Home Home / Essay by R. Spero and R. Lamm on Messia…

Article

May 3, 1974

Essay by R. Spero and R. Lamm on Messianism (1974)

Faith General Jewish Thought Israel & the Middle East
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Article

Symposium on Israel's Chosenness (1966)

I have always felt that Shammai’s policy was wiser than Hillel’s in their respective reactions to the Gentile who challenged them to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot. It is probably better not to try at all than to risk all the ambiguities that must necessarily attend a condensation of one’s religious outlook to a couple of thousand words. Nevertheless, out of deference to the preference of the Jewish tradition for Hillel, I am willing to take my chances and come armed with naught but naive trust in the reader’s fairness, no matter what his convictions. (1) I believe the Torah is divine revelation in two ways: in that it is God-given and in that it is godly. By “God-given,” I mean that He willed that man abide by His commandments and that that will was communicated in discrete words and letters. Man apprehends in many ways: by intuition, inspiration, experience, deduction—and by direct instruction. The divine will, if it is to be made known, is sufficiently important for it to be revealed in as direct, unequivo- cal, and unambiguous a manner as possible, so that it will be understood by the largest number of the people to whom this will is addressed. Language, though so faulty an instrument, is still the best means of communication to most human beings. Hence, I accept unapologetically the idea of the verbal revelation of the Torah. I do not take seriously the caricature of this idea which reduces Moses to a secretary taking dictation. Any competing notion of revelation, such as the various “inspiration” theories, can similarly be made to sound absurd by anthropo- morphic parallels. Exactly how this communication took place no one can say; it is no less mysterious than the nature of the One who spoke. The divine- human encounter is not a meeting of equals, and the kerygma that ensues from this event must therefore be articulated in human terms without reflecting on the mode and form of the divine logos. How God spoke is a mystery; how Moses rece…
Faith

Article

The Chosen People: A Symposium

The doctrine of am hanivchar – the election or chosenness of Israel – has been glorified and condemned, but mostly misunderstood, for the greater part of our history. Some have dismissed it with contempt and infamously compared it to the Nazi idea of the Herrenvolk; others have exaggerated its particularity as thoroughly genetic in nature; and yet others have diluted it to just about the point of making the notion both pointless and meaningless. Few other ikkarim, major principles of Judaism, have been subjected to such distortion. The comparison to the foul ideology of Aryan racial superiority is a vicious canard that has been with us since the Enlightenment, but ratcheted up since the appearance of mass anti-Semitism in the twentieth century. The non-ideological discomfort that some modern Jews feel is more of a social nature; “what will my non-Jewish neighbors think of me/us when they hear of this boast?” underlies a good deal of the embarrassment with the am hanivchar idea. And not far removed from this concern is its enfeeblement and eventual excision by many liberal-modernist Jewish groups. Equally fallacious, if somewhat less deplorable, is the interpretation of chosenness in some Chareidi and other circles, namely, that Jews are religiously and spiritually superior to the rest of mankind and that this pre-eminence is genetically determined. Placing the concept on a biological basis is good for the collective ego but is poor scholarship and is untrue to our sacred texts. A critique of all these views will become explicit in the following paragraphs. The doctrine of election is accepted by all great Jewish thinkers but not necessarily to the same degree. Thus, for instance, Rambam and a number of other Sephardic scholars of the Middle Ages accepted it, but did not give it the prominence accorded it by other Jewish thinkers. Rambam does not include it in his Thirteen Principles of Faith, the Ani Ma’amins. Other prominent sages, from Yehudah Halevi to the Mahar…
General Jewish Thought

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Borowitz about R. Lamm's Debate on Messianism with R. Spero (1974)

Dear Norman, Shubert has asked for a chance to respond to your response. On reviewing the exchange, I (and Nat) found it to be of such intrinsic merit that we believe it is worth printing. I’ve asked Shubert to send a copy of his next response to you directly, so that you may then make your final comment if you wish. But I think the material should commit you both. The material should not be designed as between issues! The exchange should be a head to head at my insistence for editorial purposes. We will hold the material exchange for two episodes and then print the 4 pieces at once. I do think the clearest case from your original statement is at stake and the meaning of the theological “center” to Judaism is a common man’s one as the definition of the current polarization is clear. Hence to open a symposium is apt – and that is what the “exchange” will mean. We shall break our self-imposed strategy that each of the two should respond in full to Shubert’s response to your response. Forward to you with response to my request for a statement. All my best – Gene
Orthodoxy & Other Denominations Israel & the Middle East Religion & State