Heidegger in Hebrew:

Translation, Politics, Reconciliation

Daniel Herskowitz

In the ever-expanding scholarly corpus on l’affaire Heidegger, a curiously

neglected topic is the Jewish reaction to the political siding of Martin Heideg-
ger. To illuminate this topic, I focus on a little-known episode of particular
interest because Heidegger played an active role in it. In the summer of 1968
Heidegger’s Origin of the Work of Art was translated into Hebrew by Shlomo
Zemach and published in Israel.1 Examining the charged context, uneasy for-
mation, and ambiguous reception of this translation sheds light on this
largely unaddressed topic of Heidegger’s reception. In many respects Origin,
initially a lecture from the mid-1930s on the role of art in the manifestation

I would like to thank Hila Tzur and the staff of the Gnazim Archive in Tel Aviv for their assistance
and enthusiasm and the Polonsky Foundation for the travel grant to conduct the archival research for
this article.
1. Heidegger, “Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut.” Originally from the Polish city of Plonsk, Zem-
ach was raised in a traditional Jewish home and underwent Yeshiva education. An avid Zionist, he was
an early immigrant to Palestine, where he also left the faith of his youth. Understanding that to be a
“Hebrew writer” he must broaden his education, he moved to France and studied literature and philos-
ophy at the Sorbonne and then agricultural engineering in Nancy. After returning to Palestine, Zemach
was a driving force behind the establishment of various institutions and educational programs and held a
long-lasting and intricate friendship with a fellow Plonsker, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime min-
ister. An agronomist by profession, Zemach was a widely acclaimed literary figure who in 1965 was
awarded the Israel Prize, the state’s highest honor, for his literary achievements. These biographical
points highlight that Heidegger’s translation was made not by a rebellious youngster or an unknown,
peripheral figure but by an esteemed scholar, a member of society’s elite.
New German Critique 135, Vol. 45, No. 3, November 2018
DOI 10.1215/0094033X-6977819 © 2018 by New German Critique, Inc.

97

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 98 Heidegger in Hebrew

of being and as the event of truth, reflects the philosopher’s distancing from
the National Socialist party, which he came to see, to his dismay, as deepen-
ing rather than offering an alternative to the technological perversion of
modernity. The turn to art in the 1930s, as articulated in his work on Frie-
drich Nietzsche and Friedrich Hölderlin and in Origin, exhibits his attempt
to elucidate and prepare for “another beginning.” Yet there is little irony in
the fact that this work propelled the Jewish intelligentsia in Israel to publicly
debate Heidegger’s politics. For as we learned from Heidegger’s recently
published private notebooks, some of the most fervent anti-Jewish state-
ments in his oeuvre were composed after his personal dissociation from the
party.
The present article is divided into two sections. The first outlines some of
the blunders involved in the preparation of Zemach’s translation, primarily
through unknown archival material, including correspondence between Zem-
ach, Vittorio Klostermann (Heidegger’s German publisher), and Heidegger
himself. The second section discusses the debates in Israel over Heidegger
and his work provoked by the translation. Particular focus is given to the ques-
tion of the implied ties between translation and reconciliation and to the specific
political, moral, and theological challenges of putting Heidegger’s philosophy
into Hebrew words.

Translating Heidegger: Motivation and Context

“I have recently finished . . . the translation of a 70-page essay by Martin Heideg-
ger on ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’—‘Ursprung des Kunstwerkes,’” Zemach
wrote on November 21, 1966, to Kalman Aharon Bartini, the editor of Moz-
naim, a prominent journal in the cultural and academic Israeli world. Inquiring
if Bartini would be interested in publishing short excerpts from it, Zemach
explained, “As of now, nothing of Heidegger has been translated [into
Hebrew,] since he is a ‘tough nut to crack’ [Egoz kashe],” adding that Heideg-
ger put forth “ideas and styles that everyone is benefiting from . . . indirectly,
and it is preferable that the Hebrew reader will ‘taste’ them in their original”;
moreover, “[Martin] Buber drew from this well and suffused his own writings
with ten bucketsworth of its water.” 2 Bartini responded with enthusiasm, and
the translated excerpts—the opening section, the famous passages on Vincent
van Gogh’s painting, and the analysis of C. F. Meyer’s poem “The Roman

2. Zemach to Bartini, November 21, 1966, Avraham Bartini Archive (ABA), 162 65427-a. All
translations from Hebrew and German are my own unless otherwise indicated.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 99

Fountain”—appeared in the April 1967 issue.3 In a preface preceding the

translated passages, Zemach explained that the planned publication of a new
edition of his 1938 monograph On Beauty, on theories of aesthetics from
Immanuel Kant to Edmund Husserl, led him to embark on translating Heideg-
ger’s essay on art, “for it is agreed that he is the top authority and everyone
draws water from his well.” 4 This would not be the first encounter of the
Hebrew-speaking public with Heidegger’s philosophy. Shmuel Hugo Berg-
mann, who had already lectured on Heidegger’s existentialism at the nascent
Hebrew University in Jerusalem in the 1931–32 academic year, dedicated
a long and elaborate chapter on Sein und Zeit in his book Hogey Ha’Dor
(Contemporary Thinkers, 1935), based on essays published earlier.5 Buber
critically addressed Heidegger’s philosophy in his 1938 lecture series at the
Hebrew University, as well as in other writings.6 Also, Raphael Seligmann,
Julius Guttmann, and Walter Kaufmann, to list a few important examples,
wrote essays on Heidegger’s philosophy that appeared in Hebrew before Zem-
ach’s translation.7
Ostensibly, the motivation seems entirely personal. In the final chapter
of his life—Zemach was celebrating eight decades that year—he was to com-
plete the unwritten chapter of this early book. It would be an intellectual and
biographical grand finale. Moreover, from a later piece, where Zemach replies
to a “good friend” who asked, “Why did you see fit in your old age to dedicate
so much effort to translating Heidegger?,” we learn that Zemach sensed an
intellectual kinship with Heidegger on issues of aesthetics and philosophy
more generally.8 In his diary he wrote, “Already in my On Beauty my path of
thinking was close in essence to Heidegger’s, and already then I use the terms:
Being, entity, thing, actuality, and so forth, which are the main principles and

3. Bartini to Zemach, February 20, 1967, Shlomo Zemach Archive (SZA), 40026.a; Heidegger,
“Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes.”
4. Heidegger, “Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut”; Zemach, Al Ha’Yafe.
5. Bergmann, Hogey Ha’Dor. A typed Hebrew and English transcript of these lectures is found in
the Shmuel Hugo Bergmann Archive, 4*1502 04 101b, National Library of Israel.
6. Among others, Buber, “What Is Man?”; and Buber, “Religion and Modern Thinking.” On Berg-
mann’s and Buber’s readings of Heidegger, see Herskowitz, “Heidegger as a Secularized Kierke-
gaard.”
7. For an account of Heidegger’s reception in the budding philosophical scene in prestate Israel as
reflecting the ambiguity with regard to the European intellectual world at the time, see Kenaan, Rot-
tem, and Barnea, “Heidegger Be’Ivrit.” (On completing this article, I came across the article “Heideg-
ger Be’Ivrit,” the title of which translates to “Heidegger in Hebrew.” The similarity of the titles is purely
coincidental.) An outline of the central stages of Heidegger’s reception in Israel can be found in Rou-
bach, “Die Rezeption Heideggers in Israel.”
8. Zemach, “Assiya U’farshata.”

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 100 Heidegger in Hebrew

foundations of [his thought].” 9 To this intellectual kinship we may add an ideo-

logical one. In “A Parable without a Moral” (1963), a critical newspaper review
of a compilation of short stories authored by Abraham B. Yehoshua (b. 1936),
then a rising star on the Israeli literary scene, Zemach bemoans what he identi-
fied as disrespect toward physical labor reflected in Yehoshua’s narratives,
which was in stark opposition with what he took to be the authentic Zionist
approach.10 For support, Zemach translated and cited Heidegger’s mystified
musings on Van Gogh’s painting of the shoes and the rural world of the peasant
revealed by them: “All I want is that this young man shall know . . . that even
Heidegger’s position is not simply unwarranted; the filthy working shoes of a
peasant woman are a highly sublime instrument.” Zemach called on Heideg-
ger’s organic-nationalistic rhetoric to support his ethos of old-school Zionism
and its idealized approach toward agriculture, land, and labor, from which the
younger generation of Hebrew writers, he sensed, were now woefully distanc-
ing themselves. Apparently Zemach also took the difficulty of Heidegger’s
prose as a personal challenge. On the day he started the project, he exclaimed:
“I have a need to prove to those wise guys how one translates Heidegger’s writ-
ings! And I’ll shut their mouths up [nivlom pihem].” 11
However, to perceive this translation as springing solely from personal
motivations would mistakenly overlook the highly charged cultural context in
which it was undertaken. The Nazi horrors left a scathing imprint on the Israeli
consciousness. For many, any contact with Germany—its industries, culture,
even its language—was considered a desecration of the commemoration of
the Holocaust victims. While a public debate over the appropriate attitude
toward Germany and its cultural legacy was launched with the rise to power
of the Nazis, the 1960s saw it forcefully reemerge. Triggering this were several
momentous events, such as the capture, trial, and execution of Adolf Eichmann
(1960–62) (and the “Arendt controversy” in its wake), the establishment of
diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Germany (1965), and a deci-
sion to lift the ban on the music of Richard Wagner (1966), who, for different
reasons, had already assumed symbolic status in this regard.12 A dispute was
waged over other German figures associated with Nazism as well, among

9. Zemach, Pinkasey Reshimot, 270. Hereafter this source is referred to as Diaries.

10. Zemach, “Mashal Lelo Nimshal,” 5; this appears also in Zemach, Shtey Ha’Mezuzot, 149–60.
11. Zemach, Diaries, 214 (entry dated July 23, 1966).
12. See Sheffi, Ring of Myths. For a general overview of the German-Israel relations in those years,
see Jelinek, Deutschland und Israel; and Segev, Seventh Million, esp. 323–66. Neither Jelinek’s
politics-focused work nor Segev’s culture-focused work mentions Heidegger.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 101

them Nietzsche, Richard Strauss, and Gottfried Benn.13 Heidegger too was
occasionally mentioned in this context. For example, reasoning against cul-
tural embargoes on figures whose negative attitude toward Jews was known,
Bergmann warned that it would not be long until the question was raised:
“How is it that it is allowed to teach Voltaire, Goethe, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer,
Von Hartmann, for were they not ‘anti-Semites,’ as this or that book proves [?].
And Hitler and Mussolini loved Nietzsche and Heidegger was a Nazi. There is
no end to it.” 14 Responding to this with more than a pinch of cynicism, Haim
Ya’ari, a central figure in the Israeli intelligence service, wrote: “Professor
Bergmann, a thinker who possesses the skill for delicate nuance, may be able
to distinguish between the genius and satanic sides of Wagner’s personality.
But us, simple people, simple Jews, lack the talents for such a fine distinction.”
The towering figures of Goethe and Immanuel Kant will continue to be taught
and studied, Ya’ari assured his readers, but “when Professor Bergmann contin-
ues to ask: And what about Heidegger the Nazi?—to this we reply: Heidegger
was a Nazi, and if he did not atone for his sins and repent—we shall treat him as
a Nazi. Would Professor Bergmann wish to invite a Nazi philosopher to lecture
in Jerusalem?” 15 As this exchange exhibits, Heidegger was a debated figure,
and thus translating his works into Hebrew with this cultural backdrop was
not merely an act of making accessible the writings of an important philoso-
pher; it was taking sides in a painful national debate over Jewish-German rela-
tions in the wake of the Holocaust.
Zemach, it should be clear, was deeply aware of the thorniness of his proj-
ect. This is expressed in the preface to the published excerpts, where he states
that while he should have translated this work “a while ago,” he repeatedly put
the task off:

My heart was not at peace with this decision. Heidegger did not act appropri-
ately in the early days of he who “mazkirin u-mesachkin.” And although he
quickly withdrew and distanced himself from defilement [tum’aa], for many
years my heart did not permit me to approach this task. Now in my old age,
knowing that no one else would do the task in my place, I overcame [my resis-
tance] and finished the translation.16

13. It is no coincidence that the noted German-Israeli publisher Gershom Schocken initiated the
project of translating Nietzsche’s writings into Hebrew in 1963. See Ohana, “From Right to Left”;
and Ohana, “Zarathustra in Jerusalem.”
14. Bergmann, “Thanks to the Philharmonic,” 3.
15. Ya’ari, “Beyn Ha’Nibelungs Le’Auschwitz,” 3.
16. Heidegger, “Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut,” 387.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 102 Heidegger in Hebrew

The phrase mazkirin u-mesachkin is originally found in the Babylonian Tal-

mud in Aramaic and means, as Zemach explains, “those who upon mentioning
their names are immediately cursed, and by this I mean Hitler.” 17 Acknowledg-
ing Heidegger’s importance as a philosopher despite his political past, Zemach
called for a distinction between the two. The latter, doubtless, must be con-
demned unreservedly, yet to ignore the former would be a noncultural, indeed,
anticultural act.

To Translate Is to Betray? Approving the Translation

To publish the translation in full, Zemach wrote to Vittorio Klostermann Ver-
lag, the publisher of Heidegger’s Origin: “Dear Sir, I turn to you with the
request to grant me permission to translate and publish the essay ‘Der Ursprung
des Kunstwerkes’ by Martin Heidegger in Hebrew [Hebräische].” After elab-
orating on the circumstances that led him to translate Heidegger’s essay, Zem-
ach then reflected:

The Hebrew language, which knows neither prefix nor suffix in its word for-
mation, and whose sentence structure is fundamentally different from the sen-
tence structure of the German language, nevertheless offers the possibility, to
repeat what Heidegger “literally” said, following what Heidegger himself has
requested from a translation, “it is only faithful when its words are words that
speak out the language of the matter [der Sprache der Sache].” 18

Making sure to mention that he intended to publish the translation with the
publishing house Devir, which “was founded about 40 years ago by the poet
Bialik,” he concluded: “I hope you will kindly grant me the requested permis-
sion and would be grateful if my request would be submitted to Professor Hei-
degger as well.” 19 Zemach’s request for Heidegger’s approval of his assign-
ment is significant, and Zemach insisted on Heidegger’s involvement
throughout the unexpected stages of its preparation. On March 9, 1967, Klos-
termann forwarded to Heidegger “a letter from Jerusalem [Schreiben aus Jer-
usalem]” in which he asked “to be informed whether I should carry out the
necessary negotiations for this translation of ‘The Origin of the Work of
Art.’” 20 Heidegger wrote back on March 13, 1967, “I request to enter into

17. Zemach to Bartini, February 16, 1967, ABA, 162 65433-a.

18. From Heidegger, Holzwege, 297. Zemach to Klostermann, March 1, 1967, SZA, 52 14153/1.
19. Zemach to Klostermann, March 1, 1967, SZA, 52 14153/1.
20. The incomplete correspondence between Heidegger and Klostermann is found in an uncata-
loged file labeled “DLA Marbach, A: Klostermann” in Heidegger’s papers at the Deutsches Literatur-

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 103

negotiations with Jerusalem,” wishing that it would be the reworked 1960 edi-
tion of Origin that was translated. Two weeks later Klostermann replied to
Zemach: “After consultation with Professor Heidegger, I can inform you that
we have agreed to the translation of the above-mentioned essay into Hebrew.” 21
Zemach quickly notified Bartini of the German publisher’s permission, mak-
ing sure to note that it had been granted “after having consulted with the
author.” 22 Just as Zemach was well aware of the implicit sensitivity around
the translation, it is unlikely that this had gone unnoticed either by the publish-
ers in Frankfurt or by Heidegger. Perhaps a hint of this can be detected in Klos-
termann’s letter to Zemach: “Dear Sir, I gather from your kind letter . . . that
you are interested in the rights for the Jewish translation [jüdischen Übersetz-
ungsrechten] of this title.” 23 Zemach, obviously, spoke of translating Heideg-
ger into Hebrew, yet Klostermann, confusingly, replies with respect to translat-
ing into Jewish.
A year later Zemach wrote to inform Klostermann that the Hebrew
manuscript was on its way to print. As part of a lengthy letter, he revealed that
he had written a preface to the translation where he discusses Heidegger’s polit-
ical past:

It seems unacceptable to me to pass over in silence the National Socialist epi-

sode in Professor Heidegger’s life. The Jewish reader [jüdische Leser] would
have otherwise rightfully accused me of hypocrisy and cowardice. I therefore
have presented in brief the sequence of the known facts without particularly
emphasizing them, but also without covering up anything. I have, however,
pointed out that Professor Heidegger’s temporary error [der vorübergehende
Irrtum] cannot affect the great importance of his philosophy and the depth of
his thought.24

The preface also discussed issues of translating Heidegger into Hebrew. As

Zemach points out:

archiv in Marbach am Neckar. Zemach’s letter does not appear in the file. I would like to thank Gudrun
Bernhardt from Heidegger’s archive for her gracious assistance and information on the Klostermann-
Heidegger correspondence regarding Zemach’s translation.
21. Klostermann to Zemach, March 14, 1967, SZA, 52 14165/1.
22. Zemach to Bartini, March 17, 1967, ABA, 162 65435-a.
23. Klostermann to Zemach, March 31, 1967. A copy of this letter appears without a call number in
the Klostermann file in Zemach’s archive.
24. Zemach to Klostermann, February 19, 1968, SZA 52 14154/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 104 Heidegger in Hebrew

The difficulty lies not in finding a suitable Hebrew word form for Sein, so-
Sein, Wesen, der Dinge. The Hebrew language has adopted suitable word
forms from the Jewish medieval philosophers (Maimonides, Ibn Gabirol,
Crescas, etc.), and it was not difficult to adapt them for the present require-
ments here. For example, the term Das Sein, Das Seiende, Seiender als das
Seiende, for which the English language has only the one word, Being: in
Hebrew one can easily infer from the root word Jesch such terms as Jeschut,
Jeschi, Jeschii, etc. . . . Incidentally, it was customary previously in Hebrew
to translate the word Dasein in Heidegger with the word Hawajah; that is how
it was rendered by Professor Hugo Bergmann in his essay on Heidegger and
also by Martin Buber. I, however, cannot overlook the fact that the word is
composite and thus translates to He’joth (Sein)–K’an (Da), together in
Hebrew: He’joth-K’an.25

Concluding, Zemach proclaims:

In the Talmud one finds the saying “The baker cannot attest to the quality of
his dough” [Der Bäcker kann nicht für die Güte seines Teigs zeugen],26 and
certainly the translator cannot attest to the quality of his translation. But my
expert friends have assured me that it brings the author’s world of reflection
[Welt der Besinnungen] close to the Hebrew reader. . . . Should you be of the
opinion that the honored author could be of interest in my performance, I
would be grateful if you took the trouble to forward this letter to Professor
Heidegger—for which I hereby thank you in advance.27

Clearly, Zemach tried to “soften the blow” by stating that his discussion
would be “brief,” promising to recap the facts “without particularly empha-
sizing them,” and speaking of Heidegger’s “temporary error.” On February
26, 1968, Klostermann sent Heidegger “a letter from the Jewish translator
[jüdischer Übersetzers] of ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ with my response.”
Klostermann’s response dealt almost exclusively with Zemach’s plan to write
on Heidegger’s Nazism. “That the translation of ‘The Origin of the Work of
Art’ by Martin Heidegger should be published with a foreword,” asserted
Klostermann with obvious annoyance, “had to have been agreed upon when
the contract was concluded.” Moreover, “it is generally uncustomary to begin
a text with a discussion about the life course [Lebensweg] of the author.” He
then demanded:

25. See also Zemach’s comments in Heidegger, “Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut,” 92–93.
26. “Eyn ha’nachtom me’id al isato.” This saying is not Talmudic but a modern adaptation of a state-
ment from Midrashic literature. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah 34:10.
27. Zemach to Klostermann, February 19, 1968, SZA, 52 14154/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 105

It seems to me necessary in any case that you send the text of this preface to the
publishing house, so that it can make a judgment as to whether publication of
the translation can be made with this preface. However, the publisher shall
reserve the right to leave the final decision to Professor Heidegger. . . . In
any case, the text can appear only after clarification of the issues you raised.28

This response, which Heidegger evidently approved as it was sent to Zemach,

can perhaps be seen as reflecting the shattered hope that the Hebrew translation
would follow through without reference to Heidegger’s political past, as well as
the desire to affect the way this episode was depicted if the decision were made
to publish it.
Zemach quickly translated the preface from Hebrew to German and
once again tried to smooth things over. “I very well understand your position
and concern,” he affirmed to Klostermann, “and therefore let me assure you in
advance that there is no point if my work . . . will appear without the approval
of Heidegger.” However, mentioning Heidegger’s political episode “in no way
reflects my personal interest in things that happened in the past, or is intended
to please some of my audience.” Rather, it is addressed “only for the sake of the
issue itself, that is, for the sake of my project, to give the Hebrew (and to some
extent, only the Hebrew) reading audience and in particular the younger gener-
ation a sample of Heidegger’s thinking, his philosophical approach and his
style of language.” Zemach urged Klostermann to recognize the inevitability
of mentioning Heidegger’s Nazi episode, for if he did not, someone else no
doubt would. “This is the first time for an essay by Professor Heidegger to be
translated into Hebrew, and, understandably, I want to avoid from the out-
set the work’s being explained by ignorant newspaper reviewers.” He thus
enclosed, per Klostermann’s request, “the part of the preface that deals with
Professor Heidegger’s stance toward the National Socialist movement.” Again
trying to calm the waters, Zemach asked Klostermann

to appreciate that I did not portray the issue itself, and I also held back my own
judgment. Instead, I quote the statements of two of Heidegger’s supporters
[Anhängern] who seek to defend the philosopher against the accusation that
he gave in [gebeugt] to the National Socialists—without hiding any of the
facts. It seems to me that this is the most noble [vornehmste] way to bring
our audience a little closer to the psychological [seelischen] difficulty in
which so many German people found themselves at the time.29

28. Klostermann to Zemach, February 26, 1968, SZA, 52 14166/1.

29. Zemach to Klostermann, March 7, 1968, SZA, 52 14155/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 106 Heidegger in Hebrew

Once again drawing on his Jewish heritage, Zemach added: “An old saying of
our sages [Väter] states, ‘Do not judge your fellow man before you are placed in
his position’ [Verurteile nicht Deinen Mitmenschen, ehe Du nicht in seine
Lage geraten bist].30 So we do not want to judge, but we can also not forget.”
As a possible compromise, he suggested putting his remarks in an epilogue
instead of a preface—“If you or Professor Heidegger so wishes.” The letter
ends as follows: “To conclude, I would like to say that I would be very happy
if you left the decision of the question at issue to Professor Heidegger himself,
as you indicate in your letter. I feel certain that Professor Heidegger will under-
stand me and that his approval will not be withheld.” 31
Despite Zemach’s claim that he had little personal interest in Heidegger’s
past, there is evidence to the contrary. Not only had some members of his fam-
ily been murdered by the Nazis, but, as mentioned above, part of his aim was to
underscore that Heidegger’s thought was valuable despite his politics. More-
over, Zemach had addressed Heidegger’s Nazism already in 1940. In an
essay dedicated to establishing a link between Arthur Schopenhauer’s philo-
sophical pessimism and his hatred of Judaism and Jews, Zemach offered an
analogy between Schopenhauer’s views and Heidegger’s support of the Nazis.
Alongside its great compassion and idealization of beauty, Zemach main-
tained, Schopenhauer’s system “constitutes a philosophical, moral, spiritual,
anthropological and legal basis for aggressive and murderous anti-Semitic
madness that is one with the raging anti-Semitism of the racist third Reich!” An
analogy is then drawn between Schopenhauer’s pessimism and the focus on
nothingness and angst in Heidegger, the philosopher-prophet of contemporary
Nazi anti-Semitism. “If Martin Heidegger pokes reeds in the sandbank of the
‘naught’ and of melancholy,” this early essay reads, “so then this doctrine too
bears something from the depths of hell. And from the Schopenhauerean plane
it draws the roar of the predatory beast, which is its voice.” 32 Here Zemach
argues against the position he is advocating now, namely, the distinction
between Heidegger’s thought and political conduct. Zemach’s statement to
Klostermann about his overall disinterest in Heidegger’s past thus probably
reflects his desire to ensure that his essay is published more than his actual
view on the matter.
Zemach’s efforts bore fruit. On March 19, 1968, Heidegger penned a
response and asked Klostermann to forward it to Zemach. To Klostermann,

30. “Al tadin et h avercha, ad she’tagia limkomo” (Hertz, Sayings of the Fathers, 2:5).
_
31. Zemach to Klostermann, March 7, 1968, SZA, 52 14155/1.
32. Zemach, “Nazism, Sin’at Yisrael, Ve’Schopenhauer,” 247.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 107

Heidegger wrote: “Here is my letter to Professor Zemach. . . . I think you can

agree; of course there would be still much to be said about it, but I have always
refused to engage in a polemic [aber ich habe es ja immer abgelehnt, mich auf
eine Polemik einzulassen].” Referring to his most faithful defender (alongside
Jean Beaufret), François Fédier, Heidegger added: “I had repeatedly asked
Fédier not to deal with the matter, but I did not want to oppose his sincere
desire to put things straight [zur Richtigstellung].” It appears that Heidegger
had decided to approve Zemach’s addition against Klostermann’s advice. In
his letter to Heidegger from March 21, 1968, Klostermann confirms that the
letter to Zemach has been forwarded, adding: “Mr. Friedrich, however, was, as
I myself, for the alternative: either the printing of the text without the addition
or the renunciation of the publication in Israel.” 33
In the note he attached to Heidegger’s reply to Zemach, Klostermann
wrote: “I have sent your foreword for ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ to Pro-
fessor Heidegger. He has addressed your position in a letter. I add this letter to
mine.” He sealed the letter with a suggestive comment: “How you want to use
Professor Heidegger’s remarks is your decision.” 34 Heidegger’s letter follows
in full.

Dear Mr. Zemach,

Through my publisher V. Klostermann, I received your letter to the
publisher and the extract about your text of the Hebrew translation of my
essay “The Origin of the Work of Art,” which was presented in 1935 and
1936 in Freiburg and Frankfurt.
I must certainly take a position with regard to one point in your text.
From the lecture “Introduction to Metaphysics,” which was delivered in
1935 and published verbatim in 1953, time and again one sentence, from
page 152, is picked out and the entire lecture, from which it is evident that
my position toward National Socialism was already at the time clearly adver-
sarial [gegnerisch], is passed over. The attentive listeners of this lecture have
hence grasped how the sentence should be understood. Only the informers of
the party [die Spitzel der Partei] who—as I knew—sat in my lectures, under-
stood the sentence differently, as they should have. One must throw these men
a crumb [einen Brocken] here and there to preserve the freedom of teaching
and speech.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that it is a great mistake [to think
that] I am against technology (cf. “Die Frage nach der Technik,” Vorträge
und Aufsätze 1953).

33. See n. 20. “Mr. Friedrich” is probably the Romanist Hugo Friedrich (1904–78), who was close
to the Verlag.
34. Klostermann to Zemach, March 20, 1968, SZA, 52 14167/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 108 Heidegger in Hebrew

Finally, I would like to refer you to my Nietzsche lectures from 1936–

1940, which every listener has clearly understood as a fundamentally critical
engagement with National Socialism.
I would be glad if your text were presented as an epilogue, as has
been done by Professor Gadamer in the special edition of “The Origin of the
Work of Art” (Reclam’s Universal Library 8446/47).
I wish to thank you for your interest in my philosophical work and for
the effort of translation to make a treatise of mine known to the younger gen-
eration of your people [Ihres Volkes].
With the best wishes on your ongoing work, I am cordially yours,
[signed] Martin Heidegger35

Printed here, to the best of my knowledge, for the first time in English, this
letter has received little scholarly attention thus far, perhaps due to a poor
understanding of its context. The letter does appear in volume 40 of Heideg-
ger’s Gesamtausgabe as part of the editor’s Nachwort on the scandalous pas-
sage about “inner truth and greatness” of the movement of National Socialism
in Heidegger’s 1935 Introduction to Metaphysics.36 But no information is
provided either about the identity of Zemach or about the context in which
the letter was composed. The letter’s opening and two closing paragraphs,
in which the context is disclosed, are omitted.37 It is instead introduced
blithely: “On March 18, 1968 Heidegger wrote a letter to Herr S. Zemach in

35. Heidegger to Zemach, March 18, 1968, SZA, 52 14162/1. In his famous letter to Herbert Mar-
cuse, Heidegger reiterates the view that the Gestapo sat in on his lectures. See Wolin, “Herbert Marcuse
and Martin Heidegger”; and Olafson, “Heidegger’s Politics.” See also Heidegger’s more elaborate
account of those times in “The Rectorate.”
36. On the peculiar editorial history of this passage, see Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and
Philosophy, 239–40; Pöggler, Martin Heidegger’s Path of Thinking, 278; and Ireland, “Naming
Φύσις.”
37. “Sehr geehrter Herr Zemach, durch meinen Verleger V. Klostermann erhielt ich Ihr Schreiben
an den Verlag und den Ausschnitt Ihres Textes zu der hebräischen Übersetzung meiner Abhandlung
‘Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks’; deren Text wurde 1935 und 1936 in Freiburg und Frankfurt
vorgetragen. . . . Es wäre mir lieb, wenn Sie Ihren Text als Nachwort brächten, so wie das auch
durch Prof Gadamer in der Sonderausgabe von ‘Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks’ (Reclams Universal-
bibliothek 8446/47) geschehen ist. Es ist mir ein Bedürfnis, Ihnen zu danken für das Interesse, das Sie
an meinen philosophischen Arbeiten nehmen und für die Mühe der Übersetzung, um eine Abhandlung
von mir der jüngeren Generation Ihres Volkes bekannt zu machen. Mit den besten Wünschen für Ihre
weitere Arbeit grüsse ich freundlich. Martin Heidegger.” Charles Bambach offers one of the rare and
brief mentions of the letter by “Stefan Zemach” in scholarship. I found no occasion in the correspon-
dence in which Zemach signs his name as anything but “S. Zemach.” See Bambach, Heidegger’s Roots,
268. Another passing mention is in Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy, 269. Neither
of these works shows an awareness of the context of the letter.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 109

Jerusalem.” 38 The Gesamtausgabe version gives the impression that a mysteri-

ous person from Jerusalem requested some clarification about the perplexing
passage from Introduction to Metaphysics. But as we now know, this is not
the case. In fact, Heidegger here is discussing his Nazi past with his Jewish
translator, who, to some extent, is consulting with him on how to present this
episode to a Jewish readership. Did Heidegger write the letter for Zemach’s
eyes only, or did he intend it to be eventually published as an official statement
on his actions under the Nazi regime? This, after all, was Heidegger’s oppor-
tunity to address his Nazi affiliation directly, and specifically to Jews. How-
ever, what is noteworthy about this letter is what is missing from it. It is, like
other recorded expressions of Heidegger’s “official position” on the topic, a
self-justifying document that lacks remorse or readiness to take responsibility
for his support of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, we are presented here with another
case—along with those of Herbert Marcuse, Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Paul
Celan, and, in a certain respect, also Buber—in which Heidegger is confronted
with (or expected to confront) his Nazi past by a Jewish intellectual after the
war. Like these more familiar examples, this one is marked by evasion. The let-
ter holds only an implicit, yet unarticulated, claim that his support of Hitler
was transient, as well as an expression of annoyance over the continued distur-
bance over the notorious sentence. Heidegger even dons the mantle of victim-
hood by noting that he was forced under the scrutinizing eye of Nazi informers
to employ circumspection in his lectures. But particularly striking is that the
only instance where Heidegger, indirectly, refers to the Jews, the readership
of Zemach’s discussed essay and translation, is in his final sentence, “your peo-
ple.” This is a confusing utterance, first, precisely because there is nothing spe-
cific about it; second, because Volk is a sensitive word in this context; and third,
because only a few decades earlier Heidegger all but deprived the Jews of the
title.39
This means that this letter should be read not, as per the Gesamtausgabe,
as pertaining to the limited context of the problematic passage on page 152, but
as Heidegger’s correction of specific elements of Zemach’s presentation of his
ties with Nazism and, consequently, as Heidegger’s implied approval of the rest
of the essay’s content. Indeed, this is precisely how Zemach understood it. In
his diary he recorded: “Regarding Heidegger’s Nazi episode—the issue
reached Heidegger himself to make the decision. And not only did he not

38. Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe, 40:233.

39. Heidegger, Nature, History, State, 56.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 110 Heidegger in Hebrew

oppose what I wrote, but he even sent me a letter with a reservation concerning
one argument against him.” 40 In other words, Zemach’s introduction (or at least
its German version), with these minor but specific reservations, should be con-
sidered another personal testimony of Heidegger on his Nazi involvement.41 Of
course, as hinted by Heidegger’s reference to Hans-Georg Gadamer, this letter
was written amid a wave of investigations and accusations against his political
affiliation in the time of Hitler.42 We can therefore suggest that Heidegger’s
request that the essay be published as an afterword demonstrates his under-
standing that dealing with the issue was unavoidable.
Heidegger’s letter to Zemach should be situated in a wider context of
other contemporaneous initiatives concerning contacts between Heidegger
and Jewish-Israeli intellectuals. A few years earlier, in 1957, a meeting between
Heidegger and Buber was arranged as part of a conference on language that
they agreed to organize together.43 In 1969, shortly after the communication
with Zemach, Gadamer, who “used the encounter between Buber and H. as
an encouraging precedent,” offered to arrange a meeting between Gershom
Scholem and Heidegger. Reporting to an inquiring Emil Fackenheim, Scho-
lem wrote:

I can’t say anything more than this. My refusal to accept Gadamer’s invitation
can be traced to the fact that I would have been incapable of conducting a dis-
cussion with H. without every second being reminded of his past, and of
course without directly raising the issue. It should be clear to everyone that
this would have been senseless and would have led to the immediate interrup-
tion of the discussion.44

The letter to Zemach is the only direct communication with a Jewish-Israeli

intellectual that I am aware of; communications with both Scholem and
Buber (prior to their meeting) were indirect, through third parties.

40. See Zemach, Diaries, 246 (entry of August 18, 1968).

41. See n. 35 above; his “Only a God Can Save Us” interview for Der Spiegel, in English in The
Heidegger Controversy.
42. Concurrently, prompted by a review in Der Spiegel, February 7, 1966, on his ties to the Nazis,
Heidegger agreed to give the interview to Der Spiegel that would be published posthumously. See also
Zaborowski, “Eine Frage von Irre und Schuld?”
43. Heidegger’s “Der Weg zur Sprache” and Buber’s “Das Wort, das gesprochen wird” were com-
posed for this conference. On this episode, see Mendes-Flohr, “Martin Buber and Martin Heidegger in
Dialogue.”
44. Quoted in Skinner, Gershom Scholem, 476.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 111

While Heidegger approved Zemach’s reference to his ties with the Nazis,
the essay has a telling history of modifications and corrections. The archival
material reveals no fewer than five versions: a handwritten draft in Hebrew; a
typed draft in Hebrew; the translation into German for Klostermann and Hei-
degger; a restructured and reformulated handwritten draft in Hebrew in light
of Heidegger’s response; and the final, published Hebrew version.45 The vari-
ous drafts record Zemach’s own dilemmas and struggles with Heidegger’s
Nazism. Unsurprisingly, of the essay’s three sections, it is the one dedicated
to Heidegger’s Nazi episode that is subjected to substantial alterations. The
most significant of these is evident in the German and the following versions.
Specifically, Zemach patched up some passages in the German version, mini-
mizing the accusations against Heidegger in content and tone, to present an
account more appealing to Heidegger. His personal notes convey suspense
over the fate of his piece; more generally, a sense of caution and wariness hov-
ers over his communications with Klosterman, which he claimed “required
prudence in formulating the letters.” 46 This is not to say that the document
sent to Klostermann and Heidegger does not manifest a high resemblance to
the Hebrew original and remain a poignant document. Moreover, it is the
approved, moderated version that became the basis for the published version.
Yet it is clear that the version that Heidegger approved had been significantly
altered from the version Zemach had planned to publish. Perhaps more impor-
tant, some of the more accusatory passages that had been omitted from the
draft sent to Heidegger found their way, after its approval, back into the version
presented to the Israeli public. I now turn to some noteworthy changes in vari-
ous drafts connected to Heidegger’s Nazi episode.

1. The first handwritten draft begins immediately with Heidegger’s Nazism,

stating that “his philosophical doctrine, which has completely taken over
today’s world, does not cover up an obscene act that is unatonable. The more
his contemplative paths are respected in our eyes, the more severe are his sin
and crime.” In the second Hebrew version as well as in the German translation,
his “sin and crime” becomes “error” (Irrtum, taut). This phrasing is retained in
the published version. Moreover, in the German version preceding this, Zem-
ach adds an introductory paragraph drawing on Julius Guttmann’s praise of

45. The German version is titled “Vorwort des Ubersetzer [sic] (S. Zemach): An den hebräischen
Leser.” There are only insignificant differences between the fourth and fifth versions. The drafts are
found in the Miscellaneous file in Zemach’s papers, call number 52.
46. Zemach, Diaries, 253 (entry of January 16, 1969).

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 112 Heidegger in Hebrew

the importance of Heidegger’s existentialist philosophy. In concert, Zemach

affirms: “This is also what I hold in relation to Heidegger’s teachings on
beauty. For me, Heidegger’s position is authoritative.” The published version
has “Heidegger is authoritative” without the personal attribution.
2. Describing the events of 1933, Zemach wrote in the first version: “And thus
came the damned year of 1933. Hitler and his gang came to power and estab-
lished the Nazi regime. Heidegger joined them in Freiburg and publicly
announced his complete agreement with the Nazis’ ideas and even explained
how they were a necessary conclusion from his main principles.” Already in
the typed draft “Hitler and his gang” had become “the Nazis,” and the sentence
announcing the necessary relation between Heidegger’s philosophy and Naz-
ism was crossed out by pen. The German version sent to Klostermann and
Heidegger reads: “The wretched year of 1933 came. National Socialism
came to power, and Heidegger publicly declared his agreement [Zustimmung]
with the fundamental thought of National Socialism.” The crossed-out sen-
tence regarding the agreement of his philosophical system with the ideas of
Nazism reappears in the published version.
3. In the earliest version, Zemach simply maintained that “I would like to present
to the reader the Nazi episode of Martin Heidegger.” In the typed version:
“With the rise of the Nazis this philosopher succumbed to Hitler. Thus I see
myself obligated to present to the Hebrew reader this episode and discuss it at
the outset.” In the German version sent to Klostermann and Heidegger, there
are important qualifications: “As is known, with the rise of the National
Socialist movement the philosopher committed the mistake and in the begin-
ning gave his moral support to this movement.” Zemach also adds that he
attends to this episode “to prevent its distortion by other parties.” Now the
“episode” receives a somewhat exculpatory judgment (“the mistake”), its pur-
ported duration is limited (“in the beginning”), and the benefit and necessity of
the discussion are stressed (“to prevent its distortion”). The published version
omits these reservations and returns to a formulation resembling the earlier
typed draft.
4. In the first Hebrew draft, there are two paragraphs on Heidegger’s relation to
Husserl. The first describes their philosophical relations, maintaining that
Heidegger was the brilliant student of Husserl who eventually blazed his
own path in phenomenological research. Yet Husserl’s hope to remain close
to his rebellious student, it is stated, “only caused him grief.” The second par-
agraph portrays their personal relation under Nazi rule. “The situation became
such that when the new rulers began to harass the old and sick Husserl, Hei-
degger did nothing to help him and did not persuade the persecutors to leave
his teacher and mentor alone,” Zemach asserted. “If not for some faithful
friends who helped Husserl out of Germany and transported him secretly to
a monastery in Belgium,” the paragraph continues, “he surely would not have
died a natural death; certainly his soul would have departed in one of the

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 113

extermination camps in Germany.” In all following versions, the entire damn-

ing paragraph of Heidegger’s neglect and mistreatment of Husserl is deleted,
perhaps due to its serious historical inaccuracies.47 In its stead, already in the
typed Hebrew version, Fédier’s rather exonerating account of the course of
events with respect to Heidegger and the party between 1933 and 1934 is
added. In the German account, Zemach also added a letter by Walter Biemal,
cited by Fédier, describing Heidegger’s unambiguous opposition to the Nazis
in the 1940s. Both additions were eventually published.
5. The following passages, which appeared in the first and second drafts, disap-
pear in the German translation, as well as in the final published version: “It
seems that still in 1935 Heidegger was a follower of Hitlerism. In his lectures
‘Introduction to Metaphysics’ he still praises ‘National Socialism.’ After that
he probably began to have doubts. In any event, he distanced himself and took
a vow of silence, as if he admitted to his mistake through this silence.”
6. In the earliest draft Zemach praises “some German intellectuals who did not
forgive Heidegger for his fellowship with Nazism and demanded that he admit
to his mistake and publicly publish his regrets.” Zemach then cites the Frank-
furter Allgemeine Zeitung article in which Jürgen Habermas complains about
the retention of the controversial passage about the “inner truth and greatness”
of the National Socialist movement and announces, “It is time we think with
Heidegger against Heidegger.” 48 Zemach concludes by stating, “And if this is
the view of his own people, how could we think otherwise?” He also claims
that “Heidegger’s despised deeds are evident, and we should not mitigate their
judgment. Yet his philosophy cannot be disregarded, and one cannot deprive
oneself of it.” This paragraph is still extant in the typed Hebrew draft, but it is
missing in its entirety in the German edition and the published version except
for the sentence about the mistake of disregarding Heidegger’s thought and a
somewhat detached explanation of what is meant by thinking with and against
Heidegger. In place of the omitted paragraph, Zemach inserted Heidegger’s
letter to him.
7. After using Fédier’s exculpatory version in the German account sent to Ger-
many, Zemach draws on Jean Wahl’s discussion in his Vers la fin de l’ontologie
of “page 152, which is very saddening to anyone who admires Heidegger’s
philosophy.” Introducing this, Zemach writes: “But a testimony must still be
noted here, that, at least in its external appearance, speaks against Heidegger.”
The qualification “at least in its external appearance” is added into the German
version but disappears in the published account. There Zemach writes, “I can-
not make a conclusive judgment regarding these matters, but it is my duty to

47. This is a terrible confusion with the story of the smuggling of Husserl’s writings out of Nazi
Germany to Belgium in 1939 by the Franciscan priest Herman Van Breda. Husserl in fact died in Frei-
burg on April 27, 1938 (Heidegger did not attend the funeral). See Van Breda, “Rescue of Husserl’s
Nachlass.” Similarly, there were no death camps on German soil.
48. Habermas, “Mit Heidegger gegen Heideggers Denken.”

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 114 Heidegger in Hebrew

present additional adverse testimony against Heidegger.” Also added in the

German account is a previously absent citation from Wahl’s suggestion that
by linking Nazism to planetary technology, as he does, Heidegger is in fact
criticizing National Socialism in the controversial passage.

Heidegger therefore approved the version of Zemach’s essay that was sent to
him, although it is doubtful whether he would have agreed to the final version
that was published. At the same time, the interchange with Klostermann and
Heidegger had a direct effect on the way Heidegger’s Nazi affair was presented
to the Israeli public.49
It is worth mentioning that about a year earlier Celan met with Heidegger
in his hut in Todtnauberg, “mit einer Hoffnung auf ein kommendes Wort im
Herzen.” While Celan’s reactions to this meeting were somewhat equivocal,
Zemach reacted with delight to the personal letter from the world-renowned
philosopher, which was also the first direct communication with him. Despite
the letter’s evasive nature, Zemach decided to amend his essay once more. He
quickly penned a reply and sent it to Klostermann, asking him to forward it to
Heidegger.50 Klostermann did so on April 4, 1968: “I am now forwarding to
you the letter Professor Zemach addressed to you, and I believe that with it the
question of the afterword has found a satisfactory settlement.” His reply to
Zemach was cordial: “I hope that herewith all is well, and I wish your edition
success.” 51 To Heidegger, Zemach wrote that he “was especially happy about
the clarification of the sentence on page 152 of your book Introduction to Meta-
physics, which Professor Wahl and others did not understand correctly,”
because “your explanation removes any doubt regarding the intent of this
point—as the 1935 lecture, which is reproduced in the book word for word,
also contains an obvious rejection of the forces prevailing then.” He then prom-

49. Zemach’s grandson, Yurik (Yoram) Verte, who as a teenager spent the summer of 1966 at his
grandparents and with whom I spoke while preparing this essay, clearly recalls conversations he held
with his grandfather on translating Heidegger and on the letter. He recalls taunting his grandfather,
“He took advantage of you!,” to which Zemach responded, offended, “I’m warning you!” Zemach’s
daughter, Ada Zemach, a renowned literary critic, felt that her father did not actually come to terms
with Heidegger in his afterword, and wrote an (unpublished) essay in Hebrew titled “Three Professors
and One Van Gogh,” analyzing Heidegger’s Origins and his Nazism through a constructive discourse
with the famous critiques of Meyer Schapiro and Jacques Derrida. I would like to thank Yurik for the
informative conversation; for Ada Zemach’s unpublished essay; and for some comments on an earlier
draft of the present article pertaining to Zemach’s biography. I would also like to thank Michael Rou-
bach for connecting me with Zemach’s family.
50. Zemach to Klostermann, March 31, 1968, SZA, 52 14156/1.
51. Klostermann to Zemach, April 4, 1968, SZA, 52 14168/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 115

ised to “point to Professor Wahl’s mistaken view” in the now-afterword

(which, in fact, he did not do, publishing these passages unaltered). Signing
off the letter, Zemach wrote: “May I express my wholehearted thanks to you,
dear Professor Heidegger, for addressing the questions dealt with by my
remarks, and for the kind words that you have devoted to my work of transla-
tion in your letter.” 52
Recognizing the importance of a document in which Heidegger explic-
itly addresses his notorious political involvement, Zemach consulted with
Bergmann on the matter. He sent Bergmann a copy of Heidegger’s letter and
recounted the unfolding events, noting that Heidegger’s publisher “panicked”
on hearing his intention to write about “the Nazi episode of the author.” He
wished to consult, however, about what to do with Heidegger’s letter. He had
planned to publish the parts about the Introduction to Metaphysics passage, but
“a few of my friends demanded that I publish the entire letter word by word,
since it is an ‘important document,’ for it is known that Heidegger did not deny
his Nazi affair and remained silent the entire time. Here he explicitly announ-
ces that he opposed the Nazis, and it is said that this is the first document of the
sort.” He also added: “P.S. The publisher wrote me; ‘wie sie die Bemerkung
von Professor Heidegger verwenden wollen, ist Ihr Entscheidung.’ Accord-
ingly, it seems that I am allowed to do with this letter as I wish.” 53 Bergmann’s
reply arrived shortly thereafter, thanking Zemach for the letter and noting that
“the facts were known to me. I don’t remember if I learned them from a similar
letter from Heidegger himself or from things that were published by his friends
at his request.” He recommended publishing the letter in German and in
Hebrew translation at the beginning of the book: “It seems that this was Hei-
degger’s intention when he wrote the letter.” 54 To Bartini, Zemach bragged
about the letter’s significance both as a contribution to understanding Heideg-
ger’s relation to the Nazi Party and as a document pertinent to present-day
political issues. “It is said that this is the first document [by Heidegger] to
appear publicly that states that its author opposed Nazism and that he had
done so already in 1935,” Zemach declared. “In these days, as the neo-Nazis
are on the rise in western Germany, there is importance, so they say, in an out-
spoken declaration of this sort from an influential figure such as Heidegger.” 55

52. Zemach to Heidegger, March 31, 1968, SZA, 52 14151/1.

53. Zemach to Bergmann, April 12, 1968, Shmuel Hugo Bergmann Archive, 4* 1502 01 2409.
54. Bergmann to Zemach, April 17, 1968, Shmuel Hugo Bergmann Archive, 4* 1502 01 2409.
55. Zemach to Bartini, May 8, 1968, ABA, 162 65438-a.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 116 Heidegger in Hebrew

Toward the end of 1968 the Hebrew translation of Heidegger’s Origin

finally appeared in print as a booklet of ninety-five pages.56 Zemach’s supple-
mentary essay was placed, as promised, as an afterword.57 Heidegger’s letter is
quoted in full, in Hebrew and German side by side, although not at the begin-
ning of the book, as Bergmann advised, but as part of the afterword. Zemach
wrote to Klostermann to inform him of the book’s publication: “I am sending
you by airmail the personally designated enclosed copy for Professor Heideg-
ger together with the enclosed letter that accompanies it.” 58 On December 6,
1968, Michael Klostermann, on behalf of Vittorio, his father, confirmed that
“letter and book have been forwarded to Professor Heidegger.” 59 In the letter
Zemach wrote a synopsis outlining every section of the work, and he also
reported to Heidegger what he had decided to do with his letter: “Because the
letter you kindly sent my way in March of this year is a document of signifi-
cance for me, and your publisher left the use of the letter to my discretion, I have
taken the liberty of printing the letter’s complete text in German and in Hebrew
in the appendix.” After conveying a few other matters, the letter ends as fol-
lows: “It is my desire to conclude this letter to you, highly esteemed Professor
Heidegger, by expressing to you my sincere thanks for permission to translate
your treatise Origin of the Work of Art into Hebrew. With the highest regards,
and with kind wishes, Yours, S. Zemach.” 60 After nearly three months Heideg-
ger wrote back to Zemach:

Dear Dr. Zemach,

I apologize for replying so late to your kind letter with your remarks,
and thank you for the consignment of the translation.
Although I learned Hebrew at school and also later during my theolog-
ical studies, [I have] unfortunately unlearned it in the meantime, so I cannot
read your text. That is why your synopsis is important to me; it indicates that
your translation is founded on genuine expertness.
I would like to thank you once again for your interest in my work and
for your efforts with the translation, through which my essay has become

56. The publishing house Devir has switched ownership a number of times since the described epi-
sode. Responding to my inquiry, the current company claims to hold no archive or past records. Thus
any documents from these negotiations, which might shed light on the publisher’s viewpoint of Heideg-
ger’s readership in Israel, are unattainable.
57. See Zemach, “Heidegger U’fniyato.”
58. Zemach to Klostermann, October 1, 1968, SZA 52 14158/1.
59. Klostermann to Zemach, December 6, 1968, SZA, 52 14169/1.
60. Zemach to Heidegger, October 1, 1968, SZA, 52 14152/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 117

known to a wider circle of philosophically interested people. With kind

regards and best wishes for your well-being and future work,
[signed] Martin Heidegger61

The arrival of this letter, which invites at least a partial revision of some schol-
ars’ assumptions about Heidegger’s complete ignorance of Hebrew and the
Hebrew scriptures, was a great relief to Zemach, who until then had no indica-
tion that his book had safely reached Heidegger.62 “The profound burden that
distressed me the entire time—that Heidegger did not confirm receiving my
small book—was finally relieved yesterday,” he reported in his diary, where
he translated Heidegger’s reply into Hebrew. “Now this episode is completed,
and it won’t bother me anymore.” 63

Translation as Reconciliation?
The translation and the publication of a work of philosophy are not usually
events warranting special attention. Yet translating Heidegger into Hebrew,
after the Holocaust and for an overwhelmingly Jewish readership, is no doubt
a charged event. Zemach’s translation and particularly his essay with Heideg-
ger’s letter had an important effect on the way that Heidegger’s philosophy and
the “Heidegger controversy” were presented to the Israeli public. After all, not
only did these materials make accessible an original piece of the philosopher’s
writings, but they also constituted the most updated account of Heidegger’s
ties to the Nazis presented in Hebrew. Examining the responses to them provi-
des a view into Heidegger’s reception among Jews in the tumultuous times after
the Holocaust and also sheds light on an unknown offshoot of “the second
wave” of l’affaire Heidegger that rampaged chiefly in France at the time. In
my survey of the spectrum of views on Heidegger’s philosophy, his politics,

61. Heidegger to Zemach, January 5, 1969, SZA, 52 14163/1. “Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Zemach,
ich bitte sehr um Entschuldigung, dass ich so spät Ihren freundlichen Brief mit seinen Erläuterungen
beantworte und für die Zusendung der Übersetzung danke. Zwar habe ich am Gymnasium und später
während meines theologischen Studiums das Hebräische gelernt, aber inzwischen leider auch wieder
verlernt, so dass ich Ihren Text nicht lesen kann. Darum ist mir Ihre Inhaltsangabe wichtig; sie deutet
darauf, dass Ihre Übersetzung auf ein echtes Sachverständnis gegründet ist. Ich möchte Ihnen noch
einmal danken für Ihr Interesse an meinen Arbeiten und für Ihre Mühewaltung bei der Übersetzung,
durch welche meine Abhandlung einem weiteren Kreis philosophisch interessierter Menschen bekannt
geworden ist. Mit freundlichen Grüssen und den besten Wünschen für Ihr Wohlergehen und Ihre wei-
tere Arbeiten. Martin Heidegger.”
62. For example, John Caputo states that Heidegger “knew next to nothing in a direct way about the
Hebrew scriptures. . . . He did not read Hebrew, and when he studied theology, he confined himself to
the Greek New Testament” (“People of God, People of Being,” 95).
63. Zemach, Diaries, 255 (entry dated January 25, 1969).

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 118 Heidegger in Hebrew

and the relations between them, I focus on the theme of translating Heidegger
into Hebrew, perceived both as the language of the Jews and as the holy lan-
guage. I argue that an important element of the responses to Heidegger here
extended beyond the realm of the politico-philosophical, in which such ques-
tions as “Was he a Nazi?” or “Is his philosophy infected by fascism?” are dis-
cussed, and signaled toward what can be considered the theological realm,
in which questions about the desecration that might result from translating
the thoughts of a Nazi collaborator into the holy language are raised. What
emerges is also a concealed debate over the very essence of translation as a
semantic, intellectual, but also moral endeavor. The implications of the possi-
ble moral ties between translation and reconciliation thus come to the fore.
Zemach sent a copy of the translation to a few friends and colleagues,
who found it a significant contribution to the cultural and intellectual environ-
ment in Israel. Gideon Katzenelson (1914–89), Zemach’s younger friend and
a short-termed faculty member of the Department of Literature at Tel Aviv
University, praised Zemach for his literary achievement. “To present to the
Hebrew reader a small portion of Heidegger’s thought—in your translation,
your style, and with your comment,” Katzenelson wrote, “is no doubt a big mat-
ter in itself.” 64 Avraham Shapira (b. 1935), then a professor of Jewish philoso-
phy and history at Tel Aviv University, thanked Zemach for the “new and
important book that you are granting the Hebrew reader” and added, “After
hearing from you about the effort of the translation and about all that was
involved in adding your supplements and explanations to the book, I’ll read it
with exceeding interest.” 65 Yisrael Cohen (1905–86), an author and literary
critic, also praised Zemach on receiving a copy,66 as did Joseph Weiss from
University College London, who noted: “I did not see this work by Heidegger
in the original, although almost all his works are on my library shelves—and
thus your gift will expand my general education and I thank you for that in
particular.” 67
Appropriately, Heidegger’s letter to Zemach attracted special attention
among the public, eliciting a dual reaction: it was perceived either as a confir-

64. Katzenelson to Zemach, May 25, 1968, SZA, 52 14101/1.

65. Shapira to Zemach, September 29, 1968, SZA, 52 14133/1. I would like to thank Avraham
Shapira for the valuable information he provided me in our numerous communications about Heideg-
ger’s reception in Israel, and his wife, Iris, who facilitated this communication through her knowledge
of the medium of email.
66. Zemach, Diaries, 249 (entry dated October 5, 1968).
67. Weiss to Zemach, November 18, 1968, SZA, 52 14039/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 119

mation of Heidegger’s minimal and short-term association with the Nazis or as

a suspicious attempt to minimize or even vindicate a more sinister political
commitment. In the Moznaim volume of January 1969, for example, Reuben
Rabinovitch published an essay on Origin titled “Heidegger’s Account of Aes-
thetics,” in which the description of Heidegger’s Nazis episode is influenced by
(and mentions) Heidegger’s letter, and the citations from the essay are taken
from Zemach’s translation.68 Also recognizing the importance of Heidegger’s
letter for determining the end date of his affiliation with Nazism, Yoram Bro-
nowski, in a review of the translation, asked: “Does this episode, which is
insufficiently clear, derive from his philosophy?” His reply was unambiguous:
“We can answer confidently: in its essential points, it does not derive, does not
touch, does not deal [with it].” 69 For Rabinovich and Bronowski, the appear-
ance of Heidegger’s work in Hebrew was an event of intellectual and cul-
tural significance. His Nazism had nothing to do with his philosophy, and thus
the question of rehabilitation was extraneous and unrelated. Another reviewer,
Alexander Barzel, disagreed. In a long review essay, “Art and Truth in Heideg-
ger’s Thought,” he admitted that the younger Israeli generation was “enriched
now by one of the most interesting and thought provoking works of thought,”
although he was deeply critical of the translation itself. “I consulted the original
in order to understand the translation,” he sniped. “The old German philoso-
pher, whose work is presented now to the Hebrew reader, could serve as an
awkward allegory for the horrors of this century, in the time of Western civili-
zation’s throes.” Commenting on the contemporary public debate, Barzel con-
tended: “Certainly we should not be deterred from directly engaging with the
thought of this man. . . . We are strong enough to listen also to the views of our
haters and wrongdoers—Heidegger was not the first and will not be the last in
this frenzy-coursed world.” Heidegger’s letter, a “barely-apologetic response
regarding his failed actions in time of trial,” changed nothing of this judg-
ment.70 In the wake of this review, Zemach dashed off an angry letter to Barzel,
who replied by furthering his critique and contesting Zemach’s decision to
translate the term Sein at all: “I do not share your conviction that there is reason
to change it to a different term, which, in my view, does not capture it cor-
rectly.” 71 Barzel felt in position to pass judgment because he himself had trans-

68. Rabinovitch, “Mishnato Ha’Estetit Shel Heidegger,” 132–34. This is repeated in another article
from that year: Rabinovitch, “‘Origin of the Work of Art’ according to Heidegger.”
69. Bronowski, “Hamilim Hahoshvot,” 6.
70. Barzel, “Art and Truth in Heidegger’s Thought.”
71. Barzel to Zemach, February 8, 1969, SZA, 52 1439/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 120 Heidegger in Hebrew

lated sections of Sein und Zeit for a philosophy seminar on time in Tel Aviv
University led by Meshulam Groll.72 It is noteworthy that Barzel’s translation,
unlike Zemach’s, rendered Dasein by the biblically resonant hinenut, encom-
passing the imports of existing-here, readiness, and responsiveness.
It is clear from Barzel’s comments that translating Heidegger meant
merely transmitting ideas from one language to the other—whether it was
Hebrew or any other language mattered little—and implied nothing about a
conciliatory attitude toward the philosopher. Zemach, it seems, held a similar
view. When he wrote of “the difficulty of translating [Heidegger’s essay] into
Hebrew,” he was referring to the burden of transferring the philosopher’s dense
and idiosyncratic German to a different language. Yet, as noted, for “techni-
cal” reasons, he believed Hebrew was in some way privileged in capturing the
intricacies of Heidegger’s thoughts. Interestingly, Zemach occasionally drew
lines from Heidegger’s thought to his own Jewish heritage. In his brief allusion
to Heidegger’s belief in the superiority of the German language, Zemach
observed that “it seems that Heidegger believes that the world was created by
the German [Ashkenaz] language, and any change in German speech immedi-
ately generates a change in human fate and world order.” However, he contin-
ued, “for us Hebrews [beney-Ever], it is well known that if there were a lan-
guage with which the Creator created his world—it would have been the holy
tongue [lashon hakodesh]”!73 Zemach also explains and justifies some choices
of translation by resorting to the traditional Jewish lore. Verses from Psalms,
Jeremiah, and Isaiah as well as passages from various rabbinic tractates are
evoked to legitimize some oddities in his Hebrew formulations.74 For exam-
ple, aletheia, which Heidegger often renders as das Unverborgene, is trans-
lated as “that which does not hide” (she’eyno mistater), employing the root
str. In a draft Zemach explains his translation by drawing on Isaiah 45:15—
“You are a God who hides Himself [El mistater]”—claiming that unconceal-
ment in Heidegger’s account is similar to the hiding and revealing character of
God as depicted in this verse. Likewise, Zemach explains Heidegger’s image
of the forest clearing (Lichtung), which he translates as Mahsof (something
exposed, made bare, root hsf) by resorting to Psalm 29:9: “The voice of the
Lord makes the deer to calve and strips the forests bare [va’yahsof Yearot].”
Others, however, noted the specific complication of putting Heidegger’s
thought into Hebrew. Gavriel Moked, a well-known literary critic, praised

72. Heidegger, Al Ha’Zman.

73. Heidegger, “Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut,” 72.
74. This is also found in his diary. See Zemach, Diaries, 222 (both entries dated June 9, 1967).

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 121

Zemach’s translation as “a mighty achievement” but found it difficult to respond

to Heidegger on purely intellectual grounds. “When considering Heidegger’s
essay in Hebrew, we are not exempt from doubts that arise from the memory of
the philosopher’s Nazi past,” he insisted. Moked noticed that “also the publish-
ers and the translator thought of this past, as indicated by the correspondence
between Heidegger and S. Zemach.” He, too, was hardly convinced by Heideg-
ger’s letter, observing that “Heidegger tries, of course, to downplay the signif-
icance of the affair in his life.” For Moked, the fundamental issue was this:
“It is one thing to read his work for the sake of study, in the original and in a
translation to another language—but it is another thing to ‘own it,’ adorned by
the language of the Bible and the Mishna. I do not know what the decree of
this moral (and aesthetical) judgment should be in a case like this.” 75 He there-
fore acknowledged the importance of Heidegger’s philosophy and accepted
that translation did not necessarily entail intention toward rehabilitation. Indeed,
one could greatly benefit intellectually from studying Heidegger in any other
language. But having the ideas of the philosopher tainted with Nazism in the
language of “the Bible and the Mishna”—this gave one reason to recoil.76 The
issue was not only that Hebrew was the language of the Jews, the victims of the
Nazi death machine, but that it was the holy language, of which Heidegger’s
philosophy was unworthy. Despite the prominence of Heidegger’s philosophy,
it was questionable whether it should be clothed in the Hebrew language.
A reminiscent argument was made, in an exceedingly blunter manner, by
Johanan Arnon, a right-wing revisionist. Arnon found translating Origin a
deplorable affirmation of Heidegger and a gesture of tolerance of and forgive-
ness for the philosopher’s unrepented sins:

What shall a philosopher or German writer who capitulated in the Nazi period
do to best clear his good name and rectify his stained past? Should he try to
deny everything? Burn all his documents from that period? Suddenly suffer
from a bout of amnesia? No, there is something better than all this: he should
find a Jew who publishes for his sake something or translates some of his writ-
ings into Hebrew and publishes the translation in the State of Israel. And when
anyone will blame the philosopher for his dubious past, he would be able to
smile a forgiving smile and say: “What is wrong with you, my friend, what

75. Moked, “Ontologya Shel Omanut,” 7–8.

76. Similar rhetoric was invoked by the critic S. B. Urbach in his harsh review of Israel Eldad’s
Nietzsche translations: “It required no little audacity to render the crazy reflections of Nietzsche in
the language of the holy prophets” (quoted in Ohana, “From Right to Left,” 385).

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 122 Heidegger in Hebrew

are you talking about? For even the Jews in Israel published my writings in
Hebrew translation.” 77

Finally abandoning his acerbic cynicism, Arnon mourned: “Who would have
even imagined that ‘Jews’ would go on and translate into their holy language
books by collaborators of Hitler?” 78 To do so, he implied, is a desecration of the
language. While only one passing statement is dedicated to the translation
itself—“Zemach’s translation is no doubt excellent”—the entire review is
devoted to dismay over its very appearance. It was also clear to Arnon that Hei-
degger, in writing the letter to Zemach, “seeks to clear his name.” And in
response to Heidegger’s claim regarding the lip service his lectures paid to
party informers, Arnon exclaimed: “Really? Perhaps there was also the option
of keeping silent? Perhaps it was possible to leave the Third Reich, as the great
philosopher Karl Jaspers and all the elite of German thought and letters had
done? No. Mr. Heidegger did not leave; he capitulated.” To “the voices of the
intelligentsia from central Europe among us”—probably an allusion to the
Prague-born Bergmann—who believed that “without the treasures of German
thought, the spiritual life in Israel will collapse: ‘he is a great philosopher, and
that is what counts,’” Arnon retorted emphatically: “No, gentlemen! He was a
vile person [naval] then and is likely still so today. And despite the importance
of his thinking and great contribution of spirit, this man failed as a human and
even more so as a philosopher.” Translating Heidegger into Hebrew was there-
fore “a slap in the face of the Hebrew reader,” and if there were a desire to trans-
late a contemporary German philosopher into Hebrew, “why is Karl Jaspers’
powerful work not translated? . . . Let us translate those who opposed Hitler
and not collaborators!” 79 For Arnon, the political and theological were one:
translating Heidegger into Hebrew was despicable not only because it was
the language of those who were the bitter victims of the party to which Hei-
degger pledged allegiance, but because it was the “holy language” into which
nothing by a Nazi collaborator should be articulated.80
Perhaps the most striking review of the translation was penned by Berg-
mann himself. Zemach specifically solicited this review, and in response Berg-
mann congratulated him for an “important work” and for nobly handling the
complexity vis-à-vis Heidegger. “As far as I can judge,” he lauded, “you have

77. Arnon, “Martin Heidegger—Be’Ivrit?!,” 5.

78. Arnon places “Jews” in scare quotes.
79. Arnon, “Martin Heidegger—Be’Ivrit?!,” 5.
80. Zemach responds dismissively to Arnon’s review in Zemach, Diaries, 271 (entry dated April 3,
1970).

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 123

dealt with the psychological tangle [hatisbochet hapsychologit] with dignity—

dignity to yourself and dignity to Heidegger.” He agreed to review the work,
concluding, “We shall hope that your translation will be a blessing to both
sides.” 81 In their exchange Zemach discloses to Bergmann his surprise at
receiving a letter from Heidegger. “I could not have known that Heidegger
himself would write me,” he intimated, “since the negotiation was with his
publisher from Frankfurt throughout the entire time. And after I received the
letter, I could not help but reorganize my introduction in order to make room
for the letter.” However, Zemach makes clear that “the changes are not
significant—changes in phrasing but not in substance.” 82
Bergmann began his review, “Heidegger in Hebrew Garment,” by acknowl-
edging that “it was no easy task that Zemach took on himself, and I speak
here not of the language side of this translation, but of the political [side].”
Contextualizing Heidegger’s translation with the contemporary Israeli public
discourse, he observed, “It is known how sensitive our Hebrew public is con-
cerning artists who were, correctly or incorrectly, branded as anti-Semites,”
and now under discussion, in the wake of Zemach’s translation, was “a philos-
opher about whom it was known that he had belonged to the National Socialist
party.” Yet despite the palpable difficulties, “Zemach has succeeded in the dif-
ficult task with great tact, courage and honesty.” Bergmann justified Heidegger
for not openly expressing his estrangement from the “methods and aims” of the
party. “Naturally,” he wrote, “in those days Heidegger could not make his mis-
take [Irrtum] known publicly without becoming a martyr. Who has the right to
accuse him of this?” Still more difficult to justify was Heidegger’s silence after
the war. “Admittedly, why Heidegger . . . did not find it necessary after the
catastrophe to own up to his mistake publicly and unambiguously, rather than
leave his readers still suspecting and guessing, remains incomprehensible to
us.” Before quoting Heidegger’s letter in its entirety, Bergmann granted that
asking Heidegger directly about the “embarrassing” 1953 passage “was a very
correct and important move” on Zemach’s part.83
The review’s conclusion is especially illuminating. Bergmann evoca-
tively wrote: “Franz Rosenzweig once said that every translation is a messianic

81. Bergmann to Zemach, November 10, 1968, Shmuel Hugo Bergmann Archive, 4* 1502 01
2409.
82. Zemach to Bergmann, November 12, 1968, Shmuel Hugo Bergmann Archive, 4* 1502 01
2409.
83. Bergmann, “Heidegger in hebräischem Gewande,” 3. An identical review was published as
Bergmann, “Heidegger in hebräischem Gewande,” 53, 55; Bergmann to Zemach, November 28,
1968, SZA, 52 13965/1.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 124 Heidegger in Hebrew

act, probably because it brings the nations [Völker] close to each other and thus
hastens the coming of a messianic humanity. If this is true of any type of trans-
lation, so [it is true] in a particular way of this first translation of Heidegger into
our Hebrew—together with its epilogue.” In this pregnant statement, a silent
acknowledgment of the thorniness of accepting Heidegger in a “Hebrew gar-
ment” is betrayed, as is an approval of its necessity nonetheless. The presuppo-
sition of the unique status of Hebrew is apparent as well: if any translation pos-
sesses messianic impetus, then dressing Heidegger in a Hebrew garment is
especially so. Thus, in a surprising coupling, Bergmann, like the revisionist
Arnon, believed that there was an element of reconciliation in the act of trans-
lation. However, they were in profound disagreement as to whether this rap-
prochement was desirable.84
The various positions surveyed here presuppose a stance on the political,
ethical, and theological stakes of translating Heidegger into Hebrew. Some,
like Zemach and Barzel, believed that Heidegger should be translated—into
Hebrew, or any other language—because of the importance of his philoso-
phy and despite his political shortcomings, the duration and nature of which
are debatable. Translation is a literary feat; it remains morally—and surely
religiously—neutral. As such, translating Heidegger implies no conciliatory
gesture of any sort. Moked would concur with respect to translating Heidegger
into any language, although he had reservations as to the appropriateness of
conveying Heidegger’s thought in Hebrew. For him, the stakes of translating
into Hebrew are moral and religious. Likewise, Arnon held that, regardless of
his philosophical contributions, Heidegger is undeserving of the holy language.
His political transgression makes the translation a moral and theological trav-
esty. At first glance it would seem that Bergmann sides with Zemach and Bar-
zel. However, on closer examination, the logic of his messianic position leads to
a more radical view: Heidegger should be translated because of his Nazism,
and especially into Hebrew, for the messianic prospect is in this case amplified.
The translation is not merely of literary significance but, rather, is suffused with
moral and theological quality. It is indeed an indication toward reconciliation,
but, precisely for this reason, it should be welcomed.

84. Bergmann, “Heidegger in hebräischem Gewande,” 3. It is relevant to mention the entry on Hei-
degger in the Hebrew Encyclopedia written by Bergmann about a decade earlier. While appropriately
condensed and terse, the short biographical note in the beginning of the entry is marked by an undeni-
able downplaying of Heidegger’s previous political affiliation. See Bergmann, “Heidegger, Martin,”
51–54.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 125

Heidegger in Hebrew: A Jewish Reception

Naturally, Heidegger remained a controversial figure in Israel. Zemach, for his
part, found pride in his efforts and their provocative cultural implications.
When, from his Elternheim in Jerusalem, he again brought the rage of the
younger generation on himself for admonishing the new rising star of Israeli
poetry, Yehuda Amichai, he drew on Heidegger once more for his self-defense.
Warding off accusations that he was simply too conservative for the new liter-
ary taste, Zemach proclaimed: “They called me a conservative. I, who strug-
gled to bring Heidegger to the Hebrew reader, I am a conservative to them!” 85
The response to the translation of Heidegger’s Origin into Hebrew participates
in the larger context of the Jewish and Israeli intelligentsia’s coping with the
world after the Holocaust. It constitutes an important moment in the largely
untold chapter of the Jewish reception of Heidegger, the person and the philos-
opher. On reflection, it is difficult to ignore the particularly “Jewish” perspec-
tive taken in the various responses to this translation. By Jewish I mean not only
the painful perspective of Jews as the victims of the Nazi murder but also the
presence and constant use of vocabulary and conceptions drawn from Jewish
tradition. The ease and frequency with which Zemach quotes from the Talmud
and the rabbis when writing to Heidegger and Klostermann are noteworthy, as
are the recurring references to the Bible in translating or explaining Heideg-
ger’s categories and ideas. Indeed, that the issue of Hebrew as the holy lan-
guage is raised and discussed at all testifies to a particularly Jewish inflection
of this episode.

Daniel Herskowitz holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford and is currently Stanley
A. and Barbara B. Rabin Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute for Israel and
Jewish Studies and the Religion Department, Columbia University.

85. Ramba, “Sofrim Be’Na’aley Bait,” 14.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 126 Heidegger in Hebrew

References
Arnon, Johanan. 1968. “Martin Heidegger—Be’Ivrit?!” (“Martin Heidegger—in
Hebrew?!”). Hayom, October 18.
Bambach, Charles. 2003. Heidegger’s Roots: Nietzsche, National Socialism, and the
Greeks. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Barzel, Alexander. 1969. “Art and Truth in Heidegger’s Thought.” Haaretz, January 24, 19.
Bergmann, Hugo S. 1935. Hogey Ha’Dor (Contemporary Thinkers). Tel Aviv: Mitspa.
Bergmann, Hugo S. 1960. “Heidegger, Martin.” In vol. 14 of The Hebrew Encyclopedia,
51–54. Tel Aviv: Company for the Publication of Encyclopedias.
Bergmann, Hugo S. 1966. “Thanks to the Philharmonic.” Davar, June 27.
Bergmann, Hugo S. 1968. “Heidegger in hebräischem Gewande.” Israelitisches Wochen-
blatt für die Schweiz, December 6, 53, 55.
Bergmann, Hugo S. 1968. “Heidegger in hebräischem Gewande.” Mitteilungsblatt (publi-
cation of the Vereinigung der Israelis mitteleuropäischer Herkunft), December 13, 3.
Bronowski, Yoram. 1968. “Hamilim Hahoshvot” (“The Thinking Words”). La’Merchav,
October 11.
Buber, Martin. 1947. “What Is Man?” In Between Man and Man, translated by Ronald
Gregor Smith, 118–205. London: Kegan Paul.
Buber, Martin. 1965. “Religion and Modern Thinking.” In Eclipse of God, 65–92. New
York: Harper and Row.
Caputo, John D. 2000. “People of God, People of Being: The Theological Presuppositions
of Heidegger’s Path of Thinking.” In Appropriating Heidegger, edited by James E.
Faulconer and Mark A. Wrathall, 85–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1953. “Mit Heidegger gegen Heideggers Denken: Zur Veröffentlichung
von Vorlesungen aus dem Jahre 1935.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 25.
Heidegger, Martin. 1950. Holzwege. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Heidegger, Martin. 1950. “Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes.” In Holzwege, 1–72. Frankfurt
am Main: Klostermann.
Heidegger, Martin. 1958. Einführung in die Metaphysik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Heidegger, Martin. 1967. “Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut (Prakim Mi’Mishnato)” (“The
Origin of the Work of Art [Sections from His Thought]”), translated by Shlomo Zem-
ach. Moznaim 24, nos. 5–6: 387–93.
Heidegger, Martin. 1968. Mekoro shel Ma’ase Ha’Omanut (The Origin of the Work of Art),
translated by Shlomo Zemach. Tel Aviv: Devir.
Heidegger, Martin. 1983. Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 40. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Heidegger, Martin. 1990. “The Rectorate, 1933/34: Facts and Thoughts.” In Martin Hei-
degger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers, edited by Günther Neske and
Emil Kettering, translated by Lisa Harries, 15–32. New York: Paragon House.
Heidegger, Martin. 1993. “Only a God Can Save Us.” In The Heidegger Controversy: A
Critical Reader, edited by Richard Wolin, 91–116. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heidegger, Martin. 2013. Nature, History, State, 1933–1934, edited and translated by
Gregory Fried and Richard Polt. London: Bloomsbury.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 Daniel Herskowitz 127

Heidegger, Martin. n.d. Al Ha’Zman: Mesifro “Sein und Zeit” (On Time: From His Book
“Sein und Zeit”), translated by Alexander Barzel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Herskowitz, Daniel. 2017. “Heidegger as a Secularized Kierkegaard: Martin Buber and
Hugo Bergmann Read Sein und Zeit.” In Heidegger and Jewish Thought: Difficult
Others, edited by Elad Lapidot and Micha Brumlik, 155–74. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Hertz, Joseph H., ed. 1952. Sayings of the Fathers. London: East and West Library.
Ireland, Julia A. 2014. “Naming Φύσις and the ‘Inner Truth of National Socialism’: A New
Archival Discovery.” Research in Phenomenology 44, no. 3: 315–46.
Jelinek, Yeshayahu A. 2004. Deutschland und Israel, 1945–1965: Ein neurotisches Ver-
hältnis. Munich: Oldenbourg.
Kenaan, Hagi, Shmuel Rottem, and Dana Barnea. 2012. “Heidegger Be’Ivrit: Perek
Be’Toldot Hitgabshuta shel Phlosophia Mekomit” (“Heidegger in Hebrew: A Chapter
in the Formation of a Local Philosophy”). Theory and Criticism 40: 35–66.
Mendes-Flohr, Paul. 2014. “Martin Buber and Martin Heidegger in Dialogue.” Journal of
Religion 94, no. 1: 2–25.
Moked, Gavriel. 1968. “Ontologya Shel Omanut” (“Ontology of Art”). Davar, November 8.
Ohana, David. 1995. “Zarathustra in Jerusalem: Nietzsche and the New Hebrews.” Israel
Affairs 1, no. 3: 38–61.
Ohana, David. 2009. “From Right to Left: Israel Eldad and Nietzsche’s Reception in Israel.”
Nietzsche-Studien 38: 363–88.
Olafson, Frederick. 1977. “Heidegger’s Politics: An Interview with Herbert Marcuse by
Frederick Olafson.” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 6, no. 1: 28–40.
Pöggler, Otto. 1987. Martin Heidegger’s Path of Thinking, translated by Daniel Magur-
shak and Sigmund Barber. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities.
Rabinovitch, Reuben. 1969. “Mishnato Ha’Estetit Shel Heidegger” (“Heidegger’s Account
of Aesthetics”). Moznaim 28, no. 2: 132–34.
Rabinovitch, Reuben. 1969. “‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ according to Heidegger: At
the Margins of the Hebrew Edition Translated by Zemach.” Maariv, July 4, 27.
Ramba, Isaac. 1969. “Sofrim Be’Na’aley Bait: Shlomo Zemach Be’Veyt Ha’Horim Be’Ba-
ka’a” (“Writers in Slippers: Shlomo Zemach in the ‘Parents Home’ in Baka’a”). Ma’ariv,
February 21.
Rockmore, Tom. 1992. On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Roubach, Michael. 2009. “Die Rezeption Heideggers in Israel.” Heidegger-Jahrbuch 9:
419–32.
Segev, Tom. 1993. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, translated by Haim
Watzman. New York: Hill and Wang.
Sheffi, Na’ama. 2001. The Ring of Myths: The Israelis, Wagner, and the Nazis, translated
by Martha Grenzeback. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.
Skinner, Anthony David, ed. 2002. Gershom Scholem: A Life in Letters, 1914–1982. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018
 128 Heidegger in Hebrew

Van Breda, Herman Leo. 2007. “The Rescue of Husserl’s Nachlass and the Founding of the
Husserl Archives,” translated by David Ulrichs and Basil Vassilicos. In Geschichte des
Husserl-Archivs/History of the Husserl-Archiv, edited by Rudolf Bernet, 39–69. Dor-
drecht: Springer.
Wolin, Richard, trans. 1991. “Herbert Marcuse and Martin Heidegger: An Exchange of
Letters.” New German Critique, no. 53: 28–32.
Ya’ari, Haim. 1966. “Beyn Ha’Nibelungs Le’Auschwitz” (“Between Nibelungs and Ausch-
witz”). Davar, July 1.
Zaborowski, Holger. 2010. “Eine Frage von Irre und Schuld?”: Martin Heidegger und
Nationalsozialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Zemach, Shlomo. 1939. Al Ha’Yafe: Shitot Hesber La’Yofi U’mekorotav (On Beauty:
Explanatory Methods on Beauty and Its Origins). Tel Aviv: Bialik.
Zemach, Shlomo. 1940. “Nazism, Sin’at Yisrael, Ve’Schopenhauer” (“Nazism, Jewish-
Hatred, and Schopenhauer”). Moznaim 10, nos. 1–5: 232–47.
Zemach, Shlomo. 1963. “Mashal Lelo Nimshal.” Davar, June 14.
Zemach, Shlomo. 1971. “Assiya U’farshata” (“Action and What It Is About”). In Ba’Arov
Hayamim, 86–99. Ramat Gan: Masada.
Zemach, Shlomo. 1971. “Heidegger U’fniyato.” In Ba’Arov Hayamim, 65–76. Ramat Gan:
Masada.
Zemach, Shlomo. 1996. Pinkasey Reshimot, 1962–1973 (Diaries), edited by Hannan
Hever and Ada Zemach. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-pdf/45/3 (135)/97/542815/97herskowitz.pdf

by COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY user
on 18 October 2018