"The present prayer book has not restored prayers for a personal Messiah, nor for the resurrection, nor for a miraculous revelation, nor for animal sacrifices in the Temple on Zion. There is no compromising with Orthodoxy" ("Jewish Advocate," Boston, April 12th, 1940).

You will no doubt agree that the "holy wrath of the Orthodox," which the Rabbi says was aroused by the earlier editions of the Reform Prayer Book, would be aroused today, at the appearance of this latest edition, were not the minds and hearts of all divisions of Jews centered in counteracting the Nazi-inspired brutality, rather than in defending doctrinal differences. Hence the rabbis who believe in a personal Messiah, miracles, divine revelation, the resurrection of the body, sacrifices and the Temple, have refrained from declaring, as did the English rabbis when the earlier edition appeared, that it is "a great evil," "an abomination," "that must not be brought into a Jewish home."
   If it does not matter to the modern rabbis that the priesthood, sacrifices and Temple are no more, it does matter much to the religious Orthodox division of Jewry. It also matters much to converts from the Synagogue to the Church, insofar as it is the basis for the belief that their non-existence is due to having been displaced by the priesthood and Sacrifice of the Messiah as predicted by Moses and the prophets of Israel. To such converts, it marks the difference between the darkness of present-day Judaism and the light that is the Messiah. The light of Jewry is unfortunately darkness, hence Reform rabbis dismiss the ending of the priesthood, sacrifices and Temple of old as of no import; while Orthodox rabbis appreciate the loss, but are blind to the cause. It has been truthfully said by the religious-minded author of "Guesses at Truth,"

"In darkness there is no choice. It is light that enables us to see the difference between things; and it is Christ who gives us the light."

   "Oh, let it slide by, a fig we Reform rabbis care. We have the synagogue, the house of learning and prayer," is, in a word, what the Rabbi Kohler says. That is like saying (imagining the impossible, the non-existence of Catholic worship) - "What do we care if there have not been any cathedrals, priesthood or Sacrifice of the Mass for centuries, the soul of Catholicism lives on industrially in the Holy Name Societies."  Synagogues were not basic to the Law, as were the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies in the Temple. Synagogues were instituted to teach the Law that Reform Judaism denies almost in its entirety; while Orthodox Judaism clings to its dead carcass. Synagogues, which meant places outside the Temple, where the Jews assembled for study and prayer, were not contemporaneous with Judaism in the earliest centuries of its existence. They date back to the Babylonian captivity, that is six hundred years before the Christian ages; nearly four centuries after the Temple of Solomon was built; about nineteen centuries after the Ohel Moed, the portable sanctuary, was used for prayer and sacrifices by the priests in the wilderness. The synagogues in the days when the Temple existed, were places of assembly for prayer and study of the Law that centered in a priesthood, sacrifices and Temple. Darkness, if not willfulness, alone can account for failure to see that synagogues can no more be substituted for the Temple than reading desks can take the place of the central altar called for in the Torah.
   Then, again, you do not seem to realize that Rabbis can no more take the place of the priests of Jewry than Sunday School teachers can take the place of priests in the Catholic Church. Rabbis are not ordained, like the priests were in Jewry. Joseph Leftwich, formerly editor of the Jewish Telegraph Agency says,

"There is no such thing as a centralized Jewish body, religious or secular. There is certainly no Jewish church) with a hierarchy, and a centralized rabbinate, and ecclesiastical or administrative government. Each congregation of ten Jews or more is autonomous, completely independent, and may elect its own Rabbi and arrange its own service. Judaism has only the Torah. The Rabbi is not a priest. The priesthood passed with the Temple. Even the Rabbinical diploma, unlike the Christian ordination, confers no sacred power and is not a license. It is simply a testimonial of ability of the holder to act as Rabbi if he wishes and is elected" ("What Will Happen to the Jews," London, 1936, pp. 131-132).

   There is no such thing as the consecration or ordination of ministers, teachers of the law in Jewry, as that ceremony ceased with the ending of the Aaronic priesthood. Jacob Berab, the Talmudist, endeavored in 1520 A.D., "without success," to

"reintroduce the Semichah (laying on of hands) institution, for ordination had lapsed-and restoring the jurisdiction of the Synhedroin, in order to create one of the necessary conditions of the Messianic redemption" ("Vallentine's Jewish Encyclopedia," p. 84).

   Rabbi, which means master, was originally a title of respect given by pupils to their teachers, or to any one more learned than themselves. Priests, on the other hand, were ordained of God not only to teach, but also to offer sacrifices for sins, etc., functions that could not and cannot be assumed by rabbis (Levit. 4; 5; 6; 12; 13; Num. 5:14-15).
   While the rabbis of the leading synagogues of our country have been graduates of Hebrew seminaries, you know as well as I do, that most of the rabbis have assumed the title themselves or been given it by the groups of ten or more Jews over whom they have officiated, as "no one can effectively deny them the title rabbi," as the American Jewish Committee says, in the "U. S. Report of Religious Bodies." That is why time and time again the discussion has gone on in the Jewish press as to "Who is a Rabbi?" especially during "prohibition days," when "boot-leg Rabbis" made their appearance. Adolph Kraus, in his retiring address as president of the B'nai B'rith, said -

"As the right to expound the Jewish law has been assumed by schochets (slaughterers of ritually pure meats) who are called rabbis, for any congregation, no matter how small, any one of its members may be elected as a Rabbi. Under such circumstances is it any wonder that a 'Rabbi,' so-called can be found who will be very liberal in issuing certificates" for "sacramental wine" (B'nai B'rith Magazine," May, 1925).

   The declaration of Rabbi Kaufman Kohler, that the "soul of Judaism lived on indestructibly in the House of Prayer and Learning," may sound pleasing to the ears of Jews, but, it lacks religious sense, as the Mosaic "soul of Judaism" died with the death of its priesthood, sacrifices and Temple. Jews, not the Judaism of Moses the Law-giver, lived on, many of them, especially among, the Orthodox, having been God-fearing men and women. I have had to limit this last statement to the Orthodox Jews, as the spiritual life of Reform Jews is at a low ebb. This is vouched for by many Reform Jews, three of whom I will quote, though your Orthodox friends need no evidence to prove this point. Dr. Louis I. Newman, author, one of the leading New York Reform rabhis, asks,

"Do modern synagogues give to Jews a sense of 'holiness'? Most of them do not. - Though Jews have a reputation for being a people of prayer, and though they have through their poets created the Psalms, the modern Jew is looking for a religious emotionalism of which he is incapable. A prominent clothing manufacturer - very generous in his charities and very sympathetic as a human being - remarked that the synagogue 'bored him'; the rabbis could not interest him - " (July 19, 1940).

   Alfred Segal, Cincinnati, the able Jewish columnist, said, in his "Plain Talk," after having been one of the eight who paraded through the synagogue with the scroll of the Law,

"You, I mused, have written about the imminent death of Orthodoxy, but today you seem like a pall-bearer of Reform and a hired pall-bearer at that . . . A stooge! . . . Consider: Which is the more vital Orthodoxy or Reform?

"And Reform rabbis are consciencious doctors doing their best to make the blood flow again in the hardened arteries of Reform Judaism. Oh, there are plenty of temples, plenty of rabbis, plenty of dues-paying members, plenty of everything but life in the stiffening bones" ("Am. Israelite," Cinn., Oct 22, 1936).

   Rabbi S. H. Markowitz, Ph.D., of Fort Wayne, Ind., said in a lengthy article telling of his seminary days, in the Hebrew Union College, Cinn., when "we rebelled against tradition"; when "we sophisticated intellectuals, product of the pragmatic age, snickered," at some of the ancient practices. Reform Judaism, said he, is "a lovely theory, but it just doesn't work out in practice,"

"Reform Jews simply threw overboard all traditions, all ceremonies and institutions. And with what results? Our people are bereft of religion. Those practices by means of which our people manifested and gave expression to their religious idealism were cast aside. Reform Jews became religionless.

"Some of our people seized upon Gentile good will as their religion; others made patriotism their supreme emotion."

"We have loud Jews, we have aggressive Jews, we have servile, submissive Jews, we have Jews who are blatant and Jews who are cringing. We have Jews who are afraid of any gesture that the non-Jewish world might make. AntiSemitism is their religion. It is a far greater concern to them than Judaism" ("Indiana Jewish Chronicle," April, 1938).