Yesterday we printed two letters--one from a rabbi, the other from a layman--about the question of small versus large synagogues. Both of them, from different standpoints, defend the little synagogue against the big one and prove that the big synagogue is not at all advantageous, while the little synagogue has many virtues.

It seems to us that both correspondents regard the question of large or small synagogues from an entirely wrong point of view because they have forgotten one thing: what is better for the Jews of Chicago? That is the only standpoint from which the question should be considered. If the big synagogues did not accomplish as much as they could and should have accomplished, the fault lies with the supporters, trustees and other representatives [of the synagogues]. If the representative of a big institution is a little man or an incompetent 2man, then the big institution will also become a little one--which means that it will not accomplish much. The fact that many big synagogues did not accomplish as much as they should have accomplished proves only that either the members or the representatives of the big synagogues did not comprehend the enormity of the task facing them. In any case, the big synagogues make possible the accomplishment of big things, whereas the little synagogue does not offer this possibility, and that is what concerns us. We say that the big synagogues, which have larger financial means, can accomplish a great deal.

We do not deny that many of the rabbis of the little synagogues are great scholars and noble, honest Jews, but the little synagogues cannot pay them wages that will enable them to live respectably. This causes them to search for outside sources of income, some of which are not appropriate. Many rabbis of the little synagogues are circumcisers, some make money by declaring certain products Kosher, some find other ways of earning a livelihood--all such actions do not add prestige to the orthodox Jews. This has a demoralizing effect upon our youth and to keep our youth for Judaism is our prime purpose in life. Even the older generation 3cannot become very enthusiastic when it sees a representative of the Torah struggling to make a living; this is not at all becoming to a rabbi.

The late Rabbi Album (may his memory be blessed) was, it is true, a rabbi of a small synagogue. But how did he live? Was his life what it should have been? The mere fact that a man like Rabbi Album could not earn a livelihood proves that a small synagogue cannot perform work of an all-around character. The little synagogue cannot give an honorable sustenance to a rabbi, it cannot give an honorable sustenance to a cantor (sometimes it cannot afford to have a cantor at all), and it cannot do anything for Jewish education. But if five little synagogues should merge into one big one, then this one big synagogue could accomplish a great deal. We do not say that it will accomplish a great deal but that it can. It will all depend upon the sense of responsibility of its representatives, upon the initiative and energy of its presidents, and so on.

We do not say that the little synagogue has no justification for its existence. In Russia, too, there were little synagogues, but they never tried to supplant the big synagogue. In the old country there was a tailors' synagogue, a shoemakers' synagogue, and so on. They were "professional synagogues" that had a 4certain social and psychological function, but they did not have the tasks of the big synagogues, they did not try to rival the big synagogues and they did not want to exist independently of the big synagogue.

This is the general side of the problem. Besides that, we must consider the local and economic side of the problem. We came to Chicago to stay here. We are not guests here but residents. We are no longer Luknik, Eishishok or Vilna Jews, but Chicago Jews. That means that we no longer have any responsibility for the state of Judaism in the small towns from which we came, but we are responsible for Judaism in Chicago and we should do everything to strengthen Judaism in Chicago. One does not have to be a philosopher to understand that we cannot strengthen Judaism in Chicago by division but by unity, not by little synagogues but by large Chicago-Jewish institutions. An Eishishok synagogue has only Eishishok interests in Chicago. It worries more about the Eishishok fellow-countrymen than about Chicago Jews. So does every little synagogue that bears the name of a small town in Lithuania and was founded by a group of fellow-countrymen.

To strengthen Judaism in Chicago is our one and only task today, and we cannot fulfill that task if we divide ourselves into fellow-countrymen groups. By that method, Chicago will never become a Jewish community but will remain forever divided and split up into small fellow-countrymen groups; we will never become Chicago Jews but will remain Eishishok and Luknik Jews.

We ask the men who favor the little synagogues founded by fellow-countrymen groups; shall we or shall we not be Chicago Jews with duties towards the Jewish community in Chicago? If we are not to be Chicago Jews, let us dissolve the Federated, let us dissolve our relief committee, let us dissolve the Chicago Zionist Federation and all other communal organizations, and let us split them up into small-town organizations, the same as the synagogues.

We must also consider the economic phase of the small-town synagogues. It is easy to get along with, it is easy to work with and it is easy to communicate with twenty or thirty big synagogues, but it is not easy to communicate with one hundred and thirty synagogues. When the relief committee or the Keren Hayisod has to communicate with a hundred and thirty-five synagogues instead of twenty or 6thirty synagogues, it finds it a rather expensive proposition and Jewish money and Jewish energy are being wasted. Jewish work in Chicago cannot be controlled; Jewish work cannot be systematized as long as every small-town [group] has its own little synagogue.

That is why the question--Chicago or Shnipishok--is of such paramount importance. What do you think, Mr. reader?