NAPOLEON’S _SANHEDRIN_
The “_Sanhedrin_”――R. David Sintzheim――M. S. Asser――Moses
Leman――Juda Litvak――Michael Berr――Lipman Cerf-Berr――The
Decisions and Declarations――Napoleon I. and the Jews.
MEANWHILE circumstances had undergone a material change, and eight
years after the failure of the Syrian Campaign and the Appeal to the
Jews of Asia and Africa, Bonaparte, now Napoleon I., issued an order
to convene a Jewish “_Sanhedrin_” in Paris (1807).
This came as a joyous surprise to the Jewish nation. The “Great
_Sanhedrin_,” a feature of the ancient Jewish Government which had
perished together with the Second Temple, and which alone had been
endowed with unlimited religious authority in _Israel_, was to be
revived in modern times, in the centre of civilized Europe, for
the purpose of ♦making decisions which would command indisputable
recognition on the part of Jews in all countries and throughout all
centuries. “A great event,” wrote one of the leading Jews of that time,
“is about to take place, one which through a long series of centuries
our fathers, and even we in our own times, never expected to see,
and which has now appeared before the eyes of the astonished world.
The 20th of October (1807) has been fixed as the date of the Great
_Sanhedrin_ in the capital of one of the most powerful Christian
nations, and under the protection of the great Prince who rules over
it. Paris will thus show to the world a remarkable scene, and this
memorable event will open to the dispersed remnants of the descendants
of _Abraham_ a period of deliverance and prosperity.”
♦ “taking” replaced with “making”
Illustration: GRAND SANHÉDRIN
Convoqué à Paris par ordre de Napoléon-le-Grand, 1807
_Damame de Martrait, del. et Sculpt._
_From an aquatint printed in colours lent by Israel Solomons_
On the 9th February, 1807, the Grand _Sanhedrin_ assembled at the
Grand Synagogue in Paris under the Presidency of _Rabbi_ David
Sintzheim (1745‒1812) of Strasburg. Service was read in _Hebrew_,
French and Italian; an excellent discourse was delivered by the
President in the first-named language. After his discourse he took
a scroll of the Law from the Ark and blessed the Assembly, and then
recited a prayer for the Emperor, the glory of his arms, and the
return of peace. From the Synagogue the Assembly adjourned to the
Hôtel de Ville, where, after appropriate speeches from the most
distinguished members, the Committee appointed by the late First
Consul laid before the _Sanhedrin_ a general plan of organization
for Mosaic worship, consisting of twenty-seven articles. According to
this plan a Consistory and Synagogue were to be established in each
Department containing 2000 Jews; those of the persuasion who intended
to reside in France were to announce their intention to the Consistory
within three months of their arrival on French territory; there was to
be a Central Consistory in Paris, consisting of five persons, of whom
three were to be _Rabbis_; and none were to be appointed _Rabbis_ who
were not naturalized in France or in the Kingdom of Italy. The
functions of the _Rabbis_ were to be:――
1. To give instruction in religious matters.
2. To inculcate the precepts contained in the decisions of the Grand
_Sanhedrin_.
3. To preach complete obedience to the laws, and particularly to
those enjoining the defence of the country, and above all, to exert
themselves every year during the time of conscription, from the first
summons to the complete carrying out of the law, in exhorting their
followers to conform to that measure.
4. To impress the need for military service upon the Jews as a sacred
duty, and to explain to them that so long as they devoted themselves
to that service, their religion would give them a dispensation from
such laws and customs as were incompatible with it.
5. To preach in the Synagogues, and to recite the prayers which were
offered up for the Emperor and the Imperial Family.
6. To solemnize marriages and give divorces.
On the 12th February the _Sanhedrin_ met again formally and commenced
its deliberations as to the plan of organization. During the ensuing
March the Deputies from Holland, Moses Solomon Asser (1754‒1826),¹
Moses Leman (1785‒1832), the learned Polish Jew, Juda Litvak
(1760‒1836), and the delegates of Frankfort-on-the-Main were admitted
into the _Sanhedrin_, and declared, in the name of their constituents,
that they would adhere to the doctrinal decisions of the great
_Sanhedrin_ of France and Italy.² The President answered both
delegations in _Hebrew_, congratulating them upon their resolutions,
and also the Assembly on having them in its midst, and himself
on having to answer coreligionists from a community so highly
distinguished for its piety, and now governed by a just and liberal
Prince, from whom the friends of humanity had everything to hope
and expect. In brief, he considered himself fortunate in having to
congratulate the Deputies of a country in which equal participation
in the common rights of men had long since been granted to all the
inhabitants, including the _Israelites_, who were quite as industrious
as the best of the citizens. The President afterwards gave a discourse
in French, which made a most favourable impression on the Assembly,
and offered them the opportunity of expressing their gratitude to
the great man whom Providence had chosen to be the instrument of its
blessings and its miracles. He expressed the most sanguine hopes as
to the salutary influence which that august Assembly and its labours
would have upon the future destiny of the Jews. Having expressed
sentiments of lasting devotion to all his colleagues, who had been
convoked by the voice of this great man, from the Pyrenees to the
borders of the Maine, and from the shores of the Adriatic to the
Zuyder Zee, to form a religious Assembly unparalleled in modern
history, and having done justice to the talents of the two Assessors,
he paid, in the name of the _Sanhedrin_, a tribute of homage to
the Commissaries of the Emperor, _MM._ le Comte Louis Matthieu Molé
(1781‒1855), Etienne Denis, Baron et Duc _de_ Pasquier (1767‒1862), le
Comte Joseph Marie Portalis (1778‒1858), and others, whose assiduity,
zeal and indulgence had so powerfully contributed to the success of
the common cause. _M._ Abraham Furtado (1756‒1816) afterwards proposed
a vote of thanks to the Chief of the Grand _Sanhedrin_, which was
adopted with acclamation. _M._ Michael Berr (1780‒1847) then read
the Procès Verbal, and the President concluded by announcing that the
sittings of the _Sanhedrin_ were closed.³
¹ Great-grandfather of the eminent Dutch Jurist, Tobias
Michael Carel Asser (1838‒1913).
² _The Times_ reported on the 17th January, 1807, from Warsaw,
the capital of Poland: “It is stated, that there are no
less than nine thousand _Jews_ in Warsaw. BUONAPARTE will
very probably confer on them the privilege of sending their
Representatives to the Jewish Sanhedrim, at Paris. At all
events, it is likely that his _Corsican Majesty_ will have
some business to settle with them. [Baron Alexander _de_]
Talleyrand (1776‒1839) is going there, and will want
_beaucoup d’argent_.”
³ Collection des Procès-Verbaux et Décisions du Grand
Sanhedrin,... Publiée par _M._ Diogène Tama. Paris ... 1807.
[B. M.]
Some historians have been inclined to regard the Paris _Sanhedrin_ as
a denial of Jewish nationality. This view is wrong, and no conception
of history could be more contrary to the facts. A careful study of the
literature of that time will show that the _Sanhedrin_ was inspired by
traditional Jewish ideas. One of the most prominent French Jews, who
was the first Jew to practise in France as a barrister, _M._ Michael
Berr, had sent a request to all princes and nations “to release the
Jews from bondage.” Another member of the _Sanhedrin_, _M._ Lipman
Cerf-Berr (1760‒1831), said in his public speech: “Let us forget our
origin! Let us no longer speak of Jews of Alsace, of Portugal, or of
Germany! Though scattered over the face of the earth, we are still
_one people, worshipping the same God_, and as our law commands, we
are to obey the laws of the country in which we live.”¹ This is not
the language of men who aim at assimilation and the disintegration of
their nationality. The ideas of these men are not to be confused with
what modern Jewish assimilation preaches. Modern Jewish assimilation
denies and rejects all Jewish “separatism” except on the religious
side. Consequently, it would not allow the Jew the right to forget
that he was in Alsace, in Portugal, and so on. According to the
assimilation doctrine, a Jew must be merely an Alsatian, or a
Portuguese, “of the Jewish persuasion.” The purpose of the _Sanhedrin_
was evidently quite different. The _Sanhedrin_ intended to reconstruct
European Jewry on French imperial lines, with a religious centre in
Paris. It therefore examined, with great care and minuteness, those
passages in the Bible and the _Talmud_ which showed that the general
laws of the Empire were binding on the Jews. On these premises was
based a declaration of loyalty given by united Jewry, and sanctioned
by the revival of the _Sanhedrin_, an ancient national institution.
¹ Collection des Actes de l’Assemblée des Israélites de France
et du royaume d’Italie,... Publiée par M. Diogène Tama.
Paris,... 1807 [B. M.] _pp._: 71, 124, 157, 158.
For Napoleon, however, the _Sanhedrin_ had another purpose, connected
with his imperial ambitions. He hoped that the Jews, living scattered
all over the world, would contribute to the strengthening of his
world-empire. Two years prior to the edict of 1806‒7 he had conceived
the idea of utilizing the special talents of his _Hebrew_ subjects
to that end. He had probably discovered that their financial skill
was unrivalled, that their commercial correspondence and intercourse
throughout Europe was more speedy and reliable than any other, and
that the ramifications of their business in various countries gave
them a great advantage over all their rivals. He intended to make
them his devoted co-workers in carrying out his universal political
plans, and with that end in view he contemplated granting them many
concessions. As, however, the political and legal position of the Jews
in France, as well as in other countries, was still insufficiently
defined, and numberless accusations were directed against their
religious principles and _Talmudic_ laws, he deemed it necessary to
lay the foundations of a more definite status. As a preliminary step
in this direction he summoned this meeting of the great _Sanhedrin_,
which was to consist of the most eminent and learned _Rabbis_ from
every part of France, as well as from adjacent countries over which
his influence extended. The purpose for which this convention was
avowedly called was to “convert into religious doctrines the answers
given by the assembly, and likewise those which may result from a
continuance of these sittings.” But these statements admit of various
interpretations: they may mean a confirmation as well as a reformation
of the old traditional laws. And while confirmation by a _Sanhedrin_
is unnecessary, reformation would appear impossible. The _Sanhedrin_
had no authority whatever to reform Judaism, and no intention of doing
so. No conservative Jew would accept the _Sanhedrin’s_ opinion in a
matter of religious tradition, and, on the other hand, “reformed” Jews
would not be satisfied with its decisions, or, not being bound by any
tradition, would not require _Rabbinical_ decisions at all.
In reality the patriotic Declaration of the _Sanhedrin_ was intended
to discredit and demolish the dangerous accusations against the
Jewish people and against the teachings of Judaism. It is a mistake
to regard it, as some writers have done, as an indication of a desire
for the reform of Judaism or for assimilation. The statements of the
_Sanhedrin_ were in accordance with the traditional Jewish Law. Its
solemn declaration of loyalty and patriotism was not an innovation.
The fathers and grandfathers of the _Rabbis_ who made this declaration
were not less faithful and loyal to their Governments and to the
countries in which they lived than the _Rabbis_ of the _Sanhedrin_.
The Declaration was practically a new edition of the _Modaa Rabba_
printed as a preface to every treatise of the _Talmud_. This _Modaa_
declares for human solidarity, community of interests with other
nations and loyalty to the Government in the old traditional way;
the _Sanhedrin_ expresses identical views in modern language, in
accordance with the spirit of the new age and environment. The purport
of both is undoubtedly the same.
Illustration: _MEMBERS OF THE PARISIAN SANHEDRIN_
ABRAHAM FURTADO _Rabbi_ ABRAHAM _de_ COLOGNA
_Rabbi_ BARUCH GOUGUENHEIM _Rabbi_ EMMANUEL DEUTZ
_Rabbi_ J. DAVID SINZHEIM _Rabbi_ JACOB MEYER
_From rare engravings lent by Israel Solomons_
Far from being a natural product of internal Jewish development, the
_Sanhedrin_ was a governmental affair intended to organize Jewry in
the new world-empire. But it remained an episode, because Napoleon’s
attitude towards the Jews was, generally speaking, far from consistent.
At one time he offered them _Jerusalem_; at another he was inclined
to transport _Jerusalem_ to Paris. Some time before the _Sanhedrin_
assembled, he seemed to be vexed with the Jews――a feeling of a
temporary character, which was probably the reflex of disappointment
in his far-reaching plans. On other occasions he showed exceptional
kindness to Jewish soldiers and other Jews.¹
¹ See _Napoléon et les soldats juifs, par Petit de Lagare_,
p. 29.
All these facts combined lead to the inference that the Jewish
problem had often engaged his attention. He seems, like his adherents,
to have wavered as to the acceptance of the idea of the Restoration
of _Israel_ or of that of Assimilation, but finally embraced the
doctrines of the Sanhedrin, which could be applied easily to the small
Jewish population in France. The elimination not only of the Jews of
Asia and Africa, but also of the Jews in other European countries,
from the Jewish problem in France, caused by the failure of great
schemes of conquest, necessarily narrowed the scope of the Jewish
problem and deprived it of its former grandeur.