rabbis who ascribed to neither of these. In 1863, Ultra-Orthodox Jews issued
an injunction against religious innovation. In some sense reminiscent of the
condemnation of the Hamburg temple in 1819, this statement went a step
further. In 1819, traditionalists had condemned changes in the liturgy, the
use of vernacular, and a cantor and choir. This statement condemned these
changes but also condemned anyone who even entered a synagogue that had
made any of these changes.
The conflict between Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, and Neolog
came to a head at the end of the 1860s when, following the emancipation of
Hungarian Jewry, Baron Joseph Eötvös, enamored with Napoleon’s consis-
tory system, asked each religious denomination in Hungary to form a synod
and to submit a list of statutes through which the government could
administer and regulate religious affairs. To this end, he instructed
Hungarian Jewry to convene a congress in 1869. Orthodox Jews, and espe-
cially the Ultra-Orthodox, seeing that 60 percent of Hungarian Jews were
Neolog and the statutes would reflect the views of a Neolog majority,
refused to participate. The statutes submitted by the congress to Eötvös,
therefore, were those of Neolog communities; thus, Neolog Judaism
became known as Congress Judaism.
In response, Orthodox Jews petitioned the baron to recognize Orthodox
Judaism as a separate religious denomination, which he did in 1869. Eötvös
then instructed every community to affiliate with either Orthodox or Neolog;
most did. However, there were a number of communities who did not feel com-
fortable with either Orthodox or Neolog. In 1870, they petitioned the baron to
exempt them from having to choose between Orthodox or Neolog, and instead
to allow them to continue to practice according to the pre-congress status quo.
The baron acceded, and these Jewish communities were recognized as Status
Quo communities. By 1870, then, there were three state-recognized Jewish
denominations in Hungary.
Seen together, the conflicts between Orthodox and progressive Jews
in Germany and Hungary underscored the complexities of religious life in
nineteenth-century central Europe. To be sure, secession and schism were
possible only insofar as the state allowed it; otherwise, Jews had to work out a
way to coexist. Even where there was a schism, moreover, it was never total
schism. Marriage between Orthodox and Neolog Jews, although it was often
regarded as scandalous, was not considered as marrying outside the faith.
More important, in smaller communities, Jews of various denominations
shared institutions such as the local cemetery. Nowhere other than central
Europe, moreover, did religious conflicts play out with such intensity prior to
the 1880s. Reform and Orthodoxy found little following in Russia or western
Europe, and even less in the Ottoman Empire.
The emancipation of Jews in Europe, whether by a legislative act or gradual
social evolution, was accompanied by larger processes of social transformation.
The age of enlightenment and emancipation, 1750–1880 163