Ibn Ezra (Shemos 03:22) And of her that sojourns in her house. For the Jews owned land. Some complain and say that our ancestors were thieves. Can’t these murmurers see that this was a command from on high? There is no sense in asking why? G-d created everything. He gives riches to whom He desires to give it, and when He wishes to, He takes the very same riches away. There is no evil in this, as everything is His.
Well it's a variation on Rashi Bereishis 1:1 but I think Rav Hirsch's take on it in Va'eschanan is interesting - Jews are the people of Torah, Eretz Israel is the land of Torah but Israel is not the land of Jews.
ReplyDeleteWas Hirsch of the deluded view that Frankfurt am main is Jerusalem?
DeleteFrom what I've read, no but that it would be a fine temporary Jerusalem until God gave us the real one back directly.
DeleteI don't think Hirsch felt that way. He recognized that he was in exile and that the ideal was a return to Zion. He just rejected the idea that a secular movement would be the vehicle for that.
DeleteAre you a hirschian as opposed to modern O? They seem to have disappeared from the map. Or just blended with regular litvish hareidi.
DeleteA biblical argument I would bring today for Zionism is to simply look at the story of Samson who was a military man. Secular he frequented prostitutes he intermarried a couple of times and when he got fed up with the persecution of his people, he decided there were no more oaths. The only difference is that the author of The book of judges is able to say that this was from God whereas today nobody has the authority to say or deny that.
DeleteNot a Hirschian although I have great respect for his work.
DeleteHirschians have one shul in Washington Heights, NY and I'm told the average age of the congregation is in the 1960's. The old Chareidi warning - TIDE produces strong baal habatim but no gedolim means they have never produced enough major authorities to keep the movement alive and growing. In addition, Hirsch always identified as Chareidi and today the Chareidi leadership says "Dump TIDE or we'll dump you" so they've moved back into the Chareidi fold and away from TIDE. A shame really,
When a great man starts a movement, it is hard to keep reproducing leaders like him. Also Hildsheimer , who was a bit more modern than Hirsch. The other thing is that TIDE has kind of diffused its way into all strands of orthodoxy - even the Litvish have their professional stream. All the Twerskys seem to be professors. and MO is a branch of TIDE but gone fully Modern. I was just curious because you are often critical of YU and MO (not necessarily a bad thing)
DeleteWhat is a Hirshcian?
DeleteA follower of Rav SR Hirsch ztl, in Torah im derech Eretz
DeleteThe Land of Israel, not the country currently there!
ReplyDeletehttps://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/m_breuer_tide.pdf
DeleteIt is very unclear what a Hirshian is - see the essay I just posted
DeleteThis reminds me of the debate about what Modern Orthodoxy is, something that the leaders of YU world kept publishing articles about in Tradition and other journals. (Rackman, Lamm, Wurzburger, Kaplan, Lichtenstein etc)
DeleteHirschian simply means a follower of Rav Hirsch, whether there are varying interpretations or not.
There are still some adherents to to Hirsch, i suppose they are mainly the descendants of the Frankfurt community. There were other great Hachamim in Germany, Rav Hildsheimer, Rav david Zvi Hoffman, Rav Yechiel Weinberg ztl and his talmid Rav Eliezer Berkovits ztl.
There is a specttrum also from TIDE to MO (or Torah umadda), and the TIDE look down on MO. Perhaps because TIDE has failed to produce many post war scholars, whilst MO still exists and has notable scholars.
TIDE considers itself a Chareidi philosophy so naturally it will look down on MO.
DeleteThe problem with MO is the name. Modern is a loaded term - what was modern in terms of ethical values and standards 50 years ago is completely out of date now. 50 years ago civil society considered homosexuality, especially in public, completely unacceptable. Today it's all the rage and there's something wrong with you if you haven't tried it. So does the style of Orthodoxy change? Do the values changes?
Years ago on my blog I suggested changing the name to Navonim. Instead of just trembling before God, Navonim seek to develop a deep understanding of Torah and halakha through its interactions with the outside world. Naturally as no one really notices my existence, it never took off.
It is a survival /evolutionary tactic. They only claim to be hareidi because they want to avoid being bullied by the especially Litvish hareidim. (Hareidim too scared to attack Rav Hirsch, so they have ignored him. They kept Rav Hildsheimer at a distance, and R David Zvi Hoffman they totally reject.
DeleteMO - they have their own internal self hatred - I don't know if it is something they picked up from their Hareidi friends, or they are just conflicted. I think you are describing Open O rather than mainstream MO. BTW, every type of menuval you can imagine is already in the Hareidi world. I heard once a story about a struggling feigele who went to Rav Moshe Feinstein for help. The response was that he should learn Torah more, and that will help. All this approach does is to graduate more menuval rabbonim. This idea that Torah study can change a person from a menuval into a tzaddik is nonsense. All it does is produce a menuval wolf in sheep's clothing.
If hareidim had actually accepted what the Netziv said about sinas chinnam destroying the temple, rather than taking the Brisk/ Wasserman extremist path, perhaps the Shoah would not have happened...
DeleteReminds me of a comment I saw on FB, a Yeshivish guy wanted to go watch a movie so his rabbi told to him to at least wear a kippah serugah to minimize the chilul HaShem. My response was: does that mean if I want to fondle little boys I should put on a black hat and bekishe so I fit in?
DeleteThe problem with MO, even YU MO, is that it lacks a definition. The best it can do is "Not right wing Conservative, not Modern Chareidim(tm)." That's why you have OO on one side which isn't right wing Conservative because they still have a token mechitza, and Rav Shechter and the YU crowd on the other side who are very serious about high level Torah.
According to your understanding that these ideas are actually a spectrum - why is yu so strongly opposed to Hirsch?
DeleteWell, the same could be said about hareidim.
DeleteSo if science is bad and they forbid studying it, why do they go to doctors when they need them? Why they all go to opticians for their glasses? Why are they frum opticians?
Do charidim accept the gedolim of not?
Why do They pick and choose? Rav Emden, Noda bYehuda and possibly the chatam sofer denied the Zohar authenticity. So. What happened to their daas Torah?
Is yigdal just a nice nigun to sing in shul, or does it mean anything? Do chareidim insist on keeping the 13 ikkarim or denying them?
You cannot have the ikkarim and also people like aryeh Kaplan. It's one or the other.
How about annulments of conversion when one chief rabbi does itIt's מגלה. פנים שלו כהלכה
But when some middle ranking Diane wants to do it, it's suddenly glut kosher
So nothing clear about hareidi or what it means
I don't think yu is strongly opposed to Hirsch himself.
DeleteNorman Lamm wrote a book Torah umadda, setting out his synopsis. He discusses several models, including Hirsch, Rambam, the Gra (according to Baruch of shklov), then comes up with his own version.
Sol Roth once gave a talk saying that I'm derech Eretz implies that derech Eretz is equal partner to Torah, whereas umadda suggests madda is just an accessory to Torah.
I don't think hilzheimer David zvi Hoffman were opposed to Hirsch. There just happen to be more on the modern end of the spectrum , as was yy Weinberg, and that's who solavechik studied with in Berlin.