Read this book over shabbat (also the last six shabbatot, and during the week, and still only finished it after shabbat)
The book gives “portraits” of different “anarcho-Jewish” thinkers. Here’s the ToC, where they’re grouped as activists, mystics, and pacifists:
“Portrait” is the right term. Each 20–30-page chapter has a brief biography followed by thematic sections exploring different aspects of each thinker’s “Anarcho-Judaism,” that being Rothman’s term for their different fusions of Anarchism and Judaism, seeing Judaism as
anarchistic, and Anarchism as Jewish. Each figure did this differently, but all of them wanted to hold the two together, in contrast to figures like Gustav Landauer who consciously left Judaism behind and embraced Anarchism.
Two of my favorite chapters were the ones on the mystics: The Baal HaSulam, about whom I had known a decent amount (such as his communism, though not his anarchism), and Shmuel Alexandrov, who I knew only as someone to whom Rav Kook wrote letters. Rothman diligently
traces the mystical underpinnings of their anarchisms, as well as showing how the Baal HaSulam works with (and against) Schopenhauer, while Alexandrov is working with Schelling.
I was also particularly partial to the chapter on Avraham Yehuda Heyn, whose single-minded interpretation of all of Judaism in light of the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”—specifically “kill,” rather than “murder”—was impressive and inspiring. Almost Levinasian,
he radically sanctifies the individual, but in doing so arrives not at a modern American libertarianism but at a libertarian socialism.
Unfortunately, Heyn’s במלכות היהדות, published by Mossad HaRav Kook, seems to be long out of print.
The conclusion helpfully draws together common themes, such as a near-universal embrace of radical pacifism (based on means-ends correspondence), some form of universalism, and complex (but mostly positive!) relationships with Zionism.
The whole book is full of interpretive gems, and the introduction has a great “theological context” section laying out some of the traditional Jewish materials with which the subjects were working—such as the anarchistic comments of R. Don Yitzhak Abarbanel!
The final chapter on R. Aharon Shmuel (whose works were recently published in Hebrew by Blima Books and in English by @BenYehudaPress) included one of my favorite interpretations, a phenomenal rhetorical distinction:
Critiquing political Zionism, Tameret notes that while Political Zionists dream of returning to the land of the Israelite kings, Jews throughout history dreamed of returning to the land of the prophets.
On some level, the book suggests, that’s the choice: do we seek to be kings, or do we seek to be prophets?
Sovereignty Divine or Sovereignty Serpentine?
More on Rav Soloveitchik's Political Theology
🧵 1/
Rav Soloveitchik broadly sees human sovereignty as a necessarily evil, granted conditional legitimacy under certain specifications. But I want to talk about the moment before that, when he discusses why human sovereignty is fundamentally illegitimate.
2/
In framing human sovereignty as fundamentally illegitimate, Rav Soloveitchik makes two differing, and I think actually contradictory arguments: 1. Sovereignty is divine. 2. Sovereignty is serpentine.
3/
The Theo-Political Predicament of "The Emergence of Ethical Man"
🧵 1/
"The Emergence of Ethical Man" (EEM) doesn't depict a "State of Nature," but it does present a "religious anthropology" (xii), and this anthropology eventually gives rise to what he calls the "theo-political" society of the Mosaic covenant.
2/
First, some political theory:
The "State of Nature" is a thought experiment in modern political theory seeking to explain the natural situation which leads to and legitimizes civilization and the modern state. For Thomas Hobbes, this situation is "a war of all against all."
3/
Some notes on the insufficiency of revelation in Parshat Balak
1. "Don't go with them" "Go with them"
While the story paints Balaam as clearly in the wrong, it doesn't pretend he was violating a clear command. The basic thrust of the narrative insists that the command is not
1/
clear. God's will and revelation are not identical.
2. This leads into the next step of the drama. If revelation does not guarantee access to the divine will, what does? Maybe you should look elsewhere? Maybe *the donkey* knows? This sort of expansive divine will contra
2/
a more narrow but more explicit revelation is a deep underpinning in lots of texts, perhaps most famously in Hasidut.
3. On a meta-level, the whole idea that "a prophet is the bad guy" is just wild. Many medieval pens were broken trying to argue that this is impossible. But
3/
Theodicy and State Violence: Political Theology & Rav Shagar
THREAD
1/
Adam Kotsko usefully expands Carl Schmitt's definition of political theology thusly: Political theology deals, writ large, with analogies between the problem of evil and political legitimacy—theological and political *justification*—in a given culture. 2/
At first glance, Rav Shagar would seem to lack any such analogy. In "צחוק המגילה" he discusses both divine and state violence, and both exceed any form of rationale or justification. Yet divine absurdity simply elicits a corresponding human absurdity. 3/ preview.tinyurl.com/yy7z3gpz
There’s an Aggadata in b. Temurah about 3000 halakhot forgotten by Yehoshua (and everyone else) after Moshe died. I’m a fan.
1/11
I usually see it brought up in discussions of Moshe or Yehoshua’s leadership and... yeah, ok. That’s definitely there, but there’s so much more.
2/
The other main place I see it is discussions of Oral Torah vs. prophecy. It’s the other “Not in Heaven” text but it doesn’t have nearly as much drama as the Akhnai one
3/
The Moral Arc of the Universe and Maimonides’ Hermeneutics of Accommodation: A Thread
1/
Maimonides' devotes much Guide for the Perplexed Part III to giving reasons for the commandments. This act is fundamentally hermeneutic, aimed at making sense of the absurd, and I think it has a lot to say to our present moment. (I'll cite chapters, but see III:26–49)
2/
Maimonides says that many commandments are nonsensical, because they're leftovers from earlier periods of time (III:49). Divine commandments, he says, are always compromises, where Divine Wisdom accommodates the reality of historical conditions (III:32 and more).
3/