-
Shelomoh Eliezer Danziger
As expected, the critique of Rabbi Samson RaphaelHirsch's
ideology that was presented by Rabbi Howward I. Levine in our
Spring "1963 issue, stirred a greatdeal of controversy, especially
among the numerousardent followers of the Hirschian approach.
Rabbi
Danziger, the author of this rejoinder, is a graduateof Columbia
University, was ordained at YeshivaUniversity, and presently
teaches at the Mesivta
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.
CLARIFICATION OF R. HIRSCH'S CONCEPTS -A REJOINDER
The Review Article entitled "En-during and Transitory Elements
in
the Philosophy of Samson RaphaelHirsch" (Tradition, Spring 1963
)
is a long series of criticisms which,if correct, would in effect
discreditR. lIirsch as the authoritative
spokesman for traditional Judaismin modern times. What follows
isa point by point rebuttal, con-densed somewhat for reasons
ofeditorial economy.
TORAH AND GENERAL STUDIES
The reviewer considered it sig-nificant that secular subjects
comw
prise the major proportion of thecurriculum which is formulated
inR. Hirsch's Horeb (p. 411) tohelp us fulfill the Mitzvah of
edu-cation. The implication is that R.Hirsch allotted more time to
secu-lar subjects than to Torah study.
But we should note that the idealcurriculum formulated in
Horebdoes not allot specific time to anysubject. In some yeshivot
one sub-
ject - Chumash - is studied most
of the day, followed by a smatter-
ing of two subjects - Writing andArithmetic. Do the secular
sub-jects comprise the major propor-tion of this curriculum? Time
al-lotment, not the number of sub-
jects, is the criterion of importance. _In that same chapter on
"Educa-"
tion" which introduces the table ofsubjects, R. Hirsch has
clearly in-dicated what is more important:
" "Therefore place your child also be-tween heaven and earth and
acquaintit with the world. - But in every-thing - let it see - God.
This is auseful companion study for the studyof the Torah; it
gives. a knowledgeof Nature and man. Note furtherhow the Torah
directs your attentionto the beginning of human history. . . This
provides a second usfulcompanion study for the study of theTorah -
namely, a knowledge ofhistory" (Horeb, pp. 408-9).This presupposes
no ordinary
teaching of Nature and History,but, as the table of subjects
states:
"N ature and history - penetrated
with the spirit of the Bible." Theymay be viewed as an extension
of
141
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
Torah study. Yet, in the very nextsentence R. Hirsch says:
"But all this must be only sub-sidiary to the child's proper
subject- the Torah!"!
It is in this perspective that we
must view the statements il the es-say "Religious Instruction"
which
seem to stress the "equal thorough~ness and earnestness" and
the"equal care" with which Jewishand secular learning should be
pur-sued. Whereas the Horeb was writ-ten for the objective
religious guid-
ance of Jewish youth, the essays oneducation are of the nature
of pub-lic relations literature designed towin the support of
reluctant par-ents, and to ward off the criticismof antagonistic
Reform elements,
as well as educational supervisors.
of the government.2 These public
statements were objectively justi-fied on the ground that the
generalsubjects were indeed to be taught,not carelessly, but
seriously, cap-
ably and carefully. However, thisin no way contradicts the
basic;Hirschian requirements that Torahbe the main concern (Torah
ikkar)as formulated in Horeb and theTorah Commentary.
It is often overlooked that R.
Hirsch himself attended universityfor only a short time. His
son-in-
law and successor, Rabbi Dr. Salo-mon Breuer, who had
completelyabsorbed the ideals of R. SamsonRaphael Hirsch, received
his doc-toraté from Heidelberg withouthaving attended classes.
To say that R. Hirsch saw noconflict between study of the
Torahand pursuit of human wisdom "be-cause both represent sources
of
142
knowledge of God's Wil" is to con-fuse "secular culture" (or
"humanwisdom") with "nature." R. Hirschdid not say that secular
culture or
human wisdom as taught by thephilosophers or scientists of
anygiven age - even his own - rep-resent a source of revelation
ofGod's truth. He did assert that theobjective realities of nature
are, ofcourse, demonstrations or revela-tions of God's Wil, since
God isthe Source of nature. But he as-serted with equal .force that
the
mortal, subjective scientists whorepresented the secular culture
andhuman wisdom of even his ownday (before Darwin, Freud. andMarx)
were blinded by their sub-jective theories of atheism. 3
As R. Hirsch puts it in his clas-sic comment to Lev. 18 :4: "But
assurely as the Torah comes fromGod, and all other knowÛ!dge
andwisdom which have been found byMan only consist of the results
ofMan's limited 'insight into the ac-tual nature of things, so sure
is itto us, that for us there is only oneteaching, knowledge and
truth bywhich all else must be measured,
" and all others have only condition~a1 acceptance and can ooZy
havevalue in conformance with it."
This is quite a different picture
of R. Hirsch's view of the relationof Torah study to general
studyfrom the distorted one mistakenly
attributed to him. It is a far cry
from the "co-existence" which the
reviewer urged as the only practicalalternative to the ideal
"synthesis"
which is presently impossible. ForR. Hirsch there is no opposing
sec~
ular sphere of study requiring syn-
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
thesis with the saèred sphere ofTorah. (The very term which
Day-
yan Grunfeld translates as "secularlearning" appeared in the
originalas "general" ( allgemeine) learn.ing.") There is only
general, rela.live knowledge which, after it ispurified by the
absolute standard
of Torah truth, widens and deepens
our conception of the world inwhich God has placed us to
liveaccording to His Torah.
The relation of Torah to DerekhEretz (social and cultural
condi.tions) is that of form to matter inthe Aristotelian sense,
as. Rabbi Yew
chiel Weinberg of Montreux has soaptly expressed it. Derekh
Eretzis the raw material which .is to befashioned and wrought,
formed andtransformed by the divine Torah.
There must be a Derekh Eretz onwhich the Torah laws can
operateand have their effect.
As for the quotation from Ho-reb, p.219, from which the
re-viewer inferred that R. Hirsch be-
lieved in two equal sources ofknowledge of God's Wil - the
re-
vealed Torah and the revelation oftruth and right in the mind of
man- the meaning öf that quotation isclear from its context.
Immediatelyfollowing the sentence quoted bythe reviewer ("Thus
truth and rightare the first revelation of God inyour mind") we
read:
But the internal voice of justice canrespond only to the general
pnnci.pIe. To know what justice requiresin regard to every creature
youwould have to know yourself andthe creatures about you as well
asGod knows you and them. If, more-over, your freedom, instead of
leadwing you to justice, unleashes yourselfshness, if you do not
listen to
the voice of truth and right withinyou. . . then you wil rush
towardsdepravity and spiritual suicide...The word of God which
reveals yourjustice to you is His Torah. It is thewarranty and
message of your innervoice which demands justice-.
It is quite evident from the fore-going that R. Hirsch speaks
here
of moral truth and right, of man's
moral conscience and general senseof right and wrong, which he
takesas being implanted in our mind byGod. He was not hailing "the
mindof man in which God has implanteda knowledge of (scientific or
intel-lectual) truth and right," and forwhich supposed reason
"Hirsch saw
no conflict between our study ofTorah anö the pursuit of
humanwisdom." This is a misreading of
R. Hirsch by the reviewer.
R. HIRSCH'S METHOD OFTORAH STUDY
The reviewer claimed that R.Hirsch condemned the method ofTorah
study prevalent "frbm theearly Middle Ages until his day"
as"leading to an inadequate, external
and improper comprehension ofJudaism," and "ridicules (it J as
a'dull and prosaic dialectic.''' Thisis a serious
misunderstanding.
The entire conceptual structureof Horeb and the Torah
Commen-tary is based on the halakhic foun-dations prpvided by the
dialecticmethod of Toràh study of the Riwshonim (early halakhic
authorities)of the Middle Ages. Was R. Hirschbasing his concepts
and legal de-tails on the senseless, invalid dia-
lectic subtleties and hair-splittingswhich he found so worthy of
con-demnation? Can any Mitzvah have
a philosophically valid basis -
143
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
which according to R. Hirsch, unlikeRambam, must conform to
theminute details of the Halakhah asworked out by the
authoritativeCommentators - if it is based oninvalid, dialectic
commentaries?
And what of R. Hirsch's own useof the traditional method of
Tal.mud study? For an impressive ex.ample of this see his
Commentaryto Deut. 19: 19, where he offers a
profound solution to a problemraised by the Lechem Mishneh.Such
passages are scatteredthroughout his Commentarý.4
Before continuing, let us give amore literal translation of the
pas.sages from the Nineteen Lettersquoted by the reviewer than
theoften misleading' paraphrases of Dr.Drachman.
Instead of: "a dull and prosaic
dialectic had reduced to merestmummies laws full to
overlfIowingof life and spirit," - (p. 99) read:"a spiritless
spirit (ein geistloser
Geist) had reduced -." The word"dialectic" does not appear in
theoriginal, and the passage has noth-ing to do with dialectics. It
referssolely to the lack of consideration
of the spiritual concepts behind
the external laws.
On page 186, instead of: "dialec.tic subtleties and
hair-splittings,"the original has only one word:"Spitzfidigkeit,"
which suggests
deceptive sophistry.What R. Hirsch condemned was
not the traditional method of dia-lectic study - which is indeed
the
method of the Talmud itself andnot an invention of the early
Mid-dle Ages, as the reviewer implies
- but distorted "pilpul," whichwas cu:ndemned before him by
144
Shelah, Maharal, the Gaon of Vil.na and others, and which had
be-come increasingly popular in thecentury preceding R. Hirsch. In
a
letter to Z. H. May, dated 1835,R. Hirsch complains: "The
weak-
est feature in Israel's present par-
lous condition is in respect of Jew-ish scholarship, the way in
whichBible, Talmud and Midrash havebeen studied for the last
hundred
years. Because life has long sincebeen banished from the study
ofthe Torah, the Torah has been ban.ished from life." Distorted
pilpul"in Talmud study and playfuly in-genious derush in studying
theBible and Midrash had in recenttimes become the sole
preoccupa-tion of many to the exclusion of
any clear study of the basic con-
cepts of the Bible and Midrash orthe undistorted dialectics of
theTalmud and the spirit embodied inthem.
Even from the passage of theNineteen Letters (p. 186) quoted
by the reviewer it is clear that R.Hirsch was criticizing a
phenom-enon - "Spitzfindigkeit" - whichdeveloped after "the Talmud
hadyielded nearly all the practical re-sults for life of which it
was cap-able" (ibid.). This must be takento refer to the period
after the clas-
sical commentaries to the ShulchanA rukh had been completed, for
un-til that time the "practical results"
were stil being drawn from theTalmud in a most fundamental
anddecisive way.
Also in the passage on p. 99quoted by the revi~wer, in whichR.
Hirsch speaks of the failure toconsider the spiritual concepts
ofthe Torah's external laws, he
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
speaks of this as a phenomenon ofthe "most recent time" ("in
letzterZeit") .
To suggest that R. Hirsch was
at any time or in any manner "con-demning~' or "ridiculing" the
clas-sical, undistorted dialectic methodof traditional Torah study
"fromthe early Middle-Ages until hisday," as the reviewer states,
is agross misunderstanding and a mostserious distortion of R.
Hirsch's
views, as we have shown. R. Hirschmade two justified
demands:
I) undistorted dialectic study of
the texts to ascertain their true
external intent;2) careful conceptual study of
the inner spiritual ideas that areinherent, after dialectic
study has
revealed the external intent.When R. Hirsch's son-in-law and
successor, R. Salomon Breuer~ es-tablished the Frankfurt
Yeshivafor deep dialectic study of the Tal-mud, this was no
departure fromR. Hirsch's viewpoint, but a frui-tion of that
conception.
As for the need to reawakenwhat had become the dormant spir-it
of external Judaism, R. Hirsch's
approach was paralleled in Lithu-ania by R. Yisrael Salanter's
Mu-
sar movement. Both spiritualgiants recognized this need,
and,
indeed, there was an affnity be-tween the two leaders in
somerespects.
THE EMPHASIS ON BIBLE STUDY
The reviewer inferred from theNineteen Letters (197-8) that
R.
Hirsch emphasized "the centralityof the Bible as the main core
of
Torah study," and that "the Tal-mud cannot be properly
under-
stood in terms of itself; the Bibledetermines the range of ideas
to
be gleaned from the Talmud." Thereviewer finds these ideas
exceed-
ingly strange. He asks: "Do we un-derstand the Written Law from
thevantage point of the Oral Law?Or vice versa?" The following
isthe passage of the Nineteen Lettersalluded to, but in context and
in amore literal translation than thatof Dr. Drachman:
"There is one way to salvation -to take the sources of Judaism,
Te-~'''kh, Shas, Midrash - Begin withTenakh, then read not for
re-searches in language and antiquity,or theories of taste and
amusement,but studied for the upbuilding("Aufbau" - not
"foundation") ofa science, (this is merely the oppo-site of study
"for researches in lan-guage and antiquity -") ; with David-
ic sense nature should be conceived,with Isaiahic ear history
perceived;and then, with eye thus aroused, withear thus opened, the
teachingabout God, world, man, Israel andTorah should be drawn from
Te-nakh (and) brought to conception,and then, with the spirit of
such con-ception Silas is to be studied, (whichis). naught else, in
Halakhah, but adetailed application of this concep-tion, but
presupposing it from Te-nakh, (and which is), in Aggadah,naught
else but a figuratively-veiledexpression of such a spirit."
There is nothing here about any"emphasis" upon the study of
Biblemore than upon the study of Tal-mud, or of the "centrality of
theBible as the main core of Torah
study." All the sources of Judaism
- Tenakh, Shas, Midrash - arementioned as equally important,but
different. The Bible presents
the laws and concepts in more gen-
eral terms. In the very nature of
things the initial concept which
145
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
presents itself to our minds is moreapparent in the general
statements
of the Written Torah. For example,
the reason for the Sabbath is statedin the Written Torah as: "It
is asign between Me and the childrenof Israel for ever that in six
days
the Lord made heaven and earth."On the other hand, one can
studyin detail all the thirty-nine melak-
hoth (forbidden labors) of theMishnah without finding a
reasonstated. R. Hirsch warns that theTalmud is not a different
form ofJudaism - legalism, with no rela-tion to the spirit of the
laws - butin reality "a detailed application
of this conception" which is men-
tioned in Tenakh, "but L with theTalmud) presupposing it
fromTenakh." How this is really so isdemonstrated by R. Hirsch in
hisNineteen Letters (pp. 123-6). Thispresentation is one of the
most im-pressive examples of R. Hirsch'sview, that the concept of
the mitz-
vot must be drawn, not only fromits general statement in the
Bible,but from the seemingly "legalistic"details of the Talmud (see
N. L.,p. 193). Indeed, it is R. Hirsch'sopinion that Rambam's
"reasonsof the mitzvot" (taame ha-mitzvot)failed to reflect the
true spirit ofthe Written Torah precisely beciiusehe "overlooked
those details which,in their totality, give the completeidea of the
mitzvot, and which
form the main subiects of discus-sion in the Oral Torah"
(ibid.).
Now let us answer the reviewer'squestion: "Do we understand
theWritten Law from the vantagepoint of the Oral Law? Or
viceversa?" With regard to the exter-nal Halakhah, every faithful
Jew
146
knows that the Oral Torah deter-mines the meaning of the
WrittenTorah. To this extent, the Talmudcan be understood in terms
of it-self. Even more, R. Hirsch adds
that the details of the Oral Torahare the only valid
corroboration ofour conceptual theory which weinfer from the
generality of theWritten Torah.
However, the initial, generalconcept of the M itzvot is
oftenapparent only from the WrittenTorah. With regard to the
initialconcept, therefore, the "Talmudcannot be properly understood
in
terms of itself." However, oncethis general concept is drawn
fromthe W ritten Torah, only the detailsof the Oral Torah can
define theconcept more specifically. Thusthe Written Torah and the
OralTorah are an organic unity, mutu-ally clarifying each
other.
The only "emphasis" R. Hirsch
put on Bible study was the "em-phasis" on its rightful place
whichit no longer occupied because of
gross neglect. He deplored "the
suppression of Bible study," an er-
ror against which the Talmud hadwarned. ri
However, apart from this com-plaint about the neglect of
theBible, R. Hirsch clearly followsthe Talmudic dictum that
one'stime should be devoted one thirdto Bible, one third to Mishnah
andone third to Gemara (Horeb, p.371 ).
The reviewer charges that R.Hirsch assigns a completely
newmeaning to such items as Mishnahand Gemara.
But as a matter of fact, R.Hirsch is merely paraphrasing
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
Rambam and Shulchan A rukh,where it is stated:
"One third should be devoted toTalmud (G emara) - i.e., one
shouldperceive and understand the finalmatter from its beginning,
and de-duce one matter from another, anddraw analogies between one
matterand another, and employ the meth-ods by which the Torah is
interp-reted until he knows the nature ofthe root of the laws and
how thematters which are prohibited andallowed are derived" (Y
ore/i Deali
-246). (Rambam adds: "and this iswhat is called Gemara.").To
have departed from the plain,
literal meaning of the words inorder to attribute to R. Hirsch
anobjectionable, untraditional idea
with regard to Gemara was, on thepart of the reviewer, an
unwar-ranted inference, a distortion.
Also the expression used by R.
Hirsch, "according to your powers"is an obvious paraphrase of
Ram-barn and Shulchan A rukh (ibid.)where it is said of the study
of
Talmud: "according to the breadthof his heart and reflection of
hismind. "
Rambam, the Shulchan Arukhand R. Hirsch are merely giving
adefinition of Gemara.
As for Mishnah, where is the"new meaning and nuance" thatthe
reviewer accuses R. Hirsch ofhaving invented? Perhaps the ob-
jection is to the words "begin toteach him - with instruction
inthe rudiments of the Oral Law,"from which the reviewer
perhapsinfers a mere rudimentary begin-
ning. However, "begin to teach"is used because the author is
refer-ring to a child who has just reachedten years of age, and who
mustnow "begin" the study of Mishnah.
R. Hirsch uses the same expression
with regard to Bible study: "begin
the reading of Scripture." As for"rudiments," the German
Grund-züge should be translated not as"rudiments," but as
"fundamental
passages. "
This leaves only "begin to teach
him his duties -" as the reason for
objection, because, in the reviewer's
words: "In reality, 'Mishnah' is farfrom being a practical
source forthe knowledge of Jewish duties."
Of course, in our times, practicalHalakhot are not deduced from
theMishnah, but from the Codes whichauthoritatively embody the
final re-sults of aie Gemara. However, inTalmudic times the Mishnah
repre-sented the codified H alakhot whichformed the basis of the
Gem¿ra
(See Kiddushin 49a.).6The reviewer assumes that R.
Hirsch attached little value to thepure theoretical study of the
Halak-hah and that for him the study ofsuch areas of Jewish law as
are notoperative today would hardly bewarranted. As a matter of
fact, R.Hirsch refers to more Talmudicsources in his especially
lengthy
and detailed Commentary to Leviti-cus than in his Commentary to
anyother book of the Torah. Sacrifices,ritual uncleanness, vessels
of the
Sanctuary, . etc. - these are his
main topics of discussion with allthe manifold references to
Talmudand Halakhah.
Naturally, the practical duties
operative today have always beenrecognized as taking precedence
instudy (See Preface to Mishnah Be-rurah). For this reason
Alfasi,RoSH, Tur and Shulchan Arukh
147
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
contain only the duties operative
today. R. Hirsch's Horeb, pattern-ed after the Shulchan Arukh,
doesthe same. However, the Hirschiansystem certaily includes the
non-operative laws as subjects for fullTorah study - both in their
legaland in their conceptual aspects.7
THE MITZVOT AND ISRAEL'SHUMANIST MISSION
The reviewer asserts that, in theHirschian scheme, the A1itzvot
aremerely a means to the fulfillmentof Israel's mission, which has
acompletely this-wordly and hu-manistic goal. This is
contrasted
with the traditional view that holi-ness is the highest goal of
religious
life.What is overlooked is that Is-
rael's mission of service to humani-ty is not direct, but is
achieved bybeing a model people, a people liv-ing in close, direct
relationship to
God, loving and fearing Him, andkeeping His ways in holiness
andpurity. Since, however, as R. Hirschpoints out, Israel is only
the first-born son of God, not the only son,our model relationship
to God andHis Wil - which is our highestperfection - automatically
serves
as an example to all mankind, whowil ultimately emulate IsraeL.
Thus,
while appreciating the value of the
Mitzvot to Israel itself in fosteringour direct relationship and
near-
ness to Gods - even if all thiswould have no effect on mankind-
R. Hirsch, nevertheless, points
out that our perfection has signifi-cance beyond the Jewish
scene. Ourperfection is enhanced even furtherbecause its scope wil
be widened
one day to include all the children
148
of God.
However, R. Hirsch does notpermit this passionate
relationship
to God to dissipate in personal emo-tion alone. Its energy must
be con-verted into concrete acts for the fur-therance of God's
purposes here onearth. As our Sages say: "'Andthou shalt love the
Lord thy God,'implies that you shall cause thatlove to spread to
others."9 This isan intensification of our direct per-sonal
relationship to God, not adiminution. Throughout his writ-ings R.
Hirsch proclaims that thesense of holiness must emanatefrom the M
ikdash (the Sanctuary)and overflow thence to the homesand
activities of ordinary living un-til even the most sensuous
aspectsof human life are sanctified, per-vaded by the same sense of
holinessand nearness of God that one ex-periences in the Mikdash.
This isacomplished by living according toGod's M itzvot in all
areas of life.It is indeed strange that this God-conscious man of
pervasive holi-ness should have been criticized forfailure to
appreciate the "worth ofthe M itzvot for their expression
of the direct relationship of man toGod."
Concerning the repeated use ofthe term "mission of humanity
andIsrael," the original speaks only of"mankind and IsraeL." The
word"mission" was added by the trans-lator, Dr. Drachman.
The reviewer complains that R.Hirsch interpreted the M itzvot
interms of a positive, humanistic
goal - the quest for justice. To
demonstrate this, he quotes the fol-lowing passage: "Thus
justice is thesum total of your life, as it is the
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
sole concept which the Torahserves to interpret" (Horeb, p.220)
. He would have us believethat R. Hirsch refers to social jus-tice
in the ordinary sense of the
word. This is not the case. Indeed,
"Mishpatim are - justice towardsmen" (p. 220L but "Edot L are
Jjustice towards God - Torot, jus-tice of your thoughts towards
re-
ality-" (p. 221).
"Justice" is used in that chapter,
not only in the humanistic sense of
social justice, but in the sense ofthe relationships of things
as they
really are, which God alone knowscompletely, and on which basis
Hehas given the Mitzvot. This is thelarger concept of justice, of
whichhumanistic social justice (Mishpat-im) is only a part. The
chapter on"Justice," how all the Mitzvot canbe brought under the
heading of
this 19rger "justice," is one of R.Hirsch's most briliant
conceptions.
R. HIRSCH AND THE KABBALAH
The reviewer considered R.Hirsch's criticism of the
Kabbalahharsh. The famous passages fromthe Nineteen Letters, pp.
99-100,
187 are quoted. These quotations
undoubtedly imply that R. Hirsch
had a qualified attitude towards theKabbalah, or as Grunfeld
puts it,R. Hirsch's attitude was "guarded."This is not new in
Jewish history.In the Responsa of Ribash, we find
that Ran was openly critical ofRamban for his "much too
exces-sive belief in the Kabbalah" (Re-sponsum 157). R. Hirsch's
state-ments are certainly more moderateand reserved than those of
R. Ye-
chezkel Landau. They can hardlybe described as "harsh." As a
mat-
ter of fact, Dayan Grunfeld, in hisdetailed "Samson Raphael
Hirschand the Kabbalah" (Translator'sIntroduction to Horeb) has
com-pletely reconciled R. Hirsch's viewswith the kabbalistic school
(p.cxxvii) .
Perhaps Grunfeld goes too far.R. Hirsch did, after all,
considerthis "invaluable repository of the
spirit of Bible and Talmud" as"eternal progressive
development"
rather than "a static mechanism,"
as "an internal phenomenon andconception" rather than "an
ex-ternal dream world." More prob-ably, Jacob Rosenheim was
closerto the truth when he wrote:
"It is obvious that Hirsch was
inclined to interpret the Cabbalistic
world of ideas as a system of sym-
bols and to expect to find behind
the ilustrative way of expression
of the Zohar, for instance, which
appeals to the imagination, abstract
thoughts about God, the World andthe Torah."io It should be
remem-bered that R. Hirsch characterized
even -the Aggadic parts of the Tal-
mud as "as a figuratively-veiledexpression of the spirit" (of
the
Bible l. How much more so mighthe similarly consider that which
is,in his opinion, only "an invaluable
repository of the spirit of the Bibleand Talmud."
RAMBAM, MENDELSSOHN ANDR. HIRSCH
The reviewer tries to give theimpression that R. Hirsch,
influ-enced. by the Haskalah, is more in-
temperate in his criticism of Ram-bam than of Mendelssohn,
"thefather of the Haskalah movement."In order to make his point,
the re-
149
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
viewer ignores the text proper of
the Nineteen Letters, in whichMendelssohn is severely
criticizedfor his approach in general (p.189) and for the
development of acondition "which threatened to de-
stroy all Judaism" (190-91). In-stead, the reviewer quotes a
foot-note: "His Jerusalem - empha-sizes - in contradistinction to
the
Moreh, etc." But the opening sen-
tence of this footnote, which putsthe matter in proper
perspective is
omitted: "Do not misunderstandme. I speak here only of the
totalimpression of his work for Ju-daism. His 'Jerusalem'-." That
isto say, the total impression of
Mendelssohn's work for Judaismwas negative and ultimately
de-structive, as mentioned in the textproper. His Jerusalem,
however,
contains an undeveloped opinionconcerning Edot which is
praise-worthy.
R. Hirsch's criticism of Rambamin the Nineteen Letters - is
in-
deed attributable to "the sub-sequent breaches of
observance,"
which are traced in the NineteenLetters with equal force in
relationto Mendelssohn as well. As R.Hirsch wrote in an essay:
"True
that Maimonides' 'Guide' wasburnt. He would have been thefirst
to consign his book to theflames had he lived to see the man-ner in
which it has been - andstil is - abused."
It is in this reverential spirit to-
ward Rambam - "this great man,to whom, and to whom alone, weowe
the preservation of practicalJudaism until our time" (N. L. p.181)
- that R. Hirsch, reluctantly
and with heavy heart, presents his
150
. criticism in order to save the prac-tice of Judaism. One may
disagreewith his criticism of Rambam, butone should not imply that
R. Hirschwas influenced by the Haskalah torevere Mendelssohn more
thanRambam. This is distortion.
THE INDIVIDUAL ANDTHE GROUP
To prove that in the Hirschian
view the religious task of the indi.vidual is to work merely for
hisnational group, the reviewer quotes:
"Everything that you have orwil have is given to you only
thatyou may fulfill the task of Israelin your life" (Horeb, p.
370).
Let us read this passage in con-
text. R. Hirsch is answerin&- the
argument that Torah study wasmeant only for rabbinical
scholars,not for laymen. To this he replies:
But have you been born into theworld to be a merchant, an
artist, orto belong to any other station? _You have been born to be
an Israel-ite. "Be an Israelite" was the sum-mons with which God
called youinto being. Everything that you haveor wil have is given
to you only thatyou may fulfill the task of Israel inyour life; and
you can fulfill thisthis task only - if your path in lifeand your
duties are known to youthrough its (the Torah's) teaching.
There is nothing in this passage
about the relationship of the indi-vidual to his national group.
Itspeaks of the task of the individual
Israelite who was born to live as aJew.
The reviewer then quotes:
The Torah teaches you, the indi-vidual, justice and love towards
indi-viduals. But the relationship betweenindividuals is not the
whole consum-mation of life; the individual is weak
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
and transitory. And yet, not for thefleeting moment only, not
with limit-ed means should you try to preservethe nobility, the
greatness, the God-given humanity to which the nameIsrael pledges
you. (Precisely becausethe individual is not everlasting, be-
cause his strength is always limited 1God has given the loftiest
possessionsand concerns of Israel into the safekeeping not of the
individuals but ofthe collectivity. For the collectivityalone is
strong, the totality alone isimmortal even in this world
(ibid.,p.452).The reviewer complains:"This would seem to be a
very
dangerous doctrine. It smacks ofstatism and totalitarianism,
andthreatens the very foundation of
religion as we view it today as thesafeguard of the priceless
absoluteworth of the individuaL."
The basis of statism or totalitari-anism is the idea that the
individuM
al exists for the state, and his rightsmust retreat before the
state, whichdefines these rights. The state is ele-vated to an
abstract concept whichgives it an ideational existence
higher than the concrete existence
of the individuals who comprise it.A non-totalitarian system
also comw
bines individuals into a state, butthe state exists in order to
further
the life-goals of the individuals, whocontrol the state's
decisions.
But on the regulation exempting
a new husband from miltary dutyin order to enable him to
rejoicewith his wife (Deut. 24: 5) , R.Hirsch comments:
Clearly at the root of these lawslies the point of view that a
state,the concept of a state as a whole,has reality only in the
actua1 num-bers of all its individual members,but apart from them,
or next tothem, one cannot consider the exist.
ence of a state as a concept initself. So that the national
welfarecan be sought only in the well-beingand happiness of all the
single indi.viduals.
Such courageous remarks aimed
against the statism of his time andplace - in the
uncompromisingspirit of the Torah - are widelyscattered throughout
R. Hirsch'swritings. They flatly contradict thereviewer's
prejudiced assertion thatfor R. Hirsch: "The relationship ofthe
individual to collective Israeltakes on the same quality of
therelationship of the individual to theState familar in German
thinking
(Fichte, Hegel)."For the individual Jew, the law
of life which gives it meaning andvalue is the law of Gods
Torah. Topreserve this way of life for all theindividual Israelites
of the presentand succeeding generations we arecharged with forming
communi-ties. To explain the laws of the
Shulchan Arukh governing com-munity organization, R. Hirschwrote
Chapter 95 of Horeb, "Du-
ties towards the Community," inwhich he points out - in
passages
omitted by the reviewer - how theshort life-span and limited
meansof individuals make it desirable toorganize communities which
neverdie and which have greater means
to further the goals of all individualIsraelites. There can be
no legalclash between the goals of the com-munity and the
individualt for thegoals are the same, defied for usby God's
Torah.
Of course, the Torah conceives
of us as a nation. We pray in theplural, as a nation. But we are
anation of individuals. The goals of
151
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
the nation and of the individualsare the same - life in the
presenceof God and according to HisLaws.
11
It is noteworthy that it is pre-cisely the Kehilah organization
ofR. Hirsch's followers that is thestrongest single factor in the
flour-
ishing of Hirschian life in the
United States. The failure of over-individualized American Jews
toorganize in Kehiloth is one of themain weaknesses of American
Or-thodoxy.
MENSCH-JISSROEL
The reviewer would make thisHirschian expression mean
"Man-Israel," in the sense that the indi-
vidual is important only as a rep-
resentative of the group IsraeL.
However, Grunfelds interpretationas "man and Israelite" in the
sensethat the human element comes firstis evidenced from Horeb, p.
222:
Thus every man, as man, is bornfor justice. In the early history
ofmankind, however, - (man) hadforgotten to respect man as man _.It
was then that God createdIsrael as His people amidst thenations, so
that Israel might bethe standard-bearer of human just-ice and
realize it by his example _.You, therefore, as man and
Israelite("Mensch-Jissroel") are doublycalled upon to fulfil the
image ofjustice, and to be just in all yourways. You cast aside
man's andIsrael's dignity if you are unjustto any creature about
you-.
R.. HIRSCH AND SEP AR nON
The reviewer criticized R.Hirsch's "practical policy of
separa-
tion from the larger Jewish Com-
munity which included non-observ-ant elements," and then quoted
his
152
Foreword to demonstrate that hehad no concern for any
individualwho did not totally and initiallyidentify himself with
the Torah.
Of course, there is nothing inthe Horeb passage quoted by
thereviewer that suggests such a negã-tive atttude towards a
non-observ-
ant individual Jew. R. Hirsch statesin his Foreword merely that
thefaithful Jew must never leave thepale of Judaism even
theoreticallyin order to persuaae those whose
theories and inc1ina'tions have al-ready placed them outside the
pale.But taking our stand within Ju-daism, by accepting the
outstand-ing fact of Jewish history, the di-vine Revelation of the
Torah, we
should certainly point out themeaning and attraction of
God'sTorah to all Jews, especially to
those who have already strayed.Indeed, this is precisely what
R.Hirsch did in his Nineteen Letters.They are an answer to
Benjamin,who in the First Letter has arguedfor the rejection of
Judaism. Noman in moden times has triedharder, or with more
success, towin the hearts of the estranged sons
and daughters of Israel than RabbiSamson Raphael Hirsch.
It is simply untrue that his policyof communal separation was
basedon the fact that the larger com-
munity "included non-observantelements." The "By-Laws of
K'hallAdath Jeshurun" of New York,patterned on those of R.
Hirsch's
Frankfurt Community, providethat: "Any Jewish person shall
beeligible to apply for membership,
unless, contrary to Religious Law,said person shall not have
been
circumcised, and! or shall not be
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
willng to have his or her sones)
circumcised, and further, unlesssaid person is married contrary
to
the Jewish Law." It is only when
speaking of offces of the Congre-
gation that the By-Laws provide:
"Any person who carries on a busi-ness on the Sabbath or Holy
Days,
or desecrates these days in anyother way, any person who hasbeen
proved to keep a trejah house-hold or to be ochel trejah, or
whodenies the fundamental principles.of traditional Judaism shall
be con-sidered unfit for any offce, includ-
ing, but not limited to, that oftrustee." But he is fit for
member-ship in the Community.
It was only when the offcial poli-cy of a Jewish community was
oneof non-observance or denial of theTorah that R. Hirsch
demandedseparation from such an un-Jewish
community. R. Hirsch insisted thatthe more we engage in
friendlyrelations with these persons, themore it behooves us to
separate
completely from the communal sys-tem which is an organizational
ex-pression of sectarianism and her-
esy.12
ISRAEL As "SEGULAH"
The reviewer complains that"contrary to Onkelos, Mekhilta,
Ra-shi, and Ibn Ezra, who interpret theverse, 'Then ye shall be my
peculiartreasure from among all peoples'(Exodus 19: 5) in the sense
of aspecial quality in God's love for ß-rael, Hirsch interprets it
not as lovebut as 'a property belonging exclu-
sively to one owner - God has thesole and exclusive claim to
Israel'sdevotions and service (N. L. p.142)." The right of a
commentator
to give such differing explanations
has been recognized by Rishonimand Acharonim. The point of
thecriticism seems to be that R. Hirschavoided the usual
interpretation inorder that Israel should not be con-ceived as the
object of a special love
by God. However, the very fact thatGod chose Israel from among
allthe nations as mankind's standard-
bearer, is per se a demonstration ofspecial love. As R. Hirsch
com-ments on Deut. 10: 14-15,
The whole universe, heaven, and theheaven of the heavens, the
earthand everything on it is His, andstil He has not come as near
toany being as He has to you! Outof all men on earth He found
yourforefathers worthy of His specialloving relationship. And you,
(who)as their descendents following afterthem should show
yourselves equallyworthy of the special bond withGod, you has He
chosen from outof all the nations to serve Hisspecial purpose for
mankind.Special Divine love is inherent
in the very choice of Israel to serve
God's special purpose for mankind,as the Torah clearly states,
and asR. Hirsch stresses in his Comment-ary.
It was not to avoid the idea of
special love for Israel that R. Hirschinterprets "segulah"
differently. ToR. Hirsch the term "segulah" im-
plies not only specialty but exclu-
siveness. To relate this exclusive
quality to God's love for Israelwould be to exclude the rest of
theworld from God's love, an impos-sible idea. Therefore, R. Hirsch
in-terprets "segulah" as the exclusive
claim of God to Israel, not the ex-clusive claim of Israel to
God's
love. The passage in the NineteenLetters, p. 142, which
Drachman
153
-
TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
translated freely, literally reads asfollows: "Indeed, 'Segulah'
does not
mean that God belongs to no otherpeople, but rather that this
people
(Israel) belongs to no other God)should recognize no other being
as
its God." R. Hirsch then brings asevidence the meaning of
"segulah"in Bava Kamma which indicates"exclusively-owned property
towhich no other has a right" (noteto p. 142, ibid.).
When Onkelos, Mekhilta, Rashiand Ibn Ezra interpret "segulah"
asan object of special love, they do
not mean exclusive love. Seforno isvery careful to avoid this
notion
when he comments:
"Then ye shall be My peculiartreasure" although all mankind
isprecious to Me above all thelower creatures, for man alone isthe
intended goal, as the Sages say:"Beloved is man for he has
beencreated in God's image."
However, if one takes the viewthat "segulah" linguistically
impliesexclusiveness - and R. Hirsch has
a right to this linguistic opinion -then he must interpret this
exclu-siveness as R. Hirsch has done.Ia
Thus) as is so often the case inthe Midrashic interpretations
ofM ekhilta, there are alternate ex-
planations. Rashi followed one, R.Hirsch the other.
R. HIRSCH ANDR. YEHUDAH HALEVI
The reviewer asserts that not-withstanding R. Hirsch's
espousal
'of R. Yehudah Halevi's philosophy,he allegedly repudiates the
notion- so essential to that philosophy
- that Israel -is endowed with an
hereditary special spiritual quality.
154
This charge is a direct result of theerroneous assumption that
R.Hirsch's interpretation of "Segulah"precludes special Divine love
forIsraeL. Yet, the hereditary factor is
stressed in the following comment.Minds can be improved,
learningimparted, but what is difficult toaccomplish is an
ennobling changeto refinement of character, thatabove all has its
roots in theancestral inwards -. The seed ofCanaan can also have
mind andintellgence, can be brought up andeducated to a sense of
duty. Butthe true Jewish humane feelingscan not be inculcated by
education;they must be inherited from theinwards of Abraham. It was
just onthis innate receptivity for all refine-
ment and nobility and readinessto sacrifice joyfully that God
builtthe foundation of His future nation.R. HIRSCH, ERETZ YISRAEL
AND
GALUT
The reviewer asserts that for R.Hirsch, Bretz Yisrael does not
rep-
resent "an irreducible value."Value, for the faithful Jew,
is
determined by the Torah. A cer-tain value is placed on Sabbath
ob-servance, on saving life, on all themanifold aspects of life.
Moreover,these Torah-determined values aretaught to us in their
proper rela.-tionship. In R. Hirsch's view Eretz
Yisrael was to be conceived as the
environs of the Sanctuary of the
Torah. Exile from the land was tohim a "sad disfigurement of
theTorah (for which) Jewish tearsare shed and Jewish hearts
grieve"(Judaism Eternal, voL. I, p. 137).To this extent, and to
whatever
extent Halakhah defines our'rela-tion to Eretz Yisrael, Eretz
Yisrael
is indeed "an irreducible value."In the above-mentioned essay
R.
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
Hirsch quotes from R. YehudahHalevi's "Ode to Zion," whichbases
all the virtues of Eretz Y is-rael on the spiritual factors of
theTorah.
It is true that R. Hirsch did notgo so far as R. Yehudah
Haleviand Ramban in demanding thatwe live in Eretz Yisrael even
be-
fore the prophesied redemption.
But neither did the majority of Ri-shonim and Acharonim, or
theBabylonian Amoraim who studiedin Eretz Y israel only to return
toBabylonia make this demand. Nei-ther did R. Yehudah Halevi go
toEretz Yisrael, except in advanced
age, nor Ramban except for his en-forced exile from Spain~
Various
material and spiritual factors mustbe weighed. The matter is
complexand relative; it is not simple andabsolute. However, to the
extent
that the Torah places value onEretz Yisrael, such value is
irre-ducible for R. Hirsch, as it is forany faithful Jew. Thus R.
Hirschstrongly urged the support of re-ligious colonies in Eretz
Yisrael.
Of a Torah State in Eretz Yis-rael, R. Hirsch says: "This was
theideal" (Judaism Eternal, ibid.).But it is equally true that the
Di-vine punishment of Galut does alsoafford an expanded
opportunity.This is not "in radical departure
from biblical and Talmudic teach-ings," as the reviewer mainta
ins,
but quite in harmony with them,
as the Talmud states: "The HolyOne, blessed be HeJ exiled
Israelamong the nations only so that ge-rim (proselytes) should be
added
to their number (Pesachim 87b).As MaHaRSHA comments: "Wereexile
a .punishment only, Israel
could have been punished in otherways. Therefore, it follows
thatexile was decreed for the purpose
of adding gerim, that is, to publi-cize the true faith among the
otherna tions."
Despite R. Hirsch's deep com-
passion for Jewish suffering in Ga-lut (Judaism Eternal, VoL. I,
pp.85-87), he bids us not to wallow inself-pity, but to be
encouraged bythe ultimately positive goals set byGod - our own
spiritual improve-ment and our example to theworld. And like Rambam
(Me~lakhim, Chapter II in uncensored
texts), R. Hirsch notes that Chris-
tianity, despite its many pagan ele-ments, succeeded in
"rendering in-tellgible to the world the objects
and purposes of Israel's election."
LOYAL CITIZENSHIP
The reviewer complains that theHirschian view of
patriotism"raises the need for compliance tobrute force to a high
and noble re-
ligious ideaL"In Horeb, R. Hirsch has shown
that Jeremiah demanded: "Seek thewelfare of the city whither I
have
caused you to be carried away cap-tive, and pray unto the Lord
forit-" even with regard to Babylon,
which was "the country which hadforcibly taken them to live in
itsmidst." Babylon was certainly noless totalitarian than
present-day
communist states. The reviewerwould have us "make the best of
abad situation" without the "innerfeeling" of a "religious ideaL."
But
certainly the word of God does notmean that we should pray for
thewelfare of the city hypocriticalIy.How this divinely-commanded
duty
155
-
TRAITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
of seeking the welfare of the stateshould be carried out in the
ex-
treme example of Nazi Germanyor other unjust totalitarian states
isan interesting halakhic question.
But it is just that - a halakhic
problem. The word of God to Jere-miah, not R. Hirsch, creates
theproblem.
The reviewer asks:"Does the ideal of the mission ofthe Jew to
teach justice really im-ply that Israel in Galut must not'wrest its
independence by its ownefforts' (Horeb, p. 145)?"
The fact that Israel must not"wrest its independence by its
ownefforts" is not a result of the "mis-sion of the Jew to teach
justice,"as the reviewer .implies. It is an
obligation imposed on us by God'sword to the prophets as
explained
by the Talmud in Ketuvot 111 a. *Grunfeld's note (Horeb, p.
145)
does not, as the reviewer implies,make a distinction between
"Hirschin real life" and the "doctrine hetaught and wrote," and R.
Hirsch
did not "propound doctrines which
are at - great variance with his
role in life." R. Hirsch was "any-thing but a quietist" when it
cameto the moral persuasion of "fieryspeeches" in Parliament
against un-just treatment, and written pamph-lets and letters
demanding equalcitizenship. These legal, non-violentmethods of
persuasion are certain-ly sanctioned. It is ilegal violence,
unsanctioned by the nations, whichwe are obliged to avoid
according
to the Talmud.The reviewer accuses R. Hirsch
of believing that "it is wrong forthe Jew to leave his area of
missionand to do anything to bring him-self by his own effort to
the HolyLand." It should be clear that onlybechomah,
mass-immigration toEretz Yisrael in defiance of the na-tions, is
wrong. * * Individual im-migration is, of course, praise-
worthy.R. Hirsch never lacked "faith in
Israel's national character," as thereviewer states. He is the
most na-tionalistic of Jews. But to him Jew-ish nationalism is
infinitely moreprofound and more pervasive thanthe shallow concept
which calls it-self Jewish nationalism today.15
FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON HIRSCH'STHOUGHT
The reviewer points to foreigninfluences on R. Hirscb~s
thought.
But should R. Hirsch have rejectedthe Talmudic statement, "Not
studyis the main thing, but deed~" or
"Great is the study of Torah be-
cause it leads to deeds" simply bew
cause Pichte stressed the samethought?
Do we need Pichte to tell us thatfreedom of choice was given to
usonly so that we should submit free-ly to God's Wil?
As for Hegel and Noah Rosen-
jlThe "evidence" from the above mentioned Talmudic passage is
far from con.clusive, especially in the light of numerous
conflicting statements in other Tal-mudic sources. Many religious
authorities demonstrated the halakhic proprietyof Israel's War of
Liberation and of the so-called "ilegal" Aliyah prior to
theestablishment of the state.-Ed.
.. See, however, Yoma 9b, where immigration bechomah is
extolled.-Ed.
156
-
Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - A Rejoinder
bloom's contentions, Grunfeld hasalready replied in his
Introduction
to Horeb (p. XLI).The reply is the same for all alle-
gations of foreign influences. It isnot enough to point to
similarities..The acid test is not whether a Jew-ish thinker was
familar with theworks of non-Jewish writers, orwhether a Jewish
exposition haspoints of similarity with non-JewishsourceS. What
matters is whetherR. Hirsch's conceptions can beshown to correspond
in a naturalway to classical Jewish ideas. Itthen becomes
unimportant whetheror not non-Jews have sometimesexpressed similar
concepts.
We have demonstrated, we be-lieve, that R. Hirsch was not amere
German modernist, but oneof our Acharonim of the 19th cen-tury, a
worthy disciple of R.Yaa-
kob Ettlinger with all that is im-plied' in this
characterization. "Thefact that, through an historical ac-cident,
Hirsch wrote in German,makes it too easy for his detractorsto
exclude him from the communityand sanctuary of the Rishonim
andAcharonim who have been through-out the milenia the bearers of
thephilosophical and halakhic tradi-tions of Judaism."16 .
In this clarification of views wehave directed our remarks to
thecritics of Hirsch. Some clarifica-tion should also be directed
to-wards those for whom he is R.Hirsch (- Rabbeinu Hirsch).
R.Hirsch was not great because hepropounded a middle course
be-tween rightists and leftists. Com-promise was alien to his
system.
What he did demand was a rejec-tion of one-sidedness in
Judaism.
Authentic Jewish tradition requiresthat Torah advance on all
sides.Careful study of Scripture, lin-guistically and conceptually,
musttake its rightful place. Deep dia-lectic study of the Talmud
mustdo the same. The proper balance
between Torah (ikkar) and generalstudies (tafel) must be
guarded
and maintained. A healthy interestin the general cultural scrne
of the
society around us (Derekh Eretz)should not become a desire
toidentify ourselves with the life andmodes of that society even
withinthe limits set by the Shulchan Arukh.We take these only as
the raw ma-terial to be transformed by the To-rah into Jewish life
and modes, inspirit as well as in letter. R. Hirschwas an Acharon
who happened tolive in the Germany oL the 19thcentury. We are
man-Israelites whohappen to live in 20th centuryAmerica. The raw
material of theDerekh' Eretz changes, but our task
and starting-point remain ever thesame - the Torah of God, in
let-t~r and in spirit.
There is a popular notion that,unlike Hasidism and Musar,
whichattempted to deepen the religlousexperience of the Jew, the
Hirsch-
ian system aimed at merely pre-serving Judaism against the
on:slaught of Western culture. It isour conviction that this notion
iserroneous. Study of R. Hirsch'swritings and commentaries has
beenfor many a most effective source ofM usar, deeping our
spiritual graspof Judaism. At any rate, the deep-ening of spiritual
experience isthe very basis of R. Hirsch's con-
ception, and the very result of thecareful study of that
conèeption.
157
-
TRITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
This should be the goal, the taskof all disciples of Rabbeinu
Hirsch,who stil are, with certain ilustri-ous exceptions, far from
the spir-
itual depth, in the study of Torahand in the observance of
Mitzvot,
which R. Hirsch demanded.
NOTES
1. Samson Raphael Hirsch - Horeb, Translated by Dayan Dr. i.
Grunfeld
(London: The Soncino Press, 1962), p. 411. d. also R. Hirsch's
commentary onLev. 18:4.
2. Rav Joseph Breuer communicated this fact to me.3. S. R.
Hirsch, Judaism Eternal, VoL. II, pp. 12-13.
4. See also his Responsum in Tel Taipiot, VoL. X.5. Soferim,
15:~. See also Rosh.6. Derishah to Yoreh Deah 246, also quoted by
Taz and Shakh, writes that
the Talmudic statement; "Whoever studies Halakhoth -every day
etc." (Niddah73a) refers in our time, not to the theoretical
discussions of "Gemara, Rashi andTosaphot;' but to the practical
works of the Posekim, "which contain the rootand basis of our Torah
-. since as Rashi explained (ibid.) Halakhoth means
what has been legally fixed for practice." But, as a matter of
fact, Rashi (ibid.)merely comments that Halakhoth means: Mishnah,
Baraita and Halakhah Le-
Mosheh Mi-Sinai." Clearly, then, while the codified Mishnah
represented relativelyfixed Halakhoth in older times, our Codes of
today represent the same to us. ThusR. Hirsch speaks of the one
third to be devoted to Mishnah as: "especially to thecodes which
instruct you concisely about your duties, such as Rambam
andShulchan Arukh" (Horeb, p. 371 and p. 412) and "where possible -
the Mishnah"(p. 412) as well.
7. See Nineteen Letters, pp. 103, 128-29, 192-3. Also Commentary
to Leviticus.8. See R. Hirsch's comments on Deut. 6:5 and 11:13.9.
Y oma a6a.
10. Jacob Rosenheim. S. R. Hirsch's Cultural Ideal and Our
Times, p. 65.11. See also R. Hirsch's Commentary on Ex. i: 1 and
12:3-6, where the relation-
ship of individual familesto the nation is discussed. On the
democratic rule of
the community by majority vote.. see Horeb, p. 458.12. Collected
Writings, Vol iv, pp. 339-40.
13. R. Jacob Mecklenburg in Ha-Ketab Ve-ha-Kabbalah interprets
"Segulah"in a similar fashion, basing himself on another passage of
Mekhilta.
14. Commentary on Genesis 15:4. See also Commentary on Deut.
7:8.15. See R. Yechiel Weinberg's essay in Ha-Rav S. R. Hirsch,
Mishnato, We-
Shittato.16. Jacob Rosenheim. op. cit.
158