8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

1/8

Page 1

1

Spinoza and Judaism

Steven Nadler

University of Wisconsin-Madison

There is little in Spinoza's life and thought that is not complicated. This isespecially true of his relationship to udaism. !espite attempts to 'marranize' Spinoza's

e"perience#

1

$% his up&ringing and education too place (ithin an open% (ell-esta&lished%

al&eit )&ecause of its historical converso roots* not al(ays perfectly orthodo" e(ish

community. +t is true that his parents had &een through the marrano e"perience% in

,ortugal and% in the case of his father% rance. ut Spinoza himself gre( up under the

(atchful eyes of /msterdam's ,ortuguese ra&&is0 he attended the elementary school of

the united Talmud Torah congregation% and most liely continued his studies in the

eter

Torah yeshiva run &y the congregation's chief ra&&i% the /shenazic import Saul 2eviMortera.

+n uly of 1343% ho(ever% Spinoza (as e"pelled from the ,ortuguese community

(ith the harshest (rit of herem)ostracism* ever issued &y its leaders. The only e"tant

documentation of this event refers to his 'a&omina&le heresies' and 'monstrous deeds'%

&ut it still remains something of a mystery (hy e"actly Spinoza (as punished (ith such

e"treme pre5udice. The order (as never rescinded% and Spinoza lived the rest of his life

outside any e(ish conte"t. +n fact% he seems not to have had any residual sense of

e(ish identity. +n his (ritings% he seems to go out of his (ay to distance himself from

udaism% and al(ays refers to the e(s in the third person 6 as 'them'7 nor does he

e"hi&it

any fundamental sympathy (ith e(ish history or culture.

Page 2

8

/nd yet% it (ould &e inaccurate to say that Spinoza's &rea (ith udaism (as

perfectly clean and complete. Things are rarely so &lac and (hite in the history of

ideas%

least of all (ith as deep and comple" a philosopher as Spinoza. While he may no longer

have thought of himself as a e(% and (hile he even had great contempt for udaism and

other organized sectarian religions% it cannot &e denied that e(ish te"ts% history% and

thought continued to play an important role in Spinoza's thining 6 so much so thatSpinoza can rightly &e called a e(ish philosopher% &oth &ecause his ideas (ere deeply

influenced &y earlier e(ish philosophy and &ecause in his ma5or (ors he

philosophized

a&out udaism.

No( it may seem odd to descri&e Spinoza as a e(ish philosopher. /fter all%

Spinoza clearly re5ects the 9od of udaism -- the all-po(erful% all-no(ing deity (ho is

the creator of things and the cause of great deeds% the (ise% 5ust% 5ealous% and

providential

9od (ho no(s the hearts and minds of :is creatures and 5udges their actions

according

to their o&edience to :is commands. The 9od of :e&re( Scripture is% one might say% avery personal 9od% &oth in the sense of &eing a ind of person and in the sense of &eing

8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

2/8

therefora person. /nd it is precisely this picture of 9od that Spinoza taes issue (ith in

the very opening propositions of his philosophical masterpiece% theEthics)&egun

around

133; &ut not pu&lished until after his death in 13uestions to its ultimate logical

Page 4

?

conclusion. Spinoza's conception of the intellectual love of 9od as thesummum bonum

of human endeavor7 his account of the relationship &et(een a rational% intellectual

understanding of things and the happiness that is resistant to the vicissitudes of fortune7

and his denial of the immortality of the soul and the (orld-to-come% su&stituting for

those

classic ra&&inic doctrines a sparer model (here&y (hat persists after a person's death is

simply the no(ledge that they had ac>uired during their lifetime all o(e a good deal to

his medieval e(ish rationalist for&ears.#8

8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

3/8

$

Spinoza's direct engagement (ith e(ish philosophy 6 something that

distinguishes him from other great philosophers of the seventeenth century% such as

!escartes and 2ei&niz 6 (as also often highly critical. @n the matter of the proper

interpretation of Scripture% for e"ample% Spinoza e"plicitly taes Maimonides to tas in

his Theological-Political Treatise.Spinoza denies that 9od is literally the author of Scripture and that Moses )either

as 9od's amanuensis or on his o(n* (rote all% or even most of the Torah. The references

in the ,entateuch to Moses in the third person7 the narration of his death and%

particularly%

of events follo(ing his death7 and the fact that some places are called &y names that

they

did not &ear in the time of Moses all 'mae it clear &eyond a shado( of a dou&t' that the

(ritings commonly referred to as 'the ive oos of Moses' (ere% in fact% (ritten &y

someone (ho lived many generations after Moses. Moses did% to &e sure% compose

some

&oos of history and of la(% and remnants of those long lost &oos can &e found in the,entateuch. ut the Torah as (e have it% as (ell as other &oos of the :e&re( i&le

)such as oshua% udges% Samuel and ings* (ere (ritten neither &y the individuals

(hose names they &ear nor &y any person appearing in them. Spinoza argues that these

Page 5

4

(ere% in fact% all composed &y a single historian living many generations after the events

narrated% and that this (as most liely =zra. +t (as the post-e"ilic leader (ho too the

many (ritings that had come do(n to him and &egan (eaving them into a single )&ut

not

seamless* narrative. =zra's (or (as later completed and supplemented &y the editorial

la&ors of others. What (e no( possess% then% is nothing &ut a compilation of human

literature% and a rather mismanaged% haphazard and 'mutilated' one at that.

ut if the i&le is an historical and thus natural document% then it should &e

treated lie any other (or of nature. The study of Scripture% or i&lical hermeneutics%

should therefore proceed as the study of nature% or natural science proceeds0 &y

gathering

and evaluating empirical data% that is% &y e"amining the '&oo' itself for its general

principles. ust as the no(ledge of nature must &e sought from nature alone% so must

the

no(ledge of Scripture -- an apprehension of its intended meaning -- &e sought fromScripture alone% and not according to any e"ternal and independent standard of truth or

reasona&leness. /s Spinoza himself tells us% this runs directly counter to Maimonides's

vie( in the Guide of the Perplexed. Maimonides had argued that deciphering the

meaning of Scripture is a matter of seeing (hat is consistent (ith reason. ecause

Scripture is the Word of 9od% its intended meaning must &e identical (ith the

demonstra&le truth. Therefore% if some passage% (hen read literally% cannot possi&ly &e

accepted &y reason as true% then the literal meaning must &e re5ected in favor of a

figurative one. or e"ample% the i&le speas% on occasion% of divine &odily parts. ut

reason tells us that an eternal% immaterial 9od does not have a &ody. Therefore% any

references in Scripture to 9od's feet or hands must &e read metaphorically.#

;$ or

8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

4/8

Spinoza% this type of e"egesis is illegitimate in so far as it goes &eyond Scripture itself

in

Page 6

3

order to interpret Scripture. 'The >uestion as to (hether Moses did or did not &elievethat

9od is fire must in no (ise &e decided &y the rationality or irrationality of the &elief% &ut

solely from other pronouncements of Moses.'#

?

$ There must &e a distinction &et(een the

meaning of Scripture% (hich is (hat one is after (hen interpreting it% and (hat is

philosophically or historically true. Much of (hat Scripture relates is not% in fact% true.

Scripture is not a source of no(ledge% least of all no(ledge a&out 9od% the heavens or

even human nature. +t is not% in other (ords% philosophy or science% and therefore the

principles of reason must not serve as our sole guide in interpreting Scripture. The

moralmessage of Scripture does% indeed% agree (ith reason in the sense that our rational

faculties approve of it. ut thatScripture teaches such a message can &e discovered

only

through the historical' method.

The Theological-Political Treatisealso contains Spinoza's reflections on udaism

itself% particularly e(ish la( and e(ish history% (hich continue his pro5ect of

naturalization.

The Torah says that the 2a( (as revealed &y 9od to Moses in a series of

commandments ) mitzvot*. Whether the o&5ect of a particular commandment regards

ethical &ehavior )the (ay one human &eing is to treat another human &eing*% piety )the

(ay a human &eing is to relate to 9od*% or more mundane matters )a prohi&ition against

com&ining fa&rics in a garment or the numerous dietary restrictions*% all of the

commandments are% according to tradition% literally divine% and complying (ith them is

o&edience o(ed to 9od. The changed historical condition of the e(s may have made

fulfilling some of the mitzvotunnecessary or even impossi&le )such as those regarding

Temple sacrifice*% &ut the suspension of one la( or another is &rought a&out &y the

Page 7

uently% not all of them are of universal

scope or perpetual validity. :e dra(s a sharp distinction in Scripture's la(s &et(een

those that are divine and those that are merely ceremonial. The divine la( is very

simple%

and is concerned only (ith the 'supreme good'. What this supreme good consists in is

the perfection of the intellect A 'the &etter part of us' A through the ac>uisition of

no(ledge. No( since all true no(ledge refers things &ac to their first and highest

causal principles% it ultimately consists in the understanding and the intellectual love of

9od )or Nature*. Bonse>uently% the 'divine' la( is constituted only &y the prescription of

those means necessary for the achievement of this intellectual perfection.This% then% is the sum of our supreme good and &lessedness # beatitudo$% to (it% the

8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

5/8

no(ledge and love of 9od. So the means re>uired to achieve this end of all

human action A that is% 9od in so far as his idea e"ists in us A may &e termed

9od's commands% for their are ordained for us &y 9od himself% as it (ere% in so

far as he e"ists in our minds. So the rules for living a life that has regard to this

end can fitly &e called the !ivine 2a(.#

4$

+n addition to the pursuit of the no(ledge of 9od )or Nature*% the !ivine 2a( re>uires

certain types of conduct% &ut only to the e"tent to (hich these are conducive to(ard that

cognitive goal% &oth for ourselves and for others. These (ill &e the principles of action

essential to a good common(ealth and healthy social organization% as (ell as to the

flourishing of our fello( human &eings. This part of the la( is very neatly summed up

in

Page 8

C

a single phrase0 '2ove your neigh&or as you love yourself'. Together (ith the commandto love 9od A not from fear of punishment or hope of re(ard% &ut from the love due to

our true good A this e"hausts the content of !ivine 2a(.

This la( alone is (hat is universally valid% regardless of time% place and

circumstance% and &inding upon all human &eings% regardless of religious persuasion.

The supreme moral la(% it can &e no(n through human reason and deduced from

human

nature% although it is also the message of Scripture. /nd it demands nothing in the (ay

of &eliefs a&out (hat did or did not tae place (ith regard to a certain people in the

course of time. '+t does not demand &elief in historical narratives of any ind

(hatsoever.'#

3

$

/ll the other commandments found in the Torah relate only to ceremonial

practices and sectarian religious rites. Unlie the !ivine 2a(% (hich is universalistic% a

ind of eternal truth% the ceremonial la(s are particularistic and of only limited scope

and

validity. They (ere instituted &y Moses for the ancient :e&re(s alone and thus adapted

to their historical and political circumstances. Moses% realizing that devotion (as a

much

&etter motivator than fear% created a state religion in order to get the people to do their

duty. The la(s of this state religion are% in fact% social and political regulations. They donot at all contri&ute to true &lessedness and virtue% Spinoza insists% &ut tend only to(ard

'the temporal and material prosperity' of the community and the peace and security of its

government. +n and of themselves% 'they are of no significance and are termed good only

&y tradition'7 they have% in other (ords% not intrinsic &ut only instrumental value.#

uently% there is no such thing as natural la(% that is% a universally valid la(

discovered &y and 5ustified through reason% (ithout any appeal to the (ill of 9od.

Spinoza departs from e(ish tradition on this >uestion% and does so once again from a

naturalizing standpoint. What he calls !ivine 2a( is the supreme moral la(% and it is

distinct from e(ish religious )or ceremonial* la(. /nd the !ivine 2a(% (hile revealed

&y Scripture% is in principle discovera&le and 5ustified &y reason alone7 in fact% Spinoza

insists% it is 'innate' in the human mind. e(ish ceremonial la(% on the other hand% is ahuman convention% instituted &y Moses and later codified and systematized &y =zra% the

,harisees and the Mishnaic sages.

Spinoza provides an e>ually deflationary account of 9od's election% or the

'vocation'% of the :e&re(s. +t is 'childish'% he insists% for anyone to &ase their happiness

on the uni>ueness of their gifts. +n the case of the e(s% it (ould &e the uni>ueness of

their &eing chosen &y 9od from among all nations and all peoples. +n fact% he insists% the

ancient :e&re(s did not surpass other nations in their (isdom% their character or )(hich

amounts to the same thing* their pro"imity to 9od. They (ere neither intellectually nor

morally superior to other peoples. Eeason and the capacity for virtue are distri&uted &y

Page 10

1F

nature e>ually among all individual human &eings% and the achievement of virtue is

found

among all nations. 'The :e&re(s surpassed other nations not in no(ledge nor in piety .

. . the :e&re(s #(ere$ chosen &y 9od a&ove all others not for the true life nor for any

higher understanding.'#

D

$

There is% then% no theologically% morally or metaphysically interesting sense in

(hich the e(s are a chosen people. The only respect in (hich the +sraelites (erechosen

&y 9od )or Nature* is in regard to their social organization and political good fortune.

'The individual e(% considered alone apart from his social organization and his

government% possesses no gift of 9od a&ove other men% and there is no difference

&et(een him and a 9entile.'#

1F

$ This 'chosen-ness' is% in fact% nothing &ut the fortunate

e"ternal circumstances that came their (ay from the determinate operations of the

ordinary course of nature. The +sraelites o&eyed the la(s that had &een set for them%

(ith

the natural conse>uence that their society (as (ell-ordered and their autonomousgovernment long-lived. The process re>uires no supernatural intervention. +f a group is

8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

7/8

provided (ith (ise and pragmatic la(s% and it lives &y them% then the result (ill

)naturally* &e a secure and prosperous polity.

The :e&re( nation (as chosen &y 9od &efore all others not &y reason of its

understanding nor of its spiritual >ualities% &ut &y reason of its social organization

and the good fortune (here&y it achieved supremacy and retained it for so many

years. This is >uite evident from Scripture itself. / merely casual perusal clearlyreveals that the :e&re(s surpassed other nations in this alone% that they (ere

successful in achieving security for themselves and overcame great dangers% and

this chiefly &y 9od's e"ternal help alone. +n other respects they (ere no different

Page 11

11

from other nations% and 9od (as e>ually gracious to all . . . Therefore their

election and vocation consisted only in the material success and prosperity of their

state . . . +n return for their o&edience the 2a( promises them nothing other than

the continuing prosperity of their state and material advantages% (hereas

diso&edience and the &reaing of the Bovenant (ould &ring a&out the do(nfall oftheir state and the severest hardships.#

11

$

The election of the e(s (as thus a temporal and conditional one. With their ingdom

no( long gone% their distinction has come to an end. /t the present time there is nothing

(hatsoever that the e(s can arrogate to themselves a&ove other nations.'#

18

$ With

respect to understanding% virtue and true happiness% (ith respect to &lessedness% there is

not% never has &een and never (ill &e anything peculiar to the e(s.#

1;

$

Spinoza's philosophical analyses of :e&re( Scripture% e(ish la(% and history%

and his naturalism a&out 9od and 'salvation (ere% of course% looed upon as scandalous

and heretical to religious authorities of all persuasions. :e (as &randed as an atheist%

and

the Theological-Political Treatise(as regarded &y its many vehement critics as 'a &oo

forged in hell'. ut there can &e no denying the importance of his insights% and the

tremendous influence they e"erted not only upon the su&se>uent history of philosophy

in

general% &ut especially upon later e(ish thought.#1?

$

Page 12

18

1

See Girmuyahu Govel% Spinoza and Other eretics% vol. 1% HThe Marrano of EeasonI

),rinceton0 ,rinceton University ,ress% 1DCD*. or a criti>ue of Govel's reading% see

Wiep Jan unge% Haruch of enedictus0 Spinoza en de 'Marranen'I%!ededelingen

van"ege het SpinozahuisC1 )8FF1*.

8or an e"amination of Spinoza's relationship to e(ish philosophy% see Steven Nadler%

8/11/2019 Sp y El Judasmo

8/8

Spinoza#s eres$% &mmortalit$ and the 'e"ish !ind)@"ford0 @"ford University ,ress%

8FF8*7 Barlos raenel% HMaimonides' 9od and Spinoza's !eus sive NaturaI%'ournal of

the istor$ of Philosoph$?? )8FF3*0 13D-8147 :eidei Eavven and 2enn 9oodman% eds.%

'e"ish Themes in Spinoza#s Philosoph$)/l&any% NG0 SUNG ,ress% 8FF8*7 :eidi

Eavven% HSome Thoughts on What Spinoza 2earned from Maimonides on the ,rophetic

+magination0 ,art T(o0 Spinoza's MaimonideanismI%'ournal of the istor$ ofPhilosoph$;D )8FF1*0 ;C4-?F37 and Batherine Bhalier% Spinoza (ecteur de !a)monide%

(a *uestion th+ologi*ue-politi*ue),aris0 Berf% 8FF