Torah im Derekh Ereẓ in the Shadow of Hitler

Marc B. Shapiro writes circa 2006:

With the coming to power of the Nazi regime, and the governmental determination to remove Jews from all aspects of German culture and public life, Torah im Derekh Erez took another hit. Here was a philosophy that was so tied to German society and culture, and now Jews were being told that they were not welcome in Germany. Could R. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s philosophy still have a future in such circumstances? Many thought no, and this certainly pushed young German Orthodox Jews in different directions, such as to the yeshiva world and religious Zionism…

The German Orthodox also think that it is permitted to attend a university and study all matters, and also to attend the theatre, claiming that one can ignore the sensual elements and focus instead on the larger picture. He concludes this introductory section by asking the sages he turned to if the expression yafeh talmud Torah im derekh erez (Avot 2:2) can be understood in the way the German Orthodox explain it, especially since this approach appears to have been instituted as an emergency measure which would prevent it from being established on a permanent basis. With these words R. Schwab expressed the negative view towards Torah im Derekh Erez that had become a part of the culture of the younger generation of German Orthodox…

Posted in Germany, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Torah im Derekh Ereẓ in the Shadow of Hitler

Suicide and the World-to-Come

Marc B. Shapiro writes in 1993:

In 1880 the Jewish community of Iraq was forced to confront a sharp increase in antisemitic persecution. Not all of the country’s Jews were prepared for this new phenomenon and the result was a number of suicides. The Iraqi rabbinate, both shocked and determined to put an end to the needless taking of life, declared from all the synagogue pulpits that those who commit suicide have no share in the world-to-come.’ This idea was certainly not unknown to either the masses or the rabbis, who probably believed it to be found somewhere in talmudic literature.2 However, although it does not appear there…

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Suicide and the World-to-Come

Tradition in Transition: Orthodoxy, Halakhah, and the Boundaries of Modern Jewish Identity

Marc B. Shapiro writes circa 1992:

Hildesheimer came down firmly on the side of Orthodoxy. In his mind, Frankel, Graetz, and other professors at Breslau were heretics. Not only was Frankel a meshumad—which made him even worse than an apikores—but it was perhaps even a mitzva to burn his book Darkhe haMishna.16 Hildesheimer had the same view regarding the graduates of Frankel’s seminary.17 This harsh view was broadly shared among the German Orthodox. Yet as time went on, some elements of German Orthodoxy were able to take a more balanced look at both Frankel and his work. With this change, certain segments of Orthodoxy, especially the Berlin variety, began to adopt a more sympathetic approach to Frankel and the sort of scholarship he represented.18 Horovitz adopted a more positive attitude than his teacher Hildesheimer. In referring to Frankel, he prefaced his name with the compliments usually reserved for Orthodox scholars.19 However, he did very conspicuously neglect to add the customary “of blessed.memory” after his name; a fact which did not go unnoticed.20

Hoffmann makes good use of Frankel’s works. Whether this is a sign of a positive attitude to Frankel is not certain for Hoffmann’s practice was to quote anyone without concern for their religious beliefs. He recognized that good scholarship cannot limit its choice of sources or neglect proper historical methodology.21 Thus, whether Hoffmann held the same view of Frankel that Hildesheimer did cannot be definitely established. Even a close examination of Hoffmann’s writings will not settle the question for he was always very respectful in what he wrote, even when confronting those who denied the very basis of what to him was holy.22 However, the general impression one gets from the way he approaches Frankel’s works is that Hoffmann, much like Horovitz, had a positive, or at the very least neutral, opinion of Frankel.

With Weinberg, we see more than we have seen so far. For him, not only was Frankel not a heretic, he was actually a good Jew. Weinberg calls him Rabbi and on occasion affixes the phrase zikhrono livrakha after his name; a sure sign of respect, and one that is notably missing when Weinberg mentions Geiger.23 Fie cites the Darkhe haMishna throughout his works and considers this book to be a basic text and a forerunner for Floffmann’s later studies of the Mishna. He also defends Frankel against Isaac FHalevy’s harsh attacks throughout the latter’s Dorot haRishonim attacks in the spirit of Hildesheimer.

Posted in Judaism, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Tradition in Transition: Orthodoxy, Halakhah, and the Boundaries of Modern Jewish Identity

RABBI DAVID TSEVI HOFFMANN ON ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT WITH THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Marc B. Shapiro writes in 1999:

When, in the early 1920’s, serious planning for a Jewish University in Jerusalem got underway, the Orthodox community was put into a quandary. The notion of a university in Jerusalem in which heretical ideas, in particular biblical criticism, were taught was not something most Orthodox Jews could easily stomach. As can be imagined, there were great protests by many leading East European scholars, which reached their peak around the time or the April I, 1925, formal inauguration of the institution. Adding to the consternation of the Orthodox leaders was that many of the university’s partisans viewed its inauguration in almost Utopian terms, even affixing the verse “For out of Zion shall come forth Torah” to the new university.1

Not surprisingly, the German Orthodox followers of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, whose commitment to secular studies was equaled by their strident opposition to Wissenschart des Judentums and organizational affiliation with the non-Orthodox, were very vocal in this battle, for them, while it was entirely proper, in accordance with the Torah im Derekh Erets ideal, to attend a non-Jewish university, it was absolutely forbidden to have any involvement with a Jewish university in which heresy was countenanced.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on RABBI DAVID TSEVI HOFFMANN ON ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT WITH THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Judaism & The Trinity

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

Throughout Jewish literature one can find any number of explanations as to how the notion of the Trinity is in direct opposition to Jewish teachings, since Judaism demands a simple, unified God. There is no doubt that for much of our history this was the standard view. However, once the doctrine of the sefirot arises on the scene, matters change. Many of the arguments put forth by kabbalists to explain why the belief in the sefirot does not detract from God’s essential unity could also be used to justify the Trinity, a fact recognized by the opponents of the sefirotic doctrine. Since the doctrine of the sefirot has become part and parcel of Judaism, we must now acknowledge that Judaism does not require a simple Maimonidean-like, divine unity.

In fact, without any reference to the sefirot, R. Judah Aryeh Modena was able to conclude that one could indeed justify the notion of the Trinity so that it did not stand in opposition to basic Jewish beliefs about God’s unity. As Modena points out in his anti-Christian polemic, Magen va-Herev, the real Jewish objection to the Christian godhead is not found in any notion of a Triune God, but in the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.35 The idea that God assumed human form, i.e., that a human is also God, is regarded by us as way over the line. This is not only because it deifies a human, but also because there is a great difference between a spiritual God divided into different “parts,” and an actual physical division in God. The latter is certainly in violation of God’s unity even according to the most extreme sefirotic formulations. (It would not, however, appear to be in violation of R. Moses Taku’s understanding of God, since he posits that God can assume form in this world at the same time that He is in the heavens. For Taku, Christianity’s heresy would thus be seen only in their worship of a human, which is avodah zarah.)

From the Trinity, let’s turn to Virgin Birth, another phenomenon which everyone knows is not a Jewish concept, or is it? If by Virgin Birth one means conception through the agency of God, then there is no such concept in Judaism. Yet if by Virgin Birth we also include conception without the presence of human sperm, then as we shall soon see, this indeed accepted by some scholars. (I stress human sperm, so that we can exclude the legend of Ben Sira’s conception, which occurred by means of a bathtub, not to mention all of the responsa dealing with artificial insemination.)

Pre-modern man believed in all sorts of strange things, one of which was the concept of the incubus and the succubus, which was found in many cultures. The idea was that male and female demons would have sex with humans while they slept. Among the outstanding Christian figures who believed the notion possible include Augustine and Aquinas.36 This was an especially good way to explain an unwanted pregnancy: just blame it on the demon. While the classic example of the incubus is when a male demon comes upon a sleeping woman, there were times when this happened while both parties were awake, and we will soon see such a case in Jewish history. Lest one think that this is only a pre-modern superstition, what about all those people who claim to have had sexual relations with aliens who abducted them?

Posted in Christianity, Judaism, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Judaism & The Trinity