• The Viennese Rite and American Moderate Reform Judaism
• Bruce Ruben (bio)

In the mid-nineteenth century, a group of immigrant rabbis, including Isaac Mayer Wise and Max Lilienthal, believed that they could unite the majority of American Jews around moderate Reform. In the 1870s, after decades of effort, they succeeded, and they established the enduring institutions of Reform Judaism: the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Hebrew Union College, and, ultimately, the Central Conference of American Rabbis. To achieve this unity, Wise and Lilienthal used elements of the Viennese Rite, particularly the music of Salomon Sulzer.¹

The Viennese Rite had developed in the early nineteenth century when Isaac Noah Mannheimer and Sulzer, his cantor, unified the polarized Viennese community through a moderate liturgy, increased decorum, and a new musical treatment of nusach Ashkenaz (a local chant tradition).² Its leaders successfully found a middle way between the advocates of radical reform from Berlin and Hamburg and the traditionalists, who wanted nothing changed. I will argue that this moderate reform approach was transferred from Europe and successfully adapted in mid-nineteenth century America.

In 1976, Leon Jick challenged the view that rabbinic elites created American Reform in his important book, The Americanization of the Synagogue. It was Americanization that was the basis for the success of Reform Judaism in America. Only after Jews had learned English, climbed the socioeconomic ladder, and adapted to local norms did they create a Reform Judaism that matched their new American values. Reform came [End Page 177] from the laity, from below, not from the rabbinic leadership.³ Other scholars have developed this Reform-from-below approach. For instance, Hasia Diner argues in her 1992 survey of German Jewish immigration that "the impetus for Reform came mostly from the laity and its focus on practical ritual problems." The rabbis introduced a theoretical rationale to justify and spur the process of reform already taking place.⁴

Naomi Cohen, in her Encounter with Emancipation, challenges this Reform-from-below position. She argues that without active rabbinical guidance there might have been anti-Orthodoxy but never Reform. Instead, she insists that "two streams fed concomitantly into the development of American Reform, one pragmatic and one philosophical." Without the theoretical framework supplied by the rabbinic leadership from Germany, American Reform would never have been created.⁵ Similarly, Michael Meyer asserts in his history of the Reform movement that "the rise of the Reform Movement in America…must be attributed to both Germanizing and Americanizing trends. Neither trend alone will explain it."⁶

Karla Goldman examines the process of reform in Cincinnati, specifically, and argues that religious acculturation was not the slow, steady process of Americanization Jick outlined but depended upon the presence of spiritual leaders who were in tune with the congregation's desire for respectability and acceptance. "Wise and his colleagues provided the intellectual and spiritual authority for what Cincinnati Jews may have wanted to, but could not, do alone."⁷ Zev Eleff also argues that power transferred from lay leadership to rabbis in the wake of the Civil War, when the laity looked to their elites as symbols of authority and "defenders of the faith." With this new power, clergy were able to shape the reform of the American synagogue.⁸ [End Page 178]

To be sure, rabbis asserted an ideological influence on nineteenth-century American Reform Judaism. Even Jick implicitly allows for this in the post–Civil War period.⁹ These leaders helped provide the structure and content for a new Americanized modern Judaism. I have not, however, encountered any historian of the American Reform movement who assigned a significant role for the Viennese model in its development. David Philipson's History of Reform Judaism cites its influence throughout central and Western Europe. Meyer also discusses its wider European influence in Response to Modernity. Neither indicates that it was a factor in American Reform history. The Viennese Rite is also not treated as a model in Cohen's Encounter with Emancipation or the more recent American Judaism by Jonathan Sarna.

If Vienna's ritual is narrowly defined as a liturgy, it is true that it had little influence on American moderate Reform. Yet the Viennese Rite is...

• 维也纳礼仪与美国温和改革犹太教
• 布鲁斯·鲁本（生平）

在 19 世纪中叶，一群移民拉比，包括 Isaac Mayer Wise 和 Max Lilienthal，相信他们可以将大多数美国犹太人团结在温和的改革周围。在 1870 年代，经过数十年的努力，他们取得了成功，并建立了经久不衰的改革犹太教机构：美国希伯来教会联合会、希伯来联合学院，以及最终成立的美国拉比中央会议。为了实现这种统一，怀斯和李林塔尔使用了维也纳礼仪的元素，尤其是所罗门·苏尔泽 (Salomon Sulzer) 的音乐。^1个

维也纳礼仪在 19 世纪早期发展起来，当时艾萨克·诺亚·曼海默 (Isaac Noah Mannheimer) 和他的领唱者苏尔泽 (Sulzer) 通过适度的礼仪、增加的礼仪和对nusach Ashkenaz（当地圣歌传统）的新音乐处理，统一了两极分化的维也纳社区。²它的领导人成功地在柏林和汉堡的激进改革倡导者与不希望有任何改变的传统主义者之间找到了一条中间道路。我将争辩说，这种温和的改革方法是从欧洲转移过来的，并在 19 世纪中叶的美国得到了成功的适应。

1976 年，莱昂·吉克 (Leon Jick) 在他的重要著作《犹太教堂的美国化》中挑战了拉比精英创造美国改革的观点。美国化是改革犹太教在美国取得成功的基础。只有在犹太人学会了英语、攀登了社会经济阶梯并适应了当地规范之后，他们才创造了一种符合他们新的美国价值观的改革犹太教。改革来自平信徒，来自下层，而不是拉比领导层[End Page 177] 。^3个其他学者发展了这种自下而上的改革方法。例如，Hasia Diner 在她 1992 年对德国犹太移民的调查中指出，“改革的动力主要来自平信徒及其对实际仪式问题的关注”。拉比们介绍了一个理论依据来证明和刺激已经发生的改革进程。^4个

娜奥米·科恩 (Naomi Cohen) 在她的《遭遇解放》( Encounter with Emancipation ) 中挑战了这种自下而上的改革立场。她争辩说，如果没有积极的拉比指导，可能会有反正教，但不会有改革。相反，她坚持认为“两种潮流同时进入美国改革的发展，一种是务实的，一种是哲学的”。如果没有德国拉比领导层提供的理论框架，美国改革就永远不会诞生。⁵同样，迈克尔·迈耶 (Michael Meyer) 在他的改革运动史中断言，“美国改革运动的兴起……必须归因于德国化和美国化趋势。这两种趋势都无法单独解释。” ^6个

卡拉戈德曼特别考察了辛辛那提的改革进程，并认为宗教文化适应并不是吉克概述的缓慢、稳定的美国化过程，而是取决于与会众对尊重和接受的渴望保持一致的精神领袖的存在。“怀斯和他的同事们为辛辛那提犹太人可能想做但不能单独做的事情提供了知识和精神权威。” ⁷ Zev Eleff 还认为，在内战之后，权力从世俗领导转移到了拉比手中，当时世俗人士将他们的精英视为权威的象征和“信仰的捍卫者”。有了这种新的权力，神职人员能够影响美国犹太教堂的改革。⁸ 【178页完】

可以肯定的是，拉比断言了对 19 世纪美国改革犹太教的意识形态影响。在内战后时期，甚至吉克也含蓄地承认了这一点。⁹这些领袖为新的美国化现代犹太教提供了结构和内容。然而，我还没有遇到任何美国改革运动的历史学家认为维也纳模式在其发展中扮演了重要角色。大卫·菲利普森 (David Philipson)的改革犹太教史 (History of Reform Judaism)引用了它对整个中欧和西欧的影响。Meyer 还在Response to Modernity中讨论了它在欧洲更广泛的影响。两者都没有表明这是美国改革史上的一个因素。在科恩的《遭遇解放》中，维也纳仪式也没有被视为典范或乔纳森萨尔纳最近的美国犹太教。

如果将维也纳的仪式狭义地定义为礼拜仪式，那么它对美国温和的改革确实影响不大。然而维也纳礼仪是...