Q&A: On What Judaism Is, or Jewish Discourse — בעקבות Reading Goodman’s Book
On What Judaism Is, or Jewish Discourse — Following the Reading of Goodman’s Book
Question
Hello Rabbi.
I wanted to ask what you think about Goodman’s argument regarding “What is Judaism?”
The basis of the argument is the Leibovitzian claim that there is no such thing as “Judaism says.” The Kabbalists interpreted the words “The Lord is One” as a harmonious and unified system, and Maimonides as something beyond comprehension/division.
The God of the Kabbalists is idolatry for Maimonides, and yet both are included in the concept of Judaism.
From here it follows that Judaism is not something you believe in, but a discourse that you join. Anything that joins the discourse in Judaism is included in the definition of Judaism.
What is different about a secular person’s discourse of Judaism as opposed to a religious person’s?
A secular person can join the discourse and choose what to put in the room and what in the basement (what to regard as binding), but his conversation would still be included in the definition of Judaism.
Do you agree with the definition of Judaism as discourse?
It should be noted that this is not about the definition of who is a Jew, but what Judaism is, or a discourse of Judaism. Thank you very much.
Answer
I agree that it is impossible to give a sharp definition, but I do not agree to empty the concept out completely. As for discourse, it depends what you mean. I think the discourse also says something behind it. In any case, in my opinion, on the level of thought 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 senses. Anything beyond that really is a personal matter. The core of Judaism is Jewish law, and there too, of course, there are different opinions, and mainly it is a kind of discourse (but that does not empty the concept of Jewish law of content).
Discussion on Answer
Every factual principle is, of course, a fact, and regarding a fact, if it is true then it is true for everyone, and if not — then that too is for everyone. And still, Jewish discourse deals with those facts.
A secular person cannot be a partner in the discourse of Judaism (maybe a little in discourse about Judaism, but in that a non-Jew can participate just as much). He has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism (aside from his mother’s origin). See here:
Is it correct to define Rabbi Joseph Albo’s principles in their general form (that is, without going down into details such as corporealizing God and the like), namely: the existence of God, Torah from Heaven, and reward and punishment — as Judaism?
To the best of my judgment, without reward and punishment.
Hello 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 senses” 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 are not a specifically Jewish discussion or question; they are philosophical questions. The Exodus from Egypt and revelation are archaeological / epistemological historical questions (including philosophy of history), not Jewish ones. Isn’t that so?
And regarding the second part, that the discourse of Judaism is Jewish law — does that mean to negate the first part (that all the above things are not included in the concept), or to add to it? And if the intention is to negate, in what case is a secular person indeed an active partner in a discourse whose heading is Judaism?
Thank you very much