I don't get it. I can certainly understand that Rav Hirsch would strongly object to this and consider it a terrible insult to Chazal. But how does that equate to heresy?
I am once more shocked at recent revelations by S. This time one of my favorite Jewish savants appears as an idealogue - even if enlightened in other areas. I guess, I should not have been shocked since he openly castigated the Rambam in his "19 letters of Ben Uziel". He had the temerity to compare him to Moshe ben Mendel, although he did not dare call him a heretic. I am unfamiliar with "Mar Samuel", but agree with Gobo that merely writing about the life and times of an Amora could hardly consititute heresy - if the author did not overtly disparage the sage. I can't imaging Rav D.Z. Hoffmann doing that. I suppose it could be argued as to who was the greater scholar. There is probably little argument that Rav Hoffmann was the greater halachist.
Y. Aharon
>I don't get it. I can certainly understand that Rav Hirsch would strongly object to this and consider it a terrible insult to Chazal. But how does that equate to heresy?
This isn't the 19th century any more, and moderate Orthodox Jews are long reconciled to things that were once considred unacceptable and outrageous.
Who thinks its outrageous that Jews speak in the vernacular language anymore? Who thinks it outrageous that a child should be taught mathematics and geography?
As far as this particular critique, in defense of R. Hirsch apparently he was asked to judge the work; he did not actively pursue denouncing it by any means--and he enjoyed a cordial relationship with R. DZ Hoffman.
As for the work itself, of course R. Hoffman was in no way critical of Shmuel; the point of Wissenschaft (or Jewish studies) isn't to besmirch anyone (which isn't to say that this doesn't happen), but it is to study Judaism using philology, history etc.
I think it's important to view Hirsch's opinion in context. Volume IV of Graetz's History quite rightfully evoked Hirsch's ire - his critique fills an entire volume of his collected works - and it is not hard to see how the "biogriphization" of rabbinic jurisprudence can lead to oversimplification. Hirsch rebelled against the notion that one's shittot were primarily influenced by one's temperament: i.e. R' Eliezer was short-tempered, and was therefore machmir. IN this critique he was largely correct, and Graetz has indeed been criticized by others for his overly personal theses.
That being said, Hirsch clearly went too far in the opposite direction, not giving enough recognition for individual interpretation in Talmudic law.
I wouldn't say he rebelled against it. It isn't as if that was the traditional point of view. Rather, he rejected the new Wissenschaft as both dangerous and wrong.
Hile Wechsler was one of the most right wing students of RSR Hirsch and did not approve of everything that went on in Franfort.
He also had prophetic visions about the end of German Jewry, which R. Hirsch told him to ignore. See James Kirsch,
The Reluctant Prophet.
It is the right wing follower that stirred up the controversy.
Hile weshcler also was reluctant to accept science and evolution and the positive statements by Hirsch about science were written as a reponse to Hile.
"I guess, I should not have been shocked since he openly castigated the Rambam in his "19 letters of Ben Uziel". He had the temerity to compare him to Moshe ben Mendel, although he did not dare call him a heretic."
Y. Aron,
I do not have any problem with RSRH regarding the Ninteen Letters and the Rambam. Rav Hirsch Zt'l wrote that we owe Judaism's survival to the Rambam(I forgot the exact text).
Regarding the Moshe ben Mendel comparison, I don't remember the text, but I don't think that it was meant as an comparison in every way!
The Nineteen Letters by Feldheim(R' Elias) points out that RSRH was merely following the critique of the Chassid Yavetz and others. He also puts the Mendelsohn quotation in context(I don't recall exactly what he says).
You may disagree with R' Elias, and feel that the book was unbalanced towards the Right(I read Dr. Kaplan's essay on Revisionism and RYBS, and he criticizes an intepretation in a footnote of the essay), but R' Elias does quote from other parts in RSRH's writing, so they do provide helpful context, despite the fact that one will disagree how balanced the overall presentation of the footnotes are.
"As far as this particular critique, in defense of R. Hirsch apparently he was asked to judge the work; he did not actively pursue denouncing it by any means--and he enjoyed a cordial relationship with R. DZ Hoffman."
That is an important point.
According to R. EM Klugman's (Artscroll) biography(which I think benefited from Prof. Mordechai Breur's comments), Rav Hirsch never went public with his criticism. He also writes that the fact that RSRH allowed a board member of his own community to simultaneously be a part of the board of the Hildesheimer seminary, shows that RSRH realized that the German Orthodox community, then, could not afford a public split.
I think that this provides a model for relationships between different parts of Orthodoxy, today as well. I would not say that RSRH and RDZH did not have serious differences(kefirah is a strong word), but they attempted to avoid a public split for Orthodoxy. I think that we can learn from this as well.
>Who thinks its outrageous that Jews speak in the vernacular language anymore
You haven't been in Williamsburg, monroe and skver lately. ;-)
Yeah, but they've marginalized themselves, unfortunately.
The following is from Mordechai Breuer, "Modernity Within Tradition," re the Mar Samuel affair:
"Hirsch... took issue with Hoffmann's scholarly manner of writing. Hoffmann had written about 'new laws' introduced by the teachers of Mishnah and Talmud under certain historical circumstances, about 'new theories' in the area of legal doctrine, and about Mar Samuel's 'humanitarianism,' which was supposed to have led to certain halakhic decisions... But what Hirsch found unforgivable was the manner in which Hoffmann had cited the writings -- and thus given the appearance of endorsing the authority -- of leading scholars of Wissenschaft des Judentums who denied the divine origin of tradition... Hoffmann determinedly refused to do penance before Hirsch. His dogmatic propositions coincided in every point with those of Hirsch, and his view of Jewish scholarship corresponded perfectly with [R. Esriel] Hildesheimer's." (pp. 185-186).
Breuer goes on to note that "nothing at all about the Mar Samuel affair" reached the public. "Orthodox Jewry kept its internal differences to itself as much as possible. All circles were agreed on the desire to avoid hillul ha-shem" (p. 188).
Those last sentences are quite interesting.
Dan,
Thank you for the citation.
S.
I note the link to Mar Sanmuel is to the German version. Do you know if the work has ever been translated to English or Hebrew and if it's available?
YM
I think it was never translated.
Where can we find more writings of R' Hildesheimer and R' Dr. Hoffman?
>Where can we find more writings of R' Hildesheimer and R' Dr. Hoffman?
If anything will ever cause me to learn German, it will be the desire to be able to read the works of scholarship produced in the 19th century and never tanslated.
There is a very good biography of R' Hildesheimer:
http://www.amazon.com/Rabbi-Esri...ie=UTF8&
s=books
I would warn that I think the book takes too negetive of an attitude towards R' Hirsh and on some points (such as R' Hirsh's abilities as a Posek, Ellenson simply gets his facts wrong). All in all, however, it is worth it for the footnotes alone.
I thank Baruch Horwitz for his referring to my article, "Revisionism and the Rav" (Judaism 1999), where I, en passant, offer an example of Rabbi Elias' right wing revisionism in his commentary on the Nineteen Letters. In my article "Torah U-Madda in the Thought of Rav Hirsch" (BDD 5) I offer other examples. Rabbi Elias' comments on the Nineteen Letters can be useful if read very critically, but he is very biased. His account of RSRH's discussion of Mendelssohn and the Rambam is very apologetic. He emphasizes all the positive things RSRH says about the Rambam and all the negative things he say about Mendelssohn. But a fair reading of the chapter is that in RSRH's view when it comes to Hashkafah there is NOTHING good to be said for the Rambam, while Mendelssohn had one good, albeit undeveloped, idea.
Some bibliographical info: 1) A graduate student at McGill, Carla Sulkzbach, has translated RDZH's critique of Wellhausen into English; 2) See Marc Shapiro's critique of Ellenson -- I believe in Tradition; 3) Rivka Horwitz has written some very important articles on Rav Hile Wechsler, and, IIRC, has edited some of his writings.
I read this biography a few years ago, but I think it's out of print.
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos...ASIN/
087306772X
Dr. Kaplan,
You have piqued my curiosity. I returned Rabbi Elias's book to the library some time ago, but I think I will have to get it out again to see the chapter regarding the Rambam(I have at home, an old Feldheim edition with an intro. by Rabbi Jacob Breuer, which I believe was the second translation into English following that of Rabbi Bernard Drachman at the turn of the century).
I have no problem with RSRH completely disagreeing with the Rambam's hashkafa(although its obviously strange to people today the comment about Mendelssohn), because it would not be new to RSRH.
By "new to RSRH", I mean that RSRH would not be unique, or the first one to express such criticism.
Is that the only reason why it would be okay? Because others paved the way before him?
Agree with R. Hirsch, disagree--he was an independent thinker.
I have no problem either way.
The problem people from the Hirschian right have with this passage is not RSRH's critique of the Rambam per se, but the fact that in a certain respect he lumps together the Rambam and( from their point of view -- lehavdil) Mendelssohn. Indeed, as I noted, when it comes to matters of hashkafah RSRH state that there is nothing good to be said about the Rambam's hashkafah, while there is one good, albeit undeveloped, idea to be found in Mendelssohn.
BTW: There is no really good study of the thought of RSRH from his earliest to his latest writings.
Commenting by HaloScan
