DOCSLIB.ORG

Artscroll and More

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ArtScroll and More ArtScroll and More by Marc B. Shapiro Continued from here. 1. As mentioned, I believe that on occasion ArtScroll is unaware that the text it is explaining is a censored text. Sometimes it might even be an internally censored text (i.e., censored by Jews so as to avoid difficulties with the non- Jewish authorities). This same problem is often found with aharonim. How about with rishonim? For example, was Rashi ever misled by an internally censored text? I would hesitate to say so but this is exactly what is suggested by R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the Aderet), though he piously prefaces his .לולי דברי רש”י remarks with the words Sanhedrin 58b states: Resh Lakish said: A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death, for it is written, “And a day and a night they shall not rest” (Gen. 8:22), and a master has said: Their prohibition is their death sentence. Ravina said: Even if he rested on a Monday. that the original version (פשוט) The Aderet sees it as obvious of Ravina’s statement was “Even if he rested on Sunday,” and this was changed to “Monday” due to fear of the Christians.[1] Rashi, however, offers an explanation as to why “Monday” is mentioned, meaning that if the Aderet is correct then even Rashi was misled by the altered text.[2] As part of his explanation on this passage, Rashi also This is the authentic .אחד בשבת ששובתין בו הנוצרים :writes version of Rashi which appears in the early Talmud printings. It is also found in Steinsaltz and Oz ve-Hadar. The censored .הנוצרים Vilna Talmud, followed by ArtScroll, omit the word appears הנוצרים Even in the censored Vilna Talmud the word in Ta’anit 27b where we find the following: Our Rabbis have taught: The men of the Mishmar prayed over the sacrifice of their brethren that it may be favorably accepted, whilst the men of the Ma’amad assembled in their synagogues and observed four fasts, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week. On Monday [they fasted] for those that go down to the sea; on Tuesday for those who travel in the deserts; on Wednesday that croup may not attack children; on Thursday for pregnant women and nursing mothers, that pregnant women should not suffer a miscarriage, and that nursing mothers may be able to nurse their infants; on Friday they did not fast out of respect for the Sabbath; and certainly not on the Sabbath. Why did they not fast on Sunday? — R. Johanan said: Because of the Christians R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: Because it is the .(הנוצרים) third day after the creation of Man. Resh Lakish said: Because of the additional soul. For Resh Lakish said: Man is given an additional soul on Friday, but at the termination of the Sabbath it is taken away from him, as it is said, “He ceased from work and rested” [shavat va- yinafash], that is to say, once the rest had ceased, woe! that soul is gone. There is something very strange about this passage, and yet it is not noted in Soncino, ArtScroll, Koren, or by R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes whom I could have expected to pick up on it. I assume that most people read this passage without even realizing the problem, which for the rishonim was not a problem as I will explain. The Sages, in describing what went on in Second Temple days, make clear that the men of the Ma’amad did not fast on Sunday. R. Johanan, who lived in third-century Eretz Yisrael, says that this was because of the Christians. Rashi explains that the Christians “make this day [Sunday] their holiday.”[3] R. Gershom, in his commentary on the passage, writes that the Christians’ “holiday is on Sunday and if the Jews would fast they [the Christians] would be angered.”[4] The problem with all this is that in the days of the Second Temple there was no significant Christian community for Jews to be concerned with. Furthermore, these early followers of Jesus would not have observed the Sabbath on Sunday.[5] I think the answer to this problem is that the talmudic sages regarded Jesus as a student of R. Joshua ben Perahyah who flourished in the latter part of the second century BCE (i.e., ca. 130-100 BCE). In other words, in the talmudic conception Jesus lived at least a century earlier than the historical record tells us, and the amoraim assumed that the Christianity as they knew it was also practiced centuries before. Robert Travers Herford writes: “R. Johanan transferred to the time of the Temple a feature of the religious life of his own totally different time.”[6] The predating of Jesus’ life was also shared by the rishonim, which explains why the chronological problem did not trouble them. Ketubot 102b states: If a man died and left a young son with his mother, [and while] the father’s heirs demand, ‘Let him be brought up with us’, his mother claims, ‘My son should be brought up by me’, [the son] must be left with his mother and may not be left with anyone who is entitled to be his heir. Such a case once occurred and [the heirs] killed .ער”ה him mean? The first thing to note is that these ער”ה What does letters are not part of the original talmudic text. In talmudic manuscripts, the writings of the rishonim, and also the early printed editions in Pesaro and Venice, the uncensored text reads “killed him on the eve of Passover.”[7] Because this is the authentic reading, this is how it appears in Steinsaltz, Koren, and Soncino. ArtScroll, however, translates the last words of the passage as “They butchered him on the first evening of his stay,” .ערב הראשון as ער”ה reading ArtScroll’s action is quite strange, as there is absolutely no question what the authentic reading of the text is. Not only does ArtScroll translate the false acronym, but it even offers an explanation of it. “They were so eager for his blood that he did not even last a single night with him. They killed him on the evening of his arrival.” This is wildly incorrect as .is simply a printer’s invention ער”ה the acronym ArtScroll continues its explanation as follows: the first evening, are not,ערב הראשון The words actually found in theBaraisa . Rather, which is read – ער”ה – the Baraisa contains an acronym seeRosh; Mesoras HaShas). Another) ערב הראשון as ערב interpretation of this acronym reads it as (on Pesach eve (Meiri; Hagahos Yavetz ,הפסח This note also needs to be corrected as there is no dispute among rishonim about how to how to read the acronym, as the acronym did not exist in the days of the rishonim. It is an invention of one of the printed editions. Thus, contrary to what the note states, Meiri never gave an interpretation of Rather, these words were in his .ערב הפסח the acronym to mean text of the Talmud, and they were also in the Rosh’s text of the Talmud and appear in the manuscripts of the Rosh. The printed version of the Rosh has been “corrected”, just like the text of the Talmud and Rif was “corrected”.[8] Why did printed editions of the Talmud begin to use the acronym? This talmudic passage was cited by anti-Semites to support the blood libel, namely, that Jews would kill Christian children before Passover to use their blood.[9] Thus, this “correction”, like so many others, was designed to undermine anti-Semitic attacks against the Talmud.[10] Seth Leibowitz called my attention to the Stone Chumash, p. 407, where in the introduction to the Ten Commandments it states: Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim II:32) comments that they only heard the first two [commandments] from God, but they could hear only the sound of the Divine voice, as it were, and could not understand the words He was saying. Thus, the people experienced prophecy, for they heard God’s voice, but their faith in Moses was reinforced, because only he understood what God was saying. The first thing to note is that the reference should be II:33 not II:32. The passage just quoted states that the people experienced prophecy. Does Maimonides say this? Guide 2:33 is a very difficult chapter and any interpretation given can be challenged with alternative perspectives. (See Yaakov Levinger, Ha-Rambam ke-Filosof u-khe-Fosek, ch. 3.) Yet I think I am on safe ground in saying that Maimonidesdoes not believe that what the people as a whole experienced is to be regarded as prophecy. While Guide 2:33 might be ambiguous in this matter, the previous chapter, 2:32, states explicitly: “As for the Gathering at Mount Sinai, though through a miracle all the people saw the great fire and heard the frightening and terrifying voices, only those who were fit for it achieved the rank of prophecy, and even those in various degrees.” Shem Tov explains: ואחר שסלק הרב אלו הטעיות אשר יראה מהם שהשם ינבא כל איש מבני אדם, סלק מעלינו ספק גדול והוא מעמד הר סיני אשר אנשים ונשים סכלים ובלתי ראויים כל היו נביאים וזה יביא לחשוב שהשם ית’ ינבא כל מי שירצה מבלתי שיהיה מוכן, ואמר שאף שכלם היו רואים האש הגדולה ושומעים הקולות הנוראות המפחידות וזה היה על צד הפלא, לא הגיע למדרגת הנבואה אלא הראוי לה והראויים יתחלפו מדרגותיהם ג”כ Finally, so that all the attention is not on ArtScroll, the following point was called to my attention by Benjamin Apfel.
Recommended publications
  • Was the Chasam Sofer Inconsistent? a Review Essay

    Was the Chasam Sofer Inconsistent? a Review Essay

    239 Setting the Record Straight: Was the Chasam Sofer Inconsistent? A Review Essay By: NOSSON DOVID RABINOWICH In this essay we will discuss claims made in two recent articles, published by two leading scholars, to the effect that the Chasam Sofer was inconsistent and contradicted himself. I will attempt to show that those supposed “contradictions and inconsistencies” are either simply nonexistent or can be properly explained by careful and deliberate analysis of the actual sources and the issues involved. While my respect for Rabbi Moshe Sofer, the late “Chasam Sofer,” of blessed memory, is not merely that reserved for a great rabbi and outstanding scholar, I have endeavored to maintain a balanced and critical approach throughout. Nevertheless I feel it appropriate to note that from my perspective, Rabbi Sofer was a holy rabbi, a saint if you wish, whose towering scholarship in so many areas of Jewish studies was unmatched by his peers or by any rabbi from any subsequent generation. I do not hesitate to apply to him this popular saying: “From R. Moshe [Ben-Maimon; Maimonidies] until [R.] Moshe [Sofer] there was no one of the stature of R. Moshe [Sofer].”1 1 As the halakhic authority of his generation, he was probably more prolific than any other rabbi going back six hundred years, since the leading halakhic authority of the Golden Age in Spain, Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet. Of R. Sofer’s peers, only Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson, She-elot Sho’el U’Maishiv, was known to have written more responsa. ______________________________________________________ Nosson Dovid Rabinowich is the Mara d'Asra of Beis Medrash Ahavas Torah, a prolific author, and teacher.
  • 1 Beginning the Conversation

    1 Beginning the Conversation

    NOTES 1 Beginning the Conversation 1. Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1969). 2. John Micklethwait, “In God’s Name: A Special Report on Religion and Public Life,” The Economist, London November 3–9, 2007. 3. Mark Lila, “Earthly Powers,” NYT, April 2, 2006. 4. When we mention the clash of civilizations, we think of either the Spengler battle, or a more benign interplay between cultures in individual lives. For the Spengler battle, see Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). For a more benign interplay in individual lives, see Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1999). 5. Micklethwait, “In God’s Name.” 6. Robert Wuthnow, America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). “Interview with Robert Wuthnow” Religion and Ethics Newsweekly April 26, 2002. Episode no. 534 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week534/ rwuthnow.html 7. Wuthnow, America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity, 291. 8. Eric Sharpe, “Dialogue,” in Mircea Eliade and Charles J. Adams, The Encyclopedia of Religion, first edition, volume 4 (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 345–8. 9. Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald and John Borelli, Interfaith Dialogue: A Catholic View (London: SPCK, 2006). 10. Lily Edelman, Face to Face: A Primer in Dialogue (Washington, DC: B’nai B’rith, Adult Jewish Education, 1967). 11. Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament (New York: Knopf, 1967), 5, 11. 12. Ibid., 375.
  • Faith Within Reason, and Without Adam Friedmann the Parshah Introduces Us to the He Began to Stray in His Thinking (From Was Never Destined to Have Children

    Faith Within Reason, and Without Adam Friedmann the Parshah Introduces Us to the He Began to Stray in His Thinking (From Was Never Destined to Have Children

    בס“ד Parshat Lech Lecha 11 Cheshvan, 5777/November 12, 2016 Vol. 8 Num. 10 This issue is sponsored by Jeffrey and Rochel Silver in memory of their dear friend, Moe Litwack z”l Faith Within Reason, and Without Adam Friedmann The parshah introduces us to the he began to stray in his thinking (from was never destined to have children. spiritual greatness of Avraham Avinu the idolatry of his surroundings) while However, Ramban (ibid. 15:2) notes that and recounts many of the trials that he was still small and began thinking part of Avraham’s concern stemmed he faced, as well as several day and night… And his heart strayed from his advanced age. Perhaps he interactions that he had with G-d. and understood until he comprehended didn’t merit the miracle required to have Only in the penultimate encounter, the path of truth and understood the a child at that stage. And yet, G-d which describes the brit bein habetarim route of justice using his correct promises that a direct child of Avraham (covenant between the parts) does intellect. And he knew that there is only will inherit him. It is in this moment Avraham speak. Responding to a one G-d and He conducts the spheres that the rational nature of Avraham’s promise from G-d, “I am your and He created everything, and there faith is challenged. In order to maintain protector, your reward is very isn’t any G-d in existence except Him.” his belief in G-d’s promise, Avraham great” (Bereishit 15:1), Avraham It was based on this awareness and the would need to abandon, at least in this expresses concern about his lack of conviction in the truth of his detail, his rational assumptions and progeny: “My Lord G-d, what can you philosophical analyses that Avraham move forward purely on the basis of his give me? I go childless…” (ibid.
  • Wrestling Demons

    Wrestling Demons

    WRESTLING WITH DEMONS A History of Rabbinic Attitudes to Demons Natan Slifkin Copyright © 2011 by Natan Slifkin Version 1.0 http://www.ZooTorah.com http://www.RationalistJudaism.com This monograph is adapted from an essay that was written as part of the course requirements for a Master’s degree in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute (Jerusalem). This document may be purchased at www.rationalistjudaism.com Other monographs available in this series: Messianic Wonders and Skeptical Rationalists The Evolution of the Olive Shiluach HaKein: The Transformation of a Mitzvah The Question of the Kidney’s Counsel The Sun’s Path at Night Sod Hashem Liyreyav: The Expansion of a Useful Concept Cover Illustration: The Talmud describes how King Solomon spoke with demons. This illustration is from Jacobus de Teramo’s Das Buch Belial (Augsburg 1473). 2 WRESTLING WITH DEMONS Introduction From Scripture to Talmud and Midrash through medieval Jewish writings, we find mention of dangerous and evil beings. Scripture refers to them as Azazel and se’irim; later writings refer to them as sheidim, ruchot and mazikim. All these are different varieties (or different names) of demons. Belief in demons (and the associated belief in witches, magic and occult phenomena) was widespread in the ancient world, and the terror that it caused is unimaginable to us.1 But in the civilized world today there is virtually nobody who still believes in them. The transition from a global approach of belief to one of disbelief began with Aristotle, gained a little more traction in the early medieval period, and finally concretized in the eighteenth century.
  • THE IDEA of MODERN JEWISH CULTURE the Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History the Idea of Modern Jewish Culture

    THE IDEA of MODERN JEWISH CULTURE the Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History the Idea of Modern Jewish Culture

    THE IDEA OF MODERN JEWISH CULTURE The Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History The Idea of Modern Jewish Culture ELIEZER SCHWEID Translated by Amnon HADARY edited by Leonard LEVIN BOSTON 2008 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schweid, Eliezer. [Likrat tarbut Yehudit modernit. English] The idea of modern Jewish culture / Eliezer Schweid ; [translated by Amnon Hadary ; edited by Leonard Levin]. p. cm.—(Reference library of Jewish intellectual history) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-934843-05-5 1. Judaism—History—Modern period, 1750–. 2. Jews—Intellectual life. 3. Jews—Identity. 4. Judaism—20th century. 5. Zionism—Philosophy. I. Hadary, Amnon. II. Levin, Leonard, 1946– III. Title. BM195.S3913 2008 296.09’03—dc22 2008015812 Copyright © 2008 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-934843-05-5 On the cover: David Tartakover, Proclamation of Independence, 1988 (Detail) Book design by Yuri Alexandrov Published by Academic Studies Press in 2008 145 Lake Shore Road Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com Contents Editor’s Preface . vii Foreword . xi Chapter One. Culture as a Concept and Culture as an Ideal . 1 Chapter Two. Tensions and Contradiction . 11 Chapter Three. Internalizing the Cultural Ideal . 15 Chapter Four. The Underlying Philosophy of Jewish Enlightenment . 18 Chapter Five. The Meaning of Being a Jewish-Hebrew Maskil . 24 Chapter Six. Crossroads: The Transition from Haskalah to the Science of Judaism . 35 Chapter Seven. The Dialectic between National Hebrew Culture and Jewish Idealistic Humanism . 37 Chapter Eight. The Philosophic Historic Formation of Jewish Humanism: a Modern Guide to the Perplexed .
  • Further Comments by Marc Shapiro,Benefits of the Internet

    Further Comments by Marc Shapiro,Benefits of the Internet

    Further Comments by Marc Shapiro Further Comments By Marc B. Shapiro I had thought that this would be my last post of the current batch, but it turned out to be too long. So I have divided it into two parts. Here is part no. 1. The volumes Shomrei Mishmeret ha-Kodesh, by R. Natan Raphael Auerbach, have just appeared. Here is the cover. This book is devoted to the Auerbach family, which was one of the great rabbinic families in Germany. They were the “A” in what was known as the ABC rabbinic families (the others being Bamberger and Carlebach). Over 150 pages are devoted to R. Zvi Benjamin Auerbach, who was the most prominent of the Auerbach rabbis. He was also the publisher of Sefer ha-Eshkol, to which he added his commentary Nahal Eshkol. In a number of posts I dealt with Auerbach’s edition ofSefer Ha-Eshkol, and discussed how both academic scholars and traditional talmidei hakhamim have concluded that the work is a forgery.1 Readers who are interested in the details can examine the earlier posts. In this newly published volume, which was called to my attention by Eliezer Brodt, the author speaks briefly about the Sefer ha-Eshkol controversy and responds to those who, in his words, continue to defame a gadol be-Yisrael (p. 382): הממשיכים לבזות גדול בישראל ולהכפישו באופן אישי In the note the author refers to Moshe Samet, who earlier had dealt with Sefer ha-Eshkol, and also to one of my posts on the Seforim Blog. While Seforim Blog posts have been cited in English scholarly writings, as far as I know this is the first time that there has been citation in a Hebrew volume.
  • Noah and the Flood

    Noah and the Flood

    THE BOOK OF JUBILEES AND THE MIDRASH PART 2: NOAH AND THE FLOOD ZVI RON INTRODUCTION The Book of Jubilees is a retelling of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus in the form of an angel speaking to Moses. It was written by a Jew in Hebrew some time around the early second century BCE, perhaps even earlier. The original Hebrew is lost to us today; our translations are based primarily on Ethiopic texts. Like the Midrash, Jubilees often supplements the Biblical nar- ratives with additional information; at other times, Jubilees provides a resolu- tion to a difficulty in the biblical text, another concern of Midrash. As such, the Book of Jubilees may be categorized as an early form of midrashic litera- 1 ture. Some of the interpretations in Jubilees are in fact preserved in the later midrashic literature. The title, "Book of Jubilees," reflects the author's partic- ular way of viewing the chronology of the world as a series of 49-nine year cycles, but it was also sometimes referred to as "The Little Genesis" ( Bereshit 2 3 Zuta in Aramaic), since it is an abbreviated retelling of Genesis. Jubilees was not incorporated into rabbinic literature, as it differs in some very fun- damental legal points – most famously the insistence on a purely solar calen- 4 dar, as opposed to the rabbinic lunar/solar model, and stringencies regarding 5 Shabbat observance. In a previous article ("The Book of Jubilees and the Midrash on the Early Chapters of Genesis", The Jewish Bible Quarterly , 41:3, July 2013) we saw how the Book of Jubilees dealt with various difficul- ties in the text of the early chapters of Genesis in ways occasionally similar and sometimes very different from the later rabbinic midrashic literature.
  • Fine Judaica, to Be Held November 29Th, 2007

    Fine Judaica, to Be Held November 29Th, 2007

    F INE JUDAICA . PRINTED BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS, AUTOGRAPH LETTERS & GRAPHIC ART K ESTENBAUM & COMPANY THURSDAY NOVEMBER 29TH 2007 K ESTENBAUM & COMPANY . Auctioneers of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Fine Art Lot 131 Catalogue of F INE JUDAICA . PRINTED BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS, AUTOGRAPH LETTERS & GRAPHIC ART Featuring: The First Edition Judenstaat. Boldly Inscribed and Signed by Theodor Herzl. An Illuminated Hagadah. Ferrara, 1767. ● An Illuminated Mohel-Book. Potsdam, 1795. A 19th-Century Jerusalem Pinkas Shadar Ledger to England. A 19th-century Hebrew Manuscript of Australian Appeal. A Custom Mohel-Book from the Island of Curacao. Three Substantial Autograph Manuscript Volumes by Cantor Yossele Rosenblatt. Autograph Letters of Signifi cant 20th-century Substance by Rabbis Feinstein, Grodzenski, Kotler, Soloveitchik, Teitelbaum, etc. Set of Twelve Watercolor Designs by Ze’ev Raban. ● An Acrylic by Zalman Kleinman. Arthur Szyk’s Statute of Kalisz, along with a further three scarce Szyk Works from the1920’s. And From a Private European Collection: A fi ne complete copy of the Sepher Ha’Ikrim, Soncino 1486. Along with important Early Printed Books from the same Collection, featuring books from the presses at: Fano, Pesaro, Rimini, Ortona, Riva di Trento, Constantinople, Salonika, Augsburg, Cracow etc. (Short-Title Index in Hebrew available upon request) ——— To be Offered for Sale by Auction, Thursday, 29th November, 2007, at 3:00 pm precisely ——— Viewing Beforehand on: Sunday 25th November - 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday 26th November - 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Tuesday, 27th November - 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Wednesday, 28th November - 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Thursday, 29th November - 10:00 am - 2:30 pm This Sale may be referred to as: “Kew” Sale Number Thirty-Eight Illustrated Catalogues: $35 (US) * $42 (Overseas) KESTENBAUM & COMPANY Auctioneers of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Fine Art .
  • R' Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport

    R' Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport

    109 R’ Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport (Shir), Champion of Jewish Unity in the Modern Era By: CHAIM LANDERER In 1859 R’ Zechariah Frankel published his groundbreaking study, Darkhei HaMishna, which included a discussion of the origin of the Oral Law. In his book, Frankel refers to the Oral Law as being of great antiquity but makes no unequivocal statement of its Divine ori- gin. This caused a severe controversy that eventually led to the sepa- ration of Frankel’s Breslau school from traditional Judaism.1 An open letter was addressed to Frankel by a Hungarian Rabbi, Gottlieb Fischer. This was translated and published by R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch in his periodical Jeschurun (1860) and was followed by a series of critical essays in which Hirsch demanded that Frankel give 1 A sense of the position Frankel held among traditional Jews just prior to the controversy can be seen by the fact that the New Orleans com- mittee in charge of erecting a monument to the memory of the philan- thropist Judah Touro chose Frankel along with Rabbis Samson Raphael Hirsch, Nathan Adler of Hanover, and Solomon Judah Leib Rapoport of Prague to decide if such a monument may be constructed according to Halacha. See Three Years in America: 1859 –1862 Volume I, by I. J. Benjamin, translated from the German by Charles Reznikoff, p. 325 ff. (Philadelphia, 1956). An interesting description of Frankel’s personal piety can be found in the letter of the philosopher Hermann Cohen published in Hirsch’s Jeschurun 7 (1861) p. 297, in which he describes Frankel as an observant Jew who conducted himself in all respects in accord with the strict interpretation of Jewish law, such as “standing in the synagogue with the tallis over his head, singing zemiros on Shabbos, and also, sometimes commenting in his shiurim that the Yarei Shamayim (he who fears heaven) should be machmir!” cited in David Ellenson, “Wissenschaft Des Judentums, Historical Consciousness, and Jewish Faith: The Diverse Paths of Frankel, Auerbach and Halevy,” The Leo Baeck Memorial Lecture, n.

  • Link to Rabbi Levi Isaak of Berdichev

    Gelles - Shapiro - Friedman _______________ © Copyright Shaker Publishing and Edward Gelles 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. Printed in The Netherlands. ISBN 978-90-423-0370-6 Shaker Publishing BV St. Maartenslaan 26 6221 AX Maastricht Tel.: 043-3500424 Fax: 043-3255090 http:// www.shaker.nl Dr. Edward Gelles E-mail : [email protected] + + + ! " # + $ The millennial family background $% & ' ) (% Shapiro Connections $4 !" Gelles – Shapiro )% * + (5 Gelles - Friedman ,% '- ,/ . Gelles family history /% 04 0%12 . 6/ " ! " $7) - # $74 R $$4 # $ " % && & $ " % &' ( ) % * +#,-(. /0 / ) %1$ * +#2(#. /# ' $ " %3* /( 4 $ 5 " 6 * 7 +#-(/. ,4 , $ 5* 6 * 8 +#-(4. ,, 2 8 M: 3 ; 8#-/#<#-/& 2& - = :5:> * + ". -/ #0 * " :5:> * 6 +#-&&. -, ## :5:> * "7 +#-''. -, #& ? :5:> * 7 #0& # %$ #4 & * 8 $ @ (/ ( 8 " /- /)* 2( > # 8 > ? >! > > 2 & @ " $ A7 6 $" ; 6 <) #0 5: :> * % "* ## (% B@ " : #& /@ " M! <8 #( ' " #/ 4 <: #2 , " M " &0 2 <? > M +. &( - : &4 #0 M !" @ > 7 &, ## : * 8 @ /& #& *> %3* 7 4/ #( 6 *
  • CCAR RESPONSA Who Is a Rabbi? She'elah a New Congregation Has

    CCAR RESPONSA Who Is a Rabbi? She'elah a New Congregation Has

    CCAR RESPONSA 5759.3 Who Is a Rabbi? She'elah A new congregation has been formed in my city, founded by a woman who has attended the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism (IISHJ), the rabbinical school of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. She serves as the congregation's rabbi, even though she has yet to be ordained by that school. She has been licensed by the state to perform weddings, and also does conversions. Should we accept these conversions as valid, even though they were supervised by someone other than an ordained rabbi? In general, what is our position with respect to individuals who have received private ordination or who claim to possess ordination from seminaries, schools or yeshivot with which we are unfamiliar? Do we recognize them as rabbis? Do we accept them as colleagues in our communities? Teshuvah 1. Conversions Supervised by a Layperson. Your first question has been addressed quite clearly by the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR). We hold that, while "a rabbinical beit din is desirable for giyur ," conversion should at any rate take place in the presence of a rabbi and no fewer than two lay leaders of the community.[1] We base this position upon considerations of both a halakhic and a practical nature. Our tradition teaches that conversion must take place in the presence of a beit din , a court of Jewish law.[2] The Rabbis derive this requirement through a midrash , the interpretation of biblical verses[3] in which the Hebrew root sh-p-t ("judgment") appears in connection with the word ger , or "proselyte."[4] The precise make-up of this court is a matter of dispute in the literature; some contend that the Torah itself requires that a beit din consist of no fewer than three judges,[5] while others believe that one judge is sufficient and that the requirement of three judges in cases other than penal law is a rabbinic stringency.[6] Both views agree, however, that the judges must be knowledgeable of the law and qualified for their task.
  • Bati Le-Gani: a Comparison of Discourses by Rabbis Schneersohn and Hutner

    Bati Le-Gani: a Comparison of Discourses by Rabbis Schneersohn and Hutner

    141 Bati le-Gani: A Comparison of Discourses by Rabbis Schneersohn and Hutner By: BEZALEL NAOR In the year 5710/1950, in honor of the tenth of Shevat, the yahrzeiṭ of his paternal grandmother Rebbetzin Rivkah, Rabbi Yosef Yitshaḳ Schneersohn, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, composed and distributed a ma’amar (discourse) to be studied on that day. As Divine Providence would have it, the tenth of Shevat (which fell on a Sabbath that year) became the Rebbe’s own yahrzeiṭ , for in the early hours of Shabbat morning he passed to his eternal reward. Understandably, this discourse entitled Bati le-Gani (“I Came to My Garden”), after the verse in Song of Songs 5:1, was viewed thereafter as Rabbi Yosef Yitshak’ṣ last will and testament. When a year later on the tenth of Shevat, 5711/1951, the first yahrzeiṭ of Rabbi Yosef Yitshak,̣ his son-in-law Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson formally succeeded him as Rebbe of Lubavitch, his “inaugural address,” so to speak, was this Ma’amar Bati le-Gani. The discourse became the “mission statement” of the movement, and in years to come, this ma’amar would be revisited and reexamined annually on Yud Shevat. The text that serves as the basis for the Rebbe’s discourse is the Midrash in Song of Songs Rabbah which describes how as each epoch sinned, the Shekhinah or divine presence became further removed from our mundane reality: Adam sinned and the Shekhinah departed to the first heaven. Cain sinned; it departed to the second heaven. Enoch sinned; it departed to the third heaven.