DOCSLIB.ORG

Salvation and Redemption in the Judaic Tradition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salvation and Redemption in the Judaic Tradition Salvation and Redemption in the Judaic Tradition David Rosen In presenting Judaic perspectives on salvation and redemption, distinction must be made between the national dimensions on the one hand and the personal on the other, even though the latter is of course seen as related to the national whole, for better or worse (see TB Kiddushin 40b). Individual Salvation Biblical Teachings Redemption and salvation imply the need for deliverance from a particular situation, condition, or debt. The Hebrew word for redemption, gəʾullāh, implies “the prior existence of obligation.” This word is used in Leviticus to describe the nancial redemption of ancestral land from another to whom it has been sold (see Leviticus 25:25); the nancial redemption of a member of one family bound in servitude to another family because of debt (see Leviticus 25:48–49); and the redemption of a home, eld, ritually impure animal, or agricultural tithe that had been dedicated to the sanctuary by giving its nancial value plus one-fth in lieu thereof (see Leviticus 27). In the case of a male who died childless, his brothers assumed an obligation to “redeem” the name of the deceased —that is, to save it from extinction by ensuring the continuity of his seed, lands, and lial tribute (see Deuteronomy 25:5–10; Ruth 4:1–10). In a case of murder, the gôʾēl was the blood avenger who sought to requite the wrong by seeking blood for blood, redeeming thereby, if not the “wandering soul” of the deceased, certainly the honor that had been desecrated (see Numbers 35:12–29; cf. Deuteronomy 4:42). When translated into the realm of divine activity, because God is Lord of the Universe and owns all, the notion of redemption from debt or obligation is irrelevant. Rather, it is through divine involvement in the release and deliverance of the oppressed and vulnerable that God is seen as Redeemer, liberating people from their tribulations (see 2 Samuel 4:9; 1 Kings 1:29; Psalms 11:6; 119:134), and as Savior/Guardian of the orphan and widow (see Job 19:25; Psalm 68:6; Proverbs 23:10–11). However, in a deeper theological sense, every person is seen as condemned through his or her sins, not in any inherited or vicarious sense, but simply because of the consequences of sin and the fact that “there is no person who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20). Just as the term sin is used in the Bible in terms of dereliction of duty toward others (see Judges 11:27; 1 Samuel 2:25; 2 Kings 18:14), so sin in the religious moral context is seen as the dereliction of the individual’s duty toward God in terms of covenantal obligations (see Psalm 25:5–7; cf. 2Samuel 12:13 and Jeremiah 14:20–21). It is, however, not seen as a tragic necessity but always as the fruit of will, and thus its guilt is always deserved. Because one can choose to do good, each individual is answerable for his or her wrongdoings. As sin therefore is seen as rebellion against God, the consequences should be extremely severe. Thus the idea that punishment for sin is death (see, for example, 1 Samuel 2:25; cf. Deuteronomy 29:19) is embodied in the formula that “each man shall die for his [own] sins” (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; cf. Numbers 27:3). The law of retaliation (talion) demanded that the offender should be punished according to his sin, although the possibility existed for substitution (see 2 Samuel 12:13–14), as well as for transferring the guilt to a scapegoat and expelling it (see Leviticus 16:22). The sin offering was accordingly seen not only as purication for the individual, but above all as a means of obtaining God’s forgiveness by serving as a “ransom,” or kōfer, for the sinner, which thus granted “atonement,” or kapparah. Kōfer was the legal term for the ransom or gift that was both to compensate and appease; in the case of manslaughter, restitution could be made by a gift to the victim’s family of an ox (see Exodus 21:30), while such kōfer nefesh, “ransom for a life,” was not permissible in the case of murder (see Numbers 35:31–32). Every such sacrice may be considered as a ransom, or kōfer, in the original sense of making a propitiatory gift for the purpose of atonement (ləkapper; see Leviticus 17:11). This idea of atonement is rooted in the perception of sin as causing a rift with and a distance from God and thus of the need to reconcile the soul of the sinner with God. In order to overcome this sense of estrangement from God, the sinner offers expiatory sacrices not simply to appease God, but to place the sinner’s soul in a different relation to him. The continued spiritualization of atonement accordingly leads to the perception of sacrice as peripheral to, symbolic of, or at least an extension of the essential internal process. Thus repentance itself is seen as having power to effect a reconciliation between the erstwhile sinner and the merciful God, who eagerly anticipates and accepts the sincere contrition of the penitent (see, for example, Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 4:1; Ezekiel 18:30–33; Jonah 3:10; Micah 7:18–19). In relation to this idea, as expressed in the Pentateuch, with Moses’ intercession on behalf of the errant Israelites, the essential divine attributes of compassion, forgiveness, loving-kindness, and tolerance are revealed (see Exodus 34:1–9; Numbers 14:17–20). The value of an atoning sacrice in this light is thus understood to be both an appeal to God’s forgiving mercy and an inspiration to the sinner to duly repent. But it is sincere repentance and God’s abundant love and compassion rather than the sacrice that effect the reconciliation, the full “at-one-ment.” While a variety of idioms are used to describe repentance, they are all subsumed by one verb, shûv, meaning “return,” which is prevalent in the Bible and from which ows the rabbinic concept of təshûvāh. The word combines within itself the two essential requisites of repentance—namely, to turn away from evil and to turn toward the good (see Isaiah 1:17; 33:15; 58:5; Jeremiah 7:3; 26:13; Amos 5:14–15; Psalms 15; 24:4; 34:15–16; 37:27). The motion of turning implies that through such effort—a power that God has given to all humankind—sinners can redirect their destiny. That this concept was not a total prophetic innovation but goes back to Israel’s ancient tradition is clear from Amos’s use of it as understood, requiring no need for explanation (see Amos 4:6–11). This text, furthermore, expresses the idea of divine punishment as an incentive to repent and gain salvation, an idea that features prominently in Job (see Job 34:14–33; 36:2–21). Aside, therefore, from its independence from sacrice, salvation from sin is thus perceived as overwhelmingly within the hands of the human person to achieve. Naturally this idea acquired substantial impetus during the exile, when the form of sacricial atonement was not available. Accordingly, prayer assumed a growing importance as a vehicle for reconciliation with God, as is seen through the book of Psalms (see Hosea 14:3); other means included fasting and ṣədāqāh (“charity,” or, better, “righteous response”; see, for example, Isaiah 58:1–3; Daniel 4:24; Joel 2:15–18; Zechariah 7:5). Rabbinic Teachings While the rabbis taught that all of Israel are allocated a portion in the world to come (see M Sanhedrin 10:1), it is only through obedience to the divine covenant, the Torah, that the attainment of such is guaranteed (see Sifre Deuteronomy 34:5; TB Sanhedrin 100a; TB Avodah Zarah 31; TB Taʿanit 11a–b; cf. Leviticus Rabbah 27). Because the human being is created with free will and is therefore culpable for his evil deeds (see M Avot 3:15–16) and because there is not a righteous person on earth who does only good and sins not (see Ecclesiastes 7:20), the attribute of divine justice would condemn all (cf. Genesis Rabbah 8:11). However, divine justice is perceived by the rabbis as functioning in tension with the divine attribute of mercy. The latter provides from the very outset the means to ensure salvation for all in the form of repentance, təshûvāh (see TB Pesahim 54a; TY Peʾah 17:1; Genesis Rabbah 1:4, 12; Lamentations Rabbah 3:5; Midrash on Psalm 57:90; cf. Pesiqta Rabbati 158b). Perhaps an awareness of the historic development of the idea of salvation from sin is expressed in the following passage: “They asked Wisdom ‘What is the sinner’s punishment?’ She said to them, ‘Evil pursues sinners'” [Proverbs 13:21]. “They asked Prophecy ‘What is the sinner’s punishment?’ She said to them ‘The soul that sins, it shall die'” [Ezekiel 18:4]. “They asked Torah ‘What is the sinner’s punishment?’ She said to them ‘Let them bring a guilt offering and it shall atone for him.'” “They asked the Holy One Blessed Be He ‘What’s the sinner’s punishment?’ He said to them, ‘Let him repent (do təshûvāh) and it shall atone for him'” (see TY Makkot 2:6). Thus in the aforementioned tension, it is the divine attribute of mercy that gains the “upper hand” as God awaits and assists the sinner to return to him (see T Sanhedrin 8:3; TY Makkot 2:6; TY Berakhot 4:2; TB Rosh ha-Shanah 17–18; TB Pesahim 119a; TB Yoma 86a, b; Sifre 60b; Sifra Behukotai 8:6; Canticles Rabbah 6:1; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7; Exodus Rabbah 19:3; Numbers Rabbah 10).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Significant Persons/Founders
    Significant Persons/ Founders Historical Figures Abraham According to Jewish tradition, Abraham was born under the name Abram in the city of Ur in Babylonia in the year 1948 from Creation (circa 1800 BCE). He was the son of Terach, an idol merchant; however, from his early childhood, he questioned the faith of his father and sought the truth. He came to believe that the entire universe was the work of a single Creator, and he began to teach this belief to others. Eventually, the one true Creator that Abram had worshipped called to him and made him an offer: if Abram would leave his home and his family, then God would make him a great nation and bless him. Abram accepted this offer, and the covenant between God and the Jewish people was established. Abram was subjected to ten tests of faith to prove his worthiness for this covenant. God promised the land of Israel to Abram’s descendants. Abram was growing old and his beloved wife, Sarai, was past child-bearing years. She therefore offered her maidservant, Hagar, as a wife to Abram. (This was a common practice in the region at the time.) Hagar bore Abram a son, Ishmael, who, according to both Muslim and Jewish tradition, is the ancestor of the Arabs. When Abram was 100 and Sarai 90, God promised Abram a son by Sarai. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham (father of many), and Sarai’s to Sarah (from “my princess” to “princess”). Sarah bore Abraham a son, Isaac, who was the ancestor of the Jewish people.
    [Show full text]
  • Readings on the Encounter Between Jewish Thought and Early Modern Science
    HISTORY 449 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA W 3:30pm-6:30 pm Fall, 2016 GOD AND NATURE: READINGS ON THE ENCOUNTER BETWEEN JEWISH THOUGHT AND EARLY MODERN SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR: David B. Ruderman OFFICE HRS: M 3:30-4:30 pm;W 1:00-2:00 OFFICE: 306b College Hall Email: [email protected] SOME GENERAL WORKS ON THE SUBJECT: Y. Tzvi Langerman, "Jewish Science", Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 11:89-94 Y. Tzvi Langerman, The Jews and the Sciences in the Middle Ages, 1999 A. Neher, "Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century," Journal History of Ideas 38 (1977): 211-26 A. Neher, Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century: David Gans (1541-1613) and His Times, l986 H. Levine, "Paradise not Surrendered: Jewish Reactions to Copernicus and the Growth of Modern Science" in R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky, eds. Epistemology, Methodology, and the Social Sciences (Boston, l983), pp. 203-25 H. Levine, "Science," in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, eds. A. Cohen and P. Mendes-Flohr, l987, pp. 855-61 M. Panitz, "New Heavens and a New Earth: Seventeenth- to Nineteenth-Century Jewish Responses to the New Astronomy," Conservative Judaism, 40 (l987-88); 28-42 D. Ruderman, Kabbalah, Magic, and Science: The Cultural Universe of a Sixteenth- Century Jewish Physician, l988 D. Ruderman, Science, Medicine, and Jewish Culture in Early Modern Europe, Spiegel Lectures in European Jewish History, 7, l987 D. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, 1995, 2001 D. Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key: Anglo-Jewry’s Construction of Modern Jewish Thought, 2000 D.
    [Show full text]
  • By Tamar Kadari* Abstract Julius Theodor (1849–1923)
    By Tamar Kadari* Abstract This article is a biography of the prominent scholar of Aggadic literature, Rabbi Dr Julius Theodor (1849–1923). It describes Theodor’s childhood and family and his formative years spent studying at the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary. It explores the thirty one years he served as a rabbi in the town of Bojanowo, and his final years in Berlin. The article highlights The- odor’s research and includes a list of his publications. Specifically, it focuses on his monumental, pioneering work preparing a critical edition of Bereshit Rabbah (completed by Chanoch Albeck), a project which has left a deep imprint on Aggadic research to this day. Der folgende Artikel beinhaltet eine Biographie des bedeutenden Erforschers der aggadischen Literatur Rabbiner Dr. Julius Theodor (1849–1923). Er beschreibt Theodors Kindheit und Familie und die ihn prägenden Jahre des Studiums am Breslauer Rabbinerseminar. Er schil- dert die einunddreissig Jahre, die er als Rabbiner in der Stadt Bojanowo wirkte, und seine letzten Jahre in Berlin. Besonders eingegangen wird auf Theodors Forschungsleistung, die nicht zuletzt an der angefügten Liste seiner Veröffentlichungen ablesbar ist. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei seine präzedenzlose monumentale kritische Edition des Midrasch Bereshit Rabbah (die Chanoch Albeck weitergeführt und abgeschlossen hat), ein Werk, das in der Erforschung aggadischer Literatur bis heute nachwirkende Spuren hinterlassen hat. Julius Theodor (1849–1923) is one of the leading experts of the Aggadic literature. His major work, a scholarly edition of the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (BerR), completed by Chanoch Albeck (1890–1972), is a milestone and foundation of Jewish studies research. His important articles deal with key topics still relevant to Midrashic research even today.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Was Maimonides Controversial?
    12 Nov 2014, 19 Cheshvan 5775 B”H Congregation Adat Reyim Dr Maurice M. Mizrahi Adult Education Why was Maimonides controversial? Introduction Always glad to talk about Maimonides: He was Sephardic (of Spanish origin), and so am I He lived and worked in Egypt, and that's where I was born and grew up His Hebrew name was Moshe (Moses), and so is mine He was a rationalist, and so am I He was a scientist of sorts, and so am I He had very strong opinions, and so do I And, oh yes: He was Jewish, and so am I. -Unfortunately, he probably wasn’t my ancestor. -Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, aka Maimonides, aka The Rambam: b. 1135 (Córdoba, Muslim Spain) – d. 1204 (Fostat, Egypt): Torah scholar, philosopher, physician: Maimonides was the most illustrious figure in Judaism in the post-talmudic era, and one of the greatest of all time… His influence on the future development of Judaism is incalculable. No spiritual leader of the Jewish people in the post- talmudic period has exercised such an influence both in his own and subsequent generations. [Encyclopedia Judaica] -Best-known for Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed: -Mishneh Torah (Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka) codifies Jewish law. Gathers all laws from Talmud and adds rulings of later Sages. Clear, concise, and logical. No personal opinions. -The Guide for the Perplexed (Dalalat al-Ha'erin; Moreh Nevukhim) is a non-legal philosophical work, for general public, that bridges Jewish and Greek thought. -Controversial in his lifetime and for many centuries afterwards. Controversies concerning Maimonides 1-No need to study Talmud -He appears to downplay study of Talmud.
    [Show full text]
  • Maharam of Padua V. Giustiniani; the Sixteenth-Century Origins of the Jewish Law of Copyright
    Draft: July 2007 44 Houston Law Review (forthcoming 2007) Maharam of Padua v. Giustiniani; the Sixteenth-Century Origins of the Jewish Law of Copyright Neil Weinstock Netanel* Copyright scholars are almost universally unaware of Jewish copyright law, a rich body of copyright doctrine and jurisprudence that developed in parallel with Anglo- American and Continental European copyright laws and the printers’ privileges that preceded them. Jewish copyright law traces its origins to a dispute adjudicated some 150 years before modern copyright law is typically said to have emerged with the Statute of Anne of 1709. This essay, the beginning of a book project about Jewish copyright law, examines that dispute, the case of the Maharam of Padua v. Giustiniani. In 1550, Rabbi Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen of Padua (known by the Hebrew acronym, the “Maharam” of Padua) published a new edition of Moses Maimonides’ seminal code of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah. Katzenellenbogen invested significant time, effort, and money in producing the edition. He and his son also added their own commentary on Maimonides’ text. Since Jews were forbidden to print books in sixteenth- century Italy, Katzenellenbogen arranged to have his edition printed by a Christian printer, Alvise Bragadini. Bragadini’s chief rival, Marc Antonio Giustiniani, responded by issuing a cheaper edition that both copied the Maharam’s annotations and included an introduction criticizing them. Katzenellenbogen then asked Rabbi Moses Isserles, European Jewry’s leading juridical authority of the day, to forbid distribution of the Giustiniani edition. Isserles had to grapple with first principles. At this early stage of print, an author- editor’s claim to have an exclusive right to publish a given book was a case of first impression.
    [Show full text]
  • What's in God's Name
    THOUGHT OF NACHMANIDES: VAYECHI: WHAT’S IN GOD’S NAME? Gavriel Z. Bellino – January 6, 2016 ספר שמות ו Exodus 6 )ב( וַיְדַ רבֵּ אֱֹלהִ ים, אֶ ל-מֹשֶ ה; וַיֹאמֶ ר And Elohim spoke unto Moses, and said unto (2) אֵּלָ יו, אֲנִי יְהוָה. )ג( וָאֵּרָ א, אֶ ל-אַבְרָ הָ ם ,him: 'I am YHWH; (3) and I appeared unto Abraham אֶ ל-יִצְחָ ק וְאֶ ל-יַעֲקֹב-- לבְאֵּ שַדָ י; ּושְמִ י unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, b’El Shadai, and My יְהוָה, לֹא נֹודַעְתִ י לָהֶ ם. )ד( וְגַם הֲקִ מֹתִ י name YHWH, I was not known to them. (4) And I אֶ ת-בְרִ ייתִ אִתָ ם, לָתֵּ ת לָהֶ ם אֶ ת-אֶרֶ ץ have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their כְ נָעַ ן-- תאֵּ ץאֶרֶ מְ גֻרֵּ יהֶ ם, אֲשֶ ר-גָרּו בָ ּה. sojournings, wherein they sojourned. (5) And )ה( וְגַם אֲנִי שָמַעְתִ י, אֶ ת- תנַאֲקַ בְ נֵּי moreover I have heard the groaning of the children יִשְרָ אֵּ ל, אֲשֶ ר מִ צְרַ יִם, מַ עֲבִדִ ים אֹתָ ם; of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and וָאֶזְכֹר, אֶ ת-בְרִ יתִ י. .I have remembered My covenant פרוש הרמב”ן על ספר שמות ו:ב-ה Nachmanides on Exodus 6:2-5 AND GOD SPOKE UNTO MOSES. Rashi explains that He spoke to him harshly because he had been critical when he said, Why have you done evil unto this nation? AND HE SAID UNTO HIM: I AM YHWH, Who is faithful to recompense reward to those who walk before Me wholeheartedly.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecclesiastes and the Riddle of Authorship'
    H-Judaic Kalman on Bolin, 'Ecclesiastes and the Riddle of Authorship' Review published on Sunday, November 11, 2018 Thomas M. Bolin. Ecclesiastes and the Riddle of Authorship. BibleWorld Series. New York: Routledge, 2017. 156 pp. $149.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-84553-073-0. Reviewed by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion) Published on H- Judaic (November, 2018) Commissioned by Katja Vehlow (University of South Carolina) Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=53128 Although small in size, Thomas M. Bolin’s Ecclesiastes and the Riddle of Authorship is big in ideas. Bolin sets out to show that how the reader imagines and constructs the author shapes how a book is interpreted. In this context this means readers of Ecclesiastes have often reframed the character of Qohelet identified in Ecclesiastes 1:1-2,12, 7:27, and 12:8-10 to resolve problems with, and in, the text. The first problem arises simply from the fact that the author is identified by name (or title), “The words of Qohelet, the son of David, king in Jerusalem,” but no record of such a king is found in the Bible or any other source. Given that some readers have imagined the term “Qohelet” as a title rather than a name, some other identifiable figure might fit the description. This has led generations of readers to hunt for the “actual” identity of Qohelet by using data provided in the book to help confirm their respective conclusions. In a circular way, once Qohelet is identified, the data provided by Ecclesiastes is then read back into the biography of the actual author helping to strengthen the tie.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Models of Jewish Philosophy Submitted for the Degree of Phd in Philosophy at the London School
    Justifying One’s Practices: Two Models of Jewish Philosophy Submitted for the degree of PhD in Philosophy At the London School of Economics and Political Science Daniel Rynhold 2000 1 UMI Number: U120701 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U120701 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 773 ) Thesis Abstract Judaism is a religion that emphasises the importance of a set of practical commandments and in the history of Jewish philosophy various attempts have been made to rationalise or justify these commandments. In this thesis I try to establish a general model for the justification of practices through a critical examination of two such attempted rationalisations. However, the study is framed within the more general question of whether or not there can be such a thing as Jewish Philosophy as a genuinely substantive discipline. Thus, I take the particular topic of rationalising the commandments as a ‘case study’ in order to see whether we can do substantive Jewish philosophy at least in the practical sphere. In the main body of the thesis I look at the methods of rationalisation of Moses Maimonides and Joseph Soloveitchik and argue that despite being based on very different scientific models they share a central methodological presumption that I term the Priority of Theory (PoT).
    [Show full text]
  • NACHMANIDES: VAYEITZEI: LOCATION of JACOB’S LADDER Gavriel Z
    THOUGHT OF NACHMANIDES: VAYEITZEI: LOCATION OF JACOB’S LADDER Gavriel Z. Bellino – November 18, 2015 פרוש הרמב”ן על ספר בראשית כח:יז Nachmanides on Genesis 28:17 17. THIS IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HOUSE OF G-D, AND THIS IS THE GATE OF HEAVEN. This refers to the Sanctuary which is the gate through which the prayers and sacrifices ascend to heaven. Rashi comments, Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Jose the son of Zimra said, “This ladder stood in Beer-Sheba and its slope reached unto the Sanctuary in Jerusalem. Beer-Sheba is situated in the southern part of Judah, and Jerusalem is to its north on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, and Beth-El was in the northern portion of Benjamin's territory, on the boundary between Benjamin's territory and that of the children of Joseph. It follows, therefore, that a ladder whose base is in Beer-Sheba and whose top is in Beth-el has its slope reaching opposite Jerusalem. Now regarding the statement of our Rabbis: “This righteous man has come to the place where I dwell, (Chullin 91b)” and they also said, “Jacob gave the name Bethel to Jerusalem,” (Pesachim 88b) this place which he called Bethel was Luz and not Jerusalem! And from where did they learn to say so, [implying that Luz is identical with Jerusalem]? I therefore say that Mount Moriah [the Temple site in Jerusalem] was removed from its place and came here to Luz, and this is “the springing of the earth” which is mentioned in Shechitat Chullin, that the site on which the Sanctuary was later to stand came towards him to Bethel.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Undertones Pervading the Talmudic Narrative of the Lovesick Man
    Kedma: Penn's Journal on Jewish Thought, Jewish Culture, and Israel Volume 2 Number 1 Spring 2018 Article 6 2020 Probing the Aggadic Universe: An Analysis of the Undertones Pervading the Talmudic Narrative of the Lovesick Man Ariel Sasson University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/kedma Part of the Jewish Studies Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, and the Religion Commons This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/kedma/vol2/iss1/6 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Probing the Aggadic Universe: An Analysis of the Undertones Pervading the Talmudic Narrative of the Lovesick Man Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License This article is available in Kedma: Penn's Journal on Jewish Thought, Jewish Culture, and Israel: https://repository.upenn.edu/kedma/vol2/iss1/6 Probing the Aggadic Universe: An Analysis of the Undertones Pervading the Talmudic Narrative of the Lovesick Man Ariel Sasson The highly charged, sophisticated interplay underpinning the relationship between clinically-oriented medicine and Jewish theology is a matter that reverberates within every microcosm of the Jewish universe. The dilemmas emerging from this interplay span the spectrum of possibility. What is normative Judaism’s stance towards the institution of medicine? What role, if any, ought the physician to play in the healing process? Finally, does normative Jewish law (i.e. the traditional Jewish law sources which were ultimately employed in the codification of the Shulchan Arukh) shift in response to the multitude of medicinal advancements and clinical innovations which occur as society evolves over time? These questions, as well as a multitude of others, comprise the discourse centered on the value of life, and the mechanism by which life ought to be sustained in Jewish tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Nahmanides' Astrological and Religious Thinking and The
    Perichoresis Volume 18.4 (2020): 81–95 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0023 NAHMANIDES’ ASTROLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS THINKING AND THE VIEWS OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CATALAN CHRISTIAN SAGES * ESPERANÇA VALLS-PUJOL Institut d’Estudis Món Juïc ABSTRACT. This paper examines the astrological and religious thinking of Moshe ben Nahman (also known as Ramban or Nahmanides) and the intellectual connections in this field with two of the most outstanding Christian thinkers of his time, Ramon Llull and Arnau de Vilanova. Nahmanides, like many medieval scholars, admitted an astral influence, but he did not accept astrology as a divinatory science. He incorporated astrological doctrines in his exegetical works, assuming that Israel is not determined by any star because it only responds to God. Yet the study of medieval medicine and its application cannot be separated from astrology practice because it was considered that the stars had a direct influence not only on the development of the human body, from birth to death, but also in the disease processes which affect it. Ramban and his disciple Solomon ben Adret accepted and practiced astrological medicine. Llull and de Vilanova also devoted themselves to this discipline. All of them agree on the influence of the stars on humankind but condemned astral magic. Like Ramban, Llull rejects other astrological methods considered non-scientific in his time, such as prediction through horoscope. Thus, these thinkers tried to develop an astrology that was not in contradiction with divine omnipotence or free will. KEYWORDS: Moshe ben Nahman, Medieval Jewish Astrology, Medieval Christian Astrology, Arnau de Vilanova, Ramon Llull Introduction The Judaism that developed in Catalonia is exceptional and shares with other medieval Jewish communities their main lines of thought and reli- gion: the analytical, synthetical, lyric and cabalistic thinking typical of the Jews from Al-Andalus, the tosafists coming from central Europe and the Provençal communities.
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of Kohelet
    IN SEARCH OF KOHELET By Christopher P. Benton Ecclesiastes is simultaneously one of the most popular and one of the most misunderstood books of the Bible. Too often one hears its key verse, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” interpreted as simply an injunction against being a vain person. The common English translation of this verse (Ecclesiastes 1:2) comes directly from the Latin Vulgate, “Vanitas vanitatum, ominia vanitas.” However, the original Hebrew, “Havel havelim, hachol havel,” may be better translated as “Futility of futilities, all is futile.” Consequently, Ecclesiastes 1:2 is more a broad statement about the meaninglessness of life and actions that are in vain rather than personal vanity. In addition to the confusion that often surrounds the English translation of Ecclesiastes 1:2, the appellation for the protagonist in Ecclesiastes also loses much in the translation. In the enduring King James translation of the Bible, the speaker in Ecclesiastes is referred to as “the Preacher,” and in many other standard English translations of the Bible (Amplified Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, American Standard Version) one finds the speaker referred to as either “the Preacher” or “the Teacher.” However, in the original Hebrew and in many translations by Jewish groups, the narrator is referred to simply as Kohelet. The word Kohelet is derived from the Hebrew root koof-hey-lamed meaning “to assemble,” and commentators suggest that this refers to either the act of assembling wisdom or to the act of meeting with an assembly in order to teach. Furthermore, in the Hebrew, Kohelet is generally used as a name, but in Ecclesiastes 12:8 it is also written as HaKohelet (the Kohelet) which is more suggestive of a title.
    [Show full text]