Modern Judaism

[Erratum]

When Zionism will bring the messiah, The Star (of Redemption) will be superfluous. Yet all the books will be superfluous (Rosenzweig, 1922).¹

Anarchism held many attractions to me. … But it, too, filled me with terror. … This is a kind of messianic vision to which the transition is not possible with the forces functioning in history (Scholem, 1974).²

The encounter between Franz Rosenzweig and Gershom-Gerhard Scholem was neither profound nor particularly consequential. While Rosenzweig appreciated Scholem’s proficiency in Kabbalah, for him Jewish mysticism would never become a significant source of inspiration.³ Scholem, meanwhile, extolled Rosenzweig as a modern Jewish theologian but rarely referred to his work in his studies of Kabbalah or in his essays on Jewish themes. Nevertheless, Scholem’s interpretation of, and disagreement with, Rosenzweig’s concept of redemption—and the anti-Zionism that it entailed—is an important issue which accounts for the dramatic shift in his appraisal of Rosenzweig. Scholem’s take on Rosenzweig is also instrumental in comprehending his interwar esoteric thought, which finds only little expression in his writings. For Scholem, redemption was not merely a matter for academic debate; it involved burning existential and political issues, especially as it related to Zionism, of which Rosenzweig was an ambivalent observer and Scholem an engaged critic.

Scholem was the first to introduce Rosenzweig’s thought to a Hebrew-speaking audience, in a 1930 memorial lecture at the nascent Hebrew University of Jerusalem. During his inspiring and brilliant speech (which was published as a booklet immediately thereafter), Scholem presented Rosenzweig as “one of the most sublime manifestations of the genius and religious greatness of our people.” He lauded the second book of the second part of The Star of Redemption as “one of what may be called Judaism’s ‘definitive statements’ on religious questions.”⁴ In a letter to Martin Buber he prophesied that, “the day may come when people will study and discuss this book as they do [Maimonides’] Guide for the Perplexed.”⁵ It was little wonder, then, that [End Page 1] Buber found him a suitable candidate to translate The Star into Hebrew, an undertaking that Scholem deemed impossible.⁶

With time, however, Scholem’s avid reception of Rosenzweig gave way to deep reservation. In his 1980 autobiography, From Berlin to Jerusalem, for instance, his judgment is rather unfavorable. While Scholem maintained that The Star was “one of the central creations of Jewish religious thought,” he noted Rosenzweig’s “marked dictatorial inclinations” and highlighted the chasm that yawned between the two men vis-a-vis their contrasting attitudes to Zionism and the German–Jewish relationship.⁷ In an extensive interview in 1974, Scholem stated that he was “very critical” of Rosenzweig’s concept of Judaism. There, too, he accused Rosenzweig of harboring misplaced devotion to the idea of a Jewish–German synthesis,⁸ adding that Rosenzweig’s Judaism was too “ecclesiastical”—meaning, constructed along Christian lines—and, equally abhorrent to Scholem, was reduced to rituals and tradition. Consequently, Scholem concluded that it was unlikely, “that we will accept [The Star] as the Jewish theological system.” Scholem thought that Rosenzweig had erroneously ignored the anarchic spirit of modernity and its profound influence on Judaism, and that the traditional Jewish life that Rosenzweig celebrated, and which was the lynchpin of his philosophy, was doomed to extinction.⁹

The apparent sea change in Scholem’s attitude over the years requires an explanation. After all, the first fissures in the relationship between the two men, which would widen into a gulf underscored in Scholem’s later writings, preceded even his early adoration for Rosenzweig. For even as far back as 1915, Scholem was yet an ardent Zionist and a zealous opponent of any hope for a Jewish renaissance in Germany, and also an avowed anarchist, believing that only secularization held the promise of religious rejuvenation. And yet, that outlook did not prevent him from singing The Star’s praises in his 1930 speech. In fact, those anarchistic themes were present in the speech, intertwined with what he viewed as the relevant ideas in The Star. Ostensibly, the young Scholem had every reason...