DOCSLIB.ORG

On Changing the Immutable by Marc B. Shapiro,The History and Dating

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

; On Changing the
Immutable by Marc B. Shapiro

; On Changing the Immutable by
Marc B. Shapiro By Yitzchok Stroh
Professor Marc Shapiro’s latest work, Changing the Immutable, contains considerable interesting and pertinent information for the student of Jewish history. As stated on the cover, the author attempts to reveal how the (Jewish) orthodox ‘establishment’ silences both past and present dissenting voices through “Orthodox Judaism Rewriting Its History.” I don’t intend this to be a review of the entire work (that would take a lot more time and space), however I did want to share some of my frustration here, because I sense that the author’s bias affected his objectivity, and I am afraid that many a reader will be left with an impression that in many ways does not reflect the reality of this complex topic. In this article, I would like to examine one passage of Shapiro’s work to illustrate this point. In chapter eight, entitled, “Is the truth really that important?” Shapiro writes:
Because my purpose in this chapter is to chart the outer limits of what has been viewed as acceptable when it comes to falsehood and deception. I will be focusing on the more ‘liberal’ positions. My aim is to show just how far some rabbinic decisors were willing to go in sanctioning deviations from the truth. One must bear in mind, however, that there are often views in opposition to the ones I shall be examining. Perhaps this knowledge can serve as a counterweight to the shock that many readers will experience upon learning of some of the positions I will mention.

One ‘liberal’ position was expressed by R. Moses Isserles, who went so far as to say that one can even slander someone for the sake of preserving the community. The particular case he was discussing concerned a terrible community dispute that had created the possibility that the Jewish population would be expelled from the city. In what many will find a problematic decision, Isserles offered the opinion, which was then put into action, that it was

acceptable to provide false information about an individual whom the government suspected of wrongdoing, if this would alleviate the

situation. Although the Talmud states, with regard to giving a man up for execution in response to a demand made by non-Jews, that this is not the way of the pious, Isserles defended his approach: “Even if we

did not act in accord with the way of the pious, nevertheless, we acted in accord with the law. I have proven that it is permitted to speak leshon hara [slander] in order to preserve peace.”[1]

Here, Shapiro portrays the ” , the primary codifier of halacha for Ashkenazic Jewry, to have ruled that for the sake of preserving the peace, it is acceptable to provide false information to non-Jewish authorities about a presumably innocent individual whom the government suspected of

wrongdoing.

Shocking indeed.

  • Unfortunately, Shapiro fails to present the
  • of

the ” thoroughly and accurately, and as a result, the reader is left with an erroneous understanding of the opinion of the ” . Furthermore, Shapiro fails to present the relevant section of Talmud precisely, which may lead to further misunderstanding. I am not accusing Professor Shapiro of intentional distortion, but ” do teach us
— so, with this in mind, I would like to offer a more careful presentation of the Rema’s position as a counterweight for those who’ve read this (inaccurately presented) ‘shocking’ position of the ” .

  • ”
  • in ”

style, and does not provide a full account of what transpired — but, as the ” writes in the introduction to the , we
” is written in complicated rabbinic should be able to extract sufficient background information as necessary for our purposes[2]:

  • The
  • is a 3]
  • ] (a “writ of justification”)

  • of the ” in response
  • defending actions taken by the

to a local crisis, and as the ” makes it quite clear in his description of the events, the ensuing bitter results were unexpected and troubling:

  • …
  • ,

,

  • ,
  • .

.

. “Behold in this entire incident our intention was peace, first and foremost, even though by happenstance the end was bitter. There were also a few brazen individuals amongst us, who are now turning things into utter chaos. However, our intent was for the sake of Heaven, and ‘everything follows one’s thoughts and intentions’, even though the end was gall and wormwood.”

While it is probably impossible to reconstruct a precise account of the incident, the following is obvious from the

  • details presented in the 1) :
  • ) The government did not

suspect anyone of any type of wrongdoing[4]. (2) It was not an individual that was slandered; it was a group of about one hundred respectable community leaders or activists that were slandered. (3) False information was never provided to nonJewish authorities, and those slandered were not slandered publicly — they were slandered in a private ruling by the

  • decision of a
  • which was then recorded in a written

document. (4) Furthermore, the document was fashioned in a manner which made it evident that the ruling was an exaggeration and not an actual account, and (5) it was drafted only to be used as a means of forcing two opposing sides to reconcile a community quarrel. Unfortunately, (6) the document did become public knowledge and its intention was misconstrued by unscrupulous individuals.[5] And (7) there were dire consequences, probably due to involvement of the non-Jewish authorities, but we do not know what those consequences were. The actual events that led up to this action are described at length and can be summed up as follows: A group of pretentious rabbinic and lay leaders[6] convened to place a ban on a certain individual, causing him great harm[7]. (The reason for the ban is not clear.) This individual then sought to take revenge upon those who had placed the ban upon him[8] and was joined by others who sympathized with his cause,[9] ultimately splitting the entire community between his supporters and his enemies[10]. This caused a tremendous desecration of G-d’s name as the strife continued to escalate[11], which led to placing the entire community in danger of being expelled by the authorities[12]. The ” and his colleagues attempted to intercede with the individual’s opponents, but were completely ignored[13], and the matter escalated to the point of death threats against the man upon whom the ban had been placed[14]. In an attempt to resolve matters, the ” and his partners decided to write a fictitious halachic ruling[15], containing exaggerated and slanderous accusations against the individual’s opponents, with the goal being that the individual in question would then use this document to extort the ruling written against him from his enemies, whereby both the documents would be exchanged and destroyed. Now, before you extrapolate from here that the ” flippant attitude towards honesty, please consider: had a
(1) The ” and his colleagues were quite concerned about the possibility that this individual might use the document inappropriately (i.e. reveal its contents to the authorities), and to prevent this, they had him swear a strict oath that he would not show the document to anyone else, and that he would only use it to get his opponents to hand over their

  • original
  • document to him[16]. Anyone familiar with the

severity of an oath in Jewish law, and the general fear of swearing falsely at that time, will understand why the outcome was quite a surprise to the rabbis who signed this slanderous document. Furthermore, ” had taken additional steps to insure that the document would be null and void if misused, and as the ” concludes in his justification, “
” (…it was not signed to inflict harm upon any person; G-d forbid that we should do evil). (2) Regardless of the fact that the slanderous ruling and the resulting document were extremely limited in nature and not meant to be seen by the public (and certainly not the government), the ” was clearly still troubled by the elements of dishonesty. He makes it quite obvious that he felt that he had no choice, and that it was entirely out of concern for the safety of the community that made speaking and writing falsely and negatively about fellow Jews necessary in this case. It is this decision that the ” is attempting to

  • justify in his
  • – and as we will see, this was

hardly taken lightly. The ” goes on to quote various sources to support his decision, and proceeds, in rabbinic style, to argue the point by analyzing a Talmudic ruling. Shapiro, when he discusses the Talmudic ruling tells only half the story. Shapiro writes, “The Talmud states, with regard to giving a man up for execution in response to a demand made by non-Jews, that this is not the way of the pious.” However, as we shall see, giving a man up for execution in response to a demand made by nonJews has nothing to do with the pious — indeed, it is strictly

  • forbidden according to the Talmud. The Mishnah in
  • rules

that if non-Jews were to approach a group of Jewish women and demand that they hand over one of them be defiled or else they would defile all of them, that it is forbidden to hand over one of the women. The Talmud Yerushalmi adds that the same rule would apply in a situation where a non-Jew demands of a group of Jews that they hand over one Jew to be executed or else they would all be killed, that it is likewise forbidden to hand over one of them[17].

  • In this
  • the ” applies an analogy: Just as it is

forbidden to save the lives or the innocence of all through giving over one individual to be defiled or killed, so too it would be forbidden to slander, ridicule, and deride one individual, or a group of individuals (even if no one ever became aware of the slander) in order to remove slander and ridicule from the entire community. However, the ” sees two distinctions between the cases: Firstly, the halachah that forbids giving someone over applies to a situation where it is done with an action, whereas if it is a matter of speech it would be permitted. Meaning that if the powers that be needed information with which they could kill one of the group, and they threatened that unless that information is provided they would kill them all, it would be permissible to give this information — since by merely providing information they are not directly participating in the action of murder, and therefore they would not be considered accomplices to the execution. So too in our situation, since slander is a matter of speech, the Talmud’s aforementioned rule would not apply. And secondly, the prohibition not to give someone over to the gentiles, is only in a case where they do not request a specific individual. However, were the non-Jews to demand a specific individual to defile or kill, and threaten that if he isn’t turned over they would defile or kill the entire group, then it would be permitted to turn him over. The ” compared the situation in his city to a situation where specific individuals are being targeted; therefore he permitted falsehood and spoken. to be
Regarding this second limitation, the ” questions his ruling based on the following anecdote related in the Talmud Yerushalmi: An individual was sought by the royal government, and he escaped to the ’ ,
. When the government surrounded handed him over to them. Until this point in time it had been common for Eliyahu HaNavi to visit R. Yehoshua, but after this incident, ceased his visits. Subsequently, R. Yehoshua fasted many fasts, and Eliyahu appeared to him, and said, “Shall I reveal myself to a slanderer?” To which R’ Yehoshua responded, “But have I not acted according to the this be considered
?” To this Eliyahu replied, “Can
?”
It is in response to this that the ” states, “even if we

did not act in accordance with ‘the way of the pious’, nevertheless, we acted in accordance with the law.” It seems

reasonable to assume that since the slander recorded in the document written by the ” and his colleagues was never meant to be seen by anyone and would have alleviated the threat of expulsion, the ” felt that it was not necessary to follow “the ways of the pious” and was satisfied with following the letter of the law[18]. Hence, Shapiro’s claim in

the name of the ” “that it was acceptable to provide false information about an individual whom the government suspected of wrongdoing if this would alleviate the situation” is

neither fair nor accurate. In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that the position of

  • the ” in ”
  • ”
  • ” does not represent a radical

position which may shock many readers as being “on the outer limits of what has been viewed as acceptable when it comes to falsehood and deception”. Rather, there is no reason not to view this as the position of a responsible community leader of a high moral caliber, and it is unfortunate that he has been portrayed differently. Postscript: Although the following does not affect the above, I include it for whatever historical interest it may have: From the

  • language of ”
  • in
  • ,
  • ,
  • ) ”
  • ” ,

= our community, our city, our streets) it seems almost certain that the case under discussion took place in the author’s city. If the author was the ” , that city would be Cracow, Poland where the ” served as Rav from an extremely young age until his passing. However R. Asher Ziv, the Rema’s

  • biographer and editor of his
  • , suggests that the

incident took place in the city of Prague in Bohemia[19]; a city plagued by strife and under the constant threat of

  • expulsion. Since the five
  • following ”
  • in ”

” were written by various rabbanim regarding problems in the city of Prague, it is not unlikely that ” concerns a dispute in Prague. also
Based on the above, it would seem plausible to conclude that ” was not even authored by the [20] ” ; rather it was sent to him by a colleague from Prague[21]. It is additionally possible that the to the ” , however, since the was in no way connected was found among the other This would not be all that surprising, since we do know that there are in ” ” which were erroneously included relating to Prague it was included accidently. in the collection[22].

Response by Marc B. Shapiro

Let me begin by thanking Rabbi Yitzchok Stroh and the many others who have read my book carefully, especially those who have sent comments. Some readers have pointed out errors or alternative ways to read passages and others have called attention to important new sources. I have already mentioned some of these in past posts and will continue to do so in future posts. Stroh believes that my presentation of a responsum of R. Moses Isserles is inaccurate and suggests that it was my bias that led to my objectivity being affected. I am not sure what my bias would be in this case, presumably a desire to make use of an important source in support of my argument. Stroh’s summary of the responsum is helpful, especially since as Stroh notes it is difficult to reconstruct exactly what happened. The beginning of the case was, as Stroh states:
A group of pretentious rabbinic and lay leaders convened to place a ban on a certain individual, causing him great harm. (The reason for the ban is not clear.)
In reading over the responsum, I think that the reason for the ban is explained on p. 56 in Siev’s edition. It states:

I assume this means that they regarded him as a moser, and that is why he was placed under the ban. Earlier it states

  • regarding this man
  • which apparently alludes to

the fact that a moser should be killed. Stroh notes that I am mistaken in assuming that the government suspected one of the Jews of wrongdoing and that R. Isserles ruled that false information could be provided if this was the only way to save the community. He also states that contrary to my presentation, it was not one person who was to be slandered but numerous community leaders. I have read over the responsum and I have to agree that the slander was not directed against one person but against a group, so I thank Stroh for this correction. In fact, I am not the only one to make this mistake, and am indeed in good company (not that this is in any way an excuse). Nachum Rakover also describes the case as being one of slander against an individual.[23]

  • ,”
  • “
  • ,

  • .
  • ,

Based on this, Rakover then has an entire section dealing with if it is OK to sacrifice an individual to save the many. R. Aryeh Pomeranchik writes:[24]

  • ,
  • ” ’ ” ’

R. Aharon David Goldberg writes:[25]

  • ,
  • ” ’ ”

R. Yitzchak Zilberstein might also make this error (although it could be that he was simply not being exact in his description of the case, as his focus is on the underlying halakhah):[26]

  • ,
  • ,
  • (
  • ) ”

.
It is certain, however, that R. Zilberstein is mistaken when

  • he states[27] , as the entire responsum is
  • ”

indeed a justification of the action which occurred, and R. Isserles states: “Even if we did not in accordance with ‘the way of the pious’, nevertheless, we acted in accordance with the law.” What about the non-Jewish government? Again, I have to agree with Stroh that there is no evidence that the slander was ever directly reported to the government, although I still assume that R. Isserles would agree that to save the community, one would even be permitted to slander someone to the non-Jewish authorities, not merely to the Jewish community. As I see it, and please correct me if I am wrong, the entire logic of R. Isserles’ responsum leads to this result even if, in the case under discussion, the slander was intended to remain in the Jewish community. How else is one to understand his words (p. 53):

I thank Rabbi Stroh for setting the record straight. Regarding giving up a man for execution in response to a demand made by non-Jews, I thought I was clear that we were dealing with a demand for a specific person, the details of which Stroh properly explains. Yet I should have also mentioned that the case must be one where the entire community will itself be killed if they do not give up the man.[28] In his conclusion, Stroh states that the position of R. Isserles should not be seen as radical. “Rather, there is no reason not to view this as the position of a responsible community leader.” Yet I still think that in the eyes of most people what R. Isserles agreed to will be seen as “on the outer limits of what has been viewed as acceptable.” In fact, R. Daniel Eidensohn, who translates some of R. Isserles’ responsum here, writes as follows: “As far as I know the ruling of the Rema was not accepted and is not cited with approval by anyone else. It is the thinking, however, of one our major poskim and illustrates how important community peace is.” R. Israel Zev Minzberg finds the permission to slander another for the sake of peace incomprehensible, and states that one cannot rely on this ruling.[29]

  • ”
  • ’ ’

.
R. Yitzhak Hutner also found the responsum unacceptable and stated that it was not written by R. Isserles.[30] In other words, contrary to Stroh, Rabbis Eidensohn, Minzberg and Hutner do find the conclusion of the responsum surprising, and indeed “on the outer limits”. Finally, I must note that R. Zilberstein refers to the responsum of R. Isserles in another place where he discusses the following problem:[31] Reuven is a very good and Godfearing student. His brother Shimon is not, and causes Reuven all sorts of serious problems. The teacher of Reuven wants to stop Shimon from doing this, and the only way to do so is to tell Shimon’s father, Yaakov, that Shimon said that he was going to steal from Yaakov in order to hire some thugs who would attack Reuven. When Yaakov hears this, he will take steps against Shimon and this will stop Shimon’s harassment of Reuven. Is it permitted for the teacher to lie about Shimon in order to protect Reuven?[32] R. Zilberstein concludes that it is permitted to tell Yaakov the falsehood about Shimon, since Shimon is a “ba’al mahaloket”. In addition to citing R. Isserles’ responsum, he also cites an opinion of the Hafetz Hayyim.[33] The Hafetz Hayyim states that if one sees that a certain individual will be a bad influence on his son or student, he should warn him to keep away from this individual. If, however, by telling the truth about this individual, it will not be enough to keep one’s son or student away, the Hafetz Hayyim states that “it is possible” that it is permitted to exaggerate the individual’s wrongdoing, on the condition that one does this le-shem shamayim and not because of any personal grudge.

Although the Hafetz Hayyim shows some hesitation as to whether this is permissible, R. Zilberstein has no such qualms and concludes that it is permitted to lie for the good purpose of helping Reuven.

This decision provides further proof for my point that there are many voices in the tradition that sanction departing from the truth when they deem it necessary. [1] Shapiro, Changing the Immutable, p. 255. [2] All excerpts from ” edition. “.”
” are from R’ Asher Ziv’s 1970

  • ” ” ”
  • ” ).)

[3] “”
)).

  • [4] – ’ , ”
  • ’

  • ,
  • “ ” ’
  • ”

,”
,
” ”

Recommended publications
  • Philo Ng.Pdf

    Philo Ng.Pdf

    PHILO AND THE NAMES OF GOD By A. MARMORSTEIN,Jews College, London IN A recent work on the allegorical exegesis of Philo of Alexandria' Philo's views and teachings as to the Hebrew names of God are once more discussed and analyzed. The author repeats and shares the old opinion, elaborated and propagated by Zacharias Frankel and others that Philo was more or less ignorant of the Hebrew tongue. Philo's treat- ment of the divine names is put in the first line of witnesses to corroborate this literary verdict. This question touches wider and more important problems than the narrow ques- tion whether Philo knew Hebrew, or not,2 and if the former is the case how far his knowledge, and if the latter is true how far his ignorance went. For the theologians generally some important historical and theological problems, for Jewish theology especially, besides these, literary and relig- ious questions as to the date and origin of religious concep- tions, and the antiquity and value of our sources are involved. Philo is criticized for having no idea2 of the equivalent names used by the LXX for the Tetragrammaton and Elohim respectively. The former is translated KVptOS, the latter 4hos. This omission is the more serious since the distinction between these two names is one of Philo's chief doctrines. We are referred to a remark made by Z. Frankel about ' Edmund Stein, Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandreia; Giessen, 1929. (Beihefte Zur ZAW. No. 51.) 2 Ibid., p. 20, for earlier observations see G. Dalman, Adonaj, 59.1, Daehne, Geschichtliche Darstellung, I 231, II 51; Freiidenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p.
  • The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee

    The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee

    The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee By J. W. Etheridge, M.A. 1862 This work is in the Public Domain. Copy Freely More Freeware From Bennie Blount Ministries International Table of Contents The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee By J. W. Etheridge, M.A. 1862 Table of Contents Genesis 1-6; 6-11; 12-17; 18-22; 23-25; 26-28; 28-32; 32-36; 36-40; 41-44; 44-47; 47-50 Exodus 1-6; 6-9; 10-13; 13-17; 18-20; 21-24; 24-27; 28-30; 30-34; 34-38; 38-40 Leviticus 1-6; 6-9; 10-11; 12-13; 14-15; 16-18; 19-20; 21-24; 25-26; 26-28 Numbers 1-4; 4-7; 8-13; 13-15; 16-18; 19-22; 22-25; 25-30; 30-32; 33-36 Deuteronomy 1-3; 3-7; 7-11; 11-16; 16-21; 21-26; 26-29; 29-30; 31-32; 32; 33-34 THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE, COMMONLY ENTITLED THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL, ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. ________ SECTION I. BERASHITH. I. At the beginning (min avella) the Lord created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was vacancy and desolation, solitary of the sons of men, and void of every animal; and darkness was upon the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord breathed upon the face of the waters.
  • Cohen V. Facebook

    Cohen V. Facebook

    Case 1:16-cv-04453-NGG-LB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 113 PageID #: 70 EXHIBIT A Case 1:16-cv-04453-NGG-LB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 113 PageID #: 71 ~ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Index No: Pa~1, / l 5 RICHARD LAKIN; and additional plaintiffs listed on Rider A, Date Purchased: 10/~(~C~/ 15 Plaintiffs designate Kings County as the Plaintiffs, place of trial. The basis of vcnue is CPLR 503(a), -against- SUMMONS FA=CEBOOK, Q Plaintiffs residcs at: Defendant. c/o Shurat HaDin — Israel Law Center, 10 ---------------------------------------------- X flata'as Street, Ramat Gan, Israel TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, on the plaintiff s Attorneys within 20 days afi.er the service of this summons, exclusive ot'the day of service (or within 30 days aftcr scrvice is complctc if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York) and to file a copy of your answer with the Clerk of the above-named Court; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Brooklyn, New York Octobcr 26, 2015 Yours, THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC 0~ ~ ~ Atull~,r~.Jor he~+f zti/r ~ S`~ a by: 7 +~ '/ ° O' Q _.J Robert J. 111 Livingston Street, Suite 1928 Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 855-3627 ZECIA L 1 STS \~ NITSANA DARSHAN-LEITNER & CO Nitsana Darshan-Leitner .
  • The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark

    The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark

    The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark Blumhofer Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: October 23, 2017 Approved: ___________________________ Richard B. Hays, Supervisor ___________________________ Joel Marcus ___________________________ C. Kavin Rowe ___________________________ Stephen Chapman ___________________________ Daniel Boyarin Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 ABSTRACT The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark Blumhofer Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: October 23, 2017 Approved: ___________________________ Richard B. Hays, Supervisor ___________________________ Joel Marcus ___________________________ C. Kavin Rowe ___________________________ Stephen Chapman ___________________________ Daniel Boyarin An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 Copyright by Christopher Mark Blumhofer 2017 Abstract The canonical gospels are each concerned to present the significance of Jesus vis-à-vis the Jewish tradition. Yet the Gospel of John exhibits a particularly strained relationship with Judaism, especially through its frequent description of Jesus’s opponents as “the Jews,” its presentation of numerous hostile exchanges between Jesus and characters described as “Jews,” and its application of significant Jewish imagery (e.g., “the temple of his body,” “I am the true vine”) to the person of Jesus rather than to traditional Jewish institutions or figures. This dissertation argues that the Gospel of John presents Jesus as the one through whom the Jewish tradition realizes its eschatological hopes in continuity with the stories and symbols of its past.
  • 9 Sivan 1807.Dwd

    9 Sivan 1807.Dwd

    SIVAN Life's splendor forever lies in wait 1 Sivan about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled from view, deep down, Day Forty-five, making six weeks and three days, of the invisible, far off. It is there, though, Omer not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If Rosh Hodesh Sivan Hillula of Bohemian-born Austrian writer Franz Kafka, you summon it by the right word, by its pictured at right. Kafka was an admirer of right name, it will come. –Franz Kafka anarcho-communist theoretician Pyotr Kropotkin. As an elementary and secondary school student, Kafka wore a red carnation in his lapel to show his support for socialism. (1 Sivan 5684, 3 June 1924) Hillula of Polish-born U.S. labor lawyer Jack Zucker. When Senator Joseph McCarthy impugned Zucker’s patriotism, Zucker retorted, “I have more patriotism in my little finger than you have in your entire body!” (1 Sivan 5761, 23 May 2001) Hillula of Samaritan High Priest Levi ben Abisha ben Pinhas ben Yitzhaq, the first Samaritan High Priest to visit the United States (1 Sivan 5761, 23 May 2001) Hillula of U.S. labor leader Gus Tyler, pictured at right. Born Augustus Tilove, he adopted the sur- name Tyler as a way of honoring Wat Tyler, the leader of a 14th-century English peasant rebellion. (1 Sivan 5771, 3 June 2011) Hillula of Annette Dreyfus Benacerraf, niece of 1965 Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine Jacques Monod and wife of 1980 Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine Baruj Benacerraf (1 Sivan 5771, 3 June 2011) 2 Sivan Day Forty-six, making six weeks and four days, of the Omer Hillula of Rebbe Israel Hager of Vizhnitz, pictured at near right.
  • THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: a REDACTION HISTORY and GENESIS 1: 26-27 in the EXEGETICAL CONTEXT of FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN EL

    THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: a REDACTION HISTORY and GENESIS 1: 26-27 in the EXEGETICAL CONTEXT of FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN EL

    THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: A REDACTION HISTORY AND GENESIS 1: 26-27 IN THE EXEGETICAL CONTEXT OF FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN ELISABETH LIER THESIS Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR LITTERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIAE in SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND CULTURES in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG PROMOTER: PROF. J.F. JANSE VAN RENSBURG APRIL 2008 ABSTRACT THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: A REDACTION HISTORY AND GENESIS 1: 26-27 IN THE EXEGETICAL CONTEXT OF FORMATIVE JUDAISM This thesis combines Targum studies with Judaic studies. First, secondary sources were examined and independent research was done to ascertain the historical process that took place in the compilation of extant Pentateuchal Targums (Fragment Targum [Recension P, MS Paris 110], Neofiti 1, Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan). Second, a framework for evaluating Jewish exegetical practices within the age of formative Judaism was established with the scrutiny of midrashic texts on Genesis 1: 26-27. Third, individual targumic renderings of Genesis 1: 26-27 were compared with the Hebrew Masoretic text and each other and then juxtaposed with midrashic literature dating from the age of formative Judaism. Last, the outcome of the second and third step was correlated with findings regarding the historical process that took place in the compilation of the Targums, as established in step one. The findings of the summative stage were also juxtaposed with the linguistic characterizations of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (CAL) of Michael Sokoloff and his colleagues. The thesis can report the following findings: (1) Within the age of formative Judaism pharisaic sages and priest sages assimilated into a new group of Jewish leadership known as ‘rabbis’.
  • Targums to the Writings

    Targums to the Writings

    12 TARGUMS TO THE WRITINGS All biblical books known as the Writings received Targums except for two: Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel.1 The usual explanation for the lack of Targums to these books is that they contained long passages in Aramaic and so did not require translation. The Writings Targums were composed individually at different times and by different people; they lack any overall composition scheme or approach that would unite them, like the Targums Onqelos and Jonathan. Scholars have therefore had to analyze them individually. In comparison to the other Targums, the Writings Targums attracted rela- tively little interest during the twentieth century. Although matters have improved recently, modern research knows less about these Targums than the others. The Babylonian rabbis apparently did not approve of Writings Tar- gums and invoked a heavenly confirmation of their disapproval. B. Megil- lah 3a discusses all three categories of Targums and gives a reason for this disapproval in line F.2 A. Rabbi Jeremiah—or some say Rabbi Hiyya b. Abba—also said: B. The Targum of the Pentateuch was composed by Onqelos the Proselyte under the guidance of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joshua. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of rabbinic literature in this chapter are by the authors, and all Targum translations are from the Aramaic Bible series. Biblical translations are from the NRSV. 2 See chap. 8 for a discussion of the passage in relationship to the Pentateuchal Tar- gums and chap. 10 for our analysis in terms of the Prophetic Targums. 230 THE TARGUMS: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION C.
  • Final Copy of Dissertation

    Final Copy of Dissertation

    The Talmudic Zohar: Rabbinic Interdisciplinarity in Midrash ha-Ne’lam ​ by Joseph Dov Rosen A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Joint Doctor of Philosophy with Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley in Jewish Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair Professor Deena Aranoff Professor Niklaus Largier Summer 2017 © Joseph Dov Rosen All Rights Reserved, 2017 Abstract The Talmudic Zohar: Rabbinic Interdisciplinarity in Midrash ha-Ne’lam ​ By Joseph Dov Rosen Joint Doctor of Philosophy in Jewish Studies with the Graduate Theological Union University of California, Berkeley Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair This study uncovers the heretofore ignored prominence of talmudic features in Midrash ​ ​ ha-Ne’lam on Genesis, the earliest stratum of the zoharic corpus. It demonstrates that Midrash ​ ​ ha-Ne’lam, more often thought of as a mystical midrash, incorporates both rhetorical ​ components from the Babylonian Talmud and practices of cognitive creativity from the medieval discipline of talmudic study into its esoteric midrash. By mapping these intersections of Midrash, Talmud, and Esotericism, this dissertation introduces a new framework for studying rabbinic interdisciplinarity—the ways that different rabbinic disciplines impact and transform each other. The first half of this dissertation examines medieval and modern attempts to connect or disconnect the disciplines of talmudic study and Jewish esotericism. Spanning from Maimonides’ reliance on Islamic models of Aristotelian dialectic to conjoin Pardes (Jewish ​ ​ esotericism) and talmudic logic, to Gershom Scholem’s juvenile fascination with the Babylonian Talmud, to contemporary endeavours to remedy the disciplinary schisms generated by Scholem’s founding models of Kabbalah (as a form of Judaism that is in tension with “rabbinic Judaism”), these two chapters tell a series of overlapping histories of Jewish inter/disciplinary projects.
  • Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement

    Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement

    Scholars Crossing LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations 2008 Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement Jintae Kim Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Kim, Jintae, "Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement" (2008). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 324. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/324 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. [JGRChJ 5 (2008) 81-98] TARGUM ISAIAH 53 AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT Jintae Kim Alliance Theological Seminary, Nyack NY Introduction In the New Testament we find evidence of a tradition that applies the concept of Levitical atoning sacrifices to the death of Christ by using the Old Testament sacrificial categories.1 Some passages (Rom. 3.25; Heb. 1.3-4; 2.17; 9.13; 1 Jn 2.2; 4.10) describe Christ’s atonement in the imagery of the Day of Atonement ritual.2 Other passages (Mt. 26.26-29; Mk 10.45; 14.22-25; Lk. 22.15-20; 1 Cor. 11.25; 1 Pet. 1.18- 19) describe Christ’s atonement in the imagery of the regular atoning sacrifices.
  • Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al V

    Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al V

    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 3 Spring 1996 Article 18 1996 Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al v. Attorney-General, Inspector-General of the Police, Mayor of Jerusalem, Minister of Education and Culture, Director of the Antiquities Division, Muslim WAQF - In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993] Menachem Elon Aharon Barak Gavriel Bach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Menachem Elon, Aharon Barak & Gavriel Bach, Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al v. Attorney-General, Inspector-General of the Police, Mayor of Jerusalem, Minister of Education and Culture, Director of the Antiquities Division, Muslim WAQF - In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993], 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 866 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss3/18 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 45:861 TEMPLE MOUNT FAITHFUL-AMUTAH ET AL. v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF THE POLICE MAYOR OF JERUSALEM MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE DIRECTOR OF THE ANTIQUITIES DIVISION MUSLIM WAQF In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993] Justice Menachem Elon, Deputy President, Justice Aharon Barak, Justice Gavriel Bach V. THE PARTIES Petitioners Petitioner 1: Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Petitioner 2: Chairman, Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Petitioners 3, 4, 5, 6: Members of Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Respondents Respondent 1: Attorney-General Respondent 2: Inspector-General of the Jerusalem Police Respondent 3: Mayor of Jerusalem Respondent 4: Minister of Education and Culture Respondent 5: Director of the Antiquities Division Respondent 6: Muslim Waqf Petition for an order nisi.
  • Ÿþt Hebooksof J Udaism

    Ÿþt Hebooksof J Udaism

    2. The Books of Judaism To better understand Judaism’s response to the Yeshua, its important to understand the source of inspiration. All three branches of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, look to the Bible as their source of authority, both Old and New Testaments. Where does Judaism look for its authority, the source of revelation? The written words of Jewish authority are complex and involve both a Written Law and an Oral Law, accompanied by traditions and rabbinical rulings. There are several books in Judaism not all with an equal weight as far as authority is concerned. Judaism’s view of the Messiah’s identity filters through the authoritative books of Judaism. With some Figure 1 The Book of Isaiah, from the Dead Sea Scrolls sects putting greater weight on some books then others. For example, Orthodox Jews put more weight on the Talmud then Reform Jews. Hasidic Orthodox followers might emphasize portions of the Zohar. Tradition plays an important role in Judaism, a Jew investigating the Messiah, might want to know what a 2nd or 10th century Rabbi thought about a particular verse. Through these filters, scripture, tradition and commentary, views of the Messiah identity, are defined in Judaism. By far, the most important Jewish text is the Torah, the books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch. The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. The Tanakh The word Tanakh is an acronym, combining the words Torah (Books of Moses), Nebiim (The Prophets) and Ketubim (The Writings). The Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are essentially the same book.
  • Appendix: a Guide to the Main Rabbinic Sources

    Appendix: a Guide to the Main Rabbinic Sources

    Appendix: A Guide to the Main Rabbinic Sources Although, in an historical sense, the Hebrew scriptures are the foundation of Judaism, we have to turn elsewhere for the documents that have defined Judaism as a living religion in the two millennia since Bible times. One of the main creative periods of post-biblical Judaism was that of the rabbis, or sages (hakhamim), of the six centuries preceding the closure of the Babylonian Talmud in about 600 CE. These rabbis (tannaim in the period of the Mishnah, followed by amoraim and then seboraim), laid the foundations of subsequent mainstream ('rabbinic') Judaism, and later in the first millennium that followers became known as 'rabbanites', to distinguish them from the Karaites, who rejected their tradition of inter­ pretation in favour of a more 'literal' reading of the Bible. In the notes that follow I offer the English reader some guidance to the extensive literature of the rabbis, noting also some of the modern critical editions of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) texts. Following that, I indicate the main sources (few available in English) in which rabbinic thought was and is being developed. This should at least enable readers to get their bearings in relation to the rabbinic literature discussed and cited in this book. Talmud For general introductions to this literature see Gedaliah Allon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, 2 vols (Jerusalem, 1980-4), and E. E. Urbach, The Sages, tr. I. Abrahams (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1987), as well as the Reference Guide to Adin Steinsaltz's edition of the Babylonian Talmud (see below, under 'English Transla­ tions').