of traditional Judaism needed to be retained even if they were neither ratio-
nal nor out of sync with the Zeitgeist, but simply because they were
“positive forms of Judaism deeply rooted within its innermost form.” Thus,
he defended the use of Hebrew as the language of prayer. In addition, he
advocated preserving other core observances such as the dietary laws simply
in the name of historical continuity and longevity.
Though they presided over separate movements, Frankel and Geiger
shared the challenge of defining the essentials of Judaism, and used the schol-
arship of the Wissenschaft to address this challenge. Both replaced the
traditional means of addressing this question – that Jewish law required it –
with a novel one: for Geiger, the Zeitgeist; for Frankel, historical continuity.
These parallels notwithstanding, though, Frankel’s approach to Judaism was
more fluid and inclusive, evidenced by the fact that the rabbinical seminary
he founded in Breslau during the 1870s – the first of its kind in Europe out-
side of Italy – attracted students with a broad array of religious outlooks and
levels of religious observance.
In this sense, Frankel was a hybrid between the German and the non-
German variety of religious reform. “Non-German reform” refers to the
character of religious innovation that appeared predominantly in Vienna,
Prague, Hungary, and the Italian states. The principal difference between
German and non-German reform stems from the fact that Jews in the
Habsburg Monarchy and Italy were never as self-conscious as German Jews
about proving themselves worthy of emancipation. Jews in the Habsburg
Monarchy, though benefiting from the reforms of Joseph II, were never disen-
franchised. Italian Jews, while disenfranchised following the defeat of
Napoleon, were already deeply acculturated and immersed in mainstream
Italian society, thus far less concerned over social acceptance than German
Jews. In this sense, Italian Jews were more like the Jews of Bordeaux,
England, or the Netherlands than like German Jews. Frankel, born in Prague
and educated in Pest, wove elements of this approach to religious innovation
into Positive-Historical Judaism.
Non-German reform initiatives were less impelled by an overriding con-
cern lest some aspect of Judaism preclude emancipation. This lesser concern
was manifest in several ways. In Vienna, the progressive synagogue adopted
the decorum of a Reform temple, but none of the ideological or liturgical
changes advocated by German reformers. In Prague, Solomon Judah
Rapoport, while insistent that some innovation was necessary, rejected the
abrupt and urgent pace advocated by Reform Judaism: “Were there some
matter among our customs or laws that stood in need of reform or renewal, it
would be renewed or reform with the passing of time.... In the meantime,
that which remains unchanged will continue to be firmly established.”
Similarly, religious reformers in Hungary, while acknowledging the
Zeitgeist and historical development as important factors, maintained that all
innovations must be justifiable within the corpus of Halacha (Jewish law) – a
158 The age of enlightenment and emancipation, 1750–1880