Jay R. Berkovitz

Rites and Passages: The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Culture in France

Most historians would argue that French Jewry began its transition to modernity in the years between the French Revolution and the vote to confer citizenship to the French Jews in 1791. Jay Berkovitz, however, takes a different tack. He reaches back a century or more to find traces of an already evolving Jewish tradition within French society. His careful study of French rabbinic sources dating to the Seventeenth century as well as the trends in Jewish ritual observance during the ancien regime and beyond serves as the basis of his thesis. He attempts to deflect the historical impact of the Revolutionary era as he investigates the undercurrents of reform efforts by such Jewish luminaries as Rabbi Aaron Worms.
Berkovitz also contends that far from accelerating the process of modernization among Jews in France, the Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the later reign of Napoleon, did a great deal to slow and even reverse that process.
While Berkovitz's contention is that change and movement toward modernity have roots in the old regime prior to the revolution, he offers little concrete proof of this. Part I is replete with instances of a wealthy, connected, and inter-related ruling class that seeks to consolidate its power, whether it is a part of "The Nation" in Bordeaux, or in the Ashkenazic communities of the Alsace and Lorraine.
Efforts to reign in the power of the rabbinate and to bring the leadership under lay controls are met with resistance and with pronouncements of 'herem' or communal ban. Where there were looser restrictions on voting for communal lay leaders, these were not mirrored with a more accessible route to leadership. Wealth, power and family connections still maintained power in the Alsace and in Metz.
Is it accurate to state that because efforts were made to reign in rabbinic power and to move authority from rabbinic courts to French provincial courts that it can be labeled progress, in spite of the fact that those in power continued to consolidate power? It does not appear so, and Berkovitz’s arguments are not compelling. As the 18th century progressed, the requirements for running for office within the various communities became more restrictive, not less. Thus, if there were land requirements, these were extended to continually raise the bar of eligibility and further exclude those who were not members of the ruling elite or the one of the established and wealthy families who controlled the various leadership positions within the community.
If Berkovitz (as he does on p. 58) equates modernization with "laicization", then his argument may have a valid point. Unfortunately, he never explains his definition of what it means for French Jewry to be "modern". If we take the French ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity as established in the Revolution as our definition, do his arguments make sense? Does he provide us with enough supporting evidence to substantiate his claims that French Jewish communities were moving toward a more modern paradigm as defined by the Revolution? It does not appear so. Each time Berkovitz delves into rabbinic responsa or the takkanot of the various Jewish communities of Metz and the Alsace-Lorraine, we find the religious authorities shrinking from any and all intrusions of life outside the confines of the community. The takkanot are issued to control dancing, where couples may or may not be seen together, when and if women are allowed to visit cemeteries, whether members of Jewish community may attend balls or dances, and how they were to act outside the community.
In addition to the takkanot, the rabbinic authorities and the lay religious leaders of each community issued sumptuary laws. Berkovitz views these efforts as an indication that Jewish communities were seeking to come to terms with the outside communities or to demonstrate solidarity with those communities during times of war or economic depression (p.44). However, there is no information to explain exactly why the sumptuary laws were instituted at this time and his arguments fail to be supported by any concrete evidence.
What is clear is that "ruling elite zealously guarded its authority." (p. 58) This restrictive stance by the authorities seems to have done more to thwart the onslaught of modernity than to embrace it. The efforts of the rabbis to consolidate power and of the wealthy ruling class to create high standards of land ownership and wealth would appear to counteract any efforts by the laity to move toward a modern and distinctly French Jewish identity.
Berkovitz’s arguments of a movement toward modernity become more cohesive as he tackles the questions dealing with the changes in ritual observance and rites within Metz and Alsace - Lorraine. However, what still remains unclear is how he is defining "modern." We are left to wonder whether "modern" is equated with a lack of observance, a looser morality, a freer relationship with the gentile neighbors, or if it is something completely different. Is his concept of "modern" a negative idea (which may encompass all of the issues listed above) or is it something that can be viewed positively, such as bringing rituals and rites performed in the synagogue into the eighteenth century?
A bright spot in his argument is the discussion of Rabbi Aaron Worms. If there is any compelling argument for a trend toward modernization, especially within rabbinic leadership, it is in the pages that Berkovitz invests in his discussion of Worms. R. Aaron Worms stands out as a force for modernizing and streamlining ritual prayer, synagogue worship and for opposing the use of folkways, even if those folkways do appear in the Talmud. He gives precedence to reason; a true sign of a modernizing trend.
Berkovitz's argument that the Revolution, combined with the subsequent Reign of Terror and the reforms ultimately instituted by Napoleon thwarted any impetus for the modernization of the Jewish community are well thought out and undeniable. He carries us through initial elation of emancipation and into a quagmire created by an all-out assault on the acien' regime and anything associated with it. He recounts attacks on Jewish citizens, discrimination and harassment. Ultimately, however, Berkovitz establishes that the dismantling of the Jewish community, its educational apparatus and even its two Hebrew Presses virtually paralyze the community, leaving them ill-equipped and unable to meet the challenges required of regeneration. The poverty resulting from economic upheaval further complicate matters for French Jewry, and their response to these calamities is to maintain as much of the old, autonomous, community system as they possibly could.
The path to regeneration and full participation of France's Jewish communities is part of a larger national debate about the meaning of citizenship in the new era of the Revolution. Yet, the Jews have been singled out, as the French seek an answer to their "Jewish question." Essays are written and advice is proffered as how best to assimilate French Jews into French society. Berkovitz illustrates clearly how the old prejudices still linger even as "enlightened minds" discuss modernization. It is striking how the politicians and philosophers denigrated the Jewish tendencies toward separation and isolation as barriers toward full citizenship, forgetting that for centuries the policy of the French government, the French monarch, and the church had been to limit the movement of the Jews, to keep them separate from French society, and to restrict them from certain occupations.
Berkovitz continues to explain in great detail the road toward full modernization following the years of Napoleon’s reign, tracking the changes in liturgy and ritual practice. Here, Berkovitz becomes bogged down in the details. For those of us unfamiliar with the Jewish literary tradition, his argument becomes convoluted and confusing. But we are certainly able to deduce that the author is clearly at home in this realm, and that he is certainly an authority. He takes us forward to the consistorial system in France and creates a clear picture of the struggle facing Jewish leadership in abrogating the tension between modernity, citizenship and traditional Jewish religious practice. Ultimately, Berkovitz sheds a great deal of light on the efforts taken by French Jewry to maintain a middle path toward regeneration and citizenship. By rejecting the extremists who wished to dilute Jewish tradition and those who wished to maintain complete autonomy, Jews in France were able to create an “autochthonous” Jewish culture, as Berkovitz defines it.
Rites and Passages can be viewed as a largely technical work, replete with references to Jewish literary, Talmudic and midrashic references. Berkovitz is at home in this world of Jewish thought which is evident from the way in which he uses them to further his argument. A clear understanding of the role of Jewish writings is important for understanding the impact of his detailed arguments. Because of his prolific use of Hebrew/Jewish terms it would have been an asset to include a glossary of those terms he uses most often, as well as explanations of Jewish source material. But overall, I felt his scope was too broad, and yet at times he becomes so bogged down in detail that it is easy for the reader to become lost. It may have been more effective had he simply chosen to focus on the evolution of halakhic tradition in France, or perhaps the gradual shifts in the roles of the rabbinate and lay leadership. Another avenue may have been to simply focus on that era just prior to the Revolution in France since his overall argument is that change had already begun prior to 1789.
Berkovitz noted early on that French Jewry themselves chose to embrace the Revolution and the granting of citizenship as the genesis of their own modernization. “Generations would recall this momentous event as a turning point of uncommon magnitude.” (p.4) Do we, as historians, have the right to redefine a community that has chosen to define itself a certain way?” If the evidence is there, perhaps we do. However, in spite of Berkovitz’s arguments to the contrary, his own evidence seems to indicate that without the leveling influence of the French Revolution, the powerful among the Jewish elite and the rabbinic authorities would have still sought to strengthen their controls over the community and bar access to those without money, power or family connections. It is also evident that the Jewish leadership, especially the rabbinate would have continued to support autonomy from municipal governments, thus closing the door to modernization.… (más)