What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nineteen Letters
The veracity of Judaism is always being challenged in every age, in every culture. So what is Judaism s response?
First published in 1836, The Nineteen Letters a written correspondence between a Rabbi and a student in doubt as to the meaning and value of his Jewish identity - remains as relevant today as when it first appeared. In upholding the tenets of Judaism, the author tackles the issues of assimilation, secularism, modernity, reform, and the difference between a self-centered world-view vs. a God-centered world-view.
Grounded in history and tradition, and spanning the theological, philosophical, and the practical, the author shows how a life steeped in adherence to Divine commands leads to an uplifting experience of profound meaning and personal fulfillment.
This enduring classic now includes an in-depth, contemporary commentary, and the result is an inspiring guide to a renewed appreciation of both a brilliant portrayal of the Torah s timeless teachings and a unique presentation of its relevance in our own day and age.
First published in 1836, The Nineteen Letters a written correspondence between a Rabbi and a student in doubt as to the meaning and value of his Jewish identity - remains as relevant today as when it first appeared. In upholding the tenets of Judaism, the author tackles the issues of assimilation, secularism, modernity, reform, and the difference between a self-centered world-view vs. a God-centered world-view.
Grounded in history and tradition, and spanning the theological, philosophical, and the practical, the author shows how a life steeped in adherence to Divine commands leads to an uplifting experience of profound meaning and personal fulfillment.
This enduring classic now includes an in-depth, contemporary commentary, and the result is an inspiring guide to a renewed appreciation of both a brilliant portrayal of the Torah s timeless teachings and a unique presentation of its relevance in our own day and age.
365 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1969
24 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Samson Raphael Hirsch
289 books16 followersSamson Raphael Hirsch (June 20, 1808 – December 31, 1888) was a German rabbi best known as the intellectual founder of the Torah im Derech Eretz school of contemporary Orthodox Judaism. Occasionally termed neo-Orthodoxy, his philosophy, together with that of Azriel Hildesheimer, has had a considerable influence on the development of Orthodox Judaism.
Hirsch was rabbi in Oldenburg, Emden, was subsequently appointed chief rabbi of Moravia, and from 1851 until his death led the secessionist Orthodox community in Frankfurt am Main. He wrote a number of influential books, and for a number of years published the monthly journal Jeschurun, in which he outlined his philosophy of Judaism. He was a vocal opponent of Reform Judaism and similarly opposed early forms of Conservative Judaism.
Hirsch was rabbi in Oldenburg, Emden, was subsequently appointed chief rabbi of Moravia, and from 1851 until his death led the secessionist Orthodox community in Frankfurt am Main. He wrote a number of influential books, and for a number of years published the monthly journal Jeschurun, in which he outlined his philosophy of Judaism. He was a vocal opponent of Reform Judaism and similarly opposed early forms of Conservative Judaism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 19, 2018
Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch is my hero. I think of him as the rabbi of the Enlightenment: a pious man willing to contend with the questions the Age of Modernity posed to religion. This book was groundbreaking in its time, and is also much shorter and less daunting than his later work on Jewish philosophy, Horeb. It is written as a series of letters between an Orthodox rabbi and a Reform Jew, and it basically sums up Jewish faith. Unfortunately, the letters go in just one direction, so the book did not read like the dialogue I was hoping for, even though parts of it definitely inspired me. I plan to re-read it while taking notes next time. I want to understand each of the nineteen letters and how they build on one another. I’ll say this about my first completion of the book, though: the later letters are more compelling than the early ones.
April 27, 2011
My introduction to the thought of SR Hirsch, my strongest life influence to date. There is controversy over how reflective Elias's commentary is of the author's intent. My suggestion is to read the text alone in its entirety before looking at the commentary.
September 29, 2023
Superbly written artifice! However, I agree that someone expressing Benjamin’s objections to Judaism would not be convinced by the arguments later out. I understand it’s just a framing, but bizarre to stab oneself before limping on!
15-17 were my favourite letters.
15-17 were my favourite letters.
Read
July 27, 2025I started reading this book over 15 years ago when my husband and I started dating. A few years later, we named our son after R' Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, and as we approach his bar mitzvah, I figured it was time to actually finish the book.
I don't have as much to say about the book as I have to say about the commentary.
What I have to say about the book:
The first half didn't seem very relevant to me or our age. Our generation struggles with truth claims. Prove to me that the Torah is true. RSRH doesn't address that at all. The challenge of the day seemed to be, Is the Torah noble and noblifying? The mindset was just different.
I appreciated Letter 11 a lot, and the second half of the book was more comprensible to me. I thought RSRH was right in what he said about the Rambam's philosophy and how it doesn't credit each mitzvah with its own purpose, and makes many seem temporal. I say this as a big Rambam fan, theoretically, and as someone whose husband's conversion was influenced very strongly by the Rambam. RSRH was prescient in his words about Mendelsohn, whose works I studied a bit in college, and how his philosophy was enough for Mendelsohn to keep being Jewish but not for his kids and followers.
Most of all, I admired RSRH's intelligent analysis and ability to critique ideas while remaining genuinely respectful of the person as a whole.
I will definitely be reading more of RSRH.
Now, for the commentary.
No offense, but the entire commentary was a look back over one's shoulder at the chareidi yeshiva world.
With all due respect, if you're going to write a commentary on RSRH, why try to shoehorn his ideas into a yeshivish box?
I have a brain. I can read the original text and he does not say what you're saying.
Every single time R' Elias speculates on what RSRH would believe nowadays, it somehow comes out to be exactly what the yeshiva world agrees with today.
Israel and the Agudah. Secular education. Tanach education vs primacy of Gemara. Working for a living. R' Elias takes the whole idea of Torah Im Derekh Eretz and stabs it to death and says, well things are different today and surely R' Hirsch would have changed his tune.
I found it pretty offensive and self- deluded. R' Hirsch was very articulate. He said what he said. It's intellectually indefensible to try to say he really believes the opposite of what he said.
R' Elias chooses some passages from R' Hirsch's work that bolster his POV, but while I am by no means as familiar with R' Hirsch's corpus as R' Elias, I can read the original text in the very same book. And I have read smattering of his other writings including some that have been suppressed for saying things the yeshivish world does not believe.
Which leads me to my next point. R' Elias, unlike R' Hirsch, could not abide differences of opinion. He attempted to flatten everyone's ideas into the same ideas. He was uncomfortable with R' Hirsch's criticism of the Rambam and tried to ameliorate that away. He constantly referred to (yeshivish achronim only) to justify R' Hirsch's opinions. He was not comfortable with letting anyone's statements just stand on their own and speak for themselves, but constantly tried to smooth Jewish voices throughout the centuries into a monolithic view, all according with the 20th century yeshiva world.
I was intellectually stimulated by the commentary but all because I disagreed, and found it a rather egregious if un-self-aware complete reversal of what RSRH himself said.
As one last example, R' Elias bemoans what a shame it is that R' Hirsch never achieved his vision, since his community produced religious families who worked and studied some Torah and a few Torah scholars. What a shame that they didn't produce exclusively Torah scholars. Was that not his vision all along??? Once again, a bald comparison to the yeshiva world and its ideas while diverging from R' Hirsch's actual ideas.
I don't have as much to say about the book as I have to say about the commentary.
What I have to say about the book:
The first half didn't seem very relevant to me or our age. Our generation struggles with truth claims. Prove to me that the Torah is true. RSRH doesn't address that at all. The challenge of the day seemed to be, Is the Torah noble and noblifying? The mindset was just different.
I appreciated Letter 11 a lot, and the second half of the book was more comprensible to me. I thought RSRH was right in what he said about the Rambam's philosophy and how it doesn't credit each mitzvah with its own purpose, and makes many seem temporal. I say this as a big Rambam fan, theoretically, and as someone whose husband's conversion was influenced very strongly by the Rambam. RSRH was prescient in his words about Mendelsohn, whose works I studied a bit in college, and how his philosophy was enough for Mendelsohn to keep being Jewish but not for his kids and followers.
Most of all, I admired RSRH's intelligent analysis and ability to critique ideas while remaining genuinely respectful of the person as a whole.
I will definitely be reading more of RSRH.
Now, for the commentary.
No offense, but the entire commentary was a look back over one's shoulder at the chareidi yeshiva world.
With all due respect, if you're going to write a commentary on RSRH, why try to shoehorn his ideas into a yeshivish box?
I have a brain. I can read the original text and he does not say what you're saying.
Every single time R' Elias speculates on what RSRH would believe nowadays, it somehow comes out to be exactly what the yeshiva world agrees with today.
Israel and the Agudah. Secular education. Tanach education vs primacy of Gemara. Working for a living. R' Elias takes the whole idea of Torah Im Derekh Eretz and stabs it to death and says, well things are different today and surely R' Hirsch would have changed his tune.
I found it pretty offensive and self- deluded. R' Hirsch was very articulate. He said what he said. It's intellectually indefensible to try to say he really believes the opposite of what he said.
R' Elias chooses some passages from R' Hirsch's work that bolster his POV, but while I am by no means as familiar with R' Hirsch's corpus as R' Elias, I can read the original text in the very same book. And I have read smattering of his other writings including some that have been suppressed for saying things the yeshivish world does not believe.
Which leads me to my next point. R' Elias, unlike R' Hirsch, could not abide differences of opinion. He attempted to flatten everyone's ideas into the same ideas. He was uncomfortable with R' Hirsch's criticism of the Rambam and tried to ameliorate that away. He constantly referred to (yeshivish achronim only) to justify R' Hirsch's opinions. He was not comfortable with letting anyone's statements just stand on their own and speak for themselves, but constantly tried to smooth Jewish voices throughout the centuries into a monolithic view, all according with the 20th century yeshiva world.
I was intellectually stimulated by the commentary but all because I disagreed, and found it a rather egregious if un-self-aware complete reversal of what RSRH himself said.
As one last example, R' Elias bemoans what a shame it is that R' Hirsch never achieved his vision, since his community produced religious families who worked and studied some Torah and a few Torah scholars. What a shame that they didn't produce exclusively Torah scholars. Was that not his vision all along??? Once again, a bald comparison to the yeshiva world and its ideas while diverging from R' Hirsch's actual ideas.
February 21, 2017
I was hoping to get much more out of this. I'd heard about it in a class on the rise of Modern Orthodox Judaism. The book is written by Samson Raphael Hirsch in the form of a nineteen letter correspondence between two fictional people: a young German Jewish intellectual named Naphtali and a rabbi named Ben Uziel. It begins with Naphtali expressing his doubts and frustrations with Judaism in general and his spiritual life in particular as it was in 19th century Germany. His complaints and arguments are really the critiques the Reform movement first leveled against traditional Judaism. The problem, for me, is that with a few notable exceptions, Naphtali's complaints are better written and more compelling that Ben Uziel's answers. This is a shame because Hirsch is a great writer and a monumental thinker. It's not that the responses lack for poetry or beauty; the problem is more an issue of aim. There's no way that a person like Naphtali would find Ben Uziel's particular arguments compelling as they are mostly reliant or faith and belief in both Torah and the universe as obviously divine.
As an addendum, I must exempt Letters 18 and 19 from this critique. In these, Hirsch delivers a blistering censure of Reform Judaism and a defense for his traditional perspective. Whether the reader finds these compelling or not will depend on many personal beliefs, but surely, these letters are incredibly fascinating from a historical and spiritual perspective alone, as they represent Judaism's first encounters with Modernity.
If you want to become familiar with Hirsch's thought, I'd recommend his magnum opus, Horeb instead.
As an addendum, I must exempt Letters 18 and 19 from this critique. In these, Hirsch delivers a blistering censure of Reform Judaism and a defense for his traditional perspective. Whether the reader finds these compelling or not will depend on many personal beliefs, but surely, these letters are incredibly fascinating from a historical and spiritual perspective alone, as they represent Judaism's first encounters with Modernity.
If you want to become familiar with Hirsch's thought, I'd recommend his magnum opus, Horeb instead.
June 4, 2021
Indispensable read for any modern Jew
September 15, 2014
Hirsch's 19th century response to the question, "why remain a (religious) Jew?" The bulk of it is fairly standard theological interpretion of the history of the people of Israel, not particularly insightful; but several parts are really strong, in particular (a) the way he presents the problem itself is still very contemporary, (b) his argument that Jews should accept emancipation (with certain conditions), that emancipation is compatible with remaining Jewish (also still relevant, adapted to 21st century, and (c) his critique of Maimonides's and others' attempts to rationalize mitzvot, which sets the stage for people simply to aim directly for the goal of the mitzvot and forget the mitzvot, thus setting the stage for the Reform movement Hirsch is arguing against ....
May 31, 2011
An essential book for understanding Rav Hirsch. The translation is well done, making the ideas come alive. Would be five stars, but the comprehensive and otherwise-excellent commentary downplays the contemporary meaning of Rav Hirsch's message.
August 19, 2024
Hard to rate this, I am not sure what I think of many of his arguments but he is one of the Jewish thinkers that I most respect, although I am not orthodox and closer to Masorti in my religious practice. You probably won't agree with everything but worth reading and I like his logical approach to faith in general. It is worth reading especially if you disagree with him in my opinion.
September 3, 2022
I came to this text both because I was interested in the motivation for neo-orthodoxy and because I wanted to see if Samson Raphael Hirsch (SRH) could be understood as a Hegelian Jew. The least I can say is that it is now clear to me where I stand with respect to modern orthodoxy: while I respect its determination to understand Judaism from within, I understand my own Judaism differently. SRH's approach is ultimately grounded in an asymmetrical withdrawal of Judaism from the world, building a wall of separation around Judaism to protect it from encroachments by the world and even other, less traditional Jews. To respond to modernity in this way is to erase the middle term between antiquity and modernity, positing them as opposed combatants rather than giving an account of how each complicates the other.
This elimination of the middle is clearest in SRH's disdain for contradictions. In discussing the contradiction between animality and humanity, he enjoins us not to "esteem too highly thy animal part, in order that in the end all contradictory dispositions be eliminated from you." We should risk appearing naive, and respond by asking "why should we want to eliminate contradictions?" SRH's answer to this question appears in a long footnote: "A singly contradictory phenomenon will make our theory untenable... the facts remain, nevertheless, undeniable, and cannot be reasoned away." It is useful to contrast SRH's conception with the founding principle of Hegel's thought: "Contradictio est regula veri, non contradictio falsi." In contrast to SRH's traditionalist orthodoxy, we are reminded of Lukacs' formulation of an alternative, Marxist concept of orthodoxy, "which sees the isolated facts of social life as aspects of the historical process and integrates them in a totality."
Although I don't accept his conclusions or edifying methodology, I found SRH's description of the transformation in the relationship between God and humanity after the flood as the beginning of history insightful: "God no longer wills the destruction of humanity, but its education. By experience He desires to train mankind to the knowledge of themselves and of Him." After the flood, the destructive relationship to the ideal is transformed into a more positive one. It is in this spirit that we can understand the Hegelian challenge to SRH: why should we combat and destroy contradictions, when we can develop them from within?
***
Take Two. Adding a star. SRH may not be the Hegelian we would hope for, but he does have a theory of the unconscious. The Torah, he tells us, is written in coded language. Those of us that believe it is a revealed text can't dismiss anything in the book as superficial. Even the 'mistakes' are intelligible. The Chacham has to learn from the Chasid how to read the text less passively, to not get lost in the Biblical dreamworld.
This elimination of the middle is clearest in SRH's disdain for contradictions. In discussing the contradiction between animality and humanity, he enjoins us not to "esteem too highly thy animal part, in order that in the end all contradictory dispositions be eliminated from you." We should risk appearing naive, and respond by asking "why should we want to eliminate contradictions?" SRH's answer to this question appears in a long footnote: "A singly contradictory phenomenon will make our theory untenable... the facts remain, nevertheless, undeniable, and cannot be reasoned away." It is useful to contrast SRH's conception with the founding principle of Hegel's thought: "Contradictio est regula veri, non contradictio falsi." In contrast to SRH's traditionalist orthodoxy, we are reminded of Lukacs' formulation of an alternative, Marxist concept of orthodoxy, "which sees the isolated facts of social life as aspects of the historical process and integrates them in a totality."
Although I don't accept his conclusions or edifying methodology, I found SRH's description of the transformation in the relationship between God and humanity after the flood as the beginning of history insightful: "God no longer wills the destruction of humanity, but its education. By experience He desires to train mankind to the knowledge of themselves and of Him." After the flood, the destructive relationship to the ideal is transformed into a more positive one. It is in this spirit that we can understand the Hegelian challenge to SRH: why should we combat and destroy contradictions, when we can develop them from within?
***
Take Two. Adding a star. SRH may not be the Hegelian we would hope for, but he does have a theory of the unconscious. The Torah, he tells us, is written in coded language. Those of us that believe it is a revealed text can't dismiss anything in the book as superficial. Even the 'mistakes' are intelligible. The Chacham has to learn from the Chasid how to read the text less passively, to not get lost in the Biblical dreamworld.
July 29, 2013
A no nonsense, intense, non touchyfeely defense and analysis of 'Orthodox' Judaism. Rabbi Hirsch tackles head on the criticism levied by Reform Jews. The issues are handled deftly, in a very principled manner. I learnt a lot from this book and it has given me a lot more to think about. A short book, but not a quick read - there's a lot amazing advice and information packed into this thin book.
January 16, 2012
The book is amazing, this translation isn't. Try to find a different translation even if it's an older one that has some archaic language in it.
December 14, 2024
important to occasionally read a book by a guy who thought God was speaking through him and might have been right
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews