Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T22:09:59.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Polish Rabbi Meets the Berlin Haskalah: The Case of R. Barukh Schick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

David E. Fishman
David E. Fishman
Affiliation:
Brandeis University, Waltham, MA
Get access

Extract

The name of Rabbi Barukh Schick of Shklov (1744–1808) does not figure in the pantheon of great eighteenth-century Jewish personalities, alongside those of R. Israel Ba′al Shem Tov, Moses Mendelssohn, and R. Elijah, the Vilna Gaon. Unlike the latter, his teachings were not distinguished by great originality or profundity, and they exerted rather limited influence. Indeed, Schick's name might well have fallen into total oblivion were it not for a few lines in the introduction to one of his books (a Hebrew translation of Euclid's Elements), in which he related certain remarks made to him by the Vilna Gaon in support of the study of science.

Type
Articles
Information
AJS Review , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 1987 , pp. 95 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Uklides (The Hague, 1780), introduction (unpaginated).

2. For an analysis of the Vilna Gaon's image as a forerunner of the Haskalah, see Etkes, Immanuel, “Ha-Gra Ve-ha-Haskalah: Tadmit Ve-Mitziut, ” in Prakim Be-Toldot Ha-Hevra Ha-Yehudit Be-Yeme Ha-Benayim Ve-ba-El Ha-Hadasha Mukdashim Le-Profesor Ya′akov Katz, ed. Etkes, E. and Salmon, J. (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 192–217.Google Scholar Schick's image as a disciple of the Vilna Gaon has likewise a long history. See, for instance, Stanislavski, S., “Biograficheskie Etudi, ” Voskhod, no. 12 (1891), pp. 143–157, esp. pp. 143, 176.Google Scholar

3. Cf.Fuenn, S. J., Kiryah Ne′emanah (Vilna, 1915), p. 146;Google ScholarZinberg, Israel, Geshikhte Fun der Literatur Bay Yidn, vol. 5 (New York, 1943), pp. 320–324;Google ScholarMahler, Raphael, Divre Yeme Yisrael Ba-Dorot Ha-Ahronim, vol. 1, pt. 4 (Tel Aviv, 1956), pp. 14–16, 53–56.Google Scholar

4. Schick's date of birth: Jacob of Karlin, Keren Orah′ al Masekhet Nazir (Jerusalem, 1959), introduction. R. Isaac and his brother R. Jacob of Karlin were Schick's grandsons. His death is recorded in the pinkas of the Slutsk burial society (Jewish National and University Library, 4°927), Rosh Hodesh Adar 5568 (= 1808). On Schick's father, see the letters of approbation to the latter's posthumous Moreh Tzedek (Shklov, 1783); on the Ginzburg family and Schick's relation to it, see Magid's, DavidToldot Mishpehot Ginzburg (St. Petersburg, 1891), pp. 27–28, 32, 54–56, 168–171.Google Scholar

5. Pinkas Hevra Kadisha Shivah Keruim (Jewish National and University Library 8°2395), fols. 4a, 6a, 7a, 10a, 17b, and passim; Shabad, Avraham Haim, Toldot Ha-Yamim She-Avru Al Hevra Kadisha Shivah Keruim (Vilna, 1909), pp. 7–9; Schick's semikha was printed in his edition of Yesod Olam (Berlin, 1777)Google Scholar; his former post as dayyan figures on the title page to Uklides.

6. Amude Ha-Shamayim-Tiferet Adam (Berlin, 1777), p. 26.

7. Shabad, , Toldot Ha-Yamim, pp. 5, 7–9.Google Scholar

8. Yesod Olam(Berlin, 1777), introduction (unpaginated).

9. Haskamah to Amude Ha-Shamayim-Tiferet Adam.

10. Kitve Shabbetai Donello, Mutner, ed. (Jerusalem, 1949), p. 36;Google ScholarAknin, Joseph Ibn, Sefer Musar, , Bacher ed. (Berlin, 1911), p. 75;Google ScholarAldabi, Meir, Shevile Emunah (Tel Aviv, n.d.), p. 33aGoogle Scholar

11. Fishman, David E., “Science, Enlightenment, and Rabbinic Culture in Belorussian Jewry 1772–1804” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1985), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., pp. 12–30; David B. Ruderman, “The Impact of Science on Jewish Culture and Society in Venice” (unpublished manuscript).

13. Eisenstein-Barzilay, Isaac, “The Background of the Berlin Haskalah, ” in Essays on Jewish Life and Thought in Honor of Solo W. Baron (New York, 1959), pp. 184–185;Google ScholarJonathan, R. of Ruzhany's Yeshua Be-Yisrael (Frankfurt, 1720) is a comprehensive commentary to Maimonides′ Hilkhot Kiddush Ha-Hodesh.Google Scholar

14. Tiferet Adam, pp. 21b–22b, 25b; Amude Ha-Shamayim, pp. 24b–25a; Leibowitz, J., “Smukhim Harvianiim Ba-Refuah Ha-Ivrit, ” Ha-Rofe Ha-Ivri 2 (1957): 36–48;Google ScholarLevine, Hillel, “Paradise Not Surrendered: Jewish Reactions to Copernicus and the Growth of Modern Science, ” in Epislemology, Methodology, and the Social Sciences, ed. Cohen, Robert and Wartkowsky, Max (Dordrecht, 1983), pp. 205–222.Google Scholar

15. Tiferet Adam, p. 8a; Amude Ha-Shamayim, pp. 2b, 5a, 10a–b; on Cardano and Viète, see illespe, Charles C, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 3 (New York, 1971), pp. 64–67; vol. 14 (New York, 1976), pp. 18–25.Google Scholar

16. Tiferet Adam, introduction, p. 2b. It is difficult to comprehend why Schick singled out Isaac Israeli's Yesod Olam and Joseph Shlomo Delmedigo's Elim for criticism on account of their ignorance of “books in foreign tongues, such as Euclid.” Both were replete with references to Euclid and other Greek scientists.

17. Gelber, N. M., “Le-Toldot Ha-Rofim Ha-Yehudim Be-Polin Ba-Meah Ha-18, ” in Shay Le-Yeshayahu Yovel Le-Yeshayahu Volfsberg, ed. Tirosh, I. (Tel Aviv, 1956), pp. 347–371. Gelber lists six Padua graduates from Lithuania and Belorussia in the eighteenth century.Google Scholar

18. On Gordon, see Ginzburg, S., Ramhal U-Bene Doro (Tel Aviv, 1937), index;Google ScholarTishby, I., “Darke Hafatsatam Shel Kitve Ramhal Be-Polin Ve-Lita, ” Kiryat Sefer 45 (1977): 139–150. For additional evidence of Gordon's intermediacy between Padua and Shklov, see below.Google Scholar

19. Tiferel Adam, pp. 4a, 8a.

20. Amude Ha-Shamayim,pp. 24b, 26a–b, 27a–b, 28b. Tiferet Adam cites the Bible and Talmud on pp. 6b, 7a, 8a–b, 23a–b, 27b, and passim

21. Tishby, I., Mishnat Ha-Zohar,vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 148–148, 155–158;Google ScholarAltmann, A., “The Delphic Maxim in Medieval Islam and Judaism, ” Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (New York, 1969), pp. 14–19.Google Scholar

22. Tiferet Adam, p. 22b, citing Zohar IV 234a and 235a. SeeAshlag, Yehuda R., Zohar Im Perush Ha-Sulam, vol. 17 (Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 148–151, 167; Tiferet Adam, p. 28b, citing Tikune Zohar 52b; Tiferel Adam, p. 13a, citing Zohar III 128b; similarly Tiferet Adam, p. 18a, citing Tikune Zohar 128a and others.Google Scholar

23. Tiferet Adam, p. 17a, citing Zohar III 235a. Y. S. Reggio, an enlightened Italian rabbi, criticized Schick for his utilization of the Zohar for anatomical data, Otzar Neḥmad 1 (Vienna, 1856): 9.

24. Tiferet Adam, p. la.

25. Ibid., p. 2a.

26. Ibid.

27. Luzzatto, Moshe Haim, Adir Ba-Marom, ed. Luria, S. (Warsaw, 1880), pp. 2a–b.Google Scholar

28. Tiferet Adam, p. 2a; on Gordon see the references in n. 18 above.

29. SeePiekarz, Mendl, Bi-Yeme Tzemihal Ha-Hasidut (Jerusalem, 1978).Google Scholar

30. Shabad, Toldot Ha-Yamim, p. 16. According to Mahler, Divre Yeme Yisrael, vol. 1, pt. 4, pp. 53–54, Schick journeyed first to London, studied medicine there, and visited Berlin en route back to Poland. I have found no evidence to support any of these claims. R. Saul Berlin in his letter of approbation to Amude Ha-Shamayim-Tiferet Adam states that Schick “came here from the land of Lithuania with a scroll on kiddush ha-ḥodesh and anatomy.”

31. Shulvass, M. A., Between East and West (Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

32. Kagan, Berl, Seyfer Ha-Prenumerantn (New York:Ktav, 1975), Yiddish introduction,Google Scholar

33. See the haskamol to Amude Ha-Shamayim-Tiferet Adamand Yesod Olam, as well as Schick's introduction to the latter. Schick's hopes of publishing Yesod Olamoriginated before his visit to Berlin; see Amude Ha-Shamayim,pp. 3a, 24a.

34. On the Mendelssohnian circle, seeAltmann, A., Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society, 1973), pp. 346–420;Google ScholarKatz, Jacob, Tradition and Crisis (New York:Schocken, 1971), pp. 245–274.Google Scholar

35. By contrast, Amude Ha-Shamayim-Tiferet Adam, published shortly after Schick's arrival, was a simple, low-cost publication. It appears that Schick had not yet made the acquaintance of Berlin's elite at the time of its printing.

36. Yesod Olam, verso, pp. 1, 2.

37. On the Berliners′ attitude toward Polish Jews, seeWessely, N. H., Divre Shalom Ve-Emet (Berlin, 1782), pp. 55–56;Google ScholarWolfsohn, Aaron Halle, “Siha Be-Eretz Ha-Hayim, ” Ha-Measef 7 (1797): 55.Google Scholar The anonymous fanatic Mendelssohn debates in this imagined dialogue is clearly a Polish Jew; see pp. 56, 58, 123, 131. On Maimon's reception by theMaskilim, Berlin, see his Autobiography, translated by Murray, J Clark (London, 1954), pp. 109–113.Google Scholar See, more generally, Aschheim, Steven, Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in German and German Jewish Consciousness, 1800–1923(Madison, 1982).Google Scholar

38. Yesod Olam, pp. 2a-b.

39. Wessely, N. H., Divre Shalom Ve-Emet (Berlin, 1782), pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

40. Maimon, Autobiography, pp. 134–137. The original German provides the initials of the persons involved. These were Dr. B. and Messrs. F., J., and L.; according to Altmann, Dr. Bloch, Friedländer, Jaroslav, and Levi, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 363.

41. See the partial reprint of Modah Le-Binah under the title Refuot He′am (Zolkiew, 1794), title page and verso; Klausner, Jospeh, Historyah Shel Ha-Sifrut Ha-lvrit Ha-Hadasha (Jerusalem, 1960), vol. 1, pp. 225–226.Google Scholar

42. Schick spent his later years in Minsk (to 1791), in Ustye, a private estate in the Mogilev province of tsarist Russia (to roughly 1797), and Slutsk, where he died in 1808. He published but one book during this span of time, a second edition of Keneh Ha-Midah (Shklov, 1791). His most surprising act was his becoming a member, in 1785, of the Vienna chapter of the Order of the Asiatic Brethren, a pseudo-Masonic organization whose members included Austrian aristocrats and Jewish Frankists. Despite this unusual association, about which very little is known, there is no basis for doubting Schick's religious orthodoxy in the 1780s and 1790s. SeeScholem, G., “Karyerah Shel Frankist: Moshe Dobrushka Ve-Gilgulav, ” Mehkarim Ve-Mekorol Le-Toldot Ha-Shabtaut Ve-Gilguleha (Jerusalem, 1974), esp. pp. 160–163.Google Scholar

43. Derekh Yeshara, introduction; Uklides, postscript appealing for advance subscribers.

44. Uklides, introduction; I intend to deal with the encounter between Schick and the Vilna Gaon separately.

45. Keneh Ha-Midah (Prague, 1783), verso.

46. Ibid. On Prague in this period, seeKieval, Hillel J., “Caution's Progress: The Modernization of Jewish Life in Prague, 1780”1830, ” in Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Model, ed. Katz, Jacob (New Brunswick, 1987), pp. 71–105.Google Scholar

47. Uklides, introduction.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid. The position of this sentence is ambiguous; it may be read as a continuation of the words of the Vilna Gaon which precede it, or, alternatively, as Schick's own words. I am convinced that the sentiment is Schick's and is totally uncharacteristic of R. Elijah.

50. Uklides, introduction.

51. Hertzberg, Arthur, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (New York and Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 253–254, 256–257, 279, 294, 309, 311.Google Scholar

52. Uklides, introduction. The claim that the rabbis of antiquity had been masters of science, or even that the sciences had originated among them and been lost in the travails of exile, was an old one. What was new in Schic's case was the use of this argument as part of a polemic against the Enlightenment's view of Judaism.

53. Keneh Ha-Midah (Prague, 1783), introduction.

54. Wessely, Divre Shalom Ve-Emet, pp. 45–46.

55. On Jewish number mysticism and gematria, seeScholem, Gershom, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 38–39, 54, 337–343.Google Scholar

56. Zohar III 4748a; see Zohar with the Sulam Commentary, vol. 13, pp. 33–38. One of the accepted interpretations of the passage is that it is incumbent upon one to combine wisdom with foolishness.