eyes of the three commissioners assigned to them. Napoleon seems to have been kept current on the discussions. The historian Heinrich Graetz wrote that the decisions were largely made by this committee. What Napoleon sought was understood by everyone. There was considerable debate in the Assembly as reported in the proceedings, but the published form remains vague. Some wished to give the rabbis a greater voice in the theological matters, but that was rej ected.'®
The responses provided the answers that Napoleon sought and attempted not to be destructive to essential Jewish matters. The new understanding of rabbinic authority changed the nature of Jewish life. Jurisdiction over most areas of the halakhah was surrendered as were enforcing powers. This was the price for civil rights and the members of the Assembly and the later Sanhedrin were willing to pay it. The Sanhedrin, that had been specifically instructed to deal only with the matters presented and nothing else, ratified the responses in a few sessions and so placed them into an official Jewish context.
The Sanhedrin was in session for a single month(February 9 to Match 9, 1807) and then virtually forgotten by Napoleon and by his government. Some delegates arrived very belatedly; that mattered little as there were no discussions. Comments on the decisions were to be presented in writing to the Commissioners, and every detail had been worked out to preclude debates. The only matter that moved forward was the organization of the French Jewish community, signed into law in March 1808. Napoleon may have felt that this system if also installed outside France would give him control of Jewish communities throughout Europe .'” A third decree, issued at the same time, illustrated Napoleon ’s feelings about Jews , as it limited Jewish commerce and free movement for a period of ten years. Only following vigorous protest were most departments of France exempt from these restrictions by 1811.