Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Antisemitic Ideas Meet Jewish Laws: the Case of Hungary

  • Published:
Contemporary Jewry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores Hungarian Orthodox reactions to the Numerus Clausus law (1920) and to the Third Jewish Law (1941). Both laws complied with Orthodox religious views. The first law limited the number of Jewish students in higher secular education institutions, and the second forbade intermarriage. These cases reflect dilemmas of Hungarian Orthodoxy trying to live in two worlds, modern and traditional, and regarding itself as part of the Magyar nation. Orthodoxy held on to the old traditions, which gradually lost their grip on the Jewish community; the new legislations, however, could push their distanced brothers back to the traditional sphere. It was therefore tempting to agree with the laws or, at least, not to raise any objection. Orthodoxy was hardly affected by the Numerus Clausus law, as very few Orthodox students attended universities. The Orthodox press, however, led a lengthy campaign against it, whereas the Orthodox leadership chose to remain silent. The rival Orthodox and Neolog (Reform) streams engaged in bitter disputes but reacted to the marriage ban in similar ways—both expressed mixed feelings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 28 February 1930. Amikor Méhely professzor ugyanazt akarja mint a Tóra (When Professor Méhely wants the same thing as the Torah), Zsidó Ujság

  2. The Zsidó Ujság, the main Orthodox paper after World War I (WWI), appeared in Budapest from 1925 to 1939. In 1939, the authorities limited the scope of the paper’s expression and changed its name to Orthodox Zsidó Ujság. The last issue is dated March 20, 1944, the day following the German invasion and the beginning of the Hungarian Holocaust. All references to these two newspapers are to be understood as referring to content in Hungarian.

  3. Pester Lloyd was a liberal non-Jewish paper in Budapest written in German.

  4. July 1881. Tizenkét Röpirat II (Twelve Pamphlets–Hungarian), 158. Budapest

  5. The term “Orthodox” refers in this article to individuals or communities that were affiliated with the national Orthodox stream regardless of their personal religious conduct.

  6. Formed in nineteenth-century Hungary, Neolog Judaism developed predominantly in urban centers by modernist-assimilated middle- and upper-class Jews inclined towards integration. They did not challenge Jewish law (Halacha) or change the prayer book (Siddur) but were quite lenient in day-to-day religious observance, somewhat resembling the current conservative style (Katz 1995, 53–59).

  7. In this article, Eastern Orthodoxy refers to a way of life and character resembling Eastern European Jewry and not to a geographical location. The same holds for Western Orthodoxy. The origin of most Jews in the western provinces was in modern German-speaking areas, while those in the east came mainly from Eastern Europe and, in particular, from Galicia. Considerable differences existed between the two groups in terms of their level of secular education and socioeconomic factors. Geography, however, is not the issue; there were some Western Orthodox communities in the eastern parts of the country and vice versa (Karady 1992, 161–184).

  8. Yakobowits (1986) gives a comprehensive account of the lengthy controversy from an Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) perspective. More information on the dispute following the 1868 Congress can be found in Keren-Kratz 2016.

  9. 12 March 1933. A mai Hámánok (The Hamans of Our Times), Zsidó Ujság

  10. Percentages in 1910: Orthodox 51.9%, Neolog 43.1%; in 1920: Orthodox 30.9%, Neolog 63.4% (Zeke 1990, 152).

  11. The stated reasons for the parliament law included the following: “We have seen lately that students graduating from our universities who did not find their place in society are its most dangerous elements” (Katzburg 1981, 271).

  12. A considerable portion of the Jewish population was urban and belonged to the bourgeois class, the main source of higher-education students. Calculating the percentage of Jewish students within this subpopulation, the proportion of Jews was not as high.

  13. The above-mentioned Rabbi Lichtenstein was the initiator and author of the Nagymihály Ruling, which formulated the principles of separation from the Neolog stream.

  14. During the years 1920–1930, the noted Neolog weekly Egyenlőség devoted almost 200 editorials to the Numerus Clausus issue.

  15. 25 November 1927. Numerusz klauzus, cionizmus, statuszkvó-szervezkedés) Numerus clausus, Zionism and the Status Quo organization), Zsidó Ujság

  16. 12 January 1927, Zsidó Szemle (Hungarian)

  17. In early 1939, the authorities intended to limit the journal’s scope of expression to purely religious topics; its name was changed to Orthodox Zsidó Ujság, and a new editor was nominated. However, the character of the weekly ultimately remained essentially unchanged.

  18. There were some rabbinic publications in Hebrew, but their scope was limited to Halachic topics, and they avoided reference to current issues.

  19. 16 March 1928. A felsöházi vita frázisai (Empty Phrases during the Upper House Debate), Zsidó Ujság

  20. 26 October 1928. A diák-tüntetések hetében (The Week of Student Demonstrations), Zsidó Ujság

  21. 25 November 1927. Numerusz klauzus, cionizmus, statuszkvó-szervezkedés (Numerus Clausus, Zionism, and Status Quo Organization), Zsidó Ujság

  22. In 1880, 53·4% of the population consisted of ethnic/national minorities (Romsics 1999, 30). By considering Jews as Magyars, the Magyars gained a majority status, which provided legitimacy to promote the Magyar language and culture throughout the country. Thus, the Magyar ruling elite had a special interest in counting Jews as Magyars.

  23. 23 March 1928. Erkölcs és külföldi intervenció (Morality and Foreign Intervention), Zsidó Ujság

  24. 13 January 1928. Erkölcsi szempontok a numerusz klauzusznál (Moral Aspects of the Numerus Clausus), Zsidó Ujság

  25. E.g., 21 March 1901. Félmiveltseg (Semi-education), Zsidó Ujság

  26. E.g., 22 February 1900. Nagyságos antiszemiták (Respected Antisemites), Zsidó Ujság

  27. See 9 March 1926, 11 January 1929, 18 December 1931, 25 December 1936, Zsidó Ujság

  28. See 18 January 1900, 13 June 1901, 27 June 1901, 16 April 1926, 27 April 1928, 10 July 1933, Zsidó Ujság

  29. See 9 December 1927, 17 February 1928, 1 December, 10 February 1944, Orthodox Zsidó Ujság

  30. 5 February 1932. Rabbik szólnak a néphez (Rabbis Address the Community), Zsidó Ujság

  31. 18 February 1927. A relativitás hazai válfaja (A Local Version of Relativity Theory), Zsidó Ujság

  32. 17 December 1926. A numerusz klauzus számüzöttjei helyén (The Numerus Clausus Exiles), Zsidó Ujság

  33. 25 November 1932. A felekezeti anyakönyvelés ügyében (On a Denominational Population Register), Zsidó Ujság

  34. 1 December 1933. Az egyetemi gettó (Ghetto at the University), Zsidó Ujság

  35. 13 November 1936. Antiszemita tüntetések Budapesten (Antisemitic Demonstrations in Budapest), Zsidó Ujság

  36. 28 August 1931. Még egy numerus clausus? (Numerus Clausus Again?), Zsidó Ujság

  37. 8 October 1912. Az utolsó lecke (The Last Lesson), Egyenlőség (Hungarian)

  38. The anti-Jewish laws of 1938–1941 were referred to in Hungary as the Jewish Laws (zsidótörvény).

  39. In the 1890s, Neologs had second thoughts, expressing regret and a feeling of “having gone too far” in their acculturation–integration campaign, which among other things, led to intermarriage (Konrád 2005, 185–189).

  40. 28 February 1930. Amikor Méhely professzor ugyanazt akarja mint a Tóra (When Professor Méhely’s Demands are the Same as the Torah’s), Zsidó Ujság

  41. A similar debate can be seen in modern-day Israel, where religion and state are not separated. Some religious laws are also state laws (e.g., no civil marriages, no public transportation on Shabbat and Holidays, etc.). Conservative Orthodoxy supports the legislation as it preserves the religious character of the country. However, liberal Orthodox groups oppose “religious enforcement” and prefer “voluntary observance.”

  42. 10 June 1941. Zsidó törvény és zsidótörvény (Jewish Law and the Jew’s Law), Orthodox Zsidó Ujság

  43. In Trianon Hungary, the intermarriage rate was 10–14% (Katzburg 1981, 171).

  44. 10 July 1941. Faj és felekezet (Race and Denomination), Orthodox Zsidó Ujság

  45. The Dualism era is referred to in Hungarian history as a Golden Age; see Romsics 1999, 7 and Lendvai 2003, 310–328. This era was the best in Hungarian-Jewish history, but political Antisemitism also appeared, social rejection was present in the public sphere, and accordingly, some historians have questioned whether the “golden” attribute applies in the case of the Jews. (Komoróczy 2012, 185–187; Karady 1997, 147–178, 147–157).

  46. Toward the end of 1938, the authorities closed the Zsidó Ujság, and the scope of the new Orthodox Zsidó Ujság was limited to religious and administrative matters.

  47. The discussion in this article of the modernizing trends of Western Orthodoxy and its similarity to the Neolog stream is confined to the specific cases examined. However, the resemblance is much broader and deeper, as indicated in comments 30–35 above.

References

  • Berlin, Naphtali Zvi. 1993. Sh’ar Israel (The remnant of Israel–Hebrew). Kefar-Hasidim.

  • Blum, Tzvi. 1973. She’erit yehuda (Responsa–Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mishne Halachoth Gedoloth Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnov, Shimon. 1954. Divre yemei am olam (World history of the Jewish people: abridged version–Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Dvir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschinsky, Isaac Michael. 2005. Mivhar derashot (Selected sermons–Hebrew and Hungarian). Budapest: Hungarian Jewish Archive.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egressy, Gergely. 2001. A statistical overview of the Hungarian Numerus Clausus law of 1920. East European Quarterly XXXIV No. 4: 447–464.

  • Ferziger, Adam S. 2008. A road not taken: Rabbi Shlomoh Zvi Schück and the legacy of Hungarian Orthodoxy. Hebrew Union College Annual 79: 107–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, Ben. 1987. Reactions to Antisemitism in modern Jewish history. In Living with Antisemitism; modern Jewish responses, ed. Jehuda Reinharz, 3–15. Waltham: Brandeis University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanebrink, Paul A. 2006. In defense of Christian Hungary. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karády, Victor. 1997. Identity strategies under duress before and after the Shoah. In The Holocaust in Hungary: Fifty years later, ed. Randolf L. Braham and Attila Pók, 147–175. New York: Rosenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karady, Victor. 1992. Religious divisions, socio-economic stratification and the modernization of Hungarian Jewry after the emancipation. In Jews in the Hungarian economy 1760–1945, ed. Michael Silber, 161–181. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Jacob. 1958. Masoret umashber (Tradition and crisis–Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Jacob. 1995. Hakera shelo hit’acha (The unhealed breach–Hebrew). Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Institue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Jacob. 1973. Yichuda shel yahadut hungaria (The uniqueness of Hungarian Jewry–Hebrew). Molad 6: 193–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathaniel., Katzburg. 1970. The Jewish campaign for religious equality in the last decade of the 19th century (Hebrew). Zion 22: 119–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzburg, Nathaniel. 1957. The Hungarian numerus clausus struggle in the league of nations (Hebrew). In Bar-Ilan Yearbook IV-V, 270–288. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

  • Katzburg, Nathaniel. 1974. The Jewish question in Hungary during the inter-war period: Jewish attitudes. In Jews and Non-Jews in Eastern Europe 1918–1945, eds. Bela Vago and G. L. Mosse, 113–124. New York: Wiley.

  • Katzburg, Nathaniel. 1981. Hungary and the Jews; policy and legislation 1920–1943. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keren-Kratz, Menachem. 2016. The politics of Jewish Orthodoxy: The case of Hungary 1868-1918. Modern Judaism (Oxford Academic) 36 (3): 217–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komoróczy, Géza. 2012. A zsidók története Magyarországon II (The history of Jews in Hungary–Hungarian). Budapest: Kalligram.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konrád, Miklós. 2005. Jewish perception of Antisemitism in Hungary before World War I. In Jewish Studies at 6th CEU IV, 177–190. Budapest: CEU Press.

  • Kovács, Mária M. 2016. The numerus clausus in Hungary 1920–1945. In Alta Mater Antisemitica, ed. Regina Fritz, 85–111. Wien: Akademisches Milieu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovács, Mária M. 2012. The Hungarian numerus clausus: ideology, apology and history, 1919–1945. In The numerus clausus in Hungary, ed. Victor Karady and Peter Tibor Nagy, 27–55. Budapest: CEU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lendvai, Paul. 2003. The Hungarians. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Nathan. 1927. Mincha belula beshemen (Responsa–Hebrew). Budapest: Katzburg Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislovics, Erzsébet. 2006. A magyar ortodoxia a századfordulón: 1891-1906 (Jewish Orthodoxy at the turn of the century–Hungarian). Múlt és Jövő: 57–68.

  • Pécsi, Vera. Chronology of the Numerus Clausus in Hungary. In The numerus clausus in Hungary, eds. Victor Karady and Peter Tibor Nagy, 256–275. Budapest: CEU Press.

  • Prager, Jacob. 1989. Torat Ya’akov–Derashot (Sermons–Hebrew). Jerusalem: Maharam Schik Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romsics, Ignác. 1999. Hungary in the twentieth century. Budapest: Corvina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silber, Michael. 1992. The emergence of ultra-Orthodoxy: The invention of a tradition. In The uses of tradition: Jewish continuity in the modern era, ed. Jack Wertheimer, 23–84. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sofer, Moshe. 1961. Derashot Chatam Sofer (Sermons–Hebrew). New York: Abraham Isaac Friedman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieder, Shalom. 1971. Mashmi’a shalom (Responsa–Hebrew). New York: Sender Deutsch Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 2006. Rationality and modernity, eds. Sam Whimster and Scott Lash. London: Routledge.

  • Yakobowits, Ben-Zion. 1986. Zechor yemot olam (Remember the days of old–Hebrew). B’ney Berak: Private edition.

  • Zeke, Gyula. 1990. Szakadás után (After the breach). In Hét évtized a hazai Zsidóság életében (Seven decades of Jewish life in the country–Hungarian), ed. Bányai Lázsló. Budapest: MTA Filozófiai Intézet Kiadása.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 3 Lechi Street Apt. 30, Rehovot, 7621703, Israel

    Jehuda Hartman

Authors
  1. Jehuda Hartman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jehuda Hartman.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartman, J. When Antisemitic Ideas Meet Jewish Laws: the Case of Hungary. Cont Jewry 40, 293–313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-020-09341-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-020-09341-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation