MENDELSSOHN, MOSES
Encyclopedia Judaica
1729–1786, philosopher of the German Enlightenment in the pre-Kantian period, early Maskil, and a renowned Jewish figure in the 18th century. Born in Dessau, son of a Torah scribe, Mendelssohn received a traditional Jewish education under the influence of David Fraenkel , who was then rabbi of Dessau. When the latter was appointed rabbi of Berlin in 1743, Mendelssohn followed him there in order to pursue his religious studies and to acquire a general education. He earned his livelihood with difficulty while simultaneously studying Talmud diligently and acquiring a broad education in literature and philosophy. In addition to his fluent knowledge of German and Hebrew, he acquired knowledge of Latin, Greek, English, French, and Italian. His teachers were young, broadly educated Jews, such as the Galician immigrant Israel M. Zamosc, who taught him medieval Jewish philosophy, the medical student Abraham Kisch, who taught him Latin, and the well-born Berlin Jew, A.S. Gumpertz, who taught him French and English and in general served as a model of a pious Jew immersed in the larger intellectual world. During this period he met the writer and dramatist G.E. Lessing (1754) and a deep and lifelong friendship developed between them. In 1750 he became a teacher in the house of Isaac Bernhard, owner of a silk factory; in 1754, he was entrusted with the bookkeeping of the factory and eventually he became a partner in the enterprise. Throughout his life he worked as a merchant, while carrying out his literary activities and widespread correspondence in his free time. Only in 1763 was he granted the "right of residence" in Berlin by the king. In 1762, he married Fromet Guggenheim of Hamburg, and they had six children.
Encyclopedia Judaica
1729–1786, philosopher of the German Enlightenment in the pre-Kantian period, early Maskil, and a renowned Jewish figure in the 18th century. Born in Dessau, son of a Torah scribe, Mendelssohn received a traditional Jewish education under the influence of David Fraenkel , who was then rabbi of Dessau. When the latter was appointed rabbi of Berlin in 1743, Mendelssohn followed him there in order to pursue his religious studies and to acquire a general education. He earned his livelihood with difficulty while simultaneously studying Talmud diligently and acquiring a broad education in literature and philosophy. In addition to his fluent knowledge of German and Hebrew, he acquired knowledge of Latin, Greek, English, French, and Italian. His teachers were young, broadly educated Jews, such as the Galician immigrant Israel M. Zamosc, who taught him medieval Jewish philosophy, the medical student Abraham Kisch, who taught him Latin, and the well-born Berlin Jew, A.S. Gumpertz, who taught him French and English and in general served as a model of a pious Jew immersed in the larger intellectual world. During this period he met the writer and dramatist G.E. Lessing (1754) and a deep and lifelong friendship developed between them. In 1750 he became a teacher in the house of Isaac Bernhard, owner of a silk factory; in 1754, he was entrusted with the bookkeeping of the factory and eventually he became a partner in the enterprise. Throughout his life he worked as a merchant, while carrying out his literary activities and widespread correspondence in his free time. Only in 1763 was he granted the "right of residence" in Berlin by the king. In 1762, he married Fromet Guggenheim of Hamburg, and they had six children.
Response to Dohm (1782)
How is it, that so many a city in Brabant and the Netherlands, with equal or perhaps superior commercial accommodations, comes so much behind the city of Amsterdam? What makes people crowd together on a barren soil, in marches not intended by Nature to be inhabited; and by industry and art metamorphose lone fens into a garden of God, and invent resources for a comfortable existence, which excites our admiration? What else but liberty, mild government, equitable laws and the hospitably manner in which men of all complexions, garbs, opinions, manners, customs and creeds are admitted, protected and quietly allowed to follow their business?
How is it, that so many a city in Brabant and the Netherlands, with equal or perhaps superior commercial accommodations, comes so much behind the city of Amsterdam? What makes people crowd together on a barren soil, in marches not intended by Nature to be inhabited; and by industry and art metamorphose lone fens into a garden of God, and invent resources for a comfortable existence, which excites our admiration? What else but liberty, mild government, equitable laws and the hospitably manner in which men of all complexions, garbs, opinions, manners, customs and creeds are admitted, protected and quietly allowed to follow their business?
Remarks Concerning Michaeli's Response to Dohm (1783)
Herr Michaelis never speaks of Christians and Jews, but always of Germans and Jews. He does not content himself with establishing the religious differences between us; he prefers to see us as strangers who will have to agree to all conditions which the owners of the land are ready to concede to us. But this, in the first place, is a question to be decided: would it not be better for the owners of the land to accept those they now merely tolerate as citizens rather than bringing strangers at great cost, into their country? Secondly, we should also consider the following problem: for how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?
Herr Michaelis never speaks of Christians and Jews, but always of Germans and Jews. He does not content himself with establishing the religious differences between us; he prefers to see us as strangers who will have to agree to all conditions which the owners of the land are ready to concede to us. But this, in the first place, is a question to be decided: would it not be better for the owners of the land to accept those they now merely tolerate as citizens rather than bringing strangers at great cost, into their country? Secondly, we should also consider the following problem: for how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?
The Right to be Different (1783)
At least pave the way for a happy posterity toward that height of culture, toward the universal tolerance of man for which reason still sighs in vain! Reward and punish no doctrine, tempt and bribe no one to adopt any religious opinion! Let everyone be permitted to speak as he thinks, to invoke God after his own manner or that of his fathers, and to seek eternal salvation where he thinks he may find it, as long he does not disturb public felicity and acts honestly toward the civil laws, toward you and his fellow citizens. Let no one in your states be a searcher of hearts and a judge of thoughts; let no one assume a right that the Omniscient has reserved to himself alone! If we render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, then do you yourselves render unto God what is God's. Love truth! Love peace!
At least pave the way for a happy posterity toward that height of culture, toward the universal tolerance of man for which reason still sighs in vain! Reward and punish no doctrine, tempt and bribe no one to adopt any religious opinion! Let everyone be permitted to speak as he thinks, to invoke God after his own manner or that of his fathers, and to seek eternal salvation where he thinks he may find it, as long he does not disturb public felicity and acts honestly toward the civil laws, toward you and his fellow citizens. Let no one in your states be a searcher of hearts and a judge of thoughts; let no one assume a right that the Omniscient has reserved to himself alone! If we render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, then do you yourselves render unto God what is God's. Love truth! Love peace!
Moses Mendelssohn Visits the Seer of Koenigsberg (1777)
In July 1777 Mendelssohn made a business trip to Memel and en route went to Koenigsberg, where he made the acquaintance of Kant. The renowned philosopher received him cordially, and a warm friendship quickly developed between them. In August, on his way home to Berlin, Mendelssohn once again visited Kant, who invited his guest to attend his lectures at the university. This account by one of the students in attendance at one of the lectures illustrates the vision of the Enlightenment as a "neutral society" in which Jew and non-Jew could meet as equals and on the basis of mutual respect.
Without paying particular attention to those present, but nonetheless with anxious, quiet steps, a small, physically deformed Jew with a goatee entered the lecture hall and stood standing not far from the entrance. As was to be expected there began sneering and jeering that eventually turned into clicking, whistling and stamping, but to the general astonishment of everyone the stranger stood with an ice-like silence as if tied to his place.
For the sake of showing clearly his interest in waiting for the Professor [Immanuel Kant] he took an empty chair and sat. Someone approached him, and inquired [why he was there], and he replied succinctly but courteously that he wanted to stay in order to make the acquaintance of Kant. Only Kant's appearance could finally quiet the uproar.
His lecture drew the attention of everyone to other matters, and one became so enraptured, so immersed in a sea of new ideas, that one long forgot about the presence of the Jew.
At the conclusion of the lecture, the Jew pushed himself forward with an intensity, which starkly contrasted with his previous composure, through the crowd in order to reach the Professor. The students hardly noticed him, when suddenly there again resounded a scornful laughter, which immediately gave way to wonder as Kant, after briefly looking at the stranger pensively and exchanging with him a few words, heartily shook his hand and then embraced him. Like a brushfire there went through the crowd, "Moses Mendelssohn. It is the Jewish philosopher from Berlin." Deferentially the students made way as the two sages left the lecture hall hand in hand.
In July 1777 Mendelssohn made a business trip to Memel and en route went to Koenigsberg, where he made the acquaintance of Kant. The renowned philosopher received him cordially, and a warm friendship quickly developed between them. In August, on his way home to Berlin, Mendelssohn once again visited Kant, who invited his guest to attend his lectures at the university. This account by one of the students in attendance at one of the lectures illustrates the vision of the Enlightenment as a "neutral society" in which Jew and non-Jew could meet as equals and on the basis of mutual respect.
Without paying particular attention to those present, but nonetheless with anxious, quiet steps, a small, physically deformed Jew with a goatee entered the lecture hall and stood standing not far from the entrance. As was to be expected there began sneering and jeering that eventually turned into clicking, whistling and stamping, but to the general astonishment of everyone the stranger stood with an ice-like silence as if tied to his place.
For the sake of showing clearly his interest in waiting for the Professor [Immanuel Kant] he took an empty chair and sat. Someone approached him, and inquired [why he was there], and he replied succinctly but courteously that he wanted to stay in order to make the acquaintance of Kant. Only Kant's appearance could finally quiet the uproar.
His lecture drew the attention of everyone to other matters, and one became so enraptured, so immersed in a sea of new ideas, that one long forgot about the presence of the Jew.
At the conclusion of the lecture, the Jew pushed himself forward with an intensity, which starkly contrasted with his previous composure, through the crowd in order to reach the Professor. The students hardly noticed him, when suddenly there again resounded a scornful laughter, which immediately gave way to wonder as Kant, after briefly looking at the stranger pensively and exchanging with him a few words, heartily shook his hand and then embraced him. Like a brushfire there went through the crowd, "Moses Mendelssohn. It is the Jewish philosopher from Berlin." Deferentially the students made way as the two sages left the lecture hall hand in hand.
On the Curtailment of Jewish Juridical Autonomy (1782)
In his essay on Jewish civil rights, Christian Wilhelm von Dohm favored the retention of Jewish juridical autonomy, particularly the right of ex-communication. Mendelssohn objected, for he strongly felt that Jewish Enlightenment and the liberalization of society in general required the relinquishment of traditional ecclesiastical juridical prerogatives such as that of excommunication.
… I can scarcely conceive how a writer of Herr Dohm's great judgment could say: "As all other religious societies have a right of expelling members, either for a limited time or forever; the Jewish should have it too; and, in case of resistance of the Rabbi's sentence, be supported by the civil authorities." All societies have a right of expelling members; religious ones only have not: for it runs diametrically contrary to their principle and object, which is joint edification and participating in the outpouring of the heart, by which we evince our thankfulness to God for the many bounties he bestows on us, and our filial trust in his sovereign goodness and mercy. Then, with what conscience can we deny entrance to dissenters, separatists, misbelievers, or sectarians, and deprive them of the benefit of that edification? For rioters and disturbers there is the law and the police; disorders of that kind may, nay must, be restrained by the secular arm. But a quiet and inoffensive attendance at the meeting may not be forbidden even to an offender, unless we purposely want to bar him from every road to reformation. The doors of the house of rational devotion require neither bars nor bolts. There is nothing locked up within, and, therefore, no occasion to be particular in admitting from without. Whoever chooses to be a tranquil spectator, or even to join in the worship, is right welcome to every pious man, at the hour of his own devotions.
In his essay on Jewish civil rights, Christian Wilhelm von Dohm favored the retention of Jewish juridical autonomy, particularly the right of ex-communication. Mendelssohn objected, for he strongly felt that Jewish Enlightenment and the liberalization of society in general required the relinquishment of traditional ecclesiastical juridical prerogatives such as that of excommunication.
… I can scarcely conceive how a writer of Herr Dohm's great judgment could say: "As all other religious societies have a right of expelling members, either for a limited time or forever; the Jewish should have it too; and, in case of resistance of the Rabbi's sentence, be supported by the civil authorities." All societies have a right of expelling members; religious ones only have not: for it runs diametrically contrary to their principle and object, which is joint edification and participating in the outpouring of the heart, by which we evince our thankfulness to God for the many bounties he bestows on us, and our filial trust in his sovereign goodness and mercy. Then, with what conscience can we deny entrance to dissenters, separatists, misbelievers, or sectarians, and deprive them of the benefit of that edification? For rioters and disturbers there is the law and the police; disorders of that kind may, nay must, be restrained by the secular arm. But a quiet and inoffensive attendance at the meeting may not be forbidden even to an offender, unless we purposely want to bar him from every road to reformation. The doors of the house of rational devotion require neither bars nor bolts. There is nothing locked up within, and, therefore, no occasion to be particular in admitting from without. Whoever chooses to be a tranquil spectator, or even to join in the worship, is right welcome to every pious man, at the hour of his own devotions.
Judaism Is the Cornerstone of Christianity (1783)
Authority can humble but not instruct; it can suppress reason but not put it in fetters. Were it true that the word of God so manifestly contradicted my reason, the most I could do would be to impose silence upon my reason. But my unrefuted arguments would, nevertheless, reappear in the most secret recesses of my heart, be transformed into disquieting doubts, and the doubts would resolve themselves into childlike prayers, into fervent supplications for illumination. I would call out with the Psalmist:
Lord, send me Thy Light, Thy truth, that they may guide and bring me unto Thy holy mountains, unto Thy dwelling place! -Ps. 43:3
Authority can humble but not instruct; it can suppress reason but not put it in fetters. Were it true that the word of God so manifestly contradicted my reason, the most I could do would be to impose silence upon my reason. But my unrefuted arguments would, nevertheless, reappear in the most secret recesses of my heart, be transformed into disquieting doubts, and the doubts would resolve themselves into childlike prayers, into fervent supplications for illumination. I would call out with the Psalmist:
Lord, send me Thy Light, Thy truth, that they may guide and bring me unto Thy holy mountains, unto Thy dwelling place! -Ps. 43:3
Judaism as Revealed Legislation. From Mendelssohn's Jerusalem (1783)
I must, however, also do justice to his [Herr Moerschel's] searching eye. What he saw was, in part, not wrong. It is true that I recognize no eternal truths other than those that are not merely comprehensible to human reason but can also be demonstrated and verified by human powers. Yet Mr. Moerschel is misled by an incorrect conception of Judaism when he supposes that I cannot maintain this without departing from the religion of my fathers. On the contrary, I consider this an essential point of the Jewish religion and believe that this doctrine constitutes a characteristic difference between it and the Christian one. To say it briefly: I believe that Judaism knows of no revealed religion in the sense in which Christians understand this term. The Israelites possess a divine legislation- -laws, commandments, ordinances, rules of life, instruction in the will of God as to how they should conduct themselves in order to attain temporal and eternal felicity. Propositions and prescriptions of this kind were revealed to them by Moses in a miraculous and supernatural manner, but no doctrinal opinions, no saving truths, no universal propositions of reason. These the Eternal reveals to us and to all other men, at all times, through nature and thing, but never through word and script…
I must, however, also do justice to his [Herr Moerschel's] searching eye. What he saw was, in part, not wrong. It is true that I recognize no eternal truths other than those that are not merely comprehensible to human reason but can also be demonstrated and verified by human powers. Yet Mr. Moerschel is misled by an incorrect conception of Judaism when he supposes that I cannot maintain this without departing from the religion of my fathers. On the contrary, I consider this an essential point of the Jewish religion and believe that this doctrine constitutes a characteristic difference between it and the Christian one. To say it briefly: I believe that Judaism knows of no revealed religion in the sense in which Christians understand this term. The Israelites possess a divine legislation- -laws, commandments, ordinances, rules of life, instruction in the will of God as to how they should conduct themselves in order to attain temporal and eternal felicity. Propositions and prescriptions of this kind were revealed to them by Moses in a miraculous and supernatural manner, but no doctrinal opinions, no saving truths, no universal propositions of reason. These the Eternal reveals to us and to all other men, at all times, through nature and thing, but never through word and script…
Moses Mendelssohn’s Be’ur: Translating the Torah in the Age of Enlightenment
thetorah.com
Translating YHWH – The Eternal Being (Der Ewige). Mendelssohn’s boldest theological move was to paraphrase Exod 3:14: אהיה אשר אהיה (eheye asher eheye) as “Ich bin das Wesen, welches ewig ist,” “I am the Being which is eternal,” and on that basis, to render YHWH, the Tetragrammaton as “Der Ewige,” “The Eternal One.” He justified his choice by way of an amalgam of rabbinic sources and philosophical principles
thetorah.com
Translating YHWH – The Eternal Being (Der Ewige). Mendelssohn’s boldest theological move was to paraphrase Exod 3:14: אהיה אשר אהיה (eheye asher eheye) as “Ich bin das Wesen, welches ewig ist,” “I am the Being which is eternal,” and on that basis, to render YHWH, the Tetragrammaton as “Der Ewige,” “The Eternal One.” He justified his choice by way of an amalgam of rabbinic sources and philosophical principles