Charles S. Liebman

Conservative Judaism has been characterized by some· of its leading exponents as a coalition rather than an ideologically cohesive movement. Other distinguished spokesmen for the group, however, insist that it was a specific school of thought, the so-called "Historical School," rather than institutional loyalty th.i1t pro­ vided the matrix for the emergence of Conservative Judaism. One of the most forceful expositions of this view is found in a new book by Professor Moshe Davis. Whether and to what extent historical evi­ dence supports Professor Davis' thesis is examined here by Professor Charles Liebman who teaches Po­ litical Science at Yeshiva University. Formerly an Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, he has written extensively on urban politics and is co-author of a forthcoming book on suburban political .patterns. He is presently engaged in the preparation of a study of orthodox Judaism in the United States.

ORTHODOXY IN NI-r\ETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA

Moshe Davis' new book, The that Judaism should make to the Emergence 0/ Conservative Juda­ American milieu. It attempts to dem­ ism, though reproducing much of the onstrate that with the foundation of material originally published by him the Jewish Theological Seminary the in an article on "Jewish Religious "Historical School" achieved its ulti­ Life and Institutions in America"l is mate institutional form as the con­ an interesting and informative vol­ servative movement. Though some ume. The author has brought many historians prefer the term "Conserv­ sources together in a highly readable ative Judaism," Davis maintains: . form and bis work will represent a Upon considered study of the sources good starting point for future schol­ and documents of the period, it ars. Yet it is far from being either a seems clear to me that between the definitive or an authoritative study. two possibilities, with the entire cen­ The book attempts to describe the tury in mind, the name "Historical emergence and development of the School" presents the more accurate description of the pre-twentieth-cen­ "Historical School," which differed tury "Conservative Movement." It both from Orthodoxy and Reform emphasizes the revolutionary char­ on the measure of accommodation acter of the idea which only eventu­ 132 Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America

ally became embodied in particular member of a reform congregation institutional forms, and includes such and a Zionist and it is readily ap­ differipg approaches as the tradition­ alism of Isaac '1l.eeser and Sabato parent from Davis' own material Morais, the development conception that one could have been either Re­ of Alexander' Kohut and the, prog­ form or Orthodox and a member ressivism of Benjamin Szold and of what he terms the Historical Marcus ]astrQw, all of whom identi­ School. fied themselves with this School and institutions. (p. IS) What Davis has done is to take the founders of the Jewish Theo­ The ma'jor criticism of Davis' logical Seminary together with their work is that his evidence for the ex­ earlier associates, call them the His­ istence of the Historical School as torical School: and then treat them an independent approach to Jewish as though there was no need to dem­ life in nineteenth century America onstrate that they represented a suf­ is inadequate. If he is to make his ficiently independent and cohesive point, he must indicate the major school of thought to justify dis­ lines of Reform, the major lines of tinguishing them from Orthodoxy Orthodoxy, and then show that and Reform. Lest there be any ques­ members of the Historical School tion that what Davis is doing repre­ shared significantly more with' one sents a real innovation, and that it another than they shared with Re­ has never been incontrovertibly ac­ form or Orthodoxy. Furthermore, he cepted that the precursors of the must demonstrate that the differences Jewish Theological Seminary rep­ between the Historical School and resented a school of thought, we Reform and Orthodoxy were differ­ need only cite Herbert Parzen, in ences of the same quality. In other his study of "The Early Develop­ words, if he posits some religious ment of Conservative Judaism" continuum with radical Reform at which appeared in Conservative Ju­ one end and Orthodoxy at the other, daism. Parzen notes that "the sketch we can only distinguish the Histori­ of the history of the old Seminary cal School from them if that move­ makes abundantly definite that it did ment can in fact be located along not embody a movement."2 Davis, the same continuum. But if, for ex­ whose entire theme lies in contra­ ample, the differences between Re­ diction to that of Parzen, is at the form and Orthodoxy were over the very least obligated to note wherein centrality of Halakhah in Jewish life, he is justified in beginning with as­ and the Historical School members sumptions contrary to the evidence shared with one another only a com­ of a fellow Conservative scholar. The mitment to raise the level of Jewish stress here is on the word "assump­ education, fight anti-semitism, and tion" because unless one accepts procure public adherence to Sab­ Davis' position a priori that there bath and kashrut, they cannot be was an Historical School, much of juxtaposed to Orthodoxy and Re­ the book, particularly the first half, form anymore than one might to­ is without meaning. As we will in­ day compare Zionism, Conserva­ dicate by example below, what Da­ tism, and. Reform. One can be it vis does is simply document the ac­

133 v,/,

TRADITION: A Journal 0/ Orthodox Thought

tivities of a number of members of has until recently turned aside ef­ his "Historical SchooL" He tells us forts to identify it with Conserva­ that Leeser, Szold, and Morais did tism as juxtaposed to Orthodoxy. If, something. But if there is no His­ by definition, one chooses to en~ torical School to begin with, then compass both the Seminary and the "... why are we concerned with what United Synagogue movement under Leeser, Szold, or Morais did. Maybe the label Conservatism, the relation- ')'. Reform and Orthodox leaders were ship between the two bodies repre­ doing exactly the same thing. sents more a marriage of convenien!=o . Before we proceed to a more de­ than a love affair. In fact, even Solo.. tailed examination of the evidence mon Schechter, at a much later pe­ for the existence of a Historical riod, entertained hope for a ~id­ School one point should be made. duch between the Seminary and the Even if Davis had,succeeded in jus­ new Orthodox immigrants,' from tifying his thesis that the "Historical Eastern Europe. The dowry was to School," i.e., the founders of the Jew­ be Eastern European acculturation. ish Theological Seminary, formed an but not surrender of religious con­ independent movement in nine­ Victions. Orthodoxy, wisely or un­ teenth century American Jewish life, wisely, refused to separate the halak­ the evidence is by no means con­ hically essential from the non-essen­ vincing that he is justified in calling tial. (This may only serve to prove them the precursors of the Conser­ that we need to be wary of change vative movement. As Marshall even within the framework of Ha­ Sklare in his brilliant study Conser­ lakhah.) Nevertheless, the founding vative Judaism 3 demonstrates, the of the Seminary in 1887 did not conservative synagogue movement necessarily lead to the emergence evolved as an effort on the part of of the Conservative movement. . the offspring of the more successful Now let us tum our attention to East European immigrant families some examples from Davis' text and less frequently the immigrants which in fact argue against the ex­ themselves to adopt East European istence of the Historical School in Orthodox worship to the prevailing the sense which has been suggested. social and cultural norms of middle 1) Davis distinguishes the members class urban America in the early of the Historical School by name 1900's. There was no ideological but there is almost nothing that can foundation for the changes intro­ be said about them as a group. They duced by the Conservatives. The had no central institutions, no regu­ Seminary, in fact, whose founders lar meetings, and until quite late, no originally contemplated calling it publication. Here, for example, is the Orthodox Jewish Seminary,. and an early instance of how Davis who organized the present Union of treats the Historical School. Orthodox Jewish Congregations as its original group of constituent In 1868. another such incident oc­ congregations, has traditionally re­ curred [The Governor of a State addressed a Thanksgiving Day proc­ sisted sanctioning many of the Con­ lamation only to Christians] and servative synagogue innovations and evoked a response from members of 1.::' 134 Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America

the Historical group ... The rabbis ample for all Israel "to behold clear­ of Philadelphia, among whom were ly the difference between the ways· Bettelheim, Jastrow,. and Morais, were greatly aroused, (p. 96). of truth and the footprints of false~ hood."3 leeser, by the way, is re­ Time and again Davis narrates ferred to by another Conservative incidents in American Jewish his­ writer as "a skillfUl and energetic tory, and then relates the reaction of propagandist and negotiator for tra­ the Rabbis of the "Historical ditional or Orthodox Judaism."o School." There is no evidence that The other prominent Orthodox anybody else acted differently. leader whom Davis mentions is Ab­ 2) In order to distinguish the His­ raham Rice. He characterizes Rice torical School from Orthodoxy we as an example of the "West Euro­ must know something about the Or.­ pean Orthodox which, even in the thodox movement. Davis tells us mid-century decades, refused to as­ practically nothing but he does, at sociate with the Historical School two, different points, mention the leadership" (p. 314). Rice died in names of two prominent leaders, 1862, 15 years before the founda­ Bernard Illowy, and Abraham Rice. tion of the Seminary. We know little To distinguish Illowy from the Or­ about him other than his tremen­ thodox elements of the Historical dous influence in Baltimore. But if. School seems without foundation. as Davis amply demonstrates, Lees­ Illowy was one of the initiators of er was unquestionably Orthodox in the Cleveland convention of 1855 theology, practice, and loyalty. and which sought to unite all Jews on a if Rice still refused to associate with statement of religious principles. him, then perhaps this refusal had Illowy was on very friendly terms nothing (0 do with Orthodoxy per with Isaac Mayer Wise, had cordial se. Perhaps as we shall suggest be­ relations with Kaufmann Kohler, low, differences between the Ortho­ and, until an occasion of public con­ dox in and outside the "Historical troversy, Illowy was even on intim­ School" were simply one of tactics. ate terms with David Einhorn, the And if non-association with the His­ leader,of American radical reform.• torical School characterizes Ortho­ IIlowy, with a Ph.D. from the Uni­ doxy, then how could IIlowy be­ versity of Budapest, was a fully ac­ come its spokesman? culturated Jew. Furthermore, his 3) Davis misuses the term "conser­ participation in Hungarian revolu­ vative" on occasion to imply an in­ tionary activity which forced him stitutional allegiance that is not war­ to flee to the United States indicates ranted. Thus, he states, "In June of that he did not retreat from the 1884, a reader wrote a letter to the world of secularism. Finally, Illowy American Hebrew proposing to or­ whom Davis calls a spokesman for ganize the forces of the Historical the "position of the infant Orthodox School; the editors replied that such movement in America" (p. 133) in organization would come about in turn characterized Leeser (whom due time ..." (p. 232). The letter, Davis embraces as the first leader in fact, called for the formation of of the Historical School) as an ex­ a union of "conservative" congrega­ TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought tions "for the preservation of Ju­ and 1890's meant different things daism against reform."; The ques­ to different people, IlIowy, in the tion is, what is meant by the term book cited above, characterizes Bal­ "conservative?" Davis translates the timore as a "very conservative" city term "conservative." wherever he when his referent is obviously Or­ finds it, as "Historical SchooL" He thodox. Davis himself brings a tells the reader at the outset that he lengthy quotation from Morais who is doing so and that is his right, uses the term "enlightened conser­ provided the term "conservative" al­ vatism" (p. 204). If conservatism ways means the same thing and is here did not mean Orthodoxy, it is always used in the same context. unlikely that Morais would have Davis has defined "Historical used the term "enlightened" when School" as a position juxtaposed to his referent was to the need for a Orthodoxy and Reform. But the European Rabbi distinguished for term "conservative" as used by profound learning and lofty char­ writers in the nineteenth century acter. Morais, whom Davis has did not mean that at all. In the ex­ elsewhere characterized as "the un­ ample cited above, one cannot be flagging champion of traditional sure what the reader or the Ameri­ Judaism:'9 and who served as first can Hebrew meant by the term head of the Seminary, was appar­ "conservative." Granted, that with­ ently fond of the term "conserva­ in a few years the American Hebrew tive" as a synonym for Orthodoxy. was using the term "conservative" In answering an attack on the Sem­ with definite non-Orthodox conno­ inary by a leading reformer, Richard tations, one is much less sure about Gottheil, he defends the Seminary the usage in 1884. The most telling as an Orthodox institution which bit of evidence, however, is against will win many converts to "intelli­ Davis. Two months after publica­ gent conservatism."lO tion of the letter, the American He­ 4) Davis' greatest problem is in his brew printed an extract from the effort to distinguish the theology of Jewish Chronicle which had in turn the Historical School from that of summarized and commented upon Orthodoxy on the right or Reform the previous letter and editorial. on the left. As Davis' own evidence The Jewish Chronicle extract. as amply demonstrates, the right wing printed in the American Hebrew. of the Historical School was Ortho­ clearly interprets the term "conser­ dox and the left wing Reform. More­ vative" to mean nothing more than over, the right wing never perceived opposition to Reform.s This was the its own position as being distinct traditional meaning of the term from that of Orthodoxy. Unfortu­ which, according to Parzen, was in­ nately the reader may be misled on vented by reform. Since their op­ this point. Davis quotes H. Periora ponents labeled them radical, they Mendes, a member of the ·"tradi· replied by dubbing their opponents tionalist" element of the Historical Conservative. There is, in addition, School, as saying, "religiously the abundance evidence that the term attitude of Historical Judaism is ex­ "conservative" even in the 1880's pressed in the creeds formulated by

136 Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America

Maimonides ..." (Davis, p. 286). seven were of the left wing and four The reader may interpret Mendes' "were primarily traditional without statement to mean that he was de­ any tint of change." Within a short fining a position for the Historic~l time, all seven of the left wing syna­ School which in this case came close gogues affiliated with the Reform to Orthodoxy. But that is not at all movement ceased supporting the the case. Mendes is using the term Seminary and the four traditional Historical Judaism as synonomous synagogues (two sephardic and two with Orthodoxy. * In fact, the only ashkenazic) joined the Orthodox distinction Mendes makes is be­ synagogue movement and also with­ tween "historical Judaism" and the drew from contact with. the Sem­ "Reform School." In other words, inary. This, of course, supports Par­ it is not, as Davis implies, that the zen's contention that the Seminary traditionalists of the Historical founders did not constitute a move­ School adopted a theological posi. ment. tion which was close to Orthodoxy. Most of Davis' own material, and Most of the "traditionalists" of the certainly outside sources, support Historical School were Orthodox. the proposition that the ideological­ I have not touched upon the rela­ ly most significant segment of the tionship of the Historical School to "Historical School" was Orthodox. Reform Judaism. I think that Davis' Davis, indeed, notes that "the active own material substantiates the sug­ heads of the early Seminary, Men­ gestion, made by Parzen in the des and Drachman, had always above cited articles, that many of the leaned toward Orthodoxy" (p. 313). early 'Conservatives or the left wing If so, what distinguished these Or­ of Davis' Historical School really th9dox Jews who supported the represented the right wing of Re­ Seminary from those Orthodox form. The· early history of Reform Jews who refused to support· it, and in the United States is the story of in what way does Davis justify de­ the clash between the Eastern r~di- . nying the appellation Orthodox to cal reformers under Einhorn and the former group. The problem the Western moderates under Wise. centers about the definition of Or­ Parzen implies that the left wing ot thodoxy. Let us accept the defini· the Seminary represented an Eastern tion of one of the more literate element of right wing Reform for spokesmen of the right wing Ye­ whom even the Western wing was shivah world, an opponent of cul­ too radical. Parzen notes that 12 tural synthesis and of cooperation congregations originally composed with the non-Orthodox. Rabbi Ber­ the Seminary Association which nard Weinberger maintains that un­ founded the Jewish Theological qualified JUdaism, or Orthodoxy, is Seminary. Of these, eleven had min­ the "unequivocal, unqualified, and isterial leadership. Of the eleven, unambiguous acceptance of the • See his article, "Orthodox or Historical Judaism," in Neely's History of the Parliament of Religions and Religious Congresses at the JVorld's Columbian Ex­ position, Chicago, I8911).

137 , "

TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

Halakhah as the binding factor in -thodox trends. But even Moses Jewish life," or elsewhere, "com­ Weinberger, from his provincial plete commitment to the Halak­ perspective recognized that some hah".l1 By this definition the Sem­ elements of what he found so tragic inary in its inception was certainly in the new world may simply be a Orthodox. But Davis has defined function of differences in ethnicity Orthodoxy, at least by implication, or background. He explains the vac­ somewhat differently. He has made illation of an Anglo-Jewish period­ it the narrow preserve of the early ical which appears to be generally East European immigrants under Orthodox :by saying, "the distin­ the influence of the Lithuanian Ye­ guished editor, who was raised in shivOf. The counterpart today would this country sees ~verything from be to make it the exclusive province a different perspective - and cannot of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, judge these things from the same a position even they have refused to point of view as those of us who take. He denies to Orthodoxy an were raised under the old education­ affirmation of emancipation and al system."13 secular enlightenment as positive Orthodoxy would have been forces, or the position that the eqtJal grateful to Davis for a little less status of Jews in democratic so­ zealousness on his part for our point cieties offers new opportunities for of vfew. We are not so provincial Jews and Judaism (pp. 18-19). He and narrow-minded that we are pre­ suggests that any efforts toward re­ pared to cast aside all Jews who hold form in Jewish religious life ipso doctorates, engage in secular activ­ facto places the reformer outside the ity, are concerned with the future Orthodox camp. This is a conviction of all American Judaism, and are that no doubt was prevalent among anxious to demonstrate the com­ certain East European segments patability of Halakhah and modem during one short period of Jewish life. Not all Orthodox Jews approve history. The danger of any change of these things. But no outsider has at all was perhaps best enunciated the right to tum a family quarrel by one such "Orthodox" spokesman into fratricide. in 1887. Moses Weinberger, in his A less tendentious writer, view­ history of the Jews of New York, ing the period between 1850 and argues that radical reform was an 1900 might outline the developments outgrowth of slight changes, "to within Orthodoxy in the following beautify Judaism from without"12 manner. Early Orthodox leaders, in matters on which there was no from Scphardic, Western and Cen­ halakhic prohibition. One can cer­ tral European backgrounds were tainly forgive such a reaction on the vigorously concerned with the part of an immigrant in a new world, growth of the Reform movement overwhelmed by the irreligiosity, which threatened to sweep all Jew­ crass materi~lism, and vulgar egali­ ish life before it. In an effort to stem tarianism of his brethren, and lack­ the tide of Reform the early leaders ing an understanding of the social of American Orthodoxy sought to and ideological basis of counter-Or­ develop a cogent statement of tra­

138 Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America ditional Jewish principles. Ortho­ velop a corps of both learned and doxy in Western Europe was acculturated poskim, Orthodoxy at faced with the identical problem. least had a constituency. For the No similar statement of principles first time, there was a significant had theretofore been necessary be­ pressure from the right on the Or­ cause traditional Judaism had never thodox founders of the Seminary. been challenged and hence had That institution, then in its first never before been forced to adopt a years of infancy, sought to tie itself position. The split in the Orthodox to this base. It failed because the camp was over whether one should . barriers of ethnicity, culture, lan­ join forces with those Jewish guage, and custom separating the leaders who were not committed new immigrants from the old to strict observance in their person­ American Orthodox were too great. al behavior but who nevertheless The Orthodox element within the were willing to subscribe to an offi­ Seminary was pulled, however, to cial statement of Orthodox princi­ the right. The Sephardic groups ples. This appears to be the only abandoned the Seminary; others adequate explanation for the posi­ tried to remain in both camps with­ tion of IIIowy and Leeser in the out seeing any inconsistency in their events surrounding the calling of position. Drachman, head of the the Cleveland conference of 1855. Seminary until Schechter's arrival, To those who sought unity on an appears to have been purged al­ anti-Reform platform there seemed though for what reason we do not to be no alternative. There was no know. His autobiography14 is not large base of Orthodox constituents clear on this point and a gratuitous on whom they could lean. By 1850, insertion by the editor is an outrage even members of the Sephardic con­ to fair scho!arship. gregations were inclined to change. There is a great deal we .would Although one element of Orthodoxy like to know about Orthodoxy in resisted the drive for unity, the re­ that period. Judaism will owe a debt mainder sought support for an anti­ to future scholars who will mine the Reform position wherever they early sources. It is reassuring to note could find it. Whether this was stra­ that doctoral candidates at Yeshiva tegically right or wrong we do not University are in fact turning their know. In many respects, the debate attention to this era. continues today and sound historical Leeser, Morais, Pereira Mendes scholarship may be helpful in illum­ must be reClaimed for Orthodoxy. inating what took place 100 years The socio-economic cultural basis ago. Orthodoxy, however, was se­ of the conservative movement was verely handicapped by the absence well described by Marshall Sklare. in this country of Torah scholars It would be a chilul haShem to and poskim. By the 1880's Ameri­ leave unchallenged the assertion that can Jewish life had changed radi­ Conservatism today has its origins cally. Although the scholars were in the wellsprings of traditional Jew­ not to come until much later and ish thought. (I think again it is we are only now beginning to de­ worth distinguishing the Seminary

139 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought from the Conservative movement). doxy a . tradition which differs in Nevertheless, in reclaiming the Or­ many respects from the Lithuanian thodox leaders of the "Historical tradition. The whole topic has ob- .~ School" we are holding a two-edged' vious contemporary connotations. sword. While we are under no ob­ It is time that historical scholarship)' ligation to favor their point of view, assumed its role on the agenda of we must recognize that we are sanc­ Orthodox life. \ tioning as legitimately within Ortho­ .....

NOTES

I. Moshe Dayis, "Jewish Religious Life and 'Institutions in America," in The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, ed., by Louis Finkelstein, Philadel­ phia, 1960, volume 1, pp. 488-587. 2. Conservative Judaism, yolume 3, July, 1949, page 17. 3. Marshall Sklare, Conservative Judaism: An American Religious Movement, Glencoe, 1955. 4. A description of the incident is found in Henry IIlowy's Sefer Milchamot E·[ohim, Berlin, 1914. 5. Ibid., page 100. 6. Conservative Judaism, op. cit., page 6. 7. American Hebrew, June 3, 1884, page 70. 8. Ibid., August 15, 1885, page 10. 9. Proceedings of the American Jewish Historical Society, volume 37, 1947, page 55. 10. American Hebrew, August 5, 1887. page 194. II. Bernard Weinberger, "The Synthesis Motif in American Orthodoxy," Per­ spective, I, Winter, 1959·60, page 42. 12. Moses Weinberger. Ha'yehudim Ve·hayahadut Be'New York, New York, 1887. 13. Ibid., page !l5. 14. Bernard Drachman. The Unfailing Light, New York, 1948.

140