Bogen
Member
cantoresq,
Thanks for all that. Were the Neolog’s religious practices closer to today’s Orthodoxy or Conservative/Mosarati? And are there any meaningful practicing Neolog communities left? (BTW, the “status quo” practiced Judaism like the Orthodox [i.e. it was just a political division]? And what has become of them?) What caused the rift in 1868?
Where can I get Weinberger’s writing?
Posted 10 hours ago #
_______________________________________________________________________________________
In theory, Neolog practice was akin to Orthodoxy with some very important exceptions. They had organs and mixed choirs in many of theior schuls. Although if little consequence today, that they moved the almemar from the center of the schul to the front, wore canonicals and had a sermon in the verncular, were considered serious Halachik breaches when they were institutued. In practice though, I assume there were more non-observant Jews among the ranks of the neolog than among the Orthodoxy. Although, my aunt (by marriage) had a grandfather who was Rosh Hakahal in a neolog schul in Nagyvarod, who had a big beard, closed his business on shabbat, davened “tallis iber’n kop” and went a daily to a two hour shiur. Conversly the Rosh Hakahal in Kisvarda, a big Orthodox kehilla, was known to step foot in the schul exactly four days a year; Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and when he had yahrzeit for his father. Another example, I have a photo copy of a techines buch published by the Neolog community of Budapest. I doubt the most chassidic women today would be familiar with some of its contents. But I doubt any Neolog women ever used it and it was probably published to show the Orthodox that Neology is also Jewish. The division between the status quo and the Orthodox was purely political, although the Maharam Schick did make it a religious issue. As I said before the status quo did not want to be under the thumb of rabbinic hegemony, and they had not objection to the establishment of a seminary with the proceeds of the tax plaaced on the Jews after the 1848 revolt which was converted into an eductional fund. One might call them “Modern Orthodox” in some limited sense. They did adopt certain “reforms” in their schuls. their chazzanim wore robes, their rabbis spoke the vernacular, they did away with most of the piyuttim (although R. Hildesheimer always said all of them), had choirs and did away with the weekly auction of kibbudim. They also studied secular studies. I believe that had R. Esriel Hildesheimer not been chased out of Hungary by the “Zaddik of Kolomea,” R. Hillel Lichtenstein, and his coterie, either there would have been no status quo movement, or he from his yeshiva in Eisenstadt, would have been its spiritual leader. I’m sure an Amazon search will produce results for R. Weinberger’s writings. Or you can contact the Sehper Hermon Press, the publisher of the volume.