1. Liberles, Robert, “Emancipation and the Structure of the Jewish Community in the Nineteenth Century,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 31 (1986): 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Aspects of this article were presented initially at the international conference of the European Association for Jewish Studies, Amsterdam, July 2002; the international conference “Jewish History from Within,” Institut für die Geshichte der deutschen Juden, Hamburg, October 2007; and at the Oxford Study Group on Toleration of Variety in Judaism, Oriental Institute, Oxford University, May 2010.

2. For an English discussion that summarizes the various approaches within Jewish law to cremation, see Klein, Isaac, “Does Jewish Law Permit Cremation?” which is reproduced in Golinkin, David, Responsa in a Moment 2, no. 3 (Dec. 2007)Google Scholar, available at http://www.schechter.edu/JM_Lib/Responsa.pdf (accessed February 4, 2010). See also Rosner, Fred, “Embalming and Cremation in Judaism,” Koroth 8, no. 11–12 (1985): 218–35Google ScholarPubMed. In Hebrew, see the long list of responsa cited in Levine, Aaron, Sefer zikhron Meir ‘al ’aveilut (Toronto: Zikhron Meir Publications, 1985), 1:466 nn. 52, 54Google Scholar.

3. Malkiel, David, “Tekhnologiyah ve-tarbut be-‘inyan sereifat ha-metim: nituaḥ histori u-fenomonologi,” Italia 10 (1993): 58–59Google Scholar. In 38–39 n. 6, the author quotes from the opinion of Rabbi Moses David Ashkenazi, who considered cremation to be “an absolute obligation.”

4. See Wiesemann, Falk, “Jewish Burials in Germany: Between Tradition, the Enlightenment and the Authorities,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 37 (1992), 29–30 [17–31]CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wiesemann's brief discussion of cremation focuses primarily on debates among liberal figures. In addition, he addresses the 1906 controversy in Würzburg over cremation-ash burial in which the state eventually forced the Orthodox Rabbi Nathan Bamberger to allow a separate building to be erected in the Jewish cemetery to house urns with ashes.

5. Malkiel, “Tekhnologiyah ve-tarbut,” 57, points out that in Italy, where the first industrial crematorium in the world was established in Milan in 1875, even an arch opponent of cremation such as Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh of Livorno asserted that once the act had taken place the ashes should be given a proper burial in the Jewish cemetery. For Benamozegh's discussion of this subject, which was cited by German figures as well, see Benamozegh, Eliyahu, Ya‘ane ba-’esh (Livorno: E. Benamozegh and Sons, 1906)Google Scholar.

6. The talmudic discussion of this commandment appears in B. Sanhedrin 46b.

7. See B. Sanhedrin 44b; Joseph Karo, Shulḥan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de‘ah 346:1.

8. Malkiel's fine study, “Tekhnologiyah ve-tarbut,” 39–50, offers an excellent review of the relevant premodern legal and mystical literature. Furthermore, he highlights the relationship between debates over cremation and the broader theme of the interaction between Jewish law, cultural shifts, and modern technology. Beyond differences in geographical concentration, my discussion focuses on burial of the ashes rather than cremation itself. The analysis is, moreover, oriented toward issues of identity, the emergence of new legal and social constructs, and the worldviews of the protagonists.

9. For a companion examination that focuses on the nature of the German Orthodox rabbinate and how the local context of the Hamburg region and the biographical backgrounds of the central disputants are reflected within their respective positions regarding cremation-ash burial, see Ferziger, Adam S., “The Hamburg Cremation Controversy and the Diversity of German-Jewish Orthodoxy,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 56, 1 (2011): 175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Braun, Yisrael Ḥayim, Beit Yisrael 1 (Pecs: Maier Segel Rosenbaum, 1901)Google Scholar. Some opinions were expressed in direct personal correspondences, while others appeared first as responses to a query that Braun published in a Hungarian rabbinic journal. See Va-yelaket Yosef 3 (1901), 71 [35a–b]; 90 [45a–b]; 120 [62a–b].

11. On the development of cremation technology, see Davies, Douglas James, and Mates, Lewis H., eds., Encyclopedia of Cremation (Aldershot, England, and Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), 148–51Google Scholar.

12. McManners, John, Death and the Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 306–19Google Scholar.

13. Richardson, Ruth, Death, Dissection, and the Destitute (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 77Google Scholar.

14. Walsh, M. B., “Cremation,” New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), 441Google Scholar. As of 1963, however, the denial of burial was limited to those who declared explicitly that their request to be cremated was “anti-Catholic” motivated. See Jalland, Pat, “Victorian Death and Its Decline: 1850–1918,” in Death in England: An Illustrated History, ed. Jupp, Peter and Gittings, Clare (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 255 [230–55]Google Scholar.

15. See Bahnsen, Wilhelm, Die Stellung der Evangelischen Kirche zu Feuerbestattung (Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1898)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the initial conflicts between religious authorities and cremation advocates, see Leaney, Jennifer, “Ashes to Ashes: Cremation and the Celebration of Death in Nineteenth Century Britain,” in Death, Ritual and Bereavement, ed. Houlbrooke, Ralph (London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1989), 118–35Google Scholar.

16. Rabinowitz, Harry, “Cremation,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem; Detroit: Keter; Thomson-Gale, 2007), 5:281Google Scholar.

17. Bahnsen, Die Stellung.

18. Wiesemann, “Jewish Burials in Germany,” 29.

19. Fischer, Norbert, Vom Gottesacker zum Krematorium: Eine Socialgeschichte der Friedhöfe in Deutschland (Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau, 1996)Google Scholar.

20. For an extensive bibliography of works on Hamburg Jewry, see http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//bookham.html (accessed February 7, 2010).

21. Hirsch was a Hungarian-born Torah scholar, who had attended university as well. He was not related to the most influential German Orthodox rabbi of the nineteenth century, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–88) of Frankfurt am Main. His immediate prior post was that of chief rabbi of Prague. Basic biographical discussions of Markus Hirsch are available in “Markus Hirsch,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. (Detroit; Jerusalem: Thomson-Gale; Keter, 2007), 9:127Google Scholar; “Zum Geburtstag von Oberrabbiner Marcus Hirsch a.A,” Hamburger Familienblatt, September 2, 1933; “Markus Hirsch,” The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1916), 6:413–14Google Scholar; obituary – [Nachruf] of Markus Hirsch, Israelitisches Familienblatt, May 26,1909; Jewish Chronicle, February 21, 1903, 24. His role in the Hungarian Jewish controversies of the 1860s and 1870s is dealt with extensively in Katz, Jacob, A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth Century Central Europe (Hanover; London: Brandeis; University Press of New England, 1998), 64, 117–18, 129, 176Google Scholar.

22. His decision for the Hamburg community was already reported in the German Orthodox press in January 1897, but the responsum that he penned was first published in the 1901 collection. See Der Israelit 117 (January 25, 1897): 7.

23. Mordecai Amram [Markus] Hirsch, “Teshuva zayin,” in Braun, Beit Yisrael, 43b–45b.

24. Lerner was Polish born but had been educated in both of the famed institutions founded by Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer at which intensive talmudic studies were combined with secular education: the yeshiva in Eisenstadt and the Berlin Rabbiner Seminar. For two partisan biographies of Lerner, see Feld, Yitzhak Dov, “Toldot ha-meḥaber,” in Lerner, Mayer, Hadar ha-karmel (London: Shimshon Raphael Lerner, 1971), 1–29Google Scholar; Jung, Julius, “Rabbi Dr. Mayer Lerner: The Federation's First Rabbi,” in Champions of Orthodoxy (London: self-published, 1974), 1–29Google Scholar. The former in particular offers a great deal of detail about Lerner, including extensive citations from his personal correspondence.

25. According to his biographer, already in 1902 Lerner had been queried about interment of the ashes of cremation and had forbidden doing so. See Feld, “Toldot ha-meḥaber,” 18.

26. Although disputes among rabbis are by no means a rarity, Hamburg/Altona holds a special place in this pantheon due to the famous mid-eighteenth-century debate between Jacob Emden and Jonathan Eybeschütz that divided the European rabbinate. See, e.g., Cohen, Mortimer J., Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1937), 81–101Google Scholar; Leiman, Sid Z., “When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy,” Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 179–94Google Scholar; Jacob J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1988), 370–498.

27. Due to a road being built in the vicinity of the cemetery established at Ottensen in 1713, there was concern over desecration of the graves. In similar cases, Hirsch had long advocated building a bridge to prevent grave desecration without needing to re-inter those buried there. Lerner, by contrast, suggested selling the cemetery property and re-interring the corpses in a newer Jewish cemetery outside the city limits. See Der Israelit 45 (1904). As with cremation, debates regarding public works on old burial grounds and re-interment have surfaced periodically throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, both in Europe and especially in the State of Israel. This topic shares some commonalities with the cremation controversies but is predicated primarily on separate themes and is deserving of independent treatment. For a discussion of the Jewish legal issues involved, see Yitzchok Breitowitz, “The Desecration of Graves in Eretz Yisrael: The Struggle to Honor the Dead and Preserve Our Historical Legacy,” Jewish Law [no date], available at http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/heritage.html (accessed April 8, 2010).

28. Lerner, Mayer, “Menuḥah nekhonah,” Hame'asef 8, no. 3 (1903): 20, 29a [29a–31b]Google Scholar. See also Lerner, Mayer, Ḥayei ‘olam (Berlin: Imzhikowski, 1905), ixGoogle Scholar.

29. See Wolfsberg, Yeshayahu [Aviad], “AH”U,” in ‘Arim ve-’imahot be-Yisrael, ed. Fishman, Judah Leib ha-Kohen [Maimon] (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1948), 2:16Google Scholar, who notes that various issues connected to the local cemeteries had a long history of sparking public disputes in Hamburg.

30. Ehrentreu (ha-Kohen), Hanoch [Heinrich], Ḥeker halakha (Munich: Jakob Hirschinger, 1904)Google Scholar. The German-style transliteration of the title is copied from the back material of the booklet. Hirsch's daughter, who was Ehrentreu's first wife, died in the 1880s, leaving two young children.

31. On Ehrentreu, see Ehrentreu, Avraham ha-Kohen, “Le-demuto shel ha-Gaon Rabi Ḥanokh ha-Kohen Ehrentreu z-“l mi-münchen,” Yerushateinu 4 (2010): 205–16Google Scholar; Ehrentreu, Jona E., “Jewish Orthodoxy in Germany,” in Men of the Spirit, ed. Jung, Leo (New York: Kymson, 1964), 383–87Google Scholar; “Ehrentreu, Heinrich,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 6:242; Levi, “Hanokh Hacohen H. Ehrentreu,” in Jung, Men of the Spirit, 377–82Google Scholar; Ophir, Baruch Ẓvi, ed., Pinkas ha-kehillot—Bavaria (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1973), 110Google Scholar.

32. Lerner, Ḥayei ‘olam. The original article from Hame'asef appears on pages xii–xxiv, but with significant additions.

33. Deutsch, Shimon Ẓvi, 'Or ha-'emet (Frankfurt am Main: Y. Kaufman, 1907)Google Scholar.

34. See Caro, Shulḥan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de‘ah, 345:5.

35. The prohibition is codified in Caro, Shulḥan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de‘ah, 346:1.

36. Hirsch, “Teshuva zayin,” 45b.

37. See Tikochinski, Yehiel Mikhael, Gesher ha-ḥayim, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Solomon Press, 1960), 270 [b4]Google Scholar.

38. See a discussion of David Ẓvi Hoffmann's responsum on this topic in Ferziger, Adam S., Exclusion and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonobservance, and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity (Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 180–83Google Scholar.

39. Hirsch, “Teshuva zayin,” 45b.

40. Lerner, “Menuḥah nekhonah,” 30a.

41. Lerner, “Menuḥah nekhonah,” 29b–30a.

42. Lerner, Ḥayei ‘olam, xxiii.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. For a discussion of the initial application of this formulation to modern nonobservant Jews as well as references to secondary literature, see Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy, 99–105.

46. Lerner, “Menuḥah nekhonah,” 29b.

47. For a survey of the premodern sources, see Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy, 186–205.

48. B. Ḥullin, 5a–b.

49. For descriptions of the decline in observance among nineteenth- and early twentieth-century German Jews, see Breuer, Mordechai, Modernity within Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), xiGoogle Scholar; Lowenstein, Steven, “The Pace of Modernization of German Jewry in the Nineteenth Century,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 21 (1976): 41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richarz, Monika, Jüdisches Leben in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1979), 2:48Google Scholar.

50. Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, ix; Schorsch, Ismar, Jewish Reaction to German Anti-Semitism, 1870–1914 (New York: Columbia University Press and the Jewish Publication Society, 1972), 207Google Scholar.

51. On Ettlinger, who is known today within advanced talmudic study circles for his authorship of the novellae titled ‘Arukh la-ner, see Judith Bleich, Jacob Ettlinger, His Life and Works (PhD diss., New York University, 1974); Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy, 90–112; Ferziger, , “Zehut Ortodoksit u-ma‘amadam shel yehudim she-einam shomrei halakhah: ‘iyun me-ḥadash be-gishato shel ha-Rav Ya‘akov Ettlinger,” in Ha-Ortodoksiyah ha-yehudit: hebetim ḥadashim, ed. Salmon, Yosef, Ravitzky, Aviezer, and Ferziger, Adam S. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2006), 179–209Google Scholar.

52. See Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilkhot mamrim 3, 3. For a trenchant analysis, see Blidstein, Ya‘akov [Gerald], Samḥut u-meri be-hilkhot ha-Rambam (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Hillel ben- Ḥayim, 2002), 185–203Google Scholar.

53. Ettlinger, Jacob, She'elot u-teshuvot binyan Ẓion ha-ḥadashot (Vilna: Metz, 1878), 23Google Scholar.

54. See, e.g., Shapira, Ḥayim Elazar, Minḥat Elazar (Munkacs: Kahana and Cohen-Fried, 1910), 1:84b–85b, (entry 74)Google Scholar.

55. Lerner, Mayer, She'elot u-teshuvot hadar ha-karmel (London: Raphael Lerner, 1970), 60 (entry 16)Google Scholar.

56. Lerner, Ḥayei ‘olam, 133. The reference at the end is to a passage from B. Shabbat 31b, in which God speaks of evildoers who do not fear the day of death.

57. Lerner, Ḥayei ‘olam, 130.

58. In Ehrentreu, Ḥeker halakha, 2, the author notes his father-in-law's unwillingness to enter into a written polemic.

59. Although Ehrentreu's Ḥeker halakha appeared before Lerner's Ḥayei ‘olam, Ehrentreu explains in his introduction that he had already come across the leaves (galleys) of this book during a visit to a printing house in Krakow. Therefore, Ehrentreu's discussion includes references to some of Lerner's yet-unpublished claims, including his portrayal of the sin of cremation as tantamount to the idolatrous Moloch worship of biblical times. In addition to his revised original essay and the letters of support by 150 other rabbis, Lerner succeeded in including an addendum to Ḥayei ‘olam titled ’Or ha-'emet in which he responded point by point to Ehrentreu's critique.

60. Ehrentreu, Ḥeker halakha, 10. Regarding technical legal disagreements, Ehrentreu both produced new support for his father-in-law's reasoning and added additional arguments of his own. Lerner had stated that there was no need to bury the ashes in order to uphold the prohibition of gaining benefit from the corpse since the ashes would certainly be preserved in a marked urn or in a designated area at the public crematorium. Thus, the remains would be treated appropriately. Ehrentreu (11–12, 15) refuted this point by claiming that over time family members or others might not take proper precautions and eventually the vessel would be misidentified. He also asserted (16–17) that even after industrial cremation, some small bone chips remain visible, thus from a legal perspective a body exists and a kohen who comes into contact with it would become impure. Furthermore, the commandment of kavor tikberenu could still be fulfilled. This perception of the physical facts contradicted Lerner's claim that the transformation to dust detached the new material from its previous form and its accompanying legal status. Notably, Ehrentreu stated that his “research” of cremation procedures and the final product did not entail personal examination. Rather he based himself on “eyewitness accounts by persons of integrity.” Nonetheless, he called Lerner to task for stating, “without a doubt our eyes see” that all the bones lose their composition. Ironically, Ehrentreu even added, “…he [Lerner] did not see this himself, he just heard from others who lack full knowledge of the issues.” Lerner later noted this discrepancy in Ḥayei ‘olam, 121 (no. 29–30). The fact that neither of the two rabbis had actually observed the cremation process connects this episode to another significant controversy related to modern technology and halakhah that began in the previous century. In 1858 a major dispute erupted regarding the permissibility of utilizing matzah-baking machines to prepare the unleavened bread for Passover. In that case, many of those who adopted a prohibitive stance had not become personally familiar with the new invention. See Ḥayim Gertner, “‘Mazot machine’: pulmus ha-hilkhati ke-kli le-hagdarat zehut ortodoksit,” in Salmon, Ravitzky, and Ferziger, Ha-ortodoksiyah ha-yehudit, 395–426; Hildesheimer, Meir and Lieberman, Yehoshua, “The Controversy Surrounding Machine-made Matzot: Halakhic, Social, and Economic Repercussions,” HUCA 75 (2004): 214–16 [193–255]Google Scholar.

61. On the debates over separate burial grounds for the secessionist Orthodox communities, see Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy, 105–8, 127–30, 146–49; Liberles, Robert, Religious Conflict in a Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt Am Main, 1838–1877 (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1985), 216Google Scholar.

62. Hanoch Ehrentreu, “Letter 4,” in Deutsch, 'Or ha-'emet, 15.

63. Kook, Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen, “ʿAl bamoteinu ḥallalim,” Sinai 17 (1945): 1–5Google Scholar. For other reasons explained in the essay, Kook expressed ambivalence about eulogizing the two young men. In the end, however, he found an acceptable justification for speaking at the funeral. See discussions of this essay in Sherman, Avraham, “Ha-yaḥas le-aḥeinu she-parshu mi-darkei ha-Torah ve-ha-miẓvot,” in Berurim be-hilkhot ha-Ra'ayah, ed. Neriah, Moshe Ẓvi, Stern, Aryeh, and Gutel, Neriah (Jerusalem: Beit ha-Rav, 1992), 505–24Google Scholar; Ẓvi Yaron, The Philosophy of Rabbi Kook, trans. Avner Tomaschoff (Jerusalem: Eliner Library, 1991), 289–91.

64. Yaron, Philosophy of Rabbi Kook, 21–43, 197–244.

65. For the most comprehensive exploration of Hirshenson, see Zohar, David, Meḥuyavut Yehudit be-‘olam moderni: Ha-Rav Hirshenson ve-yaḥaso la-modernah (Jerusalem; Ramat Gan: Shalom Hartman Institute and Bar-Ilan University Law School, 2003)Google Scholar. On his approach to nonobservant Jews, see Ackerman, Ari, “‘Judging the Sinner Favorably’: Ḥayim Hirschensohn on the Need for Leniency in Halakhic Decision Making,” Modern Judaism 22, no. 3 (2002): 261–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. Hirshenson, Ḥayim, Malki ba-kodesh 2 (St. Louis: Moinster, 1921), 164Google Scholar.

67. Sagi, Avi, and Zohar, Ẓvi, Ma‘agalei zehut yehudit ba-sifrut ha-hilkhatit (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2000), 177–85Google Scholar.

68. Ibid., 180.

69. For a discussion of an initial example in the modern period of the breakdown in the “ethnic-church” amalgam that had historically characterized Judaism, see Ferziger, Adam S., “Between ‘Ashkenazi’ and Sepharad: An Early Modern German Rabbinic Response to Religious Pluralism in the Spanish-Portuguese Community,” Studia Rosenthaliana 35, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 7–22Google Scholar.

70. Levi, Solomon, “Hanokh Hacohen H. Ehrentreu,” in Jung, Men of the Spirit, 381Google Scholar; Ehrentreu, Jona E., “Jewish Orthodoxy in Germany,” in Jung, Men of the Spirit, 385 (cf. 383–87)Google Scholar.

71. Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy, 90–192.

72. Douglas, Mary, In the Wilderness (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 46–47Google Scholar.

73. See Hoffmann, David Ẓvi, She'elot u-teshovot melamed le-ho‘il (Frankfurt am Main: Hermon, 1926), 29 [28–29]Google Scholar.

74. Dumont, Louis, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, trans. Sainsbury, Mark, Dumont, Louis, and Gulati, Basia (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 239Google Scholar.

75. Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy, 11–15, 113–85.

76. Fischer, Vom Gottesacker zum Krematorium.

77. Leaney, “Ashes to Ashes,” 132.

78. Ehrentreu, “Letter 4,” 'Or ha-'emet, 13.

79. Ibid., 5.

80. On the role of tests for theological Orthodoxy in Judaism, see Kellner, Menachem, Must a Jew Believe Anything? (London; Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999)Google Scholar.

81. Lerner, Ḥayei ‘olam, 133.

82. This same concern had previously led to the demand by various European states in the late eighteenth century that Jews delay burial for three days. See Samet, Moshe, “Halanat ha-met,” Asufot 3 (1989): 413–65Google Scholar. On the widespread fear, particularly during this period, of suffering from such circumstances, see Bodenson, Jan, Buried Alive: The Terrifying History of Our Most Primal Fear (New York: Norton, 2002)Google Scholar. This theme received literary attention in English through Edgar Allen Poe's 1844 short story, “The Premature Burial”; full text available at http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/nineteenth-century/edgar-allan-poe/the-premature-burial/ (accessed August 25, 2010).

83. Ehrentreu, Ḥeker halakha, 12.

84. Ibid.

85. Hirsch, “Teshuva zayin,” 45b.

86. Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society, trans. Simpson, George (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1960), 102.Google Scholar

87. Perhaps exogamy would be an additional example, although, as noted, even intermarriage is reversible whereas cremation is permanent. On attitudes to intermarriage among German Orthodox rabbis in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see Ellenson, David H., “Representative Orthodox Responsa on Conversion and Intermarriage in the Contemporary Period,” Jewish Social Studies [original series] 48, no. 3–4 (1985): 209–20Google Scholar [reprinted in Ellenson, David H., Tradition and Transition (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), 81–100Google Scholar].

88. Erikson, Kai T., Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons, 1966), 12Google Scholar.

89. Hoffmann, She'elot u-teshovot melamed le-ho‘il, 1:28–29 (entry 29).

90. See Goode, Erich, and Ben-Yehuda, Nachman, Moral Panics (Cambridge; Oxford: Blackwell, 1994)Google Scholar.

91. See the citation that prefaces this paper, which was quoted from Liberles, “Emancipation and the Structure of the Jewish Community,” 67.

92. For biographical background on Hoffmann, see, e.g., Aviad-Wolfsberg, Yeshayahu, “David Hoffmann,” in Guardians of Our Heritage, ed. Jung, Leo (New York: Bloch, 1958), 361–420Google Scholar; Brown, Jonathan M., Modern Challenges to Halakhah (Northbrook, IL: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1969), 1–18Google Scholar; Ginzberg, Louis, Scholars and Saints (Philadelphia: JPS, 1928) 253–55Google Scholar; Daniel Gordis, Dialectics of Community, Continuity and Compassion: The Legal Writings of Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann and Their Philosophic Foundations (PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1992), 161–82; Marmorstein, Jenny, “David Hoffmann: Defender of the Faith,” Tradition 9, no. 4 (Dec. 1966): 91–101Google Scholar; Marx, Alexander, Essays in Jewish Biography (Philadelphia: JPS, 1947), 185–222Google Scholar.

93. Lerner, Ḥayei ‘olam, 101. Like many responsa in Melammed le-ho‘il there is no date listed on the entry. Based on Hoffmann's own testimony in Ḥayei ‘olam, there is no question that it was penned in 1897–1898.

94. Hoffmann, Melammed le-ho‘il, 2:115 (entry 113, 113–16).

95. See ibid., where he also mentions the position of Great Britain's Nathan Adler and his dependence on a decision of Isaac Elḥanan Spektor of Kovno. Hoffmann notes somewhat skeptically, nevertheless, “…although in the [published] collection of the Gaon of Kovno this responsum cannot be found.”

96. Ibid., 123 (entry 114, 116–24). Once again there is no date, but the discussion references an article published in the Jüdische Presse in 1911.

97. Even as this responsum rejects Lerner's position altogether, Hoffmann's personal respect for his student and his efforts to uphold Jewish tradition is manifest in the Berlin authority's reverential references to Lerner and citations from Ḥayei ‘olam within the text.

98. Hoffmann, Melammed le-ho‘il, 2:123.

99. For a summary discussion, see Elazar, Daniel, “Jewish Religious, Ethnic, and National Identities: Convergences and Conflicts,” in National Variations in Jewish Identity, ed. Cohen, Steven and Horenczyk, Gabriel (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1999), 35–52Google Scholar.

100. See Lichtenstein, Aharon, “Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity,” Judaism 12 (1963): 260–80Google Scholar.

101. Hoffmann, Melammed le-ho‘il, 2:123.

102. Lerner, “Menuḥah nekhonah,” 29b.

103. Hoffmann, Melammed le-ho‘il, 2:123.

104. The specific impetus was the permission given to inter non-Jewish wives of Jewish members in the main Weissensee communal cemetery. Subsequently, Hoffmann himself gave his imprimatur to the Adass Jisroel decision to create its own cemetery. See Die Israelitische Synagogengemeinde (Adass Jisroel) zu Berlin: Ein Rückblick (Berlin: Druck, 1904), 22Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Melammed le-ho‘il, 2:133–34, (entry 127).

105. B. Sanhedrin 47a; Shulḥan ‘arukh, Yoreh de‘ah 362:5.

106. In Frankfurt, e.g., this partition is literally a visual one, since in the cemetery at Rat-Beil-Strasse that served the local Jews through the early twentieth century, the general communal burial area and that of the Hirschian separatist framework are divided by a large stone wall. See Senger, Valentin and Meier-Ude, Klaus, Die jüdischen Friedhöfe in Frankfurt (Frankfurt am Main: Kramer, 1985)Google Scholar.

107. In order to address these issues properly I have, as noted above, prepared a separate treatment that was published independently.

108. Marrus, Michael, The Politics of Assimilation: A Study of the French Community at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 1Google Scholar.

109. See Thalman, Rita and Feinerman, Emmanuel, Crystal Night: 9–10 November 1938 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1974), 117–39Google Scholar; Yahil, Leni, “Ha-Yehudim be-mahanot-ha-rikuz be-Germaniyah ʿad le-milkhemet ha-‘olam ha-sheniyah,” in Maḥanot ha-rikuz ha-Naẓiim, ed. Guttman, Yisrael and Manbar, Rahel (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1984), 55–79Google Scholar. The author reports, on p. 71, that at Buchenwald the S.S. announced over the loudspeaker, “If one of the Jews hangs himself, please write your name on a slip of paper and put it in your pocket so that you can be identified.”

110. This procedure continued as late as October 1941. See in Gottlieb, Fred, My Childhood in Siegburg, 1929–1938 (Jerusalem: Mazo, 2008), 67Google Scholar, a photograph of the original letter from the operator of the crematorium in Buchenwald, dated October 21, 1941, requesting that the ashes of Mr. Ignaz Rochman be buried in the Siegburg Jewish cemetery.

111. On Kirschbaum, see Rubinstein, Yehoshua, “Ha-Rav Menahem Mendel Kirschbaum,” in Kirschbaum, Menaḥem Mendel, Ẓiyyun le-Menaḥem, ed. Rubinstein, Yehoshua (New York: Ha-Makhon le-Ḥeker Ba‘ayot ha-Yahadut ha-Ḥaredit, 1965), v–xiiiGoogle Scholar; his picture appears in Ẓur, Ya‘akov, Ha-Rav Ya‘akov Hoffmann: ha-ʾish u-tekufato (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1999), 147Google Scholar.

112. Kirschbaum, Menahem Mendel, She'elot u-teshuvot Menaḥem meshiv I (Lublin: Zweikin, 1936), 60–73, 407–8Google Scholar.

113. Kirschbaum, Menahem Mendel, Takkanot: eikh le-hitnaheg ka-‘et be-’efer ha-nisrafim bavh”r [ba-avonoteinu ha-rabim] (Krakow: Pinḥas Kirschbaum, 1939)Google Scholar, statute 3, n.p. reprinted in Kirschbaum, Ẓiyyun le-Menachem, 363, and in ʾOẓar she'elot u-teshuvot 13 (Brooklyn: NP, 1994), n.p. (end of book)Google Scholar.

114. Ibid.

115. Kirschbaum, Ẓiyyun le-Menachem, xi.

116. See, e.g., Schiff, Daniel, “Cremation: Considering Contemporary Concerns,” Journal of Reform Judaism 34 (Winter, 1987): 37–48Google Scholar, n. 16: “In addition to the association with the Holocaust that cremation evokes—specifically the crematoria in which millions of Jewish bodies were burned—the literal meaning of the word ‘holocaust’ is ‘through destruction by fire.’

117. Zevin, Shlomo, Soferim u-sefarim (Tel Aviv, 1959), 306Google Scholar.

118. See the review essay by Cohen, Richard I., “Ḥeker ha-historiyah ha-Yehudit le-aḥar ha-Shoah—keizad,” Zion 75, no. 2 (2010): 201–15Google Scholar. The author emphasizes the variety of ways—both direct and indirect—that Jewish historical scholarship since 1945 has been influenced by the Holocaust. Reading this just as I was reaching the concluding phases of preparing the current article, I found myself pondering the degree to which my initial interest in earlier Jewish debates surrounding cremation was piqued by its subsequent symbolic meaning within Holocaust memory.