|
|
ABOUT RABBI JACOBS - 1966 TV Transcript
BERNARD LEVIN
Dr. Jacobs, what I want to talk to you about, to ask you about, is in its broadest aspects, Judaism in the modern world. Now I want to talk to you particularly about this because without meaning any kind of disrespect to anybody involved, you have lately seemed to
be, if I May so phrase it, a kind of Jewish Bishop of Woolwich, which is not what one normally expects to be calling a rabbi. But noneŽtheless the situation is in many ways similar. You have written and said things lately that have had a number of effects, have had a number of personal effects, effects on your synagogue and so on which I don't want to go into, but which have caused considerable amount of theological disagreement within the Jewish religious community. Now what I would like to start with is to ask you to give me the outlines of what that was in fact basically all about.
DR. LOUIS JACOBS
Yes, well can we begin by saying that although I know the comparison with the Bishop of Woolwich has been made, basically there is this difference, that he has had some things to say about the God idea and our controversy has not been concerned with that at all. But with the notion of revelation, and I would admit that in this respect the Jewish community is considering things that ought to have been considered a long time ago. Because of this some of the issues have been obscured just a little and I would like to put it in this way, that we can speak of a pre-modern period, a modern period and a post-modern period. By a pre-modern period I mean the period before Copernicus showed us that man's place in the universe is insecure or insignificant if you like, before Darwin showed us that man's place on his world is comparatively insignificant, before Freud showed us that man's knowledge of his own nature leaves a lot to be desired and that man is not completely rational even though he likes to believe that he is, before Bible criticism enabled us to understand that the Bible for all its splendour and glory was created against the background of differing civilisations, all of which have their influence on the biblical record, so that our whole notion of revelation has to be revised and one must think of it not so much in terms of God imparting information directly to man as what is called nowadays a Divine human encounter in which man has met God throughout human history and the record of this is particuŽlarly found in the Bible. Jews have had only a century and a half in which to recognise that the modern world exists and that the medieval world is a thing of the past because Zunst, the famous Jewish historian, was quite right when he said that the Jewish Middle Ages did not come to an end until the end of the 18th century. And so some of us were trying to get across this idea, that we are living in the modern world, no longer in the pre-modern world, but we would not be content to leave it at this and we have to recognise, as our, Christian friends have done for example, that we are now living not so much in the modern world as in the post-modern world. One thinks of the concentration camps, one thinks of Hiroshima, one thinks of the terrible events that have happened in this century which have made man revise his notions of what it means to live as a religious person, what it is that God demands of him, and so many of us would feel happier if we were not living so much in the modern world, although I think the task of reminding people that this has to happen must go on, but of working out what it means to live in the post-modern age.
LEVIN
What were then the specific doctrines or beliefs in Judaism that you were challenging or perhaps challenging's too strong a word, but anyway questioning?
JACOBS:
Briefly I would say we were challenging the nation of what is Judaism is particularly helped to grapple with this problem because in Judaism the Bible is not worshipped, nor is there a literal acceptance of the words of the Bible. The rabbis speak of the written Torah and the oral Torah and by that they do not mean simply that side by side with the written document various other propoŽsitions were handed down by word of mouth. They mean something much more dynamic than this. They mean that the Jewish people, whilst constantly applying the truth of the Bible and interpreting her biblical values in terms of their own experience, and in this way making their own contribution to the meaning of what Judaism calls Torah which means teaching and not the biblical record alone, the biblical record as interpreted in the historic experience of the Jewish people. And because of this Jews are able to grapple with the new problems, in other words because of this a reinterŽpretation of biblical values is possible.
LEVIN
Then it's not immediately easy to see from what you just said, which seemed very reasonable and acceptable, what the fuss was about. What was it in the kind of things you've just been saying that provoked what was very sharp disagreement?
JACOBS
There is no doubt at all that it is a basic rabbinic belief that every word and every letter of the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, was dictated by God to Moses. Of course the medieval philosophers would have explained a term like ''dictated" in a philosophical sense. They would not necessarily have said that God has vocal organs. But they would have stressed that the whole content of Revelation is contained in the Five Books of Moses and in their day they had no reason for supposing otherwise. So that while I agree that this is entirely reasonable, at least it seems reasonable to me and to a good many other people, one can underŽstand the vehemence of the opposition because in a sense this is a very untraditional notion, although one which I feel can be reconŽciled with the doctrine I mentioned before of oral Torah. There is an old Jewish saying which has it as follows. The written Torah, I think this is in the Zohar, the great Bible of Jewish mysticism, that the written Torah is the world to come, the translation of the oral Torah is this world and I take it to mean that of course there are eternal values represented by the term 'the world to come' in the Bible, but Judaism has understood very well that in every age a re-interpretation is required and an adaptation of those values and this work of translation and adaptation is as much part of the Torah, in its dynamic sense, as the written Torah.
LEVIN
Yes, well now, Judaism therefore seems to be going through now what in some of the Christian churches they went through a good time ago. For instance, I'm surprised to hear that so much was made of the challenge to the literal Biblical voracity of the Pentateuch for instance. Now this is something that whatever the sort of formal acceptance of the literal word of God by Christian church in the New Testament may be was accepted that whatever way it's put: myth, poetry, image, it was accepted that we were no longer expected to believe literally that every word in the Bible was exactly as - exactly historical truth a long time ago. How has Judaism in a sense, in that way, lagged behind facing the discoveries of archaeology and exegesis and so on.
JACOBS
Well, I think there are two reasons for it. One is that as we said before, the Jews did not emerge into the modern world until the French Revolution, the emancipation of the Jew, his emergence into Western society. So that a good deal of leeway had to be
made up. The second reason, I think, is that Judaism has not been theologically minded. Judaism has been concerned with doing the Will of God, Judaism has been concerned with practical observances, with living the good life, with practising justice, so that whereas for example the mediaeval schoolmen were concerned with theological topics and explores these with great subtlety, the Jewish genius went into an exploration of the practical life and its significance in the eyes of God and because of this one can easily see that it was possible for Jews, and it is still possible for Jews, to lead the good life, in the light of the Torah as Jews would put it, without being too much concerned about the question of what is meant by revelation. I personally think that this is not a position that one can permanently hold and I feel that sooner or later it was right - it is right for Jews to grapple with this kind of problem. That's why I'm not at all unhappy about the fact that this controversy has arisen.
LEVIN
Well, I can see both similarities and differences in the situation with Jewish religion and the kind of ferment that is interestingly occupying not only the Anglican church in the light of what I've sort of mentioned, the Bishop of Woolwich, also the Roman Catholic church within its terms. There is clearly a great upheaval going on in both of these. Now, mutates mutandes would you say that the same forces were in fact at work, as far as Judaism is concerned?
JACOBS
Oh obviously I think there's no doubt there is a very determined effort on the part of thinking Jews to revaluate the meaning of Judaism for Jews today, and in fact there are even closer points of similarity. I said before that we were not primarily concerned with the doctrine of God. I don't want this to be understood to mean that we're not concerned with the doctrine of God. There has been a good deal of theological thinking in its narrow sense in Judaism too, but we like to feel, we may be wrong in this, but we like to feel that some of the questions raised by a man like the Bishop of Woolwich or for that matter by Tillage, have been well understood in Judaism precisely because Judaism has always sets its face against idolatry and when one reads Tillage and hears him talk about the God beyond God and that there are images of God which have to be understood as images and as symbols, not as the reality, one finds a ready echo in the Jewish tradition to all this. The Zohar, for example, to quote the Zohar again, had talks about God as he is in himself as eyn sof without limit, impersonal and It rather than a he, and the god of religion, the god of vital religion is God as he is revealed to his creatures and of course Judaism has always stressed the need to go beyond the image, for this reason Judaism doesn't believe in image making.
LEVIN
Now, however, apart from the theology of it, religions and the Jewish religion no less than any others always work themselves out as far as an individual facing, considering, adopting and practising is concerned, in immediate and particular and local terms. And all religions have built up a body of doctrine and practice which were based on particular historical conditions, but which were designed or apparently designed for eternity and not simply to meet local conditions. Now it's always seemed to me that Judaism has more of these than most religions, that for instance, one obvious stumbling block to anyone as far as the Jewish - brought up in the Jewish religion and considering whether to continue it or not, has been things like the dietary laws, which as far as one can see clearly met a particular historical need of a nation at a particular time in a particular part of the world and it seems to have no relevance at all any longer to the modern world. Isn't there more of this, to use a word as extreme as lumber in the Jewish religion than any others.
JACOBS
Well, except that I wouldn't refer to institutions like the dietary laws as lumber. It all depends on how you interpret these and here is where interpretation counts - comes into it.
Of course, on the old view it's all very simple, God dictated every detail of the dietary laws to Moses, and who are we, as it were, to argue with God, and this is what God wishes us to do, then we do it, and in fact, I think it can be shown that in some of the Jewish sources a great deal is made of the idea of obedience as the supreme test. But if one is prepared to admit that the dietary laws may have had a Pagan origin, it seems to me it's almost certain that this happened with regard to some of the dietary laws and a man like Maimonides in the Middle Ages was prepared to say something of the sort. Now, supposing one admits this, then one has to think do these institutions have value in the world of today, and if one sees that they have value, then one can argue quite convincingly to my mind that whatever their origin they should be preserved for the value they have. Now what is the value associated with the dietary laws as they developed ultimately in Judaism? The idea of holiness. Now I know holiness is a very complicated subject and it's difficult to define in two or three sentences, but basically
it means the idea that man recognises the realities of the spiritual world, that the material universe is not all that there is, that in theological language God is to be thought of even when man is engaged in the things of the world. This idea of holiness is surely of permanent value in religion and if the genius of Judaism is worked out a means of promoting holiness in life and I believe very strongly that the dietary laws do this, well then they are by no means lumber and they serve this purpose even today. They would only be out of date if holiness is out of date.
LEVIN
Yes, but they - I can't see surely that there is any necessary connection between particular practises and holiness. A man can be as holy as you please - would you argue the contrary, please tell me - without actually following such
JACOBS
I would argue the contrary because I would not deny for example that, oh shall we say someone like Ghandi, could without distortion be called a holy man. Ghandi had certain rules which he observed and the whole point of Judaism as I see it is that we do not think so much in terms of holy men, of individuals, who have reached a high level of sanctity, but a regimen has been created so that all people, all Jews, even ordinary men and women can have the flavour of holiness even in their daily living, and it seems to me that this is an elevating thing, an enobling thing, very far from being old fashioned.
LEVIN
Let me try and widen this a little, if I may, Dr. Jacobs, at this point. The point that fascinates me particularly, and I'd like to hear what a Rabbi in your position has to say on it, and it's this the Jews are in one sense, perhaps in many, but in one sense I had in mind, in a very special situation in that, in this sense: if you say of a man he is a Roman Catholic, you - we all know exactly what you mean by it, he's one who believes in, practises the Roman Catholic religion. And if he doesn't believe in or practise the
Roman Catholic religion there's no meaningful sense in which you can say he is a Roman Catholic. Now, that is not so in the case of a Jew. You can say of a man who doesn't practise, follow or believe in the Jewish religion, he is a Jew. Now what, apart from the religion, can that mean to you? Will you tell me?
JACOBS
Indeed, this is the major problem for Jews today, how to define what it means to be a Jew. Many attempts have been made, none of them entirely successful. I would myself stress the idea of a covenant. I wouldn't, for example, claim, although some of the medieval thinkers did that there is a qualitative difference between the Jewish soul and the non-Jewish soul, this seems to me to be monstrous and quite ridiculous and not supported at all by our experience. Nor would I favour the view which says, well it is odd of God to choose the Jews, but then the Jews chose God, it isn't odd the Jews chose God. I don't think this is entirely satisfactory because it introduces a notion which I view with a certain amount of suspicion, the notion of Jewish religious genius, a special field for religion which others do not have. I would prefer to stress the idea of a covenant. You have a group of people, throughout its history, dedicated to certain values which - which are discernible, which can be recognised, and therefore there is an element of noblesse oblige, the Jew is born into this position, he is not encouraged to think slightingly of other traditions but he is encouraged to feel that a) he should not let down the side and b) that he can make his contribution to the realisation of those original values in the dynamic sense in which I - of which I spoke before.
LEVIN
But I think that what you're telling me is not so much what the Jew is as what he believes or what he follows. Now, for instance, you said, leaving again - you were arguing outside religion for the moment, the idea of a covenant which a particular people through history have had the idea of the Covenant but who are these particular people. I mean you would presumably reject, or would you, any idea of a Jewish race?
JACOBS
Certainly, I would certainly reject the idea of a Jewish race, this is nonsensical. But - there is no such thing as a pure Jewish race, nor - nor would I deny that there are of course many .Jews who are not religious, there are many Jews who many of us would consider to be in a sense good Jews, who are atheists. But then there is no answer to this kind of question, if one is approaching it from the religious point of view, and as a rabbi this is what I'm doing, I could only say that we deplore that there are Jewish atheists, while recognising that in the mysterious ways in which God moves, no doubt he has a. contribution for Jewish atheists to make, as indeed He has presumably a contribution for atheists who are not Jews to make, so that one can stress this idea of The Covenant, without thereby being exclusive. One can say, well - one could say to the Jewish atheist, whether one would convince him or not I don't know, one could say to the Jewish atheist look if you're at all committed to the Jewish idea you must see that it had a good deal to do with religion, that it wasn't just a Covenant, but a covenant with God, that in a covenant you have the other party, that there is this I Thou relationship as Cooper calls it and it is, - it speaks to us or God speaks to us, the great Thou speaks to us out of the pages of our tradition, doesn't this ring a bell, I would say to the Jewish atheist. If it doesn't then there's very little I could say to him except to say I'; still glad that you appreciate Jewish values and you see some meaning in the idea of the Covenant although you don't interpret it as I would interpret it and as I feel Jewish tradition has interpreted it throughout the ages.
LEVIN
It would seem then - obviously this is a very difficult question to ask a rabbi since there's only one answer he can really give - but it seems that outside the Jewish religion there would seem to be no future for Jewry in any sense, I mean irrespective of a special case like the state of Israel, which is after all a modern nation state and it - the question of its Jewishness is in a sense a separate one, but apart from that the Jew who has no desire to be an Israeli and no feeling of kinship with Israel, who lives in another country and is a citizen of that in every sense of the word. and has no religion. has no belief in the separate future for such a - for such a group, outside of the religion in the sense in which you say that God obviously, in your view, has a purpose for him too.
JACOBS
Yes, except that I would add, has perhaps a purpose for him within the Jewish group. I mean, after all, it is possible I think, for a person to do the right thing without necessarily being aware of it and I'm rather suspicious of the claim of some people to be Jewish atheists, because I doubt whether we are all complete believers all the time, or for that matter whether anyone is a complete atheist all the time. So that one recognises the tensions and I would prefer not to think in these exclusive either-or terms. I think one has to recognise the realities of the situation and encourage as many Jews as possible to work for Jewish values, although naturally, as you say, as a rabbi I would prefer that the religious side of it should be emphasised.
LEVIN
Nevertheless, assimilation proceeds apace, intermarriage proceeds and grows. Can you not foresee, at any rate let's have you look at the possibility of Judaism declining and continuing to decline, perhaps eventually withering. Now what do you say when you look at such a prospect?
JACOBS
Who was it who said that rabbis always seem to have lived in dissolute ages? Rabbis always complained of this; the Jew was in a minority, the forces for assimilation have not only operated in the modern world, and there's a certain kind of assimilation which is not bad, which is good. One must learn to live with the tensions and one must be hopeful without being complacent. And one must have confidence, and as a rabbi I have confidence in the power of Judaism to win the souls of Jews.
LEVIN
What do you say then to the view that it was the great pressure, the tension on Jews of anti-Semitism through the ages that kept Judaism as cohesive, recognisable, and that now that at last the world does seem to be coming to its senses in this - albeit slowly, in this respect and that this pressure is being relaxed that this will make the sort of centrifugal forces in Judaism come to the fore and that it will fragmentise.
JACOBS
Well, can I answer this with a Midracz, the rabbinic Midracz tries to explain these ideas in his own naive but very forcible way. The rabbis say that the Jews said we will do and we will hear, they accepted the Torah without compulsion. The rabbis also say that God took the Mount of Sinai and places it over the Jews and said if you will accept the Torah, good, otherwise here you will be destroyed. Now, the forces of anti-Semitism
have been represented by the second approach and undoubtedly it has kept Jews together. We like to feel that there is something in the Jewish soul and I think this can be supported by history, which will enable Jews in a free world, and as free human beings, to say we will do and we will hear.
LEVIN
Thank you very much, Rabbi Jacobs.
|
<< return to: ABOUT RABBI JACOBS
|
|