Skip to main content

Full text of "Comment on "Authority and Dogma in Judaism""

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



Correspondence. 715 



CORRESPONDENCE. 

To the Editors op " The Jewish Quarterly Review." 

Dear Sirs, — It does nob seem necessary that I should trouble you 
with a reply to the Rev. M. Hyamson's comments upon my article ou 
" Authority and Dogma." But I wish to say this : Mr. Hyamson has 
taken pains to make many learned quotations to prove that eminent 
authorities in Judaism believed in the restoration of sacrifices, though 
he has avoided others which I am informed lead to an opposite con- 
clusion. The opinions of eminent authorities, however, was not the 
main contention which I submitted in the January number of this 
Review. The question which I ventured to discuss was the un- 
reasonableness of persons of this generation praying for what they 
do not desire. I endeavoured to set forth the untenable nature of 
the doctrine of the restoration of sacrifices on general grounds. 
To this issue Mr. Hyamson gives the go-by, whilst he misconstrues 
what I wrote into a personal wrangle about the conduct of the Chief 
Rabbi, for whom he assures your readers that he entertains very great 
respect. I desire to add that I do not yield even to the Rev. M. 
Hyamson in personal regard for the present accomplished Chief 
Rabbi, and that nothing which I have written is in conflict with this 
feeling. The question was entirely impersonal, and concerned a 
dogma which should not be regarded as an essential of the Jewish 
religion. The matter is not one of learning, or I should not have 
embarked upon it. It is a subject of belief and conviction. The 
weakness of Mr. Hyamson's contentions is betrayed in the remark, 
towards the end of his paper, that I have no right to interfere in the 
question whether the restoration of sacrifices should be considered a 
crucial test of adherence to Judaism because I am not what is called 
" Orthodox." 

I am, Yours faithfully, 

Oswald John Simon. 



Note on our last number. 

Herr S. J. Halberstam writes as follows : — " Regarding Samuel 
Portaleoni (Jewish Quarterly Review, V., pp. 505-515), I wrote 
in Hamagid, 1873, p. 221, and printed his defence of the WV]) "I1KO.