Censorship Consequences

By: Jonathan Seidel

Empowerment of censorship: maimonides maskilim and modernity 

Marc Shapiro wrote a fascinating book detailing the copious censorship throughout Jewish history. Censorship is dangerous as it resorts on the one hand to heresy hunting and fundamentalism and on the other to radical pushback. There is an extreme overcompensation when one is censored. For one political example, the reason for Trump’s growing audience was not due to his radiant demeanour but to the consistent banning. Censorship only empowers the opponents and causes more destruction. Three examples in the realm of Jewish philosophy will suffice. 

The first internal Jewish polemic was against Maimonides. Maimonides’ books were burned and his movement ostracised for its heretical notions. This empowered a hierarchical tone working with the Christian government to harm the maimonidean ideology. This provided the government to hound Jews more and torture more of their credentials. Their desire to rid Maimonides created an esoteric ideology so foreign to Judaism. Apparently certain teachers had supernal powers, an idea still part of Judaism today. They sparked a paranoia that could not even dialogue with the possibility. They introduced their own laws contrary to the Talmud. His philosophy was poisonous so it needed to be smudged from existence. Allowing the Dominicans to burn Maimonides set a precedent to burn other Jewish books namely the talmud. 

Many attacked Maimonides for the failures of the expulsion. Yet, even if it was his philosophy that softened their minds and swayed their hearts away. It was the abolition of philosophy that sparked a rejuvenation in philosophy. Abrogating it released a counter measure to centralise it. The failure was that philosophy was evil and yet had it been accepted it would have been a normative part of tradition next to law. The argument that philosophy is the kicker to leaving religion is ludicrous. It is not the philosophy itself but the erasure of philosophy that is sought. The blowback from marginalising philosophy is more of it. The philosophical revolt is in attempting to remove it. The problem wasn’t the maimonideans it was the anti-maimonideans. The maimonidean controversy had three layers: one during his life, one in the west and one in the east. The esoteric charge eclipsed his rationalism as dangerous. The force of rationalistic thought defended themselves harsher and harsher. Their methods became even more radical than Maimonides. By trying to expunge the entire strata they formed even more extreme ideas. 

Maimonides’ intent was to both the scholar and the simpleton. He wished to salvage those who influenced by the outside world would leave. People were going to be affected and attracted to philosophy. Instead of it stealing their soul away from Jewish tradition he demonstrated a synthesis to maintain both possibilities. Maimonides approach was highly religious and traditional. Some of his conclusions were novel but to assume that somehow his guide would be weaponised as an abandonment of Judaism is a little extreme. His philosophy may have saved people who were enticed but found solidarity in maintaining both the religious and the profane.   

By the sixteenth century science was more accepted but even the Rema’s maimonideanism was censured. The controversy never stopped. It was necessarily a Maimonides’ issue insofar as it was a greek wisdom issue. Greek wisdom corrupting Jewish theology. The climax in the early 1300s attempted to calm the nerves with an age ban. One could study Maimonides but only at a certain age. The continuous outrage and name-calling only pushed the rationalists away. It wasn’t their philosophical adherence but their kicking-out. Calling people idolators only inflames them more. It is not really a novel method of garnering their support.

With the turn of the of the enlightenment the philosophical scheme of Maimonides grew new wings. Jews reassumed a long lost attachment to his thinking. Mendelssohn wrote his first commentary on Maimonides’ Guide. Mendelssohn and his followers were maskilim who propagated halakhic action. There were moderate maskilim like Shlomo Papenheim and more extreme like David Friedlaender. The former concerned themselves with the intellectualised effort as well as the legal model. They functioned within the scope of tradition. It was Maimon and Ascher who maligned the tradition, only holding up the ceremonious parts. Even their halakhic reform was based in religious hermeneutics. The Mendelssohnian movement pointed to halakhic changes but were contested by the misnagdic personality. They remained committed to the authoritative nature of rabbinic legislation. Their protest was sending letters for proper reform. They didn’t do themselves but bequeathed their brethren to do so. 

In contrast to the maimomnidean polemic the maskilic response had many different cultural changes. Maimonides for one was part of a long tradition of philosophical training, something not known in the rabbinic world. Philosophy became solely an academic study in the religious worldview. Only a handful of rabbinic scholars had even engaged the guide in the ensuing generations. The second shift was the literacy rate. The power of maimonideaniism hailed from a genus passing on his knowledge to aspiring thinkers. It was on “elitist” twist to those who were willing to study or had access to study. The modern intellect empowered the layman to respond to change. No longer the people slaves to their leader’s decisions. If anything it is quite humble to accept and have the will to request change. The book burning of the Middle Ages had a new face in the modern age seeking conferences. The radical nature arose following the traditionalists refusal to attend the Breslau call. Nor did they respond to any other call to discuss. Their tactics switched from peaceful requests to extreme polemics. 

Mendelssohn’s maskilic influence spread to intellectually stimulated traditionalists that of Kromchal Meklenburg and Ettlinger. The works of these thinkers incorporated the philosophical impulse that led to the rise of Germany orthodoxy. The maskilic power reigned its inspiration into the traditional commentaries. These thinkers attempted to synthesise their Lithuanian maskilic sources. The willingness to think outside the box was a primal factor of religious expression. Mekenberg drew from non traditional sources and Kromchal wrote an updated version of the guide. 

The haslaka’s proposal was to alleviate the struggles of the community. The scholarly journals were a heads-up to the rabbinic elite. The rabbinic world was emerging from the shtetl life isolated from the sciences and denouncing their importance. Their ignorance only fuelled more problems with the maskilic plea. The isolation of the yeshivah world and their growing authoritarian dominance melded terribly with the communal concerns. The maskilim saw themselves as aiding their communal brethren. The legal petitions were not some sort of vile attack on tradition but a call for help. Even later considerations such as praying in the vernacular was not about destroying tradition but adapting for those who did not speak nor understand hebrew. The early reformers were trying to salvage the Jewish community not upend it. 

Yet, they will vilified. The maskilim were like Maimonides trying to respond to the challenge at hand. The obstacle was dangerous but a thorough look could help. Instead the anti-maimonidean charge roared in disgust. Detesting the very thought of considering adapting halakha. Despite their early rabbinic correspondence it tragically took a turn for the worst and word regarded as heretics. Hasidim joined in the party attacking the maskilim for studying the guide. It was not even their philosophical opposition more than even their halakhic opposition. Attacking the use of Maimonides held its own prestige in the persecution of philosophy as well as refusing engagement. The radicalism only spread empowering their base. 

The blame of the few maskilim who went of the path may also stem from the denial of philosophy so prevalent in their day. Had philosophy been tolerated maybe Maimon would have been a religious Jew. The alienation of the perceived assumed evil only uses more fragmentation. People were leaving and playing the extreme was not an effective tactic. It left those with some inkling of connection to break off and those stubborn enough to stay to form their own communities. Vilifying every novelty is a losing strategy. Blaming problems on the outside world has some credence but it’s at times the response to such change that furthers the issue tremendously. Lines should be drawn but careful where you draw them. 

The final cause in in the modern day. The opposition to philosophy has loomed large in haredi circles. Even orthodox thinkers are leaning against intellectual speculation. The dogmatic uniformity and stringencies pushed leftward. Reform and conservative Judaism had already been subjected to their fates. Orthodoxy has been dividing opening a wider possibility of religious identity. The ‘haredization’ of orthodoxy had an opposite effect. Liberal models are regarded as inadequate. The counterculture has emerged following the the war. There has been gradual development in each direction but in the late 90s it spread wide in the extreme right. Gender issues as well as other theological issues bolstered a new side of thinking. The polemics against conservative judaism only furthered a synthesis between the uncompromising conservatism and orthodoxy’s restrictions. 

The haredi model is an isolationist alienated ideology. An avoidance of the non-traditional aspects. Only a linear internal language game is accepted. All external information is demonetised. Philosophy has new definition including anything secular. Modernity is an grave evil to be voided rather than an angelic gift to be embraced. The fun inventions and enjoyable entertainment we take for granted are vilified. No television no iPhones no access to the outside world. It is not so much what they are banning but they are banning. They perceive any sort of potential threat to tradition as something to be disparaged. Disparaging is for protection. The mode of entertainment are seductive. They entice the Jew away from his precious heritage.     

Daas Torah has invaded the religious community. The all-encompassing charismatic religious authority deciding every whim of life and denouncing some subjective ailment. An absolute submission beyond the halakhic realm into the profane categories. How to vote, what school to send among other educational pursuits. The authority has been blessed with spiritual prowess to make decisions on behalf of the people. He is entrusted with the community's well being and is their Moses in leading them to the promised land. To follow the divine will correctly in all aspects of life. Even non-legal aspects are central to the flourishing of God's love and mercy.  

The haredization is continuing. The slifkin affair was the first straw in the takeover. Radical efforts are emerging as a response to this push. It is a powerful influence but its drawbacks are equal dangerous. There are halakhic queries but in many ways it is a philsophical battle, one fought by Maimonides then the maskilim and now by the modern orthodox. Soloveitchik also fit this bill in the Haredim attempted to dethrone him due to his secular study. The concentration on the intellectual battle even within the lines of traditional Judaism is quite ironic. Sacks was forced to rewrite his book and other scholars have been regulated or censored. It is an anti-intellectual cause. The fundamentalism forming from extreme monism and hierarchical elitism. 

Even in the modern orthodoxy community, the shift to the right has heralded a monolithic tone to viewing Judaism. The right is more comfortable and safe from the dangers of modern society. Though many in the middle will engage somewhat in secular society's entertainment, yet void any intellectual speculation. Philosophy has a bad rep already and its suspicion yields antagonism. It questions traditional history and thus must be banished from study. Jews who study machshava are very specific of who they study. Many excuse the works of Maimonides or Soloveitchik on their rigour or disinterest. The term machshava is limited to certain categories. The complexity of philosophical learning has its scepticism and cynicism. Yet, it seemingly overpowers the believer in his certainty of faithfulness. Soloveitchik bemoaned the shallowness of those who criticised his philosophical efforts. 

     

The Slifkin Affair (though ironically a rationalist in his own right) has much in line with the maimonidean controversy. The polemics against him were uncalled her and it became a political battle. Those who endorsed him quickly caved to save their souls. Modernity is dangerous and needs to be quashed. Hashkafa has taken the place of halakha. It is no longer a brace of legal action but intellectual discourse. Yet, there is a faction of feminists and liberals who wish to make real change within tradition. Partnership minyanim and female rabbis have been denounced in the states but upheld in Israel. The preservationist side in America is clear and growing. YCT is looked down upon as lesser. There is an empowering haredi hold that is pushing people left. We have yet to see the consequences but its in the near future. For now there are post-denominational Jews. Those in the social orthodox camp who don’t believe but act. This effect will be disastrous down the road. How will their children act and what is at stake.    

  

Maimonides was lone wolf devisor who was banished, the maskilim were journalists seeking insight and the orthodox are scholarly learned. The current trend furthers the amount of maimonidean scholars. There is no longer one individual but a group of rebels. The haredi movement is the Lithuanian movement continued from the medieval anti-maimonideans. There is a psychological defence mechanism to ensure loyalty by exclusion and heresy hunting. The shift to the right signifies a pattern of stringencies from the Middle Ages. Is it inevitable? As long as dialogue and conversation is maintained. As long as controversial works are respected even if disagreed upon. As long as heresy hunting ceases. It is avoidable. The maimonidean light must continue to shine. Even at the risk of polemics and daunting attacks.