On What Is Judaism, or Jewish Discourse – Following the Reading of Goodman’s Book
Hello Rabbi.
I wanted to ask what you think about Goodman’s argument about “What is Judaism?”
The basis of the argument is the Leibowitzian argument that there is no such thing as Judaism. The Kabbalists interpreted the words “one God” as a harmonious and unified system, and the Rambam as unattainable/divisible.
The God of the Kabbalists is idolatry to the Rambam, and yet both are included in the concept of Judaism.
Hence, Judaism is not something you believe in but a discourse you join in. Everything that joins the discourse in Judaism is included in the definition of Judaism.
What is the difference between a secular Jewish discourse and a religious one?
A secular person can join the conversation and choose what to put in the room and what in the basement (what to be obligated to), but his conversation will be included in the definition of Judaism.
Do you agree with the definition of Judaism as a discourse?
It should be noted that this is not about defining who is a Jew, but rather what Judaism or the discourse of Judaism is. Thank you very much.
I agree that it is impossible to give a sharp definition, but I do not agree with a complete emptying of the concept. Regarding discourse, it depends on what you mean. I think that discourse also says something behind it. In any case, in my opinion, on the intellectual level there are almost no things that constitute a framework. The existence of God, the creation of the world, the exodus from Egypt, and the giving of the Torah in certain ways. Everything beyond that is truly a personal matter. The essence of Judaism is halakha, and there too, of course, there are different opinions, and mainly it is a type of discourse (but this does not empty the concept of halakha of its content).
Shalom Rabbi.
I didn't understand the answer, are “the existence of God, the creation of the world, the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah in certain ways” included in the concept of discourse on Judaism? If I understood correctly – then why? After all, the existence of God and the creation of the world is not a discussion and a Jewish question, it is a philosophical question, the exodus from Egypt and the revelation is an archaeological/historical epistemological question (including the philosophy of history), not a Jewish one. Isn't that right?
And regarding the second part, that the discourse of Judaism is the law, is the intention to exclude the first part (that all of the above are not included in the concept) or to add it? And if the intention is to exclude in what secular case is an active participant in the discourse whose title is Judaism?
Thank you very much
Every factual principle is a fact, of course, and as for a fact, if it is true, it is true for everyone, and if not – then that too for everyone. And yet in Jewish discourse these facts are dealt with.
A secularist cannot be a partner in the discourse of Judaism (perhaps a little in the discourse about Judaism, but a Gentile can participate in this just as well). He and Judaism have nothing in common (except for his mother's origin). See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%96%D7%94%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C/
Is it correct to define that the principles of Rabbi Yosef Albu are general (meaning not to go into details such as the fulfillment of God and more), namely: the reality of God, Torah from heaven, and reward and punishment are Judaism?
To the best of my judgment, without reward or punishment.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
