Editing Reform Judaism (section)

===Consolidation in German lands===
[[File:YoungGeiger.png|upright=0.9|thumb|right|Rabbi [[Abraham Geiger]], circa 1840.]]
[[File:SamuelHoldheim.jpg|upright=0.8|thumb|right|Rabbi [[Samuel Holdheim]], circa 1850.]]
In the 1820s and 1830s, philosophers like [[Solomon Steinheim]] imported [[German idealism]] into the Jewish religious discourse, attempting to draw from the means it employed to reconcile Christian faith and modern sensibilities. But it was the new scholarly, critical Science of Judaism (''[[Wissenschaft des Judentums]]'') that became the focus of controversy. Its proponents vacillated whether and to what degree it should be applied against the contemporary plight. Opinions ranged from the strictly Orthodox [[Azriel Hildesheimer]], who subjugated research to the predetermined sanctity of the texts and refused to allow it practical implication over received methods; via the Positive-Historical [[Zecharias Frankel]], who did not deny ''Wissenschaft'' a role, but only in deference to tradition, and opposed analysis of the [[Pentateuch]]; and up to [[Abraham Geiger]], who rejected any limitations on objective research or its application. He is considered the founding father of Reform Judaism.<ref>Michael A. Meyer, ''Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism'', Wayne State University Press, 1995. pp. 89–99.</ref>

Geiger wrote that at seventeen already, he discerned that the late ''[[Tannaim]]'' and the ''[[Amoraim]]'' imposed a subjective interpretation on the [[Oral Torah]], attempting to diffuse its revolutionary potential by [[Midrash halakha|linking it to the biblical text]]. Believing that Judaism became stale and had to be radically transformed if it were to survive modernity, he found little use in the legal procedures of ''halakha'', arguing that hardline rabbis often demonstrated they will not accept major innovations anyway. His venture into [[higher criticism]] led him to regard the Pentateuch as reflecting power struggles between the [[Pharisees]] on one hand, and the [[Saducees]] who had their own pre-[[Mishna]]ic ''halakha''. Having concluded the belief in an unbroken tradition back to Sinai or a divinely dictated Torah could not be maintained, he began to articulate a theology of progressive revelation, presenting the Pharisees as reformers who revolutionized the Saducee-dominated religion. His other model were the Prophets, whose morals and ethics were to him the only true, permanent core of Judaism. He was not alone: [[Solomon Formstecher]] argued that Revelation was God's influence on human psyche, rather than encapsulated in law; [[Aaron Bernstein]] was apparently the first to deny inherent sanctity to any text when he wrote in 1844 that, "The Pentateuch is not a ''chronicle'' of God's revelation, it is a ''testimony'' to the inspiration His consciousness had on our forebears." Many others shared similar convictions.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 125–127.</ref>

In 1837, Geiger hosted a conference of like-minded young rabbis in [[Wiesbaden]]. He told the assembled that the "[[Talmud]] must go". In 1841, the Hamburg Temple issued a second edition of its prayerbook, the first Reform liturgy since its predecessor of 1818. Orthodox response was weak and quickly defeated. Most rabbinic posts in Germany were now manned by university graduates susceptible to rationalistic ideas, which also permeated liberal Protestantism led by such figures as [[Leberecht Uhlich]]. They formed the backbone of the nascent Reform rabbinate. Geiger intervened in the Second [[Hamburg Temple controversy]] not just to defend the prayerbook against the Orthodox, but also to denounce it, stating the time of mainly aesthetic and unsystematic reforms has passed. In 1842, the power of progressive forces was revealed again: when Geiger's superior Rabbi Solomon Tiktin attempted to dismiss him from the post of preacher in [[Breslau]], 15 of 17 rabbis consulted by the board stated his unorthodox views were congruous with his post. He himself differentiated between his principled stance and quotidian conduct. Believing it could be implemented only carefully, he was moderate in practice and remained personally observant.

Second only to Geiger, Rabbi [[Samuel Holdheim]] distinguished himself as a radical proponent of change. While the former stressed continuity with the past and described Judaism as an entity that gradually adopted and discarded elements along time, Holdheim accorded present conditions the highest status, sharply dividing the universalist core from all other aspects that could be unremittingly disposed of. Declaring that old laws lost their hold on Jews as it were and the rabbi could only act as a guide for voluntary observance, his principle was that the concept of "[[Dina d'malkhuta dina|the Law of the Land is the Law]]" was total. He declared mixed marriage permissible – almost the only Reform rabbi to do so in history; his contemporaries and later generations opposed this – for the Talmudic ban on conducting them on Sabbath, unlike offering sacrifice and other acts, was to him sufficient demonstration that they belonged not to the category of sanctified obligations (''issurim'') but to the civil ones (''memonot''), where the Law of the Land applied. Another measure he offered, rejected almost unanimously by his colleagues in 1846, was the institution of a "Second Sabbath" on Sunday, modeled on [[Second Passover]], as most people desecrated the day of rest.<ref>[[David Ellenson]], ''Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy'', University of Alabama Press, 1990. p. 65.</ref>

The pressures of the late [[Vormärz]] era were intensifying. In 1842, a group of radical laymen determined to achieve full acceptance into society was founded in Frankfurt, the "Friends of Reform". They abolished circumcision and declared that the Talmud was no longer binding. In response to pleas from Frankfurt, virtually all rabbis in Germany, even Holdheim, declared circumcision obligatory. Similar groups sprang in Breslau and Berlin. These developments, and the need to bring uniformity to practical reforms implemented piecemeal in the various communities, motivated Geiger and his like-minded supporters into action. Between 1844 and 1846, they convened three rabbinical assemblies, in [[Braunschweig]], [[Frankfurt am Main]] and [[Breslau]] respectively. Those were intended to implement the proposals of [[Aaron Chorin]] and others for a new ''[[Sanhedrin]]'', made already in 1826, that could assess and eliminate various ancient decrees and prohibitions. A total of forty-two people attended the three meetings, including moderates and conservatives, all quite young, usually in their thirties.<ref name="Low">Steven M. Lowenstein, "The 1840s and the Creation of the German-Jewish Religious Reform Movement", in: Werner E. Mosse ed., ''Revolution and Evolution, 1848 in German-Jewish History'', Mohr Siebeck, 1981. pp. 258–266.</ref>

The conferences made few concrete far-reaching steps, albeit they generally stated that the old mechanisms of religious interpretation were obsolete. The first, held on 12–19 June 1844, abolished ''[[Kol Nidrei]]'' and the humiliating [[Jewish oath]], still administered by rabbis, and established a committee to determine "to which degree the Messianic ideal should be mentioned in prayer". Repeating the response of the 1806 Paris [[Grand Sanhedrin]] to [[Napoleon]], it declared intermarriage permissible as long as children could be raised Jewish; this measure effectively banned such unions without offending Christians, as no state in Germany allowed mixed-faith couples to have non-Christians education for offspring. It enraged critics anyhow. A small group of traditionalists also attended, losing all votes. On the opposite wing were sympathizers of Holdheim, who declared on 17 June that "science already demonstrated that the Talmud has no authority either from the dogmatic or practical perspective... The men of the [[Great Assembly]] had jurisdiction only for their time. We possess the same power, when we express the spirit of ours." The majority was led by Geiger and [[Ludwig Philippson]] and was keen on moderation and historical continuity.

The harsh response from the strictly Orthodox came as no surprise. [[Moshe Schick]] declared "they have blasphemed against the Divinity of the Law, they are no Israelites and equal to Gentiles". Yet they also managed to antagonize more moderate progressives. Both [[S. L. Rapoport]] and [[Zecharias Frankel]] strongly condemned Braunschweig. Another discontented party were [[Christian missionaries]], who feared Reform on two accounts: it could stem the massive tide of conversions, and loosen Jewish piety in favor of liberal, semi-secularized religion that they opposed among Christians as well, reducing the possibility they would ever accept new dogma fully.<ref>Meyer, ''Judaism Within Modernity'', p. 135.</ref>

Frankel was convinced to attend the next conference, held in Frankfurt on 15–28 July 1845, after many pleas. But he walked out after it passed a resolution that there were subjective, but no objective, arguments for retaining Hebrew in the liturgy. While this was quite a trivial statement, well grounded in canonical sources, Frankel regarded it as a deliberate breach with tradition and irreverence toward the collective Jewish sentiment. The 1840s, commented Meyer, saw the crystallization of Reform, narrowing from ''reformers (in the generic sense)'' who wished to modernize Judaism to some degree or other (including both Frankel and the Neo-Orthodox [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]]) ''a broad stream that embraced all opponents of the premodern status quo... to a more clearly marked current which rejected not only the religious mentality of the ghetto, but also the modernist Orthodoxy which altered form but not substance''.<ref>Meyer, ''Response'', p. ix, 180.</ref> After his withdrawal, the conference adopted another key doctrine that Frankel opposed, and officially enshrined the idea of a future Messianic era rather than a personal redeemer. Rabbi David Einhorn elucidated a further notion, that of the Mission to bring ethical monotheism to all people, commenting that, "Exile was once perceived as a disaster, but it was progress. Israel approached its true destiny, with sanctity replacing blood sacrifice. It was to spread the Word of the Lord to the four corners of the earth."

The last meeting, convened in Breslau (13–24 July 1846), was the most innocuous. The Sabbath, widely desecrated by the majority of German Jews, was discussed. Participants argued whether leniencies for civil servants should be enacted but could not agree and released a general statement about its sanctity. Holdheim shocked the assembled when he proposed his "Second Sabbath" scheme, astonishing even the radical wing, and his motion was rejected offhand. They did vote to eliminate the [[Yom tov sheni shel galuyot|Second Day of Festivals]], noting it was both an irrelevant rabbinic ordinance and scarcely observed anyway.

While eliciting protest from the Orthodox, Frankfurt and Breslau also incensed the radical laity, which regarded them as too acquiescent. In March 1845, a small group formed a semi-independent congregation in Berlin, the Reformgemeinde. They invited Holdheim to serve as their rabbi, though he was often at odds with the board led by Sigismund Stern. They instituted a drastically abridged prayerbook in German and allowed the abolition of most ritual aspects.

Practice and liturgy were modified in numerous German congregations. Until the conferences, the only Reform prayerbooks ever printed in Europe were the two Hamburg editions. In the 1850s and 1860s, dozens of new prayerbooks which omitted or rephrased the cardinal theological segments of temple sacrifice, ingathering of exiles, Messiah, resurrection and angels – rather than merely abbreviating the service; excising non-essential parts, especially [[piyyutim]], was common among moderate Orthodox and conservatives too<ref>For example: Todd M. Endelman, ''The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000''. University of California Press, 2002. p. 167; [[David Ellenson]], ''[https://www.academia.edu/37665755 The Mannheimer Prayerbooks and Modern Central European Communal Liturgies: A Representative Comparison of Mid-Nineteenth Century Works]''.</ref> – were authored in Germany for mass usage, demonstrating the prevalence of the new religious ideology. And yet, Geiger and most of the conferences' participants were far more moderate than Holdheim. While he administered in a homogeneous group, they had to serve in unified communities, in which traditionalists held separate services but still had to be respected. Changes were decidedly restrained. Liturgists were often careful when introducing their changes into the Hebrew text of prayers, less than with the German translation, and some level of traditional observance was maintained in public. Except Berlin, where the term "Reform" was first used as an adjective, the rest referred to themselves as "Liberal".

Two further rabbinical conferences much later, in 1869 and 1871 at [[Leipzig]] and [[Augsburg]] respectively, were marked with a cautious tone. Their only outcome was the bypassing of the [[Chalitza|Loosening of the Shoe]] ceremony via a prenuptial agreement and the establishment of the [[Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums]], though officially non-denominational, as a rabbinical seminary. While common, noted Michael Meyer, the designation "Liberal Jew" was more associated with political persuasion than religious conviction. The general Jewish public in Germany demonstrated little interest, especially after the [[Kulturkampf|1876 law]] under which communal affiliation and paying parish taxes were no longer mandatory.<ref name="LJG">Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 185–188, 210; Michael Meyer, ''Deutsch-jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit: Band 3''', C.H. Beck, 1997. pp. 100–110.</ref>

Outside Germany, Reform had little to no influence in the rest of the continent. Radical lay societies sprang in Hungary during the [[1848 revolution in Hungary|1848 Revolution]] but soon dispersed. Only in Germany, commented Steven M. Lowenstein, did the extinction of old Jewish community life led to the creation of a new, positive religious ideology that advocated principled change.<ref>Lowenstein, ''The 1840s'', p. 256.</ref> In Western and Central Europe, personal observance disappeared, but the public was not interested in bridging the gap between themselves and the official faith. Secular education for clergy became mandated by mid-century, and ''[[yeshiva]]s'' all closed due to lack of applicants, replaced by modern seminaries; the new academically trained rabbinate, whether affirming basically traditional doctrines or liberal and influenced by ''Wissenschaft'', was scarcely prone to anything beyond aesthetic modifications and de facto tolerance of the laity's apathy. Further to the east, among the unemancipated and unacculturated Jewish masses in Poland, Romania and Russia, the stimulants that gave rise either to Reform or modernist Orthodoxy were scarce.<ref name="Low"/><ref>Meyer, ''Response'', pp. 154–160, 168–170, 195–200.</ref> The few rich and westernized Jews in cities like [[Brodsky Synagogue Odessa|Odessa]] or [[Great Synagogue, Warsaw|Warsaw]] constructed modern synagogues where mild aesthetic reforms, like vernacular sermons or holding the [[Chuppah|wedding canopy]] indoors, rather than under the sky, were introduced. Regarded as boldly innovative in their environs, these were long since considered trivial even by the most Orthodox in Germany, [[Bohemia]] or [[Moravia]]. In the east, the belated breakdown of old mores led not to the remodification of religion, but to the formulation of [[Jewish secularism|secular conceptions of Jewishness]], especially [[Auto-Emancipation|nationalistic ones]].<ref>Meyer, ''Judaism Within Modernity'', pp. 278–279; ''Response'', p. 200.</ref>

In 1840, several British Jews formed the [[West London Synagogue of British Jews]], headed by Reverend [[David Woolf Marks]]. While the title "Reform" was occasionally applied to them, their approach was described as "neo-[[Karaite Judaism|Karaite]]" and was utterly opposite to continental developments. Only a century later did they and other synagogues embrace mainland ideas and established the British [[Movement for Reform Judaism]].<ref name="Lang"/>