The Campaign for the Nature of Jewish Orthodoxy: Religious Tolerance Versus Uncompromising Extremism in Interwar Czechoslovakia*

Preface

Developments of the twenty-first century, such as women’s quest for equality, gay rights, the constantly connected smartphone, the stream of information from social media, and the spread of new and old spiritual movements, present Jewish religious leaders with an enormous dilemma. Some think that in order to preserve the ancient Jewish tradition it is imperative to erect and guard high and impenetrable social, moral, and halachic walls around their community. Others believe that expanding the perimeter and allowing more people to feel at home within the realm of Jewish religion is a preferable solution.

While this kind of debate once marked the differences between the Orthodox and the Reform movements, nowadays it takes place within the heart of Orthodoxy itself. This is well demonstrated by the newly established Open Orthodoxy movement, which seeks to exploit each and every halachic leeway in order to adjust religious standards to accommodate today’s social values. Its ultra-Orthodox opponents, however, condemn it for blurring the boundaries of halacha and distorting the true, namely conservative, meaning of Orthodoxy.

This article takes us back a century to a time when, in the wake of World War I, Orthodoxy faced numerous crucial challenges. In those days, two very similar Orthodox societies existed side by side but were differentiated by the nature of their rabbinical leadership. One was led by relatively tolerant rabbis, who had a broader education and were more receptive to social change; the other followed rabbis who took a far more rigid and traditional stand. The outcome of that historical episode may well have a bearing on the ongoing controversy between today’s opposing trends in Jewish Orthodoxy.

Introduction

During the 1870s, Orthodox Jews in Hungary achieved what they considered an unparalleled triumph. The state officially recognized their right to lead the communities where Orthodox Jews constituted a majority according to a set of regulations that accorded with the laws of halacha. The hundreds of official Orthodox communities that were subsequently established were governed by a central organization named The Central Bureau of the Autonomous Orthodox Communities (henceforth, The Orthodox Bureau). The Orthodox Bureau also served as the representative body of Hungarian Orthodox Jewry.

This event set in motion two major processes, both of which contributed to the unique character of Hungarian Jewry. The first, which is less relevant to the present article, was the formal separation between Hungary’s Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews, almost as if they belonged to two separate “Jewish churches.”¹ The second, which lies at the core of this text, was the establishment of two major Orthodox camps. The largest, which I call mainstream Orthodoxy, comprised mainly non-Hasidic Jews who were more receptive to modernity and consequently were more educated, were proficient in more languages, and were better off socially and financially. They were concentrated mainly in the western Hungarian counties, close to the German-speaking countries from which most of them originated. The second camp, the one I call Extreme Orthodoxy, was made up mainly of Hasidic Jews who totally rejected modernity and were thus less educated and occupied a lower socioeconomic stratum. They settled mainly in the northeastern counties, adjacent to the border with Galicia, from which most of them came.²

Until World War I the Jews of both these Orthodox camps lived in the same communities and were subject to the authority of the same supreme leadership, namely the Hungarian Orthodox Bureau. After the war, Hungary was dismantled and some two-thirds of its territory was annexed to other countries. One of these countries was the newly established state of Czechoslovakia, which received two large chunks of former Hungary. The first and larger territory was Slovakia, which comprised parts of several of Hungary’s former western counties. The second was named Carpathian Ruthenia (henceforth, PKR), which consisted of parts of former northeastern counties.³ Although both areas were incorporated into Czechoslovakia, owing to certain political and demographic circumstances each of these districts retained some degree of autonomy.

From a Jewish perspective this resulted in a unique situation...