A short while ago, a series of correspondence between Drs. Michah Gottlieb and Moshe Miller was posted to the TIDE Whatsapp group. I had the chance to read through it, and it provided me with the opportunity to clarify some thoughts of mine on RSRH and TIDE in writing, including some thoughts that overlap with an earlier post of mine that got some thought-provoking engagement. I will also address something in the correspondence which I remain shocked to see written by a TIDE scholar (yes, this is clickbait).
Since the first 2 letters in the correspondence are both short & do a good job in summarizing both authorsâ points of view on the subject, I opted to just paste both here:
Dear Professor Gottlieb,
Thank you for meeting with me on Wednesday; it was a pleasure speaking with you.
We discussed Hirsch and Talmud Torah. Please see the attached, from Natan Slifkinâs newest book, esp. pp. 6-17 of the PDF. It becomes evident that the classical view among Rishonimâ really until R. Chaim of Volozhinâis, in fact, Hirschâs view! R. Chaim cites a passage of the Rosh which, according to R. Chaimâs interpretation, provides a different approachâthe one currently in vogue in Lithuanian yeshiva circles. But it does not appear to be the classic viewâHirschâs is. One need not seek Haskalah antecedents for Hirschâs position!
Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Miller
Dear Moshe,
It was a pleasure meeting you this week. I learned much from our conversation. Thanks for sending the section from Slifkinâs book, which I hadnât yet read. I agree with you (and Slifkin) that the idea of theoretical talmud study for its own sake is something that developed later. The concept of âReformationâ that frames my book is not the idea of innovating radically new ideas and practices in Judaism, but rather of returning to an authentic tradition that has been corrupted. This is what Luther did in criticizing the Catholic Church and returning to the Bible and itâs what some Maskilim, early Reform, and Neo-Orthodox thinkers like Hirsch did in stressing that contemporary traditionalist Ashkenazic society deviated from true, authentic Judaism as expressed in the Bible, Talmud, Medieval Sepharad and elements of early Ashkenaz. For these thinkers, external factors such as Christian persecution had led Ashkenazim to distort true, authentic, historical Judaism. Thatâs why I place Hirsch within the tradition of Jewish Reformation that begins with the moderate Haskalah.
Iâm happy to discuss further.
Shabbat shalom
Michah
Without wishing to oversimplify a conversation between scholars on the subject of their scholarship, the ensuing correspondence is - on its surface (more on this later) - a debate on whether Hirsch engaged in a âReformationâ of Judaism in order to implement his Derech, or if he was âfundamentally, a traditionalist.â
On its surface, I think this debate is practically (as opposed to academically) benign. With Hirsch, there is a clear synthesis of these 2 approaches.
Hirschâs writings are unequivocally clear: He viewed himself as a defender of tradition. He believed that the tradition was practiced as best as it could be during the ghetto years, and in an open society it can be adhered to without self-imposing the ghetto. In fact, the openness of contemporary society affords traditional Judaism more opportunities. He did not view the Judaism of those who self-imposed the ghetto as invalid, as opposed to Reform Judaism which he viewed as invalid and a threat to true Judaism.
At the same time, we are obliged to approach things scientifically. When a personality excels at something that is in vogue during their times, we ought to view their accomplishments in the context of their times instead of trying to shoehorn their works into a vacuum and present them as actions in total isolation. Hirsch brought about great âreformationsâ to the Judaism of those under his influence, and this ought to be viewed in context of the greater revolutionary milieu he found himself in, both historically and geographically. Hirsch could have engaged in reformations, as was the trend in his time, while believing that the reformation he was conducting was restoring Judaism to the way Chazal intended for it to be implemented in a world that allowed for it to be implemented as such.
I respectfully believe that Dr. Gottlieb takes the win on the debate regarding the Luther comparison. There is not much to elaborate on, as much of his points remain unaddressed due to the nature of the correspondence, but there is enough substance for me to gather a set of thoughts on the subject. Hirsch and Luther had nearly identical goals: to âreturn an original and pristine form of their respective faiths which they believe have been corrupted over timeâ. This is actually a quote from Dr. Miller. While Dr. Miller goes on to differentiate the two primarily via their respective approaches to the existing Jewish and Christian institutions, I donât think these are substantial since the comparisons between the two are not predicated on those things, but on their similar goals, methods, and roles.
I respectfully do not agree with Dr. Millerâs assertion that Hirsch âdid not regard [traditionalists] as a threat to the preservation of Torahâ, and that âif he did, he would have insisted [âŚ] on attacking [their] narrow-mindedness.â (Dr. Miller proceeds to invoke Hirschâs defense of the Jerusalem rabbis who opposed secular studies.) Hirsch demonstrated a strong desire to stick to his geographical âjurisdictionâ. Hirsch did not believe the Eastern European approach was the correct one, and he correctly predicted that it would ensue in mass-defection or in a Judaism propped up by replacement theology. It has always been clear to me that Hirsch viewed the traditionalist approach as a threat to Judaismâs future. Where it differed from Reform was that it A) was a valid form of Judaism as practiced, and B) was obviously not championed as an alluring inauthentic alternative to Torah Judaism engineered towards turning people away from Torah and redefining what it meant to be Jewish. He thus did not âwage warâ against it as he did against the Reform. It is also my impression that this was a practical decision: Although he publicly demonstrated that he wished to operate as his own âentityâ, with communal and âhashkaficâ autonomy, I do not believe that he was immune to the issue of support from the great Eastern European rabbis, which he would certainly not have if he were more vocal in his views on their approach. Merely aligning himself with the Torah-true camp, however, does not disqualify him as having excelled in the âreformationâ trend of his time. (The topic of the desire for Eastern European approval is not ancillary to TIDE. It is directly related to its KAJ-initiated self-destruction. This is a conversation for a different thread, though I invoke the topic here with positive thoughts about the aims of this forum and the members herein.)
I now proceed to the portion of the correspondence which caused my jaw to drop. The following is a quote from Dr. Miller:
I would argue that Hirsch epitomized Daâat Torah in the 19th century. Please see Matthias Morgensternâs book on Isaac Breuer. He cites attacks on Hirsch for overreaching in his rabbinic authorityâthat rabbis are only authorized to issue rulings about pure halachic matters whereas Hirsch decides whether we have to go to a German court and declare secession! Hirschâs insistence that everyone heed his call has always struck me as akin to the 20th century iteration of Daâat Torah, when Haredi rabbis declare that their followers must listen to their pronouncements on every topic.
To unravel and define the inescapable appearances of âDaas Torahâ in contemporary Jewish life, I refer to the understanding of Daas Torah that I honed by reading Lawrence Kaplanâs and Jacob Katzâs monumental essays on the topic. âDaas Torahâ names the doctrine that great Torah scholars possess, by virtue of their mastery of Torah, an authoritative wisdom extending past formal halakhic rulings into communal, political, and even personal life; and that the faithful owe it deference. For an even more concise definition, many simply refer to the title of Katzâs essay itself: Daâat Torah: The Unqualified Authority Claimed for Halakhists.
Austritt was not âDaas Torahâ. I say this unequivocally despite my position as a layperson. Unlike contemporary âthreats to Yiddishkeitâ like AI, internet access, television, and movie theaters (I went in reverse-chronological order there), the Reform movement in Hirschâs times was an actual, active, and demonstrable threat to Torah Judaism in every community that encountered it. This should be obvious as this was its stated goal.
Unlike many Jewish leaders today that would have us address the downsides of modern tech, including exposure to harmful content and screen-time addiction, by consulting Rabbis and having them set community-wide binding rules; followers of TIDE know better. We refer to the guidance of professionals in the fields of education and psychology, all while adhering to the standards and guidelines set by a Halachic system that accounts for all spheres of life in all circumstances the world finds itself in.
Austritt was not Daas Torah â because it was a response to an actual, active, and demonstrable threat to Torah Judaism in every community that encountered it. This was, in Hirschâs view, ipso facto in the purview of psak & not something that belonged to another specialty. Even though Halacha on its face may not have required Austritt, the enactment of it was certainly in his purview and âexpertiseâ as a community rabbi.
In a conversation concerning Daas Torah on the community WhatsApp group, Dr. Miller astutely puts TIDEâs position on the matter as follows:
TIDE sees everything in the world as within the purview of Torah. It doesnât claim that all knowledge of science etc is found in Torah. Rav Hirsch says, if you want to learn science, read a science book.
Although Dr. Millerâs positions vis-a-vis Daas Torah donât necessarily need an explanation to coexist with each other (certainly not my own), I would respectfully take the liberty of using these 2 instances as an opportunity to reinforce some of my views on TIDEâs âcore principlesâ that I wrote about in my previous post. Specifically, the idea that TIDE ought not to be married to Hirsch, and that it was intended to be, and should remain, Hashkafically autonomous. Allow me to explain.
When invoking the debate between Drs. Gottlieb and Miller, I underlined the term âon the surfaceâ. That is because, although the substance of the debate appears to me as practically benign, it reveals a bit of a tension that I have observed for some time: The desire to Hashkafically claim R. Hirsch due to oneâs support of TIDE.
My first exposure to this was over a decade ago. I spent some time in Jerusalem where I got to know a wonderful person & educator, a Frankfurt âpurebloodâ (which I am not), who simultaneously had a very thorough understanding of TIDE, viewed himself as a TIDE adherent, and also saw himself as a fully active and compliant participant in Israelâs Litvish Haredi world. I found this perplexing as I viewed myself as a TIDE âpractitionerâ, and yet I rejected many foundational tenets of that world including the aforementioned Daas Torah. While my initial reaction was to challenge the premise of his adherence to TIDE, I was quickly put in my place and had the opportunity to learn and observe how TIDE can be fully adhered to by people of very opposing points of view.
As a layperson reading the correspondence between Drs. Gottlieb and Miller, I sense this same phenomenon. I see two scholars pushing and pulling on definitions and comparisons, perhaps aiming to align Hirsch with a contemporary âcampâ. (The use of the term âHarediâ, co-opted by its current usage long after Hirsch â in association with Hirsch â went a long way towards clarifying my thoughts on this.)
I think we ought to conduct a thorough audit of what is posted to this site as TIDEâs âcore principlesâ. As I argued in my preceding post:
Hirsch would apply TIDE to Jews of all Hashkafos. He was very respectful not to tread on other Hashkafic turfs like Eastern Europe (if only this courtesy would be returned), but that does not mean that he would apply TIDE only in communities with German sensibilities. On the contrary, he viewed it as an ideal.
Subscribers of Daas Torah do not need RSRH to subscribe alongside them. Students of Kabbalah do not need RSRH to study together with them. Anti-Zionists do not need RSRH to protest with them, and Religious Zionists do not need RSRH to be apprised of the unique circumstances of the years after his passing. (I view Daas Torah as distinct from these other topics as it is, in my view, contraindicated by TIDE.) Like Halacha, TIDE has guidelines. Within those guidelines, there is room for difference and acceptance of those differences without being made uncomfortable by them to the point where Hirsch begins to get fought over as if he is a yerusha... The âcore principlesâ of TIDE ought to be defined by nothing other than TIDE itself.
This is not a formal essay. Like the informal correspondence that prompted this review, this is merely an informal list of thoughts & impressions. I made assertions I did not source, and I made interpretations that may not be aligned with the intentions of their authors. My comments on what we ought to or ought not to do with TIDE are not directed at anyone - certainly not at scholars like Drs. Gottlieb and Miller. I simply used their correspondence, and the thoughts it invoked for me, as a springboard to make some general and perhaps even disconnected thoughts on TIDE. I hope this invokes some insight for others as well.
) to see the automatic notice that âThis is the first time RavHirsch has posted.â And there I thought we already had his complete Collected WritingsâŚ.!