INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly fi-om the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bieedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313 761-4700 800 521-0600

Order Number 9105155

Jewish reactions to intermarriage in nineteenth century Germany

Levenson, Alan T., Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1990

UMI SOON. ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106

JEWISH REACTIONS TO INTERMARRIAGE

IN NINETEENTH CENTURY GERMANY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Alan T. Levenson, B.A., M A

*****

The Ohio State University

1990

Dissertation Committee; Approved by

M.L Raphael

J. Cohen

D. Lorenz Adviser L R upp Department of History Copyright by Alan T. Levenson 1990 VITA

June 24,1960 ...... Bom - Yonkers, New York

1982...... B.A., M.A. Brown Lfniversrty, Providence Rhode island

1984-Present...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1988-1989...... Interuniversity Fellow in Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Israel

PU3UCATI0N

“Reform Attitudes, In the Past, Toward Intermarriage" Judaism: A Quarterly Journal. Spring, 1989: 310-322.

FiELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

Studies in ancient history with Dr. Jack Balcer; studies in medieval history with Dr. Joseph Lynch; studies in German history with Dr. Moshe Zimmerman (Hebrew University, Jerusalem).

1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VITA...... Il

INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER

I. THE EXTENT AND CONTEXT OF INTERMARRIAGE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY GERMANY...... 9

II. JEWISH REACTIONS TO INTERMARRIAGE FROM THE NAPOLEONIC SANHEDRIN TO THE KASIERREICH...... 42

III. THE UBERAL DEFENSE OF ENDOGAMY IN THE KASIERREICH...... 81

IV. THE RADICAL ASSIMILATIONIST RESPONSE...... 117

V. ORTHODOXY AND DEFECTION...... 147

VI. THE ZIONIST CRITIQUE OF ASSIMILATION...... 175

VII. INTERMARRIAGE AND JEWISH ACADEMIA...... 208

CONCLUSION...... 237

BIBUOGRAPHY...... 243

X l l INTRODUCTION

This study examines Jewish reactions to intermarriage in nineteenth century Germany as a means of better explaining the problematic nexus of Jewish self-definition and radical assimilation.

Intellectually, German Jewry in the nineteenth century faced two ongoing challenges. On the one hand, Jews desired to prove their willingness to integrate into German society, a willingness often denied by their critics. On the other hand, Jews engaged in an ongoing conflict over the form

Judaism, or more accurately, Jewishness, ought to take within constantly changing circumstances.

This intellectual struggle necessitated both accommodation and self-definition, forcing the advocates of competing German Jewish ideologies to draw the line at the level of assimilation they deemed acceptable. However, because German Jewry exhibited considerable ideological diversity, deviant behavior itself sparked a wide range of responses.

Jewish assimilation has been the abiding issue of modem German Jewish history and historiograp!Nevertheless, the more radical forms of assimilation-apostasy, intermarriage, communal secession (Austritte)- have received scattered treatment at best.^ Heinrich Graetz, the most widely read author produced by the WIssenschaft des Judenthums, expended much energy excoriating the intermarriages of the salonnieres and to a lesser extent, the baptisms of Jewish intellectuals such as Boeme and Heine.^ Graetz vividly portrayed the sorry state of Jewish morale in the late nineteenth century, a period of renewed Jewish defection.^ At the beginning of the twentieth century, the dangers of Jewish defection received treatment from the fledgling sciences of race and demography; as with Graetz, polemical intent generally merged with the methods and subjects under discussion.^ The theme of Jewish defection subsequently experienced a historiographical hiatus. To severe critics of German Jewry such as Hannah Arendt or Gershom Schoiem, the whole history of

German Jewry embodied an act of "hopeless bad faith".^ Naturally, such a perspective liberated its bearers from examining those who found remaining Jewish unpalatable even within the terms of nineteenth century German-Jewish existence. Simon Dubnov, a successor to Graetz as a synthetic historian of Jewry, treated the distinction between assimilation and defection as moot. Dubnov held that disintegration had to be the result of German Jewry’s denial of the life-giving forces of

Jewish nationalism.® Schoiem, Arendt, and Dubnov shared the view that the German-Jewish symbiosis constituted an illusion; the only deviants worth examining were those who forwarded an altemative Jewish identity.

In reaction to this polemical treatment of German Jewry, a generation of scholars has rehabilitated many of the German-Jewish institutions, in particular those committed to combatting antisemitism.^ But, as Todd Endeiman pointed out, this focus on institutions tended to obscure less assertive Jewish responses, shed little light on the impact of antisemitism upon individuals, and focused almost exclusively on the attitudes of the majority.® Because these works focused on the Jewish reactions to antisemitism, the threat of Jewish defection came into purview only in regards to an organizational response, most notably the Centralverein’s campaign against baptism.®

Thus, with few exceptions, only in the 1980s has scholarly interest in conversion, intermarriage and communal secession reappeared on the scholarly agenda.^® The important contributions of Todd Endeiman, David Elienson, Deborah Hertz, Peter Honigmann, Marion

Kaplan, and Werner Mcsr s r.ave delineated the statistical and, to some degree, the social parameters of these phenomena of defection.^ ^ Nevertheless, an analysis of the Jewish responses to any of these phenomena for Germany, or indeed, for any European nation, has

remained terra incognita, it is my intention to rectify this situation

I have limited this dissertation to an analysis of the Jewish reactions to intermarriage in

Germany, the most ambiguous and profound of these defection phenomena. Ambiguous, because

in the most physical sense, intermarriage symbolized the Jewish desire to integrate while

preserving, at least logically, the possibility of remaining Jewish. Yet intermarriage generally

equalled the most radical stage of structural assimilation. Jewish apostates frequently married

among themselves; it has even been claimed that they formed their own subculture.

Intermarriages, even when the Jewish partners preserved their identity, almost always led to

participation in a non-Jewish social environment.

German Jewry’s treatment of the intermarriage issue unden/vent tremendous change in the

course of the nineteenth century, and especially during the Kaiserreich (1871-1918). German

Jewish attitudes changed not only because intermarriage became increasingly widespread, but

also because of the fierce ideological competition within Judaism. What appeared as a rabbinic

debate in the 1840s, became an issue of general Jewish concern in the last two decades of the

nineteenth century, and the symbol of Jewish dissolution par excellence in the decade preceding the First World War. How German Jewry reacted to this specific issue of radical assimilation offers

a sensitive gauge of Jewish self-definitions in an age of general transformation.

Intermarriage, for the purposes of this dissertation, will be taken as the marriage between two persons, one of whom belonged to the Jewish religion and the other to the Christian, at the

time of the marriage. This usage mirrors that of the German government, whose official statistics

recorded intermarriages along religious lines only. This definition has its limitations. A converted

Jew and a non-converted Jew who lived in the same neighborhood and went to the same public

schools would have been considered as intermarried whereas a Jewish factory owner and a lower class Catholic factory worker- were one of them to convert prior to marriage- would not have been considered intermarried. Conveniently, the Jewish polemicists who provide the bulk of my evidence usually employed the term intermarriage in the same sense that the German government did. With a few explicit exceptions, my usage of the term follows the nineteenth century definition.

A few other terms require clarification. I have used "German" for all writers and periodicals from places that became part of the Kaiserreich. On those occasions when a Jewish writer hailed from else«vhere in Central Europe I have noted that fact. By the German Jewish press, I mean those periodicals that identified themselves as Jewish and addressed a largely Jewish audience.

Antisémites, of course, used the term “the Jewish press" in precisely the opposite sense: papers that neither identified themselves as Jewish nor addressed a primarily Jewish audience.^ ^

I have based this dissertation on the published responses to intermarriage: books, pamphlets, sermons, memoirs, and especially, the abundant periodical literature. Clearly, this « source material has its limitations. Ideas that could be broached among friends and family could not always be defended in public. Moreover, contemporaries held erroneous assumptions about the social realities of intermarriage and lacked historical perspective on their own times. Thirdly, this material tends to reflect primarily bourgeois attitudes, and is weighed heavily toward the views of Jewish activists. On the other hand, these sources evince a hypersensitivity to the pressures on the Jewish position in nineteenth century Germany, and no certainty, save rhetorical, which doctrines would be discredited by later events. The Jewish periodicals, in particular, chronicle the persistent attempts to fit new incidents and developments into their controlling ideologies. In short,

I believe this variety of responses offers a unique insight into the various Jewish ideas regarding intermarriage and the constraints operating on their formulation. The opening two chapters set the social and ideological stage for the intermarriage debate

in the Kaiserreich. Chapter one assesses the extent and importance of intermarriage in the

Kaiserreich to the Jewish community. Whiie the reactions to intermarriage constitute the focus of this dissertation, their proper evaluation requires a clear conception of both the phenomenon itself and the social setting in which it occurred. The second chapter begins with a treatment of

intermarriage in traditional Jevvish sources and the influence of the Napoleonic Sanhedtin's 1807

intermarriage response. The revolutionary pronouncement of the Reform rabbinical assembly in

Brunswick in 1844, and the subsequent retreat from this position, will be the focus of this chpater.

This polemic will be described against the background of the German debates over civil marriage

and the political expectations of 1848.

Chapters three through six treat the liberal mainstream’s reactions to intermarriage and the

alternatives forwarded by radical assimiiationists. Orthodoxy and Zionists. The liberal mainstream, 1

contend, did not consistently oppose intermarriage. Their primarily religious definition of

Jewishness, their fear of antisemitic misrepresentation, and their intense desire to assert the

continued success of integration precluded forthright opposition. While the libera! mainstream

condemned apostasy as an act of bad faith, intermarriage proved to be another matter. Three

minority groups within German Jewry rejected the mainstream’s treatment of intermarriage.

Radical assimiiationists, convinced by antisemitism that only Jewish disappearance could alleviate

their suffering, advocated intermarriage as the most effective means of disappearing into German

society. The Orthodox, committed to Jewish tradition and forced to deal with a non-traditional

Jewish majority, oscillated between condemning the faithlessness of this majority and trying to

reform them. The Zionist movement, largely a reaction to the emancipation process, coalesced

only in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Zionist polemicists rejected the ideology of emancipation altogether and attempted to ground their opposition to defection in a new view of

Jewishness.

The seventh and final chapter deals with a more amorphous group, Jewish academics

(e.g. race scientists, anthropologists, statisticians, demographers). 1 will argue that the prestige of these infent "sciences" transformed the intermarriage poiemic, raising the threat of defection to new heights, at times, to parity with the threat of antisemitism. Simultaneously, the academic forum allowed a more direct exchange of views. For the first time since the beginning of the emancipation process, non-Jews called out clearly and almost univocally for complete Jewish dissolution, preferably by means of exogamy. In the few short years between 1910 and 1914, Jewish academics brought the subject of Jewish-Gentile intermarriages to the forum of public discourse.

Initially, 1 was attracted to the subject of Jewish responses to intermarriage in the

Kaiserreich out of a desire to examine Jewish intellectual life from a perspective that did not place antisemitism at its center. 1 have subsequently come to the conclusion that the "Jewish Question," in its many permutations, colored all intellectual products of German Jewry. But 1 hope to demonstrate that coloration does not equal control. The responses to the dilemmas of intermarriage and Jewish defection, despite the external constraints, contributed to the important and fruitful quest for Jewish self-definition in the modem world. ENDNOTES

^ All of these terms present problems. Baptism (Taufe\ signifies a religious act of consecration, yet a vast majority of baptized Jews were not convinced Christians, i.e. converts. Apostasy, meanwhile, implies the abandonment of one religious ideology for another, and meets the same problem. 1 will use the German word Austritte throughout this work, since "declaration of communal separation" would prove cumbersome. It must be recalled that Austritte Orthodoxy also existed, which had no intention of abandoning Judaism. My use of the term intermarriage will be explained in the main text below and in note thirteen.

^ Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte des Juden vom Beoinn der mendelssohn’schen Zeit (1750) bis in die neuste Zeit ft 848) (Leipzig, 1870), pp. 154-186, esp. pp. 170-171.

^ Graetz, "Correspondance of An English Lady on Judaism and Semitism," Ismar Schorsch, The Structure of Jewish History and Other Essavs (Philadelphia, 1975).

^ The works of Jewish race scientists, sociologists, demographers and race scientists such as Felix Theiihaber, Arthur Ruppin, Maurice Fishberg and Ignaz Zollschan will be discussed at length in chapter seven of this dissertation.

^ Gershom Schoiem characterized the strivings of German Jewish quest for assimilation as a "flight from self." Quoted in David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry. 1780-1840 (Oxford, 1988). Sorkin accepts neither this characterization nor Peter Gay’s description of German-Jewry’s "flight into humanity*. See Schoiem, "On the Social Psychology of German Jews," David Bronsen, German Jewry 1860-1930. The Problematic Symbiosis (Heidelberg, 1979).

® Simon Dubnov, A History of the Jews. Book 5, vols. 9-10. (New York, 1973), pp. 468-469.

^ Among the more important works in this genre are; Arnold Paucker, Der iuedische Abwehrkampf (Hamburg, 1968); Ismar Schorsch, Jewish Reactions to German Antisemitism (New York, 1973); Marjorie Lamberti, Jewish Activism in Imperial Germany (New Haven, 1978). Jehuda Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land (Ann Arbor, 1975) takes a more ambivalent view of Jewish efforts. Sanford Ragins, Jewish Responses to German Antisemitism (Cincinnati, 1982), while less ambitious than the aforementioned works, has the virtue of discussing several Jewish minority responses to antisemitism.

^ Todd Endeiman, "Conversion as a Response to Antisemitism," Reinharz, Antisemitism Through the Ages (Hanover, NH., 1987). See also Endelman's essays in Jewish Aoostasv in the Modem World (New York, 1987).

^ On the Centralverein’s campaign against baptism see Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised !_and. pp. 56-57,72, and 82-83; Ragins, Jewish Responses, pp. 74-77; Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, pp. 8-9, and 138-148. Even Schorsch’s masterpiece noted without further explanation that after 1875, "... the issue of Judaism’s opposition to intermarriage continued to arouse intense interest." p. 9. ^ ® Moshe Davis' call for such a comprehensive treatment of Jewish responses to intermarriage, "Mixed Marriage in W estem Jewry: Historical Background to the Jewish Response," JSS. 31, (1969), initially encouraged me to undertake this dissertation. The other exceptions to this lack of interest in Jewish defection before 1980 tended focus on apostasy. Azriel Shochet, Beginnings of the Haskalah in Germanv (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, I960); Benjamin Kedar, "Continuity and Change in Jewish Conversion to Christianity in 18th Century Germany," Studies in the Historv of Jewish Societv. Presented to Jacob Katz (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1980); Guido Kisch, Judantaufe (Frankfurt, 1973).

^ ^ David Elienson, "The Development of Orthodox Attitudes to Conversion in the Modem Period," Conservative Judaism. 36:3, (1983); Idem. "The Orthodox Rabbinate and Apostasy in Nineteenth Century Germany and Hungary" Endeiman, Jewish Aoostasv in the Modem World: Deborah Hertz, Jewish High Societv in Ancien Regime Berlin (New Haven, 1987); Peter Honigmann, Die Austritte aus der iuedischer Gemeinde Berlin. 1873-1941 (Frankfurt, 1988); Marion Kaplan, Tradition and Transition- The Acculturation, Assimilation and Integration of Jews in Imperil Germany- A Gender Analysis," LBIYB. 27, (1982); Idem. "For Love or Money-The Marriage Strategies of Jews in Imperial Germany," LBIYB. 28, (1983); Wemer Mosse, "Jewish Marriage Choices," Studia Kosenthaliana. 39, (1985).

This statement must now be qualified on two counts. First, Todd Endeiman has recently published Radical Assimilationism in England (1990). Second, Germania Judaica. vol. 14 (Koein, 1989), reports that Deborah Hertz will be publishing Germanv’s Hidden Jews. Becoming Christian. 1645-1945 during 1991.

^ ^ For a concise definition of the various degrees of assimilation see Marsha L Rozenblit, The Jews of Vienna (Albany, 1983), pp. 3-4.

In sociological parlance, intermarriage signifies a marriage when one person converts to the religion of the second. Mixed marriage signifies a marriage between two persons of different faith, and outmarriage (or exogamy) signifies either phenomena.

Although it provides the evidence for many fine studies, the German-Jewish press itself remains an underdeveloped subject of research. See: Margaret Edelheim-Muehsam, The Jewish Press in Germany," LBIYB. 1,1956; Judith Bleich, The Emergence of an Orthodox Press in Nineteenth- Century Germany," JSS. 42:3-4, (1980); Baruch Mevorach, "Effects of the Damascus Affair Upon the Development of the Jewish Press," (Hebrew) Zion. 23-24, (1959). CHAPTER I

THE EXTENT AND CONTEXT OF INTERMARRIAGE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY GERMANY

While this dissertation focuses on the developing reactions to intermarriage, these reactions can only be assessed with detachment once the social background of the phenomenon has been illuminated. Jewish polemicists who dealt with intermarriage did not treat the issue in a vacuum, but related it to changes going on in German Jewry at large. Whereas these “changes” reflected current considerations more than long-term trends, or what historians would now consider the crucial issues, the issue of intermarriage in nineteenth century Germany must be removed from the polemical and restored to the historical context. Community, defectiori and response establish the dialectic that governed the Jewish reactions to intermarriage, and each element of this triad must be understood.

The present chapter will attempt to clarify the issues of community and defection in four steps. First, an overview-demographic, economic and social- of the German Jewish community in the Kaiserreich is essential in order to understand the background of the intermarriage polemic in its most volatile stage. During the Kaiserreich, polemicists addressed intermarriage as part of an alarming trend toward disassociation from the Jewish people. Denuded of its pejorative content, the rubric of “defection” will be the one most frequently employed here to describe this movement away from Jewishness. Second, I will discuss and differentiate the three forms of Jewish defection in the Kaiserreich - communal secession, baptism, intermarriage - and assess their relative significance. Third, I will attempt to characterize the extent and the social context of intermarriage from 1875-1914. Finally, the cumulative impact of defection on the Jewish community must be 10

evaluated; without this evaluation, the reactions to intermarriage in the Kaiserreich will seem like much ado about nothing.

THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE KAISERREICH

Despite migration and defection, the German Jewish population continued to grow throughout the nineteenth century and up until the outbreak of the First World War. In 1852 the

Jewish community totailed 461,900, in 1871, the year Germany unified, 512,200, and in 1910,

615,000. Jewish growth did not, however, keep pace with that of the general German population.

From 1852-1914 the percentage of Jews in Germany declined from 1.29 percent to 0.95 percent; despite their prominence as a topic for public discussion, German Jews always constituted a tiny minority.^

In the first half of the nineteenth century many rural Germans, Christian and Jewish, migrated to the United States. This loss to the Jewish population vras offset in the second half of the century by the arrival of the Ostjuden. The Ostjuden, those Jews migrating from Czarist Poland and Russia, changed the shape of German Jew,-y considerably, especially after 1880. Unlike the

United States and Great Britain, however, the Ostjuden never numerically overwhelmed the native

German Jews. Most Ostjuden embarked at the northern ports of Hamburg or Bremen and continued westwards. Jewish migration from rural Germany to the cities continued to outstrip the increase due to the Ostjuden, antisemitic protestations against the swarms of "pants-selling lads from Poland" notwithstanding.^

German Jewry urbanized considerably over the course of the nineteenth century, especially after 1850. At mid-century German Jewry still constituted a rural, relatively dispersed population, albeit one urbanizing more rapidly than the German population at large.® By 1900,

Berlin and its suburbs, the largest Jewish population concentration in Germany, contained over a fifth of Germany’s Jews. Turn of the century Berlin also constituted the city with the greatest 11

relative proportion of Jews to non-Jews, just over 5 percent^ In 1910, a decade later, 53.2 percent of German Jewry lived in cities of 100,000 or more. This move to the cities entailed considerable internal migration. When the First World War erupted, Prussia contained roughly two-thirds of

German Jewry. The statistical concomitants of urbanization were particularly pronounced in the

Jews’ case: the mortality rate of the Jews, lower than that of Christian Germans, continued to decline, while the birthrate sunk even faster.® The aging of German Jewry, noticeable from the late nineteenth century onwards, reflected this decline in fertility. The comparatively high Jewish rates of divorce, literacy, education, and the 'argo number of self-employed Jews further characterized the Jews as a more urbanized group than the general population.®

Economically, the Jews in the period of the Kaiserreich present an overwhelmingly bourgeois profile.^ Although a Jewish economic elite had come into existence and Jewish poverty had not disappeared, most Jews led solid middle-class lives. Not surprisingly, given the earlier restrictions on Jewish occupations, Jews played a considerable role in commerce and trade, and to a somewhat smaller degree, in industry and the handcrafts. The number of Jewish lawyers and doctors also far exceeded the proportion of Jews in the German population.® By contrast, while 35 percent of all Germans in 1907 still engaged in agriculture, only 1.6 percent of the Jews made their living this way. The Israeli dem ographer Uziel Schmeltz has specified four ways in which Jew s raised themselves to bourgeois status from 1850-1933:1 ) an increase in high-level businessmen,

2) a transformation of a lower-class into a lower-middle-class, 3) a dramatic rise in Jewish self- employment, and 4) a general decrease in the pauperism which had plagued German Jewry until mid-century. Jewish integration proceeded concurrently with Jewish embourgeoisement: Jews did not integrate into Germany in general, but rather, into the German middle-class.®

The degree of Jewish social integration remains an unsettled question despite sophisticated attempts to resolve the issue. Gershom Schoiem addressed the issue of social 12

proximity by dividing Jews into three categories: “the consciously and totally ’Germanized"; the

'transitional stage’ of wealthy Jews, and the vast majority, “the broad Jewish liberal middle class.“

The members of this last group Schoiem described as acculturated largely by virtue of their ideological professions, as well as the language they used to formulate them. Schoiem claimed that this “Jewish liberal middle class' continued to travel in Jewish circles. Focusing on the Jewish bourgeoisie, the constituents of Scholem’s third category, David Sorkin has recently argued that from 1780-1840 German Jewry created a Jewish subculture. This subculture was composed of elements drawn exclusively from the German cultu'^e, but drawn up in such a way as to create a parallel, distinctly Jewish culture. In this formulation "assimilation” would be an imprecise term since German Jewry did not become a part of German society, but rather a copy of iL^®

Along somewhat similar lines, Shulamit Volkov argues that the declining Jewish family size and the relative over-education of Jewry compared with the remainder of the German population in the Kaiserreich represented part of a new Jewish identity, or at least, a new Jewish characteristic

(Eigenart). Stressing the difference between individual integration and group differentiation, Volkov writes:

While the J e w s - and this was recognized all too w ell- were in many respects an integral part of Wilhelminian society and culture, a new common Jewish identity developed at the same time, the properties of which were often not understood and sometimes expressly denied.^ ^

To some extent, Marsha Rozenblitt’s recent study of Viennese Jewry supports these conceptions of partial assimilation. Rozenblitt emphasizes the role Jewish neighborhoods and occupations played in keeping Jews within an ethnic setting.^^ Certainly economic and residential specificity contributed to the maintenance of a Jewish “setting' in which most German Jews existed.

Integration requires more than minority acquiescence; it also necessitates a society willing to integrate. Jacob Katz has frequently warned against locating animosity solely among non-Jews. 13

Nevertheless, Jews in the Kaiserreich seem to have met hostility with resignation, fatalism, organizational activity and self-loathing more frequently than with hatred. A large part of the Jews’ specificity, then, must be attributed to the antisemitism of the environment Relatively quiescent for the middle fifty years of the nineteenth century, from the mid-1870s onwards, and especially after

1879, antisemitism began once again to limit many career opportunities for individual Jews, and undoubtedly spoiled the mood in many previously comfortable social settings. Politically, a s well,

Jews found it increasingly more difficult to win election for public offices. The National Liberals had proven unsympathetic at best, the left liberal parties hesitated to field Jewish candidates, and the

Social Democrats even-handedly condemned both "antisemitic" and "Jewish" influences.

Despite the spread of social antisemitism, Jews participated side-by-side with Christians in many areas of German life. The very fact that the intermarriage rate rose well beyond those few

Jews in Scholem’s first and second categories suggests that the force of antisemitism did not foreclose all possibility of Jewish intimacy with non-Jews. The business elite travelled in mixed circles, and in the factories and in the domestic professions Jews mixed with non-Jews in the workplace. Additionally, the leftist intelligentsia met and sometimes married non-Jews in a variety of settings.^Memoirists of solid bourgeois background such as Eduard Bernstein, Kurt

Blumenfeld and Reinhard Bendix recalled their coterie of friends as being largely non-Jewish.

Bourgeois girls, it seems, travelled in more “Jewish" circles than boys, but here too the evidence contradicts any picture of a hermetically sealed German Jewry. If the passage to womanhood included attending a German university, a greater possibility in Jewish than Christian society, then the narrow Jewish circle could be broken. Most likely, outside of the mainstream bourgeois Jewish lifestyle more settings existed for intimate interaction. Nevertheless, no uniform or conclusive answer exists to the question "how integrated were the German Jews?" It will be argued below that 14

both the intense desire to integrate and the acute sensitivity to antisemitism powerfully shaped the

German Jewish intermarriage polemic.

in contrast to the tricky question of social integration, it is clear that the communal structure of German Jewry retained its integrity throughout the Kaiserreich. Prussia, for instance, considered the Gemeinde (Jewish community) as the official representative of the Jews of a given area and invested these communities with considerable powers. From July 27,1847 until July 28,

1873 Prussian law obligated all Jews to belong to their community, pay their taxes, and be generally accountable to the Jewish community leaders. Forwarding Jewish communal interests did not motivate Prussia’s Ministry of Religion, but keeping close tabs on the Jew s did. Borussian suspiciousness of Jews continued well after the Jews had shed their particular language, dress and even many religious customs. Unlike the futile struggle to have Judaism recognized as a religious equal, Jews succeeded in winning individual rights. After 1873, belonging to the

Gemeinde became voluntary- to a point, if one wished to make a statement of leaving the community (Austritte) one had to go to the local judge, who would then give the

SvnaaoQueoemeinde four weeks to change the potential Austritte’s mind. After four weeks the change would become official.Perhaps more Jews would have left the community had the

procedure been less taxing; in fact, most German Jews continued to belong to their communities

until the First World War. In some cases, such as Berlin and Hamburg, the size, budgets and range

of communal activities grew substantially despite the voluntary nature of the post-Emancipation

communities. Although the percentage of those declaring their Austritte from the community grew,

Berlin's Jewish community still showed considerable expansion: 15

Year Number of Community Members Percent of Austritte

1871 36,321 18S0 54,236 1885 64,700 .021 1890 80,761 .049 1895 94,366 .11 1900 105,351 .104 1905 122,602 .128

The Berlin Gemeinde’s yearly budget totalled several million marks at the turn of the century. A store owner or mid-level bureaucrat might expect to earn around 10,000 marks per annum, while Gershon von Bleichroeder, one of the two richest men in Germany, enjoyed an yearly income of about 2,000,000 marks.^ ^ While the Berlin community flourished, the rural Jewish communities suffered from severe declines in population, income and capable teachers. The

Deutsche Israelitische Gemeindebund (DIGB), from 1869-1893 the only pan-German body of Jews, subsidized these rural communities heavily.^®

Despite the absence of a single overarching Jewish organization which might have functioned in place of i!ie inter-communal agencies of the medieval and early modem periods,

German Jewry displayed a marked tendency toward self-organization from about 1890 until the

First World W ar.^^To a large degree, institutions such as the revivified DIGB, the Centralverein

Deutsche Staatsbuerger juedischen Glaubens (the CV) and the B’nai B’rith represented Jewish

“defense" responses to the increasingly antisemitic climate.”® Yet an enormous proliferation of literary societies, a wave of synagogue building in the 1890s and 1900s, and the growth of major institutions of Jewish learning support the observation that the cultural flowering of German Jewry in the Weimar Republic had its roots in the Wilhelmine period.^^

Juxtaposed to these signs of communal health, contemporaries feared that the urban communities were growing unwieldy and decaying around the fringes. Leopold Auerbach in 1890 made an impassioned and controversial plea for Jewish organizational innovation. Several years 16

later, Martin Phflippson unsuccessfully urged a Judentag (Jewish Congress) to debate political issues common to German Jewry. The nineteenth century literature devoted to defection testifies to these fears of dissolution, as does Bertha Pappenheim’s crusade against “white slavery.*^ The dichotomy between the tumultuous but healthy state of German Jewry and the forecasts of ruin seem to have characterized this period and exerted a strong force on treatments of Jewish defection. This Jewish sense of unease may be largely attributed to the rise of antisemitism as a political force in Germany and elsewhere.

The willingness of some Jews to publicly advocate abandonment, or to wish that desertion could be accomplished without a loss of honor, also left a strong impression on those Jews who held the reigns of communal and spiritual leadership. Chapter four of this dissertation will discuss the impact of these radical assimilatioriists on the intermarriage polemic at length, but two of the more egregious cases may be mentioned beforehand. In 1897 Walther Rathenau published his essay "Hoere Israel", under the semi-pseudonymous W. Harthenau. Rathenau admitted that only his distaste of the self-serving nature of baptism kept him within the Jewish fold.^^ Three years later the influential Preussicher Jahrbuecher published an article by Arthur Weissler. Weissleris "Die

Erloesung des Judenthums" took Rathenau one step further by advocating that all Jews who felt themselves "overly ripe" for complete amalgamation baptize their children. Despairing of the situation of German Jewry, this middle-class lawyer from Halle eventually committed suicide.

Between the growing antisemitism, the private abandonment of Jewry by several thousand

German Jews, and the public responses of men like Rathenau and Weissler, we can better understand why Jewish "defection" preoccupied the Jewish leadership to a degree far exceeding its tangible significance to the health of German Jewry.^^ 17

THREE FORMS OF DEFECTION

One of the m ost difficult questions to be asked regarding the various forms of Jewish

defection (Taufe. Austritte and intermarriage) has been sidestepped by most writers on the subject:

to what extent do these three phenomena overlap each other? Since the scope of Jewish defection

was not negligible, the answer to this question will determine just how serious a problem this

posed for the Jewish community. In order to arrive at an appraisal of the cumulative loss caused

by Jewish defection, the extent of the more easily determined individual phenomena need to

limned. Additionally, the difference between objective and subjective evaluations in the matter of

defection also requires some explanation.

Peter Honigmann described the late nineteenth and early twentieth century analysts of

Taufe and Austritte as people who saw these movements as “the tips of the icebergs’ but

continued to write with the whole iceberg in mind. In other words, those Jews who feared that the

integration of German Jewry would lead to its disintegration could not put that spectre out of mind when they turned to describe those phenomena which most justified this fear. In the beginning of the twentieth century many Jewish writers felt themselves to be in the throes of a second wave of

defection. Heinrich Graetz’s melodramatic, misogynistic and influential portrayal of the salon

period heightened this sense of impending doom. Actually, Honigmann found that the baptismal wave of 1880-1914, while about equal in total numbers to the baptismal wave from 1806-1812,

affected a far smaller percentage of the total Jewish population of the Imperial period.^^

Deborah Hertz’ v/ork has substantially expanded Honigmann’s claim. Hertz demonstrated that any discussion of an early nineteenth century Taufwelle (baptismal waves) overlooks two

problems. One, the number of baptisms rose steadily in the first four decades of the nineteenth

century, hence, the wave receded only in the late 1840s. Two, when compared to the late

nineteenth century Taufwelle. the first affected a much higher percentage of Prussian Jewry than 18

the second.^® In the early nineteenth century both baptism and intermarriage, argues Hertz, possessed gender-specific characteristics. Jewish men generally underwent baptism for career advancement; while romantic seduction, the potential for intermarriage, proved to be the salient motive for most female converts. Extending this assumption to the Kaiserreich, however, can not be maintained. As Hertz herself writes, the salon period represented a very unique one in both

German history and Jewish history, in that integration happened with remarkable speed and, at first, without the countervailing force of public-political antisemitism.^^ Additionally, only in this earlier period do the statistics for female assimilation exceed that of male assimilation. But the crucial difference is that intermarriage in the first half of the century required conversion, since neither civil marriage nor legal intermarriage existed.^®

Although one must not speak of a Taufwelle that ended in 1812 with the Prussian Edict of

Emancipation, or even the 1820s or 1830s, the late 1840s did see an absolute (and an even stronger percentile) decline in the level of baptisms. Intermarriage, on the other hand, occurred wherever the law allowed. In 1848 Braunschweig and Hesse-Kassel legalized intermarriage, and

Hamburg, Saxony and Baden followed suit in 1851. By 1862 the 450 family Braunschweig Jewish community had experienced nineteen intermarriages, and none of the children produced by these marriages remained Jewish. Nevertheless, the demographic significance of intermarriage had yet to make a strong impression on Jewish thinkers. Indeed, Jacob Toury concluded that from 1847-

1871 Jewish defections in general failed to signal an alarm.^® But sometimes a "non-phenomenon” also demands comment. It seems to me that the lack of concern about Jewish defection before

1871 turns largely on two complementary external conditions. First, the period from 1848-1871 evidenced an accelerated socioeconomic advance for German Jews. Second, this prosperity, combined with the relatively quiescent antisemitism of this period, appears to have alleviated the

Jewish fears of dissolution so evident in the Kaiserreich. 19

As suggested above, the issue of defection in the Kaiserreich differs from the same phenomena in the early part of the nineteenth century. Before 1848 German Jewry had still formed an entity, separate from German society at large. During the Kaiserreich, on the contrary, Jews considered themselves, as did Imperial law, to be an organic part of German society. And, as discussed previously, this assumption was partly true. Technical factors also differentiate defection in the Kaiserreich and in the Vormaerz period. Only in the second period of heightened defection

(roughly, 1880-1914) could communal secession, baptism and intermaniage be distinguished from each other. 'With the Prussian Landtag laws of 1873 and 1875, Prussian Jews, for the first time, could leave the Jewish community and marry Christians without prior conversion. One must also recall that the governments of Imperial Germany published statistical descriptions of German

Jewry, while the "Jewish Question" reemerged as a prominent issue on the political agenda.

Germany at large seemed to be interested in the issue of continued Jewish existence. In an attempt to distinguish the three forms of Jewish defection, I will discuss communal secession and baptism in tum, reserving a lengthier discussion for intermarriage.

From 1848 to 1873 nowhere in Germany could a Jew secede from the Jewish community without joining another reiigious community. Two Prussian laws (May 14,1873 and August 28,

1873) enabled Jews to leave the Jewish community without declaring themselves either Christian or Konfessionslos. All in all, 1,874 Berlin Jews seceded from their community from 1873-1906. Re­ entries into the Jewish community are difficult to estimate for the Imperial period. For the Weimar years, Honigmann estimated that one-tenth to one-quarter of the Jews who left the Gemeinde reentered it Demographer Jacob Lestchinsky, not inclined to underestimate the dangers of Jewish defection, claimed that 10-15 percent of the Austrrtte Jews reentered the community during the

Kaiserreich.^® Leaving the reentries aside, the German Jewish demographer Bruno Blau estimated an average secession rate of .1 percent per year for the Berlin Gemeinde. The number of Austritte 20

Jews, remained negligible (according to Biau’s calculations) until 1885, rose to about .1 percent

year in 1893, and then rose siowiy after that until 1906. From 1903 to 1906 an average of 144 Jew s

per year seceded from the Berlin Gemeinde. Although this constitutes only a little more than one-

tenth of one percent, Blau considered these numbers significant enough to analyze the

composition of the Austritte Jews in considerable detail.^^

The number ofTaufiuden. baptized Jews, rose sharply in the 1880s, presumably in

response to the new wave of antisemitism. Baptisms in the Berlin community from 1890-1905 varied from 103 (1892) to 165 (1903). The pioneering demographer, statistician and sociologist

Arthur Ruppin accepted 22,500 as the total number of Jew s baptized in Germany during the

nineteenth century. Blau, citing the statistics of Nathan Samter, estimated that from 1873-1906 a

total of 2,957 Berlin Jews had been baptized.^^ Jacob Lestchinsky’s 1928 Encyclopedia Judaica

article "Apostasie* calculated that from 1880-1899 an average of 256.5 Prussian Jews per year

converted to the Evangelical Church. To obtain a complete picture, Lestchinsky suggested that

another 10-15 percent would need to be added to the total of Jewish converts to account for the

conversions to Catholicism.^^ Ruppin estimated that for the years 1889-1903, the number of Jews

who declared themselves Konfesionsslos or converted to Catholicism, when added to the number

of converts to the Evangelical Church, totalled 200 per year for Berlin. This figure amounts to one

Taufiude for every 600 Berlin Jews. These numbers fail to include infant baptisms, since the

Prussian govemment considered these children bom Christians. An estimated one percent of all

endogamous Jewish households had children belonging to another confession.^ Although some

Jews took Arthur Weissleds advice to baptize their children, most did not, and Honigmann’s

analogy of the iceberg com es to mind- it would be difficult to describe baptism, except perhaps in

Berlin, as a frequent occurrence.^^ 21

In some ways, the Prusso-centricism of German Jewry (and of subsequent historians) helped to cast the issue of defection in melodramatic colors. Berlin, in particular, must be accorded a special place in any discussion of baptism and secession. In the first half of the nineteenth century Berlin held one-third of all apostates, but only three percent of German Jews.

Between 1800 and 1900,7,500 Jews converted in Berlin alone; this equalled forty percent of all

Prussian Jews who were baptized. Several reasons explain Berlin’s special relationship with defection. As the Prussian capital, Berlin had the highest percentage of desirable jobs for which baptism could serve as the entry ticket Berlin was also the birthplace of the German Jewish enlightenment; from the salon period onwards, Berlin offered wealthy Jews close contact with

European society. Berlin Jewry’s physical proximity to the gentile world, in com parison to

Frankfurt’s Judencasse. also led to an earlier appreciation of the "benefits' of leaving Judaism. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the very size of Berlin provided a further inducement to baptism for Jews preferring anonymity when they took this weighty step. Several instances of baptism, presumably carried-out in Berlin, became public only upon the death of the baptized; state law did not compel a baptized Jew to leave his or her local Jewish community.^®

The usual motive for either communal secession or baptism was to remove, in one way or another, the stigma and the burden of being Jewish. This could mean baptism for reasons of professional advancement, intermarriage with a partner unwilling to marry a Jew, belonging to the majority faith, easing the future of one’s children, even genuine religious belief.®^ Communal secession, in addition to these reasons, could be carried out on the basis of leftist political beliefs, an antinomian attitude toward the communal leadership, financial stinginess, or strict Orthodox

Jewish belief. The Austrittsorthodoxie (Separatist Orthodoxy) in fact, lobbied extensively to enable

Jews to leave the community without religious conversion. With the exception of the

Austrittsorthodoxie. most Jew s who seceded or underwent baptism did attem pt a "flight from Judaism" that Schoiem considered characteristic of German Jewry at large. The motives for intermarriage cannot be as easily assessed, but at least the extent of intermarriage in the

Kaiserreich may be described with considerable precision.^®

JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERMARRIAGE IN THE KAISERREICH

Even in the numerical representation of the extent of intermarriage, polemical considerations may obtrude, for three methods can be used to calculate the rate of intermarriage- all of which yield different figures. The two most common are as follows. One may calculate in terms of the percentage of intermarriages out of the total number of marriages in which Jews are involved. This represents the method most frequently used by American Jewish demographers today. One may also calculate take the ratio of mixed versus endogamous marriages; this yields a substantially higher intermarriage rate. Deborah Hertz, using the Berlin Jewish community from

1800-1809 as her example, calculates the intermarriage rate as either twenty-four percent or thirty- one percent, depending on which method is used. The way one calculates the intermarriage factor, therefore, cannot help but influence the subjective reaction of the reader. The crucial subjective factor, however, involves not the numbers, but one’s historical perspective. Compared to the

United States Jewish community today, all the intermarriage figures for Imperial Germany seem modest indeed. On the other hand, if contrasted to the German Jewish situation in earlier times, a natural comparison for intermarriage polemicists during the Kaiserreich, the number of mixed marriages was enormous: objectively, in terms of percentile growth, subjectively, by way of

<30 companson.'^®

Having stated these caveats, I tum to what remains the best discussion of the extent of intermarriage in the Kaiserreich, Arthur Ruppin’s Die Juden der Geaenwart. Here are Ruppin’s statistics for intermarriage in Germany: 23

Year Numberof Jewish marriages Intermarriages

1901-1304 3909 675 1905-1908 3968 883

Year Intermarriage as % of Jewish marriages As % of Jews

1901-1904 17.3 7.95 1905-1908 22.2 9.97 1910-1911 11.96

These numbers demonstrate that while the total number of endogamous Jewish marriages climbed only marginally in the fifteen years before the war. the number of intermarriages rose rapidly. Statistically, other factors can both exaggerate and deflate the weight of these numbers.

Ruppin reported that in Hamburg in the years 1903-1905 Jews concluded 105 endogamous versus fifty-two mixed marriages. Nevertheless, in 1900 only 14.3 percent of all existing Jewish marriages were intermarriages. This may be attributed primarily to the fact that the rising intermarriage rate reflected a year by year increase. While every year showed more intermarriage, a reserve of Jewish marriages served as a hand on the endogamous side of the scale, especially since all Jewish marriages concluded before 1875 were "pure".^^ Outside of Hamburg and Berlin, the intermarriage rate dropped considerably. In the rural areas of Bavaria, Baden and Hesse, only an insignificant number of Jews intermarried.^^ One could, therefore, legitimately point to rural Jewry as a bastion of Jewish endogamy.

On the other hand, focusing on the offspring of intermarriages casts the extent of intermarriage into high relief. To begin with, the declining fertility rate of Prussian Jewry stood out against the growing number of children from intermarriages. From 1875 to 1878,11,113 children per year were bom to endogamous Jewish marriages, while in 1907/08 this yearly average had slipped to 6,627. The same years reflect a rise from 387 to 797 of children bom of intermarriages.

Rising intermarriage figures do not logically necessitate a decline in the number of children 24

ret r^ fi lirig Jewish, for German law left the upbringing of the children to the parents’ discretion. In the context of the Kaiserreich, however, intermarriage signified a loss to Judaism. Ruppin cited the finding of the Prussian census of 1905 that the number of Jewish children of intermarriages was

22.67 p ercent^ Of these, Ruppin doubted that more than 10 percent would remain within the

Jewish religion. Some demographers also argued that intermarriages proved less fertile than endogamous marriages. Ruppin, however, convincingly disputed this claim as it ignored the crucial variable of marital longevity.^

By 1905, 5,117 intermarried couples lived in Prussia. No exact figure has been tabulated for the year 1914, but based on the following Juedisches Lexikon chart, and accounting for deaths, divorces and departures, it seems likely that the number approached 10,000.

Prussia, total number of Jews who married non-Jews:

Year Total

1875-1879 1,195 1880-1884 1,228 1885-1888 1,466 1890-1894 1,566 1895-1899 2,218 1900-1904 2,452 1905-1909 3,435 1910-1914 4,279 45

The presence of intermarried couples in German society clearly became less and less infrequent. Moreover, the rise in intermarriages contrasted with a nearly stable number of endogamous Jewish marriages. As a percentage of every hundred Jews who married, the intermarriage rate climbed from 4.4 percent in the years 1876-1880 to 13.2 percent in the years

1906-1910. In a most dramatic formulation, George Salzberger contrasted the slight five percent growth of the Jewish population in the first decade of the twentieth century to the fifty percent 25

increase in the number of intermarriages in the same period. The following chart gives some idea as to the size of the increase in Prussia of intermarriage as compared to endogamous marriage:

Yearly Average Jewish Marriages Intermarriages Male Female Total

1875-1884 2406 116 126 242 1885-1894 2426 155 147 302 1895-1899 2555 231 202 433 1900-1904 2568 263 232 495 1905-1908 2674 358 316 674 46

Having examined the extent of intermarriage the more difficult question of social context emerges. Which German Jews intermarried? What circumstances and motives led to intermarriage? How did an intermarrying couple fare with their parents and in-laws? Without question, urban Jew s intermarried more than rural Jews. Likewise, Jew s who had lived in Germany several generations tended to intermarry more frequently than those Jews recently arrived from

Poland or Russia. Length of residence, not surprisingly, influenced the intermarriage rate to a considerable degree. Differentiation must also be made, however, along gender and economic lines.

Gender-specific characteristics of conversion and intermarriage differed in the two halves of the nineteenth century. Unlike the salon period, Jewish males converted and intermarried more than females in the Kaiserreich wherever a relative equivalence of male and female populations

existed. Overall, intermarried females came from a lower economic class and this status probably fuelled their actions. Social historian Marion Kaplan remarks, “Without middle class means it may

have become increasingly more difficult to maintain traditional loyalties.”^^ Kaplan portrays Jewish women as being more enclosed in a private sphere of family and friends than Jewish males. The

narrowing discrepancy between male and female intermarriage statistics towards the end of the 26

Kaiserreich may be partly explained by the disintegration of this traditional sphere of female activity.'^

At the lower end of the economic scale, Jewish women who worked in factories or as domestics provided more than their fair share of intermarriage candidates. When George

Salzburger’s article "Die juedische-christliche Mischehe" claimed that Jewish women had a hard time acquiring Jewish husbands without a dowry, he was repeating what had been common knowledge for some time.^® The distasteful aspects and the prevalence of dowered marriages gains further credence from the fact that both pro- and anti-intermarriage polemicists charged this greedy quest with ruining the institution of Jewish marriage. The rising number of female converts,

84 percent of whom came from the lowes" income groups, suggests that a modicum of wealth encouraged adherence to the Jewish community.^*^ Using newspaper advertisements, Kaplan has attempted to show that arranged marriages- with their concomitant business-like approach- prevailed over romantic marriages within the Jewish bourgeois community throughout the

Kaiserreich. Arranged marriages continued to predominate until the First World War, despite a gradual progression towards "arranged coincidence" and then towards "romantic love." Lower- class intermarriages, unfortunately, provide few case studies. Kaplan found that marital advertisements of poor Jewish women evidence their greater willingness to intermarry, but we do not know the fate of the advertisers in either the short or the long run. Lov/er-class intermarriages took place, but so far scholars have discovered little about their context and their social ramifications.^^

At the economic pinnacle of the Jewish community, intermarriage also occurred with some frequency. Based on a study of eighty-four families, Werner E. Mosse concludes that the third generation of the Jewish economic elite, the "heirs," exhibited a strong tendency toward exogamy. Mosse claims that 41 percent of the sibling groups married only Jews, 33 percent only 27

non-Jews, and 25 percent married both Jews and non-Jews. Marriage strategies among the wealthy, then, did not exclude intermarriage, and indeed evidence a good deal of diversity.®^

Individual cases that support this conclusion are not lacking- the notorious intermarriages between impoverished noblemen and wealthy Jewish heiresses in search of a title furnish notable examples. This group, prominent because of its wealth, obviously did not represent a sizable majority of German Jews. Certainly this Jewish elite does not exhaust the nearly 900 intermarriages per year concluded between 1905 and 1908.^^

Mosse details the courtships of George Tietz, the wealthy department store heir, to show that religion was only one consideration of many. In this case, only the non-Jew regarded the confessional differences a bar to marriage. To Tietz, religion proved a less important consideration than romantic love.®** A somewhat different perspective on marriage-and intermam'age- strategies emerges from the Bleichroder family. Gershon Bleichroeder, Bismarck’s personal banker, consciously sought to marry off his children into the Prussian nobility- his business clientele as well as his social objective.^^ A third example of a wealthy Jew’s intermarriage demonstrates that even without the indifference bom of old money and the motive of conscious social climbing, intermarriage could still occur.

Albert Ballin, subsequently Germany’s most prominent Jewish shipping magnate, married

Marianne Rauert in 1883. Older and taller than Ballin, and from a solid middle-class Protestant background, Rauert possessed neither exceptional beauty nor captivating social graces. In this case, Ballin’s dockside upbringing-he was the youngest of nine children- and lack of Jewish social involvement probably influenced his decision to marry for none of the usual reasons.^® The rich differed, apparently, in that they felt less constrained by middle-class German Jewish societal norms. If one considers that this elite stood above bourgeois society economically, and to the side of it socially, this aristocratic independence rings true. 28

Finally, the marriage strategies of the Jewish bourgeoisie, German Jewry’s most representative segment, must be considered. Until now I have spoken of the Jewish bourgeois as if it presented a monolithic bloc. In reality, several groups within the bourgeoisie were more prone to intermarry than others.®^ Although German academia proved a fruitful breeding ground for antisemitism, urban intellectuals might fiave travailed in circles less tainted with antisemitism; as would be expected, these intellectuals also felt less bound by societal norms. Philip Loewenfeld, a social democrat, married a Christian despite initial opposition from both families. In Loewnfeld’s case, his education and his middle-class status helped to aiiay the opposition of his fiancee’s father. Despite his grandfather’s unfulfilled threat to hurl himself from an open window if Philip intermarried, the Loewenfelds achieved normalized relationships with both sets of in-laws.^®

For those Jews in professions with fewer "natural" connections to the non-Jewish world, intermarriages probably received more familial opprobrium. This seems to be the best way to explain the tales of intermarried couples being disavowed by their Jewish relatives; I say "tales," because I have seen little evidence to support the claim that this happened with any frequency.

The most severe response within the liberal Jewish mainstream appears to be the case where the gentile partner received the permanent "cold shoulder" from one or both of the parents.®®

The resistance of Christian bourgeois families to intermarriage does not seem to be much different than that of the Jewish families. Margarets Susman, the philosopher and poetess, did come under pressure from her would-be in-laws to convert; her fiance, however, remained utterly indifferent and she decided that she could not go through the baptismal ceremony. Their marriage went on as planned.®® Rahel Strauss, a Zionist and a daughter of an Orthodox rabbi, travelled in a mixed circle of Jews and Christians. She reported that two of her Jewish friends married to

Christians described the problems as occurring not with the Christian spouse but the reiatives- and even here it was a question of the Jewish partners being ill at ease rather than being 29

disdained.®^ While the statistical validity of his recollection may be doubted, the Zionist Richard

Uchtheim believed that the many families of German Jews had disappeared through conversion and intermarriage. Uchtheim grew up not after the salon period, but in fin de siecle Berlin. Ukewise,

Theodor Fontane mused that nearly every Silesian noble family had seen the infusion of at least some Jewish blood. Whether the Christian or the Jewish bourgeoisie resisted intermarriage more resolutely must be, for the time being, a matter of pure speculation.®^

Where did intermarried couples meet? The university, despite growing antisemitism, served as the locus for the initial meetings of some.®® Arthur Ruppin joined a dance club in which he was the only Jew; the women were all eligible young women, and indeed Ruppin’s sexual desires prompted his initial participation. Ruppin eventually married a Jewish woman, a cousin.

Fritz Haber, the prize-winning chemist, did meet his future wife, Clara Immerwahr, at a dance club.®^ Although the baptized Haber may be considered an acute example of a Jew who attempted to entirely assimilate into German society, the fact that the Jewish press railed against the participation of Jews in dance clubs on several occasions suggests that Haber’s case was not unique. As mentioned, factory work and domestic service seemed to offer opportunities for frequent lower-class intermarriages. Rahel Strauss offers another the Kamh/alzeiten (community festivals), which she calls The place and source of much intermarriage, even in young Zionist circles."®® These scenarios contrast with the social settings employed for arranging endogamous

Jewish marriages: singles’ parties, familial gatherings, and holidays at the spa (Kur).®®

Marshall Sklare, a contemporary scholar of American Jewry, once stated that American

Jews did not seek intermarriages but marriages. Considering the minute size of German Jewry, had they not shown as strong an endogamous tendency as they did, they would have disappeared within one generation into the general population. The politics of intermarriage, while less blatant than those of communal secession or baptism, should not be overlooked. Ruppin estimated that 30

approximately three-quarters (74.45 percent) of German Jews contracted intermarriages with

Evangelicals. Since only 62.1 percent of Germany’s citizens were Evangelical, Jews married

Evangelicals in considerably greater proportions than they married either Catholics or freethinkers.®^ These figures suggest that Jewish intemnarriers expressed some conscious-or unconscious-attraction to belong to the norm of German society. Walther Rathenau’s Austritte statement (he did not secede) cited his impending marriage to a "pretty, slim blond girl of good

German family" (whom he did not marry). The infrequency of Jewish-Catholic intermarriage in particular indicates that an affinity between two minority groups did not exercise a terribly strong pull. Likewise, the infrequency of Ostjuden marrying non-Jews dem onstrates that the stage of

"structural assimilation" (overlapping employment, cultural and educative patterns) had already been achieved by native German Jews, but not necessarily by the Ostjuden.®® At least some Jews regarded their marital choice as a further statement of identifying as a German.

THE SCOPE AND THE IMPACT OF JEWISH DEFECTION

To return to an earlier question: to what extent did these forms of defection and in particular intermarriage overlap, and to what extent did this defection harm the solidarity of the

Jewish community? We may be reasonably confident of Biau’s figure that 91.75 percent of the

Jews who seceded from their communities joined the Evangelical Church. Blau calculated that in

Berlin 1,874 Jews seceded from the community from 1873-1906. Nathan Samter tabulated 2,957 baptized Berlin Jew s from 1873-1903.®® Generally, we may conclude that the number of Austritte is included in the number of baptized Jews, save for the small number of Austritte Jews who joined the Catholic Church or became Konfessionslos (that is, 8.25 percent of 1,874). If one subtracts from the number of Taufiuden those who travelled to Berlin for the baptism or children under fourteen, neither of which would have appeared in the Jewish communities’ figures for Austritte. the numbers for Taufe and Austritte would be closer to each other. Nevertheless, in estimating the 31

impact on the Jewish community the conclusion remains the same: the two phenomena should be counted as one, since almost ail Jews who seceded also underwent baptism. We may regard as insignificant those few Jews who were baptized but did not leave the Jewish community. For the

Kaiserreich at least, Taufe and Austritte present not two independent conditions, but

In the case of intermarriage, determining the numerical overlap is far more difficult. Every possibility exists. Jews who converted or seceded in order to marry Christians would not have been recorded as intermarried, although they would appear in one of our other "defection" categories. A small number of Christians became proselytes in order to enter into a Jewish marriage-they too would not be considered intermarried though many of the same social problems would have existed. And there were the "intermarriages" between baptized Jews and non-converted Jews; registered as an intermarriage by law, this characterized a goodly number of situations. Finally, we must at least consider the existence of a category of wholly baptized Jewish families marrying among themselves, a category to which both Schoiem and Arendt testify.^^

Numerically at least, intermarriage posed a marginally lesser threat than baptism. Ruppin, it will be recalled, counted 5,117 intermarried couples in all of Germany by the year 1905: in other words, 5,117 intermarried Jews, or about 10,000 if we extend the time period to 1914. Compared to the 7,581 Prussian Jews who had been baptized in roughly the same period (1875-1904), or the

11,500 figure for baptized German Jews 1870-1900, intermarriage appears marginally less significant as a direct threat to the Jewish future. While intermarriage polemicists emphasized that the children of intermarriages would be lost to Judaism, it certainly does not seem any more likely that the children of baptized Jews would return to Judaism- only the fraaestellung differed.

Similarly, demographers linked the declining Jewish birth rate and the stagnation in the numbers of endogamous Jewish marriages to intermarriage by a natural tendency to discuss issues of Jewish 32

family life in one category. Logically obvious, it must be said that intermarriage in no way caused decreased Jewish fertility within endogamous mam'ages.^^

On the face of it, at least, we must consider intermarriage and baptism separate phenomena. Given the religious definition of intermarriage by the laws of the German government, every intermarriage involved one Jew and one non-Jew at the time of the ceremony. It would certainly be interesting to know how many Jews converted prior to marriage in order to avoid an intermarriage. As far as determining the cumulative impact of defection, however, this should not matter since the “baptism" category then becomes operative. Occasionally, the conversion of one partner in an intermarriage occurred after the marriage itself took place. These post-marital conversions could have been motivated by either the birth of children, or, the desire to share the same cemetery plot Re-conversion of one of the two partners after the death of the other also occurred. None of these circumstances, however, appear to be numerically significant An ethnically based accounting of how many intermarriages involved a Jew and a converted Jew does not exist at present

Estimating the scope of Jewish defection as liberally as possible for the period 1870-1900, one could add the figure of Toury’s for conversion to the Evangelical Church (11,500) to the number of Jews in intermarriages- once again, discounting the Jewish ethnic, religiously mixed marriages. Adding eight percent to Toury’s figure of baptized Jews in order to account for Jews who became either Catholic or Konfessionslos. one arrives at a figure of almost 17,000 for the years 1870-1900. The years from 1900-1914 saw a rapid rise in the number of intermarriages: from

1900-1904 3,519 German Jews married a non-Jew, while from 1910-1914 5,687 married exogamously. Using the data from Ruppin and the Juedisches Lexikon to account for intermarriages and baptisms concluded from the years 1900-1914, the total Jewish loss through all forms of defection in the Kaiserreich totals about 30,000. Out of a German Jewish population of 33

615,000 in 1914, could one claim that this defection figure constituted a clear and present danger?

Contemporaries surely did. Perhaps, citing the dramatically rising intermarriage rates, and considering the descendents of these defectors as Jews in ootentia. one could arrive at that conclusion. Nevertheless, on a numerical basis alone, recent scholarship rejects the notion that

German Jewry in the Kaiserreich faced impending disaster.^^

In evaluating the impact of defection, numbers should not be allowed to tell the whole story. Economically, defections also tended to come from the highest and the lowest classes. Blau estimated that from 1887-1906 the Berlin community lost 78,833 marks from people who would have had to pay the communal tax.^^ Admittedly, many young Jewish professionals converted before their collective earning power could be felt. Nevertheless, recalling that the Berlin community budget ran into the several millions of marks it is difficult to consider this loss terribly significant. And Berlin stood at the apex of all these phenomena of defection. Rural German Jewish communities suffered from financial distress, but in rural communities migration, not defection, constituted the source of the problem.

Certainly many capable Jews were baptized and their services lost to the Jewish community. One may say, however, that while the last quarter of the nineteenth century did not produce as many outstanding leader? as earlier in the century, German Jewish organizations did not seem to lack capable leaders and administrators.^® Considering the fact that some of the more talented Jew s like Ballin or Rathenau wanted as little as possible to do with the Jewish community anyvray, we may rightly question how much defection "cost” Germany Jewry in terms of depleting quality leadership. What seems beyond doubt, and this the Centralverein understood quite clearly in its campaign against apostasy, is that the defection of German Jews, in particular the prominent and well-educated, deleteriously affected the morale of German Jewry at large. By the First World

War contemporaries knew that intermarriage was spreading among the German Jewish poor and 34

the bourgeoisie and not only among the economic elite, the focus of Graetz’s portrayal of the early

nineteenth century situation. By the end of the Kaiserreich, then, Jewish defection represented

danger as well as demoralization.

The intangible damage done by Jewish defection can be neither quantified nor gainsaid.

Giver, the rising pressures of antisemitism, and the sense of Jewish inferiority exhibited by so many

German Jews, we can understand why Jewish leaders felt the sting of defections so sharply. Any

claims beyond this by intermarriage polemicists, however, must be regarded with considerable

skepticism. German Jewry in the Kaiserreich continued to experience profound change, but it did

not face imminent dissolution. However, the Jewish situation in the Kaiserreich, actual and

perceived, was not the only force operating on the Jewish responses to intermarriage. Jewish

defenders of endogamy also needed to contend with three-quarters of a century of theoretical

discussion on this issue, discussions which took place long before the existence of German Jewry

seemed threatened. 35

THE EXTENT AND CONTEXT OF INTERMARRIAGE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY GERMANY

ENDNOTES

^ German Jewry declined from one-tenth of the world Jewish population in 1825 to 1 /25 a century later. Adolf Kober, "Jewish Communities in Germany from the Age of Enlightenment to their Destruction by the Nazis" JSS. 9:3, (July 1947),p. 198. Although the fertility rate declined during the Kaiserreich, the German population continued to grow rapidly. John Knodel, The Decline of Fertility in Germany. 1871-1933 (Princeton, 1974).

^ Jack Wertheimer, Unwelcome Strangers (Oxford, 1987), pp. 11-12,18. See also Steven M. Lowenstein, “Jewish Residential Concentration in Post-Emancipation Germany." LBIYB. 28. (1983), p. 472. The influx of Ostjuden was an antisemrtic staple. The "Great Antisemitic Debate" of 1879- 1880 opened with Treitschke’s attacks on the "pants-selling Polish lads"; Walter Boehlich, Die Berliner Antisemitismusstreit (Frankfurt, 1965). Moritz Lazarus’ reply, "Was heisst National?" undertook to disprove the claim of Ostjuden "flooding" over the German borders; Lazarus, Treu und Frei (Leipzig, 1887). The Ostjuden remained a cause de guerre for antisémites. See also Steven Aschheim, Brothers or Strangers (Madison, WL, 1982).

® Usiel O scar Schmeltz, "Die Demographische EnTwicklung der Juden in Deutschland, von der Mitte des Neunzehnjahrhunderts bis 1933," Bulletin d es Leo Baeck Instituts. 83, (1989), p. 20. Steven M. Lowenstein, "The Pace of Modemization of German Jewry," LBIYB. 21, (1976), pp. 41- 54, has emphasized that the modemization of German Jews must be seen as geographically diverse. Lowenstein also emphasizes the distinction between folk and elite.

^ Schmeitz, ‘Die Demographische Entwicklung," p. 23.

® Schmeltz, "Die Demographische Entwicklung," pp. 29-30, states that the Jewish birth rate declined steadily from the second half of the nineteenth century through the Weimar period.

® Schmeltz, "Die Demographische Entwicklung," pp. 28-31, and 43. Divorce, more easily obtained in the Jewish than the Christian tradition, contributed to the higher rate among Jews. It is curious, however, that in Berlin itself the Jewish divorce rate was lower than the general divorce rate.

^ Steve Lowenstein, "Jewish Residential Concentmtion," p. 494.

® David Laurence Preston, Science. Society and the Germany Jews. 1871-1933. unpublished dissertation. University of Illinois. (Urbana, 1971), p.105.

® Schmeltz, “Die Demographische Entwicklung," pp.49-54. Professor Schmeltz was kind enough to discuss the demographic features of Jewish defection with me in Jerusalem (November 1988). 36

Gershom Schoiem, "On the Social Psychology of the German Jew," David Bronsen, Jews and Germans from 1860-1933: The Problematic Symbiosis (Heidelberg, 1979), pp. 15-17, and 19; David Jan Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840 (Oxford, 1988).

^ ^ Volkov’s original reads: "Waehrend die Juden- und dessen waren sie sich nur zu gut bewusst- im Hinblick auf einige wichtige Aspekte ein integraier Bestandteil der Wilhelminischen Geselischaft und Kultur waren, entwickelteten sie gleichzeitig eine neue, gemeinsame juedische Identitaet, wobei sie allerdings die Eigenart der Entwicklung oft nicht verstanden und manchmal ausdruecMich vemeinten." Shulamit Volkov, "Juedische Assimilation und juedische Eigenart im deutschen Kaiserreich," Geschichte und Geselischaft. 9:3 (1983), p. 332 and 347-348. See also Volkov’s "Jewish Assimilation and Dissimilation," Edited by Jehuda Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg, The Jewish Response to German Culture (Hanover, NH., 1985).

Marsha Rozenblitt, The Jews of Vienna (Albany, 1983).

Schorsch, Jewish Reactions to Gentian Antisemitism: Uriel Tal, Christians and Jew s in the Second Reich (Ithaca, 1979), pp. 49-59; Norbert Kampe, "Jews and Antisémites at Universities in Imperial Germany (11)," LBIYB. 32, (1987), pp. 86-88.

Lamar Cecil, Albert Ballin (Princeton, 1967); “Phiiip Loewenfeld Memoirs," Monika Richarz, Selbstzeuonisse zur iuedisches Leben in Deutschiand (Tuebingen, 1985).

Kurt Wilhelm, "Jewish Communities in the Post-Emancipation Period," LBIYB. 2, (1956); Marjorie Lamberti, T he Jewish Struggie for the Legal Equality of Reiigions in Imperil Germany" LBIYB. 23, (1978). On departures from the community see Jacob Lestchinsky, "Apostasy in Different Lands" (Hebrew) Ha-Glam. (1911), # s 1,4-6,8-9,10-12; Peter Honigmann, Die Austritte ausder Juedischen Gemeinde Berlin 1873-1914 (Frankfurt, 1988), p. 13; Idem., "Jewish Conversion- A Measure of Assimiiation? A Discussion of the Berlin Secession Statistics of 1770- 1941," LBIYB. 34, (1989). While Jewish legal and communal status varied within the Kaiserreich, 1 shall take Prussian Jewry as my model. Aside from the fact that two-thirds of German Jewry lived there, Prussian law increasingly prevailed in post-unification Germany.

Bruno Blau, "Die Austritte aus den Judenthum in Berlin," Zeitschrift fuer Démographie und Statistik der Juden. 3:10. (Oktbober 1907).

Ismar Elbogen, A Century of Jewish Life (Phiadelphia, 1966), p. 409. Bleichroederis wealth is discussed at length in Fritz Stem, Gold and Iron (New York, 1977).

On Jewish organizations in the Kaiserreich see Schorsch, Jewish Reactions: Marjorie Lamberti, Jewish Activism in Imperial Germany (New Haven, 1978). For an earlier call for increased Jewish organizations, see Leopold Auerbach, Das Judenthum und seine Bekenner (Berlin, 1890).

On the early modem communal structure Jacob Katz’s Tradition and Crisis (Glencoe, NY., 1961) remains the standard work. Yakov Borut, a doctoral student at the Hebrew University argues that the 1890s mark the beginning of grassroots German Jewish activism- politically and culturally. Mr. Borut was kind enough to lend me a copy of his manuscript

Schorsch, Jewish Reactions: Jacob Katz, Jews and Freemasons in Modem Europe. (Cambridge, MA., 1970), pp. 164-166. The Jewish reactions to antisemitism must include the 37

Jewish leadership’s awareness that many within their owrî ranks wished to bolt. It must also include an increased desire of Jews to socialize, not merely when antisemitism closed-out certain institutions, but also because of the general climate and need for mutual support

Ruth Pierson, Jewish Identity in the Weimar Republic, unpublished dissertation, Yale University. (New Haven, 1970), pp. 1-42.

^ Leopold Auerbach. Das Judenthum und seine Bekenner in Preussen und in den Anderen Deutschen Bundesstaaten (Berlin, 1890), pp. 99-101 ; Evyatar Friesel, T he Ideology and of the Centralverein 1894-1914: A Reappraisal," LBIYB. 31, (1986); Marion Kaplan, The Jewish Feminist Movement in Germanv (Westport, CT., 1979); Edward Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slaverv (Oxford, 1982).

Walther Rathenau, "Hoere Israel." Die Zukunft. (1897).

Benedictus Levita (pseud.) for Arthur Weissler, "Die Erioesung von Judenthum," Preussischer Jahrbuecher. vols. 100-101, (1900). The responses to Levita demonstrate how much more assertive German Jewry had become since the first antisemitic outbreaks in 1879-1880. On the discrepancy between the limited scope of Jewish defections and the extremeness of the Jewish responses, see Honigmann, Die Austritte. p. 38, and the introductory chapter in Rozenblitt, Jew s of Vienna.

Honigmann, Die Austritte. p. 28.

One must note that the historiographical revision posed by Honigmann and Hertz was never that solid. Jacob Lestchinsky stated that the 1880-1900 wave never reached the early century levels. Lestchinsky, interestingly, periodized the waves of baptism into four periods: 1800-1848, 1848-1879,1880-1900, and 1900-1925. Lestchinsky, "Apostasie." Encvclopaedia Judaica. (Berlin, 1928), pp. 1223-1224. Or. the other hand Carl Cohen, The Road to Conversion," LBIYB. 6, (1961), pp. 272-273 does speak of two waves of baptism and implies their equivalence.

^ Deborah Hertz, Jewish High Societv in Ancien Regime Berlin (New Haven, 1987), pp. 1-22.

Hertz, "Intermarriage in the Berlin Salons." Central European Historv. (1983), pp. 303-346, esp. pp. 326-327.

Jacob Tourv. Sozial und Polrtische Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 1847-1871 (Düsseldorf, 1977), pp. 65-67, and 69. Toury writes on defection in the years 1848-1971 as follows: In der Zusammenschau bieten die jahre 1847-1870 allerdings hinsichtiich der taufen und Mischehen kein alizu erregendes Bild. Die Mischehe waren in ihrerTragweite als demographischer faktor noch nicht recht ins Bewusstsein gerueckt, und die taufen Hessen sogar einen deutHchen Rueckgang erkennen. Die juedische Bevoelkerung vermehrte sich trotz aller wanderungen, und die Lebenserwartung stieg merklich an. Es nimmt also nicht wunder, dass im hier behandelten Zeitabschnitt in demographischer Hinsicht keinerlei Alarmrufe laut wurden.

The figure of 1,874 com es from Bruno Blau, "Die Austritte au s dem Judenthum in Berlin," ZDSJ. 3:10, (1907), p. 148; Honigmann, Die Austritte: Jacob Lestchinsky, "Apostasy in Different Lands"; 38

Honigmann’s sample of re-entries focuses on the Weimar period. Given the political climate of that era it is not surprising that there is so much variation in his figures.

Blau. "Die Austritte," speaks of one Jew per thousand. I have freely discussed his figures as percentages.

Blau, "Die Austritte," p. 149; Arthur Ruooin. The Jewish Fate and Future (London, 1940), pp. 282-ff. Jacob Toury further broke-down this number to 11,000 baptized Jews pre-1870 and 11,500 from 1870-1900.

^ Lestchinsky’s figures are close to those of Ruppin who places the number of Taufe to the Evangelical Church at 480/yr average, for Germany, from 1896-1900. Ruppin estimates Taufe in Berlin at 153 per year. Estimates vary because children not baptized at birth but baptized between birth and age fourteen would be counted as Taufe by the Church but would not be counted as Austritte by the Jewish community.

^ Ruooin. Die Juden. pp. 188-189.

The Blau report is in ZDSJ. 11, (1915), pp. 12-15.

Blau, "Die Austritte," p. 146.

Carl Cohen, T h e Road to Conversion" LBIYB. 6, (1961); Guido Kisch, Judentaufen (Berlin, 1973).

Robert Liberies, Religious Conflict in a Social Context (Westport, CT., 1985), pp. 201-230. In May, 1873 the Reichstag passed the Jewish communal secession law. It was approved by Kaiser Wilhelm I in July, 1873.

I will return to Ruppin’s polemical use of the statistics at length in chapter seven; Ruppin’s statistics are quite reliable.

^ Arthur Ruppin, Die Juden der Geaenwart (Berlin, 1904).

Ruppin, Die Juden. p. 143. Intermarried couples also divorced more frequently than endogamously married Jews, although this rate did not differ significantly enough to influence the percentage of intermarriages versus the total number of existing marriage.

For instance, only six women and two men intermarried annually between 1888-1897 in Baden. ZSDJ. 1, (August 1905) p.7. Quoted in Kaplan, "A Gender Analysis," p. 16.

The number of children from intermarriages and the infrequency with which they were brought up Jewish concerned Ruppin greatly. This 22.67 percent represented a decline from the 1885 figure of 24.78 percenL Ruppin, Die Juden. pp. 170-174.

^ Kaplan "A Gender Analysis," p.17,. n. 62. Max Marcuse, Ueber die fruchtbarkeit der Christlich- iuedischen Mischehe (Nobb, 1920) also made this claim. 39

^ "Mischehe," Judisches Lexikon (Berlin, 1930), p.213. The number of intermarriages concluded between 1875 and 1905 would exceed 5,117.1 assume that this figure reflects divorces and deaths among those who intermarried. Were we to add the figure 5,117 to those intermarriages concluded from 1905-194 we would arrive at the figure of 12,831. It is doubtful that death, divorce and migration would depress this figure below 10,000. Additionally, we must correct for the intermarried couples living in the German Reich but not in Prussia.

^ George Salzberger, "Die juedische-christliche Mischehe," Der Moreen. (1929), p.19; Arthur Ruppin, Die Juden. p. 161.

Kaplan, "A Gender Analysis," p.18, pp. 15-17.

^ I question the validity of Kaplan’s use of Felix Theilhaber, Die Schaedioung der Rasse durch soziales und wirtschaftliches Ajfsteiaen bewiesen an den Beriiner Juden (Berlin, 1914), pp. 87-88. Theilhaber claimed that more Jewish women marrying a Jew had never worked (63%) as opposed to Jewish women who married a Christian (only 31% never employed) as proof that lower class Jewish women married out more than Jewish women of other economic classes. In order to consider this conclusive proof, one v.'ould also have to consider the ages of the women a s well. Age could well prove to be as decisive a variable as class.

Salzberger, "Die juedische-christliche Mischehe": Marcuse, Ueber die fruchtbarkeit der Christlich-iuedischen Mischehe. p. 12, worte, “die juedische Koechin, die den christlichen Schutzmann heiratet." Quoted in Kaplan, "A Gender Analysis," p.16.

Todd Endelman, "The Social and Political Context of Conversion in Germany and England, 1870-1914," Endelman, Jewish Apostasy in the Modem World (New York, 1987), p. 90; Ruben Bierer, Die Mischehe (1897); Jacob Stem, Die Mischehe (Zurich, 1880).

One memoirist testified to the fate of a pair of siblings without money; the sister remained single, the brother married a Christian. Richarz, Selbstzeuonisse zur iuedisches Leben in Deutschland, p. 165. Kaplan cites a Jewish cattle dealer with a 4,000 Mark dowry who managed to acquire a Catholic butcher for his daughter. General Anzeioer. (13 January 1903).

Werner Mosse, “Marriage Strategies: The German Jewish Economic Elite," Studia Rosenthaliana. 19, (1985), p. 202. See now. Idem., The German-Jewish Economic Elite. 1820-1935 (Oxford, 1989).

^ Mosse’s critique of Kaplan strikes me as somewhat misplaced as Kaplan focuses her "Love or Money" article not on the Jewish economic elite at all, but rather the far more numerous bourgeoisie.

Mosse, “Marriage Strategies," p. 192.

Fritz Stem, Gold and Iron, pp. 491-492. Sieichroederis daughter married a Baron, traded an Stupendous dowry for a title, and divorced shortly thereafter. Hans Bleichroeder, the family ne’er do well, married the daughter of a Christian laundress after producing two illegitimate children. 40

Lamar Cecil, Albert Ballin. Business and Politics in Imperial Germanv. 1888-1918 (Princteon, 1967), pp.28-30; Mosse, The German-Jewish Economic Elite, pp. 125-127. Ballin did not becom e the Director of Hapag until 1899, in 1883 he was a middle managem ent employee of the Carr Line.

"Mischehe.* Judisches Lexikon (Berlin. 1930L p.214. The author described intermarriage as originally a purely urban phenomenon; Ruppin held similar views. Tal, Jews and Christians in the Second Reich, p. 49 cited family archives to argue that a Jewish-Christian dialogue and resulting intermarriages characterized the big cities.

Richarz, Selbstzeuonisse. pp. 320-332. Lowenfeld Memoirs.

Gershom Schoiem "On the Social Psychology of the German Jew," pp. 21-22, characterizes the attitude toward mixed marriage -unlike the attitude toward conversion- as "very ambivalent and often irrational." Scholem’s father declined to have anything to do with Werner and his bride after "a brief formal meeting." Schoiem does comment how much of that parental rejection was due to the newlyweds political radicalism. Max Escheilbacher, scion of a distinguished rabbinical family, claimed that there were cases where a Jewish man’s relatives did not know he was a husband and father because of his embarassment at being intermarried. "Mischehen," Ost und West. 17:3-4, (March-April 1917).

The principle of "self-selection" certainly operated on both sides. Only those individuals willing to commence relationships with members of a different religious-ethnic group could become "candidates" for intermarriage. Margarete Susman, Ich habe viele leben oelebt (Stuttgart, 1964); Werner Schoiem, Gershom Scholem’s brother, married a Christian woman who was a fellow member of the German Communist Party. Schoiem, From Berlin to Jerusalem (New York, 1980), pp. 30-31.

Rachel Strauss, Wir Lebten in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1961), p. 170.

Uchtheim, Rueckkehr (Stuttgart, 1970), esp. p. 49; Dietz Bering, Der Name als Stigma (Stuttgart, 1987) reports that Christian families often demanded a name-change before agreeing to an intermarriage.

^ Both l.oewnfeld and Susman, for instance, met their future spouses at the university. Ruppin, Die Juden. p. 163.

Ruppin, Memoirs, p. 28; Stem, "Fritz Haber" LBIYB, 8. (1963), pp. 70-102.

^ Strauss, Wir Lebten in Deutschland, p. 121. The German reads: "Die Stelle und Quelle so vieler Mischehen, gerade in Jungzionistischen Kreis."

Kaplan, "For Love or Money," pp. 294-295.

Rozenblit, Jews of Vienna. Ch.6.

Blau, "Die Austritte," pp. 148-149.

69 Beginning with the 20th century, the number of Austritte began to climb relative to the number of Taufe. Peter Honigmann, Die Austritte. p. 59 has argued that in the late Imperial period, and 41 moreso in the Weimar Republic, Austritte surpassed Taufe statistics and indeed became the secular form of baptism. It must also be noted that Blau. "Die Austritte," p. 153, was himself unhappy vrith the size of the sample of those giving future religion (only 703) and also with the fact that the professions of the Austritte constituted the only guide to their subsequent behavior. This point is also raised in Ruppin, Jews in the Modem World, p. 318.

Blau, "Die Austritte," claimed that 92% of those Jews who seceded subsequently underwent baptism; there is no reason to doubt Biau’s estimate.

Thus far, it is impossible to estimate the number of racially Jewish, religiously exogamous marriages. Hannah Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, p. 64, claims many baptized Jews married only amongst themselves.

72 This fact is also ignored by anti-intermarriage polemicists.

Hertz is currently at work on the Judenkartei for conversion during the period under discussion. Intermarriage records past 1841, however, do not appear to have been preserved.

For the Weimar Republic, however, the matter of Jewish population decline and Jewish defection grew even more serious. Endelman, "Conversion as a Response to Antisemitism," p. 63, puts the figure of converts and their descendants at 100,000 for the intenwar period. Endelman relies 1) on that same figure given by Schoiem in "The Social Psychology of the German Jew," and 2) the calculations of Donald Niewyck in The Jews of Weimar Germanv (Baton Rouge, 1980).

Blau "Die Austritte aus der juedschen Gemeinde Berlin, 1873-1906," p. 152. In calcalculating the financial loss due to defection, only the figure of Austritt is significant because only this legal act of seccession could relieve one of financial obligations to the community.

I base inis assertion on the works of Schorsch, Lamberti and Friesel. Even Jehuda Reinharz, who takes a mere jaundiced view of mainstream German Jewry, testifies to the qualities of Jewish leadership in his treatment of the Zionist movement in the Kaiserreich. CHAPTER II

JEWISH REACTIONS TO INTERMARRIAGE IN GERMANY: FROM THE NAPOLEONIC SANHEDRIN TO THE KAISERREICH

In the first half of the nineteenth century German Jewry led a largely rural, religious existence. While a considerable amount of communal and spiritual decay had occurred, traditional

Judaism remained the dominant framework for the Jewish masses and their leaders. This Judaism represented something more than a theological counterpart to Christianity; it encompassed a holistic, Judaic sensibility which animated every aspect of life. As the historian of Jewish religion

Max Wiener succinctly put it, "The Jew was even more of a Jew than was the Christian a

Christian."^ Examining the intermarriage debate in the 1840s, the first iirne this subject received widespread treatment by the leaders of German Jewry, a common religious vocabuIary-Jewish exegetical traditions-still marked the discussions. As the Reform movement in Germany entered its most ideological and radical phase in the 1840s, this shared vocabulary failed to keep the right and left wings of the rabbinate in fruitful dialogue.

The Reform movement mined traditional Jewish sources to expound a philosophy of

“religion allied to progress." In fact, accommodating Judaism to modernity led to a pronounced break with the past Most traditionalist rabbis, on the other hand, regarded the Reformers as heretics and seducers of the Jewish commonfolk. Despite this growing breach between Reformers and traditionalists, the intermarriage debate shows that both sides viewed intermarriage in primarily, if not purely, religious terms. While the political turbulence of the 1840s affected the

Reformers more visibly than the traditionalists, polemicists on both sides framed their discussion of

42 43

intermarriage in the context of Jewish marriage, the most relevant category provided by Jewish tradition.^

Ironically, the common vocabulary and the religious context employed in the intermarriage debate in the 1840s impeded intra-Jewish understanding. In the Kaiserreich, lenient commentators on the subject realized that their justifications stood outside the world of Torah. Initially, traditionalists had failed to grasp the magnitude of the change wrought by the beginnings of emancipation and Jewish embourgeoisement. In the Kaiserreich, the spokesmen of the new

Orthodoxy understood as well as the Reformers that intermarriage presented, above ali, a social phenomenon with religious ramifications.^ Intermarriage did not proceed from willful and stiff­ necked rebellion against the Law, but from the social situation of German Jewry. The treatment of the intermarriage issue during the Kaiserreich by non-religious groups-Zionists, radical assimilationists, race scientists and statisticians-reflected a secularization of the issue. By the end of the Kaiserreich, the competing ideologies within German Jewry understood their competitors’ claims on Jewish loyalties. This did not make the intermarriage debate less heated; nor can 1 claim that the issue of Jewish defection alone sparked revitalized Jewish sensibilities. 1 do contend that the Jewish reactions to intermarriage from the 1840s onwards mirror the decline and rise of Jewish fratemalism and activism which characterized the behavior of German Jewry from mid-century to

1914.“^

Before beginning a discussion of German-Jewish intermarriage debate in the 1840s, two parameters of that debate need to be clarified. First, what did Jewish texts, laws and traditions say about intermarriage? Since the portrayal of the teachings about intermarriage were used in highly polemical ways, an attempt at objective representation seems in order.® Since intermarriage constituted a deviation from the norm of Jewish marriage, in the nineteenth century and in earlier periods alike, a brief consideration of Jewish marriage will be included in this discussion. Second, 44

how did the Parisian Sanhédrin of 1806/1807 treat the subject of intermarriage? While it may seem inappropriate in an essay on German Jewish reactions to intermarriage to discuss the deliberations of French rabbis rather than the intermarriages in the Berlin salons as a prelude, the Napoleonic

Sanhédrin received considerable attention from the European rabbinate. For all their dislike of

Napoleon, Germans sympathetic to Jewish emancipation considered the curtailment of Jewish autonomy and exclusivity, the essence of the Parisian Sanhédrin, as a valid blueprint for Jewish-

Christian relations. Only after clarifying these two parameters will the context of the 1840s debate becom e clear.®

MARRIAGE AND INTERMARRIAGE IN JUDAISM

Wiener’s remark on the holistic nature of traditional Judaism points to the fact that the synagogue was never considered the sole, nor even the primary, focus of religion. The Jewish family played a critical role in the transmission of Judaism, and in the center of this religious, social and economic unit stood the Jewish couple. It would not be a gross exaggeration to claim that in traditional, rabbinic Judaism the more important and beloved the institution, the more likely that that institution will be lavished with numerous injunctions and restrictions ln the beginning of the section entitled "Laws of Marriage" in the law code Mishneh Torah. Maimonides describes the means of concluding marriages before and after the Sinaitic revelation. One can sense

Maimonides" revulsion at the thought that before the reception of Torah a "marriage" would be concluded when a man met a woman in the marketplace, took her home, and had sex with her.^

Jewish law (halachah) prohibits incest, adultery, bestiality and homosexuality not only to Jews, but also to gentiles, who are obligated to follow the seven Noahide laws.® Halachah forbids marriages among Jews in a wide variety of circumstances, and even limits the days in a month during which a lawfully married Jewish couple may have sexual relations. Along with various restrictions, there exist also a body of injunctions. Thus, a man must marry his brother’s widow unless a ceremony of 45

halrtza frees him from this obligation. Thus, a woman’s whose husband is presumed, but not proven to be dead, can not remarry-she is in a state of aaunah. Thus, no Jewish woman may remarry without a writ of divorce (a get)-she too is in a state of aaunah. In short, Jewish family and purity laws daim a very wide-ranging authority over the sexual behavior of individuals. While rabbinic Judaism regards sexuality in a positive light, and while it regards procreaî:c.~ as divine commandment, the terms of fulfilling this commandment are given serious consideration.^

Many of the restrictions and injunctions in halachah clashed with German civil law. The very notion of such control over intimate matter of marriage and sexuality increasingly offended many German Jews, who regarded the ritual laws as cumbersome and not spiritually edifying. This push for the reform or the abrogation of Jewish family purity laws, as we shall see, exerted an influence on the intermarriage polemic in the 1840s. Despite this inclination towards legal reform,

German Jewry took great pride in the Jewish family, in particular, the care bestowed upon Jewish children, and the earnestness with which Jews inculcated their offspring with moral values. The importance which bourgeois society in Europe placed on the family dovetailed with Jewish trgditions-and this compatibility was not lost on German Jews. Many antisemitic attacks elicited partial concessions on the part of Jewish defenders; slanders directed against the Jewish family, however, were met w

Intermarriage, being one of the deviations from proper Jewish sexual behavior from the standpoint of Jewish law, has received considerable attention throughout the ages. A modem halachic (Jewish legal) scholar, J. David Bleich, has written "while Jewish law clearly and unequivocally forbids intermarriage, the biblical source of this prohibition has been a matter of considerable debate and a discussion among rabbinic authorities over the centuries."^ ^ Bleich’s statement points to a dichotomy between biblical and rabbinic categories. The Hebrew Scriptures affirmed tribal and national endogamy and passed negative judgments on exogamous 46

relationships based on this standard.^ ^ When biblical figures took non-Israelites for wives, the texts did not mention formal conversion since it was assumed that joining the Israelite nation included adoption of its religious customs. Beginning with the Deuteronomic reforms, a harsher attitude toward intermarriage developed, leading first, to censure, and ultimately, to prohibition. Despite this trend, even the crusading Ezra considered intermarriages sinful rather than legally invalid.^ ^

In framing the rabbinic doctrine on intermarriage the Talmudic Sages of Babylonia wrestled with the text of Deuteronomy 7:3, "Neither shalt thou enter into marriage with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son." This text, which referred explicitly to the seven Canaanite nations only, needed to be applied to an entirely new setting.^ ^ In tractate Avodah Zarah 36b, the lengthiest Talmudic discussion of intermarriage, the Sages accepted the limitations of Deut. 7:3, concluding that rabbinical decree alone, not the

Written Torah, prohibited marriage with all gentiles.^ ^ In tractate Wddushin 66a-68b, however, the

Sages required the formulae of "kiddushin." as a precondition for a valid marital relationship. Since

Jews could not conclude "kiddushin" with gentiles, this innovation rendered intermarriages not merely prohibited, but invalid, incapable of being concluded.^®

Thus intermarriage became a technical impossibility as well as a reprehensible act. This position remained unchallenged from the Talmudic period until 1844. Later rabbinic discussions dealt with the various biblical prohibitions and the punishments for intermarriage: and in different context, the applicability of the notion of heathenism to Christians.^ ^ No rabbinic authority before

1844, from the Talmudic period until modem times, regarded Jewish-gentile sexual relationships as either licit or liable to formalization through the bonds of matrimony. The religion of the child, according to Jewish law, followed the religion of the mother. Thus, halachah distinguished between the sexual relations of gentiles with Jewish men, and gentiles with Jewish women. While all relations with gentiles were deemed illicit, the issue of a Jewish woman was Jewish.^® As we shall 47

see in chapter five, conversion to Judaism for the sake of marriage, usually by Christian women willing to adopt Judaism, prompted a difference of opinion within the Orthodox camp.

In tractate Avodah Zarah, the Talmudic Sages begin their discussion of intermarriage with the question, "why is the bread of gentiles prohibited?" it transpires that gentile bread is prohibited because of gentile on, gentile oil because of gentile wine, and gentile wine because of- gentile women. The rabbis understood that without firm social boundaries limiting Jewish-gentile contact, enacted into halachah, intermarriages would occur. The notion of separating Jews and gentiles was intrinsic to Jewish law, and therefore, as Jews began to enter European society, gentiles questioned the compatibility of social integration with the Jews’ own rules and regulations. This issue came to the fore in the Napoleonic Sanhédrin of 1807.

The Napoleonic Sanhédrin of 1807 has been accorded considerable historical scrutiny.^®

The dramatic confrontation between the French Emperor, then at the height of his powers, and the august assemblage of rabbis and laymen from France, Italy and Germany (Alsace) fascinated contemporaries and later observers alike. 11 Prompted by complaints of usury and the desire to explore the problems of Jewish dual loyalty, Napoleon appointed a commission to clarify Jewish obligations to the modem, theoretically egalitarian, state. Once in Paris, divisions in the Jewish ranks appeared along several lines. Sephardim and Ashkenazim, rich and poor, traditional and

“enlightened," laymen and rabbis, all these conflicting interests demanded attention.

The answers which resulted from the deliberation of the seventy-one delegates expressed a compromise between these opposing parties. Intending to demonstrate the Jews’ willingness to participate as citizens of the nation, and to stress the compatibility of Jewish with French law, the respondents composed some extremely crafty and even misleading statements. Of the twelve questions put to them, the Sanhédrin responded with a "no" only to the fourth question, "were Jews permitted to marry non-Jews?" Even in this instance, the answer was couched in language as 4 8

inoffensive as possible. The Sanhédrin assured Napoleon that the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly prohibited intermarriages only with the heathen nations, and that the rabbis did not place Christian nations in that category.^® The rabbis pointed to the existence of intermarriages in the Bible and in early Middle Ages, insinuating that the Christian rulers alone foreclosed the continuation of those unions. The French version of the Sanhedrin's response reflects the sense that the rabbis were negotiating difficult terrain;

That marriage between Israelites and Christian, contracted according to the laws of the ’Code Civil' are, from a civil standpoint, binding and valid, and, although such marriages can not be invested with the religious forms they shall not entail any disciplinary punishment (anathema)

The rabbis conceded the validity of civil law in its own province, which they had no control over in any case. They also promised not to place a rabbinic decree of excommunication (herem) on the transgressors, a power that had fallen into disuse in Western Europe.^ They did not countenance intermarriage, nor did they depart from the words of the halachah. Nevertheless, the framers of the intermarriage response applied a rabbinic concept of recognizing governmental authority in monetary matters “the law of the land is the law," to an issue of personal status

(marriage).^^ For a variety of reasons, including outrageous flattery, Napoleon declared himself pleased with Sanhedrin’s responses and did not press for a clearer statement on intermarriage.^'^

The glamour of reviving an institution associated with a glorious time in Jewish history, and the perception of Napoleon’s policy as being pro-Jev/ish, aided tremendously in the positive reception of the Sanhedrin’s decisions. Significantly, the Sanhédrin had m anaged the difficult feat of pleasing both Reform and traditionalist observers by adhering to halachah while exhibiting a clear reformist spirit Throughout Europe, Rabbi David Sinzheim, the architect of the Sanhedrin’s responses, won the plaudits of both governments and Jewish leaders.^® Reform-minded Jews in

Germany, Austria and Poland welcomed the entire process as a harbinger of improved political 49

status; Moses (Chatam) Sofer, an arch-traditionalist, praised Sinzheim’s diplomacy.^® Only in

Czarist Russia, in particular among the Hasidic movement, did Jewish leaders condemn the

Sanhédrin unequivocally. The Sanhédrin left an ambiguous but powerful legacy to succeeding generations, not only in its intermarriage response per se. but in its underlying attitude that Jewish activities needed to be justified in terms of Jewish religion. Or, to state the matter as German Jews would come to see it, that Judaism constituted a religious confession.^^

The decisions of the Napoleonic Sanhédrin set the crucial precedent when the issue of intermarriage surfaced publicly at the Brunswick Assembly of 1844. Brunswick represented the first successful attempt to gather rabbis together for the explicit purpose of reforming Judaism.^® Up until the 1840s, Reform had proceeded in a piecemeal fashion in Germany. Reform Temples

(congregations) had come into existence, the repetition of certain prayers had been eliminated, and greater decorum had been introduced in several locations.^® Yet not until the 1840s did a young generation of university trained, German literate, “modem" rabbis appear on the German scene. As Jewish embourgeoisement and economic diversification proceeded, Jewish traditional practices declined, not only among a few wealthy Jews, which had been typical of German Jewry since the mid-17th century, but also among the middle classes. Michael Meyer estimates that by mid-century half of German Jewry had ceased to be defined by traditional Jewish practice.

Cultivated by this cadre of modem rabbis, the seeds of religious reform planted in the first decade of the nineteenth century now emerged from fertile soil.®®

THE GREAT DEPARTURE; THE BRUNSWICK ASSEMBLY OF 1844

Although the stage for religious reform seemed well set, the 1844 Brunswick Assembly began and ended in controversy. The choice of limiting attendance to rabbis and preachers angered some critics and the decision to publish the discussions probably constrained them

considerably. The German governments in the 1840s rarely favored religious Reform; several 50

perspective participants had to cancel their attendance because of governmental pressures. The public nature of the proceeding also disinclined traditionalists from participating, as they feared being associated v«th a radical set of pronouncements. All in all, twenty-five rabbis attended the

Brunswick Assembly, a fer cry from a majority of rabbis serving in the German states, and well short of the seventy-one members of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin.^^

Of the several proclamations of the Brunswick Assembly, none prompted more irate responses than their statement on intermarriage. Ironically, the majority of the twenty-five participants had not intended to go beyond the Napoleonic Sanhedrin’s statement, indeed, the moderate reformer Ludwig Philippson began the discussion of intermarriage by proposing that the

Assembly confirm the Sanhedrin’s stance.^^ But not one member of the committee assigned to report a motion had a copy of the Sanhedrin’s decisions. The Assembly at large was forced to rely first on the report of the committee, and then, in debate, on the memories of Joseph Maier and

Samuel Holdheim. Both Maier and Holdheim represented a tendency toward radical Reform. The answer adopted by the Brunswick rabbis, even if some thought they had added restrictions to the

Sanhédrin, departed from the halachah. As will be seen, the Brunswick Assembly conceded where the Sanhédrin had evaded. By making the intermarriage prohibition conditional rather than absolute, the Reformers had opened the door to emending basic tenets of Jewish practice. The traditionalists generally objected even to aesthetic alterations in the divine service, aesthetics which rested on the strength of custom fminhaa) a'.one. The traditionalists correctly perceived that the Brunswick Assembly marked a radical and ideological turning away from halachic Judaism.

Before turning to the horrified response of the traditionalists, the content and the context of the

Brunswick intermarriage proclamation must be clarified. How and why did those who advocated a lenient view in regard to intermarriage defend such a dramatic innovation? 51

The initial motion on intermarriage moved at Brunswick read, "Marriages between Jews and Christians, marriages between (Jews) and aii monotheists are not forbidden." ^ A somewhat choppy debate followed the committee’s report Mendel Hess, another radical member, proposed adding a clause allowing the rabbis to consecrate such a marriage. Gotthold Salomon, a member of the committee, thought he remembered that the Sanhedrin’s answer protected a rabbi from being forced to consecrate such a marriage. Realizing that permission to consecrate implied a positive attitude toward intermarriage, Leopold Schott protested that the Sanhédrin did not prohibit intermarriages, but neither did it allow them. Schott had recalled the evasive device by which the

Sanhédrin had avoided transgressing the halachah, but not the relevant distinction. The Sanhédrin had reiterated the rabbinic viewpoint that intermarriage was a technical impossibility from a halachic standpoint The difference between "nicht verboten" and "erlaubt," without the accompanying distinction between civil and religious marriage, did not offer the Brunswick

Assembly the same means of prevarication employed by the Sanhédrin.

After the voting down the original motion, the Brunswick Assembly approved it in amended form:

The marriage of a Jew with a Christian, marriage with adherents of monotheistic religions in general, is not forbidden, if the parents are permitted by the laws of the state to bring up the children produced from such a marriage in the Israelitish religion.®®

Hess, Holdheim and Maier had put the more conservative Reformers on the defensive, but the Assembly had not been railroaded. Rather, the inner-Jewish tensions that led to a compromise at the Sanhédrin of 1807 appear once again in the deliberations at Brunswick in 1844.®® Even

Holdheim balked, at this stage, at an unqualified approval of intermarriage. Holdheim accepted the contingency that rabbinical approval should exist only in the case of a state which allowed intermarried parents free choice in the religious upbringing of the children. To Holdheim, this 52

insistence proceeded from a principled stand against government compulsion of religion, as well as his view that technically, at least, Judaism and Christianity ought to be on the same par.®^

Whether the other members of the Assembly who agreed with this proviso had the same motive may be questioned. Perhaps, as Michael Meyer implies, this clause offered a vray out for some rabbis who feared the political implications of declaring Christians unfit for marriage. The published resolutions of the Brunswick Assembly found an audience in both Christian and Jewish Europe. As

Meyer points out, no state in Germany in I& 1 4 allowed the children of mixed marriages to be raised as Jews.

There is reason to believe, however, that other members besides Holdheim considered the issue of upbringing more than a convenient dodge. Philip Heidenheim wished to drop the discussion of intermarriage altogether, precisely because the existing laws rendered the pro­ intermarriage decision of the Brunswick Assembly meaningless. Had the amendment been intended solely for external consumption, Heidenheim’s objection would have made no sense whatsoever. Naphtali Frankfurt also favored intermarriage under the condition of free upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, Frankfurt thought the Brunswick Assembly, having raised the question of the permissibility of intermarriage, ought to answer it affirmatively. He suggested a separate motion calling for parental freedom as an additional criterion. Though Frankfurt approved the governmental reforms that would allow parents the choice of religious upbringing, he felt that the intermarriage issue needed to be answered in a forthright manner.^®

Ludwig Philippson, who opposed the radical Reformers several times in the course of the

Brunswick Assembly, accepted the formula that allowed intermarriage as long as the children of intermarriages were allowed to be raised as Jews. In the course of his long career as a rabbi, scholar and editor-founder of the Alloemeine Zeituno des Judenthums. strove for moderate reform.

Nothing suggests that Philippson supported the Brunswick intermarriage resolution out of political 53

considerations, or because he was duped. Another moderate Reformer, Levi Herzfeld, dissented from the Assembly’s resolution along with four other participants. Herzfeld, it will be seen, argued that the deficient love of Christians for Jews provided a reason that intermarriage must be considered undesirable. Philippson oould have joined the dissenters, but did not; one must infer therefore, that he supported the resolution for principled reasons and did not consider the

Brunswick proposal outlandish.^®

Even at the time Philippson’s position differed from that of the radicals. He never supported rabbinic consecration of intermarriages, nor did he regard intermarriage as desirable. In an Alloemeine Zeituno des Judenthums article directed against the radical Joseph Maieris "Die erste Rabblnerversammlung und ihre Gegner" Philippson wrote, "We answer with the Sanhédrin that they are not forbidden, without desiring them in some way, without considering them unim portant"^ Many times in the Alloemeine Zeituno Philippson proved willing to criticize

Christian intolerance and injustices done to Judaism; politically he was not timorous. But

Philippson believed that civil marriage laws, even if identical with Christian law, possessed validity for Jews as long as they did not explicitly violate Jewish law. He expected Jewish religious leaders to encourage rabbinic consecration, to add the religious to the legal aspect of marriage, but he considered civil marriage legally adequate. As a matter of principle and consistency, Philippson accepted intermarriage within the civil law context. Along with other Reformers, Philippson’s views on intermarriage grew harsher in the years after Brunswick. In the 1840s however, Philippson accepted the recognition of intermarriage as inseparable from the new status of Jewish law.31

The novelty of the intermarriage issue and the context of the 1840s explain why Philippson and the majority of the Brunswick Assembly passed the intermarriage resolution. Presumably, those Reformers whose Jewish instincts rebelled against the thought of intermarriage, took comfort in its overall infrequency and widespread illegality. Moreover, the Assembly had reason to 54

believe that many of the children produced by intermarriages would find their way into the Jewish community. Even in the far more antisemitic climate of the Kaiserreich, close to one-quarter of these children received some form of Jewish upbringing.

Positive considerations also swayed the Reformers. In the 1840s, Protestantism and

Catholicism in Germany had spawned religious reforms aimed at minimizing their differences. In many ways, the Enlightenment utopia of complete religious tolerance seemed within reach at last.

Within the Christian clergy, voices called for an amalgamation of Jews and Cnristians, and not necessarily at the expense of all things Jewish.^^ The majority of the Brunswick rabbis regarded a considerable loss of Jewish exclusivity, as they regarded equality under the law, part of the emancipation process. The Reformers did not "abandon" beliefs they believed inherent in Judaism.

On the contrary, they accepted the logic that given equal footing with the majority religion, intermarriage had to be permitted, at least civilly.

Politically as well as religiously, the 1840s represented a highpoint of liberalism. In

Germany, however, political liberalism glorified unity rather than diversity.'*^ Jewish political participants in the upheavals of the 1840s provide a secular counterpart to the Reformers of

Brunswick. The pugnacious Gabriel Rlesser, who attacked apostasy as unprincipled and argued for unconditional Jewish emancipation, had previously defended Jewish endogamy against antisemitic attacks. In 1848, sixteen years after Riesser had joined the emancipation debate, he fonwarded intermarriage from the rostrum of the Paulskirche. As one of the vice-presidents of the

Frankfurt Assembly, Riesser accepted German-Jewish unity in all of its manifestations. In a similar vein, Moses Hess, later Germany’s first Zionist, devoted a lengthy chapter in his work Die

Eurooaeische Triarchie to the necessity of civil- and inter-marriages.'^ Neither man wrote in the spirit of defeat The removal of the last boundaries between German-Jewish unity appeared positively messianic to both Riesser and to Hess; the Reformers at Brunswick deliberated under 55

the same intoxicating influences.'^ When these influences subsided, Reform gravitated toward a stricter approach in regards to intermarriage. Ultimately, Reform reconsidered the position taken by the Brunswick Assembly on intermarriage. Before turning to this reconsideration, the opposition generated within the Brunswick Assembly itself, Hoidheim’s advocacy of intermarriage, and the traditionalist response all demand consideration.

SAMUEL HOLDHEiM‘8 ADVOCACY OF INTERMARRIAGE

By displaying a seemingly unlimited potential for radical reform, the Brunswick Assembly had opened wide the gates of criticism. Much of this criticism focused on Hoidheim’s Ueber die

Autonomie der Rabbinen (1843), the most radical proposal penned by a Reform proponent.

Holdheim had emerged at Brunswick as the most influential Reformer and contemporaries and subsequent observers alike regarded him as primarily responsible for the Brunswick Protocolle.

Hoidheim’s biographer, Heinrich Ritter, devoted a full chapter to the critics of Die Autonomie: that may serve as a gauge of the level of concern with which more moderate religious leaders regarded his doctrine.'^ As the sole Reformer who placed an acceptance of intermarriage at the core of his theory and practice of Reform, it seems worthwhile to explain how Holdheim arrived at his radicalism, and in particular, his justification of intermarriage.'*^

Holdheim (1806-1860) grew up in Kempen, a small, impoverished town in the Posen district that had been untouched by the Jewish Enlightenment. Holdheim received an old- fashioned cheder education, and so excelled in Talmudic disputation that he won the favor of local rabbis and the daughter of a wealthy businessman. Through his bride, Holdheim, now in his twenties, first began to acquire a taste for Western learning. Much like Solomon Maimon, whose quest for secular knowledge also pulled him westwards, Holdheim remained utterly unsentimental and somev/hat of an ingrate to his patrons. He left his wife and travelled to Germany, pausing long enough to obtain a doctorate at the University of Prague.^ Hoidheim’s penchant toward radical 56

Reform did not emerge while he served as rabbi in Frankfurt a.O. In Mecklenburg, however, where

Holdheim became Landrabbiner in 1840, the government enforced rabbinic marriage and inhentance laws on all Jewish subjects.'*® Holdheim, having already defended Reform in a number of smaller pamphlets, reacted to the coercive policy of Mecklenburg with his first major work,

Ueber die Autonomie der Rabbinen.

Die Autonomie forwarded three radical innovations. First, Rabbis were to be denuded of all their civil autonomy. Only insofar as the rabbis attended to purely religious matters could their role be justified and their integrity upheld. In effect, Holdheim conceded to the state the widest latitude and left halachah, the centuries old tradition of Jewish law, largely a dead-ietter. Second, in a drastic re-reading of Jewish history, Holdheim insisted that the religious and the political elements in Judaism needed to be completely separated. The religious and the political/civil aspects of

Judaism had been integrated during the period of Jewish autonomy, but with the destruction of the

Second Temple in 70 CE, Divine Providence had called an end to the Jew s’ secular role. With the end of the Jewish state, adherence to Judaism ought to have become a purely religious matter.

The rabbis misunderstood history, and this "shrinkage” did not occur. Holdheim considered this a considerable, but rectifiable error. Third, Holdheim concluded that marriage had been a purely civil act, with the religious symbolism appended later in history to suit a more progressive conception.

Holdheim proposed turning the civil parts of the marriage over to the stewardship of the state. He called upon Reformers to develop a form of religious consecration that would suit the needs of the day and be worlds apart from the “pure, dry juridical character" of contemporary Jewish marriage practices. Since Holdheim regarded marriage as without confessional content, but only religious/moral relevance, he found no reason to deny the possibility of intermarriage.®® In 1843, however, Holdheim laid no particular stress on his intermarriage doctrine. Within two years. 57

however, criticism of Die Autonomie and of the Brunswick Assembly would push Holdheim to a more determined advocacy.

The four dissenters at Brunswick had cited the Assembly’s proposal as a violation of both the Napoleonic Sanhédrin and the Talmud. Levi Herzfeld, one of the four, attempted to demonstrate that the principles of Wissenschaft should have led the Assembly to a negative decision. Herzfeid (1810-1884), who had succeeded the conservative Samuel Eger as

Landrabbiner of Brunswick in 1842, represented the new university-educated style rabbi. As the title of his pamphlet suggests, Herzfeld’s Vorschiaeae zu einer Reform der juedischen Eheoesetze favored marriage reform.^^ Yet Herzfeld recoiled from an acceptance of intermarriage on two grounds. First, he challenged Hoidheim’s view in Die Autonomie that the prohibition on the seven

Canaanite nations (Deut 7:3) implied approval of marriages with all monotheists. Holdheim and

Joseph Maier had used the rationale behind this prooftext, that the Jews wouid be drawn away from service to God, to suggest that Deuteronomy 7:3 had no applicability to nineteenth century

Christianity. After some considerable source searching, Herzfeld concluded that Christians in the biblical period, had they existed, would also have been deemed unacceptable. He considered

Christianity’s version of monotheism too watered down for Jewish tastes. "What Jew, scion of a people that has been martyred for absolute monotheism for four thousand years would contend that such a modification (trinitarianism) is somehow inessential? Herzfeld demanded Christian abandonment of trinitarian views as a precondition for Jewish permission to intermarriage, but this was not the only hindrance. Herzfeld also required that Jews be raised to civil parity, for in the present situation, "Weak parents" would allow their chiidren to raised in the religion favored by the state, and thereby acquire the religious views Herzfeld found so objectionable. Despite his awareness of the social disparities between Jew and Christian, Herzfeld ultimately conceived the problem of intermarriage as one of safeguarding Jewish religious integrity.®^ 58

The deliberations at Braunschweig and Hcldheim’s Die Autonomie angered Zacharias

Frankel (1801-1875) sufficiently for him to respond with two lacerating criticisms in his Zeitschrift fuer die reliaoesen Interessen des Judenthums.^^ In 1844 Frankel still considered himself an adherent of the Reform movement. His Zeitschrift articles, however, indicate that the ideological groundwork for "positive historic Judaism" and Frankel’s subsequent breach with Reform had been prompted and prepared by the polemics of 1844. Frankel, exceptionally capable in the areas of both traditional Judaica and nineteenth century academia, decried the seeming absence of standards in the Brunswick Assembly’s decisions. Moreover, Frankel opposed the Reformers’ elitist presumptions about religious change, and he questioned their authority to innovate against the majority of the community.^® Mocking the unsuccessful attempts of the Assembly to recall the exact wording of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin’s treatment of intermarriage, Frankel doubted the

Reformers possessed sufficient earnestness to deal with such "a question of life and of the most holy interests."®^ Emancipated existence, conceded Frankel, entailed the danger of intermarriage.

But to sanction that danger, and to permit Jewish-Christian marriages with or without "kiddushin." would seriously damage the religious content of Judaism.

As with the deliberations at Brunswick in general, Frankel considered Die Autonomie’s fast and loose play with the sources shocking. In attempting to prove that the marriage prohibition in the Written Torah applied only to the seven Canaanite nations, Holdheim had cited the thirteenth century scholar Moshe of Coucy’s (in Holdheim: Moshe Mikozzi) S ’maa. "L ’avin" to the effect that

"it is allowed to marry with those nations” when the text read "it is allowed to marry with those nations that have converted."®® Holdheim retorted that he intended only to prove that the Written

Torah did not exclude all nations from intermarriage, as Maimonides had held in his discussion of

Deut 7:3. Strangely enough, Holdheim justifiably claimed that his mis-citation of Moshe of Coucy 59

did not affect his argument But to Frankel this sloppiness showed that Holdheim, having dismissed the authority of the rabbinical tradition, had also lost respect for it.^®

Das Relioioese und Politische im Judenthum. Hoidheim’s response to Frankel criticism, proved that Holdheim would rigorously follow the radical path he had previously carved out in Die

Autonomie. While Holdheim continued to maintain the Divine authorship of the Written Torah, by

1845 Holdheim believed that the Hasmonean theocracy and the Great Sanhédrin already represented departures from the Mosaic unity of the national and the religious aspects of Judaism.

The national exclusiveness that had characterized Jewry in the biblical period had to be abandoned in the modem world. Not only the negative cause of the disappearance of Jewish sovereignty, but the positive and equalizing force of emancipation argued strongly against Jewish exclusivity.

In Die Autonomie Holdheim had not stressed his acceptance of intermarriage. In Das

Relioioese und Politische opponents’ criticisms and a sharpened division of the national and the religious aspects of Judaism brought Holdheim to a more dogmatic view on intermarriage. He now conciuded that throughout the biblical period. The Holiness of the Jewish people is the only reason for the marriage prohibition with other people." Reformed Jews, according to Holdheim, no longer considered themselves part of a Jewish nationality or even a Jewish peoplehood fVolkstuemlichkeitl. Thus, the intermarriage prohibition had no force.®*^ Assessing all the relevant verses, Holdheim argued that the Written Torah prohibited intermarriage only with the seven

Canaanite nations.®^ Since none of these nations were monotheists, no intermarriage discussion relevant to nineteenth century Germany existed in the Written Torah.®^ Quite bluntly, Holdheim admitted he did not care how many rabbinical authorities prohibited intermarriage, only that the

Written Torah did not. Frankel’s criticism proved quite correct: Holdheim was a nineteenth century

Karaite.®® 60

Unlike most other proponents of intermarriage, Holdheim used his rabbinical office to consecrate intermarriage. In 1849 Holdheim consecrated an intermarriage in Leipzig, eventually publishing the benedictions in a sermonic collection.®^ For his central text, Holdheim chose the words of the prophet Malachi, “Have we not all one father, did not one God create us?" (Malachi

2:10)®® Holdheim portrayed Judaism and Christianity as two closely allied religions, each of which declared love to be the highest principle. The identity of all people, the view that love conquers all, the triumphant victory of vrarm emotion over cold reason- Holdheim expressed these sentiments eloquently. “We have one father in heaven and one love in our hearts." All these elements, of course, could be drawn from the stock-in-trade of the romantic view of religion.®® More startling from the Jewish point of view, Holdheim insisted that love precedes and overshadows belief and religion. Indeed, he went so far as to claim that religion, if it opposed love and the reconciliation of people, becomes an absurdity. Holdheim couched the utter unh/ersalism of Judaism and the subjecth/ization of the religion in messianic tones. For Holdheim, “The marriage vow which you speak to one another is the fulfillment of the prophetic words, "We have one Father, One God has created us.’“ ®^ Unfortunately for Holdheim, divine approval of intermarriage conflicted with

German law.

In 1844 Ferdinand Falkson, a physician and socialist enthusiast, sought permission to marry a Christian. The Koenigsburg religious authorities refused, triggering a four year controversy.

Unsuccessful after three appeals, including one to the King of Prussia, Falkson apparently took a new tack.®® Travelling to England, Falkson married in a religious ceremony conducted by an

English cleric. Another round of controversy ensued, for technically Falkson’s marriage still violated Prussian land law. The royal Koeniglicher Kammergerichts called for expert testimony from

David Oettinger, an old style traditionalist, and Samuel Holdheim.®® Naturally Oettinger and

Holdheim returned conflicting opinions on the content of Jewish marriage law. Oettinger held that 61

no Jew who belonged to his faith couid be married by participating in a specifically Christian

ceremony. Furthermore, Oettinger maintained that to obtain valid marital status, every Jew needed

to undergo a religious consecration by Jewish authorities. Oettinger had attempted to kill three

birds with one stone. One, he denied Hoidheim’s views in Die Autonomie that in Judaism the

religious and the political ought to be separate. Two, Oettinger rejected Brunswick’s conditional

acceptance of intermarriage. Three, he rejected the prevailing Alloemeine Zeituno line that civil

marriage between two Jew s fulfilled the requirements of Jewish law.

Holdheim countered that since the basic principles of Judaism did not prohibit

intermarriage, he saw no reason why a ceremony recognized as valid by the Prussian government should not be valid for Jews as well. At the prompting of another Oettinger opinion, Holdheim further expressed the view that the apostasy of one of the partners in a Jewish marriage did not

constitute a cause for divorce. Once again, distinguishing sharply between the religious and the

political, Holdheim denied that a religious change could alter a civil relationship. Having received these contradictory, irreconcilable readings of Jewish law, the appeal board of the Kammergericht decided that it would declare whether halachah allowed Jews to be married in a Christian religious

ceremony. By a vote of 6 to 3 the Kammergericht decided to invalidate Falkson’s marriage'^^ In

1850, as we shall see, Holdheim once again defended his stance on the Falkson case and on

intermarriage in general. Falkson and his intended wife succeeded in publicizing the issues of civil

marriage and intermarriages, but apparently never received official approval. Over the course of

nearly a decade, Hoidheim’s pro-intermarriage stance increasingly came to embody his

uncompromising religious and political radicalism.^^

What motivated Hoidheim’s radicalism? Zacharias Frankel, his most tenacious opponent,

considered Holdheim and the other participants of the Brunswick Assembly heathens, with the

state serving as the idolatrous focus. In Frankel’s words, they were all “slaves to emancipation." 62

Holdheim did consider holding a negative view of Christians dangerous “in our conditions." He also heaped scorn on Maimonides’ lumping Christianity and heathenism together. But as Holdheim retorted, Frankel also desired the benefits of emancipation; indeed, Frankel wished that the

Brunswick Assembly had decided not to publish its views for purely political reasons. Even the traditionalist condemnation of Brunswick stressed the loyalty of Jews to the state; moreso in fact, than any statem ent produced by the Assembly itself. Explained purely a s a kowtow to the civil authority, Hoidheim’s statism raises more questions than it answers. Yet Hoidheim’s unlimited confidence in governmental authority seems to be a crucial difference between his views and those of more moderate Reformers. It is difficult to account for his position, especially since he opposed the existing policies in both Mecklenburg and Prussia. In Mecklenburg, Holdheim did not lack for an example of repressive government, and the same could be said of his home town. Nothing in his background adequately explains Hoidheim’s positive attitude toward obedience to the state, or, his resentment against religious coercion. For Hoidheim’s trust in the secular realm conflicted sharply with his assertion of complete religious freedom.

Hoidheim’s willingness to abandon traditional Jewish practices went far beyond most

Reformers.^® His critics justifiably found little positive content in his brand of Judaism. In the balance of idea and praxis. Holdheim concentrated mostly on the former, a dramatic contrast to traditional Judaism with its thirteen Principles of Faith (at most), but 613 positive and negative commandments proscribing and forbidding deeds, not thoughts. In a case pitting the community against a man who refused to have his son circumcised, Holdheim defended the father against a

move to expel. Holdheim, who believed that circumcision partook of a religious nature, would have been consistent had he considered the ceremony a necessity. Nevertheless, echoing

Mendelssohn’s argument in Jerusalem. Holdheim argued that no coercive powers existed within

Judaism. From the vantage point of formal ritual requirements, Holdheim certainly expressed a 63

minimalist view of Judaism and Jewishness. Liberated from tradition, Holdheim differed from other

Reformers by also being unbound by either communal custom or sentiment Relentlessly following his "purified" vision of Judaism with the tools of his dialectician’s upbringing, Holdheim sanctioned a practice that other Reformers could not always oppose, but rarely embraced.^'*

THE TRA.DITIONAUST RESPONSES

Traditionalist responses to the Brunswick Assembly and to Hoidheim’s works inveighed against the leaders of Reform as seducers of the Jewish masses, and shameless abusers of the sacred texts. The first traditionalist opinion on intermarriage preceded the Brunswick Assembly by several months. 1 have been unable to discover what prompted the Hacham Isaak Bemays to issue a Responsum on the subject, but his opening words allude to uncertainties regarding the validity of marital relations between Christians and Jews. Bemays declared intermarriages, "in the realm of the unthinkable," and stressed that any ceremony uniting the couple lent neither "religioese" nor

"buergeriiche" validity to the union. Bemays conceded that if a state insisted on the public validity of intermarriages through the introduction of civil marriages, that bespoke a division of the religious and the legal; intermarriages still possessed no legal character in Jewish eyes. Bemays cited the

Napoleonic Sanhedrin’s response, and although his rhetoric intended to be as aggressive as possible, he affirmed the Sanhedrin’s position.^®

Three years later, in response to the Brunswick Assembly, seventy-seven traditional rabbis combined to issue an excommunication in Hebrew and German entitled Shelomei Emunah

Yisrael/ZTreue Glaubioe in Israel. This document had both old world traditionalists and the Neo-

Orthodox rabbis such as Jacob Ettlinger and Samson Raphael Hirsch as signatories.^® In

Shelomei Emunah the rabbis attacked both the Brunswick Assembly and Reform in general.

Alluding to the Talmudic adage that no bet din (court) may overtum the decision of another, unless it were greater in number and wisdom, the document ridiculed the notion that twenty ill-educated 64

rabbis would call themselves the "Rabbiner Versammlung Deutschlands.’^ In quite extreme

terms, the seventy-seven called upon Jews to take no part in the Reformers’ activities and to

combat the Brunswick innovations through ail legal means. Nevertheless, the authors of Shelomei

Emunah faced the question of religious change with some appreciation of the problems facing

Jewry at mid-century. Using the metaphor of a ship throwing off weights in a stormy sea, the

traditionalists argued that the fate of the ship (of faith) would be determined by divine rather than

human deeds. Certainly, they held, no one possessed the right to lighten the burden of the law.

The traditionalists advised their followers to fulfill their duties to "Fuerst und Vateriand" and defend the mountain of the faith.

The statement of the seventy-seven rabbis sufficed the traditionalists until additional civil

marriage debates stirred up more controversy.^® Generally, the Reformers favored civil marriage

as long as: 1) the civil law treated all confessions equally, 2) Jews could be persuaded to continue to undergo religious consecration, and 3) the children could be brought up according to the

desires of the parents.^® While the all Reformers encouraged rabbinic consecration of a married

couple, they recognized the sufficiency of civil law wherever that law did not specifically clash with the Jewish tradition.

For the traditionalists, the matter could not be so easily dismissed, since without the rites

of "kiddushin" there could be no Legally binding marriage. In 1850, Jacob Ettlinger issued a

responsum, which, without any mention of Bemays’s earlier testimony, reasserted that the Jewish

religion recognized only marriages between Christian and Christian and Jew and Jew. Ettlinger

cited the halachah, which recognized the child’s religion as purely a product of the mother’s. A woman who raised her children as Jews, if she had been converted to Judaism after the moment

of conception, would nevertheless be raising Christian children. Only proper halachic conversion could alter the status of the children.®® 65

The correct representation of the Jewish tradition and a debunking of the Reformers’

universalism seems to have motivated Salomon Cohn’s pamphlet, “Die Mischehe." The university

educated Cohn, who would later serve as a homiletics tutor in the Hildesheimer Rabbinerseminar, was well-equipped for his task. Cohn attacked Hoidheim’s argument in Gemischte Ehen that the

Jewish forms of marriage possessed no religious significance. Holdheim claimed that the formula

“according to the laws of Moses and Israel” constituted nothing more than legal phraseology. To

Cohn, the argument from antiquity showed the very opposite; anything so long a part of Jewish tradition had perforce become Judaism.^^ Pointing to the religious libertinism of the day, Cohn

called for Jewish parents to take a greater concern with their children’s education. Cohn suggested that the contrasts between Judaism and Christianity be especially emphasized. The modem Cohn and the old-fashioned Oettinger agreed; Judaism like any other religion, was composed of specifics. While they did not deny that Judaism forwarded universalisée goals, the traditionalists did not assign these goals the same importance as did a Geiger or a Holdheim.

At least one member of the traditionalist camp went beyond a discussion of the legal

invalidity of intermarriage and delved into the Reformers’ motives. An article in the TreueZions-

Wachter conceded that many voices spoke in favor of both civil marriage and intermarriage

because they wished to see unity between Jews and Christians. While agreeing that unity and love

represented “a very lofty goal,” he disagreed that this goal justified the sacrifice of religious

principles.55 The author deplored the fact that the Reformers regarded Judaism as nothing more than a philosophy and felt that this difference epitomized the breach that had developed between traditionalists and Reformers.

In practice, intermarriage would lead to disaster. Only two conditions could be imagined for the prospects of these unions: either the parents wouid remain religious and therefore find it

impossible to agree on a method of bringing up their children, or, the parents would abandon their religion and the children would be brought up as freethinkers. While M.K., the semi-anonymous author, found intermarriage as unacceptable as Bemays. Ettlinger or Cohn, his consideration of the forces conducive to a surrender of re'igious principles recall the statements in Shelomei

Emunah Yisrael. the attack on the Brunswick Assembly. Not surprisingly, as long as religious validity remained the primary issue at hand, the issue of intermarriage vexed and divided the traditionalists far less than the Reformers

THE REFORM RECONSIDERATION OF BRUNSWICK

Subsequent Reform deliberations shied away from either confirming or repudiating the intermarriage resolution of the Brunswick Assembly. At the third Reform Assembly at Breslau in

1846, Holdheim proposed a wide-ranging reform of Jewish marriage law. Since Brunswick, it will be recalled, Holdheim had spelled-out his views in his Das Politische und Relioioese im Judenthum

(1845). At Breslau, Holdheim proposed several revisions in Jewish marriage laws (equality of women in divorce proceedings, abrogation of the father’s right to force a daughter to marry, an alleviation of the status of illegitimacy). Holdheim also proposed that rabbis should be able to consecrate intermarriages since the religious forms, “contain no symbols of belief."®^ The

Assembly tabled Hoidheim’s proposal.

At the Leipzig Assembly (1869), nine years after Hoidheim’s death, Emil Lehmann took up the advocacy of intermarriage. Lehmann, a Dresden lawyer and a Reform pamphleteer, wished to reaffirm the acceptability of intermarriage on the authority of the Brunswick Assembly. Lehmann argued, futilely, that fifteen years of continuing Jewish integration confirmed the perspective of

Brunswick.^ The report of the Leipzig and Augsburg Synods, published in the fateful year 1871, included the last “official" discussion of the intermarriage issue in Germany until the Liberal rabbinical Assembly of 1929. Leipzig and Augsburg, in fact, proved to be the last Reform rabbinical assemblies in the nineteenth century. At Augsburg, Jewish marriage law underwent considerable 67

reform. The double ring-giving ceremony, already in practice, won sanction. Both partners were encouraged to intone a wedding vow during the ceremony. The Assembly also dissolved the problems of chaiitzah and aaunah by simply declaring them void.®^ Augsburg’s proclamations essentially fulfilled the call for marriage reform that been an objective of the movement since the

1840s.®^. With civil marriage laws well ensconced, and the more troublesome aspects of traditional law dispatched with little opposition, the legal-logical considerations that had operated on Reform consideration of intermarriage in the 1840s had been removed. Additionally, the hightide of liberalism had ebbed by the 1860s. Reform rabbis, more attuned to the religiously conservative atmosphere than to continuing embourgeoisement, rejected Lehmann’s proposals.®®

Even before the discussion at Leipzig, hints of a more ambivalent attitude toward intermarriage appeared. In an Alloemeine Zeituno des Judenthums article dated 4 March 1862. the

AZDJ admitted that, despite the Napoleonic Sanhédrin and the Brunswick Assembly, no clear answer had been provided to the question of intermarriage. The author, presumably Ludwig

Philippson. claimed that his opposition had nothing to do with national differences, since all parties in Judaism accepted proselytes. Moreover. Philippson stressed that the rabbinic prohibition had been prompted by outside rejection. Although Philippson attempted to place the onus of rejection at Christian doorsteps, he had become more resolute in his opposition to intermarriage.®^

PhiliPDson’s Die Israeiitische Relioionsiehrefi 8651 addressed familial and social considerations that militated against condoning intermarriage, as well as the usual religious objections.®® Both the upbringing of children and the social isolation of an intermarried couple.

Philippson argued, would cause serious discord. Religiously. Judaism and Christianity did not appear as close to each other as they had twenty years earlier. Philippson argued that Jewish holidays would prove bothersome to the Christian partner who. in turn, would feel drawn to bring 68

the Jew into the Christian faith. The imminent unity of Christian and Jew that had seemed possible

in the 1840s now seemed like a vapid goal. Philippson concluded:

It has been said that intermarriage strongly forwards the expansion of tolerance and the rapprochement of differing confessions. Certainly it is the true task of mankind to make tolerance prevail over the many differences of individuals and classes, but this is not to be achieved through a simple levelling of the terrain.®®

Abraham Geiger’s testimony on Lehmann’s Leipzig proposals managed to combine an

appreciation for the historical perspective on intermarriage, the problem of the ethical worth of

intermarriages, and the issue of the Jews’ status as a minority.®® Geiger dismissed the disparity in familial values and moral habits between Jew s and Christians that had prevailed in the Middle Ages

as an anachronism and, unlike Philippson, stressed the social proximity of Jewish-Christians

mores. Given the indisputable moral worth of marriage, Geiger concluded that intermarriage, like

all marriages concluded in a legal fashion, possessed moral and even religious merit. Geiger

sympathized with those couples who desired a religious consecration-that proved to him that

marriage manifested a natural moral quality which spiritually healthy people found desirable. T he

holiness of marriage," Geiger held, "is not tied to a specific confessional representation."®^

Only when approached from the perspective of the Jewish religion did problems arise with

intermarriage. Although Geiger did not disavow the brotherhood of mankind as one of the highest

goals of Judaism, he pointed out that confessional differences could impede marital happiness.

Even more than Philippson, Geiger’s principal reason was a pragmatic one. He did not see how a

minority religion, one he considered endangered, could endorse a more lenient view of

intermarriage. Presumably, this rationale sufficiently justified Geiger’s disinclination to support

either intermarriages or rabbinic consecration. In his proposal to the Leipzig Assembly, Geiger

explained that while intermarriages possessed religious and moral worth, the rabbis could not 69

overtook the danger of such unions given the present circumstances. The Assembly endorsed

Geiger’s message: there was nothing wrong, and indeed much right, with intermarriage in

principle, but the interests of Judaism could not favor it.®^

Joseph Aub’s response exhibited little of Geiger’s searching inquiry into the nature of

Jewish-Christian relations. Instead, Aub pugnaciously attacked the Prussian government’s

marriage policy which recognized Protestant and Catholic marriages as legally binding, but forced

Jewish and dissident couples to go through a civil ceremony: for Jews this made the religious

consecration of the rabbi legally unnecessary. Naturally, this engendered concern and Aub argued, as did most of the Reformers, that the government should have no role in the religious aspect of marriage. As to the innate worth of intermarriage, Aub inciined toward a less generous appraisal than either Geiger or Philippson. He held that only if both partners shared a similar

"religion of reason" could intermarriage contain ethical content. Most of the time, Aub claimed,

intermarriages were far from the ideal. He saw no way in which religiously indifferent couples-the

only ones who would intermarry- could receive rabbinic consecration. Having recognized the validity of civil marriages, Aub saw no reason for rabbis to further lend a hand to such an

unwholesome practise.^ Rabbi Manuel Joel took Aub one step further by dismissing clerical

consecration as a logical contradiction. No cleric could bind a non-believer with a confessional

pronouncement.®^

The later Reform assemblies agreed to withhold rabbinic consecration and furthermore, they agreed that intermarriage could not be considered desirable. Despite this consensus, considerable uncertainty existed in regards to the worth of intermarriages. The social effects of intermarriage on the Jews had not emerged as a principal concern, although Philippson could at least speculate that intermarriages would create social problems. Geiger and Philippson addressed the minority status of the Jews, but in political, not demographic terms. In other words, both men 70

focused on the legal disabilities of the Jews rather than their miniscule numbers and rapid

integration. In Geiger’s response to the apostate Martin Maass in 1858, the threat to the community through intermarriage and defection barely entered into his thinking. Additionally, the sense that

Judaism constituted an objectively inferior religion, so present in the underlying assumptions surrounding the intermarriage debate in the Kaiserreich, seem far less characteristic in the 1840s-

1860s.®®

While other issues emerged in the two decades following the Brunswick Assembly, Reform continued to consider the religious vaiidity of intermarriage the cruciai issue. The Reformers’

preference for ieaming lessons directly from the Hebrew Scriptures and their willingness to evaluate rabbinic traditions in the light of historical phenomena was conducive to an ambivalent view on intermarriage. The Reformers accepted that marriages between Israel and the nations had occurred frequently in the past; even some of the greatest biblical figures had non-Israelite wives.

Geiger, who did not wish to dispose of the rabbinic legacy altogether, sought to make conversion to Judaism easier through waiving the requirement of the ritual immersion bath for women.

Traditionalists, as we shall see in chapter five, opposed this accommodation as resolutely as all others.®^

More conservative Reformers took it for granted that whenever connubium had occurred in the biblicai period it had either no status as marriage, or, that the marriage was preceded by the conversion of the non-Jewish partner. More radical Reformers entertained the notion that some form of exogamous marriage occurred without conversion, while Holdheim believed that mixed

marriages in the biblical times had been religiously consecrated, albeit not with the rabbinic formulae of “kiddushin.* The traditionalists, when they addressed the issue, generally contented themselves with unmasking the Reform misreadings of traditional texts and reaffirming the

haiachah. Essentially, they heaped scorn on those who tried to find a religious legitimation for 71

accepting intermarriages, in the Kaiserreich, specific cases would show that levels of flexibility existed even within the Orthodoxy. In the 1840s, however, relaxing any of the stringencies related to intermarriage remained, in the words of Chacham Bemays, “in the realm of the unthinkable."

Obviously, enormous ideological gaps separated Holdheim from the moderate Reformers and the moderate Reformers from the traditionalists. Despite this, all parties treated intermarriage as a religious issue that needed to be addressed in the context of an understanding of Jewish marriage, and justified with the sacred texts of Judaism. To the Reformers of course, some of these texts were less sacred than others, and to Holdheim, all post-biblical literature lacked binding status. Generally, the traditionalists appeared on the defensive throughout the 1840s. They clung tenaciously to the Sanhedrin’s verbal formulae without addressing the raison d’etre of the

Sanhédrin- accommodating Jewish tradition to an altered state of Jewish existence. The

Reformers, while more divided on intermarriage than the traditionalists, eventually drew the line at refusing to sanction a practice most felt injurious to the interests of Judaism. The intra-rabbinic nature of the discussion combined with an increasingly religious definition of Jewishness to highlight the disunity between Reformers and traditionalists, and led both to despair of finding a common ground. The dangers intermarriage posed for the Jewish community, Jewish morale, and

Jewish solidarity, the central issues in the Kaiserreich, received little consideration in the 1840s. 72.

JEWISH REACTIONS TO INTERMARRIAGE IN GERMANY; FROM THE NAPOLEONIC SANHEDRIN TO THE KAISERREICH

ENDNOTES

^ Wiener, Juedische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation (Berlin, 1933), p. 7. See Ehud Luz. "Max Wiener a s a Historian of Jewish Religion," Hebrew Union College Annual. 56, (1985), pp. 29- 46.

^ In this chapter I will use the term “traditionalist" to characterize the most conservative members of the Jewish leadership. The term "Orthodox" or “Neo-Orthodox," originally coined by Reformers, refers more appropriately to the emergence of a modem, organized, yet halachically obediant leadership and laity. In subsequent chapters I will use "Orthodoxy" in place of "traditionalist". For a discussion of the distinction between Orthodox and traditionalist, see Mordechai Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie im Deutschen Reich. 1871-1918 (Frankfurt a.M., 1988), Ch.1. Although it seem s a bit awkward when juxtaposed to "Reform," I have opted not to capitalize "traditionalist." The traditionalists lacked the sense of being an organized movement with specific institutions, something that both Reform and Orthodoxy possessed. See Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity (New York, 1988), "Prolegomenon to the History of the Reform Movement"

® Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis (New York, 1961), pp. 275-280. The developing awareness of the Orthodox to issues of radical assimilation may be demonstrated by the reflections of the Ultra- Orthodox Hila Wechsler who trenchantly analyzed German Jewish social strivings in his admonitory "Im Milo Dibbur," Leo Strauss, The Rosenbaums of Zell (London, 1962).

^ A growing body of scholarly literature suggests that from the 1880s/1890s onwards German- Jewry exhibited revitalized commitment to Jewishness. This took the form of organizational and cultural activity more than a return to traditional Jewish religion. The roll of antisemitism undoubtably sparked this return, but the subsequent expressions of Jewishness comprised a complex response.

® Lou Silberman, "Reprobation, Prohibition Invalidity" CCAR Journal. 15:2, (April 1968), pp. 1-15, and 43.; J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halachic Problems, vol. 2, (New York, 1973).

® The Napoleonic Sanhédrin put into concrete terms many of the late Enlightenment assumptions about Jewish existence in the modem state, including those of the Prussian civil servant Christian Wilhelm Dohm, Ueber die buergerlicher Verbesserung der Juden (Berlin, 1783). The prestige of the Napoleonic Sanhédrin among European Jews has not yet been adequately explained. Baruch Mevorach, Napoleon and His Times (Jerusalem, 1968) has collected many of the relevant Hebrew documents, but provided little by way of analysis. Isaac M. Jost, the first synthetic Jewish historian, misrepresented the Sanhedrin’s decisions and neglected the salon experience. Jost, Allaemeine Geschichte des Israelitischen Voelkes. vol. 2, (Berlin, 1832).

^ Since the reception of the law at Sinai, there are three ways to conclude a Jewish betrothal: by intercourse in the presence of witnesses fbiah). by legal contract (shtar), and by a financial gift on the part of the groom (kesef). Almost without exception, Jewish betrothal occurs by the third 73 method, kesef: this entails the groom giving a ring (usually of little economic value) to his intended bride. Although betrothal by means of kesef is of rabbinic origin only it is nevertheless the preferred means. Marriage, in Judaism, is a two-step process, although today the two stages are frequently combined. Bethrothal (kiddushinl must be followed by a marital ceremony (nissuin). Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. “Hilchot Ishut," 1:1.

® David Novak, The Imaoe of the Non-Jew in Judaism (Lewiston, NY., 1983), pp. 199-222. These four practices are prohibited by the fifth of the seven Noahide Commandments.

® Just how seriously the Judaic tradition has taken the commandment to procreate can be see in the exegetical tradition that developed around the verse Genesis 1:28. Jeremy Cohen, Be Fertile and Increase. Fill the Earth and Master It (Ithaca, NY., 1989).

During the course of the nineteenth century, an interesting change took place in the "ideal" and in the "reality" of the Jewish family. Paula Hyman, The Modem Jewish Family: Image and Reality," Kraemer, The Jewish Familv (Oxford, 1989), p. 190. Hyman writes: "The modem Jewish family, as ideological construct, has thus become the symbol for the deleterious consequences of assimilation, for the discontinuities of modem Jewish history. On the threshold of the modem era its idealized image was superior to its social reality; for the past century the reality of Jewish family life has been more favorable than its image." Nevertheless, the same Jews who criticized the Jewish family sometimes defended it against antisemitic charges.

J. David Bleich, Contemporarv Halachic Problems. Ch. 13, The Prohibition Against Intermarriage," pp. 269-282, esp. p. 269. The following discussion is based, in addition to the relevant rabbinic sources, on the following: Leopold Loew, Gesammelte Schriften. vol. 3, (Szegedin, 1893), "Eherechtliche Studien," pp. 186-200; Moses Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce (Cincinnati, 1884), pp. 45-54; Lou H. Silbennan, "Reprobation, Prohibition, Invaliditv." Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) Journal. 15:2, (April 1968), pp. 1-15, and 43.

Bleich, Contemporarv Halachic Problems, pp. 273-280, noted that Deut 7:3, while very explicit, is also problematic from the exegetical viewpoint. First, the application of the prohibition to intermarriage with non-members of the Seven Canaanite Nations is not clear (see following notes). Second, the use of the term "marriage" ("hitun") had no applicability to Jewish-gentile relationships which, in rabbinic Judaism, can not be concluded. Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. "Issurei Bi’ah," 12:1 attempted to resolve the latter difficulty by redefining "hitun" as being analogous to the marital state ("derekh ishut"!. From this analogy, Maimonides learned that the biblical prohibition in Deut 7:3 applies to all non-Jews, but only to relationships with non-Jews which resemble marital unions. Numbers 25:6-8 and Deut 23:18 have also been used to locate the biblical prohibition on intermarriage. Other important scriptural citations to exogamous relationships are found in Ex. 34:15-16; Deut. 7:3-4,28:4; Ezra 9:12,10:17; Nehemiah 10:31,13:23-24. See also Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud (Cambridge, 1942).

Silberman, "Reprobation," pp. 3-4; Epstein, Marriage Laws, pp. 145-219. Epstein contends that in the biblical period the Deuteronomic (6:20-7:11, esp. 7:3), the Ezranic (Ezra (9:2) and the Hasmonean (Jubilees 30:7) reform movements all made the prevailing attitudes against intermarriage more strident. 74

The seven Canaanite nations were those nations already inhabiting Canaan in the period following the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan.

If Deut 7:3 applies only to the Seven Canaanite Nations, then transgression of the prohibition would not entail corporal punishment. R. Shimon b. Yohai disagreed with the Sages in B.T.. Avodah Zarah 36b and Maimonides followed R. Shimon’s reasoning in his Mishnah Torah. "Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah," 12:1. Joseph Karo’s Shulchan Aruch. affirmed the Sages conclusion against R. Shimon and Maimonides, but explained Deut. 7:3 in a novel manner. Since a Jew could not marry with a non-Jew, the prohibition °lo titchaten bam" could only refer to a member of the Canaanite nations who had converted to Judaism! See also Karo, Shulchan Aruch. "Even ha-Ezer," 16:1.

B.T.. Kiddushin 66a-68b. See above, note 7.

Bleich, Contemporarv Halachic Problems, pp. 268-282.

The Talmud debated whether the status of a child bom of a Jewish woman and a Jewish man should be that of a Jew, or that of a mamzer. an illegitimate Jew, who could not marry a legitimate Jew. Abraham Geiger, it should be noted, thought the very term mamzer came from the Hebrew m’ am zar. that is to say, from intermarriage with a “foreign nation." Quoted in Epstein, Marriage Laws, p. 160.

For recent discussions of the historiography on the Napoleonic Assembly of Jewish Notables and the Napoleonic Sanhédrin see Edouard Privât, Le Grand Sanhédrin de Napoleon (Paris, 1979): Simon Schwarzfuchs, Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhédrin (London, 1979). For the most complete treatment Robert Anchel, Les Juifs de France (Paris, 1947) remains essential.

Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (New York, 1962), pp. 182-196.

A.E. Halphen, Recueil des Lois (Paris, 1851), p. 25. Quoted and translated in Moses Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, p. 47. The French and Hebrew texts appeared side-by- side in Der Orient. 42, (1840), pp. 669-670. The Hebrew text stated, in part, "af-al-pi s ’hu min hanimnah sh’vihevu kiddushin tofsin b’hem k’dat Moshe..." The Hebrew version leaves no ambiguity in the text: intermarriage has no validity according to the terms and formulae of Jewish marriage law. See also Privât, Le Grand Sanhédrin, pp. 51-54; Mevorach, Naooleonand His Times. p. 93.

^ Leopold Loew, "Eherechtliche Studien," p. 189. Loew wrote that the Sanhédrin had "not departed a hair’s breadth" from the Talmud.

The history of the formula "dina de’malkhutah dina." "the law of the land is the law," has been analyzed at length in the work of Shimon Shilo, Dina de’malkhutah dina (Jerusalem, 1968,1974).

Raphael Mahler, A History of Modem Jewrv. 1780-1815 (New York, 1971), p. 69. Mahler put it this way, "After kneeling idolatrously before the Emperor, the delegates prostrated them selves tc kiss the foot of the Church which had trampled upon the Jewish people for 1,500 years."

David Sinzheim (1745-1812) bom in Trier, allied himself with the prominent Alsatian family, the Cerf-Berrs. Appointed President of the Grand Sanhédrin, Sinzheim subsequently became Chief Rabbi of the Central Consistory of France. 75

Moses Safer (Schreiber) 1762-1839 held a rabbinical tenure of thirty-three years in Pressburg, Hungary. Also known as the Hatam Sofer, he fought for recognition of the binding nature of the Shulchan Aruch and established a well-known yeshiva.

Schwarzfuchs, Naooleon. the Jews and the Sanhédrin, p.164-178 and esp. pp. 170-177; Mevorach, NatX)leon and His Times, pp. 103-120 and 173-175; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden. vol. 11, p. 299.

Abraham Geiger had unsuccessfully attempted to assemble a group of rabbis in Wiesbaden in 1837.

^ Meyer, Response to Modemitv. Ch. 2; Jakob J. Petuchowski, Praverbook Reform in Europe (New York, 1968), Ohs. 3 and 4.

Meyer, Response to Modemitv. p. 134 on the estimate that half of German Jewry no longer traditional Jews by 1850. Steven Lowenstein The 1840s and the Creation of the German-Jewish Religious Reform Movement," Werner Mosse, Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German-Jewish History (Tuebingen, 1981), p. 274. Lowenstein stressed that a falling away from tradition is not equivalent to a reform.

Schwarzfuchs. Naooleon, the Jews and the Sanhédrin. p. 86.

David Philipson, The Reform Movement in Judaism (New York, 1967), pp. 149-150; Meyer, Response to Modemitv. p. 134

Lou Silberman, "Reprobation," p.4.

Protocolle der ersten Rabbiner -Versammluna (Braunschweig, 1844), p. 70.

Protocolle, p. 73. The German reads: "Die Ehe eines Juden mit einer Christen, die Ehe mit Angehoerigen monotheistischer Religionen ueberhaupt ist nicht verboten, wenn den Eltem von der Staatsgesetzen gestaaatet ist, die aus solcher Ehe erzielten Kinder auch in der israelitischen Religion zu erziehen."

Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (New York, 1962), p. 184.

Holdheim, Das Reliaioese und Politische. p. 87, maintained his conditional acceptance of intermarriage even after a further radicalization of his ideas on the issue. By claiming that the intermarriage debate in the 1840s employed religious vocabulary, I do not suggest that the Jewish leadership was unconcerned with politics. -All parties, for instance, supported the view that religious belief lay beyond state control, that Jews owed loyalty to the state, etc.

Protocolle, p. 72.

Ludwig Philippson (1811-1889) resigned from his Magdeburg congregation in 1862 because of impending blindness. He remained, however, an active scholar and editor until his death. Johanna 76

Philippson, The Philippsons: A German-Jewish Family." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 7 (1962), pp. 95-118.

^ Ludwig Philippson, “Gegen die Broschuere: Die erste Rabbinerversammlung und ihre Gegner, von Kirchenrath Dr. Mayer" AZdJ. 9:10,13, (3 Maerz 1845). The original reads: “Mein lieberfreund, der looos im theologen wird zu dem gemischten Ehen immer "Nein!’ sagen, aberder pectus wird ’Ja’ sagen; und die gemischten Ehen sind da, bestehen in zahlreichen Gemeinden, und wir antworten daher mit dem Sanhédrin, "Sie sind nicht verboten, ohne dass wir sie irgend herbeiwuenschen, ohne das wir sie billigen."

J.C.B. Linde "Ueber religioese Erziehung in gemischte Ehen und Ueber Ehen zwischen Juden und Christen" (Giesen, 1847) preferred Reform Judaism to conversion, a position unheard of 20-30 years later. As early as 1840 Carl Robe, the liberal Justice Commissioner for Prussia, argued that Jewish-Christian intermarriage was legal and that only the form of concluding the marriage presented difficulties. Literaturblatt des Orients. 5, (1 February 1840). See also E. R. Misch, "Die Mischehe" (Leipzig, 1844) See also Hermann Grieve, "Religious Dissent and Tolerance in the 1840s," Mosse, Revolution and Evolution, pp. 337-352.

The peculiarities of German liberalism have been frequently discussed. See James Sheehan, German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1978) for the relevant citations.

Riesser said, "One result of our new laws will be that marriages will be mixed, previously a continual and insurmountable barrier to the unifying of the tribes (Stammeseinigung). With this will the tribal differences be dissolved." Quoted in Alex Bein, Die Judenfraoe. vol. 2, p. 221; vol. 1, p. 257.

Moses Hess. Die europaeische Triarchie (Leipzig. 18411. pp. 123-151.

Max Wiener, Juedische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation. p. 97. The Protestant Uchtfreunde and the German Catholics evidenced the same striving as the Jewish Reformers: Wiener considered Holdheim to be a Jewish “Lichtfreund." An excellent discussion of Holdheim may be found in Jakob J. Petuchowski, "Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim: Their Differences in Germany and Repercussions in America," LBIYB. 22, (1977), pp. 142-149.

^ Immanuel Heinrich Ritter, Samuel Holdheim (Berlin, 1865), Ch. 13; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden. vol. 11.

Graetz, Geschichte der Juden. vol. 11, p.567 not only assigned Holdheim the leading role at Brunswick, but also called him the greatest enemy of Judaism since St. Paul.

Ritter, "Samuel Holdheim, The Jewish Reiomier." Jewish Quarterly Review. O.S.. 1, (1889), p. 202. Graetz claimed that Holdheim had already become a sceptic during his stay in Prague. Michael Meyer argued that only upon attaining to the rabbinate in Mecklenburg did Holdheim’s radicalism come to fruition. This accords well with the important role Ritter assigns the reactionary Mecklenburg government in the formuiation of Holdheim’s Ueber die Autonomie der Rabbinen (1843). 77

Ritter, Samuel Holdheim. p.207.

Holdheim, Ueber die Autonomie. pp.49-ff. Max Wiener’s Juedische Religion, p. 95, noted that while Holdheim remained consistent to his principle from a subjective viewpoint, the principle had little utility in trying to disentangle the complex web of Jewish existence.

Protocolle. PP. 73-74.

Levi Herzfeld, Vorschlaeoe zu einer Reform der juedischen Eheoesetze (Braunschweig, 1846).

^ Herzfeld, Vorschlaeoe. p. 20. The original reads: "Weiche Jude, Sproetziing eines Volkes, das seit viertausand Jahren fuer den absoluten Monotheismus geblutet hat, moechte behaupten wollen, das eine solche Modifizierung deselben etwas Unwesentliches ist?"

^ Herzfeld, Vorschlaeoe. p. 26. Herzfeld did not shy away from departing from rabbinic law in all cases. Specifically, he hoped that a Jewish man might win his Christian child over to Judaism. Herzfeld also believed that the Scripture left more loopholes for recognizing already concluded marriages. Given a fait accompli, Herzfeld wished to stretch haiachah to bring children to Judaism.

Zacharias Frankel, "Die Rabbinerversammlung zu Braunschweig" pp. 289-ff.; Idem., "Recensionen, ’Ueber die Autonomie der Rabbinen und das Princip der juedischen Ehe’" pp. 204- ff., Frankel. Zeitschrift fuer die relioiosen Interessen des Judenthums. 1, (1844).

Frankel, "Die Rabbinerversammlung zu Braunschweig," p. 305.

Frankel, "Die Rabbinerversammlung zu Braunschweig," p. 295.

Moshe ben Jacob of Coucy’s Semao is an acronym for Sefer Mitzvot Gadol. a book of commentary on the positive and negative (“L’avim") commandments. The Semao is based on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah.

Frankel, "Recensionen," p.288. Although I agree with Frankel’s verdict, other Refomers abused the texts fer more egregiously than Holdheim. For instance, Joseph Maier, “Die erste Rabbiner Versammlung und ihre Gegner (Stuttgart, 1845). Frankel cites Moses of Coucy’s Sefer Mitzvot ha- Gadol fS’mao. "I’avin") on p. 287.

Holdheim. Das Reliaioese und Politische im Judenthum. p. 76. The orginal German reads: "Die Heiligkeit des juedischen Volkes ist die einziger Ursache des Eheverbotes mit andem Voelkem auf dem Standpunkte desTalmuds"

See notes 9-10 above.

"Was nicht ausdruecklich verboten, ist erlaubt." Holdheim, Das Reliaioese. p. 57. Apparently Holdheim was not troubled that the religious consideration of the seven Canaanite nations was irrelevant according to his own distinction of national and religious. 78

^ Holdheim’s veracity is a troublesome issue. Admirers, including Abraham Geiger and Immanuael Ritter, attributed the highest motives to Holdheim. On the other hand, Frankel accused iiim (legitimately) of misrepresenation and Samuel Hirsch accused him of plagiarism.

Other than Mendel Hess, reports on four additional intermarriage consecrations in the 1840s are reported in J.C.B. Linde, “Ueber die religioese Eerziehung." Immanuel Ritter, Holdheim’s successor at the Berliner Reformgenossenschaft also consecrated intermarriages.

The last prophet, Malachi, was frequently invoked by the radical Reformers in the 1840s as an opponent of Ezra. Ezra commanded Israelites to "divorce" their non-Israelite wives.

Samuel Holdheim, "Einsegnung einer Gemischten Ehe," (Berlin, 1949), p. 5.

Holdheim, "Einsegnung," p. 4.

The details of the Falkson affair may be gleaned from the following sources: Der Jude in Deutschlands Geoenwart. 1:2, (13 January 1846), pp. 14-15; Ferdinand Falkson, Gemischte Ehen zwischen Juden und Christen: Dokumente. (Hamburg, 18471: Der Israelit des Neunzehnjahhundeits. 9:2, (9 January 1848), p. 14.1 have been able to discover only that Falkson was a follower of the radical Jewish socialist Johann Jacoby; as to Falkson’s bride, I have no details whatsoever.

^ Samuei Holdheim, Gemischte Ehen zwischen Juden und Christen. Die Gutachten der Berliner Rabbinatsverwahlung und des Koeinsberoer Consistoriums (Berlin, 1850); Salomon Cohen "Die Mischehe" (Berlin, 1850). The preface of Cohen’s work contains Oettingeris version of his conflict with Holdheim.

Der Israelit des Neunzehniahrhunderts. 9:2, p. 14.

Wiener, Juedische Religion, also emphasizes the extreme liberalism of Holdheim’s views.

Frankel, "Recensionen," p. 208; "Die Rabbinerversammlung zu Braunschweig." Holdheim retorts to this charge of "slavishness" in Das Religioese und Politische. pp. 8-10.

Frankel, "Die Rabbinerversammlung zu Braunschweig," p. 298. Frankel singled out intermarriage as the sort of issue that needed to be discussed in private becuase it required a "most exact" understanding of Jewish-Christian relations.

Wiener, Juedische Religion, p. 97. Wiener regarded Holdheim as the most extreme de- nationalizer of Judaism. Michael Meyer treated Holdheim as the diametric opposite of Samson Raphael Hirsch. Unlike Hirsch, who considered objective tradition the criterion of modernization, Holdheim evaluated Judaism by the subjective feelings of an enlightened, modem elite. Petuchowski, "Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim," pp. 147-149 suggested that Holdheim actually possessed a considerable, nostalgic "viddishkeit." I am not convinced this had any impact on Holdheim’s doctrines, although there is something anomalous in the picture of the poor Posener "yeshiva bochur" catering to a wealthy, educated, private Berlin congregation.

Isaak Bemays, "Gutachten betr. die Mischehe," E. Duckesz, "Zur Biographie des Chacham Jssak Bemays," Jahrbuch der Juedisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft. 5, (1907) pp. 321-322. Bemays 79 rendered his testimony in German in 1843, an indication that he wished it to reach a wide audience. Blenson, T he Development of Orthodox Attitudes to Conversion in the Modem Period," Conservative Judaism . 36:4, (1983), p. 60.

"Sheiomei Emunah Yisrae!//Treue Giaubuge in Israel" (5605) (1844-1845) This document, was brought to my attention by David Ellenson’s T he Development of Orthodox Attitudes." This document, in Israel’s National Library’s Rare Manuscripts Divison, included German, Hungarian and French rabbis and carried 116 signatures in its second printing.

^ Ibid.

For the progress of civil marriage in Germany, see Brockhaus Conversationslexikon. 13th ed., vol. 4, (1882) pp. 421-422.

Philippson argued both these points in "Vom Prinzip der juedischen Ehe und der Zivilehe" in the AZDJ. Philippson was irked to have dissidents and Jews placed in the same category; both groups needed to undergo civil marriages while Catholic and Protestant church marriages sufficed. AZDJ. 11:38 (13 September 1847). Philippson reiterated the Brunswick proviso that children must be brought uo according to the free wishes of their parents. "Zur Mischehe," AZDJ. 11:32, (2 August 18470.

Jacob Ettlinger, "Gutachten." Published in Treue Zions-Wachter. 6:26, (28 June 1850), p. 207.

Salomon Cohn, "Die Mischehe," p. 11. Cohn’s argument on this point echoes those developed by Frankel’s school of positive-historical Judaism.

Protokolle der oritten Versammluna deutscher Rabbiner (Breslau, 1847).

^ Lehmann’s proposal, Referate. Lehmann authored a tract titled Hoere Israel (1869).

"Chalitza" describes the ceremony excusing a man from marrying the v/idow of his deceased brother. "Aounah" describes the status of women whose husbands are missing but not known to be deceased, hence the woman is unable to obtain a divorce and to re-marry.

Michael Meyer, Response to Modemitv. p. 189. Unlike earlier conferences, the traditionalists seem to have largely ignored the proceedings; certainly they issued no document similar to the "Sheiomei Emunah" (1850).

On the renewed strength of clericalism in the 1850s and 1860s, see Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte (Munich, 1983), pp. 403-450.

AZDJ. 35:10, (4 March 1862).

Ludwig Philippson, Die Israelitische Religionslehre (Leipzig, 1865), pp. 247-256.

Philippson, Die Israelitische Religionslehre. p. 250. 80

Abraham Geiger, "Die Antraege des Herm. Adv. Lehmann," Referate ueber die der ersten israelitischen Svnode in Leipzig (Leipzig, 1871), pp. 182-193. Geiger (1810-1874), probably the most important Reform theologian in the nineteenth century, proved willing to examine the divine origins of even the written Torah, unlike the more radical Holdheim.

Ibid.

Ibid.

80 Joseph Aub, "Gutachten," Referate ueber die der ersten israelitischen Svnode in Leipzig (Leipzig, 1871), p. 193. Aub concedeed that in the past the Bible and the early rabbis had sanctioned intermarriage on many occasions.

^ Ibid.

Manuel Joel, "Schliessung der Ehe," Referate ueber die der ersten israelitischen Svnode in Leipzig, p. 177.

^ Late nineteenth Protestant biblical criticism, revived antisemitism, and the erosion of religious faith, all played a role in inculcating Jewish feelings of religious inferiority

Abraham Geiger, "Proselytinbad," Referate ueber die der ersten israelitischen Svnode in Leipzig, pp. 101-105. CHAPTER III

THE UBERAL DEFENSE OF ENDOGAMY IN THE KAISERREICH

The liberal defense of endogamy in Imperial Germany found its inteliectual precedents in the conclusions of the Napoleonic Sanhédrin of 1807 and the Brunswick Assembly of 1844. At the

Napoleonic Sanhédrin the Jews had been pressured to accept intermarriage as a means of forwarding their integration int? the host society; this demand engendered divisions between traditional and "enlightened" Jews. The Brunswick Assembly and the heady days of the Vormaerz period sparked a renewed discussion of endogamy. Nevertheless, in the 1840s the debate could stiii be characterized as largely an intramural and professional debate, that is to say, Jewish and rabbinic. Disputes over rabbinic consecration, the upbringing of children, and the validity of civil marriage notwithstanding, very little intermarriage actually occurred in the 1840s. Not only did the limited social contacts of Jews and Christians militate against the phenomenon-this could be said to some extent throughout the period under discussion-but the laws of most German states prohibited undisguised intermarriage. The legal situation changed in 1875 when the Prussian

Landtag legalized intermarriage, four years after the Jews had been raised to civil and political equality by the Gleichberechtioung of 1871. Jewish defenders of endogamy could no longer claim that legal inequality and the law itself precluded intermarriage. Moreover, the German side of the emancipation bargain, the bestowal of Jewish legal equality, had seemingly been fulfilled.^

While 1871 marks a watershed event in German Jewish history, the renewed interest in the issue of intermarriage must be dated from 1879, the year that antisemitism entered the political arena.^ The antisemitic conflict of 1879-1881 caught German Jewry by surprise. The prevailing view of non-Jews that the Jews had not done enough to integrate challenged the Jews to live up to

81 82

their part of the emancipation bargain. Additionally, the intensity of the new Jew hatred initiated a difficult process of réévaluation that lasted untn the First Worid War. A discussion of intermarriage entered this new phase of the "Jewish Question" at the unwitting instigation of Harry Bresslau, a

Jewish medievalist at the University of Berlin.® Bresslau s "Zur Judenfrage" invited Heinrich von

Treitschke to fonward his suggestions for the solution of the "Jevrish Question", a question the latter had done much to publicize in the preceding months. Treitschke’s reply so deeply influenced not only later antisémites, but the intermarriage question in general, that it deserves to be quoted in full:

The Emancipation has been carried out so fully as to preclude every ground for further Jewish demands. Nevertheless, the Jews also foreswear the bloodmixing which fias always been the most effective means toward an equalizing of tribal differences; the number of converts to Christianity has greatly decreased, and intermarriage between Christians and Jews will remain only an infrequent exception as long as our people hold their Christian beliek as holy.^

Treitschke’s suggestion fias attracted little attention in modem scholarship; contemporaries, however, took heed of Treitschke’s observations. Hermann Cohen’s "Bin

Bekentniss in der Judenfrage" objected to the call for Jewish converts, but agreed that national assimilation "Geschlecfrt zu geschlecht," by means of intermarriage, would be desirable.® Ludwig

Bamberger, another well-known Jewish respondent, attacked the increasingly racist overtones in

Treitschke’s remarks, and argued that many children had already been produced by intermarriages.® Bamberger could accept the validity of the distinction "converted" and "non­ converted" Jew, but the distinction of "Semitic" and "non-Semitic" overlooked men of Jewish birth such as Frederich Julius Stahl or August Neander, both apostles of Christian conservatism.

Bamberger intuited that a racial definition of Jewishness would prove not only dangerous, but unanswerable in rational terms.^ 83

Less prominent disputants in the great antisemitic debate also tookTreitschke's suggestion to heart Leaving aside for the next chapter radical assimOationists who favored the disappearance of distinct Jewish existence altogether, there were still others who thought that intermarriage would bring benefits for both Jews and Germans.® The anonymous "Judaeus" conceded that even though intermarriages at the present appeared less happy and fertile than endogamous unions, in time German culture would climax precisely because of this blending of

German and Jewish tendencies. In contradiction to Treitschke’s claim that no one wished for a

German-Jewish "mischkultur." the idea that Jewish and German characteristics complemented each other animated the responses of both Moritz Lazarus and Ludwig Bamberger, although neither advocated intermarriage outright®

Of the numerous Jewish pamphleteers, only Gustav Maier seems to have criticized

Treitschke’s proposal directly. Maier, in the course of reasserting the Enlightenment principles of tolerance and progress, emphasized that continued Christian Jew-hatred created a barrier against intermarriage. If the Junkers willingly took Jewish wives, held Maier, tfiat only reflected the fact tfiat more forceful means of acquiring Jewish monies had been foreclosed. Within an intermarriage the

Jew, and even the Jewess, had to struggle for acceptance at the hands of their Christian relatives.

Thus Maier avoided the issue of whether or not, under any circumstances, Jews would approve of intermarriage. Yet even Maier conceded the preferability of looking German; he merely contended that this process would occur without intermarriage.^ ®

The pressures exerted by German antisemitism provide the crucial background to the mainstream liberal Jewish defenses of endogamy from 1879 to 1914. Against this background, 1 will focus on three polemical tendencies within the intermarriage debate. One, the responses of the

Jevrish liberal mainstream developed in conjunction with a complex of related phenomena: conversion, communal secession, statistical proofs of Jewish assimilation, attacks from other 84

Jewish perspectives and external political events. As a result of these pressures, the liberal

arguments against intermarriage evidenced a deeply reactive, defensive nature. Two, although the

religious factor remained a keystone in the liberal defense of endogamy, this defense necessarily

reflected a broader definition of Jewishness. The notion of Judaism being merely a "religious

confession* increasingly W ed to serve the needs of Jewish self-definition in the Kaiserreich.

Opposition to intermarriage based on religious grounds alone could not satisfy an increasingly

secularized German Jewry. Finally, Jewish legal equality and legal Intermarriage made the liberal defense of endogam y more difficult by far. These polemical pressures, combined with a chorus of voices calling for accelerated integration, effectively crippled the liberal Jewish defense of

endogamy. The Jewish mainstream failed to enunciate a dear rejection of intermarriage despite a

growing awareness of the dangers to German Jewry caused by this phenomenon.

Before turning to their treatment of intermarriage, 1 wiil attempt to characterize the "Jewish liberal mainstream," the focus of this chapter and the foil for chapters four through six. Defining this

mainstream constitutes an important and rarely addressed issue.^ ^ The primary criterion must be

ideological: this mainstream constituted the vast majority of German Jews who associated with the

“emancipationist" ideology- whether in its pre-1871 form or in its subsequent reformulation into the concept of "Deutschtum and Judentum*.^^ Indeed, given the reiative economic, social and educational homogeneity of Imperial German Jewry, this may be the sole positive criterion. To a great extent, the views of this Jewish liberal mainstream were reflected in communal, charitable and political organizations and by Jevrish leaders in German government and university life. The bearers of this ideology dominated not only Jewish communities, but also the organs which shaped Jewish public opinion. Even if the term would have made them uncomfortable, the Jewish liberal leaders constituted an "establishment" as well as being the expositors of the prevailing

Jewish ideology. 85

The spokespersons for this mainstream daimed to represent German Jewry at large, and untn the rise of Zionism, this daim was not disputed. Exduded from this mainstream would be, first of all, those Jews that considered the eventual disappearance of distinct Jewish existence as a desirable goal. While these radical assimilationists argued that they stood for the highest goal of emancipation- unity vrith their non-Jewish neighbors- from the Jewish side the emancipationist ideology always insisted on continued Jewish existence. Also exduded from this definition would be the Austritt Orthodoxy, who refused to participate in the Jewish communities and actively rejected the representatives of the liberal mainstream as their representatives. The Zionists, who rejected this establishment for ideological reasons, must also be placed outside of the mainstream, however similar their personal backgrounds. And finally the Ostiuden. who, unimportant for our purposes, nevertheless constituted the most numerous non-mainstream German Jewish group.

INTERMARRIAGE AND THE ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG

No source better expresses the least common denominators of the Jewish mainstream than the journal Allaemeine Zeituna des Judenthum s (AZDJ). Founded in 1837 by Ludwig

Philippson, the AZDJ stood for moderate religious Reform under the terms of the ideology of emancipation. While nineteenth century journals did not publish their readership lists, the AZDJ enjoyed a circulation of 60,000- 70,000 during the Weimar Republic. After 1922 the AZDJ merged with Im deutschen Reich, the newspaper of the Centralverein, which counted two-thirds of German

Jewry as members. In the nineteenth century, the AZDJ enjoyed a substantial circulation throughout the Jewish worid; within Germany, the AZDJ served as a model for the Orthodox press, and even its detractors conceded its preeminent popularity. Because the AZDJ appeared weekly

over such a long period of time, it also offers a unique diachronic perspective on the developing

intermarriage polemic. My method, then, will be to follow the AZDJ's treatment of intermarriage 86

over the course of the Kaiserreich, and then turn to additional mainstream sources to amplify the three theses stated above.^^

The AZDJ. still edited by Philippson in the iate 1860s and 1870s, used the legal prohibition against intermarriage (piior to 1875) and the narrow definition of Judaism as a "religious confession* to justify endogam y/^ Philippson reiterated the Jewish anti-intermarriage position tfiat he had expressed in Die Israeiitisches Religionslehre. but considered it the only reasonable one in light of legal and social inequality.^® In the years between the 1860s and 1880 the AZDJ continued to affirm the powers of the state to conclude civil marriage, and the promise (initially given at the

Napoleonic Sanhédrin) not to punish the Jewish partner. The Allaemeine Zeituna finally addressed the explosive issue of the desirability of intermarriage only after the antisemitic wave of 1879 in a variety of forums; namely, articles dealing with France, the United States and Hungary as well as

Germany.^ ^

In the wake of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, no target for journalistic abuse could be preferred to the French. And so the AZDJ lavished its attention on the following story: the radical lawyer Alfred Naquet, a bom Jew, married a Catholic freethinker in a civil ceremony.^® Two children resulted from the marriage. During Naquet’s imprisonment and due to the death of one of their children, Naquet’s wife returned to Catholicism, taking their infant son with her. When Naquet won his release he chose to leave the child with his mother rather than reclaim him. The AZDJ drew two morals from this tale: one, that even France's radical circles were pervaded by the spirit of clericalism: two, that those who thought religious differences could no longer separate a intermarried couple were sorely mistaken. Even the religiously indifferent, the AZDJ implied, could be adversely affected by intermarriage, the civil equality of Jews notwithstanding.^®

An 1880 AZDJ lead article on American Jewry took a somewhat different, and fairiy radical, tack.^® The AZDJ’s corespondent, while noting that most American Jews who intermarried did so 87

in a civO ceremony, also reported that certain rabbis had consecrated intermarriages without

communal approval. These comments register no surprise; the AZDJ relished the role of castigator

of American Jewry’s lawlessness. Moreover, the AZDJ’s correspondent objected only to those

situations where the rabbi ient a hand to the consecration of the marriage, which occurred,

according to the correspondent, only when the relatives inten/ened and pressured the couple into

such a ceremony. Nevertheless, the AZDJ reporter denied that intermarriages happened as frequentiy as the German Jewish public believed. He argued that the Jewish feeling of belonging to

a ‘stamm.* a tribe, exerted considerable force, even though religious indifference flourished.

Indeed, intermarriage would turn the seed of Abraham into a "watery extract" which had no powers

of salvation or rejuvenation. This argument from the "stammgenossenheit" of the Jews, and the flirtation vrith the notion of the "seed of Abraham," must be recognized as a dangerous concept for

a German Jewish mainstream journal to entertain. Against the charges of antisémites, this

mainstream continually needed to combat claims that they constituted a separate nation.

Significantly, the language of innate Jewish characteristics never appeared in an AZDJ article

dealing with the intermarriage issue in Germany.^^

If the AZDJ’s features on France and America found the AZDJ exploring new ways of

conceptualizing the dangers of intermarriage to Jewry, a five part article on the Hungarian

legislature’s civil marriage debate once again stressed legal equality as the sine qua non of Jewish

aspirations. Although the supporters of the civil marriage law in the Hungarian house of

representatives had lauded intermarriage as a means of fonwarding the "amalgamation of Jews

with Christians," the AZDJ found the passage of civil marriage laws, and the ability to intermarry, as

a final step on the road to Hungarian Jevrish emancipation. Even though the supporters of the

legislation used Treitschke’s own phrase for intermarriage, "die wirksamste Mittel." the AZDJ did

not balk at supporting the legislation.^ Unlike the AZDJ articles on intermarriage in France and 88

America, which may be considered as "feelers' for wider grounds of opposition to intermarriage, the position on the debates over civil marriage in Hungary dearly demonstrate that in 1880 advocacy of equal rights for Jews represented a far more important issue than intermarriage. If

Jewish equality demanded Jewish acceptance of legal exogamy, then so be it

The Allaemeine Zeituna retumed to the intermarriage issue on German soil in 1883.

Philippson cited Catholic versus Protestant conflicts, the Hungarian legislature’s debates, and the appearance of several brochures favoring intermarriage as the issues which prompted his discussion of intermarriage. Nevertheless, the slew of artides on the subject in the years 1880-1883 and the defensive tone of Phflippson’s treatment suggest tfiat the early successes of the antisemitic movement sparked his reconsideration.^

Philippson noted that the Protestant and Catf;Dlic Churches opposed intermarriage with

Jews, with each other, and insisted tfiat the offspring be brought up according to their respective strictures. The AZDJ approved of their attitude. Equality meant equality as a religious group, not only as individuals; the Jews should not be afraid of speaking out against intermarriage on religious grounds. Mixed marriage, as the Brockhaus Lexikon suggested, referred primarily to religious difficulties in Protestant-Catholic marriages. Basing Jewish opposition on religious grounds not only tread paths well-worn by the majority faiths, it confirmed the view that Jews represented just another religious confession adhered to by some Germans.

Thus the Allaemeine Zeituna argued tfiat intermarriage could be opposed on religious grounds alone. The issue of validity did not em erge- since 1875 hundreds of intermarriages had occurred without communal expulsion and generally without rabbinic consecration. The AZDJ invoked the idea that intermarriage constituted a threat to the religious "Moment* A couple could not be united when their deepest beliefs differed; to attempt this could cause grave harm to both the partners. Retreating from the assertions of stammoenossenheit in the article on American 89

Jewry, and from the expressions of concern for freethinking Jews like Alfred Naquet, the AZDJ adopted a pious tone and a well-tried position. "Not national separation, but the religiousm om ent is the motive for a defense against intermarriage."^'^

Religious reasons, albeit more widely defined, continued to provide the dominant argument for the Allaemeine Zeituna in the 1880s, as they had from the 1840s onwards. State law no longer banned intermarriage and Jews had been granted dg jure equality. Legal hostility, therefore, could not be adduced by the Jewish mainstream as a reason for opposing intermarriage. Almost simultaneously, however, a wave of renewed antisemitism had unleashed severe criticism directed at the Jews’ failure to amalgamate. Together, these events increased

Jevrlsh defensiveness, but did not call forth a new line of argumentation in defense of Jewish endogam y.

External developments in the 1890s highlighted the ambiguous position of German Jewry.

Most broadly, antisemitism had emerged as an ongoing challenge to the Jews’ position in German society: this had called forth varied Jewish responses.^ While Jewish organizational life had been greatly strengthened, departure from Judaism had also proven to be an important trend. The numbers of conversions, Austritte and intermarriages all continued to grow; published statistics gave the numbers added weight and proved to some that German Jewry was endangered.^® The

AZDJ, like the liberal Jewish press in general, polemicized against conversion throughout the

1890s. The articles of advocates of radical assimilation such as Walther Rathenau and Arthur

Weissler drew a unanimously hostile Jewish response.^^ While the patently self-serving motives of

"converts" made their baptisms easy to denounce, intermarriage proved to be a more ambiguous form of "defection." The AZDJ articles on intermarriage in the years preceding the First World War evidenced this ambiguity two ways: One, while religious differences remained the stated reason for disapproving intermarriage, the cultural and social rather ttian the religious gap between Jews and so

Christians became the actual focus of the considerations. Two, the AZDJ Increasingly linked the issue of intermarriage to the wider issue of the communal weakness of the German Jewry.

Dr. Georg Joachim’s article "Warum erieidet das Judenthum durch Mischehen Abbruch?" reflected the ambiguities of the liberal mainstream.^® Noting that intermarriage had increased consistently, especially among Jewish men and Christian women, Joachim considered it as a given that liberals must welcome intermarriage from a political and human standpoint Whatever influence the race instinct exerted against the concluding of intermarriages, true love apparently proved an even stronger force. But why did Judaism suffer losses from intermarriage? After all, by

German law, the religion of the child had been left up to the parents. Joachim conceded that there were material advantages to a Christian upbringing, but argued that children preferred Christianity because of the warmer reception offered by the Christian relatives than the Jewish. Naturally, to

Joachim, the children learned to associate Christianity with love and Judaism with grudging acceptance. Jews, therefore, must welcome their Christian daughters into their homes and hope to inspire in them and their children the same feelings that Ruth, the most famous proselyte, entertained toward the Jews first as individuals and then as a people.^

The editors of the AZDJ made it dear that Joachim’s presentation did not reflect their ovm wews. On the contrary, while Joachim had expressly elected to overlook the religious moment, the editors noted that exactly this religious interest of Judaism at large dictated their opposition to intermarriage. Nor did they agree with Joachim that Jewish reluctance exceeded Christian opposition to intermarriages. The attitude of Christians toward the newly-wedded Jew often reflected the depth of German antisemitism. Why then did the editors choose to publish Joachim's artide, which they strongly disagreed with? The Allaemeine Zeituna daim ed that even well meaning liberals like Joachim could misunderstand the implication of intermarriage for Judaism.

Joachim, the AZDJ implied, had felled to give heed to the weakness of the Jews position vis a vis 91

German society, and the k ct that the host society, not the Jewish minority, prowded the prejudice.®®

The Allaemeine Zeituna had no desire to contest Joachim's paean to the power of love over racial differences. Unfortunately, racialist thinking continued to gain ground. Gustav Karpeles, w ho succeeded Philippson as editor of the Allaemeine Zeituna in 1889, knew fuil well that the racial argument constituted the most unanswerable in the antisemitic arsenal. In an article entitled "a

Jewish heart", for instance, Regina Riesser recalled an intermarriage that deepened in happiness a s antisemitism grew in strength. Just as PhHippson had used the instance of Alfred Naquet to prove that intermarriage led to unhappiness, Karpeles held up this case to argue that love could overcome differences of blood. Balancing the "blood" and the "heart" remained problematic for the

AZDJ. Even Karpeles, on one occasion, had boasted of the superior qualities of Jewish blood,

"better than that of the Greeks or the Romans." On the one hand, the AZDJ wished to affirm the possibility of Christian-Jewish love; on the other hand, the AZDJ wanted to oppose intermarriage.

The notion that intermarriage (unlike baptism) proceeded from innocent rather than suspect motives, but (like baptism) nevertheless harmed Judaism, proved to be an intractabie subject A feuilleton written by Clara Saumbach appearing in five issues of the AZDJ presented this problem in story form, and provided the preferred, indeed the utopian, liberal Jewish solution.®®

The story details the love affair (unconsummated) of a wealthy Jevrish girl named Melitta and an

Italian bom Austrian officer of great professional promise and very strict Catholic upbringing. After shedding an ocean of tears, Melitta decides that the marriage can not be, despite Captain

Grittano’s willingness to sacrifice all for true love.

In the course of the story an antisemitic Baron has been "cured" and true love between

Jew and Christian has been affirmed as a real possibility. The intermarriage has been rejected, not so much because of their religious dirierences, but because of what Grittano will have to sacrifice 92

to have Melitta and vice versa Her mother asks what will happen when passion kdes and her beloved, "sees in you the Jew?" Despite Melltta’s own spiritual wrestling, the practical considerations represent the decisive onea In her dramatic goodbye she tells Grittano that their pasts are irreconcilable. In other words, the misalliance appears to be one because of cultural, social and economic considerationa The religious m om ent, previously an important, if ill-defined concept, lias disappeared from the polemical vocabulary. Defending endogamy vnthout fuelling antisemitism led, in this case, to a shrill but unconvincing a rg u m e n t^

Baumbach’s feuilleton concentrated on an individual, if fictional, situation. A two-part AZDJ article on intermarriage in 1905 illustrated the necessity of opposing intermarriage for the maintenance of the Jewish community. The article cited at great length the findings of the statistician Louis Maretski who argued that intermarried couples fiad a higher divorce rate, a higher frequency of criminality and produced children who would eventually become Christians. The

AZDJ regarded intermarriage as especially serious when compared to the overall decline in the

Jewish birth rate and the very slow increase in the Jewish marriage rate. For the first time, the

AZDJ kept the situation of the Jews in general very much in mind while it discussed the necessity of combatting the rise of intermarriage. The AZDJ recognized that in all the free societies in Europe

Intermarriage had become an increasingly frequent occurrence, among the poor as well as the rich. Certainly, the AZDJ held, no thinking Jew would desire a return to the ghetto, yet short of that, no obvious solution existed. Maretski proposed professional education of Jewish women as a means of slowing the phenomena of defection. The AZDJ took a less optimistic view: "They (most

Jews) can not grasp that only slow and steady work is demanded in order to finally bring about a ch an g e."^

If the Allaemeine Zeituna saw the dangers to the body of Judaism as increasingly serious and regarded a "slow and steady" program as the only means of tuming the situation around, the 93

editors could not easily imagine the particulars of this program. Despite the dangers to Jewish existence posed by increasing defection, the solutions appeared non-existent The only certain cure to intermarriage, return to the ghetto, the AZOJ naturally rejected as unthinkable. The AZOJ bemoaned the fact that in many cases parents could not impress a Jewish cfiaracter on their temQies for they themselves lacked any strong Jewish identity. A program for combatting intermarriage, the AZDJ admitted, could only apply to those who still believed that Judaism had a great future, a belief which the AZDJ hopefully characterized as common to both Reform and

Orthodoxy. Casting about for a justification of Jewish solidarity, the AZDJ oRered a reheated version of the "mission" theory; that the Jews would bring about a belief in a single transcendent

God. Sut in 1907 this appeal could hardly be expected to arouse those Jews who no longer had qualms about marrying outside the "faith." More tellingly, the author complained bitterly that even the Jews’ warmest Christian supporters wished them to disappear as a distinct unit, and doubted tfiat the "thousands of intermarriages" could carry on the Jewish family, the bearer of Jewish tradition.^

The AZDJ, from 1875 to 1914, never found a better argument than religious differences upon which to base its opposition to intermarriage. Nevertheless, the AZDJ came to realize that with the removal of all technical impediments, this objection was often unimportant to the intermarrying couple. Clearly, had being Jewish been merely a matter of religious confession, only as long as a Jew’s beliefs diuered from a Christian’s would there have been a reason to protest an intermarriage. As late as 1880 the AZDJ could emphasize that the purely religious differences between Judaism and Christianity created a barrier to a good marriage. Implicitly, the scenes of stymied and unsuccessful intermarriages in the AZDJ conceded that by 1914 the barrier between

Jews and Christians stemmed from cultural as well as religious differences. The different outlook and background of Jew and Christian, more than their different thedogies, constituted the 94

problem. But this remained underdeveloped territory, for the AZOJ held that neither race nor social values distinguished German Christian from German Jew. Consequently, the AZDJ continued to regard intermarriage as harmful for Judaism, but could not offer compelling reasons not to intermarry, nor propose a m eans of limiting their increasing frequency. Committed to a universalistic, religious interpretation of Jevwshness, the writers for the Allaemeine Zeitung had few alternative intellectual tools with which to forge a defense of the Jewish endogamy that they dearly favored.

JEWISH HONOR AS A POLEMICAL TOOL IM DEUTSCHEN REICH

On its masthead the Allaemeine Zeitung des Judenthums described itself as "a party-less mouthpiece for all Jewish interests." Despite this description, their treatment of the intermarriage issue demonstrated that they were religiously-oriented in their approach to the problem, generally opposed intermarriage, but unwilling to take an activist stand on such a sensitive topic. In contrast to the AZDJ, Im deutschen Reich, the monthly journal of the Centralverein Deutsche Staatsburger juedischen Glaubens, represented a defined ideology usually cfiaracterized as being a mixture of

‘Deutschtum and Judenthum." Founded in 1895, Im deutschen Reich (IDR) contained much organizational information, descriptions of antisemitic activities and anti-antisemitic responses, and also analytical feature articles on various aspects of German Jewry. As befitted the organ of the

Centralverein (CV), German Jewry’s largest organization, the IDR accepted and approved the idea that Jews had become Germans. Felix Goldmann, a leading CV ideologue, narrowly defined an

"assimilationist* as one who brought shame upon his religion and/or denied his Jewishness.

German Jewish values, held Goldmann, were German values; whatever feeling of Jewish community-consciousness that still existed could be largely attributed to antisemitism. The signs of cultural assimilation- entry into the civil service, the army, and the rising intermarriage rate in the big cities-w ere equated and, implicitly, applauded.^® 95

One of Im deutschen Reich's main campaigns focused on combatting conversion to

Christianity (infant and adult). Baptized Jews, argued Im deutschen Reich, contributed to stereotypes of the allegedly self-serving Jewish morality. As thie vast majority of apostates acted from non-religious motives, Im deutschen Reich considered this patently dishonest Conversion also hurt the cause of those Jews (i.e. those of the Centralverein) who fought for equal opportunities for Jews, lacking in many segments of German society, but especially pronounced in academia, the army and the upper echelons of the civil service. Since these baptized Jews came from the same bourgeois cirdes from which the Centralverein drew its members, their conversions encouraged others to take the sarriw step. Furthermore, not only antisémites, but many liberal

Germans were encouraged by conversion to hope that Jews could be entirely dissolved as a distinct unft. The Centralverein’s anti-conversionary campaign peaked in 1910. That summer the

CV not only organized a public demonstration, but also devoted a large part of the summer edition of the IDR to polemics against this phenomenon.®^ The framework of the IDR’s campaign against conversion, combined with their highly subjective view of assimilation, provides the key to understanding their treatment of intermarriage.

Im deutschen Reich strongly opposed the issue of conversion from the angle of Jewish honor and Jewish equality. However, an examination of the pre-First World War editions of the IDR leads to the condusion that tiie majority of the writers for the IDR regarded intermarriage as a painless and respectable way of further integrating into German life. Proceeding from the very same standard of Jewish equality and honor, Im deutschen Reich treated intermarriage and baptism as two very different phenomena. In an operv letter to the antisémite Frederick Paulsen,

Emil Lehman reiterated his position in Hoere Israel (1869) that just as in Rome intermarriage would bring a cessation to serious social conflict in Germany as well. In Rome, d a s s warfare between patrician and plebeian had been alleviated through intermarriage. In Germany’s case, the religious 96

and racial hatred of Christians for Jews could likewise be dissolved. Lehman's radical Reform

outlook allowed him to deny the equation that a rise in the intermarriage rate denoted a decline in

religion. He rejected the idea that the practice of Judaism as a religion had any impact on Jews’

national cfiaracteristics, much less their loyalty. To be sure, Lehman represented the left wing of

religious Reformers. But it is noteworthy that in Lehman’s view, the consistency of being wholly

Jewish and wholly German contained the corollary that one could be intermarried without any

compromise of religious beliefs.^

While no other Im Deutschen Reich article took as blatant a pro-intermarriage a view as

Lehman’s, the IDR’s pro-assimHatory stance limited the stridency of any inclinations to condemn

Intermarriage. Even antisemitism, the IDR argued, could only impede the speed of the assimilatory

process. Indeed, in one article the IDR taunted those antisémites who called for a "racially pure aristocracy* by claiming tfiat their many publications would be impossible without the help of the

progeny produced by the mixed marriages the antisémites condemned.®^ A between-the-lines

reading yields the IDR’s verdict on the worth of such offspring: if they were guilty of self-hate, they were also capable. Only on two occasions did the IDR publish reports that could be construed as opposition to intermarriage on principle. At one meeting of the Hamburg Centralverein chapter a

member suggested that Jews had been weakened through endogamy and "fresh blood* needed to

be added for a bettering of the Jewish race. While the IDR reported that *unrest and disagreement

met his words,* it did not explain the reasons for such a negative reaction. If the rank and file

Centralverein members reflected the IDR’s editorial policy, one could conclude that the self­ denigration implied in such a statement might well have been the source of the discord.^ Cn another occasion, a Dr. Albu explained to the Centralverein tfiat *Die Krankheiten der Juden* did

not result from the Jews being a incestuous, pure race. After a catalogue of Jewish ailments. Dr.

Albu concluded tfiat *self-help" alone could improve the Jew s’ health. Intermarriages, in Albu’s 97

opinion, "almost never" benefited the Jewish race; intermarriage could not solve the "Jewish

Question". To deny that intermarriage could solve the "Jewish Question", however, was not

necessarily to condemn iL^^

Although Im Deutschen Reich never attacked intermarriage as a bad idea for Jews by definition, its writers did not hesitate to attack aspects of intermarriage that reflected poorly on

Jewish legal equality or self-respect In "Religiose Erziehung von Kindem aus judisch-christiichen

Mischehen" the IDR editors took exception to the unequal treatment of Judaism and Christianity as a valid choice for the upbringing of a child. The IDR showed clearly that in very similar cases the same judge enforced an 1803 law stating that a child follows his/her father’s religion only when the

result precluded a Jewish upbringing. The IDR, in this case, did not object to intermarriage per se:

nor did they imply that intermarriage would bring unanticipated and negative side effects. They argued only that religion should be the choice of the parents and that the state should not involve

itself in such matters. Implicitly, Judaism and not only Jew s deserved equality under the law.^^

Consistent with its liberal political position, the Centralverein advocated religious equality as both a cardinal value and a strategic goal. The IDR approvingly reproduced an article by the

Frankfurter minister and scholar, Erich Foerster, who attacked the German government’s encouragement of insincere conversion; Foerster further bemoaned the fact that Jewesses were not considered as desirable marriage partners.^ The IDR’s attitude toward equality cum self- respect can also be illustrated by their position on the participation of Jewish children in Christian religious education. The first few years of public school religious instruction dealt with the Hebrew

Scriptures, and as a result, many Jewish parents sent their children to Christian classes. The IDR warned that: 1) the teaching was slanted in anticipation of New Testament material, 2) the teachers imparted a specifically Christian world-view, and 3) this world-view, with its depreciation of Jewish values would lead to a decrease in Jewish self-respect^ Even in this article on religious 98

education, penned In 1907, the IDR principally demanded equality and seif-respecL The IDR

remained quite vague as to which specifically Jewish values it sought to promote.

The Im Deutschen Reich did not ignore the losses to the Jewish community caused by

intermarriage, conversion and Austritte: that would have been impossible given the ongoing

debate on the Jewish future being conducted by demographers, statisticians and political

economists. Jacob Segall published two articles in the 1913 IDR which dealt vrith Jewish

communal and religious losses. Segall’s attitude toward intermarriage expressed considerable

confusion, or at least, ambivalence. He noted that in the "liberal" era between the 1840s and the

1880s intermarriage increased while apostasy declined; both healthy signs. But Segall also related

intermarriage to the disturbing rise in illegitimate births and declining Jewish birth-rate. .Additionally,

Segall feared that intermarriage often represented the first step to the final step of separation from

the Jewish community, apostasy. Nevertheless, Segall suggested that the most dislocating

phenomenon in German Jewry was migration from the East, not defection from within. Whatever

damage Segall envisioned as proceeding from intermarriage, he presented conversion and

Eastern immigration as more problematic.'^

Only when intermarriage served as a stepping stone to conversion, or where the terms of

the marriage showed the Jewish partner in a dearly inferior social role, did the IDR object to it

strenuously. As a result of a more explicit philosophy, Im Deutschen Reich maintained a far more

consistent policy towards intermarriage than did the AZDJ. Ironically, the Centralverein, which

receives much credit for instilling pride and increased cultivation of Jewish values in late Imperial

German Jewry, took a far more permissive attitude toward intermarriage than the more religiously

oriented, old-fashioned, and generally less aggressive Allaemeine Zettuno. Whatever dcubts

individual CV members felt about the social context and likely happiness of Jewish-Christian

•intermarriages, their public ideology provided no basis for criticism unless the intermarriage 99

compromised aspects of Jewish equality or honor. The same standards that permitted Im deutschen Reich’s aggressive attack on apostasy precluded a critical stance toward the principle of intermarriage.^

The surprisingly weak defense of endogamy in the AZOJ and the IDR finds its echo in many public utterances of the Jewish liberal establishment Leopold Auerbach, who called for improved Jevrish organizational life and a more determined response to antisemitism in his controversial book Das Judenthum und seine Bekenner in Preussen und in der anderen deutschen

Bundestaaten. considered intermarriage a desirable goal.'*^ Noting the history of the French,

German and Austrian debates on Jevrish equality, Auerbach concluded that the Jewish reluctance to ir^ennarry provided critics with a major complaint Auerbach, writing with a dear apologetic intent defended the Jewish reluctance on several counts, with the expected emphasis on the equally reluctant stance of the Christian churches. Auerbach recalled Gabriel Riesseris eariy defense of Jewish endogamy. Riesser, who had defended the Jewish reluctance to intermarry against antl-Jewish attacks in 1833, considered Jewish endogamy the natural result of the many potential Jewish suitors and the still noticeable differences between Jew and Christian. In 1890

Leopold Auerbach explained that many Jews had "inner religious considerations" against intermarriage. But Auerbach dwelt on the social impediments more fully. Jews of the bourgeois dass hesitated to give their consent to an intermarriage, even vriien the Christian woman agreed to convert to Judaism. According to Auerbach, the groom’s parents acted on the belief that a girl brought up in the Jewish faith could more easily guarantee the household being impressed with a

Jewish character. Nevertheless, only by conduding marriages with Christians could Jews prove that they desired no "stammesonderuno" between Jews and Christians. Auerbach called upon representatives of Judaism to do everything in their power to bring about a diminution of racial differences. Intermarriage, Auerbach implied, should be encouraged.^ 100

One could regard Auerbach’s advocacy of intermarriage as indirect as well as incidental to his main themes, the threat of antisemitism and the need of a strong Jewish organizational response. More direct testimony on the Jewish establishment’s sometimes positive attitude toward intermarriage can be found in the pamphlet of Adolph Bruell Die Mischehe im Lichte der

Geschichte.^^ Bruell, a teacher at The Frankfort Philanthropin, came from a family of Jewish scholars, the most notable of whom being Bruell’s brother Nehemiah.^ Adolph Bruell did not regard intermarriage as wholly desirable; the existing religious differences between Jews and

Christians could create considerable barriers that had to be dealt with the greatest tact and good will. Bruell further pointed out that even between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, whose religious differences paled in comparison to those separating Jews and Christians, a notable reluctance to intermarry had obtained until the nineteenth century. Bruell could conclude, therefore, tfiat

"intermarriage, in general, is not to be desired."®^

But Bruell, like EmO Lehman, considered the division between the national-political and the religious-ethical aspects of Judaism as central to its cfiaracter. In this respect both men stand in the radical reform tradition of Samud Holdheim. Bruell, unlike Holdheim, believed tfiat a reading of

Jewish history supported the idea that this religious-ethical essence fiad always animated the

Jewish religion.®^ According to Bruell, the Patriarchs and Moses had taken women from other tribes; since God himself approved of such matches, they surely could not be said to contradict

Jeiwish religious tradition.^ The later prophets accepted this tradition; only Ezra, in an act deleterious to the religious progress of Judaism, fortiade intermarriages in the year 458 BCE Bruell claimed tfiat the Talmud never considered Christians as heathens and tfiat the many Church laws proved the continued mixing of Israel and the nations. Naturally, Bruell had good words for the

Napoleonic Sanhédrin and better ones yet for Holdheim and the Brunswick Assembly. The results of Bruell’s historical survey may be considered typical for the proponents of intermarriage. 101

although by 1905 the literal validity of intermarriage in religious terms had ceased to occupy a major place cn the intermarriage debate.

While Bruell’s tendentious reading of history recalls the claims of the radical Reformers of the 1840s, Bruell k n e^ that the issue of intermarriage touched on non-religious matters a s well.

Bruell turned to the contemporary scene and noted that even the Zionist leaders Nordau and

Zangwill had intermarried. Moreover, the Zionist oaoer Juedische Rundschau had spoken of the benefits accruing to Jews by an admixture of non-Jewish blood. For Bruell, if the Jevrish nationalists accepted intermarriage as beneficial it must be so. Accordingly, Brueil’s own conclusion followed the Juedische Rundschau article. He held that as long as the Jewish children could be brought up as Jews, they would help to provide the 'menschenmaterial* needed to alleviate Jewish suffering, whether in Palestine or in Europe.^

Bruell represents an exception to most participants in the intermarriage debate in his lack of polemical spirit On one hand, Bruell saw intermarriage as fraught with practical difficulties: on the other, he felt the products of intermarriage potentially useful for the Jewish cause. Although

Bruell emphasized the split between religious-ethical and national-political, he considered the alleviation of Jewish suffering anywhere in the world an equally valid goal. He held that intermarriage possessed little potential for harming Judaism, especially since modem Christianity continued to approach Prophetic Judaism, the Jews’ own religious highpoint While no Zionist,

Bruell excused Ezra’s "innovation," on the grounds of national emergency, even though he found

Ezra’s decree deleterious to Judaism in the long run. Bruell approved intermarriages while he conceded that, "nevertheless I must recognize opposing arguments also valid."®® In background, occupation and viewpoint Bruell must be considered a representative of the liberal Jewish mainstream. But Bruell’s outlook certainly varied from those mainstream liberal Jews who couched their pro-intermarriage argum ents purely in terms of the social benefits (i.e. th e diminution of 102

antisemitism) that intermarriage would bring. More unusual still. Bruell lacked the pyrotechnic style that this topic inspired in pamphleteers on all sides of the issue.

VOICES OF REUGIOUS CONSERVATISM WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM

Although some representatives of the liberal Jewish mainstream accepted intermarriage as necessary for the good of German Jews, if not Judaism, many did not. As we move toward religious conservatives we find an increasingly negative attitude to intermarriage. An example of this may be found in the sermon given by Rabbi Joseph Peries of Munich on Pessach, 1879.^

Peries claimed that a letter from a congregant on the implications of the 1875 law sparked the response. After assuring his congregation that no inconsistency existed between a Jewish aversion to intermarriage, and Jewish recognition of the binding power of the civil law, Peries enumerated the features which, he held, made intermarriage a disaster for the Jewish fômDy. His reasons reflect, no doubt, the conservative and pious nature of his audience as well as his own ideological orientation.®^

Peries focused on the impossibility of celebrating holidays together, the impossibility of bringing up children in a religious setting, the logical impossibility of a child honoring both father and mother when their views diverged on the "highest question" known to man. Peries, however, did not consider intermarriage as a great threat to the Jewish community, despite the state’s

(relatively) new law and despite the enemies of the Jews who expected the Jews to fade into the general society though intermarriage. For Peries, the Jewish family presented a wall against intermarriage that had functioned for centuries, cemented together most of all by the women who, according to a famous midrash, merited the Jews redemption from slavery. Jews had faced the danger of intermarriage before in their history and had prevailed. Peries had faith they would do so again and called upon parents to educate their children Jewishly and not to be afraid of their opposition to intermarriage. Peries did not follow the Orthodox Samson Raphael Hirsch, and he 103

did not believe in religious separatism ft-om the more Reformed elements. But Perles bluntly

considered those Jews who intermarried as beyond the pale. While they would take no action

against those who intermarried- for Peries accepted the binding nature of the Napoleonic

Sanhedrin’s commitment- he concluded that Jews could assure their ovm future as a religious

minority by their enactment of the seder and a recommitment to the Jevrish upbringing of their

children. Given the infrequency of intcrmcrriige in Munich in 1879 and the timing of this talk,

Peries’ sermon to his community may be considered part waming and part exhortation.^

The themes of religious conservatism, the centrality of femfly, the threat to religiosity, and the notion of Jews' minority status, vrisibie in Peries" sermon, also characterized the views of the

Israelitische Wochenschrift (IWS), the periodical of the conservative movement and the Breslau

Seminary. The IWS, like Im deutschen Reich, had a more definite editorial line than the Allaemeine

Zeitung des Judenthums. The Israelitische Wochenschrift stood for the principle that “Judaism is... the religion of the famDy."®® The Israelitische Wochenschrift argued that the need to create a solid familial basis upon the union of like-minded souls precluded the notion of a successful family situation in the case of an intermarriage.^ Attacking religious indifference in the strongest terms, the IWS retrospectively deplored the effects of the 1847 civil marriage law which had enjoyed the support of most liberal Jews. The IWS not only reported on the growing number of converts, but

considered the rising numbers a result of increasingly effective missionary activity, probably a far too religious view of a generally profane transformation.®^ Characteristically, the IWS tended to profess great respect for Christianity, but to assert Judaism's positive differences. While the IWS conceded that Christianity had brought much of benefit into the world, they considered Judaism far more practical. Even Judaism's notions of charity and love, surpassed those of Christianity if measured in terms of effect, rather than in terms of theoretical idealism.®^ 104

In a lengthy, four-part artide in 1880, the Israelitische Wochenschrift enunciated its view on intermarriages, identifying as the main culprits those rabbis who lent a hand to their consecration.®^ Even according to the "spirit* of Judaism, in contrast to the "letter* of the Shulchan

Aruch. the IWS considered the actions of the American and Berlin rabbis as indefensible. From the standpoint of perpetuating Judaism, only Jewish prelates refused to demand that the children from intermarriages would be brought up in the faith. The IWS mockingly asserted that what the

Protestants expected, and what the Catholics demanded, the Jews feared even to ask for, recoiling from the charge of stiff-necked confessionalism. The pro-intermarriage theologians knew that the children would not be brought up Jewish. According to the IWS, they will either be raised explicitly as Christians if the father is Christian, or will be uncircumcised and probably baptized if the father is

Jewish. The IWS regarded the rabbis who received money for such a consecration as hypocrites- the rabbis who did it for free sanctioned "perfidy and faithlessness."®^

The IWS treated the intermarried couple with a little less venom than the Reform preachers that consecrated intermarriages, but insisted that, religiously considered, consecration of an intermarriage was a farce orchestrated to avoid the pain of leaving the community. One would like to imagine, the IWS held, that intermarriage did not constitute a real step against the community.

Although the intermarrying couple should be considered more faithless than heretical, they should be advised to get married by a judge in order to avoid making a mockery out of either Christianity or Judaism. As the IWS put it in another intermarriage article from 1880, 'Be Jewish, be Christian- but vriiatever you are, be it entirely- a jumbled mixture is not a blessed religion." ®® Amplifying many of the points Perles had made the year before, the IWS recoiled in horror over the possibility that children should be brought up in neither faith. But the IWS professed to see no alternative, since the religious differences between Christian and Jew were so great Curiously, considering the

religious orientation of the IWS, conversion by one of the parties did not come under discussion. 105

The IWS warned that intermarriage had a bad record in the Jewish past and would likely continue to bear ill results in the future. Although the IWS professed concern with the Christian interests as well, its evaluation of the non-Jewish environment struck a consistently hostile note. This may be best seen in an engaging feuilleton appearing in the IWS in late 1882, early 1883.

The feuilleton "Eine Mischehe,' by Leo Herzberg-Fraenkel, told a tale, which, if regarded as plausible, should have been adequate to terrify a generation of would-be intermarriers.^ Joseph

Portbach, on his father’s deathbed, promises to keep the Laws of Moses for himself and his descendants. Joseph, who had been seeing Christine, a strict Catholic, intends to break-oR the affair despite his love for her. Christine, however, suggests the legal recourse of civil marriage and

Joseph agrees, preferring her love over "his family and birthplace." Their first child, a girl, will be brought up Christian, but it is agreed that their next child will be raised as a Jew. Problems begin with the birth of their son and moreso, with a new housemate, Christine’s mother. Slowly but surely, Joseph and his Jewish son become estranged from Christine, her mother and their daughter. For ten years of marital misery Joseph endures all manner of religious and cultural slights at the hands of Christine, her mother, and the non-Jewish neighbors. Herzberg-Frankel stages the dramatic showdown on the eve of Yom Kippur. Christine had planned a birthday party for her daughter and asks Joseph if the boy can be excused from attending "a stuffy old synagogue." Contrary to the marital agreement, the boy has been taken to Church on several occasions and prefers it to the synagogue. Joseph storms out of the house, determined to take his son back to his birthplace and to raise him as a Jew. Returning from synagogue, Joseph finds a loaded carriage outside with all his family’s belongings. Christine and her mother, it transpires, had been counting on Joseph’s absence- it being Yom Kippur-to fee with the children. In a rage,

Joseph proclaims the wrongs he has suffered and takes his son Gerhard back to his hometown. 106

The lesson the Israelitische Wochenschrift intended to impart to its readers could hardly be mistaken: intermarriage brings disaster. Not only can Chiistians not be trusted to respect Jews and

Judaism, no amount of sacrifice on a Jew's part could affect a change in this regard. The differences of faith, seemingly so insigniricant in the face of true love, would exert their full strength in time, with disastrous results. In a mirror-image of Christian prejudices against Jews, the IWS portrays the wife, the mother and the iocal preacher in conspiracy against the unwitting Joseph.

Although the IWS generally reflected less of a sense of Jewish inferiority than other mainstream writings, Herzberg-Frankel obviously did not expect children to enjoy Judaism as much as the

Christianity. Nevertheless, the element of pleasure ought to weigh less heavily than religious faith, the most treasured possession of a Jew’s descendants, implicitly, Joseph's ill-fortune resulted largely from his breaking his vow to his father. Herzberg-Fraenkel concluded his story with both sides in the unhappy affair return to their original homes and societies, with only the painful memories intact Escape from Jewishness into a neutral society can be imagined more easily than it can be accomplished. What became of Joseph and Gerhard is left to the readers' imagination.

Undoubtedly, some of the readers of the IWS realized that Gerhard’s conversion fiad to be the first step in recapturing his Jewish identity, for according to halachah he fiad been bom a Christian.®^

Despite the religious conservatism of the IWS and despite its apparent mistrust of

Christianity, the IWS also needed to affirm its loyalty to the cause of German-Jewish symbiosis. In a feuilleton appearing in the same year as Herzberg-Frankel's, the IWS presented a very different picture of an intermarriage. In fact, Robert Meyer’s ‘Kaiser Wilhelm und die Judin" reads like a revamped Nathan der Weise. ^ Three young soldiers, one Catholic, one Protestant and one

Jewish find themselves in the same unit during the Frar:ca Prussian War. Gebhard von Malberg, the Catholic company commander, finds the Isidor Saalfeld’s (Jewish) presence an insult. Von

Malberg’s father had gone broke and the Saalfeld’s family now inhabited the family estate of von 107

Malberg. Schumann, the Protestant preacher of bourgeois background, had been the femily tutor to the von Malbergs but left in scandal when his love for the von Malberg daughter was revealed.

Not surprisingly, the brotherhood of combat overcomes prejudice. While recovering in the hospital von Malberg is attended to by Sara Saalfeld whose nursing capacities serve to save von Malberg, though not her own brother.

Isidore Saalfeld's death scene takes place in the presence of the Kaiser, who had come to visit his dedicated troops. On this visit, von Malberg generously praises Saalfeld’s self-sacrificing deed and Sara’s care to Kaiser Wilhelm. As Saalfeld expires, the Kaiser holds von Malberg’s and

Sara’s hands together. When von Malberg subsequently asks for Sara’s hand in marriage she protests on the grounds of religion, background and the hatred that von Malberg’s family holds for her own. But von Malberg persists and convinces his family to accept her and to allow his sister to marry Schumann. Thanks to the Kaiser and the war th e prejudices of dass and descent" have been overcome and two happy marriages are consecrated, at least one of them in a chril ceremony. Gebhard’s parents, swayed by Saalfeld’s sacrifice, and perhaps by Sara’s inheritance, approve the union. However unique the concatenation of events in this tale, an intermarriage does take place, and in the context of overcoming prejudice through a joint celebration of Deutschtum.

Although the IWS stood far apart from the Berlin Reformgenossenschaft, it also cherished the unity of German and Jew as a commodity valuable enough to edipse other considerations.®®

In the decade before the First World War Jewish academia provided new reasons for

German Jewry to worry about its future. Among the most prominent threats was the increasing rate of intermarriage, published by the German government since 1875, but publicized by the appearance of Ruppin’s journal Zeitschrift fuer Démographie und Statistik der Juden. In 1911 a series of works appeared which cast defection as a threat comparable to that of antisemitism.

These works and the public debate they initiated gave the liberal mainstream a more scientifically 108

oriented picture of Jewish intermarriage. The AZDJ and the IDR both featured statistical treatments

of various forms of defection which indicated tfiat German Jewry had suffered considerable losses

as a result of defection.

In the journal Ost und W est Max Eschelbacher concluded that intermarriage constituted a

"mass movement* which posed a greater threat tfian baptism, a step most Jews fiad come to

eschew. Without the strong religious commitment of the past and without a sense of estrangement from the non-Jewish environment, Eschelbacher abandoned any hope of making intermarriage

disappear. Frankly admitting the secularization tfiat had stymied previous mainstream discussions,

Eschelbacher described intermarried couples as "neither Christian nor Jewish, but simp>y

modern."^® Eschellbacher hoped tfiat the strengthening of Jewish education, the encouraging of

spirituality among young German Jews, and the cultivation of Jewish homes as a milieu for Jevwsh

socializing could decrease the number of intermarriages. Prompted by "scientific" predictions of

Jewish dissolution and writing in the midst of the great war, it seems tfiat many of the earlier

mainstream fears aloout giving offense gave way to a call for Jewish separatism at the social level.

By the First World War Jewish mainstream leaders had come to a fairly dear understanding of the

extent, the causes and the context of intermarriage.

Given this appreciation of the scope of intermarriage, and in spite of the instinctive

disindination toward exogamy evident in much of the periodical literature as well as contemporary

memoirs, the Jewish mainstream polemic against intermarriage must be reckoned as fialf-hearted

and ambivalent The omnipresence of antisemitism and the liberal ideology itself discouraged the

Jewish establishment from arguing tfiat Jewish values, culture or lifestyle conflicted with the norms

of German society. By and large, the mainstream Jevrish press consistently asserted their

Germanness, their Deutschtum. Whether or not this Germanness rested on self-deception fias

proven to be a fruitless debate.^^ Nevertheless, one may say tfiat a deep fear of conflict induded 109

an unwillingness to criticize German society at large. Antisemitism could be attacked, and even offered as a reason for not intermarrying, but tfie liberals explained antisemitism itself as an aberration, a blemish on an otherwise healthy body politic. Charges of the host society’s inferiority, however often they entered Jewish heads, rarely entered Jewish periodicals. Thus the defenders of endogamy were left with two possible tacks: One, attacking intermarriage as a danger to Jewish religion- this was basically the posture adopted by the AZOJ and the IWS. Two, claiming that the social context of every intermarriage had to be scrutinized to see that the Jews did not demean themselves in the process. This position consistently found expression in Im deutschen Reich.

As far as tone, no mainstream Jewish paper attacked intermarriage as harshly as they attacked conversion. The undeniable shoddiness of the motives behind most converts made the latter an easy target Moreover, the symbolic finality of the baptismal act, even if it led to less of a severance of Jewish ties than some intermaniages, represented an existential point of no return.

There was no denying that baptism signified an individual’s declaration that his or her principal loyalty did not lie with Jewishness, however that Jewishness was defined. Subjectively, Ruben

Bierer’s characterization of intermarriage as "soft propaganda" contained an element oftruth.^^

Intermarriage, at its best, represented the voluntary acceptance of the Jew by the German, and the most conwncing proof (theoretically) to all but the most racist antisémites, that the Jews were fulfilling their part of the emancipation bargain. The attractiveness of offering this proof instilled an ambivalence in the opposition to intermarriage that existed in all segments of the

German Jewish mainstream. Because of external pressures and internal longing, the mainstream defenders of Jewish endogamy found themselves in a difficult position indeed. The easiest escape from this difficult position, of course, would be to drop the defense of endogamy altogether,

embrace Deutschtum without qualification, and hope that one would be embraced by Deutschtum 110

in return. In the Kaiserreich a handful of radical assimOationists chose this supposed path of least resistance. 111

THE UBERAL DEFENSE OF ENDOGAMY DURING THE KAISERREICH

ENDNOTES

^ Alfred Michael is, Die Rechtsverhaitnisse der Juden in Pruessen (Berlin, 1901); Horst Fischer, Judenthum. Staat und Heer (Tuebingen, 1968), pp. 151-157; Selma Stem, Die Preussische Staat und der Juden (Tuebinaen. 1962).

^ Leopold Auerbach, Das Judenthum und seine Bekenner (Berlin, 1890), pp. 99-101.

^ The scholarly literature on German antisemitism in the Kaisssrreich is immense. Michael Meyer’s "The Great Debate on Antisemitism," Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 19, (1966), pp. 137-170 remains the most important article on the 1879-1880 antisemitic outburst For historiographical overviews of German antisemitism see Ismar Schorsch "Post-War Historiography on German Antisemitism," LBIYB. 27, (1974); Shulamit Volkov, "Antisemitism as a Cultural Code," LBIYB. 31, (1978); and Moshe Zimmerman in a forthcoming Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. On Harry Bresslau, see Meyer, "Great Debate," pp. 148-151.

^ Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit (Frankfurt a.M., 1965), p.79. Treitschke wrote: Die Emanzipation hat insofem guenstig gewirkt, als sie den Juden jeden Grund berechtigter Beschwerden entzog. Aber sie erschwert auch die Blutsvermischung, die doch zu alien Zeiten das wirksamste Mitde zur Ausgleichung der Stasmmesgegensaetze war; die Zahl der Uebertritte zum Christenthum hat sich sehr veringeit, und Mischehen zwischen Christen und unngetauften Juden werden immer nur seltene Ausnahmen bleiben so lange under Volk seiner Christenglauben heilig haelt

® Hermann Cohen, "Ein Bekentniss in der Judenfrage," Juedische Schriften. vol. 2, (Berlin, 1911, 1924), p. 19. Cohen’s first diatribe against baptism was published in the AZDJ (1890), pp. 489-490.

® Boehlich, Berliner Antisemitismusstreit. p. 161.

^ Boehlich, Berliner Antisemitismusstreit. p. 161. The menace of the new antisemitism, at times, seems to be better apprehended when it first appeared then in subsequent decades. See for example: Jacob Katz, "Berthold Auerbach’s Anticipation of the German-Jewish Tragedy," Hebrew Union College Annual. 1982; Stanley Zucker, "Ludwig Bamberger and the Rise of Antisemitism in Germanv." Central European History. 1974.

® Heinrich Siearfired. Zwei Betrachtiaunoen ueber die Antisemitisches Beweoung in Deutschland (Berlin, 1881); Judaeus: Was m uessen wir Juden thun? (Zurich, 1881). The adherents of intermarriage as a means of dissolving Judaism (e.g. men like Jacob Stem, Martin Maass, Arthur Weissler, e t al.) will be treated separately in the next chapter.

® Boehlich, Berliner Antisemitismusstreit: Moritz Lazarus, Treu und Frei (Leipzig, 1887).

Gustav Maier, Mehr Licht! Ein Wort zur Judenfraoe an unsere christlichen Mrtbueroer (Ulm, 1881). Many Jews stated their preference for "the Nordic look" publicly, including Hermann Cohen 112

and Walther Rathenaa Rathenau, "Hoere Israel," Die Zukunft (1897). From the Berlin antisemitic conflict unto the Third Reich, antisémites found themselves dhn'ded over the issue of whether the "Jewsh Question" could be solved through intermarriage or not Eduard von Hartmann and Liebermann von Sonnenfeis, for example, urged racial mixing; while Eugene Duehrung and Houston Stewart Chamberlain argued at length for the cardinal importance of racial purity.

^ ^ The "ideology of emancipation" is a problematic concept Developed in the first half of the nineteenth century, one could argue its ideational content had been exfiausted by the Gleichberechtiaung of 1871. Nevertheless, one can not claim that its replacement ideology "Deutschtum und Judenthum" came to maturity before the First World War. See note 12.1 believe tfiat Karl Mannheim’s use of the term "ideology" to describe a backward-looking, defensive rationalization fias a certain element of descriptive truth with respect to the post-1871 formulation of the "ideology of emancipation." Nevertheless, I am using the term "ideology* in the more common, less loaded sense of the word.

Sorkin. The Transformation of German Jewrv 1780-1840. offers the most recent consideration of the early forms of the Jewish mainstream’s thinking. Reinharz, "Deutschtum and Judenthum in the Ideology of the Centralverein, 1893-1914," JSS. 36, (1974); Idem., Fatherland or Promised Land treats the CV’s recognition that Judentum needed to be brougfrt up to par with Deutschtum.

The Ostjuden, as such, did not play a role in the intermarriage debate. Naturally, their backgrounds influenced their presentations. See below, Leo Herzberg-Frankel, "Eine Mischehe," IWS. 13:47-52; 14:1, (1882).

PhOippson gave two reasons why a clear Jewish response fiad thus far been lacking: 1) Jewish ambivalence about the subject and 2) the fear of reproach on the count of intolerance. AZDJ. 25:10, (4 March 1862).

Philippson. Die Israelitische Reliaionslehre. pp. 248-250.

Philippson, AZDJ. 25:10, (4 March 1862).

^ ^ The context of the Allaemeine Zeitung’s legal preoccupation in this period may be seen from the following artides: AZDJ, 37, (10 November 1874); AZDJ, 38, (5 January 1875); AZDJ, 38, (26 January 1875).

AZDJ. 43, (1879), p. 388.

The AZDJ also criticized Bruno Bauer’s magazine Germania for praising Naquet’s decision to abandon his remaining child to a Christian upbringing. The AZDJ asked rhetorically whether Bauer would have taken the same view had the result been tfiat the child would be raised as a Jew.

20 AZDJ. .44:28, (13 July 1880).

2^ In the AZDJ "Rundschau" the treatments of American Jewry repeatedly display this critical tendency. With the exception of the occasional artide critiquing a racial interpretation of Jewishness, the AZDJ avoided racial language.

22 AZDJ. 47. (1883), pp. 790-792; 805-810; 821-824; 841-842. AZDJ. 48:1, (1884), pp. 4-6. 113

^ AZDJ. 47:19, (8 May 1883).

This term ‘Moement* in nineteenth century Germany, had greater currency and importance than the English equivalent (impulse, motive, factor.) The original reads: "Nichi nationale Ab- und Ausschliessung ist das Motivfuer die Abwehr der Mischehe, sondem das rdigioese Moment."

^ The Jewish responses to antisemitism must be regarded as extremely varied. Not only institutional responses, but personal responses, not only direct, but indirect responses need to be considered. See Endelman, "Conversion as a Response to Antisemitism in Modem Jewish History."

While the figures on conversion and leaving the community fAustrittI are problematic, nobody disagrees that the num bers increased after 1879. Johann de la Roi, "Judentaufen im Neunzehnjahrhundert" Nathanael (18871: Nathan Samter, "Judentaufen" (Berlin, 1900). See chapter two for a fuller discussion.

Arthur Weissler, "Die Erioesung des Judenthums," Preussische Jahrfauecher. vols. 100-101, (1900). A partial list of the Jevrish responses engendered by this call may be found in Rosalie Peries, Ein m odem er Erioeser des Judenthum s (Berlin, 1932).

AZDJ. 66:49, (1902), pp. 582-583.

^ Ibid. An interest in Ruth and in Ezra, the principals in an earlier intermarriage "debate" can be seen in the more scholarly journals of the time.

^ Ibid.

Riesser entitled her recollection a "Ein juedisches Herz," AZDJ. 67:5, (30 January 1903). See also "Die Rassenmischung im Judenthum, 56:16, (15 April 1892). The latter reviewed (negatively) Moritz Alsberg’s Die Rassenmischung im Judenthum.

^ AZDJ. 68:20-24, (1904). Karpeles had imbibed the racial thinking of his day to no small degree. Karpeles- Jews and Judaism in the Nineteenth Century (Philadelpia, 1905).

^ AZDJ. 68, (1904), pp. 286-287. The hostile presentations of the marriages between rich Jewesses and impoverished nobles undoubtably inspired parts of Baumbach’s tale. There had been no lack of voices criticizing these cold-blooded transactions. See: Kaplan, "For Love or Money"; Lamar Cecil, "Wilhelm II und die Kaiserjuden," Mosse, Juden im Wilhelminischen Deutschland (Tuebingen, 1976). Arthur Landsberger, a Jewish writer in Berlin, satirized these marriages in his novel Millionaere (Berlin, 1910).

^ AZDJ. 69, (14 March, 12 April 1905). Maretski’s article first appeared in the Orthodox Juedische Presse.

^ AZDJ. 71. (1907), pp. 325-326.

IDR. 20:7-8, (July-August 1914). The IDR. in contrast to the AZDJ. discussed almost exclusively German Jewry. The AZDJ despite its daim tliat Judaism constituted only a religious confession, dealt with Jewish issues around the world. 114

® im Deutschen Reich’s campaign against conversion started within four years of its inception and continued until the First World War. IDR. 6, (1899), pp. 228-229; IDR. 7, (1900), p. 129; IDR, 15, (1908), pp.395-402; IDR. 17, (1910), pp. 65-76 and 485-534. The IDR and the CV also sponsored or published several pamphlets attacking conversion, most famous among them being those of Gustav Levinstein, "DieTaufe" and "Die Kindertaufe". Levinstein, Zur Ehre d es Judenthum s (Berlin, 1911). See also Schorsch, Jewish Reactions.

^ Etna Lehmann, Hoere Israel (Leipzig, 1869).

^ IDR, 17:3,7-8, (July-August 1912).

IDR. 3:12, (December 1897).

Albu, "Die Krankheiten der Juden* IDR. 17:4, (March-Aprfl 1911), pp. 201-205.

IDR. 13:5. (May 1907). On the faHure of the Jew s to receive equal treatm ent under the German government in the Kaiserreich, see Lamberti, "The Jewish Struggle."

IDR, 17:2, (February 1912).

^ "Religiose Erziehung von Kindem aus juedisch christlichen Mischehen." IDR. 13:5, (May 1907).

^ Jacob Segall," Taufen und Austritte aus dem Judenthum," IDR. 19:3, (July-August 1913); Idem. "Bevolkerungsfrage und Innenkolonisation." IDR. 19:10, (October 1913).

^ Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, consistently argues that the Centralverein’s succesfully instilled a renewed sense of Jewish pride in many acculturated German Jews.

Leopold Auerbach, Das Judenthum und seine Bekenner (Berlin, 1890), pp. 231-242. Auerbach w as a legal historian w hose work on personal law Die juedische Obliaationenrecht (Berlin, 1870), Werner Sombart used in his Judenthum und Kaoitaiismus (1911). See Schorsch, Jewish Reactions. pp. 74-76. Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, pp. 234, n.62, would put Auerbach in the camp of the Breslau school. I Rnd this hard to accept based on his remarks about intermarriage and the strong position of the Breslau's mouthpiece, the Israelitische Wochenschrift. against intermarriages (below).

^ Auerbach, Das Judenthum. p. 242. Riesser, Gesammelte Schriften. vol. 3, (Hamburg, 1833), p. 554. It is an interesting comment on the subjectivity of pereceptions of Jewish marriage that in 1917 Max Eschellbacher stressed the small Jewish marriage pool at a time when the German Jewish population exceeded the German Jewry of Riesseris day by a factor of ten. Ost und West 17:3-4, (March-Aprfl, 1917).

Adolf Bruell. Die Mischehe im Lichte der Geschichte fLeiozia. 1905).

The distinguished Bruell family produced a great deal of scholarship. Jevrish Encvdooedia. vol. 3, pp. 401-403. Like the brothers Cassel and Geiger, Adolf and Nehemiah Bruell differed greatly from each other in their theological viewpoints. 115

Bruell, "Die Mischehe," p. 7. In the original: "Das die Mischehe im Allgemeinen nicht zu wuesnchen sel"

^ Here, Bruell seems to be following a Hoidheimian line of reasoning.

^ Bruell, "Die Mischehe," p. 9.

^ Bruell, "Die Mischehe," pp. 12-13.

^ Bruell, "Die Mischehe," pp. 12-13. The German reads: "trotzdem ich entgegegesetzte Argumente als gDtig anerkennen muss."

^ Joseph Peries (1835-1894) was bom in Hungary of a well-known Jevrish family, studied at the Breslau Seminary, and cam e to Munich as chief rabbi, a pulpit he retained until until his death in 1894. Peries' wife Rosalie and his son Felix were also prolific authors on Jewish subjects. Die Mischehe. Ansorache an meine Gemeinde am 1 pessachtaoe 5637 (Barby, 1879). See F.S. Perles, "Felix Peries, 1874-1933." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 26 (1981); Wilhelm Bacher, Joseph Peries." Jewish Quarterly Review. o.s., 7, (1894-1895), pp. 1-23.

Munich had neither a large nor sophisticated Jewish population, nor a high rate of intermarriage in 1879.

^ Peries, "Die Mischehe," pp. 6-7 and 9; Bamidbar Rabbah. Parsha "Shemot" contains several of these midrashim. (London, 1939).

^ m s , 8:13, (29 March 1877).

"Die judisch-christiichen Mischehe vor der Brandenburgschen Provinzial Synod," IWS. 24:44, (3 November 1893).

IWS. 17:31,34, (1886). See also "Die Civilehe und die juedisch-reliaiose Trauuna." IWS. 5:41. (8 Oct 1874); "Die Religion der Familie," IWS. 8, (29 March 1877); "Was 1st zu thun? Religiose Indifferentismus." IWS. 18:31-34, (1887).

^ "Das Princip der Liebe im Juden- und Christentum," IWS. 18:1, (1 January 1887); "Juden und Christen." IWS. 19:7,12-15,17, (1888); IWS, 24:44, (3 Nov. 1893).

^ IWS. 11:28,31-33, (June-July 1880).

^ jWS, 11:31, (8 July 1880).

IWS. 11:6, (1880). "Seid Juden, seid Christen- aber was ihr seid, seid ganz- das bunte Gemisch 1st keiner Religion von Segen."

Herzberg, "Eine Mischehe," IWS. 13:47-52, (1882); IWS. 14:1, (1883). Leo Herzberg-Frankel (1827-1915) was a Galician bom author whose History of Polish Jewrv (1866) and Ghettoaeschichten (1885) won wide popularity.

Herzberg, "Eine Mischehe." 116

Robert Meyer "Kaiser Wilhelm und die Juedin," IWS. 13:40-45, (1882). That the intermarriages portrayed in the feuilletons generally (in the cases of Clara Baumbach, Herzberg-Frankel and Robert Meyer, at least) are between Jews and Catholics must be explained, especially since the ovenvhelming number of JewisfvChristian intermarriages were concluded vwth Protestants.

Meyer, "Kaiser Wilhelm und die Juedin."

R. Dr. Max Eschellbacher, "Mischehen." O st und W est 17:3-4, (March-Aprfl 1917). Eschelbacher was the son of the well-known conservative rabbi Joseph Eschellbacher. Max Eschellbacher fled to England in 1939. Similar solutions to the increase in intermarriage are offered in M. Steinhardfs "Juedische und andere Heirathen." Israelitisches Familienblatt (17 December 1903). The Israelitisches Familienblatt was a very popular Jewish weekly published in Hamburg.

On the beginnings of this charge of German-Jewish "self-deception" see Gershom Scholem "The Social Psychology of the German Jews, 1900-1933," Bronsen, Germans and Jews 1860-1933: The Problematic Symbiosis (Heidelberg, 1979), and Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York, 1964). Todd Endelman’s "Converaon as a Response to Antisemitism" assesses the historiographical effects of this charge. Most recently, see the discussion in the 1988 LBIYB among Evyatar Friesel, Boris Chatzker and Abraham Margaliot on the political decisions of the Centralverein. For an indirect but acute criticism of the notion of German-Jewish engaged in self- deception see Jacob Katz, "Was the Holocaust Predictable," Commentary. (May, 1975), pp. 41-48.

Ruben Bierer, Die Mischehe (Barby, 1897) CHAPTER IV

THE RADICAL ASSIMILATIONIST RESPONSE TO INTERMARRIAGE

The liberal Jewish mainstream's responses to intermarriage in the Kaiserreich exhibited considerable ambivalence. Not only did the leaders of German Jewry fail to take tangible measures to impede intermarriage, an admittedly difficult step, even their literary condemnations resonated with qualifications and obfuscations. Despite this ambivalence, the liberal position operated on the assumption that preserving and sustaining Judaism constituted a desirable goal. If there were to be conditions which would render intermarriage acceptable, then they would have to take this preservation of Judaism into account Thus the liberal mainstream essentially restated the Jewish side of the "emancipation bargain" that had been struck in the first phase of the emancipation process, a period beginning with the Enlightenment and culminating in the Prussian Edict of 1812.^

Although the terms of the "emancipation bargain" varied considerably over the course of the nineteenth century, the sine qua non of Jewish participation in this exchange never altered; Jews had the right to remain Jews.^ Even those members of the liberal mainstream who regarded intermarriage as desirable, such as Emil Lehmann and Adolf Bruell, recoiled from the thought that intermarriage would lead to the disappearance of German Jewry.^

Radical assimilationists, on the other hand, propounded ideas that would lead to the dissolution of German Jewry. On this issue, the radical assimilationists differed from the mainstream. Whether couched in the veiled messianic tones of Rabbi Jacob Stem, or the frustrated pleas of Martin Maass, dissolution remained the ultimate goal of the radical assimilationists. The incomplete nature of Jewish integration and the presence of a flourishing antisemitic movement in the Kaiserreich led the radical assimilationists to conclude tfiat the

117 118

ideology of emancipation had failed.'* Unlike the Orthodox or the Zionists, who also considered this ideology flawed, the radical assimilationists advocated solving the "Jewish Question" by dissolving those bonds which still held Jews together.

But what were those bonds? This question becam e increasingly more difficult to answer as

Jewish acculturation progressed. Many Germans regarded Jewish endogamy as the key.

Beginning with the first debates on Jewish emancipation in the late eighteenth century, opponents complained of the Jews’ unwillingness to intermarry. One such opponent bluntly demanded that

Jews share table and bed" wth non-Jews.® In the 1830s H.E.G. Paulus seized upon Jewish endogamy as a test of civil enfranchisement. Paulus argued that Jewish rights ought to be parcelled out on an individual basis to those Jews who deserved it; one test would be intermarriage. The great antisemitic debate of 1879-1880 demonstrated that writers hostile to

Jewish particularism focused on Jewish endogamy as a counterclaim to Jewish professions of unity with German society and the German people. Treitschke’s call for exogamy, in particular, motivated radical assimilationists to respond directly to his proposal in a positive manner.

Bolstered by the rise of race science in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the distinction between Jews and Germans came to be seen by considerable segments of the German intelligentsia as bioiogical. Since the radical assimilationists posited the amalgamation of Jews and non-Jews as the ultimate goal, they offered to end the "Jewish Question" by removing what non-

Jews proclaimed to be the ultimate mechanism behind Jewish distinctiveness and antisemitism alike. The radical assimilationists of the Kaiserreich differed in many particulars, but agreed, or at least hoped, that intermarriage would solve the "Jewish Question."

German Jewry, to various degrees, had imbibed the negative evaluations of Judaism in

German society. German schools, German literature and German theatre all helped to perpetuate stereotypes of Jewish inferiority. The radical assimilationists shared with the other critics of the 119

emancipationist ideology, the Zionists and the Orthodox, a marked tendency to consider antisemitism as an inevitable and imperishable byproduct of Jewish distinctiveness. The radical assimilationists, however, wittingly and unwittingly, had internalized negative evaluations of the Jew more deeply tfian any other segment of German Jewry. A depreciation of Judaism and

Jewishness, and a sense that the Jews themselves shared the blame for their incomplete amalgamation, animated the polemical literature produced by assimOationist spokespersons.®

Characteristically, the radical assimilationists combined an attenuated Jewish identity with a hypersensitivity to antisemitic attacks.

Several other features typified the radical assimilationist polemic in the Kaiserreich. Left- wing political affiliations, a sense of vocation in sundering the remaining bonds of Jewishness, and consequently, a public declaration of assimilationist loyalties marked the assimilationist polemic. In addition to these literary characteristics, these radical assimilationists rarely led the respectable bourgeois lives typical of the Jewish mainstream. Ideology and social circumstances appear intimately related in the case of these writers. Using biographical, as well as polemical evidence, 1 hope to analyze the assimilationist views and also to characterize the psychology that motivated these ideologues of defection.

RADICAL ASSIIVIILATIONISM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Ju st as the emancipationist ideology in the Kaiserreich had its antecedents in the final years of the eighteenth century, so too did radical assimilationism. None of the assimilationists’ predecessors, whether in the eighteenth century or in the 1840s, met all of the criteria 1 have specified for the Kaiserreich. The combination of legal emancipation and modem antisemitism created the dialectic that explains the tensions inherent in the assimilationist position on intermarriage. More generally, however, the dichotomy between acceptance and rejection existed 120

throughout the entire process of Jewish acculturation in modem times. Thus, before evaluating

assimilationism in the Kaiserreich, it must be seen in its earlier manifestations.

The most notorious cases of Jewish defection in the pre-emancipation period emerged from the Berlin salons during the French Revolution and rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. 1 do not

intend to discuss this phenomenon thoroughly, but rather, to emphasize that those of the salon

circle who left Judaism through conversion and/or intermarriage did so without public justifications

of their actions and without the sense that they had to bring other Jews to their position. Stating that position most extremely, Hannah Arendt even suggested that the conversions of the salon

Jewesses intended to perpetuate their exceptional, non-Jewish nature. The prestige of the Jews in the salon circle, as the Court Jews before them, turned on the fact that they differed from other

Jews.^ In Arendt’s view, both religious reform and the absorption of large number of Polish Jews threatened the unique status of the salonnieres.®

Later in the nineteenth century the Jewish reaction to the salonnieres grew increasingly vocal and hostile, but in the salon period itself, there did not appear to be much of a reaction.® The

extensive bibliography in Hertz's Jewish High Society in Ancien Regime Berlin fails to list a single

contemporary Jewish response, although the salon movement elicited considerable comment from the non-Jews.^® Simon Dubnov, who recognized this strange absence of response to either apostasy or Reform, concluded that. The Orthodox masses stood as though flabbergasted before the anarchy confronting them, and were completely helpless with their antiquated weapons against the thrust of the new spiritual movements." Many factors undoubtedly contributed to this relative

lack of Jewish reaction, which contrasted strongly with the witch-hunt directed at closet

Sabbateans, and also with the violent polemics between Hasidim and Mitnaoadim in Eastern

Europe.^ ^ 121

The essentially private nature of these defections provide one reason that apostasy of the

salonnieres passed by the mass of German Jewry without too much public response. Since the

salon Jews believed they could achieve assimilated status without the assimilation of German

Jewry at large, they felt no need to justify or publicize their actions outside of their own educated, wealthy and narrow circle.^^ The Salomons, the Veits, and the Mendelssohns wrote letters

defending, praising and attacking the baptisms of various family members, but these debates

occurred within the private realm.^^ For the first time in centuries, Jews left the tClal Yisrael (the

community of Israel) without validating their actions to this community. If the traditional Jews were

indeed flabbergasted," as Dubnov suggested, perhaps it was out of sheer surprise that they were

no longer being addressed.

Some fellow "Enlightened" Jews, however, felt at liberty to take the Jewish defectors to task. Lazarus Bendavid’s Etwas zur Characteristick der Juden (1793) lampooned the supposedly

"enlightened" Jews who converted as soon as they met a “Christian maiden who is more cunning

and more beautiful than she is clever and eloquent"^'* Bendavid regarded Reform as a corrective to the growing number of conversions and intermarriage in the German Jewish elite, as well as the

only means of reviving a religion that had sunk deep into superstition. Bendavid did not have a

sanguine view of German Jewry, but he certainly desired its perpetuation. Were we to project

backwards our post-emancipation categories of liberal mainstream versus radical assimilationist, then Bendavid would patently fall within the former category. Bendavid’s sarcastic attack on the

hollow pretensions of the so-called "cultured" Jewish elite finds a nearly perfect echo in Neo-

Orthodox Samson Raphael Hirsch's "Die Religion im Bunde mit dem Fortschritt," written half a

century later (1854).^®

On the radical assimilationist side of our dividing line would belong all of Moses

Mendelssohn’s children except his eldest son Joseph, who remained Jewish. Influenced by a 122

leading figure in the romantic movement, Friedrich Schiegel, Dorothea Veit (nee Brende!

Mendelssohn) converted first to Protestantism and then, together with Schiegel, to Catholicism.^®

Whereas romance and romanticism brought Dorothea Schiegel to Christian faith, opportunism and rationalism combined to bring Abraham Mendelssohn’s family to the baptismal font Over the objections of Jakob Salomon-Batholdy, Abraham Mendelssohn determined to baptize his children

Fanny and Felbc.^^ He explained to Fanny that Christianity, "is the creed of most civilized people," and that by pronouncing the confession of faith, "you have fuifilled the claims of so ciety on you, and obtained the nam e of a Christian." Once again, this now weii-known letter had been Intended as a private communication.^® Already separated from the bulk of German Jewry by wealth, education and religious skepticism, this elite did not state their case for radical assimilation publicly.

Only rarely. It seems, did early nineteenth century radical assimilationists deem it necessary to explain, justify their acts, and to encourage others along the same paths. In 1804 an anonymous Jew ("Elnem Juden") wrote a tract, part biographical and part prescriptive, on the means of alleviating Jewlsh-Christian enmity. The author, fifty-five at the time of the pamphlet’s publication, had been brought up in rural poverty. Having accumulated enough wealth to marry and to raise a family, the author experienced the traumatic event of having lost his wife, his house, and his possessions In a fire. After resettling, the author’s older child, a boy, became apprenticed to a Christian-owned business firm, fell in love with one of the partner’s daughter, and converted to marry her. The author proclaimed that he "had nothing against the conversion of my son."^®. As host to a young Christian student, the author witnessed and approved his family’s second

Intermarriage, this time between the lodger and his daughter. Once again, the author announced that he neither could nor vranted to suppress the Inclination the young couple felt for each other.®®

The regrettably brief autobiographical segment of this tract suggests that he came under pressure 123

from the local Jewish community because of these intermarriages. The editor’s note hinted that the author did not encounter more tolerance in his subsequent location and that a second edition would appear to continue the story.^^

As unusual as it must have been for two intermarriages to occur in one poor Jewish family, it is equally unusual that a program to bridge Germans and Jews would be deduced from such experiences. For the majority of "Ein Freundliches Wort an die Christen, zur gaenzliches

Beylegung ihres Streits mit den Juden " consisted of a program of integrating Jews into their environment Most of the suggestions forwarded by "Einem Juden" reiterated the standard

Enlightenment program. While the author deemed occupational reforms necessary, changing the

Sabbath to Sunday, and changing the other Jewish holidays to coincide with the Christian holidays, struck him as even more important. Like Abraham Mendelssohn, "Einem Juden" viewed bridging the social gap between Christians and Jews as the critical task. He advocated reeducation along the lines of the leading Reformers, and praised the efforts of Lazarus Bendavid and David Friedlaender. Finally, and most dramatically, "Einem Juden" argued that Jew s must abandon the dietary laws and marry Christians. Only by these steps, he held, would the intolerance of both sides be diminished. In order to insure that these intermarriages would occur, "Einem

Juden" advocated a decree forcing all parents with more than one son or daughter to marry non-

Jews. These children would not be forced to convert as well as intermarry, but the offspring produced by these forced unions would be baptized and reared as Christians. Although he anticipated opposition to this admittedly despotic law from both Jews and Christians, "Einem

Juden" considered the alleviation of the Jews’ pariah status worth the temporary enm ity.^

The public and programmatic features of "Ein Freundliches Wort" characterize it as the most direct antecedent to the radical assimilationist proposals in the post-emancipation era. The assimilationism propounded in "Ein Freundliches Wort" differed from the assimilationism of the 124

salon cirde by being public, by identifying the author’s fate with the fate of Jewry in general, and by insisting on a general solution to what would later be called the “Jewish Question." The author’s praise of Lazarus Bendavid and Dawd Friedlaender notwithstanding, he stood apart from these

Reformers. Bendavid. as noted, favored considerable religious changes, but he did not wish to see the dissolution of Judaism. In 1799, Friedlaender offered to accept a "dry baptism" that would enable him to become Christian without testifying to the Trinity or the divinity of Christ^® But when

Probst Wilhelm Teller refused to accept this watered-down profession of faith, Friedlaender returned to his earlier path of reforming Judaism. As several scholars have noted, Friediaenderis gambit offered an apologia for a rationalistic Judaism, even as it attempted to engineer an escape from Jewish identity.^^ A dozen years after his letter to Teller, Friedlaender wrote to the Prussian

Minister Hardenberg complaining of the moral and financial damage done to the Jewish community through apostasy. The willingness of "Einem Juden" to unconditionally abandon every form of Jewish identity, and his acceptance of governmental coercion, also distinguish him from the well-known Jewish Reformers of the day. In the case of "Einem Freundliches Wort," a personally traumatic event, timely Christian succor and pure circumstance combined to induce the authorship of this unusual, and apparently isolated, pamphlet Nevertheless, the orientation of "Ein

Freundliches Wort” closely anticipated the stance of radical assimilationists later in the nineteenth century.

BRIEF CONVERGENCE: UBERAUSM AND RADiCAUSM IN THE 1840s

The appearance of several tracts defending intermarriage coincided with the eruption of the modem antisemitic movement in 1879-1880, the turning point in the Jewish intermarriage debate in general. In the 1840s, however, several voices did speak in favor of intermarriage from a radical point of view. Defining the line between mainstream and radical assimilationist in this intermediate period is particularly difficult. Carried away by the heady days of 1848, even the 125

quintessentially liberal, mainstream Gabriel Riesser spoke positively of intermarriage as a means of

unifying Germans and Jews. Several religious Reformers, including Abraham Geiger and Ludwig

Philippson, thought intermarriage had to be legally permitted, even if they did not regard it in a

positive lighL^^ Even Samuel Holdheim, the religious radical oar excellence, continued to foresee a role for the Jews as a distinct uniL Despite the vehemence of his critics, Holdheim did not favor the disappearance of Judaism. On the contrary, Holdheim spoke eloquently in his final years of

Israel’s continuing mission.^®

Other radicals, however, all involved in left-wing politics, explicitly considered the assimilation of the Jews a far more important goal than the preservation of Judaism. Ferdinand

Falkson, whose attempted intermarriage led to a public debate, owed his political loyalties to

Johann Jacoby, a radical democrat from Koenigsburg and a vocal agitator during the 1848

Revolution. Jacoby lobbied for the introduction of civil marriage laws through his correspondence with prominent left-wing figures. One Jacoby correspondent, Fanny Adelson, converted in order to marry a Russian businessman, later the Russian consul to Prussia. Adelson spoke publicly of her wish to keep her family free from Jewish influences: the children, of course, joined the Evangelical

Ghurch.^^

Another correspondent of Jacoby’s, Fanny Lewald, became prominent in the 1840s through the wide-spread popularity of several of her novels.^® Lewald’s barely-disguised autobiographical second novel, "Jenny* pilloried her own bourgeois upbringing, argued for the right of a woman to choose her marriage partner, and for inter-confessional marriages. The first volume of Lewald’s reminiscences dealt at length with her frustrated love for a Protestant theological student, Leopold Bock. Lewald recounted that her father forbade her baptism but allowed her less enthusiastic brothers to be baptized. Lewald’s father reasoned that a baptized

Jewish male could still marry either a Jew or a Christian, but that it was better for a Jewish 126

woman’s marital chances to remain in her ancestral faith.^ It is eminently dear from ■Jenny' and from Meine Lebensoeschichte that Lewald despised such opportunistic calculations in regard to one’s marital prospects and cultural allegiances. Lewald devoted much time and energy convincing her father that she too ought to have the right to be baptized. By 1828 Lewald had succeeded in persuading her father; she converted to Christianity. Although her relationship with

Leopold Bock disintegrated, Lewald eventually married the successful, Christian writer Hermann

Stahr.®^ Like Rahel Vamhagen von Ense, Lewald’s formal severance from Judaism did not conclusively solve the problem of her Jewish identity. Nevertheless, Lewald’s personal and political inclinations dovetailed to make intermarriage a desirable method of Jewish assimilation. This same combination may be seen, with a twist, in one of the most prominent German radicals of the 1840s,

Moses Hess.

For Moses Hess, Germany’s first Communist and first Zionist alike, intermarriage represented an important nexus between the spiritual development of Europe and the solution to the 'Jewish Question'. Hess’ second major work. Die Eurooaeische Triarchie. argued at length that govemment ought to restrict itself to forwarding the 'religious' element in the state, and avoid tampering with 'confessional' differences. This distinction, while never entirely clarified, served

Hess as a club to beat: one, the unseemly competition between Catholicism and Protestantism for

Church members: two, the Protestant triumphalism of the Prussian government; and three, the absence of civil marriage.^^ Hess’ distinction between "religion" and 'confession' emerged from a two-fold process of the emancipation. The freeing of spirit from institutionally ordained dogma began w th the Protestant Reformation. This development culminated in the emancipation from prevailing customs fSittel during the French Revolution.^^ The emancipation of the Jews, for Hess, constituted an inevitable part of this dialectical process of liberation, but one that could not be completed until the Jews’ received social as well as civil emancipation. In Die Eurooaeische 127

Triarchie Hess daimed that the state’s treatment of the Jews could serve as a gauge of a nation’s spiritual development

You wish to study the barometer level of spiritual freedom? Check a state’s attitude to its Jewish subjects. When it comes to the Jews, after all, one does not risk anything, on the contrary. By being intolerant towards the Jews one may even gain popularity among the Christians, one may even become loved by the Christian ralable (Pgebel)...

Surprisingly, Hess believed that the Jews’ right to marry outside their social circle constituted the

essential element lacking in Jewish emancipation. Only through intermarriage, Hess argued, would the hatred of the Jews be exhausted.^^ Long before he had concluded that complete assimilation would not be desirable, Hess had already arrived at the conclusion that it would be difficult to

realize.^ Like the radical assimilationists in the Kaiserreich, Hess took the threat of antisemitism

seriously. For less pragmatic reasons than the liberal Gabriel Riesser, Hess criticized the baptisms

of men like Heine and Boeme. Riesser had objected to apostasy because of its blatantly

opportunistic context and because of its deleterious effects on universal Jewish emancipation.

Hess attacked the encouragement of Jewish defection by the German state as historically

retrogressive.^® Would Germany, the originator of the movement toward spiritual freedom, grant

its Jews full equality? If so, and Germany progressed from a "confessional" to a practical, universal

Christianity, then Hess believed that Jews would eventually join the faith that worshipped a

universal rather than a national God.®^

Either during the writing of Die Eurooaeischer Triarchie or shortly thereafter, Hess began to consider his ovm marital situation. Initially prompted by a desire for funds to publish more of his

own works and those of like-minded radicals, Hess sought a rich Jewish bride. Not only would this

bring a dowry, it would please his highly traditional father whom Hess still relied upon for financial

assistance.®® Although the sequence of events is not entirely clear, Hess must have continued 128

receiving the parental handout, for he never married a rich Jewess. By 1843, however, Jenny Marx reported that Hess had taken up residence with Sybilie Pesche.^® Pesche, from a poor Catholic family near Aachen, has been described alternately as a seamstress and a streetwalker. Hess’ family inclined toward the less charitable verdict and strongly disapproved of the relationship. Only after the death of Hess' father in 1851,- did Moses and Sybilie marry. Their marriage proved to be a turbulent but successful match which lasted until Hess' own death in 1875.^

Hess' intermarriage, like Ferdinand Falkson’s, illustrates that the radicals of mid-century felt free from the gener^ Jewish quest for embourgeoisement and social acceptance. To the extent that these mid-century radical Jews deliberately sought out Christian mates, one may presume either an attempted escape from Jewishness, a declaration of some greater loyalty, or both. The mere fact of intermarriage, however, does not provide much of an explanation of a given radical's treatment of the "Jewish Question". Hess differed from Lewald, and both differed from Karl Marx, who had married a fellow-bourgeois, childhood friend and neighbor, Jenny von Westphalen.41 In

Die Eurooaeischer Triarchie (1841) Hess treated Jewish emancipation as a serious and autonomous issue. Karl Marx, on the other hand, considered Jewish emancipation subsidiary to the problem of dissolving an unjust economic system. In contrast to Marx's Die Judenfraoe (1843),

Hess's Die Triarchie exhibited none of Marx's animosity towards Judaism, which has led some to consider Marx an outright antisemite.^^

Karl Marx appears as the first in a long line of Jewish radicals, including Eduard Bernstein and Rosa Luxemburg, who looked to the solution of the "Jewish Question" in the annihilation of dass conflict Naturally, this strain of radicalism had little to say about the intermam'age issue. Just as frequently, however, Jewish radicals did regard their Jewishness as an autonomous problem that needed to be redressed. The radical assimilationists described here shared the belief that the complete amalgamation of Judaism and Germanism, solely at the expense of the former, provided 129

the appropriate solution to the "Jewish Question." In the case of Lewald. Falkson and Hess, these radicals portrayed intermarriage as the best mechanism to achieve this amalgamation. Not coincidentally, the radical assimilationist response to intermarriage in the heyday of German liberalism entailed the intermarriage of its leading proponents.

TREITSCHKE’S "INVITATION"

The 1850S-1870S represent a hiatus in the intermarriage polemic generally, and very little evidence from this period could be termed radical assimilationist The apparent success of the mainstream’s ideology of emancipation in these years and the alliance between liberalism and nationalism did not conduce to radical Jewish réévaluations of their situation in German society.

But sparked by the renewed antisemitism and Germany’s political turn to the right the years 1880-

1881 saw the appearance of several works on intermarriage written from the radical perspective.

Not only the antisemitism itself, but the apparent failure of the emancipationist ideology and the weak responses of their leaders encouraged more radical solutions from several perspectives.'^

Not all radical responses to the renewed antisemitism forwarded intermarriage as the best solution.

Writing under the pseudonym "Etfra Kosmopolitus," one radical proposed a plan of religious compromise including, among other things, Jewish abandonment of Hebrew and Saturday

Sabbattis, and Christian adoption of circumcision and fasting on the Day of A tonem ent^ Another pseudonymous author, "Judaeus" conceded that even though intermarriages appeared less happy and fertile at the present, in time Germany would reap the rewards of this blending of Jewish and

German. "Judaeus" considered intermarriage desirable, but thought the key to acceptance inhered in a program of economic reforms designed to normalize Jewish occupational distribution.'^ From the same period one can find proto-Zionist tracts, and one pamphlet even suggested the formation of a "Jewish Defense League" on German soil.'^ These radical responses shared the conviction 130

that the situation of German Jewry had become unacceptable, and that the liberal mainstream had underestimated the challenge posed byTreitschke, Stoecker, Marr, e t al.

The new generation of radical assimilationist responses evidenced Jewish self- deprecation if not self-hatred, and a sense of desperation far less evident in the radical assimilationist works in the pre-emancipation period.^^ There can be little doubt as to why radical assimilationists seized upon intermarriage as the best means of solving the "Jewish Question".

Heinrich von Treitschke’s reply to Harry Bresslau had cited the mixing of the blood as the most effective means of uniting German and Jew. While the mainstream responses to this challenge varied, radical assimilationists took Treitschke's statement as an invitation to reform. As remarkable as it seems, the radical assimilationists took Treitschke at his word: exogamy would finally prove the Deutschtum of German Jewry. Two pamphleteers in particular, Martin Maass and Jacob Stem, found in Treitschke’s remarks the justification for an assimilationist position each had held for 48 y e a rs .^

Martin Maass, a self-declared intellectual and cosmopolitan, had long been a proponent of maximal assimilation. Regrettably, little information exists about M aass’ life. Bom in 1820, M aass became an instructor in a Bonn Gymnasium and authored several pamphlets stretching over a period of twenty-five years.'^® In 1858 Maass engaged Abraham Geiger on the subject of conversion. Maass accused Geiger’s version of Reform as being little else but an out-of-date deism; Geiger himself as a "Voltairien am'ere."^^ For Maass, Judaism had always equalled the total of its laws and nothing more. Maass considered Geiger’s distinction of essential and inessential both artificial and lacking support in the traditional sources. Maass advocated conversion as a first step, and several generations of intermarriage as the ultimate means of overcoming the "instinctive aversion of racial differences."®^ This 1858 statement represented a particularly early emphasis on the racial aspects of the "Jewish Question." Maass’ letter appeared just a few years after 131

Gobineau’s Essai sur I’lneaal'rte des Races Humaines, and long before antisémites placed the Jews on the non-white side of the racial fence.^^

After close to two decades of silence, Maass rejoined the literary fray in 1876 with his pamphlet, "Die soziale Stellung der Juden in Deutschland." This work, largely a criticism of Joseph

Kolkmann’s work of the same name, indicates that Maass had not perceived the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment any more acutely than had the liberal mainstream. Despite the increasing appearance of antisemitic articles in the German press and the inflammatory antics of Otto Glogau, Maass considered antisemitism on the decline. Reiterating points he had made twenty years earlier,

Maass’ "Die soziale Stellung" suggested that only intermarriage could cement "two tribally-different people."^ Maass hoped that easing the encumbrances on civil marriage would encourage a greater incidence of intermarriage. Maass’s "Die soziale Stellung" concluded on a theme that would be central to Maass’s 1881 pamphlet "Die Mischehe"; namely, that the co-mingling of peoples would bring the German nation to new cultural heights.®^

Maass’s 1881 pamphlet "Die Mischehe" represented both a continuation and a departure from Maass’ earlier wewpoinL Maass agreed with Treitschke’s verdict that intermarriage constituted "die einzige wirksame Mittel" to effect a lasting unification of German and Jew.®^ The advantages of this union of the "German stallion and the Jewish mare," a phrase Maass borrowed from Bismarck, would be to pave the way for a newer, more creative German culture. In contradiction to Treitschke, who explicitly rejected the notion of a mixed German-Jewish culture,

Maass argued that only when Rome and France saw the melding of plebeian and patrician, aristocrat and sans-culottes. did they reach their respective heights. In a half-jesting tone, Maass regretted that a national marriage bureaucracy, or at least a lottery, could not be considered as a practical means of alleviating the problem.®® 132

Maass admitted that restraints on intermarriage still existed. He had no easy solution but distinguished four elements still working against intermarriage: 1) remembrance of the past, 2) remaining character differences between Jews and Christians, 3) Jewish bad manners, and 4) religious differences. Only the first factor could be termed a problem for both sides. The Jews needed to overcome their fear of their own neighbors, and the Germans needed to shed their xenophobia and realize that they had already been deeply influenced by their European neighbors, especially England and France. The last three impediments, though lessened by a century of acculturation, still remained. The Jews’ problem, Maass argued in terms similar to both Treitschke and Hermann Cohen, turned on their resolute distinctiveness.^^ This distinctiveness stemmed from a sense of "mission" that lingered on well after the Jews’ message had been delivered. No nation had survived after fulfilling its mission, and Maass felt that with Christianity’s universalization of monotheism the Jew s’ historical function had ended.®®

Perhaps realizing the danger involved in arguments from racial differences, Maass retreated from emphasizing "the racial antipathies" he discussed so freely in his polemic against

Geiger in 1858. In 1881, on the contrary, Maass argued that the presence of blue-eyed, blond­ haired Jews showed that they had never lived sexually secluded from their German neighbors.

Maass conceded that while the Jews had not mixed randomly, behavioral and religious traditions better explained the persistence of Jewish endogamy than racial antipathy. Maass did not share

Moritz Lazarus’ opinion that differences of blood meant "bloody little."®® But he did assure his readers (non-Jewish, presumably) that within a couple of generations the Jewish characteristics would disappear. Germans, Maass added comfortingly, would not have to worry about a deleterious affect on their own "Charactereiaenthuemlichkeiten."®® In conducting this rearguard defense against racial antisemitism, Maass appropriated liberal explanations of why intermarriage 133

had occurred infrequently In the past, without being burdened with the task of explaining why this disinclination should be preserved in the future.

Maintaining his insouciant tone to the end, Maass took heart from the fact that religious differences had faded so far into the background in the preceding hundred years. He asked, without any apparent sense of humor, why each partner in an intermarriage could not be a Jew and a Christian in the best sense, just as Mendelssohn and Lessing had been in their relationship.®^ Professing to address the "Jewish Question" dispassionately, Maass ignored the hostility in Treitschke’s attack on German Jewry and instead, used it as confirmation that his own doctrine of assimilation had been correct. In Maass’s opinion, Treitschke himself still suffered from

German provincialism, but the practical business of dissolving Judaism should commence anyway. Maass anticipated his conclusions at the beginning of "Die Mischehe" when he wrote,

"Antisemitism is thoroughly unjustified... but can one deny that a feeling of estrangement between

Jew s and Christians still exists?"®^

Maass’ matter of fact call for the disappearance of the Jewish people shared its conclusions but differed in tone with a work entitled "Die Mischehe zwischen Juden und Christen."

The author, Jacob Stem, hailed from Niederstettin, the son of an impoverished salesman who peddled his wares to the small towns in the area. Ordained as a rabbi. Stem’s appointment to the

Swabian village of Buttenhausen m et with little success. Despite the use of at least seventeen different pseudonyms, Stem’s radical religious writings and his attacks on money-lending led to a deterioration in his position in Buttenhausen. In 1880 the Buttenhausen Gemeinde dismissed Stem, who moved to Stuttgart where he remained until his suicide in 1911. Stem’s life proved to be equally difficult in Stuttgart His wife Rifka died in childbirth in 1886, and Stem faced the ongoing hostility of both the Stuttgart rabbinate and the police, who suspected him. correctly, of publishing socialist tracts.®® 134

Always inclined to religious reform, Stem grew increasingly radical in such works as

"Israel, the Wine-Mourrtain of the Lord," T he Woman in the Talmud," and "The Flame of God," all of which stressed the identity of German and Jewish values. In his 1881 pam phlet "Die Mischehe zwischen Juden und Christen," Stem visualized intermarriage as both the mechanism and the justification for the reform of Judaism. This reform, of course, had one purpose only: the complete amalgamation of Jews with Germans. While Martin Maass certainly held a negative view of Jews,

Stem internalized a belief in Jewish inferiority to a remarkable extent Stem opened his work with a view toward the physical, moral and religious regeneration of the Jews, a tripartite division that followed the reform proposal of Abbe Henri Grégoire a hundred years earlier. Indeed, this section of Stem's "Die Mischehe" reads like a nineteenth century update of Grégoire, since Stem accepted the bogus but popular scientific finding that endogamy had led to serious Jewish defects such as madness and cretinism.®^ Stem, in brief, eageriy anticipated the Jewish physical improvements promised by an admixture of German blood.®®

Socially, Jews still possessed defining characteristics, but through intermarriage these would be lost More importantly, intermarriages would show Christians that Jews shared the same,

"feelings, abilities, tendencies, virtues and faults." In a metaphor both pagan and pathetic. Stem predicted that, th e torch of Hymen would inflame the general love of mankind," which would burst th e hateful polyp" of antisemitism.®® Jews would benefit from intermarriage on several fronts: individually, the proclivity to illness would decrease: communally, the Jews would be less subject to the hostility of German society.

In addition to these improvements, intermarriage would refine Jewish family life. Stem likened the contemporary method of Jewish selection of mates to a cattle market, in which each side fiaggled for the best financial settlement. The greed of the Jewish groom had its counterpart in the Jewish woman’s inclination toward luxury. In place of this "grossly immoral" atmosphere, the 135

free choice of marriage partners would undoubtedly lead to more harmonious marital relationships and ethical regeneration.®^ Apparently oblivious to inclinations of most German Jews, Stem considered the Jewish disinclination towards exogamy largely a product of being squeamish about abandoning the centuries-old marriage ceremony. Stem, therefore, created his own ceremony which would meet his tendentious reading of Jewish tradition and contain nothing that would offend the Christian partner.®®

Stem’s proposed emasculation of all defining Jewish characteristics seems at first glance to be merely unprincipled abandonment Certainly Stem managed to combine Jewish self- deprecation and an anachronistic view of religion that really was a warmed-over deism. But Stem’s messianic views of German-Jewish amalgamation demand a more nuanced judgement Since

Christianity, to Stem, already represented a modified Judaism, the abandonment of the formalities of Judaism did not really represent a great sacrifice. Abraham Mendelssohn had made much the same argument to his daughter Fanny. For Stem, however, this whole process represented not the abandonment of Judaism, but its culmination. Since unity represented the highest ideal, anything that impeded unity needed to be eliminated- this applied equally to antisemitism and to "Semites.”

The Jew ish mission would finally be fulfilled by allowing the Oneness of God to find a social reflection of oneness on earth. For Jacob Stem, much more than for Abraham Geiger, Stuttgart really was Jerusalem.

DISINTEGFIATION OR DESPAIR?

From the turbulent debates of 1879-1880 and the outbreak of the First World War antisemitism did not disappear, but neither did German Jewry. Through the establishment of an impressive organizational network and renewed commitment to cultivating "Judenthum.” the ideologues of emancipation retained the loyalties of the majority. Moreover, critiques of this position from th e right," whether Orthodox or Zionist, demonstrated that Jewish minimalism did 136

not necessarily result from the antisemitic assauiL As the 1880s gave way to the 1890s and then to the twentieth century, radical assimilationists realized that their dream of compiete amalgamation

had not become reality. And, as noted previousiy, calls to apostasy met with an increasingly

aggressive response by the Jewish press.

The most publicized cases of Jewish defection seemed to be addressed to the German

intelligentsia rather than Jewish audiences. Walter Rathenau’s "Hoere, Israeli* (1897) and Bias

Jakob’s "Das W esen des Judenthum es“(1904) both appeared in Maximiilian Harden's popular journal Die Zukunft. ^ Rathenau, who openiy worshipped the blond, Nordic type, castigated Jews for retaining their Jewish qualities, for shoddy mimicry of German qualities, and for vaciliating

between serviiity and arrogance. Rathenau asked the Jews to efface all traces of their Jewishness,

good and bad, in order to end the odium of their countrymen. It must be emphasized that

Rathenau understood the extraordinary difficulty of this feat, terming it "unparalleled" in human

history. But as he despaired of intermarriage and conversion as successful methods of ending the

"Jewish Question," Rathenau considered this self-adaptation the only remaining hope. The wrall of

racial antisemitism, in Rathenau’s view, had already reached sufficiently great heights to preclude

Jewish assimilation by "natural" means.^°

The sense of desperation that permeated Rathenau’s Jewish writings can also be found in the lengthy critique of Judaism penned by Eiias Jakob. Jakob despaired of the possibility that

liberalism in Germany would ever again reach the levels that it had attained at mid-century.^^ In a

climactic exhortation, Jakob tendered his advice:

Dive under, disappear! Disappear with your oriental physiognomy, with your ways that contrast with your surrounding, with your mission, and above all, with your exclusively ethical world-view. Take the customs, the values and the religion of your host people, seek to mix in with them and see to it that you are consum ed in them without a trace. 137

Jakob, who grew up in a Galician ghetto, suggested that the Jews apply themselves to the task of seif-disintegration, but felled to give any concrete suggestion. Arthur Weissler, like Rathenau, abjured conversion as hypocritical as well as ineffective. Since Weissler, a small-town (Halle) lawyer, had little faith in the ability of Jew s to conclude intermarriages, he felt the need to arrive at a novel solution. Weissler proposed that those Jews who considered themselves "overly ripe" for complete amalgamation baptize their children while remaining Jewish. Weissleris "Die Erioesung des Judenthums" appeared in the Die Preussiche Jahrbuecher. Unlike the generally left-wing, intellectual readership of Die Zukunft. Die Preussiche Jahrbuecher exercised considerable influence in politically powerful circles. Perhaps for this reason, Weissler’s tormented plea for relief from antisemitism elicited a considerable and hostile Jewish response.^^

These articles and the classic of this genre, Otto Weiningeris Geschlecht und Charaktur testify to the despair of the radical assimilationists in the generation preceding the First World War.

For many, solution to the "Jewish Question" had moved beyond reach. Intermarriage, a painless, and even positive solution to Maass and Stem, now seemed an impossibility. Nor did escape through conversion hold out much hope. Considering that the numbers of both converts and intermarriages grew steadily, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the radical assimilationists in the pre-war years were paying much more attention to antisemitic diatribes than to the Jewish community.

An exception to this rule may be found in the author Friedrich Blach. For Blach did not abandon the hope of complete amalgamation. The opening words of Blach’s Die Juden in

Deutschland (1911) paralleled the closing words of Herzl's play "Das neues Ghetto." Blach proclaimed that, "The ghetto walls have fallen, but we have not yet left the ghetto itself."^^ Unlike

Kerzl, who did not probe the matter very deeply in "Das neues Ghetto," Biach located the reasons for this tragedy in the uncertainty which still surrounded the "German Question." Geographic and 138

religious divisions within the German Empire, the hostility of the older colonial powers, and weight of the German past ail militated against a solution of the "Jewish Question". Additionally. Germans mistakenly equated "Volk" and "Basse." and thus continued to nurture the vague feeling that the

Jews were not really German. Blach refused to accept German-Jewish estrangement as interminable. He bluntly proclaimed that he wished to "decompose the mass" of German Jewry and bring the individual pieces of this mass closer to other Geimans.^^

The best method, in Blach’s view, remained intermarriage. Blach, echoing a theme found in earlier radical assimilationist writings, believed that free marriage choice would result in a vastly greater number of intermarriages. Blach assumed, all things being equal, that Jews would prefer

Christian mates. This assumption had plenty of support in the personal histories of earlier radical assimilationists, and in the context of an period of considerable Jewish self-deprecation. As the

Jewish-Danish playwright George Brandes (1842-1927) admitted succinctly, "I have an antipathy to

Jews. I have been in my life- like all m en - fifty times in love, fieetingly and enduringly, but never with a ’Jewess.’"^® Nor did the preference for the Aryan exist only within radical assimilationist circles.^ Unfortunately, in Biach’s view, ail things were not equal. Blach polemicized against the role that financial considerations still played in the selection of Jewish marriage mates. According to Blach, too many Jews still negotiated their marriages as if it were a business transaction.

Ironically, he conceded that very few Jews would succeed in winning a Christian mate from a comparable social stratum. Eminently realistic on this point, Blach recognized that the Christian possessed the higher social status.

Despite this comparatively realistic appraisal of the "Jewish Question," Blach possessed some of the peculiarities typical of all adherents of the radical assimilationist viewpoint, at least in the Kaiserreich. To begin with, Biach only objected to purchasing a Jewish spouse; levelling social inequalities between Jews and Christians through intermarriage justified the usual trade-off of 139

money for social status. The examples of the crass intermarriages of the German Jewish economic elite did not trouble Biach in the slightest Writing as if there had not been several thousand intermarriages since its legalization in 1875, Blach characterized the expected advantages from such intermarriages as "immeasurable and immense." Full of a hope that could have been belied by statistical reality alone, Blach argued that in a short time the Jews would not be classified as a separate race and that the particular Jewish "Volkskreisen" would disappear. Aware of the

Zionist attacks on assimilation as equivalent to suicide, Blach conceded that he desired a sort of suicide in favor of belonging to the people in whose midst he had been bom.^®

Looking back from the vantage point of the First World War, the radical assimilationist response to intermarriage had entailed consistent Jewish self-deprecation and an increasing willingness, even a frenzy, to annihilate every vestige of Jewishness. Again, a dialectical process illuminates this development German society became more antisemitic: meanwhile, Jewish society increasingly approximated German society, yet demanded the right to remain distinct

Mainstream Jews may have held the short end of the stick in the "emancipationist bargain," but at least the stick had a second end. The radical assimilationists gave up any hopes of reciprocity and regarded the disappearance of the Jews as the most desirable synthesis to their dialectical difficulty. They did not expect the German society to move in a more pluralistic direction: they were right The radical assimilationists, like the Zionists and the Orthodox, had a clearer explanation for antisemitism than the liberal mainstream did. Unlike the Orthodox, however, the assimilationists had long since lost the religious faith that could enable them to bear the brunt of external hostility.

Unable to reconcile Jewish identity with the circumstances of the Kaiserreich. they attempted to jettison the former. The radical assimilationists, alienated from the Jewish community both ideologically and personally, seemed to have been a most unhappy collection of individuals.

Nevertheless, a residual Jewish identity plagued these authors and drove them to seek intimacy 140

with the German people through the most intimate of human relationships. Ultimately, these writers found a hom e in neither community. 141

THE RADICAL ASSIMILATIONIST RESPONSE TO INTERMARRIAGE

ENDNOTES

^ The classic article on the terms of emancipation remains Hans D. Schmidt, "The Terms of Emancipation." LBIYB. 1, (1956).

^ In other areas, the German Jews advanced their claims beyond the "emancipation bargain." See my discussion of "Judentum und Deutschtum* in chapter three.

® I have treated Emil Lehman and Adolf Bruell as part of the Jewish mainstream on the grounds that they did not wish to see the dissolution of Judaism and on the grounds that both men held positions within the Jewish community. Lehman was a prominent member of the Centralverein; Bruell taught at the Philanthropin in Frankfurt a.M.

^ The radical assimilationists generally considered antisemitism to be more successful in its goals than did the Jewish mainstream. The relative "success" of the antisemitic movement in the Kaiserreich has been thoroughly researched. The prevailing consensus considers antisemitism political failure but a cultural and social success.

® So spoke Huber in Switzerland, Christian Paalzow in Germany, and of course, the framers of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin’s questions. "Ein Freundliches Wort," pp. 41 -42; Schmidt, "The Terms of Emancipation," pp. 52-56.

® The extent to which Jews imbibed the negative evaluations of German society has been discussed m ost effectively in Alex Bein, Die Judenfraoe (Stuttgart, 1980); Solomon Liptzin, Germany’s Stepchildren (Philadelphia, 1944); Sander Gilman, Jewish Self-Hatred (Baltimore, 1986).

^ Hannah ArendL Rahel Varhaaen (New York, 1974), p. 126.

® ArendL Rahel Vamhaoen. p.126ff.; Mosse, The German-Jewish Economic Elite.

® While the social success of the salonnieres offered a stunning example of rapid acculturation, the subsequent apostasy of many members of this circle led Graetz and others to the judgement that they were traitors to the Jewish people. Hertz discusses this historigraphy in her Jewish High Societv in Ancien Regime Berlin. Ch.1.

Hertz, Jewish High Societv. pp. 1-23.

^ ^ Dubnov, H istorvofthe Jews, vol.4, p. 653. S ee also the final chapter of Katz, Tradition and Crisis (Jerusalem. 1958).

The presumption that emancipation could be achieved on an individual basis was trenchantly attacked by Gabriel Riesser in his replies to H.E.G. Paulus in the early 1830s. 142

Franz Kobler. Juden und Judenthum in Deutschen Briefen aus drei Jahitiundeiten (Wien. 1235), pp. 132-138. This invaluable collection of letters has been supplemented by Monika Richarz, Juedisches Leben in Deutschland: Selbstzeuonisse zur Sozialoeschichte. 3 vols., (Stuttgart, 1976).

Lazarus Bendavid, Etwas zur Characteristick der Juden (Leipzig, 1793), quoted in Mendes- Fiohr and Reinharz, The Jew in the Modem World (New York, 1980), pp. 92-94.

Samson Raphael Hirsch, "Die Religion im Bunde mit dem FortschritL* Judaism Eternal: Selected Essavs from the Writings of Samson Raphael Hirsch. vol. 2, (London, 1956); excerpted and translated in Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, The Jew in Modem World, pp. 177-181.

Meyer "Rationalism and Romanticism" Origins of the Modem Jew (Detroft, 1967), pp. 85-114.

Jakob Salomon-Bartholdy to Abraham Mendelssohn, in Kobler, Juden und Judenthum in Deutschen Briefen. p. 138.

Abraham Mendelssohn to Fanny Mendelssohn. Kobler, Juden und Judenthum in Deutschen Briefen. pp. 139-140. This document is also excerpted and translated in Reinharz and Mendes- Flohr, The Jew in the Modem World, pp. 222-223.

Einem Judem (pseud.), Ein Freundliches Wort an die Christen zur oaenzlichen Bevleoung ihres Streits mit den Juden (Koenigsburg, 1804). Cited in Jacob Katz, Cut of the Ghetto, p. 18.

Ein Freundliches Wort, p. 18.

Unfortunately, no second volume of Ein Freundliches Wort seems to have been published, so that we do not know the fate of "Einem Juden." Several allusions to the superior charity of Chistian neighbors after the tragedy, and some phrases of the publisher, lead me to suspect some missionary organization stood behind the publication of this work.

^ Ein Freundliches Wort, pp. 48-49.

Quoted in Reinharz and Mendes-Flohr, Jew in the Modem World, pp. 95-100.

Michael Meyer wrote, "Friedlaender’s letter has generally been taken as a renunciation of Judaism; in fact the epistle is largely an apology for it." Meyer, Crigins of the Modem Jew, p. 70.

Jakob J. Petuchowski, "Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim," pp. 146-149; Michael Meyer, Response to Modemitv. p. 84.

Edmund Silbemer, Johann Jacobv. Politiker und Mensch. (Bonn-Bad Godesburg, 1976), pp. 26-27.

Ulrike Helmer, Fannv Lewald: Meine Lebensoeschichte. vol.1, Im Vaterhause (Frankfuit, 1988), p. 271.

^ Fanny Lewald, Meine Lebensaeschichte. p. 196.

Kobler, Juden und Judenthum in Deutschen Briefen. p. 303. 143

Moses Hess, Die Eurooaeische Triarchie. pp. 123-154.

Hess, Die Europaelscher Triarchie. p. 124.

^ Hess, Die Eurooaeischer Triarchie. p. 140.1 have used the translation found in Shlomo Awneri's Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (New York, 1985), p. 75.

^ Hess, Die Eurooaeischer Triarchie. p. 138.

^ Michael Graetz, "Moses Hess' Return to Jewish Nationalism," Binah (New York, 1989), places Hess' return to Judaism at approximately 1855, seven years before the publication of Rome and Jerusalem (1852). See also Robert Wistrich, Socialism and the Jews (East Brunswick, NJ., 1982), pp. 35-44.

Hess, Die Eurooaeischer Triarchie. p. 140.

Hess, Die Eurooaeischer Triarchie. pp. 140-141; Edmund Silbemer, Sozialisten zu Judenfraae (Berlin, 1962), p. 181. Silbemer points out that Hess had imbibed the notion of Chirstianit/s superiority on the issue of universalism. Hess' admiration of Spinoza as well as the typically Hegelian focus on some teleological goal are also clearly in evidence throughout Hess' discussion.

Edmund Silbemer, Moses Hess: Geschichte seines Lebens (Leiden, 1966) pp. 90-92.

Jenny Marx is quoted in Silbemer, Moses Hess, p. 166.

Silbemer, Moses Hess, p. 171.

Marx's fether Heinrich chose to be baptized rather than lose his civil service job. Karl Marx was baptized at approximately the sam e time as his father. David McLellan, Karl Marx (Middlesex & New York, 1975), pp. 1-2. Marx, baptized at an early age, married the Protestant Jenny Westphalen, allegedly to the displeasure of Marx's mother. See also Edna Healey, Wives of Fame (Letchworth, Hertfordshire, 1986), pp. 57-58,62-62.

Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question," Earlv Writings (London, 1975).

The weakness of the mainstream responses to Ireitschke, et. al. is implicitly supported by Meyer, The Great Debate," and the documents collected in Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit 1 hope to discuss the implications of the mainstream response to the development of anti-antisemitism at greater length in the future.

^ Etfra Kosmopolitus (pseud.). Die Loesuno der Judenfraae im humanitaerster Weise (Leipzig, 1892), pp. 81-82.

Judaeus (pseud.). Was muessen wir Juden thun? (Zurich, 1881).

^ For a description of many of the writings surrounding "the great antisemitic debate" see the conversionary writer Johann de la Roi's "Neuere Utteratur ueber die Judenfrage" Nathanael. 3, (1887), pp. 65-89; Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit. 144

The missionary tracts published by converts also evidenced also evidences the sense of spiritual inferiority felt by some Jews. Sigismund Heynemann, "Zwei briefe eines juedischen Getauften" (Leipzig, 1886), exemplifies this sort of literature.

Treitschke, "Noch einige Bemerkungen zur Judenfrage," Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitimusstreit. pp. 77-90, esp. p. 79. Considering how deeply Treitschke influenced the antisemitic movement, especially in the universities, it is interesting to note that he came to profess his antisemitic views in public only in the 1870s, when the swell of antisemitic activity recommenced. Andreas Dorpalen, Heinrich von Treitschke (New Haven, 1957), pp. 241-243.

^ M aass’ works include "Zwei G espraeche ueber den Austritt aus dem Judenthum" (Leipzig, 1858): "Die Soziale Stellung der Juden in Deutschland und d as Givii-Ehegesetz" (Loebau, W. Prussia, 1876); and "Die Mischehe" (Loebau, W. Prussia, 1881). Biblioaraohia Judaica. vol. 2, cites "Die Mischehe" as M aass' last work.

Abrafiam Geiger, "Ein Offenes Briefe zu Hr. M. Maass," Neue Schriften. vol. 1, pp. 492-ff. Although I fiave been unable to locate Maass’ pamphlet, Geiger’s response quotes Maass at length in this masterly polemic against conversion and for religious reform.

Abraham Geiger, "Ein offenses Briefe zu Hr. M. Maass" p. 290.

George Mosse, Toward the Final Solution (New York, 1958), pp. 50-60.

^ Martin Maass, "Die soziale Stellung der Juden in Deutschland und das CivH-Ehegesetz" (Lobau, W. Prussia, 1876), p. 82. The German reads: "Zwei Stammes-verschiedene Bevoelkerungen."

^ Maass, "Die soziale Stellung der Juden in Deutschland und das Civil-Ehegesetz," pp. 83-84.

^ Martin Maass, "Die Mischehe" (Loebau, W. Prussia, 1881) Of. Treitschke, "Noch einige Bemerkungen zur Judenfrage," Boehlich, Die Berliner Antisemitismusstreit. p. 79.

Maass, "Die Mischehe," pp. 17-18. Maass’ argument here seems to be a variation of Bresslau’s daim that the Germans had incorporated Roman and Christian without any harm.

Maass, "Die Mischehe," pp. 7-13. Hermann Cohen’s reply to Treitschke, "Eine Bekenntnis in der Judenfrage" also fon/varded intermarriage as a desirable goal. Michael Meyer, T he Great Debate on Antisemitism," p. 151.

Maass, "Die Mischehe," p. 25.

Lazarus, "Was heisst national?," Treu und Frei (Berlin, 1890).

Maass, "Die Mischehe," p. 36.

Maass, "Die Mischehe," p. 25.

^ Maass, "Die Mischehe," p. 8. 145

^ I am indebted to Dr Keiner Grote of the Konfesionskundliches Institut des Evangelisches Bundesfor providing me with biographical information about Stem. Heilmut Haasis, "Rabbiner Jacob Stem Ein Portrait des sozialdemokratischen Publizisten," (July, 1987). Biographical entries on Stem can aiso be found in Wininger’s Juedische National-Bioaraphie. the 1911 edition of Wer ist Wer and Franz Bruemmer, Lexikon der deutschen Dichter und Prosaisten. vol. 17, (Neudein, 1975), pp.64-65.

Gilman, Jewish Self-Hatred. Ch. 5.

^ Jacob Stem (pseud. Leo Rauchmann), "Die Mischehe zwischen Juden und Christen" (Zurich, 1880).

Stem, "Die Mischehe," p. 17. The original reads, "Die fakel Hymens wird die Flamme der allgemeinen Menschenliebe entzunden und der Herd der Familie wird zum Altare der Humanitaet unter Semiten und Germanen werden."

Stem, "Die Mischehe," p. 23. Love’s ability to conquer all constitutes a major theme for most proponents of intermarriage. Both Holdheim and Ritter, for instance, played on this theme in their intermarriage sermons. This contention is expiicitly attacked in Lehman Kahn, Sechs Briefe ueber Mischehen. p. 7. Kahn wrote, “Your love exists only in novels," p. 7.

^ Stem spelled-out his ceremony as foilows: Orgel. GebeL Rede. (Gesang.) Frage an die Nupturienten, ob sie entschiossen sind, treue Ehegenossen zu sein; jedes antwort: ja. Ringuebergabe Oder wechsel (unter orgeibegleitung). SchiussgebieL Segen. (Orgel.) Stem's formula is not so far removed from intermarriage ceremony conducted by the Berlin Reformgemeinde. See Immanuel Heinrich Ritter, "Traurede zur Vermaehlung des Herm Lewis Mac Iver und des Fraeuiein Charlotte Montefiore" (Berlin, 1884), pp. 6-7. Ritter, Hoidheim’s successor in Berlin, w as under no illusion that his actions were acceptable in the eyes of most German Jews.

Walter Rathenau, "Hoere, Israeli" Die Zukunft. (Berlin, March, 1897), pp. 454-462; Elias Jakob, "Das Wesen des Judenthumes" Die Zukunft. 47, (Berlin, June, 1904); Arthur Weissler (Psued. Benedictus Levita) "Die Erloesung des Judenthums." Preussische Jahrbuecher. vols. 100-101, (Berlin, 1900). Maximilian Harden, convert, and editor of Die Zukunft. had considerable antipathy to Judaism and jews. See Harry Young, Maximillian Harden. Censor Germaniae (The Haugue, 1959), pp. 10-13.

Rathenau, "Hoere, Israei!" pp. 454-462. Despite the profound Darwinian influence in tum of the century Germany, Rathenau’s image evokes a Lamarckian image.

Bias Jakob, "Das Wesen des Judenthumes," p. 454. Jakob's articie appeared in the midst of an ongoing scholarly debate over the "essence of Judaism." Uriel Tal elucidated the significance of this debate in, “Die Theologische Debatte um das "Wesen des Judenthums'," Mosse, Juden im Wilhelminischen Deutschland, pp. 599-632.

Jakob, "Das Wesen des Judenthumes," p. 455. The original reads: 146

Tauchet unter, verschwindet! Verschwindet mit Euren orientaJischen Physiognomien, dem vor Eurer Umgebung abstechenden Wesen, Eurer Mission und vor Allem mit Eurer ausschliessiich ethischen Weltanschauung. Nehmet die Sitten, Gebraeuche und die Religion Eurer Wirthvoelker an, suchet Euch mit ihnen zu vermischen und sehet zu, das Ihr spurlos in sie aufgehet

A partial list of the Jewish responses engendered by Weissler’s call to baptize Jewish children can be found in Rosalie Perles, "Ein modemer Erloeser des Judenthums."

Frederich Blach, Die Juden in Deutschland (Berlin, 1911), p. 39. The original reads, "Die ghettomauem sind gefailen, aber aus dem Ghetto selbst sind wir noch nicht heraiis."

Blach, Die Juden in Deutschland, p.11.

Georg Brandes to Henri Nathansen, in Kobler, Juden und Judenthum in Deutschen Briefen. p. 380.

^ Gustav Maier, "Mehr Licht!" (Ulm, 1881), p. 18. Even in this relatively aggressive reply to the modem antisemitic movement, Maier conceded that it would be preferable to have smaller noses and lighter hair.

Blach, Die Juden in Deutschland. p.40.

Blach, Die Juden in Deutschland, p. 42. The original reads, "Ich will dem herrlichen Volke angehoeren, in d essen Mitte ich geboren (war)" CHAPTER V

ORTHODOXY AND JEWISH DEFECTION

Modernity forced all German Jews to an accommodation, but they did so in varying measures and degrees. In terms of religious adherence, German Orthodoxy provided the diametric opposite to the Jewish minimalism of the radical assimilationists. Despite the apparent simplicity of this formulation, defining Orthodoxy as a minority within German Jewry has proven to be an elusive task. Although separatist Orthodox groups broke away from the legally established Jewish communities in several cities, the majority of German Orthodoxy remained within the communities while maintaining an adherence to the norms of halachic Judaism. Both separatist and communal

Orthodoxy, moreover, had acculturated to German education, language, dress, and culture. The rallying cry of Torah im derekh eretz" may have implied an equal nurturing of traditional religious and modem learning, but the reality fell far short of this ambitious goal. German Orthodoxy preserved orthopraxis, but never achieved a fusion of rabbinic and German cultures. Orthodoxy’s statistical features, as well as its cultural allegiances, implied a demographic equivalence with

German Jewry at large.^ How then did Orthodoxy differ from the Jewish mainstream? Although

Orthodoxy did not constitute a monolithic group, outsiders and insiders alike correctly regarded religious observance as the definitive feature of German Orthodoxy. In addition to religious dissent, however, familial and communal fidelities deepened the dividing line between Orthodoxy and the

German Jewish majority. Mordechai Breueris definitive social history, Juedische Orthodoxie im

Deutschen Reich, contends that approximately ten to fifteen percent of the German Jewish population could be termed "Orthodox." German Orthodoxy, then, constituted a small minority

147 148

within a small minority: this fact naturally influenced Orthodoxy's attitudes toward both the gentile world and their less observant coreligionists.^

ORTHODOXY’S ORIENTATION TO THE JEWISH MAINSTREAM

Preserving the solidarity of this small minority presented both communal and separatist

Orthodoxy with an ongoing challenge. In examining the stance of Orthodoxy towards intermarriage and defection, we must shift our focus to a somewhat different starting point. To begin with, some German Orthodox even considered marriage with non-observant Jews as a type of mixed marriage. While German Orthodoxy generally accepted these “mixed marriages," voices of opposition also made themselves heard.® From a religious point of view, the halachah (Jewish law) clearly prohibited Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Orthodoxy in the Kaiserreich continued to affirm its adherence to halachah unequivocally. Because they considered the rabbinic Judaic past normative, the Orthodox responses to Jewish defection changed less blatantly than did the non-

Orthodox responses when intermarriage was legalized in 1875 and when organized antisemitism emerged as a political threat in the 1880s. Jewish-Christian intermarriage, which remained a limited phenomenon among German Jewry at large until the first years of the twentieth century, exerted no appreciable affect on the solidarity of the German Orthodox communities. From a social standpoint, then, self-defined Orthodox Germans rarely met the issue of intermarriage on a first hand basis. The scandal surrounding one leader of the separatist Berlin Austrittorthodoxie. who had a Christian wife and a converted son, struck contemporaries as so exceptional that several memoirs and letters recorded the incident'*

Although intermarriage and baptism did not threaten the integrity of the Orthodox communities themselves, one could ask whether Orthodox leaders worried that German Jewry at large faced dissolution? The answer must be qualified carefully. Although German Orthodoxy fought religious reform in the first half of the nineteenth century, by the advent of the Kaiserreich, 149

the Orthodox recognized that they were very much in the minority. By the 1870s German

Orthodoxy already considered itself to be the "righteous remnant," the kemel of the faithful, that

would assure the revivification of modem Jewry at large. The Orthodox exaggerated the morbidity

of German Jewry, highlighting their own salvrfic role and their self-definition as the last of the very

few Torah-true Jews.® Concern for the Jewish majority, the obligation to love one’s fellow Jew

fahavat visraeh. frequently clashed with Orthodoxy’s need to defend the integrity of the halachah

and their own status as a minority. Unlike the French and British rabbinates, which developed a

dual civil and religious marriage ceremony, German Orthodoxy found this compromise

unacceptable. They refused to admit endogamous Jewish couples that had been married by civil

law alone into Orthodox institutions. Exogamous couples, of course, were excluded from

participation in Orthodox life.®

The Orthodox, to some extent, defined Jewish defection not only as outright intermarriage

and apostasy, but also as adherence to the Reform Judaism prevalent in the majority of German

Jewish communities. The Orthodox attitude toward other Jews, on the theme of defection,

v/avered between condemnatory anger and genuine sorrow. Despite their distance from the actual

problem of defection, and their deliberate distancing from the majority of German Jewry,

Orthodoxy naturally deplored the abandonment of Torah study and adherence. A very telling, if by

no means representative expression of this attitude, came from the pen of Rabbi Hilla Wechsisz

Wechsler, scion of a leamed femily in Zell, represented the southern, rural, traditional German

Jewry that had suffered steady decline during the emancipation period.^ Wechsler’s "Jaschem

Milo Dibbur," written in the wake of the antisemitic outburst of 1879-1880, prophesied the

upcoming destruction of German Jewry.® Jew-hatred, Rischus. had always existed and would

always exist as a means of chastising those Jews who wandered from the paths of the Torah. And, as the degree of deviance grew, so must the intensity of the gentile reaction. In Wechsler’s view. 150

Jew-hatred had already rendered conversion and intermarriage useless as protective devices.®

German Jewry, unfortunately, had merely redoubled its efforts at aping strange morals and

cultures. But this cyde had almost run its course. Wechsler imagined a dialectical climax between

antisemitism and defection:

And then, yes then, when the hour of peril has arrived, when one realizes that neither baptismal water nor intermarriage nor anything else offers protection from the all-mighty Jew-hatred, then will Israel return to the Eternal and obey His voice.

Despite Wechsler’s "old-world" orientation, his "Jaschem Milo Dibbur* evidenced the two

salient features of the Orthodox polemic against defection already implied in my discussion of

Orthodox self-definition. One, the competing claims of Jewish fellowship fahavat visraeh and

Orthodox separatism animate nearly every Orthodox work dealing with defection. Jewish tradition

accepts chastisement as a form of ahavat visrael: the politics of separatism, however, frequently

obscured concern for the Jewish majority and produced works resonating with contempt rather than concern.^ ^ Two, Orthodox writers consistently defended against what they perceived as a

deliberate misrepresentation of the rabbinic tradition. Naturally, as observant Jews, this tradition

held a legal importance to Orthodoxy on its own merits. The Orthodox charged that Reformers

mouthed slogans such as liberalism and universalism to gloss over dear prohibitions of halachah.

Orthodox polemicists contended that the Reformers lack of respect for the integrity of rabbinic sources reflected their own defident self-respect, and their palpable fear of standing apart as a visible minority within Germany. 1 will explicate these two tendencies in a variety of Orthodox sources: the biblical commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch; the novels of Marcus Lehmann; and, at greatest length, in the treatment of mixed (Jewish-Christian) burial and conversion in both the Orthodox press and in the relevant responsa literature. 151

THE TORAH-TRUE JEW AS HERO: SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH AND MARCUS LEHMANN

Sam son Raphael Hirsch, whOe very distant from Hila W echsler’s traditionalist world-view, also concerned himself with the problem of defection. The publication of Hirsch’s The Nineteen

Letters in 1836 may be considered the beginning of the Neo-Orthodox counterattack on Reform and the first programmatic attempt at reconciling emancipation with adherence to the commandments. ^ ^ Hirsch’s Horeb (1837). in many ways a lengthy elaboration of The Nineteen

Letters, addressed the issue of Israel’s responsibilities in the diaspora. Hirsch argued that the very modernization of Jewish status made observing the ritual laws a sine qua non of continued existence. Hirsch explained the prohibition against eating gentile-prepared food not as a result of their undeanliness, "which would be both ridiculous and absurd," but a s a m eans of limiting the social circumstances which could lead to Jews "going over to the other camp." On the one hand,

Hirsch rejoiced that gentiles increasingly conformed to monotheism and the ethics of the prophets; on the other, he realized this presented a new challenge to Jewish unity.In the 1840s and 1850s,

Hirsch attacked the Reformers more explicitly as their success placed him increasingly on the defensive. The polemics of these years, directed at the nexus of Reform and abandonment of the

Law, dealt primarily with the seduction of German Jew s by the Reformers. "Religion im Bunde mit dem Fortschritt" (1854), one of the most biting of these essays, bitterly noted that Reform had offered up the salve of "progress" as a remedy to the deservedly guilty consciences of the non- observant^'*

Hirsch’s determined advocacy notwithstanding. Reform continued to gain ground.

Ultimately, Hirsch determined to lead his congregation into seceding from the Frankfurt Jewish community. This break took place in 1876, with the permission of the Prussian Landtag, and over the opposition of many communal Orthodox who found Hirsch too extreme.^ ^ Not surprisingly,

Hirsch’s Commentarv to the Pentateuch fl 867-18781. reflected his extreme displeasure at the 152

religious orientation of German Jewry. In those verses dealing with exogamy in particular, Hirsch

expressed his deep detestation of current assimiiatory practices.

The story of Pinchas, who became a rabbinic symbol for justified zealotry, offered Hirsch a fruitful field for exegetical innovation. Pinchas slew an Israelite nobleman (Zimri) for having sex with a Midianite woman.(Numbers 25:1-29:39) Hirsch’s commentary emphasized the intentional derision of Israel in Zimri's act, which Zimri committed in the presence of the assem bled Israelites.

Hirsch explained the verse, "while they were weeping" fv'hema bochiml. (Numbers 25:6) in an apparently novel fashion. Rashi, the most popular medieval commentator, had explained the

passage as follows: Reminded that he himself had married a non-Israelite, Moses could not

remember whether sexual relations with Midianites were forbidden or permitted. The people, seeing that their leader had forgotten the Law, burst into tears. Abraham Ibn Ezra, disagreeing with

Rashi's choice of subjects, explained that the "cryng" Israelites were those who had just been condemned to execution for consorting with gentiles (Numbers 25:4-5). The condemned, in Ibn

Ezra’s reading, were praying fervently for mercy, and thus crying out of despair. Hirsch sided with

Rashi’s choice of subjects, but offered a different reading. According to Hirsch, the fiagrancy of

Zimri’s act drove the Israelites to tears-the sight so pained them that they lost their virility and failed to respond. Pinchas’ zealotry, however, enabled him to overcome the shock and run a spear through Zimri and his Midianite consort Thus Hirsch guided the reader to view the passage a s a

picture of an outrageous disdain of Torah (read: Judaism) by renegades like Zimri, the sorrow and

impotence of the majority, and the zealotry of a chosen few. This interpretation, needless to say,

accurately mirrored Hirsch’s view of the contemporary Jewish situation.^®

Hirsch’s commentary on Deuteronomy 7:3 "neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son" offered

no interpretative innovation, but contrasted vrith the concerns of the medieval commentators. 153

largely interested in the logistics of just whose son and whose daughter were intended.^ ^ Hirsch, however, launched several jeremiads against exogamy. He inveighed against “sexual erring* as undermining the whole future of Judaism, referring the reader to the continuation of the Pinchas cycle, which dealt with the deception of Israelites at the hands of gentiles. Turning to the ninth and tenth chapters of Ezra, the anti-intermarriage classic of the Hebrew Scriptures, Hirsch abused the upper classes in Jewish society for leading others astray. Citing a prophet popular with pro- intermarriage advocates, Hirsch cited Malachi’s condemnation of Israel as consorting with the daughters of a foreign god (Mai 2:11-12). The situation in Ezra’s day and Hirsch’s own day become one, and Hirsch’s reading of Deuteronomy 7:3 led him to a conclusion similar to Hila Wechsler’s: individual Jews would be punished, but the consequences of Jewish exogamy and defection would be visited upon the whole nation.^®

Although the defection of some Jews could affect the whole body of Judaism, and therefore mandated Orthodox concern for all Jews, this by no means negated feelings of Orthodox animosity toward assimilationists. An example of this hostility may be found in the novels of Marcus

Lehmann, editor of Der Israelit. a journal noted for its antagonistic stance towards the religious practices (or lack of same) of the Jewish mainstream.^® Rabbi Samson, the enslaved hero of

Lehmann’s The Count of Coucv. unwittingly wins the heart of Fatima, the daughter of the Emir. The

Emir offers Fatima in exchange for Samson’s conversion, quoting the thinly veiled biblical verse, "Is not your God also our God?" (Malachi 2:10). Samson replies, "Truly, but our form and manner of praying is different and I will continue to serve my God as he commanded us through His servant

Moses." Despite Fatima’s willingness to convert (expressed in partial paraphrase of Ruth’s famous confession, "Your God shall also be my God,"), and the Emir’s advocacy of polygamy, Samson professes his willingness to undergo martyrdom rather tfian violate the law. In the course of 154

praising Samson’s steadfastness, Lehmann reclaims those biblical passages associated with a lenient view of exogamy and offers a stirring apologetic for observant Judaism in general.

Lehmann further developed this heroic view of the Torah4rue Jew in two historical novels,

The Familv v Aguilar and Rabbi Jossel of Rosenheim. Turning to a contemporary setting, Lehmann dealt with the issue of assimilation even more didactically. Wilhelm Phillipson, the protagonist in

Portrait of Two Families, hungers after profit and disdains ail things Jewish. Echoing a theme in

Samson Raphael Hirsch’s essay The Seven Stages of Apostasy," Lehmann’s character Phillipson moves from the abandonment of Judaism to the persecution of Jews.^^ After estranging his wife and children by his unprincipled social climbing, Phillipson converts to Protestantism in order to marry Countess Aurora Hohenlinden.^^ Hohenlinden, predictably, is an impoverished noblewoman, who, upon being informed of Phillipson’s wealth, declares, "I think I could make up my mind to marry a Jew for the sake of such an income!"^ She marries Phillipson and proceeds, with the help of the ubiquitous mother-in-law, to make Phillipson’s life a hell. Everything about this novel is predictable: Phillipson, impoverished and abandoned by Aurora Hohenlinden, repents of his earlier misdeeds and is forgiven by his first wife, who acts more like a saint than the proverbial

Jewish woman of virtue fishit hi’al). Lehmann equated the flight from Jewishness with the loss of morals, perspective and, ultimately, happiness. In the melodramatic conclusion, Phillipson arrives at his epiphany: "So this is the harvest of my lifelong sowingl To be deserted by Mammon, the god to whom I sacrificed my religion and my familyl"^^ Throughout Lehmann’s oeuvre, the actions of renegades like Phillipson are employed to glorify the character of observant Jews and to demonstrate that defection inevitably leads to disaster.

THE ORTHODOX PRESS: A UNITED FRONT CONVERSION, MIXED BURIAL AND CIRCUMCISION

In the rabbinic polemics of the 1840s the Orthodox had unequivocally denied the possibility that intermarriage, or the rabbinic consecration of intermarriages, could possess 155

halachic legitimacy. In the Kaiserreich, the Orthodox maintained this view, using their leading

journals Per Israelit (1860-1938) and Die Juedische Presse (1870-1923) to dramatize their

opposition to forbidden deeds. Although Per Israelit has been described as the more polemic,

sarcastic and uncompromising of the two journals, on the issue of intermarriage they rarely

differed.^^ Both, for instance, lauded the strict positions taken in a variety of cases by Ezriel

Hildesheimer, perfiaps the most respected German halachic decisor of his day.^^ In one instance, a man requested that Hildesheimer convert his fiancee without any instruction in Judaism.

Hildeshiemer retorted that he converted only in rare instances, and never when the motive was

marriage. The petitioner, unwilling to meet Hildesheimeris demands, claimed that he would secure the aid of his hometown rabbi, who would convert the woman for the sake of appearances. Pie

Juedische Presse drily appended to Hildesheimeris refusal, "Any commentary is unnecessary."^®

Obviously the anonymous petitioner in this case knew little of Hildesheimeris history in the

matter of conversion for the sake of marriage. In a case from 1868, Hildesheimer had refused a

request from the renowned preacher and scholar Adolf Jellinek to approve the conversion of a

Christian woman intending to marry Pr. Moritz Benedikt. Benedikt, editor of the respected Neue

Freie Presse of Vienna, originally hailed from Hildesheimeris rabbinical district (Eisenstadt).

Consequently, as a result of Austria's peculiar personal status laws, Benedikt required

Hildesheimer’s approval before the Austrian government would sanction Benedikt’s marriage.

The disputed "conversion" of Benedikt’s fiancee had been supervised by three Reform

rabbis, including Abraham Geiger and Jellinek himself. According to Jellinek’s letter to

Hildesheimer, the woman had been warned of the burden of the Commandments, of the hatred

borne Israel by the other nations and had, in tum, sworn her willingness to adhere to Jewish law.

Despite these steps, and despite the personal prestige of both Benedikt and Jellinek, Hildesheimer

refused to certify the woman’s conversion on three grounds. First, whether or not she had 15S

undergone ritual immersion (teviial seem ed in question. Second, Hildesheimer doubted that

rabbinical court (bet dini had legitimacy to convert on account of its own heterodoxy. Finally,

Hildesheimer noted that her attempted conversion dearly proceeded from non-religious reasons- the intention to marry Benedikt For this reason alone her conversion ought to be rejected.

Correctly anticipating a hostile reaction in non-Orthodox cirdes, Hildesheimer ended his letter with the daim that he disdained ephemerai popularity won through a compromise of principles.^^

Hiidesheimer’s strict attitude arose partly from the confusion created by the continued assimilation of German Jewry, and partly from the legalization of intermarriage, which Orthodoxy stridently opposed. In a lead artide in Die Juedische Presse. Hildesheimer warned that the dangers of uncertain marital status had been greatly increased by legal intermarriage and by rabbinically sanctioned concessions in matters of conversion (gerut). Hildesheimer cited the case of a member of Synagoguegemeinde "H" (possibly Hamburg) who had intermarried and had circumcised his three sons. When this man died his gentile wife appealed to the Synagoguegemeinde’s orphanage for financial aid. The orphanage solicited Hildesheimer’s opinion; he upheld their refusal to support the family. Despite his sympathy for the mother and her children, Hildesheimer argued that if these children were to be ritually immersed and brought up Jewish, they had little chance of adhering to the 613 Commandments incumbent on a Jew since their mother was entirely ignorant of the law.

Because the seven Noahide Commandments incumbent on gentiles could be followed with relative ease, converting these children to Judaism would be making their spiritual future far more difficult

It would be tantam ount in fact, to placing "a stumbling block before the biind" (Lev 19:14). In this pronouncement Hiidesheimer indicted the religious laxness of his fellow Jews as the cause of suffering, confusion and even antisemitism.^®

Hildesheimer’s attitude seems to have predominated in the Orthodox press throughout the Kaiserreich. The occasional Orthodox polemics against apostasy argued that only complete 157

preservation of the Law allowed Jews to resist their seducers.^® This stance did not stem from naivete about contemporary conditions. A two-part article in the Juedische Presse in 1905 presented intermarriage statistics from the most up-to-date sources. The editors appreciated Dr.

Maretski’s presentation, but differed with his conclusions. Only by returning to "the spirit, the awareness, the love and the enthusiasm of Jewry" in the past could the growth of intermarriage be reversed.^® Always, the Orthodox press distanced itself from those forces leading to abandonment or even compromise with the dictates of halachah. From the Orthodox point view, these disruptive forces found expression in most quarters of German Jewry.

In 1879, a few months before the publication of Treitschke’s first antisemitic outburst,

Lehmann’s Der Israelit attacked Dr. Rahmer, rabbi in Magdeburg, and editor of the conservative

Israelitische WochenschrifL Rahmer, in his capacity as rabbi, had converted a Christian servant girl in order to marry a Jew. Admittedly, the authoritative law code, the Shulchan Aruch provided the religious court (bet dini with the latitude of examining the motives of a prospective convert But argued Der Israelit. rabbinical discretion did not equal automatic acceptance for anyone who declared their desire to convert On the contrary, the court’s examination needed to establish whether purely religious reasons motivated the convert, or whether some ulterior motive, such as marriage, had really provided the impulse for cohvsrsion. Der Israelit recalled the most famous conversionary instance in the Talmud. In B.T., Shabbat 31a, three gentiles appealed to the two leading rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, for conversion. In each case, Shammai brusquely refused and

Hillel agreed. Der Israelit claimed that Hillel approved one of these proselytesonly because he insightfully foresaw that ultimately this individual would become a Jew not in order to obtain a priesthood, his professed reason, but for the sake of heaven (I’shem shemavim.1^^

Citing another example of Rahmer’s leniency, Lehmann pointed to his decision in

Amsterdam to admit a woman into Judaism who promptly contracted a marriage with a Jew of 158

priestly descent, illegal since this caste flcohanim) were forbidden from marrying proselytes

(gerim). Lehman found additional problems with Rahmer’s reasoning. Rahmer had justified this conversion as a means of preventing more illegitimate births, since the involved couple had already parented children together. Controlling illegitimacy, to Lehmann, seemed too costly a price to pay for abusing the discretionary leeway given to an individual rabbi. Although the Schulchan

Aruch permitted an examination of the motives of the prospective convert Der Israelit considered this case an especially poor "exception" to the ideal of religiously motivated conversion. Lehmann ended by castigating Rahmer’s cowardice in not applying a fixed standard in these matters, and assured his readers that even though some might complain about Orthodoxy, they respected their adherence to the law. Lehmann, sympathetic to Orthodox secessionism, had good reason to emphasize the inadequate adherence to halachah of even the fairly conservative Rahmer.

In the sensitive area of family law, German Orthodoxy followed Hildesheimer’s lead, fearing that compromise would open a Pandora’s box of complexities. As we shall see, a more lenient attitude to conversion and circumcision emerged in the responsa of Marcus Horowitz and

David Zvi Hoffmann at the tum of the century. This leniency, however, was nowhere in evidence during the mixed (Jewish-Christian) burial debate of 1884.

In 1884 the Leipzioer Taoeblatt in Dresden published a report that the Leipzig

Religionsgemeinde had approved the burial of non-Jews in a Jewish cemetery. This approval, apparently, had resulted from pressures exercised by several wealthy, intermarried Jewish merchants. The Leiozioer Taoeblatt added that this permission had been supported by the

Religionsgemeinde with "rabbinical testimony."^ Whether the Leipzig Jewish community decided this before or after the deaths of these women, the inability to be buried together surely troubled some prospective intermarriers. In 1868 the Reform journal Der Israelitische Lehrer had supported the mutual interment of Jews and Christians on the strength of the statement that th e pious of ail 159

nations have a place in the world to come." At that time, Der Israelitische Lehrer optimistically argued that since the fear of religious levelling had decreased, and since Jewish cemeteries no longer faced desecration, the old objections no longer obtained. The Leipzig Rdigionsgemeinde seems to have been the first community to allow such burials. The Religionsgemeinde attempted to justify their actions, however, not only on general liberal principles, or even on the general statement that “the pious of all nations" merit a place in the world to come, but also as a point of acceptable halachah.

The actions of the Leipzig Religionsgemeinde drew a unanimously hostile Orthodox response. A columnist in Hirsch Hildesheimer’s Jeschurun asked, rhetorically, how the

Religionsgemeinde could encourage intermarriage in such a way? The Jeschurun concluded that such a decision proceeded from the desire to appear "open minded and enlightened."^ But

Jeschurun argued that Jews and Christians alike generally considered intermarriage as something which reflected a poor understanding of marriage. Even the state, Jeschurun contended, did not regard intermarriage as favorable, even if it had dropped its legal prohibitions.

The Leipzig Religionsgemeinde did not retract their decision and therefore Jeschurun continued its attack on the Leipzig community, and in particular, on the notion that the community’s viewpoint could be justified rabbinically. The Jeschurun published a section of a responsum by Rabbi Dr. Hirsch Plato of Koln which stated that Jewish cemeteries needed to be protected against profanation; this included a prohibition against symbols or statues that would constitute an idolatrous display. Like a synagogue, a cemetery constituted a place of worship and needed to be accorded the proper respecL These demanding standards, according to Dr. Plato, would necessarily hamper the mouming and remembrance ceremonies of any non-Jew interred there. Rather than leading to enhanced religious peace, the requirements of Jewish law would only cause tension were a non-Jew to be buried in a Jewish cem etery.^ Dr. Plato concluded his 160

responsum with the dictum that "So long as mankind is not so lucky as to feel united in brotherhood in a belief in the one and indivisible God, the graveyards like the temples should remain divided."^®

Given such a negative response to the question of whether or not mixed burial could be allowed by Jewish law, the question arises, how did the Leipzig Religionsgemeinde justify this decision with "rabbinic testimony"? A lead article in Der Israelit addressed precisely this issue. The misrepresented statem ent cam e from B.T. Gittin 61 a, which reads, "And bury the dead of the gentiles with the dead of Israel."®^ The author, again, presumably Marcus Lehmann, charged that the "mystery rabbr of the Leipzig Religionsgemeinde either deliberately misconstrued B.T. Gittin

61a or was wholly ignorant of rabbinic literature. Citing other Talmudic evidence, and Maimonides’ definitive law code, Mishneh Torah. Lehmann demonstrated that this commandment did not refer to mutual interment, but only to the obligation to keep peace with non-Jews through charitable deeds.®® Per Israelit not surprisingly, took the greatest offense at this misuse of the rabbinical tradition to justify an abandonment of normative Judaism. Lehmann pronounced the Orthodox well aware of the problem of intermarriage, but since intermarriage also incurred halachic sanctions, it offered no excuse for broaching burial laws. Lehmann suggested that actions such as these justified the secession of Orthodox community; while the Orthodox could not stop the Leipzig

Religionsgemeinde, they should legally witfidraw their participation in it Less dogmatic than Der

Israelit. Die Juedische Presse contented itself on this issue with noting the following irony: while an ordinary Christian could not be interred in a Jewish graveyard, an intermarried Christian, who contributed to the further decay of Jewish institutions, could be buried there.

German Orthodoxy during the Kaiserreich, as in the 1840s, opposed all innovations which necessitated an outright violation of halachah. In these cases, the Orthodox unhesitatingly condemned Reform tendencies and adopted a stringent stance. The question of whether or not to 161

receive proselytes, however, posed a less one-sided, and therefore, more revealing perspective on

Orthodoxy’s need to reconcile modem conditions with halachah. Ambivalence toward the acceptance of proselytes stretched back to an early period in Jewish history: both the Hebrew

Scriptures and the Talmud offer contradictory sentiments on the desirabiiity of receiving converts and on the iikelihood of converts becoming upstanding members of the Jewish faith community.^®

In the late eighteenth century, Moses Mendelssohn had lauded the lack of proselytizing tendencies as a proof of Jews’ superior tolerance in religious m atters.^ The Reform movement picked up on this theme eagerly, and although the Orthodox knew that the matter was more nuanced than the

Reform movement claimed, they also understood the polemical utility of the Mendelsohnian presentation of the matter.'^^ In practice, however, Jewry was by no means hermetically sealed.

Although they protested their lack of conversionary zeal. Reform rabbis received dozens of proselytes into Judaism during the Kaiserreich, and on American soil, some Reformers even advocated this path as a means of avoiding the ruinous effects of intermarriage.'^^ Hildesheimer’s refusal to accept the Reform court’s conversion of Moritz Benedikt established a less accommodating attitude, but the responsa literature in the late Kaiserreich demonstrated that halachah could be bent without being broken.

An American conflict over infant circumcision in 1864 led to one of the first modem debates on this subject am ong European Jewish schoiars. Rabbi lllowy of New Orleans had declared the ritual circumcisers fmohaliml that had circumcised babies bom to Jewish fathers and

Christian mothers impure fpasuh and forbade other Jews from using their services, lllowy appealed to his European colleagues through the good offices of Der Israelit In a series of articles,

Lehmann, Feilchenfeld and Hildesheimer supported lllow/s ban on the erring circumcisers.'^ But

Zvi Hirsch Kalischer of Thom disagreed with lllowy’s decision and wrote Hildesheimer privately explaining his dissent'^ Although Kalischer agreed that these children were undoubtedly gentiles. 162

he argued that even the circumcision of gentiles had been called a good deed, and that such

children were "holy seed" ("zera kodesh‘1. Refusing circumcision now would discourage

subsequent conversion since the operation would be very painful for adults. Admitting the

ambivalent attitude of the rabbinic authorities, Kalischer held that refusing circumcision would be

tantamount to pushing these children away from Judaism with both hands.'^ Hildesheimer replied

that the refusal to accept ritual immersion ftevilal. a s well as the initial intermarriage of the parents,

sufficed tc prove that these children would not be brought up Jewish. David Ellenson has recently

suggested tfiat Hildesheimer, living in a setting of rapid Jewish acculturation, felt more

bdeaguered by the social proximity of Jews and gentiles than the doistered Kalischer.

Paradoxically, argued Ellenson, "the same social milieu which led to the creation of an acculturated

Western Orthodox Jewry also contributed to greater strictness in certain matters of Jewish legal

interpretation."^

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ORTHODOX DIVERSITY

While the increased social contact between Jews and gentiles conduced to a stricter

interpretation of halachah in the years leading up to emancipation and legalized intermarriage, the

loss of communal control to the Reformers seems to have jogged some German Orthodox into a

reconsideration of their stringent view. One of these, Marcus Horowitz, served as the community

Orthodox rabbi of Frankfurt from 1878-1910.'^^ Horowitz, on one occasion, agreed to circumcise the son of a Jewish man and a gentile woman because the father pledged to raise his child

according to Mosaic law, and because Horowitz feared the man would convert to Christianity

otherwise. Elsewhere, Horowitz ruled that a former apostate did not have to undergo ritual

immersion in order to be called to the Torah. Horowitz reasoned that since the man had already

been an observant Jew and a tax-paying member of the community for several years, it would be

counterproductive to expect more of him or to remind him of his former deeds. Horowitz begged 163

that rabbis not discourage former apostates when they returned in repentance. Using such a frankly pragmatic evaluation of the contemporary German scene, Horowitz came to a quite lenient

position compared with the preceding generation of halachic deciders, including his own teacher,

Ezriel Hildesheim er.'^

This pattern of pragmatism tending toward leniency seems even more pronounced in a contemporary of Marcus Horowitz, David Zvi Hoffmann. Hoffmann taugfit at the Hildesheimer

Seminary in Berlin, and in addition to formidable scholarly achievements, produced important apologetic w orks.^ Hoffmann, well-attuned to the currents in German Jewry, sympathized with

Zionists who, unlike their liberal opponents, refrained from baptizing their children and deleting references to Jerusalem from the prayerbook.^ Hoffmann's sensitivity to social realities consistently animate his response. In one case, Hoffmann supported the conversion of a gentile man who had married a Jewish woman in a civil court and was now expecting a child. Hoffmann argued that although the Shulchan Aruch ruled against conversion in such cases, Caro’s more exhaustive code, the Bet Yosef. suggested that since the conversion may become spiritual in the end, all depends on the judgement of the court Hoffmann conceded that some might regard the conversion as alleviating the guilt from a sin which the woman had initiated. Hoffmann believed, however, that her status had been reduced to one of helplessness as a result of her pregnancy, and that she could therefore daim relief. Emotionally, Hoffmann’s strongest argument concerned the children of this union, who would be Jews according to the halachah. Fearing the religious influence of an unconverted gentile, Hoffmann asked rhetorically, "What sin have these innocent sheep committed that we should permit them to be weaned away from Judaism?"^^

In another responsum, Hoffmann proved willing to convert a woman for marital motives.

Hoffman feared that if a rabbinic court refused her request the couple would marry in a civil ceremony, or that the woman would convert in a Reform court This, in tum, would ultimately lead 164

Other Jews to assume that these children were Jewish and marry them. Since it seemed possible to extract a pledge of adherence to the Sabbath, kashrut. and family purity laws, Hoffmann preferred accepting the convert and avoiding a potentially greater infraction of the halachah.

Hoffmann, in a third case, stretched halachah even further, allowing the omission of the pledge to accept the whole "yoke of the commandments" mandated in the Talmud. Although it would be interesting to learn the circumstances tfiat created such a sympathetic attitude in this case,

Hoffmann chose to circumvent a seemingly unambiguous talmudic demand. Hoffmann acted, in part, to save a kohen from a judgement of spiritual death from heaven fkoretl. the prescribed punishment for marrying a convert (ger). In this case, Hoffmann performed a conversion very similar to the one tfiat had previously earned Rahmer the condemnation of the Orthodox Marcus

Lehmann.^^

Curiously, Hoffmann’s pragmatic streak could also lead to a stringent tialachic position.

One man, who tiad declared himself Konfessionslos. now wished to return publicly to Judaism.

Since the man had never converted to Christianity, the question arose as to whether he should be regarded as an apostate. Hoffmann unhesitatingly answered that the man had apostasized and must receive ritual immersion in order to rejoin Judaism. Rejecting a distinction between religious and communal apostasy, Hoffmann appealed to maintaining a sense of Jewish behavioral standards. He stated. Thus if we are lenient with them when they return and do not reckon them as apostates...we are extending a hand to these sinners in the performance of their alien deeds."^

David Ellenson fias cited Hoffmann’s reply as an indication of how far Orthodoxy fiad moved from a purely religious definition of apostasy, regnant in the disputes of the 1840s. Hoffmann’s responsa also indicate a policy of conscious social engineering within the framework of halachah and perhaps a veiled reproach to the secessionist Orthodox in the Hirsch camp who preferred to wash their hands of non-practicing Jews altogether. 165

The First World War, which saw a sudden explosion in the number of intermarriages and a rise in extramarital relationships, undoubtedly set the stage for the polemic between Rabbis L

Wreschner of Samter and Daniel Fink of Berlin. Wreschner’s “Proselyten Einst und Jetzf cited the rabbinic ambivalence toward the reception of proselytes in the Talmudic literature and Maimonides warning in Mishneh Torah. “Issurei Biah" (Forbidden Relationships), that only those who join

Judaism from pure motives are to be accepted into k’lal visrael. the Jewish community. As the title of his article suggests. Wreschner doubted that the modem proselyte brought much benefit to

Judaism. The quality of the modem proselyte left much to be desired; because of the increasingly secular environment, a Jew who would marry a woman through civil marriage had already lost respect for the tradition. Moreover, Wreschner conceded tfiat the child's right to choose would be impaired by early conversion.^ Nevertheless, W reschner urged that gentile women willing to accept the yoke of Torah be converted for the sake of religious fiarmony. Considering the small number involved, Wreschner did not fear making exceptions to the rule that religious motives alone justified a conversion. If easing the path of conversion would insure a Jewish upbringing for the children, it would be a small price to pay for a great benefit

Daniel Fink disagreed with Wreschner on a number of points, beginning with the observation that men, despite the laws of some govemments and their role as the heads of households, actually exercised less influence on the religious upbringing of the child. Fink claimed that fathers tended to be indifferent to their children’s upbringing and that Jewish tradition happened to coincide with contemporary social realities. Rabbinic Judaism, held Fink, offered no means of affecting the status of children bom to gentile mothers other than complete fialachic conversion. Quoting the Ctiatam Gofer's understanding of Schulchan Aruch. Fink pointed out tfiat the rabbis fiad anticipated and rejected marriage as an acceptable motive for conversion.^ When the children were bom of a Jewish mother, however, Fink argued that German Jevny fiad a duty to 166

try to cultivate a Jewish environment for these children. Fink opined that women failed to nurture their children more Jewishly, because the Jewish community itself failed them. Fink concluded that it would be irresponsible to disregard the great number of intermarriages, but trying to tum a disaster into an advantage could not be justified.®®

Fink continued his polemic against Wreschner despite the letter's defense that Orthodox

Jewry today permitted entry for Christian women in an already existing marriage to create religious harmony within the femily, and despite W reschner’s daim that even Feilchenfeld of Posen decided similarly in a responsum. Wreschner protested his opposition to intermarriage. He agreed with Fink that intermarriage posed a greater danger than outright conversion; not only because of its greater statistical growth, but because intermarriage represented a more subtle form of defection, a form more conducive to self-deception. Fink, living in Berlin, presumably knew the social circumstances as well as Wreschner. Nevertheless, he retorted that Judaism concerned itself only in the cases where the mother was Jewish, because only here was the child considered part of the covenant

Fink strongly rejected the notion that a Jewish man who had married a gentile woman and then wished to see her convert could be considered a penitent (ba’al teshuvaht Fink compared this scenario to the talmudic case in tractate Yoma in which a man claimed penitential status, but continued to commit the same transgression. Wreschner’s argument that the determination of motives must be in the hands of the rabbinical courts, Fink held, militated against a lenient attitude toward the conversion of a Christian woman. Citing statistics in the Frankfurter Zeituno. Fink claimed that intermarriage had become a mass phenomenon, far exceeding the scope of the problem not only in the earlier half of the century, but even in Ezra’s day. And Ezra, of course, did not make it easier for Jewish men to convert their gentile wives, but rather, commanded them to separate themselves from these women. Fink contrasted Ezra with the leaders of Reform, blaming the Brunswick Assembly for easing otherwise guilty consciences. The result of this leniency had 167

proven disastrous in Brunswick itself; since 1844 that community had been crippled by intermarriage. Fink concluded his admonition by warning Wreschner that more Brunswicks would result from any official endorsem ent of intermarriage.®^

German Orthodox in the Kaiserreich continued to oppose Christian-Jsvvish intermarriage unequivocally, as they had in the rabbinic debates of the 1840s. Indeed, the growing reality of

Jewish defection enabled Orthodoxy to attack the phenomenon in general and the individual Jews who succumbed to various forms of apostasy in particular. In the responsa of Marcus Horowitz and David Hoffmann, new definitions of defection distinguished between the Jewish masses, subject to all manner of societal pressures, and the real culprits in the departure from O rthodoxy- the Reform leaders and the assimilationists who had abandoned any pride in Judaism. This attitude, which did not seem to coalesce until late in the Kaiserreich, represented a considerable departure from the choleric reactions toward deviance at the beginning of the nineteenth century, epitomized in Ghatam Soferis dictum against all innovation. Even in the 1840s, it often appeared that the Orthodox satisfied themselves with showing the Reform abuse of the tradition-as if this alone could recall German Jewry to their ancestral faith. A more nuanced view of the non-

Orthodox, partaking of both anger and regret, seems to have developed only when Reform had triumphed on the communal level and the Orthodox had been consigned to the minority. To Hila

Wechsler, for instance, it seemed unlikely that anything less than a catadysm could bring the erring Jewish majority back to Torah. Expressions of secessionist Orthodoxy, whether in the Torah commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch or the novels of Marcus Lehmann, reserved their sympathies and praise iargely for their own followers, past and present For both Hirsch and

Lehmann, the politics of separatism and their own abrasive natures seem to have contributed greatly to their condemnatory attitude toward non-Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the Orthodox press at large treated intermarriage and defection sharply. 168

Despite minor ameliorations in polemical tone and halachic decisions regarding conversion, German Orthodoxy consistently and stridenfly opposed mixed marriages. The

Orthodox regarded themselves as preservers of the past to a much greater degree than did the liberal mainstream: the very concept of halachah entailed a belief that innovation needed to be justified through rabbinic precedent Although the German setting and the changing times deeply influenced their polemical style, the Jewish past defined German Orthodoxy’s position with respect to intermarriage and defection. Times had cfianged, yet neither of these issues was altogether new for Judaism. Orthodoxy accepted traditional condemnations of exogamy as a valid and appropriate response.

German Orthodoxy possessed the most consistent definition of Judaism and

Jewishness of all the groups discussed in this study. Their attitude toward the binding nature of

Jewish law, moreover, gave them a dear standard in condemning intermarriage as deviant behavior. The consistency of the Orthodox contrasted sharply with the notions of Jewishness entertained by the liberal mainstream and by the radical assimilationists. Yet the sharpest contrast to Orthodoxy’s certainty with respect to a definition of Jewishness may be found in a group that appeared relatively late on the German-Jewish scene, the Zionists. 169

ORTHODOXY AND DEFECTION

ENDNOTES

^ Orthodox marital ages, fecundity rates and occupational distribution all closely approximated the same figures for German Jewry at large.

^ German Orthodox, however, ate together as a family, sang at the dinner table, had mixed dancing, and generally permitted married women to dispense with wearing the ritual headcovering "sheitl." Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, pp. 20-21. See also Ch.1 : "Die Umkreis der Orthodoxie." Breuer emphasizes the decline in Torah study in nineteenth century Germany and the attitude toward modernity as distinguishing Neo-Orthodoxy from traditional Jewish society. Judged in terms of education, urbanization, political involvement, and media usage, the Orthodox were modernized (p. 29). The classical expression of this difference is the positive appraisal of emancipation by the Neo-Orthodox Samson Raphael Hirsch as contrasted to the Hatam Sofer, who pronounc^ all innovations forbidden ("hadash assur min ha-Torah b’kol m akom l. Quoted in Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, p. 32.

^ Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, holds that the marriage of Orthodox and non-Orthodox was generally accepted. Rabbi David Hoffmann specifically ruled that non-Orthodox Jews could be married in a Jewish wedding ceremony. See: David Ellenson, The Orthodox Rabbinate and Apostasy" in Nineteenth-Century Germany and Hungary," Endelman, Jewish Apostasv in Modem Times, p. 183. Earlier in the ninetenth century, Moshe Schick prohibited marriages with Reform Jews, and Solomon Trier’s collection, "Rabbinische Gutachten," threatened the same. Quoted in Epstein, Marriage Laws, p. 219. Even at the end of the nineteenth century Orthodox acceptance of marriage with Reform Jews was not unanimous. See, for instance. The Hebrew Standard (13 May 1904,22 July 1904). Whether or not Orthodox Jews should marry Reform Jews was debated once again in 1916.

^ Mordechai Eliav, Rabbiner Esriel Hildesheimer Briefe (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 48; Festschrift Salomon Cariebach (Berlin, 1910), p. 249; Richarz, Juedisches Leben. 1780-1871. p. 450; Sammy Gronemann, Erinnerunoen. LBI Archive, Nr, 137, p. 174. These reactions are cited in Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, p. 17, n. 15.

® Liberies, Religious Conflict In A Social Context treated at length S.R. Hirsch’s portrait of himself and his followers as the last loyal German Jews.

® M. Lemer, "Eine beabsichtigte Reform der religioesen Ehescheidung," Der Israelit. 28:57, (19 July 1886). See Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie. "Verfiaeltnis zu Nichtjuden," pp. 229ff on the clash between afiavat visrael and Orthodox self-definition. See also, "Afiavat Yisrael" Encvclooedia Taimudit vol.1, (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 271-276.

^ The story of this family may be found in Berthold Strauss, The Rosenbaums of Zell (London, 1962). On the slow decay of rural German Jewry see, Lowenstein, The Pace of Modernization of German Jewry". 170

Strauss, The Rosenbaums of Zell, suggests the title of Wechsler’s essay "Jaschem Milo Debor" comes from the biblical verse “vashran m’lo d’var* (Ecclesiastes 12:10). Wechsler, incidentally, did regard himseff as the recipient of prophetic transmissions. Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie. p. 315, cites another W e e p e r essay, "Ein Wort der Mahnung an Israel* (Wuerzburg, 1881), in which Wechsler reiterates his view that race-hatred would end the drive towards assimilation.

® Strauss, The Rosenbaum s of Zell, p. 68.

Strauss, The Rosenbaums of Zell, p. 12,72. The original reads: Und dann, ja dann, wenn die Stunder der Noth fuer eingetreten ist, wo man inne geworden, das kein Taufwasser und keine Mischehe und ueberhaupt nichts schuetzt vordem allgewaltigen Judenhass... dann wird Israel zurueckkehren bis zu dem Ewiger seinem Gott und gehcrchen seiner Stimme. p. 72.

^ ^ One defining feature of neo-Orthodoxy is this willingness to separate from ii^e Jewish majority, traditionalists like Hila Wechsler followed the Wuerzbuerger Rav, Seligmann Bamberger, in his opposition to Hirsch's secession and Hirsch’s redefinition of the community of Israel fk’lal visraeh.

See Judith Bleich, Jacob Ettlinaer (Columbia University, unpublished dissertation, 1974), for the contributions of Hirsh’s neo-Orthodox predecessor Jacob Ettlinger. On Hirsch, see Robert Liberies, Religious Conflict In A Social Context: Noah Rosenbloom, Tradition In An Age of Reform (Philaddphia, 1976), and Mordechai Breuer, The Torah im derekh Eretz’ of Samson Raphael Hirsch (New York, 1970).

Samson Rapfiael Hirsch, Horeb: Israel’s Duties in the Diaspora, vol. 2, Ch. 77 (London, 1962), pp. 378-381. Horeb first appeared in 1837. Appreciating the challenge of emancipation to Jewish self-discipline, Hirsch wrote, "Es gibt ja vieles, das an sich vielleicht eriaubt waere, das man aber in unserer Zeit nicht eriauben darf." Quoted in Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, p. 228.

Hirsch, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1920). See: "Religion im Bunde mit dem Fortschritt" (1845); "Zweite Mitteilungen aus einmen Briefwechsel ueberdie neueste juedische Literatur" (1844). Hirsch joined his anti-intermarriage reponsum to those of other rabbis hostile to the Brunswick Assembly, in the collection Torath Ha-Kgnaut. published in 1845. In: Katz, "Sources of Orthodox Trends." The Role of Religion in Modem Jewish History (Cambridge. 1975), pp. 40-48.

See Liberies, Religious Conflict In A Social Context, pp. 165-226; Rosenbloom, Tradition In An Age of Reform, pp. 115-119. Hirsch engaged in polemics over this break with Seligmann Bamberger, a highly regarded halachic scholar as well as a leader of traditionalist Jewry.

Samson Raphael Hirsch, Der Pentateuch (Frankfurt, 1867-1878): Numbers, "Balak." (25:6-8). The concept that developed from Pinchas’ act is "kana im oooe im bo": this permits a righteous zealot to kill a flagrant transgressor of the law. See also Hirsch, Der Pentateuch. Deuteronomy: "v’itchanan" (7:3).

Ths problem, as Rashi explains it, is as follows: we must be discussing the male offspring of a Jewish daughter and a non-Jewish man, hence, a grandson. For if the son were Jewish and the woman non-Jewish, their offspring would be halachically gentile, and the verse "kev vasir et binchah" because he will turn your son away (Deut 7:4) would be irrelevant 171

^ ® The most frequently quoted biblical verse of pro-intermarriage advocates was Malachi 2:10: "Have we not all father? Hath not one God created us?"

Marcus Lehmann (1831-1890) studied at Hildesheimer’s Halberstadt yeshiva, received his Ph.D. from the University of Halle, and spent the majority of his adult life as editor of Der Israelit which he founded in 1860. Wininger, Juedische Biographie, vol. 4, "Leavith-Pereire," p. 18; Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, pp. 144-145.

Hirsch, T he Seven Stages of Apostasy," Collected Writings, vol. 1, (New York-Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 351-364. Hirsch wrote: "The apostate from the Godly Law encounters the antithesis of his family and social life when he encounters Torah-loyal family and social life. At every step he feels newly impelled to pass judgement on himself and his brother. The estranged Jew has a need to inwardly overcome this reproach, and he attempts to overcome it first of all by means of-scom!" p. 355.1 suspect the name of Lehmann’s protagonist is not coincidental-Ludwig Philippson was one of the most prominent Reform leaders and edited the Allaemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. the rival of Lehmann’s Der Israelit Abraham Singer, Paris. Braunschweig. Arad (Stuhlweissenburg, Hungary, 1899) develops this contrast between the heroic observant Jew and the craven, lapsed Jew who acts as the former’s persecutor. As the title indicates. Singer treats the permissiveness of these three synods in regards to intermarriage.

Marcus Lehmann, Portrait of Two Families (New York, 1981). This novel, first published in 1880, bore the title Saeen und Emten fSewino and ReaoinoL Lehmann’s Vanished, a story based around the events of the Hungarian revolution, also contained a critique of the Jevrish bourgeoisie’s quest for wealthy ma^tal alliances.

^ Lehmann, Portrait of Two Families, p. 180. Cf. Arthur Landsburger, Mlllionaere (Berlin, 1913). The theme of a Christian woman’s sadistic dominance over her Jewish husband received more sophisticated treatment in the post WW-I novel by the Viennese writer David Vogel: Married Life (New York, 1989).

Lehmann, Portrait of Two Families, p. 180.

Breuer, "Orthodox Presse." Juedische Orthodoxie, pp. 154-160.

^ David Ellenson, Tradition in Transition. (Lapham, MD., 1989) collects several of Ellenson’s articles, some of which contain a discussion of Hildesheimer’s role in the shaping of modem Orthodoxy.

Hildesheimer, Juedische Presse. 18:39-40, (30 September 1887).

Hildesheimer, "Die Eheangelegenheit d e s Hetm Dr. B in Wien," Jeschurun. 14:9-10, (1868). pp. 146-152. Eliav, Rabbiner Esriei Hildesheimer Briefe. pp. 50-52, pp. 75-76, n.100. Hildesheimer was criticized in the Allaemeine Zeitung. (1869), pp. 131-132; 149-150 and Die Neuzeit. (1868), pp. 1-4.

S ee Hildesheimer, "Die Rituelle Scheidung," Die Juedische Presse. 17:25-26, (24 June 1886). Hirsch argued along similar lines in his discussion of qenrt. Horeb. pp. 379-381.

^ Rosenthal, "Zwei Briefe eines juedischen Getauften." Jeschurun. n.f., (15 April 1886), pp. 235- 238; Abraham Singer, Paris. Braunschweig. Arad. 172

Louis B. Maretski, "Mischehen," Juedische Presse. 36:9-10, (3 March and 17 March 1905). Maretski earned the rebukes of the race scientist Maurice Fishberg for attributing the high criminality rate among the progeny of intermarriages to the religious indifference of the couple.

Lehmann, "Ueber die Aufnahme von Proselyten in das Judenthum," Per Israelit. 19:25, (19 June 1879).

Lehmann, “Ueber die Aufnahme von Proselyten in das Judenthum." What would Lehmann have thougfit of Hoffmann’s willingness to waive the oath swearing adherence to all of the mitzvot?

^ Anon., “Korrespondenzen und Nachrichten: Dresden," Jeschurun. n.f., 17:2, (1884).

^ "Zur Friedhofsfrage in Leipzig" Jeschurun. n.f., 17:2, (1884), pp. 325-326.

^ Breuer, Juedische Orthodoxie, p. 231, states that in some instances intermarried couples received a communal cemetery, but with a living hedge separating the two graves. In this way, Jews would be protected against seeing a cross and/or other Christian iconography.

^ "Zur Friedhofsfrage in Leipzig" Jeschurun. n.f., 17:2, (1884), pp. 325-326.

B.T., Gittin 61a. "And bury the stranger with the dead of Israel" rVkovrim meti nochrim im meti yisrael"). On at least one occasion, an Orthodox rabbi gave the funeral benediction for a Jewish woman who had been married to a Christian in a civil ceremony. Lion Wolff, Funfzig Jahre Lebenserfahrunoen (Leipzig, 1919), pp. 114-117.

^ Lehmann cites the following sources: Rashi on B.T., Gittin, 61a; Tosephta to B.T. Gittin, 61a; J.T. Gittin, perekS, halachah 9; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. "Melachim," 10:12. In J.T. Gittin, 5:9 burial is not the subject at hand, although "keeping peace' with the gentiles is.

On proselytes to Judaism throughout history see: Bernard Bamberger, Proselvtism in the Talmudic Period (New York, 1968); William Braude, Jewish Proselyting in th e First Five Centuries of the Common Era (Providence, 1940); Lawrence Schiffman, Who was A Jew? (Hoboken, NJ., 1985).

^ Fritz Bamberger, "Die gesitige Gestalt Moses Mendelssohn" Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenscaft des Judenthums. n.s. 37, (1929), pp. 343-360.

Hirsch, Horeb. pp. 380-381.

Alan Levenson, "Reform Attitudes, in the Past, Toward Intermarriage," Judaism. 38:3, (Summer 1989), pp. 310-322.

^ Rabbi Bernard lllowy, Sefer Milhamot Elokim: The Controversial Letters and Casuistic Decisions of the late Dr. Bernard lllowv. (Berlin, 1914), pp. 192-196; Feilchenfeld, "The Circumcision of Children Bom to to Non-Jewish Mothers, II" Der Israelit 5:2,1865; Hildesheimer, "Some Notes on the Question regarding the Circumcision of Children Bom in Mixed Marriages," Der Israelit. 5:5, (1865). 173

^ Hildesheimer, Response. "Yoreh Deah," nos. 229-230. The debate between Hildesheimer and Kalischer has been analyzed in Bienson, *A Jewish Legal Decision by Rabbi Bernard lllowy of New Orleans and Its Discussion in Nineteenth Century Europe." American Jewish History. 69:2, (1979); Robert Levine and David Bienson, “Rabbi Z. H. Kalischer and a Halcachic Approach to Conversion," Journal of Reform Judaism. 28, (Summer 1981).

^ Ironically, Kalischer based his argument for a lenient position with respect to these children on Ezra’s damning words, "and thus the holy seed have mingled with themselves with the people of the land." (Ezra 9:2)

Bienson, "A Jewish Legal Decision," p. 195.1 am not entirely convinced by Blenson’s suggestion, logical though it may be. Rabbi Shlomi Kluger of Austria (1785-1869), for instance, took a liberal stance on conversion for the sake of marriage even though he too had to contend with the spread of Reform. See Morris GoodblatL "Conversion Because of Marriage Motives" Conservative Judaism. 28:3, (1974), pp. 32-35. Ouantitatively, there do not seem to be enough response to generalize on such matters safely.

Marcus Horowitz (1844-1910) served as the community Crthodox rabbi in Frankfurt a.M. Breuer, Juedische Crthodoxie. p. 100. Samson Raphael Hirsch and Mendel Hirsch represented Frankfurt’s separatist Crthodoxy.

^ Bienson, The Crthodox Rabbinate and Apostasy," pp. 180-181.

David Hoffmann, Per Schulchan Aruch und die Rabbinen ueber das Verhaeltnis der Juden zu Andersalaeubicen (Berlin, 1894). Hoffmann polemicized against the racist antisémite Theodore Fritsch, the antisemitic apostate Aaron Briman and the Reform movement’s A. Wiener. Cn Hoffmann see Alexander Marx, "David Hoffmann," Essavs in Jewish Biooraohv (Philadelphia, 1948), pp. 185-222.

^ Marx, "David Hoffmann," p. 194.

David Hoffmann, Melammed leho’il. "Yoreh Deah," no.83 (New York, 1954). Hoffmann’s various response are discussed in Ellenson, The Development of Crthodox Attitudes to Conversion in the Modem Period," Conservative Judaism. 36:4, (Summer, 1983), pp. 66-70; Solomon Freehof, A Treasury of Resoonsa. pp. 296-298; Morris Goodblatt, "Conversion Because of Marriage Motives," Conservative Judaism. 28:3, (1974), pp. 32-35.

David Hoffmann, Melammed leho’il. "Eben ha-Ezer," no.8. This responsum is discussed in Bienson, The Development of Crthodox Attitudes to Conversion in the Modem Period," p. 68.

^ Quoted in Bienson, The Crthodox Rabbinate aixl Apostasy," p. 182.

^ L Wreschner, "Proselyten Einst und JetzL" Jeschurun: Monatsscrift. (1916), pp. 312-316. Ezriel Hildesheimer had made the same point in his response to Kalischeris dissent from lllow/s decision.

^ Daniel Fink, "Proselyten Einst und JetzL" Jeschurun: Monatsshcrift. (1916), pp. 458-461. 174

^ Fink, "Proselyten Einst und Jetzt," pp. 458-461. Fink cites C.hatam Sofer, She’elot v* Tshuvot. V O :. 2, "Yoreh Deah," 268:8.

Fink, "Zur Proseivtenfraae." Juedische Monatshefte. 4:1, (1917), pp. 21-26.1 have been unable to find the case in B.T., Yoma to which Fink refers. CHAPTER VI

THE ZIONIST CRITIQUE OF ASSIMILATION

In Jewish texts, prayers, and hopes Zionism had long been at the heart of the Judaic tradition. But as a modem, political movement, Zionism galvanized into activity within the discrete eighteen month period coinciding with the publication of Theodore Herzl’s Der Judenstaat in 1896, and the convocation of the First Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897.^ By the end of 1897, German

Zionists had established the Zionistische Vereinigung fuer Deutschland (ZVfD). The ZvfD, in turn, had been preceded by almost a decade of Jewish nationalist challenges to the reigning ideology of the liberal mainstream.^ This mainstream defined "Jewishness" as "Judaism"; in other words, adherence to the Mosaic faith. The very title of the mainstream’s flagship organization, the

Centralverein Deutsche Staatsbuerger juedischen Glaubens, called attention to the notion that

Judaism constituted purely a "confession of faith."^ The term "Jewishness" itself caused considerable discomfort, for the mainstream ideology, at least in its initial form, held that only religious differences separated Jews from other Germans.'* Jewish liberals insisted that the cultural, racial, ethnic and national differences between Jewish Germans and non-Jewish Germans were either inconsequential or non-existent. Jewish nationalists rejected this interpretation of

Jewishness and demanded that the problematic of Jewish identity be given the consideration it deserved. If the mainstream definition sufficed, they reasoned, why then did a "Jewish Question" exist? Rejecting the ideology of emancipation, German Zionists addressed the question of Jewish self-definition unencumbered by much of the ideological baggage that weighed upon the Jewish mainstream, radical assimilationists and the Orthodox alike.^

175 176

THE GERMAN ZIONIST AGENDA

As a result of a quest for Jewish self-definition and a rejection of its ideological

predecessors, German Zionists necessarily drew most of their polemical ammunition from prevailing intellectual trends in Western Europe. Eastern Zionists could still engage in intimate dialogue with the Jewish past; for Western Jews, Zionism needed to return to Judaism even before it returned to Zion.® But the approach to "Judaism" involved a negotiation of the fin de siecle intellectual terrain. Racial thinking, for instance, attracted German Zionists profoundly and many attempted to define Jewishness racially.^ In the end, Zionists rejected a racial definition of

Jewishness as too uni-faceted to capture the complexities of the contemporary Jewish world.®

Nevertheless, German Zionists continued to cite racial arguments in favor of Jewish endogamy

(prescriptively) and as an explanation of Jewish solidarity in a secular environment (descriptively).

In regards to opposing intermarriage, racial differences offered too convenient, and to some, too convincing a reason to be ignored. Nationalism, as well as race science, dominated late nineteenth century thought, and many Zionists attempted to fit the Jews within this rubric. But a dear-cut view of Jewish nationhood also foundered on the rock of complexity. While most Zionists rejected the purely volitional approach to the question "what constitutes a nation?," the particulars of the Jewish situation could not be easily fitted to the elaborate schemas of nationhood then current on the intellectual scene.® Ultimately, Zionism opted for a broad, complex definition of Jewishness best described as a doctrine of "peoplehood."^® Yet all of these terms demanded definition, and all of them entailed a certain amount of confusion. Even one hundred years later, the question of “who is a Jew* draws conflicting responses. The definitional quest for Jewishness, a search conducted between the poles of race and volition, controlled the Zionist responses to intermarriage.

If arriving at an acceptable, non-religious definition of Jewishness established the critical task for German Zionism, then the realities of the Kaiserreich established the parameters. In 177

addition to rejecting the ideology of the liberal mainstream, German Zionists also established rival

organizations and a rival press. ‘ ^ Zionism captured the loyalties of only a small minority of

German Jews by 1914, yet they constituted a noticeable minority. By 1914 Zionists and the liberal mainstream considered themselves at opposite poles in their interpretations of Jewishness, antisemitism, and the possibility of a true German-Jewish symbiosis. Even antisémites, who habitually addressed the "Jew" as a singular entity, recognized the antagonistic relationship between the liberals and the Zionists. Despite this apparently diametrical opposition, the "power of context," in Poppel’s felicitous phrase, can hardly be overestimated.^^ For the leaders of German

Zionism came out of the same acculturated matrix as did the leaders of the emancipationists. Nor did the original leaders of German Zionism evince any personal animosity toward their emancipationist counterparts. The early Zionists applauded the founders of the Centralverein as fellow "men of honor" for their role in the battle against antisemitism. Even the radical Zionists, who took control of the ZV® in the years just before the First World War, had much more in common culturally with their German rivals than they did with the Jews of Eastern Europe. The radical Kurt Blumenfeld, for instance, grew up in a second generation "Jewish family of German culture," which travelled in principally Christian circles. Blumenfeld noticeably failed to exude the spirit of Yiddishkeit tfiat animated the Eastern Zionist rank and file, and which Blumenfeld himself cam e to admire.^®

Although German Zionists clearly disagreed with the liberal mainstream on ideological matters, they did not conclusively break their organizational ties with liberal Jewish groups until the radicalization of 1910-1912. Only with the Blumenfeld-inspired Posen Resolution of 1912 did

German Zionists pledge to make alivah (immigration) to Palestine part of their life’s plan.^ ^ In theory, the Posen Resolution intended to promote emigration. In practice, the Posen Resolution led primarily to increased hostility between Zionists and emancipationists. Adolf Friedmann's 1897 178

formula had called for "racial Judaism in the west, Zionism in the east." Friedmann’s program remained the most accurate description of German Zionism, even after the Posen Resolution.^®

Considerable Zionist emigration from Germany did not take place untn 1932, when German Jews of every ideological orientation began to search for a haven outside the borders of the Third Reich.

In other words, German Zionists no more intended to leave Germany than did the Jewish mainstream. Despite their analysis of antisemitism, German Zionists did not prove especially prophetic: they also credited Germany with more tolerance for pluralism tfian it actually possessed.

German Zionists maintained that their self-definition as a Volk, rather than as a Korrfession. made them more comprehensible, and therefore, less objectionable, to the Germans than were the

Jewish mainstream. The German Zionist responses to intermarriage show the impress of the reigning German polemical vocabulary and the needs of the German Jewish reading public.

Precisely because the Zionists came from the same background, they needed to emphasize the differences between their stance on intermarriage and that of the emancipationists. Shmuel Almog has attempted to characterize the Zionist position on defection as follows:

Like religious conversion, intermarriage was a pet peeve of the Jewish public to v/hich Zionism addressed itself. The objections to it on racial grounds were merely a matter of vogue, considering that such reasoning could equally well condone conversion without disqualifying the convert as a Jew. At any rate, the importance of the racial argument was negligible, just as the opposing reasoning- that conversion was essentially a personal affair- carried little w eight The public at large presumably wanted Zionism to act in the interests of Jewish survival and fight against any countervailing tendencies; the finer points of ideology were of little interest to it Still, we can take the issues of conversion and intermarriage as a touchstone of the acceptance or rejection of the racial criterion as a basis for defining the Jewish collective.^®

Almog surely judges the visceral Jewish disapproval of conversion and intermarriage correctly, yet if these issues can be taken as a touchstone of Jewish self-definition, they were neither a "matter of vogue" nor "negligible" in importance. Moreover, the Zionists, even if they 179

ultimately rejected a racial definition of Jewistiness, took it most seriously. The ambivalences in the

Zionist position on intermarriage proceeded from its quest for self-definition and its opposition to

Jewish dissolution, a process they consistently linked to the usual trio of baptism, secession and intermarriage. The same dilemma faced Zionists and the liberal mainstream on the subject of intermarriage. Both groups needed to justify a dedication to endogamy within the context of the

German environment The Zionist discussion of intermarriage differed from that of the liberal mainstream largely because German Zionists rebelled not only against defection, but also against the mainstream. The Zionists addressed the implicit fear of Jewish dissolution more explicitly, they questioned the proportions and relationship of Deutschtum to Judentum more openly, and they proved willing to formally decree their opposition to intermarriage. As German Zionism proceeded toward their break with the liberal mainstream in 1910-1912, its advocates increasingly linked

Jewish defection to the mainstream’s apology for assimilation. This connection, in tum, emerged from the Zionist critique of the mainstream’s view of the dynamics of antisemitism and defection. A considsraticri of Zionist responses to intermarriage, then, must begin at the junction of antisemitism and defection.

GERMAN ZIONISTS ON ANTISEMITISM AND DEFECTION

Dialectically, Zionists regarded modem antisemitism as the antithesis to the thesis of assimilation. While Zionists usually agreed that assimilation had failed to cure Jew-hatred, they differed among themselves as to the inevitable result of antisemitism.^^ While most Zionists agreed that antisemitism had made the Jewish condition in Eastem Europe intolerable, the future of

European Jewry at large seemed more debatable. Some Zionists held the view, as did Lev Pinsker, that complete assimilation simply could not occur. Pinsker contended that the Jews constituted a ghostlike presence that resided in Europe but remained essentially apart from iL Judaeophobes considered Jews neither citizens, nor foreigners with a homeland of their own. In Pinskeris view. 180

only as an autonomous people could the Jews return to normality and a mundane existence.^^

Pinsker’s metaphor may have been unique, but others shared his conclusions. Dr. Hugo Ganz argued in Die Welt that antisemitism had proven the quest for assimilation to be futile. Ganz held that Jews could no more assimilate into Europe than could the yellow race comert to the red. The

Jews would not be accepted no matter what degree of non-Jewish behavior they managed to emulate: there was no escape from Jewishness.^ This radical view naturally did not lend itself to a serious consideration of Jewish defection, as defection could not greatly affect the course of events. Significantly, few German Zionists besides Ganz adopted this posture.

A more typical Zionist view regarded assimilation as possible, but only on an individual basis. Herzl had once fantasized leading a mass conversion of the Jews in St Stephen’s Church in

Vienna. More seriously, Herzl contemplated the career advantages for his son Hans were he to be baptized. Herzl rejected conversion as a solution for himself and his family. According to Herzl, the insincere and hypocritical nature of the baptismal act rendered it unpalatable.^^ In an oft-quoted passage in Der Judenstaat. Herzl concluded that the Jews could conceivably merge with the surrounding peoples given a generation or two. "But they will not leave us in peace."^'^ In contradiction to this absolute negation of the possibility of assimilation, Der Judenstaat discussed at some length the likelihood of a segment of Jewry disappearing through a lessening in antisemitism caused by Zionist emigration. Herzl rejected defection as a general solution to the

"Jewish Question," but he admitted the possibility of individual exceptions.^^

Herzl’s evaluation of antisemitism and defection garnered support among a considerable number of German Zionists. Gustav Cohen’s Die Judenfraae und die Zukunft recognized that a substantial segment of Jews attempted to dissolve the "Jewish Question" through intermarriage and conversion. Yet Cohen doubted that this "solution" could work for all Jews. Despite increased defection, Cohen predicted that the "Jewish Question" would intensify as both the Jewish 181

population and the antisemitic movement grew.^® Cohen considered the results of Jewish defection deplorable since the children of these intermarried and baptized Jews entered the ranks of the antisémites.^^ Fifteen years after the appearance of Cohen’s Die Judenfraae und die

Zukunft. the Germarr Zionist leader Fabius Schach published his Ueberdie Zukunft Israels (1904).

Schach questioned the feasibility of the radical assimilationism. Although he professed to have nothing against intermarriage from a "humanitanan" point of view, Schach rejected the notion that the government would ever enforce intermarriage. Without the state’s encouragement, racial antisemitism would preclude the disappearance of German Jewry through exogamy.^® Herzl,

Cohen, Schach and others agreed on the distinction between an individual and a general solution to the "Jewish Question." This distinction between a private and a public solution also drove the radical assimOationist polemic, albeit in the opposite direction. This "middle position" within

Zionism regarded Jevrish defection as a real problem caused by antisemitism, but not a possible means of extinguishing it Escape for some Jews through assimilation would result in decayed morale and increased danger for Jews who eschewed this alternative.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from Pinsker’s extremely pessimistic view of eternal antisemitism, stood those Zionists who feared that antisemitism could end distinct Jewish existence in Germany, not through genocide, but through an acceleration of Jewish defection. A contributor to the Juedische Rundschau by the name of Tycocinski warned that there were currently two medicines that could be taken as an antidote to the disease of antisemitism; namely, assimilationism and Zionism. Unfortunately, the first of these medicines inevitably killed the patient." Less pyrotechnic than Tycocinsky, Bernard Cohn thought that even if intermarriages did not threaten continued Jewish existence in the immediate future, intermarriage could ultimately do more damage to the Jewsh "volkskoeroer" than baptism, because the former was painless. Thus, although Cohn did not believe defection could solve antisemitism, it could cripple Jewry.®® 182

Dr. Aron Sandler, a renowned physician and scholar, attacked those who thought the loss through intermarriage could only be problematic in the long run. Sandler hailed from Posen, but spent most of his adult life in Berlin as a physician and community leader. Since Sandler did not expect Zionism to solve the "Jewish Question* quickly, he found little consolation in tiie thought that intermarriage had not yet reached epidemic proportions.^^ Sandler and Dr. Ruben Bierer focused on the Berlin community and came to the conclusion that Jewry was endangered. While

German Zionists varied in their assessment of how "successful" assimilation could be in dissolving the "Jewish Question," many considered defection a real, quantitative threat Qualitatively, most

German Zionists shared the view that the combination of antisemitism and assimilation had affected Jewish character in a most deleterious manner.

THE ZIONIST TIKKUN’: REFORMING THE JEWISH CHARACTER

Classical Zionism frequently viewed the Middle Ages as a lachrymose succession of pogroms and expulsions that had crippled the Jewish character. To some extent, Zionists extended this negative verdict on the Jewish character right up to the nineteenth century. Max

Nordau portrayed the ghettos and shtetls of Europe as devoid of "earth, water, air and fire," the four elements necessary for healthy life.^ Early Die Welt articles such as "The Children of

Assimilation" and "The Jews, as the Christians see them" traduced the contemporary character of

European Jewry in order to encourage a national renaissance.^ Shmuel Almog has noted that the

Zionists who aspired to restore Jewish self-esteem often joined in the self-criticism that damaged it fu rth er.^

German Zionists criticized Jewry severely, explicitly linking the damage to a century of assimilation. Bernard Cohn charged that German Jewry had lost its will to live, the m ost essential element in all sentient beings. Stating that "suicide is criminal in every case," Cohn attempted to convince his readers that all Jews had the responsibility of strengthening Jewish existence. 183

whether they adhered to a definition of Judaism as a religious community or as a nationality.^® The villain of Cohen’s 1899 polemic, then, was not the membership of the Centralverein so much as

radical assimilationists and their silent adherents. Similar in this choice of targets, Schach’s Ueber

die Zukunft Israels presented a diatribe against the Jews who questioned their own right of

existence. Specifically attacking Elias Jakob, Schach termed a good number of German Jews,

"apostles of destruction," who would "save" the Jews by conversion, or at least, the conversion of their children.®^ Cleariy, Schach aimed his barbs at the radical assimilationists such as Jakob,

Weissler, Rathenau, e t al., and all those individuals who remain attached to Jewry by a thin thread.

The tone and title of Heinrich Loewe’s "Not yet baptized" f Noch nicht aetauft") captured the Zionist attitude.®® Typically, these critics fiad no interest in the apologia produced by the liberal mainstream which attempted to provide reasons for continued Jewish existence. Quite the contrary; Fabius Schach, for instance, argued simply that, th e possibility of existence is the justification of existence."®®

THE ZIONIST CRITIQUE OF ASSIMILATION

The German Zionist criticism of defection and radical assimilationists developed naturally into an attack on the Jewish mainstream. German Zionists tried to explain these defections as an inevitable result of adhering to a philosophy that failed to adequately explain the greatest problem for German Jews-antisemitism. Thus H.G. Heymann’s "Die Lage der Juden in Deutschland" morosely listed suicide, prostitution and intermarriage as attributes that had crippled the phyac^ and spiritual existence of the German Jew s.^ Defection received considerable attention in Die

Welt and Juedische Rundschau, the principal German Zionist newspapers. The writers from the

Zionist press attempted to demonstrate that their view of Jewishness as something more than a religious characteristic offered a better defense against Jewish defection. The stridency of the

Zionist polemic against intermarriage and conversion did, in fact, exceed tfiat of the Jewish 18 4

mainstream. Accordingly, the Zionist press also claimed the moral high ground in the fight against

Jewish dissolution.

The periodical Juedische Rundschau took the lead in attacking assimilation, largely because of the aggressiveness of Heinrich Loewe. Loewe (1867-1950) came from an acculturated home and attended a Protestant high school. Coming to maturity in the 1880s, a time of considerable antisemitic success in the universities, Loewe turned to Jewish nationalism. In 1892

Loewe founded the Jung Israel movement, and he later aided in the establishment of Jewish fraternal orders.^^ Loewe’s literary advocacy of Zionism complemented his organizational efforts: in the 1890s, Loewe edited the Juedische Volkszeituna and Zion, both short-lived publications.

Moving on to bigger things, Loewe edited the Juedische Rundschau from 1902-1908. As early as

1894, Loewe had addressed the question of Jewish self-fratred and suggested that this phenomenon bore partial blame for the ferocity of antisemitism. "How can others respect us if we show contempt for ourselves?" Loewe asked rhetorically.'^^ The Juedische Rundschau attacked

Maximiliian Harden for his hostility toward Jewish causes as well as his publication of articles advocating the dissolution of German Jewry.'^ In short, Loewe found radical assimilationist circles the perfect breeding ground for Jewish self-hatred.

When Zionism began to contest for Jewish loyalties with liberal mainstream, Loewe’s vituperative streak widened. In the 1908 "Mugdan Affair" Otto Mugdan, a baptized Jew in one of the liberal parties, ran for public office. One member of the Centralverein endorsed Mugdan, and even though this member was nearly forced to resign, the German Zionists did not wish to let a golden opportunity pass by without com m ent'^ Loewe’s article "Mugdanitis" termed Mugdan a renegade who could never be trusted to forward the interests of the Jewish people, and naturally linked the syndrome of "Mugdanitis" to the mainstream ideology.'^ On the issue of intermarriage, the

Juedische Rundschau outspokenly condemned the election of Siegmund Hinrickson to the 185

Presidency of the Hamburg Burgerschaft in 1902. Hinrickson’s election had caused a great deal of

rejoicing in mainstream circles, an understandable response, given the increased marginalization

of Jewish politicians in the Kaiserreich.^ The Juedische Rundschau pricked this balloon by scoring Hinrickson’s absence of identification with the cause of Jewishness. The Juedische

Rundschau claimed that, "He [Hinrickson] has dissolved his connection to the nation through his intermarriage and has become a dissenter. Moreover, he has never done anything for Judaism."^^

To the editors of the Juedische Rundschau, liberal minimalism on matters of Judentum seemed well worth castigating.

In the case of Hinrickson, the Juedische Rundschau gleefully pointed to the mainstream’s laxness on the subject of intermarriage. Yet the Zionist rhetoric could run afoul of reality. The

Juedische Rundschau, for instance, never made much of the intermarriage of Hamburg’s most prominent Jew, the shipping magnate Albert Ballin. Ballin, prompted by Germany’s impending military defeat and the loss of Kaiser Wilhelm’s favor, committed suicide in 1918. Max Nordau used the sorry interchange between the antisemitic Wilhelm and Ballin a s symbolic of DieTraooedieder

Assimilation.'^ Ironically, to the consternation of many within the Zonist movement, Nordau himself married a Catholic woman. The Russian Zonist Jacob Bemstein-Cohen, an opponent of

Orthodoxy, wrote to Herzl, describing Nordau’s marriage as "both impolite and impolitic."^® An

Austrian newspaper even reported that, "In connection with intermarriage, then, Zionists and radical assimilationists offer a fiand."^" Naturally, such a conflation of assimilationists (and radical assimilationists at that) with Zonists on the issue of defection cut to the quick. Berlin’s Willy

Bambus reiterated Zonism’s opposition to intermarriage, warned of the loss caused by intermarriages Germany and France. While emphasizing that the Zonists sought to combat Jewish defection, Bambus criticized the personal attacks against Nordau as typical antisemitic slander.

Nordau’s intermarriage presented an embarrassment to German Zionists, who, as acculturated as 186

their opponents, nevertheless attempted to portray assimilation as the root cause of self-hatred

and defection.®^

The Zionists, like the liberal mainstream, used the feuilleton to make their case in its purest

form. One such example may be found in Die Welt In a story about a Siegfried Rosensweig, Emil

Fried contrasted the ultra-German first name and the Jewish sounding family name to highlight the

contrast between German and Jewish elements and to demonstrate the futility of a flight from

Judaism.^^ Siegfried Rosensweig, of course, desired to be as German as possible. He fell in love with a German woman of "uncommonly blond" hair at a city festival, but Jew-hostile members of a

Tumerschaft disrupted their initial tryst Siegfried persisted in his pursuit, and, after several abortive

meetings, stormed into the Wondrecek house and asked for Marie’s hand in marriage. Naturally,

neither the fictional Marie Wondrecek nor her fictional family wanted anything to do with this Jew.

Siegfried leaves, burning vwth rage against the people with whom he w as associated despite his

best efforts at Deutschtum. Fried’s message could hardly be more transparent: an attempted flight from Judaism will metamorphosize into self-hate and antisemitism.^ In a similar vein. Die Welt

reported on two cases of professional discrimination perpetrated by baptized Jews against their erstwhile coreligionists.^

Throughout their treatment of the issues of Jewish self-worth and defection, German

Zionists attempted to distance themselves from the ideology and the supposed behavior of the assimilationists. Theodore Zlocisti, an early German Zionist and the first biographer of Moses Hess, proclaimed that he despised neither the Orthodox nor the national Jew, but only those who regarded their descent as a birth defect While the Jewish mainstream did not exhibit the stridency of the Zionists in regard to defection, labelling its spokesmen as self-fiating Jews was certainly u n ju st^ In 1912, the ZVfD pronounced those Jews who wished to solve the "Jewish Question" individually through baptism or intermarriage, th e worst enemies" of civil equality. The Zionists 187

described themselves as the only bulwark against Jewish disintegration; they considered the

Centralverein campaign against unprincipled apostasy doomed to failure- only uncompromising opposition to assimilationism could ward off dissolution.^

While German Zionists exaggerated their differences from the Jewish mainstream, their own internal contradictions on the subject of Jewish self-definition led to disagreement on the issue of intermarriage. Zionist attitudes toward intermarriage depended mostly on where one stood on the continuum of Js'//ish self-definition, with race on one end of the continuum and volition on the other. Not surprisingly, those Zionists who emphasized the racial ties that bound Jews together viewed intermarriage in the most negative light Ironically, the Zionist press occasionally exhibited the Jewish self-deprecation that they were so quick to criticize. The Zionist press also voiced a hostility toward the non-Jewish environment that the liberal mainstream expressed either gingerly or unintentionally.®^ And, as usual with respect to intermarriage, both the Zionist press and the lengthier Zionist works on this issue evidence considerably more diversity than might have been expected.

ZIONISM AND INTERMARRIAGE

Heinrich Loewe, who relished shocking his readers as much as he loved disputation, attacked fellow Zion writer Nathan Bimbaum for his article "Die juedische Moderne."®® Bimbaum, writing under the pseudonym Matthias Ascher, had touted the benefits of modem European culture for the Jews. Bimbaum suggested that intermarriage might be understandable from an individual viewpoint, if not from a Jewish national viewpoint®® Loewe replied that commitment to a plan of Jewish nationalism overruled personal inclination altogether. Loewe stressed that the

Zionists, who felt bound by tribal rather than religious ties, had to be especially uncompromising in preserving their supposed tribal unity.®® As Loewe saw it intermarriage posed two dangers. FirsL

Jews could ill afford to lose members to Christianity or to the ranks of the Konfessionslos. Jews 188

needed to organize for self-defense in Germany, and they v/ould need to do so in Palestine as well.

In a hostile pronouncement, Loewe disdained to share the Jewish spiritual might faeistioe Kraft)

with the less gifted Aryans. Second, Loewe considered a loss of racial purity to be even more

dangerous than a loss in numbers. Implicitly conceding that acculturation had proceeded very far,

Loewe reminded his readers that these blood ties were the last ties that held the Jews together;

increasing baptism, intermarriage and illegitimacy weakened these ties. Loewe argued that Jewish

dissolution would be the fulfillment of the religious reformers’ "mission," yet pointed out that

increased intermarriage did not decrease antisemitism. Thus assimilation could achieve its

professed goal only at the cost of self-destruction.®^ Considering his radical tone, his racial beliefs

and his grim assessment, Loewe’s solution to the problem of intermarriage sounds comically mild.

Loewe suggested that the associations for Jewish history and literature devote evening

discussions to the theme, where "the pemiciousness of intermarriage will be able to be made dear

before the wide public. Every true national-Jew will strive to support [this effort]."

Loewe’s "Mischehe und Blutmischung" smacked of the materialistic-voelkish language that supported the more virulent forms of antisemitism, and Loewe can not be exonerated from

charges of racism.®® On the other hand, despite his membership in the Russian Jewish Scientific

Society (he was the only German member), Heinrich Loewe could hardly be placed in the ranks of

race scientists.®^ Aron Sandler, a Zionist who did belong in this category, also used racial

arguments to define Jewishness and bolster opposition to intermarriage. Sandler’s Zionismus und

Anthropologie argued that neither the volitional definition of nationhood, nor the focus on historical

consciousness proposed by Simon Dubnov, adequately explained the Jewish psyche.®® Sandler

conceded that intermarriage had occurred in the past and that blood purity no longer existed.®®

But he distinguished contemporary races (Rassel from original races fUrassel. and maintained that

the latter not only existed but gave contemporary nations their particular qualities 189

(Eiaentuemlichkeiten^. Sandler anticipated that for most Jews personal experience v/ould dictate one’s allegiance and determine one’s self-definition. Sooner or later, Jews who regarded distinct

Jewish characteristics in a positive light would ally with Zionism in its fight against assimilation.®^

Sandler’s Juedische Rundschau article "Mischehe und Juedisch-nationale Gesinnung* amplified the necessity of Zionism as a means of combatting Jewish dissolution. Citing the rising intermarriage rate for Berlin between 1889-1893, Sandler warned against the destructive influence of intermarriage on Jewish solidarity. The rebuilding of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, an enormous task, demanded the combined strength of the Jews. Sandler estimated the Jewish loss through intermarriage in Prussia at 20,000 in a mere 20 years, and concluded that this continued hemorrfiaging of thy Jewish population would jeopardize the realization of a Jewish homeland.

Sandler conceded that mainstream leaders opposed intermarriage, but argued that in the case of a

Christian woman’s conversion to Judaism religious objections lost their relevance. Whether or not conversion occurred, argued Sandler, the Jewish family would suffer from intermarriage. Sandler doubted that the deep feeling of Jewish belonging could be transmitted through a convert The feeling of ‘Stam m esgehoerigkeit* in Sandler’s view, literally passed through the mother’s milk. No offspring of an intermarriage could hope to possess Jewish feelings as intensely as a "pure" Jew.®®

Slightly less aggressive than Loewe toward the non-Jewish environment, Sandler violently rejected the notion that Jewish endogamy had led to degeneration. Degeneration, a theory developed by Caesar Lambrcso, and popularized by Max Nordau, premised a basic type

(Sandler’s Urassel that had undergone decay through mixing with other elements.®® In the hands of antisémites the notion of degeneration became a double-edged sword. The Jews were alternately characterized as a mongrelized, and hence, a degenerate race, or, as a race that had practiced endogamy to the point that incest had led to an increased proportion of mental diseases.^® Sandler’s mockery of antisémites who regarded Jews as inferior to Aryans should be 190

read as a frustrated response to the double-bind situation presented to Jews by the spread of the doctrine of degeneration in learned society/^

Two weeks after the appearance of Sandler’s article, the Juedische Rundschau printed an anonymous rejoinder signed “Simplicissimus." The author disagreed that the introduction of foreign blood would be deleterious to the Jewish cause, and objected to Sandler’s bellicosity.

Simplicissimus contended that Zionism should be indifferent to Christianity, not hostile to it.

Hostility to individual Christians made even less sense. The gocxi qualities of the Aryan woman, be she French, English or German, would only add to the abilities of the Jewish youth and help to solve the "Jewish Question* more quickly. Bruell’s Die Mischehe im Lichte der Geschichte (1905) had touted the salubrious effects intermarriage could bring Jews through the infusion of Aryan abilities. Simplicissimus' argument evinced little of the sense of Jewish inferiority implied in Bruell’s presentation, and little of Sandler’s anti-gentile resentment Simplicissimus considered himself a good Zionist He felt no need, however, to base his Zionism on the predication of a Jewish race; in his view, the Jewish national impulse did not need such a prop. Simplicissimus noted that even though Jews had lost most of their religious belief in the long period of assimilation, they had not disappeared. The feeling of Jewish unity fEinhetistriebI had been irreversibly impressed through centuries of common experiences. While Simplicissimus did not adopt a purely volitional posture to Jewish identity, his voeikish thought tended to the transcendental type rather than to the materialistic voeikish formulas invoked by race science.^^

Sandler did not accept Simplicissimus’ rebuke silently. In rebuttal, Sandler reaffirmed the importance of racial purity and attributed the continuing unity of the Jewish people, despite attenuated religious loyalties, precisely to the prevailing tendency toward endogamy. Sandler admitted that in the past intermarriage had occurred, but felt that the contemporaneous situation defied analogy. The Jews of Germany suffered from an inferiority complex. This self-deprecation 191

would predude them from fighting for a Jewish upbringing of the children produced by intermarriages. Brushing aside Simplicissimus’ discussion of proselytes to Judaism in Roman times and the conversion of the Khazars as irrelevant, Sandler wamed that Jews could no longer expect to add to their numbers from intermarriages. Intermarriage, reiterated Sandler, could only lead to a further diminution of Jewish numbers and loyalties. Thus Sandler focused on the double- barrelled threat of a loss of numbers and a slackening of feelings of group identity.^^

Some Zionists dearly considered their position with respect to intermarriage secondary to their interest in arguing that Jews did constitute a pure race. Dr. Elias Auerbach’s artide

“Rassenmischung der Juden” criticized the recent scholarship that had cast doubts on Jewish racial purity.^'^ While Auerisach admitted that intermarriages had occurred intermittently in the

Jewish past, he argued that in all cases the numbers were slight and that the proselytes immediately joined the Jewish community. Their descendents, within a generation, became indistinguishable from other Jews, without changing the qualities of the race. With the advent of the nineteenth century, a new period of racial mixing began. In the emancipatory decades, the exogamy rate dwarfed the earlier incidences in percentile terms. But Auerbach, unlike most who defined Jewishness in racial terms, saw some benefits resulting from this process. The feet that only ten percent of the children produced by intermarriages remained within the Jewish community served as a means of a self-purification (Selbstreiniounai of the Jewish race. Auerbach ended the first part of his article with the even-handed pronouncement that, "So baptism and intermarriage, which work together for the destruction of Judaism, work in favor of the purifying of the Jewish race."^® Auerbach m ade it clear which factor should take precedence only in the final lines of this article when he cited Gobineau, approwngly, to the effect that a people would never die if it could indefinitely preserve its initial racial components. 192

The differences in tfie Zionist press between Loewe, Sandler on one side, and Bimbaum and "Simplicissimus" on the other, illustrate the diversity of opinion within German Zionist ranks on the subject of intermarriage. Heinrich Loewe and Bias Auerbach adhered most consistently to a racial definition of Jewishness. Yet Loewe’s attitude toward non-Jews resonated with hostility while

Auerbach regarded Jewish defection as a positive development in terms of preserving a Jewish race intact Aron Sandler shared their racial vocabulary. Sandler, however, justified his opposition by contrasting the earlier context to the current context of intermarriages, and the importance of maintaining Jewish elan in the ^ ce of the daunting tasks in Palestine. Despite Sandler’s scholarly work in race theory, in practice he appended non-racial reasons for Jewish abstinence from intermarriages. Apparently, even for a race scientist like Sandler, native disinclination toward

Jewish defection carried more weight tfran purely logical constructs. "Simplicissimus" and

Bimbaum considered non-Jews and the non-Jewish environment in a more neutral light, nor did they evince the same sense of siege tfiat animated Sandler. Jews should welcome philosemites to the Zionist camp and children of intermarriages to the Jewish state of the future. Theodore Herzi had written to Max Nordau in a very similar vein on the occasion of the letter’s marriage to Anna

Nordau.^®

GERMAN ZIONISM ON THE EVE OF WORLD WAR I

These differences of opinion did not remain purely in the polemical realm. The internal

Zionist debate on intermarriage culminated in the "Nawratzki incident" in 1914. A proposal passed in the Kartell Zionistiche Verbindigungen (KZV) annual congress (Kartelltaal made membership contingent on abstention from intermarriage. According to the reports of the KZV this proposal engendered considerable debate. The proposed ban on intermarried members led to the expulsion of one Kurt Nawratzi, an economist and member of the KZV'^ Defending the Kartelltaa’s decree,

Gustav Krojanker termed blood “the alptia and omega of our theories, our movement, our material 193

force."^® Clearly, racial arguments continued to play a role in the rhetoric of German Zionism until the First World War. Krojankeris main thrust, however, turned on the need to foster the instinctive love that bound the Western Jew together as a people. Only willpower distinguished the Zionist from the assimilationist; both groups had been forged in a German foundry.^® Krojanker professed sorrow at Nawratzki’s expulsion, but insisted that Zionism put its theories into practice. Likewise,

Krojanker conceded that only by practical demonstration could Zionism convincingly prove itself to be different from the liberal m ainstream.^ Krojanker defined Jewishness racially, yet admitted the volitional character of Jewish commitment, critical to continued Jewish existence, at least in

Western Europe.

Krojankeris defense of the KarteHtao’s intermarriage stance sparked further debate. Dr.

Alfred Wollstein’s opposition captured the implications of the wider, volitional definition of

Jewishness for the intermarriage issue and for Zionism. Wollstein credited the Eastern Jews with introducing the notion of the Jewish people as a community (Gemeinschaft). The definition of this community encompassed a feeling of unity and a belief in a common future. These elements, patently volitional, led Wollstein to proclaim, that "blood is one among many conditions, will alone is decispye."®^ Wollstein appealed for a wider view of nationalism than that permitted by a racial standard. He bemoaned the fact that Germany had surreridered so many of its cosmopolitan strivings as a result of its nationalistic excesses. He also rued the fact that the German public hooted down every call for progress a s a Jewish ploL®^

Examples such as Nahida Remy-Lazarus, popular author, wife of Moritz Lazarus, and convert, proved that a sense of Jewishness did not enter the child exclusively through the mother’s milk. Wolistein noted that a glance at the contemporary German scene should convincingly refute the notion that Jewish birth guaranteed Jewish fidelity. Simply puL Wollstein saw education as the key for the children of both endogamous and intermarried Jewish parents. Jewishness and 194

Zionism alike needed to be cultivated. Wollstein concluded that the Kartelitag’s intermarriage proposal rested on a faulty understanding of Zionism and W se equation of all intermarriages as equally dangerous for Jewry.

Both Wollstein and Krojanker paint a picture of a highly assimilated German Jewry from a nationalist perspective. Wollstein, however, considered the goal of a broadly defined Jewishness and a progressive role for Zionism on the world stage the cardinal considerations. Wollstein’s position foilows the Herzlian conception on several counts. Wollstein's positive attitude toward modernity, the importance of volition in Jewish self-definition, the manageability of antisemitism, and the retum to Zion by way of Judaism, dictated his position on an ancillary issue like intermarriage. In the midst of the ZVfD’s battle with the liberal mainstream, Krojanker insisted on differentiating Zionism from the liberal mainstream in deeds as well as words. In the end, the differences between Krojankeris and Wollstein’s attitude toward Zionism and intermarriage boiled down to a question of confidence.

INTERMARRIAGE AS CONSPIRACY; BIERER’S "DIE MISCHEHE"

While intermarriage presented a peripheral issue to the central figures in German Zionism, it presented a critical issue to a somewhat peripheral figure. Dr. Ruben Bierer (1835-1931) enjoyed a distinguished career as a Jewish nationalist Bierer co-founded Kadima, the Jewish student organization, and inaugurated the Viennese branch of Ahavat Zion. With the publication of Per

Judenstaat Bierer became Herzl’s enthusiastic disciple and pamphleteer. Although best known for his Zionist polemics in the press, Bierer's only full-length work remains his impassioned plea "Die

Mischehe” which prophesied Cassandra-like that "Intermarriage will annihilate our people from the face of the earth as quickly as possible; even more intensively as its propagation is fon/varded by certain circles."^ 195

Both Bierer’s analysis of the problem and his proposed solutions vary from the usual

treatments of intermarriage by German Zionists. To begin with, Bierer did not regard intermarriage

purely as the logical result of a century of acculturation combined with an attenuated Jewish

identity. Rather, he imagined intermarriage as a gentile conspiracy to undo Jewry, a conspiracy which had a good chance of succeeding because Emancipation had proceeded so far. Bierer

projected his postulate of undying gentile enmity into the past, arguing that while the methods

used to destroy the Jewish people varied, destruction had always been the goal. Bierer portrayed a three-stage attempt to annihilate Jewry, with intermarriage featured prominently in the first and last

periods. Intermarriage did not represent a new strategy: Bierer speculated that had Pharaoh

murdered the firstborn Jewish males he would have forced the females to marry Egyptians. The

mixing between the Jews and other escapees from Pharaonic Egypt had created an inferior

element that slowed the entry into Canaan. Delilah had led Samson to disaster; Solomon’s wives

pulled the Israelite court away from worship of Yahweh. In the long period from Moses to Herod,

Bierer perceived intermarriage not merely as a misfortune, but as a premeditated plot

As the ancient world gave way to the Middle Ages, "conversion or death" (TaufeoderTodl

became the sole means of defeating Jewry. Generally, attempts in the pre-modem world lacked subtlety; the forced conversions had less success in shaking Jewish loyalties than the exogamy of the biblical period.®^

In the nineteenth century, however, the opponents of Judaism discovered the "gentle

propaganda" of intermarriage. Bierer unhesitatingly attributed this most recent avenue of assault to the Jews’ ability to survive the medieval ordeals of "fire and water, steel and iron."®® Forced conversions had failed, but the enemies of the Jews had changed their tactics. To Bierer, intermarriage in the modem world represented the second front, with an active vanguard composed of the numerous conversionary societies. Yet Bierer ridiculed the efforts of these 19 6

societies. He reported, accurately, that Pastor Biehling of the Berlin Lutherischen-Central-Verein

managed to convert only sixteen members in 1896. The institutum Judaicum, founded by the

noted Protestant rabbinic scholar Hermann Strack, provided another ineffective setting for

Christianization. Even the efforts of English missionaries, th e avowed land of the mission,"

averaged only two conversions a year in Germany at the considerable cost of 30,000 Marks per

convert.®" Depreciating all these conversionary efforts, Bierer nevertheless feared tfiat the

insidious method of assimilation through intermarriage could break the back of German, and even

European, Jewry in his own lifetime.

Whereas conversion could strike at only the individual Jew, intermarriage struck at the

Jewish famiiy, thereby undermining the principal source of Jewish strength by destroying its cardinal institution. No one coerced the Jewish youth into intermarriage, and the parents could spare themselves the need to reproach their children for defection. According to Bierer, Jewish self-deception aided the process considerably. "He remains Christian, she remains Jewish it’s all the same."®^ Bierer linked missionary conversion- which fell more naturally into the category of gentile conspiracy- to intermarriage through his interpretation of Jewish defection.

Conspiracies need their quislings and for Bierer Jewish apostates filled this role, supporting missionary efforts on one hand and propagating intermarriage on the other. Bierer pointed out that, historically, apostates had often numbered among Israel’s enemies. Focusing on the Berlin community, Bierer noted that many of the apostates came from the natural leaders of the people: the wealthiest and the most educated. Bierer did not distinguish between those relatively few apostates who considered Christianity to be theologically superior, and the considerable number of Jews who converted for reasons of social climbing, professional advancement or marital convenience. To Bierer, all abandonment equalled betrayal. Consequently, he described the apostates as fleeing from all they held "high and holy."^ Bierer refused to accept that Judaism 197

had become meaningless to many Jews, who were "guilty" of indifference, not collaboration.

Bierer’s gentile conspiracy possessed a legion of unwitting Jewish accomplices.

Ruben Bierer was not blind to the changes in nineteenth century Jewish society. His gentiie conspiracy theory, however, obscured the dose connection between emancipation and intermarriage. Bierer expressed amazement that the large, wealthy Budapest community could have 260 Jewish children enrolled in mission schools. Similarly, Bierer considered it inexplicable that baptism flourished in places where Jews enjoyed considerable freedoms. In the nineteenth century context, increased integration of Jews into Christian society led inevitably to more intermarriages and baptisms, though the proportions varied from place to place.®®. Bierer did not see the inexorable nature of this relationship, nor did he grasp tfiat the entry of women into the workplace increased female and male social contacts, for both Jews and Christians. While Bierer did not oppose the emancipation of women, he considered it tantamount to forcing women into the brutal struggle for existence. Bierer lauded female education, but insisted tfiat this education contain a religious component as well as a vocational one. Admirably free cf the misogyny that typified so many of the critics of Jewish marriage practices, Bierer missed the link between increased male-female social contact and the intermarriages he so greatly feared.

All in all, Bierer looked askance at the changes wrought in Judaism by modernity; his solutions to intermarriage barkened to the institutions of the past. Principally, Bierer wished to revive the Hachnossas Kallah, which provided dowries for poor and orphaned Jewish girls. The

Hachnossas Kallah, he argued, could be modemized and concurrently provide educational and occupational training for these needy Jews. Bierer regarded the greed of Jewish males and the conditions of modernity as the main culprits in the victimization of Jewish women, especialiy poor and orphaned women. Like so many of the intermarriage polemicists, Bierer considered modem

Jewish marriage practices as disgraceful. He differed from the assimilationists, however, in 198

attributing the obsession with large dowries to a departure from earlier Jewish practices. Bierer conceded that money had long been a consideration in marital unions, but previously marriage served the higher goals of Torah study and procreation. From the Patriarchal period to the nineteenth century, the inner worth of the woman had dictated her desirability as a wife, and Bierer wished to retum to those values.

Drawing on the past for an analogy, Bierer concluded Die Mischehe by contrasting the treatment of oerim (strangers, sojourners) in the biblical'period to the appearance of intermarriage in the nineteenth century. The biblical ger, whether a full convert faer tzedek) or a mere sojourner foertoshav) received advantages and protection form the Israelites. Bierer conceded that the oer tzedek intermarried with Jews and brought new elements into the population. The children, however, became Jews in every sense. The relative strength of the Jewish people in the biblicai period allowed this admixture of foreigners. In contrast, contemporary Jewry quaked before the judgement of the non-Jewish majority. Clearly, the oer tzedek model of Jewish and Christian relations could not apply to Bierer’s contemporaries. But Bierer argued thiat even the oertoshav had received tolerance from the Israelite state, despite his religious dissent The Jews, the oerim toshavim of the nineteenth century, deserved tolerance from the majority for two reasons. First because the Bible that the Jews obeyed supposedly received its culmination in Christian hands.

Second, because the Jews had contributed mightily to western civilization: "One must then admit, even from the Christian side, that a people which has worked and suffered for the highest goals of mankind for a thousand years, must be allowed to remain in the world.”^

With this daim, and Bierer’s closing plea to fight intermarriage with all available means, the deep inconsistencies in Bierer’s presentation are revealed most clearly. He viewed Judaism as being in a state of precipitous decline, yet expected the institutions of the past to be revived. He viewed intermarriage as a gentile conspiracy, yet begged for Christian toleration. He participated in 199

Zionist politics, but did not draw strength from the Zionist vision of a deliverance in Palestine.

Bierer, in the end, could not grasp how Judaism could be so worthwhile and still be on the ropes.

Although German Zionists belonged to an international movement, the German context determined the Zionist responses to intermarriage. This context functioned in two ways. First, the

Zionists had to attack the regnant definition of “Judentum* as essentially a religious confession.

While the Eastern Zionists also faced opposition in their interpretation of Jewishness, non-Zionists in Eastern Europe at least agreed that the Jews constituted a cultural, national and "yolk" unit®^ In

Germany, the Centralverein, which represented the majority of German Jews, argued exactly the opposite. Forwarding an unpopular definition of Jewishness provided one task for German

Zionism. The second task, formulating a distinct Zionist doctrine of defection, encountered additional difficulties since the Zionists shared similar backgrounds, loyalties and life plans with the

German Jewish mainstream. The German Zionists regarded themselves as spearheads in the fight against Jewish dissolution. Merely to attack apostasy and intermarriage would not suffice: it had to be shown that the Jewish mainstream’s ideology led to this result, so ruinous for German Jewry.

The parameters set by the German context led to internal Zionist disagreement on the issue of defection in general, and intermarriage in particular. An internal Zionist polemic arose between those who forwarded a Jewish self-definition based on race, and those who regarded volition a s the final aititer of Jewishness. While the advocates of a racial definition of Jewishness gradually broadened their viewpoint, the pressure to demonstrate dissent from the liberal mainstream never disappeared. Coming from a throroughly acculturated matrix themselves,

German Zionists needed to assert, one might say exaggerate, their radicalness. This paradox has been noted in regards to the vow of emigration embodied in the Posen Resolution, unique among

Zionist organizations of its day. The very same paradox has been overlooked in the minor, but telling, "Nawratski Affair." The forces operating on German Zionism led to a strident yet inconsistent 200

position on Jewish defection. Nevertheless, the very emergence of Zionism challenged the

mainstream profoundly. Zionism forced German Jewry, albeit unwillingly, to address the question

of defection and intermarriage in the context of world Jewry. More significantly, the intermarriage debate merged with a debate over the state of fin de siede Jewry at large, in particular its future in the diaspora. With the emergence of the disciplines of race science, demographics and statistics, renewed German interest in the "Jewish Question" forced a discussion of these sensitive issues in the forum of German academia, Jewish and general. 201

THE ZIONIST CRITIQUE OF ASSIMILATION

ENDNOTES

^ Simon Dubnov considered Judah the Hasid and his pietist followers, who arrived in Ottoman Palestine in 1700, the first "modem" Zionists. In the nineteenth century, colonization efforts began shortly after mid-century and the first wave of Zionist immigration (the Biluimi began in the early 1880s, sparked largely by the pogroms of 1881 and the publication of Lev Pinsker’s Autoemancioation (1882).

^ In Germany, Jewish nationalists initially adopted the term Zionism in order to avoid the provocative formula "Nationaliudenthum.* which implicitly cast doubts on Jewish patriotism. See: Moshe Zimmerman, "The Social Prognosis of German Zionism Before 1914," Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1982). German Jews belonged to other Jewish organizations with international objectives(e.g. Alliance Israelite Universelle, Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden, etc.) but these were philanthropic, not nationalistic organizations. Many important scholarly works treat Zionist ideology: Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea: An Analvsis and Reader (New York, 1959); Monty Penkower, The Emergence of Zionist Thought (Maplewood, NJ., 1986); Shlomo Avineri, The Making of Modem Zionism (New York, 1981); Shmuel Almog, Zionism and History: The Rise of a New Jewish Consciousness (New York, 1987). On Zionism as a movement, see David Vital, The Origins of Zionism (Oxford, 1975); Idem, Zionism: The Formative Years (Oxford, 1982); Walter Zev Laqueuer, Zionism (New York, 1989).

^ Max Wiener. Juedische Religion im Emanzioationszeit (Berlin. 19331.

As the radical assimilationist Friedrich Blach wrote, "Judenthum" was an acceptable noun, but "Juedisch* was not an acceptable adjective. The noun "Judenthum" can designate either the people, Jews, or the religion, Judaism. Friedrich Blach, Die Juden in Deutschland, pp. 3-11.

® The emancipationist notions of nation and reiigion, themselves a product of the enlightenment, served as the foundation for the Jewish mainstream. The Orthodox combined this heritage with that of rabbinic Judaism, while the radical assimilationists accepted the Christian version of the "emancipation bargain" without the detachment of the Christian viewpoint See Peter Pulzer, "Why Was There a Jewish Question in Imperial Germany?" LBIYB. 29, (1984).

® This statement echoes Herzl’s verdict tfiat "Zionism is a retum to Judaism even fjefore a retum to the land of the Jews." Herzl, "The Congress Addresses of Theodore Herzl," p. 6. Quoted in Almog, Zionism and History: The Rise of a New Jewish Consciousness, p. 94.

^ George Mosse’s Toward the Final Solution brilliantly discusses the spread of racial thinking in nineteenth century Europe. (New York, 1978). Mosse exonerated Zionists from racism as follows: The "new man" of whom both racists and Zionists dreamed was opposed to rationalism, but for the Zionists he represented a "humanitarian nationalism" tfiat was fjoth voluntaristic and pluralistic." pp. 122-127. John Efron’s forthcoming dissertation "Jewish Race Scientists" (Columbia University) discusses this issue at greater length.

® Almog, Zionism and History, p. 45. 202

® Lazarus, "Was heisst National?" Lazarus’ views may be considered typical for the Jewish mainstream. Ernst Renan’s "What is A Nation?" exemplifies the sort of elaborate schema some scholars used to define nationhood. Alfred Zimmem, Modem Political Doctrines (Oxford, 1939), pp. 186-205. Curiously, in an age universally conceded to be "nationalistic," there seem ^ to be much disagreement about what the noun "nation" actually meant

It is not cynical to point out that a major advantage of the term "peoplehood" was its very vagueness. Jewish "peoplehood," especially as explicated by Martin Buber, possessed many of the "voelkisch" qualities attributed to Western European nations. See Buber, Israel and the World (New York, 1948).

^ ^ Among other influences, the Zionist challenge exerted a considerable effect on strengthening the liberal mainstream’s assertion of Judentum alongside of Deutschtum. Reinharz, "Deutschtum and Judentum in the Ideology of the Centralverein." JSS. 36, (1974); Evyatar Friesel, "Political and Ideological Organization of the Centralverein before 1914: A Reassessment," LBIYB. 31,(1986).

Analagously, German Jewry constituted a noticeable minority within German society. The significance, stance and success of the German Zionists relative to the liberal mainstream, especially the Centralverein, has been the subject of heated discussion. The two principle contestants in this debate are Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land (Ann Arbor, 1977); Idem., "The German Zionist Challenge to the Faith in Emancipation, 1897-1914," Soieoel Lectures in European Jewish Historv. vol. 2, (Tel-Aviv, 1982), and Marjorie Lamberti, Jewish Activism in Imperial Germanv. (1978). See the debate between Lamberti and Reinharz in LBIYB. 33, (1988). Even its critics concede that the Centralverein represented most of German Jewry.

The classic on this subject remains Gershom Schdem’s intensely polemical "Wider der Mythos des Deutcher-Judischer Gespraech," Bronsen, Germans and Jews 1860-1933: The Problematic Svmbiosis (Heidelberg, 1979).

Stephen Poppel, Zionism in Germanv (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 123-157.

Reinharz, "The Zionist Challenge," p. 18. The Zionist support for Martin Philippson’s proposed Jewish Congress in 1900 offers one example of many in which Zionism supported mainstream policies, especially before the radicalization of German Zionism from 1910-1912.

Poppel, Zionism in Germanv. pp. 46-47; Blumenfeld, Erlebtes Judenfraoe: Richard Lichtheim, Geschichte des Deutsche Zionismus (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 110.

Yehuda Eloni, Zionismus in Deutschland, pp. 269-279, discusses the Posen Resolution at length.

Poppel, Zionism in Germanv. pp. 24-26; Zimmerman, "The Social Prognosis of German Zionism," p. 155.

Almog, Zionism and Historv. p. 45.

Almog, Zionism and Historv. pp. 23-29. 203

Pinsker, "Autoemancipation," Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea (New York, 1959).

^ Hugo Ganz, "Assimilation Oder Regeneration?" Die Welt 2:45, (November 1898); Ragins, The Jewish Reactions to German Antisemitism, pp. 146-160. Ragins discusses varying degrees of racial and voelkish expressions in German Zionism.

Theodore Herzl, Letters, p. 181; Herzl, Diaries. Vol. II, pp. 658,794. Quoted in Almog, Zionism and Historv. p. 185.

Herzl, The Jewish State (New York, 1970), p. 49. Translated by Harry Zohn. It should be noted that "they" denotes the European masses and not simply the organized antisemitic parties.

^ Herzl, The Jewish State, pp. 35-37. Herzl’s ideas on this theme were ambiguous. In his play T h e New Ghetto," the fictiorial convert Dr. Bichler expresses the opinion that baptism "solves nothing," which suggests a more absolute attitude toward the impossibility of assimlation. Ludwig Lewisohn, Theodore Herzl: A Portrait for this Age. p. 158.

Gustav Cohen, Die Judenfraoe und die Zukunft (Hamburg, 1891), p.23.

Cohen, Die Judenfraoe. pp. 14-15. Apparently, Cohen had little knowledge of the Biluim. or the works of Hess or Pinsker. Cohen turned to the English philosemite George Eliot for the model of Jewish national renaissance presented in her novel Daniel Deronda.

Fabius Schach, Ueber die Zukunft Israels (Berlin, 1904), p. 14, and pp. 22-23. Somewhat inconsistently, Schach also proclaimed that Jews who have lost the national feeling would disappear with or without receiving baptismal waters.

^ Tycocinski, Juedische Rundschau. 9:25-26, (1904).

Bernard Cohn, "Vordem Sturm" (Berlin, 1896); Idem., Juedisch-politische Zeitfraoen (Berlin, 1899).

Aron Sandler, "Noch einmal die Mischehe," J uedische Rundschau. 9:20, (20 May 1904).

The historian Heinrich Graetz probably exerted the single greatest influence on this view of Jewish history as being composed of "sufferings and scholars." Hayim Hazaz’ short story "The Sennon" gave classic expression to this viewpoint Hazaz’s protagonist (Yudke) argues tfiat Jewish history was a mistake: Jewry should have disappeared with the end of national autonomy during the Roman imperium.

^ Max Nordau, "Muskeljudenthum," Zionistische Schriften (Cologne, 1909), pp. 379-38 (.

^ "Die Kinder die Assimilation," Die Welt. 4:27, (1900); "Die Juden, wie die Chisten sie sehen," Die Welt. 5:26-27, (1901). 204

^ Almog, Zionism and History, describes these self-criticisms as “Jewish self-hatred in Zionist dress.* p. 36. Moses Hess anticipated this interplay between antisemitism and defection very deariy in Rome and Jerusalem (1862): Because of the hatred that surrounds him on all sides the German Jew is determined to cast of all signs of his Jevnshness and deny his race... But even an act of conversion cannot relieve the Jew of the enormous pressure of German anti-Semitism. The Germans hate the rdigion of the Jews less than they hate their race-they hate the peculiar faith of the Jewss less than their peculiar noses. Quoted in Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, p. 120.

Cohen, Juedisch-politische Zeitfraoen. p. 48. Herzl said that, "Zionism is a retum to Judaism even before a retum to the land of the Jews." Herzl, "The Congress Addresses of Theodore Herzl," p.6. Quoted in Almog, Zionism and Historv. p. 94.

Schach, Ueber die Zukunft Israels, pp. 14-15.

^ Heinrich Loewe, "Noch nicht aetauft" Juedische Rundschau. 13:18, (1 May 1908).

Schach, Ueber die Zukunft Israels, p. 15. The German reads: "Existenzmoeglichkeit 1st Existenzberechtigung." See also. Anon., "Getaufte Juden!" Die Welt 12:44, (6 November 1908).

^ H.G. Heymann’s "Die Lage der Juden in Deutschland," Juedische Rundschau. 12:50, (13 December 1907).

"Heinrich Loewe" Encvdooedia Judaica. vol. 11 LEK-MIL, pp. 446-447; Vital, Origins of Zionism. p. 270; Elias Auerbach, Pionier der Verwirklichung (Stuttgart, 1969), pp. 70-79. German universities served as incubators for antisemtism and for the Jewish responses to antisemitism. I infer from Richard Uchtheim's Geschichte des deutschen Zionismus. pp. 113-119, that Loewe’s student activity resulted partly in reaction to the "Freien Wissenschaftlichen Vereinigung," composed principally of baptized Jews.

Loewe, "Hierosolyma est perdita," Juedische Volkszeituno. (6 Feb. 1894), pp. 1-3. S ee also Almog, Zionism and History, p. 24. This rhetorical question, I assume, played on Hillel’s well-known query, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

Anon., "Harden und derVerband der deutschen Juden" Juedische Rundschau. 13:3, (1908).

^ Juedische Rundschau. 17:44, (1 November 1912). Jehuda Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land, pp. 284, n.177, notes that Arthur Hantke suggested using the Mugdan affair to attack the CV.

^ Loewe, "Muadanitis." Juedische Rundschau. 13:10, (6 March 1908).

^ Helga Krohn, Die Juden von Hamburg (Hamburg, 1974), p.93.

Anon., "Hamburg." Juedische Rundschau. 7:45-47. (November 1902).

^ Max Nordau, DieTragoedie der Assimilation (Wien, 1920). 205

Jacob Bemstein-Cohen, The Bemstein-Cohen Book (Tel Aviv, 1946), p. 225. (Hebrew) Cited in Almog, Zionism and History, p. 44. German Zionists, not surprisingly, were sensitive to imputations made by Russian Zionists that they were out of touch with Jewishness.

Wniy Bambus, "Die Mischehe," Zion. 4:5, (May 1898). Bambus cited the Austrian paper as follows: "In Bezug auf die Mischehe reichen sich also Zionisten und radikale AssimOanten die Hand."

Theodore Herzl, with his determined areligious attitude, saw no problem with his friend Nordau's intermarriage. Herzl wrote: "What are we today? We are citizens of that ideal Jewish state whose realization on earth is the fairest hope of our life If our work were accomplished a Jewish citizen of that state would certainly not be restrained from marrying a foreigner. Politically the woman would become a Jewess, quite aside from any questions of rdigion." Anna and Maxa Nordau, Max Nordau: A Bioaraohv (New York, 1943), pp. 137-138.

Dietz Bering, Der Name als Stigma: Antisemitismus im deutschen Alltao (Stuttgart, 1987).

^ Emil Fried, "Die Mischehe," Die Welt. 4:5, (2 February 1900).

^ Ben-Elia, "Drei Assimilations-Stueckiein," Die Welt (5:32) 9 Aug. 1901.

^ Theodore Zlocisti, "Woran wir kranken," Zion (15 September 1895), p. 224.

Jehuda Reinharz. Dokumente zur Geschichte des deutschen Zionismus. 1882-1933 (Tuebingen, 1981), pp. 102-103.

Leo Hertzberg-Frankel’s feuilleton "Eine Mischehe" presents the most notable exception to this generalization. Israelitische Wochenschrift. 13:47-52, (1882-1883). Hertzberg-Frankel hailed from Galicia, rather than Germany proper.

^ Nathan Bimbaum (pseud.) Matthias Acher, "Die juedische Moderne," Zion. 2:7-8, (30 August 1896). Bimbaum’s spiritual odyssey led from assimilationism to Zionism to Orthodoxy. A major figure in pre-Herzlian Zionism, and the probable coiner of the term "Zionism," Bimbaum incisively attacked the feelings of Jewish shame typical to Western Jews.

Matthias Acher, "Die juedische Moderne," Zion. 2:7-8, (30 August 1896).

Loewe, "Mischehe und Blutmischung," Zion. 5:3, (31 May 1897), pp. 139-143.

Loewe,"Mischehe und Blutmischung." Zion. 5:3. (31 May 1897).

Loewe, "Mischehe und Blutmischung," Zion. 5:3, p. 143. The original reads: "Verderblichkeit der Mischehe vrird dann vor der breiten Offenriichkeit Mar enveisen werden koenen. Jeder echte Nationaljude wird dieses streben unterstuetzen."

^ It must be recalled tfiat "race science" was reputable by the standards of the day. Not all nineteenth century race scientists were "racists" in the sense tfiat they attributed inferiority or superiority to certain races. Even the belief in pure races, largely discredited by Rudolph Virchow’s 206 racial survey of over six million German schoolchildren, necessarily conduced to a racist attitude. Mosse Toward the Final Solution, pp. 90-93; Ragins, Jewish Responses, pp. 146-160.

^ Loewe’s considerable scholarly contributions came largely in the sphere of Jewish folk literature.

Aron Sandler, Anthrotxilooie und Zionismus (Bruenn, 1904), pp. 28-32.

Sandler, Anthropologie, p. 14,21.

Sandler, Anthropologie, p. 34.

Aron Sandler, "Mischehe und juedisch-nationale Gesinnung." Judeiche Rundschau. 9:16, (22 April 1904).

^ Max Nordau, Degeneration (London, 1920), p.16. See also Mosse, Toward the Final Solution. pp. 84-86.

Martin Englaender, The Most Freouent Evident Illnesses of the Jews (London, 1906). The theme of Jewish incest found its most artistic expression in Thomas Mann's "Blood of the Walsungen" (1905). Mann, who married a Jew, had imbibed this stereotype of Jewish behavior from the antisemitic crowd he personally disdained.

Gilman’s Jewish Self-Hatred, pp. 286-292, discusses the interplay between Jewish self-hatred and the medical profession. Other Jewish race scientist besides Saridler rebutted imputations of Jewish degeneration. See Max Jungmann, "1st das juedische Volk degeneriert?" Die Welt. 6:24, (13 June 1902).

I borrow this distinction of "transcendetal" and "materialistic" voelkish thought from Ragins, Jewish Responses, pp. 146-147. Mosse distinguishes the mystery of race from the science of race.

Sandler, "Noch einmal die Mischehe." Juedische Rundschau. 9:20, (20 May 1904); Cohen, Juedisch-politische Zeitfraoen.

Elias Auerbach, "Rassenmischungen der Juden," Juedische Rundschau. 12, (15 March 1907), pp. 110-114.

Auerbach, "Rassenmischungen der Juden," p. 114. In the original: "So wirken Taufe und Mischehe, die an der Zerstoerung des Judentums gemeinsam arbeiten, fuer die reinhaltung der juedischen Rasse ineinander entgegen."

See above, note 51 on Herzl’s attitude to Nordau’s intermarriage.

^ The responses to Nawratzki’s expulsion appear in the Mitteilungen des Kartells Zionistiche Verfaindioungen. 1-2, (Jan-Feb. 1914), pp. 14-16; (No. 4), pp. 76-87.1 have tentatively identified the Nawratzki mentioned in the Mitteilungen with Kurt Navwa&ki, listed a s a German Zionist leader in Richard Uchtheim’s Geschichte des deutschen Zionismus. p. 160.1 am thankful to Mr. Keith Pickus (University of Washington) for bringing these documents to my attention. I have seen no discussion of this affair in any work on German Zionism. 207

Gustav Krojanker, "Der ’Mischehenantrag’,' Mitteilungen. p. 15.1 assume Krojanker mistakenly wrote "Stosskraft* in place of "Stoffkraft*

Ludwig Pinner, "Eine Entgegnung," Mitteilungen. No. 4, pp. 80-87, defended this intermarriage prohibition. Pinner argued that the preceding generation had not known Germans as well. They believed they could live among Germans without hostility; nevertheless, they also possessed a greater natural antipathy toward intermarriage.

A few months earlier, the ZVfD had defended its Deutschtum against the Centralverein. The Zionists claimed that a Jewish "Gesinnung" posed no threat to any state. Reinharz, Fatherland or Promised Land, p. 216.

Alfred Wollstein, "Der "Mischenantrag" Mitteilungen. No. 4, p. 77. This is a somewhat loose translation of the German: "Das Blut 1st eine unter vielen Bedingungen, der Wille 1st alleinige Voraussetzung."

^ Wollstein, "Der ’Mischenantrag’" Mitteilungen. p. 79.

Ruben Bierer, Die Mischehe (Frankfurt, a.M., n.d.) The date of 1897 handv/ritten on the photocopy in possession of the Leo Baeck Institute is probably correct The latest date cited in the text itself is 1893. Wniy Bambus’s 1898 article in Zion mentioned Bierer’s work. The German reads: "Die Mischehe wurden aber unser Volk so tasch als moeglich von Erdboden vertilgen, je intensh/er ihre Ausbreitung von gewissen Kreisen betrieben wird." p. 13.

Bierer, Die Mischehe. p. 6.

^ Bierer, Die Mischehe. p. 9.

Bierer, Die Mischehe. p. 8.

The original reads: "Er bleibt Christ, sie bleibt Judin, es geht ganz glatt" Bierer, Die Mischehe. p. 9. It is unusual for a polemicist to choose the female Jew as the intermarrying partner.

^ Bierer, Die Mischehe. p.6.

^ Cf. Endelman, "Conversion as a Response to Antisemitism in Modem Jewish History."

Bierer, Die Mischehe. p. 24. Bierer’s plea for toleration reads in the original text as follow: "Man wird also selbst von christlicher Seite eingestehen muss, das ein Volk, welches fuer die hochsten Aufgaben der Menschheit seit Jahrtausended arbeitet und duldet, der Welt erfialten bleiben muss."

Not surprisingly, the Pale of Settlement saw the emergence of a wide variety of solutions to the "Jewish Question"; among them, Jewish socialism and Jewish autonomism within the borders of Czarist Russia. CHAPTER VII

INTERMARRIAGE AND JEWISH ACADEMIA

The disciplines of anthropology, sociology, demography and above all, race science, exerted an increasingly noticeable influence on the Jewish responses to intermarriage in the first decade and one-half of the twentieth century. As noted in the preceding chapter, some Zionists turned eagerly to racial thinking as a means of buttressing their opposition to the liberal mainstream and as a means of arriving at an acceptable, modem definition of Jewishness. Even the enigmatic Ruben Bierer, who posited a gentile conspiracy determined to undo modem Jewry, sang a paean to the "power of statistics" and drew support from these "findings" to argue tfiat intermarriages produced less children ttian endogamous marriages, but more mental defectives and criminals. While this "scientific" thinking influenced Zionists most deeply, the other Jewish groups of the Kaiseireich also paid heed to this intellectual current The Orthodox Juedische

Presse published the articles of the statistician Louis Maretski, finding his particularly negative evaluation of the biological worth of the progeny of intermarriages congenial to its determined anti­ intermarriage stance. Some radical assimilationists, who believed the natural race antipathies too great, despaired of intermarriage; others continued to look upon exogamy as the best possible means of amalgamation. The liberal mainstream’s response remained tentative: while the

Alloemeine Zeituno published the statistics testifying to the increasing danger of Jewish defection, their ideology precluded an argument based on preservation of blood purity. However much the various Jewish ideologies in the Kaiserreich accepted or rejected a racial view of Jewishness, all groups felt pressured to incorporate this growing body of scholarly evidence, and to marshall these data in support of their doctrines with respect to intermarriage and defection.^

208 209

While subsequent research has proven that Jews do not constitute a race, and that racial

characteristics in general do not dictate social and cultural behavior, this was by no means a given

during the fin de siecle. Race science, and sociology were both infant disciplines, and even

anthropology and demography were striving to prove their academic legitimacy within the stodgy

German university system. In order to avoid prejudgment and anachronism, then, I will hereafter

refrain from placing "race science" within the parentheses it deserves.^ The absence of a rigid

distinction between science and humanistic studies and the immature state of the social sciences

also encouraged the development of race science. At the onset of the twentieth century a wide

assortm ent of scientists and pseudoscientists willingly applied more or less rigorous methods to

social problems. Thus, with the emergence of race science and the related fields of demography

and statistics, the "Jewish Question" entered a new arena: academia.^ German Jews who

participated in these academic debates naturally benefitted from the prestige conferred by non-

Jewish recognition. German Jewish polemicists, always devoted to scholarship in general, paid willing tribute to the unparalleled prestige of nineteenth century German academia. The sense tfiat

Jewish race scientists based their studies on objective premises (as opposed to the divine

sanction for halachah, or the success or failure of emancipation) further enhanced their status as

experts on questions relating to intermarriage and defection.^

The setting of this new phase of the intermarriage debate further enhanced the impact of

Jewish race science. Until the last few years of the nineteenth century, the "Jewish Question" had

been debated in German parliaments, in the press, and in the apparent battle between antisémites and Jewish apologists. With the appearance of the Abwehrverein (1892), the Centralverein (1893), and the Zionistische Vereinigung fuer Deutschland (1897), the conflict between antisémites and their opponents spread to the organizational level. Despite this renewed organizational activism,

Jews remained woefully underrepresented politically in the Imperial Reichtag, and at the local 210

levels. The apologetics in the Jewish press, moreover, never reached those audiences most in

need of illumination. Few antisémites were likely to be convinced by Jewish propaganda. While

many Jews imbibed a negative view of Jews and Judaism from an intolerant environment, most

Jews rejected the more despicable of the antisemitic imputations. Thus, the cycle of assault and apologetic never approximated dialogue. The lower rungs of the academic community, and in particular its scientific segment, offered a theoretically neutral forum in which Jews and non-Jews could engage in an exchange of recent scholarship.® In addition to the prestige of German science and the need for a neutral venue in which to judge the "Jewish Question," a third factor helps to explain why the scientific approach to intermarriage soon dominated the polemical field: turn of the century thinkers achieved an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the phenomenon behind the problem of intermarriage-acculturation.

Ironically, the field of inquiry that pretended to be most detached led to the m ost extreme evaluation of the German Jewish situation and the seriousness of the threat of Jewish defection. In

1911 four books appeared which attempted to assess the nature, contributions, and vitality of modem Jewry. All but one. The Jews and Modem Capitalism, by the non-Jewish economist

Wemer Sombart, questioned the viability of Jewish life in the diaspora. Maurice Fishberg’s The

Jews. A Studv of Race and Environment, the second edition of Arthur Ruppin’s Die Juden der

Geoenwart. and Felix Theilftaber’s Der Unteroana der Deutschen Juden. all predicted the assimilation and dissolution of Westem Jewry. While Theilhaber dealt exclusively with German

Jewry and stirred up the greatest reaction, Ruppin and Fishberg cautiously agreed with

Theilhaberis pessimistic verdict on the future of modem Jewry. These works, and the responses they elicited, placed the issues of intermarriage and defection at the heart of the discussion of the

German-Jewish experience in modem times, raising these issues to a level of importance comparable with antisemitism, hitherto considered the nub of the "Jewish Question." A clearer 211

perception of the phenomena of intermarriage and defection, a direct link between reality and ideology, a general recognition that the very future of German Jewry turned on this schwerounkt of acculturation: all these mark the intermarriage polemic in the decade leading up to World War I.

For this reason the appearance of these works signals the full maturity of the intermarriage debate that commenced in Paris in 1806. Jewish race science transformed the previous ideologies on intermarriage, and altered the German-Jewish understanding of Jewish defection and its relationship to the German-Jewish community. Although some discussion of German academics is required to provide context, my focus will remain on the internal Jewish debate; for here too, an internal Jewish polemic created a second “Jewish Question."

Theihaberis Der Unteroana der deutschen Juden (1911) can not claim to be the first scientific work that predicted the dissolution of German Jewry. The pseudonymous “Einem

Physiologue" opened his Der Unteroana Israels (1894) with the declaration that the Jews no longer constituted either a pure race (Rasse). or a people (Volk).® Nevertheless, by dint of their centuries- long adherence to dietary and marital laws, the Jews had become a specific species, or variety

(Abart). of humanity. Although Mosaic Law did not intend racial seclusion, it led ineluctably to that result^ The Jews, never rooted in their home country, and highly endogamous, had preserved their eternal youth. They had suffered neither the degeneration nor the total assimilation that had removed other peoples from the pages of history.® But religion, in the author’s view, no longer bound the Jews together as it had in the past In modem times, Jews began to enter high-placed

Christian families and signs of degeneration had appeared. Both physical decay (obesity, rheumatism and apoplexy) and a tendency toward excess now afflicted German Jewry. "Einem

Physiologue" opposed intermarriage firmly. He argued that the host nations did not benefit from the Jews’ "denationalizing" of their popuiation. For Jews, the results of intermarriage proved even more deleterious. Hitherto Jewry had embodied the spirit of tireless activity and world-historical 212

progress; during Emancipation they had begun to stagnate. For "Einem Physiologue" intermarriage became more than the symbol of religious, ethical and communal decay. On the contrary, intermarriage appeared as the mechanism which would biologically destroy the individual qualities of the Jew and eradicate Jewish life in Germany. While "Einem Physiologue" wavered in his definition of Jews, his fear of degeneration and his linkage of pre-modem religious strictures to racial purity typifies the interests and conclusions of subsequent writers who adhered to a view of

Jewish race purity.

Not everyone who fell under the influence of a quantitative approach to Jewish defection felt it necessary to pay their respects to objectivity. While the literary battle against apostasy, increasingly termed "Judentaufen." had long been part of the liberal mainstream program, the role of self-appointed watchdog belonged to Nathan Samter. Samteris Judentaufen im neunzehnten

Jahrhunderts (1906) brandished the appropriate motto "cum ira et studio" on its title page. Samter published numerous pamphlets and articles in the Jewish press decrying the social enticements and shoddy motives of the baptized Jews.® Citing the controversial statistics compiled by the

Christian missionary Johann de la Roi, Samter concluded that despite minor variations in detail, the nineteenth century could be justly termed the Taufiahrhundert"^ ® Although Samter comprehended the social factors controlling the rise of Jewish defection, he did not accept the inevitability of a baptismal movement within Jewry. He apparently hoped that he could sham e potential renegades back into the fold. For this reason, despite Samteris lengthy discussion of statistics, he belongs in the camp of impassioned critics rather than the seemingly dispassionate analysts of Theilhaberis ilk. Samter, incidentally, conceded that the dangers of intermarriage exceeded those attributable to baptism. Nevertheless, his melange of stock mainstream arguments and negative statistical evidence about the problems of intermarriage occupied only a small part of this volume.^ ^ As usual, representatives of the liberal mainstream, at least before 1911, 213

consistently found apostasy a better target than intermarriage. The violent abuse against apostates and his glossing over intermarriage-an admittedly bigger problem-reinforce the claim that prior to the fruition of race science intermarriage remained the defection phenomena most difficult to attack.

THE GREAT DEBATE ON JEWISH RACE PURITY: IGNAZ ZOLLSCHAN AND MAURICE FISHBERG

The great debate on Jewish race purity and intermarriage started with the appearance of

Ignaz Zollschan’s Das Rassenproblem. Zollschan, an Austrian physician, began his Das

Rassenprobiem as a response to Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s The Foundations of the

Nineteenth Century. Zollschan emphatically agreed with Chamberlain that Jews were a race; he disagreed even more emphatically that they had degenerated. As Zollschan’s works accurately reflect the views of those who adhered to Jewish racial purity, they deserve some elaboration.^^

Zollschan explained the presence of patently different physical types among the Jews, the most obvious objection to advocates of Jewish race purity, as resulting from conquests and forced conversions during the biblical periods.I will retum to Zollschan’s reading of Jewish history in greater detail below, but it must be stressed that the superior racial purity of Jews as compared to

Aryans served Zollschan as a springboard for his arguments against Jewish degeneration. Many race scientists regarded exogomy and degeneration as linked; Zollschan agreed that racial purity represented the ideal. He considered damage caused by in-breeding minor in comparison.

Zollschan concluded, th e interbreeding of totally different nations produces a bastard type whose character is far below the level of either parent”^ ^ Zollschan’s aggressive assertion of Jewish superiority did not obviate a need for more standard Jewish apologetics. Having demonstrating the

Jews’ high racial value as well as their racial purity, Zollschan claimed that the disappearance of the Jews would be "an irretrievable loss for the general culture." By extension, intermarriage needed to be stopped, especially since the progeny almost always wound up Christian.^® 214

Turning to specific, contemporary conditions, Zollschan sounded a negative chord regarding Jewish prospects. He wrote, "Never were the circumstances for the disassociation with

Judaism as powerful as they are now."^® Noting that love and material interests prevailed over religious prohibitions in an increasingly secular age, Zollschan spoke graphically about the dismemberment cf Judaism. Although Zollschan usually distinguished between the problems facing Eastern European Jewry (poverty) and Westem European Jewry (assimilation), Zollschan clearly had the Westem situation in mind when he pronounced the verdict tfiat the contemporary

Jew neither knew why he was a Jew nor why he should remain one. Zollschan concluded tfiat only adopting a great task could save Jewry from degeneration through racial mixing. By this train of thought, Zollschan, one of the most prominent race scientists of the day, came to embrace

Zionism. Previously, Zionists such as Aron Sandier and Elias Auerbach had appropriated race theories as a bolster for Jewish self-definition and had brandished these theories in the German

Zionist journals. Zollschan, however, came to Zionism from race science. The German cultural model seems to have been in the forefront of Zollschan’s mind when he wamed that Zionism must proceed from a view that assimilation was not only impossible, but also undesirable. Only by willing a Zionist solution could Jewry raise Zionism above a simple reaction to antisemitism and a chauvinistic copy of modem nationalism.^®

Maurice Fishberg, Zollschan’s principal antagonist in the area of Jewish anthropology, was a Russian emigrant who became a quite renowned cardiologist in the United States. Fishberg read the history of JevWsh intermarriage and proselytism in almost the completely opposite sense as

Zollschan. The numerous photographs in Fishberg’s work illustrated the existence of a plethora of

J e w is h types by simple empiricism. For Fishberg this visual evidence further demonstrated tfiat

"there is no such thing as a Jewish race."^® Fishberg devoted a lengthy chapter of The Jews: A

Studv of Race and Environment to the contemporary intermarriage situation. He concluded tfiat 215

legalization of intermarriage had opened the floodgates to exogamous marriages, which could

only be prevented by a return to the ghetto. The Russian-bom Fishberg agreed with Ruppin’s

verdict that, "no thinking Jew could desire a retum to the ghetto."^® Nevertheless, without this

seclusion, European Jewry faced imminent dissolution. For the time being, the political disabilities

of Eastern Jewry aided Judaism by preventing assimilation in the Pale of Settlement, and by

replenishing the depleted ranks of Westem Jewry. But Fishberg wamed against regarding "the

reservoir" of Eastem Jews as inexhaustible.^^ Only this diffusion of Eastem Jews and the presence of social ostracism in the west preserved Judaism in Westem Europe. When assimilation and acceptance met, as in Denmark, more Jews married exogamously than endogamously. Exhibiting the tendency of all race scientists to focus on the German situation, Fishberg concluded that, "the future of Judaism in Germany is, to put it mildly, not very b rig h t"^

Fishberg did not hold out much of a prospect for saving the situation. Although

Zollschan’s charge that Fishberg pleaded for assimilation through intermarriage seem s unjustified, the latter dearly believed that assimilation in the west would continue unabated.^^ Fishberg contemptuously dismissed a Zionist solution to assimilation on at least three points. One, the fantastic nature of the scheme would preclude much in the way of practical achievements.^^ Two, since the Zionists based their activities on the erroneous assumption that the Jews constituted a nation and a race, they w ere bound to fail. Finally, the fear of race suicide moved Zionists in the direction of nationalist chauvinism.25 Fishberg’s prophecy tfiat German Jewry could not expect a long future agreed with two writers who concentrated even more intently on the German situation tfiat Zollsctian and Fishberg. Before tuming to the works of Arthur Ruppin and Felix Theilhaber, however, we must assess the paths by which Zollschan and Fishberg arrived at such different condusions about the Jewish character and future. Their treatment of Jewish history on the one 216

hand, and the biological value of the progeny of intermarriages on the other hand, demonstrates how fin de siede Jewish academics inextricably linked science and ideology.

The issue in Jewish history of greatest relevance to race science, not surprisingly, was fixing the degree of racial mixing that had occurred in the past Fishberg’s emphasis on the legalization of intermarriage in the nineteenth century as a principal impulse toward increased intermarriage emerged from his perception that only law had limited exogamy in the past. Thus, "It was not difference in race, or instinctive antipathy between the so-called Aryan and Semite, which kept Jews in former days from marrying with Christians."^® Echoing the tenets of Reform Judaism,

Fishberg held that the biblical period reflected a "non-racial and all-embracing Israel."^^ Fishberg owned up to the ^ c t tfiat biblical Israel engaged in active proselytization, and under the

Hasmoneans even forcibly converted peoples. Naturally, Fishberg made mention of Ezra’s prohibitions; he contended, however, the restriction had been breached as often as it had been obeyed. As to the anti-intermarriage laws of the Christian Church, Fishberg took this legislation as excellent proof of the tendency toward exogamy. The small number of Jews in the medieval period assured that whatever intermarriage occurred exerted a great effect on the Jewish gene pooi.^®

Zollschan, naturally, dissented from Fishberg’s presentation of the historical evidence.

Recognizing the existence of exogamy in the biblical period, Zollschan claimed that Ezra’s prohibitions really did mark a turning-point, after which, "very much blood has flown out of

Judaism, but exceptionally little has flown in."^ Zollscfian attributed Christian anti-marriage decrees to religious hostiiity, not to frequent intermarriage. The priestly class, the kohanim. who were prohibited from marrying converts, exhibited the same physical characteristics as other Jews.

Zollschan calculated that the proportion of kohanim to Israelites in Ezra’s day and during the martyrdoms in medieval Germany hardly varied. This offered additional proof of Jewish racial stability and so did the contemporary statistics which demonstrated tfiat two-thirds of the children 217

produced by intermarriages grew up as Christians.^® Accordingly, Zollschan pictured a cleansing

process within Jewry that preserved the original blend of Habiri [sic] and cognate Canaanite tribes that fused together to create biblical Israel.®^

Zollschan and Fishberg also disagreed strongly over the racial effects of intermarriage.

Race purists invariably emphasized the relative infertility of intermarriages, attributing this infertility to biological causes. Zollschan projected this statistic into the past to support the view that non-

Jewish elements had been progressively weeded-out from the Jewish race.®^ Intermarriages, according to some race scie.ntists, displayed a high rate of criminality, insanity, as well as a

plenitude of phys'ca! ailments.®® Divorce proved to be unquestionably more prevalent among intermarriages, which its detractors regarded as an indication of innate incompatibility. No doubt, cultural and religious differences contributed to the high divorce rate among intermarried couples in the Kaiserreich, but those willing to violate one taboo (intermarriage) were probably predisposed to violate another (divorce). Certainly biological incompatibility did not enter into the picture. All the statistical claims surrounding intermarriage, some correct, some incorrect, could fiave been explicable in socioeconomic terms. Race purists, however, pointed to the negative characteristics associated with intermarriage as a warning sign of impending Jewish degeneration. Not only would

German Jewry dissolve, it would experience a slow and demeaning dissolution.

Fishberg, and many non-Jewish race scientists, disagreed with the premise that racial

mixing produced an inferior species. On the contrary, they held that nations exhibiting a racial

melange, such a s the British and the Americans, proved the most capable.®'* On the German-

Jewish scene, the list of cultural and intellectual giants that came from a racially and religiously

mixed home made a mockery of the race purists claims. Fishberg denied that one could accurately define a Jewish art, music or literature in the modem world. Intellectually, Jewish aspirations did 218

not exist separate from the national culture in the countries in which they lived. In no way could

mixed offspring be considered either different or inferior to "purebred" children.

THE GREAT DEBATE OF 1911 AND THE GERMAN SCENE: ARTHUR RUPPIN AND FEUX THEILHABER

Arthur Ruppin, whose statistical reports still represent the most complete record of Jewish defection in the Kaiserreich, had a lifelong obsession with quantification.^ Bom in Posen. Ruppin trained at the universities of Berlin and Halls, writing theses on German economics and on social

Darwinism. Ruppin’s Die Juden der Geoenwart (The Jews of Todavl set a new standard for Jewish

scholarly literature in the field of statistical demographics. Ruppin was neither apologetic, nor

doctrinally oriented. The second edition of Die Juden der Geoenwart f1904.1911) reflected

Ruppin’s adoption of Zionism, but this new position did not dull his appreciation of the difficulty of the nationalist task.^® The high quality of Ruppin’s scholarship merely highlights the extreme

pessimism of his verdict on the effects of assimilation. Ruppin added little to the understanding of assimilation forwarded by Fishberg and Zollschan, but he probed more deeply into the relationship

between antisemitism and assimilation. Looking at the educated classes and those Jews who had

been long in contact with gentiles in a modem setting (Sephardic Jews of America; the Jews of

Denmark and Italy), Ruppin concluded that total assimilation must be the natural result of social

proximity.®^ Antisemitism in Ruppin’s view, would ultimately prove to be an insufficient check on

Jevrish dissolution. In a remarkable underestimation of the powers of Jew hatred, Ruppin predicted that social antisemitism had only short-range economic causes; and that political antisemitism would never flourish since the Jewish populations were too small to threaten the host nation.®®

Ruppin regarded antisemitism as playing only an ancillary role in the processes of acculturation. Ruppin presumed that while a decrease in social contempt for the Jews could decrease the percentage of Jews submitting to baptism, that gain would be offset by a doubling and tripling of the intermarriage rate. And intermarriage, in Ruppin’s view, posed "the most serious 219

menace to Judaism.’ Ruppin continued. "Exclusion of intermarriage is what has preserved Judaism throughout the age; its intrusion will bring about her downfall."^ Like many Jewish academics.

Ruppin found the issue of relative gain and loss caused by intermarriage irresistible. In 1904 he became the general secretary of the Bureau of Jewish Statistics, endowed by Alfred Nossig.

Ruppin also edited the journal which publicized the Bureau’s findings, the Zeitschrift fuer die

Demoarachie und Statistik der Juden (2DSJ). The articles in the ZDSJ. many penned by Ruppin himself, established quite conclusively that the ovenwhelming percentage of children bom of intermarriages in Germany grew up Christian. Ruppin remarked that while 22.67 percent of children produced by intermarriages in Prussia in 1905 were brought up Jewish, no more than ten percent would marry Jews and remain within the Jewish community. Quantitatively. Ruppin termed the loss to Judaism from intermarriages "very serious." In the course of time, progeny of intermarriages that remained within Jewry would considerably modify the race-character of the Jew s.'^ Consequently.

Ruppin also feared that intermarriage would do qualitative damage to Judaism. Ruppin’s fear of qualitative damage is ironic on two counts. First, the Bureau for Jewish Statistics. Ruppin’s employer, provided the research funds that invalidated many of the more lurid characterizations of the progeny of intermarriages than had been popularized by intermarriage opponents. Second.

Ruppin himself balked at attributing physical, moral and intellectual qualities on the basis of racial differences aione. Just as Ruppin viewed the socialization of the Jews as the key to assimilation, so too he gave social fectors a far greater weight than dogmatic race scientists.^^ Although Ruppin’s analysis displayed more subtlety, there can be no doubt that he shared the view of Zollschan and

Fishberg tfiat Judaism faced imminent dissolution by means of assimilation.

The role of heralding the impending disaster for German Jewry, however, fell not to

Ruppin. but to a relatively obscure demographer named Felix Theilhaber.^^ Theilhaber’s Der

Unteroang der deutschen Juden (191 '.) encapsulated the most negative verdicts of Jewish 220

academia and cast the darkest fears of German Jewish dissolution in the seemingly unchallengeable mode of science. TheBhaber listed a variety of characteristics that spelt the doom of German Jewry: infertility, physical and mental illnesses, frequent suicide, and of course, the three defection phenomena- intermarriage, baptism and secession. German Jewry’s socioeconomic profile guaranteed that these trends would not be reversed. Capitalistic, highly educated urbanites, German Jew s experienced all of the drawbacks of modem city life a.nd added to them the additional handicap of Jewish descent This handicap, in Theilhaber’s perspective, had everything to do with the defection of German Jewry. Ruppin saw the diminution of antisemitism as necessariiy leading to a great increase in intermarriages. Ruppin, unlike Theilhaber, did not reflect on whether decreased antisemitism would lead to a more even distribution in the religious upbringing of chiidren of intermarriages. Theilhaber, on the contrary, noted that intermarriages constituted a bond between two partners; the Jewish partner, however, belonged to a community less well thought of in society. Jewish women hesitated to demand a Jewish upbringing from

Christian males who themselves felt distant from Judaism, and who understandably wished to protect their children from subsequent discrimination. Thus Theilhaber affirmed Jewry’s second dass social status and tied it to the process of dissolution.^

Although many of these themes had appeared in the Jewish press in various forms,

Theilhaber’s compact rendering of the issue highlighted the dangers. The Jews had let matters progress past the point \where they could be reversed. In the case of intermarriage, for instance,

Theilhaber noted tfiat the very frequency of intermarriage fiad nearly silenced the voices of opposition. German Jewry, though it would not disappear overnight, headed irreversibly toward its disintegration. Tfieiihaber considered tfiat those members of the Jewish establishment who claimed tfiat Judaism fiad not yet spoken its last word were hopeful but woefully misinformed.

Theilhaber cfiaracterized the mainstream’s leadership as "pseudo-Jews with their un-Jewish 221

politics."^ Reform had proven itself wholly unable to maintain the loyalties of German Jew ry.^

The ‘criminal optimism* of the liberal mainstream precluded the majority of German Jews from embracing Zionism a s a noble alternative to passive decay. Despite Thenhaberis affinity for

Zionism, he also esqjressed a yearning for an ideal combining the Jewish family in the past and the bourgeois values of the nineteenth century, in his critique of current Jewish marriage practices,

Theilhaber cleariy equated the old traditions of family and fertility with superior m orals.^

Theilhaber attributed the intermarriage of Jewish women to their inability to secure Jewish husbands without a dowry; the female reproductive instincts so dominated the woman’s action that she preferred securing a Christian husband to remaining single.'*^

Determining cause and effect in the interrelationship of ideology and scientific findings appears to be futile in the case of these Jewish academics. Fishberg's personal success in

America probably encouraged a more sanguine view of both antisemitism and the possibility of successful assimilation. Zollschan's residency in the super-charged nationalistic atmosphere of pre-Worid War I Vienna probably promoted a view tfiat considered race and nation qualities which merited an aggressive defense. Ruppin struggled at reconciling his equally well-developed

Deutschtum and Judentum. Theilhaber, on the fringes of scientific respectability, relished his role as enfant terrible. Cleariy, personal histories and ideological affinities influenced, if not determined, their evaluations of Jewish history and contemporary intermarriage. Consequently, scientific findings and human predispositions, at least in this case, can not be easily disentangled.

The task allotted to Jewish race science compounded tine difficulties in reaching objective, or at least, dispassionate, results. While individuals could attempt to define their own Jewishness in a variety of ways, it seemed to be a tacit demand that the Jewish collective define Jewishness with a greater degree of precision than was incumbent upon the individual Jew. Moreover, the collective Jewish response required validation by the larger society. Nietzsche wrote that the 222

Germans had never stopped asking "what is German?" But at least Germans could answer that question without the need for self-defense, without the fear of someone answering that question for them. German Jewry needed to answer the question "who is a Jew" in the face of external hostility

(from racial antisémites and Protestant Bible scholars alike), and while contending with internal dissension they could ill aRord. In retrospect, therefore, it comes as no surprise that Jewish race scientists offered no more conclusive, nor more objective, answers to the problems of intermarriage and self-definition than did the more blatantly subjective, non-scientific ideologies of

German Jewry.'^

JEWISH REACTIONS TO THEILHABER

Jewish race scientists attracted considerable attention with their works, but their own biases were not always dear to the reading audience. Apparently, few critics picked up on

Theilhaber’ strange mix of anachronistic yearning and mechanistic sexism, or his dual loyalty towards Zionist and bourgeois values. Instead of examining the subjective premises which formed the substructure of Der Unteroang. Theilhaber’s critics focused on his devastating evaluation of the

Jewish present. In the 1921 edition of Der Unteroang. Theilhaber himself reported that one rabbi asked his congregants if German Jewry faced "gradual but certain dissolution."^® The Alloemeine

Zeitung attacked the accuracy of Theilhaber’s presentation, doubting both his statistics and his negative view of German Jewry marriage and fertility trends, which they regarded, not without reason, as being a moral indictment masquerading as demography. Jacob Segall’s criticial article in Im deutschen Reich represented the lengthiest refutation of Der Unteroang. Not surprisingly, this

Centralverein organ considered Theilhaber’s angry denunciations of the Jewish leadership unfounded.®® The ZDSJ treated Theilhaber as a neophyte who erred frequently, and turned facts established by others into melodrama.®^ Even Zionist sympathizers did not react to TheiI.haber’s work with unanimous enthusiasm, though they reacted more positively than the liberal mainstream. 223

The Orthodox press attacked Theilhaber vehemently: while the Orthodox preached repentance,

and decried the small number of Torah-true Jews, they could not accept a verdict of destruction.

Der Israelit wrote that God’s promise to sustain Israel carried more weight than the verdict of the

'Aufloesunasiiteratur.* Tbe Orthodox Die Laubhuette acknowledged the danger more willingly th a n

Der israelit. but shared in the letter’s conclusion tfiat Jewry would never disappear. Clearly, the pessimism and the wide circulation of TheOfiaber’s work exaceitated German Jewish fears and shook an already shaky sdf-confidence. Theilhaber’s works, along with those of Zollschan,

Fishberg and Ruppin, did more than worry Jewry; they encouraged an unprecedented washing of

Jewish laundry in front of the German reading public.

IN THE PUBUG EYE: THE INTERMARRIAGE DEBATE ON THE EVE OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

The first round of critical reviews did not exhaust debate on Theilhaber’s work and the other publications of 1911. The theme of Jewish viability and Jewish defection inspired the two collections of articles Diskussion: Kultur-Pariament and Judentaufen. which appeared in 1913 and

1914, respectively. Both works appealed to scientific inquiry and made claims to being dispassionate, scholarly discussions. On the face of it, these claims tiave much to commend them.

Dr. Max Marcuse, one of the first sexologists, argued tfiat Jewish assimilation was both desirable and possible. In words reminiscent of Arthur Weissleris "Die Erloesung des Judenthums," Marcuse pronounced the Jews, "no longer Jewish and not yet entireiy German."®^ Marcuse saw no biological hindrances to intermarriage, Eduard von Hartmann’s well-known claims of racial antipathy notwithstanding.^ Chinese Jews had assimilated fully in the past; closer to home, the

Jews of Italy stood on the brink of complete absorption. Individually, Marcuse concluded tfiat

Germans and Jews attracted one another sexually. For "state and society," Marcuse considered assimilation highly desirable. Only in this way could the "Jewish Question" be solved. It is indicative of Marcuse’s affinity toward the radical assimilationist position that he assumed solving the "Jewish 224

Question" truly posed a problem for Germany at large- and not just for the Jews. Conceding the disproportionately high number of "degenerate" Jews (again reminiscent of Maass, Stem, et al.)

Marcuse countered that the Jews’ positive attributes more than compensated for these feiiings-

Germany did not have to worry about getting the short end of the stick in the intermarriage trade- off.54

Felix Theilhaber also used the publication of Kultur Parlement to profess his loyalties to

Deutschtum and WissenschafL Striving after a detached tone, Theilhaber noted that the recent past merely saw the extension of intermarriage to the lower dasses-am ong the elites intermarriages had always occurred.^ Theilhaber linked intermarriage with the prevailing sexual and social conditions: rich Jews sought titles and poor Jewish women were happy to find a husband who did not demand a dowry. Although Theilhaber thought that intermarriage sprang from unhealthy motives, he did not see any danger for German society. For Jews, intermarriage posed a greater threat since it com pounded the already severe Jewish infertility problem.^®

Nevertheless, Theilhaber did not consider intermarriage tragic, even for the Jews. It seemed desirable to some, wrote Theilhaber, to dive under and disappear into the life of the people.^^ In this article Theilhaber did not state anything surprising to readers of Der Unteroang: dissimulating his Zionist convictions, he assumed his preferred role of objective observer.

The Jewish respondent in the volume Judentaufen tended to be particularly pessimistic.

Many objected to Arthur Landsbergeris introduction which asked the three following questions: 1)

Can the Jews achieve total assimilation through intermarriage arxj baptism? 2) Is the Zionist ideal of a Jewish state either desirable or realizable? 3) Will the antisemitic movement gain in strength if neither 1 or 2 occur? Professor Siegmund Maybaum, a leading figure within German Jewry and committed opponent of Zionism, objected to this fracestelluna since it could so easily be used as grist for the antisemitic mill. Maybaum, however, had to admit that Jewish spiritual, ethical and 225

economic solidarity with the German nation did not seem to suffice as a proof of assimilation.

Nevertheless, Maybaum reiterated his position as tfiat of a "German Citizen of the Mosaic Faith," the Centralverein’s well-worn form ula.^ Professor Ludwig Geiger, son of the Reform theologian,

put Maybaum’s objection into more historical perspective. Geiger contended that to consider intermarriage and baptism the only means of completing the process of assimilation was to proffer a gross insult to one hundred years of German Jewry. What did the Germans demand, asked

Geiger, that they crossbreed in order to produce more blond-haired, straight-nosed offspring?^®

As a sine qua non of assimilation, Maybaum and Geiger firmly denied the necessity of baptism and intermarriage-the terms of the emancipation bargain, already unfavorable from the Jewish side, permitted no further concession.®^

Naturally, these two liberal spokesmen found Zionism an unacceptable solution for

German Jews. Maybaum and Geiger reiterated their faith in Germany as an ethical, educated land.

Despite the development of a modem political antisemitic movement, they believed that Jew hatred would not increase. Indeed, the threat of assimilation, perfiaps for the first time, seemed even greater than the threat from antisemitism. Cultivation and study, in the dual sense of Bilduno and Wissenschaft. still seemed the best answer to both these challenges to Jewish existence.

Zionism could be written-off as utterly impractical. Fritz Mauthner, more left-wing politically and religiously than either Geiger or Maybaum, seems to have hit the nail on the head for all three when he stated:

The soul of the Zionists movement I little recognize and understand not at all. My historical instinct tells me, that the establishment of a Jewish state in some presumably unclaimed land could be a salvation for the unfortunate Russian Jews, who are today worse off than were the German Jew in the Middle Ages. That a Western Jew with even a smattering of culture would favor emigrating to such a state can not even be thought of. How, finally, a German Jew, w hose finest experiences of his existence have been graced by Kant and Goethe and Beethoven can be sympathetic to Zionism out of principle, that I can not conceive. 226

Clearly, the representatives of JevWsh academia felt themselves thoroughly acculturated.

Although I have avoided discussing non-Jewish responses to intermarriage, as that would require an equally lengthy consideration, the aggrieved tone of the Jewish respondents in Judentaufen can only be understood by a brief comment on the essays by non-Jewish German academics. To begin with, while distinguishing between baptism and intermarriage proved difficult for most

German Jewish writers who dealt with Jewish defection-in tfiat both were regarded as ruinous, while only baptism could be accurately decried as unprincipled-non-Jewish writers had no such difficulty.®^ Although there were numerous instances of gentiles advising baptism for careerist reasons, including the liberals Leopold von Ranke and Theodor Mommsen, the writers represented in the collections Kultur Parlement and Judentaufen tended to eschew baptisms without conviction. Intermarriage, however, non-Jews agreed upon as a splendid aid to completing Jewish assimilation.®®

While praise for Jewish qualities characterized many of the pronouncements, this represented philosemitism with a twist For none of the non-Jews represented in Judentaufen regarded Jews as fully part of the German people. Moreover, none seemed to think that Jewry possessed any intrinsic value apart from its ability to mix with Germans. Richard Nordhausen considered that a drop of foreign blood would freshen and invigorate the otherwise sleepy

Germans.®^ Typical of this underlying consensus, Herbert Eulenberg considered the complete assimilation of German Jews desirable, but felt tfiat the burden now lay entirely with the Jews. Their devotion to particularism-acd Eulenberg meant endogamy-belonged to the last century, not to the twentieth.®®

Richard Dehmel, a best-selling poet and novelist, argued that a single, stable race would

be produced by the German-Jewish mixture. He stressed the equivalence of Germanic and Jewish family values, as well as the economic and intellectual abilities of the Jews. Dehmel surely numbers 227

among the few non-religious phflosemites in the Kaiserreich. Dehmel spoke highly of intermarriage and with unusual personal experience-he had twice married Jewish women.®® But if Dehmel willingly met Jew s on non-Christian turf, what Jacob Katz once called a "neutral society," it was also a society devoid of religious particularism. For Dehmel, his wives, and children had all declared themselves Konfessionsios. Like many Marxists, Dehmel envisioned the solution of the

"Jewish Question" only against the background of a wholly secularized society.®^ The voice of diversity, truly alone in the wilderness, belonged to Heinrich Mann. Mann shrank back in (mock) horror from the notion that the Jews would aspire to be no more than lieutenants in the prestigious officer reserve corps. Would it really be desirable to remove the ethical influences of Jews from public life and the spiritual influences of the Jewish woman from love? Judging by the tone of the public discourse, the overwhelming majority of Mann's non-Jewish contemporaries seem to have thought so.®®

UBERAL REGRET: ARON TAENZER’S EVALUATION OF JEWISH UNITY

Even these two highly readable if sketchy volumes did not constitute the last word on intermarriage before World War I. The task of synthesizing the possibility of German Jewry’s disappearance and the indifference with which this development would be met by non-Jews fell to Dr. Aron Taenzer.

Taenzeris Die Mischehe im Religion. Geschichte und Statistik der Juden (19131 proved equally limited in dealing with the issues of dissolution and indifference, and in enlisting race science on behalf of the emancipationist ideology. Taenzer, a graduate of Berlin University, served as editor of the conservative Israelitlsche Wochenschrift and rabbi in Goeppingen.®^ In his opening statement of the problem, Taenzer implicitly admitted the inability of a religious response to fully answer the issue of intermarriage. "The question of intermarriage," wrote Taenzer, " juxtaposes a current reality with a past tradition and the two are irreconcilable." The section of Die Mischehe entitled "what to do?" calls for an appreciation of Jewish self-worth, especially in regard to the search for a spouse. 228

a dearer denunciation from religious leaders, and a general call to arms. Even the freirelioios Jew,

Taenzer opined, would rue the utter disappearance of Jewry. Despite this predilection for the continuation of Jewry, Taenzer considered the situation critical. He warned that contemporary

Jewry had raised a generation likely to become its own gravediggers.^®

What lends Taenzeris work its importance is not his grasping at solutions, the cry "was tun?" had become polemical standard fare for opponents to Jewish defection by 1913.^^ Nor did

Taenzer manage to wed mainstream opposition with racial evidence in a particularly effective manner: so long as Jews continued to be defined religiously, this marriage would be an uncomfortable one. The novelty of Taenzeris work lay in his clear-headed conception of the process of acculturation and the changes that had occurred in regards to intermarriage and defection. Taenzer stated the then not-so-obvious fact that in the intermarriage debates of the

1840s all sides were speaking of theory, not reality. Only in the last few decades, noted Taenzer. had the exception become the rule, or at least, a mass phenomenon.^^ Taenzer criticized Ruppin who had equated greater social contact with an increased intermarriage rate. Taenzer did not make the expected counterclaim of a conservative rabbi; to wit, that it was social contact combined with religious indifference. Religious indifference had its role, but Taenzer pointed to a decreased sense of belonging that seemed to pervade contemporary Jewry. With regret, the emancipationist Taenzer came to the same conclusion as the Zionist Zollschan-the contemporary

Jew no longer knew why he vras a Jew or why he should be one. How had the sense of Jewish belonging (ZusammenaehoeriakeitoefuhlesT so strong at the beginning of the Emancipation period declined so precipitously? Taenzer believed that a century of intra-religious conflict had allowed this unity to wither away.^® Thus Rabbi Taenzer held that in quibbling over theology,

German Jewry had dissipated its erstwhile solidarity.^'^ 229

The emergence of race science and the veritable flood of literature discussing Jewish defection and its relationship to the “Jewish Question" transformed the intermarriage polemic.

Intermarriage, whatever one felt about it, seemed destined to reshape Jewish existence. For

Jewish academics of every ideological orientation, intermarriage seemed likely to terminate

German Jewry. Even if Jewish dissolution were to be slowed by the absorption of the Ostjuden and/or the strengthening of antisemitism, the final outcome seemed predetermined. Naturally, radical assimilationists looked upon this result with anxious expectation. The Zionists used this prospect, just as they had used the persistence of antisemitism, to encourage the building of a healthier existence elsewhere. The Orthodox, German and pious in equal measure, refused to accept that God would allow German Jewry to disappear. And the liberal mainstream, despite its insistence on having achieved assimilation, drew the line at lending a hand to completing the dissolution of Jewry a s a distinct unit.

To elicit mainstream statements as strong as Geiger’s “1 am against baptism, against intermarriage and against Zionism," it took two things. The first, an acceptance that the Jewish situation had become desperate. Since race scientists from every perspective pronounced a negative verdict on the future of German Jewry, the desperate tone of pre-war Jewish journals can come as no surprise. The second, a frank discussion with the most educated, liberal elements in

Germany. In Judentaufen and Discussion: Kultur Parlament this too occurred. Liberal Germany,

Germany of the academy, still did not accept Jews as being wholly German. With few exceptions, they failed to sympathize with the reluctance of a small minority to allow intermarriage to reduce an already stagnant, if not shrinking, Jewish population. In the discussions following the publications of 1911 it seems as if the non-Jewish side of the emancipation bargain made itself crystal dear at last For Jews, assimilation equalled acculturation and Deutschtum: for non-Jews, assimilation also meant the eradication of all distinguishing Jewish characteristics. In Germany, at least, there would 230

not be a single answer to the 'Jewish Question" acceptable to both sides. Within German Jewry, at least, there seemed to be no answer to their 'Jewish Question' at all. 231

INTERMARRIAGE AND JEWISH ACADEMIA

ENDNOTES

^ Bierer, Die Mischehe. pp. 1-3; MaretsSd, “Mischehen," Juedische Presse. 36:9-10 (3 March and 17 March 1905); Friedrich Blach, Die Juden in Deutschland: Alloemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. 69 (12 March and 14 March 1905).

^ On the fallacy that Jew s constitute a race see Raphael Fatal and Jennifer Fatal Wing, The Myth of the Jewish Race (New York, 1975); Melville Herskovits, "Who Are The Jews," In: The Jews. Their History. Culture. Religion, vol. 2, (New York, 1949), pp. 1489-1500.

^ For an earlier perspective on this matter see Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, "Die juedischen Antisemitismus, oder die akademische Form der Judenfraoe." Frankfurter Hefte. 6:1. (1951), pp. 1- 14. On German-Jewish participation in academia see David L Freston, Science. Society and the German Jews, pp. 30-37; and more recently, Konrad Jarausch, Students. Society and Folitics in Imperial Germany. (Frinceton, 1982). It should be noted that the extreme voelkish brand of antisemitism was rarely adopted by members of the academic establishment Ringer, Decline of the German Mandarins, pp. 137-138.

^ Even extreme antisémites sought to adom their racism with the mantle of leamed respectibility. This desire distinguished German antisémites from those in other European nations. See George Mosse’s introduction to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. (New York, 1968), p. xvi. First published 1899. See also Geoffrey Field, "Antisemitism and Weltpolitik," Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 18 (1973), pp. 65-91, which argues that Chamberlain’s failure as an academic prompted his desire to appear erudite.

® Jewish advancement w as also very difficult in the army, in the judiciary, and in the civil service. In the established universities, Jews provided a relatively high proportion of the Frivatdozenten, but were only rarely able to dimb to the professorial ranks.

® Einem Fhysiologen, Der Unteroang Israels (Zurich, 1894), p. 3.

7 Einem Fhysiologen, Der Unteroang Israels, p. 6.

® Einem Fhysiologen, Der Unteroang Israels, pp. 8-9.

® Nathan Samter, Judentaufen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1906); Idem., Was thun? (Berlin, 1900); Judenthum und Froselvtismus (Breslau, 1898). Articles by Sam ter appeared in the Alloemeine Zeitung des Judenthum. Ost und West and the Juedischer Volks und Haus-Kalendar.

Samter, Judentaufen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. pp. 71-75; "Judentaufen im neunzehnjahrhundert," Ost und West. 1, (1901), pp. 423-431. Johann De la Roi edited the conversionary journal Nathanael.

Nathan Samter. Judentaufen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. p. 11, and pp. 81-93. 232

Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century: Zollschan, "Rassenprobleme und Judenfraqe,* Die Welt. 14:34, (25 August 1911): Idem.. Jewish Questions: Three Lectures (New York, 1914); Ignacy Judt, Die Juden als Rasse (Berlin, 1903). A concise listing of the arguments for Jewish race purity in the late nineteenth century may be found in Joseph Jacobs’ article, "Anthropologie," Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 1, pp. 619-623, esp. 619. Raphael Fatal and Jennifer Fatal Wing, The Mvth of the Jewish Race, pp. 22-24.

Zollschan, Rassenprobleme (Berlin, 1921), p. 55. Zollschan’s popular work had appeared in earlier editions in 1910,1911, and 1913.

Zollschan, Jewish Questions, p. 36.

Bacharach, Racism, pp. 106-107. Ruppin who considered Zollschan’s work a major breakthrough, shared the letter’s apologetic streak. Ruppin, however, added that even to raise the issue of whether or not the Jews deserved to exist was simply insulting. Ruppin, The Jews of Todav (New York, 1913), pp. 212-213.

Zollschan, Rassenprobleme. p. 478.

Zollschan, Rassenprobleme. p. 468. Zollschan makes this most cleariy in "Rassenprobleme und Judenfrage," Die W elt 14:34, (25 August 1911).

Zollschan, Rassenprobleme. pp. 428-429; Bacharach, Racism, p. 106. Zollschan attributed recent Russian and Rumanian repression to the influence of German racial antisemitism.

Fishberg, The Jews, p. 179. Fishberg was deeply influenced by the American sociologist Franz Boas who held that races intermingle quickly and create new anthropological types. Boas, "Race Froblems in America," Science. 29, (1909), pp. 839-849.

Fishberg, The Jews, p. 209. Zollschan would also have agreed that a Jewish return to ghetto existence was undesirable.

Fishberg, The Jews, p. 520.

Fishberg, The Jews, p. 524. The centrality of the German-Jewish experience in genera! has been elucidated by Gershon Cohen, "German Jewry as a Mirror of Modernity," LBIYB. 20, (1975), pp. ix-xxxi. As the prestige of German science towered over both Russia (Fishberg’s birthplace) and the United States (Fishberg’s eventual home), it is not surprising that Fishberg brought out a special edition of his work in German. Fishberg, Die Rassenmerkmale der Juden (1913).

Zollschan, Rassenprobleme. Freface to the third edition, p. ix. Zollschan wrote: "Er (Fishberg) pladiert nicht nur fuer die absolute kulturelle Assimilation der Judenheit, sondem fuer die Assimilation des Blutes, d.h. Mischehe und Aufloesung." I do not believe Fishberg can be characterized as a proponent of intermarriage.

Fishberg, The Jews, pp. 492-503.

Fishberg, The Jews, p. 469,487, and throughout 233

Fishberg, The Jews, p. 209.

^ Emil Hirsch, "Proselytes," Jewish Encvdopedia. vol. 10, p. 221 ; Fishberg, The Jews, p. 183, quotes Hirsch approvingly.

Fishberg, incidentally, was not consistent on the notion of Jewish proselytizing. The Jews, p. 534.

^ Zollschan, Rassenprobleme. p. 50.

Zollschan, Rassenprobleme. p. 54.

® ' Zollschan, Jewish Questions, pp. 20-21. Like many race scientists, Jewish and non-Jewish, Zollschan found the interbreeding of closely related races less harmful than interbreeding in general. Zollschan also flirted with the notion of the superiority, the "pre-potency" of Jewish blood proposed by Joseph Jacobs. Jacobs, "Anthropology" Jewish Encvdopedia. vol. 1, p. 620.

Jacobs, "Anthropology," p. 620.

^ Maretski, "Die Mischehe"; Theilhaber, "Die Schaedigung der Rasse"; Knudson, "Die Fruchtbarkeit in Mischehen." ZDSJ. 4:11. (1908).

^ Karl Kautsky, Rasse und Judenthum (Stuttgart, 1914), pp. 87-91. attributed this positive picture of racial mixing to Luschan. Kautsky himself doubted the supposed lack of "character* in mixed offspring and contended that no group would benefit more from interbreeding than the Jews.

^ Alex Bein, "Arthur Ruppin: The Man and His Work." LBIYB. 17, (1972). Ruppin’s publication in Conrad’s Statistische Jahrbuch (1902) was probably the first statistical treatment of Jews to appear in a scientific journal.

Ruppin, Memoirs. Diaries. Letters (London, 1971); Bein, "Arthur Ruppin: The Man and His Work"; Idem., “Arthur Ruppin," Encvdopedia Judaica. vol. 14, pp. 430-432.

Ruppin dismissed all daims of racial antipathy as refuted by the rising intermarriage rates. The Jews of Todav. p. 171. In The Jew s in the Modem World (1934), Ruppin laid greater stress on the importance of the falling away from religious obedience as a cause of intermarriage on its own, and not just as result of Jewish-gentile social proximity.

Ruppin, The Jews of Todav. pp. 202-207. Ruppin’s view of antisemitism has been used to argue that Zionists no more foresaw the tragic end of German Jewry than did assimilationists. In Ruppin’s defense, it must be noted that political antisemitism in Germany was on the dedine from 1900 onwards and that the Weimar Republic, despite prevalent antisemitism, did witness an increase of Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Privately, Ruppin recorded less sanguine impressions. He entered the following statement in his diary in 1897: "It is quite likely that antisemitism will one day oblige me to emigrate to a country where it does not exist, i.e. England." Ruppin, Memoirs. Diaries. Letters, p.62.

Ruppin, The Jews of Todav. p. 195. 234

^ Ruppin. The Jews of Todav. p. 180; idem., “Die Mischehe.* ZDSJ. 4:2. (February 1908); idem., “Die B estehende Mischehen in Preussen und Kcnfessicnaie Erziehung der Kinder,* ZDSJ. 4:5, (May 1908); Knoepfei, “Die juedischen Mischehen im deutschen Reich und die konfessionaie Erziehung d er Kinder,* ZDSJ. 1:7,2:7, (1904-1905).

Although Ruppin, The Jews of Todav. pp. 211 -240, praised Zollschan's Das Rassenproblem warmly and believed in a Jewish race, his discussion of the Jews’ racial and cultural values evidence a wider perspective. Ruppin did not consider Jews and Europeans very distant from each other on the racial scale, yet he believed that intermarriages diluted race character and that “descendants of a mixed marriage are not likely to have any remarkable gifts.*

Felix A. Theilhaber, Der Unteroang der deutschen Juden (Berlin, 1921). On Theilhaber, see Juedisches Lexikon. vol. 4, p. 931 ; Wininger, Grosse Juedische National Biographie, vol. 6, p. 102.

^ Prospective in-laws in intermarriages frequently made a name-change on the part of the Jewish partner a condition for consent Bering, Der Name als Stigma, pp. 351 -353.

^ Theilhaber, Der Unteroang. p. 159.

Theilhaber, Der Unteroang. p. 123.

Theilhaber, Der Unteroang. p. 153.

Theilhaber, Der Unteroang. pp. 127-128.

^ For the quote by Nietzsche and on the relationship of the Jewish and the German questions, see Peter Pulzer, “Why was there a Jewish Question in Imperial Germany,* LBIYB. 25, (1980).

Theilhaber, Der Untergang. pp. 23-41 predicted “allmaehlicher, aber sicherer Aufloesung.*

Theilhaber, Der Unteroang. pp. 27-28. Segall’s article was reproduced in the Zeitschrift fuer Démographie und Statistik der Juden. 7:11. (November 1911).

J.S. (Jacob Segall), “Der Unteroang der deutschen Juden.* ZDSJ. 7:11, (November 1911).

Max Marcuse, “Die Assimilation der Juden in Deutschland,* Hans Ostwald, Diskussion: Kultur Parlament. vol 4. (Berlin, 1913), p. 5.

^ Hartmann, Die Juden der Geoenwart. p. 350.

^ Max Marcuse, “Die Assimilation der Juden in Deutschland,* pp. 3-14. The historical presence of intermarriage justified some assimilationists who found baptism unpalatable. Henritta Fuerth, Die Loesung der Judenfraoe. pp. 61-66.

Sombart wrote that his friends came from various circles; none of them were the masses, which Sombart considered everywhere “stumpfe und uninteressante.* Diskussion: Kultur Parlement, p. 38. 235

Theilhaber, Der Sterile Berlin (Berlin, 1913) apparently marked the stage in Theilhaber’s fascination with the issue of Jewish infertility. Needless to say, this proved to be a wholly Jewish concern.

Theilhaber, "Der Understand in juedisch-christlichen Ehen." Diskussion: Kuitur Parlament pp. 21-27.

^ Siegmund Maybaum, Judentaufen. pp. 70-73. Landsberger defended his volume as having no intention of forwarding antisemitism and his own position as being that of an anti-assimilationisL

Ludwig Geiger, Judentaufen. pp. 44-48.

Maybaum (1844-1919), who studied in the HHdesheimer rabbinical seminary, lectured in homiletics at the Berlin Hochschuele. Geiger, a literary historian and biographer, was bom in Breslau in 1848.

Mauthner, Judentaufen. p. 75. The original reads: Die Seele der Zionisten Bewegung kenne ich wenig und verstehe ich nicht Mein historiker Instinkt sagt mir, d ass die Errichtung eines Judenstaates irgendwo in einem angeblich herrenlosen oder geschenkten Lande eine Rettung waere fuer die ungluecklichen russischen Juden, die heute schlimmer daran sind, als die deutschen Juden im Mittelalter; dass aber der abendlaendische Jude von nur Viertelskultur nicht daran denken wird, zugunsten eines solchen Judenstaates auszuwandem. Wie endlich etwa deutsche Juden, denen Kant und Goethe und Beethoven die besten Erlebnisse ihres Dasein geschenkt haben, dennoch, auf Prinzipien heraus zionistische empfinden koennen, das begreife ich nicht

^ A notable exception to this rule was Israel Zangwill. "Jewish assimilation through baptism is a very different phenomenon from their [sic] assimilation through intermarrige, at least in a spritual respect" Zangwill, Diskussion: Kultur ParlamentDiskussion. pp. 38-39; Idem., Judentaufen. p. 144.

Matthias Erzberger, Judentaufen. pp. 30-33. Again it must be recalled that even some antisémites favored intermarriage, induding Eduard Hartmann and Vacher de Lapouge. Lapouge explicitly favored intermarriage as means of destroying the Jews will to survive. Quoted in Mosse, Towards the Final Solution, p. 61.

Richard Nordhausen, Diskussion: Kultur Parlament. p.41.

^ Herbert Eulenberg, Judentaufen. p. 33. Along similar lines, the noted Sanskrit authority and opponent of antisemitism, Albrecht Weber, called intermarriage, "the best kind of Judenmission." Quoted in Barbara Suchy, "Die Verein zur Abwehr Antisemitismus," LBIYB. 28, (1983).

Richard Dehmel, "Mischehen," Diskussion: Kultur Parlament. pp. 14-22.

Despite its antisemitic tone, Marx’s "Der Judenfrage" may be considered representative of this sort of presentation. Kautsky, Rasse und Judenthum. updated and affirmed Marx’s viewpoint Dehmel, it should be noted, did not adhere to a materialistic philosophy.

Heinrich Mann, Judentaufen. p. 69. Cf. Thomas Mann, Die Loesung der Judenfraoe. pp. 242- 246. 236

Taenzer* In: Wininger, Grosse Juedische National Biographie, vol. 6, p. 82; Jevrish Encvclooedia. vol. 6, p. 55.

Aron Taenzer, Die Mischehe in Religion. Geschichte und Statistik der Juden (Berlin, 1913), p. 34.

See Samter, "Was tun?" (Berlin, 1900).

Taenzer, Die Mischehe in Religion. Geschichte und Statistik der Juden. p. 10. He conclude that the growing number of intermarriages explained the Reformers retreat from the Braunschweig position.

Taenzer, Die Mischehe in Religion. Geschichte und Statistik der Juden. p. 43. Taenzer asked that his work not be put in the service of those who would combat other Jews.

Max Wiener, Juedische Religion, focused on this same issue: Jewry had always been more than a religion, casting Judaism in a purely religious mold sacrificed its claim to be a totality rrctalitaetsanspruchi. CONCLUSION

Between the 1840s and the onset of the First World War the Jewish responses to

Intermarriage had developed from a technical, religious, intra-rabbinic discussion into a wide- ranging debate over the practical, seemingly perpetual, problem of defection. Jewish defection directly challenged German Jewish viability and, by extension, cast doubts on the future of the

Jewish community In the modem world at large. ^ At no point in this protracted debate over intermarriage and its Implications did German Jewry arrive at a consensus. At the most, in the two or three years preceding the First World War, all groups agreed that intermarriage and defection constituted a real threat to German Jewish existence. Even then, the internal needs of the competing German Jewish ideologies within the Kaiserreich led to claims by each group that they and they alone understood the phenomenon in its entirety, that they and they alone had a solution.

A couple of concluding issues merit explicit discussion: First, where to locate the nexus between the intermarriage debate and the German-Jewish experience? Second, what function did the intermarriage debate serve for German Jevwy during the Kaiserreich?

The intermarriage polemic mirrors the decline and rise of an internal German Jewish dialogue, a sense of a community of fate, and the course of German Jewish activism. Rather than the corrosive effects of eighteenth century heresy and impoverishment, or the defections of the salon Jewry at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the 1840s represent the irreversible breakdown of German Jewish unity. Only in the 1840s did a severe religious schism begin to seriously affect the Jewish rank and file, forever disrupting the concept of a normative Jewish practice.^ The position of the radical Reformers on intermarriage understandably stirred traditionalists to high-pitched condemnation; perhaps no other issue so clearly highlighted the

237 238

separating these two groups. In the pronouncements on both sides, and in the traditionalist and

Neo-Orthodox response at mid-century, a generation-long war began. The severity of this conflict abated only in the Kaiserreich, when the lines of division had been indelibly drawn, when a liberal interpretation of Judaism had prevailed in the majority of Gemnan-Jewish communities, and when antisemitism drew the two sides together in opposition to a common threat^

The breakdown of Jewish unity, in terms of internal dialogue and collective activism, proceeded from the 1840s onwards well into the Kaiserreich, arguably until formation of the

Centralverein in 1893. In the three decades preceding the unification and emancipation of 1871,

Jews increasingly integrated into German society and gained confidence in their sense of belonging to the German people. But antisemitism then challenged this view and initiated a new turn in the "Jewish Question," a question ostensibly solved by the twin processes of integration and emancipation.^ German Jewry, during the first phase of the "Jewish Question," demonstrated that it could become part of the German nation civilly. But the second phase of the "Jewish Question" focused on the issue of whether or not Jews could be socially, culturally and biologically part of the

German nation. Because German Jewry in the Kaiserreich considered itself already integrated, and because it took the judgements of Germans so much to heart, this second phase of the "Jewish

Question" challenged Jewish identity at the deepest levels.

Thus, the antisemitic challenge to emancipation precipitated a debate within Jewry on a variety of issues: What did modem Jewry constitute? How to fuse Jewishness and Germaness

(Deutschtum und Judentum)? To what level of acculturation should Jews aspire? Beneath the surface of the "Jewish Question" debated publicly throughout Germany in the universities, in the press, in the Reichtag and in the streets, lurked another "Jewish Question," generally overlooked by nonJewish Germans and only gradually perceived by the Jews themselves. This internal

“Jewish Question" can be stated simply: who are we? 239

From 1879-1880 onwards, this internal ‘Jewish Question" pitted the liberal mainstream spokesmen against a variety of opponents. While this ideological confrontation took place along the entire frontier of issues relating to Jewish life, no issue touched on Jewish self-definition as intimately as did intermarriage and defection. Each group that opposed the Jewish mainstream- assimilationipts, Zionists, Orthodoxy- felt it necessary to stake out a claim. Several ancillary reasons for this can be discerned. To begin with, non-Jews regarded Jewish endogamy as a tell­ tale sign of continuing Jewish specificity. With the exception of some racial antisémites, Germans publicly encouraged Jewish exogamy as the best proof, perfiaps the final proof, of the Jews’ willingness to identify themselves as Germans. Second, all German-Jewish groups, from secessionist Orthodoxy to radical assimilationists, had acculturated to a large degree. Since lifestyle alone rarely provided a dear answer to the question of exactly why the liberal mainstream’s interpretation of German Jewry did not describe them, each Jewish minority felt a need to highlight their dissent from the mainstream. Third, as the findings of race science, demography and statistics penetrated German Jewry, and as dissolution appeared as a severe threat to Jewish life, the various groups within German Jewry felt pressured to take a dear stand on the phenomena of defection. Fourth, the ambivalence of the liberal mainstream itself prompted dissatisfaction with their treatment of these critical issues. In the face of racial antisemitism and religious indifference, the liberal mainstream merely reaffirmed the emancipation ideology with its primarily religious definition of Jewishness. From this matrix of causes ideological confrontation emerged, developed and sharpened.

Ideological conflict however, should not obscure the common function of the intermarriage polemic for German Jewry-for the deviance implied in intermarriage drew all groups to the issue. Beginning with Emile Durkheim, sociologists have pointed to the labelling of deviant behavior as serving three principal goals. First deviance helps to form boundaries of acceptable 240

behavior and thereby aid in the process of identity and self-definition. I have attempted to show that German Jewry’s need for self-definition was real, and that intermarriage was generally recognized as a "boundary" issue oar excellence. Second, Durkheim noted that the majority’s expressions of opposition to a practice, in other words, the very labelling of deviance, enhances social cohesion and solidarity. Even if it goes too far to say that post-emancipation German Jewry expressed, "an insatiable search for community," it certainly attempted to recover some of the unity lost during the emancipation process.® Third, Durkheim suggested that social groups chastise most severely those behaviors perceived as most threatening to group identity.® For the highly integrated, decreasingly religious German Jews, marriage and thefemily represented one of the last repositories of Jewishness. Intermarriage, therefore, attracted a high degree of opprobrium, tempered by the (considerable) constraints imposed by being a minority, rather than a majority, within German society.^

Paradoxically, the intermarriage and defection debates marked a tum in the direction of greater intra-Jewish dialogue, increased Jewish activism, and renewed appreciation of a Jewish community of fate: all of which had diminished during the years of apparently successful integration from the 1840s until the 1880s. A final remark on this paradox is in order. The initial establishment of German-Jewish organizations in the Kaiserreich undeniably emerged as a result of a desire to combat antisemitism. It is also true that without a modem, political antisemitic movement in Germany, the Jewish quest for self-definition might have been less self-conscious, less fruitful.® To suggest, however, that antisemitism alone drove this quest, or tfiat antisemitism somehow deserves credit for the soul-searching nature of this quest, disregards what 1 have called the "internal Jewish Question." German Jewry feared that antisemitism would preclude full acceptance into German society. They also feared that Jewish defection would lead to their disappearance as a distinct, viable unit. Of these two dangers, the Jews of the Kaiserreich were 241

increasingly hard-pressed to determine which posed the greater threat Between the Scyila of rejection and the Charybdis of dissolution, German Jewry attempted to stake out an ideology that would run afoul of neither danger. It is no wonder, then, that the Jewish responses to intermarriage displayed vitriol and ambivalence in equal measure. 242

ENDNOTES

^ Although German Jewry can not be considered to have established a paradigm for modem Jewry, it seems clear that the influence of the Wissenschaft des Judenthums projected German- Jewish concerns into the wider Jewish arena.

^ The end of the unified Ashkenazic social structure in Germany has been debated by Azriel Shochet, The Beginnings of the Haskalah in Germany (Hebrew) and Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto. See also Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, p. 191, n. 30. On the critical importance of the 1840s as a watershed deade in German Jewry, see Lowenstein, The Pace of Modemization of German Jewry in the Nineteenth Century." LBIYB. 21, (1976), pp. 179-214; Idem., The 1840s and the Creation of the German-Jewish Religious Reform Movement," pp. 255-297; Jacob Toury, Soziale und politische Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland. 1847-1871 (Duesseldorf, 1977).

^ 1 do not mean to imply the intra-Jewish debate over the form Judaism ought to take came to an end-cleariy it did not Petuchowski, Praverbook Reform in Europe (New York, 1968), pp. 35-43. Similarly, the introduction of non-religious aspects to the "Jewish Question," did render the theological confrontation between Christianity and Judaism moot Tal, Theoiogische Debatte um das "Wesen" des Judenthums," Mosse, Juden im Wiihelminischen Deutschland, pp. 599-632.

^ The most penetrating discussions of the 2-stage development of the Jewish Question remain Reinhard Rueruo's Emanzioaîion und Antisemitismus (Goettingen. 1975); Idem., "Jewish Emancipation and Bourgeois Society," LBIYB. 14, (1969), pp. 67-91.

® Sorkin. The Transformation of German Jewry, p. 177.

® Emil Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (Glencoe, ILL, 1958). For an excellent application of this theory, see Ellenson, T he Role of Reform in Selected German-Jewish Orthodox Response: A Sociological Analysis." Transition and Tradition, pp. 33-57. Durkheim, who appreciated the benefits of social stability, did not intend to justify either intolerance or repression. On the contrary, Durkheim severely criticized Germany’s power-worhipping tendencies in his Germany Over All (Paris, 1915).

^ See Marion Kaplan, "Priestess and Hausfrau," Steven Cohen and Paula Hyman, The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality (New York, 1986).

® Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, p. 177, has noted that in regard to the German Jewish subculture. The invisible community thus placed Jewish intellectuals in creative tension with their environment: German Jews had to define both themselves and the community to which they belonged." 243

BIBUOGRAPHY: WORKS CITED

PERIODICALS

(Whereas journalistic literature provides the bulk of my evidence it would be cumbersome to list each relevant article separately. I have listed the major periodicals employed and cited individual articles from less important journals separately.)

Allaemeine Zeitunc, des Judenthums (Leipzig. 1837-1922)

Der Israeiit des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Hersfeld. 1839-1848)

Der Orient (Leipzig 1840-1849; Die Uteraturfalatt des Orients (1840-1851.)

Der treue Zions-W aechter (Altona, 1845-1849)

Die Juden in Deutschlands Geoenwart (1846-1847)

Zeitschrift fuer die reliaioesen Interessen des Judenthums (Leipzig 1848-1551)

Jeschurun (Franfurt a.M., 1854-1867)

Der Israeiit (Mainz, 1860-1938)

Die Neuzert (Wien, 1862-1904)

Israelitische Wochen-Schrift fuer die reliaioesen und socialen Interessen des Judenthums (1870-1894)

Israelitisches Gemeindeblatt (Koenigsberg, 1876-1879)

Die Juedische Presse (Berlin, 1888-1923)

Im Deutschen Reich (Berlin, 1897-1922) The IDR merged with the Allaemeine Zeitung des Judenthum s in 1922 to form the CV-Zeitunof

Die Juedische Rundschau (1897-1914)

Die Welt (Wien, 1897-1914) 244

Zeitsc'nrift fuer die démographie und Statistik der Juden (Berlin. 1904- 1922)

MEMOIRS

Baum, Vicki. Es w ar ailes aanz anders. Berlin: Uiistein, 1962.

Benjamin, Waiter. Berliner Kindheit um Neunzehniahrhundert. Frankfurt: Suhrkampf, 1987.

Bernstein, Eduard. "Wie ich ais Jude in der Diapsora aufwuchs" Der Jude (vol. 2) 1917/1918, pp.186-195.

Borchardt, Rudolf. Kindheit und Juoend. Hamburg: Maximilian Gesellschaft, 1962.

Calvary, Esther. "Kindheitserinnerunaen." Leo Baeck Institute Bulletin. 5 (1958).

Davidsohn, Doris. "Erinerrunaen." Leo Baeck Institute Bulletin. 8 (1959).

Deutsch, Julius. Ein welter Wea. Zurich: Amalthea Veriag, 1860.

Frankel, Abraham Adolf. Lebenkreise. Stuttgart, 1967.

Goetz, Lisa. Am Morgen wird Freude sein. Wuppertal: Sonne und Schild, 1961.

Harris, Johanna "Memoirs" In: Richarz, Monika, (ed.) Juedisches Leben in Deutschland. Selbstzeuanisse zur Sozialaeschichte im Kaiserreich.

Kobler, Franz. Juden und Judenthum in Deutschen Briefen aus drei Jahrhunderten. Wien, 1935.

Lazarus, Moritz. Lebenserinnerunoen. Nahida Ruth Lazarus and Alfred Leicht (eds.) Berlin: George Reimer, 1906.

Lichtenstein, Erwin. Bericht an meine Famille Ein Leben zwischen Danzig und Israel. Darmstadt: Luchterhand Veriag, 1985.

Lichtheim, Richard. Rueckkehr. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970.

Lowenfeld, Henry. “Raphael Lowenfeld: Polonist, Pamphletist, Pionier," Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts. 19 (1980).

Loewenfeld, Philipp. "Memoirs" In: Richarz, (ed.) Juedisches Leben in Deutschland.

Richarz, Monika. Selbstzeuonbisse zur iuedisches Leben in Deutschland. Stuttgart, 1978.

Ruppin, Arthur. Memoirs. Diaries. Letters. London, 1971. 245

Strauss, Rachel. Wir Lebten in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Veriags, 1961.

Susman, Margarete. Ich habe viele Leben oelebt Stuttgart: Deutsche Veriags. 1964.

Scholem, Gershom. From Berlin to Jerusalem . New York, 1980.

Toller, Ernst. I Was A German: The Autobioaraphv of Ernst Toller. New York: William and Morrow, 1934.

Wasserman, Jakob. Mv Life As German and Jew. New York: Coward-McCain, 1933.

Willstaetter, Richard. From Mv Life. New York: W.A. Benjamin, 1865.

ARTICLES, PAMPHLETS AND BOOKS

Adler, S. Assimilation oder Nationaliudenthum. (Berlin, 1894).

Alsberg, Moritz. "Rassenmischung im Judenthum" Virchow-Wittenbach’s Pooular- Wissenschaftliche Vortraeoe. no. 116 (Hamburg, 1891).

Auerbach, Leopold. Das Judenthum und seine Bekenner. (Berlin, 1890).

Bahr, Hermann. Per Antisemitlsmus. Ein Internationales Interview (Koeinigstein, 1979. First published 1894).

Bartholet, A. Die Stelluno der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden. (Wien, 1892).

Benno, Jacob. Mischehen. (Berlin, 1930).

Blach, Fabius. Die Juden in Deutschland. (Bern, 1911).

Bruell, Adolf. Die Mischehe im Judenthum im Lichte der Geschichte. (Frankfurt a.M., 1904).

Coblenz, Felix. "Predigten gehalten in der Synagogue der juedischer Reformgemeinde in Berlin. (Berlin, 1926).

Cohen, Hermann. Judische Schriften II. (Berlin, 1925).

Cohn, Bernhard. Juedische-politische Zeitfraaen. (Berlin, 1899)..

Cohn, Gustav. Die Judenfrace und die Zukunft (Hamburg, 1896).

Diskussion. Kultur-Parlament. Eine Monatsschrift fuer aktuelle Kulturfraoen. (Berlin, 1913).

Czellitzer, A. Zeitschrift fuer judische Familienforschuno. 4:4. 246

Ein freundliches Wort an die Christen zuer oanzliches Bevleouna ihres Streits mit den Juden. (Koenigsburg, 1804).

Einem Phvsioloaue. Der Unteraana Israels. (Zurich, 1894).

Eîfra Kosmopolitus. Die Loesuna der Judenfraae im humanitaerster Weise. (Leipzig, 1892).

Escheilbacher, Max. "Mischehen* Ost und West 17:3-4. Mar-Apr. 1917.

Faikson, Ferdinand. Gemischte Ehen zwischen Juden und Christen. (Altona, 1845).

Idem. Die Emancipation der Juden und die Emanzioation der denkenden. (Altona, 1845).

Rshberg, Maurice. The Jew s. (New York, 1914).

Idem. Die Rassenmerkmale der Juden. (Berlin, 1913).

Frankel, Zacharias. "Die Rabbinerversammlung zu Braunschweig," Zeitschrift fuer die Religiose Interessen des Judenthum. 1.

Idem. "Recensionen." Zeitschrift fuer die Reiioiose Interessen des Judenthum. 1.

Fuerst .A. Christen und Juden. (Strassburg, 1892).

Geiger, Abraham. "Ein Offenes Briefe zu Hr. M. Maass." Neue Schriften I.

Idem. Nachaelassene Schriften. (Berlin, 1875).

Idem, (ed.) Referate ueber die der Ersten Synode in Leipzig Qesteüte Antraae. (Leipzig,1871).

Goldman, Felix. Taufiudenthum und Antisemitismus. (Frankfurt a. M., 1914).

Idem. "Warum sind und bleiben wir Juden?" (Leipzig, 1918).

Hauser, Otto. Juden und Halbiuden der deutschen Literatur. (Danzig and Leipzig, 1933).

Heynemann, S. "Zwei Briefe eines juedischen Getauften." (Leipzig, 1886).

Hirsch, Samson Raphael. Judaism Eternal: Selected Essays From the Writings of Samson Raphael Hirsch. (London, 1956).

Idem. Gesammelte Schriften. (Berlin, 1920).

Holdheim, Samuel. Ueber die Autonomie der Rabinnen (Leipzig, 1843).

Hcldheim, Samuel. Das Relioioese und Politische in Judenthum. Mit besonder Beziehung auf gemischte Ehen. (Schwerin, 1845).

Holdheim, Samuel. Gemischte Ehen zwischen Juden und Christen. (Berlin, 1850). 247

Holdheim, Samuel. Ma’am ar Ha-ishuth (Berlin, 1860).

Jacobowsky, Ludwig. "Offene Antwort eines Juden auf Hetm. Ahiwardts’s ’Der Eide eines Juden" (Berlin, n.d.).

Idem. Werther, der Ju d e. (Berlin, 1891).

Jeliinek, Adoif. "Denkrede an Moses Mendelssohn" (Wien, 1886).

Judaeus. Was muessen wir Juden thun? (Zurich, 1881).

Kahn, Lehman. Serie de six lettres sur le marriage mixte. (Brusselles: V.C. Vanderauwera, 1877) Translated as Sechs Briefe ueber Die Mischehe (1877).

Karpeles, Gustav. Jews and Judaism in the Nineteenth Century. (Philadelphia, 1905).

Kautsky, Karl. Basse und Judenthum. (Stuttgart, 1914).

Klopfer, Carl, (ed.) Zur Judenfraae. (Munich, 1891).

Lehman, Emil. Hoere Israel. (Leipzig, 1869).

Lestchinsky, Jacob. "Das wirkschaftliche Schicksal des deutschen Judenthums. Schriften der Zentralwohlfahrtsstelle der deutschen Juden. 7. (Berlin, 1932).

Luthardt, "Ehen zwischert Christen und Nichtchristen" Handbuch des theolooische Wissenschaft. 3:68 (1883).

Maass, Martin. Zwei Gespraeche ueber den Austritt aus dem Judenthume. (Leipzig, 1858).

Idem. Die Sozial Stelluno der Juden in Deutschland. (Lobau, 1876).

Idem. Die Mischehe. (Lobau, 1881).

Marcuse, Max. Christliche-iuedische Mischehe. (Berlin, 1913).

Idem. Die Fruchtbarkeit christliche-iuedisch Mischehen (Berlin, 1919).

Misch. E. Die Ehe zwischen Juden und Christen. (Leipzig. 1847).

Moses, Julius, (ed.) Die Losuno der Judenfraae: Eine Rundfraoe. (Berlin-Leipzig, 1907).

Philippson, Ludwig. Die Israelitisches Relioionslehre. 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1865).

Rathenau, Walther. "Hoere Israel!" Die Zukunft 1897.

Ritter, Immanuel Heinrich. "Traurede zur Vermahlung." (Berlin, 1856) 248

Rosenberg, Sander. "Rede Gehalten bei der Einsegnung des ersten juedisch-christlichen Ehepaars in Unoam." Popular Wissenschafts Monatsbiaetter. 16 (1896).

Ruppin, Arthur. Der Juden die G eoenw art (Berlin, 1910). idem. The Jews in the Modem World. (London, 1934).

Salzburger, Georg. "Die judische-christliche Mischehe* Der Morgen. 5 (1929).

Samter, Nathan. "Was tun?" (Breslau, 1900).

Idem., "Judentaufen im neunzehnten Jahrhunderf Ost und West. 1, (1901). idem., Judentaufen im 19 Jahrhundert mit besonderer Beruecksichtiaung Prsussens. (Berlin, 1906).

Schach,Fabius. Ueber die Zukunft Israels. (Berlin, 1904).

"Shlomei Emunei Israel- Treue Glauebiger in Israel." Orthodox Declaration of 77 Rabbis versus Braunschweig. National and University Libraries, Jerusalem, Israel.

Stein, "Rundschau-Beriin 21 July." Israelitische Voiksiehrer. 10. (1860).

Stem, Albert Ueber eheoeoestzliche Zeitfraaen. (Pest, 1872).

Stem, Jacob, (pseud. Rauchmann, Leo). Relioioese Scheidewaende. (Zurich, 1881).

Idem, (pseud. Rauchmann, Leo). Die Mischehe. (Zurich, 1881).

Stem, Jacob. (Rubens, William) Der alte und der neue Glaube im Judenthum. (Zurich, 1878).

Stona, Maria. Rahel. Roman Eine Mischehe. (Dresden, 1909).

Suesskind, "Die Ehe zwischen Juden und Christen" Die Stelluno der Civil-Eher zu Staat und Kirche. (Ludwigsburg, 1849).

Theilhaber, Felix. Der Unteroano der Deutschen Juden. (Berlin: 1911,1921).

Idem. Die Schaediouna der Rasse. (Berlin, 1914).

Weissler, Arthur. "Die Erioesung des Judenthums." Preussischer Jahrbuecher. 100-101 (1900).

Zollschan, lanatz. Das Rassenoroblem. (Berlin, 1911). idem. Jewish Questions: Three Lectures. (New York, 1914). 249

SECONDARY SOURCES

Abrahams. Alan. Special Treatment Secaucus, NJ, 1984.

Arendt, Hannah. Rahel Varhaoen. New York, 1971. idem. Origins of Totalitarianism. New York, 1964.

Idem. The Jew As Pariah: Jewish Identity and Politics in the Modem Age. New York, 1978.

Bacharach, Walter Zwi. Racism. From Monism to the Nazis (Hebrew). Jerusalem, 1985.

Bering, Dietz. Der Name als Stigma. Klett-Cotta, 1987.

Bein, Alex. "Arthur Ruppin: The Man and His Work." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 17 (1972).

Idem. Die Judenfrage. Stuttgart, 1980.

Biale, David. "Masochism and Philosemitism: The Strange Case of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch." Journal of Contemporary History. 17:2 (1982).

Bleich Judith. "The Emergence of the Orthodox Jewish Press in Germany." Jewish Social Studies. 42:3-4, (1980).

Boehlich, Walter. Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit. Frankfurt a.M., 1965.

Bristow, Edward. Prostitution and Preiudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery. Oxford, 1982.

Cecil, Lamar. Albert Ballin. Business and Politics in Imperial Germany. 1888-1918. Princeton, 1967.

Cohen, Carl. The Road to Conversion." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 6 (1961).

Cohen, Gershon. "German Jewry as a Mirror of Modernity." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 20 (1975).

Davis, Moshe. "Mixed Marriage in Westem Jewry: Historical Background to the Jewish Response." Jewish Social Studies. 31 (1969).

Edelheim-Muhsam, Margaret The Jewish Press in Germany." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 1 (1956).

Elbogen, Ismar. A Century of Jewish Life. Philadelphia, 1966.

Endelman, Todd. "Conversion a s a Response to Antisemitism." Living With Antisemitism. Ed. Yehuda Reinbarz. Hanover, NH., 1987.

Idem. Jewish Apostasy in the Modem World. New York, 1987. 250

Ellenson, David. The Development of Orthodox Attitudes to Conversion in the Modem Period.* Conservative Judaism f36:4l 1983.

Idem. The Orthodox Rabbinate and Apostacy in Nineteenth-Century Germany and Hungary.* Ed. Todd Endelman, Jevrish Apostacv in the Modem World. New York, 1987.

Gilman, Sander. Jewish Self-Hatred. Ithaca, 1988.

Goldscheider, Calvin and Zuckerman, Alan. The Transformation of the Jews. Chicago, 1985.

Goodblatt, Morris. *Converting Because of Marriage Motives* Conservative Judaism. 28:3 (1974).

Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte des Juden vom Beainn der mendelssohn’schen Zeit (17501 bis in die neusteZeit (18481. Leipzig, 1870.

Idem. "Correspondance of An English Lady on Judaism and Semitism.* Ed. Ismar Schorsch, The Structure of Historv and Other Essavs. Philadelphia, 1975.

Graetz, Michael. "Moses Hess' Retum to Jewish Nationalism." Binah. New York, 1985.

Hertz, Deborah. "Intermarriage in the Berlin Salons" Central European Historv (16) 1983

Idem. Jewish High Society in Ancien Regime Berlin. New Haven, 1987.

Peter Honigmann, Austritte aus dem Juedische Gemeinde Berlin. 1873-1941. Frankfurt a.M., 1988.

Idem. "Secession as a Measure of Assimilation," Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 34 (1989).

Kann, Robert A. "Assimilation and Antisemitism in German-French Orbit in the 19th and Early 20th Century." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 14 (1969).

Kaplan, Marion. Tradition and Transition: The Acculturation, Asssimilation, and Integration of Jews in imperial Germany: A Gender Analysis," Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 27 (1982).

Idem. "For Love or Money," Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 28 (1983).

Idem. "Priestess and Hausfrau: Women and Tradition in the Germna-Jewish Family." Eds. David Kramer and Paula Hyman. The Jewish Family: Mvths and Reality. New York, 1986.

Katz, Jacob. Jews and Freemasons in Modem Europe. Cambridge, MA., 1970.

Idem. Tradition and Crisis. Glencoe, NY., 1961.

Katzburg, Nathaniel. Antisemitism in Hungary. 1367-1914. (Hebrew) Tel-Aviv, 1969.

Kedar, Benjamin. "Continuity and Change in Jewish Conversion to Christianity in 18th Century Germany" (Hebrew) Studies in the Historv of Jewish Society. Presented to Professor Jacob l&tz. Jerusalem, 1980. 251

Kisch, Guido. Judentaufen: Ein historisch-biooraphisch-psvcholoaiosch-soziaiische Studie. Berlin, 1971,1973.

Knodel, John. The Decline of Fertility in Germany. 1871-1939. Princeton, 1974.

Lamberti, Marjorie. Jewish Activism in Imperial Germany. New Haven, 1978.

Idem. T he Jewish Struggle for the Legal Equality of Religions in Imperial Germany," Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 23 (1978).

Landsberger, Arthur (ed.) Judentaufen. Munich, 1912.

Lea, Charlene A. Emancipation. Assimilation and Stereotvooe. Bonn, 1978.

Lestchinsky, Jacob. "Apostasy in Different Lands" (Hebrew) Ha-Olam. 5 (1911).

Liberies, Robert Religious Conflict in a Social Context. Westport, CT., 1985.

Liptzin, Solomon. Germany’s Stepchildren. Philadelphia, 1944.

Lowenstein, Steven M. T he Pace of Modernization of German Jewry." LBIYB. 21 (1976).

Menes, A . T he Conversion Movement in Prussia During the First Half of the 19th Century," YIVO Annual of Social Sciences. 6 (1951).

Mevorach, Baruch. "Effects of the Damascus Affair Upon the Development of the Jewish Press," Zion. 23-24 (1959).

McCagg, William 0 . "Assimilation of the Jew s in Austria." Ed. Bela Vago. Jewish Assimilation in Modem Times. Boulder, CO., 1981.

Meyer, Michael. Response to Modernity. New York-Pxford, 1988.

Mosse, George. Towards the Final Solution. New York, 1978.

Idem. "Introduction," Houston S. Cliamberiain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1968.

Mosse, Werner. The German-Jewish Economic Elite. New York-Oxford, 1989.

Idem. "Jewish Marriage Choices." Studia Rosenthaliana. 39 (1985).

Patai, Raphael and Wing, Jennifer Patai. The Myth of the Jewish Race. New York, 1975.

Paucker, Arnold. Der juedische Abwehrkampf. Hamburg, 1968.

Petuchowski, Jakob J. "Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim," LBIYB. 22 (1977). Pulzer, Peter. "Why Was There a Jewish Question in Imperial Germany." LBIYB. 25 (1980).

Preston, David L Science. Society and the German Jews. 1871-1933. Unpublished dissertation. University of Illinois. Urbana, 1971.

Niewyck, Donald. The Jews of Weimar Germany. Baton Rouge, LA, 1980.

Ragins, Sanford. Jewish Responses to German. Antisemitism. Cincinnati, 1982.

Riff, Micfiael Anthony. "Assimilation and Conversion in Bohemia- Secession from the Jewish Community in Prague, 1868-1917* Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 26 (1981).

Reinharz, Jehuda. i^nd or Promised Land. .Ann Arbor, ML, 1975.

Rosenstock-Huessy, “Die juedischen Antisemitismus, oder die akademische Form der Judenfrage. Frankfurter Hefte. 6:1 (1951).

Rozenblitt, Marsha. The Jews of Vienna: Assimilation and Identitv. 1867-1914. Albany, 1983.

Schmeltz, Uziel. Die Demographische Entwicklung der Juden in Deutschland, von Mitte des neunzehnjahrhunderts bis 1933." Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts. 83 (1989).

Schmidt, Hans D. The Terms of Emacioation." Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 1,1956.1-56.

Scholem, Gershom. "On the Social Psychology of Jews in Germany, 1900-1933." Jews and Germans from 1860-1933: The Problematic Symbiosis. Ed. David Bronsen. Heidelberg, 1979.

Schorsch, Ismar. Jewish Reactions to German Antisemitism. New York, 1973.

Siiberner, Edmund. Johann Jacobv. Politiker und Mensch. Bon-Bad Godesburg, 1976.

Idem. Moses Hess: Geschichte seines Lebens. Leiden, 1966.

Idem. Sozialisten zur Judenfrage. Berlin, 1962.

Sperber, Jonathan. Popular Catholicism in Nineteenth Century Germany. Princeton, 1984.

Stem, Fritz. Gold and iron. New York, 1977.

Tal, Uriel. Christians and Jew s in the Second Reich. Ithaca, 1979.

Wiener, Max Juedische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzioation. Berlin, 1933.

Wilhelm, Kurt "Jewish Communities in the Post-Emancipation Period." LBIYB. 2 (1956).

Volkov, Shulamit "Juedische Assimilation und juedische Eigenart im deutschen Kaiserreich: Ein Versuch" Geschichte und Gesellschaft. 9 (1983). 253

Idem., The Dynamics of Dissimilation.' Eds. Jehuda Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg. The Jewish Response to German Culture. Hanover, NH, 1985.