Right out of the way in the introduction, the author lays his cards out. Like many books in my all too big Jewish studies list, I choose them pretty much at random and mentally had this one pegged as “Modern Orthodox defense of how Jewish thought has classically (19th century onward) integrated with the modern world” and in a way, that’s what the book is about. But it isn’t so simple and even within the great firewall separating Orthodoxy from everything else, there are a surprising amount of viewpoints—some which as will be noted below would probably lead to rabbis who voice them from being totally shunned from the denomination. The shift even in Modern Orthodox to the right these last few decades has led to a tragic stifling of independent thought.
That The Dual Truth in a way is separated into sections on the beliefs of various past Jewish figures, most notably Samson Raphael Hirsch Samuel David Luzzatto though with some focus on others in between, and like I have done in ‘essay collection’ reviews, I will spill some digital ink writing short remarks on my thoughts on how each of them based mainly on information provided in this book before adding a general conclusion (and for those who don’t need the mini-remarks, feel free to skip to the bottom!):
Samson Raphael Hirsch: this was not my first rodeo reading about what some can be considered the founder of Modern Orthodoxy, but going in, I did not know that much about him either. My initial mindset before beginning was “surprisingly clean shaven Orthodox rabbi who hated Reform and did not mind some integration with the secular.” After his chapters, the first two factors may have remained unchanged, but surprising myself and also any of the Orthodox persuasion who may be familiar with Hirsch but not with his actual original writing (extremely important as Chamiel notes some of the Hebrew translations by Haredis have been altered to push an agenda Hirsch was not actually promoting). The biggest “wow!” factor is Hirsch’s belief in the necessities of form AND matter; in other words, you need Torah of course, but you need just as much secular studies to balance it out. 50/50 with Torah being the ‘first among equals’.
Samuel David Luzzatto: if Hirsch can be considered the father of Modern Orthodox, one can potentially allude to SDL being the same for the Conservative moment. Before ire is raised, even this is something of a stretch (just how one can say Moses Mendelssohn led to Reform even though he very much was not what one can now consider a ‘secular Jew’!). The biggest takeaway I found about him in The Dual Truth is his seemingly eventual belief that the Oral Law was NOT transmitted in its entirety from Sinai, but more likely just like any other religious tradition evolved over the ages by rabbis addressing the needs of their communities.
“I am neither among the elders nor among the innovators, neither traditionally religious nor a philosopher, neither rabbinic nor Karaite. I pursue the truth, and I accept it from whoever states it, even if he is the least of the least and I will not accept a lie, even if the greatest of the great states it.”
(though it should be noted even he has his limits as is noted further down when I discuss Umberto Cassuto)
No, this is not Maimonides, but the Shadal (Luzzatto) whom actually seemed to outright detest the Rambam, but to really zero in on the main focus of his ire against past rabbinical heavyweights, one had to look no further than ibn Ezra whom he called in so many words the equivalent of a Christian revivalist who may have gotten the message right once, but peddles it from town to town changing a few words and not much else. Nevertheless, as Chamiel noted, the Shadal believed in truth first and even in his own commentaries, he would sometimes skip over Rashi, whom he held in high regard, and cite ibn Ezra.
Just when one thinks the remainder of the book will continue its relentless (and I mean this in the best of ways because wow, what an interesting thinker!) focus on the Shadal (Luzzatto), the last chapter of the first part of the book steps back and moves northward to focus on two other European heavyweights, Tsvi Hirsch Chajes (Maharats) and Nahman Krochmal. As their time to shine within The Dual Truth is in the form of a shared spotlight, my remarks here cover them together: ice and fire, divergent beliefs, but in spite of that, an equally firm belief in the authority of the Written word though from there, things as noted…diverge. Less a ‘bromance’ and more an intellectual mingling over distance, this chapter features modern commentary interspersed with translations of their letters and publications showing the difficulties of traversing ‘the middle road’ between the perhaps too liberal Reformers and the “one for derash, all for derash, who needs peshat when you have derash?!” Hasidism.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz (vs Hirsch): There probably is no better modern example of someone so passionately and devoutly walking two paths: advanced science and religious piety. A professor of organic chemistry (what I have heard is extremely difficult and is a make-or-break subject like no other) and a Jewish philosopher with views I can only succinctly describe as binary and machine-like. One of the book’s longest chapters has his views squared off against Hirsch’s. Where they meet and where not is fascinating: for Hisrch, the Torah is ‘ethical education’, for Leibowitz, exactly the opposite: ‘faith and freedom’. Halakha for the sake of halakha. Science for the sake of science, Torah for the sake of Torah, together, not mixed as Hirsch envisioned it.
“He (Leibowitz) likened the throngs making their way to the Kotel on Shabbat and festivals to people attending a discoteque—referring to it as a “discotel.”
Hermann Cohen (vs Hirsch): it’s strange to come up with less to say about someone, but this probably gels well with my conclusion to this bigger than average review: his views are pretty similar to mine on various matters so unlike other figures mentioned, nothing new of note really popped out. Nevertheless, it was interesting to see him come up right after Leibowitz in the chapter comparing Hirsch’s thought to 20th century Jewish philosophers. Cohen and Leibowitz have views that are effectively polar opposites. One thing of note is Cohen’s view of halakha which probably squares him away with the Reform camp of thought: “Cohen felt an affinity to tradition and Halakha, and sought ways to preserve halakhot which bore ethical significance, examining them according the criteria of morality and judging them by the personal religious experience they provide those who observe them.”
Franz Rosenzweig (vs Hirsch): once upon a time I thought there’d be nothing harder to read than Spinoza. While I still have not directly attempted his works, the drain has been circled enough, the time may come where a dive in may not be met with a concussion. For Rosenzweig and his incredibly dense Star of Redemption, the time may still be a ways off. Here, we get an excellent analysis of how his views are linked with Hirsch’s and the biggest standout is his opinion on Zionism. Like Hirsch, he believes Jews are better situated in the diaspora. It should be noted that both were writing these beliefs well before the State of Israel even existed so rather than considering either an “anti-Zionist”, “non-Zionist” may be a better sequitur. Rosenzweig was a baal teshuva like no other who did gaze at the abyss (conversion to Christianity), took a step back, and then wrote this:
“It is a learning in reverse order. A learning that no longer starts from the Torah and leads into life, but the other way round: from life, from a world that knows nothing of the Law, or pretends to know nothing, back to the Torah. That is the sign of the time. [. . .] There is no one today who is not alienated. [. . .] [W]e all know that in being Jews we must not give up anything, not renounce anything. But lead everything back to Judaism. From the periphery, back to the center; from the outside, in.”
David Zvi Hoffmann (vs Hirsch): a tough nut to crack whom on one hand visually has the look of an extremely devout rabbi, but engaged in secular studies. He also was a big believer in ‘fighting fire with fire’ and “had no qualms about explicitly discussing the views of Bible critics down to their minute details, seeking to use their own tools against them, explaining the errors of their system.” This in a way made him a ‘bizzaro world’ Hirsch: pious to a T but using the opposite toolkit to defend his faith. He also, unlike Hirsch, put the Written and Oral Torahs on equal ground rather than giving precedent to the latter.
Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (vs Hirsch): a frum boomerang who grew up in the Lithuanian Torah, Torah, and only Torah school of thought before circumstances had him migrate to Germany. There, a combination of required university study (the only way to hold a rabbinate) and exposure to Neo-Orthodoxy saw him volte-facing becoming a spokesman for Torah im Derech Eretz (Hirsch). With the years leading up to WW2 saw the life of Jews of all walks in Germany deteriorate and his own views reverting—not fully!–to the ways of his salad days. However, it was not a full regression and Chamiel notes Weinberg’s views on the symbiosis of Judaism and secular studies becoming “inconsistent”:
“We must introduce modernization into education. But at the same time, we wish to propagate certain parts of the old education system: its fundamental principles and its idealistic spirit. We wish to pour old wine into new vessels. We wish to infuse our Jewish education with new blood, and a new power of attraction. For us the most important thing is guarding our great and sacred heritage. We wish to mix the old with the new, ancient Judaism, pure and good, with the positive values of our time.” (from 1951-52 based on material he wrote in the mid 1930’s).
Eliezer Berkowitz (vs Hirsch): by the time I got to end of yet another stimulating (really, for those into the subject matter, this book’s lit) bio and look at how another Torah great was influenced by Hirsch, I ended up nicknaming him “Fight Club Rabbi”. This is not because he resembles Tyler Durden though partway through after mentally nodding at how he pretty much was by-the-books as far as postmodern Jewish philosophers go (wondering if Rabbi Shagar was influenced by him…?), a bomb went off destroying the halakhic equivalent of office buildings in Delaware. Or in other words, as Edward Norton noted before the big reveal: “We’ve just lost cabin pressure”:
“Having had to transform the Oral Tora into a new written one, we have become Karaites of this new Written Tora, forced upon us by external circumstances. It was part of the spiritual tragedy of the exile that exactly what halacha in its original vitality and wisdom intended to protect us from has happened. In a sense, we have become Karaites. God can no longer rejoice over his “defeat” by his children. It is a condition we have had to accept. It is the price we have paid for the preservation of our identity and Jewish survival.”
Berkowitz was unique even among unique figures: too Orthodox to be Conservative (after the 1950’s at least) and probably only Orthodox due to minute technicalities. This was a man whom I wonder ever read the poetry of Saul Tchernikhovsky:
“I come to you, forgotten god of the ages,
god of ancient times and other days
ruling the tempests of vigorous men,
the breakers of their strength in youth’s plenty!
I come to you—do you know me still?
I am the Jew: your adversary of old!
I bow to all precious things—robbed now
by human corpses and the rotten seed of man,
who rebel against the life bestowed by God, the Almighty
the God of mysterious wildernesses,
the God of the conquerors of Canaan in a whirlwind—
who then bound Him with the straps of teffilin.”
(his poem, “Facing the Statue of Apollo” that I was introduced to by reading “Not in the Heavens: The Tradition of Jewish Secular Thought” by David Biale)
Abraham Isaac Kook (vs Hirsch) – While we get samples of the writings of rabbis to see how they compare and contrast with the ‘big’ names in the Dual Truth, Rabbi Kook’s section in particular goes extra heavy with it almost feeling more of a commentary on his writing more so than a book about 19th century philosophy influencing 20th century thought. From the material presented here, I’m honestly not really onboard with him. Even though this focused on his pre-migration output, he comes off mostly as a run-of-the-mill super frum “Jewish nationalist” rabbi (in other words, the Jews are actually better than others when it comes to God-related affairs and even in the messianic era, this won’t change). He does view secular studies as important, but Chamiel is keen to note even this viewpoint and Rabbi Kook’s own “dual truth” outlook seemed to crumble after WW1.
Umberto Cassuto (vs Luzzatto) – They seem quite similar at surface level with perhaps the biggest differences being active in different eras and their backgrounds (rabbi to scholar for Cassuto and layman to scholar for Luzzatto). Nevertheless, the latter, Luzzatto, while harboring some viewpoints that one could claim laid some of the groundwork for the Conservative movement, the former, Cassuto, was both devout yet willing to accept that while his faith may be unshakable, if it had to come down simply to “I believe”, then so be it:
“We must be prepared, from the outset, to accept the outcome of our enquiry, be it what it may, and feel no anxiety in regard to the honor and sanctity of our Torah.”
The biggest takeaway I got from The Dual Truth is that even within the realm of ‘traditional’ and historic (ie, before our era) Judaism, there is still much disagreement. While the figures presented in this monumental study share similar views on the status of the Written word, from there things branch out immensely; so much so that we’ve figures such as Luzzatto whose views on the Oral Torah probably squarely put him in line with being the granddaddy of sorts of the Conservative movement even though he probably saw himself as textbook Orthodox.
The Middle Road, as presented here and in Ephraim Chamiel’s previous book, The Middle Way (which unfortunately while translated and released by the same publisher just a few years previously, remains unavailable as an eBook, darn it!), is a tough one to follow and both then and now, remaining firmly on it is probably more praiseworthy (and rare!) than taking the more ‘heretical’ path (hello from the Reform camp!) or the well-trodden footing of machine-like observance of mitzvahs in concert with only asking questions within the four amos of halakha.
While I identify as Reform and am proud of it, staying within one’s comfort zones—reading only material that makes one feel good about oneself and the choices they made, making one feel pride at the misfortune of others—is not healthy. It also is important to take into consideration the Reform of the 19th century, just like Orthodox of the same era were reactionary movements. The former has gradually recovered some of the tradition and adherence to halakha (though full observance remains a personal choice) whereas the latter continues to gradually have more in common with some forms of extreme Evangelism than its more worldly partners in Yiddishkeit.
It’s a safe assumption that no name mentioned in The Dual Truth is a fan of our denomination (except perhaps its author), but have made statements that greatly enhanced my understanding of our religion and people. The truth, after all, should be accepted from wherever it may come.
5/5
submitted by /u/kobushi
[link] [comments]
Source: Reditt
