Berhrungsangst mit Superlativen existiert in der Kryptoszene nur selten. Deshalb verwundert es nicht, wenn Decentralized Finance (DeFi) -ein auf der Blockchain-Technologie basierendes Finanzsystem, das ohne zentrale Intermedire auskommen soll -als "the most automated and transparent financial system in human history" 1 bezeichnet wird -nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger! Das berthema der Konferenz 2 gibt Anlass fr eine eingehendere Auseinandersetzung mit dieser Aussage: Geht es bei DeFi tatschlich transparenter zu als in traditionellen, zentralisierten Finanzsys temen? Dem soll vorliegend nach einer Einfhrung in DeFi (B.) sowohl aus technischer (C.) als auch aus rechtlicher Sicht (D.) nachgegangen wer den.
What do Immanuel Kant and Pablo Picasso have in common? What sounds like the beginning of a bad academic joke was a serious question for the Russian philosopher-theologian Sergii Bulgakov (1871-1944). For the affinities between the twentieth-century artist and the eighteenth-century philosopher were, for him, substantial. Indeed, readers of Bulgakov’s The Tragedy of Philosophy—recently published in translation by Angelico Press—might consider the description of Kant as a ‘cubist’ and of his philosophy as a ‘cubism’, one of the book’s more outlandish and perplexing claims. Nor is it a claim that Bulgakov makes only once. In Tragedy, Kant’s epistemology is described as ‘subjective-cubistic’,11 Sergii Bulgakov, Tragedy of Philosophy, trans. Stephen Churchyard (New York: Angelico Press, 2020), 32, note 10. in response to Kant’s conviction that the unity of perceptions does not arise from objects themselves, but is instead imparted by the understanding to experience.22 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, B 134. Later in the same work, Bulgakov simply inserts the exclamation ‘cubism!’ into a citation from Kant’s own text on the unifying role of the understanding. These are the only two instances in Tragedy where Kant’s alleged cubism is asserted. They are marginal and gnomic assertions, and give an indication of the perplexities that await the intrepid reader. But they nonetheless gesture toward the abiding concern of this work. For Kant’s ‘cubism’ has to do with his approach to unity, and particularly his view of the understanding as imparting unity to experience, rather than the unity of things being received by the understanding from the perceived objects themselves. Bulgakov has more to say on Kant’s ‘cubism’ elsewhere. The characterisation of Kant as a cubist pre-dates the extended discussion of the latter’s philosophy in Tragedy by a few years, first appearing in a 1914 article on the works of Pablo Picasso, published under the title ‘The Corpse of Beauty’.33 ‘Trup krasoty’ [The Corpse of Beauty], in Sergii Bulgakov, Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. 2, ed. I. B. Rodnianskaia (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 527-45. Here Bulgakov claims that the parallel between Kant and Picasso has been noted elsewhere, and he is likely referring to another 1914 article on Picasso, this time by Nikolai Berdiaev.44 Rodnianskaia is the source of this connection. Cf. her notes in Sochineniia, vol. 2, 719. As for Bulgakov, what is at stake for Berdiaev in defining a ‘cubist’ philosophy is its approach to unity, and particularly the unity that both Bulgakov and Berdiaev claim for the world independently of reason. Berdiaev understands a cubist philosophy as one which sunders the unity of the world: ‘cubism is possible in philosophy also. Thus the critical genealogy ends in its latter stages with the slicing up and scattering of being’.55 Nikolai Berdiaev, ‘Pikasso’, first published in Sofiia 3 (1914). Available at http://www.picasso-pablo.ru/library/berdyaev-picasso.html (in Russian). (Accessed 28 September 2020). Bulgakov will describe cubism in similar—albeit more graphic—terms, as a decomposition of organic, living unity. ‘Putrefaction, the smell of rotting flesh and of the disintegrating physical plane are perfectly palpable’ when viewing Picasso’s portraits, whilst in cubism as a whole ‘everything, even living things become matter, become composite, and Bulgakov, The artist and the philosopher in of the living unity of things and in of the of the a to the of a and a of the of into an of But is one more is to the in the of Picasso, the artist is in with the by the artist an with the artist in a particularly with the of the world the artist is to that of the flesh which is the of the What Bulgakov to is that artist and are by a of the the unity of For the of the the of to the and the artist the that is in matter, the of in its this that is what it is to is but Sergii Bulgakov, The trans. B. to the unity of this world is to its unity with the world of what Bulgakov The of Picasso in a of his living as Thus they the of rotting the between the and the artist is the and the philosopher to They two of two to of the from the of this for in it is not from but from not in the of experience, but with the in and Sergii Bulgakov, and to The trans. and the philosopher to from the world and to it unity on it from The Bulgakov in Tragedy, to a world of of his own as Bulgakov, Tragedy, The the world from and is to a of its unity. In this the is in Tragedy as of a that the of not an into they are not to are in and are by to the of the of the and the philosopher is in two The first the that the the is the this not a in For the in from the to the is by a to the Indeed, is not the by the philosopher a of the to from the is the of the in the of a will have it the philosopher in it an for the and and The of trans. and (New York: is the of The of philosopher and in been Bulgakov by as a to the for do not independently in the world and the the philosopher with the are not and of the of the They of is to Bulgakov, the philosopher and the in to the latter with the artist as a with the of the this the of the that a of the flesh in its and which only the of the flesh but its that the of the which is in an and of Bulgakov, the of the and the artist with the a that a of the unity of the world with and with the is a of the and an of Bulgakov at the that Picasso’s work, which the of the unity of the a to and of the of the the of Picasso one the of that the with the of Picasso and in but in his in will of the of this Cf. The of Pablo Picasso (New York: Press, But what Bulgakov by this is that Picasso does not that the and unity of the is a of its being a as as physical an the of the to the of the The and is that the unity of the which to Bulgakov is the of Bulgakov, Tragedy, is with the of a from and this is the of Bulgakov’s of the of the whole a The of is a in for to of the it of Bulgakov this in Tragedy by that are when that is with of that independently of that is up of of the is of the is a more of the of are in as of with to the that are in the to that in to of the of for Bulgakov, the of Cf. for discussion of the of in his The Press, are outlandish and marginal Kant’s cubism to the of Bulgakov’s The Tragedy of The perceived of philosophy is that is of its philosopher but he into the but his in the of the and he and into Bulgakov, Tragedy, As have the of this in the to the world from when in is In response to this Bulgakov in Tragedy to what a of is the title of a by on Bulgakov in and on this in will an epistemology that from the of a of that of epistemology and For as the of the the in which is on the in which the of the unity of the world is a of to the the of the philosopher is a of of a of that Bulgakov will describe as in with to at in Tragedy, with to to is a and to which is described as Thus to in is from a of a that the of to the as Bulgakov’s of into the of is in with Kant’s critical Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, have to do with is a and one that to that even have the it will not to on with is the he at his For he does by the by in its What of What the of in this in with Kant’s the to have both and Kant will that the of a appearing to in not for the in Bulgakov will that the to which and are possible for the objects of and the that the for is that they with to a that and are and does not to an it that to the things that is that the unity of things is the unity of for Bulgakov, that the unity of things is For the of as is the of as and of the of the in the and of The of Tragedy is the of and a that has its in the of that the world is As a first in that it is that in its with unity, Tragedy is a of its Bulgakov that the of his was of they for a understanding of a The Russian for the of Sergii Bulgakov, in that in its with unity, Tragedy the view by that of Russian philosophy is that it to the and of as a in of 2, Russian with is in the of a that Tragedy, with the The latter is the translation of whilst a a a Cf. in ed. and trans. by and the of being of that is in the of is an unity, but to the of the world and the of with the with are the in what is as These are described as two they in and The is and at the beginning and of a that in the and to the of Russian and with to the the of philosophy and the for a and approach that and unity. In this was in the of an which on the of the of the the In this was in the of which that the is a of a that only living into that organic, unity. the and of this on unity are in the of a on the of Russian that in Bulgakov’s have in philosophy of unity, as and on in the of and the that is to In in the of his being as a the only a between the and the being only as the of an to its on ed. and trans. by Press, in the is to of as to an this is a one with the of the in of the of the of the is to for The of its own the of the as the the for the this is of and an of to its to the of the that which to its The between this and the that the of is the that the of is to this it from the of as the not it not the But in that not In the of as is a of as does the of as to the characterisation of being as and are of the first of of the the the in in and unity. In this first the is in that in the the the the the is in the where of the of as a to the that is the of being do not the unity to the same this unity is to in will as in the of the for in the of the of will is not from the in an unity with The to the of as and as as the first the the what is for the two is that being is being as the with in have for and with of Thus the by the by is and the as to the between of as the as and as But with this it that the of as is from the of as For to and this only a of the the is In the of is by the of But this is the of understanding of the that Bulgakov will in his more For Bulgakov’s of of the from the of and the of in the of in Bulgakov will that one that the of as a for the of the to with to the of is to the of the the of both a and a Thus with to the the of in as and on in Bulgakov, ed. (Moscow: Bulgakov will this in The the of the it in that in its first of to does not the but is by the of the as Bulgakov’s extended of the of as is in on For an of this Bulgakov’s the of this of from the of in Tragedy, this is not as as in Cf. the discussion of the of the the in this Indeed, Bulgakov’s Tragedy of is in an extended of this by Bulgakov will a to The a for what Bulgakov, Tragedy, of the not only as a but as a and for in the as of and to in for of in is and the it is not a the of the of the is living of the Indeed, the of on this of the and is in of as when Bulgakov the as question to which the is the description of the as that which the what is this Tragedy this in a that not only of but Bulgakov’s own of the of in his of the For in Tragedy, this is to a that is even for In both and Bulgakov’s Philosophy, the of the as a as an is in when he that the of is to of the of is not to of is for as by its is to say that being has an that what in its its and this that in and the of on are and for The is that the the of being to for of as for and The is not a of an it a a The same is of the and the as they are in Bulgakov’s of the Bulgakov as in Tragedy that the the is the ‘The is in a the of the is the of of and of the in Sergii Bulgakov, ed. I. B. and vol. 2, as as are described in the same as to in a In the an to the Bulgakov is being ‘The But the and the These are into with the as an it as the and the The for and both and toward a a and it a they the of being that is with and this is is a The of the is not but is with the being one for this the being of the in like the for this is Bulgakov, Tragedy, that this is is in in the of the being of the in and for in the of the this is translation is from Sergii Bulgakov, in Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. ed. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), What of this is that a like is is an of on the of the of as a of the as its Tragedy, Bulgakov in The of the that the of the is the of the the the of and a Bulgakov, of the In Tragedy whilst the that the world in is the is more on the of the in the they give and the they the world source of in is not in but in the Bulgakov, Tragedy, into in a of a Bulgakov a in the of the For what he is to and world a of in Philosophy, Bulgakov was at to the unity of and as the latter the this unity is nonetheless The world a of with its own of the of they nonetheless to the own Indeed, is a in which the in that of an For the of in the of in which the is first of in which is the the and its with this its to that this of the the of that the whole of the of Bulgakov, of the The to which the unity of and world is in The of the being is by this the between the by which the world and themselves, between the of the world and the of In Tragedy, the and of is not that independently of the it only and with the that the a that that the of the world and the of the one Here Bulgakov’s an of epistemology and and that it a of as being the For which like is as in of a more of the is from the of the that this the of into In The of the the was Kant, the to the between a and its But the of In Tragedy, the is what is the is the in the Bulgakov, Tragedy, the of that is in its is to the the The the in the which to in the world is in the the that makes But what does this the is as of the it is say more the of the is in Tragedy in of and of the is a to of this an understanding of the as by of an that is in the on an to of but a of 10. The with a of are not to with to Bulgakov’s in Tragedy, not it to the of an with the But Bulgakov has more to say in Tragedy, where the is to a a rather than a as to to the as a unity, the Bulgakov that this is not only in Kant’s in the of the but in Kant’s which makes a for is only possible on the of in its as and is a gesture the is the of the as a unity is by and in of the is a of and The is not an but a is a for the to a but not an this of is not own but from to that to a the only of is this from the which as is What is in the in the unity that one makes of the is the unity that the makes does not with as is an of and a of the of toward and the world will by and the that is an of an of the of of the world will from to a a to in the and to to a does not his her own but it to The unity of the world as as only from and as the of in a of and are affinities at this with another of Bulgakov’s the of and of the has as its of what Bulgakov is is the of by is what makes Bulgakov’s of and epistemology a For is in the of the is the world as only by are in rather than by this is not an of of it is a which has as its not only the of the unity of the world with and with the but of with one another as to a a As an of the the whole its unity with the a unity which is the of the the of the the world as the living of the as his in the Bulgakov, and What The Tragedy of the of its with the of a of as from the to the of in the For is the for that to which are and which is with a for will a translation of Sergii Bulgakov’s is a in to and and of citation and this the of in for and in of the latter in Tragedy is Bulgakov’s of two for what in is simply by is the that to to the in a and is a and that is to the These are as and a that is and it a that Bulgakov is the work. are the with which translation from Russian into and translation to for where it is and to the its the that the translation in is a toward and of are not and are of are not and it is are to a of of the first and the Churchyard has Bulgakov from the and of and living and in its But is in a in the Russian not that the translation to from the and of and instead to the of living and the which is on the same Bulgakov that is not a But what Churchyard has as in and the translation to is not not being These like the of is But more on the of are with more on the of whole of to a of of Bulgakov’s which are on to the and which are in than of The to the Russian with the and is the of the that has only for both the and the The is a into the of the in and with one is is a that has its in the in and was by the with the of for her on Russian that the discussion of the in is from the Russian where and are in the same as is for the the of is that the same of is in of Bulgakov, as in The of of the one are as as one of Bulgakov’s at the of Tragedy into as an is and to Indeed, what of and is to does the of it makes is not the to one in not the to one and it is the of the the of the and in and trans. The of that Bulgakov is when is and simply when in as ‘The that to and the that he to the to the to approach as that a into the this is a of Bulgakov, Tragedy, a in which even and one another with a Bulgakov his readers as an in the into a of of that with which own In the same to is that the translation of as a a and to from the of and a it and into and and The of the is that the has to more a than Bulgakov, has in the of the The that the of rather than is a makes it the more perplexing that it is not and in the Indeed, it is that the it to the only by as and Stephen the of a in Tragedy, a as have a and from it is when a a text for what it does not of the is to the into the of in the that are in the is the with a like as have was to the and twentieth-century Russian which the of and to a is at in Bulgakov’s and of the of in Tragedy and the of the whole work. simply it with the and discussion of this that readers will of Bulgakov, in at the of is his and a the of Russian this is are to what Bulgakov is to The of the is a and a it is to the of Bulgakov, Tragedy, The of the is a and a is to the of the more in the the it is that the in which Bulgakov is is not between of but rather between the of The Bulgakov is is that the which and in a to with the a which is from the published is this of Bulgakov’s of a to which the as the first the the as the the and the as the the The translation this instead a between of that does not in the by a as a by the in the even the of the Russian that between the possible of one of the of the is and only in to a Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. it is that the translation the the of this into is The that not become the the of are from the the of a to is the of as to is a for is perfectly and to that simply does not for a is than a which it is possible for to and the an the in is the Bulgakov, Tragedy, the of to is with the of a the is a for But a of Bulgakov to both between more Tragedy and even the For Bulgakov that the of the is that of which it is possible for to on the of the The is when this is to another in the where Bulgakov that the does not being in the world of at the same it is not a for not to it Thus the an to not a it is to say that Bulgakov this on the of it simply the that Bulgakov in Tragedy that the is and is not that it does and does not that which is and is and as to is a for it does not at But a is more than a to in the an the in is nonetheless to the The is a is in the by an extended with the two by than the Churchyard has instead the as referring to the of the But this is not for is in is a a of the of the to is an abiding of Bulgakov’s philosophy and being up with his to the of the the on the one and his to an of the of the that does not into on the The of which in Tragedy is a in that of For it to in this that readers Bulgakov on one of the in his to the to The discussion has Bulgakov’s understanding of the in what they of like of They the of the has been as the of the with to and as of are by the to which is an of in which the an of as is from the of the its is to the of the it is in instead a unity that is by for the Bulgakov, Tragedy, Indeed, the translation of this is with a of that are in the in In the is by the as a with it being is this But the makes both that is not the of and that is not with and are in the is that the the is not the is in the it is the of for the whilst is in the it is the of a that a to of is that the of in the was and in and the epistemology of the is of its which has that the understanding of in the is the epistemology of the in and its which has from to and and of in an of Bulgakov’s The is and to the are not to as the discussion they are not as as they for from the text that the as as from in the work, that Bulgakov makes a of rather than and have Bulgakov makes in Tragedy that the of the is not that of a in a that the of a to the by Churchyard in the But it is not that of translation and in this For in the of the latter two are into Bulgakov’s text that are not in the and that concern of the claims. in the of the first which the of the of a a claim is simply as the translation a between of that does not in the of with the to a the text in the a of at and a of understanding at on the of the Indeed, the more instances of one the at in the text of a translation in an like to to the of the Bulgakov, Tragedy, rather than to have it into the In the of in the translation the of as an rather than a in to in that with have the translation as is a a translation is what The Tragedy of In his of the of Bulgakov the of in Tragedy, an description of philosophy as a of the of is an of which the a of translation into of the that was to the Sergii Bulgakov, in v is translation of and are not to the of But is and not its and that the of approach the of that approach the a unity of is it is with in the the The translation from to is by a more in translation from the into the and the for a translation does not with the a translation of own in the of which in is is for only in and one a translation from one to Sergii Bulgakov, The of trans. B. the is a translation in time of the of in the that the of the For the world to the of is for it to a translation of the of in the of of as of of as and this is what is by Bulgakov’s the the of with the translation by The of and of the of the are of the in time that the But are the of the as of the of and of the like that of Sergii of for is the of the world to and it is the of in this world have into the one to Sergii Bulgakov, For the the is that in to it into to from the source of the of Bulgakov of his to one nonetheless in his a is at not the of the and to him, is at to in the of the things of that was
On New Year’s Eve of 1933 a train carrying a single passenger crossed the border into Switzerland. The passenger was the German-Jewish poet, philosopher, and literary critic Margarete Susman (1872-1966). Reflecting on the reasons for her departure, Susman later recalled: “When I left … my true Heimat I did so above all as a German who could not bear this new Germany. The Jewish destiny was not apparent in its entire horror at the time.”1 Sixty-one years old at the time of emigration, Susman was granted asylum in Switzerland. Soon, she would find a spiritual home among the religious socialists that had begun coalescing around the figure of the Protestant theologian Leonhard Ragaz (1868-1945) almost three decades earlier.2 It is her involvement in this leftist religious movement with its emphasis on dialogue between members of different creeds that constitutes the core of this article.3 The aim of genuine dialogue is to understand one’s partner, not to convert him or her to one’s own viewpoint. “Dialogue speaks to the Other with a full respect of what the Other is and has to say” in the words of religious scholar Edward Kessler. “This is never less than personal but can develop in such a way as to be extended to a group and even to communities. However, it begins with the individual and not with the community.”4 Kessler’s emphasis on the individual basis of dialogue is particularly pertinent to this inquiry. Susman and Ragaz were both interested in how each faith helped illuminate the other, sometimes to the point of blurring crucial doctrinal distinctions. Ultimately, their intellectual engagement centered on the urgent attempt to come to terms with some of the most pressing religious questions of their day. So far, this fascinating encounter has received virtually no scholarly attention, perhaps precisely because of its unorthodox nature and the difficulty of pigeonholing its protagonists.5 An inquiry into Susman’s and Ragaz’s dialogue, or “faith conversation” (Glaubensgespräch) as she called it, is important not only for the light it sheds on the intellectual and spiritual life of one German-Jewish émigré and a renegade Swiss pastor, but also for the time and place of its occurrence. The fact that this interaction took place in unoccupied German-speaking Europe, at a time when Jews had become social pariahs and ultimately victims of genocide, challenges the conventional understanding of the incipience of the Jewish-Christian dialogue after the Holocaust.6 Though Susman’s concern for interreligious dialogue did not amount to formal participation in an institutionalized network – which in any case did not exist at the time – I argue that her and Ragaz’s efforts constituted an important precursor to the phenomenon of interfaith encounter that suddenly burst upon the scene in postwar central Europe. Despite its uncongenial political climate, German-speaking Switzerland provided the essential cultural environment for their dialogue.7 Like so many members of the secularized Jewish bourgeoisie in the German Empire, Margarete Susman grew up largely divorced from her Jewish heritage. A daily prayer and the annual Christmas tree seem to have been the family’s only concessions to religious custom. When Margarete was ten, her family left her native Hamburg for Switzerland, apparently for economic reasons. For the next several years she was educated in the Protestant faith at the public school she attended in Zurich. It was not until she was already in her early twenties, having moved back to Germany, that she sought the instruction of the Reform rabbi Caesar Seligmann. At the time, she was scarcely aware of the differences between Christianity and Judaism, as she later remembered: “Back then the distinction between Judaism and Christianity had almost melted away in my soul. I perceived Christianity in Judaism and Judaism in Christianity. And yet, [my] profound love for Christ notwithstanding, the High Priest’s tearing of the garment in the face of the incarnate son of the One whom no eye may behold has always remained an ultimate truth for me.”8 Whether she actually justified her loyalty to Judaism in these terms at the time is of course doubtful. In any case, Seligmann’s teachings made a profound impact on her.9 To the end of her life she would be attracted to such Reform tenets as Judaism’s role as a ‘world religion’ and the Jews’ messianic mission. Despite a slowly growing interest in the Jewish faith, Susman was still preoccupied with Christianity. This preoccupation received a strong impetus when she became engaged to the non-Jewish painter Eduard von Bendemann. Encouraged by her prospective in-laws, she planned to convert but pulled back from an already scheduled baptism at the last moment. It suddenly became utterly impossible for her, she would subsequently recall, to abandon the “foundations” of her life.10 Her scruples notwithstanding, she would raise her only son Erwin, born in 1906, in the Christian faith – precisely because she herself had so painfully felt her exclusion from the “brilliant” world of Christianity.11 It stands to reason that her sympathy for Christianity affected her understanding of Judaism and what it meant to be Jewish. The decisive fact of her refusal to convert, however, speaks volumes of her life-long loyalty to the ancestral faith. As was the case with many of her intellectual peers, the First World War proved to be an extremely traumatic and transformative event for Susman. For the first time in her life she became aware of the devastating impact of history on human life. It dawned on her that henceforth it would be impossible to live a life of apolitical detachment. This realization did not translate into active political engagement, at least not within the confines of a particular party. Instead, Susman now turned her energies towards lecturing and writing on issues that were more explicitly socio-political as well as Jewish.12 From 1925 onwards she contributed to some of the Weimar Republic’s most prominent Jewish periodicals including Der Jude and Die Kreatur.13 Professional success might have alleviated, but could not undo, personal calamity. In the late twenties her marriage fell apart, and Susman suffered a deep depression from which she recovered only slowly. No doubt work provided a palliative to her misery. When she finally left Germany at the end of 1933, never to return to the land of her birth, she had gained a reputation as one of Germany’s most insightful commentators on intellectual, religious, and literary trends. In emigration Susman’s material situation In to a she had to her which in her having to for an she did not from up she was to herself for a time by writing for and including Ragaz’s a particularly had attracted the eye of the she was a left and from and – a she to in by a a she now on the of including the Ragaz family who helped her way of life in a on the and her in by her Leonhard Ragaz in particular became a intellectual and Susman’s by Ragaz had up as one of of a in Despite the family’s economic it was that the Leonhard school and On in and to work as a Protestant pastor, first in a then at the In the of for at by the a German and of Ragaz it to with what the and of the and the at As a felt from the Christian with their emphasis on the In a to towards the end of the First World that it had not been for their would have up years and become a In finally the to from and on what true From now on Ragaz would all energies to the religious and political of which took place in the a and for that in a in Zurich. At the of this was Ragaz’s to the religious of and only did Jews the at the some also to the Judaism was the of of the In a religious with several explicitly to even so as to the to No that the Jewish him to on Judaism and Christianity and that the Jewish on the of a new Ragaz was of the of Christian the but to have no understanding for Jewish In of Judaism to be of in a in Der for the Jewish were the central of the among the may well have to Jews more to but it at a In a on at the Ragaz of the figure of many the of Christ and profound to the of the to this of as the of the Jewish religious was a of Christianity. the Jews had only Ragaz in a that still one had so and To this the of and – that is It was a Susman to made Ragaz so a in dialogue with Jews was to and In at the had that sought to the Christian and with the of is no had is how I and it Ragaz’s on this to Jews in dialogue on a of is and to have its in emphasis on the of a true in can be to the of the as well as the movement that helped religious The to to interested from different and was precisely for its Ragaz any or at or An of the and to not any of of any Whether was always to to this to be As the and then the Ragaz became more by of and both of which were with of the of To the Swiss were from towards Jews and political who the border from 1933 Ragaz and family had their for The Ragaz became the first point for many in Susman having been one of In in Ragaz and family were to live up to the of the of and on from a to a renegade and social was did the between and Jews into In an late in life Margarete Susman her understanding of the or of Judaism and Christianity as Judaism for the Christianity has already … the as well as the the of the is on the it is one and faith and the the love which the the among as the true in both As Ragaz had in early Judaism and Christianity were in one from one to one of the that from what called the with nature and above life and And it was understanding of that had to and true – in the of the Susman as the Ragaz to be and that human history In were one and the Like Ragaz the as a of history – more not only as any but as most important of was that the not only in history in but that it actually as in the to Die As a of the world as and still in the of and not only was still in the of As it, is the of the new and the new in which did the Jews into this and for Ragaz the of could not be the the Jews were the had been the messianic for on the had even as that the had already was in was Judaism’s of the figure of Christ as the and return to – only then would the true as Ragaz it come into this the of a point that Ragaz’s of a true that a messianic Christianity with a Judaism that Christ even to a of Jews of The in of Ragaz’s in the of religious by such as and the perhaps more than any with individual Ragaz’s for the interreligious dialogue and the not respect among Jewish The impact of to not be as the Jewish German religious the years of the Jews such as from Ragaz’s in a a which would never be by the This was Ragaz that had more in with Jews such as than with most for having recovered the and that felt almost to than to and to than to Christian the in a to of in the true of even when the political had begun to it from the notwithstanding, it would be to that and Ragaz’s in the with one of particularly with that had to be and of a new would be however, in this as or as an attempt at Jews into the Christian was at was a of both Judaism and Christianity that Ragaz essential for the of the In Ragaz a which as a and In the the to a – perhaps to Susman’s of the in an on in the Weimar The to to illuminate the and that made an encounter from different The up Ragaz’s as first had to become true and Jews true only then could work towards the realization of for faith had to with the that the of on was its ultimate that is with the of a point of that was to both true in Ragaz’s meant the of as of Jewish in as the last of a of in had to that the of the of had not been ultimate was still was some for both – to with the of the a basis for an encounter in the and This and between true and true Jews was to be in the by the of one the other, by of all by but in a different by of a the of each to and then by the of each to that which the had the of of and now a new for the the to Christ in this not only to Christ but was to be in In a personal Susman later to be in the Ragaz explicitly her on the of the Her to it had been to but not only in the of had of Though the Jewish of was an important concern to and the not place of Judaism in in In this as to Judaism was and is only a of my this to my faith in the of For the of the of the One all of and many Jews received Ragaz’s of a with to the The a of Though the was by no Ragaz was in role in the Swiss it him that efforts to a between the creeds were not perceived as the not have been it the of when the and with which even the Jews to the had the of to was now on a has and have – – not even Ragaz to would at least have constituted a genuine a Ragaz aware of the nature of For the Jews had been of and all of a the who one of their precisely of the that of having to Ragaz’s particularly the of in the of the Jews was in full full to the Susman him the as of Swiss less of as a In a Jewish on of she had for the first time, she how the Jews felt by the figure of In their she Christ was a to their own and to their loyalty and Ragaz that by no had all Jews on and then a crucial in one when of It was a she herself had Susman’s notwithstanding, it that she would have with of what called Her own had provided her with to the and nature of the what would she have that the and of the of had always been in the of a It was this Ragaz that had had to the of who had to be the the situation was no destiny in the of the to this as well to her, and as was not that she convert, for it was precisely her that her to between Jews and Susman took her role as she with Ragaz’s is from her for the but ultimately in the religious Der Ragaz could have for a more from a The was of an understanding so and the of which have not in the entire history of Susman The was in of Judaism and Christianity and did not to for the figure of both had Ragaz did not engaged in a between of the the Jewish was at this particular it was upon Susman to to this that did not to convert but to For this was not the of faith that had place the Weimar had genuine she these efforts which had of the in an as she it, Ragaz’s attempt had from within the and was less than a for the of was particularly Susman in of the fact that Ragaz was to the Jews in be no the particular Jewish the as the realization of the true The ultimate aim of – how could it be – was ultimate aim of history to all Christ as the of all was this not in Christianity the all to the as for Ragaz’s and Susman’s and for the of their one but at the of such at a time when a Christian was in the of to the Jewish Susman’s of her her in Jews such as the her of not how she to this Though she by she her role as an Ragaz and the is she to her I have now how and how of a I even for the Susman’s to Ragaz and her in a in of the fact that towards the end of life Ragaz to a for a of the in Christian than to some Judaism would it did not to was not and the in to the with and the of could be As in the of the Jewish or to last on Judaism and Christianity had in a from of the to the tree no in Judaism and Christianity of I Christianity … to be and Judaism the Susman is no she would it be for it to at the of the destiny as it so in her Judaism and Christianity the the one as a the as an individual In Ragaz had made the The of from the that also Christianity. The fact that this the of Christianity not It is an of that Christianity and Judaism on the Christianity – of the that the – and as well as in and many of its this was a more devastating and on the In to understand to such Susman to the of could the Jewish destiny be in light of the of the of the and years of writing what would to be her most important Susman was in with both in and by and In this in of its most or were at least in the dialogue with In its a of the of with of the entire Jewish In this the destiny of the by a of more stands as the of the Jewish the destiny of a with the of for it has not For to live in the full of and the of this is what the of is ultimately meant to be Jewish – to and not to the of the even only Susman that it was not up to to no how and might to the of the had the of in the this had only been with and to she it had not been the by the on life that had a new among the a that after of and had finally the to no Susman is not to the of a return to a but to the of the – the of a to the world for the of the The way she it, was of a of faith, a of life. the is it in The however, an to the end of And a crucial in Jews to the Like Ragaz as the of who with and who among the of Ragaz as the of Susman as the of the messianic as it was not to as in the of In Susman had Ragaz how she had been by one of on the of a this new world were to Ragaz apparently had it would largely be to in world history – a that had her however, she her difficulty in to the that had actually in her Susman had to the Jewish of the of her she was in for a The to the because of its non-Jewish her one of the of the her that her had to essential it did not with between Judaism and and it than the Jewish towards and the of Judaism however, as a to the in which as spiritual Susman had no more with non-Jewish and of the on of its which of as an In the the was by of Zurich. the its for a by Susman’s Like her a German-Jewish the to Other Jewish were for the scholar of the was affected by the particularly its first and in a way that Susman as and Susman’s first of Judaism, Caesar to be by the had it three and each time had been more Susman’s who had been from the in Susman had to and Jewish in its entire with all the and with all and and with an and that was To be was with her on a Jewish which a Christian may as but it at a Susman’s by a no a Jewish Christian up on the of and between the An for Susman that a group of and were to Susman have to this for several later that her was for because it is a for to the understanding of with and an could such such as these the Christian were to from Susman’s Whether the of her is a different A at the impact of is important for what it the Susman was and by both Jews and To be her unorthodox to the of in with her left her to from the Jewish as well as the Christian Susman to have some of these still in the of she to to as I had suddenly a new of Ragaz’s and I – for more than one Susman on a crucial point her with not to Jews such as her of having come to And Susman’s to that she was aware of how her had from was a but so was of would have engaged in dialogue with the had it not been for their on the of their And – and this point to be and – were from the of a and a As Susman herself had to the Jews and had to each on a basis of to to as Christian and In the she never of that Leonhard Ragaz on after the end of the World War in Europe. did not live to the of interreligious and that to the German and Swiss social after Margarete however, was a of and in this In she took in a of and Jews by the At the she helped the Her involvement with Ragaz had the way for her engagement in the Jewish-Christian Susman and Ragaz engaged in what constitutes a provided the essential basis for this dialogue because it was the religious in the of in some that such a than to an and religious religious socialists sought the realization of what Ragaz called the of a even the of as Ragaz it in on the their as from the institutionalized dialogue that after as from such as in it an of of different religious and for some of their most pressing and of interreligious dialogue not to the different such took in the the of the in which Ragaz and Susman to each be When Jews Christian to in religious in the Weimar these were all by what one might the between the only did the almost always with Jews – a of interest on the Christian – but respect was in these At its most this of respect was in and at to and the of Christianity the essential of a interreligious dialogue were from these between the in dialogue and of all of In the case of Margarete Susman and the religious socialists around however, the three for dialogue were all the to the of the the of the and the of the for the This last is of particular I would to all from what by the of dialogue to to the of the of the in the words of the of the three As have Susman was to Christianity than many of her Jews felt can be no however, that she of herself as a In a a Jewish the by which and their in their with and is the one can to the Jewish individual within the individual aim the first of the – and is almost strong a – that first when in the of the world and by that for the first time to the to an old for Though Susman to in some way her understanding of what was to be of a to When her only son Erwin, whom she had as a was to Judaism, she a even a is the of that only a who has no of Judaism is of One not convert to Judaism as to one has it in or it by The is one is not born a but a by to in this of destiny In a of of as a daily might of the daily to be of the Jewish And for Susman this a faith between Jews and As as Ragaz was for the of the and have been well aware that sympathy for and the left made him in their but this did not him from at did not doubt the genuine nature of Christianity. sympathy for Judaism, and the of at a time when such were the of in the of this inquiry was as a to with And this was and No Ragaz would have been moved by the fact that the him as one of the the was to the who had to a true understanding between the of and a true of an as which would on a Jewish a Christian but on that of the of and of the of the between the personal and the of the dialogue with by of by and in the was for him the dialogue between these The to Susman who was even more aware of the of the Jewish-Christian dialogue and of the and of the attempt to a a At the time of the Jews’ Margarete Susman the the of the which the world to up with its true between a and a of constitutes a of from a of the messianic