Editing Orthodox Judaism (section)

===Communal schism===
[[File:Samson Raphael Hirsch (ZR002).jpg|thumb|Young [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]], the ideologue of Orthodox secession in Germany.]]
During the 1840s in Germany, as traditionalists became a clear minority, some Orthodox rabbis, such as Salomo Eger of [[Poznań|Posen]], urged the adoption of [[Moses Sofer]]'s position and to anathemize the principally nonobservant. Eating, worshipping or marrying with them were to be banned. Rabbi [[Jacob Ettlinger]], whose journal ''Treue Zionswächter'' was the first regular Orthodox newspaper (signifying the coalescence of a distinct Orthodox mindset), rejected their call. Ettlinger, and German neo-Orthodoxy in his wake, chose to regard the modern secularized Jew as a transgressor rather than a schismatic. He adopted Maimonides' interpretation of the Talmudic concept ''[[tinok shenishba]]'' (captured infant), a Jew by birth who was not raised as such and therefore could be absolved for not practicing, and greatly expanded it to serve the Orthodox need to tolerate the nonobservant majority (many of their own congregants ignored strict practice). For example, he allowed congregants to drink wine poured by Sabbath desecrators, and to ignore other ''halakhic'' sanctions. Yet German neo-Orthodoxy could not legitimize nonobservance, and adopted a hierarchical approach, softer than traditional sanctions, but no less intent on differentiating sinners and righteous. Reform rabbis or lay leaders, considered ideological opponents, were castigated, while the common mass was to be carefully handled.<ref>Adam Ferziger, ''Exclusion and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonobservance and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity''. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. pp. 92–99, 168, 188.</ref>

Some German neo-Orthodox believed that while doomed to minority status in their native country, their ideology could successfully confront modernity and unify Judaism in more traditional communities to the east. In 1847, Hirsch was elected Chief Rabbi of [[Moravia]], where old rabbinic culture and ''yeshiva''s operated. His expectations were dashed as traditionalist rabbis scorned him for his European manners and lack of Talmudic acumen. They became enraged by his attempts to reform synagogues and to establish a rabbinical seminary including secular studies. The progressives viewed him as too conservative. After four years of constant strife, he lost faith in the possibility of reuniting the Jewish public. In 1851, a group in [[Frankfurt am Main]] that opposed the Reform character of the Jewish community turned to Hirsch. He led them for the remainder of his life, finding Frankfurt a hospitable site for his unique ideology, which amalgamated acculturation, dogmatic theology, thorough observance, and strict secession from the non-Orthodox.

[[File:Chaim Sofer.jpg|thumb|[[Chaim Sofer]], the leading ''halakhic'' authority of the Hungarian "zealots" during the Orthodox-Neolog schism.]]
That year, Hildesheimer visited Hungary. Confounded by urbanization and acculturation – and the rise of [[Neolog Judaism|Neology]], a nonobservant laity served by rabbis who mostly favoured the Positive-Historical approach – the elderly local rabbis at first welcomed Hildesheimer. He opened a modern school in [[Eisenstadt]] that combined secular and religious studies. Traditionalists such as [[Moshe Schick]] and Yehudah Aszód sent their sons to study there. [[Samuel Benjamin Sofer]], the heir of late Hatam Sofer, considered appointing Hildesheimer as his assistant-rabbi in [[Pressburg]] and instituting secular studies in the city's great ''yeshiva''. The rabbi of Eisenstadt believed that only a full-fledged modern rabbinical seminary could fulfill his neo-Orthodox agenda. In the 1850s and 1860s, however, a radical reactionary Orthodox party coalesced in the [[Unterlander Jews|northeastern regions of Hungary]]. Led by Rabbi [[Hillel Lichtenstein]], his son-in-law [[Akiva Yosef Schlesinger]] and decisor [[Chaim Sofer]], the "zealots" were shocked by the demise of the traditional world into which they had been born. Like Moses Sofer a generation before them, these Orthodox émigrés moved east, to a pre-modern environment that they were determined to safeguard. Lichtenstein ruled out any compromise with modernity, insisting on maintaining [[Yiddish]] and traditional dress. They considered the Neologs as moving outside of Judaism, and were more concerned with neo-Orthodoxy, which they regarded as a thinly-veiled gateway for a similar fate. Chaim Sofer summarized their view of Hildesheimer: "The wicked Hildesheimer is the horse and chariot of the [[Yetzer hara|Evil Inclination]]... All the heretics in the last century did not seek to undermine the Law and the Faith as he does."

In their struggle against acculturation, the Hungarian ultra-Orthodox struggled to provide strong ''halakhic'' arguments. Michael Silber wrote: "These issues, even most of the religious reforms, fell into gray areas not easily treated within Halakha. It was often too flexible or ambiguous, at times silent, or worse yet, embarrassingly lenient." Schlesinger was forced to venture outside of normative law, into mystical writings and other fringe sources, to buttress his ideology. Most Hungarian Orthodox rabbis, while sympathetic to the "zealots"' cause, dismissed their legal arguments. In 1865, the ultra-Orthodox convened in [[Nagymihály]] and issued a ban on various synagogue reforms, intended not against the Neologs but against developments in the Orthodox camp, especially after Samuel Sofer violated his father's expressed ban and instituted vernacular sermons in Pressburg. Schick, the country's most prominent decisor, and other leading rabbis refused to sign, though they did not publicly oppose the decree. Hildesheimer's planned seminary was too radical for the mainstream rabbis, and he became marginalized and isolated by 1864.<ref>Michael K. Silber, ''The Invention of Tradition]''. pp. 55–62, quote from p. 59.</ref>

The internal Orthodox division was complicated by growing tension with the Neologs. In 1869, the [[Schism in Hungarian Jewry|Hungarian government convened a General Jewish Congress]] that was aimed at creating a national representative body. Fearing Neolog domination, the Orthodox seceded from the Congress and appealed to Parliament in the name of religious freedom. This demonstrated the internalization of the new circumstances. In 1851, Orthodox leader [[Meir Eisenstaedter]] petitioned the authorities to restore the coercive powers of the communities. In 1871 the government recognized a separate Orthodox national committee. Communities that refused to join either side, labeled "Status Quo", were subject to Orthodox condemnation. However, the Orthodox tolerated nonobservant Jews as long as they affiliated with the national committee: [[Adam Ferziger]] claimed that membership and loyalty, rather than beliefs and ritual behavior, emerged as the definitive manifestation of Jewish identity. The Hungarian schism was the most radical internal separation among the Jews of Europe. Hildesheimer returned to Germany soon after, disillusioned though not as pessimistic as Hirsch. He was appointed rabbi of the Orthodox sub-community in Berlin (which had separate religious institutions but was not formally independent of the Liberal majority), where he finally [[Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary|established his seminary.]]<ref>Jacob Katz, ''A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry''.  Brandeis University Press, 2005. pp. 210–245.</ref>

In 1877, a law enabling Jews to secede from their communities without conversion was passed in Germany. It was a stark example that Judaism was now confessional, not corporate. Hirsch withdrew his congregation from the Frankfurt community and decreed that all Orthodox should do the same. However, unlike the heterogeneous communities of Hungary, which often consisted of recent immigrants, Frankfurt and most German communities were close-knit. The majority of Hirsch's congregants enlisted Rabbi [[Seligman Baer Bamberger]], who was older and more conservative. Bamberger was concerned with the principal of unity among the People Israel and dismissive of Hirsch, whom he regarded as unlearned and overly assimilated. He decreed that since the mother community was willing to finance Orthodox services and allow them religious freedom, secession was unwarranted. Eventually, less than 80 families from Hirsch's 300-strong congregation followed their rabbi. The vast majority of the 15%–20% of German Jews affiliated with Orthodox institutions cared little for the polemics. They did not secede over reasons of finance and familial relations. Only a handful of Secessionist, ''Austrittorthodox'', communities were established in the Reich; almost everyone remained Communal Orthodox, ''Gemeindeortodox'', within Liberal mother congregations. The Communal Orthodox argued that their approach was true to Jewish unity and decisive in maintaining public standards of observance and traditional education in Liberal communities. They claimed that Secessionists viewed them as hypocritical middle-of-the-roaders.<ref>''A House Divided'', pp. 257–280.</ref>

The conflicts in Hungary and Germany, and the emergence of distinctly Orthodox communities and ideologies, were the exception rather than the rule in Central and Western Europe. France, Britain, Bohemia, Austria and other countries saw both a virtual disappearance of observance and serious interest in bridging Judaism and modernity. The official rabbinate remained technically traditional, not introducing ideological change.<ref>Michael A. Meyer, ''Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism'', Wayne State University Press, 1995. pp. 154–160.</ref> The organ – a symbol of Reform in Germany since 1818, so much that Hildesheimer seminarians had to sign a declaration that they would never serve in a synagogue that introduced one – was accepted with little qualm by the [[Central Consistory|French Consistoire]] in 1856. It was part of a series of synagogue regulations passed by Chief Rabbi [[Salomon Ulmann]]. Even Rabbi [[Solomon Klein]] of [[Colmar]], the leader of [[Alsace|Alsatian]] conservatives who partook in the castigation of Zecharias Frankel, allowed the instrument in his community.<ref>Salmon, Ravitzky, Ferziger. ''New Perspectives'', pp. 389–390.</ref> In England, Rabbi [[Nathan Marcus Adler]]'s [[United Synagogue]] shared a similar approach: It was vehemently conservative in principle and combated [[David Woolf Marks|ideological reformers]], yet served a nonobservant public – as [[Todd Endelman]] noted, "While respectful of tradition, most English-born Jews were not orthodox in terms of personal practice. Nonetheless they were content to remain within an orthodox congregational framework" – and introduced considerable synagogue reforms.<ref>Todd M. Endelman, ''The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000''. University of California Press, 2002. p. 167</ref>