Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

House Divided

The history of the synagogue in America, a new book shows, is one of rifts, splits, factions, and the ever-evolving tension between tradition and modernity

Print Email

A Jew is shipwrecked on a desert island. Ten years later, a passing ship notices his campfire and stops to rescue him. When the captain comes ashore, the castaway thanks him profusely and offers to give him a tour of the little island. He shows off the weapons he made for hunting, the fire pit where he cooks his food, the synagogue he built for praying in, the hammock where he sleeps. On their way back to the ship, however, the captain notices a second synagogue. “I don’t understand,” the captain asks; “why did you need to build two synagogues?” “Oh,” says the Jew, “this is the synagogue I never go to.”

It’s an old joke; but as Marc Lee Raphael shows in The Synagogue in America: A Short History (NYU Press, $35), the phenomena of inter-shul rivalry and congregational splitting are quite a bit older. In 1825, for instance, some of the members of New York City’s Shearith Israel, the oldest synagogue in America, decided to break away and start a new congregation. Their stated reasons, Raphael notes, sound very contemporary—“complaints that would echo and reecho within various congregations in the following two centuries.”

When Shearith Israel was built in downtown Manhattan, in 1695, the city’s Sephardic merchants all lived nearby. But by the 19th century many Jews had moved away, to what were then the suburbs, and found Shearith Israel “very far from the convenience of a considerable number of our brethren.” Besides, the Sephardic population had given way to new Ashkenazi immigrants from Germany and Poland, who found “it difficult to accustom [themselves] to the Portuguese minhag.” The seceders built an imposing new synagogue, B’nai Jeshurun; but apparently it wasn’t good enough, because just three years later a group of Jews split from B’nai Jeshurun to found their own congregation, Anshe Chesed. Both of those shuls still exist, almost 200 years later, but after several incarnations they’re now on the Upper West Side.

This little episode demonstrates all the forces that would continue to drive the evolution of the American synagogue, down to the present day. Shuls follow Jews: geographically, when the Jewish population moves to new neighborhoods and cities; demographically, when new Jewish immigrants import different ways of praying; and theologically, as American Jews change their understanding of how and why they practice Judaism. In this short book, Raphael, a distinguished historian of American Judaism, uses congregational archives, rabbis’ sermons, prayer books, and other ground-level sources to fill out a basically familiar historical outline. It starts in the 17th century with the first American synagogues, founded by immigrants from Portugal by way of Holland or the Dutch colonies. By the time George Washington was inaugurated, in 1789, there were six Sephardic congregations in the United States—in New York, Philadelphia, Newport, Savannah, Charleston, and Richmond.

The second phase in American Jewish history began in the 19th century, when immigration from Germany and Central Europe brought tens of thousands of Ashkenazi Jews to the country. Almost immediately, they began reforming traditional Jewish practice—though, as Raphael shows, not all adopted the name or ideology of Reform Judaism. Raphael lists 20 popular changes that became widespread between 1850 and 1890. They range from the aesthetic (using an organ, replacing the shofar with a cornet) to the linguistic (reading the haftorah in English) to the calendrical (eliminating the second day of holidays, scheduling evening services later on Fridays).

But what “definitively moved a synagogue out of the ‘traditional’ realm and firmly, incontrovertibly, into that of Reform” was changing the siddur, by eliminating or shortening prayers, or translating them from Hebrew into German or English. As early as 1857, the Reform leader Isaac Mayer Wise produced a prayer book, Minhag America, which aimed to be “thoroughly American, republican, and cosmopolitan—every man of any creed can now pray with us.” Any creed included Christians; in fact, Raphael shows that some Reform rabbis were so well-known for their sermons that they attracted as many Gentile listeners as Jews.

Edward Nathan Calisch, the rabbi who led Richmond’s Beth Ahabah from 1891 until World War II, serves as Raphael’s example of the ideal Reform clergyman. In his pursuit of an Americanized Judaism—a religion for “Americans who happen to be Jews”—Calisch did away with the kippah, the bar mitzvah, the chuppah at weddings, Friday night kiddush, and almost all Hebrew prayers. His most popular sermon identified Jewish heroes with American heroes, casting “George Washington as a modern Joshua, Thomas Jefferson as a modern Moses, Benjamin Franklin as a modern Solomon, Andrew Jackson as a modern David,” and so on down to George Mason.

There is something ludicrous, even self-abasing, about all this, and Raphael writes about Calisch with notable irony. But classical Reform Judaism was trying to answer, as honorably as it could, the same problem faced by all Jewish congregations and denominations. This was the problem of how to pray in a way that felt honest in both Jewish and modern, American terms. As Raphael shows throughout The Synagogue in America, this was a matter of style even more than of substance. The key word in synagogue debates from the 19th century on was not orthodoxy or reform, tradition or modernity, but decorum. To 19th-century German-American Jews, a traditional Jewish prayer service did not seem decorous enough: It lacked the choir, organ, pulpit, and reverential hush that made high Protestant churches so imposing.

In the 20th century, Raphael shows, the concern for decorum was a major driver of the evolution of Conservative Judaism. When Eastern European Jews began to arrive in the United States in the hundreds of thousands, starting around 1880, they did not want, and were not wanted by, the socially elite Reform congregations. But within a generation, the descendants of these immigrants felt the need for synagogues that preserved more of Jewish tradition than Reform wanted to, yet testified in concrete ways to the Americanization of their own tastes and values. A shul became Conservative in the 1920s by adopting many of the same changes that made a shul Reform in the 1820s: mixed seating, English prayers, late Friday services. The justification for these changes was not doctrinal but, in the words of one New York rabbi in the 1920s, a matter of “dignity and decorum and beauty.”

The irony is that this growing concern with dignity—with what religion should look and feel like—went along with a decrease in actual Jewish knowledge. It may have been cacophonous when, in an Orthodox shul, each worshipper entered at a different time and started praying at his own pace; but it was also a sign that people actually knew the Hebrew prayers and what they meant. A Conservative congregation singing in unison, or a Reform one sitting reverentially while a choir sang, may have looked more dignified, but they understood far less. This was the vicious circle of assimilation: The less Hebrew American Jews knew, the more English was used in synagogue; but the more English was used in synagogue, the less reason Jews had to learn Hebrew. “The Jews to whom we minister are ignoramuses when it comes to the elemental facts of Hebrew,” said one rabbi on the commission charged with writing a new Conservative prayer book—and that was in the 1930s.

In the last 30 years, Raphael writes, all denominations have moved toward a greater fidelity to tradition: Reform services now use more Hebrew, and the standard of observance for Orthodox shuls has become markedly more rigorous. (In the 1950s, it was common for Orthodox congregants to drive to synagogue, and mikvehs were almost unknown—there was only one in all of Westchester County.) On the other hand, less than half of American Jews identify themselves with any of the four denominations (counting Reconstructionism), and only a fraction of those attend synagogue regularly. And if most non-Orthodox synagogues are full of people reciting Hebrew prayers they don’t understand and couldn’t honestly endorse if they did, it’s no wonder. The Synagogue in America suggests that, in modern America, it has always been thus. Fortunately, what happens in synagogues does not constitute all, or even most, of what it means to be Jewish in America.

Print Email

Fascinating history and thanks for the write-up. Looking forward to reading the book.

Ellen says:

I am the author of THE LOST SYNAGOGUES OF BROOKLYN and the upcoming LOST SYNAGOGUES OF THE BRONX AND QUEENS (and a later edition will be about Manhattan). Do you have any good anecdotes about old Bronx or Queens shuls? Please let me know. Thanks!

This article, like so many others in the recent past, make me so grateful for Tablet Magazine and its wonderful array of Jewish articles, many of which of sound like my own voice. At least in part.

I, now, experience that I am not alone.

I am now just in my fifth year of recovering from being in the center of the crossfire of a local Jewish community that was (and still is) seriously polarized and then enticed into a major, local media covered controversy with the local Muslim community.

The experience made me feel really ashamed to be Jewish. And, it changed my life, of course, as well as my identity as a Jew.

I have a manuscript in progress about it entitled “The Middle East Crisis In My Backyard.

Also an article with the same title published in the Baltimore Jewish Times, October 3, 2008

http://anastasiastoryteller.blogspot.com/2010/05/baltimore-jewish-times-october-3-2008.html

I am so happy that others, like Ellen, are sharing what they are also thinking and writing about as Jews, seriously contemplating American Judaism issues.

Open dialogue in a respectful way is what was at the core of our local conflicts and controversy. It didn’t need to be that way. And, it still goes on now in that same community. (They do seem to be growing a little now.)

Thank goodness we are all here joining in doing something different and life enhancing.

Very interesting. It seems that the struggle between tradition and modernity is part and parcel of Jewish history. Sounds like a good read, and I really appreciated the review.

JCarpenter says:

The story told is one echoed in a greater way by all of America’s immigrant community, especially with the 19th century’s first generation struggle to remain distinctive, yet become American. Successive generations struggle, not to be American, but with what made life and faith distinctive for earlier generations that now increasingly/seemingly lacks relevance—namely, faith, traditions, language, lifestyle, etc.
The struggles of the synagogue were echoed, several blocks/neighborhoods over, by the struggles of an ethnic parish or tightly-knit “Little Italy/Greece/Netherlands” etc. to maintain identities v. the strong pull of post-war suburbia.
I look forward to reading the book.

Serge says:

This article mashes together the German and the East-Ashkenazi Jews in quite a curious way, particularly in respect of a period marked by the yekkes’ attempt to domesticate the Ashkenazim by creating Conservatism as a more-palatable version of their own assimilationist Reform movement. Does the book do that, too?

You make a fantastic point. Got some excellent info here. I believe that if far more people thought about it that way, theyd have a better time understanding the problem. Your view is definitely something Id like to see a lot more of. Thanks for this blog. Its amazing and so is what youve got to say.

A remarkable reveal, I recently with all this on to the colleague who had previously been conducting a small analysis in this. After which he or she in fact purchased me personally breakfast every day since i have discovered this for him or her.. smile. So allow me to reword that: Thnx for that treat! But yes Thnkx with regard to investing whenever to talk about this, I’ve found myself highly about this and adore reading concerning this particular subject. If possible, as you grow knowledge, can you mind updating your website with a lot additional information? It is extremely great for me personally. Huge thumb up because of this brief post!

Thanks for your article. It is rather unfortunate that over the last several years, the travel industry has already been able to to deal with terrorism, SARS, tsunamis, bird flu, swine flu, as well as the first ever entire global recession. Through everything the industry has really proven to be solid, resilient in addition to dynamic, finding new methods to deal with misfortune. There are constantly fresh problems and the opportunity to which the market must all over again adapt and react.

Shalom Freedman says:

There is an important piece missing here. It is the revival of Orthodoxy in America after the War. This has brought with it a revival of Jewish learning.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Be a Mensch. Support Tablet.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

House Divided

The history of the synagogue in America, a new book shows, is one of rifts, splits, factions, and the ever-evolving tension between tradition and modernity

More on Tablet:

A Tale of Three Twitter Feeds: Hamas Tweets in Arabic, English, and Hebrew

By Aaron Magid — Analysis of the social-media messaging of Hamas’ military wing reveals distinct voices for the West, the Arab Middle East, and Israel