In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • From Hegelianism to a Revolutionary Understanding of Judaism:Franz Rosenzweig’s Attitude toward Kabbala and Myth
  • Rivka Horwitz (bio)

The beginning of the twentieth century was a continuation of the Age of Reason, and Franz Rosenzweig was part of this trend as he wrote his dissertation Hegel und der Staat. But not much later he reacted against the "possibility of the cognition of the All" by joining a new direction. He reacted against the proud rational philosophy and particularly against the philosophy of Hegel. Rosenzweig sought for support in the works of anti-idealists such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to reject that trend.

He demanded the breaking of the All into three elements—God, man, and the world—and demanded a humility that not "all" can be known. At the very bottom of his philosophy myth appears in the form of paganism, not as the bugbear to terrorize but as the truth itself reduced to its elements. He then unified the three elements, presenting them in the biblical mythical dimension in the form of creation, revelation, and redemption. That "new thinking" enabled him to present the dialogue between God and the human being and between one human being and the other. In the dialogue love is the central element, and rationalism, secondary. Those structures that Rosenzweig developed helped him to give a new picture of Judaism and Christianity. This was indeed a Copernican revolution. In that new thinking, Kabbala was conceived positively by him as Jewish myth and was used by him, as we shall see, in important parts of his philosophy.

Scholars may ask, What is there to write about Kabbala when we know that Rosenzweig had a negative attitude toward mysticism? One can quote numerous critical expressions of Rosenzweig against mysticism. He presented the mystic as an almost immoral person and characterized him as a person who is open solely to God and closed off to the world; but Rosenzweig demanded the work of the human being in the world, here and now, to improve it and to help human beings. Rosenzweig's criticism was part of the spirit of his age, as he wished to distance himself from mysticism.1 In his criticism of mysticism he may [End Page 31] have meant primarily Christian mysticism. His description of the mystic is no doubt distorted; there were many mystics who were also working in the world. On the other hand, the interpreters of Rosenzweig should differentiate between myth and mysticism in Rosenzweig's writings.

At one point in his life he even presented structures he developed within God, man, and the world using ideas taken from the Kabbala. One can see that Rosenzweig's knowledge of Kabbala was limited and that sometimes he quotes it incorrectly, but nevertheless he had a deep interest in it.

Until now, I have presented Rosenzweig's interest in the myth of Kabbala. I also draw attention to his admissions of religious experiences, namely, that God spoke to him. Rosenzweig speaks of the fantastic idea that he was addressed by God. He, unlike Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Abraham Joshua Heschel, or Levinas, speaks of receiving a revelation or a presence. Aside from Rosenzweig, Rabbi Soloveitchik and Rav Kook, too, speak of hearing a voice or of seeing a vision.2 Those extraordinary experiences that burst out of the depth of the soul strengthened them in moments of sorrow. Those admissions have parallels in mystical treatises. In Rosenzweig's case those experiences changed his life and were also central in his writings.

Scholem, the greatest Kabbala scholar, wrote a beautiful appreciative eulogy on Rosenzweig; though he did not touch on this personal element, he somehow had a critical judgment of Rosenzweig's attitude toward Kabbala. He was probably discontent with Rosenzweig's lack of complete devotion to Kabbala, a matter he deeply desired; at one point he compared Rosenzweig to a child captured by pagans. Rosen-zweig's critical and despising attitude toward the mystic may have hurt Scholem. No doubt Scholem, familiar with Rosenzweig's writings, was aware of the rudimentary knowledge of Kabbala in them. On the other hand, Scholem had a deeply positive attitude on Rosenzweig's Star of Redemption and...

pdf

Share