Syndication
Renovation of Storied Toronto Synagogue Opens Cracks in Congregation
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Sheldon Chad
More in NewsToronto - What began as a grandiose plan for renewing a jewel of the synagogue world has ended up causing a communal identity crisis at one of Canada’s most storied Jewish congregations.
The crisis came to a head last week when almost 2,500 members of Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple — a 150-year old Reform movement synagogue — participated in a contentious vote on plans to change the layout of their Toronto landmark.
The current Holy Blossom structure, which has hosted some of the most famous Reform theologians, was designed in Romanesque Revival style in the 1930s when the Reform movement had a more ambivalent relationship to Zionism and when the sanctuary was made to face west, away from Jerusalem.
Three years ago the synagogue leadership embarked on a renewal plan — created by the same architects who did Toronto’s opera house — in which the sanctuary would be turned around 180 degrees to face Israel. The redesign would also relocate the bimah, an elevated platform for prayer, to the center of the sanctuary, a location historically associated with Orthodox Judaism.
The push for changes at Holy Blossom is in keeping with the general trend in the Reform movement toward greater ritual observance. Holy Blossom’s leadership has tried to play down the religious significance of the changes, but for one of the continent’s most iconic Reform synagogues to contemplate such changes carries symbolism that extends far beyond Toronto.
“To change in these synagogues is a bigger deal,” said David Kaufman, a professor at the Los Angeles campus of the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College. “The fact that Holy Blossom Temple is thinking of throwing that out the window is incredible, now that I think about it. It marks some water shed, unquestionably.”
This has not been lost on Holy Blossom’s members. The planned changes have since faced stiff opposition from synagogue members who have argued for the value of Holy Blossom’s own traditions and for the architectural value of the current structure. The “Sanctuary Legacy Group,” which has its own Web site, eventually ended up rallying 42% of the vote against the reorientation.
“I think I can say with a high degree of certainty that the temple community is deeply damaged,” said longtime synagogue member Merle Kriss, one of the leaders of the opposition. “Of the group who opposed the reversal of the sanctuary, some will leave, some will maybe say it’s not so bad, but none will feel as they did before this happened.”
While the plans for reorientation now appear to be going ahead, Kriss says that her group has retained legal counsel and is considering its options. Along with the group’s concerns about tradition, Kriss and other members say they were not informed about the plans to reorient the sanctuary until last fall.
Benjamin Applebaum, executive director of Holy Blossom, said that “the board is obligated to implement the will of the congregation. We’re moving forward now to the detail-planning stage.”
Holy Blossom’s rabbi, John Moskowitz, says that he was taken aback by the controversy and that he had not considered the potential significance of the changes.
“It’s not something I thought about,” Moskowitz told the Forward. “It’s a bit embarrassing, but I was not thinking about it politically or religiously, only about the architectural and community integration.”
In recent months, though, Moskowitz lobbied hard for the new additions by focusing on the fact that the new sanctuary would be facing east. In an April synagogue bulletin, Moskowitz quoted another synagogue member: “Now that we have the opportunity to reorient the Sanctuary, even putting aside that it makes sense architecturally to do so — to turn our back on Jerusalem in the current context would be too telling and unforgivable.”
Kriss and other members of the opposition have said that Moskowitz’s references to Zionism are an exploitation of a hot-button issue.
“Using Zionist appeal to press the issue has caused a lot of ill feeling,” Kriss said. “You can be for Israel and maintain the sanctuary as it is.”
Holy Blossom was established 150 years ago, originally as an Orthodox synagogue. Its unusual name comes from the talmudic term for young men preparing for the priesthood. Thirty years after the founding, it joined the Reform movement. The 1885 Pittsburgh Platform ordained that Jews should be considered a religious community and not as a nation.
In the 1920s, Reform rabbis began warming to the idea of Zionism, but not Maurice Eisendrath, the rabbi at Holy Blossom. In an essay on Holy Blossom, published in 1998 in Toronto Life magazine, Canadian journalist Robert Fulford wrote that Eisendrath “developed the idea of Holy Blossom as a Jewish equivalent of a cathedral church, a place of ideas and leadership for Jews and non-Jews.”
Thus came the current structure on Bathurst Street, with its west-facing sanctuary and its famous blue apse, symbolizing the “dome of heaven.”
Holy Blossom has long been considered a northern architectural counterpart to New York City’s grand Temple Emanu-El, which recently underwent its own $25 million renovation (the sanctuary there has long faced east).
In Toronto, Holy Blossom began preparing in 2000 for what is now estimated to be a $35 million facelift. It was then that Moskowitz put out his call for a “paradigm shift in the culture of Holy Blossom Temple.”
There was talk early on of architect Frank Gehry doing the work, though in 2001 he reportedly told The Globe and Mail, “How do you put up a new building without trivializing what’s already there?”
The winner of the 2004 design competition was the Toronto firm of Diamond + Schmitt Architects Inc., which also did the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, located on the Upper West Side, as well as the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts in Toronto. The head of the firm, Jack Diamond, told the Forward that the Holy Blossom’s buildings and facilities “were long past their sell-by date.”
Diamond says that his idea for adding a new atrium to the structure naturally turned the synagogue around so that congregants would not enter the sanctuary from the main street outside.
“As it happens, it works out naturally that it went to the east,” Diamond told the Forward. “It was a wonderful coincidence. Why do it? Why not?”
Within Jewish tradition there is some ambiguity about the orientation of a sanctuary. Kaufman said that “historically, there was a lot of laxity. If you had a plot in one direction, you simply ignored the issue, and immigrants were not careful with the compass.”
Now, though, Kaufman says that a synagogue “would want to face east if they they could.”
Perhaps the bigger religious change was the addition of the central freestanding bimah, which will be installed in the middle of the seats, as is the case in many traditional Orthodox synagogues. The feature will mark a firm break with the Reform custom, widely adopted by other movements, of having the altar in front of the congregation.
Kaufman said that the “bimah is something different that architects can give congregations. Selling it to them as greater Jewish authenticity, which is all the rage these days, the architect can add value to design.”
The moves being considered at Holy Blossom are also going on at other synagogues. A synagogue in East Hampton, N.Y., recently added a bimah-like structure, while one in Los Angeles is adding a new east-facing sanctuary complete with a traditional bimah set on the side to complement the old one that faces south.
Members of the Sanctuary Legacy Group in Toronto say that the new plan gives too little acknowledgement of the synagogue’s own traditions.
“There is also a special irony in the case being made for reorientation,” Kriss wrote on the group’s Web site. “Proclaimed as a way to enhance community, turning the sanctuary around would entail a painful sense of loss for many members who see its majestic architecture as part of our local and national Jewish heritage.”
In 2005, a survey of the congregation was taken and the Strategic Planning Committee wrote that “while many people were prepared to discuss the possibility of a change to the sanctuary, the overwhelming consensus was to leave the basic structure of the sanctuary alone.”
Michael Marrus, a University of Toronto professor who has been a leader in the opposition, wryly referred to that report.
“Leave the basic structure of the sanctuary alone,” he said. “Wise advice. Why was it not followed?”
Now, with the plan appearing to go ahead, Marrus says: “The congregation is deeply divided. One side will win, and who heals the wounds?”
Comments
The beauty and functionality of the existing structure is well established. To fundamentally alter it for the purpose of creating an atrium does not make sense to me. A new larger public meeting space is very desirable but to sacrifice the history and integrity of the original space for that purpose is wrong. To suggest that east or west should be the defining issue is also nonsensical.
Your headline refers to a "crack" in the Congregation. I would argue that it is instead a chasm, one which can never be breached. The intransigence of the Board along with the politicization of the pulpit by John Moscowitz have created a situation where Holy Blossom is no longer a place of sanctuary. To be in the building now after the vote is like seeing a ghost--something once loved and about to be gone forever. There is no peace there anymore, only painful reminders of the conflicts that have brought us to this point. This is what happens when an organization and its leaders are completely out of touch with much of its congregation,its needs and desires.An ostensible plan to create community has instead destroyed it.For shame.
As ever, The Forvits with the best thinking, writing, and editing.
But I think you've given insufficient attention to some inherent architectural issues. Given the property, it made compelling user-friendly sense to have the sanctuary go from Bathurst Street west. It still does.
The major changes are what is called in computer-speak "a kludge."
1. A system, especially a computer system, that is constituted of poorly matched elements or of elements originally intended for other applications. 2. A clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem.
There's no way to complete the changes planned without major discombobulation and without risking a disfunctional result.
I'd also like to point out that whatever the orientation of a sanctuary or bimah, facing Jerusalem during the Amidah, for example, has often been a "deemed east" and not necessarily too faithful to the compass. Nor need it be.
As a former member of the HB building committee, I gotta say the whole business is inexplicable architecturally and, without some care will be destructive to the community.
Ben Barkow, Ph.D. (Architectural Psychologist)
Holy Blossom's executive director is wrong to suggest that "the board is obligated" to proceed with the plan to reorient the sanctuary. He is again wrong to state that doing so is "the will of the congregation". With 42% of voters opposed -- over 1,000 members -- a more prudent board would have read the results of the congregational vote as a sign of profound divisiveness and would not have exacerbated the problem by pushing ahead with something so controversial. It is a move that can only deepen the sad schism that this board and this rabbi have so evidently pushed on the congregation.
To turn a Jewish historic architectural treasure on its head, and use Zionism as an excuse, is a cheap token. As an Israeli friend once told me, Jews in the Diaspora who want to show their loyalty to Israel, could do any of the following: 1.Make Aliyah 2.Visit often 3.Visit occasionally 4.Send money If as a congregation, we really wanted to show our love for Zion,we could save the cost of millions of dollars to reorient the Sanctuary,and instead use the money to support a worthy cause in Israel, of which there are many.
1/ 'Romanesque Revival', properly spelled c-h-u-r-c-h. That 'Rome' part should give you a hint.
2/ My understanding is that this is largely a generational thing (see the names in the article Merle, Phyllis). The opposition is losing a lot of sleep over this, but that comes with age.
3/ Doesn't matter anyways. Walk further up Bathurst Street to Chabad Gate (yes that's the legal name of the street) and you'll see what the future of the Jewish Toronto area is going to look like.
The rabbi of Canada's leading Reform Temple "was not thinking about it religiously" ??? I always knew these Hebrew Union College guys were severely challenged in the areas of competent reading of traditional Hebrew texts and imparting Halakhic advice. But, I figured a guy who occupies the late Rabbi Abraham Feinberg's and Rabbi Gunther Plaut's pulpit -- two of the Reform movement's most brilliant men -- would have some brains ! I guess the rumors are true. Moskowitz is clearly a light-weight. How sad to behold the decline of rabbinical standards, and now this mess, at Holy Blossom.
"Habad Gate" is the future of Toronto's Jewish community. Oh please give me a break. Toronto has the arguably most vibrant and diverse Jewish community in North America. Habad is nothing but an unsightly, infected pimple on that community's ass. But they sure are arrogant about their centrality; of course, only Habad has the true path to the worship of the Aybishter, aka the Rebbe: heir to Jesus Christ and Shabbetai Zevi. They paid some politician to get their little shtiebl alleyway named for their idolatrous false-messianic cult. Big deal. Chabad has about as much influence in Toronto's powerful and rich community as Jim Keegstra has on the Christian community of Alberta. They're just a bunch of ignorant missionary clowns in hats.
A conflict like this one, among temperaments, sensibilities, headsets. (some people like to mix it up occasionally, while others are resistant to any change, especially when it comes to ritual) are a good test for a congregation. If people can't manage to reach a compromise over such trivial considerations as which way to face during worship, then they shouldn't be worshiping together. The history of Jewish practice is a narrative of diversity and bifurcation. Maybe the greatest new shul in Toronto is about to be born!
The leaders of this plan need to be 'terminated.' Any significant change to a long standing structure/practice MUST be processed carefully (and delicately). From the story, the issue of renovating the building and especially the sanctuary, that didn't happen. Instead, it looks like an attempt to bulldoze the changes as a fait complete. Little regard was given to the recently completed strategic plan and membership sensibilities.
Dumb, dumb, dumb ...
As regard to the proposed changes to the sanctuary. They're not really needed (as in required by Jewish law), unless there's a groundswell of public support. Personally, while I won't "daven" there, the place was a wonderful sight and deeply moving. The Board should have settled with a structrual renovation -- update and fix the building's physical structure and leave the sanctuary intact.
More critical than WHERE the congregation faces is WHOM the congregation faces. John Moscowitz is largely behind the sad state of affairs at Holy Blossom. His collusion with the architect in this change and especially his charge that those who oppose re-orienting this venerable sanctary are anti-Israel are unconscionable. His actions have resulted in a deeply divided congregation. I'm not a Holy Blossom member, but I know un-rabbi-like behaviour when I see it.
East or west haven't these folk heard...the world is round and you are facing Jerusalem in either direction.
Why would a religious community which includes some of the wisest heads in North America and presumambly well travelled in the seeking out to admire other famous world structures , presume to destroy so valuable a world class icon ? Surely better thinking could have prevailed in how to make improvement without destruction of its history which, now obvious to me, requires the protection of an official Preservation/Heritage board.
Of course, the Sanctuary actually currently faces northwest. Turning it will make it face southeast, so the whole argument is ridiculous to begin with.
It is not a Rabbi's job to advocate for architectural change at the expense of the cohesiveness of his congregation.John Moscowitz has clearly failed in his obligations to ALL of the members of Holy Blossom.Rather than creating disharmony with a partisan stance in the issue of reorienting the sanctuary or not, he should have remained neutral.His poor judgment has contributed significantly to the sad divide at Holy Blossom in this, its 150th year.
It is obvious from all the feedback to this insightful report that the rabbi John Moskowitz can no longer serve this congregation as a whole and should do the honorable thing and resign.
58/42 is hardly a consensus. How can a board, in good conscience, push this through in the face of such division? It's surely a recipe for increased divisiveness.
This article is hard to fathom.They went to the trouble of conducting a survey and then ignored the results?? They held a vote in which 42% voted against the turn-around of the sanctuary and then declared victory?? Their Rabbi took sides?? What's going on up there at Holy Blossom?? The whole thing is outrageously unfair!!
This article is hard to fathom.They went to the trouble of conducting a survey and then ignored the results?? They held a vote in which 42% voted against the turn-around of the sanctuary and then declared victory?? Their Rabbi took sides?? What's going on up there at Holy Blossom?? The whole thing is outrageously unfair!!
In the past the history of reform judaism is assimilation.I understand the founders ended up with gentile grand children,In recent years I have seen yalmakes and talles where they were formerly not.Reform Judaism before WW2 were almost totally anti-zionist and until the 1960"s strongly pro-public education;now the are Jewish day schools and sponsored trips to Israel.The movement has changed ftom accomodating Sunday services to evicting yalmake wearing from the sanctuary service.Redesigning the sanctuary is a cultural statement of re-discovery of the faith and a search for continuaty.
Heal the wounds? Classical Reform Judaism was a beautiful, thoughtful, rational and yes, protestant stream of Judaism – I don’t understand why it was abandoned in favor of this new wave of neo-orthodoxy. Hey, if you want practice as an Orthodox Jew, then join a Conservative or Orthodox synagogue. Why are so many liberal Jews abandoning the Reform movement in favor of other religions traditions such as the Unitarians (“the fourth branch of Judaism”) as well as to Buddhism (the bulk of non-Asian teachers being former-Jews)?
Another comment - Reform Judaism no longer exists as a distinct movement - it has become Conservative - and the Conservatives have become Orthodox - in the meantime, the bulk of North American Jews have no affiliation. In my opinion this is a tribute to the intelligence of the Jewish people - most of us have grown-up and moved beyond the confines of organized religion!
The article mentioned that the Sanctuary Legacy Group has its own website but didn't give the address. Please visit: www.SaveOurSanctuary.com.
You should get your facts straight. The bimah at Holy Blossom was moved down into the congregation several years ago. Guess what. The building is still standing and it is still the same magnificent structure it has always been.
At Rabbi Moscowitz's request, I met with him on three occasions in January and February. At two of the meetings, I was accompanied by a former president of the congregation, Myer Brody. At the final meeting, Mr. Brody and I were joined by Michael Marrus. We made it very clear that a contoversy was inevitable, given the growing number of congregants opposed to reversing the sanctuary were the Board to proceed with its renewal plans. We discussed several possible scenarios, one of which turned out to be very close to the result of the actual vote. The rabbi asked our advice as to what should be done if 60% of the congregants favoured reversal, and 40% opposed reversal. We made it very clear that should this happen, the Board would make a very serious error to ignore the opinions of almost half of the congregation, and that irreparable harm to the congregation would be the result. Indeed, we emphasized that given the fiduciary duty of the Board to the congregation, it could not advocate the reversal of the sanctuary in such circumstances. Moreover, we counselled the rabbi that his role was not to advocate one side or the other, but to remain neutral and to preserve the sanctity of the congregation.
What is Classical (or Liberal) Reform Judaism?
Classical Reform Judaism is an approach to Judaism that emphasizes reason, personal autonomy, social justice, and humanitarian religious values. The foundations of Classical Reform Judaism were first enunciated in 1885 in a document known as The Pittsburgh Platform of Reform Judaism. Its two principle authors—Kaufmann Kohler and Emil G. Hirsch—both served as rabbis at Chicago Sinai Congregation. While the Pittsburgh Platform no longer serves as the primary theological expression of Reform Judaism, it continues to influence many Reform Jews and remains a lucid statement of several core beliefs of liberal Reform Judaism. For an award-winning essay on the Rabbis Kohler and Hirsch and the Pittsburgh Platform, click here.
The Pittsburgh Platform, written and signed at Congregation Rodef Shalom in Pittsburgh, 1885 In view of the wide divergence of opinion, of conflicting ideas in Judaism today, we, as representatives of Reform Judaism in America, in continuation of the work begun in Philadelphia in 1869, unite upon the following principles.
We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the Infinite, and in every mode, source or book of revelation, held sacred by any religious system, the consciousness of the indwelling of God in man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception of the God-idea as taught in our Holy Scriptures and developed and spiritualized by the Jewish teachers, in accordance with the moral and philosophical progress of their respective ages. We maintain that Judaism preserved and defended, midst continual struggles and trials and under enforced isolation, this God-idea as the central religious truth for the human race.
We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as priest of the one God, and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of scientific researches in the domains of nature and history are not antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its conception of Divine Providence and justice dealing with man in miraculous narratives.
We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only the moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.
We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity and dress originated in ages and under influences of ideas altogether foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.
We recognize in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect the approaching of the realization of Israel’s great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and, therefore, expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any laws concerning the Jewish state.
We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason. We are convinced of the utmost necessity of preserving the historical identity with our great past. Christianity and Islam being daughter religions of Judaism, we appreciate their providential mission to aid in the spreading of monotheistic and moral truth. We acknowledge that the spirit of broad humanity of our age is our ally in the fulfillment of our mission, and, therefore we extend the hand of fellowship to all who cooperate with us in the establishment of the reign of truth and righteousness among men.
We reassert the doctrine of Judaism that the soul of man is immortal, grounding this belief on the divine nature of the human spirit, which forever finds bliss in righteousness and misery in wickedness. We reject, as ideas not rooted in Judaism, the beliefs both in bodily resurrection and in Gehenna and Eden (Hell and Paradise) as abodes for everlasting punishment and reward.
In full accordance with the spirit of Mosaic legislation, which strives to regulate the relation between rich and poor, we deem it our duty to participate in the great task of modern times, to solve, on the basis of justice and righteousness, the problems presented by the contrasts and evils of the present organization of society.
Professor Michael Meyer, the world’s leading scholar of Reform Judaism, describes his understanding of Classical Reform Judaism in remarks delivered at Chicago Sinai Congregation in June, 2006, click here.
The sanctuary of Holy Blossom was not "made to face west away from Jerusalem" as stated in the article by Sheldon Chad. Archives at Holy Blossom show that Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, the congregational leader at the time of construction in 1938, far from being cavalier about this matter, actually wrote to his superiors in Cincinatti to get an opinion on whether the planned orientation would be acceptable. This orientation resulted from the fact that the site was on the west side of the street and the plan was based on post emancipation synagogue architecture in which sanctuary doors were opened to the street in a gesture of newfound optimism (in contrast with the discreet presence of mediaeval and renaissance synagogues). The plan of Holy Blossom traces its roots to the Pecs and Douhany Synagogues in Budapest, dating from the mid 1850s, the Israelite Synagogue in Lyons,France, the Templegasse Synagogue in Vienna,( both from the mid 19th century) and most significantly, Temple Emanu El in New York, dating from 1929. All exhibit the same sequential plan, doors on the street, a low vestibule marking the transition between the sacred and profane, a large soaring nave flanked by a progressive series of arches and terminated by a semi circular apse containing the ark and framed by a large arch. As such, the sanctuary of Holy Blossom has an important place in the evolution of international synagogue architecture. The congregation of Temple Emanu El in New York has just completed a major restoration campaign. Similarly, the sanctuary at Holy Blossom Temple should be restored and maintained as a vital living legacy not only for those who will follow the present generation of members, but also for worldwide Jewry.
1/ Its 'Chabad Gate' not 'Habad Gate' as any Toronto-area Jew would know.
2/ The reference to anti-Israel Jews refers to one of the leaders of the anti-change movement Rick Salutin who writes for the Globe and Mail.
3/ The 19th century reform temples and included organs to sound like churches, too. It had nothing to do with 'optimism'.
4/ Here's a solution for the anti-change group-recreate the old sanctuary at Baycrest-since your group will soon be there (I think most non-Torontonians can guess what Baycrest is)
This is a confused congregation.one of the main principles of reform judaism is that change is good and necessary for progress. where does the outcry for tradition and no change come from? all the "traditions" of the reform movement are not more than 150 years old. if you can ditch thousands of years of tradition, 150 years is easy to ditch. I guess people don't think ......
The article doesn't mention the central driving force behind the renovation - the construction of a new Leo Baeck Day school. The sanctuary was really a sideline issue. The board should be - and should have been - more transparent about the real reason for the renovations in the first place.
I am embarrassed and ashamed of my fellow congregants who feel they are entitled to “bash” the senior rabbi of Holy Blossom Temple. Rabbi John Moscowitz has dedicated and devoted his life service of more than 20 years to this venerable institution. We, the congregants, of HBT chose him from amongst many other highly regarded rabbis to be our leader, our teacher, our rabbi. The comments that have been directed at our rabbi, whether directly or indirectly, whether to his face, or behind his back, are not only rude, dishonest, and extremely disrespectful, but as Jews how can one show such a lack of 'kavod' (honor) and so much vicious 'lashon hara' (gossip)regardless of whether one is for or against the renewal project. After all this project is not about one person, this project is about the future generations of Holy Blossom Temple. Please as Jews, as members, and as friends of HBT, let us maintain our dignity in having the freedom to express our diverse opinions and views, but let us not resort to unethical and disreputable behavior in how we treat, write about, and speak to one another, let alone our rabbi and leader, John Moscowitz. I urge all of us to heed the words of our Sages who taught: ‘If one speaks slander, it is as if one denies God…’(Arachin 15b) ‘Death and Life are in the power of the tongue’ (Mishlei 18:21), and in the words of our very liturgy: ‘O God, keep my tongue from evil and my lips from deceit…’ (Psalm34:14).
Respectfully and L’shalom, Michelle Katz.
It is most unfortunate that some members of Holy Blossom Temple have chosen to campaign against our synagogue’s current renewal project in public. In this campaign, they are continuing to use much of the same insulting language that was, far too often, their language of choice during the various congregation-wide meetings held over the past few months. It is a shame that they have taken the low road in pursuing their objectives and it says far more about them then it does about those they are vilifying. Such a negative campaign can no longer be tolerated. Many individuals have spent countless hours and expended much effort over the past several years in working on this project and not because they have nothing better to do with their time; they have done it because they are 100% committed to the renovations and firmly believe we are pursuing the correct approach to the project. When it comes to the financial side, it should be obvious to all that these same people have no interest in Holy Blossom embarking on something that will lead to its financial ruin. They are, after all, members of the congregation who, like all other members, have a vested interest in ensuring our financial viability. Just a word about Rabbi John Moscowitz: in the shameful public attacks on him, apart from being completely misguided, his detractors have trod on an important tenet in Judaism - k’vod harav. Holy Blossom is most fortunate to have a rabbi who is so dedicated to the congregation and so respected by the majority of congregants as well as by his colleagues both within the synagogue and in the larger community. He is passionate, outspoken and always speaks the truth and most of us would not have it any other way. A rabbi who does not have strong principals and beliefs and does not have the courage of those convictions is not a rabbi I would want as the spiritual leader of any congregation of which I would be a member. What, I wonder, would be said of him, had he not stood up and told us what he felt about the project? My guess is that he would be roundly criticized for abdicating his responsibilities. With respect to the project, the architectural firm chosen for the project was not alone in concluding that reorienting the Sanctuary was for many reasons by far the best way to proceed. In fact, virtually every other firm that submitted ideas came to the same conclusion. The initial reason for the reorientation, therefore, had nothing to do with facing east, but rather ensuring that we had the best possible facility for the congregation. One example: as things currently stand, we have one door on either side of the bimah each of which is utilized during services; this, to say the least, makes things very distracting for those of us who regularly attend services. By turning the Sanctuary around, ease of movement in the synagogue as a whole will be vastly improved and access during services will be confined to the back of the Sanctuary and, therefore, far less distracting and disruptive. That said, as others have pointed out elsewhere, facing east is a positive outcome of the reorientation. It has also correctly been said that to turn our back on Jerusalem when we have the opportunity to do otherwise makes a very negative statement. With respect to maintaining the architectural integrity of the synagogue, that is precisely what the current plans will do. The façade of the Sanctuary will remain; only the inside will be changed. It should never be the case that those who come to services worship the Sanctuary in which they are praying; rather, they should come to worship G-d in it.
Finally, call me cynical, but I suspect that if the situation were reversed and those lobbying against the renewal project as it currently stands had received 50% plus one vote, they would have demanded that we proceed in the way they see fit. A democratic vote took place and a majority came out in favour of the project; that project must now proceed. If we do not proceed, it is a virtual certainty that nothing will happen and we will have lost a once in a lifetime chance to make a positive difference in the history of one of the most important synagogues in North America. That would, indeed, be a shame.
Sarita Dotan
During its 150 year history, Holy Blossom has changed its orientation from Orthodox to militantly Reform, to our more recent acceptance of Hebrew liturgy and the State of Israel. In other words, Holy Blossom has changed its customs and orientation as society and circumstances have changed. While I acknowledge the beauty of our sanctuary, and appreciate the praise of architectural historians, I also understand that a sanctuary "based on post-emancipation European synagogues" might, in the twenty-first century, be able to survive some architectural changes which reflect current orientation and need. And let us not forget that it is not the sanctuary itself that we worship; rather, we pray to God and identify with the Jewish People within its walls.
While I was not born into the congregation, I have been a member for 45 years, and taught in the Religious School for several years before that. In the nearly fifty years of my association with Holy Blossom, I have noticed great changes in worship, custom, and attitude toward Israel. In other words, the synagogue has not been frozen in time; rather, we have adjusted to changes in the Jewish world and in the world at large. When due to important structural changes which must be made for other reasons, we are given an opportunity to re-align ourselves with the almost universal Jewish tradition of facing Jerusalem, how can we turn our backs on that possibility?
Naomi Bell
As a member of Holy Blossom, I am troubled that we are spending an enormous amount of money for a plan that is so dividing the congregation. I am sure that as a socially responsible congregation, we can find a better and more unifying way to spend almost $40 million. Toronto has troubling social problems and we're spending all this money to turn our synagogue around, fracturing our congregation along the way? I think some new dialogue is required.
Today, the Sanctuary Legacy Group sent an open letter to the board. It was signed by over 200 congregants and mailed to every member of Holy Blossom in time for Rosh Hashanah. The letter, which is also copied below, is an appeal to the board to only proceed with a plan that commands a clear consensus among the congregation. Holy Blossom's members are speaking very clearly. Is our leadership listening?
An Open Letter to the Board of Holy Blossom Temple
The web site didn't reproduce the letter, so I am trying again:
An Open Letter to the Board of Holy Blossom Temple
No luck. I guess you'll have to wait until it arrives in the mail. It will also (eventually) be posted on www.saveoursanctuary.com.
My calculations on the congregational vote do not square with the numbers given by SOS in its recent letter.
According to the Temple website, the Option B to redevelop with no reorientation of the sanctuary received 953 votes (I will use this number, not the 943 shown on the SOS website). Together with the 1505 votes to redevelop under Option A that included reorientation, 61.2% of the votes favouring redevelopment supported Option A and 38.8% supported Option B. (Both are higher than the corresponding numbers shown on the SOS website.)
However, according to their recent letter, the vote was only 58%/42% in favour of the Board's proposed Option A. They arrive at this by adding the 136 votes cast against any redevelopment at all to the 953 votes for Option B.
Using this logic, we could equally say that 1505 votes for Option A plus the 136 votes for no redevelopment at all aggregate to 63.3% against Option B which, in consequence, received only 36.7%. Is this what they want us to believe?
I think that SOS should do their numbers again.
Larry Schwartz Toronto
Larry,
The recent open letter to the board did not advocate Option B. It simply re-stated the Sanctuary Legacy Group's well founded view that the Board does not have a legitimate mandate to proceed with Option A because 42% of voters opposed that option. There is not a mandate for either option. Instead, the letter recommended that the Board go back to the drawing board and seek a plan that enjoys a broad consensus among the congregation, rather than push through a plan that has been the source of such divisiveness.
Lou, Thank you for your reply.
If the vote among those favouring redevelopment were closer to 50/50 (even 53/47), I would have agreed with you. But since over 60% of those favouring redevelopment voted for Option A in preference to Option B, there is a clear consensus for that option. Granted, it is not as large as I might have liked, but it is clear and accordingly the Board should move forward on the results of the vote.
SLG's 42% figure turns on including the 136 votes that oppose any redevelopment. This overstates the number of votes against Option A because those 136 votes were not choices between the two Options. Moreover, including those votes produces an irrational result: we can't go ahead with Option A because 42% of the votes did not explicitly support it, and we can't go ahead with Option B because 63% of the votes did not explicitly support it; accordingly, the voting process must itself be flawed.
But if we are going to assess congregational opinion by vote (and I understand that the Board and SLG agreed on the motion and on the procedures), then we should accept the results when they are clear.
Larry Schwartz
I understand that there is a movement afoot to form a new reform congregation in downtown Toronto. I'm told that the organizers believe they can attract some 300 disaffected families away from Holy Blossom. Does anyone here know whom to contact to learn more about this initiative?
An interesting piece of news. Do you think the new congregation's sanctuary will face east or west?
I think Mr. Schwartz has missed the point entirely. The internal divisions at Holy Blossom are not about facing east or west. They are about respecting architectural heritage or not.
I am sorry if my attempt at irony obscured the point I wish to make: families who leave Holy Blossom Temple for the new synagogue may well find that the new situation does not meet their goals.
I can understand why some may experience short-term satisfaction by expressing their views so forcefully. However, once they move to the new place, they will find themselves having to deal with other families who may not share their concerns. Will the new synagogue have a religious school? What will its policy be toward Kashrut? Will it have a satisfying adult study program? And what if, perhaps due to cost concerns, the other families decide that these things are more important than having the kind of sanctuary environment that SLG members value so highly?
If the redevelopment of Holy Blossom Temple takes place with the reorientation of the sanctuary, are they really going to be better off by moving? These are serious questions that they must consider carefully.
In her note of October 22nd, Lisa writes "internal divisions at Holy Blossom Temple are not about facing east or west. They are about respecting architectural heritage or not." To me it seems, on the other hand, that respect for our JEWISH heritage should be the basis of our deliberations!
The world is round! If you go East long enough and far enough, you end up in the West (and vice-versa). The good folks at Holy Blossom should think about the wisdom of making such a drastic change without a consensus. Accepting the dictatorship of the majority, is not truly democratic. And they should realize that it's not the direction they face when they pray that's important. What should be valued is the spirit of the prayer.