Reading Double

By: Jonathan Seidel

Shnei Chayei HaRav Sacks  

Rabbi Sacks’ philosophy is far reaching. He writes on many different topics occupying a unique place amongst the pantheon of religious thinkers. There is no one thinker like him. No religious thinker who has so well parlayed a Jewish and even an observant response to societal implications. Even through this valve like Maharal before him, he examined issues through different styles and focuses.

Personally, there is a difference between pre-chief rabbi Sacks and chief rabbi Sacks. While this mark may have much to do with his role forced to configure his thought more modestly, there are certain things he was uncompromising of despite the backlash. Nevertheless, if this change is accurate it does reckon with his less jargonist and philosophical core with emphasis on appealing to an audience. For a quick example, his articles in Tradition, on R Soloveitchik’s thought are riveting. He provided his own philosophical analysis on Lonely Man of Faith and Halakhic Mind. Brazenly critiquing the Rav’s approach even when the Rav was still living. He only authored one book prior to his rabbinate and much of his books gradually became more “mundane”. They never lost their philosophical flare nor the breath of secular sources but they were bold in a different sense. 

Drifting away from his earlier articles and incredible vigour. While his books are momentous and at times still critiques of the Rav (covenant of faith and interfaith dialogue), the more controversial issues slid except in one marvellous case of Dignity of Difference. His shift during his service in the rabbinate was not necessarily of “mainstream-ism” or pandering but rather his focus became more open. It was more about yiddishkeit and religiosity as a whole rather than observant Judaism. The separation between his Tradition articles and his early rabbinate works are less academic but still very Jewishly related. His early rabbinate days till his middle to later years correspond to the transition from One People and Crisis and Covenant to The Politics of Hope and Dignity of Difference. Whether this shift is so pronounced at this point is of little significance. These trends are made out by academics to be so smooth and watershed moments that turned the tide. Here it may have been his position or age. Yet it is clear that in his publications there is a switch. 

R Sack’s shift isn’t less colourful nor less scholarly. Checking the back of any of his books displays a clear profundity for philosophy and general knowledge. He was no slouch. Yet it is the immense knowledge that leads to various methods of prioritising religion and salvaging it from constant polemics. First it was science and now it is secularists. R Sacks unlike others before him did not write about metaphysical truths. Such was not the goal. It wasn’t a brawl of who has more truth but rather who has more value. While I do not think this was argued enough, it was a valued method of argumentation. For R Sacks, the greatest threat was Judaism as a source of inspiration and identity surviving. Though different valves of faith, tradition and culture were superimposed to validate ethics and community. R Sacks indeed repeated himself in a number of his thirty odd books but the prowess of his approach cannot be denied.

Some of his biggest books: Dignity of Difference, The Great Partnership, Not In God’s Name and Morality had little to do with Judaism and more targeted religion as a whole. One People, Crisis and Covenant, Future Tense and Radical then Radical now did access Judaism and tenants. Radical then Radical now and Future Tense were written after 2000 but compared to the majority of post-2000 books including The Great Partnership, Not In God’s Name, The Home We Build Together, To Heal a Fractured World and Morality, it is quite the outlier. Inversely, beginning with Community of Faith followed by Faith in the Future and The Politics of Hope till the minimal publishing of the previously mentioned took a stark turn in focus. Yet despite the shift, faith and more so the Bible never lost its touch. The narration and ethics of the biblical narrative carried weight even if rabbinic Judaism took a back seat in the late 90s. As the chief rabbi, his goal for all Jewry and more so as a spokesman required more general reading than tradition focus. 

Just a quick note of his traditionally centred books beginning with Tradition in an Untraditional Age to Arguments for the age of Heaven and Crisis and Covenant all draw on traditional thinkers to answer contemporary issues. One people is the first major generalised yet orthodox calibrated response. This fits in well with Will We Have Jewish Grandchildren and growing ever more generalised with Faith in the Future which uses Jewish ethics not thinkers to acknowledge the preliminary issues. After that it is the Hebrew Bible and faith that takes centre stage. A few callings to tradition in those two named books but several years apart, with more of an emphasis on Hebraic ideals than Jewish ones. There may be a midrash or a commentarial piece here and there but the biblical narrative and its ethical guide are the prime exemplars post-1995. Again, 1995 maybe a watershed moment but there is a gradual generalisation from traditional thinkers to Jewish ethics to Hebraic ideas. The more time in the rabbinate the more focus was on the general population. 

That isn’t to say he neglected his traditional connection. His divrei Torah are inscribed in the Torah Tidbits of the OU, sent out each week. He has also published a number of books on the parsha, a couple on holidays and one each on the Haggadah and the siddur. He points to ideas brings in a secular thinker or two and inspires through his poetic kinship. His Jewish knowledge never ceased but there is a shift in content and style even in his commentarial works. These latter are conceptual and promote his own sermonic point rather than focusing on an issue or deriving from an earlier work. They are nothing short of fascinating and his essays in the Haggadah may be the most pre-rabbinate like but nevertheless, there is little systemic methodology nor is the content invoked in the name of contemporary issues. R Sacks is in no way obtuse or renegading on his love for philosophy but his model is much clearer and points to more realistic intuitive aspect of the Torah rather than establishing a fundamental defence for a certain point bringing all sorts of sources to respond eloquently.  

Much of my chronology is conceded in a few short paragraphs by David Shatz. Yet here there is more of an analysis of his books rather than Shatz's mere statement. Though Shatz does forget his religious works including siddur and Haggadah as his parsha readings could be more targeted to any hebraic reader. There is no doubt that he blended his Jewish knowledge in his religiously generalised books but that lacing was not explicit and more influential than argumentative. Jotkowitz does mention the differences with the Rav not only with his Tradition articles but also interfaith discussion which R Sacks was in the affirmative. The issue overall with R Sacks is that his stay in the rabbinate did change him. His voice did become religiously generalised even amongst his few traditionally centred books. His biblical commentaries can be joshed up to be more religiously significant than traditionally so. The more sermonic, lacking traditional sources and textual focus, firmly engages in a derasha that could be read by anyone and anywhere. 

Student responded to Jotkowitz’s version of Sackian perplexity with a duality of speaking to Jews and Gentiles. While the publication of Radical then Radical now (published in the States as A Letter in a Scroll) and Future Tense do demonstrate a Jew v. Gentile focus, they are but minute in the face of a twenty year stretch focused on religiosity. Not in God’s Name and Morality were both published after his service had ended. Yet Student notes that in his commentary he does quote traditional sources sometimes. The question is not that he does this but how often does he do it. There is no denying he is Jewish and to make his point he may draw from Jewish sources, the question is rather how frequent does he. The Rav wouldn’t hesitate to quote as many rabbinic sources to prove his point nor would R Lichtenstein. The reason being they anchored their commentary and books in tradition not in secular sources. The more abundant aspect is what is the ratio of secular thinkers to Jewish thinkers+sources. I would not be surprised if even in his traditionally targeted books there were more frequent quotes to secular thinkers than in his early 90s books. It is a guess but an estimated one. 

To only bolster the point just made would be in Lebens’ article. Lebens notes that a paragraph from Dignity of Difference which states “fragments of [truth] lie everywhere” may hint to the Lurianic idea of “nitzotzot” yet nowhere does R Sacks say this. This goes beyond Student as this would imply he is blending his Jewish knowledge either for esoteric reasons or subconsciously. It would be quite absurd if his Jewish knowledge did not impact his religious thinking. Whether or not he is implying the Lurianic claim does not detach from the possibility that his understanding of truth is influenced by Luria and other Jewish scholars. If Lebens is correct then R Elyashiv and R Rakov either did not read Kabbalah or believe it to be heresy. What is interesting is Lebens' note of his anti-postmodernism in his earlier works and his seeming acceptance in Dignity of Difference. If this is true, then the rabbinate didn’t make his views more mainstream but more radical in certain manners. The more comfortable he was in his role, the more impacted he was by the growing trend surrounding him. 

Lebens does provide some of the ideas that were heavily regarded in his later works. Yet these ideas are patterned prior to the shift. These patterns include: 1) communitarianism followed from halakha to biblical governments establishing community as the foundation 2) orthodoxy remained the sole defender as interfaith dialogue was permissible but not intrafaith dialogue 3) biblical knowledge whether with sources or not is the most productive element for the future. R Sacks maintained his commitment to his orthodoxy even if he never wrote a true biblical commentary nor a talmudic commentary. R Sacks was a thinker and a leader. He inspired and led by example. His works vary by intention but all priotrisie the nature faith and Torah even if he used the word Bible instead. His work was influenced by his rabbinic education despite its lacking pronunciation but further was girded by his poetic synergy. 

To some extent there were two chief rabbi Sackses. There was Rabbi Sacks the scholar and Rabbi Sacks the leader. The scholar wrote on tradition while the leader wrote on belief. The former analysed contemporary issues through a rabbinic lens and the latter through a biblical lens. All Jewish, some more particularly targeted others more universally targeted. To fully grasp the totality it is worth reading his older works. It is a blessing that Maggid has republished his original books: Tradition in a Traditional Age (2024), Arguments for the Sake of Heaven (2023) and Crisis and Covenant (the book on his website has a maggid cover but no link, so hopefully soon). These books have been out of date for a long time but demonstrate the vast knowledge and erudition of R Sacks at the peak of his rabbinic knowledge.