 |
| Moses Mendelssohn's controversial Biur received the approbation of R. Mordechai Benet, the Chief Rabbi of Moravia. |
INTRODUCTION:
Rabbi Mordechai Benet or Marcus Benedict (1753-1829) was the
chief of rabbi Moravia, the historical region[1]
in the east of the Czech Republic. This would have been one of the most
prestigious rabbinic appointments of that time.
R. Benet was a child prodigy and at his barmitzvah his
teacher showed the guests commentaries he had already written on the Torah and
Talmud.
He was an interesting man because although respected by rabbis
from across the spectrum – for example, the second Rebbe of Chabad, as well as
his friend the Chatam Sofer spoke highly of him - he is described as being a fiercely
independent thinker as well.
Paradoxically, he allowed space for writings and
ideas from the Enlightenment Movement (Haskalah), while at the same time
staunchly upholding the traditional Halachic and rabbinic system.
In this article, which is based extensively on the research
of Professor Tamás Visi[2],
we will explore some of the thinking of R. Mordechai Benet.
Visi describes R. Benet as being:
“...remarkably flexible
concerning those innovations [of the Enlightenment] that did not threaten the
prestige of rabbinic literature. However, he was a rigid opponent of any
changes that could have restructured the inner hierarchy of the [rabbinic][3]
literary system.”
A COMPLEX MAN:
People were not sure how to read R. Benet.
On the one hand, he had adopted a strict anti-Enlightenment
and anti-Reform stance, such as his ruling against the Hamburg Temple, forbidding
the use of organs in a synagogue on Shabbat.[4]
This was in keeping with the traditional position of the Chatam Sofer,
one of the ideologues of the emerging ultra-Orthodox movement who famously
claimed that anything new was forbidden by the Torah.[5]
[See A
Short History of Haredim.]
On the other hand, R. Benet gave his endorsement to a school
book complied by Herz Homberg. Homberg started out as a tutor to Moses
Mendelssohn’sson and ended up becoming his follower.
(Moses
Mendelssohn is regarded as the father of the Enlightenment Movement.)
R. Benet also endorsed an edition of the Pentateuch which
had Mendelssohn’s German translation of the Torah as well as his commentary on it
known as the Biur.
There is evidence that Mendelssohn’s commentary was studied
in Moravian yeshivot during the 1820s.[6]
R. Benet had a secretary, Avraham Trebitch who recorded the
history of the time and he included a eulogy for Mendelssohn just as he did for
other orthodox rabbis, and R. Benet gave his approbation for this work.
This should not come as too much of a surprise as there were
quite a number of rabbis who were part of an ‘orthodox Haskalah.’
TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENLIGHTENMENT:
It is possible to understand R. Benet’s ‘warm’ feelings towards
the Enlightenment because of his being domiciled in Moravia. It was the Berlin
Enlightenment particularly, which was the considered most threatening to
traditional Judaism.
RABBINIC AUTHORITY AND PRESTIGE IN MORAVIA:
The reason why the Enlightenment was not such a threat in
places like Moravia may have been because of the generally unattested authority
and prestige of the rabbis which was prevalent there more than in Berlin.
Visi writes:
“Maskilic [Enlightenment][7]
texts could have reached Moravia at the turn of the nineteenth century. They
may have been read by some Moravian Jews...
Nonetheless, they could not
compete with the heavy voice of Tradition in terms of prestige...”
And Visi continues to explain why a degree of Enlightenment
literature may have been permitted in Moravia under R. Benet:
“However, it could be consumed
only as peripheral or low prestige literature as long as the traditional
literary system functioned.”
A HIERARCHY OF PRESTIGE:
Amongst the rabbinate itself, there was even a hierarchy of
prestige. There were rabbis and then there were specialist rabbis or ‘geonim.’
While this is typical of the rabbinate in all communities, it appears that this was
particularly so Moravia. Thus, even within the orthodox rabbinic world:
“Any innovation not coming
from the ‘geonim’ was immediately perceived as amateurish and suspicious.”
The Enlightenment could not successfully compete with this
hierarchy of prestige.
Rabbinic prestige was obviously a major issue and one could
say it was a positive factor as it kept the important tradition alive.
Visi describes this matter of prestige in rather strong
terms regarding a question put to R. Benet about the permissibility of praying
in a language other than Hebrew:
“...Benet argues, once Hebrew
is replaced by German as the language of worship Jews may forget Hebrew
altogether. This situation would cause the complete disappearance of rabbinic
culture (as well as rabbinic authority) since rabbinic literature is consumable
only in Hebrew. Its prestige among Jews stands or falls with the prestige of
Hebrew.”
In other words, it was felt that prayer must remain in
Hebrew not just because it is prescribed by Halacha (although there are
exceptions), but also because it was a means of maintaining rabbinic culture,
prestige and authority.
Incidentally; besides
prayer - unlike the Chatam Sofer whose followers believed it was a religious
duty to speak Yiddish and not German - R. Benet had no problems with Jews using
German as a spoken language.
THE AVERAGE MASSES:
In R. Benet’s response to the Hamburg Temple issue, he wrote
in Hebrew:
“It is well known and
generally recognized by everybody that all the community of Israel are all
sacred and the One God is among them. And one Torah is for all of them. And all
the people stand all the time on [the belief that] Moses is true and his Torah
is true. And this is the Torah that he gave us. They are the two tablets of the
covenant, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.”
The same eloquent passage was translated into the Yiddish
vernacular in a curt and more authoritative style which simply laid down the
law for the populace:
“It is generally known that
all the community of Israel is based on an unconditional belief in the Written
Torah and the Oral Torah.”
In light of this unconditional belief, there was nothing
more to discuss.
The unassailable authority of the rabbis was most likely also
contributed to by the general disinterest by the masses in intellectual
endeavours both in technical religious, as well as in secular affairs.
As Visi puts it, the average Jews of Moravia had no real appetite
for intellectual matters, and they:
“...actually lacked the
educational background necessary to do philosophy in an enlightened maskilic
style.”
‘BESAMIM ROSH’ - A DIRECT ATTACK ON RABBINIC AUTHORITY:
It is apparent that R. Benet developed an interesting way of
coping with the threat of the Enlightenment:
As long as the authentic rabbinic
theme was allowed to maintain its basic dominance, he felt no need to attack
the Haskalic influences. He was prepared to allow them some space as
long as they remained on the periphery.
However, as soon as he perceived a direct threat to rabbinic
tradition, he was steadfast in his condemnation of it no matter the source.
An example of this was R. Benet’s outright denunciation of
the well-known Halachic work, Besamim Rosh, which originated from
Berlin. R. Benet believed this work to be forgery.
As the title suggests, it purports to be the 14th-century
work of Rabbeinu Asher, known also as the Rosh. The book,
regarded as a ‘Trojan horse in the camp of Halacha,’ is thought to have
been forged by R. Saul Berlin, whose father, R. Hirsch Tzvi Levin was the rabbi
of Berlin.
Interspersed amongst the various writings
in Besamin Rosh are ideas such as that Rambam did not base his Thirteen
Principles on Torah or Talmud but from non-Jewish sources as well as on his own
perceptions, and that faith is a matter of individual conviction. The Rosh (b.
1250), allegedly, would have known this having lived soon after Rambam passed
away in 1204.
Besamin Rosh also speaks
of a time when certain laws of the Torah will be abolished for the ‘well being’
of the people. There are also references to shaving one’s beard, drinking
non-Jewish wine, and most controversially to a case of riding a horse on
Shabbat. –These and other such statements are regarded as subversive and
deliberately planted in the guise of a Halachic work, to spread
Enlightenment propaganda.
[For more details, see The
‘Forged Book’ Which Became the Bastion of Halacha.]
In a letter by R. Benet
to R. Levin of Berlin, he disputes the attribution of Besamim Rosh to
the Rosh. He compared sections of authentic Responsa (Teshuvot,
or written answers to Halachic questions) of the Rosh to the writings in
Besamim Rosh and exposed various inconsistencies.
Visi explains:
“However, the main point of
criticism was not the authenticity of the work but the blatant heresy
propagated in some of the pseudoepigraphical [falsely attributed][8]
responsa.
... the Besamim Rosh
was a dangerous attack on traditional rabbinic Judaism in Mordecai Benet’s
opinion. It demanded a response as opposed to other pieces of maskilic or
reformer literature, which Benet preferred to ignore.
It could create a new
publicity and prestige for maskilic ideas that they did not enjoy before. By
attacking it Benet obviously wanted to prevent the spread and the recognition
of the book: the possibility that Moravian yeshiva-students take the Besamim
Rosh as an authentic piece of rabbinic literature must have been a nightmare
for him.”
A TIGHTROPE:
What emerges is a very interesting dynamic displayed by R.
Mordechai Benet. He seems to have been neither a proponent nor opponent to the
Enlightenment Movement. This was unusual in an age which had clearly defined
boundaries in this area.
However, the open-minded, independent and tolerant R. Benet - who
normally turned a blind eye to, and in some cases even endorsed Enlightenment
literature - was transformed into a warrior when he felt that rabbinic
literature itself was under threat.
This theological tightrope on which R. Benet walked as well
as his commensurate delicate ideological balance seems to have been quite
considered, intentional, strategic and in his mind, appropriate.
-But this unusual balance between staunch defender of faith
and open tolerance of Enlightenment views, was too much for some. The following
tactic was adopted by an anonymous Kabbalist, perhaps representing a larger
interest group:
THE ‘LETTER FROM G-D’:
In 1820, a letter - ‘from G-d’ - was found in the
East-Moravian town of Lipnik addressed to the chief rabbi, or landesrabbiner
of Moravia. The anonymous author claims he attended a sitting of the Heavenly Yeshiva
and he was commissioned to bring a message to the rabbi.[9]
The letter praises the erudition of R. Benet and informs him
that his teachings are studied in the Heavenly Yeshiva. The Rif (Alfasi,
1013-1103), Rabbeinu Asher (1250-1328) and Rambam (1135-1204) send their
regards.
This praise notwithstanding, R. Benet is reproached for not
noticing and not objecting to a new evil which was spreading everywhere. The
letter, referring to the proliferation of what it calls heretical views from
the Enlightenment, states:
“Don’t you know, have you not heard how the
schism arose in Israel and faith perished and heresy is growing stronger and
stronger day by day! No settlement remains unpolluted from people belonging to
their sect, some of them [professing their heresy] openly and many more
secretly.”
The letter goes on to make use of Kabbalistic
terminology describing how G-d’s Presence, or Shechina is being harmed
by such Enlightenment activity and R. Benet is reminded about how others in the
past - especially Mordechai the Jew[10]
- had being willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent the suffering of the Shechina
and to stop these satanic influences.
Then the letter becomes more personal and threatening:
“And you, my son, my beloved
one, behold I have appointed you as the leader [nagid] of my people and all the
great ones of the generation obey your words and all the chiefs and leaders of
the people respect you. You have the power to do as you wish.
Despite all these you sit in
silence as if you were deaf and unable to give instructions to fight the wars
of the Lord and to punish these wicked ones, who destroy the world, with strong
hand.
And it is you whom the other
sages of the generation imitate when they sit and keep silence.
Meanwhile the
faith and religion of Israel is being demolished because of you.
And for this reason many
accusers arose against you, some of them from the right side and some of them
from the left side,[11]
and required a punishment for you in the presence of God, and your punishment
was almost decreed had not the members of the heavenly yeshiva, especially
Jacob… and Joseph… spoken for your benefit and apologized on your behalf,
saying, if you knew the intensity of the Shekhina’s suffering in the exile, so
to say [kivyakhol], and the demolition of the upper worlds you would certainly
be ready to sacrifice your life just as the saints of old days did.”
R. Benet is then told that he is a reincarnation, or gilgul,
of Mordechai who did not fear any man, and he is called upon to convene a great
gathering of rabbis in order to condemn the new heresy from the Enlightenment.
ANALYSIS:
I am not aware of R. Benet’s reaction to this letter just
nine years before his passing, but it shows how far some people were prepared
to go to draw him deep into the fight against the Enlightenment.
By the same token, some members of the Enlightenment also went
out of their way to produce forged and subversive works in the guise of technical
rabbinic literature in order to further their agenda.
The problem, of course, was that huge numbers of innocent and
unsuspecting people caught up in the middle would be swayed by charismatic leaders
on both sides, to believe that either G-d was writing letters, or that the 13th-century
Rosh had 19th-century Enlightenment leanings.
[1]
Historic regions are geographic areas which at some point in the past had an
ethnic or political basis regardless of present-day borders.
[2] Tamás
Visi, A Moravian Defence of Orthodoxy: Mordecai Benet and the Rabbinic
Literary System.
[3]
Parentheses mine.
[4]
See Elle Divrei haBrit.
[5] A
play on the words ‘chadash asur min haTorah’ (referring originally to
the eating of ‘new grain’ before the Omer offering is given). However,
according to the findings of Meir Hildesheimer, it is no longer certain that
the Chatam Sofer even banned the study of Mendelssohn’s writings.
(Hildesheimer, “The Attitude of the Hatam Sofer…” (see note 10), pp. 149-154
and p. 177).
[6]
Hildesheimer, “Moses Mendelssohn…” (see note 10), pp. 95-96.
[7]
Parenthesis mine.
[8]
Parenthesis mine. (Also spelt: pseudepigraphical.)
[9]
The letter is printed in Maasiyot m-tsadiqei yesodei olam (Podgorze, 1903),
6a-7b.
[10]
From the Book of Ester.
[11] These
would refer to what the anonymous writer believes to be spiritual entities.
Those from the ‘left’ are evil, while those from the ‘right’ are good.
No comments:
Post a Comment