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.