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.