A Historian from the World of Torah:
The Historiographical Approach
of Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevy Rabinowitz
(1847–1914)
by Eliezer Sariel
Abstract
The article examines the work of Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, arguably the most significant Orthodox response to the Wissenschaft des Judentums school of historiography. Halevy himself exemplified the Orthodox struggle against Wissenschaft, yet his
work expressed a commitment to modern historiographical discipline that suggested
an internalization of some of the very same premises adopted by Wissenschaft. While
criticizing the representatives of Wissenschaft, Halevy was, at the same time, fighting
for the internalization of its innovative characteristics into Orthodox society. He saw
himself as a leader of a movement working towards the development of Orthodox Jewish studies and his application of modern historiographic principles from an Orthodox
worldview as creating critical Orthodox historiography. Halevy’s approach promotes
an understanding of Orthodoxy as a complex phenomenon, of which the struggle
against modern secularization is just one of many characteristics.
1.
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to present the complexity of Yitzhak Isaac Halevy
Rabinowitz’s historiographical approach.1 On the one hand, Halevy exemplified
the Orthodox struggle against the Wissenschaft des Judentums School of historiography. On the other hand, his work expressed a newfound commitment
to modern historiographical discipline, which meant that he internalized some
of the same premises adopted by Wissenschaft des Judentums. While striving
1
His family name was Rabinowitz, but he is known as Halevy and will be referred to as such
throughout the article.
48
Eliezer Sariel
against the representatives of Wissenschaft, Halevy was, at the same time, fighting for the internalization of its innovative characteristics into Orthodox society
and against the segregation of that society. He saw himself as a leader of a
movement towards the development of Orthodox Jewish studies. His work constituted a comprehensive effort to apply modern historiographic principles from
an Orthodox worldview, thereby creating critical Orthodox historiography.
In the context of the growing interest of academic scholarship in Orthodox
Jewish society since the 1980s, historians have begun to examine the literary
genre of Orthodox historiography, which began to develop in the nineteenth
century. Until the end of the twentieth century, scholars focused on the ideological and polemical nature of this genre, based on the overall perception
of Orthodox society as a society on the defensive. The epithet “hagiography
with footnotes,” coined by Ada Rappaport-Albert at the end of the 1980s in
relation to the writing of history among Chabad Hasidim, can be taken to express a more general assessment among historians of the quality of Orthodox
historiography of this period.2 Since the twenty-first century, a change in this
perception can be discerned, together with a growing tendency to examine
Orthodox historical writings more broadly, and not just as an ideological reaction.3 This article follows the second approach and analyses the methodology
2
3
Ada Rappaport-Albert: Hagiography with Footnotes. Edifying Tales and the Writing of
History in Hasidism, in: History and Theory, 27 (1988), pp. 119–159. For similar approaches, see Haim Gertner’s bibliography in the YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe
(Gershon Hundert, ed., New Haven 2008): http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/
Historiography/Orthodox_Historiography, as well as Jacob Barnai: Shabta‘ut. hebetim ḥevratiyim [Sabbateanism. Social Perspectives], Jerusalem 2001, pp. 41–120, and Nahum Karlinski:
The Dawn of Hasidic-Haredi Historiography, in: Modern Judaism 27 (2007), pp. 20–46. Gertner,
who examined traditional chronicles, argued that Orthodox historiographical writing dates as
early as the first half of the 19th century: Haim Gertner: Reshitah shel ketivah historit ortodoqsit be-mizraḥ eropah: ha‘arakhah meḥudeshet [The Beginning of “Orthodox Historiography”
in Eastern Europe; a Reassessment], in: Zion 67 (2002), pp. 293–336.
David Ellenson: Jewish Meaning in a World of Choice, Philadelphia 2014, pp. 249–267; Richard
S. Sarason: Rabbinic Literature, Rabbinic History, and Scholarly Thinking. Wissenschaft and
Beyond, in: Andreas Gotzmann / Christian Wiese (eds.), Modern Judaism and Historical Consciousness. Identities, Encounters, Perspectives, Leiden 2007, pp. 93–109; Asaf Yedidya: Orthodox Reactions to “Wissenschaft des Judentums,” in: Modern Judaism 30 (2010), pp. 69–94; Asaf
Yedidya: Orthodox Strategies in the Research of the “Wissenschaft des Judentums,” in: European
Journal of Jewish Studies 5 (2011), pp. 67–79; Asaf Yedidya: Biqqoret mevuqqeret. Alternativot
ortodoqsiyot le-‘mada‘e ha-yahadut 1873–1956 [Criticised Criticism: Orthodox Alternatives to
Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1873–1956], Jerusalem 2013; Hanan Gafni: Peshutah shel Mishna.
Iyyunim be-heqer hazal ba-et ha-hahadashah [The Mishnah’s ‘Plain Sense’: A Study of Modern
Talmudic Scholarship], Bnei Brak 2011.
A Historian from the World of Torah
49
of Halevy, who presented the most comprehensive, profound, and significant
Orthodox response to the Wissenschaft des Judentums school of historiography concerning the history of the Oral Torah. To a certain extent, Halevy
worked in an intellectual no-man’s-land and did not enjoy the honor this
might have been expected to earn him. The Orthodox world did not appreciate the religious value of his work, while the scholarly world was alienated by
his arcane Hebrew style.4
4
Exceptions are those who discuss Halevy as part of the fabric of 19th-century Orthodox Jewry
and historians of the rabbinic period who regarded him as an early pioneer in the field, see
Eliezer Sariel: Historion bi-reshut ha-torah. Qavvim le-darko ha-historyografit shel ha-rav
Yitzḥak Isaac Halevy (1847–1914) [A Historian from the World of Torah. The Historiographic
Approach of Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevy (1847–1914)], in: Moreshet Yisra’el 4 (2007), pp. 33–75.
Mordechai Breuer effectively presented the professional element of Halevy’s writing, although
he did not go into particulars. See Mordechai Breuer: Modernity Within Tradition. The Social
History of Orthodox Jewry in Imperial Germany, New York 1992, pp. 193–201; Mordechai
Breuer: Ḥokhmat Yisra’el. shalosh gishot ortodoqsiyot [Three Orthodox Approaches to Wissenschaft], in: Shaul Yisraeli / Norman Lamm / Yitzhak Raphael (eds.), Sefer yovel li-khevod
morenu ha-gaʼon Rabbi Yosef Dov Halevy Soloveitchik [In Honor of Moreinu, Hagaon Rabbi
Yosef Dov Halevy Soloveitchik], Jerusalem 1984, pp. 856–865. Asaf Yedidya placed him on
the spectrum of Orthodoxy with stress on Orthodox scholars who dealt with Judaic Studies
(Yedidya, Biqqoret mevuqqeret, pp. 94–147). Yedidya’s survey of Halevy’s works is encyclopaedic. This article will attempt to provide an in-depth analysis of Halevy’s historiographic
methodology. For a narrower, more focused analysis of Halevy’s methodology in the context
of his approach to the works of Josephus see: Eliezer Sariel: Can’t Live with Him, Can’t Live
without Him. Josephus in the Orthodox Historiography of Isaac Halevy and Ze’ev Ya’avetz,
in: Andrea Schatz (ed.): The Reception of Josephus in Modern Jewish Culture, Leiden 2018 (in
print). Asher Reichel dedicated his doctoral dissertation, originally published in English, to
Halevy. Asher Reichel: Isaac Halevy, 1847–1914. Spokesman and Historian of Jewish Tradition,
New York 1969. See also Asher Reichel: Iggerot Rabbi Yitzḥak Isaac Halevy, Jerusalem 1972.
Reichel does not attempt a comprehensive study and analysis of the contents of Dorot ha-rishonim. Family members and Orthodox admirers published a memorial volume in 1964, written in an elegiac spirit and devoid of any critical dimension. See: Moshe Auerbach (ed.): Sefer
zikaron le-rabbi Yitzḥaq Ayzik Halevy [Anthology in Honor of Rabbi Yitzhak Issac Halevy],
Bnei Brak 1964. See also: Mordechai Eliash: Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, in: Shmuel Kalman
Mirsky (ed), Who’s Who in Eastern European Judaic Studies, Tel Aviv 1959, pp. 65–115. The
later historians for whom Halevy is a relevant reference include David M. Goldblatt and David
Weiss Halivni, see: David M. Goodblatt: Y. I. Halevy, in: Jacob Neusner (ed.), The Formation
of Babylonian Talmud, Leiden 1970, pp. 26–47. Halivni refers to Halevy throughout his work,
notably, in a series of references in his introduction to Tractate Bava Batra, see David Halivni:
Meqorot u-masorot massekhet Bava Batra [Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud Tractate Bava Batra], Jerusalem, 2008, pp. 6n3, 7n4, 10n18, 25n74, 26n
77, 27n79, 41n107, 67n 45, 70n49, 75n64, 78n77, 105n30, 128n21, 146n21.
50
2.
Eliezer Sariel
Personal Background
Born in Lithuania in 1847 into an Orthodox, non-Hasidic milieu, Isaac Halevy
received a yeshiva education which included, inter alia, studies in Volozhin, the
leading yeshiva of the Orthodox world in the nineteenth century. Halevy never
received formal academic training. His historical knowledge and analysis were
based on an autodidactic study of Hebrew and German sources, languages he
was able to read. However, his lack of academic training contributed to his arcane
writing style. 5 In 1880, while a businessman serving as one of the fundraisers of
the Volozhin Yeshiva, he published anonymously a series of articles in the Orthodox journal Halevanon in which he attacked the initiative to establish a Russian
rabbinic seminar in the spirit of the moderately reformist Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau (Wrocław). At the same time, he encouraged Orthodox rabbis to
expand their knowledge beyond Halakhah.6 This duality symbolized his life-long
approach. He left Lithuania for Pressburg (Bratislava) in 1895, when his business
went bankrupt. In 1897, Halevy, who came from a wealthy family, published in
Pressburg the first in his series of historical volumes, Dorot ha-rishonim [First
Generations]. In his books Halevy presented original analysis which he based
on a wide range of primary halakhic sources, integrated with secondary sources
written in Hebrew or in German. His writing style closely resembled that of the
responsa, a genre in Jewish tradition, compiled from the written decisions of rabbinic authorities, in which the adjudicator not only presented his conclusions but
also explained them in details and in relation or in opposition to other opinions.
Two further volumes followed during his lifetime, and the other volumes were
published posthumously from his manuscripts.7
5
6
7
At least in one case he integrated analysis of a Greek source in his historical discussion (Dorot
ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 631).
Yitzhak Isaac Halevy (anonymously: Divray Shalom Ve-emet [Words of Peace and Truth], in:
Halevanon, 1880, (20.02.1880), pp. 227–229, (09.04.1880), pp. 273–274, (28.05.1880), pp. 329–331.
Yedidya, Biqqoret mevuqqeret, p. 149. “Divray Shalom Ve-emet” takes its eponymous title
from the early Maskil Naphtali Herz Wessely’s text of the same name written a century before.
Listed below are the various volumes of Halevy’s oeuvre and the somewhat complex order in
which they were published: Yitzhak Isaac Halevy: Dorot ha-rishonim III: Mi-ḥatimat ha-talmud
‘ad sof yeme ha-ge’onim [Vom Abschluss des Talmuds bis zum Ende der Geonim], Pressburg,
1897. Despite being the third volume, it was published first. Yitzhak Isaac Halevy: Dorot harishonim Iia-IIb: Min sof yeme ha-Mishna ‘ad aḥar ḥatimat ha-talmud [Von der Beendigung der
Mischna bis zum Abschluss des Talmuds], Frankfurt a. M., 1901. Yitzhak Isaac Halevy: Dorot
ha-rishonim Ic: Mi-sof yeme ha-ḥashmona’im ‘ad yeme netzive Roma [Umfasst den Zeitraum
vom Ende der Hasmonäerzeit bis zur Einsetzung der römischen Landpfleger (Encompasses the
period from the destruction of the Temple to the completion of the Mishnah)], Frankfurt a. M.,
A Historian from the World of Torah
51
After several years of wandering in Europe, he settled in Germany in 1902,
where he was appointed a supervisor of adult study in the Hamburg Beis Medrash
(Kloiz), a position he held until his death in 1914.8 During this period he was exposed directly to the acculturated Jewish community in Germany and continued
his historical writings, primarily on the rabbinic period. Halevy was one of the
most important figures in the Jüdisch-Literarische Gesellschaft (Jewish Literary
Society), established in Frankfurt am Main in 1902, whose members included Rabbi Dr. Jonas Bondi (1862–1929), Rabbi Dr. Heymann Kottek (1860–1913), Rabbi
Salomon Menachem Bamberger (1869–1920), and Gerson Lange (1868–1923). The
Jüdisch-Literarische Gesellschaft became a separate school within the Orthodox
community in Germany.9 On the one hand, they agreed with the approach of
Rabbi Dr. Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), the founder of modern Orthodoxy, and supported Orthodox segregation and opposed collaboration with the
non-Orthodox. On the other hand, they encouraged scientific inquiry into the
Jewish tradition as did the Neo-Orthodox school in Berlin led by Rabbi Dr. Azriel
Hildesheimer (1820–1899). Using his East-European background and his familiarity with Central-European Orthodox Jewry, Halevy played an important role
in the negotiations and cooperation between the Eastern and Central European
Orthodox communities in order to create a united Orthodox non-Zionist political
movement.10 It was he who coined the moniker “Agudas Yisroel.”11 This wide and
varied range of experiences helped shape Halevy’s oeuvre which will be discussed
in the following section, beginning with its conservative-Orthodox elements and
moving on to its modernist elements.
8
9
10
11
1901. Yitzhak Isaac Halevy: Dorot ha-rishonim Ie. Me-aḥar ha-ḥurban ‘ad ḥatimat ha-Mishna
[Umfasst den Zeitraum von der Zerstörung des Tempels bis zum Abschluss der Mischnah (Encompasses the period from the destruction of the Temple to the completion of the Mishnah)],
Frankfurt a. M., 1906. This volume was published posthumously by Salomon Bamberger. Yitzhak
Issac Halevy: Dorot ha-rishonim. Tequfat ha-miqra, Jerusalem 1939. This volume, which included Halevy’s notes on Isaac Hirsch Weiss’ Dor ve-dorshav, was published posthumously by
Baruch M. Levin. Yitzhak Issac Halevy: Notes on Isaac Hirsch Weiss’ Dor ve-dorshav, in: Baruch
M. Levin (ed.): Tequfat ha-miqra, Jerusalem 1939, pp. 261–292. Yitzhak Isaac Halevy: Dorot
ha-rishonim Id, in: Moshe Auerbach (ed.): Sefer zikaron le-rabbi Yitzḥaq Ayzik Halevy, Bnei
Brak, 1964. pp. 5–184. Volumes Ia –Ib were never published. Volumes Ic, Ie, II and III of Dorot harishonim offer two systems of pagination: (Hebrew) folio numbers on the left, and page numbers
on the right. In this article, citations referring to Dorot ha-rishonim refer to the page numbers.
Sources on his activities before coming to Hamburg are sparse.
Yedidya, Biqqoret mevuqqeret, pp. 182–94. Nils H. Roemer: Jewish Scholarship and Culture in
Nineteenth-Century Germany. Between History and Faith, Madison 2005, pp. 127–128.
Reichel, Iggerot, pp. 55–67.
Reichel, Iggerot, p. 177.
52
3.
Eliezer Sariel
Orthodox Tendencies in Dorot ha-rishonim
Halevy saw himself as an integral part of Orthodox Judaism and was accepted
as such by supporters and detractors alike.12 The article will seek to demonstrate how his Orthodox viewpoint is reflected in the various aspects of his
historical studies: historiographic conservatism, apologetics, negative attitude towards non-Orthodox historians, and his notion of divine intervention
in the direction of the history of Israel.
3.1 No New Torah and No New Judaism: Halevy’s Conservative
View of the History of the Oral Law
Throughout the nineteenth century, the field of Jewish history was considered
the uncontested terrain of the Maskilim and the Wissenschaft school historians. Not infrequently, historical inquiry was used as leverage to advance
reforms in Jewish lifestyle.13 The proponents of change argued that the examination of the course of Jewish history revealed far-reaching, man-made
transformations which could be seen as lending legitimacy to contemporary
changes. 14 Orthodox society was also called upon to contend with the advocates of change in the field of history. Halevy devoted himself to this challenge and cast his historiographic net from the First Temple period to the end
of the period of the Rishonim, the rabbinic authorities of the high and late
middle ages. For him, in diametrical opposition to reformist views, the study
of history led to the conclusion that there were no man-made changes.
“The Jews, however, have no new Torah and no new Judaism. What was
from the earliest times is what we see in the latest times, and what is found
in Scripture is what is found in later homiletics, and the behavior of Elkana,
Samuel and David was no different from the behavior of all Israel, until the
end of the Second Temple period and is identical with what we have inherited
in the tradition and what was recorded in the Mishnah.” 15
12
13
14
15
Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition, pp. 193–201; Yedidya, Biqqoret mevuqqeret, pp. 182–192.
Michael A. Meyer (ed.): German-Jewish History in Modern Times, [vol; 12], New York 1997,
pp. 129–138. Ismar Schorsch: From Text to Context. The Turn to History in Modern Judaism,
Hanover NH 1994, pp. 149–367.
Michael A. Meyer: Abraham Geiger’s Historical Judaism, in: Jakob Josef Petuchowski (ed.),
New Perspectives on Abraham Geiger. An HUC-JIR Symposium, New York 1975, pp. 1–3.
Halevy, Tequfat ha-miqra, p. 168.
A Historian from the World of Torah
53
In Dorot ha-rishonim, Halevy devoted considerable effort and detailed discussion to justify this position. In his view, it can be inferred from Scripture
that throughout the First Temple period the Israelites strictly observed the
laws of the Torah, the study of Torah and prayer.16 In several places he emphasized that this devotion to the laws of the Torah was in accord with the
statements of the sages and the rabbinic authorities both during the time of
the Mishnah (the Tanaim) and during the time of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud (Amoraim), while in other places he compared the observance
of the commandments in the First Temple period with that of his own times.17
Moreover, he strove to demonstrate that the words of the prophets, depicting
manifold deviations from the laws of the Torah, were directed towards a small
minority whose guilt lay in the inappropriate worship of God rather than
outright abandonment of that worship. 18
Halevy directed the majority of his efforts to prove the conservatism and
constancy of the Oral Law in the Second Temple subsequent tanaitic periods.
In his view, the contents of the Oral Law were already in place at the time of
the Sanhedrin (Great Assembly, a group of leaders representing all the sages).
In his opinion, the Mishnah in general presented earlier materials, or alternatively, the argumentation of the Tanaim which was based on the Mishnah
which had been set down long before. 19
In his view, the disputes among the Tanaim touch on the fundamental material of the Mishnah.20 He characterized the Oral Law as unified and constant
from the third to the eleventh centuries of rabbinic scholarship, the amoraitic,
16
17
18
19
20
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 332, 333n98; Ie, pp. 155–157, 168–171; Tequfat ha-miqra: pp. 3, 34, 37,
38, 39, 75, 80, 84–85n1, 104, 108, 116, 127, 130–131. Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav p. 274.
Tanaim and Amoraim: Tequfat ha-miqra, pp. 120, 124. Comparison of the observance of the
mitzvot in the First Temple period with Halevy‘s own times: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 168;
Tequfat ha-miqra, pp. 58, 60, 101.
See Halevy, Tequfat ha-miqra, 6, 11, 18 Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav p. 274 and Halevy,
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 316, and Halevy: Tequfat ha-miqra, pp. 21, 24–25, 30–32, 38–39, 48,
respectively. The same approach to the sin of the Golden Calf is to be found in the Kuzari. See
Rabbi Yehuda Halevy: The Kuzari, Northvale 1998, pp. 38–42.
For the earlier mishnaic materials see Halevy, Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 80n43, 205, 213, 294,
296; Ie, pp. 147, 151–152, 232, 250, 309n33, 442, 443n9, 469, 482, 867, 870, 872–873, 877; Notes
on Weiss’s Dor dor ve-dorshav: 291, 292; Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 141–142, 151,162.
For more on the argumentation of the Tanaim see Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 202, 204, 303–304,
350, 357, 435, 584.
With the notable exception of a dispute between the School of Hillel and the School of Shamai
over the case of the rival of a forbidden relative. See Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 213n30, 605n2).
54
Eliezer Sariel
sevoratic, and geonite eras.21 In addition to addressing specific periods, he presented a general picture of continuity without change from the third century
to the late Middle Age (from the Amoraim through the times of the Geonim
and the Rishonim): “From everything we have explained with regard to the
yeshivot, it is clear that from their beginnings in Babylon to the end of the
days of the Geonim everything was characterized by constancy and consistency.” 22
Considering Halevy’s conservative approach, it is not surprising that he
adopted the position which asserts that no new rabbinic rules were innovated
and no discrepancies settled as the result of the rabbinic Midrash (exegesis),
rather these rules were transmitted from teacher to disciple over the generations and halakhic Midrash served merely to ground the extant teachings, not
to innovate teachings. 23
At this point, it should be noted that there exists an internal contradiction
in Halevy’s approach, which negates the possibility of halakhically innovative
or determinative Midrash. Halevy emphasized the conservative aspect of the
importance of the tradition, whereas the Talmud is, in fact, full of passages in
which the Halakhah is clearly presented as emerging from the Midrash rather
than as a tradition merely supported by the Midrash. In other words, Halevy’s
claim, that the sages of the Talmud did not innovate Halakhot or settle disputes on the basis of scriptural Midrash is inconsistent with the plain sense of
the talmudic text and the position of some of the Rishonim who understood
it in that sense.24 Halevy himself admited that this position was somewhat
21
22
23
24
For the amoraic era see Halevy, Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 20–21, 48, 117; II, p. 404. Ie,
pp. 874–875. For the sevoratic era see, Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 145–146; II, p. 482. For the
geonite era see Halevy, era: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 32, 164, 215, 232.
Halevy, Dorot ha-rishonim, III 225. Similarly, in Dorot ha-rishonim III: 217, 294.
Halevy, Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 155; Ic, p. 307; IIe, pp. 251n18, 487, 489, 492, 492n34, 500,
507–508, 545, 558; Notes on Weiss’ Dor ve-dorshav, p. 279. Harris noted that rejecting the possibility of generative Midrash by the sages is characteristic of German Orthodoxy, as opposed
to Eastern European Orthodoxy, and attributes this difference to the differing character of
Orthodox life in those differing regions. Whereas in Lithuania the ideal of the brilliant scholar
capable of creating novellas flourished, in Germany the ideal of working people committed to
the tradition held sway. (See Jay M. Harris: How Do We Know This? Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism, Albany 1995, pp. 249–250).
Harris, How do We Know? pp. 256–257. Harris notes the double-edged sword of the rejection
of generative Midrash, but in my view, it is appropriate to more strongly emphasize the problematic position of Orthodoxy finding itself between the hammer of a conservative ideal and
the anvil of the plain meaning of the Talmud and the interpretation of the Rishonim.
A Historian from the World of Torah
55
innovative.25 In summary, it may be said that on the one hand, Halevy represented an extremely conservative position, but on the other hand, his position,
in itself, was very innovative and diverged from the traditional pre-modern
mainstream view of Ashkenazic rabbinical scholarship. 26
3.2 The History of Israel Going Out with a High Hand:
Apologetics and Uncritical Approach to the Sages
and to Israel
In his study of modern Orthodoxy in imperial Germany, Mordechai Breuer
argues that apologetics held pride of place in the approach of Orthodox scholars in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the
twentieth century.27 Similar to other apologists, Halevy did not reject, in principle, the use of the historical discipline for political purpose but he averred
that his purpose was not advocacy, but rather an unvarnished inquiry into the
truth on the basis of sources and facts rather than suppositions.28 However, he
also lent historiographic legitimacy to the laudatory depiction of the sages,
serving as a counterweight to the scholars of the Wissenschaft school, whom
he viewed as seeking to denigrate the Torah Sages.29 In fact, the topics of Dorot
ha-rishonim were not limited to responses to the statements of particular historians from the Wissenschaft school and were replete with complimentary
depictions of the Sages and the Jewish people, often extending to attempts
25
26
27
28
29
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 492n34.
From the tenth to the 13th centuries, there was a view among Rishonim in Moslem countries
that rejected the possibility of generative exegesis. (Harris, How do We Know, pp. 74–86, 253).
Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition, pp. 203–214. In the list of studies appearing in note 2
above is an expanded comment on the central role of apologetics in Orthodox historiography.
This acceptance of the use of the historical discipline for political purposes is implied by his
criticism of Josephus: “At a time when the nation was in dire straits, trampled upon by the
Romans, it was incumbent upon the author of a history of Israel for the Romans and for the
eyes of the Emperor to make an effort to mitigate the extent of their iniquity and depict Israel
so as to win sympathy in the eyes of their conquerors, but Agrippas and Josephus conspired
to depict all matters in a way that flattered Agrippas…” (Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 373). Halevy
declared his purpose was not advocacy: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 37, 276; II, pp. 280–281;
Ie, p. 373. Halevy declared his purpose was inquiry into the truth, see: Halevy, Dorot harishonim III, pp. 4, 107, 145, 231, 269. Dorot ha-rishonim, II, Introduction, p. 170. Ic, pp. 84, 429,
669. Halevy declared his purpose to be inquiry based on sources and facts, see: Halevy, Dorot
ha-rishonim III: Introduction, pp. 13, 64, 135, 210, 251; II, pp. 52, 215n17; Ic, pp. 70n35, 375, 511.
This matter will be discussed broadly in the section on Halevy as a modern historian.
Halevy believed such a depiction was consistent with historical veracity, see Dorot harishonim II, p. 276. Ie, p. 373.
56
Eliezer Sariel
to blur criticism implied by the plain meaning of the statements of the sages
themselves.30
From Halevy’s point of view, this was not a departure from the criteria he
set for himself, but part of his worldview in which his historiographic oeuvre
is a response to the Wissenschaft school. His intention in Dorot ha-rishonim
was to uncover the truth that had been obscured by the Wissenschaft historians.31 It was therefore legitimate, in his view, to occasionally emphasize what
he viewed as the obvious truth regarding the excellence of the sages and the
Jewish people, without viewing himself as an apologist.
Halevy’s tendency to minimize the existence of disputes regarding the
history of the Oral Law is evidence of his apologetic approach, an example
of which can be seen in his exposition of the disputes between the rabbinic
scholars of the geonite period:
“We have not found any instance of dispute among the Geonim […] if over the entire course of four hundred and fifty years a few instances can be found where the
authorities’ choice [for the post of Head of the Yeshiva] did not completely hit
the target and there were those who murmured to themselves that they had been
passed over unjustly, this is natural and inevitable as humans are not divine and do
not know each other’s thoughts, but where can such a one be found who transgressed
against the generally approved and chosen determination, disputed it and created a
faction to follow his path and create discord in Israel? Where can be found a dispute
in the academy itself […] as we are well aware from the writings of Rav Sherira
Gaon himself that even though he took upon himself extra stringencies in his own
home, God forbid, they did not create disputes.”32
30
31
32
For laudatory depictions of the sages see: Dorot ha-rishonim III, pp. 169, 220, 229; II, pp. 19,
190, 260, 280, 288–289, 333, 335–336, 362, 429, 447; Ic, pp. 73, 91–93, 120, 430, 526–527, 534–536,
542–543, 547, 640–641, 644, 648, 672; Ie, pp. 3, 43, 47, 61, 119, 144, 291n28, 302, 317–318, 328,
330–331, 375, 385, 575, 625, 767; Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 21, 25, 52, 127, 132, 161;
Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav, p. 288. For laudatory depictions of the Jewish people
see: Dorot ha-rishonim II: 208, 252, 289, 603; Ic, pp. 25, 39n22, 328n92, 356, 480, 483–484, 486;
Ie, pp. 638, 666; Tequfat ha-miqra, p. 77; Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 25, 126, 129, 157. For
blurring criticism of sages see: Dorot ha-rishonim III, pp. 232, 263; II, p. 334; Ie, pp. 315, 768.
Dorot ha-rishonim II, pp. 514–515; Reichel, Iggerot, pp. 81, 84.
Dorot ha-rishonim III, p. 269, emphasis in the original. Halevy devoted an entire chapter to
supporting his argument that there were no disputes among the sages in the geonite period
(III, pp. 269–279). He claimed that if there were disagreements during the last centuries of the
early Middle Ages they emerged in the context of the institution of the Exilarch.
A Historian from the World of Torah
57
Armed with the talmudic rule that “anything that enables us to reduce disputation is preferable,” Halevy devoted much effort to minimize the extent and
significance of disputes and contradictions among Torah sages, of discrepancies among diverse rabbinic sources, and of divergent versions of the same
story.33 Similarly, he sought to depict an idyllic picture of harmony among all
the Jewish groups in the acceptance of the authority of the Oral Law.34 In his
view, after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), except for unusual
periods, a single universal academy was maintained, which partly continued
the institution of the Great Bet Din which was maintained throughout the
Second Temple period.35
An implicit apologetic strain can also be detected in his position that the
methods characterizing the Oral Law as used by generations of Torah sages,
can contribute to modern historical methodology. He argued that from the
second century BCE to the late Middle Age, the sages took great care in formulating their words out of a meticulous devotion to the search for truth.36 In
his view, evidence of this devotion could be found in previously unexamined
33
34
35
36
The rule “anything that enables us to reduce disputation is preferable” is quoted by Halevy in
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 550. On minimizing the extent of disputes see: Dorot ha-rishonim
III, p. 201. II, pp. 111–112, 422, 429. Ie, pp. 109, 229, 254, 281–282, 374, 504–508. On minimizing
discrepancies among diverse rabbinic sources see: Dorot ha-rishonim Ie, p. 135. For Halevy’s
attempt to unify the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud see: Dorot ha-rishonim,
II, pp. 7–8, 61n27, 75n39, 98, 111, 140–141n68, 201, 263; Ic, pp. 476, 587, 595, 598–599, 602.
Ie, pp. 101–102, 742, 746n36, 756n42, 761, 767n47. He also claimed there was compatibility
between the yeshivot in Israel and Babylonia. See: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 472, 482, 484,
488. On minimizing discrepancies between divergent versions of the same story see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 2n2, 26, 43, 77n5.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 162, 197, 210, 496, 602; Ic, p. 127n60; Ie, p. 3.
In Halevy’s opinion, the redundant existence of parallel, central Torah academies, under Rav
and Shmuel respectively, during the amoraic period, was an exception (Dorot ha-rishonim, II,
p. 416), and that while, for over 130 years of the geonite period, there were two central Torah
academies, Sura and Pumbedita, during the remainder of the geonite period there was only a
one universal Torah academy, Pumbedita (Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 159). On the single universal academy that was maintained see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 46, 155–159, 192–193, 21635,
165–167, 298, 409, 411–417, 480–482, 490–491, 494–496; Ie, pp. 119, 311, 425, 433, 738–740, 744,
805–806. On the institution of the Great Bet Din, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 664–667. At
the time of the Great Bet Din, an exceptional situation existed where two academies operated
simultaneously during the joint tenure of Hillel and Shamai (Ic, p. 602).
For Halevy’s arguments on this point as they relate to the various periods see: Hasmoneans:
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 623n36. Tanaim: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 90, 500; Ic, p. 634; Ie, p. 514.
Amoraim: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 201, 325, 500; Ic p. 634; Ie, p. 101. Geonim: Dorot harishonim,III, pp. 2, 155, 163, 170. Rishonim: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 206.
58
Eliezer Sariel
redactions of the talmudic text.37 It is not surprising, therefore, that in his
view the literary sources of the Oral Law are of primary importance for any
historian wishing to write about Jewish history and that the legitimacy of
other sources is contingent on their not contradicting the Oral Law literature.38
At the same time, Halevy attacked the subjects of his inquiries who didn’t
follow the values of Orthodoxy. He had harsh words for those who opposed
the Halakhah of the Pharisees, including specific factions and individuals.
This includes the Hellenizers, aristocratic Jews in the late Second Temple period, apostates and Sadducees.39 In his view, the opposition of the Sadducees to
the Pharisees stemmed from the fact that they
“denied all of the foundations of religion, saying Israel is like any other nation, their
desire being to completely abandon all the ways of the Torah and pursue the ways
of the nations, but when this desire did not go well, they looked to the path of Judaism in the most minimal possible way, i. e. only to that which is explicitly stated
in the Torah.’’40
Halevy also directs his barbs towards historical figures, including Herod,
Agrippas II, and Salman ben Yeruham.41
37
38
39
40
41
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 144, 208.
On the importance of Jewish Oral Law for any historian see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 178, 372.
On the legitimacy of the various sources of the Oral Law see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 341n47.
According to Halevy, within the Oral Law there exists an internal hierarchy in terms of the
quality of the sources. For example, in Halevy’s view, the most important sources in the amoraic period are the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmudim and the use of other sources is conditioned upon their not contradicting these (Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 250n43). On the question
of the internal relationship between them see: Isaiah Gafni: Skirah al ha-mechkar ha-history
shel bavel ha-talmudit Ba-dorot ha-achronim [A Review of the Historical Research on Bavel
in the Talmud and ‘Later Generations’ Periods], in: Yedion ha-irgun ha-olami le-mada-ey hayahadut 5 (1983).
For Halevy’s criticism of Hellenizers see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 379. For his criticism of
aristocratic Jews see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 4, 9, 21, 25, 29, 39, 50–51; Auerbach (ed.),
Sefer zikaron: 35–36, 79, 157. For Halevy’s criticism of the apostates see: Auerbach (ed.), Sefer
zikaron, p. 37. For Halevy’s criticism of the Sadducees see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 358, 362,
412–413, 416, 418, 540; Ie, pp. 13; Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 35–36, 49, 55, 157, 161.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 370.
For Halevy’s criticism of Herod see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 9–13; Reichel, Iggerot, p. 123;
Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 17–18. For Halevy’s criticism of Agrippas II see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 25, 31, 39; Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 34, 8, 44, 56–57, 60–61, 72–74,
77, 83, 85–86, 88. For Halevy’s criticism of Salman ben Yeruham see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III,
pp. 107, 111.
A Historian from the World of Torah
59
Finally, Halevy completed his veritable wall of apologetics with his claim
that the history of the people of Israel proved that the people, as well as the
sages, were opposed to revolt against the nations and that when such revolts
occurred they stemmed from circumstances which led the people to revolt
against their will.42 His attitude was in line with the traditional Jewish approach of both the Middle Ages and the early modern period: an unwillingness to challenge the mandate of the non-Jewish authorities.43 An example
of this is his depiction of the second-century Bar Kokhba revolt in which
he presented the planned rebellion as being coincidental and unintentional: “This revolt, from its inception, had neither instigator nor bringer to birth,
rather it emerged of itself and moved forward of its own accord as happened
previously in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.”44 This is consistent with his
opposition to Zionism in preference to the approach of “acting with submission and humility in the lands of our exile.”45
3.3 In Graetz’s Books Thou Shalt not Peek:46
Rejection of Anyone Not Identified with Orthodoxy
One of the main characteristics of the Orthodox camp was the shared consciousness of contention with other Jewish factions and a negative attitude
to any outsider.47 The volumes of Dorot ha-rishonim place great emphasis
on the author’s scathing critique of historians whose worldviews are inconsistent with Orthodox principles. Halevy wrote critically of a long line of Jewish
scholars associated with the Enlightenment and Wissenschaft des Judentums.
In his view, their hostility to, and misunderstanding of, Jewish tradition impaired their judgment and compromised the conclusions of their research. As
42
43
44
45
46
47
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 43, 60–61. Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 76, 336–337, 337n45; Ie, pp. 4,
10, 16–20, 28, 39, 397, 410, 413, 574, 622–623, 626–628. For notes on Isaac Hirsch see: Auerbach
(ed.), Sefer zikaron, pp. 67, 77, 91, 115–116. Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav p. 284.
Aviezer Ravitzky: Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism, Chicago 1996,
pp. 21–23.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 620.
See: Moshe H. E. Bloch: Mi natan le-meshisa ya-akov ve-israel le-bozezim [Who Handed Jacob
Over to Become Loot, and Israel to the Plunderers], New York 1957, pp. 163–172. See also:
Sariel, Can’t Live with Him.
This is not a quote from Halevy but the author’s paraphrase of the objections of the Hatam
Sofer (Moses Sofer / Schreiber, 1762–1839) to the works of Moses Mendelssohn.
Jacob Katz: Divine Law in Human Hands. Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility, Jerusalem 1998,
pp. 191–402.
60
Eliezer Sariel
Halevy’s criticisms extend to several hundred references and are too numerous to examine in detail, the focus in this research will be on his critique of the
two historians most heavily criticized in Dorot ha-rishonim: Heinrich Graetz
(1817–1891), the author of the eleven-volume The History of the Jews: From the
Earliest Times to the Present Day which became the standard for future works
in the field of Jewish history, and Isaac Hirsch Weiss (1815–1905), scholar
of rabbinic literature and the author of the five-volume Dor ve-Dorshav. For
the sake of comparison, the article will also examine his critique of the nonJewish German historian Emil Schürer (1844–1910).
The common thread in Halevy’s critiques of Graetz and Weiss was his view
that both used historiographic writing to advance their ideological agenda.48
According to his opinion, in both cases the antipathy towards the people of
Israel and the sages and the sympathy for groups not associated with loyalty
to the Pharisaic Halakhah – the origin of the rabbinic Halakhah – distorted
their work and impaired the credibility of their historical research: 49
“In fact, the scholar Graetz wrote a history of the people of Israel in accordance with
his own wishes rather than on the basis of the sources even though he mentioned
them […] and the scholar Weiss who followed in his footsteps…”50
In addition, Halevy accused these two scholars of impaired professionalism
as historians. In his opinion, they both lacked the knowledge necessary to accomplish what they had set out to do.51 They were frequently content with su48
49
50
51
For Halevy on Graetz see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 201; Ic, p. 657. Ie, pp. 279, 315. For Halevy
on Weiss see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 59,231; Dorot ha-rishonim II, pp. 30, 34, 118, 118, 170,
527; Ic p. 322. Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav, p. 279.
On the connection between Pharisaic Halakhah and Rabbinic Halakah see: Alexei M. Sivertsev:
Households, sects, and the origins of rabbinic Judaism, Leiden 2005, pp. 272–274. For Halevy
on Graetz’s antipathy towards the people of Israel see, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 88, 368,
454, 457, 484–486, 496, 512–513, 517, 674n48, 680, 682, 685; Ie, pp. 106, 393, 694–695, 714, 796.
For Halevy on Weiss’ antipathy, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 163, 172, 280, 451; Ic, pp. 100–
101,130, 141; Ie, pp. 158–160, 319, 374–375, 377–378, 382, 386, 392, 740; Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor
ve-dorshav p. 283. For Halevy on Graetz’s antipathy to the sages, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III,
pp. 151, 232; II p. 369; Ic, pp. 85, 484, 486, 486n46, 495, 515–516, 674n48; Ie: 693 695, 796, 817. For
Halevy on Weiss’ antipathy to the sages, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III pp. 269–270; II, pp. 103, 118,
280–281, 359, 511–512; Ic, p. 84; Ie, pp. 380, 392. For Halevy’s claim that Weiss displayed animosity towards the Torah itself see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 428–429. For the argument that their
sympathy and admiration for the Sadducees influenced Graetz’s and Weiss’ work, see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, Ic: 454, 484. Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 373. He further accused Graetz of admiring
Herod, see Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 674n48. and Agrippas II and his faction, see Ie. pp. 15, 51.
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 30.
For Halevy on the impaired professionalism of Graetz, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 394,
445, 468; Ic, pp. 80n43, 156, 408–409, 458–460; Ie, pp. 333,372, 674. For Halevy on the impaired
A Historian from the World of Torah
61
perficial research and relied on secondary references, in particular references
from Seder ha-dorot, a chronological work by the East European Rabbi Jehiel
Heilprin (1660–1746), or on uncritical adoption of the conclusions of previous
scholars without examining them in their contexts.52 He accused both of them
of misinterpreting the sources and of inventing historical axioms.53 In his
opinion, the various shortcomings in their methodologies directly impaired
the validity of their historical arguments. According to Halevy’s opinion, in
many cases, Graetz and Weiss relied on speculation rather than facts and
failed to reference sources to back up their claims.54 Moreover, they confused
one matter with the other, contradicted themselves, and failed to notice that
their conclusions were not in accord with the natural order of the world, as in
the following direct criticism of Graetz and Weiss:55
52
53
54
55
professionalism of Weiss, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 103; Ic, pp. 314, 415, 733–734; Ie, pp. 148,
160, 182, 293, 307, 317, 377, 383, 389, 391, 741; Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav, p. 272.
On Graetz’s superficial research see: Dorot ha-rishonim: II, pp. 5, 16–17, 31, 436–446, 445,
445n104; Ic, pp. 6, 80, 180, 455, 495, 691n56, 694n57, 659n59, 711; IIe, pp. 16–17, 128, 280, 323,
333, 707, 711, 714, 817n62. On Weiss’ superficial research see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 47, 212,
296, 298. Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp; I33, 197, 262, 282, 339, 345, 364, 379n67, 412, 422, 538n152;
Ic, pp. 175, 230n35,404, 554, 710; IIe, pp. 63, 263n21, 293, 378, 740; Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor
ve-dorshav: 271, 275–276, 290. On Graetz’s reliance on secondary sources see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 314; Ic, p. 694n57. On Weiss’ reliance on secondary sources see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 118, 280; Ic, pp. 422, 595; Ie, pp. 377–379. On Graetz’s reliance on Seder ha-dorot
see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 51–52; Ie, p. 695. On Weiss reliance on Seder ha-dorot see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, III, pp. 71, 86, 156; II, p. 20. On uncritical adoption by Graetz, see Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 369; Ie, p. 588. Graetz and Weiss were also accused of incorrect interpretation of
other historians (Graetz, see: II, pp. 3–4, 12; Weiss, see Ic, p. 644). On Gratz’s failure to examine
his sources see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 14, 51, 223, 248, 594n182; Ic, pp. 156, 452; Ie, p. 625.
On Weiss’ failure see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 118–119.
On Graetz’s misinterpretation of sources see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 215, 220, 251, 254, 262,
273, 287, 301; Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 50–51, 300, 435, 445, 448–449, 479n124; Ic, pp. 54, 56,
177–178, 409, 520, 659n42; Ie, pp. 416, 422. On Weiss’ misinterpretation see: Dorot ha-rishonim,
II: 30, 197, 254, 260, 282, 325, 452–453, 513; Ic, pp. 359, 374. Notes on Weiss’s Dor dor vedorshav: 272, 277, 279, 280, 291.On Graetz inventing historical axioms see: Dorot ha-rishonim,
III, pp. 264, 272; II, pp. 10, 12, 37, 49, 402, 434, 442; Ic, pp. 56, 71, 440, 458, 460, 658, 659, 684–685,
687n52, 688, 707, 711; Ie, pp. 2, 362, 396, 402, 424, 427, 694. On Weiss inventing historical axioms see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 270, 296; II, pp. 196–197, 262, 279–280, 412, 413n86, 428,
576; Ic, pp. 203, 230, 314, 553; Ie, p. 822.
On Graetz’s reliance on speculation see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 28, 164–165, 168; II, p. 12n6.
Ie, p 394. On Weiss’ reliance see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 115–116, 141, 186; Ic, p. 79; Ie,
p. 148. For Graetz’s amd Weiss’ failure to reference sources, see Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 153,
265; II, p. 11 (Graetz), Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 269; Ie, p. 375 (Weiss).
For Halevy’s comments on the confusion evident in Graetz’s work, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II,
pp. 84, 369, 448; Ic, pp. 497n47, 683. In Weiss’ work see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 87; Ic, pp. 98,
169n6, 340. For self-contradiction in Graetz’s work, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 18, 107, 115,
62
Eliezer Sariel
“All of this could be written and set out only when recounting the history of Israel,
where, apart from their lack of critical, diligent research they failed to pay attention
to the true nature and ways of the world, thus resulting in anachronistic historical
accounts which were incongruous with the actual order of events.”56
Alongside the similarity of Halevy’s criticisms of Graetz and Weiss, he also
saw some differences between them. Graetz was accused of sloppy proofreading of texts, of faulty citations of sources, and of sacrificing historical accuracy
for popularity.57 Weiss, on the other hand, whom he called “the rear guard
of all the divisions” (cf. Numbers 10:25) was accused of Reform sympathies,
anti-nationalism, and errors any schoolboy should be expected to avoid.58
Halevy also accused Weiss of deliberately misleading the public.59 In general,
it may be said Halevy had harsher words for Weiss than for Graetz.60
Numerous elements of Halevy’s criticism of Graetz and Weiss are also to
be found, albeit to a more moderate degree, in his critique of the German
historian Emil Schürer. Halevy applied the sobriquet “the rear guard of all the
divisions” to Schürer as well and accused him of a negative attitude towards
Israel and the sages. 61 He also accused Schürer of faulty professionalism in his
56
57
58
59
60
61
273, 280, 285, 287, 299–300. Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 4, 341, 436; Ic, pp. 361, 711; Ie, p. 16. In
Weiss’ work, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 213.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 359. Similar, but separate criticisms of each of them can be found as
follows: Graetz: II: 7, 15. Weiss: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 319, Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor vedorshav, p. 276.
On sloppy proofreading of texts see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 168; II, p. 52; Ic, p. 594n27. On
faulty citations of sources: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 43, 255; II, p. 435; Ic, pp. 661–662n43. Ie,
pp. 74, 280. On sacrificing historical accuracy for popularity, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 255;
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 197, 201n14, 337n45.
On the pejorative “the rear guard of all the divisions” see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 359, 368;
Ie, p. 147; Tequfat ha-miqra, p. 262. On Reform sympathies see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 387;
Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, p. 140. For Halevy on Weiss’ anti-nationalism see: Notes on
Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav, p. 284. On Weiss’ errors see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 279, 326,
425, 514; Ic, pp. 405, 594; Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav, p. 276.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 276–277, 279, 281, 324, 360, 425, 511–512; Ic, pp. 100, 320, 368–369,
371–372, 422–423, 736; Ie, pp. 158, 378–380, 388, 390, 392, 471n30, 622; Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor
ve-dorshav: 275, 280, 283, 284, 290. While a similar claim is implied in his criticism of Graetz,
accusing him of knowing that his interpretation was incorrect (Ic, pp. 513, 516), it cannot be
compared with the scope and intensity of his criticism of Weiss, whom he accuses of willful
distortion.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 392.
For the pejorative “the rear guard of all the divisions”, see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 609. On
Schürer’s negative attitude towards Israel see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 620; Ie, p. 429. On
Schürer’s negative attitude towards sages see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 424n67.
A Historian from the World of Torah
63
historiographic work. In his opinion, Schürer lacked the knowledge necessary
to realize his aims, as a historian, to aspire to historical truth.62 His scholarship
was frequently superficial; he relied on other historians uncritically, did not
access the source materials in their original contexts, and occasionally fabricated historical facts.63 The quality of Schürer’s historical claims, like those of
Graetz and Weiss, was compromised by his faulty scholarship. He relied on
speculation rather than facts and contradicted himself at times attempting to
distract from his faulty scholarship by being deliberately misleading.64
In short, Halevy argued that both non-Jewish historians and Jewish historians of the Wissenschaft school were not free of ideological agendas; moreover,
their contempt for the sources of the Oral Law stems from lack of knowledge
and understanding and that their conclusions were therefore faulty. While
the content and intensity of Halevy’s criticisms are not consistent, there are
significant common themes. He had clear reservations about a long list of
historians which were consistent with the tendency of Orthodox society to
strive against all whom it perceived as challenging its values.
3.4 The Exclusivity of the History of the Jewish Nation
Another brick in the wall of Orthodoxy in Dorot ha-rishonim had to do with
the uniqueness of the history of Israel. Halevy based his work in the belief that
the divine imprint may be seen in the history of Israel and that the connection
between the Jewish people, God and the influence of the Torah on them lent
a unique nature to the history of Israel.65 In Halevy’s view, the Wissenschaft
historians viewed the history of Israel through the lens of the history of the
other nations.66 He, in contrast, viewed his life’s work as revealing the elements which reflect the history of “our wondrous chronicles.”67
62
63
64
65
66
67
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 57, 642; Ie, pp. 339, 344.
On superficial scholarship see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 9n5, 32, 87–88, 620, 635–637; Ie 130,
430, 609; Auerbach (ed.), Sefer zikaron, p. 11. On uncritical reliance see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic,
p. 642. On the lack of original context see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 498. On the fabrication of
historical facts see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 58; Ie, p. 611.
On reliance on speculation see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 618–619. On self-contradiction
see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 641; Ie, p. 639. On being deliberately misleading see: Dorot harishonim, Ic, p. 619.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 336–337; III, pp. 27, 126, 214; II, pp. 298, 399, 481, 600. For two examples, among many, see: Tequfat ha-miqra, pp. 105, 110–112.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 197.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 112.
64
Eliezer Sariel
In summary, it can be said that Halevy, who was raised and lived in an Orthodox society, integrated his Orthodox values into his historiography which
unequivocally reflected several fundamental elements of the Orthodox worldview, including historical conservatism, apologetics, an uncritical attitude towards earlier Jewish Law authorities, discomfort with persons and viewpoints
contradicting Orthodox values, and the effort to advance religious values.
4.
Discarding the Old to Make Room for the New: Trends in
Dorot ha-rishonim Inconsistent with Orthodox Values
Up to now, we have seen how Halevy’s historiography reflects fundamental
values of an Orthodox worldview. The following section will show how Halevy adopts, whether openly or covertly, historical insights inconsistent with
Orthodox values.
4.1
And Yet It Moves: Halevy Recognizes Development
and Change in Torah Matters
The previous section noted the ambiguity inherent in Halevy’s approach which
rejects the possibility of Midrash generating and determining Halakhah. His
efforts to fortify the status of the halakhic tradition became a double-edged
sword leading to conclusions directly contradicting the claims of the tradition
itself which did recognize generative Midrash. His conservative view of the
history of the Halakhah was also undermined by his readiness to recognize
the existence of historical layers within the Book of Esther and the insertion of later additions into the text of the Mishnah.68 Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak
HaCohen Kook (Rav Kook, 1865–1935), one of the most influential rabbis of
the twentieth century, noted the internal contradiction in Halevy’s approach;
Halevy raised the banner of conservatism while he himself blazed new trails.
In a response Kook wrote to Halevy:
“Your Illustrious Honor cautions against new directions, but I am certain your Honor would admit that you have achieved more for the situation of Judaism in your
historical works than all those other historians, who presented inductions and
68
For Halevy on the Book of Esther see: Tequfat ha-miqra, pp. 263–265. For Halevy on the
Mishnah see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 207n22, 210n28, 235n40, 239n46, 240n47, 300n80.
A Historian from the World of Torah
65
deductions in the traditional manner, even though you have pioneered directions
which no other historians devoted wholeheartedly to the Torah have done.”69
4.2
“Things so Utterly Without Foundation that the Ear Cannot Abide:”70
Halevy’s Criticism of Torah Scholars
Halevy’s innovative spirit was most apparent in his occasional willingness
to abandon Orthodox apologetics. The image of Halevy the apologist was the
mirror image of Halevy the academic scholar who was sometimes alert to the
problematic nature of the rabbinic sources as historical sources and did not
hesitate to criticize earlier rabbinic authorities and dispute their derivation of
historical information.71 The authority of earlier generations of adjudicators
of Halakhah became a foundational element in the ideology which Orthodoxy developed in its defining conflict with other Jewish religious movements
in the nineteenth century. Orthodox rabbis emphasized the obligation to the
decision-making tradition. Halevy, whose historical inquiries sometimes led
him to the conclusion that the sages of the Oral Law were not strictly accurate
in relating historical details, found himself torn between his commitment to
those rabbinic authorities who had passed the divine word from generation to
generation and his commitment to historical accuracy. He justified his preference for the commitment to historical accuracy by the argument that the
scholars devoted their primary efforts to seeking halakhic truth and therefore
it was possible that they made errors regarding historical accuracy.72 Armed
with this justification, he took the liberty of disputing with a long list of sages,
collectively and individually.73
69
70
71
72
73
Tzvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook (ed.): Igrot HaReayah Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook [The
Letters of Avraham Issac HaCohen Kook], vol. 1, Jerusalem 1992, p. 185.
Citation from Halevy’s critique of the author of Tosephot Yom Tov, Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic,
p. 252.
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 225; Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 201, 285, 317; Ic, pp. 21n13, 311, 643. Ie,
pp. 133, 431n5, 459n20, 460n22, 738n33; Notes on Weiss’ Dor dor ve-dorshav, p. 273.
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 56; Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 117, 216, 228, 241, 264n5, 318, 448n105,
476, 476n120; Ic, pp. 74, 223, 446, 595; Ie, pp. 52, 101, 132, 184, 187, 221, 467–468, 522, 524n44,
629.
Halevy relates to several groups: Rishonim (Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 54. Dorot ha-rishonim,
II, pp. 81, 116–117; E5: 242, 555, 587, 851), the disciples of Rabbenu Yonah (Dorot ha-rishonim,
Ie, p. 145), the commentators on Maimonides (Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 525), and Aharonim
(Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 532).
66
Eliezer Sariel
Halevy generally used more moderate language in disputing with medieval and early modern Torah scholars, using expressions such as, “his meaning
is obscure” or “with all due respect.” At times, however, he used language
almost as harsh as that directed against Wissenschaft historians. For example,
he accused medieval rabbinic scholars of fabrication; arguing that they “explained nothing” and “made up new homilies which have no basis.’’74 Finally,
in at least one instance Halevy disputed the medieval rabbinic authorities on
a historical matter which had clear halakhic implications.75
These numerous examples show the kind of snare awaiting the Orthodox
historian; a snare inherent in the innovation which lies at the heart of Orthodoxy as a modern phenomenon.76 Halevy aspired to advance Orthodox values by defending the honor of Talmud sages, which, in his opinion, medieval
rabbinic scholars had sometimes offended. This in itself, undermined the very
values he was trying to advance as in doing so he placed himself in opposition to great rabbinic scholars such as Moses Maimonides (1135/38–1204) and
the medieval commentators on the Talmud (Tosaphot) who viewed criticism
of talmudic sages as legitimate. In other words, the Orthodox values Halevy
sought to advance were not necessarily consistent with the traditional worldview of Maimonides, the Tosaphot, and others.77
Halevy’s use of severe language in criticising medieval rabbinic scholars
can be seen as demonstrating that Halevy’s determinations did not emerge
74
75
76
77
Halevy criticized the innovative homilies used by the medieval rabbinic authorities to explain
why the authority of the Sanhedrin to exercise capital punishment was contingent upon its
being established on the temple mount while he himself presented a more conservative rationale. See: Dorot ha-rishonim Ie, p. 112, 112n53. For additional criticism on the Tosaphot
see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 318; Ie, p. 851, 873. For additional criticism of specific sages by
Halevy see: Maimonides (1138–1204), Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 95–97; Rashi (1040–1105),
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 95; Asher ben Yehiel (the Rosh, 1250–1328), Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic,
p. 284; Ie, p. 572. Gershon Shaul Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller (1579–1654) wrote a commentary
on the Mishnah called “Tosphot Yom-Tov,” Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 95, 252; the Vilna Gaon
(1720–1797), Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 95; Rabbi Akiva Eiger (1761–1837), Dorot ha-rishonim,
Ie, p. 245.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 532.
Michael K. Silber: The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy. The Invention of a Tradition, in Jack
Wertheimer (ed.), The Uses of Tradition. Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, New York 1992,
pp. 23–84.
Additional examples of Halevy disputing earlier sages, on the one hand, and proposing
explanations more consistent with Orthodox values on the other, may be found in: Dorot
ha-rishonim, III, p. 294; Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic: 217, 530n58, 600–601; Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie,
pp. 123–124, 186, 242.
A Historian from the World of Torah
67
from the preference for one Orthodox value over another, but from the aspiration to seek the truth. While Halevy frequently found himself at a dead
end, obliged to choose between two contradictory Orthodox values, his use
of harsh language against earlier rabbinic authorities was avoidable. He could,
for example, have criticised the famous rabbinic figures without accusing
them of saying “such horrible things about one of the leading lights of Israel.”78
The depth of the contradiction between Halevy’s approach and certain Orthodox values can be seen from the fact that Rabbi Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (1878–1953), known by the title of his book “Hazon Ish” and, the most
influential leader of Israeli ultra-Orthodox society, objected to the reprinting
of Dorot ha-rishonim, which was out of print. Among his reasons was that
Halevy “contradicts Rishonim in several instances.” 79
4.3
From the New Testament to Azariah De Rossi:
The Array of Historical Sources Upon Which Halevy Relied
The previous section described how Halevy’s historiographic oeuvre acted
as a brick in the Orthodox wall against alien values by strongly opposing
historians and historical figures whose words or deeds contradicted Orthodox
values. The article will now try to show how far Halevy was prepared to go to
adopt historical information from non-Orthodox sources.
Firstly, throughout his writings, Halevy complimented, either directly or
indirectly, persons whom he attacked harshly in other places.80 For example,
78
79
80
There are several instances where Halevy indirectly disputed the views of Rishonim by claiming that the text was written by an erring disciple or by copyists: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 212;
II, p. 615; Ic, pp. 330n93, 557–558n2; In another instance Halevy claimed that he was, indeed,
disputing the views of Rashi and Maimonides in favor of those held by their teachers: Dorot
ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 525.
Quoted in Avraham Horowitz: Orot Rabbenu, vol. 3, Bnei Brak 1996, p. 119. Rabbi Hayyim
Kanievsky (b. 1928), who participated in a meeting between Halevy’s son, Shmuel, and the
Hazon Ish, reported that Shmuel asked the Hazon Ish whether to reprint Dorot ha-rishonim,
to which the Hazon Ish responded in the negative. Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky has been cited
as having similar reservations. See: N. Kamenetsky: Making of a Godol. A Study of Episodes in
the Lives of Great Torah Personalities, Jerusalem 2002, p. 14. These reservations, together with
Kanievsky reasoning “because Dorot ha-rishonim cites others’ incorrect views,” testify to the
emergence of another intensely defensive central branch of Orthodoxy, in whose eyes even
Halevy himself became a threat. Breuer noted a similar thread of criticism emanating from the
followers of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, p. 201.
I. Gafni noted the fact that Halevy’s knowledge of general history was taken “primarily from
Graetz, Schürer, Weiss and others, i. e. specifically those historians he criticizes throughout his
work.” (Isaiah Gafni: Skirah al ha-mechkar, p. 8.)
68
Eliezer Sariel
the following praise for Rabbi Zacharias Frankel (1801–1875), the founder of
positive-historical Judaism, which was the progenitor of Conservative Judaism,
and Solomon Judah Löb HaKohen Rapoport (1786–1867), an East European
rabbi and Maskil.81 Included among those on whose work he relied, despite
their adherence to values alien to Orthodoxy, were Graetz, Weiss, Theodor
Mommsen (1817–1903), one of the greatest classicists of the nineteenth century, Schürer, and Friedrich Münter (1761–1830), church historian, archaeologist, professor at the University of Copenhagen, and Danish bishop.82 These
examples show that Halevy did not categorically reject persons who did not
fit in with his Orthodox worldview, and even cited them by name when he
thought their words were historically accurate. Moreover, it should be also
noted that a close examination of Halevy’s criticisms of historians such as
Graetz and Weiss indicates that his sometimes harsh language, which was not
uncommon at that time, expressed primarily professional criticism of their
methodologies and conclusions.
Halevy relied on a variety of sources whose content was inconsistent with
Orthodox values. In two instances he sought to support his arguments by
using New Testament sources, in one of which he showed a considerable familiarity with the New Testament by using citations from a variety of New
Testament books to contest the claims of the Dutch theologian Abraham
Kuenen (1828–1891) that Jesus was sentenced by the Sanhedrin, the supreme
court of the Jews.83 Moreover, in several instances, he relied on the testimonies
81
82
83
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 185. For other cases where Halevy relies upon Frankel see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, II, p. 280; Ie, p. 591. Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 76n34. For other cases where Halevy
relies upon Rapoport see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 101, 124; Ic, p. 425.
For Halevy’s reliance on Graetz see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 62–63; Ic: 180n8, 424, 443n27.
Reliance on Weiss. See: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 236–237n23; Ic 19n12. Reliance on Mommsen.
See: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie: 359, 419, 427, 585, 633, 810. For examples of Halevy’s confirming
Schürer findings see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie: 406, 424. For Halevy’s reliance on Schürer’s analysis see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic: 7n4, 180n8, 228, 367, 384, 443n27, 453; Ie: 400, 633. For Halevy’s
use of the term Bishop Münter see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 396. Elsewhere he refers to him as
“first and foremost of the historians of the nations.” See Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 708. A similar
description may be found in: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 584. Halevy regards him as a historian
of high quality. See: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 730. For Halevy’s justification of Münter see;
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 396, 412. For Halevy’s reliance on Münter see: Dorot ha-rishonim,
Ie, pp. 584, 608, 636–637, 637n90, 708; Tequfat ha-miqra, p. 112. For examples of Halevy’s reliance on non-Jewish scholars in general see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 366–367.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 630–631. For Halevy’s reliance on the New Testament, see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 48n26, in which Halevy displayed his pretensions to deep familiarity with
it.
A Historian from the World of Torah
69
of the Church Father Eusebius (260/265–340).84 Halevy was also willing to rely
on the work Meor Eynayim, written by the Jewish Italian physician Azariah
de Rossi (1511–1578), who had published a critical analysis of the history of
the Jewish nation based on various Roman and Christian sources. Important
rabbis in the traditional community, among them Joseph Caro (1488–1575),
Moshe ben Avraham Provençal (1503–1576), Judah Loew ben Bezalel (d.
1609), Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen (1521–1597), had denounced and even
banned this work, considering its content inconsistent with the values of traditional Jewish society.85
Finally, Halevy did not hesitate to grant preference to non-Jewish historians over rabbinic authorities when called for, as in his interpretation of
a remark of Rabbi Sherira Gaon (10th century), one of the most prominent
Geonim and the head of the yeshivah at Pumbedita, who wrote that the city of
Pumbedita had been conquered by the Caliph Ali. Influenced by the JewishGerman orientalist and historian Gustav Weil (1808–1889), Halevy concluded
that the city had been conquered by the earlier Caliph Umar. To harmonize
Rabbi Sherira Gaon’s remark with Weil’s, Halevy offered a farfetched interpretation of the word “conquered”, claiming, “This is not to say that he conquered her by warlike means for there was no war involved there at all […]
but he [Sherira Gaon] means that they submitted to him and showed him
tokens of affection and accepted him as their king.”86
In summary, it can be argued that Halevy’s adherence to the three central
pillars of his Orthodox position – a conservative view of the development of
the Oral Law, an apologetic rejection of criticism of the great figures of Jewish
wisdom, and the rejection of those who threaten Orthodox values – was often ambiguous or inconsistent. In several cases, Halevy directly or indirectly
legitimized the view that there were, in fact, developments in the Oral Law.
84
85
86
Based on Eusebius: Dorot ha-rishonim, I, pp. 75, 77, 130, 332, 344, 354, 395, 405, 420–421,
595–599, 611, 634, 638–639 (including criticism on Eusebius), 664–665, 709.
Azariah De’ Rossi: The Light of the Eyes, Joanna Weinberg (ed.), New Haven 2001, pp. xiii-xlv.
Reichel, Iggerot, p. 179. Additional references to Maor Eynayim [The Light of the Eyes] may
be found in Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 586, 594.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 178. Further down on the same page Halevy proposes a textual variant of Abraham ibn Daud (1110–1180) in Sefer HaKabbalah in which the calculation of the
years coordinates with Weil, but he allows that this is not an absolute necessity because, as
Weil himself notes, the Arab historical sources are not necessarily accurate. Nevertheless, the
implication is that Weil is to be relied upon. See: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 637n90.
70
Eliezer Sariel
Throughout the volumes of Dorot ha-rishonim are instances where Halevy disputed earlier rabbinic authorities, at times in harsh terms, and adopted historical information from historians who were far from Jewish Orthodox values.
5.
Wie Es Eigentlich Gewesen:87
Halevy as a Modern Historian
In the previous section, the article discussed the extent to which the volumes
of Dorot ha-rishonim reflected insights inconsistent with Orthodox values.
The common thread running through all those insights is an approach central to modern critical historiography: the assumption that historical sources
should not be taken at face value but must be examined critically in accordance with scholarly criteria. The following section will examine the extent to
which Halevy’s approach is consistent with modern historiographic methodology, as developed in Germany in the nineteenth century. 88
In Ismar Schorsch’s view, the Wissenschaft school of Jewish historiography was based upon two major foundations. The first was the demand for
objectivity, intended to present reality as it was (wie es eigentlich gewesen)
by employing the full range of conventional academic tools: referencing a
variety of sources, including non-Jewish sources; a focus on data and facts;
using critical analysis extending to the previously sacred sources of tradition;
and employing philology as an important critical tool.89 The second foundation was the use of history as a means for the advancement of ideological
interests.90 Wissenschaft provided an alternative to the study of Judaism by
non-Jews whose scholarship had supported, at least partially, anti-Jewish tendencies and trends that sought to isolate Jews.91 Adherents of Wissenschaft des
Judentums, however, sought to utilize scholarship to justify emancipation and
87
88
89
90
91
Statement of the prominent German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886), quoted in Fritz
Stern: The Varieties of History. From Voltaire to the Present, New York 1956, p. 57.
Breuer noted in a general way that Halevy largely identified with modern scientific historical
scholarship. (Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, p. 200).
Ismar Schorsch: From Text to Context. The Turn to History in Modern Judaism, Hanover NH
1994, pp. 168–170.
Schorsch, From Text to Context, pp. 162–166, 180–187, 303–333.
Schorsch, From Text to Context, pp. 163. According to Schorsch these included the German
classicist Friedrich August Wolf (1759–1824), the French scholar and author of the Histoire
des Juifs, Jacques Basnage, (1653–1723), and the German Orientalist and author of the rabidly
anti-Jewish work Entdecktes Judenthum (Judaism Unmasked) Johann Andreas Eisenmenger
(1654–1704).
A Historian from the World of Torah
71
the acculturation of the Jews into the wider society and in so doing implied
criticism of the stand of the supporters of Orthodoxy.
Halevy’s approach was clearly and substantially consistent with both of
the founding principles of Wissenschaft: the demand for objectivity and the
use of history as a means for the advancement of ideological interests. He
programmatically stated that “we must investigate thoroughly to be sure we
have established what really happened.”92 In the introduction to volume II of
Dorot ha-rishonim, Halevy set forth his vision for achieving quality historical
inquiry:
“The time has come to freely investigate the wisdom and history of Israel without
straying from the actual events and their order. The time has come to work together
to set the wisdom of Israel on the same foundation all the sciences rest upon, that
the desires and wishes of the writer are of no consequence and that only the evidence and the investigation of the actual events are of consequence.”93
It is worth noting that Halevy emphasized here the common denominator
between history and other sciences. In another case he emphasized his commitment to science devoid of any religious agenda:
“And I am not stating this on the basis of faith in God’s Torah and the laws He set
forth for Israel, rather, this is based entirely upon the spirit of inquiry which is
inherent to Jewish wisdom, an open inquiry which takes into account nothing but
the inquiry itself.” 94
Moreover, like any modern historian, Halevy emphasized the importance of
thorough investigation of the primary sources: “And because it is our way to
view the sources face to face without leaning to any pole but to try to see and
to understand what was really there.” 95
The previous section showed how deeply he assimilated the requirement
to investigate the widest possible variety of sources and research, even if the
content or the tendencies of the author were inconsistent with Orthodox
values. The similarities with modern historiography did not end there but
92
93
94
95
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 34. This principle reappears in several other places: Dorot ha-rishonim, pp. 107, 145, 231; II p. 170, Ic, pp. 84, 558.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, introduction.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 429. Halevy wrote in a similar vein in private letter (Reichel, Iggerot,
p. 175).
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 269.
72
Eliezer Sariel
also included the critical use of sources.96 Halevy tried to access the most primary sources available and therefore argued that where Geonim and Rishonim
expressed an opinion about history based on discussions in the Talmud these
opinions were not to be taken at face value, but the talmudic texts themselves
must be examined based on additional different sources.97 Halevy also demonstrated considerable philological skills in the analysis of primary sources, rabbinic and non-rabbinic: These skills included making distinctions between the
original text and insertions by copyists, identifying transmission of a text from
one talmudic discussion into another, analyzing superfluous emendations, addressing redacting issues, and presenting the text in the original language with
an awareness of the necessity of accurate translation.98 Similarly, he did not hesitate to question the reliability of several sources from the Oral Law literature.99
It must be emphasized that one central point of Halevy’s philological analysis is fundamentally different from that of modern historiography. Whereas
Halevy asserted that he objects to textual emendations based solely on reasoning, there are in fact numerous instances where he emended texts without having sufficient textual basis, a basis that he might have achieved by comparing
manuscripts.100
Finally, Halevy presented his readers with a system of historiographic rules
setting out what is required of a historian seeking to extract reliable historical
information from sources. According to Halevy, in the most straightforward
case, the examination of the sources may lead us to the conclusion that in this
96
97
98
99
100
In addition to the sources and historians mentioned in the previous chapter, Halevy relied
on other works and authors who, in his view, did not offend against Orthodox values. These
included: the Roman historian Dio Cassius (155–235), see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 73, 129,
275, 280, 283, 349, 402–403, 411, 415, 418–419, 421–423, 578, 585, 593, 594, 599–600, 603, 610,
612, 617, 618, 620, 621, 627, 631, 632n85, 635, 638, 777, 810, 814; and the Spanish historian De
Castro (died 1898), see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 303. Halevy also displayed a familiarity with
contemporary historical inquiry. See: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 41; Ie, pp. 398–399.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 181, 267, 594n2; Ie, p. 503.
On insertions by copyists see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 41, 198, 200, 227; II, p. 114n59. On
transmission of a text: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 114n59, 582n73. For Halevy’s skills in analyzing emendations see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 475; Ic, p. 274; Ie, pp. 164n80. For Halevy’s
skills in redacting issues see: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, pp. 183–184, 445. On Halevy’s awareness
of the importance of original language and the importance of accurate translation see: Dorot
ha-rishonim, II, p. 594n2; Ic, p. 519; Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 86, 383n10, 400–401n18.
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 250; Ic, pp. 180n8, 195n17.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 78, 245. Rabbi Raphael Nathan Rabinowitz (1835–1888) was an Orthodox scholar whose 15-volume magnum opus Dikdukei Soferim presented different versions of the Talmud, based on manuscripts, yet is not referenced in any of the volumes of
Dorot ha-rishonim. Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, p. 196.
A Historian from the World of Torah
73
particular case “the source from which all this [information] is derived is completely reliable.”101
Halevy claimed that more complex cases, where the source before us is
discovered to be problematic, required a more complex research process. Not
everything found in such a source is to be automatically rejected, even if the
source is found to be faulty. Halevy wrote that the historian is charged with the
obligation:
“to diligently separate the wheat from the chaff, not based on whatever suits us best
but to seek out the external as well as the internal evidence in order to reconstruct the
events as they were, as clearly as though the sun itself shone on them.”102
This may be done by noticing whatever the source reveals unintentionally, as
Halevy explained:
“For, in any event, much may be learned, from the style of the narration, from the way
the writer refers to times past. Even from that which is mentioned only in passing,
from that which is described in great length and even from that which is mentioned
only briefly.”103
When the historical information appearing in the source is in contradiction to
the author’s proclivities, the concern that the information was influenced by
ideological biases is negated, thus reinforcing its historical reliability.104
In Halevy’s depiction, when faced with a scarcity of explicit sources the
historian must follow a long and arduous process of constructing a historical
mosaic: “find now this and now that, items which, when strung together, can
fill in the blanks and clarify the matter.”105 In any event, one must try to avoid
evidence from absence, as it is very difficult to know what considerations led
the writer to omit a particular detail.106 The historian’s ear must be attuned to
the reality of the world, because “the nature and practice of the world is substantial evidence.”107 At times Halevy provided his readers with specific rules
to assist in the formulation of the historical information. One example was his
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, p. 507.
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 251. Halevy further reinforces this methodological approach. See:
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 237n23, 256, 276; Ie, p. 393.
Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 166. For further reinforcement by Halevy of this methodological
approach see: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 253, 256.
See: Dorot ha-rishonim, Ic, pp. 507, 537.
Dorot ha-rishonim, Ie, p. 570.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, pp. 225n27, 330.
Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 480.
74
Eliezer Sariel
claim, that the later the version of the source, the greater its chances of being
widely accepted. Another was his statement, not necessarily conforming to a
critical historical approach, that agreement among the Rishonim could be seen
as evidence of acceptance by the community of Israel.108
6.
Summary: “The Way of Truth is Not in the Center,
But at the Ends: Both Ends at Once.”109
Rabbi Isaac Yitzhak Halevy was a man of internal contradictions, who seemed
to join disparate poles. At one pole, his historical works represented unequivocal Orthodox values: historical conservatism, apologetics, an uncritical approach to earlier rabbinic authorities, antipathy towards persons and views
opposed to Orthodox values, and the effort to advance religious values. At the
other pole, his works revealed tendencies inconsistent with the values of Orthodoxy: in several instances, he directly or indirectly legitimized the recognition of development in the Oral Law tradition. Throughout Dorot ha-rishonim
there are instances of Halevy disputing the earlier rabbinic authorities, occasionally in harsh terms. Ultimately, Halevy assimilated historical information
from historians who were far from Jewish Orthodox values. While the above
tendencies could be widely interpreted as being anti-Orthodox, on closer examination they can be seen more accurately as an expression of Halevy’s
devotion to modern historiographic methodology.110
Convention in the Orthodox society in which Halevy lived posited a substantial contradiction: The Orthodox aspiration to preserve the tradition contradicted with the tradition itself which had undergone significant change
over the course of history. Thus Orthodoxy considered itself threatened by
historical positivism which sought to uncover the imprints of history on the
halakhic tradition. Those Orthodox who became aware of the historiographic
threat during the second half of the nineteenth century and remained steadfast in their Orthodox faith generally adopted one of two historiographic
responses. Yaakov Lifschitz (1838–1921), who wrote a three-volume memoir
108
109
110
The later the source: Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 204, 241. On agreement among the Rishonim
see: Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 589.
Hillel Zeitlin: Al gvul shnei olamot [On the Border of Two Worlds], Tel Aviv, 1965, p. 161.
Halevy’s double loyalty to the world of Orthodoxy and the historical discipline is evident, for
example, his historiographic approach to Flavius Josephus (37–100), see: Sariel, Can’t Live
with Him.
A Historian from the World of Torah
75
and history of nineteenth-century non-Hasidic Haredi society called Zikhron
Ya’akov, was an example of a writer who chose to write history in opposition
to the conclusions of both historical research and modern historiographic
methodology.111 Halevy, in contrast, sought to integrate Orthodox faith and
modern historical research by dint of their common interest in seeking the
truth. In his opinion, Orthodoxy liberated the historian from false prejudices, whereas the science of modern historiography afforded the Orthodox instruments for anchoring their religious faith in the past: “because the basis
of Orthodoxy lies at the foundation of true Wissenschaft des Judentums.”112
Halevy’s critical Orthodox historiography reflected a trend in Orthodox society whose focus was not only on the fear of the ramifications of the modernization process, but also on the internalization of its values.
One could fault Halevy for not noticing the contradiction between Orthodox conservatism and the shifts within the development of Halakhah and
for trying “to hobble between two opinions.”113 The historian could criticize
him for ignoring talmudic manuscripts or for apologetic naiveté, while the
Orthodox could criticize him for daring to dispute rabbinic authorities and
legitimizing enemies of rabbinic tradition and Orthodox position by using
them as historical sources.
To understand Halevy’s historiographic oeuvre, however, it must be considered from his integrative point of view. While Orthodoxy developed as a modern movement reacting to other movements within Jewry, Halevy’s modernity
also expressed itself in his partial internalization of scientific historical methodology. In other words, his Orthodoxy was a modern phenomenon as evidenced
by both those elements of modernity with which he struggled and those which
he internalized and assimilated. The difficulties and inconsistencies in his work
and conclusions can be seen as evidence of the dual loyalty and self-contradiction inherent. His loyalty to the Orthodox world lead him to believe that
in the period of the Geonim there were no disputes among the Geonim, while
his loyalty to historical inquiry led him, on occasion, to dispute the Rishonim.
Halevy’s willingness to live with this dissonance can be seen to indicate the
authenticity and deliberate nature of his position. However, his readiness to
111
112
113
Israel Bartal: Ha-yediah ve-hachochma ha-amitit. Guideline for the Understanding of Orthodox Historiography, in: Zmanim 64 (1998), pp. 6–8, 11.
Reichel, Iggerot, p. 188.
Kings I, 18:21.
76
Eliezer Sariel
stray from normative historiographic practice must be differentiated from his
readiness to stray from normative Orthodoxy. Whereas the divergence from
normative modern historiography, which led him to “Orthodox” conclusions,
sprang from his deep belief in the correlation between mehtodological principle
and Orthodox conclusions, his divergence from normative Orthodoxy sprang
from a conscious decision. In other words, while Halevy was fully aware of the
price he paid in terms of Orthodoxy, for his insistence on modern historical
methodology, he was unaware of the price his insistence on devotion to Orthodox values extracted from his historical research. This may also explain why his
“Orthodox” image is more prominent than his Wissenschaft image.
This indicates that, aside from the elements of contending against the historiography of Wissenschaft and the internalization of modern methodology,
Halevy’s historiographical methodology reflected complexity within Orthodoxy. Like the Berlin branch of neo-Orthodoxy, Halevy supported an academic approach that would engage with Wissenschaft.114 Halevy’s conclusion that
Orthodoxy must brace itself to assimilate modern values more significantly
would seem to explain several actions he took which were anomalous in the
normative Orthodoxy of his day. Firstly, he devoted the majority of his effort to
writing history rather than to pure Torah study, as was expected of a religious
leader in his position in the Lithuanian tradition. Secondly, he discussed with
Rav Kook the claim that rabbinical training must be changed to include “external knowledge.”115 Halevy expressed satisfaction at Rabbi Yitzhak Yaacov Reines’
(1839–1915) request to include Dorot ha-rishonim in the curriculum of the Lidda
Yeshivah and his emphasis on the importance of the work for high-level Torah
scholars. As a work dealing with history it would traditionally have been considered outside the rabbinic point of view (hitzoni): “I am full of satisfaction, for
if my work will begin to be taught in the yeshivot this will fulfill my primary
114
115
Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, pp. 181–193. In fact, Halevy broke with the Berliner School
over the harsh language Halevy employed and the importance he placed on non-Jewish sources and historiography. See: Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, pp. 196–200; Yedidya, Biqqoret
mevuqqeret, pp. 180–181, 192–193. For additional references see: David Ellenson: Rabbi Esriel
Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy, London 1990.
Reichel, Iggerot, pp. 150–152. Halevy disagreed with Rabbi Kook on the need to rejuvenate
the approach to Torah study by devoting time to the spiritual study of Aggadah, Midrashim,
and Kabbalah. In Halevy’s view “the spirituality of the Torah is to be found only in the Torah
itself.” (Reichel, Iggerot, p. 151). This was in keeping with the Lithuanian heritage in which he
was raised.
A Historian from the World of Torah
77
desideratum and God will grant me the privilege of having contributed to the
repair of the ways of Torah in Israel.116
It is in this context that I propose understanding Halevy’s high self-esteem,
which enabled him to see himself as a leader of a movement towards the development of Orthodox Jewish studies.117 In addition, and as a mirror image of the
“ultra-Orthodox” faction which sought to intensify the tendency of Orthodox
isolationism, he reflects an attempt to advance the internalization of modern
values into Orthodoxy.118
The relationship between Orthodoxy and modernity expressed itself in Halevy’s historiographic approach in at least three ways: the struggle against the
conclusions of modern historical inquiry, the internalization of the methods of
modern historical inquiry, and the internal struggle within Orthodoxy against
the academic segregation. Thus, Halevy’s approach offers a new lens by which
to understand Orthodoxy as a complex phenomenon, of which the struggle
against modern secularization is only one characteristic.
116
117
118
Reichel, Iggerot, p. 179.
Halevy was convinced of the high quality of his own methodology. (Dorot ha-rishonim, II,
p. 422; Ie, p. 486; Tequfat ha-miqra, p. 142; Reichel, Iggerot, p. 111) He saw this as leading to
accurate conclusions. (Dorot ha-rishonim, III, p. 13; II, p. 241) These conclusions were, in his
opinion, irrefutable. (Dorot ha-rishonim, II, p. 125; Ic, p. 97) He also considered them as unnoticed by previous historians. (Dorot ha-rishonim, III, pp. 7, 17, 80, 138, 160, 168, 202; II, pp. 3,24,
58, 127, 145, 212, 261, 265; Ic, pp. 49, 62, 65, 74, 387, 399; Ie, pp. 70, 77; Reichel, Iggerot, p. 203)
On Halevy as the leader of a movement see: Reichel, Iggerot, pp. 108–109.
On the ultra-Orthodox faction see: Jacob Katz: A House Divided. Orthodoxy and Schism in
Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry, Hanover NH 1998, pp. 56–85. Halevy’s dream
of establishing an Orthodox pro-science movement in the spirit of Dorot ha-rishonim was not
realized. See: Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, p. 198; Yedidya, Biqqoret mevuqqeret, p. 194.