DOCSLIB.ORG

The Book of Disputes Between East and West

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Book of Disputes Between East and West German Orthodoxy, Hakirah, and More German Orthodoxy, Hakirah, and More Marc B. Shapiro 1. I recently published a translation of Hirsch’s famous lecture on Schiller. You can see ithere . At first I thought that this lecture remained untranslated into English for so long because of ideological concerns. (I still think that this is the reason it was never translated into Hebrew.) Yet before the article appeared, I was informed that the reason it did not appear in the English translation of the Collected Writings of Hirsch was not due to ideological censorship, but censorship of a different sort (see the article, note 2). I will let readers decide if this was a smart choice or not. I plan on publishing another translation from Hirsch which has also never appeared in English or Hebrew, and which many people will regard as not “religiously correct” for the twenty-first century. With regard to the Schiller lecture, I thank Elan Rieser who called my attention to the following: Hirsch quoted Schiller as saying about a plant, “What it [the plant] unwittingly is, be thou of thine own free will.” It so happens that this very thought also appears in theNineteen Letters, Elias translation, p. 56: “The law to which all forces submit instinctively and involuntarily—to this law you, too, are to subordinate yourself, but consciously and of your own free will.” This shows that even in his earliest work, Hirsch was influenced by Schiller. While on the topic of non-Jewish writers influencing German rabbis, here is another example which might lead some to wonder if we have crossed the line from influence into plagiarism. (I do not think so, as I will explain.) Rabbi Marcus Lehmann (1831-1890) was a well-known German Orthodox rabbi. He served as rabbi of Mainz and was founder and editor of the Orthodox newspaper Der Israelit. Apart from his scholarly endeavors, he published a series of children’s books, and is best known for that. These were very important as they gave young Orthodox Jews a literature that reflected traditional Jewish values and did not have the Christian themes and references common in secular literature. Yet despite their value for the German Orthodox, R. Israel Salanter was upset when one of Lehmann’s storiesSüss ( Oppenheimer) was translated into Hebrew and published in the Orthodox paper Ha-Levanon. Although R. Israel recognized that Lehmann’s intentions were pure and that his writings could be of great service to the German Orthodox, it was improper for the East European youth to read Lehmann’s story because there were elements of romantic love in it. This is reported by R. Isaac Jacob Reines, Shnei ha-Meorot, Ma’amar Zikaron ba-Sefer, part 1, p. 46. Here is the relevant passage: והנה ברור הדבר בעיני כי הרה”צ רמ”ל כיון בהספור הזה לש”ש, ויכול היות כי יפעל מה בספורו זה על האשכנזים בכ”ז לא נאה לפני רב ממדינתינו להעתיק ספור כזה שסוף סוף יש בו מענייני אהבה. This passage is followed by another, which was made famous by R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg in Seridei Esh, vol. 2 no. 8. This is Weinberg’s well-known responsum on co-ed groups. He describes how R. Israel Salanter visited R. Esriel Hildesheimer and saw him giving a shiur in Tanakh and Shulhan Arukh before young women. R. Israel commented that if a rabbi from Lithuania would institute such a practice in his community they would throw him out of his position, and rightfully so. Yet he only hoped that he would be worthy enough to share a place in the הלואי שיהי’ חלקי בג”ע עם :World to Come with Hildesheimer .הגה”צ ר”ע הילדסהיימר Weinberg doesn’t say where he learnt of this story, but it comes from Reines, who heard it directly from R. Israel Salanter. Yet Weinberg’s recollection was not exact. Before World War II, Weinberg had access to Shnei ha-Meorot, and he refers to it in his essay on Reines (Seridei Esh, vol. 4, p. 355, originally published before the War). After the War he no longer had access to this book, and thus was not able to check R. Israel Salanter’s exact words. Although, based on Weinberg, people often repeat Salanter’s comment that he hopes for a share of the World to Come together with Hildesheimer, he never actually said this. Here are his words, as recorded by the only witness, Reines, and I hope that from now on the great R. Israel Salanter will be quoted accurately. (The passage in the parenthesis is a comment from Reines himself.) הלכתי לבקר גם את ביה”ס אשר לבנות, ששמעתי שגם שם מגיד הרה”ג הנ”ל [הילדסהיימר] איזה שעור, ומצאתי שבחדר גדול ורחב ידים עומד באמצע שולחן גדול וסביב השולחן יושבות נערות גדולות, והרה”ג הנ”ל בראש השלחן מגיד לפניהם שעור בשו”ע (הוא אמר לי אז גם באיזה הלכה שאמר להם אבל שכחתי) והוסיף לומר בזה”ל “ברור הדבר בעיני כי כוונת הרב היא לש”ש, וגם נעלה הדבר בעיני מכל ספק, כי כל התלמידות האלה השומעות לקח מפיו תהיינה לנשים כשירות, תמלאנה כל המצות שהנשים חייבות בהן, תחנכנה ילדיהן על דרכי התורה והאמונה, באופן שיש לומר בוודאות גמורה ומוחלטת כי הרה”ג הנ”ל עושה בזה דבר גדול באין ערוך, בכ”ז ינסה נא רב במדינתינו לעשות ב”ס כזה, הלא יקראו אחריו מלא ומן גיוו יגרשוהו; ואין ספק כי יהי’ מוכרח לנער את חצני’ מן הרבנות כי לא תהלמו עוד”, כל הדברים האלה דבר הרה”ג הצדיק הנ”ל בהתרגשות מיוחדה והתלהבות יתירה Returning to Lehmann, one of his short stories is titled Ithamar. Eliezer Abrahamson called my attention to the fact that chapter 17 tells the same story as is found in Lew Wallace’s classic American novel, Ben-Hur, Book 3, chs. 2-3. I prefer to call this “borrowing”, rather than plagiarism, since Ben-Hur was a worldwide sensation and Lehmann was not trying to hide his borrowing. At that time, any adult reading Lehmann’s book would know what he was basing the chapter on, and that he was providing a Jewish version of certain episodes. In fact, the name of the main character of Lehmann’s book, Ithamar (not a very common name), is also the name of the father of the main character of Ben-Hur (Judah ben Ithamar ben Hur). By naming his character Ithamar, Lehmann was signaling his debt to Wallace.[1] Regarding Lehmann’s stories, in the 1990s they also appeared in a censored haredi version. Ha-Modia actually published an article attacking this “reworking”. Here it is, followed by the response. (You can right-click to open larger images, or download it as a pdf here.) I found these on my computer and don’t remember anymore how I got them (and unfortunately, there is no date visible on the articles). Click them to enlarge. 2. Not too long ago Hakirah 13 (2012) appeared, and as with the previous issues, it is a great collection of articles. The other Orthodox journals have to ask themselves why Hakirah has been so successful in overshadowing them. I think the answer is obvious. Hakirah is not afraid to take risks in what they publish. They don’t mind rocking the boat a bit, and dealing with controversial matters. I want to respond to two articles in the issue. The first is R. Elazar Muskin’s piece in which he discusses a 1954 Yom ha-Atzmaut event in Cleveland, which featured R. Elijah Meir Bloch, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Telz yeshiva. From the article one sees that Bloch had a positive attitude towards the State of Israel. Before reading further, I suggest people look over Muskin’s article again, so you can best appreciate that which will follow. You can find the article here. Muskin notes that Bloch’s letter justifying his appearance at the Yom ha-Atzmaut event was published in R. Joseph Epstein’s 1969 book Mitzvot ha-Shalom. Although there have been many books that express a positive, or tolerant, view towards Zionism, anti-Zionist extremists chose to focus on this volume. Muskin quotes Gerald Parkoff who wrote as follows in a letter published in the Torah u-Madda Journal 9 (2000), p. 279: When the first edition of the Mizvot ha-Shalom was published, the unsold inventory, which represented most of the extant copies, was kept in Rabbi Epstein’s garage. As it turned out, the sefer came to the attention of some misguided people[2] who were particularly upset with Rabbi Epstein’s association of Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Bloch with Yom ha-Azmaut. They proceeded to burn the first edition ofMizvot ha- Shalom in Rabbi Epstein’s garage. Subsequently, the perpetrators of this dastardly act were found and brought to a Satmar Bet Din. Financial restitution was then made to Rabbi Epstein. As Parkoff notes, when the next edition of the work was published, Epstein took out Bloch’s letter, so as not to have another confrontation with the extremists. Yet something doesn’t make sense. Why would Satmar (or Satmar-like) extremists care about a letter from Bloch in Epstein’s book? What does this have to do with them? The extremists certainly had no interest in defending the honor of an Agudist whose ideology is rejected by them just as they reject the Mizrachi position. So why would they care about Epstein’s book at all? If you compare the first edition of Mitzvot ha-Shalom to the second edition, the answer is, I think, obvious, and it has nothing to do with the Bloch letter.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Major Branches of Modern Judaism May 10, 2012
    Understanding the Major Branches of Modern Judaism May 10, 2012 Initial terms: 24 or 72 kinds Torah/Talmud (oral/written law).Halacha orthopraxy/orthodoxy, haskalah Babylonian Talmud kabbalah, Sephardic, Ashkenazi (with material gleaned from Wikipedia articles- no access to my books yet) Modern Judaism is loosely broken into three main branches: Orthodox Judaism is the approach to Judaism which adheres to the traditional interpretation and application of the laws and ethics of the Torah as legislated in the Talmudic texts by the Sanhedrin ("Oral Torah") and subsequently developed and applied by the later authorities known as the Gaonim, Rishonim, and Acharonim. Orthodox Jews are also called "observant Jews"; Orthodoxy is known also as "Torah Judaism" or "traditional Judaism". Orthodox Judaism generally refers to Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism (Chasidic Chabad) but can actually include a wide range of beliefs. Orthodoxy collectively considers itself the only true heir to the Jewish tradition. The Orthodox Jewish movements generally consider all non-Orthodox Jewish movements to be unacceptable deviations from authentic Judaism; both because of other denominations' doubt concerning the verbal revelation of Written and Oral Torah, and because of their rejection of Halakhic precedent as binding. As such, Orthodox groups characterize non-Orthodox forms of Judaism as heretical Reform Judaism is a phrase that refers to various beliefs, practices and organizations associated with the Reform Jewish movement in North America, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.[1] In general, Reform Judaism maintains that Judaism and Jewish traditions should be modernized and compatible with participation in the surrounding culture. Many branches of Reform Judaism hold that Jewish law should be interpreted as a set of general guidelines rather than as a list of restrictions whose literal observance is required of all Jews.[2][3] Similar movements that are also occasionally called "Reform" include the Israeli Progressive Movement and its worldwide counterpart.
    [Show full text]
  • ONEIROCRITICS and MIDRASH on Reading Dreams and the Scripture
    ONEIROCRITICS AND MIDRASH On Reading Dreams and the Scripture Erik Alvstad A bstr act In the context of ancient theories of dreams and their interpretation, the rabbinic literature offers particularly interesting loci. Even though the view on the nature of dreams is far from un- ambiguous, the rabbinic tradition of oneirocritics, i.e. the discourse on how dreams are interpreted, stands out as highly original. As has been shown in earlier research, oneirocritics resembles scriptural interpretation, midrash, to which it has lent some of its exegetical rules. This article will primarily investigate the interpreter’s role in the rabbinic practice of dream interpretation, as reflected in a few rabbinic stories from the two Talmuds and from midrashim. It is shown that these narrative examples have some common themes. They all illustrate the polysemy of the dream-text, and how the person who puts an interpretation on it constructs the dream’s significance. Most of the stories also emphasize that the outcome of the dream is postponed until triggered by its interpretation. Thus the dreams are, in a sense, pictured as prophetic – but it is rather the interpreter that constitutes the prophetic instance, not the dream itself. This analysis is followed by a concluding discussion on the analogical relation between the Scripture and the dream-text, and the interpretative practices of midrash and oneirocritics. he striking similarities between the rabbinic traditions of Scriptural exegesis, midrash, and the rabbinic practice of Tdream interpretation,
    [Show full text]
  • Nomos and Narrative Before Nomos and Narrative
    Nomos and Narrative Before Nomos and Narrative Steven D. Fraade* I imagine that when Robert Cover's Nomos and Narrative essay' first reached the editors of the Harvard Law Review, their befuddlement derived not so much from Cover's framing of his review of the 1982 Supreme Court term with a philosophically opaque discussion of the interdependence of law and narrative, but from the illustrations that he drew from biblical and rabbinic texts of ancient and medieval times. For Cover, both intellectually and as a matter of personal commitment, these ancient texts evoke a "nomian world," rooted more in communally shared stories of legal origins and utopian ends than in the brutalities of institutional enforcement, one from which modem legal theory and practice have much to learn and to emulate. Since my own head is buried most often in such ancient texts, rather than in modem courts, I thought it appropriate to reflect, by way of offering more such texts for our consideration, on the long-standing preoccupation with the intersection and interdependency of the discursive modes of law and narrative in Hebrew biblical and rabbinic literature, without, I hope, romanticizing them. Indeed, I wish to demonstrate that what we might think of as a particularly modem tendency to separate law from narrative, has itself an ancient history, and to show how that tendency, while recurrent, was as recurrently resisted from within Jewish tradition. In particular, at those cultural turning points in which laws are extracted or codified from previous narrative settings, I hope to show that they are also renarrativized (or remythologized) so as to address, both ideologically and rhetorically, changed socio-historical settings.2 I will do so through admittedly * Steven D.
    [Show full text]
  • Parables in the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael
    Parables in the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Nada Chandler 6622 Belmont Houston, TX 77005-3806 [email protected] Introduction Parables are an ancient form of teaching; in a written form, the use of parables dates back to the Greek story tellers. Their presence in written, homiletic material is a part of both the Jewish and Greek cultures; their simplicity makes them useful teaching tools for a wide audience. It is the intent of this paper to show how parables are used in one Midrash collection, the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, and to suggest that their presence in a halakhic work indicates that sages used them to illustrate their explications to one another. Their structure is simple, they state a condition that can easily be understood and then create a parallel that is specifically applicable to the audience to whom they are being addressed. They are present in all forms of rabbinic literature, including the Mishnah, as well as in a variety of Midrashim. Perhaps because of their simplicity, the sages themselves were attached to this genre. Do not let the parable appear of little worth to you. Through a parable, a man can fathom words of Torah. Consider the king who had lost a gold coin or a precious pearl in his house. May he not find it by the light of a wick worth little more than an issar? Likewise, do not let the parable appear of little worth to you. By its light, a man may fathom words of Torah. (Song of Songs Rabbah 1:1)1 1 The Book of Legends, Sefer Ha-Aggadah, Hayim Nathan Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky; Braude, William G.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2021 Syllabus
    Modern Jewish History Professor Nancy Sinkoff History 01:506:272:01/Jewish Studies 01:563:202:01 Spring 2021 DRAFT Office Hours: By ZOOM appointment email: [email protected] Assemblée Nationale, where the Jews of France were granted citizenship in 1791 ____________________________________________________________________________ Modernity posed challenging questions to the Jews, unsettling previously held beliefs and sources of identity. What, moderns—and Jews themselves—asked, are Jews? A religion, a race, a nation, an ethnicity, or a people? What language(s) do they speak, read, and write? To whom do their loyalties belong? To their local community, to the political states or empires in which they reside, to Jews around the world, to a Jewish state, or to all of humanity? What role would traditional religious structures and authority play in the Jews’ encounter with modern values, such as secularization, democracy, gender equality, and religious tolerance? How would Jews respond to new forms of antagonism or hatred against them? This course will address these challenges through a survey of the social, economic, political, religious, and cultural history of European and N. American Jewry from the sixteenth century to the present. Topics to be covered include: Marranism and New Christians, the European State and the Jews, the Money Economy and the “Jewish Question,” Jewish autonomy, the political emancipation of the Jews, religious reform, modern antisemitism, nationalism, WWI, Jewish life during the interwar years in both the United States and Europe, WWII, and postwar Jewish life. It will examine the changes in Jewish life Modern Jewish History Syllabus, S21 1 engendered by modernity and explore the responses of the Jews to its challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic Author(S): Daniel Boyarin Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol
    The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic Author(s): Daniel Boyarin Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Spring, 1990), pp. 532-550 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343638 Accessed: 09/02/2010 04:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Critical Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic Daniel Boyarin It seems to have become a commonplace of critical discourse that Juda- ism is the religion in which God is heard but not seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Shavuot in Talmud and Midrash (Mostly Soncino Translation and Commentary; Emphasis Mine; Some Language Tweaks)
    22 May 2007 [Shavuot 5767] Dr Maurice M. Mizrahi Congregation Adat Reyim Tikkun Lel Shavuot Shavuot in Talmud and Midrash (Mostly Soncino translation and commentary; emphasis mine; some language tweaks) Only Israel accepted the Torah Mechilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Exodus 20:2 It was for the following reason that the ancient nations of the world were asked to accept the Torah, in order that they should have no excuse for saying, 'Had we been asked we would have accepted it'. For, behold, they were asked and they refused to accept it, for it is said, "He said, the Lord came from Sinai...) (Deut. 33:2). He appeared to the children of Esau, the wicked, and said to them, "Will you accept the Torah?" They said to Him, "What is written in it?" He said to them, "You shall not murder" (Deut. 5:17) They then said to Him, "The very heritage which our father left us was 'By the sword you shall live' (Gen. 27:40). He then appeared to the children of Ammon and Moab. He said to them, "Will you accept the Torah?" They said to Him, "What is written in it?" He said to them, "You shall not commit adultery" (Deut. 5:17) They, however, said to Him that they were, all of them, the children of adulterers, as it is said, "Thus the two daughters of Lot came to be with child by their father" (Gen. 19:36) He then appeared to the children of Ishmael. He said to them, "Will you accept the Torah?" They said to Him, "What is written in it?" He said to them, "You shall not steal" (Deut.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Intellectual History: 16Th to 20Th Century Course Guidebook
    Topic Philosophy & Subtopic Intellectual History Intellectual History Jewish Intellectual History: 16th to 20th Century Course Guidebook Professor David B. Ruderman University of Pennsylvania PUBLISHED BY: THE GREAT COURSES Corporate Headquarters 4840 Westfields Boulevard, Suite 500 Chantilly, Virginia 20151-2299 Phone: 1-800-832-2412 Fax: 703-378-3819 www.thegreatcourses.com Copyright © The Teaching Company, 2002 Printed in the United States of America This book is in copyright. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of The Teaching Company. David B. Ruderman, Ph.D. Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Modern Jewish History and Director of the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania Professor Ruderman was educated at the City College of New York, the Teacher’s Institute of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and Columbia University. He received his rabbinical degree from the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York in l97l and his Ph.D. in Jewish history from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in l975. Before joining the faculty at Penn, he held the Frederick P. Rose Chair of Jewish History at Yale University (1983–1994) and the Louis L. Kaplan Chair of Jewish Historical Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park (1974–1983), where he was instrumental in establishing both institutions’ Judaic studies programs. At the University of Maryland, he also won the Distinguished Scholar-Teacher Award in l982–1983.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim Author(S): Daniel Boyarin Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol
    Review: On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim Author(s): Daniel Boyarin Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 112, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1992), pp. 455- 465 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/603081 Accessed: 19/08/2010 19:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society. http://www.jstor.org REVIEW ARTICLES ON THE STATUS OF THE TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM* DANIEL BOYARIN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY A critique of Jacob Neusner's latest contribution to Midrashic studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Humor in Torah and Talmud
    Sat 3 July 2010 Dr Maurice M. Mizrahi Congregation Adat Reyim Lunch and Learn Humor in Torah and Talmud -Not general presentation on Jewish humor, just humor in Tanach and Talmud, and list below is far from exhaustive -Tanach mentions “laughter” 50 times (root: tz-cho-q) [excluding Yitzhaq] -Some commentators say humor is not intentional. -Maybe sometimes, but one cannot avoid the feeling it is. -Reason for humor not always clear. -Rabbah (4th cent. Talmudist) always began his lectures with a joke: Before starting to teach, Rabbah joked and pupils laughed. Afterwards he started seriously teaching halachah. (Talmud, Shabbat 30b) Humor in Tanach -Sarai can’t conceive, so she tells her husband Abram: I beg you, go in to my maid [Hagar]; perhaps I can obtain children through her. And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. [Genesis 16:2] Hagar gets pregnant and becomes very impertinent towards her mistress Sarai. So a very angry Sarai goes to her husband Abram and tells him: This is all your fault! [Genesis 16:5 ] -God tells Sarah she will have a child: And Sarah laughed, saying: Shall I have pleasure when I am old? My husband is also old. And the Lord said to Abraham [who did not hear Sarah]: “Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I bear a child, when I am old?” [Genesis 18:12-13] God does not report all that Sarah said for shalom bayit -- to keep peace in the family. Based on this, Talmud concludes it’s OK to tell white lies [Bava Metzia 87a]. Note: After Sarah dies Abraham marries Keturah and has six more sons.
    [Show full text]
  • Scholarly Lineage of Prominent Tannaim
    Source Sheet Class 3-2000 Years of Jewish History-Rabbi Menachem Levine Source 1 Scholarly lineage of prominent tannaim Rabbis of the Mishnah : Chronology & Hierarchy Teacher→Student Father→Son Hillel Shammai Gamaliel the Johanan b. Zakai Elder R. Jose the Eliezer b. Joshua b. Eleazar b. Eleazar b. Gamaliel Galilean Hyrcanus Hananiah Arach Azariah Elisha b. Ishmael Akiva Tarfon Abuyah b. Elisha Shimon b. Nathan Meir Judah b. Ilai Jose b. Halafta Yohai Judah Hiyya Oshiah haNasi Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaim Source 2 The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation…. If the entire Torah would have been given in writing, everyone would be able to interpret it as he desired. This would lead to division and discord among people who followed the Torah in different ways. The Oral Torah, on the other hand, would require a central authority to preserve it, thus assuring the unity of Israel. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, Moznaim 1979, p.179 Source 3 12 Our Holy Teacher wrote the Mishnah. From the time of Moshe to Our Holy Teacher, no one had written a work from which the Oral Law was publicly taught. Rather, in each generation, the head of the then existing court or the prophet of the time wrote down for his private use notes on the traditions he had heard from his teachers, and he taught in public from memory.
    [Show full text]
  • THE STORY of the 9Th of ADAR TOLD THROUGH DISAGREEMENTS
    THE STORY OF THE 9th OF ADAR TOLD THROUGH DISAGREEMENTS Daniel Roth Introduction The 9Adar Project: Jewish Week of Constructive Conflict seeks to cultivate the culture of constructive conflict and healthy disagreement across personal, political, and religious divides. The project does this through promoting public awareness around the annual Jewish Week of Constructive Conflict which occurs from the 2nd through the 9th of the Hebrew month of Adar. This document is an attempt to tell the story of the 9th of Adar directly through the sources. On virtually every aspect of the story, the sources themselves are full of disagreement, and this document addresses the sources through these various disagreements. An understanding of disagreements for the sake of Heaven (mahloket l'shem is recommended. See the G-dCast video and sources for )מחלוקת לשם שנים/shamayim "Disagreements for the Sake of Heaven". This document is not comprehensive nor is it meant to be a lesson plan or stand-alone lesson. It does, however, contain some guiding questions that can be used in an adult education setting. For more information, see www.9Adar.org. The 9Adar Project is a project of the Pardes Center for Judaism and Conflict Resolution, part of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies. 1 Disagreement #1: What exactly happened on the 9th of Adar? Perhaps the most authoritative source that mentions the 9th of Adar is Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch. Read this source carefully. What is clear and unclear about this day? שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הל' תענית (Shulchan Aruch, Laws of Fasts (580 תקפ (Rabbi Yosef Karo, 1488–1575, Spain/Land of Israel) אלו הימים שאירעו בהם צרות These are the days that tragedies befell our לאבותינו וראוי להתענות בהם..
    [Show full text]