compromise; for example, the recognition of civil marriage and divorce. In other areas the rabbinate was not successful in defending tradition. Such issues were frequently raised later throughout Europe in settings less elaborate and not as well documented as this large meeting. We find echoes of such struggles in every country of Europe . In the nineteenth century this became aggravated through other divisions which made it more difficult to draw sharp lines of distinction between the rabbi and the laity. The debate between Reform and Orthodox, among various secular groups and religious movements and between Zionists and anti-Zionists all too often clouded the issues of power as the struggles involved the rabbinate and laity on both sides.
We find some of these issues emerging more clearly, especially when the Prussian government debated the official position of the rabbi within the Jewish community regarding his right to vote or to veto on boards.” Such legislation was enacted in Prussian legislation and later in other German states. We also see the tendency to secede in order to retain rabbinic council as with Samson Raphael Hirsch . We find similar kinds of debate emerge with the development of the chief rabbinate in England. It was not only a debate between the rabbi and his dayyanim (judges) and, therefore, an argument over the direction which Orthodoxy should take, but also between the rabbinate and the powerful, wealthy lay figures as may be seen by looking through the issues of the London Jewish Chronicle over the decades.
In the United States we find matters very much affected by the new status of the community. When it began there was no rabbinic leadership whatsoever and so all power rested in the hands of the laity.” As rabbis, both traditional and Reform, arrived in the United States , they found that no organizations aside from small local congregations existed. These were led by individuals
92