Talk:Samson Raphael Hirsch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 What does Derekh Eretz mean? 2 Intellectual disagreement, but not Wiki Edit disagreement 3 My edits of 8/8/2004 4 Theological reason for science study

[edit] What does Derekh Eretz mean?

Now that JFW and Danny bring this up, this is worth getting into. The more right-wing of Hirsch's supporters agree with Danny's translation and JFW's views. However, I do not understand why. The Mishna was written nearly 2,000 years ago. Hirsch wrote only 200 years ago, in a totally diffeerent historical situation and society. In any case, people who support this POV hold that Rabbi Hirsch only wanted Jews to combine observant Jewish lifestyle (including lifelong Torah learning) with learning the surrounding gentile society's language, history, science, etc., so that a religious Jew could earn a living in the surrounding gentile society. In this Orthodox view, learning of these "gentile" subjects is not considered problematic, since it doesn't encroach on gentile philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics. RK

However, many other of Hirsch's supporters say that this understanding of Hirsch's philosophy is misguided; they have even gone so far as to call the bad historical revisionism. This issue has been discussed in articles in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, published by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA). In this Orthodox view, Rabbi Hirsch wanted more than just the study of the surrounding gentile society's language, history, science. He also thought that it was permissible, and even productive, for Jews to learn gentile philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics. Hirsch himself studied gentile philosophy, and so did many of his later adherents, including Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and many other rabbis in the RCA. However, this view is considered forbidden by many Orthodox Jews; they generally refuse to study such subjects. As this is an important issue of discussion in the Orthodox Jewish community even today, both sides should be represented in this article. RK

On this subject, see Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy, published in Judaism, Summer, 1999, by Lawrence Kaplan.

THERE IS A MAJOR STRUGGLE CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE within the modern Orthodox community, a struggle over the correct understanding of the person and teachings of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ztz"l, better known simply as the Rav. The Rav, one of the towering rabbinic scholars and thinkers of our era, was, as is well known, the teacher, guide, and, above all, the supreme halakhic and hashkafic authority of the modern Orthodox community for over fifty years. The struggle, then, is not just scholarly, but ideological as well. Indeed, in the deepest sense, it is a struggle over the direction and future course of the modern Orthodox community, a struggle over its very soul.

This type of struggle is not new to the modern Orthodox community. If we look at other rabbinic heroes of modern Orthodoxy, for example, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), founder of enlightened German neo-Orthodoxy, rabbinic scholar, Biblical commentator, and communal leader, or Rav Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935), the first Chief Rabbi of mandatory Palestine, talmudist, kabbalist, poet, communal leader, and Orthodox herald of the Jewish national renewal, we find that their persons and teachings as well have been and, indeed, still are the subjects of intense, often heated debate. Nor should this be surprising. Rav Hirsch, Rav Kook, and the Rav were, in different ways, very rich, complex figures: major rabbinic scholars who at the same time seriously engaged modernity intellectually; individuals whose teachings and persons blended together, in striking ways, conservatism and innovation, strict traditionalism and intellectual daring. It is intrinsically difficult to paint nuanced intellectual portraits that will do justice to the richness of their religious legacies. Moreover, different elements of the modern Orthodox community focus on those aspects in the teachings of these figures that they find intellectually or religiously congenial and gloss over those aspects they find uncongenial. Thus, the more modern, "left wing" elements of the modern Orthodox community tend to focus on the more innovative, humanistic, and universalist aspects of the legacies of these three giants, and minimize the more conservative, authoritarian, and particularist aspects of their legacies, while that community's more traditional, "right wing" elements simply reverse the order of priority.

The author of this article notes that some promimnent rabbis warn that there is a tendency for those on the right-wing of Orthodox to rewrite modern Orthodox thinkers, such as Hirsch and Soloveitchik. In the attempted revisionism, the person is presented as being less modern and more Haredi. For example

Shortly after the Rav's passing, Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, in a eulogy for the Ray delivered on April 25, 1993, urged his auditors to "guard...against any revisionism, any attempts to misinterpret the Ray's work in both worlds [the world of Torah and the world of Madda]. The Ray was not a lamdan who happened to have and use a smattering of general culture, and he was certainly not a philosopher who happened to be a talmid hakham, a Torah scholar.... We must accept him on his terms, as a highly complicated, profound, and broad-minded personality.... Certain burgeoning revisionisms may well attempt to disguise and distort the Rav's uniqueness by trivializing one or the other aspect of his rich personality and work, but they must be confronted at once." [3]

(3.) Norman Lamm, "A Eulogy for the Rav," Tradition 28.1 (1993): 13. R. Lamm's reference to those who seek to "trivializ[e]] one or the other aspect of [the Rav's] rich personality" implies that "burgeoning revisionisms" can come from either the "left" or the "right" In fact, however, by far the most significant revisionism has come from the right, certainly in print, and it is this form of revisionism, particularly in its latest and most extreme manifestation, that deserves our scrutiny. At the same time, there have also been attempts at revisionism from the left, though these attempts have been made orally and, to the best of my knowledge, are not to be found in writing; I will therefore also examine a revealing example of this brand of revisionism.

[edit] Intellectual disagreement, but not Wiki Edit disagreement

Firstly, do not falsify history by ascribing Modern Orthodox Judaism to Rav Hirsch. Secondly, the sources you quote above are all about Joe Soloveitchik. Can we stick to Rav Hirsch, please?

JFW, please note that many modern historians of Judaism identify him as the father of Modern Orthodox Judaism. This identification is accepted as factual by Modern Orthodox Jews themselves, and by non-Orthodox rabbis. I have no objections to stating this in an NPOV way. I thus have no objections with your revisions and edits. RK 14:26, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

There is indeed a struggle about his legacy. This has been dealt with extensively in the article (at the bottom) and it the seperate article Torah im Derech Eretz. JFW

It seems to me that no extensive discussion is there; the topic was briefly alluded to. It needs a fuller treatment, with sources and quotes, to present the subject in its historical context. Please consider my point in the Talk page there to merge the content of that article with this one, and with the article on Modern Orthodoxy. RK 14:26, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Torah im Derech Erezt has a narrow and a wide definition, and the wide definition (incorporating all of secular culture in a Jewish framework) has been largely abandoned. Yes, Rav Hirsch praised Schiller at school ceremonies, but if you take the care to read his polemics with Graetz, Frankel and other contemporaries, you might arrive at an understanding why Rav Hirsch cannot be described as the father of Modern Orthodoxy. Just read his writings - he does not encourage the fields of study you refer to.

I would dispute this; it seems to me that the wide definition of his philosophy is still around today. I live near a few Modern Orthodox synagogues which embrace this wide definition, I know of a many O rabbis which teach it, and I own books by Orthodox Jews on this subject. We can explain why some disagree with these liberal forms of Orthodoxy, but we must not deny that they exist. RK

Further, I have read some of Hirsch's polemics with Graetz, Frankel and other contemporaries...and these were not Orthodox Jews. Graetz was a proto-Reform Jew, Frankel was a proto-Conservative Jew. Few would relate these groups with modern Orthodoxy. (Both then and today, some Haredi leaders hold that Modern Orthodoxy is reform Judaism in disguise, but this claim is viewed as polemical by non-Haredim.) Your references, of course, do show that Hirsch was not the father of Reform Judaism or of Conservative Judaism; I agree with that. RK

If you have problems with this, just edit the article to reflect that "some say..."... "others say....", and don't try to convince me that Hirsch would endorse present-day modern orthodoxy. JFW | T@lk 12:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your formulation is Ok by me. RK 14:20, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My edits of 8/8/2004

RK's edits are on the whole well taken, but here are some points:

• Moravia had no organised reform community when Hirsch was Chief Rabbi there.
• The Bürger- and Realshule were two different schools, the latter for the community children, and the former mainly for Eastern-European refugees.
• The Kaplan reference was removed. This has 100% to do with Rabbi Soloveitchik and very little with Hirsch per se. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Theological reason for science study

The article states "While being a yeshiva student in Eastern Europe, Rabbi Shimon Schwab obtained the views of various poskim (authorities in Jewish law) on the required level of secular knowledge (Levi 1990). On this basis, many Ultra-Orthodox adherents of Hirsch's philosophy have preferred the natural sciences over the humanities as a subject of secular study."

From personal conversations with a small number of right-wing Orthodox rabbis (maybe Haredi, maybe right Modern Orthodox) it seems to me that there is an additional, significant reason that many Orthodox (of all forms) study natural sciences: theological. The study of natural science is the study of God's handiwork; the study of physics is the study of laws created by God. Thus one can come to the same position as Hirsch (these secular subjects can and should be studied) for perhaps a different reason. (Then again, maybe Hirsch felt the same way about science. I do not know.) If you find rabbis of importance who have written on this topic, this subject may find itself into some article. RK

To be very frank, most Haredim who study secular sciences do so to gain a livelihood. I don't know if the situation is the same in Modern Orthodox circles. I do not disagree that it is a mitzvah to Love God, and that this may be achieved by admiring His handiwork, but this was not the context of Rav Schwab's question. Rabbi Bloch (of Telz/Tilsiai), Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Leibovitz and Rabbi Rosen gave various answers, but none seriously dealt with the point you've raised. In recent years, study of science has been replaced with Torah study, and that's that. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)