What do you think?
Rate this book
Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State
A biochemist by profession, a polymath by inclination and erudition, Yeshayahu Leibowitz has been, since the early 1940s, one of the most incisive and controversial critics of Israeli culture and politics. His direct involvement, compelling polemics, and trenchant criticism have established his steadfast significance for contemporary Israeli―and Jewish―intellectual life. These hard-hitting essays, his first to be published in English, cover the ground Leibowitz has marked out over time with moral rigor and political insight. He considers the essence and character of historical Judaism, the problems of contemporary Judaism and Jewishness, the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, the questions of statehood, religion, and politics in Israel, and the role of women. Together these essays constitute a comprehensive critique of Israeli society and politics and a probing diagnosis of the malaise that afflicts contemporary Jewish culture.
Leibowitz’s understanding of Jewish philosophy is acute, and he brings it to bear on current issues. He argues that the Law, Halakhah, is essential to Judaism, and shows how, at present, separation of religion from state would serve the interest of halakhic observance and foster esteem for religion. Leibowitz calls the religious justification of national issues “idolatry” and finds this phenomenon at the root of many of the annexationist moves made by the state of Israel. Long one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli occupation in the conquered territories, he gives eloquent voice to his ongoing concern over the debilitating moral effects of its policies and practices on Israel itself. This translation will bring to an English-speaking audience a much-needed, lucid perspective on the present and future state of Jewish culture.
Leibowitz’s understanding of Jewish philosophy is acute, and he brings it to bear on current issues. He argues that the Law, Halakhah, is essential to Judaism, and shows how, at present, separation of religion from state would serve the interest of halakhic observance and foster esteem for religion. Leibowitz calls the religious justification of national issues “idolatry” and finds this phenomenon at the root of many of the annexationist moves made by the state of Israel. Long one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli occupation in the conquered territories, he gives eloquent voice to his ongoing concern over the debilitating moral effects of its policies and practices on Israel itself. This translation will bring to an English-speaking audience a much-needed, lucid perspective on the present and future state of Jewish culture.
326 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1992
5 people are currently reading
260 people want to read
About the author
Yeshayahu Leibowitz
36 books16 followersWikipedia: Yeshayahu Leibowitz
Yeshayahu Leibowitz (Hebrew: ישעיהו ליבוביץ) was an Israeli Jewish public intellectual, professor of biochemistry, organic chemistry and neurophysiology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a polymath known for his outspoken opinions on Judaism, ethics, religion and politics.
שעיהו ליבוביץ היה מדען והוגה דעות. שימש עורך האנציקלופדיה העברית והיה פרופסור לביוכימיה, כימיה אורגנית ונוירופיזיולוגיה באוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים. נודע כמבקר חריף של ממשלות ישראל, וזכה לכינוי "נביא הזעם של החברה הישראלית".
ליבוביץ פרסם ספרים ומאמרים רבים, שבהם פירט את משנתו הפילוסופית, הדתית והפוליטית. בהגותו הפילוסופית ניכרים יסודות קאנטיאניים מובהקים; יסודות אלה ניכרים גם בגישתו של ליבוביץ לפילוסופיה של המדע, בעיקר בכך שהוא ראה את השיטה המדעית ככפויה על הכרת האדם, ובכך שהוא ראה חלקים ניכרים של ענפי הפסיכולוגיה כעומדים מחוץ לתחום המדע.[1] בהגותו הדתית גרס ליבוביץ כי עיקרה של היהדות הוא המצוות המעשיות, ולא האמונה. הוא התנגד בחריפות לתפיסה הדתית-לאומית, שקידשה ערכים כגון אדמה ולאום. מבחינה פוליטית זוהה ליבוביץ עם השמאל, וכמו כן תמך בהפרדת הדת מהמדינה.
ליבוביץ נודע בסגנון התבטאותו, ובכלל זה בהתבטאויות קיצוניות ופרובוקטיביות, כגון טענתו שבמדינת ישראל ישנם "יהודונאצים". עמדותיו עוררו עניין בקרב חוגים רחבים, גם בקרב מי שהתנגדו להן.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz (Hebrew: ישעיהו ליבוביץ) was an Israeli Jewish public intellectual, professor of biochemistry, organic chemistry and neurophysiology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a polymath known for his outspoken opinions on Judaism, ethics, religion and politics.
שעיהו ליבוביץ היה מדען והוגה דעות. שימש עורך האנציקלופדיה העברית והיה פרופסור לביוכימיה, כימיה אורגנית ונוירופיזיולוגיה באוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים. נודע כמבקר חריף של ממשלות ישראל, וזכה לכינוי "נביא הזעם של החברה הישראלית".
ליבוביץ פרסם ספרים ומאמרים רבים, שבהם פירט את משנתו הפילוסופית, הדתית והפוליטית. בהגותו הפילוסופית ניכרים יסודות קאנטיאניים מובהקים; יסודות אלה ניכרים גם בגישתו של ליבוביץ לפילוסופיה של המדע, בעיקר בכך שהוא ראה את השיטה המדעית ככפויה על הכרת האדם, ובכך שהוא ראה חלקים ניכרים של ענפי הפסיכולוגיה כעומדים מחוץ לתחום המדע.[1] בהגותו הדתית גרס ליבוביץ כי עיקרה של היהדות הוא המצוות המעשיות, ולא האמונה. הוא התנגד בחריפות לתפיסה הדתית-לאומית, שקידשה ערכים כגון אדמה ולאום. מבחינה פוליטית זוהה ליבוביץ עם השמאל, וכמו כן תמך בהפרדת הדת מהמדינה.
ליבוביץ נודע בסגנון התבטאותו, ובכלל זה בהתבטאויות קיצוניות ופרובוקטיביות, כגון טענתו שבמדינת ישראל ישנם "יהודונאצים". עמדותיו עוררו עניין בקרב חוגים רחבים, גם בקרב מי שהתנגדו להן.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 27, 2010
Boy, Leibowitz is interesting. he's some kind of strange mix between Soloveitchik and Maimonides. His ideas about the halacha as an end in itself, the ideas the journey of halachic life, lishma, for it's own sake, flies in the face of so much of Western spiritual culture. I do like, however, that like Maimonides, and unlike say, Berkowits, his philosophy of God is totally rational--we can say nothing, there is nothing to say, end of discussion. Kant proved there's no way to prove or disprove God's existance, so Leibowitz doesn't twist himself into a pretzel, like Berkowits does, trying to prove the authenticity of the revelatory Torah. For Berkowits, everything about Jewish life is based upon the validity and historical truth of the Sinai encounter. For Leibowitz, it's all about man-made halacha. So awesome.
September 13, 2014
Brilliant guy, serious religious thinker, no nonsense approach to the nature of religious belief and practice, and a useful corrective to those inclined to fetishize profane things (such as "land" and "people") for religious purposes ... While his criticisms of some Israeli policies are naive (IMHO), they are cogent and passionate and need respecting ....
April 12, 2023
When Leibowitz is right, he's really right.
When Leibowitz is wrong, he's really, really wrong.
When Leibowitz is wrong, he's really, really wrong.
December 23, 2019
Often referenced, rarely read, Leibowitz's is a lonely theology lacking the comfort and warmth of most religious doctrines. Medieval philosophers spoke of negative theology, in which one can only speak of what God is not, and in a way Leibowitz takes a similar route. Judaism to him is not almost everything it's perceived as, except for the practice of mitzvot for no end, joy or hope except the desire to serve an inscrutable God, an activity few can ever even fulfil.
Besides for this ideosyncratic religious philosophy, combining Maimonidean antimysticism with Kierkegaardian existentialism, Leibowitz is best known for his dovish political views related to the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Highly unpopular at the time, this stance seems ever more justified as time passes, and is itself derived partly from his religious conception which stressed the individual nature of faith over national-religious fusion and what he called the "idolatry" of land and soil.
This collection gathers fragments of essays and interviews from several decades, so one sees Leibowitz's views change over time - a cohesive, systematic outline would have been nice, but it's possible that Leibowitz's views, positioned as they were in fiery response to accepted truths, resist systematisation. His opinions tend towards absolutism, resisting any shades of grey. (An essay on how the religious must step up and define how a religious state should work is immediately followed by "a call for separation of religion and state"!) When asked if he wants a religious state (medinat halakha), he dodges. Figuring things out slowly over a period of historically unprecedented change is understandable, but at every stage he spoke with 100% conviction. He was a gadfly, fufilling a vital critical position, not suggesting solutions.
It's common today to hear religion defended on the grounds that it keeps people moral, or that it provides a community structure preventing loneliness, or that prayer and meditation improve mental health. For Leibowitz, none of these are religious reasons: religion in this case is instrumental, a means to provide other, human values. Religion to him can only make sense if practiced for its own sake, with no gain for the believer and even possible detriment - as exemplified by the cases of Abraham's sacrifice of his son or the book of Job (God's response to Job conveys the insignificance of man in the vast intricacy of the cosmos; at this scale, it is foolish to care much about any terrestrial problems). Even the prospect of divine reward in this world or the afterlife is to Leibowitz a crutch for doubters. True faith stands on its own as a loving, worshipful relationship between believer and God, structured by the complex, counterintuitive and often seemingly meaningless system of the halacha. This faith is not for any reason, or proven by anything; it is a first principle.
An illustration Leibowitz repeatedly goes back to is the first two sections of the Shema . The first commands one to love God, with no reason given or reward promised. This is lishma - for its own sake. The second promises rain and plentiful harvests if one serves God, or otherwise the reverse; a completely different religious orientation. This is shelo lishma, for ulterior motives - also valid but a lower level of service.
Ethics, Leibowitz writes, is inherently atheistic, and the great ethicists of the world (Socrates, Buddha, Kant) were atheists. Ethics asks what the good life is, for human needs, but for the religious person the good life is defined by God, and so comes from divine, not human values. But either living based on one's own needs (ethics) or on God's is better than living for the collective; this is nationalism, ethnocentrism, and fascism. Unfortunately, such ethnonationalism has taken over much of the religious community - this for Leibowitz is the travesty of religious Zionism. Seeing the individual as being about the nation or the land is idolatry and fascism. He took a savage joy in smashing the idols of his generation - Zionism, the kibbutzim, millenarianism, Jewish chauvinism. (He called himself a Zionist for a very simple reason, that he wanted to live in a state ruled by Jews, but did not believe it had any higher purpose or world historical significance.)
For the religious Jew, all that counts is keeping halacha, and everything else is a distraction, not lishmah. Wanting reward, a state, the Messiah, prosperity, all of these are different types of invalid shelo lishmas, a concession to the weak. The last few essays discuss his very early opposition to the Occupation, and a bit about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. He sees Christianity, unlike other faiths, as the polar opposite of Judaism, for only it claims to replace Judaism, making the continued existence of the Jewish communion a serious problem. Liberal Christians and liberal Jews are willing to overlook or change the tenets of their faith to overcome this, but he sees it as inauthentic.
My thoughts: I strongly identify with the danger of the state co-opting religion, with a Ministry of Religion and army rabbis which, as Ben Gurion told Leibowitz, allow the state to control and neuter religion as a social force. Equally bad for him is religion co-opting the state: it should be an independent forum for wrestling with Jewish ideas, not part of the state which comes cap in hand to Jews overseas.
Theologically, Leibowitz believed that Judaism is only for the few. But the many need something more to subsist on: It's hard to inspire Leibowitzian Jews to go to synagogue each morning. We may imagine Leibowitz as the bitter old man in synagogue who keeps going for his own psychological reasons but doesn't enjoy it, and won't inspire the youth to come (there were many such characters in my own childhood shul). People need something else. Whether Leibowitz is correct or not, his theology is precluded by design from mass appeal.
Besides for this ideosyncratic religious philosophy, combining Maimonidean antimysticism with Kierkegaardian existentialism, Leibowitz is best known for his dovish political views related to the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Highly unpopular at the time, this stance seems ever more justified as time passes, and is itself derived partly from his religious conception which stressed the individual nature of faith over national-religious fusion and what he called the "idolatry" of land and soil.
This collection gathers fragments of essays and interviews from several decades, so one sees Leibowitz's views change over time - a cohesive, systematic outline would have been nice, but it's possible that Leibowitz's views, positioned as they were in fiery response to accepted truths, resist systematisation. His opinions tend towards absolutism, resisting any shades of grey. (An essay on how the religious must step up and define how a religious state should work is immediately followed by "a call for separation of religion and state"!) When asked if he wants a religious state (medinat halakha), he dodges. Figuring things out slowly over a period of historically unprecedented change is understandable, but at every stage he spoke with 100% conviction. He was a gadfly, fufilling a vital critical position, not suggesting solutions.
It's common today to hear religion defended on the grounds that it keeps people moral, or that it provides a community structure preventing loneliness, or that prayer and meditation improve mental health. For Leibowitz, none of these are religious reasons: religion in this case is instrumental, a means to provide other, human values. Religion to him can only make sense if practiced for its own sake, with no gain for the believer and even possible detriment - as exemplified by the cases of Abraham's sacrifice of his son or the book of Job (God's response to Job conveys the insignificance of man in the vast intricacy of the cosmos; at this scale, it is foolish to care much about any terrestrial problems). Even the prospect of divine reward in this world or the afterlife is to Leibowitz a crutch for doubters. True faith stands on its own as a loving, worshipful relationship between believer and God, structured by the complex, counterintuitive and often seemingly meaningless system of the halacha. This faith is not for any reason, or proven by anything; it is a first principle.
An illustration Leibowitz repeatedly goes back to is the first two sections of the Shema . The first commands one to love God, with no reason given or reward promised. This is lishma - for its own sake. The second promises rain and plentiful harvests if one serves God, or otherwise the reverse; a completely different religious orientation. This is shelo lishma, for ulterior motives - also valid but a lower level of service.
Ethics, Leibowitz writes, is inherently atheistic, and the great ethicists of the world (Socrates, Buddha, Kant) were atheists. Ethics asks what the good life is, for human needs, but for the religious person the good life is defined by God, and so comes from divine, not human values. But either living based on one's own needs (ethics) or on God's is better than living for the collective; this is nationalism, ethnocentrism, and fascism. Unfortunately, such ethnonationalism has taken over much of the religious community - this for Leibowitz is the travesty of religious Zionism. Seeing the individual as being about the nation or the land is idolatry and fascism. He took a savage joy in smashing the idols of his generation - Zionism, the kibbutzim, millenarianism, Jewish chauvinism. (He called himself a Zionist for a very simple reason, that he wanted to live in a state ruled by Jews, but did not believe it had any higher purpose or world historical significance.)
For the religious Jew, all that counts is keeping halacha, and everything else is a distraction, not lishmah. Wanting reward, a state, the Messiah, prosperity, all of these are different types of invalid shelo lishmas, a concession to the weak. The last few essays discuss his very early opposition to the Occupation, and a bit about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. He sees Christianity, unlike other faiths, as the polar opposite of Judaism, for only it claims to replace Judaism, making the continued existence of the Jewish communion a serious problem. Liberal Christians and liberal Jews are willing to overlook or change the tenets of their faith to overcome this, but he sees it as inauthentic.
My thoughts: I strongly identify with the danger of the state co-opting religion, with a Ministry of Religion and army rabbis which, as Ben Gurion told Leibowitz, allow the state to control and neuter religion as a social force. Equally bad for him is religion co-opting the state: it should be an independent forum for wrestling with Jewish ideas, not part of the state which comes cap in hand to Jews overseas.
Theologically, Leibowitz believed that Judaism is only for the few. But the many need something more to subsist on: It's hard to inspire Leibowitzian Jews to go to synagogue each morning. We may imagine Leibowitz as the bitter old man in synagogue who keeps going for his own psychological reasons but doesn't enjoy it, and won't inspire the youth to come (there were many such characters in my own childhood shul). People need something else. Whether Leibowitz is correct or not, his theology is precluded by design from mass appeal.
June 27, 2020
Essential for all Jewish Zionists. Repetitious though this book is, as it is compiled from various speeches and articles from quite an extended period of time, nevertheless there are some core ideas which are extremely powerful, challenging and rarely heard since, on why Zionism is necessary; the problems of religious Zionism and church and state in Israel; the catastrophic compromises and hypocrisy of religious political parties; the inherent danger of Rav Kook's 'national holiness' and land itself taking precedence over Torah; and on Christianity's inherent anti-Judaism. This book contains cogently-argued arguments of which we all should all be aware. I don't think I can discuss these subjects again without referring to Leibowitz's views. Brilliant.
April 6, 2025
surprisingly, İ found myself a little bit disappointed with this book – his religious thought is, in my opinion, both more broadly and more particularly portrayed by the translations into french by Gérard Haddad. All in all, each section felt like it consisted of the same thesis in slightly different words each time, making it a rather repetitive read, especially if one has read other works of Leibowitz before. His political thought, though in parts rooted in frameworks that are, mildly put, a product of his time, are especially relevant today – in where his predictions came true, and in where they didn't.
February 15, 2025
Can't say I agree with all the arguments Leibowitz makes, but every Jew and every Zionist should read this book.
September 30, 2022
Extremely interesting book, which I loaned to a friend in the midst of reading and therefore have not completed every part of (probably 3/4 overall).
Leibowitz's distinction between man-centered and God-centered religion, call to recognition of the Jewish people's mission, and his repudiation of "interfaith dialogue" are welcome. (On the latter point, he writes that Jews and Christians, for instance, have plenty of space for dialogue, but possess none of the religious similarities many Jewish and Christian commentators imbue them with).
The rationalist approach to Judaism is not one I have adopted though; I'm just not sold on it. But these ideas, which are far less "heretical" than many suggest, are worth discussing.
Leibowitz's distinction between man-centered and God-centered religion, call to recognition of the Jewish people's mission, and his repudiation of "interfaith dialogue" are welcome. (On the latter point, he writes that Jews and Christians, for instance, have plenty of space for dialogue, but possess none of the religious similarities many Jewish and Christian commentators imbue them with).
The rationalist approach to Judaism is not one I have adopted though; I'm just not sold on it. But these ideas, which are far less "heretical" than many suggest, are worth discussing.
April 6, 2014
deeply interesting and thought provoking
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews