![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The main focus of scholarship on Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s philosophy and social criticism has been on his books and articles that were composed after his immigration to Palestine in 1935 at the age of 32. Little attention has been paid to Leibowitz’s first efforts in forging his philosophical outlook that preceded his move to Palestine. This initial literary activity was produced in German between 1929 and 1932 when Leibowitz resided in Germany and was active in Zionist affairs. In this article, I will focus on Leibowitz’s German essays as well as his early Hebrew essays published until the early 1950s. Unlike other scholars, I will argue for a sharper division between his German essays in the 1930s and his subsequent Hebrew articles until the early 1950s. Put differently, I will propose that the period which is usually considered as constituting Leibowitz’s early philosophy should be divided into an early and middle period. These changes between his early and middle period foreshadow the even deeper shifts in his thought that began in the 1950s, which allows the middle period to be regarded as a transition phase between his earlier and later views.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 He continued there his medical studies. He remained there until 1933 when as a result of the ascendancy of the Nazis to power he was forced to complete his medical studies in Basel.
2 Erich Rosenblitt, “Um den Sinn Misrachi”; a Hebrew translation of his article appears in Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 84–91.
3 Leibowitz, “Thoratreuer Zionismus”; Leibowitz, “Ein Versuch zur Klärung”; a Hebrew translation of his articles appear in Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 92–99, 123–138. The translations of this and other of Leibowitz’s German articles (as well as of his Hebrew articles that were not previously translated) are my own. For the German articles, I have based myself on the Hebrew translation, but I have consulted the German original.
4 Idem, “Zur Tarbuth-Frage,” Choser Bachad (Adar 5692 = February–March 1932):1–2; (Av 5692 = August 1932): 1–4; a Hebrew translation of his article appears in Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 216–226.
5 Goldman, “Zionism as a Religious Challenge”.
6 Fishman, “Striving for Experiential-Religious Unity”.
7 Fishman, “The ‘Holy Rebellion’”.
8 Hellinger, “Democratic Religious-Zionist Philosophy”.
9 See above, n, 2.
10 Ibid., 85.
11 Ibid., 92–99; see also ibid., 73, 209.
12 Ibid., 92–99.
13 On the Mizrahi movement see Rosenblatt, Mizrahi Movement; Rosenblitt, “Mizrahi Movement in Germany”.
14 On Agudat Yisrael between World War One and the establishment of the State of Israel see Bacon, The Politics of Tradition; Fund, Separation or Participation, 1–63.
15 On the relationship between Mizrahi, Agudat Yisrael and the Zionist movement see Bauer, “Internal Relationships,” 65–105; Mahla, Orthodox Judaism.
16 Rosenblitt, “Mizrahi Movement in Germany”.
17 On his opposition to Mizrahi separating from the general Zionist movement see Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 148–150; on his opposition to Mizrahi partnering with Agudat Yisrael see ibid., 92–99, 123–138.
18 Ibid., 96.
19 Ibid., 92.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid., 96.
22 On Leibowitz’s critique of Hirschian neo-Orthodoxy see ibid., 220–222. On the one hand, Leibowitz admits his partial acceptance of Hirsch’s seminal notion of Torah im derekh e’retz, which argues for the expansion of the Torah to encompass the social sphere. But on the other hand, in contrast to Hirsch, Leibowitz does not believe that this expansion can occur in the Diaspora and it requires halakhic changes that are in opposition to Hirsch’s conception of the Torah as immutable.
23 Ibid, p. 221; translation from Hellinger, “Democratic Religious-Zionist Philosophy,” 261.
24 Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 130–131.
25 Ibid., 130.
26 Leibowitz is seemingly referring here to the theological seminaries that were established by the Reform and Neolog movements.
27 Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 130.
28 See the important comment of Eliezer Goldman: “the foundational assumption of Leibowitz’s discussion is that Torah is intended to begin with the nation, its intended subject is the nation and from this power its obligations become incumbent also on the individuals” (Goldman, “Zionism as a Religious Challenge,” 182).
29 Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 223.
30 Ibid., 94.
31 Ibid., 126.
32 Ibid., 225.
33 Ibid., 135–136.
34 Ahad Haam, Kol Kitvei, 51–54. The article was originally published in the journal Pardes in 1894.
35 Ibid., 51–52.
36 Ibid., 55–60.
37 On Ahad Haam’s criticism of the Reform movement see Ramon, “Cultural Zionism as a Substitute”.
38 Ahad Haam, Kol Kitvei, 59.
39 Leibowitz, Shaye: Early Writings, 68.
40 Ibid., 157–158. Surprisingly, considering his opposition to Brit Shalom, he also states that the political goals of Zionism can be accomplished through the establishment of a bi-national state.
41 Ibid., 69
42 See ibid., 156: “the most important purpose [of the Zionist movement] is the task of educating the Jewish people.”
43 Leibowitz. Torah u-Mitzvot, 58–59.
44 Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, 169.
45 Ibid., 35.
46 Ibid., 59.
47 Ibid., 61.
48 Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, 162.
49 Leibowitz, Torah u-Mitzvot, 152.
50 Idem, Judaism, Human Values, 165.
51 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 134.
52 Ibid., 120, citing Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Rebels” 2:4.
53 Ibid., 27–37.
54 Ibid., 28.
55 Ibid., 31
56 Ibid.
57 Idem, Shaye: Early Writings, 144.
58 Ibid., 223–224.
59 Ibid., 223.
60 On the weakening of his commitment to this idea even during his Hebrew articles written in the 1940s and 1950s see below, section five.
61 Leibowitz, Torah u-Mitzvot, 9–26; English translation: idem, Judaism, Human Values, 3-29.
62 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 68–73, 86–100.
63 Ibid., 73.
64 Ibid., 36.
65 Idem, Judaism, Human Values, 26–27.
66 Idem, Shaye: Early Writings, 94
67 Ibid., 126.
68 See Bar-Elli, “Faith and Way of Life”.
69 Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, 16.
70 Idem, Shaye: Early Writings, 145.
71 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 61.
72 Idem, Judaism, Human Values, 27.
73 Leibowitz, Torah u-Mitzvot, 148.
74 Idem, Shaye: Early Writings, 97, 126.
75 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 81; see also ibid., 107–108: “The Jewish religious perfection is not in need whatsoever of the Jewish people as a national-political entity”.
76 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 124.
77 See above, section one.
78 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 40.
79 Ibid., 42.
80 Recalling the famous theory of composition of the book of Isaiah, this periodization is often facetiously referred to as first and second Isaiah.
81 On the publication date of the article see Kasher, “Between Worship,” 266, n. 43. As Kasher notes, Leibowitz already called for the separation of religion and state in the context of the State of Israel in an article published in 1957. See Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, 241.
82 Idem, Torah u-Mitzvot, 154
83 Eliezer Goldman, “The State of Israel,” 246–247.
84 Hellinger, “Democratic Religious-Zionist Philosophy,” 271–279.
85 Gilboa, Y. Leibowitz, 2, 78–79.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Ari Ackerman
Ari Ackerman is a Professor of Jewish Philosophy and Education at the Schechter Institute in Jerusalem and has been serving as its president since 2022. His research interest are medieval and modern Jewish philosophy and his work, Hasdai Crescas on Codification, Cosmology and Creation, appeared in Brill press in 2022.