reconciliation. Lieberman and THE HISTORY Scholem had been friends OF NONSENSE and rivals for a Abe Socher quarter of a century by n the spring of 1957 Saul then, and the Lieberman famously introduced appendix seems IGershom Scholem’s lectures on more like an act of Merkabah Mysticism at the Jewish friendly one- Theological Seminary (JTS) by upsmanship (that saying “Nonsense is nonsense, but is to say academic the history of nonsense is a very collaboration) than important science.” Lieberman’s a kapparah. Portrait of Gerhom Scholem, 1962. Archive, bon mot has been widely repeated, Scholem is invited Jewish National and University Library, . adapted, and occasionally mangled. Photo courtesy of the Leo Baeck Institute, New York. to Lieberman’s It inspired—or perhaps provoked is Potok himself was probably not academic fiefdom, speaks about a better word—a disappointing present for Lieberman’s joke or previously unrecognized gnostic novel by Chaim Potok and may Scholem’s lectures. He had developments in the heart of the have been appropriated by W. V. O. graduated from JTS several years Rabbinic period, and succeeds Quine as a curricular motto. It is earlier, served as a chaplain in Korea brilliantly. So Lieberman responds certainly among the wittiest things (the second setting of the novel) with another set of prooftexts which ever said in and was, at the time, running Camp academic Jewish Ramah in Ojai, studies, though wit IN THE SPRING OF 1957 SAUL LIEBERMAN FAMOUSLY California. is not, perhaps, Indeed, I have not our most INTRODUCED GERSHOM SCHOLEM’S LECTURES ON met anyone who competitive field. actually attended MERKABAH MYSTICISM AT THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL the lectures, which are now Scholem, who EMINARY BY SAYING ONSENSE IS NONSENSE BUT thought that the S (JTS) “N , approaching their fiftieth Jewish mystical THE HISTORY OF NONSENSE IS A VERY IMPORTANT SCIENCE.” tradition preserved anniversary, and deep and only one might wonder Scholem hadn’t considered. partially expressible symbolic truths, whether Lieberman’s introduction is is unlikely to have been amused, but entirely apocryphal. Fortunately, This rivalry is somewhat heightened I know of no direct response on his there is a textual version of the in Chaim Potok’s Book of Lights, part. In fact, Lieberman’s remark, witticism. Lieberman repeated the where the Lieberman figure is called though often repeated, is itself not remark in another appendix, one to Kleinman and the Scholem figure is perfectly attested. According to the his classic essay “How Much Greek Keter: the “little man” of lore which often accompanies its in Jewish .” There is no rationalism and the “crown” of retelling, Lieberman contributed an reference to Scholem in the text supernal wisdom. Potok was not appendix to the published version of here, but there is a literally subtle in his preferences (though, to Scholem’s lectures by way of subtextual one: the adjacent be fair, there is probably an allusion apology for the public footnote cites Scholem’s lectures on here to the Talmudic statement that embarrassment he had caused his Merkabah Mysticism. So it seems the halakic disputes of Abbaye and friend. probable that the oral tradition is Rava are a little thing compared to correct and that Lieberman did say mysteries of the Divine Chariot). Lieberman’s appendix to Jewish it, and later could not resist The thematic argument of the novel Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and publishing it somewhere. is that dry rationalism like Talmudic Tradition is a brief and Lieberman’s leads to the atomic brilliant analysis of mystical rabbinic I have also heard the remark nightmare of Hiroshima, while interpretations of the Song of attributed verbatim to the great mysticism has the power to heal. (It Songs, but it bears no sign of philosopher and logician W. V. O. does not improve in the telling.) having served as a means of Quine, meaning here: “Continental philosophy is nonsense, but the 32 history of Continental philosophy is colleague Burton Dreben was end to be nonsense? Scholem a very important science,” or at widely quoted as saying, “Garbage certainly did not think least not further nonsense. So, if is garbage but the history of was nonsense, nor, for that matter forced to include Heidegger among garbage . . .” which is very close did Lieberman think that of midrash its course offerings, the department indeed. halakah, though neither of them should hire a historian. was quite willing to affirm Dreben was said to be the only straightforwardly the propositions person who knew more about of their textual subjects either. This Quine than the great philosopher question abides. himself, so it is difficult to distinguish between their respective Wit, I can imagine a reader wearily epigrams. “That is what I said, isn’t replying to all this, is wit, but the it Burt?” Quine is supposed to have history of wit, is pedantry. said when quoting or clarifying Nonsense. Every student of past himself in his final years. Dreben, texts and ideas must contend with however, had been married to the the worry that lurks beneath daughter of Lieberman’s JTS Lieberman’s witticism, and we are colleague Shalom Spiegel and was also obliged to honor our familiar with the infamous witticism. predecessors, our mighty dead, not So it seems likely to suppose that least by retelling their jokes. Quine did indeed make the remark, or something very close to it, Abe Socher is Associate Professor of though he was not first or even Religion at Oberlin College. second.

This leaves us, finally, with the deep question. Can one spend a lifetime studying what one believes in the

From a photo of Saul Lieberman with , in Seminary courtyard, 1960s. Courtesy of the Ratner Center for the Study of Conservative Jewish, Jewish Theological Seminary.

This raises two questions, one shallow, the other deep. Let’s take care of the shallow one first. Did Quine say it? And if so, did he say it first? Sort of and no. It was certainly his curricular policy to prefer the history of philosophical nonsense to the unmediated stuff. In his philosophical dictionary Quiddities, under “Tolerance,” he wrote “Scholarship is a matter on which an objective and essentially scientific consensus can prevail, however disreputable its subject matter.” But I know of nothing closer than this in print. However his close Harvard 33