text of the then current Austrian and Prussian laws. He disagreed with Frankel’s emphasis on the theological aspects of marriage and the minimization of its contractual obligations. Loew made it quite clear that every Jewish contract contained an ethical element and that this was not limited to marriages. The Jewish formula—harei at... indicated a contract in which Jewish religious obligations were emphasized through the phrase k’dat moshe veyisrael; this is in contrast to all other contracts. Loew also used the opportunity to object to the Hassidic practice of placing the burden of economic maintenance on the woman so that her husband could devote himself to studies. He considered this a misguided pilpul on the biblical phrase that she was to be his helpmate; of course it also placed the woman in a highly disadvantageous position.?! Loew opposed Holdheim’s radicalism;* he also sharply disagreed with the Ortho dox rabbinate of Hungary .” The essays present a historical overview of marriage, divorce, and associated issues; they show development and so place the role of the woman in a different light, but make no radical suggestions. The last segment of this essay was devoted to responsa; they, however, dealt exclusively with the nature of the rabbinic court, its make-up and its function and so provided an insight into the issues surrounding the modern rabbinate, with state regulations and the taxation of the necessary documents. Loew demonstrated that the ketubah (which he translated and annotated) was a fiction as far as the civil authorities were concerned and so neither taxable or enforceable in civil courts; this responsum was intended to eliminate a burdensome tax as was a responsum on halitzah. As there was no need to recognize halitzah civilly, this document was also not taxable. In a series of essays, Loew sought to raise the status of women through direct statements, responsa, and historic analysis.
These four approaches to women's issues and the subse
quent rabbinic meetings were part of the internal debate within Reform /Liberal Judaism. All agreed that changes were necessary, sought different bases for them, but disagreed on now far
reaching the changes should be.