C-7405 to C-7406 Transcriptions Kula, Irwin. Fantasy...

C-7405 to C-7406 Transcriptions

Kula, Irwin. "Fantasy and Realism in Jewish Politics: Bar Kokhba

and the Decision to Revolt." Members of the Wexner Heritage

Foundation Winter Retreat. [Houston, Tex.].

23 October 1988.

Irwin Kula:

...Jews believe, or...What’s it called? I don’t even know what

it’s called.

Attendee:

The beliefs of Judaism.

Irwin Kula:

The beliefs of Judaism. It’s a, it’s a very strange...it’s

a very strange kind of topic. ‘Cause if I asked you, uh, do Jews

have to believe anything...to be Jewish? How many people would

raise their hand and say yes? If I said – small number, it’s a

small number. If I said, Judaism is a religion of deeds, Judaism

is not a religion of faith or beliefs, how many people would

agree? Uh, that’s the most common definition of Judaism that we

have. Judaism’s deeds...And here we’re gonna do a session with

Herbert A. Friedman Collection, C-7405 to C-7406. American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.

1

ieve, or...What’s itt cccallll ed? I don’t even k

.

liiiefs of f f JuJuJudaddaisisismmm.

liefsfss of f f Judaismmm. IIIt’t’t’sss a,a,a, iiittt’s a veeeryryry ssstran

nge kininnd dd ofofof topic. ‘C‘C‘Cauauause if I assskeeed d d you, u

ieve anythihihingngng......t.. o bbbe JJewisissh?h?h? HHHowowow many peop

hand and say yyyeseses??? IfIfIf III saiiiddd – small number

r If I said Judaism is a religion of deed

people who have committed themselves to studying, very seriously

[01:00], Jewish beliefs. And not- if there’s one dogma in the

Jewish community, it seems to me it’s the dogma that Judaism has

no dogma, what we’ll call the Dogma of Dogmalessness. It’s a

rather strange thing. If you think about it even more, most Jews

that you meet...here’s the irony. Most Jews that you meet, who

will define, will agree with this definition that Judaism really

is a religion of deeds, and it’s Christianity that’s the

religion of faith, most of those Jews don’t do the deeds that

are defined as being Jewish. Instead, what do they say when you

ask them if they’re Jewish? What do they say?

Attendee:

I feel Jewish.

Irwin Kula:

“I feel Jewish.” Okay, that may be the least sophisticated

answer. What else do they say, if they’re a little bit more

sophisticated? [02:00] “There’s something special about being

Jewish. “I have Jewish identity.” All of those things indicate

that Jews have beliefs. When someone says, “I have Jewish

identity,” but is not acting in any different way from their


2

, wwili l agree with tthihiisss dedefinition that JuJuda

on of deeds, and itt’s’ss CChhrh istianity that’s t

faittth,h,h, mmmosososttt ofofof ttthohohosesese JJJewsss dododon’n’n’ttt dododo ttthhe dee

as bbbeieieing JJJeeewisisish. IIInsnsnstteadaad, whwhwhaata dddo oo thththeyee say

they’re JeJJ wiwiwishs ??? Whattt do thththeyyy sssayyy???

Jeeewish.

l Jewish.””” OkOkOkayayay,,, ththth tat may bbbeee thththeee lel ast soph

t else do they sasasay,y,y, iiifff theyyy’r’r’re a little bit

ed? [02:00] “There’s something special abou

Christian neighbors, what they’re really saying is, “what

distinguishes me...”, excuse me, I have a little bit of a cold

[coughs]...What they’re really saying, is that there are some

central beliefs that distinguish me from my Christian neighbor,

even though I wear the same clothes, even though I do basically

the same things, even though I work in the same workplace...I

have some basic beliefs that distinguish me. So it’s really

ironic. The vast majority of Jews say, to be Jewish you don’t

have to believe anything special, it’s a matter of deeds. And

those same vast majority of Jews say [03:00] that what

distinguishes them as Jews is Jewish identity, is their beliefs.

Do you see the paradox? Everybody see that? It’s a very, seems

to me a very strange thing.

Alright, so the first thing we have to ask ourselves is,

where did this whole idea that Judaism has no beliefs, or to be

Jewish doesn’t necessitate any particular Jewish beliefs come

from? ‘Cause I’m gonna question the whole hypothesis, and by the

end of today, by the end of these two or three hours, what we’re

going see is that there are some real central beliefs that

underlie everything we do as Jews. And to the extent that we

don’t determine what those are, and articulate them, we’re gonna

be in a lot of trouble.


3

asiic c beliefs that ddisisstitt ngnguish me. So it’s’s r

vast majority of JJJewwwsss say, to be Jewish yo

ieve anananytytythihihingngng ssspepepecicicialalal, it’s’ss aaa mmmatatatteteterrr oof dee

vast mamamajojj riririttyt ooof Jeeewswsws sayaay [030303:00]0]0] thahahattt what

es them aaasss JeJeJewsww iiis Jeeewiww sh iiideentntntittty,y,y, is thei

thhhe paradadadoxoxox??? EvEvEverererybyy ododody y y seeeeee thththatatat? ItItIt’s a vver

y strangeee ttthiiinggg.

t, so the fffiririrstss ttthihihingngng wwweee hahahaveee tttooo ask ourrrsel

his wwwholelele idea thththatatat JJJudududaiaiaismsmsm has no bebebeliliiefs,

n’t necccesesessisisitatt te any ppparararticular Jeeewiiishshsh belie

e I’m gonnanana qqqueueuestss ioii n thththe whwhwholololeee hyhyhypothesis,

y, by the end ooofff thththeseseseee two ooror three hours,

s that there are some real central beliefs

Okay, so where did it all come from? Any suggestions on

where this notion that Judaism is a religion of deeds and

Christianity is the religion of faith, any ideas where that came

from? [04:00] And we’ve all said it. I mean, I was a pulpit

rabbi for six years and there were a lot of times, I am a

philosopher and a closet theologian, lot of times got up and

said, “relig- Judaism really emphasizes deeds.” Knowing that

that wasn’t really true. Some where does it come from? [name]?

Attendee:

Maybe it starts, uh, from the origin of Christianity, that

ultimate salvation comes from believing the right things, and

that if you think right, believe right, even at the very last

minute, even if they were a rotten person their entire life, if

you believe and repent at the very end you get the ultimate

reward. I don’t think that...so that’s how Christianity, in some

ways, defines itself.

Irwin Kula:

And so?

Attendee:


4

g- JuJ daism really eemppphahah sisizes deeds.” Knowowin

really true. Some whwhheeere does it come from?

it startsss,,, uhuhuh,,, frfrfrom ttthehh oriririginnn offf Christian

lvvvation cccomomomeees fffrororom mm bebebelililievvvinining gg ththhee ririright thhin

ttht ink riiighhht,,, bbbelllieieieveveve rrrigigighhht,,, eeeveeen at the ve

n iiif they wwwererere ee aaa rororottttttenenen pppererersooonnn tttheir enttitire

and dd repepepent at thththe veveveryryry endndnd you gettt ttthehehe ult

on’t ththhinininkkk thtt at...sooo thththat’s how CCChrrrisisistianit

es itselff.

And Judaism does not work that way.

Irwin Kula:

Okay. I think that you’ve hit something very important, and

that is one of the reasons that this has been such a prevalent

way of defining Jews, especially for us, is that it was [05:00]

one of the ways that distinguish us from Christianity. In some

sense, we had the understanding that Christianity was a religion

of faith, because they did away with a lot of the laws, and so,

and as a way to distinguish ourselves, we were a religion of

deeds. We acted. Okay. Although you should know that my, that

it’s codified by Maimonides already that you can be the worst

sonofabitch in your whole life, and if you repent a moment

before you’re dead, [claps hands] everything’s fine. Now, what

does that sound like? Sounds like Christianity. Just goes to

show that, see the sources that are somewhat like Christianity

we hide from you, and sources that point out the differences,

those are the ones we all know.

So yes, Shel, you’re right, hundred percent. One of the

reasons is this need to distinguish ourselves from Christianity.

Good. Joe?


5

wayyss that distinguiuishhh uss from Christianitity.

ad the understanding thtthat Christianity was

ecaussseee thththeyeyey dddididid aaawawawayyy wiwiwith aaa lllototot ooof ff thththee laws

y to dididistinininggguisisish ouuursrsrseelvevves, wwweee wewewererr aaa relig

cted. Okaaayy.y AAAltll hohohough yyyou shshshouuldldld kkknonn w that m

eddd by Maiaiaimomomoninnidededesss alaa rerereadadady thththatatat yyyououou cccan be th

iiin your whhhollle liiifefefe, anananddd iiif yooou reeepent a mo

re dead, [ccclalalapspp hhhananandsdsds] eveveverereryttthihihinnng’s fineee. N

ound dd likekeke? Soundsdsds lllikikikeee ChChChriiistianityyy... JuJuJust g

see thehee sssououourcrr es thattt ararare somewhattt lllikikike Chri

m you, and dd sososourururcecc s ththth tat poioiintntnt oooututut the diffe

he ones we alll knknknowowow...

Shel you’re right hundred percent One

Attendee:

Well, the Biblical references, you know of uh, of uh,

[06:00] taking care of the needy, leading the foreign appeal,

and uh...[unclear] There’s all kind of uh, you the

basis...[unclear]

Irwin Kula:

Okay, there seem to be so many, I think if I can rephrase,

there seem to be so many laws within the Bible that it was

natural for us to begin to think that we were a religion of laws

and deeds rather than a religion of beliefs. Does that sound...?

Attendee:

I’m not sure that I’d agree “rather than,” but...

Irwin Kula:

More primary than, right? Primary.

Attendee:

I’m not sure...I haven’t thought about it in the sense

that...there’s plenty of references to the need to do good deeds

in the Bible. And I don’t know...


6

there seem to be so mmmaaany, I think if I can

to beee sssooo mamamanynyny lllawawawsss wiwiwithththin ttthehehe BBBibibiblelele ttthhat it

us ttooo bebb gigiginnn tototo thiiinknknk thahhat wewewe wererere ee aaa rerr ligi

ather thaaannn aa rerr lililigionnn of bebebeliefefefs.. Does that

t sssure thattt III’d’’ aaagrgrgreeeeee “““rararathththerrr ttthhhan,” buttt...

rimary thhananan, riririghgg t?t?t PP iirimaryryry...

Irwin Kula:

Okay. Any references to beliefs in the Bible?

Attendee:

Why isn’t that a belief?

Irwin Kula:

Good! That the whole need to do deeds is already underlined

by a belief. Okay, how many people agree with that? Yeah, that’s

really...[07:00] if we can get, if there’s one thing that we can

get across today, if there’s one thing I can get across today,

it’s that all systems have as its base certain beliefs out of

which the system emerges and which power the system, even if

it’s a system that’s predominately an active system, of deeds,

rather than a faith-oriented internal system. So you’re a

hundred percent right. And after all everything I’ve said in the

last day, about prayer and all that kind of stuff, I said we see

what we...is that what I said? We see what we believe. Right? We

come to the world with a whole set of beliefs, and then we see

things and integrate them into that belief pattern. Right? The

people saw the Exodus, the people experienced an event, but what


7

That thththeee whwhwhololole e e neneneededed tttooo do dddeeeeeedsdsds iiisss alalalrready

. Okaaay,y,y, howowow mananany peeeopopoplle aagreeeeee wititith hh thththataa ? Ye

7:00] if weww cccanaa ggget, ifii theheheree’s’s’s ooonenn thing t

toooday, ififif ttthehhererere’s’s’s onenene ttthiiingngng III cccananan ggget acrros

llll systemmms haaaveee aaasss itititsss bababassse ceeertatataiiin belieeefs

ystttem emergggeseses andndnd whihihichchch pppowowowerrr ttthhhe systemmm, e

em ththhat’s’s’s predomimm nananatetetelylyly an active sssysysystetetem, o

a faititth-h-h-orororieii nted intntntererernal systemmm. SoSoSo you’r

cent righht.t.t. AAAndndnd aftftfter allllll eeeveveveryryrythththini g I’ve s

bout prayer andndd aaallllll ttthahahat kiiindndnd of stuff, I s

s that what I said? We see what we believe

they saw was very conditioned by what they believed. They

believed God could act in history, [08:00] therefore at the

Exodus what they saw was God acting in history. If you had

someone else standing at the Exodus, who did not already believe

that God could act in history, which by the way was most of the

pagan cults, that God didn’t act in history, you wouldn’t have

seen God taking you across the Red Sea. So what you believe

conditions, is, really determines what you see.

We studied Kaufman yesterday, Kauf- we only read one

chapter of Kaufman, but the whole two books of Kaufman make one

argument...funny when Herb says he “hammers it in”...should read

too volumes in Hebrew where he hammers one idea in something

like eight hundred pages, and there’s only one idea in the whole

book. I mean, you know, there’re always others, but there’s only

really major proposition, and that is, what is unique about

Judaism, created by Moses, is this notion, this crazy [09:00]

notion of monotheism, or ethical monotheism. Is that a belief or

an action? So the entire Kaufman book is dedicated to proving

that what is unique about Jews is one belief. Pretty wild.

Okay. So, we have, one of the reasons we have this notion

of religion-of-deeds, religion-of-belief, is distinguish us from

Christianity; one of the reasons is that there, there has been,


8

kinng g you across thehe RRRedede SSea. So what youu be

is, really determineeesss what you see.

died KaKaKaufufufmamamannn yeyeyestststerererdadaday,y,y, Kauauauf-f-f- wwweee onononlylyly read

Kaufmmmananan, bububuttt thththe whhholololee twttwo bobobooooksss ofoo KKKauaa fman

funny wheeennn HeHeHerbrr sssays hehh “hahahammmmererers itii in”...s

iiin Hebrererewww whwwhererereee hehh hhhamamammeeersrsrs oooneee iiidededea in ssom

huuundred pppagggesss, annndd d thththererere’e’e’sss ooonllyl onnne idea in

n, you knowww,,, thtt ererre’e’e’rerere aaalwlwlwayayays ototothhhers, buttt th

r prorooposisisition, ananand d d thththatatat iiis,s,s, what isss uuunininique

eated bbby y y MoMoMosess s, is thththisisis notion, ttthiiisss crazy

onotheism, ororor eeethtt icii llal monotottheheheisisism.m.m. Is that a

So the entire KKKauauaufmfmfmananan bbbook isisis dedicated to

s unique about Jews is one belief Pretty w

there seems to be when we read the Bible, we concentrate on the

time of deeds. We’re now seeing the beliefs that are under even

that understanding of deeds, what I’ll call a theology of deeds,

okay, or a belief system that’s, undergird, or [unclear], or

foundational to deeds. Any other possibilities?

Attendee:

Well we do use the word [unclear], and I, I think the

reason [unclear]...but I’m not actually sure that [10:00] it’s

not [unclear]...when we, when we study, whatever it is we study,

at whatever level we study...and then there [unclear; speaker

distant, becomes difficult to hear]...so that when we learn, as

we grow in understanding...how to be Jewish...I think

that...from lighting candles

Irwin Kula:

Okay, so what you’re saying really w- a pedagogic. The Jews

developed a pedagogic technique, that rather than concentrating

on beliefs first, we would concentrate on actions [11:00] and

hopefully from act- even though all those actions, as you say,

have as a foundation a very serious belief system, by

concentrating on action we come to understand what we’re


9

e do use the word [unnnclcclear], and I, I think

lear].....b.b.bututut III’m’m’m nnnototot aaactctctualllllly yy sususurerere ttthahahatt [10:

r]...whwhwhen wwweee, wwwhen wewewe stuttudy,,, wwwhatatatevee ererer it is

level weee stututudydd .....anddd thennn thhererere [u[u[ nclear;

cooomes difififfifificccultltlt tttooo heheheararar].....sososo ttthahahattt when wwe

unndn erstannndiiinggg.....hhhowowow tttooo bebebe Jeeewiiish.h.h....I thinnnk

liiighting cccananandldd esess

so what yououou’r’r’re ee sass yiiing reallllly y y w-w-w- aaa pedagogic

pedagogic techchhnininiququque,e,e, ttthat rrarather than conc

first we would concentrate on actions [11:

supposed to believe, rather than concentrating on belief. I

think that that is a very important distinction between Judaism

and Christianity. Okay? A pedagogical approach, in a sense, to

life. Right? Rather than start with beliefs, start with actions,

but get to beliefs [unclear]...and rather than, as opposed to

Christianity, which says start with a creed, a dogma, a set of

beliefs that you can at least, even if you know only by rote,

their reasoning is that it will affect your actions. By the way,

we have a misunderstanding of Christianity. In Christianity,

doesn’t have works. Faith and works are equally important in

Christianity. And if you hear a good Christian preacher, they

will, as much as they’ll talk about faith, they’ll talk about

the implications that faith has towards actions. [12:00] We do

it, we take the opposite pedagogical approach, and we say if you

do the right act, it’s amazing what you’ll come to believe.

Okay, so I think that’s good, that pedagogical approach is maybe

the difference in emphasis. Good.

Attendee:

I think one of the things, uh, to use the example of

Shabbat, because of the last, one of the last readings [unclear;

distant and obscured by background movement]...how so much of


10

t yyouo can at least,t, eeevevv n n if you know onlyly b

ning is that it willl afaafffef ct your actions. B

isunddderererstststananandididingngng ooof ff ChChChririristiaiaianininitytyty. InInIn CCChhristi

e worrksksks. FaFaFaiiithhh and wowoworrkss areee eeequauauallll y yy imii port

y. And ifff yououou heaeaear a gggood CCChrrisisistiiianaa preache

chhh as thehehey’y’y’lllll tttalalalk kk abababououout fafafaititith,h,, ttthehehey’ll ttal

tiiions thaaat faaaittth hahahasss tototowaaarrrdsss aaactititiooons. [1222:0

thhhe opposiiitetete pedededagagagogogogicicicalalal aaapppprororoaaach, and we

t actctt, ititit’s amazizz ngngng wwwhahahattt yoyoyou’ll commmeee tototo bel

think ttthahahat’t’t’sss good, thththatatat pedagogicccalll aapproac

nce in emphphphasasasisisis... GoGG ddod.

your life is Shabbat. [unclear] You can talk all you want about

Shabbat, but if you don’t do it, it’s irrelevant. But if you

talk about Shabbat and talk about the laws of Shabbat and spend

the day at the mall, or working, it’s irrelevant. You don’t have

the, that period of Shabbat. If so, the issue of...of...the

concept of Shabbat is making it a habit of it, [13:00] and by

making habit of it then you can understand what it’s about.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, that’s, that’s a similar point. Okay. That you can’t

get to the understanding, you can’t get to the beliefs, without

the acting. But the acting is a concretization of the beliefs,

not the other way around. Right? When you read, when you read

about the Shabbat in the Torah, what you read about is the

belief system that undergirds the Shabbat, and if there wasn’t a

belief system underneath girding the Shabbat, what would have?

Would anybody observe Shabbat? In fact, it may well be that one

of the reasons in the American Jewish community there’s such

little observance of Shabbat, is because since we haven’t

plugged into the beliefs and understandings of Shabbat at all,

or that most of those beliefs are out, we no longer feel

comfortable with...there’s no observance of Shabbat. So we may


11

t oof f it then you cacan unuu dederstand what it’s’s a

that’s,s,s, thahahattt’sss a siiimimimillarrr poininintt.t OOOkakk y.y.y. That

understannndidd ngngng,,, yoyoyou caaan’nn t gegeget tototo ttthehh beliefs

BBBut theee acacactittingngng iiisss aaa cococoncccrereretititizaaatititionnn of thhe

errr way arrrouuunddd. Riiighghght?t?t? WWWhehehennn yyyouuu rrreaada , whennn y

habbbbat in ttthehehe Torororahahah, whwhwhatatat yyyouuu rrreeead abouttt is

em ththhat uuundergiiirdrdrds thththeee ShShShabababbbbat, anddd iiif f f ther

em undedeernrnrneaeaeathtt girdingngng ttthe Shabbattt, whwhwhat wou

dy observeee ShShShabababbabb t?t?t IIn fffactctt,,, ititit mmmay well be

ons in the Amerrricicicananan JJJewewewish ccocommunity there’

rvance of Shabbat is because since we have

have been in a position now where it’s counterproductive to be

teaching deeds over faith. Fred? [14:00]

Attendee:

Well, maybe we’re getting into semantics, and maybe this

goes back to the original premise of dogma versus, uh, belief,

but I would, I would violently disagree with, uh, with with

Ron’s, what Ron has said [unclear]… [audience laughter]

Irwin Kula:

He has a possible understanding of violence.

Attendee:

Uh, well, b- because I mean, if, if Shabbat is dogma, then

the was that uh, uh, Joe Williams practices Shabbat or the way

that I practice Shabbat or, uh, uh, according to what Ron just

said is the total non-belief in Shabbat, and I don’t believe

that. I mean, I think Shabbat is important to me the way that I

practice it as it is to Ron the way he does or anybody else

[unclear]. I think that [unclear] dogma, then, then way

we...[unclear] [15:00]...I believe Shabbat’s very

important...[unclear]


12

, II would violentlyly dddisii agagree with, uh, wiwith

Ron has said [uncleaaar]rr]… [audience laughter

a possibbblell uuundnn erererstannndidd ng ooof viviviolllenee ce.

ll,, b- becaaausususe ee III mememeananan, ififif,,, ifff SSShhhabbat isss do

t uh,h,, uh,h,h, Joe WWWilii lililiamamamsss prprpracacactttices Shhhabababbababat or

tice ShShhabababbababattt or, uh,,, uhuhuh, accordinnng tototo what

total non-n-n-bebebelililiefee iiin ShShSh bbabbababat,t,t, aaandndnd I don’t b

n, I think Shababbbababattt isisis iiimporrrtatatant to me the w

as it is to Ron the way he does or anybody

Irwin Kula:

Okay. Let’s clarify terms. It looks like that we need to

clarify terms. Language, we always have to be very precise about

language. This is what, from the Oxford English Dictionary,

it’s, you know, that’s a pretty good source, on what dogma

means. There’s two definitions of dogma, primarily. One is “a

body of opinion formulated and authoritatively,” and that’s the

key word there, authoritatively, “authoritatively stated.” Okay.

Another definition of dogma is a belief, a tenet. Now, this type

of dogma we Jews don’t have. Why?

[indistinct voice from audience]

Irwin Kula:

[laughs] We don’t have a single authority. That’s the only

reason. [16:00] In fact, we have a body of opinion formulated

and stated, from the Biblical times till last year, at least in

the Conservative Movement. They published a book called what?

Anybody know? Emet V’Emunah. What’s emet? Truth, right. Truth is

an action, truth is a belief word. Truth and emunah? Faith.

Truth and Belief, really that’s what they call it. Truth and


13

e’ss two definitionsns ooofff dodogma, primarilyy.. On

nion formulated anddd aaautuuthhoh ritatively,” and t

ere, auauauthththorororitititatatativivivelelely,y,y, “““authththorororitititatatativivivelelelyy stat

initiononon offf dddogmgmgma isss aaa beleelief,f,f, a tttenee etetet.. Now,

Jews donnn’t hhhavaa e.e.e. Whyyy???

vvvoice frrrommm aaaudddieeencncnce]e]e]

s] We dddononon’t’t’t have a sisisingngngle authoriiityyy... That’s

:00] In ffacacacttt, wwweee hahh ve a bbbododdy y y ofofof ooopinion for

from the Bibliliicacacalll tititimememes tiiillllll last year, at

ative Movement They published a book calle

Belief! Here in an age where we talk about Jews as Jews,

religion of deeds not religion of faith, the Conservative

movement publishes a book [woman whispering near microphone], ah

book, it’s a pamphlet, called...Belief, Truth and Belief. Okay,

so we have plenty of body of opinion, formulated statement; we

have beliefs and tenets. The only problem is, we don’t have any

authorities. By the way, you can bet your life that if we ever

had a society in [17:00] which we did have one authority, we

would have as much dogma in this sense as the Catholic Church.

Just look at the State of Israel when it has a chief rabbi,

right?

Why is a Conservative conversion, or a Reform conversion,

done exactly according to Orthodox law, considering [unclear]?

[voice from audience]. Why? Why? The fact that conversion

[unclear; noise from moving microphone]...a rabbi. [unclear]

says, you don’t need a rabbi for conversion. [voice from

audience]. No, do you know what? If you talk to Orthodox rabbis,

do you know what the answer they will give you? It’s because if

you, if I do a conversion, I live traditionally [18:00],

halakhically, and if you taught a Reform rabbi who lives the

same, according to an Orthodox halakhah, and who converts

according to halahkah with, making sure that the person’s


14

. BBy y the way, you ccannn betet your life thatt if

ty in [17:00] whichhh wwweee dddid have one authori

as muuuchchch dddogogogmamama iiinnn thththisisis sssensesese aaasss thththee e CaCaCattholic

t thee SSStatetete offf Israaaelelel whehhen ititit hasasas a ccchihh ef r

aaa Consererervavavatittiveveve ccconoo veveversrsrsiooon,n,n, ooor aaa ReReReform ccon

y accordiiinggg ttto Orrrthththodododoxoxox lllaaaw,,, ccconnnsiiidering [u

auuudience]. WWWhyhh ??? WhWhWhy?y?y? TTThehehe fffacccttt ttthat convvvers

oise fromomom movinggg mimiicrcrcropopophohohonenene]]]...a raaabbbbbbi.i.i. [un

on’t neeeededed aaa rabbi fororor ccconversion. [[[vovovoice fr

No, do youuu knknknowowow whahh t?t? IIfff yoyoyou u u tatatalklklk to Orthod

what the answeeerrr thththeyeyey wwwill gigigive you? It’s b

o a conversion I live traditionally [18:00

kosher, making sure let’s say, even, the person doesn’t drive to

shul the person is in shul every Shabbos, and all the things

that would be...let’s say it was an Orthodox kind of everything,

the reason it’s not is because of the belief of Torah from

Sinai. If you don’t believe Torah is from Sinai, you can’t be a

witness within the Orthodox community today. That’s a what,

belief or an action? That’s, that’s belief.

And I told you about Conservative Judaism and Emet

V’Emunah, so they clearly are uh, very concerned about beliefs.

The whole book is about beliefs. And Reform Judaism, and when

you look at the beginnings of Reform Judaism, Reform Judaism

almost adopted a church-like kind of formulation [19:00] of what

Judaism was and all of its platforms. They put out creedal

statements...

So here we are talking about Judaism as a religion of

deeds, and all around us, since Biblical times, what’s really,

what we really argued about, and what really has distinguished

us, is what we believe... Ask Elijah, when he killed two hundred

fallen prophets, what was important, beliefs or actions.

[Pauses] What about the tension between monarchy and prophets?

That was about beliefs. Or 1st Century Judaism, Sadducees and

Pharisees, they killed each other, over what? They were living


15

n aactc ion? That’s, tthahaat’tt ss belief.

told you about Conserrrvvvatttive Judaism and Eme

o theeeyy y clclcleaeaearlrlrly y y ararareee uhuhuh, veryryry ccconononcececernrnrnededed about

ook isss aba ouououttt bebebeliefffs.s.s Andnnd RRRefefefooormmm JuJJ dadadaisii m, a

the begiiinnnn ininngsgg ooof Reeefoff rm JJJudddaiaiaismmm, Reform J

teeed a chuhuhurcrcrch-hh-lililikekeke kininindd d offf fffororormuuulalaatitition [199:0

aaand all offf iiitsss ppplalalatftftfororormsmsms.. TTTheeey puutu out cccre

..

re wweee arrre ee talkinining g g abababouououttt JuJudadadaism as aaa rrreeeligi

all aroooununundd d usuu , sinceee BiBiBiblical timmmesss,,, what’s

lly argued dd abababououout,tt a ddnd whhhatt rererealalallylyly has disti

we believe... AsAsAsk kk ElElElijijijah, whwhwhen he killed t

hets what was important beliefs or action

basically the same way, [20:00] but one group believed in

freedom of will, the other one believed in fate. One group

believed in resurrection, the other group believed no

resurrection. One group believed in a hereafter, the other group

didn’t believe in a hereafter. So they killed each other...

What about Kabbalists, who talk about God in the most

passionately sexual terms...and anti-Kabbalists, who lived

exactly the same way? What about Hasidim [unclear]...who

actually jailed each other, using the secular authorities,

because of belief differences...which obviously did have action

implications. And of course [unclear] concern of Orthodoxy, but

what about Maimonides himself, who we’re gonna study in a little

bit? [21:00] D’you know, we don’t recognize that Maimonides

books were burned in his time. The book of ideas, the Moreh

Nevukhim, The Guide for the Perplexed, by the way that was, The

Guide for the Perplexed, a perplexed is somebody who is

confused, nevukhim literally means ‘confused’. What are you

confused about? You’re confused in your mind about what to

believe. So he writes this whole book about what you’re supposed

to believe, and in fact – he says, he writes another book for

what you’re supposed to do, called the Mishneh Torah. Okay, so

he writes two books: one an action book, and one a...philosophy,


16

y ssexe ual terms...anand d anaa titi-Kabbalists, whoho l

same way? What aboututt HHasidim [unclear]...w

iled eaeaeachchch ooothththererer,,, usususinining g g theee sesesecucuculalalarr r auauautthorit

belieefff did ffffffeeerenenences......wwhicich obobobvvviouououslss y yy didd d ha

s. And offf cououoursrr eee [unccclell ar]]] cooncncncerrrn nn of Ortho

Maaaimonidededesss hihhimsmsmselelelf,ff wwwhohoho wwwe’e’e’rerere gggonononnaaa studyy i

] D’you kkknooow,,, wwwe dododon’n’n’ttt reeecccogggniiizeee ttht at Maiiimo

burrrned in hhhisisis timimime.ee TTThehehe bbbooooook ofofof ideas, tththe

he GuGuGuide ee for thhhe ee PePePerprprplelelexexexedd,,, by the wwwayayay that

he Perprpplelelexexexeddd, a perppplelelexexx d is someeebododody y who i

evukhim litititerereralalallyll means ‘‘‘cooonfnfnfusususededed’.’ What arm

out? You’re connnfufufusesesed d d ininin youuurrr mind about wha

he writes this whole book about what you’r

belief book, although, you should know, even that dichotomy is

not fair, because in the introduction to his action book, the

whole first part, is on beliefs, and he says, a person who is

the worst person in the world, who believes the right things, is

still within the commandment... [22:00] he’s just called a

sinner in Israel. A person who does the right things, in other

words does the mitzvot, but doesn’t have the beliefs...can be an

idolater. Sound Jewish to you?

What about Philo, who lived in 20 CE? Writes a whole book

about beliefs. What about Mordecai Kaplan, you know what they

did to his books? Take a guess, we always do it to books we

[unclear]. Burned Morderchai Kaplan’s books. Until Mordecai

Kaplan was [unclear]. Now he was the founder of Young Israel,

you know that? That Mordecai Kaplan was the founder of the Young

Israel Movement in this country? We don’t, we don’t talk about

it that too much, because it’s not nice to think of a heretic as

the founder of Orthodoxy, modern Orthodoxy, [23:00] the modern

Orthodoxy, congregational movement. Now he did leave that after

a while, because his beliefs...because his beliefs, not his

actions. I had the opportunity of visiting Mordecai Kaplan when

he was 99 years old, got in with somebody who was one of my

teachers. Mordecai Kaplan’s home was an Orthodox home. Mordecai


17

thee mitzvot, but dodoesssn’nn t t have the beliefsfs..

ound Jewish to you?

bout PhPhPhilililo,o,o, wwwhohoho lllivivivededed iiin 202020 CCCE?E?E? WWWririritetetess a wh

fs. WWhahahat abababoooutt t Mordddecececaai KKaplalalannn, yyyouoo kkknonn w wh

books? Taaakekk aaa gueueuess, wwwe alwlwlwayyysss dooo it to boo

Buuurned MoMoMordrdrdeeerchchchaiaiai Kapapaplalalan’sss bobobookokks... UUUntil MMor

[uuunclear]]]. Nooow heee wwasasas ttthehehe fooounndn eeer of Younnng

at??? That Mooordrdrdecee aiaiai KKKapapaplalalannn wawawas thththeee founderrr of

ment t in ttthis counununtrtrtry?y?y? WWWee dododon’t, we dododon’n’n’t ta

much, bebebecacacausuu e it’s nnnototot nice to ttthiiinknknk of a

of Orthodododoxyxyxy, mmom dedd rn OO trthohohodododoxyxyxy,,, [23:00] th

congregationall momomovevevememementntnt. Nooowww he did leave t

cause his beliefs because his beliefs no

Kaplan’s brain was not an Orthodox brain. [Indistinct female

voice from audience] His grandson was [unclear]. So ask

me...[woman continues] ask! Books burned.

So I got a feeling that beliefs have been very important to

Jews. We killed each other over beliefs.

Attendee:

But perhaps the only time that we really got into trying to

look for the beliefs at the underpinning of our religion is

[speaker distant from microphone; unclear]...

Irwin Kula:

[24:00] Beautiful. Okay. Now we have to ask the question.

If I just sho- by the way, we forgot a very important character,

Spinoza. Right, I think that if we had Spinoza back here, and

maybe put him in the middle, since he’s used to being under

attack, if we put Spinoza in the middle and said, “are beliefs

in important?” Chances are Spinoza who excommunic- from his

commun- ex...excommunicated from the community w- would say,

“oy, are beliefs important to these people!” I think your

point’s very well taken. Gotta ask a question: When has the

agitation about beliefs been most at the forefront? Twenty years


18

rhaps the only time ttthahhatt t we really got into

e belllieieiefsfsfs aaattt thththeee ununundedederprprpinnininingngng ooofff ououourrr rreligi

stantt fffrommm mmmicrcrcrophooonenene;; unuuncleaeaear]........

] Beautifffulll. Okkkayyy. NoNoNow ww weee haaaveee tototo ask theee q

ho--- by the wawaway,yy wwweee fofoforgrgrgototot aaa vvverereryyy importaaant

ght, I thththink thhhatatat iiifff wewewe hhhadadad Spinozaaa bbbacacack he

im in ttthehehe mmmidii dle, sininincecece he’s useddd tttooo being

we put Spinininozozoza aa inii tthhhe midididdldldleee ananand d d said, “are

t?” Chances areee SSSpipipinononozazaza whooo eexcommunic- fro

excommunicated from the community w- woul

ago, right, none of you would be in a room agitating about

beliefs, and I don’t mean you, but your parents, who were active

in the Jewish community, and let’s say and who were even, and

who worked for the Jewish community, would not be agitated about

beliefs to the same extent we are now. Let’s ask: when are we

most agitated [25:00] about our beliefs? Now, one answer, and

it’s a hundred percent correct, when we are involved in a

society around us, when the society is very open to us, and when

we’re challenged both intellectually and religiously from

cultures around us, we have a tendency to develop and articulate

our beliefs, i.e. what distinguishes us.

And all of those characters that I mentioned lived in

periods like that. Philo lived in the midst of an unbelievable

Hellenistic environment. Hellenist, Hellenism, think of

Hellenism in that period as Americanism now. It’s the Western

Civilization of its day. It was cosmopolitan and it was

wonderful and it was art- and, and the best architecture, and

the best philosophy, and the best music, and the best science,

it was everything. So Philo was confronted by the intellectual

and spiritual challenges and so articulated a set of beliefs.

He, by the way, he narrowed down Judaism to five beliefs that

[26:00] all Jews have to have.


19

redd percent correctct, whwhw enen we are involveded i

und us, when the sociciieteety is very open to us

engeddd bbbototothhh ininintetetellllllececectututualalally aaandndnd rrreleleligigigioioiouusly f

ound ususus, wewewe havavave a tetetenndeneency tttooo dededevevv lololop pp and

, i.e. whhhataa dddisii tititinguiiishss es uuus.

l of thooosesese ccchahaarararactctcterrrsss thtt atatat III menenentittionoo ed liive

e that. PPPhiiilooo lllivvvededed iiinnn thththeee mmmiddsd ttt oofo an unnnbe

ennnvironmennnt.t.t. Helelellelelenininiststst, HeHeHelllleneneniiism, thinnknk o

n thahaat pepeperiod asss AmAmererericicicanananisisismmm now. IIIt’t’t’sss the

n of itittsss dadaday.yy It wasss cococosmopolitannn aaandndnd it wa

nd it was aaartrtrt- anaa d,dd a ddnd tthehehe bbbesesesttt architectu

ilosophy, and ttthehehe bbbesesesttt musiiicc,c, and the best

ything So Philo was confronted by the inte

Okay, so I think that’s one answer. And Maimonides, the

same thing. Maimonides would never have written that book if it

wasn’t that he was challenged by the kalaam, k-a-l-a-a-m, the

kalaam was Moslem philosophy. That’s a, that’s not fair exactly,

but that’s a simple way to look at it, Moslem religious

philosophy, which was very creative, which was very challenging,

and he lived in a society in which, at least, when he got to

Egypt it was pretty open. I mean, the guy became the doctor to

the Sultan, you know, that’s better than Kissinger. You know, he

got to see the king naked, he probed him [audience laughter], he

was pretty vulnerable...Only Lyndon LaRouche thinks that

Kissinger got to do that [laughs; audience laughter]. [27:00]

All of these characters, Mordecai Kaplan too. Mordecai

Kaplan lived in an age in which...Mordecai Kaplan [noise in

microphone] always worried when that happens...but Kaplan lived

in an age in which society was becoming incredibly open in

America. The challenge is, our philosophy...It’s stimulating to

think about what Judaism really should be. So yes, that’s a

very, very important point. At all times of interaction there is

this worrying about what beliefs we have, okay? Any other

possibilities?


20

d iin n a society in wwhihiichchc , at least, when hhe

s pretty open. I meannn,,, ttht e guy became the d

you knknknowowow,,, thththatatat’s’s’s bbbetetetteteter thththananan KKKisisissisisingngngeer. Yo

the kkkinining gg nananakkked,d,d, he prprproobedeed hhimimim [auauaudidd enenencecc lau

vulnerabllle.ee ...OnOO lylyly Lynnndodd n LaLaLaRooucucucheee thinks th

ottt to dooo thththatatat [[[lalalauguu hshshs; auuudididienenenceee lllauuughter].

ttht ese chhharrracccteeersss,,, MoMoMordrdrdecccaaai Kaaaplalalannn too. MMMor

d iiin an ageee iiin nn whwhwhicicichhh...MoMoMordrdrdecccaiaiai Kaplan [[n[noi

alwawaays wwworrieddd whehehennn thththatatat hhhappens....b.b.bututut Kap

n whichchh sssocococieii ty was bbbecececoming incrrredddibibibly ope

e challengegege iiis,s,s, our phihihilllosooophphphy.y.y.....ItI ’s stimu

what Judaism rrreaeaeallllllyyy shshshoulddd bbbe. So yes, tha

important point At all times of interactio

Attendee:

It really seems to me that, notwithstanding the examples

that are cited and the dogma here, and the modern day ones that

you cited, the centralized opinion of Jewish life up until

modern times has been the Talmud and applying the [28:00] Talmud

to everyday life. The central [unclear] has not been the

recitation of the Canon [unclear] that we must subscribe to

[Irwin Kula: Right.]. And the Talmud spends the majority of its

time dealing with how to practice. Yes some of it in matters of

rituals, but a good deal of it in matters of everyday life,

commerce, how to interact with other people. And very little

time is spent in it talking about the belief in God as the

central, even the [unclear] beliefs [unclear]. What usually

defines, you know, what we need to do, who was righteous in

terms of being [unclear] more than anything else.

Irwin Kula:

Okay. Jacob Neusner, who was one of the founding, he’ll go

down in history as one of the greatest scholars of the latter

half of the 20th century, ‘cause he’s setting the agenda of what

questions to ask about Jewish texts, will say to you, that’s

because you have studied the Talmud with people who have


21

of tht e Canon [unclelearrr]]] ththat we must subscscri

: Right.]. And the TTalalalmud spends the majori

g wittthhh hohohowww tototo ppprararactctcticicice.e.e. Yeseses sssomomomeee ofofof iiitt in m

t a gggooooood d dededeaaal ooof ittt iiinn mammattererers ofofof eveveveryrr day

ow to inttteree acacact tt wiwiwith ooothtt er pppeooplplple.. And very

nttt in ittt tatatalkllkinininggg abaa ouououttt thhheee bebebeliliiefeff iiin God as

ennn the [uuuncccleeearrr] bebebelililiefefefs [u[[ nnncllel aaar]].] What us

u kkknow, whaaattt weww nnneeeeeeddd tototo dddo,o,o, wwwhohoho was righhthteo

ing [[[unclclclear] mororore thththananan anynynyttthing elllsesese.

Jacob Neusner, whwhwhooo wawawasss one ofofof the founding,

tory as one of the greatest scholars of the

absolutely no understanding of the Talmud. That the Talmud

really is one of the most sophisticated [29:00] belief systems

articulated in the history of religion. And he makes such a

persuasive case that Christian universities, like St. John’s,

are now studying Talmud, because the only way to understand the

Jewish belief system is to understand how the Talmudic rabbis

put these what he calls ‘paracos’ which are short paragraphs,

together that were all seemingly on the outside dealing with

actions, but had as foundation in the way they were put

together, unbelievable statements of belief. Now that’s even

being challenged.

Attendee:

...that’s the guy from [unclear]

Irwin Kula:

Yeah, of course.

Attendee:

Most of the things in Talmud, when they try- I mean it

accepts the, the divine giving of the Torah...I think is an

underpinning of the Talmud, but they still try and use logical


22

hatt he calls ‘paracacosss’ whwhich are short papara

at were all seeminglylyy on the outside dealin

t haddd aaasss fofofoununundadadatititiononon iiinnn theee wawawayyy thththeyeyey wwweere pu

nbelievevevaba lelele statatatemeeentntntss ofoof beleleliiief.f.f. Nowowow that’

enged.

t’sss the guyyy fffrorr mmm [u[u[uncncncleleleararar]]]

of course.

principles to arrive at their conclusions, using the

text...putting text against text, [30:00] and it is rare in the

Talmud, but occasionally that the fathers said the only reason

for this is [unclear]...most things in the Talmud are identified

as a matter of reasoning...

Irwin Kula:

Most beliefs are arrived at by a manner of reasoned

[unclear]. Most beliefs have premise one, premise two, premise

three. If you accept the premises, you accept the conclusion.

Same as legal tradition. Legal tradition has step one, step two,

step three, if you accept that then you get the derivation of

the law.

Attendee:

The potential underpinning of the Jewish belief and how it

was translated...Kaufman said it in his article, was that the

last five commandments, probably other people have described

those beliefs as well, but what was important was that it was

now given not just a general morality but that this is God in a

monotheistic approach...


23

eliefs are arrived atatt bby a manner of reason

Most bebebelililiefefefsss hahahaveveve ppprereremimimise ooonenene,,, prprpremememisisisee two,

ou acccececeptpp ttthhhe pppremiiisesesess, yyou aaaccepepept tt thththeee conc

al traditttioii n.n.n. Legegegal tttrrraditititionn hhhasss step one,

iiif you aaacccccceeept t t thththataa ttthehehen yoyoyou uu geeettt thththe deriiva

tentialall uuundndnderee pinninggg ofofof the Jewisssh bebebelief a

ted...Kaufmfmfmananan sssaiaa d dd ititit iiin hihihisss ararartititicle, was t

ommandments, prrrobobobababablylyly oootherrr ppeople have des

fs as well but what was important was that

Irwin Kula:

So you just said exactly what I’ve been saying for the last

thirty minutes. The real essential thing was a belief, [31:00]

that there was God and that there was a monotheistic, a

monotheistic approach. You just proved what I just said.

[unclear] the Ten Commandments are a wonderful thing. The Ten

Commandments, we think of Commandments as things you have to do,

but what’s the first commandment? It’s a belief, right?

Maimonides says without that belief there are no commandments.

These are real, these are the real tensions within the

tradition. You’re right that there’s no Catechism, that’s true.

But that’s because we don’t have, that’s why I started with

this, we don’t have an authority figure, and there’s no list of

beliefs that we have to recite every day. Although, that’s not

true a hundred percent. How many people like the song [sings

‘Adon Olam’ in Hebrew]? You like that song? All that is is

Maimonides thirteen principles of faith, rearticulated in poetry

that we have used in song form, that is sung in Reform

congregations...right, [32:00] and if Reform Jews knew what they

were singing [unclear] oh God, I’m sure they would strike it out

[audience laughter]. Right? One of the things we’re going to

study this- one of the things that they’re saying is that they


24

s, wew think of Commmmannndmdmd enents as things yyouou h

the first commandmentntt??? IItI ’s a belief, right

says wiwiwithththouououttt thththatatat bbbelelelieieief thththererereee arararee e nonono comma

eal, thththeseee aaaree e the rerereaal ttensisisiooonsss wiww thththinii the

You’re riiighgg tt thtt atatat theeerrre’s nnno CaCaCateeechcc ism, tha

beeecause wwweee doddon’nn’ttt hahh veveve, thhhatatat’sss wwwhyhyhy III startted

n’t’ have annn aaauttthoooririritytyty fffigigiguuureee, andndnd there’sss n

t wwwe have tttooo rerr cicicitetete eeeveveveryryry dddayyy. AAAlthough,,, th

red pppercececent. Howww mamamanynyny pppeoeoeoplplple like ttthehehe sssong

in Hebebbrererew]w]w]? You likekeke ttthat song? Allllll that i

thirteen prprprinininciciciplpp es offf fffaititth,h,h, rrreaeaearticulated

e used in song fofoformrmrm,,, thththat iiisss sung in Reform

ns right [32:00] and if Reform Jews knew

Torah was dictated from God word for word to Moses, who wrote it

down and that’s the same Torah we got in our book now. I don’t

think there are very many Reform Jews who believe that. Or the

twelfth principle that says resurrection of the dead, I don’t

think there are very many Reform Jews that believe that. And yet

we all sing Adon Olam . And Maimonides himself says, if you

don’t believe these thirteen things, you’re akofer, you’re a

heretic, you’re an idolater, you’re outside the community.

Now, I wanna, I’m making a very strong case, I know, and so

that’s why you’re objecting a little bit. And what I wanna say,

what I think some of the objection comes from is that there is

this heavy biological understanding of Judaism, that you’re

automatically a Jew if...[33:00] if you’re born a Jew. Okay? So

that, that heavy biological connection makes everything

unimportant in relation to your really being a Jew, but by the

way, that makes belief as unimportant as it makes actions, and

we never, we don’t understand that. Right? You can do everything

wrong as a Jew, you can transgress every ethical and ritual,

quotation marks, “commandment,” and every belief that’s ever

been brought down and we still have this crazy understanding of

what does it mean to be Jewish. That’s our biological aspect of

Judaism. How many people are comfortable with that?


25

ve tht ese thirteen tthihiingnn s,s, you’re akofer,, yo

u’re an idolater, youuu’r’’re outside the commun

wannnna,a,a, III’m’m’m mmmakakakinining gg aaa vevevery ssstrtrtrononong g g cacacasesese, I kn

you’reee obo jejejecctc inining a lililitttlele bititit. AnAnAnd dd whwhwhataa I w

k some offf thehehe objbjbjectiiiooon comomomes fffrooom mm is that

biiiologicacacalll uuundededersrsrstatt ndndndinining ofofof JJJududdaiaiaismmm, thatt y

lyy y a Jew ifff.....[[[3333:0:0:00]0]0] iiifff yyyouuu’rrre bbbooorn a Jeeew.

heaaavy biolooogigigicacc lll cococonnnnnnececectititiononon mmmakakakeees everytththin

in rrrelatatation to yyyououourrr rererealalallylyly being aaa JJJewewew, bu

akes bebeelililiefefef as unimpopoportrtrtant as it maaakekekes acti

e don’t undndnderererstststanaa d dd ththth tat. RiRiRighghght?t?t? YYYou can do

Jew, you can trtrrananansgsgsgrereressssss eveeerryry ethical and r

arks “commandment ” and every belief that’

Attendee:

That you can still be Jewish or that you can still be a

Jew?

Irwin Kula:

That you’re still a Jew, I’m sorry, that you’re still a

Jew. So, in, in that sense, there’s nothing you have to believe

to be a Jew. But there’s nothing, and that says there’s nothing

you have to do to be a Jew, either [34:00]! So, well, how many

people are comfortable with that heavy biological...?

Everybody’s really happy about that? You can have the worst

human being in the world...

Attendee:

You first said comfortable, now you’re saying

uncomfortable, I don’t know if people...

Irwin Kula:

Who’s uncomfortable with this notion, that no matter who

you are, no matter how bad a human being you are, no matter what

you’re beliefs are, your mother’s a Jew, you’re a Jew. How many


26

ou’’rer still a Jew,, I’m mm sosorry, that you’rere s

, in that sense, thhherrre’ee’s nothing you have t

. Buttt ttthehehererere’s’s’s nnnototothihihingngng, and dd thththatatat sssayayaysss tthere’

do ttooo bebb aaa Jewewew, eiiithththeer [[34:0:0:0000]!!! SoSS , weww ll,

comfortabbblell wwwitii hhh thattt heavyvyvy bbioioiolooogigigical...?

rrreally hhhapapappppy aaaboboboutuu ttthahahat??? YYYououou cccananan hhhave thhe

iiin the wwworrrlddd.....

rst saiaiid dd cococomfmm ortable,e,e, nnnow you’re saaayiyiying

le, I don’t’t’t kkknononowww ififif peo llple.......

people, like- really uncomfortable with that that? How many peo-

I’m sorry, how many people are really uncomfortable with that?

Sure, we’re all...You’re not, you’re not uncomfortable with that

at all?

Attendee:

I mean you can be a really bad black person, you’re still

black, and you can be a really bad Chinese, you’re still

Chinese.

Irwin Kula:

Oh, good. So for you, Judaism really is a race?

Attendee:

No I’m not saying it’s a race, I’m saying if you’re a

person you’re still a person. You can be a rotten person, you’re

still a person.

Irwin Kula:

Oh well, no one’s saying they’re not a person. God forbid!

A person’s a person. I’m saying is the person a Jew?


27

yoou u can be a realllly babab d d black person, yoyou’

you can be a really bbbadaad Chinese, you’re sti

oddd. So fofoforrr yyyouu,u, JJJuduu aiaiaismsmsm rrreaeaealllllly isiss aaa race??

not t sayiyiying it’’sss a rararacecece, I’’mmm sayinggg iiif f f you’

re stililllll aaa pepp rson. YoYoYouuu can be a rrrotttteteten pers

son.

Attendee:

You can have a terrible mother but they’re still your

mother.

Attendee:

It’s not [35:00] exclusionary; it’s not the only way...

Irwin Kula:

Your mother’s your mother, well how?

Attendee:

Because of biology...

Attendee:

Biological!

Irwin Kula:

Biological. Because of genetics, right? [Various attendees:

Right]. A black is a black because of what?

Attendee:


28

otherrr’s’s’s yyyououourrr momomothththererer,,, wewewell hhhowowow???

e of biololologogogyyy.....

ical!

ical Because of genetics right? [Various

Okay, well...

Irwin Kula:

Genetics. A Chinese...

Attendee:

Your mother’s a Jew, you’re a Jew.

Irwin Kula:

But because of what?

[several voices speaking at once]

Attendee:

He’s a Jew!

Irwin Kula:

But I...I’m, I’m saying he’s a Jew! The system says he’s a

Jew. I’m asking if you’re comfortable with Father Daniel being a

Jew.

Attendee:


29

othhere ’s a Jew, you’u’reee a JJew.

cause ooof whwhwhaata ???

iccces speaeaeakikikinnng aaattt onoo cecece]]

Jew!w!w!

..I’m, I’m sayiyiingngng hhhe’e’e’sss a Jeeew!w!w! The system sa

king if you’re comfortable with Father Dani

It’s not ideal...

Irwin Kula:

Well it’s not ideal, but...yeah...Oh we’re so scared to

disagree with the tradition. God!

[several voices; indistinct]

Irwin Kula:

One person, one person.

Attendee:

...be much more discomfiture if that was the only way to be

Jew. Since it’s not the only way, it’s not that uncomfortable a

proposition. I mean after all, there’s always the possibility

that someone is born a Jew and that’s their only entitlement

[unclear] could one day [36:00] become a better act- uh, act out

[unclear]. It’s not the only way to become a Jew.

Irwin Kula:

That’s true. We have conversion. And it’s funny, you know

what we do to converts? I mean, we do a lot of bad things to


30

icees;s indistinct]

rson, ooone pppeeersososon.

muuuch moreee dddissscooomfffitititururureee ififif thhhattt wwwasss the onnnly

it’’’s not thhheee onoo lylyly wayayay, ititit’s’s’s nnnototot that uncccomf

. I mmmean nn after alalall,l,l, ttthehehererere’s’s’s always thththeee poss

e is boboornrnrn aaa Jew and ttthahahat’s their onnnlylyly entit

ould one dadadayyy [3[3[36:66 00000 ]] bbecomeee aaa bbbetetettet r act- u

It’s not the onnnlylyly wwwayayay ttto beeeccocome a Jew.

converts, but you know what we do to converts? Across the board,

from right wing Orthodoxy to left wing Reform, you know what we

make them take?

Attendee:

Classes

Irwin Kula:

[unclear] well classes [audience laughter]...In a lot of

cases, that’s a form of punishment, I do know. You know what we

make them take, after they get out of the mikvah? An affirmation

of faith. Ask any convert from right wing Orthodoxy to left wing

Reform is they have to recite the Shema at their entrance

ceremony.

[unclear voice from audience] No one’s saying that, no

one’s saying that. But that’s committing themselves to belief,

too. So [37:00] it’s funny that a convert...we have to commit

them, we make a very significant point to commit them to a

belief system. But a Jew, genetically, is always a Jew. So I

think that that tension, that a genetic Jew is always a Jew,

which taking the logic to extreme does become racist, by the

way.


31

ar] wwwelelellll clclclasasassesesesss [a[a[audududieieienceee lalalaugugughththtererer].].]...In a

’s a fofoform ooofff pupupunishhhmememennt, I dododo knononow.ww YYYouoo kno

ake, afteeerrr thththeyee ggget oooutuu offf thheee miiikvkk ah? An a

skkk any cococonvnvnveeert t t frfrfromoo rrrigigighttt wwwinining OrOrOrthththodoxy to

heeyy have tooo rrrecccittteee thththeee ShShSheeemaaa aata thheh ir entttra

ar vvoioo ceee from auuudididienenencecece]]] NoNoNo one’s sayayayininingg g tha

g that.. BBBututut that’s cococommmmmmitting theeemssselelelves to

:00] it’s fffunununnynyny thahh tt a convvvererert.t.t.....we have to

ke a very signiniififificacacantntnt pppointtt tto commit them

em But a Jew genetically is always a Jew

Attendee:

Why does it become racist?

Irwin Kula:

Because if the only reason you’re Jew is genetic...

Attendee:

Well, I..[unclear]

Attendee:

It’s not the only reason all Jews...but some Jews

Irwin Kula:

Yeah, well, bottom line, it’s the reason all Jews who have

Jewish parents are Jewish.

Attendee:

Right, but it’s not a reason that all Jews are Jewish. Not

all Jews have Jewish mothers.

Irwin Kula:


32

I..[uuuncncncleleleararar]]]

ottt the onononlylyly reaeaeasososon nn alalallll Jeeewswsws...... bb.bututut sssome Jeews

well,l,, bototottom liiinenene,,, ititit’sss ttthehehe reason alalalll Jews

nts areee JJJewewewisii h.

but it’s not a reason that all Jews are Je

That’s correct. Those people, we make sure that they have

the right beliefs and the right actions.

Attendee:

That’s an important distinction...

Irwin Kula:

But I think...don’t you see a little bit, don’t you see a

little bit of irony in that? That you can have this, that you

can have this...[38:00] Brother Daniel is a good example of

this, really. You can have this guy, who says he is Jewish,

because his mother was Jewish, he lives like a [unclear]...I

mean he lives like a Christian. What if the Israel government

decides...the Halakha decided [unclear] on that person.

Attendee:

They did...the chief rabbi never had to make a

decision...decision is made by the Supreme Court...

Irwin Kula:

Right but I’m saying what if, what would the chief

rabbinate say about that?


33

think...don’t you seeee a little bit, don’t y

of irrrononony y y ininin ttthahahat?t?t? TTThahahattt youuu cacacannn hahahaveveve ttthhis, t

is...[3[3[38:8 000000]]] BrBrBrotheeerrr DDaninniel iiis aaa gogg ododod examp

y. You caaannn hahahavevv ttthis ggguy, wwwhoo sssayyysss he is Je

mmmother wwwasasas JJJewewewisisish,hh hhheee liiivevevesss liliikekeke aaa [uncllea

ess like aaa CCChrrrissstiiiananan. WhWhWhatatat ifff ttht eee IIsI rael gggov

he Halakha dddecececidddededed [[[unununclclcleaeaarrr] ooonnn that perrrson

id...the chchchieieieff f rarr bbbbbbiii never hahahad d d tototo make a

decision is madaddeee bybyby ttthehehe Supupprrereme Court...

Attendee:

They didn’t, but I think they would have had to have said

he was Jew.

Irwin Kula:

Yeah, of course, the Halakha says he’s Jewish. What if,

what did the Supreme Court say? Not Jewish. The Supreme Court’s

decision was based on what? On fact? It was based on belief. Not

biology, right. Belief, not biology. What belief/action would

your people...[unclear]. The non-biological...[39:00]

Attendee:

A lot of the... [distant, unclear] the allocation of

resources...As, as a community, we don’t allocate [unclear]...We

allocate a lot of time and effort to try and...if you look at

our body of literature, or if you look at our actual activities,

spend a lot more time in volunteering for the tribe, [unclear]

um, ...that’s the only action, of sorts, we have bris, we have

shiva...so we say we’re action oriented, because that’s where we

spend our time, our total resources… [unclear]


34

of coc urse, the Halalakhkhhaaa ssaya s he’s Jewish.. Wh

e Supreme Court say?? NoNNott t Jewish. The Suprem

s basssededed ooonnn whwhwhatatat??? OnOnOn fffacacact? IIIttt wawawass bababasesesedd on b

ght. BeBeBeliefefef,, nononot biiiolololoogy.yy. WWhahahattt bebebelill efefef/a// ctio

...[uncleeearaa ]... Thehehe nonnn-b-- iololologicacacal....[39:00]

of the... [[[dididistss ananant,t,t, uuuncncncleleleararar] thththeee allocattition

.As, as aaa communinn tytyty, wewewe dddononon’’’t allocccatatateee [unc

lot off tititimememe and efforororttt to try anddd...i.i.if you

literaturerere, ororor if ff you lllookokk aaattt ououour actual a

more time in vvvolololunununteteteerereringgg fofofor the tribe, [

’s the only action of sorts we have bris

Irwin Kula:

Okay, but, my point is that every single one of those

actions has as a foundation very serious beliefs. [40:00] And if

it, when it doesn’t, what happens to those actions? They

ordinarily stop being done. And in ages of great openness to the

community, where there’s tremendous intellectual challenge,

that’s exactly what happens...when we don’t articulate our

beliefs.

There’s one other, let’s just move one so we can have one

more [unclear]...There’s one other time when this tremendous

agitation about beliefs...we’ve said where there’s openness.

Does any have a...one other time, that I can, in my sense of

Jewish history...[voices from audience].

Okay. Where there’s persecution, which means when there’s

some kind of catastrophe that happens within the Jewish people,

and there’s a tremendous agitation about beliefs. That’s

correct. We have a few great examples. The destruction of the

First Temple, right? Isaiah, two, okay, [41:00] and Ezekiel, who

lived post-destruction of the Temple, in a sense redefined

everything we talk about God, and the relationship between God

and human beings, and I’m sure during your seminars in the next

two years one of the things you will do is study the prophetic


35

tlyy what happens....whwhhenee wwe don’t articulalate

s oneee ooothththererer,,, lelelet’t’t’sss jujujuststst movovoveee onononeee sososo wwwee can

ar]...T.T.Thererere’’’s ooone ooothththeer ttimeee wwwhenenen thihihisss trem

bout beliiiefee s.....wewewe’ve sssaid wwwheererere ttthehh re’s ope

veee a...onononeee otototheheherrr titt mememe, thhhatatat III cccananan, in my se

orryry...[voooicccesss fffrooomm m auauaudididiennnccce]]].

Wheeere there’e’e’sss peersrsrsececcutututioioion,n,n, whihihichchch means wwwhen

f catattastrtrtrophe ttthahahat hahahappppppenenenss within ttthehehe JJJewis

a tremmmenenendododousuu agitatititiononon about belllieeefsfsfs. That

have a ffewewew gggrerereataa exampllles... TTThehehe dddestruction

e, right? Isaiaiaah,h,h, tttwowowo, okayayy,, [41:00] and Ez

destruction of the Temple in a sense redef

period, so I don’t want to go into it now, but there are very

fundamental distinctions about what it is to believe as Jew.

Same with the first century destruction, right, by the Romans.

That the Judaism of 200 CE would be unrecognizable to the

Judaism of 200 BCE...The beliefs were so different! And because

the beliefs were so different, obviously, what else was

different? The practice is so different.

Now, if this is the right theory, and I think it is, okay,

it also means that in an age like ours, when we have both

openness and key events [42:00]... I think the key events are

the Holocaust, obviously, and the establishment of the State of

Israel. When we have two key events like that, it’s gonna force

the system to rethink its basic premises, to rethink its basic

beliefs. Which means we’re in an age, and this is why what we’re

doing is so critical, we’re in an age that’s beginning to

redefine what it means to be Jewish. We’ve gotten away, in the

last 35 years, 40 years, without doing it. You know why? ‘Cause

we’ve been so busy just surviving, post-Holocaust. Right? How do

think we raise money based on Jewish survival [unclear]? All

that means when I say that, that’s just a fancy way, that’s just

a simple way of saying you bring in Holocaust, you bring in

persecution, you bring in that everybody’s against us, you bring


36

Thee practice is soo didiifffff ererent.

f this is the right t thththeory, and I think it

ns thhhatatat iiinnn ananan aaagegege lllikikikeee oursrsrs,,, whwhwhenenen wwweee hhave b

d keyyy eeevevv ntntntsss [4[4[42:0000].].] ... II thihihinnnk ttthehh kkkeyee eve

st, obviooousuu lylyly,,, ananand thhheee estatatablisisishmmmenee t of the

n we haveveve tttwwwo kkkeyeyey eveveventntnts lililikekeke ttthahahat,t,t, it’s go

tooo rethinnnk ittts baaasisisiccc prprpremmmiiiseees,,, tototo rethinkkk i

ichhh means wwwe’e’e’rerr iiin nn ananan aaagegege,,, annnddd ttthis is wwhwhy

crititticalalal, we’reee inii aaannn agagagee ttthat’s bbbegegegininnning

at it mmmeaeaeansnsns to be Jewewewisisish. We’ve gggotttteteten away

rs, 40 yearararsss, wwwitii hohh tut ddd iioingngng iiit.t.t. YYYou know wh

so busy just suuurvrvrvivivivinining,g,g, possst-t-t-Holocaust. Rig

ise money based on Jewish survival [unclear

in [43:00] those kinds of issues. [voice from audience]. Every

little bit helps, and that helps lot! Right? Jewish survival.

What are we learning in fundraising now? Anybody who’s active in

fundraising in, in, we were just talking, Joe and I were talking

yesterday about what’s going on in training, in UJA training

seminars. All of a sudden you’ve got a half hour of what, Joe?

[Joe: Judaica] And you specifically said one thing about

Judaica, they talk about what? Covenant. A covenant’s not an

action word. Covenant’s a belief word. Meaning belief is a

relationship, it somehow exists between God and Man and that’s

powered this whole civilization...That is a pretty weird thing

to be talking about from a solicitation. Herb, I don’t know but,

in the solicitations of twenty-five years ago...

Herb:

No.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, and I’m not an expert on that, but he’s the expert,

probably in the world, on that...Chances are, if you talked

about covenant, your wealthy person...I don’t know what he would


37

ca]] And you specificicalalallyy said one thing g abo

ey talk about what? CCCooovenant. A covenant’s

. Covvvenenenananant’t’t’sss a a a bebebelililiefefef wwword.d.d. MMMeaeaeanininingngng bbbeelief

p, itt sssomehehehooow eeexistttsss bbetwttween n n GGGoddd anaa d dd MaMM n an

s whole cccivii ilillizii atatation.......Thatatat isss a prprpretty wei

nggg abouttt frfrfrooom aaa sssoloo icicicitititatttioioion.n.n. HHHererrb,b,b, I donn’t

ciiitationsss ooof twwwennntytyty-f-f-fivivive yyyeaaarsss aaagooo...

and I’m not an expert on that but he’s the

do. But, you didn’t talk about covenant. [44:00] You didn’t talk

about...Why all of a sudden the talk about beliefs?

Attendee:

Trying to give the solicitor a sense of purpose.

Irwin Kula:

Once you got survival guaranteed, then you don’t question

that answer? Once survival is guaranteed...and survival, Jewish

people’s survival is guaranteed. I mean, Herb made a case

yesterday. Israel’s survival is not at stake. Individual people

in [place name] and [place name], and, and when you have a

terrorist, they, they are at stake, but the survival of the

Jewish people is not at stake right now! So once you get the

survival down, what do you got to answer, what questions? Why!

Why survive. Is that an action question or belief question? It’s

a belief question. ‘Cause once you answer the question why, then

what will you be [unclear]. Then you have to act. Once you

answer the question why, then you got a chance of getting some

money, to take care of the why... [45:00]

Now [unclear] happens to be, for whatever reason, this is

God’s little game with us, we’re the generation that is


38

ou got survival guaraaantnnteed, then you don’t

? Onccceee sususurvrvrvivivivalalal iiisss guguguarararanteteteededed.....aaandndnd sssuurviva

rvivaaalll is ggguuuarararanteeeed.d.d I mmean,n,n, Herererb bb mamamadedd a c

Israel’s suss rvrvrvivii alalal is nnnot atatat statatakeee. Individu

ammme] and d d [p[p[plallacecece nnnamaa e]e]e], annnd,d,d, aaandndd wwwhehehen you ha

thheh y, theeey arrre attt statatakekeke,, bbbuttt ttht eee sssurvivalll o

le is not aaattt stss akakakeee riririghghghttt nononow! SSSooo once yooou g

wn, wwwhattt do you gggototot tttooo anananswswswer, whattt qqqueueuestio

. Is ththhatatat aaannn action qqqueueuestion or bbbelllieieief ques

estion. ‘CaCaCausususe ee onoo ce you anssswewewerrr thththe question

ou be [unclear]r]]... ThThThenenen yyyou hhhaavave to act. Once

question why then you got a chance of gett

responsible to answer the why. Much like that first century

[name]. When [he] left the temple and knew the temple was going

to be destroyed, and all those Zealots were going to be

destroyed, and [unclear] would be killed at Masada, and he knew

it was all over for that whole expression of Jewish life, and he

went up to [unsure], he went to Tiberius. [He] knew,

unfortunately he probably wasn’t so happy about it, okay that he

was going to have to redefine Judaism. You know how long it

took? Well the Talmud, remember [unclear]...when was the

Jerusalem [unclear] the Babylonian Talmud was finished when?

500, 550. That, in a sense, was the encyclopedia of Judaism,

belief, action, everything. It’s not systematic, so we get more

action stuff we think than belief, but that’s only because it’s

not systematic. But, at 550, you’ve got the Judaism debate that

basically lasted until 1750, 1720. [46:00] [unclear]. Took four

hundred years. Now, one...one of the things I learned from Herb

is that history moves, moves faster once we hit tech- modernity,

with technology and communications, and all the kinds of things

we have that make this modern. History itself moves faster. So,

four hundred years of movement between 200 and 550 or 200 and

600, may be equal to fifty years of movement in this age. Is

that...that’s one of the things I learned, and it makes a lot of


39

ly heh probably wasnsn’ttt so o happy about it,, ok

o have to redefine JuJuudaddaiiism. You know how lo

the TTTalalalmumumud,d,d, rrremememememembebeberrr [u[u[uncleleleararar].].].....whwhwhenenen was t

uncleeararar] thththeee BaBaBabylooonininiaan TTalmumumuddd wawawasss fififininn shed

hat, in aaa senennses ,,, was thtt e enenencyyyclclclopppedee ia of Ju

iooon, everererytytythihhingngng. ItII ’s’s’s nnnottt sssysysystetetemamamatititic, so we

f we thinnnk thhhannn bbbelelelieieief,ff bbbuuut thhah t’t’t’sss only bbbec

ticcc. But, aaattt 5555 0,0,0, yyououou’vvveee gogogot thththeee Judaismmm de

astededd untntntil 175550,00 1117272720.00 [[[464646:00] [unnnclclcleaeaear].

rs. Nowww, ononone.ee ..one ofofof ttthe things I lelelearned

tory moves,s,s, mmmovovoveese fffastter onnncecece wwweee hih t tech-

logy and communnnicicicatatatioioionsnsns, annnddd all the kinds

t make this modern History itself moves fa

sense. You know, it took the Babylonian Talmud [unclear] to get

to Palestine, a hell of a lot more of than it takes to get a

message that’s figured out in a university in New York to

Houston. And I learned that this week as I left a very important

part of my work in New York. I got here in Houston at twelve

o’clock, and I had it by fax machine about twenty five minutes

later. It’s an amazing thing. So I learned, yeah, history is

compressed [47:00]. So instead of a...[recording goes silent]

...generation together, and every city in this country, and we

hope it grows past the cities we’re in now. I better get these

young people together, and better get them thinking about the

why, or we’re gonna be in a heap of trouble...That’s the stakes

of what we’re now going to do for the rest of this session.

We’re gonna begin the ‘Why.’ And if we don’t come up with a good

Why, okay, or at least the beginnings of a Why, or at least the

discomfort of not having a Why yet, we are in very big trouble.

It’s not only going to happen here, but we’re talking about

[unclear], and the truth is this is a wonderful exercise for all

of the Jewish people to be doing here, and it’s probably the

exercise [48:00] that happened around Jochannan’s academy...and

it’s probably the exercise that happened in Maimonides’s


40

ann amazing thing. Sooo I llearned, yeah, hihist

[47:00]. So insteaddd ooofff a...[recording goes

on toogegegetht ererer,, ananand evvverereryy ciccity iiinnn thththisii cccouoo ntry

ws past ttthehh cccitii ieieies weee’r’’ e ininin nnowowow. III better g

e togetheheher,r,r, andndnd bbbetee teteterrr geeettt thththemmm ttthihihinking ab

ree gonna beee iiin a heheheapapap ooofff tttroooubblb eee....That’sss t

re now goinnng gg tott dddooo fofoforrr thththeee reeeststst of this ses

begigigin thththe ‘Why.’.. AAAndndnd iiifff wewewe don’t cccomomomeee up w

or at llleaeaeaststst the beginininnininings of a WWWhyyy,,, or at

of not havivivingngng aaa Whyhh y tet, weee aaarerere iiin very big

ly going to happppepepennn hehehererere, buuuttt we’re talking

and the truth is this is a wonderful exerci

discussion rooms with his students. It happened at all those

[37:00] important moments in history, and that’s one of the

moments we’re living in now.

So now let’s go to the ‘Why.’ Now how do you start, in

Judaism, with answering a question like Why? How do you start?

[voice from audience] Yeah, you ask another question. Well,

let’s say that we got to the bottom line question, how do we do

it? Well there, it seems to me there are two approaches to

answering a question like why. We can open up the law, right, or

we can say, “What do you think?” And we can make a big list and

argue about it. Right? What’s the problem with that approach?

[voice from audience] Ha, too much like [unclear]. What’s the

problem with that approach? [voice from audience]. I dunno,

maybe we can come up with a very nice list. I bet you we can

come up, maybe even with the...[49:00] well, we’ll see about the

other approach. We can come up with a list and I bet you most of

the people here would agree on, and which would be very powerful

and which would, we can send around and get people to talk about

it, it would really be very effective. What’s the problem with

doing that? [voices from audience] It’s...authority.

Okay...[voices from audience] Maybe instead of authority, let me

use the word legitimacy. In some sense, from what we understand


41

hatt we got to the bbototttott m m line question, hhow

ere, it seems to me ttthehhere are two approache

quessstititiononon lllikikike e e whwhwhy.y.y. WWWeee cannn opopopenenen uuup p p thththee law,

“Whaaattt dod yyyooou ttthinkkk?”?”?” Andnnd weee cannn mamm kekeke a big

it. Righhht?tt WWWhahh t’t’t’s thhheee probobobleemmm wiiithtt that ap

aaaudiencecece]]] HaHaHa,,, tototoooo mumumuchchch lllikikikeee [u[uuncncncleleear]. WWha

h that apppprrroaaachhh? [v[v[voioioicecece fffrrrommm aaaudididieeence]. III d

n cccome up wwwititith hh aaa veveveryryry nnniciciceee liiiststst. I bet yyyou

ybe eeeven nn with ttthehehe.. [[.[494949 0:0:00]0]0] well, wwwe’e’e’lllll see

ach. WeWee cccananan come up wwwititith a list aaanddd III bet y

here would dd agagagrerereeee on, anddd whwhwhicicichhh wowowould be ver

ould, we can seeendndnd aaarororoununund annnddd get people to

d really be very effective What’s the prob

about Judaism, it would be somewhat illegitimate, because it

starts here as opposed to starting where?

Attendee:

Well, [unclear], with the ideas that you would come up with

would be, what, what, what was in the Bible...

Irwin Kula:

Oh, okay.

Attendee:

The the why was answered thirty-five hundred years ago, we

just...

Irwin Kula:

Similar Whys, right? We have to rework the Whys. Good. So

what really you’re saying is, what we have to do [50:00] is

begin at the beginning in some sense, look at all the answers to

the Whys up to now, reinterpret some of those Whys, strike out

some of those Whys, recast some of those Whys, rework some of

those Whys, until we have the answers to the Whys that fit our

generation. Okay? So those- to make it continuous somehow with


42

ay.

e why wasasas aaannnswewewererered dd thththiririrtyyy-f-f-fivivive huhuhundndndred yeeary

r Whys,, rrrigigighthh ? We havavaveee to rework thhheee Whys.

you’re sayayayinining gg isii , hhwh tat we hahahaveveve ttto do [50:0

e beginning in sososomememe sssenenense, lololook at all the

to now reinterpret some of those Whys st

Moses at Sinai, we have to at least start by looking at the

answers that were given there. That’s why, what do we do most in

these sessions? We study texts. We don’t just bullshit around.

We- that’s what they do in synagogues, by the way, for the most

part, and some classes. They bullshit around. What do you

believe? [indistinct voice from crowd].

No. Jews decide what they believe based on an interaction

between themselves and their texts, whatever those texts are.

That text can be a Kaufman, that text can be Exodus, that text

can be [51:00] Kaplan, that text can be Maimonides. Doesn’t make

a difference what the text is, but an interaction with the

texts. So we’re gonna start with what is the classic formulation

of articles of faith, or principles, and that is Maimonides, if

you open your...your dogma article, there’s one thing that’s

great about this article- it’s a terrible article [audience

laughter], but there’s one thing that’s great about the

article...is that, it’s short, that’s a great thing, right,

especially post-Kaufman! I think, when I saw what Herb gave you,

okay, I had no chance of me getting you to read anything that

was like that. So I figured, I, I take it easy on ‘ em. But

here’s the funny thing about that article, the first page and a

half deals with proving one issue, what is that? That Judaism


43

ws ddecide what theey y bebebeliieve e based on an ini t

mselves and their ttexxxtstts, whatever those tex

an beee aaa KKKauauaufmfmfmananan,,, thththatatat tttexttt cacacannn bebebe EEExoxoxoddus, t

00] KKapapaplan,n,n, thahahat teeextxtxt canaan beee MMaM imimimonoo idididesee . Do

e what thhheee tetetextxx iiis, bbbutuu annn innteteteraaactcc ion with

e’re gonnnnnnaaa stststarararttt wiww ththth wwwhaaattt isisis ttthehehe ccclassicc f

oofo faithhh, orrr pppriiincncncipipipleleles,s,s, annnd thahahatt t is Maiiimo

ur....your dddogogogmamm aaartrtrticiciclelele, thththerrre’e’e’sss one thiining

thisiss artrtrticle- ititit’s’s’s aaa ttterererriiibbble artiiiclclcleee [aud

but theheererere’s’s’s one thingngng ttthat’s greaaat abababout th

s that, it’t’t’sss shshshoroo t,tt tthhhat’t’t’s a a a grgrgreaeaeat t thing, r

post-Kaufman! III ttthihihinknknk, whennn II saw what Herb

no chance of me getting you to read anythi

has? No dogma. The rest of the article deals with what? Dogmas

of Judaism. The guy, Menachem Kellner, I know Menachem

Kellner...he just couldn’t accept the fact that Judaism has

dogma, so he writes this whole article about dogma, prefacing it

[52:00] by saying Jews have no dogma. The article should have

been over after the first page. And he didn’t unpack Kreskas,

and he didn’t unpack Albo, and he didn’t unpack [unclear], that

he didn’t unpack, he didn’t unpack anybody, who all have dogmas,

in the notion of beliefs, intents, they are the basis to the

system.

Okay, let’s look at...in just a one sentence review, what

we said is Judaism does have dogma, that it’s the foundation of

any system of life. Any system of life has to say things about

God, has to say things about the world, has to say fundamental

things about man that you believe out of which emerges actions.

We said that struggle to articulate beliefs, basically happens

most when you can interact with society and the challenges of

society, and when there are fundamental, catastrophic [53:00]

events externally that happen to the Jewish people, forces us to

reevaluate, and finally we said, we’re in that age. And we’re in

that age in a very serious sense, ‘cause we maybe only have

fifty years...to being to rearticulate. By the way, if you ever


44

’t unu pack Albo, andnd hhheee dididn’t unpack [uncncle

npack, he didn’t unpaaackcck anybody, who all ha

on offf bbbelelelieieiefsfsfs,,, ininintetetentntnts,s,s, thehehey yy ararareee thththeee bbbasis

let’s looookkk atatat...i.i.in juuussst a ooonee sssennntett nce revi

Juuudaism dddoeoeoesss hahahaveveve dogogogmamama, thththatatat iiit’tt s the fooun

offf life. Annny syyystttememem ooofff lililifffe haaas tooo say thhhin

saaay thingsss aaabobb ututut ttthehehe wwworororldldld, hahahasss to say fun

t manann thahahat you bebebelililieveveveee ouououtt of whichhh eeemememerges

t strugggglglgleee tott articulululatatate beliefs, bbbasasasically

ou can inteteterararactctct wititithhh so iicietetety y y ananand d d the challe

d when there arrreee fufufundndndamamamentaaall,l, catastrophic

rnally that happen to the Jewish people fo

read [unclear] book called Sacred Survival, I think it’s on the

[unclear] reading list, Sacred Survival by Jonathan Woocher...in

which he talks about civil Judaism. And he says in that, that

civil Judaism is the kind of Judaism that’s emerging in Europe,

and he says when a civil Judaism be able to be transmitted to

the next generation, will be dependent on whether it can develop

a, a system of beliefs that they could articulate that underlies

civil Judaism. The whole last chapter, you must read the last

chapter in that book...the first, be sure, you have to read the

first chapter and the last chapter. Everything else in between

you know, intuitively. Okay, it’s a very important book to read.

[54:00]

Attendee:

...question on your comment that we’re at that age. Why

are, why are we in that age?

Irwin Kula:

Okay. We’re at, these are some of the reasons we’re in that

age. One, is that we have never lived in a society that is more

open than America, in the history of Jewish people. Would you

agree with that? Never in the history of the Jews have we lived


45

off beliefs that ththeyyy couould articulate ththat

sm. The whole last chchhaaapttet r, you must read t

that bobobookokok.......t.t.thehehe fffiririrststst, be sssururure,e,e, yyyououou hhhaave to

er annd dd tht eee lllaststst chaaaptptpteer. Everereryyty hihihingnn eeelsll e in

ntuitivelllyy.y OOOkakk y,y,y, it’sss a veveveryyy iiimppporoo tant boo

stionnn on nn your comomommemementntnt ttthahahatt we’re attt ttthahahat ag

e we ininn ttthahahattt age?

We’re at these are some of the reasons we’

in such an open society. So automatically, the challenge is to

articulate beliefs that distinguishes us from a non-Jew become

critical. Okay? So that’s one reason. The second is, we had

experienced in, the generation before us, not really our

generation, the two most significant events in Jewish history

since the destruction of the Second Temple, and that is the

Holocaust, which was as great a catastrophe, if not greater,

than the destruction of the Temple; and second, the

establishment of the State of Israel, which changes the

categories of Judaism. When was the last time we had a state?

Sev- sixty-odd, six, seventy, and even, listen, truth is even in

that...beginning of the 1st Century, [55:00] it’s not like we had

a great state. Okay? I mean, Rome was really running it. So we

haven’t had a state, and we haven’t had all the things that

power means and sovereignty means and... it’s changed the

categories of the way we think about Judaism. And if you don’t

believe that, why do we have Jews who don’t observe the Shabbat,

who don’t observe kashrut, who don’t observe any of the things

that have... and who don’t believe any of the things that Jews

have believed for the last 2000 years, but somehow, because they

work night after night for the State of Israel, we recognize as

good Jews and we recognize as people who have a Jewish, a strong


46

whiichc was as greatt a cacc tatastrophe, if nott gr

struction of the Temppplelle; and second, the

nt offf ttthehehe SSStatatatetete ooof ff IsIsIsrararael,,, whwhwhicicichhh chchchananangges th

of Juuudadadaism.m.m. Whehehen waaasss ttheee laststst timimime ee wewewe had a

odd, six,,, sevevvenee tytyty, annnd dd evenenen, lililistttenee , truth

nnnning of f f thththeee 111st CCCenee tututuryryry, [5[555:5::000000]] ititit’s nott l

tee. Okay??? III mmmeaaan, RRRomomomeee waaasss rrreaala lylyly runninggg i

a state, aaandndnd wee hahahaveveven’n’n’ttt hahahad alalallll the thiinings

and dd sovevevereignttty yy mememeananansss ananand.d.d... it’s chchchanananged

of the wawawayyy weww think aaabobobout Judaismmm. AnAnAnd if y

t, why do wwweee hahahavvev JJews hhwho dododon’n’n’ttt observe th

bserve kashrut,t wwwhohoho dddononon’t ooobsbsbserve any of th

and who don’t believe any of the things t

Jewish identity. It’s a very interesting phenomenon. It

indicates that there’s something happening in our era, there’s a

redefinition going on. The same kind of redefinition that

happened in the 1st Century.

So the stakes, I believe, are very high. Also, I mean,

here’s an example: why does it, what does a thing like the

Wexner Heritage Foundation happen? It only happens ‘cause we...

people who are making decisions to have this thing [56:00]

believe we’re in a very serious...we got some serious issues to

address, and the stakes are pretty high. So high, that we have

to do it in every city, we have to call and spend time and

incredible amounts of money...that’s how high the stakes. Not to

get you to raise money. We don’t ask you for one penny. Probably

the only foundation in the United States of America that doesn’t

ask its participants for money, Jewish foundation I mean. All we

want you to do is think about what? Ideas. We don’t even really

ask you to do anything. We didn’t demand that you pray

yesterday. We gave an opportunity for you to experience prayer.

Chose not to pray, we wouldn’t have thrown you out of the

program. We don’t demand that you keep kosher. We don’t demand

that you wear a yarmulke. We can’t dis- if you came to last-

yesterday without a yarmulke to prayer, no one would have said,


47

tagge e Foundation hapappeeen?nn IIt only happens ‘ca

are making decisions totto have this thing [56

re innn aaa vvverereryy y seseseriririououous.s.s.....we gggototot sssomomomee e seseserrious

d thee ssstakekekesss ararare prrretetettty hhigh.h.h. Sooo hihh ghghgh,,, that

every ciiitytt , weww hhhave ttto calalall ananand spspspend time

ammmounts ooofff mmmoneneneyyy..... thththatatat’sss hhhowowow hhhigigghh h the sttak

raaaise monnneyyy. Weee dddononon’t’t’t aaasksksk yooou fooor one pennnny

undddation innn ttthehh UUUnininiteteted dd StStStatatatesss ooofff Americaaa th

ticipippantststs for monononeyeyey, JeJeJe iwiwishshsh foundatttioioion n n I me

do is thththininink kk about whwhwhatatat? Ideas. WWWe dododon’t ev

do anythingngng. WeWeWe dididid ’’n’tt dddemaaandndnd ttthahahat t you pray

We gave an oppooortrtrtunununititity y y for yyoyou to experienc

o pray we wouldn’t have thrown you out of

I wouldn’t have said anything to you. Come without a

tallis...’cause what are we about? We’re about ideas...[57:00]

right? So that all these are indications, and I go up, I can

give you a list of thousands...all these are indications that

we’re living in some kind of different time.

Okay, so now, look at the dogma, look at the article on

dogma, on page...143. It’s good to, like I say, let’s, we’re

just gonna start with Maimonides. What time is it?

Attendee:

It’s twenty after ten.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, great...Okay. These are Maimonides thirteen

principles, okay, we’re starting with them, and...let’s go

through them, see what Maimonides meant by them, and I’ll have

to help you with that, and then see if we can put it on the

board as something that ought to be entertain in the list that,

by twelve o’clock, we will have created. Okay?

What’s the first one? [audience response] God exists. Okay.

[58:00] Always start with one of the most difficult ones, that


48

agee...143. It’s gooood d tott , like I say, let’t’s,

start with Maimonidddesss... WWhW at time is it?

wenty afttteree tttenee ...

greeeat...Okaaay.y.y. Thehehesesese aaarerere MMMaiaiaimooonininidddes thirtteteen

okayayy, wewewe’re stttararartititingngng wwwititith ttthem, annnd.d.d....let’

m, see whwhwhatatat Maimonidededesss meant by tttheeem,m,m, and I

with that,t,t, aaandndnd thehh n see ififf wwweee cacacan put it o

mething that ouuughghghttt tototo bbbe ennntetetertain in the l

’clock we will have created Okay?

God exists. What does Maimonides mean? [voice from audience] It

doesn’t say that.

Attendee:

...implicit in the word God is the...concept of an

omnipotent creator, who created time and the world and the

universe, and created us, and, uh...[unclear]

Irwin Kula:

Okay, how many people are comfortable with that? How many

people are comfortable with the notion that God exists? How many

people are ready to say, “I believe in God”? By the way, it,

Maimonides [unclear] [speaking Hebrew], ‘I believe in perfect

faith,’ although that wasn’t his language, that was later

language. I always say, but it says, “I believe in perfect faith

that...,” for me already the, after, anything after ‘that’ is

problematic, because to me the ‘perfect’ is the problem. Right?

[59:00] ‘I have perfect faith.’ Anyone here have perfect faith,

in anything? No, that’s one of the casualties of modernity, we

don’t have any perfect faith in anything. So we just, we can

write it, ‘I tentatively believe in...’ [audience laughs], and


49

nd crc eated us, and,d, uuuh.hh ...[unclear]

how mmmananany yy pepepeoooplelele areee cccoomfoffortabababllle wwwitii hhh thtt at?

comfortabbblell wwwitii hhh the nnnotiononon tthahahat GoGG d exists

reeeady tooo sasasayyy, “III bebb lililieveveve ininin GGGododd”?”?? BBBy the wa

[uuunclear]]] [[[spppeaaakiiingngng HHHebebebreeewww],,, ‘‘I‘ bbbeele ieve iiin

houuugh that wawawasnss ’t’t’t hhhisisis lllanananguguguagggee,e, that wasss la

alwawaays sssay, buttt ititit sssayayays,s,s, “““III believvveee ininn per

or me aaalrlrlreaeaeadydd the, afafafteteter, anythinnng afafafter ‘t

, because tttooo mememe thehh ‘‘‘pe ffrfeccct’t’t’ iiisss the proble

have perfect fafaaititith.h.h.’’’ AnAnAnyoneee hhhere have perfe

? No that’s one of the casualties of moder

I’m willing to, you know, stake some of my actions and some of

my life on.

So what do we say about ‘God exists’? Should we put it on

the board, and come back to it? Or do we want to strike it right

away? How many people comfortable with striking ‘God exists’

right away? Alright, we’re not ready to do that! [laughs]

Attendee:

This is basic, is it not? Or am I crazy, or what? This is

basic.

Irwin Kula:

Any responses?

Attendee:

[unclear]

Irwin Kula:

[unclear]

Attendee:


50

s basssicicic,,, isisis iiit t t nononot?t?t? OOOrrr am III cccrararazyzyy,,, ororor what?

sppoponses?

ar]

ar]

What is there if we don’t have God? Really? There’s got to

be something...

Attendee:

[unclear] higher moral authority...

Irwin Kula:

One person, one person!

Attendee:

You said [unclear] definition [1:00:00] of dogma there’s no

authoritatively...there’s no authority...well, if you don’t have

God as the ultimate authority, if you don’t believe God exists,

why believe anything about what happened at Sinai...

Irwin Kula:

Okay, so you’re making a case to believe that God exists?

Attendee:

Absolutely.

Irwin Kula:


51

rson, one person!

id [uncleeearaa ] dedd fififinitiiiooon [1:1:1:00:0:0:00] of dogma

veeely...thththererere’ee’sss nonono autututhohohoriiitytyty.......wwwelelll,l,, if yoou

ulltl imate auuuthhhorrrittty,y,y, iiifff yoyoyouuu dddonn’n ttt bbeb lieve Go

annnything aaaboboboutuu wwwhahahattt hahahappppppeneneneddd aaattt Sinai.....

so you’re mmmakakakinininggg a case tto bebebelililieveveve that God

Okay, so I- David’s making the case that God does exist.

Gary? [speaker distant from microphone] Okay, so for you then,

God as a moral authority, distinguishes a moral set of beliefs

from an immoral set of beliefs?

Attendee:

Without a God there’s no...

Irwin Kula:

There’s no what? Are atheists all immoral?

Attendee:

Some are and some aren’t.

Irwin Kula:

Some are and some aren’t. And some believers in God are and

aren’t either. Is there a necessary connection between God and

morality? [1:01:00]

Attendee:

Yes! Yes.

Irwin Kula:


52

t aa God there’s no.o...

s no whwhwhat??? AArA ee e atheeeisisistts aall iiimmmmorororalaa ???

ree and sooomeee aaareeen’t.t.t.

re anannd sososome aren’nn t. AAAndndnd somomme believvvererers in G

er. Is thththererereee a necessssssararary connectiiionnn bbbetween

1:01:00]

Is there?

Attendee:

It makes it not relative...I mean, our friend in

California, uh, who’s the expert on non-relative morality...he

said it’s relative to an age if you don’t go back to a belief in

God.

Irwin Kula:

Okay. Dennis Prager, who I think Joe is referring to,

Dennis Prager, makes an unbelievably articulate, and I could

never match him in this area, but an unbelievably articulate

argument that God as a moral base, without God as a moral base

you have [Hebrew], ‘everybody can do what they feel is right.’

What do we call that? Anarchy.

Attendee:

Didn’t I say that once before...[woman laughs]

Irwin Kula:

That’s because really deep down I am an anarchist. I

repress it all. But, so, a lot of us are uncomfortable without


53

Dennisss Pragagageeer,,, who III tthinink JoJoJoeee isisis refefeferee ring

er, makesss ann unuu bebebelievvvabaa ly aaartticiciculllataa e, and I

hhhim in ttthihihisss ararareaeaea,,, bububuttt annn uuunbnbnbelellieieevavavably arrti

attt God asss aaa mmmorrralll bbbasasase,ee wwwiiithhhouutu GGoodo as a mo

ebrrrew], ‘evvverererybyy ododody y y cacacannn dododo wwwhaaattt ttthey feelll is

calll thatatat? Anarchchchy.y.y

I say that onccceee bebebefofoforerere...[[[wwowoman laughs]

God...because God exists means God as moral [1:02:00] arbiter.

And that doesn’t mean that God says, “Do this!” or “Do that!”

But, in our understanding of God, we use that as an authority.

Okay? By the way, that was a really radical idea, right? In

Biblical times, God and morality was detached for most peoples.

Right? Think of the Noah story. The Noah story was, the Noah

story has its parallels in other cultures. One of the most

famous is called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which we’re gonna study

about these things during the, during the next few seminars.

But, the Epic of Gilgamesh says, you know why the world was

destroyed? Because people were making too much noise and

disturbing the gods. In Noah’s story, why are the people

destroyed? People are immoral. So the Jewish authors of the

Bible, or for those people who are not comfortable with that,

the Jewish Author, with a capital A, of the Bible – makes no

difference to me...[1:03:00] posited that this connection

between God and morality. It’s a very radical thing.

Okay, so we gonna put up ‘God exists.’ I guess I

need...unless, I would love to hear, does somebody have a strong

objection?

Attendee:


54

ts pap rallels in oththerrr culultures. One of ththe

alled the Epic of GGGilillgggamesh, which we’re go

thinnngsgsgs dddurururinining g g thththe,e,e, dddurururinggg thththeee nenenextxtxt fffeew sem

ic offf GGGilgagagammmeshshsh sayyys,s,s, youoou kkknononowww whwhwhy yy thththeee worl

Because pppeoee plplple ee wewewere mmmakaa inggg tooooo muuuchcc noise a

thhhe gods.s.s. IIInnn NoNoNoahahah’s ssstototoryyy,,, whwhwhy ararare the peeop

Peeople arrre immmmomooraaal.l.l. SSSooo thththeee JJJewwwishshsh authorsss o

or those peeeopopoplell wwwhohoho aaarerere nnnototot cccomomomfffortable wit

Authohoor, wwwith a cacacapipipitatatalll A,A,A, ooofff the Biiiblblbleee – ma

to me....[.[.[1:1:1:0300 :00] posososititited that thhhisss cconnect

and moralililitytyty.. ItII ’’’s a very yy rararadididicacacall thing.

so we gonna pututt uuuppp ‘G‘G‘Gododod exiiistststs.’ I guess I

ss I would love to hear does somebody hav

Well, I, not a strong objection...

Irwin Kula:

Oh, I’m not gonna tell you how to use both sides [audience

laughter]

Attendee:

...on the one hand. On the hand, about this morality issue,

every time when I talk about God existing, the morality issue

comes up that troubles me, because what is involved in the

morality issue, I’m never sure we’re referring to the dogma of

our beliefs or the way we should behave, or is a no-no to

everybody who’s not Jewish that that’s why they should behave a

certain way?

Irwin Kula:

Okay, so what you’re saying is there, in, even in all

beliefs, there are dangers when the beliefs are misunderstood.

The notion that God is the arbiter or ultimate ground for

morality can, if used improperly, wind up being very judgmental

[1:04:00] on other peoples who have different systems of

morality. Okay. And I, that, that’s a fair criticism, which


55

the one hand. On thhhe hahhand, about this moral

when III tatatalklklk aaaboboboututut GGGododod eeexistststinining,g,g, ttthehehe mmmooralit

at trrouououblbb eseses me,e,e, becccauauausse wwhattt iiis iiinvnn olololvevv d in

sue, I’m nenn vevever rr sususure wwwe’ee re rrrefferererriiingngng to the

ooor the wwwayayay wee e shshshouoo ldldld bbbehhhavavave,e,e, ooorrr isiss a no--no

hoo’o s not Jeeewiiishhh ttthahahattt thththatatat’’’s whhyh thhhey shouulu dy

?

so what yououou’r’r’re ee sass yiiing iiis ththhererere,e,e, iiin, even in

ere are dangersss wwwhehehennn thththe beeelililiefs are misund

that God is the arbiter or ultimate ground

means there are gonna have to be checks and balances within our

belief system.

Attendee:

I think [name?] question may be more specific...

Attendee:

I...you’re exactly right. Also, kind of the flip side of

survival religion versus the why be Jewish...

Irwin Kula:

Good, right, and these are, again, all...every time, it

seems like every time I’m talking to you, we always find the

what, what we call again the dialectic. We got one side but it’s

left to the extreme, you need a corrective. So I think that

that’s a very good point, a very good point. What we can say is

that all cultures do have senses of morality. In all cultures

murder is wrong, it’s just how you define murder. In all

cultures theft is wrong, it’s just how you define theft. So

there is some kind of ground of morality that transcends the

human mind, Prager would say. And that...fundamentally is that

God exists.


56

u’re exactly right. AAAlsllso, kind of the flip

ligiooonnn veveversrsrsususus ttthehehe wwwhyhyhy bbbe JeJeJewiwiwishshsh.......

riiight, ananandd d thttheseseseee araa e,e,e, aaagaaaininin,,, alalll.l.....every ti

evvvery timmme I’’’m taaalklklkinining gg tototo yooou,,, wwwe always fi

we call agaaaininin thehehe dddiaiaialelelectctcticicic. WeWeWe got one sid

extrtrreme,e,e, you neeeeeed d d aaa cococorrrececectttive. Sooo II ttthink

ry goododd pppoioiointnn , a veryryry gggood point. WWWhahahat we c

ltures do hhhavavave ee sess nses offf mooorararalililitytyty. In all c

rong, it’s juststt hhhowowow yyyououou defffininine murder. In a

eft is wrong it’s just how you define thef

Okay, so, any, any arguments? [1:05:00] I mean, I don’t

wanna, I don’t wanna put anything on the board that this group

doesn’t come to consensus about. Alright.

Attendee:

I can’t really [distant from microphone...] It seems to me

that even if you take a complete atheist viewpoint, if you still

accept the moral system, if you still understand the wisdom, the

behavioral patterns that are dictated by reading and

interpreting what the Torah is saying to you...

Irwin Kula:

Uh huh.

Attendee:

...you can still be a wonderful Jew. I mean...I’m not

saying that God does or doesn’t exist, I’m just saying that it’s

not necessarily the ultimate decision making factor.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, so you’re saying, let’s have two lists. Let’s have a

list of things that are necessary, right, you know necessary and


57

f yyouo take a compleletetee aththeist viewpoint,, if

moral system, if you stsstiiill understand the w

patteeernrnrnsss thththatatat aaarerere dddicicictatatated dd bybyby rrreaeaeadididingngng and

g whaaattt tht eee TToT rararah isss sssaayining tototo yououou....

.

can stititillllll bbbe a wonddderererfuff l Jew. I meaeaeann...I’m

God does ooorrr dododoeese n’’’tt exiiist,t,t, III’m’m’m jjjust saying

rily the ultimaaatetete dddecececisisision mmamaking factor.

sufficient. There are two different kinds of things. But let’s

have a list, let’s have a list of things that are absolutely

necessary, and let’s have another list of things that [1:06:00]

we strongly recommend. Okay? You can have a person who buys into

the whole system, who says, “well, this is a morality that rules

me, individually. It makes sense to me, individually. It seems

like what goodness is, to me, individually. And therefore, I am

going to adopt it.” And that person surely is a good Jew.

Attendee:

How can you be a good Jew if you don’t believe in the Ten

Commandments?

Irwin Kula:

No, he said, he’s saying just the opposite. He’s saying,

believe in the Ten Commandments, okay. It doesn’t say in the Ten

Commandment that God gave him, that that’s one of the things you

have to believe. Says, believe in all the actions, here, here’s

what he’s saying....I think this is what you’re saying, that you

have a human being who...is born Jewish, let’s say that way,

okay, who observes most of the rituals and, and ethical

practices of Judaism, and believes that they’re, that they’re


58

ooddnen ss is, to me,, ininndidd vividually. And thereref

opt it.” And that perrrssson surely is a good J

n you be aaa gogogoodoo JJJew iiifff youuu doon’n’n’t bebb lieve in

s???

saididd, hehehe’s sayinii g gg jujujuststst ttthehehe opposittte.e.e. HHHe’s

the Tennn CCComomommamm ndments,s,s, oookay. It doooesssn’n’n’t say

that Godd gggavavave ee hihh m, tthhhatt ththhatatat’s’s’s ooone of the

ieve. Says, belellieieieveveve iiinnn all thththe actions, her

aying I think this is what you’re saying

really valuable, and they move him individually, and he adopts

them because individually they sound right, they [1:07:00] may

even give him pleasure...But the person says, “listen, God...uh,

creation of man, we happen to be, we were a kind of people that

really worked hard, working out a system that would be for the

betterment of man, it came out of our own minds...And it’s a

good system...God? Don’t need God.” And that person would be,

what you’re saying, that person I think we would say

is...Jewish, and a good Jew. Maybe even a great Jew, maybe we

need more Jews like that. Is that, did I, fairly, did I do it?

Attendee:

Yeah...you keep running it through, you get to some real

intellectual abstract concepts, maybe that’s how you [unclear]

God exists, but...um...

Irwin Kula:

By the way, that’s not...so radical. Right? Mordecai Kaplan

said, “supernatural God? What are you talking about?! Come on,

guys, it’s time to grow up...” Okay, by the way, he was very

hard on people who studied at temple [1:08:00]. Most of the

peop-, he taught at the seminary forty years, most of the peop-


59

...GoG d? Don’t need d GoGood.dd ”” And that personn wo

saying, that person III ttht ink we would say

, anddd aaa gggooooooddd JeJeJew.w.w. MMMayayaybebebe eveveven nn aaa grgrgreaeaeattt JJew, m

ews likikike thththaata ... Is ttthahahatt, ddiddd III, fafafairii lylyly,,, did

.yyoyou keeppp rrrunnnniiinggg iiittt thththrooouuughhh, yooou get to so

l aaabstract cococoncnn epepptststs, mamamaybybybeee thhhatatat’’’s how yooou [

but.t....umumum...

way, that’s nooot.t.t......sososo rrradicccalalal. Right? Morde

rnatural God? What are you talking about?!

the, which is a conservative movement, and most of the people

who were in the seminary in the forty years that he taught came

out of Yeshiva. And I from what I hear, and I obviously never

studied with Mordecai Kaplan, what he would do in the first

three or four weeks of the class, would abuse anyone who

believed that God dictated the Torah. Abuse people! He would

call them, “you’re stupid!” And then he would reconstru- and in

the last half of this year he would reconstruct, reconstruction

there, he would reconstruct Jewish beliefs, based on the

understanding that all peoples have beliefs, that the beliefs

come from the internal dynamics of a people, or what he called

the civilization, that’s how civilization is created. They come

from the inside, there’s a people’s ethos, a people’s...they’re

the things that make us up as people. And that God is the power

within, that pushes towards goodness, that pushes towards

[1:09:00] perfection, that pushes towards development of

civilization. That is not, by the way, probably most Jews

believe a God kind of like that, shows the influence Kaplan’s

beliefs had. So...complete rejection of...that’s why they burned

his books, by the way. Lot of people didn’t like that idea!

Attendee:


60

“yoou’u re stupid!” AnAnd d ththt enen he would reconsnstr

lf of this year he wooouluuldd d reconstruct, recon

ould rererecococonsnsnstrtrtrucucucttt JeJeJewiwiwishshsh belelelieieiefsfsfs, bababasesesedd on t

ng thhhatatat allllll peoeoeoplesss hhhaaveee belililieeefs,s,s, thahahattt the

he internnnalaa dddynyy amamamics ofoo a pppeooplplple,, or what h

atttion, thththatatat’s’’s hhhowowow civivivilililizzzatatatioioion isiss cccreatedd.

siiide, theeereee’sss aaa pppeoeoeoplplple’e’e’s eeethhhosss, a people’’’s.

thaaat make uuusss upuu aaasss pepepeopopoplelele... Annnddd ttthat God is

t pususshesss towardddsss gogogoodododnenenessss,,, ttthat pussshehehesss towa

erfectitiiononon, thtt at pushehehesss towards deeeveeelololopment

n. That isss nononot,t,t, by thththe way,y,y, ppprororobababablb y most J

od kind of likekee ttthahahat,t,t, ssshowsss tthe influence K

So complete rejection of that’s why t

I, I have a problem. I know God, I mean I believe, I think,

that God exists. But he’s not always there. I mean, I don’t

understand the concept of the Holocaust where, you know, God

said, it’s a war, it’s what man did to man. You know? I think he

should have been there. I mean, I guess, I was disappointed in

God that he didn’t do something. I know half the people came out

saying their faith made them survive. I think I would have been

one of the ones coming out saying, you know, where was God when

we needed him?

Irwin Kula:

Good, very honest.

Attendee:

So, I have a problem with [1:10:00] his always being there.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, so you’re, you’re saying, if I can rephrase, that,

you’re not going to take, it’s not that you don’t say God

exists, is that you’re very troubled by God’s hiding, okay, what

Buber called – by the way, I’m using all these names, not to

show off at all, I’m using all these names because these are the


61

r ffaia th made them ssurrrvivv veve. I think I woululd

ones coming out sayininnggg, you know, where was

im?

veeery honeneneststst.

have a prprproblem wiww ththth [[1:1:1:101010:0:00000] his aaalwlwlwayayays be

so you’re, you’u’’rerere sssayayayinining, iiifff I can rephrase

going to take it’s not that you don’t say

people who struggled with beliefs, and it’s those struggles that

determine the kind of Jewish people we are. That’s what I’m

trying to get across; that’s only reason I’m using these names.

Martin Buber called that the eclipse of God. What’s an eclipse?

Hidden, right? Richard Rubenstein called it the death of God.

Mordecai Kaplan, who really could never deal with the issue of,

of the Holocaust, in a sense what he would say was, “hey listen,

guys, you know, there comes a point where God hides himself so

much...if God hides himself [1:11:00] 99.99999999 percent of the

time, you know that’s not such a big difference between that and

a hundred percent.” If he hides himself a hundred percent of the

time...for all practical purposes what? For all practical

purposes what? Don’t worry I [unclear]...Doesn’t exist. So, the

problem of evil has really been a serious problem. In the Bible

they have the problem of evil, too. What’s the book that deals

with the problem of evil? [audience response] Good, Job. Right?

So, this is not a new problem, the problem of evil, and it’s

really, it’s really agitated the Jewish people. So we’re saying

is...so, you’re saying a hiding a God, you’re saying a God

that’s a very different kind of God, a kind that maybe emerges

within you as opposed to a supernatural God. Then we have those

who say a supernatural God...


62

cauusts , in a sense wwhahaattt hehe would say was,, “h

now, there comes a poooiniintt t where God hides hi

od hiiidededesss hihihimsmsmselelelfff [1[1[1:1:1:11:1:1:00] 999999.9.9.99999999999999999999 perc

now tthahahat’t sss nnnott t suchhh aaa bigig dddifififffferererencnn eee bebb twee

ercent.” IfII hhhe ee hihihides hihh mselelelf aaa huuundnn red perc

allll practctcticicicalaal pppurururpopp sesesesss whhhatatat??? FoFoForrr alalall praccti

attt? Don’tt t wwow rrrryyy III [u[u[uncncncleleleararar].......Doooesssn’t exiisi t

eviiil has reeealalallyll bbbeeeeeennn aaa seseseriririouuusss ppproblem. In

he prprroblelelem of evivv l,l,l, tttoooooo. Whhhat’s theee bbbooooook th

oblem ooof ff evevevilii ? [audieieiencncnce responseee] GoGoGood, Jo

not a newww prprproboboblell m, tthhhe proooblblblememem ooof f evil, an

s really agitatattededed ttthehehe JJJewissshhh people. So we’

u’re saying a hiding a God you’re saying a

Attendee:

What’s the different in what Ellen’s talking about and what

we [1:12:00] read in Genesis? Where God gives and takes away...I

mean that’s been going on...

Irwin Kula:

The hiding, and the presence, and the hiding, and the

presence? Okay…

Attendee:

I mean yesterday we talked about...

Irwin Kula:

Right, I think that that’s a fair reading of the text. Yitz

Greenburg, modern Jewish philosopher, completely agitated about

Jewish beliefs, what does he say? He says that God hides, not

God hides, God steps back, [Hebrew] is to, uh, contract. God can

keep stepping back, and as he steps back, we have more power,

right? Just like a parent continually steps back from his child

so his child can do what? Grow up. And a parent who does not

step back on a child, what do they do to that child? What?


63

ding, and the presenccceee, and the hiding, and

kay…

yyyesterdadadayyy wwwe tttalalalkekk d d d abababouuuttt.......

I ththhink k k that ttthahahat’t’t’sss aaa fafafairrr readinggg ooof f f the

modern JeJeJewiwiwishss philosososophphpher, compleeeteeelylyly agita

efs, what dddoeoeoesss hehh say?? HHe sssayayaysss thththat God hid

God steps back,k [[[HeHeHebrbrbrewewew] isss tto, uh, contrac

ng back and as he steps back we have more

Smother that child; that child becomes pathological. So

[01:13:00] [distortion, recording skips]...God continuously

steps back.

Now why is Yitz criticized so vehemently by so many people?

Because take that to its logical conclusion. If I keep stepping

back, where am I gonna wind up? Out. That’s, that’s why he’s

considered by some people a heretic. ‘Cause the logical

conclusion of the statement is that God, first of all like all

parents, what happens to all parents, no matter what? They die.

So the logical conclusion of Yitz’s statement, and he fights

this, but his logical conclusion, he just has to live with it,

is that God dies. And ultimately we become mature, fully

responsible, powerful human beings, with infinite dignity and

infinite...value, and recognize that about each other.

Attendee:

The problem I have in terms of the issue of a God

intervening in history is that I’m, personally [1:14:00] feel

very bad and angry about the Holocaust, but I don’t feel angry

about my sense, about God. I’m angry at my parents’ generation

that they didn’t do everything they could have to have prevented


64

by sos me people a hehereeetitt c.c. ‘Cause the logigica

of the statement is ttthahhatt t God, first of all

at haaappppppenenensss tototo aaallllll ppparararenenents,,, nonono mmmatatatteteterrr wwhat?

cal cconononclc usususiiionn n of YYYitititzz’ss statatateeemenenent,tt aaandnn he

is logicaaalll cococoncnn lululusionnn,, he jjjusttt haaasss to live

dddies. AnAnAndd d uluultititimamamatett lylyly wwwe bebebecococomeee mmmatatature, fful

, ppowerfuuul huuumamaan bebebeininingsgsgs,, wwwittth infnfnfiiinite diiign

valllue, and rererecocc gngngnizizizeee thththatatat aaaboooututut each othheher.

oblem I hhavavaveee ininin terms offf ththheee isisissususue of a God

in history is thththatatat III’m’m’m, pepeerrsrsonally [1:14:0

d angry about the Holocaust but I don’t fe

it, or mitigated it, from happening. I don’t, in terms of my

worldview, I didn’t expect...

Irwin Kula:

...God to...

Attendee:

...that God would have blown up the railroad tracks to

Auschwitz. In my opinion, men were capable of blowing up the

tracks to Auschwitz, and unfortunately, they didn’t!

Irwin Kula:

Okay, great. So in other words, God...the Holocaust is not

a theological problem for you at all. [Attendee responds: No!]

It’s a man problem.

Attendee:

Yeah, it’s a hundred percent a man problem.

Irwin Kula:

Good. By the way, that’s a, that’s a very powerful

response. Right? I mean that’s what [1:15:00] Eliezer Berkowitz


65

t God would have blowwwnnn up the railroad trac

In myyy ooopipipinininiononon,,, mememen nn wewewererere capapapababablelele ooof ff blblbloowing

uschwwwitititz, aaannnd uuunforrrtututunnatettely,,, tttheyeyey didididn’nn t!

grrreat. Sooo iiin otttheeerr r wowowordrdrds,s,s, Goood.....t.t.thheh Holocccau

al problem fofofor rr yoyoyou uu atatat aaallllll... [AtAtAttetetendee ressspon

problbllem...

it’s a hundred d pepepercrcrcenenenttt a maaannn problem.

says, and a lot of theologians say, “listen, an earthquake is a

far more problematic issue for God than the Holocaust.”

Attendee:

But if God was there at other times. You know, I mean, he

was there in Sodom, and Noah...You know, why did he choose this

time not to be there? I mean, when we’ve needed him the most?

Irwin Kula:

And that’s the theological problem. You’re seeing all these

debates about God, it’s great.

Attendee:

But he wasn’t there at the time of the Inquisition! I mean,

let’s look at some history!

Irwin Kula:

Good. So you’re saying that that kind of, that kind of God

response within history directly, for you ended when? Look at

history, history is very important. Ended when? [audience

murmurs] Good. Think about, you wrote a track record...it

stopped when? Well you already said Inquisition, so, so it


66

bee there? I mean,, whwhhenee wwe’ve needed him m th

at’s thththe thththeeeololologicaaalll pprobooblem.m.m. Yououou’r’’ eee sess eing

ut God, iiit’tt s grgg eaeaeat.

waaasn’t theeererere attt thththeee tititimememe ooof thththeee Inquisiititio

at sooome hhhistory!!!

So you’re sayininnggg thththatatat ttthat kikikind of, that ki

thin history directly for you ended when?

didn’t go past that. Before that? Okay...okay! The tradition

says, and I think that it’s a fair thing, with the end of

prophecy, God’s [1:16:00] active role in history or that kind of

changing history, the hand coming into the middle [Hebrew]. The

right hand, the outstretched arm, okay, coming into history and

splitting seas. That kind of...stopped.

Attendee:

Why?

Attendee:

Tied historically to prophecy and the destruction of the

First Temple...

Irwin Kula:

Prophecy, the destruction of the First Temple, literary

prophecy, talk about, you know the list, Amos, Isaiah, all those

prophets, the eighth, seventh, and sixth centuries, okay, both

post- and pre-. Both post, pre-destruction of the First Temple,

and post destruction of the Temple. Although they perceived God

destroying the Temple. In other words, they developed a theology

in which the enemy was the rod of God.


67

issstoricalalallylyly tttoo o prprpropoo hehehecycycy aaandndnd ttthehee dddessstructiion

e...

cy, thehee dddesesestrtt uction ooofff the First Teeempmpmple, li

alk about, yoyoyou uu knkk ow tthhhe lllisisst,t,t, AAAmomomos, Isaiah,

he eighth, seveeentntnth,h,h, aaandndnd sixxxththth centuries, ok

re- Both post pre-destruction of the Firs

Attendee:

So what caused him to change?

Irwin Kula:

You ask, you ask him, I mean I don’t know from God’s

perspective. But, what do you think?

Attendee:

I don’t know...[indistinct] [1:17:00]

Attendee:

He gave us the tools and said, “go for it.”

Irwin Kula:

He’s like a parent. Gives us the tools and said “go.”

Attendee:

You have different generations growing up, at some point he

needs to come back and reteach...

Irwin Kula:


68

. BButu , what do you u ththhinini k?k?

t knoow.w.w...[iiinnndisisistinccct]t]t] [1::17:0:0:0000]

e us the toooollls annndd d sasasaididid,, “““gooo ffof rrr iiit.”

ike a ppparararenenent.tt Gives uuusss the tools annnd d d said “

ve different generations growing up at som

Well, your child becomes 30, right, and screws up...it’s

very hard to come back and reteach, right?

Attendee:

It’s hard to let go.

Irwin Kula:

Yeah, I always wondered about that. If he’s a... By the

way, what we’re doing right now is debating the issue of God,

much like it’s been debated for 2000 years. We have some new

ideas, I mean Kaplan’s is a new idea, Yitz’s is a little bit of

a new idea.

Attendee:

Since we started this particular discussion, we’ve tried to

look at Maimonides’s thirteen principles, which one were we

gonna put on the board...I think the issue of the Holocaust

attacks most on number eleven, that God is, that God rewards the

righteous and punishes the wicked. So probably, for the sake of

moving it along [1:18:00], I’d like to propose that we set the

first four that are listed there [laughter].


69

I always wondered abobooutuut that. If he’s a...

e’re dododoinininggg riririghghghttt nononowww isisis debebebatatatinining g g thththeee iissue

t’s bbbeeeeeen dededebbbateteted fooorrr 220000 yeaeaears... WeWW hhhavaa e so

an Kaplannn’s iiiss aaa new idii ea,,, Yitztztz’sss is a litt

we ststtarteteted this pppararartititicucuculalalar dddiscussiiiononon, we’v

monidesss’s’s’s ttthihh rteen prprprinininciples, whhhiccchhh one we

n the boardrdrd...II.I thihihi kknk tthhhe iiissssssueueue ooof f the Holo

t on number eleleeveveven,n,n, ttthahahat Goooddd is, that God r

nd punishes the wicked So probably for th

Irwin Kula:

...so you’re ready to accept God exists, God is one, God is

incorporeal...I think everybody agrees, agrees, if we believe

God exists, God is incorporeal, that means that God doesn’t have

a body; that there’s not an old man sitting with a beard, with a

yarmulke and a tallis hanging out up there. And if God is

ontologically prior to the world, that all, all that...

Attendee:

What does ontologically mean?

Irwin Kula:

Ontologically means, from a being perspective. All that

means is that, is that God is before time. Okay, that nothing

created God, is what it means.

Attendee:

That God is first and then he created...

Irwin Kula:

Right, right. It’s just a fancy way of saying God preceded

every single thing, including time itself.


70

ly prp ior to the wororlddd,,, ththat all, all thatat..

oes oontntntolo ogogogiiicalalally mmmeaeaeann?

giiically mmmeaaansss, frrromomom aaa bebebeinining peeerssspeeective. Alg

at,, is thattt GGGodoo iiisss bebebefofoforerere tttimmmeee. Okay, thhahat

, is whatatat it meananans.s.

od is first andndd ttthehehennn hehehe creeeatatated...

Attendee:

It doesn’t say...

Irwin Kula:

That’s the creation.

Attendee:

But it doesn’t say that you have to take creation

literally, I mean is...

Irwin Kula:

Creation literally? What does that mean?

Attendee:

Meaning, we haven’t got to the point that whether or not

you accept that the Earth was created in six days...

Irwin Kula:

Oh no no no, Maimonides would say if you believe that

you’re a fool. So, even that was already in the twelve hundreds

[1:19:00]. No, all he said is, you have to believe is that God


71

doesssn’n’n’ttt sasasayy y thththatatat yyyououou hhhaveee tototo tttakakakee e crcrcreeation

I meaaannn is.......

onnn literaaalllly??? WWWhaaattt dododoeseses ttthhhattt mmmeaaan???

g, we hhhavavavenenen’t got tooo thththe point thhhattt wwhether

that the EaEaEartrtrthhh wwaw s creatteddd ininin sssixixix days...

precedes everything and God cause- and God somehow causes, what

ever ‘causes’ means. Okay, that’s very open. Let’s, so we just

wanna put one to four?

Attendee:

I’d like to give a reason why. I mean, the, the people...if

you look at existence today, and science today looks at

existence today and also how we got to here, the current non-

religious theory goes back to the Big Bang but nobody’s been

able to say what puts the Big Bang in force, so there are, the

scientists that reach the roots of belief in God by saying that

the Big Bang is a concept, something had to put that in force.

So, that’s why, before we get into the qualities of God, is he

merciful or not merciful...

Irwin Kula:

Oh, we’re not going to do that today.

Attendee:

Okay. Not even on number eleven?

Irwin Kula:


72

exxisi tence today, aandndd scicience today looksks a

oday and also how we gggott t to here, the curre

heoryyy gggoeoeoesss bababackckck tttooo thththeee Biggg BaBaBangngng bbbututut nnnoobody’

whatt ppputsss ttthee e Big BaBaBanng iin fofoforce,e,e, sooo thtt ere

that reaccchhh thththe ee rororoots ofoo belelelieefff innn God by sa

g is a cococoncncnceeept,t,t sssomoo etetethihihinggg hhhadadad tttooo pupuput thatt i

whhyhy, befoooreee wwwe geeettt ininintototo ttthhhe quuualililittties of Go

nooot mercifffululul.....

’re not goioioingngng tttooo dodd tthhhatt totoodadaday.y.y.

Yeah, I guess we’ll have to hear a little bit...

Attendee:

That’s why I think that the first four, the Holocaust

doesn’t challenge the first four.

Irwin Kula:

The same way it challenges number eleven? That’s fair. So,

should just put, what, could...[laughter] Do I hear a second?

[1:20:00]

Attendee:

A discussion.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, we’re gonna discuss that motion.

Attendee:

I want to go back to [unsure], which is whether or not...I

mean, if God exists, sure two, three, and four follow, but even

if you can’t accept number one, you can still accept the rest of

Jewish life, practice, and be part of the Jewish faith, without


73

me way it challenges nnnumber eleven? That’s

put, wwwhahahat,t,t, cccouououldldld.......[.[.[lalalaughththtererer]]] DoDoDo III hhheear a

usssion.

we’re gggonononnanana discuss ttthahahat motion.

to go back to [unsure] which is whether o

any particular, I mean you may have a problem, but you can do

it, and there’s no...

Irwin Kula:

What kind of problem?

Attendee:

Personally, when I say you have a problem with it,

obviously it’d cause you some anxiety, because it doesn’t seem

to fit in with a lot of the things you do or things you say,

it’s hard to say Baruch atah Adonai if you don’t know Adonai is

there. But …So, that is the problem, but I think that you can

still say Baruch atah Adonai, not everybody is sure Adonai is

there.

Irwin Kula:

Okay. Not being sure and believing that he’s not there are

two different things. One is doubt [1:21:00] and one is already

no doubt about not being there. So that’s imp-, that’s, right?

That’s a distinction.

Attendee:


74

ally, when I say you hahhave a problem with it

t’d cccauauausesese yyyououou sssomomomeee anananxixixiety,y,y, bbbecececauauausesese iiitt does

ith aaa lllot ooofff thththe thhhinininggs yyou dddooo ororor thihihingnn s yo

o say Barururuchhh aaataaah hh Adonononai iiifff yoyoyouuu dododon’t know

…SSSo, thatatat iiisss thththeee prpp oboboblelelem,,, bbbututut III ttthihihink thaat

arrruch ataaah Adddonnnaiii,,, nononottt evvveeeryyyboodo yyy iiis sure Ad

Not being sssururure ee anaa d dd bbbelililievininng g g thththatatat he’s not

nt things. One isisis dddouououbtbtbt [1:::212121:00] and one i

out not being there So that’s imp- that’s

Okay, I mean, you, sure. And, and, but I don’t think either

way, even if you’re sure he’s not there, you can still say it

for other reasons because, because you do it, because [unclear],

whatever it is, and you’re still part of it, you’re still part

of it, and it’s the part that [indistinct, noise in the

microphone]...

Irwin Kula:

Alright, let’s put one to four, we’ll call them the God

Principles; by the way, Albo did do exactly that, by the way. He

said that God, all of, Maimonides, he narrowed down Maimonides’

three, one two four were all one.

Attendee:

Wait, Irwin?

Irwin Kula:

Yeah.

Attendee:

For the same reason I raised the issue on number one,

number four becomes problematic.


75

t, leeet’t’t’sss pupuputtt onononeee tototo fffououour, wwwe’e’e’llllll cccalalallll tthem t

by tthehehe wayayay,, AlAlAlbo dddididid dooo exacacactttlyyy thtt atatat,,, by t

od, all ooof,ff MMMaiaa momomonideeesss, heee naarrrrrrowwwedee down Ma

twwwo four rr wewewerrre aaallllll onenene.

Irwininn?

Irwin Kula:

Number four is that...okay.

Attendee:

Because if, if, what we’re saying...

Irwin Kula:

Then we created God, is what you’re...

Attendee:

Well, yeah.

Irwin Kula:

Okay. So, one to four either...what did you say, there was

a good, there was good, what was the language you used? It was

[1:22:00] recommended, is that what you said, highly

recommended! Okay, it’s funny to put God in the highly

recommended. [laughter]. Okay, we’ll put God as highly

recommended. By the way, what we do have to recognize is that if

God falls into the highly recommended category as opposed to the

necessary category...it does necessitate heavy reinterpretation


76

e creeeatatatededed GGGododod,,, isisis wwwhahahattt you’u’u’rerere.....

yeeeah.

So, ooone ttto four eitititheheher.rr ..whhhat did yyyououou sssay,

re was gogogoododod,,, what wasasas ttthe languaggge yoyoyou used

ecommended,d,d, iiisss thtt att whhhatt yoyoyou u u sasasaididid, highly

! Okay, it’s fufuunnnnnnyyy tototo ppput GGGododod in the highly

[laughter] Okay we’ll put God as highly

of the tradition. Right? Because, it’s very nice to say that

because your Bubbe said Baruch atah Adonai you can say Baruch

atah Adonai, and that may work two generations, but I’m not sure

that will work eight generations. Okay? So there will come a

time where “highly recommended” necessitates very serious

revision in the system. That’s perfectly legitimate! I have no

problem with that. You know, we did sacrifices for a thousand

years, and then we woke up one day, the temple wasn’t there, we

had to say, “uh-oh!” and we [unclear] prayer, which is a pretty

radical substitute for sacrifice. So I have no problem with very

serious revision, but what we have to understand is that the

stakes are very high...[1:23:00]

Attendee:

Let me throw in a, a...

Irwin Kula:

Alright, so we’ll put a necessary one to four, too. We’ll

have two lists. Uh, one person.

Attendee:


77

h tthah t. You know, wwe didd d d sacrifices for a t

then we woke up one dddaaay, the temple wasn’t

“uh---ohohoh!”!”!” aaandndnd wwweee [u[u[uncncnclelelear] prprprayayayererer,,, whwhwhiich is

stituuutetete fororor sacacacrifiiicecece.. SoSo I hhhaaaveee nonn ppprorr blem

ision, buuuttt whwhwhataa wwwe haaavvve tooo unndedederssstatt nd is th

veeery highghgh...... [..[1:1:1 232323:0:: 0]0]0]

throroow ininin a, a...

t, so we’ll pututt aaa nnnecececesesessaryryy oone to four, to

sts Uh one person

A whole different concept of faith [unclear]...a

personalized kind of deal. Y’all mentioned a, the lack of

evidence [distant, hard to hear, Kula laughs]...uh, the

superstition, plague if you will, in our acceptance of one

through four...

Irwin Kula:

I don’t know, you have to answer that, I don’t know.

Attendee:

[unclear]

Irwin Kula:

No, I’m talking about...Rambam, there’s no superstition.

But he didn’t ask about Rambam, he asked about us. Okay? Rambam,

well, when you say logic, it’s not logical for Rambam. What

Rambam says is there are two kinds of truths. There are truths

that can be demonstrated logically, from premise to premise to

premise; and there are truths that one accepts from tradition.

Whenever there are truths that can be demonstrated logically

step by step, and they come in conflict with the tradition

[1:24:00], the tradition must be reinterpreted, because there’s


78

t know, you have to aaannnswer that, I don’t kn

ar]

m tttalking aaaboboboutuu ...RRRamamambababam,m,m, tttheeererere’’’s no supppers

’t asassk abababout Rambmbmbamamam, hehehe asksksked abouttt uuus.s.s. Oka

you sayyy lllogogogicii , it’s nnnototot logical ffforrr RRRambam.

is there aaarerere tttwwow kkkiiinddds off trtrtrutututhshshs. There ar

demonstrated lllogogogicicicalalallylyly, frrroomom premise to pr

d there are truths that one accepts from tr

no way that the tradition can be illogical from a step by step

perspective. There are, however, a whole set of things about

life that cannot be proved logically, or what we’ll call

demonstratively, step by step by step.

Once one doesn’t have those kind of proofs, there are other

ways in which once accepts truth. One, Rambam calls, is

authority or tradition. God as creator, Maimonides, there are

two, there were two basic approaches to God in Maimonides’ time.

One was that God created, and one was that God had nothing to do

with creation. God was just eternal, and there was no- the world

was eternal and there was no creation. That was the Aristotelian

view. What Maimonides showed was that it was impossible to prove

demonstrably, step by step, that the world was either eternal or

that the world was created. And so when he said since there’s no

philosophical proof, let us, for the sake of our tradition

[1:25:00] and for our system’s development, accept God’s

creation, as creator, because of all of the thing that it says.

Right? God as creator says that there’s purpose, that we’re not

an accident. Those are very fundamental values. Right? I mean,

how many people like to think that they’re an accident, as

opposed to purposeful? I happen to have been an accident

[audience laughs], so, I, I have worked out a whole theology on


79

r ttrar dition. God asas cccrerr atator, Maimonides,, th

were two basic approaaachcches to God in Maimoni

t Goddd cccrerereatatatededed,,, ananand dd onononeee wasss thththatatat GGGododod hhhaad not

on. GGGododod wasasas jususust etttererernnal,l, andndnd thehehererr wwwasaa no-

and therrreee wawawass nonono creeeaaation.n.n. Thahahat waww s the Ar

Maaaimonidededesss shsshowowowededed wasasas ttthaaattt ititit wwwasasas iiimpossiibl

y, step bbby sttteppp, thththatatat ttthehehe wooorlldl waaas eitheeer

rlddd was creeeatatatedee . AnAnAnddd sososo wwwhehehen hehehe said sinnnce

al prprroof,f,f, let us,ss fffororor ttthehehe sssake of ououourr tttradir

nd for ououourrr sssystem’s dededevevv lopment, acccccceept Godrrr

s creator, bebebecacacauusu e ffof allllll ooof f f thththeee thing that

as creator saysss ttthahahattt thththere’sss purpose, that

Those are very fundamental values Right?

accidents. I feel it’s really great...it is really great to have

been conceived in a moment of passion, rather than preplanned

package, but...I guess for the world, that’s not such a great

theology. For me, it kind of makes me smile. But my daughter was

planned, so she’s not going to be able to say that. But...what’s

more comfortable? That the world is just, it’s been here, and

that’s the way it is; or that there’s a purpose behind the whole

thing? What do you think’s been the driving force in

Jewish...[unclear] Purpose, right?

What, I mean...Everything’s been purpose. [1:26:00] The

most assimilated Jew who says, “But I’m Jewish,” is saying, “But

there....there’s some purpose!” That’s really what, I think,

Maimonides was saying. You know what’s very interesting about

Maimonides is what he says, if you can’t prove it, you’re

allowed to have other truths that you accept for different

reasons, but if you can prove it according to the canons, the

philosophical rules of the time, it must be parallel to what the

tradition says, and you’re forced to reinterpret the tradition,

which is why the whole first part of the Guide for the

Perplexed, he deals with language. All the language in the Bible

is problematic. Give me one sentence in the Bible that’s

problematic to you understood literally, according to the canons


80

wayy it is; or thatt ththheree e’e’s a purpose behihind

do you think’s been thtthe driving force in

ncleaaar]r]r] PPPurururpopoposesese,,, riririghghght?t?t?

I meananan.....EEEveveveryyyttht ing’g’g’sss beeeeen pppurururpooosesese. [1[1[1:26:0

lated Jewww whohoho sayayays, “““BuBB t I’I’I’m JeJeJewiiishss ,” is sa

errre’s somomomeee pppurprprpososose!ee ” ThThThattt’s’s’s rrreaaallllly y y what, I

waaas sayinnng... YYYouuu kkknononowww whwhwhatatat’’’s veeeryyy iiinterestttin

is what he sasasaysyy , ififif yyyououou ccananan’ttt ppprrrove it, you

have otheheher truttthshshs ttthahahattt yoyoyouu accept fffororor dddiffe

t if yoyoou uu cacacannn prove iiittt acaa cording ttto ttthhhe cano

al rules ofofof ttthehehe timii e, iiitt muuuststst bbbeee parallel t

ays, and you’reee ffforororcececed d d to rrreieieinterpret the t

y the whole first part of the Guide for the

of the logic of our time, let alone Maimonides’s. You gave one:

God created the world in...? Six days. Right. A lot of people

believe that, and Maimonides, a lot more people believed it

around his- said you’re stupid if you believe that. By the way,

he was [unclear] abusive teachers; [1:27:00] probably one of the

great abusive teachers in the history of Judaism. I mean

regularly, on every page of the Guide, he calls people ignorant,

and he had the most wrath for those who are religious, quotation

marks. He hated the religious of his time, because they accepted

a lot of things based on traditions as opposed to based on

philosophical proofs, and a structured, ordered, way of

believing. And he couldn’t stand them. He called them the people

who are outside the castle walking backwards, and inside the

castle was God. Can you imagine walking backward- by the way,

you know who he said that, those were the people who only

studied Talmud. I think he would die if he lived in Jerusalem

today.

Okay, so, for Maimonides, and this gets back to, this

really gets back to your point, not superstition at all.

Superstition is, that’s, that’s for the ignorant fools. We’re

leadership [1:28:00], we’re not ignorant fools. So, I don’t know

how much is superstition. What I do know is that...Maimonides


81

on eve ery page of ththe GuGuG idide, he calls peopople

the most wrath for ththhooose who are religious,

ated thththeee rererelililigigigiououousss ofofof hhhis tttimimime,e,e, bbbecececauauausse the

ings bababaseddd ooon tttradiiitititioonss as ooopppposososedee tttooo base

al proofsss,,, ananand dd aaa struuucccturededed, ororordeeererr d, way o

Annnd he cococoulululdnddn’ttt ssstatt ndndnd tttheeemm.m HHHe cacacallllled theem

siiide the caaastttleee wwwalalalkikikingngng bbbaaackkkwaaardsdsds,,, and innnsi

Goddd. Can yooouuu imii agagagininineee wawawalklklkinining bababaccckward- bbyby t

o he saididid that, thohohosesese wwwerereree ttthe peoppplelele wwwho o

mud. I thththininink kk he wouldldld dddie if he lllivvvededed in Je

so, for Maimoniniidededes,s,s, aaandndnd thiiisss gets back to,

back to your point not superstition at al

posited God because there had to be purpose in the world, there

had to be direction in the world.

Attendee:

So why is it necessary...[unclear]

Irwin Kula:

Why is it what?

Attendee:

Why is it not necessary to believe in God?

Kula

Well, I, I don’t know, she, she wasn’t comfortable with

putting it down as necessary. And because plenty of people in

the world...

Attendee:

...people in the world who do not come forward and say, “I

believe in God,” and yet fully participate in this century’s

activity of Jewish participation...


82

it what?

it not nnnecee esesssas ryryry to bebb lieveveve ininin GGGodoo ?

I, I don’t knknknowoo , shshsheee, ssshehehe wwwasssn’n’n’ttt comforttatabl

down n as nnnecessaryryry. AnAnAnd dd bebebecacacause plennntytyty ooof pe

.

ple in the world who do not come forward an

Irwin Kula:

Fully participate, is that what you said?

Attendee:

Fully participate. I’m not, I’m not even talking about

the...

Irwin Kula:

She’s making a sociological observation of the Jewish

people. And we’re trying to create a list that the Jewish

peoples, that we can go out, this group in Houston can go out

and say, “listen, there are some fundamental beliefs that we

have to believe, that underpin the whole system! And if we don’t

start teaching them, and arguing about them, and [1:29:00]

looking at texts about them, the system’s gonna fall apart!” So,

she’s not ready to put that in the necessary...although maybe,

maybe, in that sense, we’re gonna have to talk about it in very

serious ways that should be under the necessary.

Attendee:

But I think...My guess is that no matter where you come out

on it...you can still participate. I mean, when the dialectic is


83

makinnnggg a a a sososociciciololologogogicicicalalal ooobsererervavavatititiononon ooofff tthe Je

we’reee tryiyiyinnng ttto crrreaeaeatte aa lisisisttt thththataa ttthehh Jew

at we cannn goo ouoo t,t,t, thiiisss grouououp ininin HHHouoo ston can

isssten, thththererereee ararareee soss mememe fffunnndadadamemementntntalalal bbbeliefss t

ieeve, thaaat unnndeeerpppininin ttthehehe wwwhhhollle syyysttet m! Anddd i

inggg them, aaandndnd argrgrguiuiuingngng aaaboboboututut ttthehehemmm, and [11:1:29

textstss abobobout themmm, ttthehehe sssysysystetetemmm’s gonnnnaaa fafafall a

eady tooo pppututut that in ttthehehe necessaryyy...a.a.althoug

hat sense, wewewe’r’rreee gonna hhhaveee tttooo tatatalkl about i

s that should bbbeee ununundedederrr the nnenecessary.

all done, you’re still gonna be able to participate without

making that leap of faith to “God is this,” in whatever form, be

it active in history, be it passive in history, be it through

humans, be it humans determining what direction we’re going by

ourselves without God telling us. I mean, you may come back and

redefine it in places, it may end up as commandments when it’s

all done. But, to start with that as the premise, you turn off,

I don’t know if it’s 20% or 80%, but it turns away a whole lot

of people who can be actively involved in this thing called

being Jewish.

Irwin Kula:

Okay, I think that, what I’d like to do is this [1:30:00].

I’m gonna try to get, I always like to create the consensus. I

think what we can do is this. It is...I’m gonna cross out highly

recommended, that’s too complicated anyhow. What I’m gonna do,

is I’m gonna put one to four necessary, but...but what I’m gonna

put is “redefinition,” “reinterpretation,” “...of God.” If on

the agenda for leadership of the American Jewish community, and

leadership of Jews, what’s necessary is some redefinition,

reinterpretation, reevaluation, of God’s role in the whole


84

ut, to start with tthahaattt asas the premise, yoyou

w if it’s 20% or 80%%, bbut it turns away a w

ho caaannn bebebe aaactctctivivivelelely yy inininvovovolvededed iiinnn thththisisis ttthhing c

h.

I think ttthaaat,,, wwwhaaattt I’I’I’d dd lililikkke tooo dododo is thisss [

ry to get, III alaa wawawaysysy lllikikikeee tototo cccrerereaaate the cccons

we cacaan dododo is thhhisisis. ItItIt iiiss......III’m gonnnnaaa crcrcross

, that’t’’sss tototoooo complicacacateteted anyhow. Whhhatatat I’m g

a put one tttooo fofofouuru necessaryryry,,, bububut.t.t...but what

efinition,” “reeeinininteteterprprprereretatiiioonon,” “...of God.

for leadership of the American Jewish commu

scheme of things. That, I think, is what UJA is doing by giving

you a half hour of covenant. Gary, you...?

Attendee:

I just want to say, one to four are the anchors to

everything, but without...

Irwin Kula:

But that’s, I’ll just, so you know...[1:31:00]

Attendee:

Now it’s not that [unclear] It’s all...I agree with Prager,

what’s good for you is good for you, what’s good for me is good

for me, there’s no reason for future generations to go along and

follow the Commandments, because there’s nothing to tie them.

[unclear; distant from microphone]...but, you know, the majority

of cultures...[unclear] Christian do the same thing, and is

still a good person. Absolutely true. There’s got to be an

anchor to everything and that’s what that is and that’s why if

it’s necessary to let that go, then we’re gonna let everything

else go with it.


85

at’s, III’l’l’llll jujujuststst,,, sososo yyyououou knononow.w.w.....[111:3:3:31:1:1:000]

’sss not thththatatat [[unununclclcleaee r]r]r] IIIt’sss alalalll.....III agree wi

ffof r you isss gggooood fofoforrr yoyoyou,u,u, whhhatt’t sss gggood forrr m

re’’’s no reaaasososon nn fofofor rr fufufutututurerere gggennnerereraaations tooo go

Commamaandmemements, bbbecececauauausesese ttthehehererere’’’s nothiiingngng ttto ti

istant frfrfromomom microphononone]e]e ...but, yooou knknknow, th

...[uncleararar]]] ChChChrirr sttiiian dddo ttthehehe sssamamame thing, a

d person. Absolollutututelelelyyy trtrtrue. ThThThere’s got to b

verything and that’s what that is and that’

Irwin Kula:

Okay. We have two [unclear]...We’re gonna move on. We have

two different opinions. They really, what makes them similar is

that, what you wanna do is say God may well be the anchor but if

we talk about that right now without really understanding

people’s values and grappling with redefinitions and all that,

we are gonna turn off a lot of people, and recognizing that

we’ll end up excluding a lot of people who aren’t good Jews.

Okay, so what I’m calling for [1:32:00] is a serious commitment

to begin to talk about this belief. ‘Cause there’s a lot to talk

about. Last comment on this then we’ll move on.

Attendee:

I don’t necessarily [unclear]. I mean I am more comfortable

with saying, teach ‘em um, what exists already, not each

generation reinterprets, um, you know, you say...[unclear]

Irwin Kula:

No, no, I didn’t say that...But Maimonides’s God was

different from Rabbi Akiva’s God, wasn’t it?

Attendee:


86

a tturu n off a lot ofof pppeoee plple, and recognizizing

p excluding a lot off pppeople who aren’t good

at I’m m m cacacallllllinining g g fofofor rr [1[1[1:3:3:32:000000]]] isisis aaa ssserereriious c

talkkk aaabobb ututut thihihis beeelililieef. ‘Cauauause ttthehh rerere’s a l

comment onoo ttthihh sss thennn we’llllll mmmovovove onoo .

t nnnecessariiilylyly [unununclclcleaeaear]r]r]. III meeeananan I am morrre c

, teaaach ‘‘‘em um, whahahattt exexexiisistststs alreadydyy,,, nononot ea

reinterrrprprpretetets,ss um, yououou kkknow, you sssayyy.....[uncl

I didn’t say that But Maimonides’s God

I don’t know.

Irwin Kula:

Take a guess.

Attendee:

What did you say?

Irwin Kula:

Maimonides’s God was very different. Surely Maimonides’s

God was very different than Moses’s God.

Attendee:

Different in what respects? [unclear]

Irwin Kula:

No, that, creator...Omnipotence, omnipotence is not a given

in the Jewish tradition [1:33:00]. Kreska said God wasn’t

omnipotent, that God gave [unclear]...says that God’s not

omnipotent, God gave up one of his powers when he created man,

gave him freedom of will. So, see we gave one understanding of

God that’s kind of the supernatural, all powerful, all


87

id yoy u say?

ides’sss GoG ddd wwwasss veryyy dddiiffefferentntnt. SuSuSurerr lylyly Maimo

y differeeentnn ttthahh nnn Moseees’ss s GoGoGod.

enttt in whattt rrresee pepepectctcts?s?s? [[[unununclclcleaaar]r]r]

at, creatororor...OO.Ommnm ipii totence,, omomomnininipopopotet nce is n

sh tradition [111:3:3:33:3:3:000000].].]. Kreeeskskska said God was

that God gave [unclear] says that God’s

knowledgeable God, but there are a lot of different definitions

of God. That’s what...and I don’t mean to say that redefinition

means that it’s a brand new God! All I’m saying is that the

possibilities of understanding God are so unbelievably wide that

we’ve just begun to understand God. That’s all. I don’t mean to

say that it’s going to be a radically different God, or it’s not

the same God. It’s just...

Attendee:

You know what might be a better way of looking at it now,

it helps me with it...

Irwin Kula:

Okay.

Attendee:

God is God, and God is, is beyond our comprehension of pre-

destiny and what it’s all about. We may approach him in

different ways and maybe [unclear] between generations, but the

entity God has got to be transcendent [1:34:00]...

END OF AUDIO FILE [01:34:05]


88

d. ItI ’s just...

ow whatatat migigighhht bbbe a bebebetttereer wayayay offf loll okokokinii g at

with it.......

God, andd GGGododod iiis,ss iiis bbbeyondndnd oooururur cccomprehensi

what it’s alll abababououout.t.t. WWWe maaayyy approach him i

ays and maybe [unclear] between generations


89

Date post:	28-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trannguyet
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

C-7405 to C-7406 Transcriptions Kula, Irwin. Fantasy...

Documents