Content uploaded by Andreas Brämer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas Brämer on Jul 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
161
Jewish Preachers and cantors
and the reform o f r eligious services i n the
nineteenth century – th e examPle o f P russia
Andreas Brämer
Evidence suggests that teachers played a very im-
portant role, especially in the formative period, as
path-breakers of the religious reform movement
in German Jewry. In a somewhat romanticizing
tone written in 1870, Meyer Kayserling, the lib-
eral rabbi of Pest, noted in his Bibliothek jüdischer
Kanzelredner [Library of Jewish Preachers]:
Always and everywhere, the school went hand
in hand with the demands and aspirations of the
modern age: it sought to instruct young people
in religious and moral truths in a celebratory
manner and tone, one communicating with God,
and endeavored to spark pupils’ enthusiasm for
the important elements in religious edication
and teaching. At the same time, it provided Jews
striving for something better with an opportunity
to gain a positive impression of the usefulness of
the new modications in religious services.1
However, we should bear in mind that the edu-
cators Kayserling was referring to, were mostly
progressive pedagogues employed at the newly
established reform schools, such as in Dessau,
Frankfurt/Main and Hamburg. ese men were
educated, well-trained intellectuals whose names
were repeatedly mentioned as noted innovators in
the Jewish history of ideas. Yet due to their rela-
tively small number and concentration in only a
few places, they certainly were in no position to
introduce extensive changes in the existing school
system.2
is essay, however, does not focus on the mem-
bers of small elite, but rather on the many hun-
dreds of elementary school teachers and teachers
of religion at the lower end of the social ladder. La-
boring in medium-sized and small Jewish commu-
nities in Prussia, they also carried out other tasks in
the synagogue in addition to teaching and partici-
pated in many ways to reforming the synagogue.
e following text is intended to provide a better
understanding of how these changes in religious
services took place, especially outside the large ur-
ban centers, namely in communities in provincial
areas where there were no rabbis with a theological
agenda for or against religious reform.
e fact is that up until about 1820, only a small
percentage of Jewish school teachers moved be-
yond the boundaries of their traditional world of
learning in order to acquire knowledge in secular
disciplines and pedagogy. e Prussian state like-
wise exercised little inuence up to that time on
the schooling of Jewish children, and in the Edict
of 1812 postponed a reform of Jewish schools.3 It
was not until May 1824 that a partially new Jewish
education policy was established – for the rst time
a ministerial rescript contained concise regulations
for establishing a Jewish school system under state
supervision, grounded on contemporary criteria.
It foresaw compulsory attendance at schools for
Jewish boys and girls, and formulated minimum
qualications for Jewish teaching personnel.4 Prus-
sian Jews, most of whom were still traditional in
outlook, initially viewed these regulations as an
existential threat. ey were perceived as being
aimed at changing and overcoming the traditional
patterns of organization in an educational system
centered on religious instruction (i. e., cheder/
Talmud Torah schools). Only gradually over the
Andreas Brämer
162
course of decades did the level of qualication
among Jewish educators in Prussia begin to rise
as ever more young and suciently educated and
trained teachers (some of whom had also studied
at Jewish teacher training seminars) began to take
over the functions traditionally exercised by the
melammdim in schools. As they also increasingly
began to supplant and pressurize these traditional
educators to leave, the Jewish communities be-
came more aware of the usefulness of basic secu-
lar knowledge and European education. By the
1860s, the reorganization of Jewish teacher train-
ing in Prussia had probably progressed to such a
point that almost everyone in teaching had the
minimum qualications required for elementary
school teachers. e melammed or private school
teacher (the so-called Winkelschulhalter) remained
a topos on the scene, but in reality they were an
almost extinct species of educators at this point.5
What did the Jewish elementary school teachers
and teachers of religion have to do with concrete
religious practice? Contrary to Christian elemen-
tary schools, where teaching personnel was able
to arrange for an exemption from supplementary
duties in the lower church services, most Jewish
teachers, if they were not able to secure a full-time
position at a primary school, were obliged to take
on additional tasks within the Gemeinde [commu-
nity]. Statistics gained in the kingdom of Hanover
in 1865 illuminate this: seventy-ve of the eighty-
six teachers employed in the Jewish communities
of Hanover, which was annexed as a Prussian prov-
ince in 1866, also had additionally assigned “com-
munal duties” associated with their position. us
only thirteen percent of the educators pursued
their profession as teachers in the sense of a full-
time specialized occupation. A similar situation
probably existed in all of the Prussian provinces.6
e teachers constantly found it bothersome that
the majority of Jewish teaching personnel also had
to serve as ritual slaughterers, shochtim. A classi-
cal nexus between the school and the practice of
religion in synagogue services were the teacher-
cantors. Since leading prayers in services in the
synagogue was considered a respectable and quasi-
artistic activity, and since it tended to increase in
signicance during the nineteenth century in con-
nection with what can be termed an ongoing aes-
thetic paradigm shift, the teachers were basically
willing to fulll the expectations of the communi-
ties in this regard. e state also demanded or pro-
moted the coupling of these two functions. In vari-
ous provinces, ordinances were issued which either
expressly approved of a combined occupation as
cantor and teacher, or even commended this as
an ideal fusion. e fact that even large numbers
of medium-sized Jewish communities adhered to
combining duties at school with functions in reli-
gious services, also inuenced thoughts on Jewish
teacher training institutions. It was expected that
these seminaries oer music classes to qualify can-
didates in the musical recitation of prayer and in
the artistic direction of singing (hazzanut) in the
synagogue. e methodical promotion of musical
talent took on even greater weight “after, especially
in recent times, we noted that almost everywhere,
the introduction of a well-ordered religious service
and choral singing, often accompanied by the or-
gan, has taken place.”7
But instruction in cantoral skills did not meet ex-
pectations, despite the fact that even in conserva-
tive communities, there was a shift in what people
felt was desirable as well as a growing acceptance
that communal prayer services be more aesthetical-
ly appealing. e only place where Jewish teachers
could train as prayer leaders [hazzan] was in Bres-
lau. e Reform cantor Moritz Deutsch (1818–
92) set up an institute for cantoral training, the
Musik-Institut für jüdische Cantoren und Lehrer,
which existed for quite some time. e institute,
which initially cooperated with the Jüdisch-eo-
logisches Seminar [Jewish eological Seminary],
required a tuition fee and continued its work as
an independent cantoral institution following the
closing of the teacher education department.8 At
163
Jewish Preachers and Cantors and the Reform of Religious Services in the Nineteenth Century. e Example of Prussia
the other seminaries that existed in Berlin, Düssel-
dorf/Cologne, Münster, and Kassel, the huge gap
between aspired ideal and reality could never be
bridged. e Jüdische Lehrerbildungsanstalt [teach-
er training institute] maintained by the Talmud
Tora Institute in Berlin may serve as an illuminat-
ing example of this discrepancy. e seminary not
only included the dual-oriented career option in its
statutes, but also conducted practical examinations
for its hazzan students, which all candidates were
required to pass. Yet despite all this, as a rule the
seminary did not produce competent, well-trained
hazzanim. e curriculum provided only a few
classes for music, instrumental music and song, in
which the students acquired at best basic cantoral
qualications. A small number of excellent cantors
were able to make successful careers in large Jewish
communities,where they practiced their art before
an educated urban synagogue audience. Most of
the cantors in the small and medium-size commu-
nities often provided little more than a solid mas-
tery of cantoral fundamentals.9
Up until the end of the nineteenth century, the
seminaries were not adequately able to solve the
problem of training cantors. e weekly Der jü-
dische Kantor, rst published in 1879 in Brom-
berg (then Prussia, today Bydgoszcz/Poland), and
dedicated to furthering the “common interests
of Jewish religious ocials,” contained a call for
creating cantorial schools: it argued that the insuf-
cient preparation of the hazzanim should be im-
proved by establishing quality schools for cantors.
e Liberaler Verein der Synagogengemeinde Breslau
[Liberal Association of the Breslau Jewish Com-
munity] also launched an initiative in 1898. Nei-
ther of these eorts was eective.10
While leading or singing prayers in the sense of
hazzanut was not basically an innovation as such,
but rather linked to traditional liturgical practice,
delivering a sermon in the respective national lan-
guage was indeed quite innovative. However, justi-
cation of this rationale was based on bygone tra-
ditions and even the Orthodox did not voice much
protest.11 Jewish elementary school teachers and
teachers of religion likewise were faced with this
challenge. One can see from ocial studies car-
ried out by Prussian authorities in the 1840s, and
which in part report on Jewish religious practice
in the provinces of the monarchy, that religious
ocials in many localities often found themselves
confronted with the expectation of regular ser-
mons. Or on their own, at regular intervals or on
occasion, these religious ocers decided to address
the congregation gathered in the synagogue and
to edify them by means of religious sermons. Es-
pecially outside the urban centers, where religious
communal institutions were not under constant
rabbinical supervision, school and synagogue of-
cials delivered talks from the pulpit in German.
Due to their aesthetic and moral educational val-
ue, these sermons contributed signicantly to the
“improvement” of the religious services. Opinions
on what to call oneself were divided. Some Jewish
teachers ocially referred to themselves proudly as
“preachers,” in part even against the state authori-
ties, who regarded this as an improper pretension
to a title.12
Der Israelitische Lehrer, a monthly periodical pub-
lished between 1861 and 1872 as the mouthpiece
journal of Jewish teachers of religion and elemen-
tary school teachers in Germany, emphatically
championed the idea that the teachers in the com-
munities should take over the function of “min-
istry” in the synagogues. e journal rejected
counter-arguments that the teachers, due to a lack
of proper training, could not fulll the justied re-
quirements for the oce of community preacher,
and by so doing were necessarily distancing them-
selves from their real vocation, and from their non-
preaching colleagues. In 1864, an anonymous cor-
respondent was convinced that synagogue lectures
were quite suited to promoting the recognition of
the teacher by the Gemeinde and to strengthening
his inuence there. He argued that in rural areas,
the teacher had to substitute for the absent rabbi as
Andreas Brämer
164
a preacher. But unlike the rabbi, the teacher should
not preach in a learned lamdan manner, but rather
in a simple and popular fashion, adapted to the
language and education of the local Jewish popula-
tion.13
Of course, the training of preachers proved to be
laden with diculty, at least outside the rabbini-
cal seminaries in Breslau und Berlin, which made
special intensive eorts to improve the practical
qualications of the young theologians (rabbis)
as preachers. But the teacher-training seminaries
found the task of producing well-trained pulpit
preachers too daunting a task and beyond their ca-
pabilities. e new tradition of Jewish homiletics
in the German language was barely reected in the
curricula. It had experienced somewhat of a break-
through from the 1840s on as a “medium for con-
veying bourgeois models and norms.”14 Given this
state of aairs, the young Jewish educators general-
ly did not get an opportunity to develop their skills
as public speakers and preachers until they were
on the job, teaching in a Gemeinde. Some practical
help in formulating sermon discourse was provid-
ed by such authors as Samson Gunzenhauser, who
published a collection of sermons for the use of
preachers, cantors and teachers in smaller commu-
nities.15 Another example is Lion Wol’s Univer-
sal-Agende für jüdische Kultusbeamte, a handbook
for religious ocials and ocers, written for use
in the synagogue, school and home. Wol him-
self was active as a religious ocial. e book ap-
peared in several printings from the 1880s on and
also contained drafts for speeches.16 Likewise of as-
sistance were magazines for homiletics, magazine
supplements and especially the printed collections
of sermons by famous contemporary synagogue
speakers. Preachers lacking a theological-academic
education could resort to such publications for an
example if they were looking for inspiration for a
topic, or even a concrete model draft to plagiarize
for their own edifying lectures and speeches. e
authors of such sermons knew about this practice
of plagiarism and tolerated it, either in silence or
openly. Rabbi Ludwig Philippson in Magdeburg,
editor of the weekly Allgemeine Zeitung des Juden-
tums (1837–1922), published a selection of his
own sermons in 1843, with the subtitle: “For edi-
cation and in particular to be read aloud in such
synagogues as lack a speaker.”17 He commented
elsewhere on his observations:
Given the insignicance of countless communi-
ties, only a few educated theologians can be
employed. e teachers and hazzanim have to
take over preaching on holidays and all special
occasions. No one should shrug their shoulders
at this. Let us be happy that these teachers and
leaders of communal prayer nd an opportunity
in this way to show their ability, set themselves a
goal for their constant striving, and to dedicate
their oce anew. But they have to have some-
thing on hand, texts from which they can gain
direction and ideas, sometimes even the actual
words, in any case learn from these. Consequent-
ly, neither the requisite level of masterful control
of homiletics by the preaching teachers nor the
expectations of the listeners should be set too
high, no matter whether the sermon is composed
on the basis of a previous text model or not.18
Ocial reports from the 1840s, for example, deal
with German lectures delivered “in the Jewish-
German, corrupted dialect,” and elsewhere of “ser-
mons in pure German dialect.” e local authori-
ties in Danzig/Prussia report:
e religious services are held in Hebrew. How-
ever,/: of course highly decient/: sermons are
delivered in all communities with few exceptions
… more or less seldom, and then only in the
German language. us, there are sermons in
Berent once a year, in Danzig three times annu-
ally, in Stargardt once every two weeks, in Elbing
every Sabbath and also on holidays, and all festive
occasions.19
We can gain a rough picture of the changes in
synagogue services up into the 1840s from the of-
cial reports sent to the Prussian Ministry of Edu-
cation. Along with information on sermons and
other German elements in the services, we can
165
Jewish Preachers and Cantors and the Reform of Religious Services in the Nineteenth Century. e Example of Prussia
also nd references to the ocial clothing worn by
the synagogue ocials. Reports were led by the
districts indicating that large numbers of cantors
and preachers, though by no means all, wore robe-
like outer garments. Due to their collars and small
caps, they somewhat resembled clerics in Chris-
tian denominations. A report from Coblenz in the
Rhine Province stated, for example:
e current cantor (hazzan) of this community,
also the candidate for the rabbinate and preacher
here, and according to reports likewise the chief
rabbi in Bonn, however, wears a long black
robe in the synagogue, similar to the soutane
of Catholic clerics, along with the white linen
Geneva bands starting at the collar, similar to
Christian clerics, and a velvet beret, as worn by
Protestant clerics.20
Orthodox Judaism appears to have had substantial
reservations towards this new tradition in apparel.
Especially since this tradition expressed aclear op-
tical distinction between religious ocers without
theological training on the one hand, and rabbis on
the other. e Prussian authorities did not reach a
clear position on the question of ocial dress. But
in some places, the local or regional authorities is-
sued a prohibition if they wanted to avoid confu-
sion and/or a mistaking of Jewish religious ocers
for Christian clerics. is was also the case in Ber-
lin, where the king in 1823 prohibited any innova-
tions in Jewish religious practice. After the Reform
services at the Beer Reform Temple had been for-
bidden, police headquarters confronted the com-
munity in 1840 with the following demand:
e cantor cannot be allowed to wear the ocial
apparel he chooses to wear. At the same time, it
is herewith stated that the reason given in the
appeal placed by the elders of the Community
for wearing this apparel appears to be irrelevant.
ey say that the garment is not in conict with
Jewish ritual and is customary in some other
places. For the synagogue, the selection of any
clothing other than that which has been custom-
ary here constitutes an innovation, even though
an appeal against this had been led.21
On the basis of these accounts, another issue
must be addressed: what signicance did Jewish
religious ocials and ocers have in connection
with liturgical reforms within the synagogue? In
order to nd references to help answer this ques-
tion, another close look should be taken at the
Jewish teacher-training seminaries, where a large
proportion of the new Jewish teachers received
their professional training. Clearly Orthodox were
the training colleges in Würzburg (Bavaria) and
Düsseldorf/Cologne, while Hannover and Berlin
oered a moderate conservative form of training.
e seminary in Münster/Westphalia, established
in 1825, considered itself to be quite progres-
sive. Most of the lecturers there were striving to
achieve a bourgeois form of denominational faith,
expressed principally by changes in the structure
of synagogue services. e teachers trained at the
seminary were granted the role of being multipliers
of modernity, meant to avoid “thoughtless innova-
tions.” Yet it was expected that in their function as
ocers in the synagogue, they would act to pro-
mote a more aesthetic, disciplined form of prayer,
partially in the German language.22
Reservations against the religious observance of
the seminary graduates in Münster occasionally
brought traditional pious communities to the
point where they requested that candidates sub-
mit their nal grades and references. It was also
required that certicates of suitability for employ-
ment be issued by the Orthodox regional rabbi
Abraham Sutro in Münster, a staunch opponent
of any innovations in religious practice.23 In 1848,
massive resistance arose in traditional circles when
Salomon Friedländer, a reputed radical Reform
theologian, was appointed as professor at the semi-
nary in Münster. However, the threat of a nancial
boycott made it a necessity to reach a compromise
in personnel policies and Friedländer was one of
the casualties. He was dismissed from teaching
duties in 1851, after numerous communities in
the Rhineland had warned that if he stayed on
they would cease to pay their regular association
Andreas Brämer
166
dues. In addition, beginning in 1852, Rabbi Levi
Bodenheimer of Krefeld, who was critical of the
Reform movement, was brought in for the annual
examinations of teachers of religion. In this way,
the seminary hoped to regain the trust of Conser-
vative communities.24
We can gain an idea of the cracks within the ranks
of Jewish teachers and in the Jewish population
on the question of the reform of religious services
from the controversies that raged over the ideolog-
ical orientation of the teachers’ college in Münster.
Lion Wol reported on a number of communities
that tended towards Torah-true conservative piety.
is piety was less related to individual religious
observance and more to the practices within the
institutions and among their ocials and function-
aries.25 Jewish synagogue ocers were well-advised
to look initially for a job in such communities
whose members (or executive committee) shared
similar views on questions of religious reform. In a
petition to the Prussian Parliament in 1856, Rabbi
Simon Levy in Friedeberg stated:
Now, after piety has disappeared from most
hearts, contrary to everything that is holy and
religious, the expert religious ocials, who espe-
cially in the small communities, are also teachers
of religion – and, like domestic help, are hired for
a short time and then dismissed – are not allowed
to intervene in religious matters. Rather, the
ocial knowledgeable person on religious rules
must order and arrange religious worship and
instruction in exact accordance with the religious
orientation and secular outlook of the commu-
nity executive board, which is, however, generally
quite ignorant when it comes to religious matters.
And often that ocial must even act against his
own convictions, if he wishes to avoid running
the risk of becoming jobless.26
If the religious ocials adopted reforms, they had
to do so with considerable tact if they did not want
to be crushed between the fronts in the disputes
raging over changes in religious practice. Here it is
useful to look once again to Der Israelitische Leh-
rer, which represented since 1861 the professional
interests of the teachers and religious ocials. e
paper was viewed with suspicion by religiously
conservative educators, who regarded it as the
mouthpiece of religious reform. e paper insisted
it was keeping its distance from partisan disputes
within Judaism, but an undertone critical of tradi-
tion was fairly evident in numerous articles.27 It
cannot be determined whether the paper spoke for
a larger group or even a majority of the teachers.
But the great number of articles are revealing that
deal with the question of reform, as they formulat-
ed concrete expectations for modernization on the
one hand, while on the other they also gave readers
tactical advice. In this connection, the advocated
list of changes does not vary much. In a series of
articles in 1867, it states for example: “ennobling
choral song, individual dignied prayers in Ger-
man, a corresponding simple delivery of the reci-
tation, dignied and inspiring reading from the
ora, haphtora [i. e., sections from the Prophets]
read in German, and every Sabbath, a free, even
if brief lecture during the services, in German.“28
e journal also repeatedly printed calls for the in-
troduction of instrumental accompaniment, i. e.,
the installation of an organ or the purchase of a less
costly harmonium, which would not require any
remodeling of the synagogue interior.29
Many teachers were aware of the contradiction
that on the one hand they regarded themselves as
an elite, which especially championed the spread
of bourgeois values and norms in the rural com-
munities, while in the hierarchical structure of the
communities, their position was marginal: they
occupied at best a place on the periphery. e pa-
per Der Israelitische Lehrer also reected this am-
bivalence. Numerous articles concur in advising
their readers to come out in favor of improvements
in religious services, and on the whole support a
regeneration of Judaism. At the same time, they
point to the professional weakness of the teachers’
position and recommend that the religious ocials
should formulate their religious conceptions with
167
Jewish Preachers and Cantors and the Reform of Religious Services in the Nineteenth Century. e Example of Prussia
due caution in order not to alienate sections of the
community and provoke their anger. Jewish liturgy
was so interwoven with synagogue life “that it de-
mands courage and skill to have even a modicum
of an ennobling eect on the much-beloved habits
of their fellow believers clinging to tradition.”30
ere is evidence that gradually, up into the Kaiser-
reich period, an aesthetic paradigm shift probably
took place in even the rural Jewish communities.
is implies a shift in the values and outlook of
a moderate traditional clientele which then aban-
doned its resistance to innovations when these
innovative changes, as defensive modernizations,
were more geared to changing mere external forms
than having an eect on their actual religious con-
tent. For this reason, progressive changes were now
also possible even in conservative communities, if
they were related primarily to discipline during
the services and aesthetic embellishment (choir,
sermon, simple cantorial singing) – but which did
not inuence the actual sequencing and text of
prayers, and were not perceived as a violation of
religious guidelines. e restructuring of religious
services initially and through the 1830s was more
pitched against the state authorities. is was not
the case in regard to the Jewish school system: its
transformation was signicantly oriented to nor-
mative state regulations and was therefore carried
out in a largely uniform manner.31 e restructur-
ing of the worship service provided an outlet for the
complex expression of the wish to provide bourgeois
forms for the concrete manifestation of Jewish reli-
giosity. As cantors and preachers, the religious of-
cials and ocers occupied key positions within the
synagogue, where they responded to the changed
and changing expectations, taking them into ac-
count, as well at times themselves awakening and
guiding these expectations. But they always did so
with a requisite modicum of judicious caution.
Translated from the German by Bill Templer, edited by Suzan Meves
1 Meyer Kayserling, Bibliothek jüdischer Kanzelredner. Eine chronol-
ogische Sammlung der Predigten, Biographien und Charakteristika
der vorzüglichen jüdischen Prediger, vol. 1 (1870), p. 381; see Adolf
Kober, “Jewish Preaching and Preachers. A Contribution to the
History of the Jewish Sermon in Germany and America,” Historia
Judaica 7 (1945), pp. 103–44.
2 Cf. Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity. A History of the Re-
form Movement in Judaism, (New York/Oxford, 1988), passim.
3 § 39, Edict Concerning the Civil Status of the Jews in the Prus-
sian State, March 11, 1812, in: Ismar Freund, Die Emanzipation
der Juden in Preußen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Gesetzes
vom 11. März 1812. Ein Beitrag zur Rechtsgeschichte der Juden in
Preußen, vol. 2: Urkunden (Berlin, 1912), p. 459.
4 Rescript of the Ministry of Education, May 15, 1824, Jahrbuch
für das Volksschulwesen 3:1 (1827), pp. 12–16.
5 Cf. Andreas Brämer, Leistung und Gegenleistung. Zur Geschichte
jüdischer Religions- und Elementarlehrer in Preußen 1823/24 bis
1872 (Göttingen, 2006).
6 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin Dahlem),
I. HA Rep. 76 III Sekt. 21 Tit. X Nr. 1 Bd. 1 1866–1869,
fol.127–30; cf. Frank-Michael Kuhlemann, Modernisierung und
Disziplinierung. Sozialgeschichte des preußischen Volksschulwesens
1794–1872 (Göttingen, 1992).
7 “Ueber Lehrerbildung,” Der israelitische Lehrer 4 (1864), p.196.
8 Andreas Brämer, Rabbiner Zacharias Frankel. Wissenschaft des Ju-
dentums und konservative Reform im 19. Jahrhundert (Hildesheim/
Zurich/New York, 2000), pp. 350f; cf. Moritz Deutsch, Vorbeter-
schule. Vollständige Sammlung der alten Synagogen-Intonationen
(Breslau, 1871).
9 Cf. Michael Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildung-
sanstalt in Berlin. Eine Festschrift zur Feier des fünfzigjährigen Beste-
hens der Anstalt am 8. November 1909 (Berlin, 1909); J. B. Levy,
Der Vorbeter in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft. Vortrag,
gehalten auf dem 5. Verbandstag der jüdischen Lehrervereine im
Deutschen Reiche zu Frankfurt a. M. am 28. Dezember 1910
(Hamburg, 1911), pp. 19f.
10 Der jüdische Kantor 5 (1883), pp. 155, 162; Archive of the Cen-
trum Judaicum (Berlin), 75 A Be 2 Berlin Nr. 148, fol. 1.
11 Interesting, for example, is Leopold Zunz’s attempt to link mod-
ern sermons to ancient Jewish tradition: Die gottesdienstlichen Vor-
träge der Juden, historisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Alterthum-
skunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte
(Berlin, 1832).
12 Cf. Manfred Jehle (Bearb.), Die Juden und die jüdischen Gemein-
den Preußens in amtlichen Enquêten des Vormärz, 4 vols. (Munich,
1998), passim.
13 “Der Lehrer als Prediger,” Der Israelitische Lehrer 4 (1864),
pp.61f, 65f, 69f, 73f.
14 Cf. Simone Lässig, Jüdische Wege ins Bürgertum. Kulturelles Kapi-
tal und sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2004),
pp.290–325.
15 Samson Gunzenhauser, „Kurz und gut!“ Zwanzig Predigten für
Feste, Sabbathe und Gelegenheiten. Zum Gebrauche der Prediger,
Vorbeter und Lehrer in kleineren Gemeinden, 2nd ed. (Breslau,
1872).
Andreas Brämer
168
16 Lion Wolff, Universal-Agende für jüdische Kultusbeamte. Handbuch
für den Gebrauch in Synagoge, Schule und Haus, 2nd ed. (Berlin,
1891).
17 Ludwig Philippson, Siloah. Eine Auswahl von Predigten. Zur Er-
bauung, so wie insbesonders zum Vorlesen in Synagogen, die des Red-
ners ermangeln (Leipzig, 1843).
18 Idem, Israelitisches Predigt- und Schulmagazin, 2nd ed. (Leipzig,
1854), pp. Xf.
19 Manfred Jehle (ed.), Die Juden und die jüdischen Gemeinden
Preußens in amtlichen Enquêten des Vormärz (Munich, 1998),
pp.737f.
20 Ibid., pp. 1428f.
21 Ibid., p. 620; cf. Michael A. Meyer, “The Religious Reform
Controversy in the Berlin Jewish Community, 1814–1823,” Leo
Baeck Institute Year Book 24 (1979), pp. 139–55.
22 Susanne Freund, Jüdische Bildungsgeschichte zwischen Emanzipa-
tion und Ausgrenzung. Das Beispiel der Marks-Haindorf-Stiftung
in Münster (1825–1942), (Paderborn, 1997); Michael Holz-
man, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin.
Eine Festschrift zur Feier des fünfzigjährigen Bestehens der Anstalt
am 8.November 1909 (Berlin, 1909); Wolfgang Marienfeld, “Jü-
dische Lehrerbildung in Hannover 1848–1923,” Hannoversche
Geschichtsblätter 36 (1982); pp. 1–107; Max Ottensoser/Alex
Roberg (eds.), ILBA: Israelitische Lehrerbildungsanstalt Würzburg,
1864–1938 (Detroit, 1982).
23 Bernhard Brilling, “Das jüdische Schulwesen in Westfalen im
19.Jahrhundert,” Udim 5 (1974/75), p. 25.
24 Brämer, Leistung und Gegenleistung, p. 199.
25 Lion Wolff, Der jüdische Lehrer, sein Wirken und Leben: Kultur-
bilder aus der Gemeinde (Rostock, 1882), p. 139.
26 “Erster Bericht der Kommission für das Unterrichtswesen über
Petitionen (Haus der Abgeordneten IV. Legislaturperiode, II. Ses-
sion,” in: Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin
Dahlem), I. HA Rep. 76 III Sekt. 1 Tit. XIIIa Nr. 48 Sekten –
und Judensachen; Die Ansetzung der öffentlichen Beamten bei
den Judengemeinden, vol. I, 1810–1862, fol. 163–65.
27 Vgl. Josef Klingenstein, “Ein Wort an die alten und neuen Leser,”
in: Der Israelitische Lehrer 2 (1862), p. 2f.; idem., “Fünf Jahre,”
Der Israelitische Lehrer 6 (1866), p. 78; idem, “Die Leiden eines
Redakteurs,” Der Israelitische Lehrer 9 (1869), p. 531.
28 “Stellung und Aufgabe des israelitischen Lehrers in den kleinen
Gemeinden (von L. R.),” Der Israelitische Lehrer 7 (1867), p.121.
29 “Über den Vorsängerdienst und dessen Reform,” Der Israelitische
Lehrer 3 (1863), p. 160; “Stellung und Aufgabe,” p. 117; “Der
Gottesdienst in kleinen Gemeinden,” Der Israelitische Lehrer 10
(1870), p. 321.
30 “Stellung und Aufgabe,” p. 117.
31 Cf. Mordechai Eliav, Jewish Education in Germany in the Period of
Enlightenment and Emancipation [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1960).