Torah im Derech Eretz (Hebrew:תורה עם דרך ארץ –Torah with "the way of the land"[1]) is a phrase common inRabbinic literature referring to various aspects of one's interaction with the wider world. The term also refers to a philosophy ofOrthodox Judaism articulated byRabbiSamson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), which formalizes a relationship between traditionally observant Judaism and the modern world. The resultant mode of Orthodox Judaism is sometimes termedNeo-Orthodoxy[2] or, in some historiographies,Frankfurter Orthodoxy.
The termDerech Eretz, literally "the way of the land", is inherently ambiguous, with a wide range of meanings inRabbinic literature, referring to earning a livelihood and behaving appropriately, among others.[1][3]
The phraseTorah im Derech Eretz is first found in theMishna in TractateAvoth (2:2): "Beautiful is thestudy of Torah withDerech Eretz, as involvement with both makes one forget sin".
When Hirsch first came toFrankfurt in 1851, he proclaimedTorah im Derech Eretz as the "banner" for his congregation, theIsraelitische Religionsgesellschaft — the phrase has since been synonymous with Hirsch as well as with his philosophy. As seen, Hirsch was not unique in extendingDerech Eretz to include broad knowledge of thesecular world; rather, his role was to formalize a philosophy ofDerech Eretz that incorporated a practical response tomodernity. Hirsch's philosophy has been variously interpreted within Orthodoxy.
In Hirsch's view,Derech Eretz refers not only to livelihood, but also to the social order, with the associated mores and considerations of courtesy and propriety, as well as to general education. Hirsch thus developed the concept ofDerech Eretz to embraceWestern culture while maintaining strict adherence toJewish law.
Hirsch seeks to demonstrate in all his writings that the combination of Torah andDerech Eretz is not only possible but necessary if Judaism is to dominate not only the religious sphere of personal and communal life, but the secular, mundane sphere as well. To Hirsch, the fulfillment ofTorah—Derech Eretz—therefore requires worldly involvement and general participation in society, as facilitated by the requisite knowledge.
In Hirsch's view, Judaism must "include the conscientious promotion of education and culture". Hirsch speaks of theMensch-Yisroel ("Israel-man"), the "enlightened religious personality" as an ideal: that is the Jew who is proudly Jewish, a believer in the eternal values of theTorah, but also possessing the ability to engage with and influence contemporary culture and knowledge.
Hirsch was emphatic thatDerech Eretz in no sense allows forhalakhic compromise. In his view, Judaism is "an untouchable sanctuary which must not be subjected to human judgment nor subordinated to human considerations" and "progress is valid only to the extent that it does not interfere with religion". He states that "the Jew will not want to accomplish anything that he cannot accomplish as a Jew. Any step which takes him away from Judaism is not for him a step forward, is not progress. He exercises this self-control without a pang, for he does not wish to accomplish his own will on earth but labours in the service of God." InThe Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel, Hirsch remarked that it would have been better for the Jews not to have been emancipated if the price they had to pay was assimilation. (See also,Modern Orthodox Judaism#Standards of observance.)
As mentioned, the philosophy ofTorah im Derech Eretz has been variously interpreted withinOrthodoxy. The range of interpretations arises particularly in light of the tension between Hirsch's insistence as to faithfulness to Jewish law and tradition, and the challenges posed to this by interaction with thesecular world.
Under a "narrow interpretation", exposure to secular philosophy, music, art, literature, or ethics must be functional. Under a "median interpretation", this exposure is permissible, and even required, for the sake of the domination of Torah values over one'sworldly matters. Under a "broad interpretation" this exposure is permissible, providing a complement to—and even a synthesis with—Torah.
Thus as regards involvement in the secular world, the "narrow interpretation" essentially restrictsDerech Eretz to a gainful occupation; permissible knowledge would be limited to functional and occupation related knowledge, and (possibly) secular knowledge that enables one to better interpret and understand the Torah. The "median interpretation" encourages the study of secular knowledge, but only insofar as this permits application of a Torah outlook and philosophy to human knowledge and culture. The "broad interpretation" permits the general acquisition of secular culture and knowledge as valuable in its own right.
Hirsch himself appears to have embraced the "median interpretation", albeit with the qualifications above. He states that "Torah im Derech Eretz, as used by our sages, means the realization of Torah in harmonious unity with all the conditions under which its laws will have to be observed amidst the developments of changing times"[5] Thus on a regular basis, he quotes secular scientists in hisTorah commentary. Some scholars believe that he was influenced byHegel andFriedrich Schiller;[6] in fact, in a speech given in the school he founded on the centenary of the birth of the latter, he claimed that the universalistic principles ofWestern culture embodied in Schiller's writings are Jewish values originating in the Torah.[7][8]
On the other hand, Hirsch cautioned as to the danger of scientific knowledge leading one away from God; further, his schools, unlike others inGermany at the time, taught modern (business) languages as opposed toclassical languages. Famously, in his commentary toLeviticus 18:4–5, Hirsch clearly delineates the relationship of secular knowledge and Torah, where Torah is "ikkar" (עיקר), the essential, while secular knowledge is "tefel" (טפל), secondary or supplementary to Torah. He states that "[w]e are confident that there is only one truth, and only one body of knowledge that can serve as the standard. ... Compared to it, all the other sciences are valid only provisionally".[9]
His commentary onDeuteronomy 6:7 is perhaps more explicit:
In 1851, Hirsch was called to become the rabbi of the breakaway Orthodox community ofFrankfurt am Main. This community soon became the model for "modern communities" strict in adherence to Orthodox practices, sometimes called, "Frankfurter Orthodoxy". Hirsch's son-in-law Rabbi Dr.Shlomo Zalman (Solomon) Breuer, succeeded him after his death. Wary of establishing a dynasty, the Frankfurt community did not appoint Hirsch's son to be his successor.
AfterWorld War I, in order to show their rejection of religious liberalism, followers of the community started to call themselves "Neo-Orthodox"; this mirrored the parallel movement inLutheranism (called "Neo-Orthodoxy"). Thus, at this point, Hirsch'sromantic liberalism and the values of the1848 struggle for civil rights were less relevant – and the rejection of many elements ofWeimarGerman culture was prevalent.Solomon Breuer andIsaac Breuer were leaders of this conservative turn by the community.[11]
FollowingKristallnacht, Breuer and his family emigrated toAntwerp, and then toNew York City. Once in New York, Breuer started a congregation among the numerous German refugees inWashington Heights, which closely followed the customs and mores of the Frankfurt community. The congregation,Khal Adath Yeshurun, is colloquially known as "Breuer's". RabbiShimon Schwab, also a native of Frankfurt, served as the second Rabbi of the "Breuer" community, until his death in 1995. Solomon Breuer and Joseph Breuer are often regarded as Hirsch's intellectual heirs, while Schwab is regarded as aligned with the more traditionalLithuanian orthodox communities.
The Breuer community has cautiously appliedTorah im Derech Eretz toAmerican life, narrowing its application over time.[12] Schwab warned of the dangers of contemporary moral attitudes in secular culture and literature, and emphasized that followers of Neo-Orthodoxy therefore require a strong basis of faith and knowledge, and must exercise caution in engagements with the secular world.
Schwab also frequently emphasized that Torah can never be regarded as parallel with the secular knowledge. "Torah study is the highest duty of the Jew", and "even to suggest that anything can be parallel to Torah is a blasphemy of the highest order; Torah is above all, and everything else in life must be conducted in accordance with theWritten andOral Torah." Still, entry into commerce or the professions is seen as a valid component of Torah life, to be facilitated by an appropriate secular education (with the caveat that campus life is "incontestably immoral"). "Carrying on one's professional life in consonance with thehalakha is in itself a practice of Torah." One must "establish the Torah's primacy over the modes of business and professional life so that his behavior transforms even that 'mundane' portion of his life into a sanctification."
The community is positioned ideologically outside of bothModern Orthodoxy andHaredi Judaism ("Ultra-Orthodoxy"). As regards Haredi Judaism, Schwab acknowledged that although Neo-Orthodoxy is not the path openly espoused by the majority of today'sRoshei Yeshiva, the "Torah Only" andTorah Im Derech Eretz camps can exist side-by-side. "As long as one is prompted solely byYiras Shamayim ("fear of Heaven") and a search for truth, each individual has a choice as to which school he should follow." Practically, the community is fully engaged with harediAgudath Yisrael of America, while it shuns the more modernOrthodox Union.
The movement is somewhat distant from Modern Orthodoxy. Schwab regards Modern Orthodoxy as having misinterpreted Hirsch's ideas: regarding standards ofhalakha as well as the relative emphasis of Torah versus secular; see discussion underTorah Umadda. Further, Breuer, influenced by Hirsch's philosophy onAustritt (secession), "could not countenance recognition of a non-believing body as a legitimate representative of the Jewish people". For this reason, he was "unalterably opposed to theMizrachi movement, which remained affiliated with theWorld Zionist Organization and theJewish Agency".
Torah im Derech Eretz remains influential as a philosophy inOrthodox Judaism. Although usually associated with the "Breuer" community ofWashington Heights, the philosophy remains an important influence inModern Orthodox Judaism and, to some extent, inHaredi Judaism. (See alsoDivine Providence for discussion ofderech eretz in contemporary Orthodox Judaism.)
Torah im Derech Eretz is a major source of ideology forModern Orthodoxy, particularly regarding the synthesis of Judaism and secular culture. Organizations on the left of Modern Orthodoxy have embraced the "broad interpretation", although critics say that, philosophical issues aside, their "relatively relaxed stance" inhalakha in fact positions them outside the realm ofTorah im Derech Eretz.
Further to the right, the "broad interpretation" is largely identical withTorah Umadda—Torah and secular knowledge—a philosophy of Modern Orthodoxy closely associated withYeshiva University, which aims at synthesizing Torah learning and secular knowledge within the personality. The two are nevertheless distinct in terms of emphasis. UnderTorah Umadda, "[w]e prefer to look upon science and religion as separate domains...",[13] whereasTorah im Derech Eretz, aims at the domination of Torah over secular knowledge and the application of Torah thought to secular knowledge.
As above, the "Breuer" community continues to closely apply the philosophy. However, sinceWorld War II, the community, has moved away from the "median interpretation" toward the "narrow interpretation", as above.[12] Rabbi Breuer saw the risk of misinterpretation of his grandfather's ideas (and confusion withTorah Umadda) especially post-war. He repeatedly stated that compromising on Jewishness andhalakha was at variance withTorah im Derech Eretz, and emphasized the distinction between Modern Orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy as regards the relationship between Torah and secular. "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" (Isaac Breuer, Hirsch's grandson). Seefurther in the article on Rabbi Hirsch andadditionally under Modern Orthodoxy.
Today, theHaredi "Yeshiva communities" adhere to the "narrow interpretation" as an educational philosophy.Torah im Derech Eretz was the basic idea that shaped the curriculum of theBeis Yaakov school system, and continues to be influential. (In fact, in her Seminary inKraków,Sarah Schenirer taught Rav Hirsch's writings inGerman. The (German-born) teachers spoke German and the Polish students learned German.[14]) Similarly, the "narrow interpretation" guides the curricula at boys' high schools.
Other Haredi communities, the "Torah only" school, are further distant fromTorah im Derech Eretz. SinceWorld War II there has been an ideological tendency in that camp to devote all intellectual capabilities to Torah study only—in schools,yeshivot andkollels. Thus, the optimum course to be adopted in all cases is to devote oneself to full-time Torah learning for as long as possible; "to go out into the world is a course to be adopted only when there is no other alternative".[15] Here, the Hirschian model is seen ashoraat sha'ah, a "time-specific teaching" intended to apply to the special circumstances ofWestern Europe in the 1800s.[16] (Note that Hirsch himself addressed this contention: "Torah im Derech Eretz ... is not part of troubled, time-bound notions; it represents the ancient, traditional wisdom of our sages that has stood the test everywhere and at all times."[17] See further underJoseph Breuer.)
Torah im Derech Eretz
Rabbi S.R. Hirsch
| Branches | |
|---|---|
| People | |
| Education | |
| Politics | |
| Rabbinates | |
| Organizations | |
| Laws | |
| Philosophies | |
