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.
Footnotes:
[154-1] Entitled אלה בני הנעורים.
[157-1] The point lies here in the circumstance that the term “violoniste”
is equivalent to the German word “Geiger.”