Letter 14: Avodah
The last of the 6 categories of mitzvos
Many subscribers have joined since the last letter (welcome!), so here’s a quick update: We’ve been reading through the 19 Letters of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, summarizing each one and doing deeper dives into specific ideas. Letter 1 contained Benjamin’s questions on Judaism; Letter 2 introduced Naftali’s response. 3–9 explored Judaism’s perspective on God, the world, man, history, and Judaism, and 10–14 broke down Rav Hirsch’s six categories of mitzvos and the messages they are meant to convey. Next week’s Letter 15 will circle back to Benjamin’s questions from Letter 1 and use the ideas developed in the previous letters to answer them.
The last category of mitzvos is called Avodah — mitzvos related to Divine service.
Rav Hirsch’s approach to the entire subject of tefillah is fairly unique. For him, the essence of tefillah is captured in the word tefillah itself — or, more accurately, l’hispallel. He understands the word to mean “to judge oneself,” based on how the root פלל is used in other places in Tanach. He writes in Horeb:
“Hit’pallel,” from which tefillah is derived, originally meant to deliver an opinion about oneself, to judge oneself — or an inner attempt at so doing, such as the hit’pael form of the Hebrew verb frequently denotes. In other words, an attempt to gain a true judgment of oneself. Thus it denotes to step out of active life in order to attempt to gain a true judgment about oneself, that is, about one's ego, about one's relationship to God and the world, and of God and the world to oneself. It strives to infuse mind and heart with the power of such judgment as will direct both anew to active life—purified, sublimated, strengthened. The procedure of arousing such self-judgment is called “tefillah.” In English, we call tefillah “prayer,” but this word only incompletely expresses the concept, for “to pray,” i.e., to ask for something, is only a minor section of tefillah.
While all of this was originally developed as a supplement to the system of korbanos, it became primary once the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed and we lost access to that track — at least in an active sense. The ideas are still meant to inspire us through learning about them, a la u’neshalmah parim sefaseinu and Hashem’s promise to consider the recitation of parshiyos relating to korbanos as if we brought those korbanos. For Rav Hirsch, this isn’t a magic forgiveness spell, but an opportunity to call to mind the messages contained in the korbanos, allowing us to access the transformative power that the sacrifices themselves were meant to inspire.
Rav Hirsch divides tefillah into six sections:
Tehillah: words of praise the express the perception of God as revealed in nature, in the world of man and in Yisrael
Tefillah: prayers of self-evaluation
Bakashos and Techinos: requests regarding possessions and self, acknowledging that the future belongs to Hashem
Todos and Vidui: thanksgiving and confession, acknowledging that the past belonged to Hashem and noting where we’ve gone wrong and how we can improve
Rav Hirsch points out that this is termed “Divine service” in a narrow sense, but that should not be taken as overriding the broader Divine service that is meant to characterize our entire lives. Rather, taking time out for the narrow Divine service of prayer and reflection is meant to prepare and re-energize us for engaging with the broader, life-encompassing Divine service, avodas Hashem. Appropriately, we call the place in which we engage in this reflection and education process a “shul,” German for school.
Finally, Rav Hirsch raises the status of berachos to extreme importance, calling them “the culmination and goal” of the other parts of tefillah. Berachos are meant to express our “resolve to implement God’s Will in the midst of our daily life.” In other words, they incorporate a prayer mentality into the moments of active life rather than keeping it separate in the synagogue.
Diving Deeper
Close the Shuls!
One of Rav Hirsch’s famous pieces is not something you’d expect to hear from a traditional Orthodox rabbi: “Close the shuls for one hundred years!”
If I had the power I would provisionally close all synagogues for a hundred years. Do not tremble at the thought of it, Jewish heart. What would happen? Jews and Jewesses without synagogues, desiring to remain such, would be forced to concentrate on a Jewish life and a Jewish Home. The Jewish officials connected with the synagogue would have to look to the only opportunity now open to them – to teach young and old how to live a Jewish life and how to build a Jewish home. All synagogues closed by Jewish hands would constitute the strongest protest against the abandonment of the Torah in home and life. – Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (as quoted in the “Introduction by Translator” to Horeb, “The Classification of the Mitzvoth,” p. lxix)
Rav Hirsch’s point here was to push back against an idea popularized by the Reformers identifying the central location of one’s avodas Hashem to be in the synagogue. For Rav Hirsch, this is entirely backwards — akin to saying that the focal point of an athlete’s schedule should be his practice sessions, not the games. Time in shul is meant to prepare us for our active lives as Jews, not as self-justifying expressions of connection and service. For obvious reasons, this passage really made the rounds during COVID, when shuls actually had to be closed down.
Berachos: Rambam vs Rav Hirsch
Compare this to the Rambam’s statement about berachos serving to remind us of Hashem throughout the day; Rav Hirsch would likely agree to that, but he thinks it goes beyond simply reminding us of something. Instead, its a recommitment to action.
Interestingly, this seems to parallel a more fundamental difference between the thought of the Rambam and Rav Hirsch. Whereas the Rambam elevated the significance of contemplating the Divine to an essential element of religious life (see his comments in Yesodei HaTorah 2–4, as well as what he writes about prophecy), Rav Hirsch is much more focused on translating Torah and learning and a relationship with Hashem into an active life lived based on Torah principles and guidance (spoiler alert — we’ll see his criticism of the Rambam relating to this in Letter 18).
Rav Hirsch’s Commentary to the Siddur
An additional part of Rav Hirsch’s extensive literary output is his Commentary to the Siddur, originally written in German and since translated into both English and Hebrew. It is written as a running commentary on the prayers in paragraph form, incorporating lines from the tefillot, rather than taking individual lines out of context and treating them separately from the tefillah itself. At some points, he’ll dedicate space to broader explanations of important sections, such as his essays on Kaddish and Kedushah or keriat Shema.
Rav Hirsch incorporated his commentary to Pirkei Avot into his siddur, which I think explains why so many of his comments are briefer than one would have expected. (I’ve heard someone suggest that the reason they are so short is because he taught Pirkei Avos between Minchah and Maariv on Shabbos afternoons, and even someone as revered as Rav Hirsch can’t ignore the clock on Motzei Shabbos!) It has since been printed as a standalone commentary, but it feels a bit threadbare to me.
Next week: Letter 15 — finally answering Benjamin’s questions on Judaism!