by Joel Rich
Note that Dr Shapiro covers a number of interesting but unrelated topics in each shiur (in addition to the Reform movement topics).
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-1
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 1)
Reformers have always existed as have sinners. Reformers in thought and practice (eg Pharisees) always see themselves as the true inheritors of tradition (me-and the victors write history). The difference is the modern Reform movement bshita rejects orthodoxy. The “modern” (1700s) secular state took away the community’s ability to use cheirem which accelerated the trend towards “reform”.
Also discussed – immediate burial controversy (me-saved by the bell) and Mendelsohn.
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-2
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 2)
More on Mendelsohn and non-immediate burial as an example of the intersection of torah and modern science – moves on to R Shaul Berlin (“author” of the besamin rosh) as a proto-reformer.
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-3
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 3)
More on the besamin rosh – why it’s clear that parts were forged and what was the author’s goal?
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-4
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 4)
More on besamin rosh and forgeries in general.
The modern reform movement (which thus began as a counter movement defined as orthodox) began in the early 1800s. They wanted to bring in the positive elements of church services (sermons, decorum, architecture) in to the synagogue.
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-5
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 5)
Reform diagnosed problems with orthodoxy but no acceptable traditionally solutions. They looked to the practices of non-Jews (this had been done in the past by traditionalists as well – but was viewed as organic). There was a new focus on sermons which also came from non-Jews.
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 6)
The modern reform movement started in individual homes. There was some early orthodox support for certain changes (eg use of an organ).
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 7)
Earlier authorities allowed instrumental music played by non-Jews on Shabbat but now no one would do so. Other examples of changing practices provided as well.
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-8
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 8)
Early reform (R Chorin) provided halachic basis for reforms including: Prayer in the vernacular, Music in services, Eliminating chazarat hashatz; and Havara sfardit.
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 9)
R Adler allowed a few “reforms” in traditional UK practice (but rejected most). Since first generation “halachic” reforms were not accepted by “traditionalists”, second generation reformers stopped trying to give halachic justifications.
The “orthodox” response to reform’s opening of their own institutions was a book “eileh divrei habrit” and a policy of no changes.
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 10)
More on “eilah divrei habrit” and “orthodoxy’s” rejection of reform changes which were technically OK but meta not so much. Examples provided.
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 11)
More on the “reforms” allowed by orthodoxy and those supported by reformers. Examples provided -what were the technical and philosophical arguments?
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 12)
Finishing up eilu divrei habrit, R Chorin and the Chatam Sofer. Reform was clearly going down a different path and chadash asur min hatora was in response to their specific deviation (they were considered a separate movement similar to Karaites).
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-13
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 13)
Give and take between the Chatam Sofer and Maharatz Chiyut concerning government mandated delayed burial. Is it OK to misrepresent the level of a sin for public policy purposes?
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-14
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 14)
Rabbis may shade the truth to the masses for the greater good. Discussion of meta-issues of organs and rabbinic gowns in the synagogue. The Chatam Sofer was pre-modern in his thought process.
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-15
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 15)
Finishing up the Chatam Sofer as a pre-modern thinker.
The first generation of reform was about social and aesthetic change, the second about intellectual.
Also covered – R Abadi (posek in Lakewood) and his unusual psakim (quasi-reform?)
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-16
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 16)
First generation reform (eg Holdheim) viewed themselves as keepers of traditions (which needed to change with the times). Ritual law was needed to keep us apart but now we’re surrounded by monotheists so we only need moral law as defined by our conscience. Traditions that resonate may also be of value. Then introduction to Rabbi A. Geiger.
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 17)
Many rabbis understood that talmudic drashot of psukim are not necessarily pshat but Geiger viewed them as a game (to support desired result) and thus reformers were the true pharisees.
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-18
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 18)
R Geiger viewed the “orthodox” in his day as sadducees who would die out because they couldn’t change. His work was scholarship to show the historical ongoing creative dialectic between torah and life which the “reformers” were continuing.
Dr. Marc Shapiro–The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 19)
R Geiger believed that relying on revelation is not tenable and won’t preserve Judaism. The Jews’ role is to promote human reason and universal morality. Only ceremonies which speak to us should be continued.
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 20)
Did you know that the Mishna torah has exactly 1000 chapters? That R Geiger was the first to notice that the ordering of the mesechtot was based on the number of mishnayot?
Includes a discussion of an alleged murder of a reformer by orthodox elements and some thoughts on R Halivni. Next up – reform conferences.
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 21)
In the late 1840s there were reform rabbinical conferences dealing with: kol nidrei (no), intermarriage (OK if raise Jewish), wine (use kosher for kiddush), prayers (most, if not all, in german), triennial torah reading, and a universalistic view of messiah (not connected to eretz yisrael).
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 22)
Rabbinical conferences continued including making shabbat holy, dignified mourning (no kria) and getting rid of yom tov sheini.
Also discussed: problems with daylight savings time and early slichot (why do we allow it – eit laasot)
https://torahinmotion.org/tim-torah/the-rise-of-reform-and-the-rabbinic-response-part-23
Dr. Marc Shapiro-The Rise of Reform and the Rabbinic Response (Part 23)
A number of reform’s changes were eventually adopted by orthodoxy (eg sermons), revolutions in Europe ended the conferences but reform’s expansion led to separate Jewish communities (eg Breslov in the Tipton/Gleiger dispute).
