1. A discussion of the many variations involved in this modernization process can be found in Endelman, Todd M., The Jews of Georgian England 1714–1830: Tradition and Change in a Liberal Society(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979), pp. 4–8.Google Scholar

2. Reform Judaism on the Continent was not confined exclusively to the upper classes. It contained sizable elements of the middle classes as well. Meyer, Michael A., “Hakamoto shel ha-Hekal be-Hamburg,” in Perakim be-Toledot ha-Hebrah ha-Yehudit, ed. E. Atkes and Y. Shulman (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980), pp. 218–224Google Scholar, makes the point that most of the founders of the Hamburg Temple were either middle class or upper middle class. It is certain, however, that by the end of the century the majority of Orthodoxy's following was found among the poorer rural Jews of Germany. Most historians argue that an important cause in the spread of Reform was a desire to prove that the Jews were worthy of emancipation. For example, see Morleysachar, Howard, The Course of Modern Jewish History(New York: Dell, 1958), pp. 148–149Google Scholar. Meyer, Michael A., German Political Pressure and Jewish Religious Response in the Nineteenth Century(New York: Leo Baeck Institute, 1981), pp. 11–14, argues that Jewish leaders in the struggle for emancipation repeatedly and publicly declared their unwillingness to change religious beliefs or rituals in order to secure political rights. These pronouncements may have been made in order to preserve Jewish self-respect, but Meyer brings no proof that such unexpressed desires did not play a role in the spread of Reform during this period.Google Scholar

3. Wolf, Lucien, “The Queen's Jewry,” in Essays in Jewish History, ed. Cecil Roth (London: Jewish Historical Society of England, 1934), p. 318.Google Scholar

4. Davidlipman, Vivian, “The Age of Emancipation,” in Three Centuries of Anglo-Jewish History, ed. Vivian David Lipman (Cambridge: Jewish Historical Society of England, 1961), pp. 82–84.Google Scholar

5. For example, Philipson, David, The Reform Movement in Judaism(New York: Macmillan, 1931), p. 92, is completely unaware of any differences between the pressure for religious change in Germany and England, stating that “the influence of the movement for reform in Germany... was of moment in the agitation for religious reform in England.” Israel Finestein, A Short History of Anglo-Jewry(London: Lincolns-Prager, 1957), p. 99, similarly notes that “it was inevitable that Anglo-Jewry should feel the impact of the changes which followed the life's work of Moses Mendelssohn,” and that Reform Judaism “appeared to some, not only in Germany, to be natural and proper advances in an enlightened age.”Google Scholar

6. There definitely was a socioeconomic cleavage along religious lines in contemporary German Jewry, with the upper class favoring Reform and the less wealthy backing Orthodoxy. However, Orthodoxy survived among all classes in Germany to a much greater extent than is usually realized. See Toury, Jacob, “Deutsche Juden im Vormärz,” Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts 8 (1965): 65–82Google Scholar, and Lowenstein, Steven M., “The Pace of Modernisation of German Jewry,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 21(1976):41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nineteenth-century France certainly provides somewhat of an exception to the pattern usually depicted for all the Western communities. Although the wealthy there were generally nonobservant and in favor of ritual change, to an extent much greater than in England, they still did not consider themselves Reform Jews or formally break their links with Orthodox Judaism. See Cohenalbert, Phyllis, The Modernization of French Jewry(Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1977), pp. 50–54Google Scholar. There has been little research done on actual religious practice in the United States during these years, but here, too, the great majority of the community seems to have been nominally Orthodox, at least until 1870. See Jick, Leon A., The Americanization of the Synagogue, 1820–1870(Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1976), pp. 174–194. Of course England differed from other Western communities in the depth to which traditionalism survived there, but the sweeping pattern of Reform coming to control the Western world by the middle of the nineteenth century does not seem to be incontestably true.Google Scholar

7. For example, John Mills, in his contemporary survey of the community and its religious life, noted that there were numerous Jews “to whom... many of the facts recorded in the following pages are as strange as to the Christian reader.” Mills, John, The British Jews(London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1853), p. vi. A magazine article similarly observed that most Jewish youth were “equally free from the superstitions of their own sect and disinclined to take upon their necks the yoke of any other,” while a contemporary novel described a wealthy Jew, undoubtedly typical of many, who, “solicitous to see his people relieved from the pressure of civil disabilities,” had educated his son “in a large school, where all religious differences were smoothed down.” See “The Jews of Western Europe,” Westminster Review, April 1863, p. 246, and Charlotte Elizabeth Mrs. Tonna, Judah's Lion(New York: M. W. Dodd, 1843), pp. 5–6, respectively. The best indication that this group was substantial is provided by Jewish Chronicle, 1 June 1855, which claimed that there were 3,692 Orthodox synagogue seats in London at a time that the Jewish community numbered between 20,000 and 25,000. While this figure is definitely too low, since it ignores the many hevrot, as well as the poor who could not afford synagogue seats, it is still indicative of this situation.Google Scholar

8. The trend toward the Anglicization of these relatively minor parts of the community's religious life is discussed in Finestein, Israel, “Anglo-Jewish Opinion During the Struggle for Emancipation,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 20 (1964): 124Google Scholar, and Davidlipman, Vivian, “The Anglo-Jewish Community in Victorian Society,” in Folklore Research Center Studies, vol. 5, ed. Dov Noy and Issachar Ben Ami (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), p. 158. It is quite significant that there is relatively little mention in the records of the period of opposition by traditionalists toward these developments. Some members of this faction, especially the recent immigrants, were uncomfortable with this trend and did show their unhappiness by leaving the large “English” synagogues for the newly emerbing hevrotduring this period. However, many traditionalists, perhaps even the majority of the faction, remained in the congregations exhibiting such minor signs of Anglicization, which, it seems, they were able to accept with equanimity. This was particularly true of the native-born or -bred upper-class members of this group.Google Scholar

9. Both Finestein and Lipman in their surveys of this period describe the community's growing disloyalty to tradition without noting that, at least on the part of the progressives, there was an original ideological basis for this departure from Orthodoxy. Indeed, they seem to be unaware of the existence of such an ideological group within the community. See Finestein, Short History, pp. 126–128, and Davidlipman, Vivian, Social History of the Jews in England 1850–1950(London: Watts, 1954), pp. 34–40. The ideas of German Reform are the only intellectual influences on the early Victorian community which are noted by these historians. For example, see Finestein, Short History, p. 99, and Lipman, “Age of Emancipation,” pp. 82–84.Google Scholar

10. Jewish Chronicle, 17 October 1845. A summary of the Frankfurt conference is given in Philipson, Reform Movement, pp. 163–183. A detailed description of how the Chroniclewas consistently in the forefront of those attacking the traditionalists during these years can be found in The Jewish Chronicle 1841–1941(London: Jewish Chronicle, 1949), pp. 31–34.

11. Jewish Chronicle, 29 June 1855.

12. Hebrew Observer, 4 March 1853. Breslau was here reviewing a book of sermons by the radical Reform leader Samuel Holdheim. Again in 1857 the Chroniclereported critically on the growth of Reform Judaism in Berlin and how, as a result, “many of the rising generation manifest but too much proneness to sink the Jew in the citizen.” Jewish Chronicle, 30 January 1857.

13. A study of her life and work can be found in Abrahams, Beth-Zion L., “Grace Aguilar,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 16(1952): 137–148.Google Scholar

14. The fact that Aguilar forwarded a copy of her book The Jewish Faithto Chief Rabbi Adler for review is a clear indication of her at least nominal loyalty to Orthodoxy. A notation of a letter from Adler to Aguilar, dated 22 November 1846, in which the chief rabbi returned her book “with thanks,” is listed in Index, vol. 84, Records of the Office of the Chief Rabbi. However, nothing more than this is recorded about the contents of the letter. Acceptance of her views by the progressives is indicated in Picciotto, James, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History, 2d ed., edited by Israel Finestein (London: Soncino Press, 1956), p. 355, where the author, a definite progressive, noted that Aguilar in her works “displays signs of no mean acquaintance with Jewish and Christian philosophers and divines.”Google Scholar

15. Aguilar, Grace, The Spirit of Judaism, ed. Leeser, Isaac (Philadelphia: C. Sherman, 1842), p. 228. This work was edited by Leeser, a traditional Orthodox Jew, who often took issue with Aguilar's views in his footnotes to the text.Google Scholar

16. IbidIbidp. 51. Her concept of the Bible is clear from her statement that “the Bible must not be considered, as it unfortunately too often is, synonymous with the Pentateuch. The same Almighty... who inspired Moses to write those five books, inspired other holy men.... One part is quite as holy and quite as binding as the other.” Aguilar, Grace, The Jewish Faith(Philadelphia: L. Johnson, 1864), p. 66. This was again a departure from traditional Orthodoxy, which, in contrast to Christianity and Karaism, always accepted the greater authority of the Pentateuch.Google Scholar

17. Aguilar, Spirit of Judaism, p. 103. She obviously was referring to the traditionalists when she criticized those in the community who were “well versed in traditional lore, but wholly ignorant of the spirit of the Bible.” Ibid, p. 101.

18. Aguilar, Grace, The Women of Israel, 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1854), 2:285.Google Scholar

19. Aguilar, Spirit of Judaism, p. 31.

20. Aguilar, Women of Israel, 2:262. Aguilar's tendency toward neo-Karaism was noted by a contemporary who wrote that she had “bent the combined energies of a life of love and hope towards disassociating the synagogue from tradition, and leading it back to the Old Testament.” “Grace Aguilar and Modern Judaism,” Eclectic Review, February 1858, p. 139.

21. Aguilar, Jewish Faith, p. 441.

22. Angel, Moses, The Law of Sinai(London: William Tegg, 1858), p. 311. A biography of Angel can be found in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Angel, Moses.”Google Scholar

23. Ibid, p. 306.

24. The Appeal of the Congregation of the West London Synagogue of British Jews to Their Brother Israelites Throughout the United Kingdom(London: J. Wertheimer, 1846), p. 4.

25. Jewish Chronicle.3 July 1857.

26. Meritor, Nathan [pseud.], The Hasty Marriage(London: Mann Nephews, 1857), p. 9.Google Scholar

27. Ibid, pp. 29–30.

28. Jewish Chronicle, 4 July 1856. Adler probably picked this congregation for such a warning just because of its pronounced progressive leanings. It was probably the place in London that, in his view, most required such a sermon.

29. Marcusadler, Nathan, Solomon's Judgement: A Picture of Israel(London: J. Wertheimer, 1854), p. 9.Google Scholar

30. Miriam Mendes Belisario, Sabbath Evenings at Home(London: S. Joel, 1856), p. 136.

31. Aguilar, Spirit of Judaism, p. 237. In another work she similarly praised a child who refused nonkosher food as having “upheld the sanctity of her religious ordinances.” Aguilar, Women of Israel, 2:64.

32. Aguilar, Spirit of Judaism, p. 216.

33. Ibid, p. 228.

34. Angel, Law of Sinai, p. 308.

35. Philipson, Reform Movement, p. 92, claims that English Reform was a direct result of the German movement, as do Finestein, Short History, p. 99, and Lipman, “Age of Emancipation,” pp. 82–84. Two recent historians are, however, aware that there was a difference between the English movement and its German namesake. See Petuchowski, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe(New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1968), p. 66Google Scholar, and Liberles, Robert, “The Origins of the Jewish Reform Movement in England,” AJS Review 1 (1976): 135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, neither of these two writers sufficiently emphasizes the huge gulf which separated the two movements. It should be noted that in the contemporary Manchester community, ideas imported from Germany did play a major role in the development of a Reform congregation. See Williams, Bill, The Making of Manchester Jewry, 1740–1875(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), pp. 259–260. The Manchester congregation was dominated by recently arrived German immigrants, unlike the group in London, which was composed of native English families with a majority of Sephardim.Google Scholar

36. Philipson, Reform Movement, p. 101, and Petuchowski, Prayerbook Reform, pp. 66–68. There was debate within German Reform as to whether the musafservice should be totally omitted or whether it should be retained with the elimination of references to the sacrifices; however, no group within that movement favored the retention of this service without any change. The same was true of the petitions for the return to Zion and the coming of the Messiah. Petuchowski, Prayerbook Reform, pp. 240–246 and 277–297.

37. Laws and Regulations of the West London Synagogue of British Jews(London: J. Wertheimer, 1856), p. 2. This was after the Frankfurt Reform conference of 1845 had clearly stated that public prayer did not have to be in Hebrew. Philipson, Reform Movement, p. 163.Google Scholar

38. Jewish Chronicle, 29 June 1849, in a report of the dedication of the congregation's second building, mentioned this fact. The removal of the bimahto the front of the synagogue was a point of major conflict between Reform and Orthodox groups on the Continent. See Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “ Bimah.”In the London congregation the platform was at the rear and not the center, in accordance with traditional Sephardic rather than Ashkenazic practice. Furthermore, this synagogue did not introduce an organ, which was everywhere the major dividing line between the Orthodox and the reformers, until 1859, almost twenty years after its founding. Philipson, Reform Movement, p. 106.

39. Voice of Jacob, 4 March 1842, noted that phylacteries were worn at this synagogue on Purim. Hyamson, Albert M., The London Board for Shechita 1804–1954(London: By the Board, 1954), p. 24, describes how the congregation, after its formation in 1840, established a poulterer for whom its sexton, a licensed shohet, killed fowl. This fact was also noted by Belisario, Sabbath Evenings, p. 139, who stated that the reformers' meat was “provided only by Jewish butchers... they will not eat it killed otherwise than according to our laws.” Both phylacteries and the dietary laws were attacked by German Reform Judaism. See Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Phylacteries,” and Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Dietary Laws.”Google Scholar

40. Mocatta, Alan, “Frederic David Mocatta 1828–1905,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 23 (1971)Google Scholar: 2. Petuchowski, Jakob J., “Karaite Tendencies in an Early Reform Haggadah,” Hebrew Union College Annual 31 (1960): 223–249, mentions the unique neo-Karaism of the London reformers. He notes that the retention of the traditional musafand lack of an organ are indications of how different their ideas were from German Reform. However, Petuchowski makes no complete survey of the London congregation's practices and theology, and how fully they accorded with the Karaite view. For example, he does not link the London group's retention of Hebrew prayers and the traditional petitions for the return to Zion and restoration of sacrifices to this faction's neo-Karaite scriptural theology. He similarly states that, aside from abolishing the second days of festivals, the congregation made no active efforts to repudiate rabbinic Judaism. No mention is made of the group's attitude and practices in regard to ceremonials and rituals of biblical origin.Google Scholar

41. Woolfmarks, David, Sermons, 3 vols. (London: R. Groombridge, 1851–1884), 1:7. Marks concluded this statement with the comment that “for Israelites, there is but One immutable Law-the sacred volume of the Scriptures.”Google Scholar

42. Davidsohn, Moritz, Moral and Religious Guide(London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1855), p. 8. It has proven impossible to obtain any information about this author.Google Scholar

43. The observance of the second days of festivals was abolished by the London Reform congregation from its very inception. This practice was striking considering that body's moderation on other religious issues. This was indeed pointed out by an anonymous letter in Jewish Chronicle, 20 December 1844, which noted that the only real difference separating the reformers from Orthodoxy was their rejection of the second days. In Germany, on the other hand, much opposition to such an abolition was expressed at the Breslau Reform conference of 1846. Indeed, the conclusion of the conference was that the days should be retained in those communities where they were desired by the masses. Philipson, Reform Movement, pp. 214–215.

44. The origin of the second days and the relation of this observance to earlier biblical practice is described in Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Festivals.”

45. A recent attempt to explain the congregation's support for the abolition of the second days is given in Liberles, “Reform Movement,” pp. 141–143. Liberles claims that the reformers' strong desire to achieve Jewish emancipation was responsible for their position on halthis issue. One of the charges often made at the time to deny Jews the right to hold public office was that their religion would interfere with their work due to the many holidays on which they were prohibited to labor. To counteract such a perception, he argues, the London reformers advocated the abolition of the second days, thereby attempting to reduce by half the number of festivals on which work was proscribed. This explanation probably has some truth in it, but the neo-Karaism of the reformers was certainly just as important in influencing their position. The group's traditional stands on Hebrew prayer and the return to Zion were also undoubtedly influenced by the reverence for such ideas current in early Victorian Christian society and not only by the reformers' neo-Karaite beliefs. These influences are more fully described at the end of this paper.

46. Henry, Henry A., Six Discourses on the Principles of the Religious Belief of Israel(London: By the Author, 1845), p. 124. Henry was born in London and educated at the Jews' Free School. He served as preacher and bazzanof the Western Synagogue from 1841 until 1849, when he left London for the United States. Though he was minister of a strongly progressive congregation, he espoused traditionalist beliefs in his sermons. Henry's obituary is found in Jewish Chronicle, 3 October 1879.Google Scholar

47. Ibid, p. 121. Also of interest is Henry's comment that “in the present day, many are apt to form an opinion of their own respecting the law prohibiting the use of fire,” indicating that a reinterpretation of other Sabbath laws was also underway. Ibid, p. 110.

48. [, Morris Raphall], The Festivals of the Lord(London: Hebrew Review Office, 1839), pp. 2–3. The author is not listed on the title page, but Raphall was editor of the Hebrew Review, a journal published from 1834 to 1836, and his name is written into the Jews' College Library copy of this work. Raphall served as preacher in Birmingham and was a prominent traditionalist author and speaker in England until his emigration in 1849 to New York, where he became rabbi of Congregation B'nai Jeshurun. His biography is found in Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Raphall, Morris Jacob.”Google ScholarPubMed

49. [Montefiore, Charlotte], A Few Words to the Jews(London: John Chapman, 1853), p. 114.Google Scholar

50. Ibid, p. 88.

51. Henry, Six Discourses, pp. 118–119.

52. “A Few Words on the Sabbath,” Jewish Sabbath Journal, 3 February 1855. This situation is confirmed by a comment in Albu, Israel, A Word in Due Season(London: By the Author, 1853), p. 15, that many profaned the Sabbath “by the levity of their frivolous diversions.”Google Scholar

53. Marks, Sermons, 2:50.

54. Jewish Chronicle, 7 January 1848. Salomons's attendance was also mentioned in Voice of Jacob, 14 January 1848. Salomons was not alone in this attitude. Sir George Jessel, a leading Victorian Jewish barrister, regularly attended court on the Sabbath, while “he remained a member of the Orthodox community all his life, and frequently declared his pride in his association.” Israel Finestein, “Sir George Jessel 1824–1883,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England18 (1958): 256.

55. Jewish Chronicle, 27 March 1857.

56. Angel, Law of Sinai, p. 157.

57. The best description of the origins of Bibliocentrism and its strong effects on English culture and thought can be found in Tuchman, Barbara W., Bible and Sword(New York: New York University Press, 1956). The medieval origins of this trend and its further development during the sixteenth century are discussed in this work on pp. 52–56.Google Scholar

58. Tuchman accurately describes this situation by writing that “the essence of the Puritan faith was the right of every man to interpret God's law, as embodied in the Bible and only in the Bible, directly to himself.” Ibid, p. 80.

59. Ibid, pp. 95–116.

60. Ibid, p. 113.

61. Altholz, Josef L., “The Warfare of Conscience with Theology,” in The Mind and Art of Victorian England, ed. Josef L. Altholz (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1976), p. 74.Google Scholar

62. Wilson, Josias, “Points of Similarity Between Judaism and Romanism,” Exeter Hall Lectures 2 (1846–1847): 200.Google Scholar

63. This fact is noted by Altholz, “Warfare of Conscience,” p. 72, who sums up the religious attitude of the period by writing that “ 'the Bible and only the Bible alone' was the watchword of English Protestantism.” Tuchman, Bible and Sword, p. 116, similarly observes that “the England of Lord Shaftesbury's generation was almost as Bible-conscious as the England of Cromwell.”

64. In the words of one historian: “The Roman Church was a complex of such associations, all of them unpleasant. It was the living embodiment of every un-English vice, the national anti-type which defined all manner of native virtue, and as such was loathed... by Englishmen of all shades of theological opinion.” Sheridan Gilley, “Protestant London, No-Popery and the Irish Poor 1830–60,” Recusant History10 (January 1970): 213. A good study of this attitude can be found in G. F. A. Best, “Popular Protestantism in Victorian Britain,” in Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain, ed. Robert Robson (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1967), pp. 115–142.

65. Best, “Popular Protestantism,” pp. 122–123, discusses this situation and notes that “the relative unimportance in the Roman scheme of religious education, of Bible study” was an important element in Victorian anti-Catholicism.

66. Family Herald, 6 September 1851.

67. Wilson, “Points of Similarity,” p. 192. The full title of this speech, “Points of Similarity Between Judaism and Romanism,” is revelatory of its entire thesis. It is evident that Jews, as least progressive ones, were sensitive about charges of this kind from an editorial in Hebrew Observer, 24 March 1854, which criticized Catholicism and concluded that “Judaism, therefore, considers Protestantism, although at an immense distance, yet still nearest to herself.”

68. Times, 23 March 1858.

69. Heighway, Osborn, Leila Ada(Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1853), p. 15. This is the American edition of the British work.Google Scholar

70. Ibid, p. 143.

71. [Heighway, Osborn], Adeline(London: Simpkin, Marshall, 1854), p. 19.Google Scholar

72. [Heighway, Osborn], The Morning Land(London: Wertheim & Macintosh, 1854), p.69.Google Scholar

73. Jewish Inquirer, 19 October 1838.

74. Ibid, 16 November 1838.

75. McCaul, who was born in 1799 and died in 1863, was an active missionary both in England and abroad. His work was originally published as a series of pamphlets over the course of 1837, and later printed as a book in 1847. His biography is contained in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “McCaul, Alexander.”

76. Alexander McCaul, The Old Paths(London: London Society's House, 1847), p. 16.

77. Ibid, p. 21.

78. Ibid, p. 85.

79. Ibid, p. 100.

80. Ibid, p. 97.

81. Tuchman, Bible and Sword, p. 119.

82. According to its title page, this book was written by a Rabbi Judah Middleman of Warsaw in Hebrew and then translated into English by Marcus Breslau of the Jewish Chronicle.Nothing more is, however, known of Rabbi Middleman. Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “McCaul, Alexander,” also states that McCaul's book “created considerable interest among Jews.” Petuchowski, “Karaite Tendencies,” pp. 228–229, mentions McCaul's work as an influence on the development of neo-Karaite ideas among the London reformers. However, he makes no mention of Middleman's work as evidence of McCaul's influence. Aside from citing McCaul, Petuchowski does not refer to the whole complex of English Protestant thought with its strong Bibliocentrism and bias against the Oral Law. It was this ideology and the various works produced by it, rather than just McCaul's book, which encouraged neo-Karaite thought among London Jewry.

83. Jewish Emancipation, by an Israelite(London: D. Nutt, 1845), p. 3.Google Scholar

84. [D'Israeli, Isaac], The Genius of Judaism(London: Edward Moxon, 1833), p. 77.Google Scholar

85. Ibid, p. 104. In light of the Evangelical trend identifying rabbinic Judaism with Catholicism, D'lsraeli's statement gains much added significance. In an earlier passage he similarly observed that the Oral Law had “immersed the Hebrews in a mass of ritual ordinances hardly equalled by their subsequent mimics of the papistry.” Ibid, pp. 77–78.

86. D'Israeli, although a freethinker, maintained his official connection with the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue until 1817, when he left the community and had his childen baptized. He himself, however, never converted. His biography can be found in Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “D'Israeli, Isaac.” The influence of The Genius of Judaismon the later anonymous pamphlet Jewish Emancipationis apparent from a number of instances. For example, the latter work claimed that since “the laws concerning the food we may e a t... are at all times binding,” the rabbis had no right to allow the sick to eat nonkosher food. This unusual argument was a restatement of the earlier work's comment that according to the rabbis, “a prescription of the physician is allowed to suspend the law of Moses.” See Jewish Emancipation, p. 24, and Genius of Judaism, p. 167, respectively. It is unlikely that such a strange charge was originated by the later author on his own.

87. Liberles, “Jewish Reform Movement,” pp. 144–149.Google Scholar

88. Voice of Jacob, 13 March 1846. The Voicehad started out as a traditionalist organ but by 1846 had clearly gone over to the progressives. See Jewish Chronicle 1841–1941, pp. 40–41.

89. Jewish Chronicle, 29 March 1851.

90. Israelhassan, Moshe, Words of Peace and Truth(London: Samuel Meldola, 1845), p. 10. The author, who identified himself as “dajan at Jerusalem now on a mission in London,” ended by asking: “What authority has a Chief Rabbi of the present time to oppose the decision of the ancients?”Google Scholar

91. Jewish Chronicle, 8 October 1852.

92. Ibid, 4 June 1858.

93. Angel, Law of Sinai, p. 311. He concluded by saying that “he would assign to orthodox ecclesiastics their legitimate place, which is to lead, and not to be left behind.”

94. Ibid, p. 304.

95. A description of the socioeconomic background behind this religious division is given in Norman, Edward R., Church and Society in England 1770–1970(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 124–126.Google Scholar

96. According to British law, synagogue marriages were given full legal validity, without a secular ceremony being necessary, if the congregation involved had such an officially recognized secretary. The full story of this episode is found in Henry Straus Henriques, Jewish Marriage and the English Law(London: Bibliophile Press, 1909), pp. 34–37.

97. Jewish Chronicle, 22 June 1855. Another speaker at this meeting noted that the reformers “admitted themselves they were dissenters,” and should, therefore, be granted a marriage secretary.

98. Ibid, 6 July 1855.