"but ultimately he repels her, too,"
He repels her, or she repels him?
Repels her. She finds him repellent. I don't see how she could repel him (d. 1855).
I download the dissertation and it seems pretty long to read in one sitting (470 pages!) However the little I skimmed it definitely she is using harsh language (you can tell where her biases lie, I mean she is the head of BJJ!) However isn't it ironic that she is critical of a man who attempts against all odds (and critics) to synthesize the traditional and the modern, by writing a thesis in a secular university (that no doubt all of the critics of the Maharatz Chajes would NEVER have approved!)
Well, you DO know who this Beruriah Hutner is (and not only whose daughter she is)...
Just last week I was given a copy of an article, "The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition," by Michael K. Silber (in The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, ed. Jack Wertheimer, JTS 1992), which discusses at length the role of Schlesinger as an interpreter of the Chasam Sofer and an extremist fighter in the Hungarian Jewish religious wars of the 1860's.
Interestingly, Schlesinger went on to become a rather utopian pioneer of agricultural settlement in Eretz Israel. Silber quotes the Satmar Rebbe's take: "Because he wished to found colonies, even if his intentions were for the sake of heaven, it was a great and terrible mistake."
I remember hearing from Prof. Leiman that R. Ezreil Hildesheimer wrote a commentary on the CS will as a response claiming that R. Akiba misunderstood the CS.
It was never published.
> He saw himself as following in the line and as totally faithful to the teachings and legacy of the CS (who died when he was only a year old).
Please clarify. Who died when he was only a year old? The CS?
>Please clarify. Who died when he was only a year old? The CS?
Yes; sorry for the ambiguity.
>However isn't it ironic that she is critical of a man who attempts against all odds (and critics) to synthesize the traditional and the modern, by writing a thesis in a secular university (that no doubt all of the critics of the Maharatz Chajes would NEVER have approved!)
It's odd (but not entirely hard to understand) that she was (is?) so interested in Galician Haskalah and Wissenschaft. I understand it, because I am too, but it's odd to me, because I am attracted to and interested in it, while she obviously loathed it, as well as loved it.
Her paper has some very detailed talmudic analysis - where did she learn?
KT
The Shoel U' Meishiv also didn't like these Hagahot to much. See the discussion in Hershkowitz's bio of Chajes as well as in an article in Ohr HaMizrach - Shoeli U' Meshivim shel ha Maharitz Chajes.
See A. Schreibers article in TuM - On the CS's nuanced attitude towrads secuylar knowledge. pg. 137 and notes.
M. Herskowitz vehemently disagrees with Schlesinger in his bio.
2 years old (acc. to Schreiber). The talmudic bits are probably from her father or husband. Although since she edited Pachad Yitzchok I imagine she must be quite knowlegeable.
>However isn't it ironic that she is critical of a man who attempts against all odds (and critics) to synthesize the traditional and the modern, by writing a thesis in a secular university (that no doubt all of the critics of the Maharatz Chajes would NEVER have approved!)
It's interesting, but not unusual. Rabbi Aharon Feldman, for example, loves to play the Charedi party line in his many articles and letters, although by the mere fact he engages in such intelectual intercourse he disregards the party line. It works the other way, too. Rabbi Yakov Horowitz loves to be critical of charedi methodology and habits, though he himself dresses the part to a T. So I can understand Rebbetzin David being critical of an unusual figure, though she is precisely such a figure herself.
tttt, i didnt not find bruria h-d dissertation terribly impressive. perhaps because she is not a history person but a lit person?
>tttt, i didnt not find bruria h-d dissertation terribly impressive. perhaps because she is not a history person but a lit person?
Perhaps because she did not seem to even try to view her subject dispassionately? I always find that the poorest historical studies are those which are too invested with the subject, either with love or scorn. I've no doubt that some of the more objective histories that I've read and liked were written by people who actually did have strong opinions of like or dislike for their subject, but they reign it in more and thus their analysis is keener. Thus, a Graetz must get credit for being a pioneer, but his personal stake in it detracts from the quality. So to, Rebbetzin Bruriah.
I think she could have let the facts speak for themselves, and people (like her) could have read it and thought "Wow, he was practically a maskil. That's bad." People like me could have read it and thought "Wow, he was practically a maskil. That's good," and it would have been so much better, albeit less entertaining. Her interpretations come off more like denunciations. I'd think the same thing if her interpretations were love notes.
That said, she presented a lot of good cites and a lot of good facts, and she researched it very well, and I am envious of her proximity and ability to study so much source material on a subject she was interested in.
I really would like to know what she would tell a young lady in BJJ who wanted to know why she spent months reading Biccure Haittim and various Zeitschrifts, and if it would be appropriate for her (ie, young lady) to immerse herself into the world of the Galician haskalah, too.
>I'd think the same thing if her interpretations were love notes.
Hershkowitz's bio suffers from that problem.
>That said, she presented a lot of good cites and a lot of good facts, and she researched it very well.
She had Herskowitzes meticulously footnoted articles to work with.
Hutner's dissertation reads like too much of a witch-hunt; Hershkowitz (which was recently republished by MHK) runs the opposite way. There is definitely room for a proper, dispassionate study.
As for R. Schlesinger's appropriation of the Hatam Sofer's imprimatur for his variety of polemics, I suppose this is just another example of a great figure whose authority or backing was claimed to support a wide variety of Jewish philosophies. E.g. Rav Soloveitchik in the 20th century.
>She had Herskowitzes meticulously footnoted articles to work with.
I didn't read them myself, but unless she is lying, she also looked to primary sources.
S-
I asked your question to a BJJ graduate once. Her answer was that "it depends on the girl" and that there is a good chance that she would be for it.
I'm not surprised, but I'd like to know what her actual reasons are.
It doesn't seem like דע מה שתשיב per se, especially given the specialization involved.
>As for R. Schlesinger's appropriation of the Hatam Sofer's imprimatur for his variety of polemics, I suppose this is just another example of a great figure whose authority or backing was claimed to support a wide variety of Jewish philosophies. E.g. Rav Soloveitchik in the 20th century.
Well, the truth of the Chasam Sofer is that he was a strict traditionalist and an opponent of modernity, even if he wasn't quite so unreasonable as extremists make him out to be. I don't think any sort of lefty oriented people ever try to claim him, while that happens to R. Soloveitchik.
Personally, I think she probably did it because she's a history buff and a scholarly type, and she could.
too bad she will never publish it.
"She had Herskowitzes meticulously footnoted articles to work with."
wolf2191
R. Hershkowitz published his biography in 1972 (reprinted 2007). RBHD's thesis appeared in 1971.
Or did you imply by "articles" that his biography was serialized somewhere else first?
In HaDarom. She quotes (and disagrees with) the articles.
"(and disagrees with)"
Well that being the case, she must have done her own research and had her own sources...
Not really. She could disagree with the interpretation of the sources he quotes and cites very handily, even while relying mostly on *his* research.
Not that I'm saying she did that (I don't know) or didn't do real research herself. She certainly seems to have consulted many primary sources.
I don't think she'd be able to get away without her own research working at Columbia under Salo Baron.
I'm sure she did do her own research. My point was just that Hershkowitz's footnotes cover just about everything. She didn't have to slog through hendereds of old newspapers, She just followed the signposts left by Hershkowitz. I'm not denigrating her research just pointing out that she had a relatively easy time of it.
"Aher= 'Aharon Choriner Rabbiner,' ie, proto-Reform rabbi Aaron Chorin."
He was only proto in the beginning.
His parting (at least from what I see on this page) comments also strongly indicate a personal bias, perhaps even more so than the first crticism: "And besides this I have seen many of (his) specific deeds that based on these deeds it is not fitting to learn Torah from his mouth....although admittedly (Maharitz Chiyos) did not speak in French." (quotes from a Chazal) "If you have seen a learned man transgress at night, do not consider it against him in the day, (but this does not absolve M.C.) because transgressions and hereticism are different." The writer's high handed style nauseates me, and reminds me of my yeshiva days. Also, I seem to remember that MC was a very helpful add on to the gemara.
"although admittedly (Maharitz Chiyos) did not speak in French."
This is bizarre.
Rashi uses "lo'ez" and "la'az" to mean French, because it was referring to French in his specific instance, but it really refers to any foreign language.
Also, I think your "although admittedly ..." is also incorrect in context. He is really saying "even if he were not saying alien things".
IOW, he previously criticized him for the content of his writings, as being based on alien influences (Chorin), and ends off by saying that even if he didn't write alien things he is not worthy of being mentioned because of his actions.
In context R. Schlsinger's concesson that that the Maharitz Hayyot (MH) was not loez belaz almost certainly refers to the fact that he did not preach in German, a cardinal sin in the eyes of the Hungarian ultra-Orthodox. As for the criticism of R. Meir Ash, it was not that the MH made use of Choriner, but that he referred to him with the honorific, "He-Hakham ha-zaken Choriner." R. Schlesinger adds, based on widely known interpretation of the verse "Ish lefi mehalelo," that you judge a person by whom he praises. So the fact that the MH coulf refer in such a respectful manner to Aaron Chorin, is a black mark against him. Nu.
As for the end, R.Schlesinger states that he was aware of several improper actions committed by the MH which would disqualify his halakhic views from being cited in the Bet Midrash. And even though the Talmud states that if you see a scholar sinning at night you must assume that he repented the nest day, this doe not apply to "minut," the holding of heretical views. So R. Schlesinger is non-too subtly suggesting that the MH espoused heretical views. Nice.
A shame he didn't undertake a comprehensive study of his writings like Rebbetzin David did - then he could have found the minut, rather than suspected it - like she did.
" "although admittedly (Maharitz Chiyos) did not speak in French."
This is bizarre.
Rashi uses "lo'ez" and "la'az" to mean French, because it was referring to French in his specific instance, but it really refers to any foreign language.
Also, I think your "although admittedly ..." is also incorrect in context. He is really saying "even if he were not saying alien things".
IOW, he previously criticized him for the content of his writings, as being based on alien influences (Chorin), and ends off by saying that even if he didn't write alien things he is not worthy of being mentioned because of his actions.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 05.28.08 - 11:52 am | # "
The context is key here-whether he is referring to language as an attack on character or not. I agree that it is bizzare, and Laaz can mean something else than French. If you are right, why does he use a such a strange phrase? Also, I believe that your interpretation would read more correctly as : Even THOUGH he is not saying improper things (through his teachings). That way the passage has a logical construct-he starts that final segment criticizing his actions; then says you should not learn Torah from him (due to forementioned actions) even though his Torah is pure. In that context, which I believe is the correct one, "although admittedly" is the correct form, but you are right that alien things is probably the better interpretation of "Laaz", though I disagree strongly as to context. Let me elucidate this a little better:
He ends off by critcizing actions, while giving some validation to his Torah; the NEXT statement deals with the hereticsm part- Nevertheless (although the first part of the end of my criticsm is about deeds, and this does NOT fully invalidate the Torah, due to what I am about to quote from Chazal), When I return to my first criticsm of herticsm his Torah does in fact become invalidated.
CSJ Out!
LK: "As for the criticism of R. Meir Ash, it was not that the MH made use of Choriner, but that he referred to him with the honorific, "He-Hakham ha-zaken Choriner.""
I stand corrected. Thank you.
"In context R. Schlsinger's concesson that that the Maharitz Hayyot (MH) was not loez belaz almost certainly refers to the fact that he did not preach in German, a cardinal sin in the eyes of the Hungarian ultra-Orthodox."
Possible. But it's kind of out of left field if that's what he meant. I understood it as being a reference to his previous comments. (Though admittedly your point that the focus of the previous comments was the honorific and not the substance weakens my argument in this regard.)
>But it's kind of out of left field if that's what he meant.
It's not out of left field in the context of what was important at the time.
Makes no difference. He had just written a bunch about the guy and was making a final point and it's a bit odd to just throw in a five word acknowledgement that he didn't do something that had not been referenced at all, and wasn't even particularly similar to anything that was being discussed.
"A shame he didn't undertake a comprehensive study of his writings like Rebbetzin David did - then he could have found the minut, rather than suspected it - like she did."
Rebbetzin David does not accuse MC of being a min. Her accusation lies in the fact that he vacillated between two worlds - pretending to be both a traditionalist and a maskil - and accordingly belonged to neither. Essentially, in her eyes, he was a walking contradiction.
Like Aesop's bat between the birds and the beasts.
"As for the criticism of R. Meir Ash, it was not that the MH made use of Choriner, but that he referred to him with the honorific, "He-Hakham ha-zaken Choriner.""
Then the Maharam Shik is in major trouble. See Tehuva No. 1
IIRC, the standard term for preaching German in the debate over that issue in mid- 19 century Hungary was "loez be-laz." But let me check. If I understand R. Schlesinger's point, despite his attack on the MH, he concedes that at least he didn't preach in German, rahmana litzlan.
Interestingly enough, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch criticized Rav David Tzvi Hoffman's Mar Samuel for, among other things, referring too respectfully to Graetz, Krochmal, Frankel, etc.
Bill Seliger: I have just perused the thesis, but my impression is that Rebbtzin Dr. David's basic position is that the MH was first and foremost a traditional rabbinic scholar, but in several places his approach and analysis unfortunately were unduly influenced by the maskilic assumptions.
By the way, I wonder what her father's input into the thesis was. In one place, I found a clear, if unstated, reference to a famous hiddush of her father, with reference to the Rambam on gemilut hasadim in Hilkhot Avel. (Sorry for the vague reference.)
Lawrence Kaplan:
Below please find the closing words of Rebbetzin David's thesis:
"Thus, Chajes appears as an individual who lacked the courage to express all his views openly, lest they jeopardize his standing in the Jewish community. He preferred to “play it safe” on all fronts. It is this attitude of Chajes that caused the Rabbi of Munkacsz to liken him to "one who alternately nods his head to the left and to the right, without the courage to stand up in either camp” even, if need be, to stand alone."
Regarding your second statement; I can tell you the rumors that fly in yeshivish cirlces, but can state nothing unequivocally.
LK: "the standard term for preaching German in the debate over that issue in mid- 19 century Hungary was "loez be-laz.""
If this is true then your interpretation is obviously correct (though you may be correct in any event). So let us know.
Bill Seliger: Could you e-mail me a at lawrence.kaplan@mcgill.ca
FP: I haven't got around to it yet, but I havee't forgotten either. I will get back to all of you.
What are the yeshivish rumors?
FP and others: I did some checking. The phrase "loez be-laz" was definitely used in the polemical and responsa literature in 19th century Hungary to refer to preaching in German. Other phrases are "doresh bi-leshon umot ha-`olam" and "doresh bi-leshon leumim." This was a VERY hot and contentious issue at the time. See Jacob Katz's book, The Unhealed Breach.
Thanks. That falls a bit short of your initial claim that it was "the standard term".
But the bottom line is that you're probably right about the use here.
Thanks for the info.
FP: Yes, you are right. It was just one of the terms in use. I was working from memory and overstated my case. But, as you graciously admit, my point that the term refers to preaching in German is unaffected thereby.
Fotheringay-Phipps, I say old bean, it appears that my original comment was correct. Quite!
Commenting by HaloScan
