Basic Judaism By Patrick Aleph Basic Judaism by Milton Steinberg is a time capsule into the mind of Jewish Americans immediately following world war two. Written in 1947, Steinberg s book attempts to simplify the Jewish religion into "no less than seven strands [woven] together" including: "a doctrine concerning God, the universe and man; a morality for the individual and society; a regimen of rite, custom, and ceremony; a body of law; a sacred literature; institutions...and people" (pg. 3-4). Steinberg additionally breaks down the what- do- Jews- believe issue into traditionalist and modernist views (pg. 23). As someone ordained at Jewish theological seminary, Steinberg was privy to both the modern orthodox (sometimes called conservadox or traditional) understanding of biblical scholarship, while also a disciple of Mordechai Kaplan, founder of Reconstructionism. This is important to note, I believe, because in addition to the tension between his father's immigrant socialism and grandparents religious lifestyle, Steinberg was a melting pot of Jewish ideologies. This fluctuation is at the heart of his book, and I believe is the literary parent of To Life by Harold Kushner, who treated Judaism the exact same way. The problem with Basic Judaism, however, is that it presumes a normative set of beliefs about the nature of life and reality. In order to have a basic Judaism, there has to be basics on which all people can agree. This is not the case, neither in Steinberg s time nor today, but Steinberg needs that reassurance in order for Basic
Judaism to be logical. So Steinberg rides the fence between believing in his thesis and not. This is evidenced by the five pages Steinberg spends explaining how and why Jews do not have a central statement of belief or creed (pg. 31-36), yet goes on to explain that Jews believe that god exists (pg. 45) which a 2003 Harris poll shows is not true*, at least not today, and I suspect as secular Zionism and Jewish humanism were values Steinberg was exposed to, he knew just as well as anyone else. I cannot discredit Steinberg s attempts to explain what Judaism is, because it is an impossible task when viewed though the framework of scholarship, as well as the evolving, fluid definition of Jewish identity. But I would suggest that instead of trying to boil down Judaism into a set of basic intellectual or philosophical principals as Steinberg, Kaplan and Kushner contend, perhaps it would be better to view Judaism through the lenses of a different kind of context, which suits the tradition better. That series of lenses, I believe, are the lenses of fine art. Judaism is not a pursuit of the mind. At its best, Judaism is a testament to the creative, artistic spirit of a human family. Artistic expression is sometimes treated as anti- intellectual. Whatever an artist puts on a canvas or molds together with clay is seen as independent of rational faculty and creative people are often placed into an "other" category. Art does not follow rules, any more than artists seem to want to follow rules!
But in reality, art can be criticized. Great art, the art that stands the test of time, holds up in the court of creative opinion because it is able to work within a set of aesthetic principals. Art, while being profound in its ability to challenge our conceptions of the world, is also secretly mathematical, and dare I say, scientific. There are two broad artistic ideas (or umbrellas), each with subcategories of criteria for great art. The first of these is the elements of art, which includes texture, form, space, color, shape, tone and line. The second broad ideal is the principals of art, which involves movement, unity, harmony, variety, balance, contrast, proportion, and pattern. When this yin and yang of elements and principals work together, the unity is an aesthetically pleasing piece of art, whether it is the Mona Lisa or Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans. Steinberg's woven strands principal, to me, is like the elements of art. I would contend that God, Torah, community and others, which Steinberg mentioned, are not principals of the Jewish art of Judaism, but rather the elements that make up the Jewish experience. For Steinberg as a historian intellectual, elements and principals were essentially the same. For me as a creative, I see them as two separate areas. So what are the principals of Judaism, which Judaism alone contends with, both in the past and to this day? I believe, and Steinberg hints, that they are as follows: the tension between the desire for idolatry and the commandment of iconoclasm; Covenantal relationships (brit); and the belief that human beings have
the God- given right and religious authority to change religious laws based on prevailing social norms (Torah derech eretz). If it seems that I am missing several huge principals: monotheism, mitzvoth, Israel, and others, it is because these ideas are either not original to Judaism or that these principals have become a part of other faith traditions over time. A monotheistic god concept, for example, exists in the other Abrahamic faiths and Hinduism in a certain way. The connection of a people to a land is probably the oldest idea, since the beginning of our human religious practice is rooted in the nature worship of animism (see The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, 2009). The three Jewish principals of brit, iconoclastic tension and Torah derech eretz should be seen as the playing field in which the elements of Judaism (Steinberg s woven strands and perhaps many others) can play together harmoniously. Brit, for example, can be viewed as spiritually as the covenant between God and Jews, as humanistic as the covenant between individuals, or something as practical/intellectual as the covenantal principal of accepting the previous rulings on halachkic rulings (poskim). Iconoclastic tension is obvious from a Torah perspective (the story of the Golden Calf and King Hezekiah s reform against the Mosaic Nehushtan) but also can be viewed as the Jewish tendency to reject cultural false gods, which author Douglas Rushkoff argues is the heart of Jewish identity (see Nothing Sacred, 2004). Lastly, the ability for people to evolve their religious ideas is nothing astounding, but to have the belief that this is God
sanctioned is blasphemy to some. This mobility, in my opinion, is the root of Jewish innovation and perhaps liberal Judaism. Of course, this is all waxing poetic. At the end of the day, will Basic Judaism or my three- fold principals of Judaism draw anyone closer to the Divine? I am not sure.