Only One Thing Matters

By: Jonathan Seidel

Leibowitz’s strident particularism in age of globalism and Jewish liberal universalism—halakha as the core of Jewish community and continuity 

Prof. Leibowitz is an interesting character given his personified direction of halakha and rejection of religious facts. Yet his daring particularism and legal centricity invokes a polemic against modernity and a nuanced view of yiddishkeit.

Leibowitz had his qualms with modernity but to paint him as a religious fanatic or anti-liberal would be incorrect. He was a progressive democrat yet incredibly principled in his ideals. His thinking was divisive and controversial. As R Sacks noted in an interview, he was a prophet in Israel. A man of action and respect. A man unafraid to spout his views and contradict others in their stead. His personality was strong and firm. He lived by his beliefs and cared little for personal attacks. His views were unorthodox but yet orthodox. His nuance view polarised but also promised. It elevated some and disdained others. Whether agree or disagree, he was incredibly influential and deeply daunting. Courageous and brazen in a volatile social scene yet he never held back his beliefs.  

The liberal charm of modernity was well received to an extent. Leibowitz was all for the economic and technological advancements. Free markets and free peoples. Yet what he did not enjoy was the dogmatic character of faith convening on the political character. For the messianic inspiration embedded in the zionist ethos to continue to grow and shed poorly. This is very different than his hopes of a halakhic state and even the latter was dissimilar to the haredi and hardal proponents. A halakhic state is by virtue of the historical consciousness to be adapted to the state legislature. Not on messianic nor spiritual grounds. Like, R Goren the halakhic state would not be some archaic exilic implication but a rejuvenated traditional constitution. This never came to pass but the socio-political arguments as well as the authority of the traditional word has continued to strike the non-observance and even observant Jews into a tailspin. Even if Halakha was practiced during bayit rishon we have no data with very few textual assistance to concur this point. Therefore as R Goren tried years later this was an adjustment that not even the rabbinate was happy with. 

While Leibowitz didn’t have all the answers he still wished to pose the questions. Though strictly opposed to the messianic and mystical traditions, he felt that zionism and traditional Judaism needed to be meshed somehow. Not only does the question of how does an exilic based system operate on a national leave but concerning modern liberal norms where does freedom of speech and assembly fit in. R Sacks noted the biblical separation of powers but nowhere does he account for the bill of rights. Ancient Jews may have enjoyed some freedom of expression but there are obviously limits encoded in Leviticus concerning blasphemy and homosexuality. There are boundaries of what can be said and what can be done. The modern freedom of speech is from Voltaire to some of the most radical extreme (even if he didn’t own up to it). There exists a grey area whereby the adapted halakha would need to meet certain qualifications. Leibowitz never intended to corrupt the halakha with modern notions of right and wrong but he did believe that these such values are integral and therefore must be taken into consideration.  

It is this focus on the national paradigm from halakha to politics that shrunk his outlook from the universal to the particular. In his view, the universal was of the little significance. In contrast to the accepted norm of fixing the world whether by reformers or mystics, he was a rationalist through and through. Becoming so maimonidean that he ignored religious facts. For him events didn’t need to be proved just memorialised. Did revelation take place? Who cares. Is revelation important? Yes. Therefore revelation to the Jew is true or valuable, it really doesn’t matter. Religious facts were just a part of academic research and verification processes since the Middle Ages. They are of little concern. What is concerning is the commitment to Jewish tradition. Religious facts are not those that need to be proven through logic but those can be easily legitimised in history. Have Jews kept Shabbat for two millennia? Yes. Has the halakha preserved the people? Yes. Thus you ought to keep the halakha. The halakha is the bedrock of Jewish existence and must be upheld. 

The only Tikkun Leibowitz strove for was Tikkun observance. He did not look to the rest of the world but other Jews. He disliked secular zionism as a face in Judaism. R Kook was famously sympathetic and even R Shagar made a note about datlashim but this not the Judaism Leibowitz sought nor did he do so on some hellish fear. His single dogma was commitment to Judaism. Commitment to the sacred halakha that has embodied the Jewish soul for generations. Such defiance was an attack on the history and culture of yiddishkeit. When reformers attempted to update the law he objected to their individualistic lenses. He did not obscure nor reject innovation but promoted it as a symbol of Jewish development not evolution. Halakha doesn’t shift by the whims of modernity. In this bold orthodox hold he praises the halakha as the ideal model and chastises those who reject it. This is no sympathy party but salvation from idolatrous constructions of Jewish culture and more so obeying God. While there is room for innovation it must be by the chosen guards of the tradition not modern impulses for good.

Halakha in Leibowitz’s view is not the ontological characterisation of the Rav. The Rav conceptualised halakha in a metaphysical model. The Rav’s more brisker style alongside his philosophy cultivated a metaphysical notion. Leibowitz’s rejection of such a possibility was more to its indifference. His God was transcendent not imminent. His relation to Judaism was heteronomous. God commands, man obeys. His version of the akeida is not a moral issue but the pinnacle of religious commitment. The spiritual or metaphysical avenue is minute at its best and pagan at its worst. Halakha is the way to God and Judaism. It is a model of commitment and belonging. The Rav saw the telos of halakha as presenting biological urges while Leibowitz saw it as fulfilling the word of God. Committing oneself to the people. He didn’t play games or try to soften the blow. Moderns do not like laws, they are like children in a playground. Hoping that the fun never dies. Then cold cruel Leibowitz shuns them for their ignorance and insolence. Such a perspective undermines his devotion to his history and culture. He was cold but his empathy for his tradition shined brighter. 

Leibowitz’s unlimited and infinite devotion to God and tradition is inescapable. Instead of seeking reasons for commandments, he derided by arguing that such was to just fulfil the word of God. He was the epitome of a staunch Lithuanian. A haredi man dressed as a philosopher with the elegance of a poet. His goal was the simple faith of Jewish tradition. There is no need to philosophise or ponder ever more lazily. That is clarity and honesty. Halakha is a constitutional imposition on the Jew. It is the law that needs to be followed no matter what. It is the power of commanded rather than choosing to be commanded. You can’t jaywalk that is the law nor can you drink and drive. Is it annoying? Maybe but such is the law that is to be enforced. Halakha is the action of faith. A display of intent and commitment. Halakha is intrinsic to the Jewish community. To go back to Sinai, the factuality means little while the message means everything. Sinai encompasses the constitutive model. One is obliged due to the generational acceptance of the message underlying the factual claim. 

The shift to theology by many to purport Jewish ideas is but an erosion of Judaism. The aggadic resurgence was never to replace the halakha nor to even exist on its own. The aggada is nearly always affixed to the halakha. The narrative is a conduit to the law. Theology is great if it derived from halakha. The use of the biblical prophets to demonstrate a sort of division between ethics and law is to admit the halakha is but a construction able to be dispensed. A mode that is generationally insufficient.  The prophetic impulse upholds the law and even demands the law. The ethical discourse is not independent of the law but using the law in a nefarious way. The halakha is the bedrock of observance. The ethic is derived by the symbiosis from God himself. To keep the halakha alive is to keep true to Judaism. To commit oneself to God and his imposition on man. There is no heavenly reward or spiritual significance. Only that one follows their heritage and upholds the tradition. 

Metaphysical formulations misconstrue as they insinuate some universal truth. Leibowitz saw no purpose in this. Rather the Torah was a sign of religious language which is significant to the believer. Sinai on a historical level is cool but its power to the believers' commitment is profound. God’s gift of the Torah is the believers' acceptance of the mitzvoth. Halakha is a pragmatic relationship to the Lord. It is a normative institution that binds Knesset Yisroel. In the Maimonidean sense he translates the Torah into a naturalist sequence. Traversing ever further into a rhetorical halakhic atmosphere. Chazal’s method of halakhifying the biblical narrative is taken to the extreme here. Leibowitz transforms the biblical record into a halakhic paradigm. Demythologising the Torah into commitment to God through the miztvot. It is not just deriving the laws from the text like Sefer HaChinuch but further positing the text itself as a measured halakhic obligation. The underlying value of halakha is the non-stop endless commitment. It is a way of life that Leibowitz at times turns into a nihilistic fantasy. Continue moving forward that is just the way it is. 

Leibowitz thought is radical in many aspects. He advocated ‘dry legalism’ with a so what! That is halakha and that is Judaism. An opportunity but more so an obligation to do as commanded. This is the Jewish people deal with it. Harsh and cold but genuine and precise. He may not the Rav’s halakhic man but he could very well be someone else’s.