Regarding two important issues, R. Hirsch differs from much of Modern Orthodox thought. He was not a Zionist and taught that the Jews should not actively try to end their exile (letter 16 in The Nineteen Letters). He emphasized the Torah as far more fundamental than the land. The bond of Israel's unity was at no time land and soil but only the common task of keeping the Torah” (letter 16). In fact, the ark of the covenant's poles were never removed in order to indicate that the Torah can always successfully transfer to another location (see commentary on Shemot 25:15). In all fairness, it must be noted that the shulchan and menora, representing the fullness of material and spiritual flowering according to R. Hirsch, have their poles removed since those goals are rooted in the land of Israel. R. Hirsch certainly did not deny the significance of our Holy Land, but it was not a major theme in his thought and he did not endorse the Zionist project.
Had he lived a few decades later, would he have fled to Israel or New York?
ReplyDeleteRav Hirsch ztl was niftar in 1888, before the modern secular Zionism was conceived, and also before RZ of either Mizrachi or Rav Kook.
DeleteHis opposition to Reform in Germany was absolute, because German reform was very extreme - and you simply cannot bridge the gap between orthodoxy and ultra reform (some German reform moved their "sabbath" to Sunday to fit in with their Christian neighbours- i think Hirsch wrote this in one of his books).
That is not really a negation of Torah + Madda or D.E. Rav Soloveitchik said it's assur to go to a conservative Temple to hear shofar on Rosh hashana. MO is more of an American thing, different culture and times to 19th C enlightenment Germany.
RSRH was known as a modern Orthodox Rav, not a Modern Orthodox Rav.
ReplyDeleteCompletely different concepts.
He was also a separatist, as opposed to a unifer (within the bounds of Orthodoxy.)
His followers were active in Agudah of America, leading to their continuous influence in American charedi orthodoxy. As opposed to the Orthodox gemeinde which was active before, during, and after his tenure in Frankfurt till WWII. Of course, they managed to rewrite history as if the Orthodox gemeinde did not exist from RSRH's time.
His followers in Aguda are not him. YU styled MO claims to be fully orthodox, but integrated in the modern academic world. They are not the same. On the other hand, Hirsch's community all obtained university degrees, PhDs, indulged in german culture, and went to classical concerts. One hareidi rabbi I know was once berating them for having kosher imitation pork, saying how bad this is. I'm assuming he was unaware of the story in Chullin, where Yalta asks her husband for a kosher version of treife food.
DeleteTo KA:
DeleteI'm not say the Yekke community today (and Agudah) follow him, just that they say they do, and go so far as to rewrite history to support their revisions.
"YU styled MO" has nothing to do with either (original or revisionist) version of RSRH, and TIDE and TuM have nothing to do with each other.
In YU-MO, there are people who are at the hareidi spectrum, and those who are very Modern or who have jumped sip into the OO.
DeleteThe current Rosh Yeshiva looks very much at the Hareidi end of the spectrum, although he is not the same as regular hareidi.
Show me Hareidim who today will go bareheaded when they study at university!
Delete"The “offending” responsum answers a question regarding swearing in court while bareheaded, as was standard secular protocol at the time. In his response, R. Hoffmann recalls the teaching job he held as a young rabbi in Frankfurt. Students learned secular studies bareheaded in the school founded and headed by R. Samson Raphael Hirsch. When R. Hoffmann went to visit R. Hirsch for the first time and failed to remove his headcovering, R. Hirsch berated him because other staff members may interpret it as a sign of disrespect. R. Hoffmann compared this with the strict views of Hungarian rabbis, who particularly forbade students in school to study bareheaded. R. Hoffmann concluded that litigants should request permission from the judge to swear while wearing a hat but if the judge refuses, they may swear bareheaded."
https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/01/bareheaded-and-uncensored/