The CCAR's own reference page states that the 1869 Philadelphia rabbinical conference "declared that divorce was a purely civil matter and needed no religious steps whatsoever. Therefore, a get was not necessary," though two rabbis present, Sonnenschein and Mielziner, dissented and wished the get modified rather than abolished. It records Kaufmann Kohler's later view that civil divorces should be recognized where their grounds matched rabbinic tradition, though this was never brought to an official Conference vote, and confirms Reform's continued acceptance of civil divorce without a traditional get, with remarriage proceeding within the Reform framework using a "Seder Peridah" (Document of Separation) in place of the get.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
The Reform movement's own rabbinical body's own reference page, published on its own site; a standing reference rather than a single dated resolution, so no publication year is recorded for the page itself. NotesCited for Reform Judaism's marriage-position and its detail, and the PositionHeldFrom date of 1869.
Citation
PublisherCentral Conference of American Rabbis
URLhttps://www.ccarnet.org/responsa-topics/reform-get/
Source TypeOfficial doctrinal statement
Custodian
Custodian SourceYes
Custodian BodyCentral Conference of American Rabbis
Custodian BasisThe Reform movement's own rabbinical body's own reference page, published on its own site.
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
Amman, Cities This source names Philadelphia directly: "own reference page states that the 1869 Philadelphia rabbinical conference "declared that di..."
Claims Backed By This Source (13 claims)
This source backs 13 claims across the atlas. As facts: 11 well-attested. As cited relationships: 1 holds. Plus 1 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 10 claims: 9 well-attested, 1 holds.
- Denominations, 3 claims: 2 well-attested, 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.