\VIIAT IS AM EIUCAN ABOUT 'I'll E
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS OF
AMEHICAN tJEWlty'!
ADOUBLE BOND
Thc Constitutional Doclllncnts
of Anlcrican Jc\\'rv"
Etlill'd h,v
DanielJ. Eliuar,
JOlmthan D. Sarna,
.tnd
I{ehl G. Monson
JI III 1:,-'1 f t.1
ilIIIV[HS;TY
PIWSS ()f
( (fdHII (
1)IIBI'! >\1 !A,lb
AMeRICA
1.11111.1111 •
N,'I\'
1 <>1 k • I
(Illd'>ll
Jonathan D. Sarna
"The average American," U.S. Solicitor General ,James 1\1.
Beck observed back ill 19:14. "takes scant interest in the nature of
the Constitution."1 The sallle is true today or Ameri('an ,Jews nnd
their constitutions. Although leaders of synagogues, rederali,llls,
nnd other Jewish organizations prepare constitutions and keep
them up·to·date, the documents themselves are rarely examined,
Ev(~n historians have generally ignored them.
This is unfortunate, for American ,Jewish constitlltions ar<~
oftl'n eal'cfll\1y prepared lIlld highly revealill~ dOCIIIIH'llts Ihal,
properly i/lU~rpreted, call shed light Oil significallt <lSIH'cls of
American .Jewish life. Since many constitutions were p('riodi
cally revised, the dOCllllWllts also offer nil 111111511:11 willdolV 011
change over lim(~.
III this book we call (JlLly make a prelilllillary foray ililo Ihi~i
uncharled territory, This chaptel' is, therefore, COllrill(~d to 1'00lI'
suhjects: Section one sketches the early history of American .J('W
ish constitutionalislll, with pnrliclIlnr attention to the impal'l, of Ihl'
COllstitution of' the United Slates, signed ill 1787 alld rati/jl'(1 0111'
y(~ar later. Section two examines severnl conslitutiolls ill gr('<l11'I'
delail to shed light on how Lhey mix American a 1111 ,Jewish ('I(~
menLs. Section three looks at how selected American ,Jewish constitutions have both exposed and resJlonded Lo COIl1Il1II1WI cOllcems
alHl problems. Finally, section rour of'fers severnl gcncraliza
lions regarding long·term patterns of change in American .J(~wi~h
consLiLuLfons, alld what Lhey Illay mean,
The earliest extant Americnn .Jewish constitulioll/ <lal illl:
hack to 1728, is found ill the llIillule hooks of'CollgregaLioll Slu·antl.
Israel in New York. It hegins as f'ollows:
A nO/lh/c !lulU!: COII!':fitufiOlWI
nn('II/!lo/l!'
of /\mrriC(f11 .Irll'ry
III the Nallle of the 111(',,<,<wd God A mI'll
.'
'" on or about the Ycnr !l4G6 1170fi\ cprtam wholesomf'
\VI
Flders of
lere,I"
I B U tl
Rules and Restrictions have heen mac c y lE' len .J. . '
ollr "Ioly Con~rcgation, to Preserve Peace, tranqUility and
'ood Government' among-st ylll IllH'Ill' :In.d those after them,
giLl
have Been neglected to he put 111 due force for some
nIH as
ley ( .
.
.
t
I R solve to
'
t , e now meet with common consen alH e.
lime pas, V'.e
I IdT
~
Revive the same with some amendments all( a( I Ions ... :
of this preamble are particularly noteworthy,
F '1\'e L'eatures
I'.,
.
k'
G I
a tner
First it opens on a timeless reli~ious note, rna 1I1g O( a
rIh
to this document which, we are subsequently told, was reac lee . y
"common consent" of the signatories. It thus conforms to the p,attern of Jewish covenantal and constitutional documents reachm,g
II the way hack to the Bihle. 4 Second, it assumes that power IS
~(,sl.f.d· wi'tll "t:he Eld('rs," the synar,-oguf' elite that formed ltll{' n~l­
junta or governing council. The congre~ation lay, ~o c ;,lIn~ " 0
'I
:lim,
to
( emoci' acy, r, Third " it sets forth an unabashedly pohtlcal
t"
, I he
preserve 'peace, trallquility and good govf'rllrnel~ among . .
('chidim (mf'mhers) and tlwir descendants, Shea.nt.h Israel t,hus
Y,
1<'('11111(111 (org-nnI7,('d
s,nv I't.se If'.IS heir lo the haditiollal Europ(',m "
lmu
.Jewish community), and functioned flS a ,SYI~flgOgUe.con" .(lIily" Fourth, it admits thaI. a previous COf1slltullOn, plolllu~g'll( I
I('s~' than a t~pnerntion l)(>fOl-e, hne! h(,pll honon.,d mosll y . ",' ,I hPJ
breach, There WflS, in short, a sizpnhlp chnslll \wtwpcn, 1:1\\' '~,IJ(
,
F'
't ,slH"flks
of "alllPndlllcnts fllldI flc\<htIOIIS,
prflctH'e.
'lila 11 y, I
<,'
I t . ' fI
't
j
''''011
thflt
even
the
most
"wholesome
ru
es
fllH
rC's II~t flCI :1( mlS,~1
,
'I
'I
rI
tions" were suhject to the vicissitudes of tllne, flO( rcqurre( IW odic updating,S
, h d
t
Nothing in this preamble, or for that matter "~ t e ocunWI1 a~
ho le was particularly new. While suhstnntwlly shorter fin
a w
-, (
(
'1 r
th
11 agogue
different in some administrative det~1 s. rom
e . sy (. 11 d
haskamot (agreed upon laws or constitutIOn; somellmes cn I'
"ascamot") promulgated in seventeenth century Amslerd~m,
London, <lnd Hecif(~, Brazil, the hasic pnLtf'rIls of the document '~~HI
or Shearith Israel's hroader COIllIII ullnl structure were ccntulle~
old, r~oted in pJ'(!-expulsion Porttl~nl nnd llH'dieval ~)~ttcl'ns hO
.'('wish sC'lf-g-ov(>l'nmenl 7 Indeed, the document lC'stiflCs t.o ~, e
('onl illllit y of' ,'('wish tradition across tim(> ,mel spa('<', ,By suhs(;,llhilW to th~s(' f"(!g-ulal.iolls - includi1Jg an article dcclarlllg-, that t~,e
1'(/~'1/(/Z shnlllH' (lhlidt!(~d !,wi('(> a YPllr to ('all~sp I~ws.;' ;lI'tJcips to ~~
read in thp Sin:lg-og both in PoriuguC's (~ ''..Ilg-hsh
N{!w YOI
Pi
36
What is American ahout the Constitutional
/JnCIlf/!ellis?
.lp\\'s consciously linked th(>ms(>lves back to their anc(,5tor5, .. ho
had lived under similar reguhtions in other diasporn settings,R
The era or the American Revolution marked a turning poillt in
the history or American Jewish constitutionalism. 9 In the Wilke of
the 1787 redeml constitution as well as all the new state constitutions, synagogues wrote new constitutions as well, Indeed, they
used the term "constitution" for the first time; formerly, as we
have seen, such documents were known by the more traditionally
Jewish term "hascamot." These documents broke from the old
Sephardic model, incorporated large dollops of republican
rhetoric, and provided ror a great deal more popular democracy _
at least on paper.
At New York's Congregation Shearith Israel, in 1790, a particularly interesting constitution was promulgated, the first that we
know or to contnin a formal "bill or rights." The n('w sel of law~
Iwgan with a ringing nffirmation of popular sovereignty r(,ll1iniscent of the United States Constitution: "We the members or
K,K. Shearith Isrnel." Another paragraph explicitly lillked
Shearith I~rael with the "state happily constituted upon the principle~ of equal liberty, civil and religious," Still a third paragraph,
the introduction to the new "bill of rights" (which mny have been
wriLLen nt a different time), justified synagogue laws in terms that
Americans would immediately have understood:
W'wr('as in free states all power originates and is derived
from the people, who alwnys retain every right necessary for
their well being individually, and, ror the beLLer ascertaining
those rights with more precision and explicitly, from 'form?' a
declaration or bill of those rights, In a like manner the indi
viduals of every society in such state are entitled to and retnin
their several rights, which ought to be preserved inviolate,
Therefore we, the profession {proressors] of the Divine
Laws, members of this holy congregation of Shearith Israel, in
the city or New York, conceive it our duty to make this
declaration or our rights and privileges.lo
The new bill or rights explicitly ended many of the colonialera distinctions between members and non-members, declaring
that "every rree person professing the Jewish religion, and who
lives according Lo its holy precepts, is entitled to ... be treated in nil
respect ns n brother, nnd as sHch n suhject of ev('rY fratf'rnal dllty."
This was partly lip sf'rvice: withi" the synagogue, pnyillg
members obtained certain privileges that the unaffiliated were
37
.
A Dou,ble B on,
Documen t so{American Jewry
d , Constitutwnai
0
What is Americall about the Constitutional Documcnts?
d it easier for members of the
denied,lI The new sy~tem also rna :ffice Leadership no longer
congregation to attam synaghogue, 'I p'erl'od with a self-perpet. h d ~
ch of t e co oma
,
rested, as It a or ~u
, h n e _ and of the larger influence
uating elite, Symbolic of thIs c a g
ation _ was the new name
that the Constitution had on the c?dn!JI'eg Llficer Where from the
h
e's presl mg 01, I ,
.
given to t e syna?og~
h d b
e the traditional title
congregation's begmnmg ~e a
orn "president." Approprid
"parnas," now he w~s ?ffiClallydr~:_~:~mand was named "vice
ately. the congregatIOn s secon president."12
.
ft tion was produced in 1789 by
An even more democratic con,s I u R'chmond Virgin'ia, The
.
J
. h ommuntty 0 f I
,
the fledgling eWls
'fl oun.
'sh' "We • the subscribers
'th c democratic
document b~gan w:, a
.
t in this place. desirous of promotof the Israelite rehb'10n reslden
t'
d I'n awkward seemingly
I .
"It con mue
,
ing I.he divine wors II'~
I, s in "moderll" terms:
immigrant Ellglish to JustIfy sYllagogue dW
... ,.
,
,
II
't' s that certain rules and reh'UIt. is Iw('('ssary that In a socle Ie ~ the sanw as telld well to
I I. . . I m'Hle for the govenJllIelll or
.<
h'
f
E ' ,!!£'corum 10
.
I rcated
to the wors Ip 0
tI11 lOllS
HO Iwr
n Jl I acp (e(
I
0' II IIY •,,-,'0(1 , ...
"e'lce
and fril'ndship alllong the same.
AliI'illig
(
l.
d t' g privileges to "every free
It then offered me',l1bersh P atn vO Illth ree months of the age of
O
'd'
'th' Ity for t h e erm 0 f
d
man resl 109 In IS c
' t h " tried to ensure "an equal an
21 years,.,who congregates ~~ ,?Sto everyone involved in synaan independent repres:~f:wl:; even a single dissenting member
gogue
f II the members in toto" to pass on proabout a "meeatn,d
109 0 a
to bringgovernment,
'
13
posed rules and regu I a t lOns,
II
witnessed enormous changes in
The ninet~enth, century
ish or anizational constitutions
American Jewl~h ,life th,at ,Jeow ulatiol~ grew exponentially durreflected, America s ,Jewish p p r:
J
'1800 to about one
'
' I f m fewer than 2,.)00 , ews 10
d
illg. thiS
~WrlO(,
h I range
of organizations f e.
t rolater all d a woe
(
IIIIIIIon1 at cen ury
,
'II
II of these _ synagogues, rae them Praclica y a
, .
d
vC'lope( 0 serv
'
.
'
d
It
..
'lal an cu ur al <agencies , chanties an
ternal orgallIzatlOns, so~.'
I
'their exislence, and
- Jlroduccd constltutlOllS ear y on 10
more
d'
,
h
Iged
d 'fi d th
as con ItlOns c 31
.
d
thenWhat
1lI0 I Ie
ern us here IS
' h ow these constitutions combine
interests
Jewish and American elements into a single unified whole,
Again, we begin with Shearith Israel which in 1805 rewrote its
constitution to conform to an 1801 New York State act "to provide
for the incorporation of religious societies,"14 The new text abandoned the flowery language and "bill of rights" of fifteen years
before in favor of a more conventional format: eleven general articles plus twelve articles (31 paragraphs) of by-laws, In accordance with "the manner and form prescribed by the act of the Legislature," the constitution, in Article II, provided for six "trustees"
and empowered them to act as the new state law specified. Other
articles modified the congregation's election rules, introduced the
English term "elector" in place of the traditional "yachid"
(member), and provided that "no po1J or income tax shall ever be
assessed on the members" - a clear break with Seph'ardic trn<lition.'5 But these inllovations were carefully offset by a parallel effort to protect other Sephardic traditions, Hebrew terms _ pamas,
kltazon, shamash, sllOkhet etc, - pepper the document and are in
nil caiieii spellpd out in Hehrew letters. Article III, as if in answer
to the previous nrlicl£', d('clares that "The fixed prayers the Torah
Ve~ha~ha{t()reth Isil'l shall fore\'(!r be read in the Hebrew
language, al'cordiflg to th(' Mil/hag Sepharadim" (the article goes
on to permit the Board of Trustees 011 special occasions to secure
"an address, sermon or mOlal lecture in English"), The by-laws
underscore this traditionalism, carrying forward numerous
practices rooted in the congregation's past.
A quite different compromise between tradition and change
may be seen in the Constitution of the Hebrew Congregation of
Kaal Kodosh Beth-Elohim or House of God, Charleston, S.C"
ado!lted in 1820 - the second American synagogue constitution
(Shearith Israel's was the first) to be published and distributed as a
separate brochure,I6 Jews had first come to Charleston
the last
decade of the seventeenth century, attracted by the city's economic
prospects and possibly too by its comparatively liberal constitution, By the] 740s the city was the fourth largest in the colonies and
its Jewish community was substantial enough.to warrant formation of a congregation, found(!d in 1749, For several decades be~
ginning in the 1790s, Charleston's Jewish community was the
largest, wealthiest, and most cultured in the United States. By
1820, when th is consti tution was issued, the city itself had begun to
decline, but Jews still Ilumbered close to 700, fully five p£'rcent of
the city's white population. I 7
in
What is striking about the Beth Elohirn constitution is the
A /)ouhle /JOllri: COT/stilutiol1al /)oI'1I11H'llls of Ameri,a/l .'ewry
seeming lack of American innuence that it displays
at least at
first glance. The constitution's "Rule I" declares, "That this congregation be known and continued ... according to the Minhag
Sephardim, as heretofore practised in this city." Under subsequent
rules, democracy was curtailed and the congregation's representatives (the "General Adjunta") were given "sole management of
all the functions formerly exercised by the people at large." Beth
Elohim's new policy-making body was self-perpetuating and literally consisted of the synagogue elders (the average age of identifiable members was 62).18 Once every four years these elders met
to elect their successors, of whom 72 percent (18 of 25) could be
previous officeholders. All of this suggests that at least one of the
latent purposes of this constitution was to preserve the status quo at
Beth Elohim in the face of challenges posed by younger congregants.lf'
Yet for nll of it.s {'vitl('llt Ir;I,ldl"II;IiIC,Ill, thl~ BPlh Elohim COIlslitutiol1 still 1(.IlI·d·, til" 1'111'"
• f ""'''1111(1111[: nOll ,'('wish society. The very lpr'1ll 'h.,rI I" ,j. ,. , " .• " ,I", ""l!:"'I:;II'''II'" rllhn~
hody
Ow "(;CllI";lJ ;\<11'11" ,
' .• , . ,I 11"1t1 II", ... ·:tl.· I·'I:I'-.!a
ture, known ill Soulh C;I! ,,1111.1 ,I II" I" ... I .I ,\ ., ,"11\\' 'III., ("'I'
um,enl's lack of COI1('1~rll for d"III''''I''' \ Ilk,·\\I'-.(· p·IlI·r!" tl)!'
surrounding culture. In 1 820, acc()nhll~ to (:hmlPs Sydnor, "local
governmenl wns thoroughly ulldplllOcratic in mosl of lh(> c{)untips
of the South" and "the power to govern reposed far up in thp pconomic pyramid."20 Other features of this document that bespeak
the innuence of surrounding culture on Charleston Jews include
the constitution's formal prologue, the regulation requiring that
"all notices in the Synagogue shall be proclaimed in English
(Rule XIX)," and the sections concerning intermarriage and conversion,
As the nineleenth century progressed, American Jewish consLitutions took on more and more forms borrowed directly from
American legal documents. In at least one case, these forms were
even translated into Yiddish, The 1889 Yiddish iakallot of Congregation Ohav Shalom in Cincinnati were carefully (but incorrectly!) divided into "articles" and "paragraphs" - both wordfl
sp(.IIC'r] 0111, ill Yiddish Ipt\.C'rs - :l1lcl in practically the inverse of
what WP snw il1 the 1RO;) SIlC'mith Israel cOl1stitutio1l, this dOCllllwl1L
chopp!'d llIany lnHlil.ioll:lJly .JC'wish /prms ill favor of their American equivalents transliterated into Yiddish ("nH'lTlbership,"
"officers," "prpsident," "vice-president," "secretary," "treasurer,"
"trustees" and so forlh).21 This was unusual; more commonly,
40
lrh at IS
.
AII1f'rI("all ahoul th C C
'
,
/onslltlitlOlIn/
/)or'lImrllts?
constitutions carefully alte I t · ·
regarding elections and < t,ree
radltlOnal ,Jewish practices
d'
I
'.
mee 1I1gs so as to co ~
t
..
~n oca customs, and they ab . d"
, norm 0 stale laws
In Jewish life, bowing to A
~n oned ?bvl.ous class distinctions
The inno t'
'h
mencan egalttananism. 22
,
va Ion t at makes n' t
JeWish constitutions most d' f' rille eenth century Amf'rican
them embarrassingly I
IS mc Ive. were the rules - some of
'h
ong - concermng d
rules were rooted' th
ecomm and etiquette
S uc
h
In
e medieval s
' .
were records testify to innumer bl
ynagogue-community
the sanctuary. The freq
a e efforts to prevent talking in
, t
uency 0 f such r
I t'
POIn s out, demonstrates that v' I t'
egu a IOns, one scholar
place. 2:l In the modern period ~ ~h IOns mus~ have been commonsought to promote synagog d' 0, Sepha~dlc and German Jews
th .
ue ecorum hoplll" th
h
.
I' Image of Jews in the
f h:
. '" ere y to Improve
.
eyes
t elr nelghb
G
were partIcularlv thorough
I'
'
ors. f'rman .Jews
g
1llll/I-!CI1 fill('d wii h f'1'1
I' prot lICI,n detail(>d SYlIO!!o!!('l/ord
,
d lOra p r(>/.;uhllOllS
.
syn:l~~O~~IIf' orcir'r nlld c/f'('f)rIl1l1 / 1 '
,goVf'nllll~ all n~J)Pds of
, III
I 1\ lIH'rica . 1'111,·" "t " /" '''",d" clIl,.rllnt "
I
I"
rf',1( \' fOil lid If! t 11(' I,
I ,1\\,,, I I)", l.;h
'
\\1"";Ii
\
tlI .\r ,lIlf " " "
Jp()r, 1,\111"" \'1111 III II ... I" III'
•
(':ltl I
~r;I,'1 (',." Id'fl''''1 ,,(
Il'w
1\ It 'I I h,· 11111111'
•
s, ~yll;l/.!ll/.!rH's I'X1I'lf I, f II
I.',' r·"'II" II'" 1/11 III
f II " -scalp "ruff'S of '(I' . I,'"
It',
iI'lf 1111.,,,
'
I
It
' prill 11<'111/: 111 ,1\111,' 1-' ,
s(>rvf's'. "II,la l tl )f' chnollc
I,t r
:..non 111'(,:1111(, c1.",!' , '
s('lf Tn\'
. .
'
•
,f "II .1,. k "II
11'<lllIilJf'scl f'
.'
.~- CIIlIll/.; rOflf:n'IT;llipll \\;\', t" I", '·1
h'
100 III propnpt.y."
.
°
f
~s early as 1840 IJick writes' a I
.
hke Rodeph Shalom of Phila'del ho.ng-est~blJs.hed cOllgrf'gntioll
of rines for members "h
'I~ la had 1I1stJtuted a schedule
decade progressed the;;' 0 w~ not behalf orderly." As the
sal and recur~ent' th
e~an for decorum became a univere
Ilnti ... had passed an eemxt , ?' 1848 Bnai Jeshurun of Cincin·
.
enslve propo I "t
III the service Among th
b
sa
prevent disorder"
kissing of tzit;it" It
e a uses prohibited was "the loud
. h
.
was a lSo decreed that
I th
nllg t call for order, and he wa s
.
on y
e president
f~shioll" .... l{l1esseth IsraeJ of ;~7Istr[lllHH~ to do 50 "ill a quiet
rigorous. In 1852 it
I
. adelphla ... was even more
"orderly dress" No passe( a Benes of regulations n'qtJil'ill~
lle
wearing n ,,'h~t" Ino ) I~Vt~5 to be admitted who was not
....
aCH I Ion Illemh
sYllagogue "with elf' '
I "
. ers w('rf' to ('111('1' t1w
.I
.
c('/ley all( Without 1 ' . .
I
WI!. lout dplny 10 their s ,; I 0 I
Wise nne to JlI'o('('('d
eluded "walking nro~~:;~' tt If'r, belwvior sulrjed to fill(,s ill
with ne'Igl
}I
s k'
andmg together ' con versa t ion
JOrs '
Jok ...<'..s , or '" TlJa
,
Illg fun."25
°
41
A LJouble Bond: Constitutional LJocuments of American Jewry
Paradoxically, just as synagogues were engaged in establishing order, their actual authority over members was slipping awa,y,
Indeed, some of the most far-reaching innovations found III
nineteenth-century constitutions concern rules that disappeared,
particularly regulations that had once sought to enforce
communal discipline through fines, loss of synagogue honors,
and excommunication. To see how radical a change this represents, one need only look back at the haskamot of Recife's Congregation Zur Israel (1648) and London's Spanish and Portuguese
Synagogue (1663). In both cases, punishments of various sorts
were mentioned in over 35 percent of all regulations. 26 Shearith
Israel's colonial constitutions were less severe, but the congregation still asserted its authority by threatening penalties of various
sorts, Even after the Revolution, in Charleston, the Beth Elohim
Constitution of 1820 listed penalties for eight different rules violations, But times were changing. The 1824 Constitution of Mikveh
Israel in Philadelphia (a congregation that by then faced competition from the new Ashkenazic congregation, Rodeph Shalom) lists
no punishments at all in its general articles, and only three in its
by-laws: a twenty-five cent fine for missing a meeting, a fine for
misbehavior, and a fine for disturbing "the tranquility of the congregation" during worship. In place of traditional exco~mu?i­
cation, the constitution provides, in the case of more serious 10fractions, for "impeachment," complete with a trial before the full
congregation,27 This innovation did not spread, and by mid-century fines are the only type of penalty mentioned in most constitutions, They often appear grouped together in a separate article of
the by-laws, and usually are imposed for one of three reasons: an
unexcused absence (from a meeting, funeral, or some other compulsory event), an unwillingness to accept a proferred synagogue
honor or office, or a gross breach of discipline,28 Since the fines
could not be enforced, and were subject to challenge by those who
spurned the synagogue's authority, it was not long before they too
fell into disuse; most were remitted and, in time, repealed.
With church-state separation, the growth of religious voluntarism, the spread of religious liberalism, the decline of the sY,nagogue-community, and the development of competing
congregations in all major American Jewish communities,
syl1agogues foulld their authority severely weakened: they now
needed memhers more than members needed them. This, over
time, led to a drastic challge ill the relalionship of synagogues to
congregants, for rather than threatening to throw existing
What is American about the Constitutional Documents?
members o.ut, synagogues suddenly had to learn how to attract new
members m. Such was the American pattern, and it affected
churc~es, sy~ago.gu~s, and all other "voluntary associations" (the
term Itself IS slgmficant) across the land. By the twentieth
century, most, American Jewish constitutions depended 011
memb~rs to pohce ,themselves, and had discarded all mention of
pen,allles and sanctIOns except one: that members who failed to a
their dues would be dropped.
p y
, Y~t even as their authority was ebbing away, voluntary orgamzabons strug~le~ to maintain key aspects of their tradition intact. T~e constitution of Congregation Brith Sholom, Covenant of
Pe,ace In Easto~ (842), for example, declared that "The Name of
thiS ~?ngregatlOn shall forever be Brith Sholom Covenant of
Peac~, and sought to freeze the form of worship "as the form now
pra~tJsed and J~erformed by the congregations of the Gcrmnn Israelites; exceptmg only that the Psalm Mizmor lcdauid and the
hym~ El~ kelohellu shall be sung and not read."29 III its revised
constJtutlO~ of 1871, Charleston's Beth Elohim decreed that "the
present Ml1lhag Sephardirn, Portut,'Uese Millitag, shall be continu~d, .and ~~e prayer book now in use still be our prayer book."30
CI~Cll1natJ s congregation Ohav Shalom prescribed iI~ its consti~utlon (1888-89) th~t ~he congregation "must always pray accordI?g to the Sephardlc flte, according to the Ari rite," The cOllstilutlon of the same city's Talmud Thora Society (1890) sought to
gua~antee,th~t the soci~ty "shall be conducted on strictly Orthodox
JeWIsh pnnclples, and In accordance with the Talmud."3l
T? u~derscore the importance of preserving these principles
~onslJtutlOns sometimes made amendments almost impossible t~
mt~o.duce. In ear~y nineteenth century Charleston, it required a
petitIOn of two-thl~ds of t~e subscribing members (exclusive of the
membe~s of the adJunta) Just to COllvelle a special adjullta medillg
to conSider ~n ame~dment, and the amendment could only then
b~come law If two-thirds of the ruling adjunta voted for it,32 In late
nmeteenth century Cincinnati, the Talmud Thora Society wa
e,ven mOre ,c~reful. Aware that even the most stringent constitu~
b~nal, prov~slOn.s h~d nO,t proved sufficient to prevent Orthodox institutIOns I? Cmcmnatl from turning Reform, it devised a pro.
cedure that It hoped would be foolproof:
A lIIotion, pr~positi,oll or, resolulioll to alter, change, aorogatl',
amend or revise tillS Altlcle of the Constitutioll or any s('clion
thereof
. successive
' H!gular
. IlIP(,t.
.
' must be vol(·(\
. u pon.1' t tl lice
mgs, but not less than twenty-eight days shall elapse between
A
/)ollh/('
nom/: Constitutional /)oel/Tllerlts of Amrrican ,Jeu'ry
nny two such meetings, and at least fourteen days prior to each
on each
aneJ every of such meetings, there shall be served
.
member, by leaving with him personally, or Wlt~ some perso~
of suitahle age and d;" .-clion in charge of the reSidence of s~c
member a notice in writing, signed by the Secretary, stnt.mg
the moti~n. proposition or resolution to be proposed an.<l the t~me
and place where the same is to be proposed; the said motlO~,
proposition or resolution shall then only be deemed .to prev81l,
'f th re shall not be at anyone of such three successive regular
~ee:ing~ ~hree votes opposed thereto; but if at anyone of the
three successive regular meetings there are three or mo~e. votes
cast in opposition thereto, then the said motion, propositIOn or
resolution shall be deemed 10sl.:!:J
What we have then arc two parallel and op~~sing f?rces - ~ne
promoting Americanization; the other, traehtlOn. 1 he te~slOn
lj('twN~1I them is bnsic to the whole Ameri~an .Je~vish expenence.
American Jewish constitutions embody thiS. tenSion, and seek to
work oul in law what American .Jews. -;ere. simultaneously seekr
.IIlg to wor k Oll t'111 I'lie
... gruide
for hVlfIg
111 two .worlds at . once.
u
.
.
Naturally, different conslitul1ons, wnUen at dlffer.e~t l1mes~
achieved different compromises: some promoted tradll1on, som
acculturation, and most, like the early nineteenth century constitutions of Shearith Israel and Beth Elohim, pro~oted ho~h. Were
American Jewish constitutions lined up togelhe~ sld.e by Side, t~e~
would thus traverse a full spectrum, iIIustrah~g In yet anotl e
way the infinite shadings of American Jewish !tfe.
III
Moving beyond this "grand theme" of American Je":ish history, we find that constitutions also shed light.o.n the vexrng l~caJ
and short-lived problems that ,Jewish commulllhes grappled With.
Some of these may appear at first glance to ha.ve ?een altogeth~r
trivial, hut many tUI'll out to hnve had deeper slgnJ~canc~. An u llsnnl rule found in the code of Inws of Congreg~.tlOn l\hekva Israel of Savannah (1791), for example, stat(~s lhnt no person s.l1nlll
hf' ("nilI'd 10 1tIH'1 sl'i/l/rrr IToral1l in hoots." ,Jacoh l\1a.rcus relllllH.s
us that "a numh!'I' or the memhers SI)('nt much tll~J(' on thel~
plnntntions or in the countryside, inevitably collectmg mud 0 e
t1 . b t "and the regulntion sought to ensure that the synngob'1l
lelr 00 s, "
I'
t' . H Ie XIII
would be treated with respect.:14 No less ic IOsyncrn Ie IS u
44
rr//at is American about thl' Constitlltional
/)orlllllenls?
of lhf' lR20 Bf'lh Elohim Constitution, bnrring anyone caliI'd up to
the Torah from mnking "nny ridiculous or unusual offering."
Given the synagogue's well-known history of contentiousness,
Olle suspects thnt this rule came in response to some now forgottf'1l
form of eongregant protest, which the nuthorities, working within
the law, attempted to squelch.35
Constitutions also reveal much about Jewish family and religious life in various communities. The constitutions of both Beth
Elohim in Charleston and Shanarai Chasset in New Orleans, for
example, include provisions concerning prostitutes. In New Orleans they were buried apart;:J6 in Charleston (Rule XXIV) they
and their marriage partners could be rehabilitated, "after having
lived some years, a moral and decent life." Rules 'concerning intermarriage appear in numerous constitutions, evidence that the
prohlem affected Jewish communities throughout til(' coulltry.
Then as later, however, Jews differed over how best to rf'SpOIHI.
Beth Elohim took a hardline stnnce, seeking to prev('nt inl('rmarringes before they hnppened. "Any person or persOlls heing I11nrried contrary to the Mosaical Law," the 1820 constitution df'darf'c1
(Rulf' XXIV), "shall themselves and their issue. never he rf'cognized members of this Congregation; and should such persoll or
persollS die, they shall not be buried within the walls of the Beth
Hnirn I,J('wish cemetery!. ... " Shearith Isrnel in Nf'w York wns
gellcrnlly more lenient, denying intermnrrieds full benefits of
membership, but allowing them (although not their Christian
spouses) to rent seats and in Some cases to become eleclorsY Shanami Chasset of New Orleans, where the problem of intermarriage was particularly severe, decided that it was best to be lenient
with intermarrieds in an effort to save at least some of them for
Judaism. It therefore allowed non-Jewish Spouses to be buried
within the Jewish cemetery, and specifically stated ill its 1828
constitution, "that, no Israelite child shall be excluded from the
schools, from the temple or from the burial ground, on account of
the religion of the mother.":!11
As time went on, other issues came to the fore. At mnny synn[rogues, flUendnl1ce becnme a problem, for congregnnts had to work
on Sahhath and holidays. The constitution of Congrf'gntioll Ohnv
:1hnlolll in Cincinnati (1 R89) lIms includ(>d nlllol1g t11(' dllties of the'
presidpllt t1wt "IlIMt of nil, he hns Lo be in shul eVf'ry Shnhhos mul
Yonlirr.";w Th(' growing ohsession with death nn'll hurial, f'videnced both among imrnigrnnt and native Jews late in thf'
nineteenth century,40 was likewise renected in constitutionnl
45
What is American about the Constitutional Documents?
A Double Bond: Constitutional Documents of American Jewry
documents The New Constitution and By-Laws of Congregation
.' 'dad Colorado (1889) devoted no fewer than 24 paraAaron, T nnl
,
.,
th
re devoted to
hs of its by-laws to these concerns, more an w.,e
.,
grap
. I
b' t 41 The Talmud Thora Society of Ctnctnany other smg e su ~ec ,
t
h
nati, in its constitution (1890), actually set doIl~ a~,;;n d:~~rs
much different forms of memory were worth. or I y
, .
member could have five Psalms recited in his memory fo~ a, yea~,
for two hundred dollars, the kaddish prayer w~ul~d~e ;ald I~d h~:
memor for a year; for three hundred dollar~, a '~ wou.
•
£' Y
11 as "on the ten followmg anmv~rsanes of
said lor a year as we
dd' h
Id be said
h' death"' and for five hundred dollars, ka
wou
,
f~: a member "both during the first year and on all the follow.,mg
.
. 0 f h'IS death , as long as the Talmud Thora Society
anmversaTles
shall exist."42
' . , .
In all of these cases, American JeWish conslitutlO.ns presc~ve a
spnsc of what was critically important to Jews at dl~erent times
~1II(i in different local settings. The themes tackled tn thes~ con·
stitutions, thc problems thalthey sought to resolve ~nd t~e ~)I\faIlS
that they attempted to avoid, testify to then bmellness, t e da:"~
were in touch with Iifc. For this very reason, nobody ex.pecte I~
stitulional constitutions to lasl forever. Many were revlscd agam
0:
's
and again.
IV
\
A sampling of revisions introduced into ~m~ric~n Jewis~
constitutions over time yields several readily dlstm~lsha~le (J~
sometimes overlapping) patterns of chang~. W.~at fo oW: I:h:~e
necessaril an exhaustive list, but does c assl y many f
changes. J'roadly speaking, they tend to fan into one of the following four ,categories:
.
1) Changes designed to take aduantage of federal and st~te
I
We have already seen that as far back as 1805, Congregation
;:e~rith Israel in New York reorganized itself into"a "body corporate» and rewrote its constitution to conform ~o th~ act/f. the
Legislature, providing for the. incorporatton 0 rc Igl~~e~
.' " l' "These laws offered sigillricant benefits to the .con g
soc Ie ICS.
.'
I f r it to recel ve and
g'llion making It pOSSible, for examp e, 0
h
C;lIlvey' property amI to accept donations as a cor.po rate ho:ly. I; t .~s
well worthwhile for the COllgregatlOn to c lUnge I S
prove d
d d 43
governing structure as the law deman e .
Over the years, Jewish organizations have been governed in a
variety of ways - as religious corporations, membership corporations, charitable trusts, or not-for-profit corporations - depending upon their own needs and activities and the vagaries of corporate laws in each of the states. Laws governing tax exempt status
have also affected Jewish organizational activities. 44 The costs
and benefits of these laws are reflected in American Jewish constitutional documents, and account for many of the more formalistic changes introduced into them through the years. The American Jewish Committee, for example, had to amend its charter three
times in a single decade to take account of changing provisions in
the Membership Corporations Law of the State of New York,45 But
problems aside, the corporate model offered numerous legal advantages to Jewish organizations, and subtly reinforced leadership calls for these organizations to operate in a more "businesslike" fashion. By the bte twentieth century, this model had become
predominant in Jewish federations and major Jewish organizations across the land, and was widely emulated by synagogues and smaller oq~allizalions as well.
2) Changes deslf.!Iied to promote conformity with America1l
culture. In a multilude of ways, American Jewish constitutions
have reflected Jewish accommodations to the shifting sands of
American life. Synagogue conslitutions of the late eighteenth
century, described above, are a prime example. Their language
and some of their specific provisions exhibit obvious host culture
influence - for all that they also reflect the continuing impact of
tradition. The same may be said of Mayer Sulzberger's proposed
constitution for the Board of Delegates of American Israelites
(1875), with its plan for a bicameral legislature and proportional
representation. 46 Similarly, we have seen how in the nineteenth
century the traditional all-embracing synagogue-community
gave way to American-style religious pluralism and voluntarism, with attendant constitutional changes. Threats of excommunication and bans against those who sought to start up new
congregations disappeared completely.
Americanization, however, was an ongoing process. Every
immigrant organization had to experience it anew, while older
organizations found that their constitutions had periodically to he
updatcd. Thus the Yiddish constitution of Cincinnati's COllgrpga·
lion Ohav Shalom (1888·89) decreed (Article XV) that "all of lhe
synllgogue's books as well as its pinkas should be \Hillen ill the
Yiddish language and in Hebrew script." Later, a different halld
<17
What is Americall about the Constitutional Uocuments?
A Double Bond: Constitutiollal [)ocuments of American ,Jewry
an (I
added in Yiddish the phrase "and also in the local language"; English had become acceptable. Ncw Ilope congregation in
Cincinnati, founded by German refugees in 1939, aimed initially
"to promote religious life among the .Jewish immigrants from
Germany." By its second constitution, in 1955, that seemed too
parochial for the now more Americanized members. Its mission
was therefore reworded and broadened, "to promote traditional religious life and ,Jewish culture." By the third constitution (1968)
there were already provisions for introducing ritual changes,
"should changes ill this rer;anl he necessa r y."47
That same year, a suburban Conservative congregation in
Cincinnati, Northern Hills Synagogue, introduced a quite different provision into its constitution, one that would in one form or
another be seen in an increasing number of late twentieth century
constitutional documents, ,Jewish and non-Jewish alike. The new
article was entitled "gender" and it declared that "the masculine
personal pronoun, whenever used in these By-Laws, shall be construed llS including the feminine."4R Once again, American cui
ture had changed and American Jews were changing with it.
Constitutional documents hastened to conform.
3) Changes designed to promote and strengthen American Ju·
daism. What the 1790 Constitution of Shearith Israel called Jcws'
"duty to themselves and posterity" has heen a prime motive behind
constitutional and ritual changes throughout American Jewish
history.49 Indeed, the desire to preserve American .Judaism and
pass it on to the next generation became over time something of a
religious duty. Much as American Jews difTered over how to preserve and pass on their faith, survival itself became a common
goal, a central feature of what would later be called "Civil Ju-
<1aism,"50
In line with this, Charleston's Reformed Society of Israelites
(1825), in its constitution, justified innovations on the basis of the
need "to perpetuate pure Judaism, and enlighten the rising generation on the subject of their lIoly Religion."!)1 The preamble to the
1861 Constitution of Sinai Congregation in Chicago similarly
spoke {)f "restituting the original spirit of simplicity, purity and
suhlimity in ,Judaism, and thus to perpetuate the same and secure
its duratioll."r,2 Orthodox .JI~WS ('hnll~(·d 1.11(' IIlWIl(,CS sOIlH'what. I.JH' eonsl.il.lliion (1 !)02) of lhl' Union of Orthndox Rahhis (AgtHlalh
Iln-J{ahllHnilll), ror (~xaJllpl(\ I.nlked of "strenglhening .Jlldaism"
and "improving the state of Jewish educalioh" - but their ultimate
aims were the same: to prolllote new policies that would "preserve"
48
revIVe .Judaism on American
'1 53 Of
'
willgs of Judaism as
II
r I
.SOI .
course, (hfferent
•. , . we as le( eratlOns and
l '
zaliom; sometimes d'
d
<
communa orgam·
,
Isagree over how best t
I
aims, Debates over ritual
h
.
o. carry out t ICse
<
C anges, mtermarnage c I
'
all(I ( more recently) p t T l d
<
,
0 1 verSIOn,
ments which often ~ a n ~nea
escent reflect these disagreements'54 But J'f
t'toct~se on proposed constitutional amend.'
cons 1 u IOns could
t b .
b
'
matters, the documents could at Ie asnto r~ng a out umty Oil these
disagreements largely concerned
reml~d ?ontenders that their
how best to achieve desired
I ~~ateglc Issues, questions of
most universally shar~d.
goa s,
e goals themselves were alU
•
H
4) Changes designed t
Jewish institutions, A
°r:::serue and streng~hen indiuidual
American Jewish constitu5ons h~:~:t~~:nges 1I1t~oduced ~nto
law; American culture or J
'h
g, to do With Amencan
eWls preservatIOn Th('y ~
I '
'
st earI on lllstitutional probl
II'"
octlse( Illthat had not previousl bemis, usua y 11l response to challellges
the COllgrerration
eSehn ,oreseen. An undated amendment to
-b'
,v , a om constitution f
I
c1ared in Yiddish tl t" h
.
, or examp e, (IP.
HI
W en an officer h S b
I
the constitution the president h tI
een e ecled against
officer in his pl~ce or th
-h as '~ ng 1t to appoint a different
d
' "
roug a committee without an ar
an you don t need another election ",,5 T
, . y '. guments
~pawned this amenomcnt h
t 1 .'
he speCific IIlcuient that
itself speaks , l a s no )een preserved, hut the worcling
,
.
. \0 umcs, A problem of a d·rt
t
<
1 eren
sort emerged at
Congregation Beth Elohim i n '
declared that" t' II
I Charleston, The constitution of 1871
<
a a genera meet"
t
t
constitute a quorum" Y t t
109,S wen y-one memhers shall
e wo years ater an a d d
'
'
t h IS number to fifteen 66 0 '
men ment re uced
not given, but it is not dimc:~: ~g;~~ho~~ reason for this change is
Oh;
,t
A final and more complicated exa
1 f '
from the constitution a db-I
f ' mp e 0 thiS proces~ ('omes
the
ish Councill'i7 When fir~ p y a~s 0 d
Savannah (Georgia) Jewdefined me'mbership as forf;~:gate ,about 1944, the constitution
The Council shall be composed of n
'
organ ization of J
'h
0 e representative of each
eWls men, women or both i th 't
f
vannah which has
. t
n f e CI1.y 0 Sa, .l)eell
. l'n con t'muous' ex
years prior to the time of the 5
'
IS en~e or at cast two
nlHl ill lHlditioll thereto of t
('I ectlOIl. of sUld r('pres('nlnti\'(',
Raid r('pr('s('nl'll ive" N'
w(' ve Tl1('m lers at Inrg(' pic'd!'!1 hy
mOl"(' lh'lll
• . ... 0 ~l\(,lIll)('r of Ih!' Cotlll!'il lllil'y 1'<'111 '/'5('111.
. , olle 01 ~:alllZalIOll.
i
49
A Double Bond: Constitutional Documents of American Jewry
What is American about the Constitutional Documents?
In 1946, "continuous existence" was further defined to mean
"either locally or nationally." The number of members-at-Iarge
was also expanded to "not less than twelve and not more than
eighteen in number." A year later this number was expanded
again to "not less than fifteen and not more than twenty-one" so
that the Council could name three additional members-at-Iarge
from surrounding communities ·which make contributions to the
annual campaign of the Savannah United Jewish Appeal and
Federation." At the same time, the rabbi of each synagogue in Savannah was made an ex-officio member of the Council. In 1951,
the number of members from surrounding communities was
raised to four, and instead of being appointed they were now
elected "at the same time and in the same manner as the members-at-Iarge from Savannah." To offset this, the number of
members-at-Iarge from within Savannah was raised to a
"minimum of twenty." Late in 1952, a further amendment created
a maximum number of members at large: "not less than twenty
and not more than the number of representatives from organizations."
All of this may at first glance seem like a morass of trivial
detail. Closer analysis, however, suggests that each amendment
resulted from careful brokering among different power groups.
Organizational representatives, donors, rabbis, and Jews from
surrounding communities all demanded their share of representation, and over time each of their claims was (at least to some extent) satisfied, thereby neutralizing their potential opposition. The
result was not only an appropriately representative Jewish council, but also a stronger and more viable one.
As the Savannah experience indicates, American Jewish constitutions, read over time, have a story to tell. Understanding the
story is not always easy, and the effort to read between the lines, as
attempted here, is fraught with evident risks. But even if this
reading is wrong, it can scarcely be denied that constitutions,
properly studied, are of more than "scant interest." Few documents reveal so much about American Jewish institutions and
life.
Notes
1.
Michael Kammen, A Machine that Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture (New York: Knopf, 1986), p. 4; cf.
p. xvii.
2.
We know that an earlier constitution had been prepared in 1706
and it is probably safe to assume, as Jacob R. Marcus does tha~
there. had been even earlier ones. See J .R. Marcus, Studi;s in
American Jewish History (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College
Press, 1969), p. 44.
3.
Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society [=PAJHSI
21 (1913), p. 1.
4.
See Daniel J. Elazar, "Covenant as the Basis of the Jewish Political Tradition," in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Kinship and Consent:
The Jewish Political Tradition a nd its Contemporary Uses
(Ramat Gan: Turtledove, 1981), pp. 21-56.
5. Jacob R. Marcus, The Colouial American Jew (Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1970), pp. 906-911, argues that "a largE'
m~as~re of democracy proved inevitable" in the colonies, constltuhons notWithstanding, for congregations were small and
members were largely of the snme social class. Marcus admits
that She~~ith Israel, the largest of the North American synagoguecommumtles, was something of an exception in this regard. In
an~ case, I would argue that the colonial synagogue, like colonial
socIety as a whole, was governed more by defE'rence thon by
de"?~cracy. On this point, see John B. Kirby, "Early American
~ohhcs . ~he Search for Ideology: An Historiographical AnalySIS and CritIque of the Concept of Deference," Journal of Politics
32 (1970), pp. 808.838.
6.
For the history of Shearith Israel's constitutions and regulations
see David and Tamar de Sola Pool, All Old Faith ill the New'
World: . Port:ait of Shearith Israel 1654-1954 (New York:
ColumbIa Umversity Press, 1954), pp. 258.301.
7. A~no~d Wiznitzer, The Records of the Earliest Jewish Com mu Iltt.>: tn the New World (New York: American Jewish Historicoi
SocIety, .1954), pp- 9.10; Lionel D. Barnett, EI Libro de 1m; Acuerdos: Betng the Records and Accompls of the Spanish alld Portug.uese . Synagogue of London from J(}6,1-1681 (Oxford: Oxford
Umverslty Press, 1931).
8. S('e th(' discussion of "Constitutionalism in the Jewish Politil"ll
Tradition," in Doniel J. Elozar nnd Stuart A. Cohen, 1'h(' Jl"I<'is~,
PolIty (Bloonllng~on: Indiann UllivE'rsity Press, 1985), PI). 20-2(;;
an~ Solo ~aron s comments in his 1'he Jewish Commli1l1ty
(PhiladelphIa: JeWIsh Publication Society, 1942), II, pp. 30-31.
51
A Douhl(' Bond: Constitutional Docum('nts ()f Am('rican J('wry
!J.
Knmmen, A Machine Ihal Would Gn of Ilsf'/f, p. 69, nrgues thnt the
inl1uence of the Constitution on the gov('manc(' of Amt.'riwn org"ani7.ntions wns far from uniform. Whil(' he notices th(' Sh('nrith
Israel constitution discussed below, he nlso cites counter-exnmpl('s, lik(' th(' lIistoriwl Socidy of Pennsylvania (1824), that did
not have a constitution. This alllhOl"s own !l(Hlf1e is that the Constitution's influence was considerable but not long-lnsting. As we
shall see, by 1805, when Shearith Israel revised its constitution
again, it felt free to abandon most of the constitutional conceits
described here. Many f1ynagogues, however, did retain the term
"constitution" to describe their basic laws. Perhnps because they
saw themselves as synagogue-communities, nnd not ordinary societies, they felt that by-laws alone would not suffice.
10. This section is adapted from Jonathan D. Sorna, "The Impact of
the Americon Revolution on American Jews," Modern Judaism 1
m('ptember 1981): J 55-156; for the quotations, see Jacob R. MarCllS, American
,I('wry noel/ments: E;/:htel'71tll Cf'lItury
(Cincinnoti: Hebrew Union College Pres~, 1959), pp. 154-166.
D()cumellt.~,
11.
Mnrcus, American Jewry
12.
M!lrcus, Amrrican Jewry Doel/ment.'l, p. 152; Pool, An Old Faith
in thl' N{'u' World, p. 264, rev('flls that notwithstanding this constitution, the term "parllas" continuE'd in regular use. The 1805
Shearith Israel constitution reverts to this loUer term, spelled out
in I1ehl·ew. Constitution of the Con/:re/:alion of Shearith Israel
(New York, 1 RO!), p. r..
13.
p. 155.
What is American ahout th(' Constitutional Docu/l/('nts?
The J(,I"i.~1z
pp. 1-19.
15. The synagogue income tax or "imposta" was how the Spanish and
Portuguese Congregation (Bevis Marks) in London had traditionally collected funds; see Barnett, EI Lihro de los Acuerdos, pp.
xvi-xviii and passim. In the eighteenth century, this was changed
to an annual "/inta" or ass('ssm('nt, which lasted into the tw('ntieth
century; .see Ascamot or Laws and Re/:ulatiolls of the Congregation of Spanish and Portu/:ue.'le Jews ... (London, 1906), pp. x, 1-4.
Marcus, The Colonial American Jew, I, pp. 343-348; Charles
Hf'7.nikorr and Uriah Z. Engelman, Th" ,leu's of Charleston
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1950), pp. 3-71;
Solol11on BI'eillart, "TIl(' Synagogues of Kahal Kndosh Bf'th Elohim.
Charl('stoll," South Carolina /listorieal Ma/:azine 80 (.TlIly 1973):
215-223; lra Hosenwaike, "The Jewish Population of the United
Stat('s as Est.imated from tIl(' C(,IlSllS of 1820," in Abrnham J. Karp,
York: KIn". I !)(;\l) II
' ,
Hob('rt Lib('rl~s, ~Connict ov('r H('foTln!'l: The Cas(' of CongregatIOn Beth Elohlm, Charleston, South Carolinn," in .Jnek
W('rthelmer, ed., The Americall Syna/:o/:lIe: A Sal/ciliary Trall.~­
~~;~'('d (New York: Camhl'idge Univ('rsity Press, 1987), pp. 281
19.
Ibid., p. 282. For the parallel situation at New York's Shearith Israel in the early 1820s, see Pool, Old Faith in the New World, pp.
275-276. The author's understanding of this constitution div('rges
som('what from that found in Reznikoff and Engelman, The ,Iews
of Charleston, pp. 116-122.
20.
Charles S. Sydnor, The Development of Southern Sectionalism
1819·1848 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University PrE'SS 1948)
pp. 38, 52.
'
,
21.
~P;lIkas," ,Ohav Shalom Congr('gnlion, Cincinnat.i,
In nuthor s possession.
22.
SE'e, for example, the
Jon,athan ~. Sarna, ed.,
Wl'lnher/:er s Jew!! and
1I0imps and Mt'jpr,198l),
23.
Samuel Krauss, Korot Bate I1aT{rlah BeYisrael (Nt'w York: Ilistadruth I vrith, 1955), p. 326.
21.
Rarn!'tt, HI !.ihm de 1m ACIIl'rdm:, p, 9; .Tnko\. ,J. Petllkchowski,
Prayerbook Rrform in Europe (New York: World Union for Progrpssive Judaism, 1968), pp. 105.127.
25.
Lt.'on A. Jick, The Americanization of the Synagogue, 1820-1870
(}Ianovpr, N.H.: University Press of New England 1976)
115-116.
'
, pp.
26.
Wiznitzer, Record8 of the Earlie8t Jewish Community, pp. 58-'/3;
Bnrnett, El Lihra de los Acuerdos. pp. 2-13.
27.
C"~rll'r and Bye.Laws of Kaal Kadosh Mickue Israel, of the City of
PhIladelphia (Philadelphia, 1824).
28.
~ee, for example, .the 1842 Constitution of the Congregation
Covenant of Pence In Easton, Pennsylvania, reprinted in Joshua
Tmc~tenberg, Consider the Years: The Story of the J(,II';sh Comn:'III't.r of. Easton, 17,52-1942 (Easton, 1944), p. 252; and the 1856
ConstitutIOn of Congregntion Anshe Emeth in Milwfmkee
reprinted in Louis J. Swichkow and Lloyd P. Gartner, The lli.~t()ry'
of 11r(' .Jews of J1filu'aukee (PhiladelphiA: Jewish Publication Sociply, 1963), p. 478.
29.
Reprinted in 'l'mcht('nberg. Co"sider the Years, p. 237.
16. Citations are from the reprint edition published by Barnett A.
Elws in 1904.
17.
Amprtco (New
18.
Marcus, American Jewry Documents, pp. 145-146.
14. Constitution of the Con/:regation of Shearith Israel (New York,
1805).
EXP('rtCllC(, III
on
(1888.89),
comments of Moses W!'inh('rg!'r in
People Walk 011 their Head .• : Jl.fose.q
Judai!l11f in New York (New York:
p. 43.
53
A Double Bond: Constitutional Documents of American Jewry
Constitution of the Congregation "K.K. Beth Elohim" (Charleston,
1871), p. 12.
31. Ohav Shalom Pinkas (1888-89), xerox copy in author's possession;
Constitution of the Talmud Thora Society of Cillcinnati, Ohio
(Cincinnati, 1890), p. 6.
32_ This procedure, set forth in "Rule XIV" of the constitution, was
invoked by the Parnas of Beth Elohim in rejecting as
"unconstitutional" the 1824 petition of the Charleston Reformers.
See the documents reprinted in L.C. Moise, Biography of Isaac
Harby (n.p., 1933), pp. 60-61.
What is American about the Constitutional Documents?
30.
33. Constitution of the Talmud Thora Society, pp. 6-7.
34. Marcus, American Jewry Documents, pp. 176, 179.
35_ See Mordecai Noah's description of the "confusion and riot"
which took place in the synngogue in 1812, reprinted in ReznikoIT
and Engelman, The Jews of Charleston, p. 114.
:31;. Ih'rtram W. Korn, The E(lrly Jews of New Orleans (Waltham:
Anwricnn Jewish Historical Society, 19G!), p. 196.
Hyman Il. Grinstpin, 1'1,,, Rise of the Jewish COTlPnlm;t)' of New
York J654-JS(j() (Phi ladelfJhia: Jewish Publication Society, 1945),
p. 375.
38. The constitution is reprinted in Morris U. Schappes, A Documentary History of the Jews in the United State., 1654-1875 (New
York: Schocken, 1971), pp. 179-181; cf. Kom, Early Jews of New
Orlealls, pp. 19G-197.
39. Ohav Shalom Pinkas, xerox copy in author's possession.
40. This is an immensely important subject that cannot adequately be
treated here. For contemporary references to "kaddish Judaism"
in the late nineteenth century, see Jewish Advance, May 13, 1881,
p_ 4; the "Proceedings of the 1885 Pittsburgh Rabbinicnl Conf~r­
ence," reprinted in Walter Jncob, ed .• The Pittsburgh Platform In
Retrospect (Pittsburgh: Rodpf Shalom Congregation, 198fi), p. 111;
and Zvi Hirsch Masliansky's comments in his memoirs (New
York, 1929), p_ 165 I translated in Gary P. Zola, "The People's
Preacher: A Study of the Life and Writings of Zvi Hirsch
Masliansky 0856-1943)," Ordination thesis, HUC-JIR, 1982, pp.
:17.
115-1171-
42,
New COllstitution alld By-Laws of Congregation Aaroll, Trinidad,
Colorado (Trinidad, 1889).
C(/lJ.~titut;oll of tlze 1'aUlIud Thora Society of Cincillllati, Ohio, pp.
'1:1,
{'o/lslilulio/l of
41.
14-15.
till' ('''lIgn'glllioll of 81l1'orilh /s/'w'/ (Npw York,
Weuu PruU, Uehljioll. Politics alld Ihuersity:
18U5), p. 1; John
54
The Church-State Theme in New York History (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp_ 100-101.
44.
See Paul G. Kauper and Stephen C. Ellis, "Religious Corporations
and the Law," Michigan Law Review 71 (August 1973): 1499-1574;
and Sharon L. Worthing, "Corporate Free Exercise: The Constitutiona Rights of Religious Associations;" in James E. Wood,
Jr., ed., Religion and the State: Essays in Honor of Leo Pfeffer
(Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1985), pp. 167-181.
45.
Charter of the American Jewish Committee, as Amended August
1966, in American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.
46.
Reprinted in Moshe Davis, The Emergence of Conservative Judaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1963), pp. 381385.
47.
Benny Kraut, German·Jewish Orthodoxy in all Immigrallt Synagogue (New York: Markus Wiener, 1988), pp. 200-221.
COII.~titl'ti()n of Northerll llills Synagogue COllgTl'gatic)1! B'lIa;
Avraham (April 1968), copy in American Jewish Archives.
49. Marcus, American Jewry Documcnts, p. 150.
48.
50. Jonathan S. Wooclwr, Sacred Surviual: The Civil Rdigioll of
American Jew.~ (/3Ioomington: Indiana UniverSity Press, 1986),
esp. pp. 72-76.
51.
Reprinted in Moise, Biography of Isaac Harby, p, 61.
52. Constitution and By·L(lw.~ of the Sinai Congregatio/l of Chicago
(Chicago, 1861), p. iv.
53. Sefer Ha-Yovel She! Agudat lIa-Rabbanim Ha-Ortodoksim ... (New
York, 1928). pp. 24-29.
54. See, for example, the bitter disputes over the issue of mixed seating; Jonathan D. Sarna, "The Debate Over Mixed Seating in til('
American Synagogue," in Jack Wertheimer, ed .• The American
Synagogue: A Satletuary Transformed (New York: Call1bridl~('
University Press, 1987), pp. 363-39,1.
55. Ohav Shalom Pinkas, Article 13.
56. See the printed copy of the Constitution of the Congregation K.K.
Beth Elohim (Charleston, 1871), with handwritten amendments to
1894, in the Klau Library of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Insti~
tute of Religion, Cincinnati.
57. Savannah Jewish Council Constitution and By-Laws (n.d., c.l!!;':!),
in American Jewish Archives.