oo BB=

The Case of Feminism— Mechanisms of Change 55

course, recognized that fluency in Hebrew among their congregants had become limited. This step also represented an effort to influence the broader community as widely as possible, which was clearly stated in the introduction of the published proceedings.

The Brauschweig Conference and its successors were democratic institutions with votes determining decisions; halakhic debate had its influence but was not the determining factor. Rabbinic authorities had no veto powers. In other words the democratic institution of the outside world had been adopted to guide the path toward change within Judaism . This seta pattern for the entire Jewish world; even within the Orthodox community democracy within limits would reign in the future.

Abraham Geiger and those who presided understood the limitations of democratic procedures. The proceedings could easily grind to a halt and block any decision. They therefore frequently used the tools that had been worked out in the broader society— referral to committee, postponement, and parliamentary procedures. Geigerand others also realized that halahkic and philosophical discussions among rabbis who needed to express their personal opinions would be divisive and would hinder conclusions on the practical issues that faced the conference, so they agreed from the outset to avoid or Curtail such discussions.*

The innovation, therefore, lay in the conference itself and the Manner in which it was conducted. Views at both ends of the Spectrum- radical and conservative- would influence the practical decisions, but would be kept within bounds. This meant that individuals such as the more conservative Zacharias Frankel , generally considered the father of Conservative Judaism ,(1801-1875) could not destroy a meeting, but would simply leave and express their views Outside its meetings. ** The new system worked, although these rabbis 'epresented divergent backgrounds and came with different education,