Hebrew Humor and Other Essays

by J. Chotzner

II

ZACHARIAH FRANKEL

In the first part of this essay reference was made to the similarity between Luzzatto and Frankel in respect of their mental training, their vocation, and the first success, which they both achieved therein. It is now proposed to give a short sketch of Frankel's life, from which it will be seen that he, like Luzzatto, was ever animated by the noble desire of promoting the interests of Judaism, and its ancient and modern literature.

Zachariah Frankel was born at Prague, in Austria, on October 1, 1801, corresponding to the 24th of Tishri, 5562. He was the son of well-to-do parents, both of whom belonged to ancient Jewish families, and some of whose members had successively held the honourable post of Chief Rabbi there. Young Frankel received his early education in Prague. He studied Biblical and Talmudical subjects, but also devoted part of his time to mathematics, French, Latin, and Greek. At the age of twenty-three he went to Buda-Pesth, at the university of which town he continued his former studies, and there in due course he graduated as Doctor of Philosophy. Being already well known as a Talmudical scholar and as master of Jewish literature, and having, moreover, obtained the authorization to act in the capacity of Rabbi, Frankel was soon elected (in 1831) the spiritual head of the Jewish community of Teplitz, in Bohemia. After staying there for four years, during which time he introduced into the ritual the German sermon, which, by the way, was then quite an innovation in Austria, he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Saxony, having his domicile at Dresden. There a wide field of activity was at once opened for him, and he was not slow in showing his great abilities. He soon proved himself to be not only an eminent scholar and earnest writer and preacher, but also a man of singularly vigorous action in communal matters. It was chiefly due to his untiring and strenuous efforts that some of the civil disabilities, under which the Jews of Saxony then laboured, were removed by the government. To this category belongs the ancient form of oath, which used to be administered to them more Judaico.

While at Dresden, Frankel was offered the important post of Chief Rabbi of Berlin, which he, however, declined; but he consented to undertake the duties of organizer and Director of the Jüdisch-theologisches Seminar (Jewish Theological College), which was then about to be established at Breslau, and has subsequently become famous as a model institution of its kind. It was a post after his own heart. He cherished the hope that in his capacity as leader and teacher of numerous disciples, who would themselves one day be leaders in the synagogue, he would be able to serve the cause of Judaism better than if he were always to remain the spiritual head of one single community. Frankel lived to see the realization of his wishes; for a great many of his pupils occupied more or less important positions as Rabbis and preachers in different parts of the world, and some of them worked as professors in institutions that were almost identical in position and organization with the one over which he himself presided.

When the Breslau Seminary was opened (on August 10, 1854), there were two conflicting currents of thought prevailing in respect of Jewish law and custom. The Ultra-orthodox party advocated a noli me tangere policy in religious matters, and considered that any attempt towards the modification of any antiquated usage was levelled at the whole structure of Judaism. The opposite party, of whom there were many representatives in Germany and elsewhere, were in favour of such radical changes in the ritual as were calculated to create a positive revolution. In these circumstances Frankel recommended his pupils the adoption of a middle course in their future careers, showing that, while he tacitly admitted the necessity of some reform in Judaism, as it then existed, he was of opinion that the changes should be introduced gradually and with the utmost caution. He had already expressed these views publicly, notably at the assembly of Rabbis at Frankfort, and it is therefore obvious that he was not averse to moderate religious reforms.

Although at the time of the opening of the Breslau Seminary Frankel numbered among his colleagues such eminent scholars as Graetz, Bernays, Joel, and Zuckermann, he himself was and always remained the head, in fact as well as name. His lectures were chiefly on the Talmud, the importance and value of which he continually endeavoured to make clear to his pupils. He read and explained to them certain sections of it on each of the first five days of the week, and in so doing he made a somewhat free use of the mode of teaching that had been in vogue in the ancient Jewish academies. He allowed and even encouraged his pupils to enter upon discussions on the subject-matter of his lecture. By this means Frankel was able to test the industry and talent of each individual pupil. Once a week, however, he gave a regular lecture in the classroom, at which there was no discussion. On these occasions he generally discoursed on the origin and development of the oral law, extending over a period of several centuries. These lectures were subsequently embodied in his book entitled Darkè Hammishnah, to which special reference will presently be made.

There is no doubt that Frankel was greatly in favour of a free and unrestricted investigation of Judaism and its teachings, and that he always essayed to reconcile them with what is called in modern phrase “der Zeitgeist.” Instances of this are to be found everywhere in his writings and treatises, many of which appeared in the monthly magazine Die Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, which he edited from 1852 till 1868. As regards Frankel's books it may justly be said that they are classical, but want of space precludes a reference to more than three of them, which appear to be of special interest.

Frankel's first important volume appeared at Leipsic in 1841, under the title of Die Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (“Studies in the Septuagint”). Several other writers, including the renowned Jewish critic Azarya de Rossi (1514–78), had already devoted their earnest attention thereto, but none of them attained the same measure of success as the author of the Vorstudien. Frankel throws much light on the genesis, the composition, and the tendency of the Septuagint, and explains the reason why its appearance was hailed with delight by the Alexandrian Jews, but condemned by that section of the Jews which then resided in Palestine. Equally instructive and interesting are the remarks he makes on the influence which it exercised on several of the subsequent ancient translations of the Bible, and on the development of the so-called Halacha. But, he says, it has done much more than that. It has infused for the first time into the thoughts and language of the civilized nations of antiquity the lofty teachings of Judaism, and has directly and indirectly enriched the world of letters with many suggestive ethical and moral lessons. By the publication of this particular book Frankel accomplished two important things: in the first place he showed the world that the Jews, as the authors of the Septuagint, have contributed a great deal to universal literature; and then he also made his own people acquainted with some of the precious literary treasures which they possessed, but which they had hitherto ignored.

His second important work, published at Leipsic in 1859, is entitled Darkè Hammishnah, but it has also the following additional heading in Latin Hodogetica in Mishnam librosque cum ea conjunctos, Tosefta, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri. It is written in an easy Hebrew style, which the author no doubt rightly thought would be thoroughly understood by all students of Rabbinical literature, as were not well versed in any other language. This volume contains, as its two titles already briefly indicate, much information on the ancient Rabbinical lore and tradition generally, but chiefly in respect of the Mishna. The latter is fully described there with regard to its many authors, its varied characteristics, its idiom, and its literary and scientific value. It seems scarcely credible, but it is a fact that this important and highly instructive work was at the time of its appearance vehemently assailed by some ultra-orthodox German and Austrian Rabbis, who publicly declared it to be a dangerous book, and one calculated to undermine the very foundations of Jewish law and tradition. On the other hand it is gratifying to note that Rapoport at once recognized its great merits, and did his best to defend it.

Frankel's third and last work was his M'bo Ha-Yerushalmi, which means “An Introduction to the Jerusalem Talmud.” Like the Darkè Hammishnah it was written in Hebrew, and was published in 1870, that is to say, when the author was seventy years old. What makes the M'bo Ha-Yerushalmi particularly valuable is the circumstance that in it he broke entirely new ground. It has, in fact, become an indispensable guide to all who have chosen Talmudical literature as their special study. In it Frankel displayed his usual thoroughness in the critical analysis of its details, especially of its many compilers, its peculiar language, and its relation to the Babylonian Talmud.

The aims of Luzzatto and Frankel were in a large measure identical. They appeared in the early part of the nineteenth century when the presence of really able men was specially needed in the Jewish camp. At that particular time it was fast becoming evident that unless Rabbinical and other Jewish literature received an academical and classical treatment it would sink into utter oblivion, and it is mainly due to their exertions, both by the spoken word and the published writing, that this misfortune was averted. Their personal example moreover, in their capacity as heads of Rabbinical seminaries, stimulated their pupils to embark on original research into the various branches of Jewish science and literature, and showed them at the same time how to do it methodically and on scientific lines, with what results latter-day history has sufficiently demonstrated.

Like Luzzatto, Frankel was actively engaged in literary work till almost the very day of his death, which occurred on February 23, 1875. He left no children of his own to mourn him, but, as this essay is in its humble way intended to show, he lives in the remembrance of his pupils, who revered him as a teacher and loved him as a man.