Important note: this is not meant as an attack on the reform movement and especially not lehavdil on Jews who consider themselves part of it. While it’s obvious that there are theological disagreements between my beliefs and those of reform, this piece is purely meant to dispel an incredibly ahistorical argument that keeps being repeated over and over again.
A common trope on social media is the claim that Orthodoxy is a modern invention; some even claim that Orthodoxy came into existence after the Reform movement (which begs the question: What was Reform reforming in the first place, then?). A simple trip through history will show how ridiculous this claim is. Let us first quickly discuss the history of how Reform & Neolog came to be.
The Origins of Reform
The German intellectual terrain of the late 18th and early to mid 19th century led to a diversification of thought in Western European Judaism like never before. At least seven different splinter movements burst forth from or out of Judaism, five within Orthodoxy as well as lehavdil the German Reform & much smaller Hungarian Neolog movements.
There's been a pervasive myth that Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) is the spiritual father of the Reform movement. This is simply false. Mendelssohn was born a practicing, observant Jew and died a practicing, observant Jew. He was praised as a role model by Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsh and his son Rav Yitzchak Hirsch, creators of Neo-Orthodoxy; he influenced Rav Yitzhak Reines, who modeled his Religious Zionism according to Mendelssohn's model. The founder of Modern Orthodoxy, Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, called him 'the great worldly Sage' and decried the fact that the Haskalah movement and members of the nascent movement claimed his ideals while crudely distorting his philosophy and that Mendelssohn was being held responsible for the behaviors of those he would not have approved of.
That is not to say that today, he is spoken about with reverence in most Orthodox circles, as nowadays his philosophy is frequently described as the erosive fissure that breached the dam and led to the creation of non-Orthodox groups such as the Haskalah, Reform, and Conservative movements. Still, his influence was felt through and through thanks to the formation of Modern Orthodoxy, the Religious Zionist movement, Neo-Orthodoxy, and what we will refer to as the Pressburg Orthodoxy of the Chatam Sofer later on.
Reform did not initially come to be as a cogent independent creed or popular movement, but rather as a reaction to rein in the ideology of the Maskilim, which sought the assimilation of Jews in Europe and the complete disappearance of Judaism as a traditional religion. In Berlin, there were calls to modify Judaism to a little more than a Jewish version of Protestantism so as to make Jews more palatable to German Lutherans, if not turn it into pure Deism. Their goal was to take the German Jew out of his ghetto, where his existence consisted of Yiddish, Talmud, and traditions, and to mold him into a modern European.
The movement only truly took flight under Abraham Geiger (1810-1874), especially after the second Hamburg Temple dispute of 1841. This is when he began to write and preach a unified ideology he claimed was based on the rejection of strict literalism and legalism in favor of the spirit of the letter. Still, their activities were mostly restricted to Germany and had little to no impact on the rest of the Continent at the time. A few attempts, especially in Hungary, to spread the movement failed almost immediately. It was in America that the ideology would genuinely take root. In 1860, There were little more than 200 synagogues in America, and all but a handful were Reform, while 200 or more were Orthodox. Only 20 years later, very few of America's 275 synagogues were not associated with the Reform movement.
When can we date the movement from? As a loose collective without ideology, the early 1800s. As an actual movement, the mid-to-late 1800s
The figure most associated with the Neologs of Hungary is Rabbi Leopold Low (1811-1875). A reformer himself, but, in many ways, a figure that would fit squarely within the Conservative rather than Reform movement in America. They are perceived as such by the American Conservative movement. They have expressed that they are opposed to and in no way related to the Reform or liberal movement in the past, while not being a part of Orthodoxy either.
Which Orthodoxy?
The term Orthodoxy is something that was applied to adherent of traditional Judaism, not a term that was self-applied. As Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch decried in 1854:
...it was not "Orthodox" Jews who introduced the word "orthodox" into Jewish discussion. It was the modern "progressive" Jews who first applied the name to "old," "backward" Jews as a derogatory term. This name was at first resented by "old" Jews. And rightfully so...
The first recorded use of the word 'Orthodox' to deride traditionally Observant Jews by a proponent of the Haskalah movement I was able to confirm is from 1795. There are indeed other earlier uses, such as when non-Jewish theologian Johann David Michaelis used it to describe Mendelssohn in 1770. It was used a handful of times prior, usually to describe Jews who were seen as archaic in their practice prior to this, but never as a self-designation. Before the 19th century, the term Orthodoxy had been strictly limited to a Xian concept and was utterly foreign to Judaism.
By the late 1860s, the term had begrudgingly been accepted by the traditional Torah communities of Germany and Hungary. It would eventually come to be applied to all of traditional Ashkenazi Judaism and much later on to traditional Sefardi and Mizrachi Judaism.
Orthodoxy* today is divided into five distinct movements:
Modern Orthodoxy (left-wing, centrist & right-wing**)
Dati Leumi (left-wing, centrist & right-wing)
Baseline Orthodoxy*
Yeshivish
Hassidic
* Open Orthodoxy was not included as, while it claims the name, it is Orthodoxy in name only.
** Left and Right have nothing to do with politics; rather left tends to be more lenient in regard to Jewish law, while the right tends to be more strict in terms of its practices.
***By Baseline Orthodoxy, I mean those Jews who follow the Shulchan Aruch and live within the bounds of Orthodoxy but do not feel or act in a way that associates them with any particular movement. Neo-Orthodoxy would be included in this category for the most part.
This is far from an exhaustive list, you could create many more subdivisions, such as Sephardic/Mizrachi Judaism, which spans the gamut from left-wing MO to right-wing Haredi, the Haredi Dati Leumi (Chardal) movement, ChaVaKuK, so on and so forth, but those are irrelevant to our discussion and thus will not be covered.
Let us look at the movements that sprang from Orthodoxy in the 19th century:
The uncontested father of Modern Orthodoxy is Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer (1820–1899), while the face most associated with the movement in America is Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993). Some claim that Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) also participated in shaping this ideology, but this is very much disputed. His philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz (Torah in association with the ways of the world) seems to very much be in conflict with Modern Orthodoxy's Torah u'Madda (Torah and Secular Knowledge). Rabbi Norman Lamm wrote a book presenting different models and their traditional roots in earlier Rabbinic figures, such as the Rambam, though some would contest whether their views would translate as such with the modern world. Undoubtedly, the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797) wrote that Torah knowledge is incomplete without Madda, yet he is a figure that is squarely associated with the Haredi Yeshivish world.
When can we date the movement from? Mid-1800s
The Dati Leumi movement is usually identified squarely with the pre-state Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Rav Kook (1865-1934), but there were earlier figures who embraced the idea of Zionism, such as Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (1839-1915), Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai (1798-1878) and Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer (1795-1874). The latter is generally recognized post-facto as the first prominent Religious Zionist figure. His writings about the need for Jews to move to Erets Yisrael, work the earth, and repopulate the land in order to bring the Redemption predates Herzl and the Zionist movement. (Note: Thousands upon thousands of students of both the Gaon of Vilna and the Baal Shem Tov had moved to the Land of Israel long before Rabbi Kalischer wrote about it). You also had the Mizrachi religious zionist organization founded in 1902, using the groundswell of support built up in the preceding decades, which led to the creation of the Bnei Akiva movement.
When can we date the movement from? Mid-1800s
Neo (or Centrist) Orthodoxy is the product of Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888). However, its ideological roots are buried much more profoundly. For example, Rav Hirsch's Weltanschauung was massively influenced by the Maharal's (1529-1609) views on the importance of earning a decent living and facilitating life in general. Today, the term is somewhat of a portmanteau that describes Orthodox Jews who fit neither in the Modern Orthodox or Haredi worlds, with a certain openness to the secular world and society at large not characteristic of the Haredi world, coupled with a certain refusal to engage with certain aspects of culture and general strict adherence to Halacha. Unlike Rabbi Hildersheimer, Rav Hirsch was a pure segregationist who disagreed with any cooperation or contact with the Reform or Neolog movements. His views on secular studies were pragmatic and practical, not about elevating them, and he was certainly no supporter of Jewish nationalism or Zionism.
When can we date the movement from? Mid-1800s.
Though it is not precisely extant today after the devastations of the Holocaust and its remnants were absorbed as a part of the regular Haredi Yeshivish community afterwards, we would be remiss if we did not discuss the phenomenon of Pressburg Orthodoxy. In the same fashion Mendelssohn is falsely described as the father of Reform, the Chatam Sofer (1762–1839) is falsely described as the father of Haredi Judaism and that his slogan 'Chadash Assur Min HaTorah' (lit. New [grain] Is Forbbiden from the Torah) led to the formation of the Haredi world and its attitude. Both are complete misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Chatam Sofer.
He was first and foremost opposed to reforms in Judaism, one of the fiercest opponents of the nascent Reform movement both in Germany and especially in Hungary, and wholly opposed to any influence of non-Jewish culture on Jews. While he denounced Mendelssohn's ways, he also called him wise in one of his responsa, he encouraged his students to work and set aside time to learn Torah rather than stay in Kollel if they could not afford it, hired private tutors to teach secular studies to his children, and his closest students sent their sons to learn in the yeshiva of Rabbi Hildesheimer, the founder of Modern Orthodoxy. The Pressburg Orthodoxy is something we consider Haredi today, but still, the movement already existed and just happened to coalesce around the Chatam Sofer in Hungary in particular.
When can we date the movement from? Early 1800s.
Finally, the Mussar movement's initiator was Rav Salanter (1810-1883) in Vilna. It was initiated partly as an answer to the Haskalah (Jewish "Enlightenment"), which was starting to creep into Lithuania and Russia at the time, and partly as the non-Hassidic answer to Hassidism. It proved quite controversial, and by the time it reached the 20th century, many of its opponents were looking West and worried that too much emphasis on the emotional connection to Judaism instead of its legalism would lead the Mussar movement to become the Eastern European version of the Reform movement. Those fears were eventually unfounded, and the Mussar movement found itself to the right of Modern, Neo-Orthodoxy, and even somewhat Baseline Orthodoxy without becoming fully as rigid as the Pressburg Orthodoxy or its Eastern European Yesivish or Hassidish equivalent. Today, much like the Pressburg Orthodoxy, it has mostly been absorbed as part of the Haredi Yeshivish world. It is not considered a separate movement on its own today.
When can we date the movement from? Early 1800s.
Looking at three European countries, we see that seven different movements or reformations of Judaism came on to the scene, most of them extant today. Was Judaism always this dynamic or in flux?
The World That Was
The answer is a resounding no. This was purely a response to the winds of Enlightenment and Emancipation that affected Jews in the Western World.
Until the 19th century in Europe, Judaism could be divided into four main groups. To use the classical terminology:
Mystics
Perushim
Chaveirim
Amei Haaretzim
This was not, in fact, only the division that existed in Europe but throughout the whole Jewish world. From our earliest writings, such as the Mishnah (and extraneous contemporary sources such as Philo and Josephus), this was the traditional division as far back as the days of the Second Temple, and most likely earlier based on the tradition of our Sages. It also applied within the tribal structure as well, though some tribes were more represented in one group or another.
To define them: The Perushim, as they were known in the Second Temple era (and through various names depending on periods and locations), are what we would call 'Yeshivish' or ‘Haredi’ today. For the most part, they did not mix with those they considered not to be up to par with their religious standards, and their entire lives were dedicated to Judaism. That doesn't mean that some or most were not also in business, but the main focus of their lives was their learning and praying. Chaverim was the term used to describe a working class with deep religious knowledge but who might have been less significant scholars. They assumed their Judaism seriously, including laws of purity, tithing, etc., and were considered trustworthy by the Perushim. Today, they would be referred to as 'Baalei Batish.' You had the Amei Haaretzim, Jews with varying degrees of mitzvah observance, some very observant, some very lax, but defined mainly by their lack of scholarship. Today they would represent those Jews who believe in Torah, keep kosher, keep Shabbat, and might even go to a shiur or two, but are otherwise lax both due to their yetzer hara or ignorance, cultural or otherwise. That subgroup often refers to itself as 'Traditional' nowadays, especially in Israel. They will make Kiddush on Friday night, then walk to a nearby Soccer game. Or they will be very pious, but due to circumstances, they never had the time or the opportunity to learn and are limited in their religious expressions. Their Judaism revolves mainly around the prayer book, Tehillim, and the Torah Readings and sermons in the synagogue. Before the coming of Hassidim, they were generally looked down upon by the Perushim/Yeshivish class.
This brings us to the last group, the Mystics. These masters of the Torah's esoteric teachings were very active prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple. The most prominent mystics of their era were Rabbi Akiva and his students and, afterward, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and his students. Until the 16th century, mystics learned and worshipped in a closed circle, accepting only the spiritual elites as a part of their group. Their chain of transmission from master to student was always very tight, to the point where the esoteric aspect of Torah became known as 'Kabbalah,' meaning received. This was unlike the other parts of the Oral Torah; Kabbalah is a much more unified field of knowledge without the constant debates that are part of the Talmud. After the Arizal (1534-1572) declared that it was now time to make this knowledge public, secret societies of mystics were created, and more and more disciples were introduced to its secrets until it led to the public revelation of Hassidism by the Baal Shem Tov.
And this is the state of Judaism worldwide before the 19th century and afterward in all the countries where the previously mentioned movements did not take root. This is most of the Jewish world, geographically.
The fact is that none of these post-Mendelssohn movements ever reached Russia prior to the fall of Communism, the Middle East, or North Africa; this is whether we are talking about Modern Orthodoxy, the Pressburg rejection, Dati Leumi (except for Jews in the Land of Israel) or lehavdil reform.
A simple look at their respective local Judaism before, during, and after the 19th century, followed by a comparison with the Orthodox Judaism of Western European Jews, and it is clear that the traditional Torah Judaism, which inherited the description 'Orthodox' was simply the Judaism that was practiced worldwide beforehand, and no change had been implemented. In Europe, for example, Transylvania, eastern Hungary, Transnistria, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, and Latvia were all firmly Orthodox. Many had no idea there was such a thing as Reform. The same held true for Jews in France, Britain, Spain, and most of Western Europe, where, due to its German character, Reform failed to make any inroads whatsoever prior to World War II.
When Reformists and the Haskala tried to come to North Africa and the Middle East in the 20th century, it was ferociously denounced by the local Rabbis as a European ideology alien to Judaism; it was thoroughly rejected and made no in-roads in countries that were not under French Protectorate.
That's not to say that every single Jew in North Africa or the Middle East lived a fully observant life, of course. As I said earlier, Judaism followed the model of the four groups I cited earlier. Anyone who has spent time in a Sefaradi community can attest that the following dynamic exists to this day:
The general attitude of the less or non-observant is "The Torah is true. Our traditions are authentic. No change to them is tolerable in any sense whatsoever. And what you do at home is between you and G-d." That's why you can have someone who only keeps kosher at home but eats out at a non-kosher restaurant, who has a television and his wife doesn't over her hair, but if you try to change the tune of Az Yashir to something other than how it was sung in Tetouan, or even worse, you go and speak disparagingly of our Sages or Torah or Halacha they will scream at you until they are red in the face and kick you out. Some will cohabit before marriage but get married in an 'Orthodox' synagogue, with a traditional ceremony.
Another straightforward proof that there was no difference between traditional Ashkenazi and Sephardi Judaism prior to the 19th century lies in the Codes of Law. Those books, delineating the directives of how a Jew is supposed to behave, are compiled from the rulings of the Talmud, based on the Mishnah, and the Sages who ruled based on the Talmud, and Latter Sages who ruled on the First Sages' rulings.
The Shulchan Aruch, in this aspect, reigns supreme. It is seen as the manual on how a Jew is meant to act according to Jewish Law on a daily basis. In fact, at the Universal Israelite Congress of 1868-1869, the Orthodox faction tried to unify European Judaism in Europe by presenting a motion that the Shulchan Aruch should be considered the Constitution document for Jews. Reform and the Neolog movement refused, which was the end of that attempt.
The Shulchan Aruch was written by a Sefardi Rabbi who lived in the Land of Israel. He based most of his rulings on Sefardi Rabbis, who had given their rulings on the Talmud. The Rama wrote glosses to it where the Ashkenazi customs diverged from the Sephardic ones. Still, otherwise, it was universally accepted as valid. Many Ashkenazim added to it, and many Sefardim as well. There was a constant exchange of rulings revolving around the Shulchan Aruch, as there had been in the past.
There are legal rulings and discussions between Sefardi and Ashkenazi Rabbis that go back almost immediately after the sealing of the Talmud, and they continue to this day. For example, the Ben Ish Chai (1832-1909) in Bagdad and the Kaf HaChayim (1870–1939) in Jerusalem quote the legal writings of the Alter Rebbe, founder of Chabad, who lived in Russia in 1745-1812. In fact, you cannot find a single ruling that was quoted in any book of Jewish Law from a Mizrachi or Sefardi Rabbi that does not come from a Rabbi that is considered Orthodox.
You cannot find a single Rabbi from the days of the Mishnah, Talmud, Geonim, Rishonim, or Acharonim who ruled in a way that is considered anything but Orthodox. There's no legal tradition recorded anywhere in Judaism before 19th Century Germany that was not 'Orthodox.'
Questions, Questions, Questions
And to end this, a few questions that could legitimately be raised:
The Sadducees, Boethusians, Essenes, and Karaites, aren't they simply the predecessors of Reform?
Quite simply, no. There are some superficial similarities, but the truth is that those groups had very little in common. The Sadducees, Boethusians, and Karaites rejected the Oral Torah in its entirety. Still, they accepted the Written Torah as Divine and from Sinai. The Reform movement does not believe that the Torah came from Sinai, but it acknowledges the Oral Torah's existence; it's simply a question of you choosing what you want to follow and rejecting what you don't want to. This is why the Tefillin, Mezuzot, or 4 Species of Jews part of the reform movement will look like the Orthodox version, whether kosher or not, but Karaites et al. did not wear any tefillin, put on any mezuzot, and do not shake the 4 Species on Sukkot but instead use them as part of the roof of their Sukkah.
The Essenes were an apocalyptic cult far living in the far-flung desert, which would be called religious extremists today. They simply have nothing in common. The same goes for Sabbateans, Frankists, etc. There have been many movements that splintered off of Judaism throughout the ages, but they all eventually developed into their own religions (like Xianity, Islam* or European Karaites) or simply disappeared in the annals of history. There's a tiny remnant of Karaites in Israel today, 40,000 in total, but they are definitely on their way out.
*Mohammed initially built his religion modeled on Judaism before being rejected by Jews.
Why were Modern Orthodoxy, Neo-Orthodoxy, Religious Zionism, Pressburg Orthodoxy, and the Mussar movement accepted as valid movements within what is now called 'Orthodoxy,' while Reform, Neologs, Sadducees, etc., were not?
That's because the former only came to refocus Judaism on an area they felt had been neglected, the same way Hassidism simultaneously refocused certain aspects of Judaism and extended the revelation of mystical secrets to the general population while lehavdil the Reform and Neolog movements came to change Judaism. They were not a refocus; instead, they represented a departure from the long-trodden path of Judaism at the time.
Modern Orthodoxy came to say that by marrying Torah and secular sciences, you enhance your Judaism. Neo-Orthodoxy came to say that secular sciences should be used to provide yourself a better standard of living and could also be used to improve your relationship with G-d if appropriately harnessed in a limited scope. Religious Zionism came to refocus Judaism on an active settling of the Land and, through this, bring the Messianic Era. Pressburg Orthodoxy came to reinforce the Perush attitude that the only thing that matters in the world is Torah and that we should not in any way let the modern world affect us or change who we are. Mussar refocused on the concept that learning is meant to lead to action, and said action should be to work on refining our deeds and character. Hassidism came to both reveal the esoteric part of the Torah to the masses as well as to refocus the Jewish people on the importance of the love of your fellow Jew for prayer and acts of goodness.
All these movements followed the same code of Law, the Shulchan Aruch, as did those traditional Jews who were not a part of them. All of these movements prayed from the same prayer books*, their local ones, as did those traditional Jews who were not a part of them. All these movements learned the same Talmud, they learned the same Mishna, they learned the same Torah, and they had the same local minhagim as those traditional Jews who were not a part of them. The changes were mostly attitudinal; it was not a change to Judaism itself. This is why those movements were not a break away from Judaism.
*While it is true that many Hassidic groups made significant changes to the prayer book, it simply changed from following the Ashkenazi order of prayer to following the Sefaradi order of prayer, which already had incorporated most of the mystical teachings about the order of prayers in their own siddurim.
Reform, on the other hand, came to reform. In the words of Abraham Geiger, he came to change Judaism, modernize it, and part ways from tradition. To make it more German and to remove nationalism from Judaism so as to make it more akin to Protestantism. This is why he refused to intervene during the Damascus blood libel of 1840, when Jews were in danger of being massacred. He believed Jews in Germany were not Jews but Germans of Jewish confession and thus had nothing to do with Syrians of Jewish confession. After all, what does a Swede have to do with a Swahili? No more than a German and a Syrian.
It was this departure from tradition, especially in the realms of Jewish law, that caused reform to be considered a breakaway movement, instead of one that simply shifted focus back on an area of Judaism that already existed but was considered neglected by its adherents.
You really didn't write that much about Hassidism, surprising for a Hassid. Yeshivish/Haredi Jews neither, for that matter. Why is that?
Thanks for asking! Next piece I plan on writing about this will cover the early history of Hassidism, and it's connection to the Mystics of Judaism, and how it's much older than people realize! I’ll also be discussing what was the state of Judaism of the three other groups in Europe at the time.
Thank you. This was great to read.