Haggadahs are hard to rank. The Hebrew text is mostly settled (though I have seen a few that are variant, such as an animal rights version). English translation fidelity can be argued markedly. Frequently graphics can be diverting and even educational. Do not expect to see any illustrations beyond those on the cover. For those curious the cover shown is 'Mah' or 'What', the reverse cover having 'Manesh' or 'Experienced', if I read correctly the illustrated manuscript lettering.
The unique part of the work is that of the reverse side which has a varied collection of essays by the learned Chief Rabbi, though of varying levels of quality, at least to my judgment. The issue here is that of how much various essays reflect creative thought carried through eloquently as versus those seemingly reaching for meaning that is not quite argued to a clearly believable end. Some of the essays seem brilliant, others debatable and a few rather meagerly supported.
Obviously, my take has to be subjective. Much of religious ideology is subjective, the remaining part is perhaps more a matter of ethical arguments that are little more than derivative from the subjective parts. There is much room for debate and many authors from whom I have read would have equally valid yet differing views of the interpretations.
Where Rabbi Sachs communicates best is to contradict the simplistic argument that monotheistic religions promote hate and intolerance. This certainly can be an outcome, though it is more again the subversion of a faith's texts in the service of deception, as has been seen by some Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad affiliates and past tracts of Catholics, Lutherans or other Christian sects against each other in the Reformation or against the Jews.
Rabbi Sacks notes that Jews believe in Freedom of thought, a liberal attitude to those of other faiths and in a pre-Democratic philosophy. In many respects this may carry some weight, but one can see enough intolerance of some Jewish extremists against more Reform Jews and against Palestinians and this generalization is bound to fail as well as many others, at least if taken as an absolute. I do believe that there is less intolerance of other views among many, if not all Jews. I do believe that the learned Chief Rabbi can make a point that the ability to argue many different views of a section of biblical text creates some openness to exploration, if not acceptance, of the views of others. Such is the nature of Haggadah translations and interpretation. Whether textural conflicts of views, or the expected commentaries made in the more lengthy re-tellings of the Passover Seder, exploration of meaning is more important than firm conclusions.
One would hope that faith could be both firm and yet flexible enough to tolerate a multiplicity of viewpoints. Some faiths have argued for absolute doctrines which may be sacred, but such catechisms or firm edicts are likely to be limiting and problematic. By no means is any religion, Jewish or otherwise, to be seen as fully settled; if incapable of flexibility and adaptation, such a religion is likely to be frozen and irrelevant.
Rabbi Sacks notes that the Jewish people are 'the other', a minority and survivors, outliving many civilizations that had seen them as finished. This is justifiable to a degree, but celebration can easily become so laden with hubris that it can be harmful. Certainly, the nearly obligate references to the Shoah, alternately called the Holocaust, rears its ugly head yet again. Many Haggadahs have often become effective martyrologies, perhaps that being a bit notable here as well. The association of 'Blood Libels' with Passover is regrettable in the past and needs address, but 'Hashem' has not delivered us from these persecutions. Passover is about deliverance at least as much as it is about suffering. The Jewish people have suffered plenty between the Passover story and that of the Book of Esther, both with deliverances which are somewhat relevant to the Passover holiday. The persecutions from which no deliverance other than that of survival of the faith's remnants is not totally irrelevant, but seems a good degree out of place. Why do we perseverate in revisiting these persecutions without the divine address having been made? Is it to highlight suffering? Is the purpose of the Seder to deal with suffering or rather with the restoration of a covenant by the miracles of the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea? I would hold that touching upon sufferings without assistance received of 'Hashem' is a detraction as it leads to questioning what was necessary for the deliverance of the people at one time that was absent at another.
I wonder whether this can be addressed as limited to a more tangential note and not seeming to create a seeming source of divisiveness that detracts from a spirit of liberation and a celebration of the wonders of deliverance. Jews need to find ways to bridge to other faiths and not to be seen as showing other faiths up. No human religion that is to be valued can afford to see itself in a superior position. It is only too bad that Jewish works invariably ignore the often sympathetic bridges put out to them by those of other faiths, even those well-intended and yet ineffectual, such as the works of Nicholas of Cusa. I would hope that I might yet see some work of Rabbi Sacks addressing such efforts to refute 'the other' of Judaism in a reflection of mutual respect and admiration.
No comments:
Post a Comment