Jewish Nietzscheanism

Jewish Nietzscheans have traditionally shied away from any detailed examination of Nietzsche’s comments on contemporary Jewry or the Jewish religion. Scholars who have examined Jewish Nietzscheans have therefore sought to connect Nietzsche with some dimension of Jewish thought through similarities in views between Nietzsche and the Jewish intellectuals who were purportedly influenced by him. The two books under consideration in this essay strain to find solid connections between Nietzsche’s philosophy and the writings of eminent Jewish writers. Daniel Rynhold and Michael Harris examine how selected Nietzschean concepts can also be found in the work of the noted Jewish thinker Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. David Ohana, by contrast, examines a variety of Jewish writers who at some point exhibited an enthusiasm for Nietzsche, ranging from Hebrew scholars and translators to German-Jewish intellectuals. Both books suffer from many of the shortcomings of general Nietzschean influence studies: there is often no sound philological evidence of influence, or the “connection” is so general that it is difficult to see Nietzsche as the source of influence, or the alleged influence was of short duration, and it is difficult to understand what remains Nietzschean in the individual influenced.

Jewish Nietzscheanism

Jewish Nietzscheans have traditionally shied away from any detailed examination of Nietzsche’s comments on contemporary Jewry or the Jewish religion. Scholars who have examined Jewish Nietzscheans have therefore sought to connect Nietzsche with some dimension of Jewish thought through similarities in views between Nietzsche and the Jewish intellectuals who were purportedly influenced by him. The two books under consideration in this essay strain to find solid connections between Nietzsche’s philosophy and the writings of eminent Jewish writers. Daniel Rynhold and Michael Harris examine how selected Nietzschean concepts can also be found in the work of the noted Jewish thinker Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. David Ohana, by contrast, examines a variety of Jewish writers who at some point exhibited an enthusiasm for Nietzsche, ranging from Hebrew scholars and translators to German-Jewish intellectuals. Both books suffer from many of the shortcomings of general Nietzschean influence studies: there is often no sound philological evidence of influence, or the “connection” is so general that it is difficult to see Nietzsche as the source of influence, or the alleged influence was of short duration, and it is difficult to understand what remains Nietzschean in the individual influenced.

Ezra Mendelsohn

EZRA MENDELSOHN, who, sadly, died of cancer in May 2015, was one of the pioneers of the rediscovery of the Polish Jewish past. For many years he was a professor at the Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and after his retirement became Rachel and Michael Edelman Professor Emeritus of European Jewry and Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University. He completed his doctorate at Columbia University in 1966 and subsequently moved to Israel where he spent his entire academic career. A highly creative thinker, he wrote widely on many topics, including the Jewish labour movement, the history of Jews in eastern Europe, modern Jewish politics, and modern Jewish art and music. At the time of his death, he was working on a volume of articles dealing with universalism among Jews. He also served as co-editor for many years of ...

Theory’s Operation Shylock

Chapter 4 comes as a critique of what I call, as a tribute to Philip Roth’s novel, “theory’s Operation Shylock,” i.e., recent celebrations of Diasporic Jewry, irrational demonization of Zionism and of the Jewish state, and, more seriously, ungrounded condemnation of a contemporary Jewry supposedly turned reactionary due to its support for the U.S. and Israel. Influenced by postcolonial studies and deconstruction, oblivious of the new modalities of antisemitism, theorists actively delegitimize Zionism as a mere product of the European colonial mindset and as a perversion of the Jewish spirit. I suggest that in recent publications, historian Enzo Traverso and philosopher Judith Butler resort to distortion of history and to a betrayal of the most basic principles of hermeneutics to justify their belief in the political and intellectual superiority of Diasporic Judaism (hypostatized as ethical) over Zionism (construed as particularist, imperialistic, and racist).