On Professor Melamed, Rabbi Serfaty, and entry into the Snoge

My colleague, and friend, Yitzhak Melamed got denied entry to the Snoge (or Esnoga) to do some filming for a documentary on Spinoza by an eloquent Rabbi. (See below for the letter.) Looking at the wording of the letter, I suspect the Rabbi (who despite Amsterdam being a small village, I have never met) kind of calculated it would go viral. For his letter is needlessly insulting.

It is not insulting, to be sure, in calling Spinoza an 'Epicouros.' While the word is undoubtedly derived from 'epicurean' in so far as Epicurus believed that the Gods took no interest in people's affairs.** Now, it is generally applied to all heretics and so Spinoza fits the bill (regardless of what exactly the learned Rabbi has in mind--it would have been nice to know if he has Maimonides' meaning in mind or a more generic use.)

It is needlessly insulting not just because there is no reason to believe Spinoza ever set foot in the Snoge (which was built long after he left Amsterdam.) It is insulting because he declares Melamed "persona non grata" in the Snoge. This is peculiar given that the Snoge welcomes tourists without distinction from all walks of life, even keeping that in mind when setting its times for prayer; and has let an Epicouros like myself attend bar mitzwahs there. This is why I suspect some ambition and opportunism in the Rabbi's stance. He is now a very public defender of the faith. But only some opportunism. Let me explain.

Most of our friends have joined in the ridicule of the actions of the Rabbi, when they don't denounce it more strongly.* And here, much to my own annoyance, I wish to defend the Rabbi's stance. In these matters I tend toward the Lockean-Marxian (Groucho not Karl) in my sensibilities: as I suggested in a different context (recall the Tuvel/Hypatia-affaire): I am all for minority groups to have the right to decide on their often illiberal and sometimes immoral entry-requirements, not just membership, but also including their houses of worship (as long as Exit is relatively straightforward). The Portuguese Jewish Community of Amsterdam is very small, decimated by the Holocaust and emigration. It doesn't just have every right to avoid facilitating a movie that however intelligent and sober still will aid in the glorification of its greatest Heretic, but in many ways it has a duty to do so.

As an aside, in an article that deserves careful scrutiny, "Freedom of Speech and Philosophical Citizenship in Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise," Julie Cooper has argued persuasively that Spinoza was a critic of philosophical/intellectual celebrity. That is, in fact, one of Spinoza's lines of criticism of Descartes. And it is pretty clear that the celebration of Spinoza -- which is, in fact, a big politicized deal in Amsterdam -- goes very much against the spirit of his political philosophy. So, somewhat ironically Rabbi Serfaty is in some respects defending Spinoza from his admirers here.

Melamed himself is often a critic of Spinoza, and in my presence has criticized Spinoza's (what we may call) moral philosophy in no uncertain terms. So, it is a bit odd the Rabbi thinks that the study of Spinoza is problematic. We are, in fact, far removed from, say, the spirit of Rabbi Soloveitchik, who was a learned reader of Spinoza. 

UPDATE: It turns out that the Rabbi has no legal right to refuse Melamed entry to library Ets Chaim. (I basing myself here on a report in Dutch (here). HT: Mum.)  This library is open to researchers from all over the world. And since there is government money sponsoring the foundation that runs it, the Rabbi can't treat Melamed as "persona non grata" there. But in re-reading the letter by the Rabbi, I think it's pretty clear he intends to keep Melamed only out of the Snoge.+ [End OF UPDATE.]

I would never personally argue that Rabbi Serfaty is obliged to keep the film crew out of the Snoge. (Plenty of politicians have been filmed there for events.) But there are grounds to suspect such a film would be a mechanism to help later day critics of the community (to which I never belonged) litigate against it, and certainly to treat the Cherem as a colossal mistake and a sign of backwardness. In fact, Rabbi Serfaty is acting here in the spirit of Rabbi Toledano who, in rejecting a revocation of the ban, argued that it would mean that "we in our synagogue should spread the denial of God's existence to the extent that it destroys our heritage and the pillars on which Judaism rests."  If you take that line of thought seriously, and he gets paid to do so, Rabbi Serfaty's position is common sense even though it lacks warmth and what my people call, menschlichkeit.

 

*A few years ago the community -- with, I believe, a different Rabbi -- welcomed public discussion of the ban which got reported all over the world.

**Yes I am familiar with this bit in Maimonides.

+PART OF THE UPDATE: Presumably, he may lack standing to do so if the Parnassim (the directors of the community) refuse to to support him.

Comments

[Nythamar De Oliveira]

יב דִּבְרֵי פִי-חָכָם, חֵן; וְשִׂפְתוֹת כְּסִיל, תְּבַלְּעֶנּוּ. 12 The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.

[Steven Nadler]

Hi Eric. Interesting remarks. But can you just clarify something:
On one hand you say that the community has a “duty” to “avoid facilitating a movie” about Spinoza. But then you say that “I would never personally argue that Rabbi Serfaty is obliged to keep the film crew out of the Snoge”.
If you insist that the community has a duty to keep the film crew out of the synagogue, then it would seem to follow that, on your view, the rabbi DOES have an obligation to keep them out. Unless there’s a subtle difference between ‘duty’ and ‘obligation’ here that I'm missing.
Anyway, one could argue that the problem with the rabbi's letter is not the substance -- of course he has the right to reject the request (even if there is no good reason to do so, and plenty of reasons why he should not) -- but with (a) the rudeness of the rejection; and (b) the quasi-herem against Yitzhak. Apparently Rabbi Toledano, who very graciously presided at that forum in 2015 on lifting the herem, also denied the request, but did so more politely
Steve

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Steve,
My thought is that if you think Rabbi Toledano is right and/or binding on you then Rabbi Serfaty has a (defeasible) duty to decline.
Eric

[Jack Stetter]

Very informed with great references. Thanks Eric.
I hear that Maimonides somewhere writes that apikorous denies God's knowledge of particulars. I wonder if that rings a bell. Going to look for the source more diligently when I have time.

Anyway, like I've been saying here and there: A fanatic is right to be fearful of Spinoza.
- Jack

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Jack,
Following a hint in Wikipedia, we can find a passage that might suggest this here: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/911896/jewish/Teshuvah-Chapter-Three.htm
But the more natural reading is that Maimonides is offering a list of folk who won't go to heaven rather than an explication of what an epicouros is. (I hate to disagree with Wikipedia!)
In the passage that I link to in the post, he is explaining a word that might seem obscure in the source to his contemporaries (not fellow philosophers). In the source passage (Mishnah Sanhedrin), 'epicouros' is someone who won't go to Heaven in addition to folk who deny the resurrection. (In Medieval Arabic philosophy, the fact that God can't discern particulars is a means to deny bodily resurrection, so I can see how hasty readers might jump from one to the next etc.) But in all the passages I know in Maimonides, when he is not talking about the Greek philosopher, 'Epicourous' means someone who disrespects his teachers (or the traditional sages)--that is (to be clear what is at stake) the rabbinic tradition (and presumably with a wish to be licentious or something). [Interestingly enough, to deny the rabbinic tradition is kind of the equivalent of protestantism for a Catholic.:)]
But I am outside my area of expertise, so I would not be surprised if someone were to correct me!

[Naftalie]

Yesterday the board of the Esnoga send a letter to it's members. In the letter, they state that both Serfaty and Toledano don't agree to retract their words. However, the board didn't fire them. That makes the current board of the Esnoga, David Samama, Gideon Tahan, Marcelo Bendahan, Sara-Joan Pinto-Sietsma and
Gideon Coronel under the leadership of chair Michael Minco for 100% responsible for this ban. Members of the community and regular visitors of the Esnoga services are repelled by the behavior of the rabbi's and the board.

[Marius Alexander Van Andel]

It just blows my mind. Please read Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo's response to this issue. He is a rabbi and he is Dutch and foremost a Spinoza scolar. He understands Spinoza better than most of us, myself included, particularly in the context as Dutch-Jewish-Protestant society as it existed in Spinoza's time. And he is in tune with the world as it is today . . . .