socially integrated, with civil rights and aspirations to full political rights, often attending non-Jewish schools and educated in a non-Jewish culture, and sometimes living more in a non-Jewish milieu than in a Jewish one.
The programmes and courses of the two institutes
When it was founded, the Breslau Seminary, while maintaining its ties with tradition, seemed a more innovative institute than other schools, whose aim was to train rabbis, that were to be found in Central-EasternEurope, first of all, for its potential students: it offered its services—as the
reasons connected to the more spiritual nature of Protestant Christianity and the more tolerant winds beginning to blow through Centraland Western Europe as for reasons of apologetics. Nevertheless, they never sought to break down the barriers between Jews and Christians or to legitimize Christianity, because to them the supremacy of Judaism over Christianity was patently obvious. This trend was perpetuated among Orthodox rabbis in Germany and Bohemia all through the 19th century. – Ibid, pp. 193–194. Frankel and his school accepted the philosophic approach of
sniping” from Löw against his more conservative colleagues and especially against Chief Rabbi Meisel of Pest. Michael K. Silber, “Budapest,” in The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in EasternEurope , ed. Gershon David Hundert, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), vol. 1, p. 260-274. Löw’s review Ben-Chananja at times became an “arsenal of poisoned darts,” as Meisel’s biographer Meyer Kayserling called it. M. Kayserling, Dr. W. A. Meisel. Ein Lebens- und Zeitbild (Leipzig: Th. Grieben’s Verlag, 1891), p. 63. It is my intention to follow the press battle between the