nD MO OU

wn

d e

The Case of Feminism— Mechanisms of Change 57

based only on contemporary considerations even when it meant a major break with the past, or should the Tradition and halakhah play a dominant role. The two ends of the spectrum were represented in these conferences by Samuel Holdheim (1806-1860) and Samuel Adler (1809-1891) who became rabbi at Temple Emanu-El , New York in 1857). Adler 's position was close to Geiger’s view of the historical development of Judaism , but Adler also felt that innovations should be anchored in the halakhic tradition. A major debate on this issue at the meeting was avoided, although it could have occurred a number of times. It threatened to break out over feminism and the status of women in Judaism . The confrontation did notoccur; the views of Samuel Adler , however, were published as an appendix in the volume of proceedings of the conference. There, Adler presented a lengthy Hebrew essay defending the changes in the Status and role of women by citing halakhic precedents, although often interpreted differently from the Tradition. Holdheim initially responded briefly but then in a lengthy German pamphlet. Both these reform leaders favored complete equality for women and were thinking far beyond the liturgical changes and those in the matrimonial law contemplated at the sessions, but they disagreed on the theoretical basis for such changes.’

In this exchange we can see a different approach to the halakhic material, not through an authoritative and binding responsum, but through persuasive essays. The old power of imposing an answer and enforcing it had disappeared. Now those that deliberated innovation had to be persuaded that the halakhah had bearing on the Matter under discussion and that it should be heard and accepted. The New approach included looking at the halakhic material within the historical and sociological conditions of its time, raising divergent views rejected long ago, or totally reinterpreting the halakhah. Each