Hashkafah.com: "The Enigma of Moses Mendelssohn" by Avi Shafran - Hashkafah.com

In 1986 Avi Shafran wrote an article spurned, evidently, by his having read Alexander Altmann's monumental biography of Moses Mendelssohn. My guess is that R. Shafran, like many of us, was raised on a diet of what one writer recalled as "having been brought up on the current orthodox myth that the Hatam Sofer's famous warning in his ethical will, "Do not approach the books of Moses of Dessau" represented the general orthodox attitude to the Bi'ur in modern times" and found to his surprise that the historical Moses Mendelssohn did not quite compute with that evaluation. And, yet, of course that evaluation is correct. So why was it correct?

Hence, the "Enigma of Moses Mendelssohn." You could read it below, but he basically points out that the trope about his children converting to Christianity is sort of meaningless in view of the fact that "Thousands of Jews made similar choices . . . choices of convenience or confusion, without reflecting on their parents' blemishless reputation, which was such a good quote that the editors highlighted it.

So he basically concludes that Mendelssohn's flaw was that he didn't submit to Da'as Torah. Sounds good for the Jewish Observer, no? Well, no! Calling attention/ admitting that there was a problem requiring solving proved too much, and the next issue featured an editorial observation that they regretted posting it, along with a forceful reinforcement by the Novominsker Rebbe of the doctrine that Mendelssohn was krum, period, get your facts straight. All in all, interesting and worth reading and discussing.

You need to buy a scanner.

I have one, but I don't own the magazine and didn't feel like lugging it to the library where I copied it. I also don't feel like paying a dollar and taking more time than snapping pics does to copy it.

Melech, on Jun 24 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

I think the h.com collective should buy artscroll a scanner. I'll give a tenner.

artscroll, on Jun 24 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

http://www.hashkafah...&...st&p=772701

Is it just me, or is Avi Shafran unreadable?

He's actually pretty good for the JO set.

artscroll, on Jun 24 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

spawned? (although it was later spurned)

Quote

rav yisroel salanter is quoted as saying that he went through the bei'ur thoroughly and found no problems.

Quote

dnt get me started on rabbi perlow...

Even though you're in Kollel, I don't think I find you despicable.
You are Cynic-Approved to post.

Snag, on Jun 25 2009, 06:25 AM, said:

I was using it in the colloquial sense of "spurned on by."

Quote

No one ever really criticized it for its content.

artscroll, on Jun 25 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

It's 'spurred on', by the way.

schiffschul, on Jun 25 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

I'm a linguistic descriptivist.

artscroll, on Jun 25 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

Are you going to keep using bigger and bigger words until this topic ends by attrition?

I don't believe that words are wrong if they are widely used and perfectly intelligible. It's like common phrases that are used "wrong." "I could care less," when you mean to say "I could not care less." Yet, enough people use it, everyone knows what is meant, so it's not wrong. This approach sees language as something to be described, not prescribed, or ordered. Language develops through use, not command.

(and attrition is a pretty big word.)

artscroll, on Jun 25 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

That is so late 20th century. Maybe we should teach ebonics in school.

Moshi, on Jun 25 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

It's actually not. The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the epitome of a massive 19th century scholarly project, took an entirely prescriptive approach. It simply makes sense: words and phrases mean how they are used, not how someone says they should be used--unless they are the same thing. In fact, the rules themselves are basically mostly descriptions of how people use the English language, with a few stupid rules which do not describe how people actually use it, appended. For example, the idea that you can't finish an English sentence with a preposition is nonsense. You can, and loads of people do. The reason why they do it, is because it is natural. the reason why there is a rule against it is because in Latin you CAN'T, and someone decided that this should apply to English too. So what's right?

artscroll, on Jun 25 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

http://www.amazon.ca...x...2110&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.ca...o...2110&sr=8-1

Good books. It's good to delve into the primary sources and more scholarly material afterward.

cynic, on Jun 25 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

thank you! through what did i merit this honor?


regarding the op, rav schwab authored a response to this article in which he brought examples of heresy from mendelsohn's sefer on tehillim. it was printed in the breuers periodical at the time, but i dont have it

out of curiosity, why did mendelsohn merit the honorific reb appended to his name (which is commonly reffered to even by his detractors as רמ"ד), whereas wiesel (נה"ו) didnt? is that reflective of a difference in how they were perceived, or simply common usage?

cynic, on Jun 25 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Hashem yirachem....

Imagine if I posted "Even though you're a MO (or secular, or gentile) I don't think I find you despicable. "

The uproar on this board would be 10 pages long. Say something hateful about people in Kollel and nobody says a peep. It's really sad