Abstract
The chapter discusses the reception of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed in German Jewish thought roughly from the 1840s to the 1870s – with the focus on the highly ambivalent treatment of the work in the theological thought of two of the main figures of German Jewry at the time: Abraham Geiger and Heinrich Graetz. Geiger and Graetz find in the Guide cold intellectualism applied to their beloved ‘spiritual’ Judaism and agree that the Guide, contrary to its intentions, did not produce any kind of harmony between philosophy and religion. But both thinkers, Geiger and Graetz, still very much appreciated many of Maimonides’ achievements in Judaism: first and foremost, that he made philosophical theology a common good among the Jews. In addition, the chapter evaluates the discussion of Maimonidean doctrines during the rabbinical conferences of the 1840s, the reception of Maimonides by Samuel Holdheim and several other rabbinical thinkers of contemporary Germany, such as Heymann Jolowicz, Moritz Eisler or Leopold Stein.
It was in this period that many Reform theologians discovered in certain doctrines of the medieval treatise a mighty potential for the justification and grounding of religious reforms. Here, it was especially Maimonides’ original and teleological Biblical interpretations and his rational, historizing understanding of the reasons for the commandments that often provided the Reformers with the welcome support of an accepted rabbinic authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Jacob Goldenthal (1815–1868) studied at the university in Leipzig and was principal of the Jewish school in Kishiniev. In 1849 he became professor of Oriental languages at the university in Vienna, a chair he held until his death. He published many critical editions of medieval texts, among them Narboni’s commentary on the Guide in 1852.
- 2.
Hirsch Baer Fassel Tugend- und Rechtslehre, bearbeitet nach den Principien des Talmuds und nach der Form der Philosophie, Wien 1848, p. XIII. Fassel (1802–1883) studied at the Moses Sofer yeshiva in Pressburg, and served as the rabbi of Prossnitz in Moravia. In 1839 he wrote a devastating review of Hirsch’s Horev, refuting Hirsch’s views entirely on Talmudic grounds. In 1845, after the death of Solomon Tiktin, the congregation of Breslau elected him as associate rabbi to Abraham Geiger. Fassel, however, declined the call and applied for the position of the Landesrabbbiner of Moravia, but ironically, instead of him, Hirsch was elected. In 1851, he became the successor of Leopold Löw in Groß–Kanizsa (Slovenia), a position he held until his death.
- 3.
Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol 2, Wien 1849 (Sitzung vom 19. Jänner 1849), p. 119. (my italics) The allusion to Kern and Schale refers to one of the favorite motifs of the Reformers from the very beginning, the notion that there is a pure “kernel” of true, original Judaism with a thick shell of “rabbinism” around it that only needs to be removed to re-vitalize the core. See for example Immanuel Wolf’s preamble to the first edition of Sulamith (1806, p. 3) where he even refers to the Talmud, ironically, as the source of the metaphor.
- 4.
Bernhard Beer (1801–1861) was born in Dresden where he received private schooling from his family, from an early age studying ancient and modern classics, among them Mendelssohn. At the age of 23 he founded a study group for the discussion of the Bible and other Hebrew literature, especially Maimonides. He was the first to deliver German sermons in Dresden, and fought for all his life for the improvement of the legal situation of the Jews in Saxony. In 1834 he earned a doctoral degree from the university in Leipzig. He collected an extensive and valuable library of Judaica that went after his death to the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary.
- 5.
See for example Beer’s definition of Judaism in his “Die neuere jüdische Literatur und ihre Bedeutung”, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 1853, No.2, p. 46ff.
- 6.
For a detailed discussion of his review of Graetz’ first historical essay on the Structure of History, see Chap. 7.
- 7.
Johannes von Ronge (1813–1887) was excommunicated by the Catholic Church after he called the 1844 exhibition of the ‘Holy Skirt’ in the cathedral of Trier a Götzenfest (idol celebrating). Ronge subsequently founded the ‘German Catholics’ movement, which was joined in 1849 by the Protestant Reform congregation of the Lichtfreunde, forming the ‘Free-thinker’ movement. After Ronge returned from exile in 1861, he also made attempts to integrate Jewish Reform congregations into the movement, but with little success – probably due to the strong anti-Jewish tendencies of even the Reform Christian churches.
- 8.
Bernhard Beer Die freie christliche Kirche und das Judenthum: Sendschreiben an Herrn Johannes Ronge, Leipzig: H. Hunger, 1848, p. 19 (Beer refers here to Guide III:18, although there might have been more appropriate places in Maimonides for attributing this theory. But probably Beer preferred this chapter because there Maimonides brings the Biblical sources for his doctrine of providence). Interestingly, when Zacharias Frankel in the Monatsschrift wrote a short biography of his friend after Beer’s untimely death in 1861, he quoted this passage verbatim. See his “Dr. Bernhard Beer. Ein Lebens- und Zeitbild”, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 1862, No.10, p. 373f.
- 9.
Joseph Levin Saalschütz Das mosaische Recht nebst den vervollständigenden thalmudisch-rabbinischen Bestimmungen: für Bibelforscher, Juristen und Staatsmänner, 2 vols, Berlin 1853 (second edition), p. IV. Saalschütz (1801–1863) earned a doctoral degree from the university in Königsberg in 1824. He worked as rabbi and teacher in Berlin and Vienna before he returned to Königsberg in 1835 from where he published an extensive amount of scholarly works on a wide range of subjects, including the 12 parts of the landmark “Archäologie der Hebräer” (Königsberg, 1855–56).
- 10.
Johann David Michaelis Mosaisches Recht, Reutlingen 1793, § 6, p. 14f. The authority of Mosaic law was overturned already by Paul, Michaelis writes, and in § 18 (p. 44f) he explicitly explains why he excluded Talmudic law: the exegesis of the rabbis was, according to Christ, the exact opposite of what Moses commanded. Michaelis (1717–1791) was a Biblical scholar who mainly taught at the university in Göttingen. His Mosaisches Recht was influenced by Montesquieu’s L’esprit de lois from 1748, and actually praises the rationality and humanistic tendency of Mosaic Law. From his knowledge of this law, however, Michaelis drew the practical conclusion that Jews cannot be integrated in modern civil society without abandoning their separatist religious regulations.
- 11.
Saalschütz Das mosaische Recht, p. 170, 179, 261, 263, 296, 310, 377. The same use of Maimonides’ rationales for the commandments as found in the Guide, appearing in a book explaining Biblical law can already be found in Meyer Hirsch. Landauer (1808–1841) Wesen und Form des Pentateuchs, Stuttgart 1838, p. 60 (note). On the Reform Movement’s attempt to use Maimonides’ explanation of the law in the Guide for a justification to abandon specific ‘outdated’ commandments, see Chap. 7.
- 12.
Gotthold Salomon Das neue Gebetbuch und seine Verketzerung, Hamburg 1841, p. 16–19. For discussion, see Chap. 7.
- 13.
Protokolle und Aktenstücke der Zweiten Rabbiner-Versammlung, Frankfurt 1845, p. 117 (see Chap. 7 for a more detailed discussion of this debate). Steven Lowenstein has published a comprehensive list of all participants of the three assemblies. See his “The 1840s and the Creation of the German-Jewish Religious Reform Movement”, in The Mechanics of Change, Essays in the Social History of German Jewry, Scholars Press, Atlanta 1992, p. 110ff.
- 14.
Holdheim (1806–1860) was both a great Talmudist and one of the most radical Reformers, at the time of the conference he served as chief rabbi of the Grand-Dutchy of Mecklenburg in Schwerin. 1847 he was called to be preacher at the Jüdische Reformgenossenschaft in Berlin.
- 15.
Protocolle der Dritten Versammlung deutscher Rabbiner, Breslau 1846, p. 64 and 70f. Holdheim refers to Guide II: 31 and III: 43.
- 16.
Hess (1807–1871) was for more than 40 years chief rabbi of the grand duchy of Weimar, where he introduced the most extreme Reform measures, sometimes even against the will of the community.
- 17.
Protocolle der Dritten Versammlung deutscher Rabbiner, Breslau 1846, p. 82f.
- 18.
For Holdheim’s position towards emancipation and religious Reforms see his “Das religiöse und politische im Judenthum”, Schwerin 1845, p. IVf. – an answer to accusations made by Zacharias Frankel.
- 19.
As an example, see Holdheim’s attempt to justify mixed Jewish-Christian marriages in Über die Autonomie der Rabbinen, Schwerin 1843, notes on pages 187, 225 and 263.
- 20.
David Joel (1815–1882) learned Talmud with Rabbi Akiva Eger in Posen and studied later, like his brother Manuel, at the Berlin University. He was ordained rabbi in 1842 and served in Schwersenz and for 20 years in Krotoschin in the province of Posen. In 1879 he accepted a call to the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary, whose director he was until his death.
- 21.
David Joel Die Religionsphilosophie des Sohar und ihr Verhältnis zur allgemeinen jüdischen Theologie, Leipzig 1849, p. 139f. See Guide II: 26 and 30 for Maimonides’ attributing this view to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus and Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon respectively.
- 22.
Laws of Repentance 3,6. Joel himself refers to this passage on p. 168 of his book.
- 23.
Die Religionsphilosophie des Sohar, p. 193f and note.
- 24.
For example, p. 208ff, 246ff., 320ff (note 1), 358f.
- 25.
David Joel’s approach was repeated later in a German language book on Kaballah by the East-European scholar Isaac Misses, who also frequently compares Maimonides’ teachings of the Guide with mystical Jewish doctrines. See his
Darstellung und kritische Beleuchtung der jüdischen Geheimlehre, Krakow 1862, pp. 4, 18, 20, 25, 65 and further. - 26.
Protocolle der ersten Rabbiner-Versammlung, Braunschweig 1844, p. 30 and Protocolle der Dritten Versammlung deutscher Rabbiner, Breslau 1846, p. 154f and p. 252.
- 27.
Only in 1864 did the well-known sculptor Daniel Rauch create the statue. It later disappeared mysteriously from the park of Friedrichstein castle, where Marion Gräfin Donhöff had hidden it in 1945. Finally, a replica was made in 1992 and brought back to Königsberg.
- 28.
Heymann Jolowicz Ueber das Leben und die Schriften Musa ben Maimun’s, Königsberg, 1857, p. 15f.
- 29.
Ibid., p. 14.
- 30.
Ibid., p. 24f.
- 31.
See for example the article on Jost in the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1906. The debate about Graetz’ portrayal of the Reform Movement is discussed later in this chapter.
- 32.
Isaac Markus Jost Geschichte des Judentums und seiner Secten, Leipzig 1858, vol II, p. 452–460.
- 33.
Ibid., p. 452.
- 34.
Ibid., p. 458. Jost himself worked as a teacher at the Frankfurt Philanthropin for most of his life.
- 35.
Ibid., p. 460.
- 36.
Elbogen wrote the chapter about Geiger’s Lebenswerk in: Abraham Geiger – Leben und Lebenswerk (ed. Ludwig Geiger), Berlin 1910, see p. 335.
- 37.
Leben in Briefen, p. 39.
- 38.
Solomon Frensdorff (1803–1880) studied with Isaac Bernays in Hamburg before he met Geiger at the university in Bonn. In 1837, Frensdorff became headmaster of the Jewish religious school at Hanover, and in 1848 he was appointed principal of the new Jewish seminary for teachers in that city, which position he held until his death.
- 39.
Nachgelassene Schriften V, p. 82. It took also Salomon Munk another 30 years to finish his project. In 1835 Geiger announced that Munk has found in Parisian libraries valuable Arabic manuscripts of part II and III of the Guide. (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 1835, p. 131) When Munk finally published his edition of the Arabic original of the Guide with a French translation and commentary, beginning from 1856, Geiger wrote a lengthy review of the first volume for the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft XIV, 1860, p. 722–40.
- 40.
Ibid., p. 84. In the same letter, he introduced his friends Derenbourg and Frensdorff to Zunz, praising both, but adds the qualifying remark that “Frensdorff, though, is a little bit of a follower of Bernays.” (Ibid.).
- 41.
Abraham Geiger “Die wissenschaftliche Ausbildung des Judenthums in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten des zweiten Jahrtausends bis zum Auftreten des Maimonides”, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie No. 1 (1835), p. 13, note. The article discusses Bahya, Ibn Ezra and Halevi.
- 42.
See Abraham Geiger “Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte des Streites über das Studium der Philosophie in den Jahren 1232 bis 1306”, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, Nr 1, 1844, p. 87ff.
- 43.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 2, Breslau 1865, p. 138–149.
- 44.
Eliezer Schweid “Halevi and Maimonides as Representatives of Romantik Versus Rationalistic Conceptions of Judaism”, in: Kabbala und Romantik (ed. E. Goodman-Thau et al.), Tübingen 1994, p. 291.
- 45.
Abraham Geiger in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (ZDMG) 14 (1860), 732f.
- 46.
Heinrich Graetz Geschichte der Juden, vol. 7, Leipzig 1863, p. 38. cf. Hans Liebeschütz is convinced that Graetz’ skepticism here concerning Maimonides’ rational philosophy is tantamount to his rejection of Geiger’s abstract and theoretical liberalism. (Hans Liebeschütz Das Judentum im deutschen Geschichtsbild von Hegel bis Max Weber, Tübingen 1967, p. 148f.)
- 47.
Heinrich Graetz Shir Ha-Shirim oder das Salomonische Hohelied, übersetzt und kritisch erläutert, Wien 1871, (2nd Breslau 1885), p.120. Graetz believed, though, that the text had also an ethical and didactical underpinning, proclaiming that “true love is pure and chaste” (p. 35).
- 48.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 3, Breslau 1879, p. 21.
- 49.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 2, Breslau 1865, p. 102f.
- 50.
Ibid., p. 120.
- 51.
Abraham Geiger, Die wissenschaftliche Ausbildung des Judenthums, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie No. 2 (1835) p. 167.
- 52.
Abraham Geiger, Neue Beiträge, p. 89.
- 53.
Geiger’s major work was called: Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Breslau : Julius Hainauer, 1857. See the discussion in Ken Koltun-Fromm Abraham Geiger’s Liberal Judaism: Personal Meaning and Religious Authority, Bloomington 2006, p. 41ff.
- 54.
See Abraham Geiger “Das Verhältnis des natürlichen Schriftsinnes zur thalmudischen Schriftdeutung”, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 1844, No. 1, p 53–81/No. 2, p. 243–259. I draw here on the extensive discussion by Jay M. Harris How Do We Know This? Midrash and the Fragmentation of Jewish History, New York 1995, p. 157–65. See also Chap. 7 below.
- 55.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 2, Breslau 1865, p. 141.
- 56.
Ibid., p. 144f.
- 57.
Cf. Wiener, p. 253. Ken Koltun-Fromm tries to construct a “decisive shift away” in the Urschrift from Geiger’s earlier article because the insistence on the pristine “natural meaning” would contradict the development of the Biblical text as claimed in 1857. But an ever-changing text makes rabbinical exegesis, based on half-words and repetitions, even more turbid. See Koltun-Fromm Abraham Geiger’s Liberal Judaism, p. 41.
- 58.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte p. 148.
- 59.
See Felix Perles “Maimonides” in: Ost und West 5, 1905, p. 292; Simon Bernfeld “Moses ben Maimon” in: Ost und West 10, 1913, p. 786–790. But there were always also liberal voices that denied the conversion, such as Gotthold Salomon and Heymann Jolowicz. For an orthodox contribution to the debate, see Abraham Berliner “Zur Ehrenrettung des Maimonides” in: Moses ben Maimon (ed. W. Bacher et al.), Leipzig 1908, p. 104–130. The Arab sources of the conversion claim are evaluated in Bernard Lewis “Jews and Judaism in Arab Sources” (Hebrew), in: Metzuda 3–4, 1945, p. 171–180, where Lewis suspends a decision. In recent years there was a certain revival of this debate, although without referring to the nineteenth-century arguments. See for example Herbert Davidson Moses Maimonides – The Man and his Works, New York 2005, p. 17–28 and Moshe Halbertal HaRambam (Hebrew), Jerusalem 2009, p. 31, who both speak out against the conversion theory. Mordechai Akiva Friedman, Maimonides, the Yemenite Messiah and Apostasy [Hebrew] Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem 2002, p. 31ff., however again concedes that there is not enough evidence for either side.
- 60.
Jay Harris “Maimonides in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Historiography”, PAAJR 54, 1987, p. 138f. In spite of the title, the article mainly discusses the views of the rabbis Luzatto and Geiger, and not the historians Jost and Graetz. See also Michael A. Meyer “Maimonides and Some Moderns”, in CCAR Journal, 1997, p. 4–15.
- 61.
Abraham Geiger “Moses ben Maimon”, in: Nachgelassene Schriften III, p. 50. Obviously, a second part was planned by Geiger, but never realized. Geiger, however, was the first who produced a printed scholarly edition of Maimonides’ epistle according to the Munich manuscript of a translation of the text into Hebrew (published Breslau 1850, as a Hebrew appendix to the original essay). The first time excerpts from the epistle were published, however, was already in 1839 when the French scholar Eliakim Carmoly initiated the entire debate about Maimonides’ conversion to Islam with an influential article in Jost’s Israelitische Annalen (1839, p. 308ff., 317f., 325f. and 332.) The authenticity of the epistle had been the subject of serious doubt, though, in various contemporaneous sources. See for example the biographical introduction by Michael Friedlander to his translation of the Guide (New York 1881, p. xxxiii) and the 1844 review of Peter Beer’s Maimonides biography in book length, written by an orthodox author called J. Bukowzer, who claims that Carmoly invented the whole epistle (J. Bukofzer Maimonides im Kampf mit seinem neuesten Biographen Peter Beer, Berlin 1844, p. 79f.). Recently, these doubts were repeated by Herbert Davidson in his Moses Maimonides, p. 504ff.
- 62.
Cf. Laws of Kings and Wars
- 63.
Geiger “Moses ben Maimon”, p. 58.
- 64.
Cf. Abraham Geiger, Lehr und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah, Breslau, 1845. This tendency of the book was sharply attacked by the young Heinrich Graetz in several anonymous articles in Der Orient from 1845 (beginning in 1844, No. 51, p. 810, see especially No. 1, 1845, p. 13).
- 65.
Abraham Geiger, Neue Beiträge, p. 88.
- 66.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 2, p. 142f.
- 67.
Ibid., p. 143. Geiger’s view here comes close to what contemporary Maimonidean scholars, under the influence of Straussian esotericism, see as the Guide’s radical position on the problem of God’s direct participation in the giving of the Torah. For Maimonides, following Alfarabi, writes Howard Kreisel, “the legislator solves this problem by creating myths indicating the Deity’s personal involvement in the transmission of each of the laws. This, at least, should satisfy the masses as to the divine origin of the Law and ensure their commitment” (Howard Kreisel “Maimonides on Divine Religion”, in: Maimonides after 800 Years-Essays on Maimonides and His Influence [ed. J. Harris], Cambridge 2007, p. 156).
- 68.
Knowing about the theological difficulties, Graetz saved the writing of the first two volumes of his History for the end, while Geiger’s History was attacked by reviewers especially because of the opinions presented on the first dozen pages. (See for example Geiger’s open letter to Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, in: Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, Breslau 1865, p. 185ff.)
- 69.
Abraham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 35f.
- 70.
Especially in his epistle to the Jews of Yemen Maimonides emphasized that prophetic credibility depends not on the religion of the candidate but on the content of his message.
- 71.
Heinrich Graetz Geschichte der Juden, vol. 6, second edition, Leipzig 1871 p. 350.
- 72.
In line with Hasdai Crescas to Shmuel David Luzatto, the liberal Vienna rabbi and prolific writer Adolf Schmiedl (1821–1913) deems the idea that only intellectual perfection renders the human soul immortal as being opposed to Judaism, which is “a religion of deed, not of idle contemplation.” (Adolf Schmiedl Studien über jüdische, insbesondere jüdisch-arabische Religionsphilosophie, Wien 1869, p. 269f.)
- 73.
Although in Guide III: 17 Maimonides formally upholds the ‘reward and punishment’ system, in Chapter III: 51 he seems to replace it by the neo-Platonic idea of the coniunctio intellectualis. Immortality, for Maimonides, is not an inherent property of the soul, but can be acquired by learning. For a summary, see Menachem Kellner Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People, New York 1991, p. 29–32.
- 74.
Heinrich Graetz Geschichte der Juden, vol. 1, Leipzig 1874, p. 21–23. Maimonides emphasized this difference in his Commentary on the Mishnah (San 10) and in the Mishneh Torah (Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 7;6). For background on Maimonides’ position see Howard Kreisel Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy, Dordrecht 2001, p. 189f. and 235–39.
- 75.
Geschichte der Juden, vol. 1, endnote 2 on pp. 371–78. (quote on p. 22).
- 76.
Geschichte der Juden, vol. 1, p. 37f. Maimonides in the Guide assumes that at best the people ‘heard’ only the first two commandments because they are provable by human reason in any case; the others were later communicated to the people by Moses who alone received them from God. See Guide II: 33 and Herbert A. Davidson “The First Two Positive Commandments in Maimonides’ List of the 613 believed to have been given to Moses at Sinai”, in: (ed. Rachel Elior et al.) Creation and Re-Creation in Jewish Thought, Tübingen 2005, p. 113–145).
- 77.
Geschichte der Juden, vol. 6, p. 351.
- 78.
Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, vol. 2 p. 149.
- 79.
Geschichte der Juden, vol 6, p. 349.
- 80.
Heinrich Graetz “Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte”, in: Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judentums 11, 1846, p. 416.
- 81.
See Ludwig Philippson, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Leipzig 1911, vol I, p. 230. See later also Jacob Guttmann “Der Einfluss der Maimonidischen Philosophie auf das christliche Abendland”, in: Moses ben Maimon, vol I, Leipzig 1908, p. 136. Philippson (1811–1889) was probably the most famous Jewish scholar and rabbi in Germany of the nineteenth century, and his word had immense influence. He was not only the editor of the popular Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums, he also published a widely read Jewish Bible translation as an alternative to Luther, and initiated the rabbinical conferences in the 1840s.
- 82.
Konstruktion, p. 416 (what is translated as regeneration here is the German Verjüngung, literally juvenescence).
- 83.
Neue Beiträge, p. 96. Salomon is said to have reported Maimonides as a heretic to the Dominicans, who in consequence burnt copies of the Guide. But this account has been disputed by some scholars, claiming that we have no independent confirmation of the burning (presumably from Inquisition records), and that the information comes from letters on behalf of Maimonides only. See, for example, Yoseph Shatzmiller “The First Dispute about Maimonides’ Writings” [Hebr.], in Zion 34, 1969. pp. 126–144.
- 84.
For historical background of the Geiger debate in Breslau, see Meyer, Response, p. 110–114.
- 85.
Jüdische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation, p. 236ff. Wiener’s discussion of Graetz’ concept of rationalism is still the most precise account of this subject. Recently Andreas Brämer has aptly called the Breslau method “die sakralisierende Metarmorphose menschlischer Satzungen in und durch die Geschichte” [the sacralizing metamorphosis of human regulations in and through history], see his Rabbiner Zacharias Frankel: Wissenschaft des Judentums und konservative Reform im 19. Jahrhundert, Hildesheim: Olms, 2000, p. 367.
- 86.
Heinrich Graetz Tagebuch und Briefe, (ed. Reuven Michael), Tübingen 1977, p. 231. – Ludwig August Frankl (1810–1894) studied medicine and became in 1838 the secretary of the Vienna Jewish community. He edited several newspapers and published historical ballads. During the revolution of 1848, he caused a sensation with his poem “Die Universität”(The University), the first uncensored publication in Austria. After his travel to the Near East, he became in 1873 the president of the Vienna community, and was ennobled for his blind-care activities in 1876.
- 87.
See Philippson’s open explanation of the issue in the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums from May 18, 1869, p. 387. The volume appeared in Leipzig 1870.
- 88.
Heinrich Graetz Geschichte der Juden, vol. 11, second edition (ed. Marcus Brann), Leipzig 1900, p. 473. Note that Geiger’s name is not mentioned in the first edition (Leipzig 1870, p. 502f) for Graetz, as Brann explains in his preface to the second edition, would not mention Geiger’s name in a critical context as long as Geiger was alive. Now in 1900, after both Geiger and Graetz had long passed away, Brann felt entitled to add not only Geiger’s name to the text but also the judgements concerning Geiger that Graetz published in his three volume “Volkstümliche Geschichte” that appeared 1888 after Geiger’s death (1874). See Brann’s preface, p. VIII and Heinrich Graetz Volkstümliche Geschichte der Juden, 3 vols. Leipzig 1888, vol. 3, p. 607.
- 89.
Geschichte der Juden, vol. 11, second edition, p. 382.
- 90.
Ibid., p. 383. Or, Graetz adds, a Moses Mendelssohn, but with more energy to act. Also here, the names of Maimuni and Mendelsohn are added by Brann in the second edition of vol. 11 as an adaptation from Graetz’ “Volkstümliche Geschichte” from 1888, p. 581. (cf. the first edition of vol. 11, p. 410) The dispute about Graetz’ eleventh volume continued until 1917, when the historian Ismar Elbogen, in a review of the third edition of this volume, criticized Graetz for condemning the Reform Movement and especially for his treatment of Geiger. Marcus Brann refused to publish this review in the Monatsschrift. (For this incident see Michael A. Meyer “Without Wissenschaft there is no Judaism”: The Life and Thought of the Jewish Historian Ismar Elbogen, Ramat-Gan 2004, p. 26.)
- 91.
Indeed, an imitation of Christianity seems to be Graetz’ greatest concern, probably because of his extensive studies of medieval atrocities for his history work. Graetz’ opinion on Christianity became an object of public discussion in 1880 when the historian was accused by his colleague Heinrich von Treitschke of spreading wild hatred of Christianity. For the Treitschke debate see Michal A. Meyer, “Great Debate on Antisemitism”, in: Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 11, 1966, p. 137–170 and my own “German Spirit and Holy Ghost”, in: Modern Judaism 30:2 (2010), p. 172–95.
- 92.
Ibid., p. 536 of the second edition, describing the position of Zacharias Frankel as in the middle between Geiger and Hirsch. Since Frankel was still alive when the first edition was published, also this passage is missing there and was later added by Brann (see first edition, p. 568 and Volkstümliche Geschichte, p. 628).
- 93.
Wiener, p. 236.
- 94.
Actually it was his brother David who traded in jewels, after David drowned at sea, Maimonides supported the family himself, working as a physician.
- 95.
See Maimonides’ commentary to Mishnah Avot 4:7 and the Laws of Torah Study 3:10: “Whoever deliberately sets out to devote himself to Torah and not work for a livelihood but depends on charity has thereby desecrated the Divine Name, brought Torah into disrepute, extinguished the light of religion, brought evil on himself and forfeited the hereafter.”
- 96.
Ludwig August Frankl Aus Egypten, Wien 1860, p. 156ff. In fact, the whole chapter on the hacham is interesting in a Reform context.
- 97.
Moritz Eisler, Vorlesungen über die jüdischen Philosophen des Mittelalters, Wien 1870, vol. II, p. 123. Eisler (1823–1902) studied at the yeshivah of R. Moses Katz Wanefried in Prossnitz, and later philosophy and Oriental languages at the university in Prague. In 1853, he was appointed principal of the gymnasium in Nikolsburg, Moravia.
- 98.
This is not a literal translation, but a paraphrase of the main ideas as given in the original German, cf. Ibid., p. 123–125. Ironically, a similar list was published by Eliezer Schweid in 1994. Probably ignorant of Eisler’s original, Schweid lists eight “basic ideas” from the Guide for which a “nineteenth century Jewish religious philosopher could claim traditional legitimacy” using the authority of Maimonides. (See Eliezer Schweid “Halevi and Maimonides”, p. 286f.)
- 99.
Eisler does not give references to the Guide in his list.
- 100.
Ibid., preface of the publisher.
- 101.
Leopold Stein (1810–1882) studied at the university in Würzburg. In the 1850s he edited the influential monthly “Der israelitische Volkslehrer”, and worked for decades to unify the liturgical changes made by the different Reform communities into a new liberal Prayer book, which he ultimately published in 1882. See on Stein: Robert Liberles “Leopold Stein and the Paradox of Reform Clericalism”, in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 27, 1982, p. 261–280.
- 102.
Leopold Stein Die Schrift des Lebens – Inbegriff des gesamten Judenthums, vol. 1 Mannheim 1872, vol. 2 Straßburg 1877, vol. 3 (ed. C. Seligmann), Frankfurt 1910. I am not aware of any scholarly discussion of this representative work, except for some paragraphs in Andreas Gotzmann Jüdisches Recht im kulturellen Prozess, Tübingen 1997, p. 195f.
- 103.
Schrift des Lebens, vol. 2, p. 63f. and 152ff.
- 104.
Schrift des Lebens, vol. 2, p. 341f.
- 105.
Ibid., p. 348.
- 106.
Ibid., p. 315.
- 107.
Ibid., p. 353.
- 108.
Ibid., p. 364f.
Darstellung und kritische Beleuchtung der jüdischen Geheimlehre, Krakow 1862, pp. 4, 18, 20, 25, 65 and further.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kohler, G.Y. (2012). The First Reform Rabbis. In: Reading Maimonides' Philosophy in 19th Century Germany. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4035-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4035-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4034-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4035-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)