One of the most interesting and controversial Israeli Orthodox thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century was Prof. Yishayahu Leibowitz. I bring him up because in the five or so years I've spent perusing Orthodox blogs, I don't remember him ever being mentioned. I've tried to understand why this is, and I have a few possible reasons.
The first is that Leibowitz wrote primarily in Hebrew (only one of his books was ever translated) and for an Israeli audience. But I find this explanation lacking; after all – people like Rav Yoel Bin Nun, Rav Cherlow, Prof. Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar &c are well known and discussed. So that explanation won't fly.
The second possibility is that it's because of his various religious and political positions, almost all of which were extreme. But that's even less of an excuse – extreme positions make for great internet fodder, and are almost always a reason for a 'blogstorm'.
That leaves two other possibilities – either people simply aren't interested in him, or Leibowitz is shunned in the states for the same reason he's rarely mentioned in Israeli circles. That reason is simple – when it came to public discourse (certainly post-1967), Leibowitz too often acted like a shmuck.
Yes, I know, that he was personally generous and that he often invited people to come to his house to discuss important issues for hours on end. Yes, I know that for many (mostly in the secular world, surprisingly enough), he was a clear moral beacon (even though I vehemently disagree with his analyses).
But none of this can possibly excuse the fact that when it came to public debate, he often acted like a foul-mouthed five-year-old. He often subjected his opponents (esp. on the right) to mounting heaps of verbal abuse. He had no respect whatsoever for them, even if they were Rabbinic authorities (Rabbi Goren pre-langer, Rabbi Shach etc). His penchant for reducing them and their positions to grotesque caricatures was legendary.
Then there's the "Judeo-Nazis" business. This is a stain Leibowitz legitimately earned. The IDF=Nazis equation (and its correlate, Israel=Nazi Germany) was a meme he pushed constantly and with increasing vehemence from 1967 onwards. Few people did more than Leibowitz to grant legitimacy to this disgusting bit of hyperbole.
The fact that he was personally Zionist doesn't help his case. Furthermore, it was so muted, so instrumental and tepid that many of his followers (and there were many, esp. in the heated days of the First Lebanon War and the Intifada) had little trouble taking his rhetorical attacks one step further and ditching Zionism altogether. The center he wanted to convince (or did he?) often didn't listen because his attacks were so extreme.
The sad part is that Leibowitz himself recognized, in an earlier time, that the Prophets failed to convince anyone in their time precisely because their rhetoric was so virulent and full of fire and brimstone. Would that he had followed his own advice.
2 comments:
yep, its not just what you say, but how you say it.
sometimes i wonder if he even cared to be influential, or if he thought his ideas should exist in a vacuum, sans any form of packaging. i could see him being a fan of the latter: all that counts is the idea.
but that brings up the judeo-nazi thing. incomprehensible. i picked up 'ratziti lishol otcha...' which had several pages on this issue, but i didnt get a chance to read it.
he also referred to the religious-zionist community as the nazi party. at least, thats what it sounded like to me.
i wonder if he was a clear moral beacon for the secular left, or he was just someone who supported their views -- and a religious person, no less!
actually, his development of the idea of zionism as a national necessity is really outstanding, and works for me.
similarly, his position on the institution of the israeli rabbinate resonates with me, though i support this institution.
he really was a fascinating thinker. if only he hadnt been such a sheigitz.
I think you analysis is largely correct.
Some of us also thought he was simply too impressed with himself; that his philosophy wasn't really all that good/impressive.
Your last paragraph may fit his thinking; but it presupposes that he was right a) about the prophets and, b) about his own moral positions. Simply put, many intelligent people rejected both positions of his.
I wonder, too, if there isn't a bit of embarrassment afoot. So many of us practically idolized Nehama Leibowitz, and then found ourselves wishing the 'other' Leibowitz would just go away.
Whatever the reasons, in the end his impact as a religious thinker isn't all that much. I don't have the sense that other innovative religious thinkers found his a force that they had to contend with.
Post a Comment