Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany, 1789-1848
amelia
(Amelia)
#1
18 } Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany
Bendavid wrote his treatise in German, a language not accessible to the ma-
jority of even “German” Jews in 1793. He first submitted it—whether in earnest
or as a provocation is not clear; at any rate, it was rejected—to the Haskalah jour-
nal Ha-measef (The gatherer),^11 and an independent publisher in Leipzig even-
tually published it. Bendavid does not analyze religion and Judaism, as had—
however differently—Moses Mendelssohn (in Jerusalem oder über religiöse
Macht und Judentum [ Jerusalem, or on religious power and Judaism], 1783 )
and Saul Ascher (in Leviathan oder über Religion in Rücksicht des Judentums
[Leviathan, or on religion in regard to Judaism], 1792 ), but rather the Jews.^12 His
point of departure is not theological but characterological and psychological,
and the foundation of his call for reform is unabashedly pragmatic. Bendavid’s
deployment of a certain history of the Jews constitutes a new departure in Jewish
Enlightenment discourse: his aim is not to show the compatibility between Jew-
ish law and modern enlightened sensibilities (in contrast to Mendelssohn), nor
to argue for reforming the latter so as to harmonize with the former (in contrast
to Ascher). Making an aggressive distinction between himself as an enlightened
Mensch (ich), and backward and timorous Jews (euch), Bendavid argues for a
quid pro quo of rehabilitation for rights, the demolition of halakhah as a prereq-
uisite for the curative transformation of Jews into citizens. The only impediment
to political emancipation, Bendavid admonishes his backward coreligionists, is
the “slave mentality of bygone centuries” (Sklavensinn voriger Jahrhunderte).^13
A blissful life as Bürger (citizens) and Menschen (human beings) awaits the Jews
if only they muster the pluck to shake off their Jewishness (sich vom Judenthum
losmachen). Such a reform would demonstrate the Jews’ willingness to meet the
government halfway in becoming citizens of the enlightened state.
Bendavid apostrophizes his coreligionists in a provocative tone that blends
flagrant contempt for Jewish practices with advocacy for the Jewish cause.
He vigorously proselytizes for a rationalistic form of Judaism scarcely distin-
guishable from deism. His treatise has three parts. In the first he elaborates a
diachronic evaluation of Jewish history. In the second he offers a synchronic
typology of contemporary Jewish society, which he divides into four groups:
traditionalists (who keep the mitzvot); hedonists (who do not, but only out of
depravity); good-hearted Jews (who only out of weakness cling to unreformed
Judaism [ungeläuterten Judenthum]); and Enlightened Jews (like himself, who
have essentially superseded Judaism to become natural religionists). In the final
section, Bendavid presents a virulent manifesto addressed to the good-hearted
Jews of his third category (the first two he considers simply incorrigible), whom
he urges to cast off Jewish belief and practice.
In Bendavid’s narrative of Jewish history, after the destruction of the Second