Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Aaron W. Hughes, eds.. David Novak: and Revealed Torah. Leiden: Brill, 2013. 150 pp. $141.00, paper, ISBN 978-90-04-25820-4.

Reviewed by Steven Frankel

Published on H-Judaic (March, 2016)

Commissioned by Matthew A. Kraus (University of Cincinnati)

The Library of Contemporary Jewish Philoso‐ language and obscure arguments. The causes, phers series edited by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson however, may run deeper. The editors suggest and Aaron W. Hughes has already accumulated that may not have been completely more than a dozen volumes, with several more successful in establishing its place in the secular volumes in progress. Each text focuses on a single, university. Other academics, such as philosophers, contemporary Jewish thinker, presenting an over‐ refuse to recognize “the philosophical merits of view of their work, several of their important es‐ Jewish ” in part because they perceive says, and an interview. The editors note in their it as “too particularlistic” (p. xiii). Religious devo‐ introduction to the series that the project was mo‐ tion too is suspect as consisting of little more than tivated by the paradoxical situation of contempo‐ prerational commitment to a particular tradition. rary Jewish studies: as Jewish studies has succeed‐ In contrast, philosophy aims to transcend the par‐ ed in establishing itself as a legitimate feld of ticular and focus on the universal, a project which study in academia, it has become increasingly “in‐ appears to preclude Jewish studies. accessible” and “irrelevant to the public at large” In response to these challenges, the third vol‐ (p. xiii). In order to remedy this situation, the edi‐ ume in the collection, David Novak: Natural Law tors propose the series itself to introduce the pub‐ and Revealed Torah, presents the sober and in‐ lic to contemporary Jewish thought. sightful refections of a scholar who has devoted The increasing irrelevance of academic Jew‐ his career to sorting them out. Novak, the Schif ish studies in contemporary Jewish life is certain‐ Professor of Jewish Studies and Professor of Phi‐ ly perplexing and discouraging. The editors sug‐ losophy at the , has managed gest that there are several reasons for this situa‐ in his own career to bridge the chasm between tion, ranging from the indiference of the public theory and practice, frst as a pulpit and a to the tendency of academics to employ technical Jewish chaplain at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in H-Net Reviews

Washington, DC, and second as an esteemed aca‐ thority in the movement. In its alacrity to em‐ demic. Even after entering academia, he has re‐ brace egalitarianism, Novak believes that the Con‐ mained active in public life in a myriad of ways, servative movement tends to give short shrift to including as an advisor to a monthly journal, First (see p. 93). It is a tendency that has Things. Sufce to say that Rabbi Novak is unique‐ proven difcult to resist in mainstream American ly qualifed to diagnose the problems that have Jewish life as well. Novak recounts a controversy undermined Jewish studies. over a series of essays commissioned by the What makes Novak’s analysis so insightful is American Jewish Committee on contemporary so‐ his awareness of the close relation of theology to cial issues and halakha. Surprisingly, the contro‐ politics in the broadest sense, namely how one’s versy emerged around Rabbi David Feldman’s es‐ political regime infuences one’s account of reli‐ say on abortion, which, according to Novak, gion in public life. This allows him to see the con‐ adopts “a very, very lenient” position (p. 115). nection between seemingly unrelated attacks and Though Feldman’s analysis is well grounded in opens up this thought in novel ways. He observes halakha, his essay was criticized for adopting a that “in democratic societies … the warrant for position inconsistent with the view that abortion that society is not taken from any of our tradi‐ is a right. One academic asked that the essay be tion.” In fact, the secular tendencies of liberalism expunged from the volume altogether. In re‐ tend to undermine all religious thought and insist sponse, Novak proposed that the professor who “we don’t have to accommodate people of reli‐ raised the objection present an alternative analy‐ gious traditions because they have nothing to say. sis, adding the proviso that the author “explain It’s all particularism with no universal validity” what is Jewish about your view on abortion be‐ (p. 112). This view, which Novak characterizes as sides the fact that you are a Jew” (p. 116). “militant secularism,” has such faith in reason Though he resists the temptation to make Ju‐ that it claims “if we could only get rid of religion daism synonymous with a particular political we would really have universal and univer‐ agenda, Novak is not interested in claiming that sal solidarity” (p. 113). The hostility that this view halakha, or even the tradition, presents a mono‐ generates toward religious observance and belief lithic view. Honest scholarship requires the efort invariably undermines the legitimacy of Jewish to recover the various points of view regardless of studies at the university. Indeed, soon after Novak our political commitments. The threat to the was hired at Toronto, one of his colleagues turned scholarship comes, as we have seen, from an ea‐ to him at a faculty meeting and said: “You’re so gerness to make the Jewish position consistent theological. How did they ever hire you here?” (p. with a prevailing political view. In Novak’s view, 113). once one has carefully examined the tradition, the In response to such attacks made in the name next step is to show why the tradition matters, of secularism and egalitarianism, Jewish studies that is, what wisdom it contains. As Novak ex‐ faculty have understandably attempted to portray plains with typical frankness, “why should any‐ the Jewish point of view as consistent with politi‐ body listen to what you say Jewish Law says we cal liberalism. In Novak’s eyes, this is a mistake should do?” (p. 113). that undermines scholarship and enervates the The case for the Jewish view, that is, for its su‐ discipline of Jewish studies. Novak received his perior wisdom, must be made on grounds that are rabbinic ordination from the Jewish Theological not confned merely to a particular religious tradi‐ Seminary in 1966, but broke with Conservative Ju‐ tion. In the absence of another standard, the com‐ daism in 1983 over the question of halakha’s au‐ monly recognized measure of wisdom approaches

2 H-Net Reviews the founding principles of the regime. This ex‐ Academics in Jewish studies may not advo‐ plains why the “Jewish view” today is often taken cate abandoning the tradition, but they are prone to be synonymous with the presumptions of a lib‐ to presenting its claims as if indiferent to their eral regime. Here, Novak points out that liberal‐ truth. This is only a modest advance over Moritz ism is not wholly consistent in its trajectory, and Steinschneider, one of the founders of the Wis‐ recognizing that fact opens up the possibility of senshaft des Judentums, who sought to historicize reinvigorating Jewish studies. revelation in order to give it a proper burial. No‐ One direction that liberalism tends toward, as vak does not deny, of course, the need for Jewish we have seen, is secularism, which aims to over‐ history and textual scholarship; to the contrary, come particularism and religion. This view sug‐ he suggests that they are essential to revealing the gests that there is no place for the Jewish point of wisdom of the tradition. His point is that scholarly view in an institution that aims to transcend all studies are useful because they are a prerequisite particular traditions by means of reason. Novak to this ultimate task: “the problem with the scien‐ mounts a bold attack against this position, argu‐ tifc study of Judaism promoted by historians is ing that the cosmopolitanism imagined by secular that scholars of Judaism can tell you many things opponents of religion has never in fact existed. that are true about Judaism, but they can’t tell you Like Plato’s “allegory of the cave,” Novak suggests anything that Judaism says is true” (p. 103). that everyone lives within a particular horizon To return to the conundrum posed by the edi‐ out of which philosophy emerges, and indepen‐ tors of the series: how is it that Jewish studies dent of which it is little better than sophistry. fourishes at secular universities in liberal Awareness of this fact exposes the desire to rise regimes but is increasingly irrelevant to Jewish above a tradition by rejecting all traditions as a life? Novak’s answer is that the very precondi‐ chimera. When Novak reviewed Michael Walzer’s tions of its fourishing in a secular institution pre‐ edited volume The Jewish Political Tradition sume its irrelevance. What then is the solution? (2003) for the New Republic, he was particularly Here Novak’s argument takes a bold and some‐ critical of Hilary Putnam’s essay on Yehuda HaLe‐ what surprising turn. Rather than reject liberal‐ vi: “I know where HaLevi is coming from, namely, ism or retreat into a self-imposed ghetto, Novak I understand his commitments. I have no clear proposes using liberalism to promote a deeper idea where Putnam’s commitments are coming commitment to Judaism. from. And it always reminded me of something Although a liberal regime does not ofer reli‐ my father, who was a businessman, used to say: gious faith a privileged place, it cannot be indif‐ ‘never lend money to a man who’s running to ferent to the religious beliefs of its citizens. This is catch a train because he has no address’” (p. 97). partly because the regime must protect itself from It isn’t only Jews who are guilty of running religious fanaticism; however, and more impor‐ away from tradition to catch a train to nowhere; tantly for Novak, religion ofers the best and efec‐ Novak suggests that many of his non-Jewish col‐ tive support for liberalism. To appreciate why this leagues have the same pretenses. Regarding two is the case, we must remember that, as Aaron scholars of Kant at his university, Novak wryly ob‐ Hughes observes, “there is no lingua franca of serves: “I wasn’t present at either of their wed‐ ‘reason’ … that can be appealed to outside of tra‐ dings, but I would bet anything ... that whoever of‐ ditions” (p. 6). In political life, reason operates fciated ... was not reading from The Critique of only within the context of traditions and conven‐ Pure Reason” (pp. 99-100). tions. The starting point for real dialogue in the

3 H-Net Reviews public sphere can only begin with the citizen’s ac‐ tual beliefs. Novak is confdent that various adherents to religion are eager to explain their views to others, and that at least for the three major monotheistic faiths--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--are equipped to do so. But interfaith dialogue faces formidable obstacles: for one thing, there is a ten‐ dency for each tradition to “claim the truths as its own original possession,” and since each account of revelation appears to make various and con‐ trary demands, how can we be sure that they will fnd common ground? In despair of fnding such ground, we might also fall victim to the opposite proclivity and reject revelation altogether by per‐ mitting some version of relativism to assert itself (p. 12). For Novak, the continual threat to all faiths posed by secularism and relativism motivates the common search for a solution. As he writes in Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Justification: “Thinkers in each community must re-search their own respective traditions to constitute the integrity of the other community and not lose the integrity of their own. This task is formidable be‐ cause this re-search must be quite radical, work‐ ing its way back to the roots of the tradition and back into the present and toward the future” (emphasis in original, p. 12). Here Novak suggests that the scholarly task of researching the tradition is also a search for something, namely the source of its wisdom, which provides at the same time, a basis for a genuine relation with other communities. Inter‐ faith dialogue aids us in this quest because it forces the members of a tradition to discover and explain the wisdom of that tradition to outsiders. In the respect, Novak’s own scholarship in medi‐ cal ethics, , and interfaith dia‐ logue is a testimony to the wisdom of his ap‐ proach. David Novak: Natural Law and Revealed Torah provides a fne introduction to the work of this important Jewish thinker.

4 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic

Citation: Steven Frankel. Review of Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava; Hughes, Aaron W., eds. David Novak: Natural Law and Revealed Torah. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. March, 2016.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=45521

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

5