Pt2 Selections from my recently published 'Know What Not to Answer: A Systematic Critique of Rabbi Aaron Lopiansky’s Lecture Series "Da Ma She-Tashiv" '

Excerpts discussing - Faith vs. Facts: Assessing Jewish Identity and the Rise of Modern Movements

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here.

As I wrote in Part 1, these are excerpts from my new 271-page, open access monograph: “Know What Not to Answer: A Systematic Critique of Rabbi Aaron Lopiansky’s Lecture Series ‘Da Ma She-Tashiv’ “.

Available at my Academia page ([free] registration required).

It's also attached there (in Part 1) as a freely accessible PDF.

In this part (Part 2), I quote excerpts discussing ‘Faith vs. Facts: Assessing Jewish Identity and the Rise of Modern Movements’.

Notably, Rabbi Lopiansky is a prominent voice defending the Israeli Charedi community’s low participation in the country’s economy and national defense, which gives his views on these matters disproportionate weight and relevance.

Outline

1. A Biased History of Modern Jewish Movements

2. Defining "True" Judaism by Narrow Theological Claims

3. Misapplying the Rambam on Christianity and Islam

4. Zionism's Birth: A Narrow View of History?

5. The Enlightenment's Impact: Beyond Rejecting Religion

6. What Makes Someone Jewish? Questioning a Single "Core"

7. Secular Zionism: One Idea or Many?

8. The Land's Allure: Divine or Historical?

9. Explaining Events: Faith-Based Stories vs. Historical Analysis

10. Secular Motivations: Flawed from the Start?

Excerpt from pp. 228-235:

A Biased History of Modern Jewish Movements

Rabbi Lopiansky presents a particular story about how Reform and Conservative Judaism started. He says that in the 17th-18th centuries, as the world became more "rational" and less "religious," Jews wanted to fit into society. Their traditional ways, like peyos and kapotas, made them look strange.

So, some Jews tried assimilation, just dropping everything Jewish. He claims this didn't work well because non-Jews didn't fully accept them, and because being Jewish was too deeply ingrained for many to just abandon.

As a "solution," he says, the Reform movement arose to change Judaism to make it fit in better, to be more "Christian-like" in structure. The Conservative movement, he says, came later, also wanting to adapt but trying to keep more tradition and Jewish flavor, though not strictly following all chumros (stringencies).

This historical account is simplified and presented from a specific viewpoint. While it is true that the Enlightenment and Emancipation brought huge changes and challenges for Jews, the reasons for the rise of Reform and Conservative Judaism were more complex than just wanting to "fit in" or look less strange.

Many early reformers were also driven by a desire to make Judaism more intellectually coherent with modern thought, to emphasize its ethical teachings, and to create forms of worship they found more inspiring. They were not just trying to shed external markers; they were engaged in a serious re-thinking of Jewish theology and practice.

Similarly, the Conservative movement emerged from a desire to balance tradition with change, believing that Judaism had always evolved. They sought a middle path, not just a less strict version of Orthodoxy or a more traditional version of Reform.

To say Reform tried to be "Christian-like" is a common criticism, but it overlooks the reformers' own stated intentions to revitalize Judaism according to what they saw as its core principles. And to describe Conservative Judaism as simply not pursuing chumros as much also misses the deeper theological and historical arguments that shaped its development.

This historical narrative serves to frame non-Orthodox movements as reactions driven by social pressure or a desire for convenience, rather than as legitimate intellectual and spiritual responses to modernity developed by Jews seeking to maintain a connection to their heritage.

Defining "True" Judaism by Narrow Theological Claims

Rabbi Lopiansky states that the key difference between "compatible" (i.e., Orthodox) forms of Judaism and others lies in accepting two core principles:

1. Belief in God in a "very real way" (as an infinite, willful, real being)

2. Belief in Torah min hashamayim (Torah from Heaven) which means that the Halachic structure as Orthodoxy understands it is binding.

If these are accepted, he says, then differences are within a "common structure" and can be debated. If not, then the ideology is "built on quicksand" and "means nothing."

This definition of what makes Judaism "true" or "real" is very specific and based on accepting particular theological propositions. It means that any Jewish group or individual who questions or reinterprets these specific beliefs is, by this definition, outside the pale of authentic religion.

From a historical and cultural perspective, Judaism has always included a wide range of beliefs and practices. Even within what is now called Orthodoxy, there have been diverse interpretations and debates throughout history. To reduce the legitimacy of Jewish expression to just these two points, interpreted in a very specific way, is to ignore this historical diversity.

When he says that without these beliefs, a movement like Conservative Judaism "means nothing" or is just "whatever congregations want it to be," he dismisses the possibility that these movements have their own coherent principles, values, and ways of understanding Jewish tradition and God. They may not define "Torah from Heaven" or "binding Halacha" in the same way, but that does not automatically mean their approaches are arbitrary or meaningless to those who follow them.

This argument sets up a situation where only one interpretation of core Jewish ideas is considered valid. It does not allow for the possibility that different Jewish groups can have different, yet still meaningful and internally consistent, understandings of God, Torah, and Jewish life. It is an argument from a position that has already decided what "truth" is, and then judges everyone else based on that pre-determined standard.

Misapplying the Rambam on Christianity and Islam

Towards the end of his talk, Rabbi Lopiansky brings up a passage from the Rambam (Maimonides), apparently from a censored part of Hilchos Melachim. In this passage, the Rambam supposedly says that God brought Christianity and Islam into the world to help "pave the way for Mashiach" by spreading ideas like a single God and laws from God to the wider world. Rabbi Lopiansky seems to use this to suggest that even though other movements (like Reform and Conservative) are "wrong," perhaps God is using them in some way, even if their ideas are not true.

However, he quickly pivots to say that his own job is to "say the emes" (the truth), which for him means pointing out that Reform and Conservative ideas are "wrong at the core essence." He then uses an analogy: if someone pushes you out a window but then holds onto your foot, you might be grateful they're holding your foot, but you shouldn't forget they pushed you out the window in the first place. The implication is that even if non-Orthodox movements do some good (like keeping some Jews connected), they are fundamentally flawed because they caused the "problem" (the deviation from Orthodoxy) to begin with.

This use of the Rambam is problematic. First, the Rambam was talking about two entirely different world religions, Christianity and Islam, not about different streams within Judaism. Applying his words about these global faiths to internal Jewish movements is a stretch and takes the Rambam's statement out of its original context.

Second, even if one accepts the Rambam's idea that God can work in mysterious ways through other faiths, Rabbi Lopiansky immediately undercuts any positive implication for non-Orthodox Judaism by returning to the idea that they are fundamentally "wrong" and that their existence is a problem they themselves created.

The analogy of being pushed out a window and then having one's foot held is particularly telling. It frames non-Orthodox movements not as genuine attempts by Jews to find meaning, but as agents that have harmed Judaism, and any good they do is only a partial mitigation of the harm they've supposedly caused.

This approach uses a classical Jewish source in a way that ultimately reinforces the speaker's initial position: that there is only one correct form of Judaism, and all others, while perhaps having some incidental positive effects from a divine perspective, are fundamentally in error and even damaging. It does not genuinely open the door to seeing value in other Jewish approaches on their own terms.

Zionism's Birth: A Narrow View of History?

Rabbi Lopiansky presents the rise of Zionism mainly as a reaction to European antisemitism and the failure of Jewish assimilation. He suggests that after pogroms dashed hopes for equality, Zionism emerged as an ideological solution.

From an objective historical viewpoint, this explanation is too limited. While antisemitism was certainly a major factor, the birth of Zionism was also deeply influenced by broader European trends. The 19th century was an age of nationalism. Many groups across Europe were seeking self-determination and forming nation-states. Jewish thinkers, observing these movements, began to consider similar national solutions for the Jewish people.

The decline of large empires like the Ottoman Empire also created new political possibilities in the Middle East. Focusing so heavily on antisemitism as the primary cause overlooks these significant historical currents that shaped Zionist thought. A full picture requires looking at both internal Jewish desires for a renewed national life and the external models of European nationalism.

The Enlightenment's Impact: Beyond Rejecting Religion

The lecture describes the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, as a period where religion was "cast off" and assimilation became the main goal. This is portrayed as a direct precursor to the crisis that Zionism later tried to solve.¹

This view of the Haskalah is a common simplification. The Haskalah was a diverse and complex movement. While some maskilim did move towards secularism or assimilation, many others aimed to modernize Jewish life and education within a religious framework. They sought to integrate Jews into broader society while retaining a distinct Jewish identity, often by reforming religious practice or emphasizing rational interpretations of Judaism.

To say religion was simply "cast off" by the entire movement doesn't capture the variety of opinions and goals present during that era. Many maskilim were trying to find a new balance, not a complete break.

What Makes Someone Jewish? Questioning a Single "Core"

A central point in the lecture is the critique of secular Zionism for supposedly defining Jewishness primarily through nationhood, with religion as a secondary aspect. Rabbi Lopiansky argues this is a "wrong core belief," comparing it to fundamental theological errors.

This argument rests on the assumption that there is a single, fixed "core" to Jewish identity that must be religious. From an evidence-based perspective, Jewish identity throughout history has been multifaceted. It has included ethnic, cultural, national, and religious components, often intertwined in complex ways. Different groups and individuals have emphasized different aspects at different times.

The idea that one element (religion, as defined by Orthodoxy) is the sole legitimate "core" is a theological assertion, not an objective historical or sociological observation. Secular Zionists, by emphasizing nationhood, were proposing one possible definition among others, reflecting the political ideas of their time. To label this a "wrong core belief" is to judge it by a pre-existing religious standard that secular Zionists did not necessarily accept.

Secular Zionism: One Idea or Many?

The lecture, while acknowledging some diversity, tends to present secular Zionism as having a unified (and, in its view, flawed) approach to Jewish identity where nationhood trumps religion.

Historically, secular Zionism was far from monolithic. It encompassed a wide range of ideologies. There were socialist Zionists who focused on creating a new society based on labor and equality. There were cultural Zionists, like Ahad Ha'am, who emphasized the revival of Hebrew language and culture as central to national renewal, with varying views on traditional religion. There were political Zionists focused primarily on achieving statehood.

To suggest they all shared one simple formula for the relationship between nationhood and religion is to reduce a complex spectrum of thought to a single point for easier critique. Many secular Zionists had nuanced, and sometimes conflicting, views on the role of religious tradition in the new national identity.

The Land's Allure: Divine or Historical?

Rabbi Lopiansky speaks of the deep emotional connection to Eretz Yisrael that resonated even with non-religious Jews and fueled early Zionist efforts. This connection is presented as a powerful, almost inherent, force.

While the historical and cultural connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel is undeniable and well-documented, attributing its "pull" to a mystical or divinely ordained quality goes beyond what can be established through evidence. From a secular standpoint, this deep attachment can be understood through centuries of religious teachings, prayers, cultural memory, and the historical narrative of origins and exile.

These elements, passed down through generations, created a powerful symbolic and emotional bond. Later, as national ideas grew, this existing bond was harnessed and reinterpreted in a national context. The allure is real, but its origins are likely found in human culture, history, and psychology, rather than a supernatural influence.

Explaining Events: Faith-Based Stories vs. Historical Analysis

The lecture mentions Rav Kook's idea of ikvesa d'meshicha, suggesting that even the actions of non-religious Zionists could be part of a divine plan leading to redemption. This is a theological way of making sense of historical events.

This approach is common in religious thought, but it's different from historical analysis. Historians look for human causes and effects, political motivations, economic factors, and social trends to explain why things happen. Attributing events to a hidden divine plan or seeing them as steps towards a prophesied redemption is a matter of faith. It's not something that can be proven or disproven with historical evidence.

While such interpretations can provide meaning for believers, they operate outside the framework of objective historical inquiry, which relies on testable claims and observable phenomena.

Secular Motivations: Flawed from the Start?

Throughout the discussion of secular Zionism, there's an underlying implication that any Jewish identity or movement not centered on traditional religious observance is inherently deficient or based on a "wrong" premise.

This perspective assumes that a religious framework is the only valid starting point for Jewish collective action or identity. However, secular motivations – such as the desire for physical safety, national self-determination, cultural revival, or social justice – are understandable human aspirations. People and groups act based on a variety of motivations, many of which are not religious.

To judge these motivations as inherently flawed simply because they are not rooted in a specific theological understanding is to apply a narrow, faith-based criterion to complex human and historical phenomena. From a secular viewpoint, these motivations are legitimate in their own right and can be analyzed based on their own merits and consequences.

1. E.B. added note, 12-May-25:

Notably, the 'Haskalah' (=Jewish Enlightenment) functions here, as it often does in yeshivish discourse, as something of a bogeyman.

In reality, the large-scale secularization of European Jewry in the late modern era was the primary phenomenon; the Haskalah—as well as Zionism, Yiddishism, and other secular movements—were secondary developments stemming from that broader trend.

See Wikipedia, “Haskalah“, section “Transitory phenomena“:

The term Haskalah became synonymous, among friends and foes alike and in much of early Jewish historiography, with the sweeping changes that engulfed Jewish society (mostly in Europe) from the late 18th century to the late 19th century.

It was depicted by its partisans, adversaries and historians like Heinrich Graetz as a major factor in those; Feiner noted that "every modern Jew was identified as a maskil and every change in traditional religious patterns was dubbed Haskalah".

Later research greatly narrowed the scope of the phenomenon and limited its importance: while Haskalah undoubtedly played a part, the contemporary historical consensus portrays it as much humbler.

Other transformation agents, from state-imposed schools to new economic opportunities, were demonstrated to have rivaled or overshadowed the movement completely in propelling such processes as acculturation, secularization, religious reform from moderate to extreme, adoption of native patriotism and so forth. In many regions the Haskalah had no effect at all.

A similar dynamic exists more generally, between the general Enlightenment and the modern secularization, though a much stronger case can be made there of the directly causative effect, see Wikipedia, “Age of Enlightenment“, section “Historiography“, sub-section “Definition“:

Jonathan Israel rejects the attempts of postmodern and Marxian historians to understand the revolutionary ideas of the period purely as by-products of social and economic transformations.

He instead focuses on the history of ideas in the period from 1650 to the end of the 18th century and claims that it was the ideas themselves that caused the change that eventually led to the revolutions of the latter half of the 18th century and the early 19th century.

Israel argues that until the 1650s Western civilization "was based on a largely shared core of faith, tradition, and authority."