'Must a Jew Believe Anything?'

[David_2010]

Yesterday, I came across this article on The Guardian (a major British Newspaper), and he brought up a book called 'Must a Jew Believe Anything?' by Menachem Kellner, which I've since looked up online and it sounds interesting, and, from the reviews I've read, the book seems to say, before Maimonides, Judaism was more about practice, than belief or dogma, and, that even after Maimonides, his ideas were greatly debated, some agreeing with them, some not, but, that, now, Maimonides ideas have been taken as dogma, and anyone who doesn't hold to them isn't "Jewish enough" or something.

Here's another review of the book, which says:

Kellner's argument begins by stating that in classical and early rabbinic Judaism (i.e. pre-Medieval Judaism), faith was primarily a matter of trusting in God and being loyal to Him by fulfilling the mitzvot, rather than accepting various dogmas. Some ideas, such as polytheism, were clearly prohibited, but there was no attempt to string various beliefs together and work out how they relate to each other (a systematic theology), still less was anyone trying to produce a catechism to test for Orthodox belief. Action, doing mitzvot, was seen as the primary way of connecting to God, not belief. As Kellner admits, this in itself is not a particularly innovative idea.

He also says:

Kellner then explores how Judaism gained a systematic theology in the Middle Ages. This was primarily a result of the arrival of two rival religious systems, Islam and the Jewish sect Karaism. Both of these religions had produced their own detailed systematic theologies and Islam in particular made a strong effort to proselytize Jews. Judaism was forced to create its own systematic theology to respond to this new threat.


The greatest attempt at doing this was that of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon aka Rambam aka Maimonides. Maimonides came up with thirteen principles of faith. He argued that someone who believed, or rather knew that these were true was guaranteed a place in the world to come, whether Jewish or not, while someone who had doubts or wrong beliefs (even if innocently mistaken), had no share in the world to come. This rather shocking theory of divine reward stems not from traditional Judaism, but from Maimonides' Aristotlean metaphysics, specifically his view of the soul and the nature of the world to come. This is the subject of a special appendix by Kellner in the book, which he has kindly agreed to place in the public domain via the Rationalist Judaism blog over here, so I will not spend too much time on it. Suffice to say that Maimonides lets Aristotle into heaven at the expense of shutting out all the children martyred in the Holocaust (or the Crusades, to pick an event he would have heard of), because they never learnt philosophy and so never truly understood God's nature. It is no surprise that many modern Jews go into shock when hearing this, so divergent is it from the standard Orthodox afterlife theology, with its emphasis on good deeds. As Kellner remarks, few of Maimonides' modern apologists would be able to meet his rigorous standards of belief.

Nevertheless, while the more shocking parts of Maimonides' beliefs were ignored (almost all halakhic authorities rejected his idea that a heretic through honest error has no share in the world to come, for example), his thirteen principles of faith became an important part of Judaism, especially when summarized in simplified poetic form as Yigdaland Ani Ma'amin. Nevertheless, the introduction of dogma into Judaism led to something that Kellner regards as a big mistake, namely heresy-hunting. Once certain beliefs are held to be essential, those who reject them are seen as heretics. Kellner reviews the way various Orthodox rabbis have viewed Progressive Jews and finds that even those, such as Chief Rabbi Sacks, who want to maintain good relations with Progressive Jews are hamstrung by the notion of heresy and can not justify cooperating with them or doing anything that might give them recognition as a valid part of Judaism.​

Have you read this book?, and, if so, do you recommend it?, was the pre-Maimonides Judaism better?.
Thanks for any help .


​

 

[Dena]

I haven't read it yet because I can only get it from one place, which I haven't visited yet. It was recommended to me by a MO guy who thought it would be helpful. I do plan to read it but I didn't want to buy it because it could be terrible for all I know.

 

[Levite]

Yesterday, I came across this article on The Guardian (a major British Newspaper), and he brought up a book called 'Must a Jew Believe Anything?' by Menachem Kellner, which I've since looked up online and it sounds interesting, and, from the reviews I've read, the book seems to say, before Maimonides, Judaism was more about practice, than belief or dogma, and, that even after Maimonides, his ideas were greatly debated, some agreeing with them, some not, but, that, now, Maimonides ideas have been taken as dogma, and anyone who doesn't hold to them isn't "Jewish enough" or something.

Here's another review of the book, which says:

He also says:

Have you read this book?, and, if so, do you recommend it?, was the pre-Maimonides Judaism better?.
Thanks for any help .


​

I haven't read this one, but I know Kellner's work. He was actually an acquaintance of my dad's when they were in yeshiva together.

Kellner's a top-flight scholar. His academic work is sterling. That said, I don't agree with some of his philosophical conclusions, and I think that every now and then his historical analyses lead him to flawed conclusions concerning analogues in Judaism today.

But one absolutely cannot question his expertise, or general brilliance, or the fact that he is one of the last of the Modern Orthodox thinkers really willing to be vocal in moving against the rightward flow of Orthodoxy today. Guys like him and Daniel Sperber are sort of the intellectual senior elite of Modern Orthodoxy.

And anyhow, in this case, I tend to think that he is correct in stating that pre-Maimonidean Judaism was less interested in forming any specific creed, although I think that the absence of formalized dogmas should not be taken to indicate that there were not certain core beliefs that all mainstream Rabbinic Jews agreed upon as essential. There were. But I also think that prior to the Enlightenment, and the inception of the idea of non-Orthodox Judaism, and attendant arising of movemental Judaism, "heresy" of an intolerable nature was generally easier to spot: Hellenics, Christians, Karaites, and to some degree, Sabbateans, and such were clearly outside the bounds of anything like Rabbinic Judaism. Which isn't to say that there weren't plenty of instances of people calling each other heretics and putting the cherem (more or less, excommunication, sort of) on one another over this difference or that difference (mysticism vs. rationalism, liturgical rite variations, acceptance of polygamy, etc.)-- there were. But those tended to be of a "you're playing the game wrong" nature, rather than a "you're not even playing the right sport" nature, if you see what I mean.

It is certainly true that there is a severe shortage of pluralistic tolerance between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy (often going both ways), but increasingly, also between different sects and communities within Orthodoxy. It's a jungle out there, with everybody checking each other's tzitzit, and going nuclear on new chumrot (stringencies), and everybody having an ever more narrow and specific interpretation of what constitutes "Torah Judaism" (a phrase I abhor).

I myself am interested in reading this. I don't see why it wouldn't be a good read.