---

CHAPTER XV.
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.”

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

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.

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.

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

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.