1New York City’s Congregation Shearith Israel (Remnant of Israel), the venerable Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, was already an old established congregation when prayers of thanksgiving for the conquest of Canada by His Majesty’s forces were offered there in 1760. Not only did the conquest establish British hegemony in North America, it extended the North American Jewish community into what is now Canada. Hoping to capitalize on opportunities in the new territories, some Jewish settlers accompanied the triumphant British forces northward. By 1768, enough Jews had settled in Montreal to establish a congregation. They named it Shearith Israel, after the New York congregation from which many of them had come. The following essay is a comparison of the early histories of both congregations based primarily on their constitutional documents. The essay traces the beginnings of separate Canadian and American Jewish identities against the backdrop of political and social change in early nineteenth-century North America.1

2Legend has it that New York’s Congregation Shearith Israel, the mother of all North American congregations, was established in 1654 when twenty-three Jewish souls arrived in New Amsterdam from Recife, Brazil. The Jews came after ‘fleeing’ the Portuguese who had taken Brazil back from the Dutch. (Recent scholarship has disputed the 1654 founding date and demonstrated that the community was unstable until 1730, which explains why a synagogue was not built until that year.) The year 1654 is nevertheless significant, since the story surrounding the founding of the New York congregation established many of the myths of North America’s Jewish community. Here, after all, was a group of so-called refugees escaping religious persecution, victims of the series of expulsions which included the great expulsion from Spain in 1492. Small wonder, then, that they named their congregation, Shearith Israel (Remnant of Israel).2

3The earliest constitutional documents available for the New York congregation (1728) place it within the tradition of post-expulsion Sephardi (of Iberian origin) Jewish communities such as London and Amsterdam. A fledgling community with a diverse, sometimes disobedient population needed a forceful, hierarchical form of synagogue governance. The ‘Rules and Regulations’ established by Shearith Israel had strong provisions against any behaviour that might sully the reputation of the new community. The third rule, for instance, stated that persons who gave “any affront or abuse, either by words or action to any person or persons within the said Sinagog [sic]” would be required to pay a fine of twenty shillings. And lest any quarrel extend beyond closed doors, the fifth regulation governed disputes among the synagogue leaders themselves empowering the disputants to appoint an ‘indifferent’ trustee to decide the matter.3

4The early regulations also sought to obviate any difficulties arising from the arrival of indigent immigrants. If needy Jews came to New York City and demanded assistance from the synagogue, the parnas (president) was authorized to provide them with eight shillings per week for a period of no more than twelve weeks. After three months, the parnas was to “use his utmost endeavours to dispatch them [the poor] to sum othere [sic] place as soon as Possible assisting them with necessarys, for their Voyage.” Aid for single persons was not to exceed forty shillings but no initial restraints were placed on aid to families. The amount would be decided by the pamas in consultation with his assistants. The congregation’s own poor could apply to the sedaca (charity fund) and also would be assisted as the pamas and his assistants saw fit.4

5Caring for the local poor was an established custom in Jewish communities throughout the world, and stipulations concerning ‘poor strangers’ were common to European Jewish communities. In seventeenth-century New York, self-sufficiency was a condition of Jewish settlement. In both their European and American contexts, regulations of this kind were designed to prevent Jewish communities from being overburdened with ‘refugees’ from poverty stricken locales. The preservation of a congregation’s ‘good name’ with gentile authorities was undoubtedly also a factor in the creation of this sort of legislation.5

6The arrival of Jews into the territory that would later become Canada was, in some ways, the opposite of the New York experience: Jews came not as refugees but as conquerors. Forbidden to settle in French North America, the founders of Canada’s permanent Jewish community came with the British forces in 1760. The most famous of these settlers was Aaron Hart, who established large holdings around Trois-Rivières. Others were attracted to the growing British merchant colony centred in Montreal, and by 1768, Jews there had their own congregation. Unfortunately, few documents survive from those first years. Considering the auspicious nature of the community’s founding, we may have seen a very different set of rules there from those of other places. Researchers speculate that the earliest regulations of the Montreal synagogue copied those of synagogues in New York and London.6

7The first incarnation of Montreal’s Shearith Israel was short-lived. Less than a decade after its founding, life in His Majesty’s American possessions was disrupted by the American Revolution, and the New York and Montreal congregations changed in dramatic ways. These transformations are reflected in constitutional documents, which fortunately have survived. On the most basic level, the two synagogues were now in different countries. New York’s Shearith Israel had to adapt itself to life in a revolutionary republic; its Canadian namesake reorganized itself as a loyalist community.7

8Like other synagogues in the newly formed United States, New York’s Shearith Israel went through a process of democratization in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Membership in the synagogue had always included two categories: electors or yehidim and members. Only the yehidim had the power to elect the parnas and his trustees. Other members could not vote but were entitled to honours and services from the synagogue. Newcomers or ‘strangers,’ as they were called, could become members in time, and eventually even yehidim. These divisions were maintained after the Revolution, although a larger proportion of the membership was then included in the category of elector. Furthermore, electors became responsible for approving the appointment of the hazan (cantor/rabbi), shohet (ritual meat slaughterer), and shamash (beadle). Prior to the American Revolution holders of these positions had been appointed by the pamas.8

9The exact opposite took place in Montreal. By 1778, the membership of the synagogue there had almost completely changed. For example, David Salisbury Franks, the last president of the congregation before the Revolution, left Montreal and swore his allegiance to the American cause. The reconstituted membership still worried about impropriety and created a very strict set of regulations that included several stipulations concerning strangers.9

10The earliest extant minutes of Montreal’s Shearith Israel date from the reorganization of 1778. The regulations enacted at this time included an unparalleled number of clauses concerning public discord. Members were “separately and jointly [to] promise to promote harmony and unanimity amongst us and endeavour as far as lays in our power [sic] to assist each other as circumstances will permit (Article the 14^th).” As well, “[n]o private quarrels [were] to extend so far as to make division in this congregation... (Article the 28^th),^” and “severe penalties [were decreed for]... those who shall be the means of giving a bad name to any of the Congregation [or] by which a disgrace may be brought on any of the Israelites (Article the 29^th).” Along with these rules came a call for “strict obedience and respect to be paid to the Parnassim and the Elders of this Congregation (Article the 27^th).” These clauses are indicative of the unease felt by the congregation in the immediate post-revolutionary era.10

11The other clause of note in the 1778 regulations is the stipulation that the congregation founders would receive a double vote in synagogue affairs, and that this right would be transferred to their sons. The congregation minutes offer the rationale that the founding members had gone to considerable expense on behalf of the congregation and wanted to ensure that their vision would continue to be followed. This unprecedented regulation, unthinkable in the new United States, was most likely the result of post-revolutionary paranoia. On the other hand, the synagogue remained open to all Israelites who conformed to its rules. This was a reflection of the already diverse nature of North American Jewry that included a large non-Sephardi element.11

12Not long after the Montreal synagogue was reestablished, the congregation was rocked by a miniature scandal. Ezekial Solomons asked that his son, born of a union with a non-Jewish woman and not circumcized, be buried in the congregational cemetery. The elders of the congregation debated whether an uncircumcized male could be buried in consecrated ground and suggested that authorities in London be contacted. Finally, the synagogue elders decided to bury the child, but they also chose to exclude all those who had married outside the faith from any future services or honours. The issue was certainly not unusual for ‘frontier’ Jewish communities in North America during this era. Almost every congregation had members who were married outside the faith, and every congregation strove to forbid the practice in its constitutional documents and amendments. The ubiquity of these prohibitions indicates that the problem never disappeared.12

13No further constitutional documents seem to have been written by the Montreal congregation until 1838. In 1784, Hazan Jacob Cohen left Montreal, and the post remained vacant until 1839. In 1825, David David died, and services were relocated from the building on his Little St. James Street property to a small building on Benjamin Hart’s property. Hart and M.J. Hays, who served for a time as Montreal chief of police, took charge of the congregation’s religious articles, but the congregation lay essentially dormant until 1832. The community was tiny. And it may be that members’ interests were focused on earning a living and trying to secure political rights for the residents, in general, and then for themselves as Jews.13

14Conversely, in New York, the competing forces of populist republicanism and elitist federalism, necessitated the writing and rewriting of the synagogue’s constitution. New York’s Shearith Israel went through three constitutions between 1790 and 1824. The city was growing, and synagogue authorities faced the challenge of integrating numbers of newcomers into the congregation. Early membership policies, which had been designed for a small, cohesive congregation, now had to be redrawn, lest the immigrants gain too much power in the synagogue. An attempt in 1824 by synagogue leaders to limit membership coincided with a bid by some of the members to ‘revive’ worship services at Shearith Israel which, they felt, had become too lax. The incentives of revival, on the one hand, and a perceived unfair curtailment of individual rights, on the other, led to a split in the congregation. The result was the founding of Congregation Bnai Jeshurun, the second synagogue in New York City. Historians have blamed the split on the desire of Ashkenazi Jews (those of central and eastern European provenance) to leave Sephardi Shearith Israel. Yet it is quite evident that, even though the founders of Bnai Jeshurun mention the difference in prayer rites, other motivations were paramount in their decision to split from Shearith Israel. Lest we underestimate the importance of the split, it should be remembered that until 1825, Shearith Israel was synonymous with the New York Jewish community. Many felt that in dividing the Jewish community, the founders of Bnai Jeshurun were committing the sin of sin’at hinam (literally, wilful hatred). The term refers to the internecine strife of the late Second Temple period, which the rabbis said had caused God to allow the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem. The members of Bnai Jeshurun, however, justified their ‘iniquity’ by declaring themselves an Ashkenazi congregation rather than a separate Jewish community.14

15The actions of the secessionists were not unusual for the era. North America was gripped by Christian revivalism throughout the early nineteenth century. Historians have dubbed the American revivals, ‘The Second Awakening’ and the stirrings in British North America, ‘The Canada Fire.’ While differences existed between the two phenomena, they shared a disdain for religious hierarchy and established custom. And in both, individual religious feeling was stressed over inherited doctrine.15

16The New Yorkers were not the only North American Jews trying to stem the tide of a perceived decline in Jewish faithfulness at this time. As early as 1816, Canadian Moses Hart had published a pamphlet entitled, “General Universal Religion,” that promoted a new faith especially for Jews and deists. While this work is usually regarded as an extension of Hart’s difficulties in attaining political office due to religious prejudice, his desire for a new, truly universal faith was equally reflective of the Canadian radical religious revival. In 1824, Congregation Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina, also experienced a schism. In Charleston, it was ‘reform’-minded Jews who broke away from the mother congregation. But as in New York, the Charlestonians were primarily concerned with discovering ways to renew their faith.16

17The religious agitation of the 1820s had its effects on the Jews of Montreal. On 15 October 1832, Benjamin Hart and other members of Congregation Shearith Israel met at the Montreal court house in order to reorganize the congregation and elect new officers. A letter in the congregation’s early records indicates that Hart feared a takeover of the Sephardi congregation by Ashkenazi Jews (ironic, since the Harts were themselves of Ashkenazi origin). Montreal was experiencing an economic boom in the 1820s, which attracted numerous immigrants to the city, including Jews. Hoping to avoid a rupture like that experienced in New York City, Hart sent a harshly worded letter to Isaac Valentine detailing his plans for keeping the “Dutch” from taking control of the “Shool [synagogue] for their own.”17

18Hart’s letter is remarkable because of its value as a record of early nineteenth-century Canadian Jewish institution building, and because of its frank description of the social politics involved. He wrote of the potential for the sale of seats in the reconstituted synagogue provided it remained a ‘Portuguese Shool.’ The letter included the names of ‘strangers’ (newcomers) who told Hart that they preferred “our [Shearith Israel’s] ceremonies to their own,” and other “strangers” who would “perhaps... hold out [at] first,” but who, thought Hart, would eventually purchase seats at Shearith Israel. The “Dutch,” he wrote, were “themselves ashamed of their ceremonies.” Hart’s plans, as well as the greater number of young ‘Sefardi’ men, would ensure the continuation of the Sephardi rite at the synagogue.18 The Montreal congregation limped along throughout the 1830s. Efforts to raise money in Europe were unsuccessful, and as late as 1837, there was still no permanent building. Still, some steps had been taken towards renewal. In 1838, the congregation wrote to England advertising for a hazan and a shohet/shamash.

19While the New York Jewish community was, for all practical purposes, experiencing the institutionalization of revolutionary secessionism, in Montreal maintenance of the ancien régime was still the order of the day. It was clear that Montreal’s Shearith Israel would remain faithful to its traditions. The congregation’s 1838 ‘Bye Laws’ call for the election of trustees by “the enregistered Jews” of the congregation. The trustees would, in turn, see to the election of a “President or Pamas, a Treasurer and Secretary” and appoint a hazan, shohet and shamas (Chapter I.:‘Of Election of Officers’).

20The 1838 ‘Bye Laws’ acknowledge the changing nature of North American Jewish life. Instead of requiring all Jews residing in Montreal to join the congregation, the ‘Bye Laws’ merely required those seeking membership to lease seats that would be auctioned by the congregation for a period of three years. Those who did not lease seats would not be entitled to honours or services; those who could not afford a seat could apply for one at no charge (Chapter VI.: ‘Of Seats’). Does this indicate that altenatives for Jewish worship were available in Montreal at that time? Probably not. Congregation Shaar Hashomayim was not formally organized until the 1840s. The authors of Shearith Israel’s ‘Bye Laws,’ however, clearly understood that Jews could no longer be compelled to join a congregation; their language reflected the tenor of the times.19

21Beginning in 1778, the New York and Montreal congregations traveled separate paths. In many ways, the arrival in Montreal of Hazan Abraham De Sola from London in 1847 moved the congregation there even further away from the New York congregation. Early in his tenure, De Sola earned a reputation as a skilful orator (the ability to give a sermon in English had been one of the conditions of his employment). Through his associations in Great Britain and with Montreal’s English culture, De Sola cemented Shearith Israel’s connection to Victorian British society. During his tenure, the Montreal congregation grew in importance, partly as a reflection of the expanding power of Montreal’s English residents, and partly as a result of De Sola’s high profile in the general community.20

22Despite common origins and ties of kinship, then, following the American Revolution, the Montreal and New York congregations embarked on separate journeys. In many ways, what distinguished the constitutions of the two congregations were the growing differences between the emerging nation-states in which they were situated. The body of laws governing New York’s Shearith Israel recognized the populism unleashed by the American Revolution. The New York synagogue leadership had to devote considerable effort in trying to curtail the power of their electorate. Montreal’s Shearith Israel sought to avoid the effects of the American Revolution and the rebellious secessionism occurring to the south. Their divergent constitutional histories mirror those of Canada and the United States generally. Dedicated to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the early history of the United States was marked by struggles between the central authority and populist forces on the periphery. Ultimately, the United States was plunged into civil war. Witnessing these difficulties, Canada’s founders set about carefully outlining the powers of its constituent parts in the hope that, by dedicating itself to “peace, order, and good government,” it would avoid later conflict.