Q&A: Should There Be a Desire to Be Jewish? Why?
Should There Be a Desire to Be Jewish? Why?
Question
Hello, and have a good week!
I have a question: if the Rabbi were a gentile, would he convert?
I want to clarify that this is not a personal question about the Rabbi’s character, but a question of content. That is, is there essentially any point in converting (and not, practically speaking, whether the Rabbi himself would convert)?
Let me explain my question: I understand that philosophically the most reasonable conclusion is that there is a Creator of the world. Likewise, in light of good arguments I also conclude that there was a Giving of the Torah, and therefore I, as a Jew, am obligated in the 613 commandments, and so on.
But how is all this supposed to lead a gentile to keep commandments? At most, if I were a gentile I would accept the Giving of the Torah (which was for the Jews), and from that conclude that I am obligated in the seven Noahide commandments. But why should I convert? I’m not talking about considerations of benefit, but where can one get the impression that the Creator Himself wants people to join the Jewish religion? And if indeed He does not want that, why would gentiles have motivation to convert? Is it only considerations of gain that have nothing to do with God’s will?
It can be put this way: is there supposed to be a rational desire to be Jewish? Why?
Answer
I don’t know. You can convert, and you can also choose not to. Conversion does not necessarily reflect God’s will (I’m not sure He wants all gentiles to convert), but rather that person’s desire to belong to the community of God’s servants.
The personal question about me is not well defined. If I were a gentile, I wouldn’t be me. It’s like asking what Maimonides would say about something if he were alive today. If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be Maimonides.
Discussion on Answer
I’m asking: if for some reason it became clear to you that you are not Jewish—would you get up and convert? If so, why?
Personally, I assume so. This is my world today, and in my eyes this is the right way to live.
“If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be Maimonides” — is the Rabbi alluding to the view of Professor Joseph Klausner?
I’m not familiar with his view on this matter.
Rabbi, thank you for the response. I’m sorry if I’m being a bother, but it is Torah and I must learn—why, in the Rabbi’s eyes, is Judaism his world? And is there here a justification of “truth,” or some emotional inclination devoid of truth?
* it is Torah
Why is it my world? Because it is my world. Why is this world my world? Because I was born here. There is no connection here to truth, because any gentile has permission not to convert. But I identify with the role of Jews. It is something between psychology and values. It is a higher level to be Jewish, even though gentiles are not obligated to climb to that level and convert.
Blessed is the God of Israel who gave us this platform that doesn’t censor over-questioning, and so I’ll ask (assuming this was the Rabbi’s world even before the inquiry and its conclusion regarding God and religion): the Rabbi places truth as a value and the parameter for which we strive, and because of that the Rabbi walks through the field of philosophical inquiry without setting a marked goal in advance, because then it would not be truth. And I, as a mere human being, ask: since the Rabbi is also human, and bribery blinds the eyes of the clear-sighted, then however much the Rabbi tries to cleanse himself of personal bias, the bias still exists. That human bias will not allow the field of philosophical inquiry to expand beyond the Rabbi’s own world. There is an inquiry, “But I identify with the role of Jews.” How can the human bias ingrained in us as human beings, and impossible to remove, lead us to truth? By a person shouting, “But I am aiming only at the truth”? You have no bias greater than “this is my world,” and there is no person free of that bias in fateful issues like God and religion, which are supposed to turn a person’s world upside down.
Have a pleasant evening!
It is impossible to ensure complete purity in judgment, but one must do one’s utmost to cleanse it.
Beyond that, our initial inclinations are not necessarily biases. They are our foundational assumptions, and a person cannot think without foundational assumptions.
And finally, philosophy too has “theological” arguments (as I defined in the fourth notebook). And again, these are not necessarily biases.
Happy is the one who strives to reach truth, but this is not just a matter of making an effort. In practice, it’s me, a weakling, being informed the night before that I’m going into a fight with Chuck Norris. I’ll try to train and tell everyone I’m going to defeat Chuck, and despite my limitations I’ll make an effort. I’m sure the Rabbi wouldn’t train that night, and certainly wouldn’t claim he’d beat Chuck. The Rabbi calls biases “foundational assumptions”? So my question is: how can a person pretend to investigate and reach truth if he cannot think without his foundational assumptions steering him? Unfortunately, I didn’t understand how the last line answers me.
Good night!
It definitely is a matter of making an effort, since all I can do is try. And if I am mistaken, then lodge your complaint against me. The last line only illustrates your mistake in how you conceive of foundational assumptions. Foundational assumptions are not biases, but unreasoned insights (whose basis is direct cognition). I elaborated on this in Two Carts and in Truth and Stability. “Theological” arguments, which philosophy is full of, put this on the table.
If I understood correctly what foundational assumptions are, then that’s not what I’m talking about. And even if I didn’t understand, it still doesn’t seem to me that I’m talking about them. Biases, Rabbi. A person is close to himself. Necessarily, the ruling is invalid, because a person is close to himself. People love to justify themselves in arguments and prefer to squeeze themselves into a corner so long as their opinion is the one that comes out justified. Would the Rabbi validate a trial, reluctantly, when the judge is biased? I would say that absent a retrial, no justice was done here at all, and the matter is not fit for judgment. Is a biased judge just a matter of making an effort?
You gave an excellent example. Why do you appoint judges? They too have biases. I would certainly appoint a biased judge (especially one who is trying to overcome it) if I have no other judge.
And what if there is no other judge, only a person with a mental defect? And that is the case here, except that the psychological defect causes a cognitive defect, so he is defective in two ways. If so, all the more so, the Rabbi would appoint someone cognitively impaired to judge. The Rabbi will say this is empty casuistry, but as the Rabbi often answers: this was only for the sake of illustration.
I truly don’t understand you. I have a concern that I am biased, but I try to overcome it. That’s what there is. And if the alternative is that there is no judge and no judgment at all—then this is certainly preferable.
You can find a case where the question is well-defined, for example if it were discovered about a person that his mother’s mother did not convert properly according to Jewish law (there was an invalidating interposition during immersion).