some from yeshivotwhile others were university trained. This would influence their outlook on such specific issues as matters of status (marriage, divorce, halitzah) and liturgical innovations where confusion reigned and some agreement was necessary, though some were disappointed that a more theoretical approach was not taken.” Although the meeting was open to Orthodox rabbis, none attended as they understood the liberal agenda the organizers would press. Although women's issues arose often and were decided in a positive way, the underlying status of women was not discussed.
These meetings also provided a symbol of unity to the Jewish community— not a perfect by far, but at least a start. The Braunschweig Conference began its discussions with a review of the work of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin of 1807. The Conference looked at some of the implications but mainly froma practical point of view. There was no discussion of the underlying premises: no one asked about the validity of a Sanhedrin or Assembly called by a non-Jewish ruler to radically change the Jewish community. As the rabbis that gathered in Braunschweig did not have Napoleon looking over their shoulders and were dealing with a fait accompli, they faced the issues it raised but also continued one element of the Sanhedrin by emphasizing their patriotism. When they reviewed the response of the Sanhedrin on intermarriage, they let it stand with a proviso that the children be raised as Jews when permitted by the government, a permission granted by none in the 1840s. Nor was it yet an issue in their communities. The halakhic issues that the Sanhedrin had avoided were not raised nor were philosophical questions We should note that the Sanhedrin was never discussed in the later Reform rabbinic meetings in Europe or North America .
THE PLACE OF TRADITION
These new open democratic procedures were welcome and accepted. They soon led to a major question: should decisions be
| eretias wlE e-0 Ce——
QQ)= ny ew my