Law Abiding Citizen

By: Jonathan Seidel

Leibowitz’s refocus on law 

The anti-dogmatic group that of Leibowitz, Goldman and their followers present a nuanced view of religiosity. They are not anti-theological nor orthoprax in negating theology, only that such points are irrelevant to the overall status of Judaism. The blowback has been great and is overblown. Instead of bashing their view, there is a silver lining to consider. They present strict halakhic obedience. 

For them, the bedrock of religiosity is legal affiliation. This is not novel nor unique. Maimonides, the archetype of dogmatic hegemony, placed the law above all. The Tosafists as well were talmudists with rare theological affinity. There is a basic belief in the divine but most of their theology is built into their halakhic paradigm. Submission to the law is the crux of religious affiliation. What Mendelssohn tried to so hard to convey is responded by Leibowitz and his crew. His dogma-less religiosity hones only the law as the foundational core. 

The surge of legal disobedience has moved halakha to the margins of religion. Many Jews today call themselves Jews without any relation to the law whatsoever. They can hold the principles but without legal affiliation there is a critical missing component. Ironically, it is the halakhic Jews that are attacked for their commitment. Since conservative Jews believe differently which does have a legal impact, they are targeted by orthodox scholars. Secular Jews get a pass because they are apparently not perverting the Torah. It is better to do nothing at all than to do something of distortion. The incorrect dogma is the greatest issue despite the diversity amongst the rishonim. 

Leibowitz differed from the conservatives. Even Jacobs despite his radical formulation held true to commandments. Though unlike Jacobs, Leibowitz and Goldman both did not reject orthodox dogmas. Norman Solomon is another individual who primes revelation as an origin myth to justify his belief and promote his vision. They were highly halakhic and cared deeply for commitment. Halakha is the central facet of Jewish tradition. He also altered the mechanism. The shift was more towards values that truths. Leibowitz cared for religious expression over metaphysical speculation. Ignoring metaphysics and demythologising the Torah for a religious lesson that circles the law.  

Jay Lefkowitz wrote a column on the phenomenon of social orthodoxy. In it he describes stuggling with doxology yet still committed to the community and halakha. Though he finds an ally with Kaplan, his articulation is less theological and more blunt than Leibowitz and Solomon. This rejection does not take away from the socio-halakhic commitment. Ironically, many of his responses including his congregational rabbi and well respected scholars  defended him. Accordingly, there is a group even a movement of people transmitted to a second generation committed to law over theology. The community of law may be able to sustain the lack of doxology. 

Levinas' answer to the call was to love the Torah more than God. He followed in disseminating the centrality of the book over the theological context. For him theology was a dead end and naive attempt. God for him was a lesson in relation to man. God is the model of ethical behaviour and responsibility for one another. He was more than a personal buddy or submission to a deity. For Levinas, the prophetic age is gone and it is on man to take charge. The Torah is the sole communicator of the divine and Jewish particularity. Adherence to the Torah is the core of cultural expression in light of the contemporary standards.  

Is this way of life sustainable? I do not know. The transmission to the next generation is insufficient to mark its prowess. I do think the acceptance of some theological component whether in myth or value as core of religiosity for halakha to sprout from. The constitutional effort needs a larger aspect that binds the law with passion and commitment. Community is a good start but there needs to be more. Though it does seem this trend is not stopping anytime soon. For better or for worse the sentiment set by Leibowitz and his club inspired a movement of halakhic obedience over the doxological centricity. 

For my earlier version of a social orthodox response see: We Talking About Practice