a rejoinder - stevens institute of technology of rsrh_danziger.pdfa rejoinder the review article...

Shelomoh Eliezer Danziger

As expected, the critique of Rabbi Samson RaphaelHirsch's ideology that was presented by Rabbi Howward I. Levine in our Spring "1963 issue, stirred a greatdeal of controversy, especially among the numerousardent followers of the Hirschian approach. Rabbi

Danziger, the author of this rejoinder, is a graduateof Columbia University, was ordained at YeshivaUniversity, and presently teaches at the Mesivta

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.

CLARIFICATION OF R. HIRSCH'S CONCEPTS -A REJOINDER

The Review Article entitled "En-during and Transitory Elements in

the Philosophy of Samson RaphaelHirsch" (Tradition, Spring 1963 )

is a long series of criticisms which,if correct, would in effect discreditR. lIirsch as the authoritative

spokesman for traditional Judaismin modern times. What follows isa point by point rebuttal, con-densed somewhat for reasons ofeditorial economy.

TORAH AND GENERAL STUDIES

The reviewer considered it sig-nificant that secular subjects comw

prise the major proportion of thecurriculum which is formulated inR. Hirsch's Horeb (p. 411) tohelp us fulfill the Mitzvah of edu-cation. The implication is that R.Hirsch allotted more time to secu-lar subjects than to Torah study.

But we should note that the idealcurriculum formulated in Horebdoes not allot specific time to anysubject. In some yeshivot one sub-

ject - Chumash - is studied most

of the day, followed by a smatter-

ing of two subjects - Writing andArithmetic. Do the secular sub-jects comprise the major propor-tion of this curriculum? Time al-lotment, not the number of sub-

jects, is the criterion of importance. _In that same chapter on "Educa-"

tion" which introduces the table ofsubjects, R. Hirsch has clearly in-dicated what is more important:

" "Therefore place your child also be-tween heaven and earth and acquaintit with the world. - But in every-thing - let it see - God. This is auseful companion study for the studyof the Torah; it gives. a knowledgeof Nature and man. Note furtherhow the Torah directs your attentionto the beginning of human history. . . This provides a second usfulcompanion study for the study of theTorah - namely, a knowledge ofhistory" (Horeb, pp. 408-9).This presupposes no ordinary

teaching of Nature and History,but, as the table of subjects states:

"N ature and history - penetrated

with the spirit of the Bible." Theymay be viewed as an extension of

141

TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

Torah study. Yet, in the very nextsentence R. Hirsch says:

"But all this must be only sub-sidiary to the child's proper subject- the Torah!"!

It is in this perspective that we

must view the statements il the es-say "Religious Instruction" which

seem to stress the "equal thorough~ness and earnestness" and the"equal care" with which Jewishand secular learning should be pur-sued. Whereas the Horeb was writ-ten for the objective religious guid-

ance of Jewish youth, the essays oneducation are of the nature of pub-lic relations literature designed towin the support of reluctant par-ents, and to ward off the criticismof antagonistic Reform elements,

as well as educational supervisors.

of the government.2 These public

statements were objectively justi-fied on the ground that the generalsubjects were indeed to be taught,not carelessly, but seriously, cap-

ably and carefully. However, thisin no way contradicts the basic;Hirschian requirements that Torahbe the main concern (Torah ikkar)as formulated in Horeb and theTorah Commentary.

It is often overlooked that R.

Hirsch himself attended universityfor only a short time. His son-in-

law and successor, Rabbi Dr. Salo-mon Breuer, who had completelyabsorbed the ideals of R. SamsonRaphael Hirsch, received his doc-toraté from Heidelberg withouthaving attended classes.

To say that R. Hirsch saw noconflict between study of the Torahand pursuit of human wisdom "be-cause both represent sources of

142

knowledge of God's Wil" is to con-fuse "secular culture" (or "humanwisdom") with "nature." R. Hirschdid not say that secular culture or

human wisdom as taught by thephilosophers or scientists of anygiven age - even his own - rep-resent a source of revelation ofGod's truth. He did assert that theobjective realities of nature are, ofcourse, demonstrations or revela-tions of God's Wil, since God isthe Source of nature. But he as-serted with equal .force that the

mortal, subjective scientists whorepresented the secular culture andhuman wisdom of even his ownday (before Darwin, Freud. andMarx) were blinded by their sub-jective theories of atheism. 3

As R. Hirsch puts it in his clas-sic comment to Lev. 18 :4: "But assurely as the Torah comes fromGod, and all other knowÛ!dge andwisdom which have been found byMan only consist of the results ofMan's limited 'insight into the ac-tual nature of things, so sure is itto us, that for us there is only oneteaching, knowledge and truth bywhich all else must be measured,

" and all others have only condition~a1 acceptance and can ooZy havevalue in conformance with it."

This is quite a different picture

of R. Hirsch's view of the relationof Torah study to general studyfrom the distorted one mistakenly

attributed to him. It is a far cry

from the "co-existence" which the

reviewer urged as the only practicalalternative to the ideal "synthesis"

which is presently impossible. ForR. Hirsch there is no opposing sec~

ular sphere of study requiring syn-

Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder

thesis with the saèred sphere ofTorah. (The very term which Day-

yan Grunfeld translates as "secularlearning" appeared in the originalas "general" ( allgemeine) learn.ing.") There is only general, rela.live knowledge which, after it ispurified by the absolute standard

of Torah truth, widens and deepens

our conception of the world inwhich God has placed us to liveaccording to His Torah.

The relation of Torah to DerekhEretz (social and cultural condi.tions) is that of form to matter inthe Aristotelian sense, as. Rabbi Yew

chiel Weinberg of Montreux has soaptly expressed it. Derekh Eretzis the raw material which .is to befashioned and wrought, formed andtransformed by the divine Torah.

There must be a Derekh Eretz onwhich the Torah laws can operateand have their effect.

As for the quotation from Ho-reb, p.219, from which the re-viewer inferred that R. Hirsch be-

lieved in two equal sources ofknowledge of God's Wil - the re-

vealed Torah and the revelation oftruth and right in the mind of man- the meaning öf that quotation isclear from its context. Immediatelyfollowing the sentence quoted bythe reviewer ("Thus truth and rightare the first revelation of God inyour mind") we read:

But the internal voice of justice canrespond only to the general pnnci.pIe. To know what justice requiresin regard to every creature youwould have to know yourself andthe creatures about you as well asGod knows you and them. If, more-over, your freedom, instead of leadwing you to justice, unleashes yourselfshness, if you do not listen to

the voice of truth and right withinyou. . . then you wil rush towardsdepravity and spiritual suicide...The word of God which reveals yourjustice to you is His Torah. It is thewarranty and message of your innervoice which demands justice-.

It is quite evident from the fore-going that R. Hirsch speaks here

of moral truth and right, of man's

moral conscience and general senseof right and wrong, which he takesas being implanted in our mind byGod. He was not hailing "the mindof man in which God has implanteda knowledge of (scientific or intel-lectual) truth and right," and forwhich supposed reason "Hirsch saw

no conflict between our study ofTorah anö the pursuit of humanwisdom." This is a misreading of

R. Hirsch by the reviewer.

R. HIRSCH'S METHOD OFTORAH STUDY

The reviewer claimed that R.Hirsch condemned the method ofTorah study prevalent "frbm theearly Middle Ages until his day" as"leading to an inadequate, external

and improper comprehension ofJudaism," and "ridicules (it J as a'dull and prosaic dialectic.''' Thisis a serious misunderstanding.

The entire conceptual structureof Horeb and the Torah Commen-tary is based on the halakhic foun-dations prpvided by the dialecticmethod of Toràh study of the Riwshonim (early halakhic authorities)of the Middle Ages. Was R. Hirschbasing his concepts and legal de-tails on the senseless, invalid dia-

lectic subtleties and hair-splittingswhich he found so worthy of con-demnation? Can any Mitzvah have

a philosophically valid basis -

143


which according to R. Hirsch, unlikeRambam, must conform to theminute details of the Halakhah asworked out by the authoritativeCommentators - if it is based oninvalid, dialectic commentaries?

And what of R. Hirsch's own useof the traditional method of Tal.mud study? For an impressive ex.ample of this see his Commentaryto Deut. 19: 19, where he offers a

profound solution to a problemraised by the Lechem Mishneh.Such passages are scatteredthroughout his Commentarý.4

Before continuing, let us give amore literal translation of the pas.sages from the Nineteen Lettersquoted by the reviewer than theoften misleading' paraphrases of Dr.Drachman.

Instead of: "a dull and prosaic

dialectic had reduced to merestmummies laws full to overlfIowingof life and spirit," - (p. 99) read:"a spiritless spirit (ein geistloser

Geist) had reduced -." The word"dialectic" does not appear in theoriginal, and the passage has noth-ing to do with dialectics. It referssolely to the lack of consideration

of the spiritual concepts behind

the external laws.

On page 186, instead of: "dialec.tic subtleties and hair-splittings,"the original has only one word:"Spitzfidigkeit," which suggests

deceptive sophistry.What R. Hirsch condemned was

not the traditional method of dia-lectic study - which is indeed the

method of the Talmud itself andnot an invention of the early Mid-dle Ages, as the reviewer implies

- but distorted "pilpul," whichwas cu:ndemned before him by

144

Shelah, Maharal, the Gaon of Vil.na and others, and which had be-come increasingly popular in thecentury preceding R. Hirsch. In a

letter to Z. H. May, dated 1835,R. Hirsch complains: "The weak-

est feature in Israel's present par-

lous condition is in respect of Jew-ish scholarship, the way in whichBible, Talmud and Midrash havebeen studied for the last hundred

years. Because life has long sincebeen banished from the study ofthe Torah, the Torah has been ban.ished from life." Distorted pilpul"in Talmud study and playfuly in-genious derush in studying theBible and Midrash had in recenttimes become the sole preoccupa-tion of many to the exclusion of

any clear study of the basic con-

cepts of the Bible and Midrash orthe undistorted dialectics of theTalmud and the spirit embodied inthem.

Even from the passage of theNineteen Letters (p. 186) quoted

by the reviewer it is clear that R.Hirsch was criticizing a phenom-enon - "Spitzfindigkeit" - whichdeveloped after "the Talmud hadyielded nearly all the practical re-sults for life of which it was cap-able" (ibid.). This must be takento refer to the period after the clas-

sical commentaries to the ShulchanA rukh had been completed, for un-til that time the "practical results"

were stil being drawn from theTalmud in a most fundamental anddecisive way.

Also in the passage on p. 99quoted by the revi~wer, in whichR. Hirsch speaks of the failure toconsider the spiritual concepts ofthe Torah's external laws, he


speaks of this as a phenomenon ofthe "most recent time" ("in letzterZeit") .

To suggest that R. Hirsch was

at any time or in any manner "con-demning~' or "ridiculing" the clas-sical, undistorted dialectic methodof traditional Torah study "fromthe early Middle-Ages until hisday," as the reviewer states, is agross misunderstanding and a mostserious distortion of R. Hirsch's

views, as we have shown. R. Hirschmade two justified demands:

I) undistorted dialectic study of

the texts to ascertain their true

external intent;2) careful conceptual study of

the inner spiritual ideas that areinherent, after dialectic study has

revealed the external intent.When R. Hirsch's son-in-law and

successor, R. Salomon Breuer~ es-tablished the Frankfurt Yeshivafor deep dialectic study of the Tal-mud, this was no departure fromR. Hirsch's viewpoint, but a frui-tion of that conception.

As for the need to reawakenwhat had become the dormant spir-it of external Judaism, R. Hirsch's

approach was paralleled in Lithu-ania by R. Yisrael Salanter's Mu-

sar movement. Both spiritualgiants recognized this need, and,

indeed, there was an affnity be-tween the two leaders in somerespects.

THE EMPHASIS ON BIBLE STUDY

The reviewer inferred from theNineteen Letters (197-8) that R.

Hirsch emphasized "the centralityof the Bible as the main core of

Torah study," and that "the Tal-mud cannot be properly under-

stood in terms of itself; the Bibledetermines the range of ideas to

be gleaned from the Talmud." Thereviewer finds these ideas exceed-

ingly strange. He asks: "Do we un-derstand the Written Law from thevantage point of the Oral Law?Or vice versa?" The following isthe passage of the Nineteen Lettersalluded to, but in context and in amore literal translation than thatof Dr. Drachman:

"There is one way to salvation -to take the sources of Judaism, Te-~'''kh, Shas, Midrash - Begin withTenakh, then read not for re-searches in language and antiquity,or theories of taste and amusement,but studied for the upbuilding("Aufbau" - not "foundation") ofa science, (this is merely the oppo-site of study "for researches in lan-guage and antiquity -") ; with David-

ic sense nature should be conceived,with Isaiahic ear history perceived;and then, with eye thus aroused, withear thus opened, the teachingabout God, world, man, Israel andTorah should be drawn from Te-nakh (and) brought to conception,and then, with the spirit of such con-ception Silas is to be studied, (whichis). naught else, in Halakhah, but adetailed application of this concep-tion, but presupposing it from Te-nakh, (and which is), in Aggadah,naught else but a figuratively-veiledexpression of such a spirit."

There is nothing here about any"emphasis" upon the study of Biblemore than upon the study of Tal-mud, or of the "centrality of theBible as the main core of Torah

study." All the sources of Judaism

- Tenakh, Shas, Midrash - arementioned as equally important,but different. The Bible presents

the laws and concepts in more gen-

eral terms. In the very nature of

things the initial concept which

145


presents itself to our minds is moreapparent in the general statements

of the Written Torah. For example,

the reason for the Sabbath is statedin the Written Torah as: "It is asign between Me and the childrenof Israel for ever that in six days

the Lord made heaven and earth."On the other hand, one can studyin detail all the thirty-nine melak-

hoth (forbidden labors) of theMishnah without finding a reasonstated. R. Hirsch warns that theTalmud is not a different form ofJudaism - legalism, with no rela-tion to the spirit of the laws - butin reality "a detailed application

of this conception" which is men-

tioned in Tenakh, "but L with theTalmud) presupposing it fromTenakh." How this is really so isdemonstrated by R. Hirsch in hisNineteen Letters (pp. 123-6). Thispresentation is one of the most im-pressive examples of R. Hirsch'sview, that the concept of the mitz-

vot must be drawn, not only fromits general statement in the Bible,but from the seemingly "legalistic"details of the Talmud (see N. L.,p. 193). Indeed, it is R. Hirsch'sopinion that Rambam's "reasonsof the mitzvot" (taame ha-mitzvot)failed to reflect the true spirit ofthe Written Torah precisely beciiusehe "overlooked those details which,in their totality, give the completeidea of the mitzvot, and which

form the main subiects of discus-sion in the Oral Torah" (ibid.).

Now let us answer the reviewer'squestion: "Do we understand theWritten Law from the vantagepoint of the Oral Law? Or viceversa?" With regard to the exter-nal Halakhah, every faithful Jew

146

knows that the Oral Torah deter-mines the meaning of the WrittenTorah. To this extent, the Talmudcan be understood in terms of it-self. Even more, R. Hirsch adds

that the details of the Oral Torahare the only valid corroboration ofour conceptual theory which weinfer from the generality of theWritten Torah.

However, the initial, generalconcept of the M itzvot is oftenapparent only from the WrittenTorah. With regard to the initialconcept, therefore, the "Talmudcannot be properly understood in

terms of itself." However, oncethis general concept is drawn fromthe W ritten Torah, only the detailsof the Oral Torah can define theconcept more specifically. Thusthe Written Torah and the OralTorah are an organic unity, mutu-ally clarifying each other.

The only "emphasis" R. Hirsch

put on Bible study was the "em-phasis" on its rightful place whichit no longer occupied because of

gross neglect. He deplored "the

suppression of Bible study," an er-

ror against which the Talmud hadwarned. ri

However, apart from this com-plaint about the neglect of theBible, R. Hirsch clearly followsthe Talmudic dictum that one'stime should be devoted one thirdto Bible, one third to Mishnah andone third to Gemara (Horeb, p.371 ).

The reviewer charges that R.Hirsch assigns a completely newmeaning to such items as Mishnahand Gemara.

But as a matter of fact, R.Hirsch is merely paraphrasing


Rambam and Shulchan A rukh,where it is stated:

"One third should be devoted toTalmud (G emara) - i.e., one shouldperceive and understand the finalmatter from its beginning, and de-duce one matter from another, anddraw analogies between one matterand another, and employ the meth-ods by which the Torah is interp-reted until he knows the nature ofthe root of the laws and how thematters which are prohibited andallowed are derived" (Y ore/i Deali

-246). (Rambam adds: "and this iswhat is called Gemara.").To have departed from the plain,

literal meaning of the words inorder to attribute to R. Hirsch anobjectionable, untraditional idea

with regard to Gemara was, on thepart of the reviewer, an unwar-ranted inference, a distortion.

Also the expression used by R.

Hirsch, "according to your powers"is an obvious paraphrase of Ram-barn and Shulchan A rukh (ibid.)where it is said of the study of

Talmud: "according to the breadthof his heart and reflection of hismind. "

Rambam, the Shulchan Arukhand R. Hirsch are merely giving adefinition of Gemara.

As for Mishnah, where is the"new meaning and nuance" thatthe reviewer accuses R. Hirsch ofhaving invented? Perhaps the ob-

jection is to the words "begin toteach him - with instruction inthe rudiments of the Oral Law,"from which the reviewer perhapsinfers a mere rudimentary begin-

ning. However, "begin to teach"is used because the author is refer-ring to a child who has just reachedten years of age, and who mustnow "begin" the study of Mishnah.

R. Hirsch uses the same expression

with regard to Bible study: "begin

the reading of Scripture." As for"rudiments," the German Grund-züge should be translated not as"rudiments," but as "fundamental

passages. "

This leaves only "begin to teach

him his duties -" as the reason for

objection, because, in the reviewer's

words: "In reality, 'Mishnah' is farfrom being a practical source forthe knowledge of Jewish duties."

Of course, in our times, practicalHalakhot are not deduced from theMishnah, but from the Codes whichauthoritatively embody the final re-sults of aie Gemara. However, inTalmudic times the Mishnah repre-sented the codified H alakhot whichformed the basis of the Gem¿ra

(See Kiddushin 49a.).6The reviewer assumes that R.

Hirsch attached little value to thepure theoretical study of the Halak-hah and that for him the study ofsuch areas of Jewish law as are notoperative today would hardly bewarranted. As a matter of fact, R.Hirsch refers to more Talmudicsources in his especially lengthy

and detailed Commentary to Leviti-cus than in his Commentary to anyother book of the Torah. Sacrifices,ritual uncleanness, vessels of the

Sanctuary, . etc. - these are his

main topics of discussion with allthe manifold references to Talmudand Halakhah.

Naturally, the practical duties

operative today have always beenrecognized as taking precedence instudy (See Preface to Mishnah Be-rurah). For this reason Alfasi,RoSH, Tur and Shulchan Arukh

147


contain only the duties operative

today. R. Hirsch's Horeb, pattern-ed after the Shulchan Arukh, doesthe same. However, the Hirschiansystem certaily includes the non-operative laws as subjects for fullTorah study - both in their legaland in their conceptual aspects.7

THE MITZVOT AND ISRAEL'SHUMANIST MISSION

The reviewer asserts that, in theHirschian scheme, the A1itzvot aremerely a means to the fulfillmentof Israel's mission, which has acompletely this-wordly and hu-manistic goal. This is contrasted

with the traditional view that holi-ness is the highest goal of religious

life.What is overlooked is that Is-

rael's mission of service to humani-ty is not direct, but is achieved bybeing a model people, a people liv-ing in close, direct relationship to

God, loving and fearing Him, andkeeping His ways in holiness andpurity. Since, however, as R. Hirschpoints out, Israel is only the first-born son of God, not the only son,our model relationship to God andHis Wil - which is our highestperfection - automatically serves

as an example to all mankind, whowil ultimately emulate IsraeL. Thus,

while appreciating the value of the

Mitzvot to Israel itself in fosteringour direct relationship and near-

ness to Gods - even if all thiswould have no effect on mankind- R. Hirsch, nevertheless, points

out that our perfection has signifi-cance beyond the Jewish scene. Ourperfection is enhanced even furtherbecause its scope wil be widened

one day to include all the children

148

of God.

However, R. Hirsch does notpermit this passionate relationship

to God to dissipate in personal emo-tion alone. Its energy must be con-verted into concrete acts for the fur-therance of God's purposes here onearth. As our Sages say: "'Andthou shalt love the Lord thy God,'implies that you shall cause thatlove to spread to others."9 This isan intensification of our direct per-sonal relationship to God, not adiminution. Throughout his writ-ings R. Hirsch proclaims that thesense of holiness must emanatefrom the M ikdash (the Sanctuary)and overflow thence to the homesand activities of ordinary living un-til even the most sensuous aspectsof human life are sanctified, per-vaded by the same sense of holinessand nearness of God that one ex-periences in the Mikdash. This isacomplished by living according toGod's M itzvot in all areas of life.It is indeed strange that this God-conscious man of pervasive holi-ness should have been criticized forfailure to appreciate the "worth ofthe M itzvot for their expression

of the direct relationship of man toGod."

Concerning the repeated use ofthe term "mission of humanity andIsrael," the original speaks only of"mankind and IsraeL." The word"mission" was added by the trans-lator, Dr. Drachman.

The reviewer complains that R.Hirsch interpreted the M itzvot interms of a positive, humanistic

goal - the quest for justice. To

demonstrate this, he quotes the fol-lowing passage: "Thus justice is thesum total of your life, as it is the


sole concept which the Torahserves to interpret" (Horeb, p.220) . He would have us believethat R. Hirsch refers to social jus-tice in the ordinary sense of the

word. This is not the case. Indeed,

"Mishpatim are - justice towardsmen" (p. 220L but "Edot L are Jjustice towards God - Torot, jus-tice of your thoughts towards re-

ality-" (p. 221).

"Justice" is used in that chapter,

not only in the humanistic sense of

social justice, but in the sense ofthe relationships of things as they

really are, which God alone knowscompletely, and on which basis Hehas given the Mitzvot. This is thelarger concept of justice, of whichhumanistic social justice (Mishpat-im) is only a part. The chapter on"Justice," how all the Mitzvot canbe brought under the heading of

this 19rger "justice," is one of R.Hirsch's most briliant conceptions.

R. HIRSCH AND THE KABBALAH

The reviewer considered R.Hirsch's criticism of the Kabbalahharsh. The famous passages fromthe Nineteen Letters, pp. 99-100,

187 are quoted. These quotations

undoubtedly imply that R. Hirsch

had a qualified attitude towards theKabbalah, or as Grunfeld puts it,R. Hirsch's attitude was "guarded."This is not new in Jewish history.In the Responsa of Ribash, we find

that Ran was openly critical ofRamban for his "much too exces-sive belief in the Kabbalah" (Re-sponsum 157). R. Hirsch's state-ments are certainly more moderateand reserved than those of R. Ye-

chezkel Landau. They can hardlybe described as "harsh." As a mat-

ter of fact, Dayan Grunfeld, in hisdetailed "Samson Raphael Hirschand the Kabbalah" (Translator'sIntroduction to Horeb) has com-pletely reconciled R. Hirsch's viewswith the kabbalistic school (p.cxxvii) .

Perhaps Grunfeld goes too far.R. Hirsch did, after all, considerthis "invaluable repository of the

spirit of Bible and Talmud" as"eternal progressive development"

rather than "a static mechanism,"

as "an internal phenomenon andconception" rather than "an ex-ternal dream world." More prob-ably, Jacob Rosenheim was closerto the truth when he wrote:

"It is obvious that Hirsch was

inclined to interpret the Cabbalistic

world of ideas as a system of sym-

bols and to expect to find behind

the ilustrative way of expression

of the Zohar, for instance, which

appeals to the imagination, abstract

thoughts about God, the World andthe Torah."io It should be remem-bered that R. Hirsch characterized

even -the Aggadic parts of the Tal-

mud as "as a figuratively-veiledexpression of the spirit" (of the

Bible l. How much more so mighthe similarly consider that which is,in his opinion, only "an invaluable

repository of the spirit of the Bibleand Talmud."

RAMBAM, MENDELSSOHN ANDR. HIRSCH

The reviewer tries to give theimpression that R. Hirsch, influ-enced. by the Haskalah, is more in-

temperate in his criticism of Ram-bam than of Mendelssohn, "thefather of the Haskalah movement."In order to make his point, the re-

149


viewer ignores the text proper of

the Nineteen Letters, in whichMendelssohn is severely criticizedfor his approach in general (p.189) and for the development of acondition "which threatened to de-

stroy all Judaism" (190-91). In-stead, the reviewer quotes a foot-note: "His Jerusalem - empha-sizes - in contradistinction to the

Moreh, etc." But the opening sen-

tence of this footnote, which putsthe matter in proper perspective is

omitted: "Do not misunderstandme. I speak here only of the totalimpression of his work for Ju-daism. His 'Jerusalem'-." That isto say, the total impression of

Mendelssohn's work for Judaismwas negative and ultimately de-structive, as mentioned in the textproper. His Jerusalem, however,

contains an undeveloped opinionconcerning Edot which is praise-worthy.

R. Hirsch's criticism of Rambamin the Nineteen Letters - is in-

deed attributable to "the sub-sequent breaches of observance,"

which are traced in the NineteenLetters with equal force in relationto Mendelssohn as well. As R.Hirsch wrote in an essay: "True

that Maimonides' 'Guide' wasburnt. He would have been thefirst to consign his book to theflames had he lived to see the man-ner in which it has been - andstil is - abused."

It is in this reverential spirit to-

ward Rambam - "this great man,to whom, and to whom alone, weowe the preservation of practicalJudaism until our time" (N. L. p.181) - that R. Hirsch, reluctantly

and with heavy heart, presents his

150

. criticism in order to save the prac-tice of Judaism. One may disagreewith his criticism of Rambam, butone should not imply that R. Hirschwas influenced by the Haskalah torevere Mendelssohn more thanRambam. This is distortion.

THE INDIVIDUAL ANDTHE GROUP

To prove that in the Hirschian

view the religious task of the indi.vidual is to work merely for hisnational group, the reviewer quotes:

"Everything that you have orwil have is given to you only thatyou may fulfill the task of Israelin your life" (Horeb, p. 370).

Let us read this passage in con-

text. R. Hirsch is answerin&- the

argument that Torah study wasmeant only for rabbinical scholars,not for laymen. To this he replies:

But have you been born into theworld to be a merchant, an artist, orto belong to any other station? _You have been born to be an Israel-ite. "Be an Israelite" was the sum-mons with which God called youinto being. Everything that you haveor wil have is given to you only thatyou may fulfill the task of Israel inyour life; and you can fulfill thisthis task only - if your path in lifeand your duties are known to youthrough its (the Torah's) teaching.

There is nothing in this passage

about the relationship of the indi-vidual to his national group. Itspeaks of the task of the individual

Israelite who was born to live as aJew.

The reviewer then quotes:

The Torah teaches you, the indi-vidual, justice and love towards indi-viduals. But the relationship betweenindividuals is not the whole consum-mation of life; the individual is weak


and transitory. And yet, not for thefleeting moment only, not with limit-ed means should you try to preservethe nobility, the greatness, the God-given humanity to which the nameIsrael pledges you. (Precisely becausethe individual is not everlasting, be-

cause his strength is always limited 1God has given the loftiest possessionsand concerns of Israel into the safekeeping not of the individuals but ofthe collectivity. For the collectivityalone is strong, the totality alone isimmortal even in this world (ibid.,p.452).The reviewer complains:"This would seem to be a very

dangerous doctrine. It smacks ofstatism and totalitarianism, andthreatens the very foundation of

religion as we view it today as thesafeguard of the priceless absoluteworth of the individuaL."

The basis of statism or totalitari-anism is the idea that the individuM

al exists for the state, and his rightsmust retreat before the state, whichdefines these rights. The state is ele-vated to an abstract concept whichgives it an ideational existence

higher than the concrete existence

of the individuals who comprise it.A non-totalitarian system also comw

bines individuals into a state, butthe state exists in order to further

the life-goals of the individuals, whocontrol the state's decisions.

But on the regulation exempting

a new husband from miltary dutyin order to enable him to rejoicewith his wife (Deut. 24: 5) , R.Hirsch comments:

Clearly at the root of these lawslies the point of view that a state,the concept of a state as a whole,has reality only in the actua1 num-bers of all its individual members,but apart from them, or next tothem, one cannot consider the exist.

ence of a state as a concept initself. So that the national welfarecan be sought only in the well-beingand happiness of all the single indi.viduals.

Such courageous remarks aimed

against the statism of his time andplace - in the uncompromisingspirit of the Torah - are widelyscattered throughout R. Hirsch'swritings. They flatly contradict thereviewer's prejudiced assertion thatfor R. Hirsch: "The relationship ofthe individual to collective Israeltakes on the same quality of therelationship of the individual to theState familar in German thinking

(Fichte, Hegel)."For the individual Jew, the law

of life which gives it meaning andvalue is the law of Gods Torah. Topreserve this way of life for all theindividual Israelites of the presentand succeeding generations we arecharged with forming communi-ties. To explain the laws of the

Shulchan Arukh governing com-munity organization, R. Hirschwrote Chapter 95 of Horeb, "Du-

ties towards the Community," inwhich he points out - in passages

omitted by the reviewer - how theshort life-span and limited meansof individuals make it desirable toorganize communities which neverdie and which have greater means

to further the goals of all individualIsraelites. There can be no legalclash between the goals of the com-munity and the individualt for thegoals are the same, defied for usby God's Torah.

Of course, the Torah conceives

of us as a nation. We pray in theplural, as a nation. But we are anation of individuals. The goals of

151


the nation and of the individualsare the same - life in the presenceof God and according to HisLaws.

11

It is noteworthy that it is pre-cisely the Kehilah organization ofR. Hirsch's followers that is thestrongest single factor in the flour-

ishing of Hirschian life in the

United States. The failure of over-individualized American Jews toorganize in Kehiloth is one of themain weaknesses of American Or-thodoxy.

MENSCH-JISSROEL

The reviewer would make thisHirschian expression mean "Man-Israel," in the sense that the indi-

vidual is important only as a rep-

resentative of the group IsraeL.

However, Grunfelds interpretationas "man and Israelite" in the sensethat the human element comes firstis evidenced from Horeb, p. 222:

Thus every man, as man, is bornfor justice. In the early history ofmankind, however, - (man) hadforgotten to respect man as man _.It was then that God createdIsrael as His people amidst thenations, so that Israel might bethe standard-bearer of human just-ice and realize it by his example _.You, therefore, as man and Israelite("Mensch-Jissroel") are doublycalled upon to fulfil the image ofjustice, and to be just in all yourways. You cast aside man's andIsrael's dignity if you are unjustto any creature about you-.

R.. HIRSCH AND SEP AR nON

The reviewer criticized R.Hirsch's "practical policy of separa-

tion from the larger Jewish Com-

munity which included non-observ-ant elements," and then quoted his

152

Foreword to demonstrate that hehad no concern for any individualwho did not totally and initiallyidentify himself with the Torah.

Of course, there is nothing inthe Horeb passage quoted by thereviewer that suggests such a negã-tive atttude towards a non-observ-

ant individual Jew. R. Hirsch statesin his Foreword merely that thefaithful Jew must never leave thepale of Judaism even theoreticallyin order to persuaae those whose

theories and inc1ina'tions have al-ready placed them outside the pale.But taking our stand within Ju-daism, by accepting the outstand-ing fact of Jewish history, the di-vine Revelation of the Torah, we

should certainly point out themeaning and attraction of God'sTorah to all Jews, especially to

those who have already strayed.Indeed, this is precisely what R.Hirsch did in his Nineteen Letters.They are an answer to Benjamin,who in the First Letter has arguedfor the rejection of Judaism. Noman in moden times has triedharder, or with more success, towin the hearts of the estranged sons

and daughters of Israel than RabbiSamson Raphael Hirsch.

It is simply untrue that his policyof communal separation was basedon the fact that the larger com-

munity "included non-observantelements." The "By-Laws of K'hallAdath Jeshurun" of New York,patterned on those of R. Hirsch's

Frankfurt Community, providethat: "Any Jewish person shall beeligible to apply for membership,

unless, contrary to Religious Law,said person shall not have been

circumcised, and! or shall not be


willng to have his or her sones)

circumcised, and further, unlesssaid person is married contrary to

the Jewish Law." It is only when

speaking of offces of the Congre-

gation that the By-Laws provide:

"Any person who carries on a busi-ness on the Sabbath or Holy Days,

or desecrates these days in anyother way, any person who hasbeen proved to keep a trejah house-hold or to be ochel trejah, or whodenies the fundamental principles.of traditional Judaism shall be con-sidered unfit for any offce, includ-

ing, but not limited to, that oftrustee." But he is fit for member-ship in the Community.

It was only when the offcial poli-cy of a Jewish community was oneof non-observance or denial of theTorah that R. Hirsch demandedseparation from such an un-Jewish

community. R. Hirsch insisted thatthe more we engage in friendlyrelations with these persons, themore it behooves us to separate

completely from the communal sys-tem which is an organizational ex-pression of sectarianism and her-

esy.12

ISRAEL As "SEGULAH"

The reviewer complains that"contrary to Onkelos, Mekhilta, Ra-shi, and Ibn Ezra, who interpret theverse, 'Then ye shall be my peculiartreasure from among all peoples'(Exodus 19: 5) in the sense of aspecial quality in God's love for ß-rael, Hirsch interprets it not as lovebut as 'a property belonging exclu-

sively to one owner - God has thesole and exclusive claim to Israel'sdevotions and service (N. L. p.142)." The right of a commentator

to give such differing explanations

has been recognized by Rishonimand Acharonim. The point of thecriticism seems to be that R. Hirschavoided the usual interpretation inorder that Israel should not be con-ceived as the object of a special love

by God. However, the very fact thatGod chose Israel from among allthe nations as mankind's standard-

bearer, is per se a demonstration ofspecial love. As R. Hirsch com-ments on Deut. 10: 14-15,

The whole universe, heaven, and theheaven of the heavens, the earthand everything on it is His, andstil He has not come as near toany being as He has to you! Outof all men on earth He found yourforefathers worthy of His specialloving relationship. And you, (who)as their descendents following afterthem should show yourselves equallyworthy of the special bond withGod, you has He chosen from outof all the nations to serve Hisspecial purpose for mankind.Special Divine love is inherent

in the very choice of Israel to serve

God's special purpose for mankind,as the Torah clearly states, and asR. Hirsch stresses in his Comment-ary.

It was not to avoid the idea of

special love for Israel that R. Hirschinterprets "segulah" differently. ToR. Hirsch the term "segulah" im-

plies not only specialty but exclu-

siveness. To relate this exclusive

quality to God's love for Israelwould be to exclude the rest of theworld from God's love, an impos-sible idea. Therefore, R. Hirsch in-terprets "segulah" as the exclusive

claim of God to Israel, not the ex-clusive claim of Israel to God's

love. The passage in the NineteenLetters, p. 142, which Drachman

153


translated freely, literally reads asfollows: "Indeed, 'Segulah' does not

mean that God belongs to no otherpeople, but rather that this people

(Israel) belongs to no other God)should recognize no other being as

its God." R. Hirsch then brings asevidence the meaning of "segulah"in Bava Kamma which indicates"exclusively-owned property towhich no other has a right" (noteto p. 142, ibid.).

When Onkelos, Mekhilta, Rashiand Ibn Ezra interpret "segulah" asan object of special love, they do

not mean exclusive love. Seforno isvery careful to avoid this notion

when he comments:

"Then ye shall be My peculiartreasure" although all mankind isprecious to Me above all thelower creatures, for man alone isthe intended goal, as the Sages say:"Beloved is man for he has beencreated in God's image."

However, if one takes the viewthat "segulah" linguistically impliesexclusiveness - and R. Hirsch has

a right to this linguistic opinion -then he must interpret this exclu-siveness as R. Hirsch has done.Ia

Thus) as is so often the case inthe Midrashic interpretations ofM ekhilta, there are alternate ex-

planations. Rashi followed one, R.Hirsch the other.

R. HIRSCH ANDR. YEHUDAH HALEVI

The reviewer asserts that not-withstanding R. Hirsch's espousal

'of R. Yehudah Halevi's philosophy,he allegedly repudiates the notion- so essential to that philosophy

- that Israel -is endowed with an

hereditary special spiritual quality.

154

This charge is a direct result of theerroneous assumption that R.Hirsch's interpretation of "Segulah"precludes special Divine love forIsraeL. Yet, the hereditary factor is

stressed in the following comment.Minds can be improved, learningimparted, but what is difficult toaccomplish is an ennobling changeto refinement of character, thatabove all has its roots in theancestral inwards -. The seed ofCanaan can also have mind andintellgence, can be brought up andeducated to a sense of duty. Butthe true Jewish humane feelingscan not be inculcated by education;they must be inherited from theinwards of Abraham. It was just onthis innate receptivity for all refine-

ment and nobility and readinessto sacrifice joyfully that God builtthe foundation of His future nation.R. HIRSCH, ERETZ YISRAEL AND

GALUT

The reviewer asserts that for R.Hirsch, Bretz Yisrael does not rep-

resent "an irreducible value."Value, for the faithful Jew, is

determined by the Torah. A cer-tain value is placed on Sabbath ob-servance, on saving life, on all themanifold aspects of life. Moreover,these Torah-determined values aretaught to us in their proper rela.-tionship. In R. Hirsch's view Eretz

Yisrael was to be conceived as the

environs of the Sanctuary of the

Torah. Exile from the land was tohim a "sad disfigurement of theTorah (for which) Jewish tearsare shed and Jewish hearts grieve"(Judaism Eternal, voL. I, p. 137).To this extent, and to whatever

extent Halakhah defines our'rela-tion to Eretz Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael

is indeed "an irreducible value."In the above-mentioned essay R.


Hirsch quotes from R. YehudahHalevi's "Ode to Zion," whichbases all the virtues of Eretz Y is-rael on the spiritual factors of theTorah.

It is true that R. Hirsch did notgo so far as R. Yehudah Haleviand Ramban in demanding thatwe live in Eretz Yisrael even be-

fore the prophesied redemption.

But neither did the majority of Ri-shonim and Acharonim, or theBabylonian Amoraim who studiedin Eretz Y israel only to return toBabylonia make this demand. Nei-ther did R. Yehudah Halevi go toEretz Yisrael, except in advanced

age, nor Ramban except for his en-forced exile from Spain~ Various

material and spiritual factors mustbe weighed. The matter is complexand relative; it is not simple andabsolute. However, to the extent

that the Torah places value onEretz Yisrael, such value is irre-ducible for R. Hirsch, as it is forany faithful Jew. Thus R. Hirschstrongly urged the support of re-ligious colonies in Eretz Yisrael.

Of a Torah State in Eretz Yis-rael, R. Hirsch says: "This was theideal" (Judaism Eternal, ibid.).But it is equally true that the Di-vine punishment of Galut does alsoafford an expanded opportunity.This is not "in radical departure

from biblical and Talmudic teach-ings," as the reviewer mainta ins,

but quite in harmony with them,

as the Talmud states: "The HolyOne, blessed be HeJ exiled Israelamong the nations only so that ge-rim (proselytes) should be added

to their number (Pesachim 87b).As MaHaRSHA comments: "Wereexile a .punishment only, Israel

could have been punished in otherways. Therefore, it follows thatexile was decreed for the purpose

of adding gerim, that is, to publi-cize the true faith among the otherna tions."

Despite R. Hirsch's deep com-

passion for Jewish suffering in Ga-lut (Judaism Eternal, VoL. I, pp.85-87), he bids us not to wallow inself-pity, but to be encouraged bythe ultimately positive goals set byGod - our own spiritual improve-ment and our example to theworld. And like Rambam (Me~lakhim, Chapter II in uncensored

texts), R. Hirsch notes that Chris-

tianity, despite its many pagan ele-ments, succeeded in "rendering in-tellgible to the world the objects

and purposes of Israel's election."

LOYAL CITIZENSHIP

The reviewer complains that theHirschian view of patriotism"raises the need for compliance tobrute force to a high and noble re-

ligious ideaL"In Horeb, R. Hirsch has shown

that Jeremiah demanded: "Seek thewelfare of the city whither I have

caused you to be carried away cap-tive, and pray unto the Lord forit-" even with regard to Babylon,

which was "the country which hadforcibly taken them to live in itsmidst." Babylon was certainly noless totalitarian than present-day

communist states. The reviewerwould have us "make the best of abad situation" without the "innerfeeling" of a "religious ideaL." But

certainly the word of God does notmean that we should pray for thewelfare of the city hypocriticalIy.How this divinely-commanded duty

155

TRAITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

of seeking the welfare of the stateshould be carried out in the ex-

treme example of Nazi Germanyor other unjust totalitarian states isan interesting halakhic question.

But it is just that - a halakhic

problem. The word of God to Jere-miah, not R. Hirsch, creates theproblem.

The reviewer asks:"Does the ideal of the mission ofthe Jew to teach justice really im-ply that Israel in Galut must not'wrest its independence by its ownefforts' (Horeb, p. 145)?"

The fact that Israel must not"wrest its independence by its ownefforts" is not a result of the "mis-sion of the Jew to teach justice,"as the reviewer .implies. It is an

obligation imposed on us by God'sword to the prophets as explained

by the Talmud in Ketuvot 111 a. *Grunfeld's note (Horeb, p. 145)

does not, as the reviewer implies,make a distinction between "Hirschin real life" and the "doctrine hetaught and wrote," and R. Hirsch

did not "propound doctrines which

are at - great variance with his

role in life." R. Hirsch was "any-thing but a quietist" when it cameto the moral persuasion of "fieryspeeches" in Parliament against un-just treatment, and written pamph-lets and letters demanding equalcitizenship. These legal, non-violentmethods of persuasion are certain-ly sanctioned. It is ilegal violence,

unsanctioned by the nations, whichwe are obliged to avoid according

to the Talmud.The reviewer accuses R. Hirsch

of believing that "it is wrong forthe Jew to leave his area of missionand to do anything to bring him-self by his own effort to the HolyLand." It should be clear that onlybechomah, mass-immigration toEretz Yisrael in defiance of the na-tions, is wrong. * * Individual im-migration is, of course, praise-

worthy.R. Hirsch never lacked "faith in

Israel's national character," as thereviewer states. He is the most na-tionalistic of Jews. But to him Jew-ish nationalism is infinitely moreprofound and more pervasive thanthe shallow concept which calls it-self Jewish nationalism today.15

FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON HIRSCH'STHOUGHT

The reviewer points to foreigninfluences on R. Hirscb~s thought.

But should R. Hirsch have rejectedthe Talmudic statement, "Not studyis the main thing, but deed~" or

"Great is the study of Torah be-

cause it leads to deeds" simply bew

cause Pichte stressed the samethought?

Do we need Pichte to tell us thatfreedom of choice was given to usonly so that we should submit free-ly to God's Wil?

As for Hegel and Noah Rosen-

jlThe "evidence" from the above mentioned Talmudic passage is far from con.clusive, especially in the light of numerous conflicting statements in other Tal-mudic sources. Many religious authorities demonstrated the halakhic proprietyof Israel's War of Liberation and of the so-called "ilegal" Aliyah prior to theestablishment of the state.-Ed.

.. See, however, Yoma 9b, where immigration bechomah is extolled.-Ed.

156


bloom's contentions, Grunfeld hasalready replied in his Introduction

to Horeb (p. XLI).The reply is the same for all alle-

gations of foreign influences. It isnot enough to point to similarities..The acid test is not whether a Jew-ish thinker was familar with theworks of non-Jewish writers, orwhether a Jewish exposition haspoints of similarity with non-JewishsourceS. What matters is whetherR. Hirsch's conceptions can beshown to correspond in a naturalway to classical Jewish ideas. Itthen becomes unimportant whetheror not non-Jews have sometimesexpressed similar concepts.

We have demonstrated, we be-lieve, that R. Hirsch was not amere German modernist, but oneof our Acharonim of the 19th cen-tury, a worthy disciple of R.Yaa-

kob Ettlinger with all that is im-plied' in this characterization. "Thefact that, through an historical ac-cident, Hirsch wrote in German,makes it too easy for his detractorsto exclude him from the communityand sanctuary of the Rishonim andAcharonim who have been through-out the milenia the bearers of thephilosophical and halakhic tradi-tions of Judaism."16 .

In this clarification of views wehave directed our remarks to thecritics of Hirsch. Some clarifica-tion should also be directed to-wards those for whom he is R.Hirsch (- Rabbeinu Hirsch). R.Hirsch was not great because hepropounded a middle course be-tween rightists and leftists. Com-promise was alien to his system.

What he did demand was a rejec-tion of one-sidedness in Judaism.

Authentic Jewish tradition requiresthat Torah advance on all sides.Careful study of Scripture, lin-guistically and conceptually, musttake its rightful place. Deep dia-lectic study of the Talmud mustdo the same. The proper balance

between Torah (ikkar) and generalstudies (tafel) must be guarded

and maintained. A healthy interestin the general cultural scrne of the

society around us (Derekh Eretz)should not become a desire toidentify ourselves with the life andmodes of that society even withinthe limits set by the Shulchan Arukh.We take these only as the raw ma-terial to be transformed by the To-rah into Jewish life and modes, inspirit as well as in letter. R. Hirschwas an Acharon who happened tolive in the Germany oL the 19thcentury. We are man-Israelites whohappen to live in 20th centuryAmerica. The raw material of theDerekh' Eretz changes, but our task

and starting-point remain ever thesame - the Torah of God, in let-t~r and in spirit.

There is a popular notion that,unlike Hasidism and Musar, whichattempted to deepen the religlousexperience of the Jew, the Hirsch-

ian system aimed at merely pre-serving Judaism against the on:slaught of Western culture. It isour conviction that this notion iserroneous. Study of R. Hirsch'swritings and commentaries has beenfor many a most effective source ofM usar, deeping our spiritual graspof Judaism. At any rate, the deep-ening of spiritual experience isthe very basis of R. Hirsch's con-

ception, and the very result of thecareful study of that conèeption.

157

TRITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

This should be the goal, the taskof all disciples of Rabbeinu Hirsch,who stil are, with certain ilustri-ous exceptions, far from the spir-

itual depth, in the study of Torahand in the observance of Mitzvot,

which R. Hirsch demanded.

NOTES

1. Samson Raphael Hirsch - Horeb, Translated by Dayan Dr. i. Grunfeld

(London: The Soncino Press, 1962), p. 411. d. also R. Hirsch's commentary onLev. 18:4.

2. Rav Joseph Breuer communicated this fact to me.3. S. R. Hirsch, Judaism Eternal, VoL. II, pp. 12-13.

4. See also his Responsum in Tel Taipiot, VoL. X.5. Soferim, 15:~. See also Rosh.6. Derishah to Yoreh Deah 246, also quoted by Taz and Shakh, writes that

the Talmudic statement; "Whoever studies Halakhoth -every day etc." (Niddah73a) refers in our time, not to the theoretical discussions of "Gemara, Rashi andTosaphot;' but to the practical works of the Posekim, "which contain the rootand basis of our Torah -. since as Rashi explained (ibid.) Halakhoth means

what has been legally fixed for practice." But, as a matter of fact, Rashi (ibid.)merely comments that Halakhoth means: Mishnah, Baraita and Halakhah Le-

Mosheh Mi-Sinai." Clearly, then, while the codified Mishnah represented relativelyfixed Halakhoth in older times, our Codes of today represent the same to us. ThusR. Hirsch speaks of the one third to be devoted to Mishnah as: "especially to thecodes which instruct you concisely about your duties, such as Rambam andShulchan Arukh" (Horeb, p. 371 and p. 412) and "where possible - the Mishnah"(p. 412) as well.

7. See Nineteen Letters, pp. 103, 128-29, 192-3. Also Commentary to Leviticus.8. See R. Hirsch's comments on Deut. 6:5 and 11:13.9. Y oma a6a.

10. Jacob Rosenheim. S. R. Hirsch's Cultural Ideal and Our Times, p. 65.11. See also R. Hirsch's Commentary on Ex. i: 1 and 12:3-6, where the relation-

ship of individual familesto the nation is discussed. On the democratic rule of

the community by majority vote.. see Horeb, p. 458.12. Collected Writings, Vol iv, pp. 339-40.

13. R. Jacob Mecklenburg in Ha-Ketab Ve-ha-Kabbalah interprets "Segulah"in a similar fashion, basing himself on another passage of Mekhilta.

14. Commentary on Genesis 15:4. See also Commentary on Deut. 7:8.15. See R. Yechiel Weinberg's essay in Ha-Rav S. R. Hirsch, Mishnato, We-

Shittato.16. Jacob Rosenheim. op. cit.

158

a rejoinder - stevens institute of technology of rsrh_danziger.pdfa rejoinder the review article...

Documents