ Christian

Association of our neighbors substituting an ‘H’ for Hebrew in

place of the ‘C.’ We felt that if the Synagogue was derelict or

unable to grapple with the problem, we would create an institution

that could, and perhaps would, tackle the problem successfully.

Recently, we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of this movement,

which has accomplished a great amount of good. It has given our

young men a social and recreational atmosphere. No institution in

this country has done better. As far as giving our young men a

religious message, however, I believe that we will agree that this

phase of its work has been only an appendix. Furthermore, it caters

largely to young men and does little for the other growing

members of the family. As a result, we find ourselves almost in the

same, or perhaps worse, condition from the point of view of

Judaism than we were when the Y.M.H.A. movement was first

started.444

As Mordecai Kaplan is more famous than Herbert Goldstein, there are those who suggest that the ‘Institutional Synagogue’ was merely a variation on the program envisioned originally by Kaplan. However, the first ‘Jewish Center’ was started in 1918 after Goldstein’s Institutional Synagogue.445

159

Kaplan himself spoke about the Harlem Institutional Synagogue and acknowledged its recent founding as being consistent with the kind of ‘center’ he hoped to establish:

‘The Institutional Synagogue which [Goldstein] founded some four

months ago, in the heart of Harlem, represents the co-ordination of

all communal activity – social, athletic and educational – under

one roof with the synagogue as the permeating influence. No boy

or girl, man or woman, may become a member of the institution

unless he or she becomes a member of the Synagogue. Thus the

Synagogue becomes the root of all Jewish life of the community,

sympathetic to the needs of American youth, the guard of his

Jewishness.’446

Years later, as president (1944-1946447) of the Synagogue Council of America,

Goldstein made the following critical comments regarding Kaplan’s ‘ Center movement’:

On the home front our task is to restore the primacy of religion, in

our institutional life in America. The ‘Center’ movement is highly

secularized, with religion as a tail trailing behind it. Its workers in

many instances are unsympathetic to a religious program. There is

no need for additional YMHA’s or YWHA’s or so-called Jewish

‘Centers.’

These institutions well financed usually through our influence,

have unconsciously diverted our youth away from the Synagogue.

They are, in many instances, competing institutions. There must be

160

a complete and satisfactory understanding with the Jewish Welfare

Board so that the Synagogue shall not be encroached upon in any

way. Towards this end, I am arranging a conference with the

Jewish Welfare Board to be held soon in regard to this matter.448

Mrs. Goldstein, in her diary, contrasted ‘the Center’ concept with that of ‘the

Institutional Synagogue’ recognizing that they had major similarities: “…except the former caters to the classes and the latter to the masses.”449 The ‘Center’ was to be enjoyed and utilized by members only; the ‘Institutional Synagogue’ was to be built for the community with anyone who wished able to take advantage of it.450 The Institutional

Synagogue included in its mission outreach to the Jewish masses both to encourage

Jewish religious practice and further a social-welfare agenda. By contrast, the Jewish

Center would target an upper class of Jews who could choose and afford to join a Jewish center. Its community of participants would formulate their own recreational, social, and religious agenda. The validity of Mrs. Goldstein’s pithy contrast is apparent in these words by Mordecai Kaplan:

We state frankly that we are establishing the Jewish Center for the

purpose of deriving from it for ourselves pleasures of a social,

intellectual, and spiritual character. We are not building a

settlement, nor a communal center, nor a Young Men’s or Young

Women’s Hebrew Association; nor do we expect the Jewish

Center to be an institution for the doing of so-called uplift work.

This time we feel that we are as much in the need of being as they

161

for the benefit of whom the city is dotted with communal

institutions…

The Jewish Center will be dominated by a purpose of far-reaching

significance, if we, who are about to establish it, will do so with

the deliberate and conscious aim of conducting it as an experiment

to help us solve the problem of Jewish life and religion …451

In Kaplan’s key words: “deriving from it for ourselves pleasures of a social, intellectual, and spiritual character.” This concept of the ‘Jewish Center’ was neither an institution founded by a superior socio-economic class to teach correct social behavior and hygiene, nor a vehicle through which a religious elite would aim at increasing fealty to the Jewish religious tradition. It was to be a means, an experimental one at that, through which Jews, primarily lay Jews already established as Americans, would themselves seek to solve “the problem of Jewish life and religion.” Kaplan, much more so than Goldstein, resisted the missionary or social welfare zeal towards the benighted masses of Jews often implicit in “religious education” and “uplift work” and sought to distance his vision of the ‘Jewish Center’ from that potential stigma by encouraging the community to claim the Jewish Centers as an expression of its own organic religious and secular aspirations. The problem of “Jewish life and religion” was broader, nobler, and on

Kaplan’s view, therefore a more sustaining basis for institutional life than the limited social-recreational agendas which the ‘Y’ institutions embraced.

Sarna, the historian, summarizes issues around ‘the center movement’:

The Jewish Center, unlike its predecessors was not aimed at

philanthropic, or missionary, or uplift work: for the first time, a

162

Jewish recreational and educational center would serve the

sponsors themselves, for they were in need of uplift themselves.452

In a 1945 report, commissioned by the Jewish Welfare Board together with the

Synagogue Council of America, the terminology and functions of ‘the Jewish Center’ and

‘the Institutional Synagogue’ were defined. The report acknowledged many of the similarities between the two models. Yet, it recognized that ‘the Center’ did not give primary importance to the synagogue as did Goldstein’s ‘institutional synagogue’ model.453

Kaplan and Goldstein had similar backgrounds, studied at the same Rabbinical

Seminary, and worked at first in the same kinds of positions. These experiences no doubt shaped and explain the shared substance in their concepts of how an American synagogue should be built and how it should function. Yet as Sarna and Kaufman point out, this ideal of a multi-faceted synagogue was not a new concept developed by Goldstein or

Kaplan but was a model that drew upon earlier attempts like the model synagogue on

Manhattan’s East Side454 and the institutional church movement of the late 19th century that wished to bring both Protestantism and social services to the urban masses.455

Throughout Goldstein’s development of his vision, he placed an emphasis on the difference between the Institutional Synagogue movement and the Center movement.

Goldstein felt that the Center movement invited secularization. The different names

‘Institutional Synagogue’ in which synagogue was only modified by the adjective institutional, and the Jewish Center where the word “synagogue” was removed betrayed,

Goldstein believed, a critical difference between otherwise similar visions for a main institutional address for the Jewish people in a particular urban location.

163

Ultimately, neither the visions of Kaplan nor Goldstein would fully prevail in the

American Jewish community. That 1945 report commissioned jointly by the Jewish

Welfare Board and the Synagogue Council of America included, significantly, a memorandum written in 1933 regarding the experiences of ‘The Temple’ in Cleveland under the leadership of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver:

Abba Hillel Silver of The Temple, in Cleveland, Ohio abolished

the extra pulpit activities that have no direct relationship to the

Synagogue and their religious services. The temple had been

conducting a Center of activities for many years. A special

committee of the congregation made a study of Temple Centers in

the United States which resulted in the abandonment of the Center

activities.456

Rabbi Silver listed seven flaws in attempts to broaden the synagogue to embrace the kinds of recreational, social functions that the center/institutional models called on them to include:

1) In the larger congregations, the Center does not seem to attract

the members of the Temple families. It appeals largely to the

unaffiliated Jews of the community-- principally those within the

immediate vicinity of the Temple. While this in itself is not

undesirable, the fact remains that the Temple Center is not a

temple center, but a neighborhood settlement.

164

2) Many members of the liberal congregations belong to social clubs of their own and the Temple cannot compete with these clubs in the realm of entertainment and recreation.

3) The crowding of many secular activities into the life of a congregation frequently causes men to lose sight of the real purposes of a religious institution.

4) The hope that young people would be attracted to worship and religious study through the magnetism of dances, plays, athletics and parties, has not been realized.

5) It has not been found possible successfully to transform the large congregation into a congregational clubhouse wherein all ages and groups will meet for their social intercourse. Our large metropolitan Temples no longer represent homogeneous social groups. Rather, they reflect all the social strata in the community.

6) The time, money and energy expanded in carrying on an extensive Center program are inordinately great and are a heavy tax upon the Rabbis of a congregation. Many temples have sought to solve their problem by engaging the services of a director of

Temple activities. Such an office, however, does not absolve the

Rabbi of all responsibilities for the activities which go on in the congregation, and he is constrained to devote much time and thought to them -- thought and time which should be devoted to his specific religious functions and to his studies.

165

7) Jewish community life has reached a point where it should be

departmentalized. Not every worthy Jewish activity needs to be

carried on under the roof of the Synagogue. There is room in a

well-organized Jewish community for Community Centers, Young

Men’s Hebrew Associations, Young Women’s Hebrew

Associations, Jewish Theatre Guilds, Jewish Art Leagues, Jewish

Social Clubs, etc. The synagogue ought to concentrate upon those

basic community needs which have from its inception been its

particular province -- religious inspiration and religious education.

(Excerpted from a feature article in the Jewish Daily Bulletin, May

31, 1929).457

The seven points were strong arguments and based on the experience of a synagogue that had transitioned already in 1933 Cleveland from a ‘center’ model to a synagogue of more limited and specialized purpose. The rhetoric and tone of the memorandum suggested further that certain kinds of communal tensions were at issue between those advocating different synagogue models. It referenced by implication deep divisions: between affiliated and unaffiliated Jews; between service of broad geographic areas and service of a neighborhood; between liberal Jews and other Jews; between socially stratified groups, which did not prevent joint worship, but inhibited ‘social intercourse’ in the same ‘clubhouse’; between the roles of a rabbi, as member of a scholarly-religious elite, and the functions of a director of recreation; between a modern community diversified and specialized into various institutions and a primitive regression to one institution called upon to do everything.

166

Rabbi Goldstein, in his capacity as the leader of the Synagogue Council of

America, responded to the 1945 report:458

We should not leave spiritually untouched the vast masses of our

people who do not or cannot come into the Synagogue but a few

times a year. The masses rarely have the privilege when they do go

to Synagogue to be under the influence of a well-organized

institution, a decorous service, and an inspiring sermon. While our

gains from social work may not be, I confess, as large as we would

like them to be, yet there is, I am certain, an influence which an

institutional synagogue has, through its building, its religious

worker, its literature, its environment, which no other institution

today can supplant.

There is no room in these times for the Synagogue alone, or the

Y.M. and the Y.W.H.A. alone. As a matter of fact, both of these

institutions of fifteen years ago have changed. The Synagogue has

become more socialized and the ‘Y’ has become more Judaized.

These institutions must merge together for financial and spiritual

benefits. We are spending too much money on brick, and too little

on soul saving. The essential task of the Jew is to bring back both,

and to intensify the faith of our people in Judaism. This can only

be done by the synagogue because loyalty of Judaism is its main

task. In order to be able to have the opportunity to spread its

influence over all, not over a part of our people, the Synagogue

167

must open its doors and plan its activity so as to reach the largest

number for the greatest good.459

In summary, Goldstein stated first that ‘unaffiliated’ Jews and Jews who were affiliated but attended synagogue only infrequently were precisely the concern. He argued that realistically most Jewish communities could not invest in so many separate buildings and organizations. There were plenty of places in the United States where the

Jewish community was not large or particularly wealthy, such that building a single communal institution which offered a wide range of services might be justly be called progress. The tone of Rabbi Goldstein’s response included none of the sarcasm of the memorandum. His response ignored completely references to ‘clubhouses,’ ‘the magnetism of dances, plays, athletics and parties,’ the fear that bringing ‘secular activities into the life of a congregation frequently causes men to lose sight of the real purposes of a religious institution’ or the implied impossibility or undesirability of wealthier Jews socializing in recreational contexts with poorer Jews.

Kehilath Jeshurun

Prior to receiving formal ordination, in his final year at the Jewish Theological

Seminary rabbinical school, Rabbi Goldstein was hired by Kehilath Jeshurun as “the

English speaking minister” and as “superintendent” of their Talmud Torah and the

Central Jewish Institute.460 Following his ordination, his contract was immediately extended; he was formally re-hired to work alongside Rabbi Moshe Zevulun Margolies

(RAMAZ) who then continued as the synagogue’s senior Rabbi. Goldstein’s inaugural speech in Kehilath Jeshurun was given on Saturday, November 29, 1913 (Fig. 1). 461

168

Fig. 1. Formal announcement found in Goldstein’s personal papers.

Rabbi Goldstein spent four years with Kehilath Jeshurun during which his

‘broad functioning’ concept of the synagogue would inform his work.

The appointment of a new Rabbi to Kehilath Jeshurun in 1913 was covered in

New York’s newspaper press. A headline in the New York Herald stated:

“SYNAGOGUE CALLS DR. H.S. GOLDSTEIN New Rabbi, Valedictorian of Seminary

Class, to Become Pastor of Kehilath Jeshurun.”462

Youth, the children of the immigrant Jews and how to reach across the generational divide to instruct and inspire them, concerned Rabbi Goldstein already during his tenure at Kehilath Jeshurun. From the first, Goldstein created a number of progressive initiatives such as special Shabbat programs including a regular youth mincha prayer service every Shabbat afternoon. Goldstein tried many tactics to stir the interest of the Central Jewish Institute’s youth holding various contests including a best essay contest.

Rabbi Goldstein also brought young adults at Kehilath Jeshurun together on

Friday nights to discuss the observance of Shabbat. Further, Goldstein made time to

169

speak to Jewish young adults throughout New York City,463 and understood as his responsibility to include working with non-Kehilath-Jeshurun-synagogue-members, unaffiliated Jews unlikely to ever join the congregation. As is seen in his various activities, Goldstein felt a responsibility to the Jewish people and believed that reaching beyond the framework of the Kehilath Jeshurun membership was an important part of his synagogue position. Even on Friday nights Rabbi Goldstein would spend time with other communities of Jews in New York.

In an article focused on the activities of the Harlem Hebrew League, an institution founded to introduce young adults to the ideals of Judaism,464 Goldstein’s Friday night activities were discussed:

Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of Kehilath Jeshurun was the speaker

last week at the services conducted by the Harlem Hebrew League

in its headquarters, 26 West 115th street. He spoke on “The

Sabbath Question.”465

A Jewish periodical of the time, The Hebrew Standard noted:

Harlem Hebrew League

The various phases of the Sabbath question present subjects for

deep reflection by thoughtful people, was again demonstrated last

Friday evening, when a large audience packed the rooms of the

Harlem Hebrew League, Inc., at 26 West 115th street, to hear a

lecture delivered by Rev. Herbert S. Goldstein on some of its

aspects. A very spirited discussion of the lecture was participated

466 in by … of the audience.

170

The “Sabbath question” mentioned here was not focused on studying the complex definition of work that Jews have accepted in objectifying their rest on that day. The

“Sabbath question” was a timely public issue, the force of which both Jews and gentiles could not help but notice. Jewish businessmen such as Max Blanck and Isaac Harris held that in America everyone conducted normal business on Saturdays; if a young Jewish immigrant woman from an Orthodox Jewish family arrived from Poland or Lithuania to their Triangle Shirtwaist Factory and sincerely wanted to work, she too would need to work on Saturdays. The earliest generation of American Orthodox Jews disagreed. That timely pubic “Sabbath question,” Rabbi Goldstein believed, needed to be discussed and argued with Jews at Kehilath Jeshurun, in Harlem, and wherever there was a population of Jews in America.

Formal and informal educational techniques were used by Rabbi Goldstein. As part of an adult education program, Goldstein organized study circles which met at 4 pm, every first and third Sabbath afternoon of the month, on Bible and on Jewish history.467

Lectures were delivered by distinguished leaders including: Professor Israel Friedlander, the Sabato Morais Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis at the Jewish Theological

Seminary, who also worked tirelessly to find avenues through which young Jewish adults could find pride in their Jewish heritage and assimilate into the general society. Professor

Mordecai M. Kaplan, who at this time in his life was working with Friedlander as an advisor to the creators of the Young Israel movement, was on the Board of Directors of the Central Jewish Institute and would lecture from time to time. The Rabbi of

Congregation Shearith Israel, Reverend Dr. H. Pereira Mendes, who worked to create the

Union of Orthodox Congregations of America would instruct the study circle. The

171

Minister of Congregation Shearith Israel Rev. Dr. David de Solo Pool would teach, and the president of the Kehillah of New York City, Dr. Judah Leon Magnes also came to speak.468

Kehilath Jeshurun’s ‘Central Jewish Institute’

The Hebrew School program and adult education initiatives of Kehilath Jeshurun were consolidated and integrated by Rabbi Goldstein into the work of the Central Jewish

Institute (CJI).469 The Central Jewish Institute functioned as a separate yet sister institution to Kehilath Jeshurun. The mission of that institution was, grandly, “the harmonization of Jewish purpose with American life.” 470 The CJI building was dedicated on May 21, 1916 (Fig. 2), three years into Rabbi Goldstein’s time at Kehilath Jeshurun:

Fig. 2. The dedication program is found on page 33 of Herbert Goldstein’s scrapbook.471

172

A six story structure on East 85th street including an auditorium, 12 classrooms, open air kindergartens, a playground, a large gymnasium, meat and dairy kosher kitchens, and complete with ‘a roof garden,’472 the Central Jewish Institute, served as one of the first institutionalized attempts to provide quality Jewish education not for rabbis or religious professionals but for the masses of regular Jews, youth and adults, under the auspices of an Orthodox synagogue in the United States.473 It had a functional Talmud

Torah with a formal curriculum, proper classrooms, and teachers who spoke English; it marked a major advancement in professionalism. In addition to the formal classroom instruction, informal programming took place around the holidays.474

The Central Jewish Institute served also as a location for adult education and a place for social and recreational activity. In this sense, it responded directly to the communal deficiencies perceived by Rabbi Goldstein in the New York Jewish community.

Rabbi Goldstein’s personal efforts at youth work and with the Harlem Hebrew

League in addition to the institutionalization of similar goals in the development of the

‘Central Jewish Institute’ were entirely consistent with classic models of synagogue functioning. It is still worth noting the robust and varied ways in which Goldstein engaged the population of Jews in his day, and the care he took in addressing the community such that those for who conflicts between their identity as Americans and

Judaism were personal and painful would still be able to respond positively.

That metaphor of ‘five gates of entry into the ancient Temple in Jerusalem’ mentioned previously might help us here to perceive in Rabbi Goldstein’s work at

Kehilath Jeshurun and the Central Jewish Institute, the kind of gateway building for

173

‘intellection’ which when supporting intellectual and emotional approaches to God and the learning of Judaism has always served as a classic function of synagogues.475

Social Welfare Work at Kehilath Jeshurun

A shelter for homeless and needy Jews was established by June of 1915 just two years into Goldstein’s time at Kehilath Jeshurun. Rabbi Goldstein and other community leaders worked together to guarantee that even the most indigent Jewish families would have a safe place to live.476

A ‘Big Brother, Big Sister’ program, as part of an initiative conducted through and in cooperation with the B’nai B’rith (Fig. 3), was established at Kehilath Jeshurun to help vulnerable New York Jews whose home lives had been marred somehow, perhaps by loss or perhaps by abuse, such that adult friends or mentors might help Jewish youths at risk.

477 Fig. 3. B’nai B’rith Bulletin, March 1917 Vol. 4 No. 3.

174

Goldstein established a Social Welfare Circle478 at Kehilath Jeshurun, expanding the role of the synagogue to include ongoing ‘Big Brother and Big Sister’ work; he helped form a society for visiting the sick in hospitals; and introduced a sewing circle that donated its work to soldiers or to the needy.

Under the auspices of the Social Welfare Circle, additional educational lectures and discussions also took place allowing for current events to be considered and prominent individuals in the Orthodox community were invited to speak on topics of their expertise.

A Growing Reputation

While working at Kehilath Jeshurun, the success of Goldstein’s work attracted notice, and received unsolicited job offers from other congregations including

Congregation Bnai Israel Brooklyn whose letter of inquiry stated:

My dear Rabbi, this congregation, established about 6 years ago,

located in Bedford Avenue, which as you know is one of the most

thickly populated Jewish districts of Brooklyn; number amongst its

member several prominent Baale Batim (congregants), who have

located themselves in this neighborhood, and who desire to raise

their families as observant Jews.

Last Sunday we dedicated our magnificent building and we are in

the position to engage [word unreadable] an English speaking

rabbi. Many of us know you, and others have heard you speak, and

all of us know of your very valuable work in your present

position.479

175

‘The Institutional Synagogue’

Harlem in the early 20th century might not seem at first the best location to experiment with a new model of synagogue design and purpose. Goldstein founded his new institution there and succeeded there in the middle of one of the most troubled communities in New York.

Congressman Isaac Siegel, a Republican who served in Congress from 1915 to

1923, served also as the president of the Harlem Y.M.H.A. and played other important roles defending the patriotism of naturalized citizens and championing the needs of

Jewish youth.480 On March 6, 1917, Rabbi Goldstein joined a meeting at which the

Harlem Y.M.H.A. (a recreational institution) and the Young Men’s Hebrew Orthodox

League (dedicated to fostering Orthodox Jewish religious commitment) came together to discuss their amalgamation into one Institutional Synagogue under Goldstein’s leadership.

Goldstein was no stranger to these organizations since, as previously indicated, he was well known for his work with Jewish young adults. Later that month, a resolution was passed to amalgamate in support of creating an Institutional Synagogue. In a letter written by Congressman Siegel, Goldstein was invited to start a new type of congregation focused on the needs of youth and families distant from Judaism.

In a turn of phrase used here, three months prior to Rabbi Goldstein’s J.T.S. presentation, Congressman Siegel, called for a “revival movement” in Harlem: “We have

… on Sunday, March 25, 1917, amalgamated both organizations into the Institutional

Synagogue … We hereby highly resolve to invite Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein … to lead this revival movement.”481

176

Two months later, on May 2, 1917, Herbert Goldstein sent a letter to the Board of

Directors of Kehilath Jeshurun’s Central Jewish Institute tendering his resignation. He indicated his wish to dedicate his life to leading a “Jewish revival movement” in the city through establishing a new synagogue model in Harlem, the ‘Institutional Synagogue’:

I am going to Harlem, please God, to make it the basis of this

Revival Movement, and I intend to locate the center of my

activities in the heart of the most distressing Jewish conditions in

the United States, namely, Lennox Avenue and 116th Street. I

know that the task shall not be an easy one, but I am prepared to

strain every nerve and employ every power with which G-d may

have endowed me to carry it through.

I have, thanks to you, received a good training for this work in The

Central Jewish Institute, and I mean to make the best possible use

of this training in my future work. I have received your

cooperation during the past year in my work at The Central Jewish

Institute, and I want at this moment to impress upon you a great

necessity of the representative orthodox Jewish communities

cooperating with me in my attempt to bring the message of Jewish

revival to the Youth of our City.

I will need your financial and moral support. I hope that you will

all unhesitatingly come forward and do your share in this vastly

important Jewish work. In order to make this a success, I must

177

devote all my time and all my energies to it, and consequently it

will be necessary for me to sever my connections with The Central

Jewish Institute.482

The actual meeting at which the Institutional Synagogue completed the legal formalities of becoming a corporation was on Tuesday morning of October 30, 1917.

Present at that meeting were Rabbi Goldstein the presiding officer, Congressman Siegel, and several others who executed the necessary documents before the New York City

Commissioner of Deeds.483

A farewell dinner for Rabbi Goldstein was held on May 23, 1917, to honor him for all of his accomplishments at Kehilath Jeshurun.484 Tributes to Goldstein came from

Emanuel Kaplan, the President of the Social Welfare Circle; Rabbi H.S. Margolies, the

Rabbi of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun; Samuel Hyman, the President of The Central

Jewish Institute; Reverend Professor Moshe Hyamson, the Rabbi of Congregation Orach

Chaim; and Congressmen Isaac Siegel, President of the newly formed Institutional

Synagogue. Songs were composed by members of the Social Welfare Circle and performed in his honor.485

As Herbert Goldstein began his new initiative, he reminded the community that the Institutional Synagogue was not a new idea but a revival of the historic synagogue:

“The synagogue of old was the center of prayer study and social life of the community, all in one, and that the restoration of this type of synagogue spells the salvation of

Judaism,” commented Goldstein in one of his public presentations about the Institutional

Synagogue.486 Goldstein continued to promote the idea that the modern synagogue should be a complex incorporating the Y.M.H.A. (cultural-recreational center), the Talmud

178

Torah (a school), and the Synagogue (worship). It was to be the most important institution for a successful Jewish future. Not only would an institutional synagogue provide a holistic spiritual and social platform for the Jewish community, but it would decrease financial burdens of the community. Instead of supporting multiple institutions and their operating and capital expenses, a blended structure would be more efficient requiring less communal funds to achieve a greater good.

In July of 1917, at the J.T.S. Alumni Association Convention, Herbert Goldstein presented his plan, referenced previously in discussing the problems with landsmanschaft synagogues, for the creation of an “Institutional Synagogue” and for a “Jewish Revival

Movement.” Jewish newspapers and synagogue bulletins across the country covered

Goldstein’s presentation extensively; excerpts and articles could be found in the English section of the Tageblatt,487 The Baltimore Jewish Comment,488 and The Jewish Tribune of

Portland, Oregon.489 At the J.T.S. Alumni Convention Goldstein stated:

My plea for the future is The Institutional Synagogue, which will

embrace the synagogue with Talmud Torah and the Y.M.H.A.

movements…

Aside from all this, it will serve the practical purpose of helping to

solve the problem of support of religious institutions. Let me show

you concretely how this can be accomplished. Suppose the

synagogue has a mortgage of $100,000. 490 A Y.M.H.A., a

mortgage of $100,000 and a Talmud Torah, a mortgage of

$100,000, together making a total mortgage of $300,000, and

perhaps an equity in each institution of $100,000, making a total

179

cost of three such institutions, $600,000 and a total cost for maintenance about $150,000. A building similar in structure to that of The Institutional Synagogue (twice the size of the average institution) of New York City,… which has all the facilities for a high-class synagogue, a well-equipped Talmud Torah, and a model

Y.M.H.A, could be built for $400,000 and maintained for $75,000 per annum.

Instead of a man belonging to three separate institutions, he could pay a little higher membership fee in The Institutional Synagogue, which would include all the activities and advantages of the three separate institutions. This organization would, by reason of the greater income, be able to do superior work to any of the three institutions, individually; and an added advantage to Judaism will be that the father, and the mother, the son and the daughter, the young boy and the young girl, will all come to the same institution for Jewish pursuits. The father and mother will go to the synagogue with their children; the young man and woman will go to the building for social work; the children will go to the Talmud

Torah, and thus there will be brought back to the family life that religious unity and enthusiasm which is so sorely lacking today. It is my firm belief that The Institutional Synagogue will mean a rejuvenation of the American Jewish life.

180

It will mean the preservation of traditional orthodox Judaism;

because as has been my experience already, when you give the

young man or young woman opportunity to express their social

instincts in good American style, under the auspices of a

synagogue, their respect for the synagogue stands up as a barrier

between the young folks and social life, they rebel and lose interest

in the synagogue all together.491

Rabbi Goldstein continued to argue that bringing the activities of secular Jewish organizations into the orbit of the synagogue would allow young people to socialize and find purpose within a religious context among other committed Jews. Rabbi Abraham A

Kellner, who served as the spiritual leader of Bais Abraham Congregation, in St. Louis,

Missouri492 wrote in “Thirty Years After” an essay:

The purpose of the Institutional Synagogue did not limit itself,

however, to an inspiring synagogue service. By the very

implication of its name its aim was to bring into the orbit of the

synagogue the activities and programs which were hereto for of the

sole province of secular Jewish organizations.493

A well-equipped gym, auditorium, classrooms, clubrooms, social and game rooms, weekly dances,494 an ‘employment bureau’ to help find jobs that accepted

Saturday Sabbath observance, all within a grand synagogue complex would Goldstein believed lead to a renaissance of Jewish life. However, Rabbi Goldstein always insisted that the Institutional Synagogue had to remain, to be true to itself and effective, an orthodox place of worship as prescribed by Jewish law.495

181

Marketing the Institutional Synagogue

Rabbi Goldstein sent out surveys to inquire about which activities the Harlem

Jewish community wanted to see happen at the Institutional Synagogue. He elicited the views of his ‘stakeholders’ but in the language of his day:

The Institutional Synagogue is a democratic organization, and we

earnestly solicit any practical suggestions or recommendations that

you may have to offer for its welfare and success. Remember the

future of the organization depends upon you and your co-

operation. ‘Do your bit’ and enlist now in the Suggestion Army.496

Billboards placed on 7th Avenue advertising the Institutional Synagogue stated:

GOD IS CALLING.

Institutional Synagogue,

112 West 116th Street

Similar ads appeared on subways.497

On the revival movement “The World Magazine,” carried an article by Nat

Dorfman reporting on Goldstein, June 22, 1919:

JEWISH BILLY SUNDAY - Rabbi Goldstein of the Institutional

Synagogue an Orthodox Hebrew Who Believes in Getting People

into the Synagogue if It Takes a Jazz Band to Do It.

The piece highlighted Goldstein’s school building, sports leagues, Sabbath experiences,

Friday night socials, summer dance programs, and nightly adult socials. The article portrayed Goldstein as resourceful and so open to new ideas that “if it takes a jazz band to attract people to synagogue” his Institutional Synagogue would give it a stage.

182

Articulating the Vision

Goldstein, in trying to explain the greatness of having all institutions under one roof, employed a rhetoric meant to appeal to moderns:

The following illustration will make my point clearer. If a man

goes to the college of the city of New York (which has no school

of mines attached there to) and desires to see a school of mines, he

must make a special effort and special trip to some university

which has a school of mines; whereas a student of the Columbia

University which has a school of mines, need not necessary be

moved by a desire to see the school of mines nor make a special

trip to accomplish this purpose; but as he crosses the campus day

in and day out, the school of mines stares him in the face and if

(he) has any curiosity whatever, he will eventually stop into the

building and learn something of its context. Similarly, when a

young man attending a social center is asked to attend a

synagogue, he must make a special effort and a special trip to a

different building in another part of the district, all of which

requires extreme effort and is rarely accomplished. On the other

hand, the young man or woman going to the Institutional

Synagogue cannot help dropping in occasionally to the synagogue,

the gymnasium, the library, the study classes or the wholesome

social functions, because they are all before his very eyes and does

not require any extra effort for him to take advantage of any of

183

these opportunities. Man is so constituted that he naturally takes

the path of least resistance. The Institutional Synagogue will offer

this path for the furtherance of the best religious, moral, social, and

physical ends.498

Herbert Goldstein was concerned that the Y.M.H.A and the Talmud Torah movement each as standalone organizations would develop segregated constituencies, and that an institution of exclusively recreational purpose did not provide any “positive religious conviction” to those it served. Though Jews would gather together at a ‘Y’ style institution, it was an inadequate substitute for the synagogue. An article in The New York

Times discussed Goldstein’s concerns, “New Form of Synagogue: Rabbi Goldstein

Outlines Reconstruction to Include Social Needs,” quoted him:

I am opposed to the Y.M.H.A. movement and to the building of

future Y.M.H.A.’s as a solution to the problem of religious

reconstruction in America. I am opposed to these social institutions

because their creation represents a failure to solve the problem of

the un-synagogued. The synagogue failed to hold its young, and

instead of attempting to cure and remedy the existing evils within

the synagogue a new institution, which did not cure the one

spiritual ache, but brought on another pain, was created. These

social institutions are mainly negative in character. They do not

represent any positive religious conviction. They are neither

orthodox nor reform, neither fish nor fowl, and as a result produce

men that have neither the historic faith nor the soul-saving message

184

of the synagogue. The solution I offer is an institutional

synagogue. My plea for the future is the institutional synagogue,

which would embrace the synagogue, the Talmud Torah and the

Y.M.H.A. movements.499

Goldstein discussed these concerns in presentations throughout North America500 even with the sponsoring agency of the Y.M.H.A, the B’nai B’rith. There is some record of that communication, because on May 10, 1920 Herbert Goldstein received a letter from the Horeb Lodge, No. 25, of the International Office of B’nai B’rith:

Dear Rabbi Goldstein:

The members are talking about your remarkable address yet, and I

must admit that you did set many members of the Board of

Directors of the Y.M.H.A. “a-thinking” concerning your

proposition of consolidation between the Y.M.H.A. and the

Synagogue. You certainly have opened my eyes to this great

possibility and I shall say something about it in my capacity as

president to the Directorate…

Very Sincerely Yours,

(Signature unreadable)501

Revival Movement

‘Billy Sunday’ was a famous American Evangelical preacher known for his fiery, inspirational sermons on Sunday mornings.502 Rabbi Goldstein, “The Jewish Billy

Sunday” would bring large numbers of Jews, mainly unaffiliated Jews, Jews who worked on the Sabbath, Jews seeking alternative kinds of synagogue experiences, and Jews who

185

had lacked interest in attending synagogue, to his Sunday gatherings. Ads were placed

(Fig. 4) by Goldstein in various newspapers to promote Sunday revival meetings. Fig. 5 is the schedule for the first revival meeting. It was no doubt a concession to the zeitgeist, but the Jews of Harlem and throughout New York came in large numbers.503

504 Fig. 4. Advertisement for first revival meeting.

505 Fig. 5. Schedule of first revival meeting.

A revival program began typically with a patriotic song like “America” or the

“Star Spangled Banner” followed by choral renditions of Hebrew religious songs, remarks by Rabbi Goldstein as well as prominent guest speakers, and concluded with

“Hatikvah” and the “Star Spangled Banner.”

The first revival event took place on May 14, 1917.506 The press loved it. Articles in various Jewish and general newspapers about the revival movement were constant.507 186

The revivals became so popular that at the initial revivals, hundreds of people were turned away. In The New York American the following was reported regarding the first revival:

Hundreds of people were turned away from the meeting last night

because the hall was not adequate to accommodate the throngs.

Two companies of Boys Scouts were stationed in the assembly

room to aid in seating of the people.508

Reporters indicated that over 2,000 people often attended the revival meetings.509

Six months into the revival meetings, a larger location was sought out and the numbers just continued to increase. The New York American headline ran: “RABBI TO

OPEN BIG REVIVAL IN HARLEM. - Rev. Dr. Goldstein, Known as Jewish “Billy

Sunday” to Address Three-Thousand in Theater To-Day.”510

Senators and members of congress including Congressman Siegel, now the

President of the Institutional Synagogue, were featured as part of the Sunday revival meetings. Other guests included United States Senator William M. Calder (Republican, served from 1917-1923),511 founder of American Jewish Committee Mr. Louis

Marshall,512 Rev. Dr. Moses Hyamson the Rabbi of Congregation Orach Chaim,513

Congressman Milton Kraus from Indiana (Republican served from 1917-1923),514 New

York Governor Charles S. Whitman (Republican served from 1915-1918),515 Democratic

Party leader and former Secretary of State, the impassioned populist, William Jennings

Bryan,516 Senator Irvine Luther Lenroot (Republican served from 1918-1927),517 New

York City Police Commissioner Arthur Hale Woods,518 and the President of Columbia

University, Dr. Nicholas Murray.519

187

Goldstein did not view this revival movement as something new, but rather a continuation of the role of the traditional maggid, the shtetl’s itinerant preacher who would go from place to place inspiring Jews with Torah teachings, tales, and parables. He particularly looked to R. Jacob ben Wolf Kranz of Dubno, known as the Dubner Maggid

(1741 – 1804), and to the first and only Chief Rabbi of New York, Rabbi Jacob Joseph

(1840 -1902), as role models.

Rabbi Goldstein shared his vision for a revival movement back in his presentation at the J.T.S. alumni convention in July of 1917 stating:520

The revival idea is an intrinsically Jewish one and has been

resorted to by such eminent Rabbis as Rabbi Jacob Joseph and the

Dubner Maggid. It is recorded that these pious men would at times

conduct a series of revival meetings in the course of which they

would by reason of simple, direct language urge the people to

return to the faith of their fathers. We are told that as a result of

these meetings sometimes as many as 100 pairs of tephilin would

be sold in one week, housewives would buy new dishes and begin

a scrupulous observance of the dietary laws and other like

phenomena would take place. Even those who are religiously

inclined, are apt to fall into a rut, become mechanical in their

observance and lose the beauty and significance of our religion.

For those people and to an infinitely greater degree for those who

have become altogether indifferent to religious matters, we need a

soul/stirring re-awakening, a revival of interest and after we have

188

reached thus far we can keep them attached by satisfying all their religious, educational and social needs outside of the home within the confines of the synagogue building… On the festivals and at our regular religious services we attract only those who are regular synagogue attendants, but we must reach the wavering. We must cleanse the heart or convert the soul of even the most degraded human being. We must do this superhuman work and it can be most effectively done thru revival meetings. To these revival meetings, the most religious as well as the most awful backslider can come. No one feels out of place at a revival meeting and thus everyone can be reached. My experience has already proven to me that those who are religious and those who went along in their path of evenness and self-complacency, have become electrified with religious enthusiasm by means of these revivals…

They are no longer religious for themselves [alone521], but they have [acquired522] in addition a zeal and missionary spirit and breath the [message523] of revival to [their524] friends. All my theorizing at this moment is of no avail. I wish you could see the sparkle kindling in the eyes of some of my young men of the

Institutional Synagogue as they want about talking about our revival meeting Now let me tell you of those who have strayed from the paths of religion and who at our revival meetings came up to me and told me that they were never in a Synagogue more than

189

twice a year since their Bar Mitzvah, but who pledged themselves

and are now regular synagogue attendants at our services, These

facts speak for themselves.525

Goldstein used the revival meetings to speak of the ills that challenged his community and society in general.526 One particular issue he focused on was gambling.

An article in the published in the New York American527 in 1917 stated:

Rabbi Goldstein’s revival meetings will not only serve to reclaim

Harlem’s Jews who have strayed far away from the teachings and

doctrines of the Talmud, but will make for a better Harlem in many

ways. It is his intention to hurl a bomb in the camps of all loiterers

and good-far-nothings that make One Hundred and sixteenth street

and Lennox avenue their hangout in a way that would do Harlem

the most good. Rabbi Goldstein has in his possession the names

and addresses of a score of gamblers that will soon be taken into

custody by the police.

Nothing brightens a Sunday morning quite like hurling “a bomb in the camps of all loiterers and good for nothings.” It was the success of the revival meetings that caused the Harlem Home News to declare: “Thousands of Jewish young men and women are going back to their faith of their fathers as a result of the revival movement.”528 As anticipated by Goldstein in his presentation at the J.T.S. alumni convention, the revival movement increased the profile of the Institutional Synagogue and many of those inspired by the Sunday experience began to attend synagogue.

190

Delinquency among Young Jews in Harlem

Rabbi Goldstein inveighed against business establishments in Harlem that contributed to delinquency among youth and young adults in the Harlem community. The

New York Times, in a piece on “the moral purification” of the city and the challenges in

Harlem, in 1922 wrote:

RABBI GOLDSTEIN CONDEMNS POLICE

Says There Are 40 Pool Rooms Between 96th Street and 116th

‘…There is a need in the nation and in our great city of New York

for moral purification,’ declared the Rev. Dr. Herbert S. Goldstein

in his sermon yesterday morning in the Institutional Synagogue, 37

West 116th street. ‘Some time ago,’ he continued, ‘a committee

after great difficulty obtained an interview with Commissioner

Enright informing him that there were forty poolrooms between

Ninety-sixth street and 116th street and 20 more about to open.’

The Commissioner sends his committee to the Sixty-seventh Street

Precinct and there the committee was informed that the Police

Department was short-handed and could not send even one man to

supervise the poolroom, though there are always enough

policemen to special for parades. ‘I shall call together the heads of

the social and recreational institutions of Harlem and see whether

as a united body we cannot prevent the further encroachment of the

moral evils and perhaps to get the police and detectives, now a

191

stationary fixture, to become active in wiping out the moral filth of

this end of town?’529

Rabbi Goldstein as quoted employed some tough rhetoric in phrases such as

“encroachment of moral evils” and “wiping out the moral filth of this end of town.”

Apparently, the “Jewish Billy Sunday” could himself be “fiery” when he believed the occasion called for it.

In 1926, he was referred to by The New York Evening Journal, as the major figure in the struggle to make pool halls inaccessible to uptown youth.”530

Rabbi Goldstein explained that the best way to deter crime among the young was to make “fear of God” once more “a norm in the life of the people.” At the cornerstone ceremony for Congregation Ohab Zedek Goldstein stated the following:

…To say that more judges, heavier fines, longer terms of

imprisonment, less suspensions of sentence will prevent further

crime is but suggesting, at best, palliative measures… When the

fear of God is made the norm among our people, then, as it always

has been, it will deter our youth from the performance of any

criminal act.531

Goldstein was quoted in the New York Times stating much the same thing:

…more judges, heavier fines, long terms of imprisonment, and

fewer suspensions of sentence will prevent further crime is

suggesting at best palliative measures. When the fear of God is

made the norm among our people, then as it always has been, it

will deter our youth from the performance of any criminal act.532

192

Goldstein also shared this with the New York Times:

…we speak of the three R’s of reading, writing, and arithmetic as

the foundation of our education. Therein we have failed, because

we have neglected to give equal consideration and time in the

child’s educational life to the Fourth R--religion.533

Congressman Siegel, as President of the Institutional Synagogue, enthusiastically supported its recreational programs and the revival movement in no small part because he believed it curbed crime. In his 1927 synagogue message, Siegel mentioned that a thousand people used the building daily and that students of the Hebrew school had had no contacts with the police. He wrote that Institutional Synagogue was like an insurance policy and called Goldstein’s idea the “…solution for the future Jew in America.”534

Sports Activities

With the new building and the completion of the gym and swimming pool, the

Institutional Synagogue created more athletic and leisure entry points for the New

York/Harlem Jewish community to connect to the synagogue. The gym and pool brought sports teams to the synagogue including handball,535 basketball, and swim teams which practice twice weekly,536 as well as Red Cross Life Saving training, and water carnivals.537

The synagogue promoted all different types of sports clubs and tournaments including basketball and swimming tournaments.538 Lower summer rates were offered for the gym and the pool to create a special 3-month sports membership.539

193

The Talmud Torah

As mentioned earlier, one of Goldstein’s concerns was that the small synagogues and landsmanschaft shuls did not have schools. The independent Talmud Torahs of the time removed children to locations outside of the synagogue which represented the same problem which Goldstein identified with the Y.M.H.A. Additionally, the Talmud Torah movement only engaged fifteen percent of Jewish children.540 Independent, standalone organizations taxed those who built them with constant fundraising responsibilities and wasted Jewish philanthropic funds without adequately promoting Jewish life. As was done in Kehilath Jeshurun, Goldstein in Harlem immediately created a Talmud Torah that was part of the synagogue.

The Talmud Torah of the Institutional Synagogue supplemented formal classroom education with informal educational opportunities organizing special trips and holiday programs.541 These included Purim masquerade parties, Chanukah festivities,542 model

Passover seders,543 and special Lag b’Omer outings.544 There were also essay contests that awarded prizes.545 Much was done in order to make the Talmud Torah exciting and more than just additional schooling.

Goldstein had to fundraise constantly for the Talmud Torah as seen in the following piece from The American Hebrew:

Sixteen-Hundred Boys and Girls, the Institutional Synagogue of

which Congressman Isaac Siegel is President and Rev. Dr. Herbert

S. Goldstein, Rabbi, is making a specific appeal to the Jews in

New York, requesting each to spare a few dollars to help the 1600

boys and girls receive the daily religious instruction offered at their

194

institution. ‘In Congress, it is charged,’ says President Siegel, ‘that

we have become a godless people.’ And he asks, ‘Where do you

stand? Without question, the great problem that confronts the Jews

of New York is that of the education in the precepts of Judaism of

the growing generation of our young people. The Institutional

Synagogue is doing tremendous work along these lines in its

facility We hope that the Jews of New York will stand behind

Congressman Siegel and Rabbi Goldstein and their splendid

striving to achieve the aims of the Institutional Synagogue in

Harlem.’546

Goldstein had students recruit their friends for the Hebrew school. The Hebrew school began with 30 children. There were Talmud Torah rallies547 and registration campaigns548 to help students recruit their friends. The school’s growth was extraordinary: by 1922 there were seven-hundred students; in 1923 nine-hundred.549 The school’s student body peaked in 1926 with one-thousand students. However, after almost a decade of changing demographics in Harlem, the student body began to dwindle five hundred in 1929 and the numbers fluctuated thereafter. It would seem that the school’s average annual enrollment was 600 students which was still a considerable number.550

Goldstein also helped organize a parents association for the school to distribute prizes,551 candy delicacies,552 prayer books, to set up events and entertainments, 553 to decorate the Sukkah,554 and to help raise funds for the school.555

Youth Programming

Following some of the ideas that he developed at Kehilath Jeshurun, Rabbi

195

Goldstein organized Shabbat programming for youth in Harlem. If parents needed to go to work on Saturday, youth services and sermon contests to attract the young people would nonetheless be available in synagogue and provide a wholesome environment for children not in school on Saturdays that helped to relieve a problem for working parents.556

Additional opportunities for youth included Friday night programs:

On the long winter Friday nights, a couple of hundred boys and

girls would assemble in the synagogue social hall and would hold a

forum on subjects of Jewish interest, sing Jewish songs, and

socialize over a cup of tea.557

There were also special programs for high school age and college students,558 scouting programs for younger children,559 father and son prayer services and breakfasts,560 a dramatics society,561 and debate tournaments.562 The goal was to create an environment which “…educated our youth to their responsibilities as Jews, Citizens, Future Leaders and Fathers and Mothers.”563

Summer Camp

In 1933, Herbert Goldstein started Camp Ta-a-Noog (Hebrew for ‘pleasure’). It offered an eight-week summer camp experience that took place at the Institutional

Synagogue and cost just $12.00. The camp had an average of 160-170 campers.564 In addition to sports, lunch, and swimming, campers enjoyed various outings that focused on issues of Jewish living.565 A camp physician made certain that each and every camper had a physical examination before the start of camp. This practice helped keep children healthy; many of the children’s parents could not afford the costs of regular medical

196

check-ups.566 Since the practice was routine for all campers low-income families were not singled out and embarrassed.

Rabbi Goldstein feared, “The Fresh Air Fund,” started in 1877,567 was encouraging some Jewish families to send their children to Christian summer camps. He initiated his own program suggesting that Orthodox Jews with the means to go away for the summer (for example, to the Catskills) take a child from a poor family with them. He further raised money to make scholarships available so that Jewish Summer Camps could accept more children.568

Orthodox Judaism for Youth on the National Level

The programs incubated in Harlem at the Institutional Synagogue often served as the basis for what Goldstein would advocate for on the national level especially in the area of youth and young adult education and outreach. One of his first initiatives in 1923, as President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (OU), was the creation of a

Young People’s Auxiliary. On February 5, 1923, the New York Times reflected on

Goldstein’s motivations for this new initiative:

WILL PROMOTE ORTHODOXY

Jewish Young People Form Society to Uphold Ancient Judaism

The aid that youth is ready to give the older generation in the

preaching of Orthodox Judaism in this country was foreshadowed

in the formation here yesterday of the Young People’s Auxiliary of

the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America…

‘The Reformed branch of our faith is to be strongly organized and

we must be,’ said the Rev. Herbert S. Goldstein, President of the

197

parent organization. Dr. Leo Jung told the ten delegates of the

young Hebrew religious bodies that on youth depends the

preservation and welfare of Judaism in this country and that proper

education along Orthodox lines was essential.

…Dr. Goldstein said that at a meeting yesterday morning twenty-

five rabbis of New York City had pledged themselves to help

promote the Orthodox movement.569

The Sabbath Question

Rabbi Goldstein made what he could of his celebrity status to advocate for important issues on a national level. The Sabbath question in particular he believed was critical to the survival of Orthodox Jewish life in America.570 Already in 1917 at Kehilath

Jeshurun, Goldstein went to speak to the Harlem League on “the Sabbath question.” On this view, American Jews had a right to continue to practice Judaism including observing the Sabbath on Saturday without too extraordinary a personal sacrifice; this position continued to be a linchpin of Goldstein’s public advocacy throughout his career. Rabbi

Goldstein understood that the synagogue and neighborhood efforts to encourage synagogue attendance on the Jewish Sabbath required at the same time public advocacy, even legal protections, to broadly legitimize such a choice in the American context.

In 1919, as advertised in The New York Times, Goldstein tried direct advocacy organizing meetings with Jewish shopkeepers and asked them not to open on Shabbat:

This Sunday evening, under the auspices of the Sabbath

Advancements Association of the Institutional Synagogue,571 a

198

meeting of the storekeepers of Harlem will be held at the

synagogue building at 8.15 o’clock.

Among those who will address them for the purpose of advancing

the cause of Sabbath will be Rabbi Meyer Berlin Rabbi Klein, Mr.

S. A. Israel, and Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein. Mr. Abraham

Bernstein will preside.572

In 1921, at a meeting with a group of the Christian leaders, there was a discussion about interfaith cooperation to resolve difficulties and allow the Sabbath to be kept either on Saturday or Sunday depending on one’s religious creed. An article in The New York

Times summarized the meeting:

JEWS TO CO-OPERATE ON KEEPING SABBATH

Join Reform Bureau to Harmonize Observance of Rest Day by

Both Creeds.

The International Reform Bureau and the Jewish Sabbath Alliance

plan to cooperate ‘with the view to harmonizing, so far as possible,

the work done in regard to religious Sabbath observance of both

creeds and Sunday laws.’

The announcement was made by Dr. Robert Watson, President of

the Reform Bureau, who told of conferences with the Rev. Dr.

Bernard Drachman, President of the Jewish Alliance. Others who

attended the conferences were Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts,

Superintendent of the Reform Bureau, and Rabbi Herbert S.

199

Goldstein. The announcement says that full agreement was reached

on all but the last of the following points:

‘First - Both Hebrew and Christian should be encouraged to

maintain the religious observance of the Sabbath, either on

Saturday or Sunday, as their creed may direct.

Second - There is no justification for carrying on any

commercial occupation seven days in the week, or any other labor

or business, excepting domestic services and the care of the sick

and the works of religion; and in case anyone is employed on

Sunday in any work it is by law or custom allowed on Sunday as a

work of mercy or necessity, the law should require so far as

practical, a compensatory twenty-four hours of continuous

intermission of this task at some other time in the week.

Third- The usual exception in Sunday law in prohibitions

of Sunday ‘labor,’ for all who keep Sabbath from Friday evening

to Saturday evening as members of a religious body should be

made in all Sunday laws which lack it; and administrators of the

law should carefully avoid annoyance of such persons by

unwarranted arrest….’

The International Reform Bureau was not able to

approve.…573

While there is no indication of any concrete results coming from this gathering, the heightened media recognition and voiced support for the rights of religious people to

200

honor the Sabbath “according to their creed,” and Goldstein’s public advocacy with

Christian supporters helped to legitimize his local efforts and advocacy. Jewish shop owners knew from reading The New York Times that a religious right not to work on the

Sabbath was a public issue that engaged the Rabbi. They knew that Sabbath observance was not only about private religious choices. They knew that the very same Rabbi

Goldstein had perhaps approached them privately to urge them to close their stores.

Rabbi Goldstein realized that for many young adults in the community working on Saturday seemed a necessity and could not be disputed. The availability of employment that would allow off every weekend from Friday evening to Saturday night presented a real difficulty. To help address this problem, he founded at the Institutional

Synagogue an “employment bureau”574 that recruited sympathetic Jewish employers who would accept Sabbath (and holiday) observance:

I realize that at the present time on Sabbath morning I cannot have

the youth in Harlem, or the youth anywhere in the city at a Shabbat

service, but I propose to ask leading Jewish merchants who keep

the Sabbath to remedy this by informing me when there is an

opening in their firms for young men and young women who

desire to keep the Sabbath. I propose that through the Institutional

Synagogue, a strong, a thorough, a powerful Shabbat employment

bureau will be established.575

If Goldstein could not prevail and convince all the stores owned or run by Jews to close on Shabbat, he would next argue that they should at least close on Rosh Hashanah

201

and Yom Kippur. The fruits of this advocacy were mentioned in the press on September

20, 1925:

With solid blocks of closed stores in the business sections, the

Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, was observed yesterday.

Crowded synagogues throughout the city listened to rabbis deliver

New Year’s sermons which defined anew the religious principles

of the Hebrew faith…

‘I urge you to stop once and for all time’ said Rabbi Goldstein, ‘the

mad rush after the mirage of the material. We are grievously

violating the Sabbath; we minimize and limit God’s omnipotence.

We fail to believe, as the straying ones in the wilderness failed to

believe, that the manna of the weekday which the Holy One

blessed be He sends will be sufficient to tide us over the

Sabbath.’576

Significantly, Rabbi Goldstein used his High Holiday sermon to make an emotional appeal for Sabbath observance; his words, “I urge you to stop once and for all time…/ We are grievously violating the Sabbath” still echo with the some of the felt pain around the issue in that period.

Rabbi Goldstein again achieved renown in 1926 when his public advocacy on behalf of the Jewish Sabbath and holidays won for all Jewish New York City Public

School teachers recognition of Rosh Hashanah as a holiday on which they would be excused from coming to work.577

202

As President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (the

OU), he took this message of advocating Shabbat/Holiday observance and worked with unionizing Orthodox Jewish postal workers in 1925, allowing them to take off on

Saturday to observe Shabbat:

Resolve that we, The Jewish Postal Workers Welfare League of

New York City, Inc., hereby affiliate ourselves with The Union of

Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America in that we further

resolve to abide and be governed by the rules and regulations of

that body.578

In public schools, there were no provisions for “Sabbath exemptions” for Jewish students, placing them at difficulty when the events were scheduled to take place on

Saturdays. Rabbi Goldstein advocated to New York Board of Education to end commencement activities and other public events on Shabbat579 and to offer alternative testing times for those who could not take exams on Saturdays.580

Rabbi Goldstein also successfully advocated for the New York State Supreme

Court to postpone their opening for one day so as not to conflict with Yom Kippur.581

Celebrating Jewish Holidays

In 1917, the Institutional Synagogue’s first Yom Kippur service found 1,200 people582 coming together for worship at the Parkview Palace (110th street and 5th

Avenue). The Hebrew Standard noticed:

One of the most impressive services held during the recent high

holidays was conducted under the auspices of the Institutional

Synagogue…One thousand worshippers were present, both at the

203

Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services; many of these included

persons who have not entered a synagogue in years.

The entire service was conducted by young men, and all of the

[honors] were given to young men. On the whole, it was as

completely American and thoroughly Jewish as any service ever

held in this country hereto for. On account of the impressive and

dignified services, more than 200 persons signified their intentions

of becoming members of the synagogue, in helping it in its great

work.583

Not only did this turn out on the High Holidays represent immediate success but also success with precisely that constituency, the unaffiliated, whom

Rabbi Goldstein always believed he could reach.

Community Passover Seders (feasts) were annually held and advertised;584 a sukkah built on the roof of the Institutional Synagogue585 allowed those living nearby in tenement housing to eat their holiday meals in a Sukkah on Sukkot. In addition, matzah was distributed prior to Passover to families that needed it,586 and the synagogue served as a legal provider of sacramental wine to its members during Prohibition.587

On March 5, 1926, the synagogue bulletin, The Institutional, noted:

HUNDREDS TURNED AWAY AT PURIM

ENTERTAINMENT

The largest crowd ever assembled in the auditorium of the I.S. was

present at the Purim entertainment given by the children of the

Talmud Torah on Tuesday night, March 2nd. All seats and all

204

standing room throughout the house were occupied long before the

time the entertainment was scheduled to start. The gates were

closed only after the capacity of the hall was far surpassed. Many

hundreds reluctantly returned home. In spite of this, the large

audience inside was thoroughly animated by the extreme happy

spirit of Purim. Excellent order prevailed during the entire extent

of the entertainment. The audience was in an exceptionally

receptive mood.

Minor holidays such as Tu-B’shvat (Jewish Arbor Day) were turned into opportunities for celebration by using them as ways of focusing on the dream of a Jewish

Palestine.588

Rabbi Goldstein also arranged gatherings with the Young Folk’s League before every Jewish holiday; members invited as many of their friends as possible to their homes. The rabbi spoke about the holiday, followed by appropriate readings or plays, holiday music performances, and then sometimes community singing, followed by refreshments and dancing.589

Growing the Membership

The religious revival meetings and the combination of recreational, social, and religious functions at the Institutional Synagogue helped grow interest and attract members.590 Dues were flexible and often reflected whatever people could pay between

$1.00 and up to $17.50 per year. The average family membership cost was between $5.00 and $15.00.591 Membership dues were good-will offerings. The 1924 Jewish Welfare

205

Board report included information suggesting that only 10% of the budget came from membership dues.592

By 1919, the synagogue had somewhere between 1200 and 2000 members.593 The number is open to debate. The New York American on September 23, 1919 reported a low membership figure:

RECLAMATION OF 1000 JEWS, RABBI’S AIM

Dr. Herbert S. Goldstein Enrolls 400 Men and Women in Big

Drive in Harlem and on Heights Hopes to Reach Desired Number

by Thanksgiving-Forms an Institutional Synagogue.

A drive to reclaim Harlem and Washington Heights young men

and women to the faith of their fathers and to keep that faith alive

is now being waged by Dr. Herbert S. Goldstein, leader of the

Jewish revival and rabbi of the Institutional Synagogue. The

movement will reach its height on Sunday, October 14th, when the

Institutional Synagogue, located at no. 112 West one hundred and

sixteenth street, will open its doors for the first time.

The slogan adopted by the officers and workers of the organization

is: ‘One Thousand Reclaimed Men and Women by Thanksgiving

Day.’ To date, four hundred persons have enrolled as members of

the Institutional Synagogue. All indicators point that a two

thousand membership will be reached by the first of the new

[year].594

206

An earlier article published in the same paper on March 9, 1919 reported a much higher membership: “The institution has grown so rapidly in the last few months that it now numbers more than 3000 members and is handicapped because it cannot care for more.”595

The New York Times on April 12, 1926, carried the following:

PRAISES SYNAGOGUE WORK

Isaac Siegel speaks at Institutional Anniversary Dinner.

Ex-congressman, Isaac Siegel, who addressed the ninth anniversary dinner

of the Institutional Synagogue last night at the Hotel Astor… He praised

the work of the synagogue, situated at 37-43 West 116th Street, saying it

helped in quelling young crime in Harlem. ‘Institutions of its kind,’ he

continued, ‘are the best possible insurance against law breaking in general.

After school hours, 900 children make use of our gymnasium and

swimming classes. We are trying to do our full duty towards the

youngsters, which is more than all the parents in the New York can say.

From 3000-5000 people pass the doors of the Institutional Synagogue

every day,’ Mr. Siegel added…596

Perhaps, the differing figures for membership were due to different ways of describing membership. Reports which number Institutional Synagogue membership in the thousands may reflect all those who came to use the facilities and services of the synagogue597 while those that reported a membership in the hundreds may have counted only those pledging dues in some amount to the support the synagogue. Either way, the

207

Institutional Synagogue met with success in filling a void within the Harlem community and many, many people came.

Membership campaigns were ongoing. On December 1, 1924, 250 active members canvased about 10,000 Jewish families in the Harlem community in an effort to recruit anyone above the age of 12 to participant in at least one of the synagogue’s many activities. Competitions between teams of campaigners took place. A huge clock was set up outside the synagogue building with hands showing the progress made and announcing the winners of the most successful campaign team who were then awarded a permanent trophy with their names engraved on it.598 Often campaigns included members inviting their friends to view the Institutional Synagogue’s facilities, enticing their friends to become members.599

Social Welfare Services and Volunteerism in Harlem

A Social Service League, similar to the Social Welfare Circle begun at Kehilath

Jeshurun, was established at Harlem’s Institutional Synagogue. It started with helping

Jewish children at risk in the Harlem community by initiating a Jewish Big Sister and Big

Brother program in coordination with the B’nai B’rith.

Families with children who could not afford a religious education received subsidies600 (note that a similar decision was made by Shearith Israel). Additionally, there was an awareness that ‘feast making’ as part of holiday celebrations could run to considerable expense such that a poor family might be concerned as holidays such as

Rosh Hashanah or Passover approached over how they would prepare meals for the holiday when they could scarcely afford meals during the week. In keeping with Jewish

208

tradition, food distribution prior to every Jewish holiday was also undertaken by the

Social Service League.601

Brotherhood and sisterhood organizations founded at the Institutional Synagogue both helped to raise money and provide volunteer workers for synagogue functions. The sisterhood focused on social, cultural, and philanthropic work. They supported initiatives such as the sewing circle which initially knit heavy sweaters and stockings for soldiers in fighting in the trenches during World War I or for wounded soldiers returned from the front and recovering in hospitals. Eventually, the sewing circle expanded its work to include helping needy local families by providing warm and comfortable winter clothes

(again, recall that at Shearith Israel the congregation had a similar charity).602

Programming in synagogues usually relies on volunteers to set up, to purchase foods and supplies, and to clean up afterwards. The brotherhood and sisterhood provided much of the practical labor that made synagogue celebrations for Chanukah or Purim possible. At Friday night gatherings, dinner meetings, and at Bible classes or athletic events603 a social dimension involving food and drink often helped make the events family friendly and attractive. The sisterhood ran its own theatre parties, bridge parties, rummage sales, cake sales, package parties, and other events to help raise money for the

Synagogue move into a larger facility; their efforts supported the building of the

Institutional Synagogue on 116th street.604

A Young Folks League (21 years and over) was formed. It ran monthly socials, holiday programs, and raised scholarship dollars for the Talmud Torah through fund- raising projects such as bazaars.605 Eventually, the Young Folks League and the Social

Service League became one.606

209

Committees composed of member-volunteers to help with the many and various projects of the Institutional Synagogue formed routinely: a Library committee; a House and Repair committee; a Religious committee; a Cemetery committee; a West Side

Branch committee (when a branch was opened on the West Side of Manhattan); a

Gymnasium and Swimming Pool committee. Committees sprung up for clubs,607 for the

Forum and ‘the Institutional’ bulletin, for the Talmud Torah, for the Ways and Means and Office, for the Federation,608 and for health.609

The most successful brotherhood and sisterhood volunteers were also groomed as future leaders for the synagogue and Jewish communal life. Regular columns in the synagogue’s bulletin focused on each committee’s events and initiatives. The

Institutional on February 26, 1926 noted:

Rabbi Goldstein made a spirited plea for a new movement which

would create a brotherhood composed of young men and a similar

organization for young women called ‘The Daughters of the

Institutional Synagogue,’ which would be in a true sense, develop,

and make for the members and directors of the I.S. of tomorrow.

Rabbi Goldstein said wisely that young-folks-leagues while they in

themselves are very fine things are but weather-like associations

that keep on changing with the marriage of each handful of leaders.

The ensuing and inevitable reorganizations of such groups are

annoying and do not make for permanent community.610

210

Eventually, Goldstein expanded his idea of the sisterhood and, as President of the

Union of Orthodox Congregations (the O.U.), founded a national sisterhood organization with 25 affiliated synagogue sisterhoods and more than 200 individual members.611

By 1940, the Institutional Synagogue was even holding classes in sex hygiene for young men and young women within the confines of an orthodox synagogue. Rabbi

Goldstein innovated and supported this important but yet very “unorthodox,” kind of programming. Classes were publicized in the Westside Institutional Review:

“LECTURES FOR YOUNG FOLK: Sex Hygiene is Subject of Sunday Night Talks. Dr.

Rosen to address young men and young women will hear from Dr. Mary Thomson.” 612

Education for Adults

The Institutional Synagogue had a robust adult education program. In 1917, The

Hebrew Standard advertised weekly classes: a class on the commentary of Rashi that met under the direction of Mr. B. Rubin Weilerstein; Talmud classes given by Rabbi Z.

Kapner on Friday evenings; and a class in Jewish History presented by Rabbi

Goldstein.613 In 1918, The Hebrew Standard promoted an even more expansive menu of classes at the Institutional Synagogue:

The following courses have been arranged for the coming season

to be given at the Institutional Synagogue: Jewish History,

Wednesday evening at 8:00 p.m. by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein;

Beginner’s Hebrew at 9:00 p.m. by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein;

Advanced Hebrew at 9:00 p.m. by Rabbi Koppel London. Monday

afternoon and evening, both the ladies of the Sisterhood and the

211

young women of the Social Service League hospital garments for

the boys of the base hospital.614

The adult education program added additional classes as it grew: “Codes,”

“Hebrew and Advanced History,” “Messages of the Prophets,” “Hebrew and Elementary

History,” and “Classes in the Study of the Prophets.”615 Courses were also offered in

Beginners, Intermediate and Advanced Hebrew.616 A program, “Friday Night Talks” which focused on contemporary issues was added.617 The November 1923 issue of The

Institutional described those evenings:

FRIDAY NIGHT TALKS

After ushering in the Sabbath each Friday evening, nothing can be

so inviting as our ‘Round the Table’ talks and diverse topics by all

types of men. Come and listen to our President, Hon. Isaac Siegel,

this Friday evening. The Auxiliary knows that ‘The Way to a

Man’s Heart is by Way of His Stomach,’ and their collation served

is most tasteful. Where else in the city can you find such a family

group?618

The focus of the Friday night program would change over time from ‘talks’ to a

‘forum’ which focused on social and religious issues. Each synagogue club was assigned a Friday evening during which they would act as host. The club would supply the topic.

The synagogue bulletin announced the topics in advance. Topics included issues challenging the Jewish community as well as broader issues of interest to any American citizen. The Jewish Daily News reported on this Friday night program:

212

Institutional Synagogue Inaugurates New Scheme. The

Institutional Synagogue, 37 West 116th street has supplanted the

Friday evening lecture system by a new scheme which will

doubtless be of great help to all community centers. The plan

which has been originated by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein which is

being tried out this year at the Institutional Synagogue, will do

away with the problem of getting speakers and will help to create

future leaders for the community.619

There were also special dedicated Shabbat services at which a group within the community would be celebrated and lead worship: for example, a “Young Laymen’s

Sabbath” in which the younger leadership conducted services.620

Rabbi Goldstein’s famous Bible class was attended by many of the most prominent and active women of the synagogue. The women eventually completed with the Rabbi a study of the Torah, and the festivities were recorded:

One course in particular stood head and shoulders above all others.

It also encompassed many of the others in its broad scope.

The only course that could have possibly met the description was

one that Rabbi Goldstein taught in Bible. It was chaired by the

Rabbi virtually every single week from the very first session of the

existence of the Institutional Synagogue [Editor’s note: 1917], and

continuing long after the Westside Institutional Synagogue

formally came into being in 1937.

213

Rabbi Goldstein’s unique captivating style was the subject of an

article that appeared in the Synagogue newspaper about midway

through this period. The devotion of the Women’s Association of

the Synagogue to the Rabbi’s Bible class was manifested in

particular unique ways. For one thing, the students that went to the

class were essentially most of the officers of the synagogue

Sisterhood; including the president, vice president, treasurer,

secretary and the secretary of the Bible class. When the class

completed the study of the Book of Genesis, the woman presented

her teacher with a smoker jacket. Although there is no record of a

complete wardrobe being assembled as they continued to complete

The Five Books of Moses, the satisfaction all parties received in

this monumental achievement more than compensated.621

On this milestone The American Hebrew and Jewish Tribune announced the following:

Women Conduct Seeyum [i.e. a meal that celebrates learning

something in its entirety]: For the first time in the history of Jewish

women’s activities in this country, a Seeyum on the Five Books of

Moses was celebrated by the Women’s League of the Institutional

Synagogue on Wednesday…It took ten years to complete the study

of the Pentateuch. The course was given by Rabbi Herbert S.

Goldstein…622

While it is traditional for the Rabbi of an orthodox synagogue to give the most advanced Talmud class, Goldstein realized that he would reach many more people if he

214

gave a more basic class in the oral tradition, namely a class in Mishnah. In that course he taught the principles of the oral tradition from the easier text of the Mishnah; Rabbi

Goldstein’s teacher, Dr. Zadok Kapner taught the more Advanced Talmud course.623

Over the years the offerings of secular courses were expanded: accounting, advertising, art appreciation, arts and crafts, bookkeeping, boxing, camp counseling, choral society, citizenship for immigrant adults, club leadership, cooking, costume design and illustration, cultural talks, dance, dramatics society called ‘Institutional Players,’624 debate, elocution, English to foreigners, fine arts, first aid, gymnastics, industrial arts, interior decorating, journalism, law, languages, music, novelties, naturalization classes, piano, play production, postal work, poster design, psychology, public speaking, reducing, sciences, staging, swimming, wrestling, and violin. This, again, proved the idea that the courses could run the gamut from the religious, to the practical, to the intellectual, to the athletic, to the artistic, allowing the Institutional Synagogue to meet the diverse needs of the community in one institution.625

The Institutional Synagogue, with the range and quality of its offerings, established a reputation as a center for adult education; it became a location at which it was possible to enroll in extension courses and receive credit from institutions of higher learning such as Columbia University and the College of the City of New York. With time, Columbia alone made 400 courses available at the Institutional Synagogue jointly with the Metropolitan League of Jewish Community Associations.626

At the Institutional Synagogue, special lectures given on important contemporary topics took place every week. Lecturers in the synagogue came to speak about Judaism’s challenge to socialism; Judaism’s challenge to Christian Science;627 the atrocities that

215

occurred in Buchenwald;628 Arab-Jewish relations629 and the condition of Jews in the displaced person camps in Europe.630 At one time, Rabbi Goldstein suggested that synagogues across New York work together to use Tuesday evenings as a night of lectures on important Jewish and cultural issues.631

Rabbi Goldstein sought out new avenues through which to teach Judaism even on the national level. He continued to expand the idea of creatively introducing Judaism to the masses through correspondence courses:

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America has

established a religious Correspondence Bureau, particularly for

those living in small towns and outlying rural districts but equally

useful to those who live in the larger and the more crowded cities.

Heretofore, one could learn music, bookkeeping and all secular

branches of studies by correspondence. Steps have now been taken

to teach Judaism by the same method. The first year of the course

(which began immediately after the holidays) will be divided into

52 lessons, each lesson based on the weekly Sedra or Sabbath

Pentateuchal reading in the synagogue.632

Fundraising and Building Campaigns

Rabbi Goldstein gained a reputation as an innovative and successful fundraiser.

The immediate successes of the High Holiday services and the revival movement allowed

Goldstein to argue for moving the Institutional Synagogue from its first, temporary quarters at the Y.M.H.A.633 to a new location and dedicated structure. Again, that too was an immediate success.

216

Within months of starting up in Harlem, Goldstein received the anonymous donation of a building for the new synagogue on 112 West 116th street near Lennox

Avenue generating surprise and excitement. The success and rapid development of a new kind of synagogue, the Institutional Synagogue, reached across America with newspapers announcing the anonymous gift of a building for the Institutional Synagogue.634 Decades later Goldstein disclosed that this original gift came from his father-in-law Harry

Fischel.635 While that revelation may invite cynicism, the gift became a springboard to growth and a widening donor base of support; the decision to announce the ‘anonymous’ donation might be interpreted as simply fundraising savvy.

Rabbi Goldstein announced the gift of the property and house in a letter on May

24th that included a list of smaller contributions between 100 and 500 dollars to cover expected construction costs.636 The first dedicated building for the Institutional

Synagogue opened in October of 1917. It had no swimming pool, but it did offer a well- equipped gymnasium, an auditorium, classrooms, clubrooms, social and game rooms, and a synagogue sanctuary.637

Two years later the Institutional Synagogue would require a larger structure. The first building was almost immediately too small for the range of activities and number of participants coming to programs. Following a fundraising campaign that focused on the growing membership and the great need, a larger building located nearby (Nos. 37 to 43

West 116th) was purchased.

The New York American on April 6, 1919 638 had an expansive article focusing on the $300,000 necessary to move to the new location:

217

One of the largest institutions of its kind in the United States will

soon be erected in Harlem by the Institutional Synagogue of No.

112 west one-hundred and sixteenth street.

Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein announced the purchase during the

week of a plot of ground one-hundred by one-hundred, at Nos. 37

to 43 west one-hundred and sixteenth street. The new building will

be ready for occupancy by the Jewish high holidays in the fall

[editor’s note: it did not happen] and will cost approximately

$300,000.00.

The building will be the best and most modern equipped in the

country. It will have every feature of the old institution in addition

to many innovations.

The Institutional Synagogue is a synagogue of institutions

comprising the work of the synagogue, Young Men’s Hebrew

Association and Talmud Torah combined. The new building will

contain a synagogue and an auditorium with the seating capacity of

fifteen-hundred. The plans also include a large gymnasium,

running track, bowling alleys, swimming pool, steam room…

Gifts were received from known philanthropists and a massive campaign was undertaken to include the working class who stood to benefit directly from a new

Institutional Synagogue. Additionally, there were those who believed in Rabbi

Goldstein’s work and had left funds in bequests.639

218

On March 9, 1919, the New York American featured the fundraising effort of

Rabbi Herbert Goldstein reporting that he had increased the goal from $300,000 to

$500,000 and announced the launch of the campaign with a formal evening at the

Plymouth Theatre:

JEWISH BILLY SUNDAY” BEGINS $500,000.00 DRIVE

FOR NEW SYNAGOGUE.

The campaign to raise a half-million dollars for the Institutional

Synagogue, No. 112 West 117th street will an auspicious start this

evening at the Plymouth Theater, West 45th street, where a benefit

theater party and reception. It is expected that more than

$10,000.00 …640

There were a number of creative fundraisers that the Institutional Synagogue employed to encourage the masses to support the capital campaign. The Hebrew

Standard discussed the motivated volunteers helping to raise the initial $300,000.00.

A novel feature was injected into the campaign when the

Maccabee Club of the synagogue held a bucket parade through the

streets of upper Manhattan on Wednesday evening. Led by a large

band, the boys easily filled their buckets, thus raising their quota of

$3,000.00. Through the permission of Harry Mount, vice president

of The Bronx Exposition Amusement Park, 177 street and West

Farms a corp of workers collected more than $200.00 in funds

there on Sunday. 641

On June 9, 1919, The New York Times ran a full-page advertisement (Fig. 6): 642

219

Fig. 6. The New York Times June 9, 1919 p. 14.

220

The advertisement pitch complete with its many rhetorical questions read:

Do you realize the district north of 92nd street and Park Avenue as

far as the Bronx comprises upwards of 38,000 Jewish boys, 36,000

Jewish girls, 40,000 Jewish young men and 41,000 young women?

Do you realize that in this district there is no large religious school

for boys and girls, no gymnasium for young men, no social center

for boys and girls, young men and young women? Do you realize

that every one of these young persons must find some place of

diversion? It is their right; It is due them.

Are we going to continue to allow these souls to find their own

entertainment without advice or guidance? Are we going to

overlook that all too well known results?

OR

Are we going to provide for their legitimate needs in a wholesome

way?

Here’s what the new building will contain: Auditorium, seating

1500; Talmud Torah Class Rooms, Club Rooms, Game Rooms,

Library, Reading Room, Kindergarten, Gymnasium, Open Air

Nursery, Social Rooms, Kitchen, Dining Room, Roof Garden,

Chess Room, Swimming Pool, Steam Room, Showers, Bowling

221

Alleys, Basket Ball Courts, Hand Ball Courts, Tennis Courts,

Billiard Room, etc.

PLEASE DO THIS TODAY- We have only one week in which to

raise the necessary $300,000. Put your heart behind your pen and

send the result to us. Make all checks payable to the

INSTITUTIONAL SYNAGOGUE BUILDING FUND. What a

life enduring moment to your generosity will be the knowledge

that you have directed thousands of young folks along the proper

path.

Throughout the High Holidays from 1919 through 1922, there were appeals that netted approximately $10,000.00 each for the building fund.643 Other creative ideas used by synagogue members included “Brick Books” in which people in malls or in other places would go and sell bricks of the building via the Brick Book. A house-to-house canvassing committee was also involved in fundraising.644

Rabbi Goldstein was not only able to get the entire community engaged in grassroots fundraising through small contributions; he was also able to attract major

American Jewish philanthropists to support his endeavor.

On January 4, 1922, he received the following letter from the well-known

American Jewish leader and banker Felix M. Warburg:645

Dear Dr. Goldstein:

Following my conversation of the other day, I take pleasure in

sending you enclosed check for $5,000.00 as Mr. and Mrs.

Warburg’s contribution towards your center.

222

I gladly make this contribution as an expression of appreciation of

the unselfish work which you are doing for the community in that

quarter, which is so badly needed and with the understanding that

your center will be conducted in an open, broad-minded spirit of

which you have given me assurance…

Sincerely yours,

FELIX M. WARBURG646

The Jewish Tribune of November 4, 1927, recognized gifts by Goldstein’s in- laws, Mr. and Mrs. Harry Fischel, for the ark and its coverings.

Goldstein’s interest in completing the gym was done through a massive fundraising effort which earned him the respect of the secular media and advertising experts. He asked for $10.00 from 4,199 people sending his own check of $10.00 and asking them to match it. This creative effort peaked the interest of the New York Times which carried an article on the new technique and reported the pitch quoting Rabbi

Goldstein:

North of Ninety-second street, and west of Park Avenue, up to the

Bronx, there is no gymnasium and swimming pool to which our

young men may go to receive direct and indirect physical, social

and spiritual benefits.

I am calling upon 4,199 public-spirited Jews to help me help the

young men of Harlem. I ask you please to match me and be good

enough to send me your check for $10.00, together with mine. Our

gym and pool will cost $42,000.00.647

223

Looking forward to your co-operation in thus saving many

thousands of boys and young men from the temptation of the

streets.

I am sincerely,

HERBERT S. GOLDSTEIN

It should be noted that Mr. Sulzberger of the New York Times was so impressed with Rabbi Goldstein’s $10.00 campaign that he offered him a job to be on his Public

Relations staff at The New York Times where he would earn more money than in the rabbinate.648

The capital campaign was also boosted by other grassroots initiatives focusing on the masses. One example was the Dollar Drive:

The Dollar Drive being conducted throughout Harlem for the

benefit of the Institutional Synagogue; 112 West 116th st., is

meeting with a greater success to date than has been anticipated,

according to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, in charge of the Institution.

Much of this success he attributes to the various clubs and sub

organizations of the synagogue. The synagogue, which was

organized two years ago, secured the inadequate quarters now

being occupied by it. It was soon realized that…[if] the members

were to reach the tens of thousands of Jews in Harlem it would be

necessary to erect a large, modern building. With this goal in mind

the drive was planned. The proceeds of which will be utilized in

224

constructing a new edifice on the plots at 37-39-41 West 116th

street…649

There were many letters that Goldstein received from the Dollar Campaign.650 One example: “I take great pleasure in matching your check for $2.00. May I express the sincere belief that your very novel method of circularizing the Jewish citizens of New

York will meet with consummate success.”

The financial needs of the Institutional Synagogue made funding a constant challenge for Goldstein and the Board. Synagogue banquets651 and ongoing solicitations helped to pay the costs to run the various activities of the synagogue. There was even talk of a fight to be staged during the summer under the auspices of the athletic department of the Institutional Synagogue.652 However, minutes of Board meetings repeatedly reveal that the mortgage(s) was in arrears653 and that staff went unpaid for months.654 On a regular basis the synagogue faced a serious deficit.655

American Ideals Celebrated as Jewish Values

Celebrating American holidays, visibly supporting the U.S. military, and frequently speaking out against delinquency, degeneracy, and crime helped to reassure

Jewish immigrants that participating in synagogue life would not interfere with acculturation into American society. American Jews believed that the synagogue should work to reinforce American culture and the ideals of a democratic society. Indeed if these

American ideas were being promoted in the synagogue, it meant they were also Jewish values.

Religious services were held to celebrate Columbus Day,656 Thanksgiving Day,657 and even, Flag Day.658 There were prayers on Mother’s Day noted in the New York

225

Times.659 The Institutional Synagogue worked with 200 other synagogues to celebrate the

150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence660 and came together to celebrate

150th anniversary of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.661 Under Rabbi Goldstein’s direction Jews paid tribute to early Jewish American patriots662 including Hyam

Salomon.663 The synagogue formally observed Lincoln’s Birthday664 and Washington’s

Birthday.665 It prayed for the well-being of current Presidents666 and paid solemn tribute to Presidents upon their deaths.667 The activities of the synagogue assisted U.S. soldiers during wartime raising funds, sewing clothing, sending packages, and holding special prayer services. Many young Jewish men joined and served in the U.S. military.

Rabbi Goldstein on Radio

From 1923 until 1935 Rabbi Goldstein grew in national prominence. The media, newspapers and radio, came to rely upon him for comments on public issues. On the radio, Goldstein started to address both Jewish and general audiences.668 For a time, he had his own radio program and advertisements for this program ran in the newspapers.

One example is found in the Jewish Daily News:

Radio Programs of Jewish Interest:

1. Address by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein on “Spiritual

Degeneracy.”

2. Vocal selections by Cantor M. Taub.669

Rabbi Goldstein’s popular, public communications often relied on the kind of language a Christian preacher might employ. Here “spiritual degeneracy” became the subject of Jewish consideration. Goldstein’s presentations on the radio were widely

226

appreciated by both Jews and Gentiles. The following letter was received by Rabbi

Herbert Goldstein on September 25, 1924:

Reverend sir:

Your talk over the radio tonight on ‘Message of the New Year’

was very interesting to me - as also was the previous talk by the

Rabbi at the United Synagogue Services - (the singing was of

course, splendid) and I believe these talks were as interesting to

other gentiles as well as to me [emphasis added]…670

This supportive note from a non-Jewish listener does not specify what in Rabbi

Goldstein’s message was particularly appealing. Nonetheless, it shows how well ‘the

American idiom’ had been mastered by Rabbi Goldstein. Speaking to a broad audience in a common English religious vocabulary, rather than in a Jewish dialect using Hebrew or

Yiddish terms, had the side benefit of allowing Jews and Gentiles to discover shared religious and social sympathies; such cross-cultural understanding can never be taken for granted.

Goldstein would also make guest appearances on various radio shows. On August

28, 1925, he received the following letter from broadcast station WRNY:

My dear Rabbi Goldstein:

I am very happy that you are going to make it possible to be with

me Monday night, and appreciate the fact that you are coming to

New York especially to attend the opening of my regime on the

air.

227

I go on the air about 8 o’clock and anytime thereafter you

may say a few words. You may speak on the advantages of

broadcasting and any other subject that appeals to you…

Cordially yours,

Charles D. Isaacson

Program Director

STATION WRNY--RADIO NEWS 671

Fighting Anti-Semitism in Government

On April 27, 1921672 Rabbi Goldstein wrote an editorial in response to expressed

State Department anti-Semitism to The Jewish Daily News:

America owes a debt to the Jew. The Jew gave to America,

through his Old Testament the idea of a just government. Now this

government owes to the Jew justice.

Justice demands that that man of the State Department, who

wrote the insidious libel against the Jewry of Europe, the

Armenians and the Persians, be forthwith dismissed from

government service.

Throughout the history of this country the Jew has always

given more than is due. Beginning with the War of the Revolution,

with Hyam Solomon, the Jew who gave up his fortune to support

the American army and down to the present day, the Jews who

represent three percent of the population of this country, gave five

228

percent of those who laid down their lives for the United States of

America in the last war…

Note what a violation of the traditions of this country has

been committed, and what a disgrace, when the State Department

declared that because Armenians, Jews and Persians have been

tossed hither and thither since 1914, they are an undesirable

element for any country.

The founders of this country would say that we should be

the first to receive a people that has been tossed about hither and

thither for seven years without rest and protection.

Goldstein’s concern for anti-Semitism came up often in sermons he preached at the Institutional Synagogue. On April 19, 1922, the Harlem Home News quoted

Goldstein’s Passover sermons which complained of “…the great chasm of prejudice that has opened between the Christians and the Jews in some sections of the country and of the world and in certain types of individuals.”

The New York Times too quoted from the Passover sermons:

The Jews leave certain sections of Europe because they have never

had and do not have a home. These nations of the world have laid

down their arms but are still at warfare spiritually. Those who try

to stir up clash between race and race, no matter how loud they

may bark, bring no peace but destroy it.673

Goldstein worked with Catholic leadership in New York to speak out against anti-

Semitism. He lobbied for anti-Semitism to be declared inconsistent with Catholicism as

229

had been declared in certain Protestant denominations. The progress of that interfaith dialogue was apparent when, in an event at which Rabbi Goldstein and Cardinal Hayes both spoke, Cardinal Hayes’s addressed the notion of “tolerance” to an audience that included the Grand Street Boys Association, a Catholic youth group. Cardinal Hayes remarks were quoted in The New York Times:

…tolerance must give way to common justice as the cornerstone

upon which must be ‘built our temple of equality and liberty.’

…Cardinal Hayes praised the ‘patience and reverence’ of the Jews,

which, he said, had been ‘priceless contributions to the world at

large, and to our land in particular.’

‘Tolerance after all,’ said his Eminence, ‘is the minimum that the

American ideal of democracy hopes to realize in perpetuating our

national institutions. The word tolerance itself implies that we

permit in others something that we do not like or fully approve of,

whether it be the expression of an individual option or action, or

whether it be the exercise of a civil right or religious liberty.

Tolerance in such a light is predicated on the prejudice or

opposition of one individual to another individual or one group

against another. American cannot be built firmly and lastingly on a

foundation of mere tolerance. The cornerstone must be common

justice, a degree of relationship between individuals and groups far

above that of tolerance…’

230

Other speakers were Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein…674

Rabbi Goldstein promoted to his colleagues of the Rabbinical Council of America that issues of anti-Semitism could be resolved through diplomatic channels when discussed in a sincere and quiet fashion.675

World War I: Synagogue Help for American Soldiers and Jewish Refugees

Herbert Goldstein initially sided with isolationists opposed to American involvement in the war. In an article, written on October 1914 in the monthly bulletin of the Harlem Y.M.H.A.,676 while still the Rabbi at Kehilath Jeshurun, Goldstein had argued:

STOP AND CONSIDER.

Let us review one of God’s judgements. All of Europe is now

engaged in a titanic struggle steeped in war and drenched in blood.

This leads us to ask, ‘Has God forgotten His children?’ No! God’s

judgment depends upon our actions, our will.

The mochards [sic] of Europe, forgetting their responsibility to

God and mindful only of themselves and in protection to their own

selfish interest brought about the shameful conflict now surging on

the other side of the Atlantic.

Once America entered the war Rabbi Goldstein shifted his position somewhat, and with his full support, the congregation began collecting books, magazines and newspapers to help U.S. soldiers at the front and in army camps.677

In a letter explaining his position to the congregation Goldstein wrote:

231

This evening marks the beginning of the preparations for the

drafting of young America, of the buoyant manhood of our

Country, for War.

Up to the declaration of War when most men pleaded with

the President not to be so ‘Watchfully waiting’ nor over

indulgently patient, I uttered then strongest sentiments for a

continued peaceful relationship between this Government and any

other government of the world.

I had hoped that it would be possible to keep this Country

out of War. It was my fervent prayer that we would not be forced

or dragged into War; but the President in his wisdom with the full

possession of the facts of international secrets declared through

Congress, War against the German Government.

When the President made note of that declaration, then

loyal citizens of America had but one clear defined attitude, that of

backing the Government to the fullest extent…678

In these remarks the President of the United States knows best and is uniquely qualified by being fully appraised of the facts and “international secrets.” Rabbi

Goldstein adopted a patriotic position trusting the government and its elected officials to lead the country. Goldstein raised funds at his summer home in Hunter, New York for war relief and for Jewish war sufferers in particular.679 He participated in the Central

Committee for Relief of Jews, and the synagogue had special charity boxes set out to support the war effort.680

232

On Saturday night, the July 28th 1917, Hunter Synagogue was

crowded to its fullest capacity with those who came to attend the

Tisha b’Av …services.

In accordance with the nationwide appeal made by the

Central Relief Committee urging Jews in the United States to help

raise millions of dollars needed for the relief of the Jewish war

suffers, Herbert S. Goldstein made an appeal urging all present to

contribute according to their means.681

Throughout World War I, prayers for the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy were added during Shabbat services and at services on all Jewish holidays:

Yom Kippur Is Celebrated by Jews With Prayers for Army

and Navy.

Religion and patriotism were blended in a fervent observation of

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement by over a million Jews in the

city yesterday.

…Rabbi Herbert Goldstein in his atonement day sermon at the

Institutional Synagogue, 112 West 116th street said in part:

‘At every gathering of American citizens, one thought must

dominate all others -- We must continually hold uppermost in our

minds our present day, immediate task of using every effort and

straining every nerve to win the war.’682

Jewish Soldiers from around the country were invited to attend services at the

Institutional Synagogue. The New York Times wrote:

233

RABBIS SOUND A NOTE OF LOYALTY HERE - Jewish

Soldiers Attend Services from Camps Around New York… More

than 300 soldiers in uniform attended the services at the

Institutional Synagogue 110 street and Fifth avenue. They came

from cantonments and from military stations in the city.683

In addition to soldiers attending services, Herbert Goldstein traveled and spoke at various army camps throughout the country on behalf of the Jewish Welfare Board.684 In describing Goldstein’s addresses, Simon Goldberg, chief welfare worker for the Jewish

Board at Camp Gordon wrote: “The patriotic lectures arranged by the Jewish Welfare

Board, in addition to their educational value, have done much to strengthen the morale and maintain the high standards of the Jewish soldiers.”685

By 1918, the Institutional Synagogue’s involvement with the emotional, physical and spiritual welfare of soldiers and the war effort had become such an important part of the activities of the synagogue that many of the Sunday revivals focused on the war effort. These included presentations such as “America in and after the War.”686

At a special event on February 3, 1918 alongside New York Governor Whitman at one of Rabbi Goldstein’s revival meetings at the Mt. Morris Theater, there was the unfurling of a special flag in honor of the 16 members of the Institutional Synagogue who were then in the army or naval service. The New York Times reporting on the event quoted the Governor:

‘We who remain behind when these young men have gone forth’

said the Governor ‘must remember that we as well as they owe a

supreme duty to our country and must be willing to make any

234

sacrifice in her defense. The people of the Empire of State are

proud of their sons who have answered the country’s call.’ 687

Goldstein’s Passover sermons focused on the war against Germany: “that the

Jewish people must mass their arms to crush the Kultur.”688 When President Wilson, on

May 30, 1918, proclaimed a day of prayer and fasting, the Institutional Synagogue suggested that all synagogues in Harlem come together to hold one service which did indeed take place at the synagogue at 26 West 114th street.689

The synagogue also took the opportunity on Yom Kippur to honor those who died in the war. The New York Tribune noticed: “Yom Kippur to be observed in many synagogues today. Day of atonement ends at 6:00 p.m. with the blowing of the shofar: those who died in war to be honored.”690

To honor the memory of soldiers, especially members of the synagogue who lost their life in battle, a bronze tablet was created and mounted in the synagogue. It was unveiled on November 19, 1922, the 59th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. A medallion reproduction of the head of Abraham Lincoln was engraved onto the tablet accompanied by the text of the Gettysburg Address.691

In 1938, special memorial prayers were established to honor the memory of soldiers, especially members of the synagogue who lost their life in battle.692

The Synagogue also cooperated with the H.I.A.S. with Rabbi Goldstein giving the opening prayer at its eighth annual meeting, a meeting that focused on immigration despite the war.693 Next year, in 1918, the annual H.I.A.S. meeting focused on thousands of Jews stranded in Japan, mostly women and children, on route from Russia to the

235

United States. Rabbi Goldstein again played a role as the spiritual leader offering prayers after which he participated in the proceedings.694

Efforts to support Jewish immigration and rescue were not limited to engagement with H.I.A.S. In 1926, Goldstein successfully worked to help Rabbis who had immigrated to the United States be reunited with their spouses and children still in

Europe by urging Senators to apply pressure on the State Department.695

The synagogue began to dedicate one of its two High Holiday appeals, the most important fundraising appeals of the year, to the work of Jewish refugee relief through

H.I.A.S in 1929.696 Rabbi Goldstein continued to use his pulpit to speak out against racial hatred and the safety and well-being of the European Jewish community. The New York

Times reported:

FEAR OF WAR MARKS NEW YEAR SERMONS.

Rabbis at Rosh Ha-Shanah Services Tell of Menace in the Turkish

Situation.

APPEALS MADE FOR LEAGUE. THE WORLD’S SOUL CALLS

AMERICA DECLARES RABBI H.S. GOLDSTEIN - RELIGIOUS

ANIMOSITY DENOUNCED.697

The Philadelphia Jewish World reported on a conference of the Central Relief

Committee to organize a permanent body to aid in the restoration of European Yeshivas with Rabbi Meyer Berlin and Rabbi Goldstein as the featured speakers.698

The New York American focused on the concern of grave hunger for the Jews in

Europe and that Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish

236

Congregations of America and Rabbi of the Institutional Synagogue, had sounded the alarm on this issue in his Passover sermons:

…IN JEWS’ HANDS ARE he said: ‘the solution of the Jewish

problem is in the hands of the American Jew. The American Jew is

on trial. There are two aspect of the Jewish problem; the first is

physical and the second is spiritual.

The Jews of eastern and central Europe numbering about

one-half of the world’s Jewish population are literally starving. We

say in the Hagada, the special Passover service: ‘Let all those who

are hungry come and eat.’ We cannot bid them come because the

doors of America are practically closed.

We can, however, do the next best, and send them our

funds and of our food supplies that they may eat and be

encouraged, so that they may not lose hope for the future.’ 699

The New York Post recorded on May 3, 1926 a gathering at the synagogue to discuss the New York Jewish community raising six million dollars for those suffering in

Europe.700

World War II and the Holocaust

Throughout World War II and in its aftermath, Rabbi Goldstein’s Institutional synagogue made repeated efforts to rescue and aid Jews in Europe. As President of the

Rabbinical Council of America, Goldstein reported to the rabbis about a telegram he had sent to the President of the United States:

237

On Friday, March 18th, when it was announced that Hitler had called off the Austrian Plebiscite…we sent a telegram to President

Roosevelt, on behalf of the oppressed in Austria. I believe we may have had some influence for the statement made to the press by the

State Department to facilitate the emigration from Austria of all the oppressed. Herewith appended is a copy of our telegram and the response thereto.

‘In behalf of the Rabbinical Council of America, I am addressing this telegram to you in the hope that you may find it possible to sound the note of humanitarianism as the voice of America to the

German government for the justice and mercy to Catholics and

Jews, all children of the one God. We do not presume to ask you to involve our beloved country in any political question. We believe that the elementary human right to live unfettered and unchallenged is the concern of all mankind. The heads of the governments are unable to speak in the same disinterested, non- partisan manner as you can. The hope of mankind lies in the rise of a leader whose compelling voice will receive the unquestioned confidence and support of the rest of the world. Is there today anyone else who occupies such a position other than yourself?

‘We humbly pray that you may be the human instrument through which the Catholics, Jews, and any other oppressed people may be

238

allowed to live their lives without constant fear of being seized,

humiliated and tortured the very next moment.’

Rabbinic Council of America

Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein’ President

The report to the Rabbis continued including the telegram received from the Department of State, composed on April 2, 1938 “for the Secretary of State” by the “Under-

Secretary:”

My dear Rabbi Goldstein:

The receipt is acknowledged, by reference from the White House,

of your telegram of March 18, 1938 in which you suggest that this

Government sound the note of humanitarianism to the German

government with regard to certain peoples [sic] in Europe.

I fully understand your solicitude and wish I felt it were possible to

take the action you suggest. In this field our duty is to offer full

and adequate protection to American citizens and direct American

interests, and I feel that any deviation from this policy could not be

other than prejudicial.

While this Government does not assume to intervene in the

domestic concerns of other countries, this policy of non-

intervention, however, can in no sense be construed as indifference

on our part; and in this connection I quote from a public address

delivered by the President at San Diego, California on October 2,

1935:…and I enclose for our more exact information a copy of the

239

statement made to the press by this Department on March 24,

1938.701

While these efforts of Rabbi Goldstein and rabbinic leadership at the national level were completely unsuccessful, striving for ‘justice’ and extending ‘mutual aid’ to those for whom justice had been denied remain venerable and sacred actions even when such efforts fail miserably.

When the news of Allied victory in World War II was heard throughout the

United States, Rabbi Goldstein made the following comment to his community

I earnestly appeal to my people to abide by the Jewish tradition of

forbearance and restrain, to receive the news of victory and solemn

humility and dignity and in dedication to the greater service of God

and common weal of mankind.702

Many synagogues and churches including the Institutional Synagogue held special VE

Day services in the synagogue.703

Rabbi Goldstein continually reminded his community of a responsibility to help both returning military veterans and “the starving people” of Europe. In The New York

Times he was quoted as stating: “Unless we do our duty to the returning veteran and to the starving people of Europe, we may cause ourselves, God forbid, to see the wheel of fortune which we are now enjoying take an adverse turn.”704 On a regular basis, the

Westside Institutional Review promoted its services to veterans:

Attention Veterans:

May we remind the veterans of W.S.I.S. family that we have

within our institution, a very active post of Jewish war veterans of

240

America… The next meeting…will take place Wednesday

evening, February 25th at 8:30 p.m….All veterans are cordially

invited to join this very active post…705

Rabbi Goldstein was also part of a full-page ad (Fig. 7) in the New York Times prior to Passover of 1946: “Last Passover he was a Nazi slave, this Passover can you let him go hungry?”706

Fig. 7. New York Times, February 20, 1946, page 19.

After World War II, Rabbi Goldstein was named co-chairman of a million dollar overseas relief and resettlement campaign in the refugee immigration division of the

241

Agudath Israel Youth Council of America and participated as a member of the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).707

In March of 1946, when there were also challenges for French Jewry, Herbert

Goldstein responded in the following fashion:

The Synagogue Council of America, representing the Orthodox,

Conservative and Reform rabbinic and congregational bodies, has

initiated a plan to help in the religious rehabilitation of France, it

was announced yesterday by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, President

of the Council.

The body requested that Jewish communities throughout the United States

“adopt” the Jewish communities of France and “aid in the restoration of their religious life to full strength and dignity.”708

Later that year, Rabbi Goldstein petitioned the Pope:

ASK POPE TO AID JEWS

Appealing in behalf of the Jews of Poland, Rabbi Herbert S.

Goldstein …made public yesterday the text of a cable to Pope Pius.

‘In deepest anguish at the murder of our brothers and sisters in

Kielce and other Polish cities, we appeal to Your Holiness to exert

your benign influence to protect the lives of innocent human

beings,’ the cable said.

‘Your intersession for a people which has undergone the

severest ordeal in history will be pleasing in the eyes of G-d and

earn the reverence of man. Words of good counsel spoken by your

242

shepherds and the churches of the Polish bishopric will, we feel

sure, lead the Polish people away from fratricidal strife and stay

the hands of those who are now shedding Jewish blood. We,

therefore, impose Your Holiness to raise your voice against the

slaughter of Jewish innocents in Poland.’ 709

As co-chairman of the overseas relief and resettlement campaign, Rabbi Goldstein aligned the Institutional Synagogue with both the Vaad Hatzala of the Agudah710 and the

American Religious Palestine Fund.

The synagogue had constant food and clothing drives to benefit Jewish children and the destitute of Europe.711 These drives sought a variety of needed items: canned kosher meat, canned gefilte fish, canned vegetable fat, canned or boxed powdered milk and condensed milk, canned kosher soup, sugar, rice, cocoa, coffee, tea, canned fruits, canned vegetables, cheese, toothbrushes, tooth powder, chocolate bars, cigarettes, warm clothing.712 The synagogue worked as part of a cooperative which gathered over 2 million pounds of food sent on VE Day for refugees both in Europe and in Israel.713

Goldstein also worked with his congregation to help build homes for orphans in

Israel. The Israeli corporation papers of this organization show Goldstein as the Rabbi of the synagogue as the president of this organization and Lester Udell, synagogue president, as the vice president of the organization.714 It seems from the archival records of Goldstein’s correspondences that these homes were used for youth who had been hidden and were being redeemed from monasteries across Europe. For the appeal

Goldstein made in this endeavor he received many letters of response such as this one:

243

I am most pleased to send you a check for $500 as my contribution

towards the building of homes in Israel in accordance with the

plans outlined in your appeal. When you delivered the appeal and

commenced to weep, bringing tears to the eyes of most of the

worshippers, I was moved to double my original pledge of

$250.00. Moreover, I was so deeply impressed that I felt I must do

something more – hence my idea to arrange, in conjunction with a

few other members, for a loan of funds for an additional home in

Israel.715

It seems the Institutional Synagogue involved itself with the development of a home for Jewish girls hidden and cared for in Catholic monasteries in Czechoslovakia who now had the opportunity to resume living as Jews and move to Israel. In a letter that

Goldstein wrote to Harry Golding on January 31, 1950, he encouraged him to visit a home for girls who were taken out of monasteries in Czechoslovakia and were subsequently living in a home for girls called “Beth T’Zirot” of Agudath Israel.716

Zionism

Early in his career Rabbi Goldstein identified as a Zionist and had been a member of the Mizrachi movement of religious Zionists, but he did not remain a member for long.

Prior to his position as Rabbi of the Institutional Synagogue, Goldstein spoke at the

Brooklyn Jewish Institute on Emancipation and Assimilation. This lecture was covered by The American Hebrew:

…that wherever and whenever Jews are emancipated, they tend to

assimilate unless other tendencies step in to counteract a

244

threatening danger. He alluded to Zionism and other possible

solutions [to the challenge] …717

Rabbi Goldstein became discouraged and felt that modern Zionism was not helping to solve the challenge of assimilation. Secular Zionists were not interested in a

Jewish state governed by Torah and Jewish tradition and the willingness of his observant colleagues, religious Zionists, to work with them caused Goldstein to break from the religious Zionist Mizrachi movement already in 1926.718

In 1935, Goldstein delivered a sermon on “Palestine” during the holiday of

Sukkot. He suggested that the Jewish return to Palestine must be accompanied with a return to Judaism:

To the loyal Jew, chauvinistic Torah-less nationalism is as useful

as suicidal Torah-less universalism. Palestine without religion is

like body without a soul -- Palestine is not to be merely another

land, but it must serve as ‘The Holy Land.’719

Similar ideas were communicated in a lengthy essay/talk found among

Goldstein’s writings dated March 1943, Zionism after the War:720

…Is it merely political independence we are so long seeking, or a

sanctuary for the Jewish soul. Secularize Eretz Yisroel and you de-

Judaise it. Those who compromise with the precepts of Judaism

[in] the Diaspora, but who are drawn to the ideal of a God

governed Zion, feel that whilst they cannot always remedy things

in the diaspora where preoccupation with the responsibility of life

in a gentile world has stripped the Jew of some of the radiant

245

vestments of his faith, want to bring it to pass that in Zion the Jew

may wear again the full breast-plate of his faith…The great Zionist

movement as we observe it, at no time has shown a sincere desire

to use Judaism as an active force in achieving its aims. 721

…The constitution for a Jewish Palestine is nothing else than the

Torah, therefore the judges in Palestine can only be those who will

decide in accordance with the laws of the constitution, the Torah.

These judges at present can only be the rabbis. Our peculiar

contribution as a nation is that our nationalism is a theocracy. In a

theocracy which is Jewishly speaking a Torah democracy, the laity

may compose the House of the Legislature. Above the Legislature

will come the Supreme Court or the Sanhedrin who will pass upon

the Torah constitutionality of all legislation. Our nationalism is an

entity dedicated to express the will of God through the way of the

Torah in His Holy Land.722

Goldstein’s animosity towards modern Zionism became more intense with the following comments:

Let me ask, is not the Zionist, who desecrates the Jewish religion a

traitor? I believe that my insistence on a Zion ruled by the Torah

and not by Nationalism is true Jewish Zionism and that the other

and, alas, the more flourishing brand of Zionism is a falsely

labeled container for a product out of which the essential Jewish

vitamin has been extracted. If the remaining substance has any

246

appeal, it is only because of how well it has been propagated and

sold. We can probably lose our identity quicker by becoming a

nation, in the accepted Zionist sense of the words, than in the

exile.723

Yeshiva University Involvement

Rabbi Goldstein was involved with Yeshiva University throughout his career. His involvement was predicated on the belief that the future of Orthodox Jewry required a rabbinate sensitive to the American ethos and equipped with the necessary religious and pedagogic training to speak and to engage with an American cultured Jewish community.

That was his message as a young Rabbi speaking at the ceremony for the new Rabbi

Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and Yeshivat Etz Chaim where his father-in-law,

Harry Fishel, laid the cornerstone of the building.724

On September 5, 1920, Herbert Goldstein received a letter (Fig. 8) from the

President of the Faculty, Rabbi Bernard Revel informing him that he had been appointed as an instructor in Homiletics at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

(RIETS).725

247

Fig. 8. Bernard Revel’s letter of appointment to Herbert Goldstein.

Like many rabbis who are passionate about a cause, Goldstein was able to secure support from his congregation for Yeshiva University. He arranged for the women’s branch of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and that of the Institutional

Synagogue to support RIETS by launching a campaign of 250,000 dollars to construct a new dormitory building for its rabbinical students.726

In 1941, Yeshiva University recognized the many contributions of Rabbi

Goldstein to the university, as a communal leader, and as the Rabbi of the Institutional

Synagogue. The university conferred upon Goldstein, its first honorary Doctor of

Divinity degree.727

The Collapse of the Harlem Institutional Synagogue

In 1927 with the demographic changes in Harlem and the growth and success of the West Side community Goldstein opened a branch of the Institutional Synagogue leasing of Leslie Hall on 260 West 83rd street.728 There he would continue his vision for a

248

broadly purposed synagogue emphasizing youth and adult education, social justice and chesed (acts of kindness), social programming, and clubs and sports activities to reproduce the success he had in Harlem. The Harlem based leadership was happy at first with this arrangement. On Shabbat Goldstein would often walk between the synagogues so that he could address both congregations without prioritizing one over the other.729

It did not take long for the branch, the West Side Institutional Synagogue, to become a center of activity. Activities included a Talmud Torah, social clubs, and educational classes for adults and youth. By 1959 the synagogue had over 800 members and Goldstein started a day school in the synagogue, which eventually became a community project known as Manhattan Day School.730 The synagogue on the West Side continues to serve the community until this day.

However, the Jewish community in Harlem declined further, and Goldstein eventually resigned his position working to expand the activities of the Westside

Institutional Synagogue. There was resentment on the part of the remaining members of the Institutional Synagogue in Harlem. In 1943 when the synagogue building was foreclosed the prayer services were moved to the Home of the Daughters of Israel, an old age home at 1260 5th Avenue. With the exception of materials formally purchased by the

West Side Institutional Synagogue all remaining assets and memorial plaques were transferred to the Home of the Daughters of Israel and not to the West Side Institutional

Synagogue.731

The Harlem Institutional Synagogue and the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem

Synagogues could never match a Temple in Jerusalem for majesty or sway, but some of its broad-leadership did endure in its successor synagogues. If the Institutional

249

Synagogue succeeded on its own terms, at least for the constituency of Jews it served in

Harlem, its connection to the Temple in Jerusalem should be measured by the effectiveness of its efforts to fill a void, made pressing once again in history by the immediate needs of a large population of Jews in a new place, without the communal structure that had served them in the long European interim of Jewish history and through which they had exercised a measure of civic and religious autonomy.

Rabbi Goldstein and the Institutional Synagogue labored to open every gate possible, similar to those we have mentioned to the Temple in Jerusalem: (1) for intellection -- the revival meetings, the decorous prayer services, youth services, the

Hebrew school programs, the adult education courses, lectures, panel discussions, radio programs, correspondence courses; (2) for the calendar -- the Sabbath services, youth programming, all the efforts to stem the mass transgression of Sabbath observance, the

High Holiday services, Passover, Sukkot, the rehabilitation of minor festivals such as

Chanukah, Purim, Lag b’Omer, and the commemorations and celebrations of American citizenship; (3) for mutual aid -- a homeless shelter, big brother big sister programs, programs for veterans, clothes for the needy, food distributions, the clubs, the sisterhoods, the circles, the sports, recreation, and health programs, the summer camps even for poor children, refugee relief, relief for orphans, and resettlement; (4) for generosity -- Harry Fischel’s kick-starter donation of the first property in Harlem, the bequests of deceased supporters and friends, ‘Buy a Brick’ campaigns, the $10 campaign, the clock drive, the thousands of volunteers who gave of their time for this holy endeavor, -- the money raising in all its savvy (which often fell short), and (5) finally, for justice -- the fight against delinquency and crime, against the loiterers and the pool halls

250

of Harlem, pioneering labor rights especially religious exemptions for the Sabbath and holidays, writing on behalf of Europe’s besieged Jews to the President of the United

States and receiving instead, from someone called an under-secretary, an infamous my dear Rabbi Goldstein letter in reply, the plea to Pope Pius IX to assist somehow the remnant of devastated Polish Jewry, and efforts to provide sums of money and goods to help Jewish refugees, “the starving of Europe.”

The Harlem Institutional Synagogue, a multi-storied complex with its sanctuary, its kitchens, its classrooms, its gymnasium, and its swimming pool accomplished a great deal but could not, after everything, escape being, a mikdash ma’at -- a small temple.

Thus says the Lord God: Although I have cast them [the Jewish people]

far among the nations and although I have scattered them among the

countries, I have been to them a little sanctuary [l’mikdash ma’at] in the

countries where they are come.732

The Institutional Synagogue’s was to be that ‘little sanctuary.’ In a time of great turbulence it created a sanctuary in which God’s presence could be felt among the people

‘scattered among the countries.’

It was always Goldstein’s hope that the mikdash ma’at where he served would renew the Jewish people and would help reinvigorate them as God had done before so many times. Goldstein not only achieved that goal in Harlem and on the West Side but, as mentioned earlier, he created a synagogue paradigm that was replicated throughout the

Jewish world. While he is not a well-known personality, his contribution to the future of the Jewish people and community is immortal.

251 Conclusion

This dissertation sketched key structural-functional design characteristics of the

Temple in Jerusalem as they emerge from archeological finds, academic scholarship, and rabbinic literary and legal traditions. It illustrated numerous embodied and functional parallels, with detailed descriptions drawing on the documents of social history, featuring two successful American synagogues, one built and led by the leadership of a lay community and the other dominated by a renowned Rabbi. Both synagogues seem to have inherited, continued, and celebrated venerable purposes that the rise of synagogues once took over from the ideals of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem. Synagogues become successful institutions when they serve their communities, meeting self- perceived as well as pressing needs through a willingness to accomplish multiple and diverse purposes.

We have seen that Shearith Israel and the Institutional Synagogue both worked to open and sustain a range of spiritual opportunities “gateways” for prayer, holiday and lifetime celebrations, intellectual engagement with Judaism, the needs of the poor and the subjugated around the corner and around the world. They each extended efforts to deal justly in a sometimes cruel and frightening world and acted on a commitment to the community’s youth. Their success allowed them to grow in numbers, in philanthropic support, and in satisfying their constituencies and stakeholders.

Additional research needs to be done to confirm that not only synagogues of the

17th, 18th and early 20th centuries succeeded when adopting broadly purposed

252 synagogues, creating portals of entry similar to those of the Temple, but that modern, contemporary synagogues achieve success when they follow such a model.

It is my goal to further develop this thesis by showing that the Boca Raton

Synagogue, one of the most successful synagogues of the late 20th and early 21st century, achieved its success, as I believe, by purposing itself broadly, engaging in programing and activities that do not all fit between simple binary divisions of religious or secular, personal or public, ritual or ethical, recreational or political. Instead, by striving to meet a range of communal needs a synagogue also calls to a wider, more diverse spectrum of community members. In aiming to do more, the synagogue comes to value and involve individuals who might not think of the synagogue as a place where they themselves can contribute or be inspired. When synagogues validate the need for multiple kinds of portals of spiritual entry, the institution finds more partners in building a religious community. This is the paradigm of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem.

In the future, I hope to explore Kehillat Hadar and its development of independent minyanim. Hadar represents an institution that has created an engaging synagogue environment without the same brick and mortar or lay and rabbinic infrastructure common to most synagogues. Kehillat Hadar has built a synagogue community populated largely, although not exclusively, by people under the age of forty.

This independent prayer movement focuses on the quality of the prayer service, facilitating hospitality, creating meaningful study experiences, and expressing a commitment to social justice not to the building of grand edifices.733

Further research is necessary to compare and contrast the functions of independent minyanim with the work of actual, historical synagogues, and to better

253

understand what type of social and spiritual experiences are truly being sought. Are the experiences at Kehillat Hadar linked similarly to the spiritual underpinnings of the ancient Temple?

In conclusion, when the Bible records the creation of the Tabernacle, it acknowledges the fact that Moses was instructed to dismantle it and reassemble it again and again.

And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of

setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed it, and sanctified it, and

all its instruments, both the altar and all its vessels, and had

anointed them and sanctified them. (Numbers 7:1)

The Jerusalem Talmud comments:

We learned, during the seven days of consecration [of the

Tabernacle] Moses would anoint the Tabernacle, would erect and

dismantle [the Tabernacle], and arranged the service [in the

Tabernacle]. And on the eighth day he constructed [the

Tabernacle] and did not dismantle it. (TJ Yoma 1:1)

Why was it necessary that Moses at the completion of the Tabernacle be instructed to take the Tabernacle apart and put it back together again each day for a period of seven days? If it was to practice the methods of storing and transporting the structure, it would have been more appropriate for the Levites, normally in charge of this task, to do it. Yet,

God instructs Moses to be involved with dismantling and re-fashioning the Tabernacle for an entire week!

254

Perhaps the motive for this strange command is the central idea of this dissertation. God illustrated for the Jewish people that the primary role of the Tabernacle and what guaranteed its success was not the fancy instruments: the golden candelabra, the ark or the altar. Those could be dismantled. The tabernacle structure could be taken apart and put back together again because its holiness resides not essentially in its structures, however grand or majestic, but rather on the diverse activities, the work and service of the Temple, for which the space is designed.

During the week of its consecration, the Tabernacle needed to be deconstructed in order to remind the community and its leadership that what separates the golden

Tabernacle from the golden calf is not a difference primarily of form or material substance, but in intention and commitment to rebuild it again and again in service of a public approach to God wherever we find ourselves. It is not the destinations where the

Tabernacle traveled in the desert that we remember but that a much longer journey started, continued in Jerusalem, and has followed ever since within the hearts and souls of ordinary people seeking the presence of God around the globe.

255 Endnotes

Notes to Introduction

1 1600 Included in those units were families, widows/widowers, and singles. Each unit represented equally in this counting of members.

2 In July 1987 Rabbi Buchwald launched the National Jewish Outreach Program (NJOP). See Web.

3 See the death notice for Rabbi Herschel Cohen (New York Times, Nov 8, 2000, Web).

4 Olitzky, 97. See also South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Boca Raton Synagogue Chooses New Rabbi,” 1991, Jul 06, Brzozowski. Web.

5 The growth is discussed in this article: South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “A Web Rift At Boca Synagogue Orthodox Congregation Creates Own Site After Dispute With Founder,” 2007, Aug 01, Solomon. Web.

6 See Palm Beach Post, “Boca’s Orthodox Jews Celebrate Rosh Hashana, Growing Family,” Sept 8, 1991, Sunday. Web.

7 See Palm Beach Post, “Boca Temple Adds Bath For Spiritual Cleansing,” December 21, 1993, Web. See also, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Synagogue Builds Ritual Baths; Orthodox Jews Use `Mikvahs’ For Spiritual Cleansing,” 1994, Jun 29, Ken Swart, R. W. Web. See further, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Waters Of Renewal A Growing Number Of Jewish Couples Are Discovering The Spiritual Power Of A 3,000-Year-Old Ritual To Rejuvenate Their Love,” 1999, Mar 13, Talalay, Web.

8 See Palm Beach Post, “Boca Tov Cafe Combines Food, Jewish Educational Programs,” 2006, Jun 7,Web.

9 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Holy Days Draw Jews Back To Fold,” 1991, Sept 08, Davis, Web. See also, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Swart, K. 1992, Feb 01, Web. See further, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Classes For Women,” 1997, May 30. Web.

10 See Palm Beach Post, “Jewish High School Slated for Boca or North Broward,” 1997 Sept 16, Web. See also South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Jewish High Schools To Open Boca, Broward Sites Prepared,” 1998, Jan 03, O’Connor. Web.

11 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Orthodox Bonds And Boundaries Jews Flock To Eruv From All Over World,” 1997, Jun 08, Nichol. Web. See also South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Eased Jewish District to Grow/ The Area, Called an Eruv, would Allow More Orthodox an Easier Sabbath,” 2001, Oct 22, Augustin. Web.

12 See Palm Beach Post, “Young Rabbis Search For Answers,” 2006, Feb 26, Sunday. Web.

13 See Palm Beach Post, “Boca Raton School Teaches Jewish Basics,” 1996, Sept 6. Web. See also South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Rabbis Devote Days to Keeping the Faith a Boca Raton Learning Center Uses Education to Promote Jewish Unity,” 2001, Jun 04, Dozier. Web.

14 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Judaism 101: a Nonprofit Group Reaches Out to Jews and Non-Jews with Educational Services,” 2003, Jan 03, Reeves. Web.

256

15 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Temples, Synagogues Offer Hebrew Classes,” 1992, Feb 01, Swart. Web.

16 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Plenty of Horn,” 1992, Sep 18, Swart. Web.

17 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Jews Rally To Break Chains Binding Wives Without A `Get,’ Women Are Trapped In Marriages,” 1995, Mar 26, Adams. Web. See also South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Rabbis Meet with Bush on Terrorism; Boca Cleric Among 12 Who Met President,” 2002, Dec 07, Abbady. Web.

18 See Palm Beach Post, “Jews Protest `Soap’ Ad In `Sentinel’; Working With Paper To Halt Recurrence,”1993, Jan 24. Web. See also Palm Beach Post, “Rabbi Who Protests Anti-Semitism to Speak in Boca,” 1993, Mar 20. Web. See further, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Offensive Ad Leads to Synagogue Service,” 1993, Jan 23, Swart. Web.

19See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Family of Slain Boy Joins Call for Peace,” 2001, Jun 16, Pensa. Web. See also Palm Beach Post, “Supporters Of Israel Rally in D.C. Tens Of Thousands Demand U.S. Resolve in War on Terrorism,” 2002, April 16. Web. See further Palm Beach Post, “Exchange Inspires Jewish Students,” 2006, Mar 20. Web. See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Jews Call For Unity, Peace In Time Of Crisis,” 1996, Mar 07, Shine. Web. See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Unity, Remembrance About 2,000 At Service Pause In Memory Of Latest Israeli Victims,” 2003, Oct 07, Gopal and Ron Allen. Web.

20 See South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Flood Aid Activities Humming Youths Pack Food, Drum Up Money,” 1993, Jul 28, Swart. Web.

21 For a summary of these achievements see the Boca Raton Synagogue community video posted to YouTube. Web.

22 See Nefesh B’Nefesh, Web.

23 See Institutional Synagogue Records, "Constitution and By Laws of the Institutional Synagogue." There it states: “The Rabbi and Leader of the Institutional Synagogue shall be Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, who shall occupy that office for his natural life (Article III Section 2).”

Notes to Chapter 1 Institutional Re-Instantiation

24 For further elaboration of this point see Lee Levine, Ancient Synagogues Revealed, p 1.

25 Kings I, 8: 27-30

26 Isaiah, 56: 7

27 See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Ancient Synagogue and the History of Judaism,” xxvii; and Joseph Gutmann in “The Origin of the Synagogue: The Current State of Research.”

and its use Tannaitic literature, Biblical בית הכנסת For further development of the word synagogue and 28 literature, and in Josephus, see Solomon Zeitlin, “The Origin of the Synagogue: A Study in the Development of Jewish Institutions.”

29 See Gutmann.

30 Zeitlin writes in support of the synagogue being established during the Babylonian captivity-exilic does not occur in the Bible, all scholars are of the opinion that the בית הכנסת period: “Although the word Synagogue as a fixed institution was in existence in Babylonia after the destruction of the first Temple. The

257

rise of the institution was necessitated by the need of communal worship and instruction, built after the destruction of the Temple.” (Zeitlin 73). Levine (1) concurs with this approach.

31 See Shmuel (Samuel) Safrai, “Bet ha-Keneset,” who suggests the development of the synagogue occurred during the Second Temple period.

32 Sidney Hoenig, “The Supposititious Temple-Synagogue,” and Lawrence Schiffman (“Ancient Synagogue”xxvii), both suggest the rise of synagogues began later in antiquity and flourished after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

33 Ezekiel 11: 16

34 Megillah 29a

35 Ravyah, vol. 1, Berakhot, #12. [cm-- With all of these the title as it appears in Works Cited should come first. The author's name is 'extra-information' you are providing which in these cases is also found in the text and might be omitted here.]

36 Rebash, #518.

37 Mhari Mintz, 7.

38 R. Benjamin Ze’ev b. Mattahias Binyamin Ze’eev #174.

39 Kaftor va-Ferach, Chapter 51.

40 See Blidtstein 196.

41 Iggeres (Epistle) of Rav Sherira Gaon, siman 81 (trans. Rabinowitch pp. 84-85).

42 Megillah 3:22 and, quoted internally there, Numbers 3: 38.

43 Berachot 30a

44 Berachot 30a; see also, Grossberg 322.

45 Tosefta Megillah 3:22

46 Sotah 40b

47 See Joshua Falk, Perishah, O”H 154:9

48 Sotah 41a

49 Nehemiah 8: 2-9

50 See: Hachlili, “The Niche and the Ark in Ancient Synagogues” pp. 43-53; Meyers, “The Torah Shrine in the Ancient Synagogue” pp. 303-338.

51 See: Baba Batra 14a, 14b.

52 See: Keilim 1:9; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, beit ha-bechira: 7: 22.

258

53 See: Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 3:1; Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 153:2.

54 Chrysostom: Homily 6:7.2: ‘Against the Jews’.

55 Numbers 25: 31-40.

56 Exodus 37: 17.

57 Numbers 26: 35.

58 Chronicles I 28: 15.

59 Shulchan Arukh: Orach Chayim 671: 7.

60 Mishnah Berurah, 671: 40.

61 See: Zucker.

62 Karaites: “…a Jewish sect which came into being toward the middle of the ninth century. Its doctrine is characterized primarily by its denial of the Talmudic-rabbinic tradition...” (Lasker, et al., in the Encyclopaedia Judaica).

63 Ze’ev Safrai, “From Synagogue to Little Temple 23.

64 Sukkah 51b.

65 Tosefta Sukkah 4:6.

66 Pesachim 13b; see also, Berachot 23b.

67 Sukkah 5:1

68 Laura Leibman, “Sephardic sacred space in colonial America.”

69 Leibman “Sacred Spaces”

70 Leibman “Sacred Spaces” 16.

71 Leibman “Sacred Spaces” 33-35.

72 Deuteronomy 6: 9

73 Shulchan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah 285

74 Shulchan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah 285: 5; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Tefillin, u’ Mezuzah, v’ Sefer Torah 6:6

75 She’iltot Ekev 163. (The She’iltot, is a collection of discourses on Jewish law and ethics written by R. Achai of Shabcha in Babylonia during the seventh - eighth century.)

76 Meyer 58.

259

77 kal va-chomer: This is an argument from the minor premise (kal) to a major premise (chomer). If using the temple as a shortcut is forbidden (kal - a minor lack of disrespect) surely spitting on the Temple Mount is forbidden (chomer - a major display of irreverence).

78 Berachot 54a.

79 Shulchan Arukh: O”H 151:1, 5. It seems that for the synagogue to receive the holiness attributed to the Temple it must be an institution that is established by the community as a house of prayer and not simply for an individual (O”H 151:2). While it is forbidden to enter the Temple with shoes, the Shulchan Arukh permits it for entering a synagogue. However, see Z. Safrai, who shares rabbinic sources forbidding entering the synagogue with shoes in his article “From the Synagogue to Little Temple,”p 24.

80 Mishnah Berurah, 151:1

81 Yevamot 6b

82 Megillah 28a.

83 Shulchan Arukh, O”H: 151.10.

84 Ziegler 76.

85 While rabbinic sources indicate there was a synagogue, Sidney B. Hoenig, in his article “The Supposititious Temple-Synagogue” posits that with proper re-examination of the rabbinic sources as well as an examination of the various Temple traditions regarding the synagogue structure, one concludes that no such institution existed on the Temple Mount.

86 Sotah 7:8.

87Tosefta Bikkurim 2:8.

88 Tosefta Megillah 3:21; Shulchan Arukh, O”H: 139:3.

89 Levine 4.

90 Tamid 1:1

91 See: Maimonides, The Commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh Hashana 4:1. See also: Maser Sheni 3;4, Shekalim 1:3 and in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Beit haBechirah, 6:15-16. Also, Tykocinski, Sefer Ir ha- kodesh veha-Mikdash; and Encylopedia Talmudit, vol. 25 p. 308.

92 Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 3:1, 73d.

93 Kiddushin 30a.

94 Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 52:4.

95 S. Safrai, “Be-shilhe ha-Bayit ha-sheni,”p 176.

96 Shabbat 11a

97 Avnei Nezer,Yoreh Deah: 312.

260

98 Tamid 5:1, see also Yoma 7:1.

99 See: Berachot 11b. The specific prayers mentioned as an extrapolation from the Mishnah are found there and in contemporary prayer books see Sacks, “The Koren Siddur” pp. 97-103, 127, 201.

100 Ta’anit 4: 2-3.

101 Berachot 26b.

102 Soloveitchik ‘rayyanot al’ tefillah’ pp 239-271.

103 SeeTamid 5:1 and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, hilkhot tefillah, chapters 14-15 both sources make a direct connection between the two practices. See also: S. Safrai, “Bet ha-Keneset.”

104 Megillah 29a

105 Tosefta Sanhedrin 2:6.

106 Pesachim 26a.

107 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 3:1.

108 Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 282:1

109 Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 428; 584:2; 621:1; 659; 694.

110 Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 423

111 Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 550

112 Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 135:1

113 Ze’ev Safrai, “From the Synagogue to ‘Little Temple p. 182.

114 Levine 4.

115 Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Masei ha-Korbanot 1:1-6; 7:1.

116 Z. Safrai, Functions p. 197.

117 Levine 3.

118 Soferim 19:7, and in some manuscripts it is Soferim 19:9.

119 Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 2:3.

120 Soferim 19:11, in some manuscripts it is Soferim 19:12.

121 Middot 2:2.

122 Sefer Maharil: Hilkhot S’machot: 14

123 Sacks, Koren Siddur: ‘Greeting to Mourners’ pp. 323, 1059.

261

124 In a discussion with Professor Daniel Sperber he felt this explanation to be “very persuasive.”

125 See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, hilkhot beit ha-bechirah 7:14.

126 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, hilkhot beit ha-bechirah 7:14 127 See Exodus 23:17 and Exodus 34:23-24. This is referenced in Megillah 26a and Yoma 12a which forbids the citizens of Jerusalem to charge rent for guests to use their residence. Rashi, Megillah 26a, and the Chiddushei ha-Ritba (Yoma 12a) limit this prohibition to charging rent during the three holidays in the year in which Temple pilgrimage is mandated. See also R. Moses Sofer in his responsa Chatam Sofer (vol. 2:234) as well as R. Avraham Karelitz , Sefer Chazon Ish, Orach Chayim,, Yoma 126:8.

128 See Magan Avot on Tractate Avot 5:5 s.v. v’lo amar chaveiro; it is the work of Simeon ben Zemach Duran.

129 Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 92:6.

130 Levine 4.

131 Z. Safrai Functions 198.

132 Oakman and Hanson: Theodotus Inscription. Web.

133 Avot 1:2

134 Shekalim 5:6

135 Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Ma’tanot Ani-yim 10: 7,8

136 Vayikra Rabbah 32:7.

137 In Katzrin the archeological footprint of the synagogue seems to indicate that behind the Holy Ark was a small room which seems to be used as the Temple office - a place for the poor to withdraw funds and for members of the community to deposit their charity; this may have enabled charity to be received and donated anonymously.

138 Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher 199.

139 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:1.

140 Yoma, 2:4.

141 Yoma 3:10, 11.

142 Middot 1:3. Regarding the Eastern gate’s image of Shushan, it is debated among rabbinical scholars whether it was a mandate from Persia to ensure there would be no rebellion or an internal Jewish enactment to remind the Judean community where they came from and who gave them permission to rebuild the Temple. See Menachot 98a; Rashi (Pesachim 86a, s.v. Shushan); Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah Kelim 17:9. Either way, it signifies the use of holy articles to symbolize the benefaction of a foreign power responsible for securing the safety and development of the community.

143 Middot 1: 3.

144 Fine and Greenfield, “Remembered for Praise”167.

262

145 Shabbat 31a

146 Yalkut Shimoni, Bereshiet 3:34 p. 20

147 Sanhedrin 11:2.

148 Pesiqta Rabbati 22.

149 Makkot 3:12.

150 Levine 295.

151 Baba Metzia 28b.

152 Taanit 19a. As is evident from this source the stone of the claimants’ is on the Temple Mount. Further elaboration on this issue can be seen in Asher S. Kaufman’s article “Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood - Extant ‘foundation stone’ for the Ark of the Covenant is identified”. There Kaufman proves that the protruding stone under the Dome of the Rock is the Stone of the Claimants’.

153 Baba Mezia 28b.

154 Z. Safrai, Functions 203.

155 Levine, pp 3-4.

156 Zeitlin 75.

Notes to Chapter 2 Shearith Israel: Synagogue Community

157 Ben Israel 158. It was in Jonathan Sarna’s “Port Jews in the Atlantic: Further Thoughts” that I first encountered Ben Israel’s messianic view of ‘new world’ settlement.

158 Kaplan 122.

159 It was technically called New Amsterdam until 1664.

160 See Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven; see also, Weir, Early New England: a Covenanted Society.

161 Shearith Sketch 175.

162 Diner Jews 40.

163 See Berman 274, 275.

164 See Shearith Israel: “America’s First Jewish Congregation” Web.

165 See Hershkowitz’s New Amsterdam’s Twenty-Three Jews and in The Mill Street Synagogue Reconsidered; Sarna American 10; Snyder 3, 4; and Marcus Studies 41.

166 According to Marcus (Studies 45), the synagogue until 1720-1721 was originally known as Shearith Yaakob (the remnant of Jacob).

263

167 See comment of Sarna (Documents 36) about the role of Congregation Shearith Israel as a “synagogue- community” institution. See also, Grinstein Communal and Social Aspects of American Jewish History.

168 Sarna, “Port Jews in the Atlantic: Further Thoughts.”

169 See Wiznitzer: The Records of the earliest Jewish community in the New World.

170 Ta’anit 4:2.

171 Earliest Extant 1.

172 Earliest Extant 1- 3.

173 In 1751 the job is reduced to a half year position. See Earliest Extant 65. In 1771 it is found to be too difficult and the role of Parnas reverts back to one a year position with the Hatan Torah becoming the next Parnas and the Hatan Bereshiet becoming the Hatan Torah. Therefore, only a new Hatan Bereshiet is “nominated annually by the Parnas and his Assistants”. Minute Book 110-111.

174 Earliest Extant 98. See the Constitution of Shearith Israel 1761, article 9. It was raised to six-pence on March 21, 1768.

175 The Hatan is known as Segan. (Shearith Israel, “America’s First.” Web.)

176 See Constitution in Earliest Extant 2.

177 Earliest Extant 49.

178 Additional occasions in Earliest Extant 1748, p 59; 1750, p 61; 1756 p 73; and CSIR. 1787 p 88.

179 Earliest Extant 59.

180 Earliest Extant 61.

181 Earliest Extant 73.

182 CSIR. Feb. 26, 1787. p 88.

183 Earliest Extant 57.

184 While England forbade the export of gold and silver coins overseas during the colonial period, colonists counted their money by the English system of pounds, shillings, and pence (pennies): 12 pence per shilling and 20 shillings per pound. (“The Value of Money in Colonial America.” Web.) Access to Spanish coins was easier with Spain’s silver dollar valued at four shillings, six pence per British pound. Local colonial governments issued their own paper monies with exchange rates measured to the British pound. One New York pound (1725-1738) was worth the equivalent in British currency of 12 shillings and 1 pence which was worth the equivalent of $58.25 in US Dollars in 1991. (Purvis 50). The price per bushel of wheat in Connecticut from 1640-1699 was 4 shillings 6 pence (3 shillings 2 pence in Spanish coins), in 1724-1726 6 shillings (3 shillings 7 pence in Spanish coins) and in 1752, 38 shillings (3 shillings 9 pence in Spanish coins) (Purvis 77). American Rum per gallon in 1763 was 1 pound

264

44 shillings (English currency) and in 1770 was 1 pound 49 shillings (English currency). (Purvis 99). A teacher in Virginia teacher in 1759 earned a salary of £60. See, “How Much Is That in Today’s Money?”web.

185 Earliest Extant 51-52.

186 “Pool, David de Sola” Encyclopaedia Judaica.

187 Pool Faith 159-160; see also, Preface by Leo Hershkowitz. For information on Saul Pardo Brown see the Encyclopaedia Judaica article available on the web.

188 Infer that since the congregation began in 1654 but Moses Lopez De Fonseca was not hired as its first Hazan/Minister until 1728 that for the first 74 years the religious leaders at Shearith Israel were volunteers with other employ for a livelihood.

189 Pool Faith 161.

190 Earliest Extant 4.

191 Additional responsibilities of the shamas include: make the candles; keep the tamid (eternal light over the ark) continually lit; clean the lamps, silver and all the brass twice a year; keep the synagogue clean; take care of the synagogue’s belongings; attend marriages, circumcisions, funerals; conform to everything the parnasim and assistants tell him to do ( Minute Book 96).

192 Minute Book 4.

193 Earliest Extant 50.

194 Minute Book 95-96; 108; 112; 125.

195 Minute Book 15; 116.

196 Earliest Extant 46; 56, 57. See also information regarding the widow of Hazan Sezias in the “Report of M.L. Moses and Judah Zuntz, Esqrs.” p 4.

197 Records show that most fled for approximately 8 years. Some of the well-known ones who left include: the Hazan, Reverend Gershom M Seixas (during the Revolutionary War, officiated in Philadelphia and returned to New York in Adar 5544, February/March 1784), Messrs. Isaac Moses, Hayman Levy, Benjamin Seixas, Simon Nathan, Daniel Gomez Senior (who died in Phil.), Matthias Gomez, Samuel Judah, Moses Gomez Jr, Solomon M Cohen, Myer Cohen, Asher Myers, Eleazer Levy, and Solomon Marache (Historical Sketch 183).

198 Mr. Jacob Cohen took Rev. Seixas place in Philadelphia in 1784. He remained Hazan there until his death in 1811 (Shearith Sketch 208, 209).

199 Mr. Touro moved and died in Kingston Jamaica.

200 Historical Sketch 216.

265

201 Historical Sketch 216.

202 See Faber 36.

203 Faber 6, 7.

204 For the role of social status in seating patterns of synagogue and community members, see Sarna, “Seating.”

205 Earliest Extant 36.

206 Dushkin, 40. Duskin overlooks that perhaps there was no synagogue at the time since it was forbidden for Jews to pray in a pubic structure.

207 Pool “School” 525.

208 Grinstein Rise 228 and Dushkin 40.

209 Earliest Extant 15.

210 Minute Book 14.

211 Hazlett. “American Education’s Beginnings.” Web.

212 See, Purvis 240. This reason is clearly stated in the Massachusetts General School Law of 1647 (web) when, in the first line of the first paragraph of the law, it states:

It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with love and false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.

The law became known as the Old Deluder Act. See also, Dushkin 452-453 and Goodfriend 265.

213 See Hazlett, “American Education’s Beginnings.” Web.

214 Earliest Extant 35.

215 Earliest Extant 54.

216 In 1762 Spanish is removed from the curriculum. See Leibman 8 and Dushkin 40.

217 Earliest Extant 72.

218 Pool Faith 164 and Dushkin 42.

266

219 Dushkin 40.

220 Historical Sketch 215. For further information on Jewish education at this period of time see Dushkin. Education; (on funding) see 42.

221 Historical Sketch 215, 216.

222 See Shearith Israel. “Hebrew School History.” Web.

223 Bye Laws, Article VII of the 1805 Shearith Israel Constitution.

224 Dushkin 44-46.

225 Bye Laws, Article V of the 1805 Shearith Israel Constitution, Section 5, 11.

226 Minute Book 171. See also Bye Laws, Article V, Section 5, 11.

227 Minute Book 171.

228 Historical Sketch 226 - 228;

229 See CSIBCR Baking Committee Report. The report was signed by Moses L. M. Peixotto, Aaron Levy, and Eleazar S. Lazarus.

230 Charoset is discussed in the Talmud in Pesachim 114a.

231 Pool Faith 252.

232 Marcus Colonial 937

233 Berman 275.

234 For a list of ritual slaughterers, see Berman 277.

235 Berman, 276, 277.

236 Minute Book 4.

237 Minute Book 94.

238 Additional kosher scandals include that of 1771, the mixing of kosher and non-kosher tongues and that of 1808 when the haslet of a calf was declared kosher is discussed in Berman 279, 280.

239 Minute Book 115.

240 Minute Book 123, 124.

241 Minute Book 125.

267

242 Minute Book 125.

243 Minute Book 126.

244 Minute Book 126.

245 Minute Book 134.

246 Berman 280.

247 Earliest Extant 68, 69. See also, Leibman 191.

248 Berman 280, 281

249 Earliest Extant 66-68.

250 Earliest Extant 56.

251 For a discussion on the relationship between the Shearith Israel synagogue leadership and the municipal authorities of the city of New York protecting the Jewish community from non-kosher meat being sold as kosher meat see Oppenheim, “Meat Supply.”

252 Sarna, Democratization 104; Oppenheim, “Meat Supply” 54-57.

253 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Avel 14:1.

254 Historical Sketch 178, 179; Faber 33; and Pool Faith 32.

255 See Oppenheim AJHS Vol. 31 pp 77-103.

256 Sarna American 10.

257 Sarna American 10.

258 Minute Book 6, 7; Historical ketch 185-189.

259 The expenses and upkeep of the beth haim (i.e. cemetery) are discussed throughout the Shearith Israel minutes for examples see: CSIR 110, for 25 Tishrei 5548 (Oct. 7, 1787); and Minute Book 85, 119, 120, and 137 for entries dated: August 31st 1761; September 13, 1774; October 9th 1774, and August 9th 1749.

260 Historical Sketch 185, 186.

261 In 1805, the congregation purchased another cemetery on 11th Street and Sixth Avenue; in 1829, a cemetery was added on 21st Street, and in 1851, the congregation sought land outside the city on Long Island. See Historical Sketch 192-93.

268

262 Historical Sketch 220. See CSIR 36 April 10, 1785 for the request by the hebra and the approval by the Board for the hearse; see also, CSIR on Feb 26, 1787 p 88 regarding other material received by the hebra through the synagogue. See also Marcus 998.

263 Grinstein Rise 104.

264 Minute Book 151.

265 Minute Book 152.

266 Minute Book 67.

267 1796 entry in CSIR 110. A similar resolution is again passed on May 24, 1801 CSIR 34.

268 CSIR 179.

269 Grinstein Rise 104, 105.

270 Bye Laws, 1805 p 5. Congregation Shearith Israel ratified this constitution at a meeting held on the corresponding to June 24, 1805. Later on, there was also a ladies’ Hebrah at סיון-twenty-sixth day of Sivan Shearith Israel, an organization of women for the purpose of preparing deceased women for burial. The Board of Trustees was notified of its formation by Miss Rebecca Moses in 1841. The women sewed the shrouds for both groups, the female Hebrah and the male Hebrah (Grinstein Rise 153).

271 Pool Faith 361, 362.

272 Pool Faith 214, 372.

273 Tosefta Shekalim 1:1

274 Ezekiel 36:25.

275 The words ‘Mikveh Yisrael’ can be translated as either a ‘ritual bath of Israel’ or the ‘hope of Israel’ meaning the Lord.

276 Jeremiah 17:13.

277 Yoma 85b.

278 Reich 12, 63, 121; for general information about mikvaot, ritual baths, see: mikveh, web.

279 Middot 1:9, 5:3

280 Leibman Messianism 32.

281 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, maʻaśeh ha-ḳorbanot (18:1,2).

282 Leibman Messianism 26-27.

269

283 Ezekiel 36:25.

284 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, mikva’ot 11:15.

285 Leibman Messianism 34.

286 Historical Sketch 194.

287 Minute Book 81.

288 Leibman Messianism 37.

289 Minute Book 83.

290 Minute Book 143.

291 Leibman Messianism 25.

292 Grinstein Rise 297-298.

293 Dimont 91.

294 Diner Gathering 136.

295 Issues regarding the mikveh are discussed in a letter between United Kingdom Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Reverend Solomon Hirschell and the Parnas of the BJ synagogue (Goldstein 323).

296 1843-1891 CSIMT 80.

297 Oppenheim AJHS vol. 18 pp 4, 5.

298 Pratt 6, 7.

299 Oppenheim AJHS vol. 18 p 8. See also, Historical Sketch 180.

300 Historical Sketch 217.

301 Diner, Jews 41.

302 Grinstein Rise 26.

303 Earliest Extant 36; 54; 85.

304 Earliest Extant 2, 3.

305 For examples see Minute Book 71, 72; 91; 109; 115; and (money that was donated was returned due to a turn of financial fortune), 117; see also, CSIMT 1810-1843. April 25, 1827 p. 208.

270

306 Pool Faith 342. For further elaboration on the community’s acts of charity to help Jews around the world and around the corner see pp 238; 251; 342-345; 369, 370; 374.

307 Pool Faith 344, 345.

308 See Aug. 27, 1758 Earliest Extant 78.

309 See 1810-1843 CSIMT, Aug 11 or 12 (unclear of the date), 1823, p. 87 and Margolies 6.

310 See 1810-1843 CSIMT, Mar 18, 1824, p. 96, and Margolies 5.

311 See 1810-1843 CSIMT, Aug 17, 1826, p. 203.

312 The Jews in the diaspora as far away as Persia and Media contributed to the Temple for communal sacrifices and the upkeep of the Temple, (Shekalim 3:4). Additionally the Sanhedrin added a leap month, Adar II, when people from the diaspora were on the way to Jerusalem for Passover and got delayed along the way (Sanhedrin 11a).

313 In later years as crises from around country and world became known to the Shearith Israel community, it expanded its efforts to aid society in general. This included Iran during the famine of 1871; aiding the injured from the Chicago fire of 1871; in 1878, collecting funds to help those suffering from Yellow fever in the South; Kingston Jamaica after the earthquake of 1884; in 1900, funds were raised to help those affected from the Galveston flood; in 1905, aid was collected to help Jews escape the Russian pogroms; in 1906, money raised helped San Franciscans after the great earthquake of 1906, and the congregation provided assistance to Jamaicans after the earthquake of 1907. Additionally, during the Civil War and the Spanish American War, Shearith Israel helped those who had become destitute. See Pool 456.

314 Minute Book 158.

315 Minute Book 158, 159.

316 Minute Book 159.

317 Minute Book 159.

318 Cox. Web.

319 “Religion.” Web.

320 Krawczynski 170.

321 Pratt 9.

322 Pratt 10, 11, 14, 22.

323 Pratt 19, 20, 21.

324 Pratt 30; Marcus 925.

271

325 See Faber 67; Marcus 925.

326 1810-1843 CSIMT Oct 26 1825.

327 Earliest Extant 66, 67. See also, Grinstein Rise 348.

328 Constitution in Earliest Extant p. 15.

329 Sarna American 16

330 Marcus 924-926.

331 Earliest Extant 74, 75.

332 Earliest Extant 75.

333 Sarna has a different interpretation of why the Rosh Hashanah 1757 resolution was lifted. He believes that it was in the face of pressure from congregants and a drop in donations. See Sarna American 16.

334 Earliest Extant 76.

335 See Sarna, (American 16) who suggests the reconsideration was not due to penitence rather congregational opposition to the original resolution and the need for the leadership to appeal it.

336 Sarna “Intermarriage”126 – 128.

337 Sarna “Intermarriage”127.

338 Occident, Vol. II, No. 12 Adar 5605, March 1845. Web.

339 See Sarna (“Intermarriage”127) for an example of a mother resolving to cut ties with her daughter.

340 See Gurock 37-39; Sarna, “Documents”42-44; “Intermarriage”127-128.

341 Occident. Web.

342 Grinstein (Rise 6) indicates that such forms of action no longer took place but these newspaper reports seem to indicate to the contrary.

343 Historical Sketch 217.

344 Historical Sketch 217.

345 Bye Laws, 19.

346 1810-1843 CSIMT, April 13, 1825, p. 149.

347 Grinstein Rise 41.

272

348 1825. CSIMT 1810-1843, p. 168.

349 Grinstein Rise 47.

350 Leviticus 21:7 and Karo Even Ha-Ezer 6.

351 Sarna, Democratization, 97-98.

352 Sarna, Democratization, 97-98.

353 An attempt to bar him from participating in the priestly blessing was denied by the Chazzan M.L. Peixoto. (1810-1843 CSIMT 176).

354 See 1810-1843 CSIMT, September 7, 1825, p 176.

355 Bye Laws, 19 and Goldstein 42.

356 Sarna, Democratization 107 and Documents, 37-39.

357 The rest of the committee included Michael Davies, John I. Hart, Leon Hart, Bernard S. Judah, Morland Micholl,S. Myers (part of New York City’s militia), B. Salomon, Isaac Vaill, S.D.D. Yong and S. A. Waterman.

358 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.”

359 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.”p 4, Article 1 & 2.

360 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.”p 5, Article 5.

361 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.”p 5, Article 6.

362 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.” Preamble p 3, Article 8 on p 5. This was also a concern for the Dutch Reform Church community and in 1754 they petitioned for services in English (Goodfriend, 269).

363 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.”p 5, Article 9.

364 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution”p 6, Article 10.

365 Appendix A of “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution”

366 Minutes from May 31, 1825 in CSIMT, 1810-1843, p. 155.

367 Appendix B of “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution.”

368 CSIMT, 1810-1843, June 27th 1825, p. 157.

369 CSIMT, 1810-1843, July 19th 1825, p. 163.

273

370 “Hevrah Hinukh Ne’arim Constitution”, Appendix B p. 21

371 The word in the original minutes is hard to read; I am following for this word the transcription of Pool

(Faith 437).

372 CSIMT, 1810-1843, October 19, 1825, p. 180-181.

373 CSIMT, 1810-1843. p. 182.

374 CSIMT, 1810-1843. p. 183-1884.

375 Pool Faith 436.

376 See also Grinstein Rise 48.

377 On the B’nai Jeshurun website they also include the issue of praying according to an Ashkenazic tradition as one of the sources of contention. However, they are quoting a secondary source, and it is not consistent with the research shared in this chapter.

378 Sarna, Democratization, 106

379 Grinstein Rise 5; 11.

380 Seats were sold in Shearith Israel every two years. Their revenue is listed in the Board minutes CSIMT, 1810-1843, p 99 - 102 . In 1824 and 1826 seat sales continue to rise. However, by 1828 seat sales begin to take a precipitous drop in revenue. See also, Sarna “Seating”191.

Notes to Chapter 3 The Institutional Synagogue: A 20th Century Model

381 Goren, 17.

382 Goren, 17.

383 Sarna, American 151.

384 See Sarna, American , 152 for an elaboration.

385 Sarna, American 153.

386 Goren, 17.

387 “New York City.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Web.

388 Goren, 18.

389 Introduction. The Norton Anthology of American Literature Volume C 1865-1914

390 Sarna, American , 154.

391 Goren 18.

274

392 “New York City.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Web.

393 Call It Sleep is a 1934 novel by Henry Roth. The book is about a young boy growing up in the Jewish immigrant ghetto of New York’s Lower East Side in the early twentieth century and depicts some of the challenges mentioned in this paragraph.

394 Goren, 13 and “New York City.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Web.

395 “New York City.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Web.

396 Goren, 21 and “New York City.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Web.

397 See the B’nai B’rith, “about-us,” Web.

398 See Pool, Faith, 180, 390, 391.

399 See Hebrew Free Loan Society (HFLS), “about/our-history.” Web.

400 Sarna, American 185.

401 Sarna, American 186.

402 Goren, 22.

403 See Jewish Federation, “our-history.” Web.

404 “New York City.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Web.

405 Goren, 78. According to Goren, by 1917 the number grew to 343 temporary synagogues (p 195).

406 Goren, 20, 269. The entry “New York City” in the Encyclopedia Judaica records only 418 synagogues on the Lower East Side.

407 Goren, 20-21.

408 Goren, 20.

409 Goren, 20.

410 Sarna, American 161.

411 Goren, 161.

412 Moore 20-22.

413 Moore, 125 – 127.

414 This phrase “highest level of ordination” might refer to the ability to adjudicate monetary cases required to be a Jewish judge and perform certain religious activities such as writing a get (Jewish divorce document) and arrange Chalitẓaḥ.

415 Sarna, American 160.

275

416 Goren, 23.

417 The Hebrew Standard, July 9, 1915.

418 The Hebrew Standard, June 18, 1915 pp. 1, 24.

419 The Hebrew Standard June 18, 1915 pp. 1, 24.

420 Gurock, Harlem, 119.

421 See also Gurock, “Orthodox,” 58.

422 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 5 of the report.

423 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook includes pieces from the New York American Oct. 14, 1917, Dec. 22, 1917, March 9, 1919, and from the World Magazine on June 22,1919.

424 New York Times September 25, 1920, p. 19; New York Times Oct. 16, 1920 p. 20.

425 “Goldstein, Herbert S.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Web.

426 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 4.

427 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 2.

428 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 4.

429 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 4.

430 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 4.

431 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 4.

432 Gurock, Harlem, 117, 118. See his comments about early rabbinic figures like Mendes, Morias, Dolgenas, and Drachman who also recognized this issue.

433 Goldstein’s papers , “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917”. See page 3.

434 Berger: “The Early History of the Young Israel Movement.” Unpublished.

435 Goldstein’s papers, “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917”. See page 3. See also, Gurock, Harlem, 128.

436 Goldstein’s papers, “From the Synagogue Back to the Synagogue.” June 20, 1924.

437 Gurock, Harlem, 116, 117

438 David Kaufman, Shul, 245, 267

439 Goldstein’s papers, “From the Synagogue Back to the Synagogue.” June 20, 1924.

440 Reichel, 115, 116.

276

441 Goldstein’s papers, “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917”, and Gurock, Harlem, 128, 129.

442 See Sarna, American Judaism, 244 – 247 and “Goldstein, Herbert S.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Web.

443 Gurock, Harlem, 124, 129 regarding Kaplan’s feelings. See also Sarna, 249 for the recognition of tensions between the synagogue-center and the Y’s for communal supremacy.

444 Reichel, 91, 92.

445 David Kaufman, Shul, 206. Kaufman acknowledges that the synagogue center idea is often credited to Kaplan alone though Herbert Goldstein also pioneered the concept.

446 “The Institutional Synagogue – A New Movement in American Orthodoxy That is Meeting the Problem of the Jewish Youth,” The American Hebrew Jan 18, 1918 (102:11) p. 322. “The Central Jewish Institute,” The American Hebrew Feb. 22, 1918 (112:16) p. 433-34.

447 Goldstein’s remarks on Kaplan’s Center movement are accessible in the AJHS Online Guide to the Records of the Synagogue Council of America (1926-1994).

448 Goldstein’s papers also include this letter or speech to the Synagogue Council of America.

449 Reichel, 96.

450 Reichel, 96.

451 Institutional Synagogue records, 1945 JWB Report and Memoranda, (p 1) includes a quotation by Mordecai Kaplan from the The American Hebrew March 22, 1918.

452 Sarna, American 248

453 Institutional Synagogue records, 1945 JWB Report and Memoranda. (pp 2, 3).

454 See The Hebrew Standard September 29, 1916 p.12-13 and David Kaufman, Shul, 203.

455 Sarna, American 247.

456 Institutional Synagogue records, 1945 JWB Report and Memoranda.

457 Institutional Synagogue records, 1945 JWB Report and Memoranda, (pp 5, 6).

458 Institutional Synagogue records, 1945 JWB Report and Memoranda, (pp 6, 7) quoting the Jewish Guardian June 13, 1929.

459 Institutional Synagogue records 1945 JWB Report and Memoranda, (pp 12,13).

460 New York Herald June 13, 1914.

461 The Hebrew Standard November 28, 1913, New York Times Dec. 1, 1913, p. 8.

462 New York Herald June 13, 1914, p. 14.

277

463 Examples include The American Hebrew May 8, 1914, The Hebrew Standard May 8, 1914, The Hebrew Standard May 8, 1914, The American Hebrew May 5, 1914, The Hebrew Standard May 22, 1914, The Hebrew Standard May 20, 1914.

464 Gurock, Harlem, 122. See The Hebrew Standard Feb. 11, 1916.

465 The American Hebrew July 16, 1915.

466 The Hebrew Standard, March 31, 1916.

467 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, include fliers for the campaign for the Yorkville Talmud Torah and Jewish Social Center; the campaign is also described in The American Hebrew, January 15, 1915. The Hebrew Standard on October 29, 1915 reported a series of courses that were part of the Social Welfare Circle of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun’s Institute.

468 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, include a brochure of the cultural and religious activities of the Social Welfare Circle. See also David Kaufman, Shul, 154.

469 David Kaufman, Shul, 223.

470 Gurock, Harlem, 126, David Kaufman, Shul,153.

471 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook.

472 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook (p. 33) include an article summarizing the components of the building and listing of the officers.

473 Gurock, Harlem, 126; David Kaufman, Shul, 153.

474 Goldstein’s papers include fliers and information about Chanukah and other holiday events.

475 See also, Gurock, Harlem, 134; David Kaufman, Shul, 154.

476 The Hebrew Standard July, 2 1915.

477 Goldstein’s papers, the media scrapbook, include this bulletin.

478 The American Hebrew Jan. 9, 1914

479 Goldstein’s papers include the letter from Congregation Bnai Israel Brooklyn, Bedford Avenue and Hewes Street, Brooklyn, New York dated September 19, 1916; it is signed by the Secretary of the Board of the Congregation.

480 Gurock, Harlem, 130

481 American Jewish Chronicle (April 3, 1917) quoted by Reichel, in Maverick Rabbi, p. 119; see also Gurock Harlem, 131, David Kaufman, Shul, 226.

482 Goldstein’s papers include this letter of resignation to the Board of Directors of Kehilath Jeshurun’s Central Jewish Institute. Also, the New York Times, May 4, 1917, page 9 covered Herbert Goldstein’s resignation as Director of Central Jewish Institute to lead a Jewish revival in Harlem. His resignation is also covered on May 11, 1917 in The American Hebrew: “Jewish Revival in Harlem: Rabbi Goldstein Resigns

278

as Director of Central Jewish Institute to Devote His Energies to New Task” More coverage is also found in the New York American May 15th, 1917, and The Harlem Home News May 16th 1917.

483 Documents are found in Herbert Goldstein’s files held at Yeshiva University. The folder is entitled “Legal Documents Certificate of Incorporation 1917. See also, Reichel 115-124; Gurock, Harlem, 131, and David Kaufman, Shul, 226.

484 The event is covered in The Hebrew Standard on May 25, 1917.

485 In Goldstein’s papers the farewell dinner program is found (pp 40, 41).

486 Goldstein’s papers, “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917”.

487 Goldstein’s papers include a copy of the article an exact date for which is unknown.

488 September 15, 1916 Baltimore Jewish Comment.

489 September 29, 1916 Jewish Tribune of Portland, Oregon.

490 Goldstein’s papers, “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.” Different drafts of the presentation use different numbers. The number chosen here is from one of the drafts.

491 Goldstein’s papers, “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.” These ideas are also found in Institutional Synagogue records “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner at Waldorf Astoria” presented in honor of Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein’s 45th Anniversary of dedicated service in the Rabbinate, that discusses these ideas and others regarding Goldstein’s vision for The Institutional Synagogue.

492 http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=88484884

493 November-December 1947 “Young Israel Viewpoint”. These ideas are also found in an article by Herbert Goldstein from The Synagogue Back To the Synagogue, in “Emanuel”, San Francisco, June 20, 1924.

494 Institutional, Feb.4, 1938 (v 21: 24).

495 Goldstein’s media scrapbook (p 50) includes this piece from the New York Herald, June 15, 1917.

496 Goldstein’s papers (p 50) media scrapbook include these marketing broadsides.

497 Reichel, 100.

498 Goldstein’s papers. “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.”

499 New York Times, an on February 17, 1917, page 43.

500 Including Ottawa see The Citizen, Ottawa Canada, April 6, 1925.

279

501 Goldstein’s papers, the media scrapbook, includes this letter.

502 NY American, Oct. 14, 1917, March 9th 1919, Dec. 22nd 1919; The World Magazine June 22, 1919.

503 Gurock, Harlem, 132.

504 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook.

505 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook.

506 From fliers in Goldstein’s papers, the media scrapbook, it is unclear where these revival meetings were held. It seems that they began at the Y.W.H.A, located at 31 West 110th street. See Harlem Home News, May 23, 1917 and the revival fliers. The schedule of meetings eventually changed. They had been held in the evening; they were then held at 10:30 am Sunday morning. The revival location also changed to the Regent Theater at 116th street and 7th Ave. (See, The Harlem Home News on June 6, 1917 and an advertisement in The New York Times on June 10, 1917, and The American Hebrew June 15, 1917). Eventually the revival meeting moved to the Morris Theater, northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and East 116th Street, (see New York American, October 21, 1917).

507 See the previous footnotes which cite articles promoting the revival meetings as well as announcements in The New York Times such as, June 10, 1917 and January 12, 1919, (Section 2, p. 4) and in the New York American on October 20, 1918 and December 22 1918.

508 Reichel, 129. The New York American May 20, 1917. See also The Hebrew Standard May 25, 1917. The Boy Scout troop connected with the synagogue is also mentioned many times in the synagogue newsletter; see Institutional Jan. 14, 1938 (v 21: 21).

509 New York American, June 4, 1917, June 10, 1917, October 14, 1917, and The Hebrew Standard June 15, 1917.

510 New York American, October 14, 1917. See also The Hebrew Standard October 19, 1917.

511 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, (p 56) includes fliers advertising Calder’s appearance at the meeting held on Sunday October 21st 1917. The Hebrew Standard Oct. 19, 1917, Harlem Home News October 18, 1917 also include announcements.

512 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, (p 57) and an article in The Hebrew Standard, November 9, 1917 mentions his talk at the revival meeting held on November 4th 1917.

513 Goldstein’s papers include fliers advertising Hyamson’s appearance at the meeting held on Sunday November 28th 1917.

514 New York American, October 14, 1917; Kraus.

515 In The New York American, October 14, 1917, Whitman.

516 In The New York American, October 14, 1917, Bryan.

517 New York American March 9th, 1919

518 The Hebrew Standard, November 23rd, 1917.

519 Reichel, 132.

280

520 Goldstein’s papers include drafts of the “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.” Differences in language among the drafts are recognized in the brackets in quoted material here.

521 Added in a later rewriting of the presentation fixing the word "along" to "alone."

522 Added in a rewrite of the J.T.S. alumni presentation.

523 Replacing the earlier version of the J.T.S. alumni presentation where the misspelled word “messate” appeared.

524 Replacing the earlier version of the of the J.T.S. alumni presentation where the word “thru” appeared.

525 Goldstein’s papers. “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.” Excerpts from the July 2nd presentation can be found on pages 1-11.

526 In the New York Evening Journal, June 5, 1917 Rabbi Goldstein spoke out in support of outlawing the sale and the manufacture of whiskey during the war.

527 October 21, 1917.

528 Reichel, 131.

529 New York Times, March 19, 1922, page 22.

530 Reichel, 105. New York Evening Journal, January 12, 1926.

531 New York Times, May 10, 1926, page 20.

532 Reichel, 103. New York Times May 10, 1926, page 20.

533 Reichel, 103. New York Times June 1, 1931, page 12.

534 Reichel, 103. Institutional, October 8, 1937 (v 21: 7).

535 Institutional from Oct. 1, 1937(v 21: 6); October 8, 1937 (v 21: 7); December 3, 1937 (v 21:15).

536 West Side Institutional Review, February 20, 1948, (v 11: 24).

537 Institutional, Oct. 1, 1937 (v 21: 6) and Nov. 5, 1937 (v 21: 11).

538 Institutional (v 21: 24), March. 4, 1938 (v 21: 28).

539 Institutional, Aug. 27, 1937 (v 21:1), April 29, 1938 (v 21:36), May 13, 1938 (v 21: 38), May 27, 1938.(v 21:40), and June 3, 1938 (v 21: 41).

540 Rabbi Goldstein quoted this statistic in his “J.T.S. Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.” In 1909 Mordecai Kaplan had done a study and found that only 25% of the youth were receiving a Jewish education (“New York City” Encyclopedia Judaica).

541 The Institutional would promote these special trips and youth experiences. See December 24, 1937 (v 21: 18): “Talmud Torah Pupils to Enjoy Trips to Various Points of Interest” and November 26, 1937 (v 21:14). There are many similar headlines.

281

542 Institutional, March 25, 1927 (v 10: 25); December 3, 1937 (v 21: 30), January 14, 1938 (v 21: 21), March 4, 1938 (v 21: 28), March 18, 1938 (v 21: 30). Even years later in the Westside Review of March 15, 1940, there was still a focus on the celebration of Purim through the Hebrew School with an article entitled: “YOUNG FOLKS CELEBRATE PURIM.”

543 Institutional, April 8, 1938 (v 21: 32).

544 Institutional, April 21, 1938 (v 21: 35).

545 Each year there was a different contest. For example, in 1937 the contest focused on composing an essay: “The Jewish Contributions to the Early Beginnings of the United States.” See the Institutional, October 8, 1937 (v 21: 7). In 1938, the focus was “Palestine”, March 11, 1938 (v 21: 29).

546 March 18, 1921.

547 Institutional, Sept. 3, 1937 (v 21: 2) and Sept. 10, 1937 (v 21: 3).

548 Institutional, Sept. 24, 1937 (v21: 5) and Oct. 8, 1937 (v 21: 7).

549 Institutional Synagogue records, “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner”, p 3.

550 Reichel, 201, 202; 1924 JWB Report. See page 6.

551 Institutional, Dec. 10, 1937 (v 21: 16).

552 Reichel, 210, 211.

553 Institutional, September 29, 1933 (v 17: 4); Jan. 21, 1938 (v 21: 22).

554 Institutional, Sept. 10, 1937 (v 21: 3).

555 Institutional Synagogue records include the Board Minutes from March 3, 1927 (Box 1, Folder No: 6 p. 207); April 9, 1936 (Box 1, Folder No: 15); January 27, 1937 (Box 2, Folder No: 16); March 10, 1937 (Box 2, Folder No: 16). See also, advertisements for theatre parties in the Institutional Nov. 19, 1937 (v 21: 13), Dec. 3, 1937 (v 21: 15), and for a Bazzar and Rummage Sale, Nov. 26, 1937 (v 21: 14).

556 Westside Institutional Review, Friday, December 24, 1948, Kislev 22, 5709; Westside Institutional Review, January 1, 1945 and Friday, June 8, 1945.

557 Institutional Synagogue records, “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner.”

558 Westside Institutional Review, Friday, February 20, 1948 (v 11: 24).

559 In the revivals that Herbert Goldstein ran in Harlem, there was mention of the Scouts from the Institutional Synagogue coming to help usher the event. In addition, the Scouts program was announced in the Westside Institutional Review, October 19, 1945 (v 9: 7). There were also special shabbatonim (Shabbat retreats) for the Boy Scout troops in order to make the children in the Boy Scouts feel proud and part of the Institutional Synagogue community. See Westside Institutional Review, February 6, 1948.

560 Institutional Synagogue records, Westside Institutional Synagogue, February 1945, an advertisement.

561 Institutional, December 24, 1937 (v 21: 18).

282

562 Institutional, November 26, 1937 (v 21: 14); Feb. 25, 1938 (v 21: 27).

563 Institutional, April 13, 1934 (v 17: 32).

564 Reichel, 245-248. Articles discussing the camp are found in the synagogue newsletters, for example: Institutional, Aug. 27, 1937 (v 21:1);, June 3, 1938 (v 21: 41): “I.S. Camp Ta-a-Noog offers complete program of education and recreation. Home camp starts 5th season from June 27th. Early registration of children urged.”

565 The synagogue newsletter often advertised the camp; one example is found in the Institutional, May 20, 1938 (v 2: 39).

566 Reichel, 245-248. See also the synagogue newsletter, Institutional, May 20, 1938 (v 21: 39) which explains the purpose of camp Ta-a-Noog including the benefits of supervision, medical examinations, lunch, swimming, athletics, outdoor activities, outings, Jewish living and acknowledgement that there are partial and full-time scholarships as well as the limited cost for the camp.

567 See Web. Fresh Air

568 Reichel, 241, 242.

569 February 5, 1923, p. 26. See also “What Orthodox Jewry Can Do” Jewish Tribune on September 18, 1925 which further explains the purpose of the Young People’s Auxiliary and the Jewish Forum of December 1925, p. 558, where Goldstein developed the idea of the collegiate and high school branch of the Young People’s Auxiliary.

570 See Sarna, American 165. Sarna discusses Sabbath observant employers never working their observant employees on Shabbat.

571 Goldstein’s papers include the Constitution of the Bronx District Sabbath Council.

572 Hebrew Standard, November 15, 1918. Goldstein’s papers, the media scrapbook, includes the announcement (pictured below) which became an ad in the New York Times on January 12, 1919. However, in the edition of the New York Times available to me, I could not find this advertisement.

.

573 New York Times, February 14, 1921, p.2.

574 Gurock, Harlem, 132. Institutional volume 21: 38, May 13, 1938.

575 Reichel, 238

283

576 New World, September 20, 1925.

577 See the Jewish Daily News, July 6, 1926. In 1926, Goldstein worked to get all New York City Public School teachers excused from coming to work on Rosh haShanah.

578 The Modern View (St. Louis, Missouri) September 4th, 1925; Jewish Exponent, (Phil), Feb 5, 1926.

579 Jewish Daily Bulletin, June 19, 1925; The American Hebrew July 19, 1925; The Jewish Independent of Cleveland Ohio, July 10, 1925. See Jewish Daily News, July 6, 1926.

580 The American Israelite, (Cincinnati, Ohio), May 1, 1926.

581 Jewish Daily Bulletin, September 23, 1925:”NEW YORK SUPREME COURT GRANTS REQUEST TO ORTHODOX JEWS …” The date of the opening of the Supreme Court in New York and the Bronx, was postponed by one day. Originally set to open Monday, September 28th, it opened the next day.

582 Gurock, Harlem, 132.

583 Reichel 126, 127 quotes the The Hebrew Standard.

584 Institutional, April 15, 1938 (v 21: 24) and Feb. 20, 1948 (v XI: 24).

585 The Harlem Home News October 16th, 1924.

586 Reichel 226, 227;Institutional, March 23, 1938 (v 21: 31).

587 Institutional Synagogue records include Board Minutes Feb. 27, 1927 (Box 1, Folder No: 6, p. 199).

588 Institutional, Jan. 14, 1938 (v 2: 21).

589 Goldstein’s papers include a description of these and other informal educational experiences.

590 Goldstein’s papers, “JTS Alumni Convention Presentation in 1917.”

591 Reichel, 158.

592 Institutional Synagogue records, 1924 JWB Report. See page 6 of the report.

593 Institutional Synagogue records include “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner at Waldorf Astoria,” which has a liberal estimate. Gurock suggests the number was 2,000 but that number is not substantiated.

594 Goldstein’s papers, the media scrapbook, (pp 54, 78). New York American, September 23, 1919. See also Harlem Home News, September 9, 1919 which indicates the number of members to be 400. In a September 1919 article entitled, “Institutional Synagogue Not Ready Until October” a target number of 1000 is mentioned. In the Institutional Synagogue records, “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner at Waldorf Astoria” (p 2), it states that in a short period of time, the campaign goal of 1000 was surpassed and 1200 young people were enrolled as members. See New York American, December 9, 1917 entitled “Seven Hundred Go Over the Top an Institutional Synagogue Drive for 1000 Members.”

595 In Goldstein’s media scrapbook dated June 1919 (exact date is illegible) p 70.

596 New York Times, p 21, April 12, 1926.

284

597 Reichel, page 3 (the preface by Edelstein). The Honorable David N. Edelstein, who served as United States District Judge, acknowledged that the Harlem Institutional Synagogue at its peak drew daily up to 3000 people from all walks of life including politicians and successful businessmen as well as laborers and immigrants.

598 Reichel, 176.

599 Institutional, Oct. 15, 1937 (v 21: 8).

600 Institutional, Oct. 8, 1937 (v 21: 7).

601 Reichel, 226-227.

602 Reichel, 233 – 234.

603 Reichel, 229-235. Institutional, March 25, 1927 (v X: 25) and January 23, 1948 (v XI: 20).

604 The Jewish Tribune of November 4, 1927 focusing on gifts from the Sisterhood of $5,000 and the Young Folks League of $2,000.

605 In Goldstein’s papers a list of “Young Folks Activities” are found.

606 Reichel, 228; Institutional, March 13, 1925.

607 Institutional, April 13, 1934 (v 18: 32).

608 Institutional Synagogue records includes a list of committees in the Board minutes October 2, 1927 (Box 1, Folder No: 6 p. 264), and March 7, 1928 (Box 1, Folder No: 7 p. 297, 299).

609 Institutional Synagogue records include a committee report submitted to the Board on Jan. 26, 1939 by Chairman Dr. I. Irwin Lubowe (Box 1, Folder No: 39 – no page number). It is unclear if this was a standing committee or one that was ad-hoc.

610 Institutional, February 26, 1926.

611 Jewish Forum,. page 558. [cm-- replace with actual citation]

612 Westside Institutional Review Friday, May 17, 1940, (v3: 37).

613 The Hebrew Standard , November 16, 1917.

614 The Hebrew Standard, November 15, 1918. Institutional Synagogue records (file 18, page 45).

615 Institutional, November 1923 (v VII: 1)

616 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, include the brochure (p 75). The year is approximately 1926.

617 These Friday night talks occurred in the winter when Shabbat began early and people were willing to come out on Friday nights.

618 Institutional, November 1923 (v VII: 1).

285

619 Jewish Daily News, November 27, 1924. Institutional, March 13, 1925: “Friday Evening Forum Successfully Maintained -- The Friday evening circle held its final session before it ended with a blaze of glory for the season. The night was dedicated to all clubs and Award night.”

620 Westside Institutional Review, January 30, 1948 (v 11: 21).

621 Reichel, 218.

622 American Hebrew and Jewish Tribune (combined paper) May 24, 1935, p 43.

623 See also, Reichel 221. The Hebrew Standard of November 16, 1917 speaks about the Talmud classes being given by Rabbi Z. Kapner on Friday evenings at 8:00 p.m.

624 Institutional, April 13, 1934 (v 17: 22),; October 1, 1937 (v 21: 6).

625 Reichel, 222. Institutional, November 1923 (VII: 1); April 13, 1934 (v XVII: 32); Nov. 5, 1937 (v 21:11); Feb. 11, 1938 (v 21: 25); Feb. 18, 1938 (v 21: 26).

626 Reichel, 222, 223.

627 The Harlem Star, November 8, 1917: that Herbert S. Goldstein would speak about Christian Science.

628 Solomon Surowitz spoke. See Westside Institutional Review, Friday, December 5, 1947 (v 11: 13).

629 Westside Institutional Review, January 23, 1948 (v 11: 20).

630 Dean Sar of Yeshiva University, November 15, 1948 – same day advertised in New York Times, p 25.

631 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, includes this letter dated January 24, 1918 written by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein to Dr. Isaac S. Moses, President of the Board of Jewish Ministers stating:

My Dear Dr. Moses,

…a member of the Board of Directors of the Institutional Synagogue… came to me with the suggestion that Jewish ministers take advantage of the fact that all places of amusement will be closed on Tuesday nights for the coming nine weeks. Instead of taking this matter up alone, I hereby ask that the Board of Jewish Ministers of which you are the President, issue a proclamation asking that all synagogues be opened for special lectures on Jewish subjects for the Tuesday evenings and that a Committee be appointed to arrange all details including interchange of pulpits, etc. etc. I sincerely hope that the Rabbinate of the city will take advantage of this providential opportunity of reaching the multitude of the un-synagogued: awaiting an immediate reply, I am fraternally yours, Herbert S. Goldstein.

Also, the Harlem Star, November 8, 1917 announced that Herbert S. Goldstein would speak about Christian Science. The Hebrew Standard of November 16, 1917 advertises classes: the Talmud classes being given by Rabbi Z. Kapner;, a class in Rashi led by Mr. B. Rubin Weilerstein; Rabbi Goldstein give a Jewish History class. In The Hebrew Standard on November 23, 1917 it states that Rabbi Goldstein would speak about Judaism’s challenge to socialism. A note that a guest speaker, Solomon Surowitz, would discuss the atrocities at Buchenwald is found in the Westside Institutional Review, for Friday, December 5, 1947 (v 11: 13), The front page of the Westside Institutional Review, January 23, 1948 (v 11: 20), reads: “President of ‘France Forever’ to address Rabbi Goldstein’s class Monday night on ‘Arab-Jewish relations.’ ” The speaker was Dr. Albert C. J. Simard.

286

632 Jewish Forum, December of 1925 p. 559.

633 Reichel, 123,124. The American Hebrew and The Hebrew Standard of May 11, 1917 both indicated that services would take place at the Y.M.H.A. at 2005 Amsterdam Avenue. Harlem Home News September 9, 1919, announced a move that services would take place at the Y.W.H.A. and High Holiday services were scheduled to take place at the Parkway Palace at 110th street and 5th avenue; The Hebrew Standard May 11, 1917.

634 The New York Sun, May 17, 1917, reports that the Institutional Synagogue receives the gift of a building. See also, The New York American on May 17, 1917; Harlem Home News May 23rd 1917; New York Herald June 15th, 1917; Evening Telegram May 15th, 1917; The American Hebrew on May 18, 1917; Baltimore Jewish Comment on May 18, 1917. All announce the gift of a new building. The B’nai B’rith Messenger, Los Angeles, California, June 5, 1917, reports that an anonymous donor has given a 5-story house at 112 West 116th Street to the Institutional Synagogue.

635 David Kaufman, Shul, 227. Goldstein’s “Forty Years of Struggle for a Principle” is quoted there.

636 Goldstein’s papers include this letter mentioning gifts from Samuel Travis -$500, Henry B. Rosen - $200, Samuel C. Lamport - $150, Reuben Sadowsky - $100, Isidore Weinstein - $100, Sol Bloom - $100, Jacob D. Cohen - $100, Samuel I, Hyman - $100, Shmuel M. Kaplan - $100 and with requests made to Jacob Werner, Jacob Rubin, Edward Rubin, Martin Rubin, Harris Mandelbaum, and Joseph Lamport.

637 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, 54. New York American September 23rd 1917

638 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, 69; the Yiddish Tageblatt, (p 17) from February 11, 1915.

639 Institutional Synagogue records include Board Minutes mentioning some of the larger gifts from the Grossman estate March 27th 1929 (Box 1, Folder No. 8, pp 331, 339) and the Henning estate March 29, 1932 (Box 1, Folder No: 11, pp 427, 429).

640 Goldstein’s papers, in a file labeled “money raising ideas.” Goldstein also retained an article from The American Hebrew March 20, 1919 in his papers that focuses on creative fund-raising. 641 The Hebrew Standard, June 20, 1919.

642 New York Times. p. 14, June 9, 1919.

643 After that time funds from the appeals were used for synagogue upkeep. Institutional Synagogue records, Board Minutes September 29th 1930 (Box 1, Folder No: 9 p.387).

644 Reichel, 176.

645 Reichel, 148. Mr. Warburg made a donation when Goldstein turned down the premier position of being the rabbi of Shearith Israel in order to continue his work in the challenging area of Harlem.

646 Goldstein’s papers include this letter from Felix Warburg. Warburg’s gift was announced in The Hebrew Standard on January 13, 1922.

647 New York Times. p. 62, Oct. 28, 1923.

648 Institutional Synagogue records, “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner ” (p 4).

649 The Harlem News of April 3, 1921.

287

650 Goldstein’s papers include dozens of letters acknowledging the creativity of this campaign.

651 The Hebrew Standard on April 28, 1921.

652 Institutional Synagogue records include Board Minutes from March 17, 1930 (Box 1, Folder 9, p. 381).

653 Institutional Synagogue records include Board Minutes from January 3, 1929 (Box 1, Folder 8, p. 329); April 27, 1933; June 6 1933, November 1933; November 6, 1935; December 16, 1936.

654 Institutional Synagogue records include Board Minutes from September 12, 1929 – staff not paid for six weeks (Box 1, Folder No: 8, pp 505, 507); advances for Kol Nidre pledges were raised at the board meeting to pay the staff; June 12, 1930 – teachers and staff not paid for eight weeks (Box 1, Folder No: 19, p 83); March 5, 1931 – teachers and staff not paid for almost four months (Box 1, Folder No: 10, p 521) some of the funds were advanced by members to pay the staff; March 29, 1932 (Box1, Folder No: 11, p 423); November 3, 1937 (Box 2, Folder No: 16).

655 The 1924 Jewish Welfare Board report (pp.4, 5) indicated that there were constant deficits. See Institutional Synagogue records, Board Minutes. Other than January 13, 1927 for which the Board Minutes report a surplus of $14,357.23 in 1926 (Box 1, Folder No: 6, p 185), the subsequent years all report deficits:

The Board Minutes from June 2, 1927 report a deficit, $2,817.44 (Box 1, Folder No: 6, p 231); Sept. 14, 1927, the deficit was $7,116.67 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 6 p. 241); March 7, 1928, the deficit was $5,188.67 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 7 p. 301); October 2, 1928, the deficit was $4718.66 (Box no: 1 Folder no: 7, p. 307); March 17th 1930, the deficit was $14,000 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 9 p. 373); Dec. 4, 1930, the deficit was $12,989.21 (Box 1, folder 9 p. 391); April 2, 1931, the deficit was $9,577.60 (, Box 1, folder 10 p. 406); Jan. 20, 1932, the deficit was $9497.36 (Box 1, folder 11 p. 413); March 29, 1932, the deficit was $16,217.31 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 11 p. 423); May 5, 1932, the deficit was $13,240.31 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 11 p. 153); June 7, 1932, the deficit was $10,369.39 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 11 p. 433); September 14, 1932, the deficit was $13,530.62 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 11 p. 439); Jan. 4, 1933, the deficit was $11,964.66 ( Box 1, folder 12 p. 471); March 2nd, 1933, the deficit was $18,747.52 (ibid. p.475); April 27th 1933, the deficit was $18,363.49 (ibid. p. 283); June 15th 1933, the deficit was $16,365.19 (ibid. p. 495); November 22, 1933, the deficit was $14,676.28; June 15, 1934, the deficit was $13,937.27 (ibid. p. 195); October 4, 1934, the deficit was $13,742.44 (ibid. p. 201); January 17th 1935, the deficit was $11,624.59 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 14 p.213); March 7th 1935, the deficit was $12,474.25 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 14 p.219); October 22, 1935, the deficit was $11,624.59 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 14 p.213); December 4 1935, the deficit was $12,780.30 (Box No. 1, Folder No:14); April 9, 1936, the deficit was $4,588.31 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 15); December 16, 1936, the deficit was $2,454.95 (Box No. 1, Folder No: 15); June 9, 1937, the deficit was $17,875.38 (Box No. 2, Folder No: 16), and on July, 16, 1937, the deficit was $19,141.15 (Box No. 2, Folder No: 16).

656 Institutional, October 8, 1937 (v 21: 7).

657 New York Sun, November 30, 1917.

658 Institutional, June 18, 1926.

659 New York Times, May 14, 1922 p. 20. See Institutional, May 6, 1938 (v 21: 37).

660 The Jewish Independent, Philadelphia Penn. on April 2, 1926 carries an article entitled “Two-Hundred Orthodox Congregations of the United States to Observe Sesquicentennial of American Independence during Passover.”

661 Institutional, Sept. 17, 1937 (v 21: 4); Oct. 1, 1937 (v 21: 6).

288

662 Institutional, Nov. 12, 1937 (v 21: 12) p.2.

663 Institutional, Oct. 29, 1937 (v 21: 10).

664 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, includes the full program from the President Lincoln commemoration at the Concordia Club House on February 11, 1919.

665 The American Hebrew February 19, 1926.

666 Institutional, Oct. 22, 1937 (v 21: 9) on celebrating Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday.

667 Praying for the health of President Wilson, New York Times, October 4, 1919; mourning the loss of President Harding New York Times August 11, 1923 p.4.

668 Institutional Synagogue records, “45 Years tribute document from dinner ”, pp 5,6.

669 Jewish Daily News, March 11, 1925

670 Goldstein’s papers include this personal correspondence dated September 25, 1924.

671 Goldstein’s papers include correspondences from the broadcast station WRNY located at The Roosevelt, 45th street and Madison Avenue in New York City, written on August 28, 1925.

672 It might be April 28, 1921; the date is unclear .in Goldstein’s media scrapbook.

673 New York Times, p 18, April 14, 1922.

674 New York Times,, January 16, 1925, page 4. See also New York Times, June 6, 1938, page 18 in an article entitled: “Lavelle Decries Exiling of Jews - Calls Religious Persecution in the Soviet and Totalitarian States ‘Un-Christian’ - Cites Church’s Teaching - It Imposes ‘Unwillingness to Tolerate’ Such Practice Anywhere, He Says.”

675 Goldstein’s papers include the 1938 Report to the RCA, pp 8, 9.

676 Institutional, (v 15: 9).

677 American Standard, June 29, 1917.

678 Goldstein’s papers include this letter.

679The American Hebrew, August 3, 1917.

680 Reichel, 83.

681 Baltimore Jewish Comment, August 31, 1917

682 New York Tribune, September 17, 1918 p. 12.

683 New York Times September 18, 1917 p.9. See Institutional, Sept. 3, 1937 (v 21:2) mentions soldiers on leave during World War II.

684 See also, Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, for an article from Spartanburg Herald, South Carolina, August 9, 1918 and the program handed out at his speeches for the soldiers at the Norfolk Virginia Armory;

289

Camp Gordon, Atlanta Georgia; Camp Devens Ayer Massachusetts; Camp Morrison Newport News, Virginia;, and Camp Lee, Petersburg Virginia.

685 The Atlantic Journal, July 31, 1918.

686 The American Hebrew, March 22, 1918; New York Globe, March 23, 1918.

687 New York Times, February 4, 1918.

688 Passover 1918, New York Times p 22, March 29, 1918.

689 Reichel, 82.

690 New York Tribune October 4, 1919

691 Reichel, 83. Sarna has noted, Abraham Lincoln had a special status in the hearts and imaginations of American Jews (especially in the North). see Sarna, p. 122,123.

692 Institutional, May 27, 1938 (v 31: 40).

693 Washington Herald, March 1, 1917, page 2.

694 New York Times, March 10, 1918 p. 10

695 An article is found in Goldstein’s papers from The Jewish Voice, St Louis Missouri April 30, 1926.

696 Institutional Synagogue records, Board Minutes, from September 12, 1929 (Box1 Folder no: 8, p 503).

697 New York Times, September 24, 1922

698 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, include the Philadelphia Jewish World December 18th, 1924.

699 New York American, March 31, 1926.

700 New York Post, May 3, 1926.

701 Goldstein’s papers include a copy of the 1938 Report to the RCA and document RCA involvement on behalf of European Jews.

702 New York Times, p 12, August 15, 1945.

703 At 8 PM. See West Side Institutional Review, Friday April 13, 1945 (v VII: 32).

704 New York Times, p 48, September 23, 1945.

705 West Side Institutional Review, February 20, 1948, (v 11: 24).

706 New York Times, p 19, February 20, 1946.

707 New York Times, p 21, December 1, 1946.

708 New York Times, p 11, March 14, 1946.

290

709 New York Times, p 4, July 30, 1946.

710 New York Times, p. 21, Dec. 1, 1946,

711 Westside Institutional Review, October 5, 1945, (v 9: 5).

712 IWestside Institutional Review, Friday, October 26, 1945, (v 9: 8) an advertisement.

713 Westside Institutional Review, October 17, 1947, (v 11: 6).

714 Goldstein’s papers include the corporation document for the home for orphans in Israel.

715 Goldstein’s papers include a letter from Morris Morgenstern, October 17, 1949.

716 Goldstein’s papers include this letter.

717 Brooklyn Jewish Institute January 24, 1915 summarized in The American Hebrew, January 29, 1915.

718 Di Yidisiche Zaitung. Buenos Aires, March 5, 1926; the Jewish World, Phil. Penn, February 22, 1922.

719 Goldstein’s papers include this piece of synagogue stationary with the sermon written out as part of a press release.

720 Goldstein’s papers: “Zionism after the War” dated March 1943 which may have been used as a lecture or an article.

721 Goldstein’s papers: “Zionism after the War” p. 1, 2.

722 Goldstein’s papers: “Zionism after the War” p. 6.

723 Goldstein’s papers: “Zionism after the War” p. 8.

724 New York Times, p 8, December 4, 1915.

725 Goldstein’s papers, media scrapbook, 81.

726 Jewish Forum, December 1925, page 558.

727 Reichel, 56

728 Reichel, 315

729 Reichel, 316-319.

730 See Institutional Synagogue records “45 Years tribute document from 1959 dinner at Waldorf Astoria.”

731 See the formal contract which describes which books and material were sold to the West Side Institutional Synagogue and the foreclosure papers. Both are found in Herbert Goldstein’s folder entitled “legal documents.”

732 Ezekiel 11: 16. Notes to Conclusion 733 For further elaboration see Kaunfer (in Moore).

291