The publication of Torat Hamelech and the ensuing controversy were sources of significant discomfort for the Orthodox community (link). Every group has extremists in its midst but here we are dealing with crucial texts and theological concepts that were very publicly painted as extremist. While rebuttals came quickly, they were all brief and necessarily partial. One scholar, Ariel Finkelstein, has published a comprehensive and impressive response — Derech Hamelech — that thoroughly and convincingly refutes the contentions of Torat Hamelech (the entire book Derech Hamelech is available for free download here: link).*
The story is told that after the publication of R. David Rapaport’s Mikdash David, R. Elchanan Wasserman was so impressed that he hired the author to teach the highest class in his yeshiva without ever meeting him. He was quite surprised when R. Rapaport arrived at the school unmarried and with a speech impediment (in the mid-1990′s, I asked a former student of R. Rapaport about this story and he confirmed that the rabbi arrived unmarried but was unaware of a speech impediment, although he added that few students understood their teacher’s complex ideas). Based on the impressive style and scholarship of his book, Derech Hamelech, if I had a school I would hire Ariel Finkelstein sight unseen to teach a class.
The task of refuting a book is easily botched. By merely disagreeing with point after point, you risk the appearance of nitpicking and offering responses that appear implausible in comparison with the book’s broad approach. Instead, a comprehensive refutation must present an alternative approach, reframing the discussion within a new point of reference. In this way, you show the issue from an entirely different perspective that readers can judge in totality rather than on a point by point basis.
The book is divided into three sections that not only refute both the specific arguments and general approach of Torat Hamelech, but also presents an alternate halakhic framework within which to understand all the issues raised. The first section of the book addresses metahalakhic issues: what do the Noahide commandments represent in relation to the Sinaitic commandments and what role do moral assumptions play in halakhic arguments? Finkelstein argues that the seven Noahide commandments are basic moral concepts that underly the Sinaitic commandments. The terminology of the Noahide commandments is different from the Sinaitic but that does not detract from the overriding obligations they present to all people. Unlike the media which sought to separate ethical considerations from halakhic arguments, Finkelstein shows that they are inherently intertwined.
The second section sets a formidable goal, to present a comprehensive halakhic attitude toward Gentiles. Building mainly on the concept of reciprocity, Finkelstein plausibly explains law after controversial law within a rational framework. When addressing details of various laws, Finkelstein digs further and utilizes additional concepts. He explains that the Noahide commandments are pragmatic rules of basic morality intended to allow for societal stability. In contrast, the Sinaitic commandments are a religious covenant expressing spiritual obligations and relationships. The baseline of morality is universal but Jews constitute a nation and must treat their coreligionists with additional care (this is the general approach I take here: link).
The third and final section is a point by point refutation of arguments in Torat Hamelech. Addressing issues of when one may kill rather than be killed, whose lives are more important, the status of innocent civilians caught in a crossfire and much more, Finkelstein tears apart the arguments of Torat Hamelech and reveals their logical flaws and lack of basis in Torah sources.
In my review of Torat Hamelech, I mentioned the uneven nature of the books argumentation. Derech Hamelech does it right. The book is overflowing with references to ancient and recent texts. Every argument is supplemented with a plethora of supporting citations and even the overall worldview is demonstrated from both Religious Zionist (e.g. Rav Kook and R. Yehuda Amital) and Charedi (e.g. R. Shimon Shkop and the Rogatchover Gaon) authorities. Finkelstein’s breadth is impressive, demonstrating total control over the textual and conceptual (lomdus) issues. He is meticulous and honest, acknowledging dissenting views but not allowing them to prevent him from advocating a comprehensive and convincing approach that allows for a rationalist and universalist Torah approach. Not every interpretation is unquestionable but the edifice Finkelstein has built is sufficiently strong to withstand minor critiques.
My only two complaints are minor and overlapping. The book was written for an Israeli audience and therefore in modern, rather than rabbinic, Hebrew and replete with academic references. I don’t begrudge the author’s decision but only hope that he will write a follow-up to his marvelous work in traditional rabbinic style that will take a respected place in rabbinic literature. More about this tomorrow night.
* Note that I deviate from my standard transliteration scheme for the purpose of this post. Please accept my apologies.
“I find it hard to believe that commenters insist on being extremely technical in defining whether we are dealing with racism or something similar. I really couldn’t care less …”
I hear your point, but this seemingly trivial semantic issue, does have broader applicability to questions of Judaism and racism. The idea of the “chosen people” has long been regarded by critics as inherently racist in nature. One of the most powerful counterarguments, of course, is that non-Jews are free to convert, and can thus “choose to be chosen.” The imputation of racism becomes harder to define if you must insist that to be Jewish is indeed to belong to a racial group.
The content of Torat Hamelech also contains notions, lifted from kabbalah, about different nefashos between nochrim and yidden. Those who subscribe to such views can only effectively escape the imputation of racism if they hold that nochrim can choose to change/elevate their souls through geirus, an impossibility if being Jewish were truly a racial category.
Lastly the Torah states quite plainly that we’re an Am Segulah/Goy Kadosh. We’re a nation, not a race.
Excuse me:
“The imputation of racism becomes harder to DENY if you must insist that to be Jewish is indeed to belong to a racial group.”
>As for Modern Hebrew, it’s grammatically more related to Yiddish than to Lashon haQodesh. For example, in Tanakh, subject vs object are distinguished by the article “es”. In Modern Hebrew, it’s determined by word order.
This assertion is so absurd that I am actually shocked. Modern Hebrew, like tanach has flexibility regading subject/object order but of course, just LIKE tanach, it has a prefered word order, which is much more than I can say for yiddish, which since it is basically middle German grammer could pretty much care less about word order. As for the word et, it does not really conform to the subject/object division but is closest to the German dative case. It is much more about direction (direct vs. indirect object) than about the subject object devision for which word order is still the primary signal in lashon hakodesh. To say that modern Hebrew is derivitive of yiddish is a ridiculous and unfounded statement.
>Add to that the number of words that needed coinage because we now have new realities to speak about and the words that just gotten assimilated in. (Matimatika, democratzia, sveter, chipsim, etc…) The language has some heritage that connects it to earlier forms of Hebrew. But there is really more to distance it from Lashon haQodesh than who was on the academy.
This is a necessary part of the development of any langauge. Do you really believe that lashon tanach in its various eras did not borrow from other languages?? mikra uses Pardes (from Persian). the rabbis use words like namal (port from Greek), sanhedrin (also from Greek), apikorus (also Greek), aspaklaria (use guessed it). Languages develop. By your definition, a workable modern Hebrew would be impossible because according to you, the very tools you would have to employ to develop it would render it non-Hebrew. All in all absurd.
Again R’ Gil you have embarrassed both yourself and the Jewish community by using the word “racism” in connection with the book “Torat HaMelech.” One who uses this pejorative (and often meaningless term) in reference to religious works of any kind plays into the hands of those who would argue that Judaism’s many distinctions, both halakhic and otherwise between Jew and Gentile are “racist.” We must struggle to discuss, deliberate, and debate as a means of arriving at truth, but we must not engage in the type of name-calling which you have engaged in.
And yes, R’ Gils’s use of the “r” word alos plays into theh ands of those who would attack those great rabbis throughout Jewish history who adopt an essentialist understanding of the difference between Jewish and Gentile souls. R’ Gil, you’ve botched up on this one.
Chardal:
Yiddish is a V2 language, which means that no matter what else, the verb always comes in the second ‘slot’ in the sentence. So it has free word order in some ways, and very rigid in others.
It seems Arutz Sheva agrees with me about racism: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147278
Scottish Student Expelled for Racist Attack on Yeshiva U Studen
It seems Arutz Sheva agrees with me about racism: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147278
Scottish Student Expelled for Racist Attack on Yeshiva U Student
Sorry. Not good enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
>Yiddish is a V2 language, which means that no matter what else, the verb always comes in the second ‘slot’ in the sentence. So it has free word order in some ways, and very rigid in others.
He was not talking about verb placement, but about subject/object order which is weak in Yiddish (as well as pretty much any other form of German)
That Arutz 7 article can not in any way be construed to justify calling halachic works “racist.”