This week’s readings discuss details of Jewish life from the origins of the divide between Orthodox and Reform Judaism to a discussion of the “Science” that turns an idea into a Religion. While the overarching question this week is meant to determine whether or not Judaism is itself a “thing,” I found it more appropriate to question what kinds of “things” incorporated together make up the Judaism that I am familiar with today.
Abraham Geiger’s “A General Introduction to the Science of Judaism” puts forth a series of prerequisites for the formation of a Religion. His scientific examination of Judaism begins with three major facets: a relationship between a national language and the development of an idea, consolidation of an idea within a single, historical people, and a transition from an idea as the expression of a particular people to a greater form of spirituality. Geiger asserts that the strength and persevering quality of Judaism lies in its possession of “both a language and a history as a nation.” Beginning first as an idea, Judaism had to originate in a “strong personality” whose influence cannot be separated from the idea itself. Geiger continues to say that rather than just an individual, a whole nation’s “views and its language will also impress their full individual character” upon the idea. Ultimately, the idea becomes the “particular expression” of that people– a “closed entity.” In order for this “idea,” which I have used in a vague manner to describe a collection of philosophical and cultural beliefs, to become spiritual, it must “become independent of the soil in which it first matured.” Through language and history Judaism has continued to transmit its “basic ideals to mankind as a universal heritage.” Thus, the Jewish idea became separate from the original people and took on a spiritual quality. Geiger comments that Judaism has “always had to engage in violent struggle,” and has resisted being fully absorbed into the spiritual and cultural movements of world history. This reminded me of one of the defining Jewish traits that Dr. Seeman mentioned in class– adherence to a community of struggle.
Jacob Katz’s “Religion as a Uniting and Dividing Force in Modern Jewish History” explores the effect of secularization, a term that Katz gives two definitions, on Jewish life. Katz’s first definition of secularization captures the general transition of public religious life to a “neutral society” where religion has been retired from the public sphere. The second definition refers to a specific transition of “concepts, symbols, and all kinds of stylistic elements” that previously existed in a religious context “into a purely profane context.” Severing ties with the Church was a “precondition for Jewish emancipation,” but the Christological influences remained present in the public sphere. Katz uses Immanuel Kant as an example of this process. Kant’s system of ethics, although secular, “was identical with what had been taught by Jesus.” In order for Jews to engage with Kant’s “secular humanistic” society, they had to face a demand that “fell just short of a demand for conversion.” This led to a divide between traditional Orthodox Jews who rejected this form of secularization and a new Reform movement of Jews who accepted it. Katz comments near the end of this reading that this divide between Orthodox and Reform Jews occurred at a time of particular “social and political security” for the Jews, the effect of which allowed many to feel comfortable disrupting their communal unity. This passage reminds me of American Jews today, many of whom feel secure and willing to disagree with each other publicly.
Rabbi Hirsch’s “Nineteen Letters,” of which I read the first two, contain a conversation between an enlightened man who has rejected Judaism and a Rabbi who explains the ongoing significance of Judaism through an enlightened lens. The first man, Benjamin describes Judaism as an unchanging, antiquated way of thinking that cannot hold significance in the new enlightened era. Rabbi Naftali responds by explaining that one’s purpose and meaning in this life can be discovered by reading the Torah in the sacred national language of Hebrew. He emphasizes that reading the Torah in Hebrew carries the weight of the history of the text as well. This point is similar to the Geiger passage on the Science of Judaism that described the importance of language and history to the consolidation of a new religion.
Ahad Ha Am’s “Sacred and Profane,” makes an important distinction between these two qualities of religion. The profane “instrument derives its worth from the end,” much like new technology created to achieve a goal with greater efficiency. In “sacred matters the end invests the instrument with a sanctity of its own.” The sacred instrument holds inherent spiritual value. For example, the Torah today is written “only on parchment, in manuscript,” even though there exist more efficient tools to achieve the same goal. The parchment and manuscript, as well as the content within, are sacred.
These readings describe Judaism as many “things.” Judaism according to Geiger is a philosophy, religion, language, and shared history. It is borne out of a specific people. Judaism is malleable to a degree, taking on new meaning as the world moves to new ways of thought. It is fundamentally different from other religions, specifically Christianity. Katz describes a particular resistance of German Jews to be baptized, even while ideological conversion under the guise of secularization was appealing to many Jews. For this reason, the spiritual quality of Judaism must be a different “thing” than that of Christianity. Judaism is evolving, as exemplified in the “Nineteen Letters.” It can adapt to a changing world, and, as Geiger puts it, “embraces all of mankind.” Judaism is sacred and its sanctity is also a “thing.” Here, however, Ha Am argues that the sanctity of Judaism is lost with the Reform movement, which strips the language and “practical observance” from the religion. I initially disagreed with this characterization on the grounds that the history and philosophy of Judaism remain with the Reform movement. What did you all think of this passage from Ha Am?
The second Geiger reading, “On Renouncing Judaism,” begins by describing a Jewish person who does not keep kosher, observe ritual law and festivals, and ceases “to view the talmudic precepts as binding.” This passage raises a question that has come up repeatedly in our class: “Can anyone who subscribes to such wholesale renunciation of Jewish Law still claim to be a Jew?” Essentially, is Judaism still a “thing” without the tenets mentioned above? Geiger writes that any person who holds a “pure faith in God” can be considered a Jew and that this is the “basic core” of Judaism. What about Jews who don’t believe in God (of which there seem to be many today)? Again, I am reminded of the adherence to a community of suffering, or struggle. There is something that continues to bind us all together, even without this “basic core” intact. I leave this question open, and I do not feel that I have an answer at this moment in time.
I look forward to discussing these readings and hearing your thoughts in class this week. Thank you for reading!
6 Responses to Trevor Kanter – Class 9: Is Judaism a “Thing?”