samuel da vid l uzza tto and neo-or thodoxytraditionarchive.org/news/originals/volume 7/no. 3/samuel...

David Rudavsky

The hundreth anniversary of the death of Samuel

David Luzzatto has witnessed a resurgence of in~terest in the pioneering achievements of this cele-brated scholar. TRADITION's Summer issue con-tained a selection from his writings as well as abrief resumé of his major contributions to Jewish

scholarship. In this essay, Professor Rudavsky pre-sents in historic perspective a detailed account ofLuzzatto's life and work. The author is AssociateProfessor of Hebrew Culture and Education at NewYork University and Chairman of the NationalEducation Committee of the Zionist Organization ofAmerica. The following article forms a chapter ofDr. Rudavsky's forthcoming book, "Emancipation

and Adjustment," scheduled for publication thiswinter.

SAMUEL DA VID L UZZA TTOAND NEO-OR THODOXY

I. The Emancipation and Religious Judaism

Brands of Judaism

As is commonly known, there was only one brand of Judaismin Europe before the struggle for Emancipation started in earnestin Germany during the turbulent early decades of the nineteenthcentury. This, of course, was traditional Judaism, described as"Orthodoxy" since the final years of the eighteenth century. Thisterm, it should be observed, is a misnomer when applied to Ju-daism, for it is derived from the Greek and means correct beliefor opinion. It may be a suitable adjective when used in connectionwith Christianity, in which creed and dogma play an importantrole; but not so in Judaism which is essentially a praxis, consist-ing of mitzvot and stressing action and conduct. The idiom "Or-thodox Judaism" appeared for the first time, it seems, in a Berlinperiodical in 1795,1 as a pejorative term alluding to the majority

21

TRAITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

of Jews adhering to traditionalism, whom the liberals regardedas backward and obscurantist.

Reform Judaism was an outcome of the clash between so~called Orthodoxy and Haskalah or Enlightenment. Reform rep-resented a rebellion against what it charged was staid Ortho-doxy. The latter ideology, too, did not emerge unscathed andunaltered from the confict. Several types of Orthodoxy resulted,their differences revolving primarily about the pivot of secularculture. The ultra-pietist wing insisted that true Judaism wasopposed to the Haskalah, which advocated the blending of Ju-daism with secular culture; the more liberal elements, however,believed that Judaism could be harmonized with it.

The staunch, extreme Orthodox segment in German Jewry thatopposed the intrusion of modernism and worldly ideas was alsodubbed by the Reformers as the Altglaübigen or "Old Believers."The latter continued to live as they did in the ghetto, in a milieudominated entirely by Talmudic concepts and precepts, refusingto make any concession to the Zeitgeist, the rationalistic spirit ofthe times. They regarded the culture of the outside world as

hostile to Judaism and inconsistent with it, and, therefore, to berejected and shunned. This fundamentalist view was shared bylie-minded Jewish pietists in other countries, particularly inEastern Europe.

A leading protagonist of, the rigorous outlook was MosesSofer (1763-1839), who in his Tzavoat Mosheh forbade hischildren to read the works of "Moses of Dessau", i.e., MosesMendelssohn, the progenitor of the Enlightenment in Germany.He also exhorted them not to acquire a general education, at-tend the theater, or engage in worldly pursuits. "Nor may youcontend" the eminent sage declared, "that times have changed,for we have an Ancient Father, Blessed be His Name, who hasnot and will not change."2Y et among the devout there were alsomore moderate attitudes towards secular culture.

N eo-Orthodoxy

The faction in Orthodox Judaism opposing the ultra-pietistviewpoint was initiated in Germany by a younger contemporary

22

.Samuel David Luzzatto and N eo-Orthodoxy

of Moses Sofer, the Chacham3 Isaac Bernays (1792-1849), whoadopted a conciliatory attitude toward the Enlightenment. Thefact that Bernays was a graduate of the University of Würzburgprompted the Hamburg Jewish community to elect him as itsrabbi in 1821, in the hope that a man of his progressive tempera-

ment and education would succeed in winnng back to orthodoxythe errant youth that had been straying away to the ReformTemples. It was left, however, to Samson Raphael Hirsch, anardent disciple of Isaac Bernays, to formulate the basic rationalefor the neo-Orthodox sector which deviated from old Orthodoxyin that it accepted secular culture. Actually, neo-Ortodoxy wasnot a new phenomenon in Jewish life, but merely a reversion tothe pattern of Judaism prevailing in Arab and Christian Spain,where Jews participated actively in secular life and affairs. Thesupporters of this new trend in traditional Judaism in nineteenthcentury Germany did not, of course, capitulate to the Enlighten-ment; they merely came to terms with it. 4

Luzzatto and Hirsch

Neo-Orthodoxy in Judaism thus implies acceptance of thetotality of Jewish law and practice within a framework of mod-ernism. In Italy, its chief exponent was the brilliant and versatileJewish scholar, Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865), who, withthe other idealogues of the movement, shared an a priori beliefin the divine character of the Pentateuch. According to them,the basic doctrines of Judaism fall outside the realm of reason,which is the product of human perception alone and not as re-liable a guide as divine revelation. On this account, too, no onecan question the miracles or supernatural events related in theMosaic books, for they are beyond nature and experience. Ingeneral, the neo-Orthodox, lie the Orthodox, followed the

teachings of Judah Halevi (1085 -1140), who extolled religionand faith over philosophy and logic.5 Luzzatto warned that any-one who does not subscribe to the Sinaitic revelation and theMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch undermines Judaism.6

Italian Orthodoxy, unlike that of Germany and other partsof Europe, did not have to wrestle with the problem of secular

23

TRITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

education, for among Italian Jewry worldly knowledge was takenfor granted. Moreover, Luzzatto, unlike Hirsch, was closely asso-ciated with the W issenschaft des Judentums or Jewish Sciencemovement, with which he came in contact by reason of the factthat his native Trieste was a part of Austria, where that tendencyhad gained a foothold. Luzzatto, who regarded the Pentateuch assacrosanct, employed the critical method of Jewish Sciencein the investigation of only some of the externals surrounding itstext. But, in the analysis of other Biblical books, he

applied criticalprocedures. Hirsch, however, denounced the evolutionary ap-proach of Jewish Science as doing violence to the basic pririciplesof Judaism. He adopted a policy of noli me tangere toward thewhole religious tradition, maintaining that the method of JewishScience "pretends that the later authorities (in Judaism) did notunderstand the earlier, nor the latest, the later. . . and so insinuat-ing that the basis on which living Judaism rests at the present day. . . is nothing but one deception built on another by guides strickenwith blindness and ignorance."7

Luzzatto also differed from Hirsch on the question of Jewishnationalism, the mission theory, and related issues. Luzzatto,though not a Zionist in the modern sense of the term, may be saidto have been a forerunner of Zionism. He was an ardent Jewishnationalist who regarded the survival of the Jewish people as anend in itself. Hisch believed that the chief aspect of Jewish dis-tinctiveness was religious in character and motivation, whie Luz-zatto regarded the Jewish people as a nationalistic entity and theirsurvival as such, a prime and vital objective. He, therefore, advo-cated an intensification not only of the religious but also of thenationalistic consciousness.

II. Life and Works

Biography

Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) was born in Trieste, whenthat city was still under Austrian rule, to an old Italian Jewishfamily that descended from the noted Jewish scholar, poet, andmystic, Moses Chayim Luzzatto of Padua (1707.47), who, with

24

Samuel David Luzzatto and Neo-Orthodoxy

his dramas and other works, is often considered to have been thefounder of modern Hebrew literature. Samuel was also descendedfrom Ephraim Luzzatto (1739-93), a Hebrew poet and physician,who, in 1768, published in London a volume of Hebrew songs andpoetry. Chezekiah, Samuel's father, was a deeply religious man,inclined toward mysticism, and though only a wood turner bytrade, possessed considerable Jewish and general

learnng. A Luft-mensch by temperament, Chezekiah was continually preoccupiedwith grandiose plans and schemes for constructing a perpetualmotion machine and similar contrivances. As a result of these dis-tractions, he found it diffcult to concentrate on earning a liveli-hood for his family. Because of his poverty and also in keeping.with numerous rabl?inic injunctions, Chezekiah taught his son atrade,8 but the lattér from his early youth preferred a scholarlycareer.

Samuel was a precocious and gifted lad. He received his basiceducation at the Trieste Talmud Torah, a liberal institution or-ganized along the progressive principles laid down by Mendels-sohn's disciple, N aphtali Wessely (1725-1805), which called fora combined program of Jewish,and general studies. After complet-ing his formal schooling in Bible, Talmud, general science, ancientand modem languages at the local school, young Luzzatto con-tinued to acquire further learning through his own efforts and alsowith the aid of his father. He earned his livelihood as a tutor. In1829, Luzzatto left his native city to accept a professorship in thenewly-established Collegio Rabbinico in Padua, the fist modemrabbinical seminary in the world - a post he occupied for the

rest of his days. His academic career gave him an opportunity andmotivation for study and writing.

Luzzatto managed to exhume numerous dust-covered manu-scripts from archives and libraries, thereby saving them from ob-livion. One of his most important works was the publication, withan introduction, annotations, and corrections, of some eighty~six

religious poems of Judah Halevi, in the Divan (1864), a workwhich helped to open the portals of medieval Hebrew poetry tothe Jewish scholarly world. Some years earlier, he prepared hisMavo (1856), a historical and critical introduction to the Mach-zor, or festivalliturgy, according to the "Roman" version. He com-

25


posed the fist Jewish critical commentaries on a number of Bib-lical books and translated into Italian the Pentateuch, the Haftarot,and the Hebrew daily prayer book. His vast literary activity, whichcovered a period of five decades, contributed much to the revivalof Hebrew belle lettres. He was not only the author of Hebrewgrammatical and philological treatises and of theological studies,in Italian as well as in Hebrew, but his articles are found in prac-tically every Jewish scholarly periodical of the period, in Hebrew,German, French or Italian.

Chief among his prolific writings are his "Iggrot Shadal", con-sisting of some 700 letters written to a large circle of scholars ona wide range of subjects. Published posthumously (1822-1894)in nie volumes, they attest to the extensive erudition and greatencyclopedic learning of its author. Luzzatto's sons selected some90 of these letters and compiled them in a collection called Peni-nei Shadal.9 Luzzatto's thought is not organied in any volume orgroup of volumes, but is scattered throughout his books, essays,and letters.

III. Faith and Reason

Romantic Influences

Luzzatto was inuenced by the Romantic spirt that engulfednineteenth century Europe, especially Germany, France, England,and Italy. The new trend marked a shift from the rationalistic cur-rents of the earlier era, which brought on the French Revolution.While rationalism reverted to classical pagan thought, Romanti-cism was based on the Christian world view of later centuries. Inthe case of the Jewish scholars and literati of that age, includingLuzzatto, the Romantic tendency was evinced in the return toJewish tradition, the regeneration of Jewish learning, the Hebrewlanguage, literature, and poetry. It stimuhited the study of theevolution of Judaism which lay the foundation of the Jewish

Science movement. Not only the European but also the ItalianRomantic movement affected Luzzatto. He specifically refers inone of his letters to the impact which the outstanding ItalianRomantic writer, Alesandro Manzoni (1785-1873), had uponhi.26

Samuel David Luzzatto and N eo-Orthodoxy

Two centuries before Shadal, * Blaise Pascal (1628-62) es-poused the emotional approach to religion, declaring that "theheart has its own thoughts, which reason does not know." Severalof Shadal's contemporaries infuenced his attitude toward religion,especially Rousseau (1712-1 778), whom Luzza tto mentions fre-quently and who, lie Luzzatto, gave expression to conflicting ra-tionalistic and Romantic viewpoints. Rousseau had started out asa rationalist, a disciple of Voltaire and the French Enlightenment,but in his later years he became its most violent opponent; accord-ingly, he at fist challenged tradition and later defied the Enlighten-ment. Luzzatto did not evince both tendencies at successive peri-ods, but he did so simultaneously, disapproving, for example, ofthe critical investigation of the Pentateuch on the ground that thesacred text was too carefully guarded to permit errors to creep in,yet unhesitatingly assailing the traditional view that the Hebrewdiacritical signs are of Mosaic origin, and contending - as didElijah Levita (1469-1549) almost four centuries earlier - that

they were devised during the Gaonic period. Because of his con-tradictory tendencies, Luzzatto was regarded as "a Maskil (an ad-herent of the Enlightenment) by the ultra-Orthodox, and as afundamentalist by the Maskilim.

The Intellect and Emotions

Actually, one could easily attack the notion that because reasonis an essential criterion in many aspects of life, it must be the soletest in all. Weare equipped with sentiments and emotions that weshould at times exploit in preference to logic. In the area of religionand conduct, as Rousseau already pointed out, it may be better torely on sentiment and feeligs rather than on syllogisms. In a simi-lar vein, Luzatto held that religion should direct man's emotionstowards the good and the right. If phiosophy should presume toguide religion, both would perish. 11

Another philosopher who exerted considerable infuence onShadal was Etienne Condilac (1715-1780), whom Luzzattocalled his master and teacher.12 A disciple of John Locke, Con-· Shadal is an abbreviation which stands for the Hebrew initials of his name,Samuel David Luzzatto.

27


dillac held that all conscious mental activities derive from senseperception. The mind is a tabula rasa13 (clean slate) on whichsense impressions are recorded. Both Condillac and Locke re-garded personality as an aggregate of sensations. .

These inferences, however, lead logically to atheism and de-terminism. To forestall them, Condi1lac appended a treatise to hismain psychological work, Tracte des Sensations, in which he re-pudiated anti-religious conclusions and upheld the doctrie of free

will, as well as the substantive reality of the soul, as a sort of sixthhuman sense. Luzzatto not only accepted the religious principlesoutlined by Condillac, but in line with the laUer's Sensualism

asserted that what cannot be attained through sense perceptioncannot be investigated.14 Consequently, abstract questions, suchas the existence of the Deity or the soul or immortality, or eventhe problem of Biblical miracles, fall outside the realm of humaninquiry. Nevertheless, Shadal, in one of his Italian works, attempt-ed to prove on the ba'sis of the rationalistic argument from order,harmony, and the laws in nature that there is a divine guidingforce in the universe.15

Luzzatto was a strange combination of critical and Romanticideas - a sort of Janus head, each of whose two faces looked in

an opposite direction. This accounts for his numerous inconsisten-cies and for his faiure to develop a systematic philosophy. On theone hand, he follows a rationalistic course when he rejects mysti-cism as a current of thought foreign to Judaism; he does so againwhen he declares that the Zohar could not have been a creationof Simeon Bar Y ochai, the second century sage, since it discussesthe Hebrew diacritical marks and accents16 which, as previouslyobserved, he regarded as representing the product of a consider-ably later age. * Despite this attitude toward mysticism and theZohar, he nevertheless believed that the dead appearing in dreamsconfim the existence of another world.17 We discern another logi-cal incongruity in his stance on the Book of Isaiah. Though Shadaldid not insist on the absolute incorruptibilty of the texts of theHebrew prophetic books, he, like other Traditionalists, foundsuffcient reason to uphold the unity of the book of Isaiah, includ-to Luzzatto's view, however, runs counter to the Talmudic position. Cf. Nedarim

37a, Berakhot 62a and Eruvin 53a. - Ed.

28


ing the latter portion beginning with chapter 40, which Krochmaland most Bible critics since the nineteenth century had attributedto one or more later prophets; in fact, he broke with his friend,Solomon Judah Rapoport, a noted Hebrew scholar, on this issue.Luzzatto simply maintained that the same author could employvarious styles of writing; moreover, that it would be an insult toearlier generations to charge that they did not accurately transmitso important a work as the Book of Isaiah. This opinion, however,.did not deter him from making corrections in its text, as he didin non-Mosaic books of the Bible.

Shadal adopted the critical approach when he attrbuted theBook of Ecclesiastes to a much later date than the traditional one.Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that the Book of Ecclesiastesis part of the Sacred Scriptures, he opposed its pessimistic outlook.However, he upheld in the main the traditional view that thePsalms were the work of King David, though he admitted thatthere were some later Psalms. He believed, too, that the Book ofJob was òf Mosaic authorship and not a product of the post-Biblical period as Biblical scholars generally held.18 Thoughhe regarded the Torah as being letter perfect and insisted that it"does not dread the light nor does it fear true criticism," he

never-theless maintained that it should not be exposed to question

andscrutiny.

Scriptural Truth

The Jew, Luzzatto urges, must accept on faith the fundamentaldoctrine of the divine origin of the Torah and its corollary, theexistence of One God, as the sole binding dogma in Judaism. Fromthis belief the sanction for all religious laws and observances isderived. There may be other principles in the Torah, but they arenot considered as primary in Judaism. For this reason, Luzzattopoints out, as did Mendelssohn before hi, Jews could differamong themselves on a host of religious matters without beingconsidered heretics, as illustrated by the case of Hasdai Crescas(1340-1410), or his disciple, Joseph Albo (1380-1440), whotook issue with Maimonides for failing to distinguish in his Thi-teen Articles of Faith between fundamental and derivative doc-

29


trines. Crescas even questioned the doctre of free will, whileGersonides (1288-1344) subscribed to the theory of creation fromprimordial matter and not creation ex nihilo; yet the piety of thesemen was not impugned, for Judaism does not lay stress on man'sbeliefs and opinions, its major emphasis being placed on practice.The Torah aims to lead man into paths of righteousness; to im-prove his ethics through obedience to its laws, rather than to insurea correct and uniform faith.

Luzzatto is firmly convinced of the truth of the miracles re-counted in the Bible, as well as of prophecy, for he declares thatall natural laws are of necessity the consequences of God's will,19since the natural forces are not self-propellng. Man knows onlythe laws of cause and effect, which are merely a matter of thesensations and expeiience - but supernatural events are beyond

these domains. It is not impossible that something may take placeoutside the area of sense perception or experience. Prophecy, too,falls in this category; it contradicts experience and experiencecannot, therefore, be invoked to confrm it. Like Judah Halevi,Shadal regarded the miracles associated with the Exodus as his-torical,20 since they were confirmed by 600,000 living witnesseson their way from Egypt.

Though he is firmly convinced of the truth of the Bible, Luz-zatto asserts, nevertheless, that the main function of the Torah isto foster better human behavior. The search for pure truth is thedomain of philosophy; the purpose of religion is to teach virue anddirect people in the righteous path.24 The Deity cannot alwaysemploy perfect truth in His communication with man, for it isbeyond the latter's power to grasp it. Accordingly, society cannotbe sustained on the basis of genuine truth; it depends on the kindof illusion that nature itself occasionally resorts to in performingGod's will. Nature, for example, conceals the underlying biologi-cal purpose of marriage and wedlock, procreation and its attendantresponsibilities and burdens of parenthood, behind the overpower-ing emotion of romantic and parental love. Similarly; the Biblehides the true reason for sacrifice and worship behind the simplenotion that the Lord is concerned with these rituals, when theirprime purpose is actually the psychological effect on the wor-shipper who is to be impressed by the ritual with a sense

of hu-

30


mility and reverence.

Ethics of Judaism

Luzzatto regarded Judaism in this light, as a religion of theheart rather than of the intellect; its doctrines, he observed, giveevidence of the spirit of compassion with which man is naturallyendowed,22 and which impels hi to do good for its own sake.

This sense of pity is an outgrowth of the normal human tendencyof self-love projected to another being. Ths impulse animates,Luzzatto indicates, many of the Scriptural and rabbinic precepts,exemplified by the Biblical provision for the return at night of thepledged garment (Ex. 22: 25 ), or the institution of the Sabbaticalyear (Deut. 15: 9) which cancels all debts and relieves the poorman of a paramount fiancial burden. Characteristic of this trait,too, is the rabbinic law prohibiting an employer from deprivingthe porters of their wages, because they accidentally broke thebarrel of wine they carried, (Bava Metzia 83a). The attitudetoward the widow, orphan, and stranger, so often stressed, exem-plified the quality of mercy in the Mosaic and Talmudic laws. Itis for this reason that even the pagan people, in ancient times,acknowledged the high moralty of Israel, for even the royal sin-ners among them, like Ahab, extended forbearance and kindness(I Kigs 20:31).

The Bible, of course, also includes precepts which may appearto us as brutal - for example, the commandment, "thou shalt

not suffer any soul to live" (Deut. 20: 16) from among the Cana-anites condemned to annihilation. But Shadal draws a parallelbetween this kind of Biblical injunction and various natural catas-trophies.23 Both nature and Torah are manifestations of God.There is no point in questioning inevitable natural disasters. Sha-dal's unshakeable faith in divine mercy, kindness and justice isespecially moving in view of the many tragedies he experienced.His first wife died in 1841 following a protracted siege of melan-cholia which continued for eight years after the death of a youngchild, and his other children were constantly ailg. His eldest

son, Oheb Ger (Philoxenus), 24 a highly gifted and promisingyoung scholar, died at twenty-five; his only daughter, Miriam,

31

TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

who was very talented linguistically, passed away unexpectedlyat the age of eighteen. Yet Luzzatto remained steadfast in hisfaith despite his numerous adversities.

A brahamism and A tticism

Western civilization, Luzzatto explains, is composed of twoantithetical forces: Atticism, the culture of ancient Greece orAthens, and Abrahamism, the religious thought of the Jews, whichoriginated with Abraham, chosen of God, because he rejectedpolytheism. God had charged Abraham and his descendants withthe duty of preserving both Judaism and universal ethics for pos-terity. As a means of setting them apart from other peoples, theJews were given special precepts regarding diet, circumcision,laws of purity and sacrifice. It is only in the distinctive rites essen-tial to Jewish group coherence and survival that Judaism differen-tiates between Jew and Gentile. Unlike other faiths, Judaismpromises salvation to the righteous of all people. Accordingly, allmen are God's chidren, but the Jews are His Chosen People, forthey are a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19: 6) andas such must bear special ethical and ritual responsibilities andobligations. Their selection is thus merely the application of theidea of "noblesse oblige."

According to Luzzatto, manknd is indebted to Israel formorality. Such notions as justice and uprightness were receivedas divine gifts at Sinai.25 On the other hand, Greece gave to theworld philosophy, science and art. Our predilection for the beau-tiful and pleasant over the good and beneficial, our preferencefor delightful rhetoric over genuine truth, for theoretic abstractionover integrity and honesty, and generally, the pursuit of pleasure,pride, and wealth, Luzzatto attributes to Athens. He sees novirtue in technocracy; he points up the moral

lag in our culture

to which Rousseau and others made reference; and this, too, hecharges to Athens and its rationalistic doctrines. "When werethere as many great inventions as in this generation, yet havethese new discoveries eliminated war, murder, robbery, poverty,disease, envy, hate, oppression, and untimely death?" Shadalchallenges. He reproaches man for having improved his machines

32 c-


but not himself.

The Greek elements in our civilization, Luzzatto complains,have produced a meaningless intellectuality, suitable for philoso-phers but not for the masses who require the vitamins of morality.26The exaltation of reason, according to Luzzatto, is foreign toJudaism. He therefore criticizes Maimonides and Ibn Ezra fortheir rationalistic inclinatlons, which were prone to divert Juda-ism from its true course into alien channels of thought. Maimoni- .des is attacked for not citing the Rabbinic sources for the deci-sions in his Code; but even more so for having advocated Aris-totle's Golden Mean instead of the uncompromising path of thedeity. Ibii Ezra is assailed for his leanings toward Hellenistic

rationalism which leads to speculation and not to concrete actiontoward the goal of human betterment. After centuries of contem-plation philosophers have as yet failed to agree on anyone systemof thought; they have, however, made pessimists of people. Onthe other hand, J udaisIn demands of an individual that he followthe divine precepts, in order to attain the lofty heights of the

righteous, who, according to the Talmud, are even greater thanthe heavenly angels. To achieve true progress, civilization muststrengthen its religious and ethical moorings, while combattingand countering its immoral, atheistic Greek foundations. Thisattitude prompts Luzzatto to proclaim feelingly, "My God is notthe God of Kant, but the God of the T anakh. 27

Luzzatto and Spinoza

Luzzatto regarded Baruch Spinoza as the epitome of the phi-losopher. A son of Marrano parents, Spinoza received a goodJewish education, on which he later drew for some of his phi1o~

sophical theories.Spinoza, the Jew steeped in monotheistic thought, diverges

from the dualism of his master, Descartes. For Spinoza there isonly one single substance - God, Who is not a separate inde-pendent Being, but Deus sive natura: God is nature; the naturalorder and God are one. Everything that exists or occurs in theworld is an aspect of one of the two attributes of God-thoughtand extension. The spiritual or mental life of man is as much apart of God as the sands and the waters of the sea.

33

TRAITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought ·

This view of God led the German mystic and Romanticist

Novalis to describe Spinoza as "God intoxicated," while otherslike Shadal branded Spinoza an atheist. SpInoza's God is notLuzzatto's Creator of the universe, the ethical God of Judaismor its daughter religions, which are predicated on a belief in aliving, loving, moral Deity who is concerned with the conductand welfare of His creatures. Spinoza's God lacks a moral pur-pose in the universe. Spinoza, too, is a rigid determinist, in thetradition of the ancient Stoics. He maintained that "all thigswlÌch happen, happen according to the fied law of natúre."

One's selection of a course of action or behavior is, it follows,the product of pre-conditions, psychological, or other natural

factors; there is then no free choice or free wi. Nothing is in-herently good or bad in the world; good and bad is always rela-tive to a given situation. The two qualities are, therefore, notopposing concepts. Man must learn to surrender to the naturalsequence of events, not to react to .them emotionally but ratherfree himself from the shackles of his normal sentiments and liveas sub specie aeternitatis (under the aspect of eternity). Thehighest goal of man should be the intellectual love of God, whichone can achieve through a better knowledge of the world, whichwill endow hi with greater power and control over his environ-ment.

Without attempting to scrutinize the fallacies in the reasoningor assumptions of Spinoza, we shall touch merely on some oftheir implications. Spinoza's God is too detached from humanityto have any moral infuence upon it. He is not the God of Revela-tion or the God who inspired the Hebrew prophets to protestagainst iniquity and injustice and who, when catastrophe strucktheir people, brought them solace and comfort. Spinoza's doc-

trine of resignation would make the sacrifces of the Jewish martyrs-in fact, the entire struggle that is Jewish history-meaning-

less. His attitude, too, toward good and evil deprives men of themotivation and clarity of choice that religion offers; moreover,it nulles the message and purpose of the teachers and sages in

Judaism and their lofty ideals. With his beliefs, Spinoza had readhimself out of Judaism; by his own admission, he did so evenbefore his formal excommunication in 1656.

34


Spinoza's fundamental philosophy and metaphysical outlookwere thoroughly repugnant to Luzzatto. His extreme rationalismclashed sharply with Luzzatto's Romanticism. It is logically point-less for anyone to assume an attitude of piety or worship of aDivinity that represents merely the fied and immutable order ofnature or a mechanical process. Luzzatto, moreover, extolled

the human emotions, which Spinoza claimed merely enslavedman and from which man had to liberate hiself, in order toachieve true happiness, for one who aoes not love or hate, Luz-zatto maintained, is not human, but a flnt of rock.28 Luzzatto

assumed further that compassion was the source of Judaism whileSpinoza regarded this emotion as a weak~ feminie virtue. Luz-

zatto, too, cherished the Jewish precepts and rituals, while Spinozafailed to see any intrinsic sanctity in them. The doctrines of theTorah which Luzzatto considered eternal, Spinoza saw only ashaving been designed for the government and survival of theancient Jewish State.

These diferences in viewpoint led Luzzatto to denounce Spin-oza and to carryon a polemic war with the latter's disciples. Luz-zatto regarded Spinozaism as the confmed enemy of Judaism."Only he whose heart is stone can see merely determinism in themiracles of nature,"29 Luzzatto wrote. He further declared thatone who believed as Spinoza did was bound to be an immoralperson, for a doctrine that there is no moral law or moral judgein the world, leads to ethical chaos. Luzzatto's opinions were

thus entirely irreconcilable with those of the seventeenth centuryphilosopher.

IV . Jewish Nationalism

Nationalistic Influences

To the extent that Romanticism focused on the history of apeople, it gave further impulse to the growth of its nationalisticspirit. Romanticism concentrated on the early centuries and theprimitive stages of the group, when it was relatively free fromthe shackles of law, custom, and conventions of later ages. It heldthe tribal or ethnic unt in high esteem and sought out its dis-

35


tinctive traits and characteristics. Romanticism thus became avital stimulus in European nationalism.

The nineteenth century was marked by the nationalistic revoltin European countries. It was particularly intense in Italy, which

. had enjoyed a brief taste of national unity under Napoleon. Theexample set by the Italian heroes in their battle for unificationcould not but have impressed Shadal. The nationalistic atmos-phere of his time doubtlessly affected Luzzatto's Jewish national-istic outlook. It may be observed in passing that though he oftenshifted. in his research and thought from the Romantic to therationalistic approach, he was entirely consistent and unflaggingin his Jewish nationalistic zeaL. 30

Jewish Particularism

Shadal emulated Judah Halevi (1085-1140) in his national-istic as well as religious outlook. In Judah Halevi who regardedthe Jewish people as a select group, the heart among the nations,31Shadal saw a kindred spirit. His love for the nationalistic poetled him to publish Halevi's Zionides in 1840 in a special volumewhich he titled Betulat Bat Yehudah (The Virgin Daughter ofJudah) after the Biblical phrase referring to Jerusalem, whichwas considered inviolate.32 It was Luzzatto's nationalism thatprompted him to devote his life to an intensification of the Jewishconsciousness through an exploration and interpretation of Ju~daism's great classical and medieval literature.

Luzzatto referred to his conception of Judaism as Abrahamism,thereby stressing its ethnic element. The special precepts givenIsrael were a means of guarding the group's distinctiveness, butthe universal ethical principles of justice, righteousness, and

morality were designed fór the protection of society and humanitygenerally. Thus Jewish nationalism is not a narrow chauvinism;it serves humanity as a whole. Accordingly, in surrendering hisparticularism and uniqueness, the Jew does violence not only toJ udaismbut deprives mankind of an important ethical force.The moral temperament which has characterized Judaism is,however, a psychic, not a racial trait; accordingly, it is not trans-mitted to Jews in their genes, but is an important element in theirreligious teachings.

36


Emancipation

Shadal's nationalism is evident also in his attitude toward

Jewish Emancipation. In pursuing the spirit of modernism, manyJews in his day, Luzzatto complains, have surrendered their Jew-ish individuality and distinctiveness in an attempt to be "alikeunto the nations" and earn their approval, in return for whichthey expected to be granted civic equality. In fact, these Jews,Luzzatto insisted, are prepared to surrender their national valueseven for a mere shadow of egalitarianism, let alone completeliberty. Such equality, however, he could not regard as trueemancipation; it spells bondage and servility. The principal goalof the Jew should be to achieve inner freedom, which is the onlykind worth striving for. 33

Emancipation, Luzzatto stresses, is not a panacea for all theailments of Judaism. The survival of the Jewish people dependsfar more on the creation among Jews of an esprit de corps, a feel Ming of brotherhood and kinship. Their major goal should not bethe attainment of parity with their neighbors, but rather the de-velopment of a sense of national pride, which should stimulate thestudy "of the Torah and the Hebrew language and should dis:-courage the spread of the spirit of Atticism among them. Nor isEmancipation an unmitigated blessing; in France, Belgium, andHolland, where Jews have been completely enfranchised, Jewishcreativity declined, Jewish religious growth was stunted, and theTorah and Hebrew language forgotten. The freedom in thesecountries was an invitation to fusion34 and assimilation. In oneof his poems Shadal inveighed against those M askilim who ne-glected their own heritage, preferring Goethe and Schiller to theHebrew prophets and sages:

"Perish he who shames his motherAnd ridicules his father's old ageWho makes of Emancipation a fetish.

May my tongue cleave to my palateMay my right eye be dimmedMay my right hand wither, if I forget thee, Oh Zion."35

37\


Shadal pleaded for the emancipation of Judaism from foreigncultural infuences, in the conviction that one of its crucial prob-lems was to maintain its pristine purity. He had little use forphiosophers generally and took up the cudgels as we have seen,particularly against Spinoza, whom he regarded as the embodi-ment of the anti-religious tendencies in phiosophy. BecauseMaimonides sought to blend Judaism with Aristotelian phioso-phy, he was attacked by Luzzatto as a "stumbling block" and

"the source of our troubles."86 In borrowing from Aristotle, hecharged, Maimonides converted Judaism from a religion of theheart to one of the mind. It is not possible to fit Judaism into theGraeco-Arab mould of thought without distorting its originalnature. Maimonides' venture in this direction led him to curb free-dom of thought among Jews bu fig thirteen definite articles offaith.

31

Maimonides was not the only medieval Jewish sage with whomLuzzatto clashed. He criticized Abraham Ibn Ezra for his in-clinations toward Hellenistic rationalism and charged him withconcealing his true anti-traditional views. By contrast, he alludesto Rashi as '''a humble and wholesome personality."38 Shadalcarred his opposition to the infusion of foreign currents in Ju-daism to an extreme, when he censured the noted Jewish historianHeinrich Graetz for asserting that the Babylonian Talmud wassuperior to". its Jerusalem counterpart.89 This viewpoint broughtLuzzatto into sharp confct with the Maskilim, among themNachman Krochmal, who advocated a synthesis of Judaism40 withEuropean culture, and a bitter dispute ensued between them and .Luzzatto on this issue.

The debate on the intrusion of alien elements into Judaismraises the question of cultural cross-fertilization, whether Judaismshould remain monolithic and exclude the cultural ingredients ofits environment, or should adapt itself to them. It must be con-ceded that Judaism could hardly have survived if it had lackedthe vitality to adjust to the dominant cultures among which itlived, or if it had failed to absorb some external ideas congenialto it whie rejecting others. For that matter, Shadal himself yieldedto the rationalistic and secular currents, though he vigorously.'stressed the danger that if outside thought were to unduly infuence

38


Jewish doctrines and principles, Judaism was bound to be sub-merged and disappear.

Jewish Science

Leopold Zunz, the initiator of the Jewish Science movement inGermany, and his followers aimed to construct a suitable monu-ment to the rich Jewish past and its cultural achievement, whichthey believed was coming to an end with the advent of the Eman-cipation. They aspired for the recognition of Jewish culture asa part of world culture, and also to introduce it as a discipline tobe taught in the universities. This, they believed, would raise theprestige of the Jews in the eyes of their neighbors, who would,in consequence, be moved to grant them equal human, ciVi, andpolitical rights.

The pursuit of this objective brought in its wake apologetictendencies on the part of scholars engaged in Jewish Science, whounderscored the humanistic rather than the nationalistic and dis-tinctive values in Jewish literature and lore. Shadal objectedstrenuously to these efforts and urged that Jewish Science bemade an instrument for Jewish survivaL. He denounced those whowere concerned with the Jewish past in the manner of antiquarians,whose paramount interest in exhuming ancient civilzations waspriarily academic and little more. Luzzatto, however, saw the

Jewish .past as a current in an ever-expanding stream of Jewishcultural creativity. Any other type of Jewish learning is boundto die out, he warned. The function of Jewish Science, he insisted,is to train scholars imbued with a love and reverence for Judaism,who will dedicate themselves to the task of fostering and extend-ing Jewish knowledge as a phase of an ongoing and burgeoningJewish life. Shadal reproved Abraham Geiger for concentratingprimarily on the Jewish past, with relatively little regard for itspresent and future.

Reform Judaism5'

Prom his early days, Luzzatto was an implacable opponentof Reform. In 1818 he wrote the "Vision of the Seduced Cities,"41

39


a poem denouncing the offenses of the Reformers against tradi-tion, notably their attempt to replace Hebrew by the vernacularin synagogues in Berlin, the very city in which Naphtali Wesseleyand Mendelssohn had done so much to revive it. "Today, Israelabandons its sacred language," the poet predicted, "tomorrow, itwill surrender its Torah!" He also protested vigorously againstthe attempt by the Frankfort Reform Society in 1843 to abolishthe rite of circumcision and other time-honored Jewish practices.

Luzzatto ridiculed the mission theory of the Reformers as anempty dream and a "vain comfort." It was the Jewish belief inRevelation and Torah, Luzzatto averred, not the Reform doctrineof the Jewish mission,42 that inspired the Jew to undergo sacrificeand martyrdom. That the mission theory has little practical sig-nificance may be judged from the fact that the Bible which hadbeen disseminated among civilized nations for over 1800 yearshad by far not yet brought perfection to humanity. There is

less reason to believe that the religious liberals with their inclina-tion toward Atticism will succeed in doing so.

To achieve the Utopian state envisaged in the concept of theJewish mission, Shadal maintained, the human heart will have toundergo a fundamental reconstruction bordering on the miracu~lous. Furthermore, the Messianic ideals expounded by the He-brew prophets, unlike the mission theory of the Reformers, didnot call for an absolute universalism; the Hebrew Prophets viewedthe Messianic era merely as an epoch of just nationalism in theworld, in which Israel, a paragon of justice, will live on its ownsoil and will assume the role of judge among the nations (Isaiah2:2-4). To attain this ideal, Jews should cling to their faith withgreater devotion and loyalty and not whittle it down, as the Re-formers were doing.

Hebrew

Luzzatto acquired a mastery of Italian, French, and, to a lesserextent, German, Oriental tongues, Greek and Latin, but his favor-ite medium was Hebrew. He described his attachment to Hebrewas the "love of the sacred tongue that burns within me. "43 Jewish

literary and cultural enterprises, he advocated, must be carried on

40


in their natural medium, the Hebrew language. He refused tohave his commentary on Isaiah translated into German lest thatmilitate against its publication in Hebrew, declaring that "mychief desire and aim is the resuscitation of Hebrew."44 Little

wonder, then, that Luzzatto took occasion to chide his colleaguesin the Jewish Science circles in Germany for writing in Germanrather than in Hebrew.. Previously, he pointed out, Jewish

scholars wrote in Hebrew because they wrote for an intimateaudience of readers and they expressed their thoughts freely. Nowthat they wrote German, French, and English, they "must reckonwith what the gentiles will say," and so they adapt their writingsand often give them a Christian fiavor.45

For many years Luzzatto devoted himself to the advancementof the Hebrew language. He composed Hebrew poetry, much of itquite stultified. He expressed the hope that all his writing wouldeventually be published in Hebrew46 and urged the establishmentof a special Hebrew publishing house.47 Religious education, hefelt, should be carried on in the original Hebrew and rabbinic textsand not in translation. To hi, the Hebrew language was a bridgebetween the classical and modern cultures of the Jew, and the onlymeans by which Hebrew literature could be revived and a love forJudaism sustained.48

The Jewish Homeland

In a letter written to Rabbi Nachman Nathan Coronel ofJerusalem, Luzzatto advocated measures "to endeavor to bring .back the Jews of the Holy Land to their ancestral occupation,agriculture, and thus support themselves by the toil of their handsas do other peoples, who also take pride in doing so. If theyshould succeed with such a plan, they wil not only rehabilitatethemselves, but they will restore the Jewish homeland into a landflowing with milk and honey. Farmig, too, could thus becomethe core of a productive economy, and would stimulate itsgrowth."49 Shadal proposed that instead of financing the migra-tion of Jewish boys from Asia to Europe, to be corrupted byWestern civilization, egotism, and atheism, philanthropic effortshould be directed toward bringing them to Palestine, where they

41


should engage in rewarding enterprise. The land of Israel, ifworked by Jews, could be restored in time to its original state ofproductivity, particularly if the effort enjoyed government pro-tection.

But Luzzatto was not only concerned with the economic regen-eration of the J ewish homeland~ but also with its cultural aspect.If Judaism stood for justice and righteousness, the Jewish home-land must become a center from which these ideals could flowforth to the entire world. He proposed that competent judicialauthorities be trained in the Holy Land to dispense true justice toall who would come before them for judgment from every partof the earth-Jews and non-Jews alike. This idea is suggestiveof the broader objective later advocated by Ahad Haam, of cre-ating in Palestine a Jewish cultural and spirtual center to servethe Diaspora.5Q

In sum, we see the prominent role that Jewish nationalismplayed in Luzzatto's pattern of thought. In his attitude towardEmancipation, the preservation of Hebrew culture, the place ofJewish science, Hebrew, and the question of the rebuilding of theJewish homeland, Shadal distinguished himself as a staunch J ew-ish nationalist and forerunner of Zionism. In his religious viewshe generally concurred with his contemporary, the founder ofneo-Orthodoxy in Germany, Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888 ), who valiantly defended traditionalism against both theReformist and the more moderate Historical School launched byZacharia Frankel (1801-1875), out of which grew the AmericanConservative movement. Hirsch, however, believed that the chiefaspect of Jewish separateness was religious in character and mo-tivation, whie Luzzatto, an originator and exponent of modernJewish nationalism, regarded the survival of the Jewish people asa national group, as a paramount objective. To Luzzatto, Jewishnationalism was the nexus of Judaism. In this opinion, Luzzattomay be said to have been closer to Frankel's school of thought,which stressed the idea of Jewish peoplehood in its ideology.

42

Samuel David Luzzauo and NeD-Orthodoxy

NOTES

1. Berlin Monatschrift, Vol. XXV. p. 30. See H. D. Smith. "The Terms ofthe Emancipation," 1781-1812. in Yearbook 1. Leo Baeck Institute 1956. 6. 30.The common notion has been that the term was coined by Furtado. Presidentof the French Assembly of Notables in 1806.

2. See Testament of Chatan Sofer in Eliezer Katz. HeChatam Safer, Jerusa-lem, Mosad Rarav Kook, 1960. p. 131 if. The extreme pietists still object to asecular training for their sons, since they regard general culture as Judah Halevi(1085-1140) described it. "only as an ornament, not frit but flowers!' Someultra-Orthodox Jews even today allow only their daughters but not their sonsto engage in secular study, insisting that the latter must not waste precious

time on such frils. but should devote themselves only to Torah.

3. Bernays generally used the Sephardic title of Chacham (sage) ratherthan the Ashkenazic "Rabbi'. as a means of pointing up his secular educationalattainments. which distinguished him from the typical rabbis of his day.

4. West European and American Orthdoxy today generally subscrbe to thsoutlook.

5. 1(uzari IV; 13. 15, 16.

6. Cf. ibid., I; 81, 83, 86, 87.

7. Quoted in S. R. Hirsch, "Jewish Learning in Practical Life:' in I. Grun-feld, Judaism Eternal, Vol. II, London, Soncino Press, 1956, p. 287.

8. It is told of the elder Luzzatto that in order to avoid the penalty forviolating this injunction, he wrote a letter to his son, urging him to tae upa vocation. The father was said to havè arranged to take a copy of this letterwith him to the grave as proof in the next world of his good intentions.

9. For a list of his works, see the article by Max Seligson in Jewish En-cyclopedia, Vol. VIII, pp. 225-226; also the excellent monograph in Hebrew ofJoseph Klausner in Historiah shel Hasifrut Haivrit Hachadashah, II, (SecondEdition), Jerusalem, Ahiasof 1952, pp. 47ft., 78ff.

10. Epistolaria II, 922-923.

11. ¡grot Shadal, VI. 780.

12. Mechkerei ha-Yahadut I; p. 67, ff.. II, p. 216 if.13. Ibid., Vol. I.. p. 7~ If.14. Loc. cit.15. Lexioni di Teologia Dogmatica Israelitica.. Trieste, 1864. p. 15 ff.16. Mechkerei ha-Yahadut I, p. 117-240.

17. Ozar Nechmad I, p. 82 ff.18. The Talmud in another passage (Bava Batra 15a) gives later dates rang-

ing from the time of the Judges and the Babylonian exile to the period ofAhasuerus (5th century B.C.E.). R. Samuel ben Nachmani also disputes the Mosaicauthorship of the Book of Job maintaining that it was only a parable (Bava

Batra ISa). Hai Gaon (939-1038) agreed with this view.19. Mechkerei ha-Yahadut, I. p. 59 ff.20. 1(uzari I, 81. 83, 86. 87.

43


21. As proof of the supernatural origin of the Torah, Luzzatto argues quite

naively that writing was not widespread in Mosaic times.

22. The Hebrew root rachem~ pity, is associated with rechem~ or womb,and thus implies maternal tenderness and love. This derivation probably hadno bearing on Spinoza's classification of this emotion as a feminine virtue, butit indicates a striking coincidence.

23. Yesodei Ha-Torah~ p. 48.24. So named because the year his son was born (1829), he completed a

work by that name, dealing with Targum o nkelos , an Aramaic commentary onthe Pentateuch. Oheb Ger, or lover of the proselyte, is Philoxenus in Greek.The phrase is an allusion to Deut. 10:18.

25. Ozar Nechmad I, p. 108, if. p. 131; Kinor Naim~ p. 283 if.26. Mechkerei ha-Yahadut~ II, p. 244 if.; ¡grot V, p. 704, 780.27. Here Luzzatto reverses the order of the letters of the name Kant, to

produce the term"Tanakh"; see also Peninei Shadal, p. 1I5.28. Mechkerei Hayahadut II, p. 199.29. Loc. cU.

30. ¡grot 1405.

31. Kuzari II: 36.32. As previously noted, he also published Judah Halevi's religious poetry

in the Divan (1864).

33. This thought is reminiscent of Asher Ginzberg's (Ahad Haam) views inhis essay, "Slavery and Freedom," written in 1904.

34. Igrot V, 660.

35. Kinor Naim, p. 429.

36. Mechkerei ha-Yahdut II, 1.64.37. Kerem Chemed IV, p. 119 if. .38. Igrot V, 701.

39. Discorsi historico-religiosi~ agli studenti Israelii, p. 1I4 if.

40. Kerem Chemed 132, if.41. A reference to Deut. 13:14 fE.42. This doctrine regards the dispersion of the Jewish people not as a

punishment for their sins, bu t rather as a blessing designed to enable them todisseminate the teachings of ethical monotheism to all mankind (Pesachim 87b).43. Igrot VIII, 1246.

44. Ibid., 1139, Epistalario II, 819.

45. Hapardes III, 120..46. Igrot VIII, 1249.

47. Ibid., I, 143 if.48. Hapardes III, 119.49. Igrot VII, 1071.

50. See his essay, "The Spiritual Revival," in Leon Simon's Selected Essays byAhad Haam, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society.

44

samuel da vid l uzza tto and neo-or thodoxytraditionarchive.org/news/originals/volume 7/no. 3/samuel...

Documents