World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות

/ ר' יעקב עטלינגר והתנועה האנטי-רפורמית RABBI JACOB ETTLINGER AND THE MOVEMENT FOR COUNTER-REFORMAuthor(s): JUDITH BLEICH and יהודית בלייךSource: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעיחטיבה ב: תולדות עם / DIVISION B: THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE ,היהדות, כרך חישראלpp. 85-89 תשמ"א / 1981Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23528336 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies /דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:54:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RABBI JACOB ETTLINGER AND THE MOVEMENT FOR

COUNTER-REFORM JUDITH BLEICH

With the growth of the Reform movement in the nineteenth cen

tury factionalism became a hallmark of Jewish life. By the second

decade of the century the ideological cleavage within the ranks of

Judaism had become pronounced and Orthodoxy and Reform emerged as separate denominations pitted against one another in a struggle for supremacy.

The traditionalist response to the emergence of Reform took

two forms. The immediate response of the Orthodox was entirely

negative in nature, characterized by complete dismissal of any in

novation in either theological thought or religious practice. Often

the rejection was formulated in sharp invective and ad hominem

attacks. Orthodox writings dealt only with the halakhic intricacies

of the issues and betrayed no trace of reaction to the underlying factors which had prompted the desire for innovation and no realiza

tion of the extent of the culture shock experienced by countless num.

bers of Jews emerging from the restrictions of ghetto life to become

captivated by Western society and culture. Gradually, however, a

shift of attitude may be discerned within certain sectors of the

German Orthodox community. This change was spearheaded by a

small group of young rabbis, a number of whom had studied at the

yeshivah of Rabbi Abraham Bing of Wurzburg while simultaneously

attending classes at the University. A leading member of this group was Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger, a noted talmudist and halakhic authority,

author of voluminous novellae entitled Arukh la-Ner and Bikkurei

Ya'akov. The stance adopted by the members of this group and the

policies advocated by Ettlinger were to chart a new course for the

movement for Counter-Reform. While Ettlinger's rejection of

Reform thought and innovative practice was no less complete than

that of his more strident colleagues, he sought to couch his opposi

tion in terms which would not further alienate Reform elements and

which would present viable alternatives to at least some of the basic

85

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:54:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JUDITH BLEICH

concerns and needs which had led to the development of the Reform

movement. He was convinced that this could be accomplished only by adopting positive attitudes and policies, and that negativism and unreasoned rejection would serve no useful purpose. From the mid 1840s to the mid-1850s, Altona became the nerve-center of the Ortho dox camp and the factional struggle was Ettlinger's dominant concern. The nature of Ettlinger's response to the Reform movement is reflect ed in five areas of activity:

(1) Responsa and Halakhic Rulings. Classical Reform focused its interest upon the reform of halakhah. Discussions at the first Reform rabbinical conferences centered on questions of Jewish law and reflected an attempt to establish new norms of conduct on the basis of rabbinic sources. The debates and polemics covered the

spectrum of religious law, with issues ranging from the trivial to the most significant, e. g., from questions of decorum at services to the sanction of intermarriage and abolition of the rite of circum cision. As an authoritative posek Ettlinger's opinion and reaction with regard to these matters was solicited by the Orthodox commun

ity and his numerous and complex responsa dealing with Reform

practice are of prime significance.

(2) Organized Opposition to the Proceedings of the Brunswick Conference. Following the first Reform rabbinical conference con vened in Brunswick in 1844, Ettlinger became convinced that it was

necessary to organize Orthodox forces in a concerted effort to stem

growth of the Reform movement. The newly-formed association of Reform rabbis in a common forum and publicization of their delibera tions and recommendations created a new situation. Ettlinger began to organize a formal protest in the form of a written manifesto entitled Shelomei Emunei Yisrael. Published in 1845, the manifesto came to be regarded as the official statement of the Orthodox community and in the years that followed the number of signators rose to over 300. In actuality, the document itself had little impact on Reform circles. The inanifesto and the reaction to it may be seen as symptomatic of the impasse at which the two factions had arrived. The rhetoric of the manifesto certainly did not provide a basis for common discourse. The importance of the manifesto is to be seen neither in its message nor in the roster of signators appended thereto. The manifesto is

significant as marking a turning point in the response and reaction of the Orthodox; it indicates a transition from a passive stance to one of

active involvement. Ettlinger's attempt to enlist support for the manifesto prompted the first stirring of a movement for organiza tion and collective action on the part of the Orthodox.

86

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:54:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RABBI JACOB ETTLINGER

References to the manifesto as a ban or anathema are simply misstatements of fact. Ettlinger's refusal to be party to a formal ban was consistent with his carefully formulated policy with regard to public opposition to the Reform movement. His own position may be discerned from comments interspersed throughout Mjnhat Ani, his homiletical-exegetical work. If the analysis, at times, falls

short of a full understanding of some of the crucial factors that gave rise to the clamor for religious change, it nonetheless represents a significant step beyond the one-dimensional didacticism of the

manifesto Shelomei Emunei Yisrael and similar pronouncements.

(3) Establishment of Educational Institutions. Ettlinger favor

ed utilizing the vernacular in the pulpit and was not opposed to in

elusion of secular subjects in the academic curriculum provided that

religious studies not be curtailed. His attitude to the modern environ

ment afforded him the latitude to exercise his imagination in creating educational institutions designed to satisfy the needs created by the

intellectual climate of Western Europe. He was instrumental in the

establishment of a private Jewish day school in which both religious and secular studies were taught.

One of Ettlinger's most significant endeavors was a detailed

proposal for a rabbinical seminary- - a dream which did not become

a reality in his own lifetime. One finds mention of a rabbinical

seminary in connection with Ettlinger as early as 1829 in his reply to a tentative invitation extended to him by Jacob M. Lehren, promi nent lay-leader of the Amsterdam Jewish community, to serve as

head of a projected rabbinical seminary in that city. A far more

ambitious plan was strongly endorsed by Ettlinger some seventeen

years later. The Zjonswachter of July 21, 1846 presented the

Articles of Association of the projected seminary. The core of

the program with its emphasis on the centrality of Talmud and Codes

and the rigorous hours of study resembled the curriculum of the

traditional ,yeshivah. However, the new institution was designed to

train "modern preachers and spiritual leaders" and, indeed, there

was much that indicated a basic change in orientation. In the Jewish

Studies program itself the delineation of exegesis, homiletics and

philosophy as formal subjects was unusual. Even the emphasis on

practical halakhah was absent in many a traditional yeshivah. Far

more innovative was the inclusion of secular studies to which fully a

third of the hours of instruction were devoted. In this respect the

program did not simply call for instruction in the vernacular which

could have been justified on the most elementary pragmatic grounds but was designed to promote a measure of academic proficiency.

87

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:54:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JUDITH BLEICH

Thus it included logic, philosophy, languages, literature and compo sition. The proposal was not completely stillborn. Ettlinger1 s

educational ideals were to be implemented by his disciple, Ezriel

Hildesheimer. It is instructive to compare the curriculum presented in the Zjonswachter proposal with that outlined by Hildesheimer

(Die jüdische Fresse, Sept. 6, 1872). The similarities between the

two are striking.

(4) Founding of an Orthodox Press. Ettlinger pioneered the

development of Orthodox periodical literature. He founded and edited a noted Hebrew journal, Shomer Tsion ha-Ne'eman,which injected a new measure of vitality into the field of rabbinic scholarship and also founded a German periodical,Der treue Zjonswachter. The latter

represents the earliest journalistic venture of German Orthodoxy in

the vernacular. The Zjonswachter served first and foremost as an

apologia for Orthodoxy. The German-language journal was focused on defense of Orthodoxy and negation of Reform whereas its Hebrew

supplement, while equally devoted to these goals, was more positive in orientation. Remarkable in a rabbinic journal of this genre was its orientation toward modern critical scholarship, an eagerness to foster the study of the Hebrew language and an appreciation of purely literary and poetic endeavors.

The importance of these periodicals in the development of German Orthodoxy should not be underestimated, particularly be cause the debate generated by the emergence of the Reform move

ment was conducted for some decades in the periodical literature.

Learned tomes were not the appropriate means for dissemination

of new ideas among the masses. Newspapers and journals, with their lighter style, briefer articles and periodic exposure, provid ed ideal media for publicizing and popularizing religious innovations. Yet, precisely because the influence was subtle and indirect was its effect more pronounced. Thus, for example, the Allgemeine Zeitung enjoyed unusual success on the popular level and consequently was one of the most powerful instruments for advancing Reform ideology. Until the appearance of the traditionalistic publications fostered by Ettlinger, no comparable media were available to the Orthodox. These journals were effective primarily for their role in the struggle of the Orthodox for containment of the Reform movement, rather than as a means of spreading Orthodoxy among those who were leav

ing the fold.

(5) Settlement of Erets Yisrael. The extreme polarization which characterized the Jewish community became particularly evident in its response to the question of Jewish nationalism. Two

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:54:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RABBI JACOB ETTLINGER

diametrically opposed approaches to the historical and religious com mitment to the Land of Israel became evident in sharp contrast to one another. While many Reform leaders were openly disavowing the messianic hope for the restoration of Zion a number of individuals were beginning to propose the establishment of a vibrant Jewish set tlement in the Holy Land. While Geiger was declaring that the Jew had no national aspirations whatsoever and that Jerusalem "is for us an entirely indifferent city. It is nothing more than a veritable

ruin, a decayed knight's castle . . ., "

Zevi Hirsch Kalischer was

proposing that the faithful "go now to Zion, go up to Jerusalem . . . rebuild its ruins .... Do awaken now to regiment yourselves on

behalf of the settlement of the Land of Israel. "

At this turning-point in history sentiment, religious fervor, and national consciousness inspired Ettlinger's active involvement in projects that had a bearing on the future of the Palestinian Jewish

community. He considered constructive endeavors for the rebuilding of Jerusalem to be the most effective and direct answer to one of

Reform Judaism's most dangerous assaults on Jewish national and

religious consciousness. A characteristic appeal signed by Ettlinger

urging support of a building project in Jerusalem called on Jews to

rejoice in the fact that constructive achievements had been effected

in the Holy City at the very time that Reform leaders elsewhere

sought to eradicate all memory of Zion. In his anti-Reform polemics

Ettlinger emphasized that rejection of the belief in the restoration of

Zion was the symbol of the final parting of the ways. The very choice of the name "The Faithful Guardian of Zion" for both his German and

Hebrew publications and Bin.yan Ts ion for his responsa collection

indicated that he deemed loyalty to Zion to be an issue of central

importance.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:54:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions