In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

190 190 CHAPTER ]]]]] 6 A “Renaissance” for the Ritual Questions? The Ritual Debates of the Weimar Republic In 1917 the German Bundesrat considered kosher butchering for the first time since the outbreak of World War I. In a controlled war economy, the German state had begun to regulate food production and distribution two years earlier. During the so-called turnip winter of 1916–1917, the nation faced escalating food prices and shortages. German civilians witnessed a dramatic diminution in the quantity and quality of their food, which resulted in the deterioration of health and morale. Food quickly became the focus of politics and conflict. Striking workers voiced the frustration of those who could not earn enough to buy necessary foodstuffs. Women and children attempted to procure food on the black market. On marches to government buildings, they and their male compatriots demanded access to additional foodstuffs. In response, the German government tightened its controls. It conducted searches of farms to find hidden reserves of food and implemented strict regulations concerning the retrieval, preparation, and distribution of food.1 Spurred by both these menacing conditions and his desire to implement political reforms, German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg requested that the Bundesrat reconsider slaughterhouse practices. Just months before the Kaiser demanded Bethmann-Hollweg’s resignation, the chancellor asked that deputies deliberate two issues: (1) whether kosher butchering ought to be prohibited and (2) whether the practice of itinerant kosher and nonkosher animal slaughter should be permitted.2 1 Richard Bessel, Germany after the First World War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002 reprint); Belinda Davis, Home Fires Burning: Food, Politics, and Everyday Life in World War I Berlin (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000). 2 The archives hold no evidence of Hollweg’s personal motivation in this matter. A “REnAissAnCE” foR THE RiTuAl QuEsTions? 191 Members of the Bundesrat agreed that it would be expedient for Germany’s abattoirs to disallow both. Kosher butchering allegedly required more manpower and supposedly resulted in meat that spoiled quickly. These characteristics were problematic in a time of war. The military fronts—and not the slaughterhouse—required strong men, and meat needed to remain edible for as long as possible, especially if it was going to be sent to the men fighting the war. For all of these reasons , legislators banned the cut required by kosher butchering. However , they were unwilling to force Germany’s Jews to comply with this order. Recognizing the religious significance of kosher butchering, deputies and the minister of interior formally exempted German Jews from the 1917 regulation. The Bundesrat and Ministry did not create a similar exemption for itinerant kosher slaughter. Deputies viewed itinerant kosher butchering as doubly undesirable and explicitly forbade it.3 The 1917 deliberations constituted a break in the Schächtfragen, ending a brief phase of disinterest in the Jewish rite. Between 1914 and 1916, few governmental agencies had paid attention to kosher butchering. Yet, Bethmann-Hollweg’s mandate that the Bundesrat investigate the cut of kosher butchering and the practice of itinerant animal slaughter encouraged some animal protectionists and governmental leaders once again to express interest in the Jewish method of killing animals for food. The 1917 kosher butchering question differed from earlier disputes. During the imperial period, municipalities, regional agencies, and state governments had bickered incessantly over their jurisdiction to regulate Jewish ritual behavior. The Bundesrat’s 1917 intervention insisted on the right of the Reich vis-à-vis individual states to control or protect Jewish rites. Moreover, the 1917 deliberations illuminated a fissure in Jewish self-defense. In their reaction to the Bundesrat’s discussion , local and national German-Jewish organizations exhibited little of the political activity they had demonstrated in years past. Instead, they were quiet.4 Why the acquiescence? There are a number of explanations. Like their German compatriots, Germany’s Jews were occupied with the hardships of war. Moreover, they were not inconvenienced dramatically by these 1917 orders. Much of German Jewry no longer observed religious dietary laws, and fewer benefited from the practice of itinerant 3 Perhaps deputies worried that Jewish communities might employ illegal slaughterers to avoid rations or profit from additional unregulated slaughter. 2 March 1917 Bundesrat Session SHD MDI 16178 no. 33; Grünpeter, “Sind Die Schächtverbote Rechtsgültig ?” Central-Verein Zeitung (CVZ) 20 (15 May 1931): 251–252. Also see earlier concerns in 19 June 1916 letter to the Jewish community of Hüttenbach CAHJP N 13/24, 1916. 4 One exception can be found in Büro...

Share