Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Was the Divrei Chaim of Sanz a "rationalist" because he read Moreh?

In commenting on a previous post regarding the influence of Moreh, David G. points to a number of Achronim (Ohr Sameiach, Rogatchover, Gedalya Nadel) who incorporate the Moreh into their thought and were impacted by it. I would only add to his list and include the Divrei Chaim, the Yismach Moshe, R' Pinchas m'Koretz, and others. In fact, see the footnote at the end of the into to R' Kasher's "Mefa'aneyach Tzefunos" (p. 35) where he points out that while the GR"A forcefully opposed the Rambam's philosophy, the chassidic world embraced his thought and various Rebbes quote freely from Moreh.

I originally had an extra qualifying paragraph in that post that I took out, but David G. is right to call me on it and I should have explained better. Let me put it this way: the Divrei Chaim who quotes from the Moreh in his commentary on Chumash and who spent Yom Kippur night learning Moreh (!) is the same Divrei Chaim who in his tshuvos (Y.D. 105) writes that someone who denies that the Ohr haChaim was written b'ruach hakodesh is an apikores. The same Rogatchover who build his entire system of thought and learning around the Rambam's Moreh was a chassid of Chabad. Rav Kook encourages the learning of "razei Torah" and sod in anticipation of the geulah and to respond to the theological needs of our generation, but he also was a student of the Moreh. Were all these great talmidei chachamim schizophrenics?

I think not. Part of the greatness of these Torah giants is their ability to assimilate sources from all over and synthesize them into a coherent whole consistent with tradition. They were able to study Moreh and find in it the tools to bolster their yiras shamayim and avodah rather than philosophical questions, pitfalls, and challenges to the mainstream thinking of klal yisrael. The Moreh studied by the Divrei Chaim of Sanz was, quite simply put, a completely different book than the Moreh studied by someone looking for an excuse to reject the tenets of kabbalah or chassidus or other traditional beliefs and using the Moreh as cover.

None of these Torah giants were "rationalists" in the way certain contemporaries and bloggers use the term. They all were influenced by the Moreh, used the Moreh, read the Moreh, but all affirmed rather than rejected traditional beliefs. Those who veered more widely from the well tread path of tradition (let's omit specific examples) have been largely forgotten by the Torah world. Here's a simple litmus test: can you find me three examples of where the Divrei Chaim of Sanz or Rav Kook used the Moreh as a source to reject theological views held by the mainstream tradition of their time?

So to return to Davis G.'s point, I think he is right to say Moreh has exerted an influence on ba'alei machshava. However, that influence has not meant slavish conformity exclusively to the specific philosophical approach of Moreh or the rejection of mysticism because of it. It has meant (and this is why I wrote what I did) the absorption and adaption of Moreh into the larger stream of Jewish thought that has also absorbed and been influenced by mysticism and other philosophical views through the centuries. In that regard the influence has certainly been positive.

36 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:28 AM

    Are there or were there any NoN- sephardic and or NoN-hasidic scholars, that incorporate(ed) the "moreh" in their halachic/ analytical works.

    Were there any pure unadulterated litvaks (not fake litvaks or litvaks that went off the derech) that incorporated the "moreh" and or any of the Rambams works into their halachic/analytical works.


    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:38 AM

    I'm just suggesting that perhaps anyone arguing halacha, using the Rambam's approach to anything is probably sephardic and or hasidic.

    Unless there are pure unadulterated litvak oriented scholars that rely heavily or exclusively on the Rambams works for analytical halacha arguing.

    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:41 AM

    Chaim B

    He incorporated the Rambam's works into his halachic works ?

    Which halachic works ?



    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:47 AM

    Commentaries on the mishna torah don't count ;-)

    I'm looking for pure litvaks that found the Rambam to be the perfect source for their analytical halachic points in their works.

    Analytical is the polar opposite of philosophical.

    I think halacha should be based on analytical reasoning not philosophical reasoning.

    I don't know anyone thats a bona fide "rationalist" in 2009.

    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tziki kadera12:28 PM

    You should mention they only learned MN PART 3.

    ReplyDelete
  6. R' Yeruchem quoted the Moreh

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:31 PM

    Not Brisk,
    We all quote the Moreh,
    which pure unadulterated litvak based his halachic works entirely on the Moreh or any of the Rambams works.
    Or used the Rambam's opinions consistently in all of his halachic works not just when it felt good.


    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  8. great unknown3:38 PM

    Classical Litvaks often had surprisingly broad horizons (by today's standards). After all, חכמה בגוים תאמין.
    The Cheshbon Hanefesh was written at Rav Yisroel Salanter's request based on Benjamin Franklin's 13 Virtues.
    Harav Daniel Movshovitz, HY"D, the last mashgiach of the Kelmer Talmud Torah, had Kant in his library.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous3:43 PM

    great unknown ,

    Is "The Cheshbon Hanefesh" an analytical halachic analysis and or related halachic/ (NOT PHILOSOPHIC) scholarly work ?



    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous4:40 PM

    Great Unknown, (what a name!)

    Whats a "classical litvak" a litvak that went off the derech a little and adopted the pure unadulterated I love mussar method for daily learning ?

    Slobodka is a nice place to spend a year or two in, but its no place for a pure litvak to be making his permanent residence for learning.

    Mussar is not a substitute for Talmudic Learning, thats how the wishy washy "yeshivish" problem started I think.


    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous5:07 PM

    Ironically enough, so far the only pure unadulterated litvak oriented scholar that I can think of is Rabbi Louis Ginzburg, may he rest in peace.

    Can anyone name a scholar smarter than him and that lived either in his era or in this era ?


    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  12. R. Chaim,

    the Tzemach Tzedek wrote a whole sefer Derech Emunah based on the Moreh. Levush too wrote a pirush on Moreh and Rema's Toras Ha'olah is also quite infused with the Moreh. Of course they all learned him with their own understanding as does everyone. Rambam is a great teacher and feeds us with ideas that he wants us to develop. Remember the "rashei Perakim" of the Mishna that he repeats over and over in his Moreh.

    Re Mysticism, I personally am not drawn to it. I believe in the limits of human knowledge and am very satisfied with not knowing - Vedomu Selah. Of course, r. Yosef Gikatilla and R. Avraham Abulafia learned Rambam as being a mekubal and wrote pirushim al pi sod on the moreh. Even distortions are based on the Moreh. In short, since rambam I do not believe there is a serious ba'al machshavah that did not, eithr use him as their basis or use as the Tana Depliga to clarify their position.

    I happen to be reading halachik man as I am working on an article that deals with ta'amei hamitzvot. I disagree with your reading. The Rav's comment is limited to that and not the general machshevet harambam.

    I have already reported it somewhere on my blog. The Rogatschover on his way to Vienna for treatments for colon cancer was in great yissurim. He comments, "Vos kumt zich mir ods, vos hob ich getun a ganzleben ob nisht gelernt torah" dozes off and jumps up "Es kumt zich mir. Aganz leben hob ich gelerent Rambam. Vos is mit Rashi, rabbeinu tam ri etc..." a few minutes later" ober vos zoll ich tun, nor der Rambam hot gekent lernen". I heard this years ago from someone who was present with him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous6:20 PM

    David Guttman,

    The Rogatschover is quite wrong.
    Thats what happens when one is off the true derech and embraces hasidicism and philsophyism like its going out of style.


    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reb David-- I heard the same thing from my father zatzal, who stayed with the Rogotchover in Memel, I think, and also had visited him earlier with his Chavrusa, Reb Leizer Platzinski, who was related to the Rogotchover somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Barzilai, now that you are saying beshem omro, I heard it from R. Shloime Shapiro A'H the krokover rav's son in law who heard it from his brother in law Rav Eizenstadt who was on the train to Vienna with the Rogatchover.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous8:34 PM

    Barzilai,

    do you think he was right ?






    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  17. Barzili

    Where did your father learn bichavrusah with R' Lazer?

    ReplyDelete
  18. great unknown10:07 PM

    R' Lazer's father was a Rov in Dvinsk; therein lay the connection to the Rogotchover. [Mesorah from R' Leib Rotkin.]

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous12:17 AM

    "Was the Divrei Chaim of Sanz a "rationalist" because he read Moreh?"

    He was cited in Challenge of Creation ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. My father learned with Reb Leizer for thirteen years in Slabodkeh, from the moment he walked into the yeshiva as a child until the end, or close to the end. They may have taken a few months off when my father had to leave the yeshiva to get semicha; they didn't let bachurim stay in yeshiva when they were learning for semicha.

    ReplyDelete
  21. jaded topaz, for me to express an opinion about the Rogotchover is like a fly asserting parity with an eagle, despite the fact that by some standards I would be classified a talmid chacham.

    ReplyDelete
  22. David G,

    Could you translate the Yiddish for us benighted Sephardim please?

    ReplyDelete
  23. >The Cheshbon Hanefesh was written at Rav Yisroel Salanter's request based on Benjamin Franklin's 13 Virtues.

    The Cheshbon Hanefesh was written, based on Franklin's virtues, by R. Mendel Lefin who died in 1826, when R. Yisrael was 16 years old. Furthermore, while R. Yisrael surely knew that R. Mendel was a maskil, I doubt he knew it was based on Franklin (or would have cared if he had known).

    ReplyDelete
  24. I should have also mentioned that Cheshbon Hanefesh was published two years before R. Yisrael was born.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yissacher3:22 PM

    The Moreh studied by the Divrei Chaim of Sanz was, quite simply put, a completely different book than the Moreh studied by someone looking for an excuse to reject the tenets of kabbalah or chassidus or other traditional beliefs and using the Moreh as cover.

    Agreed. In addition, the Moreh studied by the Divrei Chaim of Sanz was, quite simply put, a completely different book than the Moreh studied by Ibn Tibbon, Efodi, Ralbag, and other such followers in the Rambam's rationalist footsteps, through to Rav Kapach in our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. great unknown7:55 PM

    Mississippi Fred MacDowell:
    I apologize for the error and thank you for pointing it out. Your correction sent me scurrying back to my copy of the Tenuas Hamussar, and obviously I had misremembered the material. In my defense, I last learned it over 30 years ago.

    On the other hand, my mistake may have been based on the following note in the תרצ"ז קיידאן edition:
    ספר נפלא זח יחיד הוא בין ספרי המוסר, להאיר עיני העוסקים
    בחנוך המוסר, ונדפס בפעם הראשונה בשנת תר״ה׳ על פי עצת הגאון
    החסיד בדורו ר׳ ישראל סלנטר זצ״ל, וגם הוא נזכר בדבריו שנדפסו
    בתבונה. ואחר יובל שנים נדפס עוד הפעם על ידי הרה״נ מוהרר״י מלצן
    ז״ל, עתה כבר אינו בנמצא ורבו הדורשים עליו ע״כ נתעוררנו להדפיסו
    כמתכונתו בפעם הראשונה, למען יהי׳ מצוי בירי כל להועיל בשלמות
    המרות כרצון ה׳ על יראיו.


    The title Maskil given to R' Menachem Mendel in the תר"ה edition does not mean what it does today. Rather, it referred to someone who specialized in philosophy as opposed to classic "yeshivishe" learning; however, such a person was a shomer torah umitzvot as well as an adherent of normative hashkafa. I doubt if the Pri Megadim, et. al. would have given haskamot to sefarim published by what we call maskilim today.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous10:49 AM

    Barzilai,

    One quick question, why did the students have to leave the school when they were doing their semicha ?

    Did they learn elsewhere ?
    If the answer is in the affirmative then why ?
    Just curious (I'm trying to figure out how the whole wishy washy yeshivish problem started). Thanx.


    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  28. >I apologize for the error and thank you for pointing it out.

    Of course there is no need for an apology!

    >In my defense, I last learned it over 30 years ago.

    That is indeed a good defense.

    >The title Maskil given to R' Menachem Mendel in the תר"ה edition does not mean what it does today.

    Come on. R. Mendel Lefin was not a maskil because he was called that on the title-leaf of a book. He was a maskil because he was a maskil. He was a maskil ala Yitzhcok Ber Levinsohn and other early East European maskilim.

    Read his bio at the Jewish Encyclopedia

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=L&search=lefin

    or anywhere else.

    I agree that in earlier times the title "maskil" meant an erudite scholar with expertise and interests outside of the run-of-the-mill, but earlier times means the first part of the 18th century and before. After that period more or less the term was used for adherents of Haskalah.

    Of course, Haskalah came and comes in many different flavors, and this is why there is confusion and denial that so-and-so was a maskil and an adherent to Haskalah. In hachi nami, many or even most, depending on the time and place, maskilim were shomer torah u-mitzvos. As for their hashkafos, to a man their hashkafos did not shtim with what you call normative hashkafah, but what really means the hashkafos that the yeshivish and Chassidishe velts held and hold. That is partly why they, R. Mendel included, were maskilim and not just standard talmide chachomim.

    ReplyDelete
  29. great unknown6:22 PM

    Mississippi Fred MacDowell:

    Fascinating citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Which begs the question: א"כ how did he get haskamot from the Pri Megadim and other Rabbonim.

    BTW, lest I let the comment pass without remark, "normative hashkafa" is that of the daled amot shel halacha. That this indeed generally happens to "belong" to the Yeshivishe and Chaddidishe world is a feature, not a bug.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >Fascinating citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Which begs the question: א"כ how did he get haskamot from the Pri Megadim and other Rabbonim.

    Maybe the answer is that maskil is not a synonym for rasha. Alternatively, maybe the Pri Megadim and other rabbanim were not in complete agreement with what you call normative hashkafah, ie, maybe it's not normative hashkafah, even thought one believes that the dales amos shel halacha *is* the yeshivish and chassidish velts.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous7:59 PM

    MIssissippi Fred

    The "yeshivish" and "chassidish" "velts" are clearly off the derech (and their rocker) on many many different halachic and hashkafic levels.



    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  32. Learning for semicha was considered a lower level of learning; it required less vigorous analysis in favor of awareness of what the accepted halacha is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not vigorous, rigorous. And the idea was that the lesser "halacha oriented" learning would diminish the fiery ardor of learning in the Beis Medrash.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous3:06 PM

    Can someone translate the Rogachover's Yiddish?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous2:15 PM

    'rationalism' is hasogos elokus, not some form of thinking as is usually mistranslated. the moreh is straight in line with the chasidishe seforim in this.

    ReplyDelete