Dilemmas of modern orthodoxy: sociological and philosophical

Judaism, Wntr, 1993 by Chaim I. Waxman

As for Hirsch, many of his interpreters argue that part of the novelty in his approach was in the fact that his efforts to combine Torah and general knowledge were not merely pragmatic tactics necessitated by the sad realities of modernity, but were ends in and of themselves. As Pinchas Rosenblitt put it, "He was very far from viewing the combination of these two areas as a tactic and concession."(9) Similarly, Mordechai Eliav asserts that Hirsch "made every effort to achieve a complete blending and an organic integration between Torah learning and general studies."(10)

Mordechai Breuer elaborates on the notion of integration. He states that

the concept Torah-im-derekh-eretz for Hirsch was defined as a synthesis. This definition is correct only in the Hegelian sense: two forces, which are in opposition to each other and struggle with each other, are resolved and renewed on a higher plain. In the language of the natural sciences it could be defined: Torah-im-derekh-eretz is not a physical integration but a chemical blending. Torah and life, Judaism and culture, do not complement one another, but achieve complete identity . ... Therefore, in the doctrine of Torah-im-derekh-eretz according to R.S.R. Hirsch, there is nothing of a concession of principle to the spirit of the times or any pragmatic consideration of practical necessities in the generation of the Emancipation.(11)

All of these, and others, interpret Hirsch as an advocate of true synthesis, and many draw the contrast between him and another prominent German rabbi, his colleague, Esriel Hildesheimer. Ironically, although Hildesheimer was the founder, against Hirsch's wishes, of the first Orthodox rabbinical seminary in Germany to incorporate modern Jewish studies in its curriculum, his approach to general knowledge was very different from that of Hirsch. Hildesheimer was the pragmatist rather than the philosopher, and advocated secular studies alongside, but clearly not synthesized with, Torah, and only as a concession to the needs of the day.(12)

However, not all students of Hirsch agree on the status which he attributed to general knowledge. For example, from Isaac Breuer, Hirsch's grandson,(13) it would seem that he was not a staunch believer in synthesis. He avers that

Rabbi Hirsch's fight was not for balance and not for reconcilement, nor for synthesis and certainly not for parallel power, but for domination -- for the true and absolute domination of the divine precept over the new tendencies....

Rabbi Hirsch's epigones quoted the principle "Torah im Derekh Eretz" more frequently than the master himself. As for him, he drew on it mainly for the obvious confirmation of the fact ... that the aim and end of the Torah should not be confined to the house of learning, but that it should be brought into contact with and applied to the prevailing conditions of life.(14)

Likewise, Zvi Kurzweil agrees that Hirsch saw the arts and sciences as subsidiary to Torah and may be studied as the basis for making a livelihood, to enhance the understanding of Torah, and in order to be able to defend the tenets of Judaism.(15) And Schwab is perhaps most forceful when he asserts that Hirsch's Torah im derekh eretz "was a time-bound halachic compromise."(16)