s
not turned into an issue. It is true that Abraham Geiger objected vigorously to the traditional explanation that it merely indicated that the male thanked God for the obligations of assuming the commandments.” This specific change, however, did not lead to any thorough discussion, perhaps because it was one of many changes in the liturgy that were far more radical, such as dropping the musaf service, eliminating the repetition of the amidah, and rejecting virtually all piyutim. Jakob Petuchowsky’s masterful study of the liturgical innovations and the reaction they brought, does not mention any discussion of this berakhah.*® David Novak , who subsequently analyzed this berakhahand its meaning, indicated that there was little interest in this change among the traditionalists when it was made by the early Reform movement.” The expansion of the women's section in various synagogues and the elimination of barriers which had hidden women also was rarely discussed.
Responsa in the hands of a single decisive charismatic scholar could have provided a path toward change but the voices of democracy were too strong and the broad nature of the issues too overwhelming. Furthermore responsa were a rabbinic tool and did not appeal to the broader community even when written in German; they sought changes and were satisfied with less detailed explanations for them. Much of the Reform rabbinate was also more interested in rebuilding Judaism for the contemporary world than in the slow process of justifying innovations and discussing them in detail. Therefore the rabbinate chose a different path.
THE DEMOCRATIC APPROACH
Abraham Geiger was not only a theoretician , but a very practical leader. He proposed a a gathering of rabbis to deal with the problems of the community and the issues that faced his colleagues. The rabbinic colleagues as well as Geiger felt a need for collegiality in facing the numerous changes being made which needed common
Id ppt Cy
| a le. nll cn BE<odl,