Tradition and Modernity Trends in Modern Jewish History Essay Example for Free

Tradition and Modernity Trends in Modern Jewish History Essay The system of traditional education as evaluated by the traditional society on one hand and the Haskalah on the other According to Katz, Jewish education and participation in the life of the community usually gave the average Jew sufficient knowledge to conduct his daily life. But as circumstances changed questions arose almost daily. The correct application of Halacha in present circumstances was normally not something that the layman could decide. For this, scholars of the Jewish law were needed. (Katz, 1988 p. 142) An earlier generation of Jewish educators had stressed the similarities between Judaism and the norms of American democracy. That position was, of course, shaped by the immigrant experience. A curriculum that consciously teaches the importance of difference is clearly addressing itself to a changed America and more important, another sort of Jew. Those Orthodox Jews who remain within the â€Å"four ells of the Law† reject the non-Jewish world in its entirety, even though they make use of modern technology to further their ends. Their schools do not depart from the core curriculum brought in the Mishnah. Institutions of this kind can be found all over the world. The more removed the school and the population it serves from tradition, the more idiosyncratic its curriculum. The emphasis on identity, particularly in the United States but increasingly so in other places as well, may be a way of saying that what one knows about Judaism is not as important as wanting to be a Jew, or feeling Jewish, something that can possibly be attained without the effort required for real learning. The separatism of those who live in a self-created ghetto is matched at the other extreme by those who reject Judaism and identification with the Jewish people in order to find a place, if not always an identity, in other places. This is relatively easy to do in a modern society that requires no overt or official act in order to leave the group of ones origin nor demands membership or affiliation in a recognized corporate entity. Jewish schools, like all others everywhere, teach more than is implied in the detail of the course of study. The work of Jewish educators in the last 100 years has created, for example, pockets of resistance to oppressive regimes and centers of a counterculture. There is a straight line that connects between volunteer teachers in Vilna in 1893 who taught Hebrew in private homes all over the city in order to avoid detection and the more recent underground Hebrew study groups in the former Soviet Union particularly those in the prison camps that served, among other things, as vehicles for preserving personal identity in a situation calculated to obliterate all individuality. The Jewish concept of Tikun Olam (Making the World a Better Place), for some schools a motif that integrates all that they do, resonates with the utopianism that characterizes revolutionary movements; todays youngsters can achieve the same spirit that moved their peers of an earlier time who attended socialist Yiddish schools that stressed the development of class consciousness as the route to an egalitarian society. The larger message of cultural pluralism remains implied in the idea that Judaism and democracy are not only compatible but also positively influence one another. Pupils in Jewish schools of all kinds who do their lessons well will sense that identification with the Jewish people promises a feeling of community that is difficult to find in society at large. Judaism and Jewish education has become a modern tradition. All modern Jewish movements find their origins in the Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Before the Haskalah you were either a traditional Jew or you left the Jewish people to become part of the Christian majority. While local conditions varied, in general, pre-Haskalah Jewry led a life apart from its Gentile neighbors. In Western Europe Jews lived in ghettos (or at least in their own separate areas), in Eastern Europe in shtetls. This independent social life did not preclude commercial relations, but in almost all other respects Jews and Gentiles belonged to separate communities. (Katz 1988 p. 141-145) Jacob Katz describes these movements as: The movement of emancipation appeared in Western Europe at the same time that Hassidism rose in the East. From the 1760s a new type of person appeared called a maskil (an intellectual). This is a person who had studied torah but added to this knowledge ther things such as – foreign languages, general knowledge and interest in the world beyond the Jewish community. Soon they presented a program to change Jewish life – its education, structure of community and life-style. When their program began to dominate a sense of crisis swept the traditional community. This sense of dissolution was caused by processes occurring within and without Jewish society. (Katz 1988 p. 214-215) In the Renaissance followed by the Enlightenment, and the world beyond the ghetto became more welcoming and attractive. For the first time in a long time, the non-Jewish world had something worth having, and there was the glimmer of hope that Jews could have it while remaining Jews. The Jewish incarnation of the Enlightenment, the Haskalah, was the result. The Haskalah begins in Western Europe, and it is there that it gives rise to the first modern Jewish movements. There is no late eighteenth to early nineteenth-century Haskalah in Eastern Europe largely because there is no general late eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century Enlightenment there. It is one thing to join the burghers of Frankfurt, to read Schiller and listen to Haydn, or to become a citizen of Republican France, a devotee of libertà ©, à ©galità ©, et fraternità ©. That is real competition for the ghetto and Rashi. But the illiterate, impoverished peasantry of the czarist empire, itself horribly oppressed, was not a club to which shtetl Jews eagerly sought membership. And it would be a while before an enticing Eastern European bourgeoisie emerged. When the Haskalah is finally felt among the Jews of Eastern Europe, it is under circumstances that give rise to very different modernist movements than those that emerged in the West. But it is these Eastern European movements that are the most immediate and influential forebears of the secular Jewish philosophy developed in this book. Later in the chapter I will turn to them. But first we will survey ideological developments among the Jews in Western Europe and its offshoot, the United States. By the eighteenth century a few Jews had permission to live in Berlin (and other German cities) because they were economically useful to the rulers. These Jews were called Shutzjuden (protected Jews). Initially Mendelssohn was allowed to live, study, and work in Berlin because of his association with a Shutzjude. Eventually he obtained this status for himself. Mendelssohn had received a traditional Jewish education from his father, Menachem Mendel, and his rabbi, David Fraenkel. When the latter was appointed rabbi of Berlin, Mendelssohn followed him there to continue his Jewish studies, but while there he also obtained a thorough secular education. (Mendelssohn, 1770 p.476) Mendelssohns first writings in German were secular philosophical works on aesthetics and metaphysics. When he turned to the nonsectarian rationalist philosophy of religion, Christian clerics, inclined to see Christianity as the embodiment of rational religion, challenged Mendelssohn to defend his Judaism. Mendelssohn was disinclined to do it. He had never made any claims of superiority for Judaism, and he was against engaging in religious polemics for principled and practical reasons (Mendelssohn noted that Jews were an oppressed minority in Germany). Still, he reluctantly took up the challenge, arguing that adherence to Judaism was rational for the Jews. Thereafter, much of Mendelssohns work concerned Jewish issues. He translated the Pentateuch and the Psalms into German, and he wrote biblical commentaries in Hebrew. He argued for the improvement of the civic status of Jews, and he intervened on behalf of Jewish communities with various governments. But of most interest to us here are his attempts to modify Jewish custom. (Mendelssohn, 1770 p.478) A loyal, learned, and observant Jew, Mendelssohn denied having an interest in changing any Jewish law or practices rooted in the law. He considered Judaism to be revealed legislation. Jews were divinely commanded and obliged to observe the law. But they were not obliged to have any particular religious beliefs. Judaism was not revealed dogma. Jews were free to believe what they would. Hence Mendelssohn did not view his rationalist interpretation of Jewish practice as an innovation in the religion. But his rationalism did lead to a call for changes in certain Jewish practices that Mendelssohn deemed irrational and unrelated to the law. He thought these practices were based in superstition and degeneracy, the fruit of isolation and oppression. He anticipated two outcomes from the changes: 1) Judaism would more clearly emerge as the rational and dignified religion it essentially was, thereby uplifting the Jewish character, and 2) Jews would ultimately be more acceptable as fellow countrymen to the Gentiles. This second outcome would be a result of the first, combined with the increasing rationalization and liberalization of Christian society itself. (Mendelssohn, 1770 p. 480) There were no Orthodox Jews before the Haskalah. While there were some variations of local customs, there was only one brand of Judaism. Individuals may have been more or less pious, but there was no disagreement about the substance of Judaism.   It was only with the Enlightenment and the rise of Reform that traditional Jewry had to define its relation to modernity. Reform Jews were claiming that it was now possible to join European civilization and remain a Jew, if certain changes were made in Judaism. But of course many Jews refused to deviate from traditional Jewish law. One segment of the Jews who were unwilling to make changes in the law thought that modernity and Judaism were incompatible; these Jews had no desire to join European civilization. They are best termed Traditional Jews. Traditional Jews tried to ignore and isolate themselves from non-Jewish culture. Except for some Hasidic sects, there are really no surviving communities of traditional Jews.   (Mendelssohn, 1770 p. 485) But there was another segment of Jews, also completely opposed to any changes in the law, who believed that strict Torah adherence could accommodate modernity. They constitute Jewish Orthodoxy, which, in its way, is as much a child of Mendelssohn and the Haskalah as Reform is. The basic belief of Orthodoxy, which it shares with Traditional Judaism, is that the Torah is divinely given and eternally valid. Even the authoritative rulings of the future are believed to have been revealed at Sinai. 11 The Orthodox hold that to deny the divine and binding nature of the Torah is to drain Judaism of its substance. The 613 traditional mitzvot, commandments, are divinely ordained and obligatory for Jews. No doctrinal concessions are permissible. Jacob Katz concludes that It was in the field of education that the conflict between tradition and innovation became open war In gentile society a new educational philosophy had emerged that all children should receive the same education, regardless of religion. (Katz 1988 p.229) A maskil called Naphtali Hertz Wessely   came up with a different idea in a famous pamphlet called Words of Peace and Truth: the basis of education should be educational values shared by all men (torat ha-adam) while the teacjing of torah (torat ha-elohim) was to remain only a special supplement of the Jews education. Wessely emphasized subjects such as the local language, geography, history, etc. Even in his proposed Jewish studies he preferred bible studies, Hebrew and grammar which were closer to outside society over Talmudic studies. Wessely argued that such a curriculum would lead to the perfection and salvation of the individual Jew. (Katz 1988 p.230) Compare the responses to Hasidism of the vilna Gaon and of Rabbi Hayyim of volozhin. The Gaon is alleged to have urged his disciples to engage in secular studies; indeed, the example set by the Gaon himself in this respect encouraged the maskilim to take up the banner of general education. The historians who have critically discussed the attitude of the Gaon of Vilna to Haskalah are Ben-Zion Katz, Joseph Klausner, Israel Zinberg, Louis Greenberg, and Raphael Mahler. These authors, though differing in various details, display remarkable similarities in their conceptions of the Gaons position and role in relation to the beginnings of Haskalah in eastern Europe. The Gaons positive attitude to what would ultimately characterize the Haskalah movement, according to the aforementioned authors, is exemplified first and foremost in his favorable approach to secular studies. For example, Katz holds that, although the Gaon rejected philosophy, he loved and greatly admired the natural sciences. (Mendelssohn, 1770 p. 378) During the intermediate days of Passover in 1772, the organized struggle against Hasidism was launched. The community of Vilna, the largest and most important of the Jewish communities of Poland and Lithuania, initiated the struggle and called on other communities to follow in its footsteps. (Etkes, 2002 p. 73)   This was not a struggle over ideas between two currents or what may be called a Kulturkampf. The community of Vilna and the communities associated with it started a total war against what they viewed as a deviant sect. The aim of this war was to remove Hasidism and the Hasidim from the world. For that purpose the community organizations used a variety of means at their disposal: testimony was gathered about the â€Å"crimes† of the Hasidim, Hasidic writings were seized and burned, Hasidic leaders were arrested and punished, and above all, it was forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to maintain Hasidic minyanim. (Etkes, 2002 p. 74) Shimeon Dubnow describes the struggles outbreak according to his general conception of the essence of Hasidism, on the one hand, and of the â€Å"rabbinate, † on the other. He defines the rabbinate as â€Å"the system of the religion of the book, a religion consisting principally of study; expertise in literature thousands of years old, in laws, and in infinitely minute concatenations of law upon law; and scrupulous obedience to the commandments in all their precise details. † In Dubnows opinion, the rabbinate, in this sense, laid the normative foundations of the community organization and established its values. (Etkes, 2002 p. 75) Dubnow regarded the struggle against Hasidism as a natural response, even a necessary one, of the rabbinate and the community leadership against a movement that rebelled against them and challenged them. As he says, the aim of Hasidism was essentially to challenge the scholarly foundation of the religion and to replace it with the element of hidden faith, to emphasize emotion and devotion in the observance of the commandments rather than piling up heaps of regulations on them. By the nature of his discussion, Katz does not deal with events in detail, he does not address the question of the role played by the Gaon versus that played by the community leaders. However, regarding the motivations for opposition to Hasidism, it appears from Katzs account that the Gaon and the community leaders acted from identical motives: the defense of the tradition against those who deviated from it and threatened its integrity.   (Etkes, 2002 p. 79) While Dubnow and Katz believed that the Gaon and the community leaders acted from identical motives, Hayyim Hillel Ben-Sasson contends that â€Å"there were two circles of warriors here, each of which had its own emphasis and preference regarding the purposes of the war and its means. † On the basis of a comparative analysis of the polemical writings those that were, in his opinion, written with the direct inspiration of the Gaon versus those composed by the community leaders BenSasson reached the conclusion that the Gaon and his circle combated Hasidism because of â€Å"matters of faith and ways of worshiping the Creator, † whereas the community leaders opposed Hasidim because of their damage to â€Å"communal and religious order. † (Etkes, 2002 p. 75) When the leaders of the Rabbi Shneur Zalman was forced to deal with the issue of the Gaons authority because the leaders of the Mitnagdim continually appealed to that authority, whenever objections were raised to their claims. In that matter as well, Rabbi Shneur Zalman advanced a Halakhic argument. He did not deny the view of the Mitnagdim that the Gaon was unique in his generation. However, against the opinion that one must obey the greatest authority of the generation without reservation, he advanced the principle of majority rule. True, the Gaon was unique in his generation, but he was still a single man, whereas the maggid of Mezhirech and the other Hasidic leaders were the majority. Altogether, the position that Rabbi Shneur Zalman took regarding the Gaon was ambivalent: he recognized his extraordinary personal merit, but he also denied his authority as a sole Halakhic arbiter. It would not be too much to say that there is a good deal of irony in the fact that the leaders of the Mitnagdim constantly had recourse to the Gaons charisma, whereas the Hasidic leader based his argument on Halakhic principles. (Etkes, 2002 p. 75-92) As noted, the role played by the Gaon at the start of the campaign against Hasidism and the motivations that guided him occupied a considerable part of the letter sent by Rabbi Shneur Zalman to his Hasidim in Vilna in 1797. Later in his epistle, Rabbi Shneur Zalman tells his Hasidim that, after the failed visit to Vilna, the Hasidic leaders traveled to Shklov to take part in the controversy initiated by the Mitnagdim there. When the Mitnagdim realized that they could not refute the arguments of the Hasidim, â€Å"they came with a strong arm and hung themselves from the great tree of ha-Gaon he-Hasid, may his light burn brightly. † Thus the failure to appease the Mitnagdim in Shklov was also connected to the Gaons authority. Rabbi Shneur Zalman further explains to his Hasidim that, not only had the Gaon prevented dialogue and reconciliation in the past, but until he changed his mind there was no hope for reconciliation and accommodation. The constant repetition of the statement that the Gaon was the one who had prevented and continued to prevent any possibility of reconciliation between the Hasidim and their opponents reflects recognition of the exceptional force of his authority. The Gaon regarded the people from whom he received information as reliable witnesses whose word was not to be doubted. At that stage further information came to him: the â€Å"well-known intermediary, † whose identity is unknown to us, told him of a Hasidic interpretation of a passage in the Zohar. The Gaon regarded that interpretation as â€Å"heresy and Epicureanism. † Hence, when Rabbi Menahem Mendel and Rabbi The description of the attitude of the Gaon was not meant to remind the reader of forgotten things. Following those words, the Mitnaged challenges the Hasid: how did he have the temerity to thrust his head in among the tall mountains, that is to say, the Gaon, on the one hand, and the Hasidic leaders, on the other, and to decide in favor of the latter against the stand of the Gaon? Underlying this challenge was the Gaons authority. That authority, whose power permitted the persecution of the Hasidim, is here presented as a reason for rejecting their way. (Etkes, 2002 p. 75-95) Rabbi Hayyims friendly attitude toward the Hasidim who studied in his yeshiva and were guests in his home, the interest he showed in the teachings of their rabbis, and that fact that his son owned Hasidic books and studied them all of these clearly prove that the Mitnagdim had some authority for ignoring the prohibitions imposed by the Gaon on contact with Hasidim. The argument that the Gaons position regarding Hasidism was based on error is not new. As noted, this was the opinion of both Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Vitebsk and of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady. Both of them absolved the Gaon of malicious intention because he had been misled by false witnesses. Rabbi Shneur Zalman took a further step and presented evidence that even the Sages of the Sanhedrin were liable to err. Hence the error of a communal leader was a legitimate occurrence. However, the author of Maá ºâ€œref Haavodah is not content with these explanations and seeks to endow the Gaons error with a theological dimension. The Gaons opposition to Hasidism was not simply a human error, but the product of the precise planning of divine providence. The Kabbalistic principle that every manifestation of divine light must be accompanied by an obscuration and concealment also applies to the revelation of the Baal Shem Tov. Hence the Gaons opposition was a concealment necessitated by the abundance of light. This surprising explanation of the Gaons struggle against Hasidism is a kind of â€Å"sweetening of judgments, † for the severe persecution of the Hasidim was â€Å"sweetened† and its sting removed. The bans, the humiliations, and the bodily and economic injury to the Hasidim took place only to conceal the strength of the divine light that broke through with the revelation of the Baal Shem Tov and the maggid of Mezhirech. Thus it was possible to maintain both the honor and authority of the Gaon, and the righteousness and honor of Hasidism. This harmonious explanation, which can also be described as the mystification of the struggle between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim, leaves no doubt as to which of the two warring camps received the divine light and which of them served as a veil meant to conceal it. The effort of the author of Maá ºâ€œref Haavodah to make sense of the opposition to Hasidism led by the Gaon expresses a viewpoint typical in the first decades of the nineteenth century. In the beginning of the century the organized struggle against Hasidism came to an end. The cessation of the persecution can be attributed to a number of factors: the Gaons death, recognition by the Russian authorities of the right of the Hasidim to hold separate minyanim, and increasing recognition that the Hasidim were not heretics. (Etkes, 2002 p. 75-95) Jacob Katz describes Hassidism as a religious and social movement. It emphasized reaching ecstasy through the performance of the religious rites, and socially it set up a new pattern: a group of devoted followers headed by the Zaddik whos claim was charisma, not necessarily scholarship. This community was voluntary. (Katz, 1988 p.76) Works Cited Immanuel Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and His Image (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), Chapter 5, pp. 151-208. Karlinsky, H. Harishon leshushelet Brisk [The founder of the Brisk dynasty]. Jerusalem, 1984. Katz, B-á ºâ€™. Rabanut, á ¸ ¥asidut, haskalah [The rabbinate, Hasidism, Haskalah]. 2 vols. Tel Aviv, 1956. Katz, J. â€Å"Jewish Civilization as Reflected in the Yeshivot—Jewish Centers of Higher Learning. † Journal of World History 10 (1967): 698–700. Katz, J. Tradition and Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle Ages. New York, 1993. Krassen, M. A. â€Å"Devequt and Faith in Zaddiquim. † Ph. D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1990. Landau, B. Hagaon heá ¸ ¥asid miVilna [The righteous Gaon of Vilna]. Jerusalem, 1965. Marcus, I. G., ed. Dat veá ¸ ¥evra bemishnatam shel asidei Ashkenaz [Religion and society in the doctrine of á ¸ ¤asidei Ashkenaz]. Jerusalem, 1987. Mendelssohn translated the Torah (Pentateuch) into German probably starting in the middle of the 1770s.