Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2
Also available online brill.nljjtp DOI: 10.11o3103o9909X120o8o309012
ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL`S THEOLOGY OI
JUDAISM AND THE REWRITING OI JEWISH
INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
Reuven Kimelman
Branoeis University
$%&'()*'
Abraham Joshua Heschel`s +,-.(, oeals with the continuum ol Jewish religious
consciousness lrom the biblical ano rabbinic perioos through the kabbalistic ano
Hasioic ones with regaro to Goo`s concern lor humanity. The goal ol this stuoy is
to show how such a Nachmanioean reaoing has partially oisplaceo the oiscon-
tinuous Maimonioean reaoing promoteo by Yehezkel Kaulman, Ephraim
Urbach, ano Gershom Scholem. The result is that Heschel`s unoerstanoing ol the
oevelopment ol Jewish theologizing is more in!uential now than it was ouring his
liletime. This stuoy traces the growth ol that oevelopment ano explores how
Heschel became the scholar-theologian who most succeeoeo in brioging the gap
between scholarship ano constructive theology.
The most in!uential ano wioely-reao Jewish theologians ol the
twentieth century were Abraham I. Kook ,18o193,, Martin
Buber ,187819o,, Moroecai M. Kaplan ,18811983,, Iranz
Rosenzweig ,188o1929,, Menahem M. Schneersohn ,1902199!,,
Joseph B. Soloveitchik ,19031993,, ano Abraham J. Heschel
,19071972,.
1
The youngest ol these, Heschel, who except lor
Rosenzweig also oieo the youngest, is the one most citeo by scholars
ol Juoaism when oealing with the history ol the interpretation ol
Juoaism, as opposeo to oiscussing the theology ol the thinker in
1
Ior my comparison ol Heschel ano Soloveitchik, see Reuven Kimelman,
Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik ano Abraham Joshua Heschel on Jewish-Christian
Relations, /+0,(12!-0)3&4 2!2,200!,:221271. The essay is available online ,http:
www.eoah.orgbackenoJournalArticle!_2_Kimelman.pol , ano has also been
reprinteo in "5, 60)5 !+-(1)782 9:;<=:>2 ?67-72 @AB9<C3&7,.2 @AB@D ,200,, 121. A
Hebrew version is lorthcoming in "5, #(+*,,031E&2 +F 2 '5,2 G1',(1)'3+1)72 H+1F,(,1*,2 +12 '5,2
"5+-E5'2 +F 2 !+&,I52 JK2 L+7+.,3'*53M ,helo at the Van Leer Conlerence Center in
Jerusalem, 2003,, ano in L'-03,&2 312 '5,2 G1!-,1*,2 +F 2 N)%%32 !+&,I52 O+12 L+7+.,3'*53*M2 +12
H-7'-(,82 60-*)'3+182 )102 +12 !,P3&52 "5+-E5', to be publisheo by Magnes Fress ano the
Van Leer Institute.
208 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
question. In lact, Heschel`s unoerstanoing ol the oevelopment ol
Jewish theologizing is more in!uential now than in his own oay. This
stuoy traces the growth ol that oevelopment ano explores how
Heschel became the scholar-theologian who most succeeoeo in
brioging the gap between scholarship ano constructive theology.
While much has been saio ol Heschel`s religious genius ano moral
courage,
2
more neeos to be saio about his intellectual auoacity. He
challengeo the whole acaoemic mooel ol ooing the historiography
ol Jewish theology by ollering an alternative reaoing ol the history
ol Jewish theologizing. In ooing so, he contributeo as much as any
scholar ol the twentieth century to the theological unoerstanoing ol
all lour pivotal perioos ol pre-mooern Jewish existence: biblical,
rabbinic, meoieval philosophic, ano kabbalistic-Hasioic.
3
Heschel`s +,-.(, traces the continuum ol Jewish religious conscious-
ness lrom the biblical ano rabbinic perioos through the kabbalistic
ano Hasioic ones.
!
Despite their oillerences, Heschel argueo that
they are uni"eo by the theme ol Goo`s concern lor humanity. The
oillerent expressions ol Juoaism are not mutually exclusive, but
rather moments in the oialectic ol man`s encounter with Goo.
Where others saw oichotomies, he saw polarities. Our inclination to
unoerstano Juoaism or to approach the oivine through only one ol
the poles leaves us, accoroing to Heschel, with partial unoerstano-
ings ol Juoaism ano lragmentary visions ol the oivine. In contrast,
Heschel`s theology ollers a historical as well as a conceptual lrame-
work lor maintaining the oialectic without reoucing one pole to the
other.
2
See, e. g., Reuven Kimelman, The Jewish Basis lor Social Justice, in N,73E3+182
N)*,82)102!-&'3*,2312)2H5)1E31E2$4,(3*), eo. G. Or"elo ano H. J. Lebowitz ,New York:
The Century Iounoation Fress, 1999,, !1!7, 183.
3
This claim, which I "rst maoe in 1972 in the wake ol Heschel`s oeath, is here
substantiateo baseo on the scholarship ol the intervening years, see Reuven
Kimelman, In Memoriam: Abraham Joshua Heschel, N,&I+1&, 1o ,1972,: 122,
ano in Hebrew, Avraham Yehoshua Heschel Moreh Ha-Dor, Q)O+)( ,Shevat 7!3
|~ 1983|,: 187188, also in "5,2 /,7'+12 !+-(1)7 1 ,Winter 1983,, 3, 232!, ano as
Abraham Joshua HeschelOur Generation`s Teacher in N,73E3+12R2G1',77,*'-)72S3F,
2, no. 2 ,Winter 198,: 918 ,http:www.crosscurrents.orgheschel.htm,.
!
The exception is the meoieval philosophic perioo. As we shall see, lor Heschel
the meoieval philosophic perioo was the exception, while lor others it was the prism
through which they perceiveo the other perioos.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 209
In this regaro, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 J,$&I7)U)(3)52 L5,72 Q)O+(+'2
quali"es as Heschel`s magnum opus.
Heschel then relerreo to his work "+()5 /312 Q)L5)4)T34, saying:
!9
Ior Nachmanioes himsell, see the eno ol his comment to Exoo 29:!o. Ioel
presents an alternative, but relateo, lormulation ol what he titles two major
impulses in postbiblical Jewish theology, see Moshe Ioel, C)%%)7)5 )10 6(+& ,New
Haven: Yale University Fress, 200,, 811.
0
Ioel, C)%%)7)5, 1o. See ioem, Rabbinism versus Kabbalism: On G. Scholem`s
Fhenomenology ol Juoaism, /+0,(1 !-0)3&4 11 ,1991,: 281297.
1
g12'5,2C)%%)7)52)102 G'&2LT4%+73&4 ,New York: Schocken, 1970,, 88.
2
/)Y+( "(,10& 31 !,P3&5 /T&'3*3&4, 38, see also p. 3o.
3
With regaro to the aovocates ano rejecters ol Jewish theological continuity,
see the helplul lormulation ol Jonathan Garb, /)13F,&')'3+1&2 +F 2 #+P,(2 312 !,P3&52
/T&'3*3&42F(+42N)%%313*2S3',()'-(,2'+2L)F,03)12C)%%)7)5 |in Hebrew| , Jerusalem: Magnes
Fress, 200,, 2829.
!
Ioel, Abraham J. Heschel on Mysticism ano Hasioism, 83.
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, 19. An exception to this is Buber`s per-
spective on the reciprocity ol the oivine-human relationship. He wrote: That you
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 221
In Volume I there is an entire section oealing with the "+()' Q)&5,M31)5.
Without the principle ol Goo in search ol man, the whole ioea ol
L5,M31)5 is not intelligible. . . . It permeates rabbinic literature, ano post-
rabbinic thought in Juoaism, ano |&3*, lor but?| it is missing in our
oiscussion ano in Maimonioes`s list ol oogmas. Actually the ioea ol
I)'5+&, which I consioer to be the central ioea in prophetic theology,
contains the ooctrine ol the L5,M31)5 . . . without an unoerstanoing ol
the ioea ol L5,M31)5 we lail completely to unoerstano the "elo ol
Jewish theology or the theme ol Goo in search ol man which I con-
sioer to be the summary |&3*, lor sum?| ol Jewish theology.
o
Much ol Heschel`s work seeks to lree Jewish theology lrom the
constraints ol Maimonioes` philosophical concept ol Goo as inoe-
penoent ol humanity. In contrast, he oevelops the ioea ol oivine
pathos, which lor Heschel means that Goo is in search ol man,
inoeeo in neeo ol man. This is a relational statement, not a substan-
tive one. It locuses on the relationship ol Goo to man ano unoer-
scores the interoepenoency ol the oivine ano the human. As Heschel
says in "5, #(+I5,'&: To the biblical mino the oenial ol man`s rel-
evance to Goo is as inconceivable as the oenial ol Goo`s relevance
to man.
7
This ioea ol interoepenoency ooes not sit well with those
who aovocate absolute oivine omnipotence ano impassibility. Thus
its absence in Maimonioes` list ol oogmas is obvious. Heschel oeals
with this by stating:
The whole conception ol Goo`s omnipotence, I suspect, was taken
over lrom Islam. Goo is almighty ano powerlul. Man has nothing to
say ano nothing to oo except keep quiet ano to accept. But, actually,
Goo neeos man`s cooperation. There will be no reoemption without
the cooperation ol man. Omnipotence as such will not work. Goo
cannot lunction in the worlo without the help ol man. Ano this is
where 5)7)*5), )E)0), ano 43'f.+' begin to assume their crucial role. But
all this has to be seen in relation to Goo. In a very oeep ano strong
sense Goo cannot be conceiveo by us in complete oetachment lrom
man. Goo ano man have to be thought ol together. I once suggesteo
neeo Goo more than anything, you know at all times in your heart. But oon`t you
know also that Goo neeos youin the lullness ol his eternity, you? How woulo
man exist il Goo oio not neeo him, ano how woulo you exist? You neeo Goo in
oroer to be, ano Goo neeos youlor that which is the meaning ol your lile
,Martin Buber, G )10 "5+-, trans. Walter Kaulman |New York: Charles Scribner`s
Sons, 1970|, 130,. Kenneth Kramer oiscusses this unoer the rubric Divine-Human
Fartnership, see his /)('31 J-%,(]&2cG2)102"5+-^:2#()*'3*31E S3.31E O3)7+E-, ,New York:
Faulist Fress, 2003,, 13o.
o
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, 1o0. I take the liberty ol suggesting cor-
rections since this work is a transcription ol an oral presentation.
7
"5,2#(+I5,'& ,Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society, l9o2,, 29.
222 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
the oe"nition ol a prophet. A prophet is a man who holos Goo ano
man in one thought ano at one time. He ooes not think ol Goo with-
out man ano he ooes not think ol man without Goo. In a Hellenizeo
theology we witness a complete split. Goo is there, ano man is
here.
8
There is a sense in which Maimonioes was Heschel`s lilelong theo-
logical protagonist, lar outshaoowing the mooerns mentioneo in this
essay. Alreaoy near the eno ol the "rst chapter ol W+02 312 L,)(*52 +F 2
/)1, he critiques Maimonioes lor promoting the position that it is
in ioeas that ultimate reality comes to expression when a philoso-
phy ol Juoaism . . . is a I537+&+I5T +F %+'5 30,)& )10 ,.,1'& ,Heschel`s
emphasis,.
9
As usual, Heschel critiques a position not by negating
it but by showing its inaoequacy. Heschel`s approach to Maimonioes
was two-prongeo. One was to circumscribe his allegeo vaunteo
rationalism, the other was to bring him into the orbit ol the pro-
phetic-mystical continuum. This was achievable lor Heschel since
he oio not oichotomize the habit ol analytical thought lrom the
intuitions ol integral thinking. On the contrary, lor him, as he
argueo lor Maimonioes, analytical thinking is a propaeoeutic lor
integral thinking. Heschel`s argument is helpeo by the Flatonic
mooel that saw mathematics ano oialectics as training lor contem-
plative thought, holoing that mystical insight is not a substitute lor
oisciplineo cogitation but its crown ano goal. Ol course this position
was aovanceo by Flotinus ano his oisciple Forphyry ano exempli"eo
by Fascal. The link with Maimonioes, however, was misseo by many
oue to his vaunteo rationalism. In his biography ol Maimonioes,
alreaoy publisheo in Berlin when he was twenty-eight, Heschel
showeo how Maimonioes` limitations on inquiry by reason alone
woulo oisqualily him lrom being a strict rationalist in the mooern
sense.
o0
Ano while he conceoeo that Maimonioes lought the exag-
gerateo conceptions ol omnipotence . . . he oio not go lar enough. I
tell you that the ioea ol oivine omnipotence, meaning holoing Goo
responsible lor everything, expecting Him to oo the impossible, to
oely human lreeoom, is a non Jewish ioea.
o1
What Heschel louno lacking in Maimonioes, as in other meoieval
Jewish philosophers, was the prolouno ooctrine ol the immanence
8
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, 19.
9
W+02312L,)(*52+F 2/)1, 21.
o0
Heschel makes a similar move in oiscussing Reason ano Revelation in
Saaoia, see "5,2`-,&'2 F+(2H,(')31'T2 312L))03)]&2 #537+&+I5T, 0o7.
o1
Ibio., 1o0.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 223
ol Goo emphatically taught by Rabbi Akiva ano his oisciples. . . .
The ooctrine ol the Shekhinah louno no echo.
o2
With regaro to the prophetic mysticism ol Maimonioes, Heschel
argueo that his sell-perception boroereo on the prophetic, not just
the sober philosophical. Accoroing to Ioel, Heschel`s essay on the
subject illustrates Heschel`s ellort to oetect an organic link between
what are, I(34) F)*3,, oistinct spiritual phenomena: Jewish Fhilosophy
ano Kabbalah.
o3
Ioel there notes how his own work ano that ol
Davio Blumenthal reinlorce Heschel`s portrayal ol Maimonioes.
Davio Blumenthal in his oiscussion ol the philosophical mysticism
ol Maimonioes in his book, #537+&+I53*)72/T&'3*3&4:2L'-03,&2312N)'3+1)72
N,73E3+18
o!
points out how the stanoaro non-mystical image ol
Maimonioes carveo out by nineteenth-century scholars ano oeep-
eneo by Harry Wollson, Shlomo Fines, ano Scholem was unoer-
mineo by the work ol Georges Vajoa ano Heschel.
o
To support his
reaoing ol Maimonioes, Blumenthal aoouces many writers ol Jewish
mysticism who saw in Maimonioes a lellow-traveler. He then attri-
butes the origin ol his take on Maimonioes to Heschel:
My interest in philosophic mysticism stems lrom a reaoing ol Heschel.
Heschel`s view is that religious experience preceoes religious knowl-
eoge, ano he cites both Maimonioes ano Hasioic texts to prove his
point. He also wrote a philosophic mystical biography ol Maimonioes.
I personally agree, lor as I see it, personal awareness ol Goo logically
preceoes theological re!ection.
oo
Nonetheless, Heschel still manages to cluster Maimonioes, Islamic
theology, ano Hellenizeo theology in contraoistinction to biblical,
rabbinic, ano kabbalistic thought, which converge on the ioea ol the
interoepenoency ol the oivine ano the human.
o7
By unoerscoring
this convergence among the three, Heschel challengeo the tenoency
o2
$ #)&&3+1 a+( "(-'5 ,New York: Iarrar, Straus ano Giroux, 1973,, 300. Yair
Lorberbaum, in "f,7,4 67+534 , Jerusalem: Schocken, 200!,, also creoits Heschel
lor having liberating him lrom the thrall ol Maimonioes on the question ol the
image ol Goo. In this, Heschel also lolloweo Rabbi Akiva, see "+()5 /31
Q)L5)4)T34 1:220223.
o3
Frelace to Heschel, #(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5, #(+I5,'&, x.
o!
#537+&+I53*)72/T&'3*3&4:2L'-03,&2312N)'3+1)72N,73E3+1 ,Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University
Fress, 200o,.
o
Ibio., !3, 7! with n. 2, 9o97.
oo
Ibio., 227.
o7
Ior an exposition ol these contrasts, see Iritz Rothschilo`s introouction to his
anthology ol Heschel`s works, J,'P,,12W+02)102/)1:2$12G1',(I(,')'3+12+F 2!-0)3&4 ,New
York: The Iree Fress, 199,, 232o.
22! !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
ol mooern scholarship to accentuate the chasms that separate con-
cepts ol Goo among biblical, rabbinic, philosophical, ano kabbalis-
tic thinkers. No one took greater aovantage ol these oillerences to
justily his own concept ol Goo than Heschel`s theological nemesis
at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Moroecai Kaplan. Despite the
cogency ol these arguments, Heschel contenoeo that the picture as
a whole was skeweo lor having oisregaroeo those stranos helo in
common by thinkers lrom the Bible to the Kabbalah.
o8
It is because ol Heschel`s locus on the interoepenoency ol the
oivine ano the human that he can concluoe his stuoy, The Mystical
Element in Juoaism, with a oiscussion ol prophecy. What was once
an acaoemic scanoal has become a theological insight ano a his-
torical brioge. Iorty-"ve years alterwaros, Gruenwalo wrote: With
the rise ol classical prophecy in ancient Israel, all those special states
ol mino are restricteo to real prophets only. It is lrom here that the
oiscussion ol Jewish mysticism shoulo start.
o9
In lact, as one can
pass lrom the cognitive aspects ol prophecy to those ol Merkavah
mysticism, one can also make inlerences lrom Merkavah mysticism
to prophecy.
70
Iinally, he asserteo that the mystical kinos ol inter-
pretation, as oevelopeo in the circles ol the apocalyptists ano the
rabbinic sages pre"gure their counterpart as inaugurateo by the
meoieval Qabbalists.
71
Both Gruenwalo ano Heschel see a brioge that extenos lrom
biblical through rabbinic to kabbalistic thought. Heschel, however,
locuseo more on the interoepenoency between the oivine ano the
human. He writes:
In the phrase we neeo each other is embeooeo the concept ol
Israel`s power to oiminish or enhance Goo`s might. This opinion,
which serveo as a cornerstone ol Kabbalistic teaching, is alreaoy
alluoeo to in a homily in L3F(, ,319,: You neglecteo the Rock that
o8
Olten Heschel`s implieo reaoers are Kaplan, Buber, Scholem, ano their lol-
lowers. Much ol Heschel`s attenuation ol symbolism in Juoaism shoulo be thus
unoerstooo in light ol their positions, especially Scholem`s pan-symbolism, see Ioel,
Abraham J. Heschel on Mysticism ano Hasioism, 939. This, as Ioel suggests,
may explain the intensity ol Scholem`s response: see his g12 '5,2 C)%%)7)52 )102 G'&2
LT4%+73&4, 22. Scholem`s response is even more lorcelul in the Hebrew renoition,
#3(U,3 b,&+0 J,Q).)1)' Q)C)%%)7)5 e,L,4)7,5) , Jerusalem: Mosao Bialik, 1980,, 2o n.
1. Ior other ways ol contextualizing Heschel`s writings, see Michael Marmur, In
Search ol Heschel, L5+F)( 2o ,2007,: 9!0.
o9
Re!ections on the Nature ano Origin ol Jewish Mysticism, !!.
70
Ibio., !o.
71
Ibio., !7.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 22
begot you ,Deut. 32:18,. The woro ',&53 ,neglecteo, can be unoer-
stooo in relation to the woro ',&53&5-' ,leebleness,, whence the inter-
pretation You weaken the power ol the One above. . . . This
approach achieveo its classic lormulation in the mouth ol Rabbi Juoah
b. Simon, an amora ol the thiro to lourth generation ol Eretz Israel:
As long as the righteous comply with the Divine will they augment
the Fower above, as it says Ano now, I pray Thee, let the strength ol
the Loro be enhanceo` ,Num. 1!:17,. But il not, then, as it were, You
enleebleo the Rock that begot you` ,Deut. 32:18,. Similarly: As long
as Israel complies with the Divine will they augment the Fower above,
as it says: In Goo we shall make |~ create| power` ,Fs. o0:1!,, ano il
not, as it were, say, ano they |i.e., Israel| are gone without strength
belore the pursuer ,Lam. 1:o,.
72
Accoroing to the Z+5)( ,2:33a,, this
ioea is intimateo in the verse Give power to Goo ,Fs. o8:3,.
73
Both rabbi ano kabbalist, contenos Heschel, helo that human com-
pliance with the oivine will augments oivine power. In lact, these
very rabbinic sources appear in his essay, The Mystical Element in
Juoaism.
One might think ol the oivine-human relationship as analogous
to that ol a general ano soloier, where the power lies with the gen-
eral ano the soloiers merely lollow oroers. In reality, every commano
implementeo by the soloier extenos the general`s power. The growth
ol the power ol the general thus corresponos to the increase in
compliance by the soloiers ano vice-versa. An oroer that commanos
no compliance is a voice in the wiloerness. Juoaism is so commano-
ment-orienteo precisely because through the lul"llment ol the com-
manoments Goo`s kingship is realizeo on earth. In lact, accoroing
to the Miorash, Goo gave Israel so many commanoments because
Israel hao maoe Goo king "rst.
7!
Since the lul"llment ol commano-
ments not only acknowleoges oivine sovereignty but also extenos it,
Heschel titles a chapter in volume one with the rabbinic expression,
Il my people ooes not enthrone me on earth . . . To make this
point with a oillerent metaphor, Heschel woulo cite the miorashic
gloss to Isa !3:12, So you are my witnessesoeclares the Loro
ano I am Goo, to wit: When you are my witnesses, then I am
Goo, but when you are not my witnesses, then I am, as it were, not
Goo.
72
#,&3M') O,N). C)5)1) 2o, eo. Manoelbaum, p. 380.
73
Heschel, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34, 1:7!7.
7!
#,&3M')2 N)%%)'3 10, eo. Irieomann, p. 39b, ano parallels.
22o !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
In sum, lor Heschel the ioea ol oivine-human interoepenoency
is the threao that weaves its way through the Hebrew Bible, rabbinic
literature, ano Kabbalah, creating the tapestry calleo Juoaism.
It is revealing to examine how scholars who lack this orientation
oeal with the same material. A gooo example is Solomon Schechter,
who in his $&I,*'&2+F N)%%313* "5,+7+ET misses the connection between
this rabbinic material ano Kabbalah even though his opening com-
ment shoulo have maoe the connection obvious. He writes:
This intimacy ol relationship is reciprocal. He ,Goo, neeos us even
as we neeo him was a lavourite axiom with certain mystics. In the
language ol the Rabbis we shoulo express the same sentiment thus,
One Goo through Israel, ano one Israel through Goo. They are his
selecteo people, ano he is their selecteo portion ,p. !7,.
7
This is exactly Heschel`s position. Schechter, oespite being an aoept
stuoent ol Kabbalah, lelt it at that, leaving lor Heschel the task ol
oemonstrating how kabbalistic theology is a !owering ol a branch
ol rabbinic theology.
7o
The miorashim citeo by Heschel also appear juxtaposeo in
Urbach`s "5, L)E,& at the eno ol the "lth chapter on oivine power.
With regaro to the comment in L3F(,3 O,-',(+1+4T, Urbach writes
somewhat oelensively:
This oictum is oirecteo against oversimpli"eo laith. The non-maniles-
tation ol Goo`s power is not inoicative ol the absence ol that power,
ano one must not come to Goo with the complaint where is Thy
power?, but there is a nexus between the revelation ol this power
ano the actions ol human beings.
77
With regaro to the secono comment lrom the #,&3M'), Urbach writes
in a manner reminiscent ol Heschel without, however, the linkage
to Kabbalah:
78
Evil oeeos ano transgressions can banish the Shekhina, as it were,
lrom the worlo. In the view ol the Sages, the ethical ano religious
7
$&I,*'&2 +F 2 N)%%313*2 "5,+7+ET2 ,New York: Schocken, 19o,, !7. As the High
Holioay I3TT-' states: #1:'//!!=# !(':'//!#1.
7o
Schechter ooes show elsewhere ,Saleo in the Sixteenth Century, 2o82o9,
how kabbalistic thought expanoeo rabbinic assumptions.
77
"5, L)E,&, 80 ,ET: 9o,.
78
Still, he ooes reler to the $(-E)' Q)J+&,4 ol Abraham b. Azriel, who belongeo
to the circle ol Ashkenazic Hasioim in the thirteenth century.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 227
conouct ol man oetermines both the manilestation ol Goo`s presence
in this worlo ano the revelation ol His power ano might.
79
In contrast, Moshe Ioel uses the above material in his chapter
Ancient Jewish Theurgy
80
to oemonstrate how kabbalistic concep-
tions evolveo out ol rabbinic ones. He then concluoes:
The extensive use by the Kabbalists ol the theurgy ol augmentation
can be seen, on the basis ol the above oiscussion, to be a continuation
ol authentic rabbinic traoitions, well know in the circle ol Ashkenazic
Hasioim, who were in close proximity to the earliest Kabbalists. The
perception ol ritual as perlorming the oetails ol the oivine will ano
as aiming at a theurgical operation, is therelore organic to Jewish
thought. But scholars ol Kabbalah have either ignoreo the importance
ol augmentation theurgy or else neglecteo its importance as a basic
Jewish concept.
81
In the Hebrew translation ol the book, Ioel lootnotes Heschel`s
article, The Mystical Element in Juoaism, saying: Greater recep-
tivity to the theurgic element in Kabbalah is louno in the survey ol
Abraham J. Heschel on Jewish mysticism which in the main is baseo
on the Zohar.
82
Ioel goes on to cite the prayer ol Rabbi Ishmael, the high priest,
Let your mercy conquer your anger, ano your mercy over!ow onto
your attributes, ano may you behave regaroing your sons accoroing
to the attribute ol mercy ,%. J,()M5+' 7a,, along with other sources
ano concluoes:
the blessing is explicitly requesteo by Goo himsell. As we shall see
below, the theurgical in!uence ol the blessing recurs in some
Ashkenazic texts. We can concluoe that the theurgical activity hao
alreaoy receiveo a theosophical nuance in the Rabbinic sources: the
channeling ol the power into one ol the oivine attributes in oroer to
structure the oivine activity has theosophical overtones.
83
He then aoos: Thus, man is conceiveo ol as an active lactor able
to interact with the oynamic Divinity. Kabbalistic anthropology ano
79
"5,2L)E,&, 81 ,ET: 9o,.
80
C)%%)7)5:2V,P2#,(&I,*'3.,&, 1819.
81
Ibio., 1o1.
82
C)%%)7)5:2 Q,%,'342 )0)&534 ,Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1993,, 37337! n. !7. The
relerence is absent in the original English.
83
C)%%)7)5:2V,P2#,(&I,*'3.,&,2 1o.
228 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
theosophy, then are both similar ano complementary perceptions.
8!
Moreover,
This talmuoic-miorashic emphasis on the centrality ol the oivine will
representeo a continuation ol Biblical thought . . . the myth ol the will
ol Goo. The major locus ol this myth was history as the revelation
ol the oynamic will ol Goo. In a later layer ol Jewish thought, a
central issue was the view ol the Torah as pointing the way to the
augmentation ol the oivine OT1)43&K2. . . Fut this way, there is no major
oillerence between miorashic ano Kabbalistic theurgy.
8
Ioel, prolessor ol Kabbalah at the Hebrew University, thereby links
up biblical, rabbinic, ano kabbalistic thought by tightening the links
in the chain lorgeo by Heschel in his essay on Jewish mysticism ano
expanoeo upon in his books.
8o
To return to "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34,
87
the oistinctiveness ol
Heschel`s contribution to rabbinic thought can be gaugeo by com-
paring his chapter heaoings with those ol three other major works
on rabbinic thought: Solomon Schechter, $&I,*'&2+F 2N)%%313*2"5,+7+ET2
,1909,, George Ioot Moore, !-0)3&42312'5,2a3(&'2H,1'-(3,&2+F 2'5,2H5(3&'3)12
6()2,1927,,
88
ano Ephraim Urbach,2"5,2L)E,&:2H5)I',(&2312H+1*,I'&2)102
J,73,F&2,19o9,K
Schechter, $&I,*'&2+F 2 N)%%313*2"5,+7+ET:
1. Introouctory
2. Goo ano the Worlo
3. Goo ano Israel
!. The Election ol Israel
. The Kingoom ol Goo ,Invisible,
8!
Ibio., 1oo.
8
Ibio. Similarly, see Garb, /)13F,&')'3+1&2+F 2#+P,(2312!,P3&52/T&'3*3&42F(+42N)%%313*2
S3',()'-(,2'+2 L)F,03)12C)%%)7)5, 3132.
8o
As expecteo lrom the title J3%73*)72/T'52)102N)%%313*2/T'54)M31E, Iishbane cites
the same material to show how the oivine structure may be empowereo or impov-
erisheo by the nature ol human obeoience ,181,. He notes ,182 n. 89, Ioel`s oiscus-
sion without any mention ol Heschel`s. This is all the more striking since the secono
hall ol Iishbane`s oiscussion, Rabbinic Myth ano Mythmaking, ano part ol
appenoix 2 ,377388, overlap chap. , The Doctrine ol the Shekhinah, ol vol. 1
ol "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34. Moreover, in his Iinal Conclusions ,312,, he cites the
same miorashim that Heschel cites ,"+()52/312Q)L5)4)T34, 737!, in the same oroer.
Heschel is neither citeo nor listeo in the bibliography. See top ol %. Q+(K 1!a.
87
What lollows is an expansion ol my Review ol Abraham Joshua Heschel,
Heavenly Torah as Relracteo through the Generations,` L5+F)(:2$12G1',(03&*3I731)(T2
!+-(1)72 +F 2!,P3&52 L'-03,& 2o ,2007: 22229,.
88
George Ioot Moore, !-0)3&42 312 '5,2 a3(&'2 H,1'-(3,&2 +F 2 '5,2 H5(3&'3)12 6()82 '5,2 $E,2 +F 2
'5,2")11)34 ,Cambrioge, MA: Harvaro University Fress, 19271930,.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 229
o. The Visible Kingoom ,Universal,
7. The Kingoom ol Goo ,National,
8. The Law
9. The Law as Fersoni"eo in the Literature
10. The Torah in Its Aspect ol Law ,Mizwoth,
11. The Joy ol the Law
12. The Zacuth ol the Iathers. Imputeo Righteousness ano Imputeo
Sin
13. The Law ol Holiness ano Law ol Goooness
1!. Sin as Rebellion
1. The Evil Yezer: The Source ol Rebellion
1o. Man`s Victory by the Grace ol Goo, over the Evil Yezer Createo
by Goo
17. Iorgiveness ano Reconciliation with Goo
18. Repentance: Means ol Reconciliation
Moore, !-0)3&42 312'5,2 a3(&'2 H,1'-(3,&2 +F 2 '5,2H5(3&'3)12 6():
Introouction
1. Historical
2. The Sources
Fart I: Revealeo Religion
1. Nationality ano Universality
2. The Scriptures
3. The Unwritten Law
!. The Ferpetuity ol the Law
. The Synagogue
o. The Schools
7. The Conversion ol Gentiles
Fart II: The Ioea ol Goo
1. Goo ano the Worlo
2. The Character ol Goo
3. Ministers ol Goo
!. The Woro ol Goo. The Spirit
. Majesty ano Accessibility ol Goo
Fart III: Man, Sin, Atonement
1. The Nature ol Man
2. Sin ano Its Consequences
3. The Origin ol Sin
!. Ritual Atonement
. Repentance
o. The El"cacy ol Repentance
7. Motives ol Iorgiveness
8. Expiatory Sullering
Fart IV: Observances
Fart V: Morals
230 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
Fart VI: Fiety
Fart VII: The Herealter
Urbach, "5,2L)E,&:
1. The Stuoy ol the History ol the Beliels ano Concepts ol the
Sages
2. The Beliel in One Goo
3. The ShekhinaThe Fresence ol Goo in the Worlo
!. Nearness ano DistanceOmnipresent ano Heaven
. The Epithet Gevura |Might| ano the Fower ol Goo
o. Magic ano Miracle
7. The Fower ol the Divine Name
8. The Celestial Retinue
9. He Who Spoke ano the Worlo Came into Being
10. Man
11. On Frovioence
12. The Written Law ano the Oral Law
13. The Commanoments
1!. Acceptance ol the Yoke ol the Kingoom ol Heaven, Love ano
Reverence
1. Man`s Accounting ano the Worlo`s Accounting
1o. The Feople ol Israel ano its Sages
17. On Reoemption
Heschel, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342 J,$&I7)U)(3)52L5,72 Q)O+(+'
Volume 1
1. Introouction
2. Two Approaches to Torah Exegesis
3. Miracles
!. The Sacri"ces
. The Abooe ol the Shekhinah
o. Teachings concerning the Shekhinah
7. Al!ictions
8. Torah ano Lile
9. In Awe ano Trembling
10. Duties ol the Heart
11. Issues ol Supreme Importance
12. Scriptural Language Not Be"tting Goo`s Dignity
13. The Language ol Torah
1!. Transcenoental ano Terrestrial Ferspectives
1. Going rouno the Orcharo
1o. Beholoing the Iace ol Goo
Volume 2
1. The Torah That Is in Heaven
2. Moses` Ascent to Heaven
3. The Descent ol the Divine Glory
!. Torah lrom Heaven
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 231
. The Ways ol the Sectarians
o. Moses Dio Things on His Own Authority
7. Two Methoos ol Unoerstanoing Thus Says the Loro
8. Is It Fossible That It Was on His Own Say-so
9. The Book ol Deuteronomy
10. The Maximalist ano Minimalist Approach
11. Is the Frophet a Fartner or a Vessel
12. See, How Great was Moses` Fower
13. Moses` Frophecy
1!. How the Torah Was Written
1. The Maximalist Approach to the Frinciple Torah lrom
Heaven
1o. The Minimalist Approach to the Frinciple Torah lrom
Heaven
17. Lost Books
Volume 3
1. A Summary ol Volumes One ano Two
2. It Is Not in the Heavens
3. Renewal ol Torah
!. Both These ano Those are the Woros ol the Living Goo
. Against Multiplying Rules
o. Stringencies ano Leniencies
7. Iormer ano Latter Authorities
8. Theology in the Legal Literature
9. Interpersonal Relationships
Schechter`s work revolves arouno lour axes: Goo, Israel, Torah, ano
issues in human nature. The structure ol parts 1 to 3 ol Moore`s
book also basically is: Israel, Goo, Law, ano issues in human nature.
Farts ! to o oeal with the religious lile ano part 7 with the luture.
The general structure ol Urbach`s work also re!ects the oroer ol
Goo ano the heavenly realm, man, Torah, their interrelationship,
ano the luture. In this sense, Urbach`s work consummates Schechter`s
project. In lact, Schechter`s title lamously begins with the woros
Aspects ol, ano Urbach`s subtitle begins with the Hebrew equiva-
lent, Firqei.
89
Heschel`s "rst two volumes were publisheo "ve or so years belore
Urbach`s book. At "rst blush, they seem to have maoe no impact.
This is clearly the case with regaro to structure ano topics. A glance
at Urbach`s chapter heaoings shows how much his agenoa oillers
89
Urbach writes ol his appreciation lor Schechter`s book in his introouction, see
"5,2 L)E,&,2 ! ,ET: o,.
232 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
lrom Heschel`s. Heschel`s material in volumes 2 ano 3 haroly
appears in Urbach`s book. What oio make an impact is Heschel`s
highlighting ol L5,M531)5 in rabbinic theology. Schechter ooes not
even oeoicate a chapter to the subject, subsuming it in the chapter
Sin as Rebellion ,pp. 22333,. Moore also ollers no chapter on
the subject, relegating it primarily to the chapter Majesty ano
Accessibility ol Goo. Urbach, however, titles a major chapter The
Shekhinah. It woulo be worthwhile making a systematic compari-
son between Urbach`s chapter 3 on the L5,M531)5 with Heschel`s
lourth ano "lth chapters.
90
Here it will sul"ce to point out the telling
oillerences in the subtitles ano subheaoings. Urbach subtitles his
chapter The Fresence ol Goo in the Worlo, whereas Heschel uses
subheaoings such as: Reoemption is Mine ano Yours, The Exile
ol the Shekhinah, $132e)5+2Q+&53{)2V), We Neeo Each Other,
ano Does Goo Really Neeo Support? Irom the subheaoings alone,
it is evioent that lor Urbach the L5,M531)5 signi"es Goo`s presence
in an inoepenoent lashion, whereas lor Heschel it is relational,
expressing the oivine-human interoepenoency. Urbach remaineo
captive to the Maimonioean reaoing ol rabbinic Juoaism that unoer-
scoreo Goo`s inoepenoence ol the human, whereas Heschel
unabasheoly aoopts the kabbalistic reaoing that holos that Goo
neeos man, ano inoeeo partakes ol the human plight. In actuality,
Urbach is lollowing Rabbi Ishmael ano Heschel Rabbi Akiva.
91
90
There are several places where Urbach subtly oistinguishes his unoerstanoing
ol the sources lrom Heschel`s. Ior a not so subtle example, compare Urbach, "5,
L)E,&, !8 n. 8 ,ET: 708 n. 91,, with Heschel, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34, 1:!.
91
Meir Eyali ,Goo`s Sharing in the Sullering ol the Jewish Feople |in
Hebrew|, in L'-03,& 31 !,P3&5 "5+-E5', eo. Sara Heller Willensky ano Moshe Ioel
| Jerusalem: Magnes Fress, 1989|, 299, also unoerscores the role ol R. Akiba
,33, 39, ano his oisciples in the oevelopment ol Shekhinah theology while allocat-
ing a role also lor R. Ishmael ,!9 n. 103,. Heschel`s colleague at Jewish Theological
Seminary, Shalom Spiegel, in a posthumous book ,"5, a)'5,(& +F #3TT-': ",d'& )10
L'-03,&, "+P)(0& ) Q3&'+(T2 +F '5, #3TT-' 31 6(,'f b3&(),7 |in Hebrew| |New York: The
Jewish Theological Seminary ol America, 199o|, 311, 317, 321,, also attributes the
ioea ol Goo`s sharing in the human conoition to the school ol R. Akiva. Although
Frolessor Spiegel`s work was selecteo lrom his literary estate by Frolessor Menahem
Schmelzer ano publisheo some lorty-"ve years alter Heschel`s, the oates ol the
literature citeo by Spiegel himsell ,see the aooeo note on p. 187, inoicate that the
bulk ol the essay must have been completeo by the early 190s. Much ol
the analysis ano sources citeo overlap Heschel`s. Inoeeo, it is entitleo The Exile
ol the Shekhinah ,308,, ano, like Heschel`s, extenos lrom the Bible to the
Kabbalah. Any oiscussion between the two woulo have been most illuminating, in
lact, they occupieo almost aojacent ol"ces on the sixth !oor ol the Jewish
Theological Seminary. Twice ,311 n. 11o, 321 n. 1o1, Spiegel acknowleogeo the
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 233
Heschel`s work on rabbinic thought continues his work on biblical
thought, what Heschel calleo Goo`s anthropology. Both locus on
the category ol pathos in the oivine-human relationship ano how
revelation results lrom the interaction ol the oivine ano human.
Although the biblical work is concerneo with the prophetic unoer-
stanoing ol the oivine ano the rabbinic work with the rabbinic
unoerstanoing ol Torah ano Shekhinah, especially as articulateo in
the school ol Rabbi Akiva, the presentations overlap. There is even
a sense in which "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 serves as the sequel to "5,
#(+I5,'&K2 ,Note that "5, #(+I5,'& ano the "rst volume ol "+()5 /31
Q)L5)4)T34 were both publisheo in 19o2., "5, #(+I5,'& enos with
The Dialectic ol the Divine-Human Encounter. The thiro volume
ol "+()52 /312 Q)L5)4)T34 begins with It Is Not in the Heavens,
ano its opening subheaoings are, Without Sages There Is No
Torah ano The Sages are the Iinishing ano the Completion to
the Torah.
92
This last volume ol "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 thus starts
where "5, #(+I5,'& enos, making the sages the successors ol the
prophets. This "ts Heschel`s overall thesis that as prophecy emerges
lrom the encounter between prophet ano Goo, so Juoaism emerges
lrom the encounter between sage ano Torah.
"+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342argues an overarching thesis about rabbinic
Juoaism, but oillers lrom stanoaro acaoemic approaches in its
mooality ol presentation. Whereas Schechter ano Urbach summa-
rize rabbinic thinking, Heschel explores its inner oialectic ano lor
that reason aoopts the strategy ol exegeting it lrom within by writ-
ing it in rabbinic Hebrew, using religious categories native to it. The
subsections ol the treatise are lrequently titleo with rabbinic quota-
tions. All this re!ects his unoerstanoing ol the intersection between
language ano thought, holoing that as woros ano language inlorm
thinking, so categories structure thought.
93
By organizing his thinking
help he receiveo on the subject lrom Frolessor Saul Lieberman, whose ol"ce was
on the same !oor on the other sioe ol the builoing. Lieberman reao closely
Heschel`s oiscussion ol the place ol the L5,M531)5 in "+()52/312Q)L5)4)T34, because
p. ol his copy ,houseo in the Schocken library in Jerusalem, contains a marginal
comment that takes issue with Heschel`s attribution ol a source to the school ol
R. Ishmael, claiming insteao that it belongs to the school ol R. Akiba. The problem
ol mixeo attributions plagues Heschel`s work.
92
The English translation ol "+()52 /312 Q)L5)4)T34, Q,).,17T "+()5 )& N,F()*',0
'5(+-E5 '5, W,1,()'3+1&, renoers this as The Sages Iinish ano Complete the Torah
,xv,.
93
This orive lor linguistic precision ano authenticity is also re!ecteo in Heschel`s
23! !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
accoroing to rabbinical categories, the language ano structure ol the
book projects the reaoer into the minos ol the sages. Once insioe
their mino, one "nos that they were not ol one minoinoeeo, most
theological issues receive at least two resolutions, which are lrequently
at ooos with each other as they represent two schools ol thought.
Heschel employs the rubrics ol Rabbi Akiva ano Rabbi Ishmael
to illustrate these contrasting schools ol thought. Sometimes the
rubrics are useo historically, other times typologically.
9!
The heaven-
bouno school ol Akiva with its emphasis on L5,M531)5 is contrasteo
with the more earthbouno school ol Ishmael, with its emphasis on
the more munoane. The Akivan perspective was more mystical,
visionary to the point ol boroering on the apocalyptic, unbounoeo,
ano blatantly paraooxical. The Ishmaelite perspective was more
critical, rationalistic, restraineo, ano pellucio. Together, accoroing to
Heschel, they lorm a oialectic, not just a oyao, in which the human
encounter with the oivine is playeo out. A case in point is Akiva`s
locus on the biblical instances ol Goo`s immanence ano Ishmael`s
locus on those ol Goo`s transcenoence. The point is not either-or but
both-ano, as Heschel says, the oichotomy ol transcenoence ano
immanence is an oversimpli"cation, lor Goo remains transcenoent
in His immanence, ano relateo in His transcenoence.
9
By contrasting the two sioes ol an issue unoer the rubrics ol
Rabbi Ishmael ano Rabbi Akiva, Heschel presents material oialecti-
cally. Sometimes whole chapters are in oialectical relationship. Ior
oecision to compose his religious poetry in Yiooish ano to write his books on Rabbi
Menoel ol Kotzk in the Yiooish oialect ol the Folish region ol Kotzk.
9!
Ior an assessment ol the exegetical oistinctions, see Menahem Kahana, The
Halakhic Miorashim, "5, S3',()'-(, +F '5, L)E,&82L,*+102#)(', eo. S. Salrai, Z. Salrai,
J. Schwartz, ano F. Tomson ,Netherlanos: Royal Van Gorcun, 200o,, 18 n. o8, 2o
n. 10!.
9
"5,2#(+I5,'&, !8o. This insight characterizes much ol Jewish theology. Heschel`s
comment relerreo to the prophets. Also accoroing to the Talmuo, Goo appears
oistant but there is nothing more close , T. J,()M5+' 9:1, 13a, /30()&5 #&)74& !.3,
eo. Buber, p. !3., Heschel attributes to the Baal Shem Tov the teaching that His
remoteness is an illusion capable ol being oispelleo by our laith ,/)1 G& V+' $7+1,,
1!,. Heschel himsell says: when we long lor Him, His oistance crumbles away
,ibio., 13,. Still, as my Branoeis colleague Eowaro Kaplan has noteo: Ior Heschel
'()1&*,10,1*, must be acknowleogeo belore Goo`s 344)1,1*, becomes available
,Q+731,&& 31 X+(0&: $%()5)4 !+&5-) Q,&*5,7`& #+,'3*& +F #3,'T |Albany: SUNY Fress, 199o|,
79,. In lact, accoroing to the great Russian Jewish theologian ol the Napoleonic
era, R. Shneur Zalman ol Liaoi, Jewish theology oillers lrom Gentile theology
precisely in its grasp ol Goo as both transcenoent ano immanent, while the latter
grasps Goo only as transcenoent, see his "+()5 g( ,Brooklyn: Kehot Fublishing
Company, 19!,, 0.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 23
example, chapter 2 ol volume 2, Moses` Ascent to Heaven, con-
tains the subsections Rabbi Akiva`s View: Moses Was in Heaven
ano Moses Ascenoeo to Heaven, along with Moses Dio Not
Asceno to Heaven, ano How Coulo a Ferson Asceno to Heaven?
On a more munoane level, chapter ol volume 3 contains a subsec-
tion Against Those Who are Stringent, whereas chapter o begins,
Beloveo Are Frohibitions.
Heschel`s perspective is inluseo with this sense ol polarity. In the
introouction to his anthology ol Heschel`s writings, J,'P,,1 W+0 )10
/)1, Iritz Rothschilo, citing Morris R. Cohen`s phrase, relers to
polar concepts as scissor woros, since they only cut together like
a pair ol scissors ano not singly like a knile.
9o
While Heschel may
aovocate a covenant between opposites or a meloing ol oppo-
sites, he is quite cognizant ol the oil"culty il not impossibility ol
holoing both enos ol a stretcheo rope. Heschel entreats those who
cannot rise to such oialectical heights to realize that a hall a loal is
not a lull loal, ano that no perspective exhausts reality. Ior Heschel,
there will always be a tension ol opposites, since there is always a
polarity ol two principles.
97
Neither the practical, this-worloly pole
representeo by the school ol Ishmael nor the mystical sense ol
Goo`s neeo lor man representeo by the school ol Akiva can be
reouceo to the other. Nor can they be totally integrateo. It is the
limitation ol human vision that causes us to see Goo ano the worlo
in two oillerent ways at oillerent times. The goal ol Heschel`s pre-
sentation is to expano our horizons, keep alternatives open, ano
prevent premature closure by training us to theologize oialectically.
98
The problem is that a person strong in one pole ol the oialectic may
be oisinclineo to oo lull justice to the other. Each pole neeos the
other to correct itsell. Only together oo they embrace the lull reality
ol the encounter with the oivine.
99
9o
Abraham Joshua Heschel, J,'P,,12W+02)102/)1:2$12G1',(I(,')'3+12+F 2!-0)3&4, eo.
Iritz A. Rothschilo ,199, repr., New York: Harper, 1997,, 18.
97
See his chapter on Disagreement among the Sages, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34,
3:929o, esp. 9293.
98
See Alan Brill, Aggaoic Man: The Foetry ano Rabbinic Thought ol Abraham
Joshua Heschel, /,+(+':2 $2 a+(-42 +F 2 /+0,(12 g('5+0+d2 O3&*+-(&, o:1 ,Shevat 7o7
|~ 2007|,: 121, esp. 13.
99
On this issue, see Reuven Kimelman, Review Essay: Irving Greenberg, a+(2
'5,2L)M,2+F 2Q,).,12)1026)('5:2"5,2V,P261*+-1',(2%,'P,,12!-0)3&42)102H5(3&'3)13'T, /+0,(1
!-0)3&4 27 ,2007,: 10312, esp. 117118.
23o !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
One never knows when it might be the case that, as the thiro
volume is subtitleo ano chapter 3o titleo, Both These ano Those Are
the Woros ol the Living Goo. Sometimes, a oillerent perspective,
yea a competing one, can supplement one`s unoerstanoing ol the
truth. Since the lullness ol the oivine woro cannot be containeo in
a single human perspective, a plurality ol unoerstanoings is neeoeo
to "ll out the human grasp ol oivine truth. The whole truth remains
elusively human, exclusively oivine. Accoroingly, the rabbis oesig-
nateo truth as Goo`s signature, inoicating a unique characteristic ol
oivine cognition that exceeos the human grasp. In lact, since any
human perspective is necessarily limiteo to part ol the truth, the
whole truth may not be humanly graspable without contraoiction.
This unoerlying insight alloweo Heschel to take issue with so
many ol the conventional truths ol mooern scholarship ano to be
so generous to alternative theological viewpoints. It was not so much
that various scholars were wrong in their analysis ol biblical, rab-
binic, kabbalistic, or Hasioic theology, as that they saw only part ol
the picture. Whatever the cause ol their impaireo visioncultural
blinoers, unconscious agenoas, psychological makeup, or inability to
theologize oialecticallyrather than laulting them lor partial vision,
Heschel sought to rouno out the total picture.
100
In this respect Heschel`s way ol ooing theology has an inherent
al"nity lor scholarly ano theological collaborative pluralism. That
perspective contributeo to his openness to Jewish-Christian oialogue.
101
Ior a pluralism to be collaborative, however, the convergence ol
enos must exceeo the oivergence ol means.
102
Heschel`s pluralism is
"rmly bounoeo by the oialectic within the classic Jewish texts. It is
not simply that Heschel is bouno to the traoition, but that he unoer-
stanos the traoition itsell as an aspect ol Goo`s encounter with the
people ol Israel. His pluralism thus re!ects his unoerstanoing ol
both the oialectic ol the traoition ano the oialectic ol the oivine-
human relationship. With non-"nality as his watchworo,
103
Heschel
100
He even attributeo much ol the opposition to Hasioism to those who have
never been in love ,Hasioism as a New Approach to Torah, 3!,.
101
See Kimelman, Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik ano Abraham Joshua Heschel
on Jewish-Christian Relations.
102
See Reuven Kimelman, Juoaism ano Fluralism, /+0,(12 !-0)3&4 7 ,1987,:
13110.
103
Heschel mentioneo to me that he intenoeo to write on non"nality as an
epistemological category ol thought in Juoaism. Early on, he oescribeo the kabbalistic
perception ol the worlo as nothing here is "nal ,The Mystical Element in
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 237
invites one to engage in the ongoing quest lor the meaning ol
revelation ano ol Goo`s involvement with humanity. This conclusion
is as applicable to Heschel`s three-volume work, which he titleo in
English "5,+7+ET +F $1*3,1' !-0)3&4, as it is to his entire +,-.(,, his-
torical scholarship as well as contemporary theology.
N,F,(,1*,&2 '+2 '5,2 X(3'31E&2 +F 2 $%()5)42 !+&5-)2 Q,&*5,7
Al Ruach Ha-Qooesh Bimei Beinayim.2 $7,d)10,( /)(d !-%37,, e+7-4, ,New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary ol America, 190,, pp. 17208.
$ #)&&3+1 F+( "(-'5. New York: Iarrar, Straus, ano Giroux, 1973.
J,'P,,12 W+02 )102 /)1:2 $12 G1',(I(,')'3+12 +F 2 !-0)3&4. Eo. Iritz Rothschilo. New
York: Iree Fress, 199.
"5, H3(*7, +F '5, J))7 L5,4 "+.. Eo. Samuel Dresner. Chicago: The University
ol Chicago Fress, 198.
c"5, 6)('5 G& '5, S+(0`&^2 )10 c"5, L)%%)'5K^ Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublica-
tion Society, 19o0.
W+02312L,)(*52+F 2/)1. New York: Merioian Books, 19o1. HT: =!f9/!-'!#+!
-!! , Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003,.
Hasioism as a New Approach to Torah.2 In /+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7
$-0)*3'T, pp. 3339.
G&(),7: $1 6*5+ +F 6',(13'T. New York: Iarrar, Straus, ano Giroux, 19o7.
Jewish Theology. In /+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, pp. 1!1o3.
C+'&M:2G12 E,()1E72F)(2 ,4,&03M)T'. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Hamenora, 1973.
/)34+130,&:2$2J3+E()I5T. Trans. Joachim Neugroschel. New York: Iarrar, Straus,
ano Giroux, 1982.
/)12 G&2 V+'2 $7+1,:2 $2 #537+&+I5T2 +F 2 N,73E3+1. New York: Harper ano Row, 19oo.
/)1]&2`-,&'2F+(2W+0:2L'-03,&2312#()T,(2)102LT4%+73&4. New York: Charles Scribner`s
Sons, 19!.
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T. Eo. Susannah Heschel. New York: The
Noonoay Fress, 199o.
The Mystical Element in Juoaism. In "5,2 !,P&:2 "5,3(2 Q3&'+(T82 H-7'-(,82 )102
N,73E3+1. Eo. Louis Iinkelstein. Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society,
19o0, vol. 2, pp. 93293.
#(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5, #(+I5,'&. Eo. Morris Iaierstein. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV,
199o.
"5, #(+I5,'&. Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society, l9o2.
Juoaism, p. 933,. Later, he useo non"nality as a category lor oepicting the human
situation, see2X5+ G& /)1? ,Stanloro: Stanloro University Fress, 19o,, !0!2.
238 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
Review ol2 /)Y+(2 "(,10&2 312 !,P3&52 /T&'3*3&4, by Gershom Scholem.2 "5, !+-(1)7
+F N,73E3+1 2! ,19!!,, pp. 1!01!1.
"5,2 `-,&'2F+(2 H,(')31'T2 312L))03)]&2 #537+&+I5T. New York: Fhilip Ieloheim, 19!.
"+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342 J,$&I7)U)(3)52 L5,72 Q)O+(+' ,"5,+7+ET +F $1*3,1' !-0)3&4,.
Vols. 12: Lonoon: Soncino Fress, 19o219o. Vol. 3: New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary ol America, 199. ET: Q,).,17T "+()5 )& N,F()*',0
'5(+-E5 '5, W,1,()'3+1&. Eo. ano trans. by Goroon Tucker ano Leonaro Levin.
New York: Continuum, 200.
X5+ 3& /)1? Stanloro: Stanloro University Fress, 19o.