glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser) (10/21/84)
<>
A believer in the doctrine of
creation is challenged to
feel wonder and amazement at
the birth of one single human
life. He abhors the vulgar
statement, "If you know one,
you know them all."
(David Hartman - director of
the Shalom Hartman Institute
in Jerusalem and a lecturer in
Jewish Philosophy at the Hebrew
University)
In a previous posting to this news group, I expressed three
reasons why I disagreeded with the criticism levied against
Reform and Conservative Judaism by participants of this
newsgroup. I listed the following three reasons:
(1) A failure to adequately explain what is wrong with these
branches of Judaism *today*.
(2) The notion that the Conservative and Reform Movements
were strictly the result of Ashkenazim and fail to reflect
the contributions made to Judaism by the Sephardim.
(3) A failure to realize the uniqueness of America vis a vis
the Diaspora. And subsequently a lack of any sensitivity to
the additional pressures imposed on the Jewish community
because of the United State's unique features.
In that previous posting, I only discussed the first reason.
In the this posting I will discuss the second point.
(2) The notion that the Conservative and Reform
Movements were strictly the result of Ashkenazim
and fail to reflect the contributions made to
Judaism by the Sephardim.
NOTE: Reference is made to to a school of Judaism in America
known as the Historical School. The Historical School in
America is a description of the pre-twentieth- century
Conservative Movement, or it can be said that it laid the
foundations for the Conservative Movemnt of the twentieth
century. A good book that discusses this school is THE
EMERGENCE of CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM by Moshe Davis.
From past postings by Yoaquim Martillo, I get the impression
that the Conservative and Reform Movements in the United
States were strictly the result of the Ashkenazim. Further,
they were devoid of any Sephardic influence. My critique of
such a proposition follows.
The first two presidents of the Jewish Theological Seminary
were Sephardim. The founding president was Saboto Morais,
an Italian born and trained rabbi. For forty-seven years he
was hazzan at Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. He was responsible
for influencing Solomon Solis-Cohen, Mayer Sulzberger and Cyrus
Adler.
Henry Pereira Mendes was the acting president of the Jewish
Theological Seminary from the death of Saboto Morais in 1897
until the appointment of Solomon Schechter in 1902. He then
severed his ties with the school (though in 1904 the
Seminary awared him the honorary degree of Doctor of
Divinity) and associated himself with the Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations. As a prominent member of what may be
termed the Historical School, he was a major spokesman for
its traditional sector.
Two other prominent Sephardim in American Jewish history are
Frederick De Sola Mendes and Solomon Solis-Cohen. Frederick
De Sola Mendes, for forty six years, was the spiritual
leader of congregation Shaaray Tefila. He was allied with
the left wing of the Historical School. In 1876 he founded
the American Hebrew, the leading newspaper of the Historical
School. Like his brother Henry, he severed his ties with the
Historical group upon Schechter's arrival. Unlike his
brother, he joined up with the Reform.
Solomon Solis-Cohen was among the original founding group of
the Jewish Theological Seminary, co-founder of the third
Jewish Publication Society as well as founder and President
of the Philadelphia Young Men's Hebrew Association. By trade
Solis-Cohen was a medical Doctor. He was a professor of
Clinical Medicine at Jefferson Medical College. He also
edited the medical journal, Philedelphia Polyclinic from
1894 to 1899 and served on the editorial board of American
Medicine from 1901 to 1905.
A major problem with the above examples is that all the men
listed were active in the late nineteenth century. The
failure to make this list more up to date, or to explain
(which I doubt) why it can not be made up to date is my
fault, in other words, lack of time. In spite of this
drawback, an interesting story, or rather interesting
questions, can be put forth: If it were not for these men,
would the Historical School have survived? Would there have
been a Jewish Theological Seminary? If there had been no
Seminary, would Solomon Schechter had come to this country?
Would there have been a Conservative Movement? I realize
that as somebody once put it "history has no alternatives",
but I think the point is clear - the Conservative Movement
in this country is, in part, a result of these men of
Sephardic backround.
Stuart Glosser