1 Bedzow Touro College South Hirsch 1/11/09 On the Philosophy of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch The question of how

Ashkenazic Orthodox Jews should relate to modernity is an important issue. Three dominant approaches loom large: the Lithuanian approach,1 the Hasidic approach,2 and the Modern Orthodox approach.3 But wait! cries the Orthodox Jewish Philosopher. What about Torah im Derech Erets as espoused by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch? In order to answer this question, we must first answer three other important questions. The first question that needs to be answered is, what exactly is Torah im Derech Erets? The second question that needs to be answered is how exactly does Torah im Derech Erets differ from other approaches? Thirdly, is it possible to institute Torah im Derech Erets in the 21st century? This paper will attempt to answer these questions. What is It? The name Torah im Derech Erets is derived from a prominent passage in Pirkei Avos 2.2: Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, says: Torah study is good together with Derech Erets [Yafeh Talmud Torah im Derech Erets]. On this passage, Rabbi Hirsch expounds as follows: the term derech eretz is used primarily to refer to ways of earning a living, to the social order that prevails on earth, as well as to the mores and considerations of courtesy and propriety arising from social living and also to things pertinent to good breeding and general education.4

2 In other words, in Rabbi Hirschs conception, Torah learning must be joined with decency, general education, and earning a living. As I am unaware of any rabbinic figure who disagrees with the concept that a Jew should display decency, I will examine the two other aspects of this definition of derech erets. A highly ideological tone suffuses Rabbi Hirschs descriptions elsewhere of a Jews duty to earn a living and possess a general education. In regards to making a living, Rabbi Hirsch writes: The preparation for breadwinning should be included in the program of schooling for life, just as breadwinning itself will, later on, be a part pupils be is a life given of life as a means to a full life, not as an end in itself. Let the taught to judge the value of a lifeaccording to whether it inner content by dedication to the service of God.5

In Rabbi Hirschs conception, one must learn to work and do work in order to live a full life. Working should be seen as part of ones living a full life in other words, serving G-d. Secular studies are also extremely important in Rabbi Hirschs conception of how a Jew should live his life.6 These three concepts decency, working for a living, and secular studies comprise Torah im Derech Erets. What Makes This Weltanschauung Different From All Others? The next question which needs to be answered is what makes Torah im Derech Erets different from other Orthodox Jewish philosophies. It must be noted that even in the more enclavish circles that are associated with Agudath Israel of America, Rabbi Hirsch is considered a respectable rabbinic figure.7 Considering the more negative attitude towards work and secular studies that this world has propounded, those who belong to it

3 are forced to somehow justify their acceptance of Rabbi Hirsch. One of the ways they attempt to do so is by noting that one of their more charismatic rabbinical figures, Rabbi Boruch Ber Leibowitz (1870 1940), said that Rabbi Hirsch had only instituted his philosophical system as a temporary measure in order to deal with pressures in his time, but future generations cannot follow it but instead must learn only Torah as was done in the past.8 Is it plausible that Rabbi Hirschs Torah im Derech Erets was really nothing more than a practical-utilitarian method with no ideology behind it except to keep Orthodox Jews who wanted a secular education as close to the truer Orthodoxy of Rabbi Leibowitz as possible? Is it possible that today Rabbi Hirsch would adopt a much more hardcore stance reflecting his true identification with Rabbi Leibowitz and others? Truthfully, this cannot amount to much more than wishful thinking on the part of Rabbi Leibowitz; it has been thoroughly debunked.9 Rabbi Joseph Elias has made an effort to downplay the passages where Rabbi Hirsch most eloquently expounded on his philosophy regarding secular studies and, while believing that Rabbi Hirschs philosophy may indeed be implemented today, Rabbi Elias imagines this philosophy to be more pragmatic than idealistic. This understanding is also implausible, as I have documented elsewhere.10 Having established that Rabbi Hirschs philosophy is not what Rabbi Leibowitz and Rabbi Elias claimed it to be, the question becomes how much Hirschs philosophy has in common with Modern Orthodoxy. The truth is that the two philosophies bear much in common both realize the value of secular studies and both realize the value of working. However, there are some substantial differences. For example, Rabbi Hirsch himself was very against academic scholarship,11 while there are many Modern Orthodox

4 proponents of such scholarship.12 But as Rabbi Norman Lamm, a prominent Modern Orthodox figurehead, writes: it is appropriate to comment on the change in nomenclature from Torah im Derekh Eretz to Torah Umadda [the concept of how Modern Orthodoxy relates to modernity]Torah im Derekh Eretz for...Hirsch from the his own Gemeinde from included non-Orthodox antinationalist and his anti-Zionism has with his school of thought. Torah im Derekh associations that go beyond the cultural-intellectual se, and with which we do not wish to burden the concept of Umadda (which term should be kept neutral from the separate question of communal segregation or integration and the question of Zionism or anti-Zionism for the purpose of understanding its specifically cultural dimensions). Insofar as Torah im Derekh Eretz as a theory is concerned, Torah Umadda shares with it to a greater extent than it diverges from it. 13 While Hirschs philosophy definitely differs from Modern Orthodoxys, the difference is not so much how the two relate to secular studies, but rather other issues such as communal segregation and Zionism. Can It Be Instituted? was closely associated with his Austritt (self-exclusion established community) policy, the segregation of the general Jewish community because the latter elements. Moreover, Hirsch was remained largely identified Eretz thus has question per Torah

5 The final question is whether or not Torah im Derech Erets can be instituted in modern times. The truth is that it essentially already is. Yeshiva University and other Modern Orthodox institutions, in their institution of Rabbi Norman Lamms model of Modern Orthodoxy are really instituting a system of thought that differs little from Rabbi Hirschs conception (as noted above). Torah and secular studies are both studied, although primacy is placed on the Torah. Not many Modern Orthodox schools teach academic studies of the Torah, nor is it a topic that many become well-versed in. The problem with both approaches is giving people both a great education in general studies as well as a top-knotch education in Talmud. How does such a system produce Talmudic scholars who are at the level of their colleagues from other circles when the students are expected to get a good secular education? It is a great dillema; instituting a double curriculum demands more from the student. In addition, in light of Orthodoxys much lamented swing to the right (read: theological stringency), why would those youth who choose to identifiy with Orthodoxy want secular studies? Those who choose Orthodoxy do so to serve G-d; while there are certainly numerous ways of serving Him and one may choose to implement Rabbi Hirschs ideal of living if he so wishes, an Orthodox Jew believes the study of Torah is equal to all other mitzvahs combined. There is many a voice in the rabbinic Jewish tradition that has spoken out against secular studies.14 But all voices agree that Torah is primary and some believe that diluting ones mind with secular studies takes away from ones ability to intellectually perfect himself.15 So to the fundamentalist Orthodox Jew today, he sees two choices. The first choice is learning only Torah, G-ds word, an option taken by some of the saintliest and greatest of Israels sages. The second choice is to take the option promoted by Rabbi

6 Samson Raphael Hirsch, to learn both the ways of the secular and the ways of the Torah in order to perfect oneself. But this way is fraught with the dilemmas and challenges of the attempt to perfect oneself through a duel curriculum. It is also an approach that has not produced many first rank Torah scholars, in contrast with the Lithuanian approach.16 For this reason, I believe that those with the motivation to become the best and brightest of G-ds servants mostly choose more fundamentalist interpretations of Judaism than the option of the Hirschian system. The question of whether or not the Hirschian view of the secular will thrive is really the question of whether Modern Orthodoxy will thrive. As there is a dearth of sociological literature on this group, it is difficult to make this determination. However, in a time when the influence of rabbinic authority on socioeconomic decisions is more than ever before in rabbinic history,17 Modern Orthodoxy seems to lack a charismatic first-rate leadership that equals that of the Lithuanian and the Hasidic groups. It seems that it will be difficult for Torah im Derech Erets to thrive in the coming decades.

The various works of Menachem Friedman available at http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html

describe how this approach has been utilized to deal with modernity in Israel. For the cutting edge of scholarship on the ways Lithuanian Orthodox Jews in Israeli yeshivot (Talmudic institutes) react to modernity, see Nurit Stadler, Yeshiva Fundamentalism (New York: NYU79, 2008). See also n. 3.
2

See Jerome Mintz, Hasidic People: A Place in the New World (Cambridge: Harvard, 1992). This

work is slightly outdated but still useful in that it valuably describes differences between various Hasidic courts, thereby giving the reader a window into the heterogeneosity of the Hasidic world.
3

For the most famous exposition on this approach, see Norman Lamm, Torah Umadda: The Encounter

of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition (Northvale: Aronson, 1994). For a description of how all three groups have been reacting to modernity as of late, see Samuel Heilman, Sliding to the Right (Berkeley: University of California, 2006). While I believe Heilmans volume to be a valuable contribution, a great deal of the points he wishes to make are questionable and while he does differentiate between different Orthodox groups, he does not do so with enough poignancy. See Jeffrey S. Gurocks book review in Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 25.4 (2007): 205-207, esp. 207. See also Steven I. Weiss, Book Review: Samuel Heilmans Sliding to the Right Canonist. <http://www.canonist.com/?p=1327>. Heilman and Weiss engaged in a heated dialogue in the comments section of the webpage cited and I did browse through it, but it seems that an error with the website has erased said debate.
4

Samson Raphael Hirsch, Chapters of the Fathers, Trans. Gertrude Hirschler (New York: Feldheim,

1979), p. 22
5

Samson Raphael Hirsch, The World of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch: The Nineteen Letters, Ed. Joseph Elias,

Trans. Karin Paritzky (New York: Feldheim, 1995), 275

6

See the sources referred to in Baruch Pelta, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirschs View of Secular Studies

in the Thought of Rabbi Joseph Elias: Some Critical Observations Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought 7 (2009), pp. 76 - 77 .

In the inaugural issue of the Agudahs Jewish Observer, the Editorial Board expressed its intent that

the magazine should express the perspective of "Jews...some are Chassidim, others are Misnagdim, while some espouse the Hirschian principle of Torah Im Derech Eretz." Dr. Ernst L. Bodenheimer, Rabbi Nathan Bulman, Rabbi Joseph Elias, Rabbi Joseph Friedenson, and Rabbi Morris Sherer were the members of the board at the time. All of these figures, with the exception of Bodenheimer, became prominent public haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbinic figures. For more on this group and its enclavish tendencies, see Heilman, 4 5.
8

In Birkat Shmuel Kiddushin 27a See Jacob J. Schacters excellent Facing the Truths of History, Torah U-Madda Journal 8 (1998-

1999): 216 - 217

10

Baruch Pelta, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirschs View of Secular Studies in the Thought of Rabbi

Joseph Elias: Some Critical Observations, Hakirah 7 (Winter 2009): 69 - 79

11

See Marc B. Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of

Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg 1884-1966 (Littman: 2007) for a portrait of how the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin and its leaders incorporated rabbinic scholarship as well as how said schools philosophy differed from Rababi Hirschs.
12

At a recent Association for Jewish Studies Conference I attended, I saw many of these Modern

Orthodox scholars and heard papers from some of them.

13

Lamm, 124 See for example Rabbi Leibowitzs claim, cited in n. 8. See for example the claim cited in the name of Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen in Lawrence Kaplan,

14

15

Daas Torah: A Modern Conception of Rabbinic Authority, Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy (Northvale: Aronson 1991) , 8.
16

Jonathan Rosenblum, The Enduring Legacy of Rabbi Shamson Raphael Hirsch Jerusalem Post;

accessed at Cross Currents <http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/06/30/to-be-read-after-

rabbi-adlerstein/>
17

See Kaplan.