By the Grace of G-d 8th of Tammuz, 5712 Brooklyn, N.Y.

Prof [Shimon Kaplan].

Annapolis, Md.

Dear Professor [Kaplan],

I was pleased to receive your reprinted article, from the quarterly JUDAISM, on Herman Cohen's philosophy of Judaism.² I appreciate your thoughtfulness, which was especially welcome after such a long silence.

Inasmuch as you do not write any personal news, I presume that both you and Mrs. Kaplan are well, and that everything is in good order.

With regard to the article, it is, generally speaking, gratifying to note that in this so-called materialistic America a {great}³ deal is being written on the subject of Judaism, ⁴ ואף אם קצת מהמאמרים אינם כתובים בעין טובה הרי בכל זה the very fact indicates an interest in the subject. Unlike conditions in Poland, etc., where heresy was the chief antagonist of religion, here in this country it is rather agnosticism and simple ignorance that we have to contend with. Therefore, something done to arouse interest in our faith is commendable, and there can be no danger of overdoing it.

As for the contents of the article, it is, obviously, impossible in the course of a letter to dwell at length on such a subject. Hence I can only limit myself to one general observation which is relevant to any discussion on religion, a question which is now also timely in connection with developments in our Holy Land.

The observation I wish to make, ⁶ אע״פ שהיא פשוטה is this: Before embarking on any scientific or philosophical discussion, it is necessary first to ascertain the premise on which the question is going to be discussed. Having taken a certain premise as the basis of the discussion, one must confine the discussion to the methods applicable to that premise.

Where the choice lies between two premises which are contradictory and mutually exclusive, and having chosen one or the other, it would obviously be illogical and contradictory, while accepting the one, to use the methods which are appropriate only to the other.

In our case, there are two such {alternatives}: 

(1) To accept Divine Revelation on Mount Sinai as a fact, which implies that the Torah was given by G-d (that the Holy Land enjoys a special function and Divine Providence), 2) That Divine Revelation is not accepted as a fact, implying that our religion is the product of man's intelligence (that the Holy Land is no different from any other land, the State of Israel being the result of heroism, political conjuncture and/or other circumstances all man- made). 

If it is accepted, as we do, that the Torah is G-d-given, revealed at Mount Sinai, then a priori all critica by human intellect and discriminatory analysis by it of the wisdom of the Torah is ruled out, since the Torah represents Infinite Divine Wisdom [but this does not negate the measure of understanding explained below].⁷

In such a case, it would be illogical to say, This part of the Torah I like and accept; that part I do not like and reject, or supplant ⁸חלק זה הי׳ מתאים לזמן מרע״ה ומקומו משא״כ עתה וכיו״ב. For the very concept of Divine Revelation presupposes something which is above and beyond human intellect ⁹ולמעלה מזמן ומקום; only to the extent which is Divinely ordained by the Revelation itself can the human intellect grasp it ורק בפרטים שהתורה עצמה אומרת שתלוי בזמן ומקום אפשר לעשות חילוק בין מקום למקום וזמן לזמן ¹⁰ (This is also the basis for the Rabbinical injunctions which have been incorporated in our religious practice as part of the Torah, such injunctions being rooted in and deducted from and according to the principles revealed at Sinai. Thus religious problems arising in the use of all modern technical devices, such as radio, television, microphone, etc., can be regulated according to the principles and laws found in the Chumash, Mishnah and Gemara).

On the other hand, if the Torah is regarded merely as a human product, no debate is necessary as to its binding force, for, obviously, the human intellect some 3000 years ago could not be binding today. 

In point of fact, nevertheless, we find that religious philosophers in the last centuries made precisely this mistake. While accepting the premise that the Torah is 'From Heaven,’ they have applied methods of thinking and deduction admissible only if the opposite premise were true. 

Similar confusion reigns also in regard to the Holy Land, which can serve as a further illustration of the point I make. One often hears it said that Jewish inalienable right to the Land of Israel, despite many centuries of non-possession, stems from the Torah, where it is clearly recorded that G-d ordained it to be Israel’s everlasting inheritance ותיכף לזה מדברים ע״ד אורח חיים אשר צ״ל שם, היפך התורה וכאילו ¹¹ as though the Holy Land were like any other land conquered and held by the force of arms. 

So much for my general observation. 

I had planned to write you the above in Russian, in keeping with our previous correspondence. However, for the lack of a Russian typewriter, I requested Dr. N. M. to put it in English. 

With kind regards, Cordially yours,