Disagreement and Diversity as Paths to Truth
Be’ha’alotekha
9 Sivan 5774 ~ 7 June 2014
Rav Baruch Frydman-Kohl
The most famous excommunication in Jewish history occurred on 6 Av 5416 (July 27, 1656). The Portuguese- Jewish community of Amsterdam, still anxious about its acceptance and security after the twin exiles from the Iberian peninsula, declared that 23 year-old Bento or Barukh de Espinosa, “taught and practiced” “abominable heresies” and “monstrous deeds.”
Therefore, “With the judgment of the angels and with that of the saints, with the consent of the Blessed God, and of all this holy congregation, before these sacred Scrolls of the Law, and the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are proscribed therein, we anathematize, cut off, execrate, and curse Barukh de Espinoza with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematized Jericho, with the curse wherewith Elisha cursed the youths, and with all the curses which are written in the Law: cursed be he by day, and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in; the Eternal will not pardon him; the wrath and fury of the Eternal will be kindled against this man, and bring down upon him all the curses which are written in the Book of the Torah; and the Eternal will destroy his name from under the heavens; and, to his undoing, the Eternal will cut him off from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the heavens which are written in the Book of the Torah; but you who cleave unto the Eternal your God live all of you this day!"
The decree stated that he should be “excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel” and that “no one should communicate with him, neither in writing nor accord him any favour nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits in his vicinity; nor shall read any treatise composed or written by him.”
Although the decree does not specify the particulars and the archives of the Amsterdam community does not contain details, Steven Nadler of the University of Wisconsin writes: “There really is no mystery as to why he was expelled. In [his] works, Spinoza rejects the providential God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; insists that the Bible is not literally of divine origin but just a haphazard (and “mutilated”) compilation of human writings handed down through the centuries; denies that Jewish law and ceremonial observance are of any validity or relevance for latter-day Jews; maintains that there is no theological, moral or metaphysical sense in which Jews are different from any other people; and rejects the idea of an immortal soul.”
Recently, when I participated in a talk-back about Spinoza after the play, New Jerusalem, I was asked what I thought would happen to Spinoza today. I responded, half-joking, that he would become a rabbi. Indeed, many of Spinoza’s ideas have been accepted and adapted to modern Jewish belief.
Years ago, the literary historian, Yosef Klausner called for an end to the excommunication, as did David Ben Gurion. Whether Spinoza should be rehabilitated is not just an historical question. The current Chief Rabbi of the Amsterdam community asked whether the excommunication should be removed. A special committee - which included Prof. Nadler - responded that the herem should remain. The committee gave the following reasons:
* Spinoza is dead. Lifting the herem means nothing 3 centuries after the philosopher’s death
* Spinoza didn’t care. He left the community without any reaction at the time.
* Spinoza did not change his views. He actually elaborated on them in his later writings.
However, in a recent essay, Prof. Nadler cautioned that it was neither wise nor efficacious to seek conformity regarding religious ideas. “Presumably, religion, in addition to being for many people a source of identity, community, comfort and moral guidance, is also a quest for understanding and truth: truth about ourselves and about the world.”
John Stuart Mill and Rabbi Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin lived in different worlds, but they agreed that arguments lead to clarification and bring us closer to truth.[i] Restricting freedom of thought makes it less likely that truth will be discovered, thus “depriving the devoted of the possibility of achieving in religion that which they most urgently seek.”
Perhaps the source for this is located in our reading this morning. God seeks to lighten Moshe’s burden of leadership by delegating some spiritual authority to the elders. However, two elders, Eldad and Medad, begin to prophesy within the camp. Yehoshua runs to Moses and demands they be imprisoned. Moshe’s response is inclusive rather than exclusive, “And Moshe said to him: Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the people of the Eternal were prophets, that the Eternal would put the divine spirit upon them!” God speaks through many voices. The totality of all the voices, “elu ve’elu” brings us closer to the divine.
I bring this up because of a recent speech by a major ultra-Orthodox leader, the Novominsker Rav, head of the Agudath Israel's Council of Torah Sages. At a gala dinner, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow said the following about us: “The Torah must be guarded from the secular forces that seek to corrupt its values and the lives of [Jews, and] from intruders who sometimes in the name of Judaism completely subvert and destroy the eternal values of our people.”
He also said: “[The Reform and Conservative Movements] have disintegrated themselves, become oblivious, fallen into an abyss of intermarriage and assimilation. They have no future, they almost have no present. They will be relegated to the dustbins of Jewish history.”
For good measure, Rabbi Perlow threw in Open Orthodoxy , “This is steeped in Apikurus (heresy). No different than that of the Conservative Movement. To say that our forefathers never existed, that the Exodus as recorded never happened nor was there any direct revelation at Sinai is a violation of the Maimonidean 13 Principles of Faith."
The gala was attended by many non- Haredi Jews as well as by non-Jews who do business with the very observant community. Even the Mayor of New York was there. He was the next speaker and he said nothing in response, although many of his supporters are the secular, Reform, Conservative and Open Orthodox Jews that Rabbi Perlow condemned. A New York Times columnist criticized the mayor for failing to speak up, noting that “Tests of courage are found in unexpected places”.
Rabbi Avi Shafran defended Rabbi Perlow: He [Rav Perlow] did not … offer a “shower of condemnation for Reform and Conservative Jews.” The Rebbe simply reaffirmed Orthodox Judaism’s insistence that heterodox theologies – ideas and beliefs, not people – are incompatible with the Judaism of the ages”.
There is only one problem with this defense. It is false. The research of Menahem Kellner and Marc B. Shapiro have conclusively demonstrated that more than a few rabbinic contemporaries of the Rambam did not accept them as any type of law and in every generation since then, people have disagreed about specifics of those principles of faith.
There is another point to be made here. In an angry column in the Jewish Forward, Emily Hauser wrote about Rabbi Perlow’s remarks: “… [This attack is not a shock or surprise. It is actually] very typical. Among the non-Orthodox, there’s an unfortunate, and very powerful, tendency to bow to the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox as the arbiters of “real” Judaism. The ultra-Orthodox [have] done an excellent job of convincing the Jewish public that everyone else is doing it wrong. But it must be acknowledged that we’ve helped. When non-Orthodox shuls call [certain organizations] to teach us how to make matzo, we’re saying we’re not good enough. When we donate to … yeshivas to which we would never send our children, we’re saying we’re not good enough.”
In some ways, Spinoza had it right. He demonstrated deep understanding of human nature. He practiced his own wisdom. He lived an ethical life. However, I don’t agree with all of Spinoza. His God is indistinguishable from Nature. His extraordinary autonomy took him out of the historic and contemporary Jewish community. He was left an isolated individual.
Perhaps, instead of Spinoza and Rabbi Perlow, we would be wise to follow the words of Hillel the Elder. Don’t do onto others what you would not have done to yourself. In the blog, Failed Messiah, the writer critiques Ultra-Orthodox, but these are words which might apply to all of us:
“Don’t rape. Don’t cover up for and enable people who commit sexual abuse. Don’t steal, don’t cheat, and don’t lie. Don’t use your movement’s charities to launder the money. Don’t demand that others support you while you sit and learn Torah. Help the poor. Heal the sick. Make life cleaner, safer and better for people. That is authentic Torah”.
Perhaps even Spinoza would agree.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/judging-spinoza/
Steven Nadler, Spinoza: A Life(Cambridge, 1999) and‘A Book Forged in Hell': Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise (Princeton, 2011)
http://m.forward.com/blogs/forward-thinking/199154
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/books/review/18bloom.html
[i] Netziv: “Scientific scholars cannot claim in their hearts that they have understood all the secrets of nature…In fact, they cannot be sure that their own research is true since they have no clear test. A later individual or generation can through research contradict the previous scientific construction. So too researchers into the nature of Torah cannot claim to have considered all the changes and all that requires thought. There is no certainty that what they have explained is the true intention of the Torah. So all we can do is do our best with what we have.” (HaEmek Davar, Introduction, section 5)
