- This topic has 110 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 2 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
YYA:
Please put quotation marks around any quote you repost from another poster.
Otherwise readers will mistakenly attribute to you when you are quoting other people (even though you intend to disagree with them).
ujm – Is it possible to use bold or italics on this site? That would be easier to see. I did spell out in writing that I was quoting AAQ.
agree with the complainer, sheheyanu. Even for me, it is very startling to see YYA saying such apikorosus until I realize he is stam quoting AAQ. H’V others will think you wrote that and your einekels will have problems with shidduchim, H’V. Use “” or >>
YYA, thanks for a long exposition on MM. Your explanation of Biur is new to me, but sounds plausible, and I am aware of the rest. I think your reasoning shows where we look at things differently: you presume that the only possible type of interaction of a frumer Yid with modernity is “kiruv” – that is we just need to show “them” how wrong they are. Hadash asur min haTorah, to quote the MM antagonist. Others, that I think include MM, R Hirsh, R Soloveitchik and l’havdil AAQ, think that we need to address the changing world – as did all generations of Jews and other tzadikim. Adam worked the fields instead of remembering the life in gan eden; Noah built the ark and took care of the animals instead of writing memoirs about the destroyed world; R Yohanan b Zakkai predserved what he could instead of ignoring presence of Romans. As R Soloveitchik writes, if we claim to have Hashem’s Truth about Life, we should not be hiding in caves. (I am ignoring here cheap ideas of Reform and such as “adaptation” to modernity, I am talking of true Torah response).
So, from this POV, German Jews were on the way to modernity one way or another. Hasam Sofer saved some in Hungary, but, to my knowledge, had not much effect on his native Frankfurt. Only R Hirsh did. So, my imperfect understanding is that MM tried to find compatibility of his Jewish views and his views of modernity. I am in no way saying that he had success, I am saying that he made an honest effort. And he was in a good position for the effort – both solid Jewish background, personal integrity, and advanced understanding of modernity (Kant was the major figure of Enlightment and he had great respect for MM). Besht indeed was born earlier – but he did not have direct contact with modernity. Even R Salanter, way later, said at some point that he can not do much for Litvishe Jews as they are sliding down the slope, and he sees more hope in talking with a French professor who is at the bottom but is at least stationary.
YYA, you also helped me clarify why Lubavitcher Rebbe (a pioneer of “kiruv”) and, l’havdil, AAQ do not like the word “kiruv” – not only it is too presumptuous that you are closer to Hashem that the recipient is (that I understood before) but also that all you need to guide the recipient in your own derech – you need to help him discover his own derech. Sounds a little new-age, sorry for that.
An interesting question about “culpability” of Jewish leaders at the time. I absolutely recognize great things many rabbonim did at the time creating asnd preserving certain communities. Same goes for more modern cases of Israeli and American charedim. At the same time, so many Jews assimilated at the time – conventional thinking is to blame Reformim, MM, “the times” … but surely we can also contemplate why rabbonim of the time were able to save only small minority.
In theory, all institutions we have now – schools, communities, bays yaakovs, a yeshiva year in EY, moetzes … could have been implemented at the time.
More realistically, R Hirsh’s and R Salanter’s approaches might have worked in 18th century Germany. The approach that was used (and still used by some) is to preserve saving minority by abandoning the rest, as is done on submarines where the safe sections are sealed off from the ones that are already damaged even if there are people still there.I am in no way “blaming” those rabbonim from my “hindsight” position. But the objective result was far from perfect and we should not discard efforts of those who tried to save the remaining Jews through other means.
YYA: Yes; but putting simple quotation marks around your quotes is quick and easy (unlike using bold or italics).
_______________________________________
To use bold first put the character ” < ” then put the word “strong” then put the character ” > ” then put the word or words or sentence that you wish to appear bold.
After the word/words/sentence that you want bolded put the character ” < ” then put “/strong” then put the character ” > ”
Do not use any spaces (and do not use any of the quotation marks I used above when explaining) between the character before or after the word strong.
To use italics do exactly the same as above but instead of “strong” use “em” (and “/em”)
AAQ – WRT the debate about MMD, what his role was, and whether his intentions were good or not.
(The analysis of MMD’s infamous ‘Biur’ is not mine. This is said over from Rav Mordechai Banet זצ״ל of Nicholsberg, who was a contemporary and close friend of the Chassam Sofer זצ״ל.)
(When assessing the impact of the Chassam Sofer, it is important to remember that “Germany” as a country didn’t exist at that time. The lands known as Moravia, Bohemia (later became Czechia and Slovakia), down the highlands of historical Hungary (“Oiberland”, which were later attached post WWI to those areas to create Czechoslovakia), as well as all of the various Germanic states, were all considered “Ashkenaz”. The Chassam Sofer and his talmidim had a huge impact on all of those places. Frankfurt itself only started really going downhill years after the Chassam Sofer had left.)
As I tried at length to explain to you, there is no comparison whatsoever between the Germany of MMD in the mid 18th century, and the Germany of Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch a century later. This doesn’t necessarily have to do with the debate on WHETHER “engaging modernity” is inherently good or bad, this is more about WHEN and HOW.
Let’s use a Mashal.
We can probably easily all agree on the following five statements:
1. Skiing can be fun, it can also be useful in a practical way to cross frozen terrain as well as to rescue people trapped under ice etc. in such terrain (which is probably how and why it was invented in the first place.)
2. Skiing in and of itself is not a Mitzvah or an Aveirah.
3. Skiing involves an element of danger, which requires considerable skill and vigilance on the part of the skier.
4. If the skier is not sufficiently skilled or careful, and doesn’t carefully follow the rules, skiing can be extremely dangerous and result in severe injury or death ר״ל.
5. For this reason, because there is no Mitzvah to davka go skiing, and there is a real element of risk, there are some Rabbonim who hold that action sports such as skiing are not so recommended from a Jewish point of view “just for fun”, unless there is some concrete תועלת to be gained. Ask your Rebbe for guidance למעשה. There are different legitimate approaches how much risk is appropriate, for who, and under what conditions.
(If there are any skiing fans here please forgive me. I believe that a young Bochur hanging out in the Bohemian intellectual circles of Berlin was actually far more dangerous than skiing, but the mashal still is useful.)
Now, step two:
1. Engaging modernity can be fun, it can also be useful in a practical way to cross spiritually frozen terrain as well as to rescue people trapped under spiritual ice etc. in such terrain (which is how and why it was used by Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch זצ״ל and others.)
2. Modernity in and of itself is not a Mitzvah or an Aveirah.
3. Engaging modernity involves an element of danger, which requires considerable skill and vigilance on the part of an Ehrliche Yid.
4. If the “skier” is not sufficiently skilled or careful, and doesn’t carefully follow the rules taught by the Chachomim and Gedolei Yisroel in each generation, engaging modernity can be extremely dangerous and result in severe spiritual injury or eternal death ר״ל.
5. For this reason, because there is no Mitzvah to davka engage with modernity, and there is a very real element of risk, the consensus of the Gedolei Yisroel then and now, is that it is a very bad idea from a Jewish point of view to indulge in spiritual “action sports” by immersing oneself in modernity “just for fun”, except to the minimum extent that there is some concrete תועלת to be gained (parnassah, outreach, tzorchei tzibbur, etc.) Ask your Rebbe for guidance למעשה. There are different legitimate approaches how much risk is appropriate, for who, and under what conditions.
Now, back to where we started:
Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch זצ״ל came on the scene when Germany had completely frozen over spiritually, and the only way he could reach people was by “skiing”. Everyone, including Satmar (as mentioned previously) holds that Rav Hirsch did exactly what he should have done UNDER THAT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES he was dealing with. The Baal Shem Tov זי״ע (who agav should never be referred to as the “Besht” which is a mocking term) built a huge furnace of “varemkeit” that helped save hundreds of thousands of Yidden from freezing in the first place. The Chassam Sofer זצ״ל and Reb Chaim Volozhiner זצ״ל built spiritual “greenhouses” where growing Neshomos could keep warm as they develop.
MMD came on the scene when even Germany itself was still home to thriving Jewish communities with deep Yiras Shomayim who carefully followed their Mesorah. He himself grew up is such an environment. It is also crucial to note that contrary to what you repeatedly imply, his interests weren’t stifled. His Rebbe learned with him Jewish works of philosophy, and he studied secular subjects and languages with two Frum tutors. But he didn’t stop for the red light. Despite all warnings, he went out on his own way, mingled with Goyim including hard-core apikorsim, and ended up as THE archetypal textbook example of how NOT to engage with modernity. He “fell off the slopes” and got his Neshoma mangled ר״ל. But that wasn’t enough for him, he wanted to “enlighten” Yidden like the ones who he grew up with and went to Yeshiva with, Yidden who AT THAT TIME had no need for “skiing”, and who were “immunonaive” to the viruses MMD was now thoroughly infected with.
Again, there were and are different approaches how do deal with “modernity” לאחר מעשה, but THEN that wasn’t yet the issue. Therefore the example of MMD became a lesson לדורות עולם what NOT to do.
@ YYA
“Everyone, including Satmar (as mentioned previously) holds that Rav Hirsch did exactly what he should have done UNDER THAT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES”Everyone, except RSRH himself and his Talmidim who where interested in preserving his derech. It’s very clear the RSRH did not consider his derech as something that had to be done “under the circumstances” akin to skiing, Rather he held that what he was advocating was the authentic Torah approach.
Again – yaakov yosef keeps outdoing himself …
.Non Political – “It’s very clear the RSRH did not consider his derech as something that had to be done “under the circumstances” akin to skiing, Rather he held that what he was advocating was the authentic Torah approach.”
It’s pretty well known that there actually was and is considerable debate among the ideological and even biological descendants of Rav Hirsch how much of his derech was לשעה and how much is לדורות. I can’t speak in his name, but it is hard to imagine that someone who spent most of his life and all of his energy battling Reform and Haskalah didn’t think Klal Yisroel wouldn’t have been better off if the whole thing wouldn’t have happened in the first place. It’s also clear that his derech isn’t how it was done in pre-Haskalah generations. One could say that “he held that what he was advocating was the authentic Torah approach” – to dealing with the new reality. There is no indication that RSRH ever intended to start a movement for Klal Yisroel and spread it far and wide.
This is really a whole sugya unto itself, which I wasn’t looking to go into. The point I was trying to make was that Rav Hirsch arrived on the scene after the fact as a “rescue worker”, when Haskalah in Germany was a fait accompli, as opposed to MMD, who did what he did when the Jewish world, even in Germany, was still largely innocent. Rav Hirsch was in fact “solving real problems”. MMD was spreading new problems to places where they didn’t exist yet.
Food for thought: It’s possible to fully agree with everything I wrote on this thread, and still be either a RSRH Jew, or a Religious Zionist, or a Satmar Chossid, or anything in between. I believe that everyone agrees in theory on the core issues I mentioned, the difference between those groups is where do you go from there moving forward.
YYA, I agree with most of you posted. And with NP that R Hirsh had more aspirations for modernity than just save Yidden from it.
a couple of comments:1) Some things may be hard to judge from historical perspective: we might think that Jews were not yet influenced by modernity during MM times. He might have seen it differently – first, he was among the more modern ones, 2nd, he might have seen where things are going. For analogy (hey, you went to skiing) – suddenly in 2025 everyone is talking about effect of “AI” on human condition. Those who worked in the area had these discussions for about 50 years already. So, with MM not just being exposed to “universities” but talking directly to Kant, surely saw better what is coming.
2) R Hirsh explains his view on MM in the 18th of “19 letters”, including where he thinks MM made mistakes. I tried posting, it did not appear, I’ll try again. His view is clearly NOT that MM was doing something wrong, he just did not reach correct derech.
3) we recognize that Goyim have chochmah. Modernity brought that chochmah to new levels. T’Chachomim were always interested in Chochmah. Should we ignore it? I understand that we may not want to introduce medical studies in yeshivos, but should we at least integrate that cochoma in our behavior – use technology, measure our students with standardized tests, use psychology to improve learning …
4) Abstract for a minute from a need to protect ourselves from danger. Do we have any responsibilities in this world besides learning? Avraham thought so. R Soloveitchik suggests that “if we claim to know the truth, then we should not hide in the caves”. I presume most of opposition to this come from the “protection” paradigm – that then expands into justifications why we should not. What do you think?
YYA, good questions.
R Hirsh does not necessarily sees his times as unique, he traces MM approach back to Rambam (both in positive and in criticizing both of them).I think you are over-simplifying when saying that R Hirsh came to the rescue, while MM created problems. Chacham einav b’rosho. MM saw first-hand the new questions and tried to answer.
And, btw, this is a typical thinking error people do in their lives: they consider the benefit v price of a possible action, but they do not consider the costs of inaction. (true if the options are similar, then shev vlo taase might be legit). In this case, all others who criticized MM provided help to a limited number of Jews who were willing to fully isolate, but did not provide any help to the rest. It is not only reformim and assimilations who are at fault for what happened to those Jews, but also those in the leadership who did not provide an alternative (say, something similar to what R Hirsh provided a generation later). Again, I am really “blaming” leaders of that generation, but trying to explain from our later knowledge what the options were.
R Soloveichik observed something similar in US 1940s – he was talking to american-born children of immigrants and answering their questions, observing that their pitiful choice between american reform clergy and NY European rabbis that could not relate to them.
AAQ – “YYA, I agree with most of you posted. And with NP that R Hirsh had more aspirations for modernity than just save Yidden from it.”
Actually, I agree with you on this point. It is clear that Rav Hirsch held that modernity is something to engage proactively and be מתקן so to speak. Ironically, he shares some common ground with Lubavitch on this נקודה, although his vision and methodology for achieving that תיקון are different. I didn’t really intend to start a discussion about Rav Hirsch זצ״ל himself, my point was just to demonstrate that he was dealing with a מציאות of לאחר מעשה, despite the fact that he probably did in fact hold that there may be a greater cosmic purpose for why the מציאות is what it is.
It’s been a while since I last read the 19 Letters, and I don’t have a copy on hand to refresh my memory. But based on what I do remember, Rav Hirsch clearly held that “secular wisdoms” should be considered as ״רקחות וטבחות״, literally “kitchen help” for the ״גבירה״ the “lady of the household”, i.e. the Torah, which is the real תכלית the purpose of the Jewish people and the Universe as a whole. That was not exactly what MMD was looking for. So Rav Hirsch is not a rejectionist of modernity to be sure, but he puts it in its place. He definitely did not hold that secular wisdom etc. was a “Mitzvah” unto itself.
That being said, the real elephant in the room is not MMD’s “attitude towards modernity” where he may (according to the very charitable assessment of Rav Hirsch) have “just been mistaken”, but his actions to “proselytize” and spread the “light” he discovered to places it hadn’t gone yet. It’s not about his relationship with Kant, or exactly how krum Kant was or wasn’t, but about bringing Kant’s ideas into the Beis Hamedrash. The overwhelming consensus of Gedolei Yisroel ALREADY AT THAT TIME held that was a major disaster for Klal Yisroel. In hindsight, what the Gedolim saw already then, everyone saw later in a major way. So yes, had we been there, you may not have seen anything too terrible about MMD’s actions. If social media would have existed then a lot of דעת בעלי בתים people would have probably written pieces in favor of what he was doing, and clucking their tongues at הני רבנן… But that’s what Gedolei Yisroel are for, to give us real time guidance with issues that בעלי בתים are not able to chap on their own. This is why the debacle of MMD became THE model lesson לדורות how a genuine Ilui with enormous potential could end up as a major disaster for Klal Yisroel, because he thought he knew better.
WRT your item #3 – חכמה בגויים תאמין and “secular knowledge” in general.
There is a critical difference between simply “using” secular knowledge for practical purposes such as developing and using technology, and “integrating that חכמה into our behavior”, which is something different altogether. The תורה alone is what teaches us the רצון השם יתברך, which is the ONLY reason we are here. Not “just learning” as you mistakenly question in item #4, but “living” the רצון השם as manifested in the Torah. (Which requires a lot of learning both to know what to do, and even more so to integrate the Middos and attitudes of the Torah into one’s personality and inner being.) That is the whole point, and nothing else has any intrinsic value except to the extent to which it furthers that goal. So to use modern technology to make life as a Yid easier is fine, but to import ideas and values from the Goyish world, even when they are very clever, is not so fine. Just look at what a moral and ethical mess today’s universities are on almost every subject. Even Kant would blush. You specifically mentioned psychology. What about the huge amount of shmutz and sheer insanity being promoted by psychologists today, based on their “scientific research and methods”? What about “gender fluidity” and celebrating toeivah? The same methodology and approach that gave the world all this garbage in the name of ״science״ also produced the ideas you suggest “integrating”.
YYA, on R Hirsh on MM, I would have to ask you to trod to sefaria and read the 18th letter. It is not long. I posted new threads twice, once with my comments, 2nd with just quotes from R Hirsh, but this did not show up. I hope it is because of MM name in the subject, not because R Hirsh is not frum enough. I’ll be interested in hearing your opinion on that. He indeed criticizes, as you are suggesting, both Rambam and MM for not making Torah primary viz-a-viz sciences.
Interesting you mention lubavitch. I heard the following moshal from a chabad rabbi, not sure what the origin is: an assimilated Jew came to MM and said that he almost succeeded at emancipating himself from Judaism, but sometimes he has very severe doubts that make his life hard – and asked for an advice how to deal with these doubts. Sure, said MM, here is a simple advice: in the morning do natilas yadayim, then take this water that has tumah, and drink it. And this will help you rid of the doubts. The Yid did that and indeed had no more doubts! Then, he thought about it and realized that this means that the tumah that he drank was a real thing, therefore … etc. So, he did teshuvah, and, indeed, never had any more doubts, as MM predicted.
This story probably summarizes at the uncertain place of MM in Jewish history.
I agree that R Hirsh insists in primacy of Torah v science. What unites him with MM, I think, is the strong position that Torah can co-exist with modernity, that we can speak the language of scientists – at the times where so much scientists were attacking religion. I’ll take it as homework to look at what R Hirsh thinks of Kant and of relationship Torah v science. I can only recall his grandson R Breuer saying that Kant came to the border of Judaism but did not cross in.
My suggestion on MM and Kant was that MM had a first-hand exposure to what the new ideas are. So, he could predict what these ideas will do to Jews unprepared to meet those ideas (as R Hirsh discusses about Avraham raising Yitzhak near Gerar to get exposure to the non-Jewish thinking). This is my sevorah, not something I can proof from texts so far, but it makes sense (to me).
I found an interesting story reported by R Moses Schick in response to rumors that he saw Hasam Sofer throwing MM’s Biur to the ground. He says the real story was that Hasam Sofer was giving a dvar Torah at his house while visiting and asked for Chumash to quote psukim. Rav’s other chumashim were in shul and he had only Biur in the home. Knowing HS’ attitude, someone told him that “there is no chumash in the Rav’s house” … when HS later commented to someone about lack of chumashim in Rav’s house, Rav Schick explained to him what happened and explained that he is basing himself on another Gaon who studied Biur [maybe R Akiva Eger? AAQ]. R Schick also said that he went through whole chumash and did not find any problems. Hasam Sofer referred him to a particular verse in Devorim [presumably 2:10-12].
I agree on differentiating between simply using secular knowledge and getting involved in research. And also that there is a lot of bad stuff in and around science. If you are interested in psychology, start with works by R Twersky. In economics or game theory, start with Prof/R Aumann. You can probably find a kosher scientist in any area 🙂
The first issue is more of a social one – what can we introduce into our homes without generating negative effects.
The 2nd one is also of two parts: applied research and “real” research. Applied research is similar to to simply “using” secular knowledge, except this “usage” happens at professional level – developing better iphones is not much different from using iphones.
As to actually participating in science as Jewish thinkers (as opposed to just being Jews who do science) – R Hirsh highlighted probably two most significant persons – Rambam and MM (or RAMAD as Hasam Sofer calls him – Rabbi Moshe from Desau). R Soloveitchik studied philosophy and tried to integrate it with his Jewish views, but I don’t think he is known in philosophy outside of Jewish circles. Maybe Einstein can be counted – it seems that his complex formulas were guided by a principle that the whole world needs to be described by one set of equations. His rejection of quantum physics was based on “God does not play dice”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.