Jewish Scholarship and Identity in Nineteenth-Century France

Jay Berkovitz

JEWISH SCHOLARSHIP AND IDENTITYIN NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRANCE

In a letter to Leopold Zunz in the fall of 1822, the French orientalistSylvestre de Sacy predicted that the important work of Wissenschaft desJudentums would never gain the appreciation it deserved in France be-cause the Jewish community there showed so little interest in intellec-tual affairs.1 Two decades later, commenting on the failure of FrenchJews to embrace ritual reform as did their German coreligionists, Abra-ham Geiger went a step further, holding the paucity of Jewish intellec-tual life responsible for the disappointing lack of progress in the realmof religion. With impassivity rampant, he was convinced that only amovement devoted to the scientific study of Judaism could save FrenchJewry from the portentous effects of indifference.2 In accordance withde Sacy and Geiger's views, the achievements of French Jewish scholar-ship have been commonly dismissed as inconsequential, as at best only afaint echo of the more celebrated and undeniably more importanttrends that prevailed across the Rhine.3 There is no doubt that the disin-tegration of French universities, both in the aftermath of the Revolutionand as a direct result of Napoleonic policy, was a limiting factor in thedevelopment of modern Jewish scholarship.4 It is also abundandy clearthat Jewish scholarship in France was never entirely free of German in-fluence. In die revolutionary period, French maskUim such as ZalkindHourwitz, Isaie Berr Bing, and Berr Isaac Berr were profoundly inspiredby Moses Mendelssohn and the Haskalah movement that formedaround Mendelssohn in Berlin. During the Napoleonic regime espe-cially, this relationship of intellectual indebtedness to German Jewrywould intensify. Continuous contact with German scholars, togetherwith the training received at German universities, fostered a greaterawareness of the methods and objectives of the nascent Wissenschaft desJudentums movement among French Jewish intellectuals, influencingtheir work in several important areas.

The two regnant assumptions concerning Franco-Jewish scholar-ship—its meager value and its distincdy German provenance—are,nonetheless, in serious need of reexamination. Geiger's judgment hasgone unchallenged because the scholarship produced in France beforethe mid-nineteenth century is still largely unknown to most students of

Modem Judaism 18 (1998): 1-SSC 1998byTheJohnjHopkiniUnivenityPrea

2 JayBeHmvib

the period. The second claim, that modern Jewish studies was withoutany roots in French soil but was imported from central and eastern Eu-rope by immigrant scholars, and only came of age in the 1860s,5 ignoresthe body of work produced in France beginning in the third decade ofthe last century. It will become clear in this paper that Francojewishscholarship, though certainly not autonomous, developed an indepen-dent character reflecting the matrix of political and intellectual issuespeculiar to France.

The patterns of Jewish scholarship in nineteenth-century Franceoffer a valuable perspective on the complexities facing Jews in the post-emancipation era. Accompanying die process of legal emancipation wasa progressive liberation from the intellectual constraints of the Jewishtradition. In response to unprecedented demands to fulfill the duties ofcitizenship and to become part of "la grande famiUe francaise? Jewishscholars took die lead in redefining die meaning of Jewish tradition andhistory. Toward this end, Jewish intellectuals appropriated the methodsand tools of modern scholarship and began to subject classical Jewishliterature to critical examination. Clearly the direct and natural out-growth of ongoing secularization, diis critical-scientific approach wasgenerally adopted wherever religious audiority had weakened. Itemerged not only as a novel interpretive mode for the explication of an-cient and medieval 'texts, but also as a new source of prestige for thoseable to meet the scholarly standards set by the wider academic commu-nity. In this way, modern scholarship served as a vehicle by which intel-lectuals were able to attain power and influence within the Jewishcommunity. In die case of Germany, their efforts resulted in the forgingof a close relationship between critical scholarship on the one hand,and die struggle on behalf of emancipation and religious reform on theodier.8 The work of Leopold Zunz, like tiiat of Abraham Geiger andZacharias Frankel, was motivated by a desire bodi to prove die worthi-ness of Jews as citizens and to substantiate die claims for ritual change.The first of these goals was rooted in die conviction diat die Jews' socialand political status was a function of die level of intellectual respect ac-corded to Judaism. The second goal, die modernization of Jewish reli-gious practice, diough undoubtedly related to die first, was largely aninternal issue on which die German Jewish community was deeply di-vided.' Aldiough diese motivations were certainly present in France,diey were much less marked dian in Germany. The undisputed fact ofcivic equality relieved French Jewish scholars of die need to respond todie range of political pressures facing dieir coreligionists in Germany,nevertheless, a host of social, political, cultural, and religious tensionsdiat were endemic to die emancipation process found expressiondiroughout die entire modern history of French Jewry. These tensionsare evident in die enterprise of modern Franco-Jewish scholarship,

Jewish Scholarship in Nineteenth-Century France 3

which assumed an important role in the construction of a new Jewishidentity. That role, from its emergence in the revolutionary era to itsmaturation at mid-century, is the focus of the present study. We shallfirst examine the accomplishments of hokhmat Yisrael in the pre-Wissmschafi era, and will then investigate the ideological and intellectualtrends in modern Jewish scholarship from 1830.

FORERUNNERS OF HOKHMAT YISRAEL

Intimations of the scientific study of Judaism in France were first evidentin the literary endeavors of tnashHim in prerevolutionary Alsace-Lorraine. Intellectual productivity resounded with the dear echo of theBerlin Haskalah. The careers of the handful of individuals who main-tained a close personal association widi the German Haskalah follow afamiliar pattern: their traditional Jewish education was typically supple-mented by the autodidactic acquisition of classical and modern Euro-pean languages and by an interest in secular studies as well. Theyearned their livelihood as private tutors, teachers, and businessmen.The various programmatic essays and apologetica authored by membersof the small cadre of French maskUim anticipated many of the changessoon to transform the Jewish community. Hand in hand with their polit-ical activism were efforts to translate literary, educational, and philo-sophical productions composed in Berlin into French and Hebrew.Among the most noteworthy for their involvement in the scientific studyof Judaism were Berr Isaac Berr, who translated Naphtali Herz Wessely'sDivre Shalom v*Emet into French; and Isaie Berr Bing, for his Hebrewtranslation of Mendelssohn's essay on the immortality of the soul, Phd-don, and his French translation of Jedaiah Bedersi's Behinat Olam.e Theseworks exemplify the transfer of German-Jewish culture to France, whileunderscoring that the early French Haskalah remained a received ideol-ogy which mask&m appropriated from Berlin with only minor modifica-tions, if any.9

More crucial to the emergence of modern Jewish studies in France,however, was an indigenous scholarly trend that can be observed in thework of younger scholars who became active after the turn of the cen-tury. Armed with extensive classical learning, they were also imbuedwith a clear, though perhaps unconscious, reverence for systematic criti-cal thinking. They applied the scientific method very cautiously to theclassical texts of the Jewish tradition, frequently following leads that hadbeen suggested decades, or even centuries, before. Also characteristic ofthese early efforts was an inclination to investigate works beyond thosenormally consulted in traditional circles. Although the number of schol-ars engaged in these endeavors was still very modest, their work is his-

4 JayBtrkovitz

torically significant because of its unmistakable similarity, both diemati-cally and methodologically, to scholarly undertakings inspired by thenew historicism in western and central Europe, and because they laidthe foundation for more far-reaching scholarly advances later in thecentury. We refer to them as "forerunners" because they were acting asindividuals, not as members of a movement, and because the social andcultural world to which they belonged was still largely intact We shallexamine the transition from traditional to modern scholarship in thefollowing three areas: talmudic and halakhic literature; liturgy; and He-brew language.10

Talmudic and Halakhic Literature: Harbingers of Internal Criticism

Changes within the world of talmudic and halakhic learning were evi-dent well before the publication of modern critical studies. However,the transition from fully traditional works to those that broke with themethods or the underlying assumptions of tradition was very slow andregrettably obscure.11 In die specific case of Alsace-Lorraine, diis obscu-rity is compounded by the fact diat Jewish culture in northeasternFrance has attracted only meager scholarly attention. Very little isknown of the history of Jewish educational institutions and yeshivot inthe eighteentii century, nor of die character of rabbinic literature in dieregion; likewise, religious and liturgical rites remain unfamiliar, as dodie spiritual and intellectual trends diat predominated at die dawn ofdie modern era. Historians have, for the most part, concentrated on diestruggle for civic equality and on die difficult social, political, and cul-tural challenges diat Jews encountered over die course of die nine-teendi century, while ignoring die more opaque, diough potentiallymost revealing, aspects of French Jewish history. When examinedclosely and widiin die appropriate historical framework, works of tradi-tional talmudic and halakhic scholarship are likely to offer an entree intodie dynamics of Jewish culture in post-revolutionary Alsace-Lorraine, il-luminating the subde changes diat had already begun to be felt at diattime.

Fre-Wissenschaft talmudic and halakhic scholarship has been ne-glected by historians not only because of die technical difficulties whichdiis literature poses, but also because die benefits of investigation indiis area are by no means clear to practitioners of historical research.Containing few references to eidier contemporary or past events, tradi-tional scholarship is part of die ebb and flow of ideas ostensibly immuneto die effects of time. In contrast to responsa and musar literature, whichgenerally contain valuable information and perspectives on social andeconomic conditions, talmudic and halakhic noveUae tend to be silent


about major historical events and are typically detached from, and indif-ferent to, die sociocultural dynamics of community life. This literature'sprincipal objective is die elucidation of the major texts of die Jewish tra-dition (die Bible, die Mishnah, die Talmud, and Midrash), which to-gedier form a sacred canon commanding die attention of scholars andlaymen alike. Scholars of one era would routinely address unresolvedquestions from centuries before by referring to audiorities separated bytime and distance as if diey were dieir contemporaries. The assumptionupon which diis entire process rests is diat every new interpretation wasalready anticipated by die Sinaitic revelation, and diat die intellectualefforts of subsequent generations would concentrate on (re) discoveringwhat only appeared to diem to be novel. Consequently, over die pastmillennia, rabbinic scholarship has taken on a style, consciously or not,diat promotes die pretense of timelessness. Aldiough diis interpretivetradition continued to be vigorous, one observes die emergence of agrowing consensus on precisely which midrashic and halakhic textswere audioritative. Widi respect to die halakhic tradition in particular,die publication of die Shulhan Arukh in 1565 completed die process.Henceforth, rabbinic scholarship would remain largely focused on clari-fication, interpretation, and elaboration of issues found in die texts ofdie Talmud, die talmudic commentaries, and die codes.a

Concern about die historical value of talmudic and halakhic schol-arship, especially its apparent disengagement from time and space, neednot deter us, provided we revise what it is diat we expect of diese texts.Our focus ought to be directed at die internal dynamic diat animatesdiis literature. What is die universe of discourse of a particular audior,and what is his mode of analysis? Which audiorities does he follow?Which specific positions does he embrace, and which mediods does heapply? In order to make die best use of rabbinic scholarship, one mustreconstruct die historical layers embedded in diese texts, comparingdiem witii parallel ones, and dien correlating diese findings widi exter-nal evidence drawn from communal records, social history and, ofcourse, die history of ideas.

Several works composed of Comtat Venaissin embody many of diechanges which typify die scientific-critical approach to classical texts.Mardochee Cremieux (1749-1825), of Carpentras, published a two-partwork entided Ma'amar Mordechai (Leghorn, 1784-1786) on die ShulhanArukh, in which he points out errors and omissions of the great audiori-ties of preceding centuries.13 His nephew and son-in-law, MoiseCremieux (1766-1837) of Aix, was a prolific audior whose diirteen-volume Ho'il Moshe Be'er (Aix, 1829-36), contained six volumes devotedto a detailed explication of Comtadin ritual and liturgy,14 and six vol-umes of notes to Abraham Ibn Ezra's commentaries on die Pentateuch(1833-1836). The latter's exegetical writings epitomize Spanish Jewry's

pursuit of peshuto shel mikra, and therefore came to be favored bySephardic scholars and maskilim in the West Although Ibn Ezra fully ac-cepted the authority of the rabbinic tradition in the realm of biblical in-terpretation, he nonetheless acknowledged that peshat could at timesexist parallel to, and independent from, rabbinic exegesis.15 It is not cer-tain whedier Cremieux's interest in Ibn Ezra was in some way a reflec-tion of the new cultural and intellectual climate. But Ibn Ezra'sunorthodox style would certainly offer the author an opportunity to ex-pound on any number of grammatical, syntactical, or literary issues thatother commentators did not emphasize to the same degree.

The highly original talmudic and halakhic novellae published byMetz dayyan, poseq, and chief rabbi Aaron Worms (1754-1836) over aforty-year span, beginning in 1789, offer a striking illustration of howtraditional learning in the transitional era between medieval and mod-em times began tentatively to embrace elements of the new criticalspirit. Structured as a running commentary to the Talmud and ShulhanArukh, his seven-volume Me'orei Or (Metz, 1789-1831) is, in most re-spects virtually indistinguishable from other examples of classical Torahscholarship published in the late medieval era.1* Geared to proficientstudents of Talmud and Jewish law, Worms's novellae aim to elucidate es-pecially difficult passages on which there had been considerable histori-cal divergence of interpretation. In conformity to the conventions ofAshkenazic scholarship, his commentary subordinates itself entirely tothe text and eschews lengdiy excursuses or digressions; rarely is atten-tion given to specific problems or themes. Assumptions concerning theundisputed authority of the written and oral traditions are central, andthe use of secular disciplines is entirely absent from the work. In fact,there is no evidence that Worms studied, let alone was interested in, sec-ular topics. His attitude to philosophy and philosophers was decidedlynegative. Nevertheless, he enjoyed a most positive image among Frenchmaskilim and proponents of moderate religious reform. Precisely whythis was so becomes evident from a close reading of the Me'orei Or.

Two key elements mark the innovative turn taken by the Me'orei Or.(a) a clear willingness to challenge authority, and (b) a critical ap-proach to sources. In his attitude to minhag, for example, Worms wascritical of the authority enjoyed by the sixteenth-century rabbi Moses Is-serles in western and central European communities. His criticism,which was rooted in a two-centuries-old tradition of discontent with theIsserles glosses to the Shulhan Arukh, assumed a bolder form than that. of any of his contemporaries or predecessors. According to Worms, Is-serles had relied much too heavily on Polish minhagim in setting downhis glosses to the Shulhan Arukh, while paying insufficient attention toclassical Ashkenazic sources. This challenge to Isserles's preeminencewas a bold attempt to reclaim the western tradition to which Alsace-

Jewish Scholarship in Nineteenth-Century France " 7

Lorraine and Germany had maintained strong historic ties. It mani-fested itself in a decided preference for the legacy of the Maharil, RabbiJacob Moellin (Mainz 1356-1427), affirming that "we of Ashkenaz followthe Maharil... who' is the authentic [representative of] Ashkenaz.'17

Throughout the pages of Me'orri Or, Worms regularly accentuated thedistinctiveness of mmhag Ashkenaz in the area of liturgy and ritual obser-vance. While his position on minhagwzs fashioned upon the basis of var-ious historical, cultural, and geographical considerations, in matters ofhalakhah, Worms energetically defended Isserles and Karo using logicand extensive textual evidence, ultimately to reinforce the centrality ofthe Shulhan Arukh. In either case he approached his sources critically,using methods that were shared by the Enlightenment. For example, onseveral occasions Worms referred his readers to a manuscript sourcethat differed from the standard printed document; on others, he ex-pressed concern about the reliability of medieval compendia of min-hagim (such as die Likutei Maharil) because it had been assembled by astudent arid not by the Maharil himself.18 In defending or criticizing Is-serles, he routinely insisted on the methodological importance of com-paring the glosses to the Shulhan Arukh with the parallel formulationcontained in the Darkhei Moshe (on the Tur) in order to appreciate anydistinctions between die two, and ultimately to establish the more au-thoritative ruling.19

This critical posture is plainly evident in Worms's efforts to discreditcustoms based on superstition, misunderstanding, linguistic corruption,and textual error. Citing his great-grandfather, R. Gershon Ashkenazi,he asserted that as a rule any practice that violates reason must be re-jected. He censured the ritual of kapparot as an Amorite custom, con-demned the tashlikh ceremony, strongly denounced certain errorswhich had found dieir way into die liturgy, and sought to rectify exam-ples of careless and incorrect pronunciation that had become common-place among Ashkenazic Jewry. He objected to liturgical phrasing suchas makhnisei rahamim because it constituted a petition to angels. In sev-eral instances, these objections were made in spite of the fact that dieexpressions appeared in die siddurim of many rishonm.™

Alongside Worms's affinity to die critical style of die Haskalah werehis strenuous efforts to respond to die Haskalah's periodic ridicule oftraditional Jewish practice. In one instance he explained diat the idea ofa special cup for Elijah at die Passover seder was altogether unrelated tothe tradition concerning die advent of die Messiah, but was much morepragmatic: a large wine decanter was customarily placed in die center ofdie table to facilitate access to die wine by all assembled, diereby free-ing die head of die household from excessive physical exertion.*1 Onanodier occasion Worms denounced die recitation of die kavanot ac-companying die sounding of die shofar, remarking diat "matters such as

8 Jay Berkovitx

this that have no foundation in the Talmud and midrashim [and only]give greater weight to the burden [of criticism] by those who mock {ho-mal'igim) us."2* Worms's reference to h&mal'igim reveals an awareness ofthe campaign mounted against certain rituals, and die fact that he re-sponded to these attacks seriously may be taken as an acknowledgmentthat the criticism was not entirely unfounded. The failure to correctsuch misunderstandings and corruptions could lead, in Worms's view, tograve consequences. Accordingly, the criticism emanating from mask-Uivx and reformers demanded of traditionalists higher standards of pre-cision in the transmission and explication of ritual practices, as well as ameasure of self-consciousness diat was previously unknown.

On questions pertaining to the interaction of Jews and non-Jews ingeneral society, Worms tended to take a lenient stance. As a delegate tothe Paris Sanhedrin (1806-1807) where he assumed a leading role inhalakhic matters, he delivered a discourse on the subject of Jewish-Gentile relations that served as the cornerstone for the assembly's decla-rations of commitment to be faithful citizens of France. At thefoundation of Worms's presentation rested the claim "that in [moralmatters] there is no distinction between Jew and gentile," and offeredgezel hargoi (property stolen from a gentile) as an example of a case thatis strictly prohibited for Jews. The apparent recourse to die liberal tradi-tion of the Tosafists and R. Menahem Ha-Me'iri is easily discerned inWorms's assertion that "only among the nations of antiquity were theretrue heretics [kqfrim]; it is certain, however, that we are obligated tophysically save the gentiles of today, and their money is prohibited, asany Jew's." On the question of loans, Worms maintained "that, beyondthe law of the land, interest from a believing gentile is not permittedand that for a Jew it is permissible through the partnership of heter'isqaT** His argument permitting haircuts in the afternoon of the eve ofPassover*1 reveals a keen awareness of pressures stemming from moder-nity, as does his position on the question of delayed burial, a causeceiebre for maskUim throughout Europe. In die latter instance, Wormslimited the prohibition of halanat hairnet (leaving the dead unburied) tocases of execution by the bet din, thereby concluding that greater cau-tion ought to be exercised in the examination of die deceased.25 Clearly,Worms distinguished in his rulings between die prevailing social andpolitical conditions in France diat justified a lenient approach, and therealm of law and custom diat did not

Together, these elements reveal a critical independence diat en-deared Worms to French practitioners of Wissenschaft des Judentums.Their judgment was apparendy rooted in die belief diat Wonns's world-view constituted a reversion to a rational, enlightened traditionalismrarely found among contemporary rabbinic personalities. Qualitiessuch as his independence of mind, his refusal to follow tradition uncrit-


ically, and his insistence that customs with no textual basis nor rationalfoundation be discarded—rudiments of more advanced criticism—allcorresponded closely to the religious ideology of the French Haskalah.25

Although his aims were far different from those of the Haskalah, manyof his conclusions were shared by younger critics of Jewish tradition.

Regarding his method of talmudic study, Worms regularly referredin his naueSlae to the Zohar, often using as his point of departure an issueon which the Zohar and the Talmud diverged. The most noticeable re-sult of diis approach was the enlargement of discussions of talmudicsugfot and halakhic themes, well beyond what was normally encounteredin volumes of hiddushim published in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century central and western Europe.*7 Worms turned to the Zohar fornumerous purposes: to corroborate an explanation he had developedindependently,18 to explain a talmudic passage in light of a difficultquestion of a later authority;2* or to resolve apparent contradictions be-tween the Talmud and the Zohar.30 While it is undeniable diat Worms'streatment of halakhic passages in the Zohar was motivated by a strongcommitment to intellectual openness and honesty, the timing of his ef-forts to include discussions of the Zohar in his talmudic noveUae wouldsuggest an additional, perhaps even polemical, objective. The Zohar be-came the object of sustained attention only from volume 4 (1819) on-ward, while in the first three volumes, which dated from the 1790-1793,mention of the Zohar was limited to occasional discussions of aggada,and even less frequendy, as a rare supplemental note to the treatment ofhalakhic matters.51 After the turn of the nineteenth century, Worms evi-dently felt the need to respond specifically to the intellectual challengesposed by the growing Hasidic movement Asserting die preeminence ofKabbalah over accepted halakhic rulings, Hasidism had brought theZohar (and often its stringencies) more prominendy into die discourseof halakhic praxis. Worms addressed diis claim by seeking to prove diat(1) diere is not necessarily a contradicdon between die Zohar and dieTalmud Bavli; and (2) diose instances where diere appears to be a con-tradiction can be resolved by rendering an alternate reading of dieZohar in accordance widi die conventional talmudic interpretation. Intiiis last regard, Worms typically demonstrated diat while diere may betwo legitimate readings of the Zohar, die one that corresponds to con-ventional halakhah is clearly to be preferred. The plediora of instancesin which Worms engaged die Zohar from die standpoint of talmudicand halakhic mediodology represent, widiout question, a significant de-parture from die conventional modes of study which prevailed amongmajor Ashkenazic audiorities of die eighteendi century.

Me'orei Or dius represents a faint echo of die new critical spirit ofdie Enlightenment, despite its unflinching commitment to die funda-mentals of die Jewish faidi, and its failure to assign any role to die his-

10 JayBerkomit

torical process. Limited by its own exegetical style, the work remainedwedded to the texts it sought to elucidate, while failing to evince muchsystematic, conceptual thinking at all. If anything, Me'orri Orutilized cer-tain elements of critical inquiry in order to reconstitute a halakhic Ju-daism that had lost its essential identity. In a manner that was quitedifferent than thejudische Wissmschaft scholars, Worms's work concededimplicidy that something had gone awry widi the tradition.

Liturgy

Worms's preoccupation with correcting faulty liturgical texts was a con-spicuous expression of the new critical spirit that had first penetratedthe ranks of traditional Ashkenazic Jewry in die eighteendi century. Theexpanding number of siddurim and mahzorim diat drew on a heightenedconcern for textural precision, linguistic accuracy, and grammatical ex-actitude were consistent widi contemporary intellectual developmentsin the West. Despite die parallel concerns, however, it is clear that thenew prayer books were not composed in direct response to the eigh-teenth century's reverence for science. As a literary genre, corrected sid-durim had already become widely available, first widi die composition ofdie siddur of Shabbediai Sofer of Przemsyl in 1617, followed by severalsimilar undertakings in die seventeendi and early eighteendi centuries.The production of more reliable versions of die liturgy was clearlyprompted by die need to correct die textual errors and inconsistenciesdiat became widely circulated by die invention of printing. A renewedemphasis on Bible, grammar, and systematic drinking in die sixteendiand seventeendi centuries bodi sharpened die distress concerningprinting errors and furnished die technical skills needed to address dieproblem."

The concern widi liturgy, dien, having nearly spanned die two cen-turies preceding die French Revolution, was hardly novel. Under dieimpact of several factors, diis activity intensified in die eighteendi cen-tury: migration patterns and greater geographical mobility brought to-gedier various liturgical traditions diat had formerly remained distinct;die growing accumulation of textual errors could no longer be over-looked; unprecedented ignorance of audientic traditions; and dieemergence of individuals for whom die notion of textual precisionhad become intrinsically important. In France, Moses Israel Biding(1775-1841) was among die first of several scholars to address die prob-lem of faulty liturgical texts. Like many young men of late eighteendi-century Alsace-Lorraine, he went abroad to study, in his case to dieFrankfort yeshivah, before returning to his native Metz to work as aschoolteacher and as a proofreader at die Hebrew press. It is likely diat


Biding acquired an appreciation for Hebrew grammar and secular stud-ies from his teacher, Moses Ensheim, die French maskil and tutor ofMoses Mendelssohn's children. By the 1830s his imposing erudition hadgained him prominence as * le premier hebraisarU de notre epoqueT33 As onewho was absorbed in die intricacies of liturgical poetry, Biding was verydisturbed by the depreciation of the ptyyutim and their authors diat hadbecome common among die high-ranking members of die Jewish com-munity. In die hope of reversing die fortunes of die piyyutim, he soughtto restore die original texts so diat diey would conform to each audior'sintended meter. This would involve correcting die many corruptionswhich had crept into the liturgical literature, using die most reliablemanuscripts available.54 Drawing heavily upon his vast knowledge of bib-lical phraseology and midrashic sources, Biding devoted himself to ex-plicating die highly allusive style of each piyyut and to establishing dieproper pronunciation.3* By applying modern linguistic tools in an un-polemical fashion, Biding and odiers were able to draw on science indie service of religion.

At tiiis stage in die development of etudes juives, there was still noconflict between modern scholarship and traditional mediods. The newcritical spirit flowed evenly from die rigors of rabbinic learning, widi arenewed interest in textual exactitude perhaps its main distinguishingcharacteristic. Those maskilim who reached aduldiood in the era of dieRevolution were, for die most part, ritually observant and yeshivah edu-cated; dieir efforts were largely devoted to applying die new mediods totraditional texts and to die advancement of elementary education.3*The production of new siddurim, such as Biding's commentary on dieptyyutim of die Rosh Hashanah mahzor (Metz, 1817), dierefore became amajor desideratum, one diat aimed to meet die prevailing standards of-grammatical precision in die general scholarly world while remainingloyal to Jewish tradition. Biding's work was of die highest quality, in sev-eral instances considered even preferable to diat of Wolf Heidenheim,die most important contribution to die field of mahzor commentary indie nineteendi century (1800-1805).37 Like Heidenheim's commentary,die Biding mahzor ought to be viewed as one of die early exemplars ofhokhmat Yisrael, as it was built upon a foundation of impressive linguisticexpertise and encyclopedic knowledge of midrash. With die intensifica-tion of die struggle over religious reform in die following decades, how-ever, a new generation of scholars sought to discredit the same ptyyutimby showing diat diey were grammatically corrupt and linguistically defi-cient38

12 JayBerkovih.

Hebrew Language

Renewed rabbinic and lay scholarly interest in Hebrew grammar andphilology in the first half of the nineteenth century mirrored the profu-sion of Hebraic studies in general French society, and appear to havebeen a bridge between the old and the new scholarly trends. New gram-matical theories and efforts to reconstruct corrupted texts were themain focus of the eighteenth-century Hebraists Francois Masclef, P.Houbigant, and Pierre Guarin, while similar involvement on the part ofJews, such as Jacob Joseph b. Meir Sofer,59 were still a rarity before theRevolution. The interest in Hebrew texts and grammar grew strongerafter the turn of the century, first among prominent orientalists such asSylvestre de Sacy and Auguste Pichard, and subsequently among rabbisand maskilim.*0 Rabbinic publications in the field of Hebrew concen-trated on systematizing the presentation of grammar as a reference toolfor teachers and students of the language. Among the most widely usedwere Lion-Mayer Lambert, Abrege de la grammaire hebraique (Metz, 1820);Marchand Ennery, Dictionnain hebreu-francais (Nancy, 1827); SamuelDreyfus, Abrege de la grammaire hebraique (Mulhouse, 1839); and SalomonKlein, NouveUe grammaire hebraique, raisonnee et comparee (Mulhouse,1846). Primarily intended to instill greater enthusiasm in the study ofthe Hebrew language, these works do not represent an endorsement ofthe objectives of Wissenschaft, though they do contain some hints of thenew critical spirit- Few rabbis were willing to touch the potentially explo-sive questions raised by historical research. Lay scholars whose first pub-lications were devoted to the Hebrew language include Molse Biding'sEm la-Mikra (Metz, 1816), Samuel Cahen, Cours de lecture hebraique (Paris,1824), and Adolphe Franck, Meliz Leshon Ivrit (Paris, 1833).

Biding's work, which was devoted mainly to proper vocalization andreading, was not only the most exacting of its kind, but also offered themost thoroughgoing critique of the field of Hebrew language pedagogy.Lamenting the progressive apathy toward the rules of pronunciationand reading, manifested in textbooks of earlier times, Biding was highlycritical of recent books composed for those who were knowledgeable inscience and linguistics, works that failed to distinguish between rules ofreading and modes of pronunciation on the one hand, and the manyother rules of nikkud on the other.41

IDEOLOGICAL AND INTELLECTUAL TRENDS

IN MODERN JEWISH SCHOLARSHIP

Until the mid-1820s, there were virtually no signs of any ideological riftseparating the traditionalist from the more modern scholars. However,


during the following decade, as the new movement of modern Jewishscholarship in France came of age and struggled to define its identity,the question of precisely how the Mendelssohnian legacy ought to be in-terpreted would become a highly controversial issue in France, sig-nalling die distinction between Haskalah studies and the beginnings ofWissenschafi*1 Reflecting the larger social, political, and intellectual mi-lieu of mid-nineteendi-century France, modern Jewish scholarship wasmotivated both by ideological considerations and a new, critical ap-proach to sacred texts. In order to understand how the intellectual andideological foundations of modern Jewish scholarship developed, it willfirst be necessary to establish what social structures made this possible.

The various expressions of scholarly engagement with the sacredtexts and traditions of Judaism offer evidence of die continuing effortsof French Jewish scholars to come to terms widi the impact of emanci-pation. Aldiough it cannot be denied that modern Jewish scholarship inFrance and Germany shared many common traits, and further, that theGerman Wissenschafi des Judentums movement exerted considerable in-fluence on the small circle of scholars in Paris and Metz, Jewish scholar-ship west of the Rhine emerged largely in response to social andintellectual forces that were of a local or regional nature. In the case ofGerman Jewry, Wissenschafi des Judentums was as much an expression ofthe failure of political emancipation as it was a reflection of the power-ful impact of nineteenth-century scientific historical mediod on Ger-man Jewish scholars. The reversal of the political achievements of theJews following the demise of Napoleon, triggering an intensification ofanti-Jewish rhetoric, hostility, and physical violence in the ensuing years,set the stage for an unprecedented response to the challenges of moder-nity. With the creation of the Verein fur Kultur und Wissenschafi derjudenin 1819, a concerted effort was made to eradicate the negative image ofthe Jew by emphasizing the universal values of Judaism. Most Vereinmembers were not ritually observant and saw their involvement in thegroup as a way of strengthening their attenuated ties to Judaism; severalultimately converted to Christianity.48 Subsequently, Abraham Geigerand Zacharias Frankel, each in his own way, sought to correct some ofdie distorted images of Judaism by studying the sacred texts critically,hoping ultimately to strengthen the case for religious reform. Perhapsonly Leopold Zunz, of all the major German Jewish scholars, aban-doned the "overtly present-minded religious rationale for Wissenschafides Judentums" to use Michael Meyer's words.44

Owing to die impact of die Revolution and the attainment of eman-cipation, the work of French Jewish scholars was free of die urgency feltin Germany to fashion a Judaism diat would strengthen Jews' entitle-ment to civic equality. Its dominant forms, nonetheless, correspondedto die social and cultural tensions associated with die experience of

14 JayBerkovih.

emancipation, ranging from confidence in the prospects of full ctvicequality and social integration, to concern over the serious complexitiesinherent in those processes. In contrast to the larger numbers in Ger-many, the character of modern Jewish studies in France was shaped by asmall group of intellectuals who were secure in their Jewish identity andobservances; its development was much slower, both because of the verymodest size of the group and the relatively limited interest in their workamong the Jewish population.45 Undeniably, trends in German-Jewishscholarship influenced the nascent movement of etudes juives. Owing tothe woeful condition of Jewish institutional life brought on by the Reignof Terror, particularly the demise of schools and yeshivot, significantnumbers of young Jews emigrated to neighboring Germany to availthemselves of study opportunities. Among these emigres were men whowould become major figures in the scientific study of Judaism followingtheir return from Germany upon the collapse of the Napoleonicregime. The time these scholars spent in Germany permitted contactswith leading Wissenscha.fi personalities such as Zunz and Jost, contribut-ing considerably to the character of Jewish scholarship in France. Ulti-mately, however, local cultural conditions in France, the degree towhich Jews were received into the general circles of scholars, and theperception of the dangers posed by the continuing Christian imprint onFrench society, would exert the greatest influence on Jewish scientificresearch in France.

Modern Franco-Jewish scholarship developed in three stages,roughly corresponding to three district periods in the political historyof France. Not coincidentally, governmental changes either made newscholarly initiatives possible or ran parallel to developments already atwork in the social and intellectual realms. The three periods may be di-vided as follows: (1) stage I (1815-1830): transitional era; (2) stage II(1830-1848): intellectual/ideological foundations were set, and schol-ars were able to place a Jewish imprint on scholarship; (3) stage HI(1848— ): modern Jewish studies became grounded institutionally.46 Forthe present, we shall limit ourselves to a discussion of the first twostages, which together constitute the formative period of Wissenschafl desJudentums in France.

Stage 1:1815-1830

Initially, Jewish and Christian scholars were drawn together by a com-mon interest in the Hebrew language and Semitic texts, despite thechasm still separating Jews from the mainstream of French society in thefirst decades of the century. With the creation of the Societe asiatique inParis in 1822, Jews and Christians were able, for the first time, to partici-


pate in joint scholarly ventures. This opportunity, however, was short-lived. Owing to the resurgence of Catholicism, beginning with the ac-cession of Charles X to the throne in 1824, Jews lost much ground intheir quest for social acceptance and equality, and Jewish-Christian col-laboration became virtually impossible. From this date, no new Jewishmembers were admitted to the Societi asiatique, and those who hadjoined earlier were entirely inactive during the last years of the Restora-tion. Opportunities for less conspicuous relationships were limited toindividual cases, such as Salomon Munk, who studied Arabic withSylvestre de Sacy, Sanskrit with Chezy, and Persian with Quatriemeupon his arrival in Paris in 1828.47

Stage II: 1830-1848

The improved political climate of the July Monarchy made it possiblefor Jewish scholars to resume their membership in the Societi asiatiqueand to develop new areas of scholarly collaboration with non-Jews.While these prior associations were being restored, Jewish scholars whohad trained in the East were beginning to arrive in Paris. Three distin-guished orientalists, Salomon Munk, Albeit Cohn, and Joseph Deren-bourg, for example, were educated in German and Austrian universitiesbefore coming to France.48 The resulting concentration of Jewish andgentile scholars devoted to the scientific study of classical Jewish textsoccasioned frequent scholarly exchanges. The abbe Jean BaptisteGlaire, author of a Hebrew dictionary, collaborated. with AdolpheFranck in the publication of a Hebrew chrestomathy and a translationof the Pentateuch—including text and notes—entitled Torat Moshe(Paris, 1835-1837). Sylvestre de Sacy published an extract of Tahkemoni,with translation and notes, in the Journal asiatique.49 Several years later acolleague, Eugene Bore, published "Une seance du Tahkemoni" in thesame journal with help from Munk. Other examples of Munk's collabo-ration with French scholars include the assistance he provided to a co-operative project on the Druse with Sylvestre de Sacy; the help he gaveastronomer J.-B. Biot for the latter's work on Abulafia in 1843; and thegeneral assistance he gave to Ernst Renan, who preceded him as profes-sor of Hebrew and Syriac literature at the College de France. It is re-ported that Renan would meet with Munk when they both wereemployed at the Bibliotheque nationale, and that he consulted regularlywith other Wissenschaft des Judentums scholars as well.50 The philologistAuguste Pichard was also active in the translation and publication ofHebrew texts. These included "Sefer Lekah ToxT^ and the Book ofEnoch—its text, translation and notes were based on a manuscript atthe Bibliotheque nationale.

16 JayBerkovitx

Salomon Munk's research in Islamic and Jewish philosophy, to-gether with his painstaking efforts to elucidate oriental manuscripts,epitomizes the pursuit of scholarly work in both Jewish and generalFrench contexts. Munk edited the Dictionnaire de la Conversation, the En-cyclopedie des gens du monde, and the Encyclopedie nouvelle, and thereby es-tablished contact with members of the Academie francaise and the Insitutde la France. Between 1834 and 1838, in addition to assisting numerousscholars in their research, he published nearly a score of articles inTemps on biblical, Persian and Sanskrit literature, several studies in the

Journal asiatique, and biographical studies of several diirteenth-centuryFrench rabbis in die Histovre litteraire de la Prance. Other Jewish scholarsshared Munk's dedication. Gerson-Levy, a champion of Jewish edu-cational and moderate religious reform, was centrally involved in thegeneral intellectual life of his native Metz, first as die editor of Ulndepen-dant, and tiien as a founding member of die Academie de Metz. Similarly,Samuel Cahen, a Jewish educator, director of the Bible translation pro-ject, and an editor of the Archives Israelites, collaborated in the Ency-clopedie des gens du monde. The careers of these figures reveal die dualcommitment diat was both desirable and possible in post-revolutionaryFrance.51 Their work was rooted in die conviction that die study of Jew-ish civilization ought to be undertaken widiin die context of world cul-tures, bodi nurtured by and integrated widiin die general scholarlytraditions of European society, and not restricted to die Jewish commu-nity. Their universalism was clearly reinforced by die growing success ofJewish integration into French society.53

During diis second stage, scholars undertook diree major ventures:die French Bible project, die creation of die Archives israiUtes, and diestudy of Judaism under Islam.54 Each of diese areas illustrates how dieintellectual and die ideological aspects of Jewish identity in postrevolu-tionary France converged. In die ideological realm, proponents ofregeneration in die 1830s and 1840s called for a reversal of die historicalprocess responsible for die degeneration of die Jewish religion. Histori-cal inquiry would emerge as central to tiieir scholarly program; in fact,die term regeneration itself signified an appreciation for die forces of his-torical development. According to die early nineteendi-century defini-tion, regeneration was "action to reconstitute in its original state diatwhich had undergone decadence and regression."55 At die same time, itrested on die premise diat human history progresses steadily in a con-tinuous movement toward a future far superior to die present or diepast. The idea of progress presupposed a connection between scientific,technological, and material advances on die one hand, and social im-provement on die odier. It had become essential, dien, in die view ofFrench Jewish scholars, to restore Judaism to its original purity, because


it was only in that state that it could be attuned to the mores of contem-porary civilization.

Complementing die ideological dirust inherent in these efforts, acritical approach to sacred texts emerged as an outgrowth of the newscholarly traditions in France. Two trends, source criticism and compara-tive history, characterized this development, together representing a sig-nificant departure from traditional learning and from the scholarship ofthe transitional period. The first was founded on the premise that dieclassical sources of Judaism ought to be approached using the same meth-ods that were then being applied to ancient texts of odier traditions. Sum-marizing the view of modern students of religion,- Salomon Munk defineddie duty of the scholar, as distinct from the dieologian-philosopher, as thepursuit of trudi widiout any concern for the theological or philosophicalimplications of scientific inquiry. This view was based on the idea diatgenuine religious sentiment is impervious to die critical examination ofsources and is in no danger of being undermined by die conclusions diatmay follow. It was supported by a tendency among modern scholars in diefield of theology and philosophy to underscore the centrality of "essence"over "form" in Judaism.5* By the diird decade of die 1800s, Jewish scholarshad begun to appropriate die mediods and tools used in die burgeoningscience of antiquities—philology, anthropology, and archaeology. Usingdie work of Germans such as Eichhorn, Ewald, De Wette, Gesenius,Hitzig, and Rosenmuller, most often to the total exclusion of die Frenchsources, Jewish scholars in France strove to examine Judaism widiin abroader literary and cultural framework.57

More far-reaching than source-criticism, however, was die applica-tion of comparative historical mediod to sacred texts. The idea of inves-tigating ancient laws, customs, and political institutions had alreadygained wide currency dirough die writings of Montesquieu, Diderot,Voltaire, and Hume, among otiiers. For die men of die Enlightenment,a profound understanding of die "spirit of a nation" presupposed anhistorical examination of its particular political and moral constitution.Aldiough it is clear diat die historical writings of die Enlightenmentwere deficient in several areas, and tended to be highly judgmental indie assessment of alien cultures, diey do represent an important contri-bution toward "a scientific history of culture."58 Strongly influenced bydie example of die philosophes, die early, moskilim approached die Jewishreligion using die rational categories established by die Enlightenment,concluding diat die scientific study of Judaism required attention to itsvarious stages of development. Aldiough die Bible, talmudic literature,and die medieval codes were seen from diis perspective,59 it was ratio-nalism, not historicism, diat was at die heart of Enlightenment and earlyHaskalah diought Only in die nineteendi century did historical con-

18 Jay Barkovitz

sciousness come to replace rationalism as the principal instrument forinterpreting human culture.60 In his discussions of Abraham and of theIsraelite enslavement in Egypt, for example, Salomon Munk presentedbackground material drawn from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt in aneffort to contextualize the patriarchal and Israelite narratives. In thecase of the priestly code of Leviticus, an emphasis was placed on paral-lels to the customs in the ancient Far and Near East61 Munk observed,for example, that the Israelite system of levirate marriage was also prac-ticed among ancient Indian tribes.61 The implications of this approach,and the use of the historical method generally in determining the vari-ous layers of development of Judaism, were offensive to traditionalistsensibilities, and were invariably perceived as an assault on the primacy,uniqueness, and authenticity of the Torah. With the exception of apolo-getic writings, little serious work in the field of history was undertakenby Jews in the first half of the century.63

The rift between traditionalists and modernists was especially evi-dent in biblical studies, a particularly sensitive area of scholarship towhich modern Jewish scholars in France devoted their primary efforts.In 1831 die first volume of a new French Bible translation and commen-tary appeared under the editorial direction of Samuel Cahen; it wascompleted over the course of two decades.64 Modelled after MosesMendelssohn's Biur, the French translation project was an ambitious at-tempt to develop an alternative to classical biblical exegesis. In France,as distinct from Germany, Jewish scholars concentrated on biblical stud-ies while exhibiting virtually no scholarly interest in the field of rabbinicliterature. In Germany die vast majority of scientific works focused onrabbinic Judaism, with die exception of a handful of biblical studies au-thored by Zunz, Geiger, and Frankel. The question of why the focus ofresearch in die two countries was so dissimilar has puzzled historians forsome time. According to Max Wiener, die traditionalism of German Jew-ish scholars precluded the scientific investigation of biblical texts. Con-sidering die unabashedly reform orientation of Wissenscha.fi scholarsthere, tiiis explanation appears highly unconvincing. Elsewhere, I havesuggested that because the school of biblical criticism in Germany wasdominated by Protestant scholars whose research evinced prejudice andeven hostility toward the Jewish religion, German-Jewish scholars wereapprehensive about engaging in biblical studies for fear diat dieir workmight be discredited through its association widi harsh critics of Ju-daism.85 Furthermore, it appears diat biblical studies would not prove asvaluable as critical research in post-biblical and rabbinic Judaism, inso-far as the latter could be easily enlisted to lay the foundations for reli-gious reform.66 In France, die possibility of dialogue and cooperationbetween reformers and die rabbis precluded unrestrained assaults ondie Talmud, in spite of die fact diat the former unquestionably agreed


with their German colleagues on the evolution of Jewish law. Thus,although the Bible project was thoroughly consistent with the new intel-lectual milieu of nineteenth-century western Europe, no such enter-prise was undertaken by Jewish scholars in neighboring Germany.

By virtue of their relative freedom from the political and intellec-tual constraints on the critical study of the Bible, and because they la-bored outside the sphere of intense controversy, French Jewish scholarswere able to address issues on which German Jews had remained silentSalomon Munk, for example, was able to treat the various questionsconcerning the documentary hypothesis dispassionately, refuting mostof the claims while accepting the idea, in principle, of human author-ship of certain parts of the Pentateuch.87 It is equally clear that theprime importance placed on cultural adaptation in France strongly in-fluenced Jewish scholars to enter an area of research consistent withprevailing intellectual trends. Accordingly, they chose to direct theirenergies to biblical, philological, philosophical, and anthropologicalresearch. Preferring the literalist school of medieval biblical interpreta-tion over the rabbinic-homiletic approach of more recent times, mod-ern scholars sought to reawaken interest in and appreciation forHebrew grammar, referring to comparative Semitics and contextualmeaning to explain difficult words and phrases. Their reverence for theexegetical methods of Abraham Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi, among oth-ers, signifies the widening gap between rabbinic and lay scholars.68 Thisis evident, as well, in the range of sources brought to bear on the bibli-cal text Volumes of the new translation regularly included importantstudies, such as the first part of Munk's French translation of Mai-monides' Guide of the Perplexed, which were intended to serve as scientificcompanions to the biblical text Other relevant texts of medieval andmodern commentaries were frequently translated and published alongwith the corresponding book of the Bible. The Isaiah volume, for exam-ple, included Abarbanel's preface to his commentary, while the Ezekielvolume contained portions of the Guide, Abarbanel's preface to his com-mentary, and an excerpt from Zunz's opus on rabbinic homilies. Vari-ous ancient and modern translations of the Bible were also consulted,including the principal variants of the Septuagint, and the Samaritantext of the Pentateuch.69 Despite the substantial reliance on midrashicexegesis in its textual commentaries, the Bible project represents a pro-found departure from the early modern Ashkenazic homiletical tradi-tion.70

We may now turn to the question of why those Jewish scholars whohad succeeded in penetrating French academic circles decided to de-vote themselves to the more narrowly conceived Bible project The an-swer may be found in part in the timing of its conception. The initialdecision to undertake this translation was made in 1829, during the pe-

20 Jay Beritmitx

riod when Jewish scholars were still excluded from academic circles. It isnot unlikely that as a result of the assault on the legacy of the Revolutionand the accompanying experience of social exclusion Jewish intellectu-als were driven more tightly together, and that the project permitted anopportunity to form their own learned society. In light of the strongChristian orientation prevailing in French biblical scholarship, Cahen'sinitiative may very well have constituted an attempt to wrest the Biblefrom Christian dominance and place it squarely within the province ofJewish studies. In fact, from the outset, the Bible project encounteredthe rancor of Christian critics who took aim not only at its pervading ra-tionalist method but also at its failure to embrace the views of Christianinterpreters. The editors of the Archives de Christianisme went so far as toblame Cahen for the success of rationalism in France, taking him to taskfor his anti-dogmatic and anti-Christian excurses.71

According to Salomon Munk, who took up Cahen's defense, the un-derlying theological conviction that inspired the Protestant journal wasshared by contemporary rabbis as well. Like their Christian counter-parts, the rabbis purportedly viewed reason as the enemy of faith; ac-cordingly, they considered Cahen's biblical commentary an egregiousattack on traditional Judaism.72 Rabbi Salomon Klein of Colmar, themost vocal French critic of the Wissenschafi des Judentums movement,characterized the new trend with the following words: "There havearisen in the land a new group of men who do not place their trust inthe truth of faith, but have followed the desires of their hearts. Theyhave vented their disgusting spirit upon the Torah, which they have notaccepted as from Moses, and now will do the same to the Talmud."73 Inresponse to opposition of this sort, the Bible translation represented asustained effort to articulate an intellectual alternative to rabbinic dog-matism. The decision to undertake the project was undoubtedly rein-forced by the realization that even French liberals such as Vinet,Constant, de Broglie, and Guizot continued to identify French civiliza-tion with Christianity, despite their declared commitment to the separa-tion of church and state." The Bible project thus gave expression to theparticularistic interpretation of emancipation. On the other hand, theappearance of the first volume of the translation coincided with the im-portant ordinance of 1831 which finally accorded the Jewish religion fullparity with Catholicism and Protestantism by recognizing Jewish clergyas employees of the state. In the more favorable political climate of the1830s, the Cahen Bible unquestionably became a concrete expressionof optimism about the future course of emancipation. Two distinct setsof demands, corresponding to the two pivotal facets of emancipation—the particular and the universal—were deemed integral to the dynamicsof Jewish life in nineteenth-century France.

Alongside their efforts to recast the Bible within a muludisciplinary

Jewish Sdiolanhip in Nineteenth-Century France 21

framework, Jewish scholars addressed themselves to issues that werepertinent to the ritual character of Judaism and the accompanying dis-course of religious reform. In its attitude toward Jewish law, criticalscholarship started from the premise that halakhah had undergone sev-eral stages of development. Far from being immutable, as many tradi-tionalists would claim, halakhah had been influenced by a variety offorces (economic, cultural, political). In the view of critical scholars, thehalakhic rigor of medieval Judaism had developed in response to thewretched conditions of Jewish life, and that with the advent of civicequality, it now became possible, indeed, imperative, to remove theabuses which had accrued to the Jewish religion, especially in its "asi-atic" forms. According to Samuel Cahen, an ignorance of the history ofthe minhagim was the greatest obstacle to the regeneration of Judaism:"One would be surprised by the number of customs we have borrowedfrom foreign nations. Many presume that these date from antiquity, butthe majority are very recent The most useful work that one could un-dertake will be to do for the entire religion that which Zunz has donefor the liturgy."73

History was frequently enlisted in order to discredit laws and cus-toms which grew out of superstition, were deemed overly stringent, orappeared to contradict the findings of modern-day science. Aiming toprovide a forum for the scholarly examination and public discussion ofceremonial laws and customs, Samuel Cahen and his fellow regenerateursfounded a monthly journal, the Archives Israelites de Prance, in 1840. Asthe journal's editor, Cahen set a moderate tone, urging scholars to re-search the conditions that had engendered the large number of pur-portedly outmoded ritual practices. The regenerateurs routinely citedrabbinic texts as proof that the idea of ritual reform had been endorsedthroughout the course of history by eminent authorities, and that evolu-tionary change was intrinsic to the halakhic system. It was here thatscholarship and ideology converged. The oeuvre of Francojewish schol-ars was enlisted to strengthen the claim that regeneration ought to be con-ceived in religious as well as social terms. In the end, the reformersdemanded the elimination of prayers, ceremonies, and laws that hadbeen instituted in response to persecution alone but were no longer instep with the political freedom that French Jews now enjoyed. Ironically,the same scholarly program that argued for ritual change actually coun-terbalanced the drive for radical religious reform, owing to the overrid-ing concern to examine the history of laws and customs responsibly."

The impact of Islamic civilization, especially medieval Arabic philos-ophy, on Jewish culture, became an abiding interest of French Jewishscholars from the 1830s onward. Their exceptionally valuable contribu-tions in this area are beyond the scope of the present work; however, weought to consider why the study of Judaism under Islam was pursued so

22 Jay Berkovitx

ardently. Salomon Munk's French translation, careful annotation, andintroduction to Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed \s the best known andmost important scholarly achievement in this area, and his Melanges dephilosophiejuive et arabe (1859) remains a remarkable display of classicalerudition and painstaking research.77 It is clear that Munk and otherswere convinced that the achievements of Maimonides and medievalSephardic Jewish civilization offered the Jews of modern Europe an in-structive paradigm for integrating Jewish and general culture. Further-more, Munk would regularly demonstrate the indispensability ofstudying Jewish thought within its general philosophical context, atheme which underlay all of modern Jewish studies.78 It is also clear thatthe Islamic materials would serve to elucidate various difficulties en-countered in the study of ancient Israelite religion. This new scholarlydirection was doubtless linked to French colonial politics as well, insofaras France had become involved intricately with societies in North Africaand the Near East These developments laid the groundwork for the cre-ation of a chair in Arabic and Semitic languages at the ecole rabbiniqtie ofMetz; which, in turn, strengthened the idea of transferring the school toParis where future French rabbis would benefit by their proximity toleading centers of oriental scholarship.79 With the move to Paris, a newchapter in the history of Wissenschafi opened, now with the unprece-dented participation of the French rabbinate.

CONCLUSION

The course of Jewish scholarship in France in the half century followingthe Revolution offers an important index of the forces that shaped Jew-ish identity in modern Europe, hi the face of unprecedented politicaland social changes, Jewish scholars struggled to define their relation-ship to the legacy of Jewish tradition. In Germany, political turmoil andintellectual ferment resulted in a wide range of responses to the chal-lenges of modernity. In the period following the Haskalah, one observesin the Reform and Wissenschafi des Judentums movements prodigious in-tellectual efforts to transform traditional Jewish life, but these were ei-ther die product of, or responses to, traumatic discontinuity. This wasnot die case for French Jewish scholars. The founders of the FrenchBible project regarded their work as a natural continuation of theMendelssohn Biur, dieir reliance on German biblical criticism was, intheir view, a natural extension of Mendelssohn's pioneering work. Notwithout great irony, the French proved themselves to be most faithfulheirs to die Haskalah tradition.

How did Wissenschafi des Judentums fare in France? On die one hand,the lack of interest and support among French Jews for die Cahen Bible

Jewish Scholarship in Nineteenth-Century France. 23

points to its very limited success. In some years the list of subscriptionsincluded as few as twenty names, and after three years of appeals forsupport to publish a study of hafiarot, only a handful of persons re-sponded. Cahen conceded that one of the reasons that the Bible projecthad taken so long was, aside from the indifference of French Jews, themethod employed was not widespread in the scholarly and literaryworld of France, nor among Jews in other countries, thus preventing thework from becoming more popular. Nevertheless, according to Germantheologian Heinrich Paulus, the rational explication of the Bible hadmade more progress among the Jews of France than of Germany, wherethere was "too little esteem for antiquity" among the "so-called enlight-ened."80

Irrespective of how one assesses the success of the scientific study ofJudaism in France, it is clear that the enterprise mirrored deep divisionsover the question of how much of modernity ought to be embraced. Re-ferring to the general lack of support for his work, Cahen indicated that"nos services, nos efforts regenerateurs soni devenuspour nous reellement un titred'exclusion." Critical scholarship also served, in a sense, to mediate be-tween the Jewish community and die surrounding society. Initially,scholarly work promoted increased contact and collegiality with non-Jews, but later such gestures signalling the success of emancipation di-minished. Possessed of an abiding optimism in the early stages ofmodernization, Jewish scholarship had emphasized die universal idealsof Judaism; by mid-century, however, in die face of growing challengesstemming from the academy, die Church, and socialist critics, FrenchWissenschafi des Judentums embarked on a course emphasizing anew theparticularity of Jewish tradition.

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS

NOTES

1. De Sacy's letter, dated 7 October 1822, was published in Zeitschrift fur dieGeschichte derjuden in Deutschland, Vol. 5 (1892), "Aus Leopold Zunz1 Nachlag,"pp. 259-260.

2. Wissenschafttiche Zeitschrift fur judische Theologie, Vol. 5 (1844): 449, cited inMichael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Ju-daism (New York, 1988), pp. 164-165. Cf. the piercing reaction of the Archives is-raelites, Vol. 5 (1844): 862-4.

3. Meyer, Response to Modernity, p. 165, accepts Geiger's verdict, claimingthat "until the end of the century, French Jewry produced very little modernJewish scholarship of a critical nature." In this paper I intend to show that this as-sumption is not entirely accurate, and inter alia, will discuss the conditions thatmay have resulted in limitations on productivity.

24 Jay Berkovih.

4. See Ismar Schorsch, "Emancipation and the Crisis of Authority: TheEmergence of the Modem Rabbinate," in Revolution and Evolution: 1848 m German-Jewish History, edited by Werner Mosse, Arnold Paucker, and Reinhard Rurup(Tubingen, 1981), pp. 243-244. Also see Theodore Zeldin, France, Vol. 2, pp.316-345.

5. This is the conclusion of Perrine Simon-Nahum, La cite mvestie: La "Sci-ence dujudaisme'francais et la Ripublique (Paris, 1991), esp. pp. 48ff. Regrettably,Simon-Nahum was apparendy unaware of the many Francojewish studies de-voted to Hebrew language, liturgy, and philosophical texts which were pub-lished in the first half of the nineteenth century, nor did she take note of dieimportant Bible translation project under the direction of Samuel Cahen, ed.,La Bible, induction nouveUe, 18 vols. (Paris, 1831-51).

6. Michael Meyer, "Jewish Religious Reform and Wissenschaft des JudentumxThe Positions of Zunz, Geiger, and Frankel," Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, Vol. 16(1971), pp. 24-25.

7. See Ismar Schorsch, "The Emergence of Historical Consciousness inModem Judaism," Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, VoL 28 (1983), pp. 419-420.

8. For an analysis of the politically motivated literature, see Jay R. Berkovitz,The Shaping of Jewish Identity in Nineteenth-Century France (Detroit, 1989), pp.61—77. For die first fulHengdi biography of a leading Jewish revolutionary figureand maskil, see Frances Malino, A Jew in the French Revolution: The Life of ZalkmdHourwitz (Cambridge, MA, 1996). The French translation of Divre Shalom ve-Emetwas published anonymously under die tide Instruction salutaire adressie aux com-munautes juives de ['empire (Paris, 1782). Bing's Hebrew translation of Phadon ap-peared in Berlin in 1787, entided Phaedon hu sefer hash'arat ha-mefesh ie-hehakhamha-shalem rabbenu Moshe mi-Dessau ha^nikra Mendelssohn, with an introduction byN. H. Wessely. The latter's association widi the project is an indication of die im-portance widi which the Bing translation was viewed; Wessely himself also statedin his introduction that Mendelssohn had been sent die translation shortly be-fore his deadi and that he was very pleased widi iL On the general subject oftranslating Phaedon, see Noah H. Rosenbloom, "Theological Impediments to aHebrew Version of Mendelssohn's Phaedon? Proceedings of the American Academyfor Jewish Research, Vol. 56 (1990), pp. 51-81. The translation of Behmat Olam ap-peared in Metz in 1794. Also connected to the Berlin Haskalah was a small num-ber of Hebraists whose poetry attests to die powerful impact of die Revolutionon Jewish consciousness. The best known of diis group include Moses Ensheim(1750-1839), Lippmann Moise Buschenuial (1784-1818), and Elie HaleVy(1760-1826). The goal of bringing die fruits of German-Jewish scholarly creativ-ity to the attention of French Jewry remained constant for decades. See, for ex-ample, Olry Terquem's French translation of S. Y. Rapoport, Tbldot RabbenuSa'adia Goon, originally appearing in Bikkurei Ha-Itim, Vol. 9 (1828), pp. 20-37, inArchives israSUtes, Vol. 3 (1842), pp. 168-172, 518-521. By contrast, undertakingsin die realm of history tended to be motivated by a desire to portray die Jews todie general public in die most positive terms, and as a result, scholarship wassubordinated to die broadly defined political agenda of emancipation and so-cial integration. For two examples of diis genre, see L£on HaleVy, Risumi de ITiis-toire desjuifs modemes (Paris, 1828), esp. pp. 318-326, along widi die analysis ofMichael Marrus, The Politics of Assimilation: A Study of the French Jewish Community

Jewish Scholarship in Nineteenth-Century France ' 25

at the Tme of the Dreyfus Affair (Oxford, 1971), pp. 88-93, 102-106; and L. M.Lambert, Prids de Vhistovre des heoreux depuis le patriarche Abraham jusqu'en 1840(Metz, 1840). One exception to the Ashkenazic domination of Francojewishscholarship in the early nineteenth century was Joseph-Cohen Moline, origi-nally of Bordeaux, who translated some of Solomon Ibn Gabirol's poetry intoHebrew, as noted in Eliakim Carmoly, in Revue oriental*. Vol. 3 (1843-44), p. 315.

9. On the involvement of French maskUim in the Berlin Haskalah, seeJonathan I. Helfand, "The Symbiotic, Relationship between French and Ger-man Jewry in the Age of Emancipation," Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, Vol. 29(1984), pp. 331-344. For an analysis of the cultural transfer from Germany toFrance, see Dominique Bourel, "La Wissenschaft des Judentums en France," inRevue de synthese, VoL 4 (April-June, 1988), pp. 265-280.

10. There are certainly other areas where this transition may be observed,such as theology and education. On these and related issues, see ImmanuelEtkes, "On the Question of the Forerunners of Haskalah in Eastern Europe"[Hebrew], in The East European fewish Enlightenment, edited by I. Etkes (Jeru-salem, 1993) pp. 25-44.

11. For an example of pre-revolutionary stance that anticipated the source-critical approach of nineteenth-century scholars, see Mordecai Breuer, "TheDocumentary Hypothesis of the Sha'agat Aryeh? Megadim, Vol. 2' (1986), pp.9-22. Based on an independent analysis of the phrase "ad ha-yom ha-zeh" (Chron-icles 4:42), R. Aryeh Loeb Giinzburg disputed the talmudic (B. T. Bava Batra15a) attribution of authorship of the Book of Chronicles to Ezra the Scribe. Ac-cording to Gunzburg, Ezra copied sections from earlier books, and thereforesome of the references appearing in the text were already outmoded by the timehe had completed his work. The many contradictions within the text itself, aswell as the various inconsistencies widi the Book of Ezra, led Gunzburg to con-clude that the Book of Chronicles was the product of human ingenuity. It was tothis work of editing that the Talmud referred when it identified Ezra as the "au-thor" of Chronicles. Breuer asserts diat Gunzburg's position, though remark-ably similar to diat of contemporary French Bible scholar Astruc, wasauthentically traditional. My thanks to Prof. I. Ta-Shema for bringing the Breuerarticle to my attention.

12. See Isadore Twersky, "Shalhan Arukk Enduring the Code of Jewish Law,"Judaism, VoL 16 (1967), pp. 141-158. Cf. Jacob Katz's assertion that EuropeanJewry turned inward and failed to produce comprehensive Jewish thinkers inthe last two centuries of the Middle Ages, with die exception of R. Judah Loewben Bezalel, the Maharal of Prague, in Exdusiveness and Tolerance (New York,1962), p. 138.

13. In response to criticism of H. Y. D. Azulai, Cre'mieux published KuntresDhmei Mordechai (Leghorn, 1787). See the paragraph devoted to him by Be-nayahu, H. Y. D. Azoulay, pp. 377-378.

14. See Cecil Roth, "The Liturgies of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin? Jour-nal of Jewish Bibliography, Vol. 1 (1939): 99-105.

15. See Edward Breuer, The Limits of Enlightenment: Jews, Germans, and theEighteenth-Century Study of Scripture (Cambridge, Mass., 1996), pp. 59-62, andUriel Simon, "LJ-Darko Ha-Parshanit shel Ha-Ra'aba al pi Sheloshet Beiurav Le-Pasuk Ehad," Bar Han: Sefer ha-Shanah le-Mada'ei ha-Yahadut ve-ha-Ruah shel Uni-

26 JayBerkovitx

versitat Bar lion, Vol. 3 (1965), pp. 100-111. For a comparison of the approachesof Mendelssohn and Ibn Ezra, see Breuer, Limits, pp. 188-201. For signs ofdissatisfaction with conventional methods of Talmud study and analysis in cen-tral Europe, especially with regard to midrash, see Jay Harris, How Do We KnowThisT Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism (New York, 1995), pp.137-141.

16. The seven volumes of Me'ora Or were published under the following ti-des: Me'ord Or, Vols. 1-3 (1790-1793); Be'erSheva (1819); Od la-Mo'ed (1822); BinNun (1827); Kan Tahor (1831). On Worms' biography and scholarly career, seeNahum Brull, "Nerla-Ma'or" [Hebrew], OzarHaSifrut,\ol. 1 (1887), pp. 20-31;and Moshe Catane, "R. Aharon Worms and His Student Eliakim Carmoly" [He-brew] Areshet, Vol. 2 (1960), pp. 190-8; Jay R. Berkovitz, "Rabbinic Scholarshipin Revolutionary France: Rabbi Aaron Worms' Me'orri Or' Proceedings of the TenthWorld Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1990), Vol. 2, Division B, pp. 251-258;and idem, "Law and Custom in the Writings of Rabbi Aaron Worms of Metz,"Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1994), Divi-sion C, Vol. 1, pp. 65-72.

17. On attitudes.toward the Maharil in medieval and early modern halakhicwritings, see B. S. Hamburger, "The Historical Foundations of Minhag Ashke-naz,'' in The Minhagim of the Worms Community according to R. Juspa Shamash (Jeru-salem 1988), edited by I. M. Peles, pp. 101-105. Reverence for the Maharil wascommon in the rabbinic literature of central Europe, and typically accompa-nied by expressions of disapproval of the Isserles glosses. Cf. the strident criti-cism advanced by Hayyim ben Bezalel Friedberg, Viku'ah Mayyim Hayyim(Amsterdam, 1712), introduction, and the comments of Ya'ir Hayyim Bach-arach, Mekor Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1982). The assertion that die authentic "minhagAshkenaz" had it origins in the customs attributed to die Maharil, was consistentwith a conception of western Ashkenaz articulated in die responsa of R. JosephSteinhardL Cf. Zikhron Yosef(Furth, 1767), p. 52b. See Worms's critical remarkson die proper time to recite die evening prayers, Be'er Sheva, p. 33, and on diequestion of whedier or not to recite die blessing over die megilot, ibid., p. 14b.For an example of Worms's preference for die Maharil, see Od la-Moed, p. 51a.

18. Kan Tahor, pp. 173 and 189a-b.19. See, for example, Worms's analysis of Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 90 in

Be'er Sheva, p. 48a, and for a fuller discussion, see Berkovitz, "Law and Customin die Writings of R. Aaron Worms," p. 69.

20. Od la-Mo'ed, p. 50b, following R. Solomon b. Aderet, Resp. I, no. 395 andShulhan Arukh, O.H. 605; on makhnisei rahamin, see ibid., p. 53a. On faulty He-brew pronunciation by Ashkenazim, see Be'er Sheva, p. 32.

21. Od la-Mo 'ed, 30b.22. Ibid., pp. 92b-93a.23. For die address delivered before members of die Assembly, see Worms's

recapitulation in Kan Tahor (Metz, 1831), pp. lOb-llb, insofar as die text wasnever included in die official transactions of die Sanhedrin; also see Bin Nun,pp. 106a, Ilia.

24. Od la-Mo'ed, p. 29a-b. Compare his remarks in ibid., p. 27a, where he washighly critical of efforts to abolish die prohibition of legumes (kitniyot) onPassover.


25. See Kan Tahor, pp. 7b-8a and 144a, cited in Samet, "Halakha and Re-form," p. 152.

26. Worms was regarded by proponents of Haskalah and moderate religiousreform as an ally in their battle against the Orthodox establishment; theypointed to his refusal to join Eleh Divrei Ha-Brit in protest of the Hamburg tem-ple, his support for reciting prayers in French, his opposition to the piyyutim,and his criticism of customs rooted in popular superstitions as proof of his sym-pathy for their objectives. See Gerson-Levy, "Necrologie de M. Aaron Worms,"La Riginiration (1836), pp. 226-231. Cf. Emmanuel Etkes, "The GRA andHaskalah: Image and Reality" [Hebrew], Chapters in the History ofJewish.Society inthe Middle Ages and the Modern Era: Jacob Katz Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1980), pp.192-217. For examples of his negative attitude toward philosophy, see Be'erSheva, p. 22b, and Kan Tahor, p. 17b. Worms clearly followed those who rejectedthe value of philosophic study. For Ashkenazic Jewry, the roots of the debate arein the controversy between R. Solomon Luria who rejected philosophy and R.Moses Isserles who favored it (referring to philosophy as "a legacy of the fa-diers," in resp. 6). For a full discussion, see Jacob Elbaum, Petihut ve-Histagrut(Jerusalem, 1990); Lawrence Kaplan, "R. Mordekhaijaffe and the Evolution of

Jewish Culture in Poland in the Sixteenth Century," in Jewish Thought in the Six-teenth Century, edited by Bernard D. Cooperman (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), pp.266-282; and Yonah Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyyunit shd ha-Rema (Jerusalem,1984).

27. See, for example, Jacob Joshua Falk, P'nei Yehoshua, and Ezekiel Landau,Zelah, neither of which cite texts from the Zohar in the course of their talmudicand halakhic discussions, except for certain isolated efforts to explain difficultaggadic passages. In the latter, regard, see P'nei Yehoshua, Berakhot 10a.

28. Be'er Sheva, p. lb. Worms concluded that one may remain at home to re-cite all of the preliminary prayers preceding Barukh She-amar, provided that thesix principal mizmorim of the pesukei d'zimra be left for the synagogue, insofar asthese are required by talmudic tradition.

29. See, for example, Be'er Sheva, p. lb, where Worms addressed the questionof Maharasha on Rashi regarding the daily recitation of Psalm 145 three times.

30. See, for example, Worms's analysis of the Zohar on "to tokhlu al ha-dam?in Be'er Sheva. p. 2a-2b.

31. See Me'orei Or, Vol. 1, p. 6b (on Berakhot 34b and 40a); Vol. 2, p. 9b (onBerakhot 19), 10a (on Berakhot 26b), and p. 24b (referring to ShuDian Arukh, O.H.61).

32. On Sofer, see Stefan Reif, Shabbethai Sofer and His Prayer-book (Cambridge,1979). On the genre itself, see idem, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectiveson Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 230-250. Cf. Jacob Emden,Luah Ens (Altona, 1769).

33. Information on Biding is very scarce. On the title page of a eulogy hepublished for R. Aron b. Abraham Resenbach (n.p., 1828) he is described as "aresident and teacher in die school belonging to the community of Adat Yeshu-run in Kassel." On his work as an editor and comcteur at the Hamadar Press inMetz, see No£ Gruss, "L'lmprimerie"; an exchange of letters concerning his pe-tition to establish his own Hebrew press in Metz is in the Central Archives forthe History of die Jewish People (CAHJP) F CC/81. According to Benjamin S.

28 JayBerkovitx

Hamburger, The Roots ofMinhag Ashkenaz (B'nei Brak, 1995), p. 299, Biding was astudent of R. Natan Adler of Frankfurt, however, like other students of Adler, hedid not follow his teacher's customs (e.g. the order of shofar blasts in accor-dance with view of R. Isaac Luria). In his Mahzor for Rosh Hashanah he pub-lished the accepted order in Ashkenaz, i.e., in accordance with the geonictradition. The laudatory description of Biding appeared in a letter of supportfrom the Central Consistory to M. le Ministre Secretaire d'Etat "M. Bidinge s t . . . le premier heoraisant de notre epoque, ses vastes amnaissances dans la langue deMoise, et sons aptitude Unite spidalt pour la correction des outnages hebraiques ontrenduson nom euwpeen, et nos voisons de I'AUemagne rendent hommage, comme nos cond-toyens francais, a sa profonde truditunC See letter of 7 August 1836, CAHJP FCC/81. Biding's mentor, Moses Ensheim (1760-1839), also known as eitherMoses Brisac or Moses Metz, was a member of the literary circle that foundedthe Hebrew journal Ha-Me'assef, several of his poems were published there. Healso published a mathematical work, Recherches sur Us calculs diffhmtiels et integrals(Paris, 1789). Following a brief stay as tutor in die Mendelssohn home, Ensheimreturned to Metz where he gave private lessons in mathematics, since he was re-fused a teaching position at the local Scale centrale. He spent the last years of hislife in Bayonne as a private tutor in the home of Abraham Furtado. See ArchivesisraeTites, Vol. 6 (1845), p. 72; E. Prouhet, "Notice sur la vie et les travaux d'OlryTerquem," Bulletin debiographie, dlustoire et de bibliographic mathematiques (1862),pp. 81-90.

34. Intimations of tension within the Jewish community may be indicated byBiding's use of the expression b'nei aliyah, which we have translated as "highranking members" of the Jewish community. In all likelihood, the reference is tomen who had been exposed to the Haskalah's critical view of the piyyutim and ofother elements of traditional observance. For this reference and, generally, hisviews on the corruption of die piyyutim, see Biding, "Ma'amar Shekel Ha-Kodesh," published in die Mahzor shd Pesah, Shavuot, ve-Sukkot, edited by M. Bid-ing (Metz, 1817), pp. 135-141.

35. See Biding's analysis of the piyyut "Eleh Exkerah" in an essay entitled "KafAhat Asarah Zahav" which was printed at die end of his volume of SelihoL

36. On die work of Elie Halevy, see Berkovitz, Shaping of Jewish Identity, pp.61, 184, and notes. For a summary of HaleVy's commentary (in mss.) to Ecclesi-astes and Proverbs, see La Bible, ed. Cahen, Vol. 16 (Paris, 1848), pp. xxxvii-xliii.For a discussion of die contributions of several odier maskilim, including Mayer-Louis Schwabe, Israel Hyamson Cr^hange, and Joseph Lehman, see JonathanHelfand, "The Symbiotic Relationship Between French and German Jewry," pp.340-341.

37. On die history of mahzor commentary, see Daniel Goldschmidt, Mahzorshe! Rosh Hashanah, introduction.

38. The debate concerning die retention or elimination of die piyyutimspread out over die pages of die major Francojewish journals, particularly LesArchives israelites, LTfnivers israilite, and Le Lien d'lsraH For die views of die twomajor rabbinic personalities who debated diis issue, see Salomon Klein, LettrtPastorale (7 October 1856) and Jay R. Berkovitz, The Letters of Rabbi Salomon UUmann (forthcoming). For die most sustained French effort to discredit die piyyu-tim, see Gerson-Levy, Orgue et Pioutim (Paris, 1859).


39. Jacob Joseph b. Meir Sofer, Even Yisrad (Metz, 1766). The author, whopursued his talmudic training in Sierentz and Frankfurt am Main, apparentlywas introduced to the study of Hebrew grammar while in Berlin. For a brief de-scription of the work, see Archives israetites, Vol. 3 (1842), pp. 374-377.

40. On the French Hebraists, see Mireille Hadas-Lebel, °Les Etudes he-braiques en France au XVme siecle et la creation de la premidre chaire d'Ecri-ture sainte en Sorbonne," Revue des etudes juives. Vol. 144 (1985), pp. 93-126.

41. Biding, Em la-Mikrah, introduction. It is important to note that certainfields, including Bible, philosophy, history, Talmud, and Jewish law, were not ap-proached critically during the transitional stage, but only after the 1830s and1840s.

42. See, for example, the controversy that erupted over the portrayal ofMoise Ensheim by Olry Terquem in his Lettres Tsarphatiques, the critique byMoise Biding, Nikmat YisraeL La Vengeance d'Israel (Metz, 1840), and the responseof Salomon Munlc, in AT, Vol. 2 (1841), pp. 330-332.

43. Meyer, "Jewish Religious Reform" pp. 19—41; Ismar Schorsch, "Break-through into the Past; The Veremfur Cultwr und Wissenschafi derjuden? Leo BaeckInstitute Year Book, Vol. 33 (1988), pp. 3-28.

44. See Michael Meyer, "Jewish Scholarship and Identity in Modern Ger-many," in Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Vol. 8 (1992), p. 186.

45. In his 1822 letter to Leopold Zunz (above, n. 1), Sylvestre de Sacy warnedthat while he had the greatest respect for the work of Wissenschafi des Judentums,its utility and difficulty would be appreciated only in Germany. With respect tothe scholarly elite, de Sacy's views on the lack of enthusiasm among FrenchJewry were certainly not borne out, though his remarks were accurate insofar asthe general Jewish public was concerned. Assuming that the number of sub-scriptions is an index of readership, the French Bible project enjoyed very lim-ited success. In some years the published list of subscriptions included as few astwenty names. Writing in 1847, Samuel Cahen conceded that the Bible project'slack of popularity was due to a general indifference, and that'this was exacer-bated by the fact that the critical method that was adopted was not widely usedin the scholarly and literary world of France, nor among Jews in other countries.Se La Bible, Vol. 14, p. ix.

46. On Wissenschafi das Judentums in the second half of the century, seeJonathan Helfand, "French Jewry in the Second Republic" (Ph.D. diss., YeshivaUniversity, 1979); and the hundreds of articles in the Vntvers israeWe, Archives is-raSites, Levanon, Revue des etudes juives, and Annuaire de la societe des etudes juives.

47. Frederick Pnu, France under the Bourbon Restoration, 1814-1830 (New York,1963), pp. 158-163. AI, Vol. 28 (1867), pp. 154-167, and Berkovitz, Shaping of Jew-ish Identity, pp. 141-146. One figure who apparently was not excluded was MichelBerr, who returned to France in 1809 and remained active in the literary life ofParis from that point onward. The appearance of several scholarly works pub-lished by Jews in this period is not inconsistent with the claims made here, how-ever, because the authors were responding to ulterior concerns. In Loi de Moise(Paris, 1822) and Histom des Institutions de Moise et du peuple Hebreu (Paris, 1828),

Joseph Salvador sought to demonstrate that modern government owed its ori-gins to the Mosaic constitution; Olry Terquem, in his Lettres Tsarphatiques (Paris,1821-1841), aspired to prove that layers of rabbinic Judaism had distorted the

30 Jay Berkovitx

plain meaning of biblical Judaism. On Salvador, see Paula Hyman, "Joseph Sal-vador," Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 34 (1972), pp. 1-22, and Michael Graetz, From Pe-riphery to Center Chapters in the History of French Jewry in the Nineteenth Century(Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 154-185. On Terquem, see Berkovitz, Shaping of JewishIdentity, pp. 119-126.

48. See Archives israeTites, VoL 28 (1867), pp. 154-167, and Berkovitz, Shapingof Jewish Identity, pp. 141-146. Salomon Munk arrived in Paris in 1828. For thestandard biographical study of Munk, see Moise Schwab, Salomon Munk: savieetses oeuvres (Paris, 1899). Albert Cohen, trained in Vienna, settled in Paris in1836. See Isidor Loeb, Biographie d 'Albert Cohen (Paris, 1878). Less is known ofJoseph Derenbourg, who received his degree from the University rhe"naneFre'de'ric-Guillaume c. 1832-1834, was naturalized as a citizen of France in 1845,was elected to the Academie des inscriptions in 1871, and was appointed to thechair of Hebraic and Rabbinic languages in 1877. It is hoped that the papers ofJoseph and Hartwig Derenbourg, located at the Bibliotheque de l'lnstitut deFrance, nos. 3371-3405, will fill in many of the gaps in our knowledge abouttheir careers, and the course of modern Jewish scholarship in France.

49. Sylvestre de Sacy, "Une Extrait de Tahkemoni," Journal asiatique (Octo-ber, 1833), pp. 306-349. Earlier in the century, de Sacy wrote an extensive analy-sis of Yedayah Ha-Penini de Be'ziers' Behrnat Olam in the Magasin Encyclopidique,Vol. 3 (1808), pp. 315-350. The feet that de Sacy's work appeared the same yearthat Michel Berr published a translation of the text (Metz, 1808) raises the like-lihood of collaboration, but I have not seen any concrete evidence of this. TheBerr manuscript is reportedly in the municipal library of Nimes, no. 13723.

50. See Eugfine Bore', "Une seance du Taljkemoni," Journal asiatique (Janu-ary, 1837), pp. 21-43. He also published, jointly with Sylvestre de Sacy, a projecton the Druse Temps, 2 March 1838. On the assistance given to Renan, see MoiseSchwab, Salomon Munk, pp. 44-120, and Graetz, From Periphery to Center, p. 225.

51. Auguste Pichard, "Le livre de la bonne doctrine" ("SeferLekah TotT), Jour-nal asiatique (Oct. 1836), pp. 305-337.

52. See, for example, Gerson-Levy's report on Dukes's work, presented tothe Academie de Metz, published in Archives israSiies (February, 1848). Gerson-Levy was also a member of the societe asiatique and the Academie de Stanislas,Nancy. For additional biographical data, see M. Thiel, "Notice sur la vie deGerson-Levy, Extrait du memohes de I'Academie de Metz (Metz, 1864—1865).

53. Schwab, Solomon Munk, pp. 44-46, 68, 70,131.54. There were, of course, other areas as well, such as the scientific study of

Kabbalah; however, only one major scholar, Adolphe Franck, was active in thisfield. See hisLoKabbale (Paris, 1843). On Franck, see Salo W. Baron, "The Revo-lution of 1848 and Jewish Scholarship," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jew-ish Research, Vol. 18 (1948-1949), pp. 14-17.

55. See Paul Robert, Le Petit Robert 1: Dictionnaire alphabetique et analogique dela langue francaise (Paris, 1984).

56. Salomon Munk, Palestine, p. 2. Adolphe Franck's research on ancient phi-losophy and on the Kabbalah led him to the conclusion that the spiritual andpolitical elements in Judaism were mutually exclusive and even antithetical. Heviewed the history of Judaism as a process of progressive spiritualization and re-finement that was actually accelerated by the Jewish people's loss of political in-


dependence and sovereignty. Franck saw in this development evidence of Ju-daism's universal character, a trait enabling the religion to adapt itself to varyingcircumstances. Accordingly, in a system where Judaism was viewed as ultimatelyfree from the constraints of material and space, the role of the ceremonial lawwas minimized. See Baron, "Revolution of 1848," pp. 14-18, and Graetz, From Pe-riphery to Center, pp. 63-65.

57. See, for example, David Eichhorn, Einlatung m das alie Testament (Gottin-gen, 1824); Heinrich Ewald, Die Poetischen des alien Bundes (Gottingen, 1837),Wilhelm De Wette, Commentar uber die Psahner (Heidelberg, 1811); FriedrichHeinrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebndsche Grammatick (Halle, 1813); F. Hitzig, DieZwodfKleinen Prophenten (Leipzig, 1830); C. E. K. Rosenmuller, Scholia in vetusTestamentum Salomonis regis et sapientis quoe perhibentur scripta (Leipsig, 1819). Thepreference for German scholarship, particularly in the field of religion, mir-rored a similar inclination among general French historians as noted by CharlesRearick, Beyond the Enlightenment: Historians and FoUdore in Nineteenth-CenturyFrance (Bloomington, 1974), p. 162. Cf. R. E. Clements, "The Study of the OldTestament," in Nineteenth-Century Religious Thought in the West, Vol. 13, NinianSmart, John Clayton and Steven T. Katz (eds.), (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 123-127.For examples in the Cahen Bible, see Vol. 13 (1846), x-xi and Vol. 15, pp. xi-xvi;in the case of Munk's Palestine, the author critically engaged German scholar-ship, only rarely adopting their views; see pp. 116-128.

58. Peter Gay, The Enlightenment, An Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Pagan-ism (New York, 1966), pp. 31-126. The expression "a scientific history of cul-ture" is found on p. 38.

59. The hostile attitude of the Berlin Haskalah and the German Reformmovement toward the Talmud is well known. See, for example, Moshe Pelli,"The Attitude of the First Maskilim in Germany Towards the Talmud," Leo BatchInstitute Year Book, Vol. 27 (1982). The maskilim asserted that the Talmud was es-sentially a human work with human failings and that this severely underminedits religious and legal authority. While the new approach to this literature is alsoto be understood against the backdrop of the Enlightenment's negative ap-praisal of rabbinic Judaism, French maskuimand modem Jewish scholars tendedto be more reverent in their view of rabbinic tradition and literature. As we shallsee below, their preoccupation with biblical studies was an expression of thismentality.

60. Schorsch, "Emergence of Historical Consciousness," pp. 413-437.61. See Salomon Munk, "Reflexions sur le culte des anciens H6breux dans

ses rapports avec les autres cultes de l'antiquite'" La Bible, Vol. 4, pp. 1-56.62. Munk, Palestine, pp. 108, 116; see "Lois de Manou," in La Bible, Vol. 3, p.

173, and Vol. 9, p. 97.63. See, for example, Lion-Mayer Lambert, Precis de ITiistoire des HSrreux

(Metz, 1840), and Salomon Klein, Ha-Emet ve-Hashalom Ehavu (Frankfurt amMain, 1861).

64. Cahen (ed.), La Bible, 18 vols.65. See Max Wiener, "The Ideology of the Founders of Jewish Scientific Re-

search," YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science, Vol. 5 (1950), pp. 184-196; andBerkovitz, The Shaping offewish Identity, pp. 142-144. There were, of course, im-portant exceptions to the general pattern in Germany. Isaac Bernays, for exam-

32 JayBerkouitx

pie, an orthodox rabbi and scholar, defended the massoretic text againstthe criticisms of contemporaries such as Gesenius. See [Bernays], Bibd'scheOrient—Erne Zietschifi in uoanglossen Heften, 2 vols. (1820-21). According to WernerCahnman, "Friederich Wilhelm Schelling and the New Thinking of Judaism," Pro-ceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, VoL 47 (1981), p. 4, the involve-ment of Bernays and others in Bible studies was undertaken in order to confrontcontemporary challenges to Judaism. On Bemays' Bibd'sche Orient, see RivkaHorowitz, "On Kabbala and Myth in NineteendvCentury Germany: IsaacBemays, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 59 (1993), pp.137-183.

66. Berkovitz, The Shaping of Jewish Identity, p. 272, n. 40.67. Ibid., pp. 142-144. Munk's views were articulated in his book Palestine: De-

scription geographique, historique et archeologique (Paris, 1845), pp. 99, 132-140. Fora striking parallel, albeit concerning the authorship of the Book of Chronicles,see Mordecai Breuer, "The Documentary Hypothesis of the Sha'agat Aryeh"(above, n. 11).

68. French-Jewish scholars themselves certainly regarded dieir approach asfully consistent with the talmudic and medieval exegetical traditions. See Sa-lomon Munk, "Examen de plusieurs critiques du premier volume," in Le Bible,traduction nouvdle, VoL 2 (Paris, 1833), pp. xix-xxii; cf. Breuer, Limits of Enlight-enment, pp. 26-27.

69. La Bible. Vol. 9, vii-ix and Vol. 11 (Paris, 1841). Convinced of the indis-pensability of rabbinics for biblical research, Samuel Cahen had begun work ona volume of rabbinic vocabulary, Secher le-Miriame, that was to include a transla-tion and analysis of the Mishnah and the Talmud, but the projected work nevercame to fruition.

70. Cf. Harris, How Do We Know This?, pp. 141-147, where the treatment ofthe early Haskalah in Germany parallels our discussion of Frencbjewish schol-ars in die 1830s.

71. Cahen's interpretation of the word Shiloh (Genesis 49:10) was especiallyproblematic for the Archives' editors who preferred to explain die term as "Mes-siah." Munk insisted that the Christian claim that die reference was to Jesus issimply untenable from an historical perspective: die House of Judah had al-ready disappeared six centuries before. In order to refute the insistence onChristological references in the Hebrew Bible, Cahen cited Gesenius's interpre-tation of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 extensively. See La Bible, Vol. 9, pp. 231-234.

72. According to Munk, "Examen," p. xxiv, the rabbis were disturbed by thenote referring to the medical benefits of circumcision (p. 42). Cahen's error,Munk maintained, was in failing to emphasize that circumcision was a distinc-tive sign for Jews alone.

73. Salomon Klein, Mippnei Koshet (Frankfurt am Main, 1861), p. 14.74. See Artz, France under the Bourbon Restoration, pp. 158-163, 170-176.75. The distinction between a religion and its ceremonies represented the

common ground shared by critical scholarship and ritual reform. Invariably,members of the small cadre of critical scholars were vocal proponents of reli-gious reform. In contrast widi Germany, few were practicing rabbis; they wereemployed variously as book dealers, teachers, manuscript curators, editors ofjournals, and later, as university professors. See Archives Israelites, Vol. 4 (1843),


pp. 4-5. For the Cahen quote, see La Bible, Vol. 9 (1838), preface; cf. Archives is-raelites, Vol. 1 (1840), pp. 66-67.

76. On the relationship between scholarship and religious reform in Ger-many, see Meyer, "Jewish Religious Reform' pp. 19-41.

77. For a survey of the important contributions made by Jewish scholars inthe field of Islamic studies, see Bernard Lewis, Islam in History: Ideas, Men, andEvents in the Middle East (New York, 1973), especially pp. 20-21 and 123-137. Bas-ing this translation of the Guide of the Perplexed on the two Judeo-Arabic manu-scripts at the Bibliotheque royale, and subsequendy on the Oxford manuscripts,Munk proceeded to publish the first installment of the Judeo-Arabic text(chaps. 27 and 31), translation, and notes, in La Bible, induction nouveUe, Vol. 4(1833), pp. 80-89; it finally appeared in its entirety as Le Guide des egares parMoise ben Mahrum, 3 Vols. (Paris, 1856-1866). In Volume 9 (Paris, 1838), pp.76-101, Munk published a biographical essay on Saadia, notes on Saadia's Ara-bic text of Isaiah (101-134), and notes on a Persian manuscript of Isaiah (pp.134-159); his plan to publish an Arabic-Rabbinic chrestomathy, however, nevermaterialized. Munk's Melanges de philosophic juive et arabe (Paris, 1859) far ex-ceeded other works in the field. It included a French translation of Fons Vitae,appearing as La Source delavie, accompanied by scholarly notes and analysis; anextensive essay on the principal medieval Arabic philosophers; and an historicalsurvey of medieval Jewish philosophy. Munk's discovery that the real identity ofAvicebron, the author of Fons Vitae, was Solomon Ibn Gabirol, the Spanish-Jew-ish poet and philosopher, furnished a stunning example of a philosophical workcomposed by a Jew, drat was a major influence on diirteendi-century Christianphilosophy, diough its impact on Jewish thought was negligible. Such a discov-ery could only embellish the image of a Jewish minority whose cultural worthwas repeatedly questioned by die host society.

78. See Schorsch, "Emergence of Historical Consciousness in Modern Ju-daism," p. 436, and Ivan G. Marcus, "Beyond the Sephardic Mystique," Orim, Vol.1 (1985), pp. 35-36. Samuel Cahen wrote that "we hope for rapid progress in abranch of literature to which our possessions in Africa bestow even a politicalimportance." For diis quote, and for one of the earliest expressions of die desireto move die ecole rabbinique to Paris, see La Bible, Vol. 9, pp. xiv-xv. For astrong statement concerning die unparalleled value of die Sephardic literaryand philosophical legacy, particularly in terms of its reconciliation of religionand science, see La Bible, vol. 9, introduction to Abarbanel's commentary to Isa-iah, p. 1.

79. See La Bible, Vol. 9, pp. xiv-xv.80. For die Paulus letter (9 December 1832, to Cahen), see La Bible, Vol. 9 in-

troduction. Cf. the remarks of Wolf Fraenkel of Lemberg and of Solomon JudahRapoport, reporting diat die French Bible project was viewed very positively inthe East, and diat die work of French scholars was viewed with die greatest re-spect (ibid.).

Copyright of Modern Judaism: A Journal of Jewish Ideas & Experience is the property of Oxford University

Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

Jewish Scholarship and Identity in Nineteenth-Century France

Documents