Response: Comments on Washington Hebrew Congregation Article

The article begins with the observation that “Washington D.C. in December of 1855 was quiet and rather parochial.” Indeed, in 1850 “the Capitol building was yet to be completed. Unpaved streets and footpaths gave way to mud during the wet sweltering summers . . . Washington was little more than a village. Of the 52,000 inhabitants of the District of Columbia, 21 were Jews.” ¹ No wonder that the first congregation was established late, remained small and was somewhat behind similar institutions in more dynamic communities in its economic progress and in its social and religious development. By 1855 every major American city had at least two well established congregations and some like New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore had more. The Washington Jewish community lagged behind.

The author is quite correct in observing that “the problem of identifying a reform, conservative, or orthodox synagogue in the nineteenth century .. . is quite complex.” In the first place, there was no such thing as a “conservative” synagogue in the nineteenth or even the very early twentieth century. Moreover, the assignment of labels to congregations in a time of rapid, unsystematic and unprogrammatic change prior to institutional consolidation is both impossible and irrelevant. With three exceptions, every congregation in America was started as a traditional congregation. The process of change varied from congregation to congregation but in every instance the direction was the same. In my work, I did not study “a few (mostly) ‘Reform’ congregations.” Quite the contrary, I studied a representative number of nineteenth century congregations all of which (with the three aforementioned exceptions) began as traditional synagogues.

In the early years of every congregation, changes were slow and dealt primarily with decorum. However in every case the process of change accelerated, particularly in the post-Civil War years when social and economic development was explosive. Even in sleepy Washington D.C. some members of the Jewish community “would experience rapid economic mobility becoming prosperous business men.” In 1861, I. J. Benjamin who travelled from coast to coast, wrote that “in a land that numbers two hundred Orthodox congregations, the reform congregations number eight.” ² In many of these eight traditional practices were still the rule. Even I. M. Wise in Cincinnati whose reformed Minhag America prayerbook was conservative by later standards, was still using the traditional Mahzor on the High Holidays and still maintained separate seating of men and women in his congregation. ³ Hyman Grinstein has written that “From its formation until 1864, Temple Emanuel (of New York) may be considered a ‘conservative’ synagogue.” ⁴ By 1870 the process of reform had accelerated dramatically and “there were few congregations in which substantial reforms had not been introduced and in which an accelerating program of radical revision was not in process.” ⁵ After questioning this conclusion, the author informs us that Washington Hebrew Congregation “by 1870 proclaimed itself a Reform Congregation and the direction it was heading (away from tradition) was clear to all.”

At what moment did a congregation cease to be “orthodox” and become “reformed”? What changes were “substantial”? Once alterations began, once congregations arrogated to themselves the right to decide what should or should not be observed, the floodgates of change were opened. For this reason all of the reforms listed by the author are “substantial.” Each connotes a break with the authority of halacha and with the traditional Jewish practice.

The least “radical” is “making the reader face the congregation.” In the traditional synagogue, the hazan stands on a raised platform in the midst of the congregation and faces the ark not because the ark “signifies Jerusalem” but because he is the representative of the congregation in offering prayers addressed to the Almighty. In facing the congregation rather than the ark, he speaks to the congregation rather than for them. The change which is minor nonetheless symbolizes the shift in emphasis to performance rather than piety. It was invariably a prelude to more significant reforms of ritual and practice in and out of the synagogue.

Eliminating head covering for men, while not the most significant change halachically, was certainly the most “radical” in terms...