The searching man seeking the answer to the meaning of life would give all for a revelation that would clarify the true purpose of man’s existence. Religions that claim a revelation as their bedrock must develop a system to safeguard the information of the enlightenment in a world that is void of its sacred message. For the followers of the Bible, or, for the traditional Jew, the Torah, that revelation occurred at Sinai. The Torah’s safeguarding system was institutionalized and named “Yeshiva”.
The world and life of a young man in the Yeshiva is quite unique. While time, energy and effort are channeled toward discovering the intricate laws and ordinances of the Torah, walls are placed around the student to avoid “contamination” from the external world. To understand the wisdom of the past scholars, from antiquity to the modern period, Yeshiva students must rely, most often, on internal tools. At times, however, discoveries made on the outer side of the wall can be of great assistance to the explorer on the inside. These findings, which are capable of shedding light upon complex issues, may come from archaeologists or, at times, historians. The young student in the Yeshiva must decide if the information should be utilized due to its intellectual benefit, or rejected as a result of its external source.
This paper will deal with a difficulty in a responsa by Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger and will allow external sources to assist in resolving the issue.
Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger (1798 –1871) was a German rabbi and author, and one of the great leaders of Orthodox Judaism. He was born at Karlsruhe and died in Altona. He studied under Rabbi Abraham Bing in Würzburg, where he also attended the university. Because of his well-known greatness as a Torah scholar, questions were sent to him from across the globe. The following question relates to a story that occurred in Jerusalem.
According to Jewish Law, there is a list of activities that are prohibited on the Jewish Sabbath. Although resting on the Sabbath is one of the most important commandments for a Jew, the Talmud tells us that a Gentile is actually forbidden from resting on the Sabbath, and must perform one of the “prohibited” actions to be considered a righteous gentile. The following is the question presented to Rabbi Ettlinger with regard to this issue. (Responsa Binyan Tzion 91)
“Here in Jerusalem on Tuesday the twenty third day of the month of Adar Sheni of the year (5)608, a non Jew came from Morocco and was circumcised for the sake of conversion, and accepted all the mitzvoth. On the following Shabbat, he had not fully recovered from the circumcision and thus not entered the Mikvah (ritual bath to finalize the conversion). A rabbi was informed that the convert is very careful in his observance of the Sabbath. However another rabbi claimed that due to the fact that he did not yet enter the Mikvah he must not observe the Sabbath and must perform one of the prohibited acts. It was late in the day and the convert was told what he must do. Consequently he violated the Sabbath by writing a few letters. After the Sabbath when the Rabbis in town heard of the ruling they disagreed claiming that after circumcision he is considered a Jew and must not violate the Sabbath.”
While reading about this out of the ordinary situation, several questions may arise in our minds, including: What brought this Moroccan to Jerusalem and what prevented him from converting in his homeland where a very significant Jewish population and rabbinic court was present? To answer this question, we must go beyond the Yeshiva wall to a distant land: America.
The main focus of this paper will be the life and journey of a man from Philadelphia named Warder Cresson. Cresson was born on July 13, 1798. Little is known of Cresson’s formative years. It is clear from the few family records available that his was a strict upbringing, in keeping with the habits of his Quaker elders. In 1815, a year following his father's death, Cresson was sent away to work on the family farms in Darby and Chester. From statements Cresson made later in life, it is evident that he had worked hard, saved his money and learned a great deal about agriculture. Later on, he married Elizabeth Townsend of Bensalem, and by 1824 he was a father of two children, Emma and John Elliot.
Warder displayed a mind steeped in Scriptures as well as in the social issues of the time. In 1829, Cresson wrote a strong attack on the "Babylon" of Pennsylvania, primarily attacking wealth and social distinction. "It will certainly be admitted," he began, "that all the misery and troubles that afflict the human family arise aspiring from ...selfishness." The lack of true religion, he wrote, a faith that ought to be expressed through self-denial and universal love, had brought about tyrannies and caused slavery and bloodshed. He attacked the monopolizing wealth, "both by speculative and anti-republican measures”. "Wealth was power," he claimed, and the few who were wealthy also had access to education, which in turn gave them even greater power over "the industrious farmer, mechanic and laborer.”
Cresson denounced the republican form of government in the United States as a set of selfish laws and selfish appointments in the hands of legislators and self-seeking officials. He considered the conditions of the working and farming classes intolerable, with wages barely on a survival level and unemployment widespread. He singled out his fellow Quakers for failure to see these wrongs. “Originally, they were the living witnesses for God and the true light, but they lapsed in their faith and went to building and erecting another “Babel” on the ruins of the old.”
It was clear to Cresson that, despite his own beliefs at the time, his wife was determined to bring up his children as members of the Society of Friends. Cresson, who had written that "fleshly love" was proof of the selfishness of human beings, would soon prove that he would not allow even family attachments to stand between him and his vision.
Cresson became familiar with a Jewish leader in Philadelphia, Rabbi Isaac Leeser, in whose religion Cresson was to find a confirmation of his own beliefs. Leeser, the minister of Congregation Mikveh Israel since 1829, was using his pulpit and pen to educate the membership and to revive the languishing communal and religious organizations. In his first important work, “The Jews and the Mosaic Law”, which was published in 1833, Leeser not only expounded on basic Jewish beliefs for both Jewish and Christian readers, but also reiterated his belief in the ultimate restoration of the Israelites and the gathering of the captives. He noted that those countries which persecuted or excluded the Jews were impoverished. England, on the other hand, had risen to eminence since Cromwell had admitted the Jews. Leeser, however, did not expect an imminent fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies and wrote that the Jews should “await with resignation the time when Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, and the Israelites shall again inhabit the land of their ancestors!” (Isaac Leeser, The Jews and the Mosaic Law Philadelphia, 1834)
Another contemporary, whose views very likely influenced Cresson, was Mordecai M. Noah, an outstanding American Jew, who addressed Christian and Jewish audiences in New York and Philadelphia in the early 1840s and urged a return to Zion as the only solution to the Jewish problem of continuous persecution. A playwright and journalist, Noah had served as the American Consul in Tunis in 1813. In 1825, he attempted to establish “Ararat", a city of refuge for the Jews on Grand Island in the Niagara River. In 1844, in a discourse on the restoration of the Jews, which was addressed primarily to Christian audiences, Noah forcefully expressed the religious and political ideas of millennium-minded reformers. "Within a few years," he said, "the attention of the world has been directed, in a peculiar manner, to the character, condition and future prospects of the Jewish people." He acknowledged his own belief in the "restoration of the Jews and the coming of the Messiah," and confidently noted that political happenings in Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Russia indicated the coming of upheavals that might bring about the return of Jews to Jerusalem. Noah cited a letter he had received from the former President, John Adams, which stated, "I really wish the Jews again in Judea, an independent nation.”
Turning to practical aspects of Zionism, Noah insisted that Jews could succeed in agriculture and that the climate and soil of Palestine were suitable for large-scale colonization. Noah believed that the United States was the most logical country from which to launch this effort. The eighteenth chapter of Isaiah describes a "land, shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia." This land, according to Noah, was the United States.
The periodical “The Occident”, first published by Leeser in 1843, carried news of Noah's activities. It is very likely that Warder Cresson read reports of Noah’s addresses and activities.
By 1844, Cresson was ready to take another big step. In the same year that Noah made his series of addresses on the return of Jews to Palestine, Cresson decided to go to Washington and to apply for the position of the first American Consul to Jerusalem. On May 17, Cresson, who had volunteered to take this position for no pay, was officially notified of his appointment. It turned out to be one of the shortest assignments on record. On May 25, 1844, barely a week after Cresson received his commission, Samuel D. Ingham of New Hope, Pennsylvania, formerly Andrew Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury, wrote to former vice-president John Calhoun: "The papers have recently announced the appointment of Warder Cresson, Consul to Jerusalem. This man is the brother of Elliot Cresson who is much distinguished for his activity in the cause of colonization, but the Consul has been laboring under an aberration of mind for many years; his mania is of the religious species. He was born a Quaker, wanted to be a preacher... and has gone round the compass from one job to another, sometimes preaching about the church doors and in the streets; his passion is for religious controversy and no doubt he expects to convert Jews and Mohammedans in the East but, in truth, he is withal a very weak-minded man and his mind, what there is of it, quite out of order... His appointment is made a theme of ridicule by all who know him.”
As a result, on June 22, 1844, Calhoun wrote Cresson: "I am instructed by the President to inform you, that, having reconsidered the proposal to establish a Consulate at Jerusalem, he is of the opinion it is not called for by public service, and therefore declines to establish it at present." By this time, Cresson, unaware that his commission had been revoked, was well on his way to Jerusalem, carrying with him a dove and an American flag.
As to his own decision to go to Jerusalem, Cresson emphasized his conviction that only one's physical presence in the Holy Land could bring about the actualization of the prophecies. He writes, "If I could have honestly believed... that the fullest degree of the glory of the coming kingdom might have been possessed... without any connection with place, I might have still remained at home in my ceiled house, with a beloved and virtuous wife and lovely family. Great and precious were the many privileges that I enjoyed there, and I feel most sensibly the deprivation of them; but the light and conviction of God's precious promises, in reference to the return of the Jew and the setting up his everlasting kingdom at Mount Zion and Jerusalem, became so great... that I could no longer remain at home; therefore I have forsaken houses, brethren, sisters, mother, wife, children and lands for the kingdom of God's sake." He insisted that his only motive in applying for the post as Consul was to give of his time, labor, and money to Israel, which was “now despised”, but take out “which” would soon be a "Crown of Glory and a Royal Diadem in the hand of thy God."
Cresson wrote that, “When I reached Jerusalem in 1844, the missionaries of the Church of England and those of the American Presbyterian Church had quarreled and left Jerusalem.” He criticized bitterly the work of societies devoted to converting Jews. In one of his rare excursions into the field of satire, he wrote a short tract 'The Society Formed in England and America for Promoting Sawdust, Instead of good Old Cheese, amongst the Jews in Jerusalem.’ Equating Judaism with "Good Old Cheese” and Christianity with “Sawdust”, Cresson explained that when real Good Old Cheese became too costly and brought discomforts to its users, a Society was established with a mission to introduce Sawdust in place of Good Old Cheese. Since the "Good Old Cheese itself smelled too strong and tasted too oily and greasy and Sawdust looked in every respect very much like the grated article”, a decision was made to create societies in England, Scotland and America to promote sawdust among the "poor Jews," even though it was admitted that they were the possessors of the genuine Good Old Cheese.
Cresson wrote disparagingly of the high salaries paid to the missionaries who lived "in the very best houses, bought most splendid Arabian horses and dressed in the most luxurious and stylish manner." As for their practical work, he wrote that, "To further their imposing and enterprising object they built a church which has cost them more than $150,000; then a hospital and Dispensary, sent physicians from England, set up an institution of Industry and also a college and schools, all to entrap and instruct the poor, dirty, oily, greasy, starving Jews and to tempt and provide them with good livings, fine English clothing, upon the only one condition that they will give their names and use all their influence to support and promote the interest of their Society for introducing and establishing Sawdust instead of Good Old Cheese, amongst the poor Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine." According to Cresson, the missionaries failed to get a single Jew, who was born in Jerusalem, to apostatize.
Throughout his account of his four year stay Jerusalem, Cresson continued his attack on the missionaries, blaming them for exploiting the miseries of the local Jewish population in order to win converts.
Although the United States decided that no post was to be established at Jerusalem, Cresson continued to act as a representative of the United States. He quickly got involved with the affairs of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and his correspondence with Mordecai Noah shows that, as late as 1847, he was still issuing certificates of "protection"(documents carried by American seamen as proof of citizenship). On November 5, 1847, he wrote a rambling letter to Noah in which he connected the war between the United States and Mexico with the restoration of the descendants of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manassah to Mount Zion.
During the same year, Cresson began writing his most personal work, “The Key of David the True Messiah”, in which his gradual and irreversible attachment to Judaism was evident. The pages were filled with elaborate interpretations of stories from the Old Testament, especially those relating to King David and his progenitors. Jerusalem had stirred Cresson deeply. He found justification for the origins of Judaism everywhere. Archaeological diggings convinced him of the existence of Solomon's Temple and the walls of Herod's palace. By the same token, these discoveries made him doubt the authenticity of the New Testament accounts. He was certain that, "...Neither the walls of Jerusalem nor its streets were built at all during the appearance of Jesus but were destroyed seventy years after him by Titus and that the Holy Sepulcher was not the place of Christ's death."
Finally, after noting the contradictions in the Gospels and denying the divinity of Jesus, Cresson was ready for the most drastic step of his incredible journey. He writes, "I remained in Jerusalem in my former faith until the 28th day of March, 1848," he wrote, "when I became fully satisfied that I could never obtain Strength and Rest, but by doing as Ruth did, and saying to her Mother-in-Law, or Naomi 'Entreat me not to leave thee for whither thou goest I will go'... In short, upon the 28th day of March, 1848, I was circumcised, entered the Holy Covenant and became a Jew.” Cresson was then forty-nine years old.
By Cresson identifying the date of his conversion, we can resolve the mystery regarding the Moroccan convert in Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger’s response. The 28th of March 1848 - the day Warder Cresson became Michael Boaz Yisrael - corresponds to the 23rd of Adar Sheini in the Jewish year (5)608. In other words, the conversions occurred on the same day! Moreover, the response indicates that conversions in Jerusalem were pretty unusual, making it difficult to believe that there were two conversions on that specific day. Consequently, I believe that the non Jew in Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger’s response did not come from Morocco but rather from America. In Hebrew, the spelling of America can be easily mistaken for Morocco. Cresson indeed came to Jerusalem "for the sake of conversion”.
On May 7, 1848, Cresson began his return trip to Philadelphia, "being anxious of once more beholding the faces of those I loved most dearly above anything else on earth." He could not find a ship sailing directly from Jaffa or Beirut and had to wait for a ship at Smyrna, delaying his trip to "beloved family and home” by a month.
Cresson believed that he would be able to convince his family to share his newly found faith. Unfortunately, a domestic crisis was in the making. According to his account in “The Key of David”, Cresson, who had returned from Jerusalem anxious to reconcile himself with his family, found nothing but enmity at home. He claimed that the conversion brought him to a point where he was forced to choose between "the one, only God, or [his] wife”. Cresson, who had given his wife power of attorney before leaving for Jerusalem, found himself with practically no property. He remained at his home in downtown Philadelphia until December, 1848, trying to verify the financial arrangements made during his absence. However, Cresson found out that the accounting book had been made out to Elliot Cresson, his eldest brother. He was now convinced that his entire family had conspired to rob him. As a result, Cresson revoked his wife's power of attorney. The situation in the house was becoming intolerable. Cresson hired a wagon and took his belongings to the house of a Jewish friend, Isaac Asch. He then assigned one half of the $5,320 mortgage to his wife and family, in order, as he put it, "to convince them that a Jew could 'do justice and love mercy'."
By now, the battle lines were drawn. On May 15, 1849, Cresson's wife, Elizabeth, and other members of his immediate family lodged a charge of lunacy against Cresson, claiming that he wanted to rebuild the Temple on Mount Moriah and was incapable of handling his business affairs. It did not take long for a Sheriff's jury of six men to issue a verdict of insanity. This resulted in a legal dispute. Cresson's attorney, General Horatio Hubbell, succeeded in bringing an appeal on April 11, 1850, and preparations were made on both sides for a trial on the charge of lunacy in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On May 13, 1851, two years after the original complaint, the trial opened before Judge Edward King. Elizabeth Cresson listed a series of charges, intending to prove that Cresson was a lunatic, who was incapable of handling his own affairs. Newspapers noted that, with regard to the trial, "A large number of his friends testified that they had had dealings with him and always considered him of sane mind that his buildings were properly constructed and his farm well attended to.”
In the closing defense speech on May 16, Horatio Hubbell referred to Cresson as "an earnest inquirer after truth," and made the issue of religious freedom the dominant one. The question arose: Should Cresson be blamed if he became a convert to Judaism, "that old and venerable faith whose institutes were founded amid the solitudes of Sinai and which belongs to a people hoary with antiquity - whose history exhibits them tenaciously preserving the golden thread of their religion amid the shock and dissolution of empires”? Hubbell stressed the right of free Americans to worship as they pleased. "Thank God, we are here free indeed, follower of Christ and the child of Israel alike protected... The Turk might erect his mosque and the votary of Vishnu might dream securely of the mysteries of the sacred waters of his Ganges. Such are the blessings of our republican institutions." He quoted Jefferson, who had said that as long as one fulfills his obligations as a citizen, "It is immaterial whether a man worships one god or twenty.” Hubbell portrayed Cresson as "an agriculturist, a tiller of the ground the most primitive and the most honorable occupation that man can pursue." Cresson was a gentleman, Hubbell explained, whose "education and manners introduced him into the society of such enlightened and distinguished individuals as Sir Moses Montefiore.”
To contradict the testimony of the relatives, Hubbell cited the statements of seventy-three witnesses, thirty-eight of whom were Christians. Four doctors certified that in their opinion Cresson was sane. Rabbi Mordechai Noah and Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, a great scholar from Palestine, who had met Cresson in the Holy Land, both confirmed that they considered Cresson’s manner to be normal. In his final remarks, Hubbell returned to the theme of religious tolerance, this time appealing for the jurors' understanding and sympathy in regard to Cresson's conversion. It took the Jury a short while to return with a verdict, which vindicated Cresson of all charges.
Seeing "signs" of "divine preparation" everywhere, Cresson hastened to return to Palestine. In a short work entitled, “Signs of Messiah”, which was published in 1851, Cresson enumerated some of them: a proliferation of railroads, the use of the telegraph, the California gold strike, antislavery agitation, drought in Egypt and great power competition in the Near East. To Cresson, these "omens" were fulfilling the prophecies of the Scriptures. He was, more than ever before, convinced that the “Great Sabbath" was about to commence, that "restoration" was at hand, and that "some neutral power, as America alone is, must first begin the great work."
Cresson shared his vision and emphasized that "agriculture is to be Israel's vocation." He appealed for funds to purchase such modern equipment as air-pressure engines for the running of gristmills and machines that would not require water or fuel, which were both in short supply in Palestine. He was convinced that the Jews could become self-supporting there, eliminating the need for "messengers" who collect funds from the Jews of Europe and America.
To prove his plan could work, Cresson announced that he was starting a model farm in the Valley of Rephaim, outside Jerusalem, "To introduce an improved system of English and American Farming in Palestine." He hoped that a Jewish, agricultural Palestine would become "a great center to which all who rest may come and find rest to their persecuted souls."
Cresson’s model farm never developed, for lack of capital, but Cresson continued to pray for its success. In the mid-1850s, he married Rachel Moleano and became an honored member of Jerusalem’s Sephardic community. When he died in 1860, he was buried on the Mount of Olives, "with such honors as are paid only to a prominent rabbi."
The inspiring life of Cresson is not just a story of commitment and dedication for a higher cause. It is also a story that sheds light on the fantastic world of response.
While the world of the Yeshiva is the key for Jewish survival, at times, a piece of information from the outside world can not only assist in clarifying the literature studied on the inside, but also inspire the student with a wonderful account of commitment.
The world and life of a young man in the Yeshiva is quite unique. While time, energy and effort are channeled toward discovering the intricate laws and ordinances of the Torah, walls are placed around the student to avoid “contamination” from the external world. To understand the wisdom of the past scholars, from antiquity to the modern period, Yeshiva students must rely, most often, on internal tools. At times, however, discoveries made on the outer side of the wall can be of great assistance to the explorer on the inside. These findings, which are capable of shedding light upon complex issues, may come from archaeologists or, at times, historians. The young student in the Yeshiva must decide if the information should be utilized due to its intellectual benefit, or rejected as a result of its external source.
This paper will deal with a difficulty in a responsa by Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger and will allow external sources to assist in resolving the issue.
Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger (1798 –1871) was a German rabbi and author, and one of the great leaders of Orthodox Judaism. He was born at Karlsruhe and died in Altona. He studied under Rabbi Abraham Bing in Würzburg, where he also attended the university. Because of his well-known greatness as a Torah scholar, questions were sent to him from across the globe. The following question relates to a story that occurred in Jerusalem.
According to Jewish Law, there is a list of activities that are prohibited on the Jewish Sabbath. Although resting on the Sabbath is one of the most important commandments for a Jew, the Talmud tells us that a Gentile is actually forbidden from resting on the Sabbath, and must perform one of the “prohibited” actions to be considered a righteous gentile. The following is the question presented to Rabbi Ettlinger with regard to this issue. (Responsa Binyan Tzion 91)
“Here in Jerusalem on Tuesday the twenty third day of the month of Adar Sheni of the year (5)608, a non Jew came from Morocco and was circumcised for the sake of conversion, and accepted all the mitzvoth. On the following Shabbat, he had not fully recovered from the circumcision and thus not entered the Mikvah (ritual bath to finalize the conversion). A rabbi was informed that the convert is very careful in his observance of the Sabbath. However another rabbi claimed that due to the fact that he did not yet enter the Mikvah he must not observe the Sabbath and must perform one of the prohibited acts. It was late in the day and the convert was told what he must do. Consequently he violated the Sabbath by writing a few letters. After the Sabbath when the Rabbis in town heard of the ruling they disagreed claiming that after circumcision he is considered a Jew and must not violate the Sabbath.”
While reading about this out of the ordinary situation, several questions may arise in our minds, including: What brought this Moroccan to Jerusalem and what prevented him from converting in his homeland where a very significant Jewish population and rabbinic court was present? To answer this question, we must go beyond the Yeshiva wall to a distant land: America.
The main focus of this paper will be the life and journey of a man from Philadelphia named Warder Cresson. Cresson was born on July 13, 1798. Little is known of Cresson’s formative years. It is clear from the few family records available that his was a strict upbringing, in keeping with the habits of his Quaker elders. In 1815, a year following his father's death, Cresson was sent away to work on the family farms in Darby and Chester. From statements Cresson made later in life, it is evident that he had worked hard, saved his money and learned a great deal about agriculture. Later on, he married Elizabeth Townsend of Bensalem, and by 1824 he was a father of two children, Emma and John Elliot.
Warder displayed a mind steeped in Scriptures as well as in the social issues of the time. In 1829, Cresson wrote a strong attack on the "Babylon" of Pennsylvania, primarily attacking wealth and social distinction. "It will certainly be admitted," he began, "that all the misery and troubles that afflict the human family arise aspiring from ...selfishness." The lack of true religion, he wrote, a faith that ought to be expressed through self-denial and universal love, had brought about tyrannies and caused slavery and bloodshed. He attacked the monopolizing wealth, "both by speculative and anti-republican measures”. "Wealth was power," he claimed, and the few who were wealthy also had access to education, which in turn gave them even greater power over "the industrious farmer, mechanic and laborer.”
Cresson denounced the republican form of government in the United States as a set of selfish laws and selfish appointments in the hands of legislators and self-seeking officials. He considered the conditions of the working and farming classes intolerable, with wages barely on a survival level and unemployment widespread. He singled out his fellow Quakers for failure to see these wrongs. “Originally, they were the living witnesses for God and the true light, but they lapsed in their faith and went to building and erecting another “Babel” on the ruins of the old.”
It was clear to Cresson that, despite his own beliefs at the time, his wife was determined to bring up his children as members of the Society of Friends. Cresson, who had written that "fleshly love" was proof of the selfishness of human beings, would soon prove that he would not allow even family attachments to stand between him and his vision.
Cresson became familiar with a Jewish leader in Philadelphia, Rabbi Isaac Leeser, in whose religion Cresson was to find a confirmation of his own beliefs. Leeser, the minister of Congregation Mikveh Israel since 1829, was using his pulpit and pen to educate the membership and to revive the languishing communal and religious organizations. In his first important work, “The Jews and the Mosaic Law”, which was published in 1833, Leeser not only expounded on basic Jewish beliefs for both Jewish and Christian readers, but also reiterated his belief in the ultimate restoration of the Israelites and the gathering of the captives. He noted that those countries which persecuted or excluded the Jews were impoverished. England, on the other hand, had risen to eminence since Cromwell had admitted the Jews. Leeser, however, did not expect an imminent fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies and wrote that the Jews should “await with resignation the time when Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, and the Israelites shall again inhabit the land of their ancestors!” (Isaac Leeser, The Jews and the Mosaic Law Philadelphia, 1834)
Another contemporary, whose views very likely influenced Cresson, was Mordecai M. Noah, an outstanding American Jew, who addressed Christian and Jewish audiences in New York and Philadelphia in the early 1840s and urged a return to Zion as the only solution to the Jewish problem of continuous persecution. A playwright and journalist, Noah had served as the American Consul in Tunis in 1813. In 1825, he attempted to establish “Ararat", a city of refuge for the Jews on Grand Island in the Niagara River. In 1844, in a discourse on the restoration of the Jews, which was addressed primarily to Christian audiences, Noah forcefully expressed the religious and political ideas of millennium-minded reformers. "Within a few years," he said, "the attention of the world has been directed, in a peculiar manner, to the character, condition and future prospects of the Jewish people." He acknowledged his own belief in the "restoration of the Jews and the coming of the Messiah," and confidently noted that political happenings in Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Russia indicated the coming of upheavals that might bring about the return of Jews to Jerusalem. Noah cited a letter he had received from the former President, John Adams, which stated, "I really wish the Jews again in Judea, an independent nation.”
Turning to practical aspects of Zionism, Noah insisted that Jews could succeed in agriculture and that the climate and soil of Palestine were suitable for large-scale colonization. Noah believed that the United States was the most logical country from which to launch this effort. The eighteenth chapter of Isaiah describes a "land, shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia." This land, according to Noah, was the United States.
The periodical “The Occident”, first published by Leeser in 1843, carried news of Noah's activities. It is very likely that Warder Cresson read reports of Noah’s addresses and activities.
By 1844, Cresson was ready to take another big step. In the same year that Noah made his series of addresses on the return of Jews to Palestine, Cresson decided to go to Washington and to apply for the position of the first American Consul to Jerusalem. On May 17, Cresson, who had volunteered to take this position for no pay, was officially notified of his appointment. It turned out to be one of the shortest assignments on record. On May 25, 1844, barely a week after Cresson received his commission, Samuel D. Ingham of New Hope, Pennsylvania, formerly Andrew Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury, wrote to former vice-president John Calhoun: "The papers have recently announced the appointment of Warder Cresson, Consul to Jerusalem. This man is the brother of Elliot Cresson who is much distinguished for his activity in the cause of colonization, but the Consul has been laboring under an aberration of mind for many years; his mania is of the religious species. He was born a Quaker, wanted to be a preacher... and has gone round the compass from one job to another, sometimes preaching about the church doors and in the streets; his passion is for religious controversy and no doubt he expects to convert Jews and Mohammedans in the East but, in truth, he is withal a very weak-minded man and his mind, what there is of it, quite out of order... His appointment is made a theme of ridicule by all who know him.”
As a result, on June 22, 1844, Calhoun wrote Cresson: "I am instructed by the President to inform you, that, having reconsidered the proposal to establish a Consulate at Jerusalem, he is of the opinion it is not called for by public service, and therefore declines to establish it at present." By this time, Cresson, unaware that his commission had been revoked, was well on his way to Jerusalem, carrying with him a dove and an American flag.
As to his own decision to go to Jerusalem, Cresson emphasized his conviction that only one's physical presence in the Holy Land could bring about the actualization of the prophecies. He writes, "If I could have honestly believed... that the fullest degree of the glory of the coming kingdom might have been possessed... without any connection with place, I might have still remained at home in my ceiled house, with a beloved and virtuous wife and lovely family. Great and precious were the many privileges that I enjoyed there, and I feel most sensibly the deprivation of them; but the light and conviction of God's precious promises, in reference to the return of the Jew and the setting up his everlasting kingdom at Mount Zion and Jerusalem, became so great... that I could no longer remain at home; therefore I have forsaken houses, brethren, sisters, mother, wife, children and lands for the kingdom of God's sake." He insisted that his only motive in applying for the post as Consul was to give of his time, labor, and money to Israel, which was “now despised”, but take out “which” would soon be a "Crown of Glory and a Royal Diadem in the hand of thy God."
Cresson wrote that, “When I reached Jerusalem in 1844, the missionaries of the Church of England and those of the American Presbyterian Church had quarreled and left Jerusalem.” He criticized bitterly the work of societies devoted to converting Jews. In one of his rare excursions into the field of satire, he wrote a short tract 'The Society Formed in England and America for Promoting Sawdust, Instead of good Old Cheese, amongst the Jews in Jerusalem.’ Equating Judaism with "Good Old Cheese” and Christianity with “Sawdust”, Cresson explained that when real Good Old Cheese became too costly and brought discomforts to its users, a Society was established with a mission to introduce Sawdust in place of Good Old Cheese. Since the "Good Old Cheese itself smelled too strong and tasted too oily and greasy and Sawdust looked in every respect very much like the grated article”, a decision was made to create societies in England, Scotland and America to promote sawdust among the "poor Jews," even though it was admitted that they were the possessors of the genuine Good Old Cheese.
Cresson wrote disparagingly of the high salaries paid to the missionaries who lived "in the very best houses, bought most splendid Arabian horses and dressed in the most luxurious and stylish manner." As for their practical work, he wrote that, "To further their imposing and enterprising object they built a church which has cost them more than $150,000; then a hospital and Dispensary, sent physicians from England, set up an institution of Industry and also a college and schools, all to entrap and instruct the poor, dirty, oily, greasy, starving Jews and to tempt and provide them with good livings, fine English clothing, upon the only one condition that they will give their names and use all their influence to support and promote the interest of their Society for introducing and establishing Sawdust instead of Good Old Cheese, amongst the poor Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine." According to Cresson, the missionaries failed to get a single Jew, who was born in Jerusalem, to apostatize.
Throughout his account of his four year stay Jerusalem, Cresson continued his attack on the missionaries, blaming them for exploiting the miseries of the local Jewish population in order to win converts.
Although the United States decided that no post was to be established at Jerusalem, Cresson continued to act as a representative of the United States. He quickly got involved with the affairs of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and his correspondence with Mordecai Noah shows that, as late as 1847, he was still issuing certificates of "protection"(documents carried by American seamen as proof of citizenship). On November 5, 1847, he wrote a rambling letter to Noah in which he connected the war between the United States and Mexico with the restoration of the descendants of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manassah to Mount Zion.
During the same year, Cresson began writing his most personal work, “The Key of David the True Messiah”, in which his gradual and irreversible attachment to Judaism was evident. The pages were filled with elaborate interpretations of stories from the Old Testament, especially those relating to King David and his progenitors. Jerusalem had stirred Cresson deeply. He found justification for the origins of Judaism everywhere. Archaeological diggings convinced him of the existence of Solomon's Temple and the walls of Herod's palace. By the same token, these discoveries made him doubt the authenticity of the New Testament accounts. He was certain that, "...Neither the walls of Jerusalem nor its streets were built at all during the appearance of Jesus but were destroyed seventy years after him by Titus and that the Holy Sepulcher was not the place of Christ's death."
Finally, after noting the contradictions in the Gospels and denying the divinity of Jesus, Cresson was ready for the most drastic step of his incredible journey. He writes, "I remained in Jerusalem in my former faith until the 28th day of March, 1848," he wrote, "when I became fully satisfied that I could never obtain Strength and Rest, but by doing as Ruth did, and saying to her Mother-in-Law, or Naomi 'Entreat me not to leave thee for whither thou goest I will go'... In short, upon the 28th day of March, 1848, I was circumcised, entered the Holy Covenant and became a Jew.” Cresson was then forty-nine years old.
By Cresson identifying the date of his conversion, we can resolve the mystery regarding the Moroccan convert in Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger’s response. The 28th of March 1848 - the day Warder Cresson became Michael Boaz Yisrael - corresponds to the 23rd of Adar Sheini in the Jewish year (5)608. In other words, the conversions occurred on the same day! Moreover, the response indicates that conversions in Jerusalem were pretty unusual, making it difficult to believe that there were two conversions on that specific day. Consequently, I believe that the non Jew in Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger’s response did not come from Morocco but rather from America. In Hebrew, the spelling of America can be easily mistaken for Morocco. Cresson indeed came to Jerusalem "for the sake of conversion”.
On May 7, 1848, Cresson began his return trip to Philadelphia, "being anxious of once more beholding the faces of those I loved most dearly above anything else on earth." He could not find a ship sailing directly from Jaffa or Beirut and had to wait for a ship at Smyrna, delaying his trip to "beloved family and home” by a month.
Cresson believed that he would be able to convince his family to share his newly found faith. Unfortunately, a domestic crisis was in the making. According to his account in “The Key of David”, Cresson, who had returned from Jerusalem anxious to reconcile himself with his family, found nothing but enmity at home. He claimed that the conversion brought him to a point where he was forced to choose between "the one, only God, or [his] wife”. Cresson, who had given his wife power of attorney before leaving for Jerusalem, found himself with practically no property. He remained at his home in downtown Philadelphia until December, 1848, trying to verify the financial arrangements made during his absence. However, Cresson found out that the accounting book had been made out to Elliot Cresson, his eldest brother. He was now convinced that his entire family had conspired to rob him. As a result, Cresson revoked his wife's power of attorney. The situation in the house was becoming intolerable. Cresson hired a wagon and took his belongings to the house of a Jewish friend, Isaac Asch. He then assigned one half of the $5,320 mortgage to his wife and family, in order, as he put it, "to convince them that a Jew could 'do justice and love mercy'."
By now, the battle lines were drawn. On May 15, 1849, Cresson's wife, Elizabeth, and other members of his immediate family lodged a charge of lunacy against Cresson, claiming that he wanted to rebuild the Temple on Mount Moriah and was incapable of handling his business affairs. It did not take long for a Sheriff's jury of six men to issue a verdict of insanity. This resulted in a legal dispute. Cresson's attorney, General Horatio Hubbell, succeeded in bringing an appeal on April 11, 1850, and preparations were made on both sides for a trial on the charge of lunacy in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On May 13, 1851, two years after the original complaint, the trial opened before Judge Edward King. Elizabeth Cresson listed a series of charges, intending to prove that Cresson was a lunatic, who was incapable of handling his own affairs. Newspapers noted that, with regard to the trial, "A large number of his friends testified that they had had dealings with him and always considered him of sane mind that his buildings were properly constructed and his farm well attended to.”
In the closing defense speech on May 16, Horatio Hubbell referred to Cresson as "an earnest inquirer after truth," and made the issue of religious freedom the dominant one. The question arose: Should Cresson be blamed if he became a convert to Judaism, "that old and venerable faith whose institutes were founded amid the solitudes of Sinai and which belongs to a people hoary with antiquity - whose history exhibits them tenaciously preserving the golden thread of their religion amid the shock and dissolution of empires”? Hubbell stressed the right of free Americans to worship as they pleased. "Thank God, we are here free indeed, follower of Christ and the child of Israel alike protected... The Turk might erect his mosque and the votary of Vishnu might dream securely of the mysteries of the sacred waters of his Ganges. Such are the blessings of our republican institutions." He quoted Jefferson, who had said that as long as one fulfills his obligations as a citizen, "It is immaterial whether a man worships one god or twenty.” Hubbell portrayed Cresson as "an agriculturist, a tiller of the ground the most primitive and the most honorable occupation that man can pursue." Cresson was a gentleman, Hubbell explained, whose "education and manners introduced him into the society of such enlightened and distinguished individuals as Sir Moses Montefiore.”
To contradict the testimony of the relatives, Hubbell cited the statements of seventy-three witnesses, thirty-eight of whom were Christians. Four doctors certified that in their opinion Cresson was sane. Rabbi Mordechai Noah and Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, a great scholar from Palestine, who had met Cresson in the Holy Land, both confirmed that they considered Cresson’s manner to be normal. In his final remarks, Hubbell returned to the theme of religious tolerance, this time appealing for the jurors' understanding and sympathy in regard to Cresson's conversion. It took the Jury a short while to return with a verdict, which vindicated Cresson of all charges.
Seeing "signs" of "divine preparation" everywhere, Cresson hastened to return to Palestine. In a short work entitled, “Signs of Messiah”, which was published in 1851, Cresson enumerated some of them: a proliferation of railroads, the use of the telegraph, the California gold strike, antislavery agitation, drought in Egypt and great power competition in the Near East. To Cresson, these "omens" were fulfilling the prophecies of the Scriptures. He was, more than ever before, convinced that the “Great Sabbath" was about to commence, that "restoration" was at hand, and that "some neutral power, as America alone is, must first begin the great work."
Cresson shared his vision and emphasized that "agriculture is to be Israel's vocation." He appealed for funds to purchase such modern equipment as air-pressure engines for the running of gristmills and machines that would not require water or fuel, which were both in short supply in Palestine. He was convinced that the Jews could become self-supporting there, eliminating the need for "messengers" who collect funds from the Jews of Europe and America.
To prove his plan could work, Cresson announced that he was starting a model farm in the Valley of Rephaim, outside Jerusalem, "To introduce an improved system of English and American Farming in Palestine." He hoped that a Jewish, agricultural Palestine would become "a great center to which all who rest may come and find rest to their persecuted souls."
Cresson’s model farm never developed, for lack of capital, but Cresson continued to pray for its success. In the mid-1850s, he married Rachel Moleano and became an honored member of Jerusalem’s Sephardic community. When he died in 1860, he was buried on the Mount of Olives, "with such honors as are paid only to a prominent rabbi."
The inspiring life of Cresson is not just a story of commitment and dedication for a higher cause. It is also a story that sheds light on the fantastic world of response.
While the world of the Yeshiva is the key for Jewish survival, at times, a piece of information from the outside world can not only assist in clarifying the literature studied on the inside, but also inspire the student with a wonderful account of commitment.
שו"ת בנין ציון סימן צא
ב"ה אלטאנא, יום ו' כ"ו אייר תר"ט לפ"ק. להרה"ג וכו' מ"ה אשר לעמיל נ"י הגאב"ד דק"ק גאלין וכעת משכן כבודו בירושלם עיה"ק תוב"ב.
כתב מעכ"ת נ"י וז"ל - ילמדנו רבינו בעובדא דאתא לידן פעה"ק ירושלם ת"ו יום ג' כ"ג לירח אדר שני שנת תר"ח העבר לפ"ק נימול א"י אחד שבא הנה ממדינת מאראקא לשם גירות בפנינו בד"צ דקהל אשכנזים הי"ו וקיבל עליו המצות כדין וכדתה"ק ובש"ק שלאחריו עדן /עדין/ לא היה נתרפא ממילתו ולא טבל עודנה הגידו לי לאמר מזריזתו במצות איך הוא נזהר בשביתת שבת הגם שהוא עודנה /עודנו/ בכלל חולה שאב"ס =שאין בו סכנה= אינו מניח לגוי להבעיר אש בביתו והשבתי להם לדעתי לא מבעי' שמותר לו לעשות מלאכה בשבת אלא אפילו מחויב ומוזהר על יום ולילה לא ישבותו וחייב לעשות מלאכה בשבת כ"ז שלא טבל לשם גירות וכה עשו השומעים למשמעתי והלכו אצל הגר והגידו לו בשמי כן בש"ק לאחר תפלת המנחה וכן עשה כי כתב איזה אותיות ויהי ביום המחרת כאשר נשמע הדבר בעה"ק ת"ו פה צווחו עלי חכמי ספרד וחכמי אשכנזים הי"ו על דבר חדש הלזו אשר לא נשמע מעולם אחרי שכבר קבל עליו כל המצות בשעת מילה וכבר נימול ועומד ומצפה בכל יום לטבול לכשיתרפא שיהי' מותר לו לחלל וכש"כ שיהי' עליו חיובא ומצוה לחלל ש"ק והמה זוכרים כמה גרים שנימולו פעה"ק ת"ו ולא נשמע כזאת ומנין לי לחדש דבר אשר לא שערום הראשונים והשבתי להם אולי מקום הניחו לי להתגדר בו. ואמינא טעמא דידי האמנם מהראוי היה להתייעץ בזה עם חכמי ורבני עיה"ק פה הי"ו טרם נעשה המעשה אמנם מחמת כי כבר הי' אחר תפלת המנחה לעת ערב ובין כך יצא ש"ק ובעיני הי' הדבר פשוט שאין כאן איסור כלל ומכש"כ דלית בי' דררא אי' דאורייתא ובדרבנן עבדינן עובדא כו' וכש"כ שלענ"ד אין כאן איסור לא דאורייתא לא דרבנן כ"א מצוה בחילולו ש"ק אחרי שמעכת"ה אמרתם מכח סברא אמנם לדעתי אינו כן אב"ע סברא אב"ע גמרא איבע"א סברא כיון דקיי"ל כחכמים וכר' יוחנן יבמות (דף מ"ו) דאינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמ"ש הרמב"ם פי"ד מה"ל איסורי ביאה ובטוש"ע יו"ד (סי' רס"ח) וכיון דקיי"ל כרשב"ל סנהדרין דף נ"ח ע"ב גוי ששבת ח"מ דכתיב יום ולילה לא ישבותו ולרבינא אפי' בשני בשבת וכ"פ הרמב"ם ז"ל בפ' עשירי מהל' מלכים דין ט' אלא דפשטא דהש"ס משמע מיתה בידי אדם דאזהרתן זו היא מיתתן ודעת הרמב"ם דוקא בז"מ ב"נ =בז' מצוות בני נח= ב"ד ממיתין עליהן כשידינו תקיפא אבל בגוי ששבת ב"ד מכין ועונשין אבל אין ממיתין שאינה בכלל שבע מצות ב"נ יעו"ש בכ"מ והרי כ"ז שלא טבל אינו גר ועדיין הוא ב"נ כאשר מבואר א"כ במאי נפקע ממנו מצות יום ולילה ל"י =לא ישבותו= שנצטוה עליו והאיך יוכל לפטור א"ע ממצוה שנצטוה בו במה שיהי' גר ויהי' לו דין ישראל לאחר שיטבול הלא לדעת הרמב"ם ז"ל שם בהלכה י"ג מפרכסת מותר לישראל ואסור לב"נ משום אמ"ה דבב"נ במיתה תלייא רחמנא ולא בשחיטה (דלא כהרשב"א יעו"ש בכ"מ) היעלה על הדעת שיהי' מותר לו להקל על עצמו לאכול מפרכסת קודם הטבילה כיון דעדיין ב"נ הוא ולא גר וא"כ כן מה לי קולא דמפרכסת או קולא זו להתירו לעבור על מה שנצטוה יום ולילה ל"י וא"כ אדרבא לרומעכ"ת שרוצים להקל לעבור על מה שנצטוה להביא ראי' ועוד האריך מעכ"ת נ"י בהראותו רב חריפותו ובקיאתו לחזק דבריו האלה.
תשובה - פסק מעכ"ת נ"י שגר שמל ולא טבל אסור לשמור שבת מפני שעדיין אינו גר ולא יצא מכלל בן נח אשר לא חשו לו חכמי ירושלם נ"י - חקרתי בשאר מקומות שמקבלים גרים ונאמר לי שגם שם מעולם לא הקפידו על זה שלא ישמור הגר שבת קודם הטבילה. ונתתי אל לבי למצוא טעם לזה אחרי שלכאורה פסק מעכ"ת נ"י מוסד על אדני הדין ואמת אבל א"ע ראיתי שהדין עם המנהג דכבר מצד הסברא יהי' מתנגד אל השכל אחרי שמילת הגר נקרא ברית שמברכים עלי' כורת הברית כדאמרינן שבת (דף קל"ז) וגם שבת נקרא ברית כדאמרינן שם (דף קל"ב) איך נאמר אחר שנכנס לברית האחת יהי' מוכרח להפר ברית האחרת שכרת הקב"ה עם ישראל מקיימי מצותיו ולכן נלענ"ד דאף שעדיין לא נכנס לכלל ישראל גמור עד שטבל מכ"מ משעה שנכנס לברית מילה כבר נבדל מכלל ב"נ וכעין זה כתבו התוספ' בכריתות (דף ט') אמה דאמרינן שם דאבותינו נכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים ויליף מילה ממה דכתיב כי מולים היו כל העם היוצאים וכתבו התוספ' ואע"פ שאותן שהיו נמולים בימי אברהם לא מלו אותם ביציאת מצרים מכ"מ מעיקרא כשמלו עצמן מלו ליכנס בברית המקום וליבדל משאר אומות וגם כי עתה טבלו עכ"ל הרי בפי' שכבר קודם טבילה ע"י מילה לבד נכנסו לברית ועי"ז נבדלו משאר האומות וא"כ גם זר זה שמל ולא טבל דמי לזה שנכנס לברית ועי"ז נבדל משאר האומות וע"כ אין עליו עוד מצות יום ולילה ל"י של ב"נ ולכן לא בלבד שמותר לגר כזה לקיים שבת אלא אפשר לצדד ג"כ שחובה עליו לקיים ע"פ מה שכתבתי בספרי ע"ל ביבמות (דף מ"ו) בתוספ' ד"ה כי פליגי לתרץ קושית התוספ' שם שהקשו לר"ע ל"ל תושב ושכיר למעט גר שמל ולא טבל מפסח תיפוק לי' דאינו גר עד שימול ויטבול ותירצתי דשפיר צריך קרא כיון דפסח אכלו במצרים לאחר שמלו וטבילה לא הי' עד מ"ת א"כ ה"א דגם לדורות יאכל גר שמל ולא טבל מפסח לכן צריך קרא למעט. והנה בשבת (דף פ"ז) אמרינן דעל שבת נצטוו ישראל במרה וכן מוכח מהכתובים שכבר קיימו ישראל שבת קודם שבאו להר סיני שהרי הספור של המן שעליו נאמר עד אנה מאנתם הי' קודם סיני כמבואר (שם /שבת פ"ז/) וכיון דטבילה לא הי' עד סיני ע"כ קיימו ישראל שבת כשמלו ולא טבלו אף שב"נ מוזהר על יום ולילה ל"י (וכבר העיר על זה בס' פ"ד פ' בשלח ע"ש) וע"כ צ"ל או שגזיה"כ הי' שלענין שבת יצאו מכלל ב"נ ונילף משם כמו דהוי גמרינן גם לענין פסח אי ליכא מיעוט או כאשר כתבנו שע"י שנכנסו לברית מילה נכנסו ג"כ לברית שבת ועכ"פ איכא למילף מישראל קודם מ"ת שגר שמל ולא טבל מותר לקיים שבת או אם נאמר כאופן השני ששתי הבריתות כאחת נחשבו חייב לקיים שבת. ולכן לענ"ד יפה נהגו שלא לכוף לגר שמל ול"ט לעשות מלאכה בשבת. ואם צדקתי במה שכתבתי במקום אחר שציווי שביתת ישראל ואזהרת שביתת ב"נ אינם מענין א' שבזה תלוי בל"ט מלאכות ובזה תלוי במלאכת טורח ויגיעה מצאנו אפילו למי שלבו נוקפו לומר שגר שמל ול"ט מותר לקיים שבת פשר דבר על ידי שיעשה מלאכת יגיעה שאינה מל"ט מלאכות כגון שישא משא ברשות היחיד כנלענ"ד הקטן יעקב.
ב"ה אלטאנא, יום ו' כ"ו אייר תר"ט לפ"ק. להרה"ג וכו' מ"ה אשר לעמיל נ"י הגאב"ד דק"ק גאלין וכעת משכן כבודו בירושלם עיה"ק תוב"ב.
כתב מעכ"ת נ"י וז"ל - ילמדנו רבינו בעובדא דאתא לידן פעה"ק ירושלם ת"ו יום ג' כ"ג לירח אדר שני שנת תר"ח העבר לפ"ק נימול א"י אחד שבא הנה ממדינת מאראקא לשם גירות בפנינו בד"צ דקהל אשכנזים הי"ו וקיבל עליו המצות כדין וכדתה"ק ובש"ק שלאחריו עדן /עדין/ לא היה נתרפא ממילתו ולא טבל עודנה הגידו לי לאמר מזריזתו במצות איך הוא נזהר בשביתת שבת הגם שהוא עודנה /עודנו/ בכלל חולה שאב"ס =שאין בו סכנה= אינו מניח לגוי להבעיר אש בביתו והשבתי להם לדעתי לא מבעי' שמותר לו לעשות מלאכה בשבת אלא אפילו מחויב ומוזהר על יום ולילה לא ישבותו וחייב לעשות מלאכה בשבת כ"ז שלא טבל לשם גירות וכה עשו השומעים למשמעתי והלכו אצל הגר והגידו לו בשמי כן בש"ק לאחר תפלת המנחה וכן עשה כי כתב איזה אותיות ויהי ביום המחרת כאשר נשמע הדבר בעה"ק ת"ו פה צווחו עלי חכמי ספרד וחכמי אשכנזים הי"ו על דבר חדש הלזו אשר לא נשמע מעולם אחרי שכבר קבל עליו כל המצות בשעת מילה וכבר נימול ועומד ומצפה בכל יום לטבול לכשיתרפא שיהי' מותר לו לחלל וכש"כ שיהי' עליו חיובא ומצוה לחלל ש"ק והמה זוכרים כמה גרים שנימולו פעה"ק ת"ו ולא נשמע כזאת ומנין לי לחדש דבר אשר לא שערום הראשונים והשבתי להם אולי מקום הניחו לי להתגדר בו. ואמינא טעמא דידי האמנם מהראוי היה להתייעץ בזה עם חכמי ורבני עיה"ק פה הי"ו טרם נעשה המעשה אמנם מחמת כי כבר הי' אחר תפלת המנחה לעת ערב ובין כך יצא ש"ק ובעיני הי' הדבר פשוט שאין כאן איסור כלל ומכש"כ דלית בי' דררא אי' דאורייתא ובדרבנן עבדינן עובדא כו' וכש"כ שלענ"ד אין כאן איסור לא דאורייתא לא דרבנן כ"א מצוה בחילולו ש"ק אחרי שמעכת"ה אמרתם מכח סברא אמנם לדעתי אינו כן אב"ע סברא אב"ע גמרא איבע"א סברא כיון דקיי"ל כחכמים וכר' יוחנן יבמות (דף מ"ו) דאינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמ"ש הרמב"ם פי"ד מה"ל איסורי ביאה ובטוש"ע יו"ד (סי' רס"ח) וכיון דקיי"ל כרשב"ל סנהדרין דף נ"ח ע"ב גוי ששבת ח"מ דכתיב יום ולילה לא ישבותו ולרבינא אפי' בשני בשבת וכ"פ הרמב"ם ז"ל בפ' עשירי מהל' מלכים דין ט' אלא דפשטא דהש"ס משמע מיתה בידי אדם דאזהרתן זו היא מיתתן ודעת הרמב"ם דוקא בז"מ ב"נ =בז' מצוות בני נח= ב"ד ממיתין עליהן כשידינו תקיפא אבל בגוי ששבת ב"ד מכין ועונשין אבל אין ממיתין שאינה בכלל שבע מצות ב"נ יעו"ש בכ"מ והרי כ"ז שלא טבל אינו גר ועדיין הוא ב"נ כאשר מבואר א"כ במאי נפקע ממנו מצות יום ולילה ל"י =לא ישבותו= שנצטוה עליו והאיך יוכל לפטור א"ע ממצוה שנצטוה בו במה שיהי' גר ויהי' לו דין ישראל לאחר שיטבול הלא לדעת הרמב"ם ז"ל שם בהלכה י"ג מפרכסת מותר לישראל ואסור לב"נ משום אמ"ה דבב"נ במיתה תלייא רחמנא ולא בשחיטה (דלא כהרשב"א יעו"ש בכ"מ) היעלה על הדעת שיהי' מותר לו להקל על עצמו לאכול מפרכסת קודם הטבילה כיון דעדיין ב"נ הוא ולא גר וא"כ כן מה לי קולא דמפרכסת או קולא זו להתירו לעבור על מה שנצטוה יום ולילה ל"י וא"כ אדרבא לרומעכ"ת שרוצים להקל לעבור על מה שנצטוה להביא ראי' ועוד האריך מעכ"ת נ"י בהראותו רב חריפותו ובקיאתו לחזק דבריו האלה.
תשובה - פסק מעכ"ת נ"י שגר שמל ולא טבל אסור לשמור שבת מפני שעדיין אינו גר ולא יצא מכלל בן נח אשר לא חשו לו חכמי ירושלם נ"י - חקרתי בשאר מקומות שמקבלים גרים ונאמר לי שגם שם מעולם לא הקפידו על זה שלא ישמור הגר שבת קודם הטבילה. ונתתי אל לבי למצוא טעם לזה אחרי שלכאורה פסק מעכ"ת נ"י מוסד על אדני הדין ואמת אבל א"ע ראיתי שהדין עם המנהג דכבר מצד הסברא יהי' מתנגד אל השכל אחרי שמילת הגר נקרא ברית שמברכים עלי' כורת הברית כדאמרינן שבת (דף קל"ז) וגם שבת נקרא ברית כדאמרינן שם (דף קל"ב) איך נאמר אחר שנכנס לברית האחת יהי' מוכרח להפר ברית האחרת שכרת הקב"ה עם ישראל מקיימי מצותיו ולכן נלענ"ד דאף שעדיין לא נכנס לכלל ישראל גמור עד שטבל מכ"מ משעה שנכנס לברית מילה כבר נבדל מכלל ב"נ וכעין זה כתבו התוספ' בכריתות (דף ט') אמה דאמרינן שם דאבותינו נכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים ויליף מילה ממה דכתיב כי מולים היו כל העם היוצאים וכתבו התוספ' ואע"פ שאותן שהיו נמולים בימי אברהם לא מלו אותם ביציאת מצרים מכ"מ מעיקרא כשמלו עצמן מלו ליכנס בברית המקום וליבדל משאר אומות וגם כי עתה טבלו עכ"ל הרי בפי' שכבר קודם טבילה ע"י מילה לבד נכנסו לברית ועי"ז נבדלו משאר האומות וא"כ גם זר זה שמל ולא טבל דמי לזה שנכנס לברית ועי"ז נבדל משאר האומות וע"כ אין עליו עוד מצות יום ולילה ל"י של ב"נ ולכן לא בלבד שמותר לגר כזה לקיים שבת אלא אפשר לצדד ג"כ שחובה עליו לקיים ע"פ מה שכתבתי בספרי ע"ל ביבמות (דף מ"ו) בתוספ' ד"ה כי פליגי לתרץ קושית התוספ' שם שהקשו לר"ע ל"ל תושב ושכיר למעט גר שמל ולא טבל מפסח תיפוק לי' דאינו גר עד שימול ויטבול ותירצתי דשפיר צריך קרא כיון דפסח אכלו במצרים לאחר שמלו וטבילה לא הי' עד מ"ת א"כ ה"א דגם לדורות יאכל גר שמל ולא טבל מפסח לכן צריך קרא למעט. והנה בשבת (דף פ"ז) אמרינן דעל שבת נצטוו ישראל במרה וכן מוכח מהכתובים שכבר קיימו ישראל שבת קודם שבאו להר סיני שהרי הספור של המן שעליו נאמר עד אנה מאנתם הי' קודם סיני כמבואר (שם /שבת פ"ז/) וכיון דטבילה לא הי' עד סיני ע"כ קיימו ישראל שבת כשמלו ולא טבלו אף שב"נ מוזהר על יום ולילה ל"י (וכבר העיר על זה בס' פ"ד פ' בשלח ע"ש) וע"כ צ"ל או שגזיה"כ הי' שלענין שבת יצאו מכלל ב"נ ונילף משם כמו דהוי גמרינן גם לענין פסח אי ליכא מיעוט או כאשר כתבנו שע"י שנכנסו לברית מילה נכנסו ג"כ לברית שבת ועכ"פ איכא למילף מישראל קודם מ"ת שגר שמל ולא טבל מותר לקיים שבת או אם נאמר כאופן השני ששתי הבריתות כאחת נחשבו חייב לקיים שבת. ולכן לענ"ד יפה נהגו שלא לכוף לגר שמל ול"ט לעשות מלאכה בשבת. ואם צדקתי במה שכתבתי במקום אחר שציווי שביתת ישראל ואזהרת שביתת ב"נ אינם מענין א' שבזה תלוי בל"ט מלאכות ובזה תלוי במלאכת טורח ויגיעה מצאנו אפילו למי שלבו נוקפו לומר שגר שמל ול"ט מותר לקיים שבת פשר דבר על ידי שיעשה מלאכת יגיעה שאינה מל"ט מלאכות כגון שישא משא ברשות היחיד כנלענ"ד הקטן יעקב.
