Volume 16, Number 2 - Cantors Assembly

16
decisions, was not intended by any means to
deny to all other professional servants of the
congregation “initiative andliberty of action.” I
am merely stating what seems to me to be a
palpable truth, namely, that every institution
must, in the final analysis, be directed by some
one leader. I am reluctant to give to any committee
of laymen the right to determine what
goes on in the synagogue, and since decisions
must be made by a spiritual leader, it seems to
me that the rabbi is the logical person for that
responsibility.
Mr. Ginsburg’s paraphrase of The Reconstructionist
editorial is very clever indeed, but it
does not affect the validity of my viewpoint. As
one of the editors of The Reconstructionist
Dear Cantor Lubin,
naturally concur in the sentiments expressed in
the original statement, but I reiterate that within
the sanctuary itself, the rabbi must be responsible
for the conduct of the service, and the laymen,
while they should be encouraged to
express their viewpoints on all matters and help
in the determination of policy, must eventually
recognize the leadership of the rabbi. This does
not mean that the rabbi has a right to act in a
dictatorial or arbitrary way. No rabbi with any
sense would impose a personal decision upon
the congregation which he knows the congregation
is not prepared to accept. Nevertheless, if
he is to be the leader, he must lead.
IRA EISENSTEIN
Sept 23,1986
Elul 19, 5746
I have your letter of Sept. 19 and I hasten to
reply. I am gratified that you wish to use my
article for the Journal of Synagogue Music.
I hope the cantors will understand that when
I wrote as I did, most Cantors were expected
to be only soloists. The idea of having a musical
personality in charge of the entire musical
life of the congregation was quite new.
I would appreciate receiving
issue containing the piece.
With best wishes for a shanah tovah, I am,
Sincerely,
a copy of the
(Signed)
Ira Eisenstein