YESHIVAT HAR ETZION VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH PROJECT(VBM)
**************************************************************

             IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE KUZARI:
         AN INTRODUCTION TO JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

               by Prof. Shalom Rosenberg



       LECTURE #3:  JUDAISM CONFRONTS THE "ISM"S



	Prior to our formal introduction to the truths inherent 
in Judaism, Rav Yehuda Halevi takes us on a whirlwind tour 
through the marketplace of ideas.  Three candidates are 
invited to display their spiritual wares before the king of 
the Khazars: the philosopher, and representatives of the two 
major religions, Christianity and Islam.  In Rav Yehuda 
Halevi's time, these three ideological positions constituted 
the central opponents of Judaism.  Since that period, the 
philosophical marketplace has altered significantly.  If Rav 
Yehuda Halevi were to publish his book in our day, he would be 
obliged to swell the ranks of the ideological contenders, and 
to put new ideas in the mouths of those candidates that he 
would choose to retain in the fray.

	No matter how comprehensively this chapter is written, it 
is fated to change with every passing generation.  In fact, 
the relative importance of the participants may vary within a 
very brief span of time.  The recent fate of Communism is an 
example par excellence.

	The faces of the contenders change from generation to 
generation, while our mission as an eternal nation places us 
in continual conflict with the various "ism"s.  The prefix to 
the "ism" will continually change; the struggle remains.


Philosophical Climates:  Dogmatism vs. Relativism

	At the first stall in the marketplace, we are presented 
with a philosophical methodology based on the teachings of 
Aristotle, a position which was considered the last word on 
truth for hundreds of years.  We will discuss the 
philosopher's principles in depth at a later stage, and 
attempt to determine, as well, which of the classical 
philosophical theories still challenge us today.  However, 
there is a more fundamental issue to examine first.

	We are presented with various philosophical positions 
throughout the book, yet the Aristotelian concept enjoys a 
unique status among the others.  This position claimed to have 
a monopoly on the truth.  In fact, Aristotelian philosophy 
formed the basis of a philosophical establishment whose 
members firmly believed themselves the sole possessors of the 
key to absolute truth, to the exclusion of any other 
philosophical opinion.

	This historical-social reality compels us to 
differentiate between two cultural climates: the climate of 
dogmatism, which leans upon the scientific and intellectual 
establishment, and the climate of anarchy, or relativism, 
which allows a chaotic chorus of ideas to exist in concert.  
Historically, there are generations of dogmatism, in which one 
developed and accepted school of thought rules the 
philosophical arena and is respected by all who consider 
themselves enlightened and sophisticated persons.  To doubt 
the accepted position in such a climate would immediately 
place one under tremendous pressure to comply with a 
philosophical consensus which claims that there exists no 
serious alternative to its point of view.  The dissenter in 
this climate is seen by others, and often by himself as well, 
as a betrayer of the truth.

	There are other historical periods which are 
characterized, instead, by a philosophical anarchy.  These are 
generations of ideological chaos in which a wild, uncontrolled 
marketplace of opinions exists.  The danger in such a period 
is not of dogmatism, as in the former case, but rather of 
relativism.  All positions hold equal weight, and as a result 
no one position possesses true meaning or value.  The 
difference between these two intellectual climates can help us 
explain the gulf between Rambam's work, Moreh Nevukhim (Guide 
to the Perplexed) and the Kuzari on the one hand, and Rav 
Sa'adia Gaon's work "Emunot Ve-de'ot" (Beliefs and Opinions) 
on the other.  The former pair were faced with a dogmatic 
philosophical approach, whereas Rav Sa'adia Gaon, who preceded 
them chronologically, responded to a culture in which many 
philosophical positions contended for the truth, creating a 
cacophony of ideological claims.  When one compares the Kuzari 
to parallel discussions in "Emunot Ve-de'ot", the striking 
differences between the two philosophical climates become 
apparent.  Rav Sa'adia Gaon introduces us to an entire gallery 
of characters which includes among others, the atheist, the 
polytheist, and the pantheist.  In contrast, Rav Yehuda Halevi 
presents us with a single philosopher who proposes a clear, 
official, socially accepted opinion with which we must 
contend.

	Every student approaches the Kuzari against the backdrop 
of his own generation and cultural climate.  We continually 
face new intellectual crossroads and debate the various 
options.  If we compare the challenges faced by Rav Yehuda 
Halevi to the popular philosophical approaches of our 
generation, we will immediately discern that our opponents 
have completely changed their colors over the course of time.  
Rav Yehuda Halevi and Rambam were active during a period when 
the opinion market was virtually monopolized by one position.  
Our generation is culturally closer to a free marketplace, 
which of necessity includes some measure of chaos.  All manner 
of merchandise is sold; however, forgeries and frauds are 
displayed as well, and we stand helpless, with no means of 
separating the genuine article from the sham.

	Our modern intellectual opponent is worlds apart from the 
Aristotelian philosopher.  Yet, despite this fact, his 
position is worthy of our attention.  The Kuzari's philosopher 
constitutes a first edition of the famous Jewish philosopher, 
Spinoza.  We will yet discuss the many similarities between 
the two.  However, even our most concentrated efforts to 
revive the petrified Aristotelian by blowing Spinoza's breath 
into his dry bones will not succeed.  Although there are those 
who are tempted to return Spinoza's ghost to the philosophical 
fray, his thought does not constitute a serious challenge in 
our times.  The idea of returning Spinoza to the spiritual or  
the political scene is reminiscent of the behavior of 
terrorists who take hostages in a desperate attempt to clear 
their path.  Oftentimes great personalities are utilized as a 
focus of identification for the populace and thus 
unjustifiably win supporters for a particular position.

	Our central opponent is of a completely different mettle.  
He is at times an atheist, often a naturalist, who refuses to 
accept any phenomenon which defies the laws of nature.  Jewish 
philosophers of the Middle Ages developed a specific 
ideological and explanatory tactic in response to opponents 
that we no longer face in our generation.  If we fail to 
translate the principles of the Kuzari in order to apply them 
to our different reality, we will commit a grave error.  The 
central theses of the book are eternal, yet there exists the 
need to change their form in light of the historical and 
cultural situation which is in continual flux.  We must 
differentiate between the sections of the book which possess 
eternal value and those whose merit in our day is merely 
historical.  If we do not make this distinction, we may 
perhaps become significant historical researchers, but we will 
not do justice to Rav Yehuda Halevi, who intended his work to 
lead the battle to uphold the Jewish national spirit in every 
generation.

	Here, however, history takes us by surprise.  Recent 
historico-political occurrences, especially the crumbling of 
the Communist empire, prove beyond a doubt that Rav Yehuda 
Halevi's battle against his original opponents maintains 
powerful significance in our day as well.  The current 
disappointment with modern ideologies is so great that its 
impetus causes some sectors of humanity to lose hope utterly, 
while others swing form one ideology to the next or turn to 
superstitions and idolatry.  In any case, one thing is 
abundantly clear: the Kuzari's meeting with the central 
religions cannot yet be abandoned to gather dust in the 
archives of history.


Philosophical Fossils

	I would like to examine a fascinating phenomenon with 
you.  We have been discussing a section of the Kuzari which 
was written, unlike the other sections, in accordance with the 
scientific requirements of those times and dictated by the 
philosophical fashion of the period.  Here we will begin to 
uncover one of the paradoxes which accompany the developments 
of Jewish philosophy throughout the ages.  At the time the 
book was written, the author could feasibly have been accused 
of championing outdated ideas whose time has passed.  The 
biblical concepts in the Kuzari certainly left Rav Yehuda 
Halevi open to such criticism.  In contrast, he was considered 
modern and up-to-date when he expressed the scientific 
conclusions of his period.  Yet, hundreds of years later, we 
discover that the opposite is true.  The scientific concepts 
of those times are hopelessly obsolete to the extent that we 
find it taxing to discover the simplest explanations for them, 
while the "outdated" biblical ideas expressed in the Kuzari 
have renewed relevance today owing to their eternal quality.  
Many works of Jewish philosophy exhibit a similar phenomenon.  
In order to teach these works, paradoxically, we must revive 
dead philosophical concepts.  Since we aim to deal with the 
questions which are relevant to our generation, and we are not 
interested in history for its own sake, the "modern" sections 
of the works hold no meaning for us.  This paradox contains a 
warning to those who judge ideas according to their 
"modernity".  Today, philosophical fashions are much shorter-
lived.  Every few years, the pillars of our intellectual world 
crumble and are rebuilt in new forms.  In the Middle Ages the 
hands of the intellectual clock moved much more slowly, and 
indeed, the Aristotelian formula presented here to us ruled 
the world for hundreds of years, seemingly etched in stone.  
Great courage on the part of Rav Yehuda Halevi was necessary 
to stand up against the intellectual establishment and the 
philosophical and scientific tradition.  This, too, contains a 
warning and a lesson.

	How must we approach the Kuzari's philosopher?

Two alternatives lie before us:
a)  The Historical Method:
	We can attempt to understand the philosopher within the 
context of his own world.  For this purpose we must leave the 
philosophy and science of the twentieth century behind as we 
enter the maze of the history of ideas.  Moving eight hundred 
years backward in time, we can strive to comprehend a distant 
intellectual world.
b)  The Philosophical Interpretative Method:
	The second option is to imagine how the Aristotelian 
philosopher would respond to the questions which plague us 
today.  Instead of learning his language, we can try to apply 
his ideas to our conceptual world, and force him to speak in 
our modern tongue.

	In our analysis we will make use of both methods.  
However, we will expend a minimum of our time on the 
historical method, and attempt above all to comprehend the 
philosopher's position on the issues that we deal with today.

**************************************************************
This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.
**************************************************************

To subscribe send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il: subject:(leave 
blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text 
type: subscribe YHE-JEWPHI  .

For a complete list of YHE Virtual Beit Midrash curriculum, 
send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il:, on first line of text type: 
get yhe-about courses .

**************************************************************
Copyright (c)1995 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  
All rights reserved.
**************************************************************

                          **********

SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS, SEMACHOT, 
BIRTHDAYS, ETC.  PLEASE E-MAIL YHE@JER1.CO.IL FOR AN APPLICATION AND A 
LIST OF OPPORTUNITIES.


                      YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
                      VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
                ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
        E-MAIL: YHE@JER1.CO.IL or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL