WITHOUT MILAH AND TEVILAH

modern Rabbinical Conferences from the Braunschweig Conference of 1844 onward. This was stated as part of the constitution the C.C.AA.R. adopted in Cleveland at its first Conference in 1890. Nevertheless, the Conference never committed itself to these earlier decisions; it only ordered them printed in the Yearbook.

Milat gerim was on the agenda of the second convention of the C.C.A.R. Two papers were read and the Conference also received all the materials Henry Berkowitz , then rabbi in Kansas City , had gathered in answer to a letter he had addressed to American rabbis in 1890 which inquired about the necessity of circumcision. Almost all the responses favored the abolition of circumcision, although a number of them cautioned waiting for the right moment. Others felt that it could only be when the rabbis acted in concert. Bernhard Felsenthal again showed an attitude that anticipated pluralism. He repeated his previously published favorable opinion, but continued with a long angry discussion on rabbinic authority, the burden of which stated that rabbis could not speak in the name of the Jewish community. The strongest opponent of the abolition was Moses Mielziner . The tone of these responses made it clear that the writers expected that a day would come when it was no longer required.

The two papers read at the Conference differed on the issue. Aaron Hahn was in favor and Isaac Schwab was opposed. Both of them seemed to have organized their papers by using the material put together in the Felsenthal study.

The question came before the third convention in 1892. L M. Wise, as chairman of committee on the Initiatory Rites of

Proselytes, gave his report. In it he reviewed the material from the previous year and then presented a study to prove that milah and tevilah had no basis in Tanakh and Mishnah , and that the Tanaim had a difference of opinion over what was required of gerim. In any case, because of this indecision, the rites are only custom and not

111