His major studies in the realm of Judaica include those on R. Hasdai Crescas<\/a> (1929), Spinoza<\/a> (1934) and Philo<\/a> (1947). He also published books on the Church Fathers<\/a> (1956) and two volumes on the philosophy<\/a> of the Kalam<\/a> (posthumously, 1976, 1979). Wolfson quipped at one point that the Kalam became \u201chis Vietnam\u201d in the sense that he felt bogged down in the topic and unable to extricate himself.<\/p>\n Although he never traveled to Israel, Wolfson had occasion to meet Prof. Gershom Scholem on the latter\u2019s trips to the United States. Here our story begins. On a visit in 1956, Wolfson presented Scholem with what, according to Scholem, he described as \u201cmy shortest work which, one day, will be a collectors\u2019 item\u201d. That work, a six-page pamphlet with only a page and half of text was the Morning Chapel Talk<\/a><\/em>, based on a sermon that Wolfson had delivered in Appleton Chapel at Harvard on March 17th<\/sup>, 1955. According to Harvard tradition, every day at noon a different faculty member delivered a brief sermon. Wolfson, who had managed to avoid giving the sermon for many decades, finally acquiesced and delivered one based upon the verse \u201cThe fool hath said in his heart, there is no God\u201d (Psalms 14:1).\u00a0 Wolfson inscribed the pamphlet, tongue in cheek:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd<\/em><\/p>\n \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05df<\/em><\/p>\n \u05de”\u05de \u05d3\u05e7”\u05e7 \u05e7\u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3\u05d6<\/em><\/p>\n (To my friend Professor Gershom Scholem<\/em><\/p>\n Zvi Wolfson<\/em><\/p>\n Preacher of the holy community of Cambridge<\/em>)<\/p>\n This time volume, which truly pales in comparison to Wolfson\u2019s enormous books, and of which the National Library of Israel possesses only one copy, is found in the rare book division of the Gershom Scholem Collection.<\/p>\n There it would perhaps have been forgotten were it not for a series of events some twenty years later, after Wolfson\u2019s death. One of Wolfson\u2019s students and admirers, Leo W. Schwartz, had penned a biography, Wolfson of Harvard: Portrait of a Scholar<\/a><\/em> (1978), which only appeared in print after the deaths of both Schwartz and Wolfson.<\/p>\n As it happens, Scholem was invited by John Gross, the editor of the Times Literary Supplement<\/em>, to write a review.<\/p>\n Scholem threw himself into the project, filling the 310-page volume with extensive marginalia and adding several additional pages of notes as well, which are preserved today in the Gershom Scholem Archive at the National Library. What comes to light in perusing these notes is that while Scholem was impressed with Wolfson\u2019s scholarship (although he has some criticism as well; Wolfson was considered a \u201cdaring\u201d scholar and many of his theories were considered controversial), he seems to have had a more complex view of Wolfson the individual. As we shall see, Scholem was peeved by Wolfson\u2019s never having visited Israel. Additionally, he apparently found this somewhat reclusive life-long bachelor to be rather odd. Thus we find in the notes that Scholem scribbled, references to Wolfson\u2019s \u201ceccentricities\u201d, especially in his later years.<\/p>\n Elsewhere, Scholem, apparently exhibiting a touch of sarcasm, even felt the need to comment on Wolfson\u2019s favorite leisure time activity \u2013 the cinema, noting that, \u201che slept there!\u201d<\/p>\n The result of this was Scholem\u2019s one-page review, published in the Times Literary Supplement <\/em>on November 23rd<\/sup>, 1979 (p. 16). The very curious title was \u201cThe Sleuth from Slobodka\u201d. It is striking that whereas the book he was reviewing chose to describe him in the title as \u201cOf Harvard\u201d, Scholem instead chose to emphasize Wolfson\u2019s yeshiva<\/em> background rather than his Harvard career![1]<\/a><\/p>\n After describing Schwartz\u2019s book as \u201ca curious book about a thrice-curious man\u201d, Scholem does admit that Wolfson was \u201cone of the towering Jewish Scholars of his period\u201d. However, the tone quickly changes and Scholem states, \u201cThat the first professor of Jewish studies at Harvard should be a Yeshiva Bocher<\/em>\u2026may not be so surprising, given the background of most Jewish scholars who came to America. What is surprising is that\u2026all his life he remained essentially a Yeshiva Bocher<\/em> and transplanted the mind\u2026of this species into the august halls of Harvard and into a method\u2026given a modernist name: in his words, the ‘hypothetico-deductive method of text interpretation’\u201d.[2]<\/a> While Scholem is not the only scholar to have noted the methodological affinity between Wolfson\u2019s research methods and that of the Talmudic inquiry that he had learned from Rabbi Epstein,[3]<\/a> his highly critical response may be unique.<\/p>\n Scholem goes on to take Wolfson to task for \u201cdeclining \u2013 often at the last minute \u2013 invitations to Europe and Israel where the universities were eager to have him as a guest or, in the case of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, as a full professor.” Clearly Scholem, whose life trajectory was \u201cFrom Berlin to Jerusalem\u201d, was unimpressed by the strident Americanism of the scholar who had come \u201cfrom Slobodka to Cambridge\u201d! He also stresses Wolfson\u2019s declining to express his own opinions upon the great issues facing the Jewish People in his time and goes so far as to accuse him of hankering for Gentile praise. Thus the critique of Schwartz\u2019s highly sympathetic book spills over into a caustic critique of the book\u2019s subject as well. Scholem was also bothered by the fact that Schwartz chose not to discuss Wolfson\u2019s scholarly opponents, and he singles out Leo Strauss in the context of Spinoza, and Erwin Goodenough regarding Philo. It is certainly plausible that Schwarz, in his somewhat popular biography, had chosen not to go into the academic depth that Scholem felt was lacking.<\/p>\n Scholem, after pointing out that Wolfson defined himself as \u201can unobservant orthodox\u201d chose to end his review by discussing our very own \u201cMorning Chapel Talk\u201d. After presenting Scholem with the pamphlet and explaining how he had finally agreed to give the sermon, Wolfson said, \u201cSo I gave them this talk, you can read it now\u201d.<\/p>\n Scholem recounted, “When I had finished he asked me, with a wily expression on his face: ‘What do you think it is that I like best about this piece?’ I must have looked helpless. He said triumphantly: ‘You see, nobody will ever know whether I believe anything or not’. Among the many characteristic and passionate sentences I have heard from Wolfson, this was certainly the most remarkable one.”<\/p>\n In fact, Scholem had written a draft of this concluding paragraph on one of the pages that he inserted into Schwartz\u2019s book. There he described the booklet as a \u201ccurious bibliographical item\u201d and characterized Wolfson\u2019s stance regarding his successful concealing of his personal beliefs as \u201cgreat pride\u201d. In the final version, Scholem replaced \u201cgreat pride\u201d with \u201ctriumphalism\u201d. I\u2019m not sure which is worse but it appears that Wolfson\u2019s seeming smugness regarding his own agnosticism also rubbed Scholem the wrong way.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Thus a \u201ccurious bibliographical item\u201d emerges as the tip of the iceberg of a complex relationship between two of the greatest Judaic scholars of the twentieth century, Wolfson of Harvard and Scholem of Jerusalem.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> In the interest of fairness, we must admit that it is possible that the journal, and not Scholem, chose the title. Nonetheless, as we shall see, the title quite fits the content.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> The same personal style could have been viewed more favorably, such as in this quote from Wolfson\u2019s student Prof. Isadore Twersky, “He was reminiscent of an old-fashioned\u00a0gaon<\/em>, transposed into a modern university setting, studying day and night, resisting presumptive attractions and distractions, honors and chores\u201d. “Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1887\u20131974”,\u00a0Journal of the American Oriental Society<\/em>,\u00a095\u00a0(2), pp. 181\u2013183.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See Hillel Goldberg, \u201cBetween Berlin and Slobodka: Jewish Transitional Figures from Eastern Europe<\/a>\u201d, Hoboken 1989, pp. 37-62.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Scholem\u2019s caustic review did not go unanswered. Prof. Judah Goldin, in a long rebuttal, entitled “On the Sleuth of Slobodka and the Cortez of Kabbalah\u201d (The American Scholar, vol. 49, Summer 1980, pp. 391-404) took Scholem to task for what he believed to be unreasonable criticisms of both Wolfson and Schwartz. To the best of my knowledge, Scholem did not respond. This debate is mentioned briefly by Yaacob Dweck in his article \u201cGershom Scholem and America\u201d, New German Critique, 132, (2017), pp. 61-81.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Scholem did contribute an article to the Hebrew section of Wolfson\u2019s Jubilee Volume<\/a>, which appeared in Jerusalem in 1965, pp. 225-241.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.nli.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/chapel-talk-213x300.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.nli.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Wolfson-book-cover-197x300.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.nli.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/editor-letter-300x265.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.nli.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/wolfson-later-years-300x112.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.nli.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/slept-there-227x300.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.nli.org.il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/chapel-note-300x141.jpg\")
<\/a>