Article10

The Jewish Paradox: Greatness Through Rejection.

The paradox of Jewish genius in modern history is not that it flourished because of Judaism, but that it flourished despite it. Again and again, the most brilliant figures born into Jewish families became world-historical precisely when they broke with Judaism, distanced themselves from it, or openly repudiated it.
There is a pattern here too obvious to ignore: Judaism, with its fences and exclusions, its tribal chosenness and its relentless ritualism, produces smallness; Jewish rebels against Judaism, by contrast, produced universality. 
The list is long and luminous: Jesus of Nazareth, Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky. These names dominate the history of philosophy, politics, science, psychology, and moral dissent. Yet, they share one essential feature—they became great not by extending the parochial thought-world of rabbinical Judaism but by smashing its walls. Greatness, it seems, arrived only when Jewish particularism was abandoned in the name of humanity.Consider the first of them, Jesus of Nazareth, who was in many ways the archetype of this rupture. Jesus was born into a world of Jewish Law, into a society governed by Pharisaic precision regarding purity, dietary codes, Sabbath observance, and the intricate mechanisms of rabbinical control. For the Pharisees, the Law was everything: a hedge around a hedge, a minutiae of regulation to mark the Jew off from the Gentile, the chosen from the unchosen. 
It was a religion of separation and exclusion, and to break those fences was to strike at the heart of Jewish self-definition. Jesus did precisely this. He denounced those who tithed mint and cumin but neglected justice and mercy. He healed on the Sabbath. He allowed his followers to pluck grain when the Law forbade it. He declared that it was not what entered a man’s mouth that defiled him but what came out of his heart. In other words, he shattered the ritual boundary system that kept Jew and non-Jew apart.
The genius of Jesus was not that he gave a new rabbinical commentary or devised a new legal code; it was that he declared the entire framework of the Law secondary to the higher truth of universal love. He told the parable of the Good Samaritan, scandalous to Jewish ears, in which the despised outsider, not the Levite or priest, was the true neighbor. 
He took the God of Israel and stripped Him of national favoritism, declaring Him a Father of all peoples. And it was precisely this act of universalization that made Jesus more than a Jewish sectarian reformer. Without it, he would have been another local rabbi, forgotten by history. By rejecting the fences of Judaism, he became a figure for all humanity.
The rabbinical establishment of his day understood the threat. They did not see in Jesus a friendly reformer or a new sage within the tradition. They saw a danger to the entire edifice of their authority, a man whose teaching would erase the distinctions on which Judaism thrived. To this day, Judaism does not claim Jesus as its own; it could not. 
He was a rebel who left Judaism behind in order to announce a God of humanity. That is why billions remember his name, while the rabbis who cursed him are forgotten except in the musty pages of the Talmud. Jesus represents the first great example of the paradox: a Jew who had to cease being Jewish to speak to humanity.
Spinoza is the purest example of Jewish genius made possible only by excommunication. Born in Amsterdam in 1632 to a Portuguese Jewish family, he inherited the intellectual claustrophobia of rabbinical Judaism, which, in exile, had intensified its rigid orthodoxy. The synagogue elders tolerated no deviation, no speculation that threatened their authority. Spinoza’s mind, however, was not built for fences. 
By his early twenties, he was already whispering dangerous ideas: that scripture was a human book, subject to error and contradiction; that God could not be the anthropomorphic tribal deity of Israel; that immortality of the soul was at best a pious dream. Such thoughts could not remain private forever. In 1656, at just twenty-four years old, he was expelled with one of the most ferocious writs of excommunication ever written: cursed by day and by night, cursed when lying down and when rising, cursed in death and beyond. His name was to be erased, no one permitted to speak to him or read his words. The rabbis thought they had buried him. In reality, they had set him free.

Spinoza went on to construct a philosophy that obliterated the foundation of Judaism. He denied the chosenness of any people, rejected miracles as superstitions, and announced that God and Nature were of the same substance. This was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it was a universal, infinite order available to the mind of any rational being. No divine lawgiver singled out Israel for special status; no revelation dictated purity codes. The very premise of Judaism—that one people was elected to carry eternal Law—was dissolved in the acid of Spinoza’s rationalism.

What made Spinoza dangerous to the rabbis was not simply that he denied particular Jewish beliefs but that he dismantled the very logic of particularism itself. Judaism survived on the claim of uniqueness, the special covenant that set Jews apart. Spinoza declared that nothing in the universe was unique in that way: all was governed by the same necessity, the same laws of nature. To be free was not to submit to halakha but to understand necessity through reason. In this sense, Spinoza was the first great modern secularist. His philosophy did not depend on synagogue, priest, or scripture. It relies only on the human mind’s capacity for understanding.That his excommunication was so severe is telling. Judaism could not contain him; it had to expel him. And in that expulsion, his genius was set loose upon the world. Without Spinoza, there is no Enlightenment as we know it. His thought inspired Locke, Kant, Hegel, and Goethe. Einstein himself would later say he believed in “Spinoza’s God”—a God of cosmic Law, not revelation.
 From the ashes of rabbinical hatred came a universal philosophy of astonishing power. Notice the pattern repeating: the greatness of the Jewish-born thinker emerges not when he delves deeper into Judaism, but when he leaves it behind. Spinoza did not find his genius in the Talmud; he found it in reason that swept the Talmud aside. He became immortal by ceasing to be Jewish in any spiritual sense, and in that abandonment, he gave something to all of humanity.

Karl Marx stands as the most uncompromising of all Jewish-born rebels against Judaism, for he did not merely distance himself from its practices or drift into secular indifference; he attacked it head-on as the embodiment of everything he sought to abolish in human life. Where Jesus had broken Jewish Law to announce a higher love, and where Spinoza had replaced revelation with reason, Marx set out to demolish Judaism as the social principle of capitalist modernity itself. His 1844 essay, “On the Jewish Question,” remains one of the most scathing indictments ever written against Judaism, revealing with brutal clarity why Marx could never have remained within the Jewish fold if he wished to speak in universal terms.The context of the essay is essential. Marx was responding to the political debate in Germany about whether Jews should be granted full civil rights. Liberal thinkers like Bruno Bauer argued that emancipation required Jews to abandon their religion, for a state could not privilege any particular sect. 
Marx radicalized the argument. He said the problem was not just Judaism but religion as such, and even beyond that, the social world that produced religion. The Jew, for Marx, was the most concentrated expression of bourgeois society, a society governed by money, trade, and egoistic self-interest. Judaism, he claimed, had become inseparable from “huckstering,” from the calculation of profit, from the worship of money as the true God of humanity.

“What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.” These infamous lines must be read not as anti-Semitic slander but as Marx’s attempt to universalize the Jewish condition. He was saying: Look, what you call ‘Judaism’ has escaped the ghetto and now defines the whole of modern society. Everyone has become Jewish in practice, even if they are Christian in name, because everyone now bows before the power of money. Thus, the emancipation of the Jews cannot come through legal decrees or toleration. It can only come when society as a whole is emancipated from the domination of money. To abolish Judaism was to abolish capitalism; to abolish capitalism was to abolish Judaism.This was no polite reformist proposal. Marx was not suggesting that Jews convert to Christianity, nor that they assimilate into German culture. He was saying something far more radical: as long as money rules, humanity itself is Jewish in essence, trapped in the same narrow pursuit of gain that the rabbis once sanctified in ritual form. 
To liberate humanity meant not to bring Jews into society but to destroy the very conditions that produced Jewishness. This is why Marx’s humanism was inseparable from his rejection of Judaism. For him, Judaism was the quintessence of all that prevented humanity from realizing its species-being, its true universal nature.

The vehemence of Marx’s language shocks modern readers, but it is consistent with his revolutionary ambition. Marx was not interested in preserving a shred of parochial identity. He despised nationalism, tribalism, and religious boundaries. He sought a humanity without borders, classes, or particularisms. Judaism, with its obsession with separation—chosen versus unchosen, kosher versus non-kosher, Jew versus Gentile—represented to him the very opposite of this vision. It was the religion of alienation, the theology of selfishness, the metaphysics of money. In a universe ruled by such a mentality, man could never be free.

That is why Marx’s break with Judaism is not incidental to his thought but foundational. He could not have been Marx if he had remained within Judaism or even within a cultural Jewish identity. His communism required the death of Judaism, not its reformation. And in attacking Judaism, he was also attacking the Christian world that had absorbed its logic of self-interest under the guise of universal faith. For Marx, the “Christian world” was but a baptized continuation of Jewish categories, sanctifying money-making while pretending to despise it. To strike at Judaism was to strike at the heart of modernity’s hypocrisy.Marx himself was the grandson of rabbis, but he took that inheritance only to invert it. Where his ancestors parsed Talmudic distinctions, he parsed the mechanics of capital. Where they sought redemption through covenant, he sought redemption through revolution. Where they reinforced tribal identity, he sought the abolition of all identity that divided man from man.
 There is, if one looks closely, a kind of inverted rabbinism in Marx: the same relentless logical rigor, the same appetite for total systems, but now turned against Judaism itself. His dialectical method could be seen as the ultimate excommunication: the rabbinical mind deployed to dissolve the rabbinical world.

And it is here that the larger paradox becomes clear. The genius of Marx, like that of Jesus and Spinoza, was born not of Jewish continuity but of rupture. His greatness consisted in the willingness to denounce the tradition of his birth as the enemy of humanity, to insist that universality would never come from the ghetto, that the fences of Jewish Law and identity had to be torn down entirely. He became a prophet of the species precisely because he refused to be a son of Abraham.

Marx’s rejection of Judaism set the stage for a whole lineage of Jewish-born revolutionaries who likewise defined their greatness in proportion to their distance from Jewish identity. If Marx had declared Judaism to be the religion of money and alienation, then Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky, his most brilliant heirs, took that rejection into the furnace of twentieth-century revolution. Both were Jews by accident of birth, but neither had the faintest interest in being Jewish. For them, to speak as a Jew was to betray the revolution; to cling to a parochial identity was to forfeit the right to speak for humanity.Rosa Luxemburg was born in Poland in 1871, into a Jewish family. The humiliation of anti-Semitism shaped her early life, but she never responded with a defense of Jewishness. Instead, she threw herself into socialism with a ferocity that left no room for tribal loyalties. To her, the idea of a Jewish nation was repugnant. When the Zionist movement began to gather steam in her lifetime, Luxemburg denounced it as a reactionary delusion, a retreat into separatism when the actual task was the unity of the working class across all nations. She mocked the idea that the suffering of Jews required a national solution. To her, Jewish suffering could be overcome only by overthrowing capitalism and building socialism. The ghetto was not to be escaped by creating another nation-state but by dissolving all nations in international solidarity.Her writings seethe with contempt for narrow identities. In her debates with nationalists, she refused to treat Jews as unique. They were simply one oppressed group among many, and their emancipation would come only with the emancipation of all. In this, she followed Marx’s logic to its conclusion. If Judaism was a system of separateness, then it had to be abandoned, not preserved. Luxemburg never prayed in a synagogue, never celebrated Jewish ritual, never identified herself as Jewish in public life. 
She was, above all else, a revolutionary. Her greatness lay in that universality. It is why her name is remembered not as a Jewish martyr but as a martyr of socialism, executed by the agents of reaction in 1919 with her bloodied body thrown into a river. She had lived and died not as a Jew but as a prophet of humanity.Trotsky, born Lev Davidovich Bronstein in 1879, was even more explicit in his rejection of Jewishness. Raised in a Jewish family in Ukraine, he too encountered anti-Semitism, but he responded with total disdain for Jewish identity. He once remarked that he was never more aware of being Jewish than when anti-Semites reminded him of it — otherwise, it meant nothing to him. His life was devoted entirely to the cause of international revolution. Like Luxembourg, he despised Zionism. He ridiculed the idea that Jews could find liberation by creating a state in Palestine. To him, that was nothing but a petty nationalist fantasy, a pale imitation of the very bourgeois principle of separation that Marx had condemned. Real liberation, he insisted, would come only when the working class of all nations rose together.Trotsky’s writings are laced with this universalism. He spoke not of Jewish destiny but of proletarian destiny. He organized not Jews but workers of every nation. He became, after Lenin, the most potent voice of the Russian Revolution. His genius as an orator and strategist was unmatched. And yet, precisely because he refused to be a Jew in any parochial sense, his enemies never let him forget his origins. Stalin, who eventually had him assassinated in exile, never failed to whisper that Trotsky was a Jew.

 Anti-Semites across Europe seized on his heritage to denounce communism as a “Jewish conspiracy.” But the truth was that Trotsky himself was the least Jewish of men. He repudiated all forms of Jewish identity, never entered a synagogue, never invoked the God of his fathers. He belonged to humanity, not to a tribe.It is telling that both Luxembourg and Trotsky, like Marx, became targets of anti-Semitism even as they rejected Judaism. The paradox is cruel: the more they abandoned Jewishness, the more they were accused of embodying it. Their universalism was painted as a Jewish plot; their rejection of Judaism was branded as the essence of Judaism itself. This irony only underscores the larger point. 
The Jewish genius reaches universality only by rejecting Judaism, yet in dismissing it, the world’s hatred of Jews still chains it. Luxemburg and Trotsky, like Marx, could not escape this trap. They died branded as Jews, though they had long ceased to be Jewish in any meaningful intellectual or spiritual sense.Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, represents another stage in this long pattern: the Jewish-born thinker who achieves universality only by discarding Judaism. Unlike Marx, Freud did not denounce Judaism with fiery invective, but his life’s work was no less a repudiation. Where Judaism offered revelation, Freud suggested the unconscious; where Judaism proclaimed a chosen people, Freud uncovered universal drives of sexuality, aggression, and repression. In place of a covenant, he gave the Oedipus complex. His revolution in thought was possible only because he refused to remain confined to the categories of Jewish religion or identity.Freud was born in 1856 to a Jewish family in Moravia and grew up in Vienna, where anti-Semitism was part of the social fabric. He knew from an early age what it meant to be marked as Jewish, but he never responded with pride or defense of Judaism. On the contrary, he regarded Jewish ritual as superstition, Jewish theology as mythology, and Jewish chosenness as arrogance.
 He was, by his own declaration, a “godless Jew.” He never entered synagogue life, never practiced religious observances, and considered himself an atheist. His only concession to his origins was a kind of cultural familiarity — but even that he often viewed with suspicion.What he built instead was a new metaphysics, one that claimed universality. Psychoanalysis, at its core, was a theory of man as man, not of Jew or Gentile, chosen or unchosen. The unconscious was not a Jewish unconscious but a human one; repression was not a Jewish malady but the price of civilization itself. 

In Freud’s model, all men shared the same psychic architecture. Id, ego, superego — these were categories that abolished tribal distinctions. In this sense, psychoanalysis was a secular religion of universality, meant to replace the parochial faiths of the past. Freud himself hinted at this when he described analysis as a way of rescuing humanity from illusion, especially the illusion of religion.In The Future of an Illusion, Freud dismissed religious belief as a projection of infantile wishes — the yearning for a protective father, the fear of mortality dressed up in divine promises. He had no special words of defense for Judaism; it was just one illusion among many. Indeed, he sometimes spoke more harshly about Judaism than about Christianity, describing its prohibitions as obsessive and its God as cruel. He regarded circumcision as a barbaric remnant of tribal ritual. In his late work, Moses and Monotheism, Freud even suggested that Moses was not a Jew at all but an Egyptian, and that Judaism’s origins were founded on murder and repression. This was not a celebration of Jewish identity but a psychoanalytic unmasking of its darkest roots.And yet, paradoxically, Freud’s thought still bore the marks of the rabbinical style. His method of interpretation — line upon line, detail upon detail, with endless commentary on the hidden meaning of texts, dreams, and slips of the tongue — carried an echo of Talmudic analysis. But he turned that style against its old subject. 
The rabbis had pored over the Torah to find divine meaning; Freud pored over dreams to find unconscious meaning. Where they preserved tradition, he dismantled it. Where they defended the Law, he exposed the Law of desire. The very habits of Jewish intellectual life were redirected into a universal science.

This is why Freud, like Marx, cannot be reclaimed honestly as a Jewish thinker. Yes, he was Jewish by birth and often reminded of it by anti-Semites. But in substance, his life’s work was a rejection of Judaism’s tribal narrowness. He wanted to free humanity from illusions, not reinforce them. He spoke to all men and women as psychological beings, not as members of a chosen tribe. His psychoanalysis was a weapon of universality, and it could not have emerged from within the ghetto. It emerged only when he stepped outside, only when he dared to say that Moses was Egyptian, that God was wish-fulfillment, that revelation was repression.Albert Einstein, perhaps the most famous Jew of the twentieth century, is also one of the clearest cases of greatness achieved by stepping outside Judaism. The world reveres Einstein not as a Jewish thinker but as the mind who uncovered the structure of space-time, who redefined light, motion, and gravitation. 
His genius belongs to humanity, not to a synagogue. When pressed on the subject of religion, Einstein repeatedly distanced himself from Jewish tradition. He declared he believed in “Spinoza’s God”—a God of cosmic Law, not of covenant or chosenness. To him, the God of Sinai was a parochial myth; the God he could accept was nothing more than the rational harmony of the universe.

It is telling that Einstein had no interest in the rituals of Judaism. He did not keep kosher, did not pray the Shema, did not bind himself to Jewish Law. He was by all measures an atheist or pantheist. Yet, because he was born Jewish, he was constantly invoked as a symbol of Jewish genius. Zionists courted him to become president of Israel, a post he refused. His refusal was not a sign of cowardice, but rather a matter of clarity: he was not a nationalist, Jewish or otherwise. He recoiled from tribal identity, and while he sympathized with Jewish suffering, he condemned Zionist chauvinism as dangerous. For him, humanity mattered more than tribe.

What made Einstein great was not his Jewish inheritance but his liberation from it. Like Spinoza before him, he replaced the concept of chosenness with that of cosmic Law. His moral pronouncements, whether on peace, war, or nuclear weapons, were couched not in the vocabulary of Judaism but in the language of humanity. He spoke as a man of reason, not as a son of Abraham. And it was precisely this universality that made him the most beloved scientist in history. Judaism could not contain him; he belonged to humanity.

If Einstein represents the scientist who abandoned Judaism for the cosmos, Noam Chomsky represents the intellectual dissenter who abandoned Jewish tribalism for universal critique. Chomsky, born in 1928 in the United States to Jewish parents, was immersed in Hebrew schools and early Zionist culture. But as he grew, he turned sharply against Zionism, against Jewish nationalism, against the idea of chosenness itself. His career has been one long assault on tribal arrogance — whether American imperialism, Israeli ethnonationalism, or any ideology that places one group above another.

Chomsky’s genius lies not in defending Jews but in attacking injustice wherever he sees it. His harshest critics call him a “self-hating Jew,” but this slur only reveals the truth of the paradox: to be universal, one must abandon the tribal. Chomsky does not speak as a Jew; he speaks as a humanist. He has spent decades denouncing Israeli crimes against Palestinians, insisting on the application of one moral standard for all. He has been unsparing in his critique of American foreign policy, exposing the hypocrisy of empire. He is reviled precisely because he refuses to bend to Jewish nationalism or American exceptionalism. His loyalty is not to tribe or nation but to reason and justice.

The irony is that Einstein and Chomsky, like Jesus, Spinoza, Marx, Freud, Luxemburg, and Trotsky before them, are often claimed by Jews as symbols of Jewish genius. But this claim is false. Their greatness lies precisely in their rejection of the tribal mentality, in their refusal to speak as Jews. They spoke as men for humanity. To cage them in Jewish identity is to misunderstand them completely. Einstein’s equations were not Jewish; they were cosmic. Chomsky’s critiques are not Jewish; they are human. To call them Jewish geniuses is to betray the very universality that makes them great.

The pattern is unmistakable. Again and again, the greatest Jews in history became great only by ceasing to be Jewish in any meaningful sense. Jesus shattered the Law to proclaim a God of humanity. Spinoza was cursed and expelled for denying chosenness, but in that exile, he gave the world a rational philosophy of nature. Marx denounced Judaism as the religion of money and self-interest, demanding its abolition for humanity to be free. Freud exposed religion, including Judaism, as an illusion and replaced it with a universal science of the unconscious. Luxemburg and Trotsky gave their lives for revolution, scorning Zionism and tribal identity in favor of internationalism. Einstein abandoned Sinai for the cosmos, declaring his belief in Spinoza’s God rather than the God of Israel. Chomsky has spent his life attacking Jewish nationalism and the American empire, insisting on one standard for all. Each one, by leaving Judaism behind, stepped into universality.

What binds them together is not their continuity with Judaism but their rupture from it. They are not the fruits of rabbinical tradition but its rebels and heretics. The rabbis who excommunicated Spinoza, the anti-Semites who slandered Marx and Trotsky, the Zionists who revile Chomsky — all in their own way recognize the same truth: these figures did not belong to Judaism. They had abandoned it, and in abandoning it, they became immortal.

It is a cruel paradox that the world still insists on labeling them “Jewish geniuses.” To do so is to misunderstand them entirely. Their genius was not Jewish but human. Their greatness was not in repeating the separations of Judaism but in demolishing them. They refused chosenness, refused the fences of the ghetto, refused to speak in the language of the tribe. And precisely in that refusal, they said to humanity.

Judaism is a religion of exclusion, of boundaries, of us versus them. It has preserved a people, but at the cost of smallness and parochialism. The universal has never come from its rituals or its laws. The universal has come only from those who escaped it, those who refused its narrowness. Jesus, Spinoza, Marx, Freud, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Einstein, Chomsky — their names endure not because they were Jews but because they ceased to be Jews. Their legacies belong to humanity, not to a tribe.

This is the incendiary lesson of history: the greatest Jews are the ones who walked away. The ghetto, the synagogue, the ritual, the chosenness — all these were chains. The universal spirit broke those chains and left Judaism behind. And in doing so, it gave humanity prophets, philosophers, scientists, and revolutionaries. Judaism did not produce them; instead, the rejection of Judaism gave rise to them. Their greatness lies in their courage to abandon the tribal for the human. And it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that their voices still speak to us today.