THE PERSONAL CHARACTERISTIC
Dr. Zadok krouz
This article part 2 will continue discuss the aspects of the dialogue meeting. Rozenzweig changes the historical meeting (revelation at Mt. Sinai) to a personal one. The meeting is real, factual, not figurative, and does not depend on what happened before. It is a suddent event, an axis between the past creation and the future redemption. The present time makes the reality of the meeting firm. The meeting takes man from the pole of pessimism to that of optimism. The dialogue gives man purpose. Love arises out of the dialogue between man and God. Understand this view of love explains the inner certainty of faith that a man experiences and the reality of such dialogue for the man.
The meeting is private and not public truth
Rosenzweig alters the historic meeting (revelation on Mt. Sinai) to man alone, such that the perception of revelation is changed from the public to the private. The purpose of the revelation on Mt. Sinai between God and the Children of Israel was primarily to confirm to them the divine nature of Moses’ mission, and it was necessary for them to acknowledge God’s law and accept it unhesitatingly forever, “Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever” (Exod. 19:9). However, in Rosenzweig’s perception, there is no singular event central to historical revelation. His explanatory efforts rest on Song of Songs and not on the Ten Commandments. Revelation is not an event of the past detached from us; it returns and repeats (Star 195). Dynamic revelation in the present, Rosenzweig maintains, is a singular demonstration that emerges out of the creation in the past (Star 214). It is a singular demonstration of the one-time and public event in the past, with its “sixty tens of thousands” witnesses. The idea that the meeting is a demonstration of creation was noted already by Yehuda Halevi in the Kuzari (Art. I:15), in which he maintains that “pointed out” is preferable to “demonstration” since testimony of the senses is more certain than abstract thought. The unique view is far superior to the view based on sworn testimony; it is not yet the best of proofs, for it may be false, intentionally or unintentionally, without the person examining it knowing. According to Rosenzweig, there is total certainty only in the testimony of the single witness who devotedly attests to the truth. This is the distinction in the common view between Yehuda Halevi and Rosenzweig. The former gives it public meaning, a compromise between the nominalistic approach, which places as an element of consciousness the sense perception of things, and the realistic approach, which proffers general essence as the supreme test of reflective truth. The latter finds in it individual significance, which deviates from both the nature of mental consciousness and the empirical experiential consciousness. Revelation is not metaphysical knowledge of any studied content, whether as source of mental knowledge or as initial reflection, and it does not even come from experiential knowledge whose foundation is scientific; rather, it is unique certainty which gives reality a firm position that no conscious act has power to give.
The reliance on those who die sanctifying God’s name strengthens the proofs of the reality of the miracle. First came those to testify by their deaths what they saw with their eyes. Those who followed confirmed with their blood their enormous trust in their belief in those from whom they received the story of the miracle; that is, those who were witnesses. On the basis of this belief others walked through fire and on water, reinforcing them as trusted witnesses. The proof of sanctification of God’s name bears great weight according to Rosenzweig, and on it he grounds his entire perception of the meeting of individual man with God.
This meeting also is testimony founded on sufferings and afflictions, which Job already knew, and also the Satan of the Book of Job, for man prior to his confession is doubtful and hesitant, uncertain, and the shame eats away at every good part. Man wants to open his mouth to dare to say what is in his heart, and he cannot; he is afflicted with the sufferings brought by the sin. He dies in the hands of the lover and in him he is resurrected: “…and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables” (Exod. 32:16). “… Do no read ‘chahrut’ (engraved) but ‘cheyrut’ (freedom)… freedom from the sufferings of the body and soul.” Therefore, Rosenzweig thinks that only from the most unique and personal experience, subjective in its verity – death and the fear of death- “originates all cognition of the All ….Man is only too well aware that he is condemned to death, but not to suicide. Yet this philosophical recommendation can truthfully recommend only suicide, not the fated death of all…. like Faust, he must for once bring the precious vial down with reverence; he must for once have felt himself in his fearful poverty, loneliness and dissociation from all the world, have stood a whole night face to face with the Nought…. Man is not to throw off the fear of the earthly; his is to remain in the fear of death- but he is to remain” (Star 45-46). For “the created death of the creature portends the revelation of a life which is above the creaturely level (Star 189). “That is why, on the sixth day, it we not said that it was ‘good’ (“kee tov”), but rather ‘very good!’ (“veheney tov meod”) (Gen. 1:31). Our sages [(Rabbi Me’ir) teach, ‘very’ – that is death”: (“heney tov meod - heney tov mot”)] (Star 189). No public sworn testimony can prove the certainty more than the testimony of those who sanctified God’s name. And when man meets God, he must truly dies in the hands of the lover only to rise again into those same lover’s hands.
“I – Thou” is the conclusion of creation and central pillar of the meeting
God asks by “Where are you” (Gen. 3:9) the You, and man answered “Here I am” (according to Gen. 22:1; see Star 208). Man responded in the I, “here is the I.” “That which sounded in advance out of that all-embracing, lonely, monologic ‘let us’ of God’s at the creation of man reached its fulfillment in the “I” and “Thou” of the imperative of revelation. The he-she-it of the third person has fallen silent. It was but a foundation, the soil from which the “I” and “Thou” sprang” (Star 207, 208, 217).
The “let us make” of the past was an impersonal “I”, “I” entangled yet in itself, and even in You does not spring forth from within himself, does not reveal itself. True, God speaks in creation, but His words are still heard as if something within Him, and not He Himself, speaks. Neither He, nor His essence, speaks. God speaks in the first person, “let us make” (Star 188), but this is directed towards Himself, there is not yet a dialogue of the “You.” The “You” is still wound up in the muteness of the response. In the meeting, man opens up and speaks. God speaks with him in the present tense “I-Thou.” In the meeting, God first commands man “love me” (Star 209) directly to “You.” Man responds directly “I sinned,” “I am a sinner,” and continues in the same present tense “I am yours,” and God responds, “You are mine.” Being certain of God’s presence as existing and true, the soul can now approach Him with the language of “You”: “my God, my God.” The soul can pray in the first person to God. This is the apex of the relationship “I-Thou” of man before God – prayer.
“I” – the real significance of the meeting
“The voice of God sounds forth directly from within him, God speaks as “I” directly from within him” (Star 210). The “I and Thou” in the meeting truly becomes A=B in the existing formula of Rosenzweig: “…he no sooner opens his mouth than God already speaks” (Naharayim 210; compare 185). The “I” is the personal and private characteristic of man as man, it is his individuality, his self, his personality, it is man in his innermost parts, and without this “I”, there is not experiential meaning to man: For “I” is simply always willy-nilly subject in all sentences in which it occurs. It can never be passive, never object” (Star 206), and there is no actuality to his personal experiences and no God in his consciousness. Only via the “I” of the meeting does it become a private revelation, sensitive, subjective, and real, for “God speaks as ‘I’ directly from within him” (Star 210). Midpoint and beginning do not belong to objective things, to absolute experience, but only to the private “I”, as if from the nature of his creation “image of God” (Star 188), unique and special; and as such, he is only the midpoint and beginning within himself and not in the world of experienced, objective things. Without the “I”, given by self-belief and accepted as the basis for all self-consciousness, it is impossible that special, private events, like feelings, sensations, ideas, concepts, abstract thoughts, memories, desires, felicitations, sorrows, etc., will exist since the private “I” is the singular witness which attests to their condition, their status, their strength as part of experiential reality, felt and vital, as real flakes and chips, which come from the block known as existence, being. The “I” of Rosenzweig, is a statement which cannot be proven. It comprises the first principle of self-belief and thus becomes a sort of knowledge, paving the way for all knowledge and analysis since it creates the “I know” and originates the “I think” of the thinking person who knows himself and his analysis as his analysis. Belief is not intended for creatures and beings, that is, objects other than man, but rather absolutely for the I of the believer himself, for the subject. Without the “I believe it”, the meeting would lack being, and nothing would remain in which to place, or not to place, the belief in the I. As a result, Rosenzweig understands the meeting as belief itself: “The ground of revelation is mid-point and beginning in one; it is the revelation of the divine name. The constituted congregation and the composed word live their lives from the revealed name of God up to the present day, up to the present moment, and into the personal experience. For name is in truth word and fire…It is incumbent to name the name and to acknowledge: I believe it.” (This is existence) (Star 218-219).
“I believe” because I exist. Existence is spiritual existence since in the shadow of love there is an effulgence of contents of the meeting. The commandment to love is to love and to be loved.
For this commandment which I command thee this day, “It is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (Deut. 30:11-14).
The content of the meeting is neither in heaven nor beyond the sea. The “I” resides in the heart of man and is constantly in his mouth. The meeting is continuous, internal experience. The spiritual existence of the private I in the meeting provides love and even life. For “love is the eternal victory over death” (Star 198). And in life Rosenzweig concludes his book, for that is the goal. Love of the “I” grants and lengthens the life of the lover: “In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God…. for he is thy life, and the length of thy days” (Deut. 30:16-20). The law of the “I” is the law of life and the additional years of life: “She is the tree of life to them that lay hold upon her” (Prov. 3:18). Loving the “I” is loving life. The man who desires life and adheres to the “I” will arrange himself internally and externally. The principle of the complete “I” promises, according to Rosenzweig, a victory over death, the maximum in his system being “the destruction of death” (Isa. 25:8) and the minimum being that “a child will die in one hundred years” (Isa. 65:20).
To summarize, the “I” in the meeting comprises the first principle of self-belief, which immediately commences to act retroactively. It stands at the head of the line, in conformity with the slogan: “the last will be the first.” It confirms and certifies itself, seizes its place as psychological, believing experiential necessity, without which one cannot function. And without the belief in the I, the meeting could not have occurred.
The “I” is born of the name
“For name is in truth word and fire, and not sound and fury, as unbelief would have it again and again in obstinate vacuity. It is incumbent to name the name and to acknowledge: I believe it” (Star 219; also Briefe 423).
While in objective thought the name is a means of classification, to Rosenzweig its importance is as a way to belief. The name is for the purpose of calling and acknowledging, “I believe it”; the name is linked with belief. Only by man hearing himself being called by name, “I called you by name, you are mine” (Star 214), after which he responds, is the private I in him born anew. “The lover who says ‘thou art mine’ to the beloved is aware of having begotten the beloved in his love and given birth to her in travail.” This is also the central experience of Rosenzweig’s return to Judaism on Yom Kippur, 1913, in the synagogue in Berlin. It appears that the name bore his soul in travail and there he heard God call him by name (see His Life).
“Where are you” is the private name of the “I” which causes the experiential speech of the meeting to enter into true dialogue with the private name. The private name was not absorbed in its species, it is not something pertinent to everybody, but it is its own species. And there is no more place for it in the world, and its time is in occurrence, rather it bears with it here and now its most personal and private experience. Thus, every place it exists comprises the midpoint, and every moment it opens its mouth there is a beginning. The private name acts as an implement which extends the confirmation and certainty in its total completeness and identity of the one called, and so, too, is it with regard to Rosenzweig’s man in the act of the meeting.
On the personal characteristic of the meeting
The relationship “I-Thou”, based on the self-perception and private attitude of man comprise the personal characteristic of the meeting. We have before us only a personal approach from within the personal experience in the meeting: “Its case is now the nominative instead of the accusative. As the object of experience, however, the noun ceases to be a thing. It no longer exhibits the basic character of the thing, as a thing among things. Now it is subject and hence something individual” (Star 217).
The individualistic character of the meeting, which raises the concepts of midpoint and beginning, is the source of the individual subject and the verity of the private experience which becomes the midpoint of his, and only his, experience. The personal characteristic, manifested by individual experience, is the beginning of the beginning of his experience.
The personal nature of the private, subjective experience seeks orientation, a world that is no longer saturated in indifference of the absolute, pure, objective occurrence of an order determined from creation, but an order based on the internal laws of man, accompanying him always in all his experiences. It is understood that love as experience is individually pure, for “all true statements about love must be words from its own mouth, borne by the I”: “The only exception is this one sentence, that it is strong as death. In it, love does not speak itself; in it, the whole world of creation is conquered and laid at the feet of love” (Star 233). “It is to be her own love, unawakened from without, awaking slowly from within herself. And so it happened. Now she is his (Star 234).
The private experience is dependent on the private name, a basic necessity of the objective occurrence, whose origin is, as stated, in creation. This first historical revelation has the nature of the fixed and absolute, the concealed and the objective, it gives the basic to the certainty of the personal experience. The foundation must prepare for the experience a place in its midpoint of the world and a time at its beginning. Experience of the midpoint in the world and its beginning in time is one. This is experience of the revelation of the name of God in the mirror of the private “I”, for in the image of God the “I” was created, and from the power of this image was founded personal speech as foundation of man’s vital, individual experience of the order of internal subjective laws, and these comprise together the personal characteristic of the meeting (Star 218).
The personal characteristic of the meeting is exemplified by the episode involving Pascal referred to below. This episode attests to the religious, personal experience of which Rosenzweig writes and which he experienced. Pascal, who safeguarded in the bulge of his garment the small piece of parchment which reminded him of the determining incident in his life, manifested the personal characteristic of the meeting with God. For eight years he troubled himself to transfer the parchment from garment to garment every time a new garment was made for him.
What does Pascal’s conduct teach us? What one experiences at the moment of the meeting with God he cannot announce to others. It would be senseless to do that, and he would feel foolish were he to admit and tell of the meeting to others (Toldot HaPhilosophia 185-204). The conversation between Abraham and God was also an internal occurrence; there is no communication in matters of faith. Abraham cannot speak, he does not have the language common to mankind to justify his action. Rosenzweig, like Abraham in the meeting, preserved it as his personal and individual experience, not to be shared with others. The fact itself that man is embarrassed to tell of the meeting is the substantiality of the personal characteristic. The personal trait of the private meeting is renewed in man every moment. This fact gives the “I” continuous being by its contact with God. The following section elucidates this dynamic characteristic.
THE DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTIC
Constancy and Renewal – two sides of a coin
The dynamic of the meeting is the manifestation of the meeting. The contents of the manifestation did not previously exist and appeared recently in their self-renewal without the additional descriptive modifier of a man. That which was is the objective occurrence of work of creation, which will be discussed below. Man requires renewal of the manifestation in him, as it stated in Ezek. 36:26: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;” and in Ps 51:12: “And renew a right spirit within me.”
The dominant characteristic of the manifestation is in the dynamic in which it renews itself continuously. Thus, we do not need to place creation alongside the phenomenon but rather to place the phenomenon of creation alongside the renewal of the momentary present, and the creation alongside the absolute, concealed, and frozen past. Creation is created once. Man has already been created in his completeness. The creature is always eternal whereas the manifestation of this creature is always dynamic, that is, being created anew. For example, love as content of the meeting is manifestation since love is not an attribute and characteristic of the lover, otherwise we could add to and define it. Man is not man as lover, but love is change itself, an active phenomenon, occurrence of its previous self-manifestation of the moment and renewal of itself in the new moment. The phenomenon of creation continues to this moment: God “renews with his bountifulness day by day the work of creation” (Star 148). This sentence notes the constancy and renewal of an act already done and absolute. On the one hand, this meeting is ever present, and on the other hand, it is renewal of the present moment. Only the inconstancy of the moment makes the meeting fit to live its moment again anew. It bears the torch of the content of the meeting - love - through the whole nocturnal realm and twilight zone of created life, it escalates because it always wants to be new. The soul must be constant in this incessant renewal if the lover is to be vital to the soul and not merely the empty vehicle of a passing agitation. So God loves too. Its presentness is provided not by the individual, ever-new moment, but by serene duration of all the serene, new moments; though, nevertheless, each moment is complete. “Just as God’s caprice, born of the moment, had converted itself into enduring power, so his eternal essence converted itself into – love, a love newly awake with every moment, ever young love, ever first love” (Star 193).
This is the essence of the meeting newly awakened each and every moment, and this renewal is derived from the ever present power of God. For God it is the ever-present moment of loving each time more and more, though from the view of the beloved it is an eternal process. Before us is a dual-process on two planes. On one, that of God, the process is dynamic and continuous, and it intensifies; on the other, that of man, each moment is a complete, renewed dynamic. Unification of these two planes brings one to the real, religious meeting experience. One requires, on the one hand, the ever present power of God subject to his caprice and, on the other hand, the creative regeneration that is awakened anew every moment. The one does not contradict the other. As the caprice of the moment becomes eternal renewal, so too the eternity of its contents - love - becomes renewed momentariness. “The world is already made on the basis of its creatureliness, its capacity forever being created anew, while God has already created it on the basis of his eternal creative power” (Star 167, 168, 169). It is itself existence and fullness is its manifestation. It is comparable to a glowing ember and a flame. The ember is the ever-present existence like creation whereas the flame is forever, every moment, being created anew. Each moment the flame is a new light whose power comes from within itself. There are the two sides of the same coin. The wick of the ember that was created once, lights the ever-renewing flame, a new, complete, fresh flame, as its own reality. This is the “flame” of the experiential meeting in its renewal from within the foundation of the eternal “burning ember”.
The birth anew
The dynamic manifestation which was discussed in the previous section is comparable to one born anew. Rosenzweig even calls the chapter on the meeting of man and God; Offenbarung oder die Allzeiterneuerte Geburt der Seele (“the Ever-Renewed Birth of the Soul”) (Star 190). The “birth anew” does not attempt to change the creature in its objective existing structure. The same person born today is the same person created in the image of God. What is born in the manifestation or the revelation of the concealed. This disclosure is the renewal of the creature. The history of the birth is renewal. The birth symbolizes the cleansing of the soul of its dark past. Thus, Rosenzweig indicates that only when man dies with the end of his momentariness of the past is there appended to man a new momentariness, in which he is reborn. Each renewal of the moment is like a rebirth, pure birth, the antithesis of gloomy death. Birth symbolizes the faith, to which I shall relate below. The birth itself is that which interests the soul and not each birth which preceded it; it is the emphasis of the content of the meeting. In the meeting there is only new birth or “man who is no longer anything but a lover” (Star 197). As a child has no characteristics and attributes and only his mother’s love is the mission of his life at that moment, so, too, is the soul born each moment entirely to be made “no longer anything but a lover” (Star 197), without any accompanying traits or attributes. As a child born is loved in the arms of its mother – the air in which he lives – similarly the beloved is born in the arms of his beloved – the air in which he lives. The birth is acquired in suffering: “The lover who says ‘You are mine’ to the beloved is aware of having begotten the beloved in his love and given birth to her in travail” (Star 215). In order for the soul to merit the meeting first “a shock was necessary” (Star 211); the pain of the shame of the sin, discussed in chapter two, admonishes the soul until the soul is born anew into the present arms of He who exonerates.
The dynamic as contents of the meeting
The creation from anew makes love, as contents of the meeting, faithful (Star 211). In order to be faithful, love must renew itself every moment.
Love is faithless by nature, for its nature is the moment, and thus it must, to be true, renew itself with every moment; each moment must become for it the first sight of love. Only this completeness of each moment permits it to grasp the entirety of created life, but thereby, it can really do so. It can do so by traversing this entirety with ever new meaning, illuminating and vitalizing now one, now another individuality within it. This is the route which begins anew with every new day; it need never end; it considers itself at every moment – because it is entirely in this moment – to be on that height beyond which lies nothing else…. (Star 195).
Concentration in a specific moment reduces the concept of faithless temporality and turns it into a complete and faithful point of time. Renewal is the heart of faithfulness; renewal of the moment of love of the pure present “forever” without a past. Only because of this renewal did it feel itself wholly beloved. Only the lover loves the beloved a little more each passing day; the beloved senses no such increase in her being loved. Once overcome by the tremors of being-loved, she remains in them to the end. Faithfulness provides a special relationship: God never ceases to love, nor the soul to be loved (Star 202). By tearing the lover’s own love away from the moment and “externalizing” it once and for all (Star 203), the soul is at peace in the love of God, like a child in the arms of its mother, and now it can reach beyond “the uttermost parts of the sea” and to the portals of the grave - and is yet ever with him. This is the existing and ever-present faithfulness, but it is present only when it is every-present, and only when it is faithful: “This trust in possible experience is that which one can learn and transmit from ‘the new thinking’” (Naharayim 240).
This trust is faith as content of the renewal: “They are new every morning; great is thy faithfulness” (Lam, 3:23). Being created anew brings the soul of man closer to God: “Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old” (Lam. 5:21). Language is born in the meeting as a new phenomenon. It renews itself every moment: “… language …created from the beginning, nevertheless awakes to real vitality only in revelation” (Star 147-148), “… its ever renewed presentness of experience” (Star 148).
We said at the beginning that the dynamic of the meeting is manifested in its renewal, from which we learn that love as content must renew itself every moment: “… a love newly awake with every moment, ever-young love, ever-first love” (Star 193). Love is the necessary revelation, which was hidden in creation and revealed in the meeting. Love is not the basic form of His countenance, fixed and immutable. It is not the rigid mask which the sculptor lifts from off the face of the dead. Rather it is the fleeting, indefatigable alternation of mien…” (Star 197): “His love roams the world with an ever-fresh drive” (Star 198).
The dynamic is the conclusion of the act of Creation
The meeting forever renews itself “because that primeval creation itself is nothing less than the sealed prophecy that God ‘renews day by day the work of creation’” (Star 148). The renewal emphasizes the great miracle in the mirror of the revealed present; it elevates the present and crowns it with the crown of the past. “Revelation does not nullify the true paganism, the paganism of creation, but effects within it the miracle of repentance and renewal” (Naharayim 233). “The human word is a symbol; with every moment it is newly created in the mouth of the speaker, but only because it is from the beginning and because it already bears in its womb every speaker who will one day effect the miracle of renewing it” (Star 148). But the divine word is more than symbol: it is revelation only because it is at the same time the word of creation. “God said, Let there be light” (Gen. 1: 4), and this light is the light of God in renewal as the new soul of man in the meeting with God (Star 148). This light is the ever youthful radiance which plays on the eternal features” (Star 197). The meeting is light emerging out of God Himself and the veritable idea of the meeting (Star 151). It is the beginning light of creation which serves as light for the legs of experiential man. The true idea of the meeting causes the meeting: “God’s vitality, which seemed the end, transforms itself into a beginning” (Star 149), for God created something new, “here the shell of the mystery breaks” (Star 149) in renewal. The source of renewal is in the monologic act of “let us make”, where God speaks to Himself; “something new has dawned” (Star 188). God speaks in the first person but does not realize the dynamic experience by daring to use the “you” – man. For even on the sixth day are we still in creation, and not in the meeting. Renewal, which is connected only to the moment by its nature, appears suddenly, and the next section discusses this characteristic.
The passage is titled, “Description of Man’s Meeting with God”, but it is not necessarily a literal meeting, according to Rosenzweig. Because it is impossible for us as human beings to understand such a complex transcendent as God, we understand what is “real” to us; nature, love, all good things. The passage refers to God as beyond what man can even begin to comprehend, and it is his essence in actuality that leads the relationship. The meeting with God is continuous and every lasting, even in death, and his love is without rest, and renewed constantly.
Although this passage is titled, “Description of Man’s Meeting with God”, it is not to necessarily be taken literally. I believe that it actually refers to man’s personal relationship with God, and his individual and private perception of the meeting, i.e. prayer. The moment that man realizes that without belief in God and his true love for man, then no such meeting would ever take place. God is beyond what man can even begin to comprehend, and it is his essence in actuality that leads to such relationship. This is when the “birth” of man occurs; his faith. The meeting with God is continuous and every lasting, even in death, and his love is without rest, and renewed constantly.
LIST OF SOURCHE MAERIAL ABBREVIATIONS
|
Rosenzweig, Franz. Briefe [Letters]. Unter Mitwirkung von E. Simon ausgehwelt und hg. von. E. Rosenzweig [With the cooperation of E. Simon, selected and revised by E. Rosenzweig]. Berlin: Abkurzung, Br., 1935.
|
Briefe
|
|
Glatzer, Nahum N. Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Jewish Publ. Soc. of Amer., 1953.
|
His Life
|
|
Yehuda ben Shmuel HaLevi. Sefer HaKuzari [The Book of the Kuzari]. Jerusalem: Zifroni P, 1961.
|
Kuzari
|
|
Rosenzweig, Franz. Naharayim [Selected Writings of Franz Rosenzweig]. Trans. Yehoshua Amir. Jerusalem: Bialik Inst., 1977.
|
Naharayim
|
|
Rosenzweig, Franz. The Star of Redemption. 2d ed. Trans. William W. Hallo. New York: U of Notre Dame P, 1985.
|
Star
|