What Happened to the Hertz Chumash?

On Parshas Tzav, korbanos, and doorways of resonance

The accompanying shiur is available on the Orthodox Union's parsha learning app: All Parsha.

---

There’s an old joke about Daf Yomi, “בא שבת, בא מנוחה,” (When Shabbos comes, rest comes). There is always a lot of enthusiasm for the opening Tractate, Brachos, but once the larger, denser, much more technical Shabbos rolls around, Daf Yomi study tends to drop off. It is time to rest.

I think there is a similar struggle with שנים מקרא, the weekly study of the parsha. There’s always enthusiasm in the beginning—creation, the stories of our avos and imahos (patriarchs and matriarchs), redemption from Egypt, the giving of the Torah, and the establishment of the Mishkan. And then Sefer Vayikra comes around, which primarily deals with sacrifices, and all of a sudden studying the parsha isn’t so easy. Is now the time to rest?

Our parsha opens up with added motivation.

צַו אֶת־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת־בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כׇּל־הַלַּיְלָה עַד־הַבֹּקֶר וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ׃

Moshe is told to command Ahron and his family of Kohanim the laws related to korban olah, the sacrificial offering that was entirely burnt on the altar.

Rashi explains the need for the added term “צו,” to command Ahron and his family about this sacrifice:

צו את אהרן. אֵין צַו אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן זֵרוּז מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת; אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בְּיוֹתֵר צָרִיךְ הַכָּתוּב לְזָרֵז בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס (ספרא):

The word “tzav,” Rashi explains, is meant to urge and motivate this commandment for Ahron, his family, and all future generations. Rashi also adds a comment from Rebbe Shimon explaining that this added urgency was necessary because of the monetary cost of the sacrifices.

It is strange, however, that this urgency is meant for Ahron and all future generations—why do all future generations need this motivation if for much of Jewish history, since the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, we no longer bring sacrifices? How is our generation supposed to interpret this motivation? Is it some much-needed chizzuk (encouragement) to continue learning shnayim mikra? Why include such urgency for all future generations regarding a commandment that future generations won’t even be able to fulfill?

And secondly, it seems strange to share the financial concern with Ahron and his family. They were not the ones buying the sacrifices! It didn’t cost the Kohanim anything—it cost whoever brought the sacrifice. So why is this reason being shared now with Ahron and his fellow Kohanim?

To understand this let’s explore some of the controversies surrounding the most popular Chumash of the last generation, the Hertz Chumash.

---

I grew up across the street from a shul known as Shaaray Tefillah in Lawrence, NY. Quite a bit has changed in the shul since my childhood years. The box of doilies for women to don when they entered either disappeared or was moved to a much more discreet location. Spare tallesim and yarmulkas are no longer in a box next to the siddurim and chumashim. And the very chumash that I remember from my childhood has changed. Back in the day, I must have been only seven or eight years old, the primary chumash on the shelves was the Hertz Chumash. I don’t think that was its official name, but it was colloquially referred to as the Hertz Chumash, named after Rabbi Doctor Joseph H. Hertz (b. 1872), who served as the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom from 1913 until his passing in 1946. It was an imposing tome that, and I still remember this, used Roman numerals instead of standard numbers. I don’t think my seven-year-old self was its target audience. By the time my Bubbe, Edith Bashevkin, passed away in 1994, there was already a new chumash in town that quickly filled up shelves, the Artscroll Stone Chumash. I remember that my father dedicated a few of the new Artscroll chumashim, that had just been released the year prior. I had assumed the advent of a new, more modernly designed chumash was what led to the downfall of the Hertz Chumash—which, of course, was at least partly true. Upon closer look, however, the story behind Rabbi Hertz and the disappearance of many of his works is more controversial.

Thankfully, a few of my friends are shul detectives. They have written prolifically about the liturgical changes, the evolution of the siddur, as well as the different classic chumashim found in synagogues. And of course, they have explored in depth the story of Rabbi Hertz and his works.

Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (1872-1946) was a part of the first graduating class of the Jewish Theological Seminary. Nowadays, the Seminary is considered the flagship school of the Conservative movement but its denominational affiliation back then was considerably more ambiguous. After serving in congregations in America, Rabbi Hertz was elected as Britain’s Chief Rabbi in 1913. He was just over forty years old.

As Meir Persoff details in his eye-opening book, Hats in the Ring: Choosing Britain's Chief Rabbis from Adler to Sacks, becoming Chief Rabbi is always a tricky position—it is not quite as laissez-faire as the American rabbinate and it is far more centralized than other European countries. There will always be a vocal minority that assumes the Chief Rabbi is too Orthodox, and another vocal minority who assumes the Chief Rabbi is not Orthodox enough. This was certainly true of Hertz’s tenure, although he was able to garner some support from the more traditional Orthodox community after he appointed the revered Rav, Yechezkel Abramsky, author of the Chazon Yechezkel on Tosefta, to the London Beit Din.

There was a desperate need for a new English translation of the Chumash. In 1901, Rabbi Solomon Schechter published a powerful article in the Jewish Chronicle lamenting the state of Jewish knowledge:

But if there was ever a time when a revival of Hebrew learning meant the very existence of Judaism, it is this. It must be clear to everybody, I think, who does not allow himself to be deceived by the few political distinctions which have fallen to our share within the last fifty years, that the new century does not open under very favorable auspices for Judaism.

Everything seems to be out of gear. Our Scriptures are the constant object of attack; our history is questioned, and its morality is declared to be of an inferior sort; our brethren are either directly persecuted, or allowed to exist only on sufferance everywhere with the exception of England and Italy.

Worst of all is the attitude of the younger generation, who, if not directly hostile, are by dint of mere ignorance, sadly indifferent to everything Jewish, and thus incapable of taking the place of their parents in the synagogue. Notwithstanding our self-congratulating speeches at the annual distributions of religious prizes, it is a fact that ignorance is on the increase among our better situated classes. Very few are capable of reading their prayers, and less are able to understand what they read; whilst the number of those who know anything of Israel’s past and share in its hopes for Israel’s future, form almost a negligible quantity. Those who have some dim recollection of the religious exercises practiced in the houses of their fathers, still entertain some warm regard for Jewish life and Jewish ways of thinking; but religious warmth, like heat in general, is apt to evaporate with the increasing distance of the conductors, and the children or the grandchildren of these sympathetic lookers-on are bound to end in that cold critical attitude toward Judaism terminating in the drifting away from it altogether.

The outlook is thus dark enough; dark enough, indeed, to be followed by some great revival or renaissance, or as the rabbis put it: “The redemption of Israel is preceded, like the dawn, by intense darkness, as it is said: When I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me.” Now the Renaissance is usually described as the moment in history in which man discovered himself. In a similar way the Jew will also have to rediscover himself.

….It is in this spirit that a Jewish COMMENTARY should be written to the whole of the Bible (including the Apocrypha) for the great majority of the Jewish public, with whom the Scriptures should again become an object both of study and of edification. This should be the next task to which our clergy should devote themselves in the near future.

Rabbi Solomon Schechter’s concern left a deep impression on Rabbi Hertz—the latter decided to take it upon himself to translate Torah and liturgy to make it more accessible to a younger generation.

The Hertz Chumash was indeed different. Firstly, it included both the translation and the original Hebrew text side by side, an obvious improvement to previous translations that never included the original Hebrew. Rabbi Hertz also responded to the growing field of Biblical Criticism. His commentary features direct responses to the theories of Wellhausen, reasoned defenses of the morality of the Torah, and appeals to the historicity of the Torah based on archeological findings. To the modern audience, it may seem strange to spend so much time within a chumash, defending its authenticity, but Hertz once again was inspired by Rabbi Solomon Schachter’s call, which Schechter made in a famous 1903 speech entitled “Higher Criticism—Higher Anti-Semitism,” to respond to challenges to the Torah’s authenticity.

Like all ambitious projects, the Hertz Chumash was not without its detractors. Many other scholars collaborated on the project and after the first volume of the Hertz Chumash was published several contributors wrote a letter to Rabbi Hertz expressing their frustration at the lack of credit they were given. Why was only Rabbi Hertz’s name on the cover, they wondered? If only they knew that the chumash itself would be referred to as “The Hertz Chumash” throughout history. As someone who presses control+F to find my name in articles or books I’ve contributed to, I’ll be honest, I am pretty sympathetic to their concerns. Rabbi Hertz, however, responded to his fellow collaborators and explained it was not common practice to list anyone on the cover other than the editor. “Nothing is further from my nature,” he wrote, “than to deprive others of the honor which is justly their due.”

The criticism leveled at Rabbi Hertz was not limited to his collaborators. Sales for the first volume, Bereishis, which was printed as a stand-alone, were slow, and Rabbi Hertz assumed that it was because of a lack of interest. He even considered abandoning the project altogether. Consumers, however, were just waiting for the full project to be completed before purchasing—a sentiment I have personally expressed when I come across a not-yet-fully completed publication.

The most serious criticism of Rabbi Hertz and his works came from elsewhere. As my dear friend, Shaul Seidler-Feller documents in his fascinating article, “The Rebbe, The Chief Rabbi, and the Scandal of Scholarly Indifference: On a Forgotten Hasidic Master’s Critique of the Hertz Prayer Book,” Rabbi Hertz also published a siddur with the same purpose as his chumash—to make traditional Hebrew texts more accessible for the current generation. As Rabbi Hertz himself explained:

It would be well for the Jewish religion if the beauty and devotional power so largely manifested in its prayers, were more intelligently appreciated by its adherents to-day, said a well-known theologian not so long ago. The purpose of this work is to render possible such an intelligent appreciation on the part of the ordinary worshipper; and it is the fervent prayer of the author that, with the help of God, his labours lead to a deepening of devotion in the tents and sanctuaries of Israel in English-speaking lands.

One major Hasidic leader, Rav Yeruchem Leiner, however, took major issue with Rabbi Hertz’s work, specifically with Rabbi Hertz’s approach to sacrifices. Rav Yeruchem Leiner (b. 1888) was the nephew of Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, the grandson of the Rebbe of Ishbitz, who became famous in his own right for his chassidic teaching and efforts to rediscover techelet dye for tzitzis. Rav Yeruchem was a major scholar in his own right, author of Tiferes Yeruchem, and a scion to one of the most fascinating Hasidic schools of thought: Izbitsch-Radzyn.

(Full disclosure: My MA thesis in Jewish Studies focused on Rav Tzadok, a student of the original Rebbe of Izbitsch, Rav Mordechai Yosef Leiner. I have a chapter in my book about the history of the movement and why it is so controversial, but if I start plugging my books here, we will never get to history or the parsha.)

Most of Rav Yeruchem Leiner’s critiques of Rabbi Hertz are fairly technical. One critique, however, is searing, suggesting that Rabbi Hertz’s commentary may have veered into heretical territory. Rabbi Hertz wrote as follows regarding the sacrifices:

This portion of the Mussaf Prayer has been much assailed in modern times. “References to the sacrificial Service, and especially prayers for its restoration, are disliked by some,” wrote the Principal of Jews College, the saintly Dr. M. Friedlander, over fifty years ago. In view of the late origin of this prayer and in view, furthermore, that for a long time the whole Mussaf Prayer was deemed to be voluntary for the individual worshipper, we can quite endorse his decision: “Let him whose heart is not with his fellow worshippers in any of their supplications, silently substitute his own prayers for them; but let him not interfere with the devotion of those to whom ‘the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandments of the Lord pure, enlightening the eyes; the judgments of the Lord true and righteous altogether’ (Ps. 19. 9, 10), and who yearn for the opportunity of fulfilling Divine commandments which they cannot observe at present.”

Rabbi Hertz allows those who are uncomfortable with the notion of the return of sacrifices in the literal sense, to silently reflect on something else, so long as they do not disrupt those who still maintain that standard belief.

This concession was too much for Rav Yeruchem Leiner. “This opinion was put forward by the founders of Reform Judaism,” Rav Leiner writes, “Holdheim and Geiger. But it is hardly in accord with Orthodox traditions of Judaism.” Undoubtedly, it seemed too accommodating to the recent reforms of Abraham Geiger and radical reform that advocating removing mention of the return of sacrifices altogether from the liturgy. At that time, the 1885 Pittsburg Platform of the Reform movement that stated, “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state,” was still fresh in everyone’s mind.

Was Rabbi Hertz a secret reformer?

In truth, Rabbi Hertz was not alone in trying to figure out how the notion of sacrifices could be made more palatable to the modern mind. Many other Rabbis at the turn of the twentieth century were grappling with the same issue. As Marc Shapiro points out in his always fascinating posts on the Seforim Blog, Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg responded to a similar suggestion made by another frum Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchak Sheinfeld of Milwaukee, who suggested references to the return of sacrifices should be altered. Rav Weinberg responded (Collected Writing, vol. 2, p. 255):

אין דנים כאן על עצם הרעיון היסודי של הקרבנות. לו היתה היום קיימת אצלנו שאלה כזאת והיא דורשת פתרון דחוף – אין מספר מצומצם של יהודים בארץ אחת בני סמכות להכריע בענין זה, וכל שכן כאשר הם אינם מייצגים את כלל ישראל. שאלה זאת חייבים להביא לפני הבית דין של כלל ישראל. רק לבית דין כזה הרשות לקבוע אם להשאיר טקס מקודש בעם בתוקפו או לבטלו. היום שאין לנו ארץ ולא בית המקדש ולא כהנים הרי זה מגוחך ומצער כאחת להעלות תביעה לבטל עבודת קרבנות!

We cannot, Rav Weinberg explained, just omit or alter our text without a rabbinic body that really represents the will of the collective Jewish people. In the absence of such an authoritative body, no text should be altered.

The most famous alternative approach to sacrifices undoubtedly is that of Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, who suggests in his commentary on the siddur that in the future, sacrifices may be brought from vegetation rather than animals.

Much has been written in reaction to Rav Kook’s radical suggestion, but it is hard to deny that he was reacting to the same modern sensibilities that Rav Hertz considered when including his note in his commentary. Rather than a concession to reform, both Rabbis were trying to expand the resonance of Torah for a new generation. Neither were saying that sacrifices will be or should be discarded but they were creating a space for those struggling with that notion to continue their traditional communal affiliation.

And that in many ways speaks to Rav Hertz’s life and legacy. New doorways into traditional Jewish life and thought that needed to be built for each generation. As Shaul Seidler-Feller writes:

…what this brief, virtually neglected episode in the annals of Anglo-Jewish and American Jewish history does represent, if nothing else, is yet another manifestation of the highly divisive nature of relations between and within mid-twentieth-century Jewish denominations in the course of their great struggle for the soul of modern Jewry.

Many still miss the style and approach of Rabbi Hertz. As Professor David Berger lamented, “I still regret the eclipse of the Hertz humash, which, for all its drawbacks, introduced a generation of Jews to a humane and uplifting vision of Judaism.” But the legacy of the Hertz Chumash continues, each generation building new doorways of resonance and relevance for the next generation to enter.

---

And that brings us back to our parsha.

“אין צו אלא לשון זרוז”

Why of all mitzvos are the sacrifices introduced with an added urgency for all generations, especially considering that future generations will not even bring sacrifices!?

The Chasam Sofer explains that the added urgency is not for the actual offering of sacrifices—since during the entire time we don’t have a Beis HaMikdash, such sacrifices won’t even be able to be brought. Instead, the urgency is directed at the Torah study of korbanos. As the Talmud explains, whoever studies Torah related to sacrifices, is as if they brought a sacrifice themselves! There will be a time when sacrifices are no longer brought, and that is why it is so crucial to continue their study—finding meaning and relevance even in practices we no longer fully understand or appreciate.

And this is why Ahron is warned about sharing a mitzvah that includes a loss of money. The mitzvah does not refer to the actual bringing of sacrifices, since Kohanim did not lose any money from the sacrifices other people brought. Instead, it is urging Ahron to share the Torah idea that the Jewish People can connect to the notion of sacrifices even conceptually through their Torah study. And even though that may reduce the amount of actual korbanos brought, causing a financial loss to the Kohanim who normally get to enjoy them, it is still crucial to remind the Jewish people that they can sustain their connection to sacrificial offering through Torah study alone. As distant as such practices may seem to such modern ears, through our conceptual study of Torah and through our unceasing prayers, our collective connection to korbanos continues.

---

Shabbos Reads — Books/Articles Mentioned

• Hats in the Ring: Choosing Britain's Chief Rabbis from Adler to Sacks, Meir Persoff

• A Vindication of Judaism: The Polemics of the Hertz Pentateuch, Harvey Meirovich

• The Rebbe, The Chief Rabbi, and the Scandal of Scholarly Indifference: On a Forgotten Hasidic Master’s Critique of the Hertz Prayer Book, Shaul Seidler-Feller

• The Story of the Hertz Chumash, Mitchell First

• Move Over Artscroll: Here’s The New, Modern Orthodox Chumash, Yosef Lindell

• R. Kook on Sacrifices and Other Assorted Comments, Marc Shapiro

• Sin·a·gogue: Sin and Failure in Jewish Thought, David Bashevkin

  ---

Check out All Parsha, where you can find weekly audio of Reading Jewish History in the Parsha, as well as other incredible presenters and amazing features that will enhance your Parsha journey!

---

Reading Jewish History in the Parsha has been generously sponsored by my dearest friends Janet and Lior Hod and family with immense gratitude to Hashem.