[NGFP-BookClub] Some comments on Rawidowicz

[Aron T]

First, I want to thank Tammy Weiss for sharing Eliahu Toker's poem and  
her thoughts on it with us. I might argue it expresses more clearly  
and perhaps more truly Rawidowicz' intentions than the latter's own  
words.

Reading him reminded me of the old French saying: "plus ca change..."  
In 1949 he upbraids the writers of the Israeli constitution for giving  
such short shrift to the rich creativity of the Jewish Diaspora.  
Nothing has changed on that front. I remember discussing with my own  
children (who were born and raised in Israel) what they learned in  
school about Jewish history. Essentially the Israeli curriculum goes  
something like this: spend quite a bit of time on the ancient  
Israelites and then the period of the Second Temple. Spend only a  
brief amount of time discussing 2000 years of Jewish suffering  in the  
diaspora (what Salo Baron used to call "the lachrymose view" of Jewish  
history). Then the bulk of the "Jewish history"  curriculum is the  
history of Zionism and the State of Israel.

Personally I am suspicious of Rawidowicz version of the Jewish  
constitution: "Israel is One." I know he did not intend it this way,  
but from my own experience and from what I have seen both in Israel  
and the Diaspora, "Israel is One" is usually taken to mean we are all  
Jews bound together -- as long as you accept my version of Judaism. G- 
d forbid I should see your alternative as a legitimate and creative  
expression.

There is a real denial of history in such a statement. From the  
beginning of time when Jews became known as Yehudim (probably in the  
Persian period) there were multiple and diverse views of what it meant  
to be a Jew.  Only in retrospect, do the "victors" in these internal  
divisions declare themselves as the one true faith from time  
immemorial. The fact that Rabbinic Judaism prevailed over Karaism for  
example, was not a foregone conlusion, and there was a period when  
there were probably as many Jews who were Karaites as not. Someone  
mentioned how the Rambam solved the problem of what it means to be a  
Jew 500 years ago. And yet, in his own time, there were many who  
wanted to declare him a heretic and many more who bitterly opposed his  
"Mishne Torah." Let us not forget ]that in his chapter on Hilchot  
Yesodei Hatorah he declares belief in Aristotle's scientific viewpoint  
as being one of the foundations of the Torah (which is one reason he  
was so controversial then). Do we want to accept that as defining what  
it means to be a Jew today?

Within each group today there are multiple and mutually exclusive  
viewpoints of what it means to be a Jew. Do we accept the Satmar's  
anti-Zionism or Habad's semi-Messianism to name just two viewpoints  
inside the Orthodox world? Do we accept Reform's multi-lineal approach  
for defining who is a Jew (on the grounds that when Jews were sent to  
the death chambers that was the definition) or adhere to the  
traditional matrilineal approach?

I would argue that it was actually Mordehai Kaplan who had the most  
persuasive view of who is a Jew and what Judaism is. He argued the  
Jews are members of an ancient civilization (like the Chinese) and  
Judaism is the culture of the Jewish people in all its aspects -  
language, food, religion, literature, art and music. A Jew is anyone  
who identifies with any aspect of this culture, and lives their life  
accordingly. I believe this is quite similar to Rawidowicz' view,  
perhaps with a greater emphasis on diversity within the thousands of  
years of development of this culture.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ngfp.org/pipermail/ngfp-bookclub/attachments/20090702/eccbfe84/attachment.htm