Editing Orthodox Judaism (section)

===''Wissenschaft des Judentums''===
[[File:David-zvi-hofmann.png|thumb|[[David Zvi Hoffmann]], the single most prominent Orthodox theoretician who dealt with the critical-historical method.]]
In the late 1830s, modernist pressures in Germany shifted from the secularization debate, moving into the "purely religious" sphere of theology and liturgy. A new generation of university-trained rabbis (many German states required communal rabbis to possess such education) sought to reconcile Judaism with the [[Historical-critical method|historical-critical study of scripture]] and the dominant philosophies of the day, especially [[Kant]] and [[Hegel]]. Influenced by the critical "[[Science of Judaism]]" (''Wissenschaft des Judentums'') pioneered by [[Leopold Zunz]], and often in emulation of the [[Liberal Protestant]] milieu, they reexamined and undermined beliefs held as sacred in traditional circles, especially the notion of an unbroken chain from [[Sinai Peninsula|Sinai]] to the [[Chazal|Sages]]. The more radical among the ''Wissenschaft'' rabbis, unwilling to limit critical analysis or its practical application, coalesced around Rabbi [[Abraham Geiger]] to establish [[Reform Judaism]]. Between 1844 and 1846, Geiger organized three rabbinical synods in [[Braunschweig]], [[Frankfurt]] and [[Breslau]], to determine how to refashion Judaism for present times.

The Reform conferences were met with uproar by the Orthodox. Warden [[Hirsch Lehren]] of [[Amsterdam]] and Rabbi [[Jacob Ettlinger]] of [[Altona, Hamburg|Altona]] both organized anti-Reform manifestos, denouncing the new initiatives, signed by scores of rabbis from Europe and the Middle East. The tone of the signatories varied considerably along geographic lines: letters from traditional societies in [[Eastern Europe]] and the [[Ottoman Empire]] implored local leaders to petition the authorities and have them ban the movement. Signers from Central and Western Europe used terms commensurate with the liberal age. All were implored by the petitioners to be brief and accessible; complex ''halakhic'' arguments, intended to convince the rabbinic elite in past generations, were replaced by an appeal to the secularized masses.

The struggle with ''Wissenschaft'' criticism shaped the Orthodox. For centuries, [[Ashkenazi]] rabbinic authorities espoused [[Nahmanides]]' position that [[Midrash halakha|the Talmudic exegesis]], which derived laws from the [[Torah]]'s text by employing [[Talmudical hermeneutics|hermeneutics]], was binding ''[[d'Oraita]]''. Geiger and others presented exegesis as an arbitrary, illogical process, and consequently defenders of tradition embraced [[Maimonides]]' claim that the Sages merely buttressed already received laws with biblical citations, rather than actually deriving them. 

Jay Harris commented, "An insulated orthodox, ''or, rather, traditional'' rabbinate, feeling no pressing need to defend the validity of the Oral Law, could confidently appropriate the vision of most medieval rabbinic scholars; a defensive German Orthodoxy, by contrast, could not. ... Thus began a shift in understanding that led Orthodox rabbis and historians in the modern period to insist that the ''entire'' Oral Law was revealed by God to Moses at Sinai." 19th-Century Orthodox commentaries, like those authored by [[Malbim]], attempted to amplify the notion that the Oral and Written Law were intertwined and inseparable.<ref>Jay Harris, ''How Do We Know This?: Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism''. [[SUNY Press]], 1994. pp. 161–167.</ref>

''Wissenschaft'' posed a greater challenge to the modernized neo-Orthodox than to the traditionalist. [[Samson Raphael Hirsch|Hirsch]] and [[Azriel Hildesheimer|Hildesheimer]] divided on the matter, anticipating modernist Orthodox attitudes to the historical-critical method. Hirsch argued that analyzing minutiae of tradition as products of their historical context was akin to denying its divine origin and timeless relevance. Hildesheimer consented to research under limits, subjugating it to the predetermined sanctity of the subject matter and accepting its results only when they accorded with the latter. More importantly, while he was content to engage academically, he opposed its practical application in religious questions, requiring traditional methods to be used. Hildesheimer's approach was emulated by his disciple Rabbi [[David Zvi Hoffmann]], a scholar and apologetic.<ref>David J. Fine, ''Abraham Geiger and the Hamburg Gebetbuchstreit of 1842'', in: Christian Wiese, ''Jüdische Existenz in der Moderne: Abraham Geiger und die Wissenschaft des Judentums''. Walter de Gruyter, 2013. pp. 161–178</ref> His polemic against the [[Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis]] formed the classical Orthodox response to Higher Criticism. Hoffman declared that for him, the unity of the Pentateuch was a given, regardless of research. Hirsch often lambasted Hoffman for contextualizing rabbinic literature.<ref>Ellenson, ''Hildesheimer''. p. 148-149.</ref>

All of them stressed the importance of dogmatic adherence to ''Torah min ha-Shamayim'', which led them to conflict with Rabbi [[Zecharias Frankel]], Chancellor of the [[Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau]]. Unlike the Reform camp, Frankel insisted on strict observance and displayed great reverence towards tradition. But though appreciated by conservatives, his practice of ''Wissenschaft'' left him suspect to Hirsch and Hildesheimer. They demanded again and again that he state his beliefs concerning the nature of revelation. In 1859, Frankel published a critical study of the [[Mishnah]], and added that all commandments classified as "[[Law given to Moses at Sinai]]" were merely customs (he broadened [[Asher ben Jehiel]]'s opinion). Hirsch and Hildesheimer seized the opportunity and launched a public campaign against him, accusing him of heresy. Concerned that public opinion regarded both neo-Orthodoxy and Frankel's "Positive-Historical School" centered at Breslau as similarly observant and traditionalist, the two stressed that the difference was dogmatic and not ''halakhic''. They managed to tarnish Frankel's reputation in the traditional camp and delegitimized him for many. The Positive-Historical School is regarded by [[Conservative Judaism]] as an intellectual forerunner.<ref>Michael K. Silber, ''[https://www.academia.edu/1829696/ The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of Tradition]''. Harvard University Press, 1992. pp. 35–36; Chaim Landerer, ''[http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%208%20Landerer.pdf R’ Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport (Shir), Champion of Jewish Unity in the Modern Era]''. Hakira 8, 2009.</ref> While Hildesheimer distinguished Frankel's observant disciples from Reform proponents, he wrote in his diary: ''how meager is the principal difference between the Breslau School, who don silk gloves at their work, and Geiger who wields a sledgehammer''.<ref>Ellenson, ''Hildesheimer''. p. 78.</ref>