Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn 1856-1935. |
INTRODUCION:
R. Chaim Hirschensohn (1856-1935) is another of those
forgotten rabbis whose voices have been quietened and whose ideas have been, unintentionally
or otherwise, overshadowed by history. This article seeks to explore some of R.
Hirschensohn’s thinking and is based extensively on the research by Dr David
Zohar[1]
who is republishing an updated version of R. Hirschensohn's writings.
HALACHIST, RAIONALIST AND NATIONALIST:
Essentially, R. Hirschensohn, an early ideologue of
religious Zionism, believed that secularism and modernity were not incompatible
with Torah values.
R. Hirschensohn was born in Tzfat and lived and worked in
Jerusalem before moving to America where he became the Head of the Education
Committee of the Union of Rabbis. He established the first Hebrew Kindergarten
in the United States and became a founding member the Mizrachi movement. He
also worked with Eliezer Ben Yehuda in introducing the Hebrew language as the spoken
language of the Jewish people. He helped found the Safah Berurah (Plain
Language) society in Jerusalem.
In 1878, R. Hirschensohn left the Holy land and spent two
years travelling to centres of Torah study in Russia and meeting the great
rabbinic scholars from whom he received his rabbinical ordination.
But it wasn’t only Halacha and Talmud that
inspired this young man. He was drawn towards rationalism, science and
nationalism, not as a means of escaping from Judaism, but of enhancing it.
In 1884, he again left Palestine, this time for Hungary and
Germany, where he published a monthly Torah-scientific journal, entitled Hamisdarona.
Primarily, R. Hirschensohn was a posek or Halachist
who dealt with the burning question of that era: Can the Jewish people Halachically
have a homeland? He did not write for the people but mainly addressed himself
to the rabbis. This differentiates him from Rav Kook who, although from the
same camp, wrote his prolific poetic philosophy for the people.
Zohar writes:
“For the first time, a
systematic attempt was made to answer the question whether it is possible to
establish a modern and democratic Jewish state on the very foundations of the
Halakha; whether a state that empowers the people with legislative authority,
embraces modern values and develops modern social, cultural, and economic order
is compatible with the Halakha.”
For us in the post-Israel era, it is difficult to even imagine
such a question, but it was a controversial question in Halachic circles
during the first part of the twentieth century. For R. Hirschensohn the answer
- based on his strongly held worldview that Judaism is compatible with
modernity - was a resounding yes. Zohar emphasises that:
“[T]he Torah is not opposed to
most of the values that modernity offers to the believer. On the contrary, it
is possible to re-establish full Jewish life by responding and opening up to
the surrounding modern world.”
Because of these views, R. Hirschensohn - like Rav Kook - was
condemned and placed under a ban by the ultra-Orthodox factions and he left
Jerusalem for the United States in 1903. As a result of the ban, R. Ezriel
Hildeshimer became his most ardent supporter.[2]
R. Hirschensohn became the Chief Rabbi of Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1904. It was in
America that he wrote most of his works which numbered about 40 books in total.
His central theme focused on the questions of modernity vis-à-vis Halachic
Judaism and he was not afraid to point out that, in his view, rabbis were
generally only dealing with the challenges of modernity by ignoring them.
MALKI BAKODESH:
In 1918, R. Hirschensohn took part in the 21st Zionist
Conference in Pittsburgh where the resolution to establish a democratic
government in Israel was adopted. This was a novel idea as Jews were used to
the historic notion of a Kingdom not a State. R. Hirschensohn volunteered to
research "A discussion of questions regarding the conduct of a Jewish
government in Palestine from the standpoint of the Halakha". The
questions raised at this conference inspired him to write his six volumes of
Responsa, Malki baKodesh.
In the introduction to his Malki baKodesh he writes:
“There is nothing in biblical
law and Halakha which contradicts in any way progress or common sense. The
objective of my research is to show that Halakha does not pose any obstacle to
the development of private life or the life of an entire nation.”
IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A JEWISH STATE?
On the matter of whether Israel should adopt the political
model of a monarchy or a democracy, R. Hirschensohn writes:
"In these days of
democracy when kings are toppling from their thrones and monarchy rightly seems
to be doomed, when war is being waged against autocratic powers to make the
world safe for democracy, how is it possible for us to consider the setting up
of a hereditary king to reign over us in Palestine as Jewish tradition
demands?"
He argues that biblically there was a correlation between
establishing a Jewish King and the war to eradicate Amalek which led to the
building of the Temple:
“The King was needed to
accomplish the destruction of Amalek. After completing this task, his next duty
was to build the Temple for sacrifices. Moreover, the King had to be appointed
only through a Prophet.”[3]
R. Hirschensohn concludes that since there is no longer
Amalek, nor prophets, nor a commandment to appoint a king, it would be
permissible and appropriate to appoint a democratic government elected by the people
(who would include men and women equally). In fact, not only is it permitted
but, in his view, the desired form of government according to the Torah is a
democracy. This was because the Torah references the notion of following the
majority.
We may take many of these ideas for granted today, but these
were the types of debates and Halachic responses taking place exactly a
century ago. R. Hirschensohn soon realised after his arrival in America, that
secularism was a fact of life and was here to stay - it could not be dealt with
by the common thinking that it was merely a temporary state.
THE INCLUSION OF SECULAR JEWS:
The next question was just whom could participate in this
this new Jewish democracy. In those times, it was not all that clear that a
Jewish government could simply comprise any democratically elected
representatives.
Zohar explains:
“[R. Hirschensohn][4]
proposed a more tolerant approach towards secular Jews and sought Halakhic
solutions which would justify the modern state of affairs where Jews who were
not Torah observant would still be part of the Jewish nation. The solution he
proposed was that Jewish identity would be based on Jewish nationalism rather
than religion. There is no doubt that religion in a major component of the
Jewish identity, but not the only one. As long as a Jew retains a bond to his
people, he will continue to be thought of as a Jew for all intents and
purposes, even though he is not Torah observant. As a result, Rabbi Hayyim
Hirschensohn established a common basis for both religious and secular Jews.”
R. Yom Tov Schwarz was another posek who also wrote
about the inclusion of secular Jews and the ‘normalisation’ of religious
Judaism.
THE INCLUSION OF WOMEN:
In an unusually powerful piece of responsa literature, R
Hirschensohn sounding rather like a historical-critical and morality-critical
Maimonidean, writes:
“All the power of men over
women in historic times was due to the economic situation and the
underdeveloped moral state, where it was thought that it was possible to be
religious without morality... Religion together with morality is our sacred
Torah.....and we should infer Halakha from these historic situations.....just
like we need not live in tents simply because our forefathers did...”[5]
And Zohar clarifies:
“Does [a woman’s] inferior
social status reflect an ontological stand which sees the woman as an inferior
to man, or is it merely a result of historical, cultural and social norms? …
[While
the][6]
Ultra-Orthodox see the inferior status as stemming from her ontological state,
Rabbi Hirschensohn viewed the inferior status as an outcome of the cultural and
social-economic realities prevalent in the world until the modern era …
There is no difference -
ontological or social - between men and women and the differences are in the
area of religious ritual only.”
EXPANDING THE HORIZONS OF HALACHA TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL:
R. Hirschensohn soon realised that an irrevocable change had
taken place within the world in general and the Jewish people in
particular. Halachic focus, until
then, generally centred on issues of Kashrut, and specific cases
relating to personalities in unusual circumstances. Zohar explains:
“In his books, R. Hirschensohn
attempts to give a Halakhic response to the new historic situation which was
created as the result of the Balfour Declaration. He states that it is
imperative that we deal with national issues and not with problems of
individual Jews as had been prevalent until now. It is now important to deal
with the issues of national leadership of the nation which will soon earn its
independence.”
This called for a wider scope within Halachic
literature if it was to remain relevant in the new reality of Jewish state in a
modern world:
“R. Hirschensohn wished to
prepare the Halakhic tools in order to create a constitutional base for a
modern democratic Jewish state. These new problems include economic, societal,
cultural, scientific and philosophical questions.”
A CULTURE OF CONSIDERATION:
R. Hirschensohn takes the position that it is an absolute
given that, in the broadest sense, Halacha would not contradict the
achievements of civilisation. He believed that just like a posek or Halachic
decisor, who deals with a case of mamzerut (‘illegitimacy’) and agunah
(where a woman in ‘chained’ to a religious marriage in a case where her husband
disappears) tries his utmost to reach a kind and practical solution – so should
the posek adopt this model with virtually every issue he examines and
not look to uphold multiple stringencies.[7]
TALMUD TORAH:
R. Hirschensohn maintained that it is not at all ‘heretical’ to point out that the text of the Pentateuch undergoes scribal emendations as even Rashi has shown that it does. On the contrary, he says, when dealing with such seemingly critical issues it is even considered part of the mitzvah of Torah study. [10]
[Seee Kotzk Blog: 323) TIKUNEI SOFERIM – CORRECTIONS OF THE SCRIBES:]
THE ‘ANONYMOUS’ LETTER:
Marc Shapiro informs us in 1910, when one of the first
American rabbinic periodicals entitled Ha-Mitzpeh was published, its
first issue contained an anonymous open letter from a member of the Agudat
haRabbanim of the United States and Canada. It called for the accommodation of
some of the issues effecting the new American Jews who were on the verge of
assimilation and read:
"Are we at present able
to find a heter [dispensation][8] for
some rabbinic prohibitions, based on the principle that a decree that has not
spread among most of the community can be voided by a lesser Beit Din [than the
one that instituted it]?" The basis for this suggestion is Maimonides'
ruling (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:6-7) …” [9]
The anonymous letter called for these Jews to somehow be
accommodated by the Halachic structures instead of being abandoned.
Shapiro writes:
“This is, to be sure, an
extreme position, in that it places the continuing, binding nature of rabbinic
authority in the hands of the people. Yet it is not as radical, or unique, as
many will think. To begin with, no less a figure than R. Joseph Karo claims
that this approach is a plausible explanation of Maimonides’ statement.
Furthermore, it is basic to halakhic history that the response of the community
plays a role in the authority of halakhah. That is, when enough people flout a
halakhah, and the sages are unable to improve matters, it is usually not long
before rabbis begin to develop justifications for the people's behavior (limmud
zekhut).”
This open letter received some pushback from people like R.
Jacob Widerwitz who blasted the anonymous writer by saying “it is a great
hutzpah for contemporary rabbis to find mechanisms [to assist the less
religious].”
In the fourth issue of that journal, R. Chaim Hirschensohn
revealed that he was the author of the open letter. He was annoyed because his
letter had not been published in full and he had not intended it to be an
anonymous letter as he had put his name to it.
ANALYSIS:
R. Hirschensohn strove to present Judaism in a rationalist
fashion so that people would not just have to believe in it, or follow it
blindly, but would instead want to participate and freely choose orthodox
Halachic Judaism as viable modern option.
He was not the type of rabbi who was looking for leniencies
because Judaism was too much of a burden, instead, he tried to include as many
people as possible within the spectrum of normative orthodox Halacha.
Interestingly, Marc Sapiro describes there being two camps
of rabbis who view R. Hirschensohn either as someone they are glad the world
has forgotten - or they see his ideas “patiently mapped out in his many
works of halakhah and thought, as providing the tools for a new, confident
Modern Orthodoxy.”
R. Hirschensohn’s unusually open and extremely pragmatic
approach to Halacha is one which the religious Jew could either admire
or feel free to reject. Either way, he does present orthodox options to matters
where there often seems to be no choice.
FURTHER READING:
On Rav Kook:
Kotzk
Blog: 114) RADICAL RAV KOOK - REMBRANDT, ATHEISTS AND THE 'FRIGHTFUL ANGUISH OF
HALACHA':
Kotzk
Blog: 115) THE CENSORED WRITINGS OF RAV KOOK:
On R. Yom Tov Schwatz:
Kotzk
Blog: 055) The Holocaust Didn't Just Kill Jews...
Kotzk
Blog: 056) The Nonexistent Memorial...
[1] David Zohar, Rabbi Hayyim Hirschensohn - The Forgotten Sage Who Was Rediscovered.
[2]
Rabbiner Esriel Hildeshimer Briefe, ed. Mordechai Eliav, Jerusalem 1965.
[3] Malki
Bakodesh, Part I, p. 16 – Foreword.
[4]
Parenthesis mine.
[5] Malki
baKodesh Part II, p. 192.
[6]
Parentheses mine.
[7] Zohar,
David (2003). Jewish Commitment in a Modern World: Rabbi Hayyim
Hirschenson and His Attitude to Modernity (Hebrew). Jerusalem.
[8]
Parenthesis mine.
[9] Jewish
Commitment in a Modern World: Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson and His Attitude to
Modernity (Hebrew) by David Zohar (Jerusalem, 2003) Reviewed by Marc Shapiro. The
Edah Journal 5:1, 2005 Tammuz 5765.
[10] R. Chaim Hirschensohn, Malki baKodesh, ii. 219.
Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn seemed to be opposed to sacrifices. Rabbi Hirschensohn’s interpretation of the Cain and Abel story is interesting. What is your view of Rabbi Hirschensohn's view about sacrifices and do you think your write a post about his view of sacrifices? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThank you Turk Hill. More needs to be written about R Hirschensohn. I did notice, interestingly, that he differed from Rav Kook on the concept of Mashiach: Rav Kook believed "redemption...would...break the historical process" while R. Hirschensohn maintained that Mashiach would be "a continuous stage within its progression" (probably more in keeping with the natural Messiah of Rambam.
ReplyDeleteThank you. That is interesting. I did not know that Rabbi Hirschensohn shared the same natural view of the messiah as Rambam. It is also interesting, as you wrote, that Rav Kook wrote a letter to Rabbi Hirschensohn about sacrifices and the messianic age since it seems he retracted on this last one. Rabbi Marc Shapiro shows Rav Kook's censored comments that seemed opposed to sacrifices and wrote that we will bring plant food instead of animals. See Dr. Shapiro’s article called “R. Kook on sacrifices and other assorted comments” where he reveals that Rabbi Kook used “essential truths” when he spoke about sacrifices continuing in the future during the messianic age.
DeleteShalom Shabbat.
Yes. I believe Rabbi Marc Shapiro is one of the most important voices in contemporary Judaism.
ReplyDelete