The Woman in Reform Judaism 135

traditionalists when it was made by the early Reform movement.!3 In addition to these liturgical changes, the women's section in var­ious synagogues was expanded to accommodate their regular attendance as happened first in the Hamburg synagogue.

Four rabbinic scholars—Abraham Geiger (1810-1874), Sam­ uel Holdheim 1806-1860), Zacharias Frankel (1801-1875) and Leopold Loew (1811-1875)—concerned themselves with major practical problems and with a theoretical approach to women’s issues. Geiger wished to show that the changes in the liturgy that he suggested for marriage and divorce were part of a continuum. He demonstrated that women, despite all short-comings, were treated better in the biblical period than in the surrounding cul­ture and that their condition improved gradually later. The Tal­ mud and subsequent rabbinic literature continued this pattern, albeit with centuries in which there was scant progress. Geiger felt that one could justify changes in the matters of the agunah, halitzah, and divorce by pointing to major changes that had taken place in the past and that had been prompted by new social conditions in the surrounding society.'* While Geiger was rabbi of Wiesbaden (1837) he called on his colleagues to make the fol­

lowing changes in the status of women:

1. A declaration of death by the state would be sufficient to free an agunah. As soon as the state issued a divorce document, it was to be considered valid even though the husband might refuse to provide the traditional get or express willingness to do so only through extortive conditions. 3. Halitzah should be removed, abbrogated entirely, and in any case, be deemed unnecessary if the obligated brother could not be found or if his wife objected.

No

Although Geiger justified a new approach through his progres­sive reading of the Tradition, he realized that a strict interpreta­tion of the Tradition would not permit any of these changes." Samuel Holdheim considered all such changes as a radical break with the past and felt that they should be so acknowl­edged.'® Holdheim considered Geiger ’s approach dishonest; rev­olutionary changes should be proudly proclaimed.” Holdheim’s