Toward Modernity

European Jewish Model

Jacob Katz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780887380921
• eBook ISBN: 9781351317986
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Social History
• Index: History

The contributors to this volume throw light on one of the central problems of modern Jewish historiography: How has Jewry and Judaism survived the crisis of the breakup of Jewish traditional society, the transition from the dosed, ghetto existence into a more or less open environment? The process of development, starting in eighteenth-century Germany, gradually encompassed the entire world of European Jewish experience.Toward Modernity compares modernization in Germany with its counterparts in other countries to see if the German-Jewish development had any influence on what transpired elsewhere. The authors explore the history of Jewish modernization in Russia, Galicia, Vienna, Prague, Hungary, Holland, France, England, Italy, and the United States. Topics covered include: the political and social authority of Jewish community institutions; external impediments and internal inhibitions for Jews to be absorbed by the dominant culture; the relationship of the state to the Jewish community; educational and religious reform; the influence of the rational scientific worldview; and the possibility of inclusion in the emerging middle classes.Contents: Jacob Katz, Introduction; Emanuel Etkes, Immanent Factors and External Influences in the Development of the Haskala Movement in Russia; Israel Bartal, 'The Heavenly City of Germany' and Absolutism a la Mode D'Autriche: The Rise of the Haskala in Galicia; Robert S. Wistrich, The Modernization of Viennese Jewry: The Impact of German Culture in a Multiethnic State; Hillel J. Kieval, Caution's Progress: The Modernization of Jewish Life in Prague, 1780-1830; Michael Silber, The German Jewish Experience and Its Impact on Hungarian Jewry, 1780-1870; Michael Graetz, The History of an Estrangement between Two Jewish Communities: German and French Jewry during the Nineteenth Century; Joseph Michman, The Impact of German-Jewish Modernization on Dutch Jewry; Lois C. Dubin, Trieste and Berlin: The Italian Role in the Cultural Politics of the Haskalah; Todd M. Endelman, The Englishness of Jewish Modernity in England; Michael A. Meyer, German Jewish Identity in Nineteenth Century America.

1

Immanent Factors and External Influences in the Development of the Haskalah Movement in Russia

Emanuel Etkes

The dependence of the Jewish Russian Haskalah (Enlightenment) upon that of Berlin is well known. And yet it is important to consider the possibility that internal factors, independent of the influence of Berlin, might have operated in the development of the Russian Haskalah. If so, the question arises as to the relative significance of these factors.

To deal with this question it is necessary to focus on the change that took place in the intellectual life of the Jews of Poland and Lithuania in the second half of the eighteenth century. A new orientation began to appear in the writings and cultural activity of a number of individuals, many of whom belonged to the scholarly elite. In retrospect, this orientation can be seen as an inclination toward the Haskalah. It has been variously evaluated in the literature; while some historians have interpreted it as the beginning of the Haskalah movement in Russia,¹ most have more cautiously described these people as “pioneers,” “first shoots,” or “forerunners” of the Haskalah.² This difference in evaluation may derive not from different interpretations of the facts but rather from the lack of an agreed-upon, clear-cut set of concepts concerning the Haskalah. Hence it is not surprising that historians employ the terms Haskalah or maskilim with widely divergent meanings.

My own definition of the Jewish Enlightenment, or the Haskalah movement, emphasizes its mature manifestations. My model is the Berlin Haskalah of the 1780s, which took a new spiritual and cultural position regarding both Judaism and the Jews as well as their relation to European society and culture.

Characteristics of the Haskalah

Theology

The Haskalah leaned toward a rationalistic interpretation of Judaism. That tendency took several forms: one finds attempts to formulate a general conception of the beliefs and opinions of Judaism besides attempts to interpret such sources, generally rabbinic literature, which appeared to be stumbling blocks from the point of view of rationalistic criticism. The effort to provide a rationalistic interpretation of Jewish theology was accompanied by a critical view of the antiquity and authority of the Kabbala.

Halachah

The Haskalah was increasingly conscious of the historical character of the process by which the halachah (rabbinic law) took shape. Although it did not adopt a critical attitude toward the authority of the corpus of the halachah, it did so toward some minhagim (customs), which it viewed as late accretions and the product of unnecessarily strict interpretations.

Talmud Torah

The traditional value placed upon the study of the Torah for its own sake and the social ideal of the talmid hacham were supplanted by a functional view that restricted specialization in halachic literature to those who were to assume some rabbinic post. In contrast to the centrality of the study of halachic literature that typified traditional society, emphasis was placed upon the Bible, which was conceived as an expression of universal human values, a guide to “success” in this world, and as an embodiment of aesthetic values. Along with these changes in areas of study and the significance attributed to them, a change in methodology also took place. Criticism was voiced against talmudic casuistry or pilpul in the study of halachah, and literal interpretations were sought instead. In Bible study, a sharper distinction was made between drash and peshat, homiletic and literal interpretation. Literal interpretation was preferred, assisted by knowledge drawn from new research methods in history, geography, and especially philology.

Hebrew Language

The functional approach, which treats Hebrew as a vehicle for prayer and Torah study, was replaced by the romantic attitude, which glorified that language, viewing it as the single invaluable remnant of a glorious past to be cherished and preserved. The romantic approach focused on Hebrew as an object of philological research. It also stimulated the enthusiasm and excitement that accompanied attempts to compose Hebrew poetry, inspired by the Bible, which was seen as an aesthetic model worthy of imitation. This new attitude, which viewed Hebrew both as a subject for research and as a vehicle for the creation of poetry with its own intrinsic value, decidedly expresses the tendency toward secularization that characterized the Haskalah.

The Relationship with European Society and Culture

The particularistic self-conception that had characterized the traditional attitude toward surrounding cultures was replaced by a humanistic outlook expressing the common human element in the Jew and in all mankind. That new outlook necessitated a réévaluation of the culture of the surrounding non-Jewish society which was no longer seen as an expression of an alien religious and national tradition but rather as the fruit of human creative powers and thus as part of a common universal heritage. Consequently, Jewish participation in European culture was not merely permissible but actually desirable.

The belief that humanism had become the guiding principle of the political leadership and educated classes of European society led to the conclusion that there could be a new basis for the relations between Jews and their surroundings. Jewish cultural, political, and social involvement in their surroundings now appeared to be a desirable and feasible goal. Its achievement seemed to depend not only on influencing ruling circles and enlightened public opinion but even more on the Jews’ effort to adapt and become worthy of integration. To that end programs critical of traditional Jewish life were designed to reform Jewish society in education, economic activity, and community organization. To those who had absorbed and internalized the standards and attitudes then current in European society, traditional Jewish life had many flaws. Their correction was of the utmost urgency, for they placed a barrier between Jews and their surroundings and impeded the inclusion of the Jews in the general society.

An Intermediate Phase

The term the Haskalah movement is applied here to the men who adopted those attitudes and who worked together in order to reform Jewish society accordingly. Thus there was no Jewish Enlightenment movement in Russia before the 1820s and 1830s, when its outstanding spokesman was Yitzchak Behr Levinsohn, and the new trend in the spiritual life of the Jews of Poland and Lithuania in the second half of the eighteenth century does not belong to the Haskalah movement. Only a few Haskalah characteristics are applicable to most of the men at that time. Some were rather close to the Haskalah position but were isolated and did not join forces to form a movement. The new direction discernible during the second half of the eighteenth century was an intermediate phase between the traditional way of life and the mature Haskalah movement. This phase is extremely revealing when we enquire whether the development of the Haskalah movement in Russia was due to immanent factors independent of the influence of Berlin. I shall therefore examine several figures who may be considered as representative of this intermediate phase.

The first two are the Gaon of Vilna³ and Rabbi Shlomo of Chelm.⁴ They differed in several respects. Unlike the reclusive Gaon of Vilna, Rabbi Shlomo served as the rabbi of several communities and was involved in public affairs. The Gaon of Vilna’s intellectual achievements and influence in Torah studies were far greater than those of Rabbi Shlomo. Nevertheless, both adopted similar positions on issues related to the present discussion.⁵

Both the Gaon of Vilna and Rabbi Shlomo of Chelm criticized the way in which the Torah was studied in their time. The basis of their criticism was rationalistic. They especially condemned pilpul, whose primary aim was to exhibit ingenuity for its own sake. Instead they sought to base study upon the literal meaning of the text, to reach a correct understanding of the words of the rabbis. They pointed to the necessity of studying the sciences as a means of clarifying halachic issues, and both actually studied science in that spirit and with that aim. Rabbi Shlomo went even further than the Gaon of Vilna and attributed another virtue to the study of science: the development of intellectual capacity.

In contrast to these affinities between them, the Gaon of Vilna and Rabbi Shlomo differed with respect to the rationalistic philosophy of the Middle Ages. Whereas the beliefs and opinions held by the Gaon of Vilna were anchored in the kabbala, and his attitude toward philosophy was reserved, Rabbi Shlomo took pride in his practice of studying Maimonides’s Guide for the Perplexed.

At this point, the question arises as to the sources of the respective positions of the Gaon of Vilna and of Rabbi Shlomo. It seems clear that both drew their inspiration from within the Jewish heritage. Science and philosophy had been commonly studied in Spanish and Provençal circles during the Middle Ages and by Italian Jews during the Renaissance. The justification of science as an aid to Torah study derived from these circles, and likewise the claim that the Jews thereby fulfill the verse, “For it is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations,” a claim made explicitly by Rabbi Shlomo and also attributed to the Gaon of Vilna. Criticism of pilpul and the demand for rationalization of Torah study also originated, at the very latest, with the Maharal of Prague during the sixteenth century.⁶ On the other hand, neither in the writings of the Gaon nor of Rabbi Shlomo can we find any hint of a direct and conscious influence from trends and attitudes which were developing in Western and Central Europe during the eighteenth century. Both men should rather be seen as “innocent” bearers of elements intrinsic to the Jewish tradition of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

These views of the Gaon and of Rabbi Shlomo were not common among talmudic circles in Eastern Europe, but they were not completely out of the ordinary. Quite a few among the Ashkenazic scholarly elite during the late Middle Ages justified studying the sciences as auxiliaries to Torah study.⁷ The criticism of methods of study voiced by the Maharal was taken up in succeeding generations.⁸

Yet if the Gaon of Vilna and Rabbi Shlomo of Chelm were “innocent” exponents of elements of the Jewish heritage and if their attitudes were acceptable to a certain stratum of the scholarly elite, then what linked such figures to the intermediate phase between the traditional way of life and the Haskalah movement? It appears that the answer depends on timing. Even though the Gaon, Rabbi Shlomo, and others like them did not deviate from traditional norms, the very fact that they expressed elements taken from the medieval-Renaissance heritage at their time and place made them serve as a bridge between that heritage and the new trends that had begun to develop in Poland and Lithuania. In other words, the Gaon of Vilna and Rabbi Shlomo of Chelm served as a kind of handhold for those who, on the basis of that very tradition, or at least out of a positive regard for it, did in fact deviate from traditional norms and moved toward the Haskalah. Two figures that represent this transition to the intermediate phase are Rabbi Yisrael Zamoscz and Rabbi Barukh of Shklov. However, I should like to turn first to the less known Rabbi Yehezkel Feivel, the author of Sefer Toldot Adam, who has not been discussed in the historiography of the Russian Haskalah.

Rabbi Yehezkel Feivel⁹ was born in Palanga, Lithuania, in 1756 and died in Vilna in 1834. While still a young man he was a maggia (preacher) in the communities of Palanga and Deretschin. In the course of his wanderings he also preached in the communities of Lvov and Brod and lived for a period in Breslau. He maintained close ties with members of his family in Vilna, the prominent Yosef Ben-Eliahu and his brother Arieh Laib. It appears that thanks to them he was invited to the home of the Gaon of Vilna several times. In 1811 he was appointed the official preacher of Vilna and served for twenty-two years.

Rabbi Feivel expressed his views in his book Sefer Toldot Adam,¹⁰ the first part of which was printed in 1801 and the second in 1809. It recounts the life and personality of Rabbi Solomon Zalman of Volozhin, the brother of Rabbi Haim of Volozhin and the Gaon of Vilna’s favorite disciple who died prematurely. The book belongs to the genre of didactic biographies as various aspects of Rabbi Solomon’s life and personality are presented as models worthy of imitation. The author also permits himself occasionally to digress. These associative discussions also possess a didactic character.

A study of Sefer Toldot Adam shows that Rabbi Yehezkel was well acquainted with medieval Jewish philosophy and even markedly influenced by it. In contrast to the Gaon of Vilna and Rabbi Shlomo of Chelm, however, an influence of the Western European Enlightenment is discernible in Rabbi Yehezkel’s book. It is visible in his choice of didactic biography, a common genre in the Enlightenment literature. Moreover, in 1788 Yitshak Euchel’s biography of Mendelssohn had been published in Berlin. A few years earlier Euchel had published an article in Hame’asef¹¹ concerning the value of biographies. It is quite possible that these works of Euchel were before Rabbi Yehezkel Feivel as Sefer Toldot Adam was taking shape.

Following Maimonides and other medieval Jewish philosophers, Rabbi Yehezkel justified the study of science as leading man to appreciate the creator’s greatness and motivating him to love and worship God.¹² Rabbi Yehezkel’s rationalistic justification went much further than those of the Gaon of Vilna or of Rabbi Shlomo of Chelm. Rabbi Yehezkel also discussed in detail the need for reforming traditional education.¹³ The essence of his proposals was systematic study of all the books of the Bible, with emphasis upon grammar; the creation of a curriculum containing a gradual transition from Bible to Mishna, and from Mishna to Talmud according to the pupils’ ability to absorb the material. Similarly, Rabbi Yehezkel condemned pilpul, the major purpose of which was to display sharp minds. He called for basing the study of halachah upon an effort to reach the truth.¹⁴

Rabbi Yehezkel’s proposed educational reforms do not seem innovative, and did not differ essentially from those of the Maharal and his followers. Moreover, Rabbi Yehezkel expressed his views by means of citations and summaries from the writings of Rabbi Jacob Emden. Nevertheless, his presentation did contain a new...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1. Immanent Factors and External Influences in the Development of the Haskalah Movement in Russia
• 2. “The Heavenly City of Germany” and Absolutism à la Mode d’Autriche: The Rise of the Haskalah in Galicia
• 3. The Modernization of Viennese Jewry: The Impact of German Culture in a Multi-Ethnic State
• 4. Caution’s Progress: The Modernization of Jewish Life in Prague, 1780-1830
• 5. The Historical Experience of German Jewry and Its Impact on the Haskalah and Reform in Hungary
• 6. The History of an Estrangement between Two Jewish Communities: German and French Jewry during the Nineteenth Century
• 7. The Impact of German-Jewish Modernization on Dutch Jewry
• 8. Trieste and Berlin: The Italian Role in the Cultural Politics of the Haskalah
• 9. The Englishness of Jewish Modernity in England
• 10. German-Jewish Identity in Nineteenth-Century America
• About the Contributors
• Index