Zionists Out of the Peace Movement

Therefore at the present time there is nothing whatsoever that the Jews can arrogate to themselves above other nations.

As to their continued existence for so many years when scattered and stateless, this is in no way surprising, since they have separated themselves from other nations to such a degree as to incur the hatred of all, and this not only through external rites alien to the rites of other nations but also through the mark of circumcision, which they religiously observe. That they are preserved largely through the hatred of other nations is demonstrated by historical fact.

Source: From the Theological-Political Treatise (2nd ed.) by Benedictus de Spinoza. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 2001) p. 45.

Photo, above right: Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677)

For denying Jewish chosenness, expressing the idea that Jewish traditions and conduct may have something to do with Jewish-Gentile conflict (today, liberals would call this 'blaming the victim'), and other thoughtcrimes, Benedict Spinoza was declared a heretic from Judaism and "solemnly cut off from the commonwealth of Israel." This only after the Jewish religious authorities of his hometown, Amsterdam, tried to bribe and threaten him into outward conformity. After being cast out from the Jewish community, Spinoza rejected the Hebrew form of his given name, Baruch, for its Latin form, Benedictus. Although Spinoza was never reconciled to Judaism and the writ of cherem, i.e. excommunication, never rescinded, Spinoza's own choice of names is not widely respected and today he is most commonly known as Baruch Spinoza and claimed by many Jews as one of their own.

See also:

• Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Benedict Spinoza (Catholic Encyclopedia)

15 Nov. 2019 Addendum: As soon as I wrote it I was uncomfortable with equating cherem with excommunication but I didn't want to put in the time and effort to elaborate on the issue then. Some years later I did do that. Below are the fruits of that endeavor.

No, "excommunicated" is not a precisely correct or very good translation. It is, at best, a rough analog to the cherem--perhaps close enough for lay readers.

Curiously, if you read the actual writ of cherem (entitled "Notta do Herem ...") in the original Portuguese (it looks like it could actually be Judaeo-Portuguese) it uses a transliteration of the Hebrew word (חֵרֶם‬) cherem several times instead of the Portuguese, excomunhão. Although the writ is difficult to read in places and my Portuguese is weak it seems to me that excomunhão does not appear in the document.

In the Portuguese, it seems to says: "con/com/como (o)herem que enheremon Jehosuah a Yerikó, con/com/como (o/a)maldissas que maldixe Elisah aos mossos/moçços". There was a perfectly good word for excommunication that could have been used in the writ of cherem but the author(s) seemingly chose not to use it.

Further evidence that Spinoza was not excommunicated can be found in Kasher's and Biderman's translation. The action taken against Spinoza is likened to the "excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys".

Joshua 6:26 says: "And Joshua charged the people with an oath at that time, saying: ‘Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city, even Jericho; with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.’ " 2 Kings 2:23–24 says: "And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.' And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them."

Both of the verses cited pre-date existence of the institutional church and point to an act of censure quite different from excommunication, which first and foremost involves exclusion from the Eucharist. The use of "excommunication" in reference to Spinoza is merely a shorthand that conveys the basic idea but it is not technically accurate. It seems to me that what happened to Spinoza is more accurately described as an anathema and this conclusion finds support in the Jewish Encycylopedia (1906) where anathema is synonymous with cherem.

Labels: Benedict Spinoza, halacha, identity, Judaism