Leaderboard

Thank you for stopping by at Trutharchivist’s Rambles again! This is Trutharchivist (not that you were expecting anyone else), and in my next post I’d like to talk about Neo-Orthodox Judaism. To summarize the previous few posts, we talked about the Haskalah movement from the 18th century and its ideology, then how it led to Jews slowly trying to somewhat assimilate to their local culture - eventually leading to a Reform in the Jewish faith, with Orthodox rabbis resisting it through the beginning of the 19th century. And now, we’ll talk about a balance that was created between Orthodoxy and Haskalah during the 19th century - a balance that was named Neo-Orthodoxy or Modern Orthodoxy, for balancing tradition and change, or modernity. Now the idea here is to allow new ideas in, while still keeping true to the traditional ways of the Torah. So unlike in Reform Judaism, there is no giving up on the Messianic ideal or critical study of the Torah - since the Torah is seen as G-d’s word, and not just a text written by humans. On the other hand, Neo-Orthodoxy was far more accepting to studying science and philosophy than Ultra-Orthodoxy, and its prominent rabbis sometimes made a sermon in the local language and not Hebrew - which while controversial wasn’t forbidden in any way according to the Halacha. Before we continue to talk about the prominent rabbi I want to use as an example for that branch, though, I’d like to talk a bit on what made it so difficult for me to write this installment. It wasn’t just the war - though it did have a big part in it. It definitely wasn’t for a lack of a rabbi to use as an example - I had someone very specific in mind ever since I conceived of this series of essays. My list of prominent rabbis and thinkers for this was always going to be Moses Mandelssohn, Abraham Geiger, Ḥatam Sofer, Rashar Hirsch and Zacharias Frankel, all mentioned in past essays and claimed to be discussed later. No, my issue was the precise distinction of Neo-Orthodox from Ultra-Orthodox and its relation to the current division of Jews in Israel. The problem is, while I claim that those topics are ones still in discussion and relevant to this very day, things did change a bit in the previous 200 years, mostly regarding Zionism. This is also why I avoided touching the “where are they now” point in the previous essay - the division between Neo-Orthodoxy and Ultra-Orthodoxy are a little less apparent nowadays, with the major differences being more along the lines of Zionism. I’ll talk about some of it by the end of this essay, but I reserve discussing Zionism and anti-Zionism to a later date - likely a much later date, I’m afraid. Anyway, back to our topic! While there are a couple of other examples for Neo-Orthodox rabbis, one of the most prominent among them was Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, abbreviated to Rashar Hirsch usually. He was born in Hamburg (then a part of the Napoleonic Empire) in 1808. The perceptive of you will note that assuming his family didn’t move, he was 10 during the Temple dispute - a fact referred to in a biography of his written by one of his descendants I’ve had the luck to read. Said book either uses creative license - or knowledge from a source I don’t have - to write about a meeting occurring in the Hirsch household, for discussion about the Temple. It’s likely that Rashar Hirsch heard of it anyway even if it wasn’t this way, and it likely influenced him later. The young Hirsch studied under Ḥacham Isaac Bernays - an interesting Jewish scholar into himself, if slightly less well-known. He was among the first Orthodox rabbis to carry a Drasha, a sermon, in German instead of Hebrew or Yiddish, and chose to call himself Ḥacham - wise man - instead of rabbi, for some reason. The biography of Rashar Hirsch mentioned above claims it was to differentiate himself from the Reform rabbis by taking on a title from Sepharadi Jewish origin, but I don’t know. Anyway, Rashar Hirsch grew up in a very Orthodox family, though he studied from a relatively more open rabbi. Originally he intended to study to become a merchant, but he eventually forsook it for the study of the Torah and went to Manheim for that purpose in 1828. After studying there for a while he got a Semikha - he was ordained to be a rabbi. Then, in 1830, he went to the University of Bonn to study there. Sounds familiar? Well, it should, because guess who also studied there at the time. If you’ve been following my essays so far, you’ll note that at this exact time, Abraham Geiger also went to the University of Bonn. While the latter wasn’t ordained as a rabbi yet, the two became study partners - until Rashar Hirsch left to serve as a rabbi in Oldenburg not long after he went to university. By the time Geiger started his activities, Rashar Hirsch became one of his most outspoken opponents. From here on out, there’s quite a lot to say about Rashar Hirsch that would be relevant. To make it relatively short, I’ll start by listing the places where he served as rabbi - after the Duchy of Oldenburg in northern Germany he went to the city of Emden (which is apparently around the same area) in 1841, and later he became the Chief Rabbi of Moravia - which nowadays is a part of the Czech Republic - in 1846. From there, in 1851, he went to serve as the rabbi in a small sub-congregation in a city in Germany - perhaps you’ve heard of it? It was called Frankfurt-am-Main, where he served for the rest of his life. Why, yes, it is the same Frankfurt from which both Ḥatam Sofer and Abraham Geiger originated from! I’m glad you noticed. You see, the Jewish community in Frankfurt was a large and prominent community among the Jews in Germany. Even talking outside of what you;ve learned from my essays, you may well have heard of the Rothschild family of Jewish bankers - they originated from Frankfurt. I daresay this essay isn’t likely to be the last time we visit the city, though it might still be the latest time period we visit it in. Either way, I intend to go back to Rashar’s period in Oldenburg before continuing on to Frankfurt, because while in Oldenburg, Rashar Hirsch wrote two of his prominent books: Nineteen Letters on Judaism (published originally under a Pseudonym), which is a fictional correspondence between a young Jew influenced by the changing times and his studious friend, and an elaboration on the Letters - which was actually the original book, the letters being more or less a summary - named Horeb, or Essays About the Duties of Israel in Exile. Both books were written in German - an unusual move for an Orthodox rabbi at the time, but the Jewish youths who were the intended audience knew little Hebrew so it was necessary. I have not read either book, sadly - I only took a quick peek into the Nineteen Letters, if memory serves it’s mostly made of arguments regarding the Torah and perhaps G-d. But our point here is to point out what is unique about the movement known as Neo-Orthodoxy. So, the first noticeable point is likely the excessive use of German. One likely reason is that the intended audience for Rashar Hirsch’s sermons and books merely understood German better than Hebrew or Yiddish. Such points were a factor in other religious books historically - a couple of books were written in Arabic explicitly so the average Jew could understand them, like Ḥovot HaLevavot (Duties of the hearts) by Rabenu Baḥya Ibn Paquda, maybe the Book of Beliefs and Opinions by Rav Sa’adia Ga’on, and likely Maimonides’ commentaries on the Mishnah. Yet, some people shied away from that in more modern times due to the association with Reform Judaism and secularity - Rashar Hirsch didn’t, though. To talk about another, perhaps more fundamental, point of innovation from Rashar Hirsch, though, I’m going to move on to his time as a rabbi in Frankfurt. You need to understand that by this time - the late ‘40s of the 19th century - the larger Jewish community in Frankfurt was Reform. Now, you might think it was the time of Geiger as a rabbi there and a reunion between the former friends - nope, it wasn’t, the current rabbi of Frankfurt at the time was one Leopold Stein. Geiger didn’t make his comeback until a couple of years later. Anyway, all that is not to say there weren’t Orthodox-aligned Jews in Frankfurt; there were, and they elected to separate from the major congregation in 1849. Legally it was a complicated matter - separation of Church and State, while not unheard of, wasn’t applied at the time, and if you were a Jew you had to belong to the Jewish congregation in your city. Still, they managed to found a small congregation of their own called ‘Adas Yeshurun. By ‘51 they managed to get approval to have their own rabbi, and one of their candidates was none other than Rashar Hirsch. Now, I have very little idea regarding how the process of picking a rabbi for a congregation, city or state was conducted. There usually were multiple candidates who wanted the office, and one of them was picked - but in many cases, requests were sent to rabbis who already served somewhere, Rashar Hirsch being an example, and they could choose to simply refuse and stay where they were. The congregation they currently served tended to try and convince them to stay, and Rashar Hirsch was definitely someone the state of Moravia wanted to keep. In addition, you can clearly see that this would be a stp down - from the Chief Rabbi of a state to the rabbi of a sub-congregation in what was definitely a major city - but nothing more than a city. But here’s a counterpoint: they needed him more. By that time, Rashar Hirsch was already known for his opposition to Reform. It may well be that there was a fight to be had at Moravia, but I’m pretty sure there were enough Orthodox rabbis to continue on the work there. In Frankfurt, on the other hand, the Orthodox congregation was a minority, and it was subjugated to the Reform congregation (which, for understandable reasons, didn’t want the Orthodox to be independent like this; not wanting old-fashioned ideas is something common among people who see themselves as enlightened). That was reason enough for Rashar Hirsch to move there. One of the first things Rashar Hirsch did in his new congregation was found a school, for what is the point of having an Orthodox congregation if the children are taught by the Reform one and will grow to join it? In general, education was one of the most important things in Rashar Hirsch’s eyes - I’m not sure I remember it precisely, but I think it’s apparent from his commentaries on the Torah (Pentateuch), which I probably don’t even need to say were written in German. I won’t claim to know much about Hirsch’s educational philosophy, but I do know of one major point of difference between it and a traditional school: it taught general sciences, while still staying loyal to studying the Torah and living by it. That was in realization of Rashar Hirsch’s motto - “Torah ‘Im Derech Eretz”, lit. Torah with the Way of the Land. Rashar Hirsch didn’t see modern ideas as opposed to Judaism, but tools that could be used in conjunction with it. There are a couple of additional points to be mentioned - for example, Rashar Hirsch did think Emancipation could be a blessing for the Jews, and tried to convince the members of his congregation to leave the major congregation of Frankfurt when it was permitted - though with limited success. He also (unsurprisingly) saw much value in religious studies and tried founding a Yeshivah - an institute for religious Jewish learning - in Frankfurt, which his congregation also didn’t support much. He also resisted Zionism, as part of his views. He was not the only major innovative Orthodox rabbi of his time - one other name that cropped up was Rav Azriel Hildesheimer, who founded a Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin - I don’t know nearly enough about him though, I’m afraid. So, in modern day, where are the Orthodox Jews? Where are the disciples of Rashar Hirsch and Ḥatam Sofer? Well… It’s kind of complicated. Orthodox Jews can be found in many places across the globe, but like (I think) @Kingsdaughter613 (sorry for the tag, hope you don't mind) could attest, the major communities will be found either in the state of New York and around it, or in Israel. By that I mean generally Orthodox communities. Regarding the specifics of the Ultra vs Modern, though, this is the complicated part. I won’t speak much about the USA here - frankly, there are others here better equipped than me to talk about this. It’s likely also true about Reform and Conservative Judaism - honestly, it’s more true with those two - but I have no idea, I can’t tell and thus I’m saying what I can and hope I may be corrected. Anyway, one institute I think can safely be called Modern Orthodox in the USA is the Yeshivah University in New York. In addition, quite a few American Jews come to Israel to study in Israeli Yeshivas - I would say the ones coming to places like the Gush, Kerem B’Yavneh and Ma’aleh Adumim are likely more Modern Orthodox. More than that I honestly can’t say much. In Israel, there is a division between the Ḥareidim - roughly translated as pious/G-d-fearing - and the Religious-Zionists. Those are rough but imprecise equivalents of Ultra Orthodox and Modern Orthodox Jews, respectively. The issue at hand, though, is that… well… Rashar Hirsch was opposed to Zionism. So were many of his students. Being a Religious-Zionist, though, kind of requires one to be a Zionist, right? So, how does this work? Well, to try and not make too much of a mess of things, I’ll say that the Yekkes (Jews of German origin) who came to Israel originally didn’t consider themselves part of the Religious-Zionist community. They even founded their own school, called Ḥoreb - which likely had a thing to do with Rashar Hirsch’s book. Nowadays, though, this school is one of the most prestigious Religious-Zionist schools. I’m not 100% sure how that came to be - a major figure in the community turning Zionist or something? The rather segregationist tendencies of the Ḥareidim clashing with their ideas and the Yekkes not being enough people to form their own group? All of the above? That happened, anyway. And yet, when some people who consider themselves Neo-Orthodox come to Israel from abroad, they tend to join the Ḥareidi communities - they somehow see themselves closer to them. In short, this internal Orthodox division isn’t as clear cut as you might think. There are even Religious-Zionists who are somewhat more Ultra-Orthodox than the rest. So, I think it could be said this is a little complicated. In short: Neo-Orthodoxy or Modern Orthodoxy is a movement of Jews that stayed completely loyal to the Halachic rules but were willing to accept things like general studies at a young age and usage of other languages in sermons, though perhaps not in prayers. Rashar Hirsch is a good example of this, and made his innovations in multiple places but mostly in Frankfurt-am-Main, where he more or less saved the Orthodox congregation from assimilating back to the Reform one. He had a couple of clashes with Reform Jews which weren’t really elaborated upon - one guy named Heinrich Graetz studied under him in Oldenburg , and later became a famous Jewish historian… who also went in a slightly less Orthodox direction, and Rashar Hirsch opposed him over that. He wasn’t exactly Reform, though - we might touch on the movement he belonged to in the next essay. Anyway, Rashar Hirsch’s motto was Torah with the Way of the Land, something that was expressed in how his school taught both religious and core studies. Thank you for reading this far, and have a good day! (P.S., I realize that I didn’t always mention my sources so far, so I wanted to take the opportunity to list some of them - for the most part those are the Wikipedia articles on the movements and people I mention, in addition to (in some cases) the Hebrew Encyclopedia in its article on tradition and change, books by the rabbis mentioned, general knowledge from my history lessons in high school and Mandelssohn’s biography. Just wanted to mention them in case I’d forget to later.)