Talk:Samson Raphael Hirsch

Opposition to Zionism
Can someone offer sources about RSH opposition to Zionism? Was there really an organized Zionist movement for him to oppose during his lifetime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc3736 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What does Derekh Eretz mean?
Now that JFW and Danny bring this up, this is worth getting into. The more right-wing of Hirsch's supporters agree with Danny's translation and JFW's views. However, I do not understand why. The Mishna was written nearly 2,000 years ago. Hirsch wrote only 200 years ago, in a totally diffeerent historical situation and society. In any case, people who support this POV hold that Rabbi Hirsch only wanted Jews to combine observant Jewish lifestyle (including lifelong Torah learning) with learning the surrounding gentile society's language, history, science, etc., so that a religious Jew could earn a living in the surrounding gentile society. In this Orthodox view, learning of these "gentile" subjects is not considered problematic, since it doesn't encroach on gentile philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics. RK

However, many other of Hirsch's supporters say that this understanding of Hirsch's philosophy is misguided; they have even gone so far as to call the bad historical revisionism. This issue has been discussed in articles in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, published by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA). In this Orthodox view, Rabbi Hirsch wanted more than just the study of the surrounding gentile society's language, history, science. He also thought that it was permissible, and even productive, for Jews to learn gentile philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics. Hirsch himself studied gentile philosophy, and so did many of his later adherents, including Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and many other rabbis in the RCA. However, this view is considered forbidden by many Orthodox Jews; they generally refuse to study such subjects. As this is an important issue of discussion in the Orthodox Jewish community even today, both sides should be represented in this article. RK

On this subject, see Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy, published in Judaism, Summer, 1999, by Lawrence Kaplan.


 * THERE IS A MAJOR STRUGGLE CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE within the modern Orthodox community, a struggle over the correct understanding of the person and teachings of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ztz"l, better known simply as the Rav. The Rav, one of the towering rabbinic scholars and thinkers of our era, was, as is well known, the teacher, guide, and, above all, the supreme halakhic and hashkafic authority of the modern Orthodox community for over fifty years. The struggle, then, is not just scholarly, but ideological as well. Indeed, in the deepest sense, it is a struggle over the direction and future course of the modern Orthodox community, a struggle over its very soul.


 * This type of struggle is not new to the modern Orthodox community. If we look at other rabbinic heroes of modern Orthodoxy, for example, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), founder of enlightened German neo-Orthodoxy, rabbinic scholar, Biblical commentator, and communal leader, or Rav Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935), the first Chief Rabbi of mandatory Palestine, talmudist, kabbalist, poet, communal leader, and Orthodox herald of the Jewish national renewal, we find that their persons and teachings as well have been and, indeed, still are the subjects of intense, often heated debate. Nor should this be surprising. Rav Hirsch, Rav Kook, and the Rav were, in different ways, very rich, complex figures: major rabbinic scholars who at the same time seriously engaged modernity intellectually; individuals whose teachings and persons blended together, in striking ways, conservatism and innovation, strict traditionalism and intellectual daring. It is intrinsically difficult to paint nuanced intellectual portraits that will do justice to the richness of their religious legacies. Moreover, different elements of the modern Orthodox community focus on those aspects in the teachings of these figures that they find intellectually or religiously congenial and gloss over those aspects they find uncongenial. Thus, the more modern, "left wing" elements of the modern Orthodox community tend to focus on the more innovative, humanistic, and universalist aspects of the legacies of these three giants, and minimize the more conservative, authoritarian, and particularist aspects of their legacies, while that community's more traditional, "right wing" elements simply reverse the order of priority.

The author of this article notes that some promimnent rabbis warn that there is a tendency for those on the right-wing of Orthodox to rewrite modern Orthodox thinkers, such as Hirsch and Soloveitchik. In the attempted revisionism, the person is presented as being less modern and more Haredi. For example


 * Shortly after the Rav's passing, Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, in a eulogy for the Ray delivered on April 25, 1993, urged his auditors to "guard...against any revisionism, any attempts to misinterpret the Ray's work in both worlds [the world of Torah and the world of Madda]. The Ray was not a lamdan who happened to have and use a smattering of general culture, and he was certainly not a philosopher who happened to be a talmid hakham, a Torah scholar.... We must accept him on his terms, as a highly complicated, profound, and broad-minded personality.... Certain burgeoning revisionisms may well attempt to disguise and distort the Rav's uniqueness by trivializing one or the other aspect of his rich personality and work, but they must be confronted at once." [3]


 * (3.) Norman Lamm, "A Eulogy for the Rav," Tradition 28.1 (1993): 13. R. Lamm's reference to those who seek to "trivializ[e]] one or the other aspect of [the Rav's] rich personality" implies that "burgeoning revisionisms" can come from either the "left" or the "right" In fact, however, by far the most significant revisionism has come from the right, certainly in print, and it is this form of revisionism, particularly in its latest and most extreme manifestation, that deserves our scrutiny. At the same time, there have also been attempts at revisionism from the left, though these attempts have been made orally and, to the best of my knowledge, are not to be found in writing; I will therefore also examine a revealing example of this brand of revisionism.

Intellectual disagreement, but not Wiki Edit disagreement
Firstly, do not falsify history by ascribing Modern Orthodox Judaism to Rav Hirsch. Secondly, the sources you quote above are all about Joe Soloveitchik. Can we stick to Rav Hirsch, please?


 * JFW, please note that many modern historians of Judaism identify him as the father of Modern Orthodox Judaism. This identification is accepted as factual by Modern Orthodox Jews themselves, and by non-Orthodox rabbis. I have no objections to stating this in an NPOV way. I thus have no objections with your revisions and edits. RK 14:26, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

There is indeed a struggle about his legacy. This has been dealt with extensively in the article (at the bottom) and it the seperate article Torah im Derech Eretz. JFW


 * It seems to me that no extensive discussion is there; the topic was briefly alluded to. It needs a fuller treatment, with sources and quotes, to present the subject in its historical context. Please consider my point in the Talk page there to merge the content of that article with this one, and with the article on Modern Orthodoxy. RK 14:26, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Torah im Derech Erezt has a narrow and a wide definition, and the wide definition (incorporating all of secular culture in a Jewish framework) has been largely abandoned. Yes, Rav Hirsch praised Schiller at school ceremonies, but if you take the care to read his polemics with Graetz, Frankel and other contemporaries, you might arrive at an understanding why Rav Hirsch cannot be described as the father of Modern Orthodoxy. Just read his writings - he does not encourage the fields of study you refer to.


 * I would dispute this; it seems to me that the wide definition of his philosophy is still around today. I live near a few Modern Orthodox synagogues which embrace this wide definition, I know of a many O rabbis which teach it, and I own books by Orthodox Jews on this subject. We can explain why some disagree with these liberal forms of Orthodoxy, but we must not deny that they exist. RK


 * Further, I have read some of Hirsch's polemics with Graetz, Frankel and other contemporaries...and these were not Orthodox Jews. Graetz was a proto-Reform Jew, Frankel was a proto-Conservative Jew. Few would relate these groups with modern Orthodoxy. (Both then and today, some Haredi leaders hold that Modern Orthodoxy is reform Judaism in disguise, but this claim is viewed as polemical by non-Haredim.) Your references, of course, do show that Hirsch was not the father of Reform Judaism or of Conservative Judaism; I agree with that. RK

If you have problems with this, just edit the article to reflect that "some say..."... "others say....", and don't try to convince me that Hirsch would endorse present-day modern orthodoxy. JFW | T@lk  12:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Your formulation is Ok by me. RK 14:20, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

My edits of 8/8/2004
RK's edits are on the whole well taken, but here are some points:
 * Moravia had no organised reform community when Hirsch was Chief Rabbi there.
 * The Bürger- and Realshule were two different schools, the latter for the community children, and the former mainly for Eastern-European refugees.
 * The Kaplan reference was removed. This has 100% to do with Rabbi Soloveitchik and very little with Hirsch per se. JFW | T@lk  11:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Theological reason for science study
The article states "While being a yeshiva student in Eastern Europe, Rabbi Shimon Schwab obtained the views of various poskim (authorities in Jewish law) on the required level of secular knowledge (Levi 1990). On this basis, many Ultra-Orthodox adherents of Hirsch's philosophy have preferred the natural sciences over the humanities as a subject of secular study."


 * From personal conversations with a small number of right-wing Orthodox rabbis (maybe Haredi, maybe right Modern Orthodox) it seems to me that there is an additional, significant reason that many Orthodox (of all forms) study natural sciences: theological. The study of natural science is the study of God's handiwork; the study of physics is the study of laws created by God. Thus one can come to the same position as Hirsch (these secular subjects can and should be studied) for perhaps a different reason. (Then again, maybe Hirsch felt the same way about science. I do not know.) If you find rabbis of importance who have written on this topic, this subject may find itself into some article. RK


 * Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits, in Knowledge of the World, Knowledge of G-d (in Essential Essays on Judaism, Shalem Press, ed. Hazony), points out (following Rambam, Kuzari, and Hovot haLevavot), that the epistemological path is well paved for us to see secular learning as another of the truths which G-d has planted in this world; no real great effort is required to utilize this perspective nowadays. It has been said that Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz is really just a recreation of what was true in Muslim Spain.
 * Berkovits (ibid.) also points out, likely from the influence of his teacher (R' Akiva Glasner)'s father (R' Moshe Shmuel Glasner), who in turn followed the Hatam Sofer (from whom Glasner was descended), that at least in Eretz Yisrael, it is untenable to claim that Jewry can survive without technical knowledge and ability; G-d commanded us to have a state, and concomitantly this demands the requisite knowledge and technical skill. Cf. the elder Glasner's haTzionut b'Ohr haEmuna/Zionism in the Light of Faith.
 * As for Rabbi Hirsch's perspective on this matter, Rabbi Natan Slifkin quotes Rabbi Hirsch (at http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/sciencewars.html) as saying,"'Judaism is most anxious to make its adherents aware that all the phenomena of nature are subject to certain unchanging laws. Since Judaism itself is a system of laws through and through, it attaches a profound ethical value to the study of the natural sciences. Judaism considers it vitally important for its adherents to become aware that their entire universe is governed by well-defined laws, that every creature on earth becomes what it is only within the framework of fixed laws, and that every force in nature can operate only within specified limits. Not by his whims of the moment but only by his own detailed knowledge of, and regard for, these laws can man make nature serve his purposes. Man himself, then, can exercise power only if he, in turn, obeys the laws set down for him and for his world." In like vein, Rabbi Dr. Yehuda (Leo) Levi says (at http://www.hra.jct.ac.il/judaica/dvarTorah/dt11.html; Levi is not quoting Hirsch, but he is known to be a staunch Hirschian),"The fulfillment of the Torah demands a world and rules that control it. To convince ourselves of the need for these laws, we need only try to imagine a world operating in an arbitrary fashion, without rules. Imagine if, when you sow seeds, you would have no idea whether wheat or weeds will come up. Or whether a particular effort will cause your hand to go up or down. Clearly, in such circumstances you would have no control, either of the world around you or of your own actions. You would feel like a puppet; your life would be totally passive. The laws of nature, then, are a condition for the commandments of the Torah to be operational. If God wants us to keep His commandments, He must give us the necessary tools, including reliable laws of nature. This may have been one of the prophet's meanings when he said in God's name: 'If not for My covenant, day and night, I would not have established the laws of heaven and Earth.'" Sevendust62 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To be very frank, most Haredim who study secular sciences do so to gain a livelihood. I don't know if the situation is the same in Modern Orthodox circles. I do not disagree that it is a mitzvah to Love God, and that this may be achieved by admiring His handiwork, but this was not the context of Rav Schwab's question. Rabbi Bloch (of Telz/Tilsiai), Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Leibovitz and Rabbi Rosen gave various answers, but none seriously dealt with the point you've raised. In recent years, study of science has been replaced with Torah study, and that's that. JFW | T@lk  21:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Featured article?
Do you think that the article is ready to become a FA? Tomer T 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never noticed this post until now. I think the article needs much more work to become FA. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on Hirsch Siddur
¶ I am keenly aware of the Wikipedia rule that everything must have a published source - but I violated that by providing what I thought was important information based on my own experience. The Hirsch Siddur: The order of prayers for the whole year, published in English translation by Feldheim Publishers, of NY, in 1969 and reprinted with corrections in 1978, for the Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society, uses the translations of the prayers and the commentary written by Hirsch in German, but the facing Hebrew pages are NOT edited by Hirsch at all, but are simply reprinted from a very ordinary public-domain Orthodox siddur. This fact was personally conveyed to me, circa 1994, by one of the surviving Feldheim brothers, who remembered doing the cut-an-paste on the galley proofs on his parents' kitchen table back in 1969. Although (as far as I know) this fact has not been printed anywhere, I thought it worth perpetuating, lest someone suppose that a reading in the Hebrew pages had the particular approval of Hirsch. Sussmanbern (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC); I have restored my comment after it was deleted, evidently by someone who hadn't read this note. I believe that this is significant information, as otherwise a peculiar rendering of the Hebrew pages in the siddur might be thought to possess Hirsch's approbation. There are instances where Hirsch's translation clearly departs from the Hebrew pages; e.g. Hirsch omits (as does Hertz, Singer, et al.) Al tiro following Aleinu (page 211). Sussmanbern (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are engaging in original research by adding points based on your personal experience or knowledge. Consider publishing this fact elsewhere, so it can then be cited. I too have noticed certain discrepancies e.g. in the wording of Atto Chonein.
 * Have you considered contacting the Hirsch Publication Society and asking whether they might consider printing a new edition that is closer to the original German edition. Does that edition follow Heidenheim, or has he incorporated the additions and changes by Baer also? JFW &#124; T@lk  09:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. SR Hirsch
No mention at all in the article of his marriage/wife. 69.118.3.165 (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Her name is mentioned in the infobox; little is mentioned about her background in Klugman's biography. Her maiden name was Juedel and IIRC she was from Braunschweig. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samson Raphael Hirsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050918222757/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/breuer.gif to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/breuer.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)